biomimetics

Article
Chair Size Design Based on User Height
Maciej Sydor 1, * and Miloš Hitka 2

1 Department of Woodworking and Fundamentals of Machine Design, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology,
Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
2 Department of Economics, Management and Business, Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology,
Technical University in Zvolen, T. G. Masaryka 24, 960 01 Zvolen, Slovakia
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-61-846-6144

Abstract: General principles derived from anatomical studies of human body sizes should be applied
to chair designs. Chairs can be designed for a specific user or a particular group of users. Universal
chairs for public spaces should be comfortable for the largest possible group of users and should not
be adjustable, such as office chairs. However, the fundamental problem is that the anthropometric
data available in the literature either come from many years ago and are out of date or do not
provide a complete set of all the dimensional parameters of a sitting human body position. This
article proposes a way to design chair dimensions solely based on the height range of the intended
chair users. For this purpose, based on literature data, the main structural dimensions of the chair
were assigned to the appropriate anthropometric body measurements. Furthermore, calculated
average body proportions for the adult population overcome the incompleteness, outdated and
burdensome access to anthropometric data and link the main chair design dimensions to one easily
accessible anthropometric parameter: human height. This is achieved by seven equations describing
the dimensional relations between the chair’s essential design dimensions and human height or even
a height range. The result of the study is a method of determining the optimal functional dimensions
of a chair for a chosen range of sizes of its future users based only on users’ height range. Limitations
of the presented method: the calculated body proportions are correct only for people with a standard
body proportion characteristic of adults, i.e., they exclude children and adolescents up to 20 years of
age, seniors, and people with a body mass index exceeding 30.

Keywords: anthropometry; furniture design; chairs; seat width; seat depth; seat height; lumbar support
Citation: Sydor, M.; Hitka, M. Chair
Size Design Based on User Height.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
biomimetics8010057 The characteristic feature of biomimetics is that it uses biological information to obtain
Academic Editor: Antonio Concilio
a proper technical implementation. The usage of biomimetics in product development
starts by linking a biological system to a specific technical question [1] and goes through
Received: 23 December 2022 conceptualization, reading out of the biological properties, modeling of these properties,
Revised: 24 January 2023 modification of the model, and its application. Human body size is a vital biomimetic
Accepted: 28 January 2023
property used in furniture design. The influence of biomimetics on a furniture product
Published: 31 January 2023
may determine the essence of the product or may have a small impact on one feature of
the product.
Spending too much time sitting is not recommended due to the risk of health problems.
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Even people who exercise regularly should not stay in a sitting position for too long. A
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
person can get enough physical activity and still lead a sedentary lifestyle if they spend
This article is an open access article too much time sitting at school, at work, traveling, or in their free time. This increases the
distributed under the terms and risk of many health problems, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, and spinal disease.
conditions of the Creative Commons Sitting too much in an uncomfortable position also affects human mental abilities, such
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// as focusing of attention or acting effectively. These are solid arguments for designing all
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ chairs following the dimensions of the person who sits on them.
4.0/).

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010057 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 2 of 14

Chairs are furniture intended for direct contact with people, designed as general-
purpose furniture or for specific groups of users. Chairs are, therefore, a class of furniture,
the sizes of which should be well suited to the sizes of the human body. In some cases, such
as a wheelchair design, the seat and backrest are fitted to a single user. Then, other humans
with different body sizes will not be able to use it comfortably [2]. In the case of office chairs,
adjusting the chair’s functional dimensions fits the group of users. However, adjusting the
chairs is not acceptable for universal chairs intended for many people in public spaces. In
this case, the chair must be efficiently “averaged” in size. This “averaging” is based on its
fit within the size range of its intended users. The choice of the dimensional range of users
is the designer’s decision; it depends on the chair’s use, while the dimensional parameters
of users from the selected dimensional range can be taken from anthropometric data.
The anthropometric data used in furniture design are statistically processed informa-
tion about the human body’s sizes for engineering applications. A commonly referenced
database used in engineering design is from military data collected between the 1970s and
1980s, known as the Natick studies or ANSUR database. In 2000, the Civilian American
and European Surface Anthropometry Resource (CAESAR) was compiled by the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). CAESAR contains anthropometric data and 3D body scans
of over 4000 individuals from North America and Europe. The Business and Institutional
Furniture Manufacturers Association (BIFMA) and many ergonomics textbooks reference
Natick (military) studies for design purposes, but some groups use CAESAR data or both
the Natick and CAESAR datasets in design. More emphasis is being placed on the CAESAR
database because it represents today’s office population more than the Natick databases.
BIFMA and others still reference Natick’s measurements. Three points are vital when using
anthropometric measurements in design: (1) How recently has the data been updated?
(2) What was the type of population measured? (3) Are the anthropometric sizes complete
from the point of view of the chair designer? Or can they be easily “translated” into the
main design of the chairs? First, some data may have been collected more than 25 years
ago, and measurements such as body height or body mass may have changed. Secondly,
the referenced anthropometric database may not represent the planned users. For example,
ANSUR data may not be applicable to designing chairs for seniors [3]. Third, the relevant
information is missing from the database. Examples of missing parameters are buttock-
popliteal length and lumbar height. The first parameter is essential when designing the
depth of the seat, and the second is when designing the chair backrest.
The following resources provide information on anthropometry: internet databases
(BIFMA, bifma.org; CAESAR, store.sae.org/Caesar; Size USA, sizeusa.com); anthropomet-
ric atlases of human measurements, e.g., [4–6] or books (Handbook of Human Factors
and Ergonomics, 2012 [7], Human Factors Design Handbook, Tillman, Tillman, 2016 [8]);
and digital human models (DHM) as standalone software or built into CAD systems. To
include human anthropometric dimensions in a designed product, digital human models
(DHM) are used as modules in well-known CAD programs. There are many DHMs; the
most commonly used are JACK (ugs.com) and RAMSIS (human-solutions.com) [9]. For
example, the SiemensNX CAD software uses JACK, Catia uses RAMSIS and HUMAN
BUILDER, widely used in the interior design of cars [10,11]. Other DHMs used in design
include DELMIA Safework (delmia.com), ErgoForms (ergoforms.com), LifeMOD Biome-
chanics Modeler (lifemodeler.com), and ManneQuinPRO (nexgenergo.com). DHMs allow
the design of a product tailored dimensionally to a person of selected body dimensions
or a larger group of people within the desired size range, analogous to anthropometric
atlases [12]. Another source of information about human body proportions is an artistic
canon of body proportions used in visual arts. It is commonly accepted that the standard
height of the human body is 7.5 times the height of the head [13]. Visual arts textbooks also
provide information about the proportions of the length of individual parts of the human
body [14].
Both anthropometric atlases and DHMs potentially enable the design of products
well-tailored to anthropometric data, but all of these data sources may be incomplete
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

Both anthropometric atlases and DHMs potentially enable the design of products
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 3 of 14
well-tailored to anthropometric data, but all of these data sources may be incomplete for
chair designers. The secular trend in human height is known and well described in the
literature; for example, studies on the Slovak population indicate that average height in-
creases
for chair bydesigners.
0.3–2.0 cmTheper decade
secular [15].
trendFurthermore, usingisanthropometric
in human height known and well data effectively
described in
requires ergonomic knowledge to correctly translate human dimensions into a chair de-
the literature; for example, studies on the Slovak population indicate that average height
increases
sign by 0.3–2.0
feature, cm perthe
for example, decade
length [15]. Furthermore,
of the lower legsusing anthropometric
into the optimal height data
of effectively
the chair.
In addition, in some anthropometric databases, some dimensions of a personchair
requires ergonomic knowledge to correctly translate human dimensions into a design
in a sitting
feature, for example,
position are missing. the length of the lower legs into the optimal height of the chair. In
addition, in some anthropometric databases, some dimensions of a person
This paper, therefore, addresses two crucial issues related to obtaining an ergonomic in a sitting
chair for are
position missing.
a chosen human subpopulation:
This paper, therefore, addresses two crucial issues related to obtaining an ergonomic
1.
chairHowfor a properly to linksubpopulation:
chosen human the functional dimensions of a chair with the human body’s
sizes;
1. How properly to link the functional dimensions of a chair with the human body’s sizes;
2. How to deal with the lack of some data in the anthropometric database used.
2. How to deal with the lack of some data in the anthropometric database used.
The starting point for the analysis presented in the article is the statement that it is
The starting point for the analysis presented in the article is the statement that it is
possible to link all “ergonomic” dimensions of a chair solely to human height. Moreover,
possible to link all “ergonomic” dimensions of a chair solely to human height. Moreover,
as a result, it enables the design size of the chair for public spaces to be based only on user
as a result, it enables the design size of the chair for public spaces to be based only on
height.
user height.
2.
2. Chair
Chair Dimensioning
Dimensioning
There
There are
are three
three cardinal
cardinal planes
planes of
of the
the human
human body
body [16].
[16]. Two
Two of
of them
them are
are particularly
particularly
helpful in right chair dimensioning: the longitudinal (sagittal) plane, dividing
helpful in right chair dimensioning: the longitudinal (sagittal) plane, dividing the left
theand
left
right sides of the body, and the frontal (coronal) plane dividing the body into
and right sides of the body, and the frontal (coronal) plane dividing the body into a front (an-a
terior) section and
front (anterior) backand
section (posterior) section [17].
back (posterior) Figure
section [17].1 presents
Figure 1 these twothese
presents cardinal
two
planes.
cardinal planes.

Figure
Figure 1. Representation
Representation of
of the
the longitudinal
longitudinal (median)
(median) and
and frontal
frontal cardinal
cardinal planes
planes in
in chair design
(inspired
(inspired by
by EN
EN 1729-1:2015) and humans
1729-1:2015) and humans in
in the
the sitting
sitting position.
position.

Figure
Figure 22 shows
shows the
the functional
functional dimensions
dimensions of
of aa chair
chair according
according to
to the
the two
two cardinal
cardinal
human body planes.
human body planes.
tics 2023, 8,Biomimetics
x FOR PEER
Biomimetics REVIEW
2023,
2023,
8, 57
8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15 4 of 14
4 of 15

Figure 2. The functional

Figure 2.
Figure 2.dimensions
The functional
The of a dimensions
functional chair (𝛼—backrest
dimensions of angle,
of aa chair
chair 𝛽—seat angle,
(𝛼—backrest
(α—backrest angle,h8β—seat
angle, —seat height,
𝛽—seat angle, hh88—seat
angle, —seat height,
height,
b3—seat width, bbb4—backrest
3—seat
—seat breath,
width,
width, bb b 5—armrest
4—backrest
—backrest spacing,
breath,
breath, b
b h 6—lumbar
5—armrest
—armrest support
spacing,
spacing, h
h height,
6—lumbar
—lumbar hsupport
7—backrest
support height,
height, hh —backrest
7—backrest
3 4 5 6 7
height, h9—armrest height,
height, r—backrest radius, t4—seat depth
radius,normal,
—seatt7depth
—seat depth, t10t7—armrest
height, hh99—armrest height,
—armrest height, r—backrest
r—backrest radius, tt44—seat depth normal,
normal, —seat depth,
t7 —seat depth, tt10—armrest
—armrest
length, and t11—armrest
length, andto seat length): (a)
t11—armrest to side
seat view, dimensions
length): (a) side view,in a dimensions
longitudinalinplane, (b) top plane, (b) top
a longitudinal
10
length, and t11 —armrest to seat length): (a) side view, dimensions in a longitudinal plane, (b) top
view on a chair without
view onarmrests, (c) top armrests,
a chair without view on a(c)chair
topwith
viewarmrests.
on a chair with armrests.
view on a chair without armrests, (c) top view on a chair with armrests.
The functional The
dimensions of adimensions
functional chair should abechair
correlated
shouldwith the anthropometric
The functional dimensions ofof a chair should be correlated
be correlated with the
with the anthropometric
anthropometric
body sizes of the planned
body sizes group of chair users. Figure 3 shows these anthropometric meas-
body sizesof
ofthe
theplanned
planned group
groupof chair users.
of chair Figure
users. 3 shows
Figure these anthropometric
3 shows meas-
these anthropometric
urements and the main design
urements and dimensions
the main of the
design chair. of the chair.
dimensions
measurements and the main design dimensions of the chair.

Figure 3. The functional

Figure 3.dimensions
Figure 3. The of a chair
The functional
functional and theof
dimensions
dimensions ofanthropometric
aa chair
chair and themeasurements.
and the anthropometric measurements.
anthropometric measurements.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 5 of 14

3. Methodology: A Proposal for Linking the Functional Dimensions of a Chair to the

Anthropometric Measurements
The main difficulty in proper chair design is the correct connection between the human
body’s sizes and the functional dimensions of a chair. Table 1 shows a proposal for such
a connection.

Table 1. The links between the measurements of a man and functional dimensions of a chair.

Measurements of a Chair
Measurements of a Human Comments
(According to Figure 1)
A—Buttock-popliteal length t7 , t4 (indirectly) t7 should be less than A
B—Popliteal height h8 h8 should be equal to B
C—Bi-trochanteric breath or
trochanteric width b3 b3 should be greater than C
(hip breath)
D—Elbow-to-elbow breath b5 b5 should be equal to D
E—Elbow rest height h9 h9 should be equal to E
F—Sitting height, normal h7 h7 should be less than F
G—Shoulder breath b4 should be equal to G
b4
(bi-acromial breadth) or wider
L.H.—Lumbar height h6 h6 should be equal to H

The challenge in designing chairs for the general public is the anthropometric diversity
of the human adult population. There are sex differences in stature and related varieties in
body dimensions and bodily proportions. These differences are almost entirely biological in
their origin, although there may be a slight overlay of differences associated with physical
training and lifestyle. Longitudinal anthropometric studies show that humans begin to
shrink in stature at around 40 years of age; women shrink more than men [15]. Involution
changes in the intervertebral discs of the spine mainly cause this shrinkage. The shrinkage is
observable as the characteristic round back of the elderly. Another source of diversity is the
“secular trend”. The “secular trend” refers to an alteration in the measurable characteristics
of a population occurring over time. Biosocial changes increase the growth rate of children,
and an earlier adolescent growth spurt in both boys and girls increases adult stature, with
a possible decrease in the age at which adult stature is reached. The percentage of obese
people is increasing, which requires changes in chairs’ dimensions and load capacity for
general use. The magnitude of the “secular” changes in different countries is non-uniform.
The secular changes can vary greatly from country to country, depending on various factors,
such as cultural, economic, political, and historical influences.
The maximum seat depth of a chair (t7 ) is limited by the length of the thighs of the short-
est persons using the seat (A—buttock-popliteal length). According to Ravindra et al. [18],
the optimal seat depth should be 10 cm shorter than the median buttock-popliteal length
BPL of the users. A seat too deep makes it difficult to use the backrest, which causes
discomfort when sitting [19]. Too large a seat depth affects blood circulation to the legs;
therefore, compression of the tissues causes discomfort. A too-shallow seat depth results in
lack of support for the lower thighs and causes the sensation of falling off the front of the
chair. Considering all of this, it is reasonable to design the t7 dimension of the chair based
on the height of the smallest expected chair user. Figure 4 shows the ratio of dimension A
to human height. The dimension ratio of A to H was calculated based on anthropometric
data for the U.S. population published by Stoudt et al. [20].
Figure 4 shows that the anthropometric dimension “A” of a 5th-percentile woman is
29% of her height (H5th women ). This can be written as Equation (1):

t7 = 0.29· H5th woman (1)

More recent anthropometric data for the U.S. population, published by Fryar et al. [6],
covering data collected in the years 2007–2010, show that the height of a 5th-percentile
 Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 6 of 14

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

woman is 150.4 cm, so the dimension A calculated with Equation (1) and, at the same time,
the dimension t7 of the chair, is 43.6 cm.

50%

A (buttock-popliteal length)
to H (human height) ratio
40%

30%

20%

Men
10%
Women
0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

100
Percentiles
Figure 4. Ratio of buttock-popliteal length (A) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on
Figure 4. Ratio of buttock-popliteal length (A) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on
literature data [20]).
literature data [20]).
The height of a chair seat (h8 ) should be no more than the popliteal height (B) of
Figure 4chair
the shortest showsuser,that the anthropometric
because, dimension
in sitting, the trunk’s “A”
weight of a 5th-percentile
should be borne mainly woman is
29%
by theofischial
her height (𝐻5𝑡ℎ women
tuberosities. The).thighs
This can be written asand
are anatomically Equation (1):
physiologically unsuited for
supporting the body weight. However, there is some conflict between the need to design a
seat height low enough to accommodate 𝑡 = 0.29 ∙people
shorter 𝐻 and the need to avoid excessive (1)
hip flexion and the convexity of the lumbar spine that accompanies it in the taller person
More recent anthropometric data for the U.S. population, published by Fryar et al.
sitting on a seat [21]. According to the anthropometric data provided by Stoudt et al. [19],
[6], covering data collected in the years 2007–2010, show that the height of a 5th-percentile
the popliteal height of men in the 95th-percentile is 490 mm, while this parameter for a
woman
woman in is 150.4 cm, so the dimension
the 5th-percentile is only 33.6Acm. calculated withcompromise
A reasonable Formula (1)in and,
thisat the same time,
situation
the dimension t 7 of the chair, is 43,6 cm.
seems to be to design the h8 dimension according to the height of a 50th-percentile woman
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
The2height
and add cm as the of astandard
chair seat (h8) should
thickness be no
of the sole of more than the popliteal height7 (B)
the shoe. of 15
of the
shortest
Figurechair user,the
5 shows because,
ratio of in sitting,height
popliteal the trunk’s weightheight
(B) to human should
(H).be borne
The mainly by the
calculations
ischial tuberosities.
on the figure were made Thebased
thighsonare anatomicallydata
anthropometric andpublished
physiologically
by Stoudtunsuited for support-
et al. [20].
ing the body weight. However, there is some conflict between the need to design a seat
height50%
low enough to accommodate shorter people and the need to avoid excessive hip
to human height ratio
B (popliteal height)

flexion and the convexity of the lumbar spine that accompanies it in the taller person sit-
ting on40%a seat [21]. According to the anthropometric data provided by Stoudt et al. [19],
the popliteal height of men in the 95th percentile is 490 mm, while this parameter for a
woman 30%in the 5th percentile is only 33.6 cm. A reasonable compromise in this situation
seems to be to design the h8 dimension according to the height of a 50th-percentile woman
and add20%2 cm as the standard thickness of the sole of the shoe.
Figure 5 shows the ratio of popliteal height (B) to human height (H). The calculations
Men
on the10%
figure were made based on anthropometric data published by Stoudt et al. [20].
Women
0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

100

Percentiles

Figure
Figure5.5. The
The ratio
ratio of
of buttock-popliteal length(B)
buttock-popliteal length (B)totototal
total human
human stature
stature (H)(H) (calculations
(calculations based
based on on
literature data [20]).
literature data [20]).

Figure 5 shows that the anthropometric dimension “B” of a 50th-percentile human is

25% of their height, which can be written as Equation (2):
ℎ = 0.25 ∙ 𝐻 + 2 cm (2)
 Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 7 of 14

Figure 5 shows that the anthropometric dimension “B” of a 50th-percentile human is

25% of their height, which can be written as Equation (2):

h8 = 0.25· Haverage + 2 cm (2)

Using Equation (2) and more recent anthropometric data from Fryar et al. [6], it can be
calculated as h8 , based on a modern 168.6 cm-tall 50th-percentile human, as 44.2 cm.
Seat width (b3 ) is designed including trochanteric width (C), plus an excess on both
sides (for example, 6 + 6 cm [22]). A standard for school seating furniture, EN 1729:2015 [17],
proposes a seat width for the highest students with a height of 207 cm, b3 = 40 cm. Ma-
lik et al. [19] postulate a seat width of 40 cm for the working chair but recommend at least
45 cm for a general-use chair. The seat width for bariatric users includes a widened range
of 55.9–73.0 cm. ANSI/BIFMA X5.41-2021, [23] for the 99th centile, postulated a minimum
seat width of 22 inches (55.9 cm) for the 400 lb user and 26 inches (66.0 cm) for the 600 lb
user. Hitka et al. [22] recommend seat widths of 67 cm for 95th-centile bariatric users and
73 cm for 99th-centile bariatric users. However, when designing a general-use chair, it
seems rational to set the seat width as the hip width of the largest anticipated user of the
chair, increasing the b3 with small excesses on both sides.
Figure 6 shows the ratio of the anthropometric dimension C to height (H). The largest
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15
bitrochanteric breadth (or biiliac breadth) among the 5–95th-percentile user range is from
the 95th-percentile woman, and such a woman has a hip width of 25% of her height (the
calculations were made based on data provided by Stoudt et al. [20]).
C (bi-trochanteric breadth )

50% Men
to human height ratio

Women
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

100

Percentiles
Figure 6. Ratio of bi-trochanteric breadth (C) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on
Figure 6. Ratio of bi-trochanteric breadth (C) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on liter-
literature data [20]).
ature data [20]).
Assuming two-centimeter spacings on both sides, Equation (3) can be written:
Assuming two-centimeter spacings on both sides, Equation (3) can be written:
b3 = 0.25· H95th woman + 2·2 cm (3)
𝑏 = 0.25 ∙ 𝐻 + 2 ∙ 2 cm (3)
Using Equation (3) and based on a contemporary 173.1 cm-tall 95th-percentile woman [6],
b3 =Using
47.3 cm.Formula (3) and based on a contemporary 173.1 cm-tall 95th-percentile woman
[6], b3 If
= 47.3 cm. has armrests, their spacing (b5 ) should be based on elbow-to-elbow
the chair
If the chair
breath (D). Armresthasspacing
armrests, theiralso
should spacing (b5) should
be correlated be based onwidth
with trochanteric elbow-to-elbow
(C) and equalbreath
(D). Armrest
to or broaderspacing
than the should also
seat width (b3be correlated
). Figure with
7 shows thetrochanteric widthD(C)
ratio of dimension and equal to
to human
orheight
broader(H). than the seat width
The calculations (b3). Figure
were made 7 shows
based on the ratio
data published byof dimension
Stoudt D to human
et al. [20].
height (H). The calculations were made based on data published by Stoudt et al. [20].
low breath)

50% Men
eight ratio

Women
40%
 Using Formula (3) and based on a contemporary 173.1 cm-tall 95th-percentile woman
[6], b3 = 47.3 cm.
If the chair has armrests, their spacing (b5) should be based on elbow-to-elbow breath
(D). Armrest spacing should also be correlated with trochanteric width (C) and equal to
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 or broader than the seat width (b3). Figure 7 shows the ratio of dimension D to human 8 of 14
height (H). The calculations were made based on data published by Stoudt et al. [20].

D (elbow-to-elow breath)
50% Men

to human height ratio

Women
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

100
Percentiles
Figure 7. Elbow-to-elbow breath (D) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on literature
Figure 7. Elbow-to-elbow breath (D) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on literature data
data [20]).
[20]).
In this case, the largest user is a 95th-percentile male. The ratio of the anthropometric
In this case,
dimension D ofthe largest
such a man user is aheight
to his 95th-percentile male.the
is 27%. Since The ratio ofofthe
spacing theanthropometric
armrests should
dimension D the
not restrict of such a man toofhis
movements theheight
seatedisperson,
27%. Since
it is the spacing to
reasonable of use
the increased
armrests should
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9spacing
of 15
not
onrestrict the movements
both sides of up to 3 cm. of the seated person, it is reasonable to use increased spacing
on both sides of up to 3 cm.
b = 0.27· H + 2·3 cm (4)
𝑏 5 = 0.27 ∙ 𝐻95th
Using Formula (4) and anthropometric
man +
data from ∙ 3 cmet al. [6], one can calculate (4)
2Fryar b3
based on a modern
Using 187.7
Equation (4)cm-tall 95th-percentile
and anthropometric man
data fromas 66.7 cm.
Fryar et al. [6], one can calculate b3
based on a modern 187.7 cm-tall 95th-percentile man as 66.7 cm. 8 provides the ratio of
Armrest height (h 9) should equal elbow rest height (E). Figure
dimension E to human
Armrest height (h height (H); equal
9 ) should the calculations
elbow restwere
height made based on
(E). Figure data provided
8 provides by of
the ratio
Stoudt et al. [20].
dimension E to human height (H); the calculations were made based on data provided by
Stoudt et al. [20].
to human height ratio
E (elbow rest height)

50% Men

Women
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

100

Percentiles
Figure 8. Elbow rest height (E) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on literature data [20]).
Figure 8. Elbow rest height (E) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on literature data [20]).
In this case, using the mean value for the entire population seems reasonable. Dimen-
InEthis
sion case,ofusing
is 14% the mean value for the entire population seems reasonable. Dimen-
the height.
sion E is 14% of the height. h9 = 0.14· Haverage (5)
ℎ = 0.14 data
Using Equation (5) and anthropometric (5)b3
∙ 𝐻 from Fryar et al. [6], one can calculate
based on a modern 168.6 cm-tall 50th-percentile human as 23.5 cm.
Using Formula (5) and anthropometric data from Fryar et al. [6], one can calculate b3
The
based on height of
a modern the cm-tall
168.6 backrest (h7 ) of the chair
50th-percentile is correlated
human as 23.5 cm.with the anthropometric
dimension F
The height of the backrest (h7) of the chair is correlated with the neck,
(sitting height, i.e., the sum of the lengths of the trunk, and head). di-
anthropometric This
mension F (sitting height, i.e., the sum of the lengths of the trunk, neck, and head). This
dimension has two variants, sitting height erect and sitting height normal. The first variant
is characteristic of sitting in an office chair with lumbar support. The second, when a per-
son sits in a natural, relaxed position, is more appropriate in the design of chairs. The
 In this case, using the mean value for the entire population seems reasonable. Dimen-
sion E is 14% of the height.
ℎ = 0.14 ∙ 𝐻 (5)
Using Formula (5) and anthropometric data from Fryar et al. [6], one can calculate b3
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 based on a modern 168.6 cm-tall 50th-percentile human as 23.5 cm. 9 of 14
The height of the backrest (h7) of the chair is correlated with the anthropometric di-
mension F (sitting height, i.e., the sum of the lengths of the trunk, neck, and head). This
dimension has two variants, sitting height erect and sitting height normal. The first variant
dimension has two variants, sitting height erect and sitting height normal. The first variant
is characteristic of sitting in an office chair with lumbar support. The second, when a per-
is characteristic of sitting in an office chair with lumbar support. The second, when a person
son sits in a natural, relaxed position, is more appropriate in the design of chairs. The
sits in a natural, relaxed position, is more appropriate in the design of chairs. The difference
difference between the two sitting heights is shown in Figure 9.
between the two sitting heights is shown in Figure 9.

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

iomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

Figure 9. Sitting height erect versus sitting height normal.

Figure 9. Sitting height
Figure erect versus
9. Sitting heightsitting
erect height
versusnormal.
sitting height normal.
Based on anthropometric data, for example, for the body dimensions of adults in the
BasedUSAon anthropometric
[20],
Basedit can be data, for example,
calculated
on anthropometric that for
forthe
sitting
data, body dimensions
height
example, normal
for the is of adults
smaller
body byin2–5%
dimensionsthe ofthan sitting
adults in the
USA [20],height
itUSA
can be calculated
erect.
[20], it can bethat sitting height
calculated normalheight
that sitting is smaller by 2–5%
normal than sitting
is smaller by 2–5% than sitting
height erect.height
Figure 10 provides the ratio of dimension F to human height (H); the calculations are
erect.
Figure 10 provides
based on data10
Figure the ratio of by
provided
provides dimension
Stoudt
the F to
et
ratio of human
al. [20]. height
dimension (H); the height
F to human calculations arecalculations are
(H); the
based on data provided by Stoudt et al. [20].
based on data provided by Stoudt et al. [20].
F (sitting height normal)
to human height ratio

50%
F (sitting height normal)
to human height ratio

50%

40%
40%

30% 30%

20% 20%

Men Men
10% 10%
Women Women
0% 0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

100

Percentiles Percentiles

Figure 10. Sitting

Figure
Figure height
10.10. normal
Sitting
Sitting (F)
height tonormal
height total human
normal (F)stature
(F) to (H)human
to total
total human (calculations
(H)based
stature
stature (H) on literature
(calculations
(calculations baseddata
based on literature
on literature data
[20]). [20]).
data [20]).

Figure 10 Figure
shows that the sitting
10 shows that height normal
the sitting is 50%
height of theisheight.
normal 50% ofThe
thebackrest
height. The backrest
height depends on the chair’s expected sitting position. It seems that a universal chair for
height depends on the chair’s expected sitting position. It seems that a universal chair for
general use should be 75% of the dimension F for an average person.
general use should be 75% of the dimension F for an average person.
 Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 10 of 14

Figure 10 shows that the sitting height normal is 50% of the height. The backrest height
depends on the chair’s expected sitting position. It seems that a universal chair for general
use should be 75% of the dimension F for an average person.

h7 = 0.50·0.75· Haverage (6)

Using Equation (6) and anthropometric data from Fryar et al. [6], one can calculate h7
based on a modern 168.6 cm-tall 50th-percentile human as 63.2 cm. The backrest can be
higher. The height should be increased if the backrest angle α is greater than 105◦ .
The backrest breath (b4 ) should include the biggest user. Figure 11 shows the ratio
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of dimension G to human height (H); the calculations are based on data provided by11 of 15
Fryar et al. [6].
b4 = 0.23· H95th man (7)
to human height ratio
G (shoulder breath)

50% Men
Women
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

100

Percentiles
Figure 11. Shoulder breath (G) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on literature data [20]).
Figure 11. Shoulder breath (G) to total human stature (H) (calculations based on literature data [20]).
Using Equation (7) and anthropometric data from Fryar et al. [6], one can calculate b3
based on a modern 187.7 cm-tall 95th-percentile man as 43.2 cm.
𝑏 = 0.23 ∙ 𝐻 (7)
A plane seat is preferable to one shaped or molded to fit the backside. In sitting, the
Using Formula
possibility of changes(7) in and anthropometric
posture data chair
is essential. A good fromshould
Fryar et al. [6],
permit one
this. can calculate b3
A backward
◦ increases the
based on a modern 187.7 cm-tall 95th-percentile man as 43.2 cm.
slope of the seat (β) may be suitable. However, a backward slope of up to 5
A plane
comfort seat is
of sitting, butpreferable
it can maketoit one shaped
difficult risingorfrom
molded
a seat,toespecially
fit the backside.
for seniors.InTrunk
sitting, the
muscle activity in sitting is diminished by using a backrest, which should not restrict the
possibility of changes in posture is essential. A good chair should permit this. A backward
movement of the spinal column or arms. A lumbar support height (h6 ) within the limits
slope of the seat (𝛽) may be suitable. However, a backward slope of up to 5° increases the
of the second to fifth lumbar vertebrae allows adequate free movement. With height in
comfort
the rangeof of
sitting,
146–207 butcm,it the
canstandard
make itEN difficult
1729-1 rising from ah seat,
recommends especially for seniors.
6 in the 20–22 cm range.
Trunk muscle activity in sitting is diminished by using
A saddle-shaped backrest (r) is recommended because it provides adequate a backrest, whichsideshould
supportnot re-
strict
for athe movement
trunk. of theEN
The standard spinal
1729-1 column or arms.
recommends A lumbarvalue
a minimum support height
for this (h6) within
parameter of the
limits
30 cmof[17].
the An
second to fifth
example valuelumbar vertebrae
is r = 120 cm. allows adequate free movement. With height
in the In
range of 146–207
addition cm, theother
to dimensions, standard ENaffect
elements 1729-1the recommends h6 in the
comfort of the chair. The 20–22 cm range.
mechanics
A saddle-shaped backrest (r) is recommended because it provides adequate
of ascending from a seat require that horizontal struts or other obstructions be side
placedsupport
between the front legs of a chair. The table and chair form a single anthropometric unit.
for a trunk. The standard EN 1729-1 recommends a minimum value for this parameter of
Table height is closely correlated with elbow height. The elbows should be at about the
30 cm [17]. An example value is r = 120 cm.
level of the table’s working plane. The space between the under-surface of the table and
the In addition
chair to dimensions,
seat should otherthan
be slightly greater elements
the thighaffect the comfort of the chair. The me-
thickness.
chanics of ascending from a seat require that horizontal struts or other obstructions be
placed between the front legs of a chair. The table and chair form a single anthropometric
unit. Table height is closely correlated with elbow height. The elbows should be at about
the level of the table’s working plane. The space between the under-surface of the table
and the chair seat should be slightly greater than the thigh thickness.

4. Discussion
4.1. A Novel Finding of This Study
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 11 of 14

4. Discussion
4.1. A Novel Finding of This Study
Some studies of chair ergonomics provide the oldest scientific arguments for er-
gonomic chair backrest design [24]. An EMG study of muscle tensions and spinal intra-disc
pressure demonstrates that disc pressure in sitting increases by about 50% compared to
standing due flattening of the lumbar curve [25]. To reduce disc pressure, a chair de-
signer restores the lumbar curve by lumbar support or by increasing the backrest angle
to 120◦ [26]. There are additional design criteria: (1) the chair front should not cut off the
blood circulation in the legs, and (2) the chair must dimensionally fit the user’s size.
The matching of the dimensions of chairs is well-suited for school furniture. However,
some studies report that the equations used to match school chairs and anthropometric
dimensions are problematic because they are based on contradictory criteria [27–29].
The data for designing the dimensions of the chairs are recorded in the relevant
standards, e.g., in the quoted standard for school furniture EN 1729-1:2015 [17]. However,
they are static. They cannot simply be applied to any subpopulation of people. In this article,
we propose a different approach. The “active” dimensioning of the chair during design
based on easily obtained anthropometric dimensions benefits the presented approach.
This methodology can also consider the different proportions of the human body (in the
example, specific body proportions were used, calculated based on a selected database).

4.2. Study Limitations

The calculations of body proportions used in Equations (1)–(7) are based on a selected
database for adults, without division by age, gender, ethnicity, or other differentiating
factors. The database selection limits the calculation results: the results presented in this
article are correct for people with normal body proportions characteristic of adults, i.e.,
they do not include:
• Children and adolescents under 20, who have specific ages’ body proportions;
• Seniors, because there is a general tendency of human height to decrease with age.
This body shortening changes the proportions of the body because the shortened torso
is mainly responsible for the reduction in height [30]. Women shrink more than men
with age [15];
• There are significant differences in body proportions between geographically diverse
human populations [31,32];
• The results also do not apply to people whose body proportions significantly differ
from the average due to other causes, e.g., due to genetic conditions, physical activity,
specific lifestyle, or disability.
These limitations can be eliminated by using a more specialized anthropometric database.
It is then possible to modify the proportionality coefficients given in Equations (1)–(7) and, as
a result, obtain formulas for designing chairs for people with different body proportions.
It is worth mentioning that there are significant differences in body proportions
between men and women [33]. The proposed method averages out the differences and
makes it possible to design “averaged” chairs for public spaces. They may be uncomfortable
for people of extreme height, e.g., very small or very tall.

5. Summary and Concluding Remarks

This article proposes a method for adjusting the functional dimensions of a chair
to any human body size range based only on human height. This is an example of the
use of biomimetics, consisting of the use of calculated proportions of the human body to
parameterize the dimensions of the chair using seven equations. Table 2 summarizes the
proposed formulas to calculate the fundamental chair dimensions.
Figure 12 shows the results of the chair dimension calculations for a wide range of
users ranging from 5th-percentile women to 95th-percentile men (source of anthropometric
data: [6]). This range covers 95% of the adult population (assuming that the numbers of
men and women are equal).
 Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 12 of 14

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

Table 2. The links between measurements of a man and measurements of a chair and proposed
formulas.

Reference Measurement Example h7—backrest

Chair ℎ Height of the average user, with av-
F—sitting height
of a Human [20]
Literature Data Measurement
Formula Reference
height = 0.50 ∙ 0.75 ∙ 𝐻 erage sitting height
Height of the smallest expected user,
G—shoulder breath (bi-acromial
A—buttock-popliteal length [20,34] b4—backrest
t7 —seat depth Height of thee.g.,
t7 = 0.29· H5th woman biggest user, woman
with the
[6] 𝑏 = 0.23 ∙ 𝐻 5th-percentile
breadth)
B—popliteal height [20,34] hbreath
8 —seat height h8 = 0.25· Haverage + 2 cm broadest shoulder breath
Height of the average user, with
average popliteal height
h6—lumbar sup-
L.H.—lumbar height
C—bi-trochanteric breadth or
[17,38]
[35–37] b3 —seat width b20–22
3 = 0.25cm
· H95th woman + 2·2 cm EN 1729-1
Height of the user with the broadest
trochanteric width (hip breath) port height bi-trochanteric breadth and spacing
Height of the user with the broadest
D—elbow-to-elbow breath [20,34] b5 —armrest spacing b5 = 0.27· H95th man + 2·3 cm
elbow-to-elbow breath and spacing
E—elbow rest height Figure
[20,34] 12 showsh9the results
—armrest of the chairh9dimension
height = 0.14· Haverage calculations for a wide range of
Height of the average user, with
average elbow rest height
F—sitting height users ranging
[20] from 5th-percentile
h7 —backrest heightwomen toh7 95th-percentile
= 0.50·0.75· Haverage men (source of anthropomet-
Height of the average user, with
average sitting height
G—shoulder breath ric data: [6]). This range covers 95% of the adult population (assuming that
Height of the theuser,
biggest numbers
with the
[6] b4 —backrest breath b4 = 0.23· H95th man
(bi-acromial breadth) of men and women are equal). broadest shoulder breath
L.H.—lumbar height [17,38] h6 —lumbar support height 20–22 cm EN 1729-1

Figure 12. The functional dimensions of a chair for 95% of the adult population (in centimeters).
Figure 12. The functional dimensions of a chair for 95% of the adult population (in centimeters).
The proposal of chair dimensions presented in Figure 12 covers a wide range of adult
users, from a 5th-percentile woman with a height of 150 cm to a 95th-percentile man with a
The proposal of chair dimensions presented in Figure 12 covers a wide range of adult
height of 185 cm. Such extreme body dimensions correspond to the fourth size of school
users, from a 5th-percentile woman with a height of 150 cm to a 95th-percentile man with
chairs (5th-percentile woman) and the seventh size (95th-percentile man) according to
a height of 185 cm. Such extreme body dimensions correspond to the fourth size of school
EN 1729-1:2015, compared in Table 3.
chairs (5th-percentile woman) and the seventh size (95th-percentile man) according to EN
1729-1:2015, compared
Table 3. Comparison of in
theTable 3. chair functional dimensions for the 5th–95th-percentile range
proposed
of the adult population and functional dimensions according to the standard EN 1729-1:2015 [17]
Table 3. Comparison of the proposed chair functional dimensions for the 5th–95th percentile range
(in centimeters).
of the adult population and functional dimensions according to the standard EN 1729-1:2015 [17]
(in centimeters).
User Height 150–185 User Height 133–159 User Height 174–207
Chair Measurement
User Height 150–185
(Proposed in Figure 12) User Height 133–159
(EN 1729-1:2015) User
(ENHeight 174–207
1729-1:2015)
Chair Measurement
t7 —seat depth (Proposed
43.6 in Figure 12) (EN31 1729-1:2015) (EN 1729-1:2015)
43
h8 —seat height 44.2 38 51
t7—seat depth 43.6 31 43
b3 —seat width 47.3 34 40
h —seat height
b58—armrest spacing 66.744.2 39–44 38 51
51–57
bh39—seat width
—armrest height 23.547.3 19 34 40
25
b5—armrest
h7 —backrest spacing
height 63.266.7 min. 1039–44 51–57
min. 10
b
h9—armrest height
4 —backrest breath 43.223.5 27 19 25
36
h6 —lumbar support height 20–22 19 22
h7—backrest height 63.2 min. 10 min. 10
b4—backrest breath 43.2 27 36
h6—lumbar support height 20–22from Table 2, most of the proposed
As can be seen 19 22
dimensions are within the range
given by the standard for school furniture according to EN 1729-1:2015. Two proposed
dimensions
As can beare increased:
seen b3 and
from Table b5 . of the proposed dimensions are within the range
2, most
given by the standard for school furniture according to EN 1729-1:2015. Two proposed
dimensions are increased: b3 and b5.
Some limitations should be considered:
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 13 of 14

Some limitations should be considered:

• The database used to calculate the body proportions limits the calculation results
presented in this article to people with standard body proportions characteristic
of adults.
• These limitations can be effectively eliminated by using a more specialized database; for
example, the anthropometric database of obese people whose body proportions differ. It
is then possible to modify the proportionality coefficients given in Equations (1)–(7) and,
as a result, obtain formulas for designing chairs for obese people.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S.; methodology, M.S.; software, M.S.; validation, M.S.; for-
mal analysis, M.H.; investigation, M.S.; resources, M.S. and M.H.; data curation, M.H.; writing—original
draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S. and M.H.; visualization, M.S.; supervision,
M.S.; project administration, M.H.; funding acquisition, M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under
contract No. APVV-20-0004 “The Effect of an Increase in the Anthropometric Measurement of the
Slovak Population on the Functional Properties of Furniture and the Business Processes” and by the
Cultural and Educational Grant Agency Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the
Slovak Republic under contract No. KEGA 004TU Z-4/2023 “Innovative methods for assessing the
quality potential of forest stands”.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. ISO 18458:2015; Biomimetics—Terminology, Concepts and Methodology. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2015.
2. Sydor, M.; Zabłocki, M. Wybrane problemy doboru i konfiguracji wózka inwalidzkiego z nap˛edem r˛ecznym / Chosen problems
of manual wheelchair selection and configuration. Fizjoterapia Pol. 2006, 2, 172–177.
3. Openshaw, S.; Taylor, E. Ergonomics and Design: A Reference Guide; Allsteel Inc.: Muscatine, IA, USA, 2006.
4. Gedliczka, A.; Pochopień, P. Atlas Miar Człowieka: Dane Do Projektowania i Oceny Ergonomicznej: Antropometria, Biomechanika,
Przestrzeń Pracy, Wymiary Bezpieczeństwa/Atlas of Human Measures: Data for Ergonomic Design and Assessment: Anthropometry,
Biomechanics, Work Space, Safety Dimensions; Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy: Warszawa, Poland, 2001; ISBN 978-83-88703-38-6.
5. Tilley, A.R.; Dreyfuss, H. (Eds.) The Measure of Man and Woman: Human Factors in Design; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2002;
ISBN 978-0-471-09955-0.
6. Fryar, C.D.; Gu, Q.; Ogden, C.L. Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2007–2010; Vital and Health
Statistics, Series 11; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–48.
7. Salvendy, G. (Ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 4th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-470-52838-9.
8. Tillman, B.; Woodson, W.E. (Eds.) Human Factors and Ergonomics Design Handbook, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York,
NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-0-07-170287-4.
9. Seid, A.; Trieb, R.; Rissiek, A. Heiner Bubb Standards in Anthropometry. In Handbook of Standards and Guidelines in Human Factors
and Ergonomics; Karwowski, W., Szopa, A., Marcelo Soares, Eds.; Human Factors and Ergonomics; CRC Press Taylor & Francis
Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 229–269. ISBN 978-0-429-16924-3.
10. Zhu, W.; Fan, X.; Zhang, Y. Applications and Research Trends of Digital Human Models in the Manufacturing Industry. Virtual
Real. Intell. Hardw. 2019, 1, 558–579. [CrossRef]
11. Wolf, A.; Miehling, J.; Wartzack, S. Challenges in Interaction Modelling with Digital Human Models—A Systematic Literature
Review of Interaction Modelling Approaches. Ergonomics 2020, 63, 1442–1458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Branowski, B.; Zabłocki, M.; Kurczewski, P.; Sydor, M. A Method for Modeling the Individual Convenient Zone of a Human. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10405. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Frantz, M.; Crannell, A. Viewpoints: Mathematical Perspective and Fractal Geometry in Art; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ,
USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-691-12592-3.
14. Massen, M. Figure Drawing in Proportion: Easy to Remember, Accurate Anatomy for Artists; North Light Books: Cincinnati, OH, USA,
2016; ISBN 978-1-4403-3762-8.
15. Hitka, M.; Sedmák, R.; Joščák, P.; Ližbetinová, L. Positive Secular Trend in Slovak Population Urges on Updates of Functional
Dimensions of Furniture. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3474. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 57 14 of 14

16. Anderson, W. A Plea for Uniformity in the Delimitation of the Regions of the Abdomen. J. Anat Physiol 1892, 26, 543–547.
[PubMed]
17. EN 1729:2015; Furniture—Chairs and Tables for Educational Institutions—Part 1: Functional Dimensions. CEN: Brussels,
Belgium, 2015.
18. Goonetilleke, R.S.; Feizhou, S. A Methodology to Determine the Optimum Seat Depth. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2001, 27, 207–217.
[CrossRef]
19. Malik, S.L.; Jürgens, H.W.; Helbig, K. Designing A Chair: A Scientific Perspective. Indian Anthropol. 1984, 14, 41–61.
20. Stoudt, H.W.; Damon, A.; McFarland, R.; Roberts, J. Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions of Adults United States—1960–1962;
National Center for Health Services Research and Development: Rockville, MD, USA, 1965.
21. Floyd, W.F.; Roberts, D.F. Anatomical and Physiological Principles in Chair and Table Design. Ergonomics 1958, 2, 1–16. [CrossRef]
22. Hitka, M.; Štarchoň, P.; Simanová, L’.; Čuta, M.; Sydor, M. Dimensional Solution of Wooden Chairs for the Adult Bariatric
Population of Slovakia: Observational Study. Forests 2022, 13, 2025. [CrossRef]
23. ANSI/BIFMA X5.41-2021; Large Occupant Public and Lounge Seating. BIFMA: Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 2021.
24. Åkerblom, B. Standing and Sitting Posture: With Special Reference to the Construction of Chairs; Nordiska Bokhandeln: Stockholm,
Sweden, 1948.
25. Andersson, B.J.; Ortengren, R.; Nachemson, A.; Elfström, G. Lumbar Disc Pressure and Myoelectric Back Muscle Activity during
Sitting. I. Studies on an Experimental Chair. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 1974, 6, 104–114. [PubMed]
26. Helander, M.G.; Zhang, L. Field Studies of Comfort and Discomfort in Sitting. Ergonomics 1997, 40, 895–915. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Gouvali, M.K.; Boudolos, K. Match between School Furniture Dimensions and Children’s Anthropometry. Appl. Ergon. 2006,
37, 765–773. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Castellucci, H.I.; Arezes, P.M.; Molenbroek, J.F.M. Equations for Defining the Mismatch between Students and School Furniture:
A Systematic Review. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2015, 48, 117–126. [CrossRef]
29. Langová, N.; Blašková, S.; Gáborík, J.; Lizoňová, D.; Jurek, A. Mismatch Between the Anthropometric Parameters and Classroom
Furniture in The Slovak Primary Schools. Acta Fac. Xylologiae Zvolen 2021, 63, 131–142. [CrossRef]
30. Perissinotto, E.; Pisent, C.; Sergi, G.; Grigoletto, F.; Enzi, G. ILSA Working Group Anthropometric Measurements in the Elderly:
Age and Gender Differences. Br. J. Nutr. 2002, 87, 177–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Cowgill, L.W.; Eleazer, C.D.; Auerbach, B.M.; Temple, D.H.; Okazaki, K. Developmental Variation in Ecogeographic Body
Proportions. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2012, 148, 557–570. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Natale, V.; Rajagopalan, A. Worldwide Variation in Human Growth and the World Health Organization Growth Standards: A
Systematic Review. BMJ Open 2014, 4, e003735. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Wells, J.C.K. Sexual Dimorphism of Body Composition. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2007, 21, 415–430. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
34. Stoudt, H.W.; Damon, A.; McFarland, R.A.; Roberts, J. Skinfolds, Body Girths, Biacromial Diameter, and Selected Anthropometric Indices
of Adults. United States, 1960–1962; Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA,
USA, 1970; pp. 1–63.
35. Abraham, S.; Johnson, C.L.; Najjar, M.F. Weight by Height and Age for Adults, 18-74 Years, United States, 1971–1974; Vital and Health
Statistics, Series 11; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1979; pp. 1–63.
36. Johnson, C.L. Basic Data on Anthropometric Measurements and Angular Measurements of the Hip and Knee Joints for Selected Age Groups
1–74 Years of Age, United States, 1971–1975; Vital and Health Statistics; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA,
USA, 1981.
37. Najjar, M.F.; Rowland, M. 1945-Anthropometric Reference Data and Prevalence of Overweight, United States, 1976–1980; Vital and
Health Statistics; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1987.
38. Panero, J.; Zelinik, M. Human Dimension & Interior Space: A Source Book of Design Reference Standards; Whitney Library of Design,
an imprint of Watson-Guptill Publication: New York, NY, USA, 1979; ISBN 978-0-8230-7271-2.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.