4.5 Article

Ranking and Rating Bicycle Helmet Safety Performance in Oblique Impacts Using Eight Different Brain Injury Models

期刊

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 1097-1109

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-020-02703-w

关键词

Bicycle helmet; Brain injury criteria; Concussion; Finite element models; Oblique impact tests; Test methods

资金

  1. Royal Institute of Technology
  2. FFI (Strategic Vehicle Research and Innovation)
  3. Imperial College
  4. European Union [642662]
  5. NIH [R01 NS092853]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that different brain models and metrics can influence the ranking and rating of helmets. It is suggested that the biomechanics community should establish a standard or recommendation for future ranking and rating methods.
Bicycle helmets are shown to offer protection against head injuries. Rating methods and test standards are used to evaluate different helmet designs and safety performance. Both strain-based injury criteria obtained from finite element brain injury models and metrics derived from global kinematic responses can be used to evaluate helmet safety performance. Little is known about how different injury models or injury metrics would rank and rate different helmets. The objective of this study was to determine how eight brain models and eight metrics based on global kinematics rank and rate a large number of bicycle helmets (n=17) subjected to oblique impacts. The results showed that the ranking and rating are influenced by the choice of model and metric. Kendall's tau varied between 0.50 and 0.95 when the ranking was based on maximum principal strain from brain models. One specific helmet was rated as 2-star when using one brain model but as 4-star by another model. This could cause confusion for consumers rather than inform them of the relative safety performance of a helmet. Therefore, we suggest that the biomechanics community should create a norm or recommendation for future ranking and rating methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据