Characterizing the biomechanical, physiological, and comfort impact of military torso-borne loads for female participants and manikin-based simulations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Torso-borne equipment (TBE) such as body armour, load carriage vests, and rucksacks negatively affect individual biomechanics and physiology. Injury risk, discomfort, and performance decrements are increased in females. However, there is a lack of research investigating female load carriage using occupationally relevant equipment, loads, and tasks. Thus, the purpose of this thesis was to compare the efficacy of a reduced coverage armour system and full torso coverage armour system for females using occupationally relevant equipment, load, and tasks and to partially validate a female manikin designed to assess TBE. This work could help inform interventions such as conditioning strategies and future equipment design for female soldiers. \nThe first portion of the thesis compared range of motion, march kinematics, shoulder and hip skin pressures on the march, perceived discomfort on the march, and time to traverse a wall in a baseline and two in-service TBE (i.e., Reduced Coverage (RC) and Full Torso Coverage (FTC)). Eight varsity-level athletes (20.1±1.7y, 171.4±5cm, 70.7±8.1kg) completed the tasks in a repeated measures study design. Linear mixed-effects model ANOVAs followed by Tukey’s post-hoc procedures when appropriate were performed (p<0.05). Results showed that the RC performed better or the same as the FTC for most outcome measures. Reducing torso coverage of TBE and altering bulk location could improve mobility performance and may mitigate injury risk for females as well as smaller males. \nThe second part of the study provided a preliminary validation for a newly commissioned female manikin designed by Queen’s University. The validation compared results between the female manikin and a physically active female (24y, 166.0cm, 66.3kg) both of whom were approximately the same size as 50th percentile females in the Canadian Armed Forces. For both the manikin and human, Clothe-the-Soldier equipment and pack were used during a march at a step frequency of 1.8 steps/s to collect and compare pack strap forces at five locations, shoulder and hip skin pressures, and body-payload relative motion. To look for differences between the manikin and human, mean values were compared coupled with visual analyses of average waveforms over a gait cycle. Two separate sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of variable strap forces and lean angles on outcome measures. The human completed the march over four separate strap forces settings (i.e., 26N, 36N, 46N, 56N) where outcome measures were shoulder and hip skin pressures and body-payload relative motion. The manikin completed the march over four different lean angles (i.e., 6.7°, 10.6°, 14.5°, 18.4°) where outcome measures were pack strap forces at five locations, shoulder and hip skin pressures, and body-payload relative motion. It was found that manikin lean angles of 6.7-18.4° and human strap force between 35N and 54N had minimal effects on the outcome measures/conclusions when wearing the tested TBE. The manikin was able to replicate the human results for most outcome measures except for peak pressures at the shoulders and hips. Though more validation is required, initial results suggest that the manikin can be used for TBE assessment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».