• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>International society for skiing safety congress >Terrain Park Jump Design: Would Limiting Equivalent Fall Height Reduce Spine Injuries?
【24h】

Terrain Park Jump Design: Would Limiting Equivalent Fall Height Reduce Spine Injuries?

机译：地形公园跳跃设计：将限制等效的秋季高度减少脊柱伤？

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

It has been suggested that contouring the landing area of a terrain park jump, by increasing the landing slope with increasing horizontal distance from the takeoff ramp of a jump, would reduce the likelihood of injury. In theory, this limits the component of center-of-mass velocity that is normal to the snow surface at contact. In published works that recommend this jump design, velocity normal to the snow surface at contact is converted into an equivalent height above the ground, referred to as equivalent fall height (EFH). The purpose of the current research is to evaluate the injury mitigation potential of a landing surface that limits EFH. An instrumented 50th-percentile male Hybrid III anthropomorphic test device (ATD) fitted with snowboarding equipment was used to determine the head accelerations, cervical spine loads, and lumbar spine loads associated with landing on a snow surface in backward rotated configurations. For these tests, the ATD was suspended above a hard-packed, snow-filled box, rotated backwards, and allowed to fall onto the snow. The ATD fall distance and backward rotation were varied in order to adjust the EFH (range: 0.23 to 1.52 m) and torso to snow angle at impact (range: 0 to 92°). The peak resultant linear and angular head accelerations, peak cervical spine load, and peak lumbar spine load were determined for each trial and compared to the loads associated with severe injuries from the biomechanical engineering literature. Full sets of data were recorded for thirteen test trials. The peak resultant linear and angular head accelerations were well below the levels associated with severe brain injury. For eight of the tests, the cervical spine compression exceeded the average compression known to create severe injuries [Nightingale, R. W., McEIhaney, J. H., Richardson, W. J. and Myers, B. S., “Dynamic Responses of the Head and Cervical Spine to Axial Impact Loading," J. Biomech., Vol. 29,1996, pp. 307-318; Maiman, D. J., Sances, A. Jr., Myklebust, J. B., Larson, S. J? Houterman, C., Chilbert, M., and El-Ghatit, A. Z., “Compression Injuries of the Cervical Spine: A Biomechanical Analysis,” Neurosurgery, Vol. 13, 1983, pp. 254-260]. All of the tests produced cervical spine flexion moments above those associated with cervical spine failure found in the literature. There was no correlation between cervical spine compression and EFH (R~2=0.03), but there was a significant correlation with torso to snow surface angle at landing (R~2=0.90). Results of the present study indicate that the likelihood of severe brain injury was low for all impacts within the EFHs examined. Despite this, even low EFHs can produce cervical spine loads well above the levels associated with severe cervical spine injury; these results support the findings of Dressier et al. [Dressier, D., Richards, D., Bates, E., Van Toen, C. and Cripton, P., “Head and Neck Injury Potential With and Without Helmets During Head-First Impacts on Snow,” Skiing Trauma Safety, 19th Volume, STP 1553, R. Johnson, J. Shealy, R. Greenwald and I. Scher, Eds., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, pp. 235-249], who used a partial ATD without rotational kinematics. Furthermore, the lack of relationship between EFH and the metrics related to severe neck injury in the testing suggest that landing configuration is more important than EFH in determining injury likelihood of cervical spine from a backward rotated, unsuccessful jump landing.
机译：已经建议，通过增加从跳跃的起飞坡道的增加水平距离增加着陆坡，轮廓沿着地形公园的着陆区域跳跃，将降低伤害的可能性。理论上，这限制了垂直于雪表面的质量速度的组成部分。在推荐这种跳跃设计的公布作品中，接触处的雪表面正常的速度被转换为地面上方的等效高度，称为等效的秋季高度（EFH）。目前研究的目的是评估限制EFH的着陆表面的损伤缓解潜力。使用滑雪板设备的仪表50百分位的雄性杂交III拟人拟人拟人测试装置（ATD）用于确定与在旋转配置中的雪面上着陆的头部加速度，颈椎负荷和腰椎荷载。对于这些测试，ATD悬挂在硬填充，充满积雪的盒子上方，向后旋转，并允许落在雪地上。变化ATD距离和向后旋转，以调节EFH（范围：0.23至1.52米），并在撞击时躯干到雪角（范围：0至92°）。针对每次试验确定峰值得到的线性和角头加速，峰值颈脊柱载荷和峰值腰椎载荷，并与生物力学工程文献中严重损伤相关的载荷相比。记录了全套数据，用于十三个测试试验。峰值得到的线性和角头加速度远低于与严重脑损伤相关的水平。对于八个测试，颈椎压缩超过了造成严重伤害的平均压缩[夜莺，RW，Mceihaney，JH，Richardson，WJ和Myers，BS，“头部和颈椎动态反应到轴向冲击载荷， “J. Biomech。，Vol。29,1996，PP。307-318; Maiman，DJ，Sances，A. Jr.，Myklebust，JB，Larson，S. J？Houterman，C.，Clbert，M.和EL-GHATIT，AZ，“颈椎压缩损伤：生物力学分析”神经外科，Vol。13,1983，PP。254-260。254-260。254-260]。所有测试产生颈椎屈曲时刻，上方与颈椎失效相关的颈椎屈曲矩在文献中发现。颈椎压缩和EFH之间没有相关性（R〜2 = 0.03），但与着陆时与躯干有显着相关性（R〜2 = 0.90）。本研究结果表明，严重的脑损伤的可能性很低，因为所有的艾夫斯均审查的所有影响都很低。尽管如此，甚至l OW EFHS可以生产颈椎负荷远高于与严重颈椎损伤相关的水平;这些结果支持Clessier等人的研究结果。 [打扮，D.，理查德，D.，Bates，E.，Van Toen，C.和Cripton，P.，“头部和颈部损伤电位，并且在雪地上的头部第一次冲击期间没有头盔，”滑雪创伤安全，第19卷，STP 1553，R. Johnson，J. Shealy，R. Greenwald和I. Scher，EDS。，ASTM International，West Conshohocken，Pa，2012，PP。235-249]，他们在没有旋转运动学的情况下使用部分ATD 。此外，在测试中缺乏与严重颈部损伤有关的术语之间的关系表明，着陆配置比EFH更重要，在确定颈椎从后旋转，不成功的跳转降落中确定颈椎的损伤可能性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号