2019
DOI: 10.34297/ajbsr.2019.05.000957
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Head Injury Criterion: Mini Review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The peak values of the linear acceleration, angular acceleration, and angular velocity predicted at the head CG as well as the HIC_36 and BrIC (Takhounts et al, 2013) values were evaluated for all simulations. To predict the possible head injuries during ES falls, the following injury thresholds were used in this study: 6383rad/s 2 head angular acceleration and 28.3rad/s head angular velocity for 50% risk of concussion (Rowson et al, 2012); 1000 HIC_36 for 50% risk of AIS3+ injuries (Mariotti et al, 2019); 250g head linear acceleration (Normalisation, 2011) and 1.0582 BrIC (Namiri et al, 2020) for 50% risk of AIS4+ injuries. The paired-sample t-test was used to identify whether there was a significant difference in these head injury metrics between the simulations with and without a helmet.…”
Section: Head-ground Impact Conditions and Helmet Protectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The peak values of the linear acceleration, angular acceleration, and angular velocity predicted at the head CG as well as the HIC_36 and BrIC (Takhounts et al, 2013) values were evaluated for all simulations. To predict the possible head injuries during ES falls, the following injury thresholds were used in this study: 6383rad/s 2 head angular acceleration and 28.3rad/s head angular velocity for 50% risk of concussion (Rowson et al, 2012); 1000 HIC_36 for 50% risk of AIS3+ injuries (Mariotti et al, 2019); 250g head linear acceleration (Normalisation, 2011) and 1.0582 BrIC (Namiri et al, 2020) for 50% risk of AIS4+ injuries. The paired-sample t-test was used to identify whether there was a significant difference in these head injury metrics between the simulations with and without a helmet.…”
Section: Head-ground Impact Conditions and Helmet Protectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1 summarizes the maximum values of the accelerations expressed in [g], and the corresponding HIC values of the woman and man both in the primary and secondary impact. The probability values P (AIS3 +) and P (AIS4 +) calculated according to the formulas reported in [28,29] are also determined. The table shows that both passengers on the bike died instantly, in correspondence with the primary impact, which occurred at a presumable speed of 25-27 m / s. With regard to the secondary impact, the acceleration and HIC values strongly depend on the falling position of the bodies, which, on the other hand, does not happen in the case of a primary impact which presents an increasing trend.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the inaugural protocol used the Head Injury Criterion 36 (HIC36) (Ahmad et al, 2019), while the latter uses the Head Injury Criterion 15 (HIC15). HIC15 is considered to be more stringent than HIC36 since the lower the HIC value used, the better the car structure in terms of injury protection (Salwani et al, 2015;Mariotti et al, 2019). On the other hand, the inaugural protocol only featured Offset Frontal Test (OFT) and Side Impact Test (SIT) that contribute to the rating system.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%