This study is aimed to develop a high quality, extensively validated finite element (FE) human head model for enhanced head injury prediction and prevention. The geometry of the model was based on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging scans of an adult male who has the average height and weight of an American. A feature-based multiblock technique was adopted to develop hexahedral brain meshes including the cerebrum, cerebellum, brainstem, corpus callosum, ventricles, and thalamus. Conventional meshing methods were used to create the bridging veins, cerebrospinal fluid, skull, facial bones, flesh, skin, and membranes-including falx, tentorium, pia, arachnoid, and dura. The head model has 270,552 elements in total. Thirty five loading cases were selected from a range of experimental head impacts to check the robustness of the model predictions based on responses including the brain pressure, relative skull-brain motion, skull response, and facial response. The brain pressure was validated against intracranial pressure data reported by Nahum et al. (1977, "Intracranial Pressure Dynamics During Head Impact," Proc. 21st Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No. 770922) and Trosseille et al. (1992, "Development of a F.E.M. of the Human Head According to a Specific Test Protocol," Proc. 36th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No. 922527). The brain motion was validated against brain displacements under sagittal, coronal, and horizontal blunt impacts performed by Hardy et al. (2001, "Investigation of Head Injury Mechanisms Using Neutral Density Technology and High-Speed Biplanar X-Ray," Stapp Car Crash Journal, 45, pp. 337-368; and 2007, "A Study of the Response of the Human Cadaver Head to Impact," Stapp Car Crash Journal, 51, pp. 17-80). The facial bone responses were validated under nasal impact (Nyquist et al. 1986, "Facial Impact Tolerance and Response," Proc. 30th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No. 861896), zygoma and maxilla impact (Allsop et al. 1988, "Facial Impact Response - A Comparison of the Hybrid III Dummy and Human Cadaver," Proc. 32nd Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No. 881719)]. The skull bones were validated under frontal angled impact, vertical impact, and occipital impact (Yoganandan et al. 1995, "Biomechanics of Skull Fracture," J Neurotrauma, 12(4), pp. 659-668) and frontal horizontal impact (Hodgson et al. 1970, "Fracture Behavior of the Skull Frontal Bone Against Cylindrical Surfaces," 14th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE International, Warrendale, PA). The FE head model was further used to study injury mechanisms and tolerances for brain contusion (Nahum et al. 1976, "An Experimental Model for Closed Head Impact Injury," 20th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE International, Warrendale, PA). Studies from 35 loading cases demonstrated that the FE head model could predict head responses which were comparable to experimental measurements in terms of pattern, peak values, or time histories. Furthermore, tissue-level injury tolera...

Blast-induced traumatic brain injury has emerged as a “signature injury” in combat casualty care. Present combat helmets are designed primarily to protect against ballistic and blunt impacts, but the current issue with helmets is protection concerning blasts. In order to delineate the blast wave attenuating capability of the Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH), a finite element (FE) study was undertaken to evaluate the head response against blast loadings with and without helmet using a partially validated FE model of the human head and ACH. Four levels of overpressures (0.27–0.66 MPa) from the Bowen’s lung iso-damage threshold curves were used to simulate blast insults. Effectiveness of the helmet with respect to head orientation was also investigated. The resulting biomechanical responses of the brain to blast threats were compared for human head with and without the helmet. For all Bowen’s cases, the peak intracranial pressures (ICP) in the head ranged from 0.68 to 1.8 MPa in the coup cortical region. ACH was found to mitigate ICP in the head by 10–35%. Helmeted head resulted in 30% lower average peak brain strains and product of strain and strain rate. Among three blast loading directions with ACH, highest reduction in peak ICP (44%) was due to backward blasts whereas the lowest reduction in peak ICP and brain strains was due to forward blast (27%). The biomechanical responses of a human head to primary blast insult exhibited directional sensitivity owing to the different geometry contours and coverage of the helmet construction and asymmetric anatomy of the head. Thus, direction-specific tolerances are needed in helmet design in order to offer omni-directional protection for the human head. The blasts of varying peak overpressures and durations that are believed to produce the same level of lung injury produce different levels of mechanical responses in the brain, and hence “iso-damage” curves for brain injury are likely different than the Bowen curves for lung injury.

No abstract

No abstract