Protecting the extremities of military personnel: fragment protective performance of one- and two-layer ensembles

Abstract

In order to provide protection from fragmenting ballistic threats, combat body armour contains multiple layers of fabric. The garment covers the torso, but may provide (removable) protection to the upper arms, neck and groin. Such garments are thick, stiff, impede movement and increase the thermophysiological loading of the dismounted soldier. Examination of wound locations from recent conflicts has suggested it would be advantageous to provide protection to the extremities. Current modular systems can be expanded with strap-on coverings to the arms and legs, but this further exacerbates the mass, mobility and thermal problems already observed. Soldiers already wear coverings on their arms and legs in the form of a combat uniform, and the provision of a hierarchical protection system incorporated in the existing uniform has been discussed. Not all areas of the body would be protected to the same level. In the current work, the fragment protective capabilities of one or two layers of commercially available para-aramid woven fabric. Specifically, 1.1 g chisel-nosed fragment simulating projectile V50 data were obtained. The aim was to establish whether the incorporation of such one or two layers of para-aramid woven fabric into current combat clothing could provide a level of fragment protection with only a minimal associated increase in stiffness, mass and thermal resistance. Post-failure analysis was conducted to investigate inter-layer interaction and failure mechanisms. This work suggests that the use of one- and two-layer para-aramid woven fabric layers incorporated into clothing could offer some protection against wounding to the extremities from fragments.

Is behind armour blunt trauma a real threat to users of body armour? A systematic review

“…The PRISMA flow chart is given in Figure 1. Specifically, 21 conference papers,3 11–13 21–35 12 journals articles,2 4 7 8 10 15 17 18 36–39 six reports,9 14 16 40–42 five articles on websites,20 43–46 three PhD theses,47–49 one standard test method6 and two books5 50 were identified. Data obtained were divided into the following topics: injury mechanisms, wounded personnel, killed personnel and female injuries.…”

An integrated approach towards future ballistic neck protection materials selection

“…The use of one and two layers of para-aramid woven fibres or UHMWPE fibres into existing clothing would provide some protection against low kinetic energy of explosively propelled fragments. 30 Such garments would require further human factors trials to assess any impacts on user performance. The use of only a few layers of material would inevitably allow a proportion of fragments to completely perforate the armour resulting in penetrating neck injury, albeit with a reduced available kinetic energy.…”

“…Ballistic materials are often compared by plotting areal density versus V 50 (Figure 3), although it should be noted that although areal density is cumulative, the V 50 of materials increases non-linearly with increasing areal density. 29,30 Although neck protection has clear advantages in that any area of coverage is likely to be small with a resultant low mass, this burden must not be considered in isolation from that to protect the remaining body.…”

Using computerised surface wound mapping to compare the potential medical effectiveness of Enhanced Protection Under Body Armour Combat Shirt collar designs

“…Prototype A was identical to an existing UBACS (Figure 3), with the only modification being the incorporation of ballistic protective material into the collar. Such modifications to existing garments have recently been suggested as simple methods of providing protection against explosive fragmentation without resulting in an additional physiological burden 9. Prototypes B and C (Figure 3) replaced the standard UBACS zipped collar with a crossover design, thus enabling the collar to stand up without the requirement for a zip.…”