Facial Impact Response — A Comparison of the Hybrid III Dummy and Human Cadaver

Allsop, Douglas “L”; Warner, Charles Y.; Wille, Milton G.; Schneider, Denis; Nahum, Alan M.

doi:10.4271/881719

Cited by 81 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 the maximal force which can be exerted on a human maxilla by a rigid, slowly moving robot (no dynamic forces) are analyzed. The stiffness of the maxilla is according to [15,16,17] will linearly increase with position after contact, as represented in Fig. 4 for several collision points along the lines l i .…”

Section: Singularity Forces During Clampingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Abrasion • Laceration (cuts, gashes, contused wounds) • Contusion (bruises, crushes) • Stab wounds Despite the wide variation among biomechanical analysis and tests, some tolerance values were published in the literature 16 , giving valuable information on which physical quantities potentially lead to and govern different injury mechanism. Abrasions are mainly caused by tangential motions of corners and sharp edges along the human skin 17 and an affecting energy of E ≈ 100J is already enough to cause such injury.…”

Section: Soft-tissue Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safe Physical Human-Robot Interaction: Measurements, Analysis and New Insights

Haddadin¹,

Albu-Schäffer²,

Hirzinger³

2010

Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. Physical human-robot interaction and cooperation has become a topic of increasing importance and of major focus in robotics research. Industrial and domestic applications unifying the workspace of humans and robots are foreseeable in the close future and will require safe and dependable robot design and control. In this paper we will give an overview of our systematic evaluation of safety in human-robot interaction, covering various aspects of major significance. Based on initial impact tests we carried out with the DLR-LWRIII, several industrial robots of increasing weight were evaluated and the influence of robot mass and velocity was investigated. Such non-constrained impacts are only partially capturing the nature of human-robot safety. A possibly constrained environment and its effect on resulting injuries have to be discussed and evaluated.Apart from these impact tests and simulations we will analyze the major problem of quasi-static clamping, which poses under certain circumstances a serious threat to the human even for low-inertia robots. After treating blunt impacts and contacts with and without the human being clamped, various soft-tissue injuries likely to occur in robotics and related physical injury tolerances are introduced. Finally, possible injuries relevant in robotics are summarized and systematically classified.

show abstract

Section: Singularity Forces During Clampingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Soft-tissue Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe Physical Human-Robot Interaction: Measurements, Analysis and New Insights

Haddadin¹,

Albu-Schäffer²,

Hirzinger³

2010

Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Serious injury is indicated by AIS = 3. 3 The problem of impacting in pretensioned state is not part of this analysis. various different injury criteria with an overview given in [31].…”

Section: How To Avoid Injuries From Blunt Impacts With Soft Tissuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reflected inertia of the motor and link are 13 kg and 4 kg. In the following analysis, we will vary the joint stiffness from very rigid to fully compliant 3 . An important feature of a robot interacting with its environment is a collision detection and reaction mechanism.…”

Section: How To Avoid Injuries From Blunt Impacts With Soft Tissuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The human is represented as a massspring system, with a head mass of 4 kg [11], a contact stiffness of K H = 10 5 N/m (maxilla, i.e. upper jaw [21]), and a fracture force of 660 N [3,43,16]. The arm/robot that is carrying out the elbow check is represented as a rigid body system with inertial Impact force parameters of the human arm [11].…”

Section: The Elbow Check: a Frequent Injury Source In Soccermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kick it with elasticity: Safety and performance in human–robot soccer

Haddadin

Laue²,

Frese³

et al. 2009

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The RoboCup community has one definite goal [38]: winning against the human world soccer champion team by the year 2050. This implies real tackles and fouls between humans and robots, rising safety concerns for the robots and even more important for the human players. Nowadays, similar questions are discussed in the field of physical human-robot interaction (pHRI), but mainly in the context of industrial and service robotics applications.The first part of our paper is an attempt for a pHRI view on human-robot soccer. We take scenes from real soccer matches and discuss what could have happened if one of the teams consisted of robots instead of humans. The most important result is that elastic joints are needed to reduce the impact during collisions. The second and third part consider conversely, how the robot can handle the impact of kicking the ball and how it can reach the velocity of human-level soccer. Again joint elasticity is the key point.Overall, the paper analyzes a vision far ahead. However, all our conclusions are based on concrete simulations, experiments, derivations, or findings from sports science, forensics, and pHRI.

show abstract