Document Type : Research Paper


Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jashore University of Science and Technology, Jashore-7408, Bangladesh.


This study has been carried out to evaluate the number of mismatches between secondary girl student’s anthropometry and existing furniture dimensions in Bangladesh. In this study, 375 students (girls) are in classes 6-10 in the age group between 10-15 years that have randomly selected from three secondary girl schools in Bangladesh. Twelve anthropometric measurements and seven existing furniture dimensions were taken to find out the possible mismatch. A defined match criterion equation used to determine the mismatch. Various researchers gave these equations. The result indicates that there is a significant mismatch between anthropometric measurement and furniture dimensions. The highest mismatch percentage for seat height is about 90% for class 9. Therefore, 90% of girls use the seat that is too high (high mismatch). Mismatch percentage for seat depth is 100% for all classes. As a result, seat depth is so small for all students. Seat width is 100% for class 8 and 60% for class 9. The desktop height is about 100% mismatch for all classes. This paper also proposes dimensions for new furniture. The new furniture improves the match percentages from 50% to 100%.


Main Subjects

[1]     Farahani, A., & Shakib, M. (2009). A survey on some skeletal disorders and proportionality of anthropometric features to school furniture dimensions in primary students. World journal of sport sciences2(4), 266-71.
[2]     Troussier, B. (1999). Comparative study of two different kinds of school furniture among children. Ergonomics42(3), 516-526.
[3]     Grimmer, K., & Williams, M. (2000). Gender-age environmental associates of adolescent low back pain. Applied ergonomics31(4), 343-360.
[4]     Murphy, S., Buckle, P., & Stubbs, D. (2004). Classroom posture and self-reported back and neck pain in schoolchildren. Applied ergonomics35(2), 113-120.
[5]     Watson, K. D., Papageorgiou, A. C., Jones, G. T., Taylor, S., Symmons, D. P., Silman, A. J., & Macfarlane, G. J. (2002). Low back pain in schoolchildren: occurrence and characteristics. Pain97(1-2), 87-92.
[6]     Parvez, M. S., Parvin, F., Shahriar, M. M., & Kibria, G. (2018). Design of ergonomically fit classroom furniture for primary schools of Bangladesh. Journal of engineering.
[7]     Hoque, M., Parvez, S., Basahel, A., & Ahasan R. (2018). Anthropometry and mismatch issues with the elementary school children in Bangladesh. Ergonomics international journal, 9(5).
[8]     Baharampour, S., Nazari, J., Dianat, I., & AsghariJafarAbadi, M. (2013). Student's body dimensions in relation to classroom furniture. Health promotion perspectives3(2), 165.
[9]     Ismaila, S. O., Akanbi, O. G., Oderinu, S. O., Anyanwu, B. U., & Alamu, K. O. (2015). Design of ergonomically compliant desks and chairs for primary pupils in Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of engineering science and technology10(1), 35-46.
[10]  Taifa, I. W., & Desai, D. A. (2017). Anthropometric measurements for ergonomic design of students’ furniture in India. Engineering science and technology, an international journal20(1), 232-239.
[11]  Roossien, C. C., Stegenga, J., Hodselmans, A. P., Spook, S. M., Koolhaas, W., Brouwer, S., ... & Reneman, M. F. (2017). Can a smart chair improve the sitting behavior of office workers?. Applied ergonomics65, 355-361.
[12]  Noshin, L., Sen Gupta, H., & Kibria, M. G. (2018). Office chair design: a systematic approach of ergonomic design based on the anthropometric measurement of Bangladeshi people. International journal of research in industrial engineering7(2), 224-234.
[13]  Bangladesh’s first internet newspaper. (n.d.). Retrieved July 24, 2019 from
[14]  Weiner, J. S., & Lourie, J. A. (1969). Human biology, a guide to field methods. ERIC.
[15]  Abeysekera, J. D. A. (1985). Design requirements and dimensions for a comfortable work seat for Sri Lankans. Journal of the national science foundation of Srilanka13(1).
[16]  Pheasant, S. (1991). Ergonomics, work and health. Macmillan International Higher Education.
[17]  Parcells, C., Stommel, M., & Hubbard, R. P. (1999). Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions: empirical findings and health implications. Journal of adolescent health24(4), 265-273.
[18]  Gouvali, M. K., & Boudolos, K. (2006). Match between school furniture dimensions and children's anthropometry. Applied ergonomics37(6), 765-773.
[19]  Evans, W. A., Courtney, A. J., & Fok, K. F. (1988). The design of school furniture for Hong Kong schoolchildren: An anthropometric case study. Applied ergonomics19(2), 122-134.
[20]  YMT, K. R. (2003). Revision of the design of a standard for the dimensions of school furniture. Ergonomics46(7), 681-694.
[21]  Dianat, I., Karimi, M. A., Hashemi, A. A., & Bahrampour, S. (2013). Classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high school students: proposed dimensions based on anthropometric data. Applied ergonomics44(1), 101-108.
[22]  Castellucci, H. I., Arezes, P. M., & Viviani, C. A. (2010). Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures in Chilean schools. Applied ergonomics41(4), 563-568.