Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Bioenergetic analysis and anthropometric evaluation of bra-breast interface for improved design and breast health

Main Article Content

Farah Hamandi
Taylor Pooler
Alicia Runser
Carmen Asman
Rachel Bailey
Nicole Robinson
Tarun Goswami corresponding author

Abstract

Bioenergetics analysis of bra-breast Interface is an important technique for improving the design of bras and promoting breast health and comfort during physical activity. The objective of this study is to evaluate the compatibility between the anatomy of the breasts and bra. The study encompasses breast anthropometry via measurement. A measurement topology was proposed to determine breast mass, volume, shape, and asymmetry under loading (with-bra) and unloading (without-bra). Using the anthropometric data, the bioenergetics of the breasts were determined and compared to the rest of the body. From the bioenergetic analysis, a larger breast could require up to 69 J of energy during walking. The average mass of a breast ranges from 500 to 1000 g. Assuming breast shape to be standard, semi-conical, semi-spherical and semi-elliptical, breast volume was determined where semi conical and semi spherical breast shapes consistently predicted lower bound volume for each breast, whereas the standard and semi elliptical breast shapes predicted higher volume for the same breasts measurements. Mathematically, the medial-lateral boundaries of the breast were described by a secant of a curve, aligned on the coronal plane, causing eccentric loading when the two breast nipples were on different transverse planes. When this variation was more than 5% volume change, asymmetric breast shapes occurred and was responsible to displace bra heterogeneously compromising fit and support. A non-linear, leaf-function describing the relationship between the breast radius and volume invoked at a given body weight. In general, the current design for a bra assumes that the breasts are symmetrical, though the current investigation proves that this is not the case. The bra needs to be redesigned to better fit women, since left and right sides are not symmetrical. This is a significant problem today, as it is estimated that nearly 80% of women wear incorrectly- sized bras; 70% wore bras that are too small, and 10% wore bras that are too big. Current investigation highlights the crucial importance of incorporating the distance between the nipples into bra design to achieve optimal support, comfort, symmetry, and minimize breast movement. It ensures that the bra cups are positioned optimally to provide effective support and enhance the natural shape of the breasts. If the current bra models are redesigned, the amount of discomfort in women could potentially decrease.

Keywords
breast anthropometry, bra design, breast health, bra-breast interface

Article Details

How to Cite
Hamandi, F., Pooler, T., Runser, A., Asman, C., Bailey, R., Robinson, N., & Goswami, T. (2024). Bioenergetic analysis and anthropometric evaluation of bra-breast interface for improved design and breast health. Research on Intelligent Manufacturing and Assembly, 2(1), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.25082/RIMA.2023.01.004

References

  1. Branson D, HES S, Shehab ODR. Biomechanical analysis of a prototype sports bra. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management. 2005, 4(3): 1-14.
  2. Newton D. Teaching Design and Technology 3 – 11. Published online 2005. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446211632
  3. Chen CM, LaBat K, Bye E. Physical characteristics related to bra fit. Ergonomics. 2010, 53(4): 514-524. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903490684
  4. Bengtson BP, Glicksman CA. The Standardization of Bra Cup Measurements. Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 2015, 42(4): 405-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2015.06.002
  5. Hsieh C c., Trichopoulos D. Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology. 1991, 27(2): 131-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5379(91)90469-t
  6. PANDYA S, MOORE RG. Breast Development and Anatomy. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2011, 54(1): 91-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0b013e318207ffe9
  7. McGuire KP. Breast Anatomy and Physiology. Breast Disease. Published online 2016: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22843-3_1
  8. Muntan CD, Sundine MJ, Rink RD, et al. Inframammary Fold: A Histologic Reappraisal. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 2000, 105(2): 549-556. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200002000-00011
  9. Gefen A, Dilmoney B. Mechanics of the normal woman’s breast. Technology and Health Care. 2007, 15(4): 259-271. https://doi.org/10.3233/thc-2007-15404
  10. McGhee DE, Steele JR, Zealey WJ, et al. Bra–breast forces generated in women with large breasts while standing and during treadmill running: Implications for sports bra design. Applied Ergonomics. 2013, 44(1): 112-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.006
  11. Goo S. Functional Fashion Helps Some Through Airport Checkpoints. Functional Fashion Helps Some Through Airport Checkpoints, 2004. https://www.washingtonpost.com
  12. Brady GS, Clauser HH, Vaccari JA. Materials handbook: an encyclopedia for managers, technical professionals, purchasing and production managers, technicians, and supervisors. McGraw-Hill Education. 2002: 633. ISBN 978-0-07-136076-0.
  13. Rowlands DP. The Mechanical Properties of Stainless Steel. BSC Eng (Witwatersrand), MIM, Ceng. Stainless Steel Information Series, 2006, 3.
  14. Mohd Jani J, Leary M, Subic A, et al. A review of shape memory alloy research, applications and opportunities. Materials & Design (1980-2015). 2014, 56: 1078-1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.11.084
  15. Itin VI, Gyunter VE, Shabalovskaya SA, et al. Mechanical properties and shape memory of porous nitinol. Materials Characterization. 1994, 32(3): 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/1044-5803(94)90087-6
  16. Littleton LY, Engebretson J. Maternal, Neonatal, and Women's Health Nursing. Cengage Learning. 2002, 915. ISBN 0-7668-0121-7.
  17. Wood K, Cameron M, Fitzgerald K. Breast size, bra fit and thoracic pain in young women: a correlational study. Chiropractic & Osteopathy. 2008, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-16-1
  18. Karr M. Engineering a better bra. Wright State University, 2018. http://webapp2.wright.edu
  19. Zhou J, Yu W, Ng SP. Studies of three-dimensional trajectories of breast movement for better bra design. Textile Research Journal. 2012, 82(3): 242-254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517511435004
  20. Gordon CC, Churchill T, Clauser CE, et al. Anthropometric survey of US Army personnel: Summary statistics, interim report for 1988. Anthropology Research Project Inc Yellow Springs OH.
  21. Vandeweyer E, Hertens D. Quantification of glands and fat in breast tissue: An experimental determination. Annals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger. 2002, 184(2): 181-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0940-9602(02)80016-4
  22. Shinohara K. Pendulum analysis by leaf functions and hyperbolic leaf functions. Applied Mathematical Sciences. 2019, 13(3): 103-123. https://doi.org/10.12988/ams.2019.914
  23. Shinohara K. Addition formulas of leaf functions according to integral root of polynomial based on analogies of inverse trigonometric functions and inverse lemniscate functions. Applied Mathematical Sciences. 2017, 11: 2561-2577. https://doi.org/10.12988/ams.2017.78265
  24. Massonnet C, Regnard JL, Lauri PE, et al. Contributions of foliage distribution and leaf functions to light interception, transpiration and photosynthetic capacities in two apple cultivars at branch and tree scales. Tree Physiology. 2008, 28(5): 665-678. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/28.5.665
  25. Saltmarsh A, Mauchamp A, Rambal S. Contrasted effects of water limitation on leaf functions and growth of two emergent co-occurring plant species, Cladium mariscus and Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany. 2006, 84(3): 191-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2005.09.010
  26. Casselman A. The physics of bras. Discover. 2005, 26(11): 18–19.
  27. Adkins EN, Anderson S, et al. Etiology of breast development and asymmetry. Advances in General Practice of Medicine. 2022, 4(1): 54-66. https://doi.org/10.25082/agpm.2022.01.004
  28. Wilkin LD, Cheryl A, Haddock BL. Energy Expenditure Comparison Between Walking and Running in Average Fitness Individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2012, 26(4): 1039-1044. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e31822e592c