Study of chest injuries to 3-year-old child occupants seated in impact shield and 5-point harness CRSs

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate whether the 5-point harness or the impact shield child restraint system (CRS) or both have the potential to cause chest injuries to children. This is determined by examining whether the loading to the chest reaches the internal organ injury threshold for children.

Method: The chest injury risk to a child occupant in a CRS was investigated using Q3 dummy tests, finite element (FE) simulations (Q3 dummy and human models), and animal tests. The investigation was done for 2 types of CRSs (i.e., the impact shield CRS and 5-point harness CRS) based on the UN R44 dynamic test specifications.

Results: The tests using a Q3 dummy indicated that although the chest deflection of the dummy in the impact shield CRS was large, it was less than the injury threshold (40 mm). Computational biomechanics simulations (using finite element FE analysis) showed that the Q3 dummy's chest is loaded by the shield and deforms substantially under this load. To clarify whether chest injuries due to chest compression can occur with an impact shield or with the 5-point harness CRS, 7 experiments were performed using Tibetan miniature pigs with weights ranging from 9.7 to 13 kg. Severe chest and abdominal injuries (lung contusion, coronary artery laceration, liver laceration) were found in the tests using the impact shield CRS. No chest injuries were present when using the 5-point harness CRS.

Conclusion: When using the impact shield CRS, the chest deformed substantially in dummy tests and FE simulations, and chest and abdominal injuries were observed in pig tests. It is possible that these chest injuries could also occur to child occupants sitting in the impact shield CRS.     

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.     

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.     

A methodology for assessing blast protection in explosive ordnance disposal bomb suits.

To reduce human casualties associated with explosive ordnance disposal, a wide range of protective wear has been designed to shield against the blast effects of improvised explosive devices and munitions. In this study, 4 commercially available bomb suits, representing a range of materials and armor masses, were evaluated against 0.227 and 0.567 kg of spherical C-4 explosives to determine the level of protection offered to the head, neck, and thorax. A Hybrid III dummy, an instrumented human surrogate [1], was tested with and without protection from the 4 commercially available bomb suits. 20 tests with the dummy torso mounted to simulate a kneeling position were performed to confirm repeatability and robustness of the dummies, as well as to evaluate the 4 suits. Correlations between injury risk assessments based on past human or animal injury model data and various parameters such as bomb suit mass, projected area, and dummy coverage area were drawn.     

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.     

A Methodology for Assessing Blast Protection in Explosive Ordnance Disposal Bomb Suits

To reduce human casualties associated with explosive ordnance disposal, a wide range of protective wear has been designed to shield against the blast effects of improvised explosive devices and munitions. In this study, 4 commercially available bomb suits, representing a range of materials and armor masses, were evaluated against 0.227 and 0.567 kg of spherical C-4 explosives to determine the level of protection offered to the head, neck, and thorax.

A Hybrid III dummy, an instrumented human surrogate [1], was tested with and without protection from the 4 commercially available bomb suits. 20 tests with the dummy torso mounted to simulate a kneeling position were performed to confirm repeatability and robustness of the dummies, as well as to evaluate the 4 suits. Correlations between injury risk assessments based on past human or animal injury model data and various parameters such as bomb suit mass, projected area, and dummy coverage area were drawn.     

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.     

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.     

Differences in the kinematics of booster-seated pediatric occupants using two different car seats

Objective: The objective of this article is to compare the performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (CRS) mounted on 2 different seats.

Methods: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. Two different seats (seat A, seat B) were used. Three repetitions per ATD and mounting seat were done, resulting in a total of 12 sled crashes. Dummy sensors measured the head tri-axial acceleration and angular rate and the thorax tri-axial acceleration, all acquired at 10,000 Hz. A high-speed video camera recorded the impact at 1,000 frames per second. The 3D kinematics of the head and torso of the ATDs were captured using a high-speed motion capture system (1,000 Hz). A pair-matched statistical analysis compared the outcomes of the tests using the 2 different seats.

Results: Statistically significant differences in the kinematic response of the ATDs associated with the type of seat were observed. The maximum 3 ms peak of the resultant head acceleration was higher on seat A for the P3 dummy (54.5 ± 1.9 g vs. 44.2 ± 0.5 g; P =.012) and for the P6 dummy (56.0 ± 0.8 g vs. 51.7 ± 1.2 g; P =.015). The peak belt force was higher on seat A than on seat B for the P3 dummy (5,488.0 ± 198.0 N vs. 4,160.6 ± 63.6 N; P =.008) and for the P6 dummy (7,014.0 ± 271.0 N vs. 5,719.3 ± 37.4 N; P =.015). The trajectory of the ATD head was different between the 2 seats in the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes.

Conclusion: The results suggest that the overall response of the booster-seated occupant exposed to the same impact conditions was different depending on the seat used regardless of the size of the ATD. The differences observed in the response of the occupants between the 2 seats can be attributed to the differences in cushion stiffness, seat pan geometry, and belt geometry. However, these results were obtained for 2 particular seat models and a specific CRS and therefore cannot be directly extrapolated to the generality of vehicle seats and CRS.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Field investigation of child restraints in side impact crashes

OBJECTIVE: Various test procedures have been suggested for assessing the protection afforded by child restraints (CRS) in lateral collisions. Analyses of real world crashes can be used to identify relevant characteristics of the child, restraint, collision, and injury mechanisms that should be incorporated into the design of the test procedures as well as in the design of related ATDs and injury metrics. The objective of this work is to use in-depth crash investigations of children restrained in CRS in side impacts to elucidate specific sources and mechanisms of injuries and explore the role of crash severity variables such as magnitude and location of intrusion and specific impact angle. METHODS: Real world crashes involving children restrained in forward facing CRS in side impacts were analyzed from Partners for Child Passenger Safety, an on-going child specific crash surveillance system in which insurance claims are used to identify cases. In-depth crash investigations using standardized protocols were used to calculate the crash severity and determine the mechanisms and sources of the injuries sustained. RESULTS: Cases of 32 children restrained in CRS in 30 side impact crashes were examined. Twenty-five percent sustained AIS 2+ injuries. The most common injuries sustained by children restrained in CRS in side impact crashes were to the face, head, and lower extremity. Characteristics of the crashes that appeared related to injury were intrusion that entered the child's occupant space or caused an interior part of the vehicle to enter the child's occupant space, forward component of the crash, and the rotation of the CRS, restrained by a seat belt, towards the side of the impact. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to assess the injury potential in a laboratory setting for the body regions of common injury, the head, face, and lower extremity, must be explored. Characteristics of a regulatory-based test procedure to assess injury risk should include a frontal component to the crash and intrusion into the occupant's seating position. Design enhancements of the CRS should address rotation during lateral impacts. These results provide guidance to current efforts to design and regulate these restraints for the safety of child passengers in side impacts.     

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.     

Age-Dependent Factors Affecting Thoracic Response: A Finite Element Study Focused on Japanese Elderly Occupants

Objectives: The ultimate goal of this research is to reduce thoracic injuries due to traffic crashes, especially in the elderly. The specific objective is to develop and validate a full-body finite element model under 2 distinct settings that account for factors relevant for thoracic fragility of elderly: one setting representative of an average size male and one representative of an average size Japanese elderly male.

Methods: A new thorax finite element model was developed from medical images of a 71-year-old average Japanese male elderly size (161cm, 60 kg) postmortem human subject (PMHS). The model was validated at component and assembled levels against original series of published test data obtained from the same elderly specimen. The model was completed with extremities and head of a model previously developed. The rib cage and the thoracic flesh materials were assigned age-dependent properties and the model geometry was scaled up to simulate a 50th percentile male. Thereafter, the model was validated against existing biomechanical data for younger and elderly subjects, including hub-to-thorax impacts and frontal impact sled PMHS test data. Finally, a parametric study was conducted with the new models to understand the effect of size and aging factors on thoracic response and risk of rib fractures.

Results: The model behaved in agreement with tabletop test experiments in intact, denuded, and eviscerated tissue conditions. In frontal impact sled conditions, the model showed good 3-dimensional head and spine kinematics, as well as rib cage multipoint deflections. When properties representative of an aging person were simulated, both the rib cage deformation and the predicted number of rib fractures increased. The effects of age factors such as rib cortical thickness, mechanical properties, and failure thresholds on the model responses were consistent with the literature. Aged and thereby softened flesh reduced load transfer between ribs; the coupling of the rib cage was reduced. Aged costal cartilage increased the severity of the diagonal belt loading sustained by the lower loaded rib cage.

Conclusions: When age-specific parameters were implemented in a finite element (FE) model of the thorax, the rib cage kinematics and thorax injury risk increased. When the effect of size was isolated, 2 factors, in addition to rib material properties, were found to be important: flesh and costal cartilage properties. These 2 were identified to affect rib cage deformation mechanisms and may potentially increase the risk of rib fractures.     

Effects of whole spine alignment patterns on neck responses in rear end impact

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the whole spine alignment in automotive seated postures for both genders and the effects of the spinal alignment patterns on cervical vertebral motion in rear impact using a human finite element (FE) model.

Methods: Image data for 8 female and 7 male subjects in a seated posture acquired by an upright open magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system were utilized. Spinal alignment was determined from the centers of the vertebrae and average spinal alignment patterns for both genders were estimated by multidimensional scaling (MDS). An occupant FE model of female average size (162 cm, 62 kg; the AF 50 size model) was developed by scaling THUMS AF 05. The average spinal alignment pattern for females was implemented in the model, and model validation was made with respect to female volunteer sled test data from rear end impacts. Thereafter, the average spinal alignment pattern for males and representative spinal alignments for all subjects were implemented in the validated female model, and additional FE simulations of the sled test were conducted to investigate effects of spinal alignment patterns on cervical vertebral motion.

Results: The estimated average spinal alignment pattern was slight kyphotic, or almost straight cervical and less-kyphotic thoracic spine for the females and lordotic cervical and more pronounced kyphotic thoracic spine for the males. The AF 50 size model with the female average spinal alignment exhibited spine straightening from upper thoracic vertebra level and showed larger intervertebral angular displacements in the cervical spine than the one with the male average spinal alignment.

Conclusions: The cervical spine alignment is continuous with the thoracic spine, and a trend of the relationship between cervical spine and thoracic spinal alignment was shown in this study. Simulation results suggested that variations in thoracic spinal alignment had a potential impact on cervical spine motion as well as cervical spinal alignment in rear end impact condition.