INVESTIGATION ON DRIVER EYE POINT ELLIPSE WITH … · Investigation on Driver Eye Point Ellipse With Respect to H-Point in Heavy Duty Vehicles 647 [email protected]

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 646 [email protected]

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)

Volume 10, Issue 05, May 2019, pp. 646-662, Article ID: IJMET_10_05_064

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=5

ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication

INVESTIGATION ON DRIVER EYE POINT

ELLIPSE WITH RESPECT TO H-POINT IN

HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES

Rajesh. P. K., Sudhir Kumar. V, Sanjeev. R, Ajithkumar. R

Department of Automobile Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Peelamedu

Coimbatore, Tamilnadu. India.

Manikandan. N

Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Sri Krishna College of Engineering and

Technology, Coimbatore, India.

ABSTRACT

The visual ergonomic is a very effective tool in preventing visual problems through

environmental and postural advice. One important field in visual ergonomics is the

eye ellipse. Eye ellipse may be defined as the imaginary elliptical boundaries beyond

which the iris of the eye cannot reach. So far, the eye ellipse is defined only with the

manikin features i.e., different manikin has different eye ellipse and this eye ellipse

remains the same all times. Ergonomical evaluation software like RAMSIS, Jack, etc...

also uses the same principle to define the parameters. As of now, a truck driver in his

neutral position will have the same eye ellipse as when he drives a race car in the

neutral position. So, we are doing a study in which we estimate the eye ellipse of

manikin with respect to its H-point and also to find the parameter which has a

peculiar effect on the eye ellipse.

Key words: Visual perception, eye ellipse, sitting posture, H-point

Cite this Article: Rajesh. P. K., Sudhir Kumar. V, Manikandan. N, Sanjeev. R,

Ajithkumar. R, Investigation on Driver Eye Point Ellipse With Respect to H-Point in

Heavy Duty Vehicles. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and

Technology 10(5), 2019, pp. 646-662.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=5

1. INTRODUCTION

Eye provides a lot of data to run a human life. Apart from this, a driver gets the maximum

information about the driving environment through his eyes. Maximum information gives the

driver a better understanding of the traffic. Therefore, an in-depth study should be made to

find the right position of the eye at all driving condition to ensure that the eye collects all the

maximum possible data and guarantees the safety of the car and the driver. The relationship

between the driver and the car is called ergonomics. Ergonomics is the process of designing

or arranging workplaces, products and systems so that they are suitable for the people who

Investigation on Driver Eye Point Ellipse With Respect to H-Point in Heavy Duty Vehicles


use them. Ergonomics has various aspects like comfort, safety, ease of use, productivity and

aesthetics. Visual Ergonomics speaks about the ergonomics pertaining to vision.

Facts say that more than 75 % of the sensory information is from visual perceptions. A

driver can turn both, his eyes and head to gain a wider field of view and moreover can make

use of his peripheral vision to see objects or movements even without turning his eyes [1]. In

the vertical plane, the eye movement is comfortable within 15 degrees above or below the

horizontal, although the eye can see up to 45 degrees upward or 65 degrees downward, if

necessary. In the horizontal plane. The binocular field of view extends to around 120 degrees.

Vision is sharp only over a fairly small area directly ahead. So, eyes need to be turned to

focus on objects outside the foveal area [2]. According to SAE J985 eyes generally only turn

by about 30 degrees before the head is turned, which can comfortably give a further 45

degrees view to either side. On the other hand, the head can easily incline to 30 degrees

upward or downward [3]. Thus, with the movement of head and eye, the driver can have

extended direct field view. The driver has to concentrate on direct view, i.e. on road. So

glancing away from the road for a short period is possible. Mirror and other instruments

should be close to the driver, so that driver does not require a much head and eye turn to have

a look.

Drivers’ hip locations (HLs), eye locations (ELs), and sitting strategies (Figure 1) can be

used as reference data for an ergonomical driver seat design in terms of accommodation,

reach, visibility, comfort, safety, performance, convenience, and clearance [4]. HL is a 2D

coordinate which represents a pivot point between the torso and upper leg of a driver, and the

distribution of HLs collected from thousands of drivers is used to determine the adjustment

range of seat [5, 6]. On the other hand, EL is a 2D coordinate which represents a driver’s eye

location, the distribution of ELs (eye ellipse) is used to determine the locations of viewing

components such as displays, mirrors, and windshields [7, 8]. Lastly, the sitting strategies are

classes of preferred driving postures which can be used as reference data to build-up a digital

human models’ driving postures in a virtual automobile design/evaluation process [9].

Figure 1 Automobile ergonomics: Drivers’ hip and eye locations [7, 8]

To predict drivers’ HLs and ELs, a few geometric or statistical models have been

developed. Driffrient et al. developed a geometric model to predict a horizontal distance from

a driver’s ankle to HL (Hip x ankle) using the driver’s lower-body link lengths (femoral link

and shank link lengths) and related joint angles (hip and knee angles) [10]. On the other hand,

Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE) suggested statistical models to predict a driver’s HL

and EL based on the linear relationship between occupant package layout (OPL) dimensions

such as seat height (H30) and steering wheel location from a pedal. SAE J1517 (2011)

suggested horizontal HL (Hip x) prediction models for each stature groups (2.5th

, 5th

, 10th

,

50th

, 90th

, 95th

, and 97.5th

%ile) based on H30 and square of H30 [11]. Moreover, SAE J941

(2010) suggested horizontal EL (Eye x) and vertical EL (Eye z) prediction models using OPL

variables (e.g., steering wheel height and pedal location). Lastly, Reed et al. developed

statistical HL and EL prediction models using driver’s anthropometric variables (stature and

Rajesh. P. K., Sudhir Kumar. V, Manikandan. N, Sanjeev. R, Ajithkumar. R


sitting height/stature), OPL variable (horizontal location of steering wheel from BOF), and

seat configuration variables (seat height and cushion angle) as shown in Figure 2 [12].

Figure 2 Reference point for hip and eye location [12]

SAE J1517’s HL prediction model was developed by considering a seat height as an

independent variable and SAE J941’s EL prediction model was considered the simple

statistical linear relationship between OPL variables such as seat height and steering wheel

location; however, they didn’t considered a driver’s human variables such as the driver’s

anthropometric dimensions and driving postures (Figure 2). Also, Reed et al.’s models were

only considered the statistical linear relationship between a driver’s anthropometric variables

(e.g., stature and sitting height/stature) and OPL variables (e.g., H30 and cushion angle);

however, there are no driving posture variables [13].

Meanwhile, many researches were conducted to identify the sitting strategies (statistically

represent preferred driving posture classes) for an efficient evaluation of an automobile

interior. Park identified 5 sitting strategies through cluster analysis based on 126 Korean male

drivers’ driving posture data (knee, hip, shoulder, and elbow angle) [14]. Andreoni et al.

identified the 3 upper-body sitting strategies (dorsal scapular, dorsal, and lumbar strategy) and

3 lower-body sitting strategies (ischiatic, intermediate, and trochanteric strategy) based on the

visual observation of seating pressure images for 8 males [15].

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Visual ergonomics speaks a lot about different sight cone, eye perspective coloring,

dashboard design, etc... The fundamental behind all the above said is eye ellipse. Eye ellipse

defines a range of visible zone, which routes to various ergonomical parameters. So far, the

eye ellipse is defined only with the manikin features i.e. different manikin has different eye

ellipse and this eye ellipse remains the same all the time. Ergonomical evaluation software

like RAMSIS, Jack, etc. also use the same principle to define the parameters. Eye ellipse is

considered to be a constant for all types of vehicular structures. So, as of now, a truck driver

in his neutral position will have a same eye ellipse if he drives a race car in the neutral

position. This sounds as if something is wrong. So we have investigated to find if the eye

ellipse shows variation with respect to H-point i.e. with respect to sitting posture. Our main

aim is to

Capture the sitting posture in our experimental setup

Record the eye movement with a camera to avoid human error in manual tracing method

Trace the eye ellipse in Adobe Aftereffects



Estimate the eye ellipse in PTC Creo

Calculate the sitting posture (H-point) with PTC Creo, and

Infer the relationship between the eye ellipse and H-point with Google Sheet Analytics.

3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The experimental setup from Figure 4 consists of frame, 6 way multi adjustable seat and

clutch pedal. For the setup arrangements, we take measurements from the Maruti Suzuki Alto

800. With the experimental dimensions, a CAD model has been created using PTC Creo

software shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Seat assembly using PTC Creo

4. INK AND ITS PROPERTIES

The basic manikin features like manikin height and manikin weight are calculated

accordingly.

In addition to these data,

Manikin lower leg line length

Manikin right eye length

Manikin left eye length

are measured and tabulated.

The manikin is then seated in the experimental seat setup. The manikin's posture is

captured using a photo camera from the perpendicular direction.

The eye movement is recorded using a video camera. Video camera recording method is

used for eye ellipse tracing to avoid human errors when we trace using manual tracing

method. The manikin is asked to move his eye to the extremity points namely

Topmost point

Bottommost point

Right corner point

Left corner point

First quadrant corner point

Second quadrant corner point

Third quadrant corner point

Fourth quadrant corner point



5. EYE ELLIPSE TRACING

The eye motion video is imported as new composition in Adobe After Effects CS6. The video

is analyzed frame by frame and the nine eye ellipse points namely

Centre point

Topmost point.

Bottommost point.

Right corner point.

Left corner point.

First quadrant corner point.

Second quadrant corner point.

Third quadrant corner point.

Fourth quadrant corner point.

are marked in the video. The final frame with all the nine traced points is exported as a

picture.

The below images demonstrates the ellipse tracing for left eye. Similar procedure was

followed for tracing right eye ellipse.

Figure 4 Eye ellipse plotting using Adobe After Effects software

6. EYE ELLIPSE ESTIMATION WITH PTC CREO

The simulation results for selected nozzle diameter for two different polymer inks based on

inverse ohnesorge number are discussed and the effect of rheological properties on droplet

formation is investigated.

The picture of the eye with all its ellipse point is imported into PTC Creo. Initially, the

eye length in the picture is measured as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Measurement of pictorial eye length



Then the nine elliptical points are marked with point tool as shown in Figure 6 below:

Figure 6 Marking of elliptical points

Then the ellipse is drawn with these points using spline tool. The upper and lower halves

of the ellipse are distinguished by the centre curve drawn connecting the right corner point,

centre point and left corner point using the same spline tool shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Forming ellipse with the points

Then, the upper half of the ellipse and lower half of the ellipse are extruded into solids

individually with different extrusion thickness using extrude tool. This is done just to

distinguish the upper and lower half of the ellipse. Figure 8, 9, 10 and 11 represents extrusion

of the lower and upper half of eye ellipse individually.

Figure 8 Extrusion of upper half of the ellipse

Figure 9 Extruded upper half of the ellipse



Figure 10 Extrusion of lower half of the ellipse

Figure 11 Extruded lower and upper halves of the ellipse

Since this ellipse is not in the actual scale, the scale factor is found out and scaled using

scale tool. To find the scale factor, we have measured the actual eye length of the manikin and

also the pictorial eye length. So, the scale factor is found with the following formula

Scaling of eye ellipse is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Scaling of the ellipse

Then, from these eye ellipse halves, various parameter data required are noted. Parameters

such as area and perimeter are determined using PTC Creo as shown in Figure 13 and14 for

both upper and lower halves.

Area = 128.5 mm2

Perimeter = 52.8mm

Figure 13 Upper half of the ellipse measurements



Area = 131.9 mm2

Perimeter = 53.9mm

Figure 14 Lower half of the ellipse measurements

7. MANIKIN POSTURE CALCULATION

The various parameters to define the manikin posture is found as followed. The captured

image of the manikin posture is imported into PTC Creo.

Toe point

Ankle point

Knee point

Hip point and H-point

Mid-shoulder point

Neck point

Eye point

Manikin topmost point

are marked using point tool.

Barefoot line

Lower leg line

Thigh line

Back line

Neck line

are drawn using line tool.

Figure 15 Manikin with all posture defining points and lines



Then various posture defining dimensions and angles are measured as shown in Figure

16. The key dimensions measured are

Barefoot line length

Lower leg line length

Thigh line length.

Back line length

Buttock popliteal height

Popliteal height

Sitting height

Sitting mid-shoulder height

Sitting eye height

Ankle angle

Knee angle

Hip angle and

Neck angle

Figure 16 Line representation of manikins with all the posture defining dimensions

Again, these dimensions are pictorial and not the exact dimensions. The exact

dimensions can be found by multiplying a scale factor with each dimensions except the

angles. To find the scale factor, we have the actual lower leg line length and the pictorial

lower leg line length. So, the scale factor could be found out using the formula



Table 1 Scaling down pictorial dimension to actual dimension

S.No. Manikin Data Dimension from

PTC Creo (mm)

Actual Dimension (mm) = Dimension

from PTC Creo * Scale factor

1. Barefoot length 263.3 266.2

2. Lower leg line length 479.7 484.9

3. Thigh line length 650.9 658.0

4. Back line length 557.2 563.3

5. Buttock popliteal height 644.8 651.9

6. Popliteal height 471.6 476.8

7. Sitting height 1046.5 1058.0

8. Sitting mid-shoulder height 504.8 510.3

9. Sitting eye height 862.2 871.7

Table 1 represents actual dimension scaled from pictorial dimension. The above

procedures VI and VII are repeated for 9 manikins with 3 postures each. The postures include

Erect

Slouched and

Reclined

The corresponding eye ellipse, separately for both left and right eyes for the above

mentioned 3 postures have been calculated and their relative postures as well as their

corresponding parameter readings such as area and perimeter have been tabulated.

8. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

It is evident from the results that the eye ellipse of a manikin changes with respect to H-Point.

This result is also important to understand the eye ellipse for different vehicular aspects say

eye ellipse consideration for truck, passenger cars, sports and race cars.

One interesting observation is that as the hip angle increases, the area of the lower half of

the ellipse decreases while the area of the upper half ellipse increases. This means there is a

shift in the area between the upper half and the lower half as the neutral point of the eye

comes down as we lean back. Similarly it is observed that as the hip angle decreases, the area

of the lower half of the ellipse increases while the area of the upper half ellipse decreases.

This means that there is a shift in the area between the upper half and the lower half as the

neutral point of the eye goes up as we lean forward.

Though there are various features defining the posture of the manikin, neck angle is found

to have a peculiar effect on the eye ellipse. It is clear from the results that irrespective of

manikin features, the eye ellipse is maximum when the neck angle is in the range of 125 to

140 degrees. At this range the perimeter of the eye ellipse is also maximum. It is essential to

maintain maximum values of eye ellipse because bigger the eye ellipse, larger the sight cones,

so that a larger data is collected by the eye from the traffic environment.



9. ANALYSIS GRAPH

The figure below shows the area concerning the lower and upper half of both left and right

eyes as well as the total area for the two halves

Figure 17 Average left upper area values for 10 manikins

From Figure 17 it is evident that the average left upper area for the 10 manikins varies

from a range of 120sq.mm to 230sq.mm depending upon the neck angle

Figure 18 Average right upper area values for 10 manikins

From Figure 18 it is evident that the average right upper area for the 10 manikins varies

from a range of 80sq.mm to 200sq.mm depending upon the neck angle.



Figure 19 Average left lower area values for 10 manikins

From Figure 19 it is evident that the average left lower area for the 10 manikins varies


Figure 20 Average right lower area values for 10 manikins

From Figure 20 it is evident that the average right lower area for the 10 manikins varies




Figure 21 Average left total area values for 10 manikins

From Figure 21 it is evident that the average left total area for the 10 manikins varies

from a range of 290sq.mm to 480sq.mm depending upon the neck angle.

`

Figure 22 Average left total area values for 10 manikins

From Figure 22 it is evident that the average right total area for the 10 manikins varies

from a range of 220 sq.mm to 430 sq.mm depending upon the neck angle

So from Figure 21 and Figure 22, the area of eye ellipse varies from a range of 225 to

475 sq.mm for different manikins. The manikin shows a range of 100 sq.mm variation in its

eye ellipse area when it’s sitting posture changes.

The figure below shows the perimeter concerning the lower and upper half of both left

and right eyes as well as the total perimeter for the two halves.



Figure 23 Average left upper perimeter values for 10 manikins

From Figure 23 it is evident that the average left upper perimeter for the 10 manikins

varies from a range of 52mm to 62mm depending upon the neck angle.

Figure 24 Average right upper perimeter values for 10 manikins

From Figure 24 it is evident that the average right upper perimeter for the 10 manikins


Figure 25 Average left lower perimeter values for 10 manikins



From Figure 25 it is evident that the average left lower perimeter for the 10 manikins

varies from a range of 51mm to 69mm depending upon the neck angle

Figure 26 Average right lower perimeter values for 10 manikins

From the Figure 26 it is evident that the average right lower perimeter for the 10

manikins varies from a range of 48mm to 65mm depending upon the neck angle

Figure 27 Average left total perimeter values for 10 manikins

From Figure 27 it is evident that the average left total perimeter for the 10 manikins


Figure 28 Average right total perimeter values for 10 manikins



From Figure 28 it is evident that the average right total perimeter for the 10 manikins


So from Figure 27 and Figure 28 the perimeter of the eye ellipse varies from 22 to 69

mm for different manikin. The manikin shows a range of 25mm variation in its eye ellipse

perimeter when it’s sitting posture changes.

10. CONCLUSION

From the work done, we understand that the neck angle has a peculiar role in defining the eye

ellipse. Also, we infer that irrespective of different manikin with different features, the eye

ellipse is larger when the neck angle is in the range of 125 to 140 degrees. This should be

taken into design consideration. Effects should be made so that, in all cases, the neck angle

remains within this range. We know, the neutral posture of trucks, passenger cars sports and

race cars are different. In the definition of neutral posture, the neck angle to be maintained in

this range should also be defined irrespective of the type of vehicle.

Thus, the maximum, the eye ellipse area and perimeter, the maximum is the sight cones

volume and the maximum is the data collected via visual perception. Also the maximum is the

reliability of the vehicle from visual ergonomics perspective.

REFERENCES

[1] Xinmin Tian, Chunning Jin, Yuan Tian. and Quan Tian. Experimental study on fist-ellipse

for Chinese auto drivers, Applied Ergonomics, 33, 2002, pp.101–103.

[2] Russell Marshall. and Steve Summerskill, The development of an objective methodology

for the evaluation of drivers' field of view. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2015, pp.3709-

3716.

[3] SAE J985_198810. Vision factors considerations in rearview mirror design, 1998.

[4] Matthew P. Reed, Development of a New Eye ellipse and Seating Accommodation Model

for Trucks and Buses. The University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, Ann

Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. 2005.

[5] Parkinson, M., Reed, M., Kokkolars, M. and Papalambros, P. Optimizing truck cab layout

for driver accommodation. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design. 129, 2007, pp.1110-

1117.

[6] Philippart, N. L., Roe, R.W., Arnold, A. J. and Kuechenmeister, T. J. Driver selected seat

position model. SAE Technical Paper. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineer

Inc. 1984.

[7] Bhise, V. Ergonomics in the automotive design process. CRC Press. 2011.

[8] SAE J941. Motor vehicle drivers’ eye locations. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive

Engineers, Inc. 2011.

[9] Park, S. Estimation of driverʹs standard postures by a multivariate analysis method.

Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea. 25, 2016, pp.27-33.

[10] Diffrient, N., Tilley, A. R. and Harman, D. Human Scale 7/8/9, Cambridge, MA. 1981.

[11] SAE J1517. Driver selected seat position. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive


[12] Reed, M. P., Manary, M. A., Flannagan, C. A. C. and Schneider, L. W. A statistical

method for predicting automobile driving posture. Human Factors, 44, 2001, pp.557–568.

[13] Reed, M. P., Flannagan, C. A. C., Manary, M. A., and Schneider, L. W. Modeling vehicle

occupant head and head restraint positions. University of Michigan Transportation

Research Institute, Biosciences Division, 2001. Report No: UMTRI-2001-8.

[14] Park, S., Kim, C., Kim, C., & Lee, J. Comfortable driving postures for Koreans.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 26, 2000, pp.489-497.

[15] Andreoni, G., Santambrogio, G. C., Rabuffetti, M. and Pedotti, A. Method for the analysis

of posture and interface pressure of car drivers. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 2002, pp.511-

522.



[16] Chin-Bong Choi, Peom Park, Young-Ho Kim, Susan Hallbeck, M. and Myung-Chul Jung,

Comparison of visibility measurement techniques for forklift truck design factors. Applied

Ergonomics, 40, 2007, pp.280-285.

[17] Joachim Rix, André Stork, Combining ergonomic and field-of-view analysis using virtual

humans. Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics, Darmstadt, Germany. 2009.

[18] Florian Kremser, Fabian Guenzkofer. And Klaus Bengler. User-centred interior design of

a small electric vehicle using RAMSIS. 3, 2012. pp.3-4.

[19] David R. Large, Elizabeth Crundall, Gary Burnett, Catherine Harvey. and Panos

Konstantopoulos, Driving without wings: The effect of different digital mirror locations

on the visual behaviour, performance and opinions of drivers. Applied Ergonomics. 55,

2016. pp.138-148.

[20] Michael Sak, IV., Michael, J., Flannagan, Eric, A., Budnik, Carol, C., Flannagan. and

Shinichi Kojima. The locations of headlamps and driver eye positions in vehicles sold in

the USA. Ergonomics. 40, 2010. pp.872-878.

[21] Matthew P. Reed, An Eyellipse for Rear Seats with Fixed Seat Back Angles. University of

Michigan Transportation Research Institute. 2011.

[22] Marshall, Russell., Summerskill, Steve. and Cook, Sharon. The digital evaluation of

driver's field of view and its potential impact on cyclist. Applied Human Factors and

Ergonomics (AHFE 2014), Krakow, Poland, 2015.

[23] China National Standard, GB/T 11563-89. Motor vehicles F Procedure for H-point

determination. 2017.

[24] Reed, M.P., Manary, M.A. and Schneider, L.W. The effects of forward vision restriction

on automobile driver posture. Transportation Human Factors. 2, 2006. pp.173-179.

[25] Reed, M.P. and Flannagan, C.A.C. Anthropometric and postural variability: limitation of

the boundary manikin approach. Technical Paper. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive


[26] Schneider, L.W., Reed, M.P., Roe, R.W., Manary, M.A., Flannagan, C.A.C., Hubbard,

R.P., and Rupp, G.L. ASPECT: The next-generation H-point machine and related vehicle

and seat design and measurement tools. Technical Paper 990962. Warrendale, PA: Society

of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 1999.

[27] Seidl, A. RAMSIS - a new CAD-tool for ergonomic analysis of vehicles developed for the

German automotive industry. Technical Paper. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive


[28] Stanick, J.M., Phillipart, N.J., and Kuechenmeister, T.J. Describing the truck driver eye

and head accommodation. Technical Paper. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive

Engineers, Inc.1987.

[29] Devlin, W.A., and Roe, R.W. The eye ellipse and considerations in the driverʼs forward

field of view. SAE Technical Paper. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

1968.

[30] Flannagan, C.A.C., Manary, M.A., Schneider, L.W., and Reed, M.P. An improved seating

accommodation model with application to different user populations. SAE Transactions:

Journal of Passenger Cars, 107, 1998, pp.1189-1197.

[31] Hammond, D.C., and Roe, R.W. Driver head and eye positions. Technical Paper. Society

of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale PA. 1972.

Documents

INVESTIGATION ON DRIVER EYE POINT ELLIPSE WITH … · Investigation on Driver Eye Point Ellipse With Respect to H-Point in Heavy Duty Vehicles 647 [email protected]