The effect of surface roughness on oblique bicycle helmet impact tests

Abstract

The friction between a helmet and impact surface affects the accelerations imparted to the head. The roughness of the impact surface is, therefore, a consideration when developing oblique impact standards. An 80-grit abrasive paper is commonly used in oblique impact tests to simulate a road surface, but has not been validated for bicycle impacts and may not accurately represent real road surfaces. In the following study, a helmeted NOCSAE headform with a Hybrid III neck was dropped onto a 45° anvil at 6.5 m/s using a twin wire guided drop tower. Helmeted drops were performed in two orientations (frontal and side) on road surfaces, roughened steel surfaces, 80-grit abrasive paper and a low friction surface. For each impact, measures of linear and rotational acceleration were obtained. These metrics were compared across impact orientations and surfaces to assess the influence of surface roughness on headform impact response. Frontal impacts were less sensitive to the impact surface roughness than side impacts across metrics. Among metrics, rotational acceleration showed the largest effect due to surface roughness. Compared to the road surface, peak rotational acceleration from impacts on the 80-grit surface were 6.5% less and 48% greater for frontal and side impacts, respectively. Based on consideration of the peak and cumulative impact measures, steel impact surfaces appear to better simulate road impact than the commonly used 80-grit abrasive paper.

Keywords

Friction helmet testing impact roughness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Whyte

Stuart

Mallory

, et al. A review of impact testing methods for headgear in sports: considerations for improved prevention of head injury through research and standards. J Biomech Eng 2019; 141: 070803.

Willinger

Halldin

Bogerd

, et al. Final report of Working Group 3: impact engineering, 2015, https://www.bicycle-helmets.eu/images/downloads/COST-Action-TU1101_WG3_2015.pdf

Fernandes

de Sousa

RJA

. Head injury predictors in sports trauma—a state-of-the-art review. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2015; 229: 592–608.

McIntosh

Lai

Schilter

Bicycle helmets: head impact dynamics in helmeted and unhelmeted oblique impact tests. Traffic Inj Prev 2013; 14: 501–508.

Mills

Gilchrist

Oblique impact testing of bicycle helmets. Int J Impact Eng 2008; 35: 1075–1086.

Bliven

Rouhier

Tsai

, et al. Evaluation of a novel bicycle helmet concept in oblique impact testing. Accid Anal Prev 2019; 124: 58–65.

Trotta

Annaidh

Burek

, et al. Evaluation of the head-helmet sliding properties in an impact test. J Biomech 2018; 75: 28–34.

Hodgson

VR.

Impact, skid and retention tests on a representative group of bicycle helmets to determine their head-neck protective characteristics, 1990, https://helmets.org/hodgson1.pdf

Willinger

Deck

Halldin

, et al. Towards advanced bicycle helmet test methods. In: Proceedings of the International Cycling Safety Conference, Gothenburg, 18–19 November 2014, pp.1–11. Gothenburg: ICSC.

10.

Milne

Deck

Bourdet

, et al. Assessment of bicyclist head injury risk under tangential impact conditions. IRCOBI Conf 2013; 33: 735–746.

11.

Klug

Feist

Tomasch

. Testing of bicycle helmets for preadolescents. In: Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury, Lyon, 9–11 September 2015, pp.136–155. Zurich: IRCOBI.

12.

van den Bosch

HLA

. Crash helmet testing and design specifications. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2006.

13.

Glaister

Hazell

Mortimer

. Oblique impact testing of protective helmets: rationale and test method. Report no. 630, December 1983. Farnborough: RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine.

14.

Glaister

. Protective helmets for motorcyclists-a new British Standard (BS 6658). Injury 1986; 17: 376–379.

15.

Glaister

. The development and initial evaluation of an oblique-impact test for protective helmets. In: Proceedings of the AGARD conference, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, 1982. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

16.

Bonugli

Cormier

Reinhart

. Replicating real-world friction of motorcycle helmet impacts and its effects on head injury metrics. SAE technical paper 2017-01-1433, 2017.

17.

Bourdet

Deck

Carreira

, et al. Head impact conditions in the case of cyclist falls. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 2012; 226: 282–289.

18.

Hodgson

. Head injury criteria and evaluation of protective head gear. In: Saczalski

Pilkey

(eds) Measurement and prediction of structural and biodynamic crash-impact response, vol. 31. New York: ASME, 1976, pp.121–135.

19.

Hodgson

. National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment football helmet certification program. Med Sci Sports 1975; 7: 225–232.

20.

NOCSAE. Standard pneumatic ram test method and equipment used in evaluating the performance characteristics of protective headgear and face guards. Overland Park, KS: NOCSAE, 2015, pp.1–9.

21.

DiMasi

. Transformation of nine-accelerometer-package (NAP) data for replicating headpart kinematics and dynamic loading. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1995.

22.

Padgaonkar

Krieger

King

. Measurement of angular acceleration of a rigid body using linear accelerometers. J Appl Mech 1975; 42: 552–556.

23.

Cobb

MacAlister

Young

, et al. Quantitative comparison of Hybrid III and National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment headform shape characteristics and implications on football helmet fit. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 2015; 229: 39–46.

24.

Cobb

Zadnik

Rowson

. Comparative analysis of helmeted impact response of Hybrid III and National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment headforms. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 2016; 230: 50–60.

25.

Kendall

Walsh

Hoshizaki

. Comparison between Hybrid III and Hodgson-WSU headforms by linear and angular dynamic impact response. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 2012; 226: 260–265.

26.

Sances

Carlin

Kumaresan

. Biomechanical analysis of head-neck force in Hybrid III dummy during inverted vertical drops. Biomed Sci Instrum 2002; 38: 459–464.

27.

Bland

McNally

Rowson

. Headform and neck effects on dynamic response in bicycle helmet oblique impact testing. In: Proceedings of the IRCOBI conference, Athens, 12–14 September 2018, pp.413–423. Zurich: IRCOBI.

28.

Finan

Nightingale

Myers

. The influence of reduced friction on head injury metrics in helmeted head impacts. Traffic Inj Prev 2008; 9: 483–488.

29.

Verschueren

. Biomechanical analysis of head injuries related to bicycle accidents and a new bicycle helmet concept. PhD Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, 2009.

30.

Cook

. Manufacturing analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1966.

31.

Walsh

Rousseau

Hoshizaki

. The influence of deflection and neck compliance on the impact dynamics of a Hybrid III headform Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 2011; 13: 135–143.