Abstract:
According to Evans et al. (1992) whether school furniture is responsible for students sitting
discomfort, and whether discomfort )(can be related to a mismatch between individual
anthropometry and school chair and desk dimensions has not been shown. Despite this, Grimes
and Legg (2004) stated that: a) a mismatch between thigh length and seat depth has been significantly related to general sitting discomfort, b) a mismatch in seated elbow height and desk height has been significantly related to reported neck and shoulder pain. The body dimensions of the user population are of primary importance for the design of workstations (Helander et aI., 1987) to develop healthy and comfortable posture. Nissinen et al. (1994) stated that
anthropometric measurements have also been taken as a predictor of low back pain, although their role seems modest. According to Balague et al. (1993), anthropometric parameter is one of the factors associated with low back pain. Hence in deriving chair design dimensions and in developing comfortable sitting posture, anthropmetric parameters are important Eewer attentions have been paid for designing ergonomically- correct chairs for university students. Thariq and Munasinghe (2005) found that the present day Sri Lankan university lecture room chairs do not fit the body dimension of the students. On the other hand, the availability of anthropometric characteristics of Sri Lankan related to chair design is very limited. A national anthropometric survey on workers population was carried out by Abeysekara (1985). He recommended design dimensions for work seat. But those dimensions are not used by furniture designers or manufacturers to design work seat as they are not aware of the availability of this data. The recommendations made by Abeysekara (1985) for work seat design are based on the anthropometric data of specified worker population. It may not fit the present university student
population of Sri Lanka.
