Advertisement

Sports Engineering

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 479–485 | Cite as

Comparative analysis of Hybrid III neckform and an unbiased neckform

  • Evan S. Walsh
  • Marshall Kendall
  • Andrew Post
  • Andrew Meehan
  • T. Blaine Hoshizaki
Technical Note

Abstract

Helmet design and development are an important tool to help mitigate the severity and frequency of head and brain injury in sport and everyday life. Helmet assessment protocols and standards often use the Hybrid III neckform as part of the impacting equipment even though it has a biased response that can affect the results. This research presents an unbiased neckform that can be used for the purposes of head impact testing that does not provide a mechanical directional bias to the impact result. A Hybrid III headform was impacted under a sporting impact protocol with a Hybrid III and an unbiased neckform. The resultant acceleration magnitudes were similar between the two necks, while larger differences (8 g and up to 4 krad/s2) were found between the acceleration components. The Hybrid III neck may have a more biased response for longer duration events (10 ms+) as this research considered only short duration impacts (5–10 ms).

Keywords

Neck Neckforms Hybrid III Helmet Standards Unbiased 

References

  1. 1.
    Hoshizaki TB, Brien S (2004) The science and design of head protection in sport. Neurosurgery 55(4):956–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    King A, Yang K, Zhang L, Hardy W (2003) Is head injury caused by linear or angular acceleration. In: IRCOBI conference, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forero Rueda M, Cui L, Gilchrist MD (2011) Finite element modelling of equestrian helmet impacts exposes the need to address rotational kinematics in future helmet designs. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 14(12):1021–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Post A, Hoshizaki TB (2015) Rotational acceleration, brain tissue strain, and the relationship to concussion. J Biomech Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EN 1078. Helmets for pedal cyclists and for users of skateboards and roller skates. European StandardGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Post A, Oeur A, Walsh ES, Hoshizaki TB, Gilchrist MD (2014) A centric/non-centric physical and finite element model methodology for the evaluation of American football helmets to evaluate risk of concussion. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 17(16):1785–1800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Post A, Oeur A, Hoshizaki TB, Gilchrist MD (2013) Examination of the relationship of peak linear and angular acceleration to brain deformation metrics in hockey helmet impacts. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 16(5):511–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deng Y (1989) Anthropomorphic dummy neck modeling and injury considerations. Acc Anal Prev 21(1):85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foreman SF, Hoshizaki TB (2011) The influence of headform geometry on the dynamic impact response of a Hybrid III headform. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international society of biomechanics congress, Bruxelles, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ND002-17m17a (2017) Standard performance specification for newly manufactured football helmets. National Operating Committee on Standard for Athletic EquipmentGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mertz H (1985) Biofidelity of the Hybrid III head, Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., paper #851245, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Padagaonkar AJ, Krieger KW, King AI (1975) Measurement of angular acceleration of a rigid body using linear accelerometers. J Appl Mech 42:552–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foster JK, Kortge JO, Wolanin MJ (1977) Hybrid III—a biomechanically based crash test dummy. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) paper #770938. In: Proceedings of the 21st stapp car crash conference, SAE Warrendale, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Culver C, Neathery R, Mertz H (1972) Mechanical necks with humanlike responses. SAE technical paper #720959.  https://doi.org/10.4271/720959
  15. 15.
    Walsh ES, Hoshizaki TB (2010) Sensitivity analysis of a Hybrid III head- and neckform to impact angle variations. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference of the international sports engineering association, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walsh ES, Post A, Rousseau P, Kendall M, Karton C, Oeur A, Foreman S, Hoshizaki TB (2012) Dynamic impact response characteristics of a helmeted Hybrid III headform using a centric and non-centric impact protocol. J Sports Eng Technol 226(3/4):220–225Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pellman EJ, Viano DC, Withnall C, Shewchenko N, Bir CA, Halstead PD (2006) Concussion in professional football: helmet testing to assess impact performance—part 11. Neurosurgery 58(1):78–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jadischke R, Viano DC, McCarthy J, King AI (2016) The effects of helmeted weight on Hybrid III head and neck responses by comparing unhelmeted and helmeted impacts. J Biomech Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human KineticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.St. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations