Quantifying the uncertainty in tribometer measurements on walkway surfaces.

Properly estimating and reporting the uncertainty of walkway surface friction is key to ensuring pedestrian safety. Here we quantified the amount and sources of uncertainty in friction measurements by having four users of four units of each of two walkway tribometer models (Slip-Test Mark IIIB, English XL) perform 12 measurements on four samples of four different surfaces that ranged from slippery to slip-resistant. We found that 51-82% of the total variance in the measurements was explained by the user, unit, sample and a user-unit interaction, which means that the variance a single user calculates from their own data does not capture most of the uncertainty in their measurements. Based on these data, the minimum uncertainty associated with the mean of a user's measurements is ±0.064 (Mark IIIB) and ±0.072 (XL) to be 95% confident that their mean captures a surface's available friction. Practitioner Summary: Walkway surface friction measurements are less accurate than they appear. Based on an experiment quantifying the amount and sources of uncertainty in surface friction measurements using two common tribometers, we quantified and report the minimum uncertainty that users can assign to their walkway surface friction measurements. Abbreviations: ANOVA: analysis of variance; ANSI: American National Standards Institute; CI: confidence interval; E: east; ILS: interlaboratory study; ISO: International Standards Organization; JCGM: joint committee for guides in metrology; N: north; S: south; SBR: styrene-butadiene rubber; SD: standard deviation; TR: test result; W: west.

Contaminant film thickness affects walkway friction measurements.

Walkway tribometers are used to measure available friction for evaluating walkway safety and pedestrian slip risk. Numerous variables can affect tribometer measurements, including the type and distribution of contaminants on the surface. Here, we quantified the effect of application method on contaminant film thickness, and the effect of film thickness on tribometer measurements on the four reference walkway surfaces used in ASTM F2508-16e. Distilled water, 0.05% sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) solution, and 0.04% Triton X-100 solution were poured, squirted, and sprayed onto the surfaces to quantify their naturally occurring film thicknesses. These application methods had a significant effect on the resulting film thickness (p < 0.038), with the pour method consistently generating the thickest films and the spray method generating the thinnest films. We then quantified the effect of film thickness for the three contaminants (thickness range 0.3-3.3 mm) on the friction measurements of three common tribometers (Mark IIIB, English XL, and BOT 3000E) on each reference surface. A separate ANOVA was used for each of the 3 × 4 × 3 = 36 combinations of tribometer, surface, and contaminant. Friction measured with the Mark IIIB decreased with increasing film thickness on one surface across all three contaminants and on a second surface with the SLS contaminant. Friction measured with the BOT 3000E was sensitive to film thickness on two surfaces with water and one surface with Triton. The XL was unaffected by contaminant film thickness. Overall, despite significant differences in film thickness with contaminant application method, friction measurements were either insensitive to film thickness or varied only a small amount in all cases except for the Mark IIIB on the roughest surface. Film thickness did not alter the relative slip resistance of the four ASTM F2508 reference surfaces.

Impact Performance of Certified Bicycle Helmets Below, On and Above the Test Line.

Bicycle helmets are effective in reducing many head injuries, but their effectiveness could be improved if they provided protection over a larger range of impact locations. We sought to quantify the impact performance of 12 helmet models below, on and above the CPSC prescribed test line. All helmets were drop tested at an impact speed of 6.2 m/s. One helmet adequately attenuated impacts below the CPSC limit of 300 g for all impact locations tested below, on and above the test line. Five helmets met this limit for impacts on or above the test line as required in the CPSC standard, but failed to meet it below the test line (not required in the standard). The remaining six helmets failed to meet the criterion on and/or above the test line. Our findings indicate that consumers should not assume that all portions of a helmet provide adequate and equivalent protection. Our findings also suggest that the CPSC's current system of self-regulation and self-testing by manufacturers does not prevent substandard bicycle helmets from being sold. Public availability of manufacturers' impact test data, an independent testing panel, and/or a wider distribution of impact locations are needed to better protect bicyclists.

Age has a Minimal Effect on the Impact Performance of Field-Used Bicycle Helmets.

Helmet manufacturers recommend replacing a bicycle helmet after an impact or after anywhere from 2 to 10 years of use. The goal of this study was to quantify the effect of helmet age on peak headform acceleration during impact attenuation testing of field-used bicycle helmets. Helmets were acquired by donation from consumers and retail stores, and were included in the study if they were free of impact-related damage, had a legible manufacture date label, and were certified to at least one helmet standard. Helmets (n = 770) spanning 0-26 years old were drop tested to measure peak linear headform acceleration during impacts to the right and left front regions of the helmets at two impact speeds (3.0 and 6.2 m/s). General linear mixed models were used to assess the effect of age and three covariates (helmet style, size and certification impact speed) on peak acceleration. Overall, age was related to either no difference or a statistically significant but small increase (≤0.76 g/year of helmet age) in peak headform acceleration. Extrapolated across 20 years, age-related differences were less than both style- (traditional vs. BMX) and size-related differences. The age-related differences were also less than the variability observed between different helmets after accounting for style, size and certification effects. These findings mean that bicycle helmets (up to 26-year-old traditional helmets and 13-year-old BMX helmets) do not lose their ability to attenuate impacts with age; however, other helmet features that may change with age were not evaluated in this study.

The impact response of traditional and BMX-style bicycle helmets at different impact severities.

Bicycle helmets reduce the frequency and severity of severe to fatal head and brain injuries in bicycle crashes. Our goal here was to measure the impact attenuation performance of common bicycle helmets over a range of impact speeds. We performed 127 drop tests using 13 different bicycle helmet models (6 traditional style helmets and 7 BMX-style helmets) at impact speeds ranging from 1 to 10m/s onto a flat anvil. Helmets were struck on their left front and/or right front areas, a common impact location that was at or just below the test line of most bicycle helmet standards. All but one of the 10 certified helmet models remained below the 300g level at an impact speed of 6m/s, whereas none of the 3 uncertified helmets met this criterion. We found that the helmets with expanded polystyrene liners performed similarly and universally well. The single certified helmet with a polyurethane liner performed below the level expected by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standard at our impact location and the helmet structure failed during one of two supplemental tests of this helmet above the test line. Overall, we found that increased liner thickness generally reduced peak headform acceleration, particularly at higher impact speeds.

The effect of collision pulse properties on seven proposed whiplash injury criteria.

Recent epidemiological and biomechanical studies have suggested that whiplash injury is related to a vehicle's average acceleration rather than its speed change during a rear-end collision. To further explore this phenomenon, the effect of various kinematic properties of the collision pulse on seven proposed whiplash injury criteria was quantified. A BioRID II rear-impact dummy was seated on a programmable sled and exposed six times to each of 15 different collision pulses. Five properties of the collision pulse were varied: peak acceleration (1.3-4.4 g), speed change (3-11 km/h), duration (52-180 ms), displacement (2-26 cm) and shape (square, sine and triangular). Linear and angular accelerations and displacements of the head, and linear accelerations of the T1 and pelvis were measured in the sagittal-plane. Upper neck loads in the sagittal-plane were also measured. Variations within the proposed injury criteria between the different pulses were compared using analyses of variance. Six criteria--peak upper neck shear force, peak upper neck moment, peak retraction, the neck injury criterion (NIC) and two normalized neck injury criteria (Nij and Nkm)--exhibited graded responses that were most sensitive to the average acceleration of the collision pulse. Peak extension angle between the head and T1 decreased with both increasing speed change and peak acceleration, and was, therefore, deemed unsuitable as a whiplash injury criterion for the BioRID dummy. Of the seven criteria, Nij and Nkm were best able to distinguish between the 15 pulses. If the six graded injury criteria are related to the risk of whiplash injury, then the results of this study indicate that the risk of whiplash injury can be reduced by bumper and seat designs that prolong the collision pulse and thereby reduce the average vehicle and occupant accelerations for a given speed change.

Variability in vehicle and dummy responses in rear-end collisions.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the occupant response variability due to differences in vehicle and seat design in low-speed rear-end collisions. METHODS: Occupant response variability was quantified using a BioRID dummy exposed to rear-end collisions in 20 different vehicles. Vehicles were rolled rearward into a rigid barrier at 8 km/h and the dynamic responses of the vehicle and dummy were measured with the head restraint adjusted to the up most position. In vehicles not damaged by this collision, additional tests were conducted with the head restraint down and at different impact speeds. RESULTS: Despite a coefficient of variation (COV) of less than 2% for the impact speed of the initial 8 km/h tests, the vehicle response parameters (speed change, acceleration, restitution, bumper force) had COVs of 7 to 23% and the dummy response parameters (head and T1 kinematics, neck loads, NIC, N(ij) and N(km)) had COVs of 14 to 52%. In five vehicles tested multiple times, a head restraint in the down position significantly increased the peak magnitude of many dummy kinematic and kinetic response parameters. Peak head kinematics and neck kinetics generally varied linearly with head restraint back set and height, although the neck reaction moment reversed and increased considerably if the dummy's head wrapped onto the top of the head restraint. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the proposition that the vehicle, seat, and head restraint are a safety system and that the design of vehicle bumpers and seats/head restraint should be considered together to maximize the potential reduction in whiplash injuries.

Variations in occupant response with seat belt slack and anchor location during moderate frontal impacts.

Both seat belt slack and anchor location are known to affect occupant excursion during high-speed frontal collisions, but their effects have not been studied at moderate collision severities. The goal of this study was to quantify how seat belt slack and anchor location affect occupant kinematics and kinetics in moderate severity frontal collisions. A Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy was seated on a programmable sled and exposed to frontal collisions with a speed change of 17.5 km/h. The seat belt was adjusted either snugly or with 10 cm slack (distributed 60/40 between the shoulder and lap portions) and the anchor location was varied by adjusting the seat position either fully forward or rearward (seat travel = 13 cm). Accelerations and displacements of the head, T1 and pelvis were measured in the sagittal plane. Upper neck loads and knee displacements were also measured. Five trials were performed for each of the four combinations of belt adjustment (snug, slack) and anchor location (seat forward, seat rearward). For each trial, kinematic and kinetic response peaks were determined and then compared across conditions using ANOVAs. Peak displacements, accelerations and loads varied significantly with both seat belt slack and anchor location. Seat belt slack affected more parameters and had a larger effect than anchor location on most peak response parameters. Head displacements increased a similar amount between the snug/slack belt conditions and the rearward/forward anchor locations. Overall, horizontal head displacements increased from 23.8 cm in the snug-belt, rearward-anchor configuration to 33.9 cm in the slack-belt, forward-anchor configuration. These results demonstrated that analyses of occupant displacements, accelerations and loads during moderate frontal impacts should consider potential sources of seat belt slack and account for differences in seat belt anchor locations.

Utilized friction when entering and exiting a dry and wet bathtub.

Bathtubs and showers are a common source of unintentional slips and falls. The goal of this study was to quantify the friction used by barefoot subjects entering and exiting a typical bathtub/shower enclosure under dry and wet conditions. Sixty subjects (30F, 30M) from three age groups (20-30 years, 40-50 years, 60-70 years) entered and exited a slip-resistant bathtub using six movement patterns (three entering and three exiting the tub) simulating actual use. Force plates installed in the tub floor and the slip-resistant deck outside the tub measured ground reaction forces, from which utilized friction and double support times were calculated. Overall, utilized friction varied from 0.102 to 0.442 (0.235+/-0.057) and was 0.058+/-0.040 lower in wet than dry conditions across all movement patterns (p<0.0001). During tub exiting movements, older subjects used less friction than young subjects (p<0.006). Utilized friction did not vary between genders (p>0.14). Double support times were longer in older subjects than in both young and middle-aged subjects for all movement patterns (p<0.0009) and longer under wet than dry conditions for all entry movements (p<0.0001). These data suggest that subjects regard the wet condition as more hazardous than the dry condition and adapt their utilized friction accordingly. These data also show that older subjects are more cautious than young subjects when confronted with the dual tasks of stepping over the tub's apron and transitioning to a surface perceived to be more slippery.

The impact response of motorcycle helmets at different impact severities.

Helmets reduce the frequency and severity of head and brain injuries over a range of impact severities broader than those covered by the impact attenuation standards. Our goal was to document the impact attenuation performance of common helmet types over a wide range of impact speeds. Sixty-five drop tests were performed against the side of 10 different helmets onto a flat anvil at impact speeds of 0.9-10.1 m/s (energy=2-260J; equivalent drop heights of 0.04-5.2 m). Three non-approved beanie helmets performed poorly, with the worst helmet reaching a peak headform acceleration of 852g at 29J. Three full-face and one open-face helmet responded similarly from about 100g at 30J to between 292g and 344g at 256-260J. Three shorty style helmets responded like the full-face helmets up to 150J, above which varying degrees of foam densification appeared to occur. Impact restitution values varied from 0.19 to 0.46. A three-parameter model successfully captured the plateau and densification responses exhibited by the various helmets (R(2)=0.95-0.99). Helmet responses varied with foam thickness, foam material and possibly shell material, with the largest response differences consistent with either the presence/absence of a foam liner or the densification of the foam liner.