Search Results

A relationship between the risk of significant thoracic injury (AIS ≥ 3) and Hybrid III dummy sternal deflection for shoulder belt loading is developed. This relationship is based on an analysis of the Association Peugeot-Renault accident data of 386 occupants who were restrained by three-point belt systems that used a shoulder belt with a force-limiting element. For 342 of these occupants, the magnitude of the shoulder belt force could be estimated with various degrees of certainty from the amount of force-limiting band ripping. Hyge sled tests were conducted with a Hybrid III dummy to reproduce the various degrees of band tearing. The resulting Hybrid III sternal deflections were correlated to the frequencies of AIS ≥ 3 thoracic injury observed for similar band tearing in the field accident data. This analysis indicates that for shoulder belt loading a Hybrid III sternal deflection of 50 mm corresponds to a 40 to 50% risk of an AIS ≥ 3 thoracic injury.

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.

Currently, one of the major challenges for automotive engineers is to provide additional protection to motor vehicle occupants involved in side-impact collisions. A considerable amount of research is being conducted into this problem by governments and motor vehicle manufacturers on a worldwide basis. Changes to the current safety standards relating to side impact protection have been proposed in both North America and Europe. The proposed standards involve the use of dummies in collisions between a moving barrier and a stationary test vehicle. A total of 22 side impact tests of production vehicles have been completed to date to assess the appropriateness of the test procedures developed in the U.S. and Europe in the context of the Canadian vehicle mix and associated side impact accident problem. Vehicle performance rankings provided by the two test procedures were found to vary greatly.

This paper presents the results of biomechanical testing of the SID-IIs beta+-prototype dummy by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership. The purpose of this testing was to evaluate the dummy against its previously established biomechanical response corridors for its critical body regions. The response corridors were scaled from the 50th percentile adult male corridors defined in International Standards Organization Technical Report 9790 to corridors for a 5th percentile adult female, using established International Standards Organization procedures. Tests were performed for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvis regions of the dummy. Testing included drop tests, pendulum impacts and sled tests. The biofidelity of the SID-IIs beta+-prototype was calculated using a weighted biomechanical test response procedure developed by the International Standards Organization.

The responses of a 5th percentile female ATD in the driver and/or rear passenger positions of 56 crashes are described. The Transport Canada side impact programme consisted of LTV-to-car impacts, car-to-car impacts and IIHS barrier-to-car tests. The majority of the tests involved severe crash conditions for which the vehicles were not designed. The SID-IIs head, chest and abdominal responses were compared to determine the effects of the striking bullet geometry, the angle of impact, the impact point and the self-protective elements of the struck vehicle, including airbag technology and armrest designs. The SID-IIs head responses and deflection measures were sufficiently sensitive to discriminate between the various striking vehicles, crash configurations, airbag systems and armrest characteristics.

Child dummies were seated in size appropriate child restraints and exposed to in-vehicle, static, side mounted airbag deployments as well as full scale side impact crash tests. The child seat sample included rear and forward facing child restraints and booster seats. Anthropomorphic test dummies (ATD) included an 18 month infant and fully instrumented Hybrid III 3 year old and Hybrid III 6 year old child dummies. Preliminary results suggest that properly restrained infants and children occupying age appropriate child seats may receive some protective benefits from side airbags provided the child seat and the child occupant are correctly positioned.

The NHTSA’s final interim rule on advanced airbags describes two static out-of-position test procedures for the 5th percentile female dummy. Recent testing by Transport Canada suggests that the procedure described for the positions may not be representative of the worst case condition and may include elements that are not realistic for a 5th percentile driver. A modified positioning procedure which prioritizes chest placement and positions the steering wheel in a location that is compatible with the visibility and comfort requirements of a 5th percentile female driver is described. A modified chin on hub procedure is also described. Results of the modified procedures are compared to the NHTSA procedures for a number of late model vehicles.

Drawing on recent Canadian field collision investigations and crash testing using the SIDIIs dummy, the field experience and crash performance of side-mounted airbag systems are reviewed. All of the inflatable technologies tested demonstrated the ability to greatly reduce head injury potential. Further improvements to the design of inflatable head protection devices are required to better ensure they contain and protect the head of occupants seated in locations forward of the mid seat track. New moving deformable barrier designs, such as the one recently developed by the IIHS, appear to offer significant advantages over designs currently used to regulate side impact protection. Improving the level of protection against chest injury to car occupants in SUV-to-car side impacts represents a significant challenge.

This paper discusses an attempt to relate measured loading at the head neck junction of arestrained six year old ATD during a frontal crash, to the mechanism of upper cervical fracture dislocation in young children. Lap belt, lap shoulder belt anda four point restraint system are considered. The basis for the reconstructions is the fatal injury to lap-belt restrained young children seated in the rear seat of contemporary minivans. The study concludes that simple forces and bending moments measured on such an ATD may not provide a sufficient basis for judging the likelihood of such an injury. Suggestions for a more comprehensive injury analysis are made.

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 professional high diver, instrumented with accelerometers, performed sixteen dives from heights between 27-57 ft. For each dive, he executed a 3/4 turn and landed supine on a 3-ft deep mattress which consisted of pieces of low-density urethane foam encased in a nylon cover. Using FM telemetry, sagittal plane decelerations were recorded for a point either on the sternum or the forehead. Impact velocities and corresponding stopping distances for the thorax and the head were calculated from high-speed movies of the dives. For a 57-ft dive, the impact velocity of the thorax was 41 mph with a corresponding stopping distance of 34.6 in. The peak resultant deceleration of the thorax was 49.2 g with a pulse duration of 100 ms. The maximum rate of change of the deceleration of the thorax was 5900 g/s. No discomfort was experienced as a result of this impact. The maximum forehead deceleration occurred during a 47.0-ft drop and exceeded 56 g with a Gadd Severity Index greater than 465.

Two Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI) dummies were tested and evaluated. Based on the analysis given, the HSI dummy should not be used for vehicle qualification testing. However, many of its components offer viable alternatives for future dummy development. The dummy was found to have inadequate biomechanical fidelity in the head, neck, and chest, although its characteristics were very promising and, as a whole, biomechanically superior to the Hybrid II. Its repeatability and reproducibility in dynamic component tests were better than the Hybrid II dummy. In particular, the HSRI friction joints were outstanding in repeatability and had a significant advantage in usability in that they do not require resetting between tests. In three-point harness and ACRS systems tests, the values of injury criteria produced by the HSRI dummy were generally lower than those obtained with the Hybrid II, especially the femur loads in the ACRS tests.

Details of a new crash simulator and preliminary results from a series of cadaver knee impact experiments were presented at the Eighth Stapp Conference. During the past year additional data concerning injury to the knee-thigh-hip complex have been obtained, and the studies have been extended to consider impact to the chest. Results to date indicate that for knee impacts against a moderately padded surface it is not possible to predict whether failure of the patella, femur or pelvis will occur first, although in these studies femoral fractures occurred most frequently. A force of 1400 lb. is recommended at this time as a reasonably conservative value for the over-all injury threshold level. Volunteers tolerated impact loads to the knee of 800-1000 lb. For loads applied over the sternum through a 25-30 padded surface, static and dynamic thoracic stiffness characteristics were determined for a limited number of cadavers.

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.

A review and analysis of existing cadaver head impact data has been conducted in this paper. The association of the Head Injury Criterion with experimental cadaver skull fracture and brain damage has been investigated, and risk curves of HIC versus skull fracture and brain damage have been developed. Limitation of the search for the maximum HIC duration to 15ms has been recommended for the proper use of HIC in the automotive crash environment.

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.

Side impact tests were conducted on the EUROSID and SID to assess their biofidelity compared to the response requirements of the international Standards Organization. The body regions evaluated were the head, neck, thorax, shoulder, abdomen, and pelvis. Test conditions and data normalization procedures are outlined in the report. Data plots are given which compare the impact response of each dummy to the ISO requirements. The EUROSID gave humanlike responses for most tests involving padded surface impacts, but its responses were not humanlike for rigid surface impacts. Overall, the EUROSID responses were more humanlike than the responses of the SID.

Dummy response and restraint configuration factors associated with a known child injury environment were investigated using a spinal-cord injury accident case, a full-scale reconstruction, and sled simulations. The work is one of several studies undertaken in association with the International Task Force on Child Restraining Systems to support the development of improved neck injury criteria and restraint systems for young children. A two-vehicle crash involving a restrained child occupant was investigated in detail and reconstructed in full-scale at the Transport Canada Motor Vehicle Test Centre using the CRABI 6-Month dummy. Vehicle damage and crush characteristics closely resembled that of the case vehicles. Dummy instrumentation included head and chest accelerometers and upper and lower neck transducers. The case occupant had been facing forward and had sustained a contusion of the spinal cord at T2 that resulted in paraplegia.

Occupants exposed to far-side crashes are those seated on the side of the vehicle opposite the struck side. This study uses the NASS/CDS 1988–98 to determine distributions of serious injuries among restrained occupants exposed to far-side crashes and the sources of the injuries. Vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests were conducted to study dummy kinematics. The NASS/CDS indicated that the head accounted for 45% of the MAIS 4+ injuries in far-side collisions and the chest/abdomen accounted for 39%. The opposite-side interior was the most frequent contact associated with driver AIS 3+ injuries (26.9%). The safety belt was second, accounting for 20.8%. Vehicle-to-vehicle side impact tests with a 60 degree crash vector indicated that different safety belt designs resulted in different amounts of head excursion for the far side Hybrid III dummy. For all three point belt systems tested, the shoulder belt was ineffective in preventing large amounts of head excursion.