Biophysical Assessment and Predicted Thermophysiologic Effects of Body Armor

Abstract

IntroductionMilitary personnel are often required to wear ballistic protection in order to defend against enemies. However, this added protection increases mass carried and imposes additional thermal burden on the individual. Body armor (BA) is known to reduce combat casualties, but the effects of BA mass and insulation on the physical performance of soldiers are less well documented. Until recently, the emphasis has been increasing personal protection, with little consideration of the adverse impacts on human performance.ObjectiveThe purpose of this work was to use sweating thermal manikin and mathematical modeling techniques to quantify the tradeoff between increased BA protection, the accompanying mass, and thermal effects on human performance.MethodsUsing a sweating thermal manikin, total insulation (IT, clo) and vapor permeability indexes (im) were measured for a baseline clothing ensemble with and without one of seven increasingly protective U.S. Army BA configurations. Using mathematical modeling, predictions were made of thermal impact on humans wearing each configuration while working in hot/dry (desert), hot/humid (jungle), and temperate environmental conditions.ResultsIn nearly still air (0.4 m/s), IT ranged from 1.57 to 1.63 clo and im from 0.35 to 0.42 for the seven BA conditions, compared to IT and im values of 1.37 clo and 0.45 respectively, for the baseline condition (no BA).ConclusionBiophysical assessments and predictive modeling show a quantifiable relationship exists among increased protection and increased thermal burden and decreased work capacity. This approach enables quantitative analysis of the tradeoffs between ballistic protection, thermal-work strain, and physical work performance.

Men's lacrosse protective equipment increases strain during exercise in the heat

“…Evaporative losses were likely impaired in EQU due to the equipment trapping humid air at the skin, decreasing the functional capacity of the skin surface area available for sweat evaporation. 4,16,17 Our increased core temperature findings are consistent with previous studies evaluating decreased skin surface area for sweat evaporation without the use of EQU. 18 Also, our participants could have completed more work during trials with EQU compared to NEQ because of the added 2.83 kg of mass during trials and identical whole-body exercise protocols utilized in both trials.…”

Experimental Investigation on Thermal Comfort of COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Sampling Staff in Hot and Humid Environment: A Pilot Study of University Students

“…This index is suitable for assessing thermal strain and efficiency of workers wearing thermal protective clothing in extremely hot environments. Few studies have systematically investigated the thermal comfort of medical staff in high-temperature environments [24][25][26]. For example, Potter et al [25,26] proposed that the impermeable design of protective clothing in hot and humid environments could cause the risk of thermal stress, which could be used to manage the safety of medical staff responding to the Ebola outbreak.…”

Ebola Response: Modeling the Risk of Heat Stress from Personal Protective Clothing

“…Heat stress results from a combination of environmental conditions, metabolic heat production, and biophysical properties of clothing [ 2 ]. The impermeable or semi-impermeable design of PPC shields the wearer from chemical and biological hazards but significantly increases risk of heat stress limiting evaporative heat transfer from the body into the environment [ 3 – 6 ]. Heat strain increases the risk of heat injury or illness and reduces work capacity, requiring increased demand for work-rest cycling.…”