Write your message
Volume 7, Issue 4 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2020)                   Iran J Ergon 2020, 7(4): 62-71 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Sohrabi M S, Anbarian M. Using Anthropometric Characteristics to Office Furniture Design: Case Study; Hormozgan Province Gas Company. Iran J Ergon 2020; 7 (4) :62-71
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-688-en.html
1- Faculty Member, Department of Industrial Design, School of Architecture and Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran , ms.sohrabi@aui.ac.ir
2- Professor, Department of Sport Biomechanics, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 581 kb]   (10313 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (11089 Views)

The presented anthropometric desks can be used in future studies and designs. Also, the dimensional characteristics of the furniture provided can be a practical guide for designing and manufacturing office workstations.


Extended Abstract:   (1727 Views)
Introduction

Employee anthropometric considerations in tool design and workstation lead to workplace safety, satisfaction, ease of tool using, and prevention of musculoskeletal disorders and hazards [1]. The design of tools and workstations, without taking into account the physical dimensions and anthropometric characteristics of users, will have adverse effects on users' health [2]. Studies in Iran have shown the importance of the role of anthropometric characteristics in the design of the workstation and the reduction of occupational hazards and thus higher productivity [3-6]. Unfortunately, the variability in physical dimensions between people of different genders, races, and climatic conditions can cause problems in the design of the workplace and tools [7, 8]. Given the differences in anthropometric characteristics in different working populations and the existence of individual and regional differences, it is necessary to determine the anthropometric characteristics of employees for effective use in designing the work environment [3, 6]. These features and specifications can be used to standardize the equipment used and to create a sense of proportion between the machine and the human [7]. For this purpose, the present study was conducted to determine the anthropometric dimensions of Hormozgan Gas Department employees in order to design a standard desk and chair for working with computers based on the obtained anthropometric variables.

 

Materials and Methods

This descriptive analytical study is a cross-sectional study conducted among the employees of Hormozgan Gas Company. Anthropometric measurements were considered and performed based on the anthropometric methods and variables proposed by Fisent [9] and the Environmental Research Institute of Tehran University of Medical Sciences for Iranian workers performed by Sadeghi et al. [10]. After analyzing the descriptive statistics, the percentages were extracted by gender and the T-test was used to compare the anthropometric dimensions of men and women at a significance level of 95%. Finally, using the anthropometric tables obtained and the ergonomic design guide [9, 11, 12], ANSI / HFES 100-2007 standard [13] and the findings of previous studies [17-17], the dimensional specifications of the chair and office desk were calculated.

 

Results

The participants in the study included 121 people (80.2% male and 19.8% female) with an average age of 35.11 and a standard deviation of 6.6 in the range of 25 to 59 years. The mean and standard deviations of the measured height were 170.7 and 8.06 cm, respectively. Of course, this average is set at 159.95 cm for women and 173.35 cm for men. In all dimensions of anthropometry, except for sitting elbow height, thigh thickness, and seat width, men's sizes are significantly higher than women's, and joint sizes cannot be used in workstation designs.

Table 1. Anthropometric results of sex-measured personnel

Sig difference in averages SD Female SD Male Anthropometric variable
95th percentile 50th percentile 5th percentile 95th percentile 50th percentile 5th percentile
.000 -19.25 12.75 99.35 57.80 45.13 13.07 106.49 78.4 63.97 Weight
.000 -13.4 5.94 170.1 157.25 150.3 6.06 183.55 173.60 163.9 Height
.000 -12.63 6.19 161.58 148 140.6 5.95 172.55 163.2 153 Eye height
.000 -10.15 5.66 141.05 131.2 121.83 5.17 152.08 142.5 134.95 Shoulder height
.000 -8.57 4.91 107.45 98.75 90.3 8.92 122.8 107 100.4 Elbow height
.000 -8.57 3.87 85.6 80.85 73.28 4.17 98 89 83.93 The height of the bucket
.000 -4.7 3.93 76.38 70.1 62.98 3.79 80.58 74 69.45 The height of your bulge protrusion
.000 -3.88 3.53 67.23 61.55 54.1 3.7 70.3 65 60 The height of the protrusion of the fingertips
.000 -5.98 2.91 91.53 87.35 80.4 3.57 99 93 86.1 Sitting Height
.000 -4.63 2.67 81.5 76.3 70.78 3.52 86.63 81.2 74.9 Eye’s height in sitting status
.000 -3.7 3.23 65.03 60.4 52.48 2.75 68.84 62.9 58.9 Shoulder’s height in sitting status
.390 -0.57 2.94 32.43 27.55 20.3 2.45 32.02 27.2 23.49 Elbow’s height in sitting status
.183 -0.48 1.55 15.28 12.25 9.18 1.47 15.20 12.9 10.49 Thigh thickness
.000 -2.24 2.38 60.83 56.35 52 2.56 62.73 58.5 54 Length of knee-hip in sitting status
.001 -1.66 1.86 50.15 46.25 43.35 2.91 52.85 48 44.98 Length of hip- popliteus muscle in sitting status
.000 -3.57 1.67 52.93 49.7 45.9 2.04 57 53.2 50 Height of knee in sitting status
.000 -2.70 2.22 49.1 41.4 38.83 2.14 48.73 44 42 Height of  popliteus muscle in sitting status
.000 -7.12 2.33 42.75 36.45 34.43 2.91 49.91 43.9 39.79 Shoulder width of the two deltoid muscles
.000 -5.55 0.81 17.35 16.25 13.88 3.01 27.61 21 17.39 Shoulder width
.256 -0.79 3.07 42.38 33.85 29.15 2.76 44 34.4 31.40 Hip width in sitting status
.001 -2.17 2.61 23.8 19.2 13.25 2.23 26.10 20.7 18.19 Chest depth
.000 -2.87 2.98 27.93 19.2 14.8 2.84 26.83 21.9 17.7 Abdominal depth
.000 -2.79 3.24 45.13 34.2 30.55 2.07 41.02 37.6 34 Shoulder-elbow length
.000 -5.04 1.97 45.43 42.65 37.80 2.07 50.64 47.5 44.5 Elbow length - fingertips
.000 -8.03 3.36 76.95 71.45 65.13 2.89 83.56 79 73.89 Length of the upper limb
.000 -4.85 3.82 75.45 70.25 61.75 3.04 80.05 74.5 70.45 Shoulder length - grab
.000 -0.82 0.88 18.8 17.6 15.18 0.76 19.5 18.4 17.2 Head length
.000 -0.59 0.6 16 14.15 13.48 0.61 15.9 14.9 13.89 Head width
.000 -1.88 0.96 19.25 17.6 15.15 0.8 20.91 19.4 18.19 Hand length
.000 -1.05 0.4 8.78 8.1 7.4 0.45 9.91 9.1 8.49 Hand width
.000 -2.02 0.88 24.95 23.95 21.55 1.24 28.01 25.8 23.98 Foot length
.000 -1.08 0.44 9.85 9 8.1 0.59 11.3 10.1 9.19 Foot width
.000 -16.58 14.43 193.7 158.00 139.48 6.69 187.22 177.5 165.35 The distance between the fingers of both hands when the arms are open
.000 -11.25 5.23 93.2 85.6 77.2 5.18 105.3 95.5 89.39 The distance between the right and left elbows when the arms are open
.000 -16.85 7.48 200.63 186 176.5 7.89 220.5 205.5 193.95 Grip access limit, sitting-up
.000 -4.85 3.82 75.45 70.25 61.75 3.04 80.03 74.5 70.54 Seizure access limit, sitting-forward















































 


 

In the design of the chair, it should be noted that sitting with the straight back, with the upper body and neck almost vertically and in a straight line, and the legs from the legs down to the vertical, is possible [18]. The chair should be designed in such a way that the floor of the user's feet does not hang when sitting. To achieve this, the adjustable chair should be used and at a height equal to the range of the fifth and ninety-fifth percentile of the pedal height (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Schematic of seat specifications

The height of the work desk was calculated using the elbow height in the sitting position. The schematic and calculated dimensions of the office desk are shown in Figure 2.


Figure 2. Schematic specifications of office desk


 

Discussion

The height of the seat designed in this study is estimated to be adjustable from 41.33 to 51.6 cm. This amount is considered in the office chair made by Motamedzadeh et al. [14] to be 38 to 44 and in Sharifi et al. study [15] to be 38 to 46 cm. Both studies used data from Iranian users in recent years. The standard height of adjustable seat of the office work environment is recommended in ANSI / HFES 100-2007 [13] as 38 to 56 cm. In the case of seat width, the design value of Motamedzadeh [14] and Sharifi [15] is 45 and 43 cm, respectively. This value is recommended to be at least 45 cm in the ANSI / HFES 100-2007 [13] standard, which is 46.79 cm in the present study. In this study, the height of the back was set at 56.95 cm, which was at least 45 cm in the ANSI / HFES 100-2007 standard [13] and 52 cm in the Motamedzadeh study [14] and 68 cm in Sharifi [15], all three studies followed the standards.
The height of the sitting desk designed in this study is 73.93 cm. This value is recommended in the ANSI / HFES 100-2007 standard for a fully seated desk of 72 cm and for a standing desk up to 118 cm [13]. The difference of 19 mm can be considered due to the difference in the distribution of the amount of scattering. However, according to Fisent [9], the computational error in anthropometric measurements is 2.5 cm and the difference is more tolerable. The minimum height of the space under the table to accommodate the legs in this study was calculated to be 59.47 cm and a depth of 45.7. The maximum height of the screen from the table surface to calculate the angle of zero to sixty degrees below the user's horizon is calculated to be 70.78 cm, which is equal to the recommendation of reputable authorities [13, 19].


 

Conclusion

The proposed anthropometric tables can be used in future studies and designs. Also, the dimensional specifications of the equipment provided can be a practical guide for designing and building an office work environment.

 

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the help of all those who helped them writing this article.

 

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.


 
Type of Study: Review | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2020/01/24 | Accepted: 2020/02/20 | ePublished: 2020/03/9

References
1. Hanson L, Sperling L, Gard G, Ipsen S, Vergara CO. Swedish anthropometrics for product and workplace design. Applied ergonomics. 2009 Jul 1;40(4):797-806. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.08.007] [PMID]
2. Zamanian Z, Salimian Z, Daneshmandi H, AliMohammadi Y. The Reba technique ergonomic assessment of musculoskeletal disorders risk level among midwives of Shiraz State Hospitals. Journal of Urmia Nursing And Midwifery Faculty. 2014 Apr 10;12(1):24-18.
3. Kazemhaghighi m, Saremi M. The situation of anthropometric databank in Iran: a review study. Iran Occupational Health Journal. 2017;14(4):102-95.
4. Buckle PW, Devereux JJ. The nature of work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Applied ergonomics. 2002 May 1;33(3):207-17. [DOI:10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00014-5]
5. Mali SC, Vyavahare RT. An ergonomic evaluation of an industrial workstation: A review. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology. 2015 Jun;5(3):1820-6.
6. Karakolis T, Callaghan JP. The impact of sit-stand office workstations on worker discomfort and productivity: a review. Applied ergonomics. 2014 May 1;45(3):799-806. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.10.001] [PMID]
7. Woo EH, White P, Lai CW. Ergonomics standards and guidelines for computer workstation design and the impact on users' health-a review. Ergonomics. 2016 Mar 3;59(3):464-75. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2015.1076528] [PMID]
8. Mououdi MA, Hosseini M. The determination of the static anthropometric characteristics for the computer users from the monitoring room of one of the industries in the mazandaran province for designing an ergonomic chair. Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. 2017 Nov 10;5(3):22-8. [DOI:10.30699/jergon.5.3.22]
9. Pheasant S, Haslegrave CM. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. CRC press; 2005 Jul 18.
10. Mohamady A, Azghani MR, Mazloumi A. Identification of the most important factors of ethnic differences in anthropometric dimensions of Iranian workers using the decision tree. Iran Occupational Health. 2019 May 15;16(1):61-70.
11. Sohrabi M, Faridizad AM, Farasati F. Comparing results of musculoskeletal disorders evaluation in computer users with CMDQ, RULA and ROSA methods. scientific journal of ilam university of medical sciences. 2015 Oct 10;23(4):53-62.
12. Joneidi و Sadeghi F. A survey on static anthropometric dimensions in 20-60year workers of six Iranian nations. Journal of Health Administration. 2008 Jul 1;11(32):11-24.
13. Sohrabi AS, Keshavarz Z, Alijani S, Torkzadeh F, Aghaee R. Design and development of an ergonomickharak by using students' anthropometric characteristics of Isfahan university of art. Health Syst Res. 2014;9(12):1301-0.
14. Vaghefi SH, Elyasi L, Amirian SR, Vaghefi SE. Anthropometric survey of worker population in Bandar-Abbas. Thrita. 2014;3(1). [DOI:10.5812/thrita.11669]
15. Taghizade M, Mohebbi I, Khalkhali H, Ahmadi-Arablu P, Torfeh A, Hajaghazadeh M. The study of anthropometric dimensions of hand in office staffs in Urmia. Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. 2018 Jun 10;6(1):1-0. [DOI:10.30699/jergon.6.1.1]
16. Sharifi Z, Osqueizadeh R, Tabatabai Ghomshe SF. Ergonomic redesign of industrial chair. Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. 2015 Jun 15;3(1):1-9.
17. Sadeghi F, Bahrami AR, Jafari AJ. Comparison of static anthropometric characteristics among workers of three Iranian ethnic groups. The Anthropologist. 2014 Sep 1;18(2):601-8. [DOI:10.1080/09720073.2014.11891578]
18. Bridger R. Introduction to human factors and ergonomics. CRC Press; 2017 Oct 30.
19. Factors ANSIH, Society E. ANSI/HFES 100-2007 Human Factors Engineering of Computer Workstations. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Santa Monica, CA; 2007.
20. Motamedzade M, Hassan Beigi MR, Mahjoob H. Design and development of an ergonomic chair for Iranian office workers. J Adv Med Biomed Res. 2009 Sep 10;17(68):45-52.
21. Aghaie MR, Zahra Mohammad Moradi Z. Designing and manufacturing of ergonomic training furniture for mapping based on the physical dimensions of boy students (Case study of Mashhad Art Schools). Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. 2019 Nov 10;7(3):0-.
22. Ivelic Ž, Grbac I, Ljuljka B, Tkalec S. Office furniture design according to a human anthropometric data. InDS 30: Proceedings of DESIGN 2002, the 7th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik 2002.
23. McKeown C. Office Ergonomics and Human Factors: Practical Applications. CRC Press; 2018 Dec 7. [DOI:10.1201/9780429055935]
24. McKeown C. Office ergonomics: practical applications. CRC Press; 2007 Nov 28. [DOI:10.1201/9780849379765]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb |