See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235272804

Body measurement techniques:

Comparing 3D body-scanning and
anthropometric methods for apparel
applications

Article in Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management · September 2003

DOI: 10.1108/13612020310484852

CITATIONS READS

77 2,067

2 authors:

Karla P Simmons Cynthia L. Istook

Auburn University North Carolina State University
20 PUBLICATIONS 390 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 515 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karla P Simmons on 19 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal
Body measurement techniques: Comparing 3D body-scanning and anthropometric
methods for apparel applications
Karla P. Simmons Cynthia L. Istook
Article information:
To cite this document:
Karla P. Simmons Cynthia L. Istook, (2003),"Body measurement techniques", Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 306 - 332
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020310484852
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 19 March 2015, At: 15:49 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 72 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3798 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Cynthia L. Istook, Su-Jeong Hwang, (2001),"3D body scanning systems with application to the apparel
industry", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 120-132
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007283
Lashawnda Mckinnon, Cynthia L. Istook, (2002),"Body scanning: The effects of subject
respiration and foot positioning on the data integrity of scanned measurements", Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 103-121 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020210429458
Susan P. Ashdown, (1998),"An investigation of the structure of sizing systems: A comparison of three
multidimensional optimized sizing systems generated from anthropometric data with the ASTM standard
D5585-94", International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 10 Iss 5 pp. 324-341 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09556229810239324

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 126741 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)
 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

JFMM PRACTITIONER PAPER

7,3
Body measurement techniques
Comparing 3D body-scanning and
306 anthropometric methods for apparel
applications
Karla P. Simmons
University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, USA, and
Cynthia L. Istook
College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

North Carolina, USA

Keywords Medical scanners, Measurement, Human anatomy
Abstract With the use of 3D body scanners, body measurement techniques can be non-contact,
instant, and accurate. However, how each scanner establishes landmarks and takes the
measurements should be established so that standardization of the data capture can be realized.
The purpose of this study was to compare body-scanning measurement extraction methods and
terminology with traditional anthropometric methods. A total of 21 measurements were chosen
as being critical to the design of well-fitting garments. Current body scanners were analyzed for
availability of information, willingness of company cooperation, and relevance to applications in
the apparel industry. On each of the 21 measurements, standard measurement procedure was
identified for three different scanners: [TC]2, Cyberware, and SYMCAD. Of the 21 measures in
the study, [TC]2 was the scanner that had the most measures identified for the study and also had
the capability of producing many more with specific application for apparel.

Introduction
Although body-scanning applications have been used in many areas of study,
the apparel industry is anxiously researching its usage for apparel design and
the mass customization of garments. A major frustration for consumers
shopping for apparel is finding garments that are comfortable and fit properly
(Cotton Inc., 1998). The current sizing system, as well as a lack of
standardization within the industry, cause this frustration.
Three-dimensional body scanning is capable of extracting an infinite
number of data types and measurements. Body shapes, angles, and relational
data points are easily obtained with 3D-scanning technologies, in addition to
the linear measurements on which the apparel industry has historically relied.
While the wealth of data available to us provides endless possibilities, the data
most likely to be used immediately by industry are the linear measurements
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management
that many of the systems can extract from the 3D-scanned image. However, a
Vol. 7 No. 3, 2003
pp. 306-332
problem exists in the consistency of measuring techniques between scanners.
# MCB UP Limited Among the several scanners that are currently available, significant variance
1361-2026
DOI 10.1108/13612020310484852 exists in how each captures specific body measurements. Until the data capture
 process of specific body measurements can be standardized or communicated Body
among scanning systems, this island of technology cannot be utilized for its measurement
maximum benefit within the apparel industry. An understanding of how 3D- techniques
scanning systems define the measurements they extract will enable the
industry to use them with maximum success.
The purpose of this study was to compare body-scanning measurement
extraction methods and terminology with traditional anthropometric methods. 307
This paper:
(1) discusses traditional anthropometry with regard to landmarks and body
dimension data;
(2) provides an overview of body-scanning technology;
(3) gives a brief description of three major body scanners; and
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

(4) presents a comparison of traditional anthropometry with the

measurement techniques for each of the three scanners.

Traditional anthropometry
Historical practice
No two people are ever alike in all of their measurable characteristics. This
uniqueness has been the object of curiosity and research for over 200 years. In
the past, different individuals have set out to quantitatively express the form of
the human body. This technique was termed anthropometry. According to
Kroemer et al. (1986, p. 1), ``anthropometry describes the dimensions of the
human body''.
The first individual to mark the beginning of anthropometry was Quelet in
1870, with his desire to obtain measurements of the average man
(Anthropometry, 2000). It was not until the 1950s that anthropometrics became
a recognized discipline. Settings for usage of anthropometry include
automobile design, work site ergonomics, equipment design, airplane cockpit
design, and clothing fit (CAD Modelling, 1992; Czaja, 1984; Herzberg, 1955; Roe,
1993; Roebuck et al., 1975; Sanders and Shaw, 1985). In addition,
anthropometry has been used for years in national sizing surveys as an
indicator of health status (Marks et al., 1989).
Assessment of the reliability of the measures has been the topic of research for
almost 70 years (Bray et al., 1978; Cameron, 1986; Foster et al., 1980; Johnston et
al., 1972; Malina et al., 1972, 1974; Marshall, 1937; Martorell et al., 1975; Meredith,
1936). Reliability is defined operationally as the extent to which a measure is
reproducible over time (Cook and Campbell, 1979; Snedecor and Cochran, 1980).
The reliability of a measurement has components of precision and
dependability (Mueller and Martorell, 1988). Of the two components, precision
is the most important determinant of reliability (Marks et al., 1989; Mueller and
Martorell, 1988). However, reliability matters are often overlooked in problem-
oriented research (Gordon and Bradtmiller, 1992) because of the impact of
measurement error.
 JFMM Observer error is the most troublesome source of anthropometric error. It
7,3 includes imprecision in landmark location, subject positioning, and instrument
applications. This error can even be accentuated by the use of multiple
observers even when they are trained by the same individual and work closely
together (Bennett and Osbourne, 1986; Jamison and Zegura, 1974; Utermohle
and Zegura, 1982; Utermohle et al., 1983). Error limits are usually set in
308 advance of data collection, while measurer performance is monitored
throughout the process against the pre-set standards (Cameron, 1984; Gordon
et al., 1989; Himes, 1989; Johnston and Martorell, 1988; Malina et al., 1974).
Observer errors in anthropometry are not random and are not unusual (Bennett
and Osborne, 1986; Gordon and Bradtmiller, 1992; Jamison and Zegura, 1974).

Traditional methods and instrumentation

Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Traditional methods. Classical anthropometric data provide information on

static dimensions of the human body in standard postures (Kroemer et al.,
1986). Most measurements taken of the subject are taken while standing,
though a few measures warrant exception. For classic anthropometrical
measurement, it is preferable to have the subject completely unclothed or with
as little clothing as possible. For apparel design applications, however, it may
be preferable for the subject to be clothed in the undergarments usually worn.
Instrumentation. The same anthropometric instruments have been used
since Richer first used calipers in 1890 (Anthropometry, 2000). Simple, quick,
non-invasive tools include a weight scale, camera, measuring tape,
anthropometer, spreading caliper, sliding compass, and head spanner.
Landmarks. As stated earlier, the correct identification of body landmarks is
one of the key elements in observer error in the collection of anthropometric
data. In order to have agreement as to the body measurements recorded in an
anthropometric-based study, uniformity must be achieved as to the common
points on the body that must be identified. These points are referred to as
landmarks. The traditional methods in determining and placing landmarks are
provided in Table I. Diagrams of landmarks are given in Figures 1-3.
Most people have never had a formal education in anatomy to be able to
identify specific landmarks. Even though measurers are usually trained in how
to measure subjects for a study, the process is still very difficult and time-
consuming. In a 1988 anthropometric survey of US Army personnel, four hours
were required to physically landmark, measure, and record the data of one
subject (Paquette, 1996). Simple anthropometric methods are time-consuming
and often not accurate (Bennett and Osborne, 1986; Gordon and Bradtmiller,
1992; Jamison and Zegura, 1974). The development of three-dimensional body-
scanning technology allows for the extraction of body measurements in
seconds. It also allows consistent measurements and may enable and
encourage the move toward the production of products customized for fit.
Additionally, when measuring a large number of locations on the human body,
the most desirable method for most people would be one with no physical
contact.
 Landmark Symbol Definition Body
measurement
Abdominal A Viewed from the side, it is the measure of the greatest techniques
extension (front Figure 3 protrusion from one imaginary side seam to the other
high-hip) imaginary side seam, usually taken at the high-hip level
(ASTM, 1999); taken approximately 3in. below the waist,
parallel to the floor (ASTM, 1995a)
Acromion B The most prominent point on the upper edge of the
309
(shoulder point) Figure 1 acromial process of the shoulder-blade (scapula) [T] as
determined by palpation (feeling) (Jones, 1929;
McConville, 1979)
Ankle (Malleolus) C The joint between the foot and lower leg; the projection
Figures 1-3 of the end of the major bones of the lower leg, fibula
and tibia, that is prominent, taken at the minimum
circumference (McConville, 1979; O'Brien and Sheldon,
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

1941; ASTM, 1999)

Armpit (Axilla) D Points at the lower (inferior) edge determined by placing
Figures 1, 2 a straight edge horizontally and as high as possible into
the armpit without compressing the skin and marking
the front and rear points or the hollow part under the
arm at the shoulder (McConville, 1979; ASTM, 1999)
* See Scye
Biceps point E Point of maximum protrusion of the biceps muscle, the
Figure 1 brachium, as viewed when elbow is flexed 90 degrees,
fist clenched and biceps strongly contracted (Gordon et
al., 1989; ASTM, 1999)
Bust point F Most prominent protrusion of the bra cup (Gordon et al.,
Figure 3 1989; McConville, 1979; O'Brien and Sheldon, 1941); apex
of the breast (ASTM, 1999)
Buttock (seat) G Level of maximum protrusion as determined by visual
Figure 3 inspection (McConville, 1979; Gordon et al., 1989)
Calf H Part of the leg between the knee and ankle at maximum
(Gastrocnemius) Figures 1-3 circumference (McConville, 1979; ASTM, 1999)
Cervicale I At the base of the neck [R] portion of the spine and
(Vertebra Figures 2, 3 located at the tip of the spinous process of the seventh
Prominous) cervical vertebra determined by palpation, often found
by bending the neck or head forward (McConville, 1979;
Jones, 1929; Gordon et al., 1989; O'Brien and Sheldon,
1941; ASTM, 1999).
Collar-bone point J Upper (superior) points of the shoulder (lateral) ends of
(clavical point) Figure 1 the clavical (Gordon et al., 1989)
Crotch point K Body area adjunct to the highest point (vertex) of the
Figures 1, 2 included angle between the legs (ASTM, 1999)
Crown L Top of the head (ASTM, 1999; O'Brien and Sheldon,
Figure 1 1941)
Elbow (Olecranon) M When arm is bent, the farthermost (lateral) point of the
Figures 1-3 olecranon, which is the projection of the end of the
inner-most bone in the lower arm (ulna) (O'Brien and
Sheldon, 1941); the joint between the upper and lower Table I.
arm (ASTM, 1999) Landmark terms and
(continued) definitions
 JFMM Landmark Symbol Definition
7,3
Gluteal furrow N The crease formed at the juncture of the thigh and
point Figures 2, 3 buttock (McConville, 1979; Gordon et al., 1989)
Hip-bone (Greater O Outer bony prominence of the upper end of the thigh-
Trochanter) Figures 1, 3 bone (femur) (ASTM, 1999; O'Brien and Sheldon, 1941)
310 Iliocristale P Highest palpable point of the iliac crest of the pelvis,
Figures 1, 3 half the distance between the front (anterior) and back
(posterior) upper (superior) iliac spine (Gordon et al.,
1989; Jones, 1929)
Kneecap Q Upper and lower borders of the kneecap (patella) located
Figures 1, 3 by palpation (Gordon et al., 1989; McConville, 1979);
joint between the upper and lower leg (ASTM, 1999)
Neck R Front (anterior) and side (lateral) points at the base of
Figures 1, 2 the neck; points on each cervical and upper borders of
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

neck-ends of right and left clavicles [J] (O'Brien and

Sheldon, 1941; Gordon et al., 1989)
Infrathyroid S The bottom (inferior), most prominent point in the
(Adam's Apple) Figure 3 middle of the thyroid cartilage found in the center front
of the neck (Gordon et al., 1989)
Shoulder-blade T Large, triangular, flat bones situated in the back part of
(Scapula) Figures 2, 3 the chest (thorax) between the second and seventh ribs
(Totora, 1986; Byran et al., 1996)
Scye U Points at the folds of the juncture of the upper arm and
torso associated with a set-in sleeve of a garment
(Gordon et al., 1989; McConville, 1979; O'Brien and
Sheldon, 1941). * See armpit
Top of the V Bottom-most (inferior) point of the jugular notch of the
breastbone Figure 1, 2 breastbone (sternum) (Gordon et al., 1989; Jones, 1929)
(Suprasternal)
Tenth rib W Lower edge point of the lowest rib at the bottom of the
Figures 1, 3 rib cage (Gordon et al., 1989; O'Brien and Sheldon, 1941)
Seventh thoracic X The seventh vertebra of 12 of the thoracic type which
vertebra Figure 2 covers from the neck to the lower back (Totora, 1986)
Waist (natural Y Taken at the lower edge of the tenth rib [W] by
indentation) Figure 2 palpation (O'Brien and Sheldon, 1941); point of greatest
indentation on the profile of the torso or half the
distance between the tenth rib [W] and iliocristale [P]
landmarks (Gordon et al., 1989); location between the
lowest rib [W] and hip [O] identified by bending the
body to the side (ASTM, 1999)
Waist (Omphalion) Z Center of navel (umbilicus) (Gordon et al., 1989; Jones,
Figure 3 1929)
Wrist (Carpus) AA Joint between the lower arm and hand (ASTM, 1999);
Figures 1, 2 Distal ends (toward the fingers) of the ulna (the inner-
most bone) and radius (the outer-most bone) of the lower
Table I. arm (McConville, 1979; Gordon et al., 1989)
 Body
measurement
techniques

311
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Figure 1.
Anatomical points used
in locating body
landmarks on the front
of the body

Three-dimensional body-scanning technology

Before the turn of the nineteenth century, surveyors were using non-contact
measurement from a distance to determine the shape of the Earth's surface
(West, 1993). Their system of triangulation would become the basis of modern
methods where a light-sensing device would replace the theodolite, an ancient
surveyor's instrument. In the 20 years between 1964 and 1984, a variety of
devices were developed that could measure one side of the human body at a
time (Halioua et al., 1984; Ito, 1979; Lovesey, 1964; Meadows et al., 1970; Takada
and Escki, 1981; Vietorisz, 1964). It was not until 1985 that Magnant (1985)
produced a system that used a horizontal sheet of light to completely surround
the body. The framework for the system carried the projectors and cameras
needed that would scan the body from head to toe.
Systems utilizing lasers were also being developed during this same period.
Clerget et al. (1977) illuminated their measured object with a scanning laser
beam. Arridge et al. (1985) used two vertical slices of laser along with a
television camera to measure the shapes of faces for orthodontic and maxillo-
facial surgery. At this same time, Addleman and Addleman (1985) developed a
scanning laser beam system that is marketed today as Cyberware. A list of the
current major scanning systems can be found in Table II.
 JFMM
7,3

312
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Figure 2.
Anatomical points used
in locating body
landmarks on the back
of the body

Methodology
The purpose of this study was to compare the traditional anthropometric
methods of body measurement with those of certain 3D body scanners. A
total of 16 measurements were chosen that were considered critical in the
design of the initial blocks/slopers from which well-fitting garments are
created. Pattern-making experts (professors of apparel design and industry
practitioners) and pattern-making textbooks were used to determine the 16
critical measures. No attempt was made to define all of the measurements
that might be used in the many techniques or methods developed to create
basic fit slopers. This study utilized the Hanford pattern-drafting method
(Hanford, 1984). The number of measures under study was increased to 21,
due to overlapping terminologies between scanning systems. These
measures included mid-neck/neckbase, chest/bust, waist by natural
indentation/waist by navel, hips/seat, sleeve length/arm length, inseam,
outseam, shoulder length, across-back, across-chest, back of neck to waist,
rise, crotch length, thigh circumference, biceps circumference, and wrist
circumference. For each of the 21 measurements, standard measurement
 Body
measurement
techniques

313
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Figure 3.
Anatomical points used
in locating body
landmarks on the side of
the body

Scanning system Product System type

Hamamatsu Body lines scanner Infra-red

[TC]2 2T4 and 2T4s Light
Wicks and Wilson TriForm Light
TELMAT SYMCAD Light
PulsScanning Puls Light
Cyberware WBX and WB4 Laser
TECMATH Vitus Pro and Vitus Smart Laser
Victronic Viro 3D Laser
Hamano Voxelan Laser Table II.
Current major scanning
Source: Istook and Hwang (2001) systems
 JFMM procedure according to ASTM International (ASTM, 1999) was identified for
7,3 later comparison.
Information about current body-scanning systems was analyzed for
completeness, company cooperation, and relevance to applications in the
apparel industry. The unwillingness of some scanner companies to share
information about their scanning process was a considerable problem. Some
314 companies would explain how the data capture occurs, how and what
landmarks were used, and general information about their measurement
extraction. Others would simply give a standard answer of ``we follow the ISO
standards'' or a similar statement. However, the real proprietary information is
in the mathematic/algebraic algorithms that are used. Almost all scanning
companies are keeping this secret, which is understandable since this might be
to their competitive advantage.
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

We were able to obtain measurement information from only three of the nine
scanner companies: [TC]2, Cyberware, and SYMCAD. Since we were unable to
obtain information from Cyberware and SYMCAD directly concerning
measurement extraction and definitions, we contacted Steven Pacquette of the
US Army Natick (who works directly with Cyberware) and Nancy Staples of
Clemson Apparel Research (who worked directly with SYMCAD). They
provided us with a list of measurements extracted by the specific system and
the definition of each. This information had been provided to them directly
from the company. The information for the [TC]2 scanner came from David
Bruner, Director of Research and Development at [TC]2. The measurement
extraction process was identified and defined for each of the 21 measurements
produced by each of the three scanners. They were then compared with the
definitions and procedures found in current body measurement standards
(ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1981).

System description
Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation [TC]2. The [TC]2 scanner was the first
scanner to be developed specifically for the clothing industry. For the US
apparel industry to be more competitive, [TC]2 saw the need for the drive
toward mass customization. A move toward made-to-measure clothing
necessitated fundamental technology that would make the acquisition of
essential body measurements quick, private, and accurate for the customer.
Two models are currently available from [TC]2: the 2T4 and 2T4s. Both
systems have two towers with four sensors. The ``s'' in 2T4s stands for short,
which denotes a smaller layout than the 2T4 (David Bruner, personal
communication, 2000).
The [TC]2 body measurement system (BMS) utilizes phase measurement
profilometry (PMP) where structured white light is employed. The PMP
method employs white light to impel a curved, two-dimensional patterned
grating on the surface of the body. An area array charge-coupled device (CCD)
camera captures the pattern that is projected. Once the image is obtained, over
400,000 processed data points are determined. Then segmentation of the body
 occurs and the measurement extraction transpires. The user predetermines the Body
specific measurement output. A printout is available with a body image and a measurement
potential set of over 200 measurements. techniques
Cyberware. Another leading three-dimensional body scanner manufacturer
is Cyberware. Incorporated in December 1982, the company's early work
consisted of digitizing and model shop services. More than two years were
spent developing the rapid 3D digitizing for which they are known today. 315
Currently, Cyberware centers on manufacturing various 3D scanners with
continuing research and development in custom digitizing. They are one of the
leaders in research concerning 3D scanning for garment design and fitting,
anthropometrics, and ergonomics (Cyberware, 2000a).
Although Cyberware has several different types of scanners, they currently
have only two models in the whole-body scanner line: the WB4 and WBX. The
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

WB4 has a large footprint, open design, and produces a color image. The
subject stands on the scanner platform, while the scanner pans down the length
of the entire body. The WBX is an enclosed whole body 3D scanner
(Cyberware, 2000c). It was custom-designed for use in scanning military
recruits for uniform issue (ARN, 2000). The goal of both scanners is to obtain
an accurate computer model in one pass of the scanner (Cyberware, 2000b).
Each one of the four scanning heads consists of a light source and a detector.
Laser diodes are the source of light, which project a level surface of light on to a
subject. This laser line is created by tubular lenses and focusing optics. A
charge-coupled device (CCD) camera sees the line created by the laser crossing
the subject. The image is reflected using mirrors to reduce the camera size.
Electronic circuitry distributes the raw data to the workstation for the scanned
points (Addleman, 1997).
The Cyberware scanners can produce a cloud of over 100,000 3D data points
from the human body surface (Daanen et al., 1997). These points are available
within seconds for use. The four separate camera views are illustrated and
combined into one data set where redundant and overlapping data are
removed. For subjects larger than the maximum allowable dimensions for the
scanner (79in.  49in.), two or more scans can be combined for a complete 3D
model (Cyberware, 2000b).
TELMAT SYMCAD. The range of TELMAT products falls into several
categories. In the textile area, the only product they offer is the SYMCAD
scanner. The System for Measuring and Creating Anthropometric Database
(SYMCAD) was first used in January 1995 by the French Navy for uniform
issue (Financial Times, 1998). They refer to this system as ``The electronic
master tailor'', ``the SYMCAD Turbo Flash/3D'', and ``a computerized 3D body-
measuring system'' (TELMAT, 2000; Financial Times, 1998).
The scanning system consists of a small, enclosed room with an illuminated
wall, a camera, and a computer. The subjects enter the booth, remove their
clothing, and stand in their undergarments in front of the illuminated wall.
Moving for each pose, three different poses of the subject are photographed:
facing the camera with arms slightly apart from the body, from the side
 JFMM straight on, and facing the wall (Financial Times, 1998). These three poses are
7,3 then processed and appear on the computer screen as the 3D image. Over 70
measurement calculations are made from these computerized images.

Comparison of the traditional anthropometrical method with 3D

body-scanning methods
316 Neck-mid-neck and neck-neckbase
Traditional measurement methods. The mid-neck is defined as the
circumference of the neck approximately 25mm (1in.) above the neckbase
(ASTM, 1995a, b, 1999). The girth of the neck is measured 2cm below the
Adam's Apple and at the level of the seventh cervical vertebra (ISO, 1981, 1989;
NBS, 1971). The plane is perpendicular to the long axis of the body (Gordon
et al., 1989).
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

The neckbase is defined as the circumference of the neck taken just over the
cervical at the back and at the top of the collar-bone in the front (ISO, 1989;
ASTM, 1995a, 1999; NBS, 1971).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. In the [TC]2 system, the
mid-neck measure is referred to as the ``collar''. It is measured by determining
the neckbase and then allowing the system to float along the neck within a 1in.
limit to find the smallest circumference. [TC]2 defines the ``neck'' as the
circumference measured right at the base of the neck following the contours. It
is not parallel to the floor (Ken Harrison, [TC]2 BMS code developer, personal
communication, September 1999).
Cyberware takes the ``neck circumference'' measure at the collar level. It is
the smallest circumference of points that pass through the center of the Adam's
Apple. It often lies on or near a plane at varying offsets and tilt angles (Steven
Paquette, Anthropometric Team Leader for the US Army Natick Soldier Center,
personal communication, 1 December 2000). Cyberware does not have a
neckbase measure.
The SYMCAD system defines ``neck girth'' as the perimeter of the neck that
is the smallest circumference measured from the seventh cervical vertebra
(SYMCAD, 2000). SYMCAD's neckbase is the perimeter around the neck
defined by a plane section based on the seventh cervical vertebra and both left
and right neckbases (SYMCAD, 2000) (see Figure 4).
For the mid-neck measure, current standards are not in agreement as to the
proper method of measurement. About 25mm above the neckbase and 2cm
below the Adam's Apple can vary widely between individuals. Additionally,
the ISO and NBS definitions seem to be inappropriate for women, since men
have a prominent Adam's Apple and women do not. The terms used for the
mid-neck are also unclear. The mid-neck measure is used as the collar
measurement in men's shirts, as is recognized by [TC]2; hence their term for
this measure. However, Cyberware and SYMCAD refer to their mid-neck as
neck circumference and neck girth. The neckbase measurement for the [TC]2
and SYMCAD systems seems to be consistent with the current standards. The
term ``neck'' could be changed, so it would not be confused with the mid-neck
 Body
measurement
techniques

317
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Figure 4.
Mid-neck and neckbase
examples

measure. This measure is possibly more important for women than for men
because of the various collarless clothing styles.

Chest and bust circumferences

Traditional measurement methods. The chest circumference and bust
circumference are both defined as the maximum horizontal girth at bust levels
measured under the armpits, over the shoulder-blades, and across the nipples
with the subject breathing normally (NBS, 1971; ISO, 1981, 1989); parallel to the
floor (ASTM, 1995a, b, 1999).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``chest''
measurement is measured horizontally at the armpit level just above the
bustline (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September 1999). The ``bust''
measurement is the horizontal circumference taken across the bust points at the
fullest part of the chest ([TC]2, 1999).
Cyberware defines their ``chest circumference'' measurement as the sum of
the distances separating successive points from the torso segment that lies on
or near a parallel place to the x axis which passes through the right and left
 JFMM bustpoints (Paquette, 2000, personal communication). Cyberware does not have
7,3 a measurement that differentiates the chest from the bust measures. For
SYMCAD, the ``maximum chest girth'' is the maximum horizontal perimeter of
the chest. The ``chest girth'' (bust measure) is the horizontal perimeter measured
at the average height of the most prominent points of each breast with the
subject standing with arms apart and breathing normally (SYMCAD, 2000) (see
318 Figure 5).
Current standards do not differentiate between the chest and bust
measurements. However, there is a distinct difference. The only system to
clearly recognize this difference is the [TC]2 system. The SYMCAD
measurement discusses the maximum circumference, which on a man might
be the chest measure. For a woman, the bust will almost always be the
maximum circumference. The above-bust (or chest) circumference is vitally
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

important for the best fit in women's clothing. Because men's clothing is
seldom created with a close form fit, the measure and its determination may
be less important.

Figure 5.
Chest and bust
circumference examples
 Waist-natural indentation and waist-navel (omphalion) Body
Traditional measurement methods. The natural waist measure is defined as the measurement
horizontal circumference at the level of the waist, immediately below the lowest techniques
rib (ASTM, 1995a, 1999; Gordon et al., 1989; NBS, 1971); between the iliac crest
and lower ribs (ISO, 1981, 1989); may not be parallel to the floor (ASTM, 1995b).
No current standard could be found that had a waist-at-the-navel definition.
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The ``waist'' for the [TC]2 319
system is the smallest circumference between the bust and hips determined by
locating the small of the back and then going up and down a predetermined
amount for a starting-point to find the waist. The system allows the user to
define how far from horizontal the waist can rotate or determine a fixed angle
for the waist ([TC]2, 1999). The [TC]2 system does not have a method of
detecting the navel for use in the waist measurement.
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Cyberware does not use the natural indentation of the body as the waist
measure. Cyberware's ``waist circumference'' is taken in reference to the navel. It
is the measurement of the total distance around the torso segment that lies on or
near a plane parallel to the x-y plane, which passes through the navel (omphalion).
The center of the navel is taken to be the center of mass of the 3D object occurring
at or near the inside middle of the central third of the torso segment (Paquette,
2000, personal communication). This measurement is primarily used by the
military and is not normally used in traditional apparel design.
SYMCAD's ``natural waist girth'' is the horizontal perimeter measured at the
narrowest part of the abdomen. SYMCAD's ``waist girth'' is the horizontal
perimeter measured where the system detects the navel. The ``belt girth'' is
where the trousers are worn according to the rise as defined by the user
(SYMCAD, 2000).
Both [TC]2 and SYMCAD have definitions that coincide with the current ISO
and ASTM body measurement standards. However, palpation or bending to
one side may be needed to determine the landmarks used in the natural waist.
In a scanner, the subject stands vertically and does not move. The navel is a
landmark that is very difficult, if not impossible, to locate in a totally non-
contact system. The subject in the scanner is usually wearing clothing that
would cover up the navel. This would affect other measurements that rely on
an accurate waist measure for their extraction. It is of vital importance to
potential industry users that measurement definitions be absolute and
repeatable, so that they can be used most accurately for customization and
production activities.

Hip and seat circumferences

Traditional measurement methods. The hip circumference is defined as:
. the maximum hip circumference of the body at the hip level, parallel to
the floor (ASTM, 1995a);
. the maximum circumference of the body at the level of maximum
prominence of the buttocks (ASTM, 1999);
 JFMM . the maximum hip circumference at the level of maximum prominence of
7,3 the buttocks, parallel to the floor (ASTM, 1995b);
. the horizontal girth measured round the buttocks at the level of the
greatest lateral trochanteric projectors (ISO, 1989); and
. the horizontal girth measured round the buttocks at the level of
320 maximum circumference (ISO, 1981).
The seat measure is defined as the horizontal circumference of the level of
the maximum protrusion of the right buttock, as viewed from the side (Gordon
et al., 1989).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. [TC]2 defines the ``hips'' as
the largest circumference between the waist and the crotch. The user can
specify the upper and lower limits between which the system will search. These
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

limits are based on a percentage of the distance from the crotch and the waist
and have been established to direct the system to the correct physical location.
The ``seat'' measure is the circumference taken at the largest (widest) part of the
bottom, as viewed from the side. The seat measure will never be larger than the
hips measure unless limits are placed on the area the scanner searches (Ken
Harrison, personal communication, September 1999; [TC]2, 1999).
Cyberware has no hips measure. However, the seat is defined as being at the
most prominent posterior protuberance of the buttocks. Starting at the crotch,
cross-sections of the pelvis are taken until the waist is reached. At each level,
the greatest posterior point is found. At the level of the most posterior point, the
circumference is measured around the point cloud.
Nor has SYMCAD any hips measurement. It defines the ``seat girth'' as the
horizontal perimeter measured at the average height of the most prominent
point of the buttocks (SYMCAD, 2000) (see Figure 6).
The traditional definitions of this measure allow for a great deal of
measurement variance, since no consistent landmark is defined. The [TC]2
definition most correctly follows the ASTM (1995a) and ISO (1981) standards
but does not support the other definitions. The other definitions (ASTM, 1995b,
1999; ISO, 1989) most clearly follow the definition of ``seat'' as stated above. A
strong case can be made for the importance of both hip and seat measures as
well as the location of those measures from a basic landmark (floor or waist).

Sleeve and arm lengths

Traditional measurement methods. The sleeve length is defined as the
horizontal surface distance from the mid-spine landmark, across the olecranon-
center landmark at the tip of the raised right elbow, to the dorsal wrist
landmark (Gordon et al., 1989); the distance between the seventh cervical
vertebra to the extremity of the wrist-bone, passing over the top of the shoulder
(acromion) and along the arm bent at a 90o angle in a horizontal position (ISO,
1989; ASTM, 1995a).
The arm length is defined as the distance from the arm-scye/shoulder line
intersection (acromion), over the elbow, to the far end of the prominent wrist-
 Body
measurement
techniques

321
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Figure 6.
Hip and seat
circumference examples

bone (ulna), with fists clenched and placed on the hip and with the arms bent at
a 90o angle (ISO, 1989; ASTM, 1995a, b, 1999).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The ``shirt sleeve length'' in
the [TC]2 system is measured from the back of the neck, over the shoulder, and
down to 2in. above the knuckle (to accommodate for the lack of a 90o angle in
the arm) ([TC]2, 1999). They do not currently have an arm length measure.
Cyberware defines the ``sleeve length'' as a measure that is one-half the cross-
shoulder measurement plus the length of a line drawn from the shoulder
endpoint (acromion) to the wrist. One inch is added to the length to give the
approximate sleeve end point (ARN, 2000). They do not have an arm length
measure.
SYMCAD has a ``total arm length'' that is the distance between the base of
the neck and the exterior inferior edge of the wrist, measured along the arm
through the tops of both the acromion and the elbow, arm and forearm in a
vertical plane forming an angle of about 120o. The subject must stand with
their fists about 15cm out from the hips. The ``arm length'' measure is the
distance between the edge of the shoulder (acromion) and the exterior inferior
 JFMM edge of the wrist, measured along the arm through the top of the elbow, arm,
7,3 and forearm in a vertical plane forming an angle of about 120o, standing with
fists about 15cm apart from the hips (SYMCAD, 2000).
The sleeve measure, as defined here, is primarily used in men's tailored
clothing. SYMCAD is the only scanner with an arm length measure, at this
time. It is labeled appropriately, particularly for women's clothing. The current
322 standards require the arms to be bent at a 90o angle. The [TC]2 and Cyberware
systems require subjects to hang their arms naturally by their side, slightly
away from the body. SYMCAD requires an awkward stance of the elbows bent
up and out from the body. However, it does not give the 90o angle stipulated by
the standards and it is questionable whether this would affect the measure.
None of these standards will work for body scanning, as they currently exist.
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Inseam
Traditional measurement methods. The inseam measure is defined as the
distance from the crotch intersection straight down to the soles of the feet
(ASTM, 1995a, b, 1999; ISO, 1981, 1989)
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. [TC]2 allows the user to
define how the inseam measure will be determined. Both methods start at the
crotch point. One variation of the measure (the system default) is made straight
down to the floor. The other variation takes the measure along the inside of the
leg, ending at the inside of the foot ([TC]2, 1999).
Cyberware defines the ``pant inseam'' as the measure of the crotch height,
which is the straight height above the floor of the lowest crotch point. The legs
are separated from the torso at the crotch; therefore the measurement value is
the height of segmentation between the legs and torso (Steven Paquette,
personal communication, 1 December 2000). SYMCAD's ``inside leg length'' is
the distance measured on a straight line along the leg between the crotch and
the ground, while the subject stands with legs apart (SYMCAD, 2000).
SYMCAD is the only system that deviates from the current definitions in
that it is measured along the leg and not straight down to the floor. [TC]2 allows
a similar deviation, if the user desires. This deviation may well be desirable,
due to the fact that subjects are usually required to stand with their legs apart
when being scanned, so that the lasers and lights have access to all inside
points. A scanned measurement that follows the inside of the leg may more
accurately reflect the measurement that would be obtained using traditional
measurement methods (with legs close together).

Outseam
Traditional measurement methods. The distance from the side waist to the
soles of the feet, following the curves of the body (ASTM, 1999; ISO, 1981);
following the contour of the hip, then vertically down (ISO, 1989); the vertical
distance between a standing surface and the landmark at the preferred
landmark of the right waist (Gordon et al., 1989).
 Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``outseam'' Body
measure starts at the side waist point and follows the body down to the hips. measurement
From there, user defined parameters allow three variations: techniques
(1) from the hip point, the measure goes straight down to the floor and
disregards whether the legs are in the way or not;
(2) from the hip point, the measure goes down to the outside of the foot; or 323
(3) from the hip point, the measure goes straight to the floor as soon as there
is no leg in the way ([TC]2, 1999).
Cyberware has no outseam measure. For SYMCAD, the ``outside leg length'' is
the distance between the natural waist line and the ground, measured on the
flank side along the hip and then vertically from the fleshy part of the thigh
(SYMCAD, 2000).
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Both [TC]2 and SYMCAD follow the same basic definition. However, the
standards should be clearer on the outseam measure. Gordon's traditional
definition is really a vertical waist height measure. While an important
measure, it does not have a direct application for the best fit of pants or skirts.

Shoulder length
Traditional measurement methods. The shoulder length measure is taken with
the arms hanging down naturally. It is the measure from the side of the neck-
base to the arm-scye line at the shoulder joint (ASTM, 1995a, b, 1999); from the
base of the side of the neck (neck point) to the acromion extremity (ISO, 1989).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``shoulder
length'' is the distance from the side of the neck to the shoulder point (acromion)
([TC]2, 1999). Cyberware does not have a shoulder length measure. SYMCAD
defines the ``shoulder length'' as the distance between the base of the neck and
the edge of the shoulder (SYMCAD, 2000). Both the [TC]2 and SYMCAD
systems have terms and definitions that are consistent with the current
standards.

Across-chest and across-back

Traditional measurement methods. Measure across the chest from arm-scye to
arm-scye at front breakpoint level (ASTM, 1995a, b); from front-break point to
front-break point (ASTM, 1999).
Measure across the back from arm-scye to arm-scye back-break point level
(ASTM, 1995a, 1999); approximately the same level as the chest (ASTM,
1995b); the horizontal distance across the back measured half-way between the
upper and lower scye levels (ISO, 1989).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``across-chest''
measure is taken from the front of the arm at the armpit level to the front of the
other arm at the armpit level. The ``across-back'' measure is taken from the back
of one arm to the back of the other at the armpit level, where the arm joins the
back at the crease ([TC]2, 1999).
 JFMM Cyberware does not have an across-chest or an across-back measure.
7,3 SYMCAD's ``across-chest'' measure is the distance between the points situated
at the middle of the segment between the edge of the shoulder and the armpit in
the front with subject standing with arms apart. The ``across-back'' measure
is the distance between the points situated at the middle of the segment
between the edge of the shoulder and the armpit in the back with the subject
324 standing with arms apart (SYMCAD, 2000).
The SYMCAD measurement definition for across-chest and across-back
differs substantially from the traditional standards. The [TC]2 method locates
these measures slightly below the break-point level, but is more closely aligned
with the standards.

Back of neck to waist length

Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

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

defined as the distance from the seventh cervical vertebra (cervicale), following
the contour of the spinal column, to the waist (ISO, 1989; ASTM, 1995a, b, 1999;
Gordon et al., 1989).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``neck to waist''
measure can be measured in the front or the back. For the back measure, it is
taken at the neck base, following the contours of the spine down to the waist at
the location previously defined in the system ([TC]2, 1999). Cyberware does not
have a back of neck to waist measure. The SYMCAD ``back neck to waist'' is the
distance between the seventh cervical vertebra and the waist (at the navel)
along the body, between the shoulder-blades up to the widest point, then
vertically. The ``back neck to belt'' is the distance between the seventh cervical
vertebra and the belt (the waist measure at the preferred height) along the body
between the shoulder-blades up to the widest point then vertically (SYMCAD,
2000).
This is a critical measure for appropriate fit of most upper-body garments. A
significant issue for this measure is the location of the waist. When the waist
measure is standardized, it will affect this measure also.

Rise
Traditional measurement methods. The rise measure is defined as the vertical
distance between the waist level and the crotch level taken standing from the
side (ISO, 1989; ASTM, 1999); while sitting on a hard, flat surface, measure
straight down from the waist level at the side of the body to the flat surface
(ASTM, 1995a).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``vertical rise'' is
the vertical distance from the crotch to the waist, not measured along the
contour body. Instead, it is the difference in height of the waist and the crotch
([TC]2, 1999). Cyberware does not have a rise measure. SYMCAD's ``body rise''
is the difference between the height of the belt girth (where the trousers are
worn) and the inside leg length (SYMCAD, 2000).
 Crotch length Body
Traditional measurement methods. The crotch length is defined as the measure measurement
from the center front waist level through the crotch to the center back waist techniques
level (ASTM, 1995b); the distance between the abdomen at the level of the
preferred landmark of the waist to the preferred landmark on the back is
measured through the crotch to the right of the genitalia (Gordon et al., 1989).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``crotch length'' 325
is the measurement along the body from the front waist through the crotch to
the back waist. This system allows the user to define whether a front, back, or
full crotch length is needed ([TC]2, 1999). Neither Cyberware nor SYMCAD
have a crotch length measure.
The [TC]2 system was specifically designed for use in apparel. In this
research, they were the only system to have a crotch length. Surprisingly, the
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

only standard that included the crotch length was the ASTM 5586 for women
over 55. This is a critical measure for the appropriate fit of pants, shorts, or
variations of each.

Thigh circumference
Traditional measurement methods. The thigh circumference is defined as the
maximum circumference of the upper leg close to the crotch (ASTM, 1995a;
1999); parallel to the floor (ASTM, 1995b); at the juncture with the buttock
(Gordon et al., 1989); at the highest thigh position (ISO, 1989).
Traditional measurement method for mid-thigh circumference. The
horizontal circumference of the thigh measured midway between the hip and
the knee (ISO, 1989; ASTM, 1995a, 1999); parallel to the floor (ASTM, 1995b).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``thigh'' measure
offers user-defined parameters for several choices on defining the position of
the thigh. The system allows for a fixed location of the search for the thigh.
The default uses this parameter by placing the thigh 2in. below the crotch. The
system can also be programmed to find the largest circumference between the
upper and lower limits of the crotch and the knee, respectively ([TC]2, 1999).
Neither Cyberware nor SYMCAD have a thigh circumference measure.
The [TC]2 system allows for the determination of the thigh circumference
and the mid-thigh circumference. For pattern making, the largest circumference
may be the one needed, whether located at the crotch or midway between the
hip and knee. However, it is also very important to know where that measure
was located.

Biceps circumference
Traditional measurement methods. The biceps circumference is taken with the
arms down. It is the measure of the maximum upper arm circumference parallel
to the floor and usually taken near the level of the armpit (ASTM, 1995b);
between the shoulder joint and the elbow (ASTM, 1995a, 1999); at the lowest
scye level (ISO, 1989); with the subject extending upper arm horizontally, the
elbow flexed at a 90o angle , the fist clenched and held facing the head, and the
 JFMM subject exerting maximum effort in making the muscle flex, the circumference
7,3 of the flexed biceps muscle of the upper arm is measured (Gordon et al., 1989).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``biceps''
measure is the circumference of the arm taken about 2in. below the armpit. It is
not necessarily the largest circumference of the upper arm ([TC]2, 1999). The
Cyberware and SYMCAD systems do not have a biceps measure.
326
Wrist circumference
Traditional measurement methods. The wrist circumference is defined as the
girth over the wrist-bone (ISO, 1989); over the prominence of the outer wrist-
bone (ASTM, 1995b); over the inner and outer prominence at the lower end of
the forearm (ASTM, 1995a, 1999).
Body-scanning measurement extraction methods. The [TC]2 ``wrist
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

circumference'' is the smallest circumference from the elbow to the knuckles of

the hand (Ken Harrison, personal communication, September 1999). The
Cyberware and SYMCAD systems do not have a wrist measure.

Conclusions and recommendations

With the use of 3D body scanners, body measurement techniques can be non-
contact, instant, and accurate. However, how each scanner establishes
landmarks and takes the measurements should be established so that
standardization of the measurement procedure can be realized. In this study, 21
measurements were chosen as being critical to the design of well-fitting
garments. On each of the 21 measurements, standard measurement procedure
was identified for the three different scanners: [TC]2, Cyberware, and
SYMCAD.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. A significant finding was
the incomparability of measuring techniques between the scanners. Among the
growing number of scanners that are currently available, significant variance
exists in how each scanner captures specific body measurements and in the
terms that are used. A summary of traditional measurement terms compared
with the selected scanner models is shown in Table III. With global production
practices in the apparel industry, standardization of the measurement
procedures or, at the very least, communication among the scanning systems
will need to be realized for the maximum benefit of 3D body scanning within
the apparel industry.
Another issue of great importance with body-scanning technology is that
there are no standards, published or unpublished, on the interpretation of
measurements or measurement terms. Current standards for body and garment
dimensions include those established by the Association of Standards and
Testing Materials (ASTM) and the International Standards Organization (ISO).
The predominant standard for measurements taken for the military today in
their issue of clothing is the 1988 study of US Army personnel by Gordon et al.
(1989). There is currently a European project entitled e-T Cluster that was
developed to create common standards for the integration of 3D body
 [TC]2 Cyberware SYMCAD Body
measurement
Mid-neck Collar Neck circumference Neck girth techniques
Neckbase Neck n/a Neckbase
Chest Chest n/a Maximum chest girth
Bust Bust Chest circumference Chest girth
Waist ± natural Waist n/a Natural waist girth
indentation
327
Waist ± navel n/a Waist circumference Waist girth, belt girth
Hips Hips n/a n/a
Seat Seat Seat circumference Seat girth
Sleeve length Shirt sleeve length Sleeve length Total arm length
Arm length n/a n/a Arm length
Inseam Inseam Pant inseam Inside leg length
Outseam Outseam n/a Outside leg length
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Shoulder length Shoulder length n/a Shoulder length

Across-chest Across-chest n/a Across-chest
Across-back Across-back n/a Across-back
Back of neck to waist Neck to waist n/a (1) Back neck to waist
(2) Back neck to belt
Rise Vertical rise n/a Body rise Table III.
Crotch length Crotch length n/a n/a Summary of traditional
Thigh circumference Thigh n/a n/a measurement terms
Biceps circumference Biceps n/a n/a compared with selected
Wrist circumference Wrist n/a n/a scanner model terms

measurements, advanced CAD, and personalized avatars in the European

fashion industry (Daanen, 2002; Bougourd and Treleaven, 2002).
Most current standards require palpation, or touching of the human body, or
the bending of body parts to find appropriate landmarks for the needed
measurements. Most scanners are intended to be non-contact so that the
privacy of the individual being scanned can be protected. If we were to use the
current standards to define the measuring process in 3D scanning, they just
would not work. An example of this situation exists with the bust
circumference versus the chest circumference. All three scanners have
definitions that include going through the bust points for the bust
circumference. The traditional measurement standards, however, use the same
definition for both the chest and the bust measurements. There appears to be a
need for revision in the traditional standards to reflect the true definition of
being measured horizontally at the armpit level just above the bustline. The
terminology in the three scanners for the bust circumference name should be
changed to reflect a very different bust measure. Since the term ``bust'' may be
an issue in men's measurement and not really needed, another general term
may be needed or the measurement sets may be defined by gender.
The need of some scanners to require landmarking was found to be a
significant problem. Manually identifying landmarks is time-consuming and,
usually, full of error. Landmarking also violates the privacy of the individual. A
human must come in contact with the subject's skin in order to find the
 JFMM landmark and to mark it. The Cyberware system does require landmarking. On
7,3 the other side, scanners that do landmarking automatically have been
programmed to do so based on the same generalities upon which the current
sizing systems have been based. Without being able to touch the subject's skin,
absolute identification cannot be achieved.
Of the 21 measures in the study, [TC]2 was the scanner that had the most
328 measures identified for this study. They were most closely in line with the
current standards or with what the standards might be expected to be,
depending on the measure. Ultimately, for this technology to serve the industry
best, we must be able to clearly and precisely indicate how and where
measurements were taken. These measures must also be accurate. We must be
able to get all of the necessary measurements to ensure fit of the garments.
With this system's ability to extract hundreds of measurements that are
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

clothing-specific, the [TC]2 BMS body scanner is the choice among scanners for
the needs of the apparel industry.

Recommendations
This research will establish a benchmark for the standardization of using 3D
body scanners globally in the manufacture of apparel. It will enable the
technology transfer of the individual components of mass customization and
rapid prototyping to become efficient and less laborious so as to facilitate
greater usage in the apparel industry. It will also help governing bodies of
current standards for body and garment sizing, such as ASTM and ISO, to get
a glimpse of this important issue and raise new questions for further study.
Recommendations from this research include:
. Current standards need to be revised to include three-dimensional body
scanning or a new set of standards should be created specifically for
body scanning. These standards need to take into account the
terminology of measures and the non-palpation by the measurer or
movement of the subject.
. Terminology for the individual measures between the scanners needs to
be standardized. This can only happen if all scanner companies are
willing to share their information.
. This research only compared three of the major scanners available.
Other research should be targeted on other scanning systems.
. Research should be initiated concerning gathering information from the
``hard-to-get-to'' companies that are reluctant to share. All available
resources should be utilized to get this information.

References
Addleman, D. and Addleman, L. (1985), ``Rapid 3D digitizing'', Computer Graphics World, Vol. 8,
pp. 42-4.
Addleman, S. (1997), ``Whole-body 3D scanner and scan data report'', SPIE, Vol. 3023, pp. 2-5.
 Anthropometry (2000), available at: www.sameint.it/dietosys/diets/englboro/bro03.htm (accessed Body
21 June).
measurement
ARN (2000), Apparel Research Network (ARN) Redesigned 3-D Whole Body Scanner ± WBX for
Recruit Clothing Issues, Apparel Research Network (ARN) homepage, available at: http:// techniques
arn.iitri.org/docs/scan/systems/wbxwar.html (accessed 13 August).
Arridge, S.R., Moss, J.P., Linney, A.D. and James, D. (1985), ``Three-dimensional digitization of the
face and skull'', Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 13, pp. 136-43.
329
ASTM (1995a), Standard Table of Body Measurements for Adult Female Misses Figure Type,
Sizes 2-20, Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5585-95, American Standards for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (1995b), Standard Table of Body Measurements for Women Aged 55 and Older (All
Figure Type), Vol. 07-02, Designation: D5586-95, American Standards for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (1999), Standard Terminology relating to Body Dimensions for Apparel Sizing, Vol. 07-02,
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Designation: D5219-99, American Standards for Testing and Materials, West

Conshohocken, PA.
Bennett, K.A. and Osborne, R.H. (1986), ``Interobserver measurement reliability in
anthropometry'', Human Biology, Vol. 39, pp. 124-30.
Bougourd, J.P. and Treleaven, P.C. (2002), ``Capturing the shape of a nation: size UK'', Proceedings
of the International Federation of the Fashion Technology Institute (IFFTI) Conference,
Hong Kong, 7-9 November.
Bray, G.A., Greenway, F.L. and Molitch, M.E. (1978), ``Use of anthropometric measures to assess
weight loss'', American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 31, pp. 769-73.
Byran, G.J., Davis, E.R. and Middlemiss, S.H. (1996), Skeletal Anatomy, 3rd ed., Churchill
Livingston, New York, NY.
CAD Modelling (1992), Sales Brochure (Piazza Beccaria, n.6. 50121), Florence.
Cameron, N. (1984), The Measurement of Human Growth, Croom Helm, London.
Cameron, N. (1986), ``The methods of auxological anthropology'', in Faulkner, F. and Tanner, J.M.
(Eds), Human Growth, Vol. 3, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-46.
Clerget, M., Germain, F. and Kryze, J. (1977), Process and Apparatus for Optically Exploring the
Surface of the Body (United States Patent 829936), United State Patent and Trade Mark
Office, 1 September.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-experimental Design and Analysis Issues for Field
Surveys, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Cotton Inc. (1998), In Search of Jeans that Fit, 22 October, available at: www.cottoninc.com/
WWD/homepage.cfm?PAGE=939 (accessed 19 December 2002).
Cyberware (2000a), Corporate Backgrounder, Cyberware homepage, available at:
www.cyberware.com/info/backgrounder.html (accessed 13 September).
Cyberware (2000b), Whole Body Color 3D Scanner: Model WB4, Cyberware homepage, available
at: www.cyberware.com/products/wbInfo.html (accessed 19 June).
Cyberware (2000c), Custom Scanner: Whole Body Color 3D Scanner: WBX Prototype, Cyberware
homepage, available at: www.cyberware.com/products/wbxInfo.html (accessed 19 June).
Czaja, S. (1984), Hand Anthropometrics (technical paper with comments), US Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Washington, DC.
Daanen, H. (2002), ``E-T cluster project'', paper presented at the ASTM D13.66 ± 3D Body-
Scanning Task Group Meeting, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 12
September.
 JFMM Daanen, H., Taylor, S.E., Brunsman, M.A. and Nurre, J.H. (1997), ``Absolute accuracy of the the
Cyberware WB4 whole body scanner'', SPIE, Vol. 3023, pp. 6-12.
7,3
Financial Times (1998), ``Cut down to size'', Financial Times, 13 February, available at:
www.symcad.com/eng/ukpress.html (accessed 19 June 2000).
Foster, T.A., Webber, L.S. and Sathanur, R. (1980), ``Measurement error of risk factor variables in
an epidemiologic study of children: the Bugalusa heart study'', Journal of Chronic Disease,
330 Vol. 33, pp. 661-72.
Gordon, C.C. and Bradtmiller, B. (1992), ``Inter-observer error in a large-scale anthropometric
survey'', American Journal of Human Biology, Vol. 4, pp. 253-63.
Gordon, C.C., Bradtmiller, B., Churchill, T., Clauser, C.E., McConville, J.T., Tebbetts, I.O. and
Walker, R.A. (1989), 1988 Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel: Methods and
Summary Statistics, Technical Report NATICK/TR-89/044, US Army Natick Research,
Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA.
Halioua, M., Krishnamurthy, R.S., Liu, H. and Chiang, F.P. (1984), ``Projection moire with moving
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

gratings for automated 3-D topography'', Applied Optics, Vol. 22, pp. 850-5.
Hanford, J. (1984), Professional Pattern Making for Designers: Women's Wear and Men's Casual
Wear, Plycon Press, Redondo Beach, CA.
Hertzberg, H.T.E. (1955), ``Some contributions of applied physical anthropology to human
engineering'', Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 63, pp. 616-29.
Himes, J.H. (1989), ``Reliability of anthropometric methods and replicate measurements'',
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 40, pp. 197-203.
ISO (1981), Size Designation of Clothes ± Definition and Body Measurement Procedure, Reference
No. 3635-1981, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (1989), Garment Construction and Anthropometric Surveys ± Body Dimensions, Reference
No. 8559-1989, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Istook, C. and Hwang, S. (2001), ``3D-body scanning systems with application to the apparel
industry'', Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, May, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 120-32.
Ito, I. (1979), Apparatus for Measuring the Contour Configuration of Articles, UK Patent GB
2030286b, British Patent Office, London, 20 July.
Jamison, P.L. and Zegura, S.L. (1974), ``A univariate and multivariate examination of
measurement error in anthropometry'', American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 40,
pp. 197-203.
Johnston, F.E. and Martorell, R. (1988), ``Population surveys'', in Lohman, T.G., Roche, A.F. and
Martorell, R. (Eds), Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual, Human Kinetics
Books, Champaign, IL, pp. 107-10.
Johnston, F.E., Hamill, P.V.V. and Lemshow, S. (1972), Skinfold Thickness of Children 6-11 Years,
United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 120), US Department of Health and
Human Services, Washington, DC.
Kroemer, K.H.E., Kroemer, H.J. and Kroemer-Elbert, K.E. (1986), Engineering Physiology:
Physiologic Bases of Human Factors/Ergonomics, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Lovesey, E.J. (1964), ``Some factors determining the design of anthropometric dummies'',
unpublished diploma thesis, The College of Aeronautics.
McConville, J.T. (1979), Anthropometric Source Book. Volume I: Anthropometry for Designers,
NASA reference publication no. 454, Scientific and Technical Information Office.
Magnant, D. (1985), ``Capteur tridimensional sans contact'', Proceedings of the Society of
Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Vol. 602, pp. 18-22.
 Malina, R.M., Hamill, P.V.V. and Lemshow, S. (1972), Selected Body Measurements of Children Body
6-11 Years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 123), US Department
of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. measurement
Malina, R.M., Hamill, P.V.V. and Lemshow, S. (1974), Body Dimensions and Proportions, White techniques
and Negro Children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11,
No. 143), US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Marks, G.C., Habicht, J.P. and Mueller, W.H. (1989), ``Reliability, dependability, and precision of
anthropometric measurements'', American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 130 No. 3, 331
pp. 578-87.
Marshall, E.L. (1937), ``The objectivity of anthropometric measurements taken on eight- and
nine-year-old white males'', Child Development, Vol. 8, pp. 249-56.
Martorell, R., Habicht, J.P. and Yarbrough, C. (1975), ``The identification and evaluation of
measurement variability in the anthropometry of pre-school children'', American Journal
of Physical Antrhopology, Vol. 43, pp. 347-52.
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Meadows, D.M., Johnson, W.O. and Allen, J. (1970), ``Generation of surface countours by moire
patterns'', Applied Optics, Vol. 9, pp. 942-7.
Meredith, H.V. (1936), ``The reliability of anthropometric measurments taken on eight- and
nine-year-old white males'', Child Development, Vol. 7, pp. 262-72.
Mueller, W.H. and Martorell, R. (1988), ``Reliability and accuracy of measurement'', in Lohman,
T.G., Roche, A.F. and Martorell, R. (Eds), Anthropometric Standardization Reference
Manual, Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, IL, pp. 83-6.
NBS (1971), Body Measurements for the Sizing of Women's Patterns and Apparel (NBS
Voluntary Product Standard PS 42-70), United States Department of Commerce/National
Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.
O'Brien, R. and Sheldon, W.C. (1941), Women's Measurements for Garment and Pattern
Construction, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Paquette, S. (1996), ``3D scanning in apparel design and human engineering'', IEEE Computer
Graphics and Application, Vol. 16 No. 5, September, pp. 11-15.
Roe, R.W. (1993), ``Occupant packaging'', in Peacock, J.B. and Karwoski, W. (Eds), Automotive
Ergonomics ± Human Factors in the Design and Use of Automobiles, Taylor & Francis,
London, pp. 11-42.
Roebuck, J.A. Jr, Kroemer, K.H.E. and Thomson, W.G. (1975), Engineering Anthropometry
Methods, Wiley, New York, NY.
Sanders, M.S. and Shaw, B.E. (1985), ``US truck driver anthropometric and truck work space data
survey: sample selection and methodology'', SAE Technical Paper, No. 852315, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1980), Statistical Methods, 7th ed., Iowa State University
Press, Ames, IA, p. 183.
SYMCAD (2000), ``Measurements automatically taken by SYMCAD'', unpublished internal
document, 23 August.
Takada, M. and Esaki, T. (1981), Method and Apparatus for Measuring Human Body or the Like,
UK Patent G.B. 2069690 B, British Patent Office, London, 26 Janaury.
[TC]2 (1999), ``Body scanner measurement descriptions'', unpublished internal document.
TELMAT (2000), Our Product Range, available at: www.telmat-net.fr/Eng/products.htm
(accessed 3 November).
Tortora, G.J. (1986), Principles of Human Anatomy, 4th ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Utermohle, C.J. and Zegura, S.L. (1982), ``Intra- and inter-observer error in craniometry: a
cautionary tale'', American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 57, pp. 303-10.
 JFMM Utermohle, C.J., Zegura, S.L. and Heathcote, G.M. (1983), ``Multiple observers, humidity, and
choice of precision of statistics: factors influencing craniometric data quality'', American
7,3 Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 61, pp. 85-95.
Vietorisz, T. (1964), Improvements in or relating to the Scanning of Objects to Provide Indications
of Shape, UK Patent 1078108, British Patent Office, London, 16 December.
West, G.M. (1993), ``Automated shape anthropometry'', unpublished doctoral thesis.
Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough.
332
Further reading
Croney, J. (1971), Anthropometrics for Designers, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York,
NY.
Halioua, M.L. and Hsin-Chu (1989), ``Optical three-dimensional sensing by phase-measuring
profilometry'', Optics and Lasers in Engineering, No. 0143-8166, pp. 185-215.
Montagu, M.F.A. (1960), A Handbook of Anthropometry, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

Roebuck, J.A. Jr (1995), Anthropometric Methods: Designing to Fit the Human Body, Human
Factors & Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA.
World Clothing Manufacturer (1996), ``Shape of things to come?'', Vol. 4, 4 May, available at:
www.symcad.com/eng/ukpress.html (accessed 19 June 2000).
 This article has been cited by:

1. Yanzhen Wang, Jianping Wang. 2015. Design data for running tight: skin strain distribution on lower
extremity based on decomposition of movement. The Journal of The Textile Institute 106, 469-479.
[CrossRef]
2. Junqiang Su, Bingfei Gu, Guolian Liu, Bugao Xu. 2015. Determination of distance ease of pants using
3D scanning data. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology 27:1, 47-59. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
3. J. BougourdAgeing populations 139-169. [CrossRef]
4. Seolyoung Oh, Jongsuk Chun. 2014. New Breast Measurement Technique and Bra Sizing System Based
on 3D Body Scan Data. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea 33, 299-311. [CrossRef]
5. Dong-Eun Kim, Karen LaBat, Elizabeth Bye, MyungHee Sohn, Karen Ryan. 2014. A study of scan
garment accuracy and reliability. The Journal of The Textile Institute 1-9. [CrossRef]
6. Bukisile P. Makhanya, Helena M. de Klerk, Karien Adamski, Anne Mastamet-Mason. 2014. Ethnicity,
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

body shape differences and female consumers' apparel fit problems. International Journal of Consumer
Studies 38:10.1111/ijcs.2014.38.issue-2, 183-191. [CrossRef]
7. P. Robinet, S. CarrierMale and female consumers: segmenting consumers in the apparel market by body
shape and other factors 221-234. [CrossRef]
8. Olaru Sabina, Spânachi Elena, Filipescu Emilia, Salistean Adrian. 2014. Virtual Fitting – Innovative
Technology for Customize Clothing Design. Procedia Engineering 69, 555-564. [CrossRef]
9. J. Bougourd, P. TreleavenNational size and shape surveys for apparel design 141-166. [CrossRef]
10. Ann Mastamet-Mason, Helena M. De Klerk, Susan Ashdown. 2012. Identification of a unique African
female body shape. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 5, 105-116.
[CrossRef]
11. Myunghee Sohn, Elizabeth Bye. 2012. Visual analysis of body shape changes during pregnancy.
International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 5, 117-128. [CrossRef]
12. Mi-Ran Han, Yeo-Sook Kim. 2012. The Relevances of the Ease and the Appearance by Changing the
Sleeve Cap Height Using Virtual Garment System. The Korean Journal of Community Living Science 23,
189-198. [CrossRef]
13. Yeo-Sook Kim, Hye-Won Park. 2012. A Study of the Relationship between 3D Model and 3D Garment
Simulation. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 36, 631-640. [CrossRef]
14. D.J. Carr, C.A. Wilson, R.M. LaingAnthropometric methods for the successful design of military clothing
and equipment 49-63. [CrossRef]
15. C.L. Istook, E.A. Newcomb, H. LimThree-dimensional (3D) technologies for apparel and textile design
296-325. [CrossRef]
16. P. WatkinsGarment pattern design and comfort 245-277. [CrossRef]
17. Terry Lerch, Sean Anthony, Tanya Domina. 2008. Initial validation of point cloud data from a 3D body
scanner. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology 20:5, 271-280. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
18. Rose Otieno. 2008. Approaches in researching human measurement. EuroMed Journal of Business 3:1,
63-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 19. Umberto Cugini, Monica Bordegoni, Rossella Mana. 2008. The role of virtual prototyping and simulation
in the fashion sector. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) 2, 33-38.
[CrossRef]
20. Kyung-Ja Paek, Jeong-Ran Lee. 2008. Upper Body Measurement of Men using 3D Body Scanner -
Compared to Anthropometry-. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 32, 24-34. [CrossRef]
21. C.L. IstookThree-dimensional body scanning to improve fit 94-116. [CrossRef]
22. Naoufel Werghi. 2007. Segmentation and Modeling of Full Human Body Shape From 3-D Scan Data:
A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 37,
1122-1136. [CrossRef]
23. Roschelle Heuberger, Tanya Domina, Maureen MacGillivray. 2007. Body scanning as a new
anthropometric measurement tool for health-risk assessment. International Journal of Consumer Studies
0:10.1111/ijc.0.0.issue-0, 070924015744003-???. [CrossRef]
24. Rong Zheng, Winnie Yu, Jintu Fan. 2007. Development of a new chinese bra sizing system based on breast
anthropometric measurements. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37, 697-705. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Auburn University At 15:49 19 March 2015 (PT)

25. Phoebe R. Apeagyei, Rose Otieno. 2007. Usability of pattern customising technology in the achievement
and testing of fit for mass customisation. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal 11:3, 349-365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Liu Chi, Richard Kennon. 2006. Body scanning of dynamic posture. International Journal of Clothing
Science and Technology 18:3, 166-178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. R. Zheng, W. Yu, J. FanBreast measurement and sizing 28-58. [CrossRef]

View publication stats