International Journal of Human Ecology

The Korean Home Economics Association (대한가정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Arm Armor System Performance Study: Net Effect (Perceptual Response) Analysis

  • Nam, Jin-Hee (Department of Family & Consumer Sciences, Ball State University) ;
  • Peksoz, Semra (Department of Design, Housing & Merchandising, Oklahoma State University) ;
  • Branson, Donna H. (Department of Design, Housing & Merchandising, Oklahoma State University) ;
  • Cao, Huantian (Department of Fashion & Apparel Studies, University of Delaware)
  • Received : 2012.03.31
  • Accepted : 2012.05.30
  • Published : 2012.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study compares the net effect of wearing different shoulder/arm armor systems on garment impediment perception and wearer acceptability. Two independent variables in this study were armor systems and shoulder/ arm movements. There were four armor systems of control garment and arm armor systems A, B, and C as well as five types of arm/shoulder movements, (shoulder flexion, should extension, shoulder abduction, shoulder horizontal flexion, and shoulder horizontal extension). Ten male volunteers wearing size medium battle dress uniform (BDU) with recent relevant military experience participated in this study. The volunteers performed shoulder/arm movements (while wearing each armor treatments) and completed the garment impediment perception as well as wearer acceptability scales. The body areas of neck side, shoulder top, and armscye front showed the highest frequency of reported impediments. Resistance to movement and localized pressure were the most frequently mentioned types of impediment. The armor system B had the most areas of impediment, and was rated as more restrictive than the control garment and armor system A for each movement. For wearer acceptability, no significant differences were found between the control garment and armor system A for all eight items; this indicated that subjects did not perceive a difference between wearing the control garment and armor system A. There was a trend for wearer acceptability to decrease from wearing the control garment to armor systems A to C to B.

Keywords

References

  1. Adams, P. S., Slocum, A. C., & Keyserling, W. M. (1994). A model for protective clothing effects on performance. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology. 6(4), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/09556229410054495
  2. Adams, P. S., & Keyserling, W. M. (1996). Methods for assessing protective clothing effects on worker mobility. In J. S. Johnson & S. Z. Mansdorf (Eds)., Performance of protective clothing (pp. 311-326). West Conshohocken:American Society for Testing and Materials.
  3. Bartholow, B. D., Sher, K. J., & Strathman, A. (1998, May). Examining private self-consciousness as a moderator of expectancy effects for drinking. Poster session presented at the American Psychological Society Convention, Washington, DC.
  4. Chen, X., & Chaudhry, I. (2005). Ballistic protection. In R. A. Scott (Ed.), Textiles for Protection (pp.529-556). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
  5. Corlett, E. N., & Bishop, R. P. (1976). A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics, 19(2), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137608931530
  6. Daanen, H. A. M., & Reffeltrath, P. A. (2007). Function, fit and sizing. In S.P. Ashdown, (Ed.), Sizing in clothing (pp. 202-219). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
  7. Huck, J., Maganga, O., & Kim, Y. (1997). Protective overalls: Evaluation of garment design and fit. International Journal of clothing Science and Technology, 9(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/09556229710157876
  8. Huck, J. (1998). Protective clothing system: A technique for evaluating restriction of wearer mobility. Applied Ergonomics, 19(3), 185-190.
  9. Nam, J. (2009). Arm armor systems: Fit analysis and performance factors. Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
  10. Nam, J., Kumphai, P., Branson, D. H., & Peksoz, S. (2007, November). Focus group: Soldier input for armor design. Poster presented at the Annual meeting of the International Textile Apparel Association, Los Angeles, CA.
  11. Nam, J., Peksoz, S., Branson, D., Cao, H., & Shehab, R. (2010). Methodological Approaches for Assessing performance of Arm Armor Systems. ITAA Proceedings, #6.
  12. Rupert, N., Bruno, R., Matic, P., Hubler, G., Frost, J., Branson, D., Sprague, J., Simmons, K., Farr, C., & Peksoz, S. (2006). QuadGard limb protection program. Proceedings of Personal Armor Systems Symposium, Leeds, England, September 19-22, 2006 (Seabott, Ipswitch, U.K), (Full paper).
  13. Saul, E. V., & Jaffe, J. (1955). The effects of clothing on gross motor performance. EP-12, U.S. Army quartermaster research and development center, Natick (Available from NTIS: AD-066 180).

Cited by

  1. Evaluation of a Prototype Soft-Structured Thoracic Posture Support Garment vol.34, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X15622571