Biomechanical assessment tools provide

OPTIMIZING designers with quick feedback on design

LOAD CARRIAGE and human comfort tolerances of
backpacks.
SYSTEMS
B Y J . T. B RYA N T, J . M . S T E V E N S O N , L . L . B O S S I , S . A . R E I D , R . P. P E L O T, & E . L . M O R I N

D O YOU KNOW WHAT MAKES A GOOD BACKPACK ?
If you walked into the local sporting goods store and asked the
salesperson that question, he or she would say: “Function,
features, and fit,” which are the three key requirements for
most design processes involving humans. The buying process
involves determining where and when you will be using the
backpack, which specific features you want, and then trying it
on. The salesperson adjusts the frame to suit your body,
throws in some weight, and has you trek around the store to
get a feeling for the fit – not a very scientific process.
a. soldiers, operations personnel, and procurement personnel
within the military;
b. a scientific component for biomechanics specialists
(Ergonomics Research Group at Queen’s University) to
create objective testing equipment that could be used for
evaluation and design purposes;
c. a design component for an experienced commercial
designer (Ostrom Outdoors Inc., Nolalu, Ontario), which
could interact and interpret the design team’s needs and
manufacture prototypes; and

E
xperienced trekkers have the advantage of
knowing what they like in a pack, but a novice
buyer is usually unable to discriminate between
subtle but significant design differences. Then,
after two weeks on the Appalachian Trail with
70 lbs (32 kg) on your back, you find out more about fit than
you ever expected to. It’s either killing your shoulders or
your back or cutting into your armpits. The good news is that
permanent solutions to backpack discomfort are closer than
ever, thanks to a Canadian military initiative. The purpose of
this article is to provide an overview of a research approach
and program that helped to optimize the load carriage system
for the Canadian military.
d. a human factors component of ergonomics specialists
(Human Systems Inc., Guelph, Ontario), which could
gather soldiers’ feedback throughout the design process.
Once in place, the team undertook the challenge to de-
velop the replacement load carriage equipment, designated
as the “Clothe the Soldier System,” or CTS. The ultimate goal
was to optimize load carriage capacity for soldiers, not nec-
essarily to enable them to carry more but to allow them to
carry loads more efficiently with improved performance,
comfort, and safety. Because there is substantial overlap

IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY CRITICAL TO THE MILITARY

Although backpacks are worn by a variety of people –
students, hikers, and even fashion models – the importance
of functionality is perhaps most critical to the soldier. Over
the past few years, several nations’ militaries have engaged in
a soldier modernization plan involving the incorporation of
new technologies into foot soldiers’ equipment to increase
safety in peacekeeping and defensive situations.
The backpack is just one component of a soldier’s exten-
sive load carriage system, which also includes a variety of vests
and equipment. Members of the Canadian Army have been
wearing a personal load carriage system that is 20 years old.
Therefore, Canada has both a short- and a long-term need to
outfit the current military with the most modern advances
and to develop a strategy to allow for easy incorporation of
future technological advances into the load carriage system.
The Human Factors Division of Defence Research and
Development Canada tackled these needs through an
ergonomics approach that incorporated soldiers’ feedback
throughout the design process. The division set up a multi-
disciplinary design team composed of the following: Figure 1. Dynamic Load Carriage Simulator.

12 ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN • WINTER 2004

between the load carriage requirements of soldiers and civil-
ians, the developments described here will be useful in
improving the functionality of backpacks used by hikers,
travelers, and students.
VARIABLES FOR LOAD CARRIAGE EVALUATION
Virtually all load carriage research in the past has been
based on experimentation with human participants. This
may be ideal for face and content validity, but it can pose
problems relating to reliability and logistics. The concept of
using physical and mathematical models emerged from the
need for an objective assessment that would increase relia-
bility and also reduce the time and cost associated with
human experimentation.
Over the past few years, several nations’
militaries have engaged in a soldier
modernization plan involving the
incorporation of new technologies into
foot soldiers’ equipment.
A review of scientific and technical literature (Haisman,
1988; Pelot, Rigby, Stevenson, Bryant, & MacNeil, 1995;
Stevenson, Bryant, dePencier, Pelot, & Reid, 1995, 1996)
identified a range of factors known to affect human load car-
riage, including identification of threshold limit values based
on survival, injury, and tissue tolerance data, and a number
of load carriage system evaluation methods. These methods
included psychophysical (e.g., ratings of perceived exertion,
local discomfort ratings), physiological (e.g., metabolic energy
cost, cardiorespiratory, and other indicators of body strain),
Figure 2. TekscanTM 9811 pressure sensors placed
on the Dynamic Load Carriage Simulator.
biomechanical (e.g., electromyography, film analyses of
posture and gait patterns, force platform measures of ground
reaction forces, skin pressure), and mobility performance
measures.
To an extent, both psychophysical and physiological
measures have been useful in pack assessment, but they have
been unable to differentiate among the more subtle design
differences found between competing personal load carriage
systems or between design iterations within a given system
(Kirk & Schneider, 1992; Pelot et al., 1995). However, several
biomechanical factors have been identified that may be signif-
icant in load system differentiation. These include forces and
moments acting on the spine, relative distribution of the load
between shoulders and hips, and relative motion between
payload and body (Hinrichs, Lallement, & Nelson, 1982).
W
e concluded that of all the measures
reviewed, biomechanical measures – in
combination with psychophysical meas-
ures of soldiers’ perception of comfort,
mobility, and ability – offer the most
promise as discriminating factors in the design process.
Therefore, we used objective biomechanical measures along
with user feedback as the basis in developing standardized
and efficient objective tests that could (a) provide quantita-
tive data to make design decisions, (b) shorten the design
iteration and evaluation process, and (c) delimit the number
of options that need to be subjected to more time-consuming,
user-based evaluation.
OBJECTIVE BIOMECHANICAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Three biomechanical tools were developed and validated
through numerous contract reports by Stevenson, Bryant,
Reid, Pelot, and Morin between 1995 and 2001 (available from
the DRDC library and at http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca). These
tools allow a load carriage system and its specific components
to be assessed within a matter of days, making them invaluable
in an efficient iterative design and evaluation process.
1. Dynamic Load Carriage Simulator. The Load Carriage
Simulator was designed to capture the impact of a personal
load carriage system on the human torso, based on normal
gait motions and during sideslips or ducking forward under
branches. It is an innovative design using a computer-
controlled pneumatic system that can be programmed to walk
(at 1.8 Hz), jog (at 3.5 Hz), or run in a sinusoidal manner
reflecting the human gait pattern (see Figure 1, page 12).
Four torsos were built to represent the 95th and 50th
percentile male and the 50th and 5th percentile female (for
weight, critical girth, stature, and breadth measurements). The
hard-shelled mannequins were covered with a skin analogue
Bocklite™ and mounted onto a six-degree-of-freedom load
cell that was attached between a pivoting base plate and the
mannequin. The load cell measured forces (Fx , Fy , Fz , and FR)
and moments (Mx , My , Mz , and MR) at the hips about the
principal trunk axes. Tekscan™ 9811 pressure measurement
sensors were placed over the shoulders, upper and lower
WINTER 2004 • ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN 13
 back, and waist area to measure average pressures, peak pres-
sures, and average contact forces in each area (see Figure 2,
page 13). Relative displacement of payload items in the load
carriage system was measured using up to four Polhemus
Fastrak™ magnetic sensors.

We used objective biomechanical

measures along with user feedback as
the basis in developing standardized and
efficient objective tests.
This tool proved to be very useful because it provides
information on four important measures: forces, moments,
pressure, and relative pack-person displacement. Postpro-
cessing of raw data was conducted on all outcome measures,
and these data were compared with a previously collected
database of other packs tested under the same conditions.
The results of the Dynamic Load Carriage Simulator were
compared with human trials for validation (discussed later).

2. Load Carriage Compliance Tester. The Load Carriage

Compliance Tester was designed to examine the natural
stiffness of a pack’s suspension system during trunk flexion,
lateral bending, and torsion motions (see Figure 3). This tester
is an articulated 50th percentile male torso that is covered with
Bocklite™ and bends forward and sideways at the L3/L4 level
and in torsion around the L4/L5 level. Using a computer-
controlled pulley system and a preset load of 11 lbf (5 kg),
the upper body is rotated around one axis at a time to 48°
of flexion, ±18° of lateral bending, and ±12° of torsion. The
output data are in the form of force/displacement curves
so we could examine the stiffness inherent within a pack’s
suspension system.
The Load Carriage Compliance Tester was validated
against human trials, and the rigidity of the system was
inversely correlated (r 2 > 0.86) to several performance vari-
ables, such as users’ comfort during walking and ability to
perform whole-body and arm motions.
3. Static Load Distribution Mannequin. A Static Load
Distribution Mannequin (see Figure 4, next page) was devel-
oped to facilitate standardized static biomechanical modeling
of a backpack. Our goal was to calculate the shoulder and
lumbar back reaction forces. The static tester is similar to the
Dynamic Load Carriage Simulator, except that its base is de-
signed to sit on a six-degree-of-freedom force platform with a
second six-degree-of-freedom load cell at the level of the third
lumbar vertebra. This design separated the upper torso from
Figure 3. Load Carriage Compliance Tester.
such as optimal pack shoulder strap shapes, utility of lateral
suspension rods in packs, and optimal attachment of the
shoulder straps to the base of the pack.
MOBILITY CIRCUIT
We validated the objective measurements obtained from
these tools by comparing them with soldiers’ opinions of
discomfort, balance, mobility, and agility during a standard-
ized mobility circuit. The mobility circuit was a standardized
set of tasks and movements that are representative of those
that could be experienced by load carriage system users in
field conditions and that permit user-based evaluations of
load control, load transfer, and comfort. The goals were to
use the soldier’s opinions in comparison with objective
measures to determine important relationships and to rec-
ommend performance-based biomechanical criteria for pack
selection. These objective performance criteria were based on
reported discomfort scores for the shoulder and lumbar reac-
tion forces and for determination of acceptable average and
peak skin contact pressures. Because the pack-on-person
movements can cause instability, the acceptable tolerance
limit was set at the 90th percentile of load carriage systems
that were assessed in the database (n = 17 different systems).

the hips, permitting us to assess relative load distribution
between the shoulders and hips.
Wearing a weighted pack produced shoulder and lumbar
reaction forces, which were compared with soldiers’ discom-
fort scores and used to develop simple static pack models.
More advanced dynamic models are being developed. The
Static Load Distribution Mannequin has been used primarily
to answer questions about specific features of pack design,
T
o ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the
pack, the soldiers completed both a marching
order circuit and a battle order circuit. For the
former, they carried 32 kg (70.5 lb) while com-
pleting a 6-km (3.72-mile) route interspersed
with tasks every kilometer (0.62 miles). Each task required
specific movements. The boulder hop and balance beams
required forward/backward and side/side balance. The side

14 ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN • WINTER 2004


Figure 4. Static Load Distribution Mannequin.
slope and forward ramp climbs tested mobility. Branch-
ducking and fence-climbing required load control, and the
pylon run and bent balance beam indicated agility.
A
fter completing the circuit, and before remov-
ing the system, soldiers ranked their discomfort
on body pictograms and Likkert scales. Further
feedback was obtained from the battle order
circuit, which included tasks such as mouse
hole clearance, adoption of firing positions, and access to
equipment and emergency doffing. Although these circuits
were very useful in the assessment of mobility features, fur-
ther human testing is required to assess other personal load
carriage system features, including functionality, durability,
adaptability, and user acceptability.
VALIDATION OF OBJECTIVE MEASURES
There were three forms of validation: face validation
with the biomechanical modeling, construct validity with cor-
relational analyses, and performance-based ranking though
factor analysis and comparison with experts.
Face validation. For face validation, we used information
obtained from a biomechanical model that was validated
using the Static Load Distribution Mannequin. With this tool,
we could separate out the upper-body from the lower-body
reaction forces to the pack. The biomechanical model was
developed based on the pack geometry, angle of carry, and
load (McNeil, 1996; Pelot et al., 2001). We then compared
these forces with the subjective responses of 20 volunteer
soldiers who completed the mobility circuit. A completely
randomized block design was used with five different load
carriage systems. At the end of the march, soldiers provided
combined ratings for perceived discomfort in the shoulder
and lumbar areas. These data were then converted to a per-
centage, which indicated the proportion of all users reporting
significant pain.
The goals were to use the soldier’s opinions
in comparison with objective measures
to recommend performance-based
biomechanical criteria for pack selection.
The correlation between forces and discomfort is shown
in Figure 5. The shoulder force showed r 2 = 0.56; lumbar force
had r 2 = 0.81 with respect to perceived discomfort (Bryant
et al., 2001). By extrapolating these curves to determine zero
perceived discomfort, the desired design limits would be a
maximum shoulder force of 145 N (32.6 lbf) for each shoulder
(Figure 5a, next page) and a maximum lumbar force of 135 N
(30.3 lbf; see Figure 5b).
It is interesting to note that the combined shoulders and
lumbar reactions forces total, 425 N, is 1.35 greater than the
pack weight of 314 N (Bryant et al., 2001). This is because
the pack’s weight must be carried using the straps around
the shoulder, where only the vertical component serves to
counteract the pack weight.
Construct validity and correlational analysis. A direct
comparison between objective measures and subjective
responses from soldiers was undertaken on nine military
load carriage systems. Systems tested were from four countries
and were evaluated in a variety of configurations that in-
cluded rucksacks and webbing or load carriage vests. A Pearson
correlation table was developed for all measurements, with a
value of r = 0.66 indicating a correlation of p < .05, which was
accepted as an indicator of an important relationship (Bryant
et al., 2001). Of the 76 potential relationships between simu-
lator measures and human factors, 48 were significant. For
example, relative displacement of the pack on the person was
associated with posterior hip discomfort, which most likely
occurred because of a transfer of forces to the lumbar region.
Factor analysis. Because of the extensive number of
variables, we performed a factor analysis to determine the
most significant factors in load carriage (Bryant et al., 2001;
Doan et al., 1998). This analysis was undertaken to reconcile
some of the trade-offs associated with good performance in
some measures and poor performance in others when estab-
lishing an overall rating for a load carriage system. The original
76 variables from the Load Carriage Simulator and soldier
feedback were examined for each load carriage system. These
were reduced to three main factors that accounted for a total
of 71.1% of the variance.
Factor 1 described the balance and general ability to move
with the pack in place (27.4%). The second factor was associ-
ated with physical variables (i.e., balance, mobility) involved
with load control (23.4%). The final factor combined both
WINTER 2004 • ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN 15
 Figure 5. Soldiers’ perceived discomfort in comparison to forces exerted on the body by the backpack at the (a) combined shoulders and
(b) lumbar area for Packs A–E.
human and simulator measurements in features associated
with shoulder and arm motion (20.3%). Although we had
too few pack experts to substantiate these factors as impor-
tant to rate pack performance, it did differentiate between
the two extremes (superior 10% and inferior 10%) of pack
performance.
RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
The research conducted in this study is summarized con-
cisely in the objective performance-based specifications in-
dicated in the table below. These specifications were developed
based on the strength of the aforementioned relationships.
The suite of tools described here enables
researchers to obtain objective performance
data for a given prototype or design
concept of a load carriage system within
a matter of days.
We then used them to design a personal load carriage system
for the Canadian military. The recommended values were
based on the evaluations of 17 load carriage systems (commer-
cial and military) by a range of test methodologies (objective
biomechanical tools, human mobility circuit trials), as well as
injury and tissue tolerance data from the scientific literature
RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR MILITARY BACKPACKS BASED EITHER ON
BEING IN THE TOP 10% OF PACKS TESTED OR ON SOLDIERS' PSYCHOPHYSICAL RESPONSES
Criterion Units
Relative resultant displacement between pack and person
Average skin contact pressure over shoulders and lumbar area
Maximum skin point pressure over shoulders and lumbar areas
Shoulder reaction forces to support pack load with comfort
Lumbar reaction force needed to support pack load and comfort
16 ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN • WINTER 2004
reviewed. These values were selected either because they rep-
resented discomfort ratings by soldiers or because they were
common to the top 10% of personal load carriage systems.
In this article, we demonstrated how physical simulators
and mathematical models of human load carriage might be
inserted into the design process. By no means do these
models replace human-based testing or the requirement for
interaction with end users (i.e., via focus groups and labora-
tory and field trials). However, the use of physical models
that accurately reflect users’ opinions can improve the design
process in two key ways: It can increase understanding of the
factors contributing to soldier load carriage performance, and
it can contribute to a more efficient and less costly iterative
development cycle.
The suite of tools described here enables researchers to
obtain objective performance data for a given prototype or
design concept of a load carriage system within a matter of
days. User focus groups and trials can then be used to confirm
improvements in suspension system design and assess factors
relating to form and function, which are beyond those relating
to biomechanics (e.g., usability, thermal characteristics, bag
and modular pouch design, closure mechanisms, compatibil-
ity, and soldier task performance). Both the biomechanical
tools and the user feedback were crucial in the selection of
the personal load carriage system because they allowed for an
efficient and accurate evaluation of the systems. Specifically,
Recommended Values
S.I. Units British
< 14 mm 0.55 in
< 20 kPa 2.90 PSI
< 45 kPa 6.53 PSI
< 290 N 65.3 lbf
< 135 N 30.3 lbf
the objective tools were used in the consideration of pack fea-
tures, such as shoulder strap shape, shoulder strap attachment
points, hip belt construction, and lateral suspension rods.
CONCLUSIONS
The biomechanical tools described here proved to offer
an efficient objective evaluation of load-bearing clothing
and equipment and their impact on users. They are intended
to augment measures usually obtained with human-based
testing and have contributed to the iterative design process
and evaluation of a new load carriage system for the Canadian
Forces and some of its allies. The suite of objective biome-
chanical measurement tools is available for use by both
military and commercial load carriage system designers
through Queens University (stevensj@post.queensu.ca), and
contract reports are available from Defence Research and
Development Canada (http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca).
REFERENCES
Bryant, J. T., Doan, J. E., Stevenson, J. M., & Pelot, R. P. (2001). Validation of
objective-based measures and development of a performance based rank-
ing method for load carriage systems. In Soldier Mobility: Innovations in
Load Carriage System Design and Evaluation, NATO-RTO Meeting
Proceedings: MP-056 (vol. 15, pp. 1–12). Neuilly-sur-Seine: NATO.
Doan, J. E., Reid, S. A., Stevenson, J. M., Bryant, J. T., Morin, E., & Pelot, R. P.
(1998). Research and development of an advanced personal load carriage
measurement system. Phase IV Section D: Computer database – summary
and correlation of load carriage system assessment (Technical Report
W7711-7-7420/A). Toronto: Defence Research and Development Canada.
Haisman, M. F. (1988). Determinants of load carrying ability. Applied
Ergonomics, 19(2), 111–121.
Hinrichs, R. N., Lallement, S. R., & Nelson, R. C. (1982). An investigation of
the inertial properties of backpacks loaded in various configurations
(Technical Report #TR-82/023). Natick, MA: US Army at Natick Research
and Development Laboratories.
Kirk, J., & Schneider, D. A. (1992). Physiological and perceptual responses
to load-carrying in female subjects using internal and external frame
backpacks. Ergonomics, 35, 445–455.
McNeil, S. (1996). Biomechanical assessment of strap forces and pressures
during load carriage. M.Sc. thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.
Pelot, R. P., Rigby, A., Stevenson, J. M., & Bryant, J. T. (2001). Static biome-
chanical load carriage model. In Soldier Mobility: Innovations in Load
Carriage System Design and Evaluation, NATO-RTO Meeting Proceedings:
MP-056 (vol. 25, pp. 1–12). Neuilly-sur-Seine: NATO.
Reid, S. A, Whiteside, W., & Stevenson, J. M. (2001). Biomechanical assessment
of lateral stiffness elements in the suspension system of a rucksack. In
Soldier Mobility: Innovations in Load Carriage System Design and
Evaluation, NATO-RTO Meeting Proceedings: MP-056 (vol. 19, pp. 1–8).
Neuilly-sur-Seine: NATO.
Reid, S. A., Bryant, J. T., Stevenson, J. M. & Doan, J. E. (2001). Biome-
chanical assessment of rucksack shoulder strap attachment location:
Effect of load distribution to the torso. In Soldier Mobility: Innovations
in Load Carriage System Design and Evaluation, NATO-RTO Meeting
Proceedings: MP-056 (vol. 20, pp. 1–9). Neuilly-sur-Seine: NATO.
Stevenson, J. M., Bryant, J. T., dePencier, R. D., Pelot, R. P., & Reid, J. G. (1995).
Research and development of advanced personal load carriage system (Phase
I, Technical Report W7711-4-7225/01-XSE). Toronto: Defence Research
and Development Canada.
Stevenson, J. M., Bryant, J. T., dePencier, R. D., Pelot, R. P., & Reid J. G.
(1996). Research and development of an advanced personal load carriage
system. Phase I Section D: Development of acceptable criteria for physical
tests of load carriage systems (Tech Report W7711-S-7356). Toronto:
Defence Research and Development Canada.
Stevenson, J. M., Bryant, J. T., Reid, S. A, Pelot, R. P., & Morin E. L.
Development of the Canadian Integrated Load Carriage System using
Objective Measures. In Soldier Mobility: Innovations in Load Carriage
System Design and Evaluation, NATO-RTO Meeting Proceedings: MP-056
(vol. 21, pp. 1–11). Neuilly-sur-Seine: NATO.
J. M. Stevenson (professor in biomechanics), J. T. Bryant (pro-
fessor in mechanical engineering), S. A. Reid (research engineer),
and E. L. Morin (associate professor in electrical engineering)
are members of the Ergonomics Research Group at Queen’s
University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6. L. L. Bossi is a
lieutenant colonel and head of the Operational Human Engi-
neering Group at Defence Research and Development in Toronto.
R. P. Pelot is a professor in the Department of Industrial Engi-
neering at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. For information,
contact J. M. Stevenson at stevensj@post.queensu.ca. © Her Maj-
esty The Queen in Right of Canada (2004) as represented by the
Minister of National Defence.
WINTER 2004 • ERGONOMICS IN DESIGN 17