This paper presents the results of an effort to compare figure posturing results within and between simulation engineers. The simulation engineers simulated four manual tasks. Alternately they used a posture prediction tool, and alternately they were only allowed to apply manual adjustments of the body angles. The simulation engineers repeated each task six times and always with at least six days between each occasion, to minimize the subject's rememberance of how she/he carried out the cases. Results show that the use of a posture prediction tool, in such complex tasks as the study includes, neither reduces needed time to fulfill a simulation, nor differences within or between simulation engineers. Differences in simulation results often originate from the different assumptions the simulation engineers have of the task when positioning the manikins. The differences could be minimized by a more careful orderer description and by such activities as simulation engineering days at assembly plants and by bringing the people working with human simulation tools together in the organization.
Consistency in Figure Posturing Results within and between Simulation Engineers
Sae Technical Papers
2006 Digital Human Modeling for Design and Engineering Conference ; 2006
2006-07-04
Aufsatz (Konferenz)
Englisch
Consistency in figure posturing results within and between simulation engineers
Kraftfahrwesen | 2006
|Posturing Tactical ISR Beyond The Umbilical Cord
NTIS | 2017
|Is political posturing paralysing Toronto
IuD Bahn | 2003
POLITICS OR POSTURING: A LEGISLATIVE DEBATE ON NAVAL EXPENDITURES 1925–9
Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2004
|Electromyographic activity and posturing of the human neck during rollover tests
Kraftfahrwesen | 2005
|