Influence of Seat Properties on Occupant Dynamics in Severe Rear Crashes

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

Response of the Head,Neck and Torso to Pendulum Impacts on the Back

Pendulum impacts on the back were conducted to determine human head, neck and torso biomechanics. Eight unembalmed cadavers were subjected to 23.4 kg pendulum impacts at 4.4 m/s and 6.6 m/s at T1 and T6. Twenty-four tests were conducted with accelerometers on the pendulum, spine, torso, and head in the WSU 3-2-2-2 array. High-speed photography was taken. Impact displaces the torso forward, deflects the chest, displaces and rotates the head, and extends the neck. Average responses and corridors were determined for head kinematics and chest force-deflection. The head-neck response occurs in two phases. First, the head displaces upwards and rearwards 30—40 mm with respect to the torso along a 45° trajectory. Head rotation is 1O°-15° with essentially no neck moment, but high neck compression forces. Second, the head rotates from 10°-15° to 40°-55° starting with a rapid rise in neck moment and displaces 80–100 mm rearward. Anterior cervical fractures correlate with neck tension. Rib fractures correlate with impact force and chest deflection. This study provides chest bio-mechanical responses for rear impacts resulting in head displacement and rotation, neck extension and cervical-thoracic injury.     

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.     

Influence of seat foam and geometrical properties on BioRID P3 kinematic response to rear impacts

As the primary interface with the human body during rear impact, the automotive seat holds great promise for mitigation of Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD). Recent research has chronicled the potential influence of both seat geometrical and constitutive properties on occupant dynamics and injury potential. Geometrical elements such as reduced head to head restraint, rearward offset, and increased head restraint height have shown strong correlation with reductions in occupant kinematics. The stiffness and energy absorption of both the seating foam and the seat infrastructure are also influential on occupant motion; however, the trends in injury mitigation are not as clear as for the geometrical properties. It is of interest to determine whether, for a given seat frame and infrastructure, the properties of the seating foam alone can be tailored to mitigate WAD potential. Rear impact testing was conducted using three model year 2000 automotive seats (Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet S-10 pickup, and Pontiac Grand Prix), using the BioRID P3 anthropometric rear impact dummy. Each seat was distinct in construction and geometry. Each seat back was tested with various foams (i.e., standard, viscoelastic, low or high density). Seat geometries and infrastructures were constant so that the influence of the seating foams on occupant dynamics could be isolated. Three tests were conducted on each foam combination for a given seat (total of 102 tests), with a nominal impact severity of Delta V = 11 km/h (nominal duration of 100 msec). The seats were compared across a host of occupant kinematic variables most likely to be associated with WAD causation. No significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between seat back foams for tests within any given seat. However, seat comparisons yielded several significant differences (p < 0.05). The Camaro seat was found to result in several significantly different occupant kinematic variables when compared to the other seats. No significant differences were found between the Grand Prix and S-10 seats. Seat geometrical characteristics obtained from the Head Restraint Measuring Device (HRMD) showed good correlation with several occupant variables. It appears that for these seats and foams the head-to-head restraint horizontal and vertical distances are overwhelmingly more influential on occupant kinematics and WAD potential than the local foam properties within a given seat.     

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

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