Search Results

The purpose of this study was to investigate approaches evaluating the performance of safety systems in crash tests and by analytical simulations. The study was motivated by the need to consider the adequacy of injury criteria and tolerance levels in FMVSS 208 measuring safety performance of restraint systems and supplements. The study also focused on additional biomechanical criteria and performance measures which may augment FMVSS 208 criteria and alternative ways to evaluate dummy responses rather than by comparison to a tolerance level. Additional analysis was conducted of dummy responses from barrier crash and sled tests to gain further information on the performance of restraint systems. The analysis resulted in a new computer program which determined several motion and velocity criteria from measurements made in crash tests.

A study of air bag deployments has indicated that some occupant injury was “unexpected” and might have been related to loading by the inflating bag. Laboratory studies have found “high” loads on surrogates when they are out of a normal seating position and in the path and against an inflating air bag (out-of-position). The current study evaluated laboratory methods for assessing the significance of deployment loads and the interaction mechanics for the situation of an occupant located near or against a steering wheel mounted air bag. Analysis of the field relevance of the results must consider not only factors relating to the assessment of injury risk, but also exposure frequency. The highest responses for the head, neck, or torso were with that body region aligned with and against the air bag module. The risk of severe injury was low for the head and neck, but high when the torso was against and fully covering the air bag module.

This paper contains a review of current information on biological structure, material properties and failure characteristics of bone, articular cartilage, ligament and tendon. The load-deformation response of biological tissues is presented with particular reference to the microstructure of the material. Although many of the tissues have been characterized as linear, elastic and isotropic materials, they actually have a more complicated response to load, which includes stiffening with increasing strain, inelastic yield, and strain rate sensitivity. Failure of compact and cancellous bone depends on the rate, type, and direction of loading. Soft biological tissues are vlscoelastie and exhibit a higher load tolerance with an increasing rate of loading. The paper includes a discussion on the basic principles of biomechanics and emphasizes material properties and failure characteristics of biological tissues subjected to impact loading.

Life threatening chest injury can involve partial or full tears of the aorta. Investigations of fatal injuries in automobile accidents indicate that aortic trauma occurs in 10-20% of the cases. The major sites of aortic trauma include the aortic isthmus, the root, and the aortic insertion at the diaphragm - all of which are points of aortic tethering. The biomechanics of the injury process involve stretching of the vessel from points of tethering and hydrodynamic increases in blood pressure, which stretch the tissue to failure at a strain of about 150%. The non-isotropic stretch response of aortic tissue is discussed with reference to the frequent transverse orientation of the laceration. Congenital and pathophysiological conditions also influence the failure characteristics of the tissue. The significant factors associated with traumatic injury of the aorta are discussed in this review paper which is based on published technical information.

Knee bolsters on the lower instrument panel have been designed to control occupant kinematics during sudden deceleration. However, a wide variability in car occupant anthropometry and choice of seating posture indicates that lower-extremity contacts with the impingement bolster could predominantly load the flexed leg through the knee (acting through the femur) or through the tibia (acting through the knee joint). Potential injuries associated with these types of primary loading may vary significantly and an understanding of potential trauma mechanisms is important for proper occupant restraint.

Thoracic impact response and injuries of living and postmortem porcine siblings were investigated to quantify comparative differences. Thirteen male animals, averaging 61.4 kg, from five different porcine litters comprised the two animal samples. Porcine brothers were subjected to similar impact exposures for which at least one brother was tested live, anesthetized and another dead, post rigor with vascular repressurization. Statistically significant differences in biomechanical responses and injuries were observed between live and postmortem siblings. On the average the anesthetized live animals demonstrated a greater thoracic compliance, as measured by increased normalized total deflections (21% Hi), and reduced overall injuries (AIS 14% Lo and rib fractures 26% Lo) at lower peak force levels (13% Lo) than did the postmortem subjects. However, individual comparisons of “match-tested” siblings demonstrated very similar responses in some cases.

A femur fracture injury criterion is presented that assesses the dependence of the permissible human knee load on the duration of the primary force exposure. Currently a constant allowable femur load limit of 7.6 kN (1700 lb) is specified in FMVSS 208, but recently the Federal Government proposed elevating the allowable limit to 10.0 kN (2250 lb), which is in excess of the limited experimental average static femur fracture force of 8.90 kN (2000 lb). A general analysis of all of the available biomechanics data and mathematical models on femoral impact response and fracture indicates a significant load time dependence for primary pulse durations below 20 ms that can elevate the permissible femur load above the Federally proposed allowable limit of 10.0 kN (2250 lb).

A case study was conducted of 123 crashes involving 144 fatally injured lap-shoulder belted front-seat occupants. The crashes occurred throughout the United States in 1985-86 and involved 97 driver and 47 right-front passenger deaths in new vehicles. A judgment was made by consensus of a safety panel on the potential for saving the victim's life by the addition of safety technology. Supplemental airbags provided the greatest potential for improving the life-saving effectiveness of current lap-shoulder belts. Overall, airbags may have prevented 12% of the belted occupant fatalities and 27% of the deaths in frontal crashes. The benefit of supplemental airbags was greater for the right-front passenger, in part, because of more females and occupants over 60 years of age in that seating position. A majority (68%) of the belted fatalities were judged unpreventable by reasonable restraint or vehicle modifications.

Airbags and safety belts are now viewed as complements for occupant protection in a crash. There is also a view that no single solution exists to ensure safety and that a system of protective technologies is needed to maximize safety in the wide variety of real automotive crashes. This paper compares the fatality prevention effectiveness, and biomechanical principles of occupant restraint systems. It focuses on the effectiveness of various systems in preventing fatal injury assuming the restraint is available and used. While lap-shoulder belts provide the greatest safety, airbags protect both belted and unbelted occupants.

This paper covers the development of the General Motors Energy Absorbing Steering System beginning with the work of the early crash injury pioneers Hugh DeHaven and Colonel John P. Stapp through developments and introduction of the General Motors energy absorbing steering system in 1966. evaluations of crash performance of the system, and further improvement in protective function of the steering assembly. The contributions of GM Research Laboratories are highlighted, including its safety research program. Safety Car, Invertube, the biomechanic projects at Wayne State University, and the thoracic and abdominal tolerance studies that lead to the development of the Viscous Injury Criterion and self-aligning steering wheel.

Sled tests were conducted at farside oblique angles of 15°, 45°, and 75° with a Part 572 dummy restrained by a conventional driver lap/shoulder belt system or a preinflated driver inflatable restaint. Occupant dynamics were compared in similar tests where an inboard energy absorbing lateral restraint of the upper torso was or was not used. It can be concluded that the seat wing improves the control of the dummy's dynamics in oblique impacts by directing the occupant's motion more forward into the restraint system, thereby taking more advantage of the restraining potential of the shoulder belt or inflatable restraint in controlling the deceleration of the dummy and enhancing the benefit of the restraint system. However, additional factors associated with the use of a seat wing remain to be investigated including the effect of impact force on the occupant, interaction with out-of-position occupants and comfort/convenience.

Objective: This study analyzes rear sled tests with a 95th% male and 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in various seating positions on ABTS (All Belt to Seat) seats in severe rear impact tests. Dummy interactions with the deforming seatback and upper body extension around the seat frame are considered. Methods: The 1st series involved an open sled fixture with a Sebring ABTS seat at 30 mph rear delta V. A 95th% Hybrid III dummy was placed in four different seating positions: 1) normal, 2) leaning inboard, 3) leaning forward and inboard, and 4) leaning forward and outboard. The 2nd series used a 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in a Grand Voyager body buck at 25 mph rear delta V. The dummy was leaned forward and inboard on a LeSabre ABTS or Voyager seat. The 3rd series used a 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in an Explorer body buck at 26 mph rear delta V. The dummy was leaned forward and inboard on a Sebring ABTS or Explorer seat.

Biomechanical surrogates are used in various forms to study head impact response in automotive applications and for assessing helmet performance. Surrogate headforms include those from the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) and the many variants of the Hybrid III. However, the response of these surrogates to loading at the chin and how that response may affect the loads transferred from the jaw to the rest of the head are unknown. To address part of that question, the current study compares the chin impact response performance of select human surrogates to that of the cadaver. A selection of Hybrid III and NOCSAE based surrogates with fixed and articulating jaws were tested under drop mass impact conditions that were used to describe post mortem human subject (PMHS) response to impacts at the chin (Craig et al., 2008). Results were compared to the PMHS response with cumulative variance technique (Rhule et al., 2002).

Objective: This is a descriptive study of the incidence of spinal injury by crash type using NASS-CDS. It provides an understanding of impacts to the undercarriage of the vehicle and injuries to the lumbar spine by reviewing electronic cases in NASS-CDS to determine crash circumstances for fractures of the lumbar spine with undercarriage impacts. Methods: 1997-2015 NASS-CDS was evaluated for serious injury (MAIS 3 + F) to front-seat occupants by seatbelt use and crash type in 1994+ MY vehicles. Undercarriage impacts were defined by GAD1 = U without a rollover. Serious injury was defined as MAIS 3 + F. Spinal injuries AIS 3+ were separated into cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions. Weighted data was determined using ratio weight. NASS-CDS electronic cases were downloaded from NHTSA with AIS 3+ lumbar spine injuries in undercarriage impacts. Results: There were 2,160 MAIS 3 + F injured occupants in undercarriage impacts. This was 0.23% of all serious injury.

Active head restraints are being used to reduce the risk of whiplash in rear crashes. However, their evaluation in laboratory tests can vary depending on the injury criteria and test dummy. The objective of this study was to conduct barrier tests with BioRID and sled tests with Hybrid III to determine the most meaningful responses related to whiplash risks in real-world crashes. This study involved: (1) twenty-four rear barrier tests of the Saab 9000, 900, 9-3 and 9-5 with two fully instrumented BioRID dummies placed in the front or rear seats and exposed to 24 and 48.3 km/h barrier impacts, and (2) twenty rear sled tests at 5-38 km/h delta V in three series with conventional, modified and SAHR seats using the Hybrid III dummy. A new target superposition method was used to track head displacement and rotation with respect to T1. Insurance data on whiplash claims was compared to the dummy responses.

During the past decade, there has been a steady increase in studies addressing rollover crashes and injuries. Though rollovers are not the most frequent crash type, they are significant with respect to serious injury and interest in rollovers has grown with the introduction of SUVs, vans, and light trucks. A review of Occupant and Vehicle Responses in Rollovers examines relevant conditions for field roll overs, vehicle responses, and occupant kinetics in the vehicle. This book edited by Dr. David C. Viano and Dr. Chantal S. Parenteau includes 62 technical documents covering 15 years of rollover crash safety, including field crash statistics, pre- and rollover dynamics, test procedures and dummy responses.

Objective: This study analyzed available rear impact sled tests with Starcraft-type seats that use a diagonal belt behind the seatback. The study focused on neck responses for out-of-position (OOP) and in-position seated dummies. Methods: Thirteen rear sled tests were identified with out-of-position and in-position 5 th , 50 th and 95 th Hybrid III dummies in up to 47.6 mph rear delta Vs involving Starcraft-type seats. The tests were conducted at Ford, Exponent and CSE. Seven KARCO rear sled tests were found with in-position 5 th and 50 th Hybrid III dummies in 21.1-29.5 mph rear delta Vs involving Starcraft-type seats. In all of the in-position and one of the out-of-position series, comparable tests were run with production seats. Biomechanical responses of the dummies and test videos were analyzed.

This paper reviews issues relating to seats including design for comfort and restraint, mechanics of discomfort and irritability, older occupants, and low-back pain. It focuses on the interface between seating technology and occupant comfort, and involves a technical review of medical-engineering information. The dramatic increase in the number of features currently available on seats outreaches the technical understanding of occupant accommodation and ride comfort. Thus, the current understanding of seat design parameters may not adequately encompass occupant needs. The review has found many pathways between seating features and riding comfort, each of which requires more specific information on the biomechanics of discomfort by pressure distribution, body support, ride vibration, material breathability, and other factors. These inputs stimulate mechanisms of discomfort that need to be quantified in terms of mechanical requirements for seat design and function.

Classical blunt thoracic impacts have involved midsternal anteroposterior loadings to an upright-positioned subject. Data on the sensitivity of human cadaver and/or animal model biomechanical and injury responses to blunt loadings at different sternal locations is needed to evaluate the efficacy of current injury-potential guidelines for nonsite-specific frontal impacts. In addition, the biomechanics and injury mechanisms associated with lateral impacts constitute a subject of increasing consideration for occupant protection. Twelve anesthetized pigs were subjected to various blunt frontal or a right-side impact to assess biomechanical and injury response differences in a living animal model.