Search Results

Injury risk curves for SID-IIs thorax and abdomen rib deflections proposed for future NCAP side impact evaluations were developed from tests conducted with the SID-IIs FRG. Since the floating rib guide is known to reduce the magnitude of the peak rib deflections, injury risk curves developed from SID-IIs FRG data are not appropriate for use with SID-IIs build level D. PMHS injury data from three series of sled tests and one series of whole-body drop tests are paired with thoracic rib deflections from equivalent tests with SID-IIs build level D. Where possible, the rib deflections of SID-IIs build level D were scaled to adjust for differences in impact velocity between the PMHS and SID-IIs tests. Injury risk curves developed by the Mertz-Weber modified median rank method are presented and compared to risk curves developed by other parametric and non-parametric methods.

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 WorldSID dummy can be equipped with both a pubic and a sacroiliac joint (S-I joint) loadcell. Although a pubic force criterion and the associated injury risk curve are currently available and used in regulation (ECE95, FMVSS214), as of today injury mechanisms, injury criteria, and injury assessment reference values are not available for the sacroiliac joint itself. The aim of this study was to investigate the sacroiliac joint injury mechanism. Three configurations were identified from full-scale car crashes conducted with the WorldSID 50th percentile male where the force passing through the pubis in all three tests was approximately 1500 N while the sacroiliac Fy / Mx peak values were 4500 N / 50 Nm, 2400 N / 130 Nm, and 5300 N / 150 Nm, respectively. These tests were reproduced using a 150 kg guided probe impacting Post Mortem Human Subjects (PMHS) at 8 m/s, 5.4 m/s and 7.5 m/s.

Despite the increasing knowledge of the thorax mechanics in impact loadings, the effects of inter-individual differences on the mechanical response are difficult to take into account. For example, the biofidelity corridors for the small female or large male are extrapolated from the midsize male corridors. The present study reports on the results of new tests performed on small female Post Mortem Human Subjects (PMHS), and compares them with test results on midsize male PMHS. Three tests in pure side impact and three tests in forward oblique impact were performed on the thorax of small female specimens. The average weight and stature were 43 kg and 1.58 m for the small female specimens. The initial speed of the impactor was 4.3 m/s. The mass and the diameter of the impactor face were respectively 23.4 kg and 130 mm. The instrumentation and methodology was the same as for the tests published in 2008 by Trosseille et al. on midsize male specimens.

The development of the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy was initiated in 1997 by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5) with the objective of developing a more biofidelic side impact dummy and supporting the adoption of a harmonised dummy into regulations. The dummy is currently under evaluation at the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) in order to be included in the pole side impact global technical regulation (GTR). Injury risk curves dedicated to this dummy and built on behalf of ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 were proposed in order to assess the occupant safety performance (Petitjean et al. 2009). At that time, there was no recommendation yet on the injury criteria and no consensus on the most accurate statistical method to be used. Since 2009, ISO/TC22/SC12/WG6 reached a consensus on the definition of guidelines to build injury risk curves, including the use of the survival analysis, the distribution assessment and quality checks.

Occupant protection in rear impact involves two competing challenges. On one hand, allowing a deformation of the seat would act as an energy absorber in low severity impacts and would consequently decrease the risk of neck injuries. However, on the other hand, large deformations of the seat may increase the likelihood of occupant ejection in high severity cases. Green et al., 1987 analyzed a total of 919 accidents in Great Britain. They found that occupant ejection resulted in a risk of severe injuries and fatalities between 3.6 and 4.5 times higher than those cases where no ejection was observed. The sample included single front, side and rear impacts as well as multiple impacts and rollover. The rate of belt use in the sample was 50%. While this analysis included all forms of impact scenarios, nevertheless, it highlights the relative injury severity of occupant ejection.

Several statistical methods are currently used to build injury risk curves in the biomechanical field. These methods include the certainty method (Mertz et al. 1996), Mertz/Weber method (Mertz and Weber 1982), logistic regression (Kuppa et al. 2003, Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000), survival analysis with Weibull distribution (Kent et al. 2004, Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000), and the consistent threshold estimate (CTE) (Nusholtz et al. 1999, Di Domenico and Nusholtz 2005). There is currently no consensus on the most accurate method to be used and no guidelines to help the user to choose the more appropriate one. Injury risk curves built for the WorldSID 50th side impact dummy with these different methods could vary significantly, depending on the sample considered (Petitjean et al. 2009). As a consequence, further investigations were needed to determine the fields of application of the different methods and to recommend the best statistical method depending on the biomechanical sample considered.

An ideal injury criterion should be predictive of the risk of injury across the range of loading conditions where it may be applied. The injury risk curve associated with this criterion should be applicable to all loading conditions. With respect to side impact, the injury risk curve should apply to pure lateral or oblique loading by rigid and padded walls, as well as airbags. Trosseille et al., (2009) reported that the number of fractured ribs was higher in pure lateral impact than in forward oblique interaction with an airbag. A good dummy criterion should be able to account for this difference. To evaluate various injury criteria with the WorldSID 50th and ES-2re dummies, the dummies were exposed to the same airbag loadings as the PMHS. The criteria measured in the dummy tests were paired with the rib fractures from the PMHS tests.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between the number of rib fractures and the thoracic deflection in side impact, and in particular its variability with respect to various loading configurations. The relevance of thoracic deflection as an injury criterion depends on the existence or not of this variability. Few studies were dedicated to this issue in the literature. First, a validation database was established, which covers different impact directions (frontal, lateral and oblique), different loading types (impactor, belt and airbag), and different injury levels (from the absence of, to presence of numerous ribs fractured). The HUMOS human body model was then modified and validated versus the database. Besides the typical validation in terms of global response, particular attention was paid to validate the model with respect to the ribcage strain profile, the occurrence of rib fractures and their locations.

The development of the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy was initiated in 1997 by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO/SC12/TC22/WG5) with the objective of developing a more biofidelic side impact dummy and supporting the adoption of a harmonized dummy into regulations. More than 45 organizations from all around the world have contributed to this effort including governmental agencies, research institutes, car manufacturers and dummy manufacturers. The first production version of the WorldSID 50th male dummy was released in March 2004 and demonstrated an improved biofidelity over existing side impact dummies. Full-scale vehicle tests covering a wide range of side impact test procedures were performed worldwide with the WorldSID dummy. However, the vehicle safety performance could not be assessed due to lack of injury risk curves for this dummy. The development of these curves was initiated in 2004 within the framework of ISO/SC12/TC22/WG6 (Injury criteria).

Thoracic injury criteria and injury risk curves in side impact are based on impactor or sled tests, with rigid or padded surfaces while airbags are very common on current cars. Besides, the loading is generally pure lateral while real crashes or regulations can generate oblique loadings. Oblique tests were found in the literature, but no conclusion was drawn with regard to the effect of the direction on the injury outcome. In order to address these two limitations, a series of 17 side airbag tests were performed on Post Mortem Human Subjects (PMHS) at different severities and angles. The subjects were instrumented with accelerometers on the spine and strain gauges on the ribs. They were loaded by an unfolded airbag at different distances in pure lateral or 30 degrees forward. The airbag forces ranged from 1680 N to 6300 N, the injuries being up to 9 separated fractured ribs. This paper provides the test results in terms of physical parameters and injury outcome of the 17 subjects.

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.

This paper examines the effect that test barriers currently used for frontal and side impact tests have had on collision compatibility between different-sized vehicles. The peak force levels generated by the vehicles’ front structures are one of the significant factors in determining vehicle compatibility. It is shown from principles of mechanics that the use of fixed barriers as a test device may lead to higher force levels for front ends of larger vehicles and thus increase the incompatibility between large and small vehicles. Review of data from various sources supports this conclusion that the peak force levels of vehicles’ front ends have increased in proportion to their test mass. Available crash data is also examined for a relationship between NCAP ratings of vehicles and the likelihood of serious and fatal injuries to occupants of those vehicles. These data do not show any relationship between the frontal NCAP ratings of vehicles and their rate of serious or fatal injuries.

The close-fitting cockpit of the modern Indy car single seat race car has the potential to provide a high level of head and neck impact protection in rear and side impacts. Crash investigation has shown that a wide variety of materials have been used as the padding for these cockpits and, as a result, produced varying outcomes in crashes. Additionally, these pads have not always been positioned for optimal performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the head impact performance of a variety of energy-absorbing padding materials under impact conditions typical of Indy car rear impacts and to identify superior materials and methods of improving their performance as race car head pads. An extensive series of tests with the helmeted Hybrid III test dummy head and neck on an impact mini-sled was conducted to explore head padding concepts.

This paper discusses a study conducted by GM to better understand the factors that influence injury potential in vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts. A number of other studies have been done which focus primarily on frontal vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility. GM focused on side impact compatibility in this study due to the risk of harm generally associated with this type of crash. Real world field performance was studied through an extensive six-state field analysis of recent model year (‘94+) vehicles. Of particular interest in this study was an efficacy analysis of the MVSS 214 dynamic side impact standard, which was phased-in starting with some 1994 model year passenger cars. Physical side impact crash testing of a 1997 passenger car was used to investigate the relationship of impacting mass, speed, geometric profile and stiffness on side impact intrusion and occupant injury.