Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
OladapoS.O,2AkanbiO.G
------------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACT------------------------------------------------------Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop some models that will make use of easy-to-measure
students body dimensions to predict difficult, time-consuming and energy-sharping anthropometric dimensions
needed for ergonomic school furniture design for junior secondary school one to two
students.Design/methodology/approach A total of 160 students aged 11 to 13 years were randomly selected
from eight public secondary schools in Ogbomoso, South West Nigeria. All the dimensions were analyzed using
Microsoft excel sheet 2010 and Design Expert version 6.0.8.The models with no/non-significant lack of fit and
highest coefficient of determinations were selected as the best models for the required predictions.Findings
The study led to the development of 12 models that utilyzed easy-to-measure dimensions for estimating
necessary anthropometric dimensions for the design of school furniture. The results of the study revealed that
two-third of the anthropometric dimensions exhibited non-linear models.Originality/value The furniture
industry would find in these models economical, adequate and effective prediction tools.
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 23
= +
+
=1
2 + (1)
+
<
=1
Data were modeled by multiple regression analysis and the statistical significance of the terms was
examined by analysis of variance for each response. The statistical analysis of the data and three dimensional
plotting were performed using Design Expert Software (Stat-Ease 2002). The adequacy of regression model was
checked by lack-of t test, R2, AdjR2, Pre R2, Adeq Precision and F-test (Montgomery 2001). The significance
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 24
Min
Max
5th Percentile
50th Percentile
95th
Percentile
ST
147.47
132.80
174.00
135.50
145.90
162.30
WH
87.31
74.10
106.70
75.89
87.35
96.58
SL
67.55
56.40
82.00
60.00
67.00
75.50
LL
42.51
16.50
52.00
37.90
42.50
47.80
SB
25.60
18.10
44.90
20.60
25.60
29.50
KH
48.26
42.40
58.40
43.00
48.20
53.70
EH
16.06
8.20
21.00
12.20
16.20
19.40
39.02
33.00
47.30
35.00
38.80
44.10
SHH
45.16
36.30
54.70
39.20
44.80
52.10
BPL
42.62
31.60
51.00
37.30
43.00
49.00
HW
26.10
21.70
32.00
22.50
26.10
30.70
Table 2The Mean, Minimum, Maximum and 5th, 50th And 95th Percentiles of J.S.S. 1-J.S.S. 2 Female for each
Anthropometric Measurement (cm).
Mean
Min
Max
5th Percentile
50th Percentile
95th Percentile
ST
152.93
134.00
170.80
142.62
153.40
164.05
WH
89.29
51.70
102.00
80.93
90.00
100.00
SL
70.39
58.70
92.80
64.00
70.00
78.26
LL
44.47
37.70
51.20
40.30
44.50
48.50
SB
26.12
20.10
33.90
22.18
26.20
30.17
KH
49.86
43.00
55.50
46.00
49.80
54.03
EH
17.10
12.00
22.00
13.10
17.00
20.11
40.10
34.00
45.10
36.45
40.00
44.25
SHH
47.79
42.00
57.00
42.60
47.50
53.50
BPL
45.98
39.80
51.60
42.07
45.60
50.21
HW
28.46
23.00
34.60
24.61
28.60
31.82
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 25
Source
Model
A
B
A2
B2
AB
Residual
Cor Total
Sum
of
squares
779.66
59.43
9.847*10-5
12.92
6.50
14.26
75.47
855.13
Df
5
1
1
1
1
1
75
80
154.96
59.06
9.785 *10-5
12.84
6.46
14.17
P-value
Prob> F
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.9921
0.0006
0.0131
0.0003
Significant
Values of "Prob> F" less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are significant. In this case A, A2, B2, and
AB are significant model terms. Values greater than 0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant.
The non-appearance of "Lack of Fit F-value" implies that the model perfectly (100%) fit relative to the
pure error.
Table 4: Post ANOVA Statistics for KH
Std. Dev.
1.00
R-Squared
0.9117
Mean
48.42
Adj R-Squared
0.9059
C.V.
2.07
Pred R-Squared
0.8871
PRESS
96.59
Adeq Precision
56.780
From table 4, the "Pred R-Squared" of 0.8871 is in reasonable agreement with the "Adj R-Squared" of 0.9059.
"Adeq Precision" measures the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. The ratio of 56.780
indicates an adequate signal. This model can be used to navigate the design space (Montgomery 2001).
In the same manner, other responses were analyzed and the resulted is presented in table 5.
Table 5: Design Summary for J.S.S.1-J.S.S.2 Male
Study type: response surface
Experiments: 232
Initial design: historical data
Blocks: no blocks
Design model: quadratic
response
name
Units
obs
minimum Maximum
Y1
KH
Cm
81
42.40
58.40
Y2
EH
Cm
81
15.04
18.17
Y3
P
Cm
81
33.00
46.02
Y4
SHH
Cm
81
39.58
53.15
Y5
BPL
Cm
81
37.30
49.82
Y6
HW
Cm
81
22.78
30.65
trans
None
None
None
None
None
None
Model
Quadratic
Quadratic
Linear
Quadratic
Quadratic
Quadratic
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 26
DESIGN-EXPERT Plot
KH
99
95
90
Normal %Probability
80
70
50
30
20
10
5
-2. 14
-0. 88
0. 39
1. 65
2. 91
DESIGN-EXPERT Plot
KH
58. 40
Predicted
54. 36
50. 33
46. 29
42. 25
42. 25
46. 29
50. 33
54. 36
58. 40
Ac t ual
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 27
KH
51.0238
42.2543
82.00
174.00
75.60
163.70
69.20
B: SL
153.40
62.80
56.40
143.10
A: ST
132.80
EH
16.1352
14.5016
82.00
174.00
75.60
163.70
69.20
B: SL
153.40
62.80
56.40
143.10
A: ST
132.80
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 28
37.1243
33.9167
82.00
174.00
75.60
163.70
69.20
B: SL
153.40
62.80
56.40
143.10
A: ST
132.80
SHH
55.102
39.4401
82.00
174.00
75.60
163.70
69.20
B: SL
153.40
62.80
56.40
143.10
A: ST
132.80
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 29
BPL
45.3046
37.6837
82.00
174.00
75.60
163.70
69.20
B: SL
153.40
62.80
143.10
56.40
A: ST
132.80
HW
25.2248
23.0539
82.00
174.00
75.60
163.70
69.20
B: SL
153.40
62.80
56.40
143.10
A: ST
132.80
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 30
Std. Dev.
0.77
0.9048
Mean
49.85
Adj R-Squared
0.9023
C.V.
1.54
Pred R-Squared
0.8964
PRESS
48.48
Adeq Precision
76.689
From table 7, the "Pred R-Squared" of 0.8964 is in reasonable agreement with the "Adj R-Squared" of
0.9023. "Adeq Precision" measures the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. The ratio of
76.689 indicates an adequate signal. This model can be used to navigate the design space (Montgomery 2001).
In the same manner, other responses were analyzed and the resulted is presented in table 9.
3.2.1 Model Equations for J.S.S.1-J.S.S.2 Female
Model equations are given in terms of coded factors and actual factors. Coded factors indicate when the
minimum and maximum values of the factors are represented by -1 and +1 respectively instead of their actual
values.
Response 1: Knee Height
The model in terms of coded factors is given by:
KH = +49.61 +6.02*A -0.59*B .. (14)
The model in terms of actual factors is given by:
KH = +2.10855 +0.32691*ST -0.086038*SB.. (15)
Response 2: Elbow Height
The model in terms of coded factors is given by:
EH = +17.57 +0.48*A +0.98*B -0.21*A2 +0.10*B2 -1.91*A*B (16)
The model in terms of actual factors is given by:
EH = -67.83578 +0.61795*ST +2.54982*SB -6.107*10-4*ST2 -2.14380*10-3*SB2 -0.015036*ST*SB
. (17)
Response 3: Popliteal Height
The model in terms of coded factors is given by:
P = +39.74 +5.28*A -1.58*B .. (18)
The model in terms of actual factors is given by:
P = +2.18285 +0.28695*ST -0.22858*SB (19)
Response 4: Shoulder Height
The model in terms of coded factors is given by:
SHH = +47.18 +6.54*A -2.54*B ... (20)
The model in terms of actual factors is given by:
SHH = +2.93934 +0.35557*ST -0.36839*SB ............. (21)
Response 5: Buttock Popliteal Length
The model in terms of coded factors is given by:
BPL = +45.83 +4.89*A -0.52*B -0.094*A*B . (22)
The model in terms of actual factors is given by:
BPL
=
+4.30094
+0.28584*ST
+0.037282*SB
-7.37656*104*ST*SB (23)
Response 6: Hip Width
The model in terms of coded factors is given by:
HW = +28.51 +2.62*A +2.03*B -1.16*A2 +3.30*B2 -3.01*A*B. (24)
The model in terms of actual factors is given by:
HW = -127.81789 +1.82960*ST +0.15394*SB -3.43837*10-3*ST2 +0.069408*SB2 -0.023671*ST*SB
.. (25)
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 31
DESIGN-EXPERT Plot
EH
99
95
90
Normal %Probability
80
70
50
30
20
10
5
-2. 85
-1. 61
-0. 37
0. 87
2. 11
DESIGN-EXPERT Plot
EH
18.22
Predicted
17.25
16.28
15.31
14.34
14.34
15.31
16.28
17.25
18.22
Ac t ual
KH
46.3019
42.9976
33.90
170.80
30.45
161.60
27.00
B: SB
152.40
23.55
20.10
143.20
A: ST
134.00
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 32
EH
15.3376
13.8913
33.90
170.80
30.45
161.60
27.00
B: SB
152.40
23.55
20.10
143.20
A: ST
134.00
36.3141
32.8855
33.90
170.80
30.45
161.60
27.00
B: SB
152.40
23.55
20.10
143.20
A: ST
134.00
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 33
SHH
42.6389
38.0967
33.90
170.80
30.45
161.60
27.00
B: SB
152.40
23.55
20.10
143.20
A: ST
134.00
BPL
43.2228
40.5171
33.90
170.80
30.45
161.60
27.00
B: SB
152.40
23.55
20.10
143.20
A: ST
134.00
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 34
HW
25.6671
22.8081
33.90
170.80
30.45
161.60
27.00
B: SB
152.40
23.55
20.10
143.20
A: ST
134.00
trans
None
None
None
None
None
None
Model
Linear
Quadratic
Linear
Linear
2FI
Quadratic
It is worthy of note that two independent variables sufficiently predicted the entire six responses in this
category of students (J.S.S.1-J.S.S.2 male and female). This may not be unconnected with the fact that students
in lower classes had small physique unlike their counterparts in middle and upper classes with well-built
physique.
Table 9: Summary of Co-efficient of Determination (R2) and Co-efficient of Variation (C.V.) of all the
Responses for J.S.S.1-J.S.S.2 Male/ J.S.S.1-J.S.S.2 Female.
Response
R-Square
Adj. R-Square
Pred. R-Square
C.V (%)
Male/Female
Male/Female
Male/Female
Male/Female
KH
0.9117/0.9048
0.9059/0.9023
0.8871/0.8964
2.07/1.54
EH
0.9939/0.9789
0.9935/0.9774
0.9925/0.9719
0.34/0.54
P
0.8843/0.9077
0.8813/0.9053
0.8758/0.9024
2.40/1.57
SHH
0.9979/0.9983
0.9977/0.9982
0.9969/0.9981
0.32/0.21
BPL
0.9531/0.9986
0.9499/0.9986
0.9364/0.9984
1.40/0.16
HW
0.9932/0.9952
0.9928/0.9949
0.9874/0.9930
0.51/0.41
IV.
DISCUSSIONS
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 35
Table 10: Performance Comparism of the Developed Models with those of Previous Researches.
Anthropometric dimensions
KH
EH
P
SHH
BPL
HW
R2 obtained by Ismaila et
al., (2014).
0.725
0.706
0.844
0.414
0.416
0.199
According to Ismaila et al., (2014), it can be very expensive in developing countries to obtain anthropometric data
when needed, and as such, measuring one anthropometric value to determine others would be helpful and affordable.
Although economic reason is important but, at the same time, adequacy and effectiveness of the predictive models cannot be
compromised. The current study took these three factors (economic reason, adequacy and effectiveness) into consideration.
Using two anthropometric dimensions to predict six needed for the design of school furniture, as the case is for students in
J.S.S.1-J.S.S.2, is justifiable in view of the high predictive ability of the models.
V.
CONCLUSION
Ergonomic design of products and workplaces demands up-to-date anthropometric data which are not readily
available. In fact most practitioners do not know how the data for easily measured body dimensions can be used to estimate
body dimensions that are more difficult to measure. The present study, therefore, proposed 12 models that can be used to
estimate various anthropometric dimensions necessary for the design of furniture for use ofJ.S.S.1-J.S.S.2 students in
Ogbomoso, South Western Nigeria. The furniture industry would find in these models economical, adequate and effective
prediction tools.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
Adewole, N.A., Olorunnisola, A.O., (2010), Characteristics of classroom chairs and desks in use in senior secondary schools in
Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria, Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS), Vol. 1 No. 2, pp 140-144.
Agha, S.R., Alnahhal, M.J., (2012), Neural Network and multiple linear regressions to predict school children dimensions for
Ergonomic school furniture design, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 43, pp 979-984.
Garcia Acosta, G., Lange-Morales, K., (2007), Definition of sizes for the design of school furniture for Bogota schools based on
anthropometric criteria, Ergonomics, Vol. 50 No. l0, pp 16261642.
Ismaila, S.O., Akanbi, O.G., Ngassa, C.N. (2014), "Models for estimating the anthropometric dimensions using standing height for
furniture design", Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 336-347.
Jeong, B.Y., Park,K.S. (1990), Sex difference in Anthropometry for school furniture design, Ergonomics, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp 15111521.
Liyana-Pathirana, C., Shahidi, F. (2005), Optimization of extraction of phenolic compounds from wheat using response surface
methodology, Food Chem., Vol.93, pp 47-56.
Molenbroek, J., Ramaekers, Y. (1996), Anthropometric design of a size system for school furniture, In: Robertson, S.A. (Ed.) 1996
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society: Contemporary Ergonomics, 1996, Taylor and Francis, London, pp.
130135.
Niekerk, S., Louw, Q.A., Grimmer-Somers,K., Harvey, J. (2013), The anthropometric match between high school learners of the caps
metropolitan area, Western cape, South Africa and their computer Workstation at school, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp
366-371.
Oyewole, S.A., Haight, J.M., Freivalds, A., (2010), The ergonomic design of classroom furniture/computer work station for first
graders in the elementary school, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp 437 447.
Parcells, C., Manfred,S., Hubbard, R.(1999), Mismatch of classroom furniture and body dimensions, Empirical findings and health
implications, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp 265-273.
Reis, P., Moro, A.R., Da, S.J., Paschoarelli, L. Nunes, S.F., Peres, L. (2012), Anthropometric aspects of body seated in school.
Work, Vol. 41, pp 907-914. DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0262-907.
Straker, L., Maslen, B., Burgress-Limerick, R., Johnson, P., Dennerlein, J. (2010), Evidence-based guideline for wise use of
computers by children: physical development guidelines, Ergonomics, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp458-477.
Yeats, B. (1997), Factors that may inuence the postural health of schoolchildren (K-12), Work: A Journal of Prevention,
Assessment and Rehabilitation, Vol. 9, pp 4555.
You, H., Ryu, T. (2005), Development of a hierarchical estimation method for anthropometric variables, International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp 331-343.
www.theijes.com
The IJES
Page 36