Far-side occupant kinematics in low speed lateral sled

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the far-side occupant kinematics in low-speed lateral pulses with and without a seatbelt system. METHODS: The kinematics responses of three volunteers and a Hybrid III were compared in three low-to-moderate lateral pulses. The parameters evaluated were pulses and belt usage. A total of 24 tests were carried out in a side-impact sled. The subjects consisted of two 50th-percentile males (Vol 1 & 2), one 5th-percentile female (Vol 3), and a Hybrid III 50th-percentile male (ATD). All subjects were seated in a far-side impact. Three low speed pulses were used: Pulse 1: a 4 g at 6 km/h, Pulse 2: 4 g/8 kph followed by a -2.5 g pulse to simulate a low curb impact, and Pulse 3: a 4 g's pulse at 10 km/h. In addition, the kinematics result from Pulse 2 was used to assess the performance of a human model. The human model was developed by TNO. RESULTS: For all three pulses, the peak head lateral displacement was greater with the 5th female (Vol 3) than the male volunteers. The ATD results in the 6 and 10 km/h pulses were comparable to the volunteers. However, in Pulse 2, the ATD motion was higher than the volunteers. CONCLUSION: The results obtained in this study suggest the Hybrid III is a somewhat conservative device for an evaluation of occupant kinematics in low-speed lateral pulses. The human model also seemed to be representative of volunteer kinematics.     

A new THOR shoulder design: a comparison with volunteers, the Hybrid III, and THOR NT

OBJECTIVE: Since the shoulders are rarely seriously injured in frontal or oblique collisions, they have been given low priority in the development of frontal impact crash test dummies. The shoulder complex geometry and its kinematics are of vital importance for the overall dummy kinematics. The shoulder complex also influences the risk of the safety belt slipping off the shoulder in oblique forward collisions. The first aim of this study was to develop a new 50th percentile male THOR shoulder design, while the second was to compare the new shoulder, mounted on a THOR NT dummy, with volunteer, THOR NT, and Hybrid III range of motion and stiffness data. The third aim was to test the repeatability of the new shoulder during dynamic testing and to see how the design behaves with respect to belt slippage in a 45 degrees far-side collision. METHODS: The new 50th percentile THOR shoulder design was developed with the aid of a shell model of the seated University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) 50th percentile male with coordinates for joints and bony landmarks (Schneider et al., 1983). The new shoulder design has human-like bony landmarks for the acromion and coracoid processes. The clavicle curvature and length are also made similar to that of a male human, as is the range of motion in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and medial-lateral directions. The new shoulder design was manufactured and tested under the same conditions that T?rnvall et al. (2005b) used to compare the shoulder range of motion for the volunteers, Hybrid III, and THOR Alpha. The new design was also tested in two dynamic test configurations: the first was a 0 degrees full-frontal test and the second was a 45 degrees far-side test. The dummy tests were conducted with an R-16 seat with a three-point belt, the Delta V was 27.0+/-0.5 km/h and the maximum peak acceleration was approximately 14.6+/-0.5 g for each test. RESULTS: A new shoulder design with geometry close to that of humans was developed to be retrofitted to the THOR NT dummy. The results showed that the range of motion for the new shoulder complex during static loading was larger by at least a factor of three, for the maximum load (200 N/arm), than that of either the Hybrid III or the THOR NT; this means it was more similar to the volunteers' range of motion. It was observed that the THOR NT with the new shoulder did not slide out of the shoulder belt during a far-side collision. The performance of the new shoulder was reasonably repeatable and stable during both the static tests and the sled tests. CONCLUSION: A new shoulder for the THOR NT has been designed and developed, and data from static range of motion tests and sled tests indicate that the new shoulder complex has the potential to function in a more human-like manner on the THOR dummy.     

Frontal impact dummy kinematics in oblique frontal collisions: evaluation against post mortem human subject test data

OBJECTIVE: Today, a predominant percentage of vehicles involved in car crashes are exposed to oblique or frontal offset collisions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 50th percentile male Hybrid III, THOR 99, and THOR Alpha dummies by comparing them with the corresponding kinematics of post mortem human subjects (PMHS) in this type of collision. METHODS: The PMHS data include results from oblique frontal collision tests. They include sled tests with near-side and far-side belt geometries at 15 degrees , 30 degrees , and 45 degrees angles. The test subjects were restrained with a three-point lap-shoulder belt and the Delta V was 30 km/h. RESULTS: The results from the Hybrid III and THOR 99 tests showed that, in most of the test, the head trajectories were an average of approximately 0.1 m shorter than those from equivalent PMHS. The Hybrid III and THOR 99 far-side belt geometry tests showed that the belt remained in place longer on the shoulder of the Hybrid III than on the THOR 99 and the THOR Alpha. This was probably due to a stiffer lumbar spine in the Hybrid III and to a large groove in the steel of the superior surface of the Hybrid III shoulder structure. The THOR 99 escaped from the shoulder belt about 40-50 ms earlier than the THOR Alpha. The results from the THOR Alpha tests show that the head trajectory accorded fairly well with the PMHS data, as long as the shoulder belt did not slip off the shoulder. Although the THOR Alpha shoulder escaped the shoulder belt in the 45 degrees far-side belt geometry, the PMHS did not. This may be due to the THOR Alpha shoulder design, with approximately 0.05 m smaller superior and medial shoulder range-of-motion, in combination with a relatively soft lumbar spine. CONCLUSIONS: The THOR Alpha provides head trajectories similar to those of the PMHS under these loading conditions, provided the shoulder belt remains in position on the shoulder. When the shoulder belt slipped off the dummy shoulder, the head kinematics was altered. The shoulder range-of-motion may be a contributing factor to the overall kinematics of an occupant in oblique frontal impact situations where the occupant moves in a trajectory at an angle from that of the longitudinal direction of the car.     

Reconstruction of crashes involving injured child occupants: the risk of serious injuries associated with sub-optimal restraint use may be reduced by better controlling occupant kinematics

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether injuries to sub-optimally restrained child occupants in real-world crashes were likely to be preventable by alternative restraint usage practices and to assess the usefulness of crash reconstruction for exploring injury mechanisms in child occupants. METHODS: Real-world crashes in which child occupants sustained significant injuries were reconstructed on a laboratory crash sled using the Hybrid III family of child dummies. Alternative restraint scenarios and cases in which children were not seriously injured were also simulated to compare dummy kinematics and dynamic responses in optimal restraint configurations. RESULTS: Restraint misuse was associated with greater motion of the dummy torso and head during crashes, often allowing contact between the child and the vehicle interior, resulting in injury. Poor pre-crash posture for a child inappropriately restrained in an adult belt appeared to worsen the geometry of the sash (shoulder) belt, resulting in a cervical injury due to direct interaction with the belt. Dynamic dummy data did not appear to discriminate between injury and non-injury cases. CONCLUSIONS: Dummy kinematics suggest that injuries in which inappropriate use and misuse were a factor were less likely if the most appropriate restraint was used correctly. Adequately controlling the head and upper body of the child occupant was seen to prevent undesirable interactions with the vehicle interior and restraint system, which were associated with injury in the real world. Neck forces and moments and injury criteria calculated from these did not predict injury reliably.     

Variations in occupant response with seat belt slack and anchor location during moderate frontal impacts

Both seat belt slack and anchor location are known to affect occupant excursion during high-speed frontal collisions, but their effects have not been studied at moderate collision severities. The goal of this study was to quantify how seat belt slack and anchor location affect occupant kinematics and kinetics in moderate severity frontal collisions. A Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy was seated on a programmable sled and exposed to frontal collisions with a speed change of 17.5 km/h. The seat belt was adjusted either snugly or with 10 cm slack (distributed 60/40 between the shoulder and lap portions) and the anchor location was varied by adjusting the seat position either fully forward or rearward (seat travel = 13 cm). Accelerations and displacements of the head, T1 and pelvis were measured in the sagittal plane. Upper neck loads and knee displacements were also measured. Five trials were performed for each of the four combinations of belt adjustment (snug, slack) and anchor location (seat forward, seat rearward). For each trial, kinematic and kinetic response peaks were determined and then compared across conditions using ANOVAs. Peak displacements, accelerations and loads varied significantly with both seat belt slack and anchor location. Seat belt slack affected more parameters and had a larger effect than anchor location on most peak response parameters. Head displacements increased a similar amount between the snug/slack belt conditions and the rearward/forward anchor locations. Overall, horizontal head displacements increased from 23.8 cm in the snug-belt, rearward-anchor configuration to 33.9 cm in the slack-belt, forward-anchor configuration. These results demonstrated that analyses of occupant displacements, accelerations and loads during moderate frontal impacts should consider potential sources of seat belt slack and account for differences in seat belt anchor locations.     

THOR dummy chest deflection response in oblique and lateral far-side sled tests

Abstract

Objective: The focus of this study is side impact. Though occupant injury assessment and protection in nearside impacts has received considerable attention and safety standards have been promulgated, field studies show that a majority of far-side occupant injuries are focused on the head and thorax. The 50th percentile male Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR) has been used in oblique and lateral far-side impact sled tests, and regional body accelerations and forces and moments recorded by load cells have been previously reported. The aim of this study is to evaluate the chestband-based deflection responses from these tests.

Methods: The 3-point belt–restrained 50th percentile male THOR dummy was seated upright in a buck consisting of a rigid flat seat, simulated center console, dashboard, far-side side door structure, and armrest. It was designed to conduct pure lateral and oblique impacts. The center console, dashboard, simulated door structure, and armrest were covered with energy-absorbing materials. A center-mounted airbag was mounted to the right side of the seat. Two 59-gage chestbands were routed on the circumference of the thorax, with the upper and lower chestbands at the level of the third and sixth ribs, respectively, following the rib geometry. Oblique and pure lateral far-side impact tests with and without airbags were conducted at 8.3 m/s. Maximum chest deflections were computed by processing temporal contours using custom software and 3 methods: Procedures paralleling human cadaver studies, using the actual anchor point location and actual alignment of the InfraRed Telescoping Rods for the Assessment of Chest Compression (IR-TRACC) in the dummy on each aspect—that is, right or left,—and using the same anchor location of the internal sensor but determining the location of the peak chest deflection on the contour confined to the aspect of the sensor; these were termed the SD, ID, and TD metrics, respectively.

Results: All deformation contours at the upper and lower thorax levels and associated peak deflections are given for all tests. Briefly, the ID metrics were the lowest in magnitude for both pure lateral and oblique modes, regardless of the presence or absence of an airbag. This was followed by the TD metric, and the SD metric produced the greatest deflections.

Conclusion: The chestbands provide a unique opportunity to compute peak deflections that parallel current IR-TRACC-type deflections and allow computation of peak deflections independent of the initial point of attachment to the rib. The differing locations of the peak deflection vectors along the rib contours for different test conditions suggest that a priori attachment is less effective. Further, varying magnitudes of the differences between ID and TD metrics underscore the difficulty in extrapolating ID outputs under different conditions: Pure lateral versus oblique, airbag presence, and thoracic levels. Deflection measurements should, therefore, not be limited to an instrument that can only track from a fixed point. For improved predictions, these results suggest the need to investigate alternative techniques, such as optical methods to improve chest deflection measurements for far-side occupant injury assessment and mitigation.     

Rollover injury: effects of near- and far-seating position, belt use, and number of quarter rolls

PURPOSE: Vehicle and occupant responses in rollovers are complex since many factors influence both. This study analyzes the following factors: 1) belt use, 2) seated position with respect to the lead side in the rollover, 3) another front occupant in the crash, and 4) number of quarter rolls. The aim was to improve our understanding of rollover injury mechanisms. METHOD: Rollover accidents were analyzed using 1992-2004 NASS-CDS data. The sample included adult drivers and right-front passengers. All occupants were evaluated and then a subset of non-ejected occupants was analyzed. Using roll direction and seating position, the sample was divided into near- and far-seated occupants. Injury and fatality risks were determined by seatbelt use, occupancy, rollover direction, and number of quarter rolls. Risk was defined as the number of injured (e.g., MAIS 3+) divided by the number of exposed occupants (MAIS 0-6). Significance in differences was determined. A matched-pair analysis was used to determine the risk of serious injury for near- and far-seated occupants who were either belted or unbelted in the same crash. RESULTS: For all occupants, serious injury risks were highest for far-seated, unbelted occupants at 18.1% +/- 4.8%, followed by near-seated unbelted occupants at 12.0% +/- 3.5%. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Belted near- and far-seated occupants had a similar injury risk of 4.3% +/- 1.2% and 4.0% +/- 1.2%, respectively. For non-ejected occupants, serious injury risk was 9.5% +/- 3.2% for far-seated unbelted occupants and 4.9% +/- 2.1% for near-seated unbelted occupants, not a statistically significant difference. Serious injury risk was similar for belted near- and far-seated non-ejected occupants, at 3.6% +/- 1.1%. Seatbelts were 64.2%-77.9% effective in preventing serious injury for all occupants and 62.1%-26.5% for far- and near-seated, non-ejected occupants, respectively. Based on the matched pairs, seatbelts were less effective for near-seated (5.0%) compared to far-seated (2.8%) occupant MAIS 3+F risks. This was similar for non-ejected occupants. An unbelted near-seated occupant increased the risk for a belted far-seated occupant by 2.2 times, whereas an unbelted far-seated occupant increased the risk for a belted near-seated occupant by 10.2 times. For all occupants, the risk of serious injury increased with the number of quarter rolls, irrespective of seated position. For near-seated occupants, seatbelt effectiveness was higher in < or =1 roll than 1+ roll, at 72.3% compared to 28.3%. For far-seated occupants, seatbelt effectiveness was similar in < or =1 and 1+ roll samples at 78.3% and 76.8%, respectively. Near-seated occupants had the lowest serious injury risk when they were the sole occupant in the vehicle. This was also true for non-ejected occupants. However, far-seated occupants had a lower injury risk when another occupant was involved in the crash. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of carrying another occupant appears to reduce the risk of serious injury to far-seated occupants. However, near-seated occupants are better off being the sole occupant in the vehicle. Seatbelt effectiveness was lowest at 28.3% for non-ejected, near-seated occupants in 1+ rolls. This finding deserves further evaluation in an effort to improve seatbelt effectiveness in rollovers. For belted drivers alone in a rollover, fatality risks are 2.24 times higher for the far- versus near-seated position. Analysis of rollovers by quarter turns indicates that occupants are both far-side and near-side in rollovers. The extent to which this confounds the relationship between roll direction, seating position, and injury risk is unknown.     

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.     

Occurrence of Serious Injury in Real-World Side Impacts of Vehicles with Good Side-Impact Protection Ratings

Objective: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) introduced its side impact consumer information test program in 2003. Since that time, side airbags and structural improvements have been implemented across the fleet and the proportion of good ratings has increased to 93% of 2012–2014 model year vehicles. Research has shown that drivers of good-rated vehicles are 70% less likely to die in a left-side crash than drivers of poor-rated vehicles. Despite these improvements, side impact fatalities accounted for about one quarter of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2012. This study is a detailed analysis of real-world cases with serious injury resulting from side crashes of vehicles with good ratings in the IIHS side impact test.

Methods: NASS-CDS and Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) were queried for occupants of good-rated vehicles who sustained an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 3 injury in a side-impact crash. The resulting 110 cases were categorized by impact configuration and other factors that contributed to injury. Patterns of impact configuration, restraint performance, and occupant injury were identified and discussed in the context of potential upgrades to the current IIHS side impact test.

Results: Three quarters of the injured occupants were involved in near-side impacts. For these occupants, the most common factors contributing to injury were crash severities greater than the IIHS test, inadequate side-airbag performance, and lack of side-airbag coverage for the injured body region. In the cases where an airbag was present but did not prevent the injury, occupants were often exposed to loading centered farther forward on the vehicle than in the IIHS test. Around 40% of the far-side occupants were injured from contact with the struck-side interior structure, and almost all of these cases were more severe than the IIHS test. The remaining far-side occupants were mostly elderly and sustained injury from the center console, instrument panel, or seat belt. In addition, many far-side occupants were likely out of position due to events preceding the side impact and/or being unbelted.

Conclusion: Individual changes to the IIHS side impact test have the potential to reduce the number of serious injuries in real-world crashes. These include impacting the vehicle farther forward (relevant to 28% of all cases studied), greater test severity (17%), the inclusion of far-side occupants (9%), and more restrictive injury criteria (9%). Combinations of these changes could be more effective.     

Assessment of Bilateral Thoracic Loading on the Near-Side Occupant Due to Occupant-to-Occupant Interaction in Vehicle Crash Tests

Objective: This study aims, by means of the WorldSID 50th percentile male, to evaluate thoracic loading and injury risk to the near-side occupant due to occupant-to-occupant interaction in combination with loading from an intruding structure.

Method: Nine vehicle crash tests were performed with a 50th percentile WorldSID male dummy in the near-side (adjacent to the intruding structure) seat and a THOR or ES2 dummy in the far-side (opposite the intruding structure) seat. The near-side seated WorldSID was equipped with 6 + 6 IR-Traccs (LH and RH) in the thorax/abdomen enabling measurement of bilateral deflection. To differentiate deflection caused by the intrusion, and the deflection caused by the neighboring occupant, time history curves were analyzed. The crash tests were performed with different modern vehicles, equipped with thorax side airbags and inflatable curtains, ranging from a compact car to a large sedan, and in different loading conditions such as car-to-car, barrier, and pole tests. Lateral delta V based on vehicle tunnel acceleration and maximum residual intrusion at occupant position were used as a measurement of crash severity to compare injury measurements.

Result: In the 9 vehicle crash tests, thoracic loading, induced by the intruding structure as well as from the far-side occupant, varied due to the size and structural performance of the car as well as the severity of the crash. Peak deflection on the thoracic outboard side occurred during the first 50 ms of the event. Between 70 to 150 ms loading induced by the neighboring occupant occurred and resulted in an inboard-side peak deflection and viscous criterion. In the tests where the target vehicle lateral delta V was below 30 km/h and intrusion less than 200 mm, deflections were low on both the outboard (20–40 mm) and inboard side (10–15 mm). At higher crash severities, delta V 35 km/h and above as well as intrusions larger than 350 mm, the inboard deflections (caused by interaction to the far-side occupant) were of the same magnitude or even higher (30–70 mm) than the outboard deflections (30–50 mm).

Conclusion: A WorldSID 50th percentile male equipped with bilateral IR-Traccs can detect loading to the thorax from a neighboring occupant making injury risk assessment feasible for this type of loading. At crash severities resulting in a delta V above 35 km/h and intrusions larger than 350 mm, both the inboard deflection and VC resulted in high risks of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ injury, especially for a senior occupant.     

Effectiveness of high back belt positioning booster seats in side impacts

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential of high back booster seats to provide effective protection to children in side impacts. METHOD: This article presents a series of side impact sled tests at a velocity change of 30.5 km/h and a peak deceleration of 15.2 g, using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in two styles of commonly used high-back booster seats: a conventional polystyrene booster seat and a convertible child restraint/booster seat. A series of tests were also performed using alternative anchorage systems in combination with the boosters. Simulated side impact tests were conducted at 90 degrees and 45 degrees. RESULTS: The booster seats tested were found to be too short for the 6-year-old dummy and head contact with the side door occurred in all 90 degree tests, resulting in high HIC values. The greatest potential for achieving effective protection in side impact in this test series was observed when the convertible child restraint/booster was used in combination with a rigid anchorage system. Using this system, the body of the dummy was kept farther away from the door which resulted in a softer head impact with the side door. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this work indicate that current booster seats offer poor torso containment and no head protection for children within the recommended age range. They also showed that the level of protection provided by belt positioning booster seats can be improved through the use of rigid anchorage systems. However, for this potential to be fully realized, belt positioning booster seats must offer better containment of the occupant during the impact.     

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.     

Driver injury in near- and far-side impacts: Update on the effect of front passenger belt use

Purpose: This is a study that updates earlier research on the influence of a front passenger on the risk for severe driver injury in near-side and far-side impacts. It includes the effects of belt use by the driver and passenger, identifies body regions involved in driver injury, and identifies the sources for severe driver head injury.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 4 + F driver injury in near-side and far-side impacts by front passenger belt use and as a sole occupant in the driver seat. Side impacts were identified with GAD1 = L or R without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front-outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4 + F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0 + F. Standard errors were determined.

Results: Overall, belted drivers had greater risks for severe injury in near-side than far-side impacts. As a sole driver, the risk was 0.969 ± 0.212% for near-side and 0.313 ± 0.069% for far-side impacts (P < .005). The driver's risk was 0.933 ± 0.430% with an unbelted passenger and 0.596 ± 0.144% with a belted passenger in near-side impacts. The risk was 2.17 times greater with an unbelted passenger (NS). The driver's risk was 0.782 ± 0.431% with an unbelted passenger and 0.361% ± 0.114% with a belted passenger in far-side impacts. The risk was 1.57 times greater with an unbelted passenger (P < .10). Seat belt use was 66 to 95% effective in preventing MAIS 4 + F injury in the driver. For belted drivers, the head and thorax were the leading body regions for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 4+ injury. For near-side impacts, the leading sources for AIS 4+ head injury were the left B-pillar, roof, and other vehicle. For far-side impacts, the leading sources were the other occupant, right interior, and roof (8.5%).

Conclusions: Seat belt use by a passenger lowered the risk of severe driver injury in side impacts. The reduction was 54% in near-side impacts and 36% in far-side impacts. Belted drivers experienced mostly head and thoracic AIS 4+ injuries. Head injuries in the belted drivers were from contact with the side interior and the other occupant, even with a belted passenger.     

Thoracic Response and Trauma in Air Bag Deployment Tests with Out-of-Position Small Female Surrogates

The Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy and seven small female cadavers were instrumented and tested as out-of-position drivers in static air bag deployment tests. Tank test pressure profiles were used to characterize inflator peak pressures and pressure onset rates of two production air bags and a prototype dual-stage system prior to their use in the static deployments. In the out-of-position tests, the chest of die surrogate was positioned in direct contact with the air bag module in an effort to create a worst-case loading environment for the thorax. For the cadavers, post-test radiographs and autopsy investigations identified rib fractures as the most common injury and showed that the number of fractures correlated well with maximum chest compression. The Viscous Criteria exceeded 1.0 m/s in nearly all dummy and cadaver tests but did not correlate well with the severity level of observed cadaver injury which was largely determined by hard-tissue rather than soft-tissue trauma. Statistical analysis of the injury, severity relative to the air bag and test parameters suggests that the pressure onset rate of the inflator is more important than peak pressure in determining the severity of out-of-position injuries and should be given primary consideration in inflator depowering efforts. Statistical comparison of dummy and cadaver responses indicates acceptable biofldelity of the Hybrid III small female dummy.     

Prediction of cervical spine injury risk for the 6-year-old child in frontal crashes

This article presents a series of 49 km/h sled tests using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in a high-back booster, a low-back booster, and a three-point belt. Although a 10-year review at a level I trauma center showed that noncontact cervical spine injuries are rare in correctly restrained booster-age children, dummy neck loads exceeded published injury thresholds in all tests. The dummy underwent extreme neck flexion during the test, causing full-face contact with the dummy's chest. These dummy kinematics were compared to the kinematics of a 12-year-old cadaver tested in a similar impact environment. The cadaver test showed neck flexion, but also significant thoracic spinal flexion which was nonexistent in the dummy. This comparison was expanded using MADYMO simulations in which the thoracic spinal stiffness of the dummy model was decreased to give a more biofidelic kinematic response. We conclude that the stiff thoracic spine of the dummy results in high neck forces and moments that are not representative of the true injury potential.     

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.     

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters

Objective: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits.

Methods: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars.

Results: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt–induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%.

Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.     

Deformation patterns in WorldSID 50th percentile dummy instrumented with IR-TRACC and RibEye™ in different loading configurations

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different loading configurations on the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy instrumented either with the Infra-Red Telescoping Rod for the Assessment of Chest Compression (IR-TRACC) or the RibEye? rib deflection measurement system.

Methods: The optical sensors of the RibEye system were used to capture the multipoint deformation of the dummy at frontal and rearward off-center locations in addition to the center of the rib location. The experimental setup consisted of 2 types of loadings: Low severity and high severity. Low-severity loading was performed by deploying a fixture-mounted side airbag on the dummy and high-severity loading was achieved by deploying a driver front airbag mounted in a similar fashion. The low-severity condition aimed at deforming the dummy’s ribs locally at off-center locations where the RibEye light emitting diodes (LEDs) were positioned to capture the deformations at those locations. The high-severity condition aimed at loading the dummy at high speed in lateral and oblique directions similar to what is experienced by dummies in side impacts.

Results: In the low-severity tests, the peak deflections, in terms of length change, were approximately 15–20?mm, whereas for the high-severity cases the peak deflections were in the range of 30–40?mm for both IR-TRACC and RibEye cases.

Conclusions: For similar physical insults, dummies with the IR-TRACC and RibEye systems showed varying results for both length changes and the shoulder forces depending on the severity and direction of loading. Under purely lateral loading, the mid-length changes with the RibEye and the 1D IR-TRACC were comparable. In the oblique loading conditions, more differences were seen with the 2 systems depending on the impact direction. The shoulder forces consistently differed between the 2 systems. In the frontal oblique low-severity cases, the ribs pivoted along the spine end and the length change was not found to be a suitable parameter to quantify rib deformation in such loading scenarios.     

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.     

Small Female Upper Extremity Interaction with a Deploying Side Air Bag

This paper presents a study characterizing the interaction between a deploying side air bag and a small female upper extremity. The results are based on twelve tests with small female cadavers, and fifteen tests with the instrumented SAE 5th percentile female upper extremity attached to the 5th percentile Hybrid III female dummy. The upper extremity was loaded by a deploying seat mounted thoracic side air bag in a static test environment. Three inflators were used that varied in peak pressure and pressure onset rate. Despite kinematic differences between the dummy and cadaver, the moments recorded in the cadaver and dummy were similar. Chondral and osteochondral fractures in the cadaver elbow joints were identified in seven of the twelve cadaver tests, while a simple fracture of the distal humerus head was observed in one test. A linear logistic regression analysis was performed to correlate occurrence of recorded injury and the test parameters. Injury risk functions were constructed using age, forearm acceleration, elbow moment, and air bag inflator level as variables.