A Basis for Crash Dummy Skull and Head Geometry
As an essential step toward improving the repeatability and reproducibility of crash dummy head response to impact events, the geometric configuration of dummy heads must be more completely defined. If these dummy heads are to be used for assessment of human head injury hazard, then their geometric characteristics should be based on human anthropometry. Measurements of a large number of human heads have been previously published, but these measurements alone are not sufficient for location of landmarks and determination of contours of the human head. Also previously published are measurements of a small number of human skulls which are sufficient for location of significant skull landmarks and construction of a skull model which represents an average American male skull. The location of skull landmarks and the construction and configuration of this skull model are documented in this report. By adding reasonable skin and flesh thicknesses to the skull model, a second model was constructed which represents the external configuration of the human head and not only agrees with head dimensions from a large number of subjects but also correctly locates the features of human head. These features include anatomically correct headform coordinate axes, head-neck articulation, cranial contours, and facial structure. In using the information presented here, it is important to realize that duplication of human structural geometry in dummy head design is not sufficient to insure similarity of human and dummy responses.
KeywordsHuman Head Head Model Zygomatic Arch Midsagittal Plane Landmark Location
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Anthropomorphic Test Devices for Dynamic Testing — SAE J963,“ SAE Recommended Practice, Society of Automotive Engineers Handbook, 1972.Google Scholar
- 2.H. T. E. Hertzberg, G. S. Daniels, and E. Churchill, “Anthropometry of Flying Personnel —1950,” WADC Technical Report 52–321, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1953.Google Scholar
- 3.E. Churchill, and B. Truett, “Metrical Relations Among Dimensions of the Head and Face,” WADC Technical Report 56–621, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1957.Google Scholar
- 4.E. F. Byars, D. Haynes, T. Durham, and H. Lilly, “Craniometric Measurements of Human Skulls,” a paper prepared for presentation at the 1970 A.S.M.E. Winter Annual Meeting, A.S.M.E. paper No. 70-WA/BHF-8, 1970.Google Scholar
- 5.C. W. Gadd, A. M. Nahum, D. C. Schneider, and R. G. Madeira, “Tolerance and Properties of Superficial Soft Tissues In Situ,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference, published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, 1970.Google Scholar
- 6.V. R. Hodgson, and L. M. Thomas, “Comparison of Head Acceleration Injury Indices in Cadaver Skull Fracture,” Proceedings of the Fifteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference, published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, 1971.Google Scholar