Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

Ergonomics International Journal

ISSN: 2577-2953

Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout Ergonomics Int J

Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD and

Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout

Taposh Kumar K

1

*, Mustafizur R

1

, Muhammad AdibUz Z

2

and Moin

Uddin G

1

Depatment of Industrial and Production Engineering, Jessore University of Science and

Technology, Bangladesh

2

Depatment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Northern Illinois University, USA

*Corresponding author: Taposh Kumar Kapuria, Dept. of Industrial and Production Engineering, Jessore University of

Science and Technology, Jessore-7408, Bangladesh, Email: sabita.kapuria@gmail.com

Abstract

This study analyzed the probable mismatch between university table and chair dimensions and anthropometric

characteristics of 200 Bangladeshi (Jessore University of science & technology) students and emphasize on student needs.

Comfortable learning in a classroom depends on a number of concealed factors and appropriate university furniture like

tables and chairs. Ergonomically fit tables and chairs ensure the comfortable learning facilitation. However, an

anthropometric survey showed that most of these tables and chairs were not made according to ergonomic

considerations. Fifteen anthropometric measurements are considered and nine dimensions from the existing classroom

tables and chairs were measured and compared to identify the probable mismatch between them. Here, QFD tool is used.

For obtaining the important ratings of the student’s demands for QFD, a survey was held. By using QFD tool, final design

requirements are prioritized. The paper recommends the dimensions for ergonomically fit tables and chairs and also

represents the facility layout of one of the specific university classrooms of the Bangladesh to allocate the available tables

and chairs. Finally, new ergonomically fit new designs are proposed. As students spend most of their time in the

classroom, it is very essential to supply appropriate tables and chairs for them. Long time sitting on those inappropriate

tables and chairs can cause musculoskeletal disorders.

Keywords: Ergonomic design; QFD; Anthropometric measurement; Design; Layout

Introduction

Classroom furniture namely table and chair are

considered important physical elements of the

learning environment. Human health is notably

impacted by the furniture and the arrangement of the

body and its limbs. An anthropometric survey

showed that incorrect furniture dimensions are

responsible for discomfort, pain and disorders,

namely in back, neck, shoulder, and hands, wrists and

Research Article

Volume 2 Issue 3

Received Date: April 23, 2018

Published Date: May 14, 2018

DOI: 10.23880/eoij-16000146

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

2

many musculoskeletal diseases. Thus, it is very

important to design the classroom furniture more

specifically table and chair considering the

anthropometric dimensions and ergonomic

guidelines.

On an average, studying time in a typical university

of Bangladesh is from 9AM to 5PM. So, it is clear that

students generally spend their maximum time in the

classroom. Almost 75% of that time is put to use by

sitting on the table and chair to do the university

work. Experts think that the designing of classroom

furniture seems to be more important than designing

workplace furniture. So, the situation seems very

serious. In this case, higher authority of the university

needs to pay attention to build a classroom table and

chair by following the anthropometric measurement

and ergonomic guidelines. In Bangladesh, table and

chair in the classrooms are of low quality and made

with non-smooth wood surface. As a result, it causes

very rough writing surface and ergonomic problems.

In this study Quality function deployment (QFD) is

also used. A student survey was held to identify the

student comfort requirement. With QFD, design

requirements are assigned to the student’s demand,

according to the direction of experts in these fields.

Finally, design requirements are prioritized.

Prioritized design requirements tell which design

requirements are necessary at first to start the work.

Total 200 students are surveyed to get the

anthropometric data. Then the mismatch between

needing anthropometric measurement and an

existing tables and chairs is identified which leads to

design the ergonomic table and chair for the students.

In this study, facility layout is also included. Layout

of 233 (A) classroom of 4th year, Industrial and

Production Engineering, Jessore University of science

and technology is also used. This layout shows how

many tables and chair can be allocated in that room.

Also, some extra facilities for the students is

recommended. By using those extra facilities, learning

activities should be more comfortable.

After reviewing the literature on QFD, ergonomics

& facility layout, a methodology is proposed which

includes the QFD for identifying and satisfying

student’s needs, anthropometric measurement for

anthropometric dimensions of the students,

classroom furniture measures, mismatch between

university furniture and body dimensions. Finally,

results are proposed and implemented.

Literature Review

Review of Literature on QFD

Hamada [1] used QFD tools for quality

enhancement in curriculum plan and teaching

strategies to meet with customer requisites. He

applied QFD methodology to a university cause in

accounting. It helps him determine the genuine

customer requisites. Here, QFD allows him to classify

the wisdom needs of students in an accounting course

and then, students need convert into educational

strategies which pacify student’s requirements. The

finishing outcomes allowed to him to determine the

lawful things to do for the first time. The footstep is to

do QFD strictly is to decide purchaser prospect

appropriately. It is key to pacify customer necessities.

Fransis [2] showed an engineering approach with

quality function deployment for an accreditation

board of engineering and technology. He said

sensation of a quality function deployment (QFD)

inquiry is basically on the quality of the speech of the

customer, more specifically the customer

requirements and their importance ratings. He

applied QFD, on a main cause of mechanical

engineering plan ,where the considered cause

wisdom results as a speech of the customers (what)

and students issued by ABET as a technical

requirements (How).The prime objective of that

paper was to tarmac a clear road to faculty members

and engineering institutions to gratify the ABET

requisites.

Sandra, et al. [3] added quality function

deployment and logical frame work to improve of

emergency care in Malta. Here, he used QFD to

identify and analyze issues and challenges of the

accident and emergency (A&E) department. In this

case logic framework approach helps to develop

detailed project plans for quality improvement. The

main purpose of combined QFD is to improve the

process and system performance substantially.

Danuta Kunecka [4] stated that quality function

deployment method enables rational design of

service. It’s not only technical prospective view but

also cause of market and customer needs. House of

Quality returns as a medium of transmit to customer

expectations. He applied quality function deployment

replica made by “Bartoszsolin S14” in his paper

“Development of the quality of educational the

nursing practice”.

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

3

In this paper, he applied QFD on different stages of

quality management process to uplift of practical

training of nurses. Katerina, et al. [5] applied quality

function deployment model in a housing association

located in the United Kingdom. By applying QFD here,

they improved a company’s exhibition. They

successfully adopted, applied and utilized the QFD

tool within the challenging of social housing and

other sectors. The trial result had an absolute effect

upon a company for developing statement-based

policy of operational exchanges, pilot and progress.

Hatice Cemgoz Akdog, et al. [6] employed quality

function deployment plan for translating internal

client needs and expectations into suitable benefit

enumeration for increasing internal client pleasure.

He integrated SERVQUAL into QFD to set the

prosperity Factors to improve quality in the textile

industry. Cordeiro and Barbosa [7] applied

customized QFD to management of automation

projects. The cardinal contribution at this paper was a

new matrix to assist the project manager to design

requirement verification over project by using team

skills based on client needs. They used proposed

customized QFD to identify a set of requirements for

each project phone which are difficult to project

success.

Li and song [8] used Rough VIKOR-based audit

function deployment model for prioritizing design

attributes of product connected service. Emarh, et al.

[9] investigated multi-agent service quality difficulty

in the area of air management. They used QFD model

to compromise the needs of airlines and passenger to

assure the quality implementation. Here,

multidimensional QFD model is used which is able to

analyze the needs of all agents instead of traditional

QFD model to obtain suitable solutions.

Nora and Noor [10] used quality function

deployment model to decide the employers collection

criteria for selecting students for the industrial

training arrangement by using quality function

deployment model by obtaining feedback from the

employers out there. They found from the study that

communication skills and students’ participation in

sports and co-curricular activities in the university

are the most important design selection criteria. They

utilized QFD approach to convert employers’

feedback improving marketability of the students.

Lonica and Leba [11] integrated quality function

deployment in the new product deployment cycle.

They proposed a methodology to estimate the voice

of customers to design innovative products. They

applied this method on a biometric selection system

for emergency cases. They followed QFD steps to

develop a mathematical model which was quantified

by an overall index. Takeo, et al. [12] stated that

because of rapid growing and communication

technology, high functionality is not the only one,

pliability is also to cooperate with the others. They

used M-QFD model which means multi-space quality

function deployment. By suing M-QFD model which

helps designer to develop the elements based on

various needs such as client needs, company and

society needs etc.

Moradi and Raissi [13] improved client

gratification by using QFD in benefit quality analysis;

especially they applied the QFD methodology and

mathematical optimization to update the Tehran’s

metropolis service. As a result, proposed system

reduced the gap between metropolis managers and

citizens. The trial results also showed that QFD was

an operating tool for them to permit metropolis

managers to trial out the demand of the citizens and

to reserve with engineering and technical

requirements. Jian, et al. [14] investigated how to

prioritize engineering characteristics based on client

online survey to valuable client requirement. They

used an integer linear programming model to change

the couple sapient results into initial client pleasure

ratings. They also got client sentiment regarding

engineering characteristics. Finally they revealed the

merits of the proposed approach.

Romeo, et al. [15] used awareness and capability of

Quality Function Deployment in plan and

construction projects in Nigeria. Basically, they had

applied the QFD tools in the construction industry in

developed countries. In reality, developing countries

such as Nigeria have not been practically aware about

the profit of QFD, simply they investigated the

awareness and effectiveness at quality function

deployment. They improve the satisfaction of client in

terms of quality, cost and project delivery time in

design and construct plan.

Cerit B, et al. [16] applied quality function

deployment model on a Smartphone pattern. They

explored the application of quality function

deployment on a new product, Smartphone

improvement is consistent with client satisfaction. It

was for Turkeys leading mobile communication

operator to design a Smartphone. Here, QFD was used

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

4

to obey the voice of customer and quality

management technique was used to give guarantee

the quality to the product or service. They also used

Kano model during the grouping and prioritization of

the client necessities.

Review of Literature on Ergonomics

Samuel, Joel, Freivalds [17] showed that children

have been known to spend over 30% of their time at

school. Most classroom activities include sitting for

long periods of time, with little or no breaks. Every

exertion should be made to confirm that teenage

children do not have back pain and other

musculoskeletal disorders due to elongated sitting on

the improperly designed classroom furniture. The

anthropometric measures of twenty first graders

were used to improve regression equations for the

furniture dimensions. The inquiry of pertinent

anthropometric measures such as stature, weight,

Body Mass Index (BMI), popliteal height, buttock

popliteal length and hip breath shows that stature

and body mass index are vital factors in sketching out

the classroom furniture.

Rungtai Lin and Yen-Yu Kang [18] showed that the

conventional chair and desk are not capable of fitting

all students with various body figures. How to gain

the requirements of students for various body places

is the main deliberation in this study. The procedures

adopted for the assessment involve the present

school furniture survey, a plan analysis and personal

comfort estimation. Then, the result of study focuses

on the application of an anthropometric survey of

school in Taiwan. Finally, based on the

anthropometric database, the anthropometric

deliberations of school furniture are suggested for

designing the primary school furniture desks and

chairs in Taiwan. The design approximately proposed

a series of desks and chairs adjustable to ergonomic

issues.

Review of Literature on Facility Layout

Pedro and Rui [19], the design of facility layouts

involves in a decision process which, in common, its

complexity, has to be decomposed into several sub-

problems, namely: the selection of the most sufficient

manufacturing processes, the planning of the

equipment and worker needs, the allocation

manufacturing operators to machines, the grouping of

machines into sections , the selection of selection

handling, the specification of work-in-process parking

areas and the definition of the location machines and

sections on the manufacturing plant.

Heragu and Kusiak [20] two new models of the

facility layout problem are presented: linear

continuous with absolute values in the objective and

constraints and linear integer. The linear mixed

integer models have lesser number of model integer

variables than any other existing formulating of the

facility layout problem. While most other linear

mixed-integer models available in the literature

obtained through a linearization of the quadratic

assignment problem. An advantage of the

formulations presented in this paper is that the

location of sites need not be known a priori. More

importantly, two of the formulations model the layout

problem with facilities unequal area. Solving the

models presented with an unconstraint optimization

algorithm yields good quality suboptimal solutions in

a relatively low computation time.

Angel ford [21] the places where high school

teachers teach have a relationship with what and how

their students learn. Certain aspect of the physical

environment have been examined decades, such as

those affect basic physiological needs including but

not limited to climate control, air quality, appropriate

lighting and cleanliness. It is significant to investigate

knowledge spaces in light of changing pedagogies

that teachers are being encouraged to take on this

young generation of students. Without the suitable

facilities, teachers are restricted in the pedagogical

techniques they can apply. As teachers are being

needed to separate teaching strategies, they want to

be supplied with the suitable resources, including the

most effective physical environment and classroom

layout and the training to take those spaces

effectively.

Cheryan and Ziegler, et al. [22] indicated that

developing student attainment is essential to their

nation competitiveness. Scientific research shows

how the physical classroom environment influences

student attainment. Two findings are key: first the

morphological facilities keenly mastery wisdom.

Insufficient lighting, sound, low air quality and

deficient warming in the classroom importantly

connected to worse students’ attainment. Over half of

U.S. schools have insufficient morphological facilities

and student are likely to attend schools with deficient

morphological facilities. Second, scientific studies

uncover the unforeseen significance of a classroom’s

emblematic aspect, such as objects and well décor, in

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

5

influencing student learning and acquirement in this

environment. Emblematic report students whether

they are valued learners and go to the classroom,

with far reaching consequences for students’

academic likes and attainment. They contour rule

connections of the scientific discovers-noting

pertinent rule audiences and specify crucial aspects

of classroom design that can develop student

attainment, particularly to the most unprotected

students.

Methodology

Participants are selected randomly for conducting

the data collection. Questionaries’ are prepared to

identify the student’s requirements. QFD is used to

prioritize the design requirements. Different types of

anthropometric measurements are discussed for

understanding the data collection. University

classroom furniture measures are also discussed.

Mismatch calculation procedure between the

furniture and body dimensions is also shown. Finally,

facility layout is described.

Participants

For the purpose of this study 200 students were

taken from many university of Bangladesh, in order

to collect various anthropometry measurements.

Dimensions of existing furniture are also taken in

order to find out mismatch with anthropometric

measurements.

Procedure

Student survey by considering Kano model was

held at the beginning. Student’s requirements are

identified to meet the satisfaction. Then another

survey was done by considering quality function

deployment model. After getting student demands,

House of quality is prepared to prioritize design

requirements. Then anthropometric measurements of

the students were taken. Also, dimensions of existing

furniture are also taken to calculate mismatch. From

the anthropometric measurements- mean, max, min,

standard deviation, 5

th

, 50

th

, 95

th

percentiles are

calculated. Then design of layout is prepared to

allocate the table and chair.

Quality Function Deployment

Quality function deployment is a total quality

management tool which represents all the analysis

structurally. QFD translates customer demand into

design requirements for better customer satisfaction.

This total quality management tool was first

introduced in Japan back in 1972.

This tool is widely used in various sectors such as

product development, manufacturing industries,

educational institution and service providers to

improve their customer service level. In general,

quality function deployment method finds out the

customer demand through voice of customer (VOC).

Then designed requirements are assigned to that

customer demand.

Finally, customers get responsive and improved

product to get better value from it. QFD method is

basically based on customer survey. Then rest of the

steps come to the front. Certain level of Questionnaire

development is the first initial stage of starting QFD

process.

Appropriate questionnaire development to get the

best “Voice of the customer” which reflects the better

satisfaction. There are many ways of taking customer

survey such as with hard copy of questionnaire,

telephone call etc. Then VOC translated into

interpreted need. Quality function deployment

structured process is listed below.

Step 1: Questionnaire Development

Appropriate questionnaire development is the best

way to capture customer demand. In this step to build

questionnaire, we arranged a meeting of experts who

basically works with ergonomic research, human

factor engineers, students of ergonomics and other

experts in this field. For chair and multifunctional

table, we had developed 12 questions for chair and 15

questions for multifunctional table. Among them, we

have kept 9 questions for chair and 11 questions for

multifunctional table. Added that, unnecessary

questions are reduced because of expert opinions.

Step 2: Identifying customer requirements

From the survey, we got “Voice of customers”.

Then Voice of customer is translated into interpreted

need. Based on these customer demands, later

designed requirements are assigned.

Step 3: Determining the relative importance

of WHAT’s

To get the relative importance of WHAT’s, SATTY’s

pair wise comparison table was used to capture the

importance. Also mentioning that, getting importance

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

6

score is varied from one customer to another

customer. And the importance level was 1-9.

Step 4: Establishing Design requirements

After getting customer demands, the next vital step

is establishing design requirements. In this step, top

level experts are involved to build best design

requirements for the articulated customer demand.

The main target to call experts in these fields was to

fulfill the customer demand and to obtain better

customer satisfaction.

Step 5: Preparing inter-relationship matrix

between WHAT and HOW

Inter-relationship matrix is an essential part of

House of Quality. This inter-relationship matrix

represents “HOW” well design requirements are

related with customer demand “WHAT”. The higher

accuracy of the inter-relationship matrix means

better customer satisfaction.

Step 6: Determining of the technical ratings

of “HOW”

Technical ratings of “HOW” are calculated through

multiplication of two factors, Final importance ratings

of WHAT and the relationship between design

requirements and customer requirements.

Technical rating of Design requirements= Final

importance ratings of WHAT Interrelationship

matrix …………….………………………………………………… (3)

Step 7: Prioritizing of Design requirements

The final step of quality development process is

prioritize the design requirements. Basically from

these steps a company determines the essential

design requirements needed to be utilized for the

specific product. Here, design requirements are

prioritized through their relative weight percentage.

Higher to lower score form is used to prioritize

design requirements here.

Anthropometric Measurements

Anthropometric Dimensions of the Students:

Anthropometric measurements used as a key word

during designing furniture ergonomically. The

anthropometric measures were gathered to the

seated and standing positions in a bar foot. During

measurements, care was taken to be sure the

individual was sitting upright and that students feet

were perpendicular to the ground using a chair. The

following anthropometric measurements were taken

for each student:

Sitting height: Calculated to the vertical distance

from a horizontal sitting surface to the height point of

head. This is utilized to find out the vertical clearance

required for a seated posture.

Sitting eye height: Calculated to the vertical distance

from a horizontal sitting surface to the eye. Visual

displays should be positioned under the horizontal

plane defined by the eye height.

Sitting shoulder height: Calculated to the vertical

distance from horizontal sitting surface to acromion

(Figure 1).

Source of Image: S. O. Ismaila et al. [23].

Figure 1: Measured Anthropometric Data.

Legend:

1- Sitting Height

2 - Sitting Elbow height

3 - Sitting Shoulder Height

4- Thigh Clearance

5 - Knee height

6 - Popliteal Height

7- Buttock-Popliteal Length

8- Eye Height

9 - Buttock-knee Length

10- Forearm- Hand Length

Sitting elbow height: Calculated to the vertical distance

from a horizontal sitting surface to the tip of the elbow

with fixed at 90 degrees. It assists to determine table

height.

Hip breadth: Calculated to the maximum horizontal

distance between the hips in the sitting position. This is

used to find out the breadth of chairs and whole body

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

7

access for clearance. Hip breadth should be shorter than

the furniture.

Elbow to elbow height: Calculated to the horizontal

distance across the lateral surfaces of the elbows

spreading sideways was calculated. This is utilized to find

out the width of seat backs and distance between the

arms rests.

Thigh clearance: Calculated to the vertical distance from

a horizontal sitting plane to the maximum point on the

thigh. Sitting elbow height and thigh clearance assist to

determine how thick the table and top drawer can be.

Knee height: Calculated to the vertical distance from

floor to upper surface of thigh (90 degrees of knee

flexion).

Buttock knee length: Calculated to the horizontal

distance from the front of the kneecap to the rearmost

piece to the buttock.

Buttock popliteal length: Calculated to the horizontal

distance from the posterior surface of the buttock to the

popliteal surface. This is assisted to find out the length of

eat pad. This length was calculated to a knee angle of 90

degree.

Popliteal height: Calculated to the vertical distance from

the foot rest surface to the popliteal place. This is assisted

to find out the range of adjustability for chairs. Popliteal

height should be shorter than seat height.

Stature: Calculated to the vertical distance to the highest

part of head, while the contributor stood erect, looking

fast. This is utilized to find out the lowest skyward

clearance required to evade head collisions.

University Classroom Furniture Measures: The

following dimensions of the classroom furniture which

are measured:

Chair Seat Height (SH): Calculated to the vertical

distance from the floor to the highest point on the front of

the seat.

Chair Seat Depth (SD): Calculated to the horizontal

distance from the back of the sitting surface of the seat to

its front.

Chair seat Width (SW): Calculated to the horizontal

distance from the outer left side of the sitting surface of

the seat to outer right side.

Chair Backrest Height (BH): Calculated to the vertical

distance from the side of the seat surface to the highest

point of the backrest.

Table Height (TH): Calculated to the vertical distance

from the floor to the top of the front edge of the table

(Figure 2).

Figure 2: Representation of the table and chair

measurements.

Legend:

TW= Table width

TD= Table depth

TH= Table height

RH= Rack height

BH= Backrest height

SW= Seat width

SD= Seat depth

SH= Seat height

Mismatch between University Furniture and

Body Dimensions: The rules of ergonomic and

anthropometric should be used for designing of classroom

furniture and defining the range in which suitable

furniture dimension is regarded. The anthropometric

measurements of every student were associated with

pertinent furniture dimension in order to identify match

or mismatch. In the literature various published

relationships have been established to identify match or

mismatch. Following equations are usually used:

Popliteal Height (PH) against Seat Height (SH): The

seat height is required to be balanced with respect to the

popliteal height (PH). It additionally requires enabling the

knee to be flexed with the goal that the lower legs frame a

most extreme of 30º point in respect to the vertical hub

[24].

As per the writing, SH ought to be lower than the PH

with the goal that the lower leg constitutes a 5°– 30° point

in respect to the vertical and the shin-thigh edge is in the

vicinity of 95° and 120° [25-27]. Too low SH builds weight

on the is chialtuberosities, though too high prompts

expanded weight at the popliteal crease (underside of

knees), diminishing blood dissemination and expanding

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

8

weight on the nerve. Be that as it may, SH does not have

an esteem higher than 4 cm or 88% of the PH to maintain

a strategic distance from pressure in the butt cheek area

[26,28,29].

Hence, 3 cm adjustment for shoe tallness is

incorporated to the PH for this exploration work. A

confound amongst PH and SH is characterized when the

SH is either >95% or <88% of the PH (Parcells 1999) and

it is conceivable to build up a basis for SH [27].

(PH+3) cos30

0

≤SH≤ (PH+3)

cos5

0

………………………………...……….…………… (1)

Buttock popliteal length (BPL) against seat depth

(SD): As per Poulakakis and Marmaras [30], situate

profundity ought to be no less than 5 cm not as much as

the butt cheek popliteal length. Be that as it may, the thigh

would not be bolstered enough if the SD is significantly

not exactly the BPL of the subjects. Different specialists,

for example, Milanese and Grimmer, Helande, Oborne,

Khalil et al., Pheasant, and Sanders and McCormick [31-

36] clarified that the seat profundity ought to be intended

for the fifth percentile of the BPL dissemination so the

backrest of the seat can bolster the lumbar spine without

pressure of the popliteal surface. Along these lines,

confound amongst SD and BPL is characterized when SD

is either <80% or >95% of BPL [26].

0.80BPL≤SD≤0.90BPL

………………………………………..………….…….……. (2)

Sitting shoulder height (SSH) against backrest height

(BH): The proper backrest height (BH) should be

considered to encourage portability of the storage

compartment and arms. The estimation of the BH ought to

be not as much as the scapula [29]. Subsequently, Gouvaili

and Boundolos and Agha [27,37] prescribed keeping the

backrest lower than or nearly on the upper edge of the

scapula and an ideal BH ought to be kept at 60– 80% of

shoulder tallness.

0.60SSH≤BH≤0.80SSH

………….…...…………………..………………….………… (3)

Hip Breadth (HB) against Seat Width (SW): The seat

width (SW) ought to be sufficiently vast to suit the client

with the biggest hip broadness (HB) to accomplish

dependability and permit space for sidelong

developments [27,32,33,36].

Also, Gutiérrez and Morgado, Evans et al., Helander,

Mondelo et al., Occhipinti et al., Orborne, and Sanders and

McCormick [28,29,32,33,36,38,] demonstrated that the

HB ought to be smaller than the SW keeping in mind the

end goal to have a legitimate fit in the seat and an ideal

SW is assigned for the 95th percentile of HB conveyance

or the biggest HB. The altered proposed condition

demonstrates that the SW ought to be no less than 10%

(to suit HB) and no more 30% (for space economy) bigger

than the HB [27].

1.10HB≤SW≤1.30HB

………………...………………….…………………………….. (4)

Sitting elbow height (SEH) against table height (TH):

EH+ (PH+3) cos30

0

≤TH<= (PH+3)

cos5

0

+0.8517EH+0.1483SH………………...…… (5)

Thigh clearance against SDC:

The appropriate SDC needs to be higher than thigh

clearance (TC) in order to provide leg movement [24,39].

The optimum SDC should be 2 cm higher than knee height

[26].

(TC+2)<SDC

………………………………….……………………………………… (6)

Facility Layout

The following steps will be followed in facility layout:

a. Brainstorming about the selected room to do layout.

b. Gathering the dimension of the selected room.

c. Designing the layout.

d. Recommending extra facilities.

Results

Table 1 shows the prioritization of relative weight

percentage of chair’s how and table’s how Table 2 shows

the anthropometric measures of the student’s. Table 3

shows the existing classroom furniture. Table 4 shows the

number & percentage of students who match or mismatch

with existing classroom furniture Figure 3 shows the

House of Quality (HOQ) for Chair. Table 5 shows the

proposed classroom furniture dimensions. Figure 4 shows

the HOQ for multifunctional table.

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

9

NO.

Design

Requirements for

chair

Weight percentage (%) for

chair

Design requirements for

table

Weight percentage (%)

for chair

1

Foam seat

19

Plywood body

18

2

Steel body

14

Wooden body

13

3

Wooden body

13

Position indication to keep

monitor

10.5

4

Workers efficiency

12

Adding foot rest

7.5

5

Cotton seat

9

Reducing production cost

7.5

6

Adding lumbar

support

7.5

Workers efficiency

7.5

7

Adding hand rest

7.5

Position indication to keep

keyboards

7

8

Avoiding waste

6

Good finishing

7

9

Reducing production

cost

6

Lock system

6

10

Colors

2

Adding drawer

5.5

11

Good finishing

2

Medium size

5.5

12

Best accessories

2

Wheel system

4

13

Place for bags

1

Table 1: Prioritization of relative weight percentage of chair’s how and table’s how.

Anthropometric dimension

Min

Max

Mean

SD

5

th

% tile

5o

th

% tile

95

th

% tile

Popliteal height

38.9

48.9

43.21

2.93

39.04

42.8

47.75

Sitting height

74.2

96.7

84.66

7.53

74.97

85.66

94.98

Sitting eye height

101.2

131.5

114.87

11.52

101.38

113.19

131.49

Thigh clearance

10.7

19.3

15.29

3.18

10.84

15.75

19.26

Sitting elbow height

18.6

29.5

24.54

4.18

19.05

24.34

59.85

Buttock knee length

4.8

63.7

32.58

21.26

5.15

33.7

24.34

Knee height

46.9

58

52.81

3.93

46.97

52.89

57.7

Hip breadth

28.7

40

34.09

3.95

28.77

35.2

39.47

Elbow to elbow breadth

35.9

56.9

46.66

7.2

36.14

47.34

55.92

Sitting shoulder height

44.4

66.78

55.32

8.1

45.22

55.89

65.54

Sitting lowest rib bone height

61

84

74.45

7.06

63.57

75.8

82.95

Sitting upper hip bone height

55

67

61.38

4.13

55.54

61

64.43

Forearm fingertip length

40

52.5

46.32

4.35

40.56

45.78

52.08

Buttock popliteal length

34.7

48.1

42.15

4.79

35.54

41.29

48.065

Stature

136

179

159.73

13.76

136.94

164.78

176.2

Table 2: Anthropometric measures of the student’s.

Furniture Dimensions

Dimensions (cm)

Chair

Seat height

46.5

Seat width

43

Seat depth

42

Backrest height

44

Table

Table height

76.8

Table Width

60.7

Table 3: Existing classroom furniture

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

10

Furniture dimensions

Match (%)

Low

Mismatch

(%)

High

Mismatch (%)

Total

Mismatch

(%)

Seat Height

75

0

25

Seat Depth

2

0

98

Seat Width

11

0

89

Backrest Height

42

0

58

Table Height

62

38

0

38

Table Width

15

0

85

Table 4: Number & percentage of students who match or mismatch with existing classroom furniture.

Figure 3: HOQ for chair.

Furniture Dimensions

Dimensions (cm)

Chair

Seat height

42

Seat width

43

Seat depth

42

Backrest height

40

Table

Table height

74

Table width

62

Table 5: Proposed classroom furniture dimensions.

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

11

Figure 4: HOQ for table.

Implementation

Implementation of Proposed Dimensions

Finally, proposed chair and table have the correct

dimensions for comfortable learning facility. New chair

design have the hand rest and lumbar support. New table

design have penholder, improved foot rest, wheel for

moving and drawer for keeping things. The modification

of existing furniture shown in Figure 5 and figure 6.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 showing the modified table and

chair.

Figure 5: Modified table.

Figure 6: Modified Chair.

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

12

Figure 7: Layout for room no: 233(A), Jessore University

of Science and Technology for the proposed table and

chair for the present.

Discussion & Recommendation

General Discussion

The study estimated the possible mismatch between

classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of

200 Bangladeshi university students. The study indicates

that, the proposed furniture dimensions are more

appropriate than the existing furniture. The proposed

dimensions for classroom furniture are also easily

adoptable. So, the modified classroom furniture design

will be appropriate for almost all university students.

However, the proposed dimensions and final

implementation of the present study should have some

limitations.

Unique Contribution

The primary aim in this study is to relook at the

concept of ergonomically fit table and chair from a new

perspective. Listed things are relooked-

 By using Kano model, student’s requirement has been

very well determined.

 QFD methodology helps a lot to make the appropriate

relationship between student’s demands and design

requirements to overcome the shortcomings.

 According to student’s demands new features namely

hand rest, proper lumbar support, drawer, pen holder

and wheel system are added.

 For the proper allocation of the modified table and

chair, a layout is proposed.

Recommendation

Here, we have some recommendation to provide better

learning facility for the university students.

1. The classroom should be sound proof.

2. Air flow system must be developed.

3. Teacher stage should fit with blackboard.

4. The classroom should have air condition system.

5. The classroom furniture must be developed with

ergonomic consideration.

6. The chair should be lightweight.

7. The classroom furniture must have best aesthetics,

innovative features, and glossy colors.

Limitations

This study has limitations. Data collection might vary

little bit up and down due to movements while collecting.

As students’ comfort level is emphasized, the price of the

proposed table might increase Extra facilities like air

condition; sound system can be provided but will incur

more costs.

Future Work

Table desk can be blocked by extra piece of material.

Price can be decreased. Chair hand rest should be foamed.

Conclusion

The sole purpose of this paper was to scrutinize

relation between body dimensions from a sample study of

200 Bangladeshi university students and ergonomic

classroom furniture design. A remarkable mismatch was

identified between student’s body dimensions and the

classroom furniture (namely chair and table) dimension.

Table height of the classroom furniture was low for the

students. Also, the seats were high for the students. These

conditions may lead to pain and musculoskeletal

disorders. This research proposed dimensions that

satisfied the anthropometric measurement to reduce the

problem. The findings of the study also clearly

demonstrate that the design and allocation of classroom

furniture for Bangladeshi university students should be

made according to anthropometric judgment to avoid

unnecessary problems.

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

13

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Dr. A.S.M. Mojahidul

Hoque, Chairman of department of Industrial and

Production Engineering, Jessore University of Science and

Technology and students of department of industrial and

production engineering, Jessore University of science and

technology, Jessore, Bangladesh, for their uncountable

support.

References

1. Abuzid HFT (2017) Applying QFD Tools for Quality

Improvements in Curriculum Design and Teaching

Strategies to Meet with the Customer (Learner)

Needs. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences

12(3): 684-690.

2. Francis F (2016) Engineering Approach with Quality

Function Deployment for an ABET Accredited

Program: A Case Study. American Journal of

Mechanical Engineering 4(2): 65-70.

3. Kunecka D (2016) Quality Function Deployment as a

Method Used in the Development of Education for the

Nursing Practice. General and Professional Education

1: 42-45.

4. Buttigieg SC, Dey PK, Cassar MR (2016) Combined

quality function deployment and logical framework

analysis to improve quality of emergency care in

Malta. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 29(2): 129-140.

5. Kassela K, Marina Papalexi, David B (2017) Applying

quality function deployment to social housing? The

TQM Journal 29(3): 422-437.

6. Camgöz Akdağ H, Mehveş Tarım, Subash Lonial,

AlimYatkin (2013) QFD application using SERVQUAL

for private hospitals: a case study. Leadership in

Health Services 26(3): 175-183.

7. Cordeiro EC, Barbosa GF, Trabasso LG (2016) A

customized QFD (quality function deployment)

applied to management of automation projects. The

International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing

Technology 87(5-8): 2427-2436.

8. Li X, Wenyan Song (2016) A Rough VIKOR-Based QFD

for Prioritizing Design Attributes of Product-Related

Service. Mathematical Problems in Engineering

9642018.

9. Bulut Emrah, Okan Duru, Sheng Teng Huang (2016) A

multidimensional QFD design for the service quality

assessment of Kansai International Airport, Japan.

Journal Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence 29(1-2): 202-2024.

10. Muda N, Noor Sulawati Mat Roji (2015) A Quality

Function Deployment (QFD) Approach in

Determining the Employer’s Selection Criteria.

Journal of Industrial Engineering 789362.

11. Lonica, Andreea Cristina, Monica Leba (2015) QFD

Integrated in New Product Development - Biometric

Identification System Case Study. Procedia Economics

and Finance 23(2015): 986-991.

12. Kato Takeo, Shigehiro Horiuchi, Toshiharu Miwa,

Yoshiyuki Matsuoka (2015) Quality Function

Deployment Using Multispace Design Model and its

Application. Keio University 5(DS 80-05): 83-92.

13. Moradi M, Raissi S (2014) A Quality Function

Deployment Based Approach in Service Quality

Analysis to Improve Customer Satisfaction.

International Journal of Applied Operational Research

5(1): 41-49.

14. Jin, Jian, Ping Ji, Ying Liu (2014) Prioritising

Engineering Characteristics Based on Customer

Online Reviews for Quality Function Deployment.

Journal of Engineering Design 25(7-9): 303-324.

15. Romeo John, Andrew Smith, Sarich Chotipanich,

Michael Pitt (2014) Awareness and effectiveness of

quality function deployment (QFD) in design and

build projects in Nigeria. Journal of Facilities

Management 12(1): 72-88.

16. Cerit B, Küçükyazıcı G, Kalem G (2014) Quality

Function Deployment and Its Application on a

Smartphone Design. Balkan Journal of Electrical &

Computer Engineering 2(2):86-91.

17. Oyewole Samuel A, Joel M Haight, Andris Freivalds

(2010) The ergonomic design of classroom

furniture/computer work station for first graders in

the elementary school. International Journal of

Industrial Ergonomics 40(4): 437-4470.

18. Lin, Rungtai, Yen-Yu Kang (2013) Ergonomic Design

of Desk and Chair for Primary School Students in

Taiwan. International Journal of Innovation,

Management and Technology 4(1):1-6.

Ergonomics International Journal

Taposh Kumar K, et al. Ergonomic Design of Table and Chair based on QFD

and Anthropometric Measurement and improved Facility Layout. Ergonomics

Int J 2018, 2(3): 000146.

14

19. Vilarinho PM, Guimaraaes RC (2003) A Facility

Layout Design Support System. Investigacao

Operacional 23(2): 145-161.

20. Sunderesh S, Heragu (1991) Efficient models for the

facility layout problem. European Journal of

Operational Research 53(1): 1-13.

21. Ford Angel (2017) Planning Classroom Design and

Layout to Increase Pedagogical Options for Secondary

Teachers. Educational Planning 23(1): 25-33.

22. Sapna Cheryan, Sianna A Ziegler, Victoria C Plaut,

Andrew N Meltzoff (2015) Designing Classrooms to

Maximize Student Achievement. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences 1(1): 4-12.

23. Ismaila SO, Musa AI, Adejuyigbe SB, Akinyemi OD

(2013) Anthropometric Design of Furniture for Use in

Tertiary Institutions in Abeokuta, South-Western

Nigeria. Engineering Review 33(3):179-192.

24. Molenbroek JF, Kroon-Ramaekers YM, Snijders CJ

(2003) Revision of the design of a standard for the

dimensions of school furniture. Ergonomics 46(7):

681-694.

25. Molenbroek J, Ramaekers Y (1996) Anthropometric

design of a size system for school furniture. In:

Robertson SA (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual

Conference of the Ergonomics Society: Contemporary

Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London, pp: 130-135.

26. Parcells C, Stommel M, Hubbard RP (1999) Mismatch

of classroom furniture & student body dimensions:

Empirical findings & health implications. Journal of

Adolescent Health 24(4): 265-273.

27. Gouvali MK, Boudolos K (2006) Match between

school furniture dimensions & children’s

anthropometry. Applied Ergonomics 37(6): 765-773.

28. Gutiérrez M, Morgado P (2001) Guía de

recomendaciones para el diseñodelmobiliario escolar

Chile, Ministerio de Educación and UNESCO, Santiago

de Chile.

29. Evans WA, Courtney AJ, Fok KF (1988) The design of

school furniture for Hong Kong school children: An

anthropometric case study. Applied Ergonomics

19(2): 122-134.

30. Poulakakis G, Marmaras N (1998) A model for the

ergonomic design of office. In: Scott PA, Bridger RS,

Charteris J (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ergonomics

Conference in Cape Town, Global Ergonomics,

Elsevier, pp: 500-504.

31. Milanese S, Grimmer K (2004) School furniture and

the user population: An anthropometric perspective.

Ergonomics 47(4): 416-426.

32. Helander M (1997) Anthropometry in workstation

designs. In: M Helander (Ed.), A Guide to the

Ergonomics of Manufacturing, Taylor & Francis,

London, pp: 17-28.

33. Orborne DJ (1996) Ergonomics at Work: Human

Factors in Design and Development. 3

rd

(Edn.), John

Wiley, Chichester.

34. Khalil TM, Abdel-Moty EM, Rosomoff RS, Rosomoff HL

(1993) Ergonomics in Back Pain: A Guide to

Prevention and Rehabilitation, Van Nostrand

Reinhold, New York, NY.

35. Pheasant S (1991) Ergonomics, Work and Health,

Macmillan, Hong Kong.

36. Sanders MS, Mccormick EJ (1993) Applied

anthropometry, work-space design and seating. In

Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 7

th

(Edn.),

McGraw-Hill, Singapore.

37. Agha SR (2010) School furniture match to students’

anthropometry in the Gaza Strip. Ergonomics 53(3):

344-354.

38. Occhipinti E, Colombini D, Molteni G, Grieco A (1993)

Criteria for the ergonomic evaluation of work chairs.

Le Medicina del Lavoro 84(4): 274-285.

39. García-Acosta G, Lange-Morales K (2007) Definition

of sizes for the design of school furniture for Bogotá

schools based on anthropometric criteria.

Ergonomics 50(10): 1626-1642.