Experimental Research on Layout Accessibility of Individual Load-Carrying Equipment

  • Yaping WangEmail author
  • Shanlin ChenCai
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 576)


Using three-dimensional motion capture and surface myoelectricity system, this study showed the characteristics of upper limb’s movement and surface electromyography in the process of picking and placing the Soldier System’s module on load-carrying equipment. The study aims to evaluate the accessibility to nine representative layout locations of load-carrying equipment. It can make an important contribution to the layout and optimization of individual load-carrying equipment. The results of this investigation showed that: (1) The maximum change of the upper arm’s angular velocity and integrated electromyography of muscles biceps brachii both can evaluate accessibility, yet the former had more significant and representative than the latter. (2) There was a significant positive correlation between the accessibility of soldier’s carriers in front part of the body and the movement distance of hand. Soldier System’s modules which are high frequently accessed were appropriate for the more accessible position.


Load-carrying equipment Layout Accessibility Motion capture Surface electromyography 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was approved by the Logistics Department for Civilian Ethics Committee of Nanjing University of Science and Technology.

All subjects who participated in the experiment were provided with and signed an informed consent form.

All relevant ethical safeguards have been met with regard to subject protection.


  1. 1.
    Chen X, Dong D, Zu Y et al (2009) Preliminary study on the ergonomics imitation and evaluation technique for the single soldier equipment system. China Pers Protective Equip 2:12–15Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dong D, Wang L, Yuan X et al (2010) Experimental research on the determination of human body surface reachable grade. Acta Armamentarii 31(7):1003–1008Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harman E, Frykman P, Pandorf C et al (1999) Physiological, biomechanical, and maximal performance comparisons of soldiers carrying loads using U.S. Marine Corps Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE), and U.S. Army Modular Load System (MLS) protypesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pope GD (1998) Introduction to surface electromyography. Physiotherapy 84(8):405Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang J, Jin X (2000) sEMG signal analysis method and its application research. China Sport Sci Technol 36(8):26–28Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Woods RJ, Polcyn AF, O’Hearn BE et al (1997) Analysis of the effects of body armor and load-carrying equipment on soldiers’ movements. Part 1. Technique ComparisonsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringNanjing University of Science and TechnologyNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations