1. Anthropometrics II
Rad Zdero, Ph.D.
University of Guelph

2. Outline Anthropometric Data Tables Example Ergonomic Design Principles
Using and Generating
Anthropometric Data
Ergonomic Design Principles
Ergonomic Design Approach

3. Anthropometric Data Tables

4. Features. Structural Dimensions for U.S. Adults (1989).
Figure 1. Static Body
Features. Structural Dimensions for U.S.
Adults (1989).
(see also Figure 2 and
Tables 1 to 4 for Values)
[source: Kroemer, 1989]

5. Figure 2. Percentile of Population Group
Normal or Gaussian
Data Distribution
No. of
Subjects
5th percentile =
5 % of subjects
have “dimension”
below this value
50 %
95 %
Dimension
(e.g. height,
weight, etc.)

6. Table 1 - U.S. Adult Civilians (1989)
Segment
Gender
5 th Percentile
50 th Percentile
95 th Percentile
1. Stature M F
161.8 cm
149.5
173.6 cm
160.5
184.4 cm
171.3
2. Eye Height
151.1
138.3
162.4
148.9
172.7
159.3
3. Shoulder Height
132.3
121.1
142.8
131.1
152.4
141.9
4. Elbow Height
100.0
93.6
109.9
101.2
119.0
108.8
5. Knuckle Height
69.8
64.3
75.4
70.2
80.4
75.9
See “Static Body Features” Figure 1 for exact dimension

7. Table 2 - U.S. Adult Civilians (1989)
Segment
Gender
5 th Percentile
50 th Percentile
95 th Percentile
6. Height (sit) M F
84.2 cm
78.6
90.6 cm
85.0
96.7 cm
90.7
7. Eye Height (sit)
72.6
67.5
73.3
84.4
78.5
8. Elbow Height (sit)
19.0
18.1
24.3
23.3
29.4
28.1
9. Thigh Clearance (sit)
11.4
10.6
14.4
13.7
17.7
17.5
10. Knee Height (sit)
49.3
45.2
54.3
49.8
59.3
54.5
See “Static Body Features” Figure 1 for exact dimension

8. Table 3 - U.S. Adult Civilians (1989)
Segment
Gender
5 th Percentile
50 th Percentile
95 th Percentile
11. Buttock-to-Knee (sit) M F
54.0 cm
51.8
59.4 cm
56.9
64.2 cm
62.5
12. Thigh-to-Heel Height (sit)
39.2
35.5
44.2
39.8
48.8
44.3
13. Chest Depth (stand)
21.4
24.2
27.6
29.7
14. Elbow-to-Elbow (sit)
35.0
31.5
41.7
38.4
50.6
49.1
15. Hip Width (sit)
30.8
31.2
35.4
36.4
40.6
43.7
See “Static Body Features” Figure 1 for measured dimension

9. Table 4 - U.S. Adult Civilians (1989)
Segment
Gender
5 th Percentile
50 th Percentile
95 th Percentile
Weight (kg) M F
56.2 kg
46.2
74.0 kg
61.1
97.1 kg
89.9
See “Static Body Features” Figure 1 for measured dimension
Note for Tables 1-4: Due to anatomical reasons, Male data is
larger than Female data at all %iles, with the exception of
#13 (Chest Depth) and #15 (Hip Width), which shows a
reversal of this trend.

10. Body Segment Lengths [all values are in centimetres] Limb White Male
White Female
(Percentile)
5 th
50 th
95 th
Upper Arm
28.6
30.4
32.3
26.1
27.8
29.5
Forearm
25.9
27.5
29.2
22.7
24.1
25.5
Thigh
40.4
43.2
46.1
36.9
39.5
42.1
Shank
38.9
45.3
34.7
37.4
40.0 L
Joint or Hinge
Segment

11. Body Segment Density Body Segment Year = 1860 Year = 1955
Head and Neck
1.11 g/cm3
Trunk --
1.03
Upper Arm
1.08
1.07
Forearm
1.10
1.13
Hand
1.11
1.16
Thigh
1.05
Lower Leg
1.09
Foot
Density = Mass / Volume
Human Segment Density ~ 1 g/cm3

12. Main Segment as % of Total Body Weight
Body Segment Weights
Main Segment as % of Total Body Weight
Individual Segment as
% of Main Segment
Head and Neck = 8.4 %
Head = 73.8 %
Neck = 26.2 %
Torso = 50 %
Thorax (chest) = 43.8 %
Lumbar = 29.4 %
Pelvis = 26.8 %
One Total Arm = 5.1 %
Upper Arm = 54.9 %
Forearm = 33.3 %
Hand = 11.8 %
One Total Leg = 15.7 %
Thigh = 63.7 %
Shank = 27.4 %
Foot = 8.9 %

13. Centre of Gravity Relative location of C-of-G’s on body segments.
See the C-of-G
%-iles in the next
table [Dempster, 1955]

14. Centre of Gravity

15. Center of Gravity/Segment Length = L1/L2 (%)
Year = 1889
1955
1969
Total Body --
41.2 %
Head
43.3 %
46.6
Arm
47 %
43.6
51.3
Forearm
42.1 43 39
Hand
49.4
Total Arm
41.3
Forearm & Hand
47.2
Thigh 44
43.3
Calf (= Shank) 42
37.1
Foot
44.4
42.9
44.9
Total Leg
Calf & Foot
52.4
43.7
47.5
C-of-G will
normally be closer
to the “thicker”
proximal end
of the segment. L1 L2
Distal End
Proximal End

16. Center of Gravity/Segment Length = L1/L2 (%)
C-of-G / Segment
Length
0.50
0.506
0.430
0.436
0.433
0.500
C-of-G will
normally be closer
to the “thicker”
proximal end
of the segment. L1 L2
Distal End
Proximal End
Head & Neck
Hand
Forearm
Upper Arm
Thigh
Leg
Foot
Trunk
[modified from Winter, 1992]

17. Radius of Gyration/Segment Length = K/L (%) (Cadaver Experiments)
Body Segment
From Proximal End
From Distal End
Head, Neck, Trunk
49.7 %
67.5 %
Full Arm
54.2
64.5
Forearm
52.6
Hand
58.7
57.7
Forearm and Hand
82.7
56.5
Thigh 54
65.3
Shank
52.8
64.3
Foot 69
Shank and Foot
73.5
57.2 K L
Distal End
Proximal End

18. Example – Anthropometric Forearm Data
Purpose
Become accustomed to Generating and Using Anthropometric Data tables and formulas.
Steps (Use ruler or tape measure for length measurement)
Measure length, L, of forearm (elbow to wrist) and diameter, d, about half way along length
Calculate approx. forearm volume, V = (d/2)2L
Calculate forearm mass, m, in two ways … (do they match?)
using m = D x V and density from Density Table
using “Body Segment Weights” table
Calculate forearm C-of-G using C-of-G/Length ratio table
Calculate forearm radius of gyration, K, using forearm length, L, and “Radius of Gyration” table

19. Forearm Data Table Dimension Symbol Value (female) (male) Length L
Closest %ile for Length %
Diameter d
Volume V
Mass (from density formula, D = m/V) m
Mass (from “Body Segment Weight” table)
C-of-G (from elbow)
C-of-G
Radius of Gyration
(from elbow) K

20. Ergonomic Design Principles
Designing for the Average
There is no “average” person
Very difficult to find person who is average in more than a few dimensions (e.g. avg. height may not necessarily mean avg. leg length and arm length)
Designing for the average can be an over-simplification
Only to be done after careful evaluation (e.g. very specific subgroup)
e.g. Clothing Study (n = 4096 people)
Center 30% was taken as Avg. Percentile, BUT…
Only 26% were of Avg. Height
Only 7.4% had Avg. Chest Circumference
Only 3.5% had Avg. Sleeve Length
Only 0.07% had Avg. Waist Circumference
And 0% had Avg. Foot Length

21. Designing for the Extremes
Principle
Try to accommodate entire population group
Maximum Levels
e.g. doorways, size of escape hatches on military aircraft, strength of ladders and workbenches
Minimum Levels
e.g. distance of control button from operator, force required to operate control lever or button
Practical Design Range
use 5th and 95th percentiles of pop. group as extremes
use smallest female and largest male
Questions
Effects on those excluded?
Can we restrict users to a certain pop. group?

22. Designing for Adjustment
Principle
Try to allow for adjustments in size, shape, position, intensity, and duration of the product, device, procedure, or system to accommodate unexpected circumstances
Practical Design Range
Common to use 5th %ile female and 95th %ile male
Results in accommodation of 95% (not 90%) of 50/50 male/female pop. group because of overlap in male and female body dimensions
Examples
Car seats, desk height, footrests, office furniture
Questions
Use: one shot vs. continual?
Use: one user or shared?
Ease of and Training for using “adjustments”?
What happens if design range misused?

23. Ergonomic Design Approach
Determine important body dimensions
Define population group (men, kids, Swedes?)
Decide on which design principles will be used (design for extremes, average, adjustment?)
Select which sub-group of pop. group will be designed for (5th, 50th, 73rd, %ile?)
Extract values from Anthropometric Tables
Add dimensional allowances for any clothing, equipment, safety precautions, and task performance.
Build “prototype” or “mock up” of product, device, procedure, or facility.
Test prototype with human subjects.

24. Sources Used Chaffin et al., Occupational Biomechanics, 1999.
Dempster, Space Requirements of the Seated Operator, 1955.
Hay and Reid, 1988.
Kreighbaum & Barthels, Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement, 1996.
Kroemer, “Engineering Anthropometry”, Ergonomics, 32(7): , 1989
Sanders and McCormick, Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 1993.
Moore and Andrews, Ergonomics for Mechanical Design, MECH 495 Course Notes, Queens Univ., Kingston, Canada, 1997.
Oskaya & Nordin, Fundamentals of Biomechanics, 1991.
Winter, Biomechanics of Human Movement, 1992.