BODY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: A COMPARISON ... - CiteSeerX

11 downloads 3676 Views 774KB Size Report
Jan 12, 2001 - Comparison of ImageTwin scanner models: 2T4 and 2T4s. 6. 3. ...... 2cm below the Adam's apple and at the level of the 7 th cervical vertebra ...

BODY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: A COMPARISON OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING AND PHYSICAL ANTHROPOMETRIC METHODS

By Karla Peavy Simmons

Submitted to the TTM Graduate Faculty College of Textiles North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the A1 requirement for the Ph.D. degree in Textile Technology and Management

Raleigh, North Carolina January 12, 2001

Table of Contents

Page # LIST OF TABLES

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

viii

1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

THREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation/ImageTwin 2.1.1 History 2.1.2 ImageTwin systems 2.1.3 System design 2.2 Cyberware 2.2.1 History 2.2.2 Cyberware systems 2.2.3 Cyberware system design 2.3 SYMCAD 2.3.1 History 2.3.2 SYMCAD system models 2.3.3 SYMCAD system design

2 4 4 5 6 9 9 9 11 13 13 13 14

3.

TRADITIONAL ANTHROPOMETRY 3.1 Historical Practice 3.2 Methodology and Instrumentation 3.2.1 Methodology 3.2.2 Instrumentation 3.3 Landmarks

14 14 16 16 17 20

4.

COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL ANTHROPOMETRICAL METHOD WITH THREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING METHODS 4.1 Neck-Midneck 4.1.1 Traditional measurement method 4.1.2 ImageTwin method 4.1.3 Cyberware method 4.1.4 SYMCAD method 4.1.5 Discussion 4.2 Neck-Neckbase 4.2.1 Traditional measurement method 4.2.2 ImageTwin method 4.2.3 Cyberware method

27

Karla P. Simmons

1

ii

29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 A-1 Paper

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.2.4 SYMCAD method 4.2.5 Discussion Chest Circumference 4.3.1 Traditional measurement method 4.3.2 ImageTwin method 4.3.3 Cyberware method 4.3.4 SYMCAD method 4.3.5 Discussion Bust Circumference 4.4.1 Traditional measurement method 4.4.2 ImageTwin method 4.4.3 Cyberware method 4.4.4 SYMCAD method 4.4.5 Discussion Waist-Natural Indentation 4.5.1 Traditional measurement method 4.5.2 ImageTwin method 4.5.3 Cyberware method 4.5.4 SYMCAD method 4.5.5 Discussion Waist-Navel (Omphalion) 4.6.1 Traditional measurement method 4.6.2 ImageTwin method 4.6.3 Cyberware method 4.6.4 SYMCAD method 4.6.5 Discussion Hip Circumference 4.7.1 Traditional measurement method 4.7.2 ImageTwin method 4.7.3 Cyberware method 4.7.4 SYMCAD method Seat 4.8.1 Traditional measurement method 4.8.2 ImageTwin method 4.8.3 Cyberware method 4.8.4 SYMCAD method 4.8.5 Discussion Sleeve Length 4.9.1 Traditional measurement method 4.9.2 ImageTwin method 4.9.3 Cyberware method 4.9.4 SYMCAD method 4.9.5 Discussion

Karla P. Simmons

iii

Page # 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38

A-1 Paper

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

Arm Length 4.10.1 Traditional measurement method 4.10.2 ImageTwin method 4.10.3 Cyberware method 4.10.4 SYMCAD method 4.10.5 Discussion Inseam 4.11.1 Traditional measurement method 4.11.2 ImageTwin method 4.11.3 Cyberware method 4.11.4 SYMCAD method 4.11.5 Discussion Outseam 4.12.1 Traditional measurement method 4.12.2 ImageTwin method 4.12.3 Cyberware method 4.12.4 SYMCAD method 4.12.5 Discussion Shoulder Length 4.13.1 Traditional measurement method 4.13.2 ImageTwin method 4.13.3 Cyberware method 4.13.4 SYMCAD method 4.13.5 Discussion Across Chest 4.14.1 Traditional measurement method 4.14.2 ImageTwin method 4.14.3 Cyberware method 4.14.4 SYMCAD method 4.14.5 Discussion Across Back 4.15.1 Traditional measurement method 4.15.2 ImageTwin method 4.15.3 Cyberware method 4.15.4 SYMCAD method 4.15.5 Discussion Back of Neck to Waist Length 4.16.1 Traditional measurement method 4.16.2 ImageTwin method 4.16.3 Cyberware method 4.16.4 SYMCAD method 4.16.5 Discussion

Karla P. Simmons

iv

Page # 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45

A-1 Paper

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

Rise 4.17.1 Traditional measurement method 4.17.2 ImageTwin method 4.17.3 Cyberware method 4.17.4 SYMCAD method 4.17.5 Discussion Crotch Length 4.18.1 Traditional measurement method 4.18.2 ImageTwin method 4.18.3 Cyberware method 4.18.4 SYMCAD method 4.18.5 Discussion Thigh Circumference 4.19.1 Traditional measurement method 4.19.2 Traditional measurement method for mid-thigh circumference 4.19.3 ImageTwin method 4.19.4 Cyberware method 4.19.5 SYMCAD method 4.19.6 Discussion Bicep Circumference 4.20.1 Traditional measurement method 4.20.2 ImageTwin method 4.20.3 Cyberware method 4.20.4 SYMCAD method 4.20.5 Discussion Wrist Circumference 4.21.1 Traditional measurement method 4.21.2 ImageTwin method 4.21.3 Cyberware method 4.21.4 SYMCAD method 4.21.5 Discussion

Page # 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

5.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions 5.2 Recommendations

51 51 54

6.

REFERENCES

55

7.

APPENDIX 7.1 Appendix A 7.2 Appendix B

63

Karla P. Simmons

v

A-1 Paper

List of Tables

Page # 4

1.

Current major scanning systems

2.

Comparison of ImageTwin

3.

Comparison of Cyberware scanner models: WB4 and WBX

11

4.

Summary of anthropometric tools and usages

19

5.

Landmarks terms and definitions

21

6.

Mid-neck and neckbase terms used in selected scanner models

31

7.

Chest and bust terms used in selected scanner models

33

8.

Waist-natural indentation and waist-navel terms used in selected scanner models

35

9.

Hip circumference and seat terms used in selected scanner models

37

10.

Sleeve length and arm length terms used in selected scanner models

39

11.

Inseam terms used in selected scanner models

41

12.

Outseam terms used in selected scanner models

42

13.

Shoulder length terms used in selected scanner models

43

14.

Across chest terms used in selected scanner models

43

15.

Across back terms used in selected scanner models

44

16.

Back of neck to waist length terms used in selected scanner models

45

17.

Rise terms used in selected scanner models

46

18.

Crotch length terms used in selected scanner models

47

19.

Thigh circumference terms used in selected scanner models

49

Karla P. Simmons

scanner models: 2T4 and 2T4s

vi

6

A-1 Paper

Page # 20.

Bicep circumference terms used in selected scanner models

50

21.

Wrist circumference terms used in selected scanner models

51

22.

Summary of traditional measurement terms compared to selected scanner model terms

53

Karla P. Simmons

vii

A-1 Paper

List of Figures Page # 1.

Patterned grating in the ImageTwin

2.

Booth layout of the ImageTwin

3.

3D point cloud

8

4.

Segmentation of the body

8

5.

Printout available to subject

8

6.

Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WB4

10

7.

Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WBX

10

8.

Cyberware scanning positions

12

9.

Scanning booth of the SYMCAD TurboFlash/3D

13

10.

Standard anthropometric tools: (a) anthropometer, (b) calipers, (c) sliding compass, (d) tape measure

18

11.

Diagram of principle planes used in anthropometry and terms of orientation

19

12.

Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the front of the body

24

13.

Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the back of the body

25

14.

Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the side of the body

26

Karla P. Simmons

scanner

scanner

viii

7 7

A-1 Paper

BODY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: A COMPARISON OF THREEDIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING AND PHYSICAL ANTHROPOMETRIC METHODS

Introduction

“No one – not even the most brilliant scientist alive today – really knows where science is taking us. We are aboard a train which is gathering speed, racing down a track on which there are an unknown number of switches leading to unknown destinations. No single scientist is in the engine cab and there may be demons at the switch. Most of society is in the caboose looking backward.” (Lapp, Ralph E., The New Priesthood. New York: Harper & Row, 1961, p.29)

In 1961, Ralph Lapp, a scientist turned writer, made these comments about the unknown directions where science would lead us. Little did he know that just a few years later, a new technology would be developed that would revolutionize many industries by the end of the 21st century. This new technology is three-dimensional (3D) non-contact body scanning. Although body scanning applications have been used in many areas of study, the apparel industry is anxiously researching its usage for apparel design and the mass customization of garments. A major frustration for consumer shopping of apparel is finding garments that are comfortable and fit properly (Goldsberry & Reich, 1989). This frustration is caused by the current sizing system, which was taken from an anthropometric study conducted in 1941. Women are shaped differently today than six decades ago. New studies are needed to record anthropometric data of today’s culture.

Karla P. Simmons

1

A-1 Paper

Three-dimensional body scanning is capable of extracting an infinite number of types of data. However, a problem exists in the consistency of measuring techniques between scanners. Among the several scanners that are currently available, significant variance exists in how each captures specific body measurements. Until the data capture process of specific body measurements can be standardized or communicated among scanning systems, this island of technology cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel industry. This paper will to a) give a brief description of several major body scanners, b) discuss traditional anthropometry with regards to landmarks and body dimension data, and c) present a comparison of traditional anthropometry with the measurement techniques for each scanner. Three-Dimensional Body Scanning Technology When measuring a large number of locations on the human body, the most desirable method would be one of non-contact. Before the turn of the century, surveyors were using non-contact measurement from a distance to determine the shape of the earth’s surface (West, 1993). Their system of triangulation would become the basis of modern methods whereas a light sensing device would replace the theodolite1. In 1964, a full-scale male dummy was designed with anthropometric measuring that utilized a simple threedimensional technique (Lovesey). Also in 1964, Vietorisz used a light source and an arrangement of photo detectors to measure a person’s silhouette.

1

A theodolite is a surveyor’s instrument for measuring horizontal and vertical angles (Webster’s, 1987). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 2

In 1979, Ito used an arrangement of lights with a collection of photo detectors, which were rotated around the body being measured. A similar system in principle was developed by Takada and Escki (1981), but with a different setup of lights and photo detectors. In 1984, Halioua, Krishnamurphy, Liu, and Chiang improved upon a method by Meadows, Johnson, and Allen (1970), known today as the Moire` fringe method. They were able to determine the body contour height of single points using two small independent gratings of a light source and camera. All of these systems were only capable of measuring one side of the body at a time. It wasn’t until 1985 that Magnant produced a system which used a horizontal sheet of light to completely surround the body. Framework for the system carried the projectors and cameras needed that would scan the body from head to toe. Systems utilizing lasers were also being developed during this same period of the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1977, Clerget, Germain, and Kryze illuminated their measured object with a scanning laser beam. Arridge, Moss, Linney, and James (1985) used 2 vertical slices of laser along with a television camera to measure the shapes of faces for orthodontic and maxillo-facial2 surgery. At this same time, Addleman and Addleman (1985) developed a scanning laser beam system which is marketed today as Cyberware. Other scanning systems have also been developed in the last fifteen years. A list of the current major scanning systems can be found in Table 1.

2

Maxillo-facial is the upper jaw area of the face (Webster’s, 1987). Karla P. Simmons 3

A-1 Paper

Table I. Current Major Scanning Systems Scanning System

System Type

Hamamatsu

Light

Loughborough

Light

ImageTwin

Light

Wicks and Wilson

Light

TELMAT

Light

Turing

Light

PulsScanning

Light

Cognitens

Light

Cyberware

Laser

TECMATH

Laser

Victronic

Laser

Hamano

Laser

Polhemus

Laser

3DScanner

Laser

Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation (TC2)/ImageTwin History. In 1981, a concept generated from the National Science Foundation was formed into Tailored Clothing Technology Corporation. Their mission was to conduct Research and Development activities, demonstrate technology and provide education programs for the apparel industry. In 1985, they became Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation [(TC2)]. (TC2) is located in Cary, North Carolina where their teaching factory is visited by thousands of industry representatives each year. One of the research and development products invented by (TC2) has been a 3-Dimensional whole body scanner and body measurement system Karla P. Simmons

4

A-1 Paper

(BMS). Work on the system began back in 1991. In 1998, the first 3D scanner model, the 3T6, was made available to the public. The first four systems to be delivered were to Levi Strauss & Company, San Francisco, the U.S. Navy, North Carolina State University College of Textiles, and Clarity Fit Technology of Minneapolis. The (TC2) scanner was the first scanner to be developed with the initial focus for the clothing industry. In order for the American apparel industry to be more competitive, (TC2) saw the need for the drive toward mass customization. 3 A move toward made-to-measure clothing necessitated fundamental technology that would make the acquisition of essential body measurements quick, private, and accurate for the customer. ImageTwin

systems. In July of 2000, (TC2) and Truefinds.com, Inc.

announced the joint venture formation of ImageTwin . The (TC2) scanner will now be known as the ImageTwin

Digital Body Measurement System ([TC2],

2000). The model 3T6 is named by the number of towers (3) and the number of sensors (6) that are used for the scanning process. New models have been designed that have the same basic function but a smaller footprint: the 2T4 and 2T4s. The 2T4 and 2T4s have 2 towers with 4 sensors. The “s” in 2T4s stands for short which denotes a smaller layout than the 2T4 (David Bruner, personal communication, 2000). A comparison of the 2T4 and 2T4s scanner models is shown in Table 2.

3

Mass Customization is a term that was coined by Stan Davis in 1987 in Future Perfect. In general , it is the delivery of custom made goods and services to a mass market. Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 5

Table 2. Comparison of ImageTwin Hardware

Scanner Models, 2T4 and 2T4s 2T4

2T4s

Height

7.9 ft.

7.9 ft.

Width

5 ft.

5 ft.

Length

20.5 ft.

13.5 ft.

600 lbs.

600 lbs.

Height

7.2 ft.

7.2 ft.

Width

3.9 ft.

3.9 ft.

Depth

2.6 ft.

3.6 ft.

Setup time

4 hrs.

4 hrs.

Calibration time

15 mins.

15 mins.

Portability

Yes

Yes

Cost

$65,000

$65,000

System Dimensions

Weight Field of view

System design. The ImageTwin

BMS utilizes phase measurement

profilometry (PMP) where structured white light is employed. The concept was first introduced by M. Halioua in 1986 (Halioua & Hsin-Chu, 1989). The PMP method employs white light to impel a curved, 2-dimenional patterned grating on the surface of the body. An example of this grating can be found in Figure 1. The pattern that is projected is captured by an area array charge-coupled device (CCD) camera.

Karla P. Simmons

6

A-1 Paper

Figure 1. Patterned grating in the ImageTwin

scanner.

The design of this system allows for extensive coverage of the entire human body. After experimentation, it was determined that more detail and coverage is required for the front surface of the body than on the back surface (Hurley, Demers, Wulpurn, & Grindon 1997). The 3T6 has 2 front views that have a 60 degree angle and a straight on back view (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Booth layout of the ImageTwin

scanner.

With these angles, overlap between the views is imparted where a high degree of detail is needed for high slope regions. Minimal overlap is needed on Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 7

smooth surfaces. Therefore, for height coverage, six views are utilized: three upper and three lower. Each system utilizes six stationary surface sensors. A single sensor captures an area segment of the surface. When all sensors are combined, an incorporated surface with critical area coverage of the body is formed for the use in the production of apparel. Four images per sensor per grating are attained. This information is used to calculate the 3D data points. The transitional yield of the PMP method is a data cloud for all six views. Once the image is obtained, over 400,000 processed data points are determined (Figure 3). Then segmentation of the body occurs and the measurement extraction transpires (Figure 4). The specific measurement output is predetermined by the user. A printout is available with a body image and the measurements (Figure 5).

Figure 3. 3D point cloud

Karla P. Simmons

Figure 4. Segmentation of the body

8

Figure 5. Printout available to subject

A-1 Paper

Cyberware History. Another leading three-dimensional body scanner manufacturer is Cyberware. Incorporated in December 1982, the company’s early work consisted of digitizing and model shop services. More than two years was spent developing the rapid 3D digitizing that they are now known for today. Currently, Cyberware centers on manufacturing various 3D scanners with continuing research and development in custom digitizing. They are one of the leaders in research concerning 3D scanning for garment design and fitting, anthropometrics, and ergonomics. Cyberware is privately funded (Cyberware, 2000a). The idea for whole body scanning started at Cyberware when anthropologists at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base began deliberations on imaging in 1991. Two years later, a formal proposal was published with an order for a system in March of 1994. Delivery of the system was in August 1995 (Addleman, 1997). Since then, Cyberware has sold scanners all over the world (Cyberware, 2000a). Cyberware systems. Although Cyberware has several different types of scanners, they currently have only two models in the whole-body scanner line, the WB4 and WBX. The WB4 is a color whole-body 3D scanner, the goal of which is to obtain an accurate computer model in one pass of the scanner (Cyberware, 2000b). The subject stands on the scanner platform while the scanner pans down the length of the entire body (see Figure 6). The WBX is an enclosed whole body 3D scanner (Cyberware, 2000c). It was custom designed for use in scanning military recruits for uniform issue (ARN, 2000)(Figure 7.) The Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 9

systems do have similarities. Table 3 best illustrates the features of both the WB4 and the WBX scanners.

Figure 6. Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WB4.

Figure 7. Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WBX.

Karla P. Simmons

10

A-1 Paper

Table 3. Comparison of WB4 and WBX Scanners WB4

WBX

Field of view Diameter

120cm (47”)

Height

200cm (79”)

Scan heads

4

4

Cameras

4

4

Mirrors

4

0

Scan cycle time

40 secs

25 secs

Cost

$350K

$150K

Width

360cm (144”)

244cm (96”)

Height

292cm (117”)

244cm (96”)

Diameter

300cm (120”)

244cm (96”)

Weight

450Kg (992lbs)

Booth size

Sources: Cyberware, 2000b; Cyberware, 2000c; ARN, 2000.

Cyberware system design. Since the WBX is still in the prototype stage of development and is currently customized for military function, the discussion will focus on the WB4 system in this paper. The scanner consists of two towers with a round platform in between them. Each tower has a rail with a motor attached to move the two scanning heads. The four heads on the WB4 are separated by 75 and 105 degree angles. This layout of the heads gives the appropriate overlap for maximum coverage (Addleman, 1997). Previous tests concluded that the highest surface area is derived from the subject facing in the middle of the Head 2 and Head 3 position which is separated by 75 degrees (Brunsman, Daanen, and Robinette, 1997) (see Figure 8). With the subject standing on the Karla P. Simmons

11

A-1 Paper

platform, the scanning heads start at the subject’s head, and move down to scan the entire body. A typical scan is less than 30 seconds and is often completed in as little as 17 seconds (Cyberware, 2000a).

1

H ea d

2

ad He

105 75

75

H d ea 3

He ad 0

105

Source: Brunsman, Daanen, & Robinette, 1997, p.268.

Figure 8. Cyberware scanning positions. Each one of the scanning heads consists of a light source and a detector. Laser diodes4 are the source of light, which project a level surface of light onto a subject. This laser line is created by tubular lenses and focusing optics. A CCD, coupled charge device, sees the line created by the laser crossing the subject. The image is reflected using mirrors to reduce the camera size. Electronic circuitry distributes the raw data to the workstation for the scanned points (Addleman, 1997). The WB4 can produce a cloud of over 100,000 3D data points from the human body surface (Daanen, Taylor, Brunsman, & Nurre, 1997). These points

4

According to Webster’s Dictionary (1987), a diode is a 2-electrode electron tube having a negative terminal (cathode) and a positive terminal (anode) of an electrolytic cell. Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 12

are available within seconds for use. The four separate camera views are illustrated and combined into one data set where redundant and overlapping data are removed. For subjects larger than the maximum allowable dimensions for the scanner (79” x 49”), two or more scans can be combined for a complete 3D model (Cyberware, 2000b).

SYMCAD History. In 1992, a French based company, TELMAT Industrie, developed a computerized 3D body measuring system called SYMCAD. The System for Measuring and Creating Anthropometric Database (SYMCAD) was first used in January 1995 by the French Navy for uniform issue (Financial Times, 1998). SYMCAD systems. The range of TELMAT products fall into several categories. In the textile area, the only product they offer is the SYMCAD. They refer to this system as “The Electronic Master Tailor”, “the SYMCAD Turbo Flash/3D”, and “a Computerized 3D Body Measuring System” (TELMAT 2000; L’LALSACE, 1999; Financial Times, 1998). See Figure 9 for a representation of the SYMCAD scanner.

Figure 9. Scanning booth of the SYMCAD Turbo Flash/3D.

Karla P. Simmons

13

A-1 Paper

SYMCAD system design. The scanning system consists of a small enclosed room with an illuminated wall, a camera, and a computer. The subject enters the booth, removes their clothing, and stands in their undergarments in front of the illuminated wall. Three different poses of the subject are photographed: facing the camera with arms slightly apart from the body, from the side straight on5, and facing the wall (Financial Times, 1998). These 3D images are processed and appear on the computer screen. Over 70 measurement calculations are made from these computerized images. Traditional Anthropometry Historical Practice No two people are ever alike in all of their measurable characteristics. This uniqueness has been the object of curiosity and research for over 200 years. In the past, different individuals have set out to express quantitatively the form of the body. This technique was termed anthropometry. The definition used by Kroemer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert (1986) is:

Anthropometry describes the dimensions of the human body (p.1). The name is derived from anthropos, meaning human, and metrikos, meaning of or pertaining to measuring (Roebuck, Jr., 1995). The first individual to mark the beginning of anthropometry was Quelet in 1870, with his desire to

5

Both the front and side views adopt anthropometric poses (World Clothing Manufacturer, 1996). The anthropometric position assumes the body is standing upright, and at “attention” with the arms hanging by the sides slightly apart from the body, palms of the hands facing the front, and the feet facing directly forward (Croney, 1971). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 14

obtain measurements of the average man according to Gauss’ Law6 (Anthropometry, 2000). It wasn’t until the 1950s that anthropometrics became a recognized discipline. Settings for usage of anthropometry include vehicles, work sites, equipment, airplane cockpits, and clothing (CAD Modelling, 1992; Czaja, 1984; Hertzberg, 1955; Roe, 1993; Roebuck, Kroemer, & Thomson, 1975; Sanders & Shaw, 1985). For years, anthropometry has been used in national sizing surveys as an indicator of health status (Marks, Habicht, & Mueller, 1989). Assessment of the reliability of the measures has been the topic of research for just as long (Bray, Greenway, & Molitch, 1978; Cameron, 1986; Foster, Webber, & Sathanur, 1980; Johnston, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1972; Malina, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1972; Malina, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1974; Marshall, 1937; Martroll, Habicht, & Yarbrough, 1975; Meredith, 1936).

Reliability is defined operationally as the extent to which a measure is reproducible over time (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Snedecor & Cochran, 1980). The reliability of a measurement has components of precision and dependability (Mueller & Martorell, 1988). Of the two components, precision is the most important determinate of reliability (Marks, Habicht, & Mueller, 1989; Mueller & Martrell, 1988). However, reliability matters are often overlooked in

6

Kal Friedrich Guass (1777-1855) was a German scientist and mathematician known for a relation known as Gauss's Law (Hyperphysics, 2000). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 15

problem oriented research (Gordon & Bradtmiller, 1992) because of the impact of measurement error. Observer error is the most troublesome source of anthropometric error. It includes imprecision in landmark location, subject positioning, and instrument applications. This error can even be accentuated by the use of multiple observers even when they are trained by the same individual and work closely together (Bennett & Osbourne, 1986; Jamison & Zegura, 1974; Utermohle & Zegura, 1982; Utermohle, Zegura, & Heathcote, 1983;). Error limits are usually set in advance of data collection while measurer performance is monitored throughout the process against the pre-set standards (Cameron, 1984; Gordon, Bradtmiller, Churchill, Clauser, McConville, Tebbetts, & Walker, 1989; Himes, 1989; Johnston & Martorell, 1988; Malina, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1973). Observer errors in anthropometry are not random and are not unusual (Bennett & Osborne, 1986; Gordan & Bradtmiller, 1992; Jamison & Zegura, 1974). Therefore, traditional methods of measuring bodies need a great deal of improvement. Methodology & Instrumentation Methodology. Classical anthropometric data provides information on static dimensions of the human body in standard postures (Kroemer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert, 1986). The science of anthropometry is one of great precision. Experienced workers in the field are the best to utilize this technique (Montagu, 1960). Most measurements taken of the subject are taken in the most desirable position of standing. However, there are a few measures which warrant

Karla P. Simmons

16

A-1 Paper

exception. Measurements are taken, whenever possible in the morning. The human body tends to decrease in height during the day and is often more relaxed in the morning (Montagu, 1960). It is preferable to have the subject completely unclothed or with as little clothing as possible. Kromer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert (1986) explain in detail the standard method of measuring a subject: For most measurements, the subject’s body is placed in a defined upright straight posture, with the body segments at either 180, 0, or 90 degrees to each other. For example, the subject may be required to “stand erect; heels together; buttocks, shoulder blades, and back of head touching the wall; arms vertical, fingers straight…”: This is close to the so-called “anatomical position” used in anatomy. The head is positioned in the “Frankfurt Plane”; With the pupils on the same horizontal level, the right tragion (approximated by the ear hole), and the lowest point of the right orbit (eye socket) are also placed on the same horizontal plane. When measures are taken on a seated subject, the (flat and horizontal) surfaces of seat and foot support are so arranged that the thighs are horizontal, the lower legs vertical and the feet flat on their horizontal support. The subject is nude, or nearly so, and unshod (p.6). A diagram of the principle planes used in anthropometry and the terms of orientation are given in Figure 11. Instrumentation. The same anthropometric instruments have been used since Richer first used calipers in 1890 (Anthropometry, 2000). Simple, quick, non-invasive tools include a weight scale, camera, measuring tape, anthropometer, spreading caliper, sliding compass, and head spanner. Table 4 summarizes the tools and their uses. Figure 10 shows the tools.

Karla P. Simmons

17

A-1 Paper

Table 4. Summary of Anthropometric Tools and Usages Anthropometric Tool

Usage

Weight Scale

For determining weight

Camera

For photographing subjects

Measuring Tape

For measuring circumferences and curvatures For measuring height and various traverse diameters of the body For measuring diameters

Anthropometer Spreading Caliper Sliding Compass Head Spanner

For measuring short diameters such as those of the nose, ears, hand, etc. For determining the height of the head

b

d

c a

Figure 10. Standard anthropometric tools: (a) anthropometer, (b) calipers, (c) sliding compass, (d) tape measure.

Karla P. Simmons

18

A-1 Paper

Medial (Middle of the body)

Lateral (Away from the body)

Lateral (Away from the body)

YZ Posterior (Back of the body)

XZ

Proximal (nearer to the torso skeleton)

YZ

Superior (Toward the head)

Anterior (Front of the body) XY

Transverse plane

Distal

Distal (further from the torso skeleton)

XY

Sagittal plane

Coronal plane Inferior (Away from the head)

Figure 11. Diagram of principle planes used in anthropometry and the terms of orientation.7 7

Medial suggests near the midline. Lateral suggests farther away from the midline. Posterior suggests at the back of the body. Anterior suggests at the front of the body. Superior suggests toward the head. Inferior suggests away from the head. The Median plane passes through the center of the body dividing it into a right and left half. The Sagittal plane passes through the body parallel with the median plane. The Coronal plane passes through the body from side to side at right angles to the sagittal plane. The Traverse plane is any plane at right angles to the long axis of the body (Bryan, Davies, & Middlemiss, 1996; Tortora, 1986). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 19

Landmarks As stated earlier, the correct identification of body landmarks is one of the key elements in observer error in the collection of anthropometric data. In order to have agreement as to the body measurements recorded in an anthropometric based study, uniformity must be achieved as to what common points on the body must be identified. These points are referred to as landmarks.

A landmark is an anatomical structure used as a point of orientation in locating other structures (Websters, 1987).

Most people have never had a formal education in anatomy to be able to identify specific landmarks. Even though measurers are usually trained in how to measure subjects for a study, the process is still very difficult and time consuming. In a 1988 anthropometric survey of US Army personnel, four hours were required to physically landmark, measure, and record the data of one subject (Paquette, 1996). The first step in traditional landmarking is to mark certain places on the body with a non-smearing, skin pencil (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941) or skin-safe, washable ink (Roebuck, 1995). A small cross verses a dot is usually used as the marking symbol because the intersection of the lines is easier to read. The traditional methods in determining and placing landmarks are given below. Diagrams of the landmarks are given in Figures 12, 13, and 14.

Karla P. Simmons

20

A-1 Paper

Table 5. Landmark Terms and Definitions Landmark Abdominal Extension (Front High-Hip)

Symbol A

Figure 14

Acromion (Shoulder Point)

B

Figure 12

Ankle (Malleolus)

C

Figures 12, 13, 14

Armpit (Axilla)

D

Figures 12, 13

Bicep Point

E

Figure 12

Bust Point

F Figure 14

Buttock (Seat) Calf (Gastrocnemius) Cervicale (Vertebra Prominous)

G Figure 14

H Figures 12, 13, 14

I

Figures 13, 14

Karla P. Simmons

Definition Viewed from the side, it is the measure of the greatest protrusion from one imaginary side seam to the other imaginary side seam usually taken at the high hip level (ASTM, 1999); taken approximately 3 inches below the waist, parallel to the floor (ASTM, 1995) The most prominent point on the upper edge of the acromial process of the shoulder blade (scapula)[T] as determined by palpatation (feeling) (Jones, 1929; McConville, 1979). The joint between the foot and lower leg; the projection of the end of the major bones of the lower leg, fibula and tibia, that is prominent, taken at the minimum circumference (McConville, 1979; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941; ASTM, 1999). Points at the lower (inferior) edge determined by placing a straight edge horizontally and as high as possible into the armpit without compressing the skin and marking the front and rear points or the hollow part under the arm at the shoulder (McConville, 1979; ASTM, 1999). *See Scye. Point of maximum protrusion of the bicep muscle, the brachii, as viewed when elbow is flexed 90 degrees, fist clenched and bicep strongly contracted (Gordon, Churchhill, Clauser, Bradtmiller, McConville, Tebbetts, & Walker, 1989; ASTM, 1999). Most prominent protrusion of the bra cup (Gordon, et.al, 1989, McConville, 1979; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941); apex of the breast (ASTM, 1999). Level of maximum protrusion as determined by visual inspection (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et.al, 1989) Part of the leg between the knee and ankle at maximum circumference (McConville, 1979; ASTM, 1999). At the base of the neck [R] portion of the spine and located at the tip of the spinous process of the 7th cervical vertebra determined by palpatation, often found by bending the neck or head forward (McConville, 1979; Jones, 1929; Gordon, et.al, 1989; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941; ASTM, 1999).

21

A-1 Paper

Landmark Collarbone Point (Clavical Point) Crotch Point

Symbol J Figure 12

K Figures 12, 13

Crown

L Figure 12

Elbow (Olecranon)

M

Figures 12, 13, 14

Gluteal Furrow Point Hip Bone (Greater Trochanter) Iliocristale

N Figures 13, 14

O Figures 12, 14

P Figures 12, 14

Kneecap

Q Figures 12, 14

Neck

R Figures 12, 13

Infrathyroid (Adam’s Apple)

S Figure 14

Shoulder Blade (Scapula)

T Figures 13, 14

Scye

Karla P. Simmons

U

Definition Upper (superior) points of the shoulder (lateral) ends of the clavical (Gordon, et.al, 1989). Body area adjunct to the highest point (vertex) of the included angle between the legs (ASTM, 1999). Top of the head (ASTM, 1999; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941). When arm is bent, the farthermost (lateral) point of the olecranon which is the projection of the end of the inner most bone in the lower arm (ulna) (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941); the joint between the upper and lower arm (ASTM, 1999). The crease formed at the juncture of the thigh and buttock (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et. Al, 1989). Outer bony prominence of the upper end of the thigh bone (femer) (ASTM, 1999; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941). Highest palpable point of the iliac crest of the pelvis, ½ the distance between the front (anterior) and back (posterior) upper (superior) iliac spine (Gordon, et.al, 1989; Jones, 1929). Upper and lower borders of the kneecap (patella) located by palpatation (Gordon, et.al, 1989; McConville, 1979); joint between the upper and lower leg (ASTM, 1999). Front (anterior) and side (lateral) points at the base of the neck; points on each cervical and upper borders of neck ends of right and left clavicles [J] (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941; Gordon, et.al, 1989). The bottom (inferior), most prominent point in the middle of the thyroid cartilage found in the center front of the neck (Gordon, et.al, 1989). Large, triangular, flat bones situated in the back part of the chest (thorax) between the 2nd and 7th ribs (Totora, 1986; Bryan, Davies, & Middlemiss, 1996). Points at the folds of the juncture of the upperarm and torso associated with a set-in sleeve of a garment (Gordon, et.al, 1989; McConville, 1979; O’Brien & Sheldon,1941). *See Armpit.

22

A-1 Paper

Landmark Top of the Breastbone (Suprasternal) Tenth Rib

Symbol V Figure 12

W Figures 12, 14

7th Thoracic Vertebra

X Figure 13

Waist (Natural indentation)

Y

Figure 13

Waist (Omphalion) Wrist (Carpus)

Z Figure 14

AA Figures 12, 13

Karla P. Simmons

Definition Bottom most (inferior) point of the jugular notch of the breastbone (sternum) (Gordon, et. al, 1989; Jones, 1929). Lower edge point of the lowest rib at the bottom of the rib cage (Gordon, et. al, 1989; O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941). The 7th vertebra of 12 of the thoracic type which covers from the neck to the lower back (Totora, 1986). Taken at the lower edge of the 10th rib [W] by palpatation (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941); point of greatest indentation on the profile of the torso or ½ the distance between the 10th rib [W] and iliocristale [P] landmarks (Gordon, et.al, 1989); location between the lowest rib [W] and hip [O] identified by bending the body to the side (ASTM, 1999). Center of navel (umbilicus) (Gordon, et. al, 1989; Jones, 1929). Joint between the lower arm and hand (ASTM, 1999); Distal ends (toward the fingers) of the ulna (the inner most bone) and radius (the outer most bone) of the lower arm (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et. al, 1989).

23

A-1 Paper

[L] Crown Neck [R] Collarbone Point [J] (Clavical Point) Shoulder Point (Acromion) [B] [V]

Top of Breastbone (Suprasternal) Bicep Point [E]

Armpit [D] (Axilla)

Iliocristale [P]

Elbow [M] (Olecranon)

Hip Bone (Greater [O] Trochanter)

Tenth [W] Rib Wrist (Carpus) [AA]

Crotch [K] Point

Calf (Gastrocnemius) [H]

Kneecap [Q] (Patella) Ankle (Malleolus) [C]

Figure 12. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the front of the body. Karla P. Simmons

24

A-1 Paper

[R] Neck Cervicale (7th Cervical [I] Vertebra) 7th Thoracic [X] Vertebra

Shoulder Blades (Scapula) [T]

Waist [Y] (Natural Indentation)

Wrist [AA] (Carpus)

Crotch [K] Point

Armpit (Axilla) [D]

Elbow (Olecranon) [M]

Gluteal Furrow Point

[N]

Calf (Gastrocnemius) [H] Ankle [C] (Malleolus)

Figure 13. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the back of the body. Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 25

Cervical (7th Cerival Vertebra) [I]

Adam’s Apple (Infrathyroid) [S] Bust Point [F]

[T]

Shoulder Blade (Scapula) Elbow (Olecranon) [M] [W] Tenth Rib Waist (Omphalion) [Z] [G] Buttock Iliocristale [P]

Gluteal Furrow [N] Point

Calf [H] (Gatrocnemius)

Ankle [C] (Malleolus)

Abdominal Extension [A]

Hip Bone (Greater [O] Trochanter)

Kneecap (Patella) [Q]

Figure 14. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the side of the body. Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 26

Comparison of the Traditional Anthropometrical Method With 3D Body Scanning Methods Simple anthropometric methods using measuring tapes and calipers are still being utilized to measure the human body. The methods are time consuming and often not accurate. With the development of three-dimensional body scanning, this technology allows for the extraction of body measurements in seconds. It also allows consistent measurements. However, there are several problems that exist with the adoption of this technology. One such issue is the comparability of measuring techniques between the scanners. Among the growing number of scanners that are currently available, significant variance exists in how each scanner captures specific body measurements. Until the data capture process of these measurements can be standardized or, at the very least, communicated among the scanning systems, this technology cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel industry. A second problem is the unwillingness of some scanner companies to share information about their scanning process. Some companies will give how the data capture occurs, how and what landmarks are used, and general information about their measurement extraction. However, the real proprietary information is in the mathematic/algebraic algorithms that are used. Almost all scanning companies are keeping this secret, which is understandable since this might be their competitive advantage. When these particular scanning companies are questioned about their data capturing methods, they simply give a standard answer of “we follow the ISO standards” or a similar statement. These Karla P. Simmons

27

A-1 Paper

are the kinds of attitudes that cause barriers to be built, which could inhibit the growth of this technology. Research of this comparative nature should enable 3D scanner companies to see the importance of their support in order to promote adoption of their technologies. A third problem with body scanning technology is that there are no standards, published or unpublished, on the interpretation of measurements or measurement terms. Current standards for body and garment dimensions include those established by the Association of Standards and Testing Materials (ASTM) and the International Standards Organization (ISO). The predominant standard for measurements taken for the military today in their issue of clothing is the 1988 study of U.S. Army personnel by Gordon, Bradtmiller, Churchhill, Clouser, McConville, Tebbetts, and Walker (1989). Three-dimensional body scanning brings to the forefront issues concerning these current standards. Most current standards require palpatation, or touching of the human body, or the bending of body parts to find appropriate landmarks for the needed measurements. Most scanners are intended to be non-contact so that the privacy of the individual being scanned can be protected. If we were to use the current standards to define the measuring process in 3D scanning, they just will not work. New standards are needed that will work for 3D scanners on a global basis. A fourth problem is the need of some scanners to require landmarking. Manually identifying landmarks is time consuming and, usually, full of error. Landmarking also violates the privacy of the individual. A human must come in contact with the subject’s skin in order to find the landmark and to mark it. On A-1 Paper 28

Karla P. Simmons

the other side, another issue is that scanners that do landmarking automatically are most times making an educated guess as to the exact location of that landmark. Without being able to touch the subject’s skin, absolute identification cannot be achieved. In this study, 17 measurements were chosen that were considered critical in the initial design of well fitting garments. These measures included midneck/neckbase, chest/bust, waist by natural indentation/waist by navel, hips/seat, sleeve length/arm length, inseam, outseam, shoulder length, across back, across chest, back of neck to waist, rise, crotch length, thigh circumference, bicep circumference, and wrist circumference. For each of the 17 measurements, the method of data capture is described below for three different scanners: ImageTwin , Cyberware, and SYMCAD. Neck-Midneck Traditional measurement method. The midneck is defined as the circumference of the neck approximately 25mm (1 inch) above the neck base (ASTMa,1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999). The girth of the neck measured 2cm below the Adam’s apple and at the level of the 7th cervical vertebra (ISO, 1981; ISO, 1989; National Bureau of Standards (NBS), 1971). The plane is perpendicular to the long axis of the body (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et al, 1979). ImageTwin

method. In this system, the mid-neck measure is referred to

as the “collar”. It is measured by

Karla P. Simmons

29

A-1 Paper

Cyberware method. The “neck circumference” measure is taken at the collar level. It is the smallest circumference of points that pass through the center of the Adam’s Apple. It often lies on or near a plane at varying offsets and tilt angles (Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1, 2000).

Figure 15. Midneck measurement.

SYMCAD method. The “neck girth” is the perimeter of the neck that is the smallest circumference measured from the 7th cervical vertebra (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. For the midneck measure, the first issue of discussion is that the current standards are not in agreement as to the proper method of measurement. About 25 mm above the neckbase and 2 cm below the Adam’s apple can vary widely between individuals. Secondly, men have an Adam’s apple but women do not. The ISO and NBS definitions seem not to be appropriate for women. Thirdly, the terms used for the midneck are not clear. The midneck measure is used as the collar measurement in men’s shirts. ImageTwin recognizes this usage by calling their measure “collar”. However, Cyberware and SYMCAD refer to their midneck as neck circumference and neck girth.

Karla P. Simmons

30

A-1 Paper

Neck-Neckbase Traditional measurement method. The neckbase is defined as the circumference of the neck taken just over the cervical at the back and at the top of the collarbone in the front (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999; NBS, 1971; NBS, 1972). ImageTwin

method. The neckbase is the “neck”

measurement in this system. It is the circumference measured right at the base of the neck following the contours. It is not parallel to the floor (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999). Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a Figure 16. Neckbase measurement.

neckbase measure. SYMCAD method.

The “neckbase” is the perimeter

around the neck defined by a plane section based on the 7th cervical vertebra and both left and right neck bases (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. The neckbase measurement for the ImageTwin and SYMCAD seem to be consistent with the current standards. The term “neck” could be changed so it would not be confused with the midneck measure. This measure is possibly more important for women than men because of the various collarless clothing styles. Considering the development of the Cyberware system and its use by the military, it is understandable that they have not developed a neckbase measure.

Karla P. Simmons

31

A-1 Paper

Table 6. Midneck and Neckbase Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Midneck

Neckbase

ImageTwin

Collar

Neck

Cyberware

Neck Circumference

n/a

SYMCAD

Neck Girth

Neckbase

Chest Circumference Traditional measurement method. The chest circumference is defined as the maximum horizontal girth at bust levels measured under the armpits, over the shoulder blades, and across the nipples with the subject breathing normally (NSB, 1971; ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); parallel to the floor (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; McConville, 1979). ImageTwin

method. The “chest” measurement is measured horizontally

at the armpit level just above the bustline (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999; [TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a measurement that differentiates the chest from the bust measures. Their chest measure is more related to the bust measure and is discussed in the next section. SYMCAD method. The “maximum chest girth” is the maximum horizontal perimeter of the chest Figure 17. Chest circumference measurement.

(SYMCAD, 2000).

Karla P. Simmons

32

A-1 Paper

Discussion. Current standards do not differentiate between the chest and bust measurements. However, there is a distinct difference. The only system to clearly recognize this difference is the ImageTwin. The SYMCAD measurement discusses the maximum circumference which on a man might be the chest measure. For a woman, the bust will almost always be the maximum circumference. The above-bust (or chest) circumference is vitally important for the best fit in women’s clothing. Because men’s clothing is seldom created with a close, form fit, the measure and its determination may be less important. Bust Circumference Traditional measurement method. The bust circumference is defined as the maximum horizontal girth at bust level measured under the armpits, over the shoulder blades, and across the nipples with the subject breathing normally (NSB, 1971; ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); parallel to the floor (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; McConville, 1979). ImageTwin

method. The “bust” measurement is the horizontal

circumference taken across the bust points at the fullest part of the chest ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. The “chest circumference” measurement is the sum of the distances separating successive points from the torso segment that lies on or near a parallel place to the X axis which passes through the right and left bustpoints (Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1, Karla P. Simmons

33

Figure 18. Bust circumference measurement. A-1 Paper

2000). SYMCAD method. The “chest girth” is the horizontal perimeter measured at the average height of the most prominent points of each breast with the subject standing with arms apart and breathing normally (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. All three scanners have definitions that include going through the bust points for the bust circumference. The standards discuss going across the nipples but, if you notice, this definition is the same as the one for chest circumference. The definition for the chest measurement should be changed in the standards to reflect the true definition of being measured horizontally at the armpit level just above the bustline. The terminology in the three scanners for the bust circumference name should be changed to reflect a very different bust measure. Since the term “bust” may be an issue in men’s measurement and not really needed, another general term may be needed or the measurement sets may be defined by gender.

Table 7. Chest and Bust Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Chest

Bust

ImageTwin

Chest

Bust

Cyberware

n/a

Chest Circumference

SYMCAD

Maximum Chest Girth

Chest Girth

Waist-Natural Indentation Traditional measurement method. The natural waist measure is defined as the horizontal circumference at the level of the waist, immediately below the lowest rib (Gordon, et al, 1989; ASTM, 1999; ASTMa, 1995; NSB, 1971; NSB, Karla P. Simmons

34

A-1 Paper

1972); between the iliac crest and lower ribs (ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); may not be parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995). ImageTwin

method. The “waist” is the smallest circumference between

the bust and hips determined by locating the small of the back and then going up and down a predetermined amount for a starting point to find the waist. The system allows the user to define how far from horizontal the waist can rotate or determine a fixed angle for the waist. Zeros for the center front and center back values will make the waist parallel to the floor. The waist can be adjusted based on the hips. The distance you start above the waist is based upon where the hips are located. The system uses a formula that defines a distance above the crotch to start the waist based on the circumference of the hips. Someone who has rather large, wide hips might allow the waist to go up higher (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September 1999; [TC2], 1999). Cyberware Method. This system does not use the natural indentation of the body as the waist measure. They use the navel as the waist landmark which is explained in the next section. SYMCAD method. The “natural waist girth” is the horizontal perimeter measured at the narrowest part of the abdomen (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Both ImageTwin and SYMCAD have definitions that coincide with the current standards. However, palpatation or bending to one side is needed to determine the landmarks used in the natural waist. In a scanner, the subject stands vertically and does not move. Therefore, the standards need to reflect this issue in their definition. Karla P. Simmons

35

A-1 Paper

Waist-Navel (Omphalion) Traditional measurement method. No current standard could be found that had a waist-at-the-navel definition. ImageTwin

method. This system does not have a method of detecting

the navel for use in the waist measurement. Cyberware method. The “waist circumference” is taken in reference to the navel. It is the measurement of the total distance around the torso segment that lies on or near a plane parallel to the XY plane which passes through the navel (omphalion). The center of the navel is taken to be the center of mass of the 3D object occurring at or near the inside middle of the central third of the torso segment (Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1, 2000). SYMCAD method. The “waist girth (at the navel)” is the horizontal perimeter measured where the

Figure 19. Waist at the navel measurement.

system detects the navel. The “belt girth” is where the trousers are worn according to the rise as defined by the user (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Using the navel as a landmark has a significant problem of not being able to be located. The subject in the scanner will usually have on clothing that could cover up the navel. This would affect other measurements that rely on an accurate waist measure for their extraction. The terminology for the waist-at-the-navel terms for Cyberware and SYMCAD should be changed to indicate the usage of the navel as a landmark. Karla P. Simmons

36

A-1 Paper

Table 8. Waist-Natural Indentation and Waist-Navel(Omphalion)Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Waist-Natural

Waist-Navel

Indentation

(Omphalion)

ImageTwin

Waist

n/a

Cyberware

n/a

Waist Circumference

SYMCAD

Natural Waist Girth

Waist Girth Belt girth

Hip Circumference Traditional measurement method. The hip circumference is defined as the maximum hip circumference of the body at the hip level, parallel to the floor (ASTMa, 1995); maximum circumference of the body at the level of maximum prominence of the buttocks (ASTM, 1999); maximum hip circumference at the level of maximum prominence of the buttocks, parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995); the horizontal girth measured round the buttocks at the level of the greatest lateral trochanteric projectors (ISO, 1989); the horizontal girth measured round the buttocks at the level of maximum circumference (ISO, 1981). ImageTwin

method. The “hips” measure is defined as the largest

circumference defined between the waist and the crotch. Upper and lower limits can be specified by the user. These limits are based on a percentage of the distance from the crotch and the waist and a distance above or below that point (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999; [TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a hips measurement. SYMCAD method. SYMCAD does not have a hips measurement. Karla P. Simmons

37

A-1 Paper

Seat Traditional measurement method. The seat measure is defined as the horizontal circumference of the level of the maximum protrusion of the right buttock, as viewed from the side (Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin

Method. The “seat” measure is the circumference taken at

the largest (widest) part of the bottom, as viewed from the side. The seat measure will never be larger than the hips measure unless limits are placed on the area the scanner searches in (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999; [TC2], 1999). Cyberware Method. The “seat circumference” finds the seat at the most prominent posterior protuberance on the buttocks. Starting at the crotch, cross sections of the pelvis are taken until the waist is reached. At each level, the greatest posterior point is found. At the level of the most posterior point, the circumference is measured around the point cloud (Beecher, 1999). SYMCAD method. The “seat girth” is the horizontal perimeter measured at the average height of the most prominent point of the buttocks (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. The traditional definitions of this measure allow for a great deal of measurement variance since no consistent landmark is defined. The ImageTwin

Figure 20. Seat measurement.

most correctly follows the ASTMa, 1995

and ISO, 1981 standards but does not support the other definitions. The other definitions (ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1989) most clearly follow the Karla P. Simmons

38

A-1 Paper

definition of seat as stated above. A strong case can be made for the importance of both hip and seat measures as well as the location of those measures form a basic landmark (floor or waist).

Table 9. Hip Circumference and Seat Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Hip Circumference

Seat

ImageTwin

Hips

Seat

Cyberware

n/a

Seat Circumference

SYMCAD

n/a

Seat Girth

Sleeve Length Traditional measurement method. The sleeve length is defined as the horizontal surface distance from the mid-spine landmark, across the olecranoncenter landmark at the tip of the raised right elbow, to the dorsal wrist landmark (Gordon, et al, 1989); the distance between the 7th cervical vertebra to the extremity of the wrist bone, passing over the top of the shoulder (acromion) and along the arm bent at 90 degrees in a horizontal position (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995). ImageTwin

method. The “shirt sleeve length” is

measured from the back of the neck, over the shoulder, and down to 2 inches above the knuckle ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. The “sleeve length” measure starts by measuring one-half the cross-shoulder measurement. A line is then drawn from the shoulder Karla P. Simmons

39

Figure 21. Sleeve length measurement. A-1 Paper

endpoint (acromion) to the wrist. One inch is added to the length to give the approximate sleeve end point (ARN, 1999). SYMCAD method. The “total arm length” is the distance between the base of the neck and the exterior inferior edge of the wrist, measured along the arm through the tops of both the acromion and the elbow, arm and forearm in a vertical plane forming an angle of about 120 degrees. The subject must stand with their fists about 15cm out from the hips (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. This measure, as defined here, is primarily used in men’s tailored clothing. The ISO, ASTM, and U.S. Army study standards for sleeve length require the arm to be bent at 90 degrees for this measure. In many scanners, the subject’s arms are hanging straight down and are not bent. None of these standards will work for body scanning as they currently exist. SYMCAD needs to have a term that reflects its relationship with the sleeve. Arm Length Traditional measurement method. The arm length is defined as the distance from the armscye/shoulder line intersection (acromion), over the elbow, to the far end of the prominent wrist bone (ulna), with fists clenched and placed on the hip and with the arms bent at 90 degrees (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999). ImageTwin

method. This system does not have an arm length measure.

Cyberware method. This system does not have an arm length measure. SYMCAD method. The “arm length” measure is the distance between the edge of the shoulder and the exterior inferior edge of the wrist, measured along Karla P. Simmons

40

A-1 Paper

the arm through the top of the elbow, arm, and forearm in a vertical plane forming an angle of about 120 degrees, standing with fists about 15cm apart from the hips(SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. SYMCAD is the only scanner with this arm length measure at this time. It is labeled appropriately. The current standards require the arms to be bent at 90 degrees. The ImageTwin and Cyberware require subjects to hang their arms naturally be their side, slightly

Figure 22. Arm length measurement.

away from the body. The SYMCAD requires an awkward stance of the elbows bent up and out from the body. However, it does not give the 90 degrees stipulated by the standards and is questionable as to whether this would effect the measure.

Table 10. Sleeve Length and Arm Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Sleeve Length

Arm Length

ImageTwin

Shirt Sleeve Length

n/a

Cyberware

Sleeve Length

n/a

SYMCAD

Total Arm Length

Arm Length

Inseam Traditional measurement method. The inseam measure is defined as the distance from the crotch intersection straight down to the soles of the feet (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1981; ISO, 1989)

Karla P. Simmons

41

A-1 Paper

ImageTwin

method. The “inseam” measure

allows for user defined parameters on where the inseam should be measured. Both methods start at the crotch point. One variation of the measure can be made straight down to the floor. The other variation can take the measure along the inside of the leg, ending at the inside of the foot. The default for the system gives the height of the crotch straight up from the floor ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. The “pant inseam” is the

Figure 23. Inseam measurement.

measure of the crotch height which is the straight height above the floor of the lowest crotch point. The legs are separated from the torso at the crotch, therefore the measurement value is the height of segmentation between the legs and torso (Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1, 2000). SYMCAD method. The “inside leg length” is the distance measured on a straight line along the leg between the crotch and the ground while subject stands with legs apart (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. SYMCAD is the only system that deviates from the current definitions in that it is measured along the leg and not straight down to the floor. Its terminology could be changed to be inline with the others.

Karla P. Simmons

42

A-1 Paper

Table 11. Inseam Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Inseam ImageTwin

Inseam

Cyberware

Pant Inseam

SYMCAD

Inside Leg Length

Outseam Traditional measurement method. The distance from the side waist to the soles of the feet, following the curves of the body (ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1981); following the contour of the hip then vertically down (ISO, 1989); The vertical distance between a standing surface and the landmark at the preferred landmark of the right waist (Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin

method. The “outseam” measure starts at the side waist

point and follows the body down to the hips. From there, user defined parameters allow three variations: (1) from the hip point, the measure goes straight down to the floor and disregards whether the legs are in the way or not, (2) from the hip point, the measure goes down to the outside of the foot, and (3) from the hip point, the measure goes straight to the floor as soon as there is no leg getting in the way ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have an outseam measure. SYMCAD method. The “outside leg length” is Karla P. Simmons

43

Figure 24. Outseam measurement. A-1 Paper

the distance comprised between the natural waist line and the ground, measured on the flank side along the hip and then vertically from the fleshy part of the thigh (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Both ImageTwin and SYMCAD follow the same basic definition. However, the standards should be clearer on the outseam measure. Gordon’s traditional definition is really a vertical waist height measure. While an important measure, it doesn’t have a direct application or the best fit of pants or skirts.

Table 12. Outseam Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Outseam ImageTwin

Outseam

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

Outside Leg Length

Shoulder Length Traditional measurement method. The shoulder length measure is taken with the arms hanging down naturally. It is the measure from the side of the neck base to the armscye line at the shoulder joint (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999); from the base of the side of the neck (neck point) to the acromion extremity (ISO, 1989). ImageTwin

method. The “shoulder length” is the distance from the side

of the neck to the shoulder point (acromion)([TC2], 1999).

Karla P. Simmons

44

A-1 Paper

Cyberware Method. This system does not have a shoulder length measure. SYMCAD method. With the arms apart, the “shoulder length” is the distance between the base of the neck and the edge of the shoulder (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Both the ImageTwin and SYMCAD have terms and definitions that are consistent with the current standards. However, there is still an issue of the scanners being able to correctly

Figure 25. Shoulder length measurement.

identify the landmarks of the neck and acromion consistently.

Table 13. Shoulder Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Shoulder Length ImageTwin

Shoulder Length

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

Shoulder Length

Across Chest Traditional measurement method. Measure across the chest from armscye to armscye at front breakpoint8 level (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995); from front-break point to front-break point (ASTM, 1999).

8

Front breakpoint is the location on the front of the body where the arm separates from the body (ASTM, 1999). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 45

ImageTwin

method. The “across chest”

measure is taken from the front of the arm at the armpit level to the front of the other arm at the armpit level ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have an across chest measure. SYMCAD method. The “across chest”

Figure 26. Across chest measurement.

measure is the distance between the points situated at the middle of the segment between the edge of the shoulder and the armpit in the front with subject standing with arms apart (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. The definition for the across chest measure for SYMCAD seems unclear. Greater detail or different wording should be used.

Table 14. Across Chest Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Across Chest ImageTwin

Across Chest

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

Across Chest

Across Back Traditional measurement method. Measure across the back from armscye to armscye back-break point9 level (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); approximately the same level as the chest (ASTMb, 1995); the horizontal 9

Back breakpoint is the location on the back of the body where the arm separates from the body (ASTM, 1999). Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper 46

distance across the back measured half-way between the upper and lower scye levels (ISO, 1989). ImageTwin

method. The “across back” measure is taken from the back

of one arm to the back of the other at the armpit level, where the arm joins the back at the crease ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have an across back measure. SYMCAD method. The “across back” measure is the distance between the points situated at the middle of the segment between the edge of the shoulder and the armpit in the back with the subject standing with arms apart (SYMCAD, 2000).

Figure 27. Across back measurement.

Discussion. Te definition for the across back measure for SYMCAD seems unclear. Greater detail or different wording should be used. Standards should be more consistent.

Table 15. Across Back Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Across Back

Karla P. Simmons

ImageTwin

Across Back

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

Across Back

47

A-1 Paper

Back of Neck to Waist Length Traditional measurement method. The back of neck to waist measure is defined as the distance from the 7th cervical vertebra (cervicale), following the contour of the spinal column, to the waist (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin

method. The “neck to waist” measure

can be measured in the front or the back. For the back measure, it is taken at the neck base, following the contours of the spine down to the waist at the location previously defined in the system ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a back of neck to waist measure.

Figure 28. Back of neck to waist measurement.

SYMCAD method. The “back neck to waist” is the distance between the 7th cervical vertebra and the waist (at the navel) along the body between the shoulder blades up to the widest point then vertically. The “back neck to belt” is the distance between the 7th cervical vertebra and the belt (the waist measure at the preferred height) along the body between the shoulder blades up to the widest point then vertically (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. This is a critical measure for appropriate fit of most upper body garments. A significant issue for this measure is the location of the waist. When the waist measure is standardized, it will affect this measure also.

Karla P. Simmons

48

A-1 Paper

Table 16. Back of Neck to Waist Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Back of Neck to Waist ImageTwin

Neck to Waist

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

Back Neck to Waist Back Neck to Belt

Rise Traditional measurement method. The rise measure is defined as the vertical distance between the waist level and the crotch level taken standing from the side (ISO, 1989; ASTM, 1999); while sitting on a hard, flat surface, measure straight down from the waist level at the side of the body to the flat surface (ASTMa, 1995). ImageTwin

method. The “vertical rise” is the

vertical distance from the crotch to the waist, not being measured along the body. Instead, it is the difference in height of the waist and the crotch ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a rise measure. SYMCAD method. The “body rise” is the difference

Figure 29. Rise measurement.

between the height of the belt girth (where the trousers are worn) and the inside leg length (SYMCAD, 2000). Discussion. Again, the issue for this measure is the location of the waist. When the waist measure is standardized, it will affect this measure also. Karla P. Simmons

49

A-1 Paper

Table 17. Rise Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Rise ImageTwin

Vertical Rise

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

Body Rise

Crotch Length Traditional measurement method. The crotch length is defined as the measure from the center front waist level through the crotch to the center back waist level (ASTMb, 1995); the distance between the abdomen at the level of the preferred landmark of the waist to the preferred landmark on the back is measured through the crotch to the right of the genitalia (Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin

method. The “crotch length” is the

measurement along the body from the front waist through the crotch to the back waist. This system allows the user to define whether a front, back, or full crotch length is needed ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a

Figure 30. Crotch length measurement.

crotch length measure. SYMCAD method. This system does not have a crotch length measure. Discussion. ImageTwin was specifically designed for use in apparel. In this research, they were the only system to have a crotch length. The only standard that included the crotch length is the ASTM 5586 for Women over 55. Karla P. Simmons

50

A-1 Paper

Other standards should include the crotch length also. This is a critical measure for the appropriate fit of pants, shorts, or variations of each.

Table 18. Crotch Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Crotch Length ImageTwin

Crotch Length

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

n/a

Thigh Circumference Traditional measurement method. The thigh circumference is defined as the maximum circumference of the upper leg close to the crotch (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995); at the juncture with the buttock (Gordon, et al, 1989); at the highest thigh position (ISO, 1989). Traditional measurement method for mid-thigh circumference. The horizontal circumference of the thigh measured midway between the hip and the knee (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995). ImageTwin

method. The “thigh” measure offers

user defined parameters for several choices on defining the position of the thigh. The system allows for a fixed location of the search for the thigh. The default uses this parameter by placing the thigh 2 inches below the crotch. You can also program the system to find the largest Karla P. Simmons

51

Figure 31. Thigh circumference measurement. A-1 Paper

circumference between the upper and lower limits using the knee as the lower limits or defining another one usually above the knee ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a thigh circumference measure. SYMCAD method. This system does not have a thigh circumference measure. Discussion. The ImageTwin system allows for the determination of the thigh circumference and the mid-thigh circumference. For pattern making, the largest circumference is the one needed whether it is at the crotch or midway between the hip and knee, however, it is also very important to know where that measure was located.

Table 19. Thigh Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Thigh Circumference ImageTwin

Thigh

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

n/a

Bicep Circumference Traditional measurement method. The bicep circumference is taken with the arms down. It is the measure of the maximum upper arm circumference parallel to the floor and usually taken near the level of the armpit (ASTMb, 1995); between the shoulder joint and the elbow (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); at the lowest scye level (ISO, 1989); with the subject extending upper arm horizontally, Karla P. Simmons

52

A-1 Paper

the elbow flexed at 90 degrees, the fist clenched and held facing the head, and the subject exerting maximum effort in making the muscle flex, the circumference of the flexed biceps muscle of the upper arm is measured (Gordon, et al, 1989). ImageTwin

Method. The “biceps” is the

circumference of the arm taken about 2 inches below the armpit. It is not necessarily the largest circumference of the upper arm ([TC2], 1999). Cyberware Method. This system does not have a bicep circumference measure. SYMCAD method. This system does not have a bicep circumference measure. Discussion. The bicep circumference

Figure 32. Bicep circumference measurement.

needs to be the largest circumference of the upper arm. The ImageTwin system has a bicep circumference measure but it does not reflect the maximum circumference. Table 20. Bicep Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Bicep Circumference ImageTwin

Bicep

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

n/a

Wrist Circumference Traditional measurement method. The wrist circumference is defines as the girth over the wrist bone (ISO, 1989); over the prominence of the outer wrist Karla P. Simmons

53

A-1 Paper

bone (ASTMb, 1995); over the inner and outer prominence at the lower end of the forearm (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999). ImageTwin

method. The “wrist circumference” is

the smallest circumference from the elbow to the knuckles of the hand (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999). Cyberware method. This system does not have a wrist circumference measure. SYMCAD method. This system does not have a wrist circumference measure.

Figure 33. Wrist circumference measurement.

Discussion. The wrist circumference should be defined by the location. In shirts that have a cuff, the wrist circumference should be taken at the most prominent bones to ensure the cuff will go over the area. For shirts that have elastic at the wrist, the wrist circumference would be the smallest area just below the prominent bones. ImageTwin

takes the smallest circumference, no matter

what the location. This is not in line with the current standards.

Table 21. Wrist Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models Wrist Circumference

Karla P. Simmons

ImageTwin

Wrist

Cyberware

n/a

SYMCAD

n/a

54

A-1 Paper

Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The apparel industry is diligently researching the usage of threedimensional body scanning for apparel design and the mass customization of garments. Body scanning technology is capable of extracting an infinite number of data types. However, a problem exists in the consistency of measuring techniques between scanners. Among the several scanners that are currently available, significant variance exists in how each captures specific body measurements. Until the data capture process of specific body measurements can be standardized or communicated among scanning systems, this technology cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel industry. Classical anthropometric data provides information on static dimensions of the human body in standard postures (Kroemer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert, 1986). Body scanning is now allowing data to be captured in three-dimensions. With the use of 3D body scanners, body measurement techniques can be non-contact, instant, and accurate. However, how each scanner establishes landmarks and takes the measurements need to be established so that standardization of the data capture can be realized. In this study, seventeen measurements were chosen as being critical to the design of well fitting garments. On each of the seventeen measurements, the method of data capture was described for three different scanners, ImageTwin , Cyberware, and SYMCAD. A summary of traditional measurement terms compared to the selected scanner models is shown in Table 23. Karla P. Simmons

55

A-1 Paper

Of the seventeen measures in the study, ImageTwin was the only scanner that had all of the measures. They were most closely in line with the current standards or with what the standards should be, depending on the measure. The Cyberware scanner is only being used by the military for size estimation in their clothing issue. They use the WB4 in the issue of their dress coat, dress shirt, and pants. SYMCAD is just now beginning to be used in apparel. They have a set of 60+ measurements that are defined according to ISO standards (so they say). These measures allow no revision or adjustment for users needs. They also find it difficult to share information on anything that concerns their scanner. As mentioned previously, many of the traditional standards used by SYMCAD are inadequate for apparel fit needs and are imprecise. Ultimately, for this technology to serve the industry best, we must be able to clearly and precisely indicate how and where measurements were taken. These measures must also be accurate. We must be able to get all of the necessary measurements to ensure fit of the garments.

Karla P. Simmons

56

A-1 Paper

Table 23. Summary of Traditional Measurement Terms Compared to Selected Scanner Model Terms

Midneck

ImageTwin Collar

Neckbase Chest

Neck Chest

Bust

Bust

Waist-Natural Indentation Waist-Navel

Waist

Hips Seat

Hips Seat

Sleeve Length

Shirt Sleeve Length n/a Inseam Outseam

Arm Length Inseam Outseam

n/a

Cyberware Neck Circumference n/a n/a Chest Circumference n/a Waist Circumference n/a Seat Circumference Sleeve Length n/a Pant Inseam n/a

SYMCAD Neck Girth Neckbase Maximum Chest Girth Chest Girth Natural Waist Girth Waist Girth Belt Girth n/a Seat Girth Total Arm Length Arm Length Inside Leg Length Outside Leg Length Shoulder Length

Shoulder Length Across Chest Across Back Back of Neck to Waist

Shoulder Length

n/a

Across Chest Across Back Neck to Waist

n/a n/a n/a

Rise Crotch Length Thigh Circumference Bicep Circumference Wrist Circumference

Vertical Rise Crotch Length Thigh

n/a n/a n/a

Across Chest Across Back (1)Back Neck to Waist (2) Back Neck to Belt Body Rise n/a n/a

Bicep

n/a

n/a

Wrist

n/a

n/a

Karla P. Simmons

57

A-1 Paper

Recommendations This research will establish a benchmark for the standardization of using 3D body scanners globally in the manufacture of apparel. It will enable the technology transfer of the individual components of mass customization and rapid prototyping to become efficient and less laborious as to facilitate greater usage in the apparel industry. It will also help governing bodies of current standards for body and garment sizing, such as ASTM and ISO, see a glimpse of this important issue and raise new questions for further study. Recommendations from this research include: •

Current standards need to be revised to include three-dimensional body scanning or create a new set of standards specifically for body scanning. These standards need to take into account the terminology of measures and the non-palpatation by the measurer or movement of the subject.



Terminology for the individual measures between the scanners need to be standardized. This can only happen if all scanner companies are willing to share their information.



This research only compared three of the major scanners available. Other research should be targeted on other scanning systems.



Research should be initiated concerning gathering information from the “hardto-get-to” companies that are reluctant to share. All available resources should be utilized to get this information.

Karla P. Simmons

58

A-1 Paper

References

Addleman, S. (1997). Whole-body 3D scanner and scan data report. SPIE, 3023, 2-5. Addleman, D. & Addleman, L. (1985). Rapid 3D digitizing. Computer Graphics World, 8, 42-44. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995a). Standard table of body measurements for adult female misses figure type, sizes 2-20. (Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5585-95). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995b). Standard table of body measurements for women aged 55 and older (all figure type). (Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5586-95). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1999). Standard terminology relating to body dimensions for apparel sizing. (Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5219-99). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. Anthropometry. (2000, June 21). Anthropometry. [Online]. Available: http://www.sameint.it/dietosys/diets/englboro/bro03.htm [6/21/00]. Apparel Research Network (ARN). (2000, August 13). Apparel Research Network (ARN) redesigned 3-D whole body scanner-WBX for recruit clothing issues. ARN homepage available online at: http://arn.iitri.org/docs/scan/systems/wbxwar.html [8/13/00]. Apparel Research Network (ARN). (1999, July 19). Apparel Research Network (ARN): ARNscan repeatability test: 19-23 July 1999. ARN homepage available online at: http://arn.iitri.org/ipr/3d-scan/repeat.html [9/11/00]. Karla P. Simmons

59

A-1 Paper

Arridge, S.R., Moss, J.P., Linney, A.D. & James, D. (1985). Three dimensional digitization of the face and skull. Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery, 13, 136143. Beecher, R.M. (1999, Novemebr 24). Automating information extraction from 3D body scan data. ARN homepage available online at: http://arn.iitri.org/ftr/br03/br03.html [11/24/00]. Bennett, K.A. & Osborne, R.H. (1986). Interobserver measurement reliability in anthropometry. Human Biology, 39, 124-130. Bray, G.A., Greenway, F.L., & Molitch, M.E. (1978). Use of anthropometric measures to assess weight loss. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 31, 769-73. Brunsman, M.A., Daanen, H.M. & Robinette, K.M. (1997). Optimal postures and positioning for human body scanning. IEEE, 266-273. Byran, G.J., Davies, E.R., & Middlemiss, S. H. (1996). Skeletal anatomy, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingston. CAD Modelling (1992). Sales brochure (Piazza Beccaria, n.6. 50121). Florence, Italy: Author. Cameron, N. (1984). The measurement of human growth. London: Croom Helm. Cameron, N. (1986). The methods of auxological anthropology. In: Faulkner, F., Tanner, J.M. (Eds). Human Growth, 3, pp. 3-46. New York: Plenum Press. Clerget, M., Germain, F., & Kryze, J. (1977, September 1). Process and apparatus for optically exploring the surface of the body (United States Patent 829,936). United State Patent and Trademark Office. 60

Karla P. Simmons

A-1 Paper

Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimental design and analysis issues for field surveys. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Croney, John. (1971). Anthropometrics for designers. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Cyberware (2000a, September 13). Corporate backgrounder. Cyberware homepage available online at: http://www.cyberware.com/info/backgrounder.html [9/13/00]. Cyberware. (2000b, June 19). Whole body color 3D scanner: Model WB4. Cyberware homepage available online at: http://www.cyberware.com/products/wbInfo.html [6/19/00]. Cyberware. (2000c, June 19). Custom scanner: Whole body color 3D scanner: WBX prototype. Cyberware homepage available online at: http://www.cyberware.com/products/wbxInfo.html [6/19/00]. Czaja, S. (1984). Hand anthropometrics. (Technical paper with comments). Washington, D.C.: US Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance board. Daanen, H., Taylor, S.E., Brunsman, M.A., & Nurre, J. H. (1997). Absolute accuracy of the the Cyberware WB4 whole body scanner. SPIE, 3023, 612. Financial Times (1998, February 13). Cut down to size. Financial Times [Online]. Available: http://www.symcad.com/eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00]. Foster, T.A., Webber, L.S., & Sathanur, R. (1980). Measurement error of risk factor variables in an oeidemiologic study of children: The Bugalusa heart study. Journal of Chronic Disease, 33, 661-72. 61

Karla P. Simmons

A-1 Paper

Goldsberry, E. & Reich, N. (1989, September). It either fits or it doesn’t. ASTM Standardization News, 17(9), 42-44. Gordon, C.C. & Bradtmiller, B. (1992). Interobserver error in a large scale anthropometric survey. American Journal of Human Biology,4, 253-263. Gordon, C.C., Bradtmiller, B., Churchill, T., Clauser, C.E. McConville, J.T., Tebbetts, I.O., & Walker, R.A. (1989). 1988 Anthropometric survey of U.S. Army personnel: Methods and summary statistics (Technical Report NATICK/TR-89/044). Natick, MA : U.S. Army Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Halioua, M.L. & Hsin-Chu. (1989). Optical three-dimensional sensing by phase measuring profilometry. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 0143-8166, 185-215. Halioua, M., Krishnamurthy, R.S., Liu, H., & Chiang, F.P. (1984). Projection moire` with moving gratings for automated 3-D topography. Applied Optics, 22, 850-855. Hertzberg, H.T.E. (1955). Some contributions of applied physical anthropology to human engineering. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 63, 616-629. Himes, J.H. (1989). Reliability of anthropometric methods and replicate measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 40, 197-203. Hurley, J.D., Demers, M.H., Wulpern, R.C., & Grindon, J.R. (1997). Body measurement system using white light projected patterns for made-tomeasure apparel. SPIE, 3131, 212-223.

Karla P. Simmons

62

A-1 Paper

Hyperphysics. (2000). Gauss’s law [Online]. Available: http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/gaulaw.html [11/05/00]. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1981). Size designation of clothes-definition and body measurement procedure. (Reference No. 3635-1981). Switzerland: ISO. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1989). Garment construction and anthropometric surveys-body dimensions. (Reference No. 8559-1989). Switzerland: ISO. Ito, I. (1979, July 20). Apparatus for measuring the contour configuration of articles. (U.K. Patent G.B. 2030286 b). London: British Patent Office. Jamison, P.L. & Zegura, S.L. (1974). A univariate and multivariate examination of measurement error in anthropometry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 40, 197-203. Johnston, F.E. & Martorell, R. (1988). Population surveys. In T.G. Lohman, A.F. Roche, and R. Martorell (Eds.): Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 107-110. Johnston, F.E. , Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1972). Skinfold thickness of children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 120). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Jones, F.W. (1929). Measurements and landmarks in physical anthropology. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Karla P. Simmons

63

A-1 Paper

Kroemer, K.H.E., Kroemer, H.J., & Kroemer-Elbert, K.E. (1986). Engineering physiology: Physiologic bases of human factors/ergonomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. L’ALSACE. (1999, June 30). From different angles. L’ALSACE [Online]. Available: http://www.symcad.com/eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00]. Lapp, R. E. (1961). The new priesthood. New York: Harper & Row. Lovesey, E.J. (1964). Some factors determining the design of anthropometric dummies. Unpublished diploma thesis. The College of Aeronautics. Magnant, D. (1985). Capteur tridemensional sans contact. Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 602, 18-22. Malina, R.M., Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1972). Selected body measurements of children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 123). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Malina, R.M., Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1974). Body dimensions and proportions, white and negro children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 143). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Marks, G.C., Habicht, J.P., & Mueller, W.H. (1989). Reliability, dependability, and precision of anthropometric measurements. American Journal of Epidemiology, 130 (3), 578-587. Marshall, E.L. (1937). The objectivity of anthropometric measurments taken on eight- and nine-year-old white males. Child Development, 8, 249-56.

Karla P. Simmons

64

A-1 Paper

Martorell, R., Habicht, J.P., & Yarbrough, C. (1975). The identification and evaluation of measurment variability in the antropometry of preschool children. American Journal of Physical Antrhopology, 43, 347-52. Meadows, D.M., Johnson, W.O., & Allen J. (1970). Generation of surface countours by Moire` patterns. Applied Optics, 9, 942-947. McConville, J.T. (1979). Anthropometric source book volume I: Anthropometry for designers. (NASA Reference Publication No. 1024). Scientific and Technical Information Office. Meredith, H.V. (1936). The reliability of anthropometric measurments taken on eight- and nine-year-old white males. Child Development, 7, 262-72. Montagu, M.F.A. (1960). A handbook of anthropometry. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Mueller, W.H. & Martorell, R. (1988). Reliability and accuracy of measurement. In T.G. Lohman, A.F. Roche, and R. Martorell (Eds.): Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, pp.83-86. National Bureau of Standards (NBS). (1971). Body measurements for the sizing of women’s patterns and apparel. (NBS Voluntary Product Standard PS 42-70). Gaithersburg, MD: United State Department of Commerce/ National Bureau of Standards. O’Brien, R. & Shelton, W.C. (1941, December). Women’s measurements for garment and pattern construction. (Miscellaneous Publication No. 454). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Karla P. Simmons

65

A-1 Paper

Paquette, S. (1996, September). 3D scanning in apparel design and human engineering. IEEE Computer Graphics and Application, 16 (5), 11-15. Roe, R.W. (1993). Occupant packaging. In J.B. Peacock & W. Karwoski (Eds.), Automotive ergonomics-Human factors in the design and use of automobiles, (pp. 11-42). London: Taylor & Francis. Roebuck, Jr., J.A. (1995). Anthropometric methods: Designing to fit the human body. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Roebuck, Jr. J.A., Kroemer, K.H.E. & Thomson, W.G. (1975). Engineering anthropometry methods. New York: Wiley. Sanders, M.S. & Shaw, B.E. (1985). US truck driver anthropometric and truck work space data survey: Sample selection and methodology (SAE Technical Paper 852315). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Snedecor, G.W. & Cochran, W.G. (1980). Statistical methods. 7th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, p. 183. SYMCAD. (2000, August 23). Measurements automatically taken by SYMCAD. Unpublished internal document. Takada, M., & Esaki, T. (1981, Janaury 26). Method and apparatus for measuring human body or the like (U.K. Patent G.B. 2069690 B). London: British Patent Office. (TC2). (1999). [Body scanner measurement descriptions.] Unpublished internal document.

Karla P. Simmons

66

A-1 Paper

(TC2). (2000, July 25). (TC2) joins forces with Konover Property Trust subsidiary to launch ImageTwin : Digital Body Scanning and Measurement System [Online]. Available: http://www.tc2.com/Home/HomeNews.htm [10/23/00]. TELMAT. (2000, November 3). Our product range. [Online]. Available: http://www.telmat-net.fr/Eng/products.htm [11/03/00]. Tortora, G.J. (1986). Principles of human anatomy, 4th ed. New York: Harper & Row. Utermohle, C.J. & Zegura, S.L. (1982). Intra- and interobserver error in craniometry: a cautionary tale. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 57, 303-310. Utermohle, C.J., Zegura, S.L., & Heathcote, G. M. (1983). Multiple observers, humidity, and choice of precision of statistics: factors influencing craniometric data quality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 61, 85-95. Vietorisz, T. (1964, December 16). Improvements in or relating to the scanning of objects to provide indications of shape (U.K. Patent 1,078,108). London: British Patent Office. Webster. (1987). Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. West, G.M. (1993). Automated shape anthropometry. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Loughborough University of Technology.

Karla P. Simmons

67

A-1 Paper

World Clothing Manufacturer (1996, May 4). Shape of things to come? World Clothing Manufacturer, 4 [Online]. Available: http://www.symcad.com/ eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00].

Karla P. Simmons

68

A-1 Paper

Suggest Documents