=) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service N79-11734 ANTHROPOMETRIC SOURCE BOOK, VOLUME I: ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGNERS Jury 1978 [Nan A 2 FOIL a LICS cond Space el “Hy A771 7294-11744 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. NASA RP-1024 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Anthropometric Source Book eport bare Volume I: Anthropometry for Designers July 1978 Volume II: A Handbook of Anthropometric Data 8. Performing Organization Code Volume III: Annotated Bibliography of Anthropometry 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Compiled and Edited by Staff of Anthropology Research Project 5-479 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 199=53=-00-00-72 Webb Associates 11. Contract or Grant No. Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address National Aeronautics and Space Administration Reference Publication Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Houston, Texas 77058 15. Supplementary Notes As an aid to the reader, where necessary the original units of measure have been converted to the equivalent value in the Syst2me International d'Unités (SI). The SI units are written first, and original units are written parenthetically thereafter. The physiological pressure unit used, mm Hg, has not been supplemented with an SI equivalent because of its universal usage in the biomedical field. 16. Abstract - This three-volume publication brings together a large mass of anthropometric data which define the physical size, mass distribution properties, and dynamic capabilities of U.S. and selected foreign adult populations. Aimed specifically to meet the needs of design engi- neers engaged in the design and execution of clothing, equipment, and workspaces for the NASA Space Shuttle Program, the book is also designed to be of use to human engineers in a wide variety of fields. It is not only a comprehensive source of specific anthropometric information but also a guide to the effective applications of such data. Subjects covered in Volume I include physical changes in the zero-g enviromment, variability in body size, mass distribution properties of the human body, arm and leg reach, joint motion, strength, sizing and design of clothing and workspaces, and statistical guidelines. Material pre- sented includes such unpublished anthropometric data measured under one-g and zero-g condi- tions. Also included are 1985 body size projections and actual cutouts of quarter-scale two-dimensional manikins for use by designers. Volume II contains data resulting from surveys of 61 military and civilian populations of both sexes from the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Some 295 measured variables are defined and illustrated. ) Volume III is an annotated bibliography covering a broad spectrum of topics relevant to applied physical anthropology with emphasis on anthropometry and its applications in sizing and design. Er 17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)) 18. Distribution Statement Height Biomechanics Space Flight Feeding STAR Subject Category: . Posture. Anthropometry Statistical Analysis 54 (Man/System Tech~ = Survey Weightlessness Gravitational Effects nology and Life Support) Exercise Body Measurement Dimensional Measurement Body Size Body Composition Equipment Specifications Variations Spacecraft Design Human Factors Engineering Body Weight Muscular Strength ——. SE ———— "REPRODUCED BY 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. NATIONAL TECHNICAL 21. No. of Pages Unclassified INFORMATION SERVICE Vv. I - 613 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ‘ SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161 ——— “For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS Approximate conversions to metric measures < Z EE! Q Approximate conversions from metric measures Symbol ~~ When you know Multiply by To find Symbol = g Symbol When you know Multiply by To find Symbol | LENGTH == §_ LENGTH — = o in. inches 2.5 centimeters cm = E— ™ mm millimeters 0.04 inches in. ft feet 30 centimeters cm = E S cm centimeters 0.4 inches in. yd yards 0.9 meters m = E m meters 3.3 feet ft mi miles 1.6 kilometers km = ZW = m meters 1.1 yards yd Ege km kilometers 0.6 miles mi IQ 2 AREA = = i ~ AREA in square inches 6.5 square centimeters cm = E— ~ 2 " : : 2 2 square feet 0.09 square meters me Zz Ex hi Sauare celimeters > 2 Square inches 2 £ yd? square yards 0.8 square meters m2 = 2 ~ Wee uae eters : Square yatvs ow 2 | : © 2 —_— km: square kilometers 0.4 square miles mi c mi square miles 2.6 square kilometers km: = E_ = 2 ) 0.4 hecta h — EE ha hectares (10 000 m¢) 2.5 acres @ acres A res a El 5 = = — ~ MASS (WEIGHT) — MASS (WEIGHT) = = ~ gq grams 0.036 ounces oz i 0z ounces 28 grams [ _= = kg kilograms . 2.2 pounds Ib 5 (ON Ib pounds 0.45 kilograms kg = E— = t tonnes (1000 kg) 1.1 short tons 2 ~ o> -~ = Fort ias 0.9 tonnes t 3 E = VOLUME — = £ _ ° ml milliliters 0.03 fluid ounces fl oz / VOLUME = L = | liters 2.1 pints pt \ tp teaspoons 5 milliliters ml ¥— 2 F— | ars oe wns ® ~ tb tablespoons 15 milliliters ml = EE © 3 ; . gal 3 } 3 SP (aie ry | = E— m cubic meters 35 cubic fegt ft ” Wounces 3 miners a — §_ © m3 cubic meters 1.3 cubic yards yd3 c cups 0.24 liters | = = <_ pt pints 0.47 liters | ~N = = " TEMPERATURE (EXACT) qt quarts 0.95 liters | = £ . ; gal gallons 38 liters | — E_ = C Celsius X Wihin Fahrenhet °F 3 cubic feet 0.03 cubic meters m3 2 Ey lemperature emperature 5 yd3 cubic yards 0.76 cubic meters m3 = = E— & —= Eg ~ °F -40 0 20 805° 160 200)’ °F / TEMPERATURE (EXACT) — = ppp UU § °F Fahrenheit 519 (after Celsius °C = °C -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100°C A temperature subtracting temperature 0 a 32) inches cm Q A Av > & < & NOTICE THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. NASA Reference Publication 1024 Anthropometric Source Book Volume I: Anthropometry for Designers Edited by Staff of Anthropology Research Project Webb Associates Yellow Springs, Ohio NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Office 1978 TLg75 A #8 V. / FOREWORD PUBL The quality of the interface which connects man with his machines frequently determines the ability and ultimate performance of the man/machine unit, The more dependent man is upon his creations the more critical is the connecting link and nowhere has he been more absolutely dependent upon the man/machine interface than in space flight. For every second of existence in space, for every moment of comfort, for every endeavor, man is completely de- pendent upon devices of his own making. The interfaces—-whether they be space suits or rocket controls and displays—-—are crucial. As might have been expected, putting man into space systems has been one of the most expensive and perplexing aspects of spacecraft design. The human body has evolved under, and in response to, the large and ever-present forces of gravity. It is not surprising, then, that when such a body is placed in a weightless environment it frequently finds itself at a distinct disadvantage. Man does, of course, adapt to weightlessness. Some aspects of this adaptation are apparently harmless while others could be incapacitating during and after return to one-g. Thus, in addition to helping the human body in zero-g maintain its mechanical one-g functions, space systems must accom-— modate changes in the body's size, shape and posture. The beginning of any man/machine interface is objective knowledge of the full range of man's size, shape, composition and mechanical capacities, Hence, anthropometry is fundamental to successful designs for the future use and exploration of space. The only alternative is the costly process of trial and error. At this writing we are in the process of designing a space vehicle which will carry large numbers of people, men and women of all nations and races and of a wide range of ages and sizes, into and out of weightlessness. It is inevitable that such a transportation system will be followed by space stations where people will function for long periods in an environment for which their bodies were not designed. Fortunately, there is a great mass of anthropometric data available on sizeable samples of the world's populations. The first task, then, was collecting, standardizing and presenting sufficient data on the size, shape and mass of samples of the world's populations to give the designer primary information for accommodation of the subjects who will use the shuttle and other vehicles. Contained in this book also is a body of information on strength, reach, range of joint motion and mass distribution properties of the human body which are essential to the design of clothing, equipment and workspaces for use in space vehicles. Preceding page blank It is not enough, of course, to assemble information. Crucial to the effective use of anthropometric data is an understanding of their origin, limitations and proper application. To this end, chapters on variability of body size, statistical considerations and the application of anthropometry to sizing and design provide additional explanation and instruction to guide the reader in making meaningful use of the data contained in this book. Central to the concerns of NASA design engineers is the problem of weightlessness. Unfortunately, in spite of 16 years of space flight, hard data on the changes which take place in man's size, shape and function in the zero-g environment are scanty. Interface problems are legion. A suit of clothing will hardly accommodate 10-centimeter changes in girth or 6-centimeter height changes, yet men undergoing such changes have had to op- erate in closely fitting space suits. A good look at the relaxed posture assumed by man in the weightless environment will suggest why the conventional seat is not only uncomfortable but also requires forceful strapping if a person is to even stay in it. If weightless anthropometric data are scanty and incomplete, they are nevertheless already sufficient to have redirected much of the space medical effort and to explain many of the phenomena described by crewmen which could seriously impede efficient operation unless dealt with. The opening chapter of this volume contains virtually all of what we now know about this subject. It is hoped that the very paucity of data will challenge future investigators to give this field proper attention. Finally, those of us who are directly involved in space flight opera- tions are grateful for the dedication of the man/machine engineers who make our lot better. We in turn shall make every effort to help them by bringing back the information they need to help us. William E. Thornton, M.D. Scientist Astronaut iv PREFACE The Anthropometric Source Book is designed to provide NASA, NASA contractors, the aerospace industry, Government agencies, and a wide variety of industrial users in the civilian sector with a comprehensive, up-to-date tabulation of anthropometric data. Specifically, it is tailored to meet the needs of engineers engaged in the design of equipment, habitability areas, workspace layouts, life-support hardware, and clothing for the NASA Space Shuttle/Spacelab program. The intent is to provide the designer not only with dimensional data but with underlying anthropometric concepts and their application to design. All available anthropometric data collected in the weightless environment are documented in this three-volume book, which also includes an extensive tabulation of anthropometric data defining the physical size, mass distribution properties, and dynamic capabilities of U.S. and selected foreign populations. The material covers adult males and females of various age groups, socio-educational backgrounds, races, and ethnic backgrounds. Also included are size-range projections for a 1985 population eligible for manned space flight. Volume I is a nine-chapter treatment covering all basic areas of anthropometry and its applications to the design of clothing, equipment, and workspaces. Chapter 1, "Anthropometric Changes in Weightlessness,'" addresses the effects on the human body that occur as a result of weightlessness. Such topics as weight loss, height increases, neutral body posture, strength and body composition, changes in trunk and limb girth, and loss of muscle mass are discussed in detail. In addition to bringing together in a single source the most comprehensive collection of data on anthropometric change in weightlessness that exists in this country, this chapter calls attention to the potential impact of weightlessness on man/machine design and suggests areas of future study essential to the proper design of man's space environment. Chapter 2, "Variability in Human Body Size," describes and graphically documents the range of human-body variability found among homogeneous groups. Those trends that show significantly marked differences between sexes and among a number of racial/ethnic groups are also presented. This chapter alerts design engineers to the nature and extent of human-body variability and serves as a guide for modifying and designing man/machine systems. Chapter 3, '"Anthropometry,'" presents tabulated dimensional anthro- pometric data on 59 variables for 12 selected populations. The variables chosen were judged most relevant to current manned space programs. Appendix A to this chapter is a glossary of anatomical and anthropometric terms. Appendix B covers selected body dimensions of males and females from the potential astronaut population projected to the 1980-1990 time frame. Appen- dix C contains a 5th-, 50th-, and 95th-percentile drawing-board manikin based on the anticipated 1980-1990 body-size distribution of USAF fliers. v Chapter 4, "The Inertial Properties of the Body and Its Segments," is a user-oriented summary of the current state of knowlege on the mass distribu- tion properties of the adult human body. The data presented lend themselves to mathematical modeling. Chapter 5, "Arm-Leg Reach and Workspace Layout," is an informative chapter on functional reach measurements relevant to the design and layout of workspaces. Basic reach data are given, along with recommendations for applying corrective factors to adjust for differences in (1) workspace, task, and body position; (2) environmental conditions - primarily gravity forces; and (3) anthropometric characteristics of various populations. Chapter 6, "Range of Joint Motion," discusses (1) selected reviews of the range-of-joint-motion literature; (2) techniques for measuring range of joint motion; (3) range-of-joint-motion terminology; (4) recommended range- of-joint-motion data for the design engineer; (5) differences in the range of joint motion due to the effects of age, sex, and protective clothing; and (6) the range of joint motion of selected two-joint muscles. Together, chapters 5 and 6 constitute a comprehensive data base and guide to workstation layout. Chapter 7, "Human Muscular Strength," deals with (1) a general review of human muscular strength, (2) specificity of muscular strength, (3) relation- ships between static and dynamic muscular strength, (4) strength within the arm reach envelope of the seated subject, and (5) comparative muscular strength of men and women. This chapter should aid design engineers in relating strength data to workspace design. Chapter 8, "Anthropometry in Sizing and Design," discusses the applica- tion of human body-size diversity and quantification to engineering design. Procedures are outlined for using anthropometric data in the development of effective sizing programs. Chapter 9, "Statistical Considerations in Man/Machine Design,' reviews statistical concepts that appear repeatedly in the NASA Anthropometric Source Book and touches on some statistical problems that will typically confront individuals using the data. Volume I was compiled and edited by the following members of the Anthropology Research Project of Webb Associates, Yellow Springs, Ohio: Edmund Churchill, Lloyd L. Laubach, John T. McConville, and Ilse Tebbetts. Volume II summarizes the results from anthropometric surveys of 61 military and civilian populations of both sexes from the United States, Europe, and Asia. Some 295 measured variables are defined and illustrated. The variable names are listed in alphabetical order. For each variable, there is a computer order number by which it is identified, a list of surveys in which it was measured, a group of summary statistics, and a series of values for the 1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, 95th, and 99th percentile of the given population. vi Preceding the presentation of the actual data are three indexes designed to assist the reader in the use of the material. The first of these indexes, entitled "Anthropometric Surveys: A Reference List," lists and describes the sources from which all the summary data in this volume were extracted. This enables the user to obtain additional information on any survey population if that is desired. The next index, entitled "Definition of Measurements,' in- cludes both written descriptions of all the variables cited and simplified line drawings, where feasible, to illustrate a particular measurement. The third index is provided to further guide the user in identifying and finding measurements relevant to his or her particular needs. It is entitled "Index of Dimensions." The variables are listed by name and are categorized by ana- tomical region and by anthropometric technique. Volume II contains a minimum of text-type material and is primarily a handbook of tabulated dimensional anthropometric data. It is probably the most comprehensive source of summarized body-size data currently in existence. Volume II was compiled and edited by the following members of the Anthropology Research Project of Webb Associates, Yellow Springs, Ohio: Edmund Churchill, Thomas Churchill, Kay Downing, Peggy Erskine, Lloyd L. Laubach, and John T. McConville. Volume III lists 236 annotated references related to the field of anthropometry. Included are references to every anthropometric survey outlined in volume II, as well as a variety of other works on static and working anthropometry of U.S. and foreign populations, anthropometry of parts of the body related to the design of specific items such as gloves or helmets, joint range and arm reach, mass distribution properties of the body, strength data of various kinds, sizing systems, material on zero gravity, and some general reference works. The references listed were selected by the editors and contributors to volume I. Their objective was to reference those studies, reports, textbooks, and surveys that they deemed most related to their specific subject area and that would be most helpful to the user. Volume III was compiled and edited by the following members of the Anthropology Research Project of Webb Associates, Yellow Springs, Ohio: Lloyd L. Laubach, John T. McConville, and Ilse Tebbetts. John T. Jackson Spacecraft Design Division Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center vii CONTENTS Chapter I II III Iv ANTHROPOMETRIC CHANGES IN WEIGHTLESSNESS, William E. Thornton. Tht tee hee eo. . Weight Changes Cee ee eee eee Height Changes . . . Posture. SES EN, Shape and Center of ‘Mass J EE EE Strength and Body Composition Future . . References . . coe Additional Data Sources. vo. . Appendix A: Weight Changes of Space-Flight Crevmen. . Appendix B: Height Measurements of Skylab 4 Crewmen . . . . Appendix C: Truncal, Neck, and Limb Girth Measurements of U.S. Space-Flight Crewmen VARIABILITY IN HUMAN BODY SIZE, James F. Annis. Intra-individual Variations in Size. Inter-individual Variations in Size. Secular Changes in Adult Body Size . Summary. oo. Cee ee ‘References . ANTHROPOMETRY, John T. McConville and 1 Lloyd 1 L. Laubach. Measurement Techniques . . . a TH The Data . References . . . . . . . «oo 0000 ee eee ee Appendix A: A Glossary of Anatomical and Anthropometric Terms. ce en te ee re a a ae ees Appendix B: Projected 1985 Body Size Data . Appendix C: Drawing Board Manikins. THE INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF THE BODY AND ITS SEGMENTS, Herbert M. Reynolds . . The Body Linkage System. Segment Weight . . Moments of Inertia . References . . . . . . . . . oo . Appendix A: The Anatomical Framework. Appendix B: Regression Equations. . Appendix C: Conversion Table of Moments of Inertia. eee preceding page blank ix Page I-1 1-4 I-10 I-19 I-26 I-43 I-58 I-60 I-61 I-62 I-76 I-82 IT-1 II-7 II-2. IT-38 II-57 II-59 III-1 III-3 III-6 III-68 III-7C III-83 ITII-98 Iv-1 IV-6 IV-31 IV-39 IV-55 IV-60 IV-67 IvV-75 Chapter Vv VI VII VIII CONTENTS (concluded) ARM-LEG REACH AND WORKSPACE LAYOUT, Howard W. Stoudt. Review of Existing Data on Functional Reach Measurements Workspace Design as Based on Functional Reach Measurements Biological Factors Affecting Functional Reaches. Environmental Factors Affecting Functional Reaches The Data: Functional Reach Measurements Conversion Techniques for Different Workspace Conditions Zero Gravity Conditions---Unrestrained or Partially Restrained Body Movement . . . . . Conversion Techniques for Different populations. References RANGE OF JOINT MOTION, Lloyd L. Laubach . Selected Review of the Literature. . . Techniques for Measuring Range of Joint Motion . Range of Joint Motion Terminology. . Recommended Range of Joint Motion Data for the Pesign Engineer . Variations in Range of Joint Motion ‘Measurements . Range of Motion of Two-Joint Muscles Summary. chine eee we References . . . . . . . . o.oo. 0000. HUMAN MUSCULAR STRENGTH, Lloyd L. Laubach . Specificity of Muscular Strength . Static vs. Dynamic Muscular Strength . . Human Force Exertions Within the Arm Reach Envelope of the Seated Subject . . Comparative Muscular Strength of Men and Women . References ANTHROPOMETRY IN SIZING AND DESIGN, John T. McConville Clothing and Personal Protective Equipment . Work Station Design. References . STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MAN-MACHINE DESIGNS, Edmund Churchill. Ise te tee ie vies The Basic Statistical Veasutes: One Variable at a Time. The Interrelationship Among Anthropometric Measures. A Mathematical Model for Body Size Data. The Monte Carlo Method . References . . . . . . . . . . . Page V-1 v-2 V-6 v-8 v-12 v-17 vV-19 V-59 V-60 V-64 VIi-1 VIi-1 VI-2 VIi-3 Vi-4 VI-7 VI-9 VIi-17 VI-18 VII-1 VII-1 VII-2 VII-8 VII-1l1 VII-52 VIII-1 VIII-7 VIII-15 VIII-21 IX-1 IX-2 IX-19 IX-38 IX-59 IX-62 CHAPTER I. Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Appendix A Table A-1. Table A-2. Table A-3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 9. 10. 11. Appendix B Table B-1. Table B-2. Table B-3. Appendix C Table C-1. TABLES ANTHROPOMETRIC CHANGES IN WEIGHTLESSNESS Anthropometric changes in weightlessness. Comparison of height wAsnges in crewmen of SL-4 and ASTP. Changes in height in one g; standing after reclining and standing after normal sleep period. Leg-volume measurements of SL-4 crewmen (a) CDR. (b) SPT. (e) PLT. Postflight changes in circumference found in v. S. s. R. cosmonauts. Changes in arm and leg volume and waist c girth of Skylab crewmen. . Grip strength measurements of Skylab crewmen. Summary of Skylab crew averages of exercise-related data. . . . .o Some average changes in muscle parameters . Left-leg volume changes of ASTP crewmen . Changes in lean body mass on Skylab missions (a) By crewman . (b) By mission . Anthropometric weight changes of U.S. astronauts. Weight changes of U.S.S.R cosmonauts. Daily body weights of Skylab crewman (a) SL-2 . (b) SL-3 . (c) SL-4 . Height and change-in-height measurements of SL-4 CDR (a) Preflight measurements . (b) In-flight measurements . (c) Postflight measurements Height and change-in-height measurements of S SL-4 SPT (a) Preflight measurements . (b) In-flight measurements . (b) Postflight measurements Height and change-in-height measurements of SL- 4 PLT (a) Preflight measurements . (b) In-flight measurements . (c¢c) Postflight measurements Truncal, neck, and arm girth measurements of SL-3 crewmen (a) CDR. (b) SPT. (¢) PLT. xi Page I-2 I-13 I-16 I-77 I-77 I-78 I-78 I-79 I-79 I-80 I-80 I-81 I-83 I-84 I-85 TABLES (continued) Ch. I.(continued) Table C-2. Table C-3. Table C-4. Table C-5. Table C-6. Table C-7. Truncal and neck girth measurements of SL-4 CDR (a) CDR. (b) SPT. (¢) PLT. Leg measurements "of SL4 "CDR (a) Preflight. (b) In-flight. . . (¢) Postflight, R + 0 to R + 4 . (d) Postflight, R + 5 to R + 68. Leg measurements of SL-4 SPT (a) Preflight. (b) In-flight. . . (¢) Postflight, R + 0toR +4 . (d) Postflight, R + 5 to R + 68. Leg measurements of SL-4 PLT (a) Preflight. (b) In-flight. . . (¢) Postflight, R + 0 to R + 4 . (d) Postflight, R + 5 to R + 68. Calf-circumference and lower-limb-volume data for individual Apollo crewmembers in a Testing, supine position . Upper-limb volumes and "changes in volume of Skylab crewmen: (a) SL-2 . (b) SL-3 . (¢) SL-4 . CHAPTER II. VARIABILITY IN HUMAN BODY SIZE Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Stature, weight, and stature: weight ratio among inha- bitants of different parts of the world (Dobzhansky, 1962, after Black) a. Average body changes which occur with aging "(based on Gsell, 1967) . . Dimensional differences at several percentile. levels between USAF pilots aged 20-30 years and USAF pilots aged 30-40+ years (based on Fry and Churchill, 1956) Changes in body girths of young men with semi- starvation (based on Brozek et al., 1957). . Differences between right side and left side measure- ments of selected dimensions (based on Laubach and McConville, 1967). Right side-left side dimensional differences in women in erect and relaxed postures (based on Peters, 1969). Differences (A) between mean relaxed (X;) and mean flexed (Xg) biceps and elbow sirounfereice for selected military populations xii Page I-86 1-86 1-87 1-88 1-89 I-90 I-91 I-92 I-93 I-94 1-95 I-96 I-97 I-98 I-99 I-100 I-101 1-102 I-103 II-6 II-7 II-9 II-10 II-11 II-12 II-15 TABLES (continued) Ch. II.(continued) Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table CHAPTER III. Table Table 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 1. 2. CHAPTER IV. Table Table Table Table Table Table 1. 2 3. 4. 5 Linear distance changes over body joints with movement (based on Emanuel and Barter, 1957) . Increase in dimensions from slathisg (based on Clauser and Hertzberg, 1964) Increase in dimensions from pressure suit "(based o on Clauser and Hertzberg, 1964) Co. Comparison of males and females for selected dimensions - 5th and 95th percentile values (from 1967 USAF survey unpublished and Clauser et al., 1972) Selected dimensions of males and females in the U.S. population (based on Stoudt et al., 1965) Racial/ethnic origins of U.S. population (from Census Bureau Data, April 1970) . . Height and weight of U.S. military males with devia- tions of the racial/ethnic subgroups from the total sample mean and standard deviation (from U.S. Army survey, 1966) . Means and standard deviations “of selected dimensions for young military males of three racial groups (based on Long and Churchill, 1965, and Yokohori, 1972) Means and standard deviations of selected dimensions for young females of three racial groups (based on Clauser et al, 1972) . Selected dimensions of different vocational-professional groups of U.S. males . . Selected dimensions of different vocational professional groups of U.S. females . . . a Mean stature, weight and age of v. s. Avay “soldiers . Average values for selected body measurements of U.S. females born 1903 to 1933 ANTHROPOMETRY A summary of the anthropometrical data available for twelve sample populations . . . Comparison of UK and USAF seasuricg technique THE INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF THE BODY AND ITS SEGMENTS Regression equations for estimating limb lengths Bone length values estimated for 1985 populations Ratios of link length to bone length . . Link length values estimated for 1985 population . Values computed from Snyder et al. (1972) data demonstrating passinie source of Zere-geavicy torso "growth" . Summary of maximum displacement of center of gravity for various body positions described by Swearingen (1962) xiii Page II-16 II-19 11-21 I1-27 I1-28 II-31 II-33 II-34 II-35 II-50 II-51 II-53 II-53 III-2 III-5 IvV-12 Iv-13 Iv-13 Iv-14 IvV-20 IV-24 TABLES (continued) Ch. IV.(continued) Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Location of center of gravity based on Santschi et al. (1963). . . . . . “oe bit, Location of center of gravity based on "DuBois et al. (1964). . . . . . eal rT a, . Location of center “of gravity based on Ignasi et al; (1972). . . . . . : Comparison of Chandler et al. (1975) “and "santsehi et al. (1963) location of center of gravity for the whole body in subjects matched on basis of height and weight. Location of the center of mass. . . . . . . . . . . . Location of body segments' center of mass . . . . . . Prediction equations to estimate segment weight based . on reanalysis of cadaver data . . . . . . . . . . . . Segmental weight/body weight ratios from cadaver studies . . . . . . tov Iv es sie a, . Percentage distribution of total "body weight according to different segmentation plans . . . «ie ime . Segment weight design values derived from regression equations in Table 13 . . . . . IESE Male segment volume as percent of total body volume . Female segment volume as percent of total body volume Segment density for male cadavers . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and regression equations for whole-body moments of inertia from Santschi et al. (1963). . . . . . Ciel ae be ae Whole body moments of inertia for male whites computed from Table 20 . . . . . . . . . . eae ee eee Means, standard deviations, and regression equations for whole body moments of inertia from DuBois et al. (1964). . . . . . sv » cee ee Whole body moments “of inertia for male 'ahites computed from Table 22 . . . . . © « « «i i i ee ee ee Means, standard deviations, and regression equations for whole body moments of inertia from Ignazi et al. (1972). . . . . . . . eu rene ae Principal moments of inertia from Chandler et al. (1975). . . . . . .. ce. 2 silee #aw : Comparison of moments of inertia between Chandler et al. (1975) and Santschi et al. (1963) . . . . 3. Segment moments of inertia (103 gu-cu?) through the center of mass. . . . ot. The radius of gyration (K) as a percent of segaent length. . . . . . eh se ue ce. Segment moments of inertia as : computed from the - coefficients in Table 28. . . . . . . . . . . «+. . . xiv Page IV-26 Iv-28 Iv-29 IV-30 Iv-32 Iv-33 IV-34 IV-35 IV-36 IV-37 Iv-38 IV-39 IV-40 IV-42 IV-43 IV-45 IV-46 IV-47 IV-49 IV-50 IV-51 IV-52 IV-53 TABLES (continued) Ch. IV.(continued) Appendix B Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table &4. Table 5. Appendix C Table 1. CHAPTER V. Table 1. Tables 2-11 Men's right hand grasping reach to a horizontal plane: Cod HFWN 10. 11. Regression equations for estimating link lengths directly from anthropometric measures of bone lengths from Dempster, Sherr and Priest (1964). . . . . . Regression equations to estimate center of mass of body segments from Clauser et al. (1969). . . . . . Regression equations for estimating segment weights from Clauser, McConville and Young (1969) . . . . . Regression equations to estimate segment volume from Clauser, et al. (1969). . . . . . . Regression equations for predicting principal moment s of inertia (gm-cm2) from Chandler et al. (1975) Conversion table of moments of inertia. . . . ARM-LEG REACH AND WORKSPACE LAYOUT Anthropometric dimensions of the male and female sub- jects utilized in the functional arm reach studies. through the seat reference point. PI, 12.5 centimeters (5 in.) above seat reference point . 25.4 centimeters (10 in.) above seat reference point. 38.1 centimeters (15 in.) above seat reference point. . 50.8 centimeters (20 in.) above seat reference point. 63.5 centimeters (25 in.) above seat reference point. 76.2 centimeters (30 in.) above seat reference point. 88.9 centimeters (35 in.) above seat reference point. 101.6 centimeters (40 in.) above seat reference point 114.3 centimeters (45 in.) above seat reference point . Tables 12-19 Women's right hand grasping reach to a horizontal 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Table 20. CHAPTER VI. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. plane: through the seat reference point. . . . . . . . 15.2 centimeters (6 in.) above seat reference point . 30.5 centimeters (12 in.) above seat reference point. 45 centimeters (18 in.) above seat reference point. 61 centimeters (24 in.) above seat reference point. 76.2 centimeters (30 in.) above seat reference point. 91.4 centimeters (36 in.) above seat reference point. 106.7 centimeters (42 in.) above seat reference point . Approximate changes in arm reaches in Tables 2-19 as a function of variation in seat backrest angle. . . . . . RANGE OF JOINT MOTION Range of male joint motion values (Barter, Emanuel and Truett, 1957) . . . . Cee Range of female joint motion ‘values (Harris and Harris, 1968) . Difference in range of joint ‘motion between men and women (based on Sinelkinoff and Grigorowitsch, 1931). xv Page IV-69 IV-70 Iv-72 Iv-73 Iv-74 IV-76 V-20 V-22 V-24 V-26 Vv-28 V-30 v-32 V-34 V-36 V-38 V-40 V-42 V-44 V-46 V-48 V-50 V=-52 V-54 V-56 vV-61 VIi-5 VIi-6 Vi-7 TABLES (continued) Ch. VI.(continued) Table Table CHAPTER VII. Table Table Table Table Table Table CHAPTER VIII. Table Table Table Table 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. CHAPTER IX. Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 11. Mean percentage loss of diver flexibility caused by two diving suits (based on Bachrach et al., 1975) . . . Range of motion of two-joint muscles. . . . . . . . . . HUMAN MUSCULAR STRENGTH Static and dynamic strength of knee flexors . . . . . . Correlations between static and dynamic elbow flexion performance . . . . “ioe wie ie . A selected summary table’ of reported relationships between static and dynamic strength . . . . . . : 13° seat back angle--location of the handle assembly in relation to seat reference point and seat center- line. . . . . eis pty Eh EE pm, 25° seat back angle—1location of the handle assembly in relation to seat reference point and seat center- line. . . . . . r STR Gy se ty te Ce ie 65° seat back angle-location of the handle assembly in relation to seat reference point and seat center- TANG. via ta WaT Tene a a et Te Re i te ail ANTHROPOMETRY I SIZING AND DESIGN "The average man" . . . . . . . RTA, 95th percentiles=—AFW height segments JERE ehh . Eight-size height-weight bivariate from Enanuel et al. 1959. . . . . Fie te rE dT tT a Card. Th Eight-size height-weight TORTI row ean a ee Ce ie STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MAN-MACHINE DESIGNS An excerpt from Volume II: the major univariate statistics. . . . . . . tiie wie ce de a wee aie aie Approximate proportions of data falling into intervals based on mean +K standard deviations. . . . . . . . . . Coefficients of variation by measurement type . . . . . Frequency table for U.S. Navy pilots' statures. . . . . Percentile-standard deviation relationships . . . . . Cost of accommodating additional percentages of a user population in mid-range umits . . . . ie el a ale, Selected correlation coefficients for USAF Fliers and Air Force Women . . . $4 ie wie eee a ee ewe Distribution of correlation coefficients by variables, groups of variables and entire group (from Anthro metry of Air Force Women by Clauser et al., 1972) . s Typical standard errors . . . . . . . . . . +. . Selected .statistics for stature and floor-to-waist and waist-to-vertex heights (AFW '68 data). . . . . . . Fifth percentiles, means and ninety-fifth percentiles for stature segments (based on Clauser et al., 1968). . Page Vi-9 VI-15 VII-5 VII-7 VIiIi-7 VII-12 VII-13 VII-14 VIII-2 VIII-5 VIII-12 VIII-11 IX-10 IX-12 IX-17 IX-18 IX-20 IX-27 IX-34 IX-52 IX-55 IX-56 TABLES (concluded) Page Ch. IX.(continued) Table 12. Distribution of weights of five-man crews . . . . . . . IX-60 Table 13. Distribution of maximum statures of five-man crews. . . IX-60 xvii CHAPTER I. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure aN WLWN = \O 00 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. FIGURES ANTHROPOMETRIC CHANGES IN WEIGHTLESSNESS Typical loss of body weight during weightlessness . Weight loss as a function of mission and duration . Changes in body mass of SL-2 crewmen . . . Changes in body mass of SL-3 crewmen . . . . Changes in body mass of SL-4 crewmen .« ve Average weight loss as a function of average energy intake of Skylab crewmen . che ee . vi Typical curve of height changes on exposure to weightlessness. . . . IEEE sae a Graph of mean in-flight SL—4 height measurements An illustration of change in height in one g over an 8- to l4-hour period after a normal 8-hour sleep period . . . . . . roy eos SEI, ii, First-order sechanioal analog consistent with changes in axial mechanical loading and unloading . . . An SL-4 crewman in a relaxed, unrestrained posture in weightlessness (a) Front view . . . « « vv vv vv «oo (b) Side view . . . tote The SL-3 PLT in a forced erat: posture in weightlessness vd ET shee ele weightlessness vee . eos “a4 A comparison of the changes i in posture “of the SL-4 SPT . . . . . A side-view conparison of the changes in posture of the SL-4 SPT . The segment angles of the weightless "neutral “body Position . . + +. 4 4 4 oe ou xviii Side view of the SL-3 PLT in a forced erect posture in I-15 I-17 I-19 I-19 I-23 I-23 I-23 I-23 I-24 FIGURES (continued) Ch. I (continued) Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 17. 18. \ 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. The body position of the SL-3 PLT while Loading film in weightlessness . co. . Photographs showing subject i in a relaxed, neutral buoyancy posture under water (a) With unblocked vision (b) With blocked vision . . Anthropometric measurements made on the Skylab crewmen. Truncal girth changes of SL-4 crewmen in an anatomical position in weightlessness with one-g measurements as a baseline co. Changes in left-limb volumes of SL- 4 crewmen in flight Left-leg volumes of ASTP crewmen “calculated from segmental girth measurements . Average postflight Leg-volume changes on Skylab missions. Measurements used in center-of-gravity "and "center-of- mass determinations . . . Preflight (baseline) and postflight center-of-gravity measurements of SL-4 PLT . . A single transverse section of the ‘body at "shoulder level generated by a computer from poines derived from stereophotogrammetry. . A composite of transverse body sections dade. fron stereophotogrammetric plates . Stereophotogrammetric volume as a function of longitudinal axis level of SL-3 CDR before and after flight . . . . IE. Handgrip forces as a function of time in weightlessness for Soyuz 9 crewmen (a) Nikolayev (b) Sevast'yanov . . Arrangement used for Skylab postflight ‘muscle function test. Recording of right-leg ‘muscle forces of the SL- 3 backup PLT. A plot of peak arm “forces of the 'sL-3 CDR from preflight and postflight curves PERE CR, xix Page I-24 I-25 I-25 1-28 I-28 I-31 I-35 I-39 I-40 I-40 I-41 I-42 I-43 I-46 I-46 I-48 I-48 I-48 FIGURES (continued) Page Ch. I (continued) Figure 33. A plot of the changes in arm forces on SL-2 and SL-3. . I-50 Figure 34. A plot of the changes in leg forces on SL-2 and SL-3. . I-50 Figure 35. MK-I exerciser positions. . . . . . . 0. oie ete I-51 Figure 36. Skylab treadmill gezengesent used to test muscle function. . . . iid oe ne ee I-52 Figure 37. A plot of the average arm strength changes on Skylab missions. . . . . . . . I-53 Figure 38. A plot of the average leg strength ’ changes on r Skylab missions. . . . Th. vv. ie re I-53 Figure 39. Exercise-related quantities on ‘Skylab missions. . . . . I-55 CHAPTER II. VARIABILITY IN HUMAN BODY SIZE Figure 1. Body size comparisons of three principal racial . groups: males and females . . . . sre ee II-3 Figure 2. Incremental and percentage growth changes i in ‘body size due to the effects of protective clothing and equipment (based on Alexander, et al., 1976). . . . . . I1-20 Figure 3. Incremental and percentage growth changes in body size due to the effects of inflated pressure suits (based on Alexander et al., 1969) . . . . . . .. II-22 Figure 4. Functional envelope dimensions of the fully suited. astronaut (based on NASA Habitability Data Hand- book, 1971) . . . . . . at Cy 8 11-23 Figure 5. Recommended access girs diene to accommo- date fully suited astronaut (based on NASA Habita- bility Data Handbook, 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [II-24 Figure 6. A comparison of 5th-95th percentile male and female values for selected dimensions showing the range of differences and overlap between the two groups. . . . «le . oo. civ a» 11-29 Figure 7. Distribution of stature and weight for U. s. Air Force personnel--male and female. . . . . . . . . . . . II-30 Figure 8. Range of variation between males of three racial groups for selected body dimensions (smallest 5th to largest 95th percentile) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-36 Figure 9. Range of variation between females of three racial groups for selected body dimensions (smallest 5th to largest 95th percentile) . . . « « +. I1I-37 Figures 10-20 Range of variability (5th-95th percentile) for selected populations in: 10. waist circumference . . . . . . . . . o.oo I1-39 11. stature . . « vv vo «vv + «oo «4 4 4 eee ee ee 11-40 12. weight. . . . 0 wah eee mies 6 eae Tee eae II-41 - 13. buttock-knee length EE & £3 * 14. sleeve length . . . . . . « . « + + + oo oo. II-43 FIGURES (continued) Page Ch. II (continued) 15. hip circumference . . . . . . . . . + + + 4. 40... 11-44 16. biacromial breadth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-45 17. trochanteric height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. II-46 18. chest circumference . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 11-47 19. erotch height . . . . . . . . . . . . «+ «oo. 11-48 20. sitting height. . . . . . . . Cee ee oe 11-49 Figure 21. Secular increase in stature of young European and Japanese males: 1840-1960. After: Ud jus (1564), Harbeck (1960). . . . . . ‘le oe 11-54 Figure 22. Secular trend in stature of Younc u. S. ‘males: 1870-1980 . . . © + + oo oe ee ee ee ee ee 11-56 CHAPTER III. ANTHROPOMETRY Figure 1. Anthropometric instruments. . . . . . . +. « « . . . . . III-4 Appendix A Figure 1. Anatomical planes and orientatioms. . . . . . . . . . . III-78 Figure 2. Anatomical and anthropometric landmarks . . . . . . . . III-79 Figure 3. Anatomical and anthropometric landmarks . . . . . . . . III-80 Figure 4. Anthropometric landmarks of the head and face . . . . . III-81 Figure 5. Anthropometric landmarks of the head and face . . . . . III-82 Appendix C Figure 1. USAF two-dimensional manikin. . . . «+ +. . II1I-99 Figure 2. USAF two-dimensional manikin in fetal position. « + « . III-100 Figure 3. Two-dimensional 5%ile USAF manikin (simplified version). . . . « . . III-104 Figure 4. Two-dimensional 50Zile USAF asnikin (simplified version). . . . . . . . . . TIII-105 Figure 5. Two-dimensional 95%ile USAF manikin (simplified Version). . . + + + 4 4 4 4 + 4 4 4 4 ee eo + «+ oo . . III-106 CHAPTER IV. THE INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF THE BODY AND ITS SEGMENTS Figure 1. Whole body axis system centered on the pelvis . . . . . IvV-5 Figure 2. Segmentation planes used in studies of cadavers (at left) and living bodies (at right). ee ee ee ee ee IVT Figure 3. Linkage system. . . oo. 1v-9 Figure 4. A computer model of body linkage - "50th percentile. 1985 man with extended elbow. . . . EEE 1v-16 Figure 5. Internal anatomical landmarks of the torso for body position depicted in Figure 4. . . . veh oe 1v-17 Figure 6. Computer model of body linkage: 50th percentile 1985 man in resting position. . . . «er el Iv-18 Figure 7. Internal anatomical landmarks of the torso for body position depicted in Figure 6. . . . . . . . . . . 1v-19 Figure 8. Weightless neutral body position. . . . . . . . . . . . Iv-21 Ch. IV (continued) Figure 9. Figure 10. FIGURES (continued) Centers of mass in eight body positions (from Santschi et ale, 1963) o o ¢ o = ¢ o o o o o o oo Mean centers of gravity in nude and suited subjects (from DuBcis et ale; 1964)e « « o o o o o o © o o « CHAPTER V. ARM-LEG REACH AND WORKSPACE LAYOUT Spacelab workspaces (from Thompson, 1975) . « . . Portable foot restraint positions (from Thompson, 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foot restraint system (from Thompson, 1975) . . . Figures 4-13 Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane: Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. be 5. [ 7 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Figures 1l4- 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21, through the seat reference pointe « « + 5 inches above the seat reference point . 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 21 12 18 24 30 36 42 inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches above the seat reference point. above the seat reference point. above the seat reference pointe « « « & above the seat reference pointe « « « above the seat reference pointe « « « « above the seat reference pointe « « « « above the seat reference pointe « « « . . above the seat reference point. « « « « . Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane: through the seat reference pointe o « « o o o o » 6 inches above the seat reference point « « « « & inches inches inches inches inches inches above the seat reference pointe + « « above the seat reference pointe « « « & above the seat reference point. « above the seat reference point. . . above the seat reference pointe. « above the seat reference point. « CHAPTER VI. RANGE OF JOINT MOTION Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. CHAPTER VII. Figure 1. Figure 2. Two- joint muscle test apparatus Shoulder extension-flexione « « « ¢ o « o o o o o Elbow flexion « « o o o o o o o © © o o o os o o Ankle fleXiOn oe « o o o o © © © © © a o © o o o Hip flexion « « ¢ ¢ oo ¢ ¢ oo 6 0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 00 + Knee flexione « o o o o ¢ o ¢ 0 o o ¢ ¢ ¢ o o o « HUMAN MUSCULAR STRENGTH Results of static and dynamic strength testing as reported by Berger and Higginbotham, 1970 « « . « Equipment for measurement of maximum static push forces of seated subjects « « ¢ o « ¢ o o o o oo xxii Page Iv-25 Iv-44 V-10 V-15 V-23 V-25 V-27 V-29 V-31 V-33 V-35 V-37 V-39 V-41 V-43 V-45 V-47 V-49 V-51 V-53 V-55 V-57 VI-12 VIi-12 VI-13 VIi-13 VIi-14 VI-14 VII-6 VII-9 Ch. VII (continued) Figures 3-22 Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds): 3. be 5. 6e 7 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 13 degree SRP . 13 degree SRP « « 13 degree SRP +. « 13 degree SRP « + « 13 degree SRP « « 13 degree SRP « o « 13 degree SRP « « 13 degree SRP « « 25 degree SRP « « © 25 degree SRP « « 25 degree SRP © « © 25 degree SRP . . ° 25 degree SRP . . . 25 degree SRP . . . 25 degree SRP o « 65 degree SRP . . . 65 degree SRP « « & 65 degree SRP « o 65 degree SRP . 65 degree FIGURES (continued) seat back seat back seat back seat back seat back seat back * . eo eo . seat back seat back seat back . . °o . . seat back seat back * . e . . seat back seat back seat back seat back seat back seat back . . eo . . seat back . . . . . seat back . . . . . seat back angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle-—handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle angle--handle at 38 cm above at 51 cm above at 64 cm above . . ° . . . . . at 76 cm above at 89 cm above at 102 cm above at 114 cm above at 127 cm above at 38 em above at 51 cm above at 64 cm above at 76 on above. at 89 cm above at 102 cm above at 114 cm above ® ® ee oo © © oo eo eo oo oo at 38 cm above at 51 an above at 64 cm above at 76 cn ahove. at 89 cm above SRP . * . . . . . o . . - . . . eo . . ° . . . ° . ° Figures 23-33 Female/male strength comparison: upper extremities: Backward and forward push with one hand « « « + + & Lateral pushe o « o eo 2 o o o a s 0 o o ¢ 0 ¢ oo Forward push with both handse o « o « ¢ ¢ o o o « « xxiii Page VII-15 VII-16 VII-17 VII-18 VII-19 VII-20 VII-21 VII-22 VII-23 VII-24 VII-25 VII-26 VII-27 VII-28 VII-29 VII-30 VII-31 VII-32 VII-33 VII-34 VII-36 "VII-36 VII-37 FIGURES (continued) Page Ch. VII (continued) : 26. Horizontal pull and push . . . . cr sr ese. VII=37 27. Vertical pull downwards and push upwards. « « + + + +. . VII-38 28. Hand volar flexion and dorsal extemsion . . . . . . . . VII-38 29. Neck flexion forwards and shoulder flexion. . . . . . . VII-39 30. Handle pronation and supination . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-39 31. Elbow flexion and extension . . . . . . . . «. + . . . . VII-40 32. Hand grip strength. . . . . . . « +. + « + « + «+ « « « . VII-40 33. Key pronation and supination. . . . o Haile VII-41 Figures 34-38 Female/male strength comparison: "Lover extremities: 34. Hip flexion and extension . . . . . . . . «. +. . «. . . . VII-42 35. Hip abduction and adduction . . . ee eo 4 eo eo. VII-42 36. Ankle plantar flexion and dorsiflexion. e + + + oo +. VII-43 37. Knee flexion and extension. . . . . + +. + + « + + + + . VII-43 38. Leg extension . . . ee ee o. . VII-4G Figures 39-41 Female/male strength comparison: “trunk 39. Trunk extension . . . . . +. + « « « « « + + + « + « + « VII=45 40. Trunk flexion . . . . +. + +. + « « « «+ « + « « « « «+ « « VII-45 41. Trunk bending . . . eo +. . VII-46 Figures 42-46 Female/male strength comparison: "dynamic 42. Straight—arm carry. . . . . + « « « « + « « « « « « « « VII=47 43. Lowering. . . +. + « + « oo oo 4 4 oe so eo 0 0 so oo VII-&7 Bh. LAREING i Le Te a i ed ee Ya a ity Tey a I NC YT TB 45. Bent—arm CATTY. . + « + + « o « « + o o o oo « oo « + VII-48 46. Pushing and pulling . . . . . Shey ee te VII=49 Figure 47. The range and average mean percentage differences : in muscle strength characteristics between women and MeN . . . + + + + 4 4 4 4 4 4 ec 4 + es se «+o « . VII-50 CHAPTER VIII. ANTHROPOMETRY IN SIZING AND DESIGN Figure 1. Stature variability by percentile groups. . . . . . . . VIII-4 Figure 2. Weight variability by percentile groups . . . . . . . . VIII-4 CHAPTER IX. STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MAN-MACHINE DESIGNS Figure 1. Distribution of stature measurements (AFW '68 data) . . IX-7 Figure 2. Areas under the normal curve. . . . $0 aaa IX-8 Figure 3. Measurement with an arbitrary zero value. oie ea te IX-13 Figure 4. Computation of percentiles. . . . BE IX-16 Figure 5. Cumulative frequencies--U.S. Navy Flyers '64 statures--on rectangular graph paper. . . . coe. IX-21 Figure 6. Bivariate frequency tables illustrating interrela- tionships of anthropemetrie data (from Clauser et al., 1968). . . . . . . $e IX-22 Figure 7. Correlation coefficients "and regression equations: a few illustrative calculations . . . «0000s IX-25 Figure 8. Regression bands: regression values +1 SEy. ce ee. IX-31 xxiv FIGURES (concluded) Ch. IX (continued) Figure 9. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 Distribution of correlation coefficients (from Clauser et al., 1968) . . Ninety-five percent probability ellipse for sitting height and stature. Ninety-five percent probability ellipse for weight and hip breadth . Co. Artificial bivariate table “for ‘but tock-knee and buttock-popliteal lengths (USAF '67 data) Proportions disaccommodated six types of two-variable design patterns . . Design limits based on a "specified percent disaccom~ modated: Type A design, eye Sinelett, sitting and thumb-tip reach . oa + ee Page IX-35 IX-41 IX-42 IX-46 IX-49 “0 1 : ' } ‘ ep, ashe TH Ele Jee rete a ie N79-11735 CHAPTER I ANTHROPOMETRIC CHANGES IN WEIGHTLESSNESS by William Thornton, M.D., Scientist Astronaut National Aeronautics and Space Administration Man's body has been shaped by the constant force of gravity for the ma- jority of his existence, both as a species and as an individual. His muscles, skeleton, and nervous and cardiovascular systems have all adapted to counter this force. It is not surprising that marked changes occur in such a body when forces of gravity are effectively removed, as in orbital flight. Significant changes in posture, size, shape, fluid quantity, and fluid distribution did occur during space flight (Thornton et al., 1977). Loss of strength, muscle, and body mass and changes in body composition will also occur in the absence of countermeasures (Thornton and Rummel, 1977). Such changes are summarized in table 1. In addition, man has become dependent upon gravity for many of his actions. Virtually all of his furniture and many of his tools, appliances, and workspace designs are dependent upon gravity's action, both on the de- vices and on ‘the man. : Placing the human body in such a changed force environment as weightlessness generates a new area of anthropometric study and application and provides a challenge to man/machine designers. The small amount of anthropometric data available from space flight has already been sufficient to indicate the major impact of such data on the design of apparatus for use in space, as well as to redirect many efforts of life scientists. With a new generation of spacecraft, equipment, and space systems now in progress, there is an immediate need to allow for changes due to weightlessness in the ini- tial stages of design. Such changes in the human body must be accommodated if designs are to be efficient. The primary purpose of this chapter is to document and explain, as fully as possible, the anthropometric data currently available on the human body in weightlessness. Although these data are far from complete and often lacking in rigor, they are virtually all that are available. Where possible, explan- ations of physiological mechanisms are included in an effort to provide as much understanding as possible of the interaction of the body with this new environment. A few comments on potential applications have been made. Other chapters also address the application of this material and existing one-g data to space-related problems. In many cases, imagination and creativity will be required to combine existing techniques with these data for optimum results. : TABLE 1.- ANTHROPOMETRIC CHANGES IN WE IGHTLESSNESS Change Time required for change to occur May be progressive Weight loss Small initial loss first 1 to 2 days; final course depends on diet, exercise, and other factors. Trunk and limb girth Immediate in some areas; slow in others; de- pends on diet, exercise, and other factors Loss of muscle mass Days to weeks; depends on diet, exercise, and and strength other factors Body composition Days to weeks; depends on diet, exercise, and and density other factors Constant and persists throughout flight Height increase 2 phases: immediate step; then, hours to days for slower component Posture Immediate Fluid shifts Hours to 1 or 2 days Center-of-mass shifts Days Some indications of changes caused by weightlessness can be gleaned from anecdotal information supplied by astronauts; stuffy noses, low-back fatigue, blood rushing to the head, the thin "bird legs of space," and suit-donning difficulties all provide hints. Specific anthropometric measurements made during the American space program prior to Skylab consisted of preflight and postflight weight, a few I-2 handgrip measurements, and stereophotogrammetric photographs taken on Apollo 16.1 Preflight and postflight measurements of leg circumferences and volumes are available from other Apollo studies. ?2 On the Skylab 2 mission (SL-2), strength and fatigue measurements and segmental girth measurements of upper and lower extremities were made before and after flight.3 Also, in-flight mass measurements (Thornton and Ord, 1977) and one set of in-flight facial photographs were obtained, and pre- flight and ‘postflight stereophotography and analysis were performed. On SL-3, the aforementioned measurements were continued and a few body- girth measurements added. Whole-body photographs of the crewmen in anatomi- cal positions were made during flight. On SL-4, the previously accumulated data were augmented by a set of photographs illustrating free-floating posture. Measurements of segmental limb girths, truncal girths, and heights were obtained throughout the flight (Thornton et al., 1977). On the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) mission, in-flight height and leg—-girth measurements were made . 8» Followup one-g studies and analysis are still in progress. Insofar as possible, all of these data are included here and will be described. In the Russian space program, anthropometric measurements, including postflight strength and limb girths, were made as early as 1968 on Soyuz 4&4 (Kakurin, 1971). In-flight handgrip forces were measured on the Soyuz 9 and 11 flights; static muscle forces and limb girths were measured on Soyuz 9 and probably on other flights. Preflight and postflight studies of walking were made on Soyuz 9 to 12 (Parin et al., 1974). Additional studies were probably performed. All Russian data available will be presented here. lp. Rambaut et al.: Nutritional Studies. Ch. 6 of Biomedical Results of Apollo. NASA SP-368, 1975. 24. Hoffler and R. Johnson: Apollo Flight Crew Cardiovascular Evalua- tions. Ch. 4 of Biomedical Results of Apollo. NASA SP-368, 1975. 3W. Thornton and J. Rummel: Measurement of Crew Somatic and Functional Changes in Skylab 1/2. Skylab 1/2 Preliminary Biomedical Report, JSC-08439, 1973, pp. 77-9. 4M. Whittle and R. Herron: Stereophotogrammetry. Skylab 1/2 Prelimi- nary Biomedical Report, JSC-08439, 1973. Su. Thornton, W. Hoffler, and J. Rummel: Anthropometric and Functional Changes on Skylab. JSC-08439, 1973, sec. 2-4. 67. W. Brown:. Zero-g Effects on Crewman Height. JSC IN 76-EW-3, 1976. TW. Hoffler et al.: Inflight Lower Limb Volume Measurements. JSC ASTP DTO C, 8, D, 1975. I-3 WEIGHT CHANGES SUMMARY Weight loss has been an apparent constant side effect of space flight. It has ranged from O to 8 percent of body weight and has borne no fixed relation to mission duration, individual crewman, mission, or vehicle. On Skylab, the causes of such losses were demonstrated. Other than a small initial fluid loss, there is no obligatory weight loss associated with space flight if proper countermeasures are used during flight. On exposure of a person to weightlessness, a shift of fluid from the more dependent portions of the body occurs and 2 percent or less of body weight is lost through diuresis and/or decreased thirst over the first day or two. In a person with a caloric (food) intake which matches his energy expenditures, there will be no further loss. On the person's return to a one-g environment, the fluid lost will be replaced by retention for the first day or two. It now appears that most of the losses in space flight were caused by inadequate diet. Energy costs on Skylab were surprisingly high - 203 to 212 kJ per kilogram (22 to 23 kcal per pound) of body weight per day - and Preflight ‘ In-flight Postflight Percent of launch weight lost Launch Recovery | | | \ | 1 1 | 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 ! Cl 1 | 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 aN 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time, days Figure 1.- Typical loss of body weight during weightlessness and gain after recovery. reflect the pace of crew activity. It also appears that crewmen on most missions will require as much food as they do on Earth; and in some cases, considerably more. On the basis of Skylab data, curve I in figure 1 shows a typical loss that might be expected from normal crewmen in caloric balance. Curve II shows what might be expected from a crewman with a transient decreased intake resulting from a vestibular upset (inner ear disturbance causing vertigo, nausea, or vomiting), an occurrence that will probably affect 30 percent of all astronauts. After the fluid and caloric losses of the first 5 days, crewman II remains in balance until he returns to a one-g environment, at which time the fluid loss is replaced and an increased diet initiates replacement of the tissue loss incurred in the first day or two of flight. Any further caloric excess or deficit would be superimposed on these curves as a loss or gain at approximately 36 mg/kJ (1 1b/3000 kcal) in crew- men with normal body fat. Such losses may be chronic if caused by an inade- quate diet, or acute if caused by a transiently increased workload. Weight Change Data Virtually every astronaut and cosmonaut has lost weight during space flight. These losses are tabulated in appendix A, tables A-1 and A-2. This potential problem of weight loss is intimately associated with problems discussed in the section on the musculoskeletal system. On Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and ASTP missions, astronauts were measured in the nude after voiding with calibrated clinical scales (platform with balance arm) which typically have a resolution of 0.1 kg (0.25 1b). These measurements are given in tabular form in appendix A and plotted against the logarithm of flight duration in figure 2. ° ORIGINAL PAGE TO i 2 dem U ® Apollo 6 OF POOR Q 4 » Skylab 4 A ° | ASTP - * A » S5r , ® ® > 3 A ee = A a s S >» >» 34 * = ® 3 o _o00 4 EE > 2 . A S oS = a " A . gE, .- R : = a) a ° A ° 8 1+ a A A “ ° * 0 1 1 1 al L & 1 lol J Ll 1 ! 1 | 1 1 10 100 Days in flight Figure 2.- Weight loss as a function of mission and duration. On Skylab missions, daily measurements were made before and after flight with calibrated clinical scales each morning; the astronauts were measured in the nude immediately after arising and voiding. Body mass was measured in flight under the same constraints with a nongravimetric mass-measuring device (Thornton and Ord, 1977) which had a repeatability of #50 g (#0.1 1b) and an absolute error of 0.1 to 0.45 kg (0.25 to 1 1b), with the lower figure more probable. Data for all Skylab flights are plotted as 3-day sliding averages (i.e., data from each day of measurements are averaged with the preceding and following days' values) against time in figures 3 to 5. Daily weights with- out averaging are given in appendix A, tables A-3(a) to A-3(c). Available Russian weight data are given in appendix A, table A-2. The techniques used to determine these data are unknown. It should be noted that many of the Russian weight measurements were made up to 24 hours after recov- ery. Results and Comments On the basis of the data in figure 2 and in table A-1 of appendix A, weight loss would seem to be a consequence of space flight. The amounts of loss were extremely variable even in the same subject. For example, in Stafford, the following variations were observed: 1 day, -5.8 percent on Gemini-Titan 6 (GT-6); 3 days, -1.1 percent on GT-9; 8 days, -1.5 percent on Apollo 10; and 9 days, +0.9 percent on the ASTP mission. Several attempts to show a relationship between weight loss and mission duration (Verigo, 1976) have been unconvincing and break down completely in the face of Skylab results. Prior to Skylab, the necessary data on food intake, in-flight stresses, and other factors required to understand the losses were simply not avail- able. On Skylab, the in-flight mass measurement plus the knowledge of food intake provided the data for understanding loss mechanisms. Further, the rigidly controlled diet was generally increased on each flight, producing in effect a series of three in-flight experiments. This mass measurement and diet control, plus individual variation and a 56-day one-g chamber simulation (Thornton, 1973) with use of the same restricted diet, provided proof of the primary cause of the losses. In virtually all of the flights, including most of the Skylab missions, a calorically inadequate basic diet was supplied as a result of the assumption that in-flight requirements were less than those for a one-g environment.® Figures 3 to 6 show the opposite to be true. Figure 6 is a plot of normalized weight loss as a function of energy intake. Extrapolation to zero loss shows the surprisingly high energy requirements of 203 to 212 kJ per kilogram (22 to 23 kcal per pound) of body weight per day, or approximately 15 503.1 kJ "(3700 kcal) per day for a 77.1-kg (170 1b) man. 8see footnote 1 on p. I-3. I-6 3.0 13 SL-2 COMMANDER (CDR) 0.6 18fe & © Launch Recovery we, ® * 62.1 137} . 3 oe BN — Pr 26.7 2 136 o * - “ Oe, . £ 2 ce ® 61.2 135 © & o ° o° \ . ®e oe ° . 00.8 13a elle © . . © . 60.3 133 59.9 12 lL 1 1 1 LJ F-30 F-20 F-10 10 20 R+10R +16 Preflight In-flight Postflight 79.4 175 | SL-2 SCIENCE PILOT (SPT) 78.5 173 Launch Recovery ° ° o ©, . edog po ® Te mel 1m ~~ 2 a 5 76.7 2 169 * © BI 167 oe So °° © a8 165 of 0% o o 73.9 163 L 1 1 1 1 l F-30 F-20 F-10 10 20 R+10 R+16 Preflight In-flight Postflight 8.1 I | SL-2 PILOT (PLD 81.2 179f8, Launch Recovery - ° . o 80.3 177+ . . Se eo cm 0 CO a 1.ak sh aN e . bd = . . ow ° i | ot = mst =1m3b ND ae “ mel In “ ° . oe, so ~ . . 76.7 169+ 5.7L 167 1 1 l ] 1 J F-30 F-20 F-10 0 2 R+10 R+16 Preflight In-flight Postflight Figure 3.- Changes in body mass of SL-2 crewmen, where F - 10 is 10 days before lift-off, R + 10 is 10 days after recovery, etc. NAY 13 PAI ORIGTNE Coy auuTY. = oQOR = ono 69.8 154 I SL-3 COMMANDER 1 o Launch Recovery 68.9 152 oo A Ld 68.0 150 ° 5 61.1 a : J a a @ g | 2 . &~ ° 146 2 An ng 66.2 “Ace @ “>, . 65.3 14 “lle 4 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 J ou F-21 F-11 10 20 30 4d 50 R+10R +17 Preflight In-flight Postflight 63.5 190 I SL-3 SCIENCE PILOT 2.6 138 Launch Recovery ° . do 0 61.7 136% op 3 2 2 0 - - & i g 134 - = 59.9 12 o ~ ° - 59.0 130 vo, Varo. a 58.1 128 1 1 d 1 1 ‘pp 1 . J | F-10 10 20 330 40 30 R+10 R+17 F-21 In-flight Postflight Preflight Launch 89.3 197 [| st-3Pior * Recovery 88.4 15 o % & de > 8.51 193 fo ry 2 2 . 486.61 4 191 . 2 2 ° . Cotng po 85.7 189 o_o ~ Wp WRN 84.8 187 * © 83.9 185 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 J F-21F-11 10 20 30 40 50 R+10 R+17 Preflight In-flight Postflight Figure 4.- Changes in body mass of SL-3 crewmen. I-7 68.5 68.0 Mass, kg 67.6 na 70.8 Mass, kg 69.8 68.9 68.0 68.0 67.1 Mass, kg 66.2 64.4 Figure 5.- Changes in body mass of SL-4 crewmen. I-8 E IS r152r ORIGIN al rt SL-4 COMMANDER OF POOR A S3 ¥ Launch Recovery . 151+ oe ®* °C ® [) [1 i > ~~ = 150 ® o& o%e ° & ° & ® g ® 0,00 oo ® Ee Frat Ta MELE] [oF Ly JY oo? ue . o ee © oo 4 [Py . . ° . ° . % . ° o P o 18 f0 ° oo L 14 1 1 1 l J 1 ! 1 1 1 1 J F-21 F-20 F-10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 R+10 R+19 Preflight In-flight Postflight ~- 160 I I SL-4 SCIENCE PILOT e Launch Recovery ° ay 1580 ° a ® eo Oo ww Wh [I * ° - 156 ° $ 2 . . 154 ° “ he Pe °o % ~ oy . ® =» eo 152k a NLC -, Noma abe ‘e. ° oo’ * - " 1 ! ul 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . J F-271 F-20 F-10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 R+10 R+19 Preflight In-flight Postflight ro 152r l SL-4 PILOT Launch Recovery — 150+ ° ~ P, SL. = ey > 148+ or g . |= je} : eo 3 Oa ® * LPN r oe »® We ~, & N° oe ® tos? - - ® ® 0 144 or oo L 1 ! | L 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 J F-27F-20 F-10 10 20 30 40 60 70 80 R+10 R+19 Preflight In-flight Postflight ORIGINAL PAGE 18 OF POOR QUALITY These values apply only to the Sky- 20 Lo. - . sL2 C=COR lab missions, in which performance . B SL3 5 -SPT requirements were generally sched- gs P A SL-4 PePLT uled to the minute for hard driv- g ° ing crewmen who often worked well 5 5 . ¢ into sleep and other off duty per- Eg c n iods. Other flights may have dif- 2 : s ferent requirements. 3.0 : : \ c On the basis of the results 2 from Skylab simulation and from Sky- Daily energy intake, kcal/lb body weight lab flights, there can be little 154 10s Tes lwo 155 14s 197 2.9 doubt that the major losses of Daily energy intake, kJ/kg body weight weight in space have been caused by inadequate caloric intake. Examples Figure 6.- Average weight loss as a of this correlation can be seen in function of average energy intake the results for all three crewmen on of Skylab crewmen. The SL-2 CDR, SL-2 (fig. 3), whose losses started the SL-3 SPT, and the SL-4 PLT had with the controlled diet and contin- very low body fat and a higher ued throughout the mission. A rate of weight loss. similar pattern was seen preflight in a 56-day Skylab simulation in one subject on an inadequate diet (Thornton, 1973). It was observed that temporary weight decreases can be caused by periods of increased activity such as reentry preparations — as in the case of all three SL-2 crewmen (fig. 3) and the SL-3 commander and pilot (fig. 4). Smaller, long-term losses may be superimposed on other changes, as in the case of the science pilot on SL-3 (fig. 4), who had small preflight losses which continued throughout the flight. Another major consideration is poor intake during the first portion of the mission due to vestibular upset. This upset, which may range from nausea and vomiting to poor appetite, played a role in the sharp initial losses observed in SL-3 and SL-4 (figs. 4 and 5). A second significant source of weight loss is caused by fluid redistribution. On initial exposure of a person to weightlessness, blood and other fluids are shifted from the lower, normally dependent portions of the body to the upper body, with an increase in central blood volume. The body probably attempts a reduction of this volume by diuresis in accord with the hypothesis of Gauer and Henry (1963). The initial loss of approximately 2 percent in the first few days of flight and the same rapid gain for the first few days of recovery are consistent with this theory. Figures 3 and 4 are good examples of such loss and gain. In summary, the only obligatory weight loss associated with space flight is that associated with fluid redistribution. Major losses to date have been caused by inadequate caloric intake from diets too low in calories or by inadequate food consumption in flight, especially during the first days of flight. Applications If diet is adequately controlled, weight losses should cause no difficulty to spacecraft design or operations. There are some center-of-mass shifts involved, but these will be treated elsewhere. Indirectly, this problem will be reflected in the necessity for provision of adequate amounts of food and oxygen. AGE 19 HEIGHT CHANGES ORIGINAL Ff oa oF POOR SUMMARY Astronauts will ‘''grow" approximately 3 percent in height (typically about 5 cm (2 in.)) during the first day or two of weightlessness and then retain this increase throughout the mission until reexposure to one g, when the process is reversed. It appears that virtually all of this increase is caused by a lengthening of the spinal column; thus, the change is limited to the trunk and neck. Any man/machine interface which is affected by such changes in height and truncal length will be impacted. Potential design problems include pressure suits, clothing, and work stations and control stations with critical eye levels. These changes which occur in weightlessness are simply the full expres- sion of daily changes on Earth which result from loading and unloading of the spinal column. Figure 7 is a curve typical of height changes which occur in an individual on exposure to weightlessness. The intervertebral disks are viscoelastic structure responsible of 1 percent. Changes in height are inversely related to changes in axial load (e.g., height increases when one changes from the vertical lL to the horizontal under one-g condi- tions and vice versa). Weightiessness for the changes, which occur in two 3! phases. When the column load is | _-—" ; changed, as - for example - when a I -7 / person moves from lying to standing I “ - Hypothetical Level . . . . | Pe persists or vice versa, there is an immediate I s indefinitely change in height, AHj, on the order | Zr I | I | I fe If the change in load is maintained, such as during sleep at night, a Percent increase over standing height in one g 0 ; 10 3 Fy % % Nays second, slower exponential change in Time, hr height, AH,, occurs according to Figure 7.- Typical curve of height changes on exposure to weight- H = Hy t AHy(1 - e~t/T) lessness. I-10 where H = height at time t Hg = height at time of load change AHy = maximum change in height under changed load t = time since load was changed T = subject's characteristic response time On Earth, AHy typically amounts to some 1+ percent in adults. The mag- nitude and time response of change is usually reduced with age and is some- what higher in females. There is considerable individual variation amounting to #30 to *40 percent in values of AH; and AHj;. There are also consid- erable individual differences in response under one-g conditions as compared to maximum change under zero-g conditions. Some crewmen showed virtually the same changes under both conditions, whereas most added another 0.5 to 1.0 percent of height in weightlessness over the maximum changes on Earth. The following factors should be considered in making one-g height measurements for weightlessness operations: (1) horizontal rather than ver- tical subject positions are more appropriate; (2) an even closer approxima- tion to height in space can be obtained immediately after the subject has had a night's sleep or been in another horizontal position for a prolonged time; (3) during transition to and from weightlessness, height will change rapidly, "especially under added g-loads; and (4) all measurements must be carefully made with the subjects in standard positions (0.16 cm (0.06 in.) is a prac- tical working resolution), with use of a rigid, carefully calibrated jig. Height Change Data Height is a fundamental anthropometric parameter of particular impor- tance in space flight. Aside from data developed in annual physical examina- tions, no records of pre-postflight height can be found prior to SL-3 or in Russian data. A study of in-flight height changes on SL-4 and the ASTP mis- sion was done by Brown.? Isolated height measurements were also made in flight on SL-4 as a part of an anthropometric package (Thornton et al., 1977). Followup one-g studies on the SL-4 and ASTP crewmen and other subjects are underway. Pertinent data from these studies are included here. Most of the preflight height measurements of SL-4 crewmen were obtained by using standard clinical techniques. In flight, the Skylab crewmen an- chored themselves with restraint shoes against a wall and were measured from 9See footnote 6 on p. I-3. I-11 vertex to sole of the shoe with a 16 3r square and calibrated tape. Four series of measurements were made. A Conventional clinical methods were used after flight, but more atten- tion was paid to measurement tech- nique and all scales were calibrated and read to closer limits. Similar techniques were used in the ASTP mission except that in-flight vertex . CoN height was marked on a bulkhead and 0 20 0 0 80 R+10 this mark was measured from the Time, days "floor." Launch Recovery---- » oo A height, in, ~N T A height, cm n w — Figure 8.- Graph of mean in-flight Initial heights of all astronauts SL-4 height measurements. who have flown in space are given in appendix A, table A-1, and pre- flight, in-flight, and postflight heights of SL-4 astronauts are shown in appendix B, tables B-1 to B-3. Figure 8 is a graph of mean in-flight AH measurements of SL-4 crewmen. Skylab 4 crewmen were very similar to each other in height in the one-g environment (£0.25 cm (0.1 in.)). They also showed similar in-flight changes and the data seem consistent, although the author is suspicious of a small systematic error on the last day of in-flight measurement. Postflight meas- urements were not adequately controlled in terms of time, and the exact course of postflight change is unknown. There was an obvious rapid decrease during the first few hours after recovery in all three crewmen. Two crewmen (CDR and PLT) quickly returned to original height, whereas the SPT followed a more gradual course. Changes in height on going from horizontal to vertical posture were not determined on the day of recovery; but by the second day, such changes were in the expected range (v2 cm (0.8 in.)) and remained there. Studies of one-g height changes in SL-4 and ASTP crewmen are underway but incomplete at this time. The ASTP in-flight datalO had some obvious inconsistencies; but if these points are removed and the maximum increases taken, the data are consistent with Skylab results (see table 2). Comment and Analysis Analysis of height changes on Earth provides an understanding of height changes in weightlessness. Although anecdotal information on such changes on Earth is relatively common, there is surprisingly little on the subject in the literature. DePuky (1935) did a study of maximum daily changes in height in a large population and presented a theoretical basis for such changes, but he did not follow their time courses. 10gee footnote 6 on p. I-3. I-12 €1-1 TABLE 2.- COMPARISON OF HEIGHT CHANGES IN CREWMEN OF SL-4 AND ASTP Crewman Height, cm (in.) Height change Preflight aMD-9 MD-21 cm (in.) Percent SL-4 1 (CDR) 173.0 (68.1) -— 177.3 (69.8) 4.3 (1.7) 2.5 2 (SPT) 173.2 (68.2) -— 177.8 (70.0) 4.6 (1.8) 2.6 3 (PLT) 173.2 (68.2) a 178.8 (70.4) 5.6 (2.2) 3.2 Mean 4.8 (1.9) 2.8 ASTP 1 (ACDR) 181.4 (71.4) 188.0 (74.0) -— 6.6 (2.6) 3.6 2 (docking module b pilot (DMP)) 179.1 (70.5) 182.9 (72.0) — 3.8 (1.5) 2.1 3 (command module pilot (CMP)) 180.3 (71.0) 186.4 (73.4) —— 6.1 (2.4) 3.4 Mean 5.5 (2.2) 3.0 MD = mission day. Pyp-8. There are two components of change in height when one goes from one-g to zero-g conditions or otherwise changes the vertical load on the body. 11 The first component is an immediate change (AHj), such as that which occurs when a person stands up after lying. A second, slower change (AH) also occurs. This change is observed on Earth after a person has experienced prolonged horizontal = posture, such as in sleeping. Although both components may be larger in weightlessness than they are on Earth, there is evidence that it is primarily the slow component that increases. Several explanations for these height changes might be considered. The rapid component (AH) could be caused by simple deformation of the soles of the feet, the closing of joint spaces, or changes in anatomical geometry such as spinal curvature or intervertebral disk compression. Cursory observation shows insufficient change in spinal curvature to account for this effect. Measurements of tissue deformation or leg joint changes also show these to be negligible. It thus appears that essentially all of these changes occur in the spinal column from contraction and expansion of the intervertebral disks. For example, when changes in height throughout the day are measured with the subject in standing and seated positions, these changes are identical. This result is entirely consistent with the results of studies of the characteristics of the intervertebral disks by Kazarian (1975) and others. These viscoelastic disks occupy approximately 35 percent of the total length of the spinal column and, under load, show an immediate elastic deformation, followed by a slower creep. The process is reversed on removal of load. Figure 9 illustrates three AH curves for a l4- to 16-hour period after a normal 8-hour sleep period. Subject J. T. (represented by the upper curve), immediately after awakening, "lost" 0.7 percent of his previous height on standing. This change, in going from lying to standing or vice versa, typi- cally remains about the same throughout the day in all subjects as it did here. During the day, there was an approximately exponential loss of height (AH9) which reached a total of some 1.8 percent in this younger subject. This shape is typical of the response curve of all normal subjects. The rate and amount of change varies from individual to individual and with age and sex (see table 3). The characteristic or response time of the exponential compo- nent also varies, typically becoming shorter with increasing age. Such beha- vior under load is consistent with the mechanical analog shown in figure 10. On the basis of a few cursory measurements made by adding weights to a standing subject, S; appears to be a linear elastic element described by Force = Constant x Displacement. This spring constant of Sj provides the rapid changes (AH;) which occur in changing posture. It has considerable individual variation. llchanges in height are inversely related to changes in axial load (e.g., height increases when one changes from the vertical to the horizontal and vice versa under one g). I-14 30 ORIGINAL TAG: OE POOR QUALLTI ® S.T. (17 yr old, male) standing ® J.T. (15yrold, male) standing 2.0 @ J.T., horizontal A SL-4CDR (taken 2 yr after recovery) ¥ After 1 hour skindiving E All posture vertical unless noted = = P « q 1 2 4 6 8 "10 12 1 16 Time, hour Figure 9.- An illustration of change in height in one g over an 8- to l4-hour period after a normal 8-hour sleep period. I-15 91-1 TABLE 3.- CHANGES IN HEIGHT IN ONE g; STANDING AFTER RECLINING, AND STANDING AFTER NORMAL SLEEP PERIOD Subject Sex Age, Measurement Normal A height, horizontal to vertical A height, standing yr day standing after 8 hr sleep height, cm (in.) cm (in.) Percent cm (in.) Percent cm (in.) Percent SL-4 CDR M - %R +1 172.7 (68) - — 1.27 (0.5) 0.73 - - R+5 - © — -— 2.29 (.9) 1.32 -— -— R + 17 - -— -— 2.03 (.8) 1.18 - — SL-4 SPT M - R+1 172.7 (68) — -— 2.03 (.8) 1.18 - -— R+5 -— -_ -_— 1.78 (.7) 1.03 - - R+ 17 -_— -_— - 2.03 (.8) 1.18 - -_ SL-4 PLT M — R+ 1 172.7 (68) - — 1.52 (.6) .88 -— - R + 17 - -— —_— 1.52 (.6) .88 -— -_ ASTP CMP M - a 180.3 (71) 1.60 (0.63) 0.89 1.60 (.63) .89 1.60 (0.63) 0.89 W.T. M 47 — 185.4 (73) 1.42 (.56) .77 1.42 (.56) .77 1.27 (.50) .68 J.B. F 30 -— 157.5 (62) 1.75 (.69) 1.11 -— -— 1.90 (.75) 1.21 J.T. F 48 - 170.2 (67) 1.60 (.63) .94 1.60 (.63) .94 1.60 (.63) 0.94 J.T. M 15 - 154.9 (61) 1.12 (.44) .72 1.12 (.44) .72 3.02 (1.19) 1.95 S.T. M 17 -— 157.5 (62) 1.42 (.56) .90 1.42 (.56) .90 1.42 (.56) .90 R+1=1 day after recovery etc. As noted in the summary, the second component of change appears to be of the form where H height at time t height before change in load slow component of height change time since change in load time constant characteristic of individual; may also be in terms of elastic and viscous A typical individual might have the following characteristics. Hg = 177.8 cm (70 in.) T = 30 minutes If this weightlessness, later, and after individual were placed in then 30 minutes 30 70 + 0.82 -e 30 70 + 0.8(1 - e71) 70 + 0.5 179.1 cm (70.5 in.) 3 hours (180 minutes) of weightlessness, -180 70 + 0.8\1 - e 30 70 + 0.8(1 - ¢76) 70 + 0.8(0.997) 179.8 cm (70.8 in.) Hy * (1 = H/T) expressed elements A L 1 Force Figure 10.- First-order mechanical analog consistent with changes in axial mechanical loading and un- loading. The symbol S; repre- sents an elastic component in series with a second elastic com- ponent Sg, which is paralleled by a viscous resistance D. I-17 This expression means that if an astronaut's preflight base height is 177.8 cm (70 in.), he will gain approximately 2 cm (0.8 in.) in the second phase of weightlessness ''growth." This result is consistent with the behavior of a parallel spring So and a damper D with a response Force = Velocity x Constant, shown in figure 10. A preliminary study of a few male and female subjects shows that females have greater elasticity and that age reduces both elasticity and damping (or viscosity). Such a model is not inconsistent with the anatomy and histology of the disks. One-g height changes in a few subjects, expressed in terms of each of the two components of height change, are given in table 3. In weightlessness, the changes were greater. The author suspects that the increases were caused by some relaxation of the anterior spinal ligament, which appears to be the limiting element of intervertebral space. Another conceivable explanation of this greater change is the relative increase in tissue fluids that is known to occur in the upper body under a condition of weightlessness. Still other considerations are possible, such as a flat- tening of normal spinal curvature or a relaxation of ligaments and muscles with an attendant opening of joint spaces of the hips and legs. At this time, it does not appear possible to predict the total height change in weightlessness from one-g studies. One crewman showed the same amount of change but, in most of the crewmen, weightlessness produced a height increase on the order of an additional 1 percent over that seen on the ground. Design Applications The first area of consideration is the problem of closely fitting garments such as space suits, especially in view of some of the difficulties experienced in donning the suits in weightlessness and in view of the planned use of a hard torso suit. If, as appears probable, a change in torso length of 5+ cm (2+ in.) occurs, such a change must be allowed for in this suit. Other areas for consideration are eye heights in critical work station design and in cockpit seating. On Shuttle reentry with a prolonged period of g-load, one can expect a loss of 2.5+ em (1+ in.) prior to landing. Although this loss would probably not be critical, seat adjustments should be allowed for. The temptation to simply transfer one-g dimensions to zero-g situations must be resisted. In making one-g height measurements for space operations, several con- siderations should be observed: (1) horizontal rather than vertical subject positions are more appropriate; (2) an even closer approximation to. height in space can be obtained immediately after the subject arises from a night's sleep or other prolonged horizontal position; (3) during transition to and from weightlessness, height will change rapidly; and (4) all measurements must be carefully made with the subjects in standard positions (0.16 cm (0.06 in.) is a practical working resolution). I-18 POSTURE EE ORIGINAL PAGE IS OF POOR QUALITY, SUMMARY In weightlessness, the relaxed, unrestrained human body automatically assumes and indefinitely maintains a single characteristic posture (see fig. 11). To force other postures on the body, either by the subject himself or through external constraint, frequently leads to discomfort, fatigue, and inefficiency. Characteristics of this weightless posture include plantar . flexion of the feet and flexion of hips and knees with slight abduction of the legs. The thoraco-lumbar spine is straightened or even slightly flexed anteriorly. Although the cervical spine (neck) is straightened, it is also angled anteriorly, a positioning forcing the head inferiorly and anteriorly and thus lowering the normal angle of vision. Arms and shoulders are ele- vated, arms are abducted, and there is moderate elbow flexion. (a) Front view. (b) Side view. Figure 1l.- An SL-4 crewman in a relaxed, unrestrained posture that the human body automatically assumes and indefinitely maintains in weightlessness. I-19 Many one-g positions such as sitting or bending, which depend upon grav- ity for loading forces, are particularly incompatible with this natural weightlessness posture since active muscle forces or heavy external constraints are required to maintain them and rapidly result in fatigue and pain. On Earth, gravity is also depended upon for stabilization, and some substitute stabilizing mechanism must be provided in flight for many tasks. Foot restraints appear to be the most satisfactory means; but for many tasks, additional body restraints should be available. All the considerations for design interface with the weightlessness posture cannot be detailed here, but the reader is urged to_ consult the documentation by Gundersen and Bond12 and by Jackson et al.l3 and similar detailed considerations as they become available. Design areas in which this posture must be considered are as follows: work stations and workspace, including equipment; operating and observation stations; any temporary work area in which tasks of even a few minutes in length must be undertaken; rest, sleep, exercise, and eating areas; and virtually every area where man must interface with a vehicle or system in space. Changes in posture must also be integrated with changes in height and shape for proper design. Postural Changes The human body in weightlessness naturally assumes and maintains a posture as characteristic of the species and environment as the more upright stance is characteristic of posture on Earth. The weightless posture differs greatly from any normal one-g posture, and the body rebels with fatigue and discomfort against any attempts to force it into one-g postures or appliances consistent with one-g postures. Chief characteristics of the weightless posture, as described in the summary, are shown in figure 11. For comforta- ble, efficient design, these features must be accommodated. The design engineer must study each situation carefully, thinking in terms of weightlessness rather than one-g. Gundersen and Bondl!2 and Jackson et al.l3 have made excellent beginnings in this area. In the one-g environment, large parts of man's musculoskeletal and neu- rological systems are dedicated to maintaining a stable position under the forces of gravity. The human body has developed a series of natural positions - standing, squatting, sitting, and lying, among others - dependent upon the amount of support available and upon many other factors, including ethnic history. Most of these resting postures are attained by bringing the various body parts into positions that can be equilibrated against gravity \ 12pobert T. Gundersen and Robert L. Bond: Zero-g Work Station Design. JSC IN 76-EW-1, 1976. 1330hn Jackson, Robert Bond, and Robert Gundersen: Neutral Body Posture in Zero g. JSC-09551, 1975. I-20 with a minimum expenditure of energy. These positions are dynamic, not static, and depend upon a host of sensor-nerve-muscle loops to constantly apply small corrections. If forces on the body are changed, posture changes accordingly. Development of a large belly, for example, produces lordosis. Under weightlessness, the body is faced with a totally new situation. Not only are the large antigravity muscles and associated servoloops unopposed by gravity, but the various positions which depend upon gravity for stabilizing forces are now inappropriate. Designs of furniture, machines, and the like which depend upon gravity are usually inappropriate in space (e.g., chairs or a "bicycle" ergometer with a standard seat). It is not surprising that the body finds a new, entirely different single position of equilibrium, a position usually incompatible with one-g designs. Also, not surprisingly, this new posture caused low-back discomfort in a few crewmen, who found that they could obtain relief by wedging them- selves against a structure and pushing to apply force to the back, simulating gravitational forces on Earth. Many astronauts have described some of the design inadequacies and some of the difficulties of working in the weightless environment. Following are typical comments. ! "And so the upshot was that, at the food table and at the ATM panel, you had to hunch down in order to get a decent level J ". . your abdomen and your muscles tensed up and, you just got tired of it. What we need to do is remember the postural situation up there and the fact that it is quite natural to be standing up; so you might as well get all of your work surfaces and . . . your eating surfaces up here (indicating chest height)." "But one of the things that really bothers you is that you have to remain in a crouch position in order to take these observations. This requires continual muscle tension. I don't mean to be critical. I'm saying it just doesn't work right." "When you are adapting things to conform to the human body in zero grav- ity, you've got to be careful. We found that the body normally wants to assume a more or less erect, slightly arched attitude, and holding your- self in a chair was difficult. The seatbelt helped, although it was hard to adjust." "Body posture is one of your big problems." ". . a crouching action is very difficult in zero g; so if you design a foot restraint where there's a posture requiring a crouching action, then you're not helping us at all." l4see footnote 13 on p. I-20. I-21 "Your legs tend to come up a little bit so that they're partially bent. I estimate 30° from being in a straight line with your spine, both at the hip joint and at the knee joint. Your shoulders tend to shrug a little bit because you don't have gravity holding them down. Your mus- cles will tend to pull them up a little bit." Documentation of this postural configuration was not obtained until SL-4 (Thornton et al., 1977). Photographs were made on the SL-3 flightld with the subjects in the erect anatomical position (an example of one-g thinking on the author's part); but on the following mission, preflight, in-flight, and postflight photographs were made with the crewmen in relaxed as well as anatomical posture. Typical photographs from SL-3, with the PLT in forced erect posture, are shown in figures 12 and 13. These photographs added little to existing anthropometric knowledge. The thoraco-lumbar lordotic curve is still present. There is a slight tendency to lean back and incline the head, but this observation was not properly appreciated until the SL-4 photographs with relaxed crewmen were seen. Figure 11 is from this latter series and shows the subject in typical weightless, relaxed posture with eyes closed. Figures 14 and 15 are tracings of such photographs. This posture was seen from the first through the last photographs, showing that such posture was quickly acquired and maintained throughout the mission. Tracings of the segment angles were made from the entire seriesl® and are shown in figure 16. Once documented, this position was easy to recognize in many unposed work situations, such as that shown in figure 17. Further evidence that this postural response is natural to weightlessness was obtained when underwater photographsl® were made with subjects in the relaxed position (see fig. 18). As can be seen in figure 18(b), the position more closely approximated that assumed in weightlessness when visual cues were removed by blocking vision through the mask. Mechanisms Leading to Weightlessness Posture The weightlessness posture adopted in space appears to be inherent and relatively unchanging since it is quickly assumed and showed no significant change in 84 days of weightlessness. This observation was further supported by crew comments. Further, this posture is assumed in water immersion. Reasons for this posture should provide a fascinating subject of study for anthropometrists, anatomists, neurologists, and physiologists. A full discussion of the subject is beyond the purview of this document, but a few comments are irresistible. Elevation and abduction of the arms might be ex- plained on the basis of increased muscle mass/strength in the abductor- elevator-flexor area, but this argument cannot apply to the legs, where the situation is reversed. Kennedy, at the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Medical 15gee footnote 5 on p. I-3. 16gee footnote 12 on p. I-20. I-22 / —r Figure 12.- The SL=3 PLT in a forced erect posture in weightlessness. ORIGINAL PAGE [5 OF POOR QUALITY —~ Preflight, standing in-flight, relaxed Figure 14.- A front-view comparison of one-g and weightless posture in the SL-4 SPT (tracings from photographs). ad ve, oN, WN A EY: - adh dA pres anEr WAN { § q Figure 13.- Side view of the SL=3 PLT in forced evect posture in flight. Postflight Preflight In-flight Figure 15.- A side-view comparison of one-g and weightless posture in the SL-4 SPT (tracings from photographs). I-23 Vertical Se reference --- 2° +5 1/r 133° + 8° 111° + 6° Horizontal reference. CL Figure 17.- The body position of the Figure 16.- The segment angles of the SL-3 BLT Sauls dogaing film illus- weightless neutral body position. trates the relaxed posture inan unposed work situation. ORIGINAL PAGE IS OF POOR QUALITY Research Laboratory (AMRL), made a surprisingly good prediction of weightless posture by simply placing links and segments in their midrange (Simons, 1964). Although the link positions in weightlessness must be the result of muscle forces, such forces are not simply the product of available muscle mass/tension. Rather, the tension is controlled by a series of feedback loops which begin with force transducers in muscles and tendons and are modified by a host of other secondary and tertiary inputs. Could the posi- tion of limbs then be caused simply by completely unloaded myotatic loops which have their predominant action against gravity? If similar loops are active in the neck region, such a mechanism, plus spinal straightening, might account for cervical angulation. Reasons for straightening of the thoraco- lumbar spine are not obvious; the pelvis has obviously rotated, but whether this rotation is cause or effect is not yet clear. Much more data will be needed to completely characterize and understand posture and actions under weightlessness conditions. I-24 (a) With unblocked vision. (b) With blocked vision, resulting in a posture more closely approxi- mating that assumed in null .gravity. . Figure 18.- Underwater photographs of subject in a relaxed, neutral buoyancy posture. ORIGINAL PAGE IS Implications and Applications For efficient man/machine design for space flight, this weightless pos- ture must be taken into account. Space limitations preclude a detailed discussion of' design criteria here, but a few general considerations are of- fered. Insofar as possible, one should start with an absolutely clean slate as regards carryover of one-g design to weightlessness design. Each element of design must be examined only in the light of weightless considerations. Every feature must be examined to see if gravity or one-g orientation influ- enced the design. If so, the feature must be suspect. The following facts must always be considered. 1. There is no up or down or preferred orientation. Crewmen reset their reference frames at will and without difficulty. There is no reason not to utilize the relative ease of positioning in any reference frame ("up," "down," or '"sideways') so long as surrounding spaces are clear. 2. There is no weight to support. Chairs, couches, beds, and other de- vices to reduce fatigue are useless in this respect. On Skylab, the seat at the Apollo telescope mount console was little used by the first crew and dis- carded entirely by the second and third crews. I-25 3. Absence of gravity removes body stabilization, which must be pro- vided by alternatives. The primary alternative is a foot restraint, which in many situations appears to be adequate. Both experience and theoretical con- siderations lead to the conclusion that additional stabilization at the thigh and waist, and perhaps at other points, would be desirable for many tasks. 4, This basically single posture associated with weightlessness must be accommodated if fatigue and discomfort are to be avoided. Having to maintain some positions in weightlessness may produce much more stress than an equiva- lent position on Earth since muscles might be called on to supply forces which were normally supplied by gravity. Stooping and bending are examples of positions which always caused abdominal fatigue. The natural heights and angles of weightlessness posture must be accommodated. Although more infor- mation is needed in many of these areas, available data still provide a point of departure. Some of the areas to be considered are as follows. a. Since the feet are plantar-flexed at approximately 25 percent, sloping rather than flat shoes or restraint surfaces should be considered. b. The weightlessness stance is not vertical since hip/knee flexion displaces the torso backward, away from the footprint. Height is now located at a point between sitting and standing; so a work surface must be higher than one designed for normal sitting tasks. The feet are also positioned somewhere between a location directly below the torso (as in standing) and a point well out in front of the torso (as in sitting). c. Elevation of the shoulder girdle and arm flexion also make ele- vation of the work surface desirable. Although in weightlessness the head is angled forward and down, a positioning which depresses the line of sight, eye-to-work level may remain practically the same. d. Under weightlessness, there is no reason to keep work surfaces flat, and they should probably be tilted to accommodate the visual angles. 5. Reference should be made to the publications listed, and to others as they become available, when any weightlessness design is attempted. The preceding considerations represent only the most rudimentary begin- ning approach to zero-g design problems. Each case must be approached fresh- ly and with imagination. SHAPE AND CENTER OF MASS SUMMARY The human body has large elastic and fluid components that must change in shape when subjected to change in forces such as occur in going from a one-g environment to weightlessness and vice versa. Other changes in shape may occur through loss or gain of fat and muscle. These changes experienced I-26 on exposure to weightlessness may be classified in three categories according to their time course and origin. 1. Immediate - seconds to minutes, caused by elasticity and plasticity of the body 2. Rapid —- minutes to days, caused by fluid shifts 3. Slow =- days to months, caused by atrophy of fat and muscle or replacement of muscle by fat There are immediate changes in height (which also had a slower compo- nent, as already described) and in abdominal girth with the subject in ana- tomical position (standing erect with arms at sides). The latter change may amount to 10 cm (4 in.) or more. In the next day or two, approximately 1 liter of fluid is lost from each leg, much of which goes to the head and supracardiac region where it produces puffiness in the face and mucosal con- gestion. Both of these changes persist, apparently indefinitely, until the subject returns to a one-g environment. Slow changes through loss or gain of fat and muscle may be superimposed on the aforementioned changes (i.e., loss of fat will usually further reduce abdominal girth). The time course and magnitude of such changes are entirely dependent upon diet and exercise. An inadequate diet will result in fat and muscle losses, with the ratio depending on individual body-fat percentages. If this diet inadequacy is coupled with inadequate exercise, even more rapid muscle loss occurs. An adequate diet and inadequate exercise will result in an increase of fat and a decrease in muscle. In short, these slow changes are no different from everyday one-g experience. Without proper exercise, crewmen will lose muscle primarily from their legs. On flights to date, there have been significant losses of body fat and muscle through inadequate diet and lack of proper exercise. Such losses can only hurt crew performance on return to the one-g environment, especially that of the well-conditioned crewman with minimal body fat. Most importantly, with adequate diet and exercise, such tissue changes will be either negligible or nonexistent. All these changes tend to shift the center of mass cephalad more than can be accounted for by height increases. These changes typically amount to 3 to 4 cm, measured from the soles of the feet. Although the previously described changes are primarily of interest to the life scientists, accommodations in clothing and other personal gear must be made. Above all, prevention of tissue (fat and muscle) changes must always be considered in system design. Changes in Shape Seventy percent of the body is water, with some 30 percent of this being outside the cells. In addition, several body areas mechanically behave as I-27 COMMANDER @ Neck circumference at larynx oe @ Chest circumference at nipple (inspiratory (insp.) and expiratory (exp.)) é ® Arm volume (girth every 3 cm) > Bo—2o @ Arm volume (girth every 3 cm) i —————— “Onn = mm 4 (® Abdominal circumference at £ umbilicus § 4 AI rs pinion: = — ® Hip circumference at greatest a me” ) et diameter - \n-0 0 Height Circumferences @ Leg wlume (girth every 3 cm) O Chest finsp.) ® Leg volume (girth every 3 cm) 8 © Chest exp.) > Wai ®© Heignt 10 1 L L Yad ! l 1 I Lo 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80R+0 | R+17 Mission day R+10 Figure 19.- Anthropometric measure- Figure 20.- Truncal girth changes of ments made on the Skylab crewmen. SL-4 crewmen in an anatomical posi- tion in weightlessness with one-g measurements as a baseline. fluids in elastic compartments, whereas other body components have elastic and plastic properties. It should not be surprising that changes in shape occur as the body is moved from a one-g environment to weightlessness and vice versa. Although these changes probably have more implications for the biomedical researcher than for the man/machine designer, there are several changes that could affect clothing and personal equipment. Such changes in shape also overlap and reflect changes in other anthropometric areas, such as muscle function. Shape variations can be placed in three categories, based on time course and mechanism. 1. Immediate - seconds to minutes, caused by elasticity and plasticity of the body - 2. Rapid - minutes to days, caused by fluid shifts 3. Slow - days to months, caused by atrophy of fat and muscle or re- placement of muscle by fat Immediate Changes Immediate changes occur in areas of the body containing elastic elementsl’ that would be under load in the one-g environment, such as the 17Muscle tone is included for present purposes. 1-28 SCIENCE PILOT PILOT & S € z 5 : 2 Smee” 2 g o 2 a . | ® © \ gap” 2 < Q Height | E 6 Circumferences < O Chest (insp.) 7 © Chest exp.) = oe * o Waist ’ Pr s Circumferences -— - O Chest (insp.) 10 PB _ em" -8 O Chest exp.) 0 Height O Waist -12 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J -10 1 4 1 l 1 1 1 A I — | 0 10 20 30 4 50 60 70 30 B4R+0R+1 0 10. 20 30 40 50 60 70 8 R+0R+1 Mission day Mission day Figure 20.- Concluded. (see ther section on height) and the abdominal region. changes such as fat or muscle loss, these changes of the body to one g. Figure 19 depicts meas- intervertebral disks In the absence of tissue will disappear on reexposure urements made before and after flight on SL-2, SL-3, and SL-4 and in flight on SL-4. Truncal measurements are tabulated in appendix C, tables C-1(a) to c-1(c). Plots of the immediate changes seen in SL-4 crewmen are shown in figure 20. area of most interest here, the first minutes of a subject of speculation until future flights. Unfortunately, the weightlessness, must remain The early portions of the curves shown in figure considerations and one-g measurements. Changes discussed. The large waistline reductions may be equivalent hydrostatic force on the abdominal sidered semiliquid here. This liquid column anteriorly and laterally by the abdominal muscles. 20 are based on theoretical in height have already been explained by elimination of contents, which may be con- is normally constrained Under weightlessness, un- balanced forces from these muscles move the contents inward and upward until they are counterbalanced by other elastic forces. (Sawin, 1977) and the Russian (Kakurin, 1971) capacity in weightlessness has been documented reflection of increased visceral portion of the shift in abdominal volume elongation of the trunk through height expansion. pressure against is accounted In both the United States programs, a loss of vital that probably is in part a the diaphragm. Another for by the general Changes in chest dimensions are smaller and less easy to explain but ap- pear to be consistent. The reduced dimensions could be due to an increase in the costo-vertebral angles secondary to the elongation of the spine, possibly I-29 followed by some in-flight adaptation of costo-vertebral ligaments and inter- costal and other musculature. There were no significant changes detected in neck and hip girth on SL-4. Another area in which immediate and probably rapid change is to be expected is the female breast, but there has not yet been an opportunity to make the pertinent studies in this area. Rapid Changes The rapid changes that occur over a matter of hours to days are caused by fluid redistribution. Again, the full expression of mechanisms that are active to a lesser degree under one-g conditions is being seen. For exam- ple, everyone is familiar with slightly swollen ankles after standing, puffy eyelids after a night's sleep, and similar one-g manifestations of fluid shifts. When the normal adult stands, there is an unbroken column of blood in veins and arteries from heart to foot, with a linearly increasing hydrostatic pressure from the heart downward that reaches 90 mm Hg and more in the foot.l8 The head and neck veins are empty until they reach a level just above the heart. Arterial pressure to head and neck is linearly reduced by the height of its hydrostatic column; that is, portions of the body below the heart have increased fluid pressures, whereas those above the heart have relatively lower pressures. This increased pressure is partially offset by an increased number of elastic elements in the lower body. On exposure of the body to weightlessness, all hydrostatic forces vanish and the venous pressures are essentially equal everywhere, with the tissues below the heart at relatively lower fluid pressures than "normal" and those above the heart at higher fluid pressures. Fluid now tends to move out of the areas below the heart which have increased elasticity and pressures and into those above with less tissue pressure. Among the first and most consistent "symptoms" of weightlessness were stuffy noses and a feeling of head fullness secondary to increased pressure and fluid shifts. The first evidence of the extent of these fluid shifts was obtained from a set of SL-2 in-flight "mug shots’ at the end of the mission showing puffy faces, edematous eyelids, and full head and neck veins. These changes are now well documented (but not measured) and appear to persist as long as one is in weightlessness. It was not until SL-4 that the magnitudes of the fluid shifts were docu- mented, with in-flight segmental girth measurements of the arms and legsl? (Thornton et al., 1977). Volumes were calculated from limb girths every 3 cm by assuming that the arms and legs consisted of a series of regular truncated cones. Repeatability was on the order of 100 ml for legs of 70-kg subjects. 18This hydrostatic pressure is added to any existing arterial or venous pressure. g 19post flight volume measurements could not show the magnitude of changes, for the volumes change toward normal quite rapidly. I-30 Left-1limb volume changes of SL-4 crewmen are graphed in figure 21, and volumes of both legs are tabu- lated in table 4. Note that volume changes of 1+ liters per leg oc- curred in all crewmen. It was not possible to follow the right-leg volume changes as closely as those in the left leg because of schedule problems. There were differences between the two, but it was not pos- sible to determine significant dif- ferences from available data. How- ever, a total volume of approximate- ly 2 liters was lost from the legs and shifted elsewhere in the body through the elastic forces de- scribed. Preflight and postflight measurements were made with the crewman in a supine position to min- imize errors from gravitational pooling of blood. This fluid then was tissue fluid, which could have been lost as urine, through inade- quate replacement; etc.; however, simultaneous body weight changes could account for only one-half or less of this quantity. It is also obvious from figure 21 that the arms did not play a sig- nificant role. Hips showed a small in-flight loss in circumference (ap- pendix C, tables C-2(a) to C-2(c)), and there was no significant change in the neck. The author suspects that the hip loss was fluid, for, in the one-g environment, there is still appreciable hydrostatic pres- sure at this level. This previous account leaves only the head and upper torso as possible areas for absorbing the 1 liter or more of fluid. There is no question that the tissues of the head were 'wet" (i.e., relatively edematous), but this condition should account for only 100 to 200 ml at most. The re- mainder must have been distributed within the upper torso but obscured by other changes in this area. 3 Launch COMMANDER 000 Arm boomy o 2 -3f g Ss -6 o : ” \ oS = 0 12k Leg | }---- Recovery -1.5 1 1 1 ! | 1 ! l 0 4 go 59 Vw 0 4 8 12 Mission day | SCIENCE PILOT Arm [ o i | = o S cs 5 i g 3 | 2 0 o leg | --- Recovery 7 59 ¥ 02 6 10 14 Mission day ar PILOT _.--Launch | i Arm QO 0 o 0 | 5 | ) & -.6 ~ o £ of ° | Oo > o Le -L.2F d p-- Recovery 1.5 LL NLR N—L 0 4 8 31 59 & 02 6 10 14 Mission day Figure 21.- Changes in left-limb volumes of SL-4 crewmen. ORIGINAL PAGE IS OF POOR QUALITY I-31 [4 pd! TABLE 4,.,- LEG-VOLUME MEASUREMENTS OF SL-4 CREWMEN (a) CDR Day Right leg Left leg (a) Vol., ml A vol,, ml A vol., percent Vol., ml A vol,, ml A vol., percent F - 35 7531.9 56.3 0.75 7445.7 -50.9 -0.68 F - 20 7746.5 270.9 3.62 7573.4 76.8 1.02 F-9 7455.7 -19.9 -.27 7515.7 19.1 +25 F-5 7475.6 C—— -— 7496.6 -— - MD-3 6671.6 -804.0 -10.75 6370.3 -1126.3 -15.02 MD-5 —- - — 6625.4 -871.2 -11.62 MD-8 6646.4 -829.2 -11.09 6389.5 -1107.1 -14.77 MD-31 6388.7 -1086.9 -14.54 6294.6 -1202.0 -16.03 MD-57 6295.9 =1179.7 -15.78 6152.2 -1344.4 -17.93 R+0 6967.1 -508.5 -6.80 6984.9 -511.7 -6.83 R+1 7220.2 =255.4 =3.42 7354.1 -142.5 -1.90 6989.1 ~ =486.5 -6.51 6926.5 -570.1 -7.60 R+ 2 7225.6 -250.0 -3.34 7412.3 -84.3 -1.12 R+3 ~ 7143.4 -332:3 4.44 7213.8 -282.8 -3.77 R+ 4 7431.8 -43.8 -.58 7228.0 -268.6 -3.58 R+5 7347.2 -128.4 -1.72 7227.9 -268.7 -3.58 R+7 7432.8 -42.8 -.57 7261.3 -235.3 -3.14 R + 11 7629.1 153.5 2.05 7405.4 -91.2 -1.22 R+ 17 7455.1 -20.5 -.27 7664.6 168.0 2.24 R+ 31 -°7317.7 -157.9 -2.11 7359.8 -136.8 -1.82 R + 68 7747.8 272.2 3.64 7622.3 125.7 1.68 8F - 35 is 35 days before flight; MD is mission day on-orbit; and R + 1 is 1 day after recovery, £e-1 TABLE 4.,- Continued (b) SPT Day Right leg Left leg _- Vol., ml A vol., ml A vol., percent Vol,, ml A yol,, ml A vol., percent F - 35 8244.9 300.9 3.8 8237.8 301.9 3.80 F- 30 8120.3 176.3 2.2 7829.1 -106.8 -1.34 F - 19 8374.8 430.8 5.4 7995.1 59.2 74 F-9 8192.6 248.6 3.1 8085.5 149.6 1.88 F -5 7544.0 —- — 7935.9 ee —- MD-3 7106.3 -837.7 -10.5 7100.7 -835.2 -10.5 MD-5 —- - —_— 7239.1 -696.8 -8.8 MD-8 7168.6 -775.4 -9.8 6834.5 -1101.4 -13.9 MD-37 -— -—— -— 6793.6 -1142.3 -14.4 MD-59 - - -— 7026.0 -909.9 -11.5 MD-81 ne - — 7039.8 -896.1 -11.3 R+0 7300.7 -643.3 -8.1 7579.2 -356.7 -4.5 R+1 7457.9 -486.1 -6.1 7689.4 -246.5 -3.1 R + 2 7747.6 -196.4 -2.5 7710.7 -225.2 -2.8 R + 3 7684.1 -259.9 -3.3 7762.6 -173.3 -2.2 R + 4 8124.3 180.3 2.3 8085.9 150.0 1.9 R+ 5 7912.8 -31.2 -.4 7902.5 -33.4 -.4 R + 7 7999.8 55.8 o7 7885.9 -50.0 -.6 R + 11 7976.4 32.4 NA 8015.2 79.3 1.0 R + 17 7985.1 41.1 A) 7966.2 30.3 4 R + 31 8265.9 321.9 4.0 8522.0 586.1 7.4 R + 68 8375.5 431.5 5.4 8342.4 © 406.5 5.1 e-1 TABLE 4.- Concluded (c¢) PLT Day Right leg Left leg Vol,, ml A vol,, ml A vol., percent Vol.,, ml A vyol.,, ml A vol., percent F-35 7466.2 138.8 1.9 7717.1 -177.0 -2.2 F - 30 7521.6 194.2 2.7 7768.0 -126.1 -1.6 F ~- 19 7777.5 450.1 6.1 7948.1 54.0 .7 F-9 7475.5 148.1 2.0 7881.6 -12.5 -.2 F-5 7327.4 —- — 7894.1 - -— MD-3 - - -— -— — ee MD-5 - - — 7120.2 =773.9 -9.8 MD-8 6508.7 -818.7 -11.2 6832.7 -1061.4 -13.4 MD-31 6668.1 -659.3 -9.0 6805.9 -1088.2 -13.8 MD-59 6804.7 -522.7 -F.1 6518.3 -1375.8 -17.4 MD-81 — - - 6795.4 -1098.7 -13.9 R+0 7032.2 -295.2 -4.0 7175.4 -718.7 -9.1 R+1 7084.2 -243.2 -3.3 7431.3 -462.8 -5.9 R+ 2 7233.2 -94,2 -1.3 7574.2 -319.9 =4,1 R+ 3 7091.5 -235.9 -3.2 7467.8 -426.3 =5.4 R + 4 7250.6 -76.8 -1.0 7594.8 -299.3 -3.8 R+ 5 7335.2 7.8 1 7465.0 -429.1 =5.4 R +7 7201.6 -125.8 -1.7 7547.3 -346.8 =4.4 R + 11 7523.8 196.4 2.7 7879.9 =14.2 -.2 R + 17 .7493.5 166.1 2.3 7777.2 -116.9 -1.5 R + 31 7547.9 220.5 3.0 8043.8 149.7 1.9 R + 68 8097.2 769.8 10.5 7964.8 70.7 .9 If the leg and arm volumes are subdivided, it will be seen that, on a percentage basis, the lower legs lost relatively less fluid than the thighs. This difference may be explained by the greater amount of fluid-containing tissue found in the thighs compared to that found in the relatively bony lower legs. Conversely, the lower arms lost slightly more fluid than the upper arms, a difference which may be explained by the increased elasticity in the lower arms, which have a tissue/bone ratio more nearly approaching unity. The exact time course of these fluid volume shifts remains to be de- termined, ‘but it is probably exponential and may have some initial oscilla- tions. Fluid redistribution apparently follows a reciprocal course over a time span of 2 or 3 days on return of the body to a one-g environment. The results of an ASTP in-flight study of leg volumes done by using seg- mental girth measurements?0 appear to be consistent with the data from Skylab. The detailed data are unpublished, but figure 22 is drawn from the preliminary report. 9 Preflight i In-flight | Postflight foemoe Liftoff, | __.-splashdown, July 15, 1975 I~ July 24, 1975, A | | 20:20 GMT - N 5 “| . Lo 1S | “| 1iaL PAGE | . ren 4 OF POOR QUALITY i \ 3 ed | Pa g > 3 7 § | — tL | | | | | O ACDR a DMP | | A CMP | 5 L l ~d | 1 I | ! hy 1 1 1 | F-60 F-40 F-20 40 80 120 160 200 R¥1 R+2R+3 R+4 R+5 Days GET, hr Days Figure 22.- Left-leg volumes of ASTP crewmen calculated from segmental girth measurements; DMP is docking module pilot, CMP is command module pilot. (Data supplied by Hoffler et al.; see footnote 7, p. I-3.) 205ee footnote 7 on p. I-3. I-35 It must be recognized that volumes also will be changed by tissue atro- phy or hypertrophy. This slower process with a different basis will be dis- cussed next. One could manipulate the raw leg-girth data in innumerable ways to meet specific needs or curiosity; and for this reason, the raw data on SL-4 limb girths are included in appendix C, tables C-3 to C-5. Slow Changes Slow changes over days to weeks, secondary to the disturbance of fat and muscle masses, may be caused by inadequate or excessive diet and exercise. As fluid redistribution appears to be relatively complete in 2 or 3 days after a change from one-g to weightlessness conditions or vice versa, any remaining volume changes are probably tissue changes. If a diet is calorically inadequate, then fat and muscle must be consumed to make up the difference. In subjects with normal body fat, losses will be in both muscle and fat, with most of the initial loss occurring in areas where fat is de- posited (abdomen, buttocks, and subcutaneous areas); but if the percentage of body fat is initially low or becomes low, then muscle will be consumed. If exercise to a muscular area is inadequate at a time of inadequate diet, addi- tional local muscle loss will occur. With diet adequate to maintain body mass but insufficient exercise, the muscles will atrophy and fat will be de- posited in the usual areas.?l Available Russian data in this area are given in table 5. These measurements were taken 2 days after flight and should primarily reflect tissue changes. As will be seen, these data are generally consistent with the United States experience. Changes seen in flights of short duration were hardly significant. Both Soyuz and Salyut contained sev- eral exercise devices, the scheduled use of which was apparently adequate to maintain upper limbs but not lower. The legs show the major losses of tis- sue, presumably muscle. The next available data are from preflight and postflight calf cir- cumference measurements on all Apollo flights and leg volume measurements on two Apollo flights made by Hoffler and Johnson?? as part of the cardio- vascular evaluation. Table C-6 in appendix C, a summary of these data, shows a consistent postflight decrease in calf and total leg volume that persists after the time for fluid redistribution. This decrease represents an appre- ciable muscle and/or fat loss for relatively short missions. From the Skylab missions, several sources of data on such changes are available. Postflight leg and arm volumes and in-flight calf circumferences were measured on all Skylab missions, and in-flight leg and arm volumes were measured on SL-4. Herron's preflight and postflight stereophotogrammetry provided an overall survey of body changes (Herron, 1972; Whittle and Herron, 21There is obviously great individual variation in areas of body-fat deposition. 22gee footnote 2 on p. I-3. I-36 TABLE 5.- POSTFLIGHT CHANGES IN CIRCUMFERENCE FOUND IN U.S.S.R. COSMONAUTS Spacecraft Flight Circumference change on R + 2 duration, days A Calf, Hips, Shoulder, Upper Thigh, Calf, : mm mm mm arm, percent percent percent Soyuz 3 2 to 5 -2 -7 =5 -— -= -= to 8 Soyuz 9 18 -12 -27 -2 -0.3 -3.3 -4.9 Salyut 24 -— -= —— a-1.1 a-4.4 a-5.4 4Changes measured post mortem. 1977). Although the data cannot be examined in detail here, when they are considered in view of the following flight conditions, there is a consistent picture that is compatible with current one-g experience and knowledge. All data must be interpreted in view of wide variations in individual and mission diets and exercise. The SL-2 crewmen clearly had a calorically inadequate diet, and only the CDR exercised at reasonably adequate levels - albeit with the bicycle ergometer which was proven inadequate for maintenance of legs consistent with one-g conditions (see section on strength). The SL-3 diet was inadequate (see weight section) for the SPT and mar- ginal for the CDR and the PLT. Good arm exercise equipment was available, and this activity was undertaken vigorously; all crewmen used the bicycle at adequate levels on this flight. The SL-4 diet was adequate to slightly positive for the CDR, inadequate for the SPT until augmented in the middle of the mission, and marginal for the PLT. Arm exercise equipment was available and used; the bicycle ergom- eter and a makeshift treadmill provided fair protection against leg atrophy. Table 6 is a summary of values from three areas that should reflect diet and exercise effects on Skylab.23 Changes in abdominal girth should be a rough gauge of changes in body fat. This supposition appears to be valid 23preflight and postflight arm and leg volumes on SL-2, SL-3, and SL-4 are in appendix C, tables C-3 to C-5 and C-7. I-37 TABLE 6.- CHANGES IN ARM AND LEG VOLUME AND WAIST GIRTH OF SKYLAB CREWMEN Measurement Change, percent Change, percent /day CDR SPT PLT Mean SL-2 (28 days) Arm volume® 1.4 19 wD -0.3 -0.0107 Leg volume’ -5.3 -4.8 -6.7 -5.6 -.2 Waist girth? -.9 -5.7 -5.1 -3.9 -.139 SL-3 (59 days) Arm volume? -11.7 -4.6 1.5 -4.9 -0.083 Leg volume’ -7.2 -6.4 ah 6 -6.1 -.1033 Waist girth? di od -3.8 -1.6 -3.2 -.0542 SL-4 (84 days) Arm volume? 1.05 =2.49 3.83 0.797 0.0095 leg volume? -2.2 -2.6 =2.7 a2.5 -.030 Waist girth? 1.2 -2.1 -2.4 -1.1 -.013 8Measured on R + 1. busasured on R + 2. here, both collectively and individually. For example, the SL-4 CDR, who was close to caloric balance, gained in abdominal girth (the only crewman to do so); and normalized flight averages of girth change (percent change per day) also agree with the general increase of food on each mission. Leg changes appear to reflect effects of both food and appropriate exercise, with a ten- fold improvement observed on rate of loss during the last mission as compared to the first. This effect is seen better in figure 23, in which average postflight changes in leg volume for each Skylab crew are plotted. Note that after fluid redistribution should have been complete, 2 or 3 days after a return to one-g conditions, crewmen of the 28-day mission still had a deficit in leg volume of 5+ percent, which persisted until the end of the measurement period. It is impossible to tell how much of this deficit was I-38 ORIGINAL PAGE IS OF POOR QUALITY due to fat loss and how much was due 2 to muscle loss; but on the basis of 0— preflight A strength studies, much of it must have been due to muscle loss. The following 59-day mission, with an increased amount of food intake and exercise scheduled, resulted in essentially the same loss and pat- tern as that for a mission approxi- mately half as long. The final 84- day mission resulted in less than half the loss, and that was rapidly I ET TS A NR regained after flight. Somewhat 0 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 1 more food and a means of heavy leg Days after recovery exercise were available on this 2 A" A volume (oth legs), percent flight wherein a sharp reduction in Figure 23.- Average postflight leg- loss was seen. Losses on all three volume changes on Skylab missions. flights were consistent with strength changes found after flight. The results of all of these studies of leg mass are consistent with the following observations. Without protective, heavy exercise, there will be a rapid loss of leg tissue even on relatively short flights, sueh as Russian Soyuz and American Apollo flights. The rate of loss is greater with inade- quate diet, as on the Apollo and SL-2 missions, and is related to the amount and type of exercise. (This subject will be dealt with further in the next section.) A positive view is that such loss of muscle may be prevented by an adequate diet and a proper amount and type of exercise. Upper Limbs Arm volumes derived from segmental girth measurements during Skylab mis- sions are tabulated in appendix C, tables C-7(a) to C-7(c). Russian data from the Soyuz 9 to Salyut missions show a relatively greater postflight decrease in leg girth than in arm girth. This result was observed on SL=2 and SL-4 also; but when one looks at average arm volume changes from mission to mission, the volume changes do not correlate with food or exercise or postflight strength changes. Arm volume changes are relatively small and may be lost in the noise of the measurement apparatus, but this possibility is doubtful. Even in the absence of arm exercise devices, the ordinary activi- ties in a spacecraft place moderate demands on upper limbs in contrast to the unused legs. Center of Mass With increases of height and shifts of liquid cephalad, the center of mass must change. Such changes were documented on SL-4 (Thornton et al., 1977). I-39 Preflight baseline and postflight center-of-gravity measurements were obtained with a balance board, as shown in figure 24. In flight, a similar balance point was found without the complication of a board by looping a thin cord around the subject, who was 'floating" freely, and then pulling the cord at right angles to the body's longitudinal axis to accelerate the crewman. If the cord were off the center of mass, the crewman would "tilt" during the acceleration. It was claimed by the crew that the null point, or center of mass, could be determined within a few millimeters. The use of skin tattoo as a reference is open to question, but it was felt that in practice this tattoo would be as stable as some skeletal landmark. The results shown in figure 25 for the PLT of SL-4 were typical. A slight increase occurred in the later part of the mission, which may represent a slower shift of fluid still further cephalad, a loss of leg tissue that was not obvious, or simply an error. Otherwise, the data seem to be reasonable in direction and magnitude. OF POOR QUALITY Launch Recovery | 180 105 179+ 104 One-g center -of -gravity measurement 178 103 © Height | mF Ee ® c.g./c.m. fhe ire y ®@ Height = 175 100} ] D ™ 2 " "Vectorcardiogram mal 9% \ Lowy yah tattoo F-35F-15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 || R+17 Zero-g center-of-mass measurement . Mission day R+1R+5 Figure 24.- Measurements used in Figure 25.- Preflight (baseline) and center-of-gravity and center-of- postflight center-of-gravity measure- mass determinations. ments of SL-4 PLT obtained with a balance board. The c.g./c.m. dis- tances were measured from soles of crewman's feet. Methodology of Anthropometric Measurements for Space Flight : Collection of anthropometric data by conventional direct measurements has many liabilities, especially for space flight. The methodology is tedi- ous, cumbersome, and time-consuming. Exact shapes cannot be determined by girth and similar measurements. Stereophotogrammetry, as applied to the body I-40 ORIGINAL PAGE IS OE POOR QUALITY, / by Herron et al., appears to be a most attractive alternative, and its util- ity and accuracy were successfully demonstrated on Skylab. The technique is fully described elsewhere (Herron, 1972; Whittle and Herron, 1977). Briefly, it consists of taking two pairs of photographic plates of the subject, from which - in the laboratory =- a rather involved and complex data reduction process yields as many spatial points on the body as desired. From this ma- trix of points, a computer may generate a variety of data. Some examples are seen in figures 26 and 27. Figure 26 is a single transverse section of the body generated by the computer from points derived from stereophotogrammetry, and figure 27 is a composite of such points. Quantitative areas and volumes may be computed, as may surface areas. A curve of volume as a function of height may be calculated. Preflight and postflight studies with the use of this technique were done in all Skylab missions. Figure 28 shows a plot of volume as a function of longitudinal axis level for the SL-3 CDR before and after flight. This plot shows the losses in abdominal area that, when taken with weight losses and other data, confirm the loss of adipose tissue. Smaller losses of leg volume may also be seen. Data obtained by using this technique were re- peatedly compared to directly measured volumes and girths and other quanti- ties and found to be within their error limits. ‘ The simplicity of obtaining the photographs and the huge amount of data they contain more than offset the time, complexity, and cost of their analy- sis. This method, with suitable modifications for in-flight usage, is prob- ably the method of choice for dimensional studies of size, volume, and shape “0 hb N / / { { x TIT 7 a v 10 20 0 «0 50 0 70 90 HOS MUOSON Bel X AXIS (OM) LEVEL (Y) = 129.79 : Figure 26.- A single transverse section of the body at shoulder level gener- ated by a computer from points derived from stereophotogrammetry. I-41 17.5 —ERIGINAL PAGE 1S x: - -llll nn OF PGOR QUAHITY ot —————— ——ete 120 22 Tens aS Se LAL PPV issn = Lo TTT RTARTA ELLE dd Red 15 . Cts PUERCO EV ETL REAL ANNE Ln & conan RO BRR LEI IVE LT Se Een vey el ei IT ILI erry 12.8 waved grociciioe: «minh - Vp. p- Ie 10 - po po pw y - bh . : 1.5 1 s 5 2.5 2.9 5 . 12.3 15 17.% 20 wu hel X AXIS (Cm) Figure 27.- A composite of transverse body sections made from stereo- photogrammetry. in the future. The only reservation the author has concerns the attempted usage of this method for obtaining precise volumetric assessments for density (specific gravity) determinations; however, continued refinements may make such precise assessments possible. I-42 -=--- Postflight, day R + 1 Applications 1000 — Preflight, day F -5 Height is discussed in the sec- E 0 / ond section of this chapter. Al- fw though abdominal changes of this = magnitude would be serious on Earth 2 100 for clothing fit, in space the nor- 7 mal posture will tend to increase gm > abdominal ‘girth and clothing will be Nea \ weightless. However, adjustments Tr should be available in clothing. Height above floor, m There will be changes in the female breast area that may also require Figure 28.- Volume as a function of consideration for comfort and fit. longitudinal axis level of SL-3 CDR before and after flight. Except in unusual, closely fit- ted garments or equipment,the reduc- tion in leg size should cause no problem. Facial puffiness and stuffy noses will probably remain a part of space flight, and a probably insignificant reduction in field of view may occur. The medical scientist should be pri- marily concerned in this area. The magnitude of slow tissue changes should be small. Indeed, slow changes should be largely regarded as a warning that diet and/or exercise is not at the correct level. Although there will be a significant cephalad shift of center of mass, this effect should cause no concern except with respect to maneuvering units should they have critical balance and control moments. STRENGTH AND BODY COMPOSITION XTGINAT PAGE IS ~ Oo UF POOR QUALITY SUMMARY This area 1is one of the more critical areas for manned space operations of appreciable duration. Large areas of the body, especially back and legs, are composed of antigravity muscles normally subjected to loads of up to sev- eral hundred pounds, several thousand times a day. In weightlessness, these muscles become virtually unused, and disuse atrophy will occur rapidly. There were significant changes in strength and muscle mass following short flights, such as the Apollo and Soyuz flights. Unprotected, the legs can be expected to atrophy to some level consistent with in-flight forces but below that required for supporting or transporting the body under one-g conditions. This loss of strength would cause no prob- lems in weightlessness but would necessitate special reentry considerations and a period of rehabilitation after recovery. I-43 An inadequate diet will increase the deconditioning effects through di- rect loss of muscle mass, especially in well-conditioned subjects. To prevent such leg muscle losses, an adequate diet and relatively short periods of heavy exercise are required. Any muscle must be exercised at or above its one-g working stress level to prevent loss of function. On the basis of Russian and Skylab experience, a treadmill with axial body loading to body weight levels appears to be the best exercise device. Optimum protocols remain to be demonstrated. A second undesirable aspect of leg muscle deconditioning is a reduction in gravity tolerance of the cardiovascular system. Arms will also suffer some atrophy under weightlessness, but this loss will be limited because of the relatively heavier workloads they encounter in weightlessness, where arms must often assume the legs' role in stabilization as well as their usual role of manipulation. Handgrip strength is little affected because of the grasping of loads required in space. Changes in legs begin immediately on exposure to weightlessness; and as an optimum countermeasure, exercise should begin as early as possible. Al- though these changes are potentially serious, there is every reason to believe that they can be prevented by proper diet and exercise. Strength and Composition Changes From one-g experience, it could be predicted that placing the human body in weightlessness would produce a marked decrease in strength and mass of several major muscle groups, especially major antigravity groups, and would probably affect neuromuscular function. In an active individual, some 40 percent or more of the body is devoted to opposing gravity in standing and walking. Large masses of muscle in legs, hips, and back are normally re- quired to generate forces of hundreds of pounds, thousands of times a day. Unless engaged in manual labor or rigorous training, the hands, arms, and shoulders do much less work, which is reflected in their smaller mass. In weightlessness, the legs become virtually useless and unused except for "perching" and, occasionally, for pushing off in movement. In contrast, the hands and arms remain in use, increasingly in some cases, for grasping and stabilization of the body, as well as for manual manipulations. However, arm and hand forces in weightlessness are usually much smaller than corresponding forces on Earth. Under such circumstances, one would expect a relatively rapid (days to weeks) loss of strength in legs and lower back, followed by atrophy of these areas, with a relative sparing of strength and mass in arms and shoulders. Loss of muscle may be further affected by diet. If the diet is inadequate (see the section on weight changes), especially in crewmembers with low body fat, the caloric deficit will be made up with body fat and muscle (Vanderveen and Allen, 1972). Conversely, if the diet is adequate to maintain body weight, any muscle lost will be replaced with fat deposited in the areas of the body usually subject to such deposition. I-44 Loss of muscle mass and function will cause little difficulty during a flight, for no tasks that require maximum strength of legs and back would be included in on-orbit operations. It is during reentry and after recovery that such reductions in function would be noted. Cardiovascular effects of this loss of leg muscle?4 cannot be covered here but may become critical under gravitational forces in reentry. Should the crew have to make emer- gency ground exits after, say, an Orbiter landing, such reductions in muscle function could also be serious. If preventive measures are not taken in flight, the crew must expect several days or more of reduced function in the one-g environment after landing; the time factor will depend upon individual characteristics and flight duration. Flights as short as 18 days have caused difficulty in the Russian program (Kakurin, 1971; Parin et al., 1974). Study and documentation of such changes are far from complete. For one thing, neither Russian nor American programs have been planned to allow de- conditioning to follow its normal course, and for good reason. Although the Russians have placed a great deal of emphasis on this aspect of space physi- ology and operations and have had active programs of investigation and pre- vention, there was little effort in this area in American programs until Skylab. The following three subsections are a resume of programs and data obtained to date, including Russian data available to the author at this time. Strength The state of the art of the study of strength is such that reiteration of a few fundamental considerations is in order. All measurement conditions, including angles, velocities, and types of opposing forces, affect measured muscle forces. Unless otherwise stated, it is assumed that all Russian meas- urements were of static maximum-effort forces; but nothing else is known about them. American handgrip forces were static, but Skylab measurements were of voluntary maximum-effort isokinetic exertions at a rate of 459/sec, which produced forces just below maximum-effort static levels. Equally important to proper interpretation is knowledge of the subject's previous and current training program. Russian Soyuz missions had an unknown exercise regimen that was expanded on Soyuz 9 to include simulated weights, with exercise periods of approximately 2 hours a day. Exercises included "running, walking, jumping, squatting’ - but only at simulated weights of 20 kg2> - and exercise "of the hands, neck, etc., for purposes of coordination’ Takurin, 1971). The Soyuz 11/Salyut mission had an even more vigorous pro- gram - 3 hours a day with loads of up to 50 kg of body weight and a motor- driven treadmill that enabled walking. These exercise factors must be used in interpretation of results. Exercise protocols on Skylab are discussed later. I ————————— 245ee footnote 5 on p. I-3. 25This simulated weight was apparently increased in flight. The earliest, easiest to make, and probably least important strength measurements are 29(b) contain a investigators felt part in the those of the static in flight handgrip forces. series of measurements from Soyuz 9. that neurological inhibition from weightlessness played a reduction of forces seen here, Figures 29(a) and Apparently, Russian for on the Soyuz 11/Salyut mission, they compared forces with the man restrained as opposed to "free" Skylab data slight bilateral loss accustomed to heavy one-g work. and found no significant differences (Parin et al., 1974). American are summarized in table 7 and show no consistent change except a in the PLT on SL-3, who was an unusually powerful man These results would be consistent with the view that the hands are prob- ably less affected by space flight deal of grasping and other hand functions are performed in flight. major muscle groups, atrophy. and especially This fact was demonstrated in Russian programs and during the Sky- lab program, which will be described next. In the was first instituted; different exercise later, according exercise devices were added, and the testing was expanded. environment on experiments, with the results of each flight affecting the next. will be described chronologically. Evaluation the lower each flight such that limbs, suffer than any other muscle group, as a great All other rapid disuse Skylab program, a minimum-impact postflight muscle function test to mission demands, exercises and The result was a there were The flights three of the right arm and leg was done before and after flight on all missions with the Cybex Isokinetic Dynamometer. This dynamometer may be rotated .in either direction without resistance until an adjustable limit speed is reached. Speed cannot be increased above this limit by forces of ORIGIN AL p Preflight In-flight PostilighQF PO AGE 8 sar nor Launch Recove ) OR QUALIT .- Laun Le r " v Right In-flight Postflight s8.4F wf ° 88.4 60 . | --- Launch |---- Recovery m3 sof = ©g B s » m3 sof |] . ® ® ° ® ® z M3 gor = a" N3- OF "I ° " . 8 g =z 2 " 8 a2} & wo} g20a2l- § 0 we = 8 & 19.1 20} ® Right hand 1%. 204 © Right hand ® Left hand B® Lefthan ®1fF 10f wf 10} 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 J ok 0 1 1 1 1 5 1 J -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Time, days Time, days °° (a) Nikolayev. (b) Sevast'yanov. Figure 29.- Handgrip forces as a function of time in weightlessness for Soyuz 9 crewmen. I-46 L9-1 Crew- man CDR SPT PLT CDR SPT PLT CDR SPT PLT Hand Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Left TABLE Preflight, N (1b) 427.0 424.8 556.0 538.2 547.1 507.1 418.1 385.2 453.7 449.3 634.3 598.7 390.1 375.0 502.6 499.5 441.7 401.7 - 30 (96.0) (95.5) (125.0) (121.0) (123.0) (114.0) (94.0) (86.6) (102.0) (101.0) (142.6) (134.6) (87.7) (84.3) (113.0) (112.3) (99.3) (90.3) F-4 385.2 383.9 520.4 462.6 474.2 444.8 409.2 403.0 444.8 475.9 650.8 607.6 387.0 364.7 458,2 451.5 462.6 432.8 (86.6) (86.3) (117.0) (104.0) (106.6) (100.0) (92.0) (90.6) (100.0) (107.0) (146.3) (136.6) (87.0) (82.0) (103.0) (101.5) (104.0) (97.3) 7.- GRIP STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS OF SKYLAB CREWMEN 397.2 380.8 (89.3) (85.6) 458.2 (103.0) 478.6 (107.6) 416.3 (93.6) 401.7 (90.3) 459.5 (103.3) 434,1 (97.6) 582.7 (131.0) 587.2 (132.0) 397.2 369.2 (89.3) (83.0) 439.0 412.3 (98.7) (92.7) 430.1 427.0 (96.7) (96.0) R+1 SL-2 387.0 (87.0) 373.6 (84.0) 538.2 (121.0) 478.6 (107.6) 483.1 (108.6) 467.1 (105.0) SL-3 458.2 (103.0) 458.2 (103.0) 566.3 (127.3) 576.5 (129.6) SL-4 387.0 351.4 (87.0) (79.0) 452.4 (101.7) 410.6 (92.3) 431.5 427.0 (97.0) (96.0) Postflight, N (1b) R + 2 434.1 468.4 547.1 573.8 388.3 351.4 418.1 382.5 415.0 419.5 (97.6) (105.3) (123.0) (129.0) (87.3) (79.0) (94.0) (86.0) (93.3) (94.3) R 418.1 387.0 432.8 460.8 551.6 523.1 394.6 366.1 403.5 369.2 431.5 418.1 +4 (94.0) (87.0) (97.3) (103.6) (124.0) (117.6) (88.7) (82.3) (90.7) (83.0) (97.0) (94.0) 390.1 347.0 (87.7) (78.0) 434.6 395.9 97.7) (89.0) 438.6 (98.6) 397.2 (89.3) R + 11 ZIrTVAd YOOd 40 394.6 347.0 (88.7) (78.0) 459.5 385.7 (103.3) (86.7) 463.9 394.1 (104.3) (88.6) SI EDVd TVYNIOIIO any magnitude; that is, the constant speed-maximum force of isokinesis is achieved. Input or muscle forces are continuously recorded at a constant angular rate. The arrangement used on Skylab missions is shown in figure 30. A crew- man, after thorough warmup, made 10 maximum-effort full flexions and exten- sions of the arm at the elbow and of the hip and knee at an angular rate of 45°/sec. A continuous force record was made of each repetition at a rate of 25 mm/sec, and the integral of force - or, under these conditions, work - was recorded on a second channel (see fig. 31). ORIGINALPAGEAIS OF POOR QUALITY gal KZ C ———- NN | R——— - wx Figure 30.~- Arrangement used for Skylab postflight muscle function test, 800.7 cmile 15.70 Bro . g g 13.41 0 —8—a—3 8 266.99 & = 2 2 gl.2 425 RR 0 8 5 4a 4 4 5 89.0 soy ® & Psa 3 6.7 15F 44.5 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A lJ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 1 Repetition number Flexion Extension Preflight ° ‘a. Time Postflight, day R+9 ao * Figure 31.- Recording of right-leg Figure 32.- A plot of peak arm forces muscle forces of the SL-3 backup of the SL-3 CDR from preflight and PLT. postflight curves, I-48 Machine errors are small, 2 to 3 percent or less. At lower angular rates, the test gives a measurement of strength comparable to that achieved in the more commonly used isometric testing but has the advantage of re- cording this force throughout the whole range of motion, as well as allowing a number of repetitions for statistical purposes. It is sensitive enough to show small changes in performance which may occur in days. A great deal of information is contained in the recordings made, but only one quantity will be used, the peak force of each repetition. Use of a single point on the tension curve to represent the entire curve may be open to criticism, especially for the leg, in which a number of muscles are in- volved. However, for the investigators' purposes, the author believes that this method provides a valid measure of strength of the muscles tested. € A plot of such peak points from a preflight and a postflight curve is shown in figure 32. The strength for a given movement is taken as the aver- age of 10 repetitions. As can be seen, a fatigue decrement is present and may vary. It is included in the strength figure by virtue of averaging the 10 repetitions. : On SL-2, only the bicycle ergometer was used for in-flight exercise. The CDR used it in the normal fashion and was the only person on Skylab to use it in the hand-pedal mode. He also was the only perscn in this crew to exercise at rates comparable to those of later missions. On this mission, testing was performed 18 days before launch and 5 days after flight. It was recognized that these testing times were too far removed from the time of flight, but it was the best that could be done under schedule constraints. By the time muscle testing was done on day 5, there had been a signifi- cant recovery in function; however, a marked decrement remained. The decre- ment in leg extensor strength approached 25 percent; the arms had suffered less but also had marked losses (see figs. 33 and 34). The CDR's arm ex- tensors had no loss (fig. 33) since he presumably used these muscles in hand- pedaling the bicycle. This result illustrates a crucial point in muscle conditioning: to maintain the strength of a muscle, it must be stressed to or near the level at which it will have to function. Leg extensor muscles must develop forces of hundreds of pounds, whereas arm extensor forces are measured in tens of pounds. Forces developed in pedaling the bicycle ergom- eter are typically tens of pounds and are totally incapable of maintaining leg strength. The bicycle ergometer is an excellent machine for aerobic exercise and cardiovascular conditioning, but it simply cannot develop either the type or level of forces required to maintain strength for walking under one-g conditions. Immediately after SL-2, work was started on devices to provide adequate exercise to arms, trunk, and legs. A mass-produced commercial device, called Mini Gym (designated MK-I), was extensively modified. A centrifugal brake arrangement approximated isokinetic action on this device. Only exercises which primarily benefited arms and trunk were available from this device, as I-49 shown in figure 35. Forces transmitted to the legs were higher than those from the ergometer, but they were still limited to an inadequate level since forces could not exceed the maximum strength of the arms, a fraction of leg strength. A second device, designated MK-II, consisted of a pair of handles between which up to five extension springs could be attached. By using this device with its full complement of accessories, a maximum force of 364.8 N per meter (25 1b per foot) of extension could be developed. 10 —SL-2 ® CDR —S1-3 WY ORIGINAL PAGE IS4 PU Dr ee 512 —_— 0 UALITY. 5L-3 aE OF POOR Q ® COR i” 5 z ® SPT - £ : 10 A PU -r" « hs E Fa ~ 8 & Mad c ~ £ £ SS SS c ® 220 ~ ~ £ £ “Me Na € & Sa ~a & 2 \ «© ~N 2 -30 Ba 1g 2 : ; 100 -30 1 J 101 £ 8 5 : e 8 £ £ §-n- So S = eae ® £ a. : $ Seo 5 -20 Sa & Hr jt ! ) _ 1 J » 28 nN 59 40g 2% 59 Time, days Figure 33.- A plot of the postflight changes in arm forces on SL-2 and SL-3. Positive values represent gain; negative values, loss. I-50 Time, days Figure 34.- A plot of the postflight changes in leg forces on SL-2 and S8L-3. Positive values represent gain; negative values, loss. Figure 35.- MK-I exerciser positions. ORIGINAL PAGE IS OF POOR QUALITY, These two devices were flown on SL-3, and food and time for exercise were increased in flight. The crew performed many repetitions per day of their favorite maneuvers on the MK-I and, to a lesser extent, on the MK-II. Also, the average amount of work done on the bicycle ergometer was more than doubled on SL=-3, with all crewmen participating actively. The results of muscle testing of SL-3 crewmen were markedly different from the results for the SL-2 crew. Looking at changes in arm forces on SL-3, one sees complete preservation of extensor function, in contrast to SL-2 results (see fig. 33). The SPT showed a marked gain in arm strength. This consequence is the result of putting a good distance runner, which he was, on the equivalent of a weight- lifting program. Looking now at changes in leg function, in figure 34, one sees a differ- ent picture. Results for only two SL-3 crewmen are shown since the CDR suf- fered a recurrence of a back strain from a lurch resulting from a roll of the recovery ship =- possibly another demonstration of the hazard of muscle deconditioning. Some device which would enable walking and running under forces equiva- lent to gravity appeared to be the ideal answer to this problem. This need had long been recognized; and immediately after SL-2, work was started on a treadmill for SL-4. As mission preparation progressed, the launch weight of the SL-4 vehicle became crucial; so the final design was simulation of a treadmill in response to weight constraints. The final weight of the device was 1.6 kg (3.5 1b). The "treadmill," shown in figure 36, consisted of an aluminum-Teflon walking surface attached to the isogrid floor. Four rubber bungees, provid- ing an equivalent weight of approximately 80 kg (175 lb), were attached to a shoulder and waist harness. By angling the bungees, an equivalent to a slip- pery hill is presented to the subject, who must climb it. High loads were placed on some leg muscles, especially in the calf, and fatigue occurred rap- idly; so the device could not be used for significant aerobic work. I-51 On SL-4, the crew used the bi- ORIGINAL PAGE IS 9N cycle ergometer at essentially the (QF POOR QUALITY? ? ars i) same rate as on SL-3, as well as the > MK-I and MK-II exercisers. In addi- tion, they typically performed 10 minutes per day of walking, jumping, and jogging on the treadmill. Food intake had again been increased. Bungee. “Onboard harness Even prior to muscle testing, it was obvious that the SL-4 crew was in surprisingly good condition. They stood and walked for long periods without apparent difficulty Teflon sheet... on the day after recovery, in con- trast to the experience of the other crews after the earlier missions. Results of the testing confirmed that a surprisingly small loss in leg strength occurred after almost 3 months in weightlessness. A summary of the exercise and strength testing, shown in averaged values for the three missions, is depicted in figures 37 and 38. One point to be noted is the relatively small loss in arm strength as compared to legs in all missions. This result is reasonable, for in space ordinary work provides relatively greater loads for the arms; the legs receive virtually no effective loading. With the MK-I and MK-II ex- ercisers, SL-4 arm strength increased in flexion and was minimal in extension. Figure 36.- Skylab treadmill arrange- ment used to test muscle function. Size is another common measure of muscle condition and has been dis- cussed in the preceding section (see fig. 25). There was a 4.7- to 9-fold reduction in the rate of loss of leg extensor strength, leg volume, lean body mass, and total body mass from SL-2 to SL-4. One might argue that this. reduction simply represents some kind of equilibrium with increasing mission duration, but this conclusion is not consistent with the data in table 8, which show absolute losses. As shown in figure 39, SL-4 crewmen demonstrated a marked improvement over previous Skylab crews with regard to losses of weight, leg strength, and leg volume. There can be little doubt that use of the added MK-I and MK-II improved the arm performance of the crewmen on SL-2 and SL-3 and equally little doubt that use of the SL-4 treadmill sharply reduced loss of leg strength and mass, since there was negligible increase in leg exercise with other devices on SL-4. However, it must be recognized that food was another variable present. Virtually all nutritionists recognize that metabolic losses in normal sub- jects are mixed; 1i.e., both fat and muscle are lost. Vanderveen and Allen I-52 E IS ORIGINAL PAG +15 OF POOR QUALITY, , ® Flexors ae §[-3 ® Extensors +10 + wn Average strength lost, percent Ca - wa oo ~ wn o al Time, days s SL-2 SL-3 SL-4 Ergonetetnn] 2 plus | 2 MK-I and springs 2 plus ‘ = treadmill | 31.3 65.0 7.0 Average ergometer work, W-min/kg | ! | 1878 3900 260 Average ergometer work, J/kg Figure 37.- A plot of the average arm strength changes on Skylab missions. (1972) lation of being as almost pure muscle loss. space-flight conditions, The Russian experience which included prolonged bed flown on Soyuz 11/Salyut, with gravity. kg of equivalent weight, in crewmen for 12 to 15 minutes a day. Some measured parameters elaborate force-loading Hours per day were spent on the treadmill, but at a load of only 50 contrast from Russian missions are ee. S| ~2 ® flexors =e SL-3 ® Extensors — cn |= ~ - ~. ~——— = -— Tt —— : ~~ ~ Tv —a Z TS. T>~- 2 Sse ~~ -9 2 \ 2 \ < \ \ \ N\ 30 1 » — ha 28 59 # Time, days SL-2 SL-3 SL-4 Ergometer plus 3 MK-I and springs 3 plus 3 treadmill 2 I | 31.3 65.0 7.0 Average ergometer work, W-min/kg | | | 1878 3900 260 Average ergometer work, J/kg Figure 38.- A plot of the average leg strength changes on Skylab missions. deliberately reduced caloric intake during a one-g chamber test simu- using subjects equivalent as possible to the astronaut population. the basis of They found an chosen on followed similar but much more elaborate lines, rest and on a motor-driven mill suits to simulate supine tests to the 80 kg on Skylab with 70-kg shown in table 9. According to these data, there is a consistent increase in loss of "tone" and strength in the legs, day missions. spite of prolonged, lightly apparently sufficient for arms, as compared to small arm losses, even on the 3- to 5- This loss increased sharply on the 18-day Soyuz 9 flight, in loaded exercises. which showed ligible .loss in girth and in wrist strength. Again, such exercise was an increase in tone and neg- It is interesting to note that the right, presumably dominant, wrist lost strength, whereas the left wrist I-53 76-1 Flight duration, days 2to5 18 24 TABLE 8.- SUMMARY OF SKYLAB CREW AVERAGES OF EXERCISE-RELATED DATA Skylab Change in leg Change in Change in lean Change in Average daily mission extension forces leg volume body mass (LBM) body weight ergometer exercise, (F-15 to R +1), (F-15toR +5), (F-15toR+ 1), (F-1toR+0), J/kg (W-min/kg) percent /day percent /day percent/day percent /day body weight a b 2 -0.75 -0.160 -0.089 -0.13 1878 (31.3) 3 -.50 -.088 -.019 -.08 3900 (65.0) 4 -.10 -.023 -.011 -.02 4260 (71.0) ®Exercise available - bicycle ergometer. oO — at R + 5 on this flight, Tj Exercise available - bicycle ergometer, MK-I and MK-II exercisers. 2 Yexercise available - bicycle ergometer, MK-I and MK-II exercisers, treadmill. ) = a) a >» TABLE 9.~ SOME AVERAGE CHANGES IN MUSCLE PARAMETERS 3 [From Kakurin (1971) and Parin (1974)] a 1 Number Change, percent preflight A circumference of subjects Tone Strength mm percent Tibialis Quadriceps Biceps Standing Left Right Shin Hip Shoulder Upper Thigh Calf anterior ’ brachii wrist wrist level level level arm Soyuz 3 to 8 12 -7.5 -10.4 -5.4 1.7 -1.5 -2 -7 si-8 -_— —_— -— Soyuz 9 2 -11.2 -13.4 5.5 5.7 -6.1 -12 =-27 -2 -0.3 -3.3 -4.9 4 Soyuz 11/Salyut 3 a — - - — = LE — 1.1 Pas Ps 2Measured 2 days after recovery except as noted otherwise. Measured post mortem. Day 28 Day 59 Day 84 SL-2 SL-3 SL-4 4800 £ 80 Bicycle Bicycle Bicycle o E ergometer ergometer ergometer = = plus MK-I plus MK-I os 3600 . 60+ and MK-IT and MK-II g & exercisers exercisers |B ORIGINAL PAGE IS os 3 200 540 OF POOR QUALITY, & | 5 @ 5 = 1200+ > 20 273 obo 0 Wt and vol lost, percent 20 Leg strength loss (extensor), percent ~N wv -5 Figure 39.- Exercise-related quantities on Skylab missions. gained. Although it did not appear statistically significant, one had the impression from Skylab handgrip measurements that the same thing happened there. The author suspects that the nondominant hand was used for grasping and stabilization, whereas the dominant hand was used for manipulation. The in-flight death of the Salyut crew makes functional comparisons impossible. Another single data point on muscle change was obtained on the ASTP, a 9-day mission (see table 10). It may be a coincidence that crewman 2 lost no leg volume, but he was provided with a shoulder harness which enabled high- force leg exercises to be performed with a rope/capstan device. Walking Changes in muscle function were also reflected in postflight gait and posture. There was a general tendency toward hunched posture with slightly lowered head and a '"shuffling'" gait, with a marked aversion to the upright I-55 TABLE 10.- LEFT-LEG VOLUME CHANGES OF ASTP CREWMEN Crewman Preflight Postflight A volume, A volume, volume, (R+2) volume, liters percent liters liters 1 (ACDR) 7.8 7.40 -0.40 =5.1 2 (DMP) 7.5 7.50 0 0 3 (cmp) 8.1 7.75 -.35 -4.3 posture, especially in the first two Skylab crews. The last crew tolerated upright posture without apparent difficulty just 18 hours after recovery. Unfortunately, the gait and posture were not documented in the American pro- gram; but Russian cinephotographic documentation (Parin et al., 1974) showed a marked slowing of all phases of the walking gait (and especially the time with both feet on the ground), an effect which would be consistent with American observations. This result indicates reduced strength in the trunk and legs, possibly complicated by neuromuscular changes. Body Composition Changes Other indicators of muscle (and fat) changes are lean body mass determi- nations. These values were obtained on Skylab missions by means of standard radioisotopic dilution studies.26 Results are tabulated in table 11. As these studies were made on recovery day (R + 0), before fluid redistribution and replacement were complete, some degree of dehydration was present, which would have the effect of decreasing both lean body mass and lean body mass percentage. Data taken on day R + 2 would have been more representative here, but the R + 0 data are consistent with other muscle data. The data show a consistent loss of lean body mass but a rate of loss re- duced with each mission.Lest someone interpret this result as some kind of adaptation, note that the crew of the shortest mission had the greatest lean body mass loss and the last crew had the least strength loss. Only one jindi- vidual gained lean body mass (SL-3 SPT). He was the lightest individual; and he used the in-flight arm exercise devices enough to increase his arm strength by 15 percent, in contrast to his one-g regimen of running only. In spite of this loss of lean body mass, the percentage of lean body mass increased in all crewmen but two, a result indicating the inadequacy of the diet to maintain fat levels even in individuals with body-fat percentages as low as 9 percent. 26pata from studies done by Phil Johnson, Baylor Medical College, and Carolyn Leach, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. I-56 TABLE 11.- CHANGES IN LEAN BODY MASS ON SKYLAB MISSIONS [By isotopic determination] (a) By crewman Crewman LBM, kg, on = A LBM LBM, percent, on - A LBM, percent F-1 R+0 kg percent F-1 R+0 SL-2 CDR 56.6 55.9 -0.7 -1.2 91.9 92.7 0.8 SPT 67.4 65.7 =1.7 =2.5 87.0 b88.9 1.9 PLT 71.5 68.5 =3.0 -4,2 88.3 90.1 1.8 SL-3 CDR 58.2 57.4 -0.8 -1.4 85.0 88.7 3.7 SPT 53.6 54,2 .6 1.1 87.0 92.2 5.2 PLT 73.4 71.1 -2.3 -3.1 84.6 83.1 -1.5 SL-4 CDR 57.4 56.2 -1.2 -2.1 84.3 82.5 -1.8 SPT 62.3 61.5 -.8 -1.3 87.4 87.8 WA PLT 63.0 61.8 -1.2 -1.9 91.3 93.9 2.6 (b) By mission Mission Duration, days Mean A LBM kg kg/day percent percent/day SL-2 28 -1.80 6.43x107% -1.50 -5.36x10"2 SL-3 59 -.83 1.41x107% 2.47 -4.19x107% SL-4 84 -1.07 1.27x1072 -.40 —.48x1072 31LBM divided by body weight times 100. Measured on R + 1. I-57 The crewmen maintaining body fat are notable. The SL-4 CDR was the only crewman not losing body weight, a result indicating that some lost muscle was replaced with fat. Although the SL-3 PLT lost body weight, he was large and unusually well muscled and obviously lost this muscle at a rate greater than the rate of loss of body weight and thereby maintained his body fat. Each succeeding mission showed an improvement in rate of loss of lean body mass and rate of change in lean body mass percentage, which can only be attributed to generally improved nutrition and exercise on each succeeding flight. Applications This subject of loss of strength and muscle mass is one of the more im- portant aspects of manned space flight, especially for the prolonged missions of the future requiring numerous personnel for manual tasks such as structure assembly and similar operations. The concern is not with operations in space - for there is no reason to think that even unprotected muscle function will ever fall below that routinely required in space flight - but with capabilities on Earth after a return from space flight. Without protection, serious muscle disuse atrophy will begin in the first few days of weightless- ness in the major antigravity groups and continue to a functional equilibrium far below that compatible with erect stance and locomotion on Earth. Although this aspect is not discussed, such atrophy will seriously degrade gravity tolerance as well. Thus, unless one is prepared to accept special reentry precautions, followed by an extensive rehabilitation program on return to a one-g environment, adequate .in-flight diet and exercise force levels compatible with those required for walking must be provided. This problem of prevention is primarily one for the life scientists; however, the measurements and assessments of muscle condition required are much more familiar to the anthropometrist. A cooperative effort by the anthropom- etrist, the exercise physiologist, and the industrial physician may be in order. FUTURE Unfortunately, the role of anthropometrics, other than when forced to the surface by a specific problem such as suit fit or cockpit layout, has been largely ignored. This neglect cannot be continued unless a long, pain- ful, and inefficient period of trial and error can be afforded in the space program as man expands his time and efforts in space. The pitiably incomplete data informally gathered and presented here should be enough to stimulate better future efforts. Even this small amount of data has been enough to show the potential impact of weightlessness on man/machine design. It was also enough to redirect the efforts and thinking in several life sci- ence areas, especially the cardiovascular area. For this reason, a few NASA investigators are redoubling their efforts in several areas. Most urgent, these investigators believe, is development of improved methods of data collection, especially with regard to time and sim- plicity, particularly for dynamic data such as strength measurements. A series of developments is underway that, hopefully, will enable rapid, auto- matic recording and analysis of size, shape, and motion on Earth or in space, of nude or space-suited crewmen. These data will be stored and automatically interfaced with computational facilities so that man may be synthetically in- terfaced with any desired machine or situation. The optimum interface may then be tested in space by this improved data gathering and instrumentation, and both models and machines will be improved. Several pioneers have been at work for some time now, showing alternatives to the complications and limitations of tapes, goniometers, static weights, and mockups, including '"Combiman" at AMRL, Herron with his application of ster- eophotogrammetry to the body, and Perrine with isokinetic strength testing, as well as many others. The NASA investigators hope to follow and possibly aid their trailblazing and sincerely hope to be joined by professional anthropometrists more experienced than themselves in investigating this new area of weightlessness, for it is an exciting place to be - and there is both need and opportunity aplenty. I-59 REFERENCES DePuky, P. 1935. "Physiological Oscillation of the Length of the Body," Acta Orthop. Scand., 6:338-347. Gauer, O. H., and J. P. Henry 1963. "On the Circulatory Basis of Fluid Volume Control," Physiol. Rev., 43:423-481. Herron, R. E. 1972. "Biostereometric Measurement of Body Form," Yearbook of Physical Anthropometry, p. 16. Kakurin, L. I. 1971. Medical Research Performed on the Flight Program of the Soyuz-Type Spacecraft. NASA TT F-14026. Kazarian, L. 1975. "Creep Characteristics of the Human Spinal Column," Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 6:3-18. Parin, V. V., et al., eds., 1974. Weightlessness (Medical and Biological Research), Meditsina Press (Moscow), NASA IT F-16105. Sawin, Charles F., Arnauld E. Nicogossian, et. al. 1977. "Pulmonary Function Evaluation During and Following Skylab Space Flights," Biomedical Results From Skylab, pp. 388-394, NASA SP-377. Simons, John C. 1964. "An Introduction to Surface-Free Behavior," Ergonomics, 7:22-36. Thornton, W. E. 1973. Some Medical Aspects of SMEAT, Skylab Medical Experiments Altitude Test. NASA TM X-58115, p. 198. Thornton, William E., and John Ord 1977. "Physiological Mass Measurements in Skylab," Biomedical Results From Skylab, pp. 175-182, NASA SP-377. Thornton, William E., and John A. Rummel 1977. "Muscular Deconditioning and its Prevention in Space Flight," Biomedical Results From Skylab, pp. 191-197, NASA SP-377. Thornton, William E., G. Wyckliffe Hoffler, and John A. Rummel 1977. "Anthropometric Changes and Fluid Shifts," Biomedical Results From Skylab, pp. 330-338, NASA SP-377. Vanderveen, J. E., and T. H. Allen 1972. "Energy Requirements of Man in Living Weightless Environment," Life Sciences and Space Research, XIV, COSPAR, Akademie-Verlag (Berlin). \ Verigo, V. 1976. "Dependence of Human Body Weight Loss on Space Flight Duration," Kosmicheskaya Biologiya i Aviakosmichkaya Meditsina, 10:58- 61, U.S. Joint Publications Research Services, JPRS L/6189. Whittle, Michael W., Robin Herron, and Jaime Cuzzi 1977. "Biostereometric Analysis of Body Form," Biomedical Results From Skylab, pp. 198-202, NASA SP-377. I-60 ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES It was originally intended to include all anthropometric data available from space flight in this chapter and the accompanying appendixes, but it soon became obvious that more had been collected than originally allowed for. Although the bibliographic references contain additional data, a good number of known sources were not included. Investigators with appropriate require- ments and NASA clearance are directed to the following sources for further information. 1. The Life Sciences Directorate, code DA, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058, which has an archival section in which all zero—g data will eventually be assembled. 2. William Thornton, M.D., code CB, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058, who has most of the raw data, including all anthropometric photographs, complete strength measurement curves, and some related one-g records. ‘ 3. Dr. R. E. Herron, Biostereometrics Laboratory, Texas Institute for Rehabilitation and Research, 1333 Moursund Ave., Houston, Texas 77025, who has the original stereophotogrammetric work. 4. Dr. Wycliff Hoffler, code DB53, NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899, who has ASTP and other leg-girth data. 5. John Jackson and Jeri Brown, code EW5, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058, who have a variety of data, including zero-g and water—immersion studies. I-61 APPENDIX A WEIGHT CHANGES OF SPACE-FLIGHT CREWMEN In table A-1, anthropometric weight changes of U.S. crewmen of the Mercury-Redstone (MR), Mercury-Atlas (MA), Gemini-Titan (GT), Apollo-Saturn (AS), and Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) missions are listed. The nude weight of the designated pilot (PLT), command pilot (CP), commander (CDR), command module pilot (CMP), lunar module pilot (LMP), Apollo commander (ACDR), or docking module pilot (DMP) was taken immediately before and after each mission. In table A-2, weight changes of U.S.S.R. cosmonauts are shown for the Vostok 1 to 6, Voskhod 1 and 2, Soyuz 3 to 9, and Soyuz 11/Salyut missions. In table A-3, body weights of all Skylab crewmen measured daily during the Skylab 2 (SL-2), Skylab 3 (SL-3), and Skylab 4 (SL-4) missions are pre- sented, together with a range of preflight and postflight measurements. The day of year (DOY), calendar date, and mission day (MD) are listed for con- venience. The designator F - 30 represents 30 days before lift-off, R + O represents recovery day, R + 16 represents 16 days after recovery, and so forth. The crewman designators are CDR, PLT, and science pilot (SPT). Ex- cept for first shipboard weights or as otherwise noted, all ground-based measurements were made of the nude crewmen after the first urination of the day and before breakfast. In-flight mass measurements were made with use of the body mass meas- uring device (BMMD). A fifth-order curve fit was used on DOY 151 calibration data for SL-2, a second-order curve fit on DOY 211 calibration data for SL-3, and a fourth-order curve fit on DOY 211 calibration data for SL-4. Where appropriate, corrections have been made for clothing weight and one-g conditions. I-62 £9-1 Flight GT-III GT-1V GT-V GT-VI GT-VII 46T-vIII GT-IX GT-X GT-XI GT-XII 8Mission aborted, Flight duration, days :hr:min 00:00:15 00:00:15 00:04:55 00:04:56 00:09:13 01:10:19 00:04:53 04:01:56 07:22:55 01:01:51 13:18:35 00:10:41 03:00:21 02:22:46 02:23:17 03:22:34 TABLE A-1.- WEIGHT CHANGES OF U.S. ASTRONAUTS Crewman PLT PLT PLT PLT PLT PLT CP PLT cp PLT CP PLT CP PLT CP PLT CP PLT CP PLT CP PLT CP "PLT CP PLT Age, yr 37 35 40 37 39 36 38 34 36 34 38 35 42 35 37 37 35 33 35 32 35 35 36 36 38 35 Height, cm(in.) 180.3 170.2 179.1 179.1 177.8 172.7 170.2 175.3 180.3 180.3 172.7 168.9 177.8 182.9 177.8 180.3 180.3 182.9 182.9 182.9 175.3 180.3 168.9 170.2 180.3 177.8 (71) (67) (70.5) (70.5) (70) (68) (67) (69) (71) (71) (68) (66.5) (70) (72) (70) (71) (71) (72) (72) (72) (69) (71) (66.5) (67) (71) (70) Weight, kg(1b) Preflight 69.8 80.2 66.7 (154) (176.8) (147) (158) (164) (156.5) (173) (152) (154) (176.3) (171.0) (162.5) (169.5) (162.7) (173.0) (174.0) (172.5) (163.0) (163.5) (152.7) (151.0) (170.0) (166.0) - Postflight 67.1 (148.0) 80.0 (176.3) 63.3 (139.5) 70.3 (155) 73.8 (162.8) 68.9 (152) 74.6 (164.5) 65.5 (144.5) 66.1 (145.8) 78.8 (173.7) 73.0 (161.0) 69.2 (152.5) 74.2 (163.5) 78.0 (172.0) 74.6 (164.5) 72.1 (159) 70.8 (156) 68.0 (150) 68.5 (151.0) 72.7 (160.3) 73.2 (161.3) Weight change kg (1b) percent 79-1 Flight AS-7 AS-8 AS-9 AS-10 AS-11 AS-12 Designated crewmen spent period at 1/6 g; all other crewmen remained in Flight duration, days :hr:min 10:20:09 06:03:00 10:01:00 08:00:03 08:03:18 10:04:36 05:22:54 Crewman CDR Age, yr 39 40 37 42 36 TABLE A-1.~ Continued Weight, kg(lb) Height, cm(in.) Preflight 177.8 (70) 88.0 (194.0) 175.3 (69) 71.2 (157) 177.8 (70) 70.8 (156) 177.8 (70) 76.6 (169) 180.3 (71) 78.0 (172) 172.7 (68) 64.4 (142) 180.3. (71) 72.1 (159) 182.9 (72) 80.7 (178) 182.9 (72) 72.1 (159) 182.9 (72) 77.5 (171) 175.3 (69) 74.8 (165) 182.9 (72) 78.5 (173) 180.3 (71) 78.0 (172) 180.3 (71) 75.3 (166) 177.8 (70) 75.7 (167) 168.9 (66.5) 67.7 (149.3) 170.2 (67) 70.4 (155.3) 176.5 (69.5) 69.2 (152.5) 180.3 (71) 80.5 (177.5) 181.6 (71.5) 89.3 (197.0) 176.5 (69.5) 70.8 (156.0) Postflight 86.1 (189.8) 66.7 (147.0) 67.6 (149) 72.8 (160.5) 74.4 (164) 62.6 (138) 69.6 (153.5) 78.2 (172.5) 69.4 (153) 76.4 (168.5) 72.3 (159.5) 73.9 (163) 74.4 (164) 72.1 (159) 75.3 (166) 65.8 (145) 67.1 (148) 63.5 (140) 74.2 (163.5) 84.4 (186.0) 67.8 (149.5) Weight change kg (1b) -1.9 (-4.2) -4.5 (-10) -3.2 (-7) -1.9 (-4.3) -3.3 (7.3) =5.7 (12.5) -6.3 (14.0) -4.9 (-11.0) -3.0 (-6.5) percent -8.2 weightlessness throughout mission. 69-1 TABLE A-1.-~ Concluded Flight Flight Crewman Age, Height, Weight, kg(lb) Weight change duration, yr cm(in.) days:hr:min Preflight Postflight kg (1b) percent AS-14 09:00:01 CDR 47 180.3 (71) 76.2 (168.0) 76.6 (169.0) 0.4 (1.0) 0.6 cmp? 37 177.8 (70) 74.8 (165.0) 69.4 (153.0) -5.4 (-12.0) -7.3 LMP 40 180.3 (71) ~~ 79.8 (176.0) 80.3 (177.0) A (1.0) .6 AS-15 12:07:11 CDR 38 182.9 (72) 80.2 (176.8) 78.9 (174.0) -1.3 (-2.8) -1.6 ae’ 39 179.1 (70.5) 73.5 (162.0) 72.1 (159.0) -1.4 (-3.0) -1.9 LMP 41 172.7 (68) 73.2 (161.5) 70.7 (156.0) -2.5 (-5.5) -3.4 AS-16 11:01:51 CDR 41 175.3 (69) 78.9 (174.0) - 75.5 (166.5) -3.4 (-7.5) -4.3 ar’ 36 177.8 (70) 61.4 (135.5) 58.5 (129.0) -2.9 (-6.5) -4.8 LMP 36 181.6 (71.5) 73.0 (161.0) 70.5 (155.5) -2.5 (-5.5) -3.4 AS-17 12:13:51 CDR 38 182.9 (72) 80.3 (177.0) 76.1 (167.8) -4.2 (-9.2) -5.2 cmp? 39 181.6 (71.5) 75.7 (167.0) 74.6 (164.5) -1.1 (-2.5) -1.5 LMP 37 175.3 (69) - 74.8 (165.0) 72.9 (160.8) -1.9 (-4.2) -2.5 ASTP 09:01:28 ACDR 44 182.9 (72) - 76.9 (169.5) 77.6 (171.1) .7 (1.6) .9 CMP 51 179.1 (70.5) 74.8 (165) 72.8 (160.5) -2.0 (-4.5) -2.7 DMP 44 180.3 (71) 80.2 (176.8) 77.6 (171.1) -2.6 (-5.7) -3.2 Ppesignated crewmen spent period at 1/6 g; all other crewmen remained in weightlessness throughout mission. TABLE A-2.~ WEIGHT CHANGES OF U.S.S.R. COSMONAUTS Flight Flight duration, Crewman Weight, kg days:hr Preflight Postflight Vostok 1 00:02 Gagarin NA NA Vostok 2 01:01 Titov NA NA Vostok 3 03:22 Nikolayev NA NA Vostok 4 02:23 Popovich NA NA Vostok 5 04:23 Bykovskiy NA NA Vostok 6 02:23 Tereshkova NA NA Voskhod 1 00:24 Komarov et al. NA NA Voskhod 2 01:02 C-Belyayev NA NA ‘ A-Leonov NA NA €Soyuz 3 03:23 Beregovoy NA NA ®Soyuz 4 02:23 Shatalov NA NA £02:00 Yeliseyev NA NA £02:00 Krunov NA NA €soyuz 5 03:46 Volynov NA NA ®Soyuz 6 04:23 Shonin NA NA Kubasov NA NA Soyuz 7 04:23 Filipchenko NA NA Gorbatko NA "NA Volkov NA NA ®Soyuz 8 04:23 Shatalov NA NA Yeliseyev NA NA Soyuz 9 17:16 Nikolayev 65.0 62.3 17:16 Sevast 'yanov 68.0 64.5 Soyuz 11/Salyut 24:00 Dobrovol'skiy 81.0 77.1 Volkov 83.3 80.56 Patsayev 74.6 70.87 2NA = not available. . Ppeasured 24 hours after flight, source: unpublished report. Range of losses. €Source: Kakurin (1971). Crewmen launched on Soyuz 5 and returned on Soyuz 4. 8Source: Parin et al. (1974). I-66 Weight change -2.5 to =3 =-2.7 =3.5 -3.9 -2.74 -3.73 Percent bye 0.7 bic 3.9 bie aus bse _g.7 £8 BFF FF FEF EFF EF EE B 8.4.15 8.5.14 €_4.8 8.3.3 8.5.0 DOY #115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 1ko 141 1k2 143 1Lk 145 TABLE A-3.~ DAILY BODY WEIGHTS OF SKYLAB CREWMAN Date, MD 1973 Apr. 25 F - 30 Apr. 26 F - 29 Apr. 27 F -28 Apr. 28 F -27 Apr. 29 F - 26 Apr. 30 F -25 May 1 F - 24 May 2 F - 23 May 3 F - 22 May 4 F-21 May 5 F - 20 May 6 F - 19 May 7 F -18 May 8 F -17 May 9 F.- 16 May 10 F - 15 May 11 F = 1k May 12 F-13 May 13 F -12 May 14 F -11 May 15 F - 10 May 16 F- 9 May 17 F- 8 May 18 F- 7 May 19 F- 6 May 20 F- 5 May 21 F- 4 May 22 F- 3 May 23 F- 2 May 2L F- 1 May 25 1 8Start controlled diet. ®y.D. = not done. (a) SL=2 CDR Preflight 62.8 (138.5) 62.5 (137.8) 62.5 (137.8) 62.5 (137.8) 62.1 (137.0) 62.1 (137.0) 62.8 (138.5) 62.8 (138.5) 62.3 (137.3) 62.0 (136.8) 61.8 (136.3) 62.8 (138.5) 62.6 (138.0) 62.5 (137.8) 61.9 (136.5) 61.9 (136.5) 62.3 (137.3) 62.3 (137.3) 62.1 (137.0) 62.0 (136.8) ) ) 61.6 (135.8 62,0 (136.8 62.1 (137.0) 61.6 (135.8) 62.0 (136.8) 62.0 (136.8) 62.5 (137.8) N.D. 61.7 (136.0) 62.0 (136.8) 61.9 (136.5) Weight, kg (1b) SPT 78.6 (173.3) 78.5 (173.0) 78.4 (172.8) 78.4 (172.8) 77.8 (171.5) 77.9 (171.8) 77.8 (171.5) 78.0 (171.9) 77.8 (171.5) 77.6 (171.0) 77.5 (170.9) 78.2 (172.5) 77.8 (171.5) 78.2 (172.5) 77.5 (170.8) 77.9 (171.8) 77.6 (171.0) 77.5 (170.8) 77.8 (171.5) 77.6 (171.0) 77.2 (170.3) 77.6 (171.0) N.D. 77.8 (171.5) 78.4 (172.8) 78.1 (172.3) 78.4 (172.8) N.D. 77.5 (170.8) 77.7 (171.3) 77.2 (170.3) 80.2 (176.8 79.9 (176.3 80.2 (176.8 79.9 (176.3 79.8 (176.0 79.2 (174.5) 79.6 (175.5) 79.6 (175.5) 79.7 (175.8) 79.4 (175.0) 79.4 (175.0) N.D.? 79.6 (175.5) 79.7 (175.8) 79.7 ar ) ) PLT 81.4 (179.5) 81.3 (179.3) 81.0 (178.5) 81.0 (178.5) 80.7 (178.0) 80.9 (178.3) 80.9 (178.3) 80.3 (177.0) 80.3 oro ) ) ) ) 80.3 (177.0 80.1 (176.5 81.0 (178.5 80.3 (177.0) 79.7 (175.8) 79.7 (175.8) 1-67 I-68 DOY 1k4s5 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 173 17h 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 Cc 1 July 2 July 3 July k July 5 July 6 July T 8 oq c 5 ® w o tO 0 0 td tH 0 B00 YU HD WY tO 0 0 + AHF FFE AA E+ + July First shipboard stop controlled TABLE A-3,~ Continued OVO O_o FW OO OI AW FWP HO weights. diet. (a) Concluded Weight, kg (1b) CDR In-flight 61.9 (136.5) N.D. N.D. N.D. 61.4 (135.4) 61.2 (135.0) 62.1 (136.8) 61.1 (134.8) 61.7 ) 61.6 (135.8) 61.2 ) 61.6 (135.8) 60.5 (133.4) 60.1 (132.4) 60.7 ) 61.0 ) 61.4 (135.3) 61.1 (134.7) 61.2 (134.9) 61.3 (135.2) 60.7 (133.9) 61.3 (135.2) 61.1 (134.7) 61.3 (135.1) N.D. 60.6 (133.6) 60.4 (133.1) 60.5 (133.3) 60.8 (134.0) Postflight (136.5 (136.0 N.D. 61.5 (135.5) 60.8 (134.0) 60.8 (134.0) 60.8 (134.0) 61.0 (134.5) N.D. N.D. 61.9 61. SPT 77.2 (170.3) N.D. N.D. N.D. 75.6 (166.6) 75.2 (165.9) 76.1 (167.7) 75.3 (166.1) 75.5 (166.4) 75.9 (167.2) 75.9 (167.3) 75.3 (166.0) 74.7 (164.6) 75.3 (166.1) 74.9 (165.1) 76.0 (167.5) 76.0 (167.6) 75.7 (166.9) 75.9 (167.4) 75.4 (166.2) 76.1 (167.7) 75.7 (167.0) 75.6 (166.6) 75.7 (166.9) N.D. 75.0 (165.3) 75.0 (165.L) 74.9 (165.2) 74.5 (164.2) 74.3 (163.8) 73.8 (162.8) 75.1 (163.5) N.D. 74.6 (164.5) 74.8 (165.0) 75.1 (165.5) N.D. 75.1 (165.5) “N.D. 74.8 (165.0) 75.2 (165.8) N.D. 75.0 (165.3) 74.8 (165.0) N.D. N.D. PLT 79.7 (175.8) N.D. 79.4 (175.1) 78.6 (173.4) 78.4 (172.9) 78.0 (172.0) 78.6 (173.2) 78.2 (172.4) 77.9 (171.8) 78.3 (172.6) 77.3 (170.5) 77.7 (171.2) N.D. 77.3 (170.3 77.4 (170.6 77.2 (170.3 76.5 (168.7 ~— rr 76.0 (167.5) 76.4 (168.5) 78.1 (172.3) 77.1 (170.0) 77.3 (170.5) 77.1 (170.0) 77.6 (171.0) 77.5 (170.8) 77.5 (170.8) N.D. 77.7 (171.3) 77.6 (171.0) 77.8 (171.5) 77.2 (170.3) 77.5 (170.8) 77.5 (170.8) 77.6 (171.0) DOY 2188 "189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 209 210 211 212 213 21k 215 216 217 218 219 220 222 223 22h 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 Date, 1973 July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July Aug. Aug. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 O_o FWD HE 21 oa a Ee Nt eg gd] Ee HEMDWFUu oA OOo FW nH TABLE A-3.~ Continued (b) SL-3 CDR Preflight 69.3 68.4 68.2 68.8 68.5 68.0 68.6 68.9 68.6 68.3 68.5 68.7 68.9 68.6 68.6 68.0 68.5 68.8 69.1 68.6 68.6 68.5 (152.8) (150.8) (150.3) (151.8) (151.0) (150.0) (151.3) (152.0) (151.3) (150.6) (151.0) (151.5) (152.0) (151.3) (151.3) (150.0) (151.0) In-flight 68.5 67.1 66.9 66.3 66.4 65.9 65.7 65.9 66.1 66.3 66.0 65.7 66.1 66.5 66.3 66.1 66.0 65.8 66.1 66.2 66.4 66.4 66.5 65.9 66.3 8Start controlled diet. (151.0) (147.8) (147.5) (146.1) (146.3) (145.4) (1.44.8) (145.3) (145.6) (146.2) (145.6) (1.4.8) (145.6) (146.6) (16.2) (145.8) (145.5) (145.1) (15.7) (146.0) (146.4) (146.3) (146.6) (145.3) (146.2) Weight, kg (1b) SPT 62.9 (138.8) 62.5 (137.8) 61.7 (136.0) 62.1 (137.0) 61.7 (136.0) 61.5 (135.5) 62.1 (137.0) 61.6 (135.8) 61.7 (136.0) 61.5 (135.5) 62.4 (137.5) 62.0 (136.8) 62.1 (137.0) 61.6 (135.8) 61.3 (135.3) 61.7 (136.0) 61.9 (136.5) 62.5 (137.8) 62.3 (137.3) 61.1 (134.8) 61.2 (135.0) 61.8 (136.3) 61.8 (136.3) PLT 89.0 (196.3) 86.7 (191.3) 88.1 (194.3) 87.9 (193.8) 87.7 (193.3) 87.1 (192.0) 87.7 (193.3) 88.5 (195.0) 88.6 (195.3) 88.1 (194.3) 87.8 (193.5) 87.8 (193.5) 88.2 (19k.5) 88.3 (194.8) 88.1 (194.3) 87.4 (192.8) 87.7 (193.3) 88.5 (195.0) 89.0 (196.3) 88.8 (195.8) 88.2 (194.5) 88.3 (194.8) 88.3 (194.8) 60.5 (133.5) °©86.5 (190.6) 59.5 (131.2) ©8L.2 (185.5) 59.4 (130.9) ©8s5. 59.4 (131.0) 59.5 (131.2) 59.5 (131.2) 59.4 (131.0) 59.3 (130.8) 59.3 (130.7) 58.7 (129.4) 59.1 (130.3) 59.4 (130.9) 59.4 (130.9) 59.0 (130.1) 59.2 (130.4) 59.1 (130.2) 58.7 (129.4) 59.2 (130.6) 59.1 (130.3) 58.9 (129.9) 58.6 (129.3) 58.7 (129.3) 59.1 ( 59.1 ( (188.6) (188.0) (189.0) (188.1) 8s. 85. 8s. ) 86. ) 8s. ) 85. ) 85. ) 86.1 (189.9) 85.6 (188.8) 86.0 (189.7) 85.8 ne ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OOOO WW on ~~ fa © \O . fa 85.8 (189.3 85.8 (189.1 86.0 (189.5 85.4 (188.3 85.6 (188.8 86.1 (189.8 85.8 (189.1 86.3 (190.2 85.6 (188.8 *BMMD readings very scattered; measurements unreliable. ORIGIN oF POOR QU AL PAGE B ALITY I-69 TABLE A-3.~ Continued (b) Continued DOY Date, MD Weight, kg (1b) 1973 CDR SPT PLT In-flight 23k Aug. 22 26 66.5 (146.5) 58.8 (129.6) 85.7 (188.8) 235 Aug. 23 27 66.1 (145.7) 58.6 (129.3) 85.5 (188.6) 236 Aug. 2b 28 66.1 (145.7) 59.2 (130.5) 85.3 (188.1) 237 Aug. 25 29 65.8 (145.1) 58.7 (129.5) 85.6 (188.6) 238 Aug. 26 30 66.0 (145.6) 58.6 (129.2) 85.2 (187.8) 239 Aug. 27 31 66.4 (146.4) 58.9 (129.9) 85.7 (188.8) 240 Aug. 28 32 66.5 (146.7) 58.8 (129.7) 85.9 (189.3) 2h1 Aug. 29 33 66.3 (146.1) 58.9 (129.9) 85.7 (189.0) 242 Aug. 30 3k 66.6 (146.8) 58.6 (129.3) 85.9 (189.4) 243 Aug. 31 35 66.4 (146.3) 58.6 (129.1) 85.7 (188.8) 24 Sept. 1 36 66.4 (146.3) 58.7 (129.4) 85.7 (189.0) 245 Sept. 37 66.3 (146.1) 58.7 (129.3) 85.3 (188.1) 246 Sept. 38 66.6 (146.8) 58.8 (129.5) 85.3 (188.1) 247 Sept. 39 66.3 (146.1) 58.5 (128.9) 85.6 (188.7) 2 : 248 Sept. 5 40 66.4 (146.4) 59.0 (130.0) 85.4 (188.2) 6 T 8 249 Sept. 41 66.2 (145.8) 58.3 (128.5) 85.6 (188.7) 250 Sept. 42 66.4 (146.5) 58.3 (128.5) 85.9 (189.3) 251 Sept. 43 66.5 (146.7) 58.7 (129.4) 85.3 (188.1) 252 Sept. 9 uh T66.6 (146.8) 58.9 (129.8) 85.6 (188.7) 253 Sept. 10 45 66.7 (147.1) 58.1 (128.0) 85.7 (189.0) 254 Sept. 11 46 66.0 (145.4) 58.2 (128.2) 86.1 (189.9) 255 Sept. 12 47 66.3 (146.1) 58.6 (129.1) = 85.7 (188.8) 256 Sept. 13 48 65.5 (144.5) 58.4 (128.6) 85.7 (188.8) 257 Sept. 14 49 65.8 (145.1) 58.3 (128.5) 85.4 (188.3) 258 Sept. 15 50 66.0 (145.5) 58.3 (128.6) 85.6 (188.8) 259 Sept. 16 51 66.2 (146.0) - 58.3 (128.6) 85.3 (188.1) “260 Sept. 17 C520 65:9 (145.4) 58.5 (129.0) 85.7 (188.8) 261 Sept. 18 53 65.8 (145.1) 58.2 (128.2) 85.3 (188.1) 262 Sept. 19 54 66.0 (145.6) 58.5 (129.0) 85.7 (189.0) 263 Sept. 20 55 66.2 (145.8) 58.5 (128.9) 85.5 (188.5) 264 Sept. 21 56 65.8 (145.0) 59.0 (130.0) 85.2 (187.7) 265 Sept. 22 57 65.4 (1k4,3) 58.6 (129.1) 85.3 (188.0) 266 Sept. 23 58 65.3 (143.9) 58.0 (127.9) 85.1 (187.7) 267 Sept. 2k 59 65.0 (143.4) 58.2 (128.3) 84.7 (186.6) 268 Sept. 25 R + 0 64.6 (1k2.4) 58.2 (128.4) 8L.1 (185.5) ‘Measurement made after breakfast; mass of breakfast deducted. I-70 DOY 268 . 269 270 271 272 273 27h 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 28L 28s dog6 287 288 289 290 201 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 Date, 1973 Sept. 25 Sept. 26 Sept. 27 Sept. 28 Sept. 29 Sept. 30 Oct. 1 Oct. 2 Oct. 3 Oct. 4 Oct. S Oct. 6 Oct. T Oct. 8 Oct. 9 Oct. 10 Oct. 11 Oct. 12 Oct. 13 Oct. 1k Oct. 15 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct. 19 Oct. 20 Oct. 21 Oct. 22 Oct. 23 Oct. 24 Oct. 25 Oct. 26 Oct. 27 Oct. 28 Oct. 29 Jw OW WWWOnOwwd WWW CFirst shipboard dStop controlled TABLE A-3.~ Continued (b) Concluded 22 68.7 (151.5) 62.0 (136.8) 23 68.5 (151.0) 61.6 (135.8) 2k 68.5 (151.0) 61.0 (13L.5) 25 68.4 (150.8) 60.9 (134.3) 26 68.9 (152.0) 61.2 (135.0) 27 68.9 (152.0) 61.8 (136.3) 28 69.2 (152.5) 61.3 (135.3) 29 69.4% (153.0) 61.8 (136.3) 30 69.3 (152.8) N.D. MD Weight, kg (1b) CDR SPT Postflight + 0 64.6 (1k2.5) 58.7 (129.5) + 1 64.2 (1b1.5) 58.3 (128.5) + 2 64.5 (1k2.3) 58.9 (129.8) +3 N.D. 60.2 (132.8) + L 766.8 (147.3) 60.0 (132.3) + 5 66.5 (146.5) T60.2 (132.8) + 6 66.7 (147.0) 60.0 (132.3) + 7 67.0 (147.8) 60.1 (132.5) + 8 66.8 (147.3) 60.4 (133.3) + 9 66.8 (147.3) 60.3 (133.0) + 10 66.9 (147.5) 60.6 (133.5) + 11 67.1 (148.0) 61.0 (13L.5) + 12 67.0 (147.8) 60.7 (133.8) +13 67.1 (148.0) 61.1 (134.8) + 14 67.1 (148.0) 61.1 (134.8) + 15 67.4 (148.5) 61.0 (134.5) + 16 67.6 (149.0) 61.1 (134.8) + 17 67.5 (148.8) 60.8 (134.0) + 18 N.D. 61.0 (134.5) +19 N.D. N.D. + 20 N.D. N.D. + 21 68.9 (152.0) N.D + + + + + + + + + + 31 69.6 (152.5) 61.0 (134.5) + 32 N.D. 61.6 (135.8) + 33 N.D. 61.8 (136.3) + 34 N.D. 61.9 (136.5) weights. diet. PLT 8L.1 8L.1 8L.6 N 87.1 87.0 87.1 87.2 86.2 86.7 87.8 87.8 87.5 87.7 87.8 88.1 88.7 88.2 88.0 ZEazEgzEaseas= Zz==2= (185.5) (185.5) (186.5) .D. (192.0) (191.8) (192.0) (192.3) (190.0) (191.3) (193.5) (193.5) (193.0) (193.3) (193.5) (194.3) (195.5) (194.5) .D. .D. Oo . bbbobbPbbbbbbbb (194.0) Tmeasurenent made after breakfast; mass of breakfast deducted, I-71 TABLE A~3.- Continued (c) SL=k DOY Date MD Weight, kg (1b) CDR SPT PLT Preflight 281 Oct. 8, 1973 39 N.D. 70.5 (155.5) N.D. 282 Oct. 9, 1973 38 N.D. 70.3 (155.0) N.D. 283 Oct. 10, 1973 37 N.D. 71.4 (157.5) N.D. 284 Oct. 11, 1973 36 N.D. 71.2 (157.0) N.D. 285 Oct. 12, 1973 35 67.8 (149.5 71.1 (156.8) N.D. 286 Oct. 13, 1973 287 Oct. 1k, 1973 288 Oct. 15, 1973 289 Oct. 16, 1973 290 Oct. 17, 1973 291 Oct. 18, 1973 292 Oct. 19, 1973 293 Oct. 20, 1973 294 Oct. 21, 1973 295 Oct. 22, 1973 296 Oct. 23, 1973 297 Oct. 2k, 1973 298 Oct. 25, 1973 299 Oct. 26, 1973 300 Oct. 27, 1973 301 Oct. 28, 1973 302 Oct. 29, 1973 303 Oct. 30, 1973 304 Oct. 31, 1973 305 Nov. 1, 1973 306 Nov. 2, 1973 307 Nov. 3, 1973 308 Nov. 4, 1973 309 Nov. 5, 1973 310 Nov. 6, 1973 311 Nov. 7, 1973 312 Nov. 8, 1973 313 Nov. 9, 1973 31k Nov. 10, 1973 315 Nov. 11, 1973 316 Nov. 12, 1973 317 Nov. 13, 1973 318 Nov. 1k, 1973 319 Nov. 15, 1973 320 Nov. 16, 1973 66.7 (147.0 33 66.5 (146.5 32 66.2 (146.0 31 67.8 (149.5 30 67.2 (148.3 29 66.6 (146.8 28 66.3 (146.3 27 67.4 (148.5 26 67.1 (148.0 25 67.2 (148.3 2k 67.1 (148.0 23 67.6 (149.0 22 67.2 (148.3 21 67.6 (149.0 71.3 (157.1) 67.2 (148.3 71.8 (158.3) 67.4 (148.5 72.3 (159.5) 67.5 (148.8 71.9 (158.5) 67.6 (149.0 71.0 (156.6) 67.6 (149.0 71.3 (157.3) 67.8 (149.5 71.0 (156.3) 68.0 (150.0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 71.8 (158.3) 67.7 (149.3) ) 72.0 (158.8) 67.6 (149.0) ) 72.5 (159.8) 67.8 (149.5) ) 71.4 (157.5) 67.9 (149.8) ) 71.7 (158.0) 67.6 (149.0) ) 72.0 (158.8) 67.6 (149.0) ) T1l.k (157.5) 67.8 (149.5) 20 67.6 (149.0) 71.2 (157.0) 67.8 (149.5) 19 68.0 (150.0) 71.4 (157.5) 67.7 (149.3) 18 67.8 (149.5) 71.1 (156.8) 67.6 (149.0) 17 67.5 12.3) 71.3 (157.3) 67.4 FE) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) rrr rrr rrr w = 16 67.7 (149.3 71.3 (157.3) 67.7 (149.3 15 67.2 (148.3 71.6 (157.8) 67.6 (149.0 67.7 (149.3 71.0 (156.5) 67.2 (148.3 13 67.9 (149.8 71.2 (157.0) 67.4 (148.5 12 67.7 (149.3 71.4 (157.5) 67.6 (149.0 11 68.2 (150.3 T1.k (157.5) 67.4 (148.5 10 68.0 (150.0 T1.7 258.0) 67.7 (149.3 68.0 (150.0 71.7 (158.0) 67.8 (149.5 68.2 (150.3 72.2 (159.3) 68.0 (150.0 67.7 (149.3 71.7 (158.0) 67.9 (149.8 68.2 (150.3 71.6 (157.8) 67.5 (148.8 68.0 (150.0 71.0 (156.5) 67.1 (148.0 68.5 (151.0 71.2 (157.0) 67.6 (149.0 68.0 (150.0 71.3 (157.3) 67.8 (149.5 67.8 (149.5 71.7 (158.0) 67.6 (149.0 68.0 (150.0 71.2 (157.0) 67.0 (147.8 67.9 (149.8 71.2 (157.0) 67.6 (149.0 HERE EEE EEE EY rrr rr rrr rrr rr rrr rrr rrr [= = FFEFDODWEWM ONE 00 8Start controlled diet. I-72 TABLE A-3.~ Continued ORIGINAL PA~T 13 OF POOR QUALITY (¢) Continued DOY Date MD Weight, kg (1b) CDR SPT PLT In-flight 321 Nov. 17, 1973 2 N.D. N.D. N.D. 322 ° Nov. 18, 1973 3 66.7 (147.1) 70.8 (156.0) 65.7 (14.8) 323 Nov. 19, 1973 4 67.0 (147.8) 70.5 (155.4) 65.9 (145.4) 324 Nov. 20, 1973 5 67.1 (147.9) 70.5 (155.5) 65.4 (1Lk,2) 325 Nov. 21, 1973 6 67.1 (147.9) 70.4 (155.3) 65.5 (1hk,k) 326 Nov. 22, 1973 7 67.1 (147.9) 70.2 (154.7) 65.3 (1L4k.0) 327 Nov. 23, 1973 8 67.3 (148.3) 70.1 (154.6) 65.8 (145.1) 328 Nov. 24, 1973 9 66.9 (147.5) 69.8 (153.8) 64.9 (143.0) 329 Nov. 25, 1973 10 67.1 (147.9) 69.5 (153.3) 65.6 (1LL.6) 330 Nov. 26, 1973 11 67.2 (148.1) 69.0 (152.0) 65.1 (143.6) 331 Nov. 27, 1973 12 66.8 (147.3) 69.3 (152.7) 65.2 (143.7) 332 Nov. 28, 1973 13 67.3 (148.4) 69.4 (153.0) 65.6 (1LL.6) 333 Nov. 29, 1973 14 66.9 (147.5) 69.6 (153.5) 65.3 (144.0) 334 Nov. 30, 1973 15 67.4 (148.6) 69.7 (153.6) 65.6 (14k,6) 335 Dec. 1, 1973 16 67.2 (148.1) 69.9 (154.1) 65.7 (1kL4.8) 336 Dec. 2, 1973 ‘ 17 67.2 (148.2) 69.6 (153.4) 65.9 (145.4) 337 Dec. 3, 1973 18 67.0 (147.7) 69.5 (153.3) 65.8 (15.0) 338 Dec. UL, 1973 19 67.3 (148.4) 69.0 (152.2) 66.0 (145.6) 339 Dec. 5, 1973 20 67.3 (148.4) 69.4 (153.0) 65.7 (1Lk.8) 340 Dec. 6, 1973 21 67.3 (148.4) 69.1 (152.3) 65.6 (1hk,7) 341 Dec. T, 1973 22 67.4 (148.7) 69.1 (152.3) 65.9 (145.3) 3k2 Dec. 8, 1973 23 67.4 (148.7) 68.9 (151.9) 65.8 (1L5.0) 343 Dec. 9, 1973 ok 67.7 (149.2) 69.0 (152.2) 65.6 (1LL.6) 344k © Dec. 10, 1973 . 25° 67.6 (149.1) 68.7 (151.5) 65.6 (1Lk.6) 345 Dec. 11, 1973 26 67.9 (149.7) 69.8 (153.8) 65.9 (145.3) 346 Dec. 12, 1973 27 67.5 (148.8) 69.0 (152.2) 65.8 (145.0) 347 Dec. 13, 1973 28 67.8 (149.5) 69.1 (152.4) 65.9 (145.2) 348 Dec. 1k, 1973 29 67.5 (148.9) 69.3 (152.7) 65.4 (1hk.2) 349 Dec. 15, 1973 30 67.4 (148.6) 69.1 (152.3) 65.7 (1Lk,8) 350 Dec. 16, 1973 31 67.7 (149.2) 69.1 (152.4) 65.5 (1Lk.5) 351 Dec. 17, 1973 32 67.5 (148.8) 69.1 (152.4) 65.5 (14k.3) 352 Dec. 18, 1973 33 67.7 (149.3) 69.1 (152.4) 65.7 (14k,8) 353 Dec. 19, 1973 3k 67.4 (148.7) 68.8 (151.6) 66.0 (145.4) 354 Dec. 20, 1973 35 67.8 (149.4) 69.0 (152.0) 66.0 (145.6) 355 Dec. 21, 1973 36 67.7 (149.4) 68.6 (151.3) 66.1 (145.7) 356 Dec. 22, 1973 37 67.7 (Lho.k) 68.8 (151.7) 66.2 (146.0) 357 Dec. 23, 1973 38 67.5 (148.8) 68.9 (151.9) 65.8 (145.0) 358 Dec. 24, 1973 39 67.1 (148.0) 69.2 (152.5) 65.9 (145.L) 359 Dec. 25, 1973 Lo 67.0 (147.8) 68.6 (151.3) 66.0 (145.6) 360 Dec. 26, 1973 Ll 67.6 (149.1) 68.6 (151.2) 65.9 (145.3) 361 Dec. 27, 1973 42 67.7 (1k9.L) 69.4 (153.0) 66.0 (145.4) 362 Dec. 28, 1973 43 67.9 (149.6) 69.1 (152.4) 66.2 (146.0) 363 Dec. 29, 1973 Lh 67.8 (149.4) 68.7 (151.5) 65.7 (144.9) 364 Dec. 30, 1973 45 67.9 (149.6) 68.9 (151.9) 65.9 (145.3) 365 Dec. 31, 1973 L6 67.7 (149.2) 68.6 (151.3) 66.1 (145.8) I-73 I-74 DOY OO OO OW FW Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan, Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan, Jan, Jan, Jan, Jan, Jan. Jan. Jan, Jan. Jan. Jan. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Date 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 1974 197k 197k 1974 1974 197k 197k 197k 1974 1974 197k 197k 197k 197k 1974 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197L 197k 197k 197k 1974 197k 197k 197k TABLE A-3.- Continued (ec) Continued CDR In-flight 67.3 (148.4) 67.0 (147.6) 67.9 (149.8) 67.5 (148.9) 67.5 (148.9) 67.8 (149.5) 67.4 (148.6) 67.7 (149.2) 67.7 (149.3) 67.3 (148.3) 67.4 (148.6) 68.0 (149.8) 67.8 (149.4) 67.6 (149.0) 67.8 (149.5) 67.8 (149.5) 67.8 (149.4) 67.8 (149.5) 67.7 (149.k) 67.9 (149.6) 67.6 (149.0) 67.8 (149.5) 67.7 (149.2) 68.3 (150.6) 68.1 (150.1) 67.6 (149.1) 67.7 (149.3) 67.7 (149.2) 67.3 (148.4) 67.4 (148.6) 67.4 (148.7) 67.9 (149.8) 68.1 (150.1) 67.6 (149.1) 67.5 (148.9) 67.5 (148.8) 67.4 (148.6) 67.1 (147.9) 67.9 (149.7) Weight, kg (1b) \O Co\O \O \O \O\O\O\O\DO OO \O\O 0 WO \O CC® eo eo 8 + oe es» . « oo . . OCLWWOUOEAIOVWOPWTOVWOVWOOUVMOAAANNHOOTWOOAAANO ONO & AO VOOVOVOVOVOVOVOVOOWVOo . SPT PLT 65.7 65.4 65.4 65.6 65.2 65.1 65.6 65.8 66.0 65.4 65.9 66.0 65.8 66.1 66.2 66.4 66.3 65.8 65.7 66.0 66.1 65.9 65.7 66.6 66.3 66.3 66.2 66.0 66.1 66.5 66.2 66.7 66.2 66.4 66.6 66.6 66.4 66.6 66.2 DOY a Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar, Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Date 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197h 197k 1974 197k 197k 197k 1974 197k 197k 197k 197k 197k 197L 197k 197k 1974 1974 1974 1974 197k 1974 197k 197k 197k 197k 197L 197k 197k 1974 1974 197k 197k 1974 197k 1974 197k 1974 197k 1974 www YY YN OYUN Wn tt + tt rrr rr rrr rrr AEF AEA AE FH EEE ++ TABLE A~3.~ Concluded OO O00 FWP H Oo CFirst shipboard weights. Stop controlled diet. d (¢) Concluded CDR Postflight 67.8 (149.5) 67.1 (148.0) 67.9 (149.8) 67.6 (149.0) 67.9 (149.8) 68.5 (151.0) 68.4 (150.8) 68.4 (150.8) N.D. 68.4 (150.8) 68.3 (150.5) 68.8 (151.8) 68.6 (151.3) 68.6 (151.3) 68.7 (151.5) 68.8 (151.8) 68.5 (151.0) 68.6 (151.3) 68.4 (150.8) 67.9 (149.8) 68.9 (152.0) 69.6 (153.5) 69.6 (153.5) 68.5 (151.0) 68.8 (151.8) 68.6 (151.3) 68.9 (152.0) 69.4 (153.0) 69.2 (152.5) 68.9 (152.0) 69.2 (152.5) 69.2 (152.5) 68.9 (152.0) 68.6 (151.3) 69.3 (152.8) 68.8 (151.8) 68.5 (151.0) 68.7 (151.5) 70.2 (154.8) 70.0 (154.3) 69.3 (152.8) 69.2 (152.5) 68.5 (151.0) 68.5 (151.0) 69.5 (153.3) 70.4 (155.3) 69.2 (152.5) Weight, kg (1b) 68. 69. 70. Tl. 70. 71. 71. Tl. Tl. T1. Tl. Tl. Tl. Tl. Tl. Tl. Tl. Tl. T1. Tl. T2. Tl. T2. T2. 73. T2. T2. 72. 73. Th. .0 (161.0) .8 (162.8) Th. .8 (162.8) 73. Th. .9 (163.0) 73 73 73 73 SPT 6 (151.3) 4 (153.0) 1 (15k.5) 0 (156.5) 8 (156.0) 1 (156.8) 7 (158.0) 6 (157.8) 0 (156.5) 1 (156.8) 8 (158.3) 7 (158.0) 6 (157.8) 8 (158.3) L (157.5) 3 (157.3) 2 (157.0) 7 (158.0) 4 (157.5) 2 (157.0) 5 (159.8) L (157.5) 2 (159.3) 7 (160.3) 7 (162.5) 8 (160.5) 8 (160.5) 1 (159.0) N.D. N.D. 7 (162.5) 2 (163.5) 2 (163.5) 0 (161.0) 2 (163.5) Dazma=ag z= oe Dobuouobobobuou PLT 66.1 (145.8) 66.8 (147.3) 67.0 (147.8) 67.6 (149.0) 67.4 (148.5) 67.0 (147.8) 67.4 (148.5) 67.9 (149.8) 67.7 (149.3) 67.9 (149.8) 67.0 (147.8) 67.5 (148.8) 67.6 (149.0) 67.5 (148.8) 67.6 (149.0) 67.5 (148.8) 67.6 (149.0) 67.7 (149.3) 67.2 (148.3) 68.0 (150.0) 69.3 (152.8) 69.3 (152.8) 69.4 (153.0) 70.1 (154.5) 69.4 (153.0) 69.6 (153.5) 69.9 (154.0) 69.9 (154.0) 69.6 (153.5) 70.3 (155.0) 69.9 (154.0) 69.4 (153.0) 69.6 (153.5) 69.7 (153.8) 70.3 (155.0) 69.9 (154.0) 70.9 (156.3) T1l.4 (157.5) 70.6 (155.8) 69.9 (154.0) N.D. N.D. 70.4 (155.3) 70.3 (155.0) N.D. N.D. N.D. I-75 APPENDIX B HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS OF SKYLAB 4 CREWMEN Height and change-in-height (A height) measurements of the Skylab 4 (SL-4) crewmen are contained in tables B-1 to B-3. The crewman designations are commander (CDR), science pilot (SPT), and pilot (PLT). Preflight meas- urements were taken with the crewmen in an erect standing position, and postflight measurements were taken with the crewmen in both erect and supine positions. In-flight measurements were taken in the morning and afternoon on mission day (MD) 21, MD-35, MD-57, MD-60, and MD-82. Recovery day is designated R + 0, R + 1 is 1 day after recovery, and so forth. I-76 Day MD-21 MD-35 MD-57 MD-82 Mean suit fit; other preflight measurements were from annual TABLE B-1.- HEIGHT AND CHANGE-IN-HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS cm (ine) 177.3 (69.8) 177.8 (70.0) 177.8 (70.0) 178.6 (70.3) physical examinations. b Baseline. (a) Preflight measurements Date 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 21972 (b) In-flight measurements Height and A height Morning A cm (A in.) 4.6 (1.8) 5.1 (2.0) 5.1 (2.0) 5.9 (2.3) 5.2 (2.03) OF SL-4 CDR Erect height, cm (in.) 172.2 172.7 172.5 172.7 172.7 172.7 173.0 b172.7 A percent 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.4 3.0 (67.8) (68.0) (67.9) (68.0) (68.0) (68.0) (68.1) (68.0) cm (in.) 177.5 (68.9) 177.5 (69.9) 176.8 (69.6) age 1° ORIGINAL BT of, POOR QU Afternoon A cm (A in.) A percent 4.8 (1.9) 2.8 4.8 (1.9) 2.8 4.1 (1.6) 2.4 I-77 Day R+0 €01:42 €03:03 €05:43 R+1 Morning Afternoon R+ 4 R+5 R + 17 cm (in.) — 174.8 (68.8) 174.0 (68.5) 175.3 (69.0) 173.4 (68.3) 175.3 (69.0) 173.7 (68.4) 172.7 (68.0) TABLE B-1l.- Concluded ' (c) Postflight measurements Height and A height Erect A cm (A in. 2.1 (0.8) 1.3 (.5 2.6 (1.0) «7 (.25) 2.6 (1.0) 1.0 (.4) 0 (0) ) A percent 1.2 .7 1.5 ob 1.5 .6 CTime after recovery, hours:minutes. 1-78 TABLE B-2.- HEIGHT AND OF SL~4 SPT cm (in.) 176.8 (69.6) 174.8 (68.8) 176.0 (69.3) 174.8 (68.8) (a) Preflight measurements Date 1970 21972 1973 €1973 8suit fit. Baseline. €35 days before Erect height, cm (in.) 172.7 b (68.0) Supine A em (A in.) 4.1 (1.6) 3.3 (1.3) 2.1 (.8) CHANGE-IN~HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS 173.0 (68.1) 172.7 (68.0) 175.3 (69.0) lift-off. A percent 2.4 1.9 1.2 Day MD-21 MD-35 MD-60 MD-82 Mean Day R+0 do1:53 403:08 d 07:43 R+1 Morning Afternoon cm (in.) 177.8 (70.0) 178.6 (70.3) 177.8 (70.0) 179.8 (70.8) cm (in) 176.5 (69.5) 175.0 (68.9) 175.3 (69.0) 174.0 (68.5) 174.0 (68.5) 174.8 (68.8) 174.5 (68.7) TABLE B-2.- Concluded (b) In-flight measurements Height and A height Morning A cm (A in.) 4.8 (1.9) 5.6 (2.2) 4.8 (1.9) 6.8 (2.7) 5.5 (2.18) A percent 2.8 3.2 2.8 4.0 3.2 em (in.) 177.8 (70.0) 178.8 (70.4) 178.0 (70.1) (c) Postflight measurements Height and A height Erect A cm (A in.) 3.5 (1.4) 2.0 (.8) HN ow ~ « oO ~ 1.0 (.4) 1.8 (.7) 1.5 (.6) Time after recovery, hours:minutes. A percent 1.0 1.0 .9 cm (in.) 178.8 (70.4) 176.0 (69.3) 176.5 (69.5) 176.5 (69.5) Afternoon A cm (A in.) 4.8 (1.9) 5.8 (2.3) 5.0 (2.0) Supine A em (A in.) 5.8 (2.3) 3.0 (1.2) 3.5 (1.4) 3.5 (1.4) A percent 2.8 3.4 3.0 A percent 3.4 2.1 2.1 I-79 TABLE B-3.- HEIGHT AND CHANGE-IN-HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS Day cm (in.) MD-21 178.8 (70.4) MD-35 178.6 (70.3) MD-57 177.8 (70.0) MD-82 179.3 (70.6) Mean -— quit fit. bgaseline. OF SL=-4 PLT (a) Preflight measurements Date 1966 1969 21972 ©1973 Erect height, cm (in.) 173.0 (68.1) 173.5 (68.3) b 173.2 (68.2) 173.5 (68.3) (b) In-flight measurements Height and A height Morning A cm (A in.) 5.6 (2.2) 5.4 (2.1) 4.6 (1.8) 6.1 (2.4) 5.4 (2.13) 15 days before lift-off. 1-80 A percent 3.2 3.1 2.6 3.5 Afternoon cm (in.) A cm (A in.) A percent 179.1 (70.5) 5.6 (2.3) 3.4 178.6 (70.3) 5.1 (2.1) 3.1 176.8 (69.6) 3.3 (1.4) 2.1 TABLE B-3.- Concluded (c) Postflight measurements Day Height and A height Erect Supine cm (in.) A cm (A in.) A percent cm (inl) A cm (A in.) A percent R+0 d01:26 -— — — 177.5 (69.9) 5.9 (1.7) 2.5 03:53 175.0 (68.9) 1.8 (0.7) 1.0 — - - R+1 Morning 174.0 (68.5) 8 (.3) 4 —-— -— -— Afternoon 173.5 (68.3) 3 (1) .1 175.0 (68.9) 1.8 (.7) 1.0 R + 17 173.7 (68.4) 5S (2) .3 175.3 (69.0) 5.8 (.8) 1.2 d Time after recovery, hours:minutes. I-81 APPENDIX C TRUNCAL, NECK, AND LIMB GIRTH MEASUREMENTS OF U.S. SPACE-FLIGHT CREWMEN Truncal, neck, and limb girth measurements of Skylab and Apollo crewmen made before, during, and after various flights are presented in this appen- dix. Table C-1 contains data on truncal, neck, and arm girth of the Skylab 3 (SL-3) commander (CDR), science pilot (SPT), and pilot (PLT) obtained before flight, in flight (on mission day (MD) 38 and MD-54), and after flight (on recovery day (R + 0) and on the lst, 2nd, and 4th days after recovery (days R+1, R+ 2, and R + 4, respectively)). Change-in-girth values (A girth) (with the preflight measurement as the baseline value) are also provided. All measurements were made in the anatomical position. In table C-2, truncal and neck girth measurements of SL-4 crewmen made 30 and 15 days before lift-off (days F - 30 and F - 15, respectively), during flight, and after flight are compared to the preflight measurement made 4 days before lift-off (day F - 4), the baseline value in each case. Tables C-3 to C-5 contain detailed circumference measurements of the left (L) and right (R) legs of SL-4 crewmen. Daily volumes for both the left and the right leg of each crewman are given, together with preflight means and standard deviations. Table C-6 contains data on individual calf circumference and lower-limb volume from preflight and postflight measurements of the CDR, the command module pilot (CMP), and the lunar module pilot (IMP) of selected Apollo mis- sions, in a resting, supine position. Preflight individual means and standard deviations and preflight and postflight group means and standard deviations are given, together with other statistical indicators. The upper-limb volumes and changes in wupper-limb volumes of Skylab crewmen shown in table C-7 were computed from girth segments every 3 cm from wrist to shoulder of both arms. All truncal and neck girth measurements were made in the anatomical position. I-82 £8-1 TABLE C-1,- Measurement Left biceps, cm + « « o « « « « A girth, cm + & oo o oo « o & A girth, percent + « « « « « « Right biceps, cm « « « « « « « « A girth, cm . + ¢ ¢ & « « « « & L girth, percent . . +i. + + . Chest, inspiratory (insp.), cm . . A girth, em + +. « « « ¢ « « « & A girth, percent . « « « & o « Chest, expiratory (exp.), cm . . . A girth, cm . o « ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ « o A girth, percent » « « « 5 « o o Abdomen, cm . . ¢ + + 0 + 0 eo A girth, ecm . + « ¢« os ¢ o « » © A girth, percent . « « ¢ © « « & Neck, CM « « « ¢« ¢ o o os o« o o o A girth, em . « ¢« « « « « « « & A girth, percent + « « + o « . TRUNCAL, NECK, AND ARM GIRTH MEASUREMENTS OF SL-3 CREWMEN (a) CDR Preflight . . 30.8 . . 30.8 oo. 96.0 . oe 91.1 . . 82.1 “oo. 38.1 28.1 29.0 -2.7 -1.8 -8.8 -5.8 28.8 30.0 -2.0 -0.8 -6.5 -2.6 88.9 — -2.2 — -2.4 - 76.3 76.3 -5.8 -5.8 -7.1 -7.1 37.1 37.3 -1.0 -0.8 -2,6 -2.1 oo 8-1 Measurement Left biceps, cm . A girth, cm . . A girth, percent Right biceps, cm . A girth, ecm . . A girth, percent Chest, insp, cm . A girth, ecm . . A girth, percent Chest, exp., cm . A girth, cm . . A girth, percent Abdomen, cm . . . A girth, em . . A girth, percent Neck, cm . . . . A girth, cm . . A girth, percent (b) SPT Preflight 28.7 28.9 90.0 84,2 79.2 35.9 TABLE C-1.- Continued MD-54 R+0 R+1 SO vw 68-1 TABLE C~1.- Concluded (¢) PLT Measurement Preflight MD-38 MD-54 R+0 R+1" R+2 R+4 Left biceps, cm + « « « « ¢ o o o o 33.6 31.7 33.0 32.4 33.0 33.0 33.0 A girth, cm eo eo o © oo oo eo eo oo oo eo oo -1 9 -0 6 -1.2 -0.6 -0 3 -0.6 A girth, percent oe oo oe oo eo eo oo oo oo -5 6 -1 8 -3.6 -1.8 -0.9 -1.8 Right biceps, CM « « « o o o o « o o « 34.4 32.8 33.5 32.4 34.3 34.6 33.3 A girth, cm e eo 6 © © eo oo eo oo oo + oo -1.6 -0.9 -2.0 -0.1 0.2 -1.1 A girth, percent eo © © eo eo eo © eo eo -4,6 -2.6 -5.8 -0.3 0.6 -3.2 Chest, inSp. CM « « « o ¢ oo o ¢ o « 107.2 — 104.8 106.7 106.7 106.7 107.0 A girth, cm e © eo oo so eo oo eo eo eo oo oo - =2.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 A girth, percent eo eo eo eo oo eo eo 0 eo - -2.2 0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 Chest, €XP.y cm ®e © © eo eo © oo 0 eo oo oo 100.8 - 97.6 97.5 100.9 101.9 - A girth, cm e eo oe eo eo & eo oo oo eo oo oo - -3.2 -3.3 0.1 1.1 -_ A girth, percent « « « « « o o « o -- -3.2 -3.3 0.1 1.1 -_ Abdomen, cm © eo © oo oe oo oe eo eo eo oo oo oo 88.4 84.0 83.9 . 88.6 87.0 89.2 -_— A girth, cm e o oo eo oo eo © eo oo eo oo oo =4.4 -4.5 0.2 -1.4 0.8 - A girth, percent e eo eo eo eo os eo eo oo oo -5.0 -5.1 0.2 - .6 0.9 - Neck, CM « « « « « o o o o o o o o o 40.6 41.0 40.9 41.6 41.3 41.9 41.3 A girth, cm . . . . . . . . . . . . > 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.7 1.3 0.7 A girth, percent « « « « « o « o o « 1.0 0.7 2.5 1.7 3.2 1.7 - - ON NINN HAN WY Me J own ooo NON ToT ONIN + 800 NOOO WOO Won maw NCO NOOO HOO WON WII 829 S ETT aT oo + 899 = on = on o — o < w MN oN~ Om on I~ & N© nw HNO Ed no-N owno oN © Cc” = TT © _T9 ]° PA = + 877 a° o 3 on / 0 ol - 00 C = = 2 - o > w- — : s - LE NN eda nem nn awe ~no S NN THM WOW HIN NIN NON + moo 0 oO ~NO o moo CO vi oO ~ nn © © ETT a 7° +3 o 877 & o ol — ~ - NON VOW INMM OTe ON - NON O00 OFT ITO NO + SHH HOO mem NOH oN ® 4 Aro OHH HOO Gen wes : @ 297 &7 - 9) © I o on a 3 od - os J ©O NON VWOWWYW TOO ONO Mm © OM® WVWWOVWWY NOOO NON Tom = + rN HOO NOS won Mew 4 HNN ROO HOM ®eN WIT © © I | 37? = BTN on © I on on a o ~ — [3 fe © © HTM OTT HNO NOOO OWN - IND NINN NH OINM OT P oagunn Orem meme ~ ne P own nerd 000 OH Soa g RTH grr er = 8 g ~FN ol £77 R &99 > 8 sn WON NOOO OW NOOO InNM™m ~N NH OOM NMM STEM OS™ o T Sms mee wea ~ ~oo T Sew wan ©NN NOS ome E B uw g RTT I= on = © - RYY 8997 3399 &9% 879 a = - E <= e p- 80 wv 60 © al - ~ = he £3. °F zg ¥ B o ONY INKY INT HOY oOoa~ e i NON NO® OW mMWOW Mm® PY? one ome ave mon ~oo HY? Nine woo wan @o- ome ~ Ow I~ I~ 0 g a ol ai77 R FT g ~1¥ 297 @ | | 3 © | | 1 < 2 ONY ®MO® INMmeE ORO NMI NON 000 OWN nor HE 5 Re Coa Adm aE gry N+ oss sea eee eae 1 NN MMM OO Ore ~ © © wi & g ~TY oll aTT RKTT 8B 1 g =7°9 =] A l I ‘ © - ee oh oe oes «ee oN Nao NPT ATP ZX nln ol Nn 1 ™ oo o I 1 VWVOY NO OF NA®m DON © “ee °c ee «ee © ee ~~ aN [= «a1 @ I | A o- Qe MO ON FNS © oe .. oe “ee “ee ON ~ TNWN Note [I TY «ad 297 ~ — ~ ~ - . . . . —- on ™ ° [= © =} an A oN NNO IMO On noon oOaw RE) . AEE «ee “ee 899 nN OO Nr © rm MN on a ™ on - Mn NNN NO 11 S95 gw 2 1 1 101.6 2 2 . . ° . . . . . . . ° oo. “oo. PE . « se a . .. . .. “oe . « . “oe . oe . “oo. . “oe . o « = o “ «og . a 1 . o «og Q [] ..8 8.8 g-$ e808 . - - 5 I - - . 52 82% .8% "62 46% § [2 . . 55 822 £525 24 52 - cB LU wu BY gts nue 2 HN TR OH Q HH 8H Q oo ooo ER] Q oo g 000 + 00 80 + 00 a0 ~ 00 bo QO 00 60 « 0 ~~ 2 va v9 v1 9 ua god 32 30 70" 28 = 26 be 24 60 = 2 1. USAF 6. USAF fliers 5. Japanese civilians 9. Italian military 10. French fliers 11. German Air Force 12. Japanese civilians Figure 14. Range of variability (5th=95th percentile) in sleeve length for selected populations. II-43 HIP CIRCUMFERENCE (em) (in) 120+ Females T -44 110 4.2 =40 ® 100 = 38 = 3 90 -4 6 = 34 70= 1. USAF 6. 3. British civilians 7. 4. Swedish civilians 8. 5. Japanese civilians 9. . 10. 11. 12. Males USAF fliers NASA astronauts British fliers Italian military French fliers German Air Force Japanese civilians Figure 15. Range of variability (5th-95th percentile) in hip circumfer- ence for selected populations. II-44 BIACROMIAL BREADTH (cm) (in) 50— Females Males 3353 oT 90000 ¢ 30-12 USAF U. S. HEW civilians British civilians USAF fliers NASA astronauts British fliers Sw NN — «eee Swedish civilians [talian military French fliers — OO OW WW NN Oo 1 11. German Air Force Figure 16. Range of variability (5th=-95th percentile) in biacromial breadth for selected populations. II-45 Females 90 USAF British civilians Swedish civilians —- . Sow TROCHANTERIC HEIGHT (em), (in) 110 1004740 38 90 + 70+ 10. 11. Males 041 USAF fliers NASA astronauts Italian military French fliers German Air Force Figure 17. Range of variability (5th-95th percentile) in trochanteric height for selected populations. 11-46 CHEST CIRCUMFERENCE (cm), (in) Females USAF U. S. HEW civilians Swedish civilians a BN — Japanese civilians 1104 42 - 40 100+ ~ 38 ~ 36 90 34 go 32 - 30 -28 70+ 6 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Males USAF fliers NASA astronauts Bri+ish fliers Italian military French fliers German Air Force Japanese civilians Figure 18. Range of variability (5th-95th percentile) in chest circumfer- ence for selected populations, II-47 II-48 100+ Females - 38 4 2 = 30 70 J28 26 60 = 1. USAF 5. Japanese civilians 10. 11. 12. Figure 19. CROTCH HEIGHT (cm), (in) 9. 0 NN oO Males 904 °° . od 80 > ¢ USAF fliers NASA astronauts British fliers Italian military French fliers German Air Force Japanese civilians Range of variability (5th-95th percentile) in crotch height for selected populations. SITTING HEIGHT (em) (in) Females 1004 40 Males | © | ; ; = 36 (0 DO @ Eo 804 32 = 30 70 1. USAF 6. USAF fliers 2. U. S. HEW civilians 7. NASA astronauts 4. Swedish civilians 8. British fliers 9. Italian military 10. French military 11. German Air Force Figure 20. Range of variability (5th-95th percentile) in sitting height for selected populations. II-49 TABLE 17 . SELECTED DIMENSIONS OF DIFFERENT VOCATIONAL-PROFESSIONAL GROUPS OF U.S. MALES ' II-50 2 '67 3 '75 '65 '55 Variable HES USAF POLICE AF TRAINEES ® BUS DRIVER® _asTRONAUTS ’ Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean SsD. Mean SeD. Mean S.D. Age 43.2 15.5 30.0 6.3 30.7 8.7 19.3 1.3 37.0 8.2 28-43 (range) Weight 75.9 12.6 78.7 9.7 83.3 12.0 68.7 10.2 75.9 12.7 74.5 6.9 (167.3) (27.8) (173.5) (21.4) (183.6) (26.5)(151.4) (22.5) (167.3) (27.9) (164.2) (15.2) Height 173.2 6.8 177.3 6.2 178.1 5.8 175.1 6.5 173.6 6.6 176.4 4.7 (68.2) (2.7) (69.8) (2.4) (70.1) (2.3) (68.9) (2.6) (68.3) (2.6) (69.4) (1.9) Biacromial 39.6 2.0 40.7 1.9 - 39.7 1.9 40.0 1.6 40.5 1.7 breadth (15.6) (0.8) (16.0) (0.7) - (15.6) (0.7) (15.7) (0.6) (15.9) (0.7) Biceps circ. 30.7 3.3 30.8 2.3 - - 27.3 2.6 - - (12.1) (1.3) (12.1) (0.9) - - (10.7) (1.0) - - Chest circ. 99.3 8.4 98.6 6.4 102.2 7.9 91.8 1.6 97.8 8.2 97.1 4.8 (39.1) (3.3) (38.8) (2.5) (40.2) (3.1) (36.1) (0.6) (38.5) (3.2) (38.2) (1.9) Waist circ. 88.6 1l.4 87.6 Tb 90.6 9.4 78.0 75 - 82.1 4.5 (34.9) (4.5) (34.5) (2.9) (35.7) (3.7) (30.7) (3.0) (32.3) (1.8) Sitting height 90.4 3.8 93.2 3.2 92.2 3.4 91.1 3.5 92.0 3.3 92.4 2.6 (35.6) (1.5) (36.7) (1.3) (36.3) (1.3) (35.9) (1.4) (36.2) (1.3) (36.4) (1.0) Knee height 54.1 2.8 55.8 2.5 55.9 2.5 55.4 2.6 55.0 3.3 - (21.3) (1.1) (22.0) (1.0) (22.0) (1.0) (21.8) (1.0) (21.7) (1.3) - Popliteal height 43.9 2.8 43.7 2.3 - 44.8 2.4 - - - (17.3) (1.1) (17.2) (0.9) - (17.6) (0.9) - - ud Thigh clearance 14.3 1.8 16.5 1.4 - 15.0 1.4 - - - - height (5.6) (0.7) (6.5) (0.6) - (5.9) (0.6) - - - - Buttock-knee 59.2 3.0 60.4 2.7 61.5 2.7 60.3 2.9 60.3 3.3 60.4 1.5 length (23.3) (1.2) (23.8) (1.1) (24.2) (1.1) (23.7) (1.1) (23.7) (1.3) (23.8) (0.6) Seat breadth 35.3 2.8 37.8 2.3 - 35.3 2.5 37.0 3.3 - - (13.9) (1.1) (14.9) (0.9) - (13.9) (1.0) (14.6) (1.3) - - Elbow-elbow 42.0 Leb - - - - - - breadth (16.5) (1.8) - - - - - - Elbow rest height 24.1 3.0 25.2 2.6 - - 23.5 2.8 - - (9.5) (1.2) (9.9) (1.0) - (9.3) (1.1) - - Buttock-popliteal 49.3 3.0 50.4 2.6 - - 49.4 2.7 - - - - length (19.4) (1.2) (19.8) (1.0) - - (19.4) (1.1) - - - - 1 pata given in kilograms and centimeters with pounds and inches in parentheses; age in years. 2 Stoudt et al. 1965. 3 Unpublished data. 4 Martin et al. 1975. 5 Long and Churchill 1968. 3 I § Damon and McFarland 1955. ORIGINAL PAGE POOR QUALITY 7 Roth 1968. OF TABLE 18 1 SELECTED DIMENSIONS OF DIFFERENT VOCATIONAL-PROFESSIONAL GROUPS OF U.S. FEMALES Variable Age Weight ( Height Biacromial breadth Biceps circumference Chest circumference Waist circumference Sitting ht. (erect) Knee ht. (sitting) Popliteal height Thigh clearance height Buttock-knee height Buttock-popliteal length Seat breadth (hip) Elbow=elbow breadth Elbow rest height 1 pata given in kilograms and centimeters with pounds and inches in paren- theses. H 2 S re Mean 42.6 64.7 142.6) 160.3 (63.1) 35.3 (13.9) 28.7 (11.3) 88.1. (34.7) 76.7 (30.2) 8446 (33.3) 49.8 (19.6) 39.6 (15.6) 13.7 ( 5.4) 56.9 (22.4) 48.0 (18.9) 36.6 (14.4) 38.9 (15.3 23.1 (9.1) 2 Stoudt et al. 1965. 3 Snow et al. 1975. % Clauser et al. 1972. SeDe 15.4 13.8 (30.4) 6.6 (2.6) 2.0 (0.8) 4.3 (1.7) 8.1 (3.2) 11.9 (4.7) 3.5 (1.4) 2.8 (1.1) 2.5 (1.0) 1.8 (0.7) 3.0 (1.2) 3.0 (1.2) 3.8 (1.5) 5.3 (2.1) 2.8 (1.1) 57.5 (22.6) 48.2 (19.0) 36.8 (14.5) 33.0 (13.0) 24.1 ( 9.5) ORIGINAL PAGE 1g OF POOR Quarry 2.5 (1.0) 1.8 0.7) 2.3 (0.9) 2.5 (1.0) '68 . WAF Mean 23.4 57.7 (127.2) 162.1 (63.8) 35.8 (14.1) 25.6 (10.1) 89.7 (35.3) 67.2 (26.5) 85.6 (33.7) Te” 41.0 (16.1) 12.4 ( 4.9) 57.4 (22.6) 47.7 (18.8) 33.7 (13.3) 22.7 ( 8.9) S.De 6.4 2.5 (1.0) II-51 reach peak height velocity earlier in adolescence and each decade sees them reach puberty four to five months earlier than the last (Tanner, 1962). Growth tends to be completed at an earlier age today than it was at the turn of the century.* This type of human variation, occurring from generation to generation over time is usually referred to as secular change by anthropologists. Whether the effect results from better nutrition, improved health care or some biological selection process has not been determined and is, in any case, of no practical significance to design engineers who need to know how much rather than why. The lengthy lead time required for the design and production of spacecraft, aircraft and other sophisticated devices is such that the persons who will eventually use them are, for the most part, only children when the design specifications are fixed. It is of more than casual interest, therefore, to anticipate the dimensions of physical size and body proportion which will exist at a given point in the future. Records for height and weight for many of the nations of Western Europe go back as far as 200 years ago. Most of the early data was collected on military recruits and is therefore for young adult men only. Udjus (1964) has reviewed stature changes in Norwegian recruits over the past 200 years and Harbeck (1960) has accumulated stature data for a number of European countries and Japan extending back to the first half of the 19th century. The data from both sources are presented in Figure 21 which illustrates that the trend over time, although somewhat variable, has been for young adult men to become taller. The rate of increase in stature since 1900 in the European nations surveyed has ranged from .87 em (.34 inches) to 1.29 cm (+51 inches) per decade in France and Switzerland respectively. The demonstration of secular change in stature in the U.S. population, particularly for men, must also rely on military data. Height and weight data were collected on Union army personnel during the Civil War (Baxter, 1875; Gould, 1869). Since that time, military surveys of increasing complex- ity and accuracy have been conducted with increasing frequency. The mean stature and weight of U.S. soldiers at four points in time are listed in Table 19. The data indicate that there was little change in stature in the young American male between 1863 and 1919. In fact, data for recruits between 1906 and 1915 indicate that men were slightly shorter at that time than they were in the 1860's. Davenport (1921) suggests that this apparent reversal in the trend to increase in stature over time resulted from the influx of shorter Southern European immigrants into the U.S. population during the intervening period. Whether Davenport's suggestion is valid or not, it serves to point out the dangers in comparing temporally and technically disjointed ‘data. Measurement techniques change, measurement personnel are different, military selection pressures vary and transient environmental factors affect- ing growth and development may be involved in influencing the data obtained at any given time. All these variables notwithstanding, the mean stature values for U.S. males since 1860 have shown a substantial increase, particu- *A recent publication of the National Center for Health Statistics (Hamill et al. 1976) concludes that the secular growth trend appears to have stopped in American children born after 1955-56. II-52 TABLE 19 MEAN STATURE, WEIGHT AND AGE OF U.S. ARMY SOLDIERS* Stature Weight Age Northern Civil War Recruits (1863) 171.45 (67.5) 61.68 (136.0) - Northern Civil War Veterans (1865) 171.96 (67.7) 63.04 (139.0) -— World War I Veterans (1919) 171.45 (67.5) 64.17 (141.5) - World War II Veterans (1942) 173.74 (68.4) 70.20 (154.8) 22.2 UsSe Army (1966) 174.50 (68.7) 72.15 (159.1) 24.3 *Data given in centimeters and kilograms with inches and pounds in ‘parentheses, TABLE 20 AVERAGE VALUES FOR SELECTED BODY MEASUREMENTS OF U.S. FEMALES BORN 1903 to 1933! Year of birth 1903 - 42 1927 1933 ° Age 36 yrs. 41 yrse 40 yrs. Weight 60.5 63.3 63.7 (133.5) (139.5) (140.4) Height 160.5 163.1 163.6 (63.2) (64.2) (64.4) Hip Circumference 98.6 98.6 100.1 (38.8) (38.8) (39.4) Waist Circumference 74.2 74.7 764 (29.2) (29.4) (30.1) Mid-Thigh Circumference 49.8 50.6 - (19.6) (19.9) - Knee Circumference 35.6 36.6 37.1 (14.0) (14.4) (14.6) Calf Circumference 34,3 34.5 35.1 (13.5) (13.6) (13.8) Ankle Circumference 21.1 21.3 21.6 ( 8.3) ( 8.4) ( 8.5) Waist Height 102.0 - 102.9 (40.2) - (40.5) Crotch Height 72.4 - 76.5 (28.5) - (30.1) Foot Length - 24.1 24.6 - ( 9.5) ( 9.7) ‘Data given in centimeters and kilograms with inches and pounds in parentheses. ’Data from O'Brien (1941). *Data from Cullipher and Delate (1974). II-53 1784 1764 7 Norway * Bavaria - * Germany # Sweden O Denmark 174 ® France O Netherlands - A Switzerland © Japan 1724 1704 HEIGHT (cm) L$ q \ 166+ 1644 1624 1604 158 156dmy y v y r v r . 1240 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 YEAR Figure 21. Secular increase in stature of young European and Japanese males: 1840-1960. After: Udjus (1964), and Harbeck (1960). II-54 196 larly since the 1900's, and it is safe to assume that the trend is a real rather than artifactual one. Stature data for major U.Se surveys (male) are plotted in Figure 22. The rate of increase in stature since 1920 is nearly 1.0 ecm (.4 in.) per decade, a finding which agrees fairly well with the European data. Because most large surveys have historically been associated with the military, and because women were never drafted and rarely recruited until World War II, long term secular trends for women are more difficult to establish. Several dimensions obtained on fairly large and reasonably comparable samples of adult U.S. women are listed in Table 20. The survey covered a birth year period of 42 years (1903-1945) corresponding with the period during which U.S. men showed the most rapid increase in stature. The general trend is for today's women to be slightly larger for the dimen- sions listed, when women of the same age are compared. Whatever the trend, the secular changes in body size are shown by the military surveys to be significant in systems and equipment design. As Kennedy (1972) noted, the USAF flying personnel measured in 1967 differed in a number of important respects from those measured in 1950, and, as a result, the '"...Seat Reference Point to the cockpit eye line, as specified in MIL-STD-1333 (Cockpit Geometry, Department of Defense, 1969a), and MIL- STD-33574,5, and 6 (Basic Cockpit Dimensions, Department of Defense, 1969 b, ¢, d) was increased by 0.5 inches, from 31.0 inches to 31.5 inches. Such dimensions as sitting height, buttock-knee length, and knee height, sitting, to name just a few, are extremely critical in determining the basic vertical and fore-and-aft ejection clearance dimensions in the aircraft cockpit." In summary, it is essential to recognize that body size, at least of military populations, is in a dynamic state, and that body size changes must be documented continuously if systems and equipment requiring long lead times are to be designed effectively. Projection of Future Body Size The chief application of data on secular changes is, of course, in predicting the size of a future design population. As noted above, the long lead time required for designing and building complex machines necessitates predicting size change in the human operator well in advance. Recognizing the importance of secular size variation and the consequences of ignoring such change, NASA recently asked the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (AMRL) at Wright Patterson Air Force Base to conduct a study to make predic- tions of body size through 1985. The initial assumption of the AMRL study was that it could best be done by predicting the size of USAF pilots who will be in their mid-thirties in 1985 and accepting these predictions as being suitable for astronauts as well. Data from a half dozen past anthropometric surveys of flying person- nel were analyzed to establish a trend for the stature and weight predictions while values for close to 200 additional dimensions were estimated by combin- ing the height/weight data with appropriate regression equations. (For more complete data on projected anthropometry of 1985 flying personnel, see Chapter III, Appendix B). II-55 96-11 MEAN STATURE (cm) (in.) 178+ - 70 . Navy Fliers (©) iv Force © Fliers 7 1774 id 176 Air Force © / Navy Enlisted - 69 / Air Force Trainees 1754 / Marines (J ® Army Helio. Army 174 J wT 1734 / - 62 / Civil War / 172+ ® oO —— —— — — —~—— iva © 1714 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 YEAR OF MEASUREMENT Figure 22, Secular trend in stature for young U.S. males: 1870-1980. While analysis of past trends is a reasonable way for determining the dimensions of future astronauts, the process is both time-consuming and fraught with all the pitfalls that usually attend the manipulation of complex data. It could be pointed out, for example, that the rate of human "growth! since the turn of the century is not expected to continue indefin- itely and, as noted above, there is some evidence that the trend toward earlier maturity and increased adult size is leveling off (Hamill et al. 1976) . One simple strategy, however, is available for predicting stature of air and space crews of the near future. In estimating astronaut statures for a decade hence, it can be assumed that the concern is with men who will be at least in their early and mid-thirties at that time, if not older. In a sense, it is not necessary to estimate these men's statures; one can go out and measure them. Men with appropriate birth years are already parti- cipating in USAF pilot and navigator training and other advanced military and space programs and can be measured at any given moment in time. In 1973 such a survey was carried out at two training bases. Statures and other data were quickly obtained for about 500 men, 23 to 27 years old, men, that is, with full growth who would be from 30 to 34 in 1980 and from 35 to 39 in 1985, Summary Invariably, a superior product will result if sizing factors related to the human operator are injected early in the design process. At present, anthropometric data are by far the best source of sizing information avail- able to the designer. Once the relevant sizing factors and tHe target design population have been identified, the designer must ascertain whether reli- able and recent anthropometric data are available for that population (See Volume II). If such data are available, the designer, armed with some under- standing of statistical forms, must apply them knowledgeably to his problem. If such data are not available and an immediate survey of the population cannot be performed, the designer must adjust available data according to the types of size variability described in this chapter. While the various categories of variation dealt with here have been treated as though they were of equal importance, it must, of course, be remembered that each design problem is unique. Not all sources of human body size variability are equally relevant to every design task but none of them should be dismissed without careful consideration. Although we have attempted to cover major areas of human size varia- bility relevant to NASA designers, it is not possible in one chapter to cover exhaustively all sources of such variation. Thus it will be necessary from time to time for the design engineer to be innovative in the applica- tion of body size data. On occasion the designer will have to interpolate II-57 and extrapolate data provided here as well as in other chapters and volumes of this data book. It has been the aim of this chapter to provide the design engineer with a sufficient background to stimulate greater awareness of the sources of body size variability and to guide his approach to the solu- tions of design problems. In the design of space flight hardware and equip- ment, consideration of human factors is not just important--it may be criti- cal. II-58 REFERENCES Agostoni, Emilio, and Jere Mead 1964. "Statics of the Respiratory System," Handbook of Physiology, American Physiological Soc. (Washington, D.C.), Vol. 1, sec. 3, pp. 387-409. Alexander, Milton, and Charles E. Clauser 1965. The Anthropology of Common Working Positions. AMRL-TR-65-73, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Alexander, Milton, John W. Garrett, and Michael P. Flannery 1969. Anthropometric Dimensions of Air Force Pressure-Suited Personnel for Workspace and Design Criteria. Final Report, AMRL-IR-69-0, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Alexander, Milton, Lloyd L. Laubach, and John T. McConville 1976. Effect of Encumbering Clothing, Personal Protective Equipment and Restraints on Body Size and Arm Reach Capability of USAF Aircrewmern. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association, May 1, 1976, Bal Harbour, Fla. Baxter, J. H. 1875. Statistics = Medical and Anthropological of the Provost-Marshal-General's Bureau Derived From Records of the Examination for Military Service in the Armies of the United States During the Late War of Rebellion of Over a Million Recruits, Drafted Men, Substitutes, and Enrolled Men. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. : Bolton, C. B., M. Kenwavd, R. E. Simpson, and G. M. Turner 1973. An Anthropometric Survey of 2000 Royal Air Force Aircrew, 1970/71. TR-73 , Royal Aiccraft Establishment, Ministry of Defense, Farnborough, Hants, England. (Also, AGARDograph No. 181, Dec. 1974.) Brozek, J., F. Grande,» H. L. Taylor, J. T. Anderson, et al. 1957. "Changes in Body Weight and Body Dimensions in Men Performing Work on a Low Calorie Carbohydrate Diet," J. Appl. Physiol., 10(3):412-420. Clauser, Charles E., and H. T. E. Hertzberg 1964. "Size and Motion," Bioastronautics Dai a Book, Paul Webb, ed., NASA SP-3006, pp. 241- 271. Clauser, Charles E., et al. 1972. Anthropometry of Air Force Women. AMRL-TR-70-5, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright- Patterson AlLr Force Base, Ohio. Damon, Albert 1964. “Notes on Anthropometric Technique: I. Stature Against a Wall and Standing Free," Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 22:73- 78. II-59 Damon, A., and R. A. McFarland 1955. "The Physique of Bus and Truck Drivers: With a Review of Occupational Anthropometry," Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 13(4):711-742. Damon, Albert, Howard W. Stoudt, and Ross A. McFarland 1966. The Human Body in Equipment Design, Harvard University Press (Cambridge, Mass. ). Davenport, Charles B. 1921. Statistics: Army Anthropology. Vol. 15, Part One, Medical Dept. U.S. Army, 1in the World War, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. DePuky, P. 1935. "Physiological Oscillation of the Length of the Body," Acta. Orthop. Scand., 6:338-347. Dobzhansky, Theodosius 1963. Mankind Evolving, Yale University Press (New Haven, Conmn.). Emanuel, Irvin, and James T. Barter 1957. Linear Distance Changes over Body Joints. WADC-TR-56-364, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Fry, Edward I., and Edmund Churchill 1956. Bodily Dimensions of the Older Pilot. AMRL-TR-56-459, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Garrow, John Stuart 1974. Energy Balance and Obesity in Man, American Elsevier Pub. Co. (New York). Gould, Benjamin A. 1869. Investigations in the Military and Anthropolog- ical Conditions Statistics of American Soldiers, Hurd and Houghton (Cambridge). Gsell, O. R. 1967. "Longitudinal Gerontological Research Over 10 Years," Geront. Clin., 9:67-80. Hamill, P. V. V., T. A. Drizo, C. L. Johnson, R. B. Reed, and A. F. Roche 1976. NCHS Growth Charts, 1976. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Health Examination Survey Data, HRA 76-1120, Vol. 25, No. 3, supplement, June 22, 1976. National Center for Health Statistics, HEW, Public Health Resources Administration, Rockville, Md. Hertzberg, H. T. E. 1972. "Engineering Anthropology," Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, revised edition, Harold P. Van Cott and Robert G. Kinkade, eds. , American Institute for Research (Washington, D.C.), pp. 467-484. \ Hooton, E. A., and C. W. Dupertuis 1951. "Age Changes and Selective Survival in Irish Males." Studies in Physical Anthropology No. 2, American Association of Physical Anthropologists and the Wenner-— Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Edwards Bros., Inc. (Ann Arbor, Mich.). II-60 Ivanovsky, Alexis 1923. "Physical Modifications of the Population of Russia Under Famine," Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., VI(4):331-353. Kennedy, Kenneth W. 1973. "Anthropometry and Kinematics in Crew Station Design," Crew System Design, Keneth D. Cross and James J. McGrath, eds., Anacapa Sciences Inc. (NOOO 14-72-C-0105) (Santa Barbara), pp. 67-79. Khosla, T., and W. Z. Billewicz 1967. "Measurement of Change of Body Weight," Brit. J. Nutrit., 18:227-239. Laubach, Lloyd L., and John T. McConville 1967. "Notes on Anthropomet- ric Technique: Anthropometric Measurements —- Right and Left Sides," Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 26(3):367-370. Martin, J. I., R. Sabeh, L. L. Driver, T. D. Lowe, R. W. Hintze, and P. A. C. Peters 1975. Anthropometry of Law Enforcement Officers. TR-442, Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San Diego, Cal. 92152. Munipov, V. M., V. P. Zinchenko, B. F. Lomov, P. Y. Shlayen, et al. 1973. Ergonomics: Principles and Recommendations, No. 1 (1970). All Union Scientific Research Institute for Aesthetic Styling im Engineering (Moscow), NASA-TT-F-716. O'Brien, Ruth, and William C. Shelton 1941. Women's Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 454, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Peters, Von T. 1969. "Anthropometrische und Physiologische Grundlagen zur Gestaltung von Buroarbeitssitzen," Ergonomics, 12(2):162-170. Roth, E. M. 1968. “Anthropometry and temporo-spatial environment,' Com- pendium of Human Responses to the Aerospace Environment, Vol. III, sec. 16, NASA CR-1205. Sims, E. A., R. F. Goldman, C. M. Gluck, E. S. Horton, P. C. Kelleher, and J. R. Elkinton 1968. "Experimental Obesity in Man," Trans. Assoc. Amer. Physicians, LXXXI:153-170. Snow, C. C., H. M. Reynolds, and M. A. Allgood 1975. Anthropometry of Airline Stewardesses, Report No. FAA-AM-75-2, Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Medicine, Civil Aeromedical Institute, Oklahoma City, Okla. 73125. Stoudt, Howard W., Albert Damon, Ross A. McFarland, and Jean Roberts 1965. Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions of Adults, United States 1960-1962. Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 =~ Series 11, No. 8, Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, Washington, D.C. Tanner, James M. 1962. Growth at Adolescence, 2nd ed., Blackwell Scien- tific Publications (Oxford, England). II-61 Udjus,Ludvig G. 1964. Anthropometrical Changes in Norwegian Men in the Twentieth Centur Norwegian Monographs on Medical Science, “The Anatomical Tnstitute Anthropological Dept., University of Oslo (Norway) and the Armed Forces Medical Services, Universtets for laget. Von Harbeck, Major Rudolf 1960. '"Die Korpergrossen 20 Jahriger Manner," Wehrdienst and Gesundheit, Abhandlungen aus Wehrmedizin, Wehrpharmazia, un Wehrveterinaerwesen, 1:308-345, Yanagisawa, Sumiko 1974. About Japanese Physique and Body Girth, Dept. of Home Economics. Ochanomizu Institute, Women's University, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo. Yokohori, E. 1972. Anthropometry of JASDF Personnel and Its Application for Human Engineering. Aeromedical Laboratory, Japanese Air Self Defense Force, Tachikawa Air Base, Tokyo. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous 1973. Etude Anthropometrique des Personnels Militaires des Armees (in French), Anthropoloque Appliquees, 45 rue des Saints- Peres, Paris 6e, France. Churchill, Edmund, John T. McConville, Lloyd L. Laubach, and Robert M. White 1971. Anthropometry of U.S. Army Aviators - 1970. TR- 72-52-CE, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Mass. Grunhofer, H. J., and G. Kroh, eds., 1968. A Review of Anthropometric Data of German Air Force and United States Air Force Flying Personnel 1967-1968. AGARDograph No. 205, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, North Atlantic Treaty Organi- zation, Neuilly sur Seine, France. Hertzberg, H. T. E., Edmund Churchill, C. W. Dupertuis, Robert M. White, and Albert Damon 1963. Anthropometric Survey of Turkey, Greece, and Italy, NATO AGARDograph 73, The MacMillan Co. (New York). Ingelmark, B. E., and Thord Lewin 1968. "Anthropometrical Studies on Swedish Women," Acta Morphologica, 3(2):145-178. Karpinos, Bernard D. 1958. "Height and Weight of Selective Service . Registrants Processed for Military Service During World War II," Human Biology, 30(4):292-321. Karpinos, Bernard D. 1961. 'Current Height and Weight of Youths of Military Age," Human Biology, 33(4):335-354. Kemsley, W. F. F. 1957. Women's Measurements and Sizes, Cheltenham Press Ltd. (Cheltenham, England). Simons, John C. 1964. "An Introduction to Surface-Free Behavior," Ergonomics, 7:22-36. 11-62 ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES The following documents are not readily available because of limited distribution (unpublished or preliminary data). However, copies/information may be obtained by contacting the author/source. Cullipher, James H., and Edward J. Delate 1974. A New Pantyhose Sizing System Based on Five Measurements of the Woman's Lower Body. Tex- tile Fibers Dept., E. L. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, Del. Long, Lynda, and Edmund Churchill 1968. Anthropometry of USAF Basic Trainees - Contrasts of Several Subgroups. Paper prepared for the 1968 meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Unpublished data, Webb Associates. NASA Astronaut Anthropometric Data - 1976. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Tex. NASA Habitability Handbook 1971. Vol. I., Mobility and Restraint, MSC 03909, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Tex. U.S. Air Force Anthropometric Survey =- 1965. Anthropology Branch, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. U.S. Air Force Anthropometric Survey - 1967. Anthropology Branch, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Unpublished data. White, Robert M., and Edmund Churchill 1966. The Body Size of Soldiers: U.S. Army Anthropometry = 1966. TR-72-51-CE, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Mass. II-63 . . ad 1 \ - ' i - te | : i | a on Laue a | . hr Ar etm ia i ) oo | “tin re TC EY oo ) . nt ingen EE - . LE BENELLI STR a Lelie ro ER i a N79-11737% CHAPTER III ANTHROPOMETRY John T. McConville and Lloyd L. Laubach Anthropology Research Project Webb Associates \ Anthropometry, the practice of measuring the parts and proportions of the human body, encompasses a variety of techniques for determining an almost limitless number of dimensions. Each user of anthropometric data has his own list of dimensions that he considers essential for his purposes. Unfortunately, the 1list of one user seldom coincides with the list pre- ferred by another. As a consequence, the literature of anthropometry con- tains many tabulations of data that are unique to a particular investigation, survey or design situation. At the same time, as the number of measured variables grows it becomes increasingly difficult to tabulate them in any usable fashion. In 1942 the young Army Air Force anthropology group included 55 measurements in its anthropometric survey of the body size of aircrewmen (Randall et al. 1946). In the next major USAF survey, conducted in 1950, the number of measurements had grown to 132 (Hertzberg et al. 1954), and in the most recent such survey, conducted in 1967, the number of variables had reached a total of 190 {Churchill et al. 1977). When the anthropometric data available on worldwide populations is compiled, with each survey contri- buting a few unique dimensions, the task of collation and presentation becomes formidable. In Volume II of this book we have collected and tabulated the anthro- pometric data from every survey available to us, making it probably as comprehensive a reference book as has ever been compiled on the subject. A condensed and summarized version of this material appears in this chapter. Data on 59 variables, selected for their relevance to NASA design problems, are tabulated for 12 U.S. and foreign populations which represent countries involved in the space shuttle program (see Table 1). Appendix B contains predicted body-size dimensions for the Us.S. astronaut population of 1985. Data includes estimated measurements of®the same 59 dimensions for average, 5th and 95th percentile men and women based on a projection of data from military surveys conducted in the past several decades. ' As a further aid to NASA engineers involved in crew station design, Appendix C describes the most up-to-date two-dimensional drawing board manikins currently available and provides information on how to obtain plans for fabricating the models.* Actual patterns for simplified versions * USAF 2-D manikins developed by Kenneth W. Kennedy, Aerospace Medical Re- search Laboratories, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 111-1 2-111 UeSeAoFe - Females Weight Stature Acromial Height (Shoulder Height) Waist Height Crotch Height Trochanteric Height Tibiale Height Call Height Ankle Helght Radiale Height (Elbow Height) Stylion Helght (Wrist Helght) Sitting Height Eye Height, Sitting Midshoulder Height, Sitting Elbow Rest Height, Sitting Knec Height, Sitting Popliteal Height, Sitting Shoulder-Elbow Length Forearm-Hand Length Buttock-Popliteal Length Buttock-Knee Length Thumb-Tip Reach Thigh Clearance Height, Sitting Biacromial Breadth Bideltoid Breadth (Shoulder Breadth) Hip Breadth, Sitting Chest (Bust) Depth Chest (Bust) Breadth Hip Breadth, Standing Neck Circumicrence Shoulder Circumference Chest (Bust) Circumference Waist Clircumierence Hip Circumlerence, Maximum Upper Thigh Circumference Knee Circumference Calf Circumlerence Arm Ciicumicrence at Scye Bicep: Circumference, Flexed Biceps Circumference, Relaxed Forcarm Clrcumlerence, Plexed Wrist Circumference Vertical Trunk Circumference Sleeve Length Waist Front Length Walst Back Length Shoulder Lenjth Interscye Head Length deh Head Circumference Mand Length Hand Breadth Hand Circumference EE 'oot Bre Yoot Circumference Face Length Face Bresdth 1968 » 2 2 2 2 Mid 20 2 3x efx x 3 3 IM XX 2 Xx Mix Xx x x >» x» ie 3 3 3 Xie > IT xi TABLE | A SUMMARY OF THE ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA AVAILABLE FOR TWELVE SAMPLE POPULATIONS UsSeAe HEW Cly Females 1960-62 British Civ. Females 1957 x x x x >» x x x x x Swedish Civ. Temales 1968 x x >» 2 > 2x x Japenese Civ. Females 1967- 68 & 1972-73 x xX x 2 Mix Xx x x UeSeAele Fliers NASA Astro- nauts British Fliers 1967 Detes Vary 1970-71 Mie x2 2 x 2 2 Ide 2 2 2 xi > x 32 3¢ 3 MEE 3 3 3 MPT 3 3 IE 322 2 XM GI 3 2 2 JP 3X 2 3 MII 2 2 2 Xd Xx XM Xx Xx 2 Mix 3x 2 x x 2 2 2 | > > > | > > Xx X|X Xx > Mix > > x | x x 2 2 2 x » x Italien Militery 1960 LEER LEE RR ER EBR_CEERER LERERR CERRER CERRRE. LERRER. I French 197) ny 8 dg ER] German Fliers Alr Torce 1973 fe 26 2 2 > LE _RALE RE ERI BEER PEER R DEEEF-CRF SEPT IEE] 3 3 2 a i M2 a x a a i Japenese Civ. 1967-68 1972-7) MMi x Mx td of these manikins are provided in the Appendix for the designer who does not require the full capabilities of the more complicated USAF 2-D manikin. Detailed instructions are given to enable the user to trace, cut out and assemble serviceable quarter-scale 5th, 50th and 95th percentile manikins. Measurement Techniques It is difficult to document the numerous subtle differences in the techniques of measurement, landmark definition or interpretation inherent in data from such a wide variety of sources as is presented here. Although in many instances these differences are of little practical significance, in some cases they may be important to the design engineer. Certainly it is essential that he be aware that such variations exist when he compares anthropometric data from different sources. Traditionally in the United States, anthropometric studies have employed a set of instruments like those shown in Figure l. The anthropo- meter (A and B), the basic tool of the anthropometrist, is used to measure all linear dimensions. The detached upper half (A) forms a beam caliper to measure breadths, depths and segment lengths. The smaller sliding (C) and spreading (D) calipers are used primarily to measure dimensions of the head, face, hands and feet. The steel tape (E) is used for body circum- ferences ’ Despite periodic attempts to develop worldwide standardization of anthropometric procedures (Papillault, 1906; Stewart, 1947; Hertzberg, 1968; Tanner et al. 1969) other instruments and techniques are sometimes used in other countries. During World War II Morant and Gilson (1945) developed an anthropometric procedure in England which is still widely used by British military establishments in body size surveys and by many of the military groups in British Commonwealth countries. In the most recent anthropometric survey of RAF aircrew (Bolton et al. 1973), a modified Morant rig was used to make the measurements. In order to compare techniques, four measurements were retaken using the instruments and methods normally employed by USAF anthropometrists. The data, analyzed and reported by Turner (1974), indicate that the differences are statistically significant for three of the four measurements (stature, sitting height and bideltoid breadth) and not significant for buttock-knee length, Comparisons are illustrated in Table 2. Turner concluded, however, . that the magnitude of the individual differences between values obtained by the two techniques were on the level of experimental error, that is, equivalent to the variation in results obtained by repeated measurements of the same subject and thus, for all practical purposes, there were no differences between the four measurements studied. III-3 PAGE IS QUALITY ORIGINAL OR BOOR *sSjusumIjlsu T otajsuod ’ oxy3juy “1 2anbta III-4 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF UK AND USAF MEASURING TECHNIQUES* Dimension IK USAF A Significance A% Ir Stature 1774.4 1770.0 -4.4 p<0.050 0.25 .996 Sitting height 936.0 929.6 -6.4 p<0.001 0.68 .956 Buttock-knee length 607.6 607.3 =-0.3 NS 0.05 .930 Bideltoid breadth 465.8 469.8 4.0 p<0.001 0.86 .909 #*Mean values in mm. Not all such comparisons, however, result in such comforting conclu- sions. Damon (1964) described the differences between two standard methods of measuring adult stature. In one, the subject stands against a wall and is measured with a right-angled device; in the other, he is measured free- standing, with an anthropometer. The differences in technique gave mean results that ranged from 0.2 to 0.8 inches for four groups of men measured under various conditions, with the wall measurement giving the average greater stature. A number of new methods, aimed at measuring man in three dimensions, are in various stages of development and show much promise for future anthro- pometric studies. Andrometry is a photographic technique for obtaining three-dimensional coordinates of bodily feature for purposes of accurately determining the size and location of the human operator's anatomy in three- dimensional space (Chaffee 1961). In stereophotogrammetry two or more cameras are used to provide an image from which can be obtained accurate measures of three-dimensional size and shape. While both these methods are well advanced in the experimental stages, no body of anthropometric data has yet resulted. Various other forms of stereometry involving ultrasonics, infra red imagery and laser beams have been conceived for recording precise images for anthropometric uses but as yet these are untried. While none of the data reported in this book were obtained by any of the three-dimensional techniques described above, much of it was generated by anthropometrists in different times and places using variations of the classic methods. When we found serious discrepancies resulting from differ- ences in technique, we either re-assigned data to another variable which we felt more accurately described the measurement, or deleted the data altogether if we found it incomprehensible. We do not, however, claim that all the remaining data in these volumes are absolutely comparable. The user must make the judgement, within the framework of a particular design problem, about whether differences in instruments, measuring techniques or landmarks will be of practical significance. If small differences will affect his results, it is incumbent upon the user to consult the original survey and make his own assessment or to refer to the excellent two-volume III-5 study, A Collation of Anthropometry by Garrett and Kennedy (1971), in which anthropometric data from some 47 sources have been reviewed and collated to determine the degree of equivalence in measurement techniques. Variations in positioning subjects is another potential source of artifactual variance in anthropometric measurements. In many studies, subject posture has been standardized to assure that the variation found in body size within a group is truly that associated with body size and not a com- pounding of this variance by differences in body stance. For the measurements made on the body standing erect, the subject's body weight is evenly distributed on both feet, heels together as closely as possible, legs and torso straight without stiffness and head erect with the line of vision parallel to the floor. The arms hang straight but loosely at the sides with the palms alongside but not touching the thighs. This posture is similar to the position of military attention but without the stiffness or bracing often associated with it. To assume the standard posture in sitting erect, the subject sits on a cushionless flat surface, feet on an adjustable footrest so that the knees are flexed to 90 degrees, the long axis of the thighs parallel. The trunk is erect without stiffness and the head is also erect with the path of wvision parallel to the plane of the floor. The upper arms are hanging loosely at the sides with elbows flexed at 90 degrees while forearms and hands are held at right angles to the body. Once more, the user is cautioned to consult the original source if comparative data suggests that techniques have not been comparable and if the resulting differences will be significant in the design. The anthropometric data assembled here and in Volume II are for the nude or lightly clothed body in a standardized posture. Increments for clothing and variations in body posture must be estimated or ascertained. A number of approximations for various clothing and personal protective equipment assemblages have been detailed in Chapter II. Every possible combination of body covering has not, of course, been studied with regard to its effect on body sizing and it rests with the designer either to ascer- tain what these increments will be for a particular design situation or to select the best available approximation from the incremental data given in Chapter II. The Data The 59 dimensions tabulated on the following data pages are believed to be those most relevant to current design problems and the populations se- lected for inclusion are judged to be those most representative of persons likely to participate in shuttle missions. The complete references to the selected sample populations are listed below: III-6 USAF Women: UeSe HEW Civ: (Men & Women) British Civ: (Women) Swedish Civ: (Women) Japanese Civ: (Men & Women) USAF Flying Personnel: (Men) NASA Astro- nauts: (Men) RAF Flying Personnel: (Male) ates, Clauser, Charles E., Pearl E. Tucker, John T. McConville, E. Churchill, Lloyd L. Laubach, and Joan A. Reardon. 1972. AMRL-TR-70-5, Anthropometry of Air Force Women, Aerospace Me- dical Research Laboratories, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Stoudt, Howard W., Albert Damon, Ross McFarland, and Jean Roberts. 1965. Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions of Adults, Washington, DeC.: National Center for Health Sta- tistics, Series 11, Number 8, U.Se. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Stoudt, Howard W., Albert Damon, Ross A. McFarland, and Jean Roberts. 1970, Skinfolds, Body Girths, Biacromial Diameter, and Selected Anthropometric Indices of Adults, Washington, DeCe: National Center for Health Statistics, Series 11, Num=- ber 35, Uo.Se. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Kemsley, W. Fo F. 1957. Women's Measurements and Sizes. Chel- tenham Press Ltd., Cheltenham, England. Ingelmark, B. E., and Thord Lewin. 1968. '"Anthropometrical Studies on Swedish Women," Acta Morphologica, Vol. VII, No. 2, pp. 145-178. Yanagisawa, Sumiko. 1974. About Japanese Physique and Body Girth (in Japanese), Tokyo, Japan: Department of Home Econ- . omics, Ochanomizu Institute, Women's University, Bunkyo=-Ku. Unpublished United States Air Force Systems Command Anthropo- metric Data of Flying Personnel, furnished to Webb Associates Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio by the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1967. Unpublished National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Astronaut Anthropometric Data, furnished to Webb Associ- Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio by John T. Jackson, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Man-Machine Engineering Sec=- tion, Houston, Texas, 1976. Roth, E. M., "Anthropometry and Temporo-Spatial Environment," Volume III, Section 16 in Compendium of Human Responses to the Aerospace Environment. 1968. Washington, De.Ce: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA CR-1205(III). Bolton, C. B., M. Kenward, R. E. Simpson, and G. M. Turner. 1973. An Anthropometric Survey of 2000 Roval Air Force Air- crew, 1970/1971, Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Re- port 73083, Procurement Executive, Ministry of Defense, Farn- borough, Hants, England. III-7 Italian Mili- Hertzberg, H. T. E., Edmund Churchill, C. Wesley Dupertuis, tary: Robert M. White, and Albert Damon. 1963. Anthropometric Sur- (Men) vey of Turkev, Greece and Italy, New York: The Macmillan Company. French Fliers: Anonymous. 1973. Etude Anthropometrique des Personnels Mili- (Men) taires des Armees (French text). Anthropologie Appliquee, 45 rue des Saints-Peres, Paris 6e, France. German Air Grunhofer, H. J., and G. Kroh (eds.). 1975. A Review of An- Force: thropometric Data of German Air Force and United States Air (Men) Force Flving Personnel 1967-1968, AGARDograph No. 205, Advi- sory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Neuilly sur Seine, France. It should be noted that the publication date of the reference does not always coincide with the survey date (e.g., the anthropometric data on USAF women were measured during the spring and summer months of 1968, but the report was published in 1970). When we were able to ascertain the survey date, it has been included on each individual data page. It will readily become apparent to the user of the anthropometric data that we do not have information on every anthropometric dimension for each of our selected 12 samples. As has been noted, every survey is planned around a somewhat different set of dimensions, and seldom if ever do such lists coincide. Table 1 summarizes the anthropometric data available for the sample populations. On each of the 59 data pages, the text supplies the name of the dimen- sion, an illustrative sketch, a brief description of the measurement and a guide to its possible applications. Data tabulated for each dimension in- clude: the date of the study, the sample size, the age range of the sample, and the mean, standard deviation and 5th and 95th percentils values in both centimeters and inches for that dimension. Measurement of the body requires the use of landmarks and anatomical terminology that may not be familiar to the user of this handbook. A glossary of such terms has, therefore, been included as Appendix A to this chapter. The reader is referred to Volume II for data on a much expanded list of dimensions and populations. Drawings in the following section are illustrative; where there ap- pears to be any discrepancy between the drawing and the measurement defini- tion the written definition should be considered the more accurate, TI1I-8 WEIGHT Definition: Nude body weight as measured on phy- sician's scales. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: structural support for seats, platforms, couches, and body-restraint systems and harness rigging, Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics® Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Shile 95%ile FEMALES : USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 57.73 7.52 46.4 70.9 (127.27) (16.58) (102.3) (156.3) U.S. HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 62.38] 14.26 46.0 80.4 Civ. (137.52) (31.44) (101.4) (197.1) British 1957 4989 18-55+ 60.40 | 10.00 46.6 704 Civ. (133.15) (22.05) (102.7) (175.0) Swedish Civ. 1968 210 20-49 59.26 6.65 48.3 70.2 (130.64) (14.66) (106.5) (154.8) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 51.30 7.00 39.8 62.8 Civ. 1972-73 (113.09) (15.43) (87.7)] (138.4) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 78.74 9.72 63.6 95.6 Personnel (173.58) (21.43) (140.2) (210.8) NASA Astro- Dates 59 28-43 74.51 6.92 65.1 87.3 nauts Vary (164.26) (15.26) (143.5) (192.5) RAF Flying 1970-71 1998 18-45 75.04 8.81 61.4 90.3 Personnel (165.43) (19.42) (135.4) (199.1) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 70.25 8.42 57.6 85.1 Military (154.87) (18.56) (127.0) (187.6) French 1973 65 27-32 74.0 8.10 60.6 88.3 Fliers (163.1) | (17.9) | (133.6) (194.7) German AF 1975 1004 Not 74.73 8.10 62.2 88.8 Reported] (164.74) (17.86) (137.1) (195.8) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 60.20 8.60 46.1 74.3 Civ. 1972-73 (132.71) (18.96) (101.6) (163.8) *Data given in kilograms with pounds in parentheses. III-9 Definition: Application: STATURE The vertical distance from the stand- ing surface to the top of the head. The subject stands erect and looks straight ahead. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout-specifically, clear- ances; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: vertical clearances of workspaces and living quarters as well as prone or supine clearance of beds, litters, etc. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD S5%kile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 162.1 6.0 152.4 | 172.1 (63.8) (2.4) | (60.0)| (67.8) : 171.9 UeS. HEW 1960-62 1165 * | 25-40 161.7 1 6.3 | 151.3 Civ. (63.7)] (2.5) | (59.6) (67.7) British 1957 4995 18-55+ 160.1 6.6 149.5 | 171.2 Civ. (63.0) (2.6) | (58.9)] (67.4) Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 164.7 6.1 154.6 | 17447 (64.8) (2.4) | (60.9) (68.8) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 153.2 |. 4.8 145.3 | 161.1 1972-73 (60.3) (1.9) | (57.2) (63.4) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 177.3 6.2 167.2 | 187.7 Personnel (69.8) (2.4) (65.8) (73.9) NASA Astro- Dates 60 28-43 176.4 Ge] 167.4 | 182.8 nauts Vary (69.4) (1.9) (65.9) (72.0) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 177.4 6.2 167.3 | 187.8 Personnel (69.8) (2.4) (67.4) (73.9) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 170.8 6.2 160.2 | 180.8 Military (67.2)] (2.4) | (63.1) (71.2) French 1973 65 27-32 175.6 5.3 166.9] 184.6 Fliers (69.1) (2.1) (65:7) (72.7) German AF 1975 1004 Not 176.7 6.2 166.8 | 187.1 Reported| (69.6) (2.4) | (65.7) (73.7) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 165.3 5.8 155.8 | 174.8 er 1972-73 (65.1) (2.3) | (61.3) (68.8) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-10 Definition: Application: ACROMIAL (SHOULDER) HEIGHT The vertical distance from the stand- ing surface to the most lateral point of the acromial process of the scap- ula. The subject stands erect and looks straight ahead. General body description; Workspace layout; Body linkage models. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 131.9 5.5 123.0 141.1 (51.9) (2.2) {(48.4)] (55.6) UesSe HEW Civ. British Civ. ~ Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 133.8 445 126.4 141.1 (52.7) (1.8) 1(49.8)| (55.6) Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 145.2 5.8 135.7 154.8 Personnel (57.2) (2.3) (53.40 (60.9) NASA Astro- Dates 53 28-43 144.2 403 136.7 150.9 nauts Varv (56.8) (1.7) (53.8) (59.4) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 138.9 507 129.4 148.2 Military (54.7) (2.2) | (50.9 } (58.3) French 1973 65 27-32 144.7 5.0 136.3 152.5 Fliers (57.0) (2.0) | (53.7) (60.0) German AF 1975 1004 Not 147.2 5.8 137.6 156.9 Reported (58.0) (2.3) | (54.2) (61.8) Japanese Cive *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-11 Definition: Application: ing The surface subject to stands WAIST HEIGHT straight ahead. tective equipment; Workspace layout; Equipment design: height of work sur- face for standing operation. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- The vertical distance from the stand- the waist landmark. ' erect and looks ipti Statistics¥* Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive ta es Reference Date Subj. Range X SD S%kile | 95%ile FEMALES 1968 1905 18-56 100.3 4.5 93.1 107.9 Hoe (39.5) (1.8) | (36.7) (42.5) UoSe HEW : : Civ. British Civ. i ive. 1968 214 20-49 98,2 4.1 91.5 104.8 aT (38.70f (1.6) | (36.0) | (41.3) 1967-68 1622 25-39 93.2 3.7 87.1 99.3 panase 1972-73 (36.7) (1.5) | (34.3) | (39.1) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 106.5 4.7 98.7 114.3 Personnel (41.9) (1.9) | (38.9) | (45.0) NASA Astrp- Dates 57 28-43 106.8 3.7 100.7 113.8 nauts Vary (42. 9) (1.5) | (39.6) (44.8) RAF Flying 1970-71 1062 18-45 107.4 5.1 99.2 116e1 Personnel (42.3) (2.0) | (39.1)) (45.7) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 101.3 4.9 93.0 109.2 Military (39.9) (1.9) | (36.6) (43.0) Freneh Fliers man AF 1975 1004 Not 106.6] 4.8 | 98.9 | 114.6 Semmes Reported| (42.0) (1.9) (38.9)| (45.1) 1967-68 1870 25-39 96.2 Gol 89.5 102.9 pean 1972-73 (37.9 (1.6) | (35.2)| (40.5) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. [I-12 CROTCH HEIGHT Definition: The vertical distance from the stand- ing surface up into the crotch until light contact is made. The subject stands erect, heels approximately 10 cm. apart, and weight distributed equally on both feet. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro=- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _ Descriptive Statistics®* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 745 4.0 68.1 81. + (29.3) (1.6) (26.8) (32.0) UsSe HEW Civ. British Civ, Swedish Civ. Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-35 68.3 3.3 62.9 13.7 Civ. 1972-73 (26.9) | (1.3) | (24.8) (29.0) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 85.1 42 78.3 92.0 Personnel (33.5) (1.7) (30.8) (36.2) NASA Astro- Dates 60 28-43 83.5 3.0 78.06 88.7 nauts Vary (32.9) | (1:2) | (30.9) (34.9) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 85.4 43 7804 82.5 Personnel (33.6) (1.7) (30.9) (36.4) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 80.7 442 73.6 87.6 Military _ (31.8) | (1.7) (29.0) (34.5) French 1973 65 27-32 81.8 3.3 76.9 87.8 Fliers (32.2) | (1.3) | (30.3)] (34.6) German AF 1975 1004 Not 83.8 4.2 76.9 90.8 Reported | (33.0) | (1.7) | (30.3) (35.7) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 73.0 3e7 67.5 79.7 Cive 1972-73 (29.0) (1.5) (26.6)] (31.4) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. g III-13 TROCHANTERIC HEIGHT Definition: The vertical distance from the stand- ing surface to the most superior point of the greater trochanter of the femur. The subject stands erect looking straight ahead, heels toge- ther and weight distributed equally on both feet. Application: Body linkage anc models. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. | Range X SD Skhile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 82.7 4.3 75.7 89.8 (32.6) a.7 (29.8) (35.4) UseSo HEW Civ. , : er ce British 1957 4995 18-55+ 80.4 bob 73.3 87.7 Civ. (31.7) 1 (1.7) | (28.9) (34.5) Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 83.6 4.0 77.0 90.2 (32.9) (1.6) (30.3)] (35.5) Japanese Civ, MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 94.0 bob 86.9 | 101.3 Personnel : (37.0) | (1.7) | (34.2) (39.9) NASA Astro- Dates 56 28-43 92.0 3.3 87.1 97.8 nauts Vary (36.2) | (1.3) | (34.3) (38.5) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 88.8 bob 8l.5 96.0 Militarv (35.0) | (1.7) (32.1)] (37.8) French 1973 65 | 27-32 92.2 3.6 86.6 | 98.5 Fliers (36.3) | (1.4) | (34.1) (38.8) German AF 1975 1004 Not 91.8 4.6 84.2 99.5 Reported] (36.1)] (1.8) | (33. )| (39.2) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-14 Definition: Application: ing TIBIALE HEIGHT margin of stands weight distributed feet. the erect, The vertical distance from the stand- surface to the proximal medial tibia. heels Body linkage and models. The together equally on both subject and Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Shile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 42.0 2.4 38.2 46. (16.5) | (0.9) | (15.0) (18. ) U.S. HEW Civ. British 1957 4995 18-55+ 43.0 2.7 38.7 47.5 Civ. (16.9) (1.1) (15.2) (18.7) Swedish Civ. 1968 214 20-49 43.9 446 36.4 51.4 (17.3) (1.8) (14.3) (20.2) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 38.6 1.8 35.6 41.6 Civ. 1972-73 (15.2) | (0.7) | (14.0) (16.4) MALES USAF Flying Personnel NASA Astro- Dates 24 28-43 46.6 1.7 43.8 49.4 nauts Vary (18.3) (0.7) (17.2) (19.4) RAF Flying Personnel Italian Military French 1973 65 27-32 46.2 2.0 42, 49.0 Fliers (18.2) | (0.8) | (16.90 (19.3) German AF Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 42.1 2.0 38.8 45.4 Civ. 1972-73 (16.6)f (0.8) (15.3) (17.9) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-15 CALF HEIGHT Definition: The vertical distance from the stand- ing surface to the maximum posterior protrusion of the gastrocnemius. The subject stands erect, heels together and weight distributed equally on both feet. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* ‘Reference Date Subj. Range X | Sp Skile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women UsSe HEW Civ. British Civ, Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 35.6 2,2 32.0 39.3 Personnel (14.0) | (0.9) | (12.6) (15.5) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 34.6 2.1 31.2 38.1 Military (13.6) | (0.8) (12.3) (15.0) French Fliers German AF 1975 1004 Not 35.1 2.4 31.2 39.3 - Reported | (13.8) | (0.9) | (12.3) (15.5) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-16 Definition: ANKLE HEIGHT The vertical distance from the stand- ing surface to the level of the minimum circumference of the ankle. The subject stands with his weight equally distributed on both feet. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Reference Survey Date No. of Subj. Age _Descriptive Statistics* Range X SD Shile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 11.2 lub 9.2 13.6 (4.4)1 (0.6) (3.6) | (5.4) UeSe HEW Civ. British Civ, Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ, MALES USAF Flying Personnel 1967 2420 21-50 13.7 1.2 12.0 15,8 (5.4)] (0.5) (4.7) (642) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian Military 1960 1342 18-59 12.9 0.6 11.9 13.9 (5.1) (0.2) (4.7) | (5.5) French Fliers German AF Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-17 ELBOW HEIGHT Definition: The vertical distance from the stand- ing surface to the depression at the elbow between the humerus and the radius. The subject stands erect with his arms hanging naturally at his sides. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Body linkage and models. jample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* ieference Date Subj. Range X SD S%kile | 95%ile 'EMALES USAF Women UsSeo HEW: Cive British Civ, Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. [ALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 112.3 Leb 104.8 120.0 Personnel (44,2) (1.8) | (41.3) (47.2) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 106. 1 4.6 98.5 113.7 Military (41.8)] (1.8) | (38.8) | (44.8) French Fliers German AF 1975 1004 Not 110.9 45 103.6 118.6 Reported] (43.7) (1.8) | (40.8) (46.7) Japanese Civ. Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. I-18 Definition: Application: WRIST HEIGHT The vertical distance from the stand- ing surface to the most distal point of the ulna. The subject stands erect with his arms hanging naturally at his sides. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Body linkage and models. Sample & Reference Survey Date No. of Subj. Age _Descriptive Statistics* Range X SD 5%hile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women UeSs HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying Personnel 1967 2420 21-50 86.6 3.9 80.2 93.3 (34,1)] (1.5) 1(31.6) (36.7) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian Military 1960 1342 18-59 81.5 3.7 75.4 87.6 (32.1) (1.5) |(29.7) (34.5) French Fliers German AF 1975 1004 Not 87.2 4.0 80.6 94.0 Reported | (34.3)] (1.6) (31.7) (37.0) Japanese Cive *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-19 SITTING HEIGHT Definition: The vertical distance from the sit- ting surface to the top of the head. The subject sits erect, looking straight ahead. Application: General body description; Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: minimum vertical clearance from the seat surface of the seated operator. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 85.6 3.2 80.4 90.9 (33.7) (1.3) (31.7)} (35.8) - UeSe HEW 1960-62 . 1165 25-40 85.6. 3.3 79.9 | - 91.4 Civ. (33.7) | (1.3)] (31.5)] (36.0) British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 214 20-49 87.3 3.0 82.3 92.2 (34.4) | (1.2) (32.4) (36.3) Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 93.2 3.2 88.1 98.6 Personnel (36.7) | (1.3)] (34.7)] (38.8) NASA Astro- Dates 28 28-43 92.4 2.6 88.1 96.7 nauts Vary (36.4) (1.0) (34.7)| (38.1) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 93.6 3.1 88.4 98.6 Personnel (36.9) (1.2) (34.8)] (38.8) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 89.7 3.2 84.3 94.8 Military (35.3) | (1.3)] (33.2)] (37.3) French 1973 65 27-32 93.2 3.0 88.3 973 Fliers (36.7) | (1.2) (34.8) (38.3) German AF 1975 1004 Not 91.3 3.1 86.1 96.0 Reported | (35.9) (1.2)| (33.9)| (38.0) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. 111-20 Definition: Application: EYE HEIGHT, SITTING The vertical distance from the sit- ting surface to the outer corner (external canthus) of the eye. The subject sits erect and looks straight ahead. Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; General body description; Equipment design: vertical distance from the seat surface to operator's eye position for optimum vision of workspace. ipti Statistics® Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive ta x Reference Date Subie Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 73.7 3.1 68.7 78.8 (29.00 (1.2)! (27.0) (31.0) U.Se HEW Civ. British Cive Swedish Civ. Japanese Cive MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 81.0 3.0 76.2 86.1 Personnel (31.9) (1.2)| (30.0) (33.9) NASA Astro- Dates 24 28-43 80.7 2.9 75.9 85.5 nauts Vary (31.8) (1.1)| (29.9) (33.7) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 78.0 3.0 73.1 82.9 Military (30.7) (1.2)| (28.8) (32.6) French 1973 65 27-32 83.4 3.2 77.5 87.7 Fliers (32.8) (1.3) (30,5) (34.5) German AF 1975 1004 Not 80.0 3.1 74.7 84.9 Reported (31.5) (1.2)| (29.4) (33.4) Japanese Cive *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-21 MIDSHOULDER HEIGHT, SITTING Definition: The vertical distance from the sit- ting surface to a point on the upper surface of the shoulder midway be- tween the acromiale and the neck. The Fo subject sits erect with his upper arms hanging relaxed and forearms and hands extended forward horizon- tally. Application: Sizing of clothing; Personal protective equipment; Workspace layout; Equipment design: placement of upper torso restraint for seated operator. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Skhile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 58.0 2.7 53.7 62.5 (22.8) (1.1) | (21,101 (24.6) UeSe HEW © Give British Civ Swedish Civ. Japanese Cive MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 64.6 2.7 60.2 69.2 Personnel (25.4) (1.1) | (23.701 (27.2) NASA Astro- hauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960" 1342 18-59 61.3 2.6 57.1 65.6 Military (24.1) (1.0) | (22.5) (25.8) French . Fliers German AF 1975 1004 Not 62.3 2.8 57.5 66.8 Reported| (24.5) (1.1) | (22.6)] (26.3) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-22 Definitions: Application: ELBOW REST HEIGHT The vertical distance from the sit- ting surface to the bottom of the elbow. The subject sits erect with his upper arms hanging relaxed and forearms and hands extended forward horizontally. Workspace layout; Equipment design: vertical distance from the seat surface to the top of the arm rest for the seated opera- tor. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile | 95%ile FEMALES vida Pon a USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 22.7 2.5 18.7 26.9 (8.9) (1.001 (7.4) (10.6) UeSe HEW | 1960-62 1165 25-40 23.6 2.8 18.9 28.4 Civ. 9.3] A.D) (7.4) (11.2) British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 212 20-49 23.0 2.3 19.2 26.7 OO. (0.9) (7.6)| (10.5) Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 25.2 2.6 20.9 29.5 Personnel (9.9) (1.0)f (8.2) (11.6) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 24.8 2.5 20.7 28.9 Personnel (9.8) (1.0) (8.11 (11.4) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 22.5 2.3 18.8 2602 Military (8.9) (0.9) (7.4) (10.3) French 1973 65 27-32 25.6 2.2 22.0 28.8 Fliers (10.131 0.9! (8,701 (11,3) German AF 1975 1004 Not 23.9 2.7 19.3 28.44 Reported| (9.4)| (1.1) (7.6) (11.2) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-23 Definition: Application: KNEE HEIGHT, SITTING The vertical distance from the floor to the uppermost point on the knee. The subject sits erect with his knees and ankles at right angles. Workspace layout; Equipment design: vertical clearance from the floor to the underside of work surfaces and consoles for the seated operator. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥ Reference Date Subj. Range X SD S%ile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women U.S. HEW 1960-62 | 1165 25-40 50.0 2.7 45.5 54.6 Civ. (19.7) (1.1) | (17,901 (21.5) British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 55.8 2.5 51.7 59.9 Personnel (22.0) | (1.0) (20.4) (23.6) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 | 18-45 55.9 2.5 51.9 60.3 Personnel (22.0) | (1.0) | (20.4) (23.7) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 53.4 2.6 49.2 57.9 Military (21.0) | (1.0) (19.4) (22.8) French 1973 65 27-32 55.4 1.9 5245 58.1 Fliers (21.8) 1 (0.7 (20.7) (22.9) German AF 1975 1004 Not 54.5 2.5 50.6 58.8 Reported | (21.5) | (1.0) | (19.9) (23.1) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-24 POPLITEAL HEIGHT Definition: The vertical distance from the floor to the underside of the thigh immedi- ately behind the knee. The subject sits erect with his knees and ankles at right angles. Application: Workspace layout; Equipment design: vertical distance from the floor to the top forward edge of the seat pan for the seated operator. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES : ‘ USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 41.1 1.9 38.0 44,1 (16.2) 1 (0.7) (15.00 (17) UeSe HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 40.0 2.6 35.8 44.3 Civ, (15.71 (1.0) (Qa. (17.4) British Cive Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 43.7 2.3 40.1 47.5 2 Personnel (17.221 0.91 (5.8) (18.7) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 40.3 2.3 36.6 44.2 Military (15.9) | (0.9) (Qa. (17.4) French 1973 65 27-32 45.6 1.5 42.6 47.7 Fliers (18.0) | (0.6) (16.8) (18.8) German AF 1975 1004 Not 43.8 2.1 40.4 47.4 Reported | (17.2) | (0.8) | (15.9 (18.7) Japanese Civ. #*Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-25 Definition: Application: SHOULDER-ELBOW LENGTH The distance from the top of the acromion process to the bottom of the elbow. The subject sits erect with his upper arms vertical and forearms and hands extended forward horizontally. Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: used in conjunction with shoulder height and shoulder height sitting to establish the ver- tical placement of work surfaces and controls. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women UeS. HEW ‘Clive British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 36.0 1.7 33.2 38.8 Personnel (14.2) 1 (0.7) 1 (13.1) (15.3) NASA Astro- Dates 57 28-43 36.5 1.5 34.5 39.5 nauts Vary (14.4) | (0.6) | (13.6) (15.6) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 35.6 1.7 32.9 38.5 Military (14.0) | (0.7) } (13.0) | (15.2) French 1973 65 27-32 32.2 1.7 30.0 34.7 Fliers (12.7) 1 (0.7) | (11.8) | (13.7) German AF 1975 1004 Not 36.6 2.1 33.1 39.9 Reported] (14.4) | (0.8) | (13.0) | (15.7) Japanese Civ, *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-26 Definition: Application: FOREARM~HAND LENGTH The distance from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger. The subject sits erect with his upper arms vertical and forearms and hands extended forward horizon- tally. tip of the Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: a minimum fingertip reach distance for workplace layout with the upper arm restrained. Sample & Reference Survey Date No. of Subj. Age _Descriptive Statistics* Range X SD Shile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women UeSe HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 44.2 2.5 40.2 48.2 (17.4) (19.0) Japanese Civ. (15.8) MALES USAF Flying Personnel NASA Astro- nauts Dates Vary 28 28-43 47.6 2.0 44,3 50.9 (18.7) | (0.8) | (17.4) (20.0) RAF Flying Personnel 1970-71 1999 18-45 48.0 2.0 44.7 51.4 (18.9) ) (0.8) | (17.6); (20.2) Italian Military French Fliers German AF Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-27 BUTTOCK-POPLITEAL LENGTH Definition: The horizontal distance from the most posterior aspect of the right buttock to the back of the lower leg at the knee. The subject sits erect with his knees and ankles at right angles. Application: Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: horizontal distance from the rear to the front edge of the seat pan to accommodate the thigh length of the seated operator. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 47.7 2.8 43.5 52.6 (18.8) | (1.1) | (17.1) { (20.7) U.S. HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 48.1 3.1 43.0 53.6 Civ. es (18.9) | (1.2) | (16.9) | (21.1) British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 50.4 2.6 46.1 54.6 Personnel : (19.8) | (1.0) ] (18.1) (21.5) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 48.0 2.5 44,1 52.2 Military (18.9) | (1.0) | (17.4) (20.6) French 1973 65 27-32 49.0 2.0 46.3 52.0 Fliers (19.3) | (0.8) | (18.2) (20.5) German AF 1975 1004 Not 48.9 2.5 44,8 53.0 Reported | (19.3) | (1.0) | (17.6) (20.9) Japanese . Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. I1I-28 Definition: Application: BUTTOCK-KNEE LENGTH The horizontal distance from the most posterior aspect of the right buttock to the most anterior aspect of the right kneecap. The subject sits erect with his knees and ankles at right angles. Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: horizontal clear- ance from the front surface of the seat back rest to accommodate the upper leg length of the seated opera- tor. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X | SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 57.4 2.6 53.2 61.9 (22.6) (1.0) (20.9) | (24.4) U.S. HEW 1960-62 1165 25=40 57.1 3.1 52.0 62,8 Civ. (22.5)) (1.2)} (20.5) (24.7) British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 58.6 3.1 53.6 63.6 (23.1)] (1.2) (21.1) (25.0) Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 60.4 2.7 56.1 65.0 Personnel (23.8)] (1.1)} (22.1) (25.6) NASA Astro- Dates 23 28-43 60.4 1.5 57.9 62.9 nauts Vary (23.8) (0.6) (22.8) (24.8) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 60.8 2.7 56.4 65.2 Personnel (23.9) (1.1)] (22.2)| (25.7) Italian ‘ 1960 1342 18-59 58.2 2.6 54,1 62.6 Military (22.9)! (1.0)] (21.3) (24.6) French 1973 65 27-32 59.5 2,2 56.3 63.1 Fliers (23.4) (0.9)| (22.2) (24.8) German AF 1975 1004 Not 60.2 2.6 56.0" 64. 6 Reported | (23.7)| (1.0)| (22.0)| (25.4) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-29 Definition: Application: THUMB-TIP REACH The horizontal distance from the wall to the tip of the thumb, measured with the sub- ject's back against the wall, his arm extended forward, and his index finger touching the tip of his thumb. Workspace layout; Equipment design: a minimum forward thumbtip reach dis- tance with shoulder and torso restrained. Sample & Reference Survey Date No. of Subj. Age Range SD Skile Descriptive Statistics¥* 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 3.9 (1.5) X 74.1 6747 (29.2) (26.7) 80.5 (31.7) UsSe Civ. HEW British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying Personnel 1967 2420 21-50 80.3 (31.6) 73.9 (29.1) 87.0 (34.3) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel 1970-71 1997 18-45 80.2 (31.6) 74.4 85.1 (33.5) Italian Military 1960 1342 18-59 75.3 69.3 (29.6) 81.6 (32.1) French Fliers (27.3) German AF 1975 1004 Reported 80.0 (31.5) 73.1 (28.8) Not 87.1 (34.3) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-30 vw" THIGH CLEARANCE Definition: The vertical distance from the sit- ting surface to the highest point on the right thigh. The subject sits erect with his knees and ankles at right angles. Application: Workspace layout; Equipment design: vertical clearance from the top of the seat surface to the underside of work tables and consoles for the seated operator. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%hile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 12.4 1.3 10.4 14,6 (4.9)] (0.5) (4.1) (5.7) U.S. HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 13.9 1.9 10.7 17.8 Civ. (5.5) (0.7) (4.2) (7.0) British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 214 20-49 15.4 1.3 13.2 17.5 (6.1)] (0.5) (5.2) (6.9) Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 16.5 1.4 14.3 18.8 Personnel (6.5) (0.6) (5.6) (7.4) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying 1970-71 588 18-45 15.8 1.2 13.9 17.8 Personnel (6.2) (0.5) (5.5) (7.0) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 16.1 1.1 14.4 18.0 Military (6.3) (0.4) (5.7) (7.1) French 1973 65 27-32 14.5 1.1 12.7 16.4 Fliers (5.7) (0.4) (5.0) (6.5) German AF 1975 1004 Not 15.5 1.5 13.2 18.0 Reported (6.1)] (0.6) (5.2) (7.1) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-31 BIACROMIAL BREADTH Definition: The horizontal distance across the body between the acromial landmarks. The subject stands erect with arms hanging naturally at her sides. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Body linkage and models. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Skile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 35.8 1.6 33.2 38.6 (14.1) }1€0.6) J(13.1) | (15.2) U.S. HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 35.7 1.9 32.3 39.1 Civ. ; (14.1) (0.7) [(12.7) | (15.4) British 1957 4995 18-55+ | 35.1 1.9 32.0 38.1 Civ. (13.8) (0.7) j(12.6) | (15.0) Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 35.4 1.5 32.9 37.8 (13.9) [(0.6) [(13.0) (14.9) Japanese : Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 40.7 1.9 37.5 43.8 Personnel (16.0) {(0.7) |(14.8) | (17.2) NASA Astro- Dates 52 28-43 40.5 1.7 38.0 43.5 nauts Vary (15.9) (0.7) |(15.0) (17.1) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 40.7 1.9 37.5 43.8 Personnel (16.0) |(0.7) (14.8) | (17.2) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 39.8 1.8 36.8 42.8 Military 2 (15.7) 1€0.7) (14.5) | (16.9) French 1973 65 27-32 | 39.9 | 1.8 | 37.0 | 42.6 Fliers (15.7) |(0.7) {(14.6) (16.8) German AF 1975 1004 Not 38.5 2.4 34.3 42.3 Reported |(15.2) |(0.9) {(13.5) | (16.7) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-32 Definition: Application: BIDELTOID (SHOULDER) BREADTH across the of the deltoid The horizontal distance body at the level landmarks. The with his arms his sides. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: clearance dimension hatches, and the like, and minimum breadth of cockpits and other workspaces. of crawlway, subject stands erect hanging naturally at Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 41.9 2.3 38.2 45.9 (16.5) (0.9) (15.0) (18.1) UeSs HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 48.2 2.6 44,1 52.6 Personnel (19.0) (1.0) |(17.4) (20.7) NASA Astro- Dates 56 28-43 48.0 1.9 44.6 51.0 nauts Vary (18.9)] (0.7) | (17.6) (20.1) RAF Flying +. 1970-71 1993 18-45 46.6 2.1 43,2 50.1 Personnel (18.3)] (0.8) (17.0) (19.7) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 46.2 2.2 42.8 49.9 Military (18.2) (0.9) [(16.9) (19.6) French 1973 65 27-32 47.6 2.1 43.4 50.6 Fliers (18.7) (0.8) |(17.1) (19.9) German AF 1975 1004 Not 46.2 2.4 42.4 50.2 Reported] (18.2) (0.9) | (16.7) (19.8) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-33 Definition: Application: HIP BREADTH, SITTING The maximum horizontal cross the thighs. erect, upper arms relaxed, forearms and hands extended forward horizon- tally, thighs completely supported by the sitting surface, and the long axis of the thighs parallel. distance a- The subject sits General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Body linkage and models; Equipment design: horizontal breadth of sitting support surfaces. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES - USAF Women U.S. HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 36.4 3.7 | “31.1 43.3 Civ. (14.3) (1.5)1 (12.2) (17.0) British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 37.8 2.3 34.2 41.8 Personnel (14.9) (0.9)] (13.5) | (16.5) NASA Astro- Dates 27 28-43 36.5 1.5 34.0 39.0 nauts Vary (14.4)F (0.6) (13.4) (15.4) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 36.8 2.0 33.7 40.0 Personnel (14.5) (0.8) (13.3) (15.7) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 35.7 1.8 32.7 38.7 Military (14.1) (0.7) (12.9) (15.2) French 1973 65 27-32 | 36.8 | 1.9] 33.9 .| 39.5 Fliers (14.5) (0.7)] (13.3) (15.6) German AF Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. [II-34 Definition: Application: CHEST (BUST) DEPTH The horizontal depth of the trunk at the level of the nipples. The subject stands erect, looking straight ahead, heels together, and weight dis- tributed equally on both feet. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD S5%hile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 23.6 1.9 20.9 27.2 ( 9.3) | (0.7) | ( 8.2) ] (10.7) Ue.S« HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 24.5 1.9 21.3 27.7 Personnel ( 9.6) (0.7) C 8.4) (10.9) NASA Astro- Dates 28 28-43 24.0 (l.6 21.4 26.6 nauts Vary ( 9.4) (0.6) ( 8.4) (10.5) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 23.8 1.7 21.1 26.8 Military ( 9.4) (0.7) C 8.3) (10.6) French 1973 65 27-32 25.1 1.7 22.7 28.0 Fliers (9.9) (0.7)] C 8.9) | (11.0) German AF 1975 1004 Not 23.2 2.0 20.1 26.7 Reported] ( 9.1) | (0.8) | ( 7.9) (10.5) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-35 CHEST BREADTH Definition: The horizontal distance across the trunk at the level of the nipples. The subject stands erect, looking straight ahead, with his arms slight- ly abducted. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Equipment design: clearance breadth of torso-worn personal protective equipment such as respirator packs, rigid body armor, and back packs. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics * Reference Date Subj. Range X SD S%ile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 28.0 1.9 25.1 31.4 (11.0) (0.7) 1( 9.9) | (12.4) U.S. HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 213 20-49 25.3 1.2 23.3 27.4 (10.0) (0.5) 1 ( 9.2) (10.8) Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 32.8 2.1 29.5 36.5 Personnel (12.9)] (0.8) | (11.6) | (14.4) NASA Astro- Dates 57 28-43 32.1 1.9 29.3 35.6 nauts Vary (12.6) (0.7) | (11.5) (14.0) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 31.8 1.8 29.0 34.9 Military (12,5) (0.7) | (11.4) | (13.7) French 1973 65 27-32 32.1 1.9 29.0", 35.7 Fliers (12.6) (0.7) | (11.4) | (14.1) German AF 1975 1004 Not 31.3 2.3 27.7 35.4 Reported] (12.3) (0.9) ] (10.9) (13.9) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-36 Definition: Application: Cross HIP BREADTH the hips. The maximum horizontal distance a- The subject stands erect, heels together and weight dis- tributed equally on both feet. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 35.0 | 2.2 31.6 38.8 (13.8) (0.9) | (12.4) | (15.3) UeSs HEW Cive British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 35.3 1.9 32.3 38.5 Personnel (13.9) (0.7) | (12.7) (15.2) NASA Astro- Dates 56 28-43 34.7 1.7 | 31.7 37.6 nauts Vary (13.7) (0.7) { (12.5) | (14.8) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 34,2 1.7 31.5 37.1 Military (13.5) (0.7) { (12.4) | (14.6) French Fliers German AF 1975 1004 Not 35.2 1.8 32.3 38.3 Reported| (13.9) (0.7) | (12.7) | (15.1) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. II1-37 Definition: Application: NECK CIRCUMFERENCE The maximum circumference of the neck at a point just inferior to the bulge of the thyroid cartilage. The subject sits erect, head in the Frankfort plane. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 33.8 1.7 31.1 36.7 (13.3) 1(0.7) (12.2) (14.4) U.S. HEW Civ. : British 1957 4995 18-55+ | 38.4 2.0 35.3 41.7 Civ. (15.1) 1(0.8) | (13.931 (16.4) Swedish Civ. Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 37.1 1.7 34.3 39.9 Civ. 1972-73 (14,6) 10,7) | (13,50) (15.7) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 38.3 1.9 35.4 41.7 Personnel (15.1) [(0.7) | (13.9)] (16.4) NASA Astro- Dates 50 28-43 38.2 1.8 35.0 41.1 nauts Vary (15.0) (0.7) (13.8) (16.2) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 38.2 1.7 35.5 | 41.0 Personnel (15.0) (0.7) (14.0)] (16.1) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 37.6 1.7 35.2 40.7 Military (14.8) (0.7) | (13.9) (16.0) French 1973 65 27-32 37.9 2.0 34.9 41.0 Fliers (14.9) 1¢(0.8) | (13.7) (16.1) German AF 1975 1004 Not 38.1 1.7 35.4 41.2 Reported| (15.0) |(0.7) | (13.9)]| (16.2) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 36.0 1.9 32,9 39.1 Civ. 1972-73 (14.2) (0.7) | (13.0)] (15.4) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-38 Definition: Application: SHOULDER CIRCUMFERENCE The horizontal the body over circumference of the deltoid muscles. The subject stands erect, looking straight ahead, arms relaxed at the sides, heels together, and weight distributed equal- ly on both feet. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 100.4 5.1 92.6 109.4 (39.5) [(2.0) | (36.5) (43.1) U.S. HEW Civ. British Civ, Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 117.7 5.8 108.4 127.6 Personnel (46.3) 1(2.3) | (£2.71 (50,2) NASA Astro- Dates 56 28-43 116.2 43 109.7 123,8 nauts Vary (45.7) 1 (1.7) | (43.2)1 (48.7) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 [112.8 5.0 105.0 | 121.4 Military (4444) | (2.0) (41.3) (47.8) French 1973 65 27-32 | 115.6 5.2 106.4 | 122.7 Fliers (45,5) 1(2,0) (41.9) (48.3) German AF 1975 1004 Not 115.7 5.6 106.7 125.3 Reported| (45.6) | (2.2) (42.0) (49.3) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-39 Definition: Application: CHEST CIRCUMFERENCE The horizontal circumference of the chest at the level of the nipples. The subject stands erect, looking straight ahead, heels together, and weight distributed equally on both feet. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Equipment design: upper torso re- straint systems and rigging. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Skhile| 95%ile FEMALES , USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 89.7 5.7 81.6 | 100.2 (35.3) | (2.2) | (32.1) | (39.4) UoSo HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 | 86.6 7.9 76.6 .| 101.8 Civ. (34,1) (3.1) ] (30.2) | (40,1) British 1957 4995 18-55+ | 92.7 8.7 81.5 | 109.6 Civ. (36.5) | (3.4) (32.1) ] (43.1) Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 86.0 Leb 78.5 93.4 (33.9) (1.8) 1 (30.9) 1 (36.8) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 83.6 6.4 73.1 94.1 Civ. 1972-73 (32.9) | (2.5) 1 (28.8) | (37.0) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 98.6 6.4 88.6 | 109.4 Personnel (38.8) | (2.5) (34,9) | (43.1) NASA Astro- Dates 53 28-43 97.1 4.8 90.1 | 107.1 nauts Vary (38.2) | (1.9) (35.5) | (42.2) RAF Flying 1970-71 1999 18-45 97.2 5.7 88.3 | 107.1 Personnel (38.3) | (2.2) | (34,8) | (42.2) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 94.9 5.2 87.0 | 104.0 Military (37.4) | (2.0) | (34.3) | (40.9) French 1973 65 27-32 96.0 5.8 86.6 .| 104.1 Fliers (37.8) | (2.3) | (34.1) | (41.0) German AF 1975 1004 Not 94.7 6.3 84.7 | 105.3 Reported] (37.3) | (2.5) | (33.3) | (41.5) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 88.1 5.3 79.4 96.8 Civ. 1972-73 (34.7) | (2.1) ] (31.3) | (38.1) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-40 WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE Definition: The horizontal circumference of the trunk at the level of the waist land- marks. Subject stands erect, looking straight ahead, heels together and weight distributed equally on both feet. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 67.2 5.5 59.5 77.2 (26.5) | (2.2) (23.4)] (30.4) UosSe. HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 73.6 11.0 60.9 95.1 Civ. (29.0) | (4.3) (24.0) (37.4) British 1957 4995 18-55+ | 68.3 8.9 58.1 86.2 Civ. (26.9) | (3.5) (22.9)] (33.9) Swedish Civ. 1968 ~ 215 20-49 67.7 4.2 60.8 74.6 (26.7) | (1.7) (23.9) (29.4) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 67.1 6.3 56.7 77.5 Civ. 1972-73 (26.4) | (2.5) (22.3)] (30.5) MALES ’ USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 87.6 7.4 75.7 100.1 Personnel (34.5) | (2.9)91 (29.8)! (39.4) NASA Astro- Dates 59 28-43 82.1 4a5 i 90.2 nauts Vary (32.3) 1 (1.8) (29.4)1 (35,5) RAF Flying 1970-71 1662 18-45 85.7 7.0 74.7 97.8 Personnel (33.7) | (2.8) (29.4) (38.5) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 82.4 7.1 72.3 95.3 Military (32.4) | (2.8) (28.5) (37.3) French 1973 65 27-32 84.8 6.3 74.4 94,0 Fliers (33.4) | (2:5) (29.3)! (37,0) German AF 1975 1004 Not 84.0 6.8 73.5 96.1 Reported | (33.1) | (2.7) (28.9)1 (37.8) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 7645 7.9 63.5 89.5 Civ. 1972-73 (30.1) | (3.1) (25.0) 35.2) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-41 BUTTOCK CIRCUMFERENCE The circumference of the hips at the level of the maximum posterior pro- trusion of the buttocks. The subject stands erect, looking straight ahead, heels together, and weight distribu- ted equally on both feet, Definition: Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 95.3 6.0 85.8 105.6 (37.5) (2.4) (33.8) (41.6) U.S. HEW Civ. ) British 1957 4994 18-55+| 97.6 7.9 87.0 112.4 Civ. (38.4) 1 (3.1) (34.3) (44.3) Swedish Civ. 1968 214 20-49 88.1 6.1 78.1 98.0 (34.7)1 (2.4)] (30.7) 1 (38.6) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 90.0 5.2 8l.4 98.6 Civ. 1972-73 (35.4). (2.0) (32.0) | (38.8) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 98.6 5.5 89.7 107.9 Personnel (38.8) (2.2) ] (35.3) (42.3) NASA Astro- Dates 58 28-43 96.1 4.0 89.5 102.8 nauts Vary (37.8) | (1.6) (35.2) | (40.5) RAF Flying 1970-71 1999 18-45 98.9 5.0 90.8 107.3 Personnel (38.9) | (2.0) (35.7) (42.2) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 95.1 4.9 87.3 103.4 Military (37.4) (1.9) (34.4) | (40.7) French 1973 65 27-32 96.5 5.0 87.8 104.0 Fliers (38.0) 1 (2.0) | (34.6)1 (40.9) German AF 1975 1004 Not 96.6 4.7 89.1 104.5 Reported | (38.0) (1.9) } (35.1) (41,1) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 90.3 5.2 81.7 98.9 Civ. 1972-73 (35.6) | (2.0) ] (32.2) (38.9) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-42 Definition: Application: "The circumference THIGH CIRCUMFERENCE of the thigh at the level of the gluteal furrow. The subject stands erect, heels ap- proximately 10 cm. apart, and weight distributed equally on both sides. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference _Date Subj. | Range X SD S5%hile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 55.5 4.2 48.7 62.6 (21.9) | (1.7) (19.2) (24.6) UsSe HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 56.3 4.7 48.7 64.0 (22.2) } (1.9) [(19.2) (25.2) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 51.5 3.8 45.2 57.8 Civ. 1972-73 (20.3) (1.5) (17.8) (22.8) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 58.8 Lob 51.5 66.2 Personnel (23.1)! (1.7) 1(20.3) (26.1) NASA Astro- | Dates 57 28-43 56.9 2.9 52,3 61.8 nauts Vary (22.4) 1 (1.1) 1(20.6) (24,3) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 57.0 3.9 50.6 63.3 Personnel (22.4) | (1.5) 1(19.9) (24.9) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 54.45 3.5 48.8 60.3 "Military (21.5) | (1.4) {(19.2) (23.7) French 1973 65 27-32 55.8 3.8 48.2 62.0 Fliers (22.0) | (1.5) [(19.0) (24.4) German AF 1975 1004 Not 55.9 3.5 50.3 61.7 Reported} (22.0) | (1.4) ((19.8) |(24.3) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 50.3 3.9 43.9 56.7 Civ. 1972-73 (19.8) | (1.5) (17.3) (22.3) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-43 KNEE CIRCUMFERENCE Definition: The circumference of the knee at the level of the midpatella landmark. The subject stands erect, heels ap- proximately 10 cm. apart, and weight distributed equally on both feet. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- Application: tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Skhile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 36.3 2.3 32.8 40.2 (14.3) 1 (0,9) (12,9) | €15.8) U.S. HEW Civ. British 1957 4994 18-55+| 35.5 2.6 31.7 40.0 Swedish Civ. Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 33.5 2.2 29.9 37.1 Civ. 1972-73 (13.2) | (0,9) (11.8) | (14.6) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 38.7 2.1 35.4 42.2 Personnel (15.2) | (0.8) (13.9) (16.6) NASA Astro- Dates 52 28-43 39.5 2.1 37.0 43.3 nauts Vary (15.6) | (0.8) | (14.6) | (17.0) ‘RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 38.1 1.9 35.1 41.5 Military (15.0) 1€0.7) 1(13.8) | (16.3) French Fliers . German AF 1975 1004 Not 38.0 1.9 35.0 41.0 eported (15.0) | (0.7) (13.8) | (16.1) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 34.6 2.0 31.3 37.9 Civ. 1972-73 (13.6) | (0.8) (12.3) | (14.9) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-44 Definition: Application: CALF CIRCUMFERENCE The maximum horizontal circumference of the calf. The subject stands e- rect, heels approximately 10 cm. a- part, and weight distributed equally on both feet. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Shile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 34.1] 2.3 30.6 37.9 (13.4)1 (0.9) | (12.0) | (14.9) UeSe HEW Cive British 1957 4994 18-55+ 34.6 | 2.6 30.6 39.1 Civ. (13.621 (1.0) (12.0) (15.4) Swedish Civ. 1968 212 20-49 35.4 | 2.6 31.1 39.7 (13.91 (1.0) | (12.2) | (15.6) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 33.31 2.3 29.5 37.1 Civ. 1972-73 (13.11 €0.9) | (11.6) | (14.6) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 37.2 | 2.3 33.5 41.0 Personnel (14.6) (0.9) (13.2) (l8.1) NASA Astro- Dates 57 28-43 38,3 | 2.1 34.8 41.7 nauts Vary (15.1)1¢0.8) | (13.7) | (16.4) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 36.7 | 2.2 33.2 40.3 Personnel (14,4) (0.9) | (13.1) | (15.9) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 36.5 | 2.2 33.3 40,4 Military (14,8)1 (0,9) (13.1) (15:9 French 1973 65 27-32 36.8 | 2.2 32.4 40.0 Fliers (14,5)1 (0.9) (12.8) (15.7) German AF 1975 1004 Not 37.1 | 2.2 33.5 40.7 Reported) (14.6)! (0.9) (13.2) (16,0) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 34.9 | 2.6 30.6 39.2 Civ. 1972-73 (13.7)1 (1.0) (12.0) (15.4) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-45 SCYE CIRCUMFERENCE Definitions: The circumference of the scye, pass- ing through the axilla over the an- terior and posterior vertical scye landmarks and over the acromial land- mark. The subject stands erect, look- ing straight ahead, with the right arm slightly abducted. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 37.1 2.3 33.6 41.1 (14.6)] (0.9) | (13.2) | (16.2) U.S. HEW Cive . “British 1957 4995 18-55+ 39.8 3.3 35.2 45.9 Civ. (15.7) (1.3) | (13.9) (18.1) Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 48.4 2.8 43.8 53.0 Personnel (19.1)] (1.1) | (17.2) (20.9) NASA Astro- Dates 53 28-43 45,8 2.0 42.9 49.2 nauts Vary (18.0) (08) | (16.9) (19.4) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 44.8 2.5 40.8 49.0 Military (17.6) (1.0) | (16.1) (19.3) French 1973 65 27-32 43.3 2.1 39.9 47.0 Fliers (17.0)] (0.8) | (15.7) | (18.5) German AF 1975 1004 Not 45.9 3.6 40.4 52.2 Reported| (18.1)| (1.4) | (15.9) (20.6) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-46 Definition: Application: BICEPS CIRCUMFERENCE, FLEXED The circumference of the arm at the level of the biceps landmark. The subject stands with his elbow bent at 90 degrees and the biceps maximally flexed. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 26.8 2.3 23.3. 30.8 (10.6) | (0.9) |( 9.2) | (12.1) UeS. HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 32.7 2.3 29.1 36.6 Personnel (12.9) | (0.9) |(11.5) (14.4) NASA Astro- Dates 56 28-43 33.3 1.8 30.8 36.9 nauts Vary (13.1) | (0.7) (12.1) (14.5) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 31.0 2.1 27.8 34.8 Military (12.2) | (0.8) (10.9) | (13.7) French 1973 65 27-32 31.9 2.0 28.3 35.1 Fliers (12.6) | (0.8) (11.1) (13.8) German AF 1975 1004 Not 32.2 2.2 28.6 35.9 Reported] (12.7)] (0.9) |(11.3) | (14.1) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-47 BICEPS CIRCUMFERENCE, RELAXED Definition The circumference of the arm at the level of the biceps landmark. The subject stands with his arm slightly abducted. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Skile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 25.6 | 2.3 22.2 29.7 (10,1) (0,9) 1 ( 8.7) | (11,7) UeSe HEW 1960-62 1165 25-40 28.1 4.2 22.6 36.4 Civ. (11.1) (1.7) 1 ( 8.9) | (14.3) British 1957 4995 18-55+ 28.6 3.2 24,1 34.5 Swedish Civ. 1968 214 20-49 27.7 3.0 22.8 32.5 (10.991 (1.2) 1 (9.0) (12.8) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 26.7 2.5 22.6 30.8 Civ. (10.501 (1.00 1 ( 8.9) | (12,1) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 30.8 2.3 27.0 34.7 Personnel (12.1) 1 (0.9) | (10.6) | (13.7) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 29.3 2.2 26.0 33.0 Military (11,5) 1 (0.9) 1 (10.2) |(13.0) French 1973 65 27-32 29.5 2.0 26.0 33.1 Fliers (11.6) | (0.8) 1(10.2) |(13.0) German AF 1975 1004 Not 29.3 2.0 25.9 32.7 Reported| (11.5) | (0.8) |(10,2) (12.9) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 27.5 244 23.6 3l.4 Civ. 1972-73 (10.8) | (0.9) 1( 9.3) (12.4) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. [II-48 FOREARM CIRCUMFERENCE, FLEXED Definitions: The circumference of the arm at the level of the forearm landmark. The subject stands with his upper arm raised so that its long axis is horizontal, elbow flexed 90 degrees and fist tightly clenched. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD Shile 95%ile ~ FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 25.0 1.5 22.6 | 2765 ( 9.8) (0.6) ( 8.9) (10.8) U.S. HEW Civ. British Civ, Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 29.8 1.6 27.2 32.4 Personnel (11.7) | (0.6) | (10.7)| (12.8) NASA Astro- Dates 55 28-43 29.2 1.6 26.6 31.7 naut s Vary (11.5) | (0.6) (10.5)| (12.5) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 29.0 1.6 26.4 3l.7 Military (11.4) | (0.6) (10.4)| (12.5) French 1973 65 27-32 28.2 1.1 26.3 29.8 Fliers (11.1) | (0.4) (10.4) (11.7) German AF 1975 1004 Not 29.5 2.0 26.3 32.9 [Reported | (11.6) | (0.8) | (10.4)}| (13.0) Japanese Civ. #*Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-49 Application: WRIST CIRCUMFERENCE Definition: The wrist at the tective equipment. level minimum circumference of the of the stylion landmark. The subject stands with the arm slightly abducted. Sizing of clothing and personal pro- Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 15.0 0.7 13.8 16.2 ( 5.9)] (0.3) | ( 5.4)| ( 6.4) UsSes HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 215 20-49 16.3 0.9 14.8 17.7 (6.4) (0.4) 1 (5.8) (7.0) Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 17.6 0.9 16.2 19.2 Personnel : ( 6.9) (0.4) ( 6.4) ( 7.6) NASA Astro- Dates 57 28-43 17,3 0.8 16.0 18,7 nauts Vary ( 6.8)] (0.3) ( 6.3) ( 7.4) RAF Flying 1970-71 1999 18-45 17.4 1.0 15.9 19.1 Personnel ( 6.9)| (0.4) ( 6.3)| ( 7.5) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 17.4 0.9 16.0 18.9 Military ( 6.9] (0.4) (6.3) (7.4) French 1973 65 27-32 16.9 0.8 15.8, 18.5 Fliers (6.711 0.3) | (6.21 ¢ 7.3) German AF 1975 1005 Not 17.8 0.9 16.4 19.4 Reported ( 7.0) | (0.4) (6.51 (7.6) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-50 VERTICAL TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE Definition: The circumference of the trunk mea- sured by passing a tape between the legs, over the protrusion of the right buttock, and up the back to lie over the midshoulder landmark. The other end of the tape is brought up over the right nipple to the midshoulder landmark. The subject stands with the legs slightly apart. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Equipment design: length of straps and webbing for restraint systems and rigging, Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 154.4 6.9 143.5 166.3 (60.8)! (2.7) 1(56,5) | (65.5) UeS. HEW Cive British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 147.7 5.9 138.0 157.4 Civ, 1972-73 (58.1) (2.3) | (54.3) (62.0) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 168.1 72 156.7 180.2 Personnel (66.2) (2.8) (61.7) | (70.9) NASA Astro- Dates 58 28-43 168.4 7.1 157.6 181.0 nauts Vary (66.3) (2.8) | (62.0) (71.3) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 162.5 6.6 151.8 173.4 Personnel (64.0) (2.6) |(59.8) (68.3) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 160.5 63 150.5 171.2 Military (63.2) (2.5) 1(59.3) 67.4) French 1973 65 27-32 159.5 6.4 149.7 169.2 Fliers (62.8) (2.5) 1(58.9) (66.6) German AF 1975 1004 Not 165.5 6.9 154.7 177.4 Reported | (65.2) (2.7) | (60.9) (69.8) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 158.9 7 ols 146.7 171.1 Civ. 1972-73 (62.6) (2.9) (57.8) (67.4) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. ITI-51 Definition: Application: SPINE-TO-WRIST LENGTH (SLEEVE LENGTH) The ed about surface to the wrist distance from the spine landmark. The subject stands, arms horizontal, elbows flex- 60 degrees, fists clenched and touching, and shoulders relaxed. tective equipment. Sizing of clothing and personal pro- Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 79.6 3.3 74.2 85.1 (31.3) | (1.3) (29.2) (33.5) UeSe HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 68.7 2.5 6446 72.8 Civ. 1972-73 (27.0) | (1.0) | (25.4) (28.7) MALES ‘ USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 90.8 3.5 85.2 96.8 Personnel (35.7) | (1.4) (33.5) (38.1) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 85.3 3.5 79.6 91.1 Military (33.6) | (1.4) (31.3) (35.9) French 1973 65 27-32 86.6 2,8 82.1 90.7 Fliers (34.1) (1.1) | (32.3) (35.7) German AF 1975 1004 Not 87.4 3.8 81.2 93.7 Reported | (34.4) | (1.5) (32.0) (36.9) Japanese 1968-68 1870 25-39 74.6 2.9 69.8 79.4 Civ. 1972-73 (29.4) | (1.1) | (27.5) (31.3) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-52 WAIST FRONT Definition: The surface distance from the supra- sternale landmark to the anterior waist landmark. The subject stands erect, looking straight ahead. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Equipment design: length of personal equipment to be worn on the torso such as respirator packs and rigid body armor. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES . USAF Women Ue.Se HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Cive MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 40.4 2.2 36.9 44,2 Personnel (15.9) (0.9) (14,5) (17.4) NASA Astro- Dates 50 28-43 38.2 2.6 34.4 42.4 nauts Vary (15.0) | (1.0) | (13.5) | (16.7) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 38.9 2.0 35.9 42.5 Military (15.3) | (0.8) | (14.1) (16.7) French Fliers German AF 1975 1004 Not 39.0 2.1 35.8 42.7 Reported | (15.4) | (0.8) | (14.1) (16.8) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-53 WAIST BACK Definition: The surface distance along the spine from the cervicale landmark to the posterior waist landmark. The subject stands erect, with his head in the Frankfort plane. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Equipment design: length of personal equipment to be worn on the torso such as respirator packs and rigid body armor. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD S%hile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 40.5 2.2 37.0 44.3 | (15.9) | (0.9) | (14.6) | (17.4) UeSe. HEW Civ.’ British 1957 4995 18-55+ 38.0 2.3 34.2 41.9 Civ. (15.0) | (0.9) | (13.5) | (16.5) Swedish Civ. Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 37.7 1.7 34.9 40.5 Civ. 1972-73 (14.8) | (0.7) | (13.7) | (15.9) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 46.9 2.4 43.1 50.9 Personnel : (18.5) | (0.9) | (17.0) (20.0) NASA Astro- Dates 50 28-43 46.6 2.2 43.5 50.5 nauts Vary (18.3) | (0.9) | (17.1) (19.9) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 45.5 2.2 41.7 49.1 Military (17.991 (0.9) | (16.4) | (19.3) French . Fliers German AF 1975 1004 Not 45.6 2.6 41.3 50.1 Reported | (18.0) (1.0) | (16.3) (19.7) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 46.0 2.5 41.9 50.1 Civ. 1972-73 (18.1) (1.0) 1 (16.5) | (19.7) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-54 SHOULDER LENGTH Definition: The surface distance along the top of the shoulder from the right later- al neck landmark to the right acromial landmark. The subject stands erect, looking straight ahead. Application: Sizing of clothing and body personal protective equipment; Equipment design: width of webbing and straps of restraint systems and suspension for packs and harnesses. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subi. Range SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 14.7 1.0 13,0 16.4 ( 5.8) | (0.4) | ( 5.1) | ( 6.5) > U.S. HEW Civ, British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 16.6 1.3 14.6 18.7 Personnel ( 6.5) | (0,5) (5.7) | C 7.4) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 16.8 1.2 14.9 18.6 Military ( 6.6) | (0.5) ( 5.9) | ( 7.3) French Fliers German AF 1975 1004 Not 14.2 1.7 11.2 16.7 Reported ( 5.6) | (0.7) | ( 4.4) | ( 6.6) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. ITI-55 INTERSCYE Definition: The horizontal distance across the back between the posterior scye point landmarks. The subject stands erect with the arms relaxed. Application: Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Skile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 35.1 2.4 31.2 39.2 (13.8) | (0.9) (12.3) | (15.4) UsSe HEW Civ. Thies British 1957 4994 18-55+ | 33.9 2.9 29.4 38.9 Civ. (13.3) | (1.1) (11.6) | (15.3) Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 38.8 3.8 32.5 45.0 Personnel : (15.3) | (1.5) | (12.8) | (17.7) NASA Astro- Dates 52 28-43 36.4 2.3 32.6 4042 naut s Vary (14.3) 1€0.9) | (12.8) | (15.8) RAF Flying Bersonnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 39.4 2.6 35.3 44,1 Military (15.5) | (1.0) | (13.9) | (17.4) French Fliers : German AF 1975 1004 Not 43.3 3.8 37.1 49.6 Reported] (17.0) | (1.5) | (14.6) | (19.5) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. I[II-56 Definition: Application: HEAD LENGTH The maximum length of the head between the glabella and the occiput in the midsagittal plane. General body description; Sizing of clothing and person- al protective equipment; Equipment design: protective head gear and equipment suspen- sion systems for head and face. Sample & Survey No. of Age _ Descriptive Statistics® Reference Date Subj. Range X SD S5%hile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 18.4 0.7 17.3 19.5 ( 7.2) 1(0.3) {(C 6.8) (7.7) U.S. HEW Civ. British Cive Swedish Civ. Japanese Cive MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 19.9 0.7 18.8 21.0 Personnel ( 7.8) 1(0.3) I{ 7.4) ( 8.3) = NASA Astro- Dates 28 |28-43 20.0 | 0.5 | 19.2 20.8 nauts Vary (7.9) (0.2) {(C 7.6) |( 8.2) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 19.9 0.6 18.8 20.9 Personnel ( 7.8) [(0.2) JC 7.4) |C 8.2) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 19.3 0.7 18.2 20.4 Military ( 7.6) {(0.3) |C 7.3) ( 8.0) French 1973 65 27-32 19.5 0.6 18.6 20.5 Fliers (7.7) 1€0.2) jC 7.2) |C 8.1) German AF 1975 1004 Not 19.2 0.8 17.7 20.4 Reported]! ( 7.6) |(0.3) |C 7.0) |( 8.0) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. 111-57 Definition: Application: HEAD BREADTH The maximum horizontal breadth of the head above the level of the ears. General body description; Sizing of clothing and person- al protective equipment; Equipment design: protective head gear and equipment su- spension systems for head and face. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Shile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 14.5 0.6 13.5 15.5 (5.7)]1 (0.2) | ( 5.3) | ( 6.1) UsS. HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 15.6 0.5 14.7 16.5 Personnel . ( 6.1) 1 (0.2) { ( 5.8) | ( 6.5) NASA Astro- Dates 28 28-43 15.6 0.6 14.6 16.6 nauts Vary ( 6.1)] (0.2) (5.7) | ( 6.5) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 15.8 0.5 14.9 16.6 Personnel ( 6.2) | (0.2) | ( 5.9) ( 6.5) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 15.5 0.6 14.6 16.5 Military ( 6.1)1(0.2) 1 (5.7 (6.5) French 1973 65 27-32 15.4 0.5 14.6, 16.2 Fliers ( 6.1) 10.2) | (5.7) ( 6.4) German AF 1975 1004 Not 15.7 0.6 14.7 16.7 Reported ( 6.2) | (0.2) | ( 5.8) | ( 6.6) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-58 Definition: Applications: HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE The maximum circumference of the head passing brow ridges. above the General body description; Sizing of clothing and person- al protective equipment; Equipment head gear spension face. design: protective and equipment su- systems for head: and Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 54.9 1.6 52.3 57.6 (21.6) (0.6) | (20.6) (22.7) UeSe. HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 5445 lod 52.2 56.8 Civ. 1972-73 (21.5) (0.6) | (20.6) (22.4) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 57.5 l.4 55.2 59.9 Personnel (22.6) (0.6) | (21.7) (23.6) NASA Astro- Dates 57 28-43 57.6 1.3 55.3 59.7 nauts Vary (22.7) (0.5) { (21.8) (23.5) RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 57.7 1.4 55.5 59.9 Personnel (22.7)] (0.6) 1(21.9) | (23.6) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 56.5 l.4 54,2 58.8 Military (22.2)1 (0.6) | (21.3) (23.1) French 1973 65 27-32 56.8 1.5 54.5 59,2 Fliers (22.4) (0.6) | (21.5) (23.3) German AF 1975 1004 Not 57.0 l.4 54.7 59.5 Reported] (22.4)1 (0.6) | (21.5) | (23.4) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 56.5 1.5 54.0 59.0 Civ. 1972-73 (22.2) (0.6) | (21.3) (23.2) #Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-59 HAND LENGTH Definition: The distance from the wrist landmark to dactylion. The sub- ject sits with the hand flat on a table, palm up, with fingers together and straight. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and person- al protective equipment; Body linkage and models. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Skile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 18.4 | 1.0 16.9 20.1 (( 7.2)] (0.4) | (6.7) 1 (7.9) U.S. HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 162 20-49 17.9 1.0 16.3 19.6 (Ze 0.8) | (6,8) 1 (7.7) Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 19.1 | 0.8 17.8 20.5 Personnel ( 7.5) (0.3) | (7.0) | ( 8.1) NASA Astro- Dates 25 28-43 19.0 1.3 16.9 21.1 nauts Vary ( 7.5)1 0.5) | C 6.7) | ( 8.3) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 19.0 | 0.9 17.6 20.4 Military — ( 745) (0e&) ( 6.9) ( 8.0) French 1973 65 27-32 19.2 | 0.8 17.7 20.4 Fliers ( 7.6)] (0.3) ( 7.0) ( 8.0) German AF 1975 1004 Not 18.9 | 0.9 1744 ° 20.3 Reported! ( 7.4) (0,4) ( 6.9) ( 8,0) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-60 HAND BREADTH Definition: The breadth of the hand between meta- carpal=-phalangeal joints II and V. The subject sits with the hand flat on a table, palm down, with the fingers together and straight. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and body personal protective equipment; Equipment design: width of grasping surface for controls, handholds, and handles. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD S5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAT Women 1968 1905. - 18-56 7.6 | 0.4 6.9 8.2 (3.001 €0.2) [C2.7) 1 (3.2) U.S. HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 214 20-49 7.7] 0.4 7.1 8.3 ( 3.0) (0.2) ( 2.8) (3.3) Japanese Cive MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 8:9] 0.4 8.2 9.6 Personnel ( 3.5] (0.2) | (3.2) | (3:8) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying , Italian 1960 1342 18-59 8,9 | 0.4 8.2 9.6 Military ( 3.5)] (0.2) ( 3.2) ( 3.8) French 1973 65 27-32 8.7 0.4 8.1 9.4 Fliers (3.4)1 (0.2) (3.2) (3.7) German AF 1975 1004 Not 8.6| 0.4 7.9 9.3 Reported) ( 3.2)1 (0.2) | (C 3.1) | C 3.7) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-61 HAND CIRCUMFERENGE Definition: The circumference of the hand passing over the metacarpal-phalangeal joints ITI and V. The subject sits with the hand flat on a table, palm down, fingers extended, and thumb abducted. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD S%kile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 18.3 0.9 16.8 19.8 ( 7.2) [(0.4) | ( 6.6) | ( 7.8) U.S« HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 21.6 0.9 20.0 23.1 Personnel - ( 8.5) [(0.4) | (7.9) | ( 9.1) NASA Astro- Dates 33 28-43 21.2 3.0 16.2 26.2 nauts Vary ( 8.3) (1.2) ( €.4) (10.3) RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 21.6 1.0 20.0 23.2 Military ( 8.5) 1(0.4) | (7.9) | (9.1) French 1973 65 27-32 21.7 1.0 20.2 | 23.4 Fliers ( 8.5) (0.4) ( 8.0) : ( 9,2) German AF 1975 1004 Not 21.3 1.3 19.1 23.5 _ Reported ( 8.4) (0.5) ( 7.5) ( 9.3) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. II1-62 Definitions: Application: The axis of the protruding toes with weight FOOT LENGTH distance, of the heel both feet. parallel foot, The to the long from the back to the tip of the most subject stands equally distributed on General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout; Body linkage and models. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Shile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 24.1 1.1 22.2 26,0 ( 9.5)| (0.4) ( 8.7) (10.2) UeSe HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 210 20-49 24.6 1.1 22.8 26.3 (9.7) es) | (9.00) (10.4) Japanese 1967-68 1622 25-39 22.6 0.9 21.1 24,1 Civ. 1972-73 ( 8.9) (0.4) ( 8.3) ( 9.5) MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 27.0 1.2 25.1 29.1 Personnel (10.6) (0.5) ( 9.9) (11.5) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 26.6 1.2 24.7 28.6 Personnel (10.5) (0.5) ( 9.7) (11.3) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 2645 1.1 24.6 28.4 Military (10.4) (0.4) (9.7) (11.2) French 1973 65 27-32 26465 1.1 24.7 2845 Fliers (10.4)1 (0.4) ( 9.7) (11.2) German AF 1975 1004 Not 26.4 1.2 24.5 2845 Reported (10.4) (0.5) ( 9.6) (11.2) Japanese 1967-68 1870 25-39 24.4 1.0 22.8 26.0 Civ. 1972-73 (9.6) (0.4) | (9.0) (10.2) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-63 Definition: Application: FOOT BREADTH The maximum horizontal distance a- cross the foot, at right angles to the long axis. The subject stands with weight equally distributed on both feet. General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment; Workspace layout. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD Skile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 8.9 0.5 8.0 9.8 (3.5) (0.2) | (3.1) ] (3.9 U.Se HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. 1968 210 20-49 9.5 0.7 8.4 10.5 ( 3.71] (0.3) ( 3.3) {4,1 Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 9.8 0.5 9.0 10.6 Personnel ; ( 3.9) €0.2) |] € 3.53) | ( 4.2) NASA Astro- Dates 27 28-43 10.3 0.5 9.5 11.1 nauts Vary ( 4.1) (0.2) { 3.7) ( 4.4) RAF Flying 1970-71 1998 18-45 9.5 0.4 8.8 10.3 Personnel (3.7) 0.2) | (3.5) ( 4.1) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 10.2 0.5 9.4 11.0 Military ( 4.0)] (0.2) ( 3.7) { 4.3) French 1973 65 27-32 10.3 0.5 9.5 11.3 Fliers ( 4.1) (0.2) (3.7) (4d) German AF 1975 1004 Not 10.1 0.6 9.2 11.0 Reported | ( 4.0) (0.2) ( 3.6) ( 4.3) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. ITI-64 BALL OF FOOT CIRCUMFERENCE Definition: The circumference of the foot over the distal ends of the metatarsal bones. The subject stands with his feet slightly apart and weight dis- tributed equally on both feet. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and personal pro- tective equipment. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subj. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women UeSe HEW Cive British Civ, Swedish Civ, Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 24,8 1.2 22.9 27.0 Personnel (9:8) (0.5) 1( 9.0) 1(10.6) NASA Astro=- nauts RAF Flying 1970-71 2000 18-45 25.0 1,2 23.1 27.0 Personnel (9.8) (0,5) 1( 9,1) 1(10.6) Italian 1960 1342 18-59 25.2 1.2 23.2 27.1 Military ( 9.91 (0,5) (9,1) 110.7) French 1973 65 27-32 25.2 1.2 23.0 27.0 Fliers (9.91 (0,5) {( 9.1) |(10.6) German AF 1975 1004 Not 25.0 1.3 22.9 27.2 Reported j( 9.8)! (0.5) 1( 9.0) }1(10.7D Japanese Cive *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-65 MENTON-SELLION (FACE) LENGTH Definition: The distance from the menton landmark to the deepest point of the nasal root depression. The subject sits with mouth closed and jaw relaxed. Application: General body description; Sizing of clothing and per- sonal protective equipment; Equipment design: length of oral-nasal oxygen mask and respirator face pieces. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics¥ Reference ' Date - Subj. Range X SD Shile | 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 10.6 0.6 9.6 11.7 ( 4.2)] €0.2) 1( 3.8) | ( 4.6) UsSe HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ. Japanese Civ. MALES USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 12.0 0.6 11.0 13.0 Personnel : ( 4.7)] (0.2) {(C 4.3) ( 5.1) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 11.9 0.6 11.0 12.9 Military (4,1 (0.2) 1 4.3) (5.1) French 1973 65 27-32 12.7 0.6 11.8 13.7 Fliers ( 5.0)1 (0.2) {(C 446). | ( 5.) German AF 1975 1004 Not 12.0 0.7 10.9 13.2 Reported| ( 4.7) | (0.3) |( 4.3) ( 542) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. 111-66 BIZYGOMATIC (FACE) BREADTH Definition: Application: The maximum horizontal breadth of the face between the zygo- matic arches. General body description; Sizing of clothing and person- al protective equipment; Equipment design: respirator face pieces and face shields. Sample & Survey No. of Age _Descriptive Statistics* Reference Date Subi. Range X SD 5%ile 95%ile FEMALES USAF Women 1968 1905 18-56 12.9 0.6 11.9 13.8 (5.1) 1 (0.2) IC 47) (5.4) Ue.Se HEW Civ. British Civ. Swedish Civ Japanese Civ. MALES } USAF Flying 1967 2420 21-50 14,2 0.5 13.4 15.1 Personnel (5.6) 1 (0.2) (543) 1( 5.9) NASA Astro- nauts RAF Flying Personnel Italian 1960 1342 18-59 14.3 0.5 13.5 15.2 Military ( 5.6) | (0.2) |( 5.3) ( 6.0) French 1973 65 27-32 14.2 0.5 13.5 14.8 Fliers (5.6) 1 (0.2) 1C 5.3) |( 5.8) German AF 1675 1004 Not 13.3 0.8 11.9 14.7 Reported] ( 5.2) | (0.3) C 4.7) 1 ( 5.8) Japanese Civ. *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-67 REFERENCES Bolton, C. B., M. Kenward, R. E. Simpson, and G. M. Turner 1973. An Anthropometric Survey of 2000 Royal Air Force Aircrew 1970/71. TR-/3083, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Ministry of Defense, a Hants, England. (Also, AGARDograph No. 181, Dec. 1974. Chaffee, J. W. 1961. Andrometry: A Practical Applicatiocs of Coordinate Anthropometry in Human Engineering. port FZY-012, Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation, Fort Worth, Tex. Churchill, Edmund, Paul Kikta, and Thomas Churchill 1977. Intercorrela- tions of Anthropometric Measurements: A Source Book for USA Data. AMRL-TR-77-1, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Damon, Albert 1964. "Notes on Anthropometric Technique: I. Stature Against a Wall and Standing Free," Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 22:73- 78. Garrett, John W., and Kenneth W. Kennedy 1971. A Collation of Anthropo- metry. AMRL-TR-68-1, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Hertzberg, H. T. E., G. S. Daniels, and Edmund Churchill 1954. Anthropometry of Flying Personnel - 1950. WADC-TR-52-321, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Hertzberg, H. T. E. 1968. '"The Conference on Standardization of Anthro- pometric Techniques and Terminology," Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 28(1):1-16. Morant, G. M., and J. C. Gilson 1945. A Report on a Survey of Body and Clothing Measurement of Royal Air Force Persomnel. FPRC 633 (a), Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, Hants, England. Papillault, G. 1906. "The International Agreement for the Unification of Craniometric and Cephalometric Measurements," L'Anthropologie 17:559-572. Randall, Francis E., Albert Damon, Robert S. Benton, and Donald I. Patt 1946. Human Body Size in Military Aircraft and Personal Equipment. AAF-TIR-5501, Army Air Force, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. Stewart, T. D., ed., 1947. Hrdlicka's Practical Anthropometry (3rd edi- tion), The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, Pa.). ‘Tanner, J. M., J. Hiernaux, and Shirley Jarman 1969. "Growth and Physique Studies," Human Biology, A Guide to Field Methods, J. S. Wiener and J. A. Lourie, eds., F. A. Davis Co. (Philadelphia, Pa.). III-68 Turner, G. M. 1974. Anthropometric Survey of 2000 RAF Aircrew, 1970/71 - Comparison of British and American Measuring lechniques. FPRC 556, Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine, Farnborough, Hants, England. BIBLIOGRAPHY Herron, R. E. 1972. "Biostereometric Measurement of Body Form," Year- book of Physical Anthropology, 16:80-121. III-69 APPENDIX A A GLOSSARY OF ANATOMICAL AND ANTHROPOMETRIC TERMS A abdominal extension level -- the most anterior point on the curve of the abdomen in the midsagittal plane. abduct -- to move away from the axis of the body or one of its parts. acromion -- the most lateral point of the lateral edge of the spine of the scapula. Acromial height is usually equated with shoulder height. anterior -- pertaining to the front of the body; as opposed to posterior. auricular -- pertaining to the external ear. axilla -- the armpit. B bi =-- a prefix denoting connection with or relation to each of two symmetri- cally paired parts. biceps brachii -- the large muscle on the anterior surface of the upper arm. “biceps femoris -- a large posterior muscle of the thigh. brow ridges =-- the bony ridges of the forehead that lie above the orbits of the eye. bustpoint -- the most anterior protrusion of the right bra pocket. buttock protrusion -- the maximum posterior protrusion of the right buttock. C calcaneus -- the heel bone. canthus -- a corner or angle formed by the meeting of the eyelids. carpus -- the wristbones, collectively. cervicale =-- the protrusion of the spinal column at the base of the neck caused by the tip of the spine (q.v.) of the 7th cervical vertebra. 111-70 cheilion -- the corners of the mouth formed by the juncture of the lips. coronal plane -- any vertical plane at right angles to the midsagittal plane. crinion -- the point in the midplane where the hairline meets the forehead. cutaneous lip -- the area between the upper lip and the nose. D dactylion -- the tip of the middle finger. deltoid muscle =-- the large muscle on the lateral border of the upper arm in the shoulder region. distal =-- the end of a body segment farthest from the head, as opposed to proximal. . E ectocanthus (also external canthus) =-- the outside corner or angle formed by the meeting of the eyelids. v endocanthus =~-- the inside corner or angle formed by the meeting of the eye- lids. epicondyle =-- the bony eminence at the distal end of the humerus, radius, and femur. extend =-- to move adjacent segments so that the angle between them is in- creased, as when the leg is straightened; as opposed to flex. external -- away from the central long axis of the body; the outer portion of a body segment. E femoral epicondyles -- the bony projections on either side of the distal end of the femur. femur -- the thigh bone. flex -- to move a joint in such a direction as to bring together the two parts which it connects, as when the elbow is bent; as opposed to extend. fossa -- a depression, usually somewhat longitudinal in shape, in the sur- face of a part, as in a bone. III-71 Frankfort plane -- the standard horizontal plane or orientation of the head. The plane is established by a line passing through the right tragion (ap- proximate earhole) and the lowest point of the right orbit (eye socket). G gastrocnemius -- the largest muscle in the calf of the leg. glabella -- the most anterior point of the forehead between the brow ridges in the midsagittal plane. gluteal furrow -- the furrow at the juncture of the buttock and the thigh. gonial angle -- the angle at the back of the lower jaw formed by the inter- section of the vertical and horizontal portions of the jaw. H helix -- the rolled outer part of the ear. humerus -- the bone of the upper arm. humeral epicondyles -- the bony projections on either side of the distal end of the humerus. hyperextend -- to overextend a limb or other part of the body. I iliac crest -- the superior rim of the pelvic bone. inferior -- below, in relation to another structure; lower. inion =-- the summit of the external occipital protuberance; the most poster- ior bony protuberance on the back of the head. inseam -- a term used in tailoring to indicate the inside length of a sleeve or trouser leg. It is measured on the medial side of the arm or leg. internal -- near the central long axis of the body; the inner portion of a body segment. \ interpupillary ~- between the centers of the pupils of the eyes. J-K knuckle -- the joint formed by the meeting of a finger bone (phalanx) with a palm bone (metacarpal). 111-72 L lateral -- lying near or toward the sides of the body; as opposed to medial. lateral malleolus -- the lateral bony protrusion of the ankle. larynx =-- the cartilaginous box of the throat that houses the voice mechan- ism. The "Adam's apple'" is the most noticeable part of the larynx. lip prominence -- the most anterior protrusion of either the upper or the lower lip. M malleolus =-- a rounded bony projection in the ankle region. There is one on both the lateral and the medial side of the leg. mandible -=- the lower jaw. mastoid process -- a bony projection on the inferior lateral surface of the temporal bone behind the ear. medial -- lying near or toward the midline of the body; as opposed to later=- al. menton -- the point of the tip of the chin in the midsagittal plane. metacarpal -- pertaining to the long bones of the hand between the carpus and the phalanges. midaxillary line -- a vertical line passing through the center of the axilla. midpatella =-- a point one-half the distance between the superior and the inferior margins of the right patella. midsagittal plane -- the vertical plane which divides the body into right and left halves. midshoulder -- a point one-half the distance between the neck and the right acromion. XN nasal root depression -- the area of greatest indentation where the bridge of the nose meets the forehead. nasal septum =-- the cartilaginous wall separating the right nostril from the left. 111-73 navicular bone =-- the small bone of the hand just distal to the bend of the wrist on the thumb side. nuchale =-- the lowest point in the midsagittal plane of the occiput that can be palpated among the muscles in the posterior-superior part of the neck. This point is often visually obscured by hair. 0 ocular -- pertaining to the eye. occipital bone =-- a curved bone forming the back and part of the base of the skull. olecranon -- the proximal end of the ulna (the medial forearm bone). omphalion -- the center point of the navel. orbit -- the eye socket. Ivo patella -- the kneecap. phalanges -- the bones of the fingers and toes (singular, phalanx). philtrum -- the vertical groove that runs from the upper lip to the base of the nasal septum. plantar - pertaining to the sole of the foot. popliteal -- pertaining to the ligament behind the knee or to the part of the leg back of the knee. posterior -- pertaining to the. back of the body; as opposed to anterior. pronasale -- the most anterior point on the nose. proximal -- the end of a body segment nearest the head; as opposed to distal. QR radiale -- the uppermost point on the lateral margin of the proximal end of the radius. \ radius -- the bone of the forearm on the thumb side of the arm. ramus -- the vertical portion of the lower jaw bone (mandible). III-74 s sagittal =-- pertaining to the anteroposterior median plane of the body, or to a plane parallel to the median. scapula -- the shoulder blade. scye =-- a tailoring term to designate the armhole of a garment. Refers here to landmarks which approximate the lower level of the axilla. sellion ~~ the point of greatest indentation of the nasal root depression. septum =-- a dividing wall between two cavities; the nasal septum is the fleshly partition between the two nasal cavities. sphyrion -- the most distal extension of the tibia on the medial side of the foot. . spine (or spinal process) of vertebrae -- the posterior prominences of the vertebrae. sternum -- the breastbone. stomion =-- the point of contact in the midsagittal plane between the upper and lower lip. stylion =~ the -most distal point on the styloid process of the radius. styloid process -- a long, spinelike projection of a bone. sub -- a prefix designating below or under. submandibular -- below the mandible or lower jaw. subnasale -- the point where the base of the nasal septum meets the philtrum. substernale =-- the point located at the middle of the lower edge of the breastbone. superior -- above, in relation to another structure; higher. supra -- prefix designating above or on. suprasternale -- the lowest point in the notch in the upper edge of the breastbone. surface distance -- a measurement that follows the general contours of the surface of the body. III-75 I tarsus -- the collection of bones in the ankle joint, at the distal end of the tibia. temporal crest =-- a narrow bony ridge along the side of the head above the ear level that serves as a point of attachment for the temporal muscles. temporal muscles -- the muscles of the temple region. thyroid cartilage =-- the bulge of the cartilage on the anterior surface of the throat; in men, the Adam's apple. tibia -- the medial bone of the leg (shin bone). tibiale -- the uppermost point of the medial margin of the tibia. tragion -- the point located at the notch just above the tragus of the ear. trapezius muscle -- the large muscle on each side of the back of the neck and shoulders, the action of which moves the shoulders. triceps -- the muscle mass of the posterior upper arm. trochanterion =-- the tip of the bony lateral protrusion of the proximal end of the femur. ~ I ulna =-- one of the bones of the forearm on the little finger side of the arm. I< vertex -- the top of the head. W-X-Y-2Z zygomatic arch -- the bony arch below the orbit of the skull extending hori- zontally along the side of the head from the cheekbone (the zygomatic bone) nearly to the external ear. ITII-76 ILLUSTRATED GLOSSARY III-77 Lateral Medial Lateral Posterior Anterior Superior Inferior Figure 1. Anatomical planes and orientations. ACROMION HUMERUS RADIALE ULNA RADIUS RADIAL STYLION DACTYLION FEMUR TIBIA MALLEOLUS SPHYRION Figure SUPRASTERNALE STERNUM DELTOID MUSCLE AXILLA SUBSTERNALE TROCHANTERION ULNAR STYLION TIBIALE FIBULA Anatomical and anthropometric landmarks. III-79 CERVICALE SCAPULA BUTTOCK PROTRUSION GLUTEAL FURROW BICEPS FEMORIS POPLITEAL GASTROCNEMIUS TARSUS cee CALCANEUS AS @ A) — PHALANGES 0 METACARPALES CARPUS THYROID CARTILAGE BICEPS BRACHII OLECRANON BUSTPOINT ILIAC CREST TROCHANTERION PATELLA SPHYRION METATARSALS PHALANGES Figure 3. Anatomical and anthropometric landmarks. II1-80 \ _ N — —_ < ~ 3 ENDUCANTHUS — ECTOCANTHUS == | { ZYGOMATIC ARCH PHILTRUM \ \N CHETLION STOMION Figure 4. Anthropometric landmarks of the head and face III-81 ¢8-II1 OCCIPITAL BONE NUCHALE INION TRAGION ZYGOMATIC ARCH MASTOID PROCESS MANDIBLE VERTEX LS TEMPORAL CREST CRINION GLABELLA N SELLION (Nasal Root RN fe Depression) 7 OD PRONASALE arly SUBNASALE MENTON N GONIAL ANGLE Figure 5. Anthropometric landmarks of the head and face. APPENDIX B PROJECTED 1985 BODY SIZE DATA ITI-83 PROJECTED 1985 BODY SIZE DATA As man/machine systems become increasingly more complex, the research and development cycle from concept to ultimate end product is continually lengthened. The more complex the system, the more time is involved in the establishment of system requirements and design parameters, mock up, proto- type fabrication, testing and evaluation prior to the production of the system. This research and development cycle can become so lengthy that the anticipated users of a particular system such as a fighter aircraft, for example, may still be adolecents at the time the basic system requirements are being established. The designer must therefore think in terms of the requirements of users projected five to 15 years in the future. In Chapter II, sources of human body size variability are described and quantified. There, particular attention was paid to secular changes in the body size of populations over time. To relieve the NASA design engin- eer of the burden of extrapolating data to the 1980-1990 time frame, the following anthropometric data have been developed for selected body dimen- sions projected to 1985. The dimensions chosen for inclusion here are the same 59 variables charted in the main body of this chapter and were selec- ted for their general all-around usefulness to NASA engineers. The male extrapolations were made on the basis of data from a number of surveys of USAF and U.S. Navy flying personnel conducted between 1950 and 1973. The data used were restricted to those from commissioned officers in the 23-35 year age range. Estimates were made for stature and for weight for astronauts aged 35 in 1985; estimates for other bodily dimensions were then computed by modifying the USAF '67 flying personnel data to reflect the anticipated increases in stature and weight. Stature was assumed to be solely dependent on year of birth and statis- tics for stature were computed, year by year, for men born in each year from 1915 to 1950. Regression lines fitted to the means, 5th percentiles and 95th percentiles of these data suggested a continuing increase in all three statistics of about 8 mm (1/3 inch) per decade. Since the men who will be 35 years old in 1985 were born in 1950, 12-13 years later than the average member of the '67 flying personnel survey, an increase of about one centimeter (0.4 inch) was postulated. Weight was considered as being primarily related to age and, for pur- poses of projection, it was assumed that the ponderal index (stature divided by the cube root of weight) was independent of birth year but was a linear function of age. On this basis, a value for the ponderal index for men of 35 was derived. The projected weight was then established by determining the weight which, with the anticipated 1985 stature, corresponded to this III-84 index. Unlike the values of stature, the projected increases in weight in- creased substantially from the low end to the high end of the body size distribution: 5th %ile, 1.6 kg (3.5 1b); 10th %ile, 1.7 kg (3.7 1b); mean, 1.9 kg (4.2 1b); 90th %ile, 2.1 kg (4.6 1b); 95th %ile, 2.2 kg (4.9 1b). Because no correspondingly large group of surveys on which to study secular changes in the dimensions of female officers exists and because of the small size of the changes in the men's values, the data for the offi- cers' subseries measured in the 1968 Air Force Women's survey have been accepted as the most satisfactory basis from which estimates were made. III-85 1985 MALE* No. Dimension Shile Mean 95%ile 805 Stature 168.2 178.4 188.6 (66.2) (70.2) (74.3) 973 Wrist height 80.7 87.1 93.9 (31.8) (34.3) (37.0) 64 Ankle height 12.1 13.8 15.8 (4.8) (5.4) (6.2) 309 Elbow height 105.5 113.0 120.9 (41.5) (44.5) (47.6) 236 Chest depth 21.5 24.6 27.8 (8.5) (9.7) (10.9) 916 Vertical trunk circumference 157.4 169.0 180.9 (62.0) (66.5) (71.2) 612 Midshoulder height, sitting 60.6 65.0 69.6 (23.9) (25.6) (27.4) 459 Hip breadth, sitting 34.4 38.1 42.2 (13.5) (15.0) (16.6) 921 Waist back 43.3 47.2 51.1 (17.0) (18.6) (20.1) 506 Interscye 32.6 38.9 45.2 (12.8) (15.3) |. (17.8) 639 Neck circumference 35.5 38.5 © 41.8 (14.0) (15.2) (16.5) 754 Shoulder length 14.7 16.7 18.9 (5.8) (6.6) (7.4) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-86 1985 FEMALE* No » Dimension 5%hile Mean 95%ile 805 Stature : 152.3 162.8 172.8 (60.0) (64.1) (68.0) 973 Wrist height*¥* 73.5 79.4 85.3 (28.9) (31.3) (33.6) 64 Ankle height 9.1 11.2 13.6 (3.6) (4.4) (5.4) 309 Elbow height¥*¥* 96.5 102.6 108.7 (38.0) (40.4) (42.8) 169 Bust depth 21.1 24,2 28.2 (8.3) (9.5) (11.1) 916 Vertical trunk circumference 145.3 156.6 169.0 (57.2) (61.7) (66.5) 612 Midshoulder height, sitting 54,2 58.5 63.1 (21.3) (23.0) (24.8) 459 Hip breadth, sitting 35.4 38.5 41.6 (13.9) (15.2) (16.4) 921 Waist back 36.8 40.5 44.5 (14.5) (15.9) (17.5) 506 Interscye 31.4 35.6 39.9 (12.4) (14.0) (15.7) 639 Neck circumference 31.3 34.0 37.3 (12.3) (13.4) (14.7) - 754 Shoulder length 13.1 14.7 16.5 (5.2) (5.8) (6.5) | *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. I **Estimated from regression equations. III-87 1985 MALE¥* 420 y No. Dimension Skile Mean 95%ile 758 Sitting height 88.5 93.6 99.0 (34.8) (36.9) (39.0) 330 Eye height, sitting 76.4 81.3 86.5 (30.1) (32.0) (34.1) 529 Knee height, sitting 52.1 56.1 60.3 (20.5) (22.1) (23.7) 678 Popliteal height 40.4 44.0 47.8 (15.9) (17.3) (18.8) 751 Shoulder-elbow length 33.3 36.1 38.9 (13.1) (14.2) (15.3) 194 Buttock-knee length 56.4 60.8 65.4 (22.2) (23.9) (25.7) 420 Hand length 17.9 19.2 20.6 (7.0) (7.6) (8.1) 411 Hand breadth 8.3 8.9 9.6 (3.3) (3.5) (3.8) 416 _ Hand circumference 20.1 21.6 23.2 (7.9) (8.5) O.1 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-88 1985 FEMALE* 5291 411 420 No, Dimension Skhile Mean 95%kile 758 Sitting height 81.2 86.2 91.5 (32.0) (33.9) (36.0) 330 Eye height, sitting 69.5 74.4 79.6 (27.4) (29.3) (31.3) 529 Knee height, sitting#*¥ 46.7 50.5 54.3 (18.4) (19.9) (21.4) 678 Popliteal height 37.8 41.0 44.2 (14.9) (16.1) (17.4) 751 Shoulder-elbow length*¥* 30.6 33.2 35.8 (12.0) (13.1) (14.1) 194 Buttock-knee length 53.3 57.6 62.0 (21.0) (22.7) (24.4) 420 Hand length 17.0 18.4 20.1 (6.7) (7.2) (7.9) 411 Hand breadth 6.9 7.6 8.3 i 2.7) (3.0) (3.3) -— : 416 Hand circumference 16.7 18.3 19.9 (6.6) (7.2) (7.8) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. | **Estimated from regression equations. i | | III-89 1985 MALE* 215 No. Dimension Shile Mean 95%ile 949 Waist height 99.4 107.2 114.8 (39.1) (42.2) (45.2) 249 Crotch height 78.9 85.7 92.6 (31.1) (33.7) (36.5) 215 Calf height 32.3 35.8 39.6 (12.7) (14.1) (15.6) 103 Biacromial breadth 37.6 40.9 44.0 (14.8) (16.1) (17.3) 946 Waist front 37.1 40.6 44.2 - (14.6) (16.0) (17.4) 735 Scye circumference 44.2 48.7 53.3 (17.4) (19.2) (21.0) 178 Buttock circumference 90.3 99.5 108.9 (35.6) (39.2) (42.9) 312 Elbow rest height 21.0 25.3 29.7 (8.3) (10.0) (11.7) 856 Thigh clearance 14.5 16.8 19.1 (5.7) (6.6) (7.5) 381 Forearm-hand length** 45.7 49.1 52.6 (18.0) (19.3) (20.7) 200 Buttock-popliteal length 46.4 50.8 55.1 (18.3) (20.0) (21.7) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. **Estimated from regression equations. III-90 1985 FEMALE* No. Dimension S%hile Mean 95%ile 949 Waist height 93.1 100.7 108.1 (36.7) (39.6) (42.6) 249 Crotch height 67.7 T7444 81.3 (26.7) (29.3) (32.0) 215 Calf height** 28.7 33.1 37.5 (11.3) (13.0) (14.8) 103 Biacromial breadth 33.4 36.1 38.8 (13.1) (14.2) (15.3) 946 Waist front 30.4 33.7 37.1 (12.0) (13.3) (14.6) 735 Scye circumference 34.1 37.8 41.9 (13.4) (14.9) (16.5) 178 Buttock circumference 86.0 95.1 106.6 (33.9) (37.4) (42.0) 312 Elbow rest height 19.2 22.9 27.1 (7.6) (9.0) (10.7) 856 Thigh clearance 10.4 12.5 14.9 (4.1) (4.9) (5.9) 381 Forearm-hand length¥** 39.7 42.8 45.9 (15.6) (16.9) (18.1) 200 Buttock-popliteal length 43.7 47.9 52.7 (17.2) (18.9) (20.7) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. **Estimated from regression equations. III-91 1985 MALE* 894 ) TT 873 y 4 | No Dimension S5kile Mean 95%ile 957 Weight (not pictured) kg. 65.2 81.5 97.7 (1bs.) (143.7) (179.7) (215.4) 23 Acromial (shoulder) height 136.5 | 146.1 155.7 (53.7) (57.5) (61.3) 894 Trochanteric height 87.5 94.6 101.8 (34.4) (37.2) (40,1) 873 Tibiale height 44.8 48.9 53.0 (17.6) (19.3) (20.9) 122 Bideltoid (shoulder) breadth 44.4 48.6 52.9 (17.5) (19,1) (20,8) 223 Chest breadth 29.7 33.0 36.7 1.7 (13.0) (14.4) 457 Hip breadth 32.5 35.5 38.8 (12.8) 14.0) 1 (15,3) 165 Bizygomatic (face) breadth 13.4 14.3 15.1 (5.3) (5.6) (5.9) 427 Head breadth 14.7 15.6 16.6 (5,8) 6,1) (6.5) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. ITI-92 1985 FEMALE* No . Dimension 5%kile Mean 95%ile 957 Weight (not pictured) kge 47.4 59.7 74.9 (1bs.) (104.5) (131.6) (165.1) 23 Acromial (shoulder) height 122.9 132.4 141.4 . (48.4) (52.1) (55.7) 894 Trochanteric height 75.6 82.8 90.1 (29.8) (32.6) (35.5) 873 Tibiale height 38.1 42.1 46.4 (15.0) (16.6) (18.3) 122 Bideltoid (shoulder) breadth 38.6 42 4 46.8 (15.2) (16.7) (18.4) 223 Chest breadth 25.3 28.5 32.3 (10.0) (11.2) (12.7) 457 Hip breadth** 32.0 35.5 39.6 (3.9) (4.3) (4.6) 165 Bizygomatic (face) breadth 12.0 13.0 14.0 (4.7) (5.1) (5.5) bi 1 427 Head breadth 13.7 14.7 15.7 (5.4) (5.8) (6.2) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. **Estimated from regression equations. 111.93 1985 MALE* 369 No. Dimension S5%ile Mean 95%ile 747 Shoulder circumference 109.0 118.5 128.4 (42.9) (46.7) (50.6) 230 Chest circumference 89.1 99.1 109.8 (35.1) (39.0) (43.2) 931 Waist circumference 76.4 88.4 100.7 (30.1) (34.8) (39.6) 852 Thigh circumference 52.1 59.5 67.1 : (20.5) (23.4) (26.4) 515 Knee circumference 35.6 39.0 42.7 (14.0) (15.4) (16.8) 207 Calf circumference 33.8 37.5 41.3 €13.3) (14.8) (16.3) 113 Biceps circumference, relaxed 27.2 31.1 35.0 (10.7) (12.2) (13.8) 967 Wrist circumference 16.2 17.6 19.3 (6.4) (6.9) (7.6) 111 Biceps circumference, flexed 29.4 33.1 36.9 (11.6) (13.0) (14.5) 369 Forearm circumference, flexed 27.4 30.0 32.6 (10.8) (11.8) (12.8) *Data given in centimeters with inches in I-94 parentheses. 1985 FEMALE* No « . Dimension S%ile Mean 95%ile 747 Shoulder circumference 93.3 101.7 111.8 (36.7) (40.0) (44.0) 230 Chest circumference 82.2 91.6 103.6 (32.4) (36.1) (40.8) 931 Waist circumference 59.4 68.2 80.4 (23.4) (26.9) (31.7) 852 Thigh circumference 49.2 56.3 64,1 (19.4) (22.2) (25.2) 515 Knee circumference 33.0 36.7 41.1 (13.0) (14.4) (16.2) 207 Calf circumference 30.7 34.3 38.4 (12.1) (13.5) (15.1) 113 Biceps circumference, relaxed 22.8 26.3 30.9 (9.0) (10.4) (12.2) 967 Wrist circumference 13.8 15.0 16.3 (5.4) (5.9) (6.4) 111 Biceps circumference, flexed 23.9 27.5 32.0 (9.4) (10.8) (12.6) 369 Forearm circumference, flexed 22.7 25.2 27.8 (8.9) (9.9) (10.9) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-95 1985 MALE* 362 No . Dimension S5%ile Mean 95%ile 67 Thumb-tip reach 74.3 80.7 87.4 (29.3) (31.8) (34.4) 772 Sleeve length 85.7 91.3 97.3 (33.7) (35.9) (38.3) 441 Head length 18.8 19.9 21.0 (7.4) (7.8) (8.3) 430 Head circumference 55.3 57.6 60.0 (21.8) (22.7) (23.6) 586 Menton-sellion (face) length 11.1 12.0 13.0 (4a4) (4.7) (5.1) 362 Foot length 25.3 27.2 29.2 (10.0) (10.7) . (11.5) 356 Foot breadth 9.0 9.8 10.7 (3.5) (3.9) (4.2) 97 Ball of foot circumference 23.0 25.0 27.0 (9.1) (9.8) (10.6) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. III-96 1985 FEMALE¥* 362 586 No » Dimension Shile Mean 95%ile 67 Thumb-tip reach 67.7 744.3 80.6 (26.7) (29.3) (31.7) 772 Sleeve length 74.2 80.0 85.2 (29.2) (31.5) (33.5) 441 Head length 17.5 18.6 19.7 (6.9) (7.3) (7.8) 430 Head circumference 52.6 55.2 57.9 (20.7) (21.7) (22.8) 586 Menton-sellion (face) length 12.6 14.0 15.6 (9.8) (10.8) (11.8) 362 Foot length 22.2 24.1 26.1 (8.7) (9.5) (10.3) 356 Foot breadth 8.0 8.8 9.7 (3.1) (3.5) (3.8) 97 Ball of foot circumference®* 21.3 23.3 25.3 (8.4) (9.2) (10.0) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. **Estimated from regression equations. III-97 APPENDIX C DRAWING BOARD MANIKINS Two-dimensional drawing board manikins are among the most important aids used by the designer in making preliminary as well as fairly complete crew station drawings. The most up-to-date and accurate such manikins are those developed by Kenneth W. Kennedy of the Aerospace Medical Research Lab- oratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Acting on a request from the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, NASA, Kennedy developed a 5th, 50th and 95th percentile drawing board manikin based on the anticipated 1980-1990 body size distribution of USAF fliers. These manikins provide not only accur- ate body size dimensions but body length links, segmental centers of rota- tion and joint range limits. As well, they incorporate adjustments for changes in body size dimensions for sitting and standing design postures. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the new manikins (patents applied for). They are designed to represent the USAF rated officers of the 1980-90 time period. Figure 1 is a photograph of one variation, the 5th percentile, with the arm detached to permit an uncluttered view of its parts. Fifth, 50th, and 95th percentile manikins have been designed. A variant of the same manikin, provided with a boot and helmet, is pictured in Figure 2 in the fetal position to illustrate the manikin's mobility and natural body profile in such an extreme position. The manikins are accurate in at least 25 body size dimensions impor- tant in the layout of crew stations. Chief among these are: Stature Sitting height Eye height, sitting Functional reach Functional reach, extended Elbow to grip distance Buttock knee length Knee height, sitting Chest depth Waist depth Hand, head and foot dimensions Alternate limbs have been designed and sized to allow the designer to consider variability in body proportions as well as body size in the de- sign of crew stations. Each percentile torso is equipped with.three sets of limbs representing the design range. Thus, a 50th percentile manikin could be fitted either with 50th percentile limbs or with a set of arms and legs representing the largest or smallest generally found on that size torso. III-98 Figure 1. USAF two-dimensional manikin. III-99 EIS ORIGINAL PAG OE POOR QUALITY, Figure 2. USAF two-dimensional manikin in fetal position. III-100 The manikins are obviously useful in laying out the geometry of crew stations. They are also valuable in evaluating a crew station in terms of tolerance to G forces because they provide the capability to track the posi- tions of the eye, the carotid sinuses, and the aortic valves. The heights of the eye-heart and carotid sinus-heart columns can be calculated. To provide the USAF manikin with the desired features and to provide for realistic intra-torso mobility and the greatest possible stability on the drawing board, it was necessary to design the manikin in three layers. With this' design, the head, torso, and legs on each side can be uniplanar. Since the convention is to design cockpits and other vehicle driving stations "face left," the symbology has been designed for that direction. The arm is fastened to the manikin's left side. Should the occasion arise to design face right, the arm can be removed and fastened to the other side. The plans fer this manikin are not simple, nor can useful models be made with cardboard and scissors. They require precise and rather skilled care in their fabrication to assure the desired results. Although somewhat expensive to fabricate, a well-made manikin is an extremely useful and valu- able design tool. Plans may be obtained from: 6570 Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory ATTN: Mr. Kenneth W. Kennedy Wright-Patterson AFBs Ohio 45433 For the casual user and for the designer who does not need the full capabilities of the more complicated USAF 2-D manikins, a simpler design has been prepared and is presented in Figures 3, 4 and 5. While the pictured patterns do not embody all the features of the more complicated manikins, they are much less costly to produce and still provide accurate body dimen- sional and mobility data readily useful to the designer. These illustrations are accurate as presented to allow the user to duplicate the patterns, cut them out, and actually make up serviceable 1/4 scale, 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile manikins. For users who wish to assemble the cut-out manikins, the following symbology should be understood: A carget, OF, indicates a joint center and should be drilled in accor- dance with available fasteners. Two targets connected by a straight line, such as in the upper torso and upper arm, represent a slot of a convenient diameter to permit slippage of the fastener. This slot permits the arm to be placed in both the functional reach and functional reach, extended positions. Index hole = ee ; Adjustment hole =o . "E," which appears adjacent to adjustment holes in the head, neck, torso, and lower limb, indicates adjustment holes for the erect body posi- tion, both standing and seated. When the index holes ( e ) are aligned with the adjustment hole ( o ) marked "E," the manikin is adjusted to a normal III-101 erect body position. When the index holes are aligned with the other holes, the joint in consideration is at an extreme of its motion capability. It is extremely important to follow instructions when fabricating these manikins. With the manikins in the standing erect position (as illustrated), the following instructions apply. Joint A (Head): Drill index hole through both top and bottom pieces. Drill adjustment holes through bottom piece only. Scribe "E" on bottom piece. Joint B (Neck): Drill index hole through both pieces. Drill adjustment holes through bottom piece. Scribe "E" on bottom piece. Joint C (Mid-chest--below arm attachment slot): Drill index hole through both pieces. Drill adjustment holes through top piece. Scribe "E" on top piece. Joint D (Abdomen): Drill index hole through both pieces. Drill adjustment holes through bottom piece. TT Scribe "E" on bottom piece. Joint E (Hip): Drill index hole through both pieces. Drill adjustment holes through bottom piece. Scribe "E"s and "X" on bottom piece. Joint F (Knee): Drill index hole through both pieces. Drill adjustment holes through bottom piece. Scribe "E", "5" and "95" on bottom piece. Joint G (Ankle): Drill index hole through top piece only. Drill adjustment holes through bottom piece. III-102 Joint H (Elbow): Drill index hole through both pieces. Drill adjustment holes through top piece. Scribe "5" and '"95" on top piece. Joint I (Wrist): Drill index hole through top piece only . Drill adjustment holes through bottom piece. When the manikin is in use, functional reach ("FR" mark on hand) and finger tip reach ("FT" mark on hand) can be accurately simulated by align- ing "FR" in the slot in the upper arm with "FR" in the slot in the upper torso, with the arm straight and extended forward. Functional reach extended ("FRX" mark on the hand) and finger tip reach can be simulated by similarly aligning "FRX" on the torso and arm. When the index hole is aligned with "5" or "95" at the knee or elbow, 5th and 95th percentile knee and elbow flexion, respectively, are achieved. When in the "E" position, the joint is fully extended. When the index hole at the hip is adjusted to one of the two ''E" adjustment holes, that joint is in the seated or standing erect position; when adjusted to "X", the hip is hyperextended. When at one of the remaining two adjustment holes, the hip is either normally extended or flexed. III-103 -» 1 La ORIGINAL pag. IS Figure 3. Two-dimensional 57ile USAF manikin (simplified version). III-104 Figure 4. = 0 a. ORIGINAL PAGE 18 OF POOR QUALITY Two-dimensional 50%ile USAF manikin (simplified version). III-105 Figure 5. wo * >» Two-dimensional 95%ile USAF manikin (simplified version). A N79-11738 CHAPTER 1IV THE INERTIAL PROPERTIES OF THE BODY AND ITS SEGMENTS by Herbert M. Reynolds The University of Michigan The purpose of this chapter is to present a user-oriented summary of the current state of knowledge on the mass distribution properties of the adult human body. Design engineers, the most common users of such data, bave two sources of information for establishing human’biomechanical limita- tions relevant to their design product. These are directly measured data and output from mathematical models. Empirical data are obviously the more desirable but are often either unavailable or unattainable on living subjects so the output from mathematical models becomes the sole source of design information. These models have, in the past, been based upon the properties of geometric analogues of body segments. While this approach serves a useful purpose in examining population problems where the variation in the popula- tion is greater than the error in the model, it does not provide a design engineer with the needed sensitivity to design equipment for a highly selected group of astronauts. Collected here for the first time are all the known data describing the mass distribution properties of the body presented in such a manner that mathematical models can be highly individualized. This material, which includes data for living whole bodies in static positions and segment data obtained from cadaver studies, will provide both direction for constructing mass distribution models and a range of values by which the model output can be evaluated. Mass distribution properties will be discussed in terms of the musculoskeletal linkage system, axes systems, mass, volume, center of mass, and inertial properties. In the following sections data and prediction equations or coefficients suitable for modeling these properties are pro- vided. Predictive formulas presented in this chapter and suitable for both the whole body and its segments will employ, primarily, total body weight and stature as the independent variables. While some computations have been completed and presented here, the user may be interested in computing for a different population. In this case either an individual's measured height and weight could be used or the appropriate population statistics (See Chapter III) could be substituted. While the prediction equations and resulting estimates will be of use in the preliminary analysis of the design problem for a population, they will not be sensitive to individual variations which may be of significance in designing for a specific astronaut or scientist. For this purpose the reader Iv-1 will be referred to various tables in Appendix B in which data and computa- tion techniques for estimating the biomechanical properties of the individual appear. Equations provided in this Appendix are aimed at describing segments of the body in such a way that differences between individuals can be observed and will help the designer determine the range and extent to which a particular piece of equipment needs to be personalized. These data also provide biomechanical input for individualized models useful in solving workspace design problems or analyzing dynamic environments. Data Sources and Limitations The data and prediction equations presented in this chapter are based, in general, on small samples of living and cadaveric subjects typical of the White European male. In the very few cases where data were available on males and females of other races, the information has been reviewed and incorpo- rated in the appropriate table or prediction equations. However, the fact that most of the data were collected on white European males presents an undeniable problem to the design engineer concerned with a population whose range in size goes from the fifth percentile Oriental woman to the 95th percentile Caucasoid male. Many different techniques have been utilized for measuring the mass distribution properties of the whole body. Hay (1973) gives an excellent re- view of these studies and points out the two major difficulties in studies of the living; (1) fluid and tissue shifts in the measurement procedure and (2) the static, or position-dependent, nature of the measured locations. When a whole body is measured, the data are completely valid only when applied to a body in that position. Thus, in order to determine the location of the center of mass for any given body, it is necessary to measure either every possible body position or to measure the location of the center of mass in each body segment and model the whole body from the sum of its segments. The latter approach has been emphasized in the present chapter since it provides infor- mation on a wider range of body types and body positions. The segment model approach has been a recent development and most of the data are derived from European and U.S. studies of cadavers (Harless, 1860; Braune and Fischer, 1889, 1892; Fischer, 1906; Dempster, 1955; GClauser et al. 1969; and Chandler et al. 1975). Two additional studies by Mori and Yamamoto (1959) and Fujikawa (1963) provide some data on the mass distribu- tion of twelve Japanese cadavers. Although the total sample size from all the above-mentioned studies is limited, it probably provides a better estimate for the desired biomechanical properties than do the present geometric models. Measurements on the body segments of living subjects have usually relied upon indirect methods. Segment weight has been estimated by measur- ing segment volume (Drillis and Contini, 1966) and by measuring the reaction change on a weight board due to segment displacement (Bernstein et al. 1931). Segment center of mass measurements have used volumetric estimates Iv-2 (Bernstein et al. 1931; Cleaveland, 1955) .Inertial data have been collected almost exclusively on the links using indirect measurement techniques to estimate a single moment of inertia about a joint center of rotation (Fenn, Brody, and Petrilli, 1931; Fenn, 1938; Hill, 1940; Bouisset and Pertuzon, 1968, Allum and Young, 1976). These techniques, in general, assume knowledge of segment density, segment center of mass, and joint centers of rotation depending upon the variable under investigation. A promising indirect technique .for measuring the mass distribution properties of the living human body appears to be stereophotogrammetric measures of volume as developed by Herron et al. (1976). In addition to the lack of complete population data, there are no data on the effect of the secular increase in size on the mass distribution properties of the human body. It has been assumed that these changes will be proportional, thus making a linear solution to any problem possible. For example, if an increase in stature of 0.5% occurs in the next 10 years it is assumed that there would be a corresponding increase in link length. Furthermore, the assumption is made that statistical relationships would remain the same; eogo, the correlation coefficient between acromion-radiale length and stature would remain constant. The design engineer and modeler should be alerted to these kinds of assumptions (which we make, for example, in combining linkage data from Dempster, 1955, and Snyder, Chaffin, and Schultz, 1972) so that he can assess the data within his tolerance limits and decide on the extent to which these data can be relied upon. Two further limitations of the basic data should be mentioned before proceeding. First, the relationship between data collected from living subjects and data based on cadaver studies has never been defined. This means that it is not yet known how accurately data garnered from a cadaver can be applied to the living. In addition, the error in estimating data from indirect measurements made on living subjects has also not been defined. Secondly, all data so far collected were measured at one-g and the changes which a zero-g environment effect on an individual were not consid- ered. One means of dealing with this problem is discussed in following sections on linkage and masse. The Anatomical Framework The human body is often compared to a machine. Persuaded by this concept, one 1s easily led to rely on mechanical concepts to describe the geometry and motion of the body in the biomechanical framework. However, one must recognize that the present mechanical treatment of the human anatomy with mechanical analogies is only an approximation of a highly complex and variable system. As a first step in clarifying the construction of the human body, an anatomical description of joint centers of rotation, axes systems, and body linkages is given in great detail in Appendix A. The user of Iv-3 this chapter is strongly urged to read this Appendix and obtain some grasp of the anatomical structure that underlies all these biomechanical data. Without a thorough understanding, the user is likely to go astray in apply- ing the data. In the study of anatomy, three planes--sagittal, frontal, and trans- verse--have been hypothetically superimposed on the body to describe the relative location of its anatomical features. The usual directional notation system used to describe locations relative to these planes is as follows with the corresponding, right-hand rule axis system nomenclature in paren- thesis: Anterior--towards the front (+X) Posterior--towards the rear (-X) Lateral--towards the side: Left (+Y), Right (-Y) Medial--towards the middle: Left (-Y), Right (+Y) Superior--towards the head (+2) Inferior--towards the feet (-Z) With the body in the standard anatomical position, the sagittal plane is defined by the X- and Z-axes; the frontal, or coronal, plane is defined by the Y- and Z-axes; and the transverse, or horizontal, plane is defined by the X- and Y-axes (See Figure 1). This superstructure of intersecting planes has not traditionally been anchored to any single location in the body. For biokinematic research and engineering hardware design a whole body axis system should be fixed (rather than "floating') through use of specific anatomical or anthropometric landmarks. The axes proposed in this chapter use three definable landmarks selected so that they form a plane approximately parallel to one of the cardinal anatomical planes of the body. A right- handed, orthogonal axis system is then constructed using the anthropometric plane of orientation, a perpendicular plane and a plane normal to the other two planes. Thus, the axis system will be defined by the intersection of three orthogonal planes of reference and a defined point of origin. Although a number of axes systems have been proposed (Santschi et al. 1963; Ignazi et al. 1972; and Chandler et al. 1975; Panjabi et al. 1974; Thomas et al. 1975) the whole body axis system which appears at this time to be best suited for biomechanical models is one centered on the pelvis (See Figure 1). There are several reasons for choosing this system. First, the center of mass of the whole body in every position is approximately at the site of the pelvis. Second, the pelvis can be treated as a rigid body. Third, the human body in its most elemental form is hinged at the pelvis. In other words, a major controlling factor in attitude and motion of the body is the spatial orientation and location of the pelvis. : Therefore, it is recommended that a frontal plane (YZ) be established using symphysion and the right and left anterior superior iliac spines. The transverse (XY) plane is constructed as a perpendicular to the YZ plane while passing through the right and left anterior superior iliac spines. The sagit- tal (XZ) plane is constructed as a normal to the YZ and XY planes while pass- IV-4 Frontal Transverse ~N rT Sagittal ——s| Figure 1. Whole body axis system centered on the pelvis. Iv-5 ing through symphysion. The coordinate axis system origin will lie on a line passing through the right and left anterior superior iliac spines approxi- mately at the midpoint of bispinous diameter. The +X axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY and XZ planes; the +Y axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY and YZ planes; and the +Z axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ and YZ planes. Similar frames of reference have been provided for body segments (See Appendix A). Theoretically, a biomechanical segment of the body is the largest dimensional mass which, when moved, will maintain a constant geometry. Thus, body segments are defined as the mass which lies between two adjacent segmentation surfaces which pass through their respective joint centers of rotation. For example, the forearm is a biomechanical body segment since it has a mass that lies between the wrist and elbow joint centers of rotation. It is, in other words, a body link--a term borrowed from rigid body mechanics which is used frequently to refer to the straight-line distance between two adjacent joint centers of rotation. In general, the principal body segments are easily identified although the specific segmentation planes and their locations are mot as easily deter- mined. The number of principal body segments differ in the literature, parti- cularly with respect to the torso which has been segmented into individual vertebral sections (Liu and Wickstrom, 1973) and left intact as one mass (Chandler et al. 1975). Other segmentation schemes utilized in mass distribu- tion studies have been described in Reynolds et al. (1975). In addition, there are differences in segmentation planes between studies conducted on living subjects and cadavers (See Figure 2). For the present chapter, the segmentation planes will follow the rationale first presented by Braune and Fischer (1892) and simulated in subsequent studies. This scheme segments the body at the level of joint centers of rotation thereby providing data correlated with the linkage system of the body. Dempster (1955) and Snyder et al. (1972) have provided the basic data we will use here in describing the linkage system and its spatial description. - This chapter is a'result of sorting through numerous alternatives to arrive at an anatomical framework most suitable for biomechanical research. The data reflect this approach but without a thorough appreciation of the implications of a mechanical model upon the anatomical reality, costly mistakes and misinterpretations can occur. Therefore the user is once again encouraged to become familiar with Appendix A for a full appreciation of the information contained in this chapter. The Bo Linkage Syst A description of the body as a linkage system provides a biomechani- cal framework that can be used to undertake a rigorous analysis of its kine- matics. Without this basic model, the study of the motion of the body and its respective segments would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. IvV-6 ——— pr — ——— £ —— an Gam — = ems St T= Comme Sw— a—— ——— a. —— — — — Lan Segmentation planes used in studies of cadavers (at left) Figure 2. a, / 0) ard living bodies (at right). v-7 It should be noted, before proceeding, that the concepts of body seg- ments and body links must be handled carefully. The concept of a body segment is useful in describing mass distribution; the concept of a body link is used when describing body motion. When dealing with the limbs, segments and links generally correspond. The torso, however, has such complex motion capabili- ties that its various segments often contain more than one link.* For the purposes of this chapter, the body is composed of 20 links: head, neck, thoracic, thoraco-sternum assemblage** (right and left transthor- acic and transternum), right and left clavicular, right and left scapular, lumbar, pelvic assemblage** (right and left ilio-pelvic and transpelvic), right and left upper arm, right and left forearm, right and left thigh, right and left shank, right and left foot. These links are illustrated in Figure 3 and defined in Appendix A. Theoretically, links are pure straight line distances between centers of joint rotation. In fact, due to the complex nature of actual joint motion, the link is an average straight-line distance calculated from points at the mid-range of joint mobility. For a more complete discussion of the body link- age system and the underlying anatomical assumptions, the reader is referred to Dempster's "Space Requirements of the Seated Operator" (1955). Limb Links The first step in determining the length of links in the arms and legs is to determine lengths of the relevant long bones, which in turn can be estimated from stature. Then, using coefficients which have been derived as a ratio of link length to bone length, link lengths are determined by multiplying bone lengths by the link/bone coefficients. A step-by-step description of these procedures follows: The four limb links and their associated bones are: upper arm (hum- erus), forearm (radius and ulna), thigh (femur), and shank (tibia and * Insufficient research has been conducted to resolve in a logical and consistent manner the apparent conflict between torso links and segments. *% Both of these linkage assemblages are closed systems composed of three straight-line distances and three joint centers of rotation. They are considered assemblages, at present, since no one straight-line distance in an assemblage can move independently of the other two. IV-8 Head (Transthoracic) Clavicular (Transsternum) - Upper Arm Forearm (Iliopelvic) Hand = Shank Linkage system. Neck Thoraco-sternum Scapular Thoracic Lumbar Pelvic (Transpelvic) Thigh Foot Iv-9 fibula). In the following discussion and accompanying tables it will be noted that the shank link is presented for tibia length only, whereas the forearm link is described relative to either the radius or ulna. This discrepancy in treatment between the shank and forearm, both of which have two long bones, probably arises as a result of past practice among anthropometrists to measure tibial length rather than fibula length and to measure either of the long bones in the forearm. Design engineers may use either ratio for the forearm or choose to average the relatively small differences between them. Link lengths in this chapter have been obtained by combining data from two studies: Trotter and Gleser (1958) who measured long bones in the arms and legs using standard osteological techniques, and Dempster, Sherr and Priest (1964) who developed coefficients and regression equa- tions for predicting bone and link lengths. First the bone length and stature for the sex and race groups in Trot- ter and Gleser (1958) were normalized in the following manner: Bone Length - Mean Bone Length Bone Length Standard Deviation (1) and, Stature - Mean Stature Stature Standard Deviation (2) Next, a linear relationship between the two normalized variables was assumed and the following equation was constructed using the correlation coefficient as the regression coefficient, or slope, with an intercept equal to zero: Bone Length - Mean Bone Length Bone Length Standard Deviation i Corr. Coef. Stature - Mean Stature Stature Standard Deviation. (3) Se ot = Bone Standard Deviation \ 1 - (Corr. Coef.)? (4)* By substituting the appropriate variables from Trotter and Gleser (1958) into equation #3 and solving for the dependent and independent variables, the standard regression equation is generated in the form: with y = bx + a¥* SE (5) *The derivation of these equations can be found in Croxton (p. 175-176, 1959). **Where y=bone length, x=stature, b=slope and a=intercept. Iv-10 with an accompanying standard error of the estimate (equation #4). Table 1 presents the regression equations derived to predict bone lengths from sta- ture for white and black American females and white American, black American, and Oriental males. To use these equations, an appropriate value for stature is selected and inserted into the equation which is then solved for the appropriate bone length. The same stature value is used for all bone lengths to describe a particular individual or group of individuals. Table 2 presents values derived from the equations in Table 1 for 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile stature data predicted for white males and females in 1985 (See Chapter III, Appendix B). For these bone length estimates, Dempster, Sherr, and Priest (1964) have provided coefficients to estimate the corresponding link length. Table 3 presents these coefficients which have been derived as a ratio of link length to bone length. To compute link lengths, the coefficients presented in Table 3 are multiplied by the bone lengths calculated from equations in Table l. In the present case, the data in Table 2 have been multiplied by the appropriate coefficients in Table 3 to generate the link lengths presented in Table 4. It is interesting to note that the coefficients in Table 3 were computed from data on male whites only and yet the results in Table 4 appear, on the basis of the forearm link, to estimate the link lengths of females with better cor=« respondence between estimates than for males. Dempster, Sherr and Priest (1964) also derived regression equations to estimate link lengths directly from anthropometric measures of bone length (See Appendix B, Table 1). When bone length data are available for individual astronauts, for example, these equations can be used to estimate individual link lengths more precisely. Link lengths for the hands and feet are calculated from the wrist and ankle joint centers to the respective centers of mass. These data are presented in the next section in which the segment centers of mass are discussed. However, Dempster (1955) provides two coefficients to estimate hand and foot 1linkse The hand link is estimated as 20.6% of humerus length (See Table 1); the foot link is estimated as 30.6% of foot length (See Chapter III). Head and Torso The torso with its unique characteristics of motion and the complex spatial relationships of its parts is the most difficult part of the body to describe within the linkage framework. While a number of approaches are possible, the input parameters used to describe the kinematic properties of the torso in this chapter will be relative to three links for the spinal col- umn (neck, thorax; and lumbar), a link assemblage for the pelvic girdle Iv-11 TABLE 1 REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR ESTIMATING LIMB LENGTHS* Female Se est a) White Humerus Length = 0.1855 stature + 0.771 (+1.03) Radius Length = 0.130 stature + 1.273 (0.76) Ulna Length = 0.139 stature + 1.708 (40.89) Femur Length = 0.289 stature - 3.516 © (41.30) Tibia Length = 0.242 stature - 4.870 (#1.15) Fibula Length = 0.243 stature - 4.695 (1.13) b) Black Humerus Length = 0.181 stature + 1.699 (+1.05) Radius Length = 0.143 stature + 0.580 (#1.14) Ulna Length = 0.130 stature + 4.535 (40.99) Femur Length = 0.310 stature =- 6.214 (+£1.27) Tibia Length = 0.265 stature - 7.221 (+1.25) Fibula Length = 0.261 stature = 6.471 (+1.22) Male a) White Humerus Length = 0.185 stature + 1.338 (#1.17) Radius Length = 0.137 stature + 1.467 (40.89) Ulna Length = 0.140 stature + 2.688 (40.93) Femur Length = 0.281 stature =- 1.902 (+1.44) Tibia Length = 0.268 stature - 8.369 (#1.33) Fibula Length = 0,257 stature - 6.490 (#1.22) b) Black Humerus Length = 0.202 stature =- 0.969 (#1.13) Radius Length = 0.157 stature =- 0.599 (+£1.02) Ulna Length = 0.158 stature - 1.013 (+1.06) Femur Length = 0.314 stature - 9.740 (+1.49) Tibia Length = 0.288 stature - 9.740 (41.40) Fibula Length = 0.266 stature =- 6.129 (+1.32) c¢) Oriental Humerus Length = 0.213 stature - 4.028 (+£1.22) Radius Length = 0.160 stature = 2.364 (+0.98) Ulna Length = 0.158 stature - 0.244 (+1.03) Femur Length = 0.303 stature - 6.621 (+1.48) Tibia Length = 0.292 stature - 12.951 (+£1.14) Fibula Length = 0.303 stature =~ 14.659 (#1.14) *All values are given in centimeters. To convert to inches, multiply by «3937. Iv-12 Limb Humerus Radius Ulna Femur Tibia Fibula *Data TABLE 2 BONE LENGTH VALUES ESTIMATED FOR 1985 POPULATION* 5th 32.03 (12.61) 24.20 (9.53) 25.91 (1C.20) 44.72 (17.61) 36.09 (14.21) 36.15 (14.23) Male White 50th 34.08 (13.42) 25.72 (10.13) 27.47 (10.81) 47.84 (18.83) 39.07 (15.38) 39.00 (15.35) 95th 36.16 (14.24) 27.25 (10.73) 29.04 (11.43) 50.98 (20.07) 42.07 (16.56) 41.88 (16.49) Female White 5th 29.23 (11.51) 21.22 (8.35) 23.03 (9.07) 40.82 (16.07) 32.25 (12.70) 32.58 (12.83) 50th 95th 31.12 32.96 (12.25) (12.98) 22.54 23.83 (8.87) (9.38) 24.45 25.82 (9.63) (10.17) 43.76 46.63 (17.23) (18.36) 34.72 37.12 (13.67) (14.61) 35.06 37.47 (13.80) (14.75) given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. TABLE 3 RATIOS OF LINK LENGTH TO BONE LENGTH (After Dempster, et al. 1964) Ratio of Lengths N Mean Standard Deviation Upper Arm Link/ Humerus Length 32 89.447 1.59% Forearm Link/Ulna Length 32 98.70 2.66 Forearm Link/Radius Length 26 107.09 3.53 Thigh Link/Femur Length 32 90.34 0.88 Shank Link/Tibia Length 33 107.76 1.81 Iv-13 TABLE 4 LINK LENGTH VALUES ESTIMATED FOR 1985 POPULATION* Limb Male White Female White 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th %tile %tile %tile %tile %tile %tile Upper Arm Link 28.65 30.48 32.34 26.14 27.83 29.48 (11.28) (12.00) (12.73) (10.29) (10.96) (11.61) Forearm Link 25.57 2711 28.66 22.73 24.13 25.48 (Ulna) (10.07) (10.67) (11.28) (8.95) (9.50) (10.03) Forearm Link 25.92 27.54 29.18 22.72 24.13 25.52 (Radius) (10.20) (10.84) (11.49) (8.94) (9.50) (10.05) Thigh Link 40.40 43.22 46.06 36.88 39.53 42,13 (15.91) (17.02) (18.13) (14.52) (15.56) (16.59) Shank Link 38.89 42.10 45.33 34.75 37.41 40.00 (15.31) (16.57) (17.85) (13.68) (14.73) (15.75) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. (right and left ilio-pelvic and transpelvic), and five links for the -shoulder girdle (thoraco-sternum assemblage, right and left clavicular, and right and left scapular). These links are defined in Appendix A and illustrated in Figure 3. A fairly complete discussion of some of these links can be found in Dempster (1955). He provides coefficients based on cadaver data for estimat- ing the clavicular and transpelvic links. The clavicular link is estimated as 35.2% of biacromial breadth (See Chapter III); the transpelvic link is estimated as 37.2% of femur length (See Table 1). He did not provide coefficients for estimating any of the remaining links in the torso. Thus, with the publication of Dempster's work on the linkage system of the human body, the links in the appendages were defined quantitatively, the links in the shoulder and pelvic girdles were identified and the links in the spinal column were as yet unstudied. In 1961, S. P. Geoffrey attempted to establish the spatial relation- ship between the hip joint center and the shoulder joint center..This is the only extant quantitative description of the distance between the shoulder and hip joint centers of rotation. Geoffrey studied twelve men to locate these joint centers radiographically in the sagittal plane for the purpose of constructing a two-dimensional design manikin. The average distance between the shoulder joint center and the hip joint center is 47.4 cm (18.67 in.) IV-14 which is representative of the average joint center-to- joint center dimension in the erect seated position for a 50th percentile 1985 male. The next attempt to examine the torso linkage system was made in 1972 by Snyder, Chaffin, and Schutz. Their report contains a prediction model of torso mobility relative to two reach envelopes for the right elbow. Their data define the configuration of a collection of discrete skeletal landmarks for a specific elbow reach position; the data do not describe interrelation- ships between these landmarks which would define the torso linkage system. We will not attempt here to synthesize their model or to draw conclusions from it. Rather, we will encourage the reader to refer to the original publication. A computer model developed for this chapter has produced the illustrations in Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7. These stick figure drawings depict a 50th percentile 1985 male in a seated reach configuration typically encoun- tered in work environments. This model is based upon equations developed in the Snyder et al. study, as well as equations for the limbs presented in Table 1. As can be observed in the illustrations, there are spatial data on a large number of skeletal landmarks. These landmarks represent typical candidates in the spinal column for joint centers of rotation from which a linkage system of the spinal column could be developed. The Snyder report contains data on almost all the vertebra in the spinal column, but additional analysis 1s required to determine the minimum number and location of the links necessary to describe motion in the torso. At this point, some observations with respect to a general statement concerning our knowledge of the link system is necessary. Dempster has pro- vided us with sufficient information on the linkage system of the appendages to establish useable population estimates. Geoffrey established a dimension for the relationship between the shoulder and hip joint centers but his data are insufficient for population estimates. The most recent attempt by Snyder et al. considers the torso linkage system within the general context of a workspace reach problem. Therefore, there are data available which provide a generalized understanding of the body linkage system, but quantitative population estimates dre, at present, unavailable. In order to complete the current linkage model of the body, substan- tial information is needed on the pelvic assemblage. Furthermore, subsequent data must be collected relative to standard body dimensions taken in an initial body position used in traditional anthropometry. In summary, a linkage system of the body has been proposed and modeled but not com- pletely validated for any body positions. The Torso in Zero-Gravity The torso linkage system discussed above represents the body config- uration under one~g conditions (e.g. terrestrial environment) and, for space applications, must be modified to conform with the current understanding of the changes that occur under zero-gravity conditions. Iv-15 1 Right Acromion 3 Suprasternale 4 C7 Surface 5 T4 Surface 6 T8 Surface 7 T12 Surface 8 L2 Surface 9 L5 Surface 10 Rt Anterior Superior Sp 29 Nasion 30 Right Elbow 31 Arms/Hands 32 Legs/Feet SRP Jr © 5 inches Figure 4. A computer model of body linkage: 50th percentile 1985 man with extended elbow, Iv-16 KEY: Right Acromion Suprasternale C7 Surface T4 Surface T8 Surface T12 Surface L2 Surface L5 Surface 10 Rt Anterior Superior Sp 11 L5/S1 Interspace 14 L2/L3 Interspace 16 T12/L1 Interspace 17 T8/T9 Interspace 18 T4/T5 Interspace 19 C7/T1 Interspace 20 Acromion-Clavicular Junc 21 Projected Humeral Head 22 Sterno-Clavicular Junc 27 C2/C3 Interspace 28 C2 Surface 29 Nasion 33 SRP LON W— 5 inches Figure 5. Internal anatomical landmarks of the torso for body position depicted in Figure 4, Iv-17 KEY: 1 Right Acromion 3 Suprasternale 4 C7 Surface 5 T4 Surface 3 6 T8 Surface 7 T12 Surface 8 L2 Surface 9 L5 Surface 10 Rt Anterior Superior Sp 29 Nasion 30 Right Elbow 31 Arms/Hands 32 Legs/Feet 33 SRP rm——— 5 inches é Figure 6. Computer model of body linkage: 50th percentile 1985 man in resting one-g seated position. IV-18 Right Acromion Supratsernale C7 Surface T4 Surface T8 Surface T12 Surface L2 Surface L5 Surface 10 Rt Anterior Superior Sp 11 L5/S1 Interspace i4 L2/L3 Interspace 16 T12/L1 Interspace 17 78/T9 Interspace 18 T4/T5 Interspace 19 C7/T1 Interspace 20 Acromion-Clavicular Junc 21 Projected Humeral Head 22 Sterno-Clavicular Junc 27 C2/C3 Interspace 28 C2 Surface 29 Nasion 33 SRP WON HW — 5 inches Figure 7. Internal anatomical landmarks of the torso for body position depicted in Figure 6. Iv-19 It has been reported (Thornton et al., 1974) by.astronauts that their stature increases by as much as two inches in space. This increase probably occurs primarily in the torso and only slightly in the lower limbs (knee and ankle joints). The upright stance of the human body on earth is achieved by means of an S-shaped adaptation in the spinal column which begins as a,single con- tinuous curve at birth. In the zero-g environment, gravity no longer acts to compress the spinal column; and the typical lordosis and kyphosis curves in the spine are no longer a functional requirement for upright pos- ture. Figure 8 illustrates the typical relaxed "weightless" posture assumed in the zero-g environment (Jackson, Bond and Gunderson, 1975). To reflect the elimination of gravitational pull, torso link data must be elongated and straightened. Table 5, based on an analysis of vector distances and angles for all one-g positions reported on in Snyder et al. (1972), portrays the effects of modifying the link data. By allowing for a 5% intervertebral expansion factor and straightening the curved spinal column, approximately 3.7 cm (1.5 inches) of "growth" can be explained. This growth will obviously be subject to individual variations in both expansion among the vertebrae and straightening of the thoraco-lumbar spinal column. TABLE 5 VALUES COMPUTED FROM SNYDER ET AL. (1972) DATA DEMONSTRATING POSSIBLE SOURCE OF ZERO-GRAVITY TORSO "'GROWTH" Intervertebral Link Length 5% Expansion Links (1-g) Factor (0-g) (Expansion) L5/S1 - L&4/L5 3.66 (1.44) .18 (0.07) L4/L5 - L3/L4 3.63 (1.43) .18 (0.07) L3/L4 - L2/L3 3.86 (1.52) ~~ .20 (0.08) L2/L3 - L1/L2 3.63 (1.43) .18 (0.07) L1/L2 - T12/L1 3.66 (1.44) .18 (0.07) T12/L1 - T8/T9 11.28 (4.44) 56 (0.22) T8/T9 - T4/T5 9.47 (3.73) «48 (0.19) Subtotal 2.42 (0.95) (Straightening) L5/s1 - ¢7/T1 46.41 (18.27) 1.30 (0.51) Total "Growth" 3.72 (1.46) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. IV-20 24.5°45 Ne -~q ne o 10° \ 36°+19 Lay, 14.7°%2 Gre 122°423 Vertical reference Figure 8. Weightless neutral body position. Horizontal reference Iv-21 Center of Mass This section will serve as a general guide for locating the whole body center of mass.* The center of mass of the whole body is best predicted from individualized models in which the center of mass is computed from the sum of segments. Measurements of living subjects under one-g conditions have established that the center of mass of the whole body is always in close proximity to the pelvis and appears to remain, regardless of body configura- tion, at the approximate level of the anterior superior iliac spines. This relationship evidently changes under zero-gravity conditions. Data on the location of the center of mass in static whole bodies and predictive equations for body segments locations will be given in this section. Most of the whole body center of mass locations have been measured with the body in either a standing or sitting position. Since both living subjects and cadavers have been measured in these studies, comparisons between the two sets of data can be made. In all of the investigations cited, measurements have been taken with the body in a static position under one-g environmental conditions. As has already been noted, one effect of zero-gravity on the torso is to extend the vertebral column. Another effect is a shift in body fluids, reducing them in the limbs and increasing them in the torso. These conditions, which have the effect of moving the center of mass toward the head, generally describe embalmed cadavers, particularly those stored in the supine position. With the force of gravity acting on the supine body, the vertebral column tends to straighten, thereby extending the torso length. This phenomenon has been noted for the living when, upon rising in the morning, the body is approxi- mately +5 to .75 inches taller than it is at night (Backman, 1924; Damon, 1964). In addition, body fluids in embalmed cadavers tend to pool in the head and torso, since they are generally at the lowest level of the body in the supine position and have a volume of unfilled space greater than other parts of the body. Thus, while the causes of an extension of the vertebral column and a shift in body fluids are not the same in cadavers and living persons in a zero-g environment, the effects are similar. Much of the data in the following tables have been measured on embalmed cadavers. If the design engineer accepts the assumption that the mass distribution of the zero-gravity astronaut is more analogous to embalmed cadavers than living subjects on earth, then relevant cadaver coefficients and equations should be utilized. There do exist some alternative data from studies in which the location of the center of mass of body segments for living subjects were measured indirectly using volumetric or reaction change techniques. Engineers using these data should be aware of an underlying assumption in this case too, namely, that these results assume constant density throughout the body part measured, thus equating center of mass with center of volume. ' *The center of mass measured under zero-gravity conditions and the center of gravity measured under one-g conditions are considered for practical purposes to be the same. The major difference occurs as a result of the force of gravity distorting living tissues and redistributing fluids in the body. Iv-22 Whole Body In general, the center of mass in living adult males and females in the standing position is 55% of stature as measured from the floor (Crosky et al. 1922; Cotton, 1931; Hellebrandt et al. 1937; Ignazi et al. 1972; Page, 1974). The center of mass in adult male cadavers is slightly higher at 59% of stature (Clauser et al. 1969; Chandler et al. 1975). Ignazi et al. (1972), confirming that the center of mass is at 55% of sta- ture, further pinpointed the measurement at 97.2% of anterior superior iliac spine height (measuring from the floor), at 50% of bicristal breadth in the y-axis, and 31.7% of a line perpendicular to two parallel lines tangent to the heel and toes (measured from the heel) on the x-axis. In 1962 Swearingen measured the location of the center of mass of the whole body in 67 positions. His sample consisted of five adult men with an average weight of 163.85 1bs (113.25-225.1 lbs) and an average stature of 68.8 inches (64.75-72.0 inches). Swearingen attempted to define the maximum displacement of the center of mass of the whole body relative to the pelvis. Swearingen first located the center of gravity for each of his subjects in an initial erect standing body position. All body appendages, including the upper torso were then moved around the pelvis which remained in the same position relative to the measurement device. For example, to determine maximum displacement in an anterior direction, the center of gravity was first located for an erect standing position relative to the position of the pelvis in the measurement device. Keeping the pelvis fixed, the body parts were moved anteriorly to determine the maximum displacement possible. Table 6 defines the spatial envelope within which the location of centers of gravity for most of the common body positions will fall. On the following pages we present the results of three studies aimed at locating the center of mass in living subjects. The results in all three studies have been reported using different axes systems. However, when the data are examined using comparable axes systems, the differences disappear, or become negligible. (To avoid confusion, the data are reported and illu- strated here in their original axis systems.) In all cases, individualized data are presented in the report and if a user needs design information for a specific individual, he is encouraged to utilize the original report and match his subject on the basis of height and weight rather than using the sample summaries reported herein. In the first study, Santschi, DuBois, and Omoto (1963) measured the location of the center of mass in three axes for eight positions depicted in Figure 9. A summary of their data appears in Table 7 which is presented relative to a right-handed orthogonal axis system. The x-axis shown in the illustration accompanying Table 7 is measured posteriorly to the back plane (YZ). The y-axis is measured as one-half of bispinous diameter in the mid- sagittal plane (XZ). The z-axis is measured superiorly to vertex as a perpendicular to a transverse plane (XY). The average location of the center of mass for this sample of 66 male subjects represents that found in an Iv-23 7¢-Al TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT OF CENTER OF GRAVITY FOR VARIOUS BODY POSITIONS DESCRIBED BY SWEARINGEN (1962)* Distance CG Measured From 29.2 Ischium (11.5) 25.4 Ischium (10.0) 20.3 Back plane ( 8.0) 11.4 Abdomen plane ( 4.5) 11.4 Mid-sagittal plane ( 4.5) Direction Towards the head Towards the feet Anteriorly Posteriorly Laterally Initial Position Erect Erect Erect Erect Erect *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. standing standing standing standing standing Max, Displacement Seated, arms extended overhead and legs extended and raised maximally towards the head. Standing, torso flexed at waist with hands touching floor. Sitting with arms and legs para- llel, fully extended, and in maximum reach position in the horizontal plane. Resting on abdomen with torso flexed posteriorly, arms and legs in maximum posterior reach position. Torso flexed laterally and all body parts moved laterally as far as possible in para-sagittal planes. 6. Sitting, Thighs Elevated Configuration 8. Relaxed (Weightless) Centers of mass in eight body positions Figure 9. (from Santschi et al. 1963). Iv-25 TABLE 7 , " LOCATION OF CENTER OF GRAVITY BASED ON SANTSCHI ET AL. (1963) Mean S.D. 1. Standi x 8.89 (3.5) 0.51 (0.20) Eadie y 12.19 (4.8) 0.99 (0.39) z 78.74 (31.0) 3.68 (1.45) 2. Standing, x 8.89 (3.5) 0.56 (0.22) arms over y 12.19 (4.8) 0.99 (0.39) head z 72.64 (28.6) ’ 3.38 (1.33) 3. Spread eagle x 8.38 (3.3) 0.48 (0.19) y 12.19 (4.8) 0.99 (0.39) z 72.39 (28.5) 4.83 (1.90) 4, Sitting x 20.07 (7.9) 0.91 (0.36) y 12.19 (4.8) 0.99 (0.39) z 67.31 (26.5) 2.90 (1.14) 5. Sitting, fore- x 19.56 (7.7) 0.86 (0.34) arms down y 12.19 (4.8) 0.99 (0.39) z 68.07 (26.8) 2.95 (1.16) 6. Sitting, x 18.29 (7.2) 0.94 (0.37) thighs ele- y 12.19 (4.8) 0.99 (0.39) vated z 58.67 (23.1) 1.98 (0.78) 7. Mercury con- x 20.07 (7.9) 0.86 (0.34) figuration y 12.19 (4.8) 0.99 (0.39) z 168.83 (27.1) 2.90 (1.14) 8. Relaxed x 18.54 (7.3) 0.84 (0.33) (weightless) y 12.19 (4.8) 0.99 (0.39) z 69.85 (27.5) 3.66 (1.44) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. REFERENCE z LANDMARKS ] - === L(x) L(Y) = % Bispinous Breadth IV-26 individual slightly smaller than the 50th percentile of the 1985 white European male population. DuBois et al. (1964) extended the 1963 study to measure the centers of gravity in the sitting and relaxed positions for the nude, unpressurized, and pressurized male wearing the A/P22s-2 full pressure garment. The results are presented in Table 8. It can be noted that the nude data for the x- and y- axes are very similar to the Santschi data; the location of the center of gravity along the z-axis, however, was measured superiorly to the seat pan rather than inferiorly from vertex. Ignazi et al. (1972) report the only recent European data on the whole body.* Their data are summarized in Table 9. Here, too, the axis system differs somewhat from Santschi's in the z direction since measurements were taken from the floor rather than from center of gravity to vertex. A quick calculation reveals that the z-axis measured from center of gravity to vertex in the Ignazi study averages 31.10 inches compared to 31.0 inches in the Santschi study. The most rigorous study of the location of the whole body center of gravity can be found in Chandler et al. (1975) which reports the results of an investigation into the inertial properties of six adult male cadavers. Their data locate the center of gravity in three dimensions for three em- balmed, cadavers frozen in the standing position and for three embalmed, cadavers frozen in the seated position. These measurements were made on rigid bodies, fixed within a three-dimensional inertial frame of reference, thereby avoiding some of the methodological problems of repositioning living sub- jects, Furthermore, this study reports measurements of the center of gravity in the y-axis rather than assuming symmetry. Using the same axis system as utilized by Santschi, a comparison be- tween cadaver and living subject data was made in Reynolds et al. (1975). This comparison reveals that for subjects matched on the basis of stature and weight, differences in the locations of the whole body center of gravity can be ignored for practical purposes. Except in connection with the x-axis in the standing position, differences can be explained by reference to the previously discussed changes in the body of the cadaver stored in a supine position. In general, the differences in mass distribution between a cadaver and a living human reflect shifts in tissue and fluids and a change in spinal configuration. The magnitude and direction of these differences can be observed in Table 10 which reports the percentage differences between the cadavers in the Chandler et al. (1975) study and living subjects, matched for height *Despite the differences in average body weight between the Ignazi and Santschi samples, a careful comparison of matched subjects reveals no sig- nificant differences in their mass distribution properties. Thus, the dif- ferences in the sample means probably reflect sampling differences of statis- tical origin. Iv-27 TABLE 8 LOCATION OF CENTER OF GRAVITY BASED ON DUBOIS ET AL. (1964)* Mean S.D. Nude x 20.04 (7.89) 1.04 (0.41) y 12.17 (4.79) 0.69 (0.27) z 23.27 (9.16) 0.74 (0.29) Unpressurized x 21.16 (8.33) 0.99 (0.39) y 12.17 (4.79) 0.69 (0.27) z 24.79 (9.76) 0.76 (0.30) Sitting Pressurized x 21.89 (8.62) 0.97 (0.38) y 12.17 (4.79) 0.69 (0.27) z 24.64 (9.70) 0.71 (0.28) Nude xX 18.64 (7.34) 0.97 (0.38) v 12.17 (4.79) 0.69 (0.27) z 18.77 (7.39) 1.07 (0.42) Unpressurized x 19.84 (7.81) 0.76 (0.30) v 12.17 (4.79) 0.69 (0.27) Relaxed z 19.96 (7.86) 1.14 (0.45) (Weightless) Pressurized x 20.52 (8.08) 0.74 (0.29) v 12.17 (4.79) 0.69 (0.27) z 19.84 (7.81) 1.22 (0.48) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. REFERENCE LANDMARKS Iv-28 TABLE 9 LOCATION OF CENTER OF GRAVITY BASED ON IGNAZI ET AL. (1972)% Mean SeDo CeVe Min. Max. x~axis 15.09 1.31 8.71 13.40 17.70 (5.96) (6.52) (3.43) (5.28) (6.97) y-axis 8.83 0.62 6.99 7.60 9,70 (3.48) (0.24) (2.75) (2.99) (3.82) z-axis 96.49 4.25 4.40 86.90 101.10 (37.99) (1.67) (1.73) (34.21) (39.80) *Daca given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. REFERENCE LANDMARKS Range 4.30 (1.69) 2.10 (0.83) 14,30 (5.63) Lye) bicristale width Iv-29 { TABLE 10 COMPARISON OF CHANDLER ET AL. (1975) AND SANTSCHI ET AL. (1963) LOCATION OF CENTER OF GRAVITY FOR THE WHOLE BODY IN SUBJECTS MATCHED ON BASIS OF HEIGHT AND WEIGHT Standing Sitting Subject (1&19) (2&1) (3&17) (4 &26) (5&16) (6 & 39) (Chandler & Santschi) Stature 2.3% -1.0% -0.7% 0.3% -1.47% -0.8% Weight 0.5% -2.2% -2.4% -17.4% -14.5% -1.2% Center of Gravity xX 14.1% 10.3% 11.3% -17.0% -13.5% -5.2% y w * * * % * z -10.9% -10.8% -8.1% -1.7% -2.7% -8.7% *Santschi assumes body symmetry for the location of the center of gravity along the y-axis. and weight in the Santschi et ale. (1963) study. A negative percentage means that the Chandler cadaver subjects had a lower value than the Santschi sub- jects. The differences in the locations of the center of gravity indicate a posterior movement of the center of gravity in the x-axis sitting position and a cephalad movement in the z-axes for both standing and sitting posi- tions. Since the y-axis is the axis of symmetry, changes there are negligible. This latter observation can be verified in the results reported by Reynolds et al. (1975). The standing x-axis location is difficult to measure on the living since variation in the dimension approaches the tolerance magnitude in most measurement systems. In the present instance, the apparent contradiction in the cadaver data with the changes which usually take place in embalmed cadavers is probably due to several differences between the two studies-- back plane definition and subject head position are likely candidates. The average difference in percentage appears large but the average absolute dif- ference is 1.2 em (.47 in) which in most man-machine systems would probably be imperceptible. Therefore, the cephalad shift in the location of the center of mass along the z-axis in zero gravity can be approximated by reducing the distance of the center of mass from vertex by a factor of 10%. The y-axis is best approximated by the assumption of symmetry, and the x-axis appears to be inconsistent. At present, the user must determine first the sensitivity of the system to shifts in the location of the center of mass along the x-axis before using cadaver data. In general, it would appear reasonable to assume that changes in segment position would affect the location more than tissue and fluid shifts but this is a problem that needs more extensive research. Iv-30 Segments The location of the center of mass in the limbs has traditionally been presented as a percent of link length. The torso presents a unique problem since it has been measured as a composite segment without attempt=- ing to separate it into individual links, an approach which does not satisfy the requirements of most three-dimensional models. Furthermore, the data contain no information on the changing location of the center of mass caused by fluid and organ shifts. . Most of the usable segment data have been collected from cadavers. Table 11 presents a summary of these data as a function of the ratio of segment length to distance of the center of mass along a longitudinal axis from some known landmark. These data have been used to generate the best estimate of the location of the center of mass given in Table 12. The coeffi- cients for the x-axis (head and torso, primarily) should be multiplied by an anthropometric dimension measured from the back plane. The coefficients for the y-axis, which are always .5, assume segment symmetry. The coeffi- cients for the z-axis should be multiplied by an anthropometric dimension measured from the most proximal joint in the limbs, suprasternale in the torso, and tragion-vertex height in the head. In all cases, the axis system is assumed to be orthogonal and relative to the geometric shape of the segment, (Coefficients were calculated using the average of data from the appropriate reports listed in Table 11.) Clauser, McConville, and Young (1969) derived regression equations to estimate the center of mass of segments. These equations, which appear in Appendix B, Table 2, are derived from anthropometric input for the inde- pendent variables and locate centers of mass in two dimensions (in general, along the x= and z-axes). They have a relatively small standard error of the estimate. Data derived from these equations will be more appropriate for individualized models of the body if the individual's anthropometric information is available, In the event that individual dimensions are unknown the coefficients given in Table 12 can be used. Segment Weight A total of 65 cadavers and 273 living subjects have been used in mass distribution studies reported since 1860 but data on segment weights remain scarce. The little data that have been recorded are difficult to compare since definitions of segments differ. By and large, cadaver data are the most accurate since they can be measured directly. Extrapolation of segment weights for the living from embalmed cadavers assumes comparable densities and there are no data to support these assumptions under one- g conditions. Under =zero-g conditions, however, observations made by the astronauts suggest that changes in the body are more analogous to the mass distribution measured in cadavers than to that indirectly measured on living subjects. Thus, the assumption of comparable density may provide reasonable estimates of the segment weights of astronauts in a zero-gravity environ= ment. Iv-31 CE-AL TABLE 11 LOCATION OF THE CENTER OF MASS (cM)! Segments Chandler et al. Clauser, McConville & Young Becker Dempster Braune & Fischer (1975) (1969) ; (1972) (1955) (1889) Head x y z x y z x y z In the sphenoid sinus ‘spproxi- Fossa Tarint’ 0.02 -0.20 2.67 22.72 Assuming 1.12 1.31 -0.10 2,52 | mately 4mm beyond the anterior- Slivus (0.00) (-0.08) (1.05) | (-1.07) symmetry (0.44) | (0.52) (-0.04) (0.99) | inferior margin of the sella turcica. O 5 Torso CM-Suprasternale CM-Suprasternale ro 21.20 22.02 wt NM Level of L1 oO (8.35) (8.67) S ~ ion of s ab ntage of the Distance from Proximal Joint th to Total Link Length 0 Upper arm 50.92% 51.30% 43.6% Sou ih2 — Forearm 41.42 38.96 we 43.0 42.0 Rt.3 42.0 Lt pd ; ! Hand 51.75 18.02° t 50.6 3m, Re Thigh 39.33 37.19 »™ 6.3 “oun re Shank 41.75 37.05 w 43.3 os Tee Foot 43.83 44.85 ™ 43.8 pg oy 81 4DVd TvNIoRyo ! Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. ? These locations are bony landmarks in the interior base of the skull that lie in the mid-sagittal plane approximately 2-3 cm in front of and slightly above the Tragion-Tragion axis. 3Reported as CM-Meta III/Stylion-Meta III length. “yot measured. Spistance from proximal joint center. TABLE 12 LOCATION OF BODY SEGMENTS' CENTER OF MASS Head x = Tragion to wall depth y = «5 bitragion breadth z = .17 tragion to vertex height Torso X = 44 waist depth at omphalion ' y = .5 waist breadth at omphalion z = 42 suprasternale to trochanterion Upper Arm X = Assume symmetry y = Assume symmetry z = .48 link length (Tables 1 & 3) Forearm X = Assume symmetry y = Assume symmetry z = .41 link length (Tables 1 & 3) Hand x = Assume symmetry of palm at z-axis location y = Assume symmetry of palm at z-axis location z = .51 palm length Thigh x = Assume symmetry y = Assume symmetry z = 41 link length (Tables 1 & 3) Shank X = Assume symmetry y = Assume symmetry z = .44 link length (Tables 1 & 3) Foot x = Assume symmetry of foot at z-axis location y = Assume symmetry of foot at z-axis location z = 44 foot length (from heel) The weight of the body segments has been estimated in a number of ways. In 1957, Barter developed regression equations for predicting segment weight using total body weight as the independent variable from data report- ed by Braune and Fischer (1889), Fischer (1906), and Dempster (1955). Bar- ter's equations, based on a sample of 12 cadavers, predicted the weight of seven segments and various combinations of segments. In order to update Barter's work with additional data and provide estimates for more individual segments, the equations in Table 13 were prepared. These equations are based on Barter's original sample with the addition of head and neck data Iv-33 TABLE 13 PREDICTION EQUATIONS TO ESTIMATE SEGMENT WEIGHT BASED ON REANALYSIS OF CADAVER DATA* Segment Equation R Se ct Head .0306 (TBW) + 2.46 (5.42) «626 + .43 (95) Head & neck .0534 (TBW) + 2.33 (5.14) £726 + .60 (1.32) Neck .0146 (TBW) + +60 (1.32) 666 + 21 ( .46) Head, neck & torso .5940 (TBW) - 2.20 (4.85) .949 + 2.01 (4.43) Neck & torso 5582 (TBW) - 4.26 (9.39) £958 + 1.72 (3.79) Total arm .0505 (TBW) + .01 ( .02) «829 + .35 ( .77) Upper arm .0274 (TBW) - .01 ( .02) .826 + 19 ( .42) Forearm & hand .0233 (TBW) - .01 ( .02) 2762 + .20 ( .44) Forearm .0189 (TBW) - .16 ( .35) .783 + .15 ( .33) Hand .0055 (TBW) + .07 ( .15) .605 + .07 ( .15) Total leg .1582 (TBW) + .05 ( .11) .847 + 1.02 (2.25) Thigh «1159 (TBW) - 1.02 (2.25) .859 + .71 (1.57) Shank & foot .0452 (TBW) + .82 (1.81) 2750 + W641 ( 90) Shank .0375 (TBW) + .38 ( .84) $763 + .33 ( .73) Foot .0069 (TBW) + .47 (1.04) 552 + L111 ( .24) *Data given in kilograms with pounds in parentheses. from Walker et al. (1973), and head, torso, arms, and legs data from Clauser et al. (1969) and Chandler et al. (1975). The segments are defined in accordance with the definitions provided in Appendix A and only those seg- ments in each study which closely matched those definitions were used in the segment samples. Prediction equations for estimating segment weight were also developed by Clauser et al. (1969) in their study of 13 cadavers. These later equations utilize anthropometric dimensions as the independent variables and are thus more sensitive to individual variations. The Clauser et al. equations appear in Appendix B, Table 3. A third method (referred to in the literature as the method of coeffi- cients) makes use of percentages of total body weight to estimate segment weights. Most of the available information on this subject appears in Table 14 and has been further refined for use by engineers and modellers in Table 15. Studies by Liu and Wickstrom (1973) and Walker et al. (1973), who used eight cadavers in common, provided additional input for the torso and neck data which appears in Table 15. This table is for use in determining the mean population estimates of segment weights, and for determining the weight of torso segments not given by the regression equations. Table 16 provides estimates of segment weights for selected total body weights using the regression equations in Table 13 and the torso coefficients in Table 15. IV-34 GE-AT TABLS 14 : SEGMENTAL WEIGHT/BODY PEIGH RATIOS FROW CADAVER STUDIES . Braune & a Clauser Walker Chandler Mori & Source Harless Fischer Plscher Dempster et al, et of. et al. Yamamoto © Fujikawa 1 (1889) {1906} £1953) (1969) (1973) (1975) (1959) 9 Semple p] 3M in 8M 134 204 & a» 3F aar Head and neck 7.6% 7.0% 8.8% 8.1% 7.3% 9.0% 6.1% 12.6% 11.1% 8.2% Trunk 44,2 46,1 43,2 49.7 50 7 32.2 33.7 53.4 53.6 Total arm 5.7 802 5.4 5.0 4.9 - - bok 49 4.7 Upper arm 3.2 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 - 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 Forcarm & hand 2.6 2.9 2.6 2,2 2.3 - - 1.6 2.3 2.2 Forearm 1.7 2.1 - 1.6 : 1.6 - 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.4 Hand 0.9 0.8 . 0.6 0.7 - 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 Total leg 18.4 17.2 17.6 16.1 16.1 - - 12.4 13.0 14.3 Thigh 11.9 10.7 11.0 2.9 10.3 - 10.2 7.4 7.5 9.4 Shank & foot 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.1 5.8 - : - 5.0 5.3 5.0 Shank 46 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.3 - 4el 3.4 3.5 3.3 Foot 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.5 - 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 Total body weight | 55.53 63.85 44.06 59.72 65.61 68,40 65.17 31.57 37.57 50.30 (122.44) (140.79) (97.15) (131.68) (144.67) (150.82) (143.70) (69.61) (82.84) 126.91 1 Data presented for right side of body rather than svercge of right and left aides, 2 Values adjusted by Clauser et al. 1969. ’ Data given in kilogrems with pounds in parentheses. ALITVD ¥OOd 40 SI @OVd "TVNIDIIO TABLE 15 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL BODY WEIGHT ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT SEGMENTATION PLANS Grouped Segments Percent of Individual Segments Percent of Total Body Weight Grouped Segments Weight Head and neck = 8.4% Head = 73.8% Neck = 26.2% Torso = 50.0% Thorax = 43.8% Lumbar = 29.4% Pelvis = 26.8% Total arm = 5.1% Upper arm = 54.9% Forearm = 33.3% Hand = 11.8% Total leg = 15.7% Thigh = 63.7% Shank = 27.4% Foot = 8.9% There are two further methods available for estimating segment weights of living subjects, both of which incorporate an unknown error factor. Bernstein et al. (1931) developed a technique by which a segment weight could be estimated from a change in a lever arm moment due to the angular displacement of discrete body segments. This technique, however, assumes knowledge of the location of both the center of mass and joint center of rotation and these points are difficult to locate on the living subject. The method is further predicated on the assumption that center of mass is equivalent to center of volume and subsequent assessment of this assump- tion (by Clauser et al. 1969) revealed a systematic error in Bernstein's technique. A sounder method is to calculate segment weights from segment volumes as percentages of total body volumes, correcting for density. The volume measurement technique described most frequently in the literature is under- water displacement, but other methods exist and the use of stereophotogram- metry is a promising new tool for measuring the mass distribution properties of the living body. The majority of subjects used thus far have been males; only a few studies of females have ever been conducted. Presented in Table 17 are the data for segment volumes as percentages of total body volume for male cadavers and living subjects; comparable data for living female subjects appear in Table 18. It should be remembered that different segmentation planes for the upper arm and upper leg for cadavers and living subjects (see Figure 2) affect the results of calculations for the relevant limbs as well as for the torso. When the average segment volume percentages of Iv-36 LE-AT Scgment TOTAL BODY WEIGHTS Head Head & neck Neck Neck & torso Thorax** Lumbar®* Pelvis** Head, neck & torso Total arm Upper arm Forearm & hand Forearm Hand Total leg Thigh Shank & foot Shank Foot 45.37 3.87 4.75 1.27 21.06 9.30 5.48 5.01 24.75 2,30 1.23 1.05 0.70 0.32 7.23 4.24 2.87 2,08 0.78 (100) ( 8.47) (10.47) { 2.80) (46.44) (20,51) (12.08) (11,05) (54.57) ( 5.07) (2.71) ( 2.31) ( 1.54) ( 0.71) (15.94) ( 9.35) ( 6.33) ( 4.59) (1.72) TABLE 16 SEGMENT WEIGHT DESIGN VALUES DERIVED FROM REGRESSION EQUATIONS IN TABLE 13% 54,45 (120) 4.12 ( 9.08) 5.24 (11.55) 1.40 ( 3.09) 26.13 (57.62) 11.62 (25.62) 6.85 (15.10) 6.26 (13.80) 30.14 (66.46) 2.76 ( 6.09) 1.48 ( 3.26) 1.26 ( 2.78) 0.87 ( 1.92) 0.37 ( 0.82) 8.66 (19.09) 5.29 (11.66) 3.28 ( 7.23) 2.42 { 5.34) 0.85 ( 1.87) *Data given in kilograms with pounds in parentheses. ““The weights of these segments are computed as a percentage of torso weight reported in Table 15. 63.52 (140) 4,40 ( 9.70) 5.72 (12.61) 1.53 { 3.37) 31.19 (68.77) 13.94 (30.74) 8022 (18.13) 7.50 (16.54) 35.53 (78.34) 3.21 ( 7.08) 1.73 ( 3.81) 1.47 ( 3.24) 1.04 ( 2.29) 0.42 ( 0.93) 10.10 (22.27) 6.34 (13.98) 3.69 ( 8.14) 2.76 ( 6.09) 0.91 ( 2.01) 72.59 (160) 4.68 (10,32) 6.20 (13.67) "1.66 ( 3.66) 36.26 (79.95) 16.26 (35.85) 9.58 (21,12) 8.75 (19.29) 40.92 (90.23) 3.67 ( 8.09) 1.98 ( 4.37) 1.68 ( 3.70) 1.22 ( 2.69) 6.47 ( 1.04) 11.53 (25.42) 7.39 (16.29) 4.10 ( 9.04) 3.11 { 6.86) 0.97 { 2.14) 81.67 (180) 4.95 (10.91) 6.69 (14.75) 1.80 ( 3.97) 41.33 (91.13) 18.58 (40.97) 10.95 (24.14) 10.00 (22.05) 46.31(102.11) 4.13 ( 9.11) 2.23 ( 4.92) 1.89 ( 4.17) 1,39 { 3.06) 0.52 ( 1.15) 12.97 (28.60) 8.45 (18.63) 4.51 ( 9.94) 3.45 ( 7.61) 1.03 ( 2.27) 90.74 (200) 5.23 (11.53) 7.17 (15.81) 1.93 ( 4.26) 46,39(102.29) 20.90 (46.08) 12,31 (27.14) 11.25 (24.81) 51.70(114.00) 4.59 (10.12) 2.48 ( 5.47) 2,10 ( 4.63) 1.56 ( 3.44) 0.57 ( 1.26) 14.40 (31.75) 9.50 (20.95) 4.92 (10.85) 3.79 ( 8.36) 1.10 ( 2.43) ¥004 Jo gq Ovd ROTO Kr oo TABLE 17 } MALE SEGMENT VOLUME AS PERCENT OF TOTAL BODY VOLUME Subjects Cadaver Living Studies Clauser Chandler Drillis Katch & et al. et al. Average | Dempster Cleaveland et al. Waltman Average (1969) (1975) (1955) (1955) (1966) (1975) Head 5.4% Head & neck 7.0% 7.0% 7.4% 7.2% Torso 48.1 46.2 47.2 Neck & torso 51.9 56.9 54.47% Upper arm 2.6 2.7 2.7 3.5% 3.1 3.5% 3.4 Forearm 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 Upper & forearm 4.1 4.2 4.2 5.0 4.7 5.2 5.6 5.1 Hand 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 Total arm 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.6 5.2 5.8 6.3 5.7 Thigh 10.3 9.4 9.9 14.2 11.2 9.2 11.5 Shank 4.2 3.6 3.9 4.9 4.4 4.1 4.5 Thigh & shank 14.5 13.0 13.8 19.1 15.6 13.3 15.2 15.8 Foot 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.4 Total leg 15.9 14.1 15.0 20.5 16.9 14.6 16.9 17.2 “ Total body 100.1% - © 99.9% 100.0% 99.3% 100.0% N 13 6 - 39 12 11 24 Stature* 172.7 172.1 172.4 174.5 175.8 176.0 176.9 175.8 Weight* 65.6 65.17 65.4 75.6 71.5 73.42 76.2 73.9 Age 49.3 54.3 51.9 20.6 27.2 20.8 21.2 22.5 TB volume%* 62.99 69.61 66.3 71.32%% 66.73 69.26%% 71.89%% 69.8 *Stature is reported in centimeters, weight in kilograms and total body volume in liters. **Total body volume computed as weight + 1.06. IV-38 TABLE 18 FEMALE SEGMENT VOLUME AS PERCENT OF TOTAL BODY VOLUME Katch & Weltman Kjeldsen (1975) ) (1972) + Head & neck 8.3% 8.8% Torso (50.7%) Upper torso 16.4% Lower torso 34.43% Upper arm 2.8% Lower arm 1.4% Upper & lower arm 405% (4.2%) Hand 0.6% 045% Thigh 9.4% Thigh & shank 15.4% (14.6%) Foot 1.6% 1.2% N : 23 12 total body volume are compared with the percentages for weight, the differ- ences are small, reflecting the close correlation between volume and weight. Thus, to estimate segment weight, the percentages from either Table 17 or Table 18 can be used. To estimate segment volume, regression equations appearing in Appendix B, Table 4 can also be used. If segment volume is available for an individual or for a population, the density data in Table 19 will provide the necessary values for estimat- ing weight from volume. These values are based on cadaveric data and have the same bias which is present in the actual segment weights cof cadavers. Therefore, whether segment weights for astronauts are estimated via regres- sion equations or measured segment volume, the engineer must assume that cadaver data is only an approximation of these properties in the living body. The accuracy with which these data reflect living body weight distribution is essentially unknown, but they are the best approximations available. Moments of Inertia This section will serve as a guide to the inertial properties of the whole body and its segments. Its purpose is to present the available empirical data for estimating moments of inertia and to present methods of estimating these properties for specific populations. The inertial properties of the whole body and its segments have been reported in a variety of ways: as moments of inertia; as a momental ellipsoid of inertia; and as an inertia tensor. All three describe the Iv-39 TABLE 19 SEGMENT DENSITY FOR MALE CADAVERS (Values in grams/cm3) Dempster Clauser Chandler Average (1955) et al. et al. (1969) (1975) Head 1.06 1.06 Head & neck 1.11 1.07 1.09 Torso Neck & torso 1.02 0.85 0.94 Head, neck, & torso 1.03 1.03 1.03 Upper arm 1.07 1.06 1.00 1.04 Lower arm 1.13 1.10 1.05 1.09 Hand 1.16 1.11 1.08 1.12 Thigh 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.04 Shank 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.08 Foot 1.10 1.08 1.07 1.08 inertial properties of an individual but are based on different assump- tions or data analysis methods. Moments of inertia are defined about an axis of rotation which, in most studies, is defined as passing through the center of gravity, but occasionally is defined as passing through an estimated joint center of rotation. All the moments reported in this section are about axes pass- ing through centers of gravity. In the studies of living subjects, the measured moments of inertia are reported about three orthogonal axes defined by the researcher. In recent studies using cadaver specimens, moments about six or more axes were measured in order to determine an inertial tensor which was used to derive the principal moments of inertia about the princi- pal axes of inertia. As with other mass distribution properties, data on the whole body are obtained primarily from measurements of living subjects and data on segments come primarily from measurements of cadavers. A comparison has been made on the following pages which will clarify the differences between methods used in studies of cadavers and that used in the study of living subjects. Whole Body Measurements of whole body moments of inertia are position-dependent data since they describe the mass distribution in a particular position assumed by the subject during the measurement procedure. As soon as any Iv-40 of the segments change position, the magnitude and direction of the moments of inertia are changed. The only reasonable approach for data on the whole body is to measure moments of inertia for common positions of the body. Three such studies, covering a range of positions for the moments of inertia relative to an inertial "anatomical" axis system located at the center of gravity of the living body, have been undertaken. The "first direct measures of moments of inertia of the whole body were made by Santschi et al. (1963) on 66 subjects representative of the Ue.Se Air Force flying personnel. Using a compound pendulum with the body in the eight positions depicted in Figure 9, investigators measured three moments of inertia about three axes passing through the center of gravity of the body. The data, summarized in Table 20, give the moments of inertia for U.S. males and include regression equations which predict the moments of inertia about an "anatomical" axis system defined by the intersection of the three cardinal anatomical planes with an origin at the center of gravity for the whole body (See Figure 1). Table 21 presents values computed from the regression equations in Table 20 for small, medium and large white males in the standing, sit- ting and relaxed (weightless) positions. These estimates are appropriate for the U.S. white male population projected for 1985 as are the following data from DuBois. Using the sae measurement techniques, DuBois et al. (1964), enlarged on the Santschi study by measuring three moments of inertia about the same axes on 19 male subjects wearing full-pressure suits. The subjects assumed only two positions (sitting and relaxed) but were measured in three dress conditions: nude, unpressurized suit, and pressurized suit (See Figure 10). The suit sizes ranged from small-regular to extra-large-long. Table 22 presents the summary statistics and regression equations and Table 23 contains values computed from the regression equations in Table 22. There has been one French study in which the inertial properties of living subjects were measured. Ignazi et al, (1972) measured three moments of inertia on eleven standing male subjects using a method similar to that used in the U.S. studies. Table 24 presents the summary statistics for height, weight, and the moments of inertia for the x-, y- and z-axes as well as multiple regression equations for predicting the moments of inertia and center of mass from anthropometric dimensions. This study repre- sents the only source of whole body inertial information on European sub- jects. The above-described studies are based on the assumption that the "anatomical" axis system (as depicted in Figure 1) reasonably approximates the principal axes of inertia. The basic difference between them is that the ''anatomical' axis system 1s a hypothetical construction imposed on the body by the investigator while the principal axes of inertia are inher- ent in the body or its parts. The former is unaffected by the dynamics of the body while the latter change as the body configuration and mass distribution change in time and space: Iv-41 =AI 1. 2. 3. 4e 5. 6. 7. Standing Standing, arms over head Spread eagle Sitting Sitting, forearms down Sitting, thighs elevated Mercury configura- tion Relaxed (weightless) LI nw“ LI] LI LI MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR WHOLE BODY MOMENTS OF INERTIA FROM SANTSCHI ET AL. (1963) 1 Moment of Inertia Mean 115.0 103.0 11.3 152.0 137.0 11.1 151.0 114.0 36.6 61.1 66.6 33.5 62.4 68.1 33.8 39.1 38.0 26.3 65.8 75.2 34.2 92.2 88.2 35.9 E pp Nw . © NOW OW o I, Regression Equations 3.778 + 0.512w 3.438 + 0.460W -0.098s + 0.112w 5.365 + 0.652w 5.348 +.0.589W -0.085S + 0.094W + 5.638 + 0.677W 4.308 + 0.516W - 1.528 + 0.191% 1.438 + 0.322w 2,265 + 0.268W 0.765 + 0.201wW 1.295 + 0.309w 2,058 + 0.321W 0.7655 + 0.206W 0.5438 + 0.212w 0.4348 + 0.180W - 0.3288 + 0.204W - 1.578 + 0.308W - 2,858 + 0,318W 0.6688 + 0.197W - 1.778 + 0.452W 0.7768 + 0.176W - Values for I, are given in Ib.in.sec.2. For conversion to other units, see Appendix C. z Multiple correlation coefficient of stature and weight with the independent variables. * (stature) in inches (Weight) in pounds 232.0 212.0 0.604 328.0 332.0 1.4 353.0 270.0 101.0 91.6 135.0 52.8 78.7 127.0 53.7 33.8 22.2 30.4 94.3 175.0 45.0 106.0 139.0 47.2 TABLE 21 WHOLE BODY MOMENTS OF INERTIA FOR MALE WHITES COMPUTED FROM TABLE 20% Small: 5th %ile Medium: 50th %ile Large: 95th %ile 168.2 cm, (66.2 in.) 178.4 cm. (70.2 in.) 188.6 cm. (74.3 ini) 65.2 kge (143.7 1b.) 81.5 kg. (180.0 1b.) 97.7 kg. (215.3 1b.) 1be-in.sec gm-cm>(x10%) 1be-in.sec.? gm- cm? (x10%) 1b.-in.sec.> gn-cn(x10%) Standing X 91.148 163.065 124.814 141.132 158.345 179.047 y 81.168 91.780 111.586 126.175 141.887 160,438 9.003 10.180 12.676 14.333 16.228 18.350 Sitting x 49,337 55,787 66.746 75.473 83.976 94,955 y 53.124 60,070 71.892 81,291 90.618 102.466 26.396 29.847 36.732 41.534 49.943 56.473 Relaxed x 76.126 86.079 99.164 112.638 122.827 138.886 y 72.448 81.920 94,946 167.359 117.335 132.676 29.462 33.314 38.955 44,048 48,350 54.671 "*For conversion to other units, see Appendix C. Ev7-AI Nude Unpressurized Pressurized 1. Sitting Nude Unpressurized Pressurized 2. Relaxed (Weightless) Figure 10. Mean centers of gravity in nude and suited subjects (from DuBois et al., 1964), ' IV=-44 TABLE 22 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR WHOLE BODY MOMENTS OF INERTIA FROM DUBOIS ET AL. (1964) Moment of Inertia’ 2 3 1 Regression Equation Axis Mean SoDe Baw Se gt. Sitting Nude x 56.3 8.22 0.95 2.67 1.598 + 0.317W - 105.0 y 66.5 9,98 0.91 4,07 2.108 + 0.344W - 135.0 z 28.3 5,10 0.97 1.17 C.9235+ 0.212W - 70.4 Unpressurized x 67.5 9,16 0.93 3.42 1.825 + 0,337W - 114.0 y 82.8 11.30 . 0.97 2,77 2.965 + 0.362W - 181.0 z 33.6 5072 0.97 1.47 1.098 + 0.229W - 79.5 Pressurized x 68.8 8.70 0.93 3.24 2,068 + 0,281W - 120.0 y 82.4 11.30 0,34 3.79 2.545 + 0.,389¥ - 157.0 z 34.0 5,72 0,96 1.53 1.078 + 0.230W - 78.1 Relaxed (Weightlees) Nude x 99.2 14.20 0.97 3.30 2.885 + 0.556W - 191.0 y 89.8 15.20 0.95 4.60 4.048 + 0.461W - 265.0 £ 31.2 5.04 0.94 1.75 0.5675+ 0.231¥ - 46.0 Unpressurized x 118.0 15.30 0,95 4.62 3.195 + 0.574W - 197.0 3 114.0 15.00 0.96 4.38 3.598 + 0.506W - 217.0 z 36.2 5.03 0.96 1.33 0.801s+ 0.217W - 54.8 Pressurized x 118.0 15.20 0.97 3.93 3.428 + 0.550W - 208.0 y 114.0 15.70 0.96 [A 4,185 + 0.482W - 254.0 z 36.1 4.85 0.96 1.36 0.720S+ 0.214W - 48.7 1 2 Values for I are given in lb.in.sec.?, For conversion to other units, see Appendix De. Multiple correlation coefficient of stature and weight with the independent variables. ’ 8 (Stature) in inches. W (Weight) in pounds. Sh-AI 9%=A1 Sitting Unpressurized x y z Pressurized x y z Relaxed Unpressurized x y z Pressurized x y z TABLE 23 WHOLE BODY MOMENTS OF INERTIA FOR MALE WHITES COMPUTED FROM TABLE 22% Small: 5th %ile Medium: 50th %ile Large: 95th %ile 168.2 cm. (66.2 in.) 178.4 cm, (70.2 in.) 188.6 cu. (74.3 in.) 65.2 Kge (143.7 1b.) 81.5 kge (180.0 1b.) 97.7 kg. (215.3 1b.) 2 Yb.-in, sec. gm-cm (x10%) 1b.-in.sec.2 gn-cm>(x10°) 1b.-in.sec.> gm- cm? (x10%) 54,911 62.104 74.424 84.174 93.782 106.067 66.971 75.744 91.952 103,998 116.867 132.177 25,565 28.914 38.238 43,247 50.791 57.445 56.752 64,187 75.192 85.042 93.557 105.813 67.047 75.830 91.328 103,292 115.474 130.601 25.785 29.163 38.414 43,446 50.920 57.591 96.662 109.325 130.258 147.030 163.599 185.030 93.370 105.601 126,098 142,617 158.679 179.466 29.409 33.262 40,490 45.794 51.434 58,172 97.439 110,204 131.084 148.256 164,521 186.073 91.979 104,028 126.196 142,728 160.349 181.355 29.716 33.609 43.364 49,045 50.870 57.534 *For conversion to other units, see Appendix C. L7=AT TABLE 24 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR WHOLE BODY MOMENTS OF INERTIA FROM IGNAZI ET AL. (1972) Axis Moment of Inertia ? 3 b Mean SeDe Row Se qc. I Regression Equation x 11,51 1.99 +980 0.396 0.136w + 0.1195 - 18.874 y 12,38 2,03 +985 0.351 0.106W + 0.1725 - 25,211 Zz 1.12 0.29 .963 G.079 0.033W - 00,0068 - 2.135 See axis system definition in Table 9. 2Values are given in kgm. For conversion to other units, see Appendix D. ‘Multiple correlation coefficient of stature and weight with the independent variables. "Ss (Stature)in centimeters W (Weight) in kilograms Chandler et al. (1975) conducted the first study to determine the principal moments of inertia about the principal axes of inertia in the whole body. The subjects were six embalmed cadavers. The principal moments of inertia are presented in Table 25 relative to a right-handed orthogonal axis system located at the whole body center of gravity. These moments were determined about the principal axes according to a technique described by Winstandley et al. (1968) and further discussed in the Chandler et al. report. Inertial data from the Chandler study can be used to examine the assumption that the "anatomical" axis system (about which the three previous investigators measured their data) approximates the principal axes of iner- tia. This "anatomical" axis system has been treated as an inertial frame of reference defined in the standard anatomical position. The axis system about which the principal moments of inertia in the Chandler study were determined, defines the momental ellipsoid of inertia (Synge and Griffith, 1942). Table 26 presents a comparison of the Chandler data with data from the Santschi study for subjects individually matched for height and weight. In general, the percentage differences are small for the principal moments of inertia in the standing position indicating that the "anatomical axis system closely approximates the principal axes of the momental ellipsoid of inertia in that position. It will be noted that the z-axes in the sitting position are significantly different. These differences are attributed to the displacement of the appendages away from the cardinal anatomical planes. As a general rule for symmetrical displacements of the appendages relative to the torso, moments of inertia about the x-axis and y-axis will most closely approximate the principal moments of inertia measured about the "anatomical" axis. The z-axis will have the poorest approximation since it is the major axis of the ellipsoid and hence the most sensitive.* The two studies by Chandler et al. (1975) and Becker (1972) in which moments of inertia were measured about principal axes result in more reliable data except for unresolved differences between them concerning head data. All available data were measured under one-g conditions and therefore incorporate the effect of gravity on the tissues and fluids of the body. Although some raw data on inertial properties under zero-g conditions have been collected, they have not been analyzed, so there are, as yet, no guidelines for adjusting values for moments of inertia in the zero-g environment. *The magnitude of the axes in a momental ellipsoid is given by the square root of the inverse of a moment of inertia. Therefore, for a typical ellip- soid, the major axis passes through the centroid and a point on the surface defined by a tangent to the greatest rate of curvature. Therefore the major axis is the most sensitive to minor changes in the mass distribution of the body. IV-48 6%-AI TABLE 25 PRINCIPAL MOMENTS OF INERTIA FROM CHANDLER ET AL. (1975) Standing tting Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 X SD Age 65 45 47 58 61 50 54.3 Tob Weight* 58,7 76.15 89.15 50.62 58.08 58.34 65.17 13.21 (129.43) (167.91) (196.58) (111.62) (128.07) (128.64) (143.70) (29.13) Stature* 167.8 181.7 174.2 175.9 168.8 164.5 172.15 5.75 (66.06) (71.54) (68.58) (69.25) (66.46) (64.76) (67.78) (2.26) Principal Moments of Inertia (x 103 gm - ad) Ix (Standing) 98,807 150,886 169,127 -- ——- ——— 133,967.0 45,391.4 (Seated) -—— ——— -—— 70,858 64,125 66,937 67,306.7 3,087.0 1, (Standing) 89,223 125,580 141,888 -—— ——— ——— 118,897.0 24,611.9 (Seated) -——— -—— —— 66,023 69,801 60,726 65,516.7 4,161.4 1. (Standing) 11,644 17,424 22,388 -——— c-- -—— 17,152.0 4,908.7 (Seated) -——- ——— —— 11,385 17,445 15,825 14,885.0 2,864.1 *Data given in kilograms and centimeters with pounds and inches in parentheses. TABLE 26 : COMPARISON OF MOMENTS OF INERTIA BETWEEN CHANDLER ET AL. (1975) AND SANTSCHI ET AL. (1963) Standing Sitting Subject # 1/19 2/1 3/17 4/26 5/16 6/39 Ix* -4.,05% 0.84% 7.047% 14.67% 4.15% 10.76% Iy* 2.69% =T7.1T7h 2.82% -3.03% -5.16% =-10.54% Iz* 18.10% 14.94% 21.42% -183.33% =-91.95% -107.59% *Deviation as percent of cadaver value. Segments Table 27 presents a summary of the data from four cadaver studies. Although the sample sizes are too small to permit definitive conclusions for the population, these are the only data of their kind available and may be used with caution. It should also be noted when using this table that some differences between the samples are attributable to differing definitions of the segments and the resultant variations in segment mass. As can be observed from the table, Chandler et al. (1975) and Beck- er (1972) measured the principal moments of inertia about three principal axes of inertia. The results of both studies confirm that, for our purposes, moments of inertia about the ''anatomical' axes closely approximate the principal moments of inertia determined about the principal axes of inertia for body segments. For the modeler, there are three approaches which can be used to predict the principal moments of inertia of body segments. Table 28 pre- sents the first and simplest approach by providing coefficients from the data in the Chandler study for the radii of gyration (K = I/M) expressed as a ratio, or percentage, of segment length. To estimate the radius of gyration, multiply the segment length (or link length) by the appropriate co- efficient found , in Table 28. The resulting product is multiplied by the appropriate segment weight (see Table 13) to obtain the principal moments of inertia for each segment. Table 29 presents some sample calculations for small (5th percentile), medium (50th percentile) and large (95th percentile) 1985 males. The torso in Table 28 corresponds to the segmentation plan followed in the Chandler study which combined the neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvis segments into one. Geometric models, based on segment weight estimates in Table 15, can be used to calculate inertial properties of these four segments. IV-50 TS=AI TABLE 27 SEGMENT MOMENTS OF INERTIA (10° gm-cm 2 1 ) THROUGH THE CENTER OF MASS Chandler, et al. (1975) Becker (1972 Dempster Braune & Fischer (1892). - (1955) Cadaver 1 Cadaver 2 I, I, I, 1 Ty I, Ty z Lo. I, Lo. 1, Head 174.0 164.4 202.9 198.5 221.0 133.8 NM : ——— -——— 179.94 Torso 16,1937 0,876.3 3,785,1 al NM de = 5,574.6 Upper grm Rf. 135.0 132.7 20.1 NM 142.0 101.0 -—— 75.56 9.68 Lt. 152.1 137.7 22.8 NM 139.0 121.0 18.0 75.98 9.40 Forearm Rt. | 66.9 64.5 8.8 WH 56.0 130.0 -- 121.5" 8.45 Lt. 6407 63.0 8.6 NM 55.0 142.0 * -—- 152.2" 8.85 Hand Rt. 7.54 6.15 2.15 NM 5.0 Lt. 6.84 5.57 1.79 NM 4.5 Thigh Rt. 1137.3 1157.9 224.9 NM 1100.0 684.0 19.0 589.1 100.61 Lt. 1151.4 1221.2 212.5 NM 1080.0 818.0 21.0 628.4 100.02 Shank Rt. 391.3 392.8 29.1 NM 430.0 257.0 ——— 123.68 20,15 Lc. 394.9 389.6 28.6 NM 416.0 271.0. -—— 176.37 17.58 Foot Rt. 32,10 31.08 7.04 NM 31.0 36.0 ——- 34.785 35.093 Lt. 33.13 30.43 7:54 NM 29.0 38.0 -——- 32.433 35.433 Head & neck -c= —— ——- 359.1 452.2 257.6 294.0 —— ——— —— —— Head & torso —— —-- —o- ——— ——- con 18,400.0 | 9,417.00 cm= 10,571.5 —— 1 For conversion to other units, see Appendix D. his axis is undefined except to say that it is perpendicular to the long axis and passes through the center of mass. 3 . NM = Not Measured. “Forearm and hand measured together. TABLE 28 THE RADIUS OF GYRATION (K) AS A PERCENT OF SEGMENT LENGTH L K/L Head x Head length 31.6% y 30.9% z 34.2% Torso . OX Torso length 43.0% y (Suprasternale hgt. 35.2% z -trochanterion hgt.) 20.8% Upper arm x Acromion-radiale 1. 26.1% y 25 «4% z 10.4% Forearm xX Radiale-stylion 1. 29.6% y 29.2% z 10.8% Hand x Hand breadth 50.4% y 45 «6% z 26.6% Thigh x Trochanterion hgt. 274% y - fibular hgt. 28.4% Zz ‘ 12.2% Shank x Fibular hgt. 28.2% y 28.2% z 76% Foot x Foot length 26.1% y i 24.9% z 12.2% A second method of predicting the principal moments of inertia is to use regression equations based on body weight, segment weight or segment volume. These equations were computed in the Chandler study and are given in Appendix B, Table 5. The same segmentation plan as that used in Table 28 must be followed but the equations are based on a slightly different set of independent data. A third method by which a design engineer can estimate the principal moments of inertia of body segments is to use geometric models. There are several current models which utilized geometric estimates, including those developed by Bartz and Gianotti (1973), Hanavan (1964) and Tieber and Linde- muth (1965). These models share some common assumptions which are well known but are not inherent in the two previously reported methods. First, Iv-52 €G-AI Head Tcrso Upper arm Forearm Hand Thigh Shank Foot N < N N < N < nN < N < Nd Small: 5th %ile 168.2 Cin, (66.2 ine) 65.2 kg. (143.7 1b.) kg-cm9 ib.din. sec’ 156.9 0.139 150.0 0,133 183.8 0,163 14604 .0 12.916 9786.5 8.655 3417.5 3.022 111.1 0.098 99.9 0.088 17.6 0.016 57.7 0.051 56.1 0.050 7.7 0,007 7.4 0.007 6.1 0.005 2.1 0.002 1123.9 0.994 1164.5 1.030 214.9 0.190 369.3 0.327 369.3 0.327 26.8 0.024 40,1 0.035 3645 0,032 8.8 0.008 TABLE 29 Medium: 50th %ile 178.4 cm. (70.2 in.) 81.5 kg. (180.0 1b.) kg- cm 1b.in. sec’ 195,7 0.173 187.2 0.166 229.3 0.203 20219.2 17.882 13549.2 11.983 4731,0 4.184 166.0 0.147 157.2 0.139 26.3 0.023 88.5 0.078 86.1 0.076 11.8 0.010 10.4 0.009 8,5 0.008 2.9 0.003 1666.6 1.474 1726.8 1.527 318.7 0.282 534.3 0.473 534.3 0.473 38.8 0.034 52,1 0.046 47.4 0.042 11.4 0,010 SEGMENT MOMENTS OF INERTIA AS COMPUTED FROM THE COEFFICIENTS IN TABLE 28 95th %ile (74.3 in.) Larges 188.6 cm, 97.7 kgs (215.3 1b.) kg-cm 240.3 229.7 281.5 21837.2 14632.9 5109.3 233.7 221.3 37.1 127.6 124.2 17.0 14.3 il1.7 4.0 2334.9 2419.5 446.5 736.9 736.9 33.5 66.6 60.6 1%.5 1b.in.sec’ 0.213 0.203 0.249 19.313 12.941 4.519 0.207 0.196 0.033 0.113 0.110 0.015 0.013 0.010 0.003 2.065 2.140 0.395 0.652 0.652 0.047 0.059 0.054 0.013 geometric models assume rigid homogeneous bodies of unknown density usually estimated to be 1.0. Second, they assume the shape of these bodies to be best approximated by symmetrical geometric shapes. As a consequence, they further assume that the principal ''geometric'" axes are the same as the principal 'inertial' axes. Based on empirical data collected thus far, the last assumption appears to have some validity although it must be pointed out that the only comparison presently possible is between data collected on six embalmed cadavers and the geometric models. The first two methods described above are derived from directly measured data which suggests that they are more accurate and more individual- ized than the older method which relies on geometric models. However, compu- ter programs, which do exist for the geometric models, have not yet been written for the newer empirical equations, so the ultimate decision concern- ing which method to employ must be made by the user who will examine his requirements and select accordingly. The reader of this chapter will have noted, perhaps with some impa- tience, the number of reservations and cautionary statements surrounding much of the material presented here, the number of alternative approaches offered and the frequency with which the lack of hard data has been pointed out. This is an inevitable consequence of any attempt to assemble a usable and up-to-date body of knowledge in an area in which verified data are still so sparse and in which so much research and validation remains to be done. We are still on the frontiers of understanding the inertial properties of the human body. Nevertheless, despite the limitations and deficiencies of the pub- lished data, material in this chapter provides the user for the first time with a means of estimating the mass distribution properties of the human body from empirical data rather than solely from the traditional geometrical models. This is a major step toward a fuller understanding of the biomechani- cal behavior of the human body. IV=-54 REFERENCES Allum, J. H. J., and L. R. Young 1976. "The Relaxed Oscillation Technique for the Determination of the Moment of Inertia of Limb Segments," J. Biomech., 9(1):21-26. Backman, G. 1924. 'Korperlange and Tageszeit," Upsala Lakar. Forhandl., 29:255-282. Barter, J. T. 1957. Estimation of the Mass of Body Segments. WADC-TR- 57-260, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Bartz,J. A., and C. R. Gianotti 1973. A Computer Program to Generate Input Data Sets for Crash Victim Simulations. Calspan Report ZQ- S5167-v-1, Calspan Corp., Buffalo, New York. Becker, Edward B. 1972. Measurement of Mass Distribution Parameters of Anatomical Segments. Paper No. 720964, SAE Transactioms, vol. 81, sec. 4, pp. 2818-2833. Bernstein, N. A., 0. A. Salzgeber, P. P. Pavlenko, and N. A. Gurvich 1931. Determination of Location of the Centers of Gravity and Mass of the Links of the Living Human Body (in Russian). (Summarized and translated from the Russian - Bernstein, N. A.: The Coordination and Regulation of Movements, Pergamon Press Ltd. (Oxford, England), 1967.) Bouisset, S., and E. Pertuzon 1968. "Experimental Determination of the Moment of Inertia of Limb Segments,” Biomechanics: Technique of Drawings of Movement Analysis, Proceedings of the First Interna- tional Seminar on Biomechanics, Zurich, Aug. 21-23, 1967, J. Wartenweiler, E. Jokl, and M. Heggelinck, eds., S. Karger (New York, N. Y.), pp. 106-109. Braune, W., and O. Fischer 1892. "Bestimmung der Tragheitsmomente des Menschlichen Korpers und Seiner Glieder," Abh. d. Math. Phys. Cl. d. Wiss., 18(8):409-492. Braune, W., and O. Fischer 1889. The Center of Gravity of the Human Body as Related to the German Infantryman, Leipzig, Germany (ATI 138 452 available from National Technical Information Service). Chandler, R. F., C. E. Clauser, J. P. McConville, H. M. Reynolds, and J. W. Young 1975. Investigation of Inertial Properties of the Human Body, Final Report, Apr. 1, 1972 - Dec. 1974. AMRL-TR-74- 137, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio. Clauser, C. E., J. T. McConville, and J. W. Young 1969. Weight, Volume and Center of Mass of Segments of the Human Body. (AMRL-TR-69- 70., Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio), NASA CR-11262. IV-55 Cleaveland, H. G. 1955. The Determination of the Center of Gravity of Segments of the Human Body. Dissertation, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Calif. ' Cotton, F. S. 1931. "Studies in Centre of Gravity Changes. 1. A New Method for Finding the Height of the Centre of Gravity in Man, With Some Applications," Aust. J. Exper. Biol. and Med. Sci., 8(1):53-67. Croskey, Marguerite I., Percy M. Dawson, Alma C. Luesen, Irma E. Marohn, and Hazel E. Wright 1922. "The Height of the Center of Gravity in Man," Amer. J. Physiol., 61:171-185. Croxton, Frederick E. 1959. Elementary Statistics with Applications in Medicine and the Biological Sciences, Dover Publ., Inc. (New York, N.Y.). Dempster, Wilfred Taylor 1955. Space Requirements of the Seated Operator. WADC-TR-55-159, Wright Air Development Center, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Dempster, W. T., L. A. Sherr, and J. G. Priest 1964. "Conversion Scales for Estimating Humeral and Femoral Lengths and the Lengths of Functional Segments in the Limbs of American Caucasoid Males," Human Biology, 36(3):246-262. Drillis, Rudolfs, and Renato Contini 1966. Body Segment Parameters. TR-1166.03, Engineering and Science, New York University, New York, N.Y. DuBois, J., W. R. Santschi, D. M. Walton, C. M. Scott, and F. W. Mazy 1964. Moments of Inertia and Centers of Gravity of the Living Human Body Encumbered by a Full Pressure Suit. AMRL-TR-64-110, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Fenn, W. 0. 1938. "The Mechanics of Muscular Contraction in Man," J. Appl. Physiol., 9:165-177. Fenn, W. O., H. Brody, and A. Petrilli 1931. "The Tension Developed by Human Muscles at Different Velocities of Shortening, Amer. J. Physiol., 97:1-14. Fischer, Otto 1906. Theoretical Fundamentals for a Mechanics of Living Bodies with Special Applications to Man as Well as Some Processes of Motion in Machines, B. G. Teubner (Berlin, Germany). (ATI 153 668 available from NTIS.) Fujikawa, Katsumasa 1963. "The Center of Gravity in the Parts of the Human Body," Okajimos Folia Anat. Jap., 39(3):117-126. IV-56 Geoffrey, S. P. 1961. A 2-D Mannikin - The Inside Story. X-Rays Used to Determine a New Standard for a Basic Design Tocl. Paper pre- sented at the 1961 SAE International Congress and Exposition of Automotive Engineering, Cobo Hall, Detroit, Mich. Hanavan, E. P. 1964. A Mathematical Model of the Human Body. AMRL-TR- 64-102, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (AD 608 63). Hay, James G. 1973. "The Center of Gravity of the Human Body," Kinesi- ology III, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (Washington, D.C.), pp. 20-44. Hellebrandt, Frances A., Genevieve Braun, and Rubye H. Tepper 1937. "The Relation of the Center of Gravity of the Base of Support in Stance," Amer. J. Physiol., 119:331-332. Herron,R., J. R. Cuzzi, and J. Hugg 1976. Mass Distribution of the Human Body Using Biostereometrics. AMRL-TR-/5-18, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Hill, A. V. 1940. "The Dynamic Constants of Human Muscle," Proc. Roy. Soc., Series B, 128:263-274. Ignazi, G., A. Coblentz, H. Pineau, P. Hennion, and J. Prudent 1972. "Position du Centre de Gravite Chez L ‘Homme: Determination, Sig- nification, Fonctionelle et Evolutive," Anthropologie Applique, 43/72, Paris, France. Katch, Victor, and Arthur Weltman 1975. "Predictability of Body Segment Volumes in Living Subjects,' Hum. Biol., 47(2):203-218. Kjeldsen, Kirsti 1972. Body Segment Weights, Limb Lengths and the Loca- tion of the Center of Gravity in College Women. Master's thesis, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. Liu, Y. K., and J. K. Wickstrom 1973. "Estimation of the Inertial Property Distribution of the Human Torso from Segmented Cadaveric Data," Perspective in Biomedical Engineering, R. M. Kenedi, ed., MacMillan (New York, N.Y.), pp. 203-213. Mori, M., and T. Yamamoto 1959. 'Die Massenanteile der Einzelnen Koper- abschnitte der Japaner.," Acta. Anat., 37(4):385-388. Page, R. L. 1974. "The Position and Dependence on Weight and Height of the Centre of Gravity of the Young Adult Male," Ergonomics, 17(5):603-612. Panjabi, Manohar M., Augustus A. White, and Richard A. Brand, Jr. 1974. "A Note on Defining Body Parts Configurations," J. Biomechanics, 7:385-387. Iv-57 Reynolds, Herbert M., Charles E. Clauser, John McConville, Richard Chan- dler, and Joseph W. Young 1975. Mass Distribution Properties of the Male Cadaver. Paper presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Mich., SAE Transac- tions 750424, p. 1132. Santschi, W. R., J. DuBois, and C. Omoto 1963. Moments of Inertia and Centers of Gravity of the Living Human Body. AMRL-TDR-63-36, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Snyder, Richard G., Don B. Chaffin, and Rodney K. Schutz 1972. Link System of the Human Torso, Final Technical Report, June 1970 July 1971. HSRI-/1, Highway Safety Research Inst., Mich. 2 , Ann Arbor, Mich. Swearingen, J. J. 1962. Determination of Centers of Gravity of Man. Report 62-14, Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, Federal Aviation Agency, Oklahoma City, Okla. Synge, John L., and Byron A. Griffith 1942. Principles of Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (New York, N.Y.). Thornton, William E., G. W. Hoffler, and J. A. Rummel 1974. "Anthropometric Changes and Fluid Shifts," Proc. of the Skylab Life Sciences Symposium, II:637-658, NASA TM X-58154. Tieber, Julius A., and Robert W. Lindemuth 1965. An Analysis of the Inertial Properties and Performance of the Astronaut Maneuvering System. MS thesis, U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Trotter, M., and G. Gleser 1958. "A Re-Evaluation of Estimation of Stature Based on Measurements of Stature Taken During Life and of Long Bones After Death," Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 16(1):79-124. Walker, L. B., Jr., E. H. Harris, and V. R. Pontius 1973. Mass, Volume, Center of Mass and Mass Moment of Inertia of the Head and Nec the Human Body, Final Report. Tulane Univ., New Orleans, La. (AD- 762581). Winstandley, W. C., T. J. Wittmann, and M. C. Eifert 1968. Special Equipment for Measurement of Mechanical Dynamic Properties of Emergency Escape Systems. AFFDL-TR-68-8, Air Force Flight Dynam- 1cs Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. IV-58 ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES The following documents are not readily available because of limited distribution (unpublished or preliminary data). However, copies/information may be obtained by contacting the author/source. Damon, Albert 1964. "Diurnal Variation in Stature. Notes on Anthropometric Technique," Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 22(1):73-78. Harless, E. 1860. "The Static Moments of the Component Masses of the Human Body," Trans. of the Math-Phys. Royal Bavarian Acad. of Sci., 8(1,2):69-96, 257-294. Unpublished English translation, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (AD 47 953). Jackson, J., R. Bond, and R. Gundersen 1975. Neutral Body Posture in Zero—-G. Skylab Experience Bulletin #17, JSC-09551, NASA Lyndon B. ohnson Space Center, Houston, Tex. Thomas, Daniel J., et al. 1975. Second Ad-Hoc Committee Report, presented in San Diego, Calif. IV-59 APPENDIX A THE ANATOMICAL FRAMEWORK Joint Centers of Rotation and Linkage and Axis Systems for Body Segments 1. Joint Centers of Rotation Head/Neck Neck/Thorax Thorax/ Lumbar Lumbar /Sacral Sternoclavi- cular Claviscapular Glenohumeral -Midpoint of the interspace between the occipital con- dyles and the first cervical vertebra. -Midpoint of the interspace between the 7th cervical and lst thoracic vertebral bodies.* -Midpoint of the interspace between the 12th thoracic and lst lumbar vertebral bodies.* -Midpoint of the interspace between the 5th lumbar and lst sacral vertebral bodies.* -'"Midpoint position of the palpable junction between the proximal end of clavicle and the sternum at the upper border (jugular notch) of the sternum." (Dempster, p. 123, 1955) -"Midpoint of a line between the coracoid tuberosity of the clavicle (at the posterior border of the bone) and the acromioclavicular articulation (or the tubercle at the lateral end of the clavicle); the point, however, should be visualized as on the underside of the clavi- cle." (Dempster, p. 123, 1955) -"Midregion of the palpable bony mass of the head and tuberosities of the humerus; with the arm abducted about 45° relative to the vertebral margin of the scapula, a line dropped perpendicular to the long axis of the arm from the outermost margin of the acromion will approxi- mately bisect the joint.'" (Dempster, p. 125, 1955) *These locations are defined relative to the last and first vertebrae of each of the major anatomical vertebrae groups. Thus, there are occasionally miss- ing or additional vertebrae which would not change the functional definition of these links. IV=-60 Elbow -'"Midpoint on a line between (1) the lowest palpable Wrist Hip Knee Ankle Body Head Neck point the medial epicondyle of the humerus, and (2) a point 8mm above the radiale (radiohumeral junction). (Dempster po. 125, 1955) ="On the palmar side of the hand, the distal wrist crease at the palmaris longus tendon, or the midpoint of a line between the radial styloid and the center of the pisiform bone; on the dorsal side of the hand, the palpable groove between the lunate and capitate bones, on a line with metacarpal bone III." (Dempster p. 125, 1955) -"(Lateral aspect of the hip). A point at the tip of the femoral trochanter 0.4 inch anterior to the most later- ally projecting part of the femoral trochanter." (Demp- ster, pe. 125, 1955) -'"Midpoint of a line between the centers of the posterior convexities of the femoral condyles.' (Dempster, p. 125, 1955) -"Level of a line between the tip of the lateral malleolus of the fibula and a point 5mm distal to the tibial malleolus." (Dempster, p. 125, 1955). Seoment ss: Recommended Links and Axis Svstems Link: The straight line between the occipital condyle/Cl inter- space center and the center of mass of the head. Axis System: Formed relative to the Frankfort Plane which is the standard anthropometric measurement position parallel to the trans- verse (XY) plane. The Frankfort Plane (XY) is established by left infra-orbitale and right and left ear holes. The YZ plane will be perpendicular to the XY plane passing through the left and right ear holes. The XZ-plane will be constructed as a normal to the XY and YZ -planes passing through nasion in the mid-sagittal plane. Thus, the point of origin will be at the mid-point of the bipor- ion axis. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XZ-and XY-planes; the +Y axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; and the +Z-axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ-and YZ-planes. This axis closely approximates the system used in Chandler et al. (1975). Link: The straight line between the occipital condyle/Cl and C7/T1 vertebral interspace joint centers. Iv-61 IV-62 Axis-System: Formed relative to the mid-sagittal plane (XZ) de- fined by the occipital condyle/Cl and C7/Tl vertebrae interspace centers and the most anterior chin/neck intersect point. The YZ- plane will be constructed as a perpendicular to the XZ-plane pass- ing through the occipital condyle/Cl and C7/Tl vertebral interspace centers. The XY-plane will be constructed as a normal to the XZ and YZ-planes passing through the most anterior chin/neck inter- sect point. Thus, the point of origin will be at the intersection of the three planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY- and XZ-planes; the +Y-axis will pass later- ally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; and the +Z- axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ- and YZ-planes. Torso Link: The straight line distance from the occipital condyle/Cl interspace joint center to the midpoint of a line passing through the right and left hip joint center. Axis System: Formed relative to the mid-sagittal (XZ) plane de- fined by suprasternale and occipital condyle/Cl interspace and the hip joint centers midpoint. The YZ-plane will be formed as a perpendicular to the mid-sagittal plane passing through the occipital condyle/Cl interspace and the hip joint centers mid- point. The XY-plane will be constructed as a normal to the XZ-and YZ-planes passing through suprasternale. Thus, the point of origin will be «close to the G7/Tl interspace of the intersection of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection passing through the hip knee joint centers of rotation. The XY- plane will be constructed as a normal to the XZ- and YZ-planes passing through the anterior surface point. Thus, the point of origin will be at the intersection of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY- and XZ-planesj} the +Y-axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; +Z-axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ- and YZ- planes. Thorax Links: Thoraco-sternum - A closed linkage system composed of three links. The right and left transthorax are straight line distances from the C7/Tl interspace to the right and left sternoclavicular joint centers of rotation. The transternum link is a straight line distance between the right and left sternoclavicular joint centers of rotation. Clavicular - The straight line between the sternoclavicu- lar and the claviscapular joint centers. Scapular - The straight line between the claviscapular and glenohumeral joint centers. Thoracic - The straight line between C7/Tl and T12/L1 ver- tebral body interspace joint centers. Axis System: Formed relative to the mid-sagittal (XZ) plane de- fined by suprasternale and center of the vertebral body inter=- spaces of C7/T1 and T12/Ll. The YZ-plane will be formed as a perpendicular to the mid-sagittal plane passing through the C7/T1 interspace. The XY-plane will be constructed as a normal tothe XZ- and YZ-planes passing through the C7/Tl interspace. Thus, the point of origin will be at the C7/T1 interspace. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; the +Y-axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; and the +Z-axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ~ and YZ-planes. Lumbar Link: The straight line between the T12/Ll and L5/S1 vertebrae interspace joint centers. Axis System: Formed relative to the mid-sagittal plane (XZ) de- fined by the T12/L1l and L5/S1l joint centers and umbilicus. The YZ-plane will be formed perpendicular to the XZ-plane passing through the T12/L1 and L5/S1 joint centers. The XY-plane will be formed as a normal to the XZ- and YZ-planes passing through L5/S1l. Thus, the point of origin will be at the intersection of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY- and XZ-planes; the +Y-axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; and the +Z=-axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ- and YZ=-planes. Pelvis Links: The pelvis is treated as a closed-loop linkage system com- posed of three links. The right and left iliopelvic links are straight lines between the L5/S1 interspace joint center and a hip joint center. The transpelvic link is a straight line between the right and left hip joint centers. Axis System: A frontal plane (YZ) will be established using sym- physion and the right and left anterior superior iliac spines. The XY-plane will be constructed as a perpendicular to the YZ plane passing through the right and left anterior superior iliac spines. The XZ-plane will be constructed as a normal to the XY and YZ-planes passing through symphysion. The point of origin will lie on a line passing through the right and left anterior superior iliac spines approximately at the midpoint of the bispinous dia- meter. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes. The +Y-axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes and the +Z axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ- and YZ-planes. IV-63 IV-64 Upper Arm Link: The straight line between the glenohumeral and elbow joint centers of rotation. Axis System: A para-sagittal plane (XZ) will be constructed with the arm in the extended anatomical position using the glenohumeral and elbow joint centers of rotation and a point on the anterior surface of the skin overlying the maximum protrusion of the biceps brachii muscle approximately at the middle of the upper arm. The YZ-plane will be established perpendicular to the XZ-plane pass- ing through the glenohumeral and elbow joint centers of rotation. The XY-plane will be constructed as a normal to the XZ- and YZ- planes passing through the anterior surface point. Thus, the ori- gin of the axis system will be at the intersection of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the in- tersection of the XY- and XZ-planes; the +Y-axis will pass later- ally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; and the +Z- axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ- and YZ-planes. Forearm Hand Link: The straight line between the elbow and wrist joint centers of rotation. Axis System: A para-sagittal plane (XZ) will be established with the arm in the extended anatomical position using the elbow and wrist joint centers of rotation and a point on the anterior surface of the skin mid-way along the length of the forearm. The YZ-plane will be established as a perpendicular to the XZ-plane passing through the elbow and wrist joint centers. The XY-plane will be constructed as a normal to the XZ- and YZ-planes passing through the anterior surface point. Thus, the origin will be at the intersection of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY- and XZ-planes; the +Y-axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; and the +4+Z axis will pass superiorly along the intersection of the XZ- and YZ-planes. Link: The straight line between the wrist joint center of rota- tion and the center of mass of the hand. Axis System: Formed relative to a para-sagittal plane (XZ) with the arm and hand in the extended anatomical position using the wrist joint center of rotation, the most dorsal point on metacar- pal III and the most distal point at the tip of phalanx III. The YZ-plane will be established as a perpendicular to the XZ-plane and will pass through the wrist joint center and the phalanx III distal point. The XY-plane will be formed as a normal to the XZ- and YZ-planes passing through the metacarpale III landmark. Thus, the point of origin of the axis system will lie at the intersec- tion of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY-and XZ-planes; the +Y- axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ- planes; and the +Z-axis will pass superiorly along the intersec- tion of the XZ- and YZ-planes. Thigh Link: The straight line between the hip and knee joint center of rotation. . Axis System: Formed relative to a para-sagittal plame (XZ) with the leg in the extended anatomical position using the hip and knee joint centers of rotation and a point on the anterior surface of the thigh lying approximately at mid-segment. The YZ-plane will be established as a perpendicular to the XZ-plane passing through the knee and hip joint centers of rotation. The XY-plane will be established as a normal to the YZ- and XZ-planes passing through the anterior surface point. Thus, the origin of the axis system will be at the intersection of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY-and XZ-planes; the +Y axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XZ- and YZ-planes; and the +Z-axis will pass superiorly a- long the intersection of the XZ- and YZ-planes. Shank Links: The straight line between the knee and ankle joint centers of rotation. Axis System: Formed relative to a para-sagittal plane (XZ) with the leg in the extended anatomical position using the knee and ankle joint centers and a point on the anterior surface approxi- mately at mid-segment. The YZ-plane will be constructed as a perpendicular to the XZ-plane passing through the knee and ankle joint centers of rotation. The XY-plane will be formed as a normal to the XZ- and YZ-planes passing through the anterior surface landmark. Thus, the point of origin of the axis system will lie at the intersection of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY- and XZ-planes; the +Y-axis will pass along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; and the +Z-axis will pass superiorly along the inter=- section of the XZ- and YZ-planes. Foot Link: The straight line between the ankle joint center of rotation and the center of mass of the foot. Axis System: Formed relative to a para-sagittal plane (XZ) with leg in the extended anatomical position using the ankle joint cen- ter, the most posterior point on the heel, and most anterior point on the tip of the second toe. The YZ-plane is constructed perpendicular to the XZ-plane passing through the most posterior IV-65 and anterior points of the foot. The XY-plane is formed as a normal to the XZ- and YZ-planes passing through the ankle joint center. Thus, the point of origin of the axis system lies at the intersection of the three orthogonal planes. The +X-axis will pass anteriorly along the intersection of the XY-and XZ-axis; and the +Y-axis will pass laterally along the intersection of the XY- and YZ-planes; and the +Z-axis will pass superiorly along the inter- section of the XZ- and YZ-planes. IV-66 APPENDIX B REGRESSION EQUATIONS Iv-67 APPENDIX B REGRESSION EQUATIONS Tables 2, 3 and 4, regression equations for estimating center of mass, weight and volume of body segments, present a series of two- and three-step equations for predicting individual segment centers of mass, weight and vol- ume from anthropometry. The regression equations are relatively simple to use but are given here in a form which differs somewhat to the customary form The first entry in Table 2 is for predicting the location of the center of mass of the head and trunk as a distance from the top of the head (vertex). The equation is to be read as: CM of Head and trunk from vertex = .859 Bicristal breadth + 23.539 (41.20) The two and three-step equations are correspondingly to be read as: CM of Head and trunk from vertex = .491 Bicristal breadth + +408 Head-trunk length + 1.313 (41.01) CM of Head and trunk from vertex = .621 Bicristal breadth + +582 Head-trunk length - .181 Stature + 14.050 (0.75) As the number of anthropometric variables in the equation increases, the correlation coefficient increases and the standard error of estimate decreas- es. NE For the Head and trunk, the CM is located only as a distance from vertex (Z axis); for the majority of the other segments, the CM is located both in the Z axis and at a distance from the anterior surface of the segment (X axis)e The location of the CM in the Y axis was assumed in this study to lie in the medial-lateral center of the segment. Iv-68 TABLE 1 REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR ESTIMATING LINK LENGTHS DIRECTLY FROM ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASURE OF BONE LENGTHS FROM DEMPSTER, SHERR AND PRIEST (1964) 69-A1 Standard Error Correlation Empirical Equation of Estimate Coefficient Ulna Length = 23,7922 + (0.9810 x Radius Length) 4,58 +94 Humerus Length = 64.4829 + (0.9683 x Radius Length) 9.97 .81 Forearm-Link Length = 1,0709 x Radius Length -- -- Arm-Link Length = 58,0752 + (0.9646 x Radius Length) 8.92 +94 Radius Length = 7.9728 + (0.9002 x Ulna Length) 4.39 «94 Humerus Length = 74.0856 + (0.9688 x Ulna Length) 11.07 «76 Forearm-Link Length = 0.9870 x Ulna Length -- == Arm-Link Length = 66.2621 + (0.8665 x Ulna Length) 9.90 7A Femur Length = 125.6879 + (0.9067 x Tibia Length) 18.39 73 Fibula Length = 31.3653 + (0.9252 x Tibia Length) : 5.28 097 Shank-Link Length = 1,0776 x Tibia Length -- -- Thigh-Link Length = 132.8253 + (0.8172 x Tibia Length) 16.57 .73 Femur Length = 101.8815 + (0.962% x Fibula Length) 11.45 «87 Tibia Length = 8.6266 + (1.0110 x Fibula Length} 5.53 «97 Shank-Link Length = 8.2184 + (1.0904 x Fibula Length) 5.95 «97 Thigh-Link Length = 92.0397 + (0.8699 x Fibula Length) 10.34 .87 GINAT ORF SOR OL¥ Segment Head & trunk Total leg Total leg Total arm Head Head Trunk Thigh Thigh Shank ‘& foot Shank & foot PAGE © QU ALITY FROM CLAUSER, co Measured from Bicristal breadth? «859 «491 «621 Top of head Tibiale height +518 «534 «562 Trochanterion AP at on’ «530 «795 «935 Anterior aspect B humerus- rad. length «966 «947 «963 Acromion Head circumference «293 «246 Top of head Head circumference «158 «238 Back of head Bi-spinous breadth «578 «622 «471 Suprasternale Trochanterion height «250 «214 «227 Trochanterion » AP at CM Anterior aspect «595 Tibiale height «360 «335 Tibiale AP at CM‘ «539 «646 Anterior aspect TABLE 2 REGRESSION EQUATIONS TO ESTIMATE CENTER OF MASS OF BODY ET AL. (1969) Head-torso length + 402 + .582 Calf circum- ference + .099 + 404 Weight - +053 - 054 Forearm circumference + 2391 + .918 Height of head + .159 Head breadth = «570 Iliac crest skinfold - «066 - «058 Knee breadth (bone) + .902 + .989 Calf circum- ference = «159 Calf length + 114 Independent Regression Variables Stature - «181 Upper thigh circumference - «264 Iliac crest skinfold - +050 Arm circum- ference (axillary) = «571 Trunk length + .166 Iliac crest - +033 SEGMENTS Constant + + + +++ +++ +++ + + 23.539 1.313 14.050 11.016 7235 9.061 1.212 1.499 0.408 2.336 7.353 4.909 5.573 6.711 1.039 3.376 8.102 7.741 1.683 5.902 11.660 13.362 «956 5.226 11.267 1.731 7.044 .897 «935 «968 .638 «650 .721 «695 «817 «894 «684 «729 .342 «704 «731 «468 «541 «846 «900 «926 «841 .918 «934 .838 «789 «871 «782 «850 \ 1 All dimensions are given in centimeters except skinfolds which are given in millimeters. For a precise definition of all dimensions, see Clauser, et al. (1969). *Anterior-posterior “Ball of humerus-radiale length. Iv-70 1.20 1.01 «75 ee GRY «55 «55 «35 «55 «79 .68 «61 «68 «52 «49 «69 «68 «57 «40 «35 Segment Shank Shank Foot Foot Upper arm Upper arm Forearm & hand Forearm & hand Forearm Forearm Hand Hand CM Measured from Tibiale Anterior aspect Heel Sole Acromion Anterior aspect Radiale Anterior aspect Radiale Anterior aspect Metacarpale III Medial aspect PAGE IS TABLE 2 - Concluded Independent Regression Variables Tibiale Knee breadth height (bone) «276 »309 - «558 AP at on’ Calf length «455 «503 + .101 Foot Ankle Lateral mal- length circumference leolus height 2217 +233 + .135 +153 + 137 + 444 Arch circumference «325 B. humerus- ; Arm Elbow Breadth rad. length Circumference (bone) (axillary) +707 +710 - 045 «329 - +250 + 2.827 2 AP at CM JLll Wrist breadth Radiale-stylion Forearm (bone) length Circumference 2.765 1.962 “+ .379 1.617 + .585 - «331 AP at CM Elbow breadth Styl.-meta, (bone) III length .890 «900 - .280 .890 - W313 - 2229 Radiale-stylion Wrist breadth length (bone) «537 440 + .761 AP at on’ +790 Wrist breadth Hand (bone) circumference .358 «657 - +202 Wrist breadth Hand (bone) breadth 1.224 1.038 + .248 * Stylion-Metacarpale III length. Constant 5.729 2.627 1.403 +++ - 4.639 - 4.563 - 3.333 - 6.168 + L665 4.822 «510 - 2.355 - «385 = 2.153 - «415 + 2.130 - 2.226 - 3.271 .800 .872 2665 «725 «566 «712 .827 «672 .689 «691 .918 874 764 -847 «929 .913 «936 974 .788 «821 2843 $272 486 «769 .810 Segoe «50. «43 «53 «51 «33 «29 «25 1.21 1.26 «72 «23 072 «62 «46 «25 «23 216 «53 a51 «35 «39 «37 «32 «30 Iv-71 TABLE 3 RECRESSION EQUATIONS POR ESTIMATING SEGMENT WEIGHTS ROM CLAUSER, MCCONVILLE AND YOUNG (1969)* $ Samant Independant Regression Variables Sonstant : ast Body Weight Trunk length™ Chest depth Constant Head & trumk «380 + L009 «968 1.36 «321 + 362 - 17.077 +980 l.11 «491 + 504 + 37 - 31.122 «987 «93 t Calf circum- Uppar thigh Body Veigh ference circumference Total leg «161 - +000 «919 «62 «115 + .221 - 3.792 «954 «50 NL + .146 + .113 = 5.455 «964 46 Body Weight Wrist circumference Biceps , circumference Total arm «047 + 132 «883 023 «031 + .186 - 1.89% «929 «19 014 + .182 + 083 = 3.061 «952 «16 Head circumforence Weight Head «148 - 3.716 816 «20 «104 + .015 = 20189 «875 «17 Trunk Chest Body Weight length circumference Trunk «531 - 2.837 966 1.33 «49% + 347 - 19.186 2979 1.11 «349 + 423 + 229 = 35.460 986 «92 Upper thigh Iliac crest Body Weight circumferance skinfold Thigh «120 - 1.123 «893 «54 074 + .138 = 4641 «933 «45 «074 + W123 + 027 = 4.216 °Db4 «43 Calf Tibiale Ankle ciramfaronce height circumference Shank & foot «185 - 1.279 «934 16 172 + 051 - 3.824 971 .11 «130 + .058 + .103 = 4.915 «982 «09 Calf © Tibiale Ankle circmferance height circumference Shank «135 - 1.318 «933 014 ol4l + 042 - 3.421 «971 +09 «111 + 067 + 074 « 44208 «979 +08 Body Weight Ankle circumforsnce Foot length Foot «009 + 369 «810 «06 «005 + .033 - +030 «882 «05 +003 + 048 + 027 - «869 «907 «04 Body Weight Arm circumfer- Acromion- ence (axillary) red. length Upper arm «030 - 238 «879 14 «019 + .060 - 1.280 «931 .12 «007 + .092 + 050 - 3.101 «961 +09 Wrist Forears Radiale-stylion circumference circumference length Torearm & hand «168 - 1.295 «874 «10 «132 + 049 - 1.987 «919 «09 «103 + 046 + .043 © 24543 «940 <08 Wrist Forearm ciramference circumference i Forearm «119 - W913 «827 09 +081 + 052 - 1.65% «920 «06 Wrist Wrist breadth Hand : circumference (bone) breadth ! Hand «051 - L418 «863 «03 «038 + 080 - «660 «917 «03 +029 + 075 + 031 - «746 942 02 "Weight 1s given in kilograms, skinfolds in millimetcss ana all other dimensions in centimeters. **For a precise definition of all dimensions, sec Clauser, et al. (1969). Iv-72 Segment Head & trunk Total leg \ Totel arm Head Trunk Thigh Shank & foot Shank Foot Upper arm Forearm & hand Forearm Hand *Weight is given in kilograms, skinfolds in millimeters **For a precise definition of all dimensions, se TABLE & REGRESSION EQUATIONS TO ESTIMATE SEGMENT VOLUME TROM CLAUSER, ET AL. (1969) es Body Waight circumferenceww length Senstam 2338 + .353 . - 19.331 «228 + 2450 + 448 - 45.797 Upper thi Body Weight re «157 - W345 «105 + .157 - 4.370 Wrist Biceps Body Weight circumference circumference -047 © .106 «032 + .165 - 1.850 015 + .161 + .080 - 2.913 Head Weight circumference 2173 - 5.453 .139 + .012 - 4.301 Body Weight Waist Chest breadth circumference «534 = 2.343 .389 + .476 - 7.392 «179 + .502 + .347 - 26.817 Body Weight Upper thigh Iliac crest circumference skinfold .116 - 1.149 073 + .128 - 4.3% .073 + .106 + .039 - 3.760 Shank Tibiale Ankle circumference height circumference .148 - 1.056 -155 + .050 - 3.555 .103 + .U59 + .127 - 4.9107 Shank Tibiale Ankle circumference height circumference 2123 - 1.170 +130 + 044 = 3.396 «0% + .051 + .097 = beb27 Body Weight Ankle Foot circumference length ,008 +360 «005 + .029 - W025 .003 + .043 + .025 - .79 Body Weight Arm circumference Acromion-rad. (axillary) length .030 - «330 .018 + .070 - 1.600 .008 + .098 + 044 - 3.234 Wrist Forearm Radiale-stylion circumference circumfarence length .153 - 1.181 117 + .048 - 1.847 093 + .045 + .035 - 2.278 Hrist Poreamm circumference circuaference .111 - «875 072 + .053 = 1.622 Wrist Wrist breadth Hand circumference (bone) breadth 048 - 410 +036 + .071 - .617 «028 + 066 + .027 - .686 e Clsuser, et alo (1969). CRIGINAL PAGE 13 ©Z ROOR QUALITY S 2 “ast .951 1.65 2970 1.35 .988 .90 «926 .58 +955 Wu? +907 +20 +945 .16 .968 .13 .883 «17 «912 .16 «949 1.59 .968 1.33 .988 +86 .888 S54 «924 a7 «950 40 911 «17 «955 13 «975 .10 +908 15 «956 .11 «973 09 .810 «05 «875 06 «901 04 .886 .14 +953 .10 .976 07 890 «09 +943 07 .960 06 «842 «08 +954 «05 +885 .03 «935 02 .958 . .02 end all other dimensions in centimeters. Iv-73 TABLE 3 REGRESSION EQUATIONS POR PREDICTING PRINCIPAL MOMENTS OF INERTIA (Om-cn?) FROM CHANDLER ET AL. (1975) R Se nt R Se st Head Hand (Right and Left) 1, = 2.129 Body Wgt. + 3200 72 33217 = .106 Body Wgt. + 294 77 1279 1, 1.676 Body ge. + 34818 “64 32598 1 = «117 Body Wgt. - 1760 .86 1206 I, = 3.186 Body Wgt. + 6846 .75 43033 1." .056 Body Wgt. - 1703 72 793 I, = 61.333 Seg. Wgt. - 73825 .75 28310 I, = 21.162 Seg. Wgt. - 977 92 795 1, = 50.19 Seg. Vgt. - 36367 .70 27066 I= 21.495 Seg. Wgt. - 245) 9% 668 1,, = 108.133 Seg. Wgt. - 234457 94 20880 I, = 11.414 Seg. Wgt. - 2643 -87 563 1, = 71.289 Seg. Vol. - 99078 12 33413 1, 22.560 Seg. Vol. - 880 92 798 1, = 67.587 Seg. Vol. - 91812 7 27265 1, = 23.091 Seg. Vol. - 2417 «95 632 I, = 133.055 Seg. Vol. - 302860 .93 26479 I,, = 12.216 Seg. Vol. - 2408 87 558 Toxse Ihish (Right and Left) I = 296.900 Body Wgt. - 313603 .96 1379345 1, = 22.206 Body Vgt. - 302878 93 131640 1, = 284.493 Body Vge. - 7664879 “9 1698612 1, = 22.410 Body Wgr. - 27093) .88 176759 1, = 102.507 Body Wgt. - 2095524 .98 335637 I, = 7.333 Body Vgt. - 259219 .86 63057 I, = 539.413 Seg. Wgt. - 2823363 .98 1065961 1, = 17.770 Seg. Wgt. - 17732 «96 103026 I, = 338.393 Seg. gt. - 7432970 .96 1404515 I, = 178.913 Seg. Vgt. - i 92 145457 I, = 189.52) Seg. Wgt. - 265765 .98 355958 I, = 58.390 Seg. Wgt. - 169540 «90 54426 I = 621.812 Seg. Vol. - 8436005 .99 733465 1, = 177.458 Seg. Vol. - 14973 95 106278 1, = 601.400 Seg. Vol. -12964208 .97 1100518 1, = 181.309 Sep. Vol. + 1809 «92 145763 I, = 205.205 Seg. Vol. - 4349563 96 #48759 I, = 59.315 Sop. Vol. - 168797 «90 54587 Unpar Axe (Right and Loft) Shank (Right and Left) Te ™ 1.315 Body ge. + 56839 «63 21982 I, ™ 5.934 Body gt. + 6339 +83 58521 Igy = 1.006 Body Wge. + 69616 7 16383 1, = 5345 Body Wgt. + 49951 84 49951 I. = +484 Body Vgt. - 90% 91 3139 1a = «933 Body Wgt. - 33393 «86 8078 I= 76.750 Seg. Wgt. - $77 “76 18907 Toe ™ 133.207 Sogo Wgt. + 36264 «80 62315 I, = 51.383 Seg. Wgt. + 39365 «68 16149 1, = 125.929 Sag. Wgt. + 33889 «85 47940 I. ™ 26.025 Seg. Wgt. - 26122 98 1644 I, ™ 22.252 Seg. Wgt. - 30775 «87 7950 I, = 76.043 Seg. Vol. + 4887 Nn 10633 Io = 145.497 Seg. Vol. + 27035 st 5%% Io = 49.456 Sep. Vol. + 43236 - 10038 Io, = 136.30 Seg. Vol. + 47599 -87 43097 1. 24.846 Sep. Vol. - 23785 K 1646 Tg, = 23:09) Sag. Wl. - 30273 -236 8092 Ioxsare (Right and Left) Inet (Right and Left) I, = 1.084 Body Vgt. - 4812 84 »n = «AR Body Mgt. + 4481 «65 7229 1. 1.062 Body Wgt. - Shek 87 8632 1, #359 Body Wgt. + 7328 2 5081 .- 2271 Body Ngt. - 9020 96 10%0 1," «141 Body Mgt. - 1915 «80 1542 I, = 63.300 Seg. Vgt. - 3888 .87 9219 1, = 60.816 Sop. Vg. - 18255 94 3202 1, = 60.29 Seg. Vgt. - 2628 87 8647 Ty, = A1.772 Seg. Mgt. - 9206 «97 1693 I, = 15.760 Seg. Vgt. - 8683 9 ol 1, = 15.930 Seg. Ugt. - 6051 «92 990 1, = 63.515 Seg. Vol. - 368 86 484 T= A9.004 Seg. Vol. - 7647 «75 6288 I, = 60.844 Seg. Vol. + 172 «87 071% 1, 37.1% Seg. Vol. + 736 oH 4910 I, = 16.038 Seg. Vol. - 8091 K 7s I, = 15.035 Seg. Vol. = 4864 «85 1356 Iv-74 APPENDIX C CONVERSION TABLE OF MOMENTS OF INERTIA Iv-75 9L-A1 1b-in 1b- ft’ ox-1n? On-cn? kg-ca’ kg-M o2-in-sec’ 1b-1n-sec? 1b-fe-sec’ kg-H-sec’ Ca-H-sec? Cu-cn-sec? 1.640 (10%) 6.248 (107%) 3.616 (107%) 3.616 (10°Y 3.414 (10 ) 2.413 (101) 3.860 (10%) 4.632 (107) 3.341 (10%) 3.361 (101) 3.361 (1071) 6.947 (107%) 4.361 (107% 2.3711 (10%) 2.371 (107%) 2.3m (10h) 1.676 (1071) 2.681 (10) 3.218 (101) 2.321 (10) 2.321 (10h) 2.321 (107) 1.600 2.304 5.463 5.463 5.463 3.861 6.178 7.413 5.347 5.347 5.347 2 (oly 10% 07?) (101) (10%) (10%) (10%) (10% (10%) (10%) (10h) APPENDIX C TABLE 1 CONVERSION TABLE OF MOMENTS OF INERTIA 2.929 4.217 1.830 7.067 1.131 1.357 9.788 9.788 9.788 2 (10%) 10%) (10%) (10%) (10% (10) (107) (10% (10%) kaon’ 2.929 (10) 4.217 (10%) 1.8% (10°}) 107? 10° 7.067 (101) 1.131 (10%) 1.357 (10%) 9.788 (10) 9.788 (101) 9.788 (10°) kat’ 2.929 (107%) 6.217 (107%) 1.8% (107%) 10°’ 107% 7.067 (107%) 1.0 (07h 1.357 (10) 9.788 oh) 9.788 (10) 9.788 (10°%) ex-in-sec’ 4.148 (107) 5.967 (10') 2.5% (107) 1.615 (107%) 1.415 (1072) 141s (10%) 1.600 (10%) 1.920 (10%) 1.385 (10%) 1.385 (101) 1.385 (1072) 1b-in-sec’ 2.391 (107%) 3.7129 (1071) 1.619 (107% 8.864 (1077) 8.864 (107%) 8.84 (10") 6.250 (107%) 1.200 (10%) 8.636 (101) 8.656 (1072) 8.656 (107%) Lb-fe-sec’ 2.159 (107%) 3.108 (107%) 1.369 (107) 7.370 (107%) 7.370 (107%) 7.3% (10°h) 5.208 (107%) 8.333 (1072) 7.214 (101) 7.216 (107%) 7.214 (107%) kactosec’ gmoM-sec? 2.993 (107%) 4.308 (107%) 1.870 (107%) 1.022 (107%) 1.022 (107%) 1.022 (10°) 7.220 (107%) 1.155 (1072) 1.386 (107) 1073 107° 2.993 (1072) 4.308 (10!) 1.870 (107%) 1.022 (107%) 1.022 (1072) 1.022 (10%) 7.220 (107) 1.155 (10) 1.386 (10%) 10 10 3 x LITYOD ¥OoOod IC * Sl OVd TYNICI: Ga-ca- pec’ 2.993 (10%) 4.308 (10%) 1.870 (107) 1.022 (1073) 1.022 (10}) 1.022 (10%) 7.220 (101) 1.155 (107) 1.386 (10%) 10° 1073 N79-11739 CHAPTER V ARM-LEG REACH AND WORKSPACE LAYOUT by Howard W. Stoudt Michigan State University This. chapter presents information on functional reach measurements relevant to the design and layout of workspaces in the Space Shuttle and Spacelab programs. Most of the existing data described in the following review have been taken under standard gravity tonditions on the earth's surface, with specific workspace constraints, i.e., subject usually in a seated position, with fixed backrest and seat surface angles, and lap and upper torso restraint systems that may severely limit the amount of body movement . The measurements were also made on populations anthropometrically selected to be representative of the appropriate user group. In short, the intent was always to gain reach data that would be applicable under a given set of design conditions for one group of people with specifically defined reaches. As a result, functional reach data that are immediately and direct- ly applicable to space vehicles in a zero-g environment, for all practical purposes, do not presently exist. In the present NASA project we are concerned with potentially very different sorts of workspace conditions, i.e., standing, or "free-floating" in the neutral body position in a state of weightlessness, where there may normally be no restraints on body position or movement. In order to stabi- lize body position in a zero-g environment, some form of mechanical restraint such as handholds, waist belts, or fixed shoes, must be utilized. Even with restraints, however, there will probably be considerably more body movement possible than that encountered in any one-g reach study to date and greater freedom of body movement implies greater reach distances. In addition, the potential Space Shuttle-Spacelab population differs anthropometrically from those groups on which functional reach data are cur- rently available. We are no longer dealing with a precisely defined "U.S. Air Force'" population, or even with "U.S. drivers," but rather with a poten- tially worldwide population that varies markedly in body size and reach, from perhaps 5th percentile Oriental females to 95th percentile U.S. or Northwes- tern European males. In addition, since the space vehicles presently envi- sioned may be operational through the period 1980-1990, and since secular changes in body size are known to be taking place in many populations, it will be necessary to take into account possible increases in functional reaches during that time period. In this chapter each of the above variables will be discussed as necessary, and the most appropriate basic reach data will be presented along with recommendations for applying correction factors to adjust for differen- ces in (1) workspace, task, and body position; (2) environmental conditions- primarily g forces; and (3) anthropometric characteristics of various populations. Review of Existing Data on Functional Reach ‘Measurements Static Reach Measurements Traditional measurements of anatomic arm length, such as shoulder- elbow or elbow-fingertip lengths, or of anatomic leg length such as buttock- knee length, have long been included in the battery of dimensions taken in many anthropometric surveys. Such "static" measurements, however, have gen- erally been of relatively little use to those concerned with how far a person can reach and perform some specified task. In attempting to deal with this problem, some anthropometric surveys have included limited kinds of arm reach measurements, usually two or three dimensions on the outstretched arm. Hertzberg et al. (1954), for example, includes such measurements as "arm reach from wall," a wall-to-fingertip di- mension taken with both shoulders against a vertical surface and the arm extended horizontally. Similar reach measurements have also been included in more recent anthropometric surveys (Clauser et al. 1972; White and Churchill, 1971) but ultimately they are of limited utility in equipment or workspace design since they describe a specific reach to a single point immediately in front of, or directly above, the subject. These dimensions tell us nothing of what other reaches might be to almost innumerable other points surrounding the subject, though crude extrapolations can be made in some cases. Nor can static reach measurements accurately describe the effects of body movement. For this purpose, different kinds of reach measurements, specifically "func- tional" reach measurements, are required. Functional Reach Measurements All measurements of functional reach are more difficult to obtain and to present in a meaningful way than are static measurements. The more impor- tant factors contributing to this problem are: a) variations in body posi- tion including, if seated, seat height above the floor and angulation of seat surface and of backrest; b) the presence or absence of restraint systems for the body; c¢) anatomical locations of such restraint systems; d) the kind of reach to be made, or the task to be performed; and e) finally and most importantly in the present case, the presence or absence of g forces. One of the earliest attempts to deal systematically with the measure- ment of functional arm reach was that of King, Morrow and Vollmer (1947) who measured 139 naval personnel to determine the boundaries of the maximum area for the operation of manual controls. In this study the subjects were seated in a standard pilot's seat with a locked lap belt and shoulder harness and kept their backs against the backrest cushion. A later publication extrapo- lated the values of these reaches that would be possibile with 18 inches of forward shoulder movement permitted (King, 1948). A similar approach was utilized by Emanuel and Dempsey (1955) in an Air Force study of the effects on arm reach of a partial pressure flying suit. Ely, Thomson and Orlansky (1963) developed graphic presentations of functional arm reach which have some utility as very rough guides or indicators of reach, but are lacking specificity and are difficult to apply, especially since the means of determining the data were not specified, nor were the physical characteris- tics of the population on which they were measured. Dempster and his associates (Dempster, 1955; Dempster, Gabel and Felts, 1959) have presented an excellent theoretical and methodological approach to the problem of functional reaches and "kinetospheres', but they were not primarily concerned with obtaining reach data on specific popula- tions for specific applications. The data again are of limited practical utility. A somewhat different device and technique for obtaining arm reaches was described by Wright (1964), but also without applicable data. These earlier data have been largely superseded by the work of Kennedy (1964), who determined the outer boundaries of grasping-reach envelopes for a shirt-sleeved operator by making measurements at a total of 24 vertical planes intersecting with 12 horizontal planes, resulting in 288 measurements for each of 20 subjects. Stoudt et al. (1970) obtained functional arm reach measurements on 100 subjects, 50 males and 50 females, selected to approximate the general UeSe adult driving population in height and weight. The purpose was to pro- vide data to assist in establishing the outer limits for the location of controls in motor vehicles. One hundred and twenty arm reach points were defined for each subject. Other studies on functional arm reaches relative to Ue.Se. automotive design, have been conducted for the industry by Woodson et al. (1971), and within the industry by, among others, Chaffee and associates (1968), and by Hammond and Roe (1972) for the Society of Automotive Engineers. In the European automotive industry, arm reach studies have been conducted by, for example, Rebiffe et al. (1969). The discussion so far has related only to arm reaches. Leg reaches may also be important in workspace layout and design, though perhaps some- what less so in a space enviromment. Data on functional leg reaches are unfortunately even more imperfectly known than are arm reach data. Thorough rigorous studies comparable to those made on arm reaches are non-existent. Leg reach has been investigated primarily from the point of view of range of motion at the joints of the leg, and of leg strength exertable at different leg positions and angles, rather than from a concern about spatial limits for operation of foot controls. The single exception is some new, limited, information, as yet unpublished, by Laubach and Alexander (n.d.). Perhaps the single best effort relative to layout of foot controls is that of Ely et al. (1963). However, the lack of specificity of the anthropometric data upon which it was based, and the rather tentative nature of the somewhat overly generalized recommendations, make the study difficult to use except cs a very rough guideline. The major difficulty with all functional reach studies described above, 1is that they have been conducted under very specific workspace condi- tions, usually seated with a given restraint system, always in a one-g envi- ronment, and on specially defined populations in terms of physical and anthropometric characteristics. In attempting to utilize these data under other conditions such as weightlessness, or for other populations, serious problems of extrapolation arise. With regard to functional reach studies designed to determine capabil- ities in a space environment, both the General Electric Space Division (1969), and the Martin Marietta Corporation (Lenda, Rosener, and Stephenson, 1972) have carried out experiments under water, with neutral buoyancy condi- tions simulating a state of weightlessness. These data have been summarized in Man/System Design Criteria for Manned Orbiting Payload, Section 5.Anthro- pometry/Crew Capability (National Aeronautics and space Administration, 1974). These studies are quite useful in that they indicate for the first time, in a definitive way, how functional reaches differ in a neutral buoy- ancy environment simulating zero-g conditions. Unfortunately, because of the small numbers of subjects involved and their lack of representativeness of the anthropometric range of the future spacelab populations, the data are of very limited direct applicability in determining functional reach areas and workspace layouts. As the NASA report states, these data "...should be used only as guideline information. The design of a crew station shall assure that all tasks required at the station are located so that all of the user population can perform the task. This means that all tasks must be located well within the reach envelopes shown...so that the tasks can be performed by a 5th percentile woman". (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1974). Unfortunately, the phrase "located well within" is so general as to be of little utility in establishing any specific guidelines for the maximum permissible reach distances in the layout of workspaces. The best, though far from fully satisfactory, solution to this dilem- ma, 1s to select those reach studies made under one-g conditions that appear to be most useful for NASA purposes, and to present those data (with all their limitations) with accompanying extrapolation factors for different environmental conditions, specifically utilizing and integrating those data and information available on zero-g, or simulated zero-g, reaches. Selected arm reach data and instructions for extrapolation appear in the last two sections of this chapter. Comparability of Data from Reach Studies Each functional arm reach study has utilized a different population for its subjects. The earliest, and some of the most rigorous studies, were, made on military pilots, (e.g., King et al., 1947; Kennedy, 1964) and hence represent the arm reaches of a rather highly selected, exclusively male, fairly young, anthropometrically relatively large, and healthy, United States population. More recently, comparable data have become available V-4 on a United States female population (Kennedy, 1976). Later studies have dealt with the United States general civilian driving population and, as such, included both males and females over a fairly wide age range (Stoudt et al., 1970; Chaffee, 1968; Hammond and Roe, 1972). Functional arm reach studies on non-United States populations are considerably more limited. One of the few available was done by Bullock (1974) on Australian pilots, both male and female. Subjects were selected on the basis of height and weight to be anthropometrically representative of the parent population. Comparable kinds of functional arm reach data on non-European/American populations are not generally available. Where data are not available, extrapolation from the measured to the unmeasured (for functional reach) groups becomes necessary. Fortunately, functional arm reaches are closely related. to overall body size. Fairly good indications of the reach of different ethnic or national populations can therefore be achieved by selecting certain percentiles of United States data to be the equivalent of different percentiles of other populations. For example, the 5th percentile reach on a United States population may be the equivalent of the 10th or 20th percentile reach on another, anthro- pometrically smaller, national or ethnic population. While this does present some problems and potential pitfalls in the interpolation process, they are relatively small as compared to the difficulties inherent in extrapo- lating from one set of workspace measuring conditions to another. A second source of variance between studies is difference in measur- ing techniques. Functional reach data .have been obtained by a variety of means and through use of different basic reference points from which the reach measurements are indexed. Regardless of which basic reference points, measuring systems, or techniques of recording the dimensions are used, the data are employed to serve a common purpose, namely to define the outer boundaries of a workspace to which the subjects can reach, given the specific conditions under which the measurements were taken. The problem is not primarily one of lack of comparability of measuring systems or techniques; if the measurements are taken properly, regardless of which system is used for a given set of conditions, the results should be generally comparable. The major source of difficulty arises when the conditions under which the measurements are taken, vary. The most important of these conditions is probably body position, i.e., standing or seated; if seated, backrest angle, type of restraint system, etc. The major challenge is to find the best way of extrapolating, or converting, functional arm reach measurements taken under one set of conditions, to measurements that will, as accurately as possible, describe the functional reaches under a different set of physical workspace conditions. Data Presentation Percentiles are the single most effective way of presenting anthro- pometric data, including functional reaches, for purposes of workspace design and layout--provided they are properly understood and utilized. Obviously, the 50th percentile (which usually approximates the aver- age), in functional reach, means that one half of the subjects in a given population have reaches shorter than that value, and one half have longer reaches. In similar manner, the value of the 95th percentile reach is usually that of a fairly large, or long-armed person; only 5% of all the people in that population have longer arm reaches. However, what is generally more important for establishing workspace layouts and central locations are the values of the lower percentiles, i.e., the people in the population with the shortest reaches. For example, 5th percentile reaches are sometimes given as the values for establishing the lower limits of reach; 95% of the population can reach beyond the 5th percentile; only 5% of all the people in that population have shorter arm reaches. The practical problem here is that if it concerns the locations of a presumably important item, then it may be totally unacceptable for fully 5% (or one out of 20) of the population to be unable to attain that reach. This might well be true in a spacecraft. From this point of view, the 1st percentile value of reach would be better--only 1 percent could not reach this far. Ideally, if everyone must be zble to achieve a given reach, then the smallest reach in the entire population must be used--this would necessitate the use of the minimum, or single smallest reach value. In practice, this may not be always necessary, since most reach values usually contain a built in "safety factor.'" That is, under normal condi- tions, a 5th percentile reach might be achievable by someone of the 4th, 3rd, 2nd or perhaps even lst percentiles of "normal" reaches with extra effort or body repositioning. Similarly a lst percentile reach might well be attained by all of the smaller percent of the population if there were no really aberrantly small members of the group ‘as presumably there would not be in a spacecraft population. Workspace Design as Based on Functional Reach Measurements As noted above, a prime requirement in the layout of any workspace is that all controls or tasks that are in any way related to manual or pedal operation, be located so that they can be reached and operated or performed satisfactorily by all members of that workspace population. To achieve this, measurements are needed that define just how far given percen- tages of that population can reach under the conditions anticipated for that workspace. This can be most effectively accomplished by selecting v=-6 a representative (both anthropometrically, and for other variables related to reach) sample, determining their functional arm reaches, and defining an overall, three-dimensional ''reach envelope' that specifies both the maximum permissible outer limits, and sometimes optimum location, for the placement of all relevant items or tasks within the workspace. This ideal procedure has not always been carried out in practice. Sometimes interpolations and extrapolations must be made from existing data, and sometimes reach locations and outer limits must be established on the basis of '"guestimate', perhaps supported by brief trials involving only a few subjects. This may be relatively easy to do and can be an acceptable proce- dure where the reach locations in the area surrounding the operator are lim- ited in number and complexity, and can be checked rather easily for adequacy. However, potential difficulties may arise where a number of controls or tasks must be located within a given area, and all clearly cannot be placed in the area immediately surrounding the operator where they can be easily reached. When some items must be located in less appropriate areas on the outer periphery of the workspace, it becomes essential to know exactly where the outer boundaries are for the accommodation of all persons in the population. A considerable amount of information relative to the layout of work- spaces in terms of functional reach is available, though of variable quality, and variable relevancy to the present concerns of zero-g conditions in Space Shuttle-Spacelab. It should be noted that these are not only studies of functional reach per se (i.e., King et al., 1947; Kennedy, 1964; Stoudt et al., 1970) but also are studies that make recommendations for workspace lay-" out and design dimensions to accommodate the functional anthropometric capa- bilities, whether known or assumed, of the intended occupants or operators. General guidelines for the layout to workspaces can be found in the first edition of the Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design (Ely, Thomson, and Orlansky, 1963; Damon, Stoudt, and McFarland, 1963), as well as in Damon, Stoudt, and McFarland (1966), Van Cott and Kinkade (1972), McCormick (1970), and Roebuck, Kroemer and Thomson (1975). Though these studies (with the exception of the latter) do not present specific design recommendations directly applicable to the zero-g condition--nor was this their intent-—-they are all useful in terms of background, methodology, and approach. The first aerospace study dealing with anthropometric data and air- craft design was carried out during World War II by Randall et al. (1946). The study included, in addition to body dimensions of Army Air Force pilots, certain aspects of cockpit design and spatial accommodation in fighter and bomber aircraft. Arm reach measurements were limited, as were related design specifications. More recently, design specifications for military aircraft relative to control location can be found in the human engineering section of a U.S. Air Force Systems Command Manual (1972). The reach-related dimensions treated here concern spatial location and travel of throttle handles, and foot pedal location and adjustments, all relative to a neutral seat reference point. A more detailed study for control location based on arm reach is that of Garrett, Alexander and Matthews (1970) which defined reach envelopes for the outer boundaries of controls in a series of positions with different con- ditions of clothing and equipment, and body restraints. For each position and condition, a design dimension was specified as follows, e.g.,: '"to mani- pulate with the right hand a rotary knob located 60° to the right of center and 18" above the deck the knob must be placed no further than 30" from the Seat Reference Point'". All such data were taken in the seated posi- tion, under one g, and with a degree of specificity regarding workspace con- ditions that makes extrapolation to the zero-g, Space Shuttle enviromment extremely difficult. ‘ In spacecraft, on the basis of astronaut zero-g Skylab experience, some specific dimensions relative to workspace layout and dimensions have been made. These concern the optimum work surface height and change in eye position, both relative to foot restraint position, and, most importantly, changes in functional reach. Certain general design features of the Space Shuttle and Spacelab relative to functional reach considerations appear to be fairly well estab- lished. For example, the Space Shuttle is designed to carry a crew of seven, including pilot, co-pilot, mission specialist, and other scientific or tech- nical personnel. The primary flight stations are organized in the usual pilot-co-pilot relationship, with other personnel to the rear. The g for- ces involved here in launch and re-entry will require traditional ‘seated positions, probably with lap and torso restraints, a factor which must be considered in control layouts for these locations. The Space Shuttle will also provide accommodations for all crew mem- bers including food, waste management, sleeping and personal hygiene. For these functions zero-g conditions will apply, as they will for all Spacelab operations. Preliminary indications are that the basic Spacelab design will be similar to that shown in Figure 1. Some form of foot restraint will be used in Spacelab for body stabilization, which will considerably increase the potential range of different body positions from ‘which arm reaches can be made, as suggested in Figure 2. These features and other factors affecting functional reach capability are outlined and described below. Biological Factors Affecting Functional Reaches A wide variety of different factors influence the distances that peo- ple can reach. Many of these are related to the innate characteristics of the individual, such as age, sex, race, health status, physical condition, etc. These biological variables are, for the most part, either unalterable or relatively difficult to alter. Selection of individuals in terms of the specific biological characteristics related to given kinds of functional reach is, generally speaking, the only way in which such variables can be "controlled". The effects of the more important biological variables v-8 TOP: Core module cross section showing workbench and console station. BOTTOM: Typical internal rack arrangement. c 19 OVERHEAD UTILITY SUPPORT AND STORAGE AREA y ¥. 20 LIGHT WITH LIGHT TH REFLECTOR FILM VAULT AND STORAGE | 50 PERCENTILE « | — MAN A) \¥> PRIMARY DISPLAY \ AND CONTROL TooL CONSOLE STORAGE WORK BENCH = STORAGE ~° \ TRIANGLE SHOE RESTRAINTI Figure 1. Spacelab workspaces (from Thompson, 1975). V-10 Figure 2. Portable foot restraint positions (from Thompson, 1975). related to functional reach in the projected Space Shuttle-Spacelab environ- ment are summarized below. A discussion of envirommental variables follows in the next section. Age Functional reach is closely related to overall body size. For all practical ‘purposes, full growth and maximum body size (except for weight- related dimensions) are achieved by about age 20 in males and about 17 in females. Since the Spacelab population will be all adult, this aspect of the aging process should not be a factor in the functional reaches of this group, although there may be slightly reduced body sizes in middle- aged and older groups, and, in addition, some reduction in functional reach- es may occur because of certain degenerative or arthritic type conditions which are more prevalent with increasing age. Sex Differences in overall body size, and therefore in functional reach, are both marked and significant between the sexes. For example, men, on the average, are roughly five and a half inches (14 cm.) taller than women, and about 30 pounds (13.6 kg.) heavier. In static forward arm reach, perhaps more accurately described as arm length, women's average values are three inches (7.6 cm.) less than these for men. Such sex differences also apply to functional reaches, and it is therefore necessary to take the sex distribution of a group into account in designing and laying out workspaces. Any workspace designed around, and adequate for, a given male population may well be inadequate for some percentage, perhaps substantial, of a female population. Race-Ethnicity There is a fairly wide range in overall body size, and therefore in associated reach dimensions, among the various races, ethnic and national groups of the world. UsS. and Northwest European populations tend to have the largest body sizes, with Southern and Southeastern Europeans somewhat smaller, and Orientals or Asiastics generally, though not always, smaller still, (See Chapter II, Human Body Size Variability, for detailed compara- tive data.) Secular changes in body size, 1i.e., an evolutionary trend towards larger body size over time may account for relatively small differences between these groups, since they were measured at different times over the past 20 years. However, by far the larger part of the differences is due to the innate biological variability in body size between racial, nation- al, ethnic, and socio-economic, groups. For present purposes, the extremes of such variability in body size, and therefore in functional arm reach, V-11 to be considered are U.S. (male) populations at the upper, or larger, end, and Asiatics (female) at the lower, or smaller, end. Health-Physical Condition Since it is reasonable to assume that all persons involved in the Space Shuttle-Spacelab program will be considerably above average in health status and that they will also be at least average or above, for their age, in physical condition, the changes in static and functional body dimensions that could result from these variables should not be relevant here. Secular Trends There appears to be a tendency towards an evolutionary increase in body size over time. People have been ''getting taller". Projections from the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (n.d) show, for example, that a U.S. Air Force male population comparable to the 1967 measured population would be expected to be 0.65 inches taller in 1980. Detailed data on secular growth trends to date and indications that such "growth" may have slowed down for at least one population, can be found in Chapter II. Environmental Factors Affecting Functional Reaches The other, and equally important, class of variables related to func- tional reaches are those of an environmental nature. These are usually con- cerned with the physical characteristics and constraints of the workspace itself, or with the type of task that is to be carried out within that work- space. Present examples of the former are the effects of a zero-g environ- ment, workspace layout and design including body restraints, body position in the workspace, and clothing and equipment. While the effects of weightless- ness cannot be changed, most other characteristics of the enviromment, work- space and task lend themselves to at least some modification. Gravity All definitive studies of both static anthropometry and functional reach have been made on the earth's surface under conditions of standard gravity. However, a zero-g environment will affect both static anthropometry and, tc a considerably greater extent, functional reach measurements. As has been noted in previous chapters, for static dimensions intervertebral spinal pressures will decrease, resulting in an apparent increase in: erect and seated body heights. Such changes, plus a concomitant body fluid redis- tribution will tend to shift the center of mass of the whole body headward. Since the pull of gravity on the arms will be eliminated, the shoulders will tend to move upward, and the elbows upward and akimbo (Roebuck et al. 1975). v-12 J Functional reach dimensions will increase even more markedly under such conditions. This will result in an increase in usable working space and increased reach areas--if the operator is either unrestrained, or only partially restrained, in regard to body movement (Parker and West, 1973). The basic question is, how much will functional reaches increase in a state of weightlessness? A precise answer is difficult because of the many vari- ables affecting functional reach under these conditions, including not only body restraints, but working position, clothing and equipment worn, and type of task to ‘be performed. These factors are discussed below. Information on zero-g reaches, or on conditions affecting these reaches have been obtained by: (1) observations of films of astronauts' ex- periences in zero g, (2) astronauts' reports of their own zero-g experiences, and (3) by measurements of simulated zero-g reaches. The latter studies have been made with very small numbers of subjects (five or less) and the results therefore cannot give a clear picture of the range of reaches attainable by any specific, anthropometrically defined, population. However, both sorts of data do give some clear indications of the kinds of differences in functional reach that can be expected under zero g. For example, "downward" reaches are more difficult; there is no gravity assist. Similarly, "upward" reaches will seem easier. Reaches to the rear of the body, with the body anchored at the feet by a shoe restraint, exceeds reach to the front. In a zero-g environment, ankle extension, knee flexion and vertebral extension are more effective, in terms of maximum reach, than the opposite joint movements in the forward direction (General Electric Space Division, 1969). Again, a major factor in zero-g reaches is the fact that it is totally unnecessary, or even desirable, to "sit" at a work location. Finally, it should be remembered that, while zero-g conditions may be the constant mode for Spacelab operations, for the Space Shuttle there will be forces up to 3-g during launch, and up to l1.5-g during a typical re-entry (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1975 b). Consequently, any controls or workspace items that must be reached and operated during these times cannot be positioned on the basis of the greater reach capabilities possible under zero g. Working Positions The normal working position of the body in a zero-g environment differs substantially from that in a one-g environment. The seated position is for all practical purposes eliminated, since the sitting posture is not a natural one under these conditions (Johnson, 1975). Seats, with lap belts or other restraints to anchor the occupants are both unnecessary, uncomfortable, and undesirable. The "standing position of the body in a state of weightlessness has been found to gradually change from initial erectness, with a straightened spine, to a forwardly bent, semi-erect position. This has been called the neutral body position of weightlessness, and has been defined as that V-13 position which the body tends to naturally assume when completely relaxed and acted upon by no external forces. It is a semi-crouched, neither sitting nor standing posture as shown in Chapter IV, Figure 8. It will also be noted that the normal one-g line of sight is depressed about 10° below the horizon- tal. Under zero-g conditions, because of the natural tendency of the head and neck to incline downward, there is an additional depression of the line of sight, of about 15° (Jackson, Bond, and Gundersen, 1975). The neutral body position then, is the basic posture that should be used in establishing workspace layout and design. Unfortunately, no adequate body of functional reach measurements exists which have been measured from the neutral body position. Extrapolation from one-g studies, usually in the seated, restrainted position, will be necessary. - Body Restraints While the absence of g forces will usually facilitate rather than restrict body movement, orientation, or positioning, this same lack of gravi- tational stabilization will leave the individual without any contrathrust platform. Thus some sort of artificial body restraint system will be neces- sary to provide an energy sink, or device or place for disposing of energy (General Electric Space Division, 1969). To accomplish this, three basic types of body restraint or stabilizing devices have been tested either under neutral buoyancy conditions on earth, and/or actual zero-g conditions in space. These are handhold, waist, and foot restraints (See Figure 3). In the former, the individual is stabilized by holding on to a handgrip with one hand and performing the reach or task with the other. This restraint affords a fairly wide range of functional reaches, but body control is difficult, and body stability is poor. In addition, the use of the handhold restraint has been found to be quite fatiguing. For this reason, it is not recommended for any work station that is to be used for any extended period of time. A waist restraint (for example a belt around the waist in either the seated, erect, or neutral body position) affords good body control and stabi- lization, but seriously limits the range of motion and reach distances at- tainable. It could therefore be used for workspaces in which only fairly restricted arm reaches are necessary, but would not be appropriate where longer reaches or frequent body movement, or repositioning, is required. The third basic system restrains the individual by the feet, either through "Dutch Shoes", a toe-rail, a cleated shoe which interlocks with a "floor" grid, or by suction cups attached to the sole and heel.. Shoe re- straints, generally, have been found to be definitely superior with regard to range of motion, body control, and lack of fatigue. In neutral buoyancy tests, the shoe restraints were judged to be excellent in "performance, V-14 ) Portable Foot Triangle Shoes Restraint - Floor Mounting Pro- visions Portable Foot ’ Restraint With Horizontal = Hand Hold. Vertical Rails Permit Infinite Vertical Adjustment. Figure 3. Foot restraint system (from Thompson, 1975). V-15 stability, and deliberateness...as evidenced by the subjects' ability to draw continuous and steady curves". (General Electric Space Division, 1969). Clothing and Personal Equipment Clothing and personal equipment worn on the body can influence func- tional reach measurements. The effect is most commonly a decrease in reach which can sometimes be considerable if the clothing or equipment is especial- ly bulky or cumbersome. Most data on functional reaches have been gathered under so-called '"shirt-sleeve' conditions, (light indoor clothing) which do not appreciably affect the measurements. Exceptions are a study by Garrett et al. (1970) who presented data on the functional reach capabilities of military aircrew wearing light weight coveralls (longest reaches), and full pressure suits, both uninflated, and inflated (shortest reaches). In addi- tion, Laubach and Alexander (1975) measured functional reaches on a group of Air Force pilots, first shirt-sleeved with inertia reel unlocked, and then wearing complete winter flying assembly with inertia reel locked. Differ- ences were substantial. Under the very worst conditions for example, it was found that 5th percentile reaches with flying clothing and inertia reel may only be about 60% of shirt-sleeve reaches. More commonly the difference ranges between 707% and 90%, clearly a very significant and practical differ- ence. If space suits were required during any phase of the Space Shuttle- Spacelab intravehicular operations, this would probably necessitate a sub- stantial reduction in any design reach dimensions established for shirt- sleeve operations. The extent of these differences would have to be deter-.. mined from "with-and-without" studies using the specific space suits and gear to be employed in that mission. For example, in the underwater, neutral buoyancy tests of functional reach (General Electric Space Division, 1969), measurements were made with the NASA Gemini Spacesuit, but the experimenters noted that direct "interpolation of the values for pressure-suit access vol- umes 1s inappropriate unless suits with the same dynamic characteristics are utilized." For extravehicular activity, the problem of functional reach dimen- sions would presumably be of relatively little consequence because of body mobility. And, since normal intravehicular activity and operations for both Space Shuttle and Spacelab are planned for pressurized non space—suited con- ditions (Anonymous, 1975), it should be possible to utilize shirt-sleeved functional reach dimensions for design purposes in these vehicles. There are, it is true, some differences between clothing worn in aerospacecraft in zero g and one g. Zero-g clothing has more and larger pockets--to temporari- ly store and carry small articles. This should not affect functional arm reach to any appreciable extent. Special restraint shoes, oxygen pack and mask, and communications equipment might be worn (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1974), but again, these should not substantially affect functional ‘arm reach (though the suction cup shoe restraint would likely add one to two inches to stature). Special areas requiring the use of space suits, or emergency conditions may, of course, necessitate other provisions. V-16 Task to Be Performed The length of a functional arm reach is clearly dependent upon the kind of task or operation to be performed by that reach. For example, tasks requiring only finger-tip pressure on a push button could be located at or near the outer limits of arm reach as defined by the finger tip. This would be, essentially, absolute maximum attainable functional reach. However, an- other task may require rotation of a control knob between thumb and forefin- ger; this ‘would result in a reduction of the above maximum attainable func- tional reach of about 2.5 inches (6.4 cm.). Full hand grasp of a control level would reduce maximum reach even more, perhaps by 5 inches (12.7 cm.). Where two-handed operation, or greater precision, or continuous operation, are required, the task must be located still closer to the operator, and maximum functional reach will decrease accordingly. It should be noted that the maximum reaches referred to above, are those made to the outer limits of the workspace. They represent the farthest distance at which a control or task can be located if necessary and still be operated or performed by the person(s) with the smallest functional reaches in the group. These are not necessarily the optimum locations for such placements, which may well be closer in to the body. These considerations apply equally well in zero g as to one g, though some minor differences in reach and performance have been reported. For ex- ample, any "downward" reach or reach involving bending at the waist will be judged more difficult (though only slightly so) in zero g because of the ab- sence of gravity assist in "pulling" the arm or body down. "Upward" reaches would similarly be judged easier. The general concensus of astronaut Skylab experience was that most manual tasks were performed as easily, or more easi- ly, in a zero-g environment (when foot restraints were used) because of the greater flexibility in body positioning, and the increased efficiency in han- dling large masses (National Aeronautics and Space Administratiom, 1975¢). The Data: Functional Reach Measurements Considerations in Data Selection There is no single study, or body of data, or functional reach meas- urement that is immediately and directly applicable to the design of work- spaces for the specific environmental conditions and populations anticipated for Space Shuttle and Spacelab through the year 1990. As noted in the dis- cussions above, functional reach studies are always made under a certain set of prescribed conditions for a given population. The intent is to obtain data that can be used in the design of one specific kind of workspace, under conditions and with populations similar to those for which the reach data were obtained. v-17 After review of all available functional arm reach studies that might be applicable to the present design situation, the single most appropriate set of data was determined to be that of Kennedy for both men (1964) and women (1976). Reasons for the selection of these data are as follows: (1) the experimental design, measuring apparatus, and data analysis and presentation were as carefully planned and well controlled as those of any other functional reach study and better than most; (2) they are the only studies which present separate, but comparable, data for both male and female populations; (3) while the number of subjects, 20 for males and 30 for females, is fairly small, they were specially selected anthropometrically to accurately represent the size range of the parent populations. Certain disadvantages of the Kennedy study for present purposes, 1i.e., seated position with specific seat back and seat pan angles, shoulder restraints, etc., are considerable, but are common to almost all other functional reach studies that might have been selected except for the underwater neutral buoyancy tests. Although the latter were intended to simulate zero-g conditions, the subject population was too small and too anthropometrically atypical to be of any real utility here. Arm Reach Data - Males The Kennedy data were obtained on 20 subjects selected to be anthro- pometrically representative of the U.S. Air Force population. Their dimen- sions, and those of the female subjects, are presented in Table 1. All func- tional reach measurements were taken with the subject on a hard, unyielding seat with a backrest angle of 103°, and a seat angle of 6°. The reach task was to grasp with the right hand a small knob between the thumb and forefin- ger and push away until the arm was fully extended, with the shoulders still in contact with the seat back. Subjects wore light indoor clothing that did not appreciably restrict their reach. The measurements of reach was as follows. Reaches were made to a series of vertical planes emanating from the seat reference point (intersec- tion of planes of seat and backrest surfaces in seat midline), starting at 0°, or straight ahead, and at 15° increments to the right and left to 180°, or directly to the rear. At each of these angles, reaches were made to a series of horizontal planes, at 5 inch (12.7 cm.) intervals, starting at the seat reference point to 45 inches (114.3 cm.) above this point. All reach dimensions presented in the following tables describe the horizontal distance between the two points defined by (1) the position of a knob being grasped by the thumb and forefinger, and (2) the seat reference vertical, (SRV), or ver- tical line through the seat reference point (SRP). See Figures 4-13 accom- panying the tabular data for further clarification. In the following tables the "minimum" value column presents the single shortest reach made in the sample of 20 subjects. It is very roughly equivalent to a lst percentile value, but since it is based on only one indi- vidual, the values may be somewhat variable. The 5th percentile value is that of the individual who had the next to shortest reach (or 19th of V-18 the 20 in rank). The 50th percentile is the arithmetic mean of the 10th and 11th values, and the 95th percentile is that of the individual with the sec- ond longest reach. Arm Reach Data - Females These data were obtained on 30 subjects selected to be anthropomet- rically representative of the U.S. Air Force female population. The sub- jects' dimensions are presented in Table 1. Conditions of measurement for the functional reaches were comparable in equipment and technique to those for the male subjects, i.e., taken with the subject on a hard, unyielding seat with a backrest angle of 103°, and a seat angle of 6°. The reach task and the unrestrictive nature of the clothing worn by the female subjects were also the same as the men's. Reaches were made for a series of vertical planes emanating from the seat reference point, starting at 0°, or straight ahead, and at 15° increments to the right and left to 180°, or directly to the rear. At each of these angles, reaches were made to a series of horizon- tal planes at 6 inch (15.2 cm.) intervals starting at the seat reference point to 42 inches (106.7 cm.) above the point. In this latter regard the women's study varied slightly from the men's in which reaches were measured at 5 inch (12.7 cm.) intervals and extended to 45 inches (114.3 cm.) above SRP. Recording of "minimum" values was omitted in the women's study. Conversion Technique for Different Workspace Conditions As noted, the above data on functional arm reach for males and females were taken under standardized conditions, i.e., seated position, hard seat, 103° backrest, 9° seat angle, shoulders in contact with backrest during reach, and a one-g environment. These data can therefore be expected to apply directly only to seated workspaces with similar configurations. Gravity Conditions - Body Movement Restrained For the Space Shuttle (as opposed to Spacelab) design, the seated position for flight crew, mission specialist, and other scientific or techni- cal personnel during the g forces of launch and re-entry, will be the work- space conditions to which the present data are most directly applicable. If seat configurations are generally similar to those of the simulated U.S. Air Force pilots' seat used in determining the present arm reach data (Tables 2- 19), then the latter may be used directly in establishing the layout of these workspaces and control locations--subject only to possible adjustment because of different sized operator groups which is discussed in the next section on conversion techniques for different populations. V-19 0C-=A UTILIZED Dimension ( inches) Age (years) Stature Weight Sitting height Eye height, sitting Acromion height, sitting Functional reach Arm reach from wall Maximum reach from wall Shoulder-elbow length Forearm-hand length Hand length Buttock-knee length Biacromial breadth Shoulder breadth TABLE 1 ANTHROPOMETRIC DIMENSIONS OF THE MALE AND FEMALE SUBJECTS IN THE FUNCTIONAL ARM REACH STUDIES* Males (N=20) Mean SoD. (27.9) (5. 1) 176.8 (69.6) 6.7 (2.63) 75.2 (165.8) 9.35 (20.62) 92.2 (36.3) 3.45 (1.36) 61.5 (26.2) 3.05 (1.20) 81.3 (32.0) 3.86 (1.52) 86.9 (34.2) 3.63 (1.43) 97.0 (38.2) 3.91 (1.54) 36.6 (14.4) 1.57 (0.62) 48.3 (19.0) 1.88 (0.74) 19.3 (7.6) 0.58 (0.23) 39.9 (15.7) 1.91 (0.75) Females Mean (20.8) 162.8 (64.1) 56.37(124.3) 86.4 (34.0) 73.7 (29.0) 55.6 (21.9) 71.9 (28.3) 32.5 (12.8) 42.4 (16.7) 57.4 (22.6) 36.3 (14.3) 41.9 (16.5) (N=30) 5.74 5.56 2.64 2.64 2.51 3.53 1.68 1.98 2.16 1.55 1.98 S.D. (4.03) (2.26) (12.26) (1.04) (1.04) (0.99) (1.39) (0.66) (0.78) (0.85) (0.61) (0.78) *Anthropometric data from Kennedy, 1964, 1976. For definitions of measurements see Kennedy, 1964, Hertzberg et al., 1954, or Damon et al., 1966. centimeters and kilograms with inches and pounds in parentheses. Data given in TABULATED ARM REACH DATA: MEN AND WOMEN v-21 TABLE 2 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A PLANE THROUGH THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV#* See Figure 4 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 L 105 L 90 L 75 L 60 L 45 L 30 L 15 0 R 15 R 30 44,5 (17.5) 52.6 (20.7) 63.5 (25.0) R 45 41.1 (16.2) 49.5 (19.5) 55.1 (21.7) 66.0 (26.0) R. 60 44.5 (17.5) 52.1 (20.5) 56.4 (22.2) 66.5 (26.2) R 75 43.7 (17.2) 50.8 (20.0) 56.4 (22.2) 66.0 (26.0) R 90 43.2 (17.0) - 49.5 (19.5) 56.4 (22.2) 64.8 (25.5) R 105 41.1 (16.2) 47.5 (18.7) 55.9 (22.0) 64.0 (25.2) R 120 38.1 (15.0) 46.2 (18.2) 52.6 (20.7) 62.2 (24.5) R 135 33.0 (13.0) 41.9 (16.5) 48.3 (19.0) 59.7 (23.5) R 150 35.6 (14.0) 41.9 (16.5) 51.3 (20.2) R 165 33.0 (13.0) 43.2. (17.0) 180 V-22 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. €C-A 55 55 50° 50" 45" 45" 40" 40" 35" aA 2 35" 30" AE 30" 25" 25" 20" vi \ 20" i5" \ AA 15" i0" A 5" SRL -5" Figure 4. Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane through the seat reference point. Lise RI5° L30° \ i R30° L452 R45° L60° \ [2X ” R60° L75° \ AD V50% _R75° L90° by : I R90° LI0S® 54] RIO5° L120% RI20° LI35° RI35° LI50° Ri50° LI6S® RI6S5® © SRV 180° KLITVAD ¥0O0d IC Bl @avd JVNIOD- MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 12.5 CENTIMETERS (5 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV* See Figure 5 REFERENCE POINT. TABLE 3 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 L 105 L 90 L 75 L 60 L 45 L 30 L 15 0 R 15 R 30 55.9 (22.0) 60.2 (23.7) 66.0 (26.0) 74.9 (29.5) R 45 59.7 (23.5) 64.0 (25.2) 69.1 (27.2) 76.2 (30.0) R 60 60.2 (23.7) 65.3 (25.7) 70.4 (27.7) 76.2 (30.0) R 75 61.0 (24.0) 65.3 (25.7) 69.9 (27.5) 76.7 (30.2) R 90 61.0 (24.0) 65.3 (25.7) 69.9 (27.5) 78.0 (30.7) R 105 60.2 (23.7) 64.0 (25.2) 68.6 (27.0) 76.2 (30.0) R 120 58.4 (23.0) 62.2 (24.5) 67.3 (26.5) 73.7 (29.0) R 135 54.6 (21.5) 57.7 (22.7) 63.5 (25.0) 71.1 (28.0) R 150 56.4 (22.2) 65.3 (25.7) R 165 48.8 (19.2) 53.8 (21.2) 180 V=-24 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. LIS i30° L4S® Léo0® L752 L90° LI05® L120" LI35° LiI50°9, SRV Lies® “HH ris° LL R30° R45° Lb Ne R60 © 4 | R75° IN 5% 00 ® - 5% RI0S® 09 \ RI20° RI35° Ri5 0° goo RISE GZ-A Figure 5. Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 5 inches above the seat reference point. §I OVd JVNIORA xIrTvnd Yood 50 TABLE 4&4 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 25.4 CENTIMETERS (10 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 6 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 L 105 L 9 34.3 (13.5) L 75 43.7 (17.2) L 60 41.9 (16.5) 53.3 (21.0) L 45 49.5 (19.5) 58.9 (23.2) L 30 53.3 (21.0) 62.7 (24.7) 171s 55.9 (22.0) 66.5 (26.2) 0 R 15 R 30 66.5 (26.2) 68.6 (27.0) 74.2 (29.2) 83.8 (33.0) R 45 69.1 (27.2) 71.6 (28.2) 77.5 (30.5) 85.6 (33.7) R 60 71.1 (28.0) 73.7 (29.0) 78.0 (30.7) 85.1 (33.5) R 75 71.6 (28.2) 74.2 (29.2) 78.0 (30.7) 85.1 (33.5) R 90 71.6 (28.2) 74.2 (29.2) 78.7 (31.0) 85.1 (33.5) R 105 70.4 (27.7) 72.9 (28.7) 77.5 (30.5) 83.1 (32.7) R 120 67.8 (26.7) 70.4 (27.7) 75.4 (29.7) 80.0 (31.5) R 135 66.5 (26.2) 71.6 (28.2) 78.0 (30.7) R 150 64.0 (25.2) 72.9. (28.7) R 165 180 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest ¥ inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-26 LZ-A 0° LIS L30° L459 Qo - Leg 95% LT5¢ L90% -— LiosS Li20 LI35° LI50 Lies® © SRV Figure 6. Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 10 inches above the seat reference point. ~T1 RISC R30° R45° R60 ° 4 5% / ° hor 50 MI = R90° OLA 5% RIO5° 50% Ri20° Ri35° Ri5 0° o ago RIES 9 av) 2 = 0 Sz F 8 ~~ a HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* TABLE 5 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 38.1 CENTIMETERS (15 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. See Figure 7 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 L 105 L 9 44.5 (17.5) L 75 50.8 (20.0) L 60 48.8 (19.2) 58.4 (23.0) L 45 48.3 (19.0) 54.6 (21.5) 65.3 (25.7) L 30 53.3 (21.0) 55.1 (21.7) 61.0 (24.0) 69.1 (27.2) L 15 57.2 (22.5) 58.9 (23.2) 66.0 (26.0) 72.9 (28.7) 0 61.5 (24.2) 62.7 (24.7) 72.9 (28.7) 78.7 (31.0) R 15 66.0 (26.0) 67.3 (26.5) 77.5 (30.5) 86.4 (34.0) R 30 71.6 (28.2) 72.4 (28.5) 80.0 (31.5) 88.9 (35.0) R 45 74.9 (29.5) 76.2 (30.0) 83.1 (32.7) 90.2 (35.5) R 60 76.2 (30.0) 78.7 (31.0) 82.6 (32.5) 88.1 (34.7) R 75 76.2 (30.0) 80.0 (31.5) 82.6 (32.5) 88.1 (34.7) R 90 76.7 (30.2) 78.7 (31.0) 82.6 (32.5) 88.1 (34.7) R 105 76.2 (30.0) 78.0 (30.7) 81.8 (32.2) 87.6 (34.5) R 120 73.7 (29.0) 74.9 (29.5) 81.3 (32.0) 85.6 (33.7) R 135 76.2 (30.0) 82.6 (32.5) R 150 © 74.9 (29.5) R 165 180 V-28 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. 0° 6C-A LIS “TRIS? L30° R30° 0, L450 50%g 45° e y R60 ° L60 1 Soon Qo L789 ! 50, RTS MIN ° L90® OFA R90 LiO5 RI05° o L120 RI20 Li35® RI135° LI50® RI50° ° RIE5° nn LIES 180° Figure 7. Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 15 inches above the seat reference point. RLITYAD ¥00d IO SI OVd TABLE 6 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 50.8 CENTIMETERS (20 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 8 Percentiles Angle to Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 L 105 L 90 35.6 (14.0) 47.5 (18.7) L 75 45.7 (18.0) 54.6 (21.5) L 60 43.2 (17.0) 44.5 (17.5) 52.1 (20.5) 62.2 (24.5) L 45 46.2 (18.2) 49.5 (19.5) 57.7 (22.7) 67.8 (26.7) L 30 51.3 (20.2) 54.6 (21.5) 62.7 (24.7) 71.6 (28.2) L 15 57.2 (22.5) 59.7 (23.5) 67.8 (26.7) 75.4 (29.7) 0 63.5 (25.0) 64.8 (25.5) 72.9 (28.7) 80.5 (31.7) R 15 69.1 (27.2) 71.1 (28.0) 77.5 (30.5) 86.4 (34.0) R 30 73.7 (29.0) 76.2 (30.0) 81.3 (32.0) 90.7 (35.7) R 45 77.5 (30.5) 78.7 (31.0) 85.1 (33.5) 91.9 (36.2) R 60 80.0 (31.5) 81.3 (32.0) 85.6 (33.7) 91.9 (36.2) R 75 80.0 (31.5) 81.8 (32.2) 86.4 (34.0) 92.7 (36.5) R 90 80.5 (31.7) 81.8 (32.2) 86.4 (34.0) 91.4 (36.0) R 105 80.0 (31.5) 80.5 (31.7) 85.1 (33.5) 90.7 (35.7) R 120 77.5 (30.5) 83.8 (33.0) 90.2 (35.5) R 135 87.6 (34.5) R 150 R 165 180 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-30 TE-A 30 A 25" ) i80° 5 a 1 Ewer ie ro XL ® SRV a ~~ - 0 N - Nts hr 4 MONT VIG Figure 8. Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane r 20 inches above the seat reference point. 3 TABLE 7 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 63.5 CENTIMETERS (25 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 9 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 L 105 45.0 (17.7) L 90 39.9 (15.7) 51.3 (20.2) L 75 48.8 (19.2) 56.4 (22.2) L 60 45,0 (17.7) 46.2 (18.2) 54.6 (21.5) 62.7 (24.7) L 45 48.8 (19.2) 50.8 (20.0) 58.9 (23.2) 69.1 (27.2) L 30 54.6 (21.5) 57.2 (22.5) 63.5 (25.0) 72.4 (28.5) L 15 58.97 (23.2) 61.0 (24.0) 68.6 (27.0) 75.4 (29.7) 0 63.5 (25.0). 66.5 (26.2) 72.4 (28.5) 80.0 (31.5) R 15 69.1 (27.2) 71.6 (28.2) 76.7 (30.2) 85.1 (33.5) R 30 74.2 (29.2) 76.7 (30.2) 82.6 (32.5) 89.4 (35.2) R 45 77.5 (30.5) 78.7 (31.0) 85.1 (33.5) 90.7 (35.7) R 60 78.7 (31.0) 80.0 (31.5) 85.6 (33.7) 94.0 (37.0) R 75 80.0 (31.5) 81.3 (32.0) 85.1 (33.5) 92.7 (36.5) R 90 80.5 (31.7) 81.8 (32.2) 85.6 (33.7) 91.9 (36.2) R 105 79.2 (31.2) 80.0 (31.5) 85.1 (33.5) 91.4 (36.0) R 120 77.5 (30.5) 84.3 (33.2) 90.2 (35.5) R 135 88.9 (35.0) R 150 R 165 180 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-32 0° €E-A above the seat reference point. use f+ 18° L30° | _ R30° L45° R45° o L60° MIN R60 59, L750 % R75° o R90° L90 © LI05° RI05° 50% L120° \ 120° Li35° 37 R138° ° RI65° - LI65 180° © B53 $5 Pg Figure 9. Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane Ow 25 inches 3 Eg Bo TABLE 8 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 76.2 CENTIMETERS (30 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 10 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 47.5 (18.7) L 150 48.8 (19.2) L 135 50.8 (20.0) L 120 47.5 (18.7) L 105 48.3 (19.0) L 90 42.4 (16.7) 52.6 (20.7) L 75 47.5 (18.7) 57.2 (22.5) L 60 43.2 (17.0) 43.7 (17.2) 52.6 (20.7) 62.2 (24.5) L 45 46.2 (18.2) 48.3 (19.0) 57.2 (22.5) 67.3 (26.5) L 30 50.0 (19.7) 54.6 (21.5) 62.2 (24.5) 71.6 (28.2) L 15 55.9 (22.0) 60.2 (23.7) 67.8 (26.7) 74.9 (29.5) 0 60.2 (23.7) 64.8 (25.5) 72.4 (28.5) 78.7 (31.0) . R 15 66.0 (26.0) 69.1 (27.2) 75.4 (29.7) 83.8 (33.0) R 30 70.4 (27.7) 73.7 (29.0) 80.0 (31.5) 86.9 (34.2) R 45 72.9 (28.7) 76.7 (30.2) 81.8 (32.2) 88.1 (34.7) R 60 76.2 (30.0) 78.7 (31.0) 83.1 (32.7) 90.7 (35.7) R 75 78.0 (30.7) 79.2 (31.2) 83.8 (33.0) 90.2 (35.5) R 90 78.7 (31.0) 79.2 (31.2) 84.3 (33.2) 90.7 (35.7) R 105 78.0 (30.7) 78.7 (31.0) 83.8 (33.0) 89.4 (35.2) R 120 76.7 (30.2) 82.6 (32.5) 88.1 (34.7) R 135 87.6 (34.5) R 150 R 165 49.5 (19.5) 180 51.3 (20.2) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-34 SEA Figure 10. LIS TT L30° L45° L60¢S ( L75° L90° XO 3-1 LIO5S LI20 LI35°C, LI50 [-] ” LIES 180° Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 30 inches above the seat reference point. Ri5® R30° R45° 95% R60° MIN 0, 5% R75° R90° 50% RIO5° RI120° RI35° RI50° R165° 88.9 CENTIMETERS (35 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. TABLE 9 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 11 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 37.3 (14.7) 53.3 (21.0) L 150 34.8 (13.7) 50.8 (20.0) L 135 33.5 (13.2) 48.3 (19.0) L 120 27.2 (10.7) 33.5 (13.2) 47.5 (18.7) L 105 31.0 (12.2) 35.6 (14.0) 47.5 (18.7) L 90 32.3 (12.7) 34.8 (13.7) 39.4 (15.5) 50.8 (20.0) L 75 36.1 (14.2) 38.1 (15.0) 43.7 (17.2) 53.3 (21.0) L 60 38.6 (15.2) 40.6 (16.0) 47.5 (18.7) 54.6 (21.5) L 45 41.1 (16.2) 43.7 (17.2) 52.1 (20.5) 62.7 (24.7) L 30 45.7 (18.0) 48.8 (19.2) 57.2 (22.5) 66.5 (26.2) L 15 48.8 (19.2) 53.3 (21.0) 62.7 (24.7) 68.6 (27.0) 0 52.6 (20.7) 56.4 (22.2) 67.3 (26.5) 72.4 (28.5) R 15 57.7 (22.7) 62.7 (24.7) 70.4 (27.7) 78.7 (31.0) R 30 62.2 (24.5) 67.8 (26.7) 74.2 (29.2) 83.1 (32.7) R 45 67.8 (26.7) 71.6 (28.2) 77.5 (30.5) 85.6 (33.7) R 60 71.1 (28.0) 73.7 (29.0) 78.7 (31.0) 85.6 (33.7) R 75 72.9 (28.7) 74.9 (29.5) 79.2 (31.2) 86.4 (34.0) R 90 73.7 (29.0) 75.4 (29.7) 79.2 (31.2) 85.1 (33.5) R 105 73.7 (29.0) 75.4 (29.7) 80.0 (31.5) 85.1 (33.5) R 120 72.4 (28.5) 73.7 (29.0) 78.7 (31.0) 85.1 (33.5) R 135 72.39 (28.5) 85.1 (33.5) R 150 80.0 (31.5) R 165 55,1 (21.7) 180 41.9 (16.5) 56.4 (22.2) V-36 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. LE=A 0° : vs {IM TRC. " ° _ R30 " 55 L30 J L45° : 45° Go% R60° L .¥ min o 759° | 5% R75 L R90° L90® - 3 © Fd RIO5€ L105 RI120° LI2O 50% o LI35® 95% Riss LI50Y RI50° ° RI165° LIES 180° ® SRV Figure 11. Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 35 inches above the seat reference point. SI @OVd TVNIOnO ALrTvad ¥ood 10 TABLE 10 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 101.6 CENTIMETERS (40 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 12 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 39.4 (15.5) 54.6 (21.5) L 150 37.3 (14.7) 50.8 (20.0) L 135 35.6 (14.0) 48.8 (19.2) L 120 28.4 (11.2) 33.5 (13.2) 47.0 (18.5) L 105 29.7 (11.7) 33.5 (13.2) 46.2 (18.2) L 90 30.5 (12.0) 31.0 (12.2) 34.8 (13.7) 46.2 (18.2) L 75 31.0 (12.2) 31.8 (12.5) 38.1 (15.0) 47.5 (18.7) L 60 31.8 (12.5) 33.5 (13.2) 41.1 (16.2) 50.8 (20.0) L 45 33.0 (13.0) 35.6 (14.0) 45.0 (17.7) 54.6 (21.5) L 30 34.8 (13.7) 39.4 (15.5) 49.5 (19.5) 59.7 (23.5) I 15 38.6 (15.2) 43.2 (17.0) 53.8 (21.2) 62.2 (24.5) 0 43.2 (17.0) 48.3 (19.0) 58.4 (23.0) 65.3 (25.7) R 15 47.5 (18.7) 53.3 (21.0) 62.2 (24.5) 72.4 (28.5) R 30 53.3 (21.0) 57.7 (22.7) 66.5 (26.2) 77.5 (30.5) R 45 58.9 (23.2) 62.7 (24.7) 70.4 (27.7) 80.0 (31.5) R 60 61.5 (24.2) 64.8 (25.5) 71.1 (28.0) 79.2 (31.2) R 75 63.5 (25.0) 66.0 (26.0) 71.1 (28.0) 80.0 (31.5) R 90 63.5 (25.0) 66.5 (26.2) 71.6 (28.2) 80.0 (31.5) R 105 65.3 (25.7) 67.8 (26.7) 72.4 (28.5) 80.5 (31.7) R 120 66.5 (26.2) 72.9 (28.7) 80.0 (31.5) R 135 68.6 (27.0) 78.7 (31.0) R 150 C742 (29.2) R 165 42.4 (16.7) 60.2 (23.7) 180 45.0 (17.7) 59.7 (23.5) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest ¥ inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-38 6E-A L30° L45° L60C L75° L90° Li0se L120 Li35C, ® SRV Lis? 95 % LI50 / Lies® 12. Men's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seat reference point. 0° RIS R30° R45° R60° 180° ( R75° MIN 59%, ~~ R90° RIO5° Ri20° R135¢ R15 0° R165° TABLE 11 MEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 114.3 CENTIMETERS (45 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 13 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 26.7 (10.5) 35.6 (14.0) 50.8 (20.0) L 150 21.6 (8.5) 22.1 (8.7) 31.0 (12.2) 46.2 (18.2) L 135 - 19.1 (7.5) 19.6 (7.7) 27.9 (11.0) 42.4 (16.7) L 120 17.8 (7.0) 19.1 (7.5) 26.7 (10.5) 39.4 (15.5) L 105 17.0 (6.7) 18.3 (7.2) 25.9 (10.2) 38.1 (15.0) L 90 17.0 (6.7) 18.3 (7.2) 26.7 (10.5) 38.1 (15.0) L 75 17.0 (6.7) 19.1 (7.5) 27.9 (11.0) 38.6 (15.2) L 60 17.8 (7.0) 19.6 (7.7) 30.5 (12.0) 41.1 (16.2) L 45 19.1 (7.5) 21.6 (8.5) 34.3 (13.5) 46.2 (18.2) L 30 21.6 (8.5) 24.1 (9.5) 38.1 (15.0) 50.0 (19.7) L 15 25.4 (10.0) 27.9 (11.0) 41.9 (16.5) 53.8 (21.2) 0 28.4 (11.2) 32.3 (12.7) 46.2 (18.2) 57.7 (22.7) R 15 33.0 (13.0) 39.4 (15.5) 50.8 (20.0) 62.7 (24.7) R 30 37.3 (14.7) 44.5 (17.5) 55.9 (22.0) 66.5 (26.2) R 45 43.7 (17.2) 48.3 (19.0) 59.7 (23.5) 68.6 (27.0) R 60 48.8 (19.2) 52.1 (20.5) 61.0 (24.0) 69.1 (27.2) R 75 49.5 (19.5) 52.1 (20.5) 61.0 (24.0) 69.9 (27.5) R 90 50.0 (19.7) 53.3 (21.0) 61.5 (24.2) 70.4 (27.7) R 105 51.3 (20.2) 54.6 (21.5) 62.2 (24.5) 71.1 (28.0) R 120 50.0 (19.7) 53.8 (21.2) 62.2 (24.5) 70.4 (27.7) R 135 47.5 (18.7) 50.8 (20.0) 58.9 (23.2) 70.4 (27.7) R 150 39.4 (15.5) 52.6 (20.7) 66.0 (26.0) R 165 37.3 (14.7) 45.7 (18.0) 57.7 (22.7) 180 32.3 (12.7) 41.9 (16.5) 54.6 (21.5) *Data given in centimeters with The original data were measured to the nearest %¥ inch and are inches in parentheses. reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-40 I%7=-A Figure 13. Men's gras 45 inches use {-Hris® L300 | R30° L45° R45° \ L60° 95% REO L75° R7S° Lso® of MIN RSO° “—~50% L105° 5% RIO5° L120° Rizo® L1350 RiI35° ° 165° oon LI6S 180° R Ping reach to a horizontal lane above the seat reference point. TABLE 12 WOMEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE THROUGH THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 14 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 L 105 L 90 L 75 L 60 L 45 L 30 L 15 0 R 15 55.9 (22.0) R 30 41.1 (16.2) 55.1 (21.7) R 45 35.6 (14.0) 44.5 (17.5) 56.4 (22.2) R 60 38.6 (15.2) 47.5 (18.7) 58.4 (23.0) R 75 41.1 (16.2) 48.3 (19.0) 60.2 (23.7) R 90 42.4 (16.7) 49.5 (19.5) 60.2 (23.7) R 105 40.6 (16.0) 48.3 (19.0) 58.4 (23.0) R 120 38.6 (15.2) 46.2 (18.2) 55.9 (22.0) R 135 33.0 (13.0) 41.9 (1665) 52.1 (20.5) R 150 33.0 (13.0) 47.5 (18.7) R 165 39.9 (15.7) 180 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V=-42 Ev-A ® SRV Figure 14. Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane through the seat reference point. SI @5Vd "TYNIOTO EIFINd Yoo 30 TABLE 13 WOMEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 15.2 CENTIMETERS (6 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.¥* See Figure 15 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 L 105 26.7 (10.5) L 90 29.2 (11.5) L 75 36.8 (14.5) L 60 40.6 (16.0) L 45 45.7 (18.0) L 30 50.8 (20.0) L 15 R 15 50.8 (20.0) 57.2 (22.5) 67.3 (26.5) R 30 53.3 (21.0) 58.4 (23.0) 69.9 (27.5) R 45 54.6 (21.5) 60.2 (23.7) 71.1 (28.0) R 60 58.9 (23.2) 63.5 (25.0) 71.1 (28.0) R 75 60.2 (23.7) 63.5 (25.0) 72.4 (28.5) R 90 © 60.2 (23.7) 64.0 (25.2) 72.4 (28.5) R 105 58.9 (23.2) 63.5 (25.0) 70.4 (27.7) R 120 55.9 (22.0) 61.0 (24.0) 66.5 (26.2) R 135 52.6 (20.7) 58.4 (23.0) 64.8 (25.5) R 150 50.8 (20.0) 61.0 (24.0) R 165 41.1 (16.2) 53,3 (21.0) 180 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V=-44 SH=A 54° 54 48" 48" 42" 42" 36" 2 36" 7 30" Ji! 30" 24" 24" 8" LO is” N " " IN 12 12 " 6" \ / 6 SRL | Bho SRL ' “NY 7 fe rs a oe or ce cn ce of Figure 15. Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 6 inches above the seat reference point. 0° “Ht Rise L30° ~ 30° L45° R45° L60° | R60° LTS R75° 1 0, Ls0° 95% CF © 3-14-22 R90° 195% Lios® RIOS® L120° 50% RI20° Li35° 135° LI50° 150° o o LIES 8bo RIES © sRrv TABLE 14 WOMEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 30.5 CENTIMETERS (12 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 16 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 32.3 (12.7) L 105 35.6 (14.0) L 90 27.9 (11.0) 39.4 (15.5) L 75 33.0 (13.0) 44.5 (17.5) L 60 31.0 (12.2) 38.1 (15.0) 50.8 (20.0) L 45 36.8 (14.5) 45.0 (17.7) 54.6 (21.5) L 30 41.9 (16.5) 50.8 (20.0) 57.7 (22.7) L 15 48.3 (19.0) 55.1 (21.7) 62.2 (24.5) 0 54.6 (21.5) 59.7 (23.5) 66.0 (26.0) R 15 58.4 (23.0) 63.5 (25.0) 71.1 (28.0) R 30 61.0 (24.0) 66.0 (26.0) 74.2 (29.2) R 45 64.8 (25.5) 69.1 (27.2) 76.2 (30.0) R 60 67.3 (26.5) 71.6 (28.2) 78.0 (30.7) R 75 67.8 (26.7) 71.6 (28.2) 78.7 (31.0) R 90 69.1 (27.2) 72.4 (28.5) 78.7 (31.0) R 105 67.3 (26.5) 72.4 (28.5) 78.7 (31.0) R 120 69.9 (27.5) 74.9 (29.5) R 135 64.8 (25.5) 71.6 (28.2) R 150 48.3 (19.0) 63.5 (25.0) R 165 57:2 (22.5) 180 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-46 Ly=A 54 54 48" 48" 42" 42" 36" a2 36" 30" I&! 30 24" 4 24 8" ~ 18" 12" 1 2" 6" SRL N L15¢ L30% L45° L60° L75° oO, L290". 55% Lios® Li20° LI135° LI50° L165 ® SRV Figure 16. Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 12 inches above the seat reference point. EO 509 180° RIS 30° R45° R60° R75° RS0° RiOS°® RI20° RI35° R150° Ri6S5° — XLrvn® 003 10 SI 39Vd TVNIORIQ TABLE 15 WOMEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 45 CENTIMETERS (18 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 17 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 L 150 L 135 L 120 35.6 (14.0) L 105 27.9 (11.0) 39.4 (15.5) L 90 26.7 (10.5) 33.0 (13.0) 43.7 (17.2) L 75 29.7 (11.7) 38.1 (15.0) 50.0 (19.7) L 60 35.6 (14.0) 45.0 (17.7) 53.3 (21.0) L 45 42.4 (16.7) 50.0 (19.7) 58.4 (23.0) L 30 47.5 (18.7) 54.6 (21.5) 61.5 (24.2) L 15 50.8 (20.0) 58.4 (23.0) 66.0 (26.0) 0 57.2 (22.5) 62.7 (24.7) 69.9 (27.5) R 15 61.5 (24.2) 66.5 (26.2) 74.9 (29.5) R 30 64.8 (25.5) 69.9 (27.5) 76.7 (30.2) R 45 67.8 (26.7) 72.9 (28.7) 78.7 (31.0) R 60 70.4 (27.7) 74.9 (29.5) 81.3 (32.0) R 75 70.4 (27.7) 75.4 (29.7) 81.3 (32.0) R 90 71.1 (28.0) 76.2 (30.0) 80.5 (31.7) R 105 69.9 (27.5) 76.7 (30.2) 81.8 (32.2) R 120 72.9 (28.7) 78.7 (31.0) R 135 71.6 (28.2) R 150 38.1 (15.0) R 165 . 180 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-48 6%7=A 0° wise FEE rise 54" 54" L30° R30° 48" 48" L459 R45° 42" 42" L60°_ R60° " " - 36 (3 36 L750 | R75° o 30" L } 30" o, 0 " « 24" L90° 2° % :® = 5% R90° 24 : 18". af Te’ Lios® 50% — RIOS5° 12" HC 12" L120° Ri20° 1 " 6’ \ 4 © Lizse/ 135° SRL A LI5Q° 150° Lise’ Lo RI6S® ® SRV Figure 17. Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 18 inches above the seat reference point. TABLE 16 WOMEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 61 CENTIMETERS (24 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 18 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 50 95 L 165 22.9 (9.0) 38.1 (15.0) L 150 22.9 (9.0) 40.6 (16.0) L 135 27.2 (10.7) 35.6 (14.0) L 120 25.4 (10.0) 42.4 (16.7) L 105 3 20.3 (8.0) 31.0 (12.2) 48.3 (19.0) L 90 25.4 (10.0) 37.3 (14.7) 45.0 (17.7) L 75 29.2 (11.5) 40.6 (16.0) 53.3 (21.0) L 60 36.1 (14.2) 47.0 (18.5) 54.6 (21.5) L 45 43.2 (17.0) 50.8 (20.0) 59.7 (23.5) L 30 48,3 (19.0) 55.1 (21.7) 62.7 (24.7) L 15 52.1 (20.5) 58.4 (23.0) 66.0 (26.0) 0 55.9 (22.0) 63.5 (25.0) 71.1 (28.0) R 15 59.7 (23.5) 66.5 (26.2) 74.9 (29.5) R 30 63.5 (25.0) 69.9 (27.5) 76.7 (30.2) R 45 66.5 (26.2) 72.4 (28.5) 78.7 (31.0) R 60 67.8 (26.7) 74.2 (29.2) 8l.3 (32.0) R 75 68.6 (27.0) 76.2 (30.0) 81.3 (32.0) R 90 69.9 (27.5) 77.5 (30.5) 81.3 (32.0) R 105 69.1 (27.2) 76.7 (30.2) 81.8 (32.2) R 120 33.0 (13.0) 72.4 (28.5) 78.7 (31.0) R 135 27.9 (11.0) 35.6 (14.0) 68.6 (27.0) R 150 22.9 (9.0) 30.5 (12.0) 55.9 (22.0) R 165 20.8 (8.2) 28.4 (11.2) 45.7 (18.0) 180 27.9 (11.0) 40.6 (16.0) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. -50 T6-A 0° " L1so\=IT1=) | Rise 54 54 L30° H R30° 48" 48" Lé3° ] RA45° 42" a2" L60° R60° “ ) 36" [ pe 7 } L75° A RTS5° 30" 4 30 Y " o " 24 L90° —- ® de, R90 . a _. 2 959, 5 Yo ' ig" i A Lose 5G, RIO5° 12" a i2" o \LA— \ . L120° RI2O 6" \/ LH S \ L135° 135° SRL LI50° RI50° LIES 186° RI6S® ® SRV Figure 18. Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 24 inches above the seat reference point. i LITV¥AD J0O0d Ha $f F0Vd JUNIORIA TABLE 17 WOMEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 76.2 CENTIMETERS (30 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 19 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 18.3 (7.2) 31.8 (12.5) 48.8 (19.2) L 150 15.7 (6.2) 30.5 (12.0) 41.9 (16.5) L 135 17.0 (6.7) 22.1 (8.7) 38.6 (15.2) L 120 17.8 (7.0) 27.2 (10.7) 43.2 (17.0) L 105 16.5 (6.5) 30.5 (12.0) 45.7 (18.0) L 90 22.1 (8.7) 33.0 (13.0) 43.7 (17.2) L 75 25.4 (10.0) 39.4 (15.5) 50.8 (20.0) L 60 33.0 (13.0) 44.5 (17.5) 53.3 (21.0) L 45 38.1 (15.0) 48.3 (19.0) 55.9 (22.0) L 30 43.2 (17.0) 52.1 (20.5) 61.5 (24.2) L 15 46.2 (18.2) 55.9 (22.0) 64.0 (25.2) 0 50.8 (20.0) 58.4 (23.0) 68.6 (27.0) R 15 54.6 (21.5) 62.2 (24.5) 71.6 (28.2) R 30 57.2 (22.5) 65.3 (25.7) 73.7 (29.0) R 45 58.9 (23.2) 69.9 (27.5) 75.4 (29.7) R 60 62.2 (24.5) 70.4 (27.7) 77.5 (30.5) R 75 64.0 (25.2) 72.4 (28.5) 76.7 (30.2) R 90 © 65.3 (25.7) 72.9 (28.7) 78.7 (31.0) R 105 66.0 (26.0) 73.7 (29.0) 78.7 (31.0) R 120 41.1 (16.2) 66.5 (26.2) 74.9 (29.5) R 135 32.3 (12.7) 49.5 (19.5) 69.9 (27.5) R 150 27.9 (11.0). 41.1 (16.2) 59.7 (23.5) R 165 26.7 (10.5) 39.4 (15.5) 55.9 (22.0) 180 24.1 (9.5) 38.1 (15.0) 50.8 (20.0) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-52 €G-A 54" 48" 48" 42" 42" 36" AN 36" { - 30" i 30" 24" 2 _ 24" 8" A 18" 12" \ \ o ao T SRL L... Figure 19. ® SRV Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 30 inches above the seat reference point. IrTvadS ¥0od TO ST FOVJ TVNIDOIIO TABLE 18 WOMEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 91.4 CENTIMETERS (36 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 20 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 22.9 (9.0) 33.0 (13.0) 49.5 (19.5) L 150 20.3 (8.0) 29.2 (11.5) 45.0 (17.7) L 135 18.3 (7.2) 25.9 (10.2) 40.6 (16.0) L 120 18.3 (7.2) 25.4 (10.0) 39.4 (15.5) L 105 18.3 (7.2) 26.7 (10.5) 38.6 (15.2) L 90 19.6 (7.7) 29.2 (11.5) 40.6 (16.0) L 75 20.8 (8.2) 33.0 (13.0) 43.7 (17.2) L 60 25.4 (10.0) 36.1 (14.2) 45.7 (18.0) L 45 29.2 (11.5) 39.4 (15.5) 49.5 (19.5) L 30 33.5 (13.2) 43.7 (17.2) 54.6 (21.5) L 15 36.1 (14.2) 48.3 (19.0) 57.7 (22.7) 0 41.1 (16.2) 52.1 (20.5) 61.0 (24.0) R 15 44.5 (17.5) 54.6 (21.5) 62.7 (24.7) R 30 47.0 (18.5) 57.2 (22.5) 66.0 (26.0) R 45 48.8 (19.2) 61.0 (24.0) 68.6 (27.0) R 60 52.6 (20.7) 63.5 (25.0) 70.4 (27.7) R 75 53.3 (21.0) 64.8 (25.5) 71.1 (28.0) R 90 56.4 (22.2) 66.5 (26.2) 72.9 (28.7) R 105 53.8 (21.2) 66.5 (26.2) 72.9 (28.7) R 120 46.2 (18.2) 63.5 (25.0) 70.4 (27.7) R 135 31.8 (12.5) 48.3 (19.0) 65.3 (25.7) R 150 25.4 (10.0) 43.7 (17.2) 59.7 (23.5) R 165 25.9 (10.2) 40.6 (16.0) 55.9 (22.0) 180 24.1 (9.5) 38.6 (15.2) 53.8 (21.2) *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest % inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. V-54 GG-A " ®SRV Figure 20. Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane 36 inches above the seat reference point. TABLE 19 WOMEN'S RIGHT HAND GRASPING REACH TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE 106.7 CENTIMETERS (42 in.) ABOVE THE SEAT REFERENCE POINT. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM THE SRV.* See Figure 21 Angle to Percentiles Left or Right Minimum 5 50 95 L 165 12.7 (5.0) 25.9 (10.2) 43.2 (17.0) L 150 10.7 (4.2) 22.9 (9.0) 38.1 (15.0) L 135 9.4 (3.7) 21.6 (8.5) 34.8 (13.7) L 120 8.9 (3.5) 20.3 (8.0) 33.0 (13.0) L 105 8.1 (3.2) 20.3 (8.0) 31.8 (12.5) L 90 8.9 (3.5) 20.3 (8.0) 33.0 (13.0) L 75 9.4 (3.7) 22.1 (8.7) 36.8 (14.5) L 60 10.2 (4.0) 24.1 (9.5) 41.1 (16.2) L 45 11.9 (4.7) 26.7 (10.5) 40.6 (16.0) L 30 14.0 (5.5) 29.2 (11.5) 43.2 (17.0) L 15 16.5 (6.5) 31.8 (12.5) 45.0 (17.7) 0 19.1 (7.5) 35.6 (14.0) 47.0 (18.5) R 15 22.9 (9.0) 40.6 (16.0) 48.3 (19.0) R 30 25.4 (10.0) 43.2 (17.0) 52.1 (20.5) R 45 28.4 (11.2) 44.5 (17.5) 55.9 (22.0) R 60 30.5 (12.0) 48.3 (19.0) 57.2 (22.5) R 75 33.0 (13.0) 50.8 (20.0) 59.7 (23.5) R 90 35.6 (14.0) 50.8 (20.0) 61.0 (24.0) R 105 35.6 (14.0) 52.1 (20.5) 61.0 (24.0) R 120 30.5 (12.0) 47.0 (18.5) 59.7 (23.5) R 135 23.4 (9.2) 39.4 (15.5) 53.8 (21.2) R 150 19.1 (7.5) 35.6 (14.0) 50.0 (19.7) R 165 16.5 (6.5) 31.0 (12.2) 48.3 (19.0) 180 14.0 (5.5) 27.9 (11.0) 47.5 (18.7) V-56 *Data given in centimeters with inches in parentheses. The original data were measured to the nearest ¥ inch and are reported here rounded down to the nearest tenth of an inch. 115] SIT\-T] rise 54 54" L30 \ 30° 48" 48" L45° l R45° 42" L60° | R60° 36" L75° 50% _ RT5° 30" L902 -R@©F4 R90° 24" $5% 8" LI0s®. 59, RI0S5° 12" L120° Ri20° 6" LI35¢ 1350 SRL LI50° R150° Lies’ ole 1650 OO ® SRV 3 OQ S 2 oO ® Figure 21. Women's grasping reach to a horizontal plane g ig 42 inches above the seat reference point. Ed | v wn ~ When backrest angles are changed, however, there will be correspond- ing changes in the functional reaches attainable--assuming other factors remain constant. As the angle of the backrest increases from 103° the should- ers will move rearward, and forward reach distances will be correspondingly reduced; as the backrest assumes a more vertical position, forward reaches will be increased. Both Ely, Thomson and Orlansky (1963) and Bullock (1974) have dealt with the question of changes in reach as a function of changes in backrest angle. Data from the first of these reports indicate that a change in backrest angle from 103 © to the vertical (or 90°) results in an increase in directly forward functional reach of about 5 inches (12.7 cm.), or approximately O.4 inches (1.0 cm.) for each one degree of backrest change. This holds for the area at shoulder height to about 11 inches (27.9 cm.) below this level. This study did not report data for reaches other than straight ahead. The Bullock study did investigate changes in other angular reaches as a function of changes in backrest angle. Here, it was reported that at a level of 14 inches (35.6 cm.) above the SRP, reaches to the side, or 90° from the midline, were affected least. Differences in reach with backrest change were maximal in the area around 15° from the right of the midline, thereafter decreasing to both the right and left. Changes with a decrease in backrest angle (towards the vertical) were not determined by Bullock, but extrapolation from the above data indicates that, with a vertical backrest, maximal functional forward reaches would be increased above those taken at 103° by about 5.0 inches (12.7 cm.) in reaches made directly to the front, a value that agrees with that of Ely et al. Combin- ing the results of the two studies, we show in Table 20, the increments or decrements, in functional arm reaches that would be expected to result from each one degree of change in backrest angle from the 103 conditions under which the date in Tables 2-19 were obtained. As an example, a change in backrest from 103° to 90° (vertical), would increase 45° angular reach by 13 x 0.37 inches or 4.8 inches (12.2 cm.). It should be noted that these correction factors are expected to be reasonably accurate except for reaches to the highest levels, where the increments will become smaller, with the least change for reach directly overhead. When shoulders are not kept in contact with the backrest, differences are difficult to quantify because of the great variability in arm reaches afforded by free body movement and by the variability of restrictions caused by different clothing and equipment assemblies. Basic functional reach data are those that are taken under conditions of torso restraints, as in the present Tables 2-19. Here, with the use of the factors in Table 20, corrections may be made to convert the data to vertical backrest condi- tions--which is the equivalent of defining the arm reach from a vertical plane in back of the shoulder, a useful concept. For example, adding approxi- mately 5 inches (12.7 cm.) to any 0° degree arm reach in Tables 2-19 will give a back-of-the-shoulder-to-finger-grasp reach dimension. ' In any event, the practical problems suggested by such differences in backrest angle and body movement clearly indicate the need for further, definitive studies to more accurately determine the best means of transform= V-58 ing existing data in such a way that they will have applicability under dif- fering kinds of conditionms. Zero-G Conditions —- Unrestrained or Partially Restrained Body Movement Another consideration in utilizing the present arm reach data relates to the changes in working conditions in a zero-g environment, where we are normally dealing with the operator in a neutral body position. Here the body may be either totally unrestrained, or partially restrained-—-in the latter case probably by means of a foot restraint system. When the body is totally unrestrained, or '"free-floating', problems of design layout relative to functional reach would appear to be minimal. With no restraints on body movement, anyone, regardless of body size or related functional reach, should be able to reach to virtually any physically accessible location in or around the workspace with a minimum of difficulty. With the body restrained or anchored at the feet, zero-g experience in Skylab has led to the observation that for body size in general and arm reach in particular "...the (design) limitations of work stations to 38 inches (96.5 cm.) width...and the use of foot restraints that can be positioned to any height will provide for all possible sizes of 5th to 95th per- centile populations' (Thompson, 1975). It is quite true that the ability to position the feet of the operator at any of a variety of positions for body restraint in a zero-g environment lends a dimension of adjustability to the workspace that is not normally found under terrestrial conditions. As a consequence, the much greater flexibility that is afforded for body positioning makes the layout of workspaces and controls on the basis of func- tional arm reaches considerably easier under zero-g conditions. Deficiencies in arm reach resulting from even markedly smaller body size can be compen- sated for by the simple expedient of moving the foot restraint position up or down, in or out. In addition, as a result of zero-g experience in Skylab, it has been stated that the neutral body posture at console stations enables a crewman to "reach approximately 0.4 meter (15.7 inches) beyond his normal seated reach" (Johnson, 1975). Granted that this is an approximation, and that this value would not necessarily apply equally to all reach positions within a workspace, it nevertheless gives a clear indication of the very substantial increases in functional reach that can be expected as part of the normal zero-g working conditions. Adding 15.7 inches (39.9 cm.), or even somewhat less to allow for a "safety factor', to the reach dimensions in Tables 2-19, will greatly simplify the task of providing workspace and control accessibility in Space Shuttle-Spacelab, especially in conjunction with the greatly expanded reach capability afforded by body repositioning through ad- justable foot restraint positioms. For these reasons, it would seem that workspace layout and control locations for weightlessness operations should present relatively few prob- V-59 lems to the designer. Nevertheless, there may be occasions in which it is necessary to estimate certain reach dimensions with the body in a fixed position. Here the data in Tables 2-19 may again be used. The first correc- tion, as before, should be to change the data from a 103° backrest to a vertical one; reach dimensions can then be assumed to start, functionally, from the back of the shoulder (instead of from the seat reference vertical - SRV). Specific examples are as follows: From Table 20 the appropriate increments can be added to accomplish this purpose, i.e., 5.2 inches (13.2 cm.) to the tabular data for direct forward reach (13° x 0.40); 6.5 inches (16.5 cm.) at 15° ; 5.8 inches (14.7 cm.) at 30°; 4.8 inches (12.2 cm.) at 45° ; 3.3 inches (8.4 cm.) at 60°; 1.8 inches (4.6 cm.) at 75°; and 1.3 inches (3.3 cm.) -at 90° Thus, if a fixed position of the shoulder is assumed, functional reaches can be estimated on the above basis. Shoulder position will, of course, be dependent in large part upon the locations of the various foot rest surfaces, and the "stature" of the individual in the neutral body position, to which must be added perhaps one to one and one half inches for the shoe restraint suction-cup system. Conversion Techniques for Different Populations The functional arm reach measurements presented in Tables 2-19 were taken on healthy, young, adult, U.S. males and females selected to be anthro- pometrically representative of U.S. Air Force populations. As such they may be assumed to have certain similarities, and some differences, with the intended Space Shuttle-Spacelab populations. Air Force flying personnel and spaceflight groups may be assumed, physically and in terms of body size, to have much in common. First of all they must both be healthy and in good physical condition. Here the requirements for spaceflight crews will, if anything, be more rigid than those for the military generally. In terms of age, the space crews may be more mature, but are not likely to be elderly. They will both be somewhat above average socio-economically and educationally, with the space crews probably markedly higher in the latter category. All these characteristics tend to be associated positively with larger body size. Spaceflight crews therefore, would be expected on this basis to be at least as large, or possibly larger, than U.S. Air Force flying personnel. Sex differences in body size are also important since both men and women will be represented in the project, but reach data are available separately on both sexes. The major population differences that will need to be taken into account are those related to nationality and secular change. Ethnic or national differences in body size will be important since not only U.S. personnel will be manning the Spacelab, but probably some Europeans, and perhaps Asiatics, as well. Secondly, since Space Shuttle-Spacelab operations are planned through 1980-1990, and since we know that there is some apparent- ly continuing increase in body size over time, we can anticipate, all other things being equal, a slightly larger spacecraft population in the future. V-60 TABLE 20 APPROXIMATE CHANGES IN ARM REACHES IN TABLES 2-19 AS A FUNCTION OF VARIATION IN SEAT BACKREST ANGLE* : Approximate changes in reach for Direction of arm reach each single degree of change in back- (from 0° or "straight ahead," rest angle (reach increases as backrest to 90° to the right) angle moves to vertical, and vice versa) 0° + 1.02 cm. (+ 0.40 in.) 15¢ + 1.27 em. (+ 0.50 in.) 30° + 1.14 cm. (+ 0.45 in.) 45° + 0.94 cme (+ 0.37 in.) 60° + 0.66 cm. (+ 0.26 in.) 75° + 0.36 cme (+ 0.14 in.) 90° + 0.25 cm. (+ 0.10 in.) *Derived from Ely et al. (1963) and Bullock (1974). V-61 With regard to the latter consideration, it should be pointed out that both the male and female populations for which the arm reach data are presented are above average in body size. They are, in fact, very close to the projected 1980 statures for males and females, and functional reach tends to be highly correlated with stature. Specifically, mean stature of present arm reach males is 69.6 inches (176.8 cm.); projected 1980 mean male stature is 69.5 inches (176.5 cm.). Mean stature of arm reach females is 64.1 inches (162.8 cm.); projected 1980 mean female stature is 64.2 inches (163.1 cm.). In other words, the secular increase in body size need not be taken into account in planning for functional arm reaches of Space Shuttle-Spacelab populations through 1980. For projections for 1990, a further stature increase for males of 0.5 inches (1.3 cm.), and 0.4 inches (1.0 cm.) for females might be postulated, though this is an upper, outside, estimate. Due to the apparent slowing of secular "growth" recently noted for the population from which U.S. astronauts come, any such increase over that 10 year period, would likely be less than those values with rather minimal effects on functional arm reach. Ethnic, or national, differences in body size, and therefore in functional arm reach, on the other hand, can be of considerable importance. In general, Northwest Europeans will be fairly similar in body size to our United States populations, Southern or Eastern Europeans somewhat smaller, and Asiatics, especially Southeastern Asiatics, the smallest of all. Since the major area of concern relative to functional arm reach is almost always that of the smallest person with the shortest reaches, attention should be directed to the smallest persons likely to be utilizing Spacelab work areas. The 5th percentile Asiatic female would appear to be the most likely candidate, although it should be remembered that personnel selection on the basis of body size, could be employed to establish any desired lower limits of body size. The present female arm reach data in Tables 12-19 are based on a U.S. population, and the 5th percentile values will therefore be somewhat larger than the corresponding 5th percentile reaches of Asiatic females. Unfortunately, anthropometric data on Southeast Asiatic females comparable to that on U.S. females are not available. Such data on males are avail- able, however, and comparisons between South Vietnamese military groups (one of the very smallest world populations in terms of body size) show that in terms of stature and related body measurements, 5th percentile Vietnamese military personnel have values about 90% of those of 5th percen- tile U.S. Air Force flying personnel. Comparable percentages for anatomic arm lengths is about 93-94%. Presumably, the corresponding relationships between 5th percentile female Vietnamese and 5th percentile U.S. females would not be too different. While it is true that functional reach dimensions are not determined solely by static body dimensions, there is nevertheless a strong positive correlation between the two types of measurements (Stoudt,' 1973), and it is not unreasonable therefore to assume the same kind of percentage relationship relative to 5th percentile functional reaches. If this is done, the use of a 90% factor applied to the 5th percentile female data V-62 in Tables 12-19 should provide a conservative estimate of the 5th percentile functional reach of a very small Asiatic female population. This would be the lower limit of functional reaches to be accommodated. Leg Reach Data and Its Applications As compared to the relatively voluminous data available on functional arm reaches from a variety of studies, leg reach data may be said to be mini- mal. There is, in fact, not one study dealing with leg reaches that has been carried out in the detailed manner of any of the more comprehensive arm reach studies. The single best available study is that of Laubach and Alexander (n.d.), as yet unpublished. Measurements were taken of knee heights and heel point positions in both favored or "comfortable", and maximally extended leg positions. However, neither these nor any other leg reach data would seem to have any special applicability to Spacelab conditions. Neither the zero-g condition, nor the neutral body position, unrestrained or partially restrained, would appear to be particularly appropriate for the use of foot controls, especially if some type of foot or shoe restraint system is employed. It is true that the Space Shuttle pilot and co-pilot locations might require foot controls similar to those in present day aircraft, but here existing design specifications should be adequate since (presumably) the personnel would be similar in body size and leg reach to U.S. Air Force flying personnel. Tt is only in Spacelab, with its potentially wide range of body size variability, e.g., 95th percentile U.S. male to 5th percentile Asi- atic female, that design problem of leg reach accommodation might have been expected to occur. It 1s not, therefore, considered advisable to make recommendations relative to functional leg reaches in Skylab for the following reasons: (1) first and most importantly, the lack of any adequate body of anthropometric data defining functional leg reaches for male and female populations; (2) the difficulties of using foot controls in a zero-g environment, especially with a foot restraint, shoe suction-cup system; and (3) finally, the lack of any apparent clear-cut need for foot controls in the Spacelab working environment. V-63 REFERENCES Anonymous 1975. "Space Shuttle," Survival and Flight Equipment J., 5(1):6-16. Bullock, Margaret I. 1974. "The Determination of Functional Arm Reach Boundaries for Operation of Manual Controls," Ergonomics, 17(3):375-388. Clauser, Charles E., Pearl E. Tucker, John T. McConville, et al. 1972. Anthropometry of Air Force Women. AMRL-TR-70-5, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Damon, Albert, Howard W. Stoudt, and Ross A. McFarland 1963. "Control Layout," Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, C. T. Morgan, J. T. Cook III, A. Chapanis, and M. W. Lund, eds., McGraw- Hill (New York), pp. 307-312. Damon, Albert, Howard W. Stoudt, and Ross A. McFarland 1966. The Human Body in Equipment Design, Harvard University Press (Cambridge, Mass.) . — Dempster, Wilfred Taylor 1955. Space Requirements of the Seated Opera- tor. WADC-TR-55-159, Wright Air Development Center, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Dempster, Ww. T., W. C. Gabel, and W. J. L. Felts 1959. "The Anthropometry of the Manual Work Space for the Seated Subject," Amer. J. of Phys. Anthrop., 17:289-317. Ely, Jerome H., Robert M. Thomson, and Jesse Orlansky 1963. "Layout of Workplaces," Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, C. T. Morgan, J. T. Cook III, A. Chapanis, and M. W. Lund, eds., McGraw- Hill (New York), ch. 7, pp. 281-320. Garrett, J. W., M. Alexander, and C. W. Matthews 1970. Placement of Aircraft Controls (Human Factors Tests to Determine Effects of Aircraft Controls Placement on Lightly Clothed or Pressure Suited Flight Crews). AMRL-TR-70-33, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Hammond, David C., and Ronald W. Roe 1972. SAE Controls Reach Study. Paper 721099, SAE Transactions, vol. 81, sec. 2, pp. 765-785. Hertzberg, H. T. E., G. S. Daniels, and Edmund Churchill 1954. Anthropometry of Flying Personnel - 1950. WADC-TR-52-321, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Johnson, C. C. 1975. Skylab Experiment M487 Habitability/Crew Quarters. NASA TM-X-58163. V-64 Kennedy, Kenneth W. 1964. Reach Capability of the USAF Population, Phase I, The Outer Boundaries of Grasping Reach Envelopes for the Shirt-Sleeved, Seated Operator. AMRL-TDR-64-59, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. King, B. G. 1948. "Measurements of Man for Making Machinery," Amer. J. of Phys. Anthrop.,.6:341-351. King, B. G., D. J. Morrow, and E. P. Vollmer 1947. Cockpit Studies - The Boundaries of the Maximum Area for the Operation of Manual Controls. Report 3, Project X-651, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. Laubach, Lloyd.L.. and Milton Alexander 1975. "Arm Reach Capability of USAF Pilots as Affected by Personal Protective Equipment," Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 46(4):377-386. Lenda,J. A., A. A. Rosener, and M. L. Stephenson 1972. Neutral Buoyancy Testing of Architectural and Environmental Concepts of Space Vehicle Design. NASA CR-115640. McCormick, Ernest J. 1970. Human Factors Engineering (3rd edition), McGraw-Hill (New York). National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1976. Space Shuttle. NASA SP-407. Parker, James F., Jr., and Vita R. West, eds., 1973. Bioastronautics Data Book (2nd edition). NASA SP-3006. Randall, Francis E., Albert Damon, Robert S. Benton, and Donald I. Patt 1946. Human Body Size in Military Aircraft and Personal Equipment. AAF-TR-5501, Army Air Force, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. Rebiffe, Par R., 0. Zayana, and C. Terriere 1969. "Determination des Zones Optimales pour L'Emplacement des Commandes Manuelles dan L'Espace de Travail," Ergonomics, 12(6):913-924. Roebuck, J. A., Jr., K. H. E. Kroemer, and W. G. Thomson 1975. Engineer- ing Anthropometry Methods. John Wiley & Sons (New York), pp. 77- 107. Stoudt, H. W. 1973. "Arm Lengths and Arm Reaches: Some Interrelation- ships of Structural and Functional Body Dimensions," Amer. J. of Phys. Anthrop., 38:151-162. Stoudt, H. W., T. J. Crowley, R. A. McFarland, A. Ryan, et al. 1970. Static and Dynamic Measurements of Motor Vehicle Drivers. FH-11- 6569, National Highway Safety Bureau, Washington, D.C. V-65 Thompson, A. B. 1975. "Habitability Design in Europe's Spacelab - A Status Report," AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 154 on Current Status in Aerospace Medicine, walton L. Jones, ed., AGARD-CP-154, North Atlantic 1Ireaty Organization, Neuilly sur Seine, France, pp. C2-1 to C2-7. U.S. Air Force Systems Command 1972. "Human Engineering," Design Handbook, DH 1-3, Personnel Subsystems, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. VanCott, Harold P., and Robert G. Kinkade, eds., 1972. Human Engineer- ing Guide to Equipment Design (revised edition), American Institute for Research (Washington, D.C.). White, R. M., and E. Churchill 1971. The Body Size of Soldiers: U.S. Army Anthropometry - 1966. TR-72-51-CE, U.S. Army Natick Labora- tories, Natick, Mass. Woodson, W. E., et al. 1971. Driver Eye Position and Control Reach Anthropometrics. I, Static Eye Position, Control Reach and Con- trol Force Studies. Report MFI 71-117, Man Factors Inc., San Diego, Calif. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories 1975. AMRL Data Book (Metric Units). Final Report F 33615-75-C-5003, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Department of Defense 1974. Military Standard - Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment, and Facilities. MIL-STD-1472B, Washington, D.C. Faulkner, T. W., and R. A. Day 1976. "Maximum Functional Reach for the Female Operator," American Institute of Industrial Engineering Transactions, 2(2):126-131. Garrett, John W., and Kenneth W. Kennedy 1971. A Collation of Anthropo- metry. AMRL-TR-68-1, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Hertzberg, H. T. E. 1972. "Engineering Anthropology," Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design (revised edition), Harold P. Van Cott and Robert G. Kincade, eds., American Institute for Research (Washington, D.C.), pp. 467-484. Jones, Walton L. 1975. "A Summary of Skylab Findings of Interest to Life Scientists," AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 154 on Current Status in Aerospace Medicine, Walton L. Jones, ed., AGARD-CP-1D54, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Neuilly sur Seine, France, pp. C3-1 to C3-16. V-66 Kennedy, K. W., and B. E. Filler 1966. Aperture Sizes and Depths of Reach for One- and Two-Handed Tasks. AMRL-TR-66-2/, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Marton, T., F. D. Rudek, R. A. Miller, and D. G. Norman 1971. Handbook of Human Engineering Design Data for Reduced Gravity Conditions. NASA CR-1726. McFarland, R. A., A. Damon, and H. W. Stoudt, Jr. 1958. "Anthropometry in the Design of the Drivers' Workspace," Amer. J. of Phys. Anthrop., 16:1-23. National Aeronautics and Space Administration/European Space Administration 1976. Spacelab Payload Accommodation Handbook. SLP/2104, Special print for Life Sciences, Preliminary, May. Stoudt, Howard W., Albert Damon, Ross A. McFarland, and Jean Roberts 1965. Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions of Adults - United States, 1960-62. Public Health Service Publication NG. 1000 - Series 11, No. 8, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, Washington, D.C. ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES The following documents are not readily available because of limited distribution (unpublished or preliminary data). However, copies/information may be obtained by contacting the author/source. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories n.d. 1980-1990 Anthropometric Data for Use in Spacelab Design. Unpublished Report, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Chaffee, J. W. 1968. A Method of Determining the Maximum One-Handed Grasping Ergosphere in an Automotive Package Interior, Part TI: Forward Panels. Anthropometric Laboratory, Rutomotive Safety Research Office, Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, Mich. Church, R. A., J. A. Ciciora, K. L. Porter, and G. E. Stevenson 1976. Concept Design and Alternate Arrangements of Orbiter Mid-Deck Habitability Features. Nelson and Johnson Engineering Company, for NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Tex. Emanuel, I., and C. A. Dempsey 1955. Unpublished data, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. General Electric Space Division 1969. Human Engineering Criteria for Maintenance and Repair of Advanced Space Systems. Final Study Report; Volumes [-1V, DN 69SD4294, NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. V-67 Jackson, J., R. Bond, and R. Gundersen 1975. "Neutral Body Posture in Zero-G," Man-Machine Engineering Data Applications of Skylab Experiments M4871M516, Bulletin 17, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Tex. Kennedy, K. W. 1976. Reach Capabilities of Men and Women. Doctoral dissertation (unpublished), Union Graduate school, Yellow Springs, Ohio. Laubach, L. L., and M. Alexander n.d. Leg Reach Measurements. Unpub- lished data, Webb Associates, Yellow springs, ORio. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1974. Bea/Sysces DE Criteria for Manned Orbiting Payloads, Section 5. ropometry Crew Capability. MSFCC-STD-512, Man/System Integration Branch, System Analysis Laboratory, NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1975c. Astronaut Skylab Crew Debriefing. Unpublished data, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Tex. Wright, I. B. 1964. "Applications of a System of Functional Anthropo- metry in Pressure Suit Design," J. of British Interplanetary Soci- ety, 13:31-41. V-68 B N79-11740 CHAPTER VI RANGE OF JOINT MOTION by Lloyd L. Laubach Anthropology Research Project Webb Associates The range of motion of body joints is obviously an important factor in the assessment of body mobility or in the determination of arm and leg reach capabilities. In Chapter V, Stoudt discussed many of the problems faced by the design engineer who must determine the capability of the operator to reach, grasp, and actuate various controls, The information presented in this chapter, integrated with Stoudt's work, should enable the designer to better lay out work stations. In this chapter we will discuss (1) selected reviews of the range of joint motion literature; (2) techniques for measuring range of joint motion; (3) range of joint motion terminology; (4) recommended range of joint motion data for the design engineer; (5) differences in the range of joint motion due to the effects of age; (6) differences in range of joint motion between men and women; (7) the assessment of differences in range of joint motion caused by protective clothing; and (8) the range of joint motion of selected two=- joint muscles. Selected Review of the Literature The best of the several reviews of the literature pertaining to the range of joint motion measurement are those by Holland (1968) and Clarke (1975). These two papers cite 136 and 55 references, respectively, pertain- ing to different aspects of the range of joint motion. Although they are geared toward the physical educator and the physical therapist, these two excellent reviews point out many of the kinds of problems the design engineer will encounter when dealing with range of motion data. For example, the following generalizations; drawn from Holland's paper are pertinent to the concerns of design engineers: (1) There appears to be little agreement with regard to the definition and limits of so-called normal flexibility, and with regard to what consti- tutes hypo- or hyper-flexible joint range of motion. (2) There appears to be general agreement that range of joint motion is a highly specific factor and that measurement of one or several body joints cannot be used to validly predict range of motion in other body parts. (3) The use of linear techniques to measure rotational joint motion involves rather gross mathematical error; they should not be used for the collection of objective clinical or experimental data. Although there is VI-1 conflicting evidence, it appears also that individual limb and trunk length variability may significantly affect the validity of linear range of motion measurements. Techniques for Measuring Range of Joint Motion The problem of accurately evaluating the range of motion of body joints has been, and continues to be, a perplexing one. A number of techniques and devices have been proposed for measuring range of joint motion but none has received widespread acceptance. Adrian (1968), the American Academy of Ortho- pedic Surgeons (1965), Ayoub (1972), Clarke (1975), Dempster (1955), Garrett, Widule, and Garrett (1968), Holland (1968), Leighton (1955), Miller and Nelson (1973), Plagenhoff (1971) and Roebuck, Kroemer, and Thomson (1975) have discussed in some detail the advantages and disadvantages of past and current techniques and equipment. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss each of these techniques and procedures. The reader who is interested in knowing more about range of joint motion measuring techniques and equipment is referred to the above mentioned sources. However, because the majority of the data we will present later in this chapter have been developed from goniometry, the Leighton flexometer, and photography, we will briefly discuss these techniques. The goniometer consists of a 180-degree protractor, usually made of plexiglass, with extended arms approximately 40 centimeters long. One of the arms is fixed to the zero line of the protractor while the other is mov- able. Although the goniometer is a very simple device and is subject to inherent errors in measurement due to the complexity of human body joint movements, it provides an extremely valuable tool for range of joint motion “analysis. t Co The flexometer was developed by Leighton (1955) for measuring joint angles without regard to shifting joint centers. This instrument has a rotat- ing, weighted 360-degree dial and a weighted, movable pointer mounted in a glass-enclosed metal case. The dial and the pointer operate independently and are balanced so they always point upward. The movements of the dial and the pointer are controlled by gravity. The flexometer is strapped to the segment being tested. The dial is locked at one extreme position (e.g., full flexion of the knee) and the pointer is locked at the other after complete movement of the joint has been effected (e.g., full extension of the knee). A direct reading of the pointer on the dial gives the range of joint movement in angular degrees. Leighton has developed 19 range of joint motion tests: neck flexion-extension, lateral flexion, and rotation; shoulder flexion- extension, adduction-abduction, and rotation; elbow flexion-extension; radi- al-ulnar supination-pronation; wrist flexion-extension and ulnar-radial fle- xion; hip extension-flexion, adduction-abduction, and rotation; knee flexion- extension; ankle flexion-extension and inversion-eversion; trunk flexion- extension, lateral flexion, and rotation. Roebuck (1968) and Roebuck, Kroemer, and Thomson (1975) have discussed the utilization of the flexometer in measuring mobility of men clothed in pressurized and unpressurized space suits. VI-2 A . photographic method, often employing double exposures, was developed by Dempster (1955) and was used for recording the range of movement of the limb joints. Photographs were made on 35-mm film with an Argus camera by the flash of a speed lamp. The room was darkened and black backgrounds were provided. For double exposures an initial flash exposure recorded one extreme of a joint range; the lens was then kept open following exposure until the subject assumed an opposing position at which point a second flash exposure was made. Parts of the body which would otherwise present a conflicting back- ground for the test joints were covered with black velveteen cloth. : A special work table, painted black, was employed as a support for the subject or his limb segments. Horizontal lines were marked on the table edge with light-reflecting tape to serve as references. Frames of the strip of negatives were projected as enlarged images and the best estimates of link lines connecting joint centers were ruled on paper; horizontal or vertical reference lines were also traced. Angles were then measured with a protractor to the nearest degree. These techniques have been extensively used and further developed by various researchers working in the area of range of joint motion assessment. Range of Joint Motion Terminology The range of joint motion is measured at the angle formed by the long axes of two adjoining body segments, or, in some cases, at the angle formed by one body segment and a vertical or horizontal plane. The total range of movement is measured between the two extreme positions of the joint. Joint movements in the classical kinesiological terminology are consid- ered to begin from the so-called anatomical position. This position is defined as that of a man standing upright, head facing forward, arms hanging down with palms facing forwarde The ten types of joint movement that primarily concern the design engineer are: (1) Flexion - bending or decreasing the angle between the parts of the body. Supplementing the more commonly measured arm and leg flexions, Kelly (1971) has identified several kinds of flexion to meet special descrip- tive needs. These are: trunk lateral flexion in which the trunk segments move so as to decrease the angle between them and the right thigh; radial flexion which refers to the movement of the thumb side of the hand toward the radial side of the forearm segments; and ulnar flexion which refers to the opposite side of the hand's movement toward the ulnar side of the forearm segment. (2) Extension - straightening or increasing the angle between the parts of the body. It is generally defined as the return from flexion. When a joint is extended beyond the normal range of its movement, the movement becomes known as hyperextension. VI-3 (3) Abduction - movement of a body segment away from the midline of the body or body part to which it is attached. (4) Adduction - movement of a body segment or segment combination toward the midline of the body or body part to which it is attached. (5) Medial rotation - turning toward the midline of the body. (6) Lateral rotation - turning away from the midline of the body. (7) Pronation - rotating the forearm so that the palm faces downward. (8) Supination - rotating the forearm so that the palm faces upward. (9) Eversion - rotation of the foot which lifts its lateral border to turn the sole or plantar surface outward. (10) Inversion =~ lifting the medial border of the foot to turn the sole inward. Roebuck (1975) firmly believes that the above described classical move- ment terminology can be misleading and inappropriate. In an effort to provide a more precise terminology for the engineering anthropometrist, Roebuck has developed a very elaborate and comprehensive new system of notation for mobility evaluation. While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the details of Roebuck's new system, the interested reader is referred to Chapter III, "Measurement of Dynamic Characteristics and Movement," pages 79- 92, and Appendix A, Part 3, "Engineering Anthropometry Terminology," pages 423-425 in Roebuck, Kroemer, and Thomson's book entitled Engineering Anthro- pometry Methods. Recommended Range of Joint Motion Data for the Design Engineer In spite of the many techniques and test ‘procedures that have been developed for the measurement of range of joint motion, there is a paucity of descriptive data that can be used by the design engineer. Much of the research has been undertaken by investigators working in the areas of physi- cal education, physical therapy, sports medicine and rehabilitation medicine. Obviously, the research purposes and objectives of these investigators differ greatly from those of the design engineer. Nevertheless, the data which are available do characterize the range of human joint motion for many NASA design applications although the effects of prolonged weightlessness on joint motion have not yet been systematically investigated. VI-4 RANGE OF JOINT MOTION VALUES* (Barter, Emanuel and Truett, 1957) Movement Shoulder ‘flexion Shoulder extension Shoulder abduction Shoulder adduction Shoulder medial rotation Shoulder lateral rotation Elbow flexion Forearm supination Forearm pronation Wrist flexion Wrist extension Wrist abduction Wrist adduction Hip flexion Hip abduction Hip adduction Hip medial rotation (prone) Hip lateral rotation (prone) Hip medial rotation (sitting) Hip lateral rotation (sitting) Knee flexion, voluntary (prone) Knee flexion, forearm (prone) Knee flexion, voluntary (standing) Knee flexion forced (kneeling) Knee medial rotation (sitting) Knee lateral rotation (sitting) Ankle flexion Ankle extension Foot inversion Foot eversion *Measurement technique was photography. TABLE 1 MALES wie 188 61 134 48 97 34 142 113 77 90 99 27 47 113 53 31 39 34 31 30 125 144 113 159 35 43 35 38 24 23 males. Data are in angular degrees. SD 12 14 17 9 22 13 10 22 24 12 13 9 7 13 12 12 10 10 13 12 12 5%bile 168 38 106 33 61 13 126 77 37 70 78 12 35 92 33 11 23 18 16 15 109 129 92 144 15 23 23 18 9 11 95%ile 208 84 162 63 133 55 159 149 117 110 120 42 59 ‘134 73 51 56 51 46 45 142 159 134 174 55 63 47 58 39 35 Subjects were college-age VI-5 VIi-6 RANGE OF JOINT MOTION VALUES* (Harris and Harris, 1968) Movement Neck flexion Neck extension Neck-lateral flexion, right Neck-lateral flexion, left Neck rotation, right Neck rotation, left Spine flexion Spine extension Spine lateral flexion, right Spine lateral flexion, left Spine rotation, right Spine rotation, left Shoulder flexion Shoulder extension Shoulder abduction-adduction Shoulder medial rotation Shoulder lateral rotation Shoulder horizontal abduction Shoulder horizontal adduction Elbow flexion-extension Elbow hyperextension Radioulnar supination Radioulnar pronation Wrist flexion Wrist extension Wrist abduction Wrist adduction Hip flexion, center Hip flexion, right Hip extension, center Hip extension, right Hip abduction-adduction Hip horizontal abduction Hip horizontal adduction Hip lateral rotation Hip medial rotation Knee flexion-extension Knee hyperextension Ankle flexion Ankle extension Ankle inversion Ankle eversion “Measurement technique was flexometer. Data are in angular degrees. TABLE 2 FEMALES Mean SD 58.7 10.3 89.3 9.9 50.5 7.6 47.2 8.0 83.1 10.2 78.5 11.2 61.9 11.3 29.3 12.5 57.8 8.9 58.0 8.7 65.4 10.6 62.8 10.5 167.9 10.0 41.5 10.0 169.5 11.2 160.0 12.5 33.6 11.1 126.6 15.4 38.9 6.6 151.4 7.1 76 6.4 88.9 17.1 101.9 15.2 79.7 15.1 60.6 10.5 29.7 9.1 50.4 10.8 79.6 14.5 94.6 11.3 15.4 6.6 18.1 6.2 71.8 11.6 49.5 7.9 25.3 5.6 55.8 9.5 43.8 11.6 133.8 7.8 11.3 a] 18.8 602 49.7 8.6 37.6 10.8 30.0 9.5 Shile 41.7 73.0 38.0 34.0 66.3 60.0 43.3 8.7 43.1 43.6 47.9 45.5 151.4 25.0 151.0 139.4 15.3 101.2 28.0 139.7 3.0 60.7 76. 54.8 43.3 14.7 32.6 55.7 76.0 4.5 7.9 52.7 36.5 16.1 40.1 2447 120.9 3.2 8.6 35.5 19.8 14.3 95%ile 75.7 105.6 63.0 60.4 99.9 97.0 80.5 49.9 72.5 72.4 82.9 80.1 184.4 58.0 188.0 180.6 51.9 152.0 49.8 163.1 18.2 117.1 127.0 104.6 77.9 44.7 68.2 103.5 113.2 26.3 28.3 90.9 62.5 34.5 71.5 62.9 146.7 19.4 29.0 63.9 . 55.4 Subjects were college-age females. The descriptive range of joint motion data presented in the following tables were selected for their usefulness to design engineers.* Table 1 gives values for males; Table 2 tabulates women's values. The differences which are readily apparent in comparing like measurements can be attributed to two major causes. The first, of course, is the difference in sexes; it can be noted that in many cases where measurements are comparable, one sex or the other appears to be considerably more flexible. (Table 3, in the next section, details percentile differences between selected male and female joint motion measurements). A second source of possible discrepancy between the male and female data is the difference in measurement techniques employed in the two studies. Variations in Range of Joint Motion Measurements Differences Between Men and Women The most carefully controlled study that we know of pertaining to the measured differences in range of joint motion between adult men and women was conducted by Sinelkinoff and Grigorowitsch (1931). Their study of 100 men and 100 women ranging in age from 20 to 50 years, indicated that, in general, women exceed men in range of joint motion measurements at all joints except the knee. Table 3 summarizes the data reported by Sinelkinoff and Grigorowitsch and reveals percentage differences between men and women in range of joint mobility ranging from zero percent for knee flexion-extension,, to 17% for wrist adduction-abduction. TABLE 3 DIFFERENCE IN RANGE OF JOINT MOTION BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN (Based on Sinelkinoff and Grigorowitsch, 1931)%* Men's X Women's X Difference Shoulder abduction (rearward) 59.8 *% 61.4 103% Elbow flexion=-extension 142.1 149.9 105% Wrist flexion-extension 141.4 154.0 109% Wrist adduction-abduction 62.2 72.7 117% Hip flexion (with extended knee) 83.5 86.8 104% Hip flexion (with bent knee) 117.9 121.0 103% Knee flexion-extension 140.5 140.1 100% Ankle flexion-extension 62.6 66.9 107% *Percentage differences obtained by dividing the women's reported mean value by the men's reported mean value; e.g., 61.4 divided by 59.8 = 103%. **Mean values reported in angular degrees. *Additional sources of specific range of joint motion data include: the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (1965), Dickinson (1963), Gilliland (1921), Glanville and Kreezer (1937), Kendall and Kendall (1948), Laubach (1970), and Sinelkinoff and Grigorowitsch (1931). VI-7 Assessing Differences Caused by Protective Clothing Like all other dynamic measurements, range of joint motion is signifi- cantly affected by bulky protective clothing. Little data has been developed on the modifications in joint motion which occur as a result of heavy clothing assemblies and what data have been generated are of limited value since measurements taken in a given protective garment are not likely to match those taken in another. Since each protective garment is dimensionally unique, the most useful information we can offer NASA design engineers is the description of a method by which joint motion changes can best be evaluated in any suit. A technique which has considerable merit was devised by the Navy to analyze two diving suits and was reported on by Bachrach et al. in 1975. Though not directly relevant to NASA design engineering problems, this study has been chosen for presentation here because of the feasibility of the research design for the practicing engineer and its applicability to the evaluation of joint motion in newly developed NASA pressure suits. Six male U.S. Navy divers served as subjects. Each subject served as his own control with his baseline measurements taken in a swim suit before donning either of the two diving systems under study. Fourteen range of joint motion measurements were obtained from each subject, both on dry land and in the water. Data was summarized in the following fashion: Dry Wet Movement Swim Suit Suit I Suit II Suit 1 Suit II Trunk Flexion ° o o . o Mean 116.4 103.3 103.4 83.17 84.9 Selo ‘ 75° - Te7 10.3 9.9 15.3 The summary data were further analyzed to arrive at the mean percentage loss of diver flexibility caused by the two diving suits. These data, shown in Table 4&4, make it «clear that Suit II affords the diver considerable more flexibility than does Suit I. It is recommended that NASA designers use a comparable method--in which subjects serve as their own controls and the garment is tested under the conditions in which it will be worn--to assess the degree to which newly developed pressure suits hamper movement in their wearers. Joint motions to be measured would, of course, be selected for their relevance to operation in a zero g environment. The Effects of Age Under normal circumstances the range of joint motion decreases only slightly during the adult years between age 20 and age 60. West (1945) has reported that between the first and seventh decades of life range of joint motion declines about 10 percent, but no significant changes occur after puberty (Salter and Darcus, 1953). So for all practical purposes the designer can ignore the effects of age on the range of joint motion for the adult population. VI-8 TABLE 4&4 MEAN PERCENTAGE LOSS OF DIVER FLEXIBILITY CAUSED BY TWO DIVING SUITS (Based on Bachrach et al. 1975) Dry Wet Movement Suit I Suit II Suit I Suit II Trunk flexion 11.1% 11.2% 28.5% 26.9% Trunk extension 26.9 12.5 38.1 26.8 Trunk lateral flexion 27.2 12.3 29.9 31.0 Trunk transverse rotation 42.2 37.8 29.5 31.3 Shoulder joint abduction 40.4 22.1 35.9 17.6 Shoulder joint flexion 47.5 24,1 39.3 16.1 Shoulder joint extension 29.8 20.2 12.9 13.0 Shoulder joint hor. flexion 37.0 23.7 39.0 22.0 Shoulder joint hor. extension 34.6 29.6 23.2 24.9 Elbow flexion 7.9 8.7 6.4 5.4 Knee flexion . 24.8 11.1 17.7 8.0 Hip flexion 35.6 32.9 25.1 24,8 Hip extension 46.7 30.0 43.8 31.0 Hip abduction 56.8 42.4 40.8 21.1 Overall mean loss 33.3 22.7 29.3 21.4 Range of Motion of Two-Joint Muscles Up to this point we have discussed joint motion as though each joint existed in isolation from all others. Most investigations of range of joint motion have been confined to the study of simple planar movement of a single joint and these data are of singular importance in our understanding of human motion as well as of practical value to designers dealing with many prob- lems of workspace layout. The placement of a sidearm controller when the forearm is restrained, for example, is dictated by the range of motion of the wrist alone. However, more often than not, human motion involves the interaction of two or more joints and muscles. Little is known about the effect of one upon the other although we know, for example, that hand prona- tion is considerably increased if shoulder motion also comes into play. One common type of dynamic interaction involves two-joint muscles in which the action of one joint may either increase or decrease the effective functioning of the other. The problem of evaluating the range of motion of two-joint muscles has received little attention in the research literature. Brunnstrom (1972), Markee et al. (1955), Steindler (1970), and Rasch and Burke (1971) discuss the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages of two- joint muscles which have potential excursions far beyond the range achieved by omne-joint muscles. While this may be an advantage under certain condi- tions, such interaction may also expose the muscle to the hazards of stretching beyond safe limits (Brunnstrom 1972). The efficiency of the two- joint muscles is substantially influenced by the position of the two joints VI-9 in accordance with principles governing length-tension relationships of muscles. (The subject has received attention by Basmajian (1957), McLachlin (1969), Olson and Waterland (1967) and Paul (1969) among others.) There is, however, an almost complete lack of descriptive information in the research literature on specific range of joint motion to show what happens to shoulder flexion, for example, when the elbow is flexed to two- thirds of its total joint range. In a heretofore unpublished piece of re- search prepared for the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright Patterson Air TForce Base, Ohio, in 1971, Laubach and McConville reported on an experimental technique for the evaluation of range of motion of selected two-joint muscles. While emphasis in the study was on the development of a usable technique, some of the summary data are presented below. Using 18 male subjects and a mock-up of a standard USAF aircraft seat (see Figure 1), investigators selected the following two-joint muscle actions for evaluation: (1) elbow flexion with shoulder extension (2) shoulder extension with elbow flexion (3) elbow flexion with shoulder flexion (4) shoulder flexion with elbow flexion (5) hip flexion with knee flexion (6) knee flexion with hip flexion (7) knee flexion with ankle plantar flexion (8) ankle plantar flexion with knee flexion (9) knee flexion with ankle dorsiflexion (10) ankle dorsiflexion with knee flexion The experimental protocol for the determination of range of motion for two-joint muscles involved several steps. The range of motion for single joint muscle actions was established by photogoniometry. In our tests, a rapid-sequence camera was used to record the orientation of the segments at the beginning and end of a joint movement. Oversize prints were then made on which the range of motion could be measured. Range of motion for the two- joint muscles was evaluated using a combination of electrogoniometry and photogoniometry. The electrogoniometer was used to assure a positive fix for the distal joint at a point in its range of motion while the adjacent joint was being exercised. The restrictions in joint motion caused by blockage with another body segment were ignored. For example, elbow flexion is greatly reduced when the shoulder is extended and rotated inward, a decrement caused by the fore- arm in flexion striking the posterior torso. Every attempt was made to isolate the joint motion to a pure motion in a single plane from a single joint. : VI-10 Zero Positions for Measurement A significant problem in studying two- joint muscles is defining the division of the range of movement between flexion and extension, adduction and abduction, etc. If we define the movement of the shoulder in the sagittal plane as extension and flexion, then we must define the origin of the two motions from a common point. In a general sense we might state that the point of origin of the two motions is with the upper arm hanging loosely at the side, or in the mid-axillary line or assuming some other specified orienta- tion. Unless this origin is firmly established--while the total range of joint motion may remain the same--the values for flexion and extension may change radically and show a negative relationship with one another. It has been suggested that the proper measure of flexibility is the total range of motion without attempting to break it down into two discrete movements. Dickinson (1963), however, believes that the two movements which con- stitute the range of motion to be so poorly related that "adding these two measures of flexibility would be like adding apples and oranges' and suggests that a stable origin point is possible to achieve. We are of a similar opinion and in each ‘instance have divided the total range of motion at a joint into a series of discrete movements. Figures 2-6 define the terminology which applies to the various movements studied and indicate their points of origin. Test Procedures Co CL yw The range of joint motion was obtained by measuring the angular change from sequential photos taken when a joint was rotated from its zero position to its maximum, The generalized test procedure used in the study was as follows: A joint range base line was established for each of the joints to be tested. The base line was measured with the adjacent joints held in the zero position. Each joint was tested twice for agreement and the greater values were used as the joint range of motion. After the base line value was established the adjacent joint was moved to one of two or three intermediate positions (1/2 and total, or 1/3, 2/3 and total range) and the test joint was again exercised throughout its range. The procedure was then reversed with the joint first tested being held at an intermediate point of its range of motion and the adjacent joint being exercised. The changes in range of motion of a given joint when supplemented by the movement of an adjacent joint are summarized in Table 5. Shown in this table are the base line values of given joint motions with the adjacent joint in neutral position; the increment or decrement which takes place when an adjacent joint is flexed or extended in varying amounts (1/3, 1/2, 2/3 and/or full); and the resulting value as a percentage of the baseline value. For example, the first entry on Table 5 is read as follows: the shoulder can be extended as far as 59.3° (the mean of the subjects tested) with the elbow in a neutral position (locked in hyper-extension). When shoulder extension was measured with the elbow flexed to 1/3 of its full joint range, the mean VIi-11 13 | 1 3 ——-e——- L8ro point: Po go located on the torso Arm of - from center of the axilla to the iliac crest. - J ~~ 37.5 cm oe shoulder Figure 1. Two-joint muscle flexion test apparatus, shoulder extension Figure 2, Shoulder extension- flexion. VI-12 $e 7270 POint: elbow locked in straight-arm position. elbow flexion e—— Zero point: located along the calf with the foot resting on a platform parallel to the floor. Figure 3. Elbow flexion. ankle dorsi- flexion ankle plantar flexion Figure 4. Ankle flexion. VI-13 —————— -~ Zero point: located on the torso from center of the axilla to the iliac crest. hip flexion 4 e————— Zero point: located along the thigh with the knee locked in a straight leg position. Figure 5, Hip flexion, flexion Seams Figure 6. Knee flexion. VI-14 SI-IA TABLE 5 RANGE OF MOTION OF TWO-JOINT MUSCLES Baseline Zero 1/3 1/2 2/3 Full 0 o Shoulder extension with elbow 59.3° +1.6° +0.9 +5.3 flexion (102.7%) (101.5%) | (108.9%) Shouider flexion with elbow flexion 190.7° -24,9° -36.1° | -47.4° (86.9%) (81.0%) (75.0%) Elbow flexion with shoulder 152.2° -3.78 -1.22° extension (97.5%) (99.2%) Elbow flexion with shoulder flexion 152.2° -0.6° -0.8° -69.0° (99.6%) (99.5%) (54.7%) lip flexion with knee flexion 53.3° | -35.6%%) -24.0° -6.2° | -12.3° . (33.2%) } (55,0%) (88.4%) (76.9%) Ankle plantar flexion 48.0° -3.4° +0.2° +1.6° with knee flexion (92.9%) (100.4%) | (103.3%) Ankle dorsiflexion 26.1° -7.3° -2,7° -3.2° with knee flexion (72.0%) (89,7%) (87.7%) Knee flexion with ankle 127.0° -9,9° -4.7° plantar flexion (92.2%) (96.3%) Knee flexion with ankle 127.0° -8.7° dorsiflexion (93.0%) Knee flexion with hip flexion 127.0° -19.6° -33.6° (84.6%) (73.5%) “The knee joint is locked and the unsupported leg extends out in front of the subject. value of shoulder extension was found to increase by 1.6° or 102.7% of the base value. The results for the other movements and adjacent joint positions are presented in similar manner. In a very general way these results suggest that: (1) Shoulder extension is slightly enhanced with full flexion of the elbow . (2) There is a marked decrement in shoulder flexion as the degree of elbow flexion increases. (3) Elbow flexion is little reduced with varying degrees of shoulder flexion-extension except for the marked reduction when the shoulder is fully flexed. This test produced the largest variance in subject response, with some subjects showing little or no elbow flexion possible at full shoulder flexion while others showed only minor decrements. (4) Hip flexion decrements occur with any variation from baseline position. It is believed that we are dealing with two factors here. In the zero (straight leg) and 1/3 knee flexion position the center of mass of the leg has moved distally and the weight of the unsupported leg out in front of the subject reduced significantly the subject's ability to flex his hip. In the 2/3 and full knee flexion positions we believe the data reflect more directly the effects of the two- joint muscle placement, (5) Ankle plantar flexion is slightly enhanced by increased knee flex- ion. (6) Ankle dorsiflexion is substantially reduced with knee flexion from the base position. (7) Knee flexion is slightly reduced with ankle plantar and dorsi- flexion and is markedly reduced with increased hip flexion. There is an obvious need for more carefully controlled range of joint motion research. For NASA design engineers we recommend that the following list of standard movements, suggested by Roebuck et al. (1975), be assessed for space suit range of motion measurements. Neck Flexion-Extension Neck Lateral Flexion, Left and Right Forearm Supination-Pronation Wrist Palmar Flexion-Dorsiflexion Hip Abduction-Adduction . Hip Flexion-Extension Shoulder Flexion-Extension Shoulder Abduction-Adduction Neck Rotation, Left and Right Shoulder Rotation, Inward and Outward Elbow Flexion-Extension VI-16 Wrist Radial Flexion-Ulnar Flexion Hip Rotation, Outward and Inward Ankle Flexion-Extension Trunk Rotation, Right and Left Shoulder Horizontal Adduction-Abduction Knee Flexion-Extension and Hyperextension Toe Dorsiflexion Trunk Flexion-Extension Trunk: Lateral Flexion, Left and Right A Q oummary summary of our major findings and recommendations for design engin- eers are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) The techniques of photography, goniometry, and the flexometer offer practical and realistic means of evaluating the range of joint motion. The data presented in Table 1 compiled from Barter et al. (1957) can be used for "normative values of range of joint motion data for adult males. Use the data presented in Table 2 compiled from Harris and Harris (1968) for females. If it becomes necessary to estimate differences in the range of joint motion between the adult sexes, Table 3 reveals percentage differences for eight different joint range measurements. Changes in range of joint motion caused by protective clothing can be significant but are usually suit-specific. Test procedures, such as the one recommended in this chapter, should be undertaken for each new NASA assembly. Few descriptive data have been generated on the effects of inter- acting joints on motion. A test procedure has been described and a list of joint interactions relevant to space operations has been suggested for investigation. VI-17 REFERENCES Adrian, Marlene J. 1968. "An Introduction to Electrogoniometry.'" Kine- siology Review 1968, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (Washington, D.C.), pp. 12-18. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Committee for the Study of Joint Motion 1965. Joint Motion - Method of Measuring and Recording, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (Chicago, I11.). Ayoub, M. M. 1972. "Human Movement Recording for Biomechanical Analysis," International J. of Production Research, 10(1):35-51. Bachrach, Arthur J., Glen H. Egstrom, and Susan M. Blackmun 1975. "Biomechanical Analysis of the U.S. Navy Mark V and Mark XII Diving Systems,'! Human Factors, 17(4):328-336. Barter, James T., Irvin Emanuel, and Bruce Truett 1957. A Statistical Evaluation of Joint Range Data. WADC-TN-57-311, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Basmajian, J. V. 1957. "Electromyography in Two-Joint Muscles,' Ana- tomical Record, 129:371-380. Brunnstrom, Signe 1972. Clinical Kinesiolo (3rd edition), F. A. Davis Co., (Philadelphia, Pa.). Clarke, H. Harrison 1975. "Joint and Body Range of Movement," Physical Fitness Research Digest, 5(4):1-22. : os Dempster, Wilfred Taylor 1955. Space Requirements of the Seated Opera- tor. WADC-TR-55-159, Wright Air Development Center, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Garrett, Richard E., Carol J. Widule, and Gladys E. Garrett 1968. "Computer-Aided Analysis of Human Motion," Kinesiolo Review 1968, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (Washington, D.C.), pp. 1-4. Gilliland, A. R. 1921. "Norms for Amplitude of Voluntary Joint Movement," J. of the Amer. Med. Assoc., 77(17):1357. Glanville, A. Douglas, and Georege Kreezer 1937. "The Maximum Amplitude and Velocity of Joint Movements in Normal Male Human Subjects," Human Biology, 9(2): 197-211. Harris, Margaret L., and Chester W. Harris 1968. A Factor Analytic Study of Flexibility. Paper Presented at the National Convention of the _American Association of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Research Section, St. Louis, Mo. VI-18 Holland, George J. 1968. "The Physiology of Flexibility: A Review of the Literature," Kinesiology Review 1968, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (Washington, D.C.), pp. 49-62. Kelly, David L. 1971. Kinesiology: Fundamentals of Motion Description, Prentice-Hall, Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.), pp. 70-81. Kendall, Henry, and Florence P. Kendall 1948. "Normal Flexibility .According to Age Groups," J. of Bone and Joint Surgery, 39:424- 428. Leighton, Jack R. 1955. "An Instrument and Technique for the Measurement of Range of Joint Motion," Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 36:571-578. Markee, J. E., et al. 1955. "“Two-Joint Muscles of z Thigh," J. of Bone aad Joint Surgery, 37-A:125-142. Miller, Doris I., and Richard C. Nelson 1973. Biomechanics of Sport, Lea and Febiger (Philadelphia, Pa.). Olson, J. K., and J. C. Waterland 1967. '"Behavior of Independent Joints Served in Part by Muscles Common to Both: Elbow and Radioulnar Joints," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24:339-349. Paul, J. P. 1969. “The Action of Some Two-Joint Muscles in the Thigh During Walking," J. of Anatomy, 105:208-210. Plagenhoef, Stanley 1971. Patterns of Human Motion: A Cinematographic Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.). Rasch, Philip J., and R. N. Burke 1971. Kinesiology and Applied Anatomy (4th edition), Lea and Febiger (Philadelphia, Pa.). Roebuck, J. A., Jr. 1968. "Kinesiology in Engineering," Kinesiology Review 1968, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (Washington, D.C.), pp. 5-11. Roebuck, J. A., Jr., K. H. E. Kroemer, and W. G. Thomson 1975. Engineering Anthropometry Methods, John Wiley & Sons (New York), pp. 77-107. Salter, N., and H. D. Darcus 1953. "The Amplitude of Forearm and of Humeral Rotation," J. of Anatomy, 87:407-418. Sinelkinoff, E., and M. Grigorowitsch 1931. "The Movement of Joints as a Secondary Sex- and Constitutional-Characteristic,' Zeitschrift fur Konstitutionslehre, 15(6):679-693. Steindler, A. 1970. Kinesiology of the Human Body (3rd printing), Charles C. Thomas (Springfield, Ill.). VI-19 West, C. C. 1945. "Measurements of Joint Motion," Archives of Physical Medicine, 26:414-425. BIBLIOGRAPHY Damon, Albert, Howard W. Stoudt, and Ross A. McFarland 1966. The Human Body in Equipment Design. Harvard University Press (Cambridge, Mass.), pp. 187-137. Harris, Margaret L. 1969. "A Factor Analytic Study of Flexibility," Research Quarterly, 40(1):62-70. Van Cott, Harold P., and Robert G. Kinkade, eds., 1972. Human Engineer- ing Guide to Equipment Design (revised edition), American Institute for Research (Washington, D.C.), pp. 543-548. Williams, Marian, and Herbert R. Lissner 1962. Biomechanics of Human Motion, W. B. Saunders Co. (Philadelphia, Pa.). ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES The following documents are not readily available because of limited distribution (unpublished or preliminary data). However, copies/information may be obtained by contacting the author/source. Dickinson, R. V. 1963. Flexibility Measurement: Range of Motion Versus Limitation of Movement 1n One Direction. Unpublished Master's thesis, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Calif. Harris, Margaret L. 1967. A Factor Analytic Study of Flexibility. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. Laubach, Lloyd L. 1970. Characteristics of the Range of Joint Motion and Its Relationship to Selected Anthropometric Dimensions and Somatotype Components. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. McLachlin, H. J. 1969. The Action of Selected Two-Joint Muscles of the Thigh and Leg. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. VI-20 N79-11741 CHAPTER VII HUMAN MUSCULAR STRENGTH by Lloyd L. Laubach Anthropology Research Project Webb Associates The purposes of this chapter are to review and summarize selected studies of human muscle strength for the guidance of design engineers in dealing with a large volume of often contradictory strength data, and to present specific data for direct utilization in workspace design for a widely variable population. Included in our discussion will be the follow- ing topic areas: (1) a general review of human muscular strength; (2) specificity of muscular strength; (3) relationships between static and dynamic muscular strength; (4) strength within the arm reach envelope of the seated subject; (5) comparative muscular strength of men and women. Many of the theoretical aspects of muscular strength capabilities have been discussed in some detail by Roebuck, Kroemer, and Thompson (1975) in their book entitled Engineering Anthropometry Methods. For the reader who is interested in pursuing a discussion of the measurement of muscular strength capabilities, we recommend Chapter IV, pp. 108-128 in that publi- cation. Other recommended reviews assessing human muscular strength capa- bilities have been published by Caldwell (1964), Caldwell et al. (1974), Chaffin (1975), Clarke (1973), Clarke (1966 and 1971), Hettinger (1961), Hunsicker and Greey (1957), 1Ikai and Steinhaus (1961), Kroemer (1970), Kroemer and Howard (1974), and Pipes and Wilmore (1975). Handbooks that contain data pertinent to muscle strength design prob- lems include those written or edited by Damon, Stoudt, and McFarland (1966), Van Cott and Kinkade (1972), and Webb (1964). These handbooks are extremely useful sources of information to the designer engineer. Specificity of Muscular Strength The specificity* of human muscular strength is of major importance for the engineering application of strength data. The concept of strength specificity deals with the fact that strength scores, even when exerted *Specificity is the percentage of variance accounted for by other variables than x and is determined by 1 - r“. Generality is defined as the percen- tage of variance of y accounted for by x and is determined by r2. A cor- relation coefficient of at least .71 is required to show more generality than specificity: r2 x 100 = 50 percent or more. VII-1 by the same subjects, do not correlate well with each other. Pursuing this topic in some detail, Whitley and Allan (1971) have extensively reviewed the strength related literature. On the basis of their review, of 23 studies representing a variety of strength tests and measurement techniques, the authors point out "...that individual differences in static strength ability demonstrate more specificity than generality." This concept was further elucidated by Thordsen, Kroemer, and Laubach (1972) and Laubach, Kroemer, and Thordsen (1972). They asked their subjects to exert maximum static force in 44 different exertions. Less than 2% of the 946 intercorrelations among the force exertions exceeded .71, indicating that such correlations may not be very useful in predicting force capabilities. The authors concluded that "...if data are desired on forces exertable in other locations or directions, i.e., under other conditions, than those previously investigated, the information generally has to be gathered experimentally rather than computed from other force data." The implications from the above quoted research clearly indicate that there is no single quantitative function that can be called general static strength. Static vs. Dynamic Muscular Strength The relationship between static and dynamic muscular strength in man is of great concern to design engineers. The ability to predict an operator's success in performing a dynamic strength task from a measurement of static muscular strength would be a tremendous asset for the design engineer who must be concerned with dynamic performance. A large body of literature has been devoted to the question of whether the amount of force that can be exerted in a static muscular contraction is a good or a poor indicator of the amount of force that can be exerted dynamically. Unfortun- ately, very few unequivocal answers have resulted. A thorough review of the literature, however, does yield provisional answers to the following questions pertaining to the relationships between static and dynamic musuclar strength: (1) Has there been a definite relationship established between static and dynamic muscular strength? (2) Do static muscular force measurements yield larger values than dynamic force measurements. (3) During a dynamic muscular contraction, does a concentric or an eccentric contraction yield the larger value? (4) What is the relationship between static and dynamic muscular force during different phases of the contractions? i (5) Can dynamic muscular force be more accurately predicted from static force if the motion is linear or angular? Comparisons that have been made between static and dynamic muscular strength have resulted in conflicting opinions about these relationships. In studies reported by Asmussen, Hansen and Lammert (1965), Berger and VII-2 Higginbotham (1970), Carlson (1970), Rasch (1957), Rasch and Pierson (1960, 1963) and Salter (1955), a high degree of correlation was found between measures of static and dynamic strength. .Doss and Karpovich (1965), Lagasse (1970), Singh and Karpovich (1966) and Start (1966), on the other hand, have reported erratic results between measures of static and dynamic strength. In a discussion pertaining to the differing results between static and dynamic strength obtained by vari- ous investigators Bender and Kaplan (1966) state: Such conclusions, however, are partly derived from reports in which force was evaluated by the amount of weight that the individual could lift through a range of motion and then hold terminally, whereas the isometric measurement was taken at another pcint, usually midway, in the joint range of motion. This raises the question of whether these testing procedures are comparing the same activity. It is likely that different muscles or muscle groups are being evaluated when the testing occurs at distinctly different points within the range of motion. Other reasons for these conflicting opinions have been that research- ers have (1) inadequately defined the testing terminology, (2) utilized varying intensities of effort, and (3) used different testing positions. From a thorough review .of the muscle strength testing literature, Hunsicker and Greey (1957) concluded that there is a difference between static strength (as defined by a single maximum effort with the subject in a fixed position) and dynamic strength (as defined by repetitious ef- forts) and that the mathematical relationship between the two is not high. Doss and Karpovich (1965) compared concentric,* eccentric,** and isometric strength of the elbow flexor muscles. Each subject was given three tests, repeated three times to measure the maximum force during con- centric and eccentric movements between 75° and 165° of the elbow angle. The execution of the concentric and eccentric movements took 18 seconds each. The isometric measures were taken between 87° and 150° of the elbow angle and the contractions were maintained at least one second at each angle. When the three force exertions (concentric, eccentric, and isome- tric) were compared at corresponding elbow joint angles, it was found that the mean maximum concentric (pushing) force was 23% smaller and the eccen- tric (pulling) force was 13.5% greater than the isometric force. In a study similar to that of Doss and Karpovich, Singh and Karpovich (1966) studied the relationships among maximum concentric, eccentric, and isometric forces of the forearm flexors and extensors. The mean eccentric *Concentric indicates that the muscle shortens actively against a resis- tance. **Eccentric indicates that the muscle is lengthened passively by an external force. VII-3 forces of the flexors and the extensors were 32.7% and 14.2% greater than the concentric forces, respectively. The isometric forces of the flex- ors were 4l.6% greater than the isometric forces of the extensors. Singh and Karpovich conclude that it is possible to predict the concentric, eccen- tric, and isometric forces of the flexor muscles from one another. The same conclusion holds true for predicting the three forces of the extensors from one another. However, the chances of predicting the different forces of the flexors from the extensors, or vice versa, are quite limited. Using the factor analysis approach, Start and others (1966) studied the relationships between static strength and power of the lower limb. Total leg strength was measured using a back and leg dynamometer. The bi- lateral strength of the ankle plantar flexors, the knee extensors, and the hip extensors were determined using cable tensiometer techniques. Power was determined via the power jump, the Sargent jump, the squat jump, and the standing broad jump. The authors concluded that power bore little rela- tionship to static strength and that the two seemed to be separate entities. Asmussen, Hansen, and Lammert (1965) designed a special dynamometer to measure isometric, concentric, and eccentric muscle forces of the arm- shoulder complex. The distances of travel and velocities were expressed relative to arm length. The subjects were 18 men whose ages ranged from 18 to 30 years. For fairly rapid movements (corresponding to 60% of the arm length per second) the maximal concentric force is 75 to 80% of maximal isometric strength. In resisting a movement of the same velocity, 125 to 130% of the maximal isometric strength can be produced. The concentric and eccentric strength curves at all movement velocities studied were prac- tically parallel to the isometric strength curves with the exception of “the first part of the movement in concentric contraction. The authors report- ed a correlation of 0.80 between dynamic strength (at a velocity of 15% arm length per second) and isometric strength. In a well-planned study, Carlson (1970) studied the relationship between isometric and isotonic strength of the right elbow flexor muscles. Carlson found the mean isometric strength value to be 78.1 lbs. and the mean isotonic strength value to be 68.3 lbs., resulting in a difference of 13%. The correlation coefficient between isotonic and isometric strength was found to be 0.83. The author concluded. .eso.that the difference between the two tests is highly significant. The validity of the substitution of a test of isometric strength, therefore, is contingent upon the use of test results. If the purpose of the test is to discrimi- nate between strong and weak persons, the substitution is a valid one. If the purpose of the test is to determine . the level of muscular strength, however, the substitution is not valid because of the differences between results of the two tests. VII-4 Berger and Higginbotham (1970) studied the relationship between sta- tic and dynamic strength of the knee flexors at the joint angles of 35°, 610, 89°, 135°, and 167°. The following table summarizes the results of the strength testing as reported by Berger and Higginbotham: TABLE 1 STATIC AND DYNAMIC STRENGTH OF KNEE FLEXORS Knee Angle Static Strength X Dynamic Strength X x 35° 415 lbs. 275 lbs. .79 61° 339 lbs. 329 1bs. .96 89° 490 1bs. 489 ibs. .99 135° 974 1bs. 956 lbs. .99 167° 1050 1bs. 1045 lbs. .99 The correlations between static and dynamic strength of the knee flexors as reported by Berger and Higginbotham are the highest reported relation- ships found in the literature. Using a two-hand crank ergometer, Kogi, Mueller and Rohmert (1965) related the isometric moments of rotation at 12 different crank positions to dynamic force measurements performed for 30 minutes at 60 revolutions per minute at differing outputs. The results are depicted in Figure 1. The dashed .line =--- illustrates the maximum static strength that the sub- jects were able to exert at 30 degree intervals from 0° through 330° (0°, 309, ...330°) on the crank ergometer. The solid line —— illustrates the dynamic moment of rotation (at 2, 7, ...37 kpm/sec) at the same hand posi- tions as the static measurements. It is interesting to note that although the dynamic measurements do not reach the same magnitude as the static measurements, the force measurement curves demonstrate remarkably similar profiles. In summary, the authors found that (1) the nature of the dynamic curve remains essentially unchanged with an increase in output, (2) the curves possess two maximum points, i.e., at positions 90° and 270°, (3) the exertion of strength was always greater with pulling than it was with pushing, and (4) strength curves at high dynamic outputs approach (but never attain) the maximum isometric strength. Stothart (1970) examined the relationship between specific charac- teristics of static elbow flexion performance and biomechanical aspects of dynamic elbow flexion performance under each of three different loads. For the three dynamic test conditions, A (minimum load), B (twice the mini- mum load), and C (three times the minimum load), the maximum dynamic torque means were 51.4%, 60.9%, and 66.8% of the maximum static torque means, respectively. Stothart reported the following correlations between maximum static torque and selected dynamic variables: VII-5 9-IIA KPM 3 Heo — co smermmrmne —-===STATIC — DYNAMIC 0° Figure 1, Results of static and dynamic strength testing as reported by Berger and Higginbotham (1970). $$: TABLE 2 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STATIC AND DYNAMIC ELBOW FLEXION PERFORMANCE Condi- Condi- Condi- tion A tion B tion C Maximum Dynamic Torque «73 «71 «76 Dynamic Torque at 15 .70 «75 .73 Dynamic Torque at 30, +60 +66 .70 Dynamic Torque at 45 47 «59 «58 Dynamic Torque at 60 «25 o45 «37 Dynamic Torque at 75° +402 .19 .08 Dynamic Torque at 90° -.10 -.13 -.12 Dynamic Torque at 105° -.05 -.20 -.25 The above correlations between dynamic and static torque variables show that the relationship pattern was moderate (r ~ .70) during early phases of the movement and dropped exponentially to negative values at the end of the movement. Stothart concludes that static and dynamic force are mod- erately related in early phases of movement where very little excursion (movement) has occurred. Summary of Major Findings 1. An intensive review of the literature indicates that the relation- ship between static and dynamic muscular forces has not been definitely established. Various evaluations of static and dynamic muscular force have resulted in conflicting opinions about these relationships. The following correlation table is a selected summary of those investigations that have particular relevance to our problem. The correlation coefficients shown are the reported relationships between static and dynamic strength. TABLE 3 A SELECTED SUMMARY TABLE OF REPORTED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STATIC AND DYNAMIC STRENGTH Corre- Reference lation Asmussen, Hansen, and Lammert (1965) .80 Berger and Henderson (1966) «60 Berger and Higginbotham (1970) (range) «79 to .99 Carlson (1970) .83 Lagasse (1970) 47 Martens and Sharkey (1966) 77 McClements (1966) (flexion strength and power) «52 (extension strength and power) .65 Rasch and Pierson (1963) «69 Stothart (1970) (range) «76 to -.25 The basic question to be answered in the application of these relation- ships is with what degree of accuracy do we want to be able to predict dynamic force from static force? Although the correlation between the two measures may be relatively high (i.e., r=.83) the standard error of esti- mate for predicting dynamic force from static force may be too large for the regression equation to be of practical value; e.g., if the standard error of estimate equals plus or minus 10 kiloponds from a regression mean of 70 kiloponds the error percentage is of a magnitude of 14%. 2. Static muscular force (whether it is measured in linear or angular motion) is usually larger than dynamic force. Dynamic force, depending on the velocity of the shortening muscles, amounts to about 50% to 90% of the maximal static force. 3. When dynamic force is expressed as a concentric contraction (muscles shortening during the action) or as an eccentric contraction (muscles length- ening during the action), the eccentric contraction yields the larger value. 4, Static and dynamic muscular forces are moderately related (r v.70) in early phases of the movement where little excursion has occurred; how- ever, this relationship drops exponentially to negative values at the end of the movement. Se It appears that dynamic force may be more accurately predicted from static force measurements when the motion to be evaluated is angular rather than linear. Human Force Exertions Within the Arm Reach Envelope of the Seated Subject This portion of this chapter describes experiments designed to measure the maximum static push forces that seated subjects can exert throughout selected positions of the arm reach envelope. A total of 76 arm force exer- tions were measured on a sample of 55 young male subjects whose mean age was 21.3 years with a standard deviation of 3.2 years; mean weight was 75.1 kg (165.6 lbs) with a standard deviation of 14.0 kg (30.9 lbs); mean stature was 176.9 cm (69.6 in) with a standard deviation of 5.6 cm (2.2 in). Because this material has not been previously published, we will discuss the equipment used and the experimental protocol in more detail than was done in other previously reported studies. The equipment used for this experiment consisted mainly of a seat, a three-dimensional strain gauge force transducer, and two pieces of recording equipment (See Figure 2). The seat, complete with belts, simulated a standard aircraft seat with hard surfaces replacing the usual seat cushions. It was constructed in such a way that the seat back angle could be changed to any given angle currently used or considered for use in USAF aircraft. Built on a track, the movable seat could be brought forward and backward and left and right in relation to the handle assembly. The handle assembly was constructed in such a way that it could be raised or lowered, making it possible to VII-8 © Adjustable

X = 49.4 ¢ ~~ =NOR QUEL - SD = 11.1 os S%ile = 32.6 95%ile = 66.3 #1) On 0 2 0 40 60 80 Forward 51 cm 75 Forward 38 cm 75 Right 25 cm Right 51 cm X = 61.3 X = 40.8 SD = 16.1 SD = 11.9 5%ile = 34.9 5%ile = 23.6 95%ile = 86.8 95%ile - 20 SRP 20 40 60 60 40 20 20 40 60 Figure 13. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-25 25 Degree Seat Back Angle Handle at 76 cm above SRP Forward 25 cm Right 64 cm X = 29.4 SD = 8.2 5%ile = 16.9 95%ile = 43.8 Forward 46 cm 20 40 60 80 Right 38 cm X = 59.6 SD = 17.9 5%ile = 37.2 95%ile = 90.2 Forward 48 cm I~ 75 Centerline 8 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 X = 64.1 SD = 15.1 5%ile = 36.9 95%ile = 87.7 Forward 43 cm 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 Left 25 om X= 71.0 SD = 18.6 5%ile = 42.5 95%ile = 102.1 Figure 14. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-26 25 Degree Seat Back Angle Handle at 89 cm above SRP Forward 46 cm Left 13 cm X= 71.3 SD = 21.8 5%ile = 34.6 95%11e = 110.4 75 Forward 80 60 40 20 f° 20 40 60 80 | omar] eg om 50 X = 69.6 SD = 18.0 5%ile = 39.7 5%ile = 100.5 Forward 51 cm Right 25 cm X= 75.0 SD = 19.1 5%1le = 44.4 95%1le = 107.6 20 40 60 80 Forward 41 cm 20 40 60 80 Right 51 cm X = 50.2 SD = 17.6 5%ile = 25.9 95%1i1e = 83.3 80 60 40 80 60 40 20 "P20 40 60 80 Figure 15. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII=-27 25 Degree Seat Back Angle Handle at 102 cm above SRP Forward 5 cm ¢=75 Right 64 cm X = 23.0 sD= 5.820 5%ile = 15.0 95%ile = 33.7 Forward 38 cm Centerline 75 X = 52.9 SD = 16.5 0 5%ile = 31.1 95%ile = 85.4 75=y Forward 23 cm Left 25 cm X = 40.9 SD = 10.8 5%ile = 25.2 95%ile = 61.1 50 SRP 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 Figure 16. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-28 25 Degree Seat Back Angle Handle at 114 cm above SRP ORIGINAL PAGE IS Forward 13 cm 75 Left 13 cm X = 30.5 sD = 10.4 [20 5%ile = 16.2 95%ile = 49.0 | 80 60 40 20 RP 20 40 60 80 Forward 25 cm [75 Forward 20 cm T° 75 Right: 25 cm Right 38 cm X =46.2 Lg X = 40.3 }-50 SD = 13.5 SD = 11.3 5%ile = 24.6 t 5%ile = 23.2 95%1le = 69.0 95%ile = 60.0 L25 } 60 60 40 20 SRP 20 40 60 60 40 20 20 40 Figure 17. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-29 65 Degree Seat Back Angle Handle at 38 cm above SRP Forward 15 cm 75 Right 51 cm X = 27.8 s0= 9.3 [0 %ile = 15.7 80 60 40 20 RP’ 20 40 60 80 Forward 15 cm [75 Right 38 cm X=37.0L SD = 11.3 0 5%ile = 19.5 95%ile 54.6 fk. 25 t SRP 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 Figure 18. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-30 65 Degree Seat Back Angle Handle at 51 cm above SRP Forward 15 cm Left 25 cm X = 49.7 SD = 15.2 5%ile = 20.9 95%ile ) 72.3 80 60 40 20 RP 20 40 60 80 75— Forward 30 cm Forward 13 cm 75 | Centerline Right 64 cm X = 35.9 X = 23.3 50 sD = 10.0 sp= 8.3 [0 5%ile = 20.8 5%ile = 11. 5%ile = 53.8 95%ile = 39. 60 60 40 20 RP 20 40 60 Figure 19. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-31 65 Degree Seat Back Angle Handle at 64 cm above SRP Forward 5 cm [75 Right 64 cm X = 24.6 50 SD = 7.6 5%ile = 14.2 95%ile = 49.3 25 Forward 28 cm 20 40 60 80 Right 25 cm 80 60 40 20 °FF X = 54.5 SD = 15.2 5%ile = 32.9 95%ile = 82.1 Forward 28 cm Centerline 75 80 60 40 20 “RP 20 40 60 80 X = 49.3 SD = 12.6 5%ile = 30.4 95%ile = 66.5 75= Forward 20 cm 0 60 80 Left 13 em "50 X = 61.7 SD = 16.4 5%ile = 35.3 95%ile = 88.8 80 60 40 20 % 20 40 60 80 Figure 20. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-32 65 Degree Seat Back Angle Handle at 76 cm above SRP 75= Forward 3 cm Left 25 cm X = 49.8 Dh = 18.1 5%ile = 24.1 95%ile = 84.2 Forward 18 cm 75 40 60 80 Centerline X = 57.1 sD = 16.0 | °° 5%ile = 30.4 95%ile = 81.5 75 Forward 20 cm Right 13 cm SRP 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 X = 63.8 SD = 16.4 5%ile = 38.1 95%ile = 87.8 50 Forward 8 cm 40 60 80 Right 51 cm X = 32.7 SD= 9.9 50 5%ile = 18.4 95%ile = 49.8 80 60 40 20 SRP 20 40 60 80 Figure 21. Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative tn the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-33 65 Degrees Seat Back Angle Handle at 89 cm above SRP Forward 3 cm 75 Centerline X = 40.2 50 SD = 15.9 5%ile = 17.9 95%ile = 69.7 25 SRP 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 Forward 3 cm Right 25 cm X = 50.6 sp=18.3 [0 5%ile = 25.9 95%ile = 81.0 80 60 40 20 Sf" 20% 40 60 80 Figure 22, Force exerted on handle assembly at various locations relative to the seat reference point and seat centerline (values in kiloponds). VII-34 from approximately 70 static and dynamic strength measurements in both tabular and graphic form. Portions of this material selected for optimum usefulness to design engineers are presented here. The relationship between muscle strength capacities of men and women is a research topic that has been under investigation since the early 1900's (Hettinger, 1961). Interest in this subject has been spurred recently in the United States by actions of the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration in expanding opportunities for women under the impetus of the Equal Employment Opportunities Act. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is obviously well aware of these developments with the pro- posed advent of female astronauts and mission payload specialists in the Space Shuttle Program, Designers of equipment that require muscular strength capabilities for possible usage for both the male and female segment of the population tend to design around the oft-mentioned contention that '"'general muscle strength in women is about two-thirds that of men' (Hettinger, 1961). We will show in this section the fallacy of designing equipment capabilities around this classical two-thirds figure. Figures 23 through 46 illustrate in graphical form, the mean, +1 S.D., and the mean percentage of women's strength compared to men's for each measurement. As previously mentioned, readers desiring more detailed information are referred to the original sources, in this case, Laubach (1976, a and b). Figure 47 is a summary of the data presented in Figures 23-46 and includes a calculation for "total body strength.'"* These values were de- rived by simply summing the mean percentage differences for each strength capacity and dividing by the number of measurements observed. The horizon- tal bar at the top indicates that the range of mean percentage differences in "total body strength" is from 35% to 86%. The average mean percentage difference (vertical line intersecting each horizontal bar) was 63.5% for "total body strength." The major objective of TFigure 47 is to emphasize the broad range of mean percentage differences that were found to exist in selected muscle strength dimensions. Figures 23 through 33, illustrating selected capabili- ties of the upper extremities, show that women's measurements range from 35 to 79% of men's with an average mean percentage of 55.8%. The strengths in the lower extremities (Figures 34-38) of women compared to men average 71.9% with a range of 57 to 86%. Trunk strength measurements (Figures 39- 41) revealed that women averaged 63.8% of men with a range of 37 to 70%. The indicators of dynamic strength (Figures 42-46) showed that women ranged from 5% to 84% of men for an average mean percentage of 68.6%. Laubach (1976b) has also noted that the fifth percentile value for a particular strength measurement for men often exceeds the ninety-fifth percentile value for women. This, obviously, is not the case in all situa- tions but was found to be true in at least fifty percent of the reported *Includes all static and dynamic measurements reported here. VII-35 9€-IIA BACKWARD PUSH REACTION FORCE PROVIDED BY A VERTICAL WALL (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) oO 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 ——1 135% Laubach, 1975 Tran I NY J I | Kroemer, 1969 FORWARD PUSH WITH ONE HAND REACTION FORCE PROVIDED BY A VERTICAL WALL (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 wi 2/74 Rat Laubach, 1975 A 24 ROT i] " K 1969 RR ARERR REE SRS 1 roemer, [SARA ANNAAANANANAA NANA NNNANAANANAANANAAAAANY Figure 23, TFemale/male strength comparison: : upper extremities. LATERAL PUSH WITH THE SHOULDER REACTION FORCE PROVIDED BY FLOOR AND FOOTREST (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds ) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IRI, Laubach, 1975 45% Kroemer, 1969 BE NNN ARAN TE I TIE EI aa i I iia aa tatiana asstanasapieaniantaniaiy ay ATA AAAI AL II IAI IAAT I INI I I I NAL LATERAL PUSH WITH ONE HAND REACTION FORCE PROVIDED BY A VERTICAL WALL ( Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 10 20 30 40 5 60 70 80 3% Laubach,1975 Kroemer, 1969 ANNANNANANAANANNN SIVINNANANANANAAY I Figure 24, Female/male strength comparison: - upper extremities, LE-IIA FORWARD PUSH WITH BOTH HANDS REACTION FORCE PROVIDED BY FLOOR AND FOOTREST "(Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 Laubach, 1975 eee aan AUIVANANANN Kroemer, 1969 FORWARD PUSH WITH BOTH HANDS REACTION FORCE PROVIDED BY A VERTICAL WALL (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 —= 43% Laubach, 1975 Kroemer, 1969 Figure 25. Female/male strength comparison; upper extremities. 9, rd 3 B o O G7 2 7» 2 0 Ie HORIZONTAL PULL (Units cre Mean Values in Kiloponds) 20 0 10 Asmussen & Heeboll - Nielsen, 1961 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8& Nordgren, 968 HORIZONTAL PUSH (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 20 30 7 ' 64% Figure 26. Female/male strength comparison: Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8& Nordgren, 1968 upper extremities. 8€-IIA VERTICAL PULL DOWNWARDS (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 196 ' 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8 Nordgren 1968 VERTICAL PUSH UPWARDS (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) Nordgren, 1972 Backlund & Nordgren , | 968 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Figure 27. Female/male strength comparison: . upper extremities. ) HAND VOLAR FLEXION (Units are Mean Values in Kilopond Centimeters) 80 Asmussen & Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8 Nordgren, , , 1968 100 120 HAND DORSAL EXTENSION (Units are Mean Values in Kilopond Centimeters) 0 20 40 60 80 100 LI ' ' Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 | 140 Nordgren, 1972 RHINE Backlund 8 ANNI IINNLN SNR Wnnnt SIA Nordgren, ' ' , 1968 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 AIitataaANA LAYS NNN IRINININGINY Figure 28, Female/male strength comparison: upper extremities. 6E~1IA NECK FLEXION FORWARDS (Units are Mean Valuss in Kiloponds) 0 5 10 15 Y, Liew Nordgren ,1972 A slatnih Aint 1968 SHOULDER FLEXION {Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 0 20 30 40 50 45% Laubach, 1975 TT TE TTT TTT TOeaeee WAAAY nnNnNNNNNNET SSS —— bach Mc Co I AH RH RN I RNIN RY aubach , Mc Conville, Figure 29. Female/male strength comparison: upper extremities. HANDLE PRONATION (Units are Mean Values in Kilooond Centimeters ) 0 20 40 80 100 120 60 61% . Asmussen 8 Heeboll- - Nielsen, 1961 — 0 160 180 Nordgren,1972 Backlund 8 Nordgren, 1968 —— 0 o 160 180 HANDLE SUFINATION (Units are Mean Values in Kilopond Centimeters) 0 20 40 60 80 100 20 1 Asmussen & Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 | 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8 Nordgren, 1968 Hg ' ' ' 100 12 140 160 180 200 Figure 30. Female/male strength comparison: upper extremities. O%=IIA ELBOW FLEXION (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) Laubach, 1975 I nnmnnnannnnm Laubach & McConville, LH I A TI I AR ea ay 1969 RN : Nordgren, 1972 ANNAN NANNY Bac d Nord MRE, Klund ‘8 Nordgren, } RES 1968 ELBOW EXTENSION (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) Nordgren, 1972 Backlund & Nordgren, 1968 1 0 5 10 15 ‘20 25 Figure 31, Female/male strength comparison: upper extremities. HANDGRIP STRENGTH (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 20 30 40 50 3 A an A i ' 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, |961 0 10 20 30 40 Ten T AAIININININNANN NAY NY Laubach, 1975 Laubach & McConville, 1969 TiaNaINNIANY aes Saaataaaaaa Na A NINIIIANNINANANY EN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8 Nordgren, 3 1968 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Figure 32, Female/male strength comparison: upper extremities. TY=IIA Figure 33. KEY PRONATION (Units are Mean Values in Kilopond Centimeters) o 10 20 30 40 7% J (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 10 20 30 Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielson, 1961 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund & Nordgren, 1968 KEY SUPINATION (Units are Mean Values in Kilopond Centimeters) 0 10 20 30 40 2 ‘ Asmussen 8 Heeboll Nielsen , 1961 | 0 10 20 30 40 S50 {Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 10 20 30 2 Nordgren 1972 Backlund & Nordgren 1968 upper extremities. Female/male strength comparison: Th=11IA HIP FLEXION (Units ore Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Asmussen & Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 Laubach, 1975 Loubach 8& McConville, 1969 Nordgren, 1972 Bocklund 8 Nordgren, 1968 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIP EXTENSION (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8& Nordgren, 1968 Figure 34. Female/male strength comparison: lower extremities. HIP ABDUCTION (Units ore Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 10 20 30 40 75% Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 60 Timm’ °° yo 69% Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8 Nordgren, 1968 ' 0 10 20 30 40 50 HIP ADDUCTION (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 20 30 40 50 Y Asmussen 8 Heeboll-Nielsen, 1961 3- Nordgren, 1972 y Backlund 8 Nordgren, 968 1 Figure 35. Female/male strength comparison: lower extremities. EY=1IA ANKLE PLANTAR FLEXION (Units are Mecn Values in Kilopond Centimeters ) O 200 400 600 800 1000 (200 1 86% Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 | ' O 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 7 7 7 79% Nordgren, 1972 Backlund & Nordgren, 1968 | ' 140 160 0 ANKLE DORS! FLEXION (Units are Mean Values in Kilopond Centimeters) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Asmussen & Heeboll - Nielsen, 1961 ' 1 1 70% Nordgren, 1972 0 5 Backlund & Nordgren, 1968 Figure 36. Female/male strength comparison: lower extremities. KNEE FLEXION (Units cre Mean Vclues in Kilopond Centimeters ) 0 200 40C 600 800 000 1200 1400 p | Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 Nordgren , 1972 Backlund & Nordgren, 1968 0 5 0 5 20 25 30 35 (Units are Mean Values ir Kiloponds ) o KNEE EXTENSION Q 2 Q Asmussen 8 Heeboll - 2 2 sen, 2 ; Nielsen, 196 % BB 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 200 on (Units cre Mean Values In Kilopond Centimeters) Ci A | 0 20 40 60 80 €. srw Laubach, 1975 2,6 . Laubach & Mc Conville , 1969 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 ' 78% Nordgren , 1972 Backlund 8 Nordgren, 1968 (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) Figure 37. Female/male strength comparison: lower extremities. 79=1IA Figure 38. LEG EXTENSION (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 SL rta NaN aA I a ay aN na Sasa WN Aaa AAA AAT A I A RTI AI EE EAA SAS IA A AAA I ARTA AY NN A 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 SN 0 wn WN oe} WN ANNAN oo. NN Nn 150 200 250 300 ' ' : 63% Nordgren, 1972 rr aanr aaa rt aaa aaa aay Backlund & Nordgren AAA EI IIIT IAI A AY ’ Naa maaan aan TNA wana preseeeee} aaa aaa ARI 196 RY RY NN EN RRR ' 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 LEG EXTENSION (BOTH LEGS) (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) Q 100 200 300 400 500 600 2 7 2 p W, 1 ! | Asmussen & Heeboll- Nielsen, 1961 Tears iI a ay wT TE AANNANAANY AAANAAANANANNINNNN AN A AN a, i 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Female/male strength comparison: lower extremities. SH=IIA TRUNK EXTENSION STRENGTH (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 20 40 60 80 1 69% Asmussen & Heeboll - Nielsen, 1961 Nordgren, 1972 Backlund 8 Nordgren, : RR , 1968 0 20 40 60 80 I00 0 20 40 60 80 A ok i Fioup 8 Chapman, * {Measured in standing 0 20 40 ©O 80 100 120 a Troup 8 Chapman, 1969 (Measured in sitting Position) ii 3 ' ' O 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Figure 39. Female/male strength comparison: trunk, TRUNK FLEXICN STRENGTH {Units are Mecn Values in Kiloponds) Asmussen & Heeboll- Nielsep,- 1961 Laubach, 1975 Backlund & Nordgren, 1968 Troup 8 Chapman, 1969 (Measured in Standing Position) V0 77/4 Troup 8& Chapman, a 1969 ai (Measured in sitting NY Position) SY 1, 0 20 40 SO 80 Figure 40. Female/male strength comparison: trunk. Nordgren, 1972 jo) 2 9%=1IA TRUNK BENDING SIDEWAYS STRENGTH (Units are Mean Values in Kiloponds) 0 10 20 30 40 50 67% 0 20 30 40 50 ma w= Asmussen 8 Heeboll- Nielsen, 196I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Nordgren, 1972 (Measured on right side) NNN a WNNNNNNNN Backlund & Nordgren, I 2 SINAN NAN NINR NINN INP ANNU NRA AAR NNN 1968 O 10 20 30 40 50 © 0 70 80 Nordgren, 1972 (Measured on left side) NNN NNN ANTANINANANNNY INN INIA ANAL AN AAAS, WINN nNnNImnNnn 0 ann A YY \ aa NN ay x \ WANN AITITRINTRITIT RII YANNI Backlund 8 Nordgren, ) 1968 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Figure 41; Female/male strength comparison: trunk. L9=IIA STRAIGHT - ARM CARRY —2.13 METERS CARRY - (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 7 25 30 35 ! ! ' Snook 8 Cirlello, 1974 A ook, et al., Pasay aasaaaay HY ’ SHER A I I IT YY 19 AMNNY a 2 1 ANNES 0 5 10 I5 20 25 30 35 STRAIGHT - ARM CARRY -4.27 METERS CARRY (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 7: 25 30 35 ' ' | ' Snook & Ciriello, eo 1974 mmm mmm ™ Snook, et al. HNN NNN NNN Wm nook, ef al., SANNANANANAN ANNAN NNANNNSN WN ANAANNNAANAN TUNA N ANN ANNA ANA aN 1970 STRAIGHT - ARM CARRY -8.53 METERS CARRY (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 5 7 mr 25 30 35 1974 ANTE SASANANNNANAANNANNNN ANNAN NANNY S 00k t | INN AHIR nook, et al., Ra Nan nnn nnNnn AETHER HHI II ISIN RNA , ' 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 Figure 42. Female/male strength comparison: dynamic, Snook & Ciriello, LOWERING - ARM REACH TO SHOULDER HEIGHT (Uniis are Median Values in Kiloponds) 25 ik 68% voRw "Suck 8 Ciriello, EER Snook, et al, AN ' ' 1970 LOWERING - SHOULDER HEIGHT TO KNUCKLE HEIGHT (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 5 15 20 Er cay 0% Snook 8 Grell, HRULRG Snook, et al., ANNs ' 1970 NINN: NNN NAY a ANIA TANNA ANIIIIIIAAINAINAAY ATAINININAINNNNINIIN LOWERING - KNUCKLE HEIGHT TO FLOOR LEVEL (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 10 “15 20 25 30 an - 62% Snock 8 Girielo 3 3 Snook, et al., 8), i970 NY NINN 0 5 10 I5 20 25 30 aay 3 An SSSENNNNNNNNZNNNNANI NY Figure 43, Female/male strength comparison; dynamic. 8%=IIA LIFTING - SHOULDER HEIGHT TO ARM REACH (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 5 10 15 20 25 vy 59% } ! Snook & Ciriello, Snook, et al, ' 1970 0 5 10 15 20 25 LIFTING - KNUCKLE HEIGHT TO SHOULDER HEIGHT (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 5 10 15 20 25 7 64% ! Snook 8 Ciriello, Snook, et al, 1970 LIFTING - FLOOR LEVEL TO KNUCKLE HEIGHT (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 5 0 15 20 25 87 , ! Snook & Ciriello, Snook, et al, : 1970 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 44, Female/male strength comparison: dynamic, BENT — ARM CARRY -2.13 METERS CARRY (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 | 15 20 25 a ¥ Snook 8 Cirillo, NY Snook, et al, 1970 nN SNNNNANLINAY JPN : ’ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BENT - ARM CARRY - 4.27 METERS CARRY (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 10 15 20 25 30 nn ' Snot) & Ciriello, Snook et al, 1970 BENT — ARM CARRY -8.53 METERS CARRY (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Tk 75% ! ! Souk 8& Ciriello, Snook, et al, ' ' 1970 Figure 45. Female/male strength comparison: dynamic. 6%-IIA PUSHING (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 ara nee N | 799d" et al, Hi 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 PULLING (Units are Median Values in Kiloponds) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Snook, et al., 1970 A ' 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Figure 46. Female/male strength comparison: dynamic, 0S-IIA TOTAL BODY STRENGTH UPPER EXTREMI- TIES STRENGTH LOWER EXTREMI- TIES STRENGTH TRUNK STRENGTH DYNAMIC STRENGTH 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 47. The range and average mean percentage differences in muscle strength characteristics between women and men. strength data. The finding that the value obtained for a fifth percentile strength score for men in approximately fifty percent of the strength tests investigated in this research often exceeds that of the ninety-fifth percen- tile value for women is a precautionary reminder for engineers who often use 50th percentile values for design purposes. In conclusion, our research would seem to substantiate that the mean percentage of women's total body strength is about 63.5% of men's total body strength. However, we believe that the emphasis should be re-focused on the broad range (from 35 to 86%) of mean percentage differences that were found to exist rather than on a single mean figure. Because of the extreme variability in muscle strength measurements, ergonomists and design engineers should be careful in making extrapola- tions from muscle strength data. It is, of course, useless to suppose that such precautionary advice will prevent a designer from making estimates of female muscle strength from male data if no relevant information is availabie for females. To assist the designer in making such an estimate for females, Laubach (1976a) has suggested using the following statistical procedure for computing the often-used criteria of the fifth percentile: (1) Select a test item from Figures 23-46 that most closely approxi- mates the strength movement for which you have available data, e.g., if the movement approximates a horizontal pull (Figure 26) measurements as described by Asmussen and Heeboll-Neilsen (1961), use the percen- tage difference of 63 in your calculations. ns (2) Assume that the data you have obtained from your sample of male sub- jects yield a mean value of 50 kiloponds (kp) with a standard deviation of 10 kiloponds. (3) To calculate the estimated fifth percentile value for men, multiply 1.65 times 10 kp (S.D.) to give 16.5 kp. Subtract 16.5 kp from 50 kp (mean) to give 33.5 kp for the estimated fifth percentile value for men. (4) Take the fifth percentile value for men, 33.5, and multiply by the percentile difference, 63, to give 21.1 kp for the estimated fifth percentile values for females. VII-51 REFERENCES Asmussen, E., O. Hansen, and O. Lammert 1965. "The Relation Between Isometric and Dynamic Muscle Strength in Man," Communications of the Testing and Observation Institute of the Danish National Association for Infantile Paralysis, Hellerup, Denmark, No. 20. Asmussen, .E., and K. Heeboll-Nielsen 1961. "Isometric Muscle Strength of Adult Men and Women," Communications from the Testing and Ob- servation Institute of the Danish National Association for Infan- tile Paralysis, 1l:1-44. Backlund, L., and L. Nordgren 1968. "A New Method for Testing Isometric Muscle Strength Under Standardized Conditions," Scandinavian J. of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 21(1):33-41. Bender, J. A., and H. M. Kaplan 1966. "Determination of Success or Failure in Dynamic (Isotonic) Movements by Isometric Methods," Research Quarterly, 37:3-8. Berger, Richard A., and Joe M. Henderson 1966. "Relationship of Power to Static and Dynamic Strength,' Research Quarterly, 37:9-13. Berger, R. A., and R. B. Higginbotham 1970. "Prediction of Dynamic Strength from Static Strength in Hip and Knee Extension," American Corrective Therapy J., 24:118-120. Caldwell, Lee S. 1964. "Body Position and the Strength and Endurance of Manual Pull," Human Factors, 6:479-484. Caldwell, L. S., D. B. Chaffin, F. N. Dukes-Dobos, K. H. Eberhard Kroemer, et al. 1974. "A Proposed Standard Procedure for Static Muscle Strength Testing," American Industrial Hygiene Assoc. J., 35:201-206. Carlson, B. R. 1970. "Relationship Between Isometric and Isotonic Strength," Archives of Physical Medicine ‘and Rehabilitation, 51:176-179. Chaffin, D. B. 1975. "Ergonomics Guide for the Assessment of Human Static Strength," American Industrial Hygieme Assoc. J., 36:505- 511. Clarke, Henry H. 1973. "Adaptations in Strength and Muscular Endurance Resulting from Exercise," Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, Vol. 1, J. H. Wilmore, ed., Academic Press (New York). Clarke, H. Harrison 1966. Muscular Strength and Endurance in Man, Prentice-Hall, Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.). Clarke, H. H. 1971. "Isometric Versus Isotonic Exercises," Physical Fitness Research Digest, 1(3):3-12. VII-52 Damon, Albert, Howard W. Stoudt, and Ross A. McFarland 1966. The Human Body in Equipment Design, Harvard University Press (Cambridge, Mass.). Doss, Wayne S., and Peter V. Karpovich 1965. "A Comparison of Concen- tric, Eccentric and Isometric Strength of Elbow Flexors," J. of Appl. Physiol., 20(2):351-353. Hettinger, T. 1961. Physiology of Strength, Charles C. Thomas . (Springfield, Il1.). Hunsicker, P. A., and G. Greey 1957. "Studies in Human Strength," Research Quarterly, 28:109-122. Tkai, Michio, and Arthur H. Steinhaus 1961. "Some Factors Modifying the Expression of Human Strength," J. of Appl. Physiol., 16(1):157- 163. J Kcgi, k., E. A. Mueller, and W. Rohmert 1965. "The Relative Effect of Isometric and Dynamic Training on Endurance During Dynamic Exertion,"” Internationale Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Physiologie, Einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie, 20:465-481. Kroemer, K. H. Eberhard 1975. Human Force Capabilities for Operating Aircraft Controls at 1, 3, and 587 - AMRL-TR-73-54, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Kroemer, K. H. Eberhard 1970. "Human Strength: Terminology, Measure- ment, and Interpretation of Data," Human Factors, 12(3):297-313. Kroemer, K. H. Eberhard 1969. Push Forces Exerted in Sixty-Five Common Working Positions. AMRL-TR-68-143, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Kroemer, K. H. Eberhard, and J. M. Howard 1974. "Towards Standardization of Muscle Strength Testing," Medicine and Science in Sports, 2:224-230. Laubach, Lloyd L. 1976(a). "Comparative Muscular Strength of Men and Women: A Review of the Literature," Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 47(5):534-542. Laubach, Lloyd L. 1976(b). Muscular Strength of Women and Men: A Comparative Study. AMRL-TR-75-32, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Laubach, Lloyd L., K. H. Eberhard Kroemer, and Marvin L. Thordsen 1972. "Relationships Among Isometric Forces Measured in Aircraft Control Locations," Aerospace Medicine, 43(7):738-742. Laubach, Lloyd L., and J. T. McConville 1969. "The Relationship of Strength to Body Size and Typology," Medicine and Science in Sports, 1:189-194. VII-53 Martens, Rainer, and B. J. Sharkey 1966. "Relationship of Phasic and Static Strength and Endurance," Research Quarterly, 37:435-437. McClements, ©L. E. 1966. "Power Relative to Strength of Leg and Thigh Muscles," Research Quarterly, 37:71-78. Nordgren, B. 1972. "Anthropometric Measures and Muscle Strength in Young Women," Scandinavian J. of Rehabilitation Medicine, 4:165- 169. Pipes, T. V., and J. H. Wilmore 1975. '"Isokinetic vs. Isotonic Strength Training in Adult Men," Medicine and Science in Sports, 4:262-274, Rasch, P. J. 1957. "Relationship Between Maximum Isometric Tension and Maximum Isotonic Elbow Flexion," Research Quarterly, 28:85. Rasch, P. J., and W. R. Pierson 1963. "Isotonic Training and Isometric Strength," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 16:229-230. Rasch, P. J., and W. R. Pierson 1960. "Relationship Between Maximum Isometric Tension and Breaking Strength of Forearm Flexors," Research Quarterly, 31:534-535. Rasch, P. J., and W. R. Pierson 1963. "Some Relationships of Isometric Strength, Isotonic Strength, and Anthropometric Measures," Ergonomics, 6:211-236. Roebuck; J. A., Jr., K. H. E. Kroemer, and W. G. Thompson 1975. Engineering Anthropometry Methods, John Wiley & Sons (New York), PP. 77-107. Rohmert, W. 1966. Maximal Forces of Men Within the Reach Envelope of the Arms and Legs (in German). Research Rep. No. 1616 of the State of Northrhine-Westfalia, Westdeutscher Verlag Koeln-Opladen. Rohmert, W., and P. Jenik 1971. "Isometric Muscular .Strength in Women," Frontiers of Fitness, R. J. Shephard, ed., Charles C. Thomas (Springfield, Ill1.), ch. 4, pp. 79-97. Salter, N. 1955. "The Effect on Muscle Strength of Maximum Isometric and Isotonic Contractions at Different Repetition Rates," J. of Physiol., 130:109-113. Singh, Mohan, and Peter V. Karpovich 1966. "Isotonic and Isometric Forces of the Forearm Flexors and Extensors," J. of Appl. Physiol., 21:1435-1437. Snook, S. H., and V. M. Ciriello 1974. "Maximum Weights and Work Loads Acceptable to Female Workers," J. of Occupational Medicine, 16:527-534. Snook, S. H., C. H. Irvine, and S. F. Bass 1970. "Maximum Weights and Work Loads Acceptable to Male Industrial Workers," Amer. Industrial Hygiene Assoc. J., 31:579-586. VII-54 Start, K. B., et al. 1966. "A Factorial Investigation of Power, Speed, Isometric Strength and Anthropometric Measures in the Lower Limb," Research Quarterly, 37:553-559. Stothart, J. P. 1970. A Biomechanical Analysis of Static and Dynamic Muscular Contraction. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. Thordsen, Marvin L., K. H. Eberhard Kroemer, and Lloyd L. Laubach 1972. Human Force Exertions in Aircraft Control Locations (Measurement Of Maximum Isometric Forces Male Subjects Gan Exert at Six Locations of Hand Operated Aircraft Controls). AMRL-TR-71-119, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Chio. Troup, J. D. G., and A. E. Chapman 1969. "The Strength of the Flexor and Extensor Muscles of the Trunk," J. Biomechanics, 2:49-62. Van Cott, Harold P., and Robert G. Kinkade, eds., 1972. Human Engi- neering Guide to Equipment Design (revised edition), American Institute for.Research (Washington, D.C.). Whitley, Jim D., and Lawrence G. Allan 1971. "Specificity Versus Generality in Static Strength Performance: Review of the Literature," Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 52:371-375. BIBLIOGRAPHY Reynolds, Herbert M., and Mackie A. Allgood 1975. Functional Strength of Commercial Airline Stewardesses. Rep. No. FAA-AM-/5-13, Civil Aeromedical Inst. (Oklahoma City, Okla.), Federal Aviation Agency. Sharkey, B. J. 1966. "A Physiological Comparison of Static and Phasic Exercise," Research Quarterly, 37:520-531. ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES The following documents are not readily available because of limited distribution (unpublished or preliminary data). However, copies/information may be obtained by contacting the author/scurce. Lagasse, P. 1970. The Interrelationships Among Scatic Strength, Movement Time, Muscular Torque, Angular Acceleration and Angular Velocity. Unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. Webb, P., ed. 1964. Bioastronautics Data Book. NASA SP-3006. VII-55 TET 1 N79-11742 CHAPTER VIII ANTHROPOMETRY IN SIZING AND DESIGN by John T. McConville Anthropology Research Pro ject Webb Associates Knowledge of body size variability within a particular design popula- tion is of significant value if an item of clothing, personal protective equipment or work station is to be made to accommodate the users for which it is designed, The mere grasp of the facts and figures relative to varia- tions in sizes is only the beginning, however. It can hardly be stressed enough that the successful resolution of an engineering design problem de- pends on a thorough understanding of how this knowledge is used within the framework of the particular task at hand. The source of human body size di- versity and the quantification of this variability have been covered in Chap- ters II and III. In this chapter we will discuss the application of this knowledge to engineering design and outline procedures for using anthropo- metric data in the development of effective sizing programs. There are a few basic concepts that reoccur continually in anthropo- metric design problems. One is the use of the average value which may mani- fest itself in the form of an "average man.' The average (arithmetic mean, median or mode) can be computed for any measured dimension and, if the samp- ling is adequate, is an estimate of central tendency for that variable in the population. When the average is used in conjunction with some measure of variability, such as the standard deviation, it becomes a useful descrip- tive tool to specify population parameters. Because the average is a measure of the location of central tendency, it appears logical to assume that it must serve some important role in design, which indeed it does but only when handled with care. The indiscriminate and uninformed use of average values can lead to grave consequences. Lf, for example, the average value of stature is used as the design criterion for clearance of a doorway, it would soon be apparent that approximately half the potential users would not be able to walk through it without stooping. In similar fashion, if the average anthropometric values for a population were used to design or fashion a full body garment, the degree of fit for individuals would be based on how closely the body dimen- sions of those individuals approximate average values. Individuals below the mean could possibly be accommodated but the garment would fit loosely and, if they were considerably below the mean, they would be definitely ham- pered by the excess material. Individuals whose physical size falls above the mean would have a tight-fitting suit to contend with and those far above the mean would probably not even be able to get the garment on. VIII-1 It appears to be commonly assumed that an average-sized individual will be essentially average in all dimensions. This is a rather common ex- tension of the idea that body proportions are more or less constant and that a small individual is a miniature version of an average sized individual while the larger sized person is an expanded version of an average sized individual. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In a study of the concept of the average man, Churchill and Daniels (Daniels, 1952) tested the assumption that certain measurement values consti- tute the average man using ten dimensions useful in clothing design. The average was defined for purposes of the study as any value which fell within the limits of the mean 0.3 of a standard deviation rounded to the nearest whole centimeter. This means that approximately 23 to 30 percent of the popu- lation would be included as average for any one dimension. Churchill and Daniels found that of the 4,063 subjects in the study sample* 1,055 were classified, within the limits of their definition, as being of average sta- ture. In the next step, the average range of each of the nine additional selected measures were added with the following results (Table 1): TABLE 1 "THE AVERAGE MAN" Range Defining No. Percent Variable Average (cm) Included of Sample Stature 173.95 = 177.95 1055 25.97 Chest Circ 96.95 - 100.95 302 7.43 Sleeve Length 83.95 - 86.95 143 3.52 Crotch Height 81.95 - 84.95 73 1.80 Vert. Torso Circ 162.95 - 166.95 28 0.69 Hip Circ 103.95 - 108.95 12 0.30 Neck Circ 36.95 - 38.95 6 0.15 Waist Circ 78.95 - 83.95 3 0.07 Thigh Circ 54,95 - 57.95 2 0.05 Crotch Length 69,95 72.95 0 -- Thus, of the 1,055 men of "average" stature, only 302 were also of average chest circumference, of these, only 143 had average sleeve lengths and so forth. The investigators concluded that the "average man" can be "a mislead- ing and illusory concept as a basis for design criteria" and suggested that the range of variability in body dimensions is more valid than an "average" value in design solutions (Daniels, 1952). *Data from Hertzberg et al. 1954. VIII-2 The more sophisticated designer will look beyond the "average" and think in terms of a design concept which incorporates the tails of the distribution of values as well. Ideally, a designer should cover the entire range of variation in a population but in practice this can seldom be achieved successfully. A few individuals on either end of the normal curve often require so many additional sizes and/or range of adjustability in a given item that their inclusion is impractical or uneconomical. In general terms, it is almost impossible to design for more than the middle 90-95 percent of the population without compromising the effectiveness of an item of clothing, personal protective equipment, or work place layout. To illustrate the problem, one might, for example, examine the range of variability for a single dimension to demonstrate the variability associ- ated with various segments of the population distributicn. Tsing the dimension of stature (USAF 1967 anthropometric data), we find that the variability in the central half of the distribution (between the 25th and 75th percentiles) is approximately 8.4 cm. (3.3 in.); the range for the central 90 percent is 20.4 cm. (8 in.); and the total range, shortest to tallest, is 35.5 cm. (14 in.). Furthermore, the increase in variability is not linear with the distribution of subjects as is demonstrated in the following graphs (see Figures 1 and 2) for dimensions of stature and weight. The X axis in these figures denotes the percentage of the population about the mean value or 50th percentile. For example, the 10 percent designa- tion represents all those individuals who fall in the distribution between the 45th and 55th percentiles, 20 percent designates all the individuals be- tween the 40th and 60th percentiles, etc. The Y axis denotes the variability in centimeters or kilograms of measured stature or weight, respectively, for the specified groups. It is apparent from this line graph that the 10% and 20% groups =-- that portion of the population closest to average == demonstrate relatively little variability of measurement among themselves. It is also clear that while the increase in variability is relatively constant in the middle of the distribution, it increases very rapidly toward the tails. The dotted line in the graph represents the variability that would be anticipated if one extrapolated the tendency observed in the central third of the distribution values. The solid line is characteristic of the ever- steepening rate of variability which is associated not only with stature and weight but with other body measurements as they move toward the tails of the distribution. Because of this non-linearity, it is general practice to seek a design solution for that part of the population which constitutes the central 90 to 95 percent of the total and largely to disregard the extreme values in the distribution. In fact, it is often found that when a design is success- ful for the design population, it will also accommodate a portion of the in- dividuals who lie beyond the design limits although seldom, if ever, will such a solution accommodate all potential users without some custom fabrica- tion or modification. . VIII-3 w on 4 v ers) 30+ Variability (centimet o 104 Ww 2 3 4 so e 70 8 9% 100 Percent of Population About the Mean Value Figure 1. Stature variability by percentile groups. oT 60 «+ Variability (kilograms) Ww Ed wn o o o ~n o + — o A v 0 20 30 4 sO 6 70 8 9 100 Percent of Population About the Mean Value Figure 2. Weight variability by percentile groups. VIII-4 While this concept of design limits is widely held and is in some ways extremely useful, it has acquired some unfortunate interpretations. We find, for example, that the 5th and 95th percentile values from the design popula- tion have become accepted as the only operating design values for accommoda- tion of those portions of the population and the dimensional values have be- come formulated as the 5th and 95th percentile body form, head form, etc. Designers have then worked to design to the size or shape variance in these forms with the idea that by so doing they would accommodate in their design all the possible combinations of body size and shape that fall within these limits. The reservations which apply to the "average man" are, if anything, intensified in dealing with the 5th and 95th percentile form. Not only are the percentile forms unrealized in nature, but they are statistically impos=- sible. The problem is illustrated in Table 2. To create this table, based on data from Clauser et al. (1972), we divided the human body into fourteen vertical segments and obtained the 95th percentile value for each vertical distance. Adding these values together, we get a stature of 202.2 cm. (79.6 in.), almost a full foot (30 cm.) greater than the 95th percentile for sta- ture and some 19.2 cm. larger than the tallest subject measured in the survey sample of 1,905 women. TABLE 2 95TH PERCENTILES--AFW HEIGHT SEGMENTS Floor to lateral malleolus level Lateral malleolus level to ankle level Ankle level to tibiale level s Tibiale level to gluteal furrow level Gluteal furrow level to crotch level Crotch level to buttock level Buttock level to trochanteric level Trochanteric level to abdominal exten- sion level Abdominal extension level to waist level Waist level to bustpoint level Bustpoint level to acromial level Acromial level to suprasternale level Suprasternale level to cervicale level Cervicale level to vertex * OL = 00 00 = w Ww Woup po _N oe . . . . . oe pro oOYH OW . Nl ~~ 0O go ND oN Total - While Table 2 demonstrates only what occurs with linear measurements of the body, it is possible to speculate what the use of all 95th percentile breadths, depths and circumferences would mean in terms of body volume and the resulting weight. VIII-5 One may well ask, then, how 5th and 95th design forms were ever con- structed. The answer 1s that they are inevitably a mixture of percentile values, some specified and others left to fall as they must to permit assem- bly into a two- or three-dimensional form. For example, if the stature and sitting height (or torso length) are both held to the 95th percentile values, the leg .length must of necessity be disproportionately short. The resulting forms are so strikingly unrealistic as to cause serious doubt about their usefulness (Searle and Haslegrave, 1969, 1970). Nevertheless, such forms often become established as the 5th or 95th percentile "standard" and are widely used for design applications whether or not they are particularly appropriate for a specific solution. ‘ The foregoing is not meant to imply that the concept of 5th and 95th percentile values are worthless as designers' tools but to point out some of their obvious limitations. In a recent paper, McConville and Churchill (1976) focused on the 5th and 95th percentile body forms and recommended an improved approach to the portrayal of body size of these segments of the population for use by designers. In this report, a statistical analysis was made of the tails of the height-weight distribution to demonstrate the usefulness of subgroup or regression values for body design dimensions. The authors suggest that, for many design purposes, regression values be used since these values would maintain the statistical integrity of the data while at the same time portraying the ends of the distribution more accurately than is presently done with the 5th and 95th percentile data. The mean, the standard deviation and the various percentiles are impor=- tant and usable statistics both for descriptive and design purposes but they must be used with care and they decidedly cannot be used as the sole basis for solutions to large-scale design problems. What then is a more useful approach in designing to accommodate the body sizes of various potential users? There are essentially four general methods which have been used. The simplest but least satisfactory approach is that of limiting the body size range to fit the design product. Prior to World War II, for example, it was recommended that Army Air Force fighter pilots be limited to 70 inches in stature and 180 pounds in weight in order to gain maximum performance from fighter aircraft. For a period prior to World War II, stature of pilots was actually restricted to 68 inches (Randall et al. 1946). With the heavy demands for aircrews after the entry of the United States in World War II, the size limits for pilot selection were drastically expanded in complete disregard for the limited body size criteria which had been used in the design of the cockpits and work stations of the aircraft then in service. The staggering problems that resulted from this mismatch and the work carried out in their solution by the newly formed Army Air Force Anthropology Group has been documented by Randall et al. (1946). This type of design solution, sometimes still used as an expedient, often proves to be no solution at all where extensive redesign and retro-fit are later required. VIII-6 A second method is simply to design the clothing and workspace around the individuals who will occupy them. This was done in the NASA Mercury pro- gram in which the actual body sizes of crew members dictated the design lim- itse Much of the clothing, personal life support items and workspace were custom tailored to the individual crew members. This approach should, of course, provide the ultimate in good fit but it is also the most expensive procedure and the least flexible. While both of the above-mentioned design concepts result in a high de- gree of fit, they are both also inflexible and impractical for all but very special applications, in the first instance highly wasteful of potential human resources and in the second, profligate in the use of material resources, What is needed is a practical approach to designs which must potentially accommodate a population both numerous and various. Two such approaches are described below; one is used to accomodate the variation in body size of a diverse user population in the design of clothing and personal protective equipment while the other is most often used in the development of workstations. Clothing and Personal Protective Equipment The method probably most familiar to everyone is the development of sizing systems in which a user population is analyzed and subsequently divid- ed into subgroups of users similar in certain body size dimensions. The more alike the subgroup of persons are in body size, the more satisfactorily they will be fitted by a single-size article, and the less the adjustability or tolerance the designer must provide. Differences in average values, from size to size, while they must be known and taken into account, are of minor impor- tance; it is the variation in a frequently large number of dimensions within the men who make up a single size group which is important. Control of this range of variations is the major goal in the development of a sizing program. The major steps in developing an effective anthropometric sizing pro=- . gram are as follows: 1. Selection of the appropriate data for analysis. 2. Selection of the key or basic sizing dimensions. 3. Selection of intervals for the key dimension which will establish the sizing categories. 4. Developing for each sizing category all other dimensional data which would be of use in the design or sizing of the item. 5. Conversion of the summary data to an appropriate design value for the end item in terms of fit and function. 6. Establishment of estimates of the sizing tariff (i.e., the propor- tion of the population that fall within the limits of each size category) for manufacture of the end item. VIII-7 STEP ONE: Selection of the Appropriate Data This first step is critical but often difficult. It may be, in many instances, that the desired target population has not been described anthro- pometrically or that the data are not available or that they are inadequate for design purposes. It is then incumbent upon the designer either to collect the necessary data or to utilize from existing data that which most closely matches the design population under consideration. In Chapter III the sources of human variation are discussed. With this background, it is often possible to select knowledgeably from existing anthropometric surveys those data which best reflect the body size variability of the design populations. For example, a new state law might require the use of respirators by vocational education students learning automotive body repair and painting. Such an item may not be commercially available and it is likely that anthro- pometric data for this group is totally nonexistent. This does not mean that a full-scale anthropometric survey of vocational education students must be launched before designing and fabricating appropriate protective masks. The knowledge that this design group is predominantly male, of mixed ethnic origins, and ranges in age from 16 to 19 years gives us enough information to initially characterize the facial size of the design group. A sample for study from one of the military surveys of the anthropometry of young basic trainees would serve as a good starting pointe. STEP TWO: Selection of the Kev Sizing Dimensions This step is also of critical importance yet the choice of key sizing dimensions is seldom, if ever, clear cut. The basic dimensions should (1) be those which can be conveniently measured, (2) be an integral part of the fabrication of the end item, and (3) have a high degree of correlation with ‘the other dimensions which are important to the design of the item. If a series of variables all have the necessary attributes, the selec- tion of a key dimension may depend on which of the variables exercises the maximum control over the other measures of size. Here we are referring to the degree of relationship among variables which is quantified by a statistic known as the correlation coefficient. The higher the correlation coefficient of the key variable with the other design parameters, the more efficient is our sizing program. Key or sizing dimensions for common items of ordinary clothing are often intuitively rather than statistically selected. The key dimensions for a dress shirt are normally neck circumference and sleeve length (spine to wrist length) or, for men's slacks, waist circumference and leg inseam length. Clothing is thus designed to "fit" these body dimensions but will otherwise "fit" only to the degree that the individual conforms to the stan- dards used for the other dimensions that go into the garment. In recent years many manufacturers of clothing have added additional garments in each size and termed these as tapered, regular, full cut, robust, etc. to allow indi- viduals to select a garment size which conforms more closely to their actual overall body size. VIII-8 In practice, this system works reasonably well for the loosely-fitting garments which make up the bulk of an individual's wardrobe. In the develop- ment of flight clothing, however, especially personal protective clothing and equipment, this approach may prove to be inadequate and extensive modifi- cation of the garments might be required to prevent compromising the functions for which the garments were designed. One solution to the problem of poor fit would be the sizing of a gar- ment on the basis of all its most critical dimensions. A dress shirt, for example, sized on the basis of neck circumference and sleeve length, may require five sleeve lengths for each neck size. If five neck sizes are also required, then a total of 25 shirt sizes are required in order to adequately fit the variability in body size of the using population. If there were some need for the shirt to fit the chest and waist girth as well, the number of sizes would increase radically. Even if only four chest sizes and four waist sizes were required, the total number of sizes would be five times five times four times four, or a total of 400 sizes to clothe a given population. Need- less to say, such a solution is economically unfeasible. It is interesting to note, however, that 69 sizes of a single dress shirt are offered in a recent mail order catalogue and this garment is sized solely on neck circum- ference and sleeve length. The sizing of protective clothing and equipment is considerably more complex than the sizing of dress shirts. Instead of two critical dimensions, there are often many critical dimensions: instead of 25 or 50 sizes, economics’ and logistics limit the number of sizes to a dozen or fewer. Thus, the selection of the key dimensions becomes a problem requiring subtle and skillful handling. It is instructive to look at this process as outlined by Emanuel et al. (1959) who developed an anthropometric sizing program for high altitude protective clothing (full and partial pressure suits). They made an analysis of UeSe Air TForce anthropometric data to determine the combinations of key dimensions which would minimize to the greatest degree the variability of the other dimensions needed in the design of the garment. Some fifteen pairs of dimensions were tested. These included height and weight, stature and vertical trunk circumference, sleeve length and chest circumference, among others. The paired body dimensions were deliberately chosen to combine a body length and a body girth because of the high relationship among the vari- ous body length measurements and the correspondingly high relationship among the body girths and weight. This is not to say that lengths and girths corre- late well with each other. In fact, the level of relationship between the two key dimensions in any pair need not be strong as long as cone or another of these variables has a high relationship with all the other anthropometric design variables. Emanuel et al. (1959) tested the level of relationship by computing the multiple correlation coefficient (R) of each pair with all other anthro- pometric dimensions of interest in clothing design and comparing the results. They found that some 58% of the dimensions had 'R's as high or higher with the pair, height and weight, as with any other combination of key dimensions VIII-9 testeds In addition, height and weight were found to have the highest level of relationship overall with the circumferences which are of particular importance in clothing design. They therefore concluded that the key dimensions of height and weight were optimal for their particular purpose. STEP THREE: Selection of Intervals for the Key Dimensions A series of considerations may be involved in selecting intervals of the key dimensions to determine the width of the sizing category. The number of sizes for a particular end item may already be specified, the maximum permissible width of a sizing category in terms of the key dimensions may be specified, or the possible range of adjustability within the end item may be a consideration. The material that the garment will be made of, the cut of the garment, whether the end item must fit snugly or loosely, whether it must be a single-piece coverall or a combination blouse and trouser suit all enter into the picture in establishing the sizing intervals. At some point, a decision will be made about the trade-offs among the various design considerations and the sizing category intervals will be established. The primary consideration in any such decision will be to offer a good "fit" for the maximum number of users with the fewest number of sizes in the system. We specify the maximum number of users because it is often impossible to fit all potential users with a specific item. There will usually be some individuals who cannot be accommodated by any item designed to the normal population variance because of physical deformities or because they fall at the extremes of the distribution with regard to size and shape. An effective sizing and design scheme, however, will keep the size of this disaccommodated group to the absolute minimum. In the height-weight sizing system discussed by Emanuel et al. (1959), a total of five sizing programs were described--a six-, an eight-, a nine- and two twelve-size schemes. The authors pointed out that selection of a particular sizing program required a thorough evaluation of the design prob- lem at hand. The six-size program had, in general, the largest within-a-size standard deviations and the twelve-size program the smallest. In general, they found, as might be expected, that the larger the number of sizes, the larger the percent of the population that is covered in the sizing scheme. In addition, the increase in the number of sizes has the effect of increasing the overlap between sizes for most dimensions. This bas a very practical appeal as it theoretically provides the assurance of obtaining a good fit when it becomes necessary to upgrade or downgrade from an individual's indi- cated size. There are, however, some very real limits which are reached which cannot be overcome by the addition of sizes. The overall homogeneity of the individuals within a sizing category selected from one or two key dimensions cannot be infinitely improved by the addition of sizes. At some point the minimum level of within-group vari- ance will be approached for all the body dimensions and even by doubling or tripling the number of sizes this level of within-group or within-size variance remains essentially constant. This is a function of the less than VIII-10 perfect relationship that the body dimensions have with the key dimensions by which the individuals in the sizing group are selected. If all the body dimensions used in a sizing analysis correlated perfectly then the break down of sizing groups could theoretically continue indefinitely until one would arrive at a size category which contained individuals of 175 cme. in height and 80 kg. in weight all of whose body dimensions such as sleeve length, waist circumference, etc. would be identical. Table 3, taken from Emanuel et al. illustrates an eight-size height- weight program. Each bivariate cell contains a tabulation of all the indivi- duals in the survey who fall within a specific six-pound increment of weight and 0.8 inch increment of stature. The eight-size program categories, bounded by the heavy dark lines, are comprised of four weight categories each with two categories of height. The fitting table (Table 4) for this eight-size program ic as follows: TABLE 4 EIGHT-SIZE HEIGHT-WEIGHT PROGRAM Size Weight Range Height Range (1bs.) (in.) Small Regular 125-149 63.0-67.5 Small Long 125-149 67.5-72.0 Medium Regular Sn 150-174 64.5-69.0 Medium Long 150-174 69.0-73.5 Large Regular 175-199 66.0-70.5 Large Long 175-199 70.5-75.0 X-Large Regular 200-224 67.5-72.0 X-Large Long 200-224 72.0-76.5 Each weight category (Small, Medium, Large and X-Large) contains a 25 pound increment of body weight and each length category a 4.5 inch incre- ment of height. The systematic placement of the sizing intervals on the bi- variate distribution was designed to include the maximum number of indivi- duals in the sizing categories: in this instance some 94 percent of the sample fell into one or the other 3f the eight sizing categories. When the interval of the size categories was reduced from 4.5 inches to 3.0 inches, and the number of categories increased from eight to 12, the coverage of the population remained the same (94%) and the average standard deviation for the body dimension useful to the designer was not appreciably reduced. This indicates that the subjects who fell within any single sizing category were almost as variable in body size in the eight-size system as in the twelve-size system and whatever gain was achieved must be weighed against a 50 percent increase in sizes that would have to be produced in the 12-size system. VIII-11 CI-1IIIA 227 - 232 221 - 226 215 - 220 209 - 214 203 - 208 197 - 202 191 - 196 185 - 19% 179 - 184 173 - 178 167 - 172 161 - 166 133 mm 125 - 10 119 - 124 113 - 118 Totals 62.2 63.0 63.8 64.5 65.3 TABLE 3 EIGHT-SIZE HEIGHT-WEIGHT BIVARIATE FROM EMANUEL ET AL. 1959 66.1 7.1 1 70.8 | 71.6 1 72.4 2 ISRO N Vd 7 ‘0 Once again, the decision that must be made can only be made with the fit and function of the end item in mind and its relationship matched to the user population. STEP FOUR: Development of Dimensional Data for Each Sizing Category After. the sizing categories are specified as to interval and number, we move to the fourth step of our sequence. Here all subjects within each of the sizing categories are treated as a sub-population and summary statis- tics are prepared for each variable to be included in the analysis. Referring again to the bivariate table (Table 3), the sizing category at the lower left is the size designated as Small-Regular and consists of all individuals in the sample who are between 125-149 pounds in weight and are also between 63.0 and 67.5 inches in height. Of the 4025 individuals in the survey, some 426 (10.58 percent) fell within this sizing interval. This group is then treated statistically as a sizing subsample. It next be- comes necessary to select a group of relevant body dimensions for analysis in order to zero in more accurately on the sizing requirements of each siz- ing subsample. The body dimensions of interest are those which will conceiv- ably be of use to the designer in developing the items of clothing or personal protective equipment. If the item is a full-face respirator, the relevant variables are measurements of the head and face; elaborate sizing analysis of torso girths and appendage lengths are neither warranted nor of any particular value. In Emanuel's study of high altitude protective clothing, some 53 variables, predominantly circumferences and body surface measurements, were selected for analysis. The mean and standard deviation is computed for each body dimension of interest for each sizing subgroup. For reasons relating to sampling sta- bility, the sizing category standard deviations are, in effect, averaged to provide, for each dimension, a single within-a-size standard deviation. With these statistics at hand, we can move to the fifth step of the analysis. STEP FIVE: Conversion of Summary Data to Appropriate Design Values The design value is a single numerical value for each variable that is meaningful in the design of a given item. The waist girth design value may be the upper limit of the waist in each size category as it must be large enough to fit around the largest waist in that group while the design value for an elasticized wrist closure may be the category mean minus two standard deviations so it will be small enough to seal the sleeve of the person having the smallest wrist circumference. The proper design value thus relates to a functional property of the design rather than to a statistical function. ' VIII-13 The design value can be any combination of the mean + some increment of the within-a-size standard deviation. In the Emanuel et al. study, the design range was established to be the category mean +1.5 standard devia- tions. These design values would thus accommodate the central 87 percent of the individuals that fell within any one height-weight size. They concluded that an additional 8% of the subjects would be fitted by upgrading and downgrading from the indicated size so that a total of 95 percent of the population would be expected to be accommodated. Their primary concern was, however, for the circumferences and breadths, depths and surface dimensions of the body. The placement of the joints, such as in a pressure suit, should not be based upon the design ranges but on the size category mean value. In other design problems the design values may be a combination of upper and lower design values again depending upon fit and function of the end item. In a recent study by McConville and Alexander (1975), the design values of a new oral-nasal sizing program and face forms were established. The length of the face, for example, was established as a mid-point of a sizing category range and the proportion of the upper and lower face developed from regression equations based upon the value of the face length used. The projection of the nose, nose breadth, lip length, and lip protrusion were established as the size mean plus 1.65 or 2.0 standard deviations (95th or 97.7th percentile value respectively) since these are facial dimensions that must be cleared by the main part or internal sealing edge of the facepiece. The design values for facial breadths were established as the sizing category mean minus 1.0 within-a-size standard deviations (a value equivalent to approximately the 16th percentile) based on the logic that the external sealing edge of the facepiece must not be so wide as to extend beyond the limits of the narrower faces. The design values are, of course, based on the purpose of the end item and how best to accommodate the variance within the sizing subgroup. It again requires a knowledge of how the end item must function to be effective. STEP SIX: Preparation of a Tariff In essence a tariff is a schedule showing the number of each size of an item that is necessary to outfit the user population. If, for example, we found as Emanuel et al. did, that the Small-Regular category contained 12.7% of the total number of subjects included in all eight sizing categories, then the best estimate for production of that size item would be some 12.7% of the total production run. Fit-Testing This completes the anthropometric design analysis but does not in any way signal the end of participation in the developmental program. The final validation or proof of the success of the design lies in establishing that the end item fits and performs up to design standards. This is normally VIII-14 established by a fit-test in which the prototype items are tested on a sample of subjects drawn from the user population. A number of such fit-tests have been described (Barter and Alexander, 1956; Emanuel, Alexander and Churchill, 1959; McConville and Alexander, 1975). A fit-test of an oral-nasal oxygen mask is described in McConville and Alexander, 1975. Sixty-six subjects, crew members from the 17th Bombardment Wing, SAC, were measured for six facial dimensions and fitted in their indi- cated mask sizes; a quantitative leak rate was established at five pressure settings and a subjective evaluation was made of the fit, comfort, wearabili- ty and compatibility with the helmet/visor, eyeglasses, etc. The fit-test sample was found to be representative of the USAF flying population in terms of the six facial dimensions measured and adequate in the range of facial sizes for the purposes of the test. A quantitative leak rate was established for each subject in his indicated size mask. Eight subjects were also tested in alternate sizes as they fell at the extreme end of a sizing interval in their key or fitting facial dimension. Comments were solicited from each test subject at the end of the test regarding the fit, comfort and suitability of the mask for flight operators. The results of the fit-test and subject comments appeared to validate the dimensionsal sizing of the oral- nasal facepiece. A comparable fit-test should always be conducted as soon as it is fea- sible. In addition, when possible, a limited production run of the item should be placed in service by users in the actual work condition and evaluated for a reasonable period of time. It is often only at this point that deficiencies in the design become apparent. Work Station Design The fourth of the anthropometric design approaches mentioned at the beginning of this chapter is the one most often used in the development of work stations, a generalized category that includes desks, consoles, cock- pits, driver compartments, etc. The goal of this design approach is the same as in the previous example--the optimum accommodation of the body size vari- ance of the potential user population--but the method differs. Rather than developing a sizing program and a range of sizes, the technique here is to build a range of adjustability into the item or work station that will successfully accommodate the body size variance. The method used in developing the anthropometric design data will depend in a very large part on the particular equipment or work station involved. Of utmost importance is a comprehensive understanding of the function of the equipment and the relationship of the operator to the equipment. As in the previous example, the approach can be outlined in a series of steps as follows: 1. Determine the characteristics of the potential user population and select the appropriate anthropometric data base for analysis. 2. Establish what the equipment must do for the user (form, function and interaction). VIII-15 3. Select the principal interface of the user with the equipment. 4. Establish the anthropometric design values’ to be used in fabrica- tion. 5. Design and evaluate a mock-up and revise design as necessary. STEP ONE: Selection of the Appropriate Date See Step One in the previous section. STEP TWO: Establish What the Equipment Must Do for the Operator Consider the requirements in the design of a fighter aircraft cockpit. The cockpit encloses and supports the pilot. It must, therefore, include a seat which is large enough to accommodate the pilot with all his clothing and necessary personal protective equipment. The arm rests must be suffici- ently separated and high enough to enclose and support the arms during ejection so that they will not be caught in the cockpit or injured by windblast. All controls manipulated by the arms and legs should be placed within reach of the pilot, or the seat should adjust so that all controls are brought within reach, but the ejection envelope must be free of impingement. Any obstructions to vision must be minimal. The canopy clearance fore and aft and side-to-side must be large enough to allow the pilot to enter and leave the cockpit. Furthermore, the canopy must allow the taller pilot to sit in a proper position without fear of bumping his head. In order that each of these requirements be met, the relationships between the cockpit and the user population should be analyzed in such a way that specific anthropometric dimensions can be applied to specific requirements. For most engineering purposes, body dimensions which are maximum straightline distances between extremes of body segments are needed (the so- called workplace dimensions). Such dimensions include body lengths, breadths (side-to-side diameters), and depths (fore and aft diameters). A number of anthropometric measurements may be used in the design of the seat. The seat pan dimensions can be derived from the seated hip breadth and the buttock-popliteal length. The seat arm rest position can be deter- mined from the dimensions elbow-rest height and seat back dimensions from shoulder breadth and perhaps shoulder height/sitting. The clearance envelope is related to elbow-to-elbow breadth and buttock-knee length. If the canopy is to clear all potential pilots, the dimension of sitting height becomes relevant. It should be relatively obvious to any design engineer that an adequate sitting height clearance for the user population must be an integral part of any cockpit design. Yet in a recent study Cressman (1972) found that cer- tain deficiencies in the KIOWA helicopter limited the size of the aircrew who could use it. Cressman found, for instance, that men who were more than 96 cm. (37.8 in.) in sitting height (approximately 15% of the user population) lacked adequate head room and that an estimated additional 20% would have inadequate clearances for leg length and body breadths--enough to VIII-16 affect their safety and efficiency in flight. Numerous dimensions can be shown to be of aid in specifying cockpit design values. These dimensions are, however, for the nude or lightly clothed individual and adjustments for increase in body size due to clothing and equipment must be made (Alexander, Laubach, McConville (1976)). At the con- clusion of this step, a good working knowledge of the relevant body dimensions involved in the design will be achieved. \ STEP THREE: Select Principal User/Equipment Interface The next step is to apply the dimensional data in some systematic fash- ion to establish the overall anthropometric design. This can be done by determination of the principal interface between the user and the equipment and use of this as a reference or design point for tne initial layout of a workplace. A rather obvious interface for a typewriter console would be the keyboard and the design reference point the geometric center of the keyboard. In other design problems, the interface and reference point may be far from clear. : In cockpit design, a theoretical point designated as the design eye point, or eye reference point, is generally accepted as the design datum. The reasoning here is that vision requirements are critical for a pilot and the interface of the crewmen with the work station must take cognizance of this essential requirement first and foremost. This eye point is a theoreti=- cally optimum crewman's eye position and, as it lies in three-dimensional space removed from an actual physical surface of the aircraft, poses some practical difficulties in actual use. It is often the practice, therefore, to relate this design datum to a second "hard" point which lies at the mid- dle of the intersection of the seat back and seat pan called the seat refer- ence point. This design point can be further specified as the neutral seat reference point (NSRP) which would be the midpoint in vertical seat height adjustability in a vertical plane design to accommodate the range of sitting eye height in the design population. In aircraft with ejection seats, there may be no fore and aft adjustment possible but in other design situations, the supporting seat may include a range of adjustability to permit the user to select the correct placement of the seat relative to the control surfaces. Automobile seats, in general, lack vertical adjustability but provide hori- zontal adjustability. Aircraft passenger seats lack both but do generally have seat back tilt adjustability. STEP FOUR: Establish the Anthropometric Design Values Once the interface has been established, workspace layout can proceed on the basis of the body size variability of the design population and other relevant factors such as arm reach and leg reach capabilities, permissible head and eye movement, strength capabilities, range of joint motion, and so forth. As noted in the previous discussion, the proper design values to be used relate to function and the anticipated interaction between the user VIII-17 and the work station environment. In establishing the vertical seat adjustment, for example, the users’ seated eye height is of relevance. The range of adjustment must be sufficient to allow the eyes of persons having a range of sitting heights to reach the eye reference point. Let us assume that the USAF flying population is the target population and the design requirement is to accommodate the body size variance from the 5th to the 95th percentile. The most current data for the target population would be those found in the 1967 USAF survey of rated air- crewmen. The data show that the mean sitting eye height for aircrewmen was 80.95 cm. with the 5th and 95th percentile values at 76.1 cm. and 86.1 cm. respectively. The vertical range of adjustability would thus be 10 cm. and the neutral seat reference point would be located approximately 81 cm. below the level of the eye reference point. This example is rather simplified as we have disregarded in our discussion factors such as torso slump, seat back angle, etc., which must also be taken into account by the designer. For other design values either the upper (95th percentile) or lower (5th percentile) value might be needed. The fore and aft length of the Seat pan must be short enough so as not to interfere with the calf of users hav- ing shorter thigh lengths. This dimension is then governed by the lower an- thropometric limit. The seat pan breadth however must accommodate the upper limit of sitting hip breadths to assure that larger potential users can phy- sically get into the seating space. The development of the anthropometric design values is thus an application of the anthropometry of the user popula- tion to an excellent working knowledge of how the user functions and inter- faces with the work station. At this point in the design, attention must be directed primarily to the development of the body envelope that is, the clearance needed to accom- modate the actual physical size of the potential users in the design popula- tion. After this, the functional body size envelope is established. A designer must take care to see that an individual at a work station has adequate room to move around without being constrained by the work station itself. The need to shift body position from the upright posture in which it was originally measured to a more comfortable resting posture must not be overlooked. The body size variability now interacts with joint range data to provide guidance in establishing the functional envelope. If, for example, an operator removes his hands from the control surface and places them on his chest to adjust a harness, the elbows are rotated out and behind the elbow rest and seat back. This area is then part of the functional body envelope and can be infringed upon only at the risk of losing comfort and efficiency for the operator. Various graphic design aids are often used to establish the body size and functional operations envelope of the design population and to develop and evaluate the workspace layout on the drawing board. Two-dimensional draw- ing board manikins are routinely used in the preliminary drawing of a work- space layout. These manikins range from rather simple cardboard cutouts, often with fixed limb orientation, to extremely sophisticated scale 2-D models with simulated human movement characteristics. Kennedy (1975, 1976) JIII-18 developed a family of drafting board manikins for crew station design in USAF systems. These are described and patterns actually provided in Chapter III of this handbook. Designers have also developed three-dimensional scale models either as anthropomorphic dummies (Hertzberg, 1969) or three-dimensional plastic templates (Carlyle, 1960). Such models require the construction of scale and actual size physical mock-ups which are expensive and time consuming. More recently computer simulations have been developed and are being refined to simulate, in three-dimensional space, an anthropometric variable man model in a realistic cockpit or work station geometry. Kroemer (1972) has described the evolution of these models, initially little more than stick men, to the sophisticated and functional analogues such as BOEMAN and COMBIMAN. The lat- ter, an acronym for computerized biomechanical man-model, is a computer interactive graphic simulation developed for work station design (McDaniel, 1976) « COMBIMAN is a three-dimensional variable geometric model that can be viewed from any angle. The man-model is constructed initially of 33 links which correspond functionally to the human skeletal system. The link dimensions are variables used as inputs to the model and thus can duplicate size and proportion as desired to depict a specific population. Each link has a local coordinate system attached to its distal end to provide a realistic range of joint mobility. The link system is fleshed out by a series of ellipsoids each having a height and breadth consistent with the surface dimensions of the joint. The ellipses are then joined with tangential lines which are drawn separately for each viewing angle to reduce the clutter around the man model. Using either the keyboard or light pen, a designer can define a series of control/display panels around the man model and by connecting them create the geometry of the workspace. This can then be evaluated by calling up a variety of man models with variable dimensions to determine the interaction with the created workspace in terms of arm, leg reach, ejection clearance, vision interface, etc. In the future, widespread use of the computer analogue can be expected in the design of control/display panels and layout of work stations. STEP FIVE: Design and Evaluate a Mock-Up The final but crucial step is to mock up the work station and begin the final evaluation of the adequacy of the design for the ultimate users. The true test of any design is how well it meets the need of the user population and whether it accommodates the body size variance of the design group for whom it was intended. Some modification can be made at this point in the design. If the design process has been conducted from the beginning with the functioning needs and the size variability of the operator in mind, such modification will be minimal and the workspace will be well-matched in all its aspects to the capabilities of its ultimate users. This brief introduction to the use of anthropometry in sizing and design is in no sense meant as a blueprint. It is, rather, a framework which VIII-19 outlines the principles and processes to be followed in the application of anthropometric data to sizing and design problems. The reader has been alerted to common pitfalls and misconceptions surrounding the uses and misuses of anthropometric data and, it is hoped, will have gained some understanding of how to approach sizing and design problems practically, knowledgeably and efficiently. For a fuller treatment of the subject, the reader is referred to the excellent work by Roebuck et al. (1975), Engineering Anthropometry Methods, a comprehensive 459-page manual which details methods for measuring and applying data on human body dimensions and strength to the engineering design of workspaces, clothing and equipment. VIII-20 REFERENCES Alexander, Milton, L. L. Laubach, and J. T. McConville 1976. Effect of Encumbering Clothing, Personal Protective Equipment and Restraints on Body Size and Arm Reach Capability of USAF Aircrewmen. Pre- print of the 19/6 Aerospace/Medical Assoc. Annual Meeting, Bal - Harbor, Fla. Barter, J. T., and Milton Alexander 1956. A Sizing System for High Altitude Gloves. WADC-TR-56-599, Aero Medical Laboratory, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Clauser, Charles E., Pearl E. Tucker, Joan A. Reardon, John T. McConville, et al. 1972. Anthropometry of Air Force Women. AMRL- TR-70-5, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Cressman, P. W. 1972. Anthropometric Survey of COHS58A 'Kiowa' Helico ter. Technical Memo No. 8/9, Delense and Civil Institute Of Envi- ronmental Medicine, Dept. of Defense, Downsview, Canada. Daniels, Gilbert S., and Edmund Churchill 1952. The "Average Man"? Technical Note WCRD TN 53-7, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Emanuel, Irvin, Milton Alexander, Edmund Churchill, and Bruce Truett 1959. A Height-Wei ht Sizing System for Flight Clothing. WADC- TR-56365, Wright T Development ee Ret Air Force Base, Ohio. Hertzberg, H. T. E., G. S. Daniels, and Edmund Churchill 1954. Anthropometry of Flying Personnel - 1950. WADC-TR-52-321, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Hertzberg, H. T. E. 1969. "The Anthropology of Anthropomorphic Dummies (Anthropology of Anthromorphic Crash Dummies for Use in Vehicle Crash Tests),'" Proceedings of the Thirteenth Stapp Car Conference, Boston; also published as AMRL-TR-69-61, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Kennedy, K. W. 1976. Estimating Relaxed Tolerance to +G's Acceleration Through the Use of Drawing Board Manikins. Preprints of the 19/6 Aerospace Medical Assoc. Meeting, Bal Harbor, Fla. Kroemer, K. H. Eberhard 1972. COMBIMAN - Computerized Biomechanical Man Model. AMRL-TR-72-16, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. McConville, John T., and Milton Alexander 1975. "Anthropometric Sizing Program for Oral-Nasal Oxygen Masks Based on 1967 U.S. Air Force Survey Data," Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 46(11):1383-1389. VIII-21 McConville, John T., and Edmund Churchill 1976. Statistical Concepts in Design. AMRL-TR-76-29, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, WrTEht Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. McDaniel, J. W. 1976. "Computerized Biomechanical Man-Model," Proceed- ings of the 6th Congress of the Int. Ergonomics Assn., College Park, Md., pp. 3JB54-389. Randall, Francis E., Albert Damon, Robert S. Benton, and Donald I. Patt 1946. Human Body Size in Military Aircraft and Personal Equip- ment. AAF-TK-5501, Army Air Force, Wright Field, Dayton Ohio. Roebuck, J. A., Jr., K. H. E. Kroemer, and W. G. Thomson 1975. Engineering Anthropometry Methods, John Wiley and Sons (New York, + Yi7 Searle, J. A., and C. M. Haslegrave 1969. "Anthropometric Dummies for Crash Research," MIRA Bulletin (Motor Industry Research Assoc., England), 5:25-30. Searle, J. A., and C. M. Haslegrave 1970. "Reply by the Authors of the Original Article," MIRA Bulletin (Motor Industry Research Assoc., England), 4:20-21. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, Milton, R. S. Zeigen, and Irvin Emanuel 1961. "Anthropometric Data Presented in Three-Dimensional Forms," Amer. J. Phvs. Anthrop., 19(2):147-157. McConville, John T., Milton Alexander, and Seth M. Velsey 1963. Anthropometric Data in Three-Dimensional Form: USAF Height-Weight Sizing Manikins. AMRL-TDR-63-55, Aerospace Er rey Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Zeigen, Robert S., Milton Alexander, and Edmund Churchill 1960. A Head Circumference. Sizing _ System for Helmet LE Bas Three-Dimensional Presentation of Anthropometric Data. WADD-TR- 60-631, Wrignt Air Development Division, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. ADDITIONAL DATA SOURCES The following documents are not readily available because of limited distribution (unpublished or preliminary data). However, copies/information may be obtained by contacting the author/source: Carlyle, L. 1960. Man and Space. Engineering Paper No. 899, Douglas Aircraft Co., Los Angeles, Calif. VIII-22 Kennedy, K. W. 1975. New USAF Drawing Board Manikins for Crew Station Design. Preprint of the 19/5 Aerospace Medical Assn. Meeting, San Francisco, Calif. VIII-23 CHAPTER IX STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MAN-MACHINE DESIGNS by Edmund Churchill Anthropology Research Project Webb Associates Large portions of this handbook are statistical in nature--numbers pure and simple, or the results of analyses of statistical materials, or discussions about and suggestions for solving problems which call for the use and interpretation of statistics. A full use of this book--or any similar collection of anthropometric information--will require some acquaintance with the language of statistics and some skill in extracting from the wealth of material presented here--both explicitly and implicitly--that which is most relevant to a given problem. Most users of this handbook already have such an acquaintance and, in varying degrees, such a skill. Nonetheless, it seems appropriate to review the statistical concepts which occur over and over again in this book and to touch on some of the statistical problems which typically con- front the individuals for whom this book was prepared. This we shall do in this chapter. The statistical concepts discussed here will be few in number and, in the main, these few will be discussed within the context of the material included in this book and the use of this material in design problems. Initially, we shall define the basic univariate statistical measures: averages, measures of variability, and percentiles. The relationship between percentiles and mean-standard deviation combinations will be explored and tables detailing this relationship will be presented. A brief section on the interrelationships among anthropometric vari- ables will deal with the simple bivariate and multivariate statistics. These statistics will "include the correlation coefficient as a measure of the intensity of the relationship between two variables, the regression equation as a technique for predicting or estimating the value of one dimen- sion on the basis of one or more other anthropometric variables, and the standard error of estimate as a measure of the accuracy of such estimates. Our discussion will center on these statistics as they relate to pairs of wvariables, but brief comments will be included about the statistics as they apply to combinations of three, four, or more variables. An analysis of the distribution of almost 8,000 correlation coefficients from the Air Force Women's Survey of 1968 is included to provide some insight into whe- ther--and to what extent--such coefficients tend to be large or small. IX-1 The ''mormal" distribution will be discussed as a mathematical model for most anthropometric data. The use of this model in the univariate case will have been anticipated in our discussion of the relationship between the mean, the standard deviation, and the percentiles. Use of the model in dealing with pairs of variables will be illustrated with artificial bivariate frequency tables, constant-probability ellipses, and problems related to the proportions of potential users disaccommodated in bivariate designs. This chapter will conclude with brief discussions of sampling errors, "percentile men", and an example of the use of Monte Carlo methods with body size data. The Basic Statistical Measures: One Variable at a Time We begin with those statistics which--in vast numbers--constitute Volume II of this handbook and which appear as well throughout this volume: averages, measures of variability, and percentiles. Averages: the mean and the median Most common of all the statistical concepts is the notion of an average, a statistic, which is in some sense representative of an entire set of ‘data. Of the many types of averages that have been defined, only two need concern us--the arithmetic mean and the median. The arithmetic mean is probably the oldest: and certainly the most widely used of the averages. So widespread is this use that the arithmetic mean is often not specified as such, but is referred to simply as the "mean" or the "average." Unless an average is otherwise specified, it is usually safe--particularly in the field of anthropometry--to assume it is the arith- metic mean. Similarly, the term "to average" usually signifies, to layman and professional alike, the act of computing the arithmetic mean. The unmodi- fied term "mean" is used in the tables of this handbook, as Table 1 illu- strates. The arithmetic mean of a set of data is defined as the sum of these values divided by the number of values. Thus, for example, to determine the mean of nine values: 5,2,8,-4,4,1,5,1,5 we add them: IX = 5248+(-4)+4+1+5+14+5 = 27 We then divide the sum (27) by the number of values: Mean = X = LX/N = 27/9 = 3.0 IX-2 £-XI TABLE 1 AN EXCERPT FROM VOLUME II: THE MAJOR UNIVARIATE STATISTICS } STD COEF Percentiles English Values Mean DEV OF V =N- lst 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th th 95th 99th 805. StatuUr€ssececoces <7 l. Stewardesses 1971 65.45 1.91 2.92% 422 62,5 63.0 S4.1 065.4 66.8 68.1 68.8 2. US Women-D/A 1940 63.16 2,48 3.93 dikx (59.1) (61.5) (64.8) (67.2) 3. WASP Pilots 1942 64.90 2.10 3.24 447 61.7 62.2 63.4 64.9 66.1 67.7 68.3 4, AAF Nurses 1942 63.50 2,10 3,31 152 60.1 60.8 62.0 63.5 64.9 66.1 67.5 5. WAC Separatee 1946 63.87 2.37 3.71 7563 58.5 60.0 60.8 62.2 63.8 65.5 66.9 67.8 69.5 6. WAF Basic Tr 1952 64,07 2,34 3.65 851 59.3 60.3 61.0 62.3 64.0 65.7 67.2 68.2 69.9 7. Air Force Women 1968 63.82 2.36 3.70 1905 58.9 60.0 60.7 62.1 63.8 65.4 66.9 67.8 69.5 8. WAF-Nurse Ofcrs 64.08 2.44 3.81 548 58.7 60.0 60.8 62.4 64.1 65.8 67.2 68.1 69.9 9. Enlisted WAFS/W 63.75 2.32 3.64 1216 58.9 60.1 60.8 62.1 63.7 65.3 66.8 67.7 69.4 10. Enlisted WAFS/B 63.50 2.28 3.59 131 60.0 60.5 61.7 63.4 65.2 66.7 67.5 11. Health Exam/F 1962 63.10 2.59 4,10 3581 56.9 58.9 59.8 61.4 63.2 64.9 66.5 67.4 69.0 12. Health Ex/F 25-40 63.65 2.47 3.88 1165 58.1 59.6 60.5 62.0 63.8 65.4 66.8 67.7 69.3 13. Air Traffic Cntrl 69.56 2.50 3.59 678 65.5 66.5 67.7 69.5 71.2 72.6 73.6 14. Army Separatee 1946 68.43 2,49 3.64 kkk (64.3) (66.8) (70.1) (72.5) 15. A.A.F. Cadets 1942 69.40 2,40 3.46 2959 65.4 66.1 67.5 69.2 70.8 72.4 73.1 16. AJAeFe Gunners 1942 67.90 2,50 3.68 583 63.4 64.5 66.2 T¢9 69.5 70.9 71.7 17. USAF Basic Tr 1952 68.54 2,61 3.81 3331 62.5 64.2 65.1 66.8 68.6 70.3 71.9 72.7 74.7 18. USAF Fly Persnl 1950 69.12 2,43 3.52 4000 63.5 65.1 66.0 67.5 69.1 70.7 72.2 73.1 75.0 19. USAF Survey 1965 69.01 2,58 3.74 3869 63.1 64.8 65.7 67.3 69.0 70.7 72.3 73.3 75.1 20. Officers 1965 69.72 2,50 3.59 549 64.4 65.5 66.3 67.9 69.8 71.5 73.0 73.8 175.1 21, Enlisted Men 1965 68.79 2,65 3.85 792 62.6 64.5 65.5 67.1 68.7 70.4 72.1 73.3 75.8 23. Basic Trainees 1965 68.93 2,55 3.70 2527 63.0 64.7 65.7 67.2 68.9 70.7 72.2 73.2 74.9 24. Navy Flyers 1964 69.94 2.33 3.33 1529 65.1 66.2 66.9 68.3 69.9 71.6 73.1 73.9 75.3 25. USAF Fly Personnel 1967 69.82 2.44 3.49 2420 64.3 65.9 66.7 68.1 69.8 71.5 73.0 73.9 75.5 26. Student Pilot 1967 69.89 2.30 3.29 505 64.8 66.2 67.0 68.3 69.8 71.5 72.9 73.8 15.3 27. Rated Pilots 1967 69.84 2.43 3.48 1187 64.1 65.9 66.8 68.2 69.8 71.5 73.0 73.9 75.5 28. SDT Navigat 1967 70.06 2,42 3.45 188 66.0 67.0 68.5 70.0 71.7 73.2 74.2 29, RTD Navigat 1967 69.68 2,56 3.67 505 64.2 65.6 66.4 67.9 69.6 71.4 73.1 74.1 75.9 30. Army Enlisted 1965 68.71 2.60 3.78 6682 62.6 64.5 65.4 67.0 68.7 70.4 72.1 73.1 74.9 31. Navy Enlisted 1965 69.03 2.57 3.72 4095 63.2 65.0 65.8 67.3 69.0 70.7 72.4 73.4 75.2 32. Navy Divers 1972 69.38 2,36 3.40 100 65.5 66.4 8 69.4 71.0 72.4 73.3 g1 AOVd TVNIORIO,, KLrTvaDd ¥00d JO We have used X here to represent the set of individual data values and N to represent the number of data or sample size. We will use these notations often. Note also the use of I, the upper case Greek letter sigma, to repre- sent the idea of "the sum of" whatever follows. To find the mean weight of the 2,420 subjects in the 1967 USAF survey of flying personnel, we might add up all of these weights, obtaining a total of 420,088 pounds, and divide this total by the number of subjects. Sum of Weights _ 420,088 Mean Weight = For Cr subjects — 2430 173.6 pounds The mean value is usually designated in tables and formulas by X, M, or up . When several sets _of data are considered together, their mean values may be denoted by X, Y, Z, or Xy, X2, X3, or M,, M_, M_, or some similar variation of the usual symbols. In computer printouts, notations such as M(X), M(Y) or M(1l), M(2) are often used because of the limited set of symbols available on most printers. The median is, after the arithmetic mean, the most important average. The median of a set of values is formally defined as the value in the middle when the values are arranged in numerical order, or, equivalently, the value located at a point where as many values fall below it as fall above it. Arranging the nine values we have just considered in order by size, we get: -4,1,1,2,4,5,5,5,8. Since the middle value is the fifth one from either end, the median of the group is 4. The median is also the 50th percentile--a concept we shall soon define --and is listed among the percentiles in Volume II and throughout this handbook. From Table 1, we note that the median stature of the stewardesses was 65.4 inches. The comments we shall make about the computation of percen- tiles apply equally to the computation of the median. For most anthropometric data--and for all types of data for which the normal distribution is a reasonable model--the mean and the median tend to be almost equal. The median of the USAF '67 flying personnel weights is 172.4 pounds, a trifle lower than the 173.6 pound value we obtained for the mean. This difference of scarcely more than a pound probably repre- sents the most significant difference to be found among our mean/median data for these men. The mean and the median for the total height (stature) of these fliers--statistically a much more typical set of data--were 69.82 inches and 69.78 inches respectively. Here the mean is a mere twenty-fifth of an inch larger than the median. Other mean/median comparisons can be made using the values in Table 1. There are, it is true, a few anthropomet- ric variables for which this level of close agreement between the mean and the median does not exist. This lack of agreement will be most substan- tial for age and skinfold measures, variables not directly related to basic IX-4 design problems. For most sets of data, we have reported the mean and, as the 50th percentile, the median. In addition to the mean and the median, there are two averages which, it can be argued, are more logically related to design problems: the mode and the mid-range value. The mode is defined as the most frequently occurring value in a set of data and the mid-range as the average of the maximum and minimum values. We have included neither of these averages here for two reasons. Both statistics, when computed on large sets of continuous data; are highly dependent on the precise method of computation and editing and are highly sensitive to minor variations in measurement techniques and sample selection. In addition, whenever the normal probability model is appropriate, the mode, the mid-range, the mean and the median are all theoretically equal. If, then, all four of these averages are, in theory, equal, our choice among them is logically the one we can determine most accurately from a sample of a given size. On this basis, the arithmetic mean is clearly the preferred statistic. " None of these averages--considered by itself--has great usefulness in design problems. It is true, of course, that there are more men of aver- age height than of any other particular height, but it is equally true that most men are shorter than average or taller than average, some of them by small amounts and others by considerable ones. Along with our averages, we need statistical measures which measure and describe the variations, large and small, up and down from the average value. These are discussed next. ‘ Measures of Variability: the Standard Deviation and the Coefficient of Variation A pioneer in the field of statistics, Sir Francis Galton, wrote years ago that "it is difficult to understand why statisticians commonly limit their interests to averages. Their souls seem as dull to the charm of variety as that of a native of one of our flat English counties whose retrospect of Switzerland was that, if its mountains could be thrown into its lakes, two nuisances could be got rid of at once." Basic to virtually all design problems is the fact that mankind is far more like Switzerland than a flat English county, and that, whatever the charms of variety may be, we need statistics to quantify this variety. The standard deviation is virtually the sole measure of variability of corncern to us. The coefficient of variation is also of considerable importance, but this statistic, as we shall see, is simply a restatement of the standard deviation as a percent of the mean. The standard deviation for a set of data can be obtained by the follow- ing sequence of steps: : a. compute the mean value: (X); _ b. compute the deviation of each value from the mean: (X-X); IX-5 ce square these deviations: x52; —9 d. obtain the mean of these squares: I (X-X)"/N; e. compute the square root of this quantity. The + value at this last step is the standard deviation. Stated as a formula*: Standard deviation =Yrx-x) /N To compute the standard deviation of the nine values we have just averaged (5,2,8,-4,4,1,5,1,5), we follow this sequence of steps: a. we already have X = 3 be. the deviations are 2,-1,5,-7,1,-2,2,-2,2 ce. the squared deviations are 4,1,25,49,1,4,4,4,4 d. their mean value is (4+1+*°**+4)/9 = 96/9 = 10.7 e. and the square root of 10.7 = 3.26 The sequence of steps usually used to compute the standard deviation differs from that just described, but is mathematically equivalent and gives identical results. The standard deviation is commonly denoted either by the initials SD or by 0, the lower case Greek letter sigma, with, if necessary, suit- able subscripts. The use of ¢ is sufficiently general so that the word "sigma" itself is sometimes used to denote the standard deviation. In Table 1, the standard deviation is the second of the statistics, listed in the columns headed ''STD DEV'. The way the standard deviation relates to the distribution of a set of data is illustrated by the four graphs in Figure 1. The first of these graphs represents the statures (total heights) of all the women measured in the Air Force Women's survey of 1968. The mean of these heights is 63.82 inches and the standard deviation is 2.36 inches. The three other graphs also represent the statures of women measured in this survey, but correspond to subgroups chosen on the basis of each woman being of average value in a second measurement: weight, sitting height, or cervicale height. Because of the relationships between stature and the other measurements, the women in these subgroups are less variable in their heights and the standard deviations decrease progressively as we go from curve (a) to curve (d)e The standard deviation for the total series was 2.36 inches as we have already noted; the other standard deviations are, in order, 2.00 inches, 1.42 inches, and 0.50 inches. The mean value in each case remains 63.82 inches. . *Sometimes N-1 or N-1.5 is used in place of N in this formula. When the standard deviation is considered as a descriptive statistic, the proper divisor is N. When the value of N is large, it makes little difference which divisor is used. The formula given here was used in computing the standard deviation for most major sets of data in Volume II. IX-6 (a) Total Series 1 I T T T T 58" 60" 62" 64" 66" 68" 70" (b) Women of Mean Weight T 1 NS | NL | T T T T T T T 1 58" 60" 62" 64" 66" 68" 70" (c) Women of Mean Sitting Height I I T 1 Bl 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 58" 60" 62" 64" 66" 68" 70" (d) Women of Mean Cervicale Height 1 1 1 1 1 v 1 1 Tv V 1 1 1 58" 60" 62" 64" 66" 68" 70" Figure 1. Distribution of stature measurements (AFW'68 data). The 7 inches inches). range in below the Graph (b) would to 69.8 than half as wide X + 4.2 inches little more inches). G than 20% statures in graph (a mean (56.8 inches) is a little narrower raph (c) as as is in turn st from about 62.3 inches to 65.3 inches. The ranges ) would appear to be from about to about 7 inches above it (70.8 than graph (a). Here the range seem to be about 6 inches up and down from the mean value (57.8 inches ill narrower--only slightly more the first graph. Here the range seems roughly about or from 59.6 inches to 68.0 inches. Finally, the last graph, wide as the first one, shows a range of statures suggested by these graphs are, in each case, from approxi- mately three standard deviations below the mean (X - 3 SD) to three standard deviations above it (X + 3 SD). Other impo of a set of anthropometric data can be by adding or subtracting rtant points on the distribution located, at least approximately, a multiple of the standard deviation to the mean value. In particular, it is worth noting (see also Figure 2) that: about 2/5 of about 2/3 of about 87% of a a a about 95% of a almost all of a set of data fall between of data of data of data of data set set set set fall between fall between fall between fall between X-0.5 SD and X+0.5 SD n X-1.0 SD and X+1.0 SD n X-1.5 SD and X+1.5 SD X-2.0 SD and X+2.0 SD X-3.0 SD and X+3.0 SD. -35D -25D -1SD MEAN +1SD +2SD +3SD 50% 50% 16% | 342 38% | 16% 2.5% | 47.5% 47.5% | 2.5% 1 49.9% 49.9% |1% Figure 2. Areas under the normal curve. IX-8 These figures can be restated in several ways. One could say, for example, that about one-third of the data will fall in the range from the mean to the mean plus a standard deviation and that about one-sixth of the data will exceed the mean plus a standard deviation. In Table 2, we have listed for more or less normally distributed data the approximate _percentages which will fall into ranges which are based on the mean (X) and various multiples of the standard deviations (K*SD) .* Here we may note, for example, that if K = 0.5, then: about 31% of a set of such data fall below X - K*SD (Column A) about 31% fall above X + K*SD _ (Column A) about 38% fall between X - K*SD and X + K*SD (Column B) about 69% fall below X + K*SD (Column C) To illustrate one typical use of a. table such as Table 2, we can estimate the proportion of USAF flying personnel who are taller than 6'l". Our best data for these men are those from the USAF '67 flying personnel survey. From Table 1 (or Volume II) we find that the appropriate statistics are these: Mean stature: 69.82"; standard deviation: 2.44". Using these figures, we next determine how far 6'l" is above the mean in standard deviation units: . o : pes ’ 6'1"-X _ 73.00-69.82 3.18 sD 2.46 2.44 1.30 Column A in Table 2 gives a value of 9.7% for K=1.30, from which we may conclude that about 10% of the Air Force's male fliers are 6'l" tall or taller. We «can similarly estimate the proportion of Air Force women shorter than 5' 1%, From Table 1, we obtain the relevant statistics from the survey of such women made in 1968: mean stature: 63.82"; standard deviation: 2.36". On the basis of these statistics, 5' 1" is 2.82" or 1.19 standard devia- tions below the mean. Entering Table 2 with the value K = 1.2, we get 11.5% as the approximate number of these women shorter than 5 feet. Since there are virtually no Air Force women taller than 6'l" and virtually no flying personnel shorter than 5 feet, we are in a position to conclude that a design range for statures from 61" to 73" would include roughly 90% of both the USAF flying personnel and USAF women. *More detailed versions of Table 2 (and Table 5) are available in Abramowitz and Stegun (1964). IX-9 IX-10 TABLE 2 ' APPROXIMATE PROPORTIONS OF DATA FALLING INTO INTERVALS BASED ON MEAN +K STANDARD DEVIATIONS \ 2 NR KX A B C 0.0 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.1 46.0% 8.0% 54.0% 0.2 42.1% 15.8% 57.9% 0.3 38.2% 23.6% 61.8% 0.4 34.5% 31.1% 65.5% 0.5 30.9% 38.3% 69.1% 0.6 27.45% 45.1% 72.6% 0.7 24.2% 51.6% 75.8% 0.8 21.2% 57.6% 78.8% 0.9 18.45% 63.2% 81.6% 1.0 15.9% 68.3% 84.1% 1.1 13.6% 72.9% 86.4% 1.2 11.5% 77.0% 88.5% 1.3 : 9.7% 80.6% 90.3% 1.4 8.1% 83.8% 91.9% 1.5 6.7% 86.6% 93.3% 1.6 5.5% 89.0% 94.5% 1.7 4.5% 91.1% 95.5% 1.8 3.6% 92.8% 96.4% 1.9 2.9% 94.3% . 97.1% 2.0 2.3% 95.4% 97.7% 2.1 1.8% 96.4% 98.2% 2.2 1.4% 97.2% 98.6% 2.3 1.1% 97.8% 98.9% 2.4 0.8% 98.4% 99.2% 2.5 0.6% 98.8% 99.4% 2.6 0.5% 99.1% 99.5% 2.7 0.3% 99.3% 99.7% 2.8 0.3% 99.5% . 99.7% 2.9 0.2% 99.6% "99.8% 3.0 0.1% 99.7% 99.9% INAL py R Qa pry An important restatement of the standard deviation is known as the coefficient of variation. This statistic, often designated by the letter V, is the standard deviation expressed as a percentage of the mean value: v mg « 100%. (SD/X) 100% Thus, the coefficient of variation of the statures measured in the USAF '67 flying personnel survey, based on the statistics just used, is V = 2.44" , 100% = 3.49% 69.82" The coefficients of variation are presented for all sets of data in volume II*. They are designated there, as can be seen from Table 1, by "COEF OF V." The importance of the coefficient of variation for body size data is that this statistic tends to have roughly the same value for anatomi- cally similar measurements. A few values, based on the 1968 Air Force Women's survey and the USAF '67 and USAF '50 flying personnel surveys, are shown in Table 3. Weight usually has a coefficient of variation of 10%-15% for military samples, skinfold measures have values in the 30% to 50% range, but most measurements have considerably smaller values. The major head measurements have among the lowest values of V, usually in the 2.5% to 3.5% range. Heights and long bone measurements have coefficients of varia- tion in the 3.5% to 5.0% range. Major circumferences, breadths, and depths have values usually falling between 5% and 10%. Within these broad categor- ies, the smaller the measurement, the larger the coefficient of variation is likely to be, in part because the smaller the measurement, the relatively greater the measurement error. The more closely a measurement is related to the bony structure of the body, the smaller the value of V. Thus, for example, the values of V in Table 3 for shoulder circumference (5.0-5.2%) are only about 60% as great as those for waist circumference (8.2-9.3%). Small measurements not based on bony landmarks are particularly prone to large coefficients of variation. There are a few standard anthropometric measures which do not corre- spond to a single anatomic entity as much as they represent the difference between two such entities. For such measurements, the coefficient of varia- tion is likely to be quite high. A major example of such a measurement is elbow-rest height--the distance from the underside of the elbow to the *The coefficient of variation is clearly independent of the units in which a measurement is expressed. However, there are occasional minor differences in Volume II between the values of V given with the metric data and those given with the English values. This is because V was computed in each case from the values of X and SD exactly as they are listed. IX-11 TABLE 3 COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION BY MEASUREMENT TYPE a) Major Head Measurements (2.5%-4.0%) 1967 Flying Air Force 1950 Flying Personnel Women Personnel Head circumference 2.5% 3.0% 2.7% Head length 3.4% 3.7% 3.3% Head breadth 3.5% 4.1% 3.4% b) Major Heights and Long Bone Lengths (3.5%-5.5%) Stature 3.5% 3.8% 3.6% Acromial height 4.0% 4.2% 4.0% Cervicale height 3.9% 4.0% 3.9% Chest height 4.1% 4.5% 4.1% Waist height 4.5% 4.5% 4.3% Crotch height 4.9% 5.5% 5.2% Sitting height 3.5% 3.8% 3.6% Knee height sitting 4.5% - 4.6% Sleeve length 3.9% 4.2% 4.5% c) "Bony" Circumferences (5.0%-6.5%) Shoulder circumference 5.0% 5.2% 5.2% Ball of foot circumference 5.0% - 5.0% Knee circumference 5.4% 6.3% 5.8% Wrist circumference 5.2% 4.8% 5.3% Buttock circumference 5.6% 6.0%/6.4% 6.0% Chest circumference 6.5% 6.4% 6.2% d) "Fleshy" Circumferences, Breadths, Depths (6.5%-10.0%) Waist circumference 8.5% 8.2% 9.3% Biceps circumference (relaxed) 7.6% 9.0% 7.9% Thigh circumference 7.6% 7.7% 7.6% Calf circumference 6.2% 6.6% 6.5% Buttock depth 8.6% 8.5% 9.2% Chest breadth 6.5% 6.9% 6.6% Chest depth 7.9% 8.2% 8.2% e) Weight (10%-15%) Weight 12.4% 13.1% 12.8% f) Skinfolds (30%-50%) Triceps 40.2% 28.5% Subscapular 38.7% 37.3% Juxtanipple 49.3% - - IX-12 sitting surface. This measurement is basically the difference between sitting shoulder height and shoulder-elbow length and, not surprisingly, usually has a coefficient of variation in excess of 10% even though it is classified as a "length." In addition there are a few measurements for which the coefficient of variation is not an appropriate statistic. Primarily, these are measure- ments for which the zero value is arbitrary. An example, illustrated in Figure 3, relates to the inclination of a line joining the center of the earhole and the outer corner of the eye. We could measure the angle this line makes with a horizontal axis (e) or its angle with a vertical axis (¢)e Both (©) and (¢) will contain the same information, be equally valid and useful, and have the same standard deviation. However, since the mean value of the first will be about 10° and of the second about 80°, the coeffi- cient of the first will be about eight times as large as the first. Figure 3. Measurement with an arbitrary zero value. Other measures of variability are occasionally used: the range, the mean deviation, the probable deviation, the semi-interquartile range, and so forth. The range is simply the difference between the largest and smallest values in a set of data. The mean deviation is the average of the absolute values of the deviations from the mean (sometimes from the median). The probable deviation is about two-thirds as large as the standard deviation; it was defined so that 50% of a set of data would fall within a probable deviation of the mean. The semi-interquartile range is half the distance from the 25th percentile (soon to be defined) and the 75th percentile. IX-13 Of these, only the range is likely to be encountered in compilations of anthropometric data. The range is obviously an easily computed and easily understood statistic. Unfortunately, except as a purely descriptive statis- tic, it is a notoriously poor one because it is dependent on sample size, because its sampling error decreases at no more than a snail's pace as the sample size increases, because it is completely dependent on the two most atypical and most probably erroneous individual values in a set of data, and because, when computed from edited data, it is highly dependent on the subjective judgment of the editor. Range values have not been included in Volume II. The Percentiles The class of statistics which are most closely related to design problems are the percentiles and other so-called measures of position. The definition of the percentiles is fairly simple. For any set of data--the weights of a group of pilots, for example--the first percentile is a value which is, on the one hand, greater than the weights of each of the lightest 1% of the pilots and is, on the other hand, less than the weights of each of the heaviest 99% of these men. Similarly, the second %ile is greater than each of the lightest 2% and less than each of the heaviest 98%. Whatever the value of K--from 1 to 99--the K-th percentile is a value greater than each of the smallest Ki of the weights and less than the largest (100-K)%. The 50th percentile, which we encountered among the averages as the median, is a value dividing a set of data into two groups containing the smallest and largest 50% of the values. The role of percentiles in many types of design problems is to provide a basis for judging the proportion of a group of individuals who exceed --or fall below--some possible design limit. There are, naturally, 99 percen- tiles, from the lst to the 99th, although even the most complete computations of body size data are usually limited to the lst, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 10th, sees 90th, 95th, 97th, 98th, and 99th. Space constraints have limited those listed in Volume II to the 9 most important of these as they appear in Table le Those omitted--mostly percentiles between the 25th and the 75th- -are rarely, if ever, used in design problems and can, as we shall see, be easily approximated if they are needed. A few of the percentiles in addition to the median have other names. In particular, the 25th and 75th percentiles are the lst and 3rd quartiles (the median is the 2nd quartile); and the 10th, 20th, etc. percentiles are also known as the lst, 2nd, etc. deciles. The computation of the percentiles is not quite as simple as our definition would suggest. The basic problem is that, in general, there are no values which satisfy the definition. A strict reading of the defini- tion says that the 1st percentile is a weight such that 1% of the 2,420 flyers (or 24.2) are lighter and 99% (or 2,395.8) are heavier. One problem is that we are limited to integer numbers of men; we can count off 24 or 25 men, but not 24.2. A second problem is that we can't really arrange IX-14 all 2,420 men in order of their weights; all these men undoutedly have different weights, but they don't all have different recorded weights. In practice, we rely on computational methods based on the spirit, rather than the precise letter, of the definition. One useful method of computing percentiles is based on the special graph paper shown in Figure 4. This graph paper has been designed so that we get points which fall on a straight line if we plot the cumulative fre- quencies of a perfect normal distribution. Plots of real data for body size dimensions on this type of graph paper usually consist of points which can be fitted by a smooth curve which, at least in the mid-range, is almost linear. To illustrate the process, we have provided in Table 4 the frequency table for U.S. Navy pilots' statures. In Figure 4, the cumulative frequencies are plotted against the upper limits of the intervals in this table. We have drawn on this figure a smooth curve passing close to, but not always through, the plotted points. The percentiles are ultimately read from this curve. Thus, for example, we note that the 5th percentile here is 168.3 cm, the 10th percentile is 170.0 cm, etc. The computational procedure not only circumvents the problems we have discussed, but also tends to minimize the irregularities from which data from finite samples always suffer. In Figure 5 we have plotted the same points on conventional graph paper to illustrate the differences in the graphs which the two types of paper pro- vide. Percentiles for the major series of data included in this handbook were computed using a method similar to this graphic one but one designed for use on a computer in order to reduce the labor involved and to provide more objective results. Full details of this method, including the computer - program, are given in Anthropometry of Air Force Women by Clauser and his associates. Every set of percentiles appearing in Volume II which includes the 1st and 99th percentiles were computed using this computer program. Percentiles for a few small series of data included in Volume II were also computed by this method, but the extreme percentiles are not listed because of sample size. Details of the calculation of most of the other percentiles listed in Volume II, unfortunately, have never been published. Our earlier discussion of the mean and the standard deviation came close to establishing--for more or less normally distributed data--a rela- tionship between the standard deviation and the percentiles. Table 5 makes this relationship more explicit by indicating for each percentile its dis- tance in standard deviations above or below the mean. The table indicates, for example, that the 5th and 95th percentiles are, approximately, 1.645 standard deviations below and above the mean; these percentiles for USAF '67 flying personnel statures can thus be approximated as 69.82-1.645°2.44= 65.8" ‘and 69.82+1.645°2.44=73.8", values not very different from those shown in Table 1 (65.9" and 73.8"). Table 5 points up an important fact about percentiles: the difference between consecutive percentiles increases substantially as one goes from IX-15 91-X1 STATURE (cm) 194 190 186 182 178 174 170 166 Je 162 1 0.01 0.1 Figure 4. 1 2 5 10 200 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 PERCENT Computation of percentiles using normal probability graph paper. 99.9 TABLE 4 FREQUENCY TABLE FOR U.S. NAVY PILOTS' STATURES Value FF Cum F Cum F % 194.25-196.25 2 1529 100.00 192.25-194.25 8 1527 99.87 190.25-192.25 11 1519 99.35 188.25-190. 25 40 1508 98.63 186.25-188.25 62 1468 96.01 184.25-186.25 93 1406 91.96 182.25-184.25 129 1313 85.87 180.25-182.25 157 1184 77.44 178.25-180.25 192 1027 67.17 176.25-178.25 191 835 54.61 174.25-176.25 180 644 42.12 172.25-174.25 173 464 30.35 170.25-172.25 133 291 19.03 168.25-170.25 74 158 10.33 166. 25-168. 25 58 84 5.49 164.25-166. 25 18 26 1.70 162.25-164.25 6 8 0.52 160.25-162.25 2 2 0.13 IX-17 Percentile IX-18 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th <4 * + 2 RX RR RXRR ERR RRRRRRR RRR RR RR HoH HH HH HH HH HH HH HH HF HH H+ H+ + 2.326 2.054 1.881 1.751 1.645 1.555 1.476 1.405 1.341 1.282 1.227 1.175 1.126 1.080 1.036 0.994 0.954 0.915 0.878 0.842 0.806 0.772 0.739 0.706 0.674 TABLE 5 PERCENTILE-STANDARD DEVIATION RELATIONSHIPS Percentile SD** 99th SD 98th SD 97th SD 96th SD 95th SD 94th SD 93rd SD 92nd SD 91st SD 90th SD 89th SD 88th SD 87th SD 86th SD 85th SD 84th SD 83rd SD 82nd SD 8lst SD 80th SD 79th SD 78th SD 77th SD 76th SD 75th * Mean ** Standard Deviation Percentile 26th 27th 28th 29th 30th 31st 32nd 33rd 34th 35th 36th 37th 38th 39th 40th 41st 42nd 43rd 44th 45th 46th 47th 48th 49th 50th = M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H H+ H+ HH H+ H+ H+ + H+ H+ H+ HH + + H+ = HH HH HH H+ 0.643 0.613 0.583 0.553 0.524 0.496 0.468 0.440 0.412 0.385 0.358 0.332 0.305 0.279 0.253 0.228 0.202 0.176 0.151 0.126 0.100 0.075 0.050 0.025 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 5868688 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD Percentile 74th 73rd 72nd 71st 70th 69th 68th 67th 66th 65th 64th 63rd 62nd 6lst 60th 59th 58th 57th 56th 55th 54th 53rd 52nd 51st the center out to either end of the range. To emphasize this point, in Table 6 we have taken the difference between the 50th and the 51st percen- tiles as a "mid-range design unit" and have tabulated, in terms of this unit, the increases in the width of a design which would be required in order that it cover an additional one percent of the population. This cost rises slowly over the middle of the range; to go from 75th to 76th percen- tile requires an increase only about 1.3 times as large as was required to go from the 50th to the 51st. Not until we are almost at the 90th percen- tile does an increase of one percentile value cost twice the mid-range unit but ‘from there on the cost increases rapidly. To include the one percent of the population between the 98th and 99th percentiles will require an increase of almost 11 mid-range design units. We can be confident that the top one percent of the values will be spread over an exceedingly wide range, but it is unrealistic to expect accurate estimates of just how wide. Measures of Symmetry and Kurtosis Measures of symmetry (B,) and kurtosis (B;) are sometimes given in reports of anthropometric surveys. Since these statistics are usually close to the normal distribution values of 0.0 and 3.0 for body measurements of interest to the design engineer, we have not included them in this hand- book. The value of B; (sometimes spelled out as veta, corresponding to the Greek pronunciation, other times as beta) is based on the cubes of the differences between the data and their mean. Positive values of B are sugges- tive of a pattern in which data are distributed at greater distances above the mean than they are below it. The value of Bz is based on the fourth power of these differences and normally relates to the degree of peakedness of the distribution of the data. The Interrelationship Among Anthropometric Measures Tall men tend to have long arms, short men tend to be below average in hip breadth. Men with long faces, on the other hand, are almost as likely to have narrow faces as they are to have wide ones. All anthropometric measures are to one degree or another statistically related to each other; the nature and degree of these relationships are often matters of substantial importance in the design of equipment, workspace, and clothing. In Figure 6 we have illustrated examples of four rather different degrees of relationship: a. the almost perfect relationship between stature and stature maxi- mum 3 be the less close but still quite substantial relationship between weight and shoulder circumference; ce. the modest relationship between stature and weight; d. the almost negligible relationship between lip length and face length (menton-sellion length). IX-19 Population Percentage TABLE 6 COST OF ACCOMMODATING ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGES OF A USER-POPULATION 50th to 60th to 70th to 75th to 80th to "85th to 90th to 91st to 92nd to 93rd to 94th to 95th to 96th to 97th to 98th to (99th to 99.5th) (99.5th to 99.9th) 51st 6lst 71st 76th 81st 86th 91st 92nd 93rd 94th 95th 96th 97th 98th 99th IN MID-RANGE UNITS Cost in Mid-Range Units* 1.00 1.04 1.16 1.27 1.45 1.75 2.36 2.56 2.82 3.15 3.59 4.22 5.18 6.88 10.86 19.88 51.24 unit units units units units units units units units units units units units units units units/percent units/percent *i.e., the width of the interval required for a particular percent expressed as multiples of the width of a similar interval near the center of the distribution. IX-20 STATURE (cm) 194 190 186 182 178 174 170 166 162 Figure 5. / 20 40 PERCENT graph paper. 60 80 Cumulative frequencies--~U.S. Navy Flyers'64 statures--on rectangular 100 IX-21 IX-22 STATURE AND STATURE, MAXIMUM STATURE, MAXIMUM 45 147 149 151 153 155 157 159 161 163 165 167 169 171 173 175 177 179 181 183 TOT ne .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 ALS 183.25 1 181.25 ! ) 179.25 8 1 9 177.25 9 5 14 175.25 0 3 13 173.25 1 a1 Nn 53 171.25 61 21 82 169.25 1 83 41 125 167.25 13 74 187 E 165.25 1125 57 183 £163.25 164 77 24 i; 161.25 2183 75 260 159.25 146 65 21 157.25 132 58 190 155.25 101 59 160 153.25 58 29 | 88 151.25 42 18 60 149.25 13 4 17 147.25 5 3 8 145.25 2 2 Totals 2 5 16 46 76 130 192 206 24° "40 202 171 157 103 62 21 12 13 2 1 1905 Summary Statistics Mean Std Dev Regression Equations SE-Est Y-Stature 162.10 6.00 0.995X + 0.162 0.38 X-Stature, Maximum 162.75 6.02 1.001Y + 0.482 0.38 A. An exceedingly close relationship: correlation coefficient = 0.998 HEIGHT AND SHOULDER CIRCUMFERENCE SHOULDER CIRCUMFERENCE 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111 113 115 117 119 121 TOT .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 ALS 200.00 1 12 195.00 1 2 190.00 1 1 2 185.00 1 1 3 2 7 180.00 1 eee Cy 3 175.00 1 11 1 2 7 170.00 1 2 5 1 2 2 1 14 165.00 2 2 4 6 1 2 17 160. 00 11 3 215 1 2 1 3 1 30 155.00 1 1 510 10 13 6 3 49 150. 00 1 319 13 17 12 5 2 72 5 14s.00 2 4 19 28 23 29 12 4 122 = 140.00 3 5 14 24 28 3 22 8 3 142 ¥ 135.00 2 6 5 22 5 44 28 16 1 1 181 130.00 1 9 28 52 58 48 27 7 1 231 125.00 1 1 24 44 72 56 28 12 3 24) 120.00 4 29 53 74 32 16 3 221 115.00 5 21 48 60 54 15 § | 209 110.00 2 7 25 49 47 14 152 105. 00 4 1 37 29 25 6 ns3 100. 00 6 15 21 17 2 61 95.00 1 2 10 6 3 22 90.00 2 2 4 8s. 1 1 Totals 2 14 51130 218271 313 274 226 156 113 75 24 15 11 7 4 1 1905 Summary Statistics Mean Std Dev Regression Equations SE-Est Y-Neight 127.28 16.59 2.695% - 143.330 9.13 X-Shoulder Circ 100.41 5.14 0.259Y + 67.447 2.83 B. A close relationship: correlation coefficient = 0.835 Figure 6. Bivariate frequency tables illustrating interrelationships of anthropometric data (from Clauser et al. 1972). WEIGHT 140.00 110.00 105.00 100.00 95.00 90.00 85.00 Totals oe WUOINO~=WONNY — . LIP LENGTH WELLES ESS Nnno w -— wn Totals Y-Lip Length X-Menton-Subnasale L STATURE 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159 161 163 165 167 169 171 173 175 177 179 181 183 TOT .25 2 2 C. 3 .95 -— PN) — 5 D. .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .28 2 +25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 ALS 1 A negligible, almost non-existent relationship: correlation coefficient = 0.070 Figure 6. (continued) vo 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 7 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 14 2 1 1 1 5 1 3 3 17 1 3 1 4 1 6 4 5 3 1 30 4 1 4 6 9 6 4 8 3 1 1 2 49 1 2 3 210 9 18 14 7 5 1 72 1 4 2 10 24 21 15 18 8 10 3 4 2 122 1 1 7 11 9 15 19 17 23 22 8 3 4 1 142 1 3 9 13 15 22 30 23 26 14 8 13 3 1 181 1 5 5 14 14 28 35 39 35 26 12 13 3 1 231 2 5 10 16 28 35 42 32 23 23 11 6 4&4 1 2 1 241 6 11 18 27 38 44 22 23 13 12 4 1 221 3 4 7 15 24 32 33 40 19 M1 11 6 3 1 209 2 2 8 18 23 26 20 21 17 4 5 2 2 2 152 1 3 12 11 24 18 13 14 9 4 3 1 13 i 11 1014 7 7 5 3 1 61 1 2 4 17 8&8 3 1 2 22 1 1 2 4 1 1 8 17 60 88 160 190 211 260 241 183 187 125 82 S53 13 14 9 1 11905 Summary Statistics Mean Std Dev Regression Equations SE-Est 3 Y-Weight 127.28 16.59 1.471 - 111.172 14.04 0, 2, X-Stature 162.10 6.00 0.193Y + 137.536 5.08 ? %, A modest relationship: correlation coefficient = 0.533 0p ¥ PA 2% LIP LENGTH AND MENTON-SUBNASALE LENGTH MENTON-SUBNASALE LENGTH 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 71 TOT .15 .35 .55 .75 .95 .15 .35 .55 .75 .95 .15 .35 .55 .75 .95 .15 .35 .55 A 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 14 1 1 4 2 4 2 3 5 1 1 1 25 2 1 11512 9 11 10 8 3 1 1 1 75 1 1 310 8 13 17 16 21 19 13 9 1 3 1 137 1 2 7 9 17 23 35 27 32 29 22 9 7 2 222 2 4 7 16 26 38 53 53 45 44 26 18 6 5 1 3485 3 3 8 11 22 4 4 57 30 37 21 7 2 5 4 294 6 8 16 37 47 69 66 48 44 25 6 9 6 2 390 5 6 10 19 28 30 46 18 26 10 6 4 3 2 213 1 1 2 21216 19 26 12 19 5 3 2 1 121 1 2 3 6 6 9 6 11 2 1 1 48 11 4 2 2 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 5 8 22 45 78 147 234 287 321 231 247 139 66 34 25 13 1 1 1 1905 Summary Statistics Mean Std Dev Regression Equations SE-Est 4,38 0.42 0.058 + 4.057 0.42 5.54 0.51 0.085Y + 5.169 0.51 IX-23 In the first of these tables we may note that evérybody with a specific value for stature has a common, or almost common, value for stature, maximum. In the fourth table, on the other hand, an individual's value for lip length provides virtually no indication of the size of her face length. In the other two tables, the patterns are intermediate between these two. Two basic statistical concerns in this area of interrelationships are suggested by these tables. One is that of quantifying the differences in degrees of relationships so obvious here; this is the role played by the statistic known as the correlation coefficient. The second concern is that of establishing the pattern that values of one variable follow in relationship to a second; this is the role of the regression equation and the standard error of estimate. These two statistical concerns and the statistics involved are themselves well interrelated. The correlation coefficient is the standard measure of the degree or intensity of the relationship between two variables. It ranges in value from 1.00, which indicates a perfect relationship, to 0.00, which indicates, on the other hand, no relationship. The first and fourth of our tables, with correlation coefficients of 0.998 and 0.128 come close to represent- ing these extremes. The correlation coefficient can also fall in the range from 0.00 to -1.00 (this is somewhat rare for body size measurements) indicating that one variable tends to decrease in size as the other increases. There are a substantial number of correlational measures. Of these, the most common for use with continuous data--such as our measurement data --is the Pearsonian product-moment correlation coefficient. Almost without exception this is referred to simply as the correlation coefficient. There are a variety of other types of correlation coefficients for use with cate- gorized data (blood type, region of birth, etc.) but as these play little role in the solution of design problems we shall not discuss them. Pearson's correlation coefficient derives from the related concept of the regression line or the regression formula. Given any two variables, we can set up an equation for estimating values for one variable in terms of the other. A typical example is the equation for estimating a man's sitting height from his stature shown in Figure 7. If the variables have a close relationship, the estimates given by the equation will be quite accurate. When, on the other hand, the degree of relationship is low or negligible, the estimates will have little accuracy. No complete listings of the correlation coefficients for any of the sets of anthropometric data on which Volume II is based are included in this handbook. A few coefficients for USAF fliers and for Air Force Women are included, primarily for illustrative purposes, in Table 7. Correlation matrices for the USAF flying personnel surveys of 1967 and 1950, for Air Force Women (1968) and several other surveys are included in Churchill, Kikta, and Churchill (1977). IX-24 A. Calculations from Raw Data x Y xX YY (xX) (YN (x-N2 (¥-N? 7 6 0 1 0 0 1 9 7 2 2 4 4 4 5 1-2 -4 8 4 16 4 3-3 2 6 9 4 10 8 3 3 2 2 2 3s 28 0 0 24 26 34 “XN (Y-Y 217 a) The correlation coefficient: Tr - ARH = Fei =0.9 b) The regression line: SD, = VE(X-T)Z/N = /26/5 = 2.28; SD, = /3475 = 2.61 i. ©o estimate y: a = r SDy/SD, = 0.91°2:61/2.28 = 1.04 B=Y-aX=5-1.04°7 = -2.28 y = sp, /T-r7 = 2.61/1-(.91)Z = 2.61°.41 = 1.07 Y* = 1.04 X - 2.28 SE. ii. to estimate x: a =r SD,/SDy, = 0.91¢2.28/2.61 = 0.79 B=YX-aX=7-0.79+5 = 3.05 SE, = SD, /1-r2 = 2.28 /1-(.91)2 = 2.28.41 = 0.93 X* = 0.79Y + 3.05 B. Calculations Based on Computed Statistics z =, a) Simple regression equations: a, i. to estimate sitting height from stature (USAF'67 data) Ch i A from Table VI: r = 0.786 © nd from Volume II: sitting height - mean = 36.69", SD = 1.25" i 7 5 Tl stature - mean = 69.82", SD = 2.44" SS as=r SDy/SDy = 0.786°1.25/2.44 = 0.403 B=Y-aX= 36.69 - 0.403°69.82 = 8.55" SEy = SD,/T-77 = 1.25 /I-(.786)7 = 1.25°0.618 = 0.77" Y* = 0.403°X + 8.55 For men 6 feet tall, we can estimate sitting height as Y* = 0.403272 + 8,55 = 37.57 two-thirds in a #1 SD range: 37.57 - 0.77 = 36.8" to 37.57 + 0.77 = 38.3" 95% in a £2 SD range: 37.57 - 1.54 = 36.0" to 37.57 + 1.54 = 39.1" ii. to estimate stature from sitting height (the same data) Ger SD,,/SDy = 0.786°2.44/1.25 = 1.53 BeV.-aTXe 69.82" - 1,53036.69 = 13.69 SE, = SD, /T-rT « 2.44 /I-(.786)T = 2.44:0.618 = 1.51 x" = 1.53 Y + 13.69 Figure 7. Correlation coefficients and regression equations: a few illustrative calculations. IX-25 For men with sitting heights of 34", Y* = 1.53°34 + 13.69 = 65.71" two-thirds in a #1SD range: 65.71 - 1.51 = 64.2" to 65.71 + 1.51 = ¢7.2" 95% in a *2SD range: 65.71 - 3.02 = 62.7" to 65.71 + 3.02 = 08.7" b) Multiple correlation and regression: i. correlation of X3 with the combination of X, and X,: R Jo + Ty,2° - 2),2°T;,3°T2,3 = - 2 1 Ty.2 to estimate chest circumference (X3) in terms of stature (Xx) and weight (Xp): (USAF'67 data) r, 3 = correlation of stature with chest circumference = 0.257 ' r, 3 = correlation of weight with chest circumference = 0.799 TF correlation of stature with weight = 0.533 (1257)% + (.799)% - 2(.533)(.257)(.799) 0.486 _ R=y 1 - (.533)2 *Vo.716 ~ 0-824 ii. to estimate X3 from X, and X, . = = x3 - X3 5 x - X . X, - Xp = gmt, 22 SD; 1775p, 2 Tsp, T1.3 - 71,2°T2,3 _ 2257 - .533-.799 where 8, = Tr I 1 - (.533)7 = -0.236 T2,3 " T1,2°T1,3 _ 799 - .533-.257 Tor, gir = 0.9 By = The standard error of estimate = SDy /T - RZ = 0.567 SD3 SD, SD SD SD * . _3 _3 -— _ _3 -— 3 = X= 8) s, 21 * 8) sD, X, + X3- 6 5D, x - 8 sp, *2 Since, X, = 69.82", SD, = 2.44" Xz = 173.6 1b, SD, = 21.4 1b X3 = 38.80", SD; = 2.50" - X3 = -.236 222 (x, - 69.82) + .925 2:39 (x,- 173.6) + 38.80 = -.242 X; + .108 X, + 36.95 Thus, our estimate of chest circumference of a man 6' tall who weighs 200 pounds is X3 = -.242¢72 + ,108+200 + 36.95 = 41.13" Since SEy = 2.50+v]-(.824)2 = 1.42", we can expect that about two-thirds of such men will have chest circumferences in the range X3 z SEy: * \ 41.13 £ 1,42 = 39,7" to 42.6", and 95% in the range X, % 25E, = + 41.13 + 2.84 = 38,3" to 44,0" Figure 7. (continued) IX-26 LT-XI 1. 2. 3. be Se 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Age Weight Stature Chest height Waist height Crotch height Sitting height Popliteal height Shoulder circumference Chest/bust circumference Waist circumference Buttock circumference** Biacromial breadth Waist breadth Hip breadth Head circumference Head length Head breadth Face length Face breadth 113 -.028 -.028 -.033 -.093 -.054 -.102 .091 .259 .262 .105 .003 214 .105 .110 054 122 L119 .233 2. £223 «515 «483 $422 «359 «457 «299 «831 «832 «856 «922 «452 «852 «809 $412 «261 «305 «228 «453 SELECTED CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR USAF FLIERS AND AIR 2 048 +533 «949 «923 «856 +786 +841 +318 «240 $224 «362 «378 «287 a «294 «249 133 «275 «1% A -.023 $457 «927 «930 «866 «681 «843 «300 «245 «212 «334 «335 «260 «380 «251 .218 097 «220 «169 3 039 «497 914 .897 «905 «580 .883 «261 «203 «142 «278 «339 «215 «342 «233 «208 «089 «226 162 5 -.055 431 +849 «862 +909 «453 .880 $212 147 «132 217 .282 $195 «283 .188 «170 066 «199 099 *Adr Force Women '68 above diagonal; USAF Fliers '67 below diagonal. *“Hip circumference 9 below waist for Air Force Women '68, TABLE 7 1 8 8 091 -.072 .233 481 370.835 L801 728.33 673 W731 271 L607 .762 4308 W467 L788 L264 L398 312 485 .230 291.182 A710 JG L822 167 .068 .720 JT L149 LT6 349 316 L555 216 L133 1S 376 W221 L632 W287 L194 327 W266 L175 L201 A320 .078 L248 253.193 162 185 L098 401 9; Vy 7 & 38 10 «287 «799 «257 .183 «238 «190 «239 172 «810 «196 27 Jan 21 lL $234 +824 279 216 .238 221 236 .186 «775 «796 «852 «288 «936 JJ26 «138 «263 W129 2 «232 «186 ON FORCE WOMEN* 23 ie 149 L146 L196 495 .768 .770 #436 0329 348 A412 266 L276 409,293 L318 «380 277 225 «384 277 9 «327 L249 181 «581 719 .606 30 06 L551 «382 .886 .600 «396 .668 .893 «401 1361 OS «576 S00 «251 310 288 AW ae 166 Jd88 268.227 Jd82 ast Lael 28 A L364 JI79 «521 «315 464 17 “1s .318 «284 «297 «280 «275 «253 «248 149 214 .239 .168 .183 +692 «058 +289 «131 18 «190 «290 .136 .085 .123 .089 «136 .087 «252 «255 «267 +238 .178 «263 .188 «430 115 «148 «660 19 .189 «264 «267 #222 «225 +248 .185 «217 «176 174 .180 «266 .182 .155 «273 .311 174 «206 089 «358 «199 «162 «200 «172 «146 .189 +313 «273 «310 «269 «211 «296 «215 «299 .113 «497 dbs Logically, there are two correlation coefficients for each pair of variables: the one defined in terms of how well we can estimate Y from X and that defined in terms of how well we can estimate X from Y. Fortun- ately these two are numerically equal and need not be distinguished. This is not true when regression equations corresponding to curved lines are used or when more than one variable is used in the estimating process. There are, of course, different regression lines for each variable. The basic definition for the correlation coefficient for X and Y can be written as follows: 2 (X-X) (¥Y-Y) TT EDT tN? and is illustrated in Figure 7. We can argue that this formula is at least a reasonable one as a measure of relationship. The terms in the denominator are always positive, but the terms in the numerator can be either positive or negative. They will be positive when X and Y are both above average and when both are below average; they will be negative whenever X is above average and Y below average or vice versa. Since terms of one sign cancel those of the other sign, the size of the numerator (and therefore of the correlation coefficient) will reflect the extent to which terms of one sign predominate. We have used the letter r here to designate the correlation coefficient; this is standard practice. When it is necessary to specity the relevant variables, we may write ry,2 OF yy or some similar expression. There is a bit more to this formula than noting how often individuals are, on the one hand, either below or above the mean on both of a pair of measurements and how often. on the other hand, .they are above the mean on one and below the mean on the other. Still, this concept of the correla- tion coefficient is accurate enough to provide a useful basis for judging the size of a correlation coefficient. By replacing the mean with the median in this concept (which will make little difference for most body size mea- surements) we can reduce our data for a pair of variables to a simple 2x2 table: Measurement X Below Above > Median Median £ Above £ Median B A - 2 Below 2 Median A B = * and take as an approximation: A - B r(approx) = ATE IX-28 Thus, if in a group of 200 pilots, 75 of the 100 men who are above the median value for weight are also above the median in stature and vice versa, we would have the table: - + + 25 75 A-B = 75-25 = 50 - | 75 25 A+B = 75425 = 100 r (approx) = 50/100 = 0.5 | Restated, this formula suggests that out of every 100 individuals who are above the median on one measurement, the number who will also be above the median on a second measurement is about: 50 whenever 55 whenever 60 whenever 65 whenever 70 whenever 75 whenever 80 whenever 85 whenever 90 whenever 95 whenever . . . HRHHRHHRAARHA JUIN 1 yy OCOO0OO0O0O0OO0O0O0O0O0OO0O . oN pLNHO This relationship is an approximate one but is reasonably good for the purpose of evaluating the degree of relationship that a correlation coeffi- cient, based on body size data, represents. Another quite important interpretation of the correlation coefficient is in terms of the accuracy of the regression equation estimates. It is customary to measure this accuracy by a statistic--the standard error of estimate--which is similar to the standard deviation but is based on the differences between the actual data values and the estimated values, rather than on the differences between the data and the arithmetic mean. The stan- dard error of estimate is defined as SE, = Jz C-r)2/N where Y* represents the regression estimates and Y the actual values. By algebraically manipulating this formula and the one for the correlation coefficient we arrive at the important relationship between these two sta- tistics: SE. = sDy1-r2 y IX-29 Note that, as we should expect, SE is zero for perfect correlations (r = +1 or -1) and equals the standard deviation where r = 0. We may further observe that, since the correlation coefficient appears here as a squared value, a negative value of r has the same effect as a positive one of equal magnitude. Just as, in general, two-thirds of a set of data lie within a standard deviation of the mean, so too about two-thirds of a set of estimates will lie within one standard error of estimate of the actual values. Similarly, about 95% of the data fall within two standard deviations of the mean, and about 95% of the estimates fall within two standard errors of estimate of the actual values. Reversing these last statements, we find that about two-thirds of the actual values lie within a band running from a standard error of estimate above the regression line to a standard error of estimate below it, 95% lie within the +2 SE band, and so forth. Thus, referring to Figure 8, our best estimate of the sleeve inseam of a USAF flyer who is 180 centimeters tall is about 49.3 centimeters, the regression value, and the chances are about two out of three that the inseam measurement is somewhere between 47.5 and 51.1 centimeters since SE, = 1.8 cm. The standard error of estimate, like the regression value, has a second important identity: the standard error is both a measure of the accuracy of a single estimate and, at the same time, the standard deviation for Y of all individuals with a fixed X-value. The regression value is both our best estimate of Y for an individual with a specified value of X and the mean value of Y for these individuals. Thus, we can say both: as for an individual with a stature of 180 centimeters, our best estimate of his sleeve inseam is 49.3 cm and there are two chances in three that this estimate will be in error by no more than 1.8 cm; and b. for the group of men with statures of 180 centimeters, the mean sleeve inseam is 49.3 cm and the standard deviation is 1.8 cm. The relationship between the standard error of estimate and the corre- lation coefficient is further illustrated by the following: Tr SEy Tr SEy I SEy 0.00 100% SD 0.40 91.7% SD 0.80 60.0% SD 0.10 99.5% SD 0.50 86.6% SD 0.90 43.6% SD 0.20 98.0% SD 0.60 80.0% SD 0.95 31.2% SD 0.30 95.47% SD 0.70 71.4% SD 0.99 14.1% SD Regression Equations The regression equation has already been more or less defined as the equation or formula for estimating one variable's value from that of a related variable. Tacitly we have assumed that this equation was linear in nature; that is, that its graph is a straight line, and that our equation is the "best" possible. These are universal assumptions when working with anthropometric data. IX-30 1€-XI Sleeve Inseam (cm) 56 < 54 N - RD 50 — ‘ NN NN , NN AN £2 48 - KORA NN RRR 9.0.0.0.0.0°70.0.9, CRRIGRRRLNS RRRARRIKKIKL 46 GRRE K RRSSERRRREEK? OKIE IHX CX XP XXX > , 2.9. 9.9.0.0,.4 44 CAREY & ERK ¥ 0X > 42 40 + ~~ / SSSXX' AF Flying Personnel, 1967 38 777777 AF Women, 1968 I I T I 1 T T T T T T 145 150 1955 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 Stature (cm) Figure 8. Regression bands: regression values * 1 SE. A useful way of writing the formula for the regression equation for Y in terms of X is this: ‘ Y*-Y XX SDT sD y X The equation, written in this form, points up the statement about the esti- mates ''regressing'! to the means. If X is "K" standard deviations from its mean, the estimate Y* will be Ker standard deviations from its mean. Since r cannot exceed unity, and in any practical situation never equals it, Ker will always be less--in absolute value--than K and in standard deviation units, Y* will be closer to Y, than X is to X. In our earlier statement that the regression estimate of the weight of a man who was 2SD above the mean in stature would be about 1SD above mean weight, we used 0.5 as the approximate correlation between stature and weight, a fairly good estimate of the correlation found for many series of data obtained by measuring healthy, youngish adults. A more conventional form of the regression equation--one absolutely algebraically equivalent to the one just given--is: Y* = aX+ B where G =rSD_/SD, ; B =Y - o X The value of 0 , the coefficient of X, is the slope of the regression line; B is, in theory, the Y-intercept of the line, that is, the value of Y* for X=0. We have qualified this last phrase with "in theory' because the range of values for which we may reasonably assume the regression line to be valid does not exceed the range of the data on which it is based. USAF flying personnel measured in 1967 ranged in stature from about 62" to 77"; no attempt should be made to use regression equations based on the data from these men with values of stature outside this range. In addi- tion, one should expect regression estimates to be less accurate when based on values near the ends of the range than those based on values close to average. The computation of regression equations, based on this last formula, is illustrated in Figure 7. Needless to say, the calculations based on a sample of five are intended to illustrate a formula and not to suggest that it is appropriate to use correlational techniques with very small samples. Intercorrelations of Body Size Data--High or Low? How big correlation coefficients for anthropometric variables tend to be is a question without a precise answer. While the correlational coef- ficients obtained from a particular set of data will depend somewhat on the individuals measured, they will depend even more on the measurements included in the data. The "typical" coefficient for a survey in which only a few major dimensions were measured will, almost certainly, be much higher than the "typical" value for a major survey in which a large number of ma jor and minor dimensions were measured. IX-32 One of the most comprehensive analyses of a large batch of anthropome- tric correlations appears in Anthropometry of Air Force Women (Clauser et al. 1972). It may be of interest to consider the results of this analysis since it 1s reasonable to assume that these results are, in broad terms, about the same as those we would find by studying data from other large surveys. The distribution of the 7,626 correlation coefficients based on age and the 123 body size measurements made on the entire sample in the Air Force Women's survey is summarized in Table 8 and Figure 9. Several things are clear from Figure 9. The size of the correlation coefficients ranges from rather small, negative values almost to a perfect correlation of 1.00. Most of the values are positive; if we ignore the values which are not significantly different from zero (the shaded area in Figure 9), there are almost no negative values. Despite this wide range, most of the correlation coefficients lie between 0.1 and 0.4, values which may sometimes be of interest but which are of almost no significance in design problems. The most common (model) correlation coefficient is equal to a little more than 0.2, corresponding to a rather trivial level of intercorrelation. To explore the question of how the correlation coefficients are dis=- tributed when the variables involved are of a particular type, the 124 variables involved in this analysis were divided into 9 categories: (1) age, (2) weight; (3) skinfold measurements; (4) heights (excluding lateral malleolus height), reaches, and long bone measurements; (5) torso breadths and depths; (6) torso (including neck) circumferences and horizontal surface measurements; (7) limb breadths and circumferences; (8) hand and foot measurements (including lateral malleolus height); and (9) head and face measurements. Table 8 shows the distributions obtained when the variables are divided into these categories. Section I of this table presents essentially the same information as is contained in Figure 9: the range of the correlation coefficients is from a minimum of -0.21 to a maximum 1.00% with a median of 0.24. Section II summarizes the patterns, by category, for the correla- tions of all the variables with the variables in each of the nine categories. Only the correlations with weight show a pattern of values distinctly higher than the pattern for the total distribution. The median value for the corre- lations with weight is 0.50, but for none of the eight other categories were as many as 257% of the correlations that large. Section III carries the process of breaking down the distribution one step further and considers, at each step, only those correlations involv- ing variables from a specified pair of categories. Of the 37 sets of coeffi- *Lest this value be regarded as a refutation of the statement made several times in this chapter that the correlation coefficient is never +1.00 in any realistic situation, we note that this value is really 0.998. As it is the correlation between stature measured two ways, its large size is not surprising. IX-33 £0 ‘ : . * | : TABLE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BY VARIABLES, GROUPS OF VARIABLES, AND ENTIRE GROUP (from Anthropometry of Air Force Women by Clauser et al., 1972) DRIGINAL PAGE 18 I. Total Series Summary DE POOR QUALITY Percentiles - MIN yu 10 25 50 75 9% 95 99 MAX N -a21 -.02 «05 +08 «15 «24 «39 «62 «73 +88 1.00 7626 II. Major Groups Summaries Group le Age -.08 -.02 «00 +05 «12 «19 «28 «29 0.33 123 2. Weight 0.08 o17 «22 «31 «50 «74 +80 «82 0.90 123 3. Skinfolds -10 -407 -.02 «00 «04 .12 «36 «56 «61 «68 0.72 466 4. Heights -e21 -+05 -.04 +09 «16 «25 «36 «58 «72 «90 1.00 3531 5. Breadths -.08 «04 «08 «12 «19 «29 «49 «66 I 84 0.89 1298 6. Circumferences -.10 «03 08 «11 «19 «30 «47 «65 «73 «84 0.94 2166 7. Limb C's & B's -+06 +03 +08 «12 «19 «31 045 «64 «72 «81 0.98 2270 8. Hand & Foot -.07 «00 «06 «10 .18 «26 «35 «46 «57 «68 0.74 723 9. Head & Face -.14 «+02 «03 +06 o11 «16 «23 «28 «31 «62 0.95 3161 III. Cross Group Summaries 1&4 +00 «05 +08 33 1&5 23 11 1&6 «23 19 1&7 .15 20 1&9 «07 09 14 29 284 AY «46 «53 33 2&5 «77 11 2&6 «79 19 287 «78 20 2&9 «19 «26 «30 29 3&4 -.08 -403 -.01 «02 «05 «10 «18 «22 0.29 132 3&5 «36 «47 «S57 a4 3&6 «16 «26 «37 «54 «61 76 3&7 «20 «28 bl 54 «63 80 348 «04 «05 +08 24 3&9 -.10 -.03 -.02 «01 «05 «10 «16 «21 0.27 116 L& 4 -e21 -.09 «16 «25 «39 «63 «75 «87 «91 «97 1.00 528 4&5 -.08 .08 «13 .18 «24 «31 «38 PY 0.59 363 L& 6 -.10 +06 o11 «15 «20 «27 «35 bb «53 «70 0.82 627 Le? -.06 «01 +08 o11 .18 «29 «35 42 «45 «49 0.59 660 La 8 0.01 «16 «21 «29 «34 «46 «60 «66 0.70 198 489 -e13 -+05 «03 «07 «12 «17 «22 $27 «29 «33 0.36 957 5&5 «31 «50 «59 «67 «71 55 586 0.09 «26 «33 bbs «56 «69 «76 «83 0.89 209 5&7 0.25 #29 «31 «37 «50 «64 «70 «72 0.84 220 5&8 o11 «19 «23 «30 «35 66 5&9 = 02 «05 «07 «11 $17 «22 «26 «29 0.35 319 6&6 0.07 «21 429 bls «54 «66 «79 «83 0.9 171 6&7 0.11 «23 «29 «37 «48 «62 «73 76 0.89 380 6&8 0.08 .12 «13 «19 «26 «32 «36 “60 0.49 114 6&9 -.03 «00 «04 «07 «10 «16 i ¥ 27 30 33 0.37 531 J : J 0:32 «37 «39 43 «54 «69 +80 92 : 0.98 190 789 000 03 os 08 2 7 3 ae 0136 50 ata o . . . . «29 «32 0.36 580 8&9 -o04 «05 08 13 pr 23 28 949 S404 2 08 RT . . o «31 0.40 176 o . . «16 «30 «53 «78 0.95 406 IX-34 GE-XI LIL LLL Figure 9. I -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 O. 0.2 TTT TT 1 1 | 0.4 0.5 0. 0.7 oO. I 1 1 1 1 0.3 Distribution of correlation coefficients (from Clauser et al. 1968). 1.0 EPLIL-62N cients with more than 10 values, only the following nine had median values of at least 0.50: weight and breadths-depths median r = 0.77 weight and circumferences median r = 0.79 weight and limb circumferences-breadths median r = 0.78 heights and heights median r = 0.63 breadths-depths and breadths-depths median r = 0.59 breadths-depths and circumferences median r = 0.56 breadths-depths and limb circumferences- breadths median r = 0.50 circumferences and circumferences median r = 0.54 limb circumferences-breadths and limb circum- ferences-breadths median r = 0.54 Five other groups almost reached the 0.50 level: weight and heights (0.46), skinfolds and breadths-depths (0.47), skinfolds and circumferences (0.47), circumferences and limb circumferences-breadths (0.48), and hand-foot mea- surements and hand-foot measurements (0.47). This breakdown has demonstrated that there are a few categories of body size measurements for which the correlation coefficients are, typi- cally, of at least modest size. It also demonstrates that the overall dis- tribution of correlations is weighted heavily towards the low end of the scale by large numbers of correlations which would rarely, if ever, be of any importance. Over a third of the correlation coefficients, for exam- ple, are correlations between measurements of the head and face and mea- surements of other parts of the body. That these 2,755 correlations have a median value of 0.16 is probably of no importance in any real design probleme On the other hand, the fact that the correlation coefficients for one head-face measurement with another also have a median value of 0.16 presents serious problems in the design of helmets and masks. Interrelationships--More than Two Variables at a Time The regression equation concept--that of estimating values of one variable from values of a second--is easily extended to the concept of the multiple regression equation. Using such an equation, we can estimate a man's weight from his height and his chest circumference, or from his height and his head, shoulder, chest, waist, and buttock circumferences, or from any other combination of two, three, four, or more variables. The quality of these estimates, as measured by their agreement with actual values, can be expressed in terms of the multiple correlation coefficient and the multiple standard error of estimate, statistics absolutely equiva- lent* to the simple correlation coefficient and the simple standard error of estimate. *The multiple correlation coefficient is always considered to be positive. IX-36 All these multivariate statistics can be computed directly from the simple correlation coefficients and the means and standard deviations; we shall 1limit our display of formulas here to the inclusion in Figure 7 of the formula for the correlation between one variable and a pair of other variables. Other formulas are included in Churchill et al. (1977); many examples of multiple regression equations for body size measurements are given in the report of the Air Force Women's survey. When "we use a multiple regression equation based on a pair of variables, our input into the equation contains more information than when we use a simple equation based on either member of the pair. With more information we should get more accurate estimates and, as a matter of fact, we do. The multiple correlation of, say Z with X and Y will always be larger than both the simple correlations of Z with X and Z with Y. Unfortunately, the multiple correlation will often be only trivially larger than the larger of the two simple correlations. This is all too true with body size corre- lations. It is commonly assumed, for example, that the multiple regression equations based on stature and weight provide good estimates of most anthro- pometric measurements. ‘While this is, in large measure, true, it is also true that most of the time these estimates are not much better than those obtained from the better of two simple equations. In the 1968 Air Force Women's data, for example, for 121 measurements, the multiple correlation coefficient based on stature and weight provided an improvement over the simple equations (based on either stature or weight) of no more than 0.01 for about half the measurement and an improvement of from 0.01 to 0.02 for 27 measurements. For only 35 of the measurements did the increase exceed 0.02. A typical case was that for thumb-tip reach which correlated 0.433 with weight and 0.646 with stature; the multiple correlation with weight and stature, 0.655, represented only a minor increase. A relatively new approach to multiple regression is worth mentioning briefly--"'stepwise'" regression equations. This is a technique which became practical only with the advent of the modern computer. A matrix of correla- tion coefficients is entered into the computer which then computes for each variable the best equation based on a single other variable, then the best equation based on two variables, and so on for as many equations as are desired. The results obtained by applying this approach to a set of survey data are often interesting. Applied blindly, however, this tech=- nique is not likely to satisfy the hope of those who expect it to identify a small group of variables on which to base equations for estimating all the other variables. The resulting equations are, unfortunately, all too likely to use a substantial portion, if not almost all, of the variables. The 121 one-predictor equations for the 1968 Air Force Women's data used well over half that many predictors, the two-predictor equations used about 100 different variables, and the three-predictor ones all but half a dozen of the variables. About a dozen two-variable combinations were "best" for predicting two variables apiece, but none was best for more than two. None- theless, this approach would seem to have potential usefulness in the analysis of body size interrelationships, and references to it appear from time to time in anthropometric literature. IX-37 A Mathematical Model for Body Size Data There are at least two fairly common ways of determining the circum- ference of a bicycle wheel: first, we can measure it directly; secondly, we can measure the distance from the center of the axle to the edge of the wheel and multiply the result by 27. When we use this second method, we use the circle as a mathematical model for the wheel and make use of the fact that, for this model, C=2TR. In working with anthropometric data, we often have a similar choice of procedures. We can measure some statistical value directly or we can estimate it indirectly using a mathematical model appropriate to such data. For most body size data, the most appropriate model is the normal distribu- tion, the 'normal curve," (see, for example, Figure 2). Just as there are circles of many sizes, so too there are an infinite number of normal distributions corresponding to all possible values of the mean and the standard deviation.* No set of data fits this model perfectly, but then, there has*never been a perfectly round bicycle wheel. Sometimes neither model may be ade- quately close to the real thing: subscapular skinfold measurements and wheels with flat tires are, perhaps, somewhat equivalent examples of this. Most body size measurements, on the other hand, fit our mathematical model within usual design tolerances and over the usual range of design values; both these reservations are real--and also realistic. The proportion of USAF pilots between X + 1SD values in stature is, according to the tables of the normal distribution, 68.268%; in more reasonable and more realistic words, we can expect about two-thirds of the pilots to fall in this range. For most designs, the two-thirds is likely to be adequate and accurate; the use of 68.268%, in contrast, will probably make as much sense as using 3.14159265 for 7 in determining the circumference of the wheel. Virtually all men have statures within 3 or 3.5 standard deviations of the mean value; only an occasional individual will fall outside this range and what his stature will be and, relatively speaking, how many such individuals exist in any group of men, are matters too erratic for close *The mathematical statement of the normal distribution is that, in a popu- lation of values with a mean of M and a standard deviation of SD, the proportion of values less than any value Xo is given by the integral: Xo (EM 1 e VSD’ dt SW 21 J _o ; where II = 3.14.... and e = 2.78.... have their usual meanings. The value of the integral cannot be expressed as a simple function of X, but tables of the integral are legion. This integral is closely related to, but not quite the same as, the error function (ERF) sometimes used in engineering studies. P(X