Computer Program to Generate Dimensional

J. h. BARTZ
Principal Engineer.
0. R. OIANOTTI
Assistant Mathematician.
Calspan Corp., Buffalo,
N. Y.
and Inertia! Properties of the Human Body
A digital computer program has been developed to calculate dimensional and inertial
properties of the human body. The program has been designed so that the user may
either select a data set from a program library, or compute a data set from a geometric
man-model. From primary program inputs of sex, standing height, seated height,
and weight, the routines compute body segment link lengths, contact surface dimensions,
masses, and moments of inertia from inputted sets of anthropometric data. Overall
validity of the formulation and techniques has been established by comparing computed
results with measurements on the human body reported by various investigators.

Introduction mon characteristics with the present model, such as geometrical

simplification in modeling the human body.
T.
I HIS research effort1 was performed to automate, Primary assumptions applied in formulating the present model
are as follows:
at least partially, the calculation of dimensional and inertial
properties of the human body. These properties are required 1 For purposes of computing segment dimensions and inertial
for the preparation of input data sets for digital computer properties, the body is approximated by 15 rigid body segments
simulations of the motor vehicle crash victim that have been connected by 14 joints, in the manner illustrated in Fig, 1.
developed recently at Calspan. The simulations, the planar 2 These body segments are approximated with simple
(two-dimensional) Revised Occupant Simulation model (ROS),
[l],2 and the ROS model as modified by the General Motors JOINTS
Corporation (MODROS), [2], and the Three-Dimensional HEAD PIVOT
NECK PIVOT
Crash Victim Simulation computer program (3-D), [3-6], each WAIST
require hundreds of inputs to specify the simulated crash vic- PELVIS
RIGHT HIP
tim and the crash environment. These numerous inputs are RIGHT KNEE
RIGHT ANKLE
required because of the detail of representation incorporated LEFT HIP
in the simulations. Automated generation of crash victim LEFT KNEE
LEFT ANKLE
data sets offers a means to reduce overall computation cost, RIGHT SHOULDER
rapidly perform parametric variations, and decrease the possi- RIGHT ELBOW
LEFT SHOULDER
bility of human error in input preparation. LEFT ELBOW

The basic approaches and assumptions applied are similar to

those reported in other efforts to compute the inertial properties
of the human body. These include models to calculate the inertial
properties of body segments developed by Lepley [7], and Patten
and Theiss at Calspan [8], and a model to calculate inertial
properties of the whole body in various orientations that was
developed by Hanavan [9]. Work space evaluation models, such
SEGMENTS
as reported by the Boeing Company [10], Kroemer [11], and
H HEAD
Chaffin and Snyder [12], and a model for a manned spacecraft N NECK
UT UPPER TORSO
application developed by Conway [13], also share certain com- CT CENTER TORSO
LT LOWER TORSO
RUL RIGHT UPPER LEG
RLL RIGHT LOWER LEG
RF RIGHT FOOT
LUL LEFT UPPER LEG
^ponsored by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. LLL LEFT LOWER LEG
LF LEFT FOOT
RUA RIGHT UPPER ARM
'Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. RLA RIGHT LOWER. ARM
LUA LEFT UPPER ARM
Contributed by'the Bioengineering Division and presented at the Winter LLA LEFT LOWER ARM
Annual Meeting, Detroit, Mich., November 11-15, 1973, of T H E AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received at ASME Head-
quarters, July 26, 1973. Paper No. 73-WA/Bio-3. Fig. 1 Fiftaen-segment man-model

Journal of Engineering for Industry FEBRUARY 1975 / 49

Copyright © 1975 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 Table 1 Comparison of anthropometric data obtained by several Table 2 Required dimensional data
Investigators
MEASUREMENT SYMBOL

SUBJECT MEASUREMENT- STOUDT

REFERENCE
SAHLEY DAMON CLAUSER
"HLE' DAMON ET*. STOUOT

ET AL ET AL ET AL

5TH PERCENTILE HEIGHT 59.0 60.4+ 59.9 60.0

FEMALE SITTING HEIGHT, ERECT 30.9 32.0+ 32.4 31.7
SEAT BREADTH (SITTING! 12.3 13.3+ 13.5 13.3 SITTINCHE.H,
KNEE HEIGHT 17.9 Yi.2

SOTH PERCENTILE HEIGHT 62.9 64.1 63.9 63.6 HEADBfltADTH :;::;;

FEMALE SITTING HEIGHT, ERECT 33.4 33.6 34.1 33.7 •fa
SEAT BREADTH (SITTING) H.3 15.0 15.0 15.0
KNEE HEIGHT 19.6 18.8 , : ™ r .,«.„„••
50TH PERCENTILE HEIGHT 68.3 69.0 69.1
MALE SITTING HEIGHT, ERECT 35.7 36.2 36.0
SEAT BREADTH IS1TTING]
KNEE HEIGHT
14.0
21.4
14.0
21.7
13.9
21.7 ;
95TH PERCENTILE
MALE
HEIGHT
SITTING HEIGHT. ERECT
SEAT BREADTH (SITTING)
72.8
38.0
15.9
23A
73.2+
37.0+
1S.S+
23.<H
73.1
38.0
15.4
23.3 ; •
b WAI5T CIRCUMFERENCE

=
BUTTOCK CIRCUMFERENCE
E (S AMEI

KNEE HEIGHT
ZZZZ"ZT
,»„, *,.
•NOMENCLATURE OF STOUDT ET AL
+CALCULATED ASSUMING GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTION ,»«, u
™ ™
; = = « r a
u»r™™. •*11

geometrical shapes; in the present model, ellipsoids are used to

represent each segment.
I
WRIST CIRCUMFERENCE

b KNEE HEIGHT
" " " ' " " " • • " ' " " »

UffEB THSGH CJBCUUFEBEHM ir "

» ^ E R LEG CIRCUMFERENCE L
™,Vcr" ci " cu "' - •*li

3 During body motion, the various body segments move !• KNEE CIRCUMFERENCE

Eiir !S,mwrF!"tWi
K
s miNDCUMFtl"r'CE'

about joint locations that are fixed in the adjacent rigid body It ANKL* CIRCUMFERENCE ISAMEI ISAMEI -*lt
segments. »
UNKieHeffiKT.OUrSIDt
FOOT BREADTH ISAMEI
LATERAL HftttEOUS HEIGHT
ISAMEI
-
ISAMEI
J"n

4 For any given body segment, variation of segment density »

31. FOOTIENGTH ISAMEI ISAMEI ISAMEI
*X
*l\

with location is sufficiently small that the average density, taken

as uniform, is used to compute segment inertial properties.
These assumptions are similar, if not identical, to those that
were applied in the models used to calculate inertial properties
of the human body that have been previously discussed, refer-
ences [7-9]. The present model, however, differs from those
described in [7, 9] in that it also serves to define input data
sets for models in recent Calspan computer simulations of
the motor vehicle crash victim.
The 15-segment, 14-joint ellipsoidal man-model coincides
identically with the body dynamics model and contact model of
the 3-D crash victim simulation, and largely defines the plotter
graphics model of that program as well. To compute the re-
quired parameters for the eight-segment, seven-joint planar
ROS/MODROS computer program, additional mathematical
relationships are required.
In development of this model, emphasis has been placed on
obtaining results that are sufficiently accurate for use in practical
engineering calculations that require dimensional and inertial
properties of the human body. Consequently, all simplifications
and approximations that were made in the modeling effort were
aimed primarily at program utility rather than an extremely
high degree of precision of the calculated results.
To aid in the development, a literature survey of applicable
anthropometric data was performed, with emphasis placed on
data obtained recently on large, representative samples of the
U. S. population. The required dimensional data for adults
were taken primarily from Sahley [14], for two reasons. First,
a large number of measurements are presented in that reference,
which provided information for a detailed definition of the model.
Second, the measurements are based on a large sample (6283)
of the TJ. S. civilian population, both male and female. Other
sources served as useful supplements, however. For example,
Stoudt, et al. [15], also contains a tabulation of a rather large
number of measurements obtained on thousands of TJ. S. civil-
ians. Damon, et al. [16], also presents a rather extensive tabula-
tion of dimensional data obtained on large samples (thousands)
of TJ. S. military personnel, both male and female. A recently
completed study of the anthropometry of Air Force women
(nearly two thousand) by Clauser, et al. [17], also provided ad-
ditional useful information.
In Table 1, a comparison is made between some of the data
presented by Stoudt, et al., and the corresponding values pre-
sented by Sahley, Damon, et al., and Clauser, et al. It can be
seen from Table 1 that the measurements for a given size do not
vary much over a wide range of body sizes. It is clear from this
comparison that sets of dimensional measurements can be used
interchangeably for practical engineering calculations with
little error.
Stoudt [18], presents a rather detailed review of existing data
for children, together with two sets of average dimensional data
for children. They are values that were derived by Stoudt from
a large number of anthropometric studies and, therefore, should
be quite representative.
The required inertial data on body segments were obtained
primarily from results presented by Drillis and Contini [19],
which includes a summary of the results obtained by other in-
vestigators as well as their own results. The inertial data re-
ported by Santschi, et al. [20], obtained on living humans in
various body positions, were most useful in testing the predic-
tions of the model.
Development of The Model
As a starting point in the formulation of the model, a list of
anthropometric measurements required to completely define the
model was compiled. In developing this list, emphasis was
placed on using only measurements which are commonly ob-
tained in anthropometric surveys, as discussed in references
[16, 18]. It was found, however, that in order to provide suf-
ficient detail to completely specify the 15-segment model, some
less common dimensions were required. The primary intent
was to tabulate the minimum number of dimensions that would
adequately define the model. This list, presented in Table 2,
uses the nomenclature of Sahley [14], but also includes the
nomenclature of Damon, et al. [16], Clauser, et al. [17], and Stoudt
[18], whenever their terminology differs from reference [14]. In
addition, a symbol corresponding to each measurement is listed.
In some cases, two measurements are given in Table 2, either of
which may be used to define a single model dimension. The pro-
vision for two measurements in the model was included because
the survey of available data showed some nonuniformity in the
choice of measurements, such as the measure of chest depth.
To illustrate the availability of the required data, a tabulation
of these dimensions is presented in Table 3, as follows:
1 Values of the mean and standard deviation of each available
dimension for civilian males and females, from Sahley [14].
2 Values of the mean and standard deviation of each available
dimension for males and females in military service, obtained

50 / FEBRUARY 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3 Values of the dimensional data (in inches) from references given in Damon, et al. [16], and from Clauser,
SAfKIY « m l M I "kSflrAiSfi*1
et al. [17].
.«« MMMaiAlMLIMHVI 1T0UOT

3 Values of the mean of each dimension for 30- and 50-lb

UtA*
««. 515: H..N
SK'. «.* •IS: kUH
S* sa sa
MV.
children from Stoudt [18].
*3
In some cases, it was necessary to estimate the required di-
mensions for the 30- and 50-lb children from the dimensions given
-c,
by Stoudt. Stoudt considered only the seated position in his
l*-0
study, which was concerned primarily with child restraints for
*». E «•' motor vehicles. In any case, the availability of most of the re-
E 'oil
1.H'
i quired dimensions is obvious from Table 3. It should be noted
» ™ that the missing values could be easily and rather accurately
estimated from other data in the table, because there are only
"]•'
•*!•.

«™"
small variations in any given dimension among population
E samples.
• ^
« Following the identification of sufficient data to adequately
define the model, the mathematical model was formulated. To
«?„
aid in constructing the geometric model, a set of spheres, centered
on the principal joints in the extremities, was defined. These
J* spheres are illustrated in Fig. 2 for the right side of the body,
together with the dimensions that define their vertical position
from the floor for a standing position. The nomenclature is
given in Table 2, with the exception of the sphere radii, which
for the right side are defined as follows:
••*••«;-

Joint Symbol Sphere radius

right shoulder RS fRS =

2ir

Table 4 Average body segment specific gravity, p„ Lit

right elbow RE fRE =
N o m e n c l a t u r e of N o m e n c l a t u r e of iff
R e f e r e n c e 19 3-D P r o g r a m

head and n e e k (head, neck) 1. I l l Ln

right wrist RW «"RW =
(upper t o r s o , center
2w
trunk 1.031
torso, lower torso)
Lu
upper a r m (upper a r m ) 1. 081 right hip RH fRH
2TT
forearm (lower a r m ) 1. 1Z2
Ln
thigh (upper leg) 1.069 right knee RK »*RK =
2T
shank (lower leg) 1.095

1. 100
Lis
foot (foot) right ankle RA fRA =

Table 5 Average body segment mass (in percent of whole body mass)
The spheres, defined in this manner, have a circumference
N o m e n c l a t u r e of N o m e n c l a t u r e of
R e f e r e n c e 19 3-D Profiram equal to the measured circumference at or near the corresponding
h e a d , neck, a n d
joints.
(head, neck, u p p e r
trunk torso, center torso The remaining geometry, illustrated in Fig. 3, follows in a
lower torso)
straightforward manner from definition of the spheres. The
u p p e r a r m s (each} (upper a r m ) geometrical model is constructed entirely from ellipsoids, with
f o r e a r m s and (lower a r m ) an ellipsoid corresponding to each of the 15 body segments.
h a n d s (each) The ellipsoid semiaxes are computed from the breadth, depth,
t h i g h s (each) (upper leg) and height of the corresponding body segments. It should be
shanks (each) (lower leg)
noted that the lengths of the neck and torso segments are some-
what arbitrary. The ellipsoid semiaxes were selected with the
feet (each) (foot)
following considerations in mind, in the order listed:
1 Minimum overlap between segments is desirable to avoid
Table 6 Test of prediction of segment masses—values of R„ for large corrections in the computation of segment masses, which
various segments
are based on the total ellipsoid volume.
, Measured Segment Mass/
Segment n Pi edicted Segment Mass 2 The lengths of the neck and torso segments are based on
head adjacent body dimensions, not arbitrarily chosen, to insure that
neck a reasonable geometry will be produced with widely varying
upper t o r s o 1.22 sets of anthropometric dimensions.
center torso 3 The model illustrated in Fig. 3 defines both the contact
lower t o r s o model and much of the plotter graphics display model of the
upper a r m 1.08
Three-Dimensional Crash Victim Simulation computer program.
lower a r m 0. 83
upper leg 1.02
Consequently, dimensions were selected to provide realistic
lower leg 0.89
contact surfaces and also a realistic overall representation of the
foot 1.04 human form. For example, the ellipsoids for the limb segments

Journal of Engineering for Industry FEBRUARY 1975 / 51

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Tf\
w RUA

LT RH

7~? / / / / /~y / / / / ,Mu/ / /

HEIGHT

Fig. 2 Spheres used in constructing the model

RUL
were selected to be tangent to the corresponding pairs of spheres.
This assures a reasonable geometry for the limb contact surfaces
when relative motions of the limb segments occur, and also
provides a more realistic appearance in the graphics display.
Algebraic relationships for the ellipsoid semiaxes corresponding
to each segment and the locations of the joints with respect to
the adjacent segment centers of gravity are presented in detail
in reference [21]. For the sake of brevity, they are not repeated
in this paper.

Validation of the Model

To test the algorithms, some of the anthropometric data of
Table 3 were used in a series of calculations to compute the model RLL
geometries from four data sets:
50th percentile male
Sahley data, reference [14]
50th percentile female
50-lb child
Stoudt, reference [18]
30-lb child
Model geometries for these four data sets are shown in pictorial
form in Pig. 4. It can be seen that the algorithms yield realistic
results over a wide range of stature, weight, and relative propor- immnmmmw
tion. Fig. 3 Geometry of the modal
As a more critical test of the algorithms, additional model
geometries were computed in a series of calculations, again
using the data of Table 3, as follows:
were obtained from values of the mean and standard deviation
95th percentile male given in Table 3. For a Gaussian distribution, the value of a
Sahley data, reference [14] given dimensional measurement Y for a specified percentile P
5th percentile female
is related to the mean value of that measurement, m, and its
Values of all of the 31 dimensional measurements, Table 2, standard deviation, s, by the relation

52 / FEBRUARY 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 mation of segment shapes by ellipsoids, and density variation
50th
PERCENTILE
, MALE
within a given segment. To test the assumptions applied in the
50th model, values of R„, the ratio of measured segment mass to pre-
PERCENTILE
FEMALE dicted mass of the entire ellipsoid of uniform density, were
computed for various body segments. Using the set of dimen-
sional measurements reported by Sahley for a 50th percentile
male, Table 3, and a total body weight of 164 lb for civilians from
Damon, et al. [16], the values of R„ were calculated from
u Ra
Ma
(1)
30 tb irptidaKCn
=•< CHILD

where M„ is the measured segment mass, p» the segment specific

V;/ gravity, and a„, bn, c„, the segment ellipsoid semiaxes.
P The values of R„ were obtained using the values of p„ from
ri Table 4 and M„ from Table 5. The results are given in Table 6,
where it can be seen that the predicted mass for the entire
ellipsoid is typically within about 10 percent of the experimental
value for the arm and leg segments. The maximum difference is
22 percent for the other segments. These results are regarded
as quite good, considering that available experimental data are
7777777777fr77777777Zr777777777777777777777777777777777777777777~
quite scarce and are, after all, only a first approximation to a
Fig. 4 Test of the algorithm used to compute model geometry 50th percentile male. An empirical correction factor that does
not differ greatly from the value of unity lends support to the
assumptions applied in the development of the model.
Segment moments of inertia predicted from the ellipsoidal
model were compared with experimental results obtained on
Y — m + sX, where eight cadavers by Dempster and on 20 living human subjects
by Drillis and Contini. Because of the scarcity of human data,
X relates the percentile and the Gaussian exponential function measurements of segment moments of inertia made by Calspan
through

95th
e-'<*£,
^ 2^ J
PERCENTILE
P = MALE

ft/ —O

where £ is a dummy variable.

Results for these two data sets are shown in Pig. 5. Again, it
can be seen that the algorithms are satisfactory over a rather
wide range of stature and height.
The validity of the model was assessed by comparing predic-
tions of segment masses and moments of inertia with experi-
mental results reported in the literature. Because of the scarcity
of such data on individual body segments, comparisons were
also made between moments of inertia for the whole body that
were computed from the algorithms and the corresponding ex-
w
perimental results obtained on living human subjects in various
positions.
For the comparison of predicted and measured segment
masses, mean body segment specific gravities (densities) p„ and
body segment masses M„ (in percent of the whole body mass)
were required. The specific gravity data, Table 4, were obtained
from Drillis and Contini [19], and represent the average values
of measurements on cadavers reported by Harless and Dempster •i)iinrin/)niiii/i)//n/i/)///ii/i/i)uiu/iinn
(references given in reference [19]), and measurements on living
Fig. 5 Test of the algorithm used to compute model geometry
subjects reported by Drillis and Contini [19].
The average values reported by Drillis and Contini were used Table 7 Test of prediction of segment moments of inertia in the
because there is only a small variation (several percent) between sagittal plane for various segments (all values in Ib-secMn.)
the results reported by these three groups of investigators.
Segment Prediction Measurement
The average body segment masses (in percent of the whole body
mass), Table 5, were also obtained from Drillis and Contini Calapan Measure-
Dempster Drillis & Contini ments (Sierra 292-
[19] and represent the average values of measurements obtained {cadavers) (living subjects) 1050 Dummy)
on cadavers reported by Harless, Dempster, and Braune and upper a r m 0. 150 0. 123 0. 122 0. 165, 0. 167
Fischer, and measurements obtained on living subjects by Meeh lower a r m 0. 198 0. 165 0.218 0.255, 0.259
and Bernstein (references given in reference [19]), and Drillis upper leg 1.242 0.955 0. 791 0. 727, 0. 703
and Contini [19]. Again, the average values reported by Drillis lower leg 0.415 0.369 0.438 0.435. 0.437
and Contini were used because the variation between the re- foot 0.0400 0. 0274 0.0177 0.0434
0. 930 1. 18
ported results is not large (typically several percent). entire a r m 1.333 -
6.62
In the formulation, an empirical correction factor R„ is used to
entire leg 8. 38 6. 16 -
0. 980 0. 920 0,991
account for overlap between adiacent body segments, approxi-
lower leg
and foot
-

Journal of Engineering for Industry FEBRUARY 1975 / 53

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 8 Test of prediction of head segment principal moments of TABLE 9 (continued)
Inertia (all values in Ib-sec'-in.)
Configurator
Santschi, et al ent Model Hanavan
Prediction Measurement (Becker)
50th r centile male
0. 163 0.226
0. 194 0.240 nter of gravity

67
0. 133 0. 128
7.9 8.6
y 0 0*
2 26.5 26.5

moment of inertia
Table 9 Test of prediction of whole body moments of Inertia (centers
of gravity in inches, moments of inertia in Ib-sec'-in.) X 61. 1 52. 8 50.0
y 66.6 66.3 63. 9
z 33. 5 24. 8 27.4
Configuration Measured
Santschi, et al Present Model Hanavan
95th percentile male sitti "fi
rcentile male - standing
center of gravity
X 8. 5 9.6
X* 3.5 4.4 3.4 y 0 0*
Y 0** 0** 0** z 28. 4 27. 9
31.0 30.6 31. 5
moment of inertia
moment of inertia
X 78.0 66. 1
x t 115.0 107. 7 108. 1 y 85. 7 86.5
Y* 103.0 104.3 103, 9 43. 0 34. 8
z * 11.3 6.8 8. 0

95th percentile male - standing

measured from back of torso
symmetry about the sagittal plane assumed
center of gravity measured from top of head
A-P direction-negative x
to the right of the sagittal plane - positive y
S-I direction-positive z

ent of inertia
146. 8 141, 8
132.4
14, 9
135. 8
11.0
Note: The momenta of inertia tabulated are with respect to the corresponding
centers of gravity of the whole body.
on a 50th percentile Sierra 292-1050 anthropometric dummy
in related research, references [4 and 5], were included in the
comparison. The moment of inertia3 of a segment n in the sagittal
plane (erect standing position), <p„u, is given by
M„
0n„ = -~ (0„J + C„2)
O
where the segment masses are given by
M„ = - wR„p„a„b„cn.
o of 10.7 lb for a 50th percentile male. This calculation of prin-
Using the set of dimensional measurements reported by
Sahley for a 50th percentile male, a total body weight of 164 lb,
the specific gravity data of Table 4, and R„ values of Table 6,
moments of inertia of individual segments <t>ny were calculated
from equations (2) and (3) and were compared to the correspond-
ing measured values. In addition, moments of inertia of selected
groups of connected segments were .calculated from the $„„ and
M„ values and compared to their corresponding measured values.
These comparisons are presented in Table 7. The agreement is
again considered quite satisfactory, in view of the limited
available experimental data.
Additional comparisons of model predictions with more recent
experimental results have also been made. Hodgson, et al. [22],
presents inertial data on 13 male cadaver heads, which are con-
sidered to be a useful supplement to the inertial data previously
discussed. The average weight of these heads reported by Hodg-
son, et al., was 10.0 lb, which is within 7 percent of the 10.7-lb
head weight of a 50th percentile male, calculated from the
algorithms of the present model. This calculation for head mass
M was performed using equation (3), where values of R and
•TJnleas otherwise stated, moments of inertia are referenced to the corres-
ponding center of gravity.
151. 5 specific gravity p that were used are given in Tables 6 and 4,
143. 2 respectively, and using values of a, 6, and c, the ellipsoid semi-
axes of the head segment, that were calculated from Sahley data,
Table 3, using the algorithms of the present model.
The average value of the moment of inertia (about the principal
axis perpendicular to the sagittal plane) of these 13 heads, as
reported by Hodgson, et al., was 0.20 lb-sec2-in., which is within
3 percent of the value of 0.194 lb-sec2-in. for the moment of
inertia of the head of a 50th percentile male calculated from the
algorithms of the present model. This calculation of moment of
inertia <j>y for the head segment was performed using equation
(2) and the calculated values of it, a, and c previously discussed.
(2) Becker [23], presents measured principal moments of inertia
on several cadaver head segments of varying sizes. The experi-
mental results for male subject number 2986, [23], were used
for this comparison, because the measured head weight of the
(3) subject, 9.72 lb, was closest to the calculated head weight
cipal moments of inertia <j>„x, tj>„v, and (j>„x for the head seg-
ment was performed using the expressions
M
<t>ni = —" (6nJ + C»)
5
M„
0n„ = — (On* + C„s)
O
Mn
«*. = W» + &„')
and the calculated values of M, a, b, and c previously discussed.
The corresponding measured and calculated principal moments
of inertia are presented in Table 8.
The agreement between the measured values and the cor-
responding prediction is considered reasonable, because a single
male subject is, at best, only a first approximation to a 50th
percentile male.
As a further, and perhaps more critical, test of prediction of
the model, results of measurements of whole body centers of
gravity and moments of inertia of living male subjects in various
positions, reported by Santschi. et al. [20], were utilized in this
study. Whole body centers of gravity and moments of inertia

54 / FEBRUARY 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 were computed from the present model for two positions, stand- Table 10 Summary of four trial cases (legend-numbers inside
circles indicate inputs to program)
ing and sitting, and these predicted values were compared to
STANDING SEATED
Santschi's measured results. In addition, comparisons were HEIGHT HEIGHT WEIGHT
made with the predictions of a man-model developed by Hana- INCHES PERCENTILE INCHES PERCENTILE POUNDS PERCENTILE

van [9] for computing whole body inertial properties. Results

of these comparisons are presented in Table 9 for four subjects:
64.5

(66.4)
( 9

26
) 34.6

(M,6J
© 73 167
0 (nj

50th percentile male—standing

95th percentile male—standing
74.S

(75.2)
(We)

99.4
39.0

(^3)
©87
nia)

(264)
66

99.8

50th percentile male—sitting

95th percentile male—sitting. Table 11 Measurements on subject JB
Ratio,
The predictions of 50th percentile male properties from the Measured/
Di m e n a i o n a l D a t a Computed Measured Computed
present model were obtained from a series of computations using
the calculated segment masses Mn, segment moments of inertia L 1 Standing Height 66.40 66.4 1.00
<frn and link dimensions obtained in the manner previously L 2
L 3
S h o u l d e r Height
A r m p i t Height
5 7.69
53.55
55.8
50.0
0.97
0.93
outlined. The 95th percentile properties were obtained in a L 4 Waist Height 42.67 36.5 0.86
L 5 S e a t e d Height 36.60 36.6 1. 00
similar manner, using values of the mean and standard devia- L 6 Head Length 7.82 8.2 1.05
L 7 Head B r e a d t h 6. 13 6. 1 1.00
tion of the set of dimensional measurements of Sahley, Table 3, L 8 Head to C h i n H e i g h t 9 . 15 9.0 0.98
to compute a set of dimensional values Li for the 95th percentile L 9
L10
Neck C i r c u m f e r e n c e
Shoulder Breadth
14.94
18. 19
15.0
17.6
1.00
0.97
male, as previously discussed. Values of p„ and B„ for the 95th Lll Chest Depth 9. 18 9.3 1.01
L12 Cheat Breadth 12.95 13.2 1.02
percentile cases were obtained from Tables 4 and 6, respectively. L13 Waist Depth 8.47 8.2 0.97
L14 Waist Breadth 11.11 11.4 1.03
The results of Santschi, et al., are presented in terms of mean LIS Buttock Depth 9 . 13 9.8 1.07
L16 Hip B r e a d t h , S t a n d i n g 13.95 13.8 0.99
values and standard deviations for 66 subjects. They were L17 S h o u l d e r to E l b o w L e n g t h 14.78 13.8 0.93
F o r e a r m - H a n d Length 19. 17 18.3 0.96
converted to the form shown in Table 9 by assuming that the L18
L19 Bicep3 C i r c u m f e r e n c e 12.96 13.0 1.00
mean is approximately equal to the 50th percentile, and by LZ0
L2 1
Elbow C i r c u m f e r e n c e
Forearm Circumference
12.37
1 1.45
11.7
11.7
0.9S
1.02
assuming a Gaussian distribution to calculate the 95th percentile L22 Wrist Circumference 7.03 7.2 1.02
L2 3 Knee Height, Seated 20.92 19.9 0.95
values from the values of mean and standard deviation pre- L24 Thigh C i r c u m f e r e n c e 19.89 21.0 1.06
L2 5 Upper Leg C i r c u m f e r e n c e 14.66 15.0 1.02
sented by Santschi, et al. L2 6 Knee C i r c u m f e r e n c e 14.25 14.6 1.02
L2 7 Calf C i r c u m f e r e n c e 13. 12 14. 0 1.07
It can be seen from Table 9 that the primary parameters of L2 8 Ankle C i r c u m f e r e n c e 8.29 8.5 1.03
interest, the whole body moments of inertia about the x and y L29
L30
Ankle Height, Outside
Foot Breadth
2 . 72
3.68
2.5
3.9
0.92
1.06
axes (defined in Table 9), are predicted with good accuracy L31 Foot Length 10.00 10.3 1.03

(typically a few percent) by both the present model and the

Hanavan model for the four configurations considered. The
calculated moment of inertia about the z axis for both models is
consistently too small, with the present model differing most
from the experimental results. This difference is discussed in
some detail in reference [21]. Except for the center of gravity
in the x direction for the standing position, the center of gravity
is, in general, predicted with good accuracy by the present model.
A parametric study was performed to test the algorithms that
define the ellipsoidal man-model, and at the same time to obtain
. an overall check of the coding of the computer program. To
check the program in an efficient manner, its tabular output
was inputted to the plotter graphics program that was developed
for the Three-Dimensional Crash Victim Simulation program
[4]. The plotter program produces results in a form that is more
readily comprehended than a data tabulation. Emphasis in
this study was placed on testing each of the primary program
options, using inputs that represent wide variations in human
stature and weight. In the interest of brevity, only the results
from the four male trial cases considered are presented herein:4
2 standing height/seated height input options X 2 weight input
options = 4 cases.
This matrix of four trial cases covers all primary program
options for male subjects, since both heights and weight may be
inputted as either a dimension (inches or pounds, respectively),
or as a percentile. Relaxed standing height, erect seated height,
and weight data were measured for a number of males at Cals-
pan. All subjects were selected with emphasis placed on ob-
taining wide variations on these three parameters. The erect
seated height, rather than normal seated height was measured,
because erect height is probably better defined than normal
seated height and because it is more commonly measured in
anthropometric surveys. It should be noted that there is a
*Results from an additional four trial cases for females are documented
in reference [211.
relatively small difference between erect and normal seated
height, typically less than 2 in. A tabulation of these measure-
ments was reviewed, and four subjects were selected, using the
widest variation of parameters as the primary guide in the selec-
tion process. Data (standing height, seated height, and weight)
measured for these four male subjects were used as program
inputs.
These cases are summarized in Table 10, together with the
selected form of inputting them to the computer program, as
indicated by the values that have been circled. The set of values
that are circled covers all available combinations of primary
program inputs for male subjects. It can be seen from this
tabulation that the primary variables range from about the 1st
to the 99th percentiles, with some combinations of the three
primary parameters that should critically test the algorithms.
One of these cases was used to assess a rather basic assumption
applied in the calculation of segment properties. This assumption,
or more properly, rule is as follows:
If the standing height and seated height percentiles differ,
the algorithm computes head, neck, torso, and arm dimensions
corresponding to the seated height percentile, and leg and
foot dimensions corresponding to the standing height per-
centile.
This rule was adopted because it seemed reasonable, and be-
cause no obvious alternate rule was suggested by the review of
published anthropometric data. To assess this rule, one of the
trial cases, subject JB, was studied in some detail. This case was
selected because the difference between the measured standing
height percentile (26) and the measured seated height percentile
(73) was the greatest among the trial cases and, consequently,
should provide the most critical assessment of the rule.
The value of each of the dimensional parameters listed in
Table 2 was measured for subject JB, and the results are pre-

Journal of Engineering for Industry FEBRUARY 1975 / 55

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 6 Plotter graphics displays of four trial cases

sen ted in Table 11, together with the corresponding program (1) inputting his own computational tables
predictions. In this tabulation, LI, the standing height, and L5, (2) using the internal computational tables
the seated height were inputs to the computer program, so that (3) using the data library.
corresponding "computed" and measured values of those two (C) Parameters for inputting sex, standing height, seated
parameters are identical. It can be seen from Table 11 that height, weight.
the maximum difference between measured and computed re- The following output capabilities have been incorporated:
sults is 14 percent, and a simple calculation shows that the (A) The title of the case.
average difference for all 31 parameters is only about 4 percent. (B) Echo of input data (documented).
Although this comparison, with measurements obtained on a (C) A tabular listing of the dimensional data and weight
single subject, cannot be considered an absolute test of the rule tables which were used, along with titles.
previously discussed, it does indicate that* for the case con- (D) A tabular listing of all the 3-D output parameters (op-
sidered, the rule is reasonable, and there is no reason to expect tional).6
that the rule will result in errors that are excessive for practical
engineering calculations.
The plotter graphics displays, corresponding to the four trial Table 12 Primary input options
cases summarized in Table 10, are shown in Fig. 6. sex male or male or male or male or
In spite of the vast differences in program inputs for these female female female female
four cases, the algorithms are considered to generally behave standing height percentile percentile dimension, dimension
satisfactorily. It is also evident from these plots that extreme inches inches
differences between inputted standing and seated heights could seated height percentile percentile dimension, dimension
result in unrealistic geometrical configurations. Consider, for inches inches
example, the plot of subject JB (26th percentile standing height, weight percentile value, percentile value,
73rd percentile seated height). The shoulder height, calculated pounds pounds
for the seated (73rd) percentile, is somewhat inconsistent with
the standing height (26th percentile). As previously discussed,
a detailed comparison between computed and measured di- Table 13 Printout of input
mensions for subject JB is given in Table 11. sex m a l e or female

standing height p e r c e n t i l e and dimension, inches

Computer Program Summary seated height p e r c e n t i l e and dimension, inches

weight p e r c e n t i l e and value, pounds

To provide maximum flexibility for the program user and also
to simplify the input of anthropometric data published by many
different investigators in a variety of forms, the following input
options, Table 12, have been incorporated in the program. Table M Anthropometric data set options
Regardless of the option chosen, however, the printout of (male and female)
input includes the following, Table 13. For each data table:
In addition, the following options have been incorporated dimensional data, L,-: dimensional data as a tabular func-
for the anthropometric data sets or tables, Table 14. tion of percentile—15 entries per
For the data library, a collection of previously computed or table (see Table 2)
and
gathered output data sets, a total of 17 data sets are available, 9 mean and standard deviation of each
corresponding to inputs for the 3-D Program, and 8 correspond- dimensional measurement
ing to the ROS/MODROS Program. weight data: weight data as a tabular function of
The following input capabilities have been incorporated: percentile—15 entries
and
(A) Input title for each run. mean and standard deviation of
(fi) Input parameters to indicate whether user is: weight

56 / FEBRUARY 1975 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (E) A tabular listing of all the BOS/MODROS output pa-
rameters (optional).5
(F) Punched deck of all the 3-D output parameters (op-
tional).5
(G) Punched deck of all the ROS/MODROS output pa-
rameters (optional).6
Certain output features have been included to aid the user
with the various input options provided. To serve as a con-
venient reference, at the beginning of a run containing one or
more cases, a list of all input cards and the various options on
each card is output by the program. In addition, the options
chosen for each particular run are listed along with card images
and explanations. All tables used are output, and description of
the simulated crash victim and all output parameters are listed
in a tabular form that is designed for ease of comprehension.
In addition, the computed set of dimensional data Li cor-
responding to the inputted heights and weight is tabulated.
Conclusions
The model predicts body segment link lengths, surface di-
mensions, masses, and moments of inertia with acceptable ac-
curacy for most practical engineering calculations. This con-
clusion is based on the fairly detailed comparisons between
model predictions and measured whole body and body segment
dimensional and inertial properties that have been presented.
To insure acceptable results, the model should not be applied
far beyond its intended range, , which is nominally between the
1st and 99th percentile of anthropometric parameters. In
addition, combinations of input parameters that are unlikely
in a large sample of a population, such as extreme differences in
standing height percentile and seated height percentile, should
not be used, to avoid results that may be ambiguous and un-
realistic.
Computer program anthropometric tables and inputs should
be updated as more extensive experimental data become avail-
able. Provision has been made within the program for this up-
dating process.
Acknowledgments
Special acknowledgment is due to Messrs. Leonard Garr and
Seymour Samet for their advice and supervision on the pro-
gramming effort. In addition, the comments and suggestions
of the Analytical Model Simulation Subcommittee of the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association have been most helpful.
Thanks are also due to Mr. Norman DeLeys for editing the
manuscript.
References
1 Segal, D. J., "Revised Computer Simulation of the Auto-
mobile Crash Victim," CAL Report No. VJ-2759-V-2, Jan. 1971.
B
Program output consists of body segment weights, principal moments
of inertia, link dimensions, and contact Burface dimensions.
Journal of Engineering for Industry
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/13/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
2 Danforth, J. P., and Randall, C. D., "Modified ROS
Occupant Dynamics—Simulation User Manual," Research Pub-
lication GMR-1254, Research Laboratories, General Motors
Corporation, Oct. 1972.
3 Bartz, J. A., "A Three-Dimensional Computer Simulation
of a Motor Vehicle Crash Victim—Phase 1—Development of
the Computer Program," CAL Report No. VJ-2978-V-1, PB
No. 204172, July 1971.
4 Bartz, J. A., and Butler, F. E., "A Three-Dimensional
Computer Simulation of a Motor Vehicle Crash Victim—Phase
2—Validation Study of the Model," Calspan Report No. VJ-2978-
V-2, Dec. 1972.
5 Bartz, J. A., "Validation of a Three-Dimensional Math-
ematical Model of the Crash Victim," Proceedings of the Human
Impact Response Symposium, General Motors Research Labora-
tories, Warren, Mich., Oct. 1972.
6 Bartz, J. A., "Development and Validation of a Computer
Simulation of a Crash Victim in Three Dimensions," SAB Paper
No. 720961, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Stapp Car Crash Con-
ference, Detroit, Mich., Nov. 1972. Also 1972 SAE Transactions,
Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, 1972 (in press).
7 Lepley, D. A., "A Mathematical Model for Calculating
the Moments of Inertia of Individual Body Segments," GM
Report TR67-27, May 1967.
8 Patten, J. S., and Theiss, C. M., "Auxiliary Program for
Generating Occupant Parameter and Profile Data, CAL Report
No. VJ-2759-V-1R, Jan. 1970.
9 Hanavan, E. P., "A Mathematical Model of the Human
Body," AMRL-TR-64-102, Oct. 1964.
10 "Cockpit Geometry Evaluation," JANAIR Report
690104, Boeing Report No. D162-10128-1, Jan. 1969.
11 Kroemer, K. H. E., "COMBIMAN: COMputerized
Blomechanical MAN-model," AMRL-TR-72-16, 1972.
12 Chaffin, D. B., and Snyder, R. G., "New Advances in
Volitional Human Mobility Simulation," Proceedings of the
Human Impact Response Symposium, General Motors Research
Laboratories, Warren, Mich., Oct. 1972.
13 Conway, B. A., "Development of Skylab Experiment
T-013 Crew/Vehicle Disturbances," NASA TN D-6584, Jan.
1972.
14 Sahley, L. W., Dimensions of the Human Figure, Cleveland
Designers and Consultants, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, 1957.
15 Stoudt, H. W., Damon, A., McParland, R. A., and
Roberts, J., "Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimensions of
Adult Humans," Public Health Survey Publication No. 1000,
Series 11, No. 8, June 1965.
16 Damon, A., Stoudt, H. W., and McFarland, R. A., The
Human Body in Equipment Design, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1966.
17 Clauser, C. E„ Tucker, P. E., McConville, J. T., Churchill,
E., Laubach, L. L., and Reardon, J. A., "Anthropometry of Air
Force Women," AMRL-TR-70-5, Apr. 1972.
18 Stoudt, H. W., "Anthropometry for Child Restraints,"
Harvard School of Public Health Report, DOT No. HS-800 535,
PB No. 204186, July 1971.
19 Drillis, R., and Contini, R., "Body Segment Parameters,"
NYU Technical Report No. 1166.03, Sept. 1966.
20 Santschi, W. R., DuBois, J., and Ompto, G., "Moments
of Inertia and Centers of Gravity of the Living Human Body,"
AMRL-TDR-63-36, May 1963.
21 Bartz, J, A., and Gianotti, C. R., "A Computer Program
to Generate Input Data Sets for Crash Victim Simulations,"
Calspan Report No. ZQ-5167-V-1, Jan. 1973.
22 Hodgson, V. R., Mason, M. W., and Thomas, L. M.,
"Head Model for Impact," SAE Paper No. 720969, Proceedings
of the Sixteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference, Detroit, Mich., Nov.
1972.
23 Becker, E. B., "Measurement of Mass Distribution Pa-
rameters of Anatomical Segments," SAE Paper No. 720964,
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference, Detroit,
Mich., Nov. 1972.
FEBRUARY 1975 / 57