Write your message
Volume 8, Issue 3 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2020)                   Iran J Ergon 2020, 8(3): 70-84 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


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

Manouchehri H, Moradpour P, Mououdi M A, Aga-Rafiei E. Designing Ergonomic Furniture Based on Students Anthropometry Attributes; College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran. Iran J Ergon 2020; 8 (3) :70-84
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-740-en.html
1- MSc, Department of Wood and Paper Sciences & Technology, Faculty of Natural Resources, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Wood and Paper Sciences & Technology, Faculty of Natural Resources, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran , pmoradpour@ut.ac.ir
3- Department of Occupational Health, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
4- Faculty Member, Department of Wood and Paper Sciences & Technology, Faculty of Natural Resources, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
Abstract:   (7084 Views)
Background and Aim: A well-designed desk and chair, in addition to proper learning, can prevent changes in the user's physical form. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the anthropometric characteristics of students in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources located at the University of Tehran to design an ergonomic table and chair.
Methods: In this research, 18 anthropometric characteristics including the popliteal height, knee height, shoulder height, eye height, sitting height, elbow support height, elbow height, knotted elbow length, hip-popliteal length, hip-knee length, thigh thickness, abdominal depth, chest depth, hip width, shoulder width, the transverse width of the elbows, height, and as well as weight for 260 students (130 girls and 130 boys) aged 18 to 35 years were investigated. To collect data, an anthropometric chamber and chair were used. Finally, according to the measured physical dimensions of the students, the Dimensions of ergonomic table and chair were calculated and designed according to the INSO 9697-1 standard.
Results: Anthropometric dimensions of students were obtained through mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, mean, and the percentile value of 2.5 to 97.5 using SPSS version 20 software. The results showed that the age of the user does not have a significant effect on the size of the table and the chair. Also, the results showed that there was a significant difference in popliteal height between girls and boys.
Conclusions: Considering the difference in dimensions between female and male students, it was found that the popliteal height in the percentile of 5 for boys is 4 cm more than girls. Therefore, using measured anthropometric characteristics, the dimensions of the chair and table ergonomics were designed in two sizes.
Full-Text [PDF 1269 kb]   (10448 Downloads) |   |   Extended Abstract (HTML)  (1343 Views)  
Type of Study: Review | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2020/06/8 | Accepted: 2020/08/31 | ePublished: 2020/09/29

References
1. Sadeghi Naeini H, Erisian Z. Applied Anthropometry for product and environmental design, 1nd ed. Tehran: Jale Pub; 2016.
2. Panero J, Zelnik M. In: Ahmadinejhad M (Trans.). Human Dimension & Interior Space. 1nd ed. Isfahan: Khak Pub; 2014.
3. Obinna FP, Sunday AA, Babatunde O. Ergonomic assessment and health implications of classroom furniture designs in secondary schools: A case study. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2020; 9:1-5. [DOI:10.1080/1463922X.2020.1753259]
4. Parvez MS, Rahman A, Tasnim N. Ergonomic mismatch between student's anthropometry and university classroom furniture. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2019; 20(5): 603-631. [DOI:10.1080/1463922X.2019.1617909]
5. Khoshabi P, Nejati E, Ahmadi SF, Chegini A, Makui A, Ghousi R. Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making approach to compare types of classroom furniture considering mismatches for anthropometric measures of university students. PloS one. 2020; 15(9): e0239297. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0239297] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Dianat I, Karimi MA, Asl Hashemi A, Bahrampour S. Classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high school students: Proposed dimensions based on anthropometric data. Appl Ergon. 2013; 44(1): 101-108. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.004] [PMID]
7. Mououdi MA, Choobineh AR. Ergonomics in practice: Selected essays on ergonomics. 6th ed. Tehran: Mad Pub; 2014. [Google Scholar]
8. Panagiotopoulou G, Christoulas K, Papanckolaou A, Mandroukas K. Classroom furniture dimensions and anthropometric measures in primary school. Appl Ergon. 2004; 35(2): 121-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2003.11.002] [PMID]
9. Milanese S, Grimmer K. School furniture and the user population: An anthropometric perspective. Ergonomics. 2004; 47(4): 416-26. [DOI:10.1080/0014013032000157841] [PMID]
10. Dianat I, Karimi MA, Asl Hashemi A, Bahrampour S. Classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high school students: Proposed dimensions based on anthropometric data. Appl Ergon. 2013; 44(1): 101-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.004] [PMID]
11. Agha Rafiei E, Parsapazhouh D, Khani Jazani R, Ebrahimi G, Khodadadeh Y. Evaluation of mismatch between school furniture dimensions and students' anthropometric characteristics in Karaj primary schools, Iran. Iran J Nat Resour. 2008; 61(3): 693-711.
12. Heidari Moghadam R, Motamedzade M, Roshanaei Gh, Ahmadi R. Match between school furniture dimensions and children's anthropometric dimensions in male elementary schools. Iran J Ergon. 2014; 2(1): 9-18. [Google Scholar]
13. Mououdi MA, Mousavinasab SN, Gramian SMR, Akbari J. Anthropometric evaluation of primary school students in the Mazandaran province for the design of school furniture. Iran J Ergon. 2016; 4(1): 47-55. [DOI:10.21859/joe-04016]
14. Rajabi Shameli E, Sheikhhoseini R, Asadi Melerdi S. The relationship between the school furniture dimensions and trunk alignment with musculoskeletal disorders in boy students in Karaj. Iran J Ergon. 2019; 10;7(3): 24-32. [Google Scholar]
15. Stephen P. Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis Pub; 2005. [Google Scholar]
16. Odunaiya NA, Owonuwa DD, Oguntibeju OO. Ergonomic suitability of educational furniture and possible health implications in a university setting. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2014; 5: 1-14. [DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S38336] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Mououdi MA, Choobineh AR. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. 10th ed. Tehran: Mad Pub; 2017: 103-117.
18. Harper K, Mallin D, Marcus N, McElheny M, Miller T, Navai M, et al. Ergonomic evaluation of the KinderZeat child seat in a preschool setting. Class Project Report; 2002: 1-18. [Article] [Google Scholar]
19. Kane PJ, Pilcher M, Legg SJ. Development of a furniture system to match student needs in New Zealand schools. In 16th World Congress on Ergonomics; 2006: 10-14. [Google Scholar]
20. Freudental A, Riel MD, Molenbroek JF, Snigders GJ. The effect on sitting posture of a desk with a ten-degree inclination using on adjustable chair and table. Appl Ergon. 1991; 22(5): 329-336. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(91)90389-Y]

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 |