A Study on Anthropometric and Ergonomic FurnitureDesign in the Laboratory of Art Education

Agus Nursalim / 085724209521Ans.sidiqp @ gmail.com

Arts Education ProgramFaculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

Abstract

This study examines the comfort level of furniture being used in Arts Education Laboratory. The study was conducted to determine the relationship of the comfort level of the furniture to the students’ achievement. This research applied qualitative descriptive approach referring to theories of anthropometrics and ergonomics to analyze the data. Based on the data analysis result, it shows that the dimensions of ergonomics and anthropometrics to the students’ problem has X value (Mean) under 395-490 mm according to the International standard ( Dreyfuss , 1959, Nurmianto , Eko.1991). Therefore, the value has a deviation standard of 1.96, 2.5 percent, and 97.5 percent indicating that those values are still in the normal range 34.7-45.7cm. Furniture Design given in the Arts Education laboratory seem not to consider the students’ body dimensions yet because they claim that they don’t feel convenient doing their tasks in the laboratory ( 2.5 percent). Such uncomfortable condition is shown by the centre of gravity or moment of gravity when the students were sitting and taking a rest on the buttocks of normal working area in the range of 34.7-45.7 cm. In contrast, while standing, the students got the feet resting on the elbow angular motion and freedom of movement (SBB) in the range 72.5-89.8(CG Drury in the ' Journal of Applied Ergonomics Vol.13:.135) and this range is categorized in comfortable level. Therefore, those values reveal that the comfort level of the Furniture used in the laboratory has no significant influence on the students’ achievement.

.Keywords : Anthropometric , Ergonomic , Furniture , Laboratory

.IntroductionSupriyanto ( 2010:124 ) in his study entitled "Factors Affecting the Students’ Ability to Draw Constructive Drawing in Arts Education Programs " states that one of the factors affecting on student 's ability in Constructive Drawing is the completeness and condition of facilities and infrastructure given. The findings of his study claim that 29 % of the 102 students expressed that the completeness and infrastructure condition are still insufficient, 19 % of the students state ‘sufficient’ and the rest of the students of 52 % claim ‘less sufficient’. Such conditions are indicated by some variables, namely: completeness, comfort (ergonomic), size (anthropometric), functions, and feasibility. Ergonomic and anthropometric attributes are important aspects of the facilities and infrastructures that influence on students’ achievement in doing laboratory works(Practicum) which mostly run for 4 hour a week for several subjects including: Painting studio , Sculpture studio , Graphic studio , Craft studio (ceramics , batik , wood craft) and Visual Communication Design studio

1

The discussion of the ergonomic aspects cannot be separated from the discussion of anthropometric (measuring the size of the wearer's body). Ergonomics studies relating to its satisfaction, the satisfaction can be a comfort and health from the point of view of the science of anatomy , physiology , psychology , health and safety The purpose of this study is : Want to know the dimensions of the user 's body of furniture products ( dimensions of the student body ) and attitude / position sitting , standing position ( center of gravity , angular motion ) ) when doing laboratory work, either from the legs, arms, sight and reach. This research is descriptive qualitative which is used to measure three aspects such as: ( 1 ) the existence and distribution of a wide range of behaviors or characteristics that occur naturally , (2 ) the frequent occurrence of naturally occurring , (3 ) the magnitude of the relationship as well as relationships may exist between the characteristics , behaviors, events, or phenomena of concern (Alwasilah, 2002:151 ). Dealt with the scope and limitations of the study, this study is classified as a macro research to discuss aspects of anthropometric and Ergonomics of the furniture. In the contrary, the micro study concerns with the purpose of reviewing them in a limited study supporting the macro one. The method was used to get a rapid assessment that examines a problem to take a quick conclusion done by acquisition of observations and analytical results. This study refers to the theory of anthropometric and ergonomic studies to analyse the collected data from the students related to ergonomic and anthropometic components. With the unit of analysis then the information from several areas will be incorporated into the analysis to formulate the conclusions of the study, this research is a multiple case study ( Yin, Robert K.1987 : 56 ) . Therefore, the subject of study is factors affecting the comfort level of furniture provided in the laboratory. The factors can be viewed from the standpoint of anatomy, physiology, Safety summarized as anthropometric (human beings factors ) and Ergonomics (safety )

LiteratureThe term ‘ergonomics’ is derived from the Latin word ergon meaning work and nomos meaning the laws of nature. Ergonomics can be defined as the study of human aspects in working environment which are reviewed in anatomy, physiology, psychology, engineering, management and design. Similarly with regard to the optimalisation of ergonomics, efficiency, health, safety, and human comfort in the workplace, either indoor or outdoor should be well-considered. In addition, Ergonomics is also needed in the study of systems where humans , working facilities , and the environment interact with the overriding goal of adjusting the working atmosphere by human . Ergonomics that is also called as the " Human Factors " . Ergonomics is also used by various experts / professionals in the field , for example : anatomy , architecture , product design , physics , physiotherapy , psychology , and in the engineering industry ( Nurmianto , Eko. 1991: ; 47 ) . Therefore, through study on ergonomics, people may improve comfort in the work environment using an method to analyzing the relationship between human body and the physical facilities. The benefits of the application of science is to investigate ergonomic comfort while working.The application of ergonomics in general is mostly found in engineering activities (design) or redesign (re - design). This can include hardware such as working equipment (tools) , work benches , platforms , seats , handles work tools (work holders), control systems, props, passageways, doors , windows, etc.(Kurniawan, Djoeliana, 2003: 26). This study is important because if the hardware system changes, it will also change working environment.Furthermore, Ergonomics also plays an important role in improving the safety and health factors. To be ergonomic required a basic knowledge of the functions and muscular skeletal system. This is associated with Kinesiology (human movement mechanics ) and biomechanics ( Application mechanics techniques for the analysis of human skeletal muscle system ). Those all components are basic components to address the problem of human posture and movement in their place and space.

2

In addition, a vital thing in the scientific application of ergonomics is Anthropometrics ( calibration of the human body ). In this case, the merger occurs between the use of anthropometric data and statistical sciences which become the main prerequisite.Ergonomic aspects in a process facility design work is an important factor in supporting the improvement of production services. Especially in terms of the design space and accommodation facilities. Therefore, attention to ergonomic components in the design of public facilities is necessary because the discussion will not be separated from the role of the wearer's body and anthropometric data and anthropometric application .In a design for comfortable accommodation and facilities to ensure the safety of its users should be approached through the study of anatomy, physiology, psychology, health and safety also design and management. In order to obtain an optimal design of a space and accommodation facilities then the things that must be considered are factors such as the length of the dimensions of the human body both in static and dynamic positions.Another point to be observed is , weight and center of mass ( center of granity) of a segment / part of the body , body shape , the distance to the circular movement ( angular motion ) of the hands and feet and others. Anthropometric is a collection of numeric data related to the physical characteristics of the human body size , shape , strength used for the application in the handling of design issues (Stefenson, 1989: 92).Anthropometric research is usually conducted in touch with the military from the civil society. It is reasonable for several reasons: the first reason is relating to the procurement of military equipment, uniform entity, fighter pilots, and others, either for the government institutions that conduct the study or a commission which conducted a study made by the government. The main disadvantage of anthropometric studies for the military is determined by sex and age of the users, whereas it can be done by measuring the dimensions of height and weight. The research report was used as a standard in military clothes before the World War in the United States, so it cannot be used as a standard public. The next development was also conducted for anthropometric studies by civil society which have been conducted by the U.S. Department of Health ( Dr. Howard W. Stoudt ) which involved no less than 7500 samples civilians aged between 18 years to 79 years who come from Education and Welfare department which was done Jean Robert with.

Furthermore, Research on anthropometric variables also experienced growth, except gender, ethnicity / nation , age group and also work clothes (uniform ), and of the woman's pregnancy factor, physical defects of the human body. A good development in this era with the same facilities provide people with disabilities with the normal physical terms each have equal rights in the use of services from the science of ergonomics in the public service facilities, e.g : special pathways for wheel chairs , special space in the lavatory, a special line for in and out of offices, campuses, hotels, restaurants , super markets and others. The size of the human body is taken into consideration in the design of the interior because it is a real impact. The two effects are dimension of structural type and the type of functional dimension. Structural dimensions refer to dimensions including measures static head, torso, and shoulders in a normal position while the functional dimension refers to the dynamic range dimensions including physical movement at work associated with their working performances. To design a product using anthropometric statistical data in the manufacture of a door can use the following formula:= X + ( 2,325 SD )= 1740 + ( 2.325x70 )= 1903 mm These results are taken from the calculation of the standard (non- ergonomic ) where static anthropometric data should be added. Anthropometric dimensions define static foot wears , hats and dynamic clearance ( dynamic slack ) because human height will increase if it is walking or running which is called a dynamic effect. So that, the total height of the door that must be made is: Tp = 1903 + high + boots + hat high dynamic clearance (1903 +30 +50 +50 = 2033 mm is for designing comfortable product. Designing a product using anthropometric data is applied for some furniture designs, for

3

example in making a rack (shelf), chairs, tables, etc. In this product, anthropometric consideration is the range of the human hand to the front of the maximum. Therefore, the calculation of the design is to measure the height of shoulder of the user is generally coupled with dimensions of 7.5 cm to the top. High dimensional shoulders (shoulder heights) will describe the high shelf that will provide maximum coverage. The dimensions of the human body are commonly used in the design of a product can be illustrated in Table 2.1: Anthropometric Indonesian society, Adults with interpolation and the British Society of Hong Kong (See Tables in the Appendix)A big mistake if the average anthropometric dimensions used in the design of a product due to the use of anthropometric dimensions of the average of the product would not be beneficial to other users because the anthropometric dimensions between the users do not have common dimension unless the dimensions average show the standard deviation and percentile. Guidelines for using the most appropriate or average Anthropometric dimensions ought to consider the corresponding standard deviation in the design to be performed, the average dimension of the appropriate population, the corresponding percentile values as the basis of design, and appropriate categorization. In using the data in a static anthropometry work chair design, for example; work chairs which are used by men and women working population who require a simple office chair set ( adjustable). Dealing with the range of dimensions of the work chair, the requirements of most major office chair is the sole of the foot should be located on the surface of the floor, and the seat height should be arranged so that there is no pressure on the lower part of the thigh. In addition, corresponding dimensions are knee high fold ( polpliteal height ). The user population include women in appropriate range: 32.5-49.0 cm. High shoe holder will be high, especially for women, but sometimes there are women who prefer not to wear shoes while working. So we get the range of 325-490 mm dimensions. In this case, Dreyfuss (1982) in the Measure of a Man ) recommends a range of 15-18 inc or 381-457 mm ( Figure 2.5:Standard Design Work Chair ) on the image attachment page.

Findings and DiscussionThe distribution of Arts Education Curriculum is divided into four areas ( See appendix, Table 4.1 : Distribution of Curriculum , Department of Arts Education 2012-213 ). Those for areas involve subjects of General Courses ( MKU ), KKU, MKDU, and MKDK which consist 138 credits, 94 credits are Practicum (Laboratory works), and the rest of 44 credits are theory. In addition, the distribution of the target competency based curriculum prepared graduates with undergraduate learning and assessment systems are arranged in the subject Syllabus or lesson plans.Here is research data on student Ergonomic Class A and Class B Year 2012/2013 using the standard dimensions, namely dynamic movement of the hand and shoulder to move freely use the term elbow and elbow are not free to move.

Referring to the findings taken from the students, it is found that the study of anthropometric and Ergonomics design of furniture given in the laboratory of arts Education. Show that the furniture have standard dimensional measurements of dynamic ( dynamic dimension ) where the conduct lab motion ( angular motion ) with good movement round the feet , hands , and shoulders view. This furniture is different from the ones used in lecturing classes where the students tend to be static-not dynamic since they just listen to the lecturers explaining something so they do not have lot movements. In such different contexts, the furniture chosen have a different standard of measurement.

According to the result of data analysis, it shows that the rules of science ergonomics has not been implemented fully in the process of designing a piece of furniture that is used in the student practicum courses. What happens is that taking buy finished products regardless of anthropometric dimensions of the students. The finished product is mostly provided for getting profit as much as possible in making furniture. During the design process. functional characteristics of human users (students ) have never been considered such as; capacity of the sensing , response time , the optimum position of the hand and foot muscles to work efficiency considerations have not been made by the manufacturer. The table of

4

identifying the average value (mean) and standard deviation (SD) 1.96. While the 95 percentile of the body size and the 5th percentile indicates a small body. To accommodate 95% of the population was 2.5 and 97.5 percentile range limits can be used.

N(X.бX) 95 %

2.5 % 2.5 %

-1.96 б X +1.96 б

For example, in analyzing the depth of the rack dryer (dry shelf ) at Studio Graphic students work while standing. In calculating shelf should select 5 percent of the population that can reach all the shelves. Percentile is the smallest is 1 % should not be used to avoid the consequences shelf (shelf) is high because there is only one high measuring student.

To analyze the level of comfort drying rack can be used anthropometric data in Table 4.7: Anthropometric Data Male Student Column 7 and Column 12 (using high -dimensional shoulder (shoulder height) in a standing position) with a small percentile is 2.5 then the high shelf is convenient 144.13 cm for all the population can reach a depth of shelf ( shelf ) is. If the 95 % percentile is used as a standard design then is obtained a high shelf 151.97. The height between 144-152, every student can still reach the depth of the rack. But the shelf cupboard available is 170 cm wide with a depth of 45 cm 120. From the high cupboard shelf, not all students can reach the height of the rack. The students who can reach the high shelf is just 2.5 percent. All other students should use the step stool to be able to reach the base or the toe.

The Ergonomic data were divided into two areas, namely Horizontal and Vertical work area. Horizontal work area is a benchmark to judge the normal movement which is a movement and rotating the forearm resting on a horizontal plane that could be a work surface with working conditions by sitting ( See Table 4.2 : Dimensions of Student Ergonomics Force from 2012 to 2013 ) . Horizontal work area assessment standards was used to analyze the design of the height of a good office chair, seat depth are measured by the size of the wearer's ergonomic student. In addition, the maximum ergonomic working area is measuring the student with arms outstretched to measure the spin axis around the shoulder. This measurement needs to be done to analyze the convenience of work table design in the studio according to the ergonomic standards, including the space for students to analyze in terms of freedom of movement in doing studio work. While working area is used to analyze Vertical design work desk with ergonomic showing the student position elbow motion when students do laboratory work. The students’ elbows are free to move when the students do the work The research data are presented in Table 4.2.

5

2.5 th% %

97.5th %

Moreover, table 4.5 is the data to ergonomics students who have been classified according to gender –Male and Female. The information of the arm movement in horizontal dimension ( angular motion ) will be used to analyze the design of the desk or the field of work. The dimensional horizontal and vertical movement of the arm will be used to analyze the work chair and furniture objects vertically. Deal with the objects assessed in Anthropometric study are factors of student body dimensions of furniture in the laboratory manual / studio including the long dimension of the body in both static and dynamic positions. It was observed that the weight and center of mass ( center of gravity ) of a body part , body , the distance to the circular movement ( angular motion ) of the hands and feet. The dimensions of the student body are grouped into two types: structural and functional dimensions. Structural dimension is also called static dimensions including measurements over the head, torso and limbs. While the functional dimension is also called dynamic dimension (dynamic dimensions ) showing the measurements of the time students do a practicum or a movement occurred in the context of work. However, there were ten major dimensions used as benchmarks for measuring anthropometric dimensions, namely: height, sitting height , weight , length of the buttocks to the front of the knees , the buttocks to the pop liteal part , the range between the elbow to the hip in a sitting position, knee high front and the back , and thigh high . Furthermore, the student anthropometric dimensions of the data presented in the form of Normal Curve and Table 4.6: Anthropometric data of students (See Appendixes ).

The chair is used by male students and female students have a range of different dimension. In the design of the work chair, footwear (shoes) are taken into consideration. In this case, barefoot feet will hang and there is pressure on the lower thigh. The seat should be easy to set (adjustable) so the furniture are comfortable and they show comfortable work chair dimensions according to ergonomic standards. In addition, folding chair that is as high as the knee ( polp liteal height ) or in accordance with the dimensions of the column 13 of Table 7 men and 13 columns in table 7 women , namely high -dimensional folding of the knee.

Given work chair users consists of male and female work chairs should refer the appropriate range for both of the range of 30.48 ( Table 4.8 column 13 ) and 41.8 cm ( Table 4.7 column 13 ) . Meanwhile, according to the Australian Standard on ' Ergonomics in Factory and Office Work ' range recommended 34.0 cm - 48.0 cm While Dreyfuss in the book ' The Measure of a Man ' recommended range of 38.1 cm - 45.7 cm and there is a lumbar support in the sitting position. This recommendation emphasizes the provision of the backrest can be adjusted to support the lumbar region or lower region of the spine. It is intended to reduce the tendency toward spinal khynopsis form. For the election of the chair size (height , width , depth of the seat ) must be based on student anthropometric data users .Seat height of distinguished work in two ways , namely :a. Low chair that is used to work with stool or table ( desk and tables )b. Higher seats are used to work with a bench or machine , workshop table that allows to

work while standing .The purpose of the design is to let the lower seats suffered leg rest directly on the floor and avoid pressure on the bottom side of the thigh. In this case, the moment of gravity lies in the prominent bone on the buttocks (Figure 2.8 and Figure 2.9: Posterior Sit ) , while the overall weight of a heavy foot will be supported by leg. In contrast, the minimum weight will be supported by lower thigh leg compression in the area given below this will cause a tingling thigh . Therefore anthropometric data is the main basis in designing high seat / chair that is as high as the knee indentations ( column 13, Table 4.7 ) in accordance to the recommendation of CG Drury and BG Coury in A methodology for chair evaluation , the ( Journal of Applied Ergonomics , 1982 , Vol. 13 :135 )While the high chair is designed to work while standing and working on a high stool. High school is designed based on the wearer's elbow height or a high chair with a seat height can be adjusted to support the upper body so that your elbows are a few centimeters high above the work.

6

Anthropometric data size is the vertical distance from the point of bending the elbow to the surface to sit horizontally. To anticipate the occurrence of leg fatigue due to load at the bottom of the foot will be moved to the inside of the groin. So it needs to be made for a foot rest on a bench or on a chair leg can be set. The point for design work chair should be based on the type of work, resulting posture, the force required, and integrated visual views with tables / benches that used to work.Similarly to the basic design of the garage workbench or table with Table 4.7 based on the high elbow on column 8 and column 12 sitting at the same table that is high knees in a sitting position. Based on the results of the study presented data on the male elbow height when sitting (column 8, Table 4.7 ) is 68.13 cm while the lower range is ( column 8, Table 4.8 ) which is 56.96 thus higher dimension table is the range between 56.96 - 68.13 in accordance with the data of ergonomic student footwear wearer added height between 2.60 cm - 4.6 cm . So, ,a high comfortable design of workbench to work ergonomically recommended for the students is between 59.56 - 72.73 . While the width of a table using data of ergonomic student based anthropometric data in Table 4.7 column 18 (the distance from the elbow to the fingertips) plus 20 columns of data ( long arm ) is 47.7 +20.3 = 68.7 above range . While the lower range is the data in Table 4.8 in column 18 ( the distance from the fingertips to the elbow ) plus column 20 ( long arm ) is 41.7 +15.5 = 62.6 cm . The length of the table can use anthropometric data of students who have been presented in Table 4.7 and Table 4.8. To find out how long the dimension table is ergonomically comfortable to look at the data in Table 4.7 in column 22 is the left distance to fingertips right. How long dimension table is ergonomically comfortable work can be seen in Table 4.7 and Table 4.8 column 22 is the left distance to right fingertips is the range of 160.4 to 164.7. Thus workbench dimensions (workshop ) that is ergonomically comfortable namely long range ; width and height are : long- range table above 164.7 , width 68.7 , height 72.73 . While the long- range below 160.4 cm width 62.6 cm 56.96 cm steeper. Therefore, the result of data analysis show that the dimensions of the table are convenient for Arts Education students to run practicum work according to calculations from the findings after measuring the male students and female students..Considering the recommendation from Panero, Julius and Zelnik , Martin in his book ' Human Dimension and Interior Space ' is the length 152.4 cm - 182.9cm , width 76.2-91.4 cm . Height 73.7cm - 76.2cm .Analysis on the office chair and work table is an example of the analysis that has been done to the overall types of furniture found in the laboratory / studio of Arts Education. Treatment to the analysis as a whole is the same furniture that is by using the percentiles of the most large and small percentile after the Mean ( X ) and Standard Deviation ( SD ) known as dimensions Ergonomics students. .If high Etsel will be analyzed as a good and comfortable ergonomic furniture can be be seen in Table 4.2 Work area is a column Vertical Elbow -Free Move ( SBB ) and anthropometric dimensions students considered also in Table 4.7 Column 3 is high Mata . Thus Etsel is both ergonomic and anthropometric to have a height of between 212.98 186.02 presented in the top or bottom percentile . 212.98 or 186.02 unless the position to determine Etsel too high to determine a comfortable distance observer to works being exhibited . The data of the Horizontal Working area is to analyze the data as a wide horizontal field of work tables, spacious rooms, spacious motion, the seat width, depth of cupboards, the length of wardrobes, width and length of the corridor and others. While the Regional Working Vertical is the data that will be used to analyze high instance object height work table, high work chair , high Stool , high cabinets , high ceiling and others.

The dimensions of the fancy furniture available in studio Arts Education almost everything using 50 percentile, or average dimensions . As a result, the amount of furniture cannot accommodate all of the wearers. Furniture supposed to be used comfortably by all the dimensions of the student body. It would be better if in designing furniture in the installation can be set or changed (the built -in adjustment) that can be tailored to the student users. Furniture such as office chairs, shelves which can be changed is a product that can be applied to the system of built -in adjustment. There will be a big mistake if the anthropometric dimensions of the average student in the standard design used furniture ( chair or desk ) because the use of anthropometric dimensions of the average

7

student does not benefit the other . Since the anthropometric dimensions of the students do not have in common. Guidelines for using the most appropriate in the average Anthropometric dimensions ought to consider: Standard deviation, the average ( mean ), distinguished gender groups, and has a corresponding percentile values .

ConclusionA. Ergonomic and Anthropometric dimensions Students

Research data are presented in Table 4.2and Table 4.5 is the data to ergonomic students. Information on the movement of the arm in the horizontal dimension and vertical (angular motion ) has been used in analyzing the workbench design and analyze student work chair has a range of dimensions of 30.48 ( Table 4.8 column 13 ) - 41.8 cm ( Table 4.7 column 13 ) . Meanwhile, according to the Australian Standard on ' Ergonomics in Factory and Office Work ' range recommended 34.0 cm - 48.0 cm While Dreyfuss in the book ' The Measure of a Man ' recommended range of 38.1 cm - 45.7 cm and there is a lumbar support in the sitting position. This recommendation emphasizes the provision of the backrest can be adjusted (adjustable ) to support the lumbar region or lower region of the spine. It is intended to reduce the tendency toward spinal khyphosis form. For the election of the chair size ( height , width , depth of the seat ) should be based on anthropometric data corresponding users . In addition, moment of gravity lies in the prominent bone on the buttocks, while the weight of the foot will be supported by legs. While the minimum west leg will be supported by the lower thigh compression in the area given below this will cause a tingling thigh. Therefore anthropometric data is the main basis in designing the seat height / seat.The point for design work chair should be based on the type of functions, and dimensions of user ergonomics, the force required, and integrated visual views with tables / benches that is used to work in the laboratory.

The treatment analysis as a whole is the same furniture that is by using the percentiles of the most large and small percentile after the Mean ( X ) and Standard Deviation ( SD ) of known dimensions Ergonomics students . In analyzing the entire furniture using the Regional Occupational Vertical Elbow column is Free Move ( SBB ) and anthropometric dimensions students considered also in Table 4.7 Column 3 is high Mata .Data from the Regional Occupational Horizontal is the data to analyze such a wide horizontal field of work tables, spacious rooms , spacious motion , the seat width , depth cupboards , wardrobe length , width and length of the corridor and others. While Regions Vertical Work is the data that will be used to analyze high instance object height work table, high chair work, high Stool , high cabinets , high ceiling 'and others.

B. Dimension When Doing Practicum Student MovementIt is studied weight and center of mass ( center of gravity ) of a body part , body shape , the

distance to the circular movement ( angular motion ) of the hands and feet .The dimensions of the student body are grouped into two types: structural dimensions and functional dimensions. Structural dimension is also called static dimensions that include measurements over the head, torso and limbs. While the functional dimension is also called dynamic dimension (dynamic dimensions ) which includes measurements when students do lab work or movement that occurs in working order . Ten major Dimensions are used as a benchmark for measurement are: height, sitting height , weight , length of the buttocks to the front of the knees , the buttocks to the folds in the knee , the range between the elbow to the hip in a sitting position , knee high front and back , and thigh high . Furthermore, the anthropometric dimensions of the data presented in the form of student and Normal Curve Table 4.6: Anthropometric data of students. The table of known average value ( mean ) and standard deviation ( SD ) 1.96. While the 95 percentile of the body size and the 5th percentile indicates a small body. To accommodate 95% of the population was 2.5 and 97.5 percentile range limits can be used.

The dimensions of the fancy furniture available in studio Arts Education mostly use 50 percentile , or average dimensions . As a result, the amount of furniture cannot accommodate all of the

8

users. Furniture supposed to be used comfortably by all the dimensions of the student body. It would be better if the installation of furniture can be set or changed ( the built -in adjustment) that can be adapted for working furniture such as chairs, shelves which can be changed is a product that can be applied to the system 's built -in adjustment .

Furniture inconvenience due to non-compliance of standards Anthropometry and Ergonomics Standard has no effect on student achievement unless if there is pain or muscles injury due to work, or it could also happen the articular Osteo deviations : the student with scoliosis condition hunchback ( kyphosis ) will take effect on the work that resulted maximum comfort of work .

REFERENCESAlwasilah , A.Chaedar , ( 2002) , Pokoknya Kualitatif , Jakarta : Pustaka JayaKurniawan , Djoeliana . ( 2003) . Human Dimension and Interior Space . Translation Erlangga, JakartaNurmianto , Eko . ( 1996) , Ergonomics Basic Concept and Application , first edition , Jakarta PT

Widya GunaNurmianto , Eko . ( 1991) . Application workplace design industry : Overview of Ergonomics in

Industry . National Seminar on Industrial Product Design , Faculty of civil engineering and planning - Faculty of industrial engineering istitut , Surabaya

Panero , Julius . , Zelnik , Martin . ( 1979) . HumanDimension and Interior Space , source book of design reference standards , United Stade , Canada

Patton , MQ , (1984 ) , Qualitative Data Source Analyzis of New Methods , Beverly Hills , Sage Publications

Pheasant, Stephen . ( 1991) . Ergonomics , Work and Health , Macmillan Academic And Professional LTD , London

Pheasant, Sulfiant . (1986 ) . Body Space : anthropometry , ergonomics and design . London : Taylor and Francis

Stefenson (1989). Lectur notes on the principles of ergonomics, Centre for Ssafety Science, University of New SouthWales, Sidney Australia.

Supriyanto , Untung. ( 2011) . Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kemampuan mahasiswa dalam menggambar konstruktif, Tesis Pasca Sarjana UPI

Yin , Robert K. , ( 1987) , Case Study Research ; design and Mehods , Newbury Park , Ca : Sage

JournalDrury , C.G. (1982 ) . A methodology for chair evaluation . Applied . Ergonomics , Vol . 13 , p.195

9

AcknowledgementAlhamdulillah, praise to Allah SWT, the Cherisher in the world, because of his blessing, the author finally completed his research report. Moreover, there are some people willingly directed and guided in doing the research and writing the research report. Therefore, I would like to extent my gratitude to: . Directorate General of Higher Education and Indonesia University of Education as fund provider to

conduct this research.2. Prof. Dr.. H. Sunaryo Kartadinata , M.Pd. Rector of Indonesia University of Education who has given

me the opportunity to conduct the research as a pilot one for further researches. 3. Prof . H. E. Aminudin Aziz , MA , Ph.D. , Vice Rector of Research and Human Resource

Development and all proposal Reviewer Team of UPI.. 4. Prof. H. Soemarto , MSIE , as Head of Research and Community Services Institution of UPI. 5. Prof . Dr. . Didi Sukyadi , MA , Dean of Faculty of Arts and Language Education, UPI. 6. Bandi Sobandi , MPd . , Head of Arts Education Department who always motivates to conduct a

research.7. Gugum Primary, Spd , MSN. as a photographer and data collector who is always ready to help

anytime in this study. All colleagues who cannot be mentioned one by one here. May Allah SWT bless you all. Thank you

Bandung , December 2013

Author

10

Lampiran 1Tabel 1: Data Ergonomi Mahasiswa Laki-Laki

Kelas B angkatan 2012/2013

No NIM NAMA MAHASISWA

Gender DAERAH KERJA HORIZONTAL

DAERAH KERJA VERTICAL

L P Daerah Normal

Daerah Maksimum SBB* STBB**

1 1204588 FREIDY JAELANI L 90 170 210 1902 1203034 AHMAD KHOERUDIN L 90 170 210 1883 1204973 WAHYU WIRA PUTRA L 92 178 222 1984 12 NONO HARYONO L 90 169 210 1885 1203040 YOPI SAMSUL ARIFIN L 86 168 210 1866 1203046 MANSUR SALDI L 82 161 210 1797 1203045 RIFALDI EFRIANSYAH L 82 163 202 1808 1205209 M. RIZAL HAFIYAN L 84 167 206 1849 1203040 JUNAEDI L 80 159 200 17810 1203506 AWAB ABDULLAH L 88 170 212 18611 1203038 ILYAS YAA RACHMAN L 92 175 214 19212 12023O VICKY ISYANATA L 80 160 202 17913 1202603 MUHAMAD SHIDDIQ L 82 162 202 17914 1202570 MUHAMAD TAUFIK L 80 160 200 17915 1103670 DIDIK NURAHMAN L 80 162 204 18016 1101053 AGUNG ADITYA P. L 88 170 210 18817 1101056 ADHISMA ANJAR L 86 169 210 18618 1103098 YOGI FEBRIYANSYAH L 90 172 212 19019 1205570 ILFAN FAUZI L 80 162 202 179

∑n: 1622 3167 3948 3509X: 85.37 166.68 207.79 184.68

SD: 2.134 4.167 5.194 4.617Percentil 97.5%:: 87.503 170.85 212.98 189.30

Persenti 2. 5%: 83.234 162.52 202.59 180.067

Catatan:*SBB : Siku Bebas Bergerak**STBB: Siku Tidak Bebas Bergerak

Tabel 2: Data Ergonomi Mahasiswa Perempuan Kelas B angkatan 2012/2013

No NIM NAMA MAHASISWA

Gender DAERAH KERJA HORIZONTAL

DAERAH KERJA VERTICAL

L P Daerah Normal

Daerah Maksimum SBB* STBB**

1 1205460 NURANI PUSPASARI P 80 158 208 1742 1203044 YOSI SAPITRI P 78 153 194 1703 1206169 ELSA NUR SAADAH P 82 160 200 1784 1205161 NENTY NOVIANTY P 82 164 206 1805 1205804 NENI NURINAYAH P 80 159 200 1786 1206111 ZESIKA HAYATUL K. P 82 160 210 1787 1203037 DEA RAHAYU P 75 145 184 163

1

8 1203547 WIDYA INRIYANTI P 80 158 208 1769 1206447 ANGEL LIMBONG P 80 160 200 17610 1202559 RIANI DEA PRATIWI P 80 158 200 17611 1203035 GITA RONIA P 80 158 198 17712 1203357 KAROLINA BR K. P 84 168 210 18613 1202524 MAYANG CHAIRUNNIS P 78 157 208 17514 1204355 WAHYUNI MARKOTIM P 80 159 200 17615 1202437 DINA NOVENTIN M. P 80 161 202 18016 1104363 NINING LESTARI P 76 145 185 16217 1100896 SHOFIYAH RIGAN P 82 163 204 18018 1100223 GITA MARDIAN K. P 78 157 208 172

∑n: 1437 2843 3625 3157X: 75.63 149.63 190.79 166.15

SD: 1.89 3.74 4.77 4.15Percentil 95%:: 77.52 153.37 195.56 170.31

Persenti 5%: 73.74 145.89 186.02 162.00Catatan:*SBB : Siku Bebas Bergerak**STBB: Siku Tidak Bebas Bergerak

Tabel 3: Data Ergonomi mahasiswa Laki-laki Kelas A angkatan 2012/2013

No NIM NAMA MAHASISWAGender DAERAH KERJA

HORIZONTALDAERAH KERJA

VERTICAL

L P Daerah Normal

Daerah Maksimum SBB* STBB**

1 1201711 KAFFAH IMADUDIN M. L 92 172 212 1922 1201900 RIDWAN BADAR R. L 84 165 204 1833 1201947 AMIRULLOH

ZULFIKAR L 100 182 224 200

4 1202168 RAHADYAN YUDANTAR L 81 172 211 190

5 1202262 SALSA SOLLI NAFSIKA L 90 171 211 1906 1202296 ALDI FAHRIANSYAH L 90 170 210 1907 1202302 ARDHIATUL ARDHA L 96 175 214 1928 1202435 WILDAN RACHMAN L 84 165 206 1849 1203580 RENDY DWI DHARMA L 85 168 206 18710 1204331 RENDRA ZULIAN R. L 85 166 206 18511 1204372 MARIO M. SUYATNA L 85 167 206 18512 1204884 BONI PURNAMA L 90 170 210 18913 1205638 SELMA FEBBY

SA'ADILL L 80 161 201 181

14 1205784 TUBAGUS HOKINOF J. L 91 172 213 19115 1205939 MUHAMAD ALIFIA N. L 90 172 212 19016 1205961 NASSUHAD L 89 170 209 19017 1206422 PRISMA DENENSI L 90 172 213 19118 1206488 YAYAN MULYANA L 72 154 194 17319 1206630 REGA OKTAVIANA L 90 170 212 189

∑n: 1664 3214 3974 3572X: 87.58 169.16 209.16 188

2

SD: 2.19 4.23 5.23 4.7Percentil 95%:: 89.77 173.38 214.38 192.7

Persenti 5%: 85.39 164.93 203.93 183.3Catatan:*SBB : Siku Bebas Bergerak**STBB: Siku Tidak Bebas Bergerak

Tabel 4: Data Ergonomi mahasiswa Perempuan Kelas A angkatan 2012/2013

No NIM NAMA MAHASISWAGender DAERAH KERJA

HORIZONTALDAERAH KERJA

VERTICAL

L P Daerah Normal

Daerah Maksimum SBB* STBB**

1 1201795 AI NUR ASIAH P 75 150 192 1692 1201800 DELIA ANGGIANI P 78 157 197 1773 1201834 ERSHA DIANY

PRATIWY P 86 165 204 182

4 1201846 IRSALINA ZATA DINI P 80 161 200 1825 1201860 AJENG PRATIWI P 75 155 196 1766 1201903 WIDYA HERAWATI P 88 159 200 1787 1201978 LIZWANTI C. P 75 155 195 1758 1202008 FATHIN HANIFAH P 78 160 200 1789 1202280 RISTA SUNDARI P 75 156 195 17510 1202286 LENI APRILLIANI P 75 155 195 17611 1202330 WIDYASARI P 85 166 206 19412 1202339 SALMA SABILLA N. P 72 150 190 17013 1202416 TERA GARNIDA P 75 155 193 17414 1205146 HILDA NURHANIFA P 74 155 204 17615 1205203 CHINTIA AGUSTIN W. P 75 155 206 17616 1205454 NENG SITI ZAKIYYAH P 74 155 205 17517 1205550 RUNI PUSPA AMALIAH P 86 166 205 18418 1206347 ANGGI SUGIHARTI P 78 160 201 178

∑n: 1404 2835 3584 3195X: 73.89 149.21 188.63 168.16

SD: 1.85 3.73 4.72 4.20Percentil 95%:: 75.74 152.94 193.35 172.36

Persenti 5%: 72.05 145.48 183.92 163.95Catatan:*SBB : Siku Bebas Bergerak**STBB: Siku Tidak Bebas Bergera

3

4

Tabel 5 : Data Antropometri Mahasiswa Laki-laki Kelas A Angkatan 2012/2013

Tin

ggi B

adan

Tin

ggi M

ata

Tin

ggi S

iku

Teb

al P

aha

Tin

ggi L

utut

Tin

ggi L

ipat

Lut

ut

Leb

ar B

ahu

Leb

ar P

angg

ul

Teb

al D

ada

No Nama Mahaiswa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 KAFFAH IMADUDIN M. R 174 142 165 109 75 112 97 59 18 59 49 56 47 46 33.5 25

2 RIDWAN BADAR R' 165 132 156 105 68 100 92 60 16 50 42 51 43 42 32 23

3 AMIRULLOH ZULFIKAR 182 152 171 163 83 120 108 74 18 67 57 58 48 48 33.5 25

4 RAHADYAN YUDA.. 172 140 163 112 74 107 98 68 16 47 38 56 48 42 32 25

5 SALSA SOLLI NAFSIKA 171 138 162 110 72 106 99 72 15 46 38 55 47 43 31 23

6 ALDI FAHRIANSYAH 170 138 161 108 72 105 96 67 16 45 37 51 43 40 31 23.5

7 ARDHIATUL ARDHA 175 143 166 115 76 112 103 72 18 60 50 56 48 42 34.2 24.5

8 WILDAN RACHMAN 165 133 156 105 695 102 94 62 14 50 43 51 43 42 32 23.5

9 RENDY DWI DHARMA 168 136 159 103 68 103 92 67 14 53 45 54 48 40 33 23

10 RENDRA ZULIAN R. 166 134 147 108 67 102 95 66 14 51 42 48 40 40 31.5 23

11 MARIO M. SUYATNA 167 134 158 102 72 102 93 67 14 52 43 53 46 41 32.5 25

12 BONI PURNAMA 170 138 161 105 73 105 96 67 16 55 47 54 46 43 32 24

13 TUBAGUS HOKINOF 172 140 163 108 78 107 97 69 18 57 49 49 42 39 31.7 23.5

14 MUHAMAD ALIFIA N. 172 142 163 105 74 103 98 67 18 57 49 48 40 41 32 24

15 NASSUHAD 170 128 161 107 73 105 96 65 16 55 47 47 39 40 31 23

16 PRISMA DENENSI 172 140 163 108 74 112 98 69 16 57 49 58 50 43 34 25.7

17 YAYAN MULYANA 154 122 143 95 56 97 86 53 14 39 32 35 26 38 29 22.4

18 REGA OKTAVIANA 170 138 162 107 72 107 96 67 16 55 57 51 44 42 32 25.3

∑n : 3055 2470 2880 1975 1922 1907 1734 1191 287 955 814 931 788 752 577.9 431.4MEAN (X) : 169.7 137.22 160 109.7 106.7778 105.944 96.3333 66.17 15.9 53.06 45.22 51.72 43.78 41.78 32.11 24

Standar Deviasi (SD): 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96Persenctil 97.5 % : 171.7 139.18 161.96 111.7 108.7378 107.904 98.2933 68.13 17.9 55 47.18 53.68 45.74 43.74 34.07 25.93

Variabel

Tin

ggi t

ubuh

saa

t du

duk

tega

k

Tin

ggi B

adan

pa

da p

osis

i D

uduk

Tin

ggi M

ata

pada

po

sisi

Dud

uk

Tin

ggi B

ahu

Pada

Po

sisi

Dud

uk

Tin

ggi S

iku

pada

po

sisi

Dud

uk

Jara

k da

ri P

anta

t ke

Lut

ut

Jara

k da

ri L

ipat

L

utut

ke

Pant

at

5

Tabel 6: Data Anthropometri Mahasiswa Laki-laki Kelas A Angkatan 2012/2013

Variabel

Teb

al P

erut

Leb

ar K

epal

a

Panj

ang

Tan

gan

Leb

ar T

anga

n

No Nama Mahaiswa 17 18 19 20 21 221 KAFFAH IMADUDIN M. R 27 47.5 16 19 8.5 179

2 RIDWAN BADAR RAHMAN 22 43.5 13.5 18.8 7.4 163

3 AMIRULLOH ZULFIKAR 27 48 15 19 8.5 179

4 RAHADYAN YUDANTARA 26 47 14.5 19 8.5 179

5 SALSA SOLLI NAFSIKA 26 44.5 15 19 8.5 179

6 ALDI FAHRIANSYAH 22.5 45.5 15 18.8 7.4 163

7 ARDHIATUL ARDHA 27 46 15 19 8.5 179

8 TERA GARNIDA 26.5 43 14.5 16.8 7.1 152

9 WILDAN RACHMAN 23 43 13.5 16.8 7.1 152

10 RENDY DWI DHARMA 26 47 14 18.8 7.4 163

11 RENDRA ZULIAN R. 26 46 14 19 8.5 179

12 MARIO M. SUYATNA 25.5 46 14.5 18.8 7.4 163

13 BONI PURNAMA 26 47 15.5 18.8 7.4 163

14 TUBAGUS HOKINOF 26 45 15.5 18.8 7.4 163

15 MUHAMAD ALIFIA NURFI 26.5 46.3 16 17.3 7.5 161

16 NASSUHAD 25 47 13.5 18.8 7.4 163

17 PRISMA DENENSI 27 47 16.5 17.3 7.5 161

18 YAYAN MULYANA 24 43 14.5 16.8 7.1 152

19 REGA OKTAVIANA 24.5 47 15.5 18.8 7.4 163

∑n : 483.5 869.3 281.5 349.4 146.5 3156MEAN (X) : 25.447 45.7526 14.8158 18.3895 7.7105 166.10526

Standar Deviasi (SD): -1.96 -1.96 -1.96 -1.96 -1.96 -1.96Persenctil 97.5 % : 27.407 47.7126 16.7758 20.3495 9.6705 168.06526

Persentil 2.5 % : 23.487 43.7926 12.8558 16.4295 5.7505 164.14526

Jara

k da

ri s

iku

ke

Uju

ng J

ari

Jara

k B

enta

ng U

jung

Ja

ri K

anan

Ke

Uju

ng

Jari

Kir

i

6

Tabel 6: Data Anthropometri Mahasiswa Perempuan Kelas A Angkatan 2012/2013

Variabel

Tin

ggi B

adan

Tin

ggi M

ata

Tin

ggi S

iku

Teb

al P

aha

Tin

ggi L

utut

Tin

ggi L

ipat

Lut

ut

Leb

ar B

ahu

Leb

ar P

angg

ul

No Nama Mahaiswa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 AI NUR ASIAH 150 120 142 95 50 88 76 52 13 34 27 36 28 38 34.5

2 DELIA ANGGIANI 157 127 145 97 57 92 82 54 14 37 29 38 32 40 37.5

3 ERSHA DIANY PRATIWY 165 133 151 105 66 90 94 60 16 45 37 51 43 43 38.4

4 IRSALINA ZATA DINI 161 131 152 100 63 92 96 56 14 46 38 46 38 40 37

5 AJENG PRATIWI 155 128 146 90 57 95 79 52 13 40 32 41 36 37 34

6 WIDYA HERAWATI 159 127 150 103 59 95 94 56 14 44 36 40 32 38 34.5

7 LIZWANTI C. 155 123 146 100 56 95 87 57 13 30 24 41 34 38 36

8 FATHIN HANIFAH 160 128 142 107 62 95 86 55 14 35 27 46 35 38 35.6

9 RISTA SUNDARI 156 124 144 102 57 97 84 53 13 36 28 37 29 36 34.5

10 LENI APRILLIANI 155 126 143 100 55 94 83 52 13 35 27 36 28 35 32

11 WIDYASARI 166 134 157 107 67 104 96 63 14 51 43 52 44 41 3612 SALMA SABILLA N. 150 124 143 98 49 92 83 47 13 35 28 31 25 36 34.313 TERA GARNIDA 155 127 144 90 55 90 87 52 13 40 32 36 28 37 32.514 HILDA NURHANIFA 155 123 146 100 60 92 87 52 14 40 32 36 28 39 34.515 CHINTIA AGUSTIN WIND. 155 123 147 95 60 92 89 52 13 40 33 36 28 37 3416 NENG SITI ZAKIYYAH 155 124 146 97 62 93 86 54 13 40 32 37 29 37 3317 RUNI PUSPA AMALIAH 166 134 157 103 67 103 96 63 16 51 43 46 38 38 35.618 SELMA FEBBY SA'ADILL 161 129 152 102 59 97 93 58 14 41 34 41 33 36 34.519 ANGGI SUGIHARTI 160 128 152 100 57 97 92 57 14 45 37 41 34 39 34.6

∑n : 2996 2413 2805 1891 1118 1793 1670 1045 261 765 619 768 622 723 663MEAN (X) : 157.684 127 147.632 99.5263 58.84211 94.3684 87.8947 55 13.737 40.263 32.579 40.4211 32.737 38.0526 34.895

Standar Deviasi (SD): 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96Persenctil 97.5 % : 159.644 128.96 149.592 101.486 60.80211 96.3284 89.8547 56.96 15.697 42.223 34.539 42.3811 34.697 40.0126 36.855

Persentil 2.5 % : 155.724 125.04 145.672 97.5663 56.88211 92.4084 85.9347 53.04 11.777 38.303 30.619 38.4611 30.777 36.0926 32.935

Tin

ggi t

ubuh

saa

t du

duk

tega

k

Tin

ggi B

adan

pa

da p

osis

i D

uduk

Tin

ggi M

ata

pada

po

sisi

Dud

uk

Tin

ggi B

ahu

Pada

Po

sisi

Dud

uk

Tin

ggi S

iku

pada

po

sisi

Dud

uk

Jara

k da

ri P

anta

t ke

Lut

ut

Jara

k da

ri L

ipat

L

utut

ke

Pant

at

7

Tabel 6: Data Anthropometri Mahasiswa Perempuan Kelas A Angkatan 2012/2013(Lanjutan)

Teba

l Per

ut

Leba

r Kep

ala

Panj

ang

Tang

an

Leba

r Tan

gan

No Nama Mahaiswa 17 18 19 20 21 221 AI NUR ASIAH 23 40 14.6 16.8 7.1 152

2 DELIA ANGGIANI 25 41 16 17.3 7.5 161

3 ERSHA DIANY PRATIWY 27 47 17 18.8 7.4 163

4 IRSALINA ZATA DINI 26 42 16 17.6 7.5 161

5 AJENG PRATIWI 23 42 14.5 17.3 7.5 161

6 WIDYA HERAWATI 23 42 15 17.3 7.5 161

7 LIZWANTI C. 22.5 42 13.5 17.3 7.5 161

8 FATHIN HANIFAH 22.5 43 15.5 17.3 7.5 161

9 RISTA SUNDARI 23 43.5 14 16.8 7.1 152

10 LENI APRILLIANI 24 44.5 13.5 16.8 7.1 152

11 WIDYASARI 23.5 43.5 15 18.8 7.4 163

12 SALMA SABILLA N. 26.5 43 14.5 16.8 7.1 152

13 TERA GARNIDA 23 43 13.5 16.8 7.1 152

14 HILDA NURHANIFA 26.5 46.3 16 17.3 7.5 161

15 CHINTIA AGUSTIN WIND. 25 47 13.5 18.8 7.4 163

16 NENG SITI ZAKIYYAH 27 47 16.5 17.3 7.5 161

17 RUNI PUSPA AMALIAH 24 43 14.5 16.8 7.1 152

18 SELMA FEBBY SA'ADILL 24.5 47 15.5 18.8 7.4 163

19 ANGGI SUGIHARTI 23 43.5 13.5 17.3 7.5 161

∑n : 462 786.8 268.6 314.7 132.2 2852MEAN (X) : 24.316 43.7111 14.9222 17.4833 7.3444 158.44

Standar Deviasi (SD): 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96Persenctil 97.5 % : 26.276 45.6711 16.8822 19.4433 9.3044 160.4

Variabel

Jara

k da

ri si

ku k

e U

jung

Ja

ri

Jara

k Be

ntan

g U

jung

Jari

Kana

n Ke

Uju

ng Ja

ri Ki

ri

8

Tabel 7: Data Antropometri Furniture pada Studio JurusanPendidikan Seni Rupa

NO NAMA STUDIO JENIS FURNITURE

DIMENSI SANDARAN

Tinggi Panjang Lebar Kaki Tangan Punggung

I STUDIO LUKIS dan STUDIO DASAR

Standard 145 145 57 112 0 0

 Meja Kerja 77 210 86 66 0 0

 Almari 0 0 0 0 0 0

   Sketsel 200 252 61 80 0 0

IISTUDIO GRAFIS

    

  Meja Kerja 74 140 70 70 0 0

   Kursi Kerja 45 32 32 44 0 0

   Meja Cetak 0 0 0 0 0 0

   Almari 170 120 45 80 0 0

III STUDIO DESAIN KOMUNIKASI VISUAL DAN MULTI MEDIA

     Meja

Komputer 76 80 65 17 0 0

   

Kursi Kerja 78 50 47 0 0 15

 Meja Cetak 0 0 0 0 0 0

IVSTUDIO KRIA  

 1 KRIA ANYAM Meja Anyam 77 210 86 66 0 0

       Meja Celup 77 210 86 66 0 0

     Meja Irat 77 210 86 66 0 0

9

     Kursi Kerja 45 32 32 44 0 0

 2 KRIYA BATIK

DAN TEKSTIL  

a KRIYA BATIK Gawangan 76 120 30 0 0 0

Dingklik 16 25 18 0 0 0

Kompor 21 20 20 0 0 0

Bak Celup 30 120 60 10 0 0

Meja Pola 78 120 84 69 0 0

Wajan 10 31 26 0 0 0

Panci Pelorot 24 40 36 0 0 0

b KRIA TEKSTIL Meja Weaving 0 0 0 0 0 0

Msin Spinning 0 0 0 0 0 0

Meja Makrame 0 0 0 0 0

Kursi Kerja 0 0 0 0 0 0

V STUDIO PATUNG Pustek 0 0 0 0 0 0

Meja Putar 90 82 40 53 0 0

Kursi Kerja 50 28 28 26 0 0

Meja Bengkel 85 200 119 65 0 0

DingklikStol

5052

2820

2820

260

00

00

VI STUDIO KERAMIK Meja Putar 85 170 88 70 0 0

Kursi Kerja 50 28 28 26 0 0

Tungku Pemanas 210 160 105 53 0 0

Meja Bengkel 90 82 40 53 0 0

VII STUDIO GAMBAR TEKNIK

10

Meja Gambar 75 100 61 73 0 0

Kursi Kerja 45 32 32 44 0 0

VIII STUDIO GAMBAR BENTUK/MODEL

Kursi 77 73 41 41 57 18O-25O

11

JENIS FURNITURE

Mej

a Po

la

Mej

a G

amba

r

Mej

a B

engk

el

Mej

a Pu

tar

Mej

a Pr

ess

Alm

ari

Rak

Kur

si K

erja

Stoo

l

Din

gklik

Tun

gku

/ BB

G

as

Bas

e/Pu

stek

Stan

dard

/ T

reep

ort

Ets

el

Tun

gku/

BB

So

lar

Mej

a K

ompu

ter

Bck

Dro

p

Gaw

anga

n

NO NAMA RUANG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18A Studio Dasar

1 Studio Gambar Bentuk 30 52 Studio Gambar Model X X3 Studio Gambar Konstruktif 28 10 25 X4 Studio Nirmana 28 15

B Studio Kriya

1 Studio Kriya Batik 2 2 X X 15 X 152 Studio Kriya Anyam X3 Studio Kriya Kayu 6 X X4 Studio Kriya Keramik 6 12 X 2 X 15 2 X X

C Studio Lukis X X X 25 15D Studio Patung 8 8 2 X 15 8E Studio Grafis X 6 2 X X X X XF Studio Fotografi X X X X 2 X X 2G Studio DKV X XH Studio Multi Media 15 X 18

12

LAMPIRAN 2

LAMPIRAN GAMBAR

Sistem Sambungan Kerangks

Gambar 1: Gabar 2: Terminologi Untuk Pergerakan Tangan dan Lutut Hyper Extension and FlexsionSumber : Panero, Julius da Zelnik Martin, P. 116 Sumber : Panero, Julius dan Zelnik Martin P 115

Gambar 3: Terminologi Gerak Sendi Gambar 4 : Standar perancanngan kursi kerja

1

Gambar 5 : Gambar 6: Ukuran Tubuh Manusia Berbagai Ukuran Tubuh Manusia

2

Ganbar 7: Centre of Grafity (Gaya beban dalam duduk)

Gambar 8: Duduk Posterior

3

Gamvar 9 : Angular Motion

Lampiran 3

4

Gambar 4.1: Standard dengan dua kaki lengkap Gambar 4.2: Mahasiswa sedang melukis dengan kotak untuk menyimpan cat dengan menggunakan Standard dan kwas

Furniture Pada Studio Patung

Gambar 4.3 : Meja Putar Untuk Membentuk Gambar 4.4: Kursi Kerja dan Meja Putar Patung Dalam Mata Kuliah seni Patung dalam Mata Kuliah Seni Patung

Furniture Pada Ruang Studio Batik

5

Gambar 4.5 : Gambar 4.6: Kompor Gas untuk memanalkan Meja Kerja (Meja Pola) dan Kursi Kerja (Stool) malamDalam Praktikum Kuliah Batik II Furniture Pada Studio Multi Media

Gambar 4.7: Gambar 4.8 Membatik dengan Menggunakan Gawangan Meja dan kursi kerja pada studio multi media

Furnitur Untuk Studio Dasar1. Furnitur untuk Praktikum Menggambar Baentuk

Gambar 4.17 : Kursi kerja dan alas gambar dalam MK Praktikum menggambar Bentuk

6

2. Furniture pada Mata Kuliah Menggambar Konstruktif

Gambar 4.20: Meja Gambar dan Kursi gambar dalam PraktikumMenggambar Konstruktif

Furniture Pada Mata Kuliah Gambar 4.18: Praktikum Keramik Kursi Kerja dan Stool dalam Menggamb Bentuk

Gambar 4.22 Gambar 4.24 : Rak Pajang, Meja Putar dan Stool Meja Putar dengan Penggerak Dinamo

Furniture pada Studio Seni Grafis

7

Gambar 4.28: Meja Kerja Grafis

Gambar 4.25: Tungku Pembakar Keramik dengan Bahan Bakar Gas

Gambar 4.30: Mesin Pres Seni Grafis Teknik Cetak Dalam

8