Search Results

This paper reports on the injuries to the head, neck and thorax of fifteen child surrogates, subjected to varying levels of sudden acceleration. Measured response data in the child surrogate tests and in matched tests with a three-year-old child test dummy are compared to the observed child surrogates injury levels to develop preliminary tolerance data for the child surrogate. The data are compared with already published data in the literature.

The relationship between designing for both rigid fixed barrier (RFB) and vehicle-to-vehicle tests is a topical area of research. Specifically, vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility has been a topic of keen interest to many researchers, and the interplay between the two aspects of design is presently addressed. In this paper, the studied vehicles for potential vehicle-to-vehicle impacts included: sport utility vehicles (SUVs), Pickups (PUs), and passenger cars. The SUV/PU-to-Car frontal impact tests were compared to those obtained from vehicle-to-rigid fixed barrier frontal impacts. Acceleration pulses at the B-pillar/rocker as well as dash and cabin intrusions were monitored and compared. Additionally, the energy distributions in SUV/PU-to-Car crash tests were compared to those of single vehicle-to-RFB tests. It was concluded from the analysis that vehicle weight and front-end stiffness were not always the overriding factors dictating performance.

A theoretical math model was created to assess the net effect of aging populations versus evolving system designs from the standpoint of thoracic injury potential. The model was used to project the next twenty-five years of thoracic injuries in Canada. The choice of Canada was topical because rulemaking for CMVSS 208 has been proposed recently. The study was limited to properly-belted, front-outboard, adult occupants in 11-1 o'clock frontal crashes. Moreover, only AIS3+thoracic injury potential was considered. The research consisted of four steps. First, sub-models were developed and integrated. The sub-models were made for numerous real-world effects including population growth, crash involvement, fleet penetration of various systems (via system introduction, vehicle production, and vehicle attrition), and attendant injury risk estimation. Second, existing NASS data were used to estimate the number of AIS3+ chest-injured drivers in Canada in 2001.

A theoretical, mathematical, risk assessment procedure was developed to estimate the fraction of drivers that incurred head and thoracic AIS3+ injuries in full-engagement frontal crashes. The estimates were based on numerical simulations of various real-world events, including variations of crash severity, crash speed, level of restraint, and occupant size. The procedure consisted of four steps: (1) conduct the simulations of the numerous events, (2) use biomechanical equations to transform the occupant responses into AIS3+ risks for each event, (3) weight the maximum risk for each event by its real-world event frequency, and (4) sum the weighted risks. To validate the risk assessment procedure, numerous steps were taken. First, a passenger car was identified to represent average field performance.

Injury Risk Curves are developed from cadaver data for sternal deflections produced by anterior, distributed chest loads for a 25, 45, 55, 65 and 75 year-old Small Female, Mid-Size Male and Large Male based on the variations of bone strengths with age. These curves show that the risk of AIS ≥ 3 thoracic injury increases with the age of the person. This observation is consistent with NASS data of frontal accidents which shows that older unbelted drivers have a higher risk of AIS ≥ 3 chest injury than younger drivers.

The biofidelity of the Ford Motor Company human body finite element (FE) model in side impact simulations was analyzed and evaluated following the procedures outlined in ISO technical report TR9790. This FE model, representing a 50th percentile adult male, was used to simulate the biomechanical impact tests described in ISO-TR9790. These laboratory tests were considered as suitable for assessing the lateral impact biofidelity of the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis of crash test dummies, subcomponent test devices, and math models that are used to represent a 50th percentile adult male. The simulated impact responses of the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis of the FE model were compared with the PMHS (Post Mortem Human Subject) data upon which the response requirements for side impact surrogates was based. An overall biofidelity rating of the human body FE model was determined using the ISO-TR9790 rating method.

Human abdominal response and injury in blunt impacts was investigated through finite element simulations of cadaver tests using a full human body model of an average-sized adult male. The model was validated at various impact speeds by comparing model responses with available experimental cadaver test data in pendulum side impacts and frontal rigid bar impacts from various sources. Results of various abdominal impact simulations are presented in this paper. Model-predicted abdominal dynamic responses such as force-time and force-deflection characteristics, and injury severities, measured by organ pressures, for the simulated impact conditions are presented. Quantitative results such as impact forces, abdominal deflections, internal organ stresses have shown that the abdomen responded differently to left and right side impacts, especially in low speed impact.

This study applies a detailed finite element model of the human body to simulate occupant knee impacts experienced in vehicular frontal crashes. The human body model includes detailed anatomical features of the head, neck, chest, thoracic and lumbar spine, abdomen, and lower and upper extremities. The material properties used in the model for each anatomic part of the human body were obtained from test data reported in the literature. The total human body model used in the current study has been previously validated in frontal and side impacts. Several cadaver knee impact tests representing occupants in a frontal impact condition were simulated using the previously validated human body model. Model impact responses in terms of force-time and acceleration-time histories were compared with test results. In addition, stress distributions of the patella, femur, and pelvis were reported for the simulated test conditions.

This study evaluated the biomechanical performance of a rear-seat inflatable seatbelt system and compared it to that of a 3-point seatbelt system, which has a long history of good real-world performance. Frontal-impact sled tests were conducted with Hybrid III anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and with post mortem human subjects (PMHS) using both restraint systems and a generic rear-seat configuration. Results from these tests demonstrated: a) reduction in forward head excursion with the inflatable seatbelt system when compared to that of a 3-point seatbelt and; b) a reduction in ATD and PMHS peak chest deflections and the number of PMHS rib fractures with the inflatable seatbelt system and c) a reduction in PMHS cervical-spine injuries, due to the interaction of the chin with the inflated shoulder belt. These results suggest that an inflatable seatbelt system will offer additional benefits to some occupants in the rear seats.

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.

The biomechanical behavior of a harness style 4-point seat belt system in farside impacts was investigated through dummy and post mortem human subject tests. Specifically, this study was conducted to evaluate the effect of the inboard shoulder belt portion of a 4-point seat belt on the risk of vertebral and soft-tissue neck injuries during simulated farside impacts. Two series of sled tests simulating farside impacts were completed with crash dummies of different sizes, masses and designs to determine the forces and moments on the neck associated with loading of the shoulder belt. The tests were also performed to help determine the appropriate dummy to use in further testing. The BioSID and SID-IIs reasonably simulated the expected kinematics response and appeared to be reasonable dummies to use for further testing. Analysis also showed that dummy injury measures were lower than injury assessment reference values used in development of side impact airbags.

The biomechanical behavior of 4-point seat belt systems was investigated through MADYMO modeling, dummy tests and post mortem human subject tests. This study was conducted to assess the effect of 4-point seat belts on the risk of thoracic injury in frontal impacts, to evaluate the ability to prevent submarining under the lap belt using 4-point seat belts, and to examine whether 4-point belts may induce injuries not typically observed with 3-point seat belts. The performance of two types of 4-point seat belts was compared with that of a pretensioned, load-limited, 3-point seat belt. A 3-point belt with an extra shoulder belt that “crisscrossed” the chest (X4) appeared to add constraint to the torso and increased chest deflection and injury risk. Harness style shoulder belts (V4) loaded the body in a different biomechanical manner than 3-point and X4 belts.

The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics of eighteen lumbar spine motion segments subjected to lateral shear forces under quasi-static (0.5 mm/s) and dynamic (500 mm/s) test conditions. The quasi-static test was also performed on the lumbar spine of a side impact anthropomorphic test device, the EuroSID-2 (ES-2). In the quasi-static tests, the maximum force before disc-endplate separation in the PMHS lumbar motion segments was 1850 ± 612 N, while the average linear stiffness of PMHS lumbar motion segments was 323 ± 126 N/mm. There was a statistically significant difference between the quasi-static (1850 ± 612 N) and dynamic (2616 ± 1151 N) maximum shear forces. The ES-2 lumbar spine (149 N/mm) was more compliant than the PMHS lumbar segments under the quasi-static test condition.

The result of two series of crash tests, 5 tests each series, are presented in this paper. Two car designs were subjected to various frontal impacts - full frontal, car-to-car 60% offset, 50% offset, and 50% offset with deformable barrier - at 56 km/h. Two tests were conducted at 60 km/h against the ECE deformable barrier with 40% overlap. Structural and occupant responses are compared between the various test conditions.

This paper compares and contrasts the modeling features present in the MVMA2D and the MADYM02D occupant simulation models. Simulations of a series of sled tests with a Hybrid II test dummy restrained with a 3-point belt system have been conducted using the MADYM02D model. The simulation results agree with the test results.

Two 50th percentile anthropomorphic test devices are specified as alternate test devices for FMVSS 208 compliance testing. These test devices are commonly known as the Hybrid II and the Hybrid III dummies. The designs of the two dummies are different, representing the state-of-the-art in the time frame of their designs. The trajectory differences between the two dummies have been published in the literature, but response differences, e.g., HIC and chest acceleration are not available in the literature. To quantify response differences between the two dummies, a series of sled tests with open bucks and with bucks simulating vehicle interior were conducted with restrained dummies. Additional crash tests were also conducted with the two dummies. This paper reports on an analysis of the data from the above series of tests. The data indicate that in non-head contact simulations with belt restraint systems, Hybrid III HIC's are nearly 50% higher than Hybrid II HIC's.

A new inflator specification, the “inflator thrust variable,” was developed to better explain measured mid-sized male, instrumented test dummy responses in the chest-on-module test condition. Specifically, controlled laboratory experiments were conducted with non-production, driver airbag modules with inflators of various outputs and gas constituents in an effort to assess their effects on a pertinent occupant response. Regression analyses showed that the inflator thrust variable is a better predictor of the observed variation in peak viscous criterion responses than either peak tank pressure or the related pressure rise rate when inflators of differing gas composition were compared.

Global engineering is increasingly becoming a practice within the automotive industry. Due to added engineering and manufacturing benefits, more and more new vehicles are being developed with common structure to meet the consumer needs in many local regions. While vehicle development and manufacturing process is becoming global, automotive safety regulations in various parts of the world have not been as uniform. A good example is the differing requirements for dynamic side impact protection of new vehicles. United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and European Union (EU) have each produced their own distinct test procedures such as, different barrier faces, impact configurations, and anthropomorphic test devices (dummies). Although both test procedures have the same final objective estimate occupant responses in side impacts, they differ greatly in execution and emphasis on occupant response requirements.

An age-dependent, serious-to-fatal (AIS3+), thoracic risk curve was derived and evaluated for frontal impacts. The study consisted of four parts. In Part 1, two datasets of post mortem human subjects (PMHS) were generated for statistical and sensitivity analyses. In Part 2, logistic regression analyses were conducted. For each dataset, two statistical methods were applied: (1) a conventional maximum likelihood method, and (2) a modified maximum likelihood method. Therefore, four statistical models were derived — one for each dataset/statistical method combination. For all of the resulting statistical models (risk curves), the linear combination of maximum normalized sternum deflection and age of the PMHS was identified as a feasible predictor of AIS3+ thoracic injury probability. In Part 3, the PMHS-based risk curves were transformed into test-dummy-based risk curves. In Part 4, validation studies were conducted for each risk curve.