Anthropometric Measurements Majed Awad

7/27/2019 Anthropometric Measurements Majed Awad

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/anthropometric-measurements-majed-awad 1/19

Anthropometric Measurements

By Majed Awad



Introduction With the increased objective of creating more

efficient man-machine systems, the need to

collect extensive anthropometric databecomes more important.

Consequences of designing systems that donot accommodate for user populations

include user fatigue, task inefficiency and aregenerally inconvenient.



Articles Presented T.J. Galloway and M.J. Fitzgibbon (1991).

Some anthropometric measures on an Irish

population. Applied ergonomics 1991,22.1, 9-12.

M.H. Al-Haboubi. Anthropometry for a mix of different populations. Applied ergonomics

1990, vol. 23.



Summary (Gallwey and

Fitzgibbon)Population studied

164 males

Mean age 29.2

Age range 17 – 58

Wore normal work

clothes except for jackets and shoes

Apparatus

Harpenden

anthropometer



Dimensions Measured

(Gallwey and Fitzgibbon) Data for 11 dimensions relevant to

workplace design were collected:



Dimensions Measured1. Body mass: subject stood

erect on a medical scalereading to 0.1kg.

2.

Stature: subject stooderect heels together,looked straight ahead,arms hung loose at thesides.

3. Popliteal height: subject

sat erect on the bench,feet height was adjusted tobring thighs horizontal andparallel, lower legs vertical – vertical height from footsurface to top surface of

bench.

4. Knee height: subject sameas (3) – vertical heightfrom foot surface tosuperior aspect of rightpatella.

5. Thigh clearance height: subject same as (3) – vertical height from topsurface of bench to the

junction of thigh andabdomen.

6. Buttock-knee length: subject same as (3) – horizontal distance fromblock held against

rearmost part of buttocksto edge of right patella.



Dimensions Measured7. Buttock-Popliteal length:

as for (6) – horizontallength to front edge of bench.

8. Buttock breadth – seated: as for (3) – horizontalwidth across the greatestlateral protrusion on eachside of the buttocks.

9. Sitting height –

normal: subject sat normallyrelaxed on the benchhands in lap, lookingstraight ahead – verticalheight from top surface of

bench to top middle part of the head.

10. Sitting height – erect: subject sat as in (9) – helped if necessary by agentle push in the sacralarea of the back

–vertical

height as in 10.

11. Elbow – elbow breadth: subject sat erect, upperarms hanging at sides,

lower arms extendedhorizontally, palms facingeach other, elbows held astightly as possible to thesides – maximumhorizontal distance across

lateral surface of theelbows.



Results (Gallwey and Fitzgibbon)No. Dimension Min Max Mean SD Cov (%) Mean (U.S. data) sig diff

1Mass (kg) 47.2 95.8 73.9 8.7 11.7 76.2 0.025

2Stature 1562 1896 1730.8 58 3.4 1732 NS

3Popliteal height 347 512 397 34 8.6 439.5 0.00054Knee height 426 578 508.4 28 5.4 541 0.0005

5Thigh clearance height 117 192 152.7 16 10.3 144.8 0.0005

6Buttock-knee length 473 675 600.1 28 4.7 591.8 0.0005

7Buttock-popliteal length 415 543 486.1 24 4.8 492.8 0.01

8Buttock breadth - seated 295 409 355.3 25 7.1 355.6 NS9Sitting height - normal 301 564 454.3 53 11.7 421.6 0.0005

10Sitting height - erect 782 944 872.9 33 3.7 879.7 0.025

11Elbow - elbow breadth 830 997 911.3 30 3.3 918.4 0.025



Comparisons With U.S. Population

(Gallwey and Fitzgibbon) Compared with U.S. Survey, Stoudt (1965)

Found that on most dimensions, there were significantdifferences in the anthropometric measurements.

Differences due to:1. For U.S. data, only 5th and 95%tiles were available. Thus

assumed that these points were 3.29 standard deviations fromthe means of a normal distribution.

2. Differences in clothing - U.S. subjects stripped to the waist,

emptied their pockets and wore short gowns.



Summary (Al-Haboubi)Population studied

408 males

Mean age 27

Age range 22 - 59

Subject dressed in

light fabric clothingand did not wearshoes

Apparatus

University designed

anthropometricdevice consisting of sliding vertical andhorizontal

dimensional scales.

Sliding bench.



Population Studied (Al-Haboubi1990) When designing for a

certain population, age,sex, or race should not beused as the base for theuser population (al-Haboubi1990).

The collective mixture of people who may havedifferent sex, age, race or

occupation should beidentified as the userpopulation andanthropometric designsshould be based on their

characteristics as onegroup.

Sample of Eastern nationalities used in study

Nationality Number of Subjects

Afghan 5

Bahraini 21

Bangladeshi 7

Indian 30Indonesian 4

Iranian 8

Iraqi 11

Jordanian 21

Kuwati 20

Lebanese 11

Omani 12

Pakistani 26

Palestinian 21

Qatari 9

Saudi 124

Srilankan 8

Syrian 26

Turkish 8

United Arab Emirates 16

Yemeni 20

Sample Size 408



Dimensions Measured Data for 19 body dimensions relevant to the design of chairs

were measured:Statistics of anthropometric measurement of Easterners

Variables Mean Sd 5th 50th 95thWeight 696 117 530 690 930

Stature 1705 67 1600 1702 1822

Max body depth 249 33 206 250 310

Arm reach 754 45 680 750 830

Buttock-popliteal length 482 34 430 480 540

Max body breadth 482 34 430 480 540

Sitting height 870 37 810 870 925

Hip breadth (sitting) 372 34 320 370 430

Buttock-leg length 1044 49 970 1040 1130Knee height (sitting) 539 27 500 540 585

Popliteal height (sitting) 408 10 398 400 430

Thigh clearance height (sitting) 155 21 120 154 190

Forearm-hand length 463 27 420 460 500

Elbow height (sitting) 219 24 170 220 250

Buttock-knee length 591 35 530 590 650

hand length 182 10 170 180 200

Hand breadth 102 7 90 100 110

Foot length 234 13 210 230 250Foot breadth 100 8 90 100 110

Percentile



Results (Al-Haboubi1990) Most of the body dimensions followed normal

distribution.

Weight, max body depth, buttock –

Popliteal length,max body breadth, thigh clearance, elbow height,and hand breadth all deviate from normality.

Reason cited: sample was drawn from non-homogeneous mix of nationalities.

Thus %tiles for these dimensions were found bycounting.



Comparisons to Other

Populations (Al-haboubi1990) Compared stature, weight, sitting height

between easterners and those countries that

export man-machine systems to Saudi. Found that there are statistically significant

differences in almost all comparisons.

Caution must be taken when developingcountries import systems such as elevatorsfrom other countries.



Comparing the articles Measurements were taken with different postures.

Al-Haboubi focused on chair design postures, Gallweyand Fitzgibbon focused on worker postures.

Gallwey and Fitzgibbon focused their study on a localhomogeneous male population with wide age range.

Al-Haboubi focused his study on a local non-homogeneous population with a wide age range.

No females were used in either study.



Limitations (Gallwey and Fitzgibbon) Static anthropometric data collected.

-Limited application to real-world

working postures. Comparisons based on statistical estimations

and thus are not highly accurate.

Assumed U.S. Data followed a normal

distribution. As al-Haboubi demonstrated,this assumption depends on anotherassumption: population being studied ishomogeneous.



Limitations (Al-Haboubi) Did not state how body dimensions

were measured.

No comparison made to homogeneouslocal population.

Limited comparison with other

populations (only examined stature,weight and sitting height).

No females used in study.



Future studies Collect functional anthropometric data for

homogeneous and non-homogenouspopulations.

Collect anthropometric data for different agegroups to see whether there is a significantdifference.

Possibly find reach envelopes for populationsfor use in systems design.

Include females in study.



Questions

Documents

Anthropometric Measurements Majed Awad