2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The ability of UK offshore workers of different body size and shape to egress through a restricted window space

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(15 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This would for instance allow analysing the effects of medical treatments, diets or workout by comparing aligned scans of the subject before and after the intervention. Another application is "clothed anthropometry" (Hsiao et al, 2014;Stewart et al, 2016). Although it seems to be obvious that wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) leads to an increased space claim there is no standardized methodology in place to quantify it by means of 3D body scanning (Jones et al, 2015).…”
Section: Reduction Of Human Variability By Means Of a Positioning Aidmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This would for instance allow analysing the effects of medical treatments, diets or workout by comparing aligned scans of the subject before and after the intervention. Another application is "clothed anthropometry" (Hsiao et al, 2014;Stewart et al, 2016). Although it seems to be obvious that wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) leads to an increased space claim there is no standardized methodology in place to quantify it by means of 3D body scanning (Jones et al, 2015).…”
Section: Reduction Of Human Variability By Means Of a Positioning Aidmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, part of this difference is attributable to the horizontal array beam laser acquiring a less dense mesh than the Artec L scanner which uses structured light and acquires data from above and below horizontal, and thus provides more accurate detail. For the present study, technical error of measurement for extracted variables is summarised in Stewart et al (2016a), and averaged 1.05% of measurement values. 46.8 ± 2.5 137.0 ± 4.9 119.8 ± 3.4 114.8 ± 4.8 113.0 ± 3.9 9 (n=7) 45.8 ± 2.2 151.5 ± 5.7 125.1 ± 7.3 111.9 ± 7.0 111.6 ± 3.3 10 (n=20) 47.1 ± 2.7 144.0 ± 5.5 124.9 ± 3.6 117.9 ± 3.8 119.7 ± 5.1 11 (n=4) 47.9 ± 3.7 148.9 ± 8.8 131.9 ± 5.7 127.4 ± 9.5 134.7 ± 5.9 Stature muscularity all contribute to the observed pattern.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each was scanned wearing form-fitting shorts, and also in a full survival suit and lifejacket over their regular indoor clothing using the same scanning system and also weighed using the same portable digital scales, as part of a larger study of body dimensions which informed space requirements in restricted width (Stewart et al 2015a) and simulated helicopter window escape (Stewart et al 2015b). Volumes obtained from scans, together with scale mass enable the calculation of density and combining this with an estimate of air expelled on immersion is thus useful in order to inform whether density, and consequently buoyant force is affected by body size, although these parameters would not be practicable to measure in a large sample.…”
Section: B) Offshore Workforcementioning
confidence: 99%