Protection and Ergonomics Analysis About Two Types of Partial Pressure Suits
The aim of the study was to observe the difference of protection and ergonomics between the capstan partial pressure suit and the bladder pressure suit. The physiological index and body surface pressure of the subjects wearing different partial pressure suit were recorded under different pressure. At the same time, the articulation motion range was recorded by Vicon three-dimensional motion capture. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) of the subjects wearing the capstan partial pressure suit DC-4 was higher than that of the subjects wearing the Bladder pressure suit DC-7. The CO (cardiac output) of the subjects wearing the capstan partial pressure suit DC-4 decreased slower comparing to that of the subjects wearing the Bladder pressure suit DC-7. The ergonomics performance of DC-7 was better than DC-4 with little effect to the head, elbow joint, and knee joint and the mobility of the DC-4 was not as good as that of DC-7.
KeywordsPartial pressure suit Positive pressure breathing Protection performance Motion range
Acknowledgements to researcher Xiao Huajun and assistant researcher Shi Liyong from Institute of Aviation Medicine, Air Force; and teacher Ding Li and Master Zhang Chunguang from Beihang University, all of whom have imparted us lots of valuable knowledge and test guidance, as well as a great amount of data and test equipments.
- 1.Burn JW, Balldia UI (1988) Gz protection with assisted positive pressure breathing (PPB). Aviat Space Environ Med 59(3):225Google Scholar
- 2.Ackles KN, Porlier JAG, Holness DE et al (1978) Protection against the physiological effect of positive pressure breathing. Aviat Space Environ Med 49(6):753–758Google Scholar
- 4.Goodman LS, Fraser WD, Ackles KN et al (1993) Effect of extending G2suit coverage on cardio- vascular responses to positive pressure breathing. Aviat Space Environ Med 64:1101Google Scholar
- 7.Li ZCD, Huajun QZX et al (2011) Mechanical ergonomics analysis of capstan partial pressure suit under pressure. J Beijing Univ Aeronaut Astronaut 37(8):953–957Google Scholar