Task-Specific Effects of Modular Body Armor

Abstract

Eleven recreationally active males performed 11 circuits of military work, wearing torso armor on one occasion, and full armor on another. Performance was measured by the time taken to complete individual tasks, and the overall time to completion (TTC) for each circuit. Heart rate, intestinal temperature, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), and thermal sensation were recorded after each circuit. Participants' circuit TTC was no different between conditions; however, specific tasks were differentially impeded by the two armor configurations. Vaulting and crawling were significantly slower (0.28 ± 0.06 and 0.55 ± 0.26 seconds) in full armor; however, box lifting and shooting were significantly slower (0.36 ± 0.18 and 0.86 ± 0.23 seconds) when wearing torso armor. Heart rate and core temperature were significantly higher during the full armor trial (5 ± 1 beats · min(-1) and 0.22 ± 0.03 °C). Similarly, RPE and thermal sensation were significantly higher (1 ± 0 and 0.5 ± 0.0) during the full armor condition. Military tasks were differentially impaired by the armor configurations used, which suggests a need to explore role-specific armor for military personnel. Physiological and perceptual responses were elevated in full armor, which could be exacerbated during longer periods of work or in hot conditions.

The effects of military body armour on trunk and hip kinematics during performance of manual handling tasks

“…These findings were in contrast to our secondary hypothesis. These observations are, (Larsen et al, 2014). These recent results, together with those reported in the current study suggest armour manufacturers need to invest in multivariate evaluations of their designs, to maximise user acceptance.…”

Body-worn IMU array reveals effects of load on performance in an outdoor obstacle course

“…For instance, a current study relevant to law enforcement finds that stab resistant armor decreases performance during mobility, balance, and strength tasks [5]. In the context of the armor donned by warfighters, prior studies similarly confirm degradations in walking/marching performance (see, for example, [6–7]) and in running, rushing (rapid prone to sprinting back to prone), lifting, and many other tasks embedded in military obstacle courses [7–9]. The adverse effects of loads on marching performance in particular is well established and for body-borne loads of all kinds (e.g., armor, backpacks, hand-carried), collectively referred to as clothing and individual equipment (CIE).…”

Evaluation of physiological and psychophysical strain of security guards wearing stab-resistant body armor under a simulated patrol condition

“…Moreover, vaulting and crawling were significantly slower in the full armor trials compared with the torso armor trials. 15 Compared with the control condition (uniform and fabric hat), the torso armor and full armor increased core temperature, heart rate, and sweating during low-intensity exercise in a hot environment, whereas no significant difference between trial groups was observed in terms of cognitive function. 16 Conversely, Stewart and Hunt 18 reported that armored vehicle officers performing low-intensity work experienced negligible heat strain in a subtropical climate.…”

“…The effects of body armor on thermal responses and physiological strain (e.g., body temperature, heart rate, metabolic rate, respiratory exchange ratio, and sweat loss) have been reported in several studies. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] The core temperature and maximum working time while wearing body armor were predicted by means of a mathematical model using biophysical characteristics measured by a thermal manikin. 11 Body armor significantly increased oxygen uptake, blood lactate, heart rate, and ratings of perceived physical exertion.…”