Advertisement

The Relationship of Space Experience and Human Anthropometric Sizes in Aircraft Seat Pitch

  • Shabila Anjani
  • Wenhua Li
  • Peter Vink
  • Iemkje Ruiter
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between space experience and human anthropometric sizes in different aircraft seat pitch. 294 participants experienced economy class seats in a Boeing 737 with 28 in, 30 in, 32 in and 34 in pitches for 10 min each. The sizes taken were: stature, sitting height, eye height seated, buttock-knee length and popliteal height sitting with shoes. A space experience questionnaire was completed by the 294 participants while sitting in the seat after the 10-min period given to explore the seat. The results show that passengers with a higher popliteal height, a longer buttock-knee depth, a higher eye height sitting and a higher sitting height show more discomfort with reduced pitch then shorter passengers. Eye height did not correlate as good with space perception as was expected.

Keywords

Seat pitch Comfort Discomfort Space experience Anthropometric measurements 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan Republik Indonesia as the scholarship provider for the PhD of Shabila Anjani.

References

  1. 1.
    Nijholt N, Tuinhof T, Bouwens JM, Schultheis U, Vink P (2016) An estimation of the human head, neck and back contour in an aircraft seat. Work (Read Mass) 54(4):913–923.  https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-162355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Lille C, Bouwens JM, Santema S, Schultheis U, Vink P (2013) Designing the cabin interior knowing high and low peaks in a passenger flight. Paper presented at the AEGATS 2016, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vink P, Hallbeck S (2012) Editorial: comfort and discomfort studies demonstrate the need for a new model. Appl Ergon 43(2):271–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang L, Helander MG, Drury CG (1996) Identifying factors of comfort and discomfort in sitting. Hum Factors 38(3):377–389.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872096778701962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahmadpour N, Kühne M, Robert J-M, Vink P (2016) Attitudes towards personal and shared space during the flight. Work (Read Mass 54:981–987.  https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-162346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Looze MP, Kuijt-Evers LFM, Van Dieén J (2003) Sitting comfort and discomfort and the relationships with objective measures. Ergonomics 46(10):985–997.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000121977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bazley C (2015) Beyond comfort in built environments. TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vink P (2016) Vehicle seat comfort and design. DelftGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curtis T, Rhoades DL, Waguespack BP: Satisfaction with airline service quality: familiarity breeds contempt. Int J Aviat Manag 1(4) (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1504/ijam.2012.050472
  10. 10.
    Vink P, Bazley C, Kamp I, Blok M (2012) Possibilities to improve the aircraft interior comfort experience. Appl Ergon 43(2):354–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blok M, Vink P, Kamp I (2007) Comfortabel vliegen: comfort van het vliegtuiginterieur door de ogen van de gebruiker. Tijdschrift voor Ergonomie 32:4–11Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGee B (2014) Think airline seats have gotten smaller? They have. In: USA today. McLeanGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    TripAdvisor SG (2017) Airline seat comparison charts. https://www.seatguru.com/charts/generalcharts.php. Accessed 12 Oct 2017
  14. 14.
    Anjani S, Li W, Vink P, Ruiter I (2018, in press) The effect of aircraft seat pitch on comfort. Appl ErgonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li W, Yu S, Yang H, Pei H, Zhao C (2017) Effects of long-duration sitting with limited space on discomfort, body flexibility, and surface pressure. Int J Ind Ergon 58:12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kremser F, Guenzkofer F, Sedlmeier C, Sabbah O, Bengler K (2012) Aircraft seating comfort: the influence of seat pitch on passengers’ well-being. Work (Read Mass) 41(Suppl 1):4936–4942.  https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-2012-0789-4936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menegon LdS, Vincenzi SL, de Andrade DF, Barbetta PA, Merino EAD, Vink P (2017) Design and validation of an aircraft seat comfort scale using item response theory. Appl Ergon 62:216–226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Molenbroek JFM, Albin TJ, Vink P (2017) Thirty years of anthropometric changes relevant to the width and depth of transportation seating spaces, present and future. Appl Ergon 65(Suppl C):130–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moerland RG (2015) Aircraft passenger comfort enhancement by utilization of a wide-body lower deck compartment. TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vink P, Anjani S, Smulders, M, Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S (2017) Comfort and discomfort effects over time: the sweetness of discomfort and the pleasure towards of the end. In: 1st International Comfort Congress, SalernoGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Helander MG, Zhang L (1997) Field studies of comfort and discomfort in sitting. Ergonomics 40(9):895–915.  https://doi.org/10.1080/001401397187739CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Design EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Shaanxi Engineering Laboratory for Industrial DesignNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations