Testing the Positional Stability of Motorcycle Helmets
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TESTING THE POSITIONAL STABILITY OF MOTORCYCLE HELMETS Hugh H. Hurt, Jr. David R. Thorn James V. Ouellet Head Protection Research Laboratory United States Paper No. 98-SlO-P-30 ABSTRACT accident events. Accident research has shown that there is significant benefit of motorcycle helmets in Traditional motorcycle helmet performance reducing the frequency and severity of head injury. standards provide a test for the strength and stiffness Accident research also has shown that the ejection of of the retention system. While such tests assure the helmet during accident events occurs frequently, adequate strength, they do not assure that the helmet and many causes have been investigated (Gilchrist & will be retained in place on the motorcyclist’s head, Mills, 1992, Hurt, et. al., 1981, 1993, 1996, 1997, even when securely fastened. The reason is that the Mills & Ward, 1985, Newman, 1979, Otte, 1986, geometry of the retention system can allow the 1991, Snively, 1978). helmet to roll off when contact or inertial forces are As a part of research to update the FMVSS generated in a collision. Different types and styles of No. 218 (Thorn et. al., 1997, Hurt et. al., 1996) the motorcycle helmets were tested to determine the various helmet standards were collected and susceptibility to roll off, i.e. “positional stability” reviewed. A summary of the various retention system (Thorn et. al., 1997). tests is presented in Table 1, including the static and Tests were performed using two commonly dynamic tests which are supposed to provide for used, adult sizes of headforms corresponding to retention of the helmet during accident events. Actual standards of the U.S. Department of Transportation mechanical failures of retention components during (DOT) and the International Standards Organization accidents are extremely rare, and most helmet (ISO). The test results were validated by comparison ejections occur without significant damage to the with essentially identical tests on a large number of components of chin strap webbing, hangers, rivets, human subjects. The results of the human subject and buckles, or equivalent fastening devices (Hurt et tests show a meaningful relationship to the laboratory al,1981, Otte and Felten, 1985). For this reason, the test which employs a 1Okg mass dropped 60cm to test for positional stability of any motorcycle helmet jerk the helmet forward to roll off. is a critical requirement for successful protection. The geometry of the retention system has a In general, the ejection or displacement of powerful effect on the ability of the helmet to resist the helmet during motorcycle accident events is forward roll off, in both laboratory and human accountable by loose fastening of the chin strap and subject tests. Also, there is considerable difference in loose fitting of the helmet. This lack of secure fit and the retention characteristics between DOT and IS0 fastening or failure to fasten the system at all headforms, with the DOT headform more closely accounts for most of the ejections of helmets in correlating with human subject data. accidents. However, there are cases where the helmet is properly fitted and the retention system has been INTRODUCTION securely fastened, but the helmet is ejected. Of course, some of such cases occur when severe facial The retention of the motorcycle helmet in impact causes fractures of the mandible then support place on the head of the motorcyclist is absolutely for the chin strap is destroyed and any helmet can be necessary to provide the full capability for impact ejected. In many other cases, the design of the attenuation and injury prevention. When contem- retention system does not have correct geometry, porary helmet standards develop high levels of then contact and inertial forces acting on the helmet impact energy absorption in the structure of the cause the helmet to respond by rotation upon the head helmet shell and liner, all protection can be lost if the and then be ejected or significantly displaced. helmet is ejected, or significantly displaced during 2323 Table 1. Retention System Test Methods and Failure Criteria Static Dynamic Failure Criteria Positional Stability Standard I Year I Helmet Test Test Drop Number Dynamic Residual Buckle Test Test Mass Mounting Preioad Load Preload Mass Height of Tests Extension Extension Slip Type & Drop Limit FMVSS 223 N, 1335 N, 30 sec. 120 sec. One 5 25mm None 23 kg 38 kg* 120 mm One < 30mm None 225N, lllON, AS 1698 1988 Headform 30 sec. 120 sec. One < 25mm None Headform 7 kg Two Stay on BS 6658 1985 & Helmet (support 10 kg 750 mm (Strap not 1st 32mm 16mm Forward 10 kg - Head- Base assembly) tightened) 2nd 25mm 8mm Roll-Off 0.75 m form Two 1st 32mm 7 kg 10 kg 750 mm (Strapnot 2nd25mm 8mm None tightened) Total Forward E-;l 1 1995 / Headform 23 kg 38 kg* 120 mm One 5 30mm & 4.0 kg - Stay on Rearward 0.6 m Head- ASTM 1997 ’ ’ ’ ’ ‘1 F1446 (draft) ECE 22.4 1995 -c-1 1 15kgTL / 10kg /75Ommi * Preload removed “immediately prior” to test load. ** Drop mass and height to be specified by individual performance standards. * * * Measured 2 minutes after testing. The most critical mobility of any helmet is clearly justifies a rigorous standard test of helmets to rotation forward as if rolling off the head; backward prevent such defective helmet designs from being rotation can happen but does not result in complete offered to the unwary motorcyclist. ejection or significant exposure of the head. When there is forward rotation of the helmet on the head, METHODOLOGY correct geometry of the helmet interior and retention system should cause tightening of the chin strap, thus During the study of updating the present resisting further displacement. If the chin strap FMVSS No. 2 18 (Hurt et. al., 1996), several methods anchor points are located far ahead of the center of of retention system testing were investigated (Thorn helmet rotation, there is a tendency of the chin strap et. al., 1997). In addition to the evaluation of testing to loosen and rotation is not resisted, and the helmet for strength and stiffness, current methodology of may be ejected. Helmets with adverse design testing for positional stability was investigated for features, such as unfavorable locations for the chin possible incorporation into FMVSS No. 2 18. The strap anchor points, are known to have special specific elements to be included in the study were the vulnerability for ejection (Hurt, 1997, Mills & Ward, most current roll off test methodologies, the effect of 1985, Otte & Felten, 1991) headform type, and correlation with human subjects. The variations in helmet configurations The objective of the present research was to affect the mobility of the helmet, with the partial determine a minimum performance test of positional coverage helmet being the most mobile and the full stability which could be adopted as a part of updating facial coverage helmet being the least mobile. As the FMVSS No. 2 18. The suitable test procedure should helmet rotates forward on the head, the extent of provide reasonable simplicity and repeatability, and coverage affects the resistance to that motion, with would correlate well with real world performance of the obvious potential contact of the brow edge of the helmets. It was decided to use the most current helmet with the nose and eyeglass frames (if worn). procedures developed by ASTM Fog.53 committee Denting of the EPS liner at the brow edge from (ASTM, 1995) to determine the positional stability of contact with the nose and glass frame is typical protective headgear. This method of testing was evidence of the roll off motion. With the presence of adopted by the Snell Memorial Foundation for the the chin bar of the full facial coverage helmet, it is M95 motorcycle helmet standard. The test procedure typical that contact of the chin bar with the motor- involves placing the helmet on the test headform, cyclist’s chin and sternum would limit the roll off which is supported at 45 degrees inclination from the motion. In this way, the full facial coverage helmet vertical. A hook and strap are attached to the post- has an obstacle to the completion of roll off ejection. erior rim of the helmet so that a forward roll off force But the extra mobility of the partial coverage helmet can be applied there. A guide rod is attached to the may require special design considerations to resist strap and a sliding mass is allowed to drop along the roll off, e.g., a nape strap or Y-type chin strap guide rod, abruptly loading the helmet when the mass harness. In these tests with human subjects, ejection is arrested at the end of the guide rod. Figure 1 shows rates for the partial coverage helmets ranged from 50 this apparatus with a test helmet in place. The current to 89% compared to 1 or 2% for full facial coverage Snell test employs a 4kg mass dropped 6Ocm but the helmets. original ASTM draft standard employed a 1Okg mass Fortunately, there is a tried and true method dropped 60cm for all motor sports helmets. This of preventing such roll off ejection by careful present investigation conducted tests with both 4kg selection of the helmet, i.e., an “acceptance” test. It is and 1Okg masses to determine the effect on various recommended that when purchasing a helmet, the helmets. motorcyclist should try on the helmet, fasten the chin An important reference standard for strap securely, then pull up on the posterior rim of the positional stability is the British Standards Institution helmet. If the helmet displaces significantly or comes standard BS 6658 (BSI, 1985), which uses a 1Okg off, that helmet should be rejected and a different mass dropped 75cm.