ES-2 Dummy Biomechanical Responses

Byrnes, Katie; Abramczyk, Joseph; Berliner, Jeffrey; Irwin, Annette L.; Jensen, Jack; Kowsika, Murthy; Mertz, Harold J.; Rouhana, Stephen W.; Scherer, Risa; Shi, Yibing; Sutterfield, Aleta; Xu, Lan; Tylko, Suzanne; Dalmotas, Daìnius J.

doi:10.4271/2002-22-0018

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Validated, standard ATD headforms include, for example, the Hybrid III headform, 22 National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment's (NOCSAE) headform, 33 EuroSID-2 side impact dummy, 15 and ADAM manikin. 6 The two most common surrogates used for testing wearable devices are the Hybrid III and NOCSAE 50th percentile adult male headforms (Fig.…”

Section: Specific Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Laboratory Validation of Wearable Head Kinematic Devices

Gabler¹,

Patton

Begonia

et al. 2022

Ann Biomed Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearable devices are increasingly used to measure real-world head impacts and study brain injury mechanisms. These devices must undergo validation testing to ensure they provide reliable and accurate information for head impact sensing, and controlled laboratory testing should be the first step of validation. Past validation studies have applied varying methodologies, and some devices have been deployed for on-field use without validation. This paper presents best practices recommendations for validating wearable head kinematic devices in the laboratory, with the goal of standardizing validation test methods and data reporting. Key considerations, recommended approaches, and specific considerations were developed for four main aspects of laboratory validation, including surrogate selection, test conditions, data collection, and data analysis. Recommendations were generated by a group with expertise in head kinematic sensing and laboratory validation methods and reviewed by a larger group to achieve consensus on best practices. We recommend that these best practices are followed by manufacturers, users, and reviewers to conduct and/or review laboratory validation of wearable devices, which is a minimum initial step prior to on-field validation and deployment. We anticipate that the best practices recommendations will lead to more rigorous validation of wearable head kinematic devices and higher accuracy in head impact data, which can subsequently advance brain injury research and management.

show abstract

Section: Specific Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Laboratory Validation of Wearable Head Kinematic Devices

Gabler¹,

Patton

Begonia

et al. 2022

Ann Biomed Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As was previously mentioned, the biofidelity of the torso has been questioned by some researchers (Irwin, Pricopio, Mertz, Balser, & Chkoreff, 1989; Viano, 1987). Recent advances in biomechanical surrogates have led to the development of improved side‐impact test devices, such as the ES‐2 and WorldSID crash test dummies (Byrnes et al, 2002; Cesari et al, 2001). These devices have improved biofidelity and increased measurement capability, including load cells for measuring forces acting through the pelvis.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanics and Injury Risk Assessment of Falls onto Protective Floor Mats

Raymond

Catena

Vaughan

2011

Rehabilitation Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the biomechanics of simulated sideways falls from various bed heights onto two types of protective floor mats. This article presents biomechanical injury criteria for evaluating the probability of sustaining injuries to the head, thorax, and pelvis. A side-impact dummy was raised to drop heights of 45.7 cm, 61.0 cm, and 76.2 cm and released. Two types of protective floor mats were evaluated and compared with impacts experienced on an unpadded, rigid floor. Results of the study demonstrated a high risk (> 50%) for serious head injury for falls onto an unpadded, rigid floor at 61.0-cm and 76.2-cm drop heights. Falls onto floor mats demonstrated significant reductions in injury risk to the head and pelvis for all drop heights. Thoracic injury risk was significantly reduced for all but the highest drop height.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, surrogate specimens of human parts are commonly used to evaluate protective measures for different situations. For example, automobile crash safety tests use standardized full or partial body dummies [ 12 ], and the performance of helmets has been evaluated with specialized head forms [ 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical Characterization of Synthetic Gels for Creation of Surrogate Hands Subjected to Low-Velocity Impacts

Sosa

Moure

2022

Gels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of human body simulators that can be used as surrogates for testing protective devices and measures requires selecting synthetic materials with mechanical properties closely representative of the human tissues under consideration. For impact tests, gelatinous materials are often used to represent the soft tissues as a whole without distinguishing layers such as skin, fat, or muscles. This research focuses on the mechanical characterization of medical-grade synthetic gels that can be implemented to represent the soft tissues of the hand. Six grades of commercially available gels are selected for quasi-static hardness and firmness tests as well as for controlled low-velocity impact tests, which are not routinely conducted by gel manufacturers and require additional considerations such as energy level and specimen sizes relevant to the specific application. Specimens subject to impacts represent the hand thicknesses at the fingers, knuckles, and mid-metacarpal regions. Two impact test configurations are considered: one with the gel specimens including a solid insert representing a bone and one without this insert. The impact behavior of the candidate gels is evaluated by the coefficient of restitution, the energy loss percentage, and the peak reaction force at the time of impact. The resulting values are compared with similar indicators reported for experiments with cadaveric hands. Relatively softer gels, characterized by Shore OOO hardness in the range of 32.6 ± 0.9 to 34.4 ± 2.0, closely matched the impact behavior of cadaveric specimens. These results show that softer gels would be the most suitable gels to represent soft tissues in the creation of surrogate hands that can be used for extensive impact testing, thus, minimizing the need for cadaveric specimens.

show abstract

ES-2 Dummy Biomechanical Responses

Cited by 14 publications

References 3 publications

Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Laboratory Validation of Wearable Head Kinematic Devices

Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Laboratory Validation of Wearable Head Kinematic Devices

Biomechanics and Injury Risk Assessment of Falls onto Protective Floor Mats

Mechanical Characterization of Synthetic Gels for Creation of Surrogate Hands Subjected to Low-Velocity Impacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About