Reproduced From C7Best Available Copy

i~sTIC' R-I i f

IP7 WAs#

(61

n RobenM White(

ELECTEF{JULOI0ST

gPROVEO FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; 1 Dc~V '

VISTRIBOTION UNLIMITED.p

mawin-m, Eqpnient. & Ltr~ fnt~r-

Approved, for public release; distribution unlimited.

Citation of trade names in this report does notconstitute an official indorsement or approval of theuse of such items.

Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do notreturn it to the originator.

e Iduced ••r

RePTCGOO~

-es

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIl PAGE (WPhen Dora Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORMI. REPORT NUMBER l2 GOVT ACCESSION NO, 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

NATICK/rR-81/010 . t/7 _R _•!__,___'___

4. TITLE (end Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PER:0o COVERED

Technical ReportCOMPARATIVE A"'THROPOMETRY OF THE HAND

6r. PEFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBERCIMEL-229

7. AUTHOR(.) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

Robert M. White

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS tO.1 PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKU.S. Arm'y Natick Research & Development Laboratories -REA A WORK UNIT NUMBERSATTN: DRDNA-VCA 6 2723

Natick, Massachusetts 01760 1L 162723AH98AC002

I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS t2. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Natick Research & Development Laboratories December 1980ATTN: DRDNA-VCA 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Natick. Massachusetts 01760 18614. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If dtifeteit from Controtling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

IS.. DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWN GRADINGSCHECULE

16. DISTRIBIJTION STATEMENT (of thli Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abutrlct enteted In Block 20, If diflternt from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1g. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse tide if neceessary end Identify by block number)

ANTHROPOLOGY ARMED FORCES WOMEN SIZES (DIMENSIONS)ANTHROPOMETRY U.S. ARMY HAND(S) MEASUREMENT(S)SURVEY(S) MILITARY PERSONNEL HANDWEAR BIBLIOGRAPHYDATA MEN MILITARY

Cl ATWING20. AIMTRACT rCeataw do reverse sin It nadnwqgd m• d identify by block nuwbet)

"Comparative anthropometric data on the human hand are presented and discussed in detailin this technical report. Since reliable and definitive data on the hands of the U.S. civilianpopulation are lacking, anthropometric data on the hands of the U.S. military population ofmen and women may be utilized in analyses of handwear sizing.

Data are presented for ten hand measurements: Hand Length, Palm Length, Thumb Crotch _

DO IM 143 'n~t o F I NOV 65 1S OMOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (11n Dolr Entered)

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAoE(•hani Date Intwttdd)

20. Abstract (cont'd)

Length, Hand Breadth, Hand Breadth at Thumb, Hand Circumference, Hand Circumferenceat Thumb, Fist Circumference, Wrist Circumference, and Hand Thickness. These hardmeasurements are defined and illustrated.

Detailed anthropometric data on the hands ot U.S. Army men and women are presentedin the form of bivariate tables which depict the distribution of various categories of handsizes, and show the interrelationships among hand dimensions.

Selected anthropometric data on the hands also are presented for a variety of foreignmilitary populations in order to illustrate the range of variation in hand size to be found in

different parts of the world.

In the final section, hands and handwear are examined in terms oi the sizing of handwear,and the development of tariffs for handwear is explained with illustrative examples.

An extensive bibliography concludes the report.

Ai

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(IWhen Data En•fted)

SUMMARY

Comparative anthropometric data on the human hand are presented and discussed in detailin this technical report. Since reliable and definitive data on the hands of the U.S. civilianpopulation are lacking, anthiopometric data on the hands of the U.S. military population ofmen and women may be utilized in analyses of handwear sizing.

Data are presented for ten hand measurements: Hand Length, Palm Length, Thumb CrotchLength, Hand Breadth, Hand Breadth at Thumb, Hand Circumference, Hand Circumferenceat Thumb, Fist Circumference, Wrist Circumference, and Hand Thickness. These handmeasurements are defined and illustrated.

Detailed anthropometric data on the hands of U.S. Army men and women are presentedin the form of bivariate tables which depict the distribution of various categories of handsizes and show the interrelationships among hand dimensions.

Selected anthropometric data on the hand also are presented for a variety of foreign militarypopulations in order to illustrate the range of variation in hand size to be found in differentparts of the world.

In the final section, hands and handwear are examined in terms of the sizing of handwear.A listing of standard U.S. Army handwear items is presented and the problems of sizing inthese types of handwear are discussed. The sizing of handwear is based primarily on thecircumference or girth of the hand. The unit of measurement used in the glove industry forthe sizing of handwear is not the English inch, but is the French or glovers' inch, which isequivalent to 27.0 millimeters. The development of tariffs for handwear is explained, withillustrative examples showing tariffs of handwear for U.S. Army men, for U.S. Army women,and a combined tariff for both U.S. Army men and women.

An extensive bibliography concludes the report.

Arccsszon For

NTIS QBA&t\y' IC TABlhinrnnouilc d El

Justifictio'

" bul1 i i '" A t ý--- - -- -

Dbis tribUt iOfl/___

AvatiiSi1 itY CodeSAvail and/or

DiLut Special

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pace

SUMMARY 1

LIST OF FIGURES 5

LIST OF TABLES 5

1. INTRODUCTION 11

2. A REVIEW OF SOME LITERATURE OF THE HAND 13

3. COMPARATIVE ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA ON THE HAND 19

a. Sources of Anthropometric Data 19b. Anthropometric Measurements of the Hand 19

4. VISUAL INDEX OF HAND MEASUREMENTS 22

5. DEFINITIONS OF HAND MEASUREMENTS 23

6. STATISTICS 25

a. The number of individuals 25b. The mean 25c. The standard deviation 25d. The standard errors of the mean and standard deviation 25e. The coefficient of variation 25f. The range 26g. The stature ratio 26h. Percentile values 26

7. TABLES OF ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA 27

Tables of Anthropometric Data in Centimeters 28Tables of Anthropometric Data in Inches 56

8. SUMMARY OF HAND DATA 85

a. Hand Length 85b. Palm Length 85c. Hand Breadth 86d. Hand Circumference 86

3

SPreceding Page Blank

TABLES OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

9. U.S. ARMY DATA ON: MEN'S AND WOMEN'S HANDS 89

a. Comparative Anthropometric Data 89b. summary Tables of Anthropometric Data 89

c. Bivariate Tables of Anthropometric Data 94

d. Coefficients of Correlation 95

e. Regression Equations 95Bivariate Tables of Anthropometric Data in Centimeters 97Bivariate Tables of Anthropometric Data in Inches 115

10. FOREIGN ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA ON HANDS 139

a. Tables of Anthropometric Data 139

b. Summary of Foreign Hand Data 139

11. HANDS AND HANDWEAR 159

a. Historical Background 159

b. Research on Hands and Handwear 1K'-

c. U.S. Army Handwear 162

d. The Sizing of Handwear 1

e. Tariffs for Handwear 168

12. REFERENCES 181

4

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Visual Index of Hand Measurements 22

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Anthropometric Seriez on Hands 20

Table 2a. Statistical Values for Hand Length - in centimeters 28

Table 2b. Percentile Values for Hand Length - in centimeters 29

Table 3a. Statistical Values for Palm Length - in centimeters 32

Table 3b. Percentile Values for Palm Length - in centimeters 33

Table 4a. Statistical Values for Thumb Crotch Length - in centimeters 34

Table 4b. Percentile Values for Thumb Crotch Length - in centimeters 35

Table 5a. Statistical Values for Hand Breadth - in centimeters 36

Table 5b. Percentile Values for Hand Breadth - in centimeters 37

lable 6a. Statistical Values for Hand Breadth at Thumb - in centimeters 40

Table 6b. Percentile Values for Hand Breadth at Thumb - in centimeters 41

Table 7a. Statistical Values for Hand Circumference - in centimeters 42

Table 7b. Percentile Values for Hand Circumference - in centimeters 43

Table 8a. Statistical Values for Hand Circumference at Thumb - in centimeters 4 6

Table 8b. Percentile Values for Hand Circumference at Thumb - in centimeters47

Tabie 9a. Statistical Values for Fist Circumference -in centimeters 48

Table 9b. Percentile Values for Fist Circumference - in centimeters 49

Table lOa. Statistical Values for Wrist Circumference - in centimeters 50

Table 10b. Percentile Values for Wrist Circumference - in centimeters 51

Tab!e 11a. Statistical Values for Hand Thickness - in centimeters 54

Table 11b. Percentile Values for Hand Thickness - in centimeters 55

5

Ii

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

Table 12 a. Statistical Values for Hand Length - in inches 56

Table 12b. Percentile Values for Hand Length - in inches 57

Table 13a. Statistical Values for Palm Length - in inches 60

Table 13b. Percentile Values for Palm Length - in inches 61

Table 14a. Statistical Values for Thumb Crotch Length - in inches 62

Table 14b. Percentile Values for Thumb Crotch Length - in inches 63

Table 15a. Statistical Values for Hand Breadth - in inches 64

Table 16b. Percentile Values for Hand Breadth - in inches 65

Table 16a. Statistical Values for Hand Breadth at Thumb - in inches 68

Table 16b. Percentile Values for Hand Breadth at Thumb - in inches 69

Table 17a. Statistical Values for Hand Circumference - in inches 70

Table 17b. Percentile Values for Hand Circumference - in inches 71

Table 18a. Statistical Values for Hand Circumference at Thumb - in inches 74

Table 18b. Percentile Values for Hand Circumference at Thumb - in inches 75

Table 19a. Statistical Values for Fist Circumference - in inches 76

Table 19b. Percentile Values for Fist Circumference - in inches 77

Table 20a. Statistical Values for Wrist Circumference - in inches 78

Table 20b. Percentile Values for Wrist Circumference - in inches 79

Table 21a. Statistical Values for Hand Thickness - in inches 82

Table 21b. Percentile Values for Hand Thickness - in inches 83

Table 22a. Statistical Values for Hand Measurements of U.S. Army Men andWomen - in centimeters 90

Table 22b. Percentile Values for Hand Measurements of U.S. Army Men andWomen - in centimeters 91

6

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Pege

Table 23a. Statistical Values for Hand Measurements of U.S. Army Men andWomen - in centimeters 92

Table 23b. Percentile Values foi Hand Measurements of U.S. Army Men andWomen - in centimeteýrs 93

Table 24. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Hand Length for U.S.Army Men (1966) - in centimeters 97

Table 25. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Hand Length for U.S.Army Women (1977) - in centimeters 98

Table 26. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Hand Length for U.S.Army Men and Women - in centimeters 99

Table 27. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Palm Length for U.S.Army Men (1966) - in centimeters 100

Table 28. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Palm Lengtn for U.S.Army Woman (1977) - in centimeters 101

Table 29. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Palm Length for U.S. S.Army Men and Women - in centimeters 102

Table 30. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Hand Breadth for U.S.Army Men (1966) - in centimeters 103

Table 31. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Hand Breadth for U.S.Army Women (1977) - in cent'neters 104

Table 32. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Hand Breadth for U.S.Army Men and Women - in centimeten,; 105

Table 33. Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Palnm Length for U.S. ArmyMen (1966) - in centimeters 106

Table 34. Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Palm Length for U.S. ArmyWomen (1977) - in centimeters 107

Table 35. Bivariate -able of Hand Length and Palm Length for U.S. ArmyMen and Woman - in centimeters 108

Table 36. Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyMen (1966) - in centimeters 109

Table 37. Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyWomen (1977) - in centimeters 110

7

LISI OF TABI ES (continues)

Page

Table 38 Bivariate Table of HanL Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyMen and Women - in centimeters 111

Table 39. Bivariate Taule of Palm Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyMen (1966) - in centimeters 112

Table 40. Bivariate Table ul Palm Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyWomen (1977) - in centimeters 113

Table 41. Bivariate Table of Palm Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyMen and Women - in centimeters 114

Table 42. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Hand Length for U.S.Army Men (1966) - in inches 115

Table 43. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Hand Length for U.S.Army Women (1977) - in inches 116

Table 44. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and H•,'d Length for US.Army Men and Women - in inches 11-7

Table 45. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference and Palm Length for U.S.Army ML,• •1966) - in inches 118

T.,;... 46. Bivariate Table of H'-na Circumference and Palm Length for U.S.Army Wo.urn (19/7) -- in inches 119

Table 47. Qivariate Table oi Hand Circuml#rence and Palm Length for U.S.Army Men and Woman - in itiches 120

Ta!t 48. Bivariate Table of Hand Circumfert...,,, and Hand Breadth for U.S.Army Men (1966) - in inches 121

. Bivariate Tnble of Hand Circumference and Hand Breadth foi U.S.Army Women (1977) - in inches 122

Table 50. Bivariate Table of Ha-id Circumference and Haid Breadth for U.S-Army Men and Women -- in inches 123

.•Ie 51. Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Palm Length for U.S. ArmyMen (1956) - in inches 124

Table ". Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Palm Length for U.S. ArmyWomen (1977) - in1 inches 125

Tablk .53. Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Palm Length for U.S. ArmyMen and Women - in inches 126

a1

- - -.-

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

Table 54, Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyMen (1966) - in inches 127

Table 55. Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyWomen (1977) - in inches 128

Table 56. Bivariate Table of Hand Length and Hand Breadth for U.IS. ArmyMen and Women - in inches 129

Th-bie 67. Bivariate Table of Palm Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyMen (1966) -- in inches 130

Table 58. Bivariate Table of Palm Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. ArmyWomen (1977) - in inches 131

Table 59. Bivariate Table of Palm Length and Hand Breadth for U.S. Army

Men and Women - in inches 132

Table 60. Coefficients of Correlation for Hand Measurements 133

Table 61. Regression Equations for Hand Measurements; Values in Centimeters 134

Table 62. Regression Equation for Hand Measurements; Values in Inches 136

Table 63. Foreign Anthropometric Series on Hands 140

Table 64a. Statistical Values for Hand Length - Foreign Data 142

Table 64b. Percentile Values for Hand Length -- Foreign Data 143

Table 65a. Statistical Values for Palm Length - Foreign Data 146

Table 65b. Percentile Values for Palm Length - Foreign Data 147

Table 66a. Statistical Values for Hand Breadth - Foreign Data 148

Table 66b. Percentile Values for Hand Breadth - Foreign Data 149

Table 67a. Statistical Values for Hand Circumference - Foreign Data 152

Table 67b. Percentile Values for Hand Circumference - Foreign Data 15C1

Table 68a. Statistical Values for Wrist Circumference - Foreign Data 154

Table 68b. Percentile Values for Wrist Circumference - Foreign Data 155

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

Table 69. U.S. Army Handwear 164

Table 70. Tariff for Gloves - Based on .riate Table of Hand Circumferenceand Hand Length for U.S. Ak- Men (1966) 170

Table 71. Tariff for Glovcs - Based or' Bivariate Table of Hand Circumferenceand Hand Length for U.S. Army Women (1977) 171

Table 72. Tariff for Gloves - Based on Bivariate Table of Hand Circumference

and Hand Length for U.S. Army Men and Women 172

Table 73. Tariff for Gloves in Whole Sizes for U.S. Army Men (1966) 174

Table 74. Tariff for Gloves in Whole Sizes for U.S. Army Women (1977) 175

Table 75. Tariff for Gloves in Whole Sizes for U.S. Army Men and Women 176

Table 76. Tariff for Gloves in Whole and Hilf Sizes for U.S. Army Men (1966) 178

Table 77. Tariff for Gloves in Whole and Half Sizes for U.S. Army Women(1977) 179

Table 78. Tariff for Gloves in Whole and Half Sizes for U.S. Army Men andWomen 180

1010

. .. .a -LD

COMPARATIVE ANTHROPOMETRY OF THE HAND

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most significant developments during the long period of early human evolutionwas man's achievement of upright posture, since this freed the hands for activities other thanlocomotion. Ever since that time, the human hand has been one of the most important partsof the body. The tremendous value of the human hand as a functional device for grasping,manipulating, and writing, as well as other activities, need not be emphasized.

The dimensions or sizes of the human hand are important for two primary reasons:protection and function. Since the hands (together with the feet) represent the extremitiesof the body, they require protection from heat to some extent, but particularly from cold.Obviously a considerable range of protective handw,!ar is available, from the very thin glovesof the surgeon to very heavy gloves or mittens insulated against the cold. Regardless of thetype of handwear, however, dimensional information on the hands to be fitted is requiredfor the effective sizing of handwear.

The sizes or dimensions of hands also are important in any consideration ot hand function.Handles of tools or implements to be grasped with the hands as well as handles fo, liftingor knobs for turning, must be suitably sized. The effective sizing of handles to be grasped,or the sizes of openings through which the hand may be inserted, are further complicatedif a gloved or protected hand is to be considered. It is apparent, therefore, that informationon the range of variation in the sizes and dimensions of the human hand comprises a veryimportant part of the basic knowledge of the human body represented by anthropometric data.

In spite of the importance of the human hand and the need for data on the dimensionsof the hand, it is unfortunate that very little reliable and definitive information is availableon the hands of men and women in the adult civilian population of the United States.

Only a few anthropometric surveys of civilians have been carried out in the United States.A survey of U.S. civilian women was conducted in 1939-1940 by the Bureau of HomeEconomics, U.S. Department of Agriculture. In that project, 59 body measurements weretaken on almost 15,000 women, p marily for application in pattern and garment construction.However, no hand measurements were taken. A limited number of body measurements weretaken during a national Health Examination Survey (HES) of U.S. civilian men and women,carried out between 1959 and 1962 by the Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health,Education, and Welfare (HEW). In this survey, covering individuals between 18 and 79 yearsof age, 3,091 men and 3,581 women were measured. Anthropometric data were obtainedfor 18 body measurements, but no hand measurements were made. A more recent Healthand Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES) was conducted by the U.S. Department of Health,Education, and Welfare between 1971 and 1974 in whih 20,749 persons between the agesof 1 and 74 years were examined. Again, however, no hand measurements were made.

11/

A few anthropometric surveys of specialized samples of the U.S. adult population havebeen carried out, but even in some of these studies, hand measurements were not included.In only four of these studies were hand measurements taken. Hand measurements were takenin an anthropometric study of 130 Spanish-American War veterans, carried out in 1959 byDamon and Stoudt.1 Damon and Stoudt also participated in the initiation of a normativeaging study of U.S. male veterans, being conducted by the Boston Outpatient Clinic of theVeterans Administration (VA). 2 This project was started in 1972 and is continuing; handmeasurements are included in the measurements being taken. A more recent anthropometricsurvey of U.S. civilian men was carried out in 1974, when personnel of the Naval ElectronicsLaboratory Center in San Diego, California, measured a national sampling of approximately3,000 law enforcement officers.3 This survey, which was performed under contract for theLaw Enforcement Standards Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards, included handmeasurements.

The only recent survey of U.S. civilian women was carried out in 1971 by the FederalAviation Administration's Civil Aeromedical Institute in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.4 In thisstudy, 72 body measurements were made on 422 airline stewardess trainees, and handmeasurements were included.

In contrast to the paucity of data on hands in the civilian population of the United States,a great deal of anthropometric data on hands is available for the military population of U.S.men and women. Many anthropometric surveys of military personnel have been carried outsince World War II, and most of these surveys have included at least some hand measurements.The lack of data on civilian hands in effect forces the designer or human engineer into theuse of military data on hands; there is simply no alternative.

It is the primary purpose of this report to present available anthropometric data on thehands of men and wamen in the U.S. military population.

'Damon, A., and H. V. Stoudt. The Functional Anthropometry of Old Men. Human Factors,Vol. 5, No. 5, 485-491, October 1963.

2 Danion, A., C. C. Seltzer, H. W. Stoudt, and B. Bell. Age and Physique in Healthy WhiteVeterans at Boston. Journal of Gerontology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 202-208, 1972.

3 Martin, J. I., R. Sabeh, L. L. Driver, T. D. Lowe, R. W. Hintze, and P. A. C. Peters.Anthropometry of Law Enforcement Officers. Technical Document 442, Naval ElectronicsLaboratory Center, San Diego, California, September 1975. (AD A017 066)

'Snow, C. C., H. M. Reynolds, and M. A. Allgood. Anthropometry of Airline Stewardesses.Report No. FAA-AM-75-2, Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aeromedical Institute,Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 1975.

12

2. A REVIEW OF SOME LITERATURE ON THE HAND

Data and information on the hands of U.S. military personnel may be found in severalstudies carried out between 1956 and 1970. The results of most of these studies were publishedin U.S. Air Force technical reports. These references will be reviewed and summarized inthis section.

An early example of the collection and analysis of anthropimetric data on hands waspresented in a report by Barter and Alexander (19 5 6 ).s A selected sample of 100 handswas measured and data for 31 hand dimensions were oresented in this report for design purposes.The data were given in the form of summary statistics, regression equations, design dimensions,and procurement tariffs for gloves. Two techniques were utilized in collecting the hand data.

In the first, standardized anthropometric measurements of the hand were taken, as well assome new measurements especially designed for this study. The second technique involvedtakiny a roentgenogram of both outstretched hands. The report also presented the rationalefor and procedures followed in the development of a sizing system for high altitude gloves.The program was based on four divisions of hand circumference, each further subdivided intothree divisions of hand length, making a total of twelve sizes of gloves. Subsequent fit-testingindicated that a high percentage of personnel could be fitted adequately in their indicatedsize.

Detailed analyses of anthropometric data on the hand were presented in a report byChurchill, Kuby, and Daniels (1957)." The basic data used for men were those obtained ina survey of 4063 USAF flying personnel in 1950, while the data on women were obtainedin a survey of 852 WAF basic trainees in 1952. Dimensional data for the hands of bothmale and female USAF personnel were summarized in tabular and graphic form. Theinterrelationships within each of the two groups of dimensions were given in the form of tablesof correlation coefficients. A series of tables showed estimates of the other dimensions forthe appropriate ranges of values of hand length, hand breadths at metacarpale and at the thumb,and fist circumference. Nomographic charts were presented for estimating the related dimensicnsfor all likely combinations of values of hand lengths and breadths for both USAF men andwomen. Data from other surveys of military personnel were summarized; these data suggestedthe applicability of the tables and charts presented to the design of handwear intended foralmost any group of U.S. Air Force personnel.

'Barter, J. T., and M. Alexander. A Sizing System for High Altitude Gloves. WADC TechnicalReport 56-599, Wright Air Development Center-, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,December 1956. (AD 110 589)

6 Churchill, E., A. Kuby, and G. S. Daniels. Nomograph of the Hand and Its Related Dimensions.WADC Technical Report, 57-198, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio, April 1957. (AD 118 162)

13

In a report by Jones, Kobrick, and Gaydos (1958),' available data on the hand at thattime were summarized. Descriptive data were presented on the structural and functionalcharacteristics of the human hand which are of interest to human engineers concerned withthe design of handwear and manually-operated equipment. The first section of the reportdealt with the anthropometric dimensions of the hand and showed the percentile distributionof hand sizes in several military population samples. The second section reviewed data unthe biomechanics of the hand in terms of direction, range, and forces involved in typicalfunctional movements.

A comprehensive descriptive summary of the X-ray ar.thropometry of the hand waspresented in a report by Vicinus (1962).' The 253 subjects chosen for measurement wereselected to be representative of the U.S. Air Force population in hand length and hand breadth.Summary statictics for 24 lengths and 20 breadths for both right and left hands were presented.Also included in the report were complete intercorrelation matrices for both hands, indicatingthe degree of relationship between the 44 hand dimensions. Analysis of the data indicatedthat, in general, the right hand tends to be longer and broader than the left; the right handalso showed slightly greater variability in length and less variability in breadth than the left.The lowest correlations occur in the relationship between length and breadth dimensions. andthe highest are to be found within the length dimensions of each of the five dipits.

A report by Garrett (1970)1 describes 56 anthropometric dimensions measured on thehands of 211 U.S. Air Force female personnel, incluaing Women in the Air Force (WAF),Nurse Corps, and Biomedical Science Corps, aged 18-56 years. Summary statistics, includingthe means, standard deviations, ranges, selected percentiles, measures of distribution, andcoefficients of variation, are presented for the 56 hand dimensions. Also included are statisticalvariations by age, rank, and Corps within the sample, a complete correlation matrix, bivariatetables, and nomographs for various selected combinations of hand dimensions.

"Jones, C. E., J. L. Kobrick, and H. F. Gaydos. Anthropometric and BinmechanicalCharacteristics of the Hand. Technical Report EP-100, U.S. Army Quartermaster Researchand Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts, September 1958. (AD 204 867)

8 Vicinus, J. H. X-Ray Anthropometry of the Hand. Technical Report AMRL-TDR-62-111,Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, September1962. (AD 291 412)

9 Garrett, J. W. Anthropometry of the Air Force Female Hand. Technical ReportAMRL-TR-69-26, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,Ohio, March 1970. (AD 710 202)

14

I,

In a second report by Garrett (1970),"° descriptions of and data on 56 anthropometric

dimensions of the hands of 148 male U.S. Air Force flight personnel are presented. Selected

dimensional comparisons indicate that this sample is representative of the total group of USAF

flight personnel. Summary statistics presented include the means, standard deviations, ranges,

selected percentiles, and coefficients of variation. Also included are data on the age, rank,major Air Command, and commissioned status of the sample; a complete matrix of

intercorrelations among the anthropometric dimensions; bivariate tables; multiple regression

equations; and nomographs for selected combinations of dimensions. A tariff for the U.S.

Air Force 12-size glove program, revised to reflect the latest anthropometric data, is presented

in the appendix.

Recent studies of the anthropometry at. selected biomechanical characteristics of hands

are summarized in a journal article by Garrett (1971),11 These include: (1) conventional

anthropometry of male and female hands, (2) the anthropometry of the relaxed hand,(3) comparison of certain engineering, anthropometric and performance parameters between

bare and pressure-gloved hands, and (4) the ability to retain grips on selected handles under

high dynamic loads. The utility of these data for human factors engineering is discussed.

In addition to the technical reports on hands reviewed above, several general referencesalso may be cited here.

Detailedi comparisons of anthropometric data on the hands, based primarily upon thedefinitions of hand measurements, may be found in the encyclopedic two-volume Collation

of Antliropometry by Garrett and Kennedy (1971).12

A significant and important source of anthropometric data is represented by the AMRLData Bank, which is a comprehensive collection of body size information assembled andmaintained by personnel of the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson

Air Force Base, Ohio. This facility incorporates at a single center the raw oata from most

large-scale anthropornetric surveys of U.S. military and civilian populations and also of many

1 Garrett, J. W. Anthropometry of the Hands of Male Air Force Flight Personnel. Technical

Report AMRL-TR--69-42, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base, Ohio, March 1970. (AD 709 883)

•Garrett, J. W. The Adult Hurman Hand: Some Anthropomnetric and BiomnechanicalConsiderations. Human Factors, Vol. 13, No. 2, 117-131, April 1971. (Also designated as

Technical Report AMRL-TR-69-122; AD 724 061)

"2 Garrett, J. W., and K. W. Kennedy. A Collation of Anthropometry. Technical ReportAMRL-TR-68-1 (2 volumes), Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base, Ohio, March 1971. (AD 723 629 and AD 723 630)

15

foreign military populations. The material, which includes data on hand measurements, hasbeen edited and starndardized to make it reliable and readily available for recall and analysis

as needed for specific research and applications. A number of associated computer programs

have been devised to aid users of this resource in extracting and utilizing the data for particular

tasks. The contents of the AMRL Data Bank have not been publisned as such. However,a technical report has been published by Churchill et al. (1977)13 ,which describes in detailfour of the U.S. Air Force anthropometric series included in the data bank. Also includedin this -eport are descriptions of the tape formats, definitions of the measurement variables,and a printout of an editing program.

What is probably the single most useful publication of comparative anthropometric datais the Anthropometric Source Book, published in 1978 by the National Aeronauti's and SpaceAdministration." 4 The Source Book comprises three volumes. Volume I: Anthropometryfor Designers, is a presentation in nine chapters of the fundamentals of anthropometry andanthropometric data, as well as applicatiens in the design and sizing of clothing, equipment,and workspaces. Volume II: A Handbook of Anthrooometric Data, contains summaries ofanthropometric data from surveys of 61 military and civilian populations of both sexes fromthe United States, Europe, ana Asia. Some 295 measured variables are defined and illustrated;these include measurements of the hands. For each variable there is a list of surveys in whichit was measured and summary statistics and selected percentile values for each population cited.This volume is primarily a handbook of tabulated dimensional anthropometric data and isprobably the most comprehensive source of summarized body size information currently in

existence. Volume IIl: Annotated Bibliography of Anthropometry, lists 236 annotatedreferences relating to the field of anthropometry and the applications of anthropometric datain both clothing and ergonomics. Taken together, the three volumes of the NASAAnthropometric Source Book, compiled and edited by Edmund Churchill, John T. McConville,and their associates of the Anthropology Research Project in Yellow Springs, Ohio, is a trulyimpressive publication, representing a valuable source of information on comparativeanthropometric data.

Another recent and useful source of anthropometric data on the U.S. military populationis the Department of Defense Military Handbook on the Anthropometry of U.S. MilitaryPersonnel (Metric).' 5 In this official publication, statistical and selected percentile values are

"3 Churchill, E., P. Kikta, and T. Churchill. The AMRL Data Bank Library: Volumes I-V.Technical Report AMRL-TR-77-1, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio, October 1977. (AD A047 314)

"1National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Edited by Staff of Anthropology ResearchProject, Webb Associates, Yellow Springs, Ohio). Anthropometric Source Book. NASA

Reference Publication 1024 (3 volumes), National Aeronautics and Soace Administration.

Scientific and Terhnical Information Office, Washington, D.C., July 1978.

"5 Department of Defense. Military Handbook: Anthropometry of U.S. Militar/ Personnel(Metric). DOD-HDBK-743 (Metric), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,3 October 1980.

16

presented in centimeters for 192 body measurements, including hand measurements. The datahave been compiled and collated from anthropometric surveys and studies on both men andwomen, carried out between 1946 and 1977 in the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and AirForce.

1

17

I I I I I I - I I I 1 II "

3. COMPARATIVE ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA ON THE HAND

a. Sources of Anthropcrmetric Data.

Comparative anthropometric data on the hand presented and discussed in this report havebeer. drawn from 27 anthropometric surveys and studies carried out between 1942 and 1977.These comprise 19 series of men's hands and eight series of women's hands, representingmeasurements on over 78,000 individuals.

Six of the men's series are from the U.S. Army: U.S. Army men measured in 1946and 1966; U.S. Army basic trainees measured in 1966 and 1977; and U.S. Army aviatorsmeasured in 1959 and 1970. U.S. Marine Corps men measured in 1966 are included, as wellas U.S. Navy aviators measured in 1964 and US. Navy recruits measured in 1966. Sevenseries on men's hands are from the U.S. Air Force: U.S. Army Air Forces cadets and gunnersmeasured in 1942; U.S. Air Force flying personnel measured in 1950 and 1967; U.S, Air Forcebasic trainees measured in 1952 and 1965; as well as a study of USAF men's hands measuredin 1968. Three additional series on men's hands consist of Spanish-American War veteransmeasured in 1959, Veterans Administration veterans measured in 1970, and U.S. lawenforcement officers measured in 1974.

Among the eight series on women's hands are: U.S. Army women meast.red in 1946and 1977; Women's Army Service pilots (WASP) and U.S. Army Air Forces flying nursesmeasured in 1942; U.S. Air Force WAF trainees measured in 1952; U.S. Air Force womenmeasured in 1968; and a study of USAF women's hands measured in 1968. In addition,a series of airline stewardess trainees, measured in 1971, has been included.

These sources of anthropometric data are summarized in Table 1. The number ofindividuals measured in each series and the mean age of the series also are indicated. Referencesfor these series in the form of published reports may be found in Section 12. REFERENCES.However, a technical report has not been published on U.S. Navy recruits (1966).

The available anthropometric data on hands thus include data on U.S. Army, U.S. MarineCorps, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force personnel. Mi!itary ground troops are represented byU.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps personnel, while military aviators consist of personnel ofthe Army, Navy and Air Force. Army and Air Force basic trainees, as well as Navy recruits,represent young men just beginning their military service. The datu on women's hands arefrom the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force.

In addition to representing all of the U.S. Armed Forces, the available anthropometricdata on the hands also cover a time span of some 35 years, frorrm the early surveys of 1942-1946up to the later surveys of 1966-1977. It may be noted that the dimensions of the handdo not appear to have changed appreciably over a period of years among the military personnelcited here.

b. Anthropometric Measurements of the Hand.

Anthropometric data on the hand are presented for ten measurements: Hand Length,Palm Length, Thumb Crotch, Hand Breadth, Hand Breadth at Thumb, Hand Circumference,

19

l zcmm PAZDIK4rIU

Table 1. ANTHROPOMETRIC SERIES ON HANDS

Number of Mean Age Reference

No. Men's Series individuals (years) number

1 US Army Men (1946) 24,487 24.3 47,61

2 US Army Men (19 66 ) 6,682 22.2 61,62

3 US Army Basic Trainees (1966) 2,639 20.2 61,62

4 US Army Basic Trainees (1977) 287 19.7 43,61

5 US Army Aviators (1959) 500 30.2 58

6 US Army Aviators (1970) 1,482 26.2 7

7 US Marine Corps (1966) 2,008 20.9 63

8 US Navy Aviators (1964) 1,549 29.6 24

9 US Navy Recruits (1966) 4,095 19.9 none

10 USAAF Cadets (1942) 2,959 * 50

11 USAAF Gunners (1942) 583 " 50

12 USAF Flying Personnel (1950) 4,000 27.9 30

13 USAF Basic Trainees (19 52 ) 3,328 18.9 12

14 USAF Basic Tiainees (1965) 2,527 19.3 5

15 USAF Flying Personnel (1967) 2,420 30.0 27

16 USAF Men's Hands (1968) 148 31.5 20

17 Spanish-American War Veterans (1959) 130 81.6 11

18 Veterans Administration Veterans (1970) 2,109 42.9 10

19 Law Enforcement Officers (1974) 2,989 30.7 41

Women's Series

20 US ArmyWomen (19 46 ) 8,113 27.3 51,61

21 US Army Women (1977) 1,330 23.1 4,61

22 WASP Pilots (1942) 437 * 50

23 USAAF Flying Nurses (1942, 142 50

24 USAF WAF Basic Trainees (1952) 851 19.8 13

25 USAF Women (1968) 1,905 23.4 9

26 USAF Women's Hands (1968) 211 24.7 19

27 Airline Stewardess Trainees (19 7 1) 423 22.1 53

*Mean Age is not available.

2

] 20

Hand Circumference at Thumb, Fist Circumference, Wrist Circumference, and Hand Thickness.These ten hand measurements are illustrated in the Visual Index (page 22); definitions of thehand measurements may be fnund in the list of definitions (page 23).

Hand Length, from the wrist to the tip of the middle finger, represents the basic lengthof the hand, Palm length is essentially the length of the palm or the hand less the fingers.Thumb Crotch Length is a special measurement devised to fulfill a requirement for informationon a critical seam in gloves. Hand Breadth is the basic width of the palm, while Hand Breadthat Thumb is the width of the hand including the base of the thumb. Hand Circumferenceis the girth of the palm, an important measurement which serves as the basis for glove sizing.Hand Circumference at Thumb is the girth of the hand including the base of the thumb. FistCircumference is the girth of the clenched fist. Wrist Circumference is included with the handmeasurements, since it is used as an indication of the sizing required for gauntlets or closureson handwear. Finally, Hand Thickness is the thickness of the hand at the knuckles, an important

dimension involved in hand clearances.

In most surveys involving measurements of the hands, the right hand usually is measured.The right hand tends to be slightly larger in both length and breadth dimensions than theleft.

21

-. ' r

4. VISUAL INDEX OF HAND MEASUREMENTS

( )

Figure 1. Hand Measurements iI22

5. DEFINITIONS OF HAND MEASUREMENTS

1 Hand Length - the distance from the base of the hand at the wrist crease to the tipof the middle finger, measured along the long axis of the hand.

2 Palm Length - the distance from the base of the hand at the wrist crease to the furrowat twe base of the middle finger.

3 Thumb Crotch Length - the distance from the skinfold at the base of the thumb tothe notch between the first and second fingers, measured parallrl to the long axis ofthe hand.

4 Hand Breadth - the breadth of the hand, measured across the ends of the metacarpalbones (metacarpal-phalangeal joints).

5 Hand Breadth at Thumb - the breadth of the hand, measured at the level of the firstjoint of the thumb (metacarpal-phalangeal joint).

6 Hand Circumference - the circumference of the hand, measured with the tape passingover the knuckles (metacarpal-phalangeal joints).

7 Hand Circumference at Thumb - the circumference of the hand, measured with the tape

passing over the base of the thumb.

8 Fist Circumference - the circumference of the clenched fist (with the thumb lying acrossthe end of the fist), measured with the tape passing over the knuckles and the thumb.

9 Wrist Circumference - the circumference of the wrist, measured at the level of the tipof the styloid process of the radius.

10 Hand Thicknes - the thickness of the knuckle (metacarpal-first phalanx joint) of themiddle finger.

23

I

6. STATISTICS

Comparative anthropometric data on the hand may be collated and analyzed in orderto indicate ranges of variation in the sizes and dimensions of the hand. However, the reductionand processing of any anthropometric data, whether on the hands or on any other parts ofthe human body, involves the use of statistical procedures. Large amounts of data on largenumbers of individuals are collected during anthropometric surveys of U.S. military personnel.Some statistics are necessa.y, therefore, in order to reduce these data into some logical andcoherent form for presentation and application in design and sizing.

The statistical measures used in this report in the presentation of anth'0ropometric dataon the hands may be summarized as follows.

a. The number of individuals. The number of individuals measured in each of the seriesof military personnel is indicated in the tables by "N". The series included here usually representfrom several hundred to several thousand individuals.

b. The mean. The mean as used here is the arithmetic mean for a hand dimension.This is the most widely used form of the "average" value.

c. The standard deviation. The standard deviation, indicated in the tables by "S.D.",is a statistical measure of variability. By definition, the standard deviation is the square rootof the average of the squared deviations from the mean value. If most of the data tend tofall close to their mean value, the standard deviation will be small, while if many of the dataare either much smaller or much larger than the mean, the standard deviation will be large.The mean of the hand dimension minus one standard deviation and plus one standard deviationusually will indicate a range for that dimension which will include about two-thirds of thedata for that dimension. About 95 percent of the data will have values ranging fromapproximately two standard deviations below the mean to two standard deviations above it.Practically all of the data will fall within the range from three standard deviations below themean to three standard deviutions above the mean.

d. The standard errors of the mean and standard deviation. The standard error of themean, shown as "SE(M)", and the standard error of the standard deviation, shown as "SE(SD)"in the tables, represent estimates of the magnitude of the sampling error. The standard errorof the mean is computed by dividing the standard deviation by the square root of the samplesize. The standard error of the standard deviation is obtained by dividing the standard deviationby the square root of twice the sample size. The standard errors for large samples of individuals Iwill be small, while those for small samples will be relatively large.

a. The coefficient of variation. The coefficient of variation, indicated in the t4;esby "V(%)", is a restatement of the standard deviation in which the standard deviation isexpressed as a percentage of the mean value. The coefficient of variation is a convenientmeasure for assessing the comparability of anthropometric data.

25 MAKk F BLhIC-zNoT JIeD

f. The range. The range in the tables of data is indicated by a minimum value (the

smallest measurement), a maximum value (the largest measurement), and the total range, or

the minimum value subtracted from the maximum value. The minimum and maximum values

are the extreme values for that hand dimension, representing only two individuals - the smallest

and the largest hand measurements.

g. The stature ratio. The stature ratio shown in the tables represents the handdimension as related to stature. It is obtained by dividing the mean value for that dimensionby the mean value of stature for that series. For example, a stature ratio of 0.110 for thehand length of U.S. Army Aviators (1970), as shown in Table 2a, indicates that mean handlength for this series is 11.0 percent of the mean stature for that series. Similarly, a statureratio of 0.124 for the hand circumference of U.S. Army Men (1966), as shown in Table 7a,indicates that mean hand circumference for this series is 12.4 percent of the mean staturefor that series. Stature ratios are more significant for larger measurements of the body; sincethe hand measurements are relatively small in terms of total stature, the stature ratios forhand measurements are rather low.

h. Percentile values. The selected percentile values shown in the tables of percentilevalues are the 1st, 2na, 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, 95th, 98th, and 99th perc'ntiles.The 50th percentile is equivalent to the median value, indicating that half of the d ta fallbelow and half of the data are above this value for a hand measurement. The range in thetables of percentile values is merely the 1st percentile value subtracted from the 99th percentilevalue, thus indicating the range or spread for 98 percent of the sample. The percentile valuesfor a hand measurement represent a useful presentation of the range of variation for thatdimension. The range indicated by the 25th to the 75th percentile values covers the middle50 percent or half of the sample. The 5th percentile value for a hand measurement showsthat five percent of the individuals in that sample are smaller than that value, while the 95thpercentile value indicates that five percent are larger than that value for that hand measurement.

2

26

7. TABLES OF ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA

Available anthropometric data on the hand have been collated and are presented in tabularform in this section.

Virtually all anthropometric measurements are made in the metric system of millimetersand centimeters. In the first set of ten tables (T3bles 2-11), the hand data are presentedin metric values or centimeters. For the benefit of those who still may not be familiar withthe metric system, the hand data are given in inches in the second set of ten tables (Tables12-21).

The anthropometric data on hands are preseatted in a unique format in order to facilitateready and convenient reference. The data for each hand measurement are given in tables ontwo facing pages. In Table "a" on the upper page are shown the various statistical values,such as means. standard deviations, and ranges, while selected percentile values are given inTable "b" on the lower or facing page. In this way, all of the available data for any handdimension may be found on the two facing pages.

Anthropometric hand data for the men's series are given first, followed by the data forthe women's series. In the statistical tables, the data are arranged in order of decreasing meanvalues, starting with the highest mean and progressing down to the lowest mean value. Inthe tables of percentile values, the data are arbitrarily arranged in decreasing order of the 50thpercentile or median value, starting with the highest value and progressing down to the lowestvalue. It should be noted that the order or sequence of the series in the tables of percentilevalues is not neceswarily the same as that in the tables of statistical values.

Not all of the hand measurements were taken in all of the anthropometric series citedhere. Data for Hand Length and Hand Breadth are available for all of the series, while datafor Hand Circumference and Wrist Circumference are available for most of the saries. However,the rest of the hand measurements were taken in only a few of the anthropometric series.

27

IS

')10 to to 10 'n C 0 - to C- I^~ %r%

0l (Y*\ 0 ý cý -4 C- ±lý0' 0 0

'0 '0 ' ' 0

d r- H -.- H H H .

0o 0, 0a, 0 0 0 0ri Cýr4)

-1 N N) N- Nq H N

4. 0Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N) C).3~( ~ 0( Ccn: C-- cy ý N N H

Q~I' ' 0 0 0'0'C>0' ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'

toH C\ v H 8 (-q Hz H, (v H H HLIH N

0 C

C; C C; 13 C C; C; S C3 (ý 3 C C;'

IV o , - N , 0 0

N' H to 0 t -1 9. n0 0Lr\ q, , - 0 LI .) e ' 0 10' it'

4) ~ 1 bf l U- f N

.~C -- ~(60 0S=

-- --- 43-

r-q- S

CV H -4 cv H 0 'i 0"4 a 'i H- 0- 04 14 U )

1o-4 tcv aI .-q H) H) 14 0 0C 0t a' '. 0 d\ U

0N c 0 ~ It' -. N CNI - N U \ l cv cv CV clq cv (

,-I H C.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ccvq cvi cv Cvl tv Cvj N cv Nv Nv Nv (N Nv c

c" 4 a O U O cO C- C-. C- '0 C- C-ý '0 '0Lo aI ai 10 a' 0 0 0' 0' 0 0' 0' 0 0 0'

(N cv H V H v H V H v (4 H H v H V CH H N V H H

(3 C0 Cý' Cý Q!v cý Cv HZ Hý ý 0ý ý oý oý

al a ,a , , C, C, , C, 0 a, 0, c- ol l oQ)t' H- H H- Hi H- H H1 H H- HA H H H H H

o 1

Cl -I-4' cv!H- " H CO 0'ý CO U)

A-- ~ 0 0I '.C) C0] 'l o D o t 0 L'- loo r' 'C\ -t WIN \0

H- H -H H H H H -H H H HA H H

tl 'o 0 %' 0 (v -N -4 4 t ' C\v cv C Hi m

0)H H H H H H- H H H H- H- H-H4

*0V

C-.+~ -± CO v \ 0 H c 0 (71" 0' I 0r 0% '

o) 0) .l 4 * 4 4 4) 4 .

H H H H H H H H H ) H H H H H

44 S-4. PCa'ý -d Eý ~-Fý

H4- (1) to c . 0 "CQ-

U) H o 92 -' ) v

V) vo -4 0) ) a'i 'n c )0 0) co

H4 cv U-t .4 it\-0. E) - to 0' 0,

29

it--

P4 H H ~ ~ H H H

LA t--oN -4 '.0 %D WN -t Lf\

N N 0 0" 0 0 o a'C V N r-4 CV Nl u-I Nl

*1Cý* CN a' wCý'O'N

CV C) (C 0" > 0

o 4-3.* t ef;-o - uo-±ct

000 0 000ci 0 000(

1- C,.(,r

0 cl

Hl

01.00.,0 0 0) 0

C-)l

10) (r,. CrH'C

CV -4j H 4 0

03

1-4 r- 0' \ 0r , 01 Hr a, 4l O 0,

4:, -li NO- 4~ C4 -1 H\ 0- (0 OI 0 N N

0 r-. 0 * .l .l , . 01 10 )

Oj e4 CVi c'J C'V N -i 4 -H l H H- H4 H-

C, 0 0 0 * *7 .l 10 01. 0

0, 00)C

r- 4,

0 0 *)* *

a, 0' 91 ON ON to to lo to to r)U) C- N-H- H- H-- H- H- H- H H- H- H H H

0 .7 .l lc 0y- ( 0 m

C" 'o; t; 20 C- N t!r~ '

d) CCV N- t-I H (V1 0' A V0 ) 1

0)(V H H H H- H H- H H H H H H

H -H H H9 H9 A H9 Hq A) H

Q - C~- C N 0 1 UON N 'A VON LN UtH- H- H H4 H1 H H H -H -H -H H

(V \'O cr (t\ Hr U-\ Nm

H Ho H H H4 H H- H- H

.0%

4' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 0 rU- 4 (V ' %~' u ulC) E

N -I

'- . 0. 0' Hz it

0" H) E-4

to 0 En' V) 0

:31

(10H N H H O ' A LI", C""r4 'O'"I" LA '0 H

Htr\ O' LAO Hr m en U' us -4 \ - '

1-4

() C- ~ 0' 0-1 loH o ~ i A~ '.0 o -

9 . 9ý 9l N 9 . ~r . . .L .0 UN L\ LN C."\ '0\ 0C 0I Hr LA N t N -

0~0 0' '0 Q-

0 0 000 C 0 0 0 L\ 0 L% U0 0cU\ L% I ý 0r %0

0 C) 0 0 0 0 Q 0Z)

I!) *-1 '.0 C- '0 L A n ' '0 Lr% rt' '.0 LAo

in - t o ~ oo6 & c r-cr oooo

0l 0j 0 0 0 0 `0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4~C t-' " C r. N 0' e 0 U0~ ~ 0' 0 0 - - '. t. u. ei 0, LA.

0)4 it'. tH I., ..

LA -~ - Q) H1 n- 3U) L) U) -s C- 0U C- -

H 0 0. 4. - ' -1

A) r), u 0) 'A '-0' 00)

to V) co U) ) ) to V)=~ ~ M : D D A =

H v Nr 1 4 L 0 1'- w(00 0.- C ~2.-

32

-I o t -- o , 0 w ON- ' N

o, \ N 4N C4' 4 N 4 4 C4 A

clýC H O N H t1tm N 0 N

H I A

00 a, e' 0 'o -tC\ U\ - - D I O 0 -4 (

0' cv qa - N N u 0

HH

(fo *H1IH '0 L(\ '0 U'\ --t -4 N N H- 0 - u' 4 0

-1~ C; Z; c; C; H; Q! C) c

H H HA11 1- -CI4 C- ---H- to 1OO 0 u' \0 -c C0 Ho -

-01 H Cl) H% '.- '-0'H%

"Uo o

47 - al , t- C

r-4 ) -40 14t

U'-

- - - - ~ (D

~ IN CV C

-.-. p o .o o '

.IH c clC~

~ ~ 0 0 7,(

0'

CItC~

cj- CVi\ a

Im a, C"

t ~ HO H H

C.)0

W4-

0 ~ $H

0)r C0)

HA Cl en

34

'i C4 4 c4

4i C'J ri

'0 10 '0 '0l

UN Hr 0r 1^

r4~r

0 0

C~I A IA

U\ a, IA I

1 0 '0 '0*

?

C~0)

~ a' ' C4 a

~c

CO ) c f)

cI H v cn~4I35

0o H fH 0 H H- Hi rH H 0 0 0 a,-

S0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 00

P-4 OH 24 -ý4 ' c'j Hr- H0 ~ '0 u H r

t- C- C'- t'- r' '4 - rl r- C- L t-4

0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

'Oi '0, H. m . V C- -~C- ' 0 0Lr _g -z -4 -t gg

~ L' ' C 0 (\;~ o C3 H) '0 '0

'0 ar - -i~' 1-4 H- 0' .. t C-4 Z.N cAl ci aC.0 0 * * 0 C;. 0 0 0 C- 0 0 *

-4, -4 -4 '0 (1 .4 UN U'., -r\ t-- 4 '

toQ V H 0, 0. z ., to L- .kr\ ~ ~ 0 No H0n a

C-)N

U\0 t^0clc/ C- O o OO O C) a,

C) C)D 0) 0

0' M '0 0) *' 4)' cn all ~.$ý 0~ E- U)U C- '

0V H -4C 'iV V -4 t cai C

Cd ,-.4

En -'

0'l (IN- H1 '.- 0o c0' to--1-4 ' 0' - - H 0 C' I'. C- In r '4

036'

to 0 O V ' - > C> a ' 0 o t

,= -4c1

ý 4 -4 H

o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 0 ' a ' 0' 0 ' a ' C

Nl Nl 0-- 0 N- a, O- N l Ol o- (71 a' a' U

£~~~~N If U' a ' a ' a ' ~ . 4 -\ C'r\ C'\

(y Cr- 0' a' a' a' , a' , a' Or a, a' a' a' Q*'

4-3E 4)~ = N --I CVQ N' V V CVl H (NI IH HC

4 4CI C\ *ý *ý *ý * ý * ý *ý 0* *

C) o' NI 0'CýC-

0ý 0ý 0' 0' to' 0j 0- a'coa' co to to- cC) uo toUNU (

.3)

*H4 .o N a' ' '0 -C ' .La' 10 *0 -c In43) 4-1. . v . . .

W,' VCVI P U to 03to co tr)U)U co O t t(L totoU;

C~ - M' ~I '4 ~ ' C'> r-> V 1-4'T C~\ N'- c-- D

w to c03 to' (co E- c) C- to co 03 OD C C

a' t U to C- 0 t N ) Ný C- U) U o to N C-

~~0iN C* N c( N U

H-4 Q) .O - mI

>' a) ' 0 C:-'

f9 a' 0' 0 m '-- '' ' '0 0

(I i V) (f))'0 V (1'. V) to ) (f) LO-

a) 4 -, 4 - 0 a ~ - - fl~M H 0

C-. a\

-H ~32

0 0 0 0 (), to E- t-. loo C-. C- r--1E 0i- -- af 8 -t 8 C:t 0

(Vll cflI .l . . , *

wl to~ -m to a,'-10 IW -

'0 '0 ' ' 0 In In '0

a)

C)

Co cI'A -4 -- ? IC , 0 t rI 0 -

E4 0-4HH ( r- I Gn 2 -4 (V ( r- -i H~

0 0 0 o 8C) 0 0->:ý i00 to , 1

to 0',;

v a,

SH 0' F+: 9E r'

c~j aQ.

'0 0'oEl

V In - c i coV .3 o -:D :H on : n :: ) t

'0~~ ~ ~ ~ C- C i c m j , '0 rCq 0)l C~

38

H 0% 0' o N t o '0 i( O '

%O a, C- CO W -40 ODI±4 09 0' Q ' 9 t A g

.a'-0t 'D Ltr ( 0 0t 4 H-

to U) to ý t o t; t; ;o

a- toa, ; 0; 0

a' a to to t o to u

4-)m 4(1 I ' o cv N H ' 0 o '

co C- C

'a to a' cv Cv H ' '

toý c'- C- No N '

C-

S C'H O4-l w'

w- 0

Q)£45 '0 'a)Ia'HSA

to to 14ca m tco- -

00 (), 0 HL- 14 ---- -l N

0 0% C11-14 §0

4,

+3,-

a)'

6-.

-.1 "D

0 0 0

I- C-

10)-

2 2H

E-V

0, 'n 0

O0

ý4' I4~4sI .. 1

E-F4

-~(V)UN l

C- ' 0 - (

InH U) 0 U

40

6ý c 0

1% C

0 00 0'H- HH-

0000 0

y, Hy ), to

2C

C, Co)a

r a- co 0 l 0 ý 0 !

co) to U co)

C~L.

-~ ~ 41

4-:1 ~ L 0 C- 100 C0 0t (-Z to lA C- L

1- -o IA 'Atj c~

'-4 N4 -.4 -4-( (4 c C ~

Ht Ha. -1-Nrir- - -

911

WN~~( WNtoz r

o- *.-4 8- \ i V 1 ~0 0 0 C H 0 H H o o 0 c;

cl

rA 1 H rl 0 0' -t u I 0 '. IZ Cc\ 1100 t(n A~ -10 '0 ac) u 4 o .. i r4 4 !

C\1 r-4 c-( N N N (N C"% --t (Nl (l (N\ m

j '0 o C) LA IA 0 0 0A~ 0 N

0- ' c C'l( ( ( 0 (rN (N- H0

'OD <,q .) to '0 Ht' H '- Lt, .4 0, N

Ho m f Ct) lo H, H H

8) '0) -4 U)U CU) C)l

CNI ID eq m~

U)EE' O. . -

to 10 1 -1 0, 01N :

H0 (N r- t %0 0 0 'r\- to 0'

42 4

0I t^ (V CO-t- 0 t lo r-\ 0' a, C C- El- C-

L CVu' 4v Qv (V ev ' (V 0 C'- C'V C'-V

mt '0\ '0, (V CA H4 1' ( H 0 a' cl

(V 4 4V (v (N (v (v (V (l C\1 (V

HV HI -v COl CO COt N C\) CV C'- (v '. -

m C' m 94 9~ C, .' 9\ N 9' C4

*V N . C l (V N .N .~ l

0~ C4.0 q' '0 4I' LI' Li. U. 4

0 (V (V (V (l (q V (N NV (V (V CV (Vj (N

U' 0 Q) CO - 0 (7 0 C- - 02 0 C- '

0 0 0. 0 H 0 0r 0 0 0 0 0t 0lg~ l (V l N V N v ( V (V4 N v ( N N (V (V H

C9- tN (Vý Hý 9' -* E'ý C- a: N ý Hn010 V0 0y 01 Q 0 a'ý 0r 0N 07 0 a a,

4 H H H (l (V H H H H- H- H H

-i'C C'- G' 1 CQ IQ' -4 CQ li

E- H.~ 1-4 HrV( 4 H ' H- 0 (i0

7 H -I 611 H1-

0D) Q 0) q)) 0 w~. ~ -

CO U)a a ) w 4

tz E-cl 0 0 1-

Q) %

0

o r No

Q)

C-)-

Q)

Cý C. .

to*

(10

C-..>

I~H~No

F4 . - l - - 4

~ 5;;44

0 r 0 0' 0'

-I cv- u - i -

(n ¶ m -N -I a'i r-

10' 01

('r-4-

"00C

C ~ ~ -.cc U 0 q

trI. . .

C3 ~ ~ ~ m U*)~-~ ) C

'-0 H- -4

Ir-4

H H H4H

CC \

a,

(l V

HE-4

(-4 C\?

ul) 0 0 0

E-i C)cl

C) 0

HHc

co

PIE -0co H0to'

Hq cn

46

0 l l N w

elC t N0 0;

C- c-± E-

r- CN NV N

c ~ x cjl.

C - - r' 0 t t - t~

Q) CV (14

(N NV N

4-)l'

-~0,

Q) G 0 E-~

::D

cv m

C'47

01 C- U-% -t m~

c-nv

H I~- 0 0 to

0' cv-

4-) 00) 0 C

-0 4,f (14

9 0 0

C',-

CqHii CtoI C4

'~~00'00

IS-4E--r

co cm -4 o e

1I-4 C' cv

bo ~ ~ CoC

CU

n m C CN c '.lC

4~4 C- w c- toC~l CV 4 t c,!

M m0~I( C-- * l I

Cý0 C-

M. n (V C~l CV

1-4 r- ; " C

o r C-I C;'

m- (n(VC? I

Q E-

0-81 N * cv (V c

r L C- '. 0 C- V -4 .

q) C\1 cv CIV l

-t v

H - Z (

C) C ) 0t, C4 U) .

t0 CC .

H~ cv CV ~ -t Vt

Ic

o ~ ~ ý 100'. ~ U)'

(V 4( 0 0 0 ' CO - '0 '0 - 0 '0 0 Q

(V 0 0 r H H 0 0 H a, H- a, 0 0

-4 AA -4 'fl p~ A A '0q

C- CUm)l - o 10 C ~ r

4-)

r- La' a' q 1- a'I r- CO CO 0 --1 HO- V( V L "~ H C- CU) 0) 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H

01 0 ; 6C)C 3 C

0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

'.0 t- 14 -1(0 0 (V ý H `0 '0~I ~ A'A 4C' 0l 01 1 0 C 0

Z- N H, HN H Ho H H H H H

I0 C n 0 0 VN 'D 10 0' C \' (

'v N c 0 (V A -

0' -. LA '0 'H C'- - 0' 0 a' '0 1-1 -. ..

to '0 - k^. -f- HI 0 '0 COV .O 0 10 10 '0'0,

H (71,

(n W)4) C) 4 ~ 4) Cl ) C) U l ) U

CT450

q 4 * 4 * 4 -t

0 a' 0'C7 0 0 o' 0', 0', 0' 0, 0l 0a, 0Hl N CVi CVA -44 H H H HH

'l 0 1. 0 co 0) or 0 w U), m)0'

4 r3 I ' A. r q - 4 4- *- *i 4 - 4 - H * *

NI C a, Q' CVq '0 to '0 '0 -1 . 4 C

.) H H H H H H H -i H H

C% CV 0 to 0 C'- to '.D '0 '.0 L(\

co t A1; - a -* C-! C. C-! CZ: C-! E- t

U)H H H H- H HA H H H H

co co 00 0' U C -\ C'-\ Lt\ Ltr\ Vt\ - 4

(4 V 4

ý C-- 0 0 0 0 ' 0

14 r4 - II ri ý -

C-' .ý .1 4 4 4 0.

H- H1 Hq H H H r~ H H- H-i H H H-

0

-431 -4 C-.- l' -j n( C'- CV C"- CV Hl C% CV H- '0

I 41 - A4 -

C-4.

'l 0 U'\

04 '. 0 0' 1- Hr '0 0- '

V)i H- C) H dU)

V)C 0j

En) (f ) to' CI- Wl C.) C) ) C) ' '

511ý

C' 0 o 0

(D &C\ £l -:C C -

H ~ 1 `. A 0CN C-- W N

0 CUl

S C',

C.) C)

Qi u)WD 0 0 0 0

to 1 q0i t

'00 C'i (q

-I-to

01

" "a (j,0

-' I-ý4

WW

52 j

0 -m 0 0 Nv

'0 LN to 0 cvi

rl " kf l 0 0 r-1 C~

to 10 10 10 4L

to 00 ol *CO 10

0 Lill -4t C'2 (Ij

-. r- r H-

0)0

"I (n c

Q) to cv cv

I-Cd

0) o If (0 0"

H r-4 -4 r-I 'A C

00

c0 0 0 '0 '! Cý C

4- H N H

cvN N ( (N (11 N H

'0 HC')

0 14 'NE\ r- C- '0 0 '

'- V (V(1)- CV) CDI O O O C;bf

0)0

co c1- ,piC- 0 C 0 cC1 HI)

I-. N r- cr (3- cl- -Nv00

Hi to' c>. 0, o- 0 .4C,', U)1.. 4

FI-CIC'N C' lN0

cli

.43

to L.\-.

'0 - 1-.

4l ) CO C

V) N U)o ILI U)C) C/ /

54 Q

CT.---..

coI

r-4 4

C-\ .4 C'\ N N 0 N

CN ce Cl NYl CN N

0),~- (V C)0Ir4 o

SH0 0 0 to to

(n C\ C1 CYN m~ (N l j

10

ct . (~C N N~ N~ N NV N

m v j 0

1000 r- C-Z C- -2 L

I-I HV (N \1cv* 0

14

c-I N NNNN el c 0N 1.-

ar' u' N N

No U1 - -AW

,0 -4 Hr H- it'

SC',+3 p ~ -,f4

E- N t-~ U .0o

Jý U)En 0 U V)I i

m ry. C.

10~~' i-I '4Cl - \D L

Ci 0 (vN H- C-- 0 C-- C-- a,' '0 C>- Cj C.- u-' N~ u-'

C"\ 0 N L^ f\ ^ m 0 ('4 0', (ON t- P- '0 H-! ý lý Cý Uý\ 1ý Uý 1ý Cý C- -t O ('

If\ 8 ~ g~88 8

nI ((n .i > '0 O 0 C)'~ (IN~ m0 0'C; C ; 6 c ; 8 c ; c ; c

4 - - 1 H r- - - 1O2. 0 D Q ,D Q 0 0

G) ýoc 'c 0'\ (0l to 0 4. m~ m N' 0 0' % o-. 0 to

El-~ C- C ctL' .-V- Ll-C -It'. I- .4 -- -4

f0o r(C - 0, cqC'. N t ' a, J 0 0% a% cv t-Hn NU v 0 r ( IM V\ I o N 1 t V %w t

N ( '\ iN 4 N 'NON

('.4

'~~CI 0' . s 0 0

H '- H

0' .44 CV O 0 '~ ' 0H 0 ' 10 0 Iz - ?' 0

'.- H 0 (94)r-

4- (D4 c- 56 CO~

C- .n W--------- -A

- ) t If\ \ Ni- 0' 1(

to co w4 to to cs to wS wS -wC

Cl Lf(N CNi 0 V% \ 1 InJ If\ tr ý C A cH N - -N 0' C-)

19 n ~ CS CSý c5ý (NJ C j C'1 C S CN Hl C(N

J-) 1-4 -1 -0 0 0 cc C) Q\ c-0 NI 0-- c

C% .4 zl- ' 0 . CS (Ni H ý F' U) U) U) '00 10 co~ IO to c4 co C- C.C4C

N tc ~ tIN .- . .

0t U) U ~\ CI- C-- t- 0' c0 CI -\ 4 C

.4 Lf\ C S CS ý l C- CS C- (Ni N l l CS- rl '1 (N N (N

A C HH -H 0H0 H 0 0) 0 0 C0

C-H. ' 00.4CS0:N OCr C! C-!

(Nci 0 D 01 toU' 0', 0' (c0 ' u)

'l -1 0 0' CS .4 tN '0 N- Ný Uc cr. Li-, U H 'A r\

'0 N ' 'o '0 '.0 '0 '.0 '0 'Z '0 '.0 '0 '0 '0

10 N- C- 4 0 N S '(7 . 0

r-4'0 aJ IN-

+H 01 .-. 1 0ý S. .4'0z' 0' - 0' '-H

0) + 0 r- 0' F, r E*

.r -a .ý '0(f) U) n ) V/) (0l U) VI) (I)

4 ýfl ;D ZN -ZN = D z

at H- N CS .4 U-\ .0 N- 0) U'Lr

57

4 Aý H c~r ~4 H4 A H

CY, Iv1

to~- 000 w to 0o to C-t C) U

N to N ~'to c- to N H

X i lU' £- '0 t0 C) HC:A 0 -

to to LAl a, U\ xU\ 0 , to C

-H-

o 0 0 ~

m -- IN r--

.ý . Cý * * . .

0 0 0 ) ) c) ) 0) (3 C; ) C0

1 C- - '0 A -I -o C)- N) N140

(l\ Cl C- CCI 'o C ' o 'o 'o

50l C) ) 100

C), 0 0C.- -4 0) *

C~C,

HA C-- N '

C', . S * * S 58

1^ CLN r 140 (Z) H) r.4 -i- j

N C '0 0 '0'N- .

- r\ cy-. CN) L,-% tC\\ co( V 4 0

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 LA -4~Ja,' . '- 0 r 4 Lr '

a a-I 0V CV 0 C'4lC- \\ ' '0

to- tC o -o Cr2 toC- C- C- - C- C-

(c> 0 0 0 pi 0 (

1 C C . N -- C- -- c-- c.- cl- C- C

10 10-0 10 n C)I H- 0A (

Ci) LA - Cý\ ("'4 C" V

. 4

.. H C CVl 0 Ul% '0 ('1 0 0

1. N. Sý C

-- C c-I C-- N 0 0 '-0 'Z '.Z '. ' 0 '

CDH 0 LA c-, Co

'0 '0 -f ' 0 '.0 In NO '0 0 No'.

'0 0 '0 ' o '0 '0 '0 '0 ' 0 '

-l) N O C) UN 00' C

10 '0 ý 0 10 '0 -40 '0 '0 '.0 `0

Cr.) N .

-Z 0 I' C',

'0 '0 10H'- 0

Ci) Co Wi- o U

-04 .,C ad -)

U) U) 0 -l f- ) Co m I) L~

59

C11 (1 ' 1- 40 ri ri t

+) 0 00 0 S- N -~0

u6l .. * * *

~I A A A ~ AI A L\ - * t- 4r C- 4r

* Cc"N~ C'\ m C", C) cc\ cl Ce N (V m n CI N

a, -A In4N 1 0 0' '40 N

1^ LINA u'% L.A *N *r *N S *

UN L LA U '0 QA '0

o C;666 c6 66 63C 3 ( d 66 CClIO

0Cl) in C-4 4-r Cq N - H LA

.- c c; 000 00 0 00 o o

CC)

0 0) 0Q 0 0 0 Q0 0 0 0 00 0 0

E-.

NQ C.4 H -A 0 to to ~ C

04' '0 tOj 'N to0C' 01 11-10) c

-E-C

UNl C--- 10 asto'. 0 LA\ -'. C'. or, '.C-i10 '- C ' C- 01 -1 %0 10' 0

0' 0' Hn 40'- 'Cfl~~V C- H0 4-' - ' H C- A '

-k E c z0 V

U0 U) C) U) en 0) If l ) Cf) (f) co) co) Cf)

e-4 C, c~-, A ' C-- to 0

60

4 H- '1 4 0 -1 0 -- H H H H C) -4 1

(~( ~ '0 H ' 0 V C 00 a, W 4 H 0 N~ (Nq(N 0 CO L' ; t- '-ý N ý N ý n 0 U

Lf L' 4 - -4 -t --T -t -I ;

0" 0 c'i 00 0 H- E- C- 0 C- t- 0-

0'_ a, - 0 If\ cn, c 0 0' L', V- N '.gI tO '0 '0 '0 UCI' t' I, 4 4 "

W UN

U, CN H l U', CI' H ý H i N "t0C,

0 ~ C"\ G a' '0 'C 0I)W (',

.0I C- ' 0 to to 1 In 0', 10 m - .1a, -l H H (1 8o w to C- - 1 l~ ,--;

m -ý 41 44 4 4C-

*ý . S- *ý *) *, * 4 4l C4 .

a,)1

21 0c 0- 0m 0'4 0V 11C O C i~'

H 1 n(" CIN c m C1 C", CI, m~ m" m" C",i C'C4"

4- to 4 .- 1 C", C C", U-\ C", %0 " " ", C, C, C'

d)~~~~' W40"ro ý

4 . .3 g. .L N * * *

944 Pq 0 ~ 00 a)E- - w C E- LI') E! 4 N

C- -4

'0 -') N0 M '0 CO) C-- -f f f c ) 4

H- CO 0m - '0 0' . '00 0 ,m'.0 '- ' 0' I 0' H '~ "8 '.-' 0

0' 0'H ~ '--4. S '. s.. 61"

U) H ~ '- - ~-vim*

CNiI

0 * ~

i A rI 00 0 0i

coH 0 H 0 H

Eý ýl * C C UN*

.9 0 0 00

~In 0 0r-4

0' e

10 (rJ -AN

'-4i

'0 -., m 'a

WWI~ * 11Q) 0

62

*d~ d~' c'4" U

HCHAEi) C.

cv N Cl

cil CqZI (V-4

m ~ '0 0)

cq IQ N)()

11 4 C4

H OV (fs 4

rA63

00 H H- 0 -4 H- r- f-4 H- 0 R 0 0

to 0l 0 0 0 2 c-0 0

.43 1 * ** * * 0 ** * *

-- I o -4i -1 c4 'A 'A -- 4 4 .

IC11 \C~ CV CV (\1 01. mV C V C. V C V

-1 Lr 0'. --t 'o I CV .4 H -4 0 0 L-

(2 ( . '0 -c C .o 0 0' C- 0' '. 0 0~ 0

E0 Llj \0 El m r 0 to 0l 0 0 0 0n 10 to 0

> Z4

c rzI 4 8 c 4 H 0 0 0 8' 8' 8O r 8, C'. IA .1 . at. L A LA . 4 . .4 C4

C> C 0 0 0 * 0 * * . 0 0 0 *3

Lf'\Hl "0 ' 0' c- H 0, r- to 8, V- ww 4 -4 to 5 w 8 N H 1

ri Lr\ 10 inHq .4 cv 1V'0 NV (Vt

U-% C V

(7- C- 1 In' - VI.~ ' C>- CI- '0 ON -. 0 o- 0

10~~ H'l(- H (AON ON Cl) '0 cr- --1 (

0) +3 1ý ;) 4

CIA 1A 0 0 U 0- l 0 0).rlo

'AA

V) ( U) CO (2 (q2 co (n) (f) co co cnU, U

He 1l ( 4 L 0 1'- 0 O'

64

Cw Ny tN LC\N HN N~ L-- U'% U'i L." LtxoCl C- 00 0 C, r- loo 11 ll C- C-- V; ( 0

0 * .o ~ C C t S Il CS S

-4 (VN m) n tCn 0lr m) CIF m7 (

+)IWm c 0) U C-- U c N N (N N~ m

+~lINN NU)NNN m to ; N\ 0 t No '0 ) fl '00~

to

ýo ~ ~ ~ 0 10 10 NO 'D Uo H01 t

m ) m- m~ (Cl\ C-\ A~ ~ ~ ~

't~ N 0- O'01 o o o ILA~~ ~ Nf Lf tN LN Nr Lm

-4- -4 -. 1n n m C- Cl\ (C') C"

(- N'~ N -' C 'A

H cc CI -\ n4 'no (c~ 5~(\ c~' (t"- 'A C C(Vý

H1 -"I (V -~ N C N '0l N~ 0. (N V 0

-4 4) ' A 4' AC 0ý 04 H4 C\ U' C4

c , 0 Cý ) N~ * 4 C) C) ' o- lx% '.0r

I ri

4-31, 4 It\~ W\. ~ !. *'- 'f\ WN t-U-(nC 14 1-1 1- C) C)

C4 0 ,; CAC' Co

HN 10 r- a, I' I.N U

0.( ~O 0, -. 4

-1 H HC) 0 0 Ix to 0D 0

cve 0' '0 a NO cv cv (V Hq cv -4

.0l 0'- C I\- 4 N~ m- 1~~-i

+) ~ cst lo-11

0)

0 '0 r4 S C- C- C" 1 C '

CC)

4 4- *- *- *V 1- H 9 ~ r4

C) 0 0 S

~cl CV0 0 00000 0

~j000O 0000 0 00

HH

0) C.)'

0~ 9 0' '(0' U

to H Hf -CC -r co to M'-)

C- HF 0 L.(" ^ - -

4 r4 C\, NI Cl) Cfl V )..)

-- ~~66 N'

.4 0- N 0 0 ' C-N

%0~ N C) -D kr\~~(N C

~~~~~~ C"\C ~ N~ c

to m N '.0 Ur\ t-~ o '.0 0 N

N~ to --t ON t' o ( 0 '.04)

to ID0 0t

C4 CC(\ ý ~ ~ C-\ cn\ C-\ m CV

r-i H 0 Q Ný 0'.

~~~~o CC j C 0

-rý J- CN t No CN 0Q L - 4 ' 0' (

a)~~C (v Cq tý C ýOý

H- (n Co o C o Co ý CN

vU) U\ 4' (N q 04 (-q N 0'

4-)l -Zt r-i U- Q I[\ --I (N ; 1-4 nN ( N (N (N

SC (N CA\ (N (NA (l (N (N4 N (Nl (N

0

* S S * *

'0 (N 1 a t

;- " H N I > ' l) 0 4 .l

(3) 4- E

C5 0 W

(n0 V ) 4' 0 o (n U) UNU I

-Wg H~ Hq H N N (N (N (V

67

WdC

cr, L-- (Vk2jA LIN~ A A

tc-

C-- (Vj `0 0'

C-'4 L\ý -! '0

*I 0' u r -I 0)1- ;C~cJ( NV CVl

0Io 0 0 0

C'-

10 U'\ Cl\ 0to'0l

0 I

'- )CVLI~ U2 Cf 44

a' S-. *,-I .a l .

o ~ii C) 8

-0

r-4~ .~t~ 1E- to

OIN- H" .q to

0'

co 0

0 cv ',

C-,C

idj 0O0' '0 C'- -

C") C") C"~ C11 v)

100

Ut\ If\ U'\

ci 0 0 r * y * U(7, -1 1-

(D,ri)

69

(d (> m lo I o CCl c.

C11 `0 IN C* * . to .*

rn-

H *\N 4 ' N 0 ION (7 (71 0

4-I H . - Hý i- lz 1' 0'ý 0'C

r- C- -- ll c- In 0- 0 r- '.0

C) 4) r ) 0af-I .l% to IN C- cQ C-j Hl r- H H H

Lr\ 00 0l 0 0 0 0 a,

f-I m ( 0 -a' '. Lt\ m4 -mC\ N

C'; o C; ' H03' C C;

'-4 I 0 0 0 Q ( C 4- o

N '0 a, NO I^ - -

ll l i -S -4 s-. I - l

to C- IN c Hto 't0 Hq a,-'r -

-0I 0' UN H ' * C. '

'-0 '0I 0), * )

to U) V ) ~U)u V)C) 0In- *- S. - -(71 43 S.

*d 0)C d 0 0

ClE- q) Cl I) ) Cl) E- i ) () l T I

7U 0

cr% rI -:tto 1

in\ o' r'- 1 L^\ Hj t4, 0 to m C\ 0'

-1 -1 -1 1 Ný C' '0 cý N !H

aO a a, a-' a'% a' o' a', 0' aý a' a a,

'.0 1- N O i i 0 '0o

cm, 0 ' a, a' a, a, 0' a, 0' CN 0','

a, 0' 0 C- to to' i

a, 0' O to to tc C' c( 10 IM ' o to0 ;t

4) - C. N ' O a CIN m~ N -4 H l a' I to 0 tCOýa 41 to cl- N- Nl t_ C_ C_ N O0 10 Ul%

to t o to C__ CV to) to

gal I4 -I -4 1 9 44-44((f

0) lo to 100 to to to 100 tCO to fto to l0 'co

CL. C 0 (D -mNo C_' Nv 4 i 0 in N c

s-. NI (0, to to to co 10 a to 100 Im to to t OD

Hi N (1- tl _ to o -- N C_ - C'- tN N

F-4

N ~ ~ t to- Nl %P\ N C- N '

N N_ C_- N_ N_ N N N C-

0' - C') Cl) ,-I E_ c

.0 - N (7 , * 4 4 3 0 -

(3~5 49 l)0N10) S. :I- cd . c".

0 14A

(f) U(2 (A2 En) (f)L n) C A) (f) ((o U) ( n)(1

71

0. 100 '0, toCH

C)

H0 -4 -4 r-4

0 Cý 0ý 0ý l

w- 0 0 0 0M

C-)

H- -

-0 too 0

N p

~~72

FOCIs

w to wo to

&1 \ U2 N N N-

o C- r- NN

0r 0 C

r. r- 4-r'JN

C- - C'

100 --t 10 0'

L.. C- LNO NO

'0 10 '0 10

H. '-" 10 .1

4:1 C C- r-rn t\ \ 1

to

a) W n I c

cr

73

0 c3 .

:00

tI'o ~IC t

_C

IL)0 0

C.);

~Io0l

C.,\

C- I C

C'a,

0) LA

H(

A tk.

V.. -

Ed - ~ -

0' '

H ~ 0' l74

rIH

'-1 0 Nv

It- 0

HH

H H

cv

r$'aa

ci, cr

"0

CQ a' 0

OoN C '0t

a', 'DH 0

H -)

t4-' S2)

75

ji-i'ICOZ C- cc

0 CY\ c- 100 'c

0V '

C-,ý

u- - c~ o 0 0

cc -I C; C; 0 315 c

m m (v (\?WcI 00 0

I-I

(V

r~ 0 a' NV 'O

0) UU)) Er V

U) Q E-4 ~rU)

-f) H) cl5 (n 0(

76

-1'A

cq

ON H C

-q 0t t, -ý

"jv H H 0-t

Al) ojt~ C,

17 r- ov

Hto~ coc TjH H H HD

cN fn

H~77

9) Icr

'-I C C C C C * C C C

m N (Ni CI N rlq m ' (N m N -4 m (j CN

* . C C C * * * C:

lo 0 - a, to t to~ co to - E-- to - w0

l* .ý Cý *l ý *l IQ *l *i Cý i* C C *

U'\ U' r kl C\ k\ V LA U"' \ . L (' .4 A -4 \ U. UN. .

C. CA 0 0 0 00000 000

0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0

C;

0'0o( (0 C- C'- 04- a- to- a>- '.C '.0 '.0 '0 m. 10 ' 0 ' 0 0 '0 '0ý to0 '

E-4

0, C

V) '-I C) 1-4 ON .' I~' -"

S. 0 c

Q) d U)~'

'n o ' o 4 ' U) U) (n) U) U) V) a)=) ;=) :Z) ::D :: n :C):: D :: )

78 t

C to el- N ' l V 0 '0 '0 '0- Lf\ (7N

N U) 0 '. 'r~ '~ a 4 4 '

V"- L-- *l to L- El .- .l 9l C- el . . L

'0 ý n\ IC' C'\ (". n4 C, (V --t

(~I - - C'- C'- il- LN t- C'- I- - N- L.-ý C-!

C.!

C~ V (v H 0 0 H- 0 0 a, 0'l 0'. a, (71 0'

COi 4) N- \N NO- ND ND ND N0 '0 10 %0 '0

C- 10 1'0 0ac.0 0 U". 10' 1' -a UN. U't 4^LA

10 '0 In0 '0 'D 'D In '.0 '0 '0 '0 10 'A '

0:0

* '0 '0 '0-1 .0 LI". v.0 U'0 '0 ' ' 0 U'.

0- 1- . 0 U". -

H 0' U) H

4v H

t-0.' -

0 co2I ::3 (V e".c 0 N ca

79

00 00

'0 co'0 - -

4-3

00

C..! CL)I

0l *Ht - r

C) C') m' ev

3 C 0' '~

I-1;

0

C- 10 0'

fnC- '

Ul) U) U) L!) V)

Z)i N)~f

80

C C' 0 NV N

'l 0 '0 10~ -10 D

`000 N NO '

\ '-.0 `0 '0 '0 '.0

QO 10 LA UO k^ W

C)

OD '.0 CI- NO 0 ID N~

C4

Lr .Lto r'- t'- NOr NO 0

0 ) 4'1 n *

L4 x )l r r

-~ to(N NO C7'

10 C-

U)) ) 0) 4 -

U)() C) I C,

10 81

-54. ~ .M.'..c *

0 N u-0 , 0 0

NI6668o 00

0 0u 0' 0~ U 0' -4 L

0 00 0

cc V ý -A rq o 0c

Cc ~ 0 a to ~ Nl C- '0 H- 0~~Q.- UN '0 toN - r ~ -~ '

II - 4 c

0o 0t 0 0 0 0aCaH

rq *r4- r

U) *I U) ' N U N a

0) ~ ~ ~ t 01 0 0 0 ;

51666 00 EbDtk

0 o (f 6 6 o o V o::a' N: N: ::D :::) ND

4H Hv 0, 0r o

HO

O'c uclq

(IN rA 0 c, , o cr*,

Cl r'j CcJ H" H 0

c 4 H 4 9 r4 H 4 H

U))

,44 4 4 4

C' 0' 0 C 0' 14)

r4 4 4 -;c;.

'A 1-1 0' 0 '0 0'1 t'o4

Hq H- H H 0 ;D 0

H, 1. 0 0 (

C4.,

,.. ) (f) co n) U) n CHw HD U-) ZD :D :D ::) c

r-"0 bN m f\10 - fo

I

8. SUMMARY OF HAND DATA

From the standpoint of comparisons, the anthropometric oata on hands presented in theprevious tables may be summarized here. The basic hand measurement-. including Hand Length,Palm Length, Hand Breadth and Hand Circumference, will be discussed in terms of variotionin hand size and proportions.

a. Harw. Length

Hand lPngth is measured as the overall length of the hand from the wrist crease to thetip of the middle finger. Mean values for hand length among samples of U.S. men rangeirom 18.82 cm (7.41 in.) up to 19.72 cm (7.76 in.). The data p;-esented here show thatminimum hand length is 14.9 cm (5.87 in.) and maximum hand length is 238 cm (9.38 in.),giving an overall range of 8.9 cm (3 51 in.) for the hand length of U.S. men. As shownby the stature ratios, the mean hand lengths of U.S. men are about eleven percent of tneirmean statures. The lowest 1st percentile value for men's hand length is 16.8 cm (6.62 in.),while the highest 99th percentile value is 22.3 cm (8.78 in.). A range or spread of 5.5 cm(2.16 in.) would include 98 percent of the hand lengths of U.S. men.

Mean values of hand length for U.S. women all awo lower than those f'r men, rangingfrorm, a low mean of 17.17 cm (6.76 in.j up to a high mean of 18.38 cm (7.24 in.). Minimumhand length for U.S. women is 14.5 cm (5.71 in.) and maximum hand length is 22.0 cm(8.66 in.); thus the cverall range of hand length for U.S. women is 7.5 cm (2.93 in.). Themean hand lengths for U.S. women also are about eleven percent of their mean statures. Thelowest 1st percentile value for the hand length of U.S. women is 15.3 cm (6.03 in.) and thehighest 99th percentile value is 20.8 cm (8.17 in.); thus a range of 5.5 cm (2.16 in.) wouldinclude 98 percent of U.S. women's hand lengths, as is the case with men.

b. Palm Length

Mean values of palm length among samples of U.S. men range from 10.35 cm 14.08 in.)up to 11.54 cm (4.54 in.). Minimum palm length is 7.3 cm (2.87 in.) and maximum palmlength is 13.8 cm (5.44 in.), giving an overall range of 6.5 cm (2.57 in.) for men's palm lengths.The mean palm lengths of U.S. men are about six percent of their mean statures. The lowest1st percentile value for men's palm length is 9.0 cm (3.54 in.) and the highest 99th percentilevalue is 13.3 cm (5.23 in.); thus a range of 4.3 cm (1.69 in.) would include 98 percent ufthe palm lengths of U.S, men.

Mean values of palm length for U.S. women also are lower than those for men, rangingfrom 9.50 cm (3,74 in.) up to 9.88 cm (3.89 in.). Minimum palm length is 7.4 cm (2.91in.j ard maximum palm length is 11.8 cm (4.65 in.), giving an overall range of 4.4 cm (1.74in.) for women's palm length. The mean palm lengths of U.S. women also are about sixpercent of their mean statures. The lowest 1st percentile value for women's palm length is8.0 cm (3.16 in.) and the highest 99th percentile value is 11.5 cra (4.51 in.); thus a rangeof 3.5 cm (1.35 in.) would include 98 percent of the palm lengths for U.S. women.

85

Palm length represents the length of the hand less tile fingers. The relative proportionof palm length to hand length may be expressed by an index obtained by dividing the valueof palm length by the value for hand length. This index ranges from 54.8 up to 56.8, indicatingthat in terms of proportions, palmn length is from 54.8 percent to 56.8 percent of hand length.

This index also indicates that the length of the middle finger (the longest finger of the hand)represents from 45.2 to 43.2 percent of hand length. Thus a low palm length index representsa relatively short palm and long fingers, while a higher index indicates a longer palm and shorterfingers. Most palm length indices are between 55 and 57 percent of hand length for U.S.men and women. There appear to be no particular differences or distinctions between men'sand women's hands on the basis of the values of the palm length index,

c. Hand Breadth

Hand breadth is the breadth of the hand measured at the level of the knuckles(metacarpal-phalangeal joints). Mean values fo. hand breadth among sampies of U.S. men rangefrom 8.43 cm (3.32 in.) up to 8.99 cm (3,54 in.). Mirimum hand breadth is 6.0 cm (2.36in.) and maximum hand breadth is 11.0 cm (4.33 in.), giving an overall range of 5.0 cm (1.97in.) for the hand breadth of U.S. men. The mean hand breadths of U.S. men are about fivepercent of their mean statures. The lowest 1st percentile value for men's hand breadth is7.5 cm (2.95 in.), while the highest 99th percentile value is 10.3 cm (4.07 in.). A rangeof 2.8 cm (1.12 in.) would include 98 percent of the hand breadths of U.S. men.

Mean values of hand breadth for U.S. women a;so are lower than those for men, rangingfrom 7.37 cm (2.90 in.) up to 7.82 crn (3.08 in.). Minimum hand breadth is 6.1 cm (1.93in.) and maximum hand breadth is 9.9 cm (3.90 in.), giving an overall range of 3.8 cm (1.97in.) for women's hand breadths. The mean hand breadths of U.S. women are about 4.7 percentof their mean statures. The lowest Is! percentile value for the hand breadth of U.S. womenis 6.6 cm (2.58 in.) and the highest 99th percentile value is 9.2 cm (3.62 in.). thus a rangeof 2.6 cm (1.04 in.) would include 98 percent of the hand breadths of U.S. women.

The general proportions of the hand are indicated by the hand index which shows therelationship between hand breadth and hand lergth. The hand index, obtained by dividingthe value for hand breadth by the value for hand length, ranges between 44.8 and 47.4 for

U.S. men, indicating thdt hand breadth is between 44.8 and 47.4 percent of hand length. Alow index indicates a narrow hand in proportion to hand length, while a high index representsa broad hand relative to hand length. Most samples of U.S. men have hand indices of 46or A7 percent. The hand index for U.S. women ranges between 41.1 and 44.8 percent; in

most samples of U.S. women, the hand index is between 42.5 and 44.6 percent.

d. Hand Circumference

Hand circumference is the girth of the hand measured at the level of the knuckles(metacarpal.phalangeal joints). This is an important measurement of the hand, since it is usedas the primary basis for the sizinig of handwear. Mean values for hand circumference amongsamples of U.S. men range from 21.11 cm (8.31 in.) up to 21.68 cm (8.53 in.). The datapresented here show that minimum hand circumference is 17.2 cm (6.75 in.) and maximum

86

hand circumference is 27.8 cm (10.84 in.), giving an overall range of 10.6 cm (4.19 in.) forthe hand circumferences of U.S. men. (Minimum and maximum values of 12.0 cm and 32.0cm for the hand circumferences of USAF Basic Trainees (1952), as shown in Table 7a, arequestionable). Mean hand circumferences of U.S. men are about twelve percent of their meanstatures. The lowest 1st percentile value for men's hand circumference is 18.5 cm (7.28 in.),while the highest 99th percentile value is 25.5 cm (10.02 in.). Thus a range of 7.0 cm (2.74in.) would include 98 percent of the hand circumferences of U.S. men.

Mean values of hand circumference for U.S. women all are lower than those of U.S. men,ranging from 18.32 cm (7.21 in.) up to 18.99 cm (7.48 in.). Minimum hand circumferencefor U.S. women is 14.0 cm (5.51 in.) and maximum hand circumference is 27.0 cm (10.63in.), giving an overall range of 13.0 cm (5.12 in.) for the hand circumferences of U.S. women.The mean hand circumferences for U.S. women are about 11.5 percent of their mean statures.The lowest 1st percentile value for the hand circumference of U.S. women is 16.3 cm (6.41in.) and the highest 99th percentile value is 21.8 cm (8.58 in.). Thus a range of 5.5 cm(2.17 in.) would include 98 percent of the hand circumferences of U.S. women.

The proportion of hand circumference to hand length is indicated by an index obtainedby dividing the value for hand circumference by the value for hand length. Since the handcircumference measurement usually is greater tian hand length, this index will be above 100percent. The hand circumference/hand length ndex for U.S. men ranges between 109.0 and114.5 percent. A low index indicates a slender or thin hand relative to length, while a higherindex represents a heavy or thick hand in proportion to length. This index ranges between99.7 percent and 110.6 percent for U.S. women as a reflection of generally more slenderwomen's hands. In the case of U.S. Air Force women (1968), mean hand circumference isslight!y less than mean hand length, so that the hand circumference/hand length index dropsslightly below 100 percent for this samplr of women.

87

9. U.S. ARMY DATA ON MEN'S AND WOMEN'S HANDS

a. Comparative Anthropometric Data

Comparative anthropometric data on the hands of U.S. Army men and women are presentedand discussed in detail in this section, primarily since the raw data on hand measurementswere readily available f',r use in a computer program for the generation of bivariate tables.

The first reason for a detailed analysis of hand data orn both men and women is thatthe increasing numbers and importance of women in the U.S. Army emphasizes the need formore information on the anthropometry of women. Women in the Army still have and usemuch of their own aistinctive military clothing and equipment. However, the use by womenof items of clothinq and equipment initial'y designed and sized for men is increasing. Asa consequence, some situation: have developed where the men's items are not satisfactory forwomen from thie standpoint of design and sizing. In the case of handwear, this requires analysesof the comparative anthrc-pometric data on the hands of both men and women.

A second reason for the detailed presentation of hand data for men and women is that,for purposes of design and sizing, more than one dimension is required. In the case of handwear,for example, information is needed on both hand circumference and hand length for sizingpurposes. The ranges of variation shown by the two hand dimensions must be consideredtogether. In other words, the interrelationships between two dimensions must be examinedin order to provide a more meaningful description of -he situation as values of both dimepsionsincrease from small to large. This may be accomplished by means of bivariate tables whichshow the interrelationships between two dimensions. Since comparative anthropometric dataon the hands now are available for both U.S. Army men and women, these data will be presentedin the form of bivariate tables for hand measurements.

b. Summary Tables of Anthropometric Data

Anthropometric data are available for U.S. Army men from a survey conducted in 1966,in which 6682 Army men were measured. Data on women are available from an anthropometricsurvey of 1330 Army women, carried out in 1977. Four basic hand measurements were includedin these two surveys: Hand Length, Palm Length, Hand Breadth, and Hand Circumference.

in centimeters and in Table 23 in inches. Statistical values are shown in Tables 22a and 23a,

while selected percentile values are given in Tables 22b and 23b. In addition, statistical andpercentile values for a combined series of 8012 men and women also are shown in these summarytab;es.

The data in the summary tables indicate that the sizes of men's hands are larger thanthose of women for all four basic hand dimensions. Mean Hand Length is 1.59 cm (0.62in.) less for women; mean Palm Length is 0.71 cm (0.28 in.) less for women; mean HandBreadth is 1.08 cm (0.42 in.) less for women; and mean Hand Circumference is 3.16 cm (1.25in.) less for women than for men. The women's sample of hands also shows lower standarddeviations and lower ranges (from small to large) than men in all hand dimensions. A comparison

89

M~~C=XIG PAiR B"W.M-N TIUWL

C, r,

Ouýs CV4Cto .0 to *

p~ 1;~ C-) 0*'

0 LNNCG J H NO Hr 0 M

-C-

H -- I HHHvH (N

'C ~ ( 0- CO r-0 ( (D410 C- 0m . 0. '0

10 _qv .-I

0)a)

cf co4Z:C co C-O

[ 90

I~~t Lfj,- r0 Q .

-a 0 00 to a,00 C

HO- 0 0 vN n0(

CM H r-1 'J H1 -ic'JC

m -- C'-i '0l C'- lý O 1 0

a. r. cc 0, oC t c

a, r'j H0 r-I O r- - 4(VO' C

a' cv-4v U4 s 10 H0 n

V.Ont; c; COH C'\'C

0,~OL 0Cv0 CV.-t40J

aNC' 0'' Cc (7' HO! Z~O

C-H I- C-, 0

CO' a, O0H-IH H (v--I

u\-I to 'n ov) --4~0 )

Cd C:~O. z''' (o--4) HH -4 H 14 U H

X1~~0' U;C'-mtoU

:z'I 0ax\ 0 ~ ~ 10)

al * a *Na

0 too r'-r--'91

00

.iC ýlz ýC . . .

4ý to r-I to H (OH

0~ ~ ~ Hl

il J^ to- H'~Q 000 H CNC'

'0 to' C, cl z DC

C, C-- t\- U\, ).\ LCl' 0t 0... (1af 4 N-

10 L-c -000 00- 000 000

COQ 000 000

C-) Jý (, CD 0 C\i

I ~ '0

N' '(N H0

HD H H0 10 o NoHAt

CI'S

C) *

C- 0U) ().

0 .

N 92 -

Q'C'

Hc~ Ht\ -NOC (rC' a U'I ( 11

toC~ro C('o-Z-f-t I (NCZ

oI. otou1

O~GaN £-C~-! ;CNC;G !

Cl -- O\ O'C- It8c~~aic - 0-cv

c- 1 D

a~~~- C~- C-: O4'

totoo- t

M HC'-C~ r%'Cl ~ -(

HN C * IN *- *

>.

H H- H - C)H8 1%, C%

M t-ID cl -1CMmClmC l -

(C), trotD , o o ,N cý r-

CI Hý 4ilý. 1 %-

I'3 Lm qCN L 0C

oi the percentile values for men's and women's hands also shows the values for men to begreater. As might be expected, the values shown for the hand dimensions of the combinedseries of men and women are intermediate, falling between the values for men alone and valuesfor women alone.

c. Bivariate Tables of Anthropometric Data

Bivariate tables for the four basic hand dimensions have been developed through the useof a new computor program, based on files of anthropornetric data for men and women. Sinceeach of the four hand measurements is shown in a bivariate table with the other threemeasurements, there are six basic bivariate combinations of hand measurements. These are:Hand Circumference vs. Hand Length, Palm Length, and Hand Breadth; Hand Length vs. PalmLength and Hand Breadth; and Palm Length vs. Hand Breadth. Bivariate tables are given formen, for women, and for the combined series of both men and women. The bivariate tablesare presented in centimeters (Tables 24 - 41) and in inches (Tables 42 - 59), making a totalof 36 bivariate tables for the four hand dimensions.

In the bivariate tables shown in centimeters, the range of each hand dimension is dividedinto intervals of one centimeter, while in the bivariate tables given in inches, intervz:!s of one-halfinch are used. The upper line within each box of the bivariate table shows the frequencyor number of individuals in that category, while the lower line within each box indicates thepercentage of the total sample in that category. Thus in Table 24, for example, showingHand Circumference plotted aglainst Hand Length for 6682 U.S. Army men, 940 men have

Hand Circumferences between 21.0 and 22.0 cm and Hand Lengths between 18.0 and 19.0 cm.These 940 men represent 14.1 percent of the total sample of 6682 men. The total numberof individuals and the percentages for each interval of Hand Circumference are shown to theright of the table, while the total number of individuals and the percentages for each intervalof Hand Length are given at the bottom of the bivariate table.

The bivariate tables showing data on men's hand measurements are based on a series of6682 U.S. Army men, while the bivariates giving data on women's hand measurements arebased on a series of 1330 U.S. Army women. The same range of intervals has been usedin both the men's and women's bivariates. Thus it may be seen that in the men's bivariates,the distribution tends to cluster in the upper r'ght hand part of the bivariate table, indicatingthe larger dimensions of the men's hands. In the women's bivariates, however, the distributiontends to cluster in the lower ;eft hand part of the bivariate, indicating the somewhat smallerdimensions of the women's hands.

In the bivariates for both men and women, the data on 6682 and 1330 women havebeen combined, giving a total sample of 8012 individuals. It may be noted that the distributionshown in the combined bivariates is not a bimodal distribution, but rather is an even distributionthroughout the total range of intervals in the bivariates. This combined sample of U.S. Armymen and women consists of about 83 percent (6682) men and 17 percent ,1330) women.This sample of Army men and women may be compared with the approximate total Armystrength figures (as of 1980) of 91.5 percent (698,000) men and 8.5 percent (6r,,000) women.It is anticipated, however, that the number of women in the Army probably wIl be increased.

94

I

1

The bivariate table indicates the spread or range for two hand measurements. It also

gives the frequency and percentage of individuals within each category or box in the bivariate,based on intervals of the two hand measurements. Finally, the bivariate table also depictsthe interre:ationship between the two hand measurements; as one measurement increases insize, the a ar hand measurement also increases.

The primary usefulness of the bivariate table as a format for the presentation ofanthropometric data lies in its utilization in design and sizing. The bivariate table of HandCircumference and Hand Length, for example, forms the basis for the sizing of gloves andother handwear. An even more significant use of the bivariate table is in the developmentof tariffs for handwear; that is the listing of the quantity or number of each size of handwearrequired for a given population. The development of tariffs for handwear will be discussedin Section 11. HANDS AND HANDWEAR (page 159).

d. Coefficients of Corr3lation

The bivariate table shows how two measurements are interrelated. The degree of

interrelationship between two variables, in this case two hand measurements, is indicated bya statistic known as the coefficient of correlation (often called the "r" value). The correlationcoefficient may have values between 0 and 1. A low value indicates a low or poor correlationbetween two measurements, while a high value indicates a good or high correlation betweenthe two measurements. Correlation coefficients may be positive or negative. A positivecorrelation indicates that as the value of one measurement increases, the value of the othermeasurement also increases, while a negative correlation shows that as the value of onemeasurement increases, the value of the other measurement decreases. Coefficients of correlationamong the four basic hand measurements are shown in Table 60 (page 133 ), following thebivariate tables. Coefficients of correlation are given for the hand measurements of U.S. Armymen, of U.S. Army women, and of men and women combined. The correlation coefficientsfor the men's hand data are slightly lower than those based on te women's data. However,all of these coefficients of correlation are positive.

e. Regression Equations

Another biproduct of the bivariate table is the regression equation, which provides a furtherindication of the interrelationship between the two measurements shown in the bivariate table.By means of the regression equation, it is possible to predict the value of one hand measurementfrom a known value of the other hand measurement. Although regression equations usuallyare presented with each bivariate table, the format used here for the bivariate tables does notprovide sufficient space on the page for this. Consequently, the regression equations for handmeasurements are shown separately in Tables 61 and 62 (pages 134-137 ), following thebivariate tables.

Regression equations for values in centimeters are given in Table 61, while regressionequations for values in inches are shown in Table 62. In each table, regression equationsare given for six pairs of hand measurements. The regression equations also are shown forthe hand measurement data for U.S. Army men (1966,, for U.S. Army women (1977), andfor a combined sample of both men and women.

95

As an example, Hand Length for U.S. Army men may be predicted from the secondregression equation given in Table 61:

Hand Length = (0.42) * Hand Circumference + (9.93)

(The * sign is the symbol for multiplication in Fortran computer language).

For men with a Hand Circumference of 22.0 cm, the solution of this equation gives thefollowing:

Hand Length = (0.42) * 22.0 + (9.93)

= 9.24 + 9.93

= 19.17 cm

Thus, a Hand Circumference of 22.0 cm for men will have a predicted value of 19.17 cmfor Hand Length.

Conversely, Hand Circumference may be predicted from a known value of Hand Lengththrough the use of the first regression equation shown in Table 61.

Values of hand measurements for U.S. Army men, for U.S. Army women, or for a combinedsample of both men and women thus may be calculated in either centimeters or in inchesthrough the use of the regression equations given in Tables 61 and 62 for the six pairs ofbasic hand measurements.

The solution of a regression equation provides a predicted value for a hand measurement.This value, however, may be considered to be only an "average" value. Each regression equationgiven in Tables 61 and 62 is followed by a statistic known as the standard error of estimate;

this is a measure of variability somewhat similar to the standard deviation. Use of the standarderror of estimate, together with the predicted value of a hand measurement, provides anindication of the variability of that measurement. Essentially, two-thirds of the individualsin a sample will have values of a hand dimension between limits represented by the predictedvalue minus and plus one standard error; 95 percent will have values between the predictedvalue minus and plus two standard errors of estimate.

96

Table 24. HIVARIATE TABLE OF H,1041 GItCUMFENENCE AND HAND LjIIYGTfiFOR U. S. AMY MKEJ (1966)

HAND LENGTh

Centi eters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.0 --- --:: 2: 2: 1: 6

* . . . : .0: .0: .0: *0: .0

86. 11 52*6°X ... ... 1:...' 1: 8:11: 5: :: 26

* * ? . .0: .0: .1: .2: .1: : : .42:5.0 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

* : . 1: 23: 45: 49: 22: 3: 2: 145

* * . . .0: .3: .7: .7: .3: .0; .0: 2.2260 ---...................................-----------------------------

1 : 1 1: 1:109 :264 :187: 44: 14: 3: 633

H .0: .2: 1.6: 4.0: 2.8: .7: .*2 .0: Y.5A 23.0 --...................................----------------------------N : : : 3 :80 :447 :729 :382 :42: 5: :1688

C : : : .0; 1.2: 6.7: 10.9: 5.7: .6: .1: : 25.3C e -220 ----------------------I n 1 0 : 10:214 :940: 849 :215: 29: 2: : 2259R t : : : : :

i : : : .1: 3.2: 24.1: 12.7: 3.2: .4: .0: : 33.8U m 21.0----------------------------------------------------------------M e :36 :310 :728 :377 :66: 2: : :1519F t : : : : . . :F e : : .5: 4.6: 10.9: 5.6: 1.0: .0: : : 22.71? r 20.0----------------------------------------------------------------F s :18 :115 :156 :65: 3: 1: : : 358

C .3: 1.7: 2.3: 1.0: .0: .0: : : 5.4E 19.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------

: 2: 6: 23: 15: : : : : 46

: * .0: .1: .3: .2: : : : : : .718.0 ------------....................................................

.0 : : : : : . . .:

S --- : ------ ------ :

16.0C)-------------------------------------------------------------

35.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Totals 3 74 755 2420 2338 V15 147 25 5 6682

±, rcent .U 1., 11.3 36.2 35.0 1-.-i 2.2 .4 .1 100.0%

97

(L

Table 25. IIVARIATE TA3LE OF iHAND CIRWUMFERENCE AND HAND LENGTHFOR U. S. ARMY M)MEN (1977)

HAND LJIGTH

Centimete rs

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 22..0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.0 ----------------------- .------------ .... .....-- - - - - - - ----------

26.0 -..-----------------------------------------------...-- - --------

25.0 - -------------- --------------------

24.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------

A 23,0 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----

N : : : : : : : :

LI n 1 2.7 C . . . .

Ft t .1; .2: .: .: .4

U n 2.------------------------------------------------S: : : 2:1 : : : : : 52

F : : : :tS n : : .2: .7: 1.7: 13: .2: : : : 3.9

it r 20.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------E : 1 25: 128 130 : : 324

o. .1: 1.9: 9.6: 9.8: 2.9; .1: 2.: : 42E 19.0 ------------------------------------------- -

.5: 11.4: 20.8: 8.6: .5:. : : :42.8

1:152: .76:114: 2.- ; .1: 569 - ----1:301 8 : 2: : : : : 331

.1: 2.3: 11.5: 9.76: 1.3: .2: 24?: : : : 217.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------

1-1 26 10- 1. 4

0.8 f .0: .8: J. : : : : : 3.6

16.0.-----------------------------------------------------------------

2 • .: : 1

15.01.5.0-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tht'als 1 48 359 552 286 79 5 1330

Percent .1 3.6 27.0 41.5 21.5 5.9 .4 100o0%

4..

Table 26. 1JVARIATE TAI3LE OF HAND cIrCUW"ENENCE AM HAND M .-N'rjTFOR U. S. AM4Y EM AND C1DMG2

HAND LENGTH

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Ibtals Percent

27.0-1: 2: 4: 1: : 6

* . . . . . .0: .0: .0 .0: .026.0 -----

- 1 . .1: 1: 8 :11: 5 : : 26

: 0: .0: .1: .1; .i: :- .325.0 -

1: 23 :45 :49 :22: : 2: 145

* . . . .0; .3: .6: .6: .3: .0: .0: 1.824.0------------------------------------------------------

1: 11 :109: 264: 187: 44: 14: 3: 633

H : : : .0: .1: 1.4: 3.3: 2.3: .5: .2: .0: 7.9A 2?3.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------N : : : 3: 80 :447 :29 :382: 42: 5: : 1688

C : : : .0: 1.0: 5.6: 9.1: 4.8: .5: .1: : 21.1c e 22.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------I n : : :10:215 :942 :850 :216: 29: 2: :2264R t -

C 1i : : .1: 2.7: 11.8: 10.6: 2.7: .4: *0: : 28.3U m 21.0 - . . . . ..-------------------------------------------------------M e : : : 38 :319 :750 :394: 68: 2: : :1571F t .: . .: :S e : : : .5: 4.0: 9.4: 4.9: .8: .0: : : 19.6It r 20.0 -------------------------F s 1: s43:243:28610 : 43: 1: : : 682

c : : .0: .5: 3.0: 3.6: 1.3: .0: .0: : . .5E 19.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------

8 :158: 299 :129: 20: 1: : : : 615

* : .1: 2.0: 3,7: 1.6: .2: .0: : . . 7.718.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------

1: 31 :153 :128 :18: 2: : : : : 333

.0: .4: 1.9: 1.6: .2: .0: 4 . • 4.217.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------

:.1 26: 10: 1: : . . . : 48

S- . .1: .3;...: *.: . . . . .616.0 --------------------------------------------------------------

15.0 - . . ..------------------------------------------------.--------

Totals 1 51 433 1307 2706 2417 920 347 25 5 80:12

Percent .0 .6 5.4 16.3 33.8 30.2 11.5 1.8 .3 .1 100.0%

99

i!j!

I

Table 27. BXVAtIAT? TAPLE OF H0U414 C(ICU1FI9JdIJCE A;ND P,011 niJNTfiFOR U. S. ARMY MEN (1966)

PALM WX}'L¶

Centimeters

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 Tbtovs Percent

27.0 ----------------------- ----------------

S.0% .0: .0: .026.0 -.....................------------

: 1: 7: L5: : 26

* : .0: .1: .2: .0: : .425.( -. ............................--------

S : 2 :55 :76: 1.: 1: 145

: .0: .8: 1.1: .2: .0: 2.224.0 - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

S : 17 : 296 :277: 40: 3: 633

23J : .3: 4.4: 4.1: .6: .0: 9.5A 23.0 ----------------------------------------

N : 130 :935: 580: 43: : 1688O : : : : : : :

C : : 1.9: 14.0: 8.7: .6: : 25.3C o 22.0 -------.................................

I n 5 :306:1432 :492: 24: 2259It t: • • : • •c ± • .1: 4.6: 21.4: 7.4: .4: : 33.8U m 21.0 ----------------------------------------M : 11 :352 :969: 182: 5: :1519

' .: *2: 5.3: 14.5: 2.7: .1A : 22.7H r 20.0 -----------------------.----------------- 9K s : :114 2: /: 25: 1: : 358N : - .

c : .1: 1.7: 3.2: .4: .0: : 5.4S 19.0 -----------------------------------------

. 4:21:21 : : . 46

* .1; .3: .3: : . . .7]8.0 ---------------------------------------

.0: .02 .0

17.0 ------------------------------------

16.0 ----------------------------------------

15.0--------------

Ibtals 25 944 3931 1648 130 4 6682

1Percent .4 2J4.1 58.8 24.7 2.9 .1 100.()A

100

Tl able 28. BIVARIAT TABLE OF HAND CIRCUPIFERENCE AM PALM 41-'.UT. FOR U. S. ARMY iCHEN (1977)

PAIR ISJGTH

"Centimeters8.0 9.0 10.0 31,0 12.0 13.0 .4.0 TIbtals Percent

27.0 -----...----------.....-- -------------* : . . . * . .

S26.0 -- - -- - - -- - - - -- -- -- -- -- --

25.0 ---. - .- .------------------------. - ..- .----------------------------------A 23.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -

2U.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .,.

C e 22. 2 .----------------.-----

t: : . .

U m 21.0 - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -M : : 8: : : : : 52

E : .6: 2.8: .5: : :3.9R r 20.0 -..-..............------------------E : : 106198: : : :324

C : .1: 8.0: 14.9: 1.4: : :24.4E 1910 -------..----------------------- -

7:1326:228: 8: 569

.5C 24.5: 17.1: .6: : 42.818.0 .......................................

23 :234 : : : 331

1.7: 17.6: 5.4: .2: : 24.917.0 ~-.-------------- -- ---

9:31: 8: : : : 48

.7: 2.3: .6: : : : 3.616.0 ------------....................------- -

1 : : : : : : 11

15.0 ----------------------.. ........-------

Totals 40 706 547 37 1330

Percent 3.0 53.1 41.1 2.8 100.0%

101

-8. .. ... .. ... ... ... ~.................-

Table 29. BIVAIIATE TiUII.P OF IIAND U1ItCUIj4FEeNC(E AND) PAIM LIN(;'hFOR U. S. AWMY ?M:N AND W3M4*J

PALM LEINTH

Centimeters

8.0 9,0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 Totals Percent

27.0 ----------------------------------------S. . .. 2 1: 3 6

S; ; .0: .0: .0: : .026.0 ..

".0: .i: .2: .0: : .3

25.0 - -----. -.--------------------------..

. : 2: 55: 76: 1i: 1: 145

.0: .7: .9: .1: .0: 1.824•.0

:17 :296: 277 40: 3: 633

S: : .2: 3.7: 3-5: .5: .0: 7.9,, 23.0 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

: 130: 935 :580: 43: : 1688T.1.6: 11.7: 7.2; .5: 21.1

C e 22.O.......................................I n : 5 307 :1435 :493:2: : 2264it t .

.1: 3,8: 17.9: 6.2: .3: : 28.3

U rn 21.0--------------------------------------_M e : 1: 360 :1006: 189: 5: : 1571F t :N e " .1: 4.5: 12.6: 2.4: .1: : 19.6R r 20.0E s : 5 :220 :412: La: 1: : 682

C : .1: 2.7: 5.1: .5: .0: : 8.5E 19.0 ---------------------------------------

fl:347:249: 84 : 9 615

S .1: 4�.3: 3.1: .1: : : 7.718.0 ------------------------------------

24 :235 :72: 2: . . 333

.3: 2.9: .9: . : :4.

10-------- --------------------------------1:: .4: : : .6

* , . .• .0: : : : .016.o ; --- -- -- --- ---- --- -- --- -- --- --

15.015.0 --------------------------------------

Totals 65 1650 447'1 1685 190 4 8012

Percent .8 20.6 55.9 21.0 1.6 .1 1(0.0%

102

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I.ItI II ""'-I

Table 30. BIVARIATE TABI UF HAND GIRGCII4FEH•1NCE AND •AND BIUiAN)THFOR U. S. ARMY MEN (1966)

HAUD HHBADTH

Centimeters

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 Totals Percent

27.0 ---------------------------------: . .1: 5: 6

S.0: .1 .026.0 ----------------------------------

* . : :21: 5: 26

: : .3: .1: .42 5 .0 --------..---------....-----------

4 . : :101: 40: 145

1 : .1: 1.5: .6 2.2: 224.0 ------------.-.- .--- ... ------------

: :75 :509 :49: 633

H 1.1: 7.6: .7: 9.5A 23.0 ---------------------------------N : : :384 :1268: 36: 16880 : : " : "*I

C : : 5.7: 19.0: .5: 25.3C e 22.0 ---------------------------------I n : 9:1468 :776: 5: 2258it t :C.: 22.0: 11.6: .1: 33.8 FU m 21.0 ---------------------------------M e : : 32:1367 :120: : 1519F t . . * "

SE : : .5: 20.5: 1.8: : 22.7R r 20.0 ----------------------------------F s : : 71 :278: 9: : 358N : : • . •C : : 1.1. 4.2: .i: : 5.4S 19.0 -.. ------------------------..

:32: 14: . : 46

.5: .2: : : .718.0 ---------------------------------

* : 2 : : : : 2

* . .0: : : • .017.0 ---------------------------------

16.0o ------------------------------

15.0

Tot-ls 146 3590 2805 140 6681

Percent 2.2 53.7 42.0 2.1 io00.%

103

I I I I I

Table 31. BIVARIATE TADLE OF HIAN)D GIRC1Th•,RXENCE AMl) HAND BIDXTIIFOR U1. 3. A

4RMY IACMEN (1977)

HAND I•LIADTH

Centimeters

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 Totals Percent

27.0 -

26 .0 ----------------------------------

25.0 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24.0 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

H.A 23.0 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

R) t

.2: .2: .

C e 22. 495

1. e .1 3.7 .2 3.

12 .0 ---------- -----------------------

E bl 13 2826946 1324

NN

c 2.. 22.: 24.4

325 103 •42.8

32 2 331

24.7: .2: 24.917.22 0 ..................................

I ~ 1- 36 48 2:3

.9 : : 2.: 3.6

U r 215.0 ---------------------------------

E Itl 13 82 4 8 : 6 5 : 1:330

Pecn 1. 2.51 36.51 .4 100 c.

18.04

: : 3 ? : : : :h33

Table 32. BIVARIATL TABLE OF Ilii CIICCM'IEOENCIC AND HAND lIftlVJNTI1FOR U. 3. AWY M1EN AMD WHEN

HAND ISItEADTH

Centimeters

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 Totals Percent

27.0 ---------------------- -----------

* : : : 1 : 5: 6

26.0 ............... -----------------

. : :21: 5: 26

5 : : : .3: .1: .425.0 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 : : 4:101± 40: 145

Q " " *Q: 1.3: .5: 1.824.0 -- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - -

* : : 75 :509: 49: 633

H : . .9: 6.4: .6: 7.9A 23.0 ---------------------------------N : : :3&:1268: 36: 1688D : : *

C 4 .8: 15.8; .4: 21.0C e 2;)..0 ---------------------------------I n 9 :Y470 :779: 5: 2263

i t : : : :C : *- 178.3: 9.7: .1: 28.3U m 21.0 ------------------------------M e : 33 :3-416 :122 : 1571F t: : : • :

E e .4: 17.7: 1.5: : 19.6R r 29.0 ---------------------------------

E s : :99 :574 9 : : 682

C 1.2: 7.2: .1: : 8.5E 19.0 ---------------------------------S : 464:151: : : 615

: : 5.8: 1.9: : : 7.718.0 ---------------------------------

* :331: 2 : 333

4.l: .0: : : 4.217.0 ----------------------------------

12: 36: : : : 48

.1: .4: . *.5

16.0 -------------------------------16o : .. : .: .. : 1 i

* .0: : . * .o15.0

Totals 13 972 4076 2810 140 8011

Percent .2 12.1 50.9 35.1 1.7 100.0%

105

I I I I I Ij

Table 33. BIVARIATE TABLE uF UP'JbD LvhGTli AND PAIM LENGTHFUR U. S. 4Ut1Y 1PN (1966)

PAJI LENGTII

Centimeters

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 Totals Percent* . - . • :

24.0-2: 3: 5

.0: .0: .i23.0--------------------------------------

5: 19: 1: 25

.1: .3: .0: .422.0--------------------------------------

* . . 3: 92: 52: 147

: . .0: 1.4: .8: : 2.221.0--------------------------------------

: : :179 :686: 50: : 915

i{ C 2.7: 10.3: .7: 13.7e 20.0 --------------------------------------

N1 n : : 28:1547: 756: 7: : 2338D t

i : .4: 23.2: 11.3: .1: : 35.0L m 19.0 --------------------------------------E e : 1:389:1923 :107 : : 2420if t:O e : .0: 5.8: 28.8: 1.6: : : 36.2T r 18.0- ----------------

SS :10 :466 :277: 2: : : 755

.1: 7.0: 4.1: .0: : 11.317.0-------------------------------------

12: 60: 2: : : : 74

.2: .9: .0: : : : 1.1 A16.0--------------------------------------

2: : : : : : 3

.0: .0: : : : : .015.0--------------------------------------

14.0--------------------------------------

Totals 25 944 3931 1648 130 4 6682

Percent .2 14.1 58.8 24.7 1.9 .1 100.0%

106

- - - .. .. ._° .. L . ." .". ... 4 ....-"." " ---...--'

Table 34. BIVAfPIAIE TABLE OF HAND LEN1GTH A1D PALM LENGTHFOR U. S. ARMY WM• (1977)

PALM L•NGTH

Centimeters

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 Totals Percent

24.0 - ------------- ..

22.0----------------------------------

21.0 ---------------------------------------S5: 5

H :5: 11:A e 20.0 - -- - - -- - - -- - - .4--- - -- - -N 25:4 2 79D t::

i: : : 41: 1.9: 5.9L m 19.0 ---------- - - ------------------

E e : :17: :7: : : 286N: : : :tG : : 13: 197: .5: : : 21.5T r 18.0 -------------------H : : : : : : : 552

i 24.4: 17.1: 41.517.0--------------------------------------

14t31: : : : : 359

16.0: 1.1: 256: ,.3: J: -- 27.0S----- ----- ---

:25:23: : : 483

1.9: 1.7: .: : :615.0-------------------------------------

1 : : : : : : 1

: .1: 2 . : . : : : : 7.0

14.0 -------------------

Totals 40 706 547 37 1330

Percent 3.0 53.1 41.1 2.8 100.0%

107

Sl : : : : : : 1. - I

Table 35. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND LENGTH AND PAL4 LENIPGTHFMR U. S. ARMY MEN AND WM

PAlM LENGTH

Centimeters

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 Totals Percent

24.0--------------------------------------2: 3: 5

.0: .0; .i23.0--------------------------------

* : :5: 19: 1: 25

: : : .1: .2: .0: .322.0--------------------------------------

S : 3 :92 :52: 147

: : : .0: 1.1: .6: :1,8

21.0 --------------------S:179 :691: 50: : 920

H C : : : 2.2: 8.6: .6: 11.5A e 20.0--------- ----------- --N n : : 28:1601 :781: 7: : 2417D t : : :

i : : .3: 20.0: 9.7: .:: 30.2L m 19.0--------------------E e : 1 :406:2185 :114 . : 2706N t : : :G e : .0: 5.1: 27.3: 1.4: : : 33.8T r 18.0--------------------------------------i s 10 :791: 504: 2: : : 1307

.1: 9.9: 6.3: .0. : 16.317.0--------------------------------------

26 :401: 6: : : : 433

.3: 5.0: .1: : : : 5.416.0------------------------------------

27: 24: : : : : 51

.3: .3: : : : : .615.0 ---------------------------------------15.0

1 : : : : : 1

".0: : ; : : : .014.0 ----------------------------------

Totals 65 1650 4478 1685 130 4 8012

Percent .8 20.6 55.9 21.0 1.6 .1 100.0%

108 ."

- ~ ¶,.,- 4

Table 36. BIVARIATF TABIX, OF HAND LVU(GTH AkD HAN) BREADTHFOR 1). S. ARMY MElN (3.966)

HAND BM- ADTH

Cent~inete rs

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.O Totals Percent* • . . 4

24.0-------------------------- .

* . .4:1: 5

.1: .0: .i23.0------

18: ": 25

S . .3: .1: .422.0--------------------------------

: : 12 :113: 22: 147

: . : .2: 1.7: -3: 2.221.0-

: : 1 : 231 : 634 49 : 915

H C : .0: 3.5: 9.5: .7: 13.7A e 20.0N n : : 8:1067:1211: 52: 2338D t : :

i : : .1: 16.0: 18.1: .8: 35.0L m 19.0--------------------------------E e : : 55:1626 :730: 8: 2419N t : : :"G e : : .8: 24.3: 10.9: .1: 36.2T r 18.0--------------------------------H s : : 60 :602: 92: 1: 755

: * .9: 9.0: 1.4: .0: 11.317.0--------------------------------

: :19: 52: 3: : 74

: : .3: .8: .0: 1.116.0................

* : 3 : : : : 3

: 0: : : : .0

¶lbtals 146 3590 2805 14.0 6681

Percent 2.2 53.7 42.0 2.1 100.0%

109

:

I,

Table 37. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND LENGTH AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. ARMY WOMEN (1977)

H 'MD BREADTH

Ce lmeters

6.0 7.0 , 9.0 10.0 11.0 Totals Percent

24.0 - ---------- ----

S----------------- --------

22.0.............................. -

21.0 --------------- ---------

* : : 3: 1: 5

H C .1: .2: .1: :4A e 20.0 --------------------------- ---N :n6: 1: : 79D t: :t

j 1.3: 46: .1: :5.9

E e * 95:189: 2. 286

G : 7.1: 14.2: .2: :21.5T r 18.0 ---------------- --------- -H : 2: 370: 179: : :552

.2: 27.8: 135: .1: :41.517.0 2:::--------- 1 --

N~ 30 50 357: 1:i 9

.5 : : 2 . : 3. : : :

J: : 13o: -.6: 3l .6L m 15 .0.-- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

Totals:13 58261486 5 1330

P 1.0 62.1 36•5 .4 100 2.5

110

: .5. . .-7--3.8:. . ..2-.

16.o: .. v IO : • " -: '

Table 38. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND LENGTH AM HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. lAY MEN AND WOME

HAND BREADTH

Centimeters

6.0 7.0 8.0 - 9.0 10.0 11.0 Totals Percent

24.0 ---------------------------------

230 : : 0: i0:

* 18: 7 25

22.0 : .2: .1: .3

12: 113: 22 147

S: 1: 1.4: .3: 1.821.0 -- - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -

2: 234: 635: 49: 920

H: : 0: 2.9: 7.9: .6: 11.5A e 20.0 - -.---------- ----------

:25 : 15:112 1: 52: 2417

1 .3: 14.1: 15.1: .6: 30.2

B: : 150 :182 :732: 8: 2705N t

: : 1.9: 22.7: 9.1: .1: 33.8

If : 7:80:71: 93: 1: 1307

0: 5.4: 9.7: 1.2: 0: 16.3

7 321:102: 3: 433

i1: 4.0: 1.3: 0.: : 5.416,0 --------- --------

4:4 : : : : 51

e0: .5: .0:: .6

15. - -- ------------------------------* . 1: : : 1

: .0: .:97: 1.: .: 1.0017.0

TOVU:.LI 13 97 076 2810 140 8011

Percent .2 12.1 50.9 35.1 1.7 :oo03

m6.0

Table 39. BIVARIATE TABLE OF PALM LEC;GTH AM HAND BREADTHFOR U. s. ARMY MEN (1966)

H94D BREADTH

Centimeters

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 Totals Percent

14.0 ---------- ----------------------* * : 1: .:.

21 : : : : 130

PC .3: 1.4: .3: 1.9A e 12.0--------------------------------L n 6 : 6556 :1026: 60: 1648

M:V: : : . : :.

: .1: 8.3: 15.4: .0: 24.7

E e :67 :2338 :1468: 57: 3930N: : : : :tG : : 1.0: 35.0: 22.0: .9: 58.8T r 1C.0 ----------------------------H n : : 68:655 :215: 6: 944

1.0: 9.8: 3.2: .1: 14.1

: 5:0: : : 2025

N t .:: : .3: : .48.0----------------------------

rotaH s:s 146 3590 2805 140 6681.

Percent 2.2 53.7 42.0 2.1 100.0%

112

Table 40. 13IVARIATE TABLE OF PALM LENGTH AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. ARMY WDI-,N (1977)

HAND BREADTH

Centimeters

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 Totals Percent

1.4.0 ---------------------------

: : • : :

1.3.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P CA e 12.0L n . 9: 27: 1: 37M t

i .7: 2.0: .1: 2.8L m 11.0-

E e 2 :253 :288: 4: 547N t :G e : .2: 19.0: 21.7: .3: : 41.1T r 10.0----------------------H s : 8 :531 :167: 706

* .6: 39.9: 12.6: : : 53.19.0 ---- ---------

S3 :33: 4: 4 40

: .2: 2.5: .3: : 3.08.0------ ----------

Totals 13 826 486 5 1330 "

Percent 1.0 62.1 36.5 .4 100.0%

113

I

Table 41. BIVARIATE TABLE OF PALM LENGTH AlD HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. ARMY 14EN AND WOMEN

HAND BREADTH

Centimeters

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 Totals Percent

14.0 ------------------ ----40 4

* :.0: . .0

13.0----------------------* . : 21: 92: 17: 130

P C : : : .3: 1.1: .2: 1.6A e 12.0 --- ---------------L n: 15 :583:1027: 60: 16851. t : : :

i : : .2: 7.3: 12.8: .7: 21.0L m 11.0 --------------E e : 2 :320:2626 :1472: 57: L477N t : : :G e : .0: 4.0: 32.8: 18.4: .7: 55.9T r 10.0 - ---------

H s : 8 :599 :822 :215: 6: 1650

.1: 7.5: 10.3: 2.7: .1: 20.79.0------------------------------

3 :38: 24. : : 65

.0: .5: .3: : : .88.0---------------- -------

Tbtals 13 972 4076 2810 140 8011

Percent .2 12.1 50.9 35.1 1.7 100.0%

114

Table 42. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND CIRCUMFERENCE AND HAND LENGTH

FOR U. S. ARMY M_ (1966)

HAND LENGTH

Inches

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 -8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Totals Percent

R 10 -.5-------------------------------: : 3.6: 19: 71: 52: 20: 3615

.0:: : : .0: :.2i0.0 7 -------------------------........

i!: : : 16 4-12 28 : 8 : 2 : 96

: : : : .2: .6: : .: .0: 1.

H: : :6 :175 404O& 165 :28 4 782

E : : : : : : :

N : .1: .: 2.6: 6.0: 2.5: .4: .i: 1.7D 9.0-----------------------

: :75 :9]-1 :1202 :234+ 9 1 24+52

1 1.1: 13.6: 18.0: 3,8: .l: .0: 36.7R n 8.5 -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --C c 1 0 :238 :1325 :791 :77 :2 : :2443U h : : :

M e .1: 3.6: 19.9: 11.8: 1.2: 0: 36.6F s 8.05------- ................E : :11 :180 4 /84 :153 :7 : 835

E .2: 2.7: 7.2: 2.3: .: : 12.5N 7.5 -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - -C : : 8 : 22 : 26 : 3 : : : : 59

E I : : : : : :

: : .i: .3: .4+: .0: : : :.9

6 .0-------------------------------

* . . a a . a* , a . . . a

Totals 29 521 2938 2602 536 49 7 6682

Percent .4 7.8 44.0 39.0 8.0 .7 .1 100.C%

115

A

Table 43. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND CIRCUMFHIU1NCE A141 HAND LENGTHFOR U. S. AW4Y W0M1N (1977)

HAND LENGTH

Inches

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Totals Percent

10.5 -------------------------------------------------

10.0 --------------------------------------------------

9.5 --------------------------------------------------

A

iO. .

D 9,0 ----------------------------------

H : : : .

C

II : : : : :

R n 8.5 --------------------------------------------------C c : 1: 6: 7U h : :

S: : 1: .5: .5: : :F s 8.0---------------------------------------------------E 4 4 95:156: 44: 1: 300

R : : : : : : :

E : .3: 71: 11.7: 33: l: : 22.5N 7.5 ---------------------------------------------------C : 91" i:26: 4: 2 :4 734

E : : : : : : :

M e 6.8: 31.0: 16.3: 1.1: : 5.27.0 -------------------------------------------------4: : 1:9: 105: : : : : 270

* z 7: j : : : : 12.3z: .3 7.9 : 10.7: 1.4 : . i: :: 20.3

C~ :7 9 41 121 A: 3

.1: .5: .3: : :.9

6.0 --------------------------------------------------Totals 5 26.7 654 39 66 1 1330

Percent .4 15.5 49.2 29.8 5.0 .1 100.0%

116

Table 44. BIVARIATE TABLE, OF F{AND CIRCUMFERENCE XWD HAND LENGTHFOR U. S. ARMY MEN AND O)MEN

HAND LENITH

Inches

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 Totals Percent

10.5-------------------------------------------------: : : : 7 : 5 : 2 : 1 50: .71: 0: .2

10.0 ----------------------------------------------:16: 42: 28: 8: 2: 96

.2: .5: .3: .1: .0: 1.19.5 --------------------------------------------

H : : 6 :175: 404 :165: 28: 4: 782A :N : : .1: 2.2: 5.0: 2.1: .3: .0: 9.8D 9.0-------------------------------------------------

: 75 :911:1202 :254: 9: 1: 2452

C 10::23:133:79: 7: 2: : 251 e : : : .9: 16.6: 15.0: 3.2: .i: 0: 30.6R n 8.5------------------------------------C : 10 :239:1331 97: : : : 22457U : : : : : :Me : : .: 3.0: 16.6: 10.5: 1.0: 0: : 30.7F . -------------------------E : : 99:43 6402 : 197: : : : 35

E : : : : : : :E: .2: 3.4: 8.0: 2.5: : : : 4.2N 7.5---------------------------- --------C : :99 :434 :243 :17 : : : : 793

: : 1.2: 5.4: 3.0: 02: : : :9.97.0 -- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -

4 :105 :142: 18: 1 : : : 270

.0: 1.3: 1.8: .2: .0 : : : 3.46.5 -----------------------------------------------

S I 7 4 12

: 0: .i: .0: : : : : :.6.0 ----------------------------------------

* : : : :

Totals 5 236 1175 3335 2668 537 49 7 8012

Percent .1 2.9 14.7 41.6 33.3 6.7 .6 .1 100.0%

117

Table 45. BIVARIATE TABLE OF UAIJD CIRCUMEIMENCE AND PAIIt LENGTHFOR U. S. ARIMY MEN (1966)

PALM LENGTH

Inches

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Totals Percent

10.5 -1: 8: 6: : 15

: * .0: .1: .1: : .2iO.2

10.0 --------------------------------2 :60 :32: 2: 96

0 .0: .9: .5: .0: 1.49.5 ------------------------

H : :48:553 :174: 7: 782A • : : : :N : : .7: 8.3: 2.6: .1: 11.7D 9.0 ----------------

:371 :1827 :252 2 2452

I 1 5.6: 27.3: 3.8: .0: 36.7R n 8.5-----------------------------C : 6 :695:1649: 92: 1: 2443U h : : :M e : .1: 10.4: 24.7: 1.4: .0: 36.6F s 8.0------------------------------E 7 :351 :464: 13: : 835

bR R : : : : :

B .1: 5.3: 6.9: .2: 12.5N 7.5 ------------C : 3 :33: 23 : : 59E : : : : :i

0.: .5: .3: : .97.0-------------------------------

6.5 ---------------------------

6.0 ---------------------

Totals 16 1501 4584 569 12 6682

Percent .2 22.5 68.6 8.5 .2 100.0%

'118

Sr, I•" ..~~~.*.~- -- s. '

ITable 46. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAIM CIRCDUKEhRENCE AND PALM LENGTH

FOR U. S. ARMY W0WSN (1977)

PALM LENGTH

'1 Inches

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Totals Percent10. . . .. .

10.5 -------------------------------

HAN:D 9. 0----

C :

II : *

R n 8.5 -- ----------------------Cc 4:: : 14U h:M .3: .8: : :F s 8.0-------------------------E : :134 :163: 2: 300R:E .1: 10.1: 12.3: .2: 22.5N 7o5- ---------------------C 8: 548:: : : 734

E: : : :

.6* 41.2: 13.3: .1: 55.27.0------------------------------

15: 1: 24 : : 270

1-1: 17.4: 1.8: : :20.36.5-----------------------

R 1: 8: : : : .E : . : i0i:123 : . : : 22.

7.09

6.0 --------------------------- ~----Totals 25 928 374 3 1330

Percent 1.9 69.6 28.2 .3 100.0%

119

I't

Table 47. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND CIRCUIMERENCE AND PALM LENGTH

FOR U. S. ARMY MEN AD 1DMENOMM

PALM LENGTH

Inches

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Totals Percent

10.5k 1 : 8: 6: : 15

: 0: .1: .i:: .210.0--------- ------------

2 :2: 60: 32: 2: 96* I .::

.0: .7: .4: .0: 1.19.5- --------------------------H : : 48:553 :174: 7: 782

A :N : : .6: 6.9: 2.2: .3: 9.8D 9.0----------------------------

: :371:1827 :252: 2: 2452CIC : : : : :1 : 4.6: 22.8: 3.1: .0: 30.6R n 8.5 --- - -- - --- - - - -- ---C : 6 :699:1659: 92: 1: 2457U h:i e : .1: 8.7: 20.7: 1.1: .0: 30.7

F s 8.0 --------------------------E : 8 :485 :627: 15 : 1135R : :E .1: 6.1: 7.8: .2: : 14.2N 7.5-----------------------------C : 11:581 :200: 1 : 793E : : : : : :

.1: 7.3: 2.5: .0: : 9.9: 15 : 231: 24: : : 270

6 .2: 2.9: .3: : 3.46.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1:11: : U 12

: .0: .1: : . * .i6.0--------------------------------

Totals 41 2429 4958 572 12 8012

Percent .5 30.4 61.9 7.1 .1 100.0%

120

Table 48. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND CIRCUMFERENCE AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. ARMY MEN (1966)

HAND BREADTH

Inches

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Totals Percent

10.5--------------------------: : U: 4: 15

: .2: .If .210.0 -- -- ---------------------

1 1: 78: 17: 96

.0: 1.2: .3: 1.49.5 ------

H :6 :704: 32: 782A : : :N : : .7: 10.5: .5: 11.7D 9.0--------------------

* :547:1893: 12: 2452CI1 : : 8.2: 28.3: .2: 36.7R n 8.5C c : 5:1725 :712: : 2442U hM e : .1: 25.8: 10.7: : 36.6F s 8.0 -----E : 6 :781: 48: : 835R : :E : .1: 11.7: .7: : 12.5N 7.5-----------------------C : 15: 44: : : 59E : :

.2: .7: : : .97.0---------------------

6.5---------------------

6.0-----------------------

Totals 26 3144 3446 65 6681

Percent .4 47.0 51.5 11 i00.op

121

Table 49. BIVARIATE TA13LE OF HAND CIRCUIVERENCE AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. ARff WOMEN (1977)

HAND BREADTH

Inches

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Totals Percent

10.5-----------------------

10.0--------------------------

9.5----------------------H :A : :N : : . : :

D 9.0--------------------------

C . .

I I : : :R n 8.5-----------------------C c : : 8: 6: 14U h : :M e, .6: .5: 1.1 1F s 8.0--------------------------

E : : 300 : : 300R :E : 22.6: : 22.6N 7.5-----------------------C :180 :554: : 734

13.5: 41.7: 55.1

7.0--------------------:253: 17 : : 270

:19.0: 1.3: : 20.36 .5 -- - -- -- -- - -- --:12: : : : 12

.*9: : : .9

6.0 -----------------------

Totals 445 879 6 1330

Percent 33.5 66.0 .5 100.0%

122:I.

Table 50. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND CICLUVEIRENCE AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. AMY IEN AIM 'EN

HAND BREADTH

Inches

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Totals Percent

105------------------------: :U 4: 15

.1: *0: .2I0.0O - - - -- - - - - -

1: 79: 17: 96

0O: 1.0. .2: 1.19.5------------------

H 46 :704: 32: 782AN : .6: 8.8: .4: 9.8D 9.0------- ------

: 5477:1893: 12: 2452o : : :1 6.8: 23.6: .1: 30.6R n 8.5--------------------------C c : 5:1733 :718: : 2456U hM e : .1: 21.6: 9.0: : 30.7F s 8.0 ------------- -----E 6 :1081: 48: : 135

E : .i:13.5: .6: : "4.2N 7.5-------- -------0 :195 :599: 793E : :

2.4: 7.5: . : 9.97.0------------------------

:253: 17 : : 270

3.2: .2: : : 3.46.5 ----------------:12: : : : 12

: .1.: : . . .3.6.0:6.0--------------------------

Totals 471 4023 3452 65 8011

Percent 5.9 50.2 43.1 .8 100.0%

123

u n m l im-

Table 51. BIVATCATE TABLE OF HAND LENGTH A1D PALM LQ,1GTHFOR U. S. AMY 4EN (1966)

PALM LENGTH

Inches

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Totals Percent

9.5 --------------------------3: 4: 7

* : : : .0: .1: .19.0---------------

3: 40 6 49

: . : .0: .6: .i: .78.5---------------------------

:235 :299: 2: 536

H : : 3.5: 4.5: .0: 8.0A 8.0 ----------------N I : : 69 :2313 : 220 : : 2602D n : : :

c : : 1.0: 34.6: 3.3: : 38.9L h 7.5 ---------------------------E e : : 958:1973: 7: 2938N s : : :G : : 14.3: 29.5: .1: : 44.0T 7.0--------------------------------H 11:450: 60: : : 521

* .2: 6.7: .9.. : : 7.86.5 ---------------------------

. 5:24: : : : 29

: .1: .4: : : : .5I6.0 .

695-0------------------------------5.5 .0

s 16 :1501 2458 569 6682Pervent .2 22.5 68.6 8.5 .2 100.0%w

124

:1

"Table 52. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND LUNGTH AND PAWI LENGTHFOR U. S. ARMY NOMM (1977)

i

PALM LIMGTH

Inches

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Totals Percent

9,5------------------------------

H :: .-: .

9.0

A 8,0- --- -------------- ------ -N: 64 : 66D n 8.

c 4.8; .2: 5.0L h 7.5 --------------------------

N s 9G : 10.0: 19.8: : 9.8T 7.0------------------------------H :0 : 46: : 654

c 45.7: 3.5: . 49.16.5----------------------------

21 :186 : : 207

1.6: 14.0: . : : 15.66.0--------------------

: : .1: 4 5

5.5-----------------------

Totals 25 928 374 3 1330

Percent 1.9 69.8 28.1 .200o.0%

125

: 21 186: : : : 20

Table 53. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND LENGTH AND PAIM LENGTHFOR U. 5. ARMY 1MN AND 1,OM4

PALM LENGTH

Inches

"3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Totals Percent

"9. -- -------------S3: 4: 7

S0: .:

9.0--------------------------: : 3 :40: 6: 49

* . : .0: .5: .1: .68.5------------------------

:235 :300: 2: 537

H : 2.9: 3.7: .0: 6.7A 8.0--------- ----------

N 1 69:2377 :222 2668D n I

c : : .9: 29.7: 2.8: : 33.3L h 7.5 ------- --------------E e : :1091 :2237 : 7 . 3335N s I : :G : : 13.6: 27.9: li: 41.6T 7.0--- ------------------H : i:1058 :106: 1 1 1±75

t-1: 13.2: 1.3: : : 14.76.5--------------- ----

:26 :210: : : : 236

J .3: 2.6: : 2.96.0 ----------------

4: :*0: .0: : : .1

5.5. --------------------

Totals 41 2L29 4958 572 12 8012

Percent .5 30.3 61.9 7.1 .1 100.0%

126

Table 54. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND LENGTH AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. AR"Y MI (1966)

!• HANM BREADTH

, Inohes2.5 3.0 3.5 4,0 4.5 Totals Percent

9.5 -------

7a 7I* . : .1:

9.0 ---------------------1 :39: 9 49

: * .0: .6: .1: .78.5 ----------------------

65 :448: 23: 536

H : : 1,0: 6.7: .3: 8.0A 8.0 --------------N I : 2;855:1715 : 30: 2602D n : : :

c : .0: 12.8: 25.7: .4: 38.9L h 7.5E e : 9:1765:1160: 3 :2937N s : : : :G : .1: 26.4: 17.4: .0: 44.0T 7.0H 9 :435: 77 521

: .1: 6.5: 1.2: 7.8

6.56 :23: . : 29

*.1: .3: : .56.0-.-------

5.5 -----------------

Totals 26 3214 3446 65 6681

Percent .3 47.1 51.6 1.0 100.0%

127

Table 55. BIVARIATE TABLE ,OF HAND LENGTH AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. AM4Y WOMEN (1977)

HAND BREADTH

Inches

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Totals Percent

9.5-------- ---------

9.0 -.------- ....

8.5 --------------------------H .i: : IA 8.0 ---------------.-. ----

N: 1 6: : 66D n:

C . .1: 4.7: .2: 5.0L h 7.5E e 39 :354: : : 397N s : : : :G : 2.9: 26.6: .3: 29.8T 7.0 -H :251 :403: 654

18.9: 30.3: : 4 49.16.5.1.49: 58: : 207

3 11.2: 4.4: 15.66.0 -- -- - - - --. 5: :: : 5

* .4: : • .4 t5.5 ------------

Totals 445 879 6 1330

Percent 33.5 66.0 .5 100.0%

128

7II

Table 56. BIVARIATE TABLE OF HAND LENGTH AND HIAND BREADTHFOR U. S. ARMY IMN AND W',OM

HAND BREADTH

Inches

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Totals Percent

90.5------------------- ---* . : 71: .1

9.0 ------

1: 39 9 49

.0: .5: .1: .68.5- -----------

66 :448: 23: 537

H : .9: 5.6: .3: 6.7A 8.0 ---------------------N I 3 :918:1717: 30: 2668D n

c : .0: 11.5: 21.4: .4" 33.3L h 7.5----------E e :4 8:2119 :1164: 3: 3334N s : : :G : .6: 26.5: 14.5: .0: 41.6T 7.0 --------------------H :260 :838: 77: : 1175

3.8: 10.5: 1.0: 14.76.5--------------------

:155: 81: : 236

1.9: 1.0: : : 2.96.0: 5 : : : : 5

.1:5.5 -- ----------------

Totals 471 4023 3452 65 8011

Percent 5.9 50.2 43.2 .8 100.0%

129

-!

3

Table 57. BIVARIATE TABLE OF PALM LENCGTH AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. ARMY MEN (1966)

HAND BREADTH

Inches

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Totals Percent

: :_I: 1: 12 I* " . .2: .0: .2

5.0------------P :92 :455: 22: 569

A : : 1.4: 6.8: .3: 8.5L I 4.5 ------------- --M n : 6:2045:2493: 39: 4583

c :L h : .1: 30,6: 37.3: .6: 68.6E e 4+.0

N s : 18 :993 :487: 3: 1501G : : : :

T .3: 14.9: 7.3: .O: 22.5H 3.5 --- - - - - - - -1

: 2 :14: : : 16

.0: .2: : : .23.0-------------------

Totals 26 3144 3446 65 6681

Percent .3 47.1 51.6 1.0 100.0%

130! L• AI

Table 58. L3IVAHIATE TABLE OF PALM UMNGTHi AN) HAND) 131ADTHFOR U. S. ARMY WHMEN (1977)

HAND BREADTH

Inches

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4,5 Totals Percent

5.5 ------- --

5.0* : 3: 3P 1. 1 : ::

PFA : : .3: .3L 1 4.5M n :42 :328 :4: 374

c *

L h 3.2: 24.7: .3: 28.2E e 4.O0.....N s :384: 542 2: 1 9280 : : i

T 28.9: 40.5: .2: 69.6 I:

H 3.5--:19: 6: : 25

1.93.0-----------------------

Totals 445 879 6 1330

Percent 33.5 66.0 .5 100.0%

131

.

Table 59. BIVARIATE TABLE OF PAlM LENGTH AND HAND BREADTHFOR U. S. ARMY MEN AND WMM

HAND BREADTH

Inches

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Totals Percent

5.5 --------------- --------* . : 1: 1:

2.1: 10 .1

5.0S : 95 :455: 22: 572

P :A : 1.2: 5.7: .3: 7.1L I 4.5 -----------M n 48 :2373 :2-497: 39: 4958

0 :

L h : .6: 29.6: 31.2: .5: 61.9E e 4.0------------ --- -N s :402:1535 :489: 3: 2429

T : 5.0: 19.2: 6.1: .0: 30.3H 3.5 ---------------------

.321: 20: :.•21: : 41

: .3: .2: : :.5

3.0---- -

Totals 471 4023 3452 65 8011

Percent 5.9 50.2 43.1 .8 100.0%

132

Table GO. COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION FOR HAND MEASUREMENTS

Hanid Length Palm Length Hand Breadth Hand Circumference

U.S. Army Men (1966):

Hand Length x 0.822 0.524 0.498

Palm Length 0.822 x 0.400 0.421

Hand Breadth 0.524 0.400 x 0.753

Hand Circumference .0.498 0,421 0.753 x

U.S. Army Women (1977):

Hand Length x 0.908 0.602 0.592

Palm Length 0.908 x 0.483 0.473

Hand Breadth 0.602 0.483 x 0.932

Hand Circumference 0.592 0.473 0.932 x

U.S. Army Men and Women:

Hand Length x 0.859 0.686 0.679

Palm Length 0.859 x 0.543 0.557

Hand Breadth 0.686 0.543 x 0.874

Hand Circumference 0.679 0.557 0.874 x

133

Table 61. REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR HAND MEASUREMENTS

Values in Centimeters

Standard error

of estimate

1 Hand Circumference and Hand Length

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Circumference = (0.59) * Hand Length + (10.43) 0.99Hand Length = (0.42) * Hand C;rcumference + (9.83) 0.84

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Circumference = (0.56) * Hand Length + (8.63) 0.69Hand Length = (0.62) * Hand Circumference + (5.94) 0.73 "

U.S. Army Men and Women:Hand Circumference = (0.97) * Hand Length + (2.83) 1.18Hand Length = (0.47) * Hand Circumference + (8,76) 0.83

2 Hand Circumference and Palm Length

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Circumference = (0.76) * Palm Length + (13.54) 1.03Palm Length = (0.23) * Hand Circumference + (5.57) 0.57

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Circumference = (0.78) * Palm Length + (10.78) 0.76Palm Length = (0.29) * Hand Circumference + (4.56) 0.46

U.S. Army Men and Women:Hand Circumference = (1.34) * Palm Length + (7.04) 1.34Palm Length = (0.23) * Hand Circumference + (5.60) 0.56

3 Hand Circumference and Hand Breadth

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Circumference = (1.74) * Hand Breadth + (6.08) 0.75 '1Hand Breadth = (0.32) * Hand Circumference + (1.88) 0.32

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Circumference = (2.06) * Hand Breadth + (2.36) 0.31Hand Breadth = (0.42) * Hand Circumference + (0.02) 0.14 j

U.S. Army Men and Women:Hand Circumference = (2.25) * Hand Breadth + (1.42) 0.78Hand Breadth = (0,34) * Hand Circumference + (1.58) 0.30

134

I I I I I I I I I I,

Table 61. REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR HAND MEASUREMENTS

Values in Centimeters (continued)

Standard errorof estimate

4 Hand Length and Palm Length

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Length = (1.26) * Palm Length + (5.68) 0.55Palm Length = (0.54) * Hand Length + (0.39) 0.36

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Length = (1.57) * Palm Length + (1.96) 0.38Palm Length = (0.53) * Hand Length + (0.70) 0.22

U.S, Army Men and Women:Hand Length = (1.44) * Palm Length + (3.64) 0.58Palm Length = (0.51) * Hand Length + (0.89) 0.34

5 Hand Length and Hand Breadth

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Length = (1.03) * Hand Breadth + (9.88) 0.82 jHand Breadth = (0.27) * Hand Length + (3.82) 0.42

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Length = (1.40) * Hand Breadth + (6.51) 0.72Hand Breadth = (0.26) * Hand Length + (3.30) 0.31

U.S. Army Men and Women:Hand Length = (1.24) * Hand Breadth + (7.99) 0.82Hand Breadth = (0.38) * Hand Length + (1.58) 0.45

6 Palm Length and Hand Breadth

U.S, Army Men (1966):Palm Length = (0.51) * Hand Breadth + (6.03) 0.58Hand Breadth = (0.31) * Palm Length + (5.59) 0.45

U.S. Army Women (1977):Palm Length = (0.65) * Hand Breadth + (4.80) 0.46Hand Breadth = (0.36) * Palm Length + (4.27) 0.34

U.S. Army Men and Women:Palm Length = (0.58) * Hand Breadth + (5.40) 0.56Hand Breadth = (0.51) * Palm Length + (3.42) 0.52

135

Table 62. REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR HAND MEASUREMENTS

Values in Inches

Standard errorof estimate

1 Hand Circumference and Hand Length

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Circumference = (0.59) * Hand Length + (4.09) 0.39Hand Length = (0.42) * Hand Circumference + (3.89) 0.33

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Circumference = (0.56) * Hand Length + (3,39) 0.27Hand Length = (0.62) * Hand Circumference + (2.34) 0.29

U.S. Army Men and Women:Hand Circumference = (0.97) * Hand Length + (1.11) 0.46Hand Length = (0.48) * Hand Circumference + (3.44) 0.32

2 Hand Circumference and Palm LengthU.S. Army Men (1966):

Hand Circumference = (0.76) * Palm Length + (5.32) 0.41Palm Length = (0.23) * Hand Circumference + (2.19) 0.22

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Circumference = (0.78) * Palm Length + (4.24) 0.30Palm Length = (0.29) * Hand Circumference + (1.79) 0.18

U.S. Army Men and Women:Hand Circumference = (1.34) * Palm Length + (2.76) 0.53Palm Length = (0.23) * Hand Circumference + (2.20) 0.22

3 Hand Circumference and Hand Breadth

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Circumference = (1.75) * Hand Breadth + (2.38) 0.30Hand Breadth = (0,33) * Hand Circumference + (0.74) 0.13

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Circumference = (2.06) * Hand Breadth + (0.92) 0.12Hand Breadth = (0.42) * Hand Circumference + (0.01) 0.06

U.S. Army Men and Women:Hand Circumference (2.26) * Hand Breadth + (0.56) 0.31Hand Breadth - (0.34) * Hand Circumference + (0.62) 0.12

136

L ,21

Table 62. REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR HAND MEASUREMENTS

Values In Inches (continued)

Standard error

of estimate

4 Hand Length and Palm Length

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Length = (1.26) * Palm Length + (2.23) 0.22Palr. Length = (0.54) * Hand Length + (0.15) 0.14

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Length = (1.57) * Palm Length + (0.77) 0.15Palm Length = (0.53) * Hand Length + (0.28) 0.09

U.S. Army Men and Women:Hand Length = (1.45) * Palm Length + (1.42) 0.23Palm Length = (0.51) * Hand Length + (0.35) 0.13

5 Hand Length and Hand Breadth

U.S. Army Men (1966):Hand Length = (1.03) * Hand Breadth + (3.88) 0.32Hand Breadth = (0.27) * Hand Length + (1.50) 0.16

U.S. Army Women (1977):Hand Length = (1.40) * Hand Breadth + (2.56) 0.28Hand Breadth = (0.26) * Hand Length + (1.30) 0.12

U.S. Army Men and Women:"Hand Length = (1.24) * Hand Breadth + (3.14) 0.32Hand Breadth = (0.38) * Hand Length + (0.62) 0.18

6 Palm Length and Hand Breadth

U.S. Army Men (1966):Palm Length = (0.51) * Hand Breadth + (2.37) 0.23Hand Breadth = (0.31) * Palm Length + (2.20) 0.18

U.S. Army Women (1977):Palm Length = (0.65) * Hand Breadth + (1.89) 0.18Hand Breadth = (0.36) * Palm Length + (1.68) 0.13

U.S. Army Men and Women:Palm Length = (0.58) * Hand Breadth + (2.12) 0.22Hand Breadth = (0.51) * Palm Length + (1.34) 0.21

137

.1,

10. FOREIGN ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA ON HANDS

a. Tables of Anthropometric Data

Up to this point, comparative anthropometric data on the hand have been limited todata froi the United States, However, in order to show the ranges of variation in hand sizeto be found in diverse populations in different parts of the world, anthropometric data onthe hands of various foreign populations are presented here. The sources of these foreigndata are summarized in Table 63. The number of individuals measured in each series isindicated; references for these series in the form of published reports may be found inSection 12. REFERENCES.

Data on the hand measurements of the foreign series are given in Tables 64-68. Theforeign hand data are shown in the metric system, with values expressed in centimeters.Statistical values, such as means, standard deviations, and ranges, are shown in tables on theupper pages, while selected percentile values are given in tables on the lower or facing pages.An explanation of the statistical measures presented in these tables may be found in Section 6.STATISTICS (page 25).

In the statistical tables, the data are arranged in order of decreasing mean values, whilein the percentile tables, the data are arbitrarily arranged in decreasing order of the 50th percentileor median value. It should be noted that the order or sequence of the series in the tablesof percentile values is not necessarily the same as that in the tables of statistical values.

The foreign hand data presented here include data on Hand Length, Palm Length, HandBreadth, Hand Circumference, and Wrist Circumference. Not all of the hand measurementswere taken in all of the foreign anthropometric series cited. Data for Hand Length and HandBreadth are available for most of the series, but data for Palm Length, Hand Circumference,and Wrist Circumference are available for only some of the source series. Minimum andmaximum values, indicating the range, are not available for some of the foreign series.

The data for the Australian Armed Forces (1977) were extracted from the U.S. Air ForceAMRL Data Bank. The new Australian survey was carried out in 1977, and a report is inprocess of publication. The raw data were supplied to the USAF AMRL Data Bank by A. Rossand K.C. Hendy of the Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Department of Defense, Melbourne,Australia.

b. Summary of Foreign Hand Data

1) Hand Length

Mean values for hand length among the samples from foreign populations range from 17.54up to 20,49 cm. The foreign data cited here indicate a minimum hand length of 11.0 cmand a maximum hand length of 23.0 cm, giving an overall range of 12.0 cm. The statureratios show that mean hand lengths are about ten or eleven percent of mean statures. Thelowest 1st percentile value of hand length in the foreign data is 15.6 cm, while the highest

139 ........ .... ....... .... ... ... ...P11111110 ft mu -lnuk~bl ] mD

Table 63. FOREIGN ANTHROPOMETRIC SERIES ON HANDS

Number of ReferenceNo. Series individuals number

1 Australia: Armed Forces (1977) 2,945 none2 Canada: Armed Forces (1974) 565 423 Canada: Canadian Forces Women (1977) 136 404 Canada: RCAF Navigators (1961) 290 15 Canada: RCAF Pilots (1961) 314 16 Germany: Air Force (1967-68) 1,465 277 Germany: Armed Forces (1970-71) 2,643 348 Greece: Armed Forces (1960) 1,094 299 Iran: Armed Forces (1968) 9,414 48

10 Italy: Arm.d Forces (1961) 1,358 2911 Japan: JA31)F Pilots (1972) 1,176 3212 Latin Ameri•a (1965-1970) 1,985 1613 New Zealand: RNZAF Aircrew (1972-73) 238 5614 South Africa'. Bantu miners (1967) 485 4415 South Africai Armed Forces (1967) 1,442 5416 South Korew ROKAF Pilots (1961) 264 3517 South Kore1 : irmed Force3 (1965) 3,747 2818 South Vietn - : Armed Forces (1963) 2,127 6019 Thailand: A ied Forces (1962) 2,950 5920 Turkey: Arnm d Forces (1960) 915 2921 United Kingd.- m: Guardsmen (1975) 100 2622 United Kingdom: Infantrymen (1973-74) 534 2523 United Kingdcrm: Royal Armoured Corps (1972) 500 3124 United Kingdom: RAF Aircrew (1970-71) 2,000 3

14

140

99th percentile value is 22.6 cm. A range of 7.0 cm would include 98 percent of the foreignhand lengths.

2) Palm Length

Mean values for palm length among the foreign samples range from 10.15 cm up to10.97 cm. Minimum palm length In the foreign data is 8.0 cm while maximum palm lengthis 19.5 cm, giving an overall range of 11.5 cm for palm length. The stature ratios indicatethat mean palm lengths are about six percent of mean statures. The lowest 1st percentilevalue for palm length is 8.8 cm, while the highest 99th percentile value is 12.3 cm, givingan overall range of 3.5 cm for 98 percent of the foreign palm lengths.

• The palm length/hand length index shows the relative proportions between the palm ofthe hand and the length of the middle finger. In the foreign data, this index ranges from55.6 up to 57.9, indicating that palm length is between 55.6 to 57.9 percent of hand length.Thus, the length of the middle finger is from 44.4 to 42.1 percent of hand length. Mostpalm length/hand length indices are between 56 and 57 percent in the foreign data.

3) Hand Breadth

Mean values for hand breadth among the foreign samples range from 8.01 cm up to9.01 cm. Minimum hand breadth in the foreign data is 6.1 cm and maximum hand breadthis 11.0 cm, giving an overall range of 4.9 cm for hand breadth. The stature ratios indicatethat mean hand breadths are about five percent of mean stature values. The lowest 1st percentilevalue for hand breadth is 7.0 cm and the highest 99th percentile value is 10.1 cm, giving 4

an overall range of 4.1 cm for 98 percent of the foreign data for hand breadth.

The hand breadth/hand length index is an indication of hand proportions; a low indexshows a narrow hand relative to length, while a high index indicates a broad hand relativeto length. The hand breadth/hand length index for the foreign hand data ranges from 42.9to 47.2, while most of the foreign samples have indices between 44 and 47 percent.

4) Hand Circumference

Mean values for hand circumference range from 20.16 cm up to 21.89 cm in the foreignhand data. Minimum hand circumference in the foreign data is 10.0 cm, while maximumhand circuriference is 26.7 cm, giving an overall range of 15.8 cm in hand circumference.The stature ratios for hand circumference indicate that mean hand circumferences are slightlyover 12 percent of mean statures. The lowest ist percentile value for hand circumferencein the foreign data is 18.2 cm, while the highest 9Wth percentile value is 24.4 cm; thus arange of 6.2 cm would cover 98 peruent ot the hand circumference values shown in the foreigndata.

The hand circumference/hand length index for the foreign data ranges from 110.2 to 115.8,;ndicating that hand circumference is about 110 to 110 percent of hand length. This indexis between 113 and 115 percent for most cf the foreign series.

141 jhk

~j0LC~ t'- W 0 H

ojC~ (Vj (VC' 00

41C, 9ý 9 9 n

~I~4 H H r- H- H -H H

S- 2~ 22 (a No ii "0 0 00) 0 H C )0 0 0

cii

00

0. %, o0 0 0 H 0 to 1)0 0 "0

Q 01 07 G\ 0\ a, 0" 00 0 00 0o 9cv rc cH A #-I H H o q Ho

a * i9 * 9

~a, (V H H S H H H H i-

01 33 9

ci-4

4-1

I- to C"

H H142

4) ~ wV r4 N - Cl- 1^ 4t 0 H4 a w 0

ýo C- (v (V 0', cn cn H 0 Q ()o 0

r~N4 Q% 4 4 ;994

40 v V C N' c-c (V oi CVC N NO N. N

(v H- 0H0O 0 0 00 Q0 0N~0 0'q H N O C Y'q 4v NIf~ 4v N (v CV Q C(V

F., ~e H- A m f - (V Hl H- H- 0 0' 0\ ICo

C0 C' 0' 0'e' Co C; c; (0 U) CocO v (V C\ H ~ H l H v H ~ (v H ~ N H H H H- H-

AC 00 (0 Co cz cz Co CA (. CoH3 rrH H H H

4 ý C% o - ' 0 '1 Q o Co1 1 0 M O

I-I 0 r Ch -0 '- t, 0 CY -to - t- t;- 8 t;~ Hq H- H- H- H- H- H1 H -H 4 H H H

%0 ~ ~ ' U0 0, %0 %-o (V\ Hr n m N (Vl 0

M,.

.'UN.- C'-l t C'- H 47 o w m

H - r-4 -H H H _ -%

E Hl H r- H~ H

CH C% C% i Cý C- c-C co

'H 143

U'

0

~~Id

*IH- c-.c H .l 4

~- 0 . 0 i

0 H J o CH H3 C3 P

Cq to

W00 0 0

2 .

CID to w - C-

1- 4 z ~U 0 C- '0 *riC- Zi '.0 4. -t t0o ' ( ~ U~~C\ I V .0 t- 0' 0' HNV m~ H 14

H -~ 8

CDH ý: 0,

430'

A 0H 0r

144

C C 0o' 0 'c- C CZ4

*0 *l 0ý(%Q'y' Hq Hl PH H- H H 0

0 ~ H -H H H H- H H 0

04*

174

2 4 :0 t0 0) U)- tH-

HH Ho H0 00 L\ N 0

4,ý C :

t CC C C C

0) IA 'A ~* U '

U' ~ H 'C)

'-q 0 '0 U ')u'HI r- H H

0 r-4 a 4) 0

I lid

145

C'4,

0' 0' 0 0 C-

V

c 1 ~~r- 0 4 ' LA 0 (N

H ý Hý 'a.CV

C -I H ( H H H Q H H - f I (N 09 ol 9 9 9 9 9 (0I 0D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 g

cr- H 0 0 ~ 4 ". w' 0 0 0 C0 4

Io0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U' 'I c-H -' L,

NO - 0 -p

r-i C~ H ro 0

ra2 $. 4)I 0- 0 -ID. a, , to '. C- AL Aa).c

02 g 0. 0- dN CH.c(

UIi px) H. (2) r(1)- 0) .-io

-o od v V 0V~~C C. ( rI (

43 4-1 ~ .~.. V *

rg 0

UI N m1 -1 NO (0)I

H CV U ~ C- 140

0~~~~~X (0- Ar' A' , '.ý t.N .V N N m N

ti C Cý Cý c -i 0

r-, HHH Hr--,

-~ N L 4 . 4 cn C'N m H Hi H 0' 0'. (0U) .l .~ .l H

H * 46 dS4

6i-f4-

m H- - j% o r

0 C- LN % 0 In0 '.0 1^ .t n4 r C. (V' r H

to d 4 Hd P H 8CV Nd HHo.00 C N i

00fla i: = H0 Ht 01 (Y 0- a' (0 (- 0 C) ' 0 C\ '.0 r

4.,1)

Cý 0:cr(0'aA' N' 0N C% Hý Hl a, Hl 0'1 ON

e--oH ~l NO.'H.

to00

H a) p) U)' 0 ) 041

01 C2 0'. c '

43147

Q44) 0 0- 0 0- - N 04 0 M (7s 0 0 0

M 0 \ Q tocq

A0 0 0l 0 m ol

0' H a CS 0( 0'

co to- ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0

+~ 0 0 0 o 0 0 C) 0 0 0

C.) Q) CS 0n t:n0U) -400 0 0; a- t0oo w t 0 0 to to 0o 0o to 0o

aa,

0-'0

co 0 00 H 0

EC' '\O 0%1 to 00o clt\ U\ a l

C,

5-4~~~ ~ ZI 0p. r s~J (~ *

I H (V' m 5 Q -t %C\ I'D* cr\ .4 t- 0

1480

4) (Vq 'A 0 ON (71 0 Hl N H NV H N NV

9 ~rivwl 9 19 1

Qý 0' ' 0 0', 0' 0'O 0 ' '0

ol 'a a, O' a-' a' a' a' O' a' 1 a'C. '

cy. aC a, ~ ~ C, 0V C'Z CV Hý C) C) Hý 0

S C' CT' 0'0rO 0 0: a C' '0 0 '0

o) l (V H7 ON N w' to 0N to w w to a

to c'a'a to to C-' totoO to to tow to4-,

to ot cc to to Ho to to to tot C' t

ta OD H0 0 W ' 0- tC O C- C- C- '-0-

to fn t C- to- C-- c-- a-- t-- C-- t-- al- - l

al - w. - el- Lir- l c- r l

C- -

4 V'.0 H H L A~a-I

0 r4

to ( C'- 0 0-

-- I L (.. ~~LA tr% *d ,\ -

01

CC,

a' 'H

-ri riCl

-p, 0~i t-' '07' .

4-7

0 8

o0 0 0 0 J6C 0 to

~ C 0 0 0 00

0)

00 C) 00 0C0 0 0

~ *-'t 0

0

C-, (7%c- H

c,- -. , CCVl Hr ) H

ho ~ %.0 0' 0'0) _ ý I-

H C"- CD

r- HO HH

150 -

(%I O CV C'O14 14 N N

Ci C' 0'ý to-' 0 (

oý o' CNa a% a, to t

0, ,0-

IC-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ rC CAiný ý0 0;16 t

0 0 0 ON W

C.) C'- -

0c aO to to- c ic n 0'0 to i

C H r- -i N H rI )I C

4)Cq2KC

ii ii015

(I~I~\ ( 1 0 H-* t- 10 U

43o

10 N0 0U

10 ~ ~ to m 0 -

-t 0t 4 0V -I 0 .t r

I-4

cN 0 '0 Hc'; 0 0 to C

0 H3

CA 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

.4 U H r-4 -I -q -I r- 0 0 0- H

1 41-4 1-1 0- 0- -0 0C\ 8 0 0 (D V0' CN N N S ~ 4 9 04 N N 4 l N

C(V ccH V

N- - t 04 CV (VH0 C to0

'-44

.00 ~ ~ '2to)yl

v '0

0 H H

'0~F 0 H Ili'. ' CO 0 '0 0 Hp A' -' H u- .4 '-1)

Co cn 'o V- co. C, Ho Co C

CoI00ri 0 ' 1)2

ti C- Ni 111 .ý .% 1% Ci C

UN~t H H U0 -41 -4f 'C t

0

~~c- c.n CCIC~~Cl NN tFli N N N N N N4 N C4

""0 i C'ý N! '0 'ý -4ý I-0 .1-4~~ RI~ ~ N N N Hcq N N N Nl(' C'JIN NI

If to H- 0' -0 0' IM Ll' 'CT M .

Cl ~ ~ N N~ 0' HV tj CVa N' N~ to

-1 S- H 0j 0r ., cy' Le% %0' - 0 0 Nf N t4 o 0r 0to0 ' a 0 ' a ' t

Nd V C4 c N N H ~ H H Hq N H H H H )

0 Cý, R cr, 0 or, a, o

0- o N N .\ ' '0 Ny 0- ap, o '0 % 91t ~

61 0% 07 0' ,0 to t3 I O to to*- H- H H H H H- HH

H H H H- H A H -H i 1- H -H(D

%g 10 'sCq N

k ,-4 ol r-. H0 M- '. 0 a' H U H SC

A Ha '- a, 04) 0 V~ E- 0 A

CD $.. 0 C0.,o .

00

9l (v m'o E to o Y

153

0 0

.4C, (7 0 0

'A C)' C

0- C0 4- C- 0 '

'A O o a, 4" C0 0^

' 0 00 0 0 Q 0

'A -0 -0 0- r' 0 ) 0 0 0CHZ H HH H

00000000000 0 0

If')'. ~ '~ . H ~ - c

w Cr, to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C rj

S~ o C* N Cl C 9

HH4 (1)

C- a) '0 '. 0 .'0 '0 '

%C-I o C-, (

HA 0' H' -. EC-~c H ci H W)

CdL~ U) v) 4) D w V4'

0.9. -.

H ýv~- ' C - ~ 0

154

C? cl n N m" C- a, 0 '0 'o0 -f -4 m~ m'~ur

-f A 4 A J -4 C A-1 ; -

Cý ~ ~ ~ C C' a'ý 0' CO t0)- %

0% 511 -tl L\ H 0 0% w w OIL o- w' -

0 -I H H -H -H N H H H P- H H H4

Coo Co C tn'-

* i . - % -I C-- C-; C- 'all 01 0% 0% *r K 'c to IO 0

00

to" C". w L' 0 Co t'- C-. '0U-

I-I Hr 0 ' ON 0 It .1 C" n CN H NV H 0'to t-- cc c- '0! '0 '0! C'0 '0- '0! ' '0

.9 :9 C'-o C C- %0 Co r0

H H H HH H H i-I H HH

-45He C' CCt4%1ý C l 1 ý0

8A tA U '. A o' U\ s' 0'

0-'r4 . -4 - . H H H CC'0 C H H- H-

(01 0

H -- - - H r- - -i

E-0 HI LA\LrH'0H - r-4 H -4 ;4 '

to. a- 't-t ý - v rI C 0 C'0r

H. ' 0' H ' H H - H 5.4 '.0 ..- H 0) 4)

NO H~

%-0Cc a,

OC,) 0 H C2 ') .

~~~rL H N " U. '00- t

0 rJ04 C25:

Cq'

oo4-)

(44,G))

to

L-\ 0 t~o f"100 u-4 N( 0

E-4

HH

ON .

I'n - 5Ct) ~ IH r

r-H

C14

H ('J411

41%)

I-i156

H

H H

4F

.4.,

.~ r- o

1-4 * *

'0 '00C lH

tS.4Cý 0

-4.

1-0

4-q-

Q'NIH157

11. HANDS AND HANDWEAR

a. 'Historical Background

Even a brief review of the history"'and ddwelopment of gloves and other types of hihdwearis beyond the scope of this report. However, since the primary reason for the analysis ofanthropometric data on measurements of the hands is to provide a basis for the design andsatisfactory sizing of handwear, a discussion of the basis for the sizing of handwear is relevant-Whatar9 the origins of attempts to provide handwear in sizes which fit the hands adequately?

ýo r 'a long period of time during the early history pf handwear, gloves were made andsewn by h and. While most gloves were made to order to fit the buyer's hands, the fit achievedin these gloves left much to be desired. Apparently, most gloves were too long, too wide,and wif1- fingers which did not fit at all.

An informative, if somewhat rambling account of the origins and development of handwearmay be found in a popular book by Bill Severn (1965)16 entitled Hand in Glove. The authordiscusses the history of gloves, customs associated with gloves, and the early manufacture ofgloves in England and France, as well as the establishment of the glove industry in this countryat Gloversville, Fulton County, New York.

The following quotation from Severn's book (pages 68-69) is an interesting account ofwhat seems to be the first attempt to standardize the sizing of gloves.

"By the late eighteenth c3ntury, some people who were wealthy enough to affordit had their gloves made on wooden models of their hands. The hand-lasting ofgloves bo-rowed the method shoemakers used to form and stretch leather. InPhiladelphia in 1790, artisan glovers who catered to the bewigged leaders of the newFederalist society used polished hand forms that were individually modeled and carvedfor each client so gloves could be precisely fitted with craftsman-like care. However,most gloves, in Europe as well as in America, remained poorly fitted, cut from ahaphazard assortment of flat patterns that varied in sizes and styles from one gloverto the next. Widths were narrow or broad and thumbs and fingers short or iongaccording to the patterns each maker happened to adopt. Several attempts weremade to create patterns and cutting dies that would produce gloves in uniform sizes,but there was no really scientific approach to the problem until a young French

medical student became interested in it.

"rhe student was Xavier Jouvin, whose home was in Grenoble, the French citylong famous for its gloves. Jouvin's studies of medicine gave him an interest inanatomy and, living where he did, he constantly heard talk of the glove industryand its problems. Inventive by nature, inclined to dabble with machanical devicesas well as to pursue a search for knowledge in many branches of science, he later

"16 Severn, B. Hand in Glove. David McKay Co., New York, N.Y., 1965.

159

P1111491 PAUR BLA1IC-UC 11US.. ..j ..

created an automatic planisphere to show the positions of the stars and planets. Buthis greatest contribution to human comfort was his investigation of hands and gloves.His work eventually led to a complete change in methods of measurement andmanufacture so that people finally could have gloves that fit.

"Jouvin made a thorough study of the human hand, detailed and comparativemeasurements of the width, finger length and other dimensions of hundreds of hands,and ultimately classified 320 sizes and shapes of gloves. These were standardizedinto patterns from which dies were made. He failed at first to win much recognitionfor his labors, but in 1839 Jouvin's system was awarded a bronze medal at theIndustrial Exhibition held in Paris and soon was adopted by the French glove trade.Glovers in other countries gradually accepted the system and it provided the basisupon which gloves have been measured ever since." T

Severn's book also contains a useful and interesting list of books about gloves, including

publications of the National Association of Glove Manufacturers, Gloversville, New York.

b. Research on Hands and Handwear

Needless to say, a great deal of research and development work has been carried outover a period of some years by the U.S. Armed Forces in order to provide adequate protectionfor the hands. The U.S, Army has been concerned primarily with the development of insulatedhandwear for protection of the hands against the cold, while the U.S. Air Force has concentratedprimarily on the development of handwear for use with pressure suits worn by aircrewmenat high altitudes.

A general discussion of problems of environmental protection, including the hands andhandwear, may be found in the book edited by Newburgh (1949)17 entitled Physiology ofHeat Regulation and the Science of Clothing. A second reference, dealing specifically withproblems in the cold, is entitled Man Living in the Arctic, edited by Fisher and publishedby the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council in 1961.18 Another usefulreference on hands and handwear, also edited by Fisher and published by the National Academyof Sciences - National Research Council in 1957, is entitled Protection and Functioning ofthe Hands in Cold Climates.1 9

'1 Newburgh, L.H. (ad.). Physiology of Heat Regulation and the Sclence of Clothing. W.B.Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1949.

"8 Fisher, F.R. (ad.). Man Living in the Arctic. National Academy of Sciences - NationalResearch Council, Washington, D.C., 1961.

"19Fisher, F.R. (ed.). Protection ,.nd Functioning of the Hands in Cold Climates. NationalAcademy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1957.

160

Several specific studies may be cited and reviewed here as examples of various effortswhich have been made in attempts to improve the performance and functioning of militaryhandwear.

In an attempt to provide designers and engineers with information on the sizes of thegloved hand, Kobrick (1956 and 1957)20,21 published two handbooks in which various typesof U.S. Army handwear are illustrated. In the first handbook, photographs of a large (or"95th percentile") hand wearing an anti-contact glove, a wet-cold mitten insert and shell, awet-cold fingered glove, and an Arctic mitten insert and mitten set are presented. Thephotographs show the hand extended flat, closed as a fist, gripping handles of various sizes,and gripping knobs of various sizes. Each photograph includes a scale graduated in both inchesand centimeters. The second handbook has a similar format and the same types of handwearwere used, with the exception that the hand used in the illustrations is a small (or "5thpercentile") hand, These two handbooks thus present photographs from which dimensionsof a large and a small gloved hand may be scaled for design purposes.

In another study, White, Kobrick, and Zimmerer (1964)2 2 presented anthropometric dataon Army men dressed in an Arctic clothing ensemble. The Arctic clothing was utilized sinceit represented the maximum bulk of the clothed man in terms of the space occupied by theindividual. The data are presented in tabular form, giving the body measurements of the nudeman, the clothod man, and the difference or increment attributable to the bulky Arctic clothing.Eight hand measurements are included in the data: Hand Length, Palm Length, Hand Breadth,Hand Breadth at Thumb, Hand Circumference, Fist Circumference, 1st Phalanx IIl Length,and Hand Thickness. Values representative of the 1st and 5th percentiles (or small men),the 50th percentile (or medium men), and the 95th and 99th percentiles (or large men) aregiven. The data of this report show the maximum increase in hand size when heavy andbulky Arctic mittens are worn - a "worst case" situation.

2 0 Kobrick, J.L. Quartermaster Human Engineering Handbook Series: I1. Dimensions of theUpper Limit of Gloved Hand Size. Technical Report EP-41, U.S. Army Quartermaster Researchand Development Center, Natick, Massachusetts, December 1956. (AD 127 124)

2 1 Kobrick, JL. Quartermaster Human Engineering Handbook Series: Ill. Dimensions of the

Lower Limit of Gloved Hand Size. Technical Report EP-43, U.S. Army Quartermaster Researchand Development Center, Natick, Massachusetts, February 1957. (AD 137 961)

2 2 White, RM., J.L. Kobrick, and T.R. Zimmerer. Reference Anthropometry of the

Arctic-Equipped Soldier. Technical Report EPT-2, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick,Massachusetts, August 1964. (AD 449 483)

161

4

In another study, Garrett (1968)23 presented data and illustrations giving clearance andperformance values for the bare-handed and the pressure-gloved operator. The report summarizeshand and arm dimensional, clearance, and strength data for 27 U.S. Air Force men wearingthe A/P22S-2 full-pressure suits. Thirty-six measurements were taken under each of threrconditions: bare-handed, gloved and unpressurized, gloved and pressurized. The data are bothsummarized for all subjects and reported independently by glove size worn. Also, uses ofthe data are suggested and specific design values are recommended.

A somewhat different type of research of hands and handwear was reported by Kennedy,Woodbury, and Madnick (1962).24 This report describes and discusses a process in whichmaster model hands and hand forms were developed. Three pairs of master model hands,designated as sizes small, medium, and large were sculptured. The hands were modeled ina relaxed position, with the palms and fingers in a natural, curved shape. Following this,metal dipping forms and experimental gloves were fabricated. A sizing study was then conductedon a series of 285 men, and it was determined that a high percentage of the male militarypopulation could be expected to be properly fitted with four sizes of gloves. Subsequently,porcelain dipping forms also were fabricated. As a result of this work, it was concluded thatthe measurements of the experimental master mudel hand forms could be used as the basisof design and sizing for all types of dipped handwear developed by the Quartermaster Corpsfor use by Army personnel. Fabric lined vinyl coated gloves could be manufactured overdipping forms based on the experimental master model hands which meet the size and designrequirements of the Army. Unsupported rubber, or rubber type gloves could be manufacturedover porcelain dipping forms designed and developed by the Quartermaster Corps. These formscould be made available to the glove dipping industry for either military or commercialapplications.

c. U.S. Army Handwear

In spite of a great deal of research and development work and a large amount of effortexpended in attempts to improve the sizing and fit of military handwear, the situation todaystill is far from satisfactory. While the design to be found in the many different types ofmilitary handwear generally is good, the sizing of military handwear is not consistent and leavesmuch to be desired from the standpoint of logistic efficiency.

2 3 Garrett, ,I.W. Clearance and Performance Values for the Bare-Handed and the Pressure-GlovedOperator. Technical Report AMRL-TR-68-24, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories,Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, August 1968. (AD 681 457)

"2 4 Kennedy, S.J., R.L. Woodbury, and H. Madnick. Design and Development of Natural HandGloves. Clothing and Equipment Development Branch Series Report No. 33, U.S. ArmyQuartermaster Research and Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts, July 1962. (AD A047962)

162

The current edition of the Department of the Army Supply Bulletin, entitled Size Tarifffor Clothing, Equipage and Footwear (SB 10-523), and dated December 1979 (Reference 14),contains a total of 29 different line items of handwear, including 26 types of gloves and three'types of mittens. These standard items of U.S. Army handwear are listed in Table 69, togetherwith the sizing system for each item.

Although the title of the Supply Bulletin would seem to indicate that tariffs ere givenfor the items listed, it is clearly stated that the "size tariffs contained in this bullkin arebased on a worldwide demand experience, and are not, therefore, applicable _o individualinstallations." These tariffs, then, merely reflect the sizes and quantities of clothing (andhandwear) which have been ordered or requisitioned by Army posts, camps, and stations allover the world. The primary point here is that the "tariffs" given in the Supply Bulletinare not based upon the body sizes or hand sizes of individuals in the Army population. Atariff, in the true sense of the word, should be a listing by size of the numbers or quantitiesof an item required for the population for which the item is intended, and as such, it shouldbe based upon a correlation between the body sizes of individuals and the available sizes ofthe item. A tariff for handwear, then, should be based upon the sizes and numbers of handsto be fitted with that handwear.

A further complication found in today's Army, in which there are increasing numbersof women, is that attempts are being made to issue to women items, including handwear,which were originally designed and sized for men. In fact, the current edition of the SupplhBulletin cited above designates all line items of clothing and equipment, including handwear,as intended for "male", "female", or "male and female." In some instances at least, thesuitability and sizing of these items for women may be open to question.

Specifically with reference to the 29 standard types of handwear currently available inthe U.S. Army inventory, a basic problem of sizing exists. There are at least three differentsizing systems for handwear (see Table 69). The first is a system of adjective sizes, in whichsizes of gloves or mittens are designated as Small, Medium, and Large, or variations thereof.Some items of handwear are carried in only Medium and Large sizes, some only as Smalland Medium, while others may show a range from X-Small to Medium-Large, or again a rangeincluding Small, Medium, Large, and X-Large. A second system for the designation of handwearsizes utilizes numerical sizes, such as sizes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and perhaps 6. This is believed tobe a sizing system limited to military handwear. Yet a third sizing system also uses numericalsize designations, but these are 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 6, 6Y2, 7, 7 1/2, 8, 81/2, 9, or again8, 9, 10, 11, 12. This system of sizing probably is derived from the sizing systems utilizedfor civilian handwear.

Some reasons for this confusion in the sizing systems for handwear may be advanced.Some items of Army handwear are covered by military specifications, in which the sizing system

* to be used is clearly defined. But as indicated above, these sizing systems may be one typeof numerical (from 1 to 5 or 6), another type of numerical (from 5 or 6 to 11 or 12), oradjectival (Small, Medium, Large). On the other hand, some specialized types of handwearwhich are required for military use are not based upon military research and development

163

'ii

Table 69. U.S. ARMY HANDWEAR (excerpted from SB 10-523)

1 GLOVES AND SOCKS SET, Chemical Protective (male and female)Sizes: X-Small, Small, Medium-Large

2 GLOVES, CLOTH, dress, nylon knit, black, for JROTC (female)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large

3 GLOVES, CLOTH, dress, nylon knit, white, for JROTC (female)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large

4 GLOVES, CLOTH, dress, nylon knit, white (female)Sizes: 6, 6%, 7, 712, 8, 8%/2, 9

5 GLOVES, CLOTH, dress cotton knitted, white (male)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large

6 GLOVES, CLOTH, work type, cotton knit, white (male and female)Sizes: Small, Medium

7 GLOVES, CLOTH, work type, anti-contact leather palm, brown, shade 105(male and female)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large

8 GLOVES, COMBAT VEHICLE CREWMAN'S, summer (male)Sizes: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

9 GLOVES, FLYERS' sage green (male and female)Sizes: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

10 GLOVES, leather, dress, black (male)

Sizes: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

11 GLOVES, leather, dress, sheepskin, black, silk lining (female)"Sizes: 6, 6%, 7, 71/2, 8, 81/2, 9

12 GLOVES, leather, work type, gauntiet cuff, linesmens', cream or light gray(male and female)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large, X-Large

13 GLOVES, leather, work type, gauntlet cuff, welders', cream or light gray(male and female)Sizes: Medium, Large

14 GLOVES, leather, work type, heavy duty, gauntlet cuff, cream(male and female)Sizes: 2, 3, 4, 5

15 GLOVES, ROCKET FUEL HANDLERS', cotton coated cloth, gauntlet cuff, gray(male and female)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large, X-Large

164

iTable 69. U.S. ARMY HANDWEAR (continued)

16 GLOVES, rubber, natural or synthetic, acid and alkali resistant, black(male and female)Sizes: 9, 10, 11, 12

17 GLOVES, rubber, natural or synthetic, organic solvent resistant, black(male and female)Sizes: 9, 10, 11

18 GLOVES, rubber, natural, 3000-volt protection, black (male and female)Sizes: 9, 10, 11, 12

19 GLOVE INSERTS, FLYERS', rayon knit, brown (male and female)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large, X-Large

20 GLOVES INSERTS, wool and nylon, OG-208 (male)Sizes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

21 GLOVES GET, Chemical Protective, butyl rubber (male and female)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large, X-Large

22 GLOVE SHELLS, FLYERS', sheepskin, brown, type HAU-6/P (male and female)Sizes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

23 GLOVE SHELLS, leather, black (male)Sizes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

24 GLOVES, Toxicological Agents Protective, butyl rubber, black(male and female)Sizes: X-Small, Small, Medium, Large

25 GLOVES, Toxicological Agents Protective, butyl rubber, M-4, black(male and female)Sizes: 9, 10, 11, 12

26 GLOVES, WIRE MESH, full hand and wrist (male and female)Sizes: Small-Left Hand, Medium-Left Hand, Large-Left Hand, X-Large-Left Hand, Small-Right Hand, Medium-Right Hand, Large-Right Hand,X-Large-Right Hand

27 MITTEN INSERTS, wool and nylon knit, OG-208, trigger finger {male and female)Sizes: Medium, Large

28 MITTEN SET, ARCTIC, gauntlet style shell with leather palm (male and female)Sizes: Small, Medium, Large

29 MITTEN SHELL', cotton sateen, trigger finger, leather palm and thumb, OG-107(male and female)Sizes: Medium, Large

165

or are not covered by military specifications, but are merely purchased in the commercial market;these items simply come the way the manufacturer sized them in the first place.

The unfortunate result of this multiplicity of sizing systems in Army handwear is thatexisting items of handwear virtually defy any logical or coherent analysis for the purpose ofassessing fit or for the development of adequate and meaningful tariffs, Thus, it is almostimpossible to draw up a table of equivalent sizes for all of the various types of Army handwear.

It is suggested that a fundamental reason for the lack of consistency in the sizing ofArmy handwear is that iv. recent years not nearly enough attention has been paid to theutilization and application of the large amounts of anthropometric data which now are availableon the hands of U.S. Army personnel, both men and women. This has not always been thecase. It is interesting to note that between 1948 and 1959, various types of memorandumreports ar.d research study reports were written for internal use documenting at least ten studiesand investigations of Army handwear. All of these studies involved fitting and sizing evaluationsof handwear, including anthropometric measurements of the hands.

d. The Sizing of Handwear

Civilian or commercial dress gloves usually are sized according to a numerical designation

ranging from six to ten in whole and/or half sizes, while work gloves or protective glovesfor sports may be designated simply as Small, Medium, or Large. Approximate equivalentsfor the numerical and adjective sizing systems are: 6-61/2 - X-Small, 7-71/2 - Small, 8-8% -Medium, 9-9½/2 - Large, and 10-101a - X-Large. But what actually is the basis for thesizing of handwear?

Handwear sizing is based upon the circumference or girth of the hand; that is, the girthof the palm, excluding the thumb. An individual with a hand circumference of 8-81/= inchespresumably would take a size 8 or 8% (or a "medium") glove or mitten.

The lengths of gloves apparently are based upon gradations up and down (or longer andshorter) from a length arbitrarily assigned to a size 8 or 8% glove. Finger lengths areaccommodated by designing the fingers of the glove slightly too short, so that when the gloveis placed on the hand, the tips of the fingers will reach the ends of the glove fingers. Thismethod still is not satisfactory, as on!y one or two of the fingers are properly accommodated.Glove fingers for the thumb and little finger of the hand usually are too long. It wouldappear that not enough attention has been paid to the relative lengths or proportions of thefingers in standard glove designs, since the normal range of variation in finger lengths usuallyis not provided for.

Unfortunately, the primary sizing of handwear on the basis of hand circumference is notnearly as simple as it might seem, The fact of the matter is that the basic unit of measurementfor glove patterns and glove sizing is not the familiar English inch, but the French inch, alsoreferred to as the Paris inch or glovers' inch. In French, the word "pouce" refers to thethumb; "pouce" also is the word used to indicate an inch.

166

i '

A standard measuring instrument in the glove trade is a wooden ruler, graduated intotwelve French or glovers' inches; each of these units is further divided into twelfths. A simpletape, used in some stores to determine glove size by measuring hand circumference, showsglove sizes from 4 to 10; each of these size increments also is based on the French or glovers'inch.

The so-called French inch is not only not equivalent to the English inch, but there appearsto be some confusion as to the actual identity of the French inch. In Severn's book ongloves (Reference 52), there is a list of words having to do with gloves. Included in thislist is the following definition (page 167): "zoll - The French glovemaker's rule is dividedinto twelve zolls, one zoll being slightly longer than one inch (12 zolls equal not quite 13inches), and each zoll again is divided into twelfths; the zoll ruler, also called a French rule,is an international measuring stick of glove-making." This definition unfortunately does not ;jclarify matters on the French inch, since "zoll" actually is a German word for inch. Thisword also is used in Switzerland.

While preparing background material for this technical report, an inquiry was directedto the National Association of Glove Manufacturers, Inc., Gloversville, New York, requestinginformation on the French inch and on the zoll. A reply to this letter included the followinginformation: "The word zoll is, as you have indicated, the word for the German inch. Sincethe European countries are on the metric system, the German inch and the French inch areboth 25.4 mm. The French glovers' rule (sic), however, used exclusively in the glove trade,is one and one sixteenth inches long or approximately 27 mm in length and does not relateto a standard French inch. As far as we could ascertain, the German glove industry usedthe French rule in their glove production." Unfortunately again, this comment merely addsto the confusion. European countries on the metric system use the centimeter as a basicunit of measurement and there is no such thing as a French or German inch of 25.4 mm -

this is the metric value of the English inch. The reference to the French glovers' "rule" obviouslywas an error; read "inch" for "rule".

In an attempt to clarify this confused situation, a very simple expedient was carried out.A French, Paris, or glovers' rule (of 12 French inches) was measured with a metric tape, andit was found to be equivalent to 325 millimeters. Ten French or glovers' inches equaled 270millimeters; thus, the French or glovers' inch has a value of 27.0 millimeters. Interestinglyenough, this finding was confirmed in a U.S. Air Force technical report (published in 1956;Reference 2, page 9), which states: "One glovers' inch equals 27.0 millimeters or 1.06 Englishinches."

Since it has been determined that gloves are sized on the basis of hand circumferenceand that glove size is based on the French or glovers' inch equivalent to 27.0 millimeters,a Size 8 glove then should fit a hand which is 8 x 27.0 or 216 millimeters in circumference.It is an interesting coincidence that the mean or average hand circumferencp for U.S. Armymen is 216.1 millimeters (8.51 inches), thus the average glove size for Army men would beSize 8.

107

S

The dimensional equivalents (values of hand circumference) for glove sizes (based on theFrench or glovers' inch) range from 108.0 millimeters (4.25 inches) for Size 4, to 216.0

millimeters (8,50 inches) for Size 8, up to 324.0 millimeters (12.75 inches) for Size 12.

Minimum hand circumference for U.S. Army men ;s 178.0 millimeters and maximum hand

circumference is 263.0 millimeters; the total range of glove sizes for Army men would beabout Size 61/2 to Size 10. The 1st percentile value of hand circumference for Army menis 191.2 millimeters, while the 99th percentile value is 244.7 millimeters; this would correspondto a range of glove sizes from about Size 7 to Size 9 for 98 percent of Army men.

The hand sizes of U.S. Army women are relatively smaller than those of Army men.The mean or average hand circumference for US. Army women is 184.5 millimeters (7.26inches); thus, the average glove size for Army women would be about Size 7. Minimum handcircumference for Army women is 158.0 millimeters and maximum hand circumference is 212.0millimeters; the total range of glove sizes for Army women then would be Size 6 to Size 8.The 1st percentile value for hand circumference for Army women is 165.4 millimeters, whilethe 99th percentile value is 203.7 millimeters; this wouild correspond to a range of glove sizesfrom about Size 61/ to Size 71/2 for 98 percent of Army women.

a. Tariffs for Handwear

In the development of military clothing, and handwear as well, the initial effort usuallyis devoted to the selection of the sixes and the size system or range of sizes required forthe population to be fitted. An important part of thi.f prcxess is the design and drafting

of the pntterns over which the clothing or handwear will be made. The list of sizes, as wellas the dimensions of the completed items, are incorporated into a military specification whichbecomes the official document used for the item. If the item is to be made up in largequantities for military use, a contract is negotiated with a qualified manufacturer and a setof th'3 patterns is furnishea to the contractor. The final and very important element ofinformation required in this pro'ess consists of the determination of the quantity to befabricated. In other words, "how many"? This designation of the quantities of an item,broken down by size, is called a tariff. The tariff, then, is how many of what sizes are needed.

If no sizing is involved, the tariff is merely the total quantity needed. But if an itemis designed in several sizes, the total quantity to be procured must be broken down by size.It is unlikely that equal quantities would be needed or procured for all sizes in the size syxe'm.For example, if an item of handwear is designed in three sizes: Small, Medium, and ,fio,then the tariff for a motal quantity of 10,000 pairs of that item might be 25 percent (2,500pairs) Size Small, 50 percent (15,000 pairs) Size Medium, and 25 percent (2.500 pairs) sizeLarge.

The process by which any such tariff is dleveloped (other than by the use of sheerguesswork) should involve the use of anthropometric data which are representative of thepopulation to be fitted. In the case of handwear, it hs been demonstrated that the primarydimension utilized in the sizing of gloves is hand circumference. In developing a tariff forhandwear, hen, the main quesion is wiiat is the range and distribution of the handcircumference measurements in the population to be fitted'

168 ,

I ~i

IA bivariate table is used in the development of a tariff. Thus a tariff for handwear for

U.S. Army men would be based upon a bivariate table of hand circumference and hand lengthfor a sample of 6682 U.S. Army men, as shown in Table 24 (in centimeters) or Table 42(in inches). These tables indicate that the range of hand circumference for U.S. Army menis from 17.0 to 27.0 cm (or 7.0 to 10.5 inches), The range of hand circumferenceaccommodated by a Size 7 glove is approximately 16.0 to 19.0 cm; Size 8 will fit handcircumferences from about 19.0 to 21.5 cm; Size 9 will fit from about 21.5 to 24.0 m; andSize 10 will fit from about 24.0 to 27.0 cm of hand circumference.

These limits of fit for the various sizes of gloves then are superimposed on a handcircumference/hand length bivariate, as shown in Table 70. The numbers or percentages ofmen having hand circumferences within these limits are added up to obtain the tariff. Theresults of this process produces a tariff of gloves for U.S, Army men as follows: Size 7 -0.8 percent; Size 8 -- 45.0 percent; Size 9 - 51.6 percent; and Size 10 - 2.6 percent. InTable 24, it may be noted that 2,259 men (or 33.8 percent) are shown as having handcircumferences between 21.0 and 22.0 cm. Since the upper limit of fit for a Size 8 gloveis approximately 21.5 cm, half of these men or 1,130 individuals (16.9 percent) would takeSize 8, while the other half of 1,129 men (16.9 percent) would take Size 9.

The correct number of quantity of gloves by size for any total number or quantity ofgloves, such as 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 pairs, may be ascertained through the use of thepercentages for each size. Thus a tariff for 10,000 pairs of gloves for U.S. Army men wouldconsist of Size 7 - 0.8 percent or 80 pairs; Size 8 - 45.0 percent or 4,500 pairs; Size 9 -

51.6 percent or 5,160 pairs; and Size 10 - 2.6 percent or 260 pairs.

A similar process would be followed in the derivation of a tariff of gloves intendeo forU.S. Army women, but with the use of the hand circumference/hand length bivwriates fora sample of 1330 Army women, as shown in Table 25 (in centimeters) or Table 43 (in inches).The resulting tariff of gloves for U.S. Army women would be: Size 7 -- 71.3 percent andSize 8 - 28.7 percent, as shown in Table 71. The five women whose hand circumterencesfall between 21.0 and 22.0 cm probably could wear Size 8, while the one woman whose handcircumference is below 16.0 cm could wear Size 7.

If the data on hand circumference and hand length for both U.S. Army men and womenare combined into one bivariate, the result would appear as Table 26 (in centimeters) orTable 44 (in inches). A tariff of gloves which would provide for both men and women wouldhave to accommodate the smallest women's hands and the largest men's hands. It shouldbe noted that the combined sample of 8,012 individuals (Tables 26 and 44) consists of 6,682men and 1,330 women. Such a combined tariff of gloves for U.S. Army men and womenwould be: Size 7 - 12.4 percent, Size 8 - 42.3 percent, Size 9 - 43.1 percent, andSize 10 - 2.2 percent, as shown in Table 72. While this tariff is based upon a sample of8,012 individuals, larger or smaller quantities of handwear could be calculated through theuse of the percentages indicated. These tariffs are considered to be close approximations,used here for illustrative purposes. While these tariffs may not be absolutely accurate, theycan be considered to be sufficiently accurate for general purposes.

169

-.. .. , . ... .; ,,,•, ;•-,.' -• • - , - -..• : -,.

a -I I - 1 " ' " 1 ...

Table 70. TARIFF FOR GLOVES - BASED ON [IVARIATE TABLE OF IIA!:)CIRCUWf.FMEI)E -MD lIAND L;IGZT FOR U. 3. ARM4Y 104 (1977)

HAM LU-JGTH

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.01: 2: 2: 1: :)

: : . .0: .0: .0: .0: :)26.0------------------------------------------------

. ------------------ ---- ) 2.6"" : : 1:23:45: 49: : : 2:)

* : : : .0: .3: .7: .7: .3: .0: .0:24.0

1 : : :1i:109:23 4: 187:2: 36: 3 : )

: : : : .2: 1.6: 4.0: 2.8: .7: .2: 0: )A 23.0----------- ------------------------------ ~--N. 3: 80:447:729:3832 42: 5:3451D ____ 9

C .0: 1.2: 6.7: 10.9: 5.7: .6: .l: 51.6C e 22.0 ----------------------- ---------------------------I : 0 : ii : 9 1 9 : 2849:215: 29: 2: :)R t aC: : : .1: 3.2: 14.1 12.7: 3.2: .4: .0: : )U mi 21.0 --- ----.--- -------------- ---------------------------1 : 6:30: 728: 7: 68: 27: .: 3F : : : : : : : : : :E : : : .5: 4.6: 10.9: 5.6: 1.0: .0: : )3006R r 20.0------------------------------------------------------E s : 18:1.15:156 :65 :3:1: ) 45.0

C : : : .3: 1.7: 2.3: 1.0: .0: .0: : : )

* :2: 60: 231 5 90: 8A9: 25:2 : : :

E 19.0

2 6 203 15

N 7: : : : : : : : : : : 4E IZ 79.0

170 -- ------------------- ------------------- '------ ) .8

15.0 ------------------- --- ------- --- ------- --

Totals 3 74 755 2420 2338 915 147 25 5 6682

I :rcent .0 1.1 11.3 36.2 35.0 13.7 2.2 .4 .1 100.0

170

: : : : : : : : :I

Table 71. TARIFF FOR GLOVS3 - 13XU13 ON BIVAIATE TAoLE OF NDIDCIRCUL10UENCE ND -W:\ND LUJGT] FOR U. S. AMY 'ADMEN (19177)

HA14D LENGTH

Centimcters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

25.0------------------------------

214.0--------------- --------------------- ----------- -

A 23.0 O ---------------------- ~----------- --------------

C e P2.0O- -- ------------ ------------------------------------

I n: 1: 2: 1: 1:H tC: : : .1: .2: .1: .1:U m 21.0 ----------------------- -------------- ------

1, 2: 9: : : : : 1 2F t SIZZ 8: . ) : 381

E: : .2: 7: 1.7: 1.3: .2:

E S 1: 25:128:130: 39: 1:

N : : : : : : : : :

C: .1: 1.9: 9.6: 9.8: 2.9: .1: : :E 19.0

6: 5:2:1 : 20: 1: : : 1

S : 5: 11.4: 20.8: 8.6: 1.5: .1: : : :18. 0---------------- -----------

1 :3 :1 : :7: 2: : : :2

UZE 7 :949.1: 2.3: 115: 9.6: 1.3: 2: :

17. 0 -- ------------- ------- ~ 71.3H : :11:2: 0: : : : :1

.8 220..8 ... :

16.0

N * : : 1 : : : : :

D .:1: : : : : : :

15 2.0

Totals 1 48 359 552 286 79 5 1330

U ircent .1 3.6 27.0 41.5 21.5 5.9 .4 10).C

171

Table 72. TARIFF FOR (rOVJS: - I';AU) ON UIVULIATE T•W•L OF HAN:DCIRCUIVFM:UENCE AND KOAND LJ'l;;h F.R U. -. ,UMY lEN VID ID-924

HAND ,I-i10T11

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.0 : : : : I 2 : 2 : 1:

S. . . : .0: *C: 0: 0: :)26.0 - ----------------------------------------- )

* : : : .0: .0: .1: .1: .1:25.0 . . ..-------------------------------------------------------. 2.2

: : : : 1:3: 45: 49: 22: 3: 2:)

.0: .3: .6: .6: .3: .0: .0:24.0

1 1: )109 264:187: 44:11,:

H: : : .0: .1: 1.4: 3.3: 2.3: 25: .2 -. 0:A 23.0 ------- - -------------------------------------N: : : :447 :729: : : : : 3453o SIZZ 9. . . . . . :)

C : .0: 1.0: 5.6: .: 4.8: .5: .: : ) 43.1C e 22.0 --------------------------------------------------------------I n : : :10:215 :: 9,2 50 216: 29: 2:R tC : : : .1: 2.7: 11.8: 10.6: 2.7: .4: .0:U m 21.0 -...------------------...............------------------.-.---- )N C: : :38 319: 750 :394: 68: 2 5F t :IZE 8 : . . . . . . : : )

e : : : .5: 4.0: 9.4: I.19: .8: .0: 8: :) 3 3it r 20.0 ------------------------------------------------------------- )

s : : :43:243:26:104: 286: 1 .4 :4 ) 1.3

C 0: : : .5: 3.0: 3.6: 1.3: 0.: .0: : : )F 19.0

8:1:2:129: : 1: : : 2 1

.1: 2.0: 3.7: 1.6: .2: .0:18.0 -.-------..................------------------------------------ )

3: 1 1 :153:2:1 : 2. 1 2 :

S .0: .4: 1.9: 1.6: .2: C: : : 4

17.0 --- ------------------------------------------------- -------- ) 1.11: 26: 30: 1: . . . .

E 19.0

1 : : : : . :. : :

T :talr 1 : 51 :43 127 2111? 920 147 25 5 8012

'orcont .0 .6 5.4 16.3 33.6 30.2 11.5 1.8 .3 .1 10).0

172

- -.. : : :

The tariffs for handwear discussed and illustrated above may be refined to a higher degreeof accuracy by a further processing of the anthropometric data on hand measurements. Thiscan only be done, however, provided that three essential elements are available. These are:1) access to a computer, 2) anthropometric data on men's and women's hands which areon file in the computer, and 3) a suitable computer program which will process and sort thestored data, and also provide usable printouts of the results.

In this procedure, the computer is instructed to calculate and print a bivariate table; inthis case, the required bivariate table is based on hand circumference and hand length.Essentiahy, the computer is requested to sort men's and women's hands into categories whichcorrespond exactly to glove sizes. Since hand circumference is the basic hand dimension forthe sizing of gloves, hand circumference is the primary controlling hand dimension here.

In the previous tariffs (Tables 70, 71, and 72), hand circumference was sorted in intervalsof one centimeter, and the limits of fit for the various glove sizes were estimated in thegeneration of the tariffs. In the present refinement, the intervals used for hand circumferenceare 2.7 cm, which is the range of hand circumference covered by each glove size. The computer,then, is instructed to sort hand circumference in intervals of 2.7 cm, beginning with 13.5 cm,which is the lower limit of Size 6 gloves (or the upper limit of Size 5 gloves). This sortinggoes up to 27.0 cm, which is the upper limit of Size 10 gloves. The range of hand lengthused here is the same as before: 14.0 to 24.0 cm, in one centimeter intervals.

The resulting refined tariff of gloves for U.S. Army men is showrn in Table 73. Thistariff consists of Size 7 - 0.5 percent, Size 8 - 49.5 percent, Size 9 - 48.6 percent, andSize 10 - 1.4 percent. In the previous tariff, Sizes 8 and 9 together had a requirement of96.6 percent, whereas here Sizes 8 and 9 show a 98.1 percent requirement. Also, it maybe seen that, due to the slight shift in total percentages, Size 8 now shows a slightly higherrequirement than Sike 9, while previously Size 9 was slightly higher than Size 8. Tariffsgenerally are sensitive to even slight shifts in the limits of fit.

A similar procedure may be followed in a sorting of women's hand data, the results ofwhich are shown in Table 74. As in the previous tariff for women, the requirements for

gloves for U.S. Army women are concentrated in Sizes 7 and 8; Size 7 - 68.1 percent andSize 8 - 31.8 percent. However, in the refinement process, the requirement for Size 7 hasdecreased slightly and the requirement for Size 8 has increased slightly. One woman in thesample is shown as needing a Size 6 glove; although she has a minimum hand circumferenceof 15.8 cm, she probably could wear a Size 7 glove satisfactoriiy.

The refinement of a combined tariff of gloves for both U.S. Army men and women showssimilar results, as indicated in Table 75. Here the main requirement is for Sizes 8 and 9;Size 8 - 46.5 percent and Size 9 -- 40.6 percent. The requirement of almost 12 percentfor Size 7 is primarily for women who need the smaller glove size.

The process of tariff refinement may be continued in one more final step. It may benoted that Tables 73, 74, and 75 show tariffs for U.S. Army men, for U.S. Army women,

173

iI

Table 73. TARIFF FOR GLOVES IN MHOLE SIZES FOR U. 3. :ldIY MEN (1966)

HAND LENGTH

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.01: 12: 29: 32: 18: 2: 2: 96

H SIZE 10: : : : :

A : . . .0: .2: .4: .5: .3: .0: .0: 1.424.3

D C : 4 : 4:144:892:1365 :707 :111: 23: 3: 3249

C n : * : .1: 2.2: 13.3: 20.4: 10.6; 1.7: .3: .0: 48.6I t 21.6R i : * : 66 :594 :1504: 94: 176: 18 . : 3302C m SIZE8 : : : : : : : :U e : : : 1.0: 8.9 : 22.5: 14.1: 2.6: .3: : 4 49.5Y, t 18.9F e : : 3: :16 :12: : : : : 35E r SIZE 7 r

a s : : .0: .1: .2: .2: : . : .5E 16.2

C SIZE6 : : : : : 6 . : :E : : : : * . .

13.5

Totals 3 74 755 2420 2338 915 147 25 5 6682

Percent .0 1.1 11.3 36.2 35.0 13.7 2.2 .4 .1 100.0%

174

Table 74. TARIFF FOR GLOVES TN Wi{OLE 5IZiS FOR U. S. ,•U4Y VDITN (1977)

HAIR- LENGTH

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.O 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.0 ---

H SIZEi:: : : :A :

N 24.3--------------------------------------------------------------D C :e SIZ 9C nI t 21.6 iR i 2: 33 :157 :168: 59: 4: 423C m SIZE8 : : :

.e : *2: 2.5: 11.8: 12.6: 4.4: .3: 31.814 t 18.9F e 1 :46 :325 :395 :118 :20: 1: : 906E r SIZE.: : : : : :R s .1: 3.5: 24.4: 29.7: 8.9: 1.5: .1: 6P.1E 16.2N : : : 1 : : : :: : : : 1

C SIZE6 : : :E: : : .l:1: :: : : : .113.5

Totals 1 48 359 552 286 79 5 1330

Percent .1 3.6 27.0 41.5 21.5 5.9 .4 100.O%

"175

Table 75. TARIFF FOR (GLOVES IN MU{ULE '3IZES FR U. ly. Af1 EN AMD WOlbl

HAND ISlEIGTH

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent27 .O ... .. ....... .

: :1:Z: i : 12: 29: 32: 18: 2: 2: 96H SIZE 10 : : : : : : : : : :A : : : : .0: .i: .4: .4: .2: . : 0: 1.21. 24.3 ..D C 4 :144 :892 :1365 :707 :111: 23 3: 3249

e SIZE 9- : : : : : : : : : :0 n : 0 .0: 1.8: 11.1: 17.0: 8.8: 1.4: .3: .0: 40.6I t 21.6R i 2: 99 :751:1672:1003 :180: 18 : 3725G m SIZE 8 : : : : : : : : : : :U e . . .0: 1.2: 9.4: 20.9: 12.5: 2.2: *2: : : 46.5m, t 18.9F e : 1 :49 :329 :411 :130 :20: 1 : :941E r SIZE7 : : : : : : :z s : .0: .6: 4.1: 5.1: 1.6: .2: .0: : : : 11.7

16.2

C SIZE6 : : : : : :E 0 O : : : ::: .013.5 -. .

Totals 1 51 433 1307 2706 2417 920 147 25 5 8012

Percent .0 .6 5.4 16.3 33.8 30.2 11.5 1.8 .3 .1 100.0%

176

and for combined men and women for gloves in whole or even sizes (Sizes 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).If desired, it is perfectly feasible to generate tariffs for gloves in both whole and half sizes.This is accomplished by reducing the intervals for the sorting of hand circumference from2.7 cm down to 1.35 cm, since 1.35 cm is the range of hand circumference accommodatedby each half size of glove.

In this further tariff refinement, the computer merely is instructed to sort men's andwomen's hands into catgories of whole and half glove sizes. The resulting tariffs are shownin Table 76 for U.S. Army men, Table 77 for U.S. Army Women, and Table 78 for bothmen and women. The range of glove sizes in these tariffs covers Sizes 6, 6%, 7, 71/, 8, 8/2,9, 9% and 10.

The primary advantage of the tariff refinement process discussed and illustrated aboveis that the percentage requirement for any glove size (or half size) may be determined at aglance, since the intervals used for sorting hand circumference correspond directly to glovesizes. Also, the spread or range of hand length (or finger length) may be quickly ascertainedfor any glove size.

177

I,Table 76. TAIFF FOR GW-VES IK ',MIOLE AIM) HALF 31ZES

FOR U. S. AIUY ,Ml (1966)

HAND LENGTH

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.00270 . . 2: 3 : 2: i1: :

SIZEi :1* * * : .0: .0: .0: . : .1

25.651 . 1:12 :27 :29 :16: : 2: 88

SIZE9 : : : ::: .0: .2: .4: .4: .2: .0: .0: 1.3

24.30: * 1: 12121 :289 :217: 55: 16: 3: 714H SIZ 9

A : : .0: .2: 1.8: 4.3: 3.2: .8: .2: .0: 10.7N 22.95D C : : 3 :132 :771 :1076 :490: 56: 7: 2535e :]IZE 8AC n *C: 2.0: 11.5: 16.1: 7.3: .8: .1: 37.9T t 2 1 .60.. ..

R i 30 :397:1179 :824 :165: 16: : :2611C m SIZE8 : : : : : : :U C : .4: 5.9: 17.6: 12.3: 2.5: .2: : : 39.2Nj t 20.25F e : 36 :197 :325 :120: 11: 2 : : 691E r :517E 7½ : : : :R s .5: 2.9: 4.9: 1.8: .2: .0: : : 10.3F, 18.90

C SE3 : : :6: : : : : : : 35C : : : : : : : :

17.55 ..

SIZE, 6A

16.

14.85

Totals 3 74 755 2420 2338 915 147 25 5 6682

Percent .0 1.1 11.3 36.2 35.0 13.7 2.2 .4 .1 100.0%

178

Table 77. TARIFF Fi"1? GLOWl;- D' W nK)LE AND HALF .IZESFOR U. S. AiUTY v-i DIF (1977)

HAND LENGTH

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.00 ------------------------------------------------------

SIZEI : : : : 10

[ 25.65256---- -----------------------------------------

SIZE9 :9

24.30 -------------------------------------------------------------

H MZE9 : : ::

N 22.95-------------------------------------------------------------D C : :

e SIZE: : : : :C n :I t 21.60R : : 4: 7: 9: 1: : 21C m SIZE8 : : : :U e .3: .5: .7: .1: : 1.6N t 20.25F e : 2: 33 :153 :161: 50: 3: : 402E r IZE7 : :7:H s : : .2: 2.5: 11.5: 12.1: 3.8: .2: : 30.2E 18.90

S :17 :219 :334 :11 :20: 1: : : : 702C SIZE : : :7E 1.3: 16.5: 25ý1: 8.3: 1.5: .1: : : 52.8

17.551 :29 :106 :61: 7: : : 204

SIZE6: : :.1: 2.2: 8.0: 4.6: .5: : : 15.3

16.20* : 1 : : :: : : 3

SIZE6 : : :* * : .1; : : : : .1

14.85

Totals 1 48 359 552 286 79 5 1330

Percent .1 3.6 27.0 41.5 21.5 5.9 .4 100.0%

179

Table 78. TARIFF R-)R GLOVES IN iIlOL, AMD HALF SIZESFOR U. 3. ARU*rY •I VD WOMV I

HAID LENGTtt

Centimeters

14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 Totals Percent

27.00: *2: 3: 2: 1: 8SIZE 10 : : : : : : : :: * * . : .0: .0: .0: .0: * .1

25.65S1 12 :27 :29 :16: 1: 2: 88

0 .. .0: .1: .3: .4: .2: .0: .0: i.124.30

S : 1 :12 :121 :289 :217 :55 :16: 3: 714H UZE : : : : :9A . . : .0: .1: 1.5: 3.6: 2.7: .7: .2: .0: 8.911 22.95D C . : 3 :132 :771:1076: 490: 56: 7: : 2535eSIZE 8A

C n . : : .0: 1.6: 9.6: 13.4: 6.1: .7: .1: . 31.6I t 21.60. i : : : 30 :401 :1186 :833 :166: 16 : : 2632

C m SIZE8 : : : : : : :U e : : : .4: 5.0: 14.8: 10.4: 2.1: .2: : 33.0M t 20.25F e : : 2: 69 :350: 486 :170 - 14: 2: : : 1093E r SIZE 7-gi : : : : :R s : * .0: .9: 4.4: 6.1: 2.1: .2: .0: : * 13.6F] 18.90N : 20 :223 :350 :123: 20: 1: . 737C 3IZE 7 : : : : : : : : :E .2: 2.8: 4.4: 1.5: .2: .0: : : : 9.217.55 ,1 1: 29 :106: 61: 7: : : : : : 204SIZE Q_, : : 1

1 .0: .4: 1.3: .8: .1: : : : : : 2.516.20 ..• : : 1 : : : : : : : : 1

SIZE 6 : : : : : : : :: : : 0: .0

14.85

Totals 1 51 433 1307 2706 2417 920 147 25 5 8012

Percent .0 .6 5.4 16.3 33.8 30.2 11,5 1.8 .3 .1 100.0%

180

12. REFERENCES

1, Anonymous. RCAF Anthropometrical Survey; Based on Probability Sample of 314 Pilotsand 290 Navigators Stratified by Trade and Command 1961-1962. DefenseDocumentation Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia, 1962. (AD 809 424)

2. Barter, J.T., and M. Alexander. A Sizing System for High Altitude Gloves. WADCTechnical Report 56-599, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio, 1956. (AD 110 589)

3. Bolton, C.B., M. Kenward, R.E. Simpson, and G.M. Turner. An Anthropometric Surveyof 2000 Royal Air Force Aircrew, 1970/1971. Technical Report 73083, Royal Aircraft.Establishment, Farnborough, Hampshire England, 1973. (Also published asAGARDOgraph No. 181, NATO-AGARD, Neuilly sur Seine, France, 1974)

4. Churchill, E., T. Churchill, J.T. McConville, and R.M. White. Anthropometry of Womenof the U.S. Army-1977; Report No. 2 - The Basic Univariate Statistics. TechnicalReport NATICK/TR-77/024, U.S. Army Natick Research and Development Command,Natick, Massachusetts, 1977. (AD A044 806)

5. Churchill, E., P. Kikta, and T. Churchill. The AMRL Anthropometric Data Bank Library:Volumes I-V. Technical Report AMRL-TR-77-1, Aerospace Medical ResearchLaboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1977. LAD A047 314)

6. Churchill, E., A. Kuby, and G.S. Daniels. Nomograph of the Hand and Its RelatedDimensions. WADC Technical Report 57-198, Wright Air Development Center,Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1957. (AD 118 162)

7. Churchill, E., J.T. McConville, L.L. Laubach, and R.M. White. Anthropometry of U.S.Army Aviators-1970. Technical Report 72-52-CE, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories,Natick, Massachusetts, 1971. (AD 743 528)

8. Churchill, T., E. Churchill, J.T. McConville, and R.M. White. Anthropometry of Womenof the U.S. Army-1977; Report No. 3 - Bivariate Frequency Tables. Technical ReportNATICK/TR-77/028, U.S. Army Natick Research and Development Command, Natick,Massachusetts, 1977. (AD A046 692)

9. Clauser, C.E,, P. Tucker, J.T. McConville, E. Churchill, L.L. Laubach, and J. Reardon.Anthropometric Survey of Air Force Women-1 968. Technical ReportAMR L-TR-70-5, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio, 1972. (AD 743 113)

10. Damon, A., C.C. Seltzer, H.W. Stoudt, and B. Bell. Age and Physique in Healthy WhiteVeterans at Boston. Journal of Gerontology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 202-208, 1972.

11. Damon, A., and H,W. Stoudt. The Functional Anthropometry of Old Men. HumanFactors, Vol. 5, No. 5, 485-491, 1963.

181

S.. . .. .. .._ .. . .- J.--i i , h •i... .'~

12. REFERENCES (continued)

12. Daniels, G.S., H.C. Meyers, Jr., and E. Churchill. Anthropometry of Male Basic Trainees.Technical Report WADC-TR--53-49, Aero Medical Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AirForce Base, Ohio, 1953. (AD 20 717)

13. Danielk, G.S., H.C. Meyers, Jr., and S.H. Worrall. Anthropometry of WAF Basic Trainees.Technicai Report WADC-TR-53-12, Aero Medica; Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AirForce Base, Ohio, 1953. (AD 20 542)

14. Department of the Army. Size Tariff for Clothing, Equipage and Footwear. Departmentcf the Aimy Supply Builetin (SB 10-523), Haadquarters, Department of the Army,Washington, D.C., December 1979.

15. Department of Defense. Military Handbook: Anthropometry 6f U.S. Military Personnel(Metric). DOD-HDBK-743 (Metric), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C., 3 October 1980.

16. Dobbins, D.A., and C.M. Kindink. Anthropometry o' the Latin-American Armed Forces.USATTC Report No. 7209002, U.S. Army Tropic Test Center, Fort Clayton, CanalZone, 1972. (AD 759 949)

17. Fisher, F.R. (ed.). Protection andv Functioning of the Hands in Cold Climates. NationalAcademy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washingtoo, D.C., 1957.

18. Fisher. F.R. (ed.). Man Living in the Arctic. National Academy of Sciences - NationalResearch Council, Washington, D.C., 1961.

19. Garrett, J.W. Anthropometry of the Air Force Female Hand. Technical ReportAMRL-TR-26, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio, 1970. (AD 710 202)

20. Garrett, J.W. Anthropornetry of the Hands of Male Air Force Flight Personr,.l. TechnicalReport AMRL-TR-69--42, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio, 1970. (AD 709 883)

21. Garrett, J.W. Clearance and Performance Values for the Bare-Handed and thePressure-Gloved Operator. Technical Report AMRL-TR-68-24, Aerospace MedicalResearch Laboratories, Wrighi-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1968. (AD 681 457)

22. Garrett, J.W. The Adult Hunldn Hand: Some Anthropometric and BiomechanicalConsiderations. Human Factors, Vol. 13, No. 2, 117-131, 1971. (Also designatedas Technical Report AMRL-TR-69-122; AD 724 061)

23. Garrett, J.W., and K.W. Kennedy. A Collation of Anthropometry. Technical ReportAMRL-TR.-68-1 (2 volumes), Aerospace Medical R ese3rch Laboratory,Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, O-ito, 1971. (AD 723 629 and AD 723 630)

182

12. REFERENCES (continued)

24. Gifford, E.C., J.R. Provost, and J. Lazo. Anthropometry of Naval Aviators-1964. ReportNAEC-ACEL-533, Aerospace Crew Equipment Laboratory, U.S. Naval Air EngineeringCenter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1965. (AD 626 322)

25. Gooderson, C.Y., and M. Beebee. Anthropometry of Infantrymen 1973-1974. ReportAPRE 17/76, Army Personnel Research Establishment, Farnborough, Hampshire,England, 1976.

26, Goaderson, C.Y., and M. Beebee. A Comparison of the Anthropometry of 100 Guardsmenwith that of 500 Infantrymen, 500 RAC Servicemen, and 2000 RAF Aircrew. ReportAPRE 37/76, Army Personnel Research Establishment, Farnborough, Hampshire,England, 1977.

27. Grunhofer, Hi.J, and G. Kroh (eds.) A Review of Anthropometric Data of German AirForce and United States Air Force Flying Personnel 1967-1968. AGARDographNo. 205, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Advisory Group foi Aerospace Researchand Development (NATO AGARD), Neuilly sur Seine, France, 1975.

28. Hart, G.L., G.E. Rowland, and R. Malina. A~ithropometric Survey of the Armed Forcesof the Republic of Korea. (Cortrar.t Report, Rowland and Company, Haddonfield,N.J.) Technical Report 68-8-PR, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick,Massachusetts, 1967. (AD 640 891)

29. Hertzberg, H.T.E., E. Churchill, C.W. Dupertuis, R.M. White, and A. DamonAnthropometric Survey of Turkey. Greece and Italy. AGARDograph 73, The Macmillan

Company, New York, N.Y., 1963. (AD 421 4228) I30. Hertzberg, H.T.E.. G.S. Daniels, and E. Churchill. Anthropometry of Flying

Personnel-1950. WADC Technical Report 52-321, Aero Medical Laboratory,Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1954. (AD 47 953)

31. Ince, N.E., S. Redrup, and J. Piper. Anthropometry of 500 Rojal Armoured CorpsServicemen, 1972. Report APRE 36/73(R), Army Personnel Research Establishment,Farriborough, Hampshire, England, 1973.

32. Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF). Anthropometry of JASDF Personnel and ItsApplication for Human Engineering. Aero Medical Laboratory, Japanese Air Sell, DefenseForce, Tokyo, Japan, 1972.

33. Jones, C.E., J.L. Kobrick, arid H.F. Gaydos. Anthropometric and BiomechanicalCharacteristics of the Hand. Technical Renort EP-100, Li.S. Army QuartermasterResaarch and Engineering Centei, Nai•ck, Massachusetts, 1958. (AD 204 867)

183

12. REFERENCES (continued

34. jurgens, H.W., K. Helbig, und W. Lengsfeld (Anthropoligisches Institut der Universitat Kiel).Korpermasse 25-40 jihriger MWanner zur Prufurtg der anthropumetrisch-ergonomischenBedeutung altersbedingter Verinderungen der Kbrperform. (6ber den ForschungsauftragBMVg InSan Nr. 3571-V-072) BMVg-FBWM 73-1, Bundlesministerium derVerteidigung, Forschungsbericht aus der Wehrmedizin, Dokumentationszentr'um derBundeswehr, Bonn, West Germany, 1973.

35. Kay, W.C. Anthropometry of Republic of Korea Air Force Pilots. Republic of KoreaAir Force Journal of Aviation M-idicine, Vol. 9, No. 1, Seoul, Korea, 1961.

36. Kennedy, S.J., R.L. Woodbury, and H. Madnick. Design and Development of NaturalHand Gloves. Clothing and Equipment Development Branch Series Report No. 33,U.S. Army Quartermaster Research and Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts, 1962.

37. Kobrick, J.L. Quartermaster Human Engineering Handbook Series: 11. Dimensions ofthe Upper Limit of Gloved Hand Size. Technical Report EP-41, U.S. ArmyQuartermaster Research and Development Center, Natick, Massachusetts, 1956, (AD127 124)

38. Kobrick, J.L. Quartermaster Human Engineering Handbook Series. Ill. Dimensions ofthe Lower Limit of Gloved Hand Size. Technical Report EP-43, U.S. ArmyQuartermaster Research and Development Center, Natick, Massachusetts, 1957. (AD137 961)

39. Laubach, L.L., J.T. McConville, E. Churchill, and R.M. White. Anthropometry of Womenof the U.S. Army-1977; Report No. 1 -- Methodology ana Survey Plan. TechnicalReport NATICK/TR-77/321, U.S. Army Natick Research and Development Command,Natick. Massachusetts, 1977. (AD A043 715)

40. MacDonald, G.A.H., K.A. Sharrard, and M.C. Taylor. Preliminary Anthrcpometric Surveyof Canadian Forces Women. OCIEM Technical Report No. 78X20, Defence and CivilInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1978.

41. Martin, JI., R. Sabeh, L.L. Driver, T.D. Lowe, R.W. Hintze, and P.A.C. Peters.Anthropometry of Law Enfoicement Officers. Technical Document 442, NavalElectronics Laboratory Center, San Diego, California, 1975. (AD A017 066)

42. McCann, C., 1. Noy, B. Rodden, and 0. Logan. 1974 Anthropometric Survey of CanadianForces Personnel. OCIEM Report No. 75-R-1 14, Defence and Civil institute ofEnvironmental Medicine, Downsview, Ontario. Canad3, 1975.

43. McConville, J.T., E. Churchill, T. Churchill, and R.M. White. Anthropometry of Womenof the U.S. Army-1977; Report No, 5 -Comparative Data for U.S. Army Men.Technical Report NATICKITR-77/029, U.S. Army Natick Research and DevelopmentCommand, Natick, Massachusetts, 1977. (AD A048 591)

184j

12. REFERENCES (continued)

44. Morrison, J.F., C.H. Wyndham, N.B. Strydom, JJ. Bettencourt, and J.H. Viljoen. AnAnthropometrical Suevey of Bantu Mine Labourers. Journal of the South AfricanInstitute of Mining and Metallurgy, January 1963, 275-279.

45. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Anthropometric Source Book. (editedby Staff of Anthropology Research Project, Webb Associates, Yellow Springs, Ohio).NASA Reference Publication 1024 (three volumes), National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Scientific and Technical Information Office, Washington, D.C., July1978.

46. Niwburgh, L.H. (ed.) Physiology of Heat Regulation and the Science of Clothing. W.B.Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1949.

47. Newman, R.W., and R.M. White. Reference Anthropometry of Army Men. ReportNo. 180, U.S. Army Quartermaster Climatic Research Laboratory, Lawrence,Massachusetts, 1951. (AD 149 451)

48. Noorbni, Shoja-eddin, and C.N. Dillard, Jr. Anthropometric Survey of the Imperia! IranianArmed Forces; Volume I: Data Collection and Analysis; Volume I1: Statistical Data.Technical Report of the Combat Research and Evaluation Center, Imperial IranianGround Forces, Teheran, Iran, 1970. (AD A035 649 and AD A035 650)

-19. Randall, F.E., and M.J. Baer; edited and revised by R.W. Newman and R.M. White. Surveyof Body Size of Army Personnel, Male and Female - Methodology. Report No. 122

(Revised), U.S. Army Quartetmastei Climatic Reseaich Laboratory, Lawrence,Massachusetts, 1951. (AD 149 458)

50. Randall, F.E., A. Damon, R.S. Benton, and D.1. Patt. Human Body Size in Military Aircraftand Personal Equipment. Army Air Forces Technical Report 5501, Air MaterielCommand, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio, 1946. (ATI 25 419)

51. Randall, F.E., and E.H. Mutiro. Reference Anthropometry of Army Women. ReportNo. 149, U.S. Army Quartermaster Climatic Research Laboratory, Lawrence,Massachusetts, 1949. (AD 209 837)

52. Severn, B. Hand in Glove. David McKay Co., New York, N.Y., 1965.

53. Snow, C.C., H.M. Reynolds, and M.A. Allgood. Anthropometry of Airline Stewardesses.Report No. FAA-AM-75-2, Federal Aviation Administration, Civil AerontedicalInstitute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1975.

54. Strydom, N.B., J.F. Morrison, C.H. van Graan, J.H. Viljoen, and A.J.A. Heyns. FunctionalAnthropometry of White South African Males. South African Medical Journal, Vol. 42,1332-1335, 1968.

185

12. referencm (continuad)

55. Tebbetts, I., T. Churchill, and J.T. McCorrwil'e. Anthropometry of Women of the U.S.

Army-1977; Report No. 4 -- Correlation Coefficients. Technical Report

NATICK/TR-80/016, U.S. Army Netick Research and Development Command, Natick,Massachusetts, 1980. (AD A084 119)

56. Toulson, P.K. Anthropometric Survey of RNZAF Aircrew. Report No. AMU 3/74,Aviation Medicine Unit, Royal New Zealand Air Force, Aukland, New Zealand, 1974.

57. Vicinus, J.H. X-Ray Anthropometr'y of the Hand. Technical ReportAMR L-TDR-62-1 11, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AirForce Base, Ohio, 1962. (AD 291 412) I'

58. White, R.M. Anthropometry of Army Aviators. Technical Report EP-150, U.S. Army

Quartermaster Research and Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts, 1961. (AD 263357)

59. White, R.M. Anthropometric Survey of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. (For the AdvancedResearch Projects Agency) U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts, 1964.(AD 450 836)

60. White, R.M. Anthropometric Survey of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam.

(For the Advance Research Projects Agency) U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick,

Massachusetts, 1964. (AD 458 864)

61. White, R.M. United States Army Anthropometry: 1946-1977. Technical ReportNATICKITR-79/007, U.S. Army Research and Development Command, Natizk,Massachusetts, 1978. (AD A068 095)

62. White, R.M., and E. Churchill. The Body Size of Soldiers: U.S. ArmyAnthropometry-1966. Technical Report 72-51-CE, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories,Natick, Massachusetts, 1971. (AD 743 465)

63. White, R.M., and E. Churchill. United States Marine Corps Anthropometry. TechnicalReport NATICK/TR-78/021, U.S. Army Natick Research and Development Command,Natick, Massachusetts, 1977. (AD A073 824)

64. White, R.M., J.L. Kobrick, and T.R. Zimmerer. Reference Anthropometry of tileArctic-Equipped Soldier. Technical Peport EPT-2, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories,Natick, Massachusetts, 1964. (AD 449 483)

186

V!