Project Card 02

Helmet Testing Rig - Conceptual Design and Experimental Evaluation Protocol

Project Pathway

🟩 Experimental Test System (Proof-of-Concept)

1. Background & Motivation

Helmets are among the most effective personal protective equipment (PPE) for preventing or mitigating head injuries in sports, transportation, and occupational environments. Their protective performance depends not only on material properties, but also on test conditions, injury metrics, and evaluation protocols.

Commercial helmet testing laboratories rely on expensive standardized rigs and equipment, often inaccessible in developing countries. As a result, locally produced or widely used helmets may not undergo biomechanically meaningful evaluation.

This project aims to develop a conceptual and technical design of a helmet testing rig, suitable for evaluating helmet performance using biomechanically relevant injury metrics under realistic resource constraints.

2. Core Biomechanical Question

How can helmet protective performance be evaluated using a simplified but biomechanically meaningful testing rig and injury assessment protocol?

3. Injury Mechanisms & Relevant Injury Criteria

The project should consider:

Head injury mechanisms relevant to helmeted impacts:
- Linear acceleration
- Rotational acceleration
- Impact energy dissipation
Helmet-head interaction
Effect of impact direction and surface compliance

Relevant injury metrics may include:

Resultant head acceleration
Head Injury Criterion (HIC)
Peak rotational acceleration (conceptual discussion)
Energy absorption and impact attenuation indicators

Students must justify the selection of injury metrics with respect to helmet performance evaluation.

4. Modeling / Design Approach

This is a proof-of-concept system design project.

The student is expected to:

Translate injury mechanisms into test objectives
Design a helmet testing rig concept (drop, pendulum, guided impact, or hybrid)
Propose a testing protocol, not just a device

Numerical modeling or FEM may be used optionally to support design decisions, but is not required.

5. Technical Specification (Core Section)

The project must include a detailed system design covering:

a) Test Rig Architecture

Overall configuration (drop tower, pendulum, guided rail, etc.)
Impact surface characteristics
Adjustability (impact velocity, angle)

b) Headform / Dummy Interface

Type of headform assumed (rigid, simplified dummy, conceptual ATD)
Helmet mounting considerations
Repeatability of positioning

c) Instrumentation

Sensors required (e.g., accelerometers)
Sensor placement and coordinate systems
Data acquisition requirements

d) Test Protocol

Impact scenarios (locations, directions)
Number of tests per helmet
Pass/fail or comparative evaluation logic

Clear schematics, block diagrams, or system layouts are expected.

6. Validation Strategy & Limitations

The project must explicitly address:

How the testing results could be validated:
- comparison with existing standards,
- comparison with literature data,
- qualitative trend validation
What injury claims cannot be made using the proposed rig
Limitations related to:
- simplified headform,
- lack of full biofidelity,
- reduced instrumentation

This section is mandatory.

7. Feasibility & Resource Awareness

The project must include a realistic feasibility assessment:

Estimated cost (order-of-magnitude)
Locally available materials and components
Required infrastructure (space, safety, power)
Operational and safety considerations

Designs assuming access to advanced laboratories or proprietary equipment will be penalized.

8. Expected Outcomes

By the end of the project, the student should deliver:

A conceptual design of a helmet testing rig
A rig-specific experimental evaluation protocol for helmet testing
Proposed injury metrics and interpretation strategy
Recommendations for local helmet safety assessment

The outcome should be suitable as a foundation for future laboratory setup or policy guidance.

9. Deliverables

Final Report (20-25 pages, excluding appendices)
System schematics and design drawings
Testing protocol documentation
Cost estimation table
Oral presentation (15-20 minutes)

Optional appendices:

CAD models
Sensor datasheets
Example test scenarios

10. Project-Specific Grading Rubric

Criterion	Description	Weight
Problem formulation & relevance	Clear safety problem definition and context	10%
Injury mechanism understanding	Correct biomechanical reasoning for helmeted impacts	15%
Injury metric selection & justification	Appropriateness and critical discussion of metrics	10%
System design quality	Coherence and logic of test rig and protocol	20%
Technical specification & clarity	Quality of schematics, protocols, and descriptions	15%
Validation & limitations	Realistic validation strategy and limitations analysis	15%
Feasibility & professionalism	Cost realism, local feasibility, safety awareness	15%
Total		100%

11. Project Scope Agreement

By choosing this project, the student agrees to:

Focus on evaluation methodology, not certification
Respect local resource constraints
Clearly state assumptions and limitations

Note:
A meaningful helmet evaluation framework does not require expensive equipment - it requires correct biomechanical thinking.