Challenges & Tools for Effective

Soldier System Integration

By Linda Bossi,

Head/Human Systems Integration Section

DRDC Toronto

September 21-22, 2010

Château Cartier

Gatineau, Que.

Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap Human and Systems Integration Workshop

• HSI Process• HSI Input to Soldier System Acquisition • HSI Tools used in Soldier System

Integration• Importance of User Input• What is needed for more effective HSI within

DND soldier systems acquisition

OUTLINEOUTLINE

Human Systems Integration: the technical process of integrating the 5 HSI domains with a materiel system to ensure safe, effective operability and supportability of the system:

• Human Factors Engineering• Manpower and Personnel• Training• System Safety• Health Hazard Assessment

How do we ensure HSI is considered in Soldier Systems?

• HSI in acquisition– DNDAF Human Views– Tool Development

• Stakeholder Collaboration– User Input– DLR 5, DSSPM, DRDC– Operational Clothing and Individual Equipment Working Group

(OPCIEWG)– DRDC S&T Programme– SSTRM Workshops

• International Partnerships & Leverage– NATO LCG1/RTO – ABCA/TTCP (HUM TP 15 – HSI Land)– Bilateral Arrangements (US, AUS, NL)

Statement of Requirements

SpecificationDevelopment

DesignTest andEvaluation

SelectOption(s)

Production &Implementation

UserSurveys

BaselineSystem

Performance

EquipmentBench Tests

ControlledUsability

Trials

Monitor system performance& acceptability

UserAcceptance

Trials

Fitting Trials & Sizing Tariffs

Development ofrealistic, measurableperformance-based

specificationsHuman Lab and

Field trials

SOR Input

HSI Advice toDesign Teams

Bid Evals

Army Combat Clothing & Equipment Survey System (ACCESS)

• Questionnaire-based system for the efficient collection, analysis and reporting of representative, unbiased user feedback

• Complements and overcomes limitations of existing feedback mechanisms

• Permits critical user input throughout equipment development, acquisition and life cycle management– identify deficiencies– specify user requirements– develop equipment performance and test criteria– validate acquisition success– monitor user satisfaction post-implementation

1997 Land Forces Anthropometric Survey

Measured 708 Land Forces personnel (465 males, 243 females) Selected through random sampling 200 traditional measures (140 direct, 60 indirect) also took 2D body and 3D head scans

How Representative is the 1997 Survey of Current Land Forces?

• Survey is dated – does it reflect current population anthropometry?

• There is growing evidence that the survey may not adequately represent the larger soldiers:– HF equipment trials with Land Forces, predominantly combat arms– Clothing and equipment issue – insufficient numbers of large sizes,

increasing numbers of “special fits” of larger personnel

• Before embarking on a new Land Force survey, is there a way to validate the relevancy/currency of the 1997 survey?

• Fortunately, Canada has developed and implemented a 2D body scanning system and has been capturing derived anthropometric data since 2003

Body Scanning System (BoSS XXI)

• Simultaneous capture of 2 high resolution images (front & side)

• Image processing software analyzes images

• Automatically detects several anthro landmarks

• Calculates 3D location of each landmark

• Uses algorithms to calculate various body dimensions

• Applies garment sizing rules to recommend initial garment size as a start point for fitting

BoSS XXI – How does it work?

BoSS XXI Anthro Data Set

• 64 anthro measures captured on 3,452 military personnel between 2003 and end-2009– 1,776 were from Land Forces (86% male,

14% female)– 700 were Combat Arms

• Data currently limited to measures relevant to clothing sizing

Comparison of 1997 LF Survey and BoSS XXI Datasets

• Statistical comparison undertaken between 6 select measures, common to both datasets:– Stature– Neck Circumference (at base of neck)– Neck Circumference (at collar)– Chest Circumference– Waist Circumference (at natural indentation of

waist)– Out-seam Sleeve Length

Results for Stature t-test comparisons

Stature - Females (p= 0.025)

97 C LF D ata vs. BoSS D ata

M ean M ean±SE M ean±1.96*SE 97 C LF D ata BoSS D ata

162.5

163.0

163.5

164.0

164.5

165.0

165.5

166.0

Sta

ture

(cm

)

Female Stature

163.6

164.8

t(490)=2.24, p=0.025

Stature - M ales (p= 3.74x10-7)

97 C LF D ata vs. BoSS D ata

M ean M ean±SE M ean±1.96*SE 97 C LF D ata BoSS D ata

174.5

175.0

175.5

176.0

176.5

177.0

177.5

178.0

Sta

ture

(cm

)

Male Stature

175.5

177.4

t(1990)=5.1, p<0.01

t(942)=4.7, p<0.01

Stature - C ombat Arms (p < 0.01)

97 C LF D ata (cm) vs. BoSS D ata (cm)

M ean M ean±SE M ean±1.96*SE 97 C LF D ata BoSS D ata

174.0

174.5

175.0

175.5

176.0

176.5

177.0

177.5

178.0

178.5

Combat Arms Male Stature

175.4

177.8

Male Combat Arms Stature Comparison Summary

 1997 CLFS

CABoSS XXI

CA

Δ (BoSS CA-

1997CLFS CA)

Max 194.80 198.86 4.06

Min 158.30 161.14 2.84

Mean 175.38 177.79 2.40

Median 175.20 177.52 2.32

SD 6.75 6.92 0.17

SE 0.44 0.26 -0.18

5th %ile 164.98 166.64 1.66

95th %ile 185.76 190.48 4.72

Other Comparisons

Measure Female Male Combat Arms

Neck Circ. (collar)

BoSS>LF97 BoSS>LF97 BoSS>LF97

Neck Circ. (base of neck)

BoSS>LF97 LF97>BoSS LF97>BoSS

Chest Circ. BoSS>LF97 BoSS>LF97 BoSS>LF97

Waist Circ. BoSS>LF97 n.s. n.s

Outseam Length

BoSS>LF97 BoSS>LF97 BoSS>LF97

Way Ahead

• BoSS XXI does not capture the detailed information obtained through traditional anthro surveys

• It does allow continuous and efficient capture of relevant information to characterize the general size and shape of the population (or sub-sets)

• It may be possible to use recent BoSS XXI data to forecast changes from the 1997 survey for other dimensions not captured using pattern matching– Missing information could be replaced by data from a subject

with a similar profile across other known sources (e.g., 1997 survey)

• Stay tuned for outcome, which could influence future soldier system acquisition

Next Challenge – Clothed Anthro for Workspace Modelling

• Knowledge of clothed/encumbered soldier size and shape will be critical for integration in future fighting vehicles

• Last clothed anthro survey was in 1996• Dramatic changes since in soldier clothing, PPE,

fighting order loads carried• Expedient methods adopted for near-term

vehicle acquisition – Photogrammetry– Compressed Clothing Thicknesses– User/Vehicle Fit/Accommodation Trials

Applicable only for length, breadth and depth measures.Does not take into account the compression of clothing that occurs when seated in vehicle compartment.

Other Anthropometry Challenges

• Continued use of percentiles to specify fit requirements for new clothing and equipment– Mil Std 1472 and all draft SORs/specs require

fit/accommodation of 5th percentile female to 95th percentile male

– This approach is promoted by the publication of Anthro Summary Statistics vice raw data with tools to properly apply the data

• Need to educate staff from each new project about multivariate approach to population accommodation

• Need to develop easy-to-use and affordable tools for non HF staff to be able to properly apply anthropometric data

Percentiles make sense for one variable

What happens with 2 variables?

What is the true accommodation?

• Percentiles left out an additional 8% of the population• The fundamental problem is that dimensions are usually not well correlated; people vary in proportion, shape and size

Workspace Modeling and Analysis

• Need human/workspace modelling tools for soldier/vehicle integration analysis and workspace design

• Ideally integrating Canadian 3D clothed anthro

Advanced Personal Load Carriage System (APLCS)

• Suite of objective biomechanical measurement tools

• For characterizing the biomechanical impact of clothing, PPE and loads on soldiers

• For rapid iterative prototype design & analysis

Biomechanical Modeling Tools

• Rapid virtual prototyping and analysis

• To assess implications of soldier equipment design on soldier biomechanics and task performance

• Need affordable efficient models that incorporate current Canadian soldier anthropometry, clothing, PPE, personal equipment and key tasks

• Need to make the tools available to designers in industry!

Z-Axis Torque

L4T12

Movement Time

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

Light Medium Heavy

Rifle Weight Condition

Tim

e (s

ec)

• IPME is a constructive modeling tool for front-end HFE analysis.– Simulated timeline of human

and machine activities.

– Predicts operator workload, performance and error production.

• Discrete event simulation• Capable of interacting with

other models and simulations.

• Supports HLA and DIS.

Integrated Performance Modelling Environment

Virtual Reality Tools

Applications• To study aspects of soldier system

integration (e.g. impact of new technology on team dynamics, stressors on decision-making; content/design of info displays; interface usability)

• Soldier training (indiv and team)

Key Challenge – Measurement of Effective Soldier System Integration

• Ideally, there would be a simple and efficient objective bench test to determine the suitability of the soldier system and its components

• The complexity of humans and context specific nature of soldier-system requirements makes this very difficult

• Progress is being made to develop some tools and validate objective test methods

• Demands the involvement and opinions of representative users doing realistic tasks under realistic conditions– To validate user requirements– To inform iterative equipment

design and evaluation– To determine optimal trade-offs

between competing factors– To help select solutions (i.e., bid

evaluation)• But must use scientific

methods, with awareness of and knowledge on how to control for the error/bias potential with studies involving human subjects

A Soldier’s Day Multi-media Database

A multi-media database to inform all stakeholders in R&D, materiel development, acquisition & life cycle management about the Canadian soldier system.

Future for “A Soldier’s Day”?

• Up-grade to a web-based application• Up-date to reflect current status of the

Canadian soldier system• Develop & implement a process to keep

the database populated

How can we improve Soldier System Integration?

• Better understand and better inform all stakeholders about current soldier characteristics, capabilities, limitations, tasks, work domain

• Develop and make available HSI tools– Affordable or accessible– Relevant to Canadian soldier system

• Collaborate – HSI stakeholders from DND, industry, academia– Identify and prioritize HSI S&T– Share knowledge, methods, tools– Gather cost/benefit evidence of impact of HSI– Work together to make HF/HSI mandatory part of system design

and acquisition (for the benefit of our soldiers!)

Questions?

Linda Bossi Head/Human Systems Integration Section

Defence R&D Canada - Toronto(416) 635-2197

linda.bossi@drdc-rddc.gc.ca