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.

Studies conducted in the 1970's suggested that inflatable belt restraints might provide a high level of occupant protection based on experiments with dummies, cadavers and volunteers. Although inflating the belt was one factor which contributed to achieving these experimental results, much of the reported performance was associated with other features in the restraint system. Exploratory experiments with the Hybrid III dummy indicated similar trends to previous studies, belt inflation reducing dummy response amplitudes by pretensioning and energy absorption while reducing displacement. The potential advantage of an increased loaded area by an inflatable belt could not be objectively demonstrated from previous studies or from dummy responses. Clearly, belt inflation can be one component of a belt restraint system which tends to reduce test response amplitudes. However, other belt system configurations have demonstrated similar test response amplitudes.

This study is an extension of previous work on driver air bag deployment loads which used the mid-size male Hybrid Ill dummy. Both small female and mid-size male Hybrid Ill dummies were tested with a range of near-positions relative to the air bag module. These alignments ranged from the head centered on the module to the chest centered on the module and with various separations and lateral shifts from the module. For both sized dummies the severity of the loading from the air bag depended on alignment and separation of the dummy with respect to the air bag module. No single alignment provided high responses for all body regions, indicating that one test at a typical alignment cannot simultaneously determine the potential for injury risk for the head, neck, and torso. Based on comparisons with their respective injury assessment reference values, the risk of chest injury appeared similar for both sized dummies.

Far-side lateral impacts were simulated using a Part 572 dummy and human cadavers to compare responses for several belt restraint configurations. Sled tests were conducted having a velocity change of 35 km/hr at a 10 g deceleration level. It was estimated from field data that a 35 km/hr velocity change of the laterally struck vehicle represents about an 80th percentile level for injury-producing lateral collisions. Subjects restrained by a three-point belt system with an outboard anchored diagonal shoulder belt (i.e., positioned over the shoulder opposite the side of impact) rotated out of the shoulder belt and onto the seat. The subject received some lateral restraint due to interaction with the shoulder belt and seatback. The subjects restrained by a three-point belt system with an inboard anchored diagonal shoulder belt (i.e., positioned over the shoulder on the side of impact) remained essentially upright due to shoulder belt interaction with the neck and/or head.

Hyge sled tests were conducted using a rear-seat sled fixture to evaluate submarining responses (the lap belt of a lap-shoulder belt restraint loads the abdominal region instead of the pelvis). Objectives of these tests included: an evaluation of methods to determine the occurrence of submarining; an investigation into the influence of restraint system parameters, test severity, and type of anthropomorphic test device on submarining response; and an exploration of the mechanics of submarining. This investigation determined that: 1. Slippage of the lap belt off the pelvis due to dynamic loading of the dummy and the resulting kinematics can cause abdominal loading to the dummy in laboratory crash testing. 2. The 5th female dummy submarined more easily than did the Hybrid ill in the test environment. 3. Motion of the pelvis was controlled using a “pelvic stop”, which reduced the submarining tendency for both the 5th female and Hybrid III dummies. 4.

Real world crash injury is distributed somewhat uniformly across a wide range of car crash severities. Our current safety evaluation practices address primarily the high severity crashes which have “high” risk of injury hut “low” exposure frequency. Little or no evaluation is directed toward moderate severity crashes which have “low” risk of injury but “high” exposure frequency and result in much of the total occupant injury. Occupant protection evaluation which relies on analysis of laboratory tests using both an injury probability interpretation of test responses and consideration of exposure frequency produces a perceived injury distribution over a broad range of crash severities that appears similar to that for occupants injured in car crashes. In contrast, analysis of laboratory tests using an average tolerance interpretation of test responses results in a perceived injury distribution in which injury only occurs in “high15 severity exposures.