Biomechanical Analysis of Military Boots. Phase 1. Materials Testing of Military and Commercial Footwear

Abstract : This is a report on Phase I of a two-phase analysis of footwear. In this phase military boots and commercially available boots and shoes were subjected to materials tests that included measures of impact, flexibility, stability, resistance of the outsole to accelerated wear, water penetration during immersion, and static and dynamic friction of the outsole. The military boots were the black leather combat boot and the hot weather boot. The commercial items were: a running shoe, a cross trainer, a work boot, a basketball shoe, a hiking boot, and a walking shoe. These items were not developed for use as military field footwear, but they incorporate materials and design concepts that could be adapted to a military boot. All footwear types were analyzed unworn and after having been worn for over 300 hours. The results indicated that the commercial running shoe and the cross trainer had impact properties superior to all other items. The running shoe was also the most flexible and took longest to reach the criterion of accelerated wear. The military boots showed good medial and lateral stability and the combat boot had good resistance to water penetration. The military and the commercial footwear had comparable coefficients of friction.

[1]  R. K. Beals.  THE JOINTS OF THE ANKLE , 1977 .

[2]  K D ORR,et al.  Cold injuries in Korea during winter of 1950-51. , 1952, Medicine.

[3]  R G deMoya,et al.  A Biomechanical Comparison of the Running Shoe and the Combat Boot , 1982 .

[4]  B T Bates,et al.  A kinetic evaluation of the effects of in vivo loading on running shoes. , 1988, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[5]  M. P. Wilson,et al.  Slip resistance testing of shoes — new developments , 1983 .

[6]  E H Oakley.  The design and function of military footwear: a review following experiences in the South Atlantic. , 1984, Ergonomics.

[7]  E. Frederick.  Kinematically mediated effects of sport shoe design: a review. , 1986, Journal of sports sciences.

[8]  L Strandberg,et al.  On accident analysis and slip-resistance measurement. , 1983, Ergonomics.

[9]  L. B. Cooper,et al.  Effects of Shoe Cushioning Upon Ground Reaction Forces in Running , 1983, International journal of sports medicine.

[10]  P R Cavanagh,et al.  Ground reaction forces in distance running. , 1980, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  W L Daniels,et al.  The energy cost of women walking and running in shoes and boots. , 1986, Ergonomics.

[12]  Philip E. Martin.  THE EFFECT OF LOWER EXTREMITY LOADING ON MECHANICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES OF RUNNING PERFORMANCE , 1984 .

[13]  Carolyn K Bensel,et al.  Lower Extremity Disorders among Men and Women in Army Basic Training and Effects of Two Types of Boots , 1983 .

[14]  E. Frederick,et al.  The effects of shoe design parameters on rearfoot control in running. , 1983, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[15]  D. I. James.  Rubbers and plastics in shoes and flooring: the importance of kinetic friction , 1983 .

[16]  W L Daniels,et al.  The energy cost and heart-rate response of trained and untrained subjects walking and running in shoes and boots. , 1984, Ergonomics.

[17]  Don B. Chaffin,et al.  Ergonomic analysis of slip-resistance measurement devices , 1985 .