Objectives: There has been growing controversy regarding long term effects of repeated low severity head impacts such as when heading a football. However, there are few scientific data substantiating these concerns in terms of the biomechanical head response to impact. The present study aimed to develop a research methodology to investigate the biomechanical response of human subjects during intentional heading and identify strategies for reducing head impact severity. Methods: A controlled laboratory study was carried out with seven active football players, aged 20-23 and of average stature and weight. The subjects were fitted with photographic targets for kinematic analysis and instrumented to measure head linear/angular accelerations and neck muscle activity. Balls were delivered at two speeds (6 m/s and 8 m/s) as the subjects executed several specific forward heading manoeuvres in the standing position. Heading speeds up to 11 m/s were seen when the head closing speed was considered. One subject demonstrating averaged flexion-extension muscle activity phased with head acceleration data and upper torso kinematics was used to validate a biofidelic 50th percentile human model with a detailed head and neck. The model was exercised under ball incoming speeds of 6-7 m/s with parameter variations including torso/head alignment, neck muscle tensing, and follow through. The model output was subsequently compared with additional laboratory tests with football players (n = 3). Additional heading scenarios were investigated including follow through, non-active ball impact, and noncontact events. Subject and model head responses were evaluated with peak linear and rotational accelerations and maximum incremental head impact power. Results: Modelling of neck muscle tensing predicted lower head accelerations and higher neck loads whereas volunteer head acceleration reductions were not consistent. Modelling of head-torso alignment predicted a modest reduction in volunteer head accelerations. Exaggerated follow through while heading reduced volunteer head accelerations modestly. Conclusion: Biomechanical methods were developed to measure head impact response. Changing the biomechanics of currently accepted heading techniques will have inconsistent benefits towards the reduction of head loading. Furthermore, mathematical modelling suggested an increased risk of neck loads with one alternative technique. No consistent recommendations can be made on the basis of the current study for altering heading techniques to reduce impact severity.

Objectives: Controversy surrounding the long term effects of repeated impacts from heading has raised awareness among the public and the medical community. However, there is little information about the human response to the impacts and what measures can be taken to alter their effect. The objective of the current study was to gain a better understanding of heading biomechanics through the implementation of a numerical model and subsequent investigation of parameters related to heading technique and ball characteristics. Methods: A controlled laboratory study was carried out with seven active football players, aged 20-23 years who underwent medical screening and were instrumented with accelerometers mounted in bite plates and electromyographic electrodes on the major neck muscle groups. Balls were delivered at two speeds (6 m/s and 8 m/s) as the subjects demonstrated several specific heading manoeuvres. Photographic targets were tracked via high speed video to measure heading kinematics. One subject demonstrating reasonably averaged flexion-extension muscle activity phased with head acceleration data and upper torso kinematics was used to validate a biofidelic 50th percentile human numerical model with detailed representation of the head and neck. Results: Heading kinematics and subject responses were used with a detailed numerical model to simulate impact biomechanics for a baseline heading scenario. Changes to heading techniques and ball characteristics which mitigated head impact response were identified. Conclusion: A numerical model combined with biomechanical measurement techniques is an important tool for parametric investigation of strategies to reduce head impact severity via changes in heading technique or the physical properties of the ball. N umerical models have been used by researchers to gain a better understanding of football heading biomechanics and methods for reducing head impact response. 1-4The advantages of numerical models include repeatability, ease of altering and controlling specific model characteristics, and ability to acquire detailed response information. Recognised disadvantages include the need for validation of the models for conditions under which the model is exercised.An early modelling effort consisted of a rigid body representing the head, seven bodies for the neck, and one for the torso.1 Springs and dampers interconnected the bodies to represent the overall interactions of the discs, ligaments, and muscles. The model was validated for passive football impact conditions represented by force-time functions and with experimental data. The effects of head/ball mass ratio, impact velocity, and elasticity were investigated to propose safe playing conditions. Linear and angular acceleration injury criteria from automotive safety research were employed to assess the risk of acute brain injury.A numerical model employed by Ziejewski et al consisted of three dimensional rigid bodies implemented in the Articulate Total Body (ATB) computer simulation software.2 Normally consisting of ...

No abstract

Seventeen full-scale crash tests were conducted to evaluate technologies to reduce the vulnerability of sidesaddle tanks on full size GM pickup trucks manufactured during the period 1973-1987. These vehicles were alleged by the U.S. Department of Transportation to be vulnerable in severe side impacts. The test program was intended to evaluate designs that would reduce vulnerability in all crash directions. The best test results were obtained by two strategies that relocated the tank to less vulnerable locations. The two locations were: (1) in the cargo bed (bed mounted tank) and (2) underneath the bed, ahead of the rear axle and between the frame rails (center-mounted tank). Tanks mounted in these locations were subjected to a series of crash tests that simulated severe front, side, rear and rollover crashes. The crash environment for these tests was more severe than required by FMVSS 301 "Fuel System Integrity". Designs were developed for the bed mounted tank and the center-mounted tank that survived the series of multi-directional crash tests with fuel leakage less than that permitted by the FMVSS 301 standard.