Influence of Seat Properties on Occupant Dynamics in Severe Rear Crashes

Seat performance in retaining an occupant, transferring energy, and controlling neck responses is often questioned after severe rear crashes when fatal or disabling injury occur. It is argued that a stiffer seat would have improved occupant kinematics. However, there are many factors in occupant interactions with the seat. This study evaluates four different seat types in 26 and 32 mph (42 and 51 km/h), rear crash delta Vs. Two seats were yielding with k = 20 kN/m occupant load per displacement. One represented a 1970s yielding seat with j = 3.4°/kN frame rotation per occupant load, and 3 kN maximum load (660 Nm moment), and the other a high retention seat phased into production since 1997 with j = 1.4°/kN, and 10 kN maximum load (2200 Nm). Two seats were stiff with k = 40 kN/m. One represented a 1990s foreign benchmark with j = 1.8°/kN and a 7.7 kN maximum load (1700 Nm), and the other an all belts to seat (ABTS) with j = 1.0°/kN and 20 kN maximum load (4400 Nm). The crash was a constant acceleration of 11.8 g, or 14.5 g for 100 ms. Occupant interactions with the seat were modeled using a torso mass, flexible neck and head mass. By analysis of the equations of motion, the initial change in seatback angle (Δθ) is proportional to jk(y ? x), the product jk and the differential motion between the vehicle (seat cushion) and occupant. The transition from 1970s–80s yielding seats to stronger seats of the 1990s involved an increase in k stiffness; however, the jk property did not change as frame structures became stronger. The yielding seats of the 1970s had jk = 68°/m, while the stiff foreign benchmark seat had jk = 72°/m. The foreign benchmark rotated about the same as the 1970s seat up to 50 ms in the severe rear crashes. While it was substantially stronger, it produced higher loads on the occupant, and the higher loads increased seatback rotations and neck responses. The ABTS seat had the lowest rotations but also caused high neck responses because of the greater loads on the torso. Neck displacement (d) is initially proportional to (k/m_T) ∫∫ y, seat stiffness times the second integral of vehicle displacement divided by torso mass. As seat stiffness increases, head-torso acceleration, velocity, and neck displacement increase. This study shows that the jk seat property determines the initial seatback rotation in rear crashes. If a stronger seat has a higher stiffness, it rotates at higher loads on the occupant, reducing the overall benefit of the stronger frame, while increasing neck responses related to whiplash or neck extension prior to subsequent impacts. The aim of seat designs should be to reduce jk, provide pocketing of the pelvis, and give head-neck support for the best protection in severe rear crashes. For low-speed crashes, a low k is important to reduce early neck responses related to whiplash.     

Difference in dummy responses in matched side impact tests of vehicles with and without side airbags

Objective: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) high-hooded side impacts were analyzed for matched vehicle tests with and without side airbags. The comparison provides a measure of the effectiveness of side airbags in reducing biomechanical responses for near-side occupants struck by trucks, SUVs, and vans at 50 km/h.

Method: The IIHS moving deformable barrier (MDB) uses a high-hooded barrier face. It weighs 1,500 kg and impacts the driver side perpendicular to the vehicle at 50 km/h. SID IIs dummies are placed in the driver and left second-row seats. They represent fifth percentile female occupants.

IIHS tests were reviewed for matches with one test with a side airbag and another without it in 2003–2007 model year (MY) vehicles. Four side airbag systems were evaluated: (1) curtain and torso side airbags, (2) head and torso side airbag, (3) curtain side airbag, and (4) torso side airbag.

There were 24 matched IIHS vehicle tests: 13 with and without a curtain and torso side airbags, 4 with and without a head and torso side airbag, 5 with and without a side curtain airbag, and 2 with and without a torso airbag. The head, chest, and pelvis responses were compared for each match and the average difference was determined across all matches for a type of side airbag.

Results: The average reduction in head injury criterion (HIC) was 68 ± 16% (P < .001) with curtain and torso side airbags compared to the HIC without side airbags. The average HIC was 296 with curtain and torso side airbags and 1,199 without them. The viscous response (VC) was reduced 54 ± 19% (P < .005) with curtain and torso side airbags. The combined acetabulum and ilium force (7 ± 15%) and pelvic acceleration (?2 ± 17%) were essentially similar in the matched tests.

The head and torso side airbag reduced HIC by 42 ± 30% (P < .1) and VC by 32 ± 26% compared to vehicles without a side airbag. The average HIC was 397 with the side head and torso airbag compared to 729 without it. The curtain airbag and torso airbag only showed lower head responses but essentially no difference in the chest and pelvis responses.

Conclusion: The curtain and torso side airbags effectively reduced biomechanical responses for the head and chest in 50 km/h side impacts with a high-hooded deformable barrier. The reductions in the IIHS tests are directionally the same as estimated fatality reductions in field crashes reported by NHTSA for side airbags.     

Influence of seat properties on occupant dynamics in severe rear crashes

Seat performance in retaining an occupant, transferring energy, and controlling neck responses is often questioned after severe rear crashes when fatal or disabling injury occur. It is argued that a stiffer seat would have improved occupant kinematics. However, there are many factors in occupant interactions with the seat. This study evaluates four different seat types in 26 and 32 mph (42 and 51 km/h), rear crash delta Vs. Two seats were yielding with k = 20 kN/m occupant load per displacement. One represented a 1970s yielding seat with j = 3.4 degrees /kN frame rotation per occupant load, and 3 kN maximum load (660 Nm moment), and the other a high retention seat phased into production since 1997 with j = 1.4 degrees /kN, and 10 kN maximum load (2200 Nm). Two seats were stiff with k = 40 kN/m. One represented a 1990s foreign benchmark with j = 1.8 degrees /kN and a 7.7 kN maximum load (1700 Nm), and the other an all belts to seat (ABTS) with j = 1.0 degrees /kN and 20 kN maximum load (4400 Nm). The crash was a constant acceleration of 11.8 g, or 14.5 g for 100 ms. Occupant interactions with the seat were modeled using a torso mass, flexible neck and head mass. By analysis of the equations of motion, the initial change in seatback angle (Deltatheta) is proportional to jk(y - x), the product jk and the differential motion between the vehicle (seat cushion) and occupant. The transition from 1970s-80s yielding seats to stronger seats of the 1990s involved an increase in k stiffness; however, the jk property did not change as frame structures became stronger. The yielding seats of the 1970s had jk = 68 degrees /m, while the stiff foreign benchmark seat had jk = 72 degrees /m. The foreign benchmark rotated about the same as the 1970s seat up to 50 ms in the severe rear crashes. While it was substantially stronger, it produced higher loads on the occupant, and the higher loads increased seatback rotations and neck responses. The ABTS seat had the lowest rotations but also caused high neck responses because of the greater loads on the torso. Neck displacement (d) is initially proportional to (k/m(T)) integral integral y, seat stiffness times the second integral of vehicle displacement divided by torso mass. As seat stiffness increases, head-torso acceleration, velocity, and neck displacement increase. This study shows that the jk seat property determines the initial seatback rotation in rear crashes. If a stronger seat has a higher stiffness, it rotates at higher loads on the occupant, reducing the overall benefit of the stronger frame, while increasing neck responses related to whiplash or neck extension prior to subsequent impacts. The aim of seat designs should be to reduce jk, provide pocketing of the pelvis, and give head-neck support for the best protection in severe rear crashes. For low-speed crashes, a low k is important to reduce early neck responses related to whiplash.     

Seat properties affecting neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why whiplash has increased

Whiplash has increased over the past two decades. This study compares occupant dynamics with three different seat types (two yielding and one stiff) in rear crashes. Responses up to head restraint contact are used to describe possible reasons for the increase in whiplash as seat stiffness increased in the 1980s and 1990s. Three exemplar seats were defined by seat stiffness (k) and frame rotation stiffness (j) under occupant load. The stiff seat had k=40 kN/m and j=1.8 degrees /kN representing a foreign benchmark. One yielding seat had k=20 kN/m and j=1.4 degrees /kN simulating a high-retention seat. The other had k=20 kN/m and j=3.4 degrees /kN simulating a typical yielding seat of the 1980s and 1990s. Constant vehicle acceleration for 100 ms gave delta-V of 6, 10, 16, 24, and 35 km/h. The one-dimensional model included a torso mass loading the seatback, head motion through a flexible neck, and head restraint drop and rearward displacement with seatback rotation. Neck displacement was greatest with the stiff seat due to higher loads on the torso. It peaked at 10 km/h rear delta-V and was lower in higher-severity crashes. It averaged 32% more than neck displacements with the 1980s yielding seat. The high-retention seat had 67% lower neck displacements than the stiff seat because of yielding into the seatback, earlier head restraint contact and less seatback rotation, which involved 16 mm drop in head restraint height due to seatback rotation in the 16 km/h rear delta-V. This was significantly lower than 47 mm with the foreign benchmark and 73 mm with the 1980s yielding seat. Early in the crash, neck responses are proportional to ky/mT, seat stiffness times vehicle displacement divided by torso mass, so neck responses increase with seat stiffness. The trend toward stiffer seats increased neck responses over the yielding seats of the 1980s and 1990s, which offers one explanation for the increase in whiplash over the past two decades. This is a result of not enough seat suspension compliance as stronger seat frames were introduced. As seat stiffness has increased, so have neck displacements and the Neck Injury Criterion (NIC). High-retention seats reduce neck biomechanical responses by allowing the occupant to displace into the seatback at relatively low torso loads until head restraint contact and then transferring crash energy. High-retention seats resolve the historic debate between stiff (rigid) and yielding seats by providing both a strong frame (low j) for occupant retention and yielding suspension (low k) to reduce whiplash.     

Rear impact responses of different sized adult Hybrid III dummies

Rear impact sled tests were conducted using 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile Hybrid III dummies to evaluate proposed injury criteria. Different head restraint height (750, 800 mm) and backset (0, 50, 100 mm) positions were used to determine axial and shear forces, bending moments, and injury criteria (NIC, N(ij), and N(km)). The time sequence to attain each parameter was also determined. Three events were identified in the response. Event I was coincident with the maximum rearward motion of the torso, Event II occurred at the time of the peak upper neck flexion moment, and Event III occurred at the time of maximum rearward motion of the head. Parameters such as backset, head restraint height, seat-head restraint interaction, and anthropometry affected impact responses. Head rotations increased with increasing backset and increasing head restraint height. However, N(ij) and N(km) did not exhibit such clear trends. The 50th percentile dummy responded with consistent injury criteria values (e.g., the magnitude of the injury criteria increased with backset increase or head restraint height decrease). However, the 5th and 95th percentile dummies did not demonstrate such trends. These findings underscore the need to include subject anthropometry in addition to seat and head restraint characteristics for better assessment of rear impact responses.     

Thoracic and lumbar spine responses in high-speed rear sled tests

Objective: This study analyzed thoracic and lumbar spine responses with in-position and out-of-position (OOP) seated dummies in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests with conventional and all-belts-to-seat (ABTS) seats. Occupant kinematics and spinal responses were determined with modern (≥2000 MY), older (<2000 MY), and ABTS seats.

Methods: The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap–shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position or OOP, including leaning forward and leaning inboard and forward. There were 26 in-position tests with 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS and 14 OOP tests with 6 conventional and 8 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented. This study addressed the thoracic and lumbar spine responses. Injury assessment reference values are not approved for the thoracic and lumbar spine. Conservative thresholds exist. The peak responses were normalized by a threshold to compare responses. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

Results: The extension moments were higher in the thoracic than lumbar spine in the in-position tests. For <2000 MY seats, the thoracic extension moment was 76.8 ± 14.6% of threshold and the lumbar extension moment was 50.5 ± 17.9%. For the ≥2000 MY seats, the thoracic extension moment was 54.2 ± 26.6% of threshold and the lumbar extension moment was 49.8 ± 27.7%. ABTS seats provided similar thoracic and lumbar responses. Modern seat designs lowered thoracic and lumbar responses. For example, the 1996 Taurus had ?1,696 N anterior lumbar shear force and ?205.2 Nm extension moment. There was ?1,184 N lumbar compression force and 1,512 N tension. In contrast, the 2015 F-150 had ?500 N shear force and ?49.7 Nm extension moment. There was ?839 N lumbar compression force and 535 N tension. On average, the 2015 F-150 had 40% lower lumbar spine responses than the 1996 Taurus. The OOP tests had similar peak lumbar responses; however, they occurred later due to the forward lean of the dummy.

Conclusions: The design and performance of seats have significantly changed over the past 20 years. Modern seats use a perimeter frame allowing the occupant to pocket into the seatback. Higher and more forward head restraints allow a stronger frame because the head, neck, and torso are more uniformly supported with the seat more upright in severe rear impacts. The overall effect has been a reduction in thoracic and lumbar loads and risks for injury.     

A Simulation Study on the Efficacy of Advanced Belt Restraints to Mitigate the Effects of Obesity for Rear-Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes

Objective: Recent field data analyses have shown that the safety advantages of rear seats relative to the front seats have decreased in newer vehicles. Separately, the risks of certain injuries have been found to be higher for obese occupants. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of advanced belt features on the protection of rear-seat occupants with a range of body mass index (BMI) in frontal crashes.

Methods: Whole-body finite element human models with 4 BMI levels (25, 30, 35, and 40 kg/m²) developed previously were used in this study. A total of 52 frontal crash simulations were conducted, including 4 simulations with a standard rear-seat, 3-point belt and 48 simulations with advanced belt features. The parameters varied in the simulations included BMI, load limit, anchor pretensioner, and lap belt routing relative to the pelvis. The injury measurements analyzed in this study included head and hip excursions, normalized chest deflection, and torso angle (defined as the angle between the hip–shoulder line and the vertical direction). Analyses of covariance were used to test the significance (P <.05) of the results.

Results: Higher BMI was associated with greater head and hip excursions and larger normalized chest deflection. Higher belt routing increased the hip excursion and torso angle, which indicates a higher submarining risk, whereas the anchor pretensioner reduced hip excursion and torso angle. Lower load limits decreased the normalized chest deflection but increased the head excursion. Normalized chest deflection had a positive correlation with maximum torso angle. Occupants with higher BMI have to use higher load limits to reach head excursions similar to those in lower BMI occupants.

Discussion and Conclusion: The simulation results suggest that optimizing load limiter and adding pretensioner(s) can reduce injury risks associated with obesity, but conflicting effects on head and chest injuries were observed. This study demonstrated the feasibility and importance of using human models to investigate protection for occupants with various BMI levels. A seat belt system capable of adapting to occupant size and body shape will improve protection for obese occupants in rear seats.     

Implications of head and neck restraint test repeatability for specification improvement

Objective: Since 2005, National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Incorporated (NASCAR) drivers have been required to use a head and neck restraint system (HNR) that complies with SFI Foundation, Inc. (SFI) 38.1. The primary purpose of the HNR is to control and limit injurious neck loads and head kinematics during frontal and frontal oblique impacts. The SFI 38.1 performance specification was implemented to establish a uniform test procedure and minimum standard for the evaluation of HNRs using dynamic sled testing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the current SFI 38.1 test setup and explore the effects of a polyester seat belt restraint system.

Method: Eight sled tests were conducted using the SFI 38.1 sled test protocol with additional test setup constraints. Four 0° frontal tests and 4 30° right frontal (RF) oblique tests were conducted. The first 3 tests of each principal direction of force (PDOF) used nylon SFI 16.1 seat belt restraint assemblies. The fourth test of each PDOF used polyester SFI 16.6 seat belt restraint assemblies. A secondary data set (Lab B Data) was also supplied by the HNR manufacturer for further comparisons. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 18571 objective comparison method was used to quantify the repeatability of the anthropomorphic test device (ATD) resultant head, chest, and pelvis acceleration and upper neck axial force and flexion extension bending moment time histories across multiple tests.

Results: Two data sets generated using the SFI 38.1 test protocol exhibited large variations in mean ISO scores of ATD channels. The 8 tests conducted with additional setup constraints had significantly lower mean ISO score coefficients of variation (CVs). The Lab B tests conducted within the current specification but without the additional test setup constraints had larger mean ISO score standard deviation and CV for all comparisons. Specifically, tests with the additional setup constraints had average CVs of 3.3 and 2.9% for the 0° and 30° RF orientations, respectively. Lab B tests had average CVs of 22.9 and 24.5%, respectively. Polyester seat belt comparisons had CVs of 5.3 and 6.2% for the 0° and 30° RF orientations, respectively.

Conclusion: With the addition of common test setup constraints, which do not violate the specification, the SFI 38.1 test protocol produced a repeatable test process for determining performance capabilities of HNRs within a single sled lab. A limited study using polyester webbing seat belt assemblies versus the nylon material called for in SFI 38.1 indicates that the material likely has less effects on ATD upper neck axial force and flexion extension bending moment time histories than the test setup freedom currently available within the specification. The additional test setup constraints are discussed and were shown to improve ATD response repeatability for a given HNR.     

The Influence of Enhanced Side Impact Protection on Kinematics and Injury Measures of Far- or Center-Seated Children in Forward-Facing Child Restraints

Objective: To evaluate the influence of forward-facing child restraint systems’ (FFCRSs) side impact structure, such as side wings, on the head kinematics and response of a restrained, far- or center-seated 3-year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD) in oblique sled tests.

Methods: Sled tests were conducted utilizing an FFCRS with large side wings and with the side wings removed. The CRS were attached via LATCH on 2 different vehicle seat fixtures—a small SUV rear bench seat and minivan rear bucket seat—secured to the sled carriage at 20° from lateral. Four tests were conducted on each vehicle seat fixture, 2 for each FFCRS configuration. A Q3s dummy was positioned in FFCRS according to the CRS owner's manual and FMVSS 213 procedures. The tests were conducted using the proposed FMVSS 213 side impact pulse. Three-dimensional motion cameras collected head excursion data. Relevant data collected during testing included the ATD head excursions, head accelerations, LATCH belt loads, and neck loads.

Results: Results indicate that side wings have little influence on head excursions and ATD response. The median lateral head excursion was 435 mm with side wings and 443 mm without side wings. The primary differences in head response were observed between the 2 vehicle seat fixtures due to the vehicle seat head restraint design. The bench seat integrated head restraint forced a tether routing path over the head restraint. Due to the lateral crash forces, the tether moved laterally off the head restraint reducing tension and increasing head excursion (477 mm median). In contrast, when the tether was routed through the bucket seat's adjustable head restraint, it maintained a tight attachment and helped control head excursion (393 mm median).

Conclusion: This testing illustrated relevant side impact crash circumstances where side wings do not provide the desired head containment for a 3-year-old ATD seated far-side or center in FFCRS. The head appears to roll out of the FFCRS even in the presence of side wings, which may expose the occupant to potential head impact injuries. We postulate that in a center or far-side seating configuration, the absence of door structure immediately adjacent to the CRS facilitates the rotation and tipping of the FFCRS toward the impact side and the roll-out of the head around the side wing structure. Results suggest that other prevention measures, in the form of alternative side impact structure design, FFCRS vehicle attachment, or shared protection between the FFCRS and the vehicle, may be necessary to protect children in oblique side impact crashes.     

Seat influences on female neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why women have higher whiplash rates

Since the earliest crash investigations, whiplash has been found to occur more often in women than men. This study addresses seat properties that may explain a reason for the higher rates in women, and changes in whiplash in general over the past two decades. Three exemplar seats were defined on the basis of seat stiffness (k) and frame rotation stiffness (j) for rearward occupant load. Stiff seats have k=40 kN/m and j=1.8 degrees /kN representing a foreign benchmark loaded by a male. One yielding seat had k=20 kN/m and j=1.4 degrees /kN simulating a high-retention seat (1997 Grand Prix) and another k=20 kN/m and j=3.4 degrees /kN simulating a 1980s to 1990s yielding seat (1990 Buick Park Avenue). Constant vehicle acceleration for 100 msec gave delta-V of 6, 10, 16, and 24 km/h. The one-dimensional model included a torso mass loading the seatback with flexible neck and head mass. Based on biomechanical data and scaling, neck stiffness was 5 kN/m and 3 kN/m for the male and female, respectively. Based on validation tests, seat stiffness was 25% less with the female. Occupant dynamics were simulated in a step-forward solution based on the differential displacement between the head, torso, and seat up to head restraint contact. Neck responses were 30% higher in the female than male through most of the rear impact and are proportional to (kF/mTF)/(kM/mTM), which is the ratio of seat stiffness divided by torso mass for the female and male. Neck displacements were higher with the stiff seat than the 1990 C car seat for both the female and male. They peaked at 10 km/h and dropped off for higher severity crashes due to the shorter time to head contact. Neck displacements were greater in the female than male for the lowest severity crashes with the stiff and 1990 C car seats, when displacement was scaled for equal tolerance. The female in 1997 W car seat had the lowest neck displacements. Stiff seats increased neck displacements over the yielding seats of the 1980s in rear crashes. The trend is similar in men and women, but early neck displacements are greater in women because of a higher ratio of seat stiffness to torso mass. This implies that seat stiffness is not sufficiently low in proportion to the female mass in comparison to males. The j and k seat properties influence neck biomechanics and occupant dynamics, but k is important in determining early response differences between males and females.     

A Comparison of Volunteer,BioRID P3 and Hybrid III Performance in Rear Impacts

The most important tool for testing seat-systems in rear impacts is a crash test dummy. However, investigators have noted limitations of the most commonly used dummy, the Hybrid III. The BioRID I is a step closer to a biofidelic crash test dummy, but it is not user-friendly and the straightening of the thoracic spine kyphosis is smaller than that 220of humans. To reduce these problems, a new BioRID prototype was developed, the P3. It has new neck muscle substitutes, a softer thoracic spine and a softer rubber torso than does the BioRID I.

The BioRID P3 was compared with volunteer test data in a rigid and a standard seal without head restraints. The dummy kinematic performance, pressure distribution between subject and seatback, neck loads and accelerations were compared with those of ten volunteers and a Hybrid III. The BioRID P3 provided repeatable test results and its response was very similar to that of the average volunteer in rear impacts at Δv = 9 km/h.     

Occupant responses in conventional and ABTS seats in high-speed rear sled tests

Objective: This study compared biomechanical responses of a normally seated Hybrid III dummy on conventional and all belts to seat (ABTS) seats in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests. It determined the difference in performance with modern (≥2000 MY) seats compared to older (<2000 MY) seats and ABTS seats.

Methods: The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap–shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position. The testing included 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented, including head accelerations, upper and lower neck 6-axis load cells, chest acceleration, thoracic and lumbar spine load cells, and pelvis accelerations. The peak responses were normalized by injury assessment reference values (IARVs) to assess injury risks. Statistical analysis was conducted using Student's t test. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

Results: Biomechanical responses were lower with modern (≥2000 MY) seats than older (<2000 MY) designs. The lower neck extension moment was 32.5 ± 9.7% of IARV in modern seats compared to 62.8 ± 31.6% in older seats (P =.01). Overall, there was a 34% reduction in the comparable biomechanical responses with modern seats. Biomechanical responses were lower with modern seats than ABTS seats. The lower neck extension moment was 41.4 ± 7.8% with all MY ABTS seats compared to 32.5 ± 9.7% in modern seats (P =.07). Overall, the ABTS seats had 13% higher biomechanical responses than the modern seats.

Conclusions: Modern (≥2000 MY) design seats have lower biomechanical responses in 40.2 km/h rear sled tests than older (<2000 MY) designs and ABTS designs. The improved performance is consistent with an increase in seat strength combined with improved occupant kinematics through pocketing of the occupant into the seatback, higher and more forward head restraint, and other design changes. The methods and data presented here provide a basis for standardized testing of seats. However, a complete understanding of seat safety requires consideration of out-of-position (OOP) occupants in high-speed impacts and consideration of the much more common, low-speed rear impacts.     

The Contribution of Pre-impact Posture on Restrained Occupant Finite Element Model Response in Frontal Impact

Objective: The objective of this study was to discuss the influence of the pre-impact posture to the response of a finite element human body model (HBM) in frontal impacts.

Methods: This study uses previously published cadaveric tests (PMHS), which measured six realistic pre-impact postures. Seven postured models were created from the THUMS occupant model (v4.0): one matching the standard UMTRI driving posture as it was the target posture in the experiments, and six matching the measured pre-impact postures. The same measurements as those obtained during the cadaveric tests were calculated from the simulations, and biofidelity metrics based on signals correlation (CORA) were established to compare the response of the seven models to the experiments.

Results: The HBM responses showed good agreement with the PMHS responses for the reaction forces (CORA = 0.80 ± 0.05) and the kinematics of the lower part of the torso but only fair correlation was found with the head, the upper spine, rib strains (CORA= 0.50 ± 0.05) and chest deflections (CORA = 0.67 ± 0.08). All models sustained rib fractures, sternal fracture and clavicle fracture. The average number of rib fractures for all the models was 5.3 ± 1.0, lower than in the experiments (10.8 ± 9.0).

Variation in pre-impact posture greatly altered the time histories of the reaction forces, deflections and the rib strains, mainly in terms of time delay, but no definite improvement in HBM response or injury prediction was observed. By modifying only the posture of the HBM, the variability in the impact response was found to be equivalent to that observed in the experiments. The postured HBM sustained from 4 to 8 rib fractures, confirming that the pre-impact posture influenced the injury outcome predicted by the simulation.

Conclusions: This study tries to answer an important question: what is the effect of occupant posture on kinematics and kinetics. Significant differences in kinematics observed between HBM and PMHS suggesting more coupling between the pelvis and the spine for the models which makes the model response very sensitive to any variation in the spine posture. Consequently, the findings observed for the HBM cannot be extended to PMHS. Besides, pre-impact posture should be carefully quantified during experiments and the evaluation of HBM should take into account the variation in the predicted impact response due to the variation in the model posture.     

Effects of initial seated position in low speed rear-end impacts: a comparison with the TNO rear impact dummy (TRID) model

Injury-producing mechanisms associated with rear-end impact collision has remained a mystery not withstanding numerous investigations devoted to its scrutiny. Several criteria have been proposed to predict the injury-causing mechanism, but none have been universally accepted. The challenge lies in determining a set of testing procedures representative of real-world collisions, wherein the results obtained are not only the same as human testing, but remain consistent with various subjects and impact conditions. It is hypothesized that one of the most important considerations in the testing methodology is the effect of initial seated position (ISP) on occupant kinematics during a rear impact collision. This study involves two parts that evaluates the effects of ISP during rear-end impact. In the first part, head acceleration results of computer simulation using Hybrid III TNO rear impact dummy (TRID) are compared to physical impact testing (PIT) of humans. The second part focuses on the computer simulation using TRID to obtain different neck parameters such as NIC (Neck Injury Criterion), NIJ (Neck Injury Predictor), neck forces and moments to predict the level of neck injury such as whiplash associated disorder (WAD) during low speed rear-end impact. In PIT, a total of 17 rear-impact tests were conducted with a nominal 8-km/hour change in velocity to 5 subjects in four different seated positions comprising of a normal position (NP) and three out of positions (OOP). The first position was a NP, defined as torso against the seat back, looking straight ahead, hands on the steering wheel, and feet on the floor. The second position was a head flex position (HFP), defined as the normal position with head flexed forward approximately 20 degrees. The third position was a torso lean position (TLP), defined as the normal position with torso leaned forward approximately 10 degrees away from the seat back. Lastly, a torso lean head flex position (TLHFP), defined as the normal position with the head flexed forward approximately 20 degrees and torso leaned forward approximately 10 degrees. The head acceleration plots from PIT reveal that for the third and fourth positions (TLP and TLHFP) when the subject torso leaned forward, the peak head acceleration for the subject decreased and there was also a delay in reaching the peak. The Hybrid III-TRID anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) was used in the same four different seated positions using computer simulation software MAthematical DYnamic MOdel (MADYMO 6.0) and the head acceleration results were compared to PIT. The comparison demonstrates that the Hybrid III-TRID ATD with MADYMO can be a reliable testing procedure during low-speed, rear-end impact for the four ISPs considered since the head acceleration plots deviated within the range of PIT head acceleration plots for different human subjects. This ensures that the second part of the study with neck injury using computer simulation results is a reliable testing procedure. It can be observed that MADYMO results have a greater error when compared to PIT when more than one OOP condition is employed as in TLHFP. All these observations would help in providing a tool to better understand the injury mechanisms and provide an accurate testing procedure for rear-end impact.     

Development of a three-year-old child FE model

OBJECTIVE: Child crash dummies are conventionally used for safety performance evaluations of the child restraint system (CRS) in vehicle crash tests. To investigate injuries to various body regions of a child in detail, mathematical models are useful, and provide information that cannot be analyzed by crash dummies. Therefore, in the present research, a finite element (FE) model of a 3-year-old child has been developed by model-based scaling from the AM50 human FE model, THUMS (Total HUman body for Safety). METHODS: The dimensions of each body region were based on the anthropometry data of United States children, and material properties of child bone were estimated from data reported in the literature. Neck flexion, thorax impact responses, and torso flexion were validated against the response corridor of the 3-year-old Hybrid III dummy in calibration tests. A test of lap belt loading to the abdomen was also conducted. FE models of two different types of CRS, a 5-point harness and a tray shield CRS, were also made, and ECE R44 sled impact test simulations were conducted using the child FE model. RESULTS: The characteristics of the child FE model proved to be close to the Hybrid III and child volunteer corridor. In the ECE R44 sled test simulations using the child FE model, the head movement down and head rotation were large in the 5-point harness CRS, and chest deflection was large in the tray shield CRS. In both CRS types, the whole spine flexed in the child FE model. This behavior is different from that of the Hybrid III, where the thorax spine is stiff and only the cervical spine and lumbar spine flex. CONCLUSIONS: Although this child FE model has several limitations in areas such as the anatomical shapes and material properties of a child, this model can be a useful tool to examine the behavior of a child in impacts, which may be difficult to predict by using the Hybrid III dummy with its stiff thorax spine box.     

Injuries in Full-Scale Vehicle Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier and Pole Tests Using Postmortem Human Subjects

Objective: To conduct near-side moving deformable barrier (MDB) and pole tests with postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in full-scale modern vehicles, document and score injuries, and examine the potential for angled chest loading in these tests to serve as a data set for dummy biofidelity evaluations and computational modeling.

Methods: Two PMHS (outboard left front and rear seat occupants) for MDB and one PMHS (outboard left front seat occupant) for pole tests were used. Both tests used sedan-type vehicles from same manufacturer with side airbags. Pretest x-ray and computed tomography (CT) images were obtained. Three-point belt-restrained surrogates were positioned in respective outboard seats. Accelerometers were secured to T1, T6, and T12 spines; sternum and pelvis; seat tracks; floor; center of gravity; and MDB. Load cells were used on the pole. Biomechanical data were gathered at 20 kHz. Outboard and inboard high-speed cameras were used for kinematics. X-rays and CT images were taken and autopsy was done following the test. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005 scoring scheme was used to score injuries.

Results: MDB test: male (front seat) and female (rear seat) PMHS occupant demographics: 52 and 57 years, 177 and 166 cm stature, 78 and 65 kg total body mass. Demographics of the PMHS occupant in the pole test: male, 26 years, 179 cm stature, and 84 kg total body mass. Front seat PMHS in MDB test: 6 near-side rib fractures (AIS = 3): 160–265 mm vertically from suprasternal notch and 40–80 mm circumferentially from center of sternum. Left rear seat PMHS responded with multiple bilateral rib fractures: 9 on the near side and 5 on the contralateral side (AIS = 3). One rib fractured twice. On the near and contralateral sides, fractures were 30–210 and 20–105 mm vertically from the suprasternal notch and 90–200 and 55–135 mm circumferentially from the center of sternum. A fracture of the left intertrochanteric crest occurred (AIS = 3). Pole test PMHS had one near-side third rib fracture. Thoracic accelerations of the 2 occupants were different in the MDB test. Though both occupants sustained positive and negative x-accelerations to the sternum, peak magnitudes and relative changes were greater for the rear than the front seat occupant. Magnitudes of the thoracic and sternum accelerations were lower in the pole test.

Conclusions: This is the first study to use PMHS occupants in MDB and pole tests in the same recent model year vehicles with side airbag and head curtain restraints. Injuries to the unilateral thorax for the front seat PMHS in contrast to the bilateral thorax and hip for the rear seat occupant in the MDB test indicate the effects of impact on the seating location and restraint system. Posterolateral locations of fractures to the front seat PMHS are attributed to constrained kinematics of occupant interaction with torso side airbag restraint system. Angled loading to the rear seat occupant from coupled sagittal and coronal accelerations of the sternum representing anterior thorax loading contributed to bilateral fractures. Inward bending initiated by the distal femur complex resulting in adduction of ipsilateral lower extremity resulted in intertrochanteric fracture to the rear seat occupant. These results serve as a data set for evaluating the biofidelity of the WorldSID and federalized side impact dummies and assist in validating human body computational models, which are increasingly used in crashworthiness studies.     

Intervertebral neck injury criterion for prediction of multiplanar cervical spine injury due to side impacts

OBJECTIVE: Intervertebral Neck Injury Criterion (IV-NIC) is based on the hypothesis that dynamic three-dimensional intervertebral motion beyond physiological limits may cause multiplanar injury of cervical spine soft tissues. Goals of this study, using a biofidelic whole human cervical spine model with muscle force replication and surrogate head in simulated side impacts, were to correlate IV-NIC with multiplanar injury and determine IV-NIC injury threshold for each intervertebral level. METHODS: Using a bench-top apparatus, side impacts were simulated at 3.5, 5, 6.5, and 8 g horizontal accelerations of the T1 vertebra. Pre- and post-impact flexibility testing in three-motion planes measured the soft tissue injury, i.e., significant increase (p < 0.05) in neutral zone (NZ) or range of motion (RoM) at any intervertebral level, above corresponding physiological limit. RESULTS: IV-NIC in left lateral bending correlated well with total lateral bending RoM (R = 0.61, P < 0.001) and NZ (R = 0.55, P < 0.001). Additionally, the same IV-NIC correlated well with left axial rotation RoM (R = 0.50, P < 0.001). IV-NIC injury thresholds (95% confidence limits) varied among intervertebral levels and ranged between 1.5 (0.6-2.4) at C3-C4 and 4.0 (2.4-5.7) at C7-T1. IV-NIC injury threshold times were attained beginning at 84.5 ms following impact. CONCLUSIONS: Present results suggest that IV-NIC is an effective tool for determining multiplanar soft tissue neck injuries by identifying the intervertebral level, mode, time, and severity of injury.     

Influence of the Anterior and Middle Cranial Fossae on Brain Kinematics During Sagittal Plane Head Rotation

A 2D physical model of the human head was used to investigate how the irregular skull base structure affects brain kinematics during sagittal plane head dynamics. The model consisted of a rigid skull vessel with interchangeable skull base structures. One version of the model used a skull base mimicking the irregular geometry of the human. A second version used a skull base structure approximating the anterior and middle fossae as a flat surface. Silicone gel simulated the brain and was separated from the vessel by a paraffin layer which provided a slip condition at the interface between the gel and vessel. The model was exposed to 7600 rad/s² peak rotational acceleration with 6 ms pulse duration and 5° forced rotation. After 90° free rotation, the model was decelerated during 30 ms. Five repeated tests were conducted with each version. Rigid body displacement, shear strain and principal strains were determined from high-speed video recorded trajectories of grid markers located at different positions in the surrogate brain. The humanlike skull base reduced peak displacements of the inferior surfaces of the temporal and frontal lobes up to 87% and 48%, respectively. Up to 48% and 36% higher peak strains were obtained in the frontal and superior regions of the surrogate brain in the version containing the humanlike skull base. In contrast, the humanlike skull base decreased peak strain up to 28% in the central region of the surrogate brain. The results indicate that the irregular skull base offers natural protection of nerves and vessels passing through fissures and foramina in the cranial floor but also that it affects kinematics in different regions throughout the cerebrum. Implications of these results are discussed with respect to brain injury and modeling of head impact.     

Variability in vehicle and dummy responses in rear-end collisions

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the occupant response variability due to differences in vehicle and seat design in low-speed rear-end collisions. METHODS: Occupant response variability was quantified using a BioRID dummy exposed to rear-end collisions in 20 different vehicles. Vehicles were rolled rearward into a rigid barrier at 8 km/h and the dynamic responses of the vehicle and dummy were measured with the head restraint adjusted to the up most position. In vehicles not damaged by this collision, additional tests were conducted with the head restraint down and at different impact speeds. RESULTS: Despite a coefficient of variation (COV) of less than 2% for the impact speed of the initial 8 km/h tests, the vehicle response parameters (speed change, acceleration, restitution, bumper force) had COVs of 7 to 23% and the dummy response parameters (head and T1 kinematics, neck loads, NIC, N(ij) and N(km)) had COVs of 14 to 52%. In five vehicles tested multiple times, a head restraint in the down position significantly increased the peak magnitude of many dummy kinematic and kinetic response parameters. Peak head kinematics and neck kinetics generally varied linearly with head restraint back set and height, although the neck reaction moment reversed and increased considerably if the dummy's head wrapped onto the top of the head restraint. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the proposition that the vehicle, seat, and head restraint are a safety system and that the design of vehicle bumpers and seats/head restraint should be considered together to maximize the potential reduction in whiplash injuries.     

The Impact of Mobile Data Terminal Use on Posture and Low-Back Discomfort When Combined With Simulated Prolonged Driving in Police Cruisers

The introduction of mobile computing within a constrained vehicle environment has led to changes in the task demands of occupational groups such as professional drivers and law enforcement officers. The purpose of this study was to examine how mobile data terminal (MDT) use interacts with prolonged driving to induce postural changes or low-back discomfort. Eighteen participants (9 male, 9 female) completed two 120-min simulated driving sessions. Time-varying lumbar spine and pelvis postures, seat pan interface pressures and ratings of perceived discomfort were recorded at 15-min intervals. The introduction of a computer interface decreased pelvic posterior rotation by an average of 15° with respect to upright standing and increased peak average discomfort in the neck (5.9 mm), left shoulder (6.8 mm), midback (10.9 mm), low back (10.6 mm) and pelvis (11.5 mm) compared to driving alone. The incorporation of mobile computing warrants consideration in the design of vehicle work environments.