Abstract
The main objectives are to develop an anthropometric database for Saudi Students and to compare it relative to two other Middle Eastern people. A national anthropometric standard for Saudis does not exist and few studies have focused on the development of Saudis anthropometric data and the comparison of them with other races. The availability of these data is necessary to design new products and to reduce the discomfort/pain from using the man-machine systems. A random sample of 900 male students aged 19-30 years at King Khalid University in Saudi Arabia participated in the study. Twelve body dimensions were measured and described in terms of mean, standard deviations, 5/95th percentiles and the significance value for Kolmogorov-Smirnov test by using the Minitab software. The 2-sample t test was performed at 0.05 to compare the means of two Saudi anthropometric studies (including this one) relative to other published studies for two Turkish and two Iranian studies. Hutson (1999) procedure was used to estimate the confidence interval for 5/95th percentiles and to compare them among Saudi, Turks and Iranians. The 12 dimensions were found to be normally distributed with significance values ≥0.054. The Saudi body weight, bideltoid breadth, buttock-popliteal length and sitting popliteal height were found to be larger than those of the Turkish and Iranian students, while in every other dimension, the Saudis were smaller. There is a statistically significant difference between the mean and 5/95th percentile weight (71.61, 46.65, 93.69) kg among Saudi, Turks and Iranians. The 5/95th percentiles (31.39, 39.39) cm for sitting hip breadth, the 5th percentile (55.08 cm ) of buttock-knee length and the 95th percentile (46.98 cm) of sitting popliteal height are significantly equal for the Saudis and Turks. The sitting eye height 5th percentile of 72.12 cm and the sitting popliteal height 95th percentile of 46.98 cm are significantly equal Saudis and Iranians. This study updates the anthropometric data for Saudi people that is rare in literature. The mean for the 12 anthropometric dimensions are significantly different among Saudis, Turks and Iranians. Also, most of 5th and 95th percentiles for Saudis dimensions are different from Turks and Iranians. There is a very noticeable difference between the body types of Saudis and those of Turks and Iranians. Therefore, the anthropometric information of one country cannot necessarily be implemented in other regions. The study data provides a great value for designing university facilities. The comparison results can be used to give priority for importing tools/equipments to countries of dimensions near to Saudi students.
Highlights
The anthropometric dimensions vary between different age groups according to (Martin and Soldo, 1997) and between different professional groups according to (Mebarki and Davies, 1990) and between different countries (Fernandez et al, 1989)
The aim of this research was to compare the anthropometric dimensions of Saudi Arabian engineering students at King Khalid University with those of two other Middle Eastern peoples, namely, Turks and Iranians
This study collected data on twelve anthropometric dimensions and described it in terms of the mean, standard deviation, 5th/95th percentile values and significance values of Kolmogroph-Smirnov test for normality based on a sample of 900 students
Summary
The anthropometric dimensions vary between different age groups according to (Martin and Soldo, 1997) and between different professional groups according to (Mebarki and Davies, 1990) and between different countries (Fernandez et al, 1989). An anthropometric database/standard is necessary for each country for all age groups and professions in order to use it as an input parameter in the design of comfortable products/tools (Agrawal et al, 2010). In order to solve this problem, we need to design facilities according to the anthropometric dimensions of students to achieve comfort, safe and healthy use interaction between students and the used facilities. Tunay and Melemez (2008) considered Popliteal height and seat height mismatch, Gouvali and Boudolos (2006) considered Hip breadth and seat width mismatch, Mohamed Thariq et al (2010) considered Buttock-popliteal length and seat depth mismatch, Milanese and Grimmer (2004) considered Elbow height and desktop height mismatch and Openshaw and Taylor (2006) considered hip breadth and the distance between the armrests
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
