Encumbered Anthropometry Protocol Developmentmreed.umtri.umich.edu/DHM2013Proceedings/Individual_Papers/dhm2013_submission_85.pdfEncumbered Anthropometry Protocol Development M.L.H

M.L.H. Jones, Encumbered Anthropometry Protocol Development

*M.L.H. Jones. Email: [email protected] 1

Encumbered Anthropometry Protocol Development

M.L.H. Jones†, P.S.E. Farrell† and A. Keefe†

† Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Ontario

Abstract

Anthropometry data are used to facilitate the design and sizing of personal protective clothing and equipment systems (PPE). Standard anthropometric measures are based on semi-nude data while clothing and equipment represent an additional “bulk” that must be accounted for when designing workspaces and equipment. The objectives of this study are to: (1) evaluate two different landmark paradigms, and (2) evaluate the sensitivity of a bulk metric to differentiate encumbered load conditions. Encumbered anthropometric measurement data were obtained on a convenient sample of 26 male CF operators in order to identify the dimensional changes in body size that occur as encumbered conditions were donned. Two configurations of encumbrance (PPE) were evaluated. Bulk profile was characterized by two unique landmark paradigms: (1) Normalized to Anthropometry, and (2) Maximal Bulk. The Normalized to Anthropometry paradigm was based on reference height associated with an anatomical landmark, thereby transferring anthropometrically defined landmarks to encumbered conditions. The Maximal Bulk paradigm identified maximal bulk /girth within a specified region of the PPE at which the cross-section and corresponding reference height was defined. Unencumbered (semi-nude) baseline equivalent measures were also acquired for each cross-sectional height. Linear (1D) breadth, depth and circumferential measures were taken at each cross-section/reference height. These measurements defined an ellipse and cross-sectional 2D area. Difference in both the 1D and 2D measures of each cross-section between the unencumbered and encumbered conditions represents bulk at that reference height, thus generating a bulk (size and shape) profile. This study provided a detailed methodology of encumbered measurement. Results indicate that a combination of landmark paradigms, and calculation of bulk metrics, specifically the transformation from 1D to 2D measures, provide an effective method to parameterize encumbrance. Accurate representation of encumbrance can be used to represent body size and shape (spatial claim) and integrate into digital human modeling (DHM) software to visualize and evaluate the effects of clothing and equipment systems.

Keywords: Anthropometry, Encumbered anthropometry, Dismounted soldier systems, Human factors

1. Introduction

Semi-nude anthropometry measurements of body size and shape are used in Canadian Forces (CF) clothing, equipment, platform and workspace analysis and design. These measurements are critical for investigating key human factors criterion such as performance, safety, and survivability. However, these anthropometric data do not account for the effect of encumbrance on body size. MIL-STD-1472G cites that because anthropometric data represent nude body measurements, “suitable adjustments in design-critical dimensions shall be made for light or heavy clothing, flying suits, helmets, boots, body armour, load-carrying equipment, protective equipment, hydration packs, and other worn or carried items”. This presents scant objective guidelines as to how much additional space is to be allowed for clothing and

equipment or how to determine the spatial claim of an individual. Related applications for the representation of encumbered anthropometry are Digital Human Models (DHM). Initial efforts involved imposing clothing offsets onto an avatar generated from semi-nude anthropometric data (Carrier and Meunier, 1996). A more accurate approach would be to generate a DHM avatar directly from encumbered anthropometry measurements. Human models, based on semi-nude data, inaccurately represent situations where: i) the encumbrance bulk of clothing and equipment increase spatial claim in a constrained workspace, ii) encumbrance stiffness restricts range of motion, or iii) encumbrance weight and weight distribution adversely impacts performance. Direct encumbrance measures have the potential to provide more accurate human


2

models for the purpose of human factors analysis, design, and requirements capture for acquisition. A small number of published studies have investigated encumbered anthropometry measurements (Khandkar et al., 1980; Johnson, 1984; Carrier and Meunier, 1996; Paquette et al., 1999; Guitierrez & Gallagher, 2008). Among the early investigators in the area of clothed anthropometry, Roberts (1945) looked at the workspace requirements for nine different U.S. Army clothing combinations. Most studies have documented mean body size differences as a function of different clothing configurations, such as extreme cold and hot weather ensembles or chemical protection suits, and have limited transferability (Khandkar et al., 1980; Johnson, 1984; Carrier and Meunier, 1996). More recently, the Technical Cooperation Program, Human Resources and Performance Group, Technical Panel 15 on Human Systems Integration – Land (TTCP HUM TP 15) recognized the need to develop a standard encumbered anthropometry protocol, similar to semi-nude anthropometry protocols that involve linear and circumferential measurements between known anatomical landmarks (Clauser et al., 1988; ISO, 2008, 2010). Most encumbered anthropometry research describes the establishment of semi-nude, anatomical landmarks and encumbered measurement descriptions but do not detail how landmarks are transferred from semi-nude to encumbered conditions or how measurements are made over the clothing and equipment (Khandkar et al., 1980; Johnson, 1984; Carrier and Meunier, 1996). Paquette et al. (1999) proposed that the height of a landmark provided a method to transfer from semi-nude to encumbered conditions. This was based upon the fundamental assumption that the height of a landmark is constant during both semi-nude and encumbered conditions. Encumbered anthropometric procedures have yet to determine whether encumbered landmarks relate well to anatomically derived ones. Additional issues that are identified and lack sufficient detail in the literature include, but are not limited to: compression of clothing & equipment during measurement, measurement reliability, equipment shifts and donning effects, standardized postures, and standardized fit of personal protective equipment. Moreover, an encumbered anthropometry protocol must be developed to collect these data. If a method was found that relates encumbrance (i.e. bulk or encumbrance offsets from semi-nude body) to semi-nude dimensions then one could apply these parameters across an entire semi-nude anthropometry data set. The 2012 Canadian Forces

Anthropometric Survey (CFAS) contains 2206 records of standard semi-nude manual anthropometric measurements and 3D body scans across the Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, and Canadian Army. The CFAS data set would become even more powerful if encumbered parameters of bulk could be model with this database. A proposed working definition of bulk is the difference in size and shape measurements between unencumbered (semi-nude) and encumbered (clothing and equipment). Standard anthropometric measures are linear and circumferential, and therefore a method is needed to parameterize bulk. The current research is part of a larger investigation of encumbered anthropometry that includes stiffness, weight, and weight distribution parameters. This study was used to develop an encumbered anthropometry protocol aimed to explore methods for calculating bulk. It also aims to expand upon previous studies of Guitierrez and Gallagher (2008) and Paquette et al. (1999) and others, which have made some introductory contributions on how to standardize encumbered anthropometric methods to produce accurate measures of bulk. The specific objectives of this study are to: (1) propose and evaluate two different landmark paradigms, and (2) to develop and evaluate the sensitivity of the bulk metric to differentiate encumbered load conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Human Participants

Data were gathered from 26 military male volunteers who participated in this study with no imposed age, gender or medical restrictions. The study population averaged 1.8 ±0.07 m for stature, 80.4 ±12.2 kg for weight and 26.1 ±3.4 kg/m2 for body mass index (BMI). DRDC Toronto’s Human Research Ethics Committee approved research protocols 2012-033 and 2013-013 that included the experimental encumbered protocol described below (Bossi et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2013). Participants wore their own combat fatigues and helmet, and DRDC Toronto provided fragmentation vest and armour (frag vest), tactical vests, and other combat gear accessories (i.e. medical field dressings, water bottles) (Figure 1).

2.2. Apparatus

Standard anthropometric instruments, used in this study, were an anthropometer to measure cross-sectional heights, beam calliper with calibrated spear extensions to measure breadths and depths, and a Gulick 4 oz. constant tension measuring tape to measure circumferences. An FDA approved Class IIIa laser leveller was employed to identify


3

cross-sectional heights to obtain breadth, depth, and circumferential measures during all conditions. Other instruments included a weight scale and two digital cameras to record each encumbered clothing/load configuration for each participant. Participants stood against a 5cm x 5cm photomacrographic scaled grid and images were captured in the frontal and sagittal (side) planes.

2.3. Encumbered Load Conditions

This study examined the bulk effect of the Canadian Forces (CF) in-service dismounted soldier combat ensembles, consisting of personal protection equipment (PPE) that is currently in-service within the Canadian Forces. The test conditions included an unencumbered (semi-nude) and 2 different encumbered configurations for each participant, as outlined in Table 1 below. Tactical vests and fragmentation vest were sized according to the participant’s body dimensions (Land Forces Fragmentation Protective Vest 8470-21-921-3061). The individual clothing straps and components were adjusted in an attempt to standardize fit across the participants.

Table 1: Three load conditions are evaluated in this study: 1 unencumbered (semi-nude) and 2 encumbered configurations (E1 & E2). The load conditions are comprised of current Canadian Forces in-service personal protection equipment (PPE) for dismounted combat soldiers.

Condition Encumbered Configuration

UE Unencumbered (semi-nude : sports shorts)

E1 Combat fatigues, Tactical Vest with PPE

E2 Condition E1 + Fragmentation Plates (front and back hard body armour)

2.4. Anthropometric Measures

A total of 17 anthropometric dimensions, plus body weight, were chosen on the basis of their utility to provide a baseline unencumbered (semi-nude) measure of the participant’s shape and size, and a comparative to the addition of the combat clothing evaluated in this study. Three depth measurements (deltoid, chest, & waist) were specifically defined for this study. Definitions of the remaining anthropometric measurements are referenced and compatible with Gordon and associates (1989), ISO 20685 (2005) and Keefe et al. (2012). Two landmark paradigms, entitled Normalized to Anthropometry (Normalized) and Maximal Bulk (Maximal), were explored for the encumbered load conditions (Figure 1). These techniques were proposed to mitigate the difficulty of locating and palpating anatomical landmarks accurately through combat clothing. The Normalized paradigm involved taking individual measurements at cross-sectional heights associated with anatomical

landmarks, as specified by ISO 7250-1 (2008) and the 2012 Canadian Forces Anthropometric Survey (Figure 1a) (Keefe et al., 2012). The following anatomical landmarks define reference heights:

• Acromion, • Deltoid point, • Chest (nipple), and • Waist (omphalion).

The Maximal paradigm involved acquiring measurements at the point of maximal bulk or girth for a specified region of an encumbered configuration. This approach assumes that anthropometrically derived measures may not accurately reflect the bulk effect of additional load conditions; therefore the Maximal landmarks were defined relative to the equipment rather than specific anatomical references. Four regions were identified relative to the encumbered load conditions donned for this study (Figure 1b). The regions are identified as follows:

• Over shoulder, • Upper torso, • Mid torso, and • Lower torso.

Within each region of the encumbered load condition, maximum bulk/girth was determined by visual and quantitative inspection. Ultimately, the maximal breadth or depth measure determined the point at which the cross-section and corresponding reference height was defined for a given region. For both Normalized and Maximal paradigms, bulk/encumbrance was quantified by forming an arithmetic difference between encumbered and unencumbered cross-sectional breadth, depth, and circumference measures at each landmarked height. Baseline unencumbered (semi-nude) measures were also acquired for each point of maximal bulk/girth defined for the Maximal paradigm. Vertical heights were recorded at each region of maximal bulk, which enabled 1D measure (breadth, depth, and circumference) to be acquired at the unencumbered (semi-nude) baseline equivalent at each cross-sectional height.

2.5. Experimental Protocol

Prior to data collection, the purpose of the study and the measurement procedure were explained to each participant. The study commenced with participant consent. In a private area, participants undressed to sport shorts. All measurements were completed from a standing anthropometric posture (Gordon et al., 1988; ISO, 2008; Keefe et al.,


4

Figure 1: Illustration of the Normalized to Anthropometry and Maximal Bulk landmark paradigms. a) Highlights the reference height associated with the anatomical landmarks for the Normalized paradigm. b) Identifies the four regions with respect to the PPE in which maximal bulk /girth is determined and a corresponding reference height is derived for the Maximal Bulk paradigm.

2012). The measurers located bony landmarks by palpating the bones and marking those points with an eyeliner pencil. After the marks were properly placed on the participant’s body, 17 anthropometric measurements were taken with anthropometric devices. These measures formed the baseline for the Normalized paradigm. Participants donned the encumbered load conditions upon completion of the semi-nude measures. The order of the encumbered load conditions was randomized across all the participants. For each encumbered configuration the measurers used the calipers and measuring tape to parameterize the participant’s body shape and size with respect to the encumbrance. Normalized and Maximal landmark paradigms were employed to define the cross-sectional heights for which the linear 1D measures were to be taken. The cross-sectional heights were measured from the floor to the given landmark. Two laser-levels were then used to visualize the cross-sectional height as 360-degrees around the participant. Maximal breadth, depth and circumferential 1D measures were

measured from this reference. For the Maximal paradigm, participants were then asked to remove their encumbrance and return to the semi-nude condition. The three measurements were repeated but now at the new cross-sectional heights determined from the encumbered conditions. These extra measures form the baseline for Maximal landmark paradigm.

2.6. Data Analysis

The linear breadth (b) and depth (d) measures form the major and minor axes of an ellipse in the xy-plane (Thomas and Finney, 1988). Given the centre of the ellipse is (0, 0) then the major axis vertices are (±� 2⁄ 0), and the minor axis vertices are (±� 2⁄ , 0). The associated perimeter of the each ellipse was also computed using numerical integration to provide a comparison to the linear 1D circumferential measure. The linear 1D measures were transformed further to a 2D area of an ellipse. The standard form of an area of ellipse is:

��

4��.

Consider the elliptical plots in Figure 2. This figure is a representative illustration of the 2D measurements calculated for each of the four regions defined by the Maximal Bulk landmark paradigm for all 3 test conditions (1) unencumbered, (2) encumbered (E1 and E2). The ellipses filled grey are derived from the semi-nude measures, green –filled and blue-filled ellipses are derived from the linear 1D measures during the E1 and E2 encumbered load conditions, respectively. Note that the ellipse is calculated from the linear breadth and depth measures. The filled ellipse represents the area and black lined edge of an ellipse reflects the perimeter at each cross-sectional reference height. This methodology was applied to both Normalized and Maximal landmark paradigms.

Cross-sectional heights were normalized to with respect to stature and expressed as a fraction to compare the effects of Normalized and Maximal landmark paradigms across participants. A difference (off-set) calculation was formulated between an encumbered condition and its semi-nude baseline equivalent at each cross-sectional height. This difference is referred to as a bulk metric, by which the difference in size and shape measurements between unencumbered (semi-nude) and encumbered load conditions is parameterized. A bulk metric was then computed for each of the dependent measures. Bulk metrics were evaluated for the ability to discriminate differences in encumbrance. To analyze the bulk metric, a 2-way ANOVA (encumbered condition E1 and E2; and cross-sectional height defined by the Normalized &


5

Maximal landmarks), including 2-way interactions was applied to each of the 5 bulk metric measures (breadth, depth, circumference, perimeter & area) to test for main and interaction effects. A pairwise comparison with a Tukey-Kramer Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test was applied when

statistically significant differences existed to conservatively evaluate differences and protect against Type I errors. Statistical significance was set at �= 0.05.

Figure 2: Elliptical plot depicting the 2D cross-sectional measures calculated for each reference height, expressed in 3D space, for the Maximal Bulk landmark paradigm across all 3 encumbered conditions.

3. Results

Encumbered load condition, defined as the degree of protective equipment donned, was linked strongly to the anthropometric measures and bulk metrics for both the Normalized to Anthropometry and Maximal Bulk landmark paradigms.

3.1. Landmark Paradigms

Two landmark paradigms were proposed to define where to measure bulk. The Normalized paradigm was based on reference height associated with the anatomical landmarks, while the Maximal paradigm identified maximal bulk /girth within a specified region of the PPE and a corresponding reference height. Significant differences were observed between all of cross-sectional heights (p=0.0000). The only cross-sections that failed to be differentiated with respect to normalized stature were the deltoid (Normalized) and over shoulder region (Maximal) reference heights (Figure 3). The reference heights associated with both Normalized and Maximal landmark paradigms are illustrated in Figure 3. It is also of interest that the standard deviation (SD) of reference heights averaged 0.01 (1% of stature) and 0.03 (3% of stature) for the Normalized and Maximal landmark paradigms respectively.

Figure 3: Box plot summarizing the reference heights for (both Normalized to Anthropometry green) and Normalized Bulk (blue) landmark paradigms. Individual reference heights are normalized to stature (expressed as fraction of stature).


6

3.2. Breadth (1D) Bulk Metric

Differences in the breadth bulk metric emerged across the cross-sectional heights (p<0.0001), encumbered conditions (p<0.0001), in addition to an interaction effect (p=0.0032). Analysis of the interaction effect showed that the breadth bulk metric did not differ significantly between the encumbered conditions E1 and E2 at all of the cross-sectional heights (Figure 4a). The breadth bulk metric was only sensitive to differences in encumbrance about the upper torso region, specifically the Acromion, Deltoid and Chest sections for the Normalized paradigm, and Over-Shoulder for the Maximal landmark paradigm. No differences between encumbered conditions were detected for the remaining cross-sectional heights. Four levels of significance existed across the cross-sectional heights (Figure 4a). The maximal breadth measure was found at the waist (Normalized) and lower torso (Maximal) sections for both encumbered conditions. It is also noteworthy that the breadth bulk metric at the mid torso section (Maximal) differed significantly from all cross-sectional heights for both encumbered conditions E1 and E2.

3.3. Depth (1D) Bulk Metric

Significant differences in the depth bulk metric occurred between encumbered conditions (p<0.0001). The pairwise tests showed that the depth bulk metric was sensitive to the differences between encumbered condition E1 and E2 across all of the cross-sectional heights, defined by both the Normalized and Maximal landmark paradigms (Figure 4b). The depth bulk metric was not as sensitive to differences between cross-sectional heights (p=0.0418). Pairwise comparison showed that depth bulk measure was only significantly differences were observed at the waist (Normalized) vs. chest (Normalized) & over shoulder (Maximal) cross-sectional heights for encumbered condition E1 and mid torso (Maximal) vs. chest (Normalized) & over shoulder (Maximal) cross-sections for encumbered condition E2 (Figure 4b).

3.4. Area (2D) Bulk Metric

Encumbered conditions elicited significant differences in area bulk metric (p<0.0001) across all of the cross-sectional heights. The greatest area measures were found at the waist (Normalized) and lower torso (Maximal) sections for encumbered condition E1 and also at the mid torso cross-section height (Maximal) for encumbered condition E2 (Figure 4c). The area metric was sensitive to differences between cross-sectional heights for both encumbered conditions E1 and E2. However, the bulk metric found at the mid torso section (Maximal) was the only area measure to differ

significantly from all other cross-sectional heights, irrespective of landmark paradigm, for encumbered condition E1.

4. Discussion

Current MIL-STD-1472G lacks detailed information on how to account for the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE), and body shape. The present investigation was conducted as a protocol development effort to explore measurement techniques, derive and evaluate two landmark paradigms, and develop methods to calculate bulk that quantify the effects of encumbered load configurations on CF operators. One of the purposes of this study was to evaluate whether the Normalized and Maximal landmark paradigms were capable of differentiating where maximal bulk or girth was positioned relative to an individual’s body size and if these approaches yield significant differences at the respective cross-sectional heights. To re-iterate, the premise of the Maximal Bulk paradigm is that equipment and encumbrance itself will define where the maximal delta offset is located relative to body size and shape. Moreover, that anatomically referenced landmarks may not accurately reflect the bulk effect of the additional load conditions. During encumbered condition E1, the mid torso cross-section, defined by the Maximal paradigm, was found to differ significantly from all other cross-sections for the breadth, perimeter and area bulk metrics. Breadth and perimeter bulk metrics were also differentiated at the mid torso cross-section for encumbered condition E2. The upper torso cross-section differed from all other reference heights for the circumferential and perimeter metrics during encumbered condition E1 (not shown in results). The relevance of Maximal cross-sections differentiating from reference heights identified by the Normalized paradigm is that the overall shape and contour of the encumbrance was not captured by anatomically derived measures alone. This effect can be visualized in Figure 5 which illustrates the mean summary statistics, including overall mean and overall mean ±1 SD, for each of the load conditions (unencumbered & encumbered) and landmark paradigms. To compare the encumbrance effects across each encumbered condition and landmark paradigm, individual plots were expressed as a function of normalized stature (reference heights were expressed as a percentage of stature). The Maximal Bulk landmark paradigm captured encumbrance as it relates to both the equipment and body size. Integration of measures defined by both the Normalized and Maximal landmark paradigms generate a more accurate representation of encumbrance and its spatial claim relative to body shape.


7

Figure 4: a) Mean breadth bulk metric, expressed as a linear 1D dimension (cm). b) Mean depth metric, expressed as a linear 1D dimension (cm). c) Mean area bulk metric, expressed as 2D dimension (cm2). Each bar plot presents the results of 2 pairwise comparisons. First, is the pairwise comparison of the Landmark Paradigms (Normalized & Maximal) collapsed across all of the cross-sectional heights. The reference heights identified by the Maximal landmark paradigm are circled. Cross-sectional heights indicated by different letters (i.e. A & B) are significant different within an encumbered condition. Second, is the pairwise comparison of the Encumbered Load Conditions (E1-UE vs. E2-UE). Asterisks identify the significant differences between encumbered conditions. The individual bars represent the mean and standard deviation (error bars) for the two encumbered conditions (E1-UE – green; E2-UE – blue). Each error bar is constructed using ±1 SD.


8

Figure 5: Overall mean ellipse (derived from breadth, depth to calculate perimeter and area) ± 1SD across encumbered conditions (UE-E1-E2) and landmark paradigms (Normalized & Maximal). The vertical height is defined upwards and expressed as a fraction of stature. The overall mean cross-sectional areas are filled with colour (UE-grey; E1-green; E2-blue), while the overall mean ±1SD are filled white.

A second objective was to evaluate the sensitivity of the bulk metric and its ability to differentiate between the encumbered load conditions. If the values are markedly different, then the proposed bulk metric is observant to the differences in load configurations and these relative delta offsets must be considered for all design, fit and accommodation studies (MIL-STD-1472G). Indeed significant differences were observed between bulk metrics encumbered conditions for depth and area bulk metrics. Pairwise comparison found these bulk metrics were statistically different between encumbered condition E1 and E2 across all of the cross-sections for both Normalized and Maximal paradigms. The only exception was the breadth bulk metric, as it was only able to differentiate the encumbered conditions at the upper torso region. This is most like an artifact of the CF PPE that was evaluated. Frag Vests consist of a soft vest that is to fit approximately level with the iliac crest and hard ceramic body plates are designed to cover the

chest, upper abdomen and back (Land Forces Fragmentation Protective Vest 8470-21-921-3061). Linear breadth dimensions were therefore defined by the tactical vest and not affected by the donning of the frag vest (Figure 1). Technically, the methods proposed in this study proved to be feasible, repeatable and consistent across the 26 participants. The use of reference heights measurements to establish the cross-sectional levels to complete the linear breadth, depth and circumferential measures was an effective technique to standardize encumbered measures. Laser-levels defined a 360-degree, visible reference line at each landmark height, which ensured that all subsequent anthropometric measures were acquired from a consistent cross-section. In most cases, the reference heights of the encumbered anthropometric landmarks were set within a centimeter of the semi-nude landmark, a


9

degree of variability that is most likely tolerant for encumbered anthropometry. Transformation from linear 1D to 2D measures provided a more comprehensive and accurate representation of encumbrance. 2D measures (perimeter and area of the ellipse at the cross-sections) reflected the effects of bulk/encumbrance on both breadth and depth simultaneously. Figure 5 illustrates that the addition of a third dimension would provide a volumetric measure of bulk. Ideally, bulk is the volumetric difference between semi-nude and encumbered conditions. Thereby, this encumbered anthropometry protocol proposes a method to transform standard linear and circumferential 1D anthropometric measures into 2D measures that can be extended further to a 3D volumetric measure. Future studies will involve validated these methods against body volume calculated from 3D scan point cloud data. Other technical and feasibility issues need to be considered to evaluate the effectiveness of this encumbered anthropometry protocol. Future work includes, but is not limited to, evaluation of the landmark paradigms with respect to other encumbered ensembles, evaluation of the protocol with respect to a participant sample who are representative of the diversity of the CF population, and the validation of the proposed methodology against 3D body scan of encumbered CF operators. Issues of standardize fit of personal protective equipment, equipment shift, and donning effects of PPE should also be considered. A final thought is to expand and evaluate this encumbered protocol to postures beyond the anthropometric standing posture. By establishing relationships between the standardized semi-nude anthropometric dimensions and maximal bulk dimensions statistically valid encumbrance models can be developed. Encumbrance models can be used to represent body size (spatial claim) and integrate into digital human modeling (DHM) software to visualize and evaluate the effects of clothing and equipment systems.

5. Conclusion

This study provides a detailed methodology of encumbered measurement. Results indicate that a combination of landmark paradigms, and calculation of bulk metrics, specifically the transformation from linear 1D to 2D measures, provide an effective method to parameterize encumbrance. Accurate representation of encumbrance is of importance to provide adequate accommodation for CF operators.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Linda Bossi for the opportunity and leadership. The authors acknowledge the substantial contributions of Andrea Hawton, Tonya Hendriks, Ingrid Smith and Nada Pavlovic to the measurement protocol and data collection. Lastly, the authors would like to express their gratitude to the CF members who participated in this study.

References

Bossi, L. L. M., Kelly, A. E., Tack, D. W., Keefe, A., Farrell, P., Jones, M., Ducharme, M., and Rutley, M. (2012). Combat Movement Testing with Varying Load Conditions: Canadian Load Effects Assessment Program (CAN-LEAP). Experimental Protocol. #2012-033, Defence Research and Development Canada. Unpublished Work. Toronto. Carrier, R. and Meunier,P. (1996). Effect of Protective equipment on anthropometric measurements and functional limitations. DCIEM Report No. 96-CR-22. Toronto, Canada: Department of National Defence. Clauser, C., Tebbetts, I., Bradtmiller, B., McConville, J., & Gordon, C. (1988). Measurer's Handbook: U.S. Army Anthropometric Survey 1987-1988: Technical Report NATICK/TR-88/043. United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick, Massachusetts 01760-5000. Gordon, C. C., Bradmiller, B., Churchill, T., Clasuer, C. E., McConville, J.T., Tebbetts, I.O., and Walker, R. (1989). 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics. Technical Report NATICK/TR-89/044. United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick, Massachusetts. Guitierrez, C. M., & Gallagher, P. D. (2008). Pilot Study of Firefighter Three-Dimensional Anthropometry to Improve Seatbelt Safety (pp. 144). Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8661: National Institute of Standards and Technology. ISO. (2008). International Standard ISO 7250-1:2008(E): Basic human body measurements for technological design — Part 1: Body measurement definitions and landmarks. Geneve, Switzerland. ISO. (2010). International Standard ISO 20685:2010(E): 3D scanning methodologies for internationally compatible anthropometric databases. Geneve, Switzerland.


10

Johnson, R. F. (1984). Anthropometry of the Clothed US Army Ground Troop and Combat Vehicle Crewman. Technical Report NATICK/TR-84/034. United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick, Massachusetts. Jones, M. L. H., Keefe, A., & Farrell, P. S. E. (2013). Encumbered Anthropometry Protocol Development. Experimental Protocol. #2013-013, Defence Research and Development Canada. Unpublished Work. Toronto. Keefe, A., Schwarz-Mueller, F., Angel, H., & Mangan, B. (2012). 2012 Canadian Forces Anthropometirc Survey. Experimental Protocol. #L832, Defence Research and Development Canada. Unpublished Work. Toronto. Khandkar, S. M., MacDonald, G. A. H., Beevis, D., & Noy, I. (1980). Clothed Anthropometry in the Canadian Forces using Direct and Photogrammetric Methods. DCIEM Report No. 81-R-04. Toronto, Canada: Department of National Defence. Land Forces Fragmentation Protective Vest User Manual. 8470-21-921-3061. Toronto, Canada: Department of National Defence. MIL-STD 1472G. 2012. Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard – Human Engineering. United States Department of Defense. Paquette, S. P., Case, H. W., Annis, J. F., Mayfield, T. L., Kristensen, S., and Mountjoy, D.N. (1999). The Effects of Multilayered Military Clothing Ensembels on Body Size: A Pilot Study. Technical Report NATICK /TR-99/012. United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick, Massachusetts. Roberts, L. B. (1945). Size Increase of Men Wearing Various Clothing Combinations. Project No. 9, SPMEA 741-3 (Partial Report). Kentucky, USA: Armoured Medical Research Laboratory. Thomas, G.B. and Finney, R.L. (1988). Calculus and Analytic Geometry, 7th edition by, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts.

Documents

Encumbered Anthropometry Protocol Developmentmreed.umtri.umich.edu/DHM2013Proceedings/Individual_Papers/dhm2013_submission_85.pdfEncumbered Anthropometry Protocol Development M.L.H