An Anatomical Skull for Impact Testing
Progress is described on the development of a trauma-indicating headform for assessment of localized and superficial head injury hazards. Using as a basis the facial and parietal bone impact tolerance values obtained in collaboration with Nahum, an anatomically shaped skull has been developed in which particular attention has been given to achieving humanlike fracture tolerances in the zygomatic and frontal regions.
Beginning with a polyester skullform cast from a human skull, a series of developmental steps is described which includes modifications to “idealize” geometrical symmetry, tailor the section thicknesses for average fracture force intensity in the principal regions, and select a skull structural composite material and overlying soft tissues for balance in fracture strength for both large area and localized impacts.
The frangible skull in its present state of development has been used as a research tool to indicate facial and frontal bone fracture. The accuracy with which these evaluations represent human bone fracture is not well established because of the limited biomechanical data base. As a more complete understanding of human skull fracture is developed and with further studies to control the material properties and structural geometry of the frangible head model, it may become a useful device for evaluating human skull fracture hazard in impact environments.
KeywordsHuman Head Human Skull Fracture Force Skull Model Superficial Soft Tissue
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.I. C. W. Gadd, J. P. Danforth, A. M. Nahum, and J. Gatts, “A Study of Head and Facial Bone Impact Tolerances,” Proceedings of General Motors Automotive Safety Seminar, Milford, Michigan, 1968.Google Scholar
- 2.A. M. Nahum, J. D. Gatts, C. W. Gadd, and J. P. Danforth, “Impact Tolerance of the Skull and Face,” Proceedings of 12th Stapp Car Crash Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1968.Google Scholar
- 3.W. R. Hodgson, W. A. Lange, and R. K. Talwalker, “Injury to the Facial Bones, ”Proceedings of 9th Stapp Car Crash Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1966.Google Scholar
- 4.C. W. Gadd, A. M. Nahum, D. C. Schneider, and R. G. Madeira, “Tolerance and Properties of Superficial Soft Tissues in Situ,” Proceedings of 15th Stapp Car Crash Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1970.Google Scholar
- 5.J. W. Melvin, J. C. McElhaney, and V. L. Roberts, “Development of a Mechanical Model of the Head — Determination of Tissue Properties and Synthetic Substitute Materials,” Proceedings of 14th Stapp Car Crash Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1970.Google Scholar
- 6.A. M. Nahum and D. C. Schneider, “Dynamic Impact Studies of the Facial Bones and Skull,” Proceedings of 16th Stapp Car Crash Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1972.Google Scholar
- 7.H. G. Holcombe and D. M. Herod, “Tramasaf — The Development of a Laboratory Instrument for Trauma Indication,” Proceedings of a Laboratory Instrument for Trauma Indications,“ Proceedings of General Motors Automotive Safety Seminar, Milford, Michigan, 1968.Google Scholar
- 8.C. W. Gadd, W. A. Lange, and F. J. Peterson, “Strength of Skin and its Measurements, Biomechanics Monograph,” American Society Mechanical Engineers, 1968.Google Scholar
- 9.F. J. Peterson, W. A. Lange, and C. W. Gadd, “Tear and Tensile Strength of Human Skin Under Static and Dynamic Loading,” Winter Annual Meeting, American Society Mechanical Engineers, Nov. 1972.Google Scholar
- 10.R. P. Hubbard and D. G. McLeod, “A Basis for Crash Dummy Skull and Head Geometry,” Proceedings of the Human Impact Response Symposium, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan, October 1972.Google Scholar