Exercise 2

Human Engineering

I. Overview
Human Engineering talks about how a certain measurement affects
one’s performance towards the workplace and so as to the school
activities. How does it affect us? Of course, just by simply
measuring what an activity told us to do so with proper procedures
and processes for us to get the accurate result of our performance
and to know whether we are productive enough or not.

II. Objective
➢ To differentiate each body measurements/dimensions and its effects to
work and productivity.
➢ To know the importance of the different body dimensions in designing
facilities, equipment and in the workplace,
➢ to be able to understand how human engineering works

III. Procedure
○ Each group needs to bring their own tape measure
○ Use comfortable clothes.
○ For uniformity, “inches” will be used as a unit of measurement
○ Measure each group members body dimensions.
➢ Measure the height, eyelevel, elbow height, maximum height of
control, minimum height of control, maximum distance of control
from centreline of body, Body weight, Maximum forward reach from
front edge of bench ,Normal forward reach from the edge of bench
,Minimum distance of display from eye, Maximum span of working
level ,Normal span of working level, Elbow height above sit, Depth
of sit below work surface ,Seat length ,Seat width ,Buttocks to knee,
Minimum leg room, Back of seat to front edge of work surface, Seat
height, Depth of foot rest when seated on a high chair of every
group members.
➢ Write the measurement on a table and get the group average.
➢ Get the group average of other Groups, write it on a table and get
the class average
V. Analysis and Discussion
➢ In every group there are those which are taller / bigger than the others
and for these reason they rank highest in average specifically height is
involve. On the other hand, there are those groups who consist of
small individuals (not literally small but average in height while others
are above average) that’s why they rank the lowest average.
“Persons of larger size in general appear to function better than those with smaller stature
(CALLOWAY, 1982) in relation to reproduction (THOMSON, 1980), disease (REDDY et al., 1976),
cognition (KLEIN, 1972), and work performance (SPURR, 1983; 1984). Because physical work
capacity is a function of body size (ÅSTRAND and RODAHL, 1970), i.e., the mass of muscle
tissue involved in the maximum effort, and muscle constitutes about 40% of the body weight
and 50% of the LBM (CLARYS, MARTIN and DRINKWATER, , it is interesting to note the
correlations between three components of body size and VO2 max presented.”
➢ Examples of body dimensions used in designing facilities.
Height
• Height of every individual is important. In the hospitality Industry, hotels for
instance, doors are based on the height of the guests. We all know that most
of the guests especially in a deluxe /suite hotel are foreigners, and indeed
their height is way to far from us. That’s why our doors/doorway is made on
the people coming in and out of the hotel. You cannot make small doors fitted
for average height persons if your guests are very much taller.
The front desks also in hotels are based on height of human. The desk should
not be taller than the one using it; it should be appropriate so the front desk
clerk would be more productive and would not so helpless that she could not
even reach it.

Depth of sit below work surface ,Seat length ,Seat width

• When a person leans into the chair back, there is both a backward and a
downward force. The downward force pushes the bottom of the pelvis
forward. Eventually, the sitter finds himself sitting on his tailbone at the edge
of the chair with the spine as a whole transformed into a C-shaped slouch. Of
course the next step is to pick oneself up and lean back into the chair again.
This only starts the whole process over again. ‘Sitting up straight’ has to be
forced, and is probably worse than the slouch, in hospitality industry chairs
has a vital role for workers to increase productivity and the body dimensions
has a great effect on it. The answer lies in re-educating the body to move the
way it was designed. Simply by using the body properly, the muscles are
toned and ‘autonomous’ sitting can be regained

Applying Ergonomic Principles in the Workplace:

How the Alexander Technique can Help
by Holly A. Sweeney

As early as the 18th century, doctors noticed that workers whose jobs required them
to maintain certain body positions for long periods of time developed
musculoskeletal problems. In the last 20 years, research has clearly established the
connection between certain job tasks and repetitive stress injuries, or RSI’s.
Two elements are at work here: “static work” and “force.”
“Static work” refers to the musculoskeletal effort required to hold a certain position,
even a comfortable one.
○ For example, when we sit and work at computers, keeping our head and torso
upright requires either small or great amounts of static work depending upon
the efficiency of the body positions we choose.
“Force” refers to the amount of tension our muscles generate. For example, tilting
your head forward or backward from a neutral, vertical position quadruples the
amount of force acting on your lower neck vertebra. This increase of force is due to
the increase in muscular tension necessary to support your head in a tilted position.

The term “ergonomics” is derived from two Greek words: “erg,” meaning work and
“nomoi,” meaning natural laws. Ergonomists study human capabilities in
relationship to work demands. In recent years, ergonomists have attempted to
define postures which minimize unnecessary static work and reduce the forces
acting on the body. All of us could significantly reduce our risk of injury if we could
adhere to the following ergonomic principles:

1. All work activities should permit the worker to adopt several different, but equally
healthy and.safe postures
2. Where muscular force has to be exerted it should be done by the largest
appropriate muscle groups available.
3. Work activities should be performed with the joints at about mid-point of their
range of movement. This applies particularly to the head, trunk, and upper limbs.
(Cortlett, 1983)

Here, however, we arrive at a problem: In order to put these recommendations into

practice, a person would have to be a skilled observer of his or her own joint and
muscle functioning and would have to be able to change his or her posture to a
healthier one at will. No one develops this sort of highly refined sensory awareness
without special training. Therefore, in order to derive the benefits of ergonomic
research, we must learn how to observe our bodies in a new way.

One training program that cultivates these skills is the Alexander Technique, which
enables its students to put ergonomic principles into practice, and thus helps them
reduce their risk of developing an RSI.

The Alexander Technique is not new. It was developed in the early 20th century
before ergonomics became a recognized science and has been applied throughout
this century by people from all walks of life. The Technique is an educational method
which shows people how they are misusing their bodies and how their everyday
habits of work can be harmful. It also teaches people how to avoid work habits
which create excessive amounts of static work and how to reduce the amount of
unnecessary muscular force they are applying to their bodies.

Performing artists comprise one occupational group which has studied the
Alexander Technique extensively. This group of workers is extremely aware of the
potential for serious injury as a result of repetitious demands on the body. Typically,
the work demands of performing artists require hours of daily practice and rehearsal
plus the rigors of maintaining performance schedules. In addition to the desire to
perform at peak levels of skill, performers also hope to extend their careers as far
into their life span as possible. RSI’s represent a serious threat to livelihood and
career longevity. It is for these reasons that the Alexander Technique is found in the
curriculum of most performing arts schools.
In an Alexander lesson, students experience profound physical changes through
the gentle guidance of the teacher’s hands. These changes are a direct result of
reduction of static work demands and force. As students progress in their study of
the Technique, they notice that they feel more comfortable performing everyday
tasks like sitting, standing, walking, typing because they have learned how to lower
static work and applied force within their bodies.
Students of the Alexander Technique report increased self confidence as they
learn to exert a constructive influence over the repetitive injury process; they
discover that they do not have to be unwitting victims of RSI’s. This increased sense
of self reliance and fresh perspective on how to protect their body from injury
contributes to a mental state that is less anxious, more resilient and better prepared
to handle work challenges safely.
Vi. Conclusion
Human engineering is a science that focuses on how humans interact with the
environment in their workplace. It examines the workplace factors that influence the
decisions and actions of workers. No one goes to work intending to be injured. The
decisions and actions that workers take make sense to them at the time given their
goals, knowledge and focus of attention. Our body measurements has a great effect
on our productivity, we should know the proper equipments or even the facilities that
is equipped to our body dimensions for us to make our work better.

VII. References
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID08E/uid08e0f.htm
http://www.alexandertechnique.com/ergonomics.htm

http://www.office-ergo.com/

http://www.humaneng.co.uk/index.htm

http://www.humanengineering.com.au/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors

IV. Findings

Table1
Body Measurement of Group members Group
Daniel Chero Liela Maximo Melissa
Dimensions Average
Height 64 66 58 68 59 63
Eye level 61 60 53 63 53 59
Elbow height 40 41 36 41 38 39.2
Maximum 56 55 48 56 49 52.8
height of
control
Minimum height 37 36 34 38 35 36
of control

Maximum 29 28 28 30 26 28.2
distance of
control from
centreline of
 body

Body weight 15 15 13 18 13 14.8

Maximum
forward reach
from front edge 28 23 20 25 21 23.4
of bench
Normal forward
reach from the
edge of bench 25 21 21 25 21 22.6
Minimum
distance of
display from 19 17 16 19 17 17.6
eye
Maximum span 62 58 52 63 55 58
of working level
Normal span of 35 30 26 33 27 30.2
working level
Elbow height 17 15 14 18 15 15.8
above sit
Depth of sit
below work
surface 20 19 18 21 19 19.4
Seat length 19 19 17 19 16 18
Seat width 13 14 12 15 13 13.4
Buttocks to 24 23 20 21 19 21.4
knee
Minimum leg 27 23 23 30 22 25
room
Back of seat to
front edge of
work surface 10 10 9 12 9 10
Seat height 32 32 28 32 27 30.2
Depth of foot
rest when
seated on a 18 16 14 17 13 15.6
high chair
Measurement of Groups
Grou Grou Grou Grou Grou Grou Grou Grou
Body p p p p p p p p Group
Dimension Avera
s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ge
Height 62.25 63 64.7 63.5 64.1 62 63 63.4 63.25
3
Eye level 57.54 58.6 60.1 59.6 56.6 58 59 59.8 58.66
3
 Elbow 39.25 37.5 40.1 40.2 38.7 40.1 39.2 42 39.68
height 5
Maximum
height of
control 50.3 49.7 53.1 54.4 51.8 57.1 52.8 54.6 52.24
8
Minimum
height of
control 33.31 31.4 34.8 35.1 32 33.4 36 33.4 33.68
Maximum
distance of
control 27.1 26.8 27.4 29 27 28.2 28.2 29.4 27.89
from
centreline
of body
Body 16.94 16.8 15.4 15.9 15 16.6 14.8 1`7. 16.16
weight 8
Maximum 23.8
forward
reach from 22.31 24.2 23.5 20 21.2 23.4 24.7 22.89
front edge
of bench
Normal
forward
reach from 22.13 12.2 24.4 22.4 17 20.2 22.6 23.6 20.57
the edge of
bench

Minimum
distance of
display 18.31 20.7 21.2 19.2 18.7 18.9 17.6 20.4 19.50
from eye 5
Maximum 53.81 54.5 56.2 57.6 55 51.7 58 58.4 55.66
span of 8
working
level
Normal 32.63 34 27.3 37.2 25.7 30.2 30.2 31.9 31.15
span of 5
working
level
Elbow 16.75 17 19.4 18.8 18.5 12.8 15.8 17.6 17.09
height 2
above sit
Depth of sit
below work
surface 19.38 18.1 17.7 16.7 16.5 14.2 19.4 19.3 17.66
Seat length 17 20.7 17.2 18.7 17 16.7 18 17.7 17.88
Seat width 13.63 15.2 13.8 15.6 13.5 11.5 13.4 14.2 13.85
Buttocks to 19.75 24.6 20 21.6 20.2 20.3 21.4 21.4 21.19
knee 5
 Minimum 25.75 30.2 26 28.4 32.7 26.4 25 28.9 27.93
leg room 5
Back of
seat to
front edge 10.56 12.8 9.5 11 10.2 10.1 10 12 10.78
of work 5
surface
Seat height 28.19 28.1 29.1 29.4 28.2 28.4 30.2 30.3 28.99
5
Depth of
foot rest
when 15.13 15.6 15.9 16.1 14.5 15.9 15.6 16.4 15.65
seated on a 6
high chair

EXERCISE 02
Group7
Daniel Jason BaUtista
CherOfelle Barcellano
Liela May UgalinO
MelisSa Cammayo
Maximo IbAy

Table3
 Body Highest Group Lowest. 5 Group
Dimensions
Average Name Average Name
64.13 Gr. 5 62 Gr. 6
Height
60.1 Gr. 3 56.63 Gr. 5
Eye level
42 Gr. 8 37.5 Gr. 2
Elbow height
Maximum height 54.6 Gr. 8 49.7 Gr. 2
of control
Minimum height 36 Gr. 7 31.4 Gr. 2
of control
Maximum 29.4 Gr. 8 26. 8 Gr. 2
distance of
control from
centreline of
body
Body weight 17.8 Gr. 8 14.8 Gr. 7

Maximum 24.7 Gr. 8 20 Gr. 5

forward reach
from front edge
of bench
Normal forward 24.4 Gr. 2 12.2 Gr. 3
reach from the
edge of bench
Minimum 20.7 Gr. 2 17.6 Gr. 7
distance of
display from eye
Maximum span of 58.48 Gr. 8 51.7 Gr. 6
working level
GNormal span of 37.2 Gr. 4 25.75 Gr. 5
working level
Elbow height 19.4 Gr. 3 12.8 Gr. 6
above sit
Depth of sit 19.38 Gr. 1 14.2 Gr. 6
below work
surface
Seat length 20.7 Gr. 2 16.7 Gr. 6

Seat width 15.6 Gr. 4 11.5 Gr. 6

Buttocks to knee 24.6 Gr. 2 19.75 Gr. 1

Minimum leg 30.75 Gr. 5 25 Gr. 7

room
Back of seat to 12.8 Gr. 2 9.5 Gr. 3
front edge of
work surface
Seat height 30.30 Gr. 8 28.1 Gr. 2

Depth of foot rest 16.46 Gr.8 14.5 Gr. 5

when seated on a
high chair