Smart Materials and Structures

PAPER

Variable area, constant force shock absorption motivated by traumatic

brain injury prevention
To cite this article: Michael Fanton et al 2020 Smart Mater. Struct. 29 085023

Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

Accepted Manuscript is “the version of the article accepted for publication including all changes made as a result of the peer review process,
and which may also include the addition to the article by IOP Publishing of a header, an article ID, a cover sheet and/or an ‘Accepted
Manuscript’ watermark, but excluding any other editing, typesetting or other changes made by IOP Publishing and/or its licensors”

This Accepted Manuscript is © .

During the embargo period (the 12 month period from the publication of the Version of Record of this article), the Accepted Manuscript is fully
protected by copyright and cannot be reused or reposted elsewhere.

As the Version of Record of this article is going to be / has been published on a subscription basis, this Accepted Manuscript will be available for
reuse under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence after the 12 month embargo period.

After the embargo period, everyone is permitted to use copy and redistribute this article for non-commercial purposes only, provided that they
adhere to all the terms of the licence https://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-nd/3.0

Although reasonable endeavours have been taken to obtain all necessary permissions from third parties to include their copyrighted content
within this article, their full citation and copyright line may not be present in this Accepted Manuscript version. Before using any content from this
article, please refer to the Version of Record on IOPscience once published for full citation and copyright details, as permissions may be required.
All third party content is fully copyright protected, unless specifically stated otherwise in the figure caption in the Version of Record.

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 202.170.60.230 on 10/12/2023 at 13:02

Variable area, constant force shock absorption motivated by traumatic
brain injury prevention
Michael Fanton*
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Hossein Vahid Alizadeh*

Department of Bioengineering
Stanford University, Stanford, CA

August Domel
Department of Bioengineering
Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Matthew Devlin
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA

Mehmet Kurt
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ

Godfrey M. Mungal
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA

David B. Camarillo†
Department of Bioengineering
Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Elliot Hawkes†
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA

∗ Co-first authors †Co-senior authors

ABSTRACT

Compact and efficient energy absorption is desirable for numerous applications including manufacturing,
transportation, and protective equipment. An ideal shock absorber is a smart material or structure that can
adapt its force-displacement properties to minimize the peak impact force regardless of the impact energy.
While traditional shock absorbers can produce precisely-tuned ideal force profiles, they are rigid devices that
only compress half of their total length, limiting utility in space-constrained applications. Energy absorbers
that are soft and collapsible, such as foams, do not have ideal force profiles and generally have insufficient
viscoelasticity to adapt to different impact energies. Here, we present a smart structure concept–variable area
shock absorption (VASA)–that leverages a changing contact area in a hydraulically damped collapsible system
to passively adapt the force to the minimum necessary to absorb the energy of an impact. Using an analytical
fluid dynamics model, we derived the contact area as a function of compression to produce a constant force
over the entire stroke of a fixed-orifice damper, and validate this concept experimentally using a preliminary
3D-printed prototype. The VASA prototype follows the constant force profile with a NRMSE between 0.02 -
0.25 at impact speeds between 2.3 and 4.3 m/s. This new approach for absorbing energy is compatible with
full collapse of the absorber, enabling soft devices for space-constrained applications in future work. Potential
applications include helmets that must absorb energy at a near-minimum force level across multiple impact
energy levels.
I. INTRODUCTION

Many different industries share the challenge of safely absorbing unwanted kinetic energy. Virtually all
manufacturing and production processes involve stopping or changing the direction of machinery in motion. In
the transportation industry, unwanted vibrations or impact forces must be dissipated to ensure vehicle
performance as well as passenger comfort and safety (1). In the area of personal protective equipment (PPE),
such as football helmets or construction hard hats, devices must minimize impact forces from people colliding
with objects or others to protect the users. Typically, it is desirable to stop this motion at the lowest possible
peak force to reduce the risk of damage.

An ideal energy absorber is a smart material or structure which minimizes the peak force necessary to absorb
impact energy given a stroke length, and must have the following characteristics. First, it must exert a constant
force over the full stroke length (2,3). With a constant force, the force level is inversely proportional to the
utilized stroke length. To obtain a true constant force level, the rise time of the force must be as fast as
possible. Second, an ideal absorber must exert a magnitude of force that scales with the impact energy in
order to absorb this energy at a minimum force level regardless of impact speeds (2,4).
In Fig. 1, we show the force-displacement curves for a 4 kg mass impacting different idealized energy
absorbers at three different impact speeds. A perfectly elastic material, such as an ideal spring, shows a linear
force-displacement profile that has the same slope regardless of impact speed (Fig. 1A). In contrast, a perfectly
viscous energy absorber, such as an ideal dashpot, has force displacement profiles that scale quadratically
with impact velocity, with an instantaneous rise in force, followed by a decay as the velocity of the mass is
reduced (Fig. 1B). Foams and 3D printed honeycomb materials typically show some viscoelasticity, with force-
displacement profiles that scale weakly with impact speed (Fig. 1C) (5,6). These materials generally have three
regions: a linear elastic region where the force slowly ramps up, a plateau region where the force is generally
constant, and a densification region at around 60%-70% stroke where the material compacts and exerts a
large spike in force level (known as “bottoming out” (6)). Due to this force spike potential, protective gear that
uses foams and other solid materials must be designed to not bottom out in the worst case scenario, making
them tuned specifically for high-speed impacts. This often necessitates foams to be extremely stiff, causing
higher-than-necessary forces at lower impact speeds. An ideal shock absorber could vastly reduce the
magnitude of force needed to absorb an impact compared to springs, dashpots, and foams (Fig. 1D). Rigid
hydraulic dampers can be tuned to provide optimal constant force by varying orifice size (7) or with active

Fig. 1. Force profiles for standard shock absorbers. A) The force of a purely elastic element (e.g., spring) increases linearly with
displacement, and remains the same regardless of impact speed. B) The force-displacement profile of an ideal dashpot scales
with the velocity squared and utilizes entire stroke length, but decays as the mass slows down. C) Foams and honeycomb
materials show some viscoelasticity, with force profiles that scale weakly with impact speed. At around 60-70% stroke, these
materials compact and “bottom out,” producing high force levels. D) A constant force over the full displacement minimizes the
peak force necessary to absorb a given amount of mass kinetic energy. This constant force must scale with the impact energy to
be optimal regardless of impact speed.

valve control (8); however, the rigid design of hydraulic dampers results in a stroke length that is at most half
of the overall size of the damper. Losing half of the usable stroke length necessitates a doubled force level,
thus making existing hydraulic dampers inefficient for use in PPE.

In this paper, we present the concept of variable area shock absorption (VASA), a “smart” approach to energy-
absorption, that enables a minimum force response that passively adapts to the external impact conditions.
The VASA concept comprises a fixed-orifice hydraulic shock absorber with a precisely-tuned contact area
profile that changes throughout the stroke to provide a constant force, as shown in Fig. 1D. As one motivation
of this shock absorber, we consider the challenge of energy absorption in a football helmet. We create a
preliminary prototype to validate the physics of the VASA concept. Although the bench-top prototype does
not have an overall form factor which could fit within a helmet, the choice of its diameter and stroke length
are guided by this helmet application. This approach for absorbing energy is compatible with full collapse of
the absorber, enabling soft devices for space-constrained applications in future work.

Mild traumatic brain injury, more commonly known as concussion, generally results from an impact to the
head or body which causes rapid acceleration of the skull, shearing and stretching the internal brain tissue
structures (9). Although the precise biological mechanisms of this injury are still being investigated, it is well-
known that higher forces and accelerations to the head increase the risk of brain injury (10). While the acute
symptoms of concussion are generally short-lived, recent studies have found repeated impacts to the head
can cause long-term neurodegeneration and increased risk for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Chronic
Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) (11,12). Given that American football is one of the leading causes of the
nearly 4 million sports-related concussions in the US every year (13,14), and that helmets are the primary
means for reducing acceleration of the head (15,16), substantial resources have been allocated towards
creating safer helmets in football. American football helmets are currently evaluated in their potential to
protect against skull and brain injury using instrumented headforms in laboratory testing. The helmeted
headforms are dropped in vertical drop tests (17), and hit using pendulum impactors (18) or linear rams
(19,20), and the resulting head kinematics are used to assess helmet performance. It has been suggested that
a constant-force helmet could reduce the risk of brain injury by lowering the forces on the head (2,21,22), thus
reducing the kinematics of the head after impact. Recently, we have shown that implementing constant force
shock absorbers in a helmet could reduce the risk of concussion by over 75% (4). Here, we show an
implementation of a constant force shock absorber motivated by preventing concussions in American football,
although this technology could be extended to many other energy absorption applications.

II. METHODS

A. Analytical derivation of constant-force profile

We created a simple analytical fluid dynamics model of a mass dropped onto a damper to derive the contact
area profile necessary to provide constant force. Using Bernoulli’s equation with a discharge coefficient 𝐶𝑑 ,
the pressure drop (𝑃𝑜 ) of an incompressible fluid of density 𝜌 and volumetric flow rate 𝑄 across a fixed orifice
of area 𝐴𝑜 is:

1 𝑄2
𝑃𝑜 = 𝜌 . #(1)
2 (𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑜 )2

We assume that downstream of the orifice is at approximately atmospheric pressure. Therefore, the damper
force applied to the mass is given by:

1 𝑄 2 𝐴𝑐
𝐹ℎ = 𝜌 = 𝑀𝑥,̈ #(2)
2 (𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑜 )2

where 𝐴𝑐 is the contact area of the pad, and 𝑀 is the mass. The volumetric flow rate of fluid exiting through
the orifice is given by:

𝑄 = 𝑥̇ 𝐴𝑐 . #(3)

The acceleration needed to bring the mass completely to rest over a stroke length 𝐿 as a function of the initial
velocity 𝑥̇ 𝑜 is given by the following:

𝑥𝑜2̇
𝑥̈ = . #(4)
2𝐿

The velocity of the mass as a function of its displacement is:

 𝑥
𝑥 2̇ = 𝑥𝑜2̇ + 2𝑥̈ 𝑥 = 𝑥𝑜2̇ (1 + ) #(5)
𝐿

Plugging Eqs. 3, 4, and 5 into Eq. 2, and solving for 𝐴𝑐 , we get the following area profile to provide constant
force:

1
𝑀(𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑜 )2 3
𝐴𝑐 (𝑥) = ( ) . #(6)
𝜌(𝐿 + 𝑥)

Note that the area profile is not a function of the initial impact speed, meaning this shape provides a constant
force regardless of the speed of the impact. Contact area increases as a function of the displacement into the
shock absorber, such that it perfectly cancels out the decrease in internal fluid pressure and results in a
constant force (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Analytical modeling of VASA concept. A) Increasing change in contact area cancels out decrease of internal fluid pressure
to create a constant force throughout its entire displacement. B) Contact area increases as a function of pad displacement (from
bottom to top).

B. Collapse mechanics

To study the collapse mechanics of VASA, we performed a hydrostatic free-body analysis of a VASA vessel
during the initial impact with a mass 𝑀 (Fig 3). The force applied to the head (𝐹ℎ ) is equal to the internal
pressure (𝑃𝑜 ) multiplied by the contact area with the ground (𝐴𝑐 (𝑥)). The membrane force (𝐹𝑚 ) applies a load
to the base of the VASA vessel such that the force on the top and bottom of the vessel is equal. At a given
cross section of the vessel, the stress in the longitudinal direction in the membrane can be calculated as
follows using the thin-walled pressure vessel assumption:

𝑃𝑜 𝑟
𝜎𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 = , #(7)
2𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃

where 𝑟 is the radius of the cross section, 𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 is the wall thickness, and 𝜃 is the angle between the line
tangent to the membrane and the horizontal plane. Assuming a collapsible wall membrane, there exists a
small longitudinal pre-tension in the wall prior to impact from the initial pressure inside of the chamber. Once
a mass impacts the top of the shock absorber, the vertical component of the pre-tension in the membrane will
decrease until it reaches zero, at which point it will buckle at the point of zero tension. This occurs at the cross
section with the lowest initial pre-tension, which is the smallest cross-sectional area of the vessel (Fig. 2).
C. Impact dynamics

We developed a framework to model a one degree-of-freedom impact of a mass falling onto a single, idealized
variable area shock absorber to evaluate the impact dynamics at various impact speeds (Fig. 3). The equation
of motion of the mass (𝑥̈ 𝑚 ) is as follows:

𝑀(𝑥̈ 𝑚 + 𝑔) = 𝐹ℎ . #(8)

To solve this equation, we created a time stepping scheme where the fluid dynamics of the system were
explicitly modeled. At each time step, we first calculated the contact area (𝐴𝑐 (𝑥)) of the pad (Eq. 6) based on
the position of the mass.

Following, we calculated the volumetric flow rate (Eq. 3), the internal pressure Po (Eq. 1), and the resulting
force applied to the mass 𝐹ℎ (Eq. 2). The state variables of the mass were then propagated forward to the next
time step using Eq. 8.

Fig. 3. Free-body diagram of a variable area shock absorber, with variables referenced from Section II-A in Eq. 1-6. We assume a
collapsible wall membrane. Prior to impact, there is a light pre-pressurization (14 kPa) within the inner chamber to pre-tension
the membrane. As the head compresses the pad when it begins to make contact with the top surface, the pre-tension in the
membrane walls decreases. The pad will begin to buckle when one point of the membrane reaches zero tension, which occurs
first at the smallest cross sectional area where the longitudinal wall stress is lowest (dark blue).

D. Computational fluid dynamics simulations

To study the validity of the analytical model developed in Section II-A, we created a VASA model using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in COMSOL (COMSOL Inc., USA). The CFD solution domain represents a
variable area shock absorber as a 2D axisymmetric model. The VASA model shown in Fig. 5A includes the
incompressible fluid, walls, and the orifice. The material properties of water are assigned to the fluid model.
The boundaries of the model are set as moving walls (except the bottom wall which includes the orifice). The
orifice is modeled as an open boundary (i.e., outlet). The top wall corresponds to the contact area. The side
wall governs the variation of the contact area given by Eq. 6. The intersection point between the top wall and
the side wall is constrained to slide on the side wall by prescribing zero velocity in the direction normal to the
side wall. The mesh of the fluid region inside the shock absorber is defined as a physics-controlled (turbulent
flow) automatic mesh moving with the walls and is combined with automatic re-meshing tool. Over the course
of the simulation the automatic remeshing is active. Note that during the simulation, the length of the top wall
increases (which is representing the contact area) and the automatic remeshing tool monitors the mesh
quality and re-meshes the solution domain as needed (Fig. 5B). The Skewness measure is used for the quality
of the mesh. In this simulation, the solution domain is re-meshed for 12 times to maintain the quality of the
moving mesh throughout the solution. The solution of the CFD simulation is obtained through the finite
element method (FEM) (23,24), and the turbulent flow is modeled by k − ω turbulence model and Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) method.

E. VASA proof-of-concept prototype

Fig. 4. Experimental prototype and test setup. A) A telescoping shock absorber prototype was developed which approximates
the ideal increasing change in contact area in five discrete steps. B) Experimental test setup consists of a 4 kg mass instrumented
with a linear accelerometer, dropped onto a force plate. Each impact was recorded using high speed video.

We created a 3D printed prototype to the concept of VASA (Fig. 4A). The prototype consists of five discrete
concentric cylinders, in steps that increase in diameter from bottom to top to follow the ideal “volcano” shape
for a mass of 4.3 kg (approximately the mass of the human head (25)), length of 4.5 cm, and circular orifice
diameter of 18 mm. To pick the geometric characteristics of the VASA prototype, we selected the length of the
shock absorber to correspond to the maximum distance between the head and the helmet in a typical football
helmet. Next, we iterated through different orifice diameters and calculated the resulting contact area profile
(calculated through Eq. 6), until we found a shock absorber geometry that was similar to the geometry of
existing air shocks used in football helmets (26).

The cylindrical steps of the VASA prototype telescope such that, during an impact, the step(s) in contact with
the ground will slide into the cylinder above, so that the contact area increases throughout the stroke length
of the shock absorber. Directly above these steps is a pressure chamber. Liquid can escape the pressure
chamber through an orifice located at the top as the steps collapse. Liquid expelled through the orifice is
captured in an elastic refill chamber. The VASA prototype uses water as the liquid medium, entirely filling the
pressure chamber and partially filling the elastic refill chamber in its resting state. The form factor of this
prototype is not soft and fully collapsible (which should be realizable, given the physics of the VASA concept).
Instead, for initial testing, the prototype is made from rigid 3D printed parts, and thus could not fit within a
helmet. However, the purpose of this preliminary bench-top prototype was to validate the physics behind
VASA.
The steps and pressure chamber of the VASA prototypes were 3D printed on a Ultimaker S5 using Ultimaker
Tough PLA (Ultimaker, Utrecht, Netherlands). A thin, 1.5 mm internal elastic bladder was molded out of
Ecoflex 00-50 (Smooth-on, Easton, Pennsylvania) using 3D printed molds to make sure the steps and pressure
chamber were water-tight. The elastic refill chamber was molded out of Dragon Skin 10 (Smooth-on, Easton,
Pennsylvania) with a wall thickness of 4 mm using a 3D printed mold. A pressurization valve made out of a
bicycle pump valve was added to the refill chamber to apply a light back-pressure to the entire system (2-14
kPa) to ensure that the internal elastic bladder inside the pressure chamber fit tightly against the walls of the
3D printed parts. An orifice plate, clamped between the pressure chamber and elastic refill chamber, was laser
cut out of 6.35 mm extruded acrylic.

To experimentally test the effect of orifice size on force response, four different orifice plates were created
with orifices of 15 mm, 18 mm, 21 mm, and 24 mm diameters.

F. Laboratory testing of the VASA prototypes

A custom impact setup was created to test the VASA prototype (Fig. 4B). The VASA prototype (0.3 kg when
filled with liquid) was affixed to a 4 kg solid brass cylinder mass, approximately the weight of the human head,
which was then dropped onto a force plate (430 00 LCEL, Cadex Inc, St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Canada) via a pulley
system. An accelerometer (356A66, PCB Piezotronics, Depew, NY) was bolted to the brass cylinder to record
the vertical acceleration. All accelerometer and force data were collected at 10 kHz with 200 ms pre-trigger
and 800 ms post-trigger and low-pass filtered with a fourth-order Butterworth 1000 Hz cutoff. A high speed
camera (Vision Research Phantom Miro LC320) recorded each impact at 5000 frames/sec with 300 ms
pretrigger and 1000 ms post-trigger. The entire system was triggered by an IR sensor affixed roughly 20 cm off
of the ground.

The VASA prototype was tested at four different impact velocities: 2.3 m/s, 3.1 m/s, 3.8 m/s, and 4.3 m/s. The
2.3 m/s impact was the lowest height that could be tested above the velocity gate. At velocities above 4.3 m/s,
the prototype would not reliably collapse as the steps would often pop out of place due to the high internal
fluid pressures. Prior to testing, the refill chamber was lightly pressurized between 7-14 kPa (1-2 PSI), and
checked with a pressure gauge, to remove all air bubbles and gaps between the fluid-containing bladder and
the side walls. During impact, internal pressures on the order of 100-1000 KPa are expected, and thus this
initial pressurization has little effect on the resulting force output. The VASA prototype was dropped five times
at each impact velocity, and the average and standard deviation of the five trials at each time point was
calculated.
 Fig. 5. Computational fluid dynamics simulation. A) The 2-D axisymmetric CFD domain including unstructured mesh, boundaries,
and the orifice. The orifice is modeled as an open boundary with constant pressure, B) Quality of the moving mesh during the
solution. Automatic remeshing is active.

To quantify the error between the idealized model prediction and the experimental results, we calculated four
error metrics. The root mean squared error (RMSE), and normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) were
calculated for both acceleration and force values:

𝑁
1
̂𝑖 )2 #(9)
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = √ ∑(𝑌𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 − 𝑌
𝑁
𝑖=1

𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸
𝑁𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = #(10)
𝑌𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙

𝑌𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 is the ideal force or acceleration (constant at all time points), while 𝑌̂𝑖 is the measured force or
acceleration at each time point. Only the flat plateau region of the force and acceleration time traces were
used in calculating the RMSE and NRMSE, thus ignoring the initial pressurization period (12 ms) and the
depressurization period following the impact.

Fig. 6. Simulation results. A) Simulated fluid velocity distribution inside the shock absorber at different times during impact. B)
The constant force response of VASA obtained from CFD simulation.
Further, for both force and acceleration, we calculated a first order linear regression fit over the plateau
region to approximate a less-noisy average level of force and acceleration. We calculated the error between
this fit and the idealized prediction:

𝑁
1 2
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑓 = √ ∑(𝑌𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 − 𝑌̂𝑓 ) #(11)
𝑁
𝑖=1

𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑓
𝑁𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑓 = #(12)
𝑌𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙

Lastly, we calculated the shock efficiency (27–29) of the VASA prototype at each of the impact speeds using
the following equation:

𝐹𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙
𝜂𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑐𝑘 = #(13)
𝐹(𝑡)

The shock efficiency (𝜂𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑐𝑘 ) is defined as the ideal minimum force divided by the maximum measured force
from the impact over the full recorded time trace. The average force profile over the five repeated trials was
used to calculate the shock efficiency.
 Fig. 7. Experimental model validation. The telescoping prototype tested at four different impact speeds A) 2.3 m/s, B) 3.1 m/s, C)
3.8 m/s, D) 4.3 m/s, and compared against the ideal constant acceleration profile predicted by the analytical model. Differences
between experiments and model are summarized in Table I.

Fig. 8. Force-displacement profiles of telescopic damper at four different impact speeds A) 2.3 m/s, B) 3.1 m/s, C) 3.8 m/s, D) 4.3
m/s, and compared against the ideal minimum force. Differences between experiments and model are summarized in Table I.

To test the effect of orifice size on the force and acceleration response, the VASA prototype (with area profile
tuned to provide constant force with an 18 mm orifice) was equipped with four different orifice plates (15
mm, 18mm, 21 mm, and 24 mm) and tested at 50 cm drops. Tests with each orifice were repeated five times.

Lastly, we evaluated the capability of our model to predict other arbitrary contact area profiles by testing a
conical, spiral shaped shock absorber (Fig. 10A). This shock absorber was printed out of ABS on a Zortrax M200
3D printer (Zortrax, Olsztyn, Poland). It spirals in the shape of a volute spring, thus giving a contact area profile
with a continuously linearly increasing radius as a function of displacement. This prototype was tested five
times at 3.8 m/s.

III. RESULTS

We used a computational fluid dynamics model to validate our analytical solution to the constant force area
profile. The velocity and pressure distributions of the fluid in the turbulent flow are the main outputs of the
CFD simulation. The fluid velocity distribution at different compression levels is shown in Fig. 6A. The force
generated by VASA is computed by integration of fluid pressure distributed over the contact area. As shown in
Fig. 6B the generated force is constant throughout the variable area shock absorber stroke length.
We tested the VASA physical prototype at four different impact speeds and recorded the acceleration and
force profiles (Figs. 7 and 8). The VASA prototype approximately follows the constant acceleration and force
profiles predicted by the analytical model, scaling based on the impact velocity. For each impact speed, the
RMSE, RMSEf, NRMSE, and NRMSEf are summarized in Table I. The efficiency of the VASA prototype was 71%,
85%, 93%, and 75% at 2.3 m/s, 3.1 m/s, 3.8 m/s, and 4.3 m/s, respectively.

At 3.1 m/s drops, we tested the VASA prototypes with four different orifice sizes to show the effect of varying
orifice size on force and acceleration response (Fig. 9). The prototype area profile was tuned such that an 18
mm diameter orifice size provided a constant force. As expected, the 18 mm diameter orifice provided a
relatively constant acceleration-time and force-displacement response. Increasing the orifice size lowered the
initial force, and led to an increase of force at the end of the stroke length, with the largest orifice size tested
(24 mm) exaggerating this trend. Conversely, making the orifice smaller increased the initial force response,
and prevented the shock absorber from fully displacing through its stoke.

Table I: Error metrics between sensor measurements and the idealized minimum force
Acceleration Force
A B C D A B C D

RMSE 1.53 g 1.19 g 2.77 g 4.67 g 61.69 N 49.92 N 37.53 N 137.98 N

RMSEf 0.970 g 0.543 g 0.905 g 3.02 g 58.06 N 9.55 N 14.16 N 100.87 N
NRMSE 0.245 0.106 0.170 0.222 0.235 0.105 0.054 0.156
NRMSEf 0.155 0.048 0.055 0.144 0.220 0.020 0.021 0.114

Fig. 9. Effect of orifice size on force and acceleration response in 50 cm drops. The shock absorber area profile was tuned such
that an 18mm orifice (red) provided a constant force. The 15 mm orifice provided higher force levels and did not displace fully
through its stroke length. The 21 mm orifice exerted lower force than ideal, and thus a spike in force is seen at the end of the
stroke length. The 24 mm orifices exerted the lowest initial force, and thus bottomed out significantly at the end of its stroke.

Testing the conical-shaped volute shock absorber, we found that the model slightly underestimated
acceleration-time and force-displacement response (Fig. 10), but overall could approximate the shape of the
profile.

IV. DISCUSSION
We presented a novel, variable area shock absorber with a precisely tuned contact area profile to provide
constant force which scales with impact speed. We derive this profile using a simple analytical model, and
verify it with a computational fluid dynamics simulation as well as a simple proof-of-concept prototype.

A. Analytical modeling predicts force response of hydraulic shock absorbers

We showed that a simple analytical model can estimate the response of a variable area shock absorber across
multiple impact speeds. The simple analytical model can be extended to predict the force response of other
VASA designs. For example, we showed that our simple model matches the force and acceleration response of
a conical area profile prototype (Fig. 10). Extending this further, we can use our model to find the necessary
contact area profile for any desired force-displacement profile, as long as the resulting contact area is
monotonically increasing. As we showed in Fig. 3, a variable area shock absorber should always theoretically
collapse at the smallest cross sectional area due to the longitudinal stress in the walls being lowest at this
cross section.

Fig. 10. Experimental prototype to follow arbitrary force profile. A) Diagram of conically-shaped prototype, which spirals in the
shape of a volute spring, giving a continuously linearly increasing radius with displacement. B) Acceleration-time and C) Force-
displacement curves of the experimental results (red) versus the analytical model (black) for a 3.8 m/s drop.

In Fig. 11, we show three arbitrary force-displacement profiles, and the corresponding contact area necessary
to achieve this performance, as derived by our simple analytical model. Both continuous and non-smooth
force-displacement curves are theoretically possible. To calculate the contact area, we created a desired force-
displacement profile, such that the impact energy of a 4.3 kg mass would be fully dissipated over 5 cm (at all
impact speeds). Next, we simulated the expected acceleration (𝑥̈ ) and velocity (𝑥̇ ) of a mass being excited by
that force profile, using Eq. 8. Lastly, the necessary contact area can be backed out using:

1
2𝑀𝑥̈ 𝐶𝑑 𝐴2𝑜 3
𝐴𝑐 (𝑥) = ( ) . #(14)
𝜌𝑥 2̇

In future work, this approach could be used to design shock absorbers where a specific, non-constant force-
displacement profile is desired.

Our analytical model indicates that the force output and the energy absorption behavior of VASA is a function
of the contact area (𝐴𝑐 ) and the orifice area (𝐴𝑜 ) of the shock absorber (Eqs. 1-2). Reducing the contact area
decreases the force output of the absorber; conversely, reducing the orifice area increases the force output of
the absorber. Thus, theoretically, two VASA prototypes of different sizes could produce the same force output
as long as the orifice sizes were tuned appropriately. This suggests that a smaller, scaled down prototype of
the VASA could be used to produce the same energy absorption behavior if the shock absorber weight was a
significant concern for the application. The primary tradeoff is that the internal pressure (𝑃𝑜 ) of the smaller
shock absorber would be increased (Eq. 1), and thus the wall stress would be increased (Eq. 7), and a stronger
material would be needed to create the pressure vessel. Future work will focus on validating the size scaling of
the VASA concept.

B. Experimental testing validates physics of VASA

We created a proof-of-concept prototype using telescoping cylinders to experimentally validate the physics
behind VASA. The prototype was tuned such that it provided a constant, minimum force level throughout its
full stroke length. We found that the acceleration (Fig. 7) and forces (Fig. 8) generally followed the constant
force profiles and the response was repeatable over five trials.

As the impact speeds increased, there were more high frequency oscillations in the measured signals,
particularly in the acceleration. This is likely due to the fact that our 3D printed prototypes were not precisely
machined, and there were frictional forces between the steps and other nonidealities that were amplified as
the internal fluid pressure of the pad increased at higher energy impacts. However, even at high speeds, there
was not significant variability between the trials, suggesting that these non-idealities could potentially be
captured by a more detailed analytical model of our system.

By testing over four impact speeds, we showed that the VASA prototype had high rate sensitivity; however, it
did not scale perfectly quadratically as suggested by the model. The RMSE, RMSEf, NRMSE, and NRMSEf errors
from our experimental results were lowest at the two intermediate speeds, 3.1 m/s and 3.8 m/s. Further, the
efficiency was the highest at these two intermediate speeds. At the lowest speed, the force was higher than
the theoretical minimum over much of the stroke length. Conversely, at the highest speed, the force was
below the theoretical minimum for approximately the first centimeter of displacement. This low initial force
level caused a spike towards the end of the stroke length, at 34 cm of displacement, due to the mass moving
faster than expected because of the low initial force level. Although we were not able to obtain repeatable
data at speeds higher than 4.3 m/s due to prototype failure, we suspect this trend would have continued at

Fig. 11. Variable area shock absorber can be used to follow any arbitrary force profile, as long as the contact area is
monotonically increasing. A) 3 example arbitrary force-displacement profiles; B) the corresponding contact area profiles.

impact speeds higher than 4.3 m/s; indeed, this spike in force (and thus internal pressure) may have
contributed to prototype failure when testing at speeds above 4.3 m/s. However, this was likely an artifact of
our physical prototype design, rather than a problem with the concept of VASA. There were numerous sources
that could have contributed to the non-ideal prototype response at high speeds. There is friction between the
steps, which increases (non-quadratically) as the internal pressure rises in higher speed impacts. Further, in
higher velocity impacts, the internal pressure could create bulging and deformation of the flexible 3D printed
parts, which would be more pronounced at high speeds as the internal liquid pressure rises.

Our tests evaluating the effect of orifice size on the force and acceleration response further elucidate the
trend of low initial forces causing higher-than-ideal forces at the end of the stroke (Fig. 9). The contact area
profile of the VASA prototype was designed to provide constant minimum force using an 18 mm diameter
orifice. With orifices bigger than 18 mm, the initial rise in force fell below the ideal constant value, causing a
spike at the end of the stroke length. Furthermore, the shock absorber displaced further using these larger
sized orifices. For the 24 mm diameter orifice tests, the large spike in force is likely a combination of a spike
from the above observation, as well as the shock absorber “bottoming out” as it reached the end of its stroke
length and made solid-to-solid contact between the 3D printed parts and the force plate. Conversely, orifices
smaller than 18 mm caused a rise in force above the ideal force level, preventing the shock absorber from fully
displacing. Using our 18 mm orifice prototype, we were able to achieve very low errors at 3.1 m/s and 3.8 m/s.
In practice, if one wanted to make a telescoping VASA prototype to optimize for higher impact speeds instead,
the orifice size could be slightly reduced in diameter to account for the imperfect velocity scaling, to obtain a
more constant response at 4.3 m/s or higher.

C. Other approaches to constant force shock absorption

There exist other approaches for designing shock absorbers that impart constant deceleration during impact.
Many applications in which extremely precise force dampening is required, such as suspension systems in the
automotive industry, utilize actively-controlled shock absorbers with valves that can open or close via control
signals (1,8). Other active approaches include fixed-orifice absorbers with electrorheological fluids (30) or
magnetorheological fluids (31,32) which use electric or magnetic fields to control fluid properties and the
resulting dampening forces, commonly implemented in automotive suspension or other industrial
applications. Adaptive energy absorption using field-responsive fluids embedded into foams have also been
proposed (33) for implementation in automotive headrests or other cushions. However, active control is not
suitable for applications without power sources or with monetary or space constraints. To exert optimal
constant force passively, the orifice size of a hydraulic shock absorber can be varied as a function of
displacement to provide a constant force; these are commonly referred to as “self-compensating” shock
absorbers (4,7). These variable orifice area hydraulic shock absorbers can be designed to have an array of
orifices that close off, or a single orifice with a pin or plunger which continuously closes as a piston is
compressed (34), depending on the required precision of the application. We can rearrange Eq. 6 to derive the
required orifice area profile for a constant force response, assuming a fixed contact area in a hydraulically
damped system:

1
𝜌(𝐿 + 𝑥)𝐴3𝑐 2
𝐴𝑜 (𝑥) = ( ) #(15)
𝑀𝐶𝑑2

This variable orifice area approach has been taken further to create “semi-passive” pneumatic shock
absorbers which exert constant force using air instead of liquid (35). In this approach, the shaping of the
internal outflow orifices is configured prior to impact to provide the optimal force profile for a known impact
energy. Pneumatic airbag systems which utilize varying contact area have also been proposed for producing
constant force profiles in the airdropping of army vehicles (36). However, these airbag systems are typically
only optimized for a single impact energy.
Constant force energy absorbers that are based primarily on mechanical elements rather than fluid flow are
commonly utilized in the field of mechatronics or robotics. For example, a cam-slider-based constant force
mechanism was proposed using a variable cross-sectional area cam pushed through lateral springs (37).
Similarly, constant force compression mechanisms based on large-deflection beams or arcs have been
proposed (38,39), and non-linear springs have been designed to create specific force-deformation curves (40)
with applications ranging from robotic joints to prosthetics. It has also been shown that a ball-screw inerter
shock absorber with a tuned variable thread pitch can provide an optimal force-displacement profile
regardless of initial impact velocity (41). However, these approaches to shock absorption lack the form factor
to fit within a helmet.

Utilizing a variable contact area with a fixed orifice hydraulic shock absorber system to control the force
profile is a different approach to obtaining a constant force profile. Although the current iteration of the VASA
prototype utilizes rigid 3D printed parts and a large pressure chamber which contains excess fluid and space, it
may be possible to implement the variable area approach in a small, fully collapsible prototype which could be
integrated within space-constrained applications such as helmets and other PPE. Compared to the variable
orifice area approach to achieving constant force, the variable contact area approach may be mechanically
simpler to implement in a small and space-constrained application without complex mechanical parts or
arrays of orifices.

Other novel approaches have been proposed for obtaining constant force shock absorption in a helmet.
Recently, a suspension-type construction helmet which used non-Newtonian fluids within rate activated
tethers (RAT) was proposed (2,42). It was shown that the force-displacement profiles of the RATs could be
tuned to provide constant force. However, the force was found not to scale quadratically, and the rise time of
the force was not nearly as immediate as the VASA prototype tested here. Another approach to helmet design
has been through the use of expandable airbag helmets (21). By creating a helmet that expands significantly
prior to impact, the force level can remain low and relatively constant with a larger usable stroke length.
However, this approach would not work in multiple impact sports such as football.

D. Implications for football helmets

Constant force padding has been widely proposed as the ideal force-displacement curve for absorbing energy
in helmets and other PPE (2,4,22,43). Helmets are tested using laboratory protocols that measure the
kinematics of the head after impact. Kinematic injury metrics are then used to map between the recorded
accelerations and injury risk or helmet performance. For example, the Head Injury Criteria (HIC) (44) and Gadd
Severity Index (GSI) (45) integrate the linear acceleration over time to estimate risk of skull fracture. The Brain
Injury Criteria (BrIC) (46) and newer metrics such as DAMAGE (47) and BAM (48) estimate brain injury risk
using angular kinematics. Measured skull kinematics are also often used to simulate finite element brain
models to estimate brain deformation (49); higher kinematics generally correspond to increased tissue
deformation (50–52). By minimizing the force on the head with constant force padding, the linear and angular
acceleration over time are minimized to reduce kinematic and tissue-based metrics, and thus lower the
predicted risk of injury. In previous work, we have shown that even reducing the peak force and acceleration
on the head by approximately only 30% could result in a reduction of the number of concussions by 75% or
higher (4).

In existing helmets, padding material exerts a force deformation curve far above the minimum level (4,6,29).
Typical foams and energy absorbers used in conventional football helmets and other applications show
efficiencies between 20-40%, while very high performing energy absorbers may have efficiencies above 50%
when optimized for a specific impact energy (27,29). The VASA prototype tested here showed a high efficiency
over 70% at all four impact speeds. Although the prototypes here are not ready for integration within helmets,
if similar performance could be achieved using a more compact and lightweight design, utilizing lightweight oil
rather than water, this could result in a drastic reduction in traumatic brain injury in football.

E. Study limitations and future work

The primary limitation of this study is that the telescoping VASA prototype does not have a form factor that
could fit within a helmet. In the near future, we will adapt our prototype into a fully collapsible form factor
that could fit within a football helmet. Soft collapsible materials, such as molded silicone, reinforced with
fibers to prevent radial expansion and bulging, could be used to create the pressure vessel. However, it is
likely that the collapse mechanics of the membrane will need to be characterized and tuned when dealing
with soft materials rather than rigid telescoping pieces. Further, orifices could be integrated in the side walls
of the collapsible pressure chamber, and the whole system encased with an elastic refill chamber to catch the
fluid after impact and return it back into the pressure chamber. This would move the refill chamber from in
series with the pad to in parallel. Other practical factors with translating this invention into a helmet include
determining methods of minimizing the weight of the system. A lightweight oil could be used, and the entire
prototype could be further miniaturized using a smaller orifice size to obtain the same force response.
However, these modifications to the design may affect the overall physics of the shock absorber, although
even a force response less ideal than the experimental results in this paper could represent a major
improvement over existing helmet foams.

Another limitation of this study is that the prototypes were tested in an ideal one degree-of-freedom drop test
environment which may be a simplified approximation of a football impact. In a real football impact, the head
likely experiences significant rotation, and shear forces could be expected. Furthermore, the area profile
derived in this work assumes a 4.3 kg (approximate weight of the head) mass impacting a body with infinite
mass. This is representative of a worst-case scenario where the head is hitting the ground, although a helmet-
to-helmet impact likely has a smaller effective mass. A prototype integrated within a helmet should be tested
in a variety of impact conditions so its performance can be comprehensively evaluated.

Lastly, the range of speeds tested in this paper does not fully cover the range of speeds experienced on a
football field (20). Future work will focus on creating more robust prototypes which can handle extremely high
internal liquid pressures to see how the physics of VASA are changed in these higher energy collisions.

V. CONCLUSION
We presented a smart shock absorbing concept which utilizes a fixed-orifice hydraulic shock absorber with
variable contact area through its displacement to provide a constant force that scales with impact energy. We
validate this concept using computational modeling and proof-of-concept prototypes. As a motivating
application, we discussed implementing this design into helmets to prevent traumatic brain injury. This
approach could be used in any application requiring a smart passive system that absorbs energy with an
adaptable force-displacement curve.

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
We acknowledge Mark Cutkosky and Arul Suresh for their insightful brainstorms and design advice on the
VASA concept.

FUNDING
This work was supported in part by the Stanford University Child Health Research Institute, in part by the
Stanford Bio-X Fellowship Program, in part by the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Program
(N00014-16-1-2949), and in part by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program.
REFERENCES
1. Dixon JC. The shock absorber handbook. John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
2. Spinelli DJ, Plaisted TA, Wetzel ED. Adaptive head impact protection via a rate-activated helmet
suspension. Mater Des. 2018;154:153–69.
3. Baumeister J, Banhart J, Weber M. Aluminium foams for transport industry. Mater Des. 1997;18(4–
6):217–20.
4. Alizadeh HV, Fanton MG, Domel AG, Grant G, Camarillo DB. Prevention of Traumatic Brain Injury with
Liquid Shock Absorption. arXiv Prepr arXiv191007722. 2019;
5. Nagy A, Ko WL, Lindholm US. Mechanical behavior of foamed materials under dynamic compression. J
Cell Plast. 1974;10(3):127–34.
6. Moss WC, King. MJ. Impact response of US Army and National Football League helmet pad systems. Vol.
Lawrence L. 2011.
7. Hundal MS. Impact absorber with two-stage, variable area orifice hydraulic damper. J Sound Vib.
1977;50(2):195–202.
8. Park K, Kim J, Kim D. A study on the dynamic characteristics of the continuously variable shock absorber
for semi-active damping control system. 2005.
9. Gennarelli TA, Thibault LE, Graham DI. Diffuse axonal injury: an important form of traumatic brain
damage. Neurosci. 1998;4(3):202–15.
10. Hernandez F, Wu LC, Yip MC, Laksari K, Hoffman AR, Lopez JR, et al. Six Degree-of-Freedom
Measurements of Human Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Ann Biomed Eng [Internet]. 2015 Dec 23 [cited
2014 Dec 29];43(8):1918–34. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25533767
11. McKee AC, Cantu RC, Nowinski CJ, Hedley-Whyte ET, Gavett BE, Budson AE, et al. Chronic traumatic
encephalopathy in athletes: Progressive tauopathy after repetitive head injury. J Neuropathol Exp
Neurol. 2009;68(7):709–35.
12. Gavett BE, Stern R a, Cantu RC, Nowinski CJ, McKee AC. Mild traumatic brain injury: a risk factor for
neurodegeneration. Alzheimers Res Ther [Internet]. 2010 Jan;2(3):18. Available from:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2919698&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=ab
stract
13. Langlois J a, Rutland-Brown W, Wald MM. The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: a
brief overview. J Head Trauma Rehabil [Internet]. 2006;21(5):375–8. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16983222
14. Lincoln AE, Caswell S V, Almquist JL, Dunn RE, Norris JB, Hinton RY. Trends in concussion incidence in
high school sports: a prospective 11-year study. Am J Sports Med [Internet]. 2011 May [cited 2014 Jan
20];39(5):958–63. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21278427
15. Fanton M, Kuo C, Sganga J, Hernandez F, Camarillo DB. Dependency of head impact rotation on head-
neck positioning and soft tissue forces. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018;
16. Fanton M, Sganga J, Camarillo DB. Vulnerable locations on the head to brain injury and implications for
helmet design. J Biomech Eng. 2019;141(12).
17. NOCSAE. Standard performance specification for newly manufactured football helmets. National
Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment Overland~…; 2013.
18. Rowson S, Duma SM. Development of the STAR evaluation system for football helmets: integrating
player head impact exposure and risk of concussion. Ann Biomed Eng [Internet]. 2011 Aug 1 [cited 2012
Mar 28];39(8):2130–40. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q38r02386n43h3k2/
19. Funk J, Crandall J, Wonnacott M, Withnall C. NFL Linear Impactor Helmet Test Protocol. 2017;
20. Pellman EJ, Viano DC, Tucker AM, Casson IR. Concussion in Professional Football, Part 1: Reconstruction
of game impacts and injuries. Neurosurgery [Internet]. 2003 Oct [cited 2012 Mar 9];53(4):796. Available
from: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00006123-
200310000-00002
21. Kurt M, Laksari K, Kuo C, Grant GA, Camarillo DB. Modeling and optimization of airbag helmets for
 preventing head injuries in bicycling. Ann Biomed Eng. 2017;45(4):1148–60.
22. Newman JA. Biomechanics of head trauma: head protection. In: Accidental injury. Springer; 2002. p.
303–23.
23. Vahid Alizadeh H, Mahjoob MJ. Quadratic damping model for a spherical mobile robot moving on the
free surface of the water. In: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Robotic and Sensors Environments
(ROSE). 2011. p. 125–30.
24. Meyer D, Colon MLP, Vahid Alizadeh H, Su L, Behr B, Camarillo DB. Orienting Oocytes using Vibrations
for In-Vitro Fertilization Procedures. In: 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(ICRA). 2019. p. 4837–43.
25. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Zhang J, Baisden JL. Physical properties of the human head: mass, center of
gravity and moment of inertia. J Biomech [Internet]. 2009 Jun 19 [cited 2013 Mar 8];42(9):1177–92.
Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19428013
26. Corrales MA, Gierczycka D, Barker J, Bruneau D, Bustamante MC, Cronin DS. Validation of a Football
Helmet Finite Element Model and Quantification of Impact Energy Distribution. Ann Biomed Eng.
2020;48(1):121–32.
27. Schaedler TA, Ro CJ, Sorensen AE, Eckel Z, Yang SS, Carter WB, et al. Designing metallic microlattices for
energy absorber applications. Adv Eng Mater. 2014;16(3):276–83.
28. Faraj R, Graczykowski C. Hybrid prediction control for self-adaptive fluid-based shock-absorbers. J
Sound Vib [Internet]. 2019;449:427–46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2019.02.022
29. Clough EC, Plaisted TA, Eckel ZC, Cante K, Hundley JM, Schaedler TA. Elastomeric Microlattice Impact
Attenuators. Matter [Internet]. 2019;1(6):1519–31. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2019.10.004
30. Petek NK. An electronically controlled shock absorber using electrorheological fluid. 1992.
31. Milecki A, Hauke M. Application of magnetorheological fluid in industrial shock absorbers. Mech Syst
Signal Process. 2012;28:528–41.
32. Nguyen QH, Choi SB. Optimal design of MR shock absorber and application to vehicle suspension. Smart
Mater Struct. 2009;18(3).
33. Deshmukh SS, McKinley GH. Adaptive energy-absorbing materials using field-responsive fluid-
impregnated cellular solids. Smart Mater Struct. 2007;16(1):106–13.
34. Taylor DP, Devices PT. Energy management utilizing the hydraulic shock absorber. Taylor Devices, Inc.
2012;
35. Faraj R, Graczykowski C, Holnicki-Szulc J. Adaptable pneumatic shock absorber. JVC/Journal Vib Control.
2019;25(3):711–21.
36. Warrick JC, Lee CK. Advanced airbag system for cargo airdrop. 16th AIAA Aerodyn Decelerator Syst
Technol Conf Semin. 2001;(c).
37. Li M, Cheng W. Design and experimental validation of a large- displacement constant-force mechanism.
J Mech Robot. 2018;10(5).
38. Boyle C, Howell LL, Magleby SP, Evans MS. Dynamic modeling of compliant constant-force compression
mechanisms. Mech Mach Theory. 2003;38(12):1469–87.
39. Sönmez Ü. Introduction to compliant long dwell mechanism designs using buckling beams and arcs. J
Mech Des Trans ASME. 2007;129(8):831–43.
40. Jutte CV, Kota S. Design of nonlinear springs for prescribed load-displacement functions. J Mech Des
Trans ASME. 2008;130(8):0814031–08140310.
41. Faraj R, Jankowski Ł, Graczykowski C, Holnicki-Szulc J. Can the inerter be a successful shock-absorber?
The case of a ball-screw inerter with a variable thread lead. J Franklin Inst [Internet].
2019;356(14):7855–72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2019.04.012
42. Nenno PT, Wetzel ED. Design and properties of a rate-dependent ‘dynamic ligament’’ containing shear
thickening fluid.’ Smart Mater Struct [Internet]. 2014 Dec;23(12):125019. Available from:
http://stacks.iop.org/0964-
 1726/23/i=12/a=125019?key=crossref.c1c7aae7b6c8307510ccc96edf7b1d30
43. Begley MR, Zok FW. Optimal material properties for mitigating brain injury during head impact. J Appl
Mech. 2014;81(3):31014.
44. Hutchinson J, Kaiser MJ, Lankarani HM. The head injury criterion (HIC) functional. Appl Math Comput.
1998;96(1):1–16.
45. Versace J. A Review of the Severity Index. In: 15th Stapp Car Crash Conf [Internet]. 1971 [cited 2012 Apr
16]. p. SAE Publication 710881. Available from: http://papers.sae.org/710881
46. Takhounts EG, Craig MJ, Moorhouse K, McFadden J, Hasija V. Development of brain injury criteria (BrIC).
Stapp Car Crash J [Internet]. 2013 Nov;57:243–66. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24435734
47. Gabler LF, Crandall JR, Panzer MB. Development of a second-order system for rapid estimation of
maximum brain strain. Ann Biomed Eng. 2019;47(9):1971–81.
48. Laksari K, Fanton M, Wu L, Nguyen T, Kurt M, Giordano C, et al. Multi-directional dynamic model for
traumatic brain injury detection. J Neurotrauma. 2019;(ja).
49. Kleiven S. Predictors for Traumatic Brain Injuries Evaluated through Accident Reconstructions. Stapp Car
Crash J. 2007;51(Oct 2007):81–114.
50. Laksari K, Kurt M, Babaee H, Kleiven S, Camarillo D. Mechanistic Insights into Human Brain Impact
Dynamics through Modal Analysis. Phys Rev Lett. 2018;120(13).
51. Kuo C, Wu L, Zhao W, Fanton M, Ji S, Camarillo DB. Propagation of errors from skull kinematic
measurements to finite element tissue responses. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2018;17(1).
52. Abderezaei J, Zhao W, Grijalva CL, Fabris G, Ji S, Laksari K, et al. Nonlinear dynamical behavior of the
deep white matter during head impact. Phys Rev Appl. 2019;12(1):14058.