Evaluation of a novel bicycle helmet concept in oblique impact testing.
Bicycle helmet
Brain injury
Concussion
Impact mitigation
Impact testing
Rotational acceleration
Journal
Accident; analysis and prevention
ISSN: 1879-2057
Titre abrégé: Accid Anal Prev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 1254476
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
28
07
2018
revised:
27
11
2018
accepted:
21
12
2018
pubmed:
12
1
2019
medline:
4
4
2019
entrez:
12
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A novel bicycle helmet concept has been developed to mitigate rotational head acceleration, which is a predominant mechanism of traumatic brain injury (TBI). This WAVECEL concept employs a collapsible cellular structure that is recessed within the helmet to provide a rotational suspension. This cellular concept differs from other bicycle helmet technologies for mitigation of rotational head acceleration, such as the commercially available Multi-Directional Impact Protection System (MIPS) technology which employs a slip liner to permit sliding between the helmet and the head during impact. This study quantified the efficacy of both, the WAVECEL cellular concept, and a MIPS helmet, in direct comparison to a traditional bicycle helmet made of rigid expanded polystyrene (EPS). Three bicycle helmet types were subjected to oblique impacts in guided vertical drop tests onto an angled anvil: traditional EPS helmets (CONTROL group); helmets with a MIPS slip liner (SLIP group); and helmets with a WAVECEL cellular structure (CELL group). Helmet performance was evaluated using 4.8 m/s impacts onto anvils angled at 30°, 45°, and 60° from the horizontal plane. In addition, helmet performance was tested at a faster speed of 6.2 m/s onto the 45° anvil. Five helmets were tested under each of the four impact conditions for each of the three groups, requiring a total of 60 helmets. Headform kinematics were acquired and used to calculate an injury risk criterion for Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) 2 brain injury. Linear acceleration of the headform remained below 90 g and was not associated with the risk of skull fracture in any impact scenario and helmet type. Headform rotational acceleration in the CONTROL group was highest for 6.2 m/s impacts onto the 45° anvil (7.2 ± 0.6 krad/s Results of this study are limited to a narrow range of impact conditions, but demonstrated the potential that rotational acceleration and the associated brain injury risk can be significantly reduced by the cellular WAVECEL concept or a MIPS slip liner. Results obtained under specific impact angles and impact velocities indicated performance differences between these mechanisms. These differences emphasize the need for continued research and development efforts toward helmet technologies that further improve protection from brain injury over a wide range a realistic impact parameters.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A novel bicycle helmet concept has been developed to mitigate rotational head acceleration, which is a predominant mechanism of traumatic brain injury (TBI). This WAVECEL concept employs a collapsible cellular structure that is recessed within the helmet to provide a rotational suspension. This cellular concept differs from other bicycle helmet technologies for mitigation of rotational head acceleration, such as the commercially available Multi-Directional Impact Protection System (MIPS) technology which employs a slip liner to permit sliding between the helmet and the head during impact. This study quantified the efficacy of both, the WAVECEL cellular concept, and a MIPS helmet, in direct comparison to a traditional bicycle helmet made of rigid expanded polystyrene (EPS).
METHODS
METHODS
Three bicycle helmet types were subjected to oblique impacts in guided vertical drop tests onto an angled anvil: traditional EPS helmets (CONTROL group); helmets with a MIPS slip liner (SLIP group); and helmets with a WAVECEL cellular structure (CELL group). Helmet performance was evaluated using 4.8 m/s impacts onto anvils angled at 30°, 45°, and 60° from the horizontal plane. In addition, helmet performance was tested at a faster speed of 6.2 m/s onto the 45° anvil. Five helmets were tested under each of the four impact conditions for each of the three groups, requiring a total of 60 helmets. Headform kinematics were acquired and used to calculate an injury risk criterion for Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) 2 brain injury.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Linear acceleration of the headform remained below 90 g and was not associated with the risk of skull fracture in any impact scenario and helmet type. Headform rotational acceleration in the CONTROL group was highest for 6.2 m/s impacts onto the 45° anvil (7.2 ± 0.6 krad/s
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Results of this study are limited to a narrow range of impact conditions, but demonstrated the potential that rotational acceleration and the associated brain injury risk can be significantly reduced by the cellular WAVECEL concept or a MIPS slip liner. Results obtained under specific impact angles and impact velocities indicated performance differences between these mechanisms. These differences emphasize the need for continued research and development efforts toward helmet technologies that further improve protection from brain injury over a wide range a realistic impact parameters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30634159
pii: S0001-4575(18)30371-3
doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.12.017
pmc: PMC6743977
mid: NIHMS1049847
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
58-65Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R41 NS074734
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : SB1 NS074734
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
J Biomech Eng. 2015 Mar;137(3):
pubmed: 25363079
Stapp Car Crash J. 2008 Nov;52:1-31
pubmed: 19085156
Traffic Inj Prev. 2008 Oct;9(5):483-8
pubmed: 18836960
J Neurotrauma. 1995 Aug;12(4):651-8
pubmed: 8683616
Biomed Sci Instrum. 2002;38:459-64
pubmed: 12085650
Neurosurgery. 2003 Oct;53(4):799-812; discussion 812-4
pubmed: 14519212
J Emerg Med. 1993;11 Suppl 1:5-11
pubmed: 8445204
Compos Struct. 2013 Jun;100:404-412
pubmed: 23976812
Accid Anal Prev. 2018 Aug;117:85-97
pubmed: 29677686
Accid Anal Prev. 2014 Sep;70:1-7
pubmed: 24686160
Accid Anal Prev. 2016 Jul;92:53-70
pubmed: 27038501
Accid Anal Prev. 2013 Oct;59:109-17
pubmed: 23770518
J Biomech Eng. 2018 Sep 1;140(9):
pubmed: 29801168
Clin Sports Med. 2011 Jan;30(1):19-31, vii
pubmed: 21074079
J Biomech Eng. 1989 Aug;111(3):250-5
pubmed: 2779191
Accid Anal Prev. 2012 Sep;48:285-91
pubmed: 22664692
Br J Neurosurg. 2002 Jun;16(3):220-42
pubmed: 12201393
Stapp Car Crash J. 2013 Nov;57:243-66
pubmed: 24435734
J Biomech Eng. 2016 Oct 1;138(10):
pubmed: 27456840
J Neurotrauma. 2001 Mar;18(3):247-57
pubmed: 11284546
J Neurosurg. 2017 Mar;126(3):768-781
pubmed: 27231972
Traffic Inj Prev. 2003 Sep;4(3):240-8
pubmed: 14522648
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014 Jan;46(1):115-23
pubmed: 23846161
Accid Anal Prev. 1997 Sep;29(5):555-62
pubmed: 9316704
Traffic Inj Prev. 2013;14(5):501-8
pubmed: 23697898
Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 Oct;43(10):2429-43
pubmed: 25822907
J Biomech Eng. 2003 Aug;125(4):523-32
pubmed: 12968577