Objective: This paper evaluated harness sizing schemes and anthropometric criteria for harness design applications. Background: Updated harness sizing systems are needed to accommodate diverse populations in the current workforce. Method: Three-dimensional torso scan data and human-harness interfaces from 108 women and 108 men were digitally captured. Abounding box approach was employed to quantify the effect of torso shape and size on fall harness fit. Results: A logistic regression model with eight equations was developed and tested to classify more than 96% of participants to the best-fitting size. Conclusion: Study outcomes suggested an alternative system of two sizes for women and three sizes for men over the current four-size unisex system. In addition, thigh strap angle and back D ring location could be utilized along with current harness static fit test criteria to further enhance postfall harness fit predictions. Application: This research could help reduce the risk of worker injury resulting from poor fit, improper size selection, or failure to don the harness properly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American National Standards Institute. (1992 ). American national standards safety requirements for personal fall arrest systems, subsystems and components (ANSI Z359.1). Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Safety Engineers .
2.
Bodzsar, E.B. (2000). A review of Hungarian studies on growth and physique of children. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, 44, 139-153.
3.
Bradtmiller, B., Whitestone, J., Feldstein, J., Hsiao, H., & Snyder, K. (2000). Improving fall protection harness safety: Contributions of 3-D scanning. In Proceedings of Scanning 2000: The European meeting point for scanning (pp. 117-128). Paris: Numerisation 3D.
4.
Brinkley, J.W. (1988). Experimental studies of fall protection equipment . In Proceedings of the 1st International Fall Protection Symposium (pp. 51-65). Toronto, Canada: International Society for Fall Protection .
5.
Brunsman, M., Daanen, H., & Files, P. (1996). Earthquake in anthropometry: The view from the epicenter. Gateway, 7(2), 1-6.
6.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2004). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2000 [Data file]. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes99_00.htm
7.
Corner, B.D., & Hu, A. (1998). Effect of sway on image fidelity in whole-body digitizing. In SPIE Proceedings: Three-dimensional image capture and applications (Vol. 3313, pp. 90-99). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optical Engineering.
8.
Daanen, H., Brunsman, M., & Robinette, M. (1997). Reducing movement artifacts in whole body scanning . In Proceedings of International Conference on Recent Advances in 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling (pp. 262-265). Ontario, Canada: IEEE Computer Society Press.
9.
Ellis, J.N. (2001). Introduction to fall protection (3rd ed.). Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Safety Engineers.
10.
Hertzberg, T.H.E. (1972). Engineering anthropology. In H. P. Van Cott & R. G. Kincade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (Rev. ed., pp. 468-584). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
Hsiao, H., Bradtmiller, B., & Whitestone, J. (2003). Sizing and fit of fall-protection harnesses. Ergonomics, 46, 1233-1258.
12.
Hsiao, H., & Halperin, W. (1998). Occupational safety and human factors. In W. N. Rom (Ed.), Environmental and occupational medicine (3rd ed., pp. 919-932). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
13.
Hsiao, H., Long, D., & Snyder, K. (2002). Anthropometric differences among occupational groups. Ergonomics, 45, 136-152.
14.
McConville, J.T., Churchill, T.D., Kaleps, I., Clauser, C.E., & Cuzzi, J. (1980). Anthropometric relationships of body and body segment moments of inertia (Tech. Rep. AFAMRL-TR-80-119; AD A097 238). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
15.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105-142). New York: Academic Press.
16.
Meindl, R.S., Hudson, J.A., & Zehner, G.F. (1993). A multivariate anthropometric method for crew station design (AL-TR-1993-0054). Wright-PattersonAir Force Base, OH: U.S. Air Force Arm-strong Laboratory.
17.
Robinette, K.M. (2000). CAESAR measures up. Ergonomics in Design, 8(3), 17-23.
18.
SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS (Version 9.1) [Computer software]. Cary, NC: Author.
19.
Society of Automotive Engineers International. ( 1998). Executive summary: Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometric Resource - CAESAR. Warrendale, PA: Author.
20.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ( 2001). The surgeon general's call to action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
U.S. Department of Labor. (1997). Occupational injuries and illnesses: Counts, rates, and characteristics, 1994 (Bulletin 2485). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
