Human Head and Helmet Interface Friction Coefficients with Biological Sex and Hair Property Comparisons

Due to religious tenets, Sikh population wear turbans and are exempted from wearing helmets in several countries. However, the extent of protection provided by turbans against head injuries during head impacts remains untested. One aim of this study was to provide the first-series data of turbans’ protective performance under impact conditions that are representative of real-world bicycle incidents and compare it with the performance of bicycle helmets. Another aim was to suggest potential ways for improving turban’s protective performance. We tested five different turbans, distinguished by two wrapping styles and two fabric materials with a size variation in one of the styles. A Hybrid III headform fitted with the turban was dropped onto a 45 degrees anvil at 6.3 m/s and head accelerations were measured. We found large difference in the performance of different turbans, with up to 59% difference in peak translational acceleration, 85% in peak rotational acceleration, and 45% in peak rotational velocity between the best and worst performing turbans. For the same turban, impact on the left and right sides of the head produced very different head kinematics, showing the effects of turban layering. Compared to unprotected head impacts, turbans considerably reduce head injury metrics. However, turbans produced higher values of peak linear and rotational accelerations in front and left impacts than bicycle helmets, except from one turban which produced lower peak head kinematics values in left impacts. In addition, turbans produced peak rotational velocities comparable with bicycle helmets, except from one turban which produced higher values. The impact locations tested here were covered with thick layers of turbans and they were impacted against flat anvils. Turbans may not provide much protection if impacts occur at regions covered with limited amount of fabric or if the impact is against non-flat anvils, which remain untested. Our analysis shows that turbans can be easily compressed and bottom out creating spikes in the headform’s translational acceleration. In addition, the high friction between the turban and anvil surface leads to higher tangential force generating more rotational motion. Hence, in addition to improving the coverage of the head, particularly in the crown and rear locations, we propose two directions for turban improvement: (i) adding deformable materials within the turban layers to increase the impact duration and reduce the risk of bottoming out; (ii) reducing the friction between turban layers to reduce the transmission of rotational motion to the head. Overall, the study assessed Turbans’ protection in cyclist head collisions, with a vision that the results of this study can guide further necessary improvements for advanced head protection for the Sikh community.

An Assessment of Sikh Turban’s Head Protection in Bicycle Incident Scenarios

Yu,

Singh,

Kaur

et al. 2024

The Influence of Headform Friction and Inertial Properties on Oblique Impact Helmet Testing

Stark,

Begonia,

Viano

et al. 2024

Helmet-testing headforms replicate the human head impact response, allowing the assessment of helmet protection and injury risk. However, the industry uses three different headforms with varying inertial and friction properties making study comparisons difficult because these headforms have different inertial and friction properties that may affect their impact response. This study aimed to quantify the influence of headform coefficient of friction (COF) and inertial properties on oblique impact response. The static COF of each headform condition (EN960, Hybrid III, NOCSAE, Hybrid III with a skull cap, NOCSAE with a skull cap) was measured against the helmet lining material used in a KASK prototype helmet. Each headform condition was tested with the same helmet model at two speeds (4.8 & 7.3 m/s) and two primary orientations (y-axis and x-axis rotation) with 5 repetitions, totaling 100 tests. The influence of impact location, inertial properties, and friction on linear and rotational impact kinematics was investigated using a MANOVA, and type II sums of squares were used to determine how much variance in dependent variables friction and inertia accounted for. Our results show significant differences in impact response between headforms, with rotational head kinematics being more sensitive to differences in inertial rather than frictional properties. However, at high-speed impacts, linear head kinematics are more affected by changes in frictional properties rather than inertial properties. Helmet testing protocols should consider differences between headforms’ inertial and frictional properties during interpretation. These results provide a framework for cross-comparative analysis between studies that use different headforms and headform modifiers.

How Well Do Popular Bicycle Helmets Protect from Different Types of Head Injury?

Baker,

Yu,

Lovell

et al. 2024

Bicycle helmets are designed to protect against skull fractures and associated focal brain injuries, driven by helmet standards. Another type of head injury seen in injured cyclists is diffuse brain injuries, but little is known about the protection provided by bicycle helmets against these injuries. Here, we examine the performance of modern bicycle helmets in preventing diffuse injuries and skull fractures under impact conditions that represent a range of real-world incidents. We also investigate the effects of helmet technology, price, and mass on protection against these pathologies. 30 most popular helmets among UK cyclists were purchased within 9.99–135.00 GBP price range. Helmets were tested under oblique impacts onto a 45° anvil at 6.5 m/s impact speed and four locations, front, rear, side, and front-side. A new headform, which better represents the average human head’s mass, moments of inertia and coefficient of friction than any other available headforms, was used. We determined peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak rotational acceleration (PRA), peak rotational velocity (PRV), and BrIC. We also determined the risk of skull fractures based on PLA (linear risk), risk of diffuse brain injuries based on BrIC (rotational risk), and their mean (overall risk). Our results show large variation in head kinematics: PLA (80–213 g), PRV (8.5–29.9 rad/s), PRA (1.6–9.7 krad/s2), and BrIC (0.17–0.65). The overall risk varied considerably with a 2.25 ratio between the least and most protective helmet. This ratio was 1.76 for the linear and 4.21 for the rotational risk. Nine best performing helmets were equipped with the rotation management technology MIPS, but not all helmets equipped with MIPS were among the best performing helmets. Our comparison of three tested helmets which have MIPS and no-MIPS versions showed that MIPS reduced rotational kinematics, but not linear kinematics. We found no significant effect of helmet price on exposure-adjusted injury risks. We found that larger helmet mass was associated with higher linear risk. This study highlights the need for a holistic approach, including both rotational and linear head injury metrics and risks, in helmet design and testing. It also highlights the need for providing information about helmet safety to consumers to help them make an informed choice.