When a roadside bomb blast hits an unprotected face, the pressure and the shear waves can squeeze the brain out of shape and cause tiny tears that disrupt brain connections built up over a lifetime. MIT's rocket scientists have teamed up with a brain-injury expert in the military to show that a face shield could block much of the blast waves, boosting protection for U.S. soldiers.
"There's a passageway through those soft tissues directly into the brain tissue, without having to go through bone or anything hard," said Raul Radovitzky, an aeronautical engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Radovitzky and his colleagues also found that while existing Army helmets may not offer much protection against a frontal blast, wearing the helmet cannot harm a soldier's brain. That finding challenges a study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory earlier this year that suggested the helmet could enhance traumatic brain injuries by amplifying the blast waves.
Better brain simulations
The MIT researchers built a sophisticated brain simulation by using a real person's brain scans. They also worked with David Moore, a leading neurologist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, who studies brain injuries of military veterans.
"Teaming up with the physician was very important," Radovitzky told LiveScience. "We're very good at digital reconstruction of geometry of the brain structures, and Dr. Moore helped us define all that."
The MIT simulation included details beyond the skull, such as spinal fluid, sinuses, eyes, gray and white brain matter, and many of the brain's internal structures. The researchers also simulated the Army's Advanced Combat Helmet (which its soldiers now wear) in detail.
The MIT team went a step further by checking its simulation against real-world tests. In an unpublished study, they modeled a pig brain based on an actual animal. They then rigged the model pig body with sensors and subjected it to blast tests in the lab and field.
The Lawrence Livermore study had used a far cruder simulation that represented the brain and helmet as oval-shaped structures, MIT scientists say. That study had found a blast wave amplification effect in the space between the head and helmet – a finding that the MIT team hopes will be overturned by the data from the more-sophisticated model.
"The first key result of [our] paper is that the Livermore paper is wrong," Radovitzky said. "This helmet may not be helping much, at least for some blasts, but it's not true that it hurts."
Full results are detailed in today's issue (Nov. 22) of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
How to protect the face
The MIT team is also confident in its finding about the face shield protection. It tested a helmet with face protection, a regular helmet, and the absence of any helmet protection.
Just what form or shape the face shield should take remains open for discussion, but the MIT researchers have talked with the Army's Natick, Mass., laboratory, which develops equipment and other supplies for soldiers. The Army researchers could help figure out how a face shield affects a soldier's ability to fight and operate without hurting his situational awareness in the field.
"We can get involved in design, but that's out of this article's consideration," Radovitzky said.
Another question is how a helmet-protected head might withstand blast waves from the side or back.
Early unpublished results suggest the current Army helmet does offer protection from side blasts, Radovitzky said.
The MIT researchers are comparing their simulation results to the Navy's real-world blast tests involving dummy heads. Such heads replicate all the brain tissue and bone with ballistics gel and plastics; the MIT group modified its simulation to have similar material properties.
Such comparisons showed that the MIT brain simulation holds up well so far, Radovitzky said. That gives the team added confidence to try to answer more questions about how blasts can affect the brain more indirectly, through other parts of the body.
"One of the possible research directions is to consider indirect transmission pathways, and that means adding more of the human," Radovitzky said. "Not just the head and torso, but maybe more."
Related on LiveScience: