Search Results

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.

An objective, biomechanically based assessment is made of the risks of life-threatening brain injury of frontal crash test results. Published 15 ms HIC values for driver and right front passenger dummies of frontal barrier crash tests conducted by Transport Canada and NHTSA are analyzed using the brain injury risk curve of Prasad and Mertz. Ninety-four percent of the occupants involved in the 30 mph, frontal barrier compliance tests had risks of life-threatening brain injury less than 5 percent. Only 3 percent had risks greater than 16 percent which corresponds to 15 ms HIC > 1000. For belt restrained occupants without head contact with the interior, the risks of life-threatening brain injury were less than 2 percent. In contrast, for the more severe NCAP test condition, 27 percent of the drivers and 21 percent of the passengers had life-threatening brain injury risks greater than 16 percent.

The dilemma of using a shoulder belt force limiter with a 3-point belt system is selecting a limit load that will balance the reduced risk of significant thoracic injury due to the shoulder belt loading of the chest against the increased risk of significant head injury due to the greater upper torso motion allowed by the shoulder belt load limiter. However, with the use of air bags, this dilemma is more manageable since it only occurs for non-deploy accidents where the risk of significant head injury is low even for the unbelted occupant. A study was done using a validated occupant dynamics model of the Hybrid III dummy to investigate the effects that a prescribed set of shoulder belt force limits had on head and thoracic responses for 48 and 56 km/h barrier simulations with driver air bag deployment and for threshold crash severity simulations with no air bag deployment.

A critical performance issue in the development of any air cushion restraint system is the dichotomy that exists between the inflation rate required to meet the 30 mph frontal, rigid barrier restraint performance requirements and the effect that this parameter has on increasing the risk of deployment-induced injuries to out-of-position occupants. In general, small cars experience greater vehicle deceleration levels than large vehicles in FMVSS 208, 30 mph frontal, rigid barrier tests due to tighter packaging of their front-end components. In order to meet the FMVSS 208 performance requirements for such cars, the small car air cushion must be thicker and inflated faster than the large car air cushion. Such air cushion technology will increase the risk of life-threatening, deployment-induced injuries to out-of-position occupants of the small car.

Case reviews are given of deployment accidents of the GM 1973-76 air cushion restraint system where the occupant injury was AIS 3 or greater. Many of these injuries occurred in frontal accidents of minor to moderate collision severity where there was no intrusion or distortion of the occupant compartment. Dummy and animal test results are noted that indicate that these types of injuries could have occurred if the occupant was near the air cushion module at the time of cushion deployment. An analysis is given that indicates that for frontal accidents a restraint effectiveness of 50 percent in mitigating AIS 3 or greater injuries might be achieved if an air cushion system can be designed which would not seriously injure out-of-position occupants while still providing restraint for normally seated occupants.

This paper describes the development of injury risk curves for measurements made with the CRABI and Hybrid III family of biofidelic child and adult dummies that are used to evaluate restraint systems in frontal and rear-end collision simulations. Injury tolerance data are normalized for size and strength considerations. These data are analyzed to give normalized injury risk curves for neck tension, neck extension moment, combined neck tension and extension moment, sternal compression, the rate of sternal compression, and the rate of abdominal compression for children and adults. Using these injury risk curves dummy response limits can be defined for prescribed injury risk levels. The injury risk levels associated with the various injury assessment reference values currently used with the CRABI and Hybrid III family of dummies are noted.

This paper describes improvements made to the injury risk curves for peak neck tension, peak neck extension moment and a linear combination of tension and extension moment that produce peak stress in the anterior-longitudinal ligament at the head-to-neck junction. Data from previously published experiments that correlated neck injuries to 10-week-old, anesthetized pigs and neck response measurements of a 3-year-old child dummy that were subjected to similar airbag deployments are updated and used to generate Normal probability curves for the risk of AIS ≥ 3 neck injury for the 3-year-old child. These curves are extended to other sizes and ages by normalizing for neck size. Factors for percent of muscle tone and ligamentous failure stress as a function of age are incorporated in the risk analysis. The most sensitive predictor of AIS ≥ 3 neck injury for this data set is peak neck tension.

Three-point restraint systems have been installed in vehicles since the early 1960s. However, it wasn't until the automatic protection rule became effective for 1987 Model Year vehicles that manufacturers began installing 3-point restraints with force-limiting shoulder belts and frontal airbags for the driver and right front passenger. This was the first time that all vehicle manufacturers had to certify that their cars would meet the 50th percentile, adult male protection requirements in the 48 km/h frontal, rigid-barrier test specified in FMVSS 208. To assess the effectiveness of these certified 3-point restraint systems, a search was done of the 1988-2005 NASS data for 3-point belted, front outboard-seated, adult occupants in passenger vehicles that were equipped with airbags and that were involved in frontal, towaway collisions.

In 1983, General Motors Corporation (GM) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow the use of the biofidelic Hybrid III midsize adult male dummy as an alternate test device for FMVSS 208 compliance testing of frontal impact, passive restraint systems. To support their petition, GM made public to the international automotive community the limit values that they imposed on the Hybrid III measurements, which were called Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs). During the past 20 years, these IARVs have been updated based on relevant biomechanical studies that have been published and scaled to provide IARVs for the Hybrid III and CRABI families of frontal impact dummies. Limit values have also been developed for the biofidelic side impact dummies, BioSID, EuroSID2 and SID-IIs.

In 1983, General Motors Corporation (GM) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow the use of the biofidelic Hybrid III midsize adult male dummy as an alternate test device for FMVSS 208 compliance testing of frontal impact, passive restraint systems. To support their petition, GM made public to the international automotive community the limit values that they imposed on the Hybrid III measurements, which were called Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs). During the past 20 years, these IARVs have been updated based on relevant biomechanical studies that have been published and scaled to provide IARVs for the Hybrid III and CRABI families of frontal impact dummies. Limit values have also been developed for the biofidelic side impact dummies, BioSID, ES-2 and SID-IIs.