Anthropometric Measurements

Introduction
 With the increased objective of creating more
efficient man-machine systems, the need to
collect extensive anthropometric data
becomes more important.
 Consequences of designing systems that do
not accommodate for user populations
include user fatigue, task inefficiency and are
generally 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 Apparatus
 164 males  Harpenden

 Mean age 29.2 anthropometer

 Age range 17 – 58

 Wore normal work

clothes except for

jackets and shoes
Dimensions Measured
(Gallwey and Fitzgibbon)
 Data for 11 dimensions relevant to
workplace design were collected:
Dimensions Measured
1. Body mass: subject stood
erect on a medical scale
reading to 0.1kg.
2. Stature: subject stood
erect heels together,
looked straight ahead,
arms hung loose at the
sides.
3. Popliteal height: subject
sat erect on the bench,
feet height was adjusted to
bring thighs horizontal and
parallel, lower legs vertical
– vertical height from foot
surface to top surface of
bench.
4. Knee height: subject same
as (3) – vertical height
from foot surface to
superior aspect of right
patella.
5. Thigh clearance height:
subject same as (3) –
vertical height from top
surface of bench to the
junction of thigh and
abdomen.
6. Buttock-knee length:
subject same as (3) –
horizontal distance from
block held against
rearmost part of buttocks
to edge of right patella.
Dimensions Measured
7. Buttock-Popliteal length:
as for (6) – horizontal
length to front edge of
bench.
8. Buttock breadth – seated:
as for (3) – horizontal
width across the greatest
lateral protrusion on each
side of the buttocks.
9. Sitting height – normal:
subject sat normally
relaxed on the bench
hands in lap, looking
straight ahead – vertical
height 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 a
gentle push in the sacral
area of the back – vertical
height as in 10.
11. Elbow – elbow breadth:
subject sat erect, upper
arms hanging at sides,
lower arms extended
horizontally, palms facing
each other, elbows held as
tightly as possible to the
sides – maximum
horizontal distance across
lateral surface of the
elbows.
 Results (Gallwey and Fitzgibbon)
No. Dimension Min Max Mean SD Cov (%) Mean (U.S. data) sigdiff
1 Mass (kg) 47.2 95.8 73.9 8.7 11.7 76.2 0.025
2 Stature 1562 1896 1730.8 58 3.4 1732 NS
3 Popliteal height 347 512 397 34 8.6 439.5 0.0005
4 Knee height 426 578 508.4 28 5.4 541 0.0005
5 Thighclearance height 117 192 152.7 16 10.3 144.8 0.0005
6 Buttock-knee length 473 675 600.1 28 4.7 591.8 0.0005
7 Buttock-popliteal length 415 543 486.1 24 4.8 492.8 0.01
8 Buttock breadth - seated 295 409 355.3 25 7.1 355.6 NS
9 Sitting height - normal 301 564 454.3 53 11.7 421.6 0.0005
10 Sittingheight - erect 782 944 872.9 33 3.7 879.7 0.025
11 Elbow- elbowbreadth 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 significant
differences 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 from
the 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 Apparatus
 408 males  University designed

 Mean age 27 anthropometric

 Age range 22 - 59
device consisting of
sliding vertical and
 Subject dressed in
horizontal
light fabric clothing dimensional scales.
and did not wear
 Sliding bench.
shoes
Population Studied (Al-Haboubi1990)
 When designing for a Sample of Eastern nationalities used in study.
Nationality Number of Subjects
certain population, age, Afghan 5
sex, or race should not be Bahraini
Bangladeshi
21
7
used as the base for the Indian 30
user population (al-Haboubi Indonesian 4

1990).
Iranian 8
Iraqi 11
 The collective mixture of Jordanian
Kuwati
21
20
people who may have Lebanese 11
different sex, age, race or Omani
Pakistani
12
26
occupation should be Palestinian 21
identified as the user Qatari 9

population and
Saudi 124
Srilankan 8
anthropometric designs Syrian 26
should be based on their Turkish
United Arab Emirates
8
16
characteristics as one Yemeni 20
group. Sample Size 408
 Dimensions Measured
 Data for 19 body dimensions relevant to the design of chairs
were measured:
Statistics of anthropometric measurement of Easterners
Percentile
Variables Mean Sd 5th 50th 95th
Weight 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 1130
Knee 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 13 210 230 250
Foot breadth 100 8 90 100 110
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 by
counting.
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 developing
countries import systems such as elevators
from other countries.
Comparing the articles
 Measurements were taken with different postures.
Al-Haboubi focused on chair design postures, Gallwey
and Fitzgibbon focused on worker postures.
 Gallwey and Fitzgibbon focused their study on a local
homogeneous 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 another
assumption: population being studied is
homogeneous.
Limitations (Al-Haboubi)
 Did not state how body dimensions
were measured.
 No comparison made to homogeneous
local 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-homogenous
populations.
 Collect anthropometric data for different age
groups to see whether there is a significant
difference.
 Possibly find reach envelopes for populations
for use in systems design.
 Include females in study.
Questions