Engineering Anthropometry - Fundamentals and Assessment Tools for Occupational Ergonomics - page 205

TABLE 9.13 Guidelines for Workspace Design
Consider In order to

Human strength— Facilitate exertion of strength (work, power) by object location and orientation

Human speed— Place items so that they can be reached and manipulated quickly

Human effort— Arrange work so that it can be performed with least effort

Human accuracy— Select and position objects so that they can be manipulated and seen with ease

Importance— Place the most important items in the most accessible locations

Frequency of use— Place the most frequently used items in the most accessible locations

Function— Group items with similar functions together

Sequence of use— Lay out items, which are commonly used in sequence

. Must exert large or small forces
. Executes fast and gross or slow and exact motions
. Needs high or low visual control
Such circumstances affect the selection of the specific work envelope.
General criteria for workspace layout relate to human strength, speed, effort, accuracy, importance,
frequency, function, and sequence of use as listed in Table 9.13. Achieving the task while assuring
safety for the humans, avoiding overuse and unnecessary effort, and assuring ease and efficiency, are
the primary design goals.

9.10 Summary

It is inexcusable to design tasks, tools, or workstations for the phantom of “the average person” in a static
position. No such persons exist and design for the average fits nobody well. Instead, ranges of body sizes,
of motions, and of strengths (see elsewhere in this topic) establish the design criteria. This is easy to do
for the designer and engineer who starts with proper anthropometric information and applies it ergo-
nomically, that is, with “ease and efficiency” as the guiding principles.

References
Annis, J.F. and McConville, J.T., Anthropometry, in Occupational Ergonomics, Bhattacharya, A. and
McGlothlin, J.D. Eds., Dekker, New York, NY, 1996, chap. 1, pp. 1-46.
Bradtmiller, B., Anthropometry for Persons with Disabilities: Needs in the Twenty-First Century. Paper pre-
sented at RESNA 2000 Annual Conference and Research Symposium, 28-30 June 2000, Orlando,
FL. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America, Arlington, VA,
2000.
Cheverud, J., Gordon, C.C.,Walker, R.A., Jacquish, C., Kohn, L., Moore, A., and Yamashita, N., 1988
Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Correlation Coefficients and Regression Equations
(NATICK TR 90 / 032-6), U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick,

MA, 1990.
Fluegel, F., Greil, H., and Sommer, K., Anthropologischer Atlas, Tribuene, Berlin, Germany, 1986.
Gordon, C.C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C.E., Bradtmiller, B., McConville, J.T., Tebbetts, I., and Walker, R.A.,
1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Summary Statistics Interim Report (Natick-TR-
89 027), U.S. Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA, 1989.

Houy, D.A., Range of joint motion in college males, in Proceedings of the Human Factors Society's 27th
Annual Meeting, Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 374-378, 1983.
Juergens, H.W., Aune, I.A., and Pieper, U., International Data on Anthropometry. (Occupational Safety
and Health Series No. 65), International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland, 1990.
Kagimoto,Y., ed., Anthropometry of JASDF Personnel and its Applications for Human Engineering, Aero-
medical Laboratory, Air Development and Test Wing JASDF, Tokyo, Japan, 1990.

/