ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 3700–3707

www.elsevier.com/locate/jbiomech
www.JBiomech.com

Estimation of male and female body segment parameters of the

Bulgarian population using a 16-segmental mathematical model
Gergana Stefanova Nikolova, Yuli Emilov Toshev
Department of Biomechanics of Motion and Telerobotics, Institute of Mechanics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad, G. Bonchev Str.,
Building 4, Sofia 1113, Bulgaria
Accepted 19 June 2007

Abstract

Based on a large-scale anthropometric measurements of 5290 individuals (2435 males and 2855 females) of the Bulgarian population
aged between 30 and 40 years, we present 16-segmental 3D geometrical model of the human body of the average Bulgarian male and
female and calculate mass, volume, location of the mass center and moments of inertia for all the segments for both genders. This study
extends current anthropometrical data pool of Caucasian. Wherever possible, the comparison between our model results and data
reported in literature for other Caucasian shows an overall good agreement, thus supporting the validity of the described method.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Body segment parameters; Anthropometry; Segment mass

1. Introduction tomography imaging techniques, as well as the time-

Knowledge of the geometric and mass-inertial charac-
teristics of the human body is of key importance in human
motion analysis and many biomechanical activities. In the
1950th and 1970th several studies reported anthropo-
metrics inertia parameters of body segments, found by
direct measurements of elderly male cadavers (Dempster,
1955; Clauser et al., 1969; Chandler et al., 1975). These
studies also presented a series of regression equations based
on these anthropometric measurements. The idea of using
regression equations, as well the results found, are useful
even nowadays for the determination of human body
geometric, mass and inertia characteristics.
The gamma mass scanning (Zatsiorsky and Seluyanov,
1983), magnetic resonance imaging (Mungiole and Martin,
1990), and computerized tomography (Wei and Jensen,
1995), have been used to determine the body segment
parameters directly on living subjects, and each of these
methods provides accurate measurements. Radiation in-
volved in the gamma mass scanning and the computerized
Corresponding author. Tel.: +359 2 979 64 49; fax: +359 2 870 74 98.
E-mail addresses: gergana1973@gmail.com (G.S. Nikolova),
ytoshev@imbm.bas.bg (Y.E. Toshev).
consuming nature of all these procedures yields, however,
some criticism. On the other hand, despite some draw-
backs, the geometrical modeling methods are also of
definite interest because of their relative simplicity,
straightforward applicability and acceptable accuracy
within an error margin of 10% order.
Due to the complexity of human body form, the
geometric approximation method represents the shape of
different body segments by means of standard geometric
solids (Hanavan, 1964; Jensen, 1978; Hatze, 1980;
Kwon, 1999). In the present study, we present a specific
16-segmental simplified 3D biomechanical model of the
human body, which provides a possibility to calculate the
mass-inertial parameters of all segments of the body. Our
goals are as follows:
(1) To mimic, within a 10% accuracy, the main actual
geometrical parameters that can be measured on an
average Bulgarian male (ABM) and female (ABF).
(2) To estimate mass distribution, positions of the mass
centers and moments of inertia of an average person
with respect to all body segments that we consider in
our simplified model.

0021-9290/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.06.016
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S. Nikolova, Y.E. Toshev / Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 3700–3707
Both the model defined and measurements applied are
general. They can be applied over any set of data for a
population of a given race, gender, etc. Specific are only the
results which are based on data for the Bulgarian
population.
2. Model and method
2.1. Independent geometrical parameters and calculation procedure
As stated above and illustrated in Fig. 1, the simplified 3D model of the
human body used in the current investigation consists of 16 segments
(Zatsiorsky, 2002): head+neck, upper part of torso, middle part of torso,
lower part of torso, thigh, shank, foot, upper arm, lower arm and hand,
assumed to be relatively simple geometrical bodies. The precise segment
geometrical models, their characterizing parameters and corresponding
notations to be used hereafter, are explained in Table 1 (see also Fig. 1).
For simplicity, we assume full body symmetry with respect to the sagittal
plane, i.e., complete ‘‘left–right’’ symmetry. The human body is divided in
segments according to anthropometric points used by Zatsiorsky (2002).
Segments thus defined are modeled by means of geometrical forms similar
to those in Hanavan (1964), but with the following modifications: (1) the
torso is subdivided in three instead of two parts; (2) the torso upper part is
approximated by means of a right reverted elliptical cone, while it is an
elliptical cylinder in Hanavan; (3) according to Zatsiorsky (2002), we
specify both middle and lower torso modeled as an elliptical cylinder and
an elliptical cylinder+reverted elliptical cone, respectively (in Hanavan,
these two segments are grouped together and modelled as an elliptical
cylinder). Note that the torso lower part is defined here exactly as in
Zatsiorsky (2002): it extends from omphalion to iliospinale, with a plane
passing through the iliospinales and concluding an angle of 371 with the
sagittal plane.
The main part of the geometrical data needed is taken from a detailed
representative anthropological investigation of the Bulgarian population
(Yordanov et al., 2006) performed during the period 1989–1993. A small
Fig. 1. 16-segmental model of the human body.
3701
remaining part of the data, not available there, is taken from Toshev
(1995). Yordanov et al. (2006) measured a total of 5290 individuals (2435
males and 2855 females). We take the average values found in the above
investigation and design a model, which represents the so defined average
Bulgarian male or female. For instance, it turns out that the average male
is characterized by height 1.71 m and mass 77.7 kg, while the average
female—by height 1.58 m and mass 65.3 kg, respectively.
Note that the approximation of the segments by means of geometrical
bodies strongly reduces the number of independent geometrical para-
meters. Furthermore, only a small number of them coincide with the ones
directly measured. Hence, clarification of the geometrical parameters used
and their relation to those actually measured is needed.
In our study we use the following geometrical parameters as
independent ones:
(1) Total body height L. Its value is L ¼ 1.71 m for the ABM and
L ¼ 1.58 m for the ABF individual.
(2) Length 2RHE (the distance vertex–cervicale) of the head+neck
segment.
(3) Length LTR of the torso (the distance cervicale–iliospinale), where
LTR ¼ L1+L2+L3+L4. Here L1is length (the distance cervicale–
xiphoidale) of the upper part of the torso, L2 (the distance
xiphoidale–omphalion) is length of the middle torso. Furthermore
L3+L4 is length of the lower part of the torso, with L3 being the
distance omphalion- iliospinale, while L4 ¼ R4 tan 371 is the distance
between iliospinale and the intersection of the thigh segmentation
planes (de Leva, 1996). In the above expression, R4 is the half of the
bitrochanterial breadth. Since the positions of the anthropometric
points omphalion and xiphoidale were not measured by Yordanov
et al. (2006), we find them by rescaling the corresponding data due to
Zatsiorsky (2002).
(4) The biacromial breadth 2R*.
(5) The chest breadth at the level of the mesosternale R1. Due to torso
model R1 ¼ R2 ¼ R3 ¼ R4 we find this parameter as the half of the
average value from the chest breadth, waist breadth and of the
bitrochanterical breadth. It turns out that this average ‘‘radius’’
deviates by less than 5% from R1, R2, R3, and R4, which is a reliably
good approximation for practical purposes. One can follow the same
procedure also for the sagittal radii r1 ¼ r2 ¼ r3 ¼ r4. We calculate
their average value, which again deviates from the experimentally
measured ones by less than 5%. Finally, since the upper torso is
considered to be a reverted right elliptical cone, one immediately finds
that r* ¼ r1R*/R1. The above considerations elucidate the design of
our torso model.
As stated, all segments of both the lower and upper extremities are
assumed to be cone frustums. Based on the experimental value of the thigh
circumference, one can find the thigh radius RTH. Usually, the thigh length
is defined as the distance between tibiale and the midpoint between
iliospinale and symphision. However, in the current article we use simply
the distance between tibiale and iliospinale as thigh length (i.e. the real
anthropometric length). Similarly, one can find ankle effective radius RAN
from the ankle circumference (Toshev, 1995). Finally, we calculate the
radii of the upper (acromion–radiale) and lower (radiale–stylion) arms by
using their measured maximal circumferences. Details on finding the
geometrical parameters of the remaining segments are given in Nikolova
et al. (2002). Table 2 gives the mean values as well as the standard
deviations of the anthropometric parameters needed.
Once the geometrical parameters of the segments are determined, one
can analytically obtain all the other characteristics of interest, e.g. volume,
mass and moments of inertia. Note, however, an additional issue, which
would increase the approach efficiency. Modeling of the body segments by
means of simple geometrical bodies enforces a ballpark approximation of
their shape and, therefore, of their volume and related characteristics as
mass and moments of inertia. Hence, adjustment of the measured
geometrical parameters that would produce the best approximation of
the body segment mass characteristics is highly desirable. This can be
done by using the regression mass equations derived in Zatsiorsky and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3702 G.S. Nikolova, Y.E. Toshev / Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 3700–3707

Table 1
Geometrical parameters of the segments of the body, their approximations via geometrical bodies, the corresponding adjusted geometrical parameters, as
well as the densities of the different segments for males and females

Body segments Males Females

Anthropometric Adjusted parameters of Anthropometric Adjusted parameters of Density

parametersa (cm) the model (cm) parametersa (cm) the model (cm) (kg/m3)

Head+Neck (Ellipsoid) RHE ¼ 12.2 RHE ¼ 13.4 RHE ¼ 11.4 RHE ¼ 12.5 1087b
rHE ¼ 7.8 rHE ¼ 8.5 rHE ¼ 7.4 rHE ¼ 8.1
Upper torso (Reverted right elliptical LTR ¼ 68.2 LTR ¼ 68.2 LTR ¼ 64.9 LTR ¼ 64.9 908c
cone) L1 ¼ 23.3 L1 ¼ 23.0 L1 ¼ 21.4 L1 ¼ 23.4
R* ¼ 20.3 R* ¼ 18.0 R* ¼ 18.4 R* ¼ 19.0
r* ¼ 14.8 r* ¼ 11.8 r* ¼ 13.3 r* ¼ 16.8
R1 ¼ 15.0 R1 ¼ 16.5 R1 ¼ 13.8 R1 ¼ 12.4
r1 ¼ 11.0 r1 ¼ 10.8 r1 ¼ 10.0 r1 ¼ 11.0
Middle torso (Elliptical cylinder) L2 ¼ 20.7 L2 ¼ 22.0 L2 ¼ 19.4 L2 ¼ 17.5 1043c
R2 ¼ 15.0 R2 ¼ 16.5 R2 ¼ 13.8 R2 ¼ 12.4
r2 ¼ 11.0 r2 ¼ 10.8 r2 ¼ 10.0 r2 ¼ 11.0
Lower torso (Elliptical L3 ¼ 11.3 L3 ¼ 10.8 L3 ¼ 10.4 L3 ¼ 14.7 1077c
cylinder+reverted elliptical cone) L4 ¼ 12.9 L4 ¼ 12.4 L4 ¼ 13.7 L4 ¼ 9.3
R3 ¼ 15.0 R3 ¼ 16.5 R3 ¼ 13.8 R3 ¼ 12.4
R4 ¼ 15.0 R4 ¼ 16.5 R4 ¼ 13.8 R4 ¼ 12.4
r3 ¼ 11.0 r3 ¼ 10.8 r3 ¼ 10.0 r3 ¼ 11.0
r4 ¼ 11.0 r4 ¼ 10.8 r4 ¼ 10.0 r4 ¼ 11.0

Upper arm (Frustum of cone) LUA ¼ 30.9 LUA ¼ 30.9 LUA ¼ 28.6 LUA ¼ 28.6 1053b
RSH ¼ 5.0 RSH ¼ 5.0 RSH ¼ 4.7 RSH ¼ 5.0
REL ¼ 3.4 REL ¼ 4.4 REL ¼ 3.0 REL ¼ 3.4
Lower arm (Frustum of cone) LLA ¼ 24.7 LLA ¼ 24.7 LLA ¼ 21.9 LLA ¼ 21.9 1100b
REL ¼ 3.4 REL ¼ 4.4 REL ¼ 3.0 REL ¼ 3.4
RWR ¼ 3.0 RWR ¼ 3.0 RWR ¼ 2.6 RWR ¼ 3.0
Hand (Sphere) RHA ¼ 4.4 RHA ¼ 4.7 RHA ¼ 3.9 RHA ¼ 3.9 1137b
Thigh (Frustum of cone) LTH ¼ 51.0d LTH ¼ 51.0 LTH ¼ 47.9d LTH ¼ 47.9 1062b
RTH ¼ 9.1 RTH ¼ 9.5 RTH ¼ 9.5 RTH ¼ 9.8
RKN ¼ 4.9 RKN ¼ 5.5 RKN ¼ 4.6 RKN ¼ 5.0

Shank (Frustum of cone) LSK ¼ 37.2 LSK ¼ 37.2 LSK ¼ 34.6 LSK ¼ 34.6 1088b
RKN ¼ 4.9 RKN ¼ 5.5 RKN ¼ 4.6 RKN ¼ 5.0
RAN ¼ 3.6 RAN ¼ 4.0 RAN ¼ 3.6 RAN ¼ 4.0
Foot (Frustum of cone) LFO ¼ 26.3 LFO ¼ 26.3 LFO ¼ 23.9 LFO ¼ 23.9 1092b
RFO ¼ 4.6 RFO ¼ 4.6 RFO ¼ 4.0 RFO ¼ 4.0
RFE ¼ 1.8 RFE ¼ 1.8 RFE ¼ 1.8 RFE ¼ 1.8
a
Data according to Toshev (1995) and Yordanov et al. (2006).
b
Data according to Bjornstrup (1996).
c
Data according to Erdmann (1997).
d
Length of the thigh is the distance between the anthropometric points iliospinale-tibiale.

Seluyanov (1983, 1985) and Shan and Bohn (2003). Yet, by doing so one
has to avoid deviations of the adjusted parameters from the respective
measured values, larger than 10%. In the remainder we will follow this
procedure and will calculate masses, positions of mass centers and inertial
characteristics of all segments for both ABM and ABF. Since the
regression coefficients of Zatsiorsky and Seluyanov (1983, 1985) for males
are based on measurements over 100 males, whereas those of Shan and
Bohn (2003) are based on 25 Caucasian males, we use for males the
coefficients derived by Zatsiorsky and Seluyanov (1983, 1985). For
females, however, the corresponding regression equations as derived by
Zatsiorsky (2002) are based on data for a small group of athletes. Hence,
we use the regression equations of Shan and Bohn (2003) for females.
Note that these equations are derived on the basis of measurements over
25 Caucasian females.
2.2. Mass and volume of the segments
A regression equation of the type
M S ½kg ¼ A1 þ A2 M½kg þ A3 L½cm (1)
was used for any segment. Taking into account that the total mass of an
ABM is M ¼ 77.7 kg and the body height is L ¼ 171 cm, and that the ABF
is characterized by mass M ¼ 65.3 kg and body height L ¼ 158 cm, we
calculate the expected mass values of all body segments.
The volumes of the different segments are estimated using the following
formulas for the corresponding geometrical bodies:
For head+neck approximated by an ellipsoid, the volume reads V ¼
4 2
3prHE RHE :
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S. Nikolova, Y.E. Toshev / Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 3700–3707 3703

Table 2
The mean values and the standard deviations (S.D.) of the measured anthropometric parameters of the human body segments required to create the model
of the Bulgarian males and females according to Yoradanov et al. (2006)

Segment Anthropometric parameters Male (n ¼ 2435) Female (n ¼ 2855)

Mean (cm) S.D. Mean (cm) S.D.

Head+neck Cervicale height (Basis–cervicale) 147.0 5.7 135.7 5.4

Head breadth (eu–eu) 15.6 0.6 14.9 0.6
Head circumference 57.4 1.6 54.5 1.6
Torso Chest breadth on the level of mesosternle 31.1 2.6 27.3 2.6
Chest depth on the level of mesosternale 22.3 2.4 19.6 2.5
Chest circumference on the level of xiphioidale 95.1 7.6 82.4 8.6
Waist circumference 87.3 9.4 77.1 10.1
Abdominal circumference on the level of navel 90.9 9.6 89.1 11.2
Biacromial breadth (a–a) 40.7 2.2 36.9 2.0
Bispinal breadth (is–is) 24.7 2.4 26.4 2.7
Iliospinale height (Basis–iliospinale) 97.4 4.7 90.7 4.5
Bicristal breadth (ic–ic) 30.2 2.4 30.0 3.1
Bitrochanterial breadth (tro–tro) 33.1 2.1 34.0 2.9
Upper arm Upper arm length (acromion–radiale) 30.9 2.0 28.6 1.8
Upper arm circumference 31.3 3.0 29.4 3.6
Epicondialr breadth of humerus 6.9 0.5 6.2 0.4

Lower arm Lower arm length (radiale–stylion) 24.7 2.0 21.9 1.7
Maximal lower arm circumference 28.4 2.0 25.2 2.1
Wrist breadth (sty. R–sty. u) 6.0 0.3 5.3 0.3
Hand Hand length (interstylion-dactylion III) 20.6 1.0 18.8 0.9
Hand breadth without thumb (mr–mu) 8.9 0.4 7.9 0.4
Hand thickness on the level of ph III 2.8 0.2 2.4 0.2
Thigh Thigh length (iliospinale–tibiale) 51.0 3.4 47.9 3.5
Thigh circumference 56.5 4.7 59.0 5.3
Epicondilar breadth of femur 9.8 0.6 9.2 0.6

Shank Shank length (tibiale–sphyrion) 37.2 3.0 34.6 2.6

Shank circumference 37.2 2.8 35.9 2.9
Foot Foot length (acropodion–pternion) 26.3 1.2 23.9 1.1
Foot height (Basis–sphyrion) 9.1 1.1 8.1 0.8
Foot breadth (mt.t.–mt.f) 10.1 0.6 9.3 0.6
Stature (Basis–vertex) 171 6.2 158 5.8
Body mass 77.7 12.5 65.3 12.0

All lengths are in centimeters and the mass is in kilogram. In the parentheses the anthropometric points are given

The upper arm, lower arm, thigh, shank and foot are approximated via centers of different segments, as well as segment principal moments of
frustum of cone with volume V ¼ 13pl½R2 þ Rr þ r2 ; where l is the length inertia. Most of the expressions needed for the mass centers can be derived
of the corresponding segment, and r and R are the semi-axes of its cross- in a relatively straightforward manner. For example, in the cases of the
section. One gets consequently (see Table 1) l ¼ LUA, r ¼ RSH, R ¼ REL upper and lower arm, thigh, shank and foot, which are modeled as a
for the upper arm, l ¼ LLA, r ¼ RWR, R ¼ REL for the lower arm, frustum of cone with upper radius R and lower radius r, the corresponding
l ¼ LTH, r ¼ RKN, R ¼ RTH for the thigh, l ¼ LSK, r ¼ RAN, R ¼ RKN for result for the position of the mass center, measured from the upper cross
the shank, and l ¼ LFO, r ¼ RFE, R ¼ RFO for the foot. section of that segment, is
Since the hand is approximated as a sphere, its volume is V ¼ 43pRHA 3 : 1 2
The upper torso volume is R þ 1Rr þ 34r2
M CM ¼ h 4 2 2 (2)
  R þ Rr þ r2
1 r R  r1 R1
V ¼ pL1 r R þ  , For the upper torso, the centre of mass is given by
3 R =R1  1
r1 ðR1 þ R2 Þ þ r2 ðR1 þ 3R2 Þ
that of the middle torso is V ¼ pr2R2L2, and the lower torso volume is M UT
CM ¼ L2 (3)
2½r1 ð2R1 þ R2 Þ þ r2 ðR1 þ 2R2 Þ
V ¼ prR ðL3 þ 13L4 Þ:
for the middle torso it is at M MT
CM ¼ L2 =2; while for the lower torso it reads

2.3. Center of mass of the segments L3 =2 þ ðL3 þ L4 =4ÞL4 =ð3L3 Þ

M LT
CM ¼ (4)
1 þ L4 =ð3L3 Þ
Using the adjusted values for the segment geometrical parameters, we where the coordinates of all three mass centers are measured starting from
calculated analytically and estimated numerically the positions of the mass the upper cross-section of the corresponding part of the torso.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3704 G.S. Nikolova, Y.E. Toshev / Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 3700–3707

2.4. Inertial characteristics Similarly, we find the moments of inertia of the lower torso:
  
1 2 1 2
Another advantage of the relative simplicity of our model’ is that even I XX ¼ p r Rr L3 r þ L3
4 3
the inertial characteristics of the different segments can be derived  
1 1 1 2
analytically and then evaluated numerically for the values of the þ L4 L23 þ L4 L3 þ L4 , ð14Þ
parameters already found. For simple bodies, such as sphere, cylinder, 3 2 10
ellipsoid, the corresponding expressions for the principal moments of     
inertia can be found in literature (see, e.g., Landau and Lifshitz, 1976) 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2
I YY ¼ p r R r L3 R þ L3 þ L4 L23 þ L3 L4 þ L4 , (15)
where we have: 4 3 3 2 10
(i) for a sphere with radius R and mass m
and
2  
I XX ¼ I YY ¼ I ZZ ¼ mR2 ; (5) p 1
5 I ZZ ¼ r r R ðr2 þ R2 Þ L3 þ L4 , (16)
4 5
(ii) for a cylinder with radius R, height h and mass m where R ¼ R3 ¼ R4 and r ¼ r3 ¼ r4.
  Expressions (11)–(16) can be easily assessed numerically and the
1 h2 1 principal moments of inertia for the upper, middle and lower torso can be
I XX ¼ I YY ¼ m R2 þ ; I ZZ ¼ mR2 ; (6)
4 3 2 found using Steiner’s theorem. This means a system of axes has been
defined for each segment, with an origin at the segment mass center, while
(iii) for an ellipsoid with semi-axes a; b; c and total mass m
axes have been aligned with approximate body axes: frontal (x), sagittal
m m m (y), and longitudinal (z).
I XX ¼ ðb2 þ c2 Þ; I YY ¼ ða2 þ c2 Þ; I ZZ ¼ ða2 þ b2 Þ. (7)
5 5 5
Note that we only give some details of the derivation of the 3. Results
corresponding expressions for a frustum of elliptic cone. If the origin of
the coordinate system is chosen to be at the center of the lower ellipsis with
x and y axes along the semi-axes, while axis z is perpendicular to the cone
The results for masses of the different segments of the
cross section, we find for the corresponding moments of inertia that: body obtained on the basis of Eq. (1) are summarized in
Z Z
Table 3. The same table contains for comparison also data
h
I XX ¼ r dz ðy2 þ z2 Þ dx dy as found by different authors. Note that by using the
x2 þ y2 p1
0
R2 ðzÞ r2 ðzÞ regression equations of Zatsiorsky and Seluyanov (1983,
Z Z
h
p h 1985) we obtain that the total mass of the male body is
¼ rp dzRðzÞrðzÞz2 dz þ r dzRðzÞr3 ðzÞ dz, ð8Þ
0 4 0 77.8 kg and thus the deviation from the actual total mass of
an average Bulgarian male is negligible (below 100 g). This
Z h Z fact justifies the use of these equations for Bulgarian males
I YY ¼ r dz ðx2 þ z2 Þ dx dy and verifies the validity of these regression equations by
0 x2 þ y2 p1
R2 ðzÞ r2 ðzÞ
Z h Z h
providing an independent check on a new data set.
p
¼ rp dzRðzÞrðzÞz2 dz þ r dzR3 ðzÞrðzÞ dz, ð9Þ Using the densities of the segments given in the sixth
0 4 0
column of Table 1 (in kg/m3) and following Bjornstrup
Z h Z (1996) and Erdmann (1997), we calculate the segment
I ZZ ¼ r dz ðx2 þ y2 Þ dx dy volumes. They are presented in Table 4. Comparing the
0 x2 þ y2 p1
R2 ðzÞ r2 ðzÞ volumes found with the ones analytically derived (by using
Z h
¼r
p
RðzÞrðzÞ ½R2 ðzÞ þ r2 ðzÞ dz ð10Þ
the initial values of the geometrical parameters and the
4 0 formulas for the volumes given in Section 2.2), one can
taking into account that R(z) ¼ R1–z R1–R2/h, and r(z) ¼ r1–z r1–r2/h are adjust some of the parameters, so that the volumes are
the semi-axes of the ellipsis of the cross-section at height z. The integrals in reproduced at best. Using regression equations where the
eqs. (8)–(10) can be calculated exactly, yielding the final results for IXX, IYY total body height is one of the basic parameters, we do not
and IZZ: adjust any vertical length of any segment under considera-
p  tion. Both the original and the adjusted values of the
I XX ¼ hr 4h2 ½r1 ð2R1 þ 3R2 Þ þ 3r2 ðR1 þ 4R2 Þ
240  geometrical parameters found are given in Table 1. The
þ 3 r31 ð4R1 þ R2 Þ þ r21 r2 ð3R1 þ 2R2 Þ adjusted data for males and females are in columns 3 and 5,

þ r1 r22 ð2R1 þ 3R2 Þ þ r32 ðR1 þ 4R2 Þ , ð11Þ respectively. Note that the adjusted parameters are really
close, within the 10% range, to the original parameters
p  measured in the above-mentioned studies by Toshev (1995)
I YY ¼ hr 4h2 ½r1 ð2R1 þ 3R2 Þ þ 3r2 ðR1 þ 4R2 Þ
240  and Yordanov et al. (2006).
þ 3 r1 ð4R31 þ 3R21 R2 þ 2R1 R22 þ R32 Þ The centers of mass of all the segments of the body we

þ r2 ðR31 þ 2R21 R2 þ 3R1 R22 þ 4R32 Þ , ð12Þ obtain using Eqs. (2)–(4). Table 5 gives the relative
locations of the centers of mass (the ratio between the
p 3 distance from the proximal end of the segment and
I ZZ ¼ hr r ð4R1 þ R2 Þ þ r21 r2 ð3R1 þ 2R2 Þ
80  1  the length of the segment). There also a comparison to
þ r1 4R31 þ 3R21 R2 þ 3r22 R2 þ R32 þ 2R1 ðr22 þ R22 Þ the experimental data available in literature for other
 
þ r2 R31 þ 2R21 R2 þ 4R2 ðr22 þ R22 ÞþR1 ðr22 þ 3R22 Þ . ð13Þ Caucasian type individuals is made. Data analysis shows
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S. Nikolova, Y.E. Toshev / Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 3700–3707 3705

Table 3
The mass of the segments of the body (kg) for males and females

Males Females

Segment Drillis and Clauser et al. Chandler et al. Zatsiorsky and Our Zatsiorsky Our
Contini (1966) (1969) (1975)a Seluyanov (1983, 1985) data (2002) data

Entire body 73.4 65.6 65.2 73.0 77.7 61.9 65.3

Head+Neck – – – 5.0 5.1 4.2 4.5
Torso – 33.3 34.0 31.8 34.4 26.4 30.2
Upper arm 2.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.7
Lower arm 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.8
Hand 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2
Thigh 6.9 6.7 6.6 10.4 11.0 9.2 9.0
Shank 3.1 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.9
Foot 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7
a
The mean values from the left-and right-hand side of the body are given.

Table 4
Volumes of the entire body and its segments, in (103 m3), for males and females

Segment Drillis and Contini (1966) Clauser et al. (1969) Contini (1970)a Chandler et al. (1975)a Males datab Females datab

Entire body 69.1 63.0 70.8 69.6 74.6 63.7

Head – 4.4 – 3.8 – –
Head+neck – – – – 4.7 4.1
Torso – 32.6 – 39.6 34.5 31.0
Upper arm 2.4 1.6 – 1.9 2.0 1.6
Lower arm 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.7
Hand 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2
Thigh 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.5 10.4 8.5
Shank 2.8 2.6 3.1 2.5 3.0 2.7
Foot 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6
a
The mean values from the left-and right-hand side of the body are given.
b
Volumes are obtained by dividing the masses derived using regression equations with the corresponding density of the segments taken from Table 1.

Table 5
Relative location of the center of mass of the body segments, i.e., the ratio between the distance from the proximal end of the segment and the length of the
segment in percents (%), for males and females

Segment Males Females

Dempster Drillis and Clauser et al. Zatsiorsky and Our Zatsiorsky and Plagenhoef Our
(1955) Contini (1966) (1969) Seluyanov (1983, data Seluyanov (1983, et al. (1983) data
1985) 1985)

Head 43.3 – 46.4 50.0a 50.0a 48.4 55.0 50.0a

Torso – – 38.0 43.7 44.2 43.5 50.0 39.4
Upper arm 43.6 44.9 51.3 55.0 47.9 56.0 45.8 43.7
Lower arm 43.0 42.3 39.0 57.3 43.7 57.4 43.4 47.9
Hand 49.4 39.2 – 63.1 50.0 65.0 46.8 50.0
Thigh 43.3 41.0 37.2 45.5 41.4 46.1 42.8 39.5
Shank 43.3 39.3 37.1 40.5 44.6 40.3 41.9 46.2
Foot 42.9 44.5 44.9 55.9 36.1 59.9 50.0 37.7
a
Including the neck.

a fairly good agreement between our simple model and the found for the torso and for all other body segments. They
experimental results. are derived by using Eqs. (5)–(16). In both tables a
Tables 6 and 7 present, for males and for females, comparison with published data is also given. We see
respectively, the results for principal moments of inertia quite a satisfactory agreement between our simple-model
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3706 G.S. Nikolova, Y.E. Toshev / Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 3700–3707

Table 6
Moments of inertia of the body segments through the center of mass (kg cm2) for males

Segment Zatsiorsky (2002) Shan and Bohn (2003)a Our datab

IXX IYY IZZ IXX IYY IZZ IXX IYY IZZ

Head 293.9 272.1 202.4 354.0 297.3 197.6 255.3 255.3 146.5
Upper torso 705.2 1725.6 1454.5 884.0 1868.3 1848.3 982.8 1528.2 1363.0
Middle torso 819.1 1280.8 1203.1 546.4 1114.4 1231.4 849.7 1349.5 1248.9
Lower torso 525.0 656.8 592.4 860.4 1169.0 1167.0 428.6 681.1 440.1
Upper arm 114.4 127.3 38.9 108.8 103.8 28.4 220.8 220.8 25.1
Lower arm 60.2 64.7 12.6 49.8 54.6 7.3 54.7 54.7 8.5
Hand 8.8 13.2 5.4 5.7 4.5 2.2 4.0 4.0 4.0
Thigh 1999.4 1997.8 413.4 1872.6 1879.9 420.6 1564.0 1564.0 307.7
Shank 371.0 385.0 64.6 357.3 408.9 88.3 231.9 231.9 34.0
Foot 40.0 44.4 10.3 24.2 3.6 24.5 46.7 46.7 6.6
a
The data are obtained by using the regression equations derived by Shan and Bohn (2003) applied for the average Bulgarian male person.
b
Note that the agreement for the parameters of the torso is much better with the result of Zatsiorsky than Shan and Bohn.

Table 7
Moments of inertia of the body segments through the centre of mass (kg cm2) for females

Segment Zatsiorsky (2002) Shan and Bohn (2003)a Our datab

IXX IYY IZZ IXX IYY IZZ IXX IYY IZZ

Head 216.5 183.6 172.7 251.3 212.9 119.5 198.7 198.7 117.5
Upper torso 490.3 1082.8 1005.0 1331.6 2223.4 1766.8 1386.2 1594.8 1749.9
Middle torso 480.2 717.3 658.7 269.6 489.4 533.1 445.5 509.6 537.2
Lower torso 411.0 477.3 503.0 464.5 660.7 692.5 498.2 553.6 688.9
Upper arm 80.7 92.3 26.2 88.6 87.0 19.6 123.5 123.5 15.8
Lower arm 39.7 40.9 5.3 29.9 31.8 4.2 34.6 34.6 4.0
Hand 4.4 6.0 2.4 3.1 2.5 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5
Thigh 1647.3 1690.1 324.2 1111.1 1118.2 299.8 1714.7 1714.7 290.5
Shank 399.7 409.9 48.6 256.2 298.8 69.0 119.4 119.4 24.8
Foot 35.6 41.1 8.9 12.1 12.3 2.2 35.8 35.8 3.7
a
The data are obtained by using the regression equations derived by Shan and Bohn (2003) applied for the average Bulgarian female person.
b
Note that the agreement for the parameters of the torso is much better with the result of Shan and Bohn than Zatsiorsky.

results and the experimental ones. Note that due to the
x2y symmetry in modeling the upper arm, lower arm,
hand, thigh, shank and foot, i.e. for all the segments except
for the torso, the principal moments of inertia IXX and IYY
are equal to each other. It is worthwhile to mention that
despite the total mass of the torso for males is larger than
that of females (see Table 3) the mass of the upper part of
the torso for females is larger than that for males. Indeed,
using the regression equations of Zatsiorsky (2002) for
males and of Shan and Bohn (2003) for females one obtains
that for a 77.7 kg male the upper torso is 12.7 kg, while for
65.3 kg female it is 15.1 kg.The last explains why the inertial
moments IXX and IYY for the upper part of the torso for
females are larger than the corresponding ones for males.
4. Discussion
We set forth a simple 3D biomechanical model of the
human body, representative for the average Bulgarian male
and female. Based on the existing anthropometric data, we
find the geometrical parameters of the body segments
which have been approximated by relatively simple
geometrical bodies. Using the model thus designed, we
derive analytically and estimate numerically the positions
of the segment mass centers, as well as their inertial
characteristics. Generally, we observe good agreement
between our simple model results and those experimentally
found and reported in the available literature for other
Caucasian. Hence, we prove that the regression equations
derived in Zatsiorsky and Seluyanov (1983, 1985) for
Russians, and Shan and Bohn (2003) for Germans are
applicable for the Bulgarian population, verifying their
efficiency over an independent set of data for Bulgarian
individuals. In order to further reduce the mismatch
between our results and those available in literature we
plan, following Kwon (1999), to improve the geometrical
modeling of the segments by using geometrical bodies such
as stadium solids, elliptical solids and semi-ellipsoids that
are closer to the real shape of some of the segments of the
human body. Unfortunately, we do not currently have data
for all needed anthropometric parameters in order to
accomplish this task.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G.S. Nikolova, Y.E. Toshev / Journal of Biomechanics 40 (2007) 3700–3707
In order to analyze the change in human motion with the
age one needs, among the others, to understand how the
mass of the segments develop with the age. If such detailed
data were available, they would enable us to quantitatively
assess the processes of individual increase of injury risk in
daily and sport activities due to a change of internal load
caused by anthropometrical change. Unfortunately, the
necessary detailed data are not available at the moment.
Yet, the results by Yordanov et al. (1999, 2006) provide
some basis for the conclusion that this risk indeed increases
with the age. For example, the inspection of the results for
relatively close historical periods of time, but for women
or men belonging to different age groups, shows small
increase of individual height, by about 2 cm, in the range
‘‘female aged 25–40’’ and about the same tendency for an
average male. At the same time, however, the change in
weight is more significant—the average mass of women
aged 40 is about 6 kg heavier than that of the average
woman aged 25, while the difference for an average man
from the same two age groups is about 10 kg. Of course, it
is important to know how this increase in the total weight
is distributed over the body segments but currently no such
information is available.
Finally, we would like to note that our model can be
used to generate a simple 3D model in CAD Pro/Engineer
environment which will provide automatic generation of all
the data needed for a body with given total mass and
height.
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest concerning the current
manuscript.
Acknowledgment
Support via Bulgarian National Science Fund (contract
TH-1407/04) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Bjornstrup, J., 1996. Estimation of human body segment parameters-
statistical analysis of results from prior investigations. Technical
Report ISSN 0906-6233, LIA 96-7, Laboratory of Image analysis,
Institute of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University, Denmark. This
report is also available at: /http://www.vision.auc.dk/jorgen/PhD/
EHBSP_analysis/S.
Chandler, R.F., Clauser, C.E., McConville, J.T., Reynolds, H.M.,
Young, J.W., 1975. Investigation of inertial properties of the human
body. Technical Report AMRL-TR-74-137, Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio.
Clauser, C.E., McConville, J.T., Young, J.W., 1969. Weight, volume, and
center of mass of segments of the human body. Technical Report
AMRL-TR-69-70, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
3707
Contini, R., 1970. Body segment parameters (pathological). Technical
Report 1584.03, School of Engineering and Science, New York
University, New York.
de Leva, P., 1996. Adjustments to Zatsiorsky–Seluyanov’s segment inertia
parameters. Journal of Biomechanics 29, 1223–1230.
Dempster, W.T., 1955. Space requirements of the seated operator. WADC
Technical Report 55-159, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
Drillis, R., Contini, R., 1966. Body segment parameters. Technical Report
1166.03, New York University, School of Engineering and Science,
New York.
Erdmann, W.S., 1997. Geometric and inertial data of the trunk in adult
males. Journal of Biomechanics 30, 679–688.
Hanavan, E.P., 1964. A mathematical model of the human body. AMRL-
TR-64-102, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
Hatze, H., 1980. A mathematical model for the computational determina-
tion of parameter values of anthropomorphic segments. Journal of
Biomechanics 13, 833–843.
Jensen, R.K., 1978. Estimation of the biomechanical properties of three
body types using a photogrammetric method. Journal of Biomechanics
11, 349–358.
Kwon, Y.-H., 1999. Kwon3D motion analysis. Web site. /http://
kwon3d.com/S.
Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M., 1976. Mechanics. Pergamon Press,
New York.
Mungiole, M., Martin, P.E., 1990. Estimating segment inertial properties:
comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with existing methods.
Journal of Biomechanics 23, 1039–1046.
Nikolova, G., Zlatov, N., Toshev, Y., Yordanov, Y., Nacheva, A.,
Tornyova, S., 2002. Experimental verification of one theoretical 3D
model of the human body. Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics 4
(Suppl.1), 570–571.
Plagenhoef, S., Evans, F.G., Abdelnour, T., 1983. Anatomical data for
analyzing human motion. Resarch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
54, 169–178.
Shan, G., Bohn, C., 2003. Anthropometrical data and coefficients of
regression related to gender and race. Applied Ergonomics 34,
327–337.
Toshev, Y., 1995. Biomechanics of Human Movement. South-Western
University Press, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria (in Bulgarian).
Wei, C., Jensen, R.K., 1995. The application of segment axial density
profiles to a human body inertia model. Journal of Biomechanics 28,
103–108.
Yordanov, Y., Nacheva, A., Tornjova, S., Kondova, N., Filcheva, Zl.,
Kasakova, Tz., Kavgazova, L., Stoev, R., Dimitrova, Br., Lazarova,
E., Topalova, D., Yordanova, L., 1999. Basic anthropological data of
the Bulgarian population at the end of the XX-th century. Journal of
Anthropology 2, 19–28.
Yordanov, Y., Nacheva, A., Tornjova, S., Kondova, N., Dimitrova, B.,
Topalova, D., 2006. Anthropology of the Bulgarian population at the
end of the 20th century (30–40 years old persons). Professor Marin
Drinov Academic Publishing House, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Zatsiorsky, V.M., Seluyanov, V.M., 1983. The mass and inertia
characteristics of the main segments of the human body. In: Matsui,
H., Kobayashi, K. (Eds.), Biomechanics VIII-B. Human Kinetics,
Champaign, IL, pp. 1152–1159.
Zatsiorsky, V.M., Seluyanov, V.M., 1985. Estimation of the mass and
inertia characteristics of the human body by means of the best
predictive regression equations. In: Winter, D., Norman, R., Wells, R.,
Hayes, K., Patla, A. (Eds.), Biomechanics IX-B. Human Kinetics,
Champaign, IL, pp. 233–239.
Zatsiorsky, V.M., 2002. Kinetics of Human Motion. Human Kinetics,
Champaign, IL.