This application claims priority to PCT Patent Application No. PCT/BR2016/050095, filed on Apr. 29, 2016, which claims priority to Brazil Patent Application No. BR10201511545-8, filed on May 19, Brazil Patent Application No. BR10201511545-8, filed on May 19, 2015 and Brazil Patent Application No. BR102016008113-0, filed on April 12, Brazil Patent Application No. BR102016008113-0, filed on Apr. 12, 2016.
In general, the present invention relates to improvements in articles intended for individual head protection against impacts and decelerations. More particularly, these articles are intended to protect motorcyclists' heads, but their application may be extended to other activities such as motor racing, cycling, construction, and other situations where it is necessary to protect the brain against injuries. Although the word “helmet” is commonly used to designate such articles produced according to the state of the art, the term Cranial Protection Cell, or CPC, will be adopted in the present description to denote the subject matter of the invention proposed herein, since its characteristics, performance and functionalities surpass what exists today.
The initial considerations set out below are intended to clarify the nature of the problem which the invention is intended to solve in order to make the advantages of the invention more evident.
The helmets—from the Latin caput (head)—arose historically from the need to protect against direct impacts of arrows, spears, swords and, in modern times, against projectiles. Its main function was to protect the skull, and consequently the brain, against direct impact injuries.
From the invention of the motorcycle in 1885 by Gottlieb Daimler and the consequent expansion of motor sports, the need for protection against head injuries due to falls and accidents has increased. The speed and, thus, the acceleration exceeded the natural limits of protection that the individual's skull provides to the brain.
It is worth mentioning that the object of protection is the brain of the individual. Nature had millions of years to create an adequate casing for this task, the skull, but it has limits, surpassed by the speed, acceleration and the forces encountered today.
The inventor, who is a neurosurgeon, explains that brain injuries due to trauma are classified according to the predominant type of force: concussion, diffuse axonal injury (DAI), subdural hematoma, contusion and intra-cerebral hematoma, in the case of predominance of rotational forces; fracture of the skull, epidural hematoma and cerebral contusion due to fracture in case of predominance of radial forces.
As the current helmets are based on the patent of Roth et al. dated 1947 (U.S. Pat. No. 2,625,683) do not work in the prevention of deceleration injuries, since the physiopathology of these was only studied in detail by Thomas Gennarelli in the late 1980s. This kind of injury is known today to be the cause of death and severe sequelae in motorcycle accidents as well as in those involving speed, as the ski accident the formula One ex-champion Michael Schumacher has had.
The injuries resulting from the deceleration are, as already mentioned, the most serious. Among these, concussion and diffuse axonal injury (DAI) are the most dangerous the latter being responsible for most deaths and severe sequelae.
Concussion is a change in consciousness with recovery in minutes and no clinical or structural sequelae resulting from non-penetrating traumatic injury. It occurs at low speed and torque, around 7.5 m/s (27 km/h), mainly in contact sports (American Football, Rugby, Boxing, etc.).
Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI) is a potentially fatal injury associated with torque and leaves severe sequelae in case of survival. It occurs almost as an extension of the concussion except for the fact that the forces and velocities involved are larger. The average speed in the motorcycle accident is 44 km/h and the angle of impact is 28 degrees. Under these conditions, a deceleration injury becomes almost inevitable.
By inertia, the brain tissue undergoes compression, torsion and mechanical shear with structural rupture and cell death.
This set of structural changes causes brain swelling with increased intracranial pressure and encephalic death due to the impossibility of maintaining cerebral blood flow.
In the medical literature, several researchers have already detected the problem. Parreira says:
“Neurological lesions are the most frequent cause of death in traumatized motorcyclists. However, we noticed that the incidence of severe lesions in the cephalic segment in our sample was lower in motorcyclists when compared to other mechanisms of trauma. Among the injuries investigated, motorcyclists exhibited a lower frequency of extradural hematomas, subdural hematomas, subarachnoid hemorrhages and cerebral contusions, but more frequently presented diffuse axonal lesion. This may indicate a certain protection of the helmet against injuries that occur by blow and counterblow, but not against lesions related to abrupt speed and shear reduction (our emphasis) in Parreira, J. G. et al—“Comparative analysis between lesions found in motorcyclists involved in traffic accidents and victims of other closed trauma mechanisms”—Rev Assoc Med Bras 2012; 58(1): 76-81).
Martinus Richter states in an excellent study in 2001:
“The lesions caused by indirect force effect (e.g., acceleration and deceleration) remain a problem. In particular, rotation is an important and underestimated factor. The reduction of the kinetic consequences of the effecting forces should be a direction for future motorcycle helmet generations” in Richter M, Otte D, Lehmann U, Chinn B, Schuller E, Doyle D: Head injury mechanisms in helmet protected motorcyclists: prospective multicenter study. J Trauma 2001, 51:959-958.
Although the global scientific literature has long been concerned with the problem, it has simply been ignored by industry.
Indeed, over the years, the helmet industry has been focused on meeting the certification standards rather than the evolution of neurotraumatology knowledge. All modifications have been focused on the shell, increasing its “resistance” to impact to the detriment of the absorption of impact energy. The result was that, as the shell became stiffer, the absorptive layer became less dense and thicker, increasing the dimensions and weight of the helmets, some even weighing 1.8 kg!
The increase in the dimensions of the helmet does not solve the problem of the prevention of diffuse axonal lesion, and may even be aggravating or even inducing such lesion, because the larger the helmet, the greater the torque over the head, since the applied force is directly proportional to the distance from the center of rotation to the point of impact of the force applied to the shell. The aforementioned work by Parreira is indicative thereof.
As shown by
We are convinced that traditional helmets can generate angular accelerations within the skull superior to the Gennarelli limit of 12,000 rads/s2, above which, depending on the impact speed, there is a 100% probability of DAI. The aforementioned work by Parreira supports this belief. The structured CPC according to the present invention may, according to our estimates, achieve angular acceleration values lower than the median of the Gennareli curve, which performance is still subject to further improvements.
The graph of
In addition to the increased torque applied to the user's head, a larger helmet, such as that shown in
A second aspect of the current helmets refers to the chin guard region. For example, the helmet of the prior art shown in
One additional aspect in which the precariousness of the helmets produced according to the known art relates to the absorptive layer. The main function of the material used in this layer is to increase the impact time. The physical justification establishes that the acceleration is the result of the impact velocity divided by the time when this velocity falls to zero, where:
a=(Vi−Vo)/t where a is the acceleration
Vi is the initial velocity, e.g., the one in which the impact occurs.
Vo is the final velocity, which in the present case is zero.
t is the time spent in the reduction of Vi to zero.
Thus, it follows that the smaller the impact time the greater will be the acceleration to which the head is subjected and, consequently, the force acting on it, according to the expression:
F=m·a
so that
F=(m·Vi)/t where m is the mass of the user's head.
When the helmet strikes an obstacle, the head compresses this layer, which has a resistance to deformation.
Practically all helmets sold in large scale worldwide have expanded polystyrene (EPS), or “styrofoam”, as it is known in Brazil, as an absorptive layer. Despite its widespread use, this material presents several disadvantages, such as shear and fragmentation, which compromises its function. In addition, its compressive strength is not uniform, but increases with deformation. As a result, the effective deformation time is reduced, consequently increasing the acceleration and the force acting on the head.
An attempt to improve the performance of the helmets is described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,802,320 entitled Helmet Padding, whose FIG. 1 is reproduced in the present application as
This is a simple padding modification of a known type, which uses expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam, or styrofoam, in two layers with different densities, differing from the prior art only by the provision of said protrusions and complementary recesses. However, the use of such material does not provide any reduction in the size and/or weight of the helmet, resulting in a situation as shown in
The document does not disclose the existence of any technical effect different from those already known which could arise from the use of the structure in two layers of styrofoam with different densities comprising conical protrusions and recesses. Furthermore, as previously pointed out, such material fragments easily, especially when subjected to shear stresses occurring in the case of tangential forces, as exemplified in
Hence, not only is the subject matter of U.S. Pat. No. 7,802,320 totally inadequate for the prevention of Diffuse Axonal Injury, but it also shows a non-uniform resistance to compression, which, in the case of radial impacts, reduces the effective deformation time and, consequently, increases the acceleration acting on the head, as also previously discussed.
Considering what has been laid down, it is a first object of the invention to provide impact absorbing means which minimize the transmission of tangential stresses (torque) on the user's head.
Another object is the provision of impact absorbing means which increases the deformation time.
One more object is to reduce the thickness of the absorptive material to reduce the size of so-called helmets and their mass.
One more object is to increase protection to the region of the user's face, especially jaws and chin.
One more object is to bring the visor closer to the face by increasing the user's field of vision.
One more object is to hold the helmet longer on the head in the event of an impact, since in 38% of the time a known helmet breaks out because it is only held by the jugular strap.
The foregoing as well as other objects are attained by the invention by a cranial protection cell (CPC) provided with impact absorbing means comprising first and second foam layers having different properties from each other, the inner layer closest to the user's head being of low resilient viscoelastic material and provided with protrusions which deform elastically under mechanical stress, and the outer layer, located next to the shell, being of rigid or semi-rigid material, provided with a plurality of cavities into which the above mentioned protrusions complementary and cooperating fit together, wherein said outer layer comprises a material having a lower density than said inner layer material.
According to another feature of the invention, the embossed elements of said inner layer comprise protrusions that fit into the bas-relief elements of said outer layer.
According to another feature of the invention, said outer layer, located immediately next to the shell, comprises a rigid foam with closed cells.
According to another feature of the invention, said inner layer, located between said outer layer and the user's head, comprises a viscoelastic foam, being separated from the users head by a coating fabric.
According to another feature of the invention, the cranial protection cell comprises a chin guard provided with impact absorbing material.
According to another feature of the invention, said impact absorbing material comprises a double foam layer, identical to the one that covers the cranium. Said double layer is supported in the maxillary regions of the face, where there is greater capacity of absorption of impact and also surrounds the chin producing another point of retention of the helmet in the head besides the jugular strap.
According to another feature of the invention, the temporal regions of the cranial protection cell are also provided with the same impact absorbing material pads used in the chin guard.
According to another feature of the invention, the cranial protection cell comprises a visor which, when closed, is embedded in a corresponding aperture of the cranial protection cell's frontal region, thus preventing its accidental opening due to wind intensity.
According to another feature of the invention, the opening of the visor is performed in two phases, the first comprising translational forward movement and the second a rotational movement around a pin-shaped axis.
According to another feature of the invention, the angle of inclination of the visor relative to the vertical is zero, approaching the pantoscopic angle, widening the field of vision and allowing data projection therein. Furthermore, the smaller distance between the visor and the user's face, due to the decrease in the thickness of the foam layers used in the invention, improves the user's field of vision.
According to another feature of the invention, the chin guard moves in 2 forward stages and can be totally withdrawn, turning the cranial protection cell into an open helmet for activities such as skiing and cycling. The first stage is for the placement and removal of the helmet, since when in position zero, it surrounds the mental region (chin) preventing the loss of the helmet in the impact because it is an additional retention point; the second stage is activated for the complete removal of the chin guard.
According to another feature of the invention, the shell has a mechanical behavior that contributes to the dissipation of energy and, at the same time, does not have external protrusions that can cause friction and locking of rotation in case of fall.
According to another feature of the invention, the shell, instead of the commonly used composite materials, is produced in reaction injection molded (RIM) thermoplastic aiming to a mechanical resistance behavior up to a certain limit followed by breaking the shell, fracturing it and dissipating energy.
Further features and advantages of the invention will be evident from the description of a preferred, and non-limiting, embodiment, given as an example, and from the figures it refers to, wherein:
Referring now to
When an impact occurs, the user's head, compressing this layer, causes the collapse of the cells with consequent absorption of energy and increase of the time of impact, with permanent deformation, unlike the EPS, a fundamental function to prevent traumatic brain injury.
This second layer consists of an open cell foam, with a density between 50 and 95 kg/m3, preferably adopting the value of 65 kg/m3. The material's indentation strength at 40% is between 80N and 150N. The thickness of this layer varies between 12 mm and 22 mm, with a preferential value of approximately 17 mm. Like the previous one, its configuration can vary taking into consideration several parameters, being able to be replaced, as before, by another material, provided that it has similar mechanical performance.
As shown by
Still according to
The indented fitting of the foams allows an increase in the impact-absorbing surface, an increase in the deformation time and, more importantly, allows a partial longitudinal displacement between them to minimize torque on the brain. Such displacement is shown in cross-sectional views 6-b and 6-c.
As shown in
As shown in
The set of
According to the detailed internal view of
According to the invention, there is provided a substantially horizontal through slit 39 on each side of the shell, which is provided at both ends with enlargements, i.e., flares into which said pin-shaped axis fits. In the normally closed position, shown in
To open the visor, the buttons 35 disengage each of the pin-shaped axis 40 from said first flare, allowing the subassembly—comprising pin-shaped axes 40, rods 38 and visor 37—to be pushed horizontally forward to the position shown in
To complete the opening procedure, the rods 38 rotate about the fulcrums that correspond to pin-shaped axes 40′, as indicated in
As shown in
In brief, the cranial protection cell (CPC) of the present invention stands out from the conventional helmets for a number of advantages, among which the following stand out:
Thus, the Cranial Protection Cell of the invention embodies a radically innovative concept when compared to known helmets, overcoming the previous technique from a functional point of view, extending in a significant and scientific way the protection of the skull and, consequently, of the brain.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
10 2015 011 545-8 | May 2015 | BR | national |
10 2016 008 113-0 | Apr 2016 | BR | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/BR2016/050095 | 4/29/2016 | WO |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2016/183652 | 11/24/2016 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2867811 | Jones | Jan 1959 | A |
2908911 | Sowle | Oct 1959 | A |
3132345 | Keith | May 1964 | A |
3187342 | Aileo | Jun 1965 | A |
3216023 | Morgan | Nov 1965 | A |
3495273 | Aileo | Feb 1970 | A |
3500473 | Marchello | Mar 1970 | A |
3585638 | Aileo | Jun 1971 | A |
3720955 | Rawlings | Mar 1973 | A |
3723992 | Kamata | Apr 1973 | A |
3729744 | Rappleyea | May 1973 | A |
3843970 | Marietta | Oct 1974 | A |
3934271 | Rhee | Jan 1976 | A |
3946441 | Johnson | Mar 1976 | A |
4023213 | Rovani | May 1977 | A |
4242757 | Nava | Jan 1981 | A |
4259747 | Taesler | Apr 1981 | A |
4307471 | Lovell | Dec 1981 | A |
4312078 | Pollitt | Jan 1982 | A |
4483021 | McCall | Nov 1984 | A |
4524465 | Huber | Jun 1985 | A |
4534068 | Mitchell et al. | Aug 1985 | A |
4553270 | Hoffmann | Nov 1985 | A |
4621377 | Pennell | Nov 1986 | A |
4627115 | Broersma | Dec 1986 | A |
4641382 | Gessalin | Feb 1987 | A |
4665569 | Santini | May 1987 | A |
4689836 | Vitaloni | Sep 1987 | A |
4706305 | Cho | Nov 1987 | A |
4764990 | Markert | Aug 1988 | A |
4769857 | Cianfanelli | Sep 1988 | A |
4907299 | Arai | Mar 1990 | A |
4916759 | Arai | Apr 1990 | A |
5003631 | Richardson | Apr 1991 | A |
5056162 | Tirums | Oct 1991 | A |
5090061 | Kamata | Feb 1992 | A |
5185889 | Kamata | Feb 1993 | A |
5203034 | Foehl | Apr 1993 | A |
5315718 | Barson et al. | May 1994 | A |
5329642 | Dampney | Jul 1994 | A |
5444875 | Taniuchi | Aug 1995 | A |
5687426 | Sperber | Nov 1997 | A |
5713082 | Bassette et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5745923 | Katz | May 1998 | A |
5794274 | Kraemer | Aug 1998 | A |
5950244 | Fournier | Sep 1999 | A |
6047409 | Simpson | Apr 2000 | A |
6081932 | Kraemer | Jul 2000 | A |
6226803 | Tanaka | May 2001 | B1 |
6282724 | Abraham et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6282726 | Neyerie et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6339849 | Nelson et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6360376 | Carrington | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6434755 | Halstead | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6446271 | Ho | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6453476 | Moore, III | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6598238 | Hong | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6711753 | Arai | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6925657 | Takahashi | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6931670 | Arai | Aug 2005 | B2 |
7062795 | Skiba | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7065798 | Kuo | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7207072 | Halsnes | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7398561 | Kim | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7802320 | Morgan | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7814579 | Dion | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7832023 | Crisco | Nov 2010 | B2 |
8051499 | Lee | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8082600 | Morin | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8555424 | Higgins | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8578520 | Halldin | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8918912 | Cho | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8955169 | Weber | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9210961 | Torres | Dec 2015 | B2 |
20010032351 | Nakayama | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20030051289 | Gafforio | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030140400 | Ho | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030229934 | Gafforio | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040019958 | Arai | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040025231 | Ide | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20050196592 | Tao | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050246824 | Berger | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060059606 | Ferrara | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060070170 | Copeland | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060070171 | Copeland | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060112477 | Schneider | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20080009556 | Schneider | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028501 | Schimpf | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20100000009 | Morgan | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100299812 | Maddux | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110107503 | Morgan | May 2011 | A1 |
20110154551 | Spink | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120060251 | Schimpf | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120198604 | Weber et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20130025015 | Isobe | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130312165 | Hardy | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130340147 | Giles | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140075654 | McGinn | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140223641 | Henderson | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140352020 | Isobe | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150059069 | Arai | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150089722 | Berry | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150157083 | Lowe | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150230535 | McGuckin, Jr. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150305427 | Prabhu | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150305430 | Rush | Oct 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1183956 | Mar 2002 | EP |
WO 2005000059 | Jan 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
WIPO, Search Report, PCT Publication WO 2016/183652, dated Nov. 24, 2016. |
Aare et al., “A New Laboratory Rig for Evaluating Helmets Subject to Oblique Impacts,” Traffic Injury Prevention, 4(3): 240-248 (2003). |
MIPS AB, “Helmets for Safety: Science and Technology,” Webpage downloaded from the Internet at https://mipsprotection.com/science-technology/ on May 21, 2021, 11 pp. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180132557 A1 | May 2018 | US |