Design and Manufacture of Ergonomic Primary School Furniture

Design and Manufacture of
Ergonomic Primary School Furniture

Table of Contents Page no.
Summary ..........................................................................................................................v
Author declaration of originality ................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... vii
Table of Figures . ................................................................................... viii
Table of Tables ........................................................................................ xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................1
1.1. Statement ............................................................................................................1
1.2. Background .........................................................................................................1
1.3. Scope...................................................................................................................1
1.4. Aims and objectives ............................................................................................2
1.5. Research Methodologies .....................................................................................3
1.6. Conclusions.........................................................................................................3
Chapter 2. Primary research and development .........................................................4
2.1. Introduction.........................................................................................................4
2.2. Research ..............................................................................................................4
2.3. Surveys analysing children’s back pain in the UK .............................................7
2.4. Irish primary school furniture research...............................................................8
2.5. A brief history of school furniture ....................................................................10
2.6. Typical Classroom Furniture ............................................................................14
2.7. What is “wrong” with the typical chair?...........................................................17
2.8. Survey ...............................................................................................................24
2.9. Data analysis .....................................................................................................24
2.10. Conclusion ....................................................................................................25
Chapter 3. Existing ergonomic solutions and typical classroom furniture ...........28
3.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................28
i
3.2. Existing Ergonomic Solutions ..........................................................................28
3.2.1. Pro chair - Konstantin Grcic. ........................................................................28
3.2.2. Children’s Max chair by KOS ......................................................................29
3.2.3. Knelt desk and chair from Ubiquity Design Studio 2010 .............................30
3.3. Perch chair and Ray chair .................................................................................30
3.3.1. Kneeling chairs .............................................................................................31
3.3.2. Postura Chair .................................................................................................32
3.3.3. SIS BackUp chair ..........................................................................................32
3.3.4. Tip Ton Chair ................................................................................................32
3.3.5. Tripp Trapp Chair .........................................................................................33
3.4. Active Dynamic Sitting ....................................................................................34
3.5. Company case study – Active dynamic sitting .................................................35
3.6. Complimentary desks .......................................................................................36
3.7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................37
Chapter 4. Children’s Ergonomics and Anthropometrics and the application of

these to furniture ...........................................................................................................38
4.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................38
4.2. Research ............................................................................................................38
4.3. General ergonomic principles of chair design ..................................................41
4.4. Research into standards (EN 1729) ..................................................................43
4.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................49
Chapter 5. Making and Live Testing of the Chair ..................................................50
5.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................50
5.2. General outlines for the chair design ................................................................50
5.3. Sketching ..........................................................................................................51
5.4. Making the prototype Chair: .............................................................................55
5.5. Live testing of the prototype .............................................................................57
ii
5.6. Making the final chair .......................................................................................59
5.7. Costing the chair ...............................................................................................64
5.8. Concepts for the desk........................................................................................65
5.9. Testing the finished chair and prototype desk. .................................................67
5.10. Modifications ................................................................................................69
5.11. Re-testing the chair with the new backrest ...................................................69
5.12. Conclusion ....................................................................................................70
Chapter 6. Testing ......................................................................................................71
6.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................71
6.2. General safety requirements .............................................................................72
6.3. Background Information ...................................................................................73
6.4. Test Results .......................................................................................................74
6.4.1. Cross cut test .................................................................................................74
6.4.2. Cold liquids resistance test ............................................................................74
6.5. Forwards, sideways and rearwards stability tests .............................................76
6.5.1. Back impact (EN 1728:2000, 6.16) ..............................................................77
6.5.2. Seat Impact (EN 1728:2000, 6.15)................................................................77
6.5.3. Drop test (EN 1728:2000) .............................................................................77
6.6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................78
Chapter 7. Conclusion, Recommendations & Evaluation of the finished chair ...79
7.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................79
7.2. Analysing the Aims and Objectives .................................................................79
7.2.1. To design classroom furniture that promotes natural posture in school

children. 79
7.2.2. To develop furniture that can be adjusted to suit the user whatever their size,
and that can be continually / incrementally adjusted as they grow. ............................79
7.2.3. Develop an aesthetically pleasing product that is appropriate for an

educational environment but is also appealing to children. ........................................80
iii
7.2.4. Ensure that the product does not pose any dangers to the user, that there are
no trap zones, the furniture should be long lasting and durable and should have a
minimum lifespan of 20 years: also that the furniture must adhere to any relevant
standards for primary school furniture and testing will be carried out to ensure the
products adhere to the relevant standards....................................................................80
7.2.5. Conduct detailed research and analysis into the ergonomic and
anthropometric requirements of the furniture, & conduct detailed research into how
the furniture will work to promote natural posture. ....................................................80
7.3. Recommendations.............................................................................................81
7.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................................82
Bibliography..................................................................................................................... I
Appendix 1: Anthropometric measurements............................................................ VII
Appendix 2: Testing .................................................................................................... XII
Forward Stability (EN 1022:2005) ............................................................................ XII
Sideways Stability ..................................................................................................... XII
Rearwards Stability .................................................................................................. XIII
Seat impact test ........................................................................................................ XIV
Back impact test ........................................................................................................ XV
Drop Test ................................................................................................................... XV
Crosscut Resistance Test (BS 3962-6:2012 - Surface resistance to mechanical

damage). .................................................................................................................. XVI
Cold liquids resistance test ( BS EN 12720: 2009 – Furniture – Assessment of surface

resistance to cold liquids). ....................................................................................... XVI
Appendix 3: CAD Drawings ................................................................................... XVIII
Appendix 4: Sketches & Making pictures .............................................................XXIV
Appendix 5: Survey Results....................................................................................XXVI
Appendix 6: Costing .............................................................................................. XXXV
iv
Summary
The aim of this Major Project is to design and make a chair and desk for primary school
students that encourage natural posture in the users.
Research was carried out to look at any adverse effects that the normal right-
angled chairs found in most classrooms can have on the users bodies. Solutions to these
problems were suggested through the compilation of research and also the sketching of
ideas.
Existing ergonomic furniture was researched as well as existing school furniture

in order to look at the different aspects of the designs and also the selling price of the
different types of products.
A prototype chair and desk were made and tested with children, design changes
were made and a finished chair was produced. Time constraints did not allow for the
production of a finished desk and the prototype was used alongside the finished chair
during the testing process.
The chair was tested to ensure that it reached relevant safety standards and
materials used in the construction were also tested to ensure they were suitable for use
in a classroom environment.
It was important to design a product that could be produced quickly and easily
with a minimum number of components, in order to compete with the price of existing
classroom furniture.
v
Author declaration of originality
I declare that the work contained within this document is my own and that I have
reference any external information to the best of my knowledge.
Date of deadline: 08/04/2013
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Marion McGarry for her help and advice during
the project. Also thanks to other lecturers, staff and technicians for their help and advice
during the course of the project.
I also wish to thank Caoilinn Murphy, Ewan & Caoimhe Madden and their parents, as
well as the staff and students of Eagles Nest School, Renvyle and Letterfrack National
School for their help with the testing of the chair and desk.
Thanks also to Ben and my family for all their encouragement and kind words
throughout the project.
vii
Table of Figures Page no.
Figure 2-1: Hedge School (Toole, 2001) .......................................................................10
Figure 2-2: Rathnageeragh National School 1932 (www.myshalldrumphea.com, 2013)
.........................................................................................................................................10
Figure 2-3: Fashion school desk (Visual History of School Desks, 2012) .....................10
Figure 2-4: Standing desk by Kottmann (Kotelmann, 1899) ..........................................11
Figure 2-5: 'Welsh' school desk (Akanegbu, 2012).........................................................12
Figure 2-6: Adjustable 1930's school desk (Akanegbu, 2012) ........................................12
Figure 2-7: Desk by Jean Prouve (Persse, 2012).............................................................12
Figure 2-8: Munkegard desk by Arne Jacobsen (Persse, 2012) ......................................13
Figure 2-9:Heywood Wakefield school desk (Akanegbu, 2012) ....................................13
Figure 2-10: Wraparound school desk (Akanegbu, 2012) ..............................................13
Figure 2-11: Typical classroom chair (ease.ie, 2012) .....................................................14
Figure 2-12: Metal Framed Chair (wescoireland, Metal Framed Chair, 2013) ..............14
Figure 2-13: Shell Chair (wescoireland, Shell Chair, 2013) ...........................................15
Figure 2-14: Polypropylene chair (kmfurniture, 2013) ...................................................15
Figure 2-15: Typical chair prices (www.wesco, 2013) ...................................................16
Figure 2-16: The Posture Theory Diagram (Banfield, 2012) ..........................................18
Figure 2-17: Standing v’s right angled sitting (Your Back in the Future, 2005) ............19
Figure 2-18: Distance from eyes to table (Your Back in the Future, 2005) ....................19
Figure 2-19: Standing v’s right angled sitting (Your Back in the Future, 2005) ............19
Figure 2-20: Reading in the right angled position (Your Back in the Future, 2005) ......20
Figure 2-21: Sitting on the edge of a seat (Your Back in the Future, 2005, p. 4) ...........20
Figure 2-22: Tilting the chair (Your Back in the Future, 2005, p. 8) ..............................20
Figure 2-23: The resting position (Care, 2005) ...............................................................21
Figure 2-24: Natural resting position (b), (Mandal A. , 1987) ........................................22
Figure 2-25: Tilting the seat forwards (Mandal A. , 1987) .............................................22
Figure 2-26: Balanced posture when riding a horse (Mandal A. , 1987) ........................23
Figure 3-1: Pro Chair by Konstantin Grcic (Stankiewicz, 2012) ....................................28
Figure 3-2: The Pro Chair in use (www.fastcodesign.com, 2012) ..................................28
Figure 3-3: Max Chair by KOS (KOS.ie, 2012) .............................................................29
Figure 3-4: Knelt desk and stool (Ubiquity Design, 2010) .............................................30
Figure 3-5: Perch Chair (Dennehy, 2013) .......................................................................30
viii
Figure 3-6: Ray Chair (Dennehy, 2013) ..........................................................................31
Figure 3-7: Kneeling Chair (www.sitcorrect.com, 2013) ...............................................31
Figure 3-8: 'Postura' Chair (Furniture, 2013) ..................................................................32
Figure 3-9: BackUp chair (SIS).......................................................................................32
Figure 3-10: Tip Ton Chair (Vitra, 2013) .......................................................................32
Figure 3-11: Tripp Trapp Chair (www.stokke.com, 2013) .............................................33
Figure 3-12: Furnware chairs and desks (Bodyfurn, 2013)............................................36
Figure 3-13: Sloping desks (Mandal T. , 2009) ..............................................................36
Figure 3-14: A Swedish class using the SIS BackUp chair (Mandal T. , 2009) .............37
Figure 4-1: Height differences between boys and girls of the same age (30087, 2010) .38
Figure 4-2: Key to anthropometric measurements (Dr. Beverley Norris, 1995) ............40
Figure 4-3: Sizemarks and colour coding (ESPO, 2012) ................................................44
Figure 4-4: Measurements (ESPO, 2012) .......................................................................45
Figure 5-1: Initial sketches (by the author) .....................................................................51
Figure 5-2: Initial Sketches (by the Author) ...................................................................51
Figure 5-3: Initial sketches showing the concept of the chair tipping forwards to keep
the back straight, (by the author) .....................................................................................52
Figure 5-4: Seat shapes, plan views (by the author)........................................................52
Figure 5-5: Seating angles (by the author) ......................................................................52
Figure 5-6: Seat shape (by the author) ............................................................................53
Figure 5-7: Saddle seat (by the author) ...........................................................................53
Figure 5-8: Metal Adjustment plate mechanism (by the author) ....................................53
Figure 5-9: (by the author) Prototype for adjustment mechanism, this prototype was
made to show how the seat would move up and down a central support to adjust the
height. ..............................................................................................................................53
Figure 5-10: Normal spine (Alexander, 2012) ................................................................54
Figure 5-11: Development of an infant's spine (Brockmann, 2009) ...............................54
Figure 5-12: Back rest (by the author) ............................................................................55
Figure 5-13: Making the back rest (by the author) .........................................................55
Figure 5-14: Gluing up the shoulder rest (by the author) ..................55
Figure 5-15: Making the seat (by the author) .................55
Figure 5-16: Covering the back rest (by the author) .......................................................55
Figure 5-17: Finished prototype (by the author) .............................................................56
Figure 5-18: Sitting on a normal chair (by the author)....................................................57
ix
Figure 5-19: Introduction of the prototype chair (by the author) ....................................57
Figure 5-20: Introducing the slanted table top (by the author)........................................57
Figure 5-21: Raising the table height (by the author) .....................................................58
Figure 5-22: Leaning back in a normal chair (by the author) .........................................58
Figure 5-23: Leaning back in new chair (by the author) .................................................58
Figure 5-24: Cutting components on the Weeke CNC (by the author) ...........................59
Figure 5-25: Cutting components on the Rye CNC (by the author) ...............................59
Figure 5-26: The legs and seat support glued together (by the author) ...........................59
Figure 5-27: Back rest attached to spine (by the author) ................................................60
Figure 5-28: Adjustment bracket (by the author) ............................................................60
Figure 5-29: Finished chair in highest position (by the author) ......................................61
Figure 5-30: Finished Chair in lowest position (by the author) ......................................62
Figure 5-31: Features of the finished chair (by the author) .............................................63
Figure 5-32: Sheet optimisation (by the author) .............................................................64
Figure 5-33: Sketches of desk concepts, (by the author) ................................................65
Figure 5-34: Further sketches of desks, (by the author) ..................................................65
Figure 5-35: Pencil storage and book support, (by the author) .......................................65
Figure 5-36: Desk and chair, (by the author) ..................................................................66
Figure 5-37: Desk dimensions, (by the author) ...............................................................66
Figure 5-38: Testing of the desk and chair (by the author) .............................................67
Figure 5-39: Testing the desk and chair with a 5 year old girl (by the author) ...............68
Figure 5-40: Testing the desk and chair with a 5 year old girl (by the author) ...............68
Figure 5-41: Rubber stops (by the author) ......................................................................69
Figure 5-42: New 110 degree backrest (by the author) ...................................................69
Figure 5-43: Testing the finished chair (by the author)...................................................69
Figure 5-44: Testing the new backrest (by the author) ...................................................69
Figure 6-1: Seat and back loading points (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012) ...........................73
Figure 6-2: Seat and back loading points (by the author) ...............................................73
Figure 6-3: Formica cross cut test (by the author) ..........................................................74
Figure 6-4: Cross cut test on lacquered birch ply (by the author) ...................................74
Figure 6-5: Cold liquids resistance test – formica (by the author) ..................................74
Figure 6-6: Results of the cold liquids resistance test (by the author) ............................75
Figure 6-7: Cold liquids resistance test lacquered birch ply (by the author) ..................75
Figure 6-8: Cold liquids resistance test lacquered birch ply results (by the author) .......75
x
Figure 6-9: Rearwards stability test (by the author) ........................................................76
Figure 6-10: Sideways stability test using impact hammer (by the author) ....................76
Figure 6-11: Rearwards stability test using impact hammer (by the author) ..................76
Figure 6-12: Measuring for the back impact test (by the author) ....................................77
Figure 6-13: Back impact testing (by the author)............................................................77
Table of Figures: Appendix 2
Appendix 2 Figure: 1 Loading the chair for the forwards stability test (BSI, 2001), (BSI,
BS EN 1729-2, 2012) .................................................................................................... XII
Appendix 2 Figure: 2 Loading of the chair for the sideways stability test (BSI, 2001),
(BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012).......................................................................................... XIII
Appendix 2 Figure: 3 Rearwards stability testing (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012)........... XIII
Appendix 2 Figure: 4 Seat impact test (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012) .......................... XIV
Appendix 2 Figure: 5 Impact hammer (BSI, BS EN 1728: 2001 Domestic furniture-
Seating-Test methods for the determination of strength and durability, 2001)............. XV
Appendix 2 Figure: 6 Back impact test (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012)............................ XV
Appendix 2 Figure: 7 Drop test (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012) ....................................... XV
Appendix 3 Figure: 1 Adjustment Mechanism (by the author)................................. XVIII
Appendix 3 Figure: 2 Seat, back and legs (by the author) ........................................ XVIII
Appendix 3 Figure: 3 Chair overall dimensions (by the author) ................................. XIX
Appendix 3 Figure: 4 Desk overall dimensions (by the author) ................................. XIX
Appendix 3 Figure: 5 Former for seat (by the author) .................................................. XX
Appendix 3 Figure: 6 Seat dimensions (by the author) ................................................. XX
Appendix 3 Figure: 7 Former for spine (by the author) .............................................. XXI
Appendix 3 Figure: 8 Upright components (by the author) ........................................ XXI
Appendix 3 Figure: 9 Spine and backrest (by the author) .......................................... XXII
Appendix 3 Figure: 10 Rendered drawing of the finished chair (by the author) ....... XXII
Appendix 3 Figure: 11 Former for backrest (by the author) ..................................... XXIII
Appendix 3 Figure: 12 Exploded view of the chair (by the author).......................... XXIII
Appendix 4 Figure 1:Adjustment mechanism, initial ideas (by the author) .............XXIV
Appendix 4 Figure 2:Adjustment mechanism ideas (by the author) .........................XXIV
Appendix 4 Figure 3:Development of adjustment mechanism by the author)..........XXIV
xi
Appendix 4 Figure 4: Chair sketches with two legs- in these sketches the author was
trying to enable the chairs to stack. This idea didn’t work because the adjustment
mechanism allow for stacking (by the author) ..........................................................XXIV
Appendix 4 Figure 5: Components for the two-legged chair (by the author) ...........XXIV
Appendix 4 Figure 6: Change in the shape of the legs - these pictures show the change
from a curled over leg to one that is only tilted (by the author) ................................. XXV
Appendix 4 Figure 7: Former for seat (by the author) Appendix 4 Figure 8: Front and
back upright components (by the author) XXV
Appendix 4 Figure 9: Upright components: These components were glued together in
order to make the groove that the adjustment mechanism runs in and also give the
settings for the height adjustment (by the author) ...................................................... XXV
Appendix 5 Figure 1: Q1 - Which class do you teach? (by the author) ....................XXVI
Appendix 5 Figure 2: Q2 - For roughly how many hours a day is your class seated? (by
the author)..................................................................................................................XXVI
Appendix 5 Figure 3: Q3 - Are the chairs in your classroom able to be stacked? (by the
author) ..................................................................................................................... XXVII
Appendix 5 Figure 4: Q4 - How often are the chairs in your classroom stacked? (by the
author) ..................................................................................................................... XXVII
Appendix 5 Figure 5: Q5 - Do all the children in your class sit on the same sized chair?
(by the author) ........................................................................................................ XXVIII
Appendix 5 Figure 6: Q6 - Does each student have their own desk? (by the author)
................................................................................................................................ XXVIII
Appendix 5 Figure 7: Q7 - Do you notice the children fidgeting in their seats? (by the
author) .......................................................................................................................XXIX
Appendix 5 Figure 8: Q8 - What are the chairs in your classroom made of? (by the
author) .......................................................................................................................XXIX
Appendix 5 Figure 9: Q9 - Do the seats in your classroom have a curved edge at the
front (under the knees)? (by the author) ..................................................................... XXX
Appendix 5 Figure 10: Q10 - Do you ever see the children swinging on their chairs? (by
the author)................................................................................................................... XXX
Appendix 5 Figure 11: Q11 - How often does your class do P.E? (by the author) ...XXXI
xii
Appendix 5 Figure 12: Q12 - Do you think that the furniture the children use is
ergonomically suited to the children? (by the author) ...............................................XXXI
Appendix 5 Figure 13: Q13 - Is any of the furniture in your classroom adjustable? (by
the author)................................................................................................................ XXXII
Appendix 5 Figure 14: Q14 - Roughly how old do you think that the furniture in your
classroom is? (by the author)................................................................................... XXXII
Appendix 5 Figure 15: Q15 - Do you think that the furniture should be upgraded as
advancements are made in relation to postural and ergonomic furniture for children? (by
the author)............................................................................................................... XXXIII
Appendix 5 Figure 16: Q16 - When you were studying to be a teacher was there any
mention of the importance of ergonomic furniture for children? (by the author) .. XXXIV
xiii
Table of Tables Page No.
Table 2.1: Irish Primary School Lesson Times (Selina McCoy, 2012) ............................4
Table 4.1: Averages of body measurements for all age groups (calculated by the author
from figures in Childata) .................................................................................................40
Table 4.2: 5th and 95th percentiles for all age groups (calculated by the author from
figures in Childata) ..........................................................................................................40
Table 4.3: Classroom furniture sizing (BSI, EN 1729-1, 2012)......................................44
Table 4.4: Dimensions for chairs with seat slopes between -5 and +5 degrees (BSI, EN
1729-1, 2012) ..................................................................................................................47
Table 4.5: Table D.2 — Example of dimensions adjustable tables ................................47
Table 4.6: D.1 - Example of dimensions adjustable chairs .............................................48
Table of Tables: Appendix 1
Appendix 1. Table 1: Sitting height (cm) by the author ................................................ VII
Appendix 1. Table: 2 Eye Height Seated (cm) by the author........................................ VII
Appendix 1. Table: 3 Shoulder Height Seated (cm) by the author ............................... VII
Appendix 1. Table: 4 Abdominal Depth (cm) by the author........................................ VIII
Appendix 1. Table: 5 Hip Breadth (Maximum when seated) (cm) by the author ........ VIII
Appendix 1. Table: 6 Arm length to fingertips (cm) by the author.............................. VIII
Appendix 1. Table: 7 Elbow height seated (cm) by the author ...................................... IX
Appendix 1. Table: 8 Upper leg length, buttock to knee (seated) (cm) by the author ... IX
Appendix 1. Table: 9 Upper leg length, buttock to popliteal (seated) (cm) by the author
........................................................................................................................................ IX
Appendix 1. Table: 10 Knee height (Seated) (cm) by the author..................................... X
Appendix 1. Table: 11 Popliteal Height (Seated) (cm) by the author .............................. X
Appendix 1. Table 12: Thigh Breadth (Maximum when seated) (cm) by the author ...... X
Appendix 1. Table 13: Waist breadth at navel (cm) by the author ................................ XI
Appendix 2 Table: 1 Rating the results of the cross cut test, (taken from BS 3962:6
section5.3.4) ................................................................................................................ XVI
Appendix 2 Table: 2 Assessment of resistance of surfaces to cold liquids (BSI, BS EN
12720:2009)................................................................................................................ XVII

xiv
Appendix 5 Table 1: Parts list (by the author) ........................................................ XXXV
Appendix 5 Table 2: Total costing and selling price (by the author) ...................... XXXV
Appendix 5 Table 3: BOM (by the author) ............................................................ XXXVI
Appendix 5 Table 4: Manufacturing cost (by the author) ...................................... XXXVI
xv
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. Statement
The aim of the project is to design a chair and desk for primary schools that encourages
natural posture in students, therefore benefiting students physically and aiding learning.
The primary focus of this project is researching the requirements of the user, the
context and ergonomics, culminating in the design and construction of the chair.
Function and fitness for purpose must take precedence in this project in order to ensure
that the product functions appropriately and actively promotes natural posture in
students. The consideration of materials for use in the construction is also an important
aspect of the project, as materials play a significant role in ensuring that the products
perform properly and also contribute to the life span of the product. Secondly design
aesthetics will be considered in terms of suitability for purpose.
The products must meet all the relevant safety standards and be durable and long
lasting. The prototype chair will be tested to ensure the relevant standards are met.
Materials and surface finishes will be tested as well as aspects such as stability and
strength of the chair. Manufacturing methods must also be considered, as potentially
this furniture would need to be made in large batches and also fall in line with the cost
of other school furniture in order for it to be able to compete in the market.
1.2. Background
The idea for this project came firstly from progressing through the education system and
experiencing first-hand some of the deficiencies of the furniture in Irish schools and
colleges. Friends and family suffering from various back problems further fuelled the
idea. When the project was started and further investigations were made in order to
understand the roots of the problem, the scale of the issues caused by ill-fitting and non-
user-friendly furniture was brought to light; these issues will be discussed further in
Section 2.7.
1.3. Scope
This project aims to investigate how preventative steps can be taken, and using design
stem negative influences on posture from occurring, starting when children first enter
the education system at age 4-5 years.
1
This project aims to examine the type of furniture currently being used in the
majority of primary schools and to analyse how it affects the students who use it. A
survey of primary school teachers will be carried out to gain knowledge about the types
of furniture used in Irish schools, how the children interact with this furniture, and
whether it is ergonomically suited to their postural needs.
Prototypes will be made and tested with school children; adjustments will be
made if necessary and then the products will be put through further laboratory testing.
Laboratory tests will be carried out to ensure that the furniture meets the required
standards. This testing will cover the products’ strength and stability and also the
durability of the materials used to make the products.
1.4. Aims and objectives

The aims for the project are:
• To design classroom furniture that promotes natural posture in primary school

children.
• To develop furniture that is designed to suit the user whatever their size, and that
can be continually / incrementally adjusted as they grow.
• To develop an aesthetically pleasing product that is both appropriate for an
educational environment and is appealing to children.
• To ensure that the product does not pose any dangers to the user.
• To ensure that there are no trap zones for fingers, clothes, limbs etc.
• The furniture should be long lasting and durable and should have a minimum
lifespan of 20 years. As schools have a very limited budget it is necessary to
ensure that the furniture does not need to be replaced frequently.
• The furniture must adhere to any relevant standards for primary school furniture.
The objectives for the project are:
• Testing will be carried out to ensure the products adhere to the relevant
standards.
• To conduct research into competing products and analyse their merits and
deficiencies.
2
• To conduct detailed research and analysis into the ergonomic and
anthropometric requirements of the furniture.
• To conduct detailed research into how the furniture will work to promote natural
posture.
1.5. Research Methodologies

The project will use both primary and secondary research methodologies. Primary
research methodologies include descriptive research methods such as a survey and
observation. These methods will be used to collect and record primary data that cannot
be sourced elsewhere and whose information is crucial to the project. Analytical
research will be used as the secondary research method, and will be employed to gather
relevant data from existing sources to analyse, compile and use in the project. It is
aimed to use reputable and credible sources in the study.
1.6. Conclusions
In conclusion this project aims to design and make a chair that will promote natural
posture in primary school students.
The primary focus will be on achieving a design that works and meets the
relevant standards and also meets the criteria outlined in section 1.4.
The project objectives will be met through using both primary and secondary
research methods, the finished furniture will be live tested to ensure that it is user
friendly, strong and meets its ergonomic objectives.
3
Chapter 2. Primary research and development
2.1. Introduction
For this project it was important to understand exactly how central furniture is to the
Irish primary school child’s school day. In order to determine approximately how long a
child is seated for each day research was carried out into the national primary school
curriculum.
Data was also gathered by means of an online survey of primary school teachers,
and also by talking directly to teachers, Section 2.2 looks at the Irish primary school
structure. Section 2.5 gives a brief history of classroom furniture, both in Ireland and
abroad, and looks at any significant designs. Section 2.6 looks at the furniture that can
be typically found in Irish classrooms today. Section 2.7 analyses the deficiencies of
typical chairs and the effects they have on our bodies and the way that we sit. Section
2.8 discusses the survey that was carried out with Irish primary school teachers and
looks at its findings.
2.2. Research
The NCCA Primary School Research Study1 show that curriculum documents specify
guidelines for the time spent on subjects other than RE (Religious Education),2 (see
Language of instruction 4 hours Table 2.1). The
“Literacy and Numeracy
Second language (Irish/English) 3 hours 30 minutes
for Learning and Life”
Mathematics 3 hours
strategy document3
Social Environmental and Science Education 3 hours indicates that schools
(SESE - History, Geography, Science) will be required to
Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) 30 minutes increase the amount of
time spent on literacy
Physical Education (PE) 1 hour
and numeracy to 90
Arts education (Visual arts, Music, Drama) 3 hours minutes and 50 minutes
Discretionary curriculum time 2 hours

per day respectively.”
Table 2.1: Irish Primary School Lesson Times (Selina McCoy, 2012)
1
The Primary Classroom: Insights from the Growing Up in Ireland study undertaken in January 2012 by
the Economic and Social Research Institute
2
These times are not mandatory
3
Published by the Department of Education and Skills in 2011
4
Table 2.1 shows the recommended lesson time durations per week. PE, the only
subject guaranteed to have the students up out of their seats and moving around is
allocated a mere 1 hour per week: Arts education (Visual arts, music, drama) has a
recommended time of 3 hours per week and although these subjects are more informal
than other subjects such as Irish, English and Maths there is still no guarantee of
students being up and out of their seats.
In an article entitled; Practice in Irish infant classrooms in the context of the

Irish Primary School Curriculum (1999): insights from a study of curriculum
implementation4, Brian Murphy from University College Cork, analyses the Irish
Primary School Curriculum when it changed from the old Curaclam na Bunscoile to a
new child-centred approach, Murphy concluded that schools are slow to implement the
new curriculum.5
This report was from a number of years ago, so the situation is likely to have
changed somewhat as new teachers who are fully trained in the new curriculum are
slowly taking over from teachers who were trained in earlier years.
Through interviewing a number of recently qualified teachers the author has

found that while children in Junior and Senior Infant classes are encouraged to move
about during the day and lessons are planned to have children out of their seats for a
sizeable portion of the day, by the time they move up into first and second class 99% of
the time (excluding PE classes) is spent sitting in chairs.
These teachers told the author that the school day typically starts at 9:15am and
finishes at 2:00pm for Junior and Senior Infants and 3:15pm for the older children, the
children have one “big” break lasting an average of 45 minutes and two “small” breaks
lasting 20 minutes each.
4
Published in the International Journal of Early Years Education Vol. 12, No. 3, October 2004
5
“The analysis of data collected during this study suggests that senior infant pupils in Irish
classrooms are given limited opportunities to be involved in the types of play-based activities
and practices recommended by the IPSC 1999. Patterns of interaction and activity in the
observed classrooms generally remain teacher focused rather than child centred. Many of the
reasons for this failure to implement the principles stated in the curriculum appear to centre on
resourcing issues from the lack of suitable classroom equipment to the issues of class size and
teacher training. Fundamentally, however, it emerges that the teachers' assumptions about play
and learning differ from those upon which the curriculum is constructed.” (Murphy 2004)
5
While researching this project the author contacted both the Health and Safety
Authority of Ireland, (hereafter referred to as the HSA) and the Irish Department of
Education to establish their views on classroom furniture for primary schools in Ireland.
The author was informed by the HSA that there are no specific guidelines in relation to
the correct posture for primary school students: The Department of Education have a
publication entitled, Loose furniture for post primary schools specifications and
standards6, which outlines the specifications and standards relating to furniture for
different subjects in post primary schools. It seems that there are no Irish guidelines
relating directly to primary school furniture and that schools are tasked individually to
find their own sources of furniture and to present quotes to the Department for approval.
The person that the author contacted in the Department of Education declined to
comment on the budget available to primary schools in regard to classroom furniture.
Analysis of the data concluded that the younger children are in school for a total of
4 hours 45 minutes while older children spend 6 hours in school. When break times are
deducted the younger children are seated for 2 hours 20 minutes and the older ones for a
total of 4 hours 45 minutes per day. When these numbers are multiplied over the period
of the school week the younger classes are seated for approximately 11 hours 40
minutes and the older children for 23 hours 45 minutes. If a time of 4 hours for PE and
Arts education classes is deducted we are left with final figures for the hours spent
seated per week of 8 hours 40 minutes for the younger children and 20 hours 45 minutes
for the older classes. By the time a child is leaving sixth class they have been sitting for
approximately 1.67 years.
These figures show that children spend a sizable portion of their school week sitting
down. For the younger children sitting accounts for approximately 50% of their school
day and approximately 80% of the school day for older children. This figure is likely to
rise even further when the children reach secondary school and also extend further into
home life as society in general is becoming ever more sedentary, with many children
sitting to watch television or play computer games when they get home from school. As
such the importance of looking after our bodies and posture in particular by using
posture friendly chairs, especially in a school environment, (where sitting is hard to
avoid and is done for long periods of time) becomes ever more crucial.
6
( Department of Education and Skills, 2011)
6
2.3. Surveys analysing children’s back pain in the UK
A number of surveys have been carried out in the UK and other countries in recent
years in relation to back pain in school children; some of these surveys have been
compiled in the book Ergonomics for Children: Designing products and places for
toddlers to teens by Rani Lauder and Valerie J. Berg. There were no surveys relating
specifically to back pain in school children in Ireland but our close neighbours the UK
have carried out prolific research. The first was carried out by Olsen et al. in 1992, and
surveyed 1242 adolescents aged 11 to 17 over 4 years, with a 92% response rate. The
findings showed that:
• 30% of those surveyed experienced Lower Back Pain (LBP).

• 22% reported discomfort in the last year, one in three of these reported
restricted activity (missed school or could not participate in sports)
• 7% sought medical attention.
• By age 15, the incidence of LBP increased to 36%
Watson et al. carried out a similar survey in 2002 1446 children aged 11 to 14 were
surveyed in North West England with a 97% response rate. This survey differed slightly
to the previous one in that the responses of the parents of the children were also
considered. The findings of this survey showed:
• 24% of children reported LBP in the last month, 42% of these children indicated
that the back pain lasted 1-2 days while 15% indicated that it lasted over 7 days.
• Girls reported higher rates of LBP compared to boys, (28% versus 19%).
• There was a moderate agreement between the child’s and parent’s reports of the
child’s back pain.
The report concluded that discomfort increased with age for girls and boys, and 94% of
children reporting LBP report some disability, especially when carrying school bags.
Few children and their parents sought medical attention.
Jones et al. carried out another survey in 2004, this report surveyed 249 boys and 251
girls age 10-16 findings included:
• 40% reported having experienced LBP.

• 13% reported recurrent and disabling LBP.
7
• Rates increased with age, about 20% of teens, 14 years or older reported
recurrent LBP.
• 23% visited a medical practitioner.
• 30% had loss of physical activity or sports.
• 26% were absent from school due to LBP.
Another survey was carried out in 2004 by Murphy et al. this survey looked a selection
of 66 school children aged 11 to 14 from 12 schools, the survey recorded classroom
sitting postures in 30 minute periods, the survey also measured forward trunk flexion
(>20° >45°, >60°), trunk rotation, neck flexion, etc. The survey also recorded height
and weight. The findings showed:
• 44% reported LBP in the last month

• 26% in the last week
• 51% reported neck pain in the last month
• 21% in the last week
The report concluded that the risk factor leading to LBP were longer class-lesson times
(>1 hr.), and extended time that the trunk was flexed forwards >20°. The risk factors for
upper back pain were static sitting postures and >20° trunk flexion, the report also
concluded that taller children reported more pain especially neck pain. (Rani Lauder,
2008)
2.4. Irish primary school furniture research

In 1996 Fallon and Jameson assessed primary school furniture in the western region of
Ireland to compare the dimensions of the furniture with the dimensions of the children
who used it, in order to establish if it was suitable for the users. The methods employed
were an anthropometric survey, a postural analysis, and a subjective comfort evaluation.
The findings of the survey showed that the Irish design standards that specified
dimensions for primary school furniture did not reflect the male and female students
body sizes, and concluded that while pupils reported significant back, neck and leg
discomfort when using their school furniture for long durations that there was ‘not
necessarily a serious threat to their health and welfare’ (Rani Lauder, 2008).
The author feels that the view of Fallon and Jameson in 1996 is now very out-dated.
Further research in Section 2.7 of this report in relation to how our bodies interact with
8
typical school furniture, shows both the short and long term effects that poorly designed
and fitting classroom furniture can have on those who use it.
9
2.5. A brief history of school furniture
This section briefly explores the history of school/classroom furniture in Ireland from
the 1800’s until the present day. Also some international examples will be examined;
designs that stand out in particular either
because they are designs that have
become familiar over time or are of
particular design significance will also be
discussed.
Figure 2-1: Hedge School (Toole, 2001) When the Penal laws were passed
in 18th century Ireland, it was stated, "No
person of the popish religion shall
publicly or in private houses teach school,
or instruct youth in learning within this
realm..." (Walsh, 2013) In other words; no
Roman Catholic was allowed to teach in a
school, and only Protestant schools were
Figure 2-2: Rathnageeragh National School 1932
(www.myshalldrumphea.com, 2013) sanctioned. In reaction to the laws `Hedge
schools’7 were set up to educate Catholic
children. There was little or no furniture
in these schools as children would have
sat on the ground or on anything that was
available to hand, this was due to the
transient nature of the schools and the
absence of funding.
National schools for all were

introduced in Ireland in 1831, ending the
Figure 2-3: Fashion school desk (Visual History of era of the Hedge schools with ‘The
School Desks, 2012)
Commissioners of the National Board of
Education (contributing) to the cost of building schools, provide school equipment,
establish training schools for teachers and pay teachers’ salaries’ (Fernández-Suárez,
2006). The type of furniture that could be found in National school classrooms in the
7
These schools were run by educated members of society and were held either outside, in hedgerows (as
the name suggests), or in barns or small cottages away from the eyes of the authorities
10
early days can be seen in Figure 2-2, the desks
in this picture may have initially been made
entirely of wood. Desks would have been
manufactured in this style for a number of
years but developed to include cast iron legs for
added strength and durability.
Figure 2-4: Standing desk by Kottmann More examples of similar desks are
(Kotelmann, 1899)
available in an international context. One in
particular is the “Fashion Desk” made by the Sidney School Furniture Company based
in Sidney, Ohio, US, in 1891 (Figure 2-3). This desk featured the company’s “Patent T-
head design”8. This jointing method made the desk extremely strong and sturdy. The
desk was manufactured in a number of different sizes so it could cater for children of
different ages.
Another type of desk that was made around the same time was a standing school
desk, which can be traced back to 1899 through the writings of Dr. Ludwig Kotelmann
a lecturer in the University of Michigan in his book entitled “School Hygiene”.
Kotelmann writes
Desks have accordingly been proposed which can be arranged for

standing as well as sitting…. yet we must remember that long continued
standing not only fatigues both the mind and body but may also interfere
with the lungs and heart, since it is rather natural to lean forward on the
desk9 (Kotelmann, 1899).
Figure 2-4 shows a desk that can be converted to accommodate both sitting and
standing. Figure 2-5 shows a “Welsh School Desk” which was manufactured around
1920 and consisted of a double compartment wooden top on an iron base.
In the 1930’s adjustable school desks started to be manufactured, Figure 2-6

shows a desk with an adjustable seat and table top, the desk also contained storage
spaces for the students’ books and belongings.
8
This design allowed the wood of the top back and seat to be joined directly to the cast iron legs,
minimising screws and bolts
9
Section 2.7 shows recent research that contradicts Kotelmann’s statement that it is ‘natural to lean
forwards on the desk’.
11
From the 29th of July to the 5th of
November 2012, MoMa (The Museum of
Modern Art) in New York held an exhibition
entitled “Century of the Child: Growing by
Design, 1900–2000”. 10
Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 show examples

Figure 2-5: 'Welsh' school desk (Akanegbu,
2012) of some of the school furniture that was in the
MoMA exhibition.
In 1946 French designer Jean Prouve

attempted to improve the school desk, he
designed the desk pictured in Figure 2-7. This
desk maximised material efficiency and was
sleek and modern looking compared to
previous designs. Although Prouve’s desk
looked stylish, it is debatable whether his
design made any noticeable advances in
Figure 2-6: Adjustable 1930's school desk

relation to ergonomics.
(Akanegbu, 2012)
Another example from the exhibition is the
“Munkegard” school desk by Arne Jacobsen.
This desk (Figure 2-8) was designed around
1950, and was constructed from ‘minimal
chromed steel and plywood….the Munkegård
desk is also a step forward due to its
lightweight construction’ (Persse, 2012)
Although a number of designers were making

Figure 2-7: Desk by Jean Prouve (Persse,
2012) developments in the field of school furniture,
it is important to mention that the examples shown here were not universally adopted in
10
‘MoMA’s ambitious survey of 20th century design for children is the first large-scale
overview of the modernist preoccupation with children and childhood as a paradigm for
progressive design thinking. The exhibition will bring together areas underrepresented in design
history and often considered separately, including school architecture, clothing, playgrounds,
toys and games, children’s hospitals and safety equipment, nurseries, furniture, and books.’
(Persse, 2012)
12
schools for various reasons, ranging from
archaic attitudes, extremely hardy existing
furniture that did not yet need replacing and
also lack of money.
In the 1960’s desks made from steel and

chrome with plastic composite lids became
Figure 2-8: Munkegard desk by Arne popular, Figure 2-9 shows a desk manufactured
Jacobsen (Persse, 2012)
by Heywood Wakefield; the top of the desk
opens to allow students to store belongings.
In the 1970’s the Wraparound desk was

developed and became popular especially in
secondary schools and colleges, the example
shown in Figure 2-10 has a plastic chair with
chrome legs and a table top made from
fibreboard. The top is shaped to partially
enclose a student’s body. This version of the
Figure 2-9:Heywood Wakefield school desk
(Akanegbu, 2012) desk also features a rack under the chair to hold
books and bags.
A report entitled ‘Safe seats of learning:

How good school furniture can make a
difference’ that was presented in 2008 by the
Furniture Industry Research Association,
(hereafter known as FIRA) and aims to raise
awareness of the issue of inappropriate school
furniture states:
Figure 2-10: Wraparound school desk
(Akanegbu, 2012) With the exception of the
introduction of polypropylene chairs in
the 1970s, there has been no significant innovation in educational
furniture in the last fifty years. Originally modelled on ‘domestic’
furniture as a liberal reaction to the perceived authoritarian
connotations of traditional wooden desks, the design of school desks and
chairs developed in the post-war years has failed to move beyond the
mass production approaches of the mid-20th Century (FIRA, 2008).
13
2.6. Typical Classroom Furniture
The types of furniture that are typically found in Irish
Primary schools today will be discussed here.
The majority of schools have fixed height furniture

and while there is different sized furniture for the younger
and older classes, a variety of different sized tables and
chairs are not always found in the same classroom.
As we can see from Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12

the typical have a backwards-sloping seat with little or no
curve at the front edge and most of the chairs have little or Figure 2-11: Typical classroom
chair (ease.ie, 2012)
no lumbar (lower back) support.
Whether it is from a lack of knowledge or a low

budget, the majority of Irish primary schools seem to be
very much uninformed when it comes to the furniture in
their classrooms. Judging from the findings of the survey
that were outlined in Section 2.8, 86% of teachers said that
the topic of ergonomics had never even been touched on
while they were receiving their training, due to this schools Figure 2-12: Metal Framed
Chair (wescoireland, Metal
may not realise that the furniture in their classrooms could Framed Chair, 2013)
be totally unsuitable for the children they are teaching. The question can be raised as to
why office workers are provided with adjustable chairs (not always adjustable desks)
and school children are not. The answer may or may not be the fact that the teachers
themselves are not using the furniture themselves and therefore have no way to assess
whether it is comfortable or not. There is also the issue of a lack of specific standards
and guidelines as discussed in Section 2.1.
Figure 2-11 shows a typical classroom chair made from steel with a wooden
seat, the seat inclined backwards with no curve under the knees and the backrest is at
90º to the seat. This type of chair is strong and durable but is a prime example of the
type of furniture that is having a detrimental impact on the posture, bodies and learning
ability of our children. (See Section 2.7)
14
Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13 show two other examples
of typical classroom furniture supplied by Irish companies;
both these chairs feature a round-over on the front edge of the
seat but the seat is still inclined backwards and neither chair
has any form of lumbar support.
Figure 2-14 shows a typical polypropylene chair made by

UK based company KM Furniture. This style of
polypropylene chair can be found in the majority of
Figure 2-13: Shell Chair
(wescoireland, Shell Chair, secondary schools and colleges in the country and also in
2013)
some primary schools. These chairs are quick and easy to
manufacture, they are also lightweight and stackable; some of
the models have a slight curve on the front edge of the seat
but the majority have quite a sharp outer edge. The backwards
slope on the seat along with the dished out design make the
students lean forward uncomfortably and also restrict buttock
movement on the seat.
Figure 2-14: Polypropylene The typical desk consists of four legs with a horizontal
chair (kmfurniture, 2013)
top surface for reading and writing. Children usually share a
desk with one or more other students.
In conclusion typical classroom furniture is usually made from wood and metal or
plastic and metal. These materials are a good choice for children’s furniture as they are
strong, long lasting and can be coloured to appeal to children. The seats on this type of
furniture typically slope backwards to aid stacking, there is sometimes a curve on the
front edge of the seat and chairs are typically non-adjustable. Chapter 3 discusses the
various ergonomic furniture solutions that are on the market and shows how they differ
from the furniture typically found in Irish schools. The ability to be able to stack chairs
and also quick and easy manufacturing techniques seem to be more important to the
furniture manufacturers than any ergonomic considerations.
A typical Irish primary school chair (shown in Figure 2-12) costs in the region
of €45-€55 as can be seen in an extract from the WESCO school supplies catalogue for
2013. (Figure 2-15) The shell chair, (Figure 2-13) costs between €60 and €77.
15
Figure 2-15: Typical chair prices (www.wesco, 2013)
16
2.7. What is “wrong” with the typical chair?
In recent years it has become apparent that the furniture used in educational institutions,
from primary school up to university environments, can be linked to many problems
during and after the student has finished his/her education.
In a study entitled Classroom posture and self-reported back and neck pain in
schoolchildren by Sam Murphy, Peter Buckle and David Stubbs for the University of
Surrey in 2003 – the sitting postures of 66 children were studied; it was found that there
were “significant associations between flexed postures and low back pain. Static
postures and neck and upper back pain were also associated”.
According to Galen Cranz (PhD AmSTAT NASTAT Department of

Architecture, University of California) in her book entitled, The Chair, rethinking
culture, body and design, bad posture is not just linked to back problems but also to
many other issues such as bad digestion, nausea, headaches and bad circulation.
According to BS EN 1721,
The most up-to-date figures show that MSDs11 cost society £5.7
billion (HSC 1999)….. nearly half of school children suffer from back
problems during their school years. It is even more worrying that some
other studies claim that 8–10% of children12 suffer chronic back pain13
sufficiently to compromise the ability to do sport, attendance and self-
esteem. Such cases, if not detected early and remedied, can ultimately
lead to a reduction in their quality of adult life (EN 1729-1, 2012).
According to the report by FIRA mentioned in section 2.5:
Children spend approximately 15,000 hours sitting down during their

school years14. Approximately 13 per cent of children aged 10-16 have
significant incidence of recurrent back pain. This increases to adult
levels by the age of 16. This can be attributed to a number of factors,
including poor seating which does not match the size of the children,
and tables provided at the wrong height (FIRA, 2008).
The Posture Theory diagram by Max Banfield, shown in Figure 2-16 depicts a
man sitting at a desk leaning forward to read and summarises what happens to our
bodies when we sit on poorly fitting and non-ergonomic furniture
11
Musculoskeletal Disorders.
12
2 to 3 children in each classroom.
13
Chronic back pain is a long term problem, opposed to acute back pain which only lasts for a short time.
14
Including both primary and secondary school
17
Figure 2-16: The Posture Theory Diagram (Banfield, 2012)
The left side of the diagram contains straight dashed lines and a curved
line that shows the movements that occur when leaning forward, and the
external pressures that are created.
The large dot in the middle represents the position just below the tip of
the breastbone, and is like an axle about which the upper body rotates
when the person leans forward and backward while slouched at the
waist.
The lines inside the man are shown to give an impression of the way
mechanical pressure affects internal structures and organs as he leans
forward.
The column of words on the right side shows the sort of symptoms that
can result (Banfield, 2012).
The effects of poor posture while sitting according to the Posture Theory Diagram are:
• Distortion of nasal sinus cavities and ducts

• Jaw pressure (affecting teeth, gums and ears)
• Strains to neck (disposing to headaches)
• Pressure on throat cartilages
• Pressure in chest cavity
• Pressure on the sternum
• Pressure on the ribs
• Pressure on the diaphragm
• Pressure on the kidneys and adrenals
• Pressure on the colon and stomach
• Strain on the lower back.
18
It is plain to see that the wrong type of furniture is having a detrimental impact
on the health of our backs and on our bodies in general. This section looks at exactly
what is wrong with the furniture that school children are using, we will look at the
mechanics behind the way that this furniture forces the student to sit and also look at
how these problems can be rectified through the re-design of furniture. As a person sits
Figure 2-17: Standing v’s right angled sitting (Your Back in the Future, 2005)
in a ‘wrong’ chair their body is placed in a right-angled

position. When the body is put into this position a
number of things happen; firstly the pelvis is rotated
backwards, this movement flattens the lumbar curve and
results in the spine being forced into a C-shape (Figure
2-17). This movement has a knock on effect because in
order to be able to see properly we then move our chins
and heads up. This puts pressure on and distorts the joint
between the head and the neck. It also exerts a downward
Figure 2-18: Distance from eyes pressure on the spine. This position is stressful to the
to table (Your Back in the Future,
2005) lower back and also induces problems such as ‘back
ache, neck ache, sciatica and shallow breathing’ (Cranz, The Alexander Technique in
the world of design: posture and the common chair, 2000)
19
Figure 2-18 shows how the eyes are a long way from
the book or work that we are trying to read or look at on the
desk, which results in the neck being bent into an unnatural
position in order for us to be able to see properly. The
optimum visual distance for children is approximately
300mm from their work; the correct visual distance for
individual children can be found by measuring the distance
between their knuckle and elbow (www.eyecareplus.com,
2002). The right-angled sitting position that most chairs
Figure 2-20: Reading in the right
angled position (Your Back in enforce loads both the lumbar region and hip joints in
the Future, 2005)
extreme positions; the right-angled sitting position is neither
natural nor comfortable.
Figure 2-20 shows what happens when we start

reading or writing, to enable us to see what we are doing
properly we bend the lumbar region, this bending is
localised in the 3rd, 4th and 5th discs, because the rest of the
back is quite inflexible. The result of this bending is that
muscles, joints and ligaments are overstretched causing the
back to begin to curve. Other problems with this position
Figure 2-21: Sitting on the edge
are; extreme flexion of the neck is a very tiring position to
of a seat (Your Back in the
Future, 2005, p. 4) hold for any length of time and also backwards pressure is
exerted on the lower discs, which can lead to major
problems such as the scenario illustrated in Figure 2-17.
Sitting on a normal, right-angled chair is an

unhelpful cycle; when a person leans back in a chair a
forward and downward force is created, and this force
pushes the pelvis forwards. To counteract the sliding of the
pelvis people try to bring their upper bodies and heads
forward, this movement increases the C-shaped slump in the
spine. As this C-shape is uncomfortable people then try to
Figure 2-22: Tilting the chair sit on the edge of the chair. This is hard with most chairs
(Your Back in the Future, 2005,
p. 8) because the seats are often sloped backwards making it
20
Figure 2-23: The resting position (Care, 2005)
difficult to sit on the edge for any period of time. People also find it hard to maintain
this upright position with no back support for long periods of time because we have
become accustomed to chairs that allow us to lean back. The cycle then starts all over
again as people then move back in the chair to avail of the backrest.
Figure 2-21 shows a person trying to maintain an upright position by sitting on

the edge of a chair, in this position we bend our necks slightly to bring our heads closer
to our work. We can see here that in order to maintain a comfortable position our thighs
slope to about 20 degrees.
Another problem with chairs that are canted backwards is that as a person leans
forward, (especially in a situation like a classroom where writing at a desk accounts for
a lot of time during the day) pressure is exerted on the backs of the thighs behind the
knees, and this pressure starts to cut off the blood supply to the legs which is extremely
uncomfortable. In fact when a teacher reprimands a child for swinging on a chair it is
quite probable that they are only trying to find a more comfortable and natural sitting
position (Figure 2-23).
This is illustrated in Figure 2-22, the picture shows a student tilting the chair
forward onto its front legs while working at a table, and this tipping action places the
thighs at an angle of about 30 degrees below the horizontal; the hip joint bends at about
60 degrees, the back remains straight and the lumbar curve is not flattened.
In 1953 J.J. Keegan, an American Orthopaedic surgeon, took a series of x-rays

of people while they were lying on their sides; he instructed the people to move into
21
positions that mimicked sitting, standing and right-angled sitting. These x-rays (Figure
2-24) showed the large movements that took place in the lumbar section of the spinal
column as the position changed from standing (a) to right angle sitting (c) and bent-over
positions (d) and (b) show the natural resting position of the body; this position is the
most natural as the
muscles are relaxed
and well-balanced and
the lumbar curve is
retained. (Mandal A. ,
1987) Keegan found
that the most normal
or relaxed sleeping
posture when people
Figure 2-24: Natural resting position (b), (Mandal A. , 1987)
sleep on their sides is
one where there is about a 135 degree angle between the thighs and the spine; this is a
very similar posture to one that is observed in the weightless environment of space
(Mark S. Saunders, Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 1993, p. pg 439).
In a study entitled ‘Balanced sitting posture on forward sloping seat’ written by

A.C. Mandal, - a doctor who researched extensively
into the area of posture in the 1980’s – Mandal states:
‘A sitting posture that approaches the natural resting
position (b), is a more suitable position and allows the
spine to carry the body weight in a more comfortable
way. This is "Balanced Seating"’. Mandal (1987) goes
on to say that, if a seat tilts forwards it encourages
natural posture as opposing muscle groups are
balanced and the lumbar curve is preserved. This
produces balanced seating in which the joint angles
are open, the back is straight and the muscles are
Figure 2-25: Tilting the seat forwards
(Mandal A. , 1987) relaxed. Mandel claims that ‘this position provides
greater mobility and relieves pressure on the lungs and stomach’ (Mandal A. , 1987). He
also says that in order to relieve backpressure children will tilt forwards on the legs of
their chairs. This action allows them to avoid bending their backs, relaxes the front and
22
back muscles, and results in a comfortable sitting
position with a straight back. The type of school
furniture that Mandal designed is discussed in greater
detail in Section 3.3.3.
Mandal also discusses the posture we adopt

whilst riding a horse, he reports; ‘While riding a
horse, the rider sits upright, yet maintains a lumbar
lordosis15 because the thighs are sloping downwards.
This is exactly the same position as the neutral resting
position, or sitting on a chair seat that tilts forward. It
Figure 2-26: Balanced posture when means the rider is in the perfect position for
riding a horse (Mandal A. , 1987)
"Balanced Seating". (Mandal A. , 1987)
In an article in the Irish Times on June 26th 2012 Richard Brennan an Alexander
Technique teacher challenged Minister Ruairí Quinn about the effect that school
furniture is having on children: Brennan has been campaigning since 1988 for a change
in the regulations to do with school furniture in Ireland. He has argued that school
chairs sloped backwards for stacking purposes but this causes “untold damage” to the
posture of children because “it is an unnatural position”. He has also pointed out that in
using such chairs children “tense many of their muscles in order to maintain an upright
posture,” which can lead to back and respiratory problems. This results in children
‘slumping (….and placing) the weight behind the tailbone rather than on the correct
sitting bones.’ (Healy, 2012) He estimated that children spent more than 15,000 hours
sitting in these chairs.
This again shows the lack of education in society in general in relation to the
importance of ergonomic furniture, as Brennan has been campaigning since 1988 and
has still been unable to convince the authorities of the importance of this issue.
15
Lumbar lordosis is the inward curvature in the lumbar (lower) portion of the spine.
23
2.8. Survey
As part of the research conducted for this project the author decided to compile a survey
to ascertain the type of furniture that is currently used in primary schools in Ireland. The
survey was also used to collect data on the amount of time children in different classes
spend sitting each day, as well as to find out the teachers’ views on the children’s
furniture being used and if it is suitable for them or not.
A short introduction shown below was attached to the survey, and this included
a description of the project, its aims and objectives and the motivation behind the
project:
Classroom Furniture
For my final year Major Project I have decided to address an issue that has become ever
more apparent in recent years, this is the issue of back pain and other posture related
problems in school children.
In my Major Project I am attempting to design and make ergonomic classroom furniture
for primary schools. By doing this I am aiming to create awareness of this problem and
also to try and prevent rather than cure this problem for the children who are in and also
who will be entering our education system.
Thank you very much for your time.
The figures in Appendix 5: Survey Results show the questions and responses from
the 23 primary school teachers who responded to the survey, section 2.9 gives an
overview of the survey results while Appendix 5: Survey Results analyses the data from
the responses in greater detail.
2.9. Data analysis

The survey was well spread over all class groups with all classes represented, 23
teachers in all responded to the survey. Question 1 asked the teachers which class they
taught.
The responses to the survey showed that the majority of the teachers
surveyed said that their classes were seated for 4 hours per day. All the teachers said
that the chairs in their classrooms were stackable and when asked ‘how often’ they were
stacked the majority answered ‘at the end of term’.
24
95.65% of teachers said that the students in their class all sat on the same sized
chairs and 86.96% said that students shared desks while working. All teachers often
observed students fidgeting in their seats.
The survey showed that the majority of furniture was made from wood and
metal. 63.64% of teachers answered ‘yes’ when asked if the chairs in their classrooms
had a curved front edge.
Nearly all the teachers surveyed said that they noticed the children swinging on
their seats. When asked whether they thought the furniture was ergonomically suited to
the children 43.48% of teachers answered ‘yes’ (This will be discussed further in 2.10.).
The survey showed that the majority of classes had a P.E class only once a
week. When asked how old they thought the furniture in their classrooms was, the
majority of teachers said 1-5 years, with 96% of teachers expressing the view that the
furniture should be upgraded as ergonomic developments are made. Lastly when asked
if there had been any mention of the importance of ergonomic, well-fitting furniture
when they were undertaking their teacher training 87% of teachers answered ‘no’.
2.10. Conclusion
This chapter has shown that primary school children spend a large portion of their
school day seated; 50% for the younger children and 80% for the older ones. This
chapter looked at surveys carried out in the UK which analysed the level of back pain in
school children. These surveys showed that approximately 35-40% of children surveyed
experienced LBP. The chapter also looked at a survey undertaken in 1996 that
compared the sizes of children in Ireland to the dimensions of the furniture that they sit
on. The survey concluded that the dimensions of the furniture in use did not reflect
either the male or female body sizes.
The chapter discussed the development of the Irish school system and the
changes in the furniture being used here in Ireland and also in other countries. Section
2.6 looked at the typical types of chairs in use 2013 and also looked at the prices of
these chairs. This was important, as the chair designed for this project will have to be
able to compete with other products in terms of price in order for it to be a viable
product.
25
Section 2.7 analysed exactly what is ‘wrong’ with typical right-angled chairs
and Section 2.8 looked at a survey carried out with Irish Primary school teachers.
From looking at the types of furniture that can be typically found in an Irish
classroom, it is necessary to ask ourselves the question, why is the majority of Irish
classroom furniture designed with so little thought given to ergonomics?
This question can be partly answered by the fact that although there were new
European standards published in 2012 relating to primary school furniture (EN 1729).
Manufacturers are only doing the bare minimum to ensure that their furniture conforms
to the standard and still sticking very much to the traditional right angled seating found
in the majority of Irish classrooms, there is also very little adjustable furniture on offer.
The question can also be partly answered by the results of questions 12 and 16 in the
survey that was given out to primary school teachers. Question 12 asked the teachers if
they thought that the furniture in their classrooms was ergonomically suited to the
children. In answer to this question 44% of teachers thought that the furniture was
ergonomically suited to the children. Question 16 asked whether there had been any
mention of ergonomics while the teachers were training in college. In answer to this
question 87% of teachers said there had been no mention of ergonomics when they were
studying. When asked if they ever saw the children ‘swinging’ on their chairs 93% of
teachers surveyed said yes. This figure suggests that the majority of primary school
furniture is not ergonomically suited to the children who use it as if it was this
percentage is likely to have been significantly lower.
Now the question must be posed why 44% of teachers still thought that the
furniture was ergonomically suited to the children? The answer to this could be rooted
in the teachers’ answers to question 16 where 87% admitted to there being no mention
of ergonomics when they were studying in college. A reasonable conclusion we can
draw from these answers is that a lack of education on the subject is at the root of the
problem since teachers are simply unaware that the furniture in their classrooms is
having a detrimental impact on not only the physical wellbeing of their students, but
also on their ability to concentrate for longer periods of time (FIRA, 2008).
Other more design orientated European countries such as Denmark introduced

ergonomic furniture into their classrooms in the 1980’s so that it is commonplace in
26
classrooms today.16 This furniture is higher than Irish school furniture and allows the
students to perch on the sloped surface of the seat when working at a desk.
Chapter 3 will look at some of the existing ergonomic furniture solutions that are
currently on the market. It will also look at the concept of ‘active dynamic sitting’ and
carry out a case study into a company that sells furniture that works using this concept.
16
An example of this furniture can be found in Figure 3-9
27
Chapter 3. Existing ergonomic solutions and typical classroom
furniture
3.1. Introduction
This chapter looks at ergonomic furniture that is currently on the market. The products
will be listed and analysed in terms of shape, ergonomic benefits and materials.
Furniture that claims to be ergonomic will be analysed to see how it fits in with the
research carried out in section 2.7.
3.2. Existing Ergonomic Solutions
3.2.1. Pro chair - Konstantin Grcic.

Konstantin Grcic is a well-known furniture
designer who works with companies such as
Magis, Plank and Vitra. Grcic has designed an
ergonomic classroom chair called ‘Pro’, in
developing this chair Grcic worked with
furniture manufacturer Flötotto.
The Pro chair “is meant to allow a variety of

sitting positions, so that they’ll be able to
Figure 3-1: Pro Chair by Konstantin Grcic
(Stankiewicz, 2012) concentrate better, behavioural studies suggest
that children focus better when they aren’t
sitting still for hours on end.” Konstantin Grcic
tells Metropolis magazine. “Their bodies are
growing and developing.” Working with
furniture manufacturer Flötotto, the German
designer developed a chair that would
Figure 3-2: The Pro Chair in use ergonomically support a full range of seating
(www.fastcodesign.com, 2012)
positions.’ (www.fastcodesign.com, 2012)
Grcic’s Pro has a rounded seat like a stool’s, which doesn’t force the
body forward, and a curved backrest that fits into the lumbar region and
provides a lip at the top, which can serve as an armrest for those who
prefer to sit sideways or as a headrest for those who slide forward and
lean back (www.fastcodesign.com, 2012).
28
The Pro chair’s seat is made from polypropylene and the legs are made from tubular
steel. The chair is made in three different sizes and comes in six different colours. The
chair is set to retail in the US for $200.
Through examination of the pictures of the chair in use the author identified the
main aspect of the chair that she felt could be used in the development of the design for
this project. This aspect is the curved backrest that fits the lumbar region. Although
Grcic claims the ‘Pro chair’ to be innovative in the way it allows for a variety of sitting
positions, the author could not identify how the chair differed greatly from other
moulded polypropylene chairs on the market. The ‘Pro chair’ still has a backward
sloping seat, no curve on the front edge and is not adjustable to suit the user.
3.2.2. Children’s Max chair by KOS

This chair looks quite similar to an adult’s office
swivel chair. It has a 5-point base with castors;
the chair has a padded seat and backrest.
The backrest can be adjusted both by height and

also oscillation (inclined forwards and backwards
around a central point); the seat can be adjusted
for height. There is a measurement scale on the
back of the chair to allow the seat and backrest to
be adjusted to the user’s height.
Figure 3-3: Max Chair by KOS (KOS.ie,
2012)
The construction is plastic and powder coated
steel; the seat and backrest are made from foam and come with colourful removable
covers.
The author feels that this type of chair is more suited to the home environment as
opposed to a classroom setting. There are quite a lot of moving parts and also the
upholstery could easily become dirty and damaged, as well as the wheels potentially
allowing too much movement for a classroom environment. Points that can be taken
from this design to be potentially incorporated in the design for this project are the
adjustability, the tilting action of the seat and backrest and also the movement ability
created by the wheels.
29
3.2.3. Knelt desk and chair from Ubiquity Design Studio 2010
Knelt is an ergonomic kneeling stool and desk designed to ‘encourage neutral posture’
in users (Spencer, 2010). The chair and
desk are made from moulded veneered
ply and come in a choice of finishes -
birch, oak and American walnut.
The opposed tilting surfaces of

the desk and stool promote natural body
alignment as the child is not hunched
over the desk or leaning too far forward.
Figure 3-4: Knelt desk and stool (Ubiquity Design,
2010)
This is a very simple yet effective
design, it would work well in a home environment where it is only being used for short
periods of time and could be moved from room to room with the user. This product
would not be suitable for an education environment because although the design
promotes good posture it could potentially become uncomfortable if it was not
positioned on thick carpet, and was used for long periods of time, as the users’ legs have
to be bent and are not able to be stretched out. The desk and chair retail for £199
(www.nubie.co.uk, 2013).
The material choice is good for aesthetics and also for the way in which that
product is produced using a former; it might be good to add a laminate to the top to
avoid scratches on the surface.
Aspects of this design that could be incorporated into the design for this project
are the opposing tilt on the desk and seat and also the material choice of birch ply.
3.3. Perch chair

and Ray chair
NCAD Industrial Design
graduate Simon Dennehy
developed a range of
ergonomic classroom
Figure 3-5: Perch Chair (Dennehy, 2013) furniture for his MA in 2008;
the chair he developed is called ‘Perch’. This chair is adjustable in height and has a seat
30
made from plastic with
two parts which bend
down at the front
allowing the user to
lean forward to use the
sloping desk while still
maintaining a straight
Figure 3-6: Ray Chair (Dennehy, 2013) back.
Dennehy has designed another chair called ‘Ray’, which works on exactly the
same principle as ‘Perch’ but also has wheels and uses a compressed gas cylinder for
the adjustment mechanism.
There are a number of aspects of this design that can be looked at for inclusion
in the design of the current project; these are the adjustability of the chair and table, the
way the user can move forward while working, and the curve of the backrest.
3.3.1. Kneeling chairs

Kneeling chairs have been on the market for a long time. These chairs work to improve
posture by stimulating movement and keeping joints and muscles active whilst sitting;
there are many different makes and models of kneeling chair on the market. Even
though these chairs work well and are relatively inexpensive they do not seem to have
made an impact on the mainstream market place.
They are most commonly seen in artists’ studios and
in home offices.
The most important aspect of the design of

kneeling chairs that can potentially be incorporated
into the design of a chair for this project is the
manner in which it rocks backwards and forwards as
Figure 3-7: Kneeling Chair
the user is working at a desk. This movement helps (www.sitcorrect.com, 2013)
to keep the spine in alignment as the user does not
have to bend their back as much when reading and
writing.
31
3.3.2. Postura Chair
The ‘Postura’ chair is made in the UK by KI Furniture. It
comes in 6 different sizes the chair conforms to BS EN
1729, and is moulded from high impact resistant
polypropylene making it strong, durable, light and 100%
recyclable, the chair has wide legs to prevent tipping. The
chair has a graduating curve on the seat which the company
Figure 3-8: 'Postura' Chair
claim supports both ‘perching’ and ‘full’ sitting positions. (Furniture, 2013)
The Postura chair retails at around €40. Following this
approach the concept of two sitting positions was
implements into the design of the project prototype.
3.3.3. SIS BackUp chair

This chair is based on the research carried out by Dr. A.C.
Mandal discussed in Section 2.7, this chair promotes higher
sitting with an open angle between the legs and torso. The
BackUp furniture series has height adjustable sloping desks
Figure 3-9: BackUp chair
for use with the chair, which comes in a range of sizes. The (SIS)
chair has a rounded seat that encourages dynamic sitting positions and promotes natural
posture, and the BackUp series ranges in size from primary school to adult. This chair
and desk have been widely used in schools in Denmark for a long time; ‘by the early
1980’s some 5000 schoolchildren worked at this type of furniture in Denmark’ (Rani
Lauder, 2008, p. 742). The height of the chair and the
curved nature of the seat are the two main points of
the design of this chair that the author decided to look
at in greater detail when designing the chair for this
project.
3.3.4. Tip Ton Chair

The Tip Ton chair is a plastic chair designed by
Edward Barber and Jay Osgerby and is manufactured
by Vitra. The chair has angles in the supporting legs
Figure 3-10: Tip Ton Chair (Vitra,
and enables the user to tip forward when sitting at a 2013)
32
desk or table. ‘In a 2010 study, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH),
one of the world’s leading universities of applied sciences, investigated the health-
promoting attributes of a forward-leaning sitting position. The results confirm increased
muscle activity in the abdominal and back areas, which improves oxygen supply to the
body – and that in turn has a positive effect on concentration’ (Vitra, 2013). This chair
is only available for adults and is sold for around £200 (from Office Chairs UK). The
tipping motion of this chair is the feature that the author will investigate further when
designing the chair for this project.
3.3.5. Tripp Trapp Chair

The Tripp Trapp chair was first developed in 1972 by designer Peter Opsvik. The chair
is height adjustable and features a footrest that allows movement in the seat instead of
Figure 3-11: Tripp Trapp Chair (www.stokke.com, 2013)
leaving the child’s legs dangling. The chair is an extremely clever design as it can cater
for all ages, from new born babies to fully grown adults. The chair is made from wood
and has metal fixings for strength. It sells for around £160 (€190). Although the chair
promotes sitting at the traditional 90°, the highly adjustable nature of this chair is every
clever and enables the chair to be used over a lifetime. This adjustable nature is
something that the author would like to develop in the finished design of a chair for this
project.
33
3.4. Active Dynamic Sitting
Active sitting is achieved when chairs or seats facilitate and allow body movement. The
ill effects of normal or ‘static sitting’ have been outlined in Section 2.7.
The benefits of active/dynamic sitting are understood to occur when our body
moves through postures that are centred and symmetrical. It is thought the muscles in
the core area are strengthened by active and controlled postural positions (Andrew P.
Claus, 2009).
In active sitting the pelvis is tilted forward; this position puts the spine into
proper alignment and promotes correct posture. As active sitting encourages movement,
the body’s core muscles will strengthen as the body maintains balance. Movement also
lubricates the spinal joints and with a stable posture both leg and calf muscles are
activated (Dean, 1999). This movement stimulates blood flow and minimises the chance
of lower leg oedema and swollen ankles (Stranden, 2000).
It is the author’s opinion based on research quoted, that active sitting should be
actively promoted especially in young children, as their bodies are used to movement
and by continually forcing them into a static sitting situation in a classroom, they
become more susceptible to back and postural problems in later life.
A study entitled ‘Sitting habits in elementary school children: a traditional versus a

‘moving school’, by the Department of Movement and Sports Studies in Ghent
University, Belgium, observed that ‘children from a traditional school spend an average
of 97% of the lesson sitting statically, from which one third bend over 45 degrees. In the
‘moving school’ this posture was replaced by dynamic sitting (53%), standing (31%)
and walking around (10%), while trunk rotation over 45 degrees was not observed’
(Greet Cardon, 2004).
The book Ergonomics for Children: Designing products and places for toddlers to
teens outlines a study and its findings carried out by Taylour and Crawford in 1996.
This survey compared the effects of three furniture designs on the sitting behaviour of
11-year-old British children. The survey ‘scored children’s sitting habits as positive or
negative according to postural variables, such as being slumped, having the neck flexed,
sitting erect, etc.’ (Rani Lauder, 2008). The study provided the children with three
different furniture designs to use and observed the differences in each case. Furniture
34
type A was a polypropylene chair consisting of a separate seat and backrest supported
on a steel frame, to be used with a conventional four-legged double desk with a
horizontal laminate top. Type B was a conversion of furniture type A with a raised
wedge shaped-seat to alter the slope of the seat and also a forward sloping work surface
mounted on the original desk. The final furniture, type C was an ‘ergonomic’ work
station that had an adjustable–height, angled work surface and a raised chair with a
forward sloping seat at the front.
The report concluded that there were ‘significant differences in sitting

behaviours across the three types of furniture’ (Rani Lauder, 2008, p. 744). Positive
sitting was observed for only 28.5% of the time with furniture type A, whereas this
increased to 48% and 50% of the time with types B and C.
The most frequent negative sitting behaviour was sitting hunched over the desk,
the next was sitting with a flexed neck.
The children’s responses to the survey about their sitting comfort, ease of use
and pain or discomfort when using the furniture generally agreed with the observations
of the positive sitting behaviour results for each chair (Rani Lauder, 2008).
3.5. Company case study – Active dynamic sitting

A company that recognises the importance of dynamic sitting is Bodyfurn based in New
Zealand; they have developed a range of classroom furniture called ‘Furnware.’
‘Being seated at a desk is not passive – it’s active. Students move

forward to write, lean back to relax or listen, and (quite rarely) sit up
straight. Static seating doesn’t provide for this, so to compensate,
students lean forward on the front legs or back on the back legs of their
chairs’ (Bodyfurn, 2013).
The Furnware chairs have a seat and back that move independently from each other so
the students are supported whether they are leaning forward or back.
Desks are height adjustable which allows students to place their feet squarely on the
floor. Having a desk of the correct height also allows the arms and shoulders to relax
which improves concentration and handwriting. The desks incorporate a storage system
for books and bags. The chair can be stored upside down on the desk to allow access for
cleaners. Bodyfurn also provides a height chart to schools that matches students to the
correct chair.
35
Bodyfurn surveyed teachers in 75 schools
• 80% said students sit still for longer

without fidgeting in Bodyfurn chairs and
desks
• 75% said students were more
focused with better concentration
They also performed video analysis in

classrooms with the following results;
• Average time-off task per student in

year seven rooms reduced by 83%
• Time spent ‘rocking’ on chairs is
reduced to zero
• Time taken to settle into a task is
halved
These figures are very encouraging for

Figure 3-12: Furnware chairs and desks
(Bodyfurn, 2013)
the current project. Major improvements in
posture and comfort can be seen due to
making the chairs and desks adjustable and by allowing movement in the seat and
backrest, even though the chairs and desks have not moved away from the traditional
right-angled sitting position.
3.6. Complimentary desks

So far this report has focused on chairs and dynamic sitting. Research has proven that
although these new types of chairs
have a significant impact when it
comes to improving the posture of
users, in order to take advantage of
the full benefits these chairs can
offer it is necessary to use them in
conjunction with the correct type of
desk. These desks should be fully
Figure 3-13: Sloping desks (Mandal T. , 2009) adjustable and also be angled
36
towards the users’ in order
to reduce the distance from
the users eyes to the work
surface. Figure 3-13 shows
the correct working heights
of both desks and chairs in
relation to individual
Figure 3-14: A Swedish class using the SIS BackUp chair (Mandal
T. , 2009) persons. The picture shows
that the front edge of the chair should be 2-4 cm above the knee and the lowest point of
the sloping surface of the desk should be level with the buttocks.
A good example of an ergonomic desk and chair working together is shown in

Figure 3-14. This picture shows a Swedish class using the SIS BackUp chair discussed
in Section 2.7.
Concepts for an adjustable sloping table to be used in conjunction with the chair
have been developed and will be discussed in Section 5.8.
3.7. Conclusion
This chapter has shown furniture that presents a number of different solutions to the
problem of non-ergonomic children’s furniture. The research will be used in the design
process for the development of concepts for the author’s solution to the problem. The
concept of ‘Active Dynamic Sitting’ was discussed and provides a greater insight into
the importance of movement in classrooms.
Chapter 4 looks into the ergonomic and anthropometric data that is essential when
designing furniture for children. Standards will also be looked at to extract relevant
information about the recommended dimensions for school furniture.
37
Chapter 4. Children’s Ergonomics and Anthropometrics and the
application of these to furniture
4.1. Introduction
This chapter compiles and analyses the data regarding the ergonomics and
anthropometrics of children of different ages. Ergonomics is the study of people’s
efficiency in their working environment, and helps us to understand how to design
products that work well both for, and ‘with’ people. It is ‘the scientific discipline
concerned with the understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements
of a system’- (www.iea.cc 2013). Ergonomics ‘applies theoretical principles, data and
methods to design in order to optimize human wellbeing and overall system
performance’ (www.iea.cc 2013).
Anthropometrics is the science dealing with measurement of the size, weight, and
proportions of the human body. This data is extremely important when designing
furniture that will promote good posture, as the
furniture needs to fit the child, not the other way
round. When designing furniture for children it is
important that we design not only for the average
child, but also for the children who are, for example,
particularly tall or particularly short for their age.
These children who are at the extremes also fall into
two groups, the 5th (short) and 95th (tall) percentiles.
Also ‘Simply considering age is not sufficient for
design, as gender and development are also
important. For example girls’ growth spurts occur
Figure 4-1: Height differences much earlier than boys’ (Rani Lauder, 2008).
between boys and girls of the same
age (30087, 2010)
This chapter discusses the standard EN 1729. This
standard will be used for helping to determine the dimensions for the chair.
4.2. Research
In order to start designing suitable furniture for this project it was first necessary to
research the anthropometric data for the children in the primary school age range. It is
assumed that this range is from 4 to 12 years.
38
The author designed tables specifically for this project using data collected from a book
entitled ‘Childata - The Handbook of Child Measurements and Capabilities: Data for
Design Safety’. This book documents data from a number of different countries and
compiles it into usable tables. The data used for this project is (where possible) from the
UK and also some from the US. As there is no information for Ireland specifically
information from the UK will be primarily used it is Ireland’s closest neighbour and is
the closest to us in respect of physical characteristics such as height and body
proportions. These factors make information from the UK of most relevance to this
project.
The tables made by the author relate to the dimensions that are the most important when
designing classroom furniture (chairs and desks) for children. The measurements that
were analysed and compiled into these tables are:
• Sitting height (cm)

• Eye height (seated)
• Shoulder height (seated)
• Abdominal depth
• Hip breadth (maximum when seated)
• Arm length to finger tips
• Elbow height (seated)
• Upper leg length, buttock to knee (seated)
• Upper leg length, buttock to popliteal (seated)
• Knee height (seated)
• Popliteal height17 (seated)
• Thigh breadth (maximum when seated)
• Waist breadth at navel.
The most important statistics for males and females in each age group were the 5th and
95th percentiles; these figures ensure that children of all possible sizes are catered for.
The full tables can be found in Appendix 1 Anthropometric Measurements.
17
Popliteal height is measured from the floor to the underside of the knee when seated.
39
Figure 4-2: Key to anthropometric measurements (Dr. Beverley Norris, 1995)
Table 4.1: Averages of body measurements for all age groups (calculated by the author from
figures in Childata)
Table 4.2: 5th and 95th percentiles for all age groups (calculated by the author from figures in
Childata)
40
Analysing the data collected reinforced the necessity to design a range of
furniture that is adjustable to suit the individual child, due to wide variations in
children’s measurements. By doing this it means that the furniture will not only suit
children who fall into both the 5th and 95th percentiles, it will also suit a wider variety of
age groups, and allow the furniture to be adjusted to ‘grow with the child’.
As the range of sizes of four and five year old children entering Junior Infants will be
quite different to that of children leaving Sixth Class at age eleven or twelve, it will not
be possible to design a chair for this project that is ergonomically correct to cater for
this entire range of sizes. In order to work around this problem the author intends to
design an adjustable chair and desk that can be made in two sizes, one to accommodate
children from age 4-8, and one for 8-12 year olds. Age ranges and standards will be
covered further in section 4.4.
4.3. General ergonomic principles of chair design

According to Mark S. Saunders and Ernest J. McCormick in the book entitled ‘Human
Factors in Engineering and Design’ outline 5 general principles of good chair design
these principles are:
1. Promote Lumbar Lordosis
This means to try and preserve the spines natural curve. The effects of 90 degree sitting
have already been analysed in section 2.7
2. Minimise disc pressure
A slightly reclined backrest helps to reduce disc pressure as; there is a significant
reduction in pressure when a backrest is reclined from vertical (90 degrees) to 110
degrees.
3. Minimise static loading of the back muscles
Again reclining the backrest slightly helps to open sitting angle and thus reduces the
pressure on the back muscles.
4. Reduce postural fixity
Postural fixity is when one sits in one position for a long period of time without
significant postural movement. Our bodies are not made to sit in one position for
41
extended periods of time. ‘Discs have no blood supply: fluids are exchanged by osmotic
pressure. Sitting in one posture – no matter how good it is – will result in reduced
nutritional exchanges and in the long term may promote degenerative processes in the
disks” (Mark S. Saunders, Human Factors in Engineering and Design, 1993).
5. Make adjustment easy
This project aims to employ these 5 principles of good chair design and use them
alongside the data gathered in Section 4.2 as well as the information taken from EN
1729-1 compiled in Section 4.4, in order to design a chair that will promote natural
posture in the users.
42
4.4. Research into standards (EN 1729)
As mentioned in section 2.2 neither the Irish government nor the HSA insist on any
specific standards in relation to the design of, or make recommendations for the
provision of primary school furniture. Consequently, the European standards EN 1729-
1; Furniture – Chairs and tables for educational institutions – part 1 and EN 1729-2;
Furniture - Chairs and tables for educational institutions, will be used when deciding on
dimensions (in conjunction with the author’s own research) and also in conducting
safety testing on the products. These safety requirements and test methods were
introduced in 2006 and re-published in 2012.
Part 1 of the standard:
• ‘Is based on the principle that chairs and tables, intended for use in educational
institutions for general-purpose education, should be designed to encourage
good postures’.
• This part of the standard takes selected national standards into consideration.
• It does not specify design, but only those dimensions which promote good
posture for either fixed height or adjustable furniture.
• The dimensional requirements of this standard permit various interpretations of
design; hence customs, educational practices, as well as the technical and
financial circumstances of individual countries can be satisfied.
• The minimum dimensions specified by this standard are considered as the
absolute minimum. Consequently, it is recommended to exceed these.
• This standard does not provide dimensional requirements for arm rests, but it
does not preclude the use of armrests.
Part 2 of this standard,
• Specifies safety requirements and test methods.’
Part 2 of the standard will be looked at in greater detail in Chapter 6.
43
Figure 4-3: Sizemarks and colour coding (ESPO, 2012)
Table 4.3: Classroom furniture sizing (BSI, EN 1729-1, 2012)
For this project the primary reference tools for dimensions of both the chair and
desk will be the standard and EN 1729 parts 1 and 2 and also the ‘Childata’ book by Dr
Beverly Norris and John R. Wilson. These measurements have been compiled in section
4.2.
BS EN 1729 works on a universal size mark colour coding system in order to allow
different sizes of chairs to be easily identified. The standard specifies that adjustable
44
furniture should cover two or more size marks.
The size marks used in Irish primary schools
will range from size mark 2 to size mark 5,
which is a slightly different from the primary
school range shown in Figure 4-3 which says
that primary schools should be using size marks
2 to 4. The reason for this slight difference is
that this chart was taken from a UK website
Figure 4-4: Measurements (ESPO, 2012) source, but children in Ireland go to secondary
school a year later than those in the UK, so they
are generally taller when they leave primary school.
When designing furniture for children or adjusting furniture to the correct fit for
individual children the most important measurements are:
1. Popliteal height; this defines the correct set height. The measurement is taken
from the floor to the back of the knee when the subject is seated with their thighs
horizontal and lower leg vertical with feet flat on the floor.
2. Stature is the measurement from the floor to the top of the head.
3. Sitting work height; this measurement is determined by the sitting elbow height,
which is the distance from the floor to the underside of the elbow whilst sitting
with the upper arm vertical and the lower arm horizontal. This measurement is
used to determine the correct table height.
4. Standing work height is the measurement of the distance from the floor to the
underside of the elbow when the person is standing with the upper arm vertical
and the lower arm horizontal. This measurement determines the correct standing
table height.
BS EN 1729 states in section A.4 ‘Requirements for adjustable chairs and tables’;
• Adjustment controls shall;
a) be easily accessible to the user;
b) be easy to operate without the need for excessive force or specialised tools.
45
• Adjustable furniture shall cover two or more size marks. It shall be possible to
identify the size marks or colour codes of the adjusted furniture.
• Adjustable furniture (chairs and tables) designed to cover a range of size marks
shall comply with the dimensional requirements of each size mark covered.
• Adjustments may be continuous or in fixed steps.
• NOTE: Since two different users sharing a double table may need different
height, adjustable tables are more suitable for single users.
The standard also recommends methods for matching children to their correct chair
and table, stating that while the matching of children to chairs and tables by using the
age range, size mark chart may be the quickest and easiest it is also the least accurate
method. The standard recommends measuring the child’s popliteal (lower leg) height in
order to correctly match the child to the best chair for them, and once the chair has been
selected the elbow sitting height is measured in order to match the child to a desk of the
correct height; it must also be ensured that the child has enough leg room under the
table.
When adjusting multi height furniture to suit individual children it is important to

make sure that the edge of the seat is 2-4 cm above the knee height.
The standard recommends that a tape or ruler should be attached to the wall in
classrooms that indicates the colour and heights of the different size marks. This ruler
should be used when matching children to the correct chair and table.
The standard also states that;
‘In the opinion of the BSI committee, adjustable chairs with the ability to
tilt forward a few degrees, combined with adjustable tables with tiltable
tops can significantly improve pupils’ postures for many common
activities, and thus avoiding the back strain.’
46
Table 4.4: Dimensions for chairs with seat slopes between -5 and +5 degrees (BSI, EN 1729-1, 2012)
Table 4.5: Table D.2 — Example of dimensions adjustable tables
47
Table 4.4 shows the recommended dimensions and corresponding size marks and
colours for chairs with seat slopes of between -5° and +5° and Table 4.6 shows the
recommended dimensions for adjustable chairs.
Table 4.6: D.1 - Example of dimensions adjustable chairs
Through analysing these tables the author concluded the following when designing a
chair to accommodate children of between 4-8 years (size marks 2-3):
• The seat depth must be minimum 300mm.

• The minimum seat width must be 320mm.
• The backrest must be a minimum of 100mm.
• The inclination of the backrest must be 95° to 110°.
• The minimum height of the chair seat should be 310mm. Table 4.6 shows the
maximum height to be 430mm, but as the adjustable chair for this project will be
able to be tilted forwards to author decided to raise this maximum height to
550mm. This would enable the chair to be used as a high chair with a raised
desk and would accommodate the ‘tipping’ motion for taller children.
Table 4.5 shows examples of the dimensions of adjustable tables and Table 4.6 shows
the dimensions of adjustable chairs; both cover size marks 3 to 5 and 5 to 7.
48
4.5. Conclusion
This chapter has identified the minimum and maximum dimensions the chair must
adjust between in order to accommodate children of age 4 to 8, and to ensure it includes
children in this age group within both the 5th and 95th percentiles.
The chapter also investigated EN 1729 in order to collect more information

about the recommended dimensions for chairs and tables.
Chapter 5 lays out guidelines for the design of the chair. The sketching process
behind the design is shown as well as the making of the first prototypes. The chapter
then shows the live testing of the prototype and also the making of the finished chair.
49
Chapter 5. Making and Live Testing of the Chair
5.1. Introduction
This chapter will firstly compile a list of requirements to be adhered to when designing
the chair. Sketches of the design process will be shown as well as the making of initial
prototypes. The chapter then shows the testing carried out on the prototype chair with a
child and the findings of this testing. The chapter also shows the making of the finished
chair, as well as concept sketches and the making of a prototype desk.
5.2. General outlines for the chair design

In order to ensure that all the findings of the research carried out into ergonomics,
anthropometrics and other studies were taken into account when designing the prototype
furniture. It was necessary to compile a ‘design strategy’ or ‘Product Design
Specification’ (PDS). This is a list of requirements and findings that were necessary to
include in the finished design – it should have/be:
• A forward-tilted seat, (the more the task takes you forward the more the seat
should tilt forwards) (As shown in Section 2.7).
• Adjustable in height to accommodate 5th - 95th percentiles. (See Section 4.2).
• A flat, un-contoured seat, to allow for free movement.
• Lumbar, mid back support.
• Space for buttocks between seat and backrest.
• Curved front edge to the seat.
• The ability to rock forwards and back to reduce postural fixity and promote the
natural position of the spine. (See Figure 3-10 for an example of a chair that
employs this principle).
• Compliancy with BS EN 1729.
• Light enough for children to move with ease.
• Brightly coloured to be appealing to children in a classroom setting.
• Easy to clean.
• Easily adjusted with no parts that could be removed or lost.
• Minimal components.
• Able to compete with other products in regard to cost.
• Encourage active dynamic sitting, (see Section 3.4).
50
5.3. Sketching
The following figures show initial sketching undertaken by the author; various ideas
were explored, in trying to meet the ideals laid out in the design strategy. Some were
dismissed as impractical; others were explored until a satisfactory solution was reached.
Figure 5-1: Initial sketches (by the author)
51
Figure 5-2: Initial Sketches (by the Author)
The idea of using a
tipping motion to keep the
spine in its natural
alignment when working at
a desk was chosen to
develop to the next level and
Figure 5-3: Initial sketches showing the concept of the chair tipping
this concept can be seen in forwards to keep the back straight, (by the author)
Figure 5-3.
Various seat shapes

(Figure 5-4) and seating
angles were explored
(Figure 5-5). The slope of
the seat was sketched,
ensuring an ‘open’ angle
Figure 5-4: Seat shapes, plan views (by the author)
between legs and torso.
A saddle type seat

was looked at (Figure 5-7),
but it was concluded that
while this type of seat would
help the legs to grip the seat
when tipping, overall this
type of seat shape would
restrict movement and limit
dynamic sitting.
Various ideas were

explored when it came to
designing the height
adjustment mechanism for
the chair (see Appendix 4:
Sketches). The author tried
to minimise components and
make sure that there were no Figure 5-5: Seating angles (by the author)
52
components that could break off or be removed and
lost.
Figure 5-8 shows the solution that was settled

on for the height adjustment mechanism, with the
Figure 5-6: Seat shape (by the author) whole component being made of metal for strength;
two pins hold the supporting plate into grooves that
run up the sides of the chair’s central leg. The height
is adjusted by lifting the seat and sliding the plate up
or down in the grooves.
Figure 5-9 shows the prototype of the chair’s

adjustment mechanism: A horizontal bracket with
two pins is supported by an angled section. The pins
run in the groove routed on each side of the upright
(central support leg) of the chair, and allow for the
whole unit to be lifted enabling the angled section to
be slotted into a new hole, thus adjusting chair’s
height.
Figure 5-7: Saddle seat (by the author)
Figure 5-8: Metal Adjustment plate

mechanism (by the author)
Figure 5-9: (by the author) Prototype for adjustment

mechanism, this prototype was made to show how the seat
would move up and down a central support to adjust the
height.
53
The shape of the chair’s backrest was
achieved by using a drawing of a normal healthy
spine; this drawing was traced in AutoCAD and
the shape was then scaled to the correct size for
the chair in accordance with the standards and
anthropometric data researched in Chapter 4. A
child’s spine does not develop into the normal s-
shape until they are around 12 -18 months old and
it does not reach its final adult shape until the child
is age 3-6 (Pediatric Cervical Spine: Normal
Anatomy, Variants, and Trauma, 2002).
Figure 5-11 shows the development of an infant’s

spine.
Figure 5-10: Normal spine (Alexander,
2012)
Figure 5-11: Development of an infant's spine (Brockmann, 2009)
54
5.4. Making the prototype Chair:
A prototype chair was constructed in order to look at the correct dimensions for the
finished product, to ascertain whether the theory behind the mechanics of the chair was
correct and also to check the stability, adjustment and aesthetics of the chair.
A curved back-rest was made by making a number of cuts along the length of a piece of
wood (Figure 5-12), bending it to a template (Figure 5-13) and then covering all sides
with a layer of veneer (Figure 5-16).
The back-rest and seat were

made from hardboard that was
scored to achieve the bend, then
veneered and glued (Figure 5-14
Figure 5-12: Back rest (by the author) &Figure 5-15).
The legs of the chair were made

from solid wood and the bend
was achieved on the legs by
Figure 5-13: Making the back rest (by the author) means of mortice and tenon
joints.
Holes for the adjustment

mechanism were routed in the
upright support piece and
grooves were routed down the
Figure 5-14: Gluing up the shoulder rest sides in order to facilitate the
(by the author) sliding of the adjustment
mechanism.
A wooden bracket was made for

the adjustment mechanism, (this
will be made from steel for the
final prototype).
Figure 5-16: Covering
the back rest (by the
author)
Figure 5-15: Making the seat
(by the author)
55
Figure 5-17: Finished prototype (by the author)
56
5.5. Live testing of the prototype
In order to ascertain if the prototype chair functioned in
the way it was designed to, the author tested the chair with
a five-year-old boy. The results were extremely
satisfactory and the chair performed well. The child was
initially slightly nervous when trying out the tipping
function of the chair for the first time. However this
nervousness disappeared straight away when he realised
that the chair was in fact very stable and the tipping
stopped at a certain point.
Figure 5-18: Sitting on a normal The author had concerns about whether the chair
chair (by the author)
would slide backwards as the child leant forwards over the
desk but this was not the case, even though the testing was
carried out on a very smooth wooden floor.
The effect on the child’s posture observed in

changing between a normal right-angled chair and the new
prototype chair was quite pronounced. When reading and
drawing at a table whilst using the normal chair (Figure
5-18) the child can be seen to be relatively hunched over
with his back bent into a C-shape, and the angle between
Figure 5-19: Introduction of the
prototype chair (by the author) his back and thighs closed or acute.
When the new prototype chair was used (Figure

5-19) the change in posture was immediately apparent
because the seat has an inclined slope of 5°, straight away
the angle between the back and legs became an open,
obtuse angle, much closer to the natural posture people
adopt when sleeping as discussed previously in Section
2.7.
Figure 5-20: Introducing the We can see however that there is still a bend in the
slanted table top (by the author)
child’s neck as he looks down to read his book, so the next
step was to introduce a slant to the table top to see if this
57
had a positive impact on the angle of his neck.
Again there was an immediate improvement in

posture when the slanted table top surface was
introduced, as shown in Figure 5-20.
The situation was further improved by raising

the height of the table as shown in Figure 5-21. The
child’s posture in this picture is very good; his back is
Figure 5-21: Raising the table straight, with a minimal bend in the neck, a open seating
height (by the author)
angle and both his feet are flat on the floor. As the seat
has a curved edge the danger of ‘pinching’ impacting on
the blood supply to his legs is minimal. This risk is
further reduced when the seat is tilted forwards since the
child is perching forward on the seat, which stops the
seat’s front edge having any contact with the backs of
his knees.
The difference between normal right-angled
Figure 5-22: Leaning back in a

chairs and the new prototype chair can also be seen
normal chair (by the author) when the chair is used on its own away from the table:
We can see that when the child leans back and slides
forwards in the normal chair to find a comfortable, open
sitting position his spine is forced into a C-shape. He
also needs to bend his neck so that he is still able to see
forward. With the new chair, because the seat is inclined
forward the sitting position is always at an open angle,
and the child does not need to slide forward. The new
chair also has a backrest that is shaped and allows the
child to lean back while having his lumbar region and
Figure 5-23: Leaning back in new shoulders supported, thus maintaining the natural curve
chair (by the author) of his spine.
One of the most important aspects the author was looking for while testing the
chair was to see if the angle of tilt was correct when the child lent forwards on the chair
to work at the desk. It was decided that while the angle of 15º seemed to work well, the
58
child did not always have the front (tilted) part of the chair legs fully in contact with the
floor. Reducing the angle to 10º would be enough to ensure the chair functioned as
intended. The back rest was also modified to give more support and to be more
aesthetically pleasing.
5.6. Making the final chair

The first stage in the making of the finished chair was to build jigs for the seat, spine
Figure 5-24: Cutting components on the Weeke

CNC (by the author)
Figure 5-25: Cutting components on the
Rye CNC (by the author)
section and backrest; these jigs were cut on both the Rye and Weeke CNC’s. The
components were drawn in the 3D CAD package Autodesk Inventor and then
transferred to the Alphacam router package for the Rye CNC and to Woodwop for the
Weeke. Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25 show the components being cut on the two CNC’s.
Figure 5-26: The legs and seat support glued together (by the author)
59
Figure 5-27: Back rest attached to spine (by the author)
Figure 5-26 shows the progression while making the chair. Firstly the legs and
upright seat support were glued together, then the spine, backrest and seat were made
using the formers that had been cut on the CNC. These formers were used in
conjunction with the vacuum press to create the curved shapes. The seat and back rest
were made from three layers of 1.5mm birch ply with one layer of red Formica. Figure
5-27 shows the backrest and spine sections attached together. Through bolts were used
here for strength and because the stainless steel of the bolts and the red of the Formica
work aesthetically well together. The tapered shape was achieved on the back rest by
drawing round a template, cutting it on the bandsaw and then finishing using the belt
sander.
The author out-sourced the making of the metal adjustment bracket18 shown in
Figure 5-28.
Figure 5-28: Adjustment bracket (by the author)
All edges of the chair were rounded in accordance with the standards outlined in
Chapter 6.
18
The bracket was made from 20x20x1.5mm box section and 2mm flat steel plate; it was welded together
and then finished with a white Rustoleum metal paint.
60
Figure 5-29: Finished chair in highest position (by the author)
61
Figure 5-30: Finished Chair in lowest position (by the author)
62
Figure 5-31: Features of the finished chair (by the author)
63
5.7. Costing the chair
As discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 the price of typical classroom chairs range
from around €40- €75. The chair for this project was priced assuming it was to be made
in batches of 100. The retail price of the chair was worked out to be €90.80; this price
included overhead costs at 40% and a profit margin of 20%. The calculations
comprising of the Bill of Materials (BOM) and Process Routing can be found in
Appendix 6: Costing.
This price is at the upper end of the scale for classroom chairs, and although the
chair is offering significantly more than typical classroom furniture it is important to try
and minimise costs in order to be competitive, especially during a recession. As the
main, more complex components for the chair are made on the CNC, the manufacturing
Figure 5-32: Sheet optimisation (by the author)
time and cost are driven down significantly. Material costs are saved by nesting parts on
the sheets of plywood to make maximum use of space (Shown in Figure 5-32).
If the chair was to be put into production on a large scale, this price could be
reduced further as processes could be refined and material costs would be lower as they
would be bought in bulk. The cost of the adjustment bracket could also be reduced.
64
5.8. Concepts for the desk
Time constraints did not allow designs for a desk
to be developed to the same level as the chair. In
order for the full ergonomic potential of the chair
to be achieved it is necessary for it to be used in
conjunction with an adjustable height desk with a
forwards sloping top. Research has shown that
using a desk with top that is sloped towards the
user reduces the distance from the work surface to
the users eyes making it unnecessary to lean over
the desk in order to be able to see the work they
are doing or the book that they are reading.
Figure 5-33: Sketches of desk concepts, (by A number of designs were explored all
the author)
including a means of adjustment, a sloping top
and also a means of storing books, pens and
possibly bags.
The author decided to make a basic

prototype that could be used with the chair for
testing and demonstration purposes. This
prototype has a top with a slope of 20° and was
made so that it could be adjusted using screws in
order to show how a real desk would interact with
the chair.
Figure 5-34: Further sketches of desks, (by
the author)
Figure 5-35: Pencil storage and book

support, (by the author)
65
Figure 5-36: Desk and chair, (by the author)
Figure 5-37: Desk dimensions, (by the author)
66
5.9. Testing the finished chair and prototype desk.
The author visited two local primary schools: Eagles Nest National School in Renvyle,
Connemara, Co. Galway and Letterfrack National School, Letterfrack, Connemara, Co.
Galway. The chair was received very well in both schools with approximately 60
students aged 4 to 12 years having a turn at using the chair. The 9 to 12 year olds were
too big for this particular prototype chair as it is aimed for the 4-8 years age group, but
even with the taller children it remained sturdy and functional.
The teachers were impressed with the idea of adjustability. In both schools there
were a variety of chair sizes in the classrooms, and the teachers thought that one or two
sizes of adjustable chair would make much more sense. The teachers also commented
positively on the ability of the chair to tip forwards while the children were reading and
writing as they said that they often observed the children sitting on the very edge of
their seats and tipping forwards onto two legs of the current chairs.
The teachers in these schools said that if they were renewing their furniture that
they would definitely consider more ergonomic furniture in the future.
The following pictures show the finished chair in use with the adjustable height
prototype desk. The chair and desk were tested with a 9 year old boy and a 5 year old
girl.
Figure 5-38: Testing of the desk and chair (by the author)
67
Figure 5-39: Testing the desk and chair with a 5 year old girl (by the author)
Figure 5-40: Testing the desk and chair with a 5 year old
girl (by the author)
Following the testing of the finished chair the author decided to add small rubber
stoppers to the underside of the legs. Another slight problem was the angle of the
backrest as the children seemed to be being pushed forward rather too much both when
sitting up on the chair , and also when tilting forward. As the initial prototype that was
made had a lot more ‘give’ than the final product it was difficult to notice this problem
until the final testing. Because of the laminated construction of the finished backrest
there was very little movement as the children leant back and as a result they were kept
in quite an upright position. The author felt that it was necessary to adjust the angle of
the backrest in order to ensure a more comfortable resting position.
68
5.10. Modifications
Another prototype spine was made from the
original former. The angle was experimented with
and tested in order to ascertain whether it
improved the comfort when sitting and stopped
the children being pushed forwards.
The new backrest which was reclined to an angle

of 110° as recommended in Section 4.3 is shown
in Figure 5-42. Figure 5-41 shows the rubber
stops that were inserted into the underside of the
Figure 5-42: New 110 degree backrest (by the
legs of the chair. author)
5.11. Re-testing the chair with the new

backrest
The chair was re-tested with a child with much
better results. The child is able to sit further back on
the chair and the backrest does not push him
forwards and is instead at the proper angle to
support him as he works (figure 5.43). The ‘open’
angle of his seating position is also a lot better being
closer to the body’s natural resting position of 135° Figure 5-41: Rubber stops (by the author)
shown in Figure 2-24.
Figure 5-44: Testing the new backrest (by Figure 5-43: Testing the finished chair (by
the author) the author)
69
5.12. Conclusion
This chapter outlined a set of guidelines or PDS that it was necessary to adhere to when
designing the prototype chair. These guidelines can be found in section 5.2. Section 5.3
showed the authors sketches, form initial concepts to the finished idea. The next section
showed the making of the first prototype chair and also a prototype of the height
adjustment for the seat.
Live testing of the prototype was carried out with a five year old boy in order to
see how the prototype performed. The results of this testing were that the chair
performed well when compared to a normal right angled chair with significant
improvements to posture and alignment of the spine when both sitting normally and
using a desk.
This chapter showed the making process of the finished chair as well as the
concepts and making of the prototype desk.
Testing of the finished chair and prototype desk was carried out. It was
necessary make some slight modifications to the backrest. These modifications were
made and the chair was re-tested, this time with much more satisfactory results.
Chapter 6 will research the various tests needed to ensure that the chair meets
the necessary safety standards. These tests will then be carried out and the performance
of the chair recorded.
70
Chapter 6. Testing
6.1. Introduction
As the chair will be used by young children in a busy classroom environment, it was
very important to test the chair to ensure its safety and that it would continue to function
correctly throughout its potential life span. It was also important to carry out tests on the
materials and surface finishes of the product to ensure they were suitable for a
classroom environment.
Safety tests were carried out in accordance with BS EN 1729-2 2012 Furniture - Chairs
and tables for educational institutions Part 2: Safety requirements and test methods. The
specific tests were in relation to:
• Forward stability (BS EN 1022:2005)

• Sideways stability (BS EN 1022:2005)
• Rearwards stability (BS EN 1022:2005)
• Seat impact (EN 1728:2000, 6.15)
• Back impact (EN 1728:2000, 6.16)
• Drop test (EN 1728:2000)
The tests are taken from a number of standards but are all tied together by BS EN 1729-
2:2012. This standard specifies the particular forces and weights to be used when testing
the chairs in relation to different size marks and to ensure that the tests relate directly to
children’s classroom furniture. Tests were also carried out on the surface finish of the
chair to ensure it would not dent or scratch easily and was also easy to clean.
It was not possible to carry out all the tests that were outlined in the standard.
This was because of the need for specialised test equipment to be used in some
instances and also because some tests such as seat front edge durability and seat and
back durability needed to be carried out in cycles of up to 100,000. It was necessary to
modify some of the test methods slightly, especially when it came to measuring the
impact force in the stability tests. The reason for this was that the author had no way to
measure a horizontal force directly in newtons. In order to measure a force being
applied horizontally it was necessary to use the following equation Force = (M x A),
where M equals mass and A equals acceleration. Acceleration is measured in meters per
71
second per second, (m/sec²). For example when an object weighing 20kg travelling at
2m/sec² collides with a static object the force exerted is 40N (F= 20 x 2).
The tests that were carried out on the surface finishes were:
• Crosscut resistance test (BS 3962; Part 6; 1980- Surface resistance to

mechanical damage.
• Cold liquids resistance (BS EN 12720:2009- Furniture – Assessment of surface
resistance to cold liquids.
The full testing procedures are documented in Appendix 2: Testing, and the results
are shown in section 6.4.
6.2. General safety requirements

BS EN 1729-2 2012 sets out some general requirements in relation to safety that all
chairs must adhere to:
a) Edges of the seat, back rest and arm rests, which are in contact with the user when
sitting in the chair shall be rounded with a minimum 2 mm radius or chamfer;
b) All other edges and corners with which the user may come into contact with during
normal use shall be smooth, rounded or chamfered and shall have no burrs;
c) Distance between accessible moving parts operated by powered mechanisms, e.g. gas
lifts shall always be either < 8 mm or ≥ 25 mm;
d) With the exception of setting up or folding chairs, there shall be no accessible gaps
>8 mm and <25 mm created during normal movements and actions;
e) Adjustment controls shall not operate inadvertently or accidentally;
f) Open ends and feet of tubular components shall be capped or otherwise closed;
g) Parts shall not be detachable without the use of an appropriate tool;
k) Chairs shall not overturn when tested as specified in BS EN 1022:2005.
l) Chairs shall show no structural failure which can affect safety when tested for
strength and durability as specified in EN 1728:2000 and they shall still fulfil their
function. For overload tests there shall be no visible fracture or breakage;
72
6.3. Background Information
Before starting the testing it was necessary to ascertain some key points in relation to
where loads or forces should be applied for the specific chair in question to ensure that
the tests were being carried out in the correct fashion. BS EN 1729-2 specifies the
Figure 6-1: Seat and back loading points (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012)
measurements that can be used to determine the loading points on the chairs that will be
used during the testing.
Figure 6-1 shows how to calculate the loading points for the chair back and seat.
Point S is the forward most point of the back rest.
From here a line is drawn parallel to the floor
surface and, in this case as the chair caters for 4 to
8 year olds the line length will be 145mm (line x).
A line is now drawn perpendicular to the first line
until it meets the seat surface; this point is the Seat
Load Point or SLP. To calculate the Back Load
Point or BLP a line is drawn vertically from the
BLP to the distance specified on the chart, in this
Figure 6-2: Seat and back loading points case 250mm (line y), ( See Figure 6-2).
(by the author)
73
6.4. Test Results
6.4.1. Cross cut test

The formica scored a ‘3’ (see Appendix 2 Table: 2) in the cross cut test. This was
because as the Formica is an extremely
hard material, the blade tore the material
as it was drawn across removing the
finish on every cut (See Figure 6-3).
The birch ply scored a ‘4’ in the cross

cut test because although the cuts are
quite clean, the finish is still removed in
places along the length of the cuts.
Figure 6-3: Formica cross cut test (by the author)
6.4.2. Cold liquids resistance

test
Figure 6-4: Cross cut test on lacquered birch ply (by The panels were tested in the way
the author)
outlined in Appendix 2.
The liquids chosen for
testing were orange
juice, tea, cream cleaner,
spray cleaner, bleach
and poster paint.
There was no change to

Figure 6-5: Cold liquids resistance test – formica (by the author) the material surface of
the formica as can be seen in Figure 6-6.
74
The same liquids were
tested on a panel of
lacquered birch ply. This
time there were some
clear changes to the
surface of the material;
these results can be seen
Figure 6-6: Results of the cold liquids resistance test (by the author)
in Figure 6-8. The results
were rated specified in
Appendix 2: Testing. The
orange juice scored 5, as
there was there was no
change and the test area
was indistinguishable
from the rest of the panel.
The tea, poster paint and
cream cleaner scored 3 as
there was a moderate
change in these areas but
Figure 6-7: Cold liquids resistance test lacquered birch ply (by the no change in surface
author)
structure. The bleach and
spray cleaner both scored
2 because there was a
strong change in colour,
the surface was swollen
but there was no removal
of the surface material
and no filter paper
adhering to the surface.
Figure 6-8: Cold liquids resistance test lacquered birch ply results (by
the author)
75
6.5. Forwards, sideways and rearwards stability tests
These tests were carried out in two ways, firstly in accordance to the guidelines laid
down in Appendix 2: Testing the chair was at its highest setting with a weight of 35kg
on the seat of the chair at the loading point and using a weight of 20kg travelling on a
trolley at 1m/s equating to a force of 20N (Appendix 2:
Testing). The chair did not over turn for either the
forwards, sideways or rearwards stability tests.
The author also carried out further stability tests using the
same method used in the back impact test (Appendix 2:
Testing, Back impact test). This test involved removing
the weight from the seat and reducing the impact weight.
The chair did not over turn during any of the tests but
came closest during the rearwards stability test.
Figure 6-9: Rearwards stability
test (by the author)
Figure 6-10: Sideways stability test using impact hammer (by the author)
Figure 6-11: Rearwards stability test using impact hammer (by the author)
76
6.5.1. Back impact (EN 1728:2000, 6.16)
Figure 6-12: Measuring for the back impact test (by the author)
Figure 6-13: Back impact testing (by the author)
The back impact test was carried out as specified in Appendix 2: Testing. The chair did
not over turn during this test, and no damage occurred to the back rest.
6.5.2. Seat Impact (EN 1728:2000, 6.15)

A mass of 25kg was dropped from a height of 240mm onto the seat loading point
calculated from the seat loading point template (Figure 6-1). The chair withstood this
testing with no adverse effects.
6.5.3. Drop test (EN 1728:2000)

The chair was tested as specified in Appendix 2, and dropped from a height of 600mm
onto a wooden floor 10 times. During this testing a small crack appeared in the formica
of the seat as well as a few small dents in the surface of the legs. The most noticeable
occurrence during this test was that the adjustment mechanism moved position every
time the chair impacted with the ground.
77
6.6. Conclusion
This chapter listed the general safety requirements for primary school furniture as stated
in EN 1729. Results of test carried out in relation to strength, durability and surface
finish were shown and discussed.
The chair performed well in all of the tests relating to strength and stability, not
breaking or overturning during any of the tests. The materials used in the construction
of the chair also performed well and the formica which is the material to be used on the
work surfaces was able to withstand any mechanical or liquid damage that could be
subjected to in a classroom environment, to a satisfactory level.
78
Chapter 7. Conclusion, Recommendations & Evaluation of the
finished chair
7.1. Introduction
This chapter will summarise and evaluate the project overall, and also its’ outcomes.
The aims and objectives that were identified at the beginning of the project will be
compared with its’ achievements in order to measure the extent to which the aims and
objectives have been met.
Recommendations will be made based on the level of success to which the aims
and objectives were fulfilled, the results of the testing carried out in Chapter 6, and also
from on other observations made by the author during the course of the project.
7.2. Analysing the Aims and Objectives

The aims and objectives that were listed in section 1.4 will now be analysed in terms of
how the finished product fulfils these requirements.
7.2.1. To design classroom furniture that promotes natural posture in

school children.
As can be seen from the testing in Sections 5.5 and 5.9 the furniture performs well in
respect to promoting natural posture in students. The furniture stops the unnatural
curvature of the spine when students lean forwards to read and write and also keeps
them from slouching when in a resting position.
One problem that was noticed was that the seat of the chair could have been
made slightly longer, as although the size functioned well when the chair was tilted
forward for use at the desk, when the children sat upright on the chair the seat did not
come out far enough to support their legs fully. This problem was far more noticeable
with the older children.
7.2.2. To develop furniture that can be adjusted to suit the user whatever
their size, and that can be continually / incrementally adjusted as they
grow.
This objective was fully met as both the chair and desk can be adjusted to suit all sizes
of user. This was shown when the author visited the local primary schools and the chair
79
was tested by up to 60 students. With the exception of some of the children who did not
fall into the chair’s designated age range, the chair could be adjusted to suit all users.
7.2.3. Develop an aesthetically pleasing product that is appropriate for an

educational environment but is also appealing to children.
Both the materials and colours of this product ensure that it is appropriate for an
educational environment and is appealing to children. The chosen colour of bright red
was received very well by the school children who tested the chair. The product could
also be easily manufactured in a variety of other bright colours. The materials scored
well during the testing that was carried out in Chapter 6 and all the materials shown
should outlive the minimum lifespan of the chair.
7.2.4. Ensure that the product does not pose any dangers to the user, that
there are no trap zones, the furniture should be long lasting and
durable and should have a minimum lifespan of 20 years: also that the
furniture must adhere to any relevant standards for primary school
furniture and testing will be carried out to ensure the products adhere
to the relevant standards.
The four aims and objectives listed above can all be analysed together as they all fall
under the category of testing. The products performed well overall during testing the
only issues being in relation to the adjustment mechanism. Recommended changes for
the adjustment mechanism are described in Section 7.3.
7.2.5. Conduct detailed research and analysis into the ergonomic and
anthropometric requirements of the furniture, & conduct detailed
research into how the furniture will work to promote natural posture.
The research for these objectives was carried out in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4. The
author feels that although she has gained a good background knowledge of both the
ergonomics and anthropometrics which was sufficient for a project of this scale, there is
still a great deal more research that could be carried out in this area. Through
undertaking more research in the future the author feels that the product could be
greatly improved and then could potentially be presented to school furniture
manufacturers such as KM Furniture in the UK.
80
7.3. Recommendations
While the author is very pleased with the outcomes of the project, she also emphasises it
only just starts to ‘scratch the surface’ of the issues involved. Much more time is needed
in order to fully research and explore all the issues and possibilities in relation to this
subject area. As the project was carried out in a relatively short period of time the
finished product that was presented is still essentially a prototype; more work and
development needs to be carried out in order to progress this product to a stage where it
could be taken to the market place. The author would like to continue to research and
develop this product further as she feels very strongly about the issues that the project
aims to address. She would also like to approach companies with the prototype with the
aim of developing the idea further, and including looking at the possibility of using
different materials and other adjustment mechanisms.
There are a number of points in relation to the prototype where the author feels
improvements can be made - these include:
• Adjustment mechanism: Although the adjustment mechanism works as it was

intended, there is potential to improve the way it functions. In order to ensure
that the mechanism runs up and down the groove smoothly a plastic or metal
insert could be inserted into the grooves on both the inside and outside of the
central support leg; this would help the components to run freely as currently
some friction is created between the wood and metal and this can cause the
mechanism to occasionally stick momentarily. It is also necessary to look at the
possibility of incorporating some kind of stopper would be disengaged in order
to adjust the height of the chair. The author did not have time during the course
of the project to examine this issue in the level of detail she would have liked.
• Aesthetics of the fixings for the seat and back: It is necessary to examine further
how the components of the seat and back are joined together. Although the
fixings are fit for purpose, using smaller fixings or glue to join the components
together could improve the aesthetics.
• Seat length: As mentioned and addressed in Section 7.2.1 the seat length needs
to be modified in order to unsure the users comfort when in the resting position.
• Leg length: If the seat length is changed it would also be necessary to extend the
length of the legs. This is to ensure that the chair would only tilt when intended
as the centre of gravity would move forwards on the seat surface.
81
7.4. Conclusion
Through both primary and secondary research this project has identified and analysed
how children’s bodies are affected by sitting on normal right angled chairs. The project
responded to these problems by researching and suggesting a design solution in the
form of an adjustable chair and desk. Working prototypes were made and tested with
school children and were well received both by the children and teachers. These
products were shown to promote natural posture in Primary School children by tilting
forwards when the children were working at desks and keeping the back in its natural
alignment. The body is also in a more natural ‘open’ sitting position when the children
were sitting up to rest or listen. The chairs and desks are also able to be adjusted in
order to suit a range of body sizes and ages. A finished prototype chair was
manufactured but time constraints only allowed an initial prototype desk to be
completed.
As the product is still essentially a prototype there are still improvements to be

made. The author would like to continue to work to develop the product and also to
continue to develop the concept for the desk.
82
Bibliography
Department of Education and Skills. (2011). Loose Furniture for Post Primary Schools
Specifications and Standards. Department of Education and Skills.
Hielbrunn Timeline of Art History. (2012). Retrieved 10 19, 2012, from

www.metmuseum.org: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/36.3.152
207, T. C. (2006). BS EN 1729. BSI. BSI.
30087, S. o. (2010, 04 08). Early Childhood Development. Retrieved 03 09, 2013, from
http://earlychildhooddevelopment30087.blogspot.ie/2010/04/chapter-8-height-
and-weight_18.html
Akanegbu, A. (2012, 10 11). Visual History of School Desks. Retrieved 12 01, 2012,
from www.edtechmagazine.com:
http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2012/10/visual-history-school-
desks
Alexander, A. (2012). How the Back Works. Retrieved 11 20, 2012, from
www.trustyguides.com: http://www.trustyguides.com/back-pain1.html
Andrew P. Claus, J. A. (2009). Different Ways to Balance the Spine. Spine, 208-14.
Banfield, M. (2012). chariot.net.au. Retrieved 02 09, 2013, from The Posture Theory:
http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/
Bodyfurn. (2013). Furnware. Retrieved 02 27, 2013, from http://www.bodyfurn.co.nz:

http://www.bodyfurn.co.nz/how-it-works
British Standards Institute. (1998). Educational furniture. Specification for strength and
stability of storage furniture for educational institutions. London: BSI.
British Standards Institute. (2011). Standards for dimensions of work tables and desks.
London: BSI.
Brockmann, M. (2009). Basics of Baby's Anatomy. Retrieved 03 14, 2013, from

www.babywearingadvice.co.uk:
http://www.babywearingadvice.co.uk/anatomy.htm
I
BSI. (2001). BS EN 1728: 2001 Domestic furniture-Seating-Test methods for the
determination of strength and durability. BSI.
BSI. (2009). BS EN 12720:2009. British Standards Institute. BSI.
BSI. (2012). BS EN 1729-2. BSI.
BSI. (2012). EN 1729-1. Retrieved 01 11, 2013, from https://www.0-bsol.bsigroup.com:

https://0-bsol.bsigroup.com.library.gmit.ie/en/My-BSI/My-
Subscriptions/BSOL/Search/Search-
Results/?src=s&s=c&snc=Y&bwc=F&q=en%201729&ib=1
Care, B. (2005). Your Back in the Future. Middlesex: Anthony Hill Designs Limited.
Cranz, G. (1998). The Chair Rethinking Culture, Body, and Design. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Cranz, G. (2000). The Alexander Technique in the world of design: posture and the
common chair. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 96.
Dean, C. (1999). Sitting balance I: trunk-arm coordination and the contribution of lower
limbs during self-paced reaching sitting. Gait & Posture(10), 135-46.
Dennehy, S. (2013). School Furniture. Retrieved 02 05, 2013, from http://perch.ie:

http://perch.ie/school-furniture/19
Dr. Beverley Norris, J. R. (1995). Childata: The Handbook of Child Measurements and
Capabilities : Data for Design Safety. UK Consumer Safety Unit, Department of
Trade and Industry.
ease.ie. (2012). www.ease.ie. Retrieved 11 04, 2012, from www.schools.ease.ie
ESPO. (2012). BS EN 1729 Chair and Table Guide. Retrieved 01 11, 2013, from
www.espocatalogue.org:
https://www.espocatalogue.org/eSupply/Info_Pdfs/INFO-354.pdf
et.al, E. S. (2002, 07 10). Pediatric Cervical Spine: Normal Anatomy, Variants, and
Trauma. Retrieved 03 14, 2013, from radiographics:
http://radiographics.highwire.org/content/23/3/539.full
II
Fernández-Suárez, Y. (2006). An Essential Picture in a Sketch-Book of Ireland: The
Last Hedge Schools. Thesis, University of Burgos.
FIRA. (2008). Safe seats of Learning, How good school furniture can make a
difference. FIRA.
Furniture, K. (2013). Postura+ Chair. Retrieved 02 19, 2013, from

http://europe.ki.com/postura.asp: http://europe.ki.com/postura.asp
Greet Cardon, D. D. (2004, August). Sitting habits in Elementary school children: a

traditional school versus a 'Moving School'. Patient Education and Councelling,
54(2), pp. 133-142.
Healy, A. (2012, June 26th). Spine Expert warns Quinn over school chairs. Irish Times.
Johnston, H. W. (1932). The Private Life of the Romans. Retrieved 11 14, 2012, from
www.forumromanum.org: http://www.forumromanum.org/life/johnston_4.html
kmfurniture. (2013). P1 Chair. Retrieved 02 19, 2013, from www.kmfurniture.com:

http://www.kmfurniture.com/our-products/polypropylene-seating/p1-chair
KOS. (2012). www.kos.ie. Retrieved 11 08, 2012, from www.kos.ie/childrens-

furniture/childrens-chair/rocking-chair-m6/
KOS.ie. (2012). www.kos.ie. Retrieved 11 09, 2012, from www.kos.ie/childrens-

furniture/childrens-chairs-childs-chair-max-chair/
Kotelmann, D. L. (1899). School Hygiene. (J. A. Bergstrom, Trans.) Saracuse N.Y: C.W
Bardeen.
lucasse-english.blogspot.ie, J. (2012). www.jlucasse-english.blogspot.ie. Retrieved 11

04, 2012
Mandal, A. (1987). Balanced sitting posture on a forwards sloping seat.
Mandal, T. (2009). Better furniture types for work and studies reduces bending and
pain.
Mark S. Saunders, E. J. (1993). Human Factors in Engineering and Design (7th Edition
ed.). (T. H. Christopher Rogers, Ed.) Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
III
Mark S. Saunders, E. J. (1993). Human Factors in Engineering and Design (7th Edition
ed.). (T. H. Christopher Rogers, Ed.) Singapore: Mc Graw-Hill.
Murphy, B. (2004, October). Practice in Irish infant classrooms in the context of the
Irish Primary School Curriculum (1999): insights from a study of curriculum
implementation. International Journal of Early Years Education, 12(3).
Museum, T. D. (2010). How to Design a Chair. London: Conran Octopus.
Persse, J. (2012, 09 21). Five for Friay: School Desks Do Not a Prison Make. Retrieved
01 06, 2013, from www.moma.org:
http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/09/21/five-for-friday-the-desk-
set/
Rani Lauder, V. J. (2008). Ergnomics for Children: Designing products and places for
toddlers to teens. Boca, Florida, US: Taylor and Francic Group.
Selina McCoy, E. S. (2012). The Primary Classroom: Insights from the Growing Up in
Ireland Study. ESRI.
SIS. (n.d.). Made for Learning. Retrieved 02 25, 2013, from http://www.sis-
as.dk/gb/pdf/download/catalogue_uk.pdf: http://www.sis-
as.dk/gb/pdf/download/catalogue_uk.pdf
Society, S. C. (2011). The Sidney School Furniture Company. Retrieved 01 07, 2013,
from www.shelbycountyhistory.org:
http://www.shelbycountyhistory.org/schs/archives/industryarchives/schoolfurind
ua.htm
Spencer, T. (2010). Ubiquity Design. Retrieved 11 08, 2012, from

www.ubiquitydesign.com: www.ubiquitydesign/ubiquity-page.html
Stankiewicz, M. (2012, 01 09). www.dailytonic.com. Retrieved 11 09, 2012, from

www.dailytonic.com: http/www.dailytonic.com/imm-cologne-2012-preview-
pro-chair-by-konstantin-grcic-for-flototto-de/
Stranden, E. (2000). Dynamic leg volume changes when sitting in a locked and free
floating tilt oe ce chair. Ergonomics(43), 421-33.
IV
Toole, K. O. (2001). Hedge Schools or Pay Schools. Retrieved 02 26, 2013, from
www.rootsweb.ancestry.com:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlcar2/Hedge_School.htm
Vitra. (2013). Tip Ton. Retrieved 01 17, 2013, from www.vitra.com:

http://www.vitra.com/en-gb/home/products/tip-ton/overview/
Walsh, J. (2013). Hedge Schools. Retrieved 02 26, 2013, from www.irish-society.org:

http://www.irish-society.org/home/hedgemaster-archives-2/groups-
organizations/the-hedge-schools
wescoireland. (2013). Metal Framed Chair. Retrieved 02 20, 2013, from

www.wescoireland.com: http://wescoireland.com/?portfolio=metal-framed-chair
wescoireland. (2013). Shell Chair. Retrieved 02 20, 2013, from

www.wescoireland.com: http://wescoireland.com/?portfolio=shell-chair
www.eyecareplus.com. (2002, 11 08). VISUAL HYGEINE FOR CHILDREN. Retrieved

01 10, 2013, from www.eyecareplus.com:
http://www.eyecareplus.com.au/downloads/vis_hygeine.pdf
www.fastcodesign.com. (2012). www.fastcodesign.com. Retrieved 11 09, 2012, from

http/www.fastcodesign.com/1670401/a-school-chair-designed-for-squirmy-kids
www.myshalldrumphea.com. (2013). Rathnageeragh School. Retrieved 02 26, 2013,

from www.myshalldrumphea.com:
http://www.myshalldrumphea.com/rathnageeragh-ns.htm
www.nubie.co.uk. (2013). Knelt chair and desk. Retrieved 01 07, 2013, from
www.nubie.co.uk: http://www.nubie.co.uk/content/knelt-table-and-chair-set-
ubiquity-design-studio-birch
www.sitcorrect.com. (2013). Specialty - Kneeling Chairs. Retrieved 02 05, 2013, from

http://www.sitcorrect.com:
http://www.sitcorrect.com/category/specialty/kneeling-chairs
www.stokke.com. (2013). Tripp Trapp® Benefits . Retrieved 01 06, 2013, from

www.stokke.com: http://www.stokke.com/en-gb/highchair/tripp-trapp-product-
concept/grow.aspx
V
www.wesco. (2013). Metal framed Chairs. Retrieved 03 02, 2013, from www.wesco:
http://www.wesco-group.com/download/Catalogues/2012/0_6_IR_2012/#/46
VI
Appendix 1: Anthropometric measurements
Appendix 1. Table 1: Sitting height (cm) by the author
Appendix 1. Table: 2 Eye Height Seated (cm) by the author

!"#$%&'()"'*+",)!'-,'&)./01
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 83 87 19
1 / 83 86:( 19:( 83
( & 85 81 17
( / 8; 87:( 16:( 8;:(
3 & 8, 81 11
3 / 85 88:( 17:( 85:( 2342
; & 19:( 83 1(
; / 8,:( 8( 11 19
5 & 17:( 85 1;
5 / 16 8; 1( 16:;( 5647
, & 11 8, 1,
, / 18 85:( 1;:( 18:(
69 & 1(:( 16 (9
69 / 1( 19 (9 1(:7(
66 & 1; 17:( (6:(
66 / 1; 16:( (7:( 1;
67 & 1, 11 (1
67 / 1, 18:( (1:( 1, 5842
Appendix 1. Table: 3 Shoulder Height Seated (cm) by the author
VII
!"#$%&'!()#*+,-)./%0
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 6(8( 61 69
1 / 6(8( 6:8( 698( 6(8(
( & 6(8( 6:8( 698(
( / 63 6:8( 658( 6(89(
3 & 63 6:8( 658(
3 / 638( 6:8( 6,8( 6387( 1234
9 & 638( 6:8( 6,8(
9 / 69 6: 76 6389(
5 & 69 6:8( 7;8(
5 / 65 61 77 698( 1534
, & 65 618( 768(
, / 658( 61 7: 6587(
6; & 658( 618( 778(
6; / 6, 618( 7:8( 6589(
66 & 6, 6( 7:
66 / 6,8( 618( 718( 6,87(
67 & 7; 638( 7:8(
67 / 7; 6(8( 718( 7; 1434
Appendix 1. Table: 4 Abdominal Depth (cm) by the author

!"#$%&'()*!$+,(-",.,$/!'0$1'(*')2$+3,2
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 78 65 77
1 / 789( 65 7: 7897(
( & 76 659( 7:9(
( / 76 659( 7:9( 76
3 & 769( 65 7(
3 / 7:97( 6, 7;9( 779:;( 4564
; & 779( 6, 73
; / 7:9( 6,9( 7;9( 7:
5 & 7:9( 78 7;
5 / 719( 789( 759( 71 4765
, & 719( 789( 759(
, / 7(9( 76 :8 7(
68 & 73 769( :89(
68 / 739( 769( :69( 7397(
66 & 739( 77 :6
66 / 75 779( ::9( 7;97(
67 & 7;9( 7: :7
67 / 7,9( 7:9( :(9( 759( 4864
Appendix 1. Table: 5 Hip Breadth (Maximum when seated) (cm) by the author
!"#$%&'()*$)+$,-'(&")-./$01#2
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 13 168( (98(
1 / 1( :, (6 1(8(
( & 158( 1:8( (:8(
( / 1; 16 (: 1;8;(
3 & (6 1(8( (38(
3 / 1,8( 1: (3 (987( 3456
; & (1 158( (,8(
; / (78( 1; (5 (:87(
5 & (38( (68( 368(
5 / ((8( 1,8( 368( (3 7859
, & (58( (: 31
, / (;8( (9 3( (5
69 & 36 (1 35
69 / (, (7 33 39
66 & 3: (3 ;9
66 / 3: ((8( ;98( 3:
67 & 338( 39 ;:
67 / 33 (;8( ;18( 3387( :;54
Appendix 1. Table: 6 Arm length to fingertips (cm) by the author
VIII
!"#$%&'(!)'*&+!,*!-&./01
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 63 678( 6,8(
1 / 6( 67 65 6(8(
( & 638( 69 7:
( / 6(8( 678( 658( 63
3 & 6; 69 76
3 / 63 678( 6,8( 638( 23
; & 6;8( 61 76
; / 6; 61 7: 6;87(
5 & 65 618( 768(
5 / 6;8( 618( 7:8( 6;8;( 2456
, & 6, 6( 79
, / 65 61 77 658(
6: & 6,8( 63 79
6: / 6, 6( 79 6,87(
66 & 7: 63 71
66 / 7: 6(8( 718( 7:
67 & 7:8( 63 7(
67 / 7:8( 6(8( 7(8( 7:8( 2756
Appendix 1. Table: 7 Elbow height seated (cm) by the author

!""#$%&#'%&#(')*+%,!))-./%)-%/(##%01#2)#34%0.54
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 879( 7,9( 8(9(
1 / 88 7, 8: 879:(
( & 819( 86 85
( / 8( 86 8, 819:(
3 & 8: 88 16
3 / 8: 88 16 8: 6789
: & 8,9( 8(9( 189(
: / 1; 8(9( 119( 8,9:(
5 & 169( 8:9( 1(9(
5 / 17 8:9( 139( 169:( 6:8;
, & 11 8,9( 159(
, / 119( 8,9( 1,9( 1197(
6; & 13 169( (;9(
6; / 1: 169( (79( 139(
66 & 15 189( (79(
66 / 1, 18 (( 159(
67 & (; 119( ((9(
67 / (6 1( (: (;9( 7<86
Appendix 1. Table: 8 Upper leg length, buttock to knee (seated) (cm) by the author
!""#$%&#'%&#(')*+%,!))-./%)-%"-"&0)#1&%23#1)#45%2.65
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 738( 71 7,
1 / 798( 7( :; 79
( & 75 7( :6
( / 7,8( 738( :78( 7589(
3 & :;8( 79 :1
3 / :6 798( :18( :;89( 7898
9 & :78( 75 :9
9 / ::8( 7, :5 ::
5 & ::89( :;8( :9
5 / :(8( :6 1; :1837( :798
, & :38( :78( 1;8(
, / :5 :: 1: :987(
6; & :5 :1 17
6; / 1; :( 1( :,
66 & :,8( :18( 118(
66 / 16 :38( 1(8( 1;87(
67 & 168( :98( 1(8(
67 / 1:8( :5 1, 178( :89;
Appendix 1. Table: 9 Upper leg length, buttock to popliteal (seated) (cm) by the author
IX
!"##$%&#'%($)*#+(#,-$)./-
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 86 79:( 81:(
1 / 86 79 8( 86
( & 88:( 8; 89
( / 88 7,:( 83:( 88:7(
3 & 83 87 1;
3 / 8(:( 87 8, 8(:9( 0010
9 & 85 81 17
9 / 89:( 88:( 16:( 89:9(
5 & 1; 83 11
5 / 8,:( 8(:( 18:( 8,:9( 0213
, & 17 89:( 13:(
, / 17 89:( 13:( 17
6; & 11 8,:( 15:(
6; / 11 8,:( 15:( 11
66 & 13 17 (;
66 / 1(:( 1;:( (;:( 1(:9(
67 & 15 18 (8
67 / 19:7( 17:( (7 19:37( 4013
Appendix 1. Table: 10 Knee height (Seated) (cm) by the author

!"!#$%&'#()$&*)%(+,&'%&-.(+/0.
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-&./ &#!'-0!"#-1234 &#!'-0!"#-3254 &#!'-!"#-052674
1 & 7(8( 798( 7:8(
1 / 7(8( 79 75 7(8(
( & 7: 71 9;
( / 7: 718( 7,8( 7:
3 & 7,8( 73 99
3 / 7, 738( 968( 7,87( 1234
: & 968( 758( 918(
: / 96 7:8( 918( 9687(
5 & 978( 7,8( 9(8(
5 / 99 7,8( 938( 978:( 4535
, & 91 9; 95
, / 91 9; 95 91
6; & 93 99 9,
6; / 938( 978( 1;8( 9387(
66 & 9:8( 99 17
66 / 9:8( 998( 168( 9:8(
67 & 9, 9( 19
67 / 958( 918( 178( 958:( 4637
Appendix 1. Table: 11 Popliteal Height (Seated) (cm) by the author
!"#$"%&'()*!"%+,)-#,.,%/"(0%1()!(*2%+3,2
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-.!"#-/012 &#!'-.!"#-1032 &#!'-!"#-.30452
67(0/7( &8 4,73( 4973 547,
/7(0(7( &8 5:73 4371 56
(7(017( &8 547/( 4,74 5673 4456
17(097( &8 5675 4,73 5171
97(037( &8 5/71 5474 5374 4754
37(0,7( &8 5(7/ 5471 5,75
,7104:7( &8 5174 557( 5,79
4:7(0447( &8 53 5675 6573
447(0457( &8 537(( 567, 6675 8957
Appendix 1. Table 12: Thigh Breadth (Maximum when seated) (cm) by the author
X
!"#$%&'()"*%+&"%&,"-).&/012
!"# $#% &#!' ()*+ ,()*+ &#!'-.!"#-/012 &#!'-.!"#-1032 &#!'-!"#-.30452
67(0/7( &8 4179( 4/73 4379
/7(0(7( &8 4971( 4(73 4,7(
(7(017( &8 437/( 4(7, 54 3456
17(097( &8 4,74( 4(7( 5573
97(037( &8 5:7( 437( 557( 7753
37(0,7( &8 5471( 4375 5(74
,7104:7( &8 5575 4374 5176
4:7(0447( &8 5579 4371 5173
447(0457( &8 567,( 4,73 5374 7859
Appendix 1. Table 13: Waist breadth at navel (cm) by the author
XI
Appendix 2: Testing
Forward Stability (EN 1022:2005)

Aim: To observe the stability of the chair when a force is applied from behind.
Equipment: Test surface, floor stops for chair legs, two weights one of 35kg (350N)
and one of 20kg (this 20kg will be moving at a speed of 1m/sec/sec when it makes
contact with the chair (see section 6.1) this equates to a force of 20N)
Method: The forward stability of the chair was measured in accordance with the
method outlined in EN 1022:2005, this method is;
• Position the seat on the floor surface with the front legs restrained by stops.
• Apply a force of 350N vertically acting at points 60mm behind the front edge of
the load bearing structure.
• At each loaded position apply a force of 20N horizontally outwards along a

horizontal line extended forward from a point where the base of the loading pad
meets the upper surface of the seat.
Appendix 2 Figure: 1 Loading the chair for the forwards stability test (BSI, 2001), (BSI, BS EN 1729-2,
2012)
Sideways Stability
Aim: To observe the stability of the chair when a force is applied from the side.
Equipment: The equipment for this test is the same as for Forwards Stability test.
XII
Appendix 2 Figure: 2 Loading of the chair for the sideways stability test (BSI, 2001), (BSI, BS EN
1729-2, 2012)
Method:
• Position the seating on the floor surface with the side legs restrained by stops.
• Apply a force of 350N vertically at points 60mm behind the edge of the load
bearing structure of the side nearest the stopped feet most likely to result in
overturning.
• Apply a sideways force of 20N horizontally outwards for at least 5 seconds
along a line from the point where the base of the loading pad meets the upper
surface of the seat.
Rearwards Stability
Aim: To observe the stability of the chair when a force is applied from the side.
Equipment: The equipment for this test is the same as for the Forwards Stability test
except for the second weight that will be 10kg travelling at 10m/sec/sec which is the
equivalent of 100N.
Appendix 2 Figure: 3 Rearwards stability testing (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012)
XIII
Method:
• Position the seating on the floor surface with the rear legs restrained by stops.
• Apply a vertical force of 350N to the seat loading point (SLP) (Figure 6-1).
• Apply a force of 100N to the back loading point (BLP) (shown in Figure 6-1), or
the top edge of the backrest, whichever is lower.
• When the seating has more than one sitting place, carry out the procedure on the
two most adverse sitting places simultaneously.
• Repeat for 10 cycles.
Seat impact test

• Place one layer of 25 mm thick foam on the seat. Determine the height of fall
from the position of the impactor (the impactor shall be a mass of 25kg) when it
is resting on the surface of that layer of foam.
• Place a second layer of 25 mm thick foam (5.8) between the striking surface and
the chair seat for the test.
• Allow the seat impactor to fall freely from the height specified onto the seat
loading position, (see Appendix 2 Figure 4), as specified by the loading point
template. Repeat the test at one other position considered likely to cause failure,
but not less than 100 mm from any edge of the seat. (BSI, 2001)
Appendix 2 Figure: 4 Seat impact test (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012)
XIV
Back impact test
• Place the item with its front legs, feet or
castors restrained by stops from moving
forward. Strike the structure of the centre of the
top outside of the back with the impact
hammer).
• Drop the impact hammer through the
height (or angle) specified onto the centre of
the backrest.
• The item of seating shall not be

prevented from overturning during the test.
Appendix 2 Figure: 5 Impact hammer (BSI,
BS EN 1728: 2001 Domestic furniture- •
Seating-Test methods for the determination
of strength and durability, 2001)
Appendix 2 Figure: 6 Back impact test (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012)
Appendix 2 Figure: 7 Drop test (BSI, BS EN 1729-2, 2012)
Drop Test
Drop the chair at an angle of 10° onto one leg from a height of 600mm. Repeat 5 times
and inspect for damage.
XV
Crosscut Resistance Test (BS 3962-6:2012 - Surface resistance to mechanical
damage).
Aim: To examine the resistance and effect of crosscutting on surface finishes.
Equipment: Cutting blade (Stanley knife blade), blade holder, cutting guide, soft brush,
light source, viewing lens.
Method:
• Ensure that the test panels are flat and free of imperfections.
• With the cutting blade projecting 0.3mm (+- 0.01mm) further than the thickness
of the guide create a lattice pattern on the surface of the test piece.
• The lattice should consist of a series of 11 cuts approximately 35mm long at 45
degrees to each other. Ensure that the blade is checked regularly for damage and
replaced if so.
• Using the brush clean off the panel.
• Hold the panel in a vertical position and use the viewing light and lens to
examine the panel. With the viewing light held at a convenient height gently
rock the panel through 0-30 degrees; examine using the viewing lens ensuring
that the light is always on the panel.
• Record the results and rate them according to Appendix 2: Table 1.
Appearance of test area Rating

Cuts are smooth, with no finish removed except for small chips at the intersections 5
of the cuts and the occasional small chip along the cuts.
The finish is removed at the intersections and intermittently along the cuts. 4
The finish is consistently removed along the cuts and intersections 3
The finish is removed along the cuts and removed completely from one or more of 2
the squares, but from less than 50% of them.
The finish is removed from more than 50% of the squares. 1
Appendix 2 Table: 1 Rating the results of the cross cut test, (taken from BS 3962:6 section5.3.4)
Cold liquids resistance test ( BS EN 12720: 2009 – Furniture – Assessment of

surface resistance to cold liquids).
Aim: To ascertain the resistance of the surfaces to the exposure of cold liquids.
Equipment: Discs (25mm squares of soft filter paper), glass petri dish, tweezers,
absorbent paper or tissue, light source, test liquids (Tea, coffee, orange juice, cleaning
XVI
agents (cream cleaner, spray on, bleach based) distilled water, cleansing solution,
cleansing agent.
Method:
• Ensure that the test panels are conditioned and free from
blemishes/imperfections.
• Immerse a disk in each of the liquids to be tested.
• Using the tweezers place the disks onto the test surface ensuring that the squares
are not closer than 60mm apart at the centres and not less than 40mm from the
edge of any test panel.
• Cover the disks and leave in place for 6 hours (this time was chosen as it was the
time period in the test examples that equated closest to the length of a school
day).
• After the time has elapsed remove the cover and soak up any remaining liquids
and wipe the surface with cleaning solution and then water.
• Leave the test surface for a period of 16-24 hours, wipe with a dry cloth, leave
for 30 minutes and then examine the panels.
• Rate the results according to Appendix 2: Table 2.
Appendix 2 Table: 2 Assessment of resistance of surfaces to cold liquids (BSI, BS EN 12720:2009)
XVII
Appendix 3: CAD Drawings
Appendix 3 Figure: 1 Adjustment Mechanism (by the author)
Appendix 3 Figure: 2 Seat, back and legs (by the author)
XVIII
Appendix 3 Figure: 3 Chair overall dimensions (by the author)
Appendix 3 Figure: 4 Desk overall dimensions (by the author)
XIX
Appendix 3 Figure: 5 Former for seat (by the author)
Appendix 3 Figure: 6 Seat dimensions (by the author)
XX
Appendix 3 Figure: 7 Former for spine (by the author)
Appendix 3 Figure: 8 Upright components (by the author)
XXI
Appendix 3 Figure: 9 Spine and backrest (by the author)
Appendix 3 Figure: 10 Rendered drawing of the finished chair (by the author)
XXII
Appendix 3 Figure: 11 Former for backrest (by the author)
Appendix 3 Figure: 12 Exploded view of the chair (by the author)
XXIII
Appendix 4: Sketches & Making pictures
Appendix 4 Figure 1:Adjustment mechanism,

initial ideas (by the author) Appendix 4 Figure 4: Chair sketches with two
legs- in these sketches the author was trying to
enable the chairs to stack. This idea didn’t
work because the adjustment mechanism
allow for stacking (by the author)
Appendix 4 Figure 2:Adjustment mechanism ideas

(by the author)
Appendix 4 Figure 5: Components for the

two-legged chair (by the author)
Appendix 4 Figure 3:Development of adjustment

mechanism by the author)
XXIV
Appendix 4 Figure 6: Change in the shape of the legs - these pictures show the change from a curled
over leg to one that is only tilted (by the author)
Appendix 4 Figure 7: Former for seat (by the author) Appendix 4 Figure 8: Front and back upright
components (by the author)
Appendix 4 Figure 9: Upright components: These components were glued together in order to make the
groove that the adjustment mechanism runs in and also give the settings for the height adjustment (by the
author)
XXV
Appendix 5: Survey Results
Appendix 5 Figure 1: Q1 - Which class do you teach? (by the author)
Appendix 5 Figure 2: Q2 - For roughly how many hours a day is your class seated? (by the author)
Question 2 asked the teachers how long their class were seated for per day, the majority
(47.83%) said their class was seated for 4 hours, 26.09% said 5 hours, 13.04% said 3
hours, 8.7% said 2 hours and 4.35% said their class was seated for 1 hour.
XXVI
Appendix 5 Figure 3: Q3 - Are the chairs in your classroom able to be stacked? (by the author)
Appendix 5 Figure 4: Q4 - How often are the chairs in your classroom stacked? (by the author)
Question 3 asked whether the chairs in the classrooms could be stacked, 100% of the
teachers surveyed answered ‘yes’ to this question. This answer would suggest that the
chairs all featured a rearwards sloping seat, a design feature that aids stacking but does
little to help promote natural posture. The teachers were asked in question 4 how often
the chairs were stacked, the most common answer that accounted for 39.13% was ‘at
the end of term’, this was closely followed by ‘once a day’ that accounted for 34.78%.
Stacking has to be carefully considered and the pro’s and con’s weighed up when
designing the chair. The chairs need to be able to be cleared away quickly and easily to
make room for other activities and cleaning, but on the other hand the backwards-
sloping seat, which lends to ease of stacking is not part of an ergonomic design.
XXVII
Appendix 5 Figure 5: Q5 - Do all the children in your class sit on the same sized chair? (by the author)
95.65% of teachers answered ‘yes’ to question 5, which asked whether all the children
in the class sat on the same sized chairs. This shows that the majority of schools
surveyed did not match individual children to a seat that was the correct height for
them.
Appendix 5 Figure 6: Q6 - Does each student have their own desk? (by the author)
When asked if the children in their classroom sat at their own desks 86.96% of teachers
said ‘no’, this would again suggest that the furniture was not ergonomically matched to
the children and there was a ‘one size fits all” approach to the furniture in the
classrooms. It is assumed that the 13.04% of teachers who said that the children in their
class sat at their own desks taught in sixth class as it is more common for children to
have their own desks here in order to prepares them for secondary school.
XXVIII
Appendix 5 Figure 7: Q7 - Do you notice the children fidgeting in their seats? (by the author)
The teachers were then asked if they ever saw the children fidgeting in their seats, and if
‘yes’ how often? All teachers said they saw the children fidgeting, with the most
common answer in regards to the regularity of the observation being ‘often’ at 47.83%,
followed by 30.43% of teachers answering ‘very regularly’, 21.74% of teachers
answered ‘sometimes’. These figures again point to the furniture not being
ergonomically suited to the children.
Appendix 5 Figure 8: Q8 - What are the chairs in your classroom made of? (by the author)
The next question asked what the furniture in the classrooms was made of; the
majority (47.83%) said the furniture was made of wood and metal, 26.09% said plastic,
21.74% said wood and 4.35% said plastic and metal.
XXIX
Appendix 5 Figure 9: Q9 - Do the seats in your classroom have a curved edge at the front (under the
knees)? (by the author)
The teachers were then asked whether the seats in their classroom had a curve
on the front edge of the seat, under the knees, it was encouraging to see that over half
(63.64%) of the teachers answered ‘yes’ to this question, as but it also shows that many
school furniture manufacturers and schools do not know the importance of this curve
under the knees, that ensures the seat does not pinch and restrict blood flow to the legs.
Appendix 5 Figure 10: Q10 - Do you ever see the children swinging on their chairs? (by the author)
When asked if they ever saw the children swinging on their chairs 91.3% of
teachers answered ‘yes’, this figure again shows that the furniture is not ergonomically
XXX
suited to the children, as the usual cause of swinging on chairs is to try and get into a
more comfortable position.
Appendix 5 Figure 11: Q11 - How often does your class do P.E? (by the author)
The next question asked the teachers how often their class did PE, 52%
answered ‘once a week’ while 48% said ‘twice a week’, none of the teachers said their
classes did PE every day. If these figures are the trend across the majority of schools in
Ireland with only half doing PE more than once a week, this again is a strong argument
towards the design and use of ergonomically correct furniture in our schools, as it shows
once again how long our children spend sitting during their school week.
Appendix 5 Figure 12: Q12 - Do you think that the furniture the children use is ergonomically suited to
the children? (by the author)
XXXI
When asked if they thought that the furniture used in their classrooms was
ergonomically suited to the children 43.48% of teachers answered ‘yes’, this was quite
worrying as the majority of responses to the previous questions in the survey pointed to
the furniture being unsuitable for the children ergonomically.
Appendix 5 Figure 13: Q13 - Is any of the furniture in your classroom adjustable? (by the author)
When asked whether any of the furniture in their classrooms was adjustable, all
of the teachers answered ‘no’. Again this shows that the furniture is not being matched
properly to the children’s height and that the ‘one size fits all’ approach was being used.
Appendix 5 Figure 14: Q14 - Roughly how old do you think that the furniture in your classroom is? (by
the author)
XXXII
When asked how old the furniture in their classrooms is the majority of teachers
(69.57%) answered ‘1-5 years’, this was followed by 26.09% answering ‘5-10 years’
and 4.35% answering ‘10-15 years’. This showed that the majority of furniture had been
updated and replaced in the last 5 years, this was an encouraging sign as it showed that
the schools had been spending money on the furniture in their classrooms, although it
again highlighted the fact that furniture companies are making and supplying non-
ergonomic furniture and also that schools do not know the importance of purchasing
furniture that is ergonomically suited to the children.
Appendix 5 Figure 15: Q15 - Do you think that the furniture should be upgraded as advancements are
made in relation to postural and ergonomic furniture for children? (by the author)
When asked if they thought that the furniture in their classrooms should be
upgraded as advances are made in the design and making of ergonomic school furniture,
96% of teachers answered ‘yes’. This response shows that there is a huge gap in the
market in Ireland when it comes to ergonomic school furniture and also that teachers
want to progress with the times and ensure that the children are sitting on furniture
which suits their bodies.
XXXIII
Appendix 5 Figure 16: Q16 - When you were studying to be a teacher was there any mention of the
importance of ergonomic furniture for children? (by the author)
The final question asked teachers if there was any mention of the importance of
providing ergonomic furniture for children when they were studying to be teachers.
87% answered ‘no’ to this question; a detailed discussion of this answer can be found in
Section 2.10.
XXXIV
Appendix 6: Costing
Appendix 5 Table 1: Parts list (by the author)
Appendix 5 Table 2: Total costing and selling price (by the author)
XXXV
Appendix 5 Table 3: BOM (by the author)
Appendix 5 Table 4: Manufacturing cost (by the author)
XXXVI

Design and Manufacture of Ergonomic Primary School Furniture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Manufacture of Ergonomic Primary School Furniture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Manufacture of

Ergonomic Primary School Furniture

Author declaration of originality ................................................................................. vi

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... vii

Table of Figures . ................................................................................... viii

Table of Tables ........................................................................................ xiv

Chapter 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................1

1.1. Statement ............................................................................................................1

1.2. Background .........................................................................................................1

1.4. Aims and objectives ............................................................................................2

1.5. Research Methodologies .....................................................................................3

Chapter 2. Primary research and development .........................................................4

2.2. Research ..............................................................................................................4

2.3. Surveys analysing children’s back pain in the UK .............................................7

2.4. Irish primary school furniture research...............................................................8

2.5. A brief history of school furniture ....................................................................10

2.6. Typical Classroom Furniture ............................................................................14

2.7. What is “wrong” with the typical chair?...........................................................17

2.8. Survey ...............................................................................................................24

2.9. Data analysis .....................................................................................................24

2.10. Conclusion ....................................................................................................25

Chapter 3. Existing ergonomic solutions and typical classroom furniture ...........28

3.2.1. Pro chair - Konstantin Grcic. ........................................................................28

3.2.2. Children’s Max chair by KOS ......................................................................29

3.3. Perch chair and Ray chair .................................................................................30

3.3.1. Kneeling chairs .............................................................................................31

3.3.2. Postura Chair .................................................................................................32

3.3.3. SIS BackUp chair ..........................................................................................32

3.3.4. Tip Ton Chair ................................................................................................32

3.3.5. Tripp Trapp Chair .........................................................................................33

3.4. Active Dynamic Sitting ....................................................................................34

3.5. Company case study – Active dynamic sitting .................................................35

3.6. Complimentary desks .......................................................................................36

3.7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................37

Chapter 4. Children’s Ergonomics and Anthropometrics and the application of

4.2. Research ............................................................................................................38

4.3. General ergonomic principles of chair design ..................................................41

4.4. Research into standards (EN 1729) ..................................................................43

4.5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................49

Chapter 5. Making and Live Testing of the Chair ..................................................50

5.2. General outlines for the chair design ................................................................50

5.3. Sketching ..........................................................................................................51

5.4. Making the prototype Chair: .............................................................................55

5.5. Live testing of the prototype .............................................................................57

5.7. Costing the chair ...............................................................................................64

5.8. Concepts for the desk........................................................................................65

5.9. Testing the finished chair and prototype desk. .................................................67

5.10. Modifications ................................................................................................69

5.11. Re-testing the chair with the new backrest ...................................................69

5.12. Conclusion ....................................................................................................70

Chapter 6. Testing ......................................................................................................71

6.2. General safety requirements .............................................................................72

6.3. Background Information ...................................................................................73

6.4. Test Results .......................................................................................................74

6.4.1. Cross cut test .................................................................................................74

6.4.2. Cold liquids resistance test ............................................................................74

6.5. Forwards, sideways and rearwards stability tests .............................................76

6.5.1. Back impact (EN 1728:2000, 6.16) ..............................................................77

6.5.2. Seat Impact (EN 1728:2000, 6.15)................................................................77

6.5.3. Drop test (EN 1728:2000) .............................................................................77

6.6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................78

Chapter 7. Conclusion, Recommendations & Evaluation of the finished chair ...79

7.2. Analysing the Aims and Objectives .................................................................79