Blast mats that can be retrofitted to the floor of military vehicles are considered to reduce the risk of injury from under‐vehicle explosions. Anthropometric test devices (ATDs) are validated for use only in the seated position. The aim of this study was to use a traumatic injury simulator fitted with 3 different blast mats in order to assess the ability of 2 ATD designs to evaluate the protective capacity of the mats in 2 occupant postures under 2 severities.
Tests were performed for each combination of mat design, ATD, severity and posture using an antivehicle under‐belly injury simulator. The differences between mitigation systems were larger under the H‐III compared to the MiL‐Lx. There was little difference in how the 2 ATDs and how posture ranked the mitigation systems. Results from this study suggest that conclusions obtained by testing in the seated position can be extrapolated to the standing. However, the different percentage reductions observed in the 2 ATDs suggests different levels of protection. It is therefore unclear which ATD should be used to assess such mitigation systems. A correlation between cadavers and ATDs on the protection offered by blast mats is required in order to elucidate this issue.