What to make of Duke’s study on combat helmets

Yes, we’ve heard about it. Yes, it’s worth noting. But make no mistake, we’ve made progress.
 
A study concluding that helmets are ill-equipped against shock wave blasts prompted a flurry of headlines in last month. Researchers at Duke University determined modern helmets – with their up-to-the-minute advances – are no better at protecting against shockwave blasts than helmets worn 100 years ago.
 
It’s a wake-up call. And the industry should care. But the data needs to be digested in full, and not taken out of context.
 
 As I recently shared with ClearanceJobs, Duke’s conclusion is something we should all pay attention to, for sure, but keep in mind they specifically examined overhead blasts. This might not translate to other scenarios, and the authors admit to complications with shockwaves emanating from an IED blast.
 
While there’s no question today’s helmets are far better at protecting against projectiles, shrapnel and other foreign objects, it seems reasonable to also expect better protection against shockwave blasts. Duke points out that’s not necessarily the case, at least not for the type of overhead blasts they tested for, and no combat helmet in use by the armed forces was designed to specifically address blast waves.
  As long as you’re specifically interested in overhead blasts, this study tells us it doesn’t necessarily matter what you make the shell out of because they’ve demonstrated that a bunch of helmets trended to a similar performance level. They also showed that geometric details of the shell can make a difference.
 
I wouldn’t say these findings are surprising. There’s no spec for this. Typically, when U.S. forces confront asymmetric warfare it’s in the form of IED blasts or rocket-propelled grenades.
 
Obviously, that’s not to suggest overhead blasts are inconceivable.
 
If there’s one thing to keep in mind – and the authors note this – it’s that their study isn’t a complete picture.
  Additional protection, however, is always welcome. So how does the industry move forward? Advancements will follow in earnest once researchers are able to more accurately model brain response inside the skull, instead of merely modeling surface pressure on a person’s head.
 
Blasts coming in from a horizontal direction or from below – that’s really where advanced modeling techniques can be applied. We want to make sure the helmet deflects the wavefront, instead of ‘cupping,’ or catching it.
 
You may be thinking, “won’t a visor protect against shockwaves?”
 
As always, it depends.
 
Depending on the angle, a visor could certainly help. But a ground-based blast could also emit waves under a visor, rendering it less effective as the waves then reflect within a confined space. In short, it’s all being examined.
 
Team Wendy studies brain activity as part of the PANTHER program, a program funded by the Office of Naval Research and led by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The goal is to quantify cellular injury thresholds for traumatic brain injury to better optimize helmet testing and design methodologies.
 
You could say it’s loosely related to the research done at Duke.
 
We’re looking at adding blast-sensor capabilities, which is complicated because you need to know the origin of the pressure, and how it’s getting to the head. Many of the impact types we study happen as the result of a blast – if someone is thrown or if that blast hurls debris.
 
Research is ongoing.
 
This is important work because a soldier’s equipment is the only thing that comes between them and these shock waves.
 
The helmet’s job will be to make sure the brunt of those pressure waves never make it to the soldier’s head.
 
 
By Ron Szalkowski
Director of Product Development & Research Collaboration