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
Full-Text [PDF 1269 kb]   (10987 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (7372 Views)
Extended Abstract:   (1384 Views)
Introduction

Students spend most of their time at school in classrooms, sitting; therefore, the use of inappropriate educational furniture may cause them discomfort and predispose them to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) [3].
Field research shows that the spine problem of about 6.75 million German employees is caused by chairs that they sat on for 10 hours a day as a child [7].
Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the lack of agreement between anthropometric characteristics of students and dimensions of educational furniture and design and manufacture of ergonomic educational furniture separately based on anthropometric characteristics measured in a sitting position on the campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran. In this study, with the aim of reducing the possible incompatibility and problems of MSDs and improving the change of physical condition in students, ergonomic educational furniture was designed and made of wooden chairs with double sloping seating and Erasmus desk in accordance with it, which can be another innovation of this research.

 

Figure 1: Anthropometric characteristics measuring equipment a) Anthropometric stadiometer, b) Anthropometric chair

Figure 1: Anthropometric characteristics measuring equipment a) Anthropometric stadiometer, b) Anthropometric chair


 

Materials and 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. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL., USA). Finally, according to the measured physical dimensions of the students, the Dimensions of ergonomic desk and chair were calculated and designed according to the INSO 9697-1 standard.

Schematic images of anthropometric characteristics measured in this study

Figure 2. Schematic images of anthropometric characteristics measured in this study: 1- Popliteal (ridge) height, 2- Sitting knee height, 3- Sitting shoulder height, 4- Sitting eye height, 5- Sitting height, 6- Elbow support height Sitting, 7- Height of sitting elbow, 8- Length of elbow-clenched fist, 9- Length of hip-flexion, 10- Length of hip-sitting knee, 11- Thickness of thigh, 12- Depth of abdomen, 13- Depth of chest, 14- Width Sitting buttocks, 15- shoulder width, 16- elbow width, 17- height
 

Design of separate educational furniture for construction in this research of the type of high chair with a double-sided seat and Erasmus desk

Figure 3. Design of separate educational furniture for construction in this research of the type of high chair with a double-sided seat and Erasmus desk


 

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 desk and the chair. Also, the results showed that there was a significant difference in popliteal height between girls and boys.
 

Table 1. Results of Yu-Mann-Whitney statistical test to compare variables in gender (girl and boy)
Variable Gender N M SD Level of significance
Popliteal height (cm) Boy 130 45.31 2.27 0.001<
Girl 130 43.38 2.90
Knee height (cm) Boy 130 55.36 2.49 0.001<
Girl 130 49.63 6.87
Shoulder height (cm) Boy 130 62.49 4.58 0.001<
Girl 130 58.11 3.89
Eye height (cm) Boy 130 79.37 5.86 0.001<
Girl 130 73.16 4.42
Sitting height (cm) Boy 130 90.06 4.24 0.001<
Girl 130 84.01 4.07
Elbow support height (cm) Boy 130 25.16 3.19 0.001<
Girl 130 23.80 2.75
Elbow height (cm) Boy 130 70.38 3.67 0.001<
Girl 130 67 4.64
Punched elbow length (cm) Boy 130 38.06 2.85 0.001<
Girl 130 34.49 2.53
Popliteal-bottock (cm) Boy 130 48.56 3.72 0.007<
Girl 130 47.53 3.06
Knee hip length (cm) Boy 130 59.90 3.07 0.001<
Girl 130 54.78 3.09
Thigh thickness (cm) Boy 130 15.04 2.29 0.001<
Girl 130 13.10 2.81
Abdominal depth (cm) Boy 130 24.24 3.66 0.001<
Girl 130 21.80 3.71
Chest depth (cm) Boy 130 23.94 2.68 0.171
Girl 130 23.55 3.27
Hip width (cm) Boy 130 37.96 3.40 0.001<
Girl 130 36.40 3.48
Shoulder width (cm) Boy 130 45.56 3.19 0.001<
Girl 130 38.44 2.84
Elbow width (cm) Boy 130 49.39 5.38 0.001<
Girl 130 37.70 5.30
Height (cm) Boy 130 1777.01 5.94 0.001<
Girl 130 162.26 6.38
Weight (Kg) Boy 130 75.55 13.05 0.001<
Girl 130 58.87 9.77
Age Boy 130 22.42 3.16 0.148
Girl 130 23.09 3.56
 
 

Dimensional guide of a double chair with a slope and a desk suitable for that chair) b1

Figure 4. Dimensional guide of a double chair with a slope and a desk suitable for that chair) b1: effective depth of the seat, b2: width of the seat, b3: back width, b4: depth of the front of the seat, b5: depth of the back of the seat, b6: length of the footrest, b7: footrest width, r2: horizontal dorsal radius, h1: seat height, h2: footrest height, h3: point height s, h4: backrest height, b: front seat slope, ɤ: rear seat slope. desk ) H1: desk top surface height, H2: desk top height, L1: desk top surface length, L2: desk top length, W1: desk top surface depth, W2: desk top width, α: desk top surface angle
 

 

A and B) Ergonomic desks and chairs designed and built after determining anthropometric characteristics for boys and girls Sitting position: c) while writing (active posture), d) while resting and leaning on a chair (inactive posture)

Figure 5. A and B) Ergonomic desks and chairs designed and built after determining anthropometric characteristics for boys and girls
Sitting position: c) while writing (active posture), d) while resting and leaning on a chair (inactive posture)

 


Table 2. Dimensions of ergonomic desk and chair designed for students of the Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran
Girls Boys Variables Product
1505-1730 1662-1900 Full range (mm) Seat
48.67- 38 42- 49 Popliteal range (mm)
+10 +10 Minimum slope of the front of the seat (degree)
+15 +15 Maximum slope of the front of the seat (degree)
-5 -5 Slope of rear seat (degree)
623 660 Seat height (10%) in (mm)
420 415 Effective seating depth (mm)
360 377 Minimum seating width (mm)
400 395 Seat surface depth (minimum) (mm)
180 197 S point height (-10 to +20) (mm)
190 190 Back height (mm)
330 347 Minimum back width (mm)
300 300 Minimum horizontal dorsal radius (mm)
104 104 Back slope (degree)
243 240 Foot height (mm)
280 240 Minimum foot length (mm)
50 50 Minimum foot width (mm)
940 965 Desk surface height (mm) Desk
500 500 Minimum depth of desk surface (mm)
600 600 Minimum desk surface length per person (mm)
243 240 Foot height (mm)
300 300 Minimum foot length (mm)
100 100 Minimum desk foot width (mm)
-20 -20 Maximum desk surface angle (degree)


 

Conclusion

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 desk ergonomics were designed in two sizes.
 

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted in the form of a master's thesis with the financial support of the scientific deputy of the Faculty of Natural Resources, Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, No. Grant,12-6-30541. The authors of the article consider it necessary to thank and appreciate the cooperation of the Alborz Technical and Vocational Training Center for conducting the best research.

 

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

 

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 |