↓ Skip to main content

The dynamics of electric powered wheelchair sideways tips and falls: experimental and computational analysis of impact forces and injury

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The dynamics of electric powered wheelchair sideways tips and falls: experimental and computational analysis of impact forces and injury
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12984-016-0128-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brett Erickson, Masih A. Hosseini, Parry Singh Mudhar, Maryam Soleimani, Arina Aboonabi, Siamak Arzanpour, Carolyn J. Sparrey

Abstract

To reduce the occurrence of wheelchair falls and to develop effective protection systems, we aimed to quantify sideways tip and fall dynamics of electric power wheelchairs (EPWs). We hypothesized that driving speed, curb height and angle of approach would affect impact forces and head injury risk for wheelchair riders. We further expected that fall dynamics and head injury risk would be greater for unrestrained riders compared to restrained riders. Sideways wheelchair tip and fall dynamics were reconstructed using a remotely operated rear wheel drive EPW and a Hybrid III test dummy driving at different approach angles (5 to 63°) over an adjustable height curb (0.30 to 0.41 m) at speeds of 0.6-1.5 m/s. Rigid body dynamics models (Madymo, TASS International, Livonia, MI) were developed in parallel with the experiments to systematically study and quantify the impact forces and the sideways tip or fall of an EPW user in different driving conditions. Shallower approach angles (25°) (p < 0.05) and higher curbs (0.4 m) (p < 0.05) were the most significant predictors of tipping for restrained passengers. Unrestrained passengers were most affected by higher curbs (0.4 m) (p < 0.005) and fell forward from the upright wheelchair when the approach angle was 60°. Head impact forces were greater in unrestrained users (6181 ± 2372 N) than restrained users (1336 ± 827 N) (p = 0.00053). Unrestrained users had significantly greater head impact severities than restrained users (HIC = 610 ± 634 vs HIC = 29 ± 38, p = 0.00013) and several tip events resulted in HICs > 1000 (severe head injury) in unrestrained users. Sideways tips and forward falls from wheelchairs were most sensitive to curb height and approach angle but were not affected by driving speed. Sideways tips and falls resulted in impact forces that could result in concussions or traumatic brain injury and require injury prevention strategies. Seat belts eliminated the risk of falling from an upright chair and reduced head impact forces in sideways wheelchair tips in this study; however, their use must be considered within the ethical and legal definitions of restraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Researcher 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 28 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 20 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 30 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,516,195
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,151
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,929
of 299,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#21
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.