Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Filling ‘gaps’ in strength data for design

Laura Peebles*, Beverley Norris
The Product Safety and Testing Group, School of Mechanical, Materials, Manufacturing Engineering and Management, University of Nottingham,
University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
Received in revised form 5 July 2002; accepted 13 July 2002

Abstract

Data on the physical strength capabilities of users are fundamental to the safe and usable design of products. It is recognised,
however, that there are many ‘gaps’ in the ergonomics data available to designers. Whilst considerable research on human
capabilities and limitations has already been carried out, few data exist which are directly applicable in the design process. This
paper describes a two-stage research project which was undertaken to try to address some of these data ‘gaps’. Potential needs for
design-relevant data were identified in Stage 1 of the research and in Stage 2 new data were collected to meet some of those needs.
Data were collected on children through to the older adult on a series of six strength measurements, all of which were intended to be
directly applicable to design: (1) finger push strength, (2) pinch-pull strength, (3) hand grip strength, (4) wrist-twisting strength, (5)
opening strength, and (6) push and pull strength. The methodology, findings and data from this research are presented and
discussed.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ergonomics; Strength; Design

1. Introduction ‘gaps’ in the strength data available for direct use in

Ergonomics data are fundamental to the design of
safe and usable products (Norris and Wilson, 1997), and
the benefits of using these data in the early stages of the
design process are widely recognised. It was in response
to this need for ergonomics data that the University of
Nottingham, in association with the Consumer Affairs
Directorate of the UK Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI), recently produced a series of publica-
tions that bring together all available design-related data
into a compendium of easy-to-use design resources. The
three publications on children, adults and older adults
(‘Childata’, ‘Adultdata’ and ‘Older Adultdata’) (Norris
and Wilson, 1995; Peebles and Norris, 1998; Smith et al.,
2000) contain the most up-to-date anthropometric and
physical strength data for countries around the world.1
However, their production has confirmed important
*Corresponding author. Present address: System Concepts, 2 Savoy
Court, London WC2R 0EZ, UK. Tel.: +44-0-2072403388; fax: +44-
0-2072405212.
E-mail address: laura@system-concepts.com (L. Peebles).
1
Copies of Childata, Adultdata and Older Adultdata are available
free of charge from DTI Consumer Affairs Directorate or the authors.
product design.
Whilst much research on force exertion is carried out,
its usefulness (in terms of product design) is often
limited (Wilson and Norris, 1993). This is because
situations in which force exertions are investigated
seldom correspond with situations in which the product
is realistically used. For instance, in many studies on the
exertion of force, subjects are often instructed to adopt a
standardised posture, in that the individual has to sit or
stand with the elbows flexed to 901: Whilst this allows
comparison of studies and manipulation of independent
variables, it makes data difficult to relate to real-life
design applications as the data are not a true representa-
tion of the strength that can be exerted when no
restrictions are placed on posture (Daams, 1994). Also,
data are often incomplete, in that the measurements are
collected in limited conditions with only a few experi-
mental variables, or are collected on one particular
group of the population only. Furthermore, research is
often specific and is directed toward investigating one
particular product or select group of products only,
limiting the usefulness of the data in terms of its
applicability to other product areas.

0003-6870/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 3 - X
74 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88
It is difficult to design research to generate data that
are useful for design purposes—general, yet realistic
data that can be directly applied in the design of a wide
range of products. This paper describes research to try
to address some of these design-applicable data ‘gaps’.
Potential needs for applicable data (in terms of product
design) were identified and prioritised, and new data
were collected to meet some of those needs. The
methodology and findings from this research, as well
as detailed descriptions and results of the data collected,
are presented and discussed.
2. Stage 1—Identification and prioritisation of data needs
To ensure that data needs were prioritised and based
on the real needs of data users as opposed to academic
needs, consultation was sought and a postal survey of
users of ergonomics data was carried out. Around 850
designers, manufacturers, ergonomists, consumer safety
groups and product-testing laboratories were contacted
by questionnaire. Respondents were asked to detail the
type of data or information that they have needed for
their own design purposes but have found difficult to
source. In total, over 80 responses were received. While
a response rate of 10% is low, this was not unexpected
given the fact that the survey was an unsolicited postal
questionnaire to a diverse range of recipients. Also, a
large population of the sample may not have found the
questionnaire applicable, as they may not have been
users of ergonomics data. However, the low response
rate could also be taken to indicate that some of the
sample felt that ergonomics data, particularly its
availability or paucity, had little relevance to their
product range or professional remit.
Responses were diverse in nature, with data needs
ranging from very specific data for one particular group
of the population (including detailed head and face
anthropometry for young children, and hand grip
strength of wheelchair bound adults), to general data
for an entire population (including upper body strength,
and the lifting capabilities of adults). By far the majority
of responses, however, requested a need for physical
strength data for all age groups: that is, data which
could be directly applied in the design process. In
addition, most responses highlighted a need for general,
rather than product-specific data, so that the data could
be used in as many design applications as possible.
Based on the findings of this survey, a series of six
realistic yet general strength measurements were identi-
fied as summarising the most important data needs:
* finger push strength;
* pinch-pull strength;
* hand grip strength;
* wrist-twisting strength;
* opening strength;
* push and pull strength.
3. Stage 2—Data collection: methodology
Within these broad categories of data, further
specification had to be made. An exercise was therefore
conducted to identify the most useful, design-applicable
data still to be collected. An analysis of a variety of
consumer products and the way in which they are used
and operated was carried out. This involved looking at
the size and shape of various products, as well as their
handles and controls, and investigating the types of
forces involved when interacting with these items. From
this, it was possible to detail the most common product
interactions for each of the six ‘gaps’, and this formed
the basis of the data-collection programme.
3.1. Subjects
One criticism of the existing data is that they are
rarely measured across all age groups. Historically,
older adults and children have been ignored in data
collection, perhaps because research programmes have
focused on workplace design. Contrastingly, the pro-
duction of ‘Childata’ highlighted that data produced on
children are often focused on consumer hazards or
products, yet this data is often not available on adults.
Data on older adults have always been traditionally
scarce. Therefore, in order to provide designers with a
comparable set of design-applicable data for all age
groups, children, adults and older adults were measured
in the study. Around 150 subjects aged from 2 to 86
years were measured for each of the six strength
exertions. All subjects were free from any physical
disability and were not selected to be representative of
socio-economic criteria. The restriction of the sample to
able-bodied subjects was a factor of the nature of
research funding. However, when producing data for
use in the design for a consumer population then, the
principles of inclusive design should dictate that,
wherever possible, people with disabilities are included
in such data collection. Subjects aged between 2 and 15
years were grouped into 5-year age bands, and adults
aged 16 years and over were grouped into 10-year age
bands. There were around 15 subjects in each age band,
although this varied slightly between each measurement.
Subject numbers are detailed separately for each
strength measurement in Section 3.5.
3.2. Strength measurements
Data were collected for a series of six different
strength measurements in the following range of
conditions:
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 75

3.2.1. Finger push strength

The subject stood in front of the measuring device and
adopted a free posture. A static pushing force was
exerted with the pad of the index finger or thumb of the
dominant hand on a circular force plate (diameter
20 mm; depth 2 mmÞ; positioned at elbow height, as
shown in Fig. 1. Subjects pushed in a forwards and
downwards direction.

3.2.2. Pinch-pull strength

The subject stood in front of the measuring device and
adopted a free posture. A static pulling force was
exerted with 1 hand (dominant) whilst pinching on a
series of handles with the pad of the thumb in
opposition to (i) the pad of the index finger (pulp pinch)
Fig. 3. 20 mm block.
and (ii) the pads of both the index and middle fingers
(chuck pinch). Subjects pinched on a series of three
custom-made handles: a textured fabric strip (length
40 mm  breadth 40 mm  depth 2 mmÞ; as shown in
Fig. 2, and two fabric-covered blocks (length 40 mm 

Fig. 4. 40 mm block.

breadth 40 mm  depths 20 mm and 40 mmÞ; as shown

Fig. 1. Circular force plate (pushing forwards). in Figs. 3 and 4. All handles were positioned at elbow
height.

3.2.3. Hand grip strength

The subject stood and adopted a free posture. A static
gripping force was exerted with 1 (dominant) and 2
hands on a series of handles, as shown in Fig. 5. The
handle was held between the middle joints of the thumb
and all four fingers. Maximum strength was measured
using a hand grip dynamometer with handle separations
of 30, 50 and 70 mm (handle length 100 mmÞ: Handles
were freely moveable.

3.2.4. Wrist-twisting strength

The subject stood in front of the measuring device
and adopted a free posture. A static twisting force
was exerted with 1 (dominant) hand in a clock-wise
direction on a variety of knobs and handles, as shown in
Fig. 2. 2 mm strip. Figs. 6–11: (i) door lever (diameter 15 mm; length
76 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88
Fig. 5. 70, 50 and 30 mm handles.
Fig. 6. Door lever.
Fig. 7. Door knob.
170 mmÞ; (ii) door knob (diameter 65 mm; depth
45 mmÞ; (iii) circular knob (diameter 40 mm; depth
20 mmÞ; (iv) ridged knob (length 40 mm; depth 15 mmÞ;
(v) butterfly nut (length 40 mm; depth 10 mmÞ; and
Fig. 8. Circular knob.
Fig. 9. Ridged knob.
Fig. 10. Butterfly nut.
(vi) tap (diameter 50 mm; depth 40 mmÞ: All handles
were positioned at elbow height and orientated vertically
(vertical wrist-twisting strength—as shown in Figs. 6–
11). The ridged knob, butterfly nut and tap were also
orientated horizontally (horizontal wrist-twisting
strength).
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 77

Fig. 11. Tap.

Fig. 14. 85 mm jar.

Fig. 12. 45 mm jar.

Fig. 15. Cylindrical bar (positioned vertically).

custom-made aluminium jars (height 125 mmÞ with

smooth and knurled lids (diameters 45, 65 and
85 mmÞ; as shown in Figs. 12–14. The replica jar was
held with one (preferred) hand and a static twisting force
was exerted with the other hand on the lid of the jar.

3.2.6. Push and pull strength

The subject stood in front of the measuring device and
adopted a free posture. A static pushing or pulling force
was exerted on a cylindrical bar (diameter 20 mm;
length 300 mmÞ; as shown in Fig. 15, using 1 (dominant)
and 2 hands. The bar was orientated vertically and
horizontally. A static pulling force was also exerted on a
convex knob (diameter 40 mm) using 1 hand only
Fig. 13. 65 mm jar.
(Fig. 16). Both handles were positioned at elbow height.

3.3. Experimental protocol

3.2.5. Opening strength
The subject stood and adopted a free posture. Subjects were asked to exert their maximum strength
Opening strength was measured on a series of three at all times, described as the highest force he or she
78 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88
Fig. 16. Convex knob.
could exert without causing injury. Subjects were
instructed to build up to their maximum strength in
the first few seconds, and to maintain maximum
strength for a further few seconds, in line with the
methods of Caldwell et al. (1974) and Kroemer (1970).
The peak strength measured during the exertion (lasting
around 5 sÞ was deemed to be the maximum strength.
Where only one handed strength was measured, subjects
were instructed to use their dominant hand. Subjects
performed two strength exertions (lasting around 5 sÞ
for each experimental condition (with the highest of the
two values being used for analysis), and were given a 2-
min rest interval between each exertion, again in
accordance with Caldwell et al. In all trials, subjects
stood during testing and were free to adopt their own
posture (as well as use their body weight) in order to
replicate realistic scenarios. The testing device was
adjusted and positioned at each subject’s elbow height
(with the exception of opening strength and hand grip
strength where the equipment was freely moveable).
Subjects were encouraged to exert maximal effort during
testing, and were able to obtain visual feedback from the
testing device.
3.4. Equipment
Finger push strength, pinch-pull strength and wrist-
twisting strength were measured on a series of specially
made handles, which were attached to a MecmesinTM
Advanced Force Gauge (AFG 500N). Hand grip
strength was measured using a hand grip dynamometer
(MKIIIa), made by the Medical Physics Department,
Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK, and based on
a bridge of strain gauges. Both of these pieces of
equipment were calibrated by the manufacturers and
output was measured to an accuracy of 0:1 N: Opening
strength and push and pull strength were measured with
custom-made equipment, which used bridge strain
gauges. The output was measured in volts and the
equipment was calibrated in increments of 1 kg weights.
A linear regression was then used to convert the output
to Newtons (to an accuracy of 0.01).
3.5. Results
The data collected for all six measurements are
presented in Tables 1–13. Differences in strength due
to age and sex, as well as the relationship between the six
measurements, and the distribution and variability of
data, were analysed and these findings are presented in
Section 3.5.7.
3.5.1. Finger push strength
Maximum static forwards and downwards pushing
forces of the index finger and thumb, exerted for 5 s; in
Newtons (N) are given in Tables 1 and 2.
3.5.2. Pinch-pull strength
Maximum static pulling strengths when pinching and
pulling with the thumb, index and middle fingers,
exerted for 5 s; in Newtons (N) are given in Tables 3
and 4.
3.5.3. Hand grip strength
Maximum static gripping forces of one and two
hands, exerted for 5 s; in Newtons (N) are as shown in
Tables 5 and 6.
3.5.4. Wrist-twisting strength
Maximum static torques of one (dominant) hand,
exerted on knobs and handles in a horizontal and
vertical orientation for 5 s; in Newton-metres ðN mÞ are
given in Tables 7 and 8.
3.5.5. Opening strength
Maximum static torques of the preferred hand,
exerted on jar lids for 5 s; in Newton-metres ðN mÞ are
given in Tables 9 and 10.
3.5.6. Push and pull strength
Maximum static pushing and pulling forces using one
and two hands on a cylindrical bar and a convex knob
one handed pull only), exerted for 5 s; in Newtons (N)
are given in Tables 11–13.
3.5.7. Analysis
Gender differences: For most measurements, no
significant differences in maximum strength were found
between male and female children (2–15 years). How-
ever, in adults aged 16 years and over, males were
generally found to be significantly stronger then females
ðpo0:05Þ:
Age differences: For all six measurements, strength
was found to increase with age throughout childhood, to
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 79

Table 1
Pushing with the index finger

Age (years) Sex No. Pushing forwards (N) Pushing downwards (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 9 20.3 5.2 16.0–35.0 21.8 7.0 14.7–35.0

F 8 24.9 9.6 15.9–38.6 24.5 8.1 12.4–35.1
6–10 M 5 51.5 13.4 30.8–61.8 43.3 16.6 15.3–57.1
F 10 44.0 17.3 23.4–70.3 42.0 17.2 22.8–76.8
11–15 M 12 64.3 17.8 35.9–92.1 66.7 22.6 35.9–102.7
F 5 64.6 18.4 33.2–80.0 63.0 19.4 31.0–78.4
16–20 M 6 121.4 36.8 82.2–163.3 113.9 38.5 60.9–162.6
F 8 84.7 23.2 61.9–122.6 76.1 22.2 53.6–115.9
21–30 M 10 118.7 28.6 76.0–155.6 111.3 26.6 71.7–142.5
F 7 78.9 15.4 55.9–98.4 76.5 15.6 61.9–106.6
31–50 M 7 122.2 27.5 85.6–174.2 127.6 28.7 98.2–176.8
F 16 87.1 13.6 66.4–111.8 86.0 18.6 62.9–119.0
51–60 M 5 104.1 32.5 55.4–137.5 105.3 23.7 71.2–124.8
F 6 67.6 10.0 53.8–79.0 74.3 9.3 58.0–84.7
61–70 M 3 101.0 24.6 73.5–121.0 122.1 48.6 93.0–178.2
F 8 65.8 4.4 59.0–73.2 65.4 8.17 55.0–75.1
71–80 M 8 83.5 15.6 58.6–103.3 90.0 17.6 64.7–118.2
F 11 58.3 14.1 41.1–84.6 62.0 12.4 37.5–79.2
81–90 F 4 60.9 11.1 44.4–68.1 54.2 7.0 44.4–60.7

Table 2
Pushing with the thumb

Age (years) Sex No. Pushing forwards (N) Pushing downwards (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 9 28.1 10.0 17.3–41.6 26.9 18.8 23.5–53.8

F 8 30.9 8.7 16.8–42.8 34.4 14.6 13.6–53.9
6–10 M 5 88.8 28.6 53.4–126.6 85.1 34.1 51.4–132.1
F 10 70.2 24.6 36.7–107.7 71.1 33.6 27.8–119.5
11–15 M 12 135.2 71.3 54.4–315.4 115.1 40.0 67.9–209.1
F 5 97.0 26.9 51.3–119.7 94.3 36.2 39.1–139.6
16–20 M 6 189.2 49.0 119.7–253.0 195.8 51.5 113.9–247.5
F 8 142.8 45.7 100.0–234.6 125.5 24.3 86.2–161.4
21–30 M 10 177.0 51.4 114.9–290.6 184.1 52.2 109.3–290.1
F 7 116.1 28.2 70.5–147.9 135.2 30.4 84.7–180.7
31–50 M 7 188.4 30.8 147.1–224.4 201.4 23.5 173.7–242.2
F 16 133.5 33.4 79.4–220.4 133.4 29.4 86.9–187.2
51–60 M 5 171.9 51.4 91.2–228.6 168.3 61.3 76.3–248.7
F 6 106.0 35.4 59.6–155.0 124.5 26.4 85.6–142.8
61–70 M 3 159.3 82.5 68.8–230.4 172.7 67.1 103.8–237.9
F 8 92.2 11.4 73.6–109.0 94.5 14.0 72.8–119.3
71–80 M 8 140.8 27.9 114.4–184.9 145.4 46.9 91.6–211.8
F 11 86.4 20.8 58.1–113.2 89.8 18.9 61.5–123.3
81–90 F 4 86.6 24.4 56.4–116.2 80.6 25.4 56.5–109.9

peak in adulthood, and then to decrease with age from
around 50 years, and this is shown in Fig. 17 for finger
push strength. Throughout childhood, each successive
age group (2–5, 6–10, 11–15 years) was found to be
significantly stronger than the previous for all measure-
ments ðpo0:05Þ: Generally, however, no significant
differences in maximum strength were found within
the adult (16–20, 21–30, 31–50 years) or older adult (51–
60, 61–70, 71–80, 81–90 years) age groups. However,
differences were found between adults and older adults:
for most strength exertions, adults (16–50 years) were
found to be significantly stronger than older adults (51–
90 years), who in turn were stronger than children (2–10
years). No significant differences in maximum strength
80 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Table 3
Pulp-pinch pull strength

Age (years) Sex No. 2 mm strip (N) 20 mm block (N) 40 mm block (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 18.2 8.1 10.3–29.7 19.7 5.0 12.2–27.7 21.1 5.1 15.1–27.6
F 5 16.1 8.4 2.7–24.5 15.0 8.9 6.9–30.3 14.4 6.7 3.6–28.3
6–10 M 7 37.5 13.3 20.0–57.1 42.8 14.7 23.6–64.8 49.5 17.8 26.3–60.7
F 9 34.5 12.4 15.8–55.8 33.2 9.8 21.5–62.3 37.0 13.2 22.9–46.6
11–15 M 10 51.0 15.5 33.1–76.8 60.9 17.8 36.6–92.9 62.6 18.0 44.3–97.6
F 7 44.8 10.1 31.6–57.9 50.4 14.1 33.4–80.3 53.4 8.4 16.5–68.1
16–20 M 11 70.5 18.8 46.2–112.5 79.3 20.1 53.6–105.7 81.6 21.9 46.7–106.1
F 7 62.9 8.6 52.1–74.7 70.8 13.9 52.4–115.5 75.3 15.8 63.0–121.4
21–30 M 8 75.5 29.3 31.8–134.3 81.9 16.1 59.0–113.6 86.0 17.6 53.2–116.5
F 9 62.5 16.1 36.3–79.1 61.0 12.4 35.9–73.5 62.5 10.5 40.1–74.5
31–50 M 5 78.0 10.0 70.9–100.9 87.5 11.2 72.8–100.3 108.0 19.9 62.2–130.6
F 13 65.9 26.7 47.0–144.8 71.5 22.3 41.9–109.5 73.9 22.0 44.3–117.7
51–60 M 5 57.3 5.7 52.4–58.2 68.9 9.0 58.8–77.4 77.3 19.5 56.3–105.2
F 6 52.4 17.8 24.5–77.0 63.2 14.9 43.3–79.9 67.8 19.4 51.2–90.2
61–70 M 4 72.4 20.7 44.2–94.1 83.9 13.0 67.0–97.7 90.6 19.8 63.5–109.0
F 9 44.9 8.2 32.0–59.1 51.1 9.6 35.0–68.9 55.7 10.8 38.6–69.3
71–80 M 8 57.8 13.5 41.4–83.3 66.7 17.1 42.3–92.2 70.6 18.9 46.0–96.2
F 11 40.3 7.7 26.1–54.4 48.1 10.7 34.4–57.9 49.5 11.1 36.4–72.1
81–90 F 4 41.9 13.2 33.0–61.1 52.2 6.7 45.0–60.9 57.4 9.7 44.9–68.5

Table 4
Chuck pinch pull-strength

Age (years) Sex No. 2 mm strip (N) 20 mm block (N) 40 mm block (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 22.0 3.7 7.6–27.0 24.8 5.6 16.0–31.4 26.6 4.4 17.1–32.7
F 5 17.2 12.6 2.5–39.2 19.3 10.8 9.0–36.7 17.4 8.5 11.1–32.2
6–10 M 7 47.8 16.6 27.9–59.5 55.2 21.0 31.1–95.3 62.3 25.2 31.7–98.8
F 9 36.3 12.7 21.8–60.7 45.7 15.7 31.6–77.0 48.1 15.6 32.6–79.0
11–15 M 10 57.3 18.9 39.5–91.1 78.1 29.2 50.0–135.0 82.4 21.2 55.5–118.4
F 7 49.5 11.9 31.8–66.4 60.9 12.9 43.4–81.2 68.5 13.9 48.4–88.1
16–20 M 11 78.9 16.4 55.3–106.7 90.4 18.8 62.6–129.2 105.3 20.0 73.6–141.0
F 7 68.3 12.6 52.4–90.7 81.4 11.2 72.8–109.2 92.4 12.9 77.1–116.3
21–30 M 8 80.9 22.4 56.4–126.4 89.8 20.3 58.0–121.4 105.5 21.7 75.1–138.9
F 9 67.2 17.9 40.4–91.3 68.9 13.2 49.0–91.7 75.6 15.0 51.6–94.7
31–50 M 5 90.9 14.4 73.6–109.4 108.5 8.3 98.3–120.7 118.6 9.6 106.1–130.1
F 13 70.0 15.0 50.3–98.1 76.8 19.5 53.6–111.1 89.1 21.7 57.7–128.0
51–60 M 5 74.3 11.0 63.5–92.9 84.0 16.8 74.5–113.7 92.6 20.1 69.8–120.3
F 6 59.9 13.7 45.6–79.5 62.8 14.8 52.0–91.3 75.1 18.0 58.1–99.3
61–70 M 4 73.0 11.0 51.0–84.7 83.0 13.9 68.0–95.4 92.2 4.7 85.4–96.5
F 9 44.9 8.9 37.0–65.1 53.9 8.0 44.1–71.9 64.8 7.7 55.7–80.9
71–80 M 8 70.6 10.9 52.0–84.9 82.9 17.2 57.1–104.6 94.6 24.8 60.8–109.6
F 11 47.7 9.6 32.2–69.1 50.3 11.2 37.0–73.7 52.7 7.7 37.4–72.3
81–90 F 4 46.3 12.1 30.3–59.8 54.2 8.2 48.0–66.3 60.4 9.2 47.5–69.2

were generally found between 11–15 year olds and 60–80
year olds, or 6–10 year olds and 80–90 year olds.
Relationship between measurements: The results show
no significant correlations between the six measure-
ments, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging
from 0.01 to 0.3. That is, no relationships were found
between the six measurements, in that the forces exerted
were significantly different for each.
Distribution of data: With the exception of push and
pull strength, all data sets exhibit a normal distribution,
with skewness and kurtosis near zero.
Variability of data: Variation coefficients range
from 12% to 68%, with an estimated average of
34.7%. Torque and push exertions exhibit greater
degrees of variation than grip, pinch and pull exertions.
For all measurements variability is most pronounced in
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 81

Table 5
1-handed grip strength

Age (years) Sex No. Small handle—30 mm (N) Medium handle—50 mm (N) Large handle—70 mm (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 56.9 37.7 19.6–110.8 58.3 29.9 28.4–108.9 54.8 39.0 23.7–121.6
F 9 45.1 14.1 27.9–60.6 43.4 17.5 22.8–81.5 31.2 11.3 21.6–54.0
6–10 M 7 168.7 26.3 136.4–203.1 186.3 58.9 122.6–285.5 172.4 60.0 99.1–273.7
F 11 137.4 42.0 79.5–195.2 151.6 54.0 90.2–244.3 140.5 66.3 73.6–265.8
11–15 M 10 243.1 77.7 139.3–371.8 286.6 97.2 180.5–511.1 296.3 116.4 185.4–560.2
F 10 189.5 36.6 125.6–243.3 229.9 57.5 138.3–314.9 227.0 69.0 121.6–338.4
16–20 M 9 430.0 111.0 253.1–600.4 512.9 127.1 341.4–782.8 482.9 75.3 388.5–634.7
F 7 218.6 60.0 164.8–302.1 338.5 96.6 237.4–494.4 322.8 66.4 254.1–425.8
21–30 M 7 409.8 101.3 210.9–508.2 489.5 96.1 330.6–622.0 453.8 115.5 281.5–667.1
F 7 254.4 47.5 204.0–330.6 276.6 41.7 231.5–361.0 266.9 50.0 179.5–312.9
31–50 M 6 455.0 63.2 66.9–529.7 530.0 69.1 422.8–631.8 510.8 62.0 431.6–591.5
F 11 248.0 68.8 133.4–349.2 308.2 49.0 210.9–365.9 283.4 34.5 228.6–336.5
51–60 M 4 292.8 38.7 250.2–326.7 436.0 40.0 379.6–469.9 435.4 46.0 401.2–502.3
F 6 207.8 45.5 162.8–277.6 289.1 53.8 238.4–355.1 274.7 59.2 209.9–378.7
61–70 M 6 318.0 80.1 199.1–400.2 422.5 53.8 357.1–493.4 421.3 69.1 345.3–511.1
F 9 161.6 50.2 116.7–261.9 239.3 53.7 164.8–321.8 232.2 54.2 143.2–313.9
71–80 M 8 301.3 39.0 238.4–364.9 349.2 59.4 248.2–392.4 373.3 30.3 322.7–410.0
F 12 165.1 62.2 67.3–299.2 207.7 46.7 129.5–280.6 225.4 48.5 168.7–336.5
81–90 F 6 118.5 50.2 39.7–192.3 157.0 44.7 76.6–206.0 160.1 29.3 115.8–194.2

Table 6
2-handed grip strength

Age (years) Sex No. Small handle—30 mm (N) Medium handle—50 mm (N) Large handle—70 mm (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 99.8 47.4 39.7–157.0 118.0 61.6 58.3–192.7 109.2 64.8 39.9–187.4
F 9 83.5 29.6 39.8–119.7 90.3 34.4 38.5–152.0 59.4 29.5 32.7–120.7
6–10 M 7 261.6 49.3 172.6–323.7 310.3 77.5 205.0–435.6 324.7 83.6 203.1–446.4
F 11 203.8 68.1 91.2–324.7 257.1 93.8 116.7–403.2 256.2 94.7 151.1–431.6
11–15 M 10 363.5 117.3 185.4–617.0 456.0 154.0 341.4–874.1 482.4 149.1 302.1–823.0
F 10 304.4 59.6 195.2–366.9 344.3 87.5 244.3–534.6 397.6 127.4 201.1–584.7
16–20 M 9 599.6 110.0 453.2–821.1 728.3 126.5 523.8–873.1 760.6 79.6 620.0–873.1
F 7 313.7 75.9 197.2–402.2 428.4 96.6 262.9–531.7 440.8 80.7 331.6–587.6
21–30 M 7 532.1 152.6 328.6–733.8 888.4 174.6 277.6–756.3 665.8 168.1 367.9–848.6
F 7 355.2 90.5 245.2–498.3 389.2 41.7 306.1–522.9 424.5 82.9 294.3–511.1
31–50 M 6 625.9 258.5 579.8–679.8 762.2 316.8 689.6–835.8 785.8 321.6 748.5–812.3
F 11 324.0 105.6 186.4–476.8 444.3 83.2 318.8–581.7 482.9 112.9 366.9–701.4
51–60 M 4 486.9 41.0 453.2–536.6 636.5 64.9 558.2–717.1 670.2 90.0 599.4–790.7
F 6 320.5 114.2 119.7–437.5 446.2 106.9 258.0–541.5 444.7 91.5 293.3–535.6
61–70 M 6 424.1 131.6 225.6–605.3 577.5 78.1 458.1–655.3 637.6 100.9 486.6–775.0
F 9 217.9 69.6 124.6–318.8 348.4 80.4 224.6–454.2 331.7 54.0 255.1–408.1
71–80 M 8 346.1 49.4 272.7–428.7 478.1 60.2 400.2–590.6 557.7 74.0 480.7–724.0
F 12 204.4 72.3 64.7–315.8 273.5 71.3 130.5–356.1 327.6 80.8 195.2–430.7
81–90 F 6 138.5 34.0 99.1–190.3 184.9 67.6 112.8–280.6 250.4 32.9 222.7–308.0

children aged 2–5 years, and least pronounced in older
adults aged over 70 years.
4. Discussion
If a product is to be used in a safe and comfortable
way, a designer must take into account the varying
physical capabilities of all intended users. A knowledge
of the physical strength of users when interacting with
the product in question is therefore essential for good
design. Given both the scale and diversity of all product
interactions, however, the array of data needed to satisfy
all design scenarios is almost unlimited, and this was
highlighted in the consultation with designers: with data
needs ranging from very specific data for one particular
82 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Table 7
Vertical wrist-twisting strength

Age (years) Sex No. Door lever ðN mÞ Door knob ðN mÞ Tap ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 12 8.4 3.8 3.3–16.8 1.3 0.7 0.6–3.0 1.1 0.7 0.4–2.4
F 7 7.2 4.1 3.4–14.2 1.0 0.8 0.4–2.3 0.8 0.6 0.5–1.8
6–10 M 7 15.2 3.1 12.5–21.8 4.2 1.2 1.7–5.8 4.2 1.2 2.8–6.3
F 11 12.7 4.0 7.8–20.9 3.0 1.4 1.4–6.5 3.0 1.7 1.5–6.6
11–15 M 11 19.1 5.0 10.1–26.5 5.8 2.2 2.7–8.4 5.6 2.5 2.2–11.0
F 6 19.3 5.2 11.4–25.0 3.8 1.7 2.0–6.7 4.3 1.5 2.6–6.5
16–20 M 6 33.0 8.7 22.8–43.8 7.4 2.5 3.9–10.8 8.1 1.8 6.2–10.9
F 8 22.8 6.5 14.6–31.6 5.3 1.3 3.1–6.7 5.9 1.4 3.7–7.9
21–30 M 7 33.6 9.2 25.4–48.7 7.5 2.8 3.0–12.1 7.9 2.4 4.6–11.7
F 7 17.8 4.5 10.5–23.3 5.0 1.0 3.9–6.9 5.8 1.8 3.7–8.4
31–50 M 5 32.2 6.2 26.5–41.6 6.6 1.8 3.9–8.4 8.8 2.4 6.2–11.8
F 13 21.9 8.3 11.0–39.2 5.2 1.7 2.4–7.9 6.0 1.2 4.0–7.8
51–60 M 4 27.9 11.4 17.0–43.3 6.4 2.7 4.1–10.2 8.2 1.9 6.4–10.4
F 6 19.8 25.9 15.7–31.1 5.6 1.4 4.4–8.2 6.3 1.8 4.9–9.8
61–70 M 4 22.0 6.1 14.5–29.5 6.5 1.4 5.2–7.8 8.4 0.3 8.0–8.6
F 10 19.8 8.6 6.6–32.3 3.6 0.8 2.4–4.9 4.9 1.1 3.5–7.4
71–80 M 8 31.8 9.4 17.3–47.8 5.9 0.9 4.4–6.9 7.7 1.4 5.9–9.9
F 12 19.2 8.4 5.3–34.1 3.4 1.1 1.9–6.4 4.1 1.0 2.4–5.6
81–90 F 6 17.7 6.0 9.7–23.8 3.2 0.7 2.3–4.1 4.2 0.5 3.5–4.9

Age (years) Sex No. Circular knob ðN mÞ Ridged knob ðN mÞ Butterfly nut ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 12 1.0 0.5 0.3–2.0 0.5 0.2 0.2–0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2–1.4
F 7 0.9 0.5 0.4–1.5 0.7 0.5 0.4–1.7 0.6 0.2 0.3–1.0
6–10 M 7 3.4 1.3 1.7–5.3 1.9 0.8 0.9–2.9 2.0 0.4 1.0–3.3
F 11 2.2 0.8 1.0–3.9 1.5 1.0 0.5–3.9 1.2 0.2 0.4–3.0
11–15 M 11 3.8 1.5 1.6–6.3 2.7 0.8 1.9–4.2 2.6 1.1 1.2–5.3
F 6 2.9 1.3 1.1–4.3 2.1 0.8 1.3–3.1 1.9 0.5 1.1–2.5
16–20 M 6 4.8 1.7 2.3–7.4 4.4 0.4 3.8–4.9 4.1 0.7 3.1–5.0
F 8 3.1 0.8 2.0–4.5 3.3 0.8 2.5–4.9 2.6 0.6 1.7–3.6
21–30 M 7 4.1 1.8 1.5–6.6 4.6 1.3 2.7–6.4 3.9 1.0 3.0–5.8
F 7 3.5 1.3 2.1–5.1 2.8 0.3 2.2–3.1 2.4 0.4 2.0–3.0
31–50 M 5 4.5 1.7 2.6–6.1 4.3 0.8 3.1–5.4 4.3 1.6 2.5–6.9
F 13 3.0 1.3 1.4–6.1 2.9 0.7 1.7–4.2 2.8 0.7 1.9–4.2
51–60 M 4 4.2 1.1 3.4–5.7 3.6 0.6 2.9–4.2 3.6 0.8 2.9–4.7
F 6 3.5 0.6 2.9–4.7 2.8 0.8 2.1–4.3 2.7 0.5 2.0–3.3
61–70 M 4 3.2 1.4 2.3–5.3 3.7 0.9 3.1–5.0 3.2 0.5 2.7–3.6
F 10 2.6 0.6 1.6–3.4 2.3 0.4 1.6–2.9 2.3 0.6 1.7–3.2
71–80 M 8 3.6 0.8 2.6–5.1 3.4 0.5 2.8–4.2 3.0 0.7 1.9–3.9
F 12 2.6 0.7 1.4–3.5 2.3 0.6 1.5–3.3 2.1 0.4 1.6–2.9
81-90 F 6 2.0 0.5 1.3–2.5 2.1 0.6 1.7–3.3 2.2 0.4 1.7–3.4

group of the population, to general data for an
entire population. One of the aims of the research
project, however, was to collect data which would
satisfy as many design needs as possible. Based on
the findings of the survey, and coupled with the lack
of design-applicable data currently available, it was
decided that the logical starting point would be to
collect basic strength data for all age groups, rather
than focus on specific measurements for one
particular product or group of the population only. To
this end, data were collected on children, adults and
older adults when performing a variety of general, yet
design-relevant tasks. With an externally imposed
limit on the total amount of data to be collected in
the study, and with the aim of collecting data on as
wide an age group as possible, this meant that subject
numbers in each age group were lower than if the
study had concentrated on one age population only,
such as adults. Financial and strategic restrictions on
research funding will always mean that compromises
have to be met, and these constraints will have
contributed in the past to the paucity of data on more
esoteric measurements and on populations such as
children and the elderly. However, the results indicate
an acceptable reliability of the data based on these
subject numbers.
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 83

Table 8
Horizontal wrist-twisting strength

Age (years) Sex No. Tap ðN mÞ Ridged knob ðN mÞ Butterfly nut ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 1.2 0.7 0.6–2.5 0.9 0.4 0.5–1.4 0.7 0.3 0.4–1.4
F 7 0.8 0.1 0.7–1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2–0.9 0.5 0.1 0.3–0.6
6–10 M 7 4.0 1.2 2.1–5.9 2.6 0.7 1.6–3.6 2.4 0.7 1.4–3.4
F 11 3.2 1.4 1.1–5.3 2.0 0.9 0.8–3.7 1.6 0.7 0.6–2.9
11–15 M 10 5.9 2.6 2.7–11.0 3.1 0.9 1.7–4.7 2.9 1.0 1.5–4.6
F 10 4.2 1.5 2.8–6.8 2.6 0.7 1.8–4.0 2.3 0.6 1.5–3.1
16–20 M 9 9.5 2.7 5.9–13.5 5.0 0.9 4.1–7.0 5.0 0.9 3.5–6.1
F 7 5.8 1.4 4.3–8.1 3.3 0.4 2.8–3.9 3.1 0.4 2.6–3.8
21–30 M 7 9.2 2.8 5.8–12.6 5.0 1.3 3.3–7.1 4.3 1.3 2.6–6.2
F 7 4.8 1.3 3.2–6.4 3.0 0.3 2.6–3.6 2.7 0.6 2.0–3.7
31–50 M 6 9.8 1.5 7.9–11.7 4.7 0.6 4.9–5.5 5.3 1.1 3.8–7.2
F 12 5.6 1.6 4.1–8.4 3.6 0.5 2.7–4.4 3.3 0.6 2.5–4.4
51–60 M 3 6.0 2.4 4.6–8.7 3.8 1.4 2.2–5.0 4.0 1.0 2.9–4.7
F 6 5.6 2.5 3.1–9.9 3.5 1.1 1.9–5.2 3.7 0.9 2.2–4.5
61–70 M 6 8.2 1.8 5.7–11.2 5.0 0.9 4.0–6.3 4.8 0.4 4.3–5.5
F 9 3.8 0.8 2.8–5.3 3.1 0.6 2.4–4.0 2.6 0.3 2.1–3.4
71–80 M 8 7.1 2.2 4.6–11.2 3.9 0.6 2.9–4.8 3.9 0.9 2.4–5.6
F 11 4.3 1.1 2.8–6.4 2.6 0.4 2.2–3.5 2.4 0.4 1.7–3.0
81–90 F 6 3.3 0.5 2.7–4.2 2.6 0.5 1.9–3.1 2.4 0.5 1.7–3.0

Table 9
Opening strength (smooth lids)

Age (years) Sex No. 45 mm lid ðN mÞ 65 mm lid ðN mÞ 85 mm lid ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 7 0.81 0.48 0.13–1.43 0.90 0.54 0.16–1.71 1.05 0.50 0.39–1.76
F 10 0.74 0.32 0.11–1.15 0.94 0.47 0.35–2.07 1.03 0.55 0.31–2.36
6–10 M 8 2.29 0.72 1.09–3.39 3.00 1.03 1.85–5.32 3.22 1.20 1.51–5.19
F 10 1.97 0.91 0.93–3.98 2.19 0.81 0.91–3.61 2.79 1.24 1.41–4.85
11–15 M 9 2.74 0.79 1.34–4.07 3.49 1.07 1.91–5.45 5.54 1.35 3.59–7.82
F 7 2.42 0.86 1.61–4.16 3.60 1.24 2.61–5.51 4.23 1.24 2.91–6.40
16–20 M 5 2.71 1.88 1.98–5.03 4.83 1.70 2.83–6.83 6.36 2.93 2.80–10.7
F 5 3.50 0.70 2.84–4.35 4.23 0.92 2.91–5.15 5.22 0.44 4.46–5.53
21–30 M 8 3.42 1.29 1.45–4.81 5.79 1.54 3.02–7.26 6.87 1.95 3.49–8.97
F 9 3.19 0.99 1.48–4.12 4.51 0.87 3.16–6.05 6.05 1.44 4.30–8.47
31–50 M 5 4.30 1.42 2.77–6.65 6.12 1.14 4.61–7.53 8.85 1.57 6.83–11.0
F 13 3.43 1.27 1.63–5.39 4.45 1.71 2.07–7.62 5.84 2.09 2.88–10.2
51–60 M 4 3.47 0.52 3.05–4.21 4.80 0.72 3.88–5.51 7.51 1.28 6.03–8.71
F 5 2.79 1.06 1.91–3.99 4.04 1.5 2.43–5.88 5.38 2.10 2.80–7.70
61–70 M 5 4.35 1.08 2.68–5.62 6.32 1.03 4.59–7.10 7.29 2.09 3.80–8.97
F 9 2.40 0.62 1.52–3.28 3.27 0.76 2.09–4.72 4.32 1.15 2.93–5.87
71–80 M 8 3.54 1.50 2.31–6.88 5.11 1.61 2.96–7.44 6.01 1.99 3.21–8.54
F 12 2.10 0.54 1.38–3.12 3.04 0.59 2.01–4.02 3.72 0.91 2.11–4.93
81-90 F 5 1.54 0.70 0.57–2.53 2.71 1.03 1.97–4.46 3.09 1.09 0.65–3.97

One criticism of the existing ergonomics data is that
the information is often not directly applicable to the
design of consumer products. This is because in many
studies on the exertion of force, subjects are often
instructed to adopt a standardised posture, such as
standing with the elbows flexed to 901: Not all product
interactions, however, require the user to adopt such a
posture. Furthermore, it has been reported that stan-
dardised postures are perceived by many subjects as
unnatural and uncomfortable, and that the forces
measured in such a posture are often around half those
exerted in a free, unrestricted posture (Daams, 1994).
Some would argue, however, that a free posture
generates data that are unreliable and unreproducable.
According to Caldwell et al. (1974) the results of sci-
entific investigations, including strength measurements,
84 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Table 10
Opening strength (knurled lids)

Age (years) Sex No. 45 mm lid ðN mÞ 65 mm lid ðN mÞ 85 mm lid ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 7 1.01 0.56 0.29–2.00 0.95 0.40 0.32–1.52 1.13 0.46 0.57–1.88
F 10 0.85 0.35 0.27–1.48 0.80 0.34 0.37–1.24 1.05 0.41 0.36–1.67
6–10 M 8 2.28 0.71 1.44–3.50 3.08 0.76 1.83–4.40 3.55 1.64 1.35–6.00
F 10 1.77 0.69 0.75–3.09 2.50 1.16 1.24–4.69 2.66 1.26 1.28–5.66
11–15 M 9 2.85 0.62 1.59–3.84 4.55 1.39 2.61–7.64 5.93 1.99 2.67–9.05
F 7 2.56 0.72 1.73–3.84 3.65 1.25 2.05–5.83 4.23 1.91 2.41–7.03
16–20 M 5 4.00 1.17 2.82–5.94 5.72 0.93 4.61–6.64 7.75 2.54 4.46–10.7
F 5 3.75 0.71 2.82–4.48 4.50 0.95 3.10–5.48 5.76 0.84 4.85–7.11
21–30 M 8 4.22 1.42 2.32–6.22 6.33 1.92 3.24–7.91 7.65 2.17 4.19–9.99
F 9 3.66 0.80 2.41–4.76 4.65 0.93 3.02–6.34 5.96 0.99 4.61–7.32
31–50 M 5 5.14 1.67 3.75–7.21 7.94 1.67 5.29–11.5 9.79 1.40 7.87–11.5
F 13 3.63 1.27 1.29–5.76 4.75 1.72 1.22–6.93 5.86 1.83 2.44–8.52
51–60 M 4 4.24 0.55 3.57–4.91 5.61 0.50 4.91–6.13 8.28 1.28 6.98–10.0
F 5 3.49 1.44 2.02–5.74 5.00 1.44 3.07–7.07 6.06 1.64 3.83–8.32
61–70 M 5 5.02 0.87 3.94–6.16 7.25 1.17 5.45–8.61 7.86 2.01 4.51–9.52
F 9 2.84 0.46 2.09–3.61 3.50 0.58 2.94–4.88 4.89 1.28 3.36–6.77
71–80 M 8 4.11 1.33 2.91–7.03 5.51 1.43 3.74–8.12 7.23 2.18 4.63–10.1
F 12 2.44 0.58 1.63–3.57 3.55 0.76 2.21–4.64 3.96 1.35 1.65–6.27
81–90 F 5 1.86 0.85 1.46–4.24 2.61 1.35 0.41–2.57 3.34 1.17 1.73–4.65

Table 11
Pull strength—1 hand (convex knob)

Age (years) Sex No. Mean (N) s.d. (N) Range (N)

2–5 M 8 59.6 22.3 27.3–72.8

F 8 76.4 34.8 49.5–115.8
6–10 M 5 141.0 28.0 104.2–168.3
F 10 141.1 61.0 64.4–268.6
11–15 M 12 232.8 91.9 67.0–372.6
F 5 177.7 55.3 93.0–233.2
16-20 M 8 321.1 103.4 213.6–523.6
F 8 244.1 84.4 184.0–405.4
21–30 M 7 311.9 104.0 210.0–436.6
F 7 221.6 93.9 141.8–400.6
31–50 M 7 285.9 70.4 198.1–374.4
F 17 220.2 60.5 81.6–344.2
51–60 M 5 265.1 90.5 130.5–358.9
F 6 163.7 47.5 111.2–216.7
61–70 M 4 267.8 105.0 159.8–404.3
F 7 162.0 30.0 138.5–209.9
71-80 M 7 309.0 41.6 246.9–353.3
F 9 179.9 18.9 145.7–213.5
81–90 F 4 138.6 37.6 109.0–193.7

are useful only if they are so completely described that
they can be repeated. Undoubtedly, there are situations
where standardisation is necessary. However, the
importance of gearing research towards generating
useful and applicable data has already been stressed,
and in this study usefulness equates to data which have
been collected on subjects who are free to adopt their
own posture and are able to grip and manipulate the
various handles and controls as they chose, making the
data realistic and directly applicable to product design.
The research shows that for all six measurements,
maximum strength increases throughout childhood,
peaks in adulthood, and then decreases with age from
around 50 years. All data sets exhibit a normal
distribution, and are consistent with the distribution
and variability expected of static strength measurements
(Steenbekkers, 1993). As a group, adults (16–50 years)
were found to be significantly stronger than older adults
(51–90 years), who in turn were found to be significantly
stronger than children (aged up to 5 years only). These
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 85

Table 12
Push and pull strength—1 hand (cylindrical bar)

Age (years) Sex No. Orientation Push (N) Pull (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 12 Vertical 79.26 30.38 19.33–139.39 87.14 44.06 56.11–169.64

Horizontal 74.53 36.65 44.24–130.93 87.99 42.18 51.99–171.52

F 9 Vertical 45.83 20.06 22.15–76.95 58.68 33.45 31.66–123.65

Horizontal 48.12 15.80 27.39–74.53 43.22 34.62 35.41–114.60
6–10 M 8 Vertical 218.26 110.19 125.29–455.26 242.40 89.05 131.94–420.34
Horizontal 229.14 111.01 120.46–429.07 232.97 102.61 111.21–381.13

F 11 Vertical 206.49 94.76 87.42–371.46 174.40 64.59 86.70–294.80

Horizontal 194.59 88.84 74.53–375.49 175.09 75.65 88.21–365.30
11–15 M 9 Vertical 338.87 124.04 145.84–532.61 355.41 123.48 180.57–539.09
Horizontal 297.77 113.64 108.37–448.81 339.41 104.57 194.90–540.97

F 6 Vertical 260.42 30.95 219.97–287.66 296.87 45.43 214.50–352.10

Horizontal 240.99 80.17 181.29–391.60 283.74 45.05 216.76–344.94
16–20 M 6 Vertical 545.77 126.22 379.51–768.27 438.62 82.52 309.50–542.48
Horizontal 441.58 172.67 144.63–618.83 516.72 92.88 398.09–627.68

F 6 Vertical 378.71 158.02 230.85–577.33 356.75 136.07 248.05–595.26

Horizontal 362.32 74.82 246.56–483.06 416.38 138.03 303.09–646.53
21–30 M 5 Vertical 471.82 208.03 243.34–718.95 386.56 161.72 220.91–608.83
Horizontal 408.80 188.86 255.42–695.94 451.70 164.63 295.18–668.02

F 9 Vertical 356.10 108.11 217.55–573.30 361.23 91.51 192.64–525.52

Horizontal 255.20 107.73 191.29–369.04 340.58 67.97 259.74–465.95
31–50 M 6 Vertical 481.11 173.02 353.33–825.11 433.34 73.73 346.45–544.37
Horizontal 477.3 213.75 408.48–647.03 457.22 99.37 290.65–543.61

F 11 Vertical 310.98 89.59 159.54–451.23 343.91 99.02 195.65–550.78

Horizontal 294.87 96.29 189.75–460.09 314.47 136.42 215.91–500.26
51–60 M 3 Vertical 278.39 13.67 268.69–288.06 383.52 242.78 213.75–661.61
Horizontal 304.98 113.24 221.58–433.90 347.83 166.40 233.35–538.71

F 6 Vertical 258.31 107.95 168.00–442.37 258.29 114.18 144.76–464.44

Horizontal 191.57 134.58 158.33–419.80 278.28 118.58 187.73–486.69
61–70 M 5 Vertical 436.32 210.21 186.13–684.50 476.89 212.16 189.24–757.37
Horizontal 396.68 189.82 209.09–608.35 456.98 221.50 255.97–771.69

F 9 Vertical 202.87 30.97 157.12–251.80 216.18 28.56 176.80–251.07

Horizontal 186.98 35.80 138.59–249.79 204.95 54.38 157.20–316.29
71–80 M 7 Vertical 244.09 60.21 145.03–320.69 331.85 99.73 234.48–460.67
Horizontal 251.63 55.33 188.95–341.24 265.34 151.73 205.81–490.08

F 12 Vertical 197.28 84.90 100.72–406.11 218.27 82.62 105.17–430.52

Horizontal 185.59 68.64 104.75–340.03 219.53 82.72 96.50–436.17
81–90 F 5 Vertical 126.98 43.98 64.46–182.91 149.73 38.93 106.68–202.06
Horizontal 123.36 30.60 98.30–171.62 165.57 63.52 106.68–274.07

findings are consistent across all measurements and are
comparable with the findings of other strength investi-
gations (Rholes et al., 1983; Steenbekkers, 1993). No
significant differences in maximum strength were gen-
erally found between 11–15 years olds and 60–80 years
olds, or 6–10 years olds and 80–90 years olds.
It is well documented that exertion of force by adult
females is around two-thirds of that of males (Mathio-
wetz et al., 1986; Fothergill et al., 1992; Steenbekkers,
1993), and the data in this study demonstrate a similar
ratio. For all measurements, males were found to be
significantly stronger than females, with male/female
ratios ranging from 55% to 75%. However, no
significant differences in maximum strength were found
between male and female children.
With differences in strength due to both age and sex,
there are a wide range of capabilities which must be
considered when designing a product. In most design
86 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Table 13
Push and pull strength—2 hands (cylindrical bar)

Age (years) Sex No. Orientation Push (N) Pull (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 12 Vertical 86.88 55.23 63.17–190.16 98.11 60.17 45.91–229.58

Horizontal 99.64 44.92 63.65–211.51 106.65 59.89 56.54–268.41

F 9 Vertical 59.49 24.20 29.00–101.93 80.08 43.69 23.75–158.33

Horizontal 72.07 17.74 53.58–101.93 61.78 27.02 33.55–122.14
6–10 M 8 Vertical 256.63 116.50 171.62–508.04 218.08 119.8 149.40–381.51
Horizontal 270.89 121.87 145.84–458.48 279.72 95.68 144.76–410.16

F 11 Vertical 222.13 87.88 104.34–412.55 193.87 89.09 108.57–372.84

Horizontal 219.53 91.82 132.55–367.03 174.40 81.24 106.31–343.05
11–15 M 9 Vertical 336.81 153.77 210.62–463.31 364.88 124.20 110.45–529.29
Horizontal 321.19 174.85 188.05–611.58 399.90 132.94 210.73–622.78

F 6 Vertical 318.41 65.54 258.65–441.16 315.85 91.59 191.50–440.32

Horizontal 313.98 108.75 234.07–517.30 374.22 113.52 189.62–499.13
16–20 M 6 Vertical 624.27 119.80 507.23–783.62 604.31 119.78 465.58–743.79
Horizontal 553.50 223.51 225.21–914.58 484.17 112.00 324.20–661.66

F 6 Vertical 429.07 131.36 314.65–677.25 438.94 175.81 271.80–675.18

Horizontal 413.16 161.00 211.91–663.55 431.02 146.79 291.78–690.26
21–30 M 5 Vertical 598.38 234.16 363.80–931.57 510.29 120.82 372.46–668.40
Horizontal 556.91 277.83 311.02–938.15 487.67 146.26 270.30–652.19

F 9 Vertical 341.02 144.62 259.76–486.68 379.79 93.27 267.66–527.78

Horizontal 324.59 52.36 255.83–416.58 315.87 137.59 248.38–450.12
31–50 M 6 Vertical 613.12 128.71 493.13–825.11 467.90 68.40 396.59–583.95
Horizontal 579.15 121.61 410.94–707.46 467.40 28.69 433.15–510.81

F 11 Vertical 400.06 82.09 243.34–519.32 364.85 166.04 256.33–699.69

Horizontal 347.54 128.07 157.12–551.95 360.98 108.68 256.72–614.49
51–60 M 3 Vertical 430.95 145.71 335.60–598.68 438.43 200.51 289.90–666.51
Horizontal 395.76 111.71 320.69–524.15 399.60 157.53 282.36–578.67

F 6 Vertical 299.74 90.11 211.91–448.00 297.25 103.34 199.42–461.05

Horizontal 285.84 83.35 193.38–414.97 333.13 77.02 187.73–400.73
61–70 M 5 Vertical 472.66 179.39 215.54–658.31 529.81 217.22 220.16–747.94
Horizontal 486.36 196.15 225.21–705.05 468.59 171.48 271.05–722.68

F 9 Vertical 255.02 35.53 205.47–313.04 247.30 50.59 175.67–340.42

Horizontal 237.88 61.27 177.67–354.94 262.04 105.35 136.09–487.06
71–80 M 7 Vertical 320.64 80.27 194.59–421.82 359.59 102.44 203.57–481.41
Horizontal 320.52 83.91 233.27–477.82 331.31 79.67 219.78–454.27

F 12 Vertical 242.60 87.66 130.93–453.24 253.65 85.39 117.24–449.74

Horizontal 216.45 65.55 101.52–373.87 234.39 92.67 119.50–412.42
81–90 F 5 Vertical 172.67 57.61 92.66–254.22 185.78 46.28 140.61–249.18
Horizontal 164.78 67.20 87.42–266.30 165.04 45.44 121.01–236.74

situations, however, the amount of force required to use
or operate a product should be such that it is safe and
comfortable to use for the weakest group of users, who
in this instance are children. If the weakest group of
users are able to use the product, it necessarily follows
that all stronger users will also be able to operate the
product. In many safety situations, however, a product
often has to be designed to exclude use or operation by
children. In doing this, it is important that the weakest
of intended users are not also excluded. In this study,
children aged 6–10 years were found to have similar
capabilities as adults aged over 80 years, and similarly
children aged 11–15 years and adults aged between 60
and 80 years. Therefore, by designing to exclude
children, many older adults will also be excluded. The
implications of this finding in terms of both safety and
usability are great, particularly in view of the universal
approach to design. It seems that designing to exclude
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88
200
150
strength (N)
100
50
0 comfortable rather than maximum strength is required,
2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
age (years)
index finger (forwards)
index finger (downwards)
Fig. 17. Finger push strength.
use by children yet accommodate the capabilities of all
intended users is not always possible, at least not with
products involving the types of manipulations measured
in this study. In this case, design innovations may be the
only solution to inclusive design, especially when
strength is a safety critical factor associated with the
product. Ergonomics undoubtedly has a contribution to
make; not just in the provision of this sort of target
strength data, but also in working with designers to
develop solutions to interface problems when strength
considerations alone seem to offer no opportunity for
compromise.
As well as differences due to age and sex, differences
due to the type of strength exertion were also found.
That is, the handle or control type, the direction of
force, and the number of hands used all significantly
affected the amount of force that could be exerted. The
difference between the types of exertions can be
explained by the diversity in the postures and grips
used for each measurement. Of interest, however, is the
significant difference between two relatively similar
measurements—wrist twisting strength (on a variety of
handles placed at elbow height) and opening strength on
jars. Importantly, the jars could be picked up and held
in any orientation, and many were held against the
body, which is felt increased the amount of force that
could be exerted. This demonstrates that allowing
subjects to use realistic postures and grips on products
when measuring maximal strength does affect the
amount of force that can be exerted, as well as the
importance of realism in such research equipment and
methods.
Data produced in this study are comparable to other
published data. For instance, Voorbij and Steenbekkers
(2002) measured the opening torque of people over 50
years old, with a 66 mm jar lid. Their data are similar to
the opening strength measured on older adults using the
smooth 65 mm jar lid in this study. However, this study
found that knurling on lids increased the opening
87
strength, whilst previous work (Imrhan and Loo, 1988;
Nagashima and Konz, 1986) has suggested that knurling
does not enhance torque on lids smaller than 86 mm:
Care should therefore be taken when using the data in
this study, particularly when applying it to other design
scenarios, where for example, the size, shape and texture
of controls may differ, where individuals may be
restricted in the posture that they can adopt, where
or where data are needed for handles and knobs of a
different size, shape or position.
thumb (forwards) Based on the lack of relationship between the
thumb downwards) measurements in this study, it would seem that
predictions on performance or extrapolations of data
from one measurement to another cannot be made, and
that to have accurate information on all product
interactions, new data must be collected. However, in
most design projects neither time nor money allows a
full-scale data collection programme to be carried out.
Without applicable data, however, designers are faced
with the task of estimating force exertion, and the
repercussions of using wrongly estimated data must then
be considered.
It is of vital importance, therefore, in terms of both
safety and usability, that research into force exertion
continues to be conducted. This research has highlighted
numerous ‘gaps’ in the data available for direct use in
product design (for both disabled and non-disabled
individuals), and that the range of data needed to fill
these ‘gaps’ is diverse. Whilst not all data ‘gaps’ could be
filled in this study, it is hoped that the data collected are
an initial step in providing designers with much needed
data on the strength capabilities of children, adults and
older adults. It is through research like this that
designers can be kept informed of the physical strength
capabilities of users, as well as the various factors that
affect the amount of force a person can exert when
interacting with a product. Armed with this informa-
tion, products can be designed which are both safe and
comfortable to use for a wide range of users.
Acknowledgements
The research described in this paper was funded by
the Consumer Affairs Directorate of the Department of
Trade and Industry in the UK. The full report of this
study, ‘Strength data for design safety—Phase 1’ Report
number URN 00/1070 is available from DTI Consumer
Safety Publications, Admail 528, London SW1W 8YT.
References
Caldwell, L.S., Chaffin, D.B., Dukes-Dobos, F.N., Kroemer, K.H.E.,
Laubach, L.L., Snook, S.H., Wasserman, D.E., 1974. A proposed
88 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88
standard for static muscle strength testing. Am. Ind. Hygiene
Assoc. J. 35, 201–206.
Daams, B.D., 1994. Human Force Exertion in User–Product Interac-
tion—Backgrounds for Design. . Physical Ergonomics Series, Vol.
2. Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
Fothergill, D.M., Grieve, D.W., Pheasant, S.T., 1992. The influence of
some handle designs and handle heights on the strength of the
horizontal pulling action. Ergonomics 35 (2), 203–212.
Imrhan, S.N., Loo, C.H., 1988. Modelling wrist-twisting strength of
the elderly. Ergonomics 31 (12), 1807–1819.
Kroemer, K.H.E., 1970. Human strength: terminology, measurement
and interpretation of data. Human Factors 12 (3), 297–313.
Mathiowetz, V., Wiener, D.M., Federman, S.M., 1986. Grip and pinch
strength norms for 6 to 19 year olds. The American Journal of
Occupational Therapy 40 (10), 705–711.
Nagashima, K., Konz, S., 1986. Jar lids: effects of diameter, gripping
materials and knurling. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society,
30th Annual Meeting.
Norris, B.J., Wilson, J.R., 1995. CHILDATA—The Handbook of
Child Measurements and Capabilities—Data for Design Safety.
Department of Trade and Industry, London, UK.
Norris, B.J., Wilson, J.R., 1997. Designing Safety into Products—
Making Ergonomics Evaluation a Part of the Design Process. The
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Peebles, L., Norris, B.J., 1998. ADULTDATA—The Handbook of
Adult Anthropometric and Strength Measurements—Data for
Design Safety. Department of Trade and Industry, London, UK.
Rholes, P.H., Moldrup, K.L., Laviana, J.E., 1983. Opening jars: an
anthropometric study of the wrist-twisting strength of the elderly.
Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting.
Smith, S.A., Norris, B.J., Peebles, L., 2000. OLDER ADULTDA-
TA—The Handbook of Measurements and Capabilities of the
Older Adult—Data for Design Safety. Department of Trade and
Industry, London, UK.
Steenbekkers, L.P.A., 1993. Child Development, Design Implications
and Accident Prevention. Physical Ergonomics Series. Delft
University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
Voorbij, A.J.M., Steenbekkers, L.P.A., 2002. The twisting force of
aged consumers when opening a jar. Appl. Ergon. 33, 105–109.
Wilson, J.R., Norris, B.J., 1993. Knowledge transfer: scattered sources
to sceptical clients. Ergonomics 36 (6), 667–686.