A Study on Anthropometric and Ergonomic Furniture
Design in the Laboratory of Art Education
Agus Nursalim / 085724209521
Ans.sidiqp @ gmail.com
Arts Education Program
Faculty of Language and Arts Education
Indonesia University of Education
Abstract
This study examines the comfort level of furniture being used in Arts Education Laboratory. The study
was conducted to determine the relationship of the comfort level of the furniture to the students’
achievement. This research applied qualitative descriptive approach referring to theories of
anthropometrics and ergonomics to analyze the data. Based on the data analysis result, it shows that the
dimensions of ergonomics and anthropometrics to the students’ problem has X value (Mean) under 395490 mm according to the International standard ( Dreyfuss , 1959, Nurmianto , Eko.1991). Therefore,
the value has a deviation standard of 1.96, 2.5 percent, and 97.5 percent indicating that those values are
still in the normal range 34.7-45.7cm. Furniture Design given in the Arts Education laboratory seem
not to consider the students’ body dimensions yet because they claim that they don’t feel convenient
doing their tasks in the laboratory ( 2.5 percent). Such uncomfortable condition is shown by the centre
of gravity or moment of gravity when the students were sitting and taking a rest on the buttocks of
normal working area in the range of 34.7-45.7 cm. In contrast, while standing, the students got the feet
resting on the elbow angular motion and freedom of movement (SBB) in the range 72.5-89.8(CG Drury
in the ' Journal of Applied Ergonomics Vol.13:.135) and this range is categorized in comfortable level.
Therefore, those values reveal that the comfort level of the Furniture used in the laboratory has no
significant influence on the students’ achievement.
.
Keywords : Anthropometric , Ergonomic , Furniture , Laboratory
.
Introduction
Supriyanto ( 2010:124 ) in his study entitled "Factors Affecting the Students’ Ability to Draw
Constructive Drawing in Arts Education Programs " states that one of the factors affecting on student
's ability in Constructive Drawing is the completeness and condition of facilities and infrastructure
given. The findings of his study claim that 29 % of the 102 students expressed that the completeness
and infrastructure condition are still insufficient, 19 % of the students state ‘sufficient’ and the rest of
the students of 52 % claim ‘less sufficient’. Such conditions are indicated by some variables, namely:
completeness, comfort (ergonomic), size (anthropometric), functions, and feasibility. Ergonomic and
anthropometric attributes are important aspects of the facilities and infrastructures that influence on
students’ achievement in doing laboratory works(Practicum) which mostly run for 4 hour a week for
several subjects including: Painting studio , Sculpture studio , Graphic studio , Craft studio (ceramics ,
batik , wood craft) and Visual Communication Design studio
1
The discussion of the ergonomic aspects cannot be separated from the discussion of anthropometric
(measuring the size of the wearer's body). Ergonomics studies relating to its satisfaction, the satisfaction
can be a comfort and health from the point of view of the science of anatomy , physiology , psychology
, health and safety The purpose of this study is : Want to know the dimensions of the user 's body of
furniture products ( dimensions of the student body ) and attitude / position sitting , standing position (
center of gravity , angular motion ) ) when doing laboratory work, either from the legs, arms, sight and
reach. This research is descriptive qualitative which is used to measure three aspects such as: ( 1 ) the
existence and distribution of a wide range of behaviors or characteristics that occur naturally , (2 ) the
frequent occurrence of naturally occurring , (3 ) the magnitude of the relationship as well as
relationships may exist between the characteristics , behaviors, events, or phenomena of concern
(Alwasilah, 2002:151 ). Dealt with the scope and limitations of the study, this study is classified as a
macro research to discuss aspects of anthropometric and Ergonomics of the furniture. In the contrary,
the micro study concerns with the purpose of reviewing them in a limited study supporting the macro
one. The method was used to get a rapid assessment that examines a problem to take a quick conclusion
done by acquisition of observations and analytical results. This study refers to the theory of
anthropometric and ergonomic studies to analyse the collected data from the students related to
ergonomic and anthropometic components. With the unit of analysis then the information from several
areas will be incorporated into the analysis to formulate the conclusions of the study, this research is a
multiple case study ( Yin, Robert K.1987 : 56 ) . Therefore, the subject of study is factors affecting the
comfort level of furniture provided in the laboratory. The factors can be viewed from the standpoint of
anatomy, physiology, Safety summarized as anthropometric (human beings factors ) and Ergonomics
(safety )
Literature
The term ‘ergonomics’ is derived from the Latin word ergon meaning work and nomos meaning the
laws of nature. Ergonomics can be defined as the study of human aspects in working environment
which are reviewed in anatomy, physiology, psychology, engineering, management and design.
Similarly with regard to the optimalisation of ergonomics, efficiency, health, safety, and human comfort
in the workplace, either indoor or outdoor should be well-considered. In addition, Ergonomics is also
needed in the study of systems where humans , working facilities , and the environment interact with
the overriding goal of adjusting the working atmosphere by human . Ergonomics that is also called as
the " Human Factors " . Ergonomics is also used by various experts / professionals in the field , for
example : anatomy , architecture , product design , physics , physiotherapy , psychology , and in the
engineering industry ( Nurmianto , Eko. 1991: ; 47 ) . Therefore, through study on ergonomics, people
may improve comfort in the work environment using an method to analyzing the relationship between
human body and the physical facilities. The benefits of the application of science is to investigate
ergonomic comfort while working.
The application of ergonomics in general is mostly found in engineering activities (design) or redesign
(re - design). This can include hardware such as working equipment (tools) , work benches , platforms ,
seats , handles work tools (work holders), control systems, props, passageways, doors , windows,
etc.(Kurniawan, Djoeliana, 2003: 26). This study is important because if the hardware system changes,
it will also change working environment.
Furthermore, Ergonomics also plays an important role in improving the safety and health factors. To be
ergonomic required a basic knowledge of the functions and muscular skeletal system. This is associated
with Kinesiology (human movement mechanics ) and biomechanics ( Application mechanics techniques
for the analysis of human skeletal muscle system ). Those all components are basic components to
address the problem of human posture and movement in their place and space.
2
In addition, a vital thing in the scientific application of ergonomics is Anthropometrics ( calibration of
the human body ). In this case, the merger occurs between the use of anthropometric data and
statistical sciences which become the main prerequisite.
Ergonomic aspects in a process facility design work is an important factor in supporting the
improvement of production services. Especially in terms of the design space and accommodation
facilities. Therefore, attention to ergonomic components in the design of public facilities is necessary
because the discussion will not be separated from the role of the wearer's body and anthropometric data
and anthropometric application .
In a design for comfortable accommodation and facilities to ensure the safety of its users should be
approached through the study of anatomy, physiology, psychology, health and safety also design and
management. In order to obtain an optimal design of a space and accommodation facilities then the
things that must be considered are factors such as the length of the dimensions of the human body both
in static and dynamic positions.
Another point to be observed is , weight and center of mass ( center of granity) of a segment / part of
the body , body shape , the distance to the circular movement ( angular motion ) of the hands and feet
and others. Anthropometric is a collection of numeric data related to the physical characteristics of the
human body size , shape , strength used for the application in the handling of design issues (Stefenson,
1989: 92).
Anthropometric research is usually conducted in touch with the military from the civil society. It is
reasonable for several reasons: the first reason is relating to the procurement of military equipment,
uniform entity, fighter pilots, and others, either for the government institutions that conduct the study or
a commission which conducted a study made by the government. The main disadvantage of
anthropometric studies for the military is determined by sex and age of the users, whereas it can be done
by measuring the dimensions of height and weight. The research report was used as a standard in
military clothes before the World War in the United States, so it cannot be used as a standard public.
The next development was also conducted for anthropometric studies by civil society which have been
conducted by the U.S. Department of Health ( Dr. Howard W. Stoudt ) which involved no less than
7500 samples civilians aged between 18 years to 79 years who come from Education and Welfare
department which was done Jean Robert with.
Furthermore, Research on anthropometric variables also experienced growth, except gender, ethnicity /
nation , age group and also work clothes (uniform ), and of the woman's pregnancy factor, physical
defects of the human body. A good development in this era with the same facilities provide people with
disabilities with the normal physical terms each have equal rights in the use of services from the science
of ergonomics in the public service facilities, e.g : special pathways for wheel chairs , special space in
the lavatory, a special line for in and out of offices, campuses, hotels, restaurants , super markets and
others. The size of the human body is taken into consideration in the design of the interior because it is
a real impact. The two effects are dimension of structural type and the type of functional dimension.
Structural dimensions refer to dimensions including measures static head, torso, and shoulders in a
normal position while the functional dimension refers to the dynamic range dimensions including
physical movement at work associated with their working performances. To design a product using
anthropometric statistical data in the manufacture of a door can use the following formula:
= X + ( 2,325 SD )
= 1740 + ( 2.325x70 )
= 1903 mm
These results are taken from the calculation of the standard (non- ergonomic ) where static
anthropometric data should be added. Anthropometric dimensions define static foot wears , hats and
dynamic clearance ( dynamic slack ) because human height will increase if it is walking or running
which is called a dynamic effect. So that, the total height of the door that must be made is: Tp = 1903 +
high + boots + hat high dynamic clearance (1903 +30 +50 +50 = 2033 mm is for designing comfortable
product. Designing a product using anthropometric data is applied for some furniture designs, for
3
example in making a rack (shelf), chairs, tables, etc. In this product, anthropometric consideration is the
range of the human hand to the front of the maximum. Therefore, the calculation of the design is to
measure the height of shoulder of the user is generally coupled with dimensions of 7.5 cm to the top.
High dimensional shoulders (shoulder heights) will describe the high shelf that will provide maximum
coverage. The dimensions of the human body are commonly used in the design of a product can be
illustrated in Table 2.1: Anthropometric Indonesian society, Adults with interpolation and the British
Society of Hong Kong (See Tables in the Appendix)
A big mistake if the average anthropometric dimensions used in the design of a product due to the use
of anthropometric dimensions of the average of the product would not be beneficial to other users
because the anthropometric dimensions between the users do not have common dimension unless the
dimensions average show the standard deviation and percentile. Guidelines for using the most
appropriate or average Anthropometric dimensions ought to consider the corresponding standard
deviation in the design to be performed, the average dimension of the appropriate population, the
corresponding percentile values as the basis of design, and appropriate categorization. In using the data
in a static anthropometry work chair design, for example; work chairs which are used by men and
women working population who require a simple office chair set ( adjustable). Dealing with the range
of dimensions of the work chair, the requirements of most major office chair is the sole of the foot
should be located on the surface of the floor, and the seat height should be arranged so that there is no
pressure on the lower part of the thigh. In addition, corresponding dimensions are knee high fold (
polpliteal height ). The user population include women in appropriate range: 32.5-49.0 cm. High shoe
holder will be high, especially for women, but sometimes there are women who prefer not to wear shoes
while working. So we get the range of 325-490 mm dimensions. In this case, Dreyfuss (1982) in the
Measure of a Man ) recommends a range of 15-18 inc or 381-457 mm ( Figure 2.5:Standard Design
Work Chair ) on the image attachment page.
Findings and Discussion
The distribution of Arts Education Curriculum is divided into four areas ( See appendix, Table 4.1 :
Distribution of Curriculum , Department of Arts Education 2012-213 ). Those for areas involve subjects
of General Courses ( MKU ), KKU, MKDU, and MKDK which consist 138 credits, 94 credits are
Practicum (Laboratory works), and the rest of 44 credits are theory. In addition, the distribution of the
target competency based curriculum prepared graduates with undergraduate learning and assessment
systems are arranged in the subject Syllabus or lesson plans.
Here is research data on student Ergonomic Class A and Class B Year 2012/2013 using the standard
dimensions, namely dynamic movement of the hand and shoulder to move freely use the term elbow
and elbow are not free to move.
Referring to the findings taken from the students, it is found that the study of anthropometric and
Ergonomics design of furniture given in the laboratory of arts Education. Show that the furniture have
standard dimensional measurements of dynamic ( dynamic dimension ) where the conduct lab motion (
angular motion ) with good movement round the feet , hands , and shoulders view. This furniture is
different from the ones used in lecturing classes where the students tend to be static-not dynamic since
they just listen to the lecturers explaining something so they do not have lot movements. In such
different contexts, the furniture chosen have a different standard of measurement.
According to the result of data analysis, it shows that the rules of science ergonomics has not been
implemented fully in the process of designing a piece of furniture that is used in the student practicum
courses. What happens is that taking buy finished products regardless of anthropometric dimensions of
the students. The finished product is mostly provided for getting profit as much as possible in making
furniture. During the design process. functional characteristics of human users (students ) have never
been considered such as; capacity of the sensing , response time , the optimum position of the hand and
foot muscles to work efficiency considerations have not been made by the manufacturer. The table of
4
identifying the average value (mean) and standard deviation (SD) 1.96. While the 95 percentile of the
body size and the 5th percentile indicates a small body. To accommodate 95% of the population was 2.5
and 97.5 percentile range limits can be used.
N(X.бX)
95 %
2.5 %
2.5 %
97.5th %
2.5 th%
-1.96 б
X
+1.96 б
%
For example, in analyzing the depth of the rack dryer (dry shelf ) at Studio Graphic students work while
standing. In calculating shelf should select 5 percent of the population that can reach all the shelves.
Percentile is the smallest is 1 % should not be used to avoid the consequences shelf (shelf) is high
because there is only one high measuring student.
To analyze the level of comfort drying rack can be used anthropometric data in Table 4.7:
Anthropometric Data Male Student Column 7 and Column 12 (using high -dimensional shoulder
(shoulder height) in a standing position) with a small percentile is 2.5 then the high shelf is convenient
144.13 cm for all the population can reach a depth of shelf ( shelf ) is. If the 95 % percentile is used as a
standard design then is obtained a high shelf 151.97. The height between 144-152, every student can
still reach the depth of the rack. But the shelf cupboard available is 170 cm wide with a depth of 45 cm
120. From the high cupboard shelf, not all students can reach the height of the rack. The students who
can reach the high shelf is just 2.5 percent. All other students should use the step stool to be able to
reach the base or the toe.
The Ergonomic data were divided into two areas, namely Horizontal and Vertical work area. Horizontal
work area is a benchmark to judge the normal movement which is a movement and rotating the forearm
resting on a horizontal plane that could be a work surface with working conditions by sitting ( See
Table 4.2 : Dimensions of Student Ergonomics Force from 2012 to 2013 ) . Horizontal work area
assessment standards was used to analyze the design of the height of a good office chair, seat depth are
measured by the size of the wearer's ergonomic student. In addition, the maximum ergonomic working
area is measuring the student with arms outstretched to measure the spin axis around the shoulder.
This measurement needs to be done to analyze the convenience of work table design in the studio
according to the ergonomic standards, including the space for students to analyze in terms of freedom of
movement in doing studio work. While working area is used to analyze Vertical design work desk with
ergonomic showing the student position elbow motion when students do laboratory work. The students’
elbows are free to move when the students do the work The research data are presented in Table 4.2.
5
Moreover, table 4.5 is the data to ergonomics students who have been classified according to gender –
Male and Female. The information of the arm movement in horizontal dimension ( angular motion )
will be used to analyze the design of the desk or the field of work. The dimensional horizontal and
vertical movement of the arm will be used to analyze the work chair and furniture objects vertically.
Deal with the objects assessed in Anthropometric study are factors of student body dimensions of
furniture in the laboratory manual / studio including the long dimension of the body in both static and
dynamic positions. It was observed that the weight and center of mass ( center of gravity ) of a body
part , body , the distance to the circular movement ( angular motion ) of the hands and feet. The
dimensions of the student body are grouped into two types: structural and functional dimensions.
Structural dimension is also called static dimensions including measurements over the head, torso and
limbs. While the functional dimension is also called dynamic dimension (dynamic dimensions )
showing the measurements of the time students do a practicum or a movement occurred in the context
of work. However, there were ten major dimensions used as benchmarks for measuring anthropometric
dimensions, namely: height, sitting height , weight , length of the buttocks to the front of the knees , the
buttocks to the pop liteal part , the range between the elbow to the hip in a sitting position, knee high
front and the back , and thigh high . Furthermore, the student anthropometric dimensions of the data
presented in the form of Normal Curve and Table 4.6: Anthropometric data of students (See
Appendixes ).
The chair is used by male students and female students have a range of different dimension. In the
design of the work chair, footwear (shoes) are taken into consideration. In this case, barefoot feet will
hang and there is pressure on the lower thigh. The seat should be easy to set (adjustable) so the furniture
are comfortable and they show comfortable work chair dimensions according to ergonomic standards.
In addition, folding chair that is as high as the knee ( polp liteal height ) or in accordance with the
dimensions of the column 13 of Table 7 men and 13 columns in table 7 women , namely high dimensional folding of the knee.
Given work chair users consists of male and female work chairs should refer the appropriate range for
both of the range of 30.48 ( Table 4.8 column 13 ) and 41.8 cm ( Table 4.7 column 13 ) . Meanwhile,
according to the Australian Standard on ' Ergonomics in Factory and Office Work ' range recommended
34.0 cm - 48.0 cm While Dreyfuss in the book ' The Measure of a Man ' recommended range of 38.1 cm
- 45.7 cm and there is a lumbar support in the sitting position. This recommendation emphasizes the
provision of the backrest can be adjusted to support the lumbar region or lower region of the spine. It is
intended to reduce the tendency toward spinal khynopsis form. For the election of the chair size (height
, width , depth of the seat ) must be based on student anthropometric data users .
Seat height of distinguished work in two ways , namely :
a. Low chair that is used to work with stool or table ( desk and tables )
b. Higher seats are used to work with a bench or machine , workshop table that allows to
work while standing .
The purpose of the design is to let the lower seats suffered leg rest directly on the floor and avoid
pressure on the bottom side of the thigh. In this case, the moment of gravity lies in the prominent bone
on the buttocks (Figure 2.8 and Figure 2.9: Posterior Sit ) , while the overall weight of a heavy foot will
be supported by leg. In contrast, the minimum weight will be supported by lower thigh leg compression
in the area given below this will cause a tingling thigh . Therefore anthropometric data is the main basis
in designing high seat / chair that is as high as the knee indentations ( column 13, Table 4.7 ) in
accordance to the recommendation of CG Drury and BG Coury in A methodology for chair evaluation ,
the ( Journal of Applied Ergonomics , 1982 , Vol. 13 :135 )
While the high chair is designed to work while standing and working on a high stool. High school is
designed based on the wearer's elbow height or a high chair with a seat height can be adjusted to
support the upper body so that your elbows are a few centimeters high above the work.
6
Anthropometric data size is the vertical distance from the point of bending the elbow to the surface to
sit horizontally. To anticipate the occurrence of leg fatigue due to load at the bottom of the foot will be
moved to the inside of the groin. So it needs to be made for a foot rest on a bench or on a chair leg can
be set. The point for design work chair should be based on the type of work, resulting posture, the force
required, and integrated visual views with tables / benches that used to work.
Similarly to the basic design of the garage workbench or table with Table 4.7 based on the high elbow
on column 8 and column 12 sitting at the same table that is high knees in a sitting position. Based on the
results of the study presented data on the male elbow height when sitting (column 8, Table 4.7 ) is 68.13
cm while the lower range is ( column 8, Table 4.8 ) which is 56.96 thus higher dimension table is the
range between 56.96 - 68.13 in accordance with the data of ergonomic student footwear wearer added
height between 2.60 cm - 4.6 cm . So, ,a high comfortable design of workbench to work ergonomically
recommended for the students is between 59.56 - 72.73 . While the width of a table using data of
ergonomic student based anthropometric data in Table 4.7 column 18 (the distance from the elbow to
the fingertips) plus 20 columns of data ( long arm ) is 47.7 +20.3 = 68.7 above range . While the lower
range is the data in Table 4.8 in column 18 ( the distance from the fingertips to the elbow ) plus column
20 ( long arm ) is 41.7 +15.5 = 62.6 cm . The length of the table can use anthropometric data of students
who have been presented in Table 4.7 and Table 4.8. To find out how long the dimension table is
ergonomically comfortable to look at the data in Table 4.7 in column 22 is the left distance to fingertips
right. How long dimension table is ergonomically comfortable work can be seen in Table 4.7 and Table
4.8 column 22 is the left distance to right fingertips is the range of 160.4 to 164.7. Thus workbench
dimensions (workshop ) that is ergonomically comfortable namely long range ; width and height are :
long- range table above 164.7 , width 68.7 , height 72.73 . While the long- range below 160.4 cm width
62.6 cm 56.96 cm steeper. Therefore, the result of data analysis show that the dimensions of the table
are convenient for Arts Education students to run practicum work according to calculations from the
findings after measuring the male students and female students..Considering the recommendation from
Panero, Julius and Zelnik , Martin in his book ' Human Dimension and Interior Space ' is the length
152.4 cm - 182.9cm , width 76.2-91.4 cm . Height 73.7cm - 76.2cm .
Analysis on the office chair and work table is an example of the analysis that has been done to the
overall types of furniture found in the laboratory / studio of Arts Education. Treatment to the analysis
as a whole is the same furniture that is by using the percentiles of the most large and small percentile
after the Mean ( X ) and Standard Deviation ( SD ) known as dimensions Ergonomics students.
.
If high Etsel will be analyzed as a good and comfortable ergonomic furniture can be be seen in Table
4.2 Work area is a column Vertical Elbow -Free Move ( SBB ) and anthropometric dimensions students
considered also in Table 4.7 Column 3 is high Mata . Thus Etsel is both ergonomic and anthropometric
to have a height of between 212.98 186.02 presented in the top or bottom percentile . 212.98 or 186.02
unless the position to determine Etsel too high to determine a comfortable distance observer to works
being exhibited . The data of the Horizontal Working area is to analyze the data as a wide horizontal
field of work tables, spacious rooms, spacious motion, the seat width, depth of cupboards, the length of
wardrobes, width and length of the corridor and others. While the Regional Working Vertical is the data
that will be used to analyze high instance object height work table, high work chair , high Stool , high
cabinets , high ceiling and others.
The dimensions of the fancy furniture available in studio Arts Education almost everything using 50
percentile, or average dimensions . As a result, the amount of furniture cannot accommodate all of the
wearers. Furniture supposed to be used comfortably by all the dimensions of the student body. It would
be better if in designing furniture in the installation can be set or changed (the built -in adjustment) that
can be tailored to the student users. Furniture such as office chairs, shelves which can be changed is a
product that can be applied to the system of built -in adjustment.
There will be a big mistake if the anthropometric dimensions of the average student in the standard
design used furniture ( chair or desk ) because the use of anthropometric dimensions of the average
7
student does not benefit the other . Since the anthropometric dimensions of the students do not have in
common. Guidelines for using the most appropriate in the average Anthropometric dimensions ought to
consider: Standard deviation, the average ( mean ), distinguished gender groups, and has a
corresponding percentile values .
Conclusion
A. Ergonomic and Anthropometric dimensions Students
Research data are presented in Table 4.2and Table 4.5 is the data to ergonomic students.
Information on the movement of the arm in the horizontal dimension and vertical (angular motion ) has
been used in analyzing the workbench design and analyze student work chair has a range of dimensions
of 30.48 ( Table 4.8 column 13 ) - 41.8 cm ( Table 4.7 column 13 ) . Meanwhile, according to the
Australian Standard on ' Ergonomics in Factory and Office Work ' range recommended 34.0 cm - 48.0
cm While Dreyfuss in the book ' The Measure of a Man ' recommended range of 38.1 cm - 45.7 cm and
there is a lumbar support in the sitting position. This recommendation emphasizes the provision of the
backrest can be adjusted (adjustable ) to support the lumbar region or lower region of the spine. It is
intended to reduce the tendency toward spinal khyphosis form. For the election of the chair size ( height
, width , depth of the seat ) should be based on anthropometric data corresponding users . In addition,
moment of gravity lies in the prominent bone on the buttocks, while the weight of the foot will be
supported by legs. While the minimum west leg will be supported by the lower thigh compression in the
area given below this will cause a tingling thigh. Therefore anthropometric data is the main basis in
designing the seat height / seat.The point for design work chair should be based on the type of
functions, and dimensions of user ergonomics, the force required, and integrated visual views with
tables / benches that is used to work in the laboratory.
The treatment analysis as a whole is the same furniture that is by using the percentiles of the
most large and small percentile after the Mean ( X ) and Standard Deviation ( SD ) of known
dimensions Ergonomics students . In analyzing the entire furniture using the Regional Occupational
Vertical Elbow column is Free Move ( SBB ) and anthropometric dimensions students considered also
in Table 4.7 Column 3 is high Mata .
Data from the Regional Occupational Horizontal is the data to analyze such a wide horizontal field of
work tables, spacious rooms , spacious motion , the seat width , depth cupboards ,
wardrobe length , width and length of the corridor and others. While Regions Vertical Work is the data
that will be used to analyze high instance object height work table, high chair work, high Stool , high
cabinets , high ceiling 'and others.
B. Dimension When Doing Practicum Student Movement
It is studied weight and center of mass ( center of gravity ) of a body part , body shape , the
distance to the circular movement ( angular motion ) of the hands and feet .
The dimensions of the student body are grouped into two types: structural dimensions and functional
dimensions. Structural dimension is also called static dimensions that include measurements over the
head, torso and limbs. While the functional dimension is also called dynamic dimension (dynamic
dimensions ) which includes measurements when students do lab work or movement that occurs in
working order . Ten major Dimensions are used as a benchmark for measurement are: height, sitting
height , weight , length of the buttocks to the front of the knees , the buttocks to the folds in the knee ,
the range between the elbow to the hip in a sitting position , knee high front and back , and thigh high .
Furthermore, the anthropometric dimensions of the data presented in the form of student and Normal
Curve Table 4.6: Anthropometric data of students. The table of known average value ( mean ) and
standard deviation ( SD ) 1.96. While the 95 percentile of the body size and the 5th percentile indicates
a small body. To accommodate 95% of the population was 2.5 and 97.5 percentile range limits can be
used.
The dimensions of the fancy furniture available in studio Arts Education mostly use 50
percentile , or average dimensions . As a result, the amount of furniture cannot accommodate all of the
8
users. Furniture supposed to be used comfortably by all the dimensions of the student body. It would be
better if the installation of furniture can be set or changed ( the built -in adjustment) that can be adapted
for working furniture such as chairs, shelves which can be changed is a product that can be applied to
the system 's built -in adjustment .
Furniture inconvenience due to non-compliance of standards Anthropometry and Ergonomics
Standard has no effect on student achievement unless if there is pain or muscles injury due to work, or
it could also happen the articular Osteo deviations : the student with scoliosis condition hunchback (
kyphosis ) will take effect on the work that resulted maximum comfort of work .
REFERENCES
Alwasilah , A.Chaedar , ( 2002) , Pokoknya Kualitatif , Jakarta : Pustaka Jaya
Kurniawan , Djoeliana . ( 2003) . Human Dimension and Interior Space . Translation Erlangga, Jakarta
Nurmianto , Eko . ( 1996) , Ergonomics Basic Concept and Application , first edition , Jakarta PT
Widya Guna
Nurmianto , Eko . ( 1991) . Application workplace design industry : Overview of Ergonomics in
Industry . National Seminar on Industrial Product Design , Faculty of civil engineering and
planning - Faculty of industrial engineering istitut , Surabaya
Panero , Julius . , Zelnik , Martin . ( 1979) . HumanDimension and Interior Space , source book of
design reference standards , United Stade , Canada
Patton , MQ , (1984 ) , Qualitative Data Source Analyzis of New Methods , Beverly Hills , Sage
Publications
Pheasant, Stephen . ( 1991) . Ergonomics , Work and Health , Macmillan Academic And Professional
LTD , London
Pheasant, Sulfiant . (1986 ) . Body Space : anthropometry , ergonomics and design . London : Taylor
and Francis
Stefenson (1989). Lectur notes on the principles of ergonomics, Centre for Ssafety Science, University
of New SouthWales, Sidney Australia.
Supriyanto , Untung. ( 2011) . Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kemampuan mahasiswa dalam
menggambar konstruktif, Tesis Pasca Sarjana UPI
Yin , Robert K. , ( 1987) , Case Study Research ; design and Mehods , Newbury Park , Ca : Sage
Journal
Drury , C.G. (1982 ) . A methodology for chair evaluation . Applied . Ergonomics , Vol . 13 , p.195
9
Acknowledgement
Alhamdulillah, praise to Allah SWT, the Cherisher in the world, because of his blessing, the author
finally completed his research report. Moreover, there are some people willingly directed and guided in
doing the research and writing the research report. Therefore, I would like to extent my gratitude to:
. Directorate General of Higher Education and Indonesia University of Education as fund provider to
conduct this research.
2. Prof. Dr.. H. Sunaryo Kartadinata , M.Pd. Rector of Indonesia University of Education who has given
me the opportunity to conduct the research as a pilot one for further researches.
3. Prof . H. E. Aminudin Aziz , MA , Ph.D. , Vice Rector of Research and Human Resource
Development and all proposal Reviewer Team of UPI..
4. Prof. H. Soemarto , MSIE , as Head of Research and Community Services Institution of UPI.
5. Prof . Dr. . Didi Sukyadi , MA , Dean of Faculty of Arts and Language Education, UPI.
6. Bandi Sobandi , MPd . , Head of Arts Education Department who always motivates to conduct a
research.
7. Gugum Primary, Spd , MSN. as a photographer and data collector who is always ready to help
anytime in this study.
All colleagues who cannot be mentioned one by one here. May Allah SWT bless you all. Thank you
Bandung , December 2013
Author
10
Lampiran 1
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
NIM
1204588
1203034
1204973
12
1203040
1203046
1203045
1205209
1203040
1203506
1203038
12023O
1202603
1202570
1103670
1101053
1101056
1103098
1205570
Tabel 1: Data Ergonomi Mahasiswa Laki-Laki
Kelas B angkatan 2012/2013
DAERAH KERJA
Gender
HORIZONTAL
NAMA MAHASISWA
Daerah
Daerah
L
P
Normal Maksimum
FREIDY JAELANI
L
90
170
AHMAD KHOERUDIN
L
90
170
WAHYU WIRA PUTRA
L
92
178
NONO HARYONO
L
90
169
YOPI SAMSUL ARIFIN
L
86
168
MANSUR SALDI
L
82
161
RIFALDI EFRIANSYAH
L
82
163
M. RIZAL HAFIYAN
L
84
167
JUNAEDI
L
80
159
AWAB ABDULLAH
L
88
170
ILYAS YAA RACHMAN
L
92
175
VICKY ISYANATA
L
80
160
MUHAMAD SHIDDIQ
L
82
162
MUHAMAD TAUFIK
L
80
160
DIDIK NURAHMAN
L
80
162
AGUNG ADITYA P.
L
88
170
ADHISMA ANJAR
L
86
169
YOGI FEBRIYANSYAH
L
90
172
ILFAN FAUZI
L
80
162
∑n:
1622
3167
X:
85.37
166.68
SD:
2.134
4.167
Percentil 97.5%::
87.503
170.85
Persenti 2. 5%:
83.234
162.52
DAERAH KERJA
VERTICAL
SBB*
210
210
222
210
210
210
202
206
200
212
214
202
202
200
204
210
210
212
202
3948
207.79
5.194
212.98
202.59
STBB**
190
188
198
188
186
179
180
184
178
186
192
179
179
179
180
188
186
190
179
3509
184.68
4.617
189.30
180.067
Catatan:
*SBB : Siku Bebas Bergerak
**STBB: Siku Tidak Bebas Bergerak
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NIM
1205460
1203044
1206169
1205161
1205804
1206111
1203037
1203547
Tabel 2: Data Ergonomi Mahasiswa Perempuan
Kelas B angkatan 2012/2013
DAERAH KERJA
Gender
HORIZONTAL
NAMA MAHASISWA
Daerah
Daerah
L
P
Normal
Maksimum
NURANI PUSPASARI
YOSI SAPITRI
ELSA NUR SAADAH
NENTY NOVIANTY
NENI NURINAYAH
ZESIKA HAYATUL K.
DEA RAHAYU
WIDYA INRIYANTI
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
1
80
78
82
82
80
82
75
80
158
153
160
164
159
160
145
158
DAERAH KERJA
VERTICAL
SBB*
STBB**
208
194
200
206
200
210
184
208
174
170
178
180
178
178
163
176
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1206447
1202559
1203035
1203357
1202524
1204355
1202437
1104363
1100896
1100223
ANGEL LIMBONG
RIANI DEA PRATIWI
GITA RONIA
KAROLINA BR K.
MAYANG CHAIRUNNIS
WAHYUNI MARKOTIM
DINA NOVENTIN M.
NINING LESTARI
SHOFIYAH RIGAN
GITA MARDIAN K.
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
∑n:
X:
SD:
Percentil 95%::
Persenti 5%:
80
80
80
84
78
80
80
76
82
78
1437
75.63
1.89
77.52
73.74
160
158
158
168
157
159
161
145
163
157
2843
149.63
3.74
153.37
145.89
200
200
198
210
208
200
202
185
204
208
3625
190.79
4.77
195.56
186.02
176
176
177
186
175
176
180
162
180
172
3157
166.15
4.15
170.31
162.00
Catatan:
*SBB : Siku Bebas Bergerak
**STBB: Siku Tidak Bebas Bergerak
Tabel 3: Data Ergonomi mahasiswa
Laki-laki Kelas A angkatan 2012/2013
Gender
No
NIM
NAMA MAHASISWA
L
1
2
3
1201711
1201900
4
1202168
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1202262
1202296
1202302
1202435
1203580
1204331
1204372
1204884
1205638
14
15
16
17
18
19
1205784
1205939
1205961
1206422
1206488
1206630
1201947
KAFFAH IMADUDIN M.
RIDWAN BADAR R.
AMIRULLOH
ZULFIKAR
RAHADYAN
YUDANTAR
SALSA SOLLI NAFSIKA
ALDI FAHRIANSYAH
ARDHIATUL ARDHA
WILDAN RACHMAN
RENDY DWI DHARMA
RENDRA ZULIAN R.
MARIO M. SUYATNA
BONI PURNAMA
SELMA FEBBY
SA'ADILL
TUBAGUS HOKINOF J.
MUHAMAD ALIFIA N.
NASSUHAD
PRISMA DENENSI
YAYAN MULYANA
REGA OKTAVIANA
P
L
L
DAERAH KERJA
HORIZONTAL
Daerah
Daerah
Normal
Maksimum
92
172
84
165
L
100
182
L
81
172
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
90
90
96
84
85
85
85
90
171
170
175
165
168
166
167
170
L
80
161
L
L
L
L
L
L
91
90
89
90
72
90
1664
87.58
2.19
172
172
170
172
154
170
3214
169.16
4.23
∑n:
X:
SD:
2
DAERAH KERJA
VERTICAL
SBB*
STBB**
212
204
224
192
183
200
211
190
211
210
214
206
206
206
206
210
201
190
190
192
184
187
185
185
189
181
213
212
209
213
194
212
3974
209.16
5.23
191
190
190
191
173
189
3572
188
4.7
Percentil 95%::
Persenti 5%:
89.77
85.39
173.38
164.93
214.38
203.93
192.7
183.3
Catatan:
*SBB : Siku Bebas Bergerak
**STBB: Siku Tidak Bebas Bergerak
No
NIM
1
2
3
1201795
1201800
1201834
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1201846
1201860
1201903
1201978
1202008
1202280
1202286
1202330
1202339
1202416
1205146
1205203
1205454
1205550
1206347
Tabel 4: Data Ergonomi mahasiswa
Perempuan Kelas A angkatan 2012/2013
DAERAH KERJA
Gender
HORIZONTAL
NAMA MAHASISWA
Daerah
Daerah
L
P
Normal
Maksimum
AI NUR ASIAH
P
75
150
DELIA ANGGIANI
P
78
157
ERSHA DIANY
P
86
165
PRATIWY
IRSALINA ZATA DINI
P
80
161
AJENG PRATIWI
P
75
155
WIDYA HERAWATI
P
88
159
LIZWANTI C.
P
75
155
FATHIN HANIFAH
P
78
160
RISTA SUNDARI
P
75
156
LENI APRILLIANI
P
75
155
WIDYASARI
P
85
166
P
72
150
SALMA SABILLA N.
TERA GARNIDA
P
75
155
HILDA NURHANIFA
P
74
155
CHINTIA AGUSTIN W.
P
75
155
NENG SITI ZAKIYYAH
P
74
155
RUNI PUSPA AMALIAH
P
86
166
ANGGI SUGIHARTI
P
78
160
∑n:
1404
2835
X:
73.89
149.21
SD:
1.85
3.73
Percentil 95%::
75.74
152.94
Persenti 5%:
72.05
145.48
Catatan:
*SBB : Siku Bebas Bergerak
**STBB: Siku Tidak Bebas Bergera
3
DAERAH KERJA
VERTICAL
SBB*
STBB**
192
197
204
169
177
182
200
196
200
195
200
195
195
206
190
193
204
206
205
205
201
3584
188.63
4.72
193.35
183.92
182
176
178
175
178
175
176
194
170
174
176
176
175
184
178
3195
168.16
4.20
172.36
163.95
Tebal Paha
Jarak dari
Pantat ke Lutut
Jarak dari Lipat
Lutut ke Pantat
Tinggi Lutut
Tinggi Lipat Lutut
Lebar Bahu
Lebar Panggul
Tebal Dada
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
165
4
109
5
142
75
112
97
59
18
59
49
56
47
46
33.5
RIDWAN BADAR R'
165
132
156
105
68
100
92
60
16
50
42
51
43
42
32
23
AMIRULLOH ZULFIKAR
182
152
171
163
83
120
108
74
18
67
57
58
48
48
33.5
25
RAHADYAN YUDA..
172
140
163
112
74
107
98
68
16
47
38
56
48
42
32
25
S ALS A S OLLI NAFS IKA
171
138
162
110
72
106
99
72
15
46
38
55
47
43
31
23
ALDI FAHRIANS YAH
170
138
161
108
72
105
96
67
16
45
37
51
43
40
31
23.5
ARDHIATUL ARDHA
175
143
166
115
76
112
103
72
18
60
50
56
48
42
34.2
24.5
WILDAN RACHMAN
165
133
156
105
695
102
94
62
14
50
43
51
43
42
32
23.5
RENDY DWI DHARMA
168
136
159
103
68
103
92
67
14
53
45
54
48
40
33
23
RENDRA ZULIAN R.
166
134
147
108
67
102
95
66
14
51
42
48
40
40
31.5
23
MARIO M. S UYATNA
167
134
158
102
72
102
93
67
14
52
43
53
46
41
32.5
25
BONI PURNAMA
170
138
161
105
73
105
96
67
16
55
47
54
46
43
32
24
TUBAGUS HOKINOF
172
140
163
108
78
107
97
69
18
57
49
49
42
39
31.7
23.5
MUHAMAD ALIFIA N.
172
142
163
105
74
103
98
67
18
57
49
48
40
41
32
24
NAS S UHAD
170
128
161
107
73
105
96
65
16
55
47
47
39
40
31
23
PRIS MA DENENS I
172
140
163
108
74
112
98
69
16
57
49
58
50
43
34
25.7
YAYAN MULYANA
154
122
143
95
56
97
86
53
14
39
32
35
26
38
29
22.4
REGA OKTAVIANA
170
138
162
107
72
107
96
67
16
55
57
51
44
42
32
25.3
814
45.2
1.96
47.2
43.3
931
51.7
1.96
53.7
49.8
∑n : 3055 2470 2880 1975
170 137.2
160 110
S tandar Deviasi (S D): 1.96
1.96 1.96 1.96
Persenctil 97.5 % : 172 139.2
162 112
Persentil 2.5 % :
168 135.3
158 108
MEAN (X) :
1922
1907
106.78 105.94
1.96
1.96
108.74
107.9
104.82 103.98
4
Tinggi Bahu
Pada Posisi
Duduk
Tinggi Siku
pada posisi
Duduk
Tinggi Badan
pada posisi
Duduk
2
174
Nama Mahaiswa
Tinggi Mata
pada posisi
Duduk
Tinggi Siku
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Tinggi tubuh
saat duduk tegak
1
KAFFAH IMADUDIN M. R
Variabel
Tinggi Badan
Tinggi Mata
Tabel 5 : Data Antropometri Mahasiswa Laki-laki Kelas A Angkatan 2012/2013
1734
96.33
1.96
98.29
94.37
1191 287 955
66.2 16 53.1
1.96
2 1.96
68.1 18
55
64.2 14 51.1
788
43.8
1.96
45.7
41.8
752
41.8
1.96
43.7
39.8
25
578 431
32.1
24
1.96 1.96
34.1 25.9
30.1
22
Jarak dari siku ke
Ujung Jari
Lebar Kepala
Panjang Tangan
Lebar Tangan
17
18
19
20
21
22
27
47.5
16
19
8.5
179
22
43.5
13.5
18.8
7.4
163
27
48
15
19
8.5
179
26
47
14.5
19
8.5
179
26
44.5
15
19
8.5
179
22.5
45.5
15
18.8
7.4
163
27
46
15
19
8.5
179
26.5
43
14.5
16.8
7.1
152
23
43
13.5
16.8
7.1
152
26
47
14
18.8
7.4
163
179
Tebal Perut
Variabel
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Nama Mahaiswa
KAFFAH IMADUDIN M. R
RIDWAN BADAR RAHMAN
AMIRULLOH ZULFIKAR
RAHADYAN YUDANTARA
SALSA SOLLI NAFSIKA
ALDI FAHRIANSYAH
ARDHIATUL ARDHA
TERA GARNIDA
WILDAN RACHMAN
RENDY DWI DHARMA
RENDRA ZULIAN R.
MARIO M. SUYATNA
BONI PURNAMA
TUBAGUS HOKINOF
MUHAMAD ALIFIA NURFI
NASSUHAD
PRISMA DENENSI
YAYAN MULYANA
REGA OKTAVIANA
∑n :
MEAN (X) :
Standar Deviasi (SD):
Persenctil 97.5 % :
Persentil 2.5 % :
Jarak Bentang Ujung
Jari Kanan Ke Ujung
Jari Kiri
Tabel 6: Data Anthropometri Mahasiswa Laki-laki Kelas A Angkatan 2012/2013
26
46
14
19
8.5
25.5
46
14.5
18.8
7.4
163
26
47
15.5
18.8
7.4
163
26
45
15.5
18.8
7.4
163
26.5
46.3
16
17.3
7.5
161
25
47
13.5
18.8
7.4
163
27
47
16.5
17.3
7.5
161
24
43
14.5
16.8
7.1
152
47
15.5
18.8
7.4
24.5
483.5
25.45
-1.96
27.41
23.49
869.3 281.5 349.4 146.5
45.75 14.816 18.389 7.711
-1.96
-1.96
-1.96
-1.96
47.71 16.776 20.349 9.671
43.79 12.856 16.429 5.751
5
163
3156
166.1053
-1.96
168.0653
164.1453
11
27
12
36
13
28
14
38
15
34.5
16
23
57
92
82
54
14
37
29
38
32
40
37.5
26
66
90
94
60
16
45
37
51
43
43
38.4
26
100
63
92
96
56
14
46
38
46
38
40
37
25
146
90
57
95
79
52
13
40
32
24
59
95
94
56
14
44
36
32
37
38
34
103
41
40
36
150
34.5
26
123
146
100
56
95
87
57
13
30
24
41
34
38
36
24
160
128
142
107
62
95
86
55
14
35
27
46
35
38
35.6
26
156
124
144
102
57
97
84
53
13
36
28
37
29
36
34.5
25
126
134
124
127
123
123
124
134
129
128
143
100
83
52
13
35
27
36
28
35
32
26
157
143
144
146
147
146
157
152
152
107
98
90
100
95
97
103
102
100
55
67
49
55
60
60
62
67
59
57
94
104
92
90
92
92
93
103
97
97
96
83
87
87
89
86
96
93
92
63
47
52
52
52
54
63
58
57
14
13
13
14
13
13
16
14
14
51
35
40
40
40
40
51
41
45
43
28
32
32
33
32
43
34
37
52
31
36
36
36
37
46
41
41
44
25
28
28
28
29
38
33
34
41
36
37
39
37
37
38
36
39
36
34.3
32.5
34.5
34
33
35.6
34.5
34.6
27
24.5
24.5
25.6
25
24
27
23.5
26
1670
1045
261
765
Tinggi Mata
Tinggi Siku
120
127
145
97
133
151
105
161
131
152
AJENG PRATIWI
155
128
WIDYA HERAWATI
159
127
LIZWANTI C.
155
FATHIN HANIFAH
RIS TA S UNDARI
LENI APRILLIANI
155
WIDYAS ARI
S ALMA S ABILLA N.
TERA GARNIDA
HILDA NURHANIFA
CHINTIA AGUS TIN WIND.
NENG S ITI ZAKIYYAH
RUNI PUS PA AMALIAH
S ELMA FEBBY S A'ADILL
ANGGI S UGIHARTI
∑n :
166
150
155
155
155
155
166
161
160
DELIA ANGGIANI
157
ERS HA DIANY PRATIWY
165
IRS ALINA ZATA DINI
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2996
MEAN (X) : 157.68
2
2413
127
1.96
1.96
Persenctil 97.5 % : 159.64
128.96
125.04
Persentil 2.5 % :
155.72
2805
1891
147.63 99.526
5
1118
1793
55
13.7
40.3
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
149.59 101.49
60.802 96.328 89.855
56.96
15.7
145.67 97.566
56.882 92.408 85.935
53.04
11.8
1.96
1.96
58.842 94.368 87.895
1.96
1.96
6
619
Tebal Dada
10
34
1
150
Lebar Panggul
Tinggi Lutut
9
13
Nama Mahaiswa
AI NUR AS IAH
Lebar Bahu
Jarak dari Lipat
Lutut ke Pantat
8
52
4
95
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
S tandar Deviasi (S D):
Tinggi Lipat Lutut
Jarak dari
Pantat ke Lutut
7
76
3
142
Variabel
Tinggi Badan
pada posisi
Duduk
Tinggi Mata
pada posisi
Duduk
Tinggi Bahu
Pada Posisi
Duduk
Tinggi Siku
pada posisi
Duduk
50
6
88
Tinggi Badan
Tebal Paha
Tinggi tubuh
saat duduk tegak
Tabel 6: Data Anthropometri Mahasiswa Perempuan Kelas A Angkatan 2012/2013
768
622
723
663
478.1
32.58 40.421
25.16
32.74
38.05
34.89
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
42.2
34.54 42.381
34.7
40.01
36.85
27.12
38.3
30.62 38.461
30.78
36.09
32.93
23.2
1.96
20
21
22
14.6
16.8
7.1
152
DELIA ANGGIANI
25
41
16
17.3
7.5
161
ERS HA DIANY PRATIWY
27
47
17
18.8
7.4
163
IRS ALINA ZATA DINI
26
42
16
17.6
7.5
161
AJENG PRATIWI
23
42
14.5
17.3
7.5
161
WIDYA HERAWATI
23
42
15
17.3
7.5
161
LIZWANTI C.
22.5
42
13.5
17.3
7.5
161
FATHIN HANIFAH
Lebar Tangan
19
40
Panjang Tangan
Jarak dari siku ke Ujung
Jari
18
23
Nama Mahaiswa
Lebar Kepala
Tebal Perut
17
AI NUR AS IAH
Variabel
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Jarak Bentang Ujung Jari
Kanan Ke Ujung Jari Kiri
Tabel 6: Data Anthropometri Mahasiswa Perempuan Kelas A Angkatan 2012/2013
(Lanjutan)
22.5
43
15.5
17.3
7.5
161
RIS TA S UNDARI
23
43.5
14
16.8
7.1
152
LENI APRILLIANI
24
44.5
13.5
16.8
7.1
152
WIDYAS ARI
23.5
43.5
15
18.8
7.4
163
S ALMA S ABILLA N.
26.5
43
14.5
16.8
7.1
152
23
43
13.5
16.8
7.1
152
TERA GARNIDA
26.5
46.3
16
17.3
7.5
161
CHINTIA AGUS TIN WIND.
25
47
13.5
18.8
7.4
163
NENG S ITI ZAKIYYAH
27
47
16.5
17.3
7.5
161
HILDA NURHANIFA
RUNI PUS PA AMALIAH
S ELMA FEBBY S A'ADILL
ANGGI S UGIHARTI
24
43
14.5
16.8
7.1
152
24.5
47
15.5
18.8
7.4
163
23
43.5
13.5
17.3
7.5
161
∑n :
462 786.8 268.6
314.7 132.2
2852
24.316 43.711 14.922 17.4833 7.3444 158.44
Standar Deviasi (SD):
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
Persenctil 97.5 % : 26.276 45.671 16.882 19.4433 9.3044 160.4
Persentil 2.5 % : 22.356 41.751 12.962 15.5233 5.3844 156.48
MEAN (X) :
7
NO
I
II
Tabel 7: Data Antropometri Furniture pada Studio Jurusan
Pendidikan Seni Rupa
DIMENSI
JENIS
NAMA STUDIO
FURNITURE
Tinggi
Panjang
Lebar Kaki
STUDIO LUKIS
dan
STUDIO DASAR
145
57
112
0
0
Meja Kerja
77
210
86
66
0
0
Almari
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sketsel
200
252
61
80
0
0
Meja Kerja
74
140
70
70
0
0
Kursi Kerja
45
32
32
44
0
0
STUDIO GRAFIS
0
0
0
0
0
0
170
120
45
80
0
0
76
80
65
17
0
0
78
50
47
0
0
15
Meja Cetak
0
0
0
0
0
0
Meja Anyam
77
210
86
66
0
0
Meja Celup
77
210
86
66
0
0
Meja Irat
77
210
86
66
0
0
Kursi Kerja
45
32
32
44
0
0
Gawangan
76
120
30
0
0
0
Dingklik
16
25
18
0
0
0
Kompor
21
20
20
0
0
0
Bak Celup
30
120
60
10
0
0
Meja Pola
78
120
84
69
0
0
Wajan
10
31
26
0
0
0
Panci Pelorot
24
40
36
0
0
0
Meja Weaving
0
0
0
0
0
0
Msin Spinning
Meja
Makrame
Kursi Kerja
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pustek
0
0
0
0
0
0
STUDIO
DESAIN KOMUNIKASI VISUAL
DAN MULTI MEDIA
Meja
Komputer
Kursi Kerja
STUDIO KRIA
1 KRIA ANYAM
KRIYA BATIK
2
DAN TEKSTIL
a KRIYA BATIK
b KRIA TEKSTIL
V
Punggung
145
Almari
IV
Tangan
Standard
Meja Cetak
III
SANDARAN
STUDIO
8
PATUNG
VI
VII
VIII
STUDIO
KERAMIK
Meja Putar
90
82
40
53
0
0
Kursi Kerja
50
28
28
26
0
0
Meja Bengkel
Dingklik
Stol
85
50
52
200
28
20
119
28
20
65
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Meja Putar
85
170
88
70
0
0
Kursi Kerja
Tungku
Pemanas
Meja Bengkel
50
28
28
26
0
0
210
160
105
53
0
0
90
82
40
53
0
0
Meja Gambar
75
100
61
73
0
0
45
32
32
44
0
0
77
73
41
41
57
18O-25O
STUDIO GAMBAR
TEKNIK
Kursi Kerja
STUDIO
GAMBAR BENTUK/MODEL
Kursi
9
C
D
E
F
G
H
Almari
Rak
Pengering
Kursi Kerja
Stool
Dingklik
Tungku / BB
Gas
Base/Pustek
Standard/
Treeport
Etsel
Tungku/BB
Solar
Meja
Komputer
Bck Drop
Gawangan
2
Meja Press
1
Studio Kriya Batik
2
Studio Kriya Anyam
3
Studio Kriya Kayu
4
Studio Kriya Keramik
Studio Lukis
Studio Patung
Studio Grafis
Studio Fotografi
Studio DKV
Studio Multi Media
2
Meja Putar
1
Meja Bengkel
NO
NAMA RUANG
A Studio Dasar
1
Studio Gambar Bentuk
2
Studio Gambar Model
3
Studio Gambar Konstruktif
4
Studio Nirmana
B
Studio Kriya
Meja Gambar
Meja Pola
JENIS FURNITURE
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
30
X
28
28
10
15
2
6
6
8
X
6
8
X
X
12
8
2
X
X
X
10
X
X
X
2
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
5
X
25
X
15
X
15
X
15
X
X
X
X
2
X
15
X
25
15
2
X
X
8
X
18
2
LAMPIRAN 2
LAMPIRAN GAMBAR
Sistem Sambungan Kerangks
Gambar 1:
Terminologi Untuk Pergerakan Tangan dan Lutut
Sumber : Panero, Julius da Zelnik Martin, P. 116
Gambar 3: Terminologi Gerak Sendi
Gabar 2:
Hyper Extension and Flexsion
Sumber : Panero, Julius dan Zelnik
Martin P 115
Gambar 4 : Standar perancanngan kursi kerja
1
Gambar 5 :
Berbagai Ukuran Tubuh Manusia
Gambar 6: Ukuran Tubuh Manusia
Ganbar 7: Centre of Grafity (Gaya beban dalam
duduk)
2
Gambar 8: Duduk Posterior
Gamvar 9 : Angular Motion
3
Lampiran 3
Gambar 4.1: Standard dengan dua kaki lengkap
dengan kotak untuk menyimpan cat
dan kwas
Gambar 4.2: Mahasiswa sedang melukis
dengan menggunakan Standard
Furniture Pada Studio Patung
Gambar 4.3 : Meja Putar Untuk Membentuk
Patung Dalam Mata Kuliah seni Patung
Gambar 4.4: Kursi Kerja dan Meja Putar
dalam Mata Kuliah Seni Patung
4
Furniture Pada Ruang Studio Batik
Gambar 4.5 :
Gambar 4.6: Kompor Gas untuk memanalkan
malam
Meja Kerja (Meja Pola) dan Kursi Kerja (Stool)
Dalam Praktikum Kuliah Batik II
Furniture Pada Studio Multi Media
Gambar 4.7:
Membatik dengan Menggunakan Gawangan
Gambar 4.8
Meja dan kursi kerja pada studio multi media
Furnitur Untuk Studio Dasar
1. Furnitur untuk Praktikum Menggambar Baentuk
Gambar 4.17 :
Kursi kerja dan alas gambar
dalam MK Praktikum menggambar Bentuk
5
2.
Furniture pada Mata Kuliah
Menggambar Konstruktif
Gambar 4.20:
Meja Gambar dan Kursi gambar dalam Praktikum
Menggambar Konstruktif
Furniture Pada Mata Kuliah
Praktikum Keramik
Gambar 4.22
Rak Pajang, Meja Putar dan Stool
Gambar 4.18:
Kursi Kerja dan Stool dalam
Menggamb Bentuk
Gambar 4.24 :
Meja Putar dengan Penggerak Dinamo
6
Furniture pada Studio Seni Grafis
Gambar 4.28: Meja Kerja Grafis
Gambar 4.25:
Tungku Pembakar Keramik
dengan Bahan Bakar Gas
Gambar 4.30:
Mesin Pres Seni Grafis Teknik Cetak Dalam
7