002, -9x 85 I!

IW + a,
< 1985 Pcrprmon Prcrs Lrd

TECHNICAL NOTES

REGRESSION EQUATIONS TO PREDICT SEGMENTAL MOMENTS OF

INERTIA FROM ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS: AN
EXTENSION OF THE DATA OF CHANDLER ET AL. (1975)

RICHARD N. HINRICHS
Btomechanics Laboratory, Division of Physical Education, North Texas State University. Denton.
TX 76203. U.S.A.

Abstract-A set of regression equations was developed to fully utilize the data of Chandler rf 01. (AMRL
Technical Report 74- 137, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. 1975) to estimate segmental moments of inertia tn
living subjects. Using anthropometric measurements as predictors, moments of inertia can be computed
about both transverse and longitudinal axes passing through each segment’scenter of mass. Symmetry about
segment long axes is assumed. Because of the small sample size upon which these equations are based. it is
suggested that they be used cautiously, especially to avoid extrapolation to subjects having anthropometrlc
measurements outside the range of sample values.

INTRODUCTIOS inertia from anthropometric dimensions was not generated

by Chandler et al. (1975). All the appropriate information was
The use of indirect estimates of body segment masses. centres present in their report, however, if someone else wished to do
of mass (CMs).and moments of inertia is arguably one of the so. The purpose of this study was to generate such a set of
biggest sources of error in biomechanics research. These body regression equations. Given the rather large errors which
segment parameters (BSPs) are commonly used along with could occur when using any BSP data from cadavers, it
segmental kinematics IO compute various kinetic quantities seemed reasonable IO generate these equations as a means of
such as linear and angular momentum, and forces and using the Chandler ef 01. data to their fullest capability.
moments at various joints. The resulting information may
contain a fair amount of uncertainty because it is based on
potentially inappropriate BSPs. PROCEDURES
In an attempt to minimize errors associated with applying
BSP data obtained from cadaver studies to living subjects,
Certain reductions were made to the Chandler et al. data
researchers such as Clauser II al. (1969) took various
before submitting them to a multiple linear regression. The
anthropometric measurements on the cadavers prior to
data appears in Tables 3- I6 (pp. 68-95) in Chandler et al. For
secttoning them and measuring segment masses and CMs.
most segments, Chandler et al. found similar values for the
Regression equations were generated to predict segment
moments of inertia about the sement x and J axes (both
masses and CMs using selected anthropometric measure-
perpendicular to the segment long axis). This supports the
ments as predictors. This approach has allowed researchers to
notion of modeling the segments as being symmetrical about
more closely personalize’ the cadaver BSP data to a given
their long axes. For this purpose, the two transverse (x and J)
living subject.
moments of inertia were averaged together for each segment.
One of the biggest shortcomings of the Clauser et al. (1969)
Although the torso segment was found to have rather distinct
study is that segmental moments of inertia were not
moments of inertia about its x and J axes, these were averaged
measured. The Clauser et al. data must therefore be used in
conjunction with other sources of segmental moments of together to be consistent with the other segments. The head
inertia ifangular kineticquantitiesare to bederived. Hay et nl. segment, because it did not include the neck. had similar
(1977). for example. found that the segmental mass and CM moments of inertia about all three segment axes. In this case
data of Clauser et al. worked well with the segment moment all three were averaged together.
of inertia data of Whitsett (1963) for computing human body The final data reduction occurred from averaging the data
angular momentum during various sport activities. (for both anthropometry and moments of inertia) from the
A few years after the Clauser rf al. (1969) study, the same left and right extremities together. The resulting information
was in a much more compact form. For each segment from
group (Chandler et 01.. 1975) published the results ofa second
BSP study involving cadavers. Of special interest to this study each cadaver, the data consisted of the following:
(I) fT-The segment moment of inertia about a transverse
was the measurement of the complete inertia tensor of each
body segment including three principal moments of inertia axis through its CM.
and the orientation of their respective principal axes. It is the (2) IL-The segment moment of inertia about its longitu-
only study of its kind to date which computed these inertial dinal axis.
properties. The big problem with the study is that only six (3) The three to six anthropometric dimensions specific IO
cadavers were used. that segment taken from Tables 3-16 in Chandler er (II. (e.g.
It is. perhaps because of small sample size that a complete for the forearm: radials-stylion length, elbow circumference,
set of regression equations predicting segmental moments of forearm circumference, wrist circumference. and wrist
breadth).
These data were entered into a computer program (SAS.
Rtxwt ed 6 Dcavnbrr 1984;in ret iwd Jorm 17Junuory 1985. 1979) which computed multiple linear regression equations

621
622 Technical Notes

Table 1. Regression equations generated from thedata ofchandler er al. (1975) for
predicting segment moments of inertia from anthropometric dimensions*

RL

Head
I,=f,=24,114(HEADC)-1200.4 0.908
= 25102(HEADC)-6.4805(HEADL)- 1122.6 0.964
Torso
I, = 1098.3 (TORSL) - 59448.0 0.874
= 754.38 (TORSL) + 241.94 (CHSTC) - 59445.0 0.984
= 707.62 (TORSL) + 302.71 (WASTC) - 58455.0 0.990
I, = 173.73 (CHSTC) - 12623.0 0.858
= 206.6 I( WASTC) - I 3339.0 0.909
Upper arm
I, = 13.443 (ACRDL) - 310.99 0.882
= 13.264 (ACRDL) + I .82 I7 (AXARC) - 360.79 0.974
= 12.687(ACRDL)+2.I155(BICPC)-349.16 0.988
= 10.268 (ACRDL) + 5.0655 (ELBOC) - 349.71 0.992
I, = 2,1744(BICPC)-42.810 0.924
= 4.3701 (ELBOC) - 102.63 0.957
= 2.6797 (ELBOC) + 0.94597 (BICPC) - 82.643 0.989
= 1.3707 (ACRDL) + 2.0758 (BICPC) - 85.725 0.996
Forearm
I, = 8.2423 (ELBOC) - I7 I .O9 0.648
= 5.5319fFARMCl+ S.OO66IRDSTLl- 298.94 0.865
= 9.5544(WRISC)+ 10.452(~DSTL)L371.1 I 0.904
I, = 2.2490(ELBOC)-55.691 0.855
= 1,7O60(FARMC)-39.014 0.875
= 1.7258 (FARMC) + 0.92028 (RDSTL) - 63.602 0.964
Hand
I, = 2.7501 (STMCL) - 15.968 0.788
= I.2064 IHANDC) - 19.059 0.824
= 2.7443 (HANDBj - 16.882 0.891
I, = 1.3703(STMCL)-9.2416 0.796
= 1.3387 (HANDB) - 9.4514 0.862
= 0,62016(HANDC)- II.185 0.886

Thigh
I, = 326.80 (KNEEB) - 2279.2 0.598
= 90.039 (THIGL) +45.439 (UTHIC) - 5093.3 0.875
= 78.072 (THIGL) + 37.8OO(MTHIC) - 3960.5 0.88 I
= 80.589 (THIGLl+ 381.74 (KNEEB) - 6525.7 0.944
I, = 16.958 (UTHIC) - 598.00 0.855
= 143.26 (KNEEB) - 1301.2 0.906
= 89.242 (KNEEB) + 7.8926 (UTHIC) - I 108.7 0.962
Calf
I, = 66.879 (ANKLC) - 975.51 0.694
= 30.629 (CALFL) + 40.922 (KNEEC) - 2261.3 0.899
= 265.94 (ANKLC) - 61.797 (CALFC) - 3 I IO.0 0.97 I
I, = 3.5868 (CALFC) - 83.550 0.863
= 8.0795 (KNEEC) - 267.68 0.946
= 12.049 (ANKLC) - 2.7994 (CALFL) - 112.30 0.959

Foot
I r = 3.8538 (BOFTC) - 57.257 0.905
= 3.5538 lFOOTLl+ 2.3132 (ARCHC) - 114.76 0.916
= 6.7508 ~F~OTL~ -4.2725 (LMALH) - 105.42 0.942
I ,_ = 1.2988 (ARCHC) - 26.708 0.855
= 1.2663 (BOFTC) - 22.019 0.926

*Moments of inertia in kgcm*, anthropometric dimensions in cm. See Table 2

for abbreviations.
 Technical Notes 623

Table 2. Abbreviations for anthropometric dimensions and ranges of sample

values from Chandler YI 01. (1975: cadavers

Abbreviation Dimension* Range (cm)

I. ACRDL Acromion-radiale length 3 I .3-35.4

2. ANKLC Ankle circumference 19.4-22.6
3. ARCHC Arch circumference 23.8-28. I
4. ASISH Anterior-superior iliac spine height 90.8-102.9
5. AXARC Arm circumference. axillary 24.9-35.5
6. BICPC Biceps circumference 25.635.7
7. BOFTC Ball of foot circumference 20.8-25.9
8. CALFC Calf circumference 27.4-38.8
9. CALFL Calf length 34.0-40.4
IO. CHNKH Chin-neck intersect height 140.&152.4
I I. CHSTC Chest circumference 83.1-105.5
12. ELBOC Elbow circumference 27.1-31.6
13. FARMC Forearm circumference 26. I-32.0
14. FOOTL Foot length 22.8-26.3
15. HANDB Hand breadth 8.0-9.4
16. HANDC Hand circumference 19.7-23.2
17. HEADC Head circumference 54.7-59. I
IS. HEADL Head length 19.2-23.4
19. KNEEB Knee breadth 1o.c 12.0
20. KNEEC Knee circumference 34.4-39.7
‘I. LMALH Lateral malleolus height 4.9-7. I
22. MTHIC Mid-thigh circumference 33.8-54.0
23. RDSTL Radiale-stylion length 24.4-28.2
24. SPHRH Sphyrion height 5.7-7.4
25. STMCL Stylion-mctacarpale III length 7.69.2
26. THIGL Thigh length 42.9-49.2
27. TIBLH Tibiale height 40.847.7
38. TORSL Torso segment length 61.8-71.7
‘9. TROCH Trochanterion height 85.7-96.9
30. UTHIC Upper thigh circumference 41.1-58.5
31. WASTC Waist circumference 73.5-93.3
32. WRSTC Wrist circumference 15.1-19.0

*For complete descriptions see Chandler t~f al. (1975)

using the anthropometric dimensions as predictors. Because
of the sample size, the equations were restricted to only one or
two predictors per equation. All possible combinations were
tried first using only a single predictor and then with two.
The program also determined an F ratio for each regression
coefficient, giving the probability of each coefficient being
equal to zero. This gave an indication of the stability of the
coefficients. The decision was made to keep an equation if all
its coefficient probabilities were less than 0.125. Among these
two or three with the highest values of R2 using a single
predictor and with two predictors were retained.
The purpose of having more than a single equation to
predict each moment of inertia was to give the best possible
estimate of moment of inertia from anthropometric dimen-
sions. The small sample size afforded a high risk of overfitting.
Thus while two equations having similar values of RZ may
predict similar results for the sample. they may produce
markedly diITerent results on a living subject. Which one
should be used? Because the author could not answer that
question, it is suggested that the reader use the two or three
best equations for each segment and then average the results
together.
RESULTS AND DlSCUSSlON
The equations are presented in Table 1. In each case at least
one equation with only a single predictor has been included.
In three segments (torso I,, hand Irand I,. and foot I,_) no
two-predictor equations were retained because they did not
demonstrate stable coefficients. The unit for moment of inertia
in Table 1 is kg cm’ rather than the SI unit kg m’ in order to
have more manageable coefficients.
The abbreviations used in Table I for the anthropometric
dimensions are defined in Table 2. The reader should refer to
Chandler et al. (1975) for full descriptions of each dimension.
Also included in Table 2 are ranges of values for each
dimension taken from the Chandler et al. cadavers. These
represent the extreme values in the sample data upon which
the equations were generated. It is suggested that the
equations not be used for subjects having anthropometric
dimensions outside of these ranges. The following is a real
example of what can happen when an extrapolation is
attempted: the author used the equations to predict I,for the
thigh of a short subject with small bone diameters. His thigh
length was 41.6 cm, and his knee breadth was 8.2 cm, both
smaller than ‘allowable range’ listed in Table 2. These values
predicted a negative moment of inertia, which is, of course, an
impossibility. Granted, this subject probably had a relatively
small thigh moment of inertia, but certainly not a negative one
or even zero. In cases such as this, the equations should not be
used. The anthropometric dimensions of a given subject
should fall within the ranges listed in Table 2 in order to
minimize errors.
Given the limitations of the Chandler et al. data, the work
represents the most comprehensive study to date in which
BSPs were measured on cadavers. (If only the sample size had
been larger .) The accuracy of predicting BSPs of living
subjects from cadaver data remains uncertain. If the regres-
sion equations presented here are used with caution, however,
one should be able to better utilize the Chandler et al. data for
predicting segment moments of inertia.
624 Technical Notes

REFERESCES Patterson Air Force Base, OH (NTIS I AD-710-622).

Hay. J. G.. Wilson. B. D.. Dapena, J. and Woodworth, G. G.
Chandler. R. F., Clauser. C. E., McConville. J. T.. Reynolds, (I 977) A computational technique to determine the angular
H. M. and Young, J. M. (1975) Investigation of inertial momentum of the human body. J. Biomrchanics 10.
properties of the human body. AMRL Technical Report 269-271.
74-137, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. OH (NTIS Statistical Analysis System (1979) SAS User’s Guide 1979
x AD-A016485). Edirion. SAS Institute. Raleigh. NC.
Clauser, C. E., McConville, J. T. and Young. J. M. (1969) Whitsett, G. E. (1963) Some dynamic response characteristics
Weight, volume and center of mass of segments of the of weightless man. AMRLTechnical Report 63-18, Wright-
human body. AMRL Technical Report 69-70. Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, OH. (NTIS # AD-412-451).