Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Filling ‘gaps’ in strength data for design

Laura Peebles*, Beverley Norris
The Product Safety and Testing Group, School of Mechanical, Materials, Manufacturing Engineering and Management, University of Nottingham,
University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
Received in revised form 5 July 2002; accepted 13 July 2002

Abstract

Data on the physical strength capabilities of users are fundamental to the safe and usable design of products. It is recognised,
however, that there are many ‘gaps’ in the ergonomics data available to designers. Whilst considerable research on human
capabilities and limitations has already been carried out, few data exist which are directly applicable in the design process. This
paper describes a two-stage research project which was undertaken to try to address some of these data ‘gaps’. Potential needs for
design-relevant data were identified in Stage 1 of the research and in Stage 2 new data were collected to meet some of those needs.
Data were collected on children through to the older adult on a series of six strength measurements, all of which were intended to be
directly applicable to design: (1) finger push strength, (2) pinch-pull strength, (3) hand grip strength, (4) wrist-twisting strength, (5)
opening strength, and (6) push and pull strength. The methodology, findings and data from this research are presented and
discussed.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ergonomics; Strength; Design

1. Introduction ‘gaps’ in the strength data available for direct use in

product design.
Ergonomics data are fundamental to the design of Whilst much research on force exertion is carried out,
safe and usable products (Norris and Wilson, 1997), and its usefulness (in terms of product design) is often
the benefits of using these data in the early stages of the limited (Wilson and Norris, 1993). This is because
design process are widely recognised. It was in response situations in which force exertions are investigated
to this need for ergonomics data that the University of seldom correspond with situations in which the product
Nottingham, in association with the Consumer Affairs is realistically used. For instance, in many studies on the
Directorate of the UK Department of Trade and exertion of force, subjects are often instructed to adopt a
Industry (DTI), recently produced a series of publica- standardised posture, in that the individual has to sit or
tions that bring together all available design-related data stand with the elbows flexed to 901: Whilst this allows
into a compendium of easy-to-use design resources. The comparison of studies and manipulation of independent
three publications on children, adults and older adults variables, it makes data difficult to relate to real-life
(‘Childata’, ‘Adultdata’ and ‘Older Adultdata’) (Norris design applications as the data are not a true representa-
and Wilson, 1995; Peebles and Norris, 1998; Smith et al., tion of the strength that can be exerted when no
2000) contain the most up-to-date anthropometric and restrictions are placed on posture (Daams, 1994). Also,
physical strength data for countries around the world.1 data are often incomplete, in that the measurements are
However, their production has confirmed important collected in limited conditions with only a few experi-
mental variables, or are collected on one particular
*Corresponding author. Present address: System Concepts, 2 Savoy group of the population only. Furthermore, research is
Court, London WC2R 0EZ, UK. Tel.: +44-0-2072403388; fax: +44-
often specific and is directed toward investigating one
0-2072405212.
E-mail address: laura@system-concepts.com (L. Peebles). particular product or select group of products only,
1
Copies of Childata, Adultdata and Older Adultdata are available limiting the usefulness of the data in terms of its
free of charge from DTI Consumer Affairs Directorate or the authors. applicability to other product areas.

0003-6870/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 3 - X
74 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

It is difficult to design research to generate data that * opening strength;

are useful for design purposes—general, yet realistic * push and pull strength.
data that can be directly applied in the design of a wide
range of products. This paper describes research to try
to address some of these design-applicable data ‘gaps’. 3. Stage 2—Data collection: methodology
Potential needs for applicable data (in terms of product
design) were identified and prioritised, and new data Within these broad categories of data, further
were collected to meet some of those needs. The specification had to be made. An exercise was therefore
methodology and findings from this research, as well conducted to identify the most useful, design-applicable
as detailed descriptions and results of the data collected, data still to be collected. An analysis of a variety of
are presented and discussed. consumer products and the way in which they are used
and operated was carried out. This involved looking at
the size and shape of various products, as well as their
2. Stage 1—Identification and prioritisation of data needs handles and controls, and investigating the types of
forces involved when interacting with these items. From
To ensure that data needs were prioritised and based this, it was possible to detail the most common product
on the real needs of data users as opposed to academic interactions for each of the six ‘gaps’, and this formed
needs, consultation was sought and a postal survey of the basis of the data-collection programme.
users of ergonomics data was carried out. Around 850
designers, manufacturers, ergonomists, consumer safety 3.1. Subjects
groups and product-testing laboratories were contacted
by questionnaire. Respondents were asked to detail the One criticism of the existing data is that they are
type of data or information that they have needed for rarely measured across all age groups. Historically,
their own design purposes but have found difficult to older adults and children have been ignored in data
source. In total, over 80 responses were received. While collection, perhaps because research programmes have
a response rate of 10% is low, this was not unexpected focused on workplace design. Contrastingly, the pro-
given the fact that the survey was an unsolicited postal duction of ‘Childata’ highlighted that data produced on
questionnaire to a diverse range of recipients. Also, a children are often focused on consumer hazards or
large population of the sample may not have found the products, yet this data is often not available on adults.
questionnaire applicable, as they may not have been Data on older adults have always been traditionally
users of ergonomics data. However, the low response scarce. Therefore, in order to provide designers with a
rate could also be taken to indicate that some of the comparable set of design-applicable data for all age
sample felt that ergonomics data, particularly its groups, children, adults and older adults were measured
availability or paucity, had little relevance to their in the study. Around 150 subjects aged from 2 to 86
product range or professional remit. years were measured for each of the six strength
Responses were diverse in nature, with data needs exertions. All subjects were free from any physical
ranging from very specific data for one particular group disability and were not selected to be representative of
of the population (including detailed head and face socio-economic criteria. The restriction of the sample to
anthropometry for young children, and hand grip able-bodied subjects was a factor of the nature of
strength of wheelchair bound adults), to general data research funding. However, when producing data for
for an entire population (including upper body strength, use in the design for a consumer population then, the
and the lifting capabilities of adults). By far the majority principles of inclusive design should dictate that,
of responses, however, requested a need for physical wherever possible, people with disabilities are included
strength data for all age groups: that is, data which in such data collection. Subjects aged between 2 and 15
could be directly applied in the design process. In years were grouped into 5-year age bands, and adults
addition, most responses highlighted a need for general, aged 16 years and over were grouped into 10-year age
rather than product-specific data, so that the data could bands. There were around 15 subjects in each age band,
be used in as many design applications as possible. although this varied slightly between each measurement.
Based on the findings of this survey, a series of six Subject numbers are detailed separately for each
realistic yet general strength measurements were identi- strength measurement in Section 3.5.
fied as summarising the most important data needs:
3.2. Strength measurements
* finger push strength;
* pinch-pull strength; Data were collected for a series of six different
* hand grip strength; strength measurements in the following range of
* wrist-twisting strength; conditions:
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 75

3.2.1. Finger push strength

The subject stood in front of the measuring device and
adopted a free posture. A static pushing force was
exerted with the pad of the index finger or thumb of the
dominant hand on a circular force plate (diameter
20 mm; depth 2 mmÞ; positioned at elbow height, as
shown in Fig. 1. Subjects pushed in a forwards and
downwards direction.

3.2.2. Pinch-pull strength

The subject stood in front of the measuring device and
adopted a free posture. A static pulling force was
exerted with 1 hand (dominant) whilst pinching on a
series of handles with the pad of the thumb in
opposition to (i) the pad of the index finger (pulp pinch)
Fig. 3. 20 mm block.
and (ii) the pads of both the index and middle fingers
(chuck pinch). Subjects pinched on a series of three
custom-made handles: a textured fabric strip (length
40 mm  breadth 40 mm  depth 2 mmÞ; as shown in
Fig. 2, and two fabric-covered blocks (length 40 mm 

Fig. 4. 40 mm block.

breadth 40 mm  depths 20 mm and 40 mmÞ; as shown

Fig. 1. Circular force plate (pushing forwards). in Figs. 3 and 4. All handles were positioned at elbow
height.

3.2.3. Hand grip strength

The subject stood and adopted a free posture. A static
gripping force was exerted with 1 (dominant) and 2
hands on a series of handles, as shown in Fig. 5. The
handle was held between the middle joints of the thumb
and all four fingers. Maximum strength was measured
using a hand grip dynamometer with handle separations
of 30, 50 and 70 mm (handle length 100 mmÞ: Handles
were freely moveable.

3.2.4. Wrist-twisting strength

The subject stood in front of the measuring device
and adopted a free posture. A static twisting force
was exerted with 1 (dominant) hand in a clock-wise
direction on a variety of knobs and handles, as shown in
Fig. 2. 2 mm strip. Figs. 6–11: (i) door lever (diameter 15 mm; length
76 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Fig. 8. Circular knob.

Fig. 5. 70, 50 and 30 mm handles.

Fig. 9. Ridged knob.

Fig. 6. Door lever.

Fig. 10. Butterfly nut.

Fig. 7. Door knob.

(vi) tap (diameter 50 mm; depth 40 mmÞ: All handles
were positioned at elbow height and orientated vertically
170 mmÞ; (ii) door knob (diameter 65 mm; depth (vertical wrist-twisting strength—as shown in Figs. 6–
45 mmÞ; (iii) circular knob (diameter 40 mm; depth 11). The ridged knob, butterfly nut and tap were also
20 mmÞ; (iv) ridged knob (length 40 mm; depth 15 mmÞ; orientated horizontally (horizontal wrist-twisting
(v) butterfly nut (length 40 mm; depth 10 mmÞ; and strength).
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 77

Fig. 11. Tap.

Fig. 14. 85 mm jar.

Fig. 12. 45 mm jar.

Fig. 15. Cylindrical bar (positioned vertically).

custom-made aluminium jars (height 125 mmÞ with

smooth and knurled lids (diameters 45, 65 and
85 mmÞ; as shown in Figs. 12–14. The replica jar was
held with one (preferred) hand and a static twisting force
was exerted with the other hand on the lid of the jar.

3.2.6. Push and pull strength

The subject stood in front of the measuring device and
adopted a free posture. A static pushing or pulling force
was exerted on a cylindrical bar (diameter 20 mm;
length 300 mmÞ; as shown in Fig. 15, using 1 (dominant)
and 2 hands. The bar was orientated vertically and
horizontally. A static pulling force was also exerted on a
convex knob (diameter 40 mm) using 1 hand only
Fig. 13. 65 mm jar.
(Fig. 16). Both handles were positioned at elbow height.

3.3. Experimental protocol

3.2.5. Opening strength
The subject stood and adopted a free posture. Subjects were asked to exert their maximum strength
Opening strength was measured on a series of three at all times, described as the highest force he or she
78 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

gauges. The output was measured in volts and the

equipment was calibrated in increments of 1 kg weights.
A linear regression was then used to convert the output
to Newtons (to an accuracy of 0.01).

3.5. Results

The data collected for all six measurements are

presented in Tables 1–13. Differences in strength due
to age and sex, as well as the relationship between the six
measurements, and the distribution and variability of
data, were analysed and these findings are presented in
Section 3.5.7.

3.5.1. Finger push strength

Fig. 16. Convex knob. Maximum static forwards and downwards pushing
forces of the index finger and thumb, exerted for 5 s; in
Newtons (N) are given in Tables 1 and 2.
could exert without causing injury. Subjects were
instructed to build up to their maximum strength in 3.5.2. Pinch-pull strength
the first few seconds, and to maintain maximum Maximum static pulling strengths when pinching and
strength for a further few seconds, in line with the pulling with the thumb, index and middle fingers,
methods of Caldwell et al. (1974) and Kroemer (1970). exerted for 5 s; in Newtons (N) are given in Tables 3
The peak strength measured during the exertion (lasting and 4.
around 5 sÞ was deemed to be the maximum strength.
Where only one handed strength was measured, subjects 3.5.3. Hand grip strength
were instructed to use their dominant hand. Subjects Maximum static gripping forces of one and two
performed two strength exertions (lasting around 5 sÞ hands, exerted for 5 s; in Newtons (N) are as shown in
for each experimental condition (with the highest of the Tables 5 and 6.
two values being used for analysis), and were given a 2-
min rest interval between each exertion, again in 3.5.4. Wrist-twisting strength
accordance with Caldwell et al. In all trials, subjects Maximum static torques of one (dominant) hand,
stood during testing and were free to adopt their own exerted on knobs and handles in a horizontal and
posture (as well as use their body weight) in order to vertical orientation for 5 s; in Newton-metres ðN mÞ are
replicate realistic scenarios. The testing device was given in Tables 7 and 8.
adjusted and positioned at each subject’s elbow height
(with the exception of opening strength and hand grip 3.5.5. Opening strength
strength where the equipment was freely moveable). Maximum static torques of the preferred hand,
Subjects were encouraged to exert maximal effort during exerted on jar lids for 5 s; in Newton-metres ðN mÞ are
testing, and were able to obtain visual feedback from the given in Tables 9 and 10.
testing device.
3.5.6. Push and pull strength
3.4. Equipment Maximum static pushing and pulling forces using one
and two hands on a cylindrical bar and a convex knob
Finger push strength, pinch-pull strength and wrist- one handed pull only), exerted for 5 s; in Newtons (N)
twisting strength were measured on a series of specially are given in Tables 11–13.
made handles, which were attached to a MecmesinTM
Advanced Force Gauge (AFG 500N). Hand grip 3.5.7. Analysis
strength was measured using a hand grip dynamometer Gender differences: For most measurements, no
(MKIIIa), made by the Medical Physics Department, significant differences in maximum strength were found
Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK, and based on between male and female children (2–15 years). How-
a bridge of strain gauges. Both of these pieces of ever, in adults aged 16 years and over, males were
equipment were calibrated by the manufacturers and generally found to be significantly stronger then females
output was measured to an accuracy of 0:1 N: Opening ðpo0:05Þ:
strength and push and pull strength were measured with Age differences: For all six measurements, strength
custom-made equipment, which used bridge strain was found to increase with age throughout childhood, to
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 79

Table 1
Pushing with the index finger

Age (years) Sex No. Pushing forwards (N) Pushing downwards (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 9 20.3 5.2 16.0–35.0 21.8 7.0 14.7–35.0

F 8 24.9 9.6 15.9–38.6 24.5 8.1 12.4–35.1
6–10 M 5 51.5 13.4 30.8–61.8 43.3 16.6 15.3–57.1
F 10 44.0 17.3 23.4–70.3 42.0 17.2 22.8–76.8
11–15 M 12 64.3 17.8 35.9–92.1 66.7 22.6 35.9–102.7
F 5 64.6 18.4 33.2–80.0 63.0 19.4 31.0–78.4
16–20 M 6 121.4 36.8 82.2–163.3 113.9 38.5 60.9–162.6
F 8 84.7 23.2 61.9–122.6 76.1 22.2 53.6–115.9
21–30 M 10 118.7 28.6 76.0–155.6 111.3 26.6 71.7–142.5
F 7 78.9 15.4 55.9–98.4 76.5 15.6 61.9–106.6
31–50 M 7 122.2 27.5 85.6–174.2 127.6 28.7 98.2–176.8
F 16 87.1 13.6 66.4–111.8 86.0 18.6 62.9–119.0
51–60 M 5 104.1 32.5 55.4–137.5 105.3 23.7 71.2–124.8
F 6 67.6 10.0 53.8–79.0 74.3 9.3 58.0–84.7
61–70 M 3 101.0 24.6 73.5–121.0 122.1 48.6 93.0–178.2
F 8 65.8 4.4 59.0–73.2 65.4 8.17 55.0–75.1
71–80 M 8 83.5 15.6 58.6–103.3 90.0 17.6 64.7–118.2
F 11 58.3 14.1 41.1–84.6 62.0 12.4 37.5–79.2
81–90 F 4 60.9 11.1 44.4–68.1 54.2 7.0 44.4–60.7

Table 2
Pushing with the thumb

Age (years) Sex No. Pushing forwards (N) Pushing downwards (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 9 28.1 10.0 17.3–41.6 26.9 18.8 23.5–53.8

F 8 30.9 8.7 16.8–42.8 34.4 14.6 13.6–53.9
6–10 M 5 88.8 28.6 53.4–126.6 85.1 34.1 51.4–132.1
F 10 70.2 24.6 36.7–107.7 71.1 33.6 27.8–119.5
11–15 M 12 135.2 71.3 54.4–315.4 115.1 40.0 67.9–209.1
F 5 97.0 26.9 51.3–119.7 94.3 36.2 39.1–139.6
16–20 M 6 189.2 49.0 119.7–253.0 195.8 51.5 113.9–247.5
F 8 142.8 45.7 100.0–234.6 125.5 24.3 86.2–161.4
21–30 M 10 177.0 51.4 114.9–290.6 184.1 52.2 109.3–290.1
F 7 116.1 28.2 70.5–147.9 135.2 30.4 84.7–180.7
31–50 M 7 188.4 30.8 147.1–224.4 201.4 23.5 173.7–242.2
F 16 133.5 33.4 79.4–220.4 133.4 29.4 86.9–187.2
51–60 M 5 171.9 51.4 91.2–228.6 168.3 61.3 76.3–248.7
F 6 106.0 35.4 59.6–155.0 124.5 26.4 85.6–142.8
61–70 M 3 159.3 82.5 68.8–230.4 172.7 67.1 103.8–237.9
F 8 92.2 11.4 73.6–109.0 94.5 14.0 72.8–119.3
71–80 M 8 140.8 27.9 114.4–184.9 145.4 46.9 91.6–211.8
F 11 86.4 20.8 58.1–113.2 89.8 18.9 61.5–123.3
81–90 F 4 86.6 24.4 56.4–116.2 80.6 25.4 56.5–109.9

peak in adulthood, and then to decrease with age from the adult (16–20, 21–30, 31–50 years) or older adult (51–
around 50 years, and this is shown in Fig. 17 for finger 60, 61–70, 71–80, 81–90 years) age groups. However,
push strength. Throughout childhood, each successive differences were found between adults and older adults:
age group (2–5, 6–10, 11–15 years) was found to be for most strength exertions, adults (16–50 years) were
significantly stronger than the previous for all measure- found to be significantly stronger than older adults (51–
ments ðpo0:05Þ: Generally, however, no significant 90 years), who in turn were stronger than children (2–10
differences in maximum strength were found within years). No significant differences in maximum strength
80 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Table 3
Pulp-pinch pull strength

Age (years) Sex No. 2 mm strip (N) 20 mm block (N) 40 mm block (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 18.2 8.1 10.3–29.7 19.7 5.0 12.2–27.7 21.1 5.1 15.1–27.6
F 5 16.1 8.4 2.7–24.5 15.0 8.9 6.9–30.3 14.4 6.7 3.6–28.3
6–10 M 7 37.5 13.3 20.0–57.1 42.8 14.7 23.6–64.8 49.5 17.8 26.3–60.7
F 9 34.5 12.4 15.8–55.8 33.2 9.8 21.5–62.3 37.0 13.2 22.9–46.6
11–15 M 10 51.0 15.5 33.1–76.8 60.9 17.8 36.6–92.9 62.6 18.0 44.3–97.6
F 7 44.8 10.1 31.6–57.9 50.4 14.1 33.4–80.3 53.4 8.4 16.5–68.1
16–20 M 11 70.5 18.8 46.2–112.5 79.3 20.1 53.6–105.7 81.6 21.9 46.7–106.1
F 7 62.9 8.6 52.1–74.7 70.8 13.9 52.4–115.5 75.3 15.8 63.0–121.4
21–30 M 8 75.5 29.3 31.8–134.3 81.9 16.1 59.0–113.6 86.0 17.6 53.2–116.5
F 9 62.5 16.1 36.3–79.1 61.0 12.4 35.9–73.5 62.5 10.5 40.1–74.5
31–50 M 5 78.0 10.0 70.9–100.9 87.5 11.2 72.8–100.3 108.0 19.9 62.2–130.6
F 13 65.9 26.7 47.0–144.8 71.5 22.3 41.9–109.5 73.9 22.0 44.3–117.7
51–60 M 5 57.3 5.7 52.4–58.2 68.9 9.0 58.8–77.4 77.3 19.5 56.3–105.2
F 6 52.4 17.8 24.5–77.0 63.2 14.9 43.3–79.9 67.8 19.4 51.2–90.2
61–70 M 4 72.4 20.7 44.2–94.1 83.9 13.0 67.0–97.7 90.6 19.8 63.5–109.0
F 9 44.9 8.2 32.0–59.1 51.1 9.6 35.0–68.9 55.7 10.8 38.6–69.3
71–80 M 8 57.8 13.5 41.4–83.3 66.7 17.1 42.3–92.2 70.6 18.9 46.0–96.2
F 11 40.3 7.7 26.1–54.4 48.1 10.7 34.4–57.9 49.5 11.1 36.4–72.1
81–90 F 4 41.9 13.2 33.0–61.1 52.2 6.7 45.0–60.9 57.4 9.7 44.9–68.5

Table 4
Chuck pinch pull-strength

Age (years) Sex No. 2 mm strip (N) 20 mm block (N) 40 mm block (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 22.0 3.7 7.6–27.0 24.8 5.6 16.0–31.4 26.6 4.4 17.1–32.7
F 5 17.2 12.6 2.5–39.2 19.3 10.8 9.0–36.7 17.4 8.5 11.1–32.2
6–10 M 7 47.8 16.6 27.9–59.5 55.2 21.0 31.1–95.3 62.3 25.2 31.7–98.8
F 9 36.3 12.7 21.8–60.7 45.7 15.7 31.6–77.0 48.1 15.6 32.6–79.0
11–15 M 10 57.3 18.9 39.5–91.1 78.1 29.2 50.0–135.0 82.4 21.2 55.5–118.4
F 7 49.5 11.9 31.8–66.4 60.9 12.9 43.4–81.2 68.5 13.9 48.4–88.1
16–20 M 11 78.9 16.4 55.3–106.7 90.4 18.8 62.6–129.2 105.3 20.0 73.6–141.0
F 7 68.3 12.6 52.4–90.7 81.4 11.2 72.8–109.2 92.4 12.9 77.1–116.3
21–30 M 8 80.9 22.4 56.4–126.4 89.8 20.3 58.0–121.4 105.5 21.7 75.1–138.9
F 9 67.2 17.9 40.4–91.3 68.9 13.2 49.0–91.7 75.6 15.0 51.6–94.7
31–50 M 5 90.9 14.4 73.6–109.4 108.5 8.3 98.3–120.7 118.6 9.6 106.1–130.1
F 13 70.0 15.0 50.3–98.1 76.8 19.5 53.6–111.1 89.1 21.7 57.7–128.0
51–60 M 5 74.3 11.0 63.5–92.9 84.0 16.8 74.5–113.7 92.6 20.1 69.8–120.3
F 6 59.9 13.7 45.6–79.5 62.8 14.8 52.0–91.3 75.1 18.0 58.1–99.3
61–70 M 4 73.0 11.0 51.0–84.7 83.0 13.9 68.0–95.4 92.2 4.7 85.4–96.5
F 9 44.9 8.9 37.0–65.1 53.9 8.0 44.1–71.9 64.8 7.7 55.7–80.9
71–80 M 8 70.6 10.9 52.0–84.9 82.9 17.2 57.1–104.6 94.6 24.8 60.8–109.6
F 11 47.7 9.6 32.2–69.1 50.3 11.2 37.0–73.7 52.7 7.7 37.4–72.3
81–90 F 4 46.3 12.1 30.3–59.8 54.2 8.2 48.0–66.3 60.4 9.2 47.5–69.2

were generally found between 11–15 year olds and 60–80 Distribution of data: With the exception of push and
year olds, or 6–10 year olds and 80–90 year olds. pull strength, all data sets exhibit a normal distribution,
Relationship between measurements: The results show with skewness and kurtosis near zero.
no significant correlations between the six measure- Variability of data: Variation coefficients range
ments, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from 12% to 68%, with an estimated average of
from 0.01 to 0.3. That is, no relationships were found 34.7%. Torque and push exertions exhibit greater
between the six measurements, in that the forces exerted degrees of variation than grip, pinch and pull exertions.
were significantly different for each. For all measurements variability is most pronounced in
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 81

Table 5
1-handed grip strength

Age (years) Sex No. Small handle—30 mm (N) Medium handle—50 mm (N) Large handle—70 mm (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 56.9 37.7 19.6–110.8 58.3 29.9 28.4–108.9 54.8 39.0 23.7–121.6
F 9 45.1 14.1 27.9–60.6 43.4 17.5 22.8–81.5 31.2 11.3 21.6–54.0
6–10 M 7 168.7 26.3 136.4–203.1 186.3 58.9 122.6–285.5 172.4 60.0 99.1–273.7
F 11 137.4 42.0 79.5–195.2 151.6 54.0 90.2–244.3 140.5 66.3 73.6–265.8
11–15 M 10 243.1 77.7 139.3–371.8 286.6 97.2 180.5–511.1 296.3 116.4 185.4–560.2
F 10 189.5 36.6 125.6–243.3 229.9 57.5 138.3–314.9 227.0 69.0 121.6–338.4
16–20 M 9 430.0 111.0 253.1–600.4 512.9 127.1 341.4–782.8 482.9 75.3 388.5–634.7
F 7 218.6 60.0 164.8–302.1 338.5 96.6 237.4–494.4 322.8 66.4 254.1–425.8
21–30 M 7 409.8 101.3 210.9–508.2 489.5 96.1 330.6–622.0 453.8 115.5 281.5–667.1
F 7 254.4 47.5 204.0–330.6 276.6 41.7 231.5–361.0 266.9 50.0 179.5–312.9
31–50 M 6 455.0 63.2 66.9–529.7 530.0 69.1 422.8–631.8 510.8 62.0 431.6–591.5
F 11 248.0 68.8 133.4–349.2 308.2 49.0 210.9–365.9 283.4 34.5 228.6–336.5
51–60 M 4 292.8 38.7 250.2–326.7 436.0 40.0 379.6–469.9 435.4 46.0 401.2–502.3
F 6 207.8 45.5 162.8–277.6 289.1 53.8 238.4–355.1 274.7 59.2 209.9–378.7
61–70 M 6 318.0 80.1 199.1–400.2 422.5 53.8 357.1–493.4 421.3 69.1 345.3–511.1
F 9 161.6 50.2 116.7–261.9 239.3 53.7 164.8–321.8 232.2 54.2 143.2–313.9
71–80 M 8 301.3 39.0 238.4–364.9 349.2 59.4 248.2–392.4 373.3 30.3 322.7–410.0
F 12 165.1 62.2 67.3–299.2 207.7 46.7 129.5–280.6 225.4 48.5 168.7–336.5
81–90 F 6 118.5 50.2 39.7–192.3 157.0 44.7 76.6–206.0 160.1 29.3 115.8–194.2

Table 6
2-handed grip strength

Age (years) Sex No. Small handle—30 mm (N) Medium handle—50 mm (N) Large handle—70 mm (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 99.8 47.4 39.7–157.0 118.0 61.6 58.3–192.7 109.2 64.8 39.9–187.4
F 9 83.5 29.6 39.8–119.7 90.3 34.4 38.5–152.0 59.4 29.5 32.7–120.7
6–10 M 7 261.6 49.3 172.6–323.7 310.3 77.5 205.0–435.6 324.7 83.6 203.1–446.4
F 11 203.8 68.1 91.2–324.7 257.1 93.8 116.7–403.2 256.2 94.7 151.1–431.6
11–15 M 10 363.5 117.3 185.4–617.0 456.0 154.0 341.4–874.1 482.4 149.1 302.1–823.0
F 10 304.4 59.6 195.2–366.9 344.3 87.5 244.3–534.6 397.6 127.4 201.1–584.7
16–20 M 9 599.6 110.0 453.2–821.1 728.3 126.5 523.8–873.1 760.6 79.6 620.0–873.1
F 7 313.7 75.9 197.2–402.2 428.4 96.6 262.9–531.7 440.8 80.7 331.6–587.6
21–30 M 7 532.1 152.6 328.6–733.8 888.4 174.6 277.6–756.3 665.8 168.1 367.9–848.6
F 7 355.2 90.5 245.2–498.3 389.2 41.7 306.1–522.9 424.5 82.9 294.3–511.1
31–50 M 6 625.9 258.5 579.8–679.8 762.2 316.8 689.6–835.8 785.8 321.6 748.5–812.3
F 11 324.0 105.6 186.4–476.8 444.3 83.2 318.8–581.7 482.9 112.9 366.9–701.4
51–60 M 4 486.9 41.0 453.2–536.6 636.5 64.9 558.2–717.1 670.2 90.0 599.4–790.7
F 6 320.5 114.2 119.7–437.5 446.2 106.9 258.0–541.5 444.7 91.5 293.3–535.6
61–70 M 6 424.1 131.6 225.6–605.3 577.5 78.1 458.1–655.3 637.6 100.9 486.6–775.0
F 9 217.9 69.6 124.6–318.8 348.4 80.4 224.6–454.2 331.7 54.0 255.1–408.1
71–80 M 8 346.1 49.4 272.7–428.7 478.1 60.2 400.2–590.6 557.7 74.0 480.7–724.0
F 12 204.4 72.3 64.7–315.8 273.5 71.3 130.5–356.1 327.6 80.8 195.2–430.7
81–90 F 6 138.5 34.0 99.1–190.3 184.9 67.6 112.8–280.6 250.4 32.9 222.7–308.0

children aged 2–5 years, and least pronounced in older physical capabilities of all intended users. A knowledge
adults aged over 70 years. of the physical strength of users when interacting with
the product in question is therefore essential for good
design. Given both the scale and diversity of all product
4. Discussion interactions, however, the array of data needed to satisfy
all design scenarios is almost unlimited, and this was
If a product is to be used in a safe and comfortable highlighted in the consultation with designers: with data
way, a designer must take into account the varying needs ranging from very specific data for one particular
82 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Table 7
Vertical wrist-twisting strength

Age (years) Sex No. Door lever ðN mÞ Door knob ðN mÞ Tap ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 12 8.4 3.8 3.3–16.8 1.3 0.7 0.6–3.0 1.1 0.7 0.4–2.4
F 7 7.2 4.1 3.4–14.2 1.0 0.8 0.4–2.3 0.8 0.6 0.5–1.8
6–10 M 7 15.2 3.1 12.5–21.8 4.2 1.2 1.7–5.8 4.2 1.2 2.8–6.3
F 11 12.7 4.0 7.8–20.9 3.0 1.4 1.4–6.5 3.0 1.7 1.5–6.6
11–15 M 11 19.1 5.0 10.1–26.5 5.8 2.2 2.7–8.4 5.6 2.5 2.2–11.0
F 6 19.3 5.2 11.4–25.0 3.8 1.7 2.0–6.7 4.3 1.5 2.6–6.5
16–20 M 6 33.0 8.7 22.8–43.8 7.4 2.5 3.9–10.8 8.1 1.8 6.2–10.9
F 8 22.8 6.5 14.6–31.6 5.3 1.3 3.1–6.7 5.9 1.4 3.7–7.9
21–30 M 7 33.6 9.2 25.4–48.7 7.5 2.8 3.0–12.1 7.9 2.4 4.6–11.7
F 7 17.8 4.5 10.5–23.3 5.0 1.0 3.9–6.9 5.8 1.8 3.7–8.4
31–50 M 5 32.2 6.2 26.5–41.6 6.6 1.8 3.9–8.4 8.8 2.4 6.2–11.8
F 13 21.9 8.3 11.0–39.2 5.2 1.7 2.4–7.9 6.0 1.2 4.0–7.8
51–60 M 4 27.9 11.4 17.0–43.3 6.4 2.7 4.1–10.2 8.2 1.9 6.4–10.4
F 6 19.8 25.9 15.7–31.1 5.6 1.4 4.4–8.2 6.3 1.8 4.9–9.8
61–70 M 4 22.0 6.1 14.5–29.5 6.5 1.4 5.2–7.8 8.4 0.3 8.0–8.6
F 10 19.8 8.6 6.6–32.3 3.6 0.8 2.4–4.9 4.9 1.1 3.5–7.4
71–80 M 8 31.8 9.4 17.3–47.8 5.9 0.9 4.4–6.9 7.7 1.4 5.9–9.9
F 12 19.2 8.4 5.3–34.1 3.4 1.1 1.9–6.4 4.1 1.0 2.4–5.6
81–90 F 6 17.7 6.0 9.7–23.8 3.2 0.7 2.3–4.1 4.2 0.5 3.5–4.9

Age (years) Sex No. Circular knob ðN mÞ Ridged knob ðN mÞ Butterfly nut ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 12 1.0 0.5 0.3–2.0 0.5 0.2 0.2–0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2–1.4
F 7 0.9 0.5 0.4–1.5 0.7 0.5 0.4–1.7 0.6 0.2 0.3–1.0
6–10 M 7 3.4 1.3 1.7–5.3 1.9 0.8 0.9–2.9 2.0 0.4 1.0–3.3
F 11 2.2 0.8 1.0–3.9 1.5 1.0 0.5–3.9 1.2 0.2 0.4–3.0
11–15 M 11 3.8 1.5 1.6–6.3 2.7 0.8 1.9–4.2 2.6 1.1 1.2–5.3
F 6 2.9 1.3 1.1–4.3 2.1 0.8 1.3–3.1 1.9 0.5 1.1–2.5
16–20 M 6 4.8 1.7 2.3–7.4 4.4 0.4 3.8–4.9 4.1 0.7 3.1–5.0
F 8 3.1 0.8 2.0–4.5 3.3 0.8 2.5–4.9 2.6 0.6 1.7–3.6
21–30 M 7 4.1 1.8 1.5–6.6 4.6 1.3 2.7–6.4 3.9 1.0 3.0–5.8
F 7 3.5 1.3 2.1–5.1 2.8 0.3 2.2–3.1 2.4 0.4 2.0–3.0
31–50 M 5 4.5 1.7 2.6–6.1 4.3 0.8 3.1–5.4 4.3 1.6 2.5–6.9
F 13 3.0 1.3 1.4–6.1 2.9 0.7 1.7–4.2 2.8 0.7 1.9–4.2
51–60 M 4 4.2 1.1 3.4–5.7 3.6 0.6 2.9–4.2 3.6 0.8 2.9–4.7
F 6 3.5 0.6 2.9–4.7 2.8 0.8 2.1–4.3 2.7 0.5 2.0–3.3
61–70 M 4 3.2 1.4 2.3–5.3 3.7 0.9 3.1–5.0 3.2 0.5 2.7–3.6
F 10 2.6 0.6 1.6–3.4 2.3 0.4 1.6–2.9 2.3 0.6 1.7–3.2
71–80 M 8 3.6 0.8 2.6–5.1 3.4 0.5 2.8–4.2 3.0 0.7 1.9–3.9
F 12 2.6 0.7 1.4–3.5 2.3 0.6 1.5–3.3 2.1 0.4 1.6–2.9
81-90 F 6 2.0 0.5 1.3–2.5 2.1 0.6 1.7–3.3 2.2 0.4 1.7–3.4

group of the population, to general data for an limit on the total amount of data to be collected in
entire population. One of the aims of the research the study, and with the aim of collecting data on as
project, however, was to collect data which would wide an age group as possible, this meant that subject
satisfy as many design needs as possible. Based on numbers in each age group were lower than if the
the findings of the survey, and coupled with the lack study had concentrated on one age population only,
of design-applicable data currently available, it was such as adults. Financial and strategic restrictions on
decided that the logical starting point would be to research funding will always mean that compromises
collect basic strength data for all age groups, rather have to be met, and these constraints will have
than focus on specific measurements for one contributed in the past to the paucity of data on more
particular product or group of the population only. To esoteric measurements and on populations such as
this end, data were collected on children, adults and children and the elderly. However, the results indicate
older adults when performing a variety of general, yet an acceptable reliability of the data based on these
design-relevant tasks. With an externally imposed subject numbers.
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 83

Table 8
Horizontal wrist-twisting strength

Age (years) Sex No. Tap ðN mÞ Ridged knob ðN mÞ Butterfly nut ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 8 1.2 0.7 0.6–2.5 0.9 0.4 0.5–1.4 0.7 0.3 0.4–1.4
F 7 0.8 0.1 0.7–1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2–0.9 0.5 0.1 0.3–0.6
6–10 M 7 4.0 1.2 2.1–5.9 2.6 0.7 1.6–3.6 2.4 0.7 1.4–3.4
F 11 3.2 1.4 1.1–5.3 2.0 0.9 0.8–3.7 1.6 0.7 0.6–2.9
11–15 M 10 5.9 2.6 2.7–11.0 3.1 0.9 1.7–4.7 2.9 1.0 1.5–4.6
F 10 4.2 1.5 2.8–6.8 2.6 0.7 1.8–4.0 2.3 0.6 1.5–3.1
16–20 M 9 9.5 2.7 5.9–13.5 5.0 0.9 4.1–7.0 5.0 0.9 3.5–6.1
F 7 5.8 1.4 4.3–8.1 3.3 0.4 2.8–3.9 3.1 0.4 2.6–3.8
21–30 M 7 9.2 2.8 5.8–12.6 5.0 1.3 3.3–7.1 4.3 1.3 2.6–6.2
F 7 4.8 1.3 3.2–6.4 3.0 0.3 2.6–3.6 2.7 0.6 2.0–3.7
31–50 M 6 9.8 1.5 7.9–11.7 4.7 0.6 4.9–5.5 5.3 1.1 3.8–7.2
F 12 5.6 1.6 4.1–8.4 3.6 0.5 2.7–4.4 3.3 0.6 2.5–4.4
51–60 M 3 6.0 2.4 4.6–8.7 3.8 1.4 2.2–5.0 4.0 1.0 2.9–4.7
F 6 5.6 2.5 3.1–9.9 3.5 1.1 1.9–5.2 3.7 0.9 2.2–4.5
61–70 M 6 8.2 1.8 5.7–11.2 5.0 0.9 4.0–6.3 4.8 0.4 4.3–5.5
F 9 3.8 0.8 2.8–5.3 3.1 0.6 2.4–4.0 2.6 0.3 2.1–3.4
71–80 M 8 7.1 2.2 4.6–11.2 3.9 0.6 2.9–4.8 3.9 0.9 2.4–5.6
F 11 4.3 1.1 2.8–6.4 2.6 0.4 2.2–3.5 2.4 0.4 1.7–3.0
81–90 F 6 3.3 0.5 2.7–4.2 2.6 0.5 1.9–3.1 2.4 0.5 1.7–3.0

Table 9
Opening strength (smooth lids)

Age (years) Sex No. 45 mm lid ðN mÞ 65 mm lid ðN mÞ 85 mm lid ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 7 0.81 0.48 0.13–1.43 0.90 0.54 0.16–1.71 1.05 0.50 0.39–1.76
F 10 0.74 0.32 0.11–1.15 0.94 0.47 0.35–2.07 1.03 0.55 0.31–2.36
6–10 M 8 2.29 0.72 1.09–3.39 3.00 1.03 1.85–5.32 3.22 1.20 1.51–5.19
F 10 1.97 0.91 0.93–3.98 2.19 0.81 0.91–3.61 2.79 1.24 1.41–4.85
11–15 M 9 2.74 0.79 1.34–4.07 3.49 1.07 1.91–5.45 5.54 1.35 3.59–7.82
F 7 2.42 0.86 1.61–4.16 3.60 1.24 2.61–5.51 4.23 1.24 2.91–6.40
16–20 M 5 2.71 1.88 1.98–5.03 4.83 1.70 2.83–6.83 6.36 2.93 2.80–10.7
F 5 3.50 0.70 2.84–4.35 4.23 0.92 2.91–5.15 5.22 0.44 4.46–5.53
21–30 M 8 3.42 1.29 1.45–4.81 5.79 1.54 3.02–7.26 6.87 1.95 3.49–8.97
F 9 3.19 0.99 1.48–4.12 4.51 0.87 3.16–6.05 6.05 1.44 4.30–8.47
31–50 M 5 4.30 1.42 2.77–6.65 6.12 1.14 4.61–7.53 8.85 1.57 6.83–11.0
F 13 3.43 1.27 1.63–5.39 4.45 1.71 2.07–7.62 5.84 2.09 2.88–10.2
51–60 M 4 3.47 0.52 3.05–4.21 4.80 0.72 3.88–5.51 7.51 1.28 6.03–8.71
F 5 2.79 1.06 1.91–3.99 4.04 1.5 2.43–5.88 5.38 2.10 2.80–7.70
61–70 M 5 4.35 1.08 2.68–5.62 6.32 1.03 4.59–7.10 7.29 2.09 3.80–8.97
F 9 2.40 0.62 1.52–3.28 3.27 0.76 2.09–4.72 4.32 1.15 2.93–5.87
71–80 M 8 3.54 1.50 2.31–6.88 5.11 1.61 2.96–7.44 6.01 1.99 3.21–8.54
F 12 2.10 0.54 1.38–3.12 3.04 0.59 2.01–4.02 3.72 0.91 2.11–4.93
81-90 F 5 1.54 0.70 0.57–2.53 2.71 1.03 1.97–4.46 3.09 1.09 0.65–3.97

One criticism of the existing ergonomics data is that dardised postures are perceived by many subjects as
the information is often not directly applicable to the unnatural and uncomfortable, and that the forces
design of consumer products. This is because in many measured in such a posture are often around half those
studies on the exertion of force, subjects are often exerted in a free, unrestricted posture (Daams, 1994).
instructed to adopt a standardised posture, such as Some would argue, however, that a free posture
standing with the elbows flexed to 901: Not all product generates data that are unreliable and unreproducable.
interactions, however, require the user to adopt such a According to Caldwell et al. (1974) the results of sci-
posture. Furthermore, it has been reported that stan- entific investigations, including strength measurements,
84 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Table 10
Opening strength (knurled lids)

Age (years) Sex No. 45 mm lid ðN mÞ 65 mm lid ðN mÞ 85 mm lid ðN mÞ

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 7 1.01 0.56 0.29–2.00 0.95 0.40 0.32–1.52 1.13 0.46 0.57–1.88
F 10 0.85 0.35 0.27–1.48 0.80 0.34 0.37–1.24 1.05 0.41 0.36–1.67
6–10 M 8 2.28 0.71 1.44–3.50 3.08 0.76 1.83–4.40 3.55 1.64 1.35–6.00
F 10 1.77 0.69 0.75–3.09 2.50 1.16 1.24–4.69 2.66 1.26 1.28–5.66
11–15 M 9 2.85 0.62 1.59–3.84 4.55 1.39 2.61–7.64 5.93 1.99 2.67–9.05
F 7 2.56 0.72 1.73–3.84 3.65 1.25 2.05–5.83 4.23 1.91 2.41–7.03
16–20 M 5 4.00 1.17 2.82–5.94 5.72 0.93 4.61–6.64 7.75 2.54 4.46–10.7
F 5 3.75 0.71 2.82–4.48 4.50 0.95 3.10–5.48 5.76 0.84 4.85–7.11
21–30 M 8 4.22 1.42 2.32–6.22 6.33 1.92 3.24–7.91 7.65 2.17 4.19–9.99
F 9 3.66 0.80 2.41–4.76 4.65 0.93 3.02–6.34 5.96 0.99 4.61–7.32
31–50 M 5 5.14 1.67 3.75–7.21 7.94 1.67 5.29–11.5 9.79 1.40 7.87–11.5
F 13 3.63 1.27 1.29–5.76 4.75 1.72 1.22–6.93 5.86 1.83 2.44–8.52
51–60 M 4 4.24 0.55 3.57–4.91 5.61 0.50 4.91–6.13 8.28 1.28 6.98–10.0
F 5 3.49 1.44 2.02–5.74 5.00 1.44 3.07–7.07 6.06 1.64 3.83–8.32
61–70 M 5 5.02 0.87 3.94–6.16 7.25 1.17 5.45–8.61 7.86 2.01 4.51–9.52
F 9 2.84 0.46 2.09–3.61 3.50 0.58 2.94–4.88 4.89 1.28 3.36–6.77
71–80 M 8 4.11 1.33 2.91–7.03 5.51 1.43 3.74–8.12 7.23 2.18 4.63–10.1
F 12 2.44 0.58 1.63–3.57 3.55 0.76 2.21–4.64 3.96 1.35 1.65–6.27
81–90 F 5 1.86 0.85 1.46–4.24 2.61 1.35 0.41–2.57 3.34 1.17 1.73–4.65

Table 11
Pull strength—1 hand (convex knob)

Age (years) Sex No. Mean (N) s.d. (N) Range (N)

2–5 M 8 59.6 22.3 27.3–72.8

F 8 76.4 34.8 49.5–115.8
6–10 M 5 141.0 28.0 104.2–168.3
F 10 141.1 61.0 64.4–268.6
11–15 M 12 232.8 91.9 67.0–372.6
F 5 177.7 55.3 93.0–233.2
16-20 M 8 321.1 103.4 213.6–523.6
F 8 244.1 84.4 184.0–405.4
21–30 M 7 311.9 104.0 210.0–436.6
F 7 221.6 93.9 141.8–400.6
31–50 M 7 285.9 70.4 198.1–374.4
F 17 220.2 60.5 81.6–344.2
51–60 M 5 265.1 90.5 130.5–358.9
F 6 163.7 47.5 111.2–216.7
61–70 M 4 267.8 105.0 159.8–404.3
F 7 162.0 30.0 138.5–209.9
71-80 M 7 309.0 41.6 246.9–353.3
F 9 179.9 18.9 145.7–213.5
81–90 F 4 138.6 37.6 109.0–193.7

are useful only if they are so completely described that The research shows that for all six measurements,
they can be repeated. Undoubtedly, there are situations maximum strength increases throughout childhood,
where standardisation is necessary. However, the peaks in adulthood, and then decreases with age from
importance of gearing research towards generating around 50 years. All data sets exhibit a normal
useful and applicable data has already been stressed, distribution, and are consistent with the distribution
and in this study usefulness equates to data which have and variability expected of static strength measurements
been collected on subjects who are free to adopt their (Steenbekkers, 1993). As a group, adults (16–50 years)
own posture and are able to grip and manipulate the were found to be significantly stronger than older adults
various handles and controls as they chose, making the (51–90 years), who in turn were found to be significantly
data realistic and directly applicable to product design. stronger than children (aged up to 5 years only). These
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 85

Table 12
Push and pull strength—1 hand (cylindrical bar)

Age (years) Sex No. Orientation Push (N) Pull (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 12 Vertical 79.26 30.38 19.33–139.39 87.14 44.06 56.11–169.64

Horizontal 74.53 36.65 44.24–130.93 87.99 42.18 51.99–171.52

F 9 Vertical 45.83 20.06 22.15–76.95 58.68 33.45 31.66–123.65

Horizontal 48.12 15.80 27.39–74.53 43.22 34.62 35.41–114.60
6–10 M 8 Vertical 218.26 110.19 125.29–455.26 242.40 89.05 131.94–420.34
Horizontal 229.14 111.01 120.46–429.07 232.97 102.61 111.21–381.13

F 11 Vertical 206.49 94.76 87.42–371.46 174.40 64.59 86.70–294.80

Horizontal 194.59 88.84 74.53–375.49 175.09 75.65 88.21–365.30
11–15 M 9 Vertical 338.87 124.04 145.84–532.61 355.41 123.48 180.57–539.09
Horizontal 297.77 113.64 108.37–448.81 339.41 104.57 194.90–540.97

F 6 Vertical 260.42 30.95 219.97–287.66 296.87 45.43 214.50–352.10

Horizontal 240.99 80.17 181.29–391.60 283.74 45.05 216.76–344.94
16–20 M 6 Vertical 545.77 126.22 379.51–768.27 438.62 82.52 309.50–542.48
Horizontal 441.58 172.67 144.63–618.83 516.72 92.88 398.09–627.68

F 6 Vertical 378.71 158.02 230.85–577.33 356.75 136.07 248.05–595.26

Horizontal 362.32 74.82 246.56–483.06 416.38 138.03 303.09–646.53
21–30 M 5 Vertical 471.82 208.03 243.34–718.95 386.56 161.72 220.91–608.83
Horizontal 408.80 188.86 255.42–695.94 451.70 164.63 295.18–668.02

F 9 Vertical 356.10 108.11 217.55–573.30 361.23 91.51 192.64–525.52

Horizontal 255.20 107.73 191.29–369.04 340.58 67.97 259.74–465.95
31–50 M 6 Vertical 481.11 173.02 353.33–825.11 433.34 73.73 346.45–544.37
Horizontal 477.3 213.75 408.48–647.03 457.22 99.37 290.65–543.61

F 11 Vertical 310.98 89.59 159.54–451.23 343.91 99.02 195.65–550.78

Horizontal 294.87 96.29 189.75–460.09 314.47 136.42 215.91–500.26
51–60 M 3 Vertical 278.39 13.67 268.69–288.06 383.52 242.78 213.75–661.61
Horizontal 304.98 113.24 221.58–433.90 347.83 166.40 233.35–538.71

F 6 Vertical 258.31 107.95 168.00–442.37 258.29 114.18 144.76–464.44

Horizontal 191.57 134.58 158.33–419.80 278.28 118.58 187.73–486.69
61–70 M 5 Vertical 436.32 210.21 186.13–684.50 476.89 212.16 189.24–757.37
Horizontal 396.68 189.82 209.09–608.35 456.98 221.50 255.97–771.69

F 9 Vertical 202.87 30.97 157.12–251.80 216.18 28.56 176.80–251.07

Horizontal 186.98 35.80 138.59–249.79 204.95 54.38 157.20–316.29
71–80 M 7 Vertical 244.09 60.21 145.03–320.69 331.85 99.73 234.48–460.67
Horizontal 251.63 55.33 188.95–341.24 265.34 151.73 205.81–490.08

F 12 Vertical 197.28 84.90 100.72–406.11 218.27 82.62 105.17–430.52

Horizontal 185.59 68.64 104.75–340.03 219.53 82.72 96.50–436.17
81–90 F 5 Vertical 126.98 43.98 64.46–182.91 149.73 38.93 106.68–202.06
Horizontal 123.36 30.60 98.30–171.62 165.57 63.52 106.68–274.07

findings are consistent across all measurements and are 1993), and the data in this study demonstrate a similar
comparable with the findings of other strength investi- ratio. For all measurements, males were found to be
gations (Rholes et al., 1983; Steenbekkers, 1993). No significantly stronger than females, with male/female
significant differences in maximum strength were gen- ratios ranging from 55% to 75%. However, no
erally found between 11–15 years olds and 60–80 years significant differences in maximum strength were found
olds, or 6–10 years olds and 80–90 years olds. between male and female children.
It is well documented that exertion of force by adult With differences in strength due to both age and sex,
females is around two-thirds of that of males (Mathio- there are a wide range of capabilities which must be
wetz et al., 1986; Fothergill et al., 1992; Steenbekkers, considered when designing a product. In most design
86 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

Table 13
Push and pull strength—2 hands (cylindrical bar)

Age (years) Sex No. Orientation Push (N) Pull (N)

Mean s.d. Range Mean s.d. Range

2–5 M 12 Vertical 86.88 55.23 63.17–190.16 98.11 60.17 45.91–229.58

Horizontal 99.64 44.92 63.65–211.51 106.65 59.89 56.54–268.41

F 9 Vertical 59.49 24.20 29.00–101.93 80.08 43.69 23.75–158.33

Horizontal 72.07 17.74 53.58–101.93 61.78 27.02 33.55–122.14
6–10 M 8 Vertical 256.63 116.50 171.62–508.04 218.08 119.8 149.40–381.51
Horizontal 270.89 121.87 145.84–458.48 279.72 95.68 144.76–410.16

F 11 Vertical 222.13 87.88 104.34–412.55 193.87 89.09 108.57–372.84

Horizontal 219.53 91.82 132.55–367.03 174.40 81.24 106.31–343.05
11–15 M 9 Vertical 336.81 153.77 210.62–463.31 364.88 124.20 110.45–529.29
Horizontal 321.19 174.85 188.05–611.58 399.90 132.94 210.73–622.78

F 6 Vertical 318.41 65.54 258.65–441.16 315.85 91.59 191.50–440.32

Horizontal 313.98 108.75 234.07–517.30 374.22 113.52 189.62–499.13
16–20 M 6 Vertical 624.27 119.80 507.23–783.62 604.31 119.78 465.58–743.79
Horizontal 553.50 223.51 225.21–914.58 484.17 112.00 324.20–661.66

F 6 Vertical 429.07 131.36 314.65–677.25 438.94 175.81 271.80–675.18

Horizontal 413.16 161.00 211.91–663.55 431.02 146.79 291.78–690.26
21–30 M 5 Vertical 598.38 234.16 363.80–931.57 510.29 120.82 372.46–668.40
Horizontal 556.91 277.83 311.02–938.15 487.67 146.26 270.30–652.19

F 9 Vertical 341.02 144.62 259.76–486.68 379.79 93.27 267.66–527.78

Horizontal 324.59 52.36 255.83–416.58 315.87 137.59 248.38–450.12
31–50 M 6 Vertical 613.12 128.71 493.13–825.11 467.90 68.40 396.59–583.95
Horizontal 579.15 121.61 410.94–707.46 467.40 28.69 433.15–510.81

F 11 Vertical 400.06 82.09 243.34–519.32 364.85 166.04 256.33–699.69

Horizontal 347.54 128.07 157.12–551.95 360.98 108.68 256.72–614.49
51–60 M 3 Vertical 430.95 145.71 335.60–598.68 438.43 200.51 289.90–666.51
Horizontal 395.76 111.71 320.69–524.15 399.60 157.53 282.36–578.67

F 6 Vertical 299.74 90.11 211.91–448.00 297.25 103.34 199.42–461.05

Horizontal 285.84 83.35 193.38–414.97 333.13 77.02 187.73–400.73
61–70 M 5 Vertical 472.66 179.39 215.54–658.31 529.81 217.22 220.16–747.94
Horizontal 486.36 196.15 225.21–705.05 468.59 171.48 271.05–722.68

F 9 Vertical 255.02 35.53 205.47–313.04 247.30 50.59 175.67–340.42

Horizontal 237.88 61.27 177.67–354.94 262.04 105.35 136.09–487.06
71–80 M 7 Vertical 320.64 80.27 194.59–421.82 359.59 102.44 203.57–481.41
Horizontal 320.52 83.91 233.27–477.82 331.31 79.67 219.78–454.27

F 12 Vertical 242.60 87.66 130.93–453.24 253.65 85.39 117.24–449.74

Horizontal 216.45 65.55 101.52–373.87 234.39 92.67 119.50–412.42
81–90 F 5 Vertical 172.67 57.61 92.66–254.22 185.78 46.28 140.61–249.18
Horizontal 164.78 67.20 87.42–266.30 165.04 45.44 121.01–236.74

situations, however, the amount of force required to use of intended users are not also excluded. In this study,
or operate a product should be such that it is safe and children aged 6–10 years were found to have similar
comfortable to use for the weakest group of users, who capabilities as adults aged over 80 years, and similarly
in this instance are children. If the weakest group of children aged 11–15 years and adults aged between 60
users are able to use the product, it necessarily follows and 80 years. Therefore, by designing to exclude
that all stronger users will also be able to operate the children, many older adults will also be excluded. The
product. In many safety situations, however, a product implications of this finding in terms of both safety and
often has to be designed to exclude use or operation by usability are great, particularly in view of the universal
children. In doing this, it is important that the weakest approach to design. It seems that designing to exclude
 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88 87

200 strength, whilst previous work (Imrhan and Loo, 1988;

Nagashima and Konz, 1986) has suggested that knurling
150 does not enhance torque on lids smaller than 86 mm:
Care should therefore be taken when using the data in
strength (N)

100 this study, particularly when applying it to other design

scenarios, where for example, the size, shape and texture
50 of controls may differ, where individuals may be
restricted in the posture that they can adopt, where
0 comfortable rather than maximum strength is required,
2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
or where data are needed for handles and knobs of a
age (years)
different size, shape or position.
index finger (forwards) thumb (forwards) Based on the lack of relationship between the
index finger (downwards) thumb downwards) measurements in this study, it would seem that
predictions on performance or extrapolations of data
Fig. 17. Finger push strength. from one measurement to another cannot be made, and
that to have accurate information on all product
interactions, new data must be collected. However, in
use by children yet accommodate the capabilities of all most design projects neither time nor money allows a
intended users is not always possible, at least not with full-scale data collection programme to be carried out.
products involving the types of manipulations measured Without applicable data, however, designers are faced
in this study. In this case, design innovations may be the with the task of estimating force exertion, and the
only solution to inclusive design, especially when repercussions of using wrongly estimated data must then
strength is a safety critical factor associated with the be considered.
product. Ergonomics undoubtedly has a contribution to It is of vital importance, therefore, in terms of both
make; not just in the provision of this sort of target safety and usability, that research into force exertion
strength data, but also in working with designers to continues to be conducted. This research has highlighted
develop solutions to interface problems when strength numerous ‘gaps’ in the data available for direct use in
considerations alone seem to offer no opportunity for product design (for both disabled and non-disabled
compromise. individuals), and that the range of data needed to fill
As well as differences due to age and sex, differences these ‘gaps’ is diverse. Whilst not all data ‘gaps’ could be
due to the type of strength exertion were also found. filled in this study, it is hoped that the data collected are
That is, the handle or control type, the direction of an initial step in providing designers with much needed
force, and the number of hands used all significantly data on the strength capabilities of children, adults and
affected the amount of force that could be exerted. The older adults. It is through research like this that
difference between the types of exertions can be designers can be kept informed of the physical strength
explained by the diversity in the postures and grips capabilities of users, as well as the various factors that
used for each measurement. Of interest, however, is the affect the amount of force a person can exert when
significant difference between two relatively similar interacting with a product. Armed with this informa-
measurements—wrist twisting strength (on a variety of tion, products can be designed which are both safe and
handles placed at elbow height) and opening strength on comfortable to use for a wide range of users.
jars. Importantly, the jars could be picked up and held
in any orientation, and many were held against the
body, which is felt increased the amount of force that Acknowledgements
could be exerted. This demonstrates that allowing
subjects to use realistic postures and grips on products The research described in this paper was funded by
when measuring maximal strength does affect the the Consumer Affairs Directorate of the Department of
amount of force that can be exerted, as well as the Trade and Industry in the UK. The full report of this
importance of realism in such research equipment and study, ‘Strength data for design safety—Phase 1’ Report
methods. number URN 00/1070 is available from DTI Consumer
Data produced in this study are comparable to other Safety Publications, Admail 528, London SW1W 8YT.
published data. For instance, Voorbij and Steenbekkers
(2002) measured the opening torque of people over 50
years old, with a 66 mm jar lid. Their data are similar to References
the opening strength measured on older adults using the
smooth 65 mm jar lid in this study. However, this study Caldwell, L.S., Chaffin, D.B., Dukes-Dobos, F.N., Kroemer, K.H.E.,
found that knurling on lids increased the opening Laubach, L.L., Snook, S.H., Wasserman, D.E., 1974. A proposed
88 L. Peebles, B. Norris / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 73–88

standard for static muscle strength testing. Am. Ind. Hygiene Norris, B.J., Wilson, J.R., 1997. Designing Safety into Products—
Assoc. J. 35, 201–206. Making Ergonomics Evaluation a Part of the Design Process. The
Daams, B.D., 1994. Human Force Exertion in User–Product Interac- University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
tion—Backgrounds for Design. . Physical Ergonomics Series, Vol. Peebles, L., Norris, B.J., 1998. ADULTDATA—The Handbook of
2. Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands. Adult Anthropometric and Strength Measurements—Data for
Fothergill, D.M., Grieve, D.W., Pheasant, S.T., 1992. The influence of Design Safety. Department of Trade and Industry, London, UK.
some handle designs and handle heights on the strength of the Rholes, P.H., Moldrup, K.L., Laviana, J.E., 1983. Opening jars: an
horizontal pulling action. Ergonomics 35 (2), 203–212. anthropometric study of the wrist-twisting strength of the elderly.
Imrhan, S.N., Loo, C.H., 1988. Modelling wrist-twisting strength of Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting.
the elderly. Ergonomics 31 (12), 1807–1819. Smith, S.A., Norris, B.J., Peebles, L., 2000. OLDER ADULTDA-
Kroemer, K.H.E., 1970. Human strength: terminology, measurement TA—The Handbook of Measurements and Capabilities of the
and interpretation of data. Human Factors 12 (3), 297–313. Older Adult—Data for Design Safety. Department of Trade and
Mathiowetz, V., Wiener, D.M., Federman, S.M., 1986. Grip and pinch Industry, London, UK.
strength norms for 6 to 19 year olds. The American Journal of Steenbekkers, L.P.A., 1993. Child Development, Design Implications
Occupational Therapy 40 (10), 705–711. and Accident Prevention. Physical Ergonomics Series. Delft
Nagashima, K., Konz, S., 1986. Jar lids: effects of diameter, gripping University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
materials and knurling. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, Voorbij, A.J.M., Steenbekkers, L.P.A., 2002. The twisting force of
30th Annual Meeting. aged consumers when opening a jar. Appl. Ergon. 33, 105–109.
Norris, B.J., Wilson, J.R., 1995. CHILDATA—The Handbook of Wilson, J.R., Norris, B.J., 1993. Knowledge transfer: scattered sources
Child Measurements and Capabilities—Data for Design Safety. to sceptical clients. Ergonomics 36 (6), 667–686.
Department of Trade and Industry, London, UK.