US20130247285A1

US20130247285A1 - Football helmet

Info

Publication number: US20130247285A1
Application number: US13/850,523
Authority: US
Inventors: Adam J. Bartsch; Edward C. Benzel
Original assignee: Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Current assignee: Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Priority date: 2012-03-26
Filing date: 2013-03-26
Publication date: 2013-09-26
Also published as: WO2013148633A1

Abstract

A football helmet includes an outer shell configured to at least partially surround a head of a wearer. An inner liner is located substantially within the outer shell and is configured to contact at least a portion of the head of the wearer. A facial and mandibular protector is attached to the outer shell and is configured to at least partially surround a face of the wearer. The helmet has a center of gravity which, when the helmet is being worn, is substantially the same in two-dimensional location as the ventral-dorsal plane of the head of the wearer.

Description

RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/615,445, filed 26 Mar. 2012, the subject matter of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to an apparatus and method for use of a football helmet and, more particularly, to a football helmet having specific physical properties.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

An estimated 4.2 million adult, adolescent, and youth athletes participate in tackle American-style football yearly in the United States with this type of football having the highest concussion incidence of all sports. Despite apparent advances in protective equipment like football helmets, and increased awareness of safety issues (e.g., leading to changes in rules of competition), head, neck, and spine injuries continue to occur at unacceptably high rates—while a head, neck, and spine injury-reducing football helmet has yet to be produced. So while behavior modification to avoid helmet-to-helmet or helmet-to-ground contact continues, the unfortunate many continue to sustain near-term, and quite possibly long-term, injuries on the football field that are yet to be mitigated as much as possible by next generation helmet design. Clinical consequences of these injuries may include: heightened risk of concussion and other so-called minor traumatic brain injuries (mTBIs), skull fracture, spinal cord injury, osteoligamentous disruption, depression, neurocognitive impairment, impaired motor function, even death, and in the long-term, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia, and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).
Currently, football helmet manufacturers develop helmets that meet the NOCSAE (ND) 001-08 m08b adult helmet drop testing linear acceleration and Gadd Severity Index criteria. This NOCSAE standard emphasizes protection against catastrophic brain injury and skull fracture only, and does not similarly prioritize reducing concussion risk, spine injury risk, or risk of long-term sequelae like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, dementia, or CTE. For adolescent and youth helmets, adult helmets meeting the NOCSAE catastrophic head injury criterion are scaled-down only considering the head anthropometry of these younger players; no specific tailoring of shell, padding or facial and mandibular protector is made to consider youth or adolescent developing neurological systems, developing musculoskeletal systems, or differing injury risks from full-grown adult players. Because younger players are theoretically subjected to lower energy impacts during practice and competition (due to lower effective impact mass and velocity of the colliding players vs. mature athletes), scaled-down adult helmets may not be optimized to mitigate their potential injuries. Adult football helmets are thusly designed solely to mitigate severe skull fracture and catastrophic brain injury; scaled-down adolescent and youth helmets optimized to mitigate adult skull fracture tolerance likely do not address potential risk to the developing skull, brain, neck, and spine of these younger football players. And no helmets have yet been designed to minimize head impact dosage accumulation across a broad range of in-game type impacts (average of ˜25 g, maximum upwards of 50 g to 150 g). Further, there is no existing standard means to quantify these scaled-down adult helmets' influence on youth head, neck and injury risk.
Therefore, it may be desirable to develop specific football helmet protective components that minimize head injury risk for adult, adolescent, and youth players. While much football helmet impact testing has been commissioned by the National Football League, NOCSAE, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), helmet design has remained relatively constant over the past two decades with less of a focus on rigorously proven engineering designs to attenuate energy/momentum transfer to the head, and more attention paid to factors such as industrial design, low-cost manufacturing, and ease of helmet sanitization. Further hamstringing efforts is that currently there is a dearth of objective data correlating intrinsic helmet properties (mass, center of gravity, moments of inertia, force-deflection properties) to football player head, neck, and spine injury risk (risks can be calculated using, for example, Gadd Severity Index, Angular Velocity, Angular Acceleration, spine forces/moments).

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In an embodiment of the present invention, a football helmet is described. An outer shell is configured to at least partially surround a head of a wearer. An inner liner is located substantially within the outer shell and is configured to contact at least a portion of the head of the wearer. A facial and mandibular protector is attached to the outer shell and is configured to at least partially surround a face of the wearer. The helmet has a center of gravity which, when the helmet is being worn, is substantially the same in three-dimensional location to the center of gravity of the head of the wearer.
In an embodiment of the present invention, a football helmet is described. An outer shell is configured to at least partially surround a head of a wearer. An inner liner is located substantially within the outer shell and is configured to contact at least a portion of the head of the wearer. A facial and mandibular protector is attached to the outer shell and is configured to at least partially surround a face of the wearer. The helmet has a helmet moment of inertia which is chosen to reduce a risk of injury to the wearer when force is exerted upon the head of the wearer.
In an embodiment of the present invention, a method of protecting at least one body structure of a wearer during athletic competition is described. A football helmet includes an outer shell configured to at least partially surround a head of a wearer. An inner liner is located substantially within the outer shell and is configured to contact at least a portion of the head of the wearer. A facial and mandibular protector is attached to the outer shell and is configured to at least partially surround a face of the wearer. A center of gravity of the helmet is configured to be substantially the same in two-dimensional location to the ventral-dorsal plane of the head of the wearer when the helmet is being worn.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a better understanding of the invention, reference may be made to the accompanying drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 is a labeled diagram of a human skull, indicating commonly understood directions and landmarks;

FIG. 2 is a side view of a human head showing relative locations of centers of gravity of the head and of currently available helmets during wear; and

FIG. 3 is a bar graph giving various helmet weights for a number of different user ages.

DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS

In a full-grown midsize male, the head 100, shown in FIG. 1, weighs 4.54 kg (Humanetics ATD, Hybrid III 50^thMale Specifications). The current range of commercially available adult football helmet masses (also known as “Varsity” helmets) designed for this midsize male head 100 is given below in Table 1:

TABLE 1

Varsity helmet mass and percentage of head mass
Varsity Helmets Meeting NOCSAE Standards

MANUFACTURER	MODEL	MASS (kg)	% of Head Mass

Adams	A2000	1.40	31%
	A4	1.30	29%
Riddell	VSR-4	1.90	42%
	Revolution	1.81	40%
	Revolution IQ	1.90	42%
	Revolution Speed	1.87	41%
Schutt	Air Advantage	1.68	37%
	Air XP	1.77	39%
	DNA Pro+	1.91	42%
	Ion 4D	1.98	44%
Xenith	X1	1.97	43%
Rawlings	Quantum	2.02	44%
Average	—	1.79	40%

Therefore, as a percentage of head 100 mass, current Varsity football helmets add anywhere from 29% to 44% additional mass to the head 100.
When analyzing youth head 100 sizes and helmet mass, additional data, sorted by age category of the wearer, are presented in Table 2:

TABLE 2

Youth head mass and calculated helmet percentage of head mass

	Average	Calculated	Helmet mass
Average	Helmet	Head	as % of
Age (yrs)	Weight (kg)	mass (kg)	head mass

7.5	1.74	4.05	43%
9.1	1.74	4.27	41%
10.9	1.73	4.37	40%
15.0	1.89	4.57	41%
17.0	1.89	4.58	41%
Mature	1.79	4.54	40%

Thus, when examining helmet mass as a percentage of head 100 mass from real world data, youths aged 7.5 to 17.0 years of age don helmets that weigh 40% to 43% of their total head 100 mass.
Current data on head 100 supported mass (HSM), in which helmets weighing 1.59 kg to 3.40 kg were tested in an impact environment, indicates that neck shear and tension loads, as well as extension bending torque and Neck Injury Criterion (Nij), are statistically significantly proportional between increased HSM and these injury risk metrics. Likely, there is also increased axial loading of the spine and similar lateral bending and shear loading injury risk with a heavier helmet. Additional research has shown a linkage between higher neck force, neck torque and Nij, and heavier helmet mass. Finally, studies on neck muscle activation and resulting soreness from inertial loading while wearing helmets showed that higher helmet masses increased neck muscle activation and increased pain for volunteers. These studies pointed to possible injurious consequences with high-g loading.
Lighter mass helmets may help with reduce concussion, head 100, neck and spine injury. Furthermore, even amongst the helmets presented in Table 1, the total mass varies by 0.72 kg which indicates weight can be drastically reduced while maintaining current protection. Ostensibly, all of these helmets offer equivalent protection—they have all passed the same NOCSAE certification criterion—while being constructed of different materials (EPP foam vs. vinyl nitrile vs. air dampers vs. conical plastic, etc).
As shown in FIG. 1, in a full-grown midsize male, the head 100 center of gravity (CG, shown at 102 in the Figures) is located in the mid-sagittal (XZ) plane in an area 2.6±0.7 cm rostral (in −Z direction) and 0.7±0.6 cm ventral (in +X direction) to the tragion.
Current football helmets do not appear to be designed to consider head CG 102 location. As can be clearly seen via the various dots clustered to the left of the CG 102 in FIG. 2, all current Varsity helmet CGs (a variety of which are shown generally at 104) are located ventral (from ˜2 cm to 7 cm) and rostral (from ˜1 cm to 5 cm) to the head CG 102 (represented by the checkered dot in FIG. 2). The ventral helmet CG 104 location has been shown to have an inversely proportional relationship to neck shear, neck tension, neck flexion, and flexion Nij while having a directly proportional relationship to neck extension and extension Nij. The rostral helmet CG 104 location has been shown to have an inversely proportional relationship to neck tension, neck extension, and extension Nij while having a directly proportional relationship to neck shear and flexion Nij. Data from computer simulations indicate that ventral and rostral helmet CG locations produce the highest risk of neck injury in omnidirectional impacts. Additionally, anecdotal evidence from athlete interviews indicate that this ventral and rostral helmet CG 104 location tends to pull the head 100 ventral and caudal, even causing some athletes to rest their front-heavy helmets against their sternum in between plays. A ventral and caudal posture, such as that encouraged by current Varsity helmet designs, greatly increases risk for head 100, neck, and spine injury due to improper tackling alignment of the head 100 and neck. Ventral and rostral helmet CG 104 location also exacerbates bending torques for helmet contact locations above the Frankfort plane and could also increase loading for players subjected to inertial loading in a “whiplash” style tackle. Hence, to help reduce head 100, neck, and spine injury risk or to otherwise protect at least one body structure of the wearer from injury during athletic competition or any other activity, the helmet CG 104 could be placed in line with the ventral-dorsal plane of the head CG 102, and, optionally, caudal to the head CG 102. Such helmet CG 104 placement is substantially the same in three-dimensional location as the head CG 102, and/or is substantially the same in two-dimensional location as the ventral-dorsal plane of the head CG 102 and concurrently caudal to the head CG 102, may help lend stability to the head/helmet combination, much like the stability of a boat ballasted below the waterline, and may help the head 100 to maintain upright posture as desired. (The phrase “substantially the same” is used herein to indicate that the helmet CG 104 does not need to be precisely identically, but could differ slightly from the “substantially same” head CG, as long as that slight difference has no meaningful effect upon the forces exerted upon the wearer.
Moment of inertia (MOI) is a physical property that quantifies an object's tendency to rotate or not rotate. High MOI is indicative of an object that is more difficult to rotate, but once rotating, carries higher rotational torque. Conversely, an object having low MOI begins rotating more easily but incurs lower rotational torque. A simple example of MOI influence on rotation exists in figure skating. A competitor who is spinning with arms outstretched (highest MOI due to maximum mass distance from body CG) will spin slower than the same competitor with arms tucked tightly (lowest MOI due to minimum mass distance from body CG) at their sides. Football helmet designs have not yet been designed to place mass at predetermined distances from head CG 102. Hence, selective shell, liner, and facial-mandibular protection mass distribution may positively influence the tendency of the head 100 to rotate. Lower head 100 rotation due to larger mass MOI of a helmet may help lower the risk of mTBI to a player.
Following this understanding, it may be desirable for football helmets to have a predetermined rotational MOI about the three XYZ axes to help reduce injury risk. An example of a suitable predetermined MOI maximizes the percentage of helmet mass at the largest available distance from the head CG 102 in all three XYZ axes. Particularly, injury risk due to mTBI in the coronal plane should be primarily addressed through predetermined maximum helmet MOI, as rotation of the head 100 in this plane has been shown to carry higher injury risk with similar impact magnitudes as compared to rotations caused by sagittal and transverse plane directed impacts.
Varsity football helmets are designed for the mature Varsity athlete (professional, collegiate, or varsity high school—i.e., any non-youth player). This means that safety testing standards exist only for mature athlete helmets, and not for youth (junior varsity high school, middle school, grade school). Approved mature athlete helmet designs are simply scaled down to accommodate the adolescent or youth player. The result is that youth and adolescent helmets are often nearly identical to Varsity adult helmets in form and function. However, it can be undesirable to treat youth and adolescent football players as “little adults” for helmet design because of the developing neurological, cognitive, and musculoskeletal systems of those younger players. Therefore, scaling of Varsity football helmets down to fit “little adult” heads of younger players might not be appropriate. Table 3 illustrates data from youth helmets currently in use versus adolescent helmets and all commercially available Varsity helmets:

TABLE 3

Age, body weight and helmet weight for Varsity
(mature) and youth/adolescent football helmets

Average	Average Body	Average Helmet
Age (yrs)	Weight (kg)	Weight (kg)

7.5 (n = 9)	30.1	1.74
9.1 (n = 27)	39.1	1.74
10.9 (n = 17)	42.6	1.73
15.0 (n = 17)	75.8	1.89
17.0 (n = 22)	82.2	1.89
Varsity	77.7	1.79
(Mature, n = 11)

From Table 3, it can be seen that the helmet weights for youths are comparable, and sometimes heavier (15.0 YO and 17.0 YO), than the average of Mature ‘Varsity’ helmets first presented in Table 1.
Therefore, youth and adolescent player anthropometry (head 100 and neck size) and neck strength (neck forces and torques) can serve to generate scaling factors to predict desired helmet characteristics. These data are presented in Table 4:

TABLE 4

Head anthropometry from youth/adolescent football players compared
with ‘Mature’ norms and their respective scale factors

	Head				Head		Head
Subject	Breadth	Scale	Head	Scale	Circumference	Scale	Calculated	Scale
(yrs)	(cm)	Factor	Length (cm)	Factor	(cm)	Factor	area (m{circumflex over ( )}2)	Factor

7.5 (n = 9)	15.0	0.97	18.1	0.92	53.8	0.94	2.13E−02	0.89
9.1 (n = 27)	15.2	0.98	18.6	0.95	53.7	0.94	2.21E−02	0.93
10.9 (n = 17)	15.1	0.97	18.9	0.96	55.0	0.96	2.24E−02	0.94
15.0 (n = 17)	15.8	1.02	19.9	1.01	57.4	1.01	2.47E−02	1.03
17.0 (n = 22)	15.6	1.00*	20.0	1.00*	57.7	1.00*	2.45E−02	1.00*
Mature	15.5	1.00	19.6	1.00	57.1	1.00	2.39E−02	1.00

*due to minor data irregularities, scale factors above 1.00 have been rounded down to 1.00

Notable in Table 4 is that subjects as young as 7.5 years of age have head 100 anthropometry (breadth, length, circumference) that is very similar (linear scale factors of 92% to 97%) to the corresponding dimensions of mature subjects. When calculating head 100 cross sectional area based on breadth measurements between the left and right temples above each respective ear and length measurements between the forehead and occipital protuberance, the linear scale factor decreases to 89% of the mature subjects, but this difference is still fairly nominal. However, these subjects have different neck anthropometry and neck strength.
Table 5 illustrates differences in neck anthropometry:

TABLE 5

Neck anthropometry from youth/adolescent football players compared
with ‘Mature’ norms and their respective scale factors

	Neck		Neck		Neck		Neck
Subject	Breadth	Scale	Depth	Scale	Circumference	Scale	Calculated	Scale
(yrs)	(cm)	Factor	(cm)	Factor	(cm)	Factor	area (m{circumflex over ( )}2)	Factor

7.5 (n = 9)	9.3	0.75	8.3	0.75	29.9	0.78	5.99E−03	0.57
9.1 (n = 27)	9.8	0.80	8.9	0.81	31.4	0.82	6.88E−03	0.65
10.9 (n = 17)	10.0	0.81	9.1	0.83	31.4	0.82	7.13E−03	0.67
15.0 (n = 17)	11.9	0.97	10.9	1.00	36.6	0.96	1.02E−02	0.97
17.0 (n = 22)	12.5	1.00*	11.2	1.00*	38.5	1.00*	1.10E−02	1.00*
Mature	12.3	1.00	11.0	1.00	38.1	1.00	1.06E−02	1.00

*due to minor data irregularities, scale factors above 1.00 have been rounded down to 1.00

As seen in Table 5, the anthropometry scale factors (breadth, depth, and circumference) for the youngest subjects (7.5 yrs) ranges from 75% to 78% of the corresponding dimensions for the mature subjects. When examining cross-sectional area, the scale factor drops to 57% of the mature value. This would indicate a significant reduction in cross sectional area, and a concomitant reduction in neck muscle cross-sectional area. The 15.0 and 17.0 year olds had similar neck anthropometry to that of the mature subjects.

TABLE 6

Neck Moment of Inertia (MOI) and scaling from youth/adolescent
football players compared with ‘Mature’ norms

	Neck MOI -
	about		Neck MOI -
	flexion/		about
Subject	extension	Scale	lateral	Scale
(yrs)	axis (Iyy-m{circumflex over ( )}4)	Factor	axis (Ixx-m{circumflex over ( )}4)	Factor

7.5 (n = 9)	2.55E−06	0.32	3.20E−06	0.32
9.1 (n = 27)	3.41E−06	0.43	4.16E−06	0.42
10.9 (n = 17)	3.68E−06	0.46	4.46E−06	0.45
15.0 (n = 17)	7.65E−06	0.97	9.07E−06	0.91
17.0 (n = 22)	8.57E−06	1.00*	1.07E−05	1.00*
Mature	7.92E−06	1.00	1.00E−05	1.00

*due to minor data irregularities, scale factors above 1.00 have been rounded down to 1.00

When considering the MOI scaling factors, which are based on neck depth and breadth assuming prismatic beam theory, the MOI about both flexion/extension and lateral bending axes for the 7.5 year-olds is only 32% of the mature subjects. This indicates a significant theoretical drop in resistance to bending torques simply by virtue of the thinner necks on the youth subjects. The 15.0 and 17.0 year-olds had similar MOIs to each other and to the Mature subjects.
In order to confirm the design constraints for helmets with respect to subject age, in tandem with anthropometry differences, data on neck strength is collected and analyzed as shown in Table 7:

TABLE 7

Maximum isometric neck forces and scaling developed by
youth/adolescent football players compared with ‘Mature’ norms

			Ventral		Lateral
	Posterior		Neck		Neck
	Neck	Scale	Force	Scale	Force	Scale
Subject (yrs)	Force (N)	Factor	(N)	Factor	(N)	Factor

7.5 (n = 9)	48.0	0.18	48.8	0.25	52.3	0.28
9.1 (n = 27)	52.7	0.20	82.2	0.42	74.2	0.39
10.9 (n = 17)	58.3	0.22	85.1	0.43	72.2	0.38
15.0 (n = 17)	114.3	0.43	147.5	0.75	149.9	0.79
17.0 (n = 22)	166.0	0.63	185.7	0.94	186.7	0.98
Mature	265.2	1.00	196.8	1.00	190	1.00

In Table 7, the youngest subjects (7.5 yrs old) are able to generate isometric neck forces of only 18% to 28% of their mature counterparts. The 17.0 year olds are able to generate similar neck forces in both the ventral and lateral directions. All other subjects generated between 20% and 79% of the mature neck force norms.
Table 8 displays the isometric neck torque data for the same groups:

TABLE 8

Maximum isometric neck torques and scaling developed by
youth/adolescent football players compared with ‘Mature’ norms

	Flexion				Lateral
	Torque		Extension		Torque
	C7	Scale	Torque	Scale	C7	Scale
Subject (yrs)	(N-m)	Factor	C7 (N-m)	Factor	(N-m)	Factor

7.5 (n = 9)	5.0	0.16	5.0	0.10	5.5	0.14
9.1 (n = 27)	6.5	0.21	10.3	0.20	9.7	0.25
10.9 (n = 17)	8.0	0.26	11.7	0.23	10.3	0.26
15.0 (n = 17)	18.8	0.62	24.3	0.47	25.0	0.64
17.0 (n = 22)	30.6	1.01	34.6	0.67	34.3	0.88
Mature	30.4	1.00	51.9	1.00	39.1	1.00

In Table 8, as in Table 7, the peak loads are much smaller for the youngest subjects (7.5 yrs old), with torques of only 10% to 16% of the mature norms achievable. It is notable that the oldest subjects (17.0 yrs old) had comparable torque in flexion and lateral bending. All other subjects had neck torques ranging from 20% to 64% of the mature norm values.
Based at least partially on the above data and linear scaling methods, and using standard constant-stress scaling equations developed for injury risk, several scaling relationships may be developed.
First, constant stress scaling for the force (function of area) and moment (function of circumference) are shown in Table 9:

TABLE 9

Force and moment scale factors based on neck area

	λFna Force	λMna Moment
Subject	scale factor	scale factor
(yrs)	(neck area)	(neck area)

7.5 (n = 9)	0.57	0.43
9.1 (n = 27)	0.65	0.52
10.9 (n = 17)	0.67	0.55
15.0 (n = 17)	0.97	0.95
17.0 (n = 22)	1.04	1.06
Mature	1.00	1.00

These scale factors are developed assuming constant failure stress (λ_σ=1) and based on injury risk to tearing of ligamentous structures within the neck and spine. This assumption is important to the scale factors, as utilizing peak calculated isometric stresses from data presented in Tables 3 through 8 (calculating normal and shear stress linear scale factors) would substantially alter the results. Notable from Table 9 is that again, the 15.0 and 17.0 year-old subjects have similar force and moment scaling to those of mature subjects, which indicates similar resistances to loading. However, the younger subjects have force scaling of 57% to 67% and moment scaling of 43% to 55% of the mature subjects. This indicates potentially different safe loading characteristics.
When applying these scale factors for force and moment to a theoretical helmet mass, FIG. 3 illustrates the findings with respect to subject age. For each age, the leftmost bar gives current helmet weights, the middle bar shows predicted force scaling helmet weights, and the rightmost bar represents predicted moment scaling helmet weights.
Utilizing the previously presented data, theoretical scale factors may also be generated for acceleration, Head Injury Criterion (HIC), and the respective NOCSAE testing linear acceleration and Gadd Severity Index (GSI) limits in Table 10. These data may be helpful in understanding safe testing limits for helmets designed according to FIG. 3.

TABLE 10

Acceleration and HIC scaling factors with calculated
linear acceleration and GSI limits for NOCSAE

	λA Accelera-		Acceleration	GSI
	tion	λHIC HIC	scaling -	scaling -
Subject	scale factor	scale factor	NOCSAE	NOCSAE
(yrs)	(head length)	(head length)	test (g)	test

7.5 (n = 9)	1.06	1.10	247	1315
9.1 (n = 27)	1.06	1.10	247	1316
10.9 (n = 17)	1.04	1.06	241	1270
15.0 (n = 17)	0.99	0.99	231	1190
17.0 (n = 22)	0.99	0.99	230	1183
Mature	1.00	1.00	232	1200

It may be somewhat counterintuitive, but the younger subjects' scaling indicates that they could potentially absorb higher linear acceleration (4% to 6%) as well as HIC (6% to 10%) values. The calculated NOCSAE test values reflect the scaling factors and indicate that future certification tests should allow for higher limits for younger subjects.
The combination of Tables 2 through 10 and FIG. 3 can be analyzed to show that:

- Varsity (Mature) helmet weight is comparable to youth/adolescent helmet weight.
- Mature head 100 size is similar to head 100 sizes studied for the 17.0, 15.0, 10.9 and 9.1 year-old groups. The largest difference was seen in the 7.5 year-old group, with head 100 cross-sectional area 89% of the mature norms.
- Mature neck size and moments of inertia (MOI) are similar to the 17.0 and 15.0 year-old groups. However, the neck size (57% to 83%) and MOI (32% to 45%) scaling factors drop rapidly for the 10.9, 9.1, and 7.5 year-old groups. This means that the subjects 10.9 years and younger had comparable head 100 size to mature subjects, but much smaller neck size and MOI to resist loading.
- Mature isometric neck forces are comparable only for the 17.0 year-old group in ventral and lateral loading. All other groups had appreciably lower forces compared to mature norms, with the youngest subjects capable of generating only 18% to 43% of the mature values in all directions.
- Mature isometric neck torque was comparable only for the 17.0 year-old group in flexion and lateral bending. All other groups had appreciably lower torques compared to the mature norms, with the youngest groups capable of generating only 10% to 26% of the mature norm values.
- Constant stress scaling indicates that 15.0 and 17.0 year-olds have comparable force and moment scaling to mature subjects. The younger subjects have much different tolerance to force (57% to 67%) and moment (43% to 55%) loading. This lower tolerance must be accounted for in helmet design. Further, if isometric stress scaling were used, as opposed to the assumption of constant stress, these tolerances would decrease further.
- When calculating theoretical helmet masses based on force and moment scaling, it can be seen that the largest change could be made to helmets currently worn by subjects 10.9 years-old and younger. The current helmets, weighing 1.74 kg should be modified to 0.86 kg to 1.22 kg.
- Finally, although allowable force and moment are reduced for the youngest subjects, the peak allowable linear acceleration, Head Injury Criterion (HIC), and Gadd Severity Index (GSI) is 4% to 10% higher than limits imposed for mature subjects. This is counterintuitive, but is a well-known anomaly in automotive safety scaling of youth versus mature head 100 and neck injury risks. The conservative approach is to leave younger subject tolerance equivalent to the mature subjects until further data are available.

In other words, youth and adolescent players have large heads 100 on a slender neck and less strength-to-area for their neck musculature. The youngest subjects not only have a relatively large head 100 on a relatively thin neck, but their neck is also weaker for the same cross-sectional area. Therefore, while youth and adolescent football players have comparable head 100 size to reported mature norm values, their neck size, MOI, isometric force application, and peak resistive torque developed at the C7 vertebra are only a fraction of the corresponding mature norm values.
Helmets for youths could be scaled in proportion to their head 100 size as well as neck strength as summarized in FIG. 3. This means, for example, that the current 1.74 kg helmet used by 9 year old players should be reduced to 1.22 kg (by force scaling) or 1.00 kg (by moment scaling). For any age youth player, the appropriate scaled helmet mass can be scaled as shown in FIG. 3. One caution, however, is that these scaling terms do not necessarily relate to head 100, neck, or spine injury risk. Hence, lighter helmets should have the same protectivity as illustrated in the acceleration scaling and HIC/GSI scaling in Table 10. For the same 9 year old player, this means the mature acceleration of 232 g should be 247 g and the GSI value of 1200 should be altered to 1315.
Because current Varsity (mature) helmet mass comes from 3 areas (about a third each for the facial and mandibular protector, shell, and padding), there is ample room to reduce weight whilst maintaining protectivity. Some optional material design considerations, as well as example materials for a protective helmet, are presented below.
An outer shell may be configured to at least partially surround a head 100 of a wearer. One or more inner or intermediate liners may be located substantially within the outer shell and be configured to contact at least a portion of the head 100 of the wearer. A facial and mandibular protector is attached to the outer shell and/or inner/intermediate liner(s) and is configured to at least partially surround a face and mandible of the wearer.
Current helmet shells are made from polycarbonate or ABS plastic. These materials are selected mainly for their durability under repetitive impact loading. However, polycarbonate and ABS do not provide maximum energy absorption, as they absorb only 6% to 14% of total work energy during deformation. Furthermore, current shell thickness is a function of the reconditioning process. Much like a hardwood floor, reconditioned football helmets are sanded down after each season and their surfaces refinished. The shells must be of sufficient thickness to allow this process to repeat itself over, for example, the course of the 10-year expected lifespan of a youth helmet. A thinner shell provides more flexural energy absorption.
Because durable hard materials like polycarbonate or ABS lack the aforementioned optimized energy absorption, there is an opportunity for the use of durable soft materials like toughened elastomers. This type of “softshell” concept has yet to gain popularity, but data illustrate that the soft shell can attenuate energy (lower peak acceleration with longer contact duration) during a head-to-head contact better than currently used polycarbonate or ABS helmets. Possible suitable shell materials include, but are not limited to:

- ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene)
- Aluminum ceramic foams
- Ceramic sheeting
- Carbon foams
- Carbon fiber composites
- Closed cell foams
- Expanded polystyrene (EPS) or polypropylene (EPP)
- Epoxy or thermoplastic composite
- Fiberglass
- Fluid filled chambers
- Magnesium
- Nanotubes
- Open cell foams
- Polycarbonate
- Polymer
- Polyurethane

Another energy absorbing concept is to create a rotary “shell within a shell”. There is no reason for the interior padding to be rigidly attached to both the helmet and to the head 100. Therefore, energy absorption may be improved by allowing compliance, or some relative motion, between the shell and padding. The padding can maintain contact with the head 100, the shell can shift and turn about the padding, and the user is protected at all times. This concept is similar to the gliding connections between the skin and skull; if the user's skin failed to move when the user dons and doffs the helmet, the user's skin would tear frequently.
The helmet may benefit from “Stealth Design”—just as in radar applications with the stealth fighter/bomber wherein the surface geometry deflects radar energy, the same concept can be used to deflect energy in direct contacts, in which non-direct contacts are deflected. This causes the striking object to glance off, thus resulting in less energy absorption by the struck object (eg, helmeted head 100) than would have occurred if the blow were direct.
Facial and mandibular protectors currently made with carbon steel or titanium are not intended to absorb energy, but instead are designed to prevent facial injuries and remain rigidly in place throughout a collision. Energy absorbing structures, like a piston or static elastomer/foam at the facial and mandibular protector shock mounting points, or a flexural composite or plastic material that provides energy absorption proportional to the force-deflection material properties, may help the helmet to prevent injuries to the user. These facial and mandibular protectors may also be relatively light, thus facilitating the normalization of the CG 104 of the helmet to the CG 102 of the wearer's head 100.
Facial and mandibular protectors can also move with respect to the shell. Current commercially available designs all utilize rigid facial and mandibular protector-helmet constructs. By making this connection less rigid, more energy is absorbed by the helmet and less energy is therefore transmitted to the head 100.
It may be desirable to reduce the coefficient of friction of the helmet. Plastic shelled helmets have yet to be designed to reduce friction, and hence another opportunity to deflect loading and reduce energy transmission to the head 100 is lost. Low friction can be attained by changing geometry (current helmets flat on the sides could be rounded to deflect blows) as well as material optimization (softshell concepts can create surface tension as low as 20 dyne).
There are also several opportunities to save weight with the proposed helmet design. For example, many helmets use carbon steel facial and mandibular protectors. Use of polycarbonate could cut the facial and mandibular protector mass by approximately 80% and total helmet mass by approximately 26%. Using composite facial and mandibular protectors would further reduce mass.
Inner padding of helmets has commonly been vinyl nitrile foam, air chambers, high impact expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polystyrene (EPS), or the like. These materials are selected for optimal energy absorption at NOCSAE-impact test severities, which are much higher than accelerations experienced on the field. Newer materials, like those listed below, can be used to attenuate energy at a broad range of energies (including NOCSAE-impact tests) to protect against routine and the catastrophic hits. Examples of suitable materials that can be used include:

- Aluminum honeycomb—commonly used by the military and in aerospace applications to resist high strain-rate impacts as well as develop NHTSA crash test barriers.
- Aluminum foam—similar to aluminum honeycomb, but with a smaller volume cell construct.
- Carbon nanotubes—nanotubes can be constructed in desired orientations to transmit energy pathways around the head 100. Nanotubes can also be made that will fracture and absorb maximum energy while maintaining strength.
- Ceramic plating—used by military as lightweight protection against direct focal contacts. High energy absorption/weight ratio. Would likely be used as intermediate layer (between outer and inner helmet layers) to avoid direct contact with cranium or striking mass which may cause fracture.
- Expanded polypropylene (EPP)—current standard helmet material, that can be paired with protective shell constructs.
- Expanded polystyrene (EPS)—current standard helmet material that can be paired with protective shell constructs.
- Expanded polyurethane (EPU)—material that can be paired with protective shell constructs.
- Extruded polystyrene (XPS)—available material that has not been used extensively but has energy absorbing properties.
- Fluid filled padding—there is potential for padding incorporating glycerin-type density material to improve impact energy absorption over homogenous padding.
- Kevlar (Aramid) honeycomb—may be suitable for impact applications.
- Polypropylene honeycomb—similar concept to honeycombs above, different material construction.
- Poron XRD—brand name for material available from the Rogers Corporation, of Rogers, CT, and designed to attenuate impacts.
- Semi-rigid or flexible polyurethane elastomers and foams—behave similarly to viscoelastic materials. Used in NASCAR and IndyCar SAFER barriers.
- Rigid styrene—allows for interstitial cracking, which greatly absorbs energy.
- Rigid urethane foam—allows for interstitial cracking, which greatly absorbs energy.
- Viscoelastic padding—used to deflect proportional to the impact velocity. Softer against lower g-force impacts, stiffest against highest impact severities. These materials have a complex modulus, which is a function of deflection rate, Young's modulus, and percent compression. Utilized in automotive air bags and bumper systems and has high potential when paired with concomitant energy absorbing outer layer that minimizes penetration.

While aspects of the present invention have been particularly shown and described with reference to the preferred embodiment above, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that various additional embodiments may be contemplated without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. For example, any of the described structures and components could be integrally formed as a single piece or made up of separate sub-components, with either of these formations involving any suitable stock or bespoke components and/or any suitable material or combinations of materials. Though certain components described herein are shown as having specific geometric shapes, all structures of the present invention may have any suitable shapes, sizes, configurations, relative relationships, cross-sectional areas, or any other physical characteristics as desirable for a particular application of the present invention. The helmet may include a plurality of structures cooperatively forming any components thereof and temporarily or permanently attached together in such a manner as to permit relative motion (e.g., pivoting, sliding, or any other motion) therebetween as desired. Any structures or features described with reference to one embodiment or configuration of the present invention could be provided, singly or in combination with other structures or features, to any other embodiment or configuration, as it would be impractical to describe each of the embodiments and configurations discussed herein as having all of the options discussed with respect to all of the other embodiments and configurations. A device or method incorporating any of these features should be understood to fall under the scope of the present invention as determined based upon the claims below and any equivalents thereof.
Other aspects, objects, and advantages of the present invention can be obtained from a study of the drawings, the disclosure, and the appended claims.

Claims

Having described the invention, we claim:

1. A football helmet, comprising:

an outer shell configured to at least partially surround a head of a wearer;

an inner liner, located substantially within the outer shell and configured to contact at least a portion of the head of the wearer; and

a facial and mandibular protector attached to the outer shell and configured to at least partially surround a face of the wearer;

wherein the helmet has a center of gravity which, when the helmet is being worn, is substantially the same in two-dimensional location to the ventral-dorsal plane of the head of the wearer.

2. The football helmet of claim 1, wherein, when the helmet is being worn, the inner liner remains relatively stationary with respect to the wearer's head and relative motion is permitted between the inner liner and the outer shell when force is exerted upon the head of the wearer.

3. The football helmet of claim 1, comprising a helmet moment of inertia which is chosen to reduce a risk of injury to the wearer when force is exerted upon the head of the wearer.

4. The football helmet of claim 1, wherein an age category of the wearer is considered during design of the helmet and at least one dimension of the helmet is adjusted during design to provide at least one predetermined protective property for a wearer in that age category.

5. The football helmet of claim 4, wherein the weight of a helmet worn by a wearer 10.9 years old or younger is in the range of 0.86 to 1.22 kilograms.

6. The football helmet of claim 5, wherein the weight of a helmet worn by a wearer 9 years old is in the range of 1.00 to 1.22 kilograms.

7. The football helmet of claim 1, wherein the helmet has a center of gravity which, when the helmet is being worn, is substantially the same in three-dimensional location as the center of gravity of the head of the wearer.

8. The football helmet of claim 1, wherein the helmet has a center of gravity which, when the helmet is being worn, is caudal to the center of gravity of the head of the wearer.

9. A football helmet, comprising:

an outer shell configured to at least partially surround a head of a wearer;

wherein the helmet has a helmet moment of inertia which is chosen to reduce a risk of injury to the wearer when force is exerted upon the head of the wearer.

10. The football helmet of claim 9, wherein, when the helmet is being worn, the inner liner remains relatively stationary with respect to the wearer's head and relative motion is permitted between the inner liner and the outer shell when force is exerted upon the head of the wearer.

11. The football helmet of claim 9, comprising a center of gravity which, when the helmet is being worn, is substantially the same in two-dimensional location as the ventral-dorsal plane of the head of the wearer.

12. The football helmet of claim 11, wherein the helmet has a center of gravity which, when the helmet is being worn, is substantially the same in three-dimensional location as the center of gravity of the head of the wearer.

13. The football helmet of claim 11, wherein the helmet has a center of gravity which, when the helmet is being worn, is caudal to the center of gravity of the head of the wearer.

14. The football helmet of claim 9, wherein an age category of the wearer is considered during design of the helmet and at least one dimension of the helmet is adjusted during design to provide at least one predetermined protective property for a wearer in that age category.

15. The football helmet of claim 14, wherein the weight of a helmet worn by a wearer 10.9 years old or younger is in the range of 0.86 to 1.22 kilograms.

16. The football helmet of claim 14, wherein the weight of a helmet worn by a wearer 9 years old is in the range of 1.00 to 1.22 kilograms.

17. A method of protecting at least one body structure of a wearer during athletic competition, the method comprising the steps of:

providing a football helmet, comprising

an outer shell configured to at least partially surround a head of a wearer,

an inner liner, located substantially within the outer shell and configured to contact at least a portion of the head of the wearer, and

configuring a center of gravity of the helmet to be substantially the same in two-dimensional location as the ventral-dorsal plane of the head of the wearer when the helmet is being worn.

18. The method of claim 17, including the steps of:

exerting a force upon the head of the wearer when the helmet is being worn;

maintaining the inner liner relatively stationary with respect to the wearer's head when the force is exerted upon the head of the wearer; and

permitting relative motion between the inner liner and the outer shell when force is exerted upon the head of the wearer.

19. The method of claim 17, including the step of choosing a helmet moment of inertia to reduce a risk of injury to the wearer when force is exerted upon the head of the wearer.

20. The method of claim 17, including the steps of:

considering an age category of the wearer during design of the helmet; and

adjusting at least one dimension of the helmet during design to provide at least one predetermined protective property for a wearer in the considered age category.

21. The method of claim 20, wherein the weight of a helmet worn by a wearer 10.9 years old or younger is in the range of 0.86 to 1.22 kilograms.

22. The method of claim 20, wherein the weight of a helmet worn by a wearer 9 years old is in the range of 1.00 to 1.22 kilograms.

23. The method of claim 17, wherein the step of configuring a center of gravity of the helmet includes the step of configuring a center of gravity of the helmet to be substantially the same in three-dimensional location as the center of gravity of the head of the wearer when the helmet is being worn.

24. The method of claim 17, wherein the step of configuring a center of gravity of the helmet includes the step of configuring a center of gravity of the helmet to be caudal to the center of gravity of the head of the wearer when the helmet is being worn.