APIEMS2009 Dec.

14-16, Kitakyushu

Evaluation of Static Car Driver Seat Discomfort through Objective

and Subjective Methods
Baba Md. Deros1, Dian Darina Indah Daruis2 and Mohd Jailani Mohd Nor3
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor 43600 MALAYSIA
Email: hjbaba@eng.ukm.my1
diandaruis@gmail.com2
jailani@eng.ukm.my3

Abstract. An optimized iterative process of predicting seat comfort in seat design is yet to be established. In
this study, seat pressure distribution method was adopted to investigate the static characteristic of a seat. The
method was found to be statistically repeatable in measuring sitting of fourteen male subjects in static
condition. The three main variables namely; average pressure, peak pressure and contact area showed that
they are highly repeatable, even the measurement was done at many time intervals for two different days. No
significant differences were observed between short duration and long duration (t≤60 minutes) measurement.
Subjective discomfort data was collected through subjective assessment using a valid and reliable self-
established questionnaire (the vehicle seat discomfort survey; VSCS) and body pressure map (BPM) showed
increasing discomfort as sitting time increase; which is expected. Since short-term seat pressure distribution
is just as good as the long-term, the short term seat pressure distribution was used in establishing the
correlation with subjective assessment. Significant and moderate correlation was observed for four local body
parts, namely: the seat pan bolster, thighs, upper back and lower back, as well as overall seat average
pressure with both VSCS and BPM used in the subjective evaluation. However, no clear relationship can be
shown from the buttock area. In addition, to get better correlation between objective and subjective methods,
minimum time should not be less than 20 minutes to allow adequate time for subjects to distinguish the
pressure and discomfort induced by local body parts. Multiple linear regression models were established;
overall discomfort from VSCS and averaged pressure from BPM both can be predicted from right & left
buttock, right & left thigh and upper back & lower back with averaged pressure of BPM gave the better
statistic model. It was found that R-Sq=93.5%, R-Sq (adj) = 83.7% with moderately adequate predictive
ability with predicted R-Sq= 46.77%.

Keywords: seat pressure; seat discomfort; discomfort survey; seat comfort; car seat; automotive survey

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the features in a vehicle that is in contact with
the human is the seat. Indirectly, the ergonomic of the seat
itself plays an important role in the perception of comfort
or discomfort while driving or riding a car. Mohamed et al.
(2007) in their survey found that users’ feedback on driver
seat comfort of two Malaysian made cars were in the scale
of 2.5-3.1 as compared to Japan made cars of the similar
class which were rated between scales 3.3-4.0. (The scale
used were 1 to 5; poor, fulfilling the requirement,
acceptable, commendable and outstanding). In other words,
much is needed to be improved by the Malaysian car
makers in order to be at par with other car makers and to
produce a world class product.
Seat discomfort although being totally subjective is
usually paired with some objective method in order to get
scientific result that can convince the designers and
engineers to improve their design. Objective methods to
assess comfort or discomfort are indirect as it actually
measures other thing (e.g. pressure distribution, or muscle
activity) but only become useful if correlations with the

1197
APIEMS2009
subjective methods can be shown (De Looze et al. 2003).
Among others is the method of capturing the seat pressure
distribution and then correlating it to subjective assessment
for significant association. De Looze et al. (2003) reviewed
the different objective and subjective methods that have
been used to evaluate sitting comfort and discomfort and
based on previous studies suggested that pressure
distribution method has a clear relationship with subjective
ratings. The early application of this method was in health
and medical-related studies like soft tissues deformation
and skin ulcer studies (Gyi et al. 1998).
The technology has evolved into other areas as for
example the automotive industry for the seat discomfort
evaluation. Although Kolich and Taboun (2004)
successfully demonstrated the repeatability of data
collection using seat interface pressure measurement, they
cited that Lu and Lin (1996) suggested that system
repeatability is one of pressure distribution’s disadvantages.
Further, there are contradictory results regarding its
effectiveness in sitting comfort and discomfort evaluations.
It has been shown that subjective ratings and seat pressures
showed some associations (Kyung and Nussbaum 2008;
Zenk et al. 2006; Dunk and Callaghan 2005; Na et al. 2005;
Kolich and Taboun 2004). However Porter et al. (2003) and
Gyi and Porter (1999) were unable to prove any consistent
and clear relationships. In addition, short and long term
sitting discomfort or the appropriate duration needs to be
addressed.
Sitting or any other posture for that matter will be
uncomfortable in long duration. Discomfort increases over
time, and it could be caused by many reasons and not
necessarily due to seat design. In order to investigate the
pressure patterns, the body pressure distribution at specific
times could provide enough information; however, if the
body pressure distributions are analyzed serially, it might
provide more valuable information (Na et al. 2005). Gyi
and Porter (1999) recommended 2 hours of testing was
required to clearly assess comfort. However, too long
testing duration will introduce fatigue from other factors
rather than the seat design. Na et al. (2005) proved
correlation between seat pressure and subjective methods
with 45 minutes measuring time.
The paper aims to verify the repeatability of seat
pressure measurement method as the objective method to
study static seat discomfort. Then, the correlations between
seat pressure distribution measurements and discomfort is
studied.
1198
Dec. 14-16, Kitakyushu
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Objective Measurement
Real driver seat in a stationery vehicle from a
Malaysian premium class sedan was used as the experiment
set-up (Figure 1). Seat pressure distributions were recorded
using a pressure mapping device (XSensor Technology
Corporation) and continuously sampled at 5Hz for about an
hour. Then two different short term recordings were taken
for two different seat tilt adjustments; maximum buttock
support (minimum thigh support) and maximum thigh
support (minimum buttock support) (refer Figure 1(c)). At
optimal position (both adjustors as shown in Figure 1(c)
adjusted to minimum) the seat pan is inclined about 10o
from horizontal. At maximum seat pan tilt, the seat pan is
inclined to about 18o for both inward and outward
inclination. A calibration procedure was carried out using a
known cube mass located at the most top and left corner of
both mats. The significant repeatability of the known mass
measurement on a flat surface was obtained for each day of
the four testing days prior to the experiments. In addition,
angle measurements using an inclinometer between (right
hand on 10:10 steering position) upper-arm & lower arm,
(right leg on pedal) thigh & lower leg and upper arm &
torso (angled fixed at 110o) were made.
Figure 1(a)   Figure 1(a)  Figure 1(b)
Thigh-support
Butt-support adjustor
adjustor
Figure 1(c)
Figure 1 Experimental set-up in real vehicle (a)
subject during recording (b) monitoring and
recording (c) two seat pan supports adjustments
2.2 Subjective Measurement
The experiment was conducted in a university lab for
four days in a row. Fourteen paid healthy male subjects
participated in the experiment. Each of them gave written
consent to attend two 1 hour sessions for two different days.
APIEMS2009
Their mean (SD) age, height, and weight were 20.2 (2.0)
years, 169.6 (5.6) cm and 60.0 (7.6) kg. Subjective
discomfort was assessed in Malay language using few
related items from vehicle seat discomfort survey (VSCS)
(Deros et al. 2008a) and was combined with body pressure
map (BPM) with 0-5 discomfort scale (refer Figure 2).
Subjects were briefed on how to fill in the
questionnaire and it took about 5-7 minutes average for
them to complete the questionnaire each time. A movie is
being played during the 1 hour experiment session to keep
subjects from feeling bored and focus on something else
rather than the experiment itself. Each subject has to follow
this protocol:
• They have to empty their back pocket, than sit on the
driver seat.
Figure 2 Body pressure map for seat pan (left) and
seat back (right).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results will be discussed under two sections, the
pressure data from the objective measurement and the
discomfort evaluations from the subjective measurement.
3.1 Pressure Data
The primary objective of this paper was to verify
whether seat pressure distribution measurement is suitable
for static discomfort study of car seats. It has been
mentioned earlier that pressure data could be useful to
understand the influence of static design changes such as
foam thickness or density, seat hardness and seat supports
(Porter et al. 2003) as well as anthropometry parameters
such as lumbar seat prominence and its vertical position
(Wawrow and Cavanaugh 2006).
It is shown that from test-retest sessions, the average
pressures, peak pressures and the contact areas for all 14
subjects are significantly reliable and repeatable. Table 1
1199
Dec. 14-16, Kitakyushu
• They are not allowed to adjust anything but the track
adjustor (distance of the seat to the steering wheel). Seat
back was fixed at 110° which was the average preferred
driving angle for Malaysian (Deros et al. 2008b).
• They have to imitate driving condition, both hands on
the steering wheel at 10:10 positions and right feet on
the pedal.
• They have to answer the VSCS and BPM at 5 different
time intervals, the initial one right after they settled in
the seat and then at each 10 minutes interval after that
for three times and after 15 minutes for the final one.
• Then the seat pan tilt is adjusted to max inclination on
firstly under the buttock with minimum thigh
inclination and then vice versa.
shows the Cronbach’s alpha value of the reliability test of
the pressure measurements which are all high except for
two values that are moderate; day1_1 and day 1_5 for
seatback.
Table 2 shows Anova test for day 1 and day 2 sessions
which showed high p-values (significantly more than 0.05)
which means no significant difference between the two
days. It is believed that repeatability was achieved because
driver selected seat position control has been limited to
track adjustment only in addition to the genuine set-up
which was in a real stationery vehicle (Kolich and Taboun
2004). Further, it was suggested in previous literatures that
small sensors, high resolutions and good repeatability
pressure mats are recommended in pressure measurement
(Wawrow and Cavanaugh 2006) such as the XSensor
mats.
APIEMS2009 Dec. 14-16, Kitakyushu

distribution under the ischial tuberosities such as shown in

Figure 3(b) are the most recommended (Harrison et al.
Table 1 Cronbach’s alpha value of the reliability test for
2000) since less sensitive tissues in that area as compared
pressure measurements on day 1 and day 2 at 5 intervals.
to thighs and under knee.
Seatpan Seatback For seatback pressure distributions, almost all subjects
Day1_1 .907 .459 showed peak pressure at the left and right upper back
instead of the lumbar area. Discomfort can be produced
Day1_2 .813 .698
from too high pressure or on low pressure from inadequate
Day1_3 .866 .722 support. It can be shown that the seat used for this study
Day1_4 .892 .653 has lack of lumbar support hence the result. A seatback
Day1_5 .962 .449 with adequate lumbar support will produce pressure peaks
Day2_1 .736 .850 in the lumbar area which is the desired pressure distribution
Day2_2 (Harrison et al. 2000), however excessively high pressure
.772 .792
due to a very firm lumbar support can also lead to
Day2_3 .789 .829 discomfort in long-term sitting. Harrison et al. (1999) cited
Day2_4 .899 .794 Akerblom (1948) and Knutsson et al. (1966) who suggested
Day2_5 .809 .821 that lumbar support pad should be 3–5cm and 1–2cm
respectively. However, seats should allow for changes
position as it is observed by Branton and Grayson (1967) in
Harrison et al. (1999) that people generally avoid static
positions for extended duration.
Table 2 Anova single factor test for day 1 and day 2 seat Seat pan tilt showed different pressure distributions
pressure measurement which seem to also affect the seat back distribution. Table 4
P-value Anova Single illustrates as the average pressure on the seat pan changes
Factor (as the result of seat pan tilt), the average pressure on the
Seat pan Seatback seatback increase. High pressure at buttock area (outward
Average Pressure test-retest 0.8862 0.7166 inclination) increases the average pressure under the
Contact Area test-retest 0.9721 0.9929 buttock by 14% as well as the seat back by 14%. Increase
Peak Pressure test-retest 0.5430 0.4045 support at the thigh (inward inclination) area also increases
the average seat pan pressure to 9% and average seat back
pressure by 17%. Nevertheless, t-test comparisons from
From the objective measurement of the seat pan, the Table 3 and Table 4 however showed no significant
pressure distributions were high under the ischial differences. Keegon (1953) in Harrison et al. (1999)
tuberosities1 area for all subjects followed by upper back, suggested seat pan tilt to be about 5o for maintenance of
the thighs area and lower back. Figure 3 showed two back against back support. It was also suggested that seat
examples of the recorded data where heavier person bottom incline should be in the range of 5o-15o and thigh-
experienced more dispersed pressure under the buttock area horizontal angle at 100o to reduce awkward head flexion
(Figure 3a) but a lighter person experienced concentrated from 30o to 10o from vertical line (Harrison et al. 2000).
pressure under the ischial tuberosities (Figure 3b). From
Table 3 it can be shown that the range for pressure
measured under the ischial tuberosities are between
132mmHg to 142mmHg. Dunk and Callaghan (2005)
suggested peak seat pressure values under ischial
tuberosities associated with more comfortable chairs range
from 135mmHg for female and 152mmHg for male and
quoted others’ findings from; 43.5mmHg (Kamijo et al.
1982) to values greater than 116mmHg (Kolich and Taboun
2004) to 75-225mmHg (Kurtz et al. 1989). The pressure

1
Two bony prominences which you can feel within the
soft tissue of your buttocks if you sit on your hands
(Pheasant 1996)

1200
APIEMS2009 Dec. 14-16, Kitakyushu

3(a)

3(b)

Figure 3(a) Pressure data for heavy subject and (b) pressure data for lighter
subject.

Table 3 Overall pressure data and at local body parts of the fourteen subjects
5th percentile or 50th percentile or
less (mmHg) more (mmHg)
average overall pressure on seat 81.76 83.44
average pressure under Ischial Tuberosities 131.86 142.25
average pressure under right thigh 46.67 51.90
average pressure under left thigh 47.02 53.08
average pressure at lower back 44.23 47.80
average pressure at upper back 57.03 65.88

Table 4 Average pressure when seat pan is tilted to i) maximum support under the buttock area and minimum under the
thigh and ii) maximum support under the thigh and minimum under the buttock.
average pressure with maximum seat pan
support
buttock
(SD)mmHg thigh (SD)mmHg
butt 131.00 (12.56) 131.00 (13.31)
thigh 48.49 (10.25) 45.76 (8.46)
upper back 75.02 (18.99) 76.54 (15.78)
lower back 42.84 (14.54) 45.20 (13.24)

3.2 Discomfort Evaluation

Discomfort ratings were observed to increase over

need to be distinguished since long-term sitting may
time which is expected and stated in literatures (Kyung and
induced fatigue and discomfort simply due to “the passage
Nussbaum 2008) (Figure 4). Both type of subjective
of time” (Helander and Zhang 1997). Further it is stressed
evaluations; the VSCS and the body map supported the
in Reed and Massie (1996)’s findings that 82% of trips
objective measurement findings where discomfort values
taken in the US were less than 20 minutes, or short-term
were high for buttock comfort, upper back and lower back
driving. Therefore, in predicting comfort/ discomfort from
supports (Figure 5). Short- and long-term sitting discomfort

1201
APIEMS2009 Dec. 14-16, Kitakyushu

pressure study, the duration should be relatively short the pressure distribution for only a few minutes, the results
however long enough to ensure the data collected is can be used as an evaluation of the long term discomfort.
representative of the real pressure while sitting during
driving. Zenk et al. (2006) objectified the comfort of car
seats through the pressure distribution using static as well
as dynamic factors. It is said that although having measured

Mean VSCS Mean body pressure discomfort

36.0 2.5
35.0
2.0
total dis c om fort v alue

34.0

total dis c om fort v alue

33.0
1.5
32.0
31.0 1.0
30.0
29.0 0.5

28.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
duration interval
duration interval

Figure 4 Effect of duration on subjective discomfort illustrated by VSCS result and body pressure discomfort

4.6
discomfort value

4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
buttock thigh comfort under-knee lumbar upper-back physical texture & overall
comfort comfort support support design material discomfort
VSCS item s

2.5
discomfort value

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
right right left butt right left left right right left right left left
bolster butt thigh thigh bolster support upper upper lumbar lumbar support
back back
body parts

Figure 5 Mean discomfort values for VSCS and body map

1202
APIEMS2009 Dec. 14-16, Kitakyushu

3.3 Correlations between Pressure Data and

Subjective Evaluation

It is difficult to find clear and direct mathematical
correlations between pressure distribution and subjective
feelings (Gyi and Porter 1999; Porter et al. 2003; Zenk et al.
2006). Correlation between the objective method and
subjective methods were significant only for five variables
with average value of the body map discomfort and VSCS.
Table 5 shows the moderate and significant correlations for
the fourteen subjects’ local body parts and VSCS as well as
body map evaluations. Local body parts investigated were
right & left set pan bolster, right & left buttock, right & left
thigh, upper back and lower back. Seatback supports were
not included as the data were merely there, hence the two
divisions only for seatback. No significant correlations can
be shown for under the buttock perhaps due to subjects’
different ways of associating discomfort or pressure felt
under the buttock to the items in VSCS and the body map.
In addition, more sensitive tissues were under the thighs
and under knee (Harrison et al. 1999; 2000).
From the correlation results, it is interesting to know
whether the variables or the mentioned local body parts are
useful in predicting discomfort through the items from
VSCS or the body maps average pressure. Kolich and
Taboun (2004) reported strong linear relationship of few
variables from their seat interface study and comfort index
values. Hence, a multiple linear regression (using Minitab)
was used here. Two regression models were established;
overall discomfort using VSCS and average pressure using
body map. The first produced R-Sq=85.9% with adjusted
R-Sq=64.8% but no predictive ability. The latter gave much
better result with R-Sq=93.5% and adjusted R-Sq=83.7%
with moderate predicted R-Sq=46.77%. The Anova of the
analyses are shown in Table 6 for discomfort prediction
using items from VSCS and Table 7 for pressure prediction
from body map. The p-values for the coefficients for both
models are shown in Table 8. The variables seem to predict
the pressure from body map better than discomfort with the
predictive ability R-Sq=46.77%.

Table 5 Pearson’s correlations of objective and subjective evaluations at 5 duration intervals

Averaged Body Map Results VSCS
Right seat pan bolster 0.845 † 0.878 *
0.071 0.050
Right thigh 0.882 *
0.046
Left thigh 0.963 ** 0.895 *
0.009 0.038
Upper back 0.971 ** 0.873 †
0.006 0.053
Lower back -0.852 † -0.957 *
0.067 0.011
Average seat pressure 0.962 ** 0.861
0.009 0.610
†moderate relationship
* Significant relationship at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
*Significant relationship at 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 6 Anova of six predictors to the overall discomfort (using VSCS)

df Sum of squares Mean square F p
Regression 6 857.72 142.95 4.07 0.098
Residual 4 140.51 35.13
Total 10 998.22

1203
APIEMS2009 Dec. 14-16, Kitakyushu

Table 7 Anova of six predictors to the average pressure from body map
df Sum of squares Mean square F p
Regression 6 7.1309 1.1885 9.58 0.023
Residual 4 0.4964 0.1241
Total 10 7.6273

Table 8 Coefficients and its significance values for both models

Discomfort (VSCS) Average Pressure (BM)
Predictor Coeff. Estimated t p Coeff. Estimated t p
coefficients coefficients
Constant -51.95 36.47 -1.42 0.227 11.706 2.168 5.40 0.006
Right butt 1.3828 0.3855 3.59 0.023 -0.01599 0.02291 -0.70 0.524
Left buttock -0.6012 0.2944 -2.04 0.111 -0.06181 0.01750 -3.53 0.024
Right thigh 0.5071 0.2481 2.04 0.110 -0.00111 0.01475 -0.08 0.944
Left thigh -1.4450 0.4858 -2.97 0.041 0.08586 0.02888 2.97 0.041
Upper back -0.2308 0.1819 -1.27 0.273 -0.03473 0.01081 -3.21 0.033
Lower back 0.9584 0.2704 3.54 0.024 -0.03395 0.01607 -2.11 0.102

4. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

Andreoni, G., Santambrogio, G.C., Rabufetti, M. &

Seat pressure measurement was found to be a reliable
Pedotti, A. 2002. Method for the analysis of posture and
method to study static seat discomfort. It is thought that
interface pressure of car drivers. Applied Ergonomics
repeatability was achieved with strict precautions taken
33:511-522.
prior to and during the measurements. Subjects need to be
De Looze, M.P., Kuijt-evers, L.F.M. & Van Dieen, J.
clearly instructed and certain measures such as limited
2003. Sitting comfort and discomfort and the relationships
control on the seat adjustability might help produce
with objective measures. Ergonomics 46 (10):985-997.
repeatable results.
Deros, B.M., Daruis, D.D.I. & Nor, M.J.M. 2008a.
Correlations between seat pressure and discomfort
Evaluation of car seat using reliable and valid vehicle seat
evaluations were found significant for five variables; right
discomfort survey (VSCS). Industrial Engineering
and left seat pan bolster, right and left buttock, right and
Management Systems Journal Vol 8(2).
left thigh, upper back and lower back. From multiple linear
Deros, B.M., Daruis, D.D.I. & Nor, M.J.M. 2008b.
regression analysis, discomfort evaluation through the body
Fundamental sitting anthropometric and differences among
map gives better predictive ability of discomfort. Since the
Malaysian Malays, Chinese and Indians. In Advanced
seat used is from the high end segment of sedan cars
Manufacturing Research Group’08 Seminar 1. Seremban,
produced locally, it is thought that the results achieved
Malaysia.
could be used as the basis for potential user criteria in seat
Dunk, N.M. & Callaghan, J.P. 2005. Gender-based
design parameters.
differences in postural responses to seated exposures.
Clinical biomechanics 20:1101-1110.
Gyi, D.E. & Porter, J.M. 1999. Interface pressure and
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
the prediction of car seat discomfort. Applied Ergonomics.
30:99 -107.
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
Gyi, D.E., Porter, J.M. & Robertson, N.K.B. 1998. Seat
contributions both from MOSTI and MOHE for their grants.
pressure measurement technologies: considerations for
their evaluation. Applied Ergonomics. 27 (2):85-91.
Harrison, D.D., Haqrrison, S.O., Croft, A.C., Harrison,
D.E. & Troyanovich, S.J. 1999. Sitting biomechanics Part
I: Review of the Literature. Journal of Manipulative and
Physiological Therapeutics 22 (9):594-609.
Harrison, D.D., Haqrrison, S.O., Croft, A.C., Harrison,

1204
APIEMS2009
D.E. & Troyanovich, S.J. 2000. Sitting biomechanics, Part
II: Optimal car driver's seat and optimal driver's spinal
model. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological
Therapeutics 23 (1):37-47.
Kolich, M. & Taboun, S.M. 2004. Ergonomics
modelling and evaluation of automobile seat comfort.
Applied Ergonomics 39:15-27.
Kyung, G. & Nussbaum, M.A. 2008. Driver sitting
comfort and discomfort (part II): relationship with and
prediction from interface pressure. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics. 38:526-538.
Mohamed, Z., Yusuff, R.M. & Ahmad, M.M.H.M.
2007. Automotive ergonomics: comparison of Malaysian
and Japanese passenger cars interior dimension parameters.
In International Conference on Ergonomics. Kuala Lumpur.
Na, S., Lim, S., Choi, H. & Chung, M. 2005. Evaluation
of driver's discomfort and postural change using dynamic
body pressure distribution. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 35:1085-1096.
Pheasant, S. 1996. Bodyspace anthropometry,
ergonomics and the design of work. 2nd ed. Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
Porter, J.M., Gyi, D.E. & Tait, H.A. 2003. Interface
pressure data and the prediction of driver discomfort in
road trials. Applied Ergonomics. 34 (207 - 214).
Reed, M.P., Schneider, L.W. & Ricci, L.L. 1994.
Survey of auto seat design recommendations for improved
comfort. UMTRI-94-6 Technical Report.
Tilley, A.R. 2002. The measure of man & woman
human factors in design. Revised ed. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wawrow, P. & Cavanaugh, J.M. 2006. Lumbar support
prominence and vertical postion measurement methods in
an occupied seat. SAE International SAE2006-01-
1300:115-128.
Zenk, R., Mergl, C., Hartung, J., Sabbah, O. & Bubb, H.
2006. Objectifying the comfort of car seats. SAE
International 2006-01-1299.
1205
Dec. 14-16, Kitakyushu
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Baba Md Deros is a graduate member of IEM and holds
BSc (Hons) in Mechanical Engineering from University of
Glamorgan, United Kingdom, Master of Science in
Manufacturing Systems Engineering from University of
Warwick, United Kingdom and a PhD in Mechanical
Engineering from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. He has
been working as a lecturer in several Polytechnics and
currently as an Associate Professor in the Department of
Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, UKM. Currently, he is teaching and
conducting research in two major areas, which comprise of
Industrial Ergonomics focusing on developing workstation
design based on Malaysian anthropometric data and
Manufacturing Management focusing on benchmarking
and lean techniques applications in manufacturing industry.
Email: hjbaba@eng.ukm.my
Dian Darina Indah Daruis is a postgraduate student and
research assistant with the MEMS-Automotive Research
Group, Department of Mechanical and Materials
Engineering, at the Faculty of Engineering and Built
Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM),
Malaysia. Her current work is on the automotive noise,
vibration and comfort; particularly on the driver seat
comfort. She can also be contacted at this email address
diandaruis@gmail.com.
Mohd Jailani Mohd Nor is a Professor in the Department
of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. He received
his BSc. and MSc. degrees from Oklahoma State
University, USA in 1984 & 1988 respectively. He received
his PhD degree from Sheffield Hallam University, UK in
1996. His teaching and research interests include sound and
vibration engineering and noise vibration & harshness
(NVH) in automotive applications. jailani@eng.ukm.my