Dynamic Response and Residual Helmet Liner Crush Using Cadaver Heads and Standard Headforms

S. J. Bonin, J. F. Luck, C. R. Bass, J. C. Gardiner, A. Onar-Thomas, Shihab S Asfour, G. P. Siegmund

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Biomechanical headforms are used for helmet certification testing and reconstructing helmeted head impacts; however, their biofidelity and direct applicability to human head and helmet responses remain unclear. Dynamic responses of cadaver heads and three headforms and residual foam liner deformations were compared during motorcycle helmet impacts. Instrumented, helmeted heads/headforms were dropped onto the forehead region against an instrumented flat anvil at 75, 150, and 195 J. Helmets were CT scanned to quantify maximum liner crush depth and crush volume. General linear models were used to quantify the effect of head type and impact energy on linear acceleration, head injury criterion (HIC), force, maximum liner crush depth, and liner crush volume and regression models were used to quantify the relationship between acceleration and both maximum crush depth and crush volume. The cadaver heads generated larger peak accelerations than all three headforms, larger HICs than the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), larger forces than the Hybrid III and ISO, larger maximum crush depth than the ISO, and larger crush volumes than the DOT. These significant differences between the cadaver heads and headforms need to be accounted for when attempting to estimate an impact exposure using a helmet’s residual crush depth or volume.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalAnnals of Biomedical Engineering
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Aug 23 2016

Fingerprint

Head Protective Devices
Cadaver
Standardization
Dynamic response
Head
Motorcycles
Organizations
Foams
Testing
Forehead
Certification
Craniocerebral Trauma
Linear Models

Keywords

  • Cadaver head
  • Head Impact
  • Headform
  • Helmet
  • Residual crush

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Bonin, S. J., Luck, J. F., Bass, C. R., Gardiner, J. C., Onar-Thomas, A., Asfour, S. S., & Siegmund, G. P. (Accepted/In press). Dynamic Response and Residual Helmet Liner Crush Using Cadaver Heads and Standard Headforms. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-016-1712-5

Dynamic Response and Residual Helmet Liner Crush Using Cadaver Heads and Standard Headforms. / Bonin, S. J.; Luck, J. F.; Bass, C. R.; Gardiner, J. C.; Onar-Thomas, A.; Asfour, Shihab S; Siegmund, G. P.

In: Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 23.08.2016, p. 1-12.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bonin, S. J. ; Luck, J. F. ; Bass, C. R. ; Gardiner, J. C. ; Onar-Thomas, A. ; Asfour, Shihab S ; Siegmund, G. P. / Dynamic Response and Residual Helmet Liner Crush Using Cadaver Heads and Standard Headforms. In: Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2016 ; pp. 1-12.
@article{35fb6af9201842cd8acaea28e0475672,
title = "Dynamic Response and Residual Helmet Liner Crush Using Cadaver Heads and Standard Headforms",
abstract = "Biomechanical headforms are used for helmet certification testing and reconstructing helmeted head impacts; however, their biofidelity and direct applicability to human head and helmet responses remain unclear. Dynamic responses of cadaver heads and three headforms and residual foam liner deformations were compared during motorcycle helmet impacts. Instrumented, helmeted heads/headforms were dropped onto the forehead region against an instrumented flat anvil at 75, 150, and 195 J. Helmets were CT scanned to quantify maximum liner crush depth and crush volume. General linear models were used to quantify the effect of head type and impact energy on linear acceleration, head injury criterion (HIC), force, maximum liner crush depth, and liner crush volume and regression models were used to quantify the relationship between acceleration and both maximum crush depth and crush volume. The cadaver heads generated larger peak accelerations than all three headforms, larger HICs than the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), larger forces than the Hybrid III and ISO, larger maximum crush depth than the ISO, and larger crush volumes than the DOT. These significant differences between the cadaver heads and headforms need to be accounted for when attempting to estimate an impact exposure using a helmet’s residual crush depth or volume.",
keywords = "Cadaver head, Head Impact, Headform, Helmet, Residual crush",
author = "Bonin, {S. J.} and Luck, {J. F.} and Bass, {C. R.} and Gardiner, {J. C.} and A. Onar-Thomas and Asfour, {Shihab S} and Siegmund, {G. P.}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1007/s10439-016-1712-5",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "Annals of Biomedical Engineering",
issn = "0090-6964",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dynamic Response and Residual Helmet Liner Crush Using Cadaver Heads and Standard Headforms

AU - Bonin, S. J.

AU - Luck, J. F.

AU - Bass, C. R.

AU - Gardiner, J. C.

AU - Onar-Thomas, A.

AU - Asfour, Shihab S

AU - Siegmund, G. P.

PY - 2016/8/23

Y1 - 2016/8/23

N2 - Biomechanical headforms are used for helmet certification testing and reconstructing helmeted head impacts; however, their biofidelity and direct applicability to human head and helmet responses remain unclear. Dynamic responses of cadaver heads and three headforms and residual foam liner deformations were compared during motorcycle helmet impacts. Instrumented, helmeted heads/headforms were dropped onto the forehead region against an instrumented flat anvil at 75, 150, and 195 J. Helmets were CT scanned to quantify maximum liner crush depth and crush volume. General linear models were used to quantify the effect of head type and impact energy on linear acceleration, head injury criterion (HIC), force, maximum liner crush depth, and liner crush volume and regression models were used to quantify the relationship between acceleration and both maximum crush depth and crush volume. The cadaver heads generated larger peak accelerations than all three headforms, larger HICs than the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), larger forces than the Hybrid III and ISO, larger maximum crush depth than the ISO, and larger crush volumes than the DOT. These significant differences between the cadaver heads and headforms need to be accounted for when attempting to estimate an impact exposure using a helmet’s residual crush depth or volume.

AB - Biomechanical headforms are used for helmet certification testing and reconstructing helmeted head impacts; however, their biofidelity and direct applicability to human head and helmet responses remain unclear. Dynamic responses of cadaver heads and three headforms and residual foam liner deformations were compared during motorcycle helmet impacts. Instrumented, helmeted heads/headforms were dropped onto the forehead region against an instrumented flat anvil at 75, 150, and 195 J. Helmets were CT scanned to quantify maximum liner crush depth and crush volume. General linear models were used to quantify the effect of head type and impact energy on linear acceleration, head injury criterion (HIC), force, maximum liner crush depth, and liner crush volume and regression models were used to quantify the relationship between acceleration and both maximum crush depth and crush volume. The cadaver heads generated larger peak accelerations than all three headforms, larger HICs than the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), larger forces than the Hybrid III and ISO, larger maximum crush depth than the ISO, and larger crush volumes than the DOT. These significant differences between the cadaver heads and headforms need to be accounted for when attempting to estimate an impact exposure using a helmet’s residual crush depth or volume.

KW - Cadaver head

KW - Head Impact

KW - Headform

KW - Helmet

KW - Residual crush

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84983387041&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84983387041&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10439-016-1712-5

DO - 10.1007/s10439-016-1712-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 27554673

AN - SCOPUS:84983387041

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Annals of Biomedical Engineering

JF - Annals of Biomedical Engineering

SN - 0090-6964

ER -