Volume 8, Issue 1 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2020)                   Iran J Ergon 2020, 8(1): 21-31 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

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

Feyzi M, Navid H, Dianat I. Dimensional Accommodation of Common Harvesting Combines’ Seat with Operators’ Anthropometric Characteristics and Proposition the Proper Dimensions Based on Ergonomics Principles. Iran J Ergon. 2020; 8 (1) :21-31
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-706-en.html
Associated Proffesor, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran , navid@tabrizu.ac.ir
Abstract:   (1312 Views)

Background and Aim: Agricultural combine harvesters play a crucial role in cereal productions. A combine operator performs almost all harvesting activities in seated posture. As an interface of the biomechanical system of operator’s body and combines’ mechanical system, seat has major effect on operator’s safety, health, and comfort. A successful design of seat is not achievable without considering the anthropometric characteristics of user population in geometric design. In current study, the accommodation of common harvesting combines’ seat with Iranian operators’ body dimensions has been investigated.
Methods: This study was conducted in Bijar, the widest county of Kurdistan province in the west of Iran. Eight anthropometric dimensions including weight, stature, shoulder height, elbow rest height, popliteal height, buttock-popliteal length, shoulder breadth, and hip breadth were measured on a sample of operators. The accommodation of seat pan width, upper backrest width, lower backrest width, seat height, armrest height, seat depth, and backrest height were investigated based on logical equations.
Results: There was a considerable mismatch between evaluated combine seats and the anthropometric dimensions of operators. Selecting 440, 370, 440, 410, 260, 430, and 415 mm for respectively seat pan width, upper backrest width, lower backrest width, seat height, armrest height, seat depth, and backrest height can increase the match percentage to a range of 62.2% to 100%.
Conclusion: The dimensions of available combine harvester seats are not suitable for Iranian population. However, considering the anthropometric dimensions of operators can improve the seats ergonomically. It should be noted that a design based on corresponding national and international standards cannot guarantee the geometrical accommodation of seats.

Full-Text [PDF 862 kb]   (25 Downloads)    

The dimensions of available combine harvester seats are not suitable for Iranian population. However, considering the anthropometric dimensions of operators can improve the seats ergonomically. It should be noted that a design based on corresponding national and international standards cannot guarantee the geometrical accommodation of seats.

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2020/04/15 | Accepted: 2020/06/6 | ePublished: 2020/06/6

1. Houshyar E, Houshyar M. Tractor safety and related injuries in Iranian farms. Safety science. 2018 Mar 1;103:88-93. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.018]
2. Kim JH, Dennerlein JT, Johnson PW. The effect of a multi-axis suspension on whole body vibration exposures and physical stress in the neck and low back in agricultural tractor applications. Applied ergonomics. 2018 Apr 1;68:80-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.021] [PMID]
3. Lashgari M, Arab MR. Investigation of Relationship between Noise Annoyance and Neurophysiological Responses of Drivers in Exposure to Tractor Sound. Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. 2018 Oct 1;6(3):65-74. [DOI:10.30699/jergon.6.3.7]
4. Balasankari PK. Investigation On Ergonomics Of Tractor Operation As Influenced By Human Physiology, Vibration, And Noise (Doctoral dissertation, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; Coimbatore).
5. Pheasant ST, Harris CM. Human strength in the operation of tractor pedals. Ergonomics. 1982 Jan 1;25(1):53-63. [DOI:10.1080/00140138208924926] [PMID]
6. Feyzi M, Navid H, Dianat I. Ergonomically based design of tractor control tools. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2019 Jul 1;72:298-307. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2019.06.007]
7. Victor VM, Nath S, Verma A. Anthropometric survey of Indian farm workers to approach ergonomics in agricultural machinery design. Applied ergonomics. 2002;33(6):579-81. [DOI:10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00044-3]
8. Mehta CR, Tewari VK. Seating discomfort for tractor operators-a critical review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2000 Jul 1;25(6):661-74. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00054-2]
9. Dupuis H. Effects of tractor operation on human stresses. Agricultural Engineering. 1959;40(9):510-25.
10. Hsiao H, Whitestone J, Bradtmiller B, Whisler R, Zwiener J, Lafferty C, Kau TY, Gross M. Anthropometric criteria for the design of tractor cabs and protection frames. Ergonomics. 2005 Mar 15;48(4):323-53. [DOI:10.1080/00140130512331332891] [PMID]
11. Mehta CR, Gite LP, Pharade SC, Majumder J, Pandey MM. Review of anthropometric considerations for tractor seat design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2008 May 1;38(5-6):546-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.08.019]
12. Morgan LJ, Mansfield NJ. A survey of expert opinion on the effects of occupational exposures to trunk rotation and whole-body vibration. Ergonomics. 2014 Apr 3;57(4):563-74. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2014.887785] [PMID]
13. Romano E, Pirozzi M, Ferri M, Calcante A, Oberti R, Vitale E, Rapisarda V. The use of pressure mapping to assess the comfort of agricultural machinery seats. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2019 Aug 14:102835. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102835]
14. Daeijavad S, Maleki A. Proper farm tractor seat angles for the right posture using FEM. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2016 Jun 1;124:318-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2016.02.025]
15. Tewari VK, Prasad N. Optimum seat pan and back-rest parameters for a comfortable tractor seat. Ergonomics. 2000 Feb 1;43(2):167-86. [DOI:10.1080/001401300184549] [PMID]
16. Yadav LS. An ergonomic study to match anthropometric dimensions of tractor operators with their seat in occupational condition of tea plantations in north-east India. Crop Research. 2012;44(3):473-8.
17. Rostami MA, Soltanabadi3-A AG, Shaker MM. Ergonomic assessment of some commonly used tractors in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Machinery. 2015;5(2):456-67.
18. Ghaderi E, Maleki A, Dianat I. Design of combine harvester seat based on anthropometric data of Iranian operators. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2014 Nov 1;44(6):810-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2014.10.003]
19. Agricultural Jihad Management Office of Bijar. Statistics of harvesting-combines. 2017.
20. Cochran WG. Planning and analysis of observational studies. John Wiley & Sons; 2009 Sep 25.
21. Gordon CC, Churchill T, Clauser CE, Bradtmiller CB, Mcconville JT, Tebbetts I. et al. 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics. United States Army Natick research, Development and Engineering Center. 1989.
22. Iranian National Standardization Organization (INSO). Agricultural Machinery - Tractor - Driver's seat on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. INSO 13140. 2015.
23. Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran (ISIRI). Agricultural tractors - Operator's seating accommodations - Dimensions. ISIRI 8369. 2005.
24. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Agricultural tractors - Operator's seating accommodations - Dimensions. ISO 4253. 1993.
25. Castellucci HI, Arezes PM, Molenbroek JF. Analysis of the most relevant anthropometric dimensions for school furniture selection based on a study with students from one Chilean region. Applied ergonomics. 2015 Jan 1;46:201-11. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.08.005] [PMID]
26. Hsiao H, Whitestone J, Wilbur M, Lackore JR, Routley JG. Seat and seatbelt accommodation in fire apparatus: Anthropometric aspects. Applied ergonomics. 2015 Nov 1;51:137-51. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.04.004] [PMID] [PMCID]
27. Orborne DJ. Ergonomics at work: Human factors in design and development. Chihester, England: John Wiley and Sons. 1996.
28. Gouvali MK, Boudolos K. Match between school furniture dimensions and children's anthropometry. Applied ergonomics. 2006 Nov 1;37(6):765-73. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.11.009] [PMID]
29. Dul J, Weerdmeester B. Posture and movement. In: Dul, J., Weerdmeester, B. (Eds.), Ergonomics for Beginners. A Reference Guide. Taylor & Francis, London. 2008; pp. 11-18. [DOI:10.1201/9781420077520]
30. Chaffin DB, Andersson GB, Martin BJ. Guidelines for seated work. Occupational biomechanics. 1991:335-75.
31. Parcells C, Stommel M, Hubbard RP. Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions: empirical findings and health implications. Journal of adolescent health. 1999 Apr 1;24(4):265-73. [DOI:10.1016/S1054-139X(98)00113-X]
32. Dianat I, Karimi MA, Hashemi AA, Bahrampour S. Classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high school students: proposed dimensions based on anthropometric data. Applied ergonomics. 2013 Jan 1;44(1):101-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.004] [PMID]
33. Lee Y, Kim YM, Lee JH, Yun MH. Anthropometric mismatch between furniture height and anthropometric measurement: A case study of Korean primary schools. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2018; 68: 260-269. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2018.08.010]
34. Castellucci HI, Arezes PM, Viviani CA. Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures in Chilean schools. Applied ergonomics. 2010 Jul 1;41(4):563-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.12.001] [PMID]
35. Halder P, Mahmud T, Sarker E, Karmaker C, Kundu S, Patel S, Setiawan A, Shah K. Ergonomic considerations for designing truck drivers' seats: The case of Bangladesh. Journal of occupational health. 2017:16-0163.
36. Ghofrani M, Noori H. Assessing the appropriateness of educational furniture with body size of students in Yazd. Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. 2014 Dec 15;2(3):77-87.
37. 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]
38. Dewangan KN, Kumar GP, Suja PL, Choudhury MD. Anthropometric dimensions of farm youth of the north eastern region of India. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2005 Nov 1;35(11):979-89. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.04.003]
39. Vyavahare RT, Kallurkar SP. Anthropometry of male agricultural workers of western India for the design of tools and equipments. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2016 May 1;53:80-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2015.10.008]
40. Obi OF, Ugwuishiwu BO, Adeboye BS. A survey of anthropometry of rural agricultural workers in Enugu State, south-eastern Nigeria. Ergonomics. 2015 Jun 3;58(6):1032-44. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2014.1001446] [PMID]
41. Wibowo RK, Soni P. Anthropometry and agricultural hand tool design for Javanese and Madurese farmers in east Java, Indonesia. APCBEE procedia. 2014 Jan 1;8:119-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.apcbee.2014.03.012]
42. Sombatsawat E, Robson MG, Siriwong W. Anthropometric dimension of agricultural workers in North Eastern Thailand. InCongress of the International Ergonomics Association 2018 Aug 26 (pp. 423-433). Springer, Cham. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-96065-4_47]
43. Pheasant S, Haslegrave CM. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. CRC press; 2005 Jul 18.

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

Send email to the article author

© 2020 All Rights Reserved | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb | Co-Publisher: Farname Inc.