A comparison of volunteers and dummy upper torso kinematics with and without shoulder belt slack in a low speed side/pre-roll environment

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the occupant and dummy kinematics in a low-speed lateral environment with and without shoulder belt slack. METHODS: A buck of a small European car was mounted on a side impact sled. The parameters evaluated were pulses, sitting location, and belt slack. A total of 24 tests were carried out. Three 50th-percentile male volunteers and one Hybrid III 50th-percentile male were tested. The pulses consisted of Pulse 1:+/- 0.7 g's pulse and Pulse 2: a -0.9 g pulse to simulate low-speed pre-roll/side events. Both pulses had a duration of 500 msec. RESULTS: The peak lateral head excursion was higher in the far-side occupants than in the near-side occupants. Furthermore, for the far-side volunteers, lateral head displacements were lower in the no-slack condition than in the slack condition, at 388 +/- 64 mm and 455 +/- 84 mm respectively for Pulse 1 and at 138 +/- 2 mm and 207 +/- 70 mm for Pulse 2. The timing required to reach peak lateral displacement was higher in Pulse 1 than in Pulse 2. In comparison to the volunteers, the Hybrid III dummy lateral motion was lower. The peak lateral displacement in Pulse 1 was 231 mm with slack and 194 mm without and 98 mm and 107 mm for Pulse 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in this study indicate that removing seatbelt slack would be more beneficial for far-sided occupants than near-sided. They also point to the lack of biofidelity of the Hybrid III dummy in low g lateral pulses.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The influence of personal protection equipment,occupant body size,and restraint system on the frontal impact responses of Hybrid III ATDs in tactical vehicles

Objective: Although advanced restraint systems, such as seat belt pretensioners and load limiters, can provide improved occupant protection in crashes, such technologies are currently not utilized in military vehicles. The design and use of military vehicles presents unique challenges to occupant safety—including differences in compartment geometry and occupant clothing and gear—that make direct application of optimal civilian restraint systems to military vehicles inappropriate. For military vehicle environments, finite element (FE) modeling can be used to assess various configurations of restraint systems and determine the optimal configuration that minimizes injury risk to the occupant. The models must, however, be validated against physical tests before implementation. The objective of this study was therefore to provide the data necessary for FE model validation by conducting sled tests using anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). A secondary objective of this test series was to examine the influence of occupant body size (5th percentile female, 50th percentile male, and 95th percentile male), military gear (helmet/vest/tactical assault panels), seat belt type (3-point and 5-point), and advanced seat belt technologies (pretensioner and load limiter) on occupant kinematics and injury risk in frontal crashes.

Methods: In total, 20 frontal sled tests were conducted using a custom sled buck that was reconfigurable to represent both the driver and passenger compartments of a light tactical military vehicle. Tests were performed at a delta-V of 30 mph and a peak acceleration of 25 g. The sled tests used the Hybrid III 5th percentile female, 50th percentile male, and 95th percentile male ATDs outfitted with standard combat boots and advanced combat helmets. In some tests, the ATDs were outfitted with additional military gear, which included an improved outer tactical vest (IOTV), IOTV and squad automatic weapon (SAW) gunner with a tactical assault panel (TAP), or IOTV and rifleman with TAP. ATD kinematics and injury outcomes were determined for each test.

Results: Maximum excursions were generally greater in the 95th percentile male compared to the 50th percentile male ATD and in ATDs wearing TAP compared to ATDs without TAP. Pretensioners and load limiters were effective in decreasing excursions and injury measures, even when the ATD was outfitted in military gear.

Conclusions: ATD injury response and kinematics are influenced by the size of the ATD, military gear, and restraint system. This study has provided important data for validating FE models of military occupants, which can be used for design optimization of military vehicle restraint systems.     

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.     

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.     

Overview of a combined computational–experimental evaluation for the assessment of panoramic sunroof impact characteristics for ejection mitigation

Abstract

Objective: To meet increasing customer demand, many vehicle manufacturers are now offering a panoramic sunroof option in their vehicle lineup. Currently, there is no regulatory or consumer test aimed at assessing the potential for ejection mitigation of roof glazing, which leaves manufacturers to develop internal performance standards to guide designs. The goal of this study was to characterize the variety of occupant-to-roof impacts involving unbelted occupants in rollover crashes to determine the ranges of possible effective masses and impact velocities. This information can be used to define occupant retention requirements and performance criteria for roof glazing in occupant ejection protection.

Methods: This study combined computational (MADYMO and LS-Dyna) simulations of occupant kinematics in rollover crashes with laboratory rollover crash tests using the dynamic rollover test system (DRoTS) and linked them through controlled anthropomorphic test device (ATD)-to-roof (“drop”) impact tests. The DRoTS and the ATD drop tests were performed to explore impact scenarios and estimate dummy-to-roof impact impulses. Next, 13 sets of vehicle kinematics and deformation data were extracted from a combination of vehicle dynamics and finite element model simulations that reconstructed variations of rollover crash cases from the field data. Then occupant kinematics data were extracted from a full-factorial sensitivity study that used MADYMO simulations to investigate how changes in anthropometry and seating position would affect occupant–roof impacts across all 13 cases. Finite element (FE) simulations of ATD and Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) human body model (HBM) roof impacts were performed to investigate the most severe cases from the MADYMO simulations to generate a distribution of head-to-roof impact energies.

Results: From the multiparameter design of experiment and experimental study, kinematics and energy output were extracted and analyzed. Based on dummy-to-roof impact force and dummy-to-roof impact velocity, the most severe rollover scenarios were identified. In the DRoTS experiments followed by the drop tests, the range of identified impact velocities was between 2 and 5.8 m/s. However, computational simulations of the rollover crashes showed higher impact velocities and similar effective masses. The largest dummy-to-roof impact velocity was 11 m/s.

Conclusions: This study combined computational and experimental analyses to determine a range of possible unbelted occupant-to-roof impact energies. These results can be used to determine design parameters for an impactor for the assessment of the risk of roof glazing ejection for unbelted occupants in rollover crashes.     

Passenger muscle responses in lane change and lane change with braking maneuvers using two belt configurations: Standard and reversible pre-pretensioner

Abstract

Objective: The introduction of integrated safety technologies in new car models calls for an improved understanding of the human occupant response in precrash situations. The aim of this article is to extensively study occupant muscle activation in vehicle maneuvers potentially occurring in precrash situations with different seat belt configurations.

Methods: Front seat male passengers wearing a 3-point seat belt with either standard or pre-pretensioning functionality were exposed to multiple autonomously carried out lane change and lane change with braking maneuvers while traveling at 73?km/h. This article focuses on muscle activation data (surface electromyography [EMG] normalized using maximum voluntary contraction [MVC] data) obtained from 38 muscles in the neck, upper extremities, the torso, and lower extremities. The raw EMG data were filtered, rectified, and smoothed. All muscle activations were presented in corridors of mean?±?one standard deviation. Separate Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were performed on volunteers’ muscle activation onset and amplitude considering 2 paired samples with the belt configuration as an independent factor.

Results: In normal driving conditions prior to any of the evasive maneuvers, activity levels were low (<2% MVC) in all muscles except for the lumbar extensors (3–5.5% MVC). During the lane change maneuver, selective muscles were activated and these activations restricted the sideway motions due to inertial loading. Averaged muscle activity, predominantly in the neck, lumbar extensor, and abdominal muscles, increased up to 24% MVC soon after the vehicle accelerated in lateral direction for all volunteers. Differences in activation time and amplitude between muscles in the right and left sides of the body were observed relative to the vehicle’s lateral motion. For specific muscles, lane changes with the pre-pretensioner belt were associated with earlier muscle activation onsets and significantly smaller activation amplitudes than for the standard belt (P?<?.05).

Conclusions: Applying a pre-pretensioner belt affected muscle activations; that is, amplitude and onset time. The present muscle activation data complement the results in a preceding publication, the volunteers’ kinematics and the boundary conditions from the same data set. An effect of belt configuration was also seen on previously published volunteers’ kinematics with lower lateral and forward displacements for head and upper torso using the pre-pretensioner belt versus the standard belt. The data provided in this article can be used for validation and further improvement of active human body models with active musculature in both sagittal and lateral loading scenarios intended for simulation of some evasive maneuvers that potentially occur prior to a crash.     

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.     

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.     

The effect of precrash velocity reduction on occupant response using a human body finite element model

Objective: The objective of this study is to use a validated finite element model of the human body and a certified model of an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) to evaluate the effect of simulated precrash braking on driver kinematics, restraint loads, body loads, and computed injury criteria in 4 commonly injured body regions.

Methods: The Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) 50th percentile male occupant (M50-O) and the Humanetics Hybrid III 50th percentile models were gravity settled in the driver position of a generic interior equipped with an advanced 3-point belt and driver airbag. Fifteen simulations per model (30 total) were conducted, including 4 scenarios at 3 severity levels: median, severe, and the U.S. New Car Assessment Program (U.S.-NCAP) and 3 extra per model with high-intensity braking. The 4 scenarios were no precollision system (no PCS), forward collision warning (FCW), FCW with prebraking assist (FCW+PBA), and FCW and PBA with autonomous precrash braking (FCW + PBA + PB). The baseline ΔV was 17, 34, and 56.4 kph for median, severe, and U.S.-NCAP scenarios, respectively, and were based on crash reconstructions from NASS/CDS. Pulses were then developed based on the assumed precrash systems equipped. Restraint properties and the generic pulse used were based on literature.

Results: In median crash severity cases, little to no risk (<10% risk for Abbreviated injury Scale [AIS] 3+) was found for all injury measures for both models. In the severe set of cases, little to no risk for AIS 3+ injury was also found for all injury measures. In NCAP cases, highest risk was typically found with No PCS and lowest with FCW + PBA + PB. In the higher intensity braking cases (1.0–1.4 g), head injury criterion (HIC), brain injury criterion (BrIC), and chest deflection injury measures increased with increased braking intensity. All other measures for these cases tended to decrease. The ATD also predicted and trended similar to the human body models predictions for both the median, severe, and NCAP cases. Forward excursion for both models decreased across median, severe, and NCAP cases and diverged from each other in cases above 1.0 g of braking intensity.

Conclusions: The addition of precrash systems simulated through reduced precrash speeds caused reductions in some injury criteria, whereas others (chest deflection, HIC, and BrIC) increased due to a modified occupant position. The human model and ATD models trended similarly in nearly all cases with greater risk indicated in the human model. These results suggest the need for integrated safety systems that have restraints that optimize the occupant's position during precrash braking and prior to impact.     

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.     

Occupant injury severity from lateral collisions: A literature review

Problem

Side impacts are a serious automotive injury problem; they represent about 30% of all fatalities for passenger vehicle occupants. This literature review focuses on occupant injuries resulting from real lateral collisions. It emphasizes the interaction between injury patterns and crash factors, taking into account type of injuries and their severity. It highlights what is known on the subject and suggests further studies.

Method

We reviewed papers identified by searches in two electronic databases for the 1996-2009 publication period, and in specific journals and conference proceedings.

Results

Studies on the Primary Direction of Force (PDOF) have revealed that fatal crashes occur most frequently when the PDOF is at 3 or 9 o'clock. The risk of serious injury is two to three times higher for the near-side occupant than for the far-side occupant. Head injuries predominate in oblique impacts and thoracic injuries in perpendicular ones. A few results are also reported on side airbag protection.

Conclusions

This literature review presents an overall picture of the injuries caused by lateral collisions, though each of the papers or articles examined focuses mostly on some particular aspect of the problem. The incidence of specific injuries depends on the data source used. Very few population-based analyses of lateral collision injuries were found.

Impact on industry

New studies are needed to evaluate new protective devices (e.g., lateral airbags, inflatable curtains). Without interfering with their care duties, Emergency Medical Technicians could be systematically trained to observe the collision's specific characteristics and to report all their relevant observations to the emergency physicians to increase the likelihood of prompt diagnosis and proper care.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.