A
STUDY OF ERGONOMIC CITY TRANSPORT UTILITIES BY ANTHROPOMETRIC APPROACH
AHMAD HANAFIE
Doctorate Program of Civil Engineering, Hasanuddin University
Perintis Kemerdekaan Street KM-10Makassar, Indonesia
Email:
ahmadhanafie@yahoo.co.id
HAMMADA ABBAS
Professor, Mechanical Engineering Dept.Engineering Faculty, Hasanuddin
University
Perintis
Kemerdekaan Street KM-10 Makassar, Indonesia
Email: hammadaabbas@yahoo.co.id
LAWALENNA SAMANG
Professor, Civil Engineering Dept.Engineering Faculty, Hasanuddin
University
Perintis
Kemerdekaan Street KM-10Makassar, Indonesia
Email: samang_l@yahoo.com
SUMARNI HAMID
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Dept.Engineering Faculty, Hasanuddin
University
Perintis Kemerdekaan Street KM-10 Makassar,
Indonesia
Email: marni_hamidaly@yahoo.com
Abstract - The technology which has been
developed is to fulfill human needs, so human should be spoiled. However, this doesn’t
make human feel safe, comfortable, healthy and facilitated, meaning that in the
designing, decision making and development process, there are orientation
deviation. Public Transportation in Makassar should be made by considering
ergonomic aspect, however this isn’t the case. Problems of public
transportation include boarding and alighting access, hangar, seat layout which
don’t fit the users of the vehicles. The purpose of the study was to study
ergonomic public transport utilities by anthropometric approach to analyze body
parts not compatible with vehicle utilities. Data collection method was measuring
passenger’s body dimension to be analyzed by ergonomic anthropometric approach.
Based on the research result, the ergonomic size of public transport utilities
by anthropometric approach for hangar is 104,78 cm, height of first step 24,76
cm, second step 49,53 cm, stair width 24,25 cm, seat width 36,21 cm, seat
height 44,45 cm and backrest height 27,08 cm. Height of hangar was adjusted
with the height of elbow when standing, so users can easily reach hangar. The
height of the first step was adjusted with height of knee where half of the
height of user’s knee when stepping onto the stairs was used. Stair width was
adjusted with length of foot. Seat width was adjusted with distance from
buttock to stomach to make sitting comfortable and seat height was adjusted
with the height of popliteal to the floor. Backrest height was adjusted with
the backside of the body to prevent it from hitting hard objects.
Keyword: utility vehicles, anthropometry ,
ergonomics
1. INTRODUCTION
In the production process, before
company makes a decision to produce a product, product is designed first.
Designing is performed to know the product. Public Transportation in Makassar should be made by
considering ergonomic aspect, however this isn’t the case. Consideration to
human values is put after economic goal. So, human values are often not
referred to in the designing process.
The problem in this study was public
transportation in Makassar. The first problem was the public transport
utilities of 140 vehicles. Most vehicles don’t have facilities which should be
in public transport, including boarding and alighting access, such as the
height of the first step being 32 - 48 cm, the height of the second step 52 –
73 cm, door width 65 – 72 cm and width of the first step 16 – 24 cm. Hangar is
place to hold when a passenger board a vehicle. The distance between the hangar
and the road is 100 – 205 cm. Seat layout includes seat height 25 – 35 cm,
length of the first seat 185 – 233 cm, length of the second seat 120 – 160 cm,
height of backrest 20 -36 cm.
Passengers have difficulty with the
size of boarding access. The distance between the road and the stair is quite
far so smaller passengers and women in skirts have difficulty boarding. Limited
human capability, door hangar not suitable with passenger’s arm reach, seat
height not suitable with passenger’s body made riding not comfortable. The research
purposes were 1. To study ergonomic public transport utilities by
anthropometric approach., 2. To analyze body parts which don’t fit vehicle
utilities.
Ergonomics in Transportation Infrastructure
Ergonomic design for transportation
infrastructures is described next. Although, the field most often involved in
designing transportation infrastructures is Civil Engineering, designing
transportation infrastructures is also related to ergonomic study. For example,
highway. The radius and slope of corners, angles of hills, demarcation lines,
etc. influence the comfort and security of road users. Because the distance and
viewpoint of human sight is limited, road geometric design which doesn’t
consider human limitations often causes accidents. Pedestrian facilities should
be designed well for human’s security and comfort, not only to complement and
accessorize streets. Generally, pedestrians are only given a very small and
inadequate portion, so they have to walk slowly on the roadside with no
sidewalk in fear, uncomfortable because the road isn’t smooth and there are
puddles when it rains. (Ngudi Tjahjono).
2.
RESEARCH
METHOD
The study was
conducted in Makassar. Makassar was selected because the city has a large
number of public transport, which is 4113 vehicles from 17 routes. However, the
vehicle utilities aren’t optimum, particularly in public transport there is no
uniformity in vehicle facilities. Research population and sample were public
transport users; on vehicle utilities they were students, college students,
civil servants, private employees, and public passengers.
Research design
Data collection
done directly to the comfort and security in public vehicles especially in
the access up and down, was household, wide domestic workers, was in rows and
was hangar doors.
After data, then
continued with the trial statistics
-
The
trial uniformity data said uniform when data is between border controls and the
borders As Under control by using a confidence level of 95 percent and high
precision 5 percent.
-
Adequacy
Test data, it would be useful to know enough data or not with conditions N'
< N, with a confidence level of 95 percent and high precision 5 percent.
-
5th
percentile test-th, 50-year and 95-years old, it would be useful to get the
dimension body in accordance with the value ergonomics.
In this research, the
population is the object or, to determine the number of samples or used
similarities bernoulli's principle:
 |
(1)
the upper control limit ( UCL ), lower control limits ( LCL ), using a 95% confidence level and 5 % level of accurac. can be seen in the following table.
And
( 2 )
Data just when
N' < N, using the formula :
( 3 )
A
Test trialth percentile with wield normal distribution and the
count th percentile (Stevenson (Disambiguation), 1989), (nurmianto,
1991) with the formula:
5th percentile
th- = 
(
4 )
(
4 )
50th percentile
th- = 
( 5)
( 5)
95th percentile
th = 
( 6)
( 6)
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1
Results of research
For the size of
public transport used to carry passengers to their destination, there was no
uniformity in vehicle utilities among 140 vehicles from 10 routes in Makassar.
Table.1. Sizes of Public Transport Utilities
|
No.
|
Vehicle
Utility
|
Smallest Size (cm)
|
Biggest Size (cm)
|
|
1.
|
Boarding and alighting access
|
|
|
|
|
- First step
|
32
|
48
|
|
|
- Second step
|
52
|
73
|
|
|
- Door width
|
65
|
72
|
|
|
- Stair width
|
16
|
24
|
|
2
|
Hangar
|
100
|
205
|
|
3
|
Seat layout
|
|
|
|
|
- Seat height
|
25
|
35
|
|
|
- Length of first seat
|
185
|
233
|
|
|
- Length of second seat
|
120
|
160
|
|
|
- Backrest height
|
20
|
36
|
The body
dimensions of 150 public transport user respondents were measured. 48 body dimensions
were measured in each respondent. Based on the result, body dimensions which
influence public transport utilities are: elbow to floor, half of knee height,
foot length, popliteal height, backrest height, buttock to stomach.
Data uniformity
test as a control calculated the mean, upper control limit (UCL), lower control
limit (LCL), with 95 % confidence level and 5 % accuracy level. It’s presented
in the following table:
Table. 2. The result of uniformity anthropometric
|
No.
|
Dimension
|
N
|
 |
UCL
|
LCL
|
Note
|
|
body
|
||||||
|
1
|
Elbow to Floor
|
150
|
101,22
|
105,55
|
96,90
|
uniform
|
|
2
|
Half of knee height
|
150
|
47,50
|
49,97
|
45,03
|
uniform
|
|
3
|
Foot length
|
150
|
23,50
|
24,41
|
22,59
|
uniform
|
|
4
|
Buttock to stomach
|
150
|
31,59
|
37,21
|
25,97
|
uniform
|
|
5
|
Popliteal height
|
150
|
41,06
|
45,18
|
36,94
|
uniform
|
|
6
|
Backrest height
|
150
|
26,35
|
30,59
|
22,12
|
uniform
|
95 % confidence
level and 5 % accuracy level with data adequacy requirement N’ < N. It can
be seen in the following table
Table 3. Results of anthropometry adequacy test
|
No.
|
Dimension
|
N
|
N'
|
Note
|
|
The
body
|
||||
|
1
|
Elbow to Floor
|
150
|
10.92
|
Sufficiently
|
|
2
|
Half of knee height
|
150
|
16,20
|
Sufficiently
|
|
3
|
Foot length
|
150
|
9,26
|
Sufficiently
|
|
4
|
Buttock to stomach
|
150
|
13,64
|
Sufficiently
|
|
5
|
Popliteal height
|
150
|
59,96
|
Sufficiently
|
|
6
|
Backrest height
|
150
|
12,42
|
Sufficiently
|
The result of
data adequacy test on the six body dimensions of 150 showed that all N’ are
below 150, meaning data was adequate.
Table 4. Results of anthropometry percentile test
|
No.
|
Dimension
|
The promotes
ergonomic comfort, Anthropometric (cm)
|
||
|
body
|
5 % - ile
|
50%-ile
|
95%-ile
|
|
|
1
|
Elbow to Floor
|
97,66
|
101,22
|
104,78
|
|
2
|
Half of knee height
|
22,74
|
23,75
|
24,74
|
|
3
|
Foot length
|
22,75
|
23,75
|
24,25
|
|
4
|
Buttock to stomach
|
26,97
|
31,59
|
36,21
|
|
5
|
Popliteal height
|
37,67
|
41,06
|
44,45
|
|
6
|
Backrest height
|
22,87
|
26,87
|
29,84
|
The
results of anthropometry percentile test used as a reference in designing
public transport utilities in Makassar were:
1. Hangar size. The body dimension used was
elbow to floor.
-
Percentile
used 95 % = 104,78 cm.
2. Height of first step. The body dimension
used was half of knee height
-
Percentile
used 95 % = 23,75 cm
3.
Width
of first step. The body dimension used was foot length
-
Percentile
used % = 24,25 cm
-
Seat
width. The body dimension used was buttock to stomach. Percentile used 95 % =
36,21 cm
4.
Seat
height. The body dimension used was popliteal height to floor. Percentile used
95 % = 44,45 cm
5.
Backrest
height. The body dimension used was back height
-
Percentile
used 95 % = 27,08 cm.
Figure 1. ( a) boarding and alighting access , ( b ) seat layout
3.2 Discussion
The
research result showed that ergonomic public transport utility size with
anthropometric approach for the hangar section is 104,78 cm, meaning public
transport users can reach hangar to help them board vehicle. Height of first
step is 23,75 cm which can be used by all passengers and stair width is 24,25
cm which is adjusted with foot length so passengers won’t slip when boarding
the vehicle. Seat width is 36,21 cm which makes sitting easier and seat height
is 44,45 cm so knees won’t be bent and backrest height is 27,08 cm.
Height
of hangar was adjusted with the height of elbow when standing, so users can
easily reach hangar. The height of the first step was adjusted with height of
knee where half of the height of user’s knee when stepping onto the stairs was
used. Stair width was adjusted with length of foot. Seat width was adjusted
with distance from buttock to stomach to make sitting comfortable and seat
height was adjusted with the height of popliteal to the floor. Backrest height
was adjusted with the backside of the body to prevent it from hitting hard
objects.
4. CONCLUSION
1. Ergonomic public transport utility sizes by
anthropometric approach are: for hangar 104,78 cm, height of the first step
23,75 cm, and stair width 24,25 cm. Seat width is 36,21 cm, seat height 44,45
cm and backrest height 27, 08 cm.
2. Height of hangar was adjusted with the height
of elbow when standing, so users can easily reach hangar. The height of the
first step was adjusted with height of knee where half of the height of user’s
knee when stepping onto the stairs was used. Stair width was adjusted with
length of foot. Seat width was adjusted with distance from buttock to stomach
to make sitting comfortable and seat height was adjusted with the height of
popliteal to the floor. Backrest height was adjusted with the backside of the
body to prevent it from hitting hard objects.
REFERENCES
Ahmad Hanafie, Hammada Abbas, Lawalenna Samang, Sumarni Hamid, (2014), Studies Utility Vehicles and Transport Termination Facility The City Worth Ergonomics , Scientific Publications Research Proposal Unhas S3 Civil Engineering , Vol . April 2014 , ISSN : 2087-7986 .
Ahmad Hanafie, Hammada Abbas, Lawalenna Samang, Sumarni Hamid, (2014), Study of The City Utility Vehicle Ergonomics Worth . Proceding National Seminar on Industrial Technology II ATIM, 2014, ISBN 978-602-14822-1-6 . p. 307-310 .
Ahmad
Hanafie, Hammada Abbas, Lawalenna Samang, Sumarni Hamid, (2015), “Facilities
Studi Termination Of The Value Of City Transport Ergonomics”. Conference Programme The 2nd
Makassar Internasional Conference On Civil Engineering, ISBN
978-979-530-134-9.. pp. 705-709.
Ahmad Hanafie, Hammada Abbas, Lawalenna Samang, Sumarni Hamid, (2015), Utility Vehicle Assessment Makassar The Value of Ergonomics, Publication of Scientific Research Results Unhas S3 Civil Engineering , Vol . In August 2015, ISSN: 2087-7986.
Geetam
Tiwari, (2002), “Urban Transport Priorities”, Cities, Vol. 19,2, hal. 95 – 103.
Mukti
Advani, Geetam Tiwari, (2006), “Review of Capacity Improvement Strategies for
Bus transit service”, Indian Journal of
Transport Management, Oktober – Desember 2006.
Ngudi Tjahjono, (1996), Systematic Definition in Urban Transportation System Development, a regional seminar Sstrategi transport development, " in the Faculty of Engineering, Univ . Widyagama Malang.
Ranjay
M, Shrestha and Edmund J. Zolnik, (2013), “Eliminating Bus Stops: Evaluating
Changges in Operations, Emissions and Coverage”, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol 16, No. 2, hal. 2913.
Suisman, Doug, (1997), “Bus Stops as Urban Places
(streets: Old Paradigm, New Ivestment)”, Journal
Issue, Places, 11 (2).
Sritomo Wignjosoebroto, (2008), Ergonomics, motion and time study. publisher Guna widya, Jakarta.
Sudjana, (1989), Statistical Methods, publisher Tarsito, Bandung.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar