Biomechanical Assessment Of Canadian Military Soft Armor Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the nature of the threat from Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), the pattern and probability of injury has changed for both mounted and dismounted military personnel. This work was performed for the Soldier System Integration Group at Defense Research and Development Canada (DRDC)-Toronto in support of the Counter Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) Technical Demonstration Project (TDP). PURPOSE: 1) To quantitatively assess three different designs of military soft armour systems that provide the same level of ballistic protection, yet differ in stiffness, bulk and weight; 2) To compare subjective data from soldiers' preferences with electromyography (EMG) and range of motion (ROM) data. METHODS: Eight male Canadian Armed Forces personnel participated in this investigation. Surface EMG data were recorded from eight muscles on the subjects' dominant side including: the Biceps (bilaterally), Triceps, Anterior Deltoid, Pectoralis Major, Trapezius, External Oblique (bilaterally). Upper body kinematics were recorded using seven MTx inertial motion sensors (Xsens, Netherlands) placed on the head, the C7 spinous process, the sacrum (L5/S1), as well as the upper and lower arms (bilaterally). Muscle activity and joint range of motion were assessed for a total of three different soft armour systems across a battery of upper body & trunk range of motion tasks. In addition soldiers were asked to complete a questionnaire at the end of test session, requiring them to rank each of the armour systems from best to worst in terms of overall maneuverability. RESULTS: Results from this investigation indicate that this approach of combining EMG concurrently with ROM is able to provide an objective biomechanical assessment of personal protective equipment. The EMG and ROM objective measures were all positively correlated to soldiers' subjective responses using a Spearman's Ranked Correlation Test. These correlations were particularly strong for the shoulder region ROM tasks (RS =1.0 for all three comparisons). CONCLUSION: Results indicate that less stiff, less bulky, and lighter systems are deemed superior for dynamic tasks, whereas, stiffer, bulkier, and heavier systems may have advantages for static holding tasks. Research Funded by DRDC-Toronto.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".