paper karla peavy simmons - ncsu

BODY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES: A COMPARISON OFTHREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING AND

PHYSICAL ANTHROPOMETRIC METHODS

By

Karla Peavy Simmons

Submitted to the TTM Graduate FacultyCollege of Textiles

North Carolina State Universityin partial fulfillment of the A1 requirement

for the Ph.D. degreein Textile Technology and Management

Raleigh, North CarolinaJanuary 12, 2001

Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paperii

Table of Contents

Page #

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES viii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. THREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNING TECHNOLOGY 22.1 Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation/ImageTwin 4

2.1.1 History 42.1.2 ImageTwin systems 52.1.3 System design 6

2.2 Cyberware 92.2.1 History 92.2.2 Cyberware systems 92.2.3 Cyberware system design 11

2.3 SYMCAD 132.3.1 History 132.3.2 SYMCAD system models 132.3.3 SYMCAD system design 14

3. TRADITIONAL ANTHROPOMETRY 143.1 Historical Practice 143.2 Methodology and Instrumentation 16

3.2.1 Methodology 163.2.2 Instrumentation 17

3.3 Landmarks 20

4. COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL ANTHROPOMETRICAL 27METHOD WITH THREE-DIMENSIONAL BODY SCANNINGMETHODS4.1 Neck-Midneck 29

4.1.1 Traditional measurement method 294.1.2 ImageTwin method 294.1.3 Cyberware method 294.1.4 SYMCAD method 294.1.5 Discussion 29

4.2 Neck-Neckbase 304.2.1 Traditional measurement method 304.2.2 ImageTwin method 304.2.3 Cyberware method 30

Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paperiii

Page #4.2.4 SYMCAD method 304.2.5 Discussion 30

4.3 Chest Circumference 314.3.1 Traditional measurement method 314.3.2 ImageTwin method 314.3.3 Cyberware method 314.3.4 SYMCAD method 314.3.5 Discussion 31

4.4 Bust Circumference 324.4.1 Traditional measurement method 324.4.2 ImageTwin method 324.4.3 Cyberware method 324.4.4 SYMCAD method 324.4.5 Discussion 32

4.5 Waist-Natural Indentation 334.5.1 Traditional measurement method 334.5.2 ImageTwin method 334.5.3 Cyberware method 344.5.4 SYMCAD method 344.5.5 Discussion 34

4.6 Waist-Navel (Omphalion) 344.6.1 Traditional measurement method 344.6.2 ImageTwin method 344.6.3 Cyberware method 344.6.4 SYMCAD method 354.6.5 Discussion 35

4.7 Hip Circumference 354.7.1 Traditional measurement method 364.7.2 ImageTwin method 364.7.3 Cyberware method 364.7.4 SYMCAD method 36

4.8 Seat 364.8.1 Traditional measurement method 364.8.2 ImageTwin method 364.8.3 Cyberware method 374.8.4 SYMCAD method 374.8.5 Discussion 37

4.9 Sleeve Length 374.9.1 Traditional measurement method 384.9.2 ImageTwin method 384.9.3 Cyberware method 384.9.4 SYMCAD method 384.9.5 Discussion 38

Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paperiv

Page #4.10 Arm Length 38


4.11 Inseam 404.11.1 Traditional measurement method 404.11.2 ImageTwin method 404.11.3 Cyberware method 404.11.4 SYMCAD method 404.11.5 Discussion 40

4.12 Outseam 414.12.1 Traditional measurement method 414.12.2 ImageTwin method 414.12.3 Cyberware method 414.12.4 SYMCAD method 424.12.5 Discussion 42

4.13 Shoulder Length 424.13.1 Traditional measurement method 424.13.2 ImageTwin method 424.13.3 Cyberware method 424.13.4 SYMCAD method 424.13.5 Discussion 42

4.14 Across Chest 434.14.1 Traditional measurement method 434.14.2 ImageTwin method 434.14.3 Cyberware method 434.14.4 SYMCAD method 434.14.5 Discussion 43

4.15 Across Back 444.15.1 Traditional measurement method 444.15.2 ImageTwin method 444.15.3 Cyberware method 444.15.4 SYMCAD method 444.15.5 Discussion 44

4.16 Back of Neck to Waist Length 454.16.1 Traditional measurement method 454.16.2 ImageTwin method 454.16.3 Cyberware method 454.16.4 SYMCAD method 454.16.5 Discussion 45

Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paperv

Page #4.17 Rise 46


4.18 Crotch Length 464.18.1 Traditional measurement method 474.18.2 ImageTwin method 474.18.3 Cyberware method 474.18.4 SYMCAD method 474.18.5 Discussion 47

4.19 Thigh Circumference 474.19.1 Traditional measurement method 484.19.2 Traditional measurement method for mid-thigh

circumference 484.19.3 ImageTwin method 484.19.4 Cyberware method 484.19.5 SYMCAD method 484.19.6 Discussion 48

4.20 Bicep Circumference 494.20.1 Traditional measurement method 494.20.2 ImageTwin method 494.20.3 Cyberware method 494.20.4 SYMCAD method 494.20.5 Discussion 50

4.21 Wrist Circumference 504.21.1 Traditional measurement method 504.21.2 ImageTwin method 504.21.3 Cyberware method 504.21.4 SYMCAD method 504.21.5 Discussion 50

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 515.1 Conclusions 515.2 Recommendations 54

6. REFERENCES 55

7. APPENDIX 637.1 Appendix A7.2 Appendix B

Karla P. Simmons A-1 Papervi

List of Tables

Page #1. Current major scanning systems 4

2. Comparison of ImageTwin scanner models: 2T4 and 2T4s 6

3. Comparison of Cyberware scanner models: WB4 and WBX 11

4. Summary of anthropometric tools and usages 19

5. Landmarks terms and definitions 21

6. Mid-neck and neckbase terms used in selected scanner models 31

7. Chest and bust terms used in selected scanner models 33

8. Waist-natural indentation and waist-navel terms used in selected 35scanner models

9. Hip circumference and seat terms used in selected scanner 37models

10. Sleeve length and arm length terms used in selected scanner 39models

11. Inseam terms used in selected scanner models 41

12. Outseam terms used in selected scanner models 42

13. Shoulder length terms used in selected scanner models 43

14. Across chest terms used in selected scanner models 43

15. Across back terms used in selected scanner models 44

16. Back of neck to waist length terms used in selected scanner 45models

17. Rise terms used in selected scanner models 46

18. Crotch length terms used in selected scanner models 47

19. Thigh circumference terms used in selected scanner models 49

Karla P. Simmons A-1 Papervii

Page #

20. Bicep circumference terms used in selected scanner models 50

21. Wrist circumference terms used in selected scanner models 51

22. Summary of traditional measurement terms compared to 53selected scanner model terms

Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paperviii

List of Figures

Page #

1. Patterned grating in the ImageTwin scanner 7

2. Booth layout of the ImageTwin scanner 7

3. 3D point cloud 8

4. Segmentation of the body 8

5. Printout available to subject 8

6. Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WB4 10

7. Cyberware 3D whole body scanner: Model WBX 10

8. Cyberware scanning positions 12

9. Scanning booth of the SYMCAD TurboFlash/3D 13

10. Standard anthropometric tools: (a) anthropometer, (b) calipers, 18(c) sliding compass, (d) tape measure

11. Diagram of principle planes used in anthropometry and terms 19of orientation

12. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the front 24of the body

13. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the back 25of the body

14. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the side 26of the body

Karla P. Simmons A-1 Paper1

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

METHODS

Introduction

In 1961, Ralph Lapp, a scientist turned writer, made these comments

about the unknown directions where science would lead us. Little did he know

that just a few years later, a new technology would be developed that would

revolutionize many industries by the end of the 21st century. This new

technology is three-dimensional (3D) non-contact body scanning.

Although body scanning applications have been used in many areas of

study, the apparel industry is anxiously researching its usage for apparel design

and the mass customization of garments. A major frustration for consumer

shopping of apparel is finding garments that are comfortable and fit properly

(Goldsberry & Reich, 1989). This frustration is caused by the current sizing

system, which was taken from an anthropometric study conducted in 1941.

Women are shaped differently today than six decades ago. New studies are

needed to record anthropometric data of today’s culture.

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


Three-dimensional body scanning is capable of extracting an infinite

number of types of data. However, a problem exists in the consistency of

measuring techniques between scanners. Among the several scanners that are

currently available, significant variance exists in how each captures specific body

measurements. Until the data capture process of specific body measurements

can be standardized or communicated among scanning systems, this island of

technology cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel industry.

This paper will to a) give a brief description of several major body scanners, b)

discuss traditional anthropometry with regards to landmarks and body dimension

data, and c) present a comparison of traditional anthropometry with the

measurement techniques for each scanner.

Three-Dimensional Body Scanning Technology

When measuring a large number of locations on the human body, the

most desirable method would be one of non-contact. Before the turn of the

century, surveyors were using non-contact measurement from a distance to

determine the shape of the earth’s surface (West, 1993). Their system of

triangulation would become the basis of modern methods whereas a light

sensing device would replace the theodolite1. In 1964, a full-scale male dummy

was designed with anthropometric measuring that utilized a simple three-

dimensional technique (Lovesey). Also in 1964, Vietorisz used a light source and

an arrangement of photo detectors to measure a person’s silhouette.

1 A theodolite is a surveyor’s instrument for measuring horizontal and vertical angles (Webster’s,1987).


In 1979, Ito used an arrangement of lights with a collection of photo

detectors, which were rotated around the body being measured. A similar

system in principle was developed by Takada and Escki (1981), but with a

different setup of lights and photo detectors. In 1984, Halioua, Krishnamurphy,

Liu, and Chiang improved upon a method by Meadows, Johnson, and Allen

(1970), known today as the Moire` fringe method. They were able to determine

the body contour height of single points using two small independent gratings of

a light source and camera.

All of these systems were only capable of measuring one side of the body

at a time. It wasn’t until 1985 that Magnant produced a system which used a

horizontal sheet of light to completely surround the body. Framework for the

system carried the projectors and cameras needed that would scan the body

from head to toe.

Systems utilizing lasers were also being developed during this same

period of the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1977, Clerget, Germain, and Kryze

illuminated their measured object with a scanning laser beam. Arridge, Moss,

Linney, and James (1985) used 2 vertical slices of laser along with a television

camera to measure the shapes of faces for orthodontic and maxillo-facial2

surgery. At this same time, Addleman and Addleman (1985) developed a

scanning laser beam system which is marketed today as Cyberware. Other

scanning systems have also been developed in the last fifteen years. A

list of the current major scanning systems can be found in Table 1.

2 Maxillo-facial is the upper jaw area of the face (Webster’s, 1987).


Table I. Current Major Scanning Systems

Scanning System System TypeHamamatsu Light

Loughborough Light

ImageTwin Light

Wicks and Wilson Light

TELMAT Light

Turing Light

PulsScanning Light

Cognitens Light

Cyberware Laser

TECMATH Laser

Victronic Laser

Hamano Laser

Polhemus Laser

3DScanner Laser

Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation (TC2)/ImageTwin

History. In 1981, a concept generated from the National Science

Foundation was formed into Tailored Clothing Technology Corporation. Their

mission was to conduct Research and Development activities, demonstrate

technology and provide education programs for the apparel industry. In 1985,

they became Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation [(TC2)]. (TC2) is located

in Cary, North Carolina where their teaching factory is visited by thousands of

industry representatives each year.

One of the research and development products invented by (TC2) has

been a 3-Dimensional whole body scanner and body measurement system


(BMS). Work on the system began back in 1991. In 1998, the first 3D scanner

model, the 3T6, was made available to the public. The first four systems to be

delivered were to Levi Strauss & Company, San Francisco, the U.S. Navy, North

Carolina State University College of Textiles, and Clarity Fit Technology of

Minneapolis.

The (TC2) scanner was the first scanner to be developed with the initial

focus for the clothing industry. In order for the American apparel industry to be

more competitive, (TC2) saw the need for the drive toward mass customization. 3

A move toward made-to-measure clothing necessitated fundamental technology

that would make the acquisition of essential body measurements quick, private,

and accurate for the customer.

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

announced the joint venture formation of ImageTwin . The (TC2) scanner will

now be known as the ImageTwin Digital Body Measurement System ([TC2],

2000). The model 3T6 is named by the number of towers (3) and the number of

sensors (6) that are used for the scanning process. New models have been

designed that have the same basic function but a smaller footprint: the 2T4 and

2T4s. The 2T4 and 2T4s have 2 towers with 4 sensors. The “s” in 2T4s stands

for short which denotes a smaller layout than the 2T4 (David Bruner, personal

communication, 2000). A comparison of the 2T4 and 2T4s scanner models is

shown in Table 2.

3 Mass Customization is a term that was coined by Stan Davis in 1987 in Future Perfect. Ingeneral , it is the delivery of custom made goods and services to a mass market.


Table 2. Comparison of ImageTwin Scanner Models, 2T4 and 2T4s

Hardware 2T4 2T4sSystem Dimensions

Height 7.9 ft. 7.9 ft. Width 5 ft. 5 ft. Length 20.5 ft. 13.5 ft.Weight 600 lbs. 600 lbs.Field of view

Height 7.2 ft. 7.2 ft. Width 3.9 ft. 3.9 ft. Depth 2.6 ft. 3.6 ft.Setup time 4 hrs. 4 hrs.Calibration time 15 mins. 15 mins.Portability Yes YesCost $65,000 $65,000

System design. The ImageTwin BMS utilizes phase measurement

profilometry (PMP) where structured white light is employed. The concept was

first introduced by M. Halioua in 1986 (Halioua & Hsin-Chu, 1989). The PMP

method employs white light to impel a curved, 2-dimenional patterned grating on

the surface of the body. An example of this grating can be found in Figure 1.

The pattern that is projected is captured by an area array charge-coupled device

(CCD) camera.


Figure 1. Patterned grating in the ImageTwin scanner.

The design of this system allows for extensive coverage of the entire

human body. After experimentation, it was determined that more detail and

coverage is required for the front surface of the body than on the back surface

(Hurley, Demers, Wulpurn, & Grindon 1997). The 3T6 has 2 front views that

have a 60 degree angle and a straight on back view (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Booth layout of the ImageTwin scanner.

With these angles, overlap between the views is imparted where a high

degree of detail is needed for high slope regions. Minimal overlap is needed on


smooth surfaces. Therefore, for height coverage, six views are utilized: three

upper and three lower.

Each system utilizes six stationary surface sensors. A single sensor

captures an area segment of the surface. When all sensors are combined, an

incorporated surface with critical area coverage of the body is formed for the use

in the production of apparel. Four images per sensor per grating are attained.

This information is used to calculate the 3D data points. The transitional yield of

the PMP method is a data cloud for all six views.

Once the image is obtained, over 400,000 processed data points are

determined (Figure 3). Then segmentation of the body occurs and the

measurement extraction transpires (Figure 4). The specific measurement output

is predetermined by the user. A printout is available with a body image and the

measurements (Figure 5).

Figure 3. 3D point Figure 4. Segmentation Figure 5. Printoutcloud of the body available to subject


Cyberware

History. Another leading three-dimensional body scanner manufacturer is

Cyberware. Incorporated in December 1982, the company’s early work

consisted of digitizing and model shop services. More than two years was spent

developing the rapid 3D digitizing that they are now known for today. Currently,

Cyberware centers on manufacturing various 3D scanners with continuing

research and development in custom digitizing. They are one of the leaders in

research concerning 3D scanning for garment design and fitting,

anthropometrics, and ergonomics. Cyberware is privately funded (Cyberware,

2000a).

The idea for whole body scanning started at Cyberware when

anthropologists at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base began deliberations on

imaging in 1991. Two years later, a formal proposal was published with an order

for a system in March of 1994. Delivery of the system was in August 1995

(Addleman, 1997). Since then, Cyberware has sold scanners all over the world

(Cyberware, 2000a).

Cyberware systems. Although Cyberware has several different types of

scanners, they currently have only two models in the whole-body scanner line,

the WB4 and WBX. The WB4 is a color whole-body 3D scanner, the goal of

which is to obtain an accurate computer model in one pass of the scanner

(Cyberware, 2000b). The subject stands on the scanner platform while the

scanner pans down the length of the entire body (see Figure 6). The WBX is an

enclosed whole body 3D scanner (Cyberware, 2000c). It was custom designed

for use in scanning military recruits for uniform issue (ARN, 2000)(Figure 7.) The


systems do have similarities. Table 3 best illustrates the features of both the

WB4 and the WBX scanners.

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

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


Table 3. Comparison of WB4 and WBX Scanners

WB4 WBXField of view

Diameter 120cm (47”) Height 200cm (79”)Scan heads 4 4Cameras 4 4Mirrors 4 0Scan cycle time 40 secs 25 secsCost $350K $150KBooth size

Width 360cm (144”) 244cm (96”) Height 292cm (117”) 244cm (96”) Diameter 300cm (120”) 244cm (96”) Weight 450Kg (992lbs)

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

Cyberware system design. Since the WBX is still in the prototype stage of

development and is currently customized for military function, the discussion will

focus on the WB4 system in this paper. The scanner consists of two towers with

a round platform in between them. Each tower has a rail with a motor attached

to move the two scanning heads. The four heads on the WB4 are separated by

75 and 105 degree angles. This layout of the heads gives the appropriate

overlap for maximum coverage (Addleman, 1997). Previous tests concluded that

the highest surface area is derived from the subject facing in the middle of the

Head 2 and Head 3 position which is separated by 75 degrees (Brunsman,

Daanen, and Robinette, 1997) (see Figure 8). With the subject standing on the


platform, the scanning heads start at the subject’s head, and move down to scan

the entire body. A typical scan is less than 30 seconds and is often completed in

as little as 17 seconds (Cyberware, 2000a).

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

Figure 8. Cyberware scanning positions.

Each one of the scanning heads consists of a light source and a detector.

Laser diodes4 are the source of light, which project a level surface of light onto a

subject. This laser line is created by tubular lenses and focusing optics. A CCD,

coupled charge device, sees the line created by the laser crossing the subject.

The image is reflected using mirrors to reduce the camera size. Electronic

circuitry distributes the raw data to the workstation for the scanned points

(Addleman, 1997).

The WB4 can produce a cloud of over 100,000 3D data points from the

human body surface (Daanen, Taylor, Brunsman, & Nurre, 1997). These points

4 According to Webster’s Dictionary (1987), a diode is a 2-electrode electron tube having anegative terminal (cathode) and a positive terminal (anode) of an electrolytic cell.

105

105

7575

Head 2

Head 3

Head 1

Head

0


are available within seconds for use. The four separate camera views are

illustrated and combined into one data set where redundant and overlapping data

are removed. For subjects larger than the maximum allowable dimensions for

the scanner (79” x 49”), two or more scans can be combined for a complete 3D

model (Cyberware, 2000b).

SYMCAD

History. In 1992, a French based company, TELMAT Industrie, developed

a computerized 3D body measuring system called SYMCAD. The System for

Measuring and Creating Anthropometric Database (SYMCAD) was first used in

January 1995 by the French Navy for uniform issue (Financial Times, 1998).

SYMCAD systems. The range of TELMAT products fall into several

categories. In the textile area, the only product they offer is the SYMCAD. They

refer to this system as “The Electronic Master Tailor”, “the SYMCAD Turbo

Flash/3D”, and “a Computerized 3D Body Measuring System” (TELMAT 2000;

L’LALSACE, 1999; Financial Times, 1998). See Figure 9 for a representation of

the SYMCAD scanner.

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


SYMCAD system design. The scanning system consists of a small

enclosed room with an illuminated wall, a camera, and a computer. The subject

enters the booth, removes their clothing, and stands in their undergarments in

front of the illuminated wall. Three different poses of the subject are

photographed: facing the camera with arms slightly apart from the body, from the

side straight on5, and facing the wall (Financial Times, 1998). These 3D images

are processed and appear on the computer screen. Over 70 measurement

calculations are made from these computerized images.

Traditional Anthropometry

Historical Practice

No two people are ever alike in all of their measurable characteristics.

This uniqueness has been the object of curiosity and research for over 200

years. In the past, different individuals have set out to express quantitatively the

form of the body. This technique was termed anthropometry. The definition

used by Kroemer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert (1986) is:

The name is derived from anthropos, meaning human, and metrikos,

meaning of or pertaining to measuring (Roebuck, Jr., 1995). The first individual

to mark the beginning of anthropometry was Quelet in 1870, with his desire to

5 Both the front and side views adopt anthropometric poses (World Clothing Manufacturer, 1996).The anthropometric position assumes the body is standing upright, and at “attention” with thearms hanging by the sides slightly apart from the body, palms of the hands facing the front, andthe feet facing directly forward (Croney, 1971).

Anthropometry describes the dimensions of the human body (p.1).


obtain measurements of the average man according to Gauss’ Law6

(Anthropometry, 2000). It wasn’t until the 1950s that anthropometrics became a

recognized discipline. Settings for usage of anthropometry include vehicles, work

sites, equipment, airplane cockpits, and clothing (CAD Modelling, 1992; Czaja,

1984; Hertzberg, 1955; Roe, 1993; Roebuck, Kroemer, & Thomson, 1975;

Sanders & Shaw, 1985).

For years, anthropometry has been used in national sizing surveys as an

indicator of health status (Marks, Habicht, & Mueller, 1989). Assessment of the

reliability of the measures has been the topic of research for just as long (Bray,

Greenway, & Molitch, 1978; Cameron, 1986; Foster, Webber, & Sathanur, 1980;

Johnston, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1972; Malina, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1972; Malina,

Hamill, & Lemshow, 1974; Marshall, 1937; Martroll, Habicht, & Yarbrough, 1975;

Meredith, 1936).

The reliability of a measurement has components of precision and

dependability (Mueller & Martorell, 1988). Of the two components, precision is

the most important determinate of reliability (Marks, Habicht, & Mueller, 1989;

Mueller & Martrell, 1988). However, reliability matters are often overlooked in

6 Kal Friedrich Guass (1777-1855) was a German scientist and mathematician known for arelation known as Gauss's Law (Hyperphysics, 2000).

Reliability is defined operationally as the extent to which a measure isreproducible over time (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Snedecor & Cochran,1980).


problem oriented research (Gordon & Bradtmiller, 1992) because of the impact of

measurement error.

Observer error is the most troublesome source of anthropometric error. It

includes imprecision in landmark location, subject positioning, and instrument

applications. This error can even be accentuated by the use of multiple

observers even when they are trained by the same individual and work closely

together (Bennett & Osbourne, 1986; Jamison & Zegura, 1974; Utermohle &

Zegura, 1982; Utermohle, Zegura, & Heathcote, 1983;). Error limits are usually

set in advance of data collection while measurer performance is monitored

throughout the process against the pre-set standards (Cameron, 1984; Gordon,

Bradtmiller, Churchill, Clauser, McConville, Tebbetts, & Walker, 1989; Himes,

1989; Johnston & Martorell, 1988; Malina, Hamill, & Lemshow, 1973). Observer

errors in anthropometry are not random and are not unusual (Bennett & Osborne,

1986; Gordan & Bradtmiller, 1992; Jamison & Zegura, 1974). Therefore,

traditional methods of measuring bodies need a great deal of improvement.

Methodology & Instrumentation

Methodology. Classical anthropometric data provides information on

static dimensions of the human body in standard postures (Kroemer, Kroemer, &

Kroemer-Elbert, 1986). The science of anthropometry is one of great precision.

Experienced workers in the field are the best to utilize this technique (Montagu,

1960).

Most measurements taken of the subject are taken in the most desirable

position of standing. However, there are a few measures which warrant


exception. Measurements are taken, whenever possible in the morning. The

human body tends to decrease in height during the day and is often more relaxed

in the morning (Montagu, 1960). It is preferable to have the subject completely

unclothed or with as little clothing as possible.

Kromer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert (1986) explain in detail the standard

method of measuring a subject:

For most measurements, the subject’s body is placed in adefined upright straight posture, with the body segments at either180, 0, or 90 degrees to each other. For example, the subjectmay be required to “stand erect; heels together; buttocks,shoulder blades, and back of head touching the wall; armsvertical, fingers straight…”: This is close to the so-called“anatomical position” used in anatomy. The head is positioned inthe “Frankfurt Plane”; With the pupils on the same horizontallevel, the right tragion (approximated by the ear hole), and thelowest point of the right orbit (eye socket) are also placed on thesame horizontal plane. When measures are taken on a seatedsubject, the (flat and horizontal) surfaces of seat and foot supportare so arranged that the thighs are horizontal, the lower legsvertical and the feet flat on their horizontal support. The subjectis nude, or nearly so, and unshod (p.6).

A diagram of the principle planes used in anthropometry and the terms

of orientation are given in Figure 11.

Instrumentation. The same anthropometric instruments have been used

since Richer first used calipers in 1890 (Anthropometry, 2000). Simple,

quick, non-invasive tools include a weight scale, camera, measuring tape,

anthropometer, spreading caliper, sliding compass, and head spanner. Table 4

summarizes the tools and their uses. Figure 10 shows the tools.


Table 4. Summary of Anthropometric Tools and Usages

Anthropometric Tool Usage

Weight Scale For determining weight

Camera For photographing subjects

Measuring Tape For measuring circumferences andcurvatures

Anthropometer For measuring height and varioustraverse diameters of the body

Spreading Caliper For measuring diameters

Sliding Compass For measuring short diameters suchas those of the nose, ears, hand, etc.

Head Spanner For determining the height of the head

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

a

b

c

d


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

7 Medial suggests near the midline. Lateral suggests farther away from the midline. Posteriorsuggests at the back of the body. Anterior suggests at the front of the body. Superior suggeststoward the head. Inferior suggests away from the head. The Median plane passes through thecenter of the body dividing it into a right and left half. The Sagittal plane passes through the bodyparallel with the median plane. The Coronal plane passes through the body from side to side atright angles to the sagittal plane. The Traverse plane is any plane at right angles to the long axisof the body (Bryan, Davies, & Middlemiss, 1996; Tortora, 1986).

YZ

XZ

XY

Lateral(Away fromthe body)

Medial(Middle ofthe body)

Posterior(Back ofthe body)

Anterior(Front ofthe body)

Transverseplane

Sagittalplane Coronal

plane

XY

YZ

Distal

Proximal(nearer tothe torsoskeleton)

Superior(Toward thehead)

Inferior(Away fromthe head)

Lateral(Away fromthe body)

Distal (furtherfrom the torsoskeleton)


Landmarks

As stated earlier, the correct identification of body landmarks is one of the

key elements in observer error in the collection of anthropometric data. In order

to have agreement as to the body measurements recorded in an anthropometric

based study, uniformity must be achieved as to what common points on the body

must be identified. These points are referred to as landmarks.

Most people have never had a formal education in anatomy to be able to

identify specific landmarks. Even though measurers are usually trained in how to

measure subjects for a study, the process is still very difficult and time

consuming. In a 1988 anthropometric survey of US Army personnel, four hours

were required to physically landmark, measure, and record the data of one

subject (Paquette, 1996).

The first step in traditional landmarking is to mark certain places on the

body with a non-smearing, skin pencil (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941) or skin-safe,

washable ink (Roebuck, 1995). A small cross verses a dot is usually used as the

marking symbol because the intersection of the lines is easier to read. The

traditional methods in determining and placing landmarks are given below.

Diagrams of the landmarks are given in Figures 12, 13, and 14.

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


Table 5. Landmark Terms and Definitions

Landmark Symbol DefinitionAbdominalExtension(Front High-Hip)

A

Figure 14

Viewed from the side, it is the measure of thegreatest protrusion from one imaginary side seam tothe other imaginary side seam usually taken at thehigh hip level (ASTM, 1999); taken approximately 3inches below the waist, parallel to the floor (ASTM,1995)

Acromion(Shoulder Point)

B

Figure 12

The most prominent point on the upper edge of theacromial process of the shoulder blade (scapula)[T]as determined by palpatation (feeling) (Jones, 1929;McConville, 1979).

Ankle(Malleolus)

C

Figures 12,13, 14

The joint between the foot and lower leg; theprojection of the end of the major bones of the lowerleg, fibula and tibia, that is prominent, taken at theminimum circumference (McConville, 1979; O’Brien &Sheldon, 1941; ASTM, 1999).

Armpit(Axilla)

D

Figures 12,13

Points at the lower (inferior) edge determined byplacing a straight edge horizontally and as high aspossible into the armpit without compressing the skinand marking the front and rear points or the hollowpart under the arm at the shoulder (McConville, 1979;ASTM, 1999). *See Scye.

Bicep Point E

Figure 12

Point of maximum protrusion of the bicep muscle, thebrachii, as viewed when elbow is flexed 90 degrees,fist clenched and bicep strongly contracted (Gordon,Churchhill, Clauser, Bradtmiller, McConville,Tebbetts, & Walker, 1989; ASTM, 1999).

Bust Point F

Figure 14

Most prominent protrusion of the bra cup (Gordon,et.al, 1989, McConville, 1979; O’Brien & Sheldon,1941); apex of the breast (ASTM, 1999).

Buttock(Seat)

GFigure 14

Level of maximum protrusion as determined by visualinspection (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et.al, 1989)

Calf(Gastrocnemius)

HFigures 12,

13, 14

Part of the leg between the knee and ankle atmaximum circumference (McConville, 1979; ASTM,1999).

Cervicale(VertebraProminous)

I

Figures 13,14

At the base of the neck [R] portion of the spine andlocated at the tip of the spinous process of the 7th

cervical vertebra determined by palpatation, oftenfound by bending the neck or head forward(McConville, 1979; Jones, 1929; Gordon, et.al, 1989;O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941; ASTM, 1999).


Landmark Symbol DefinitionCollarbone Point(Clavical Point)

JFigure 12

Upper (superior) points of the shoulder (lateral) endsof the clavical (Gordon, et.al, 1989).

Crotch Point KFigures 12,

13

Body area adjunct to the highest point (vertex) of theincluded angle between the legs (ASTM, 1999).

Crown LFigure 12

Top of the head (ASTM, 1999; O’Brien & Sheldon,1941).

Elbow(Olecranon)

M

Figures 12,13, 14

When arm is bent, the farthermost (lateral) point ofthe olecranon which is the projection of the end of theinner most bone in the lower arm (ulna) (O’Brien &Sheldon, 1941); the joint between the upper andlower arm (ASTM, 1999).

Gluteal FurrowPoint

NFigures 13,

14

The crease formed at the juncture of the thigh andbuttock (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et. Al, 1989).

Hip Bone(GreaterTrochanter)

O

Figures 12,14

Outer bony prominence of the upper end of the thighbone (femer) (ASTM, 1999; O’Brien & Sheldon,1941).

Iliocristale P

Figures 12,14

Highest palpable point of the iliac crest of the pelvis,½ the distance between the front (anterior) and back(posterior) upper (superior) iliac spine (Gordon, et.al,1989; Jones, 1929).

Kneecap Q

Figures 12,14

Upper and lower borders of the kneecap (patella)located by palpatation (Gordon, et.al, 1989;McConville, 1979); joint between the upper and lowerleg (ASTM, 1999).

Neck R

Figures 12,13

Front (anterior) and side (lateral) points at the base ofthe neck; points on each cervical and upper bordersof neck ends of right and left clavicles [J] (O’Brien &Sheldon, 1941; Gordon, et.al, 1989).

Infrathyroid(Adam’s Apple)

S

Figure 14

The bottom (inferior), most prominent point in themiddle of the thyroid cartilage found in the centerfront of the neck (Gordon, et.al, 1989).

Shoulder Blade(Scapula)

T

Figures 13,14

Large, triangular, flat bones situated in the back partof the chest (thorax) between the 2nd and 7th ribs(Totora, 1986; Bryan, Davies, & Middlemiss, 1996).

Scye U Points at the folds of the juncture of the upperarm andtorso associated with a set-in sleeve of a garment(Gordon, et.al, 1989; McConville, 1979; O’Brien &Sheldon,1941). *See Armpit.


Landmark Symbol DefinitionTop of theBreastbone(Suprasternal)

V

Figure 12

Bottom most (inferior) point of the jugular notch of thebreastbone (sternum) (Gordon, et. al, 1989; Jones,1929).

Tenth Rib W

Figures 12,14

Lower edge point of the lowest rib at the bottom of therib cage (Gordon, et. al, 1989; O’Brien & Sheldon,1941).

7th ThoracicVertebra

X

Figure 13

The 7th vertebra of 12 of the thoracic type whichcovers from the neck to the lower back (Totora,1986).

Waist (Naturalindentation)

Y

Figure 13

Taken at the lower edge of the 10th rib [W] bypalpatation (O’Brien & Sheldon, 1941); point ofgreatest indentation on the profile of the torso or ½the distance between the 10th rib [W] and iliocristale[P] landmarks (Gordon, et.al, 1989); location betweenthe lowest rib [W] and hip [O] identified by bendingthe body to the side (ASTM, 1999).

Waist(Omphalion)

ZFigure 14

Center of navel (umbilicus) (Gordon, et. al, 1989;Jones, 1929).

Wrist (Carpus) AA

Figures 12,13

Joint between the lower arm and hand (ASTM, 1999);Distal ends (toward the fingers) of the ulna (the innermost bone) and radius (the outer most bone) of thelower arm (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et. al, 1989).


Figure 12. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the frontof the body.

Shoulder Point (Acromion) [B]

Ankle(Malleolus) [C]

Armpit[D] (Axilla)

BicepPoint [E]

Collarbone Point[J] (Clavical Point)

[L] Crown

Elbow[M] (Olecranon)

Hip Bone(Greater [O]Trochanter)

Iliocristale [P]

Kneecap[Q] (Patella)

Neck [R]

Tenth[W] Rib

Wrist(Carpus) [AA]

Top of Breastbone[V] (Suprasternal)

Crotch[K] Point

Calf(Gastrocnemius) [H]


Figure 13. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the backof the body.

Cervicale(7th Cervical [I] Vertebra)

[R] Neck

7th Thoracic[X] Vertebra

Elbow(Olecranon) [M]

GlutealFurrow Point [N]

Waist[Y] (Natural Indentation)

Calf(Gastrocnemius) [H]

Crotch[K] Point

Shoulder Blades (Scapula) [T]

Ankle[C] (Malleolus)

Wrist[AA] (Carpus)

Armpit(Axilla) [D]


Figure 14. Anatomical points used in locating body landmarks on the sideof the body.

Bust Point [F]

Adam’s Apple(Infrathyroid) [S]

[W] Tenth Rib

Cervical(7th Cerival Vertebra)

[I]

Shoulder Blade [T] (Scapula)

Iliocristale [P]

Elbow(Olecranon) [M]

Gluteal Furrow [N] Point

Hip Bone (Greater [O]Trochanter)

Kneecap(Patella) [Q]

Calf[H] (Gatrocnemius)

Ankle[C] (Malleolus)

Waist(Omphalion) [Z]

Abdominal Extension [A]

[G] Buttock


Comparison of the Traditional Anthropometrical Method With 3D BodyScanning Methods

Simple anthropometric methods using measuring tapes and calipers are

still being utilized to measure the human body. The methods are time consuming

and often not accurate. With the development of three-dimensional body

scanning, this technology allows for the extraction of body measurements in

seconds. It also allows consistent measurements. However, there are several

problems that exist with the adoption of this technology.

One such issue is the comparability of measuring techniques between the

scanners. Among the growing number of scanners that are currently available,

significant variance exists in how each scanner captures specific body

measurements. Until the data capture process of these measurements can be

standardized or, at the very least, communicated among the scanning systems,

this technology cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel

industry.

A second problem is the unwillingness of some scanner companies to

share information about their scanning process. Some companies will give how

the data capture occurs, how and what landmarks are used, and general

information about their measurement extraction. However, the real proprietary

information is in the mathematic/algebraic algorithms that are used. Almost all

scanning companies are keeping this secret, which is understandable since this

might be their competitive advantage. When these particular scanning

companies are questioned about their data capturing methods, they simply give a

standard answer of “we follow the ISO standards” or a similar statement. These


are the kinds of attitudes that cause barriers to be built, which could inhibit the

growth of this technology. Research of this comparative nature should enable

3D scanner companies to see the importance of their support in order to promote

adoption of their technologies.

A third problem with body scanning technology is that there are no

standards, published or unpublished, on the interpretation of measurements or

measurement terms. Current standards for body and garment dimensions

include those established by the Association of Standards and Testing Materials

(ASTM) and the International Standards Organization (ISO). The predominant

standard for measurements taken for the military today in their issue of clothing is

the 1988 study of U.S. Army personnel by Gordon, Bradtmiller, Churchhill,

Clouser, McConville, Tebbetts, and Walker (1989).

Three-dimensional body scanning brings to the forefront issues

concerning these current standards. Most current standards require palpatation,

or touching of the human body, or the bending of body parts to find appropriate

landmarks for the needed measurements. Most scanners are intended to be

non-contact so that the privacy of the individual being scanned can be protected.

If we were to use the current standards to define the measuring process in 3D

scanning, they just will not work. New standards are needed that will work for 3D

scanners on a global basis.

A fourth problem is the need of some scanners to require landmarking.

Manually identifying landmarks is time consuming and, usually, full of error.

Landmarking also violates the privacy of the individual. A human must come in

contact with the subject’s skin in order to find the landmark and to mark it. On


the other side, another issue is that scanners that do landmarking automatically

are most times making an educated guess as to the exact location of that

landmark. Without being able to touch the subject’s skin, absolute identification

cannot be achieved.

In this study, 17 measurements were chosen that were considered critical

in the initial design of well fitting garments. These measures included

midneck/neckbase, chest/bust, waist by natural indentation/waist by navel,

hips/seat, sleeve length/arm length, inseam, outseam, shoulder length, across

back, across chest, back of neck to waist, rise, crotch length, thigh

circumference, bicep circumference, and wrist circumference. For each of the 17

measurements, the method of data capture is described below for three different

scanners: ImageTwin , Cyberware, and SYMCAD.

Neck-Midneck

Traditional measurement method. The midneck is defined as the

circumference of the neck approximately 25mm (1 inch) above the neck base

(ASTMa,1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999). The girth of the neck measured

2cm below the Adam’s apple and at the level of the 7th cervical vertebra (ISO,

1981; ISO, 1989; National Bureau of Standards (NBS), 1971). The plane is

perpendicular to the long axis of the body (McConville, 1979; Gordon, et al,

1979).

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

as the “collar”. It is measured by


Cyberware method. The “neck circumference” measure

is taken at the collar level. It is the smallest circumference of

points that pass through the center of the Adam’s Apple. It

often lies on or near a plane at varying offsets and tilt angles

(Steven Paquette, personal communication, December 1,

2000).

SYMCAD method. The “neck girth” is the perimeter of the neck that is the

smallest circumference measured from the 7th cervical vertebra (SYMCAD,

2000).

Discussion. For the midneck measure, the first issue of discussion is that

the current standards are not in agreement as to the proper method of

measurement. About 25 mm above the neckbase and 2 cm below the Adam’s

apple can vary widely between individuals. Secondly, men have an Adam’s

apple but women do not. The ISO and NBS definitions seem not to be

appropriate for women. Thirdly, the terms used for the midneck are not clear.

The midneck measure is used as the collar measurement in men’s shirts.

ImageTwin recognizes this usage by calling their measure “collar”. However,

Cyberware and SYMCAD refer to their midneck as neck circumference and neck

girth.

Figure 15.Midneckmeasurement.


Neck-Neckbase

Traditional measurement method. The neckbase is defined as the

circumference of the neck taken just over the cervical at the back and at the top

of the collarbone in the front (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999; NBS, 1971;

NBS, 1972).

ImageTwin method. The neckbase is the “neck”

measurement in this system. It is the circumference measured

right at the base of the neck following the contours. It is not

parallel to the floor (Ken Harrison, personal communication,

September, 1999).

Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a

neckbase measure.

SYMCAD method. The “neckbase” is the perimeter

around the neck defined by a plane section based on the 7th cervical vertebra

and both left and right neck bases (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. The neckbase measurement for the ImageTwin and

SYMCAD seem to be consistent with the current standards. The term “neck”

could be changed so it would not be confused with the midneck measure. This

measure is possibly more important for women than men because of the various

collarless clothing styles. Considering the development of the Cyberware system

and its use by the military, it is understandable that they have not developed a

neckbase measure.

Figure 16.Neckbasemeasurement.


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

Midneck Neckbase

ImageTwin Collar Neck

Cyberware Neck Circumference n/a

SYMCAD Neck Girth Neckbase

Chest Circumference

Traditional measurement method. The chest circumference is defined as

the maximum horizontal girth at bust levels measured under the armpits, over the

shoulder blades, and across the nipples with the subject breathing normally

(NSB, 1971; ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); parallel to the floor (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb,

1995; ASTM, 1999; McConville, 1979).

ImageTwin method. The “chest” measurement is measured horizontally

at the armpit level just above the bustline (Ken Harrison, personal

communication, September, 1999; [TC2], 1999).

Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a

measurement that differentiates the chest from the bust

measures. Their chest measure is more related to the

bust measure and is discussed in the next section.

SYMCAD method. The “maximum chest girth” is

the maximum horizontal perimeter of the chest

(SYMCAD, 2000). Figure 17. Chestcircumferencemeasurement.


Discussion. Current standards do not differentiate between the chest and

bust measurements. However, there is a distinct difference. The only system to

clearly recognize this difference is the ImageTwin . The SYMCAD

measurement discusses the maximum circumference which on a man might be

the chest measure. For a woman, the bust will almost always be the maximum

circumference. The above-bust (or chest) circumference is vitally important for

the best fit in women’s clothing. Because men’s clothing is seldom created with

a close, form fit, the measure and its determination may be less important.

Bust Circumference

Traditional measurement method. The bust circumference is defined as

the maximum horizontal girth at bust level measured under the armpits, over the

shoulder blades, and across the nipples with the subject breathing normally

(NSB, 1971; ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); parallel to the floor (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb,

1995; ASTM, 1999; McConville, 1979).

ImageTwin method. The “bust” measurement is the horizontal

circumference taken across the bust points at the

fullest part of the chest ([TC2], 1999).

Cyberware method. The “chest circumference”

measurement is the sum of the distances separating

successive points from the torso segment that lies on

or near a parallel place to the X axis which passes

through the right and left bustpoints (Steven

Paquette, personal communication, December 1,

Figure 18. Bustcircumferencemeasurement.


2000).

SYMCAD method. The “chest girth” is the horizontal perimeter measured

at the average height of the most prominent points of each breast with the

subject standing with arms apart and breathing normally (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. All three scanners have definitions that include going through

the bust points for the bust circumference. The standards discuss going across

the nipples but, if you notice, this definition is the same as the one for chest

circumference. The definition for the chest measurement should be changed in

the standards to reflect the true definition of being measured horizontally at the

armpit level just above the bustline. The terminology in the three scanners for

the bust circumference name should be changed to reflect a very different bust

measure. Since the term “bust” may be an issue in men’s measurement and not

really needed, another general term may be needed or the measurement sets

may be defined by gender.

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

Chest Bust

ImageTwin Chest Bust

Cyberware n/a Chest Circumference

SYMCAD Maximum Chest Girth Chest Girth

Waist-Natural Indentation

Traditional measurement method. The natural waist measure is defined

as the horizontal circumference at the level of the waist, immediately below the

lowest rib (Gordon, et al, 1989; ASTM, 1999; ASTMa, 1995; NSB, 1971; NSB,


1972); between the iliac crest and lower ribs (ISO, 1989; ISO, 1981); may not be

parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995).

ImageTwin method. The “waist” is the smallest circumference between

the bust and hips determined by locating the small of the back and then going up

and down a predetermined amount for a starting point to find the waist. The

system allows the user to define how far from horizontal the waist can rotate or

determine a fixed angle for the waist. Zeros for the center front and center back

values will make the waist parallel to the floor. The waist can be adjusted based

on the hips. The distance you start above the waist is based upon where the

hips are located. The system uses a formula that defines a distance above the

crotch to start the waist based on the circumference of the hips. Someone who

has rather large, wide hips might allow the waist to go up higher (Ken Harrison,

personal communication, September 1999; [TC2], 1999).

Cyberware Method. This system does not use the natural indentation of

the body as the waist measure. They use the navel as the waist landmark which

is explained in the next section.

SYMCAD method. The “natural waist girth” is the horizontal perimeter

measured at the narrowest part of the abdomen (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. Both ImageTwin and SYMCAD have definitions that

coincide with the current standards. However, palpatation or bending to one side

is needed to determine the landmarks used in the natural waist. In a scanner,

the subject stands vertically and does not move. Therefore, the standards need

to reflect this issue in their definition.


Waist-Navel (Omphalion)

Traditional measurement method. No current standard could be found

that had a waist-at-the-navel definition.

ImageTwin method. This system does not have a method of detecting

the navel for use in the waist measurement.

Cyberware method. The “waist circumference” is taken in reference to the

navel. It is the measurement of the total distance around the torso segment that

lies on or near a plane parallel to the XY plane which

passes through the navel (omphalion). The center of the

navel is taken to be the center of mass of the 3D object

occurring at or near the inside middle of the central third

of the torso segment (Steven Paquette, personal

communication, December 1, 2000).

SYMCAD method. The “waist girth (at the

navel)” is the horizontal perimeter measured where the

system detects the navel. The “belt girth” is where the trousers are worn

according to the rise as defined by the user (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. Using the navel as a landmark has a significant problem of

not being able to be located. The subject in the scanner will usually have on

clothing that could cover up the navel. This would affect other measurements

that rely on an accurate waist measure for their extraction. The terminology for

the waist-at-the-navel terms for Cyberware and SYMCAD should be changed to

indicate the usage of the navel as a landmark.

Figure 19. Waist atthe navelmeasurement.


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

Waist-NaturalIndentation

Waist-Navel(Omphalion)

ImageTwin Waist n/a

Cyberware n/a Waist Circumference

SYMCAD Natural Waist Girth Waist Girth

Belt girth

Hip Circumference

Traditional measurement method. The hip circumference is defined as the

maximum hip circumference of the body at the hip level, parallel to the floor

(ASTMa, 1995); maximum circumference of the body at the level of maximum

prominence of the buttocks (ASTM, 1999); maximum hip circumference at the

level of maximum prominence of the buttocks, parallel to the floor (ASTMb,

1995); the horizontal girth measured round the buttocks at the level of the

greatest lateral trochanteric projectors (ISO, 1989); the horizontal girth measured

round the buttocks at the level of maximum circumference (ISO, 1981).

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

circumference defined between the waist and the crotch. Upper and lower limits

can be specified by the user. These limits are based on a percentage of the

distance from the crotch and the waist and a distance above or below that point

(Ken Harrison, personal communication, September, 1999; [TC2], 1999).

Cyberware method. Cyberware does not have a hips measurement.

SYMCAD method. SYMCAD does not have a hips measurement.


Seat

Traditional measurement method. The seat measure is defined as the

horizontal circumference of the level of the maximum protrusion of the right

buttock, as viewed from the side (Gordon, et al, 1989).

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

the largest (widest) part of the bottom, as viewed from the side. The seat

measure will never be larger than the hips measure unless limits are placed on

the area the scanner searches in (Ken Harrison, personal communication,

September, 1999; [TC2], 1999).

Cyberware Method. The “seat circumference” finds the seat at the most

prominent posterior protuberance on the buttocks. Starting at the crotch, cross

sections of the pelvis are taken until the waist is reached. At each level, the

greatest posterior point is found. At the level of the most posterior point, the

circumference is measured around the point cloud (Beecher, 1999).

SYMCAD method. The “seat girth” is the horizontal

perimeter measured at the average height of the most

prominent point of the buttocks (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. The traditional definitions of this

measure allow for a great deal of measurement variance

since no consistent landmark is defined. The

ImageTwin most correctly follows the ASTMa, 1995

and ISO, 1981 standards but does not support the other definitions. The other

definitions (ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1989) most clearly follow the

Figure 20. Seatmeasurement.


definition of seat as stated above. A strong case can be made for the importance

of both hip and seat measures as well as the location of those measures form a

basic landmark (floor or waist).

Table 9. Hip Circumference and Seat Terms Used in Selected ScannerModels

Hip Circumference Seat

ImageTwin Hips Seat

Cyberware n/a Seat Circumference

SYMCAD n/a Seat Girth

Sleeve Length

Traditional measurement method. The sleeve length is defined as the

horizontal surface distance from the mid-spine landmark, across the olecranon-

center landmark at the tip of the raised right elbow, to the dorsal wrist landmark

(Gordon, et al, 1989); the distance between the 7th cervical vertebra to the

extremity of the wrist bone, passing over the top of the shoulder (acromion) and

along the arm bent at 90 degrees in a horizontal position (ISO, 1989; ASTMa,

1995).

ImageTwin method. The “shirt sleeve length” is

measured from the back of the neck, over the shoulder, and

down to 2 inches above the knuckle ([TC2], 1999).

Cyberware method. The “sleeve length” measure

starts by measuring one-half the cross-shoulder

measurement. A line is then drawn from the shoulder

Figure 21.Sleeve lengthmeasurement.


endpoint (acromion) to the wrist. One inch is added to the length to give the

approximate sleeve end point (ARN, 1999).

SYMCAD method. The “total arm length” is the distance between the

base of the neck and the exterior inferior edge of the wrist, measured along the

arm through the tops of both the acromion and the elbow, arm and forearm in a

vertical plane forming an angle of about 120 degrees. The subject must stand

with their fists about 15cm out from the hips (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. This measure, as defined here, is primarily used in men’s

tailored clothing. The ISO, ASTM, and U.S. Army study standards for sleeve

length require the arm to be bent at 90 degrees for this measure. In many

scanners, the subject’s arms are hanging straight down and are not bent. None

of these standards will work for body scanning as they currently exist. SYMCAD

needs to have a term that reflects its relationship with the sleeve.

Arm Length

Traditional measurement method. The arm length is defined as the

distance from the armscye/shoulder line intersection (acromion), over the elbow,

to the far end of the prominent wrist bone (ulna), with fists clenched and placed

on the hip and with the arms bent at 90 degrees (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995;

ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999).

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

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

SYMCAD method. The “arm length” measure is the distance between the

edge of the shoulder and the exterior inferior edge of the wrist, measured along


the arm through the top of the elbow, arm, and forearm in a vertical plane forming

an angle of about 120 degrees, standing with fists about

15cm apart from the hips(SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. SYMCAD is the only scanner with this

arm length measure at this time. It is labeled appropriately.

The current standards require the arms to be bent at 90

degrees. The ImageTwin and Cyberware require

subjects to hang their arms naturally be their side, slightly

away from the body. The SYMCAD requires an awkward stance of the elbows

bent up and out from the body. However, it does not give the 90 degrees

stipulated by the standards and is questionable as to whether this would effect

the measure.

Table 10. Sleeve Length and Arm Length Terms Used in Selected ScannerModels

Sleeve Length Arm Length

ImageTwin Shirt Sleeve Length n/a

Cyberware Sleeve Length n/a

SYMCAD Total Arm Length Arm Length

Inseam

Traditional measurement method. The inseam measure is defined as the

distance from the crotch intersection straight down to the soles of the feet

(ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995; ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1981; ISO, 1989)

Figure 22. Armlengthmeasurement.


ImageTwin method. The “inseam” measure

allows for user defined parameters on where the inseam

should be measured. Both methods start at the crotch

point. One variation of the measure can be made straight

down to the floor. The other variation can take the

measure along the inside of the leg, ending at the inside of

the foot. The default for the system gives the height of the

crotch straight up from the floor ([TC2], 1999).

Cyberware method. The “pant inseam” is the

measure of the crotch height which is the straight height

above the floor of the lowest crotch point. The legs are separated from the torso

at the crotch, therefore the measurement value is the height of segmentation

between the legs and torso (Steven Paquette, personal communication,

December 1, 2000).

SYMCAD method. The “inside leg length” is the distance measured on a

straight line along the leg between the crotch and the ground while subject

stands with legs apart (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. SYMCAD is the only system that deviates from the current

definitions in that it is measured along the leg and not straight down to the floor.

Its terminology could be changed to be inline with the others.

Figure 23. Inseammeasurement.


Table 11. Inseam Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Inseam

ImageTwin Inseam

Cyberware Pant Inseam

SYMCAD Inside Leg Length

Outseam

Traditional measurement method. The distance from the side waist to the

soles of the feet, following the curves of the body (ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1981);

following the contour of the hip then vertically down (ISO, 1989); The vertical

distance between a standing surface and the landmark at the preferred landmark

of the right waist (Gordon, et al, 1989).

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

point and follows the body down to the hips. From there, user defined

parameters allow three variations: (1) from the hip point, the measure goes

straight down to the floor and disregards whether the

legs are in the way or not, (2) from the hip point, the

measure goes down to the outside of the foot, and

(3) from the hip point, the measure goes straight to

the floor as soon as there is no leg getting in the way

([TC2], 1999).

Cyberware method. This system does not

have an outseam measure.

SYMCAD method. The “outside leg length” isFigure 24. Outseammeasurement.


the distance comprised between the natural waist line and the ground, measured

on the flank side along the hip and then vertically from the fleshy part of the thigh

(SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. Both ImageTwin and SYMCAD follow the same basic

definition. However, the standards should be clearer on the outseam measure.

Gordon’s traditional definition is really a vertical waist height measure. While an

important measure, it doesn’t have a direct application or the best fit of pants or

skirts.

Table 12. Outseam Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Outseam

ImageTwin Outseam

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD Outside Leg Length

Shoulder Length

Traditional measurement method. The shoulder length measure is taken

with the arms hanging down naturally. It is the measure from the side of the neck

base to the armscye line at the shoulder joint (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995;

ASTM, 1999); from the base of the side of the neck (neck point) to the acromion

extremity (ISO, 1989).

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

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


Cyberware Method. This system does not have a shoulder length

measure.

SYMCAD method. With the arms apart, the

“shoulder length” is the distance between the base of

the neck and the edge of the shoulder (SYMCAD,

2000).

Discussion. Both the ImageTwin and

SYMCAD have terms and definitions that are

consistent with the current standards. However, there

is still an issue of the scanners being able to correctly

identify the landmarks of the neck and acromion consistently.

Table 13. Shoulder Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Shoulder Length

ImageTwin Shoulder Length

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD Shoulder Length

Across Chest

Traditional measurement method. Measure across the chest from

armscye to armscye at front breakpoint8 level (ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb, 1995);

from front-break point to front-break point (ASTM, 1999).

8 Front breakpoint is the location on the front of the body where the arm separates from the body(ASTM, 1999).

Figure 25. Shoulderlength measurement.


ImageTwin method. The “across chest”

measure is taken from the front of the arm at the

armpit level to the front of the other arm at the

armpit level ([TC2], 1999).


have an across chest measure.

SYMCAD method. The “across chest”

measure is the distance between the points

situated at the middle of the segment between the edge of the shoulder and the

armpit in the front with subject standing with arms apart (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. The definition for the across chest measure for SYMCAD

seems unclear. Greater detail or different wording should be used.

Table 14. Across Chest Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Across Chest

ImageTwin Across Chest

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD Across Chest

Across Back

Traditional measurement method. Measure across the back from

armscye to armscye back-break point9 level (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999);

approximately the same level as the chest (ASTMb, 1995); the horizontal

9 Back breakpoint is the location on the back of the body where the arm separates from the body(ASTM, 1999).

Figure 26. Acrosschest measurement.


distance across the back measured half-way between the upper and lower scye

levels (ISO, 1989).

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

of one arm to the back of the other at the armpit level, where the arm joins the

back at the crease ([TC2], 1999).


have an across back measure.

SYMCAD method. The “across back”

measure is the distance between the points situated

at the middle of the segment between the edge of

the shoulder and the armpit in the back with the

subject standing with arms apart (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. Te definition for the across back measure for SYMCAD

seems unclear. Greater detail or different wording should be used. Standards

should be more consistent.

Table 15. Across Back Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Across Back

ImageTwin Across Back

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD Across Back

Figure 27. Acrossback measurement.


Back of Neck to Waist Length

Traditional measurement method. The back of neck to waist measure is

defined as the distance from the 7th cervical vertebra (cervicale), following the

contour of the spinal column, to the waist (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995; ASTMb,

1995; ASTM, 1999; Gordon, et al, 1989).

ImageTwin method. The “neck to waist” measure

can be measured in the front or the back. For the back

measure, it is taken at the neck base, following the contours

of the spine down to the waist at the location previously

defined in the system ([TC2], 1999).

Cyberware method. This system does not have a

back of neck to waist measure.

SYMCAD method. The “back neck to waist” is the

distance between the 7th cervical vertebra and the waist (at the navel) along the

body between the shoulder blades up to the widest point then vertically. The

“back neck to belt” is the distance between the 7th cervical vertebra and the belt

(the waist measure at the preferred height) along the body between the shoulder

blades up to the widest point then vertically (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. This is a critical measure for appropriate fit of most upper

body garments. A significant issue for this measure is the location of the waist.

When the waist measure is standardized, it will affect this measure also.

Figure 28.Back of neckto waistmeasurement.


Table 16. Back of Neck to Waist Length Terms Used in Selected ScannerModels

Back of Neck to Waist

ImageTwin Neck to Waist

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD Back Neck to Waist

Back Neck to Belt

Rise

Traditional measurement method. The rise measure is defined as the

vertical distance between the waist level and the crotch level taken standing from

the side (ISO, 1989; ASTM, 1999); while sitting on a hard, flat surface, measure

straight down from the waist level at the side of the body to the flat surface

(ASTMa, 1995).

ImageTwin method. The “vertical rise” is the

vertical distance from the crotch to the waist, not being

measured along the body. Instead, it is the difference in

height of the waist and the crotch ([TC2], 1999).


rise measure.

SYMCAD method. The “body rise” is the difference

between the height of the belt girth (where the trousers

are worn) and the inside leg length (SYMCAD, 2000).

Discussion. Again, the issue for this measure is the location of the waist.

When the waist measure is standardized, it will affect this measure also.

Figure 29. Risemeasurement.


Table 17. Rise Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Rise

ImageTwin Vertical Rise

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD Body Rise

Crotch Length

Traditional measurement method. The crotch length is defined as the

measure from the center front waist level through the crotch to the center back

waist level (ASTMb, 1995); the distance between the abdomen at the level of the

preferred landmark of the waist to the preferred landmark on

the back is measured through the crotch to the right of the

genitalia (Gordon, et al, 1989).

ImageTwin method. The “crotch length” is the

measurement along the body from the front waist through the

crotch to the back waist. This system allows the user to

define whether a front, back, or full crotch length is needed

([TC2], 1999).


crotch length measure.

SYMCAD method. This system does not have a crotch length measure.

Discussion. ImageTwin was specifically designed for use in apparel. In

this research, they were the only system to have a crotch length. The only

standard that included the crotch length is the ASTM 5586 for Women over 55.

Figure 30. Crotchlength measurement.


Other standards should include the crotch length also. This is a critical measure

for the appropriate fit of pants, shorts, or variations of each.

Table 18. Crotch Length Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Crotch Length

ImageTwin Crotch Length

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD n/a

Thigh Circumference

Traditional measurement method. The thigh circumference is defined as

the maximum circumference of the upper leg close to the crotch (ASTMa, 1995;

ASTM, 1999); parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995); at the juncture with the buttock

(Gordon, et al, 1989); at the highest thigh position (ISO, 1989).

Traditional measurement method for mid-thigh circumference. The

horizontal circumference of the thigh measured midway

between the hip and the knee (ISO, 1989; ASTMa, 1995;

ASTM, 1999); parallel to the floor (ASTMb, 1995).

ImageTwin method. The “thigh” measure offers

user defined parameters for several choices on defining

the position of the thigh. The system allows for a fixed

location of the search for the thigh. The default uses this

parameter by placing the thigh 2 inches below the crotch.

You can also program the system to find the largestFigure 31. Thighcircumferencemeasurement.


circumference between the upper and lower limits using the knee as the lower

limits or defining another one usually above the knee ([TC2], 1999).

Cyberware method. This system does not have a thigh circumference

measure.

SYMCAD method. This system does not have a thigh circumference

measure.

Discussion. The ImageTwin system allows for the determination of the

thigh circumference and the mid-thigh circumference. For pattern making, the

largest circumference is the one needed whether it is at the crotch or midway

between the hip and knee, however, it is also very important to know where that

measure was located.

Table 19. Thigh Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Thigh Circumference

ImageTwin Thigh

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD n/a

Bicep Circumference

Traditional measurement method. The bicep circumference is taken with

the arms down. It is the measure of the maximum upper arm circumference

parallel to the floor and usually taken near the level of the armpit (ASTMb, 1995);

between the shoulder joint and the elbow (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999); at the

lowest scye level (ISO, 1989); with the subject extending upper arm horizontally,


the elbow flexed at 90 degrees, the fist clenched and held facing the head, and

the subject exerting maximum effort in making the muscle flex, the circumference

of the flexed biceps muscle of the upper arm is measured (Gordon, et al, 1989).

ImageTwin Method. The “biceps” is the

circumference of the arm taken about 2 inches below

the armpit. It is not necessarily the largest

circumference of the upper arm ([TC2], 1999).

Cyberware Method. This system does not

have a bicep circumference measure.

SYMCAD method. This system does not

have a bicep circumference measure.

Discussion. The bicep circumference

needs to be the largest circumference of the upper arm. The ImageTwin

system has a bicep circumference measure but it does not reflect the maximum

circumference.

Table 20. Bicep Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Bicep Circumference

ImageTwin Bicep

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD n/a

Wrist Circumference

Traditional measurement method. The wrist circumference is defines as

the girth over the wrist bone (ISO, 1989); over the prominence of the outer wrist

Figure 32. Bicepcircumference measurement.


bone (ASTMb, 1995); over the inner and outer prominence at the lower end of

the forearm (ASTMa, 1995; ASTM, 1999).

ImageTwin method. The “wrist circumference” is

the smallest circumference from the elbow to the

knuckles of the hand (Ken Harrison, personal

communication, September, 1999).


wrist circumference measure.

SYMCAD method. This system does not have a

wrist circumference measure.

Discussion. The wrist circumference should be defined by the location. In

shirts that have a cuff, the wrist circumference should be taken at the most

prominent bones to ensure the cuff will go over the area. For shirts that have

elastic at the wrist, the wrist circumference would be the smallest area just below

the prominent bones. ImageTwin takes the smallest circumference, no matter

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

Table 21. Wrist Circumference Terms Used in Selected Scanner Models

Wrist Circumference

ImageTwin Wrist

Cyberware n/a

SYMCAD n/a

Figure 33. Wristcircumferencemeasurement.


Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

The apparel industry is diligently researching the usage of three-

dimensional body scanning for apparel design and the mass customization of

garments. Body scanning technology is capable of extracting an infinite number

of data types. However, a problem exists in the consistency of measuring

techniques between scanners. Among the several scanners that are currently

available, significant variance exists in how each captures specific body

measurements. Until the data capture process of specific body measurements

can be standardized or communicated among scanning systems, this technology

cannot be utilized for its maximum benefit within the apparel industry.

Classical anthropometric data provides information on static dimensions of the

human body in standard postures (Kroemer, Kroemer, & Kroemer-Elbert, 1986).

Body scanning is now allowing data to be captured in three-dimensions.

With the use of 3D body scanners, body measurement techniques can be

non-contact, instant, and accurate. However, how each scanner establishes

landmarks and takes the measurements need to be established so that

standardization of the data capture can be realized. In this study, seventeen

measurements were chosen as being critical to the design of well fitting

garments. On each of the seventeen measurements, the method of data capture

was described for three different scanners, ImageTwin , Cyberware, and

SYMCAD. A summary of traditional measurement terms compared to the

selected scanner models is shown in Table 23.


Of the seventeen measures in the study, ImageTwin was the only

scanner that had all of the measures. They were most closely in line with the

current standards or with what the standards should be, depending on the

measure. The Cyberware scanner is only being used by the military for size

estimation in their clothing issue. They use the WB4 in the issue of their dress

coat, dress shirt, and pants. SYMCAD is just now beginning to be used in

apparel. They have a set of 60+ measurements that are defined according to

ISO standards (so they say). These measures allow no revision or adjustment

for users needs. They also find it difficult to share information on anything that

concerns their scanner. As mentioned previously, many of the traditional

standards used by SYMCAD are inadequate for apparel fit needs and are

imprecise.

Ultimately, for this technology to serve the industry best, we must be able

to clearly and precisely indicate how and where measurements were taken.

These measures must also be accurate. We must be able to get all of the

necessary measurements to ensure fit of the garments.


Table 23. Summary of Traditional Measurement Terms Compared toSelected Scanner Model Terms

ImageTwin Cyberware SYMCADMidneck Collar Neck

CircumferenceNeck Girth

Neckbase Neck n/a NeckbaseChest Chest n/a Maximum Chest

GirthBust Bust Chest

CircumferenceChest Girth

Waist-NaturalIndentation

Waist n/a Natural WaistGirth

Waist-Navel n/a WaistCircumference

Waist GirthBelt Girth

Hips Hips n/a n/aSeat Seat Seat

CircumferenceSeat Girth

Sleeve Length Shirt SleeveLength

Sleeve Length Total Arm Length

Arm Length n/a n/a Arm LengthInseam Inseam Pant Inseam Inside Leg LengthOutseam Outseam n/a Outside Leg

LengthShoulderLength

Shoulder Length n/a Shoulder Length

Across Chest Across Chest n/a Across ChestAcross Back Across Back n/a Across BackBack of Neckto Waist

Neck to Waist n/a (1)Back Neck toWaist (2) BackNeck to Belt

Rise Vertical Rise n/a Body RiseCrotch Length Crotch Length n/a n/aThighCircumference

Thigh n/a n/a

BicepCircumference

Bicep n/a n/a

WristCircumference

Wrist n/a n/a


Recommendations

This research will establish a benchmark for the standardization of using

3D body scanners globally in the manufacture of apparel. It will enable the

technology transfer of the individual components of mass customization and

rapid prototyping to become efficient and less laborious as to facilitate greater

usage in the apparel industry. It will also help governing bodies of current

standards for body and garment sizing, such as ASTM and ISO, see a glimpse of

this important issue and raise new questions for further study.

Recommendations from this research include:

• Current standards need to be revised to include three-dimensional body

scanning or create a new set of standards specifically for body scanning.

These standards need to take into account the terminology of measures and

the non-palpatation by the measurer or movement of the subject.

• Terminology for the individual measures between the scanners need to be

standardized. This can only happen if all scanner companies are willing to

share their information.

• This research only compared three of the major scanners available. Other

research should be targeted on other scanning systems.

• Research should be initiated concerning gathering information from the “hard-

to-get-to” companies that are reluctant to share. All available resources

should be utilized to get this information.


References

Addleman, S. (1997). Whole-body 3D scanner and scan data report. SPIE,

3023, 2-5.

Addleman, D. & Addleman, L. (1985). Rapid 3D digitizing. Computer Graphics

World, 8, 42-44.

American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995a). Standard table

of body measurements for adult female misses figure type, sizes 2-20.

(Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5585-95). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.

American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995b). Standard table

of body measurements for women aged 55 and older (all figure type).

(Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5586-95). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.

American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1999). Standard

terminology relating to body dimensions for apparel sizing. (Vol. 07-02,

Designation: D5219-99). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.

Anthropometry. (2000, June 21). Anthropometry. [Online]. Available:

http://www.sameint.it/dietosys/diets/englboro/bro03.htm [6/21/00].

Apparel Research Network (ARN). (2000, August 13). Apparel Research

Network (ARN) redesigned 3-D whole body scanner-WBX for recruit

clothing issues. ARN homepage available online at:

http://arn.iitri.org/docs/scan/systems/wbxwar.html [8/13/00].

Apparel Research Network (ARN). (1999, July 19). Apparel Research Network

(ARN): ARNscan repeatability test: 19-23 July 1999. ARN homepage

available online at: http://arn.iitri.org/ipr/3d-scan/repeat.html [9/11/00].


Arridge, S.R., Moss, J.P., Linney, A.D. & James, D. (1985). Three dimensional

digitization of the face and skull. Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery, 13, 136-

143.

Beecher, R.M. (1999, Novemebr 24). Automating information extraction from 3D

body scan data. ARN homepage available online at:

http://arn.iitri.org/ftr/br03/br03.html [11/24/00].

Bennett, K.A. & Osborne, R.H. (1986). Interobserver measurement reliability in

anthropometry. Human Biology, 39, 124-130.

Bray, G.A., Greenway, F.L., & Molitch, M.E. (1978). Use of anthropometric

measures to assess weight loss. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,

31, 769-73.

Brunsman, M.A., Daanen, H.M. & Robinette, K.M. (1997). Optimal postures and

positioning for human body scanning. IEEE, 266-273.

Byran, G.J., Davies, E.R., & Middlemiss, S. H. (1996). Skeletal anatomy, 3rd ed.

New York: Churchill Livingston.

CAD Modelling (1992). Sales brochure (Piazza Beccaria, n.6. 50121). Florence,

Italy: Author.

Cameron, N. (1984). The measurement of human growth. London: Croom Helm.

Cameron, N. (1986). The methods of auxological anthropology. In: Faulkner, F.,

Tanner, J.M. (Eds). Human Growth, 3, pp. 3-46. New York: Plenum

Press.

Clerget, M., Germain, F., & Kryze, J. (1977, September 1). Process and

apparatus for optically exploring the surface of the body (United States

Patent 829,936). United State Patent and Trademark Office.


Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimental design and analysis

issues for field surveys. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Croney, John. (1971). Anthropometrics for designers. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold Company.

Cyberware (2000a, September 13). Corporate backgrounder. Cyberware

homepage available online at:

http://www.cyberware.com/info/backgrounder.html [9/13/00].

Cyberware. (2000b, June 19). Whole body color 3D scanner: Model WB4.

Cyberware homepage available online at:

http://www.cyberware.com/products/wbInfo.html [6/19/00].

Cyberware. (2000c, June 19). Custom scanner: Whole body color 3D scanner:

WBX prototype. Cyberware homepage available online at:

http://www.cyberware.com/products/wbxInfo.html [6/19/00].

Czaja, S. (1984). Hand anthropometrics. (Technical paper with comments).

Washington, D.C.: US Architectural and Transportation Barriers

Compliance board.

Daanen, H., Taylor, S.E., Brunsman, M.A., & Nurre, J. H. (1997). Absolute

accuracy of the the Cyberware WB4 whole body scanner. SPIE, 3023, 6-

12.

Financial Times (1998, February 13). Cut down to size. Financial Times [Online].

Available: http://www.symcad.com/eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00].

Foster, T.A., Webber, L.S., & Sathanur, R. (1980). Measurement error of risk

factor variables in an oeidemiologic study of children: The Bugalusa heart

study. Journal of Chronic Disease, 33, 661-72.


Goldsberry, E. & Reich, N. (1989, September). It either fits or it doesn’t. ASTM

Standardization News, 17(9), 42-44.

Gordon, C.C. & Bradtmiller, B. (1992). Interobserver error in a large scale

anthropometric survey. American Journal of Human Biology,4, 253-263.

Gordon, C.C., Bradtmiller, B., Churchill, T., Clauser, C.E. McConville, J.T.,

Tebbetts, I.O., & Walker, R.A. (1989). 1988 Anthropometric survey of

U.S. Army personnel: Methods and summary statistics (Technical Report

NATICK/TR-89/044). Natick, MA : U.S. Army Natick Research,

Development, and Engineering Center.

Halioua, M.L. & Hsin-Chu. (1989). Optical three-dimensional sensing by phase

measuring profilometry. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 0143-8166,

185-215.

Halioua, M., Krishnamurthy, R.S., Liu, H., & Chiang, F.P. (1984). Projection

moire` with moving gratings for automated 3-D topography. Applied

Optics, 22, 850-855.

Hertzberg, H.T.E. (1955). Some contributions of applied physical anthropology

to human engineering. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 63,

616-629.

Himes, J.H. (1989). Reliability of anthropometric methods and replicate

measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 40, 197-203.

Hurley, J.D., Demers, M.H., Wulpern, R.C., & Grindon, J.R. (1997). Body

measurement system using white light projected patterns for made-to-

measure apparel. SPIE, 3131, 212-223.


Hyperphysics. (2000). Gauss’s law [Online]. Available: http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/gaulaw.html [11/05/00].

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1981). Size designation of

clothes-definition and body measurement procedure. (Reference No.

3635-1981). Switzerland: ISO.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1989). Garment

construction and anthropometric surveys-body dimensions. (Reference

No. 8559-1989). Switzerland: ISO.

Ito, I. (1979, July 20). Apparatus for measuring the contour configuration of

articles. (U.K. Patent G.B. 2030286 b). London: British Patent Office.

Jamison, P.L. & Zegura, S.L. (1974). A univariate and multivariate examination

of measurement error in anthropometry. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology, 40, 197-203.

Johnston, F.E. & Martorell, R. (1988). Population surveys. In T.G. Lohman, A.F.

Roche, and R. Martorell (Eds.): Anthropometric Standardization Reference

Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 107-110.

Johnston, F.E. , Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1972). Skinfold thickness of

children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11,

No. 120). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.

Jones, F.W. (1929). Measurements and landmarks in physical anthropology.

Honolulu, Hawaii: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.


Kroemer, K.H.E., Kroemer, H.J., & Kroemer-Elbert, K.E. (1986). Engineering

physiology: Physiologic bases of human factors/ergonomics. Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

L’ALSACE. (1999, June 30). From different angles. L’ALSACE [Online].

Available: http://www.symcad.com/eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00].

Lapp, R. E. (1961). The new priesthood. New York: Harper & Row.

Lovesey, E.J. (1964). Some factors determining the design of anthropometric

dummies. Unpublished diploma thesis. The College of Aeronautics.

Magnant, D. (1985). Capteur tridemensional sans contact. Proceedings of the

Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 602, 18-22.

Malina, R.M., Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1972). Selected body

measurements of children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health

Statistics, Series 11, No. 123). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

Malina, R.M., Hamill, P.V.V., & Lemshow, S. (1974). Body dimensions and

proportions, white and negro children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and

Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 143). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.

Marks, G.C., Habicht, J.P., & Mueller, W.H. (1989). Reliability, dependability,

and precision of anthropometric measurements. American Journal of

Epidemiology, 130 (3), 578-587.

Marshall, E.L. (1937). The objectivity of anthropometric measurments taken on

eight- and nine-year-old white males. Child Development, 8, 249-56.


Martorell, R., Habicht, J.P., & Yarbrough, C. (1975). The identification and

evaluation of measurment variability in the antropometry of preschool

children. American Journal of Physical Antrhopology, 43, 347-52.

Meadows, D.M., Johnson, W.O., & Allen J. (1970). Generation of surface

countours by Moire` patterns. Applied Optics, 9, 942-947.

McConville, J.T. (1979). Anthropometric source book volume I: Anthropometry for

designers. (NASA Reference Publication No. 1024). Scientific and

Technical Information Office.

Meredith, H.V. (1936). The reliability of anthropometric measurments taken on

eight- and nine-year-old white males. Child Development, 7, 262-72.

Montagu, M.F.A. (1960). A handbook of anthropometry. Springfield, IL: Charles

C. Thomas.

Mueller, W.H. & Martorell, R. (1988). Reliability and accuracy of measurement.

In T.G. Lohman, A.F. Roche, and R. Martorell (Eds.): Anthropometric

Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics

Books, pp.83-86.

National Bureau of Standards (NBS). (1971). Body measurements for the sizing

of women’s patterns and apparel. (NBS Voluntary Product Standard PS

42-70). Gaithersburg, MD: United State Department of Commerce/

National Bureau of Standards.

O’Brien, R. & Shelton, W.C. (1941, December). Women’s measurements for

garment and pattern construction. (Miscellaneous Publication No. 454).

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.


Paquette, S. (1996, September). 3D scanning in apparel design and human

engineering. IEEE Computer Graphics and Application, 16 (5), 11-15.

Roe, R.W. (1993). Occupant packaging. In J.B. Peacock & W. Karwoski (Eds.),

Automotive ergonomics-Human factors in the design and use of

automobiles, (pp. 11-42). London: Taylor & Francis.

Roebuck, Jr., J.A. (1995). Anthropometric methods: Designing to fit the human

body. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society.

Roebuck, Jr. J.A., Kroemer, K.H.E. & Thomson, W.G. (1975). Engineering

anthropometry methods. New York: Wiley.

Sanders, M.S. & Shaw, B.E. (1985). US truck driver anthropometric and truck

work space data survey: Sample selection and methodology (SAE

Technical Paper 852315). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive

Engineers.

Snedecor, G.W. & Cochran, W.G. (1980). Statistical methods. 7th ed. Ames:

Iowa State University Press, p. 183.

SYMCAD. (2000, August 23). Measurements automatically taken by SYMCAD.

Unpublished internal document.

Takada, M., & Esaki, T. (1981, Janaury 26). Method and apparatus for

measuring human body or the like (U.K. Patent G.B. 2069690 B). London:

British Patent Office.

(TC2). (1999). [Body scanner measurement descriptions.] Unpublished internal

document.


(TC2). (2000, July 25). (TC2) joins forces with Konover Property Trust subsidiary

to launch ImageTwin : Digital Body Scanning and Measurement System

[Online]. Available: http://www.tc2.com/Home/HomeNews.htm [10/23/00].

TELMAT. (2000, November 3). Our product range. [Online]. Available:

http://www.telmat-net.fr/Eng/products.htm [11/03/00].

Tortora, G.J. (1986). Principles of human anatomy, 4th ed. New York: Harper &

Row.

Utermohle, C.J. & Zegura, S.L. (1982). Intra- and interobserver error in

craniometry: a cautionary tale. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology, 57, 303-310.

Utermohle, C.J., Zegura, S.L., & Heathcote, G. M. (1983). Multiple observers,

humidity, and choice of precision of statistics: factors influencing

craniometric data quality. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 61,

85-95.

Vietorisz, T. (1964, December 16). Improvements in or relating to the scanning

of objects to provide indications of shape (U.K. Patent 1,078,108).

London: British Patent Office.

Webster. (1987). Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA:

Merriam-Webster.

West, G.M. (1993). Automated shape anthropometry. Unpublished doctoral

thesis. Loughborough University of Technology.


World Clothing Manufacturer (1996, May 4). Shape of things to come? World

Clothing Manufacturer, 4 [Online]. Available: http://www.symcad.com/

eng/ukpress.html [6/19/00].

paper karla peavy simmons - ncsu

Documents