Search Results

In the early 1980's a series of tests was conducted simulating rear-end crashes. The tests demonstrated that a conventional automotive bucket seat adequately retains an unbelted dummy on the seat for rear-end impacts up to 6.4 m/s and 9.5 g severity. For this severity of impact the total rearward rotation of the seatback is less than 60° from the vertical and is associated with a normal acceleration of the dummy's chest into the seatback of up to 10 g. The tangential acceleration of the dummy, which may induce riding up the seat, was generally less than the normal component so that the occupant was prevented from sliding up the deflected seatback. The bucket seat provided adequate containment and control of occupant displacements for each of the initial seatback angles of 9°, 22°, and 35°.

This sled test series involved occupant loading of the seat in rear crashes of 4.3-8.3 m/s (9.6-18.5 mph). The tests were conducted in the early 1980s and involved an unbelted or lap-shoulder belted Part 572 dummy in rear and oblique rear impacts. The research is reported today to provide comparative data for the record and serves as a control benchmark for more current technologies and safety research methodologies on seat performance in rear crashes. Safety belts improved occupant retention on the seat primarily by the lap belt reducing the upward and rearward movement of the pelvis. Tests were also conducted on the mechanisms for energy absorption by seatback deflection.

A case study was conducted of 123 crashes involving 144 fatally injured lap-shoulder belted front-seat occupants. The crashes occurred throughout the United States in 1985-86 and involved 97 driver and 47 right-front passenger deaths in new vehicles. A judgment was made by consensus of a safety panel on the potential for saving the victim's life by the addition of safety technology. Supplemental airbags provided the greatest potential for improving the life-saving effectiveness of current lap-shoulder belts. Overall, airbags may have prevented 12% of the belted occupant fatalities and 27% of the deaths in frontal crashes. The benefit of supplemental airbags was greater for the right-front passenger, in part, because of more females and occupants over 60 years of age in that seating position. A majority (68%) of the belted fatalities were judged unpreventable by reasonable restraint or vehicle modifications.

This paper reviews issues relating to seats including design for comfort and restraint, mechanics of discomfort and irritability, older occupants, and low-back pain. It focuses on the interface between seating technology and occupant comfort, and involves a technical review of medical-engineering information. The dramatic increase in the number of features currently available on seats outreaches the technical understanding of occupant accommodation and ride comfort. Thus, the current understanding of seat design parameters may not adequately encompass occupant needs. The review has found many pathways between seating features and riding comfort, each of which requires more specific information on the biomechanics of discomfort by pressure distribution, body support, ride vibration, material breathability, and other factors. These inputs stimulate mechanisms of discomfort that need to be quantified in terms of mechanical requirements for seat design and function.

Measurement of chest compression is vital to properly assessing injury risk for restraint systems. It directly relates chest loading to the risk of serious or fatal compression injury for the vital organs protected by the rib cage. Other measures of loading such as spinal acceleration or total restraint load do not separate how much of the force is applied to the rib cage, shoulders, or lumbar and cervical spines. Hybrid III chest compression is biofidelic for blunt impact of the sternum, but is “stiff” for belt loading. In this study, an analysis was conducted of two published crash reconstruction studies involving belted occupants. This provides a basis for comparing occupant injury risks with Hybrid III chest compression in similar exposures. Results from both data sources were similar and indicate that belt loading resulting in 40 mm Hybrid III chest compression represents a 20-25% risk of an AIS≥3 thoracic injury.

This paper covers the development of the General Motors Energy Absorbing Steering System beginning with the work of the early crash injury pioneers Hugh DeHaven and Colonel John P. Stapp through developments and introduction of the General Motors energy absorbing steering system in 1966. evaluations of crash performance of the system, and further improvement in protective function of the steering assembly. The contributions of GM Research Laboratories are highlighted, including its safety research program. Safety Car, Invertube, the biomechanic projects at Wayne State University, and the thoracic and abdominal tolerance studies that lead to the development of the Viscous Injury Criterion and self-aligning steering wheel.

Door armrests of different crush properties and placement were evaluated in a series of side impact sled tests. Three armrest designs were fabricated with an identical shape but different crush force. The crush properties covered a range in occupant protection systems based on knowledge of human tolerance in side impacts. With BioSID, the softest armrest produced the lowest compression and Viscous responses, and the probability of AIS 4+ injury was below 1%. The compression-based responses increased significantly in tests with armrests of a higher crush force. The profile of the stiffer armrests clearly protruded into the dummy, and the probability of serious injury was 86%-100% based on compression. With SID, the lowest TTI(d) was with the intermediate stiffness armrest. The SID dummy and TTI(d) criterion indicated a 4%-8% probability of AIS 4+ injury for all test conditions and armrest designs.

Airbags and safety belts are now viewed as complements for occupant protection in a crash. There is also a view that no single solution exists to ensure safety and that a system of protective technologies is needed to maximize safety in the wide variety of real automotive crashes. This paper compares the fatality prevention effectiveness, and biomechanical principles of occupant restraint systems. It focuses on the effectiveness of various systems in preventing fatal injury assuming the restraint is available and used. While lap-shoulder belts provide the greatest safety, airbags protect both belted and unbelted occupants.

A study of air bag deployments has indicated that some occupant injury was “unexpected” and might have been related to loading by the inflating bag. Laboratory studies have found “high” loads on surrogates when they are out of a normal seating position and in the path and against an inflating air bag (out-of-position). The current study evaluated laboratory methods for assessing the significance of deployment loads and the interaction mechanics for the situation of an occupant located near or against a steering wheel mounted air bag. Analysis of the field relevance of the results must consider not only factors relating to the assessment of injury risk, but also exposure frequency. The highest responses for the head, neck, or torso were with that body region aligned with and against the air bag module. The risk of severe injury was low for the head and neck, but high when the torso was against and fully covering the air bag module.

Considerable research has shown that there are two mechanisms of blunt injury. One is by crushing the tissue at low velocities of deformation (compression mechanism, C) and the other by a rate-dependent deformation at higher speeds that exceed the energy dissipation of the tissue (viscous mechanism, VC). Analysis of injury causation in experiments must consider both mechanisms. For an impact, there is a peak compression and Viscous response; however, it is not possible a priori to determine which mechanism is associated with the injury. Thus, there has been a need to identify the effective velocity separating the two mechanisms of injury. This study provides new injury tolerances and probability functions for various body and tissue impacts based on injury data related to a compression or viscous mechanism. Six data sets were subjected to statistical analysis to predict injury based on maximum compression and Viscous response of the surrogate or tissue.

The purpose of this study was to investigate approaches evaluating the performance of safety systems in crash tests and by analytical simulations. The study was motivated by the need to consider the adequacy of injury criteria and tolerance levels in FMVSS 208 measuring safety performance of restraint systems and supplements. The study also focused on additional biomechanical criteria and performance measures which may augment FMVSS 208 criteria and alternative ways to evaluate dummy responses rather than by comparison to a tolerance level. Additional analysis was conducted of dummy responses from barrier crash and sled tests to gain further information on the performance of restraint systems. The analysis resulted in a new computer program which determined several motion and velocity criteria from measurements made in crash tests.

This paper details the development of an abdominal injury assessment device for loading due to belt restraint submarining in the Hybrid III family of dummies. The design concept and criteria, response criteria, choice of injury criterion, and validation are explained. Conclusions of this work are: 1) Abdominal injury assessment for belt loading due to submarining is now possible in the Hybrid III family of dummies. 2) The abdomen developed has biofidelity in its force deflection characteristics for belt loading, is capable of detecting the occurrence of submarining, and can be used to determine the probability of abdominal injury when submarining occurs. 3) Installation of the abdomen in the Hybrid III dummy does not change the dummy kinematics when submarining does not occur. 4) When submarining does occur, the dummy kinematics are very similar to baseline Hybrid III kinematics, except for torso angle.

The purpose of this study was to replace the axial deforming elements in the current EUROSID dummy with spring steel ribs and attached damping material to provide improved biofidelity in the lateral chest impact response. This report provides a description of the design, construction, and evaluation of the modified EUROSID chest for injury assessment in side impact crashes. Three spring steel ribs were designed to provide stiffness and deflections of 120 mm when attached to the block on the spine of the EUROSID dummy. Damping material was epoxied to the ribs and the system provided biofidelity in the lateral impact response for blunt impact loading at 4.3 m/s and 6.7 m/s. The new design provides significantly reduced inertia of the near side rib cage, elastic and viscous properties that are representative of the lateral human response and the ability to measure the deflection response of the rib cage for injury assessment with the Viscous response.

The timing of liver laceration in swine during the course of a blunt impact was investigated. The swine were impacted on the upper abdomen by the lower segment of a steering wheel at 6, 9 and 12 m/s. The degree of compression in each impact was controlled independently from 10 to 50%. By varying when “the punch of an impact was pulled,” we reproduced progressive segments of a longer duration blunt impact. Autopsy of the subjects demonstrated that lacerations were initiated after 8 ms of loading at 9 m/s and 6 ms of loading at 12 m/s. The time of injury was concurrent with the time when the Viscous response exceeded a threshold of 1.2 m/s in our specimens. The Viscous injury criterion, defined as the peak Viscous response, was found to be the best predictor of liver laceration. We conclude that the Viscous response relates to the actual etiology of injury, in addition to being an excellent correlative measure.

A “central” theory for the biomechanics of brain injury is proposed that includes the construct that acceleration of the head, per se, is not the proximate cause of injury. Rather, rapid motion of the skull causes displacement of the hard bony structures of the head against the soft tissues of the brain, which lag in their motion due to inertia and loose coupling to the skull. Relative displacement between brain and skull produces deformation of brain tissue and stretching of bridging veins, which contribute to the tissue-level causes of brain injury. The first step in an accurate interpretation of brain injury risk in dummies involves the measurement of the three-dimensional components of translational and rotational acceleration of the head.

This paper refines the methodology presented in the companion paper linking reductions in biomechanical responses due to force-limiting material to projections of injury-mitigation in real-world side impact crashes. The revised approach was used to evaluate the potential injury reducing benefit for the chest and abdomen with either constant crush force or constant stiffness, crushable material in the side door and armrest. Using a simulation of the human impact response, a range in crush force or stiffness was determined which reduced the viscous response from that obtained with a rigid impact. NCSS field accident data for car-to-car side impacts provided information on the occupant exposure and injury as a function of the change in velocity (ΔV) of the struck vehicle. Since the velocity of the side door at contact with the occupant's chest is similar to the ΔV of the struck vehicle, the chest impact velocity in the simulation was assumed equal to the observed ΔV in the NCSS data.

The NHTSA's side impact dummy (SID) was evaluated against what is known of the side impact response of the human chest and responses were compared with data on Hybrid III frontal and EURQSID side impact characteristics. The SID dummy lacks a human-like chest deflection response which is crucial to the injury indicating capability of a dummy, it has a 9.8 kg near-side rib mass which is approximately an order of magnitude greater than that of the human, and it develops impact forces that are nearly three times higher than the recommended human chest response. It possesses characteristics primarily of an inertial device. The thoracic trauma index (TTI) was evaluated as an indicator of side impact injury risk, and design trends and optimized padding characteristics identified with the SID and TTI were compared with those from the Hybrid III dummy and viscous or compression injury criteria.

This paper presents a methodology to link reductions in biomechanical responses due to force-limiting material to projections of injury mitigation in real-world side impact crashes, and to use this approach to evaluate the potential injury reducing benefit for the chest and abdomen of constant crush force material in the side door and armrest. Using a simulation of the human impact response, a range in crush force was determined which effectively reduced a peak biomechanical response from that obtained with a rigid impact. The range in constant crush force depended on the velocity of impact. The higher the velocity of impact, the higher the level of crush force to achieve a reduction in the peak response. NCSS field accident data for car-to-car side impacts provided information on the occupant exposure and injury as a function of the change in velocity (ΔV) of the struck vehicle.

The discovery of the mechanism of impact-induced soft tissue injury has led to our introduction of a Viscous Injury Criterion, which predicts the severity and the time of occurrence of soft tissue injury induced by impact when other criteria have failed. Human tolerance has been defined by the Viscous response, [VC], a time function generated by the instantaneous product of velocity of deformation [V(t)] and amount of compression [C(t)] of the body. [VC]max = 1.0 m/s corresponds experimentally to a 25% chance of sustaining severe thoracic injury (AIS ≥ 4) in a blunt frontal impact. A similar level of risk for critical abdominal injury (AIS ≥ 5) in a blunt frontal impact is [VC]max = 1.2 m/s. However, human tolerance is defined more completely by the probability function of injury risk versus [VC]max. The Viscous response can be evaluated in the Hybrid III anthropomorphic dummy by a straightforward analysis of the chest deflection data.