P152587.PDF [Page: 1 of 148]
`Image Cover Sheet
`
`CLASSIFICATION
`
`UNCLASSIFIED
`
`TITLE
`
`SYSTEM NUMBER
`
`152587
`
`I llllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll llll llll
`
`BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR ADVANCED PERSONAL LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEM FOR THE CANADIAN
`
`FORCES
`
`System Number:
`
`Patron Number:
`
`Requester:
`
`Notes:
`
`DSIS Use only:
`
`Deliver to:
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 1
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 2 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 2
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 3 of 148]
`
`Ergonotnics
`Research Group
`
`Kingston, Ontario, Canada
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 3
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 4 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 4
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 5 of 148]
`
`BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
`FORAN
`ADVANCED PERSONAL
`LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEM
`FOR THE CANADIAN FORCES
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 5
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 6 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 6
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 7 of 148]
`
`BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
`FOR
`ADVANCED PERSONAL
`LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEM
`FOR THE CANADIAN FORCES
`
`FINAL
`
`Submitted to
`e-
`of
`Defeire and Civil Institute Jgf Environmental Medicine
`
`from
`
`Ergonomics Research Group
`Queen's University
`
`Report prepared by:
`
`Ron P.Pelot, PhD, PEng
`Industrial Engineering, TUNS
`
`Joan M. Stevenson, PhD
`School of Physical & Health Education
`
`Christine Banick
`Joanne Day
`
`Susan Reid, MSc, PEng
`School of Physical & Health Education
`
`March 29, 1995
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 7
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 8 of 148]
`
`I
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 8
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 9 of 148]
`
`Principal Investigators
`for
`Advanced Personal
`Load Caniage System
`for the Canadian Forees
`
`Joan M. Stevenson, PhD
`School of Physical & Health Education
`
`Ronald P. Pelot, PhD, PEng
`Industrial Engineering, TUNS
`
`Robert D. dePencier, PhD, PEng
`Department of Mechnical Engineering
`
`J. Tim Bryant PhD, PEng
`Department of Mechnical Engineering
`
`J. Gavin Reid, PhD
`School of Physical & Health Education
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 9
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 10 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 10
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 11 of 148]
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`. . • . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`
`2. INTRODUCTION • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . 2
`
`3. REVIEW OF CURRENT LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEMS .••.......•....•• 3
`
`3.1 Civilian Load Caniage Systems . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`. . • • . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
`3.1.1 Design Features
`3.1.2 Field Evaluation of Packs
`. . • . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • . . . • • . . . . 8
`
`3.2 Canadian Military Load Caniage . . • . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . • . 13
`3.2.1 Design Features of the Canadian 1982 Pattern Webbing
`and Rucksack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`3.2.2 Personnel Evaluation of Design Features
`. . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`3.2.3 Actual versus Prescribed Uses of Load Caniage
`Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`
`3.3 U.S.A. Military Load Caniage . . • . . . • . . . • • • . . . . • . • . . . • . . . . • 32
`
`3.4 U.K. Military Load Caniage • • . . . • . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . • . . . . • . . 36
`
`3.5
`
`. . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
`Swnmary of Review of Current Systems
`3.5.1 Summary of Important Design Features
`. • . . • . • . . . • • . . . • 38
`3.5.2
`lntegration of Load Caniage Components • . • • • • . . • • • . . • 41
`3.5.3 Testing Protocol for Design Features • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
`
`4. REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
`
`• . . . . . . . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . 43
`
`4.1 Physiological Studies . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
`. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
`4.1.1 Heavy Load Caniage
`4.1.2 The Search for Optimal Weight • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
`4.1.3 Load Placement . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`4.1.4 Prediction of Physiological Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`. . . • . . . . . • • . . . . • . . . . • . . 50
`4.1.S Ratings of Perceived Exertion
`
`4.2 Biomecha:nical Studies . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
`4.2.1 Electromyography (EMG) . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
`4.2.2 Film Analysis . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . S4
`4.2.3 Foree Platf omi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
`4.2.4 Pressure Sensors • • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . • . . • • SS
`
`(i)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 11
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 12 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 12
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 13 of 148]
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
`
`4.3 Pelfonnance Studies . • . . • . . . . • . . . • . . • . • • . • • . . • . . . . . . . . • • 55
`
`4.4
`
`Summary of Scientific Findings • • . . • . • . • • • . • • . . . . . • • . . . . • . . 58
`
`5.0 REPORT SUMMARY . . • . . . • • . • . . . • . . • • . . • . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 62
`
`6.0 REFERENCES
`
`. • . . . • . . • . • • • . . • . • . • • . . • . . . . . . • • . . • . . . . • . . • . 65
`
`7.0 APPENDICES
`
`7.1 CFB Gagetown questionnaire • • . . • • • • • . • . • . . . • . . . . • . . • • . . . . 73
`
`7.2 CFB Kingston questionnaires and responses • • . . • . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . 81
`
`7 .3 Report on the Civilian Backpacker Focus Group
`7.3.1
`Introduction • . . . • . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . • . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . 94
`7.3.2 Civilian Expert Trekker Comments - Summary of
`Group Discussions • • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . • • • 94
`7.3.3 Summary of Questionnaire Responses • . . • • • . • • . • • . . . . . . 96
`7.3.4 Civilian Expert Trekker Comments on Military and
`Civilian Packs
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
`
`7.4 Load Carriage Backgrounder Report • . • . • . • • • • • . • . . • . . • . • . . • 101
`
`(ii)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 13
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 14 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 14
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 15 of 148]
`
`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`Figure 3.1 Gregory "Dru" Pack & Camptrails Pack . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . • • . . 4
`
`Figure 3.2 Gregory Internal Frame "Dru" Pack . . . . • • • . • • . • . . . . . • • . • . . . • . . 6
`
`Figure 3.3 Current Canadian Pack
`
`. • . . • • . . . • . . • • . . . • . . • • . . • • . • . . • . . • • 14
`
`Figure 3.4 1982 Model Webbing and Rucksack • • . • . • • . • • • . . • . . • . . . . • • . • • 15
`
`Figure 3.5 Metal Frame • • . • . . • • . • • • • . . • . . • . • • . • • . . • • . • • • . . • • • . • . . . 15
`
`Figure 3.6 Waist Belt . • . . • . . • • . • • • . . • • • . • . • . • • • • • • • . • • . • . • . • • • • . • 16
`
`Figure 3. 7 Detail of attaching bag to frame • • . • • • . • • . . • • . • • • . • • . • • • . • . . • 17
`
`Figure 3.8 Radio pouch, reducing straps, and ski attachment straps • • . • • . • . • . . . 18
`
`Figure 3.9 Pocket and component closures • • . . • • • • • • • . • . • • . • . . • • . . • . . • . 18
`
`Figure 3.10 Sleeping bag attachment
`
`. • • • • • • • • . • . . • • . • • • • • • . • . • . . . . . • • 19
`
`Figure 3.11 Quick release mechanism • . • • • • • • • • . . • . • • . • • • • • . • • . • • . . . • . 19
`
`Figure 3.12 1982 Patter Webbing . • • . . • . • . • • • . • • • • • . • . • . . • • . • • . • . • . • • 20
`
`Figure 3.13 Component attachment to webbing • • • • • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • . . 20
`
`Figure 3.14 Webbing belt . . . . . • . • . • . • • . • • • . . • • • • . • . • • . • . • • . . • . • • . • 21
`
`Figure 3.15 Webbing yoke
`
`• . . . • • • • • . . • • • . • . • . • • . • • . . • . • • . • • . • . • . • . 21
`
`Figure 3.16 American Pack . • • . • • • . • • . • . • . . • • . • . • . • • . • . . . • . • . • • . • . . 34
`
`Figure 3.17 British Pack • . • . • • . . . . . • • . . • . . . • . • • . . . • • . . . . . . • . • . . . • . 34
`
`(iii)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 15
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 16 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 16
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 17 of 148]
`
`1.0
`
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`As part of the research for the Advanced Personal Load Carriage System (APLCS) for
`
`the Canadian military, the Ergonomics Research Group (ERG) at Queen's University has
`
`performed an extensive review of current load carriage systems and load carriage literature.
`
`A background report on the evolution and current state of load carriage equipment was
`
`prepared for ERG. Civilian expert trekkers responded to interviews covering many design
`
`features and ergonomic preferences for current load carriage systems. They reviewed the
`
`three military and one commercial pack that ERG possesses.
`
`Military load carriage equipment from Canada and two foreign countries has been
`
`examined and evaluated by our team of scientists and load carriage experts. Canadian
`
`military personnel have provided feedback through questionnaires and interviews on the
`
`strengths and weaknesses of various design elements. Additional information was solicited on
`
`load carriage limits, typical tasks and operating conditions. In some cases, there are clear
`
`deficiencies in some design elements. However, in many instances the success of a particular
`
`configuration is individual and/or task and/or environment specific. One of the main benefits
`
`of this review has been a better understanding of the interplay amongst these factors.
`
`Scientific and popular literature on load carriage design elements and performance
`ratings has been summariz.ed in this report. Many studies have been performed to assess the
`
`effects of load carriage on humans. Factors studied included total load, load distribution, and
`
`various load carriage systems. Conditions range from forced marches of several days to
`
`balance, treadmill or circuit tests in the laboratory. Formal assessment methods are mostly
`
`based on physiological or biomechanical measurements or ratings of perceived exertion.
`The principal conclusions of the scientific literature review are that biomechanical
`
`measures and subject perceptions are good indicators of certain design variations in load
`
`carriage systems, but have not been developed to full advantage. Generally, physiological
`
`measures are not sensitive enough to reflect subtle changes in configuration, although they
`
`provide very useful information on the effects of total load and environmental conditions.
`
`Also, the relationship between user perceived stress under load and quantitative measurements
`
`is not very well developed. That is, a quantifiable, repeatable measure of the ergonomic merit
`
`of a design is still an open area of research, which ERG is undertaking in this project.
`
`-1-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 17
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 18 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 18
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 19 of 148]
`
`2.0
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) has been
`
`charged with the task of research and development of Land Forces Protective Clothing and
`
`Equipment for the Canadian Forces. This project involves an Improved Environmental
`
`Clothing System (IECS) for all CF personnel, Integrated Protective Clothing and Equipment
`
`(IPCE) for combat arms and Enhanced Integrated Protective Clothing and Equipment (EIPCE)
`
`for assault troops. DCIEM is in contact with parallel developments in the United States, and
`
`the United Kingdom, and is prepared to support NATO's "soldier modernization plan".
`
`One facet of the IPCE master plan is the assessment and development of Advanced
`
`Personal Load Carriage System (APLCS). The current CF load carriage system is not deemed
`
`adequate to carry all of the high technology items in combat conditions (i.e. portable power
`
`source, computer, video camera, etc.). The Ergonomics Research Group (ERG) at Queen's
`
`University has been tasked to initiate the APLCS component of the IPCE project. The first
`
`year of this study includes a thorough review of literature and current load carrying
`
`equipment, culminating in this interim report. The concurrent development, set-up and
`
`application of laboratory mechanical and performance testing systems by ERG will be
`
`described in the first year's final report.
`A load carriage system (LCS) must not be developed in isolation, particularly given
`
`the demanding duties and diverse conditions encountered by Canadian military personnel.
`
`The ultimate effectiveness of the LCS must be measured in relation to its bearer, its contents,
`
`and the tasks and environments to which it is subjected. This report will touch upon all of
`
`these factors, though the focus is on the physical effects of the load carriage system on the
`
`soldier. The report comprises two main sections: an evaluation of current civilian and
`
`military load carriage systems; and a review of the literature pertaining to the ergonomic
`
`aspects of load carriage. By presenting the material in this order, the reader gains an
`
`appreciation of the features, uses, strengths and weaknesses of a variety of current designs.
`
`This foundation permits a greater appreciation of the subsequent review of detailed scientific
`
`studies showing the physiological, biomechanical and subjective responses to various load
`
`carriage configurations and conditions.
`
`-2-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 19
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 20 of 148]
`
`3.0
`
`REVIEW OF CURRENT LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEMS
`
`Personal load carriage systems have a long history in both military and non-military
`
`contexts. A review of current and historical packs provides a wealth of information on the
`
`advantages and disadvantages of numerous configurations and design options. Information
`
`has been gathered using a variety of sources and methods. Actual backpacks, and other load
`
`carriage components such as webbing and load carriage vests have been examined. Opinions
`
`have been solicited from experienced military (Appendices 7.1 and 7.2) and civilian
`
`(Appendix 7.3) users via interviews, questionnaires and presentations. Military reports and
`
`documents have been perused, as well as articles from the general literature. This feedback
`
`on features and uses also provides insight into the development process as packs have
`
`improved over time, as well as suggestions for future modifications.
`
`Civilian systems are discussed first, to lay a generic framework for the review of the
`
`more specializ.ed military load carriage systems. A summary of current load carriage systems
`
`presented in section 3.5 also touches on certain protocols to be followed in developing and
`
`testing new systems.
`
`3.1
`
`Civilian Load Carriage Systems
`
`Civilian packs have many elements which are or could be used in a military context.
`
`The technological edge in improvements in suspension systems, closures, materials, and
`
`adjustability has often been driven by the commercial pack manufacturers. Two models are
`
`shown in Figure 3.1. A report reviewing commercial load carriage systems, from early times
`
`to the present was prepared by Dr. James Raffan of Queen's University for the Ergonomics
`
`Research Group and is included in Appendix 7 .4 of this report.
`
`However, the differences between military and civilian load carriage requirements are
`
`generally greater than their similarities. Military kit comprises items common to any
`
`expedition, such as clothing, sleeping gear, and eating equipment. Weapons, ammunition and
`
`specialized items such as radios however often dominate the load in terms of weight and
`
`accessibility. The uses (fording rivers, transporting 50 kg, jetissoning the pack) and abuses
`
`(tossing packs out trucks or parachuting with them) during military manoeuvres bear little
`
`-3-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 20
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 21 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 21
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 22 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 22
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 23 of 148]
`
`resemblance to commercial applications. Nevertheless, many elements of commercial load
`
`carriage systems could be transferred to military systems in their original form (such as Fastex
`
`buckles) or as ruggedized versions (i.e. more durable models for heavy field use).
`
`A single commercial pack is reviewed in detail in the following section, although other
`
`makes were examined informally in a variety of settings. Comments on other commercial
`
`packs are provided in Appendix 7 .4.
`
`3.1.1 Design Features. The design features of the internal-frame "Dru" model made
`
`by Gregory Mountain Products of California were reviewed (Figure 3.2). This pack is a
`
`mid-sized pack designed for trips approximating five days. Its capacity, as rated by the
`
`manufacturer, is 85.2 Land it weighs 15.6 kg unloaded. It is approximately 81 cm high by
`
`38 cm wide by 20 cm thick when fully loaded.
`
`a) Frame:
`
`- internal frame sheet made from high density polyethylene, with 2 carbon fibre
`
`parallel stays which are bolted on at the bottom and sit in pockets at the top
`
`- occipital notch in frame for head clearance
`
`b) Padding:
`
`- patented Flo-Form padded back with contouring grooves to allow air circulation
`
`- lumbar pad is large, smooth and about 4 cm thick
`
`- shoulder harness is about 6.5 cm wide and padded at about 1.9 cm thickness
`
`- waistbelt consists of 4 sections of padding (not one complete piece) about 3.8 cm in
`
`thickness
`
`c) Adjustability:
`
`- shoulder harness can be raised or lowered on the framesheet to three locations which
`
`are about 2.5 cm apart to allow for different torso lengths
`
`- shoulder harnesses are available in three sizes
`
`- lower shoulder strap adjustment changes length and tension of shoulder strap
`
`- load-lifter straps stabilize the upper part of the pack: loosen to shift weight to the hips;
`
`tighten to put more weight on shoulders
`
`- sternum strap can be adjusted up or down by sliding
`
`-5-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 23
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 24 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 24
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 25 of 148]
`
`SIDE COMPRESSOR
`STRAP. Improves
`overall stability by
`snugging fhe pack
`body down so the
`load becomes part
`of the support sys·
`tem. It also con(cid:173)
`forms. tQ partial
`loads and corrie$
`skis, tent poles, fish(cid:173)
`ing rods, and the
`like.
`
`DIAGONAi. COMPRES·
`SOR STRAP. Similar
`to the hip stabilizer,
`it pv!l$ the load
`down onto the lum(cid:173)
`bor area or
`woistbelt, depend(cid:173)
`ing on the ottach·
`msnt point. When
`pocking, !eave(cid:173)
`these loo$e for un·
`impeded loading,
`
`HIP STAWLIZER STRAP.
`Pulls the load onto your
`hips, snugs weight
`against yovr lower
`bode, and helps keep
`pack bottom from sag·
`ging. Overtightening
`di$torh waistbelt shape.
`
`LOAD·LIFT!R STRAP. Stabilizes the upper
`port of Iha pock; tokes the load off the
`top of your shoulders. Should ottocb to
`frome of ear level ond go down to
`shoulder stmp at 45- to 60-degree
`angle. Tighlen to transfer weight onto
`your shoulder!>; loosen to shift weight to
`your hips.
`
`SHOULDER SfWS. En~
`tire assembly is known
`os shoulder hameM.
`Adjust the shoulder
`streps' upper attach(cid:173)
`ment point 1o two or
`three inches below the
`crest of your shoulders
`so the straps wrop up
`and over your back.
`
`STERNUM. STIAP. Keeps
`shoulder strops from
`sliding out and riding
`on the points of your
`shoulders. Should be
`adjustable up end
`down.
`
`LOWER SHOULDER·STRAP
`ADJUSTMENT. Changes
`length and tension of
`the shoulder strop.
`Tighten it to carry more
`weight on shoulders;
`loosen to transfer
`weight to hips,
`
`WAlSTBELT STRAP. Holds
`the '<VOisfbe!t tight
`orovnd your hips, The
`podded ends of the belt
`should come around
`your hips, but not quite
`meet in front. Some
`packs offer sized
`waistbefts.
`
`LUMBAR PAD. Anatomi(cid:173)
`cal shope moximizes
`pock contod against
`your fower back. The
`pad al~ sits against the
`protruding "hip shelf"
`above your tailhone to
`bear part of the lood,
`
`Figure 3.2 Gregory internal frame "Dru" pack
`
`-6-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 25
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 26 of 148]
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 26
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 27 of 148]
`
`c) Adjustability (cont'd):
`
`- hip stabilizer strap pulls the load in closer to the hips, snugs weight against the lower
`
`back, keeps pack bottom from sagging
`
`- waistbelt strap holds the waistbelt tight around the hips
`
`- waistbelt comes in three sizes
`
`- sternum strap keeps the shoulder straps from sliding outward; one side of strap is
`
`elastic; buckles together
`
`d) Pockets:
`
`- one large inside compartment with 2 cloth dividers on each side, drawstring
`
`closure, with additional rain-cover flap with drawstring (spindrift collar)
`
`- smaller pocket on bottom of pack (large enough for sleeping bag), double zipper
`
`closure, waterproof cloth overlap
`
`- two side pockets on the bottom of pack made of nylon webbing (see-through)
`
`- top pocket features main compartment, map compartment, snap key hook, double
`
`zipper closures, (pocket detaches completely from main pack)
`
`e) Attachment Points:
`
`- four square, flat, plastic lashing points on the back of pack
`
`- four buckles where straps can be attached on back of pack
`
`- two large loops on the left and right sides on back of pack
`
`- two long straps with buckles attach at bottom of pack and just above lower
`
`compartment
`
`- two long straps with buckles attach at top of lower compartment and on the top pocket
`
`- four buckles on each side of the pack, two up and two down
`
`- two small plastic D-shape loops on the front of shoulder harness
`
`f) Compression Straps:
`
`- two on each side which travel on a slight angle from their attachment on the
`
`back of the pack through a loop on the front of the pack and back again on an angle
`
`to buckle
`
`g) Quick Release:
`
`- not available
`
`-7-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 27
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 28 of 148]
`
`h) Carrying Handles:
`
`- one loop carrying handle on top of pack between the load-lifter straps
`
`i) Extras
`
`- made of durable Cordura Nylon
`
`- rain cover is available
`
`- compression stuff sack for sleeping bag
`
`3.1.2 Field Evaluation of Packs. From the published literature on civilian backpacks,
`
`it would appear that very little quantitative research is available. The primary evaluation
`
`strategy appears to be focus groups which pilot test new product lines in the field. Perlman,
`
`in Backpacker Magazine ( 1987) listed the names of nine companies that designed and
`
`manufactured backpacks in the United States. Along with descriptions of the various packs
`
`and their features, the author made reference to the fact that some companies had based
`
`current redesign on tests and evaluations done and reported in the previous year's Backpacker
`
`equipment review. This is a valuable approach, however it may fail to capture individual
`
`differences, and to accommodate all body types. It would appear that load carriage equipment
`
`could be improved and adapted to the individual more effectively and efficiently, if a
`
`quantitative approach could also be developed.
`
`Parker (1990) describes some performance trials for large packs (98 L). Five full-time
`
`guides from the American Alpine Institute, with more than 70 cumulative years of experience
`
`climbing the world's major mountain ranges, were asked to test nine of the largest top-loading
`
`internal-frame packs. The exact amount of time taken to evaluate the packs is not given.
`
`However, the author writes that the packs were used on 3- to 14-day trips, out on trails and
`
`up and down mountains including Mount Baker, the Canadian Rockies and rock climbs in the
`
`Pacific Northwest. The testers then completed standardized field evaluation forms which
`
`included ratings on specific points and general comments as well. Categories of evaluation
`
`included:
`
`1. Ease of suspension adjustment (testers' sizes ranged from 193 cm & 88.5 kg to
`
`162.5 cm & 57 kg). Some packs come in different sizes as well as having highly adjustable
`
`suspensions and interchangeable shoulder straps, and waist belts.
`
`-8-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 28
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 29 of 148]
`
`2. Comfort. A good pack reduces strain, does not cause friction on the shoulders and
`
`hips, and transfers the load weight from the shoulders to the waist when it is required.
`
`3. Loading. This refers to how easily the load can be filled and then removed.
`
`Guides generally prefer one or two large compartments rather than several small ones. Other
`
`factors are access into the load through zippered openings, and lashing straps for exterior
`
`add-ons, that are separate from compression straps.
`
`4. Load Control. This rating reflects how well the pack moves with the carrier, i.e.
`
`does the pack affect the movement or balance of the wearer, or does it hug the contour of the
`
`body, and move with you.
`
`5. Durability. This assessed the fabric, reinforcement of wear points, workmanship,
`
`quality of stitching and tolerances of fasteners and buckles.
`
`6. Versatility. The ability to reduce pack volume with compression straps, and the
`
`add-on pockets/pouches defined this category.
`
`A slightly different approach is taken by Townsend (1991) who emphasized that
`
`although packs often come with adjustable parts, the pack carrier often does not know how to
`
`make the correct adjustments, for his/her body build. Fitting instructions are sometimes too
`
`brief or are difficult to decipher.
`
`Basically, to properly fit a pack the following steps should be taken:
`
`1. Load the pack with equipment or sandbags (15 kg) and loosen off all the
`
`adjustment straps.
`
`2. Put the pack on and do up the hipbelt so that it is covering the hips (not sitting on
`
`top of the hip bone). Tighten the belt comfortably. The padded part extends in front of the
`
`hips. Tighten the hip stabilizer to pull the load in around the hips for stability.
`
`3. Now adjust the back length (method depends on the pack design), so that the
`
`shoulder straps sit comfortably. The point of attachment of the strap to the bag should be
`
`about 5-7 cm below the top of shoulders. The load-lifter straps, which go from the shoulder
`
`harness to the bag, should be at about a 45% angle. Tighten load- lifters to transfer weight
`
`onto the shoulders; and loosen to shift weight to the hips.
`
`4. Tighten the side compression straps to snug the pack into the body and consolidate
`the load.
`
`-9-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 29
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 30 of 148]
`
`CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CIVILIAN LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEMS
`
`Feature
`
`Components
`
`Comments/Critical points
`
`Physical Measurements of Weight
`the Pack
`
`Capacity
`
`the unloaded pack/frame
`
`volume of the pack, can this be altered by
`add-on pockets
`
`Size
`
`available sizes - s.m,l
`
`Shape/Dimensions
`
`length, width, height - head/arm clearance
`for awkward manoeuvres?
`
`Loading
`
`Ease of Filling/Removing
`
`Organizing
`
`Lashing/Loops/Rings
`
`Fasteners/Zippers
`
`Adjustment of Suspension
`
`Shoulder Harness
`(fit and adjust)
`
`how does it load - top or panel
`how easy is it to access the load?
`
`separating gear - # of pockets,
`# of compartments, dividers
`
`straps, loops, rings for adding equipment on
`the outside - secure
`
`are buckles/fasteners easy to use
`width/length of zippers
`
`to what extent can it fit a wide range of
`body types, are there different sizes? how
`easy is adjustment?
`
`Waistbelt (fit and adjust)
`
`as above for shoulder harness,
`are tools or manual required?
`
`Sternum Strap
`
`Adjust Load Position
`(Load-lifters)
`(Hip-stabilizer)
`
`Compression Straps
`
`for comfort should slide up/down, can it
`handle extra clothing layers
`
`can load be pulled in tight to the shoulders
`or moved out again, load
`pulled into hips and lower back
`
`the load should not be loose/moving
`ability to compress not-full load
`
`-10-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 30
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 31 of 148]
`
`CRIIBRIA FOR EVALUATING CIVILIAN LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEMS (cont'd)
`
`Feature
`
`Components
`
`Comments/Critical points
`
`Durability
`
`Harness System
`
`Fabric
`
`Quality of the Stitching
`
`Tolerances of Fasteners,
`Buckles, Straps, Zippers
`
`Waterproofing
`
`Framesheet (internal)
`Frame (external)
`
`Stays
`
`Shoulder Straps
`
`Sternum Strap
`
`Lumbar Pad
`
`Hip Belt and Pads
`
`Framesheet
`
`Headroom
`
`Comfort of
`Suspension System
`
`reinforced stress points at waistbelt, shoulder
`straps & suspension
`
`weight of fabric used; abrasion, rot, resistant;
`reinforced at wear-points
`
`double or triple-sewn, with additional taped
`seams
`
`heavy-duty, cold resistant, superior strength
`
`what is waterproofed i.e. bottom, top
`quality of proofing
`
`composition - plastic.aluminum,
`magnesium, shape, tolerances
`welds, joints
`
`flexible but strong, carbon-fibre or aluminum,
`how are they held in place (bolt,rivet,pocket)
`
`width, thickness, density and contour of
`padding, "soft" or "hard"
`
`is the position adjustable, should hold shoulder
`straps in place
`
`size, shape, thickness, what kind of fabric,
`breathable moulded quality of foam, channels
`for air circulation
`
`size, shape, thickness, what kind of fabric,
`breathable moulded quality of foam
`
`adds support, does contour fit curve
`of the body, occipital notch
`
`can accommodate all head positions, can a hat
`(helmet) be worn?
`
`Load Control
`
`Freedom of movement
`
`arms, trunk, head move without
`restrictions
`
`Stability and Balance
`
`does pack stay with you
`
`-11-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 31
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 32 of 148]
`
`Jenkins (1992) placed emphasis, when discussing design, on the function of the pack.
`
`He began by describing the design and functions of the external-frame pack and the
`
`internal-frame pack. The external-frame pack, was portrayed as the tractor trailer of
`
`backpacking. Advantages included: ability to carry a heavy, awkward load; air circulation
`
`occurs between the load and carrier's back; multiple pockets for gear organization.
`
`Disadvantages were: mobility problems in the woods, usually because of the frame; balance
`
`problems due to high centre of gravity; and the height of the frame impeding the tilting of the
`
`head. On the other hand the internal-frame pack was described as the jeep of backpacking,
`
`designed for active travel. Advantages listed were: pack is strapped close to the body for
`
`greater stability and load control; the load sits somewhat lower which aids stability as well;
`
`suspension parts can be custom fit; and the packs tend to be more streamlined which offers
`
`better arm clearance. Disadvantages: pack is close to the body so little air circulation.
`
`Jenkins warned that rated cargo capacities of backpacks (in cubic inches, U.S. and litres,
`
`CAN) are not always reliable for comparisons. For example, the gear that completely
`
`overstuffs a large capacity internal (90 L), may fit comfortably into a smaller capacity (50 L)
`
`external pack, because of the difference in design, i.e. the sleeping bag could be strapped onto
`
`the external's framework.
`
`Getchell and Howe ( 1994) made the point that backpacking does not have to be an
`
`exercise in sore-shouldered masochism, even when carrying a load that is large enough for an
`
`extended trip where items such as food, cold-weather clothes, camping equipment and the like
`
`are required. They emphasiz.ed fit as being the number one criterion for choosing a pack
`
`because it directly relates to comfort. Descriptions of the external-frame pack concurred with
`
`Jenkins (1982). Favourable to the external is that it offers good ventilation against the back,
`
`allows for a relatively straight-up stance, has heavy load-hauling capacity and top loading and
`
`panel loading are available. The drawback is that the external is more likely to be poorly
`
`balanced, often causing the wearer to sway. The internal-frame design incorporates the load
`
`weight transfer elements into the pack bag itself, by using flexible stays of aluminum or
`
`graphite to transfer weight onto a padded, stiffened hipbelt. The flexible plastic frame-sheet
`
`adds additional support (Getchell and Howe, 1994).
`
`-12-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1027 Page 32
`
`

`
`P152587.PDF [Page: 33 of 148]
`
`Even though the evaluations and testing of backpacks has been done in the field by
`
`expert focus groups, the actual format of the testing (procedures, controls, etc.) has not always
`
`been described. The categories of evaluation are often described in broad terms such as
`
`"stability" or "volume" without precise definitions. Howe (1994) was one of the first authors
`
`reviewed to describe the methods used for field testing and evaluating. Eight backpacks
`
`were loaded with an average of 16 kg. The test crew consisted of two women and three men,
`
`and there was a wide range of body types and sires (160 cm petite to 196 cm long torso).
`
`T