Bottlang Michael, DiGiacomo Gina, Tsai Stanley, Madey Steven
Biomechanics Laboratory, Legacy Research Institute, Portland, OR, 97232, USA.
Heliyon. 2022 Jul 16;8(8):e09962. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09962. eCollection 2022 Aug.
Comparative studies of different helmet designs are essential to determine differences in helmet performance. The present study comparatively evaluated the impact performance of hardhat helmets, climbing-style safety helmets, and helmets with novel rotation-damping technologies to determine if advanced designs deliver improved protection.
Six helmet designs from three categories of safety helmets were tested: two traditional hardhat helmets (HH Type I, HH Type II), two climbing-style helmets (CS Web, CS Foam), and two helmets with dedicated rotation-damping technologies (MIPS, CEL). Helmets were first evaluated in impacts of 31 J energy representing a falling object according to standard Z89.1-2014. Subsequently, helmets were evaluated in impacts representing a fall by dropping a helmeted head-neck surrogate at 275 J impact energy. The resulting head kinematics were used to calculate the probability of sustaining a head or brain injury.
Crown impacts representative of a falling object resulted in linear acceleration of less than 50 g in all six helmet models. Compared to crown impacts, front, side and rear impacts caused a several-fold increase in head acceleration in all helmets except HH Type II and CEL helmets. For impacts representative of falls, all helmets except the CEL helmet exhibited significantly increased head accelerations and an increased brain injury probability compared to the traditional HH Type I hardhat. Neck compression was 35%-90% higher in the two climbing-style helmets and 80% higher in MIPS helmets compared to the traditional HH type I hardhat.
Contemporary helmets do not necessarily deliver improved protection from impacts and falls compared to traditional hardhat helmets.
对不同头盔设计进行比较研究对于确定头盔性能差异至关重要。本研究对安全帽、登山式安全帽以及采用新型旋转阻尼技术的头盔的撞击性能进行了比较评估，以确定先进设计是否能提供更好的保护。
测试了三类安全帽中的六种头盔设计：两种传统安全帽（HH I型、HH II型）、两种登山式头盔（CS网式、CS泡沫式）以及两种采用专用旋转阻尼技术的头盔（MIPS、CEL）。首先，根据标准Z89.1 - 2014，对头盔进行31 J能量的撞击测试，模拟坠落物体的撞击。随后，通过以275 J撞击能量抛下戴头盔的头颈部模拟物来评估头盔在模拟坠落时的性能。利用由此产生的头部运动学数据来计算头部或脑部受伤的概率。
在所有六种头盔型号中，模拟坠落物体的头顶撞击导致的线性加速度均小于50 g。与头顶撞击相比，除HH II型和CEL头盔外，所有头盔的正面、侧面和背面撞击均导致头部加速度增加数倍。对于模拟坠落的撞击，除CEL头盔外，所有头盔与传统的HH I型安全帽相比，头部加速度均显著增加，脑部受伤概率也增加。与传统的HH I型安全帽相比，两种登山式头盔的颈部压缩率高出35% - 90%，MIPS头盔高出80%。
与传统安全帽相比，现代头盔不一定能提供更好的防撞击和防坠落保护。
