Design for Plus Size People

  • J. F. M. MolenbroekEmail author
  • R. de Bruin
  • T. Albin
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 826)


Obesity is a growing issue in western societies with consequences for the field of human centered design. Most anthropometric data sources assume the data follow the Gaussian distribution, with population data symmetrically distributed above and below the mean value. This assumption is often true in length measurements like body heights, but may not be true for measurements more sensitive to body mass, like body weight, hip width, elbow-to-elbow width, and body depth. While length measurements have remained relatively stable over time in western societies, mass related measurements are increasing.

The authors have experience in providing data via an interactive website DINED, which seeks to make anthropometry accessible without requiring expert knowledge about anatomy and statistics. Currently all DINED dimensions are assumed Gaussian, including those related to body mass. This might not work when designing for plus size people. Future additions in DINED will be about design for obesity and about how to implement 3D scanning into the design process in order to redress these defects.


Anthropometrics Ergonomics education Product design Plus-size 


  1. 1.
    WHO (2018) 10 Facts about Obesity.
  2. 2.
    Ezzatti M (2016) Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014: a pooled analysis of 1698 population-based measurement studies with 19·2 million participants. Lancet 387:1377–1396Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Molenbroek J, Albin T, Vink P (2017) Thirty years of anthropometric changes relevant to the width and depth of transportation seating spaces, present and future. Appl Ergon 65:130–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Molenbroek J, de Bruin, R (2011) Anthropometric aspects of a friendly rest room. In: Molenbroek J, Mantas J, de Bruin R (eds) A friendly rest room: developing toilets of the future for disabled and elderly people. Assistive technology research series, vol 27. IOS Press, pp 228–241Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masson AE (2017) Including plus size people in workplace design. Diss. Loughborough UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Molenbroek J, Steenbekkers B (2010) Collecting data about elderly and making them available for designers. In: Advances in understanding human performance, pp 852–863Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steenbekkers LPA (1993) Child development, PhD thesis, TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Molenbroek JFM (1994) Made to measure (Op Maat Gemaakt). PhD thesis, TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molenbroek JFM (1998) Reach envelopes of older adults. Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet Proc 1(2):166–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molenbroek JFM, Goto L (2015) The application of 3D scanning as an Educational challenge. In: Conference: international ergonomics associationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huysmans T (2018) Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of healthy foot shape: a proof of concept study. J Foot Ankle Res 11(1)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee W, Goto L, Molenbroek JFM, Goossens RHM (2017) Analysis methods of the variation of facial size and shape based on 3D face scan images. In: Conference: proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 61st annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wikipedia, List of the heaviest people. Accessed May 2018
  14. 14.
    Albin TJ, Vink P (2015) An empirical description of the dispersion of 5th and 95th percentiles in worldwide anthropometric data applied to estimating accommodation with unknown correlation values. Work 52(1):3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/TR 7250-2 (2011) Basic human body measurements for technological design Part 2: Statistical summaries of body measurements from individual ISO populations. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Albin TJ (2017) Design with limited anthropometric data: a method of interpreting sums of percentiles in anthropometric design. Appl Ergon 62:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Albin TJ, Molenbroek J (2017) Stepwise estimation of accommodation in multivariate anthropometric models using percentiles and an average correlation value. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 18(1):79–94Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reed MP, Parkinson MB (2017, October) HFES Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Austin, TX, Augmenting ANSI/HFES 100 With Virtual Fit TestingGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parkinson MB, Reed MP (2017, October) HFES Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Austin, TX, Reweighting CAESAR to match the US Civilian PopulationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Albin T, Openshaw S, Parkinson MB, Reed MP (2017, October) HFES Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Austin, TX, Updates to ANSI/HFES 100: A New Anthropometric Database and Introduction of Virtual Fit TestingGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry Resource Project – CAESAR.
  22. 22.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. F. M. Molenbroek
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • R. de Bruin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • T. Albin
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial DesignDelft University of Technology (TU Delft)DelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Erin Ergonomics and Industrial DesignNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.High Plains Engineering ServicesMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations