Using Anthropometric Data To Compute Measurements And Design

Using Anthropometric Data To Compute Measurements And Design For Targe

Designing ergonomic environments requires accurate anthropometric data to ensure comfort, safety, and accessibility for intended user populations. This process involves identifying the user group, selecting relevant measurements, determining the target population percentage to accommodate, calculating the specific measurements, and considering any special adjustments necessary. The following examples illustrate how to apply these principles in real-world scenarios.

Paper For Above instruction

In ergonomic design, the use of anthropometric data is fundamental to creating spaces and equipment that fit the users optimally. This process involves multiple steps, starting with understanding the target population and culminating in precise measurement calculations that consider the variability within that group. A systematic approach ensures inclusivity and safety, especially when accommodating the majority of users, which is crucial in public and commercial settings.

Case Study 1: Overhead Clearance in an Office Building in Chicago

The first case considers determining the adequate overhead clearance for an office building in Chicago, intended to serve various users including both males and females. The initial step is to identify the user population; since the building is in Chicago, U.S.-specific anthropometric data should be used. Given that male height data is generally greater than female height data, focusing on the taller males ensures that the clearance will also accommodate the tallest females, preventing miscalculations that could lead to inconveniences or safety hazards.

The relevant anthropometric measurement is standing height or stature, which is critical for overhead clearance considerations. The goal is to accommodate 99% of the population to ensure that virtually all users can safely pass through or enter the space without obstruction. To compute this measurement, the formula x = x' + (z x sd) is employed, where x' is the mean stature, z corresponds to the z-score for the 99th percentile (2.32), and sd is the standard deviation. Using data from the referenced tables, x' is 1755 mm, and sd is 71 mm, leading to:

x = 1755 + (2.32 x 71) = 1919.72 mm

An additional safety factor is necessary to account for elements like walking clearance, hardhats, and safety margins. Summing these considerations results in a final doorway height of approximately 2089.72 mm, or about 6.9 feet, ensuring the structure accommodates almost the entire user spectrum safely and comfortably.

This example highlights the importance of selecting the proper percentile, considering safety margins, and choosing the appropriate anthropometric measurement for architectural design. Such practices promote inclusive and functional environments that serve users effectively.

Case Study 2: Horizontal Control Placement at a Seated Workstation in Beijing

In the second scenario, determining the optimal horizontal position for controls at a seated workstation in Beijing is examined. Since the location is in China, Chinese anthropometric data should be used, focusing on the shorter female arm reach to ensure that controls are accessible to the least privileged users. The specific measurement involved is the forward functional reach from a seated position, a critical factor in ergonomic control placement.

To capture the lower end of the population, the 5th percentile data is used. From the available tables, the mean forward reach x' is 753 mm, with a standard deviation of 35 mm. The calculation with z = -1.64 (for the 5th percentile) results in:

x = 753 + (-1.64 x 35) = 695.6 mm

This measurement ensures controls are reachable by nearly all seated users in this demographic. As no additional safety or accessibility considerations are specified, the controls should be positioned approximately 695.6 mm (about 2.28 feet) from the reference point, optimizing usability for the targeted population.

Case Study 3: Adjustable Podium Range for Female Hostesses in Dallas

The third example involves designing the height adjustment range of a standing podium for female hostesses working in a Dallas restaurant. The focus is on providing flexibility to accommodate most users. Since the operation is limited to females within the U.S., only female anthropometric data is considered, with specific attention to standing elbow height.

The goal is to design for 90% of the population, which involves considering both ends of the distribution—the 5th and 95th percentiles. The mean elbow height x' is 1000 mm, with a standard deviation of 52 mm. Calculating for the 5th percentile (z = -1.64) yields:

x = 1000 + (-1.64 x 52) = 914.72 mm

Similarly, for the 95th percentile (z = 1.64), the measurement is:

x = 1000 + (1.64 x 52) = 1085.28 mm

To ensure comfort and flexibility, an additional 25 mm safety allowance is added to both ends, resulting in adjustable height limits of approximately 939.72 mm to 1109.28 mm. This range allows the podium to be adjusted to suit both shorter and taller users, ensuring usability across the majority of potential users and enhancing ergonomic efficiency in the workplace.

Conclusion

These examples demonstrate vital aspects of anthropometric data application in ergonomic design. Properly identifying the user population, selecting the appropriate measurements, choosing the correct population percentile, and calculating modifications ensure that environments are safe, accessible, and comfortable for nearly all intended users. Incorporating safety margins and adjustable features further enhances usability, accommodating individual variability and promoting inclusive design principles. As demonstrated, these practices are essential for effective ergonomic planning in architecture, product design, and workplace equipment.

References

• Chaffin, D. B., & Andersson, G. (1991). Occupational Biomechanics. New York: Wiley.
• Holden, T. M. (2008). Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Workplace. Applied Ergonomics, 39(6), 697-703.
• Kroemer, K. H. E., & Grandjean, E. (1997). Fitting the Task to the Human: A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics. CRC Press.
• NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. (1978). Anthropometric Source Book. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Pheasant, S. (2016). Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. CRC Press.
• Roberts, S. C., & Callaghan, J. P. (2004). Anthropometric Variability and Engineering Design of Laboratory Benches. Applied Ergonomics, 35(4), 359-370.
• Snook, S. H., & Ciriello, V. M. (1991). Ergonomics of the Job Design. New York: Wiley.
• Yuen, P. (2010). Ergonomics and Human Factors in Design. John Wiley & Sons.
• Zhuang, H., et al. (2014). Application of Anthropometric Data in Designing Workstations for Different Populations. Journal of Occupational Health, 56(3), 145-152.
• Yang, S., & Sze, N. N. (2012). Anthropometric Variability and Design Safety Margins. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(3), 222-229.