IMBSIR 79-1949 (Navy) ^

RLE COPY

CO NOT REMOVE

JAN I 7 iseo

Evaluation of Selected Navy Equipment

for the Women-Aboard-Ship Program

mwmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmammiummmmimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmgmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmtmmmmmmmmammmmmmmmmm

Robert L. Paila, Jr. Clarke E. Jones

C. Denver Lovett Louis G. Porter

Center for Consumer Product Technology

and

Belinda L. Coilins

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

December 1979

issued January 1980

Prepared for

U.S. Department of the Navy

Naval Ship Engineering Center

Washington, D.C. 20362
v','d fr.
NBSIR 79-1949 (Navy)

EVALUATION OF SELECTED NAVY EQUIPMENT

FOR THE WOMEN-ABOARD-SHIP PROGRAM

Robert L. Palla, Jr. Clarke E. Jones

C. Denver Lovett

Louis G. Porter

Center for Consumer Product Technology

and

Belinda L Collins

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

December 1979

Issued January 1980

Prepared for

U.S. Department of the Navy

Naval Ship Engineering Center

Washington, D.C. 20362

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract i

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 i^thropcmetric/Bianechanical Differences Between Males and

Females 2

3.0 An Ergononic Evaluation of the Selected Equipment 7

3.1 Os^ygen Breathing Apparatus (OBA) 8

3.1.1 Fit of OBA 9

3.1.2 Bulk and Weight of OBA . , , . 10

3.1.3 OBA—^as a Unit . . 10

3.2 -Safety Harness * 10

3.2.1 Fit of Safety Harness 10

3.2.2 Operation of Energy Absorber Device 12

3.3 Escape Scuttle ..... 13

3.4 Life Rails and Life Lines 14

3.5 Rotary C^Dservation Windows 15

4.0 Summary and Conclusion 15

5.0 References 18

Table 1. Anthroporetric and Biomechanical Dimensions for Males

and Females 3

Table 2. Specifications and Relevant Anthropcmetric Data for

Selected Equipment . , . , 4

Table 3. Example of Isometric Force Exerted Over Time 7

Table 4. Possible Problem Areas 7

Table 5. Hazard Categories for Navy Equipment 8

Table 6. Hazard Classifications for the Selected Equipment .... 16

Table 7. Problem Identification/Evaluation 17

Figure 1. Range and Mean Percentage Differences in Muscle Strength

Characteristics Between Women and Men 6

Appendix A. Anthropometric and Biomechanical Data Capabilities . . 19

Appendix B. Anthropometric and Biomechanical Dimensions of Male

and Female Populations 25
.A.-i

'

S& afi#

«*«•»• •/ • * « • * •• • T/( '.A >' k > •‘'V'.' » * « •> , i$96naw^

it <:?'

, • ^ ' *?v /idi A-t*> naoMisw

" ' ^

mirxiUnM 0,1

' '

' tu

iiS M

*, '* '•'' ' ^If" ' '^’' •; " It;'

‘ /I

r

"Tf , * , srb So :>iaooOf*3 a#l 0,C

. , . i- . 4 :,. ^iSteoafi fis^^ i.t >w

* , • • • •« •’ >*- , *, / » » (• r# A30 SO' X»«L«C ,' OJ .w , W :irt^m ALtM S.X.C*

01*, w*. . ;.a|. . ,‘j-;

. . . , , , . sfisau R ««--s«<eo ej;.c -v TM ,

. 0.x *“ w^, . C-C

*. .-'V", ^ :i- ^;Vb39«SPI0S'

.v '*i Zl >,./\ . V'pt^ . tl t\-, ^ w;,' , *,,.;'ii’.', L

...'V . .1^ »*/''

“,r

a

' ‘;!W.vj

'&MBir:Xfi^5!iifir

'' C

-,>#A •,’. .^/-i . ,ji(; , 'l -V, ‘'-5 *•.? i, V

• aal/ibf, :2 C?S' sfiO£B«K»i*|{J. 'firtfi. 'abSiaws^^ ,X ^ w]ii ^ r

••••• V-:* •* •*‘‘--.v .

',4 . '., :M3ng4*j!gjK

t 't?-:

» * If rr^\. ' ~ '

,. -I ^

;»> v

;f ^' ^ • OX • K*- • »*«'»•«,'•.*, ., , , v< w ^ ¥ '*'. J^j^'».j'>;W 'S

3D?

'» » •' * ' • • ''• * « - a«^30|«fis#O

M . i , ,

^X’ ,T el:i^T'

't;. ^ ^

ifcr^rt? .'35- ©XoatiK E^T© ii9iSS^' na?^ ' lb«r. ,4;,

lu ll f

*• 'i‘
Abstract

A study of the human factors aspects of five selected items of Navy

equipnent, namely, oxygen breathing apparatus, safety harness, emergency

escape scuttle, life rails, and rotary observation windows, has been

undertaken to ensure that the smaller size and lesser strength of females

would not be a deterrent to the use of the equipment by women . The study

involved a review of the applicable specifications for each item of

equipment, a survey and erameration of male and female anthropcmetric

data, and a linking of engineering and anthropcmetric data. Each item

has been assigned to a hazard category.

Of the five itons evaluated, two appear to pose significant problems

v^en used by women. Fit and high deceleration forces were the major

concerns for the safety harness while operating force requirements were

critical for the escape scuttle. In addition, there were also seme difficulties

for seme women in the use of the oxygen breathing apparatus.

1
.. •' . *.V “

*. * •' */

W

yz^V

^weSJ'^c* wm^i, sv|^-^;’!bo!»5aa M, eafcit^B©:sd

rtr^cjecj^js jarw.sa feMfcn9?’CEf 0Kit«

aefT' ..<TJoiv

^ ccf- trt»rtfc>»rf> e ftioov

-,_;)r«S(ijth/p^

M oS fxiaj^Sjm reat^: 'joH

' *'4 ^ t i 1k‘ * *

'' ''' '~'^

*4i''^‘^,-<*^K’'5A?-^. 4^*3 apsTi: "50 llbj

^ 30^1* j^iiiicisofe 'i-ijutj# ^6aoS#f iSj

'-! c

*:'

' rJ

‘

- ^ -ar

;xo aiW !<>)€««( a*f ox (ttpcw 9nca

>;ij &'.»,; -
1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the Fall of 1978, the U.S. Navy began the task of

assigning women to sea-duty on non-combatant ships other

than hospital or transport ships. While the presence of

women on Navy ships is not expected to alter normal

operations, there are design features of ships and shipboard

equipment which may require modification for use by females.

The most obvious, of course, involve considerations of

sleeping quarters, and similar ship features. In addition,

though, equipment and systems may require modification if

they are to be used extensively by women.

Most naval shipboard safety and emergency escape

equipment currently in use was designed for the 5th to 95th

percentile male with respect to height, weight, and physical

strength. Approximately 25 percent of the female population

is smaller, lighter, and weaker than the 5th percentile

male. In view of these differences, the adequacy of

critical equipment should be reassessed as during an

emergency, survival could depend upon the ability of women

to operate the equipment successfully.

The Naval Ship Engineering Center (NAVSEC) was given

the task of assessing the impact upon systems and equipment

if the crews of non-combatant ships were staffed from 20 to

50 percent by women. NAVSEC identified an initial group of

five items of equipment which might not perform adequately

when operated by females. These items included: oxygen

breathing apparatus (OBA)--type A4, safety harness,

emergency escape scuttles, life rails and lifelines, and

rotary observation windows. A study of the human factors

aspects of this equipment was then undertaken to ensure that

no serious problems would arise through female use. This

study involved

o direct observation of the equipment use aboard

ship;

o review of applicable engineering specifications

and blueprints for each item of equipment;

o survey and enumeration of both male and female

anthropometric data; and

o linking of engineering and anthropometric data.

1
The goal of this investigation was the identification

of any potential safety or performance problems. Results of

the study are presented in this report.

?.0 ANTHROPOMETRIC/BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Two of the major areas of difference between present

day male crewmembers and female crewmembers are body

dimensions (anthropometry) and body action (biomechanics).

Body dimensions are critical to sizing of personal

equipment, operating equipment, access and mobility space

and work space. Body action is critical to all of these

requirements and, in addition, to force application in a wide variety of tasks and general activities. Therefore,

the gap between the lower percentile female anthropometric

and biomechanical dimensions and the dimensions of the 5th

percentile male crewmembers is a critical research area for

adaptation of women crewmembers to an environment designed

for a male crew. Details of current

anthropometric/biomechanical data capabilities are presented

in Appendix A. References to selected works which deal with

the subject are also included.

Presented in Table 1 are some comparative

anthropometric data on selected dimensions from male and

female populations. These represent the best

approximations available for those populations from v;hich

male and female Navy crewmembers may be obtained. The

dimensions given were primarily selected as body

configuration and strength characteristics which could be

considered as descriptors of male and female similarities

and differences which might be encountered in decisions

regarding utilization of female crewmembers aboard Navy

ships. The procedure used in selecting this data is

explained in detail in Appendix B. Additional

anthropometric data, relevant to each of the selected pieces

of equipment, is presented in Table 2.

The usual caveat for this kind of data applies where

the population from which the data are obtained may not be

representative of Navy male and female crewmembers. Also,

the data are descriptive of people, not task performance

requirements. It is to be expected that the data will be

2
TASt>£ ArOiropoewtrlc «nd Biem«ch«iiicaL Olmensiont

for «Ad ren«l«s*

Population

Remarks O&Mnoions itn % 11. 50th « ila 95th t iU t Overlafae

Wetoht (Krr) u.s. ktwj r 40.63 59.50 74.52

52 All body meaaurcpcnte irc

in bra and panties or under

Ibid U.S. Amy H 57.35 70.95 91,65 shorts and bare foot, unics otherwise stated.

Stature (oi) U.S. Azay P 152.6 161.7 174.1

30 Floor to top of head

Ibid U.S. Aray H 163.7 174.4 185.4

Sifting Qeiqbt O.S. Axay P 79.01 83.17 90.32

37 Sitting surface to top Ibid U.S. Aray M 84.54 90,75 96.68 of head

Bust Depth (eai) U.S. Aray P 19.60 22.74 26.81

95 Tip of bra to back of toroo (D* Cheat Depth (ma) U.S. Azay H 20.19 23.02 26.70 Nipple to beck of torso (.W) Note that bra design and

fit and, posture nay be

iotportant sources of verier

in this dimension for woaer

Shoulder Breadth (cei) U.S. Aray P 30.41 ^.2.01 45.66

49 Haxinua breadth across shoulder at bulges of Ibid O.S. Aray N 41.46 45.23 49.77 deltoid auseles in upper am

eio Breadth (ce) U.S. Amy f 32.33 35.25 39.54

63

flaxinua horizontal bieadth

of hips

Ibid U.S. Aray n 30.16 33.05 36.72

Waist Height (oa) U.S. Amy P 93.21 101.10 110.31

64 Floor to natural waist

level (F). Ibid u.s. Aray M 97.46 106.35 115.16 Floor to upper edge (iliac

crest) (M) of hip bone. Haasurenent nay favor a higher waist line for womei due to female soft tissue disfib^ition.

HID rircu*^erence (cm) n.k, Amy p 85.89 95.28 106.1 Ibid U.S. Aray ff 85.12 93.50 105.5 Upper Thigh Cireuaiference (oe) U.S. Aray P 49.35 56.90 64.52

Ibid O.S. Aray n 40.07 55.10 63,86

waist ?ront Length (ea) U.S. Amy P 32.70 36.52 41.36 Surface difference froo waist cc anterior (front)

(not avaxlable for nale

population)

U.S. Aray n -HO • A V A I I ABLE- r.eck - torso junction.

Vertical Trunk Circuaf«rence 1)0. S. Aray P 142. 2 155. 5 166. 1 Tape passing through the crotch, ever the buttock

51 and shoulder, and the tip

of the bra (F)

Ibid U.S. Amy N ISO. 6 1«3. 1 178.6 Sam as for (F) except thai taoe is not over a bra

tip (N)

Note that tape follows contour of mala front body

much mora closely chan it does the female front body Waist Back Length (ca) O.S. Aray P 36.71 40.73 45.49

49 Surface distance from

cervical point to waist

Ibid U.S. Amy N 39.52 44.90 50.83

Band Length (oi) 0.8. Azay P 16.06 17.30 19.04

39 Wrist crease to tip of middle finger.

Ibxd O.S. Azay N 17.51 19.00 20.66

Band Circuaference(ai> U.S. Aray P 17.05 10.43 19.87 U

Around metacarpal- phalangeal jointa (knuckles and

Ibid U.S. Azay H 19.03 21.56 23.56 excluding thumb)

Band Breadth <oi) O.S. Azay P 7.10 7.02 8.46

22 Across palm at distal and metacarpal bonaa Otnuekla

Ibid O.S. Azay N 8.12 8.80 9.74 level)

Punetlonai Reach (oi> O.S. Aray P 44.02 71.00 70.99

22 Subject standing against

wail, measured from wall

Ibid O.S. Aray n 74.90 82.45 90.92 to tip of thumb along

horizontal am line

O.S.A.F. Mean Stature is 162.10cm. However, R for stature - thumbtip reach

IS only .646.

Standing Vertical Grip

Reach (<a) High School P 205.6

(17.5-19.0 yra., 188.4 196.4 Floor to

27 thumb tip of grip. Ibid High School W 2C6.0 213.8 220.9 (baaed on aic fius Mean stature, F 163.0cm

(17.5-19.0 yra.

and aaziauB) Nean stature. K 176.5cm

R for stature - vertical

grip reach is .915 F - .911 N for these samples.

Bent Torso Beight (o) O.S. Aray P 112.7 I55.S Inaufflcient '^ata Floor to top of heed i.*i stooped position (F,M). Ibid a.S.A.F. t 117.6 122.1 150,0 F clothed, .N may be clothei

Kneeling Height - Upright (ca O.S. Aray P 114. S 122.92 130 J

Insufficient Data Floor to top of head, on knees with torso erect.

Ibid U.S.A.P. H 122.4 129.54 130J2 P clothed, N may be clothe< Grip Strength (D) Collage. P 1,7

352 (z4^)

320 Insufficient Data Smediey hand dynamometer, lN(evton)«0.224C Ibf

Ibid Collage, M 494 fman)

636

naxinw iceeptable Weight Indue. Workara, F 110 th % il« ) (90th «tilc) Uft. (kg) 13 IS 21 Insufficient ''ata Two hand repetitive lift of tote box 34.3 x 48.3 x 14.0 cm loaded with lead

Ibid Indue. Workara, M iOth % Ue ! OOthttile) shot, floor to knuckle

17 25 29 hej ght

Wazirtun reasonable veight*

carry (kg) Ibid30-44 yre. P 9.57 16.00 22.43

Insufficient. .»ata Two hand carry of boxloaded by subject to an

30-44 yra. H 11.60 21.50 31.40 acceptable weight for the subject Porvard Rxiah. both hands ( N) Celleoa, ? 113 234 343 Reaction force provided by Ibid

(neanl Insufficient :>atii College, M 381 623

(nean) 366 l::(ewton)«3.224B Lbf

kppendiji B for references and selection cr •Sea Tilton, J.H. The Meesureaent of Overlapping

i7eria. J. Educ. Psychoi., 1937 Vol. 24, p. 6S6-462.

3

—
T^ie 2. s^irioMicfC VO RnJ*/v/r A^mocR>c^uc por srmTiiu oounMiir

DiuicjBent Aroltcable Product Desi<pt Itelevent Anthropoiptric MMSuronents*

Sneci f ications Parawtara urtmsita Ounension (c») Sex ^th liie 50th tile 95th tUe CLiiiiunts

Oteyqm firaatJunq (AVSEA S'S600- SinQl* Sim, M*

Acf.«ratija (CBIU M * 99, (XHOX )uvtA6l« fit, TVP* M Hutims

rit nay be poor but

•till tolerable.

Safety Kamess KII/-R-244$0

tteist Pttnt r 33.76 36.S2 41.36

length (a) H Available

Sijy^le Rice* VI-

^uetable Pit* ?mm Me

Viaight Sonple wei^it 9 kg

Single Siae* Adjuetable Pit for EMi'cmee of Qreee

Fit U9£XB betMeen

63 to lU kg Pit users between

1S7 W -an

tteist Bk* P 36.71 40.73 4S.40 Length (at) H 39.52 44.90 SO. SI

Bust circxsBfereoc 76.35 07.86 9S.99 Buet size ehnuUs Chavt drcia^

fercrce (gb) H 64.10 93.05 10S.B6 ^ non-CTitical

Heed ciiP^ P 52.34 54.96 57.74 Head size differences

ferenoe (oiU M 53.52 56.06 58.82 sre

Bitregion P 12.08 12.98 U.8S

Ikeertth (as) H U.58 U.49 14.94

HKItOB to P 19.27 20.84 22.58 Vertex (an) '^Navel aviators

Shoulder load toleranoe (kg)

H 20.47 22.19

Noe AraUiAila

23.86

Meight ( )og

)

P 46.43 59.58 74.52 All meesuronents H 57,35 70.95 91.65 on nude/mininun

dress body. Stotizc (cc) P 15G.C 162.7 IT.:.! Incrcnents nust bo M 163.7 174.4 185.4 added to account for various types of

clothing

Ann Scye cj^

cxxnference Tan)

Q>e*t dicuDjj^ ferenoe 9cye

iaai

F 33.81 37.37 41.68 M 39.60 44.31 50.2?

F 77.54 85.28 94.33 H 84.10 93.05 1055

Vfaiet circus- P 61.13 70.05 77.53

fercnce (cm) M 69.66 78.87 95.94

Hip circus- F 85.89 95.28 106.09

ference (as) H 85.12 93.58 105.53

Upper thigh P 49.35 56.90 64.52 circuaferencs (as) M 48,07 55.10 63.86

Vertical tzwik P 142.2 153.7 166.1 circunfemaca (ob) M 150.6 163.8 178.6

Mid-shoulder P

htight. wtting (aa! h 57.

U

62.38 67.63

9nuLlsc truth (craJP 33.41 42.01 45.66 M 41.46 45.23 49.77

of the few diaensions where the fssale u larger than

the nale.

Heasored differeitly

for fannies 6 males

Shorter foaale a^^ulder breadth might contribute

to harness strap slippage

DorWDoff. under

extrane of dzess

Kanipulatable by

gloved ceraon with

fit ad;ust3oents in frontal plane.

Reach envelopes,

left 6 right ancs. frontal plane.

Grip Strength (N) p

gloved »

Not available

351

258 32S 387 469

tten*^itical

Non*<xxtical

Dexterity/Tbetllity. gloved M Gloved: reduced to 65% M Pressure Glove: reduced to 35%

D ieigy Abaoeber

Device

Scuttles and

Hatches

rtotary ^»ervjticn

windows

MIL'H-24460 Oeceleretion Device

Activates at 1800N Oload. atress

^10% to daoel- tolerances enree a 135 kg nan

with a fesoe no

^reatsr than 310QN

Major differences

between sexes axe in ccntact of gravity and weight distributions. Mo snecial prcblens anticipated. General Spec- ifications for

Sliips of the

U.S. ^tavy

KIL-S1I>-1472B

38cra X 38csi manholes

throughout ship

36an x 46od

rainiiTUD 46oo dia. in &an»- verse floors 69on width for

raain fore and aft

Free pecaage. OEEzgercy escape

Rust be gtiick- openina and easily opqated in a

standard node of

operation

pasaageueys

data similar

to safety harness

Strength data CN) Standing 2'^iandad F

pull 38 on level

Standing 2

handed N

pull SO OD level

Mo special fonale problans.

312 543 814

288 566 814

Average feroe over

3 -second interval not peak force. iN(ewtcc) » 0.2248 Ibf

General Spec- Height of center

ifications for above deck

ships of the O.S. Mavy

165 on height above dedc

viax^nal static

upwaard pin forces exerted oi a

horizantal bar

(British study)

Vertical Pu^

Upwards (N)

Bye height ( 3B)

4

College Students

F 712 961 1210 M 1205 1630 2060 Factory Wbrkers

F 529 314 M U20 1610 UOO 2U0

MaxisuB strength can

be significantly

effected by many

'.variables, such as

noti'.'aticn « training* or age. In additioc. max. str«>gth whether

static (isanetric) or dynamics, are entirely

oepcndeit cn how tte f roe

is exerted i measured. Hence

correlations betwem

strengths are lew. PM -

U5

222 —

IM(ekrtm)* 0.2248 Ihf

F 142.7 151.4 160.1 Nay require attendinj M 152.1 (m^n) platfoffl for 5th

162.7

(mean) 173.3 peroentae fanales.
pertinent to a wide range of operational requirements onboard ship but many tasks will probably call for physical

configurations and capabilities not mentioned herein.

Finally, some dimensions are not exactly equivalent for both

men and women even though they may involve the same body or

performance areas. Chest measurements are an obvious

example

Comparison of body measurements between the sexes

(Table 1) reveals the obvious. The male is generally larger

than the female, although there is a considerable amount of

overlap. In only two dimensions, namely hip breadth and

circumference and thigh circumference, are females

consistently larger than the male. By interpolating between

anthropometric data, it is noted that for most dimensions

approximately 20 to 25 percent of all females have

measurements falling outside the range of measurements for

the 5th through the 95th percentile male. Examination of

the head measurement data of Table 2 indicates that there

are only very small differences between the male and the

female, with the female face being somewhat smaller.

However, these small variations in facial size and shape may

be critical in achieving a good facemask fit.

Studies com.paring the strengths of males and females

indicate that the female’s strength is from 50 to 80 percent

that of the male, depending on the strength measured (see

Figure 1) [1]. Under normal conditions, m.ost task

requirements are well below the maximum strength potentials

of both male and female, so that sex differences are not

critical. However, some stress conditions of long-term

duration may produce performance degradations to the point

where maximum strength potentials are below task

requirements. This relationship is best illustrated by

considering the case of force exertion over time. As shown

by fictitious example in Table 3, although the performance

decrement from one minute to one hour is proportionally the

same (50%) for both sexes, a female’s performance after one

hour would be unacceptable for tasks requiring forces

greater than 26 newtons. Therefore, a task that can just be

sustained for one hour by a male would obviously have to be

terminated in less than one hour by a female.

5
]

V.O O'OgO

CT>

o'* O

CO /-s ''5

o'*

u

O «

N- ^u

O' 4J O w« to

•vO o

*/?. o

o'^ o

ro

o'O

C\J

''5

o'* O

6>S

o-O 6

Figure

1.

Range

and

Mean

Percentage

Differences

in

Muscle

Strength

Characteristics

Between

Women

and

Men f

9l
Table 3. Example of Isometric Force Exerted Over Time

Sustained for 1 Min Sustained for 1 Hr

Men 80 N 40 N

Women 52 M 26 N

Unfortunately there is a scarcity of dynamic strength

data for females. This type of information is currently

being developed by Robertson [2].

3.0 AN ERGONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE SELECTED EQUIPMENT

Based on a visual inspection and a review of

specifications and operating characteristics of the selected

equipment, possible problem areas were identified. These

areas, presented in Table 4, were later considered in

greater depth in order to determine whether

anthropometr ic/biomechanical differences between males and

females might cause significant problems for female

personnel or ship safety.

Table 4, Possible Problem Areas

Ecu i omenPossible Problem Ar.a.a

Oxygen Breathing Apparatus Fit of breast plate, face piece

Weight and bulk of apparatus

Safety Harness Fit

Operation of Energy Absorber Device

Escape Scuttle

Life Rails, Stanchions,

Life Lines

Rotary Observation Window

Physical Capabilities (strength

required to operate)

Differences in bulk, weight,

and weight distribution

of personnel

Distance from floor to windows

Viev;ing area

While it is recognized that problems in these areas may also

be experienced by male personnel, the equipment was analyzed

in terms of "special" problems which might affect females

more severely, particularly those 20 to 25 percent females

7
having physical characer ist ics falling outside the range of

the 5th through 95th percentile male.

Four hazard categories, presented in Table 5, were

developed as criteria for evaluating the performance of

safety items. These criteria were applied in the evaluation

of the five pieces of equipment for use by females.

Table 5. Hazard Categories for Navy Equipment

Category #1 —items that will pose a serious

threat to personnel safety, impair mission

performance, or cause damage to essential

equipment or systems.

Category #2 —items that are likely to result in a deterioration in successful performance or a marked increase in personnel stress. The level

of performance degradation under this category is

not intolerable, but does represent a compromise

of effectiveness and efficiency over a measurable

span of time.

Category #3 —items that do not perform

satisfactorily when used as intended, but which

can be modified by the user to perform

adequately. These devices have characteristics

which permit the user to adapt them, adjust them.,

or use a supplementary device for successful

operation. The penalty for such modification may

be excessive stress or fatigue for the user. The

items could permit proper use and satisfactory

performance with slight design modification.

Category #4 —items that present no apparent

consequence as a result of operation by female

users

In the remainder of this section, the significance of

each aforementioned possible problem area is assessed for

the selected equipment. The equipment is then categorized

using the preceding criteria.

3 . 1 Oxygen Breathing Apparatus (OBA)

Problems with the OBA, which might be experienced by

female users, include 1) poor fit and 2) reduced freedom of

movement and fatigue/poor performance due to the bulk and

8
weight of the apparatus. While these problems also exist

for male personnel they may tend to affect female

performance more severely.

3.1.1 Fit of CBA

Body harness/breastplate: The OBA body harness

is adjustable and allows the OBA to be worn high or

low, and tight or loose on the chest. As such, the OBA

should accommodate virtually all female personnel.

Unfortunately, in some cases, the fit obtained will be

less than acceptable —particularly, for smaller,

lighter females. The shorter trunk length of these

personnel can result in OBA interference with the

facepiece or the upper front thighs while bending,

climbing or changing oxygen canisters, and should

therefore be of concern.

The problem of OBA fit becomes apparent upon

consideration of the relevant anthropometric data and

OBA dimensions. Anthropometric data presented in Table

2 indicates that the waist front length for females

ranges from about 33 to 41 cm. Comparable data for

males is not available, but measurements presented in

Table 2 indicate that the waist back length for males

is about 3 to 5 . cm greater than for fem.ales. Waist

front lengths for males might sim^ilarly be 3 to 5 cm

greater than for fern. ales or about 38 to 46 cm. In

contrast to waist front length, the length of the OBA

when worn is about 43 cm. Comparison of waist front

and OBA lengths indicates an overlap of as much as 10

cm—between the upper legs and the OBA, and the OBA and

the shoulder s--for female users, versus an overlap of 5

cm for male users. The effects of this additional 5 cm

overlap for females on body movement and job

performance are not expected to be significant but

should be further investigated.

Face Piece: The OBA face piece headband straps

are adjustable and do not appear to present any problem

with female use. Face piece sealing, however, may not

be satisfactory with some female facial contours.

Naval Air Systems Command has found that some women

aviators require a face mask with a laminar seal (Type

ABA) in order to achieve complete sealing [3].

Discussions with Mine Safety Appliances Co. (MSA) [4],

manufacturer of the OBA, indicate that a sim.ilar

sealing problem with the OBA face piece is possible in

9
some cases, but the problem is not of immediate

concern

3.1.2 Bulk and Weight of OBA

The weight of the OBA is approximately 9 kg (20

Ibm). A search of the literature failed to yield data

relevant to the weight of equipment worn by

individuals. However, female back-packers normally

carry 20 to 30 kg in a back-pack configuration. Since

the OBA is worn in front the OBA's weight per se

should not be critical to female performance. In

conjunction with a poorly fitting body harness,

however, the net effect could have a significant impact

on female performance—such as passing through a scuttle or fighting a fire for an extended period of

time

3.1.3 OBA--as a Unit

Due to size and strength differences, females may

experience performance decrements below an acceptable

level during OBA use. The OBA should therefore be

considered as a Category #2 problem. The rationale for

placing the whole OBA unit in Category #2 is that the

interaction of weight, interference, other

accouterments, and hostile • env ironment may result in

performance below some tolerable level. On the other

hand, the male having the same performance decrements

may still perform above the same tolerable level.

3 . 2 Safety Harness

The safety harness under consideration is of the

parachute harness type. It is adjustable to provide fit

over outer garments and other accouterments such as a life

jacket. Possible problems which may result with female use

of the device include poor harness fit and faulty operation

of the accompanying energy absorber device.

3.2.1 Fit of Safety Harness

The harness requires a good fit around the upper

thighs and hips, which are intended to absorb most of

the deceleration energy. Less critical are the shoulder

straps which distribute the deceleration energy over

the chest; however, the possible distribution of the

10
deceleration energy over the female bust is of some concern.

As specified in MIL-H-24460, the safety harness

shall fit users between 63 and 113 kg (140 and 250 Ibm)

in weight and between 152 and 193 cm (5 ft and 6 ft 4

in) in height. Inspection of Table 2 indicates that a harness meeting this specification might fail to fit

half of all female personnel because their weight falls

outside the specified range.

A sample safety harness was test fitted on two

females. These persons represented low and high

percentile weight and medium to high percentile height

for female populations. Poor fit--due to excessive

shoulder strap length--was obtained in both cases, i.e.

the shoulder strap could not be tightened enough to

give a snug fit. A shorter shoulder-to-v/aist distance

for females was identified as a factor contributing to

this poor fit. Apparently, the combination of shorter

waist front and waist back lengths for some females

(see section 3*1.1) results in a required strap length

shorter than attainable by adjusting the harness.

Since women participate in sky-diving, parachute

jumping, and other aerial acrobatics, the question

arose as to whether female’s parachute harnesses are

different from the males. Information from the

National Parachute Test Range at El Centro, California,

indicated that size (weight and height) was (somewhat)

more important than sex. Apparently, in order to

accommodate the wide range of height and weight of

personnel, the Air Force uses 12 harness sizes [5]. An

additional safety harness size might also be required

to accommodate females in the Navy program.

Another concern with the safety harness involves

shoulder straps slipping off the shoulder. This could

present a safety problem if the straps were riding the

periphery of the shoulders at the time of a fall. Two

factors would tend to increase shoulder strap slippage

for females: 1) the shoulder straps might fit on the

outside edge of the bosom and 2) female shoulder

breadth is about 3 cm smaller than males.

Modification of existing safety harnesses to

reduce shoulder strap slippage might involve the

addition of a snap-on crosspiece between the two chest

straps to reduce the possibility of straps slipping off

11
shoulders. Addition of the crosspiece would increase

the safety of male users as well as female users.

Safety harness redesign efforts, if required, should

consider 1) including such a crosspiece and 2)

increasing the range of shoulder and waist strap

adjustment to compensate for small framed personnel and

personnel with greater waist to shoulder measurements.

3.2.2 Operation of Energy Absorber Device

The requirement for the energy absorbing device

is that it activates at 1800 N + 10 % (400 Ibf + 10 %) . Also, it should decelerate a 135 kg (300 Ibm) mass with

a force no greater than 3100 N (700 Ibf), without

producing an elongation of more than 61 cm (2 ft). A

135 kg simulated human torso is used in a. free-fall

drop-test to check that the device meets

specifications. It should be noted that this test is

not sufficient for evaluating the effect of

deceleration on personnel safety since it checks force

levels and not g-loadings.

It is possible that a light female, under some

fall conditions, would fail to activate the energy

absorbing device because of low forces, yet still be

subjected to high enough g-loadings to cause serious

injuries. A full explanation of the rationale for gload testing to simulate lightweight personnel (63 kg

(140 Ibm) or less) is rather lengthy; the reader is

referred to "A Study of Personal Fall-Safety

Equipment.” [6] It is strongly recommended that the

energy absorbing device be investigated further to

insure that lightweight personnel would not be

subjected to intolerable g-loadings. Satisfactory

operation can be insured by testing the absorber with a light mass as well as the presently used heavier mass.

Because of questions regarding safety harness

fit, shoulder strap slippage, and energy absorber

operation, the safety harness appears to pose

significant safety problems for female users. Until

more definitive data, and perhaps results of actual use

tests are obtained, the safety harness should be

considered a Category 1 item.

12
3 . 3 Escape Scuttle

Several different size scuttles are currently being

used on Navy ships. These range in size from 46 cm (18 in)

diameter scuttles used on older ships, to 64 cm (25 in)

diameter spring-balanced units. Most common are 53 cm (21

in) diameter scuttles, which are used on new ships. These

53 cm units, designed so that the maximum upward force

required for operation does not exceed 220 N (50 Ibf),

appear to pose the most significant problems with regard to

operation by females.

The major problem with escape scuttles appears to be

the force required to operate them. Two processes are

involved in scuttle operation: turning a wheel to unlock

the scuttle, and forcibly lifting or pushing the scuttle

open.^ Of concern here is whether females, generally weaker

than males, would be physically capable of performing these

tasks

.

Locking/Unlocking Scuttles: The force required to lock

and unlock escape scuttles is generally dependent on (1) the

degree of tightening either required for sealing or

previously used respectively, (2) dirt/corrosion buildup on

locking mechanism components, and (3) scuttle

alignment/sealing problems. Although force requirements for

locking/unlocking are not specified as scuttle design

requirements, maintenance procedures aimed at assuring

satisfactory scuttle operation are specified. However, the

force requirements for scuttle operation can still be

excessive in some cases, and beyond the physical

capabilities of some males as well as females.

In order to adequately assess problems pertaining to

scuttle operation, an analysis or survey of operating force

requirements should first be undertaken. Once the range of

forces required to open the scuttle has been established for

scuttles, then it should be verified that female recruits

can meet these requirements. This requires measurem*ent of

the strength, torque, and force needed for scuttle

operation, as well as verification that females can meet

these r equir em.en t s . Lifting/Pushing Scuttles Open: In evaluating problem.s

with fem^ale use of scuttles, the two different modes of

scuttle operation must be considered--oper ation from above

deck involving lifting strength, and operation from below

deck involving pushing strength.

13
Comparison of upward pull strength data presented in

Table 2, with scuttle lifting force requirements (220 N)

suggests that when scuttles are activated from above, the

force requirements appear to be within the capacity of the

5th percentile female. However, actuating access/exit

openings from below may prove to be an especial problem for

females. As shown in Figure 1, for example, the static

strength in the upper extremities of women was found to be

roughly 55 percent that of men while for the lower

extremities it was found to be about 72 percent of that of

men. Women's trunk strength was found to be 64 percent of

that of men [1]. These findings indicate that the female is

at a more severe disadvantage vis-a-vis the male when she is

required to use arin/shoulder muscles--especially if the arms

must be used above the head. What limited vertical upward

push data exists (see Table 2) indicates that average female

strength, 135 N, is significantly less than that required to

push th 53 cm scuttle (220 N) open. Male strength, 232 N.

is only barely sufficient. These figures, while appearing

to be low, indicate that the scuttle is indeed mere of a problem for females than for males.

In summary, when actuated from above deck, scuttles do

not appear to present any special problems for female

personnel. However, when operated from below, females might

lack the upper body strength required to open the scuttle.

For this reason, the scuttle is considered a Category 1

problem

In addition to the problem of force requirements for

scuttle operation, there appears to be potential safety

related problems due to inadequate footholds and lighting in

the scuttle shaft. The addition of an extra foothold on the

opposite side of the ladder would allow a person to support

both feet, and thus increase stability while trying to open

the scuttle. Use of lighted, fluorescent, or raised

markings on the scuttle might also increase ease of

operation. An examination of relevant Navy accident records

should bear out any real problems.

3 . 4 Life Rails and Life Lines

Inspection of human factors data presented in Table 1

indicates that women are only slightly smaller than men in

body width and depth measurements. Also, a female's center

of mass would tend to be at a lower vertical elevation than

a m.ale's due to shorter female height and greater weight

concentration at midbody level. These factors combined

14
would tend to reduce the likelihood of females falling

between or over life rails, perhaps making this even less of

a problem than for males. As life rails and life lines do

not present significantly greater danger for women than

that currently experienced by men, these items are

considered to fall into Category 4.

3 . 5 Rotary Observation Windows

The primary visual problems that might arise for the

Women-Aboard-Ship program are mainly related to differences

in female height. One such problem involves the use of

rotary observation windows by short personnel.

The specifications for rotary observation windows

require that the center line of the window be 1.64 m above

deck. At this height, the lower edge of a typical 33 cm

diameter spinning window would be about 1.47 m above the

deck. Examination of the eye height data of Table 2 reveals

that roughly one- fourth of all females will require a stool

or other stable and sturdy platform to bring their eye level

with the window’s center line. Because the range of male

heights is so great, wooden platforms and stools have

already been provided on the bridges of many ships to

overcome this problem as it relates to windows. These same

devices should compensate for male-female height differences

in most cases and additional platforms can be provided for

shorter females. Because the eye height problem is easily

solved using techniques presently in use, windows and other

such devices would appear to be noncritical for the WomenAboard-Ship program. They are therefore considered to be

Category 3 items. A consideration of greater ranges in

height should be made when positioning apertures in new ship

design

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIQfl

Five selected items of Navy equipment have been

evaluated with regard to operation by fem.ale personnel,

particularly, those females with physical attributes falling

outside the range of the 5th through 95th percentile m.ales.

These items were categorized in terms of the hazards they

may present to ship and personnel safety when operated by

female personnel. A summary of the hazard classifications

for the selected equipment is presented in Table 6.

15
Table 6. Hazard Classifications for the

Selected Equipment

Equipment 12 3 ^ Category Number

Oxygen Breathing

Apparatus (OBA)

X

Safety Harness X

Escape Scuttles X

Life Rails and

Life Lines

X

Rotary Observation

Windows

X

Of the five items evaluated, two are considered to pose

significant personnel or ship safety problems related to

female operation; these are the safety harness and the

emergency escape scuttle. With the safety harness, problems

with fit, shoulder strap slippage, and high deceleration

forces for lighter personnel appear likely. For the

scuttle, the force required to open it from below is

expected to be greater than the upper body (arm) strength of

many females (the strength in the upper extremities of

females is about 55 percent that of males). Accordingly,

both pieces of equipment are classified as Category 1 items.

Use of the oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) by female

personnel is also of concern as interaction of possible

problems cited in this study —OBA weight, poor face

piece/OBA fit, and f at igue--m.ay result in unacceptable

performance. Hence, the OBA is considered a Category 2

item

.

Performance of two remaining items —life rails and life

lines, and rotary observation windows--appears to be sex

neutral. No female related problems with life rails and

life lines have been identified, and eye height associated

problems (for short personnel) with rotary windows are

easily solved by adding platforms to stand on. These

devices are therefore considered Category 4 and Category 3

items respectively. Specific problems with each piece of

16
Table 7 - P^CBLETl IDCmFICATIQM/TVAU.iATION

FiguiiaiEnt

1. Safety Harness

Energy Absorber

Device

2. Scuttles and

Hatches

3. Oxygen Breathing

Apparatus (CBA)

4. Windows

5. Life rails and

Life Lines

Potential probiens

Female Users Cause/Reason

Undesirable

Result

Inproper Fit - Harness too large or snail

Slipping off

shoulder

Does not actuate

for lighter

personnel

Difficulty in

operating

Falls vhile

operating or

passing throu^

scuttle

Fuirbling to operate scuttle

Differences in physical

dimensions of fenale

(height, waist, etc.)

Outward shifting of straps at shoulders - due to strap

interference with bust and

smaller shoulder breadth

Momentum of lighter user may not be great enough

to bring absorber device

into action.

Large force required to open sene scuttles due to dirt & corrosion buildup,

misalignment and other

factors.

Scuttle is eSi/kward means

of passage.

Insufficient lighting.

Poorly distributed

deceleration forces. Possible injuries to user in an intempted

fall. User's upper torso slips out of harness. Poorly

distributed decelerar

tion forces in an

interupted fall - possible injuries to

user. High deceleration

forces - possible

injuries to user.

Iitpeding of shipboard

traffic - potential

hazard situation.

Injuries to Personnel.

Inpeding of shifixsard traffic - potential

hazard situation.

Inproper fit - CBA

does not coipensate

for difference in

body contours

Weiglrt: - QBA may

exceed weight

carrying edacity

for seme femciles BuUc of CBA

Eye height/window

hei^t

Falling over or

between rails

for imle users also.

Anthropametric

differences betv^en

male and females.

Weight carrying

capacity for females is soneMhat

less than for males.

Fit of CBA on females

may reduce ability to pass through scuttles.

Difference in height

between males and females.

Differences in body

thic3aiess, height,

weight distribution

between males and females.

Potential

degradation in

performance of duties - possible hazard

situation.

Addition equipment

(platforms, stools)

required to perform

duties.

Injuries to personnel.

Possible

/action

Verify that harness fits

5tli 5-95th percentile

Navy form. Revise specs,

if necessary.

Investigate problem

further. If necessary, modify existing harnesses,

revise specs.

Revise specs to include

a deceleration test wnich uses a light test mass as well as the

presently used heavy mass. Investigate the problem

further. If necessary, prescribe new specs, maintenance procedures or modifications.

Place a foothold on the

opposite side of passage way frem the ladder.

Irrorove lighting in passageways.

Add florescent reflective

arrows to indicate

direction to open/close or raised arrows since

scuttle is in darkness.

Investigate potential

nroblems further.

Determine whether adding CBA to female chest

causes 1) movement

problem - 2) too much

bulk:, ^vhich reduces

ability to use firefighting equipment.

If necessary, modify QBA or limit users. Utilize platforms and

stools wiiere necessary. Censioer wider range of

height in future designs.

Determine whether a problem actually exists.

17
equipment and recommended Navy action are summarized in

Table 7.

5.0 REFERENCES

1. Laubach, L. L. Muscular Strength of Women and Men: A

Comparative Study. AMRL-TR-75-32 , 1976.

2. Robertson, D. A. Results of Strength Tests for

Development of Occupational Physical Standards.

Information briefing. October 12, 1978, Bureau of

Personnel, U.S. Dept, of Navy, Washington, D. C.

3. Personal Communications with LCDR James Brady, Naval

Air Systems Command, U.S. Dept, of Navy, Washington, D.

C .

4. Personal Communication with John Leary of Mine Safety

Appliance Co.

5. AFSC Design Handbook (DH 2-8): Life Support, 2nd

edition, Andrews AFB, Washington, D.C. 1978.

6. Steinberg. H. L. A Study of Personal Fall-Safety

Equipment. NBSIR 76-1146 (Prepared for CSHA) , June

1977.

7. Reynolds, H. M. and Allgood, M. A. Functional Strength

of Commercial Airline Stewardesses. FAA-AM-75-13

November 1975.

8.

Military Standard 1472B, "Human Engineering Design

Criteria for Military Systems Equipment and

Facilities," December 31, 1974.

18
f

APPENDIX A

Anthropometric and Biomechanical Data Capabilities

While much of the data required to assess the

significance of anthropometric and biomechanical differences

between male and potential female crewmembers will need to

be collected, the Consumer Ergonomics and Information Group

(CEIG) at NBS has a large collection of this type of data

readily available as a result of the Standard Ergnomics

Reference Data System (SERDS) project activity. This data

collection is summarized in the References Section of this

Appendix. The general applicability of each reference is

further summarized for nine types of areas of measurement

and whether the data is from male or female populations. It

should also be noted that in addition to the data. from the

sources cited in the References there are a great deal of

anthropometric and biomechanical data available in

miscellaneous textbooks and other sources which are either

in the CEIG library or in the possession of the CEIG staff.

The data sources cited in the References Section of this

Appendix and summarized in Table A1 are probably

representative of the published state-of-the-art in

anthropometry and biomechanics in that they are most

available for General Anthropometry and Push-Pull and least

available for the rather ill-defined area of human torque

application. The citation of only one source for Reach

Envelope is not as restrictive as it appears since most

general anthropometry references include simple reach data

and Kennedy and Kennedy (14) is not only an up to date - reference but also includes reference to and discussion of

reach envelope data from other sources, e.g. Dempster,

Garrett, and previous work by Kennedy. The lack of data on

Position Anthropometry and Joint Movement is not too

restrictive in practice since available data are basic and

any other data required beyond such basic mesurements should

probably be derived from a study of the performance required

for a specific task. The Lift and Carry data are largely

contained in Kramer and Meguire (15). This study is recent

and contains an extensive data presentation from other lifting

and carrying studies. Torque data are not represented for women

in Table Al, although some torque data are probably available from

miscellaneous sources in the CEIG literature collection.

However, it should be noted that application of torque by

some controls, e.g. a hand wheel, is actually push-pull

19
action from the biomechanical standpoint. Hand grip

strength is not shown in Table A1 or cited in the

References, although, again, such data are available in

references in the CEIG miscellaneous collection* Howevei?

relatively few tasks are performed by hand grip force alone.

Although it may be critical for some types of force

applications, especially for biomechanical torque through

the length of the arm. there is not reference to a category

such as "manual dexterity." This is because "manual

dexterity" is very difficult to demonstrate as a general

characteristic. Furthermore, dexterity tests, such as the

Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test, do not appear to

predict performance in manual test beyond the training

period, although wrist and finger dexterity may be a factor

in differences in job output between two workers with long

experience on a manual task.

The basic caveat to the use of data from the sources'

cited in the References is that anthropometric and

biomechanical data are precisely valid only for the

populations from which they are obtained and in terms of the

methods used to obtain them. This caveat is especially

applicable in the women-at-sea project since many of the

factors which will influence the characteristics of the

women crewmember population cannot be presently evaluated.

For example, some characteristics may be influenced by

whether or not sea duty is voluntary for women and, if so,

on what basis. These considerations do not prohibit the use

of available anthropometric and biomechanical data in

defining problems associated with the utilization of women

crewmembers in solving these problems. They do, however,

emphasize the need for professional judgment in the

selection, application, and updating of these data. A more

serious restriction on the applicability of available

anthropometric and biomechanical data in the women-at-sea

program is that little or none of such data have been

derived on moving platforms, such as may be a critical task

performance factor in a ship at sea. This is an especially

critical factor for biomechanical data.

20
Table A1

Sununary of References* by Type

of Measurement and Sex Applicability

Type of Measurement Male Female

General Anthropometry A2, A13,A17,A20,

A22, A23

A 3,A4 ,a5, a8, a19

A20,a22,a24

Hand Anthropometry A6, All, A12 ** AlO **

Head Anthropometry Al **

Position Anthropometry A21 a4

Reach Envelope A14 A14

Joint Measurement A7 a7

Lift and carry A9, AL5 A15

Push-Pull Al6 / a21 a4, a16 / Al8

Torque a12

* From References, this append lx . **Also included in most of General Anthropometry references

21
JU-il

Al* Alexander, M. and Laubach, L.L., Anthropometry of the

Human Ear. (A programmatic study of USAF flight

personnel). AMRL-TR-67-203 , 1968. 500 male, mean

age 28.32. 15 measurements.

a2. Body measurements for the sizing of apparel for young

men (students) . NBS Voluntary Product Standard

PS 45-71. Recognized size categories, size designations, and body measurements for the sizing of

apparel for young men. 26 measurements.

a3. Body measurements for the sizing of women’s patterns

and apparel. NBS voluntary Product Standard PS 42-70,

1971. Standard classifications, size designations

and body measurements for sizing of women’s ready

to wear apparel. 4 4 measurements.

a4» Churchhill, E. et al. Anthropometry of Women of the

U.S. Array 1977, Report No. 2 Univariate Statistics,

Report No. 3 Bivariate Frequency Tables, Natick, MA.

TR-77/024, 1977, 1, 331 + 200-300 Females, 17-60 yrs

,

142 Anthropometric and 9 Static Strength Measurements.

a5. Clauser, C.E. et al. Anthropometry of Air Force

V7omen. AI-lRL-TR-70-5 , 19 72. 1905 AF Women, 18-51

years. 137 measurements including 13 with foundation garments.

A6. Clauser, C.E., Vicinus, J.H. X-ray anthropometry of

the hand. AJ4RL-TDR-6 2-111, 1962 253 Air Force

aviators, age not specified. 44 measurements.

a7. Damon, A. et al. The human body in equipment design

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1971.

Range of joint moyement, male and female. Approximately 50 measurements, 1937-1957.

a 8. Daniels, G.S. et al. Anthropometry of WAF basic

trainees,* WADC TR 53-12, 1953. 852 female, 18-34

yrs. 63 measurements.

A9. Davis, P.R. and Stubbs, D.A. Safe levels of manual

forces for young males (1) Applied Ergonomics

1977, 8^(3) pages 140—150 and (2) Applied Ergonomics

1977 8^(4), pages 219-228. 12 males, under 35 years,

lifting loads. Measurements in 9 positions.
AlO. Garrett, J.W* Antnropometry oi

hand. AMRL-TR-69—26 , 1970. 211 females, 18-56

years/ 56 measurements.

All. Garrett, J.W. Anthropometry of the hands of Male

Air Force flight personnel. AMRL-TR-69-42, 148

male. 20-49 years. 56 measurements of the hand.

A12. Garrett, J.W. Clearance and performance values for

the bare-handed and the pressure gloved operator.

AMRL-TR-68-24 , 1968. 27 adult males. Hand dimensions

and strength for bare-handed, gloved and gloved and

pressurized suit.

a13. Gifford, E.C. et al. Anthropometry of Naval aviators -

1964. NAEC-ACEL-533, 1965 1, 549 U.S. Naval

aviators, age not specified. 96 measurements.

A14 . Kennedy, K.W. Reach capability of men and womens

A three-dimensional analysis. AMRL-TR-77-50 , 1978.

30 males and 30 females, age, mean age 20 and 26

years. 5th, 50th, 95th seated grasping reach

envelopes.

A15. Kramer, J-J. and Meguire, P.G. Consiimer product portability as related to warranty rule making. NBSIR

76-1092, 1976. 96 male and female, age 16-60 years.

Lifting and carrying one and two handed. Also

extensive survey of previous portability studies.

A16. Laubach*, L.L. Muscular strength of women and mens

A Comparative Study. A24RL-TR-75-32, 1978. 31

"young". Grip, part body, whole body push pull

strength for young women compared with published

data for young men.

a17. Martin, J.I. et al. Anthropometry of law enforcement

officers, NELC/TD 442, 1975. 3000 males, 18,-65 years,

23^ measurements.

a18. Reynolds, N.M. and Allgood, M.A. Functional strength

of commercial airline stewardesses. FAA-AM-75-13

,

1975. 152 female flight attendants, 13 body measurements and 4 push-pull strength tests.

a19. Snow, C.C. et al. Anthropometry of airline stewardesses

FAA-AM-75-2, 1975. 423 stewardess-trainees. 72

measurements

23
A20.

a21.

a22.

A23.

A 24.

Snyder, R.G. et al. Anthropometry of infants, children

and youths to age 18 for product safety design.

UM-HSR“I-77-17 for CPSC, 1977. Ca. 20-40 males and

females in 17.5 to 19.0 years group. 87 measurements.

Van Cott, H.P. and Kinhade, R.G. Human engineering

guide to equipment design , Los Angeles, CA, McGraw-Hill,

1972. Position anthropometry, males 1956 and 1965

whole body push-pull, male, six measurements, 1969.

Weight, Height and selected body dimensions of adults,

U.S. 1960-1962. Public Health Service, National

Center for Health Statistics. Series 11, No. 8.

7,710 male and female, 18-79 years, 12 measurements.

White, R.M. et al. The body size of soldiers. U.S.

Army anthropometry-1966. U.S. Army Natick Laboratories.

TR 72-Jl-CE, 1971. 6602 Army men. 70 measurements.

Women’s Measurements for garment and pattern construe-'

tion.. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Misc. Pub.

No. 454, 1941, 14, 698 women. 18 years, general

publication. 58 measurements.

24
APPENDIX B

Anthropometric and Biomechanical Dimensions of

Male and Female Populations

The procedure used in the collection of the

anthropometric and biomechanical data presented in Tables 2

and 3 was 1) to select populations which were credibly

similar to a reasonably expected male and female Navy

crewmember population, 2) to select anthropometric and

biomechanical dimensions which could economically describe

the physical characteristics of these populations, and 3) to

select a data format which would adequately present this

description.

The populations selected were primarily Army males and

females (Ref B1 and BIO) for the anthropometric dimensions

and a more diverse set of populations (Ref. B7, B9, B3, B3a,

B3b, and BM) for the biomechanical dimensions. The

biomechanical populations are more diverse than the

anthropometric populations for reasons of data availability.

The dimensions were selected on the basis of three

criteria: 1) the sample areas which are basic to the

physical description of people in a task performance

situation; 2) the availability of both male and female

measurements (an exception to this is Waist Front Length for

females for which there was no male equivalent dimension

available), and 3) they represented a mix of both general

and specific measurements. The latter criterion^ for

example, yielded height and weight, which are highly

correlated with a relatively large number of other

dimensions, and bust depth, which (in women) is highly

correlated with relatively few other dimensions. While, as

noted above, none of the dimensions were specifically

selected for task criticality, there was a general

consideration of functional relevance to shipboard

operations which served to exclude head and foot dimensions

from the brief list feasible for this report. Also, there

was no attempt to select dimensions on the basis of malefemale differences as such, although, as will be seen from

Table 3i such differences do emerge.

The data presentation format for Table 3 lists the

dimensions for which data were obtained, the population from

which the data were derived, the 5th, 50th, and 95th

25
percentiles of the data (in most cases), the relative

overlap of the ranges of male and female distributions, and

explanatory remarks on what the data represent.

In most cases the dimensions are identical in

terminology for both men and women, the outstanding

exception being the dimensional terminology of Bust Depth

for females and Chest Depth for males. This is a rather

important distinction which will be discussed below.

The data presentation of 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile

(or 10th percentile, mean, and 90th percentile) shows

selected points of each distribution but does not bring out

the complete picture of dimensional data. This

incompleteness is especially critical for arm reach

dimensions. The only adequate way to evaluate arm reach

dimensions for operational functions is to examine the arm

reach envelope. Since such data cannot be presented in a brief form, the reader is referred to Kennedy, K.W., Reach

Capability of and Women: A Three Dimensional Analysis.

AHRL-TR-77-50 , 1978, for an updated presentation of this

material

The data in Table 3 are in the generally expected

direction of lower values for females than males, although

this difference tends to be somewhat more pronounced for the

force application dimensions than for the strictly

anthropometric dimensions. Based on average dimensional

overlap values there tends to be more commonality of the

male-female dimension range for "tissue-based,” female

dimensions, although the hand dimensions are not entirely

consistent with this tendency. Similarity of male-female

dimensions is most pronounced for Bust Depth and Chest

Depth. It is probable that the female breast compensates

for the smaller female rib cage to produce this dimensional

similarity. It should be noted that the brassiere produces

a chest/bust depth configuration that is not entirely

anatomical. However, the female Bust Depth dimension, as

ihown in Table 3, is a valid design consideration for

equipment and access.

26
REFERENCES

(Used In Appendix B)

Bl» Churchill, E. et al. Anthropometry of Women of the

U.S. Army 1977, Report No. 2 Univariate Statistics,

Report No, 3 Bivariate Frequency Tables, Natick, MA,

TR-77/024, 1977.

B2, Clauser, C.E. et al. Anthropometry of Air Force

Women. AMRL-TR-7 0-5 , 1972.

B3 , Kramer, J.J, and Meguire, P, G, Consumer Product

Portability as related to warranty rulemaking,

NBSIR 76-1092, 1976.

B4, Ibid, Citing Snook, et al., 1976.

B5. Ibid, Citing Snook and Circillo, 1974,

B6 Laubach, L.L, Muscular Strength of Women and Men:

A Comparative Study, AMRL-TR-7 5-32 , 1976,

B7 . Reynolds, H, M. and Allgood, M.A, Functional Strength

of Commercial Airline Stewardesses, FAA-AM-7 5 -13

November 1975,

B8, Robertson, D. A. Results of Strength Tests for

Development of Occupational Physical Standards.

Information briefing, October 12 , 1978, Bureau of PeiTSonnel^

U,S, Dept, of Navy, ^shington, D, C.

B9. Snyder, R.G. et al. Anthropometry of Infants, Children

and Youths to Age 18 for Product Safety Design.

UM-HSRI-77-17 for CPSC, 1977,

BlO. Steinberg, H.L, A Study of Personal Fall-Safety

Equipment, NBSIR 76-1146 (prepared for OSHA) , June 1977,

Bll. Van Cott, H, P, and Kinkade, R, G, Human Engineering

Guide to Equipment Design, Los Angeles, CA, McGrawHill, 1972, Citing Alexander and Clauser, 1965,

B12, White, R, M, et al. The body size of soldiers. ' U.S,

Army anthropometry-1966, U.S. Army Natick Laboratories,

TR-72-J1-CE, 1971. 6602 Army men, 70 measurements.

27
VJ

'* •

' \ N I-

' ‘. 'Vktl • [>ij

• cr »• m „,4 ,„ 4 o,«is , .. ma

i

p«>.v

i*.,' -

u '/:i'«oW , %'4-J ft q<»7d’ i'lJ^ . X 4 4!.«^ , y t o<(3 ?

, »t»Xi«X CiTjj S^r.^y^ :;t, ^ ijE ,AW Tf' •' Gw> ,

' »-

«.. . ,J-.. . , #«» 1^. • '. •n ,X:i^jl *4

•- -*^w,

’ • - f;^*A is s rst,^ Sr

"" ' .2T?T' vi-o^jrr*:isxA>

4^’ ;t4'i i>ri»0-,

I . > , • »>•:. -J. ^ .UtM, fa«|H -

* w *:i-ef<

' /» • '

; * •

• ‘^"^ •

' «- •• '^*5*^- <•*» •* ; •<rt>

^ • ; '>'' '.? >:.* *"‘*' • --v^vy- ^ ^X?- ;,R' ,V^ U*'* '“^'W ^(ak 'h"

’ '.. '

'*

. v’^SS'

'*'

(v -• v-a

S'

oi^ irf 3 S''n^< t#X '4 , 4

’ rv

X •f^bi 3 5inj1f .A .K ,5oo|fXiA ,Ji f «feX«'frxa<-

f^jy- , aUhoii:

^

'

>:

5>--» i#*P 4.4i!<{^ 4J ^jPX a* * -*'*

t A.S ‘-® *"'*

‘ '•“. '^x '.^ :>/' 'sir* v,*l- •_• .• .' ;'vf i-' Vlr

g C ,:5y^ r,

,,V. 'rf^ -\'( ' ...-^.t

\t icaird/rx^^yLst ^ .Ttei ,,4«al;vV|^i4l^^./t¥^ b'-^? V ,,

^ f.. '»:..

' f' ’‘v -y 'V: "1" t,,,* ‘.. .^.'ri: ari4!'''v;i'',':''.’»3L

(, .5 ;*4> ,^ f, _ A,7\, * a5l4b'0’ oi' ^^ibi^wO^ ;4Vf ,e'^i?i bwfc '4i W ,:ixjt.ir . , ^ ^•y

,

' '" C ffl. “* .2.^’ • MSjC.'Jblo* A$S:m ^off odT, Xfe Ja ,.»/ ijr ,s3X<fU .litf

,if^,lA‘‘- . S,t.U: vT^3»a*<3/<|02W3«-S' 1 6sfti , n»Si ,'^ffflTiX XO'^.d 4 X'X^Ip *yD.-'Xt'“S''t-jrT-^5 ,

_.^

yyV‘>)

;£ W V«

ryi'.:4*i6''Sfflri'>^ —

M. i^KiS «4«jw i,.. , ' i' it''*"

lU' > ,

. »i 4^^

HBffi , .f.
NBS>114A (REV. a- 78 )

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. 79-1949 (Navy)

Evaluation of Selected Navy Equipment for the

Vfcmen-Aboard-Ship Program

7. AUTHOR(S)

R. Palla, C. Jones, D, Lovett, L, Porter, B. Collins

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

Protect

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS fs<r«ef, City, state, ZIP)

U.S. D^jartment of the Navy

Naval Sea Systems Cotinand

Washington, D* € 20362

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final Report

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or leaa factual aummary of moat aigfiificant information. If document ineludea a significant bibliography or

literature auryey, mention it here.) A study of the human factors aspetjts of five selected items of Navy equipnent,

namely, oxygen breathing apparatus, safety harness, emergency escape scuttle,

life rails, and rotary observation windows, has been undertaken to ensure that

the smaller size and lesser strength of females would not be a deterrent to the

use of the equipment by worasn. The study involved a review of the applicable

specifications for each item of equipment, a survey and enumeration of male and

female anthroponetric data, and a linking of engineering and anthropometric data.

Each item has been assigned to a hazard category.

Of the five items evaluated, two appear to pose significant problems when used

by women. Fit and high deceleration forces were the major concerns for the

safety harness vliile operating force requirements were critical for the escape

scuttle. In addition, there vere also some difficulties for some women in the

use of the oi^gen breathing apparatus.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entriee; alphabetical order; capitalize only the firat letter of the firat key word unleaa a proper name;

separated by aemicolona)

Anthropometry, equipment evaluation, escape scuttles, female, oxygen breathing

apparatus, performance, safety evaluation, safety harness, safety hazards.

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited

^i^or Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I ! Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

I I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

22. Price

USCOMM-DC
4r 2jM.

tyvaio ewa-cr

JjJs^

mXi <lMflKM»

3S artt ao) d^«figixi|pfl yvbH ijo^aaM nc»Jk: r“ _

ilB ^9m90jiBpO irri[nc9l»*V

.

< J.i#" i-j

) 9 «oiUcO -a

^ '‘L ^ ' 'M

IKOf

O'

.4*t nt3£^\J^»1$!K(!i

toMtMiO' yh»^ M 1i» «iai(T .t|

I, »3oaW Xacrt L

fr

M %• uAtHt>9 i#vi w3mT5*^

. A/

wr jnU^ cm«S4''iT®

T,

* will' 3j6>

_V £««I3S:

r

.

' .ite mof Bf. ^ACEMiS «r*«rAfli fW

l«

wall 5ci artCEJi &K«Bdiae B-aosJea^l; tiriJ ^tb - » VOTirawiai •.wfcirriari u^J4iW«l «*^WB5i('-- »

'•''' 4*t# cjO fttWsftw ,TE«^ «ad .wofcalsf

‘ ‘ ‘ ^

- - - - — -fT'a*,—- w ^ .Cl

cd a »cj i-ja iiXu^'mDR^ ^io flsdiiii ,

' :. .i5om^’^ •fdfioUqco. *i-qiv-rs « gwicr^ \fxcha mfP ,.mrm<'^'nmtrnqhfs^ i;’*$o^

fcna •i«n. 5e to Tjaim* aoX rrtf»

'

'

^iid sS. !to TcisSSri .

.t, . £fll^ f';^MT;^iiiiri|||' i” 'l

n

., _. _«anabit i^

Siitf oi aoo« -joa a9i;^.lwxfc5it£i #nr«' osila vnal;;#ito M

Ci.

C9

fi - I B i'Vyi£i±tagid ja^lgaf^iXa , eiaofeb %&oSJd-.g3et-. mxcM&. ^&ct^aa/lSm '

• -tx,

BB 4'*‘ *' t

SfiiSJJ .|w/«i#«BN0'tlkl^^ ">)

r ''^' -_ -

B L a^l?«AJ5VlUi

Ilfc » m

0«

knmm iM0

:

'^kJfejC,:’*''^ *^.la <f> ik'fXlk.«ii