4.5 Article

A backpack load sharing model to evaluate lumbar and hip joint contact forces during shoulder borne and hip belt assisted load carriage

期刊

APPLIED ERGONOMICS
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103277

关键词

Biomechanics; Locomotion; Musculoskeletal modeling; Back; Spine; Movement simulation; Load carriage

资金

  1. U.S. Defense Health Agency, Military Operational Medicine Research Program [N1814]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Military service members often suffer from musculoskeletal injuries of the lumbar spine due to heavy backpack loads. Backpack design influences joint contact forces, but the contact forces were similar between different backpack configurations. Future studies should involve more participants, consider different walking conditions, and analyze various backpack load distributions to further improve backpack design.
Musculoskeletal injuries of the lumbar spine occur frequently among military service members and are associated with heavy backpack loads. Musculoskeletal modeling and simulation facilitate biomechanical evaluation to compare different backpack designs. We developed a backpack attachment model that can be tuned to represent various load distributions between the torso and pelvis. We generated walking simulations to estimate muscle and joint contact forces of unloaded walking and while carrying 38 kg using shoulder-borne backpacks and hip belt-assisted backpacks for six U.S. Marines. Three-dimensional peak and average lumbar (L4-L5) and hip joint contact forces over the stance phase were compared between each load condition. Axial L4-L5 and axial and anterior hip joint contact forces were greater during both backpack conditions compared to the unloaded condition. Joint contact forces were similar between backpack conditions. Future studies incorporating additional participants, walking conditions, and backpack load distributions are suggested for further model development and backpack design evaluation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据