This paper discusses anthropometric information needed by the engineer in order to design technical systems, work stations, equipment, and tools to “fit” the human operator for maximal performance and safety. *Abridged from a paper submitted to NBS Center for Consumer Product Technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderM.ClauserC.E.Anthropometry of Common Working Positions. AMRL-TR-65–73. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, 1965.
2.
ChristensenJ.M.Ergonomics: Where have we been and where are we going: II. Ergonomics, 19:3, 287–300, 1976.
3.
ChristensenJ.M.Implications of Product Liability for Engineering Design and Engineering Education. Manuscript presented at the 85th Annual Conference, American Society for Engineering Education, University of North Dakota, June 27–30, 1977.
4.
HertzbergH.T.E.ManuelI.E.AlexanderM.The Anthropometry of Working Positions. WADC-TR-54–520. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center.
5.
KennedyK.W. New USAF Drawing Board Manikins for Crew Station Design. Proceedings, Annual Scientific Meeting, Aerospace Medical Association, San Francisco, CA, 1975 and U.S. Patent 4, 026, 041, Two Dimensional Drawing Board Manikin, issued 1977.
6.
KroemerK.H.E.Human Strength: Terminology, Measurement, and Interpretation of Data. Human Factors12:3, 297–313, 1970.
7.
KroemerK.H.E.Muscle Strength as a Criterion in Control Design for Diverse Populations. 67–89 in: Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering, (Ed: ChapanisA.), Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
8.
KroemerK.H.E.Engineering Anthropo-pometry, 365–367, Proceedings, 6th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Santa Monica, CA: The Human Factors Society, 1976.
9.
KroemerK.H.E.The Assessment of Human Strength. Proceedings, NIOSH International Symposium Safety in Manual Materials Handling. Buffalo, NY: SUNY-NIOSH, 1976.
10.
KroemerK.H.E.A New Look at Methods and Techniques to Assess Muscular Strength. Proceedings, Annual Scientific Meeting, Aerospace Medical Association. Las Vegas, N: AMA1977.
11.
LaubachL.L.A Selected Literature Review, Pertaining to the Relationships Between Static and Dynamic Muscular Strength. Report, Webb Associates, Yellow Springs, OH: August 1972.
12.
LaubachL.L.Comparative Muscular Strength of Men and Women: A Review of the Literature. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine47:5. 534–542, 1976.
13.
McDanielJ.W.Computerized Biomechanical Man-Mode1, 384–389, Proceedings, 6th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. Santa Monica CA: The Human Factors Society, 1976.
14.
OwingsC.L.ChaffinD.B.SnyderB.G.MorcuttM.S.Strength Characteristics of U.S. Children for Product Safety Design. Report FDA-73–32 Bethesda, MD: The Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1975.
15.
RoebuckJ.A.KroemerK.H.E.ThomsonW.G.Engineering Anthropometry Methods. New York, NY: Wiley, 1975.
16.
SnyderR.G.SchneiderL.W.OwingsC.L.ReynoldsH.M.GolombD.H.SchorkM.A.Anthropometry of Infants, Children, and Youths to Age 19 For Product Safety Design. UM-HSRI-77–17, Final Report for Consumer Product Safety Commission Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1977.
