Design of Facial Impact Protection Gear for Cyclists

Sanga Monthatipkul, Pio Iovenitti, Igor Sbarski

Faculty of Engineering & Industrial Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
Faculty of Engineering & Industrial Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, , Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.

DOI: 10.4236/jtts.2012.23022                

Abstract

The concept of facial impact protection mask for cyclists is proposed in response to increased participation in cycling and the need for injury prevention. The research aims to develop an approach for design of facial impact protection gear to reduce the risk of severe injury. Impact test equipment and procedure, face surrogate and protection material performance criteria are developed. Three groups of protective materials – rigid crushable, semi rigid, and soft cushion foams are tested and assessed according to criteria. The criteria are linked to measures of the risk of facial and brain injuries: HIC (Head Injury Criterion), peak deceleration, Face-bone damage and energy absorption. The impact energy is simulated by a drop test using a 48 mm-radius-steel hemispherical impactor, with a weight of 4.63 kg similar to that of headform J specified in AS/NZS standard. The drop-height is 1500 mm, and the linear deceleration force of the impactor is recorded and used to establish the performance of the materials. The HIC is used to predict the risk of brain injury, whereas the developed face surrogate is used to assess facial bone injury. A 5.4 m/s facial impact to the unprotected-face of a cyclist can result in the risk of severe facial bone fracture and mild brain injury. The impact test results for rigid foam protection of 40 mm thickness shows no densification (bottom out) and absorbs the impact energy without damage to the Foam-bone of the face surrogate. At 20 mm thickness, rigid polyurethane foams performed best with Foam-bone damage ranging from 15.1% to 20.5%. Other materials with thicknesses of 20 to 28 mm showed Foam-bone damage between 21.8% and 35.1%. The HIC values ranged from 267 to 522, with memory foams and expanded polystyrene foam having the lowest values. Peak deceleration ranged from 71 g to 105 g for the materials tested. It is concluded that the impact energy can be dissipated by the protection material thereby reducing the risk of severe facial injury to the protected area.

Keywords

Facial Impact Protection; Cyclist; Energy Absorption; Impact Testing; Road Safety; Injury Prevention

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	D. C. Thompson, et al., “A Case-Control Study of the Effectiveness of Bicycle Safety Helmets in Preventing Facial Injury,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 80, 1990, pp. 1471-1474. doi:10.2105/AJPH.80.12.1471
[2]	D. C. Thompson, et al., “Effectiveness of Bicycle Safety Helmets in Preventing Serious Facial Injury,” Jama Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 276, No. 24, 1996, pp. 1974-1975. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540240052030
[3]	M. G. Harrison, and J. P. P. Shepherd, “The Circumstances and Scope for Prevention of Maxillofacial Injuries in Cyclists,” Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Vol. 44, No. 2, 1999, pp. 82-86.
[4]	K. D. Parish and V. Cothran, “Facial Soft Tissue Injuries,” 2006.
[5]	D. B. Kim, M. Sacapano and R. A. Hardesty, “Facial Fractures in Children,” Wright, Johnston and Mackenzie, Vol. 167, No. 2, 1997, p. 100.
[6]	C. Lindqvist, et al., “Maxillofacial Fractures Sustained in Bicycle Accidents,” International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1986, pp. 12-18. doi:10.1016/S0300-9785(86)80005-9
[7]	Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand, “AS/ NZS 2063:2008, Bicycle Helmets,” Australian/New Zealand Standard, 2008.
[8]	D. Hampson, “Facial Injury: A Review of Biomechanical Studies and Test Procedures for Facial Injury Assessment,” Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1995, pp. 1-7. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(95)80001-8
[9]	J. W. Melvin, et al., “A Biomechanical Face for the Hybrid III Dummy,” Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, Vol. 39, 1995, pp. 140-151.
[10]	T. R. Perl, et al., “Deformable Load Sensing Hybrid III Face,” Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, Vol. 33, 1989, pp. 29-42. doi:10.4271/892427
[11]	G. W. Nyquist, et al., “Facial Impact Tolerance and Response,” Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, Vol. 30, 1986, pp. 379-400.
[12]	D. L. Allsop, et al., “Facial Impact Response—A Comparison of the Hybrid III Dummy and Human Cadaver,” Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, Vol. 32, 1988, pp. 139-155.
[13]	Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand, “AS/ NZS 2512.3.1:2007, Methods of Testing Protective Helmets, Method 3.1: Determination of Impact Energy Attenuation—Helmet Drop Test,” Australian/New Zealand Standard, 2007.
[14]	R. Anderson, et al., “Further Development of a Protective Headband for Car Occupants,” Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2001.
[15]	M. Henderson, “The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets: A Review,” Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, 1995.
[16]	A. Gale and N. J. Mills, “Effect of Polystyrene Foam Liner Density on Motorcycle Helmet Shock Absorption,” Plastics and Rubber Processing and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1985, pp. 101-108.
[17]	A. L. Yettram, et al., “Materials for Motorcycle Crash Helmets—A Finite Element Parametric Study,” Plastics and Rubber Processing and Applications, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1994, pp. 215-221.
[18]	N. J. Mills, et al., “Polymer Foams for Personal Protection: Cushions, Shoes and Helmets,” Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 63, No. 16, 2003, pp. 2389-2400. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00272-0
[19]	D. E. Morgan and L. S. Szabo, “Improved Shock Absorbing Liner for Helmets,” Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2001.
[20]	R. A. Stretch, “The Impact Absorption Characteristics of Cricket Batting Helmets,” Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 12, 2000, pp. 959-964. doi:10.1080/026404100446766
[21]	T. Takeda, et al., “The Influence of Impact Object Characteristics on Impact Force and Force Absorption by Mouthguard Material,” Dental Traumatology, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2004, pp. 12-20. doi:10.1111/j.1600-4469.2004.00210.x
[22]	N. K. Cummins and I. R. Spears, “The Effect of Mouthguard Design on Stresses in the Tooth-Bone Complex,” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2002, pp. 942-947. doi:10.1097/00005768-200206000-00006
[23]	N. T. Paterson, et al., “A Finite Element Study of the Mechanics of Sports Mouthguards,” Sports Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2004, pp. 182-195.
[24]	B. G. McHenry, “Head Injury Criterion and the ATB,” ATB Users’ Group, 2004.
[25]	A. J. McLean, et al., “Prevention of Head Injuries to Car Occupants: An Investigation of Interior Padding Options,” University of Adelaide, 1997.
[26]	D. Tyrell, K. Severson and B. Marguis, “Passenger Train Crashworthiness Studies,” US Department of Transportation, 1995.
[27]	T. J. Rupp, M. Bednar and S. Karageanes, “Facial Fractures,” 2011. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/84613-overview
[28]	K. F. Lee, et al., “The Impact-Absorbing Effects of Facial Fractures in Closed-Head Injuries,” Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 66, No. 4, 1987, pp. 542-547. doi:10.3171/jns.1987.66.4.0542
[29]	R. Anderson, G. Ponte and L. Streeter, “Development of Head Protection for Car Occupants,” University of Adelaide, 2002.