Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
This chapter summarizes our recent research on accidental injury analysis and new passive restraint concepts for automated vehicle occupant protection. Recent trends to develop highly automated driving systems (ADS) may enable occupants to sit in non-conventional ways with various seating positions. Such seating position may subject occupants to 360 degree of principal direction of force (PDOF). Current government regulatory crash tests and evaluation standards known as New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP) and other motor safety regulations have been implemented in the automotive industry mainly for the protection of forward-facing seated occupants in frontal, side, and rollover vehicle crashes. Automated vehicles will pose challenges and opportunities for occupant protection. In addition, automation may lead to an increase in occupants from more diverse populations in crash conditions and seating arrangements. More studies are required to better understand the kinematics, injuries, and protection for the ADS occupants on other new seating positions and postures from various crashes. Our latest research focused on occupant injury risk analysis and new restraint concepts for the ADS occupants at different seating positions, especially at the side-facing seat. This chapter summarizes our major findings from the research, including occupant injury risk assessment methods, estimated injury patterns and severities at different PDOF and seating arrangements, as well as new restraint concepts for mitigation of the ADS occupant injures.
Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Center for Injury Biomechanics, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
*Address all correspondence to: jay.zhao@joysonsafety.com
1. Introduction
In the past decades extensive research and development (R&D) has made for effective protection of the occupants in conventional vehicles. Through analytical and experimental investigations on the kinematics response and injuries of postmortem human subject (PMHS) in forward-facing seating under different frontal, oblique, side, and rear impacts, the injury measures and criteria for the trauma of each body region at Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) with the injury risk probability function have been defined. The families of the anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) have been developed as the laboratory test tools for surrogate human occupants representing a population of different gender and ages. These ATDs included advanced THOR dummies for the 50th%ile adult male and 5th%ile female and Hybrid-III dummies for 95th%ile and 50th%ile adult males, 5th%ile female, 10 year old, 6 year-old, 3 year-old, and 1 year children, mainly for the frontal impact applications; WorldSID, Eurosid, US-Sid dummies of the 50th%ile male and 5th%ile female for the side impacts; and BioRid dummy for the rear impacts. Dummy based measures and criteria for the human body injuries have been developed from the paired studies of the PMHS tests and dummy tests at laboratory impact test conditions.
Based on the research and development, the government regulatory crash tests and evaluation standards known as New Car Assessment Programs (NCAP) and other motor safety regulations have been implemented in industry for nearly three decades, mainly for occupant protection of the forward-facing seated occupants in conventional vehicles, including the first-row driver and passenger and the second-row occupants, for vehicle frontal, side and rollover crashes. It was estimated to have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the field each year [1].
As new automated vehicles technologies are accelerating in recent years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) [2] released new federal guidance for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) on September 12, 2017, prioritizing occupant safety with the vision for safe deployment of automated vehicle technologies to a future with fewer traffic fatalities and increased mobility for all occupants. The new guidance supports further development of this important new technology, and offers a voluntary guidance for twelve priority safety design elements of the ADS, including new occupant protection systems that provide enhanced protection to occupants of all ages and sizes, additional countermeasures that will protect all occupants in any alternative planned seating or interior configurations, and the tools to demonstrate such due care not only limited to physical testing but also including virtual tests with vehicle and human body models.
Automated vehicles (AV) will pose challenges and opportunities for occupant protection since an AV could involve in different crash conditions, occupants could be from more diverse population, and seating arrangements could be free of restriction.
Recent trends in AV interior seating configurations bring more innovative and versatile design options than the conventional vehicles. In additional to the traditional forward-facing seats, AV seating designs may consider oblique-facing, rear-facing, and side facing or any other angle-oriented seating positions. The occupant postures in an AV could also vary at great extent, from normal seated to leaning backward until lying down. Jorlöv et al. [3] investigated user desires and attitudes to seating positions and activities in future highly automated cars. The survey found that during long drives, with several occupants in the car, there is a desire to rotate the seats to a living room position. During shorter drives alone, users would prefer to maintain the forward-facing position, but with the seat reclined to a more relaxed position.
For effective protection to all occupants of all ages and sizes in any alternative planned seating or interior configurations from various vehicle crashes, it is necessary for us to understand better the kinematics and injury patterns and outcomes of AV occupants at new seating configurations, and to develop better biofidelic tools and occupant injury evaluation methods.
In the past several years some fundamental biomechanics research has been performed on the PMHS and dummies in oblique facing, rear facing, and side-facing seating positions and reclined postures. Jason et al. [4] studied kinematic occupant responses and injury outcomes from 3-point seatbelt restrained PMHS in a forward-facing seat subjected to lateral and oblique far-side vehicle crash pulses of 6.6 mph and 14 mph. Humm et al. [5] studied kinetic and kinematic occupant responses, and injury outcomes from the lap-restrained PMHS in the oblique and side-facing seats subjected to a frontal pulse with 16 g peak, 13.4 m/s (48 km/h or 30 mph) change in velocity, and 90 ms rise time (USCFR-1988) in an aviation environment. The sustained injuries included spinal injuries for all subjects varying with vertebral level, rib fractures, pelvic injuries, and leg injuries. Kang et al. [6, 7] studied kinematic responses and injury outcomes from the 3-point seatbelt restrained PMHS in the rear-seats subjected to frontal pulses of 16 mph, 24 mph and 35 mph crash severities of a represented vehicle. Minor c-spine injuries and transverse process fractures, 3–15 ribs fractures were observed from the PMHS at the rear seat under the 35 mph crash pulse. More injuries (Clavicle, scapula, and pelvis fractures) were observed from the PMHS at same test condition with the reclined 45 deg. seating.
Good progress has also been made in development of omni-directionally biofidelic human body models (HBMs). In the past decades, several finite element human body models for the occupants and pedestrians have been developed worldwide. Most recently, Global Human Body Model Consortium (GHBMC) have developed a family of HBMs in total of 13 models representing the 95th%ile and 50th%ile male and 5th%ile female occupants and pedestrians, and a six-year old child pedestrian. Biofidelity of the GHBMC 50th%ile male detailed occupant model (M50-O v4.5) was evaluated for the responses to the UVA PMHS farside sled tests condition [8], as well as to the rear impact sled tests by Kang et al. [9]. These results indicated better biofidelity of the HBMs than the dummies at these conditions.
In this research, we have used the GHBMC HBMs as a tool for assessment of the occupant kinematics and injuries, and for evaluation of the restraint performance.
The objectives of this research were the following
to develop the accidental injury risk assessment method with the GHBMC HBMs,
to better understand the body injury patterns and severities for a belted 50th%ile male occupant at various orientated seating positions under a vehicle frontal crash pulse and at a side-facing seating position under frontal, oblique, side, and rear vehicle crashes, and
to develop new concepts of effective restraints for the AV occupant protection.
In this chapter, Section 2 summarizes the GHBMC HBM validations and the occupant injury risk assessment methods. Section 3 states the occupant injury analysis for the seating in various 360 degree orientated seating positions. Section 4 focuses on the occupant injury analysis for the side-facing seat occupant. Section 5 demonstrates the evaluation methods and results for new restraint concepts for protection of the side-facing seat occupants.
In this study we used the GHBMC 50th%ile male occupant human body models in two versions – detailed M50-O v4.5 and simplified M50-OS v1.8.4. The M50-O v4.5 model has 2,187,596 elements and 1,263,445 nodes, while the M50-OS v1.8.4 FE model has 338,814 elements and 299,095 nodes.
2.1 Occupant model validation
The Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) M50-O average male seated occupant is a widely used and validated HBM. The detailed M50-O v4.5 occupant model has been validated at the tissue, component, and full body crash test levels during the development. GHBMC models were developed from external anthropometry and posture specific medical image data [10, 11]. A multi-modality image dataset from volunteers representing various target anthropometries were used. Over 14 thousand images across three imaging modalities (CT, MRI, and upright MRI) were collected for the M50 model including scans in the supine, standing, and seated postures [12]. Geometries for the M50 were developed from these image datasets using a variety of segmentation techniques. Segmented data were verified against or augmented with data from literature sources [13].
Component level validation has been conducted in each major body region. In the head, the model was validated by comparing the response in matched simulation of impacts to bony structures (e.g. maxilla [14], zygoma [10], nasal bone [15], and skull [16]). Various soft tissue injuries were validated including intracranial pressures [17, 18], and relative brain to skull motion [19, 20]. In the neck, segment level tests were validated using individual functional units [21, 22, 23, 24], functional units and full spine in tension [25], ligamentous strain [26, 27, 28, 29], and axial rotation [30, 31]. The full cervical spine was tested in various configurations including rear impact [32, 33], lateral impact, and frontal impact [34, 35]. The thorax was validated at the rib cage level using a denuded rib cage study [36], pendulum impacts [37, 38, 39], and table top impacts [40]. The individual response of a single rib was the subject of an optimization study [41]. The abdomen was validated in various tests using bar impacts with a free back [42, 43], belt loading with a free back [43], airbag loading with a fixed back [43], belt loading at the mid abdomen [44, 45], pendulum impact [46], organ level validation at impact [47], lumbar flexion [48], lateral impact [49] and side airbag loading [50]. The pelvis was validated in lateral compression at the acetabulum [51, 52, 53] and pubic symphysis [54]. The lower extremity has been validated in various loading conditions including axial loading. The ankle has been specifically studied in impacts for axial loading, ankle inversion, eversion, dorsiflexion, and rotation [55, 56, 57, 58]. Furthermore, the tibia has been validated in a three-point bending setup as well as axial loading for the entire leg [59, 60].
The model has also been extensively validated at the full body level in classical macro-level injury biomechanics studies [61]. Along with validation in dynamic simulations, the mass distribution of the GHBMC M50 model was validated [62] by virtually sectioning the model into body regions and comparing masses to anthropometric PMHS data from McConville et al. [63] and Robbins [64]. Rigid impacts to body regions (e.g. thorax, pelvis, etc.) in frontal, oblique, and lateral directions were applied to the model based on experimental designs in the literature [43, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69]. Care was taken to closely approximate the experiment, including considerations of motion constraints on impactors and the inclusion of gravity, seat backs, etc. Three sled tests in frontal [70, 71] and lateral [72] directions have been validated. An example of these simulations is shown below (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Sample validation using the GHBMC M50 model. Left to right: Shaw et al. sled buck model setup, head Z displacement and lower left rib displacement.
The M50-OS v1.8.3 model provides relevant biomechanical output data from the same body habitus as the detailed model, but at a substantially reduced computational cost. The simplification process included reducing the total number of elements through re-meshing, consolidating contact definitions, utilizing simplified material properties, and implementing kinematic joints throughout the body. The M50-OS model exhibits roughly a 40-fold decrease in run time (Table 1). Since joint definitions and meshes were designed to maximize the ability to position the model, a semi-automated positioning “tree” was programmed into LS-PrePost allowing the user to dynamically adjust joint angles prior to running a simulation.
Test
Detailed Model Run Time (min)
Simplified Model Run Time (min)
Run Time Reduction (Detailed/Simplified)
Thorax hub impact
583
15
38.9
Lateral sled impact
1554
40
38.9
Table 1.
Run time results for the simplified M50 occupant model.
The published work on the M50-OS v1.8.3 model [73] reported thirteen validations and robustness simulations, which included denuded rib compression at 7 discrete sites, 5 rigid body impacts, and one sled simulation. Perez-Rapela et al. [74] compared simulated kinematics in their far-side impact sled tests with the M50-OS v1.8.3 model to the PMHS responses. Results showed that, in general, the model captured lateral excursion in oblique impact conditions but overpredicted in purely lateral impact conditions. The human body model obtained a “good” CORA score for the correlation of their evaluation.
2.2 Injury risks assessment
The injury measures are Head Injury Criterion (HIC36 for side and HIC15 for frontal) and Brain Injury Criterion (BrIC) for the head region, Chest Lateral Deflections (side and frontal) for the chest, Abdominal VC for the abdomen, Pubic symphysis peak force for the pelvis, and Femur Force for the KTH region, and Upper Tibia Force and RTI for the lower extremities, respectively. The Full Body Injury Index FBII was defined as a summation of all the body region injury probabilities. Table 2 summarizes these injury measures and the body region injury risk functions.
The human body region injury risk functions for the 50th%ile male occupant.
In this study, the human occupant injury risks were estimated with these probability functions. The estimations served as comparative measures for the body region injury severities among different analysis cases.
3. Occupant injury analysis for the seating subject to PDOF 360 degree
An occupant could be injured at a vehicle crash when the external impact forces on his/her body regions exceed the tolerances. The force magnitude related to the vehicle crash severity and the principal direction of force (PDOF) affect the body region injury patterns and severities. The PDOF could vary for an occupant on a given seating position with different crash scenarios (frontal, oblique, side, or rear impacts to the vehicle), or vary with different seating orientations under one vehicle crash. In the real-world, there are more occurrences of vehicle frontal crashes than other impacts.
Kitagawa et al. [81] analyzed occupant kinematics in simulated frontal collisions with three speeds assumed (56 km/h, 40 km/h and 30 km/h) using the THUMS Version 4 AM50 occupant human model representing the 50th%ile male occupant seated varying seating orientations with every 45-degree increment from 0 degree (forward-facing) to ±180 degrees (rear-facing) with respect to the impact direction, and with three angles of the seatback from 24 degrees to 36 degrees for two seating positions. The results showed that the occupant had the largest torso lateral excursion (up to 700 mm at a 56 km/h frontal crash) at −45 degrees and − 90 degrees orientated (side-facing) seating positions.
In this study, we focused on analysis of occupant injury patterns and risks for a mid-size male occupant on a seat with the orientations varying to the PDOF 360 degree under a moderate frontal crash pulse.
3.1 Methods
We simulated a belted mid-size male occupant on a seat in a conceptual automated vehicle subject to the 40 km/h (25 mph) frontal crash pulse from Shaw PMHS golden test [70] as shown in Figure 2 (left graph). The 3-point seatbelt restraint was with pretensioner and 3.5 kN load limiter. Figure 2 (right graph) shows the simulation cases with the GHBMC M50-O v4.5 model representing the male occupant. For each simulation case, the seat was rotated with every 30-degree increment from 0 degree to 360 degrees respect to the frontal impact. It is noted that each case number is named same as the clock number.
Figure 2.
The 40 kph (25mph) frontal crash pulse (left graph) and the 50th%ile occupant seating positions considered in this study (right graph).
The models of the seat and seatbelt were used the same as what have been validated from the NHTSA’s Advanced Adaptive Restraint Program (AARP) [82]. For the seat model, additional validation was made for the rotational stiffness of the seat back against the published body block test data [83], in which the seat back forward-rearward rotation was allowed within +20 degrees.
From the simulations for the twelve cases with the defined different seating orientations, analyses were made on the occupant kinematics, forces on the occupant, and injury patterns and severities for each case.
3.2 Results
3.2.1 Occupant kinematics and external forces
Respect to the impact direction, the seating orientations could be classified as the frontal/oblique facing (within 0— ± 60 degree orientations or 10, 11, 12, 01, 02 O’clock (OC)), side facing (within ±90— ± 120 or 03, 04, 08, 09 OC), and rear-facing (within ±120–180 degrees or 05, 06, 07 OC). Figure 3 shows the maximum human body movement of each case varying with seat orientations. Significant kinematics differences of the human occupant among the seat facing classifications were observed.
Figure 3.
The seat facing classifications and the 50th%ile occupant kinematics under the 40 km/h frontal crash pulse.
Figure 4 (left graph) shows the time-history traces of the head, T1, and pelvis of the frontal/oblique facing seated occupant during the crash. Figure 4 (right graph) depicts the maximum external forces on the occupant from the seatbelt and the seat back. As the occupant faced more obliquely, the Head/T1 displacements increased while the pelvis displacement sightly decreased. The seatbelt routing obviously affected the kinematics. It was observed that the occupant at 11 & 10 OC had larger displacement than 01 & 02 OC. The seatbelt shoulder forces were all above 5 KN, while the seat back force to the occupant increased as the occupant had more side facing.
Figure 4.
The 50th%ile occupant kinematics (left graph) and maximum forces on the occupant (right graph) at the frontal/oblique facing seating positions under the 40 km/h frontal crash pulse.
Figure 5 (left graph) shows the time-history traces of the head, T1, and pelvis of the side facing seated occupant during the crash. Figure 5 (right graph) depicts the external forces on the occupant from the seatbelt and the seat back. The occupant at 03 & 04 OC showed twisting head while the torso was restrained by the seat belt and the seat back. The occupant seating at 09 & 08 OC showed shoulder belt slip-off and significantly larger displacement than 03 & 04 OC. In these side facing seat positions, the seatbelt restraint forces were reduced to 2–3 KN, while the seat back forces on the occupant increased to 7.1–8.7 KN.
Figure 5.
The 50th%ile occupant kinematics (left graph) and maximum forces on the occupant (right graph) at the side facing seating positions under the 40 km/h frontal crash pulse.
Figure 6 (left graph) shows the time-history traces of the head, T1, and pelvis of the rear facing seated occupant during the crash. Figure 6 (right graph) depicts the maximum seatbelt shoulder forces and the seat back forces on the occupant. No significant difference between 05 OC and far-side 07 OC was shown. In this seat facing group, much larger head and T1 displacement occurred compared to the other two groups. The restraint forces from the seat back increased significantly to 15.5–22.7 KN, while the seatbelt forces were below 1 KN. Hyperextension of the neck was observed.
Figure 6.
The 50th%ile occupant kinematics (left graph) and maximum forces on the occupant (right graph) at the rear facing seating positions under the 40 km/h frontal crash pulse.
3.2.2 Occupant injury patterns
For each case, the body injury measures, HIC, BrIC, Chest Deflection and Femur Load, were calculated. Figure 7 plots these normalized injury measures varying with the seating orientations. From the HIC and BrIC plots, we see that the more rearward the occupant faced, the larger HIC and BrIC had. The occupant at the front/oblique facing (12–02 OC) showed largest anterior-posterior chest deflection, followed by pure rear facing (06 OC) due to the restraints from the seatbelt or seat back. The occupant at the side facing (04 & 08 OC) showed largest lateral chest deflection, followed by front/oblique facing (11 & 10 OC) because the torso moved laterally to the seat and contacted the seat side structure.
Figure 7.
The 50th%ile occupant body region injury measures at all the seating positions under the 40 km/h frontal crash pulse.
3.2.3 Discussion
Figures 3–6 show that the occupant had the largest torso excursion laterally in the −90 degrees (or 09 OC side-facing) orientated seating position. The maximum Y-displacement of the T1 kinematics target reached 751 mm. This trend was same as what Kitagawa, Y., et al. found in their study similar to this setup [81].
Figures 3–6 show that the shoulder seatbelt had the largest restraint force on the occupant at the 12 OC seating position under the frontal loading, while the restraint force on the occupant from the seat back reached the maximum at the 06 OC seating position.
side facing (04 OC) having the highest risks of combination of the head and chest injuries indicated with the largest BrIC and lateral chest deflection, and
rear facing (06 OC) having the highest risks of head and neck injuries due to neck hyperextension.
4. Injury analysis for the side-facing seated occupant
The results in Section 3 show that a side facing seated occupant could have high risk of head and chest injuries even at a moderate severity frontal crash. Our other previous study [84] concluded that as a frontal crash severity increased above 40 kph or 25 mph delta velocity, the estimated injury risks for the body regions of head, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and knee-thigh-hip of the side-facing seated occupant increased significantly.
In real-world vehicle crashes, a lateral-facing seated occupant could also be exposed to various impacts other than a frontal crash, such as the oblique, side, and rear vehicle crashes. In this study, we investigated a mid-size male occupant on a 2nd row side-facing seat in a minivan subject to various crash pulses from the current US regulatory vehicle crash tests. The objective was to better understand the body injury risks and restraint protection effectiveness for such a side-facing seated occupant.
The general approach went through the three phases: 1) selected the vehicle crash test cases, collected the test data, and performed the vehicle crash test simulations; 2) performed the occupant simulations and injury analysis; 3) developed new restraint concepts for the occupant protection (the methods and results from this phase will be summarized in Section 5).
4.1 Methods
In this study, the case vehicle was a US minivan with redesigned seating arrangement for a conceptual automated vehicle.
Eight US regulatory vehicle crash tests for the minivan were considered, as listed in Table 3, including the US NCAP rigid barrier frontal crash (FC-RB), the IIHS 40% offset deformable barrier frontal crash (FC-ODB), the IIHS small overlap rigid barrier frontal crash (FC-SOB), the US NCAP moving deformable barrier near side crash (NS-DB), the IIHS moving deformable high barrier near side crash (NS-IDB), the US NCAP moving deformable barrier far side crash (FS-DB), the IIHS moving deformable high barrier far side crash (FS-IDB), and the NHTSA rear crash sled test (RC-RL).
The US regulatory vehicle crash tests for the minivan investigated in this study.
The vehicle side crash tests listed in Table 3 were simulated. The vehicle FE model was originally obtained from the public resource hosted by George Washington University National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC). Further updates were made on the side door structures of the minivan model. Correlation of the maximum side door structure deformation against the measured data were achieved. The updated vehicle FE model consisted of 572,555 elements, 604,821 nodes and 694 parts. Figure 8 shows the vehicle crash simulation model setup for the four side crash tests, in which coupled vehicle crash and occupant simulations were performed.
Figure 8.
Simulation models for the four US regulatory vehicle side crash tests.
For simulations of the vehicle frontal, oblique and rear crash tests listed in Table 3, a simplified vehicle FE model with 148,437 elements, 153,155 nodes and 47 parts was developed from the original NCAC model. The vehicle crash pulses from the frontal and oblique tests were collected and applied to the vehicle model, as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9.
The vehicle frontal and oblique crash pulses from the four US regulatory vehicle crash tests used for the occupant simulations in this study.
For the occupant simulations, the GHBMC M50-OS v1.8.4 model (updated internally) was used to represent a 50th%ile male occupant. Figure 10 shows the occupant model setup with the interior seating configuration of the minivan. The occupant restrained with a 3-point seatbelt was placed on a concept bench seat (case seat) on the frontal right side in the middle of the vehicle, surrounded by a 1st row right hand side (RHS) seat on his right, a 2nd row rear-facing seat on his front, and the rear-seat on his left.
Figure 10.
The crash cases and interior seating configuration of a conceptual automated minivan investigated in this study.
The case seat model consisted of the cushion, seat pan and seatback. The material models of the cushion foam and the cover fabric were carried over from the validated mechanical properties of a passenger seat. The 1st row RHS seat was represented by a validated production passenger seat FE model as a surrogate.
The occupant seating under gravity was simulated initially. Each simulation run through 150 msec of termination time. The final occupant seating position and posture were then defined along with the seat cushion and seatback geometry profiles from the seating simulation at the time when the occupant achieved his equilibrium seating position.
For each of all the US regulatory vehicle crash tests listed in Table 3, the vehicle and occupant simulations were conducted. From the occupant simulation results, we analyzed the occupant kinematic and kinetic response, as well as the injury measures and risks estimated from the injury risk functions summarized in Table 2.
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Kinematics
Figure 11 compares the kinematics snapshots at 115 msec of the 50th%ile male occupant at the side facing seat responding to the US NCAP rigid barrier frontal crash (FC-RB), the IIHS 40% offset deformable barrier (FC-ODB) frontal crash, the IIHS small overlap rigid barrier frontal crash (FC-SOB), and the rear impact (RC-RL), respectively. In all the three frontal and oblique crashes, the occupant impacted to the 1st row seat back on his right, while in the rear impact he moved laterally to his left.
Figure 11.
The kinematics snapshots at 115 msec of the 50th%ile male occupant at the side facing seat under various vehicle frontal and rear crashes—FC-RB (upper left), FC-ODB (lower right), FC-IDB (upper right), and RC-RL (lower right).
Figure 12 compares the kinematics of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant at 150 msec responding to the US NCAP moving deformable barrier near side crash (NS-DB), the IIHS moving deformable high barrier near side crash (NS-IDB), the US NCAP moving deformable barrier far side crash (FS-DB), and the IIHS moving deformable high barrier far side crash (FS-IDB), respectively. Under the near side crashes, the occupant firstly moved back toward the seatback during about 80 msec and then bounced forward driven by the seatback force. Under the farside crashes, the occupant moved forward all the way from the beginning. His lower legs impacted the side of the 2nd row LHS seat that was pushed toward the occupant by the deforming LHS side door structures of the vehicle.
Figure 12.
The kinematics snapshots at 150 msec of the 50th%ile male occupant at the side facing seat under various vehicle side crashes—NS-DB (upper left), NS-IDB (lower right), FS-DB (upper right), and FS-IDB (lower right).
4.2.2 Injury analysis
Table 4 summarizes the injury measures for the body regions of head, neck, Thorax, abdomen, pelvis, and lower extremities, outputted from the belted GHBMC M50-OS v1.8.4 (modified) model for the eight crash cases.
Injury
Injury Measure
1-FCRB
2-FCOD
3-FCSOB
4-NSDB
5-FSDB
6-RCRL
7-NSIDB
8-FSIDB
Head AIS3+ (Side)
HIC36
1977.6
1673.4
519.2
116.3
95.7
121.4
159.6
150
Head AIS3+ (Front)
HIC15
1483.1
1493.2
578.4
7.4
95.7
100.3
103.2
140.1
Brain injury
BrIC
1.3
1.34
0.89
0.53
0.39
0.55
0.46
0.45
Neck AIS 2+
IV-INC
1.87
1.9
1.85
1.12
1.2
1.82
1.39
1.8
Chest AIS3+ (Front)
Chest Dmax
55.9
55.3
30.7
30.1
46.6
57.1
36.6
47.3
Chest AIS3+ (Side)
Chest Half Dmax
96.3
80.5
56.3
31.5
64.5
65.4
32.2
64.8
Abdomen AIS3+
Vmax*Cmax
1.174
1.917
2.287
0.509
2.698
0.615
0.875
1.44
Pelvis AIS2+ (Side)
Pubic Force
3.585
4.807
2.751
0.555
0.737
1.098
0.881
0.593
KTH AIS2+ (Front)
Femur Force
4.974
4.547
3.334
2.055
5.42
3.39
1.895
5.107
Tibial Plateau/Condyle fracture AIS2+
Tibia Upp Fz
5.18
5.423
2.598
3.324
7.957
1.396
2.38
9.263
Tibia/Fibula shaft fracture AIS2+
Tibia Index RTI
0.24
0.184
0.179
0.325
0.749
0.082
0.248
0.862
Calcaneus, Talus, Ankle and Midfoot fracture AIS2+
Tibia lower Fz
3.94
1.321
2.005
1.076
1.932
0.366
0.978
1.358
Table 4.
The injury measures for the body regions of head, neck, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, and lower extremities from the GHBMC M50-OS v1.8.4 (modified) model restrained with the 3 pt. seatbelt for the eight crash cases.
With the body injury risk functions listed Table 2, we calculated the body region injury risks and the Full Body Injury Index FBII of the 50th%ile mid-size male occupant for each crash case.
Figure 13 (Left plot) compares all the injury risks of the head (P_head), chest (P_chest), abdomen (P_abd), pelvis (P_pelvis), tibial (P_tibial), ankle (P_ankle) among the eight crash cases. It shows that the chest injury risks were relatively high across all the cases. Higher head and pelvis injury risks were observed at all the frontal crash cases. Higher lower extremity injury risks were seen at the far side crash cases.
Figure 13.
(left plot): The 50th%ile male occupant body region injury risks of the head (P_head), chest (P_chest), abdomen (P_abd), pelvis (P_pelvis), tibial (P_tibial), ankle (P_ankle), and (right plot): The full body injury index FBII among the eight crash cases.
Figure 13 (Right plot) compares the Full Body Injury Index FBII among the eight crash cases. It is indicated that the US NCAP rigid barrier frontal crash (FCRB) caused the highest FBII value while the US NCAP moving deformable barrier near side crash (NS-DB) had the lowest FBII value.
4.2.3 Discussion
Table 5 summarizes the estimated vulnerable body regions and injury severity for the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant responding to the frontal/oblique, rear, near side and farside side crashes, respectively. It is noted that the impacts to the occupant were completely different from the forward-facing seated due to the side-facing seat orientation. The occupant experienced the side impacts from the frontal and oblique vehicle crashes and the frontal impacts from the farside crashes. Severe body injuries for the side-facing occupant were caused the most by the frontal and oblique crashes, followed by the farside crashes, rear crashes, and near-side crashes.
Vehicle Crash
Impact to Occupant
Vulnerable Body Region
Injury Severity
Frontal & Frontal Oblique Crashes
Side from Right
Head, Neck, Chest, Pelvis, Lower Extremity
Very High
Far Side Crashes
Frontal
Head, Chest, Lower Extremity
High
Rear Crashes
Side from Left
Neck, Chest
Moderate
Near Side Crashes
Rear
Chest
Low
Table 5.
The estimated vulnerable body regions and injury severity for the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant responding to various vehicle crashes.
The severe body injuries for the side-facing seated occupant restrained with 3-point seatbelt from the frontal, oblique and rear crashes indicated ineffectiveness of the seatbelt restraint for such crash scenarios.
For the farside crashes, the seatbelt performed better for the frontal impacted experienced occupant. The high injury risk value of the lower extremity was caused by contact of the legs to the 2nd row seat.
The near-side crashes caused less severe injuries to the rear impacted experienced occupant possibly due to mitigation of the impact energy by the seat back and the vehicle side structures.
The estimated outcomes of the body injury risks were limited to one case vehicle interior configuration. Further investigation on different vehicle crashes and seating configurations should be performed.
5. New restraint concepts for the side-facing seat occupant
To protect the side-facing seated occupant better, we developed new restraint concepts and evaluated the effectiveness based on understanding of the results from the phase 1–2 presented in Section 4.
5.1 New restraint concepts
First of all, design guidelines for new restraint devices were defined specifically for the side-facing occupant. The requirements for the restraints’ performances are such that: 1) the pelvis lateral movement should be restrained earlier and properly; 2) the head/torso lateral displacements should be minimized to prevent the head/torso contact to any laterally nearby objects; 3) the lower legs/foot lateral failing motion and impact to the 2nd row LHS seat should be minimized.
Four new restraint concept designs highlighted below were developed:
Seat-mounted Side Airbag (SSAB)—integrated to the occupant seat, designed for protection of the occupant from side impacts.
Torso Restrain Airbag (TRAB))—integrated with the lap-seatbelt or to the occupant seat, designed for protection of the occupant from frontal and oblique impacts.
Seat-mounted Head Airbag (HAB)—mounted on the side door structure, designed for protection of the occupant from rear impacts.
Leg Restraint Device (LRD)—mounted beneath of the floor, designed for control of the lower legs/foot lateral failing motion from high severe side impacts.
Figure 14 shows snapshots of the deployed restraints of the SSAB, TRAB, HAB, and LRD, respective.
Figure 14.
The new concepts of restraint devices.
5.2 Evaluation methods
Evaluation of the restraint effectiveness was performed in two steps: 1) new restraint concept evaluation; 2) integrated restraint system performance evaluation.
The 1st step was development of the new restraint concepts one by one, for which a component model was created. Its system performance was then evaluated only at one worst vehicle crash test case. For each protection type, the restraint system integration and performance were optimized. The best performed integrated restraints were then selected for the next step study. Table 6 shows the new restraint concept evaluation matrix.
Protection Type
Frontal Protection
Side Protection -Right
Side Protection - Left
Rear Protection
Restraint Device
3 pt. Seatbelt
3 pt. Seatbelt
3 pt. Seatbelt
3 pt. Seatbelt
Torso Restrain Airbag (TRAB)
Seat-mounted Side Airbag (SSAB)
Seat-mounted Side Airbag (SSAB)
Seat-mounted Head Airbag (HAB)
Leg Restraint Device (LRD
Leg Restraint Device (LRD)
Test Case for Evaluation
FS-DB
FC-RB
RR-SL
NS-DB
CAE Cases
12
32
12
8
Table 6.
New restraint concept evaluation matrix.
The 2nd step was to verify the system performance of the integrated restraints across all the eight crashes in Table 3. Table 7 shows the evaluation matrix for the three integrated restraint systems—the baseline 3 pt. seatbelt from Section 4, a 4 pt. seatbelt and the “optimal” new restraint system from Step 1 of current study.
Baseline
4 pt. Seatbelt (SB)
New Constraints
Restraint Device
3 pt. Seatbelt (Baseline)
4 pt. Seatbelt
3 pt. Seatbelt
SSAB, TRAB, LRD,HAB
Crash Cases for Evaluation
FC-RB
FC-RB
FC-RB
FC-ODB
FC-ODB
FC-ODB
FC-SOB
FC-SOB
FC-SOB
NS-DB
NS-DB
NS-DB
NS-IDB
NS-IDB
NS-IDB
FS-DB
FS-DB
FS-DB
FS-IDB
FS-IDB
FS-IDB
RC-RL
RC-RL
RC-RL
CAE Cases
8
8
8
Table 7.
Integrated restraint system performance evaluation matrix.
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Kinematics
Figure 15 compares the kinematics snapshots at 120 msec of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant with the three restraint systems under the US NCAP rigid barrier frontal crash (FC-RB) (worst case). With the new restraint system, the occupant was protected from being impacted from the 1st row seat on his right side, while the occupant with the other two restraints (3 pt. and 4 pt. seatbelt) impacted heavily to the 1st row right seat on his right.
Figure 15.
The kinematics snapshots at 120 msec of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant under the US NCAP rigid barrier frontal crash (FC-RB) with the three restraint systems—3 pt. SB (left), 4 pt. SB (middle), and new restraints (right).
5.3.2 Injury analysis
Table 8 summarizes the injury measures for the body regions of head, neck, Thorax, abdomen, pelvis, and lower extremities, outputted from the GHBMC M50-OS v1.8.4 (modified) model restrained with the new restraints for the eight crash cases.
Injury
Injury Measure
17-FCRB_NEWRS
18-FCODB_NEWRS
19-FCSOB_NEWRS
20-NSDB_NEWRS
21-FSDB_NEWRS
22-RCRL_NEWRS
23-NSIDB_NEWRS
24-FSIDB_NEWRS
Head AIS3+ (Side)
HIC36
250.5
204.5
150
113.3
117.4
76.1
150.1
104.1
Head AIS3+ (Fronta)
HIC15
174.4
132.9
150
75.7
93.6
65.9
91.9
58.6
Brain injury AIS 4+
BrIC
0.81
0.76
0.83
0.52
0.52
0.33
0.49
0.59
Neck AIS 2+
IV-INC
1.11
1.22
1.5
1.79
1.52
1.52
1.43
1.3
Chest AIS3+ (Front)
Chest Dmax
35.6
38.4
28.3
23.1
34.4
17.4
32.1
43.1
Chest AIS3+ (Side)
ChestHalf Dmax
56.3
58.0
34.9
29.2
44.8
25.1
25.2
47.9
Abdomen AIS 2+
Vmax*Cmax
0.623
0.615
0.381
0.288
1.529
0.125
0.877
1.313
Pelvis AIS2 + -(side)
Pubic Force
2.935
1.423
2.109
0.666
0.743
0.560
1.004
0.951
KTH AIS2+ (front)
Femur Force
3.548
4.704
3.310
2.019
5.933
1.856
2.160
4.476
Tibial Plateau/Condyle fracture AIS2+
Tibia Upp Fz
3.584
2.740
3.837
2.642
4.721
1.567
1.891
4.731
Tibia/Fibula shaft fracture AIS2+
Tibia Index RTI
0.413
0.443
0.281
0.124
0.950
0.232
0.158
0.622
Calcaneus, Talus, Ankle & Midfoot fracture AIS 2+
Tibia lower Fz
1.293
0.733
2.195
1.029
1.125
0.467
1.127
1.350
Table 8.
The injury measures for the body regions of the side-facing seated 50th%ile occupant restrained with the new restraints for the eight crash cases.
Figure 16 compares the body injury risks of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant for the vehicle frontal & rear crash cases, restrained with 1) baseline 3 pt. SB (in blue), 2) 4 ps SB (in Orange), and 3) new restraints. We see that the new restraint system significantly reduced all the body region risks compared to the 3 pt. SB restraint system.
Figure 16.
Comparison of the body injury risks of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant for the vehicle frontal & rear crash cases, restrained with baseline 3 pt. SB (blue), 4 pt. SB (Orange), and new restraints (green).
Figure 17 compares the body injury risks of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant for the vehicle side crash cases, restrained with 1) baseline 3 pt. SB (in blue), 2) 4 ps SB (in Orange), and 3) new restraints. It showed that under all the side crash conditions the new restraint system also worked effectively for reducing the severe injury risks compared to the 3 pt. SB restraint baseline.
Figure 17.
Comparison of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant body injury risks for the vehicle near side and farside crash cases, restrained with baseline 3 pt. SB (blue), 4 pt. SB (Orange), and new restraints (green).
Figure 18 compares the Full Body Injury Index of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant with three restraint systems from all the vehicle crash cases. Overall, the new restraint system significantly reduced the risks from all the vehicle crash tests in Table 3 compared to the other evaluated seatbelt only restraints.
Figure 18.
Comparison of the full body injury index of the side-facing seated 50th%ile male occupant across all the vehicle crash cases, restrained with baseline 3 pt. SB (blue), 4 pt. SB (Orange), and new restraints (green).
5.3.3 Discussion
This study indicated that the conventional seatbelt system (with baseline 3-pt seatbelt alone) did not provide sufficient protection for the side-facing seated occupant. The same conclusion was also obtained from our other study on both 50th%ile male and 5th%ile female human occupants in a side-facing seat [84].
The 4-pt seatbelt restrain system investigated from this study did not show good performance. Further work was needed to improve the 4-pt restraint design and the restraint component model validation.
The new restraints concepts developed in this study were shown to be capable of effectively protecting the far-side seating occupant at different vehicle crash conditions. The restraint system consisted of the three restraint components, among which the seat-mounted side airbag (SSAB) was a key component that protected the head/neck and torso more effectively. To further develop this concept design into a product in mass protection, more future work is required to resolve possible issues in the packaging and the manufacturing.
Among different seating orientations of 360 degrees respect to the impact direction under the 40 kph frontal crash pulse, the side-facing positions were identified as worst cases in which the occupant had the highest risks of combination of the head and chest injuries indicated with the largest BrIC and lateral chest deflection, while the rear facing seated occupant had the highest risk of cervical spinal neck injury due to the neck hyperextension.
For the US regulatory (NCAP and IIHS) vehicle frontal and oblique crash tests (including NCAP rigid barrier frontal crash, the IIHS 40% offset deformable barrier frontal crash, and the IIHS small overlap rigid barrier frontal crash), as well as the vehicle rear crash test, side protection of a side-facing seated occupant is required. As the crash severities increased to 65kph or 35 mph of delta velocity, the side-facing occupant with the 3 pt. seatbelt alone could suffer high injury risks for the multiple body regions of head, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and the lower extremities.
Under the US regulatory (NCAP and IIHS) vehicle far side crash tests (including the US NCAP moving deformable barrier far side crash and the IIHS moving deformable high barrier far side crash), frontal protection for a side-facing seated occupant restrained with a 3 pt. seatbelt is necessary. Such an occupant could suffer moderate to high injury risks for the head, chest, and the lower extremities.
Under the US regulatory (NCAP and IIHS) vehicle near side crash tests (including the US NCAP moving deformable barrier near side crash and the IIHS moving deformable high barrier near side crash), a side-facing seated occupant will experience the rear impact under large pushing force from the seat due to the side door structure intrusion. With the seat and 3 pt. seatbelt restrains, such an occupant could suffer moderate injury risks for the head, neck and chest.
The new restraint concepts developed for the side-facing seat occupant in Section 5 demonstrated significant improvement for mitigation of the occupant’s body injuries for all the vehicle crash test conditions considered in this study.
We acknowledge Sungwoo Lee and Maika Katagiri who helped analyzing the occupant injury analysis data and Parred Kumar Jakkamsetti who helped modeling and analyzing of the restraint concept models in this research.
References
1.American Samoa Highway Safety Plan FFY 2018. Annual Report, US Department of Transportation. 2018. Available from: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/american_samoa_fy2018_hsp.pdf
2.US Department of Transportation. Preparing for the Future of Transportation Automated Vehicles 3.0, October 2018 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.transportation.gov/av
3.Jorlöv S, Bohman K, Larsson A. Seating positions and activities in highly automated cars – A qualitative study of future automated driving scenarios. In: IRCOBI conference 2017. Antwerp: IRC-17-11; 2017
4.Forman J, Lopez-Valdes F, et al. Occupant kinematics and shoulder belt retention in far-side lateral and oblique collisions: A parametric study. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2013;57:343-385
5.Humm JR, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, et al. Responses and injuries to PMHS in side-facing and oblique seats in horizontal longitudinal sled tests per FAA emergency landing conditions. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2016;60:135-163
6.Kang Y et al. Biomechanical responses of PMHS in moderate-speed rear impacts and development of response targets for evaluating the internal and external biofidelity of ATDs. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2012;56:105-170
7.Kang Y, Stammen J, Ramachandra R, Agnew AM, Hagedorn A, Thomas C, et al. Biomechanical Responses and Injury Assessment of Post Mortem Human Subjects in Various Rear-facing Seating Configurations. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2020;64:155-212
8.Katagiri M, Zhao J, Kerrigan J, Kent R, Forman J. Comparison of whole-body kinematic behavior of the GHBMC occupant model to PMHS in far-side sled tests. In: IRCOBI conference 2016. Malaga: IRC; 2016. pp. 16-88
9.Katagiri M, Zhao J, Lee S, Moorhouse K, Kang Y. Biofidelity evaluation of GHBMC male occupant models in rear impacts. In: IRCOBI conference 2019. Florence: IRC; 2019. pp. 19-52
10.Gayzik FS et al. Development of a full body CAD dataset for computational modeling: A multi-modality approach. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2011;39(10):2568-2583.2
11.Gayzik FS et al. External landmark, body surface, and volume data of a mid-sized male in seated and standing postures. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2012;40(9):2019-2032
12.Hayes AR et al. Abdominal organ location, morphology, and rib coverage for the 5(th), 50(th), and 95(th) percentile males and females in the supine and seated posture using multi-modality imaging. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. 2013;57:111-122
13.Gayzik F, Hoth J, Stitzel J. Finite element-based injury metrics for pulmonary contusion via concurrent model optimization. Biomech Model Mechanobiology. 2011;10(4):505-520
14.Allsop DL et al. Facial impact response—A comparison of the hybrid III dummy and human cadaver. SAE Transactions. 1988;97:1224-1240
15.Hodgson V, Brinn J, Thomas L, Greenberg S. Fracture Behavior of the Skull Frontal Bone Against Cylindrical Surfaces. SAE Technical Paper 700909. 1970. DOI: 10.4271/700909
16.Yoganandan N et al. Biomechanics of skull fracture. Journal of Neurotrauma. 1995;12(4):659-668
17.Nahum A, Smith R, Ward C. Intracranial Pressure Dynamics During Head Impact. SAE Technical Paper 770922. 1977. DOI: 10.4271/770922
18.Trosseille X et al. Development of a FEM of the human head according to a specific test protocol. SAE Transactions. 1992;101(6):1801-1819
19.Hardy WN et al. A study of the response of the human cadaver head to impact. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2007;51:17
20.Hardy WN et al. Investigation of head injury mechanisms using neutral density technology and high-speed Biplanar X-ray. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2001;45:337
21.Camacho DL et al. Experimental flexibility measurements for the development of a computational head-neck model validated for near-vertex head impact. In: Proceedings of the 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference, November 13–14, 1997. Orlando, Florida, USA: SAE Technical Paper 973345; 1997
22.Nightingale RW et al. Flexion and extension structural properties and strengths for male cervical spine segments. Journal of Biomechanics. 2007;40(3):535-542
23.Nightingale RW et al. Comparative strengths and structural properties of the upper and lower cervical spine in flexion and extension. Journal of Biomechanics. 2002;35(6):725-732
24.Wheeldon JA et al. Experimental flexion/extension data corridors for validation of finite element models of the young, normal cervical spine. Journal of Biomechanics. 2006;39(2):375-380
25.Dibb AT et al. Tension and combined tension-extension structural response and tolerance properties of the human male ligamentous cervical spine. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2009;131(8)
26.Ivancic P et al. Biofidelic whole cervical spine model with muscle force replication for whiplash simulation. European Spine Journal. 2005;14(4):346-355
27.Panjabi MM et al. Cervical spine ligament injury during simulated frontal impact. Spine. 2004;29(21):2395-2403
28.Panjabi MM et al. Injury mechanisms of the cervical intervertebral disc during simulated whiplash. Spine. 2004;29(11):1217-1225
29.Pearson AM et al. Facet joint kinematics and injury mechanisms during simulated whiplash. Spine. 2004;29(4):390-397
30.Ivancic PC et al. Predicting multiplanar cervical spine injury due to head-turned rear impacts using IV-NIC. Traffic Injury Prevention. 2006;7(3):264-275
31.Ivancic PC et al. Effect of rotated head posture on dynamic vertebral artery elongation during simulated rear impact. Clinical Biomechanics. 2006;21(3):213-220
32.Davidsson J et al. Human volunteer kinematics in rear-end sled collisions. Crash Prevention and Injury Control. 2001;2(4):319-333
33.Hynd D et al. Dummy requirements and injury criteria for a low-speed rear impact whiplash dummy. European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee. 2007
34.Wismans J, Van Oorschot H, Woltring H. Omni-directional human head-neck response. SAE Transactions. 1986;95(5):5.819-5.837
35.Thunnissen J et al. Human volunteer head-neck response in frontal flexion: A new analysis. in proceedings: Stapp car crash conference. Society of Automotive Engineers SAE. 1995
36.Kindig MW et al. Structural response of cadaveric ribcages under a localized loading: Stiffness and kinematic trends. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2010;54:337-380
37.Kroell C, Schneider D, Nahum A. Impact Tolerance and Response of the Human Thorax II. SAE Technical Paper 741187. 1974. DOI: 10.4271/741187
38.Shaw JM et al. Oblique and lateral impact response of the PMHS thorax. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2006;50:147
39.Yoganandan N et al. Impact biomechanics of the human thorax-abdomen complex. International Journal of Crashworthiness. 1997;2(2):219-228
40.Kent R, Lessley D, Sherwood C. Thoracic response to dynamic, non-impact loading from a hub, distributed belt, diagonal belt, and double diagonal belts. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2004;48:495
41.Li Z et al. Influence of mesh density, cortical thickness and material properties on human rib fracture prediction. Medical Engineering & Physics. 2010;32(9):998-1008
42.Cavanaugh JM et al. Lower abdominal tolerance and response. SAE Transactions. 1986;95(5):5.611-5.633
43.Hardy WN, Schneider LW, Rouhana SW. Abdominal impact response to rigid-bar, seatbelt, and airbag loading. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2001;45:1-32
44.Foster CD et al. High-speed seatbelt pretensioner loading of the abdomen. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2006;50:27-51
45.Lamielle S et al. 3D deformation and dynamics of the human cadaver abdomen under seatbelt loading. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2008;52:267
46.Viano DC. Biomechanical responses and injuries in blunt lateral impact. SAE Transactions. 1989;98(6):1690-1719
47.Howes MK et al. Kinematics of the thoracoabdominal contents under various loading scenarios. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2012;56:1-48
48.Luet C et al. Kinematics and dynamics of the pelvis in the process of submarining using PMHS sled tests. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2012;56:411-442
49.Kremer MA et al. Pressure-based abdominal injury criteria using isolated liver and full-body post-mortem human subject impact tests. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2011;55:317
50.Hallman JJ, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA. Biomechanical and injury response to posterolateral loading from torso side airbags. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2010;54:227
51.Guillemot H et al. Pelvic injuries in side impact collisions: A field accident analyze and dynamic tests on isolated pelvic bones. In: Proceedings of the 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference, November 13–15, 1997. Orlando, Florida, USA: SAE Technical Paper 973322; 1997
52.Guillemot H et al. Pelvic behavior inside collisions: Static and dynamic tests on isolated pelvic bones. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Technical Conference of the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. Windsor, ON, Canada: NHTSA; 1998. Paper Number 98-S6-W-37. NHTSA | The 16th ESV Conference Proceedings (dot.gov)
53.Beason DP et al. Bone mineral density correlates with fracture load in experimental side impacts of the pelvis. Journal of Biomechanics. 2003;36(2):219-227
54.Dakin GJ et al. Elastic and viscoelastic properties of the human pubic symphysis joint: Effects of lateral impact joint loading. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2001;123(3):218-226
55.Funk JR et al. The role of axial loading in malleolar fractures. SAE Transactions. 2000;109:212-223
56.Funk JR et al. The axial injury tolerance of the human foot/ankle complex and the effect of Achilles tension. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2002;124(6):750-757
57.Rudd R et al. Injury tolerance and response of the ankle joint in dynamic dorsiflexion. SAE Technical Paper. 2004
58.Siegler S, Chen J, Schneck C. The three-dimensional kinematics and flexibility characteristics of the human ankle and subtalar joints—Part I. Kinema. 1988
59.Kerrigan JR et al. Experiments for establishing pedestrian-impact lower limb injury criteria. SAE Technical Paper. 2003
60.Untaroiu C et al. A finite element model of the lower limb for simulating pedestrian impacts. SAE Technical Paper. 2005
61.Vavalle NA et al. Lateral impact validation of a geometrically accurate full body finite element model for blunt injury prediction. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2013;41(3):497-512
62.Vavalle NA et al. Investigation of the mass distribution of a detailed seated male finite element model. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2013
63.McConville JT et al. Anthropometry Relationships of Body and Body Segment Moments of Inertia, Report AD A097238, US Department of Transportation. 1980. Available from: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA097238.pdf
64.Robbins DH. Anthropometric specifications for mid-sized male dummy. US Department of Transportation. 1983. p. 134. Available from: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/260/72269.0001.001.pdf;jsessionid=2EDE7B338736E2EACDA8858942222F93?sequence=2
65.Koh SW et al. Shoulder injury and response due to lateral glenohumeral joint impact: An analysis of combined data. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2005;49:291-322
66.Kroell C, Schneider D, Nahum A. Impact tolerance and response of the human thorax. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 1971;15
67.Viano DC. Biomechanical responses and injuries in blunt lateral impact. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 1989;33
68.Kemper AR et al. The influence of arm position on thoracic response in side impacts. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2008;52:379-420
69.Bouquet R, Ramet M, Bermond F, Caire Y, Talantikite Y, Robin S, et al. Pelvis human response to lateral impact. In: 16th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. Windsor, ON, Canada: NHTSA; 1998. Paper Number 98-S7-W-16. NHTSA | The 16th ESV Conference Proceedings (dot.gov)
70.Shaw G et al. Impact response of restrained PMHS in frontal sled tests: Skeletal deformation patterns under Seat Belt loading. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2009;53:1-48
71.Shaw G, Parent D, Purtsezov S, Lessley D, Crandall J, Kent R, et al. Rear seat occupant safety: An investigation of a progressive force-limiting, pretensioning 3-point belt system using adult PMHS in frontal sled tests. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2009;53(2009-22-0001):49-74
72.Cavanaugh JM, Walilko TJ, Malhotra A, Zhu Y, King AI. Biomechanical response and injury tolerance of the thorax in twelve sled side impacts. SAE, 1990
73.Schwartz D, Guleyupoglu B, Koya B, Joel D, Stitzel J, et al. Development of a computationally efficient full human body finite element model. Traffic Injury Prevention. 2015;16(sup1):S49-S56. DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2015.1021418
74.Perez-Rapela D, Markusic C, Whitcomb B, Pipkorn B, et al. Comparison of the simplified GHBMC to PMHS kinematics in far-side impact. In: IRCOBI conference 2019. Florence: IRC; 2019. pp. 19-42
75.Eppinger R, Sun E, Bandak F, Haffner M. Development of improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems-II. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1999
76.Takhounts E, Craig M, Moorhouse K, McFadden J. Development of brain injury criteria (BrIC). Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2013;57:243-266
77.Kuppa S. Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies. May: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NPRM; 2004
78.Rouhana SW, El-Jawahri R, Laituri T. Biomechanical considerations for abdominal loading by Seat Belt Pretensioners. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2010;54:381-406
79.Leport T, Baudrit P, Trosseille X, Petit P, et al. Assessment of the pubic force as a pelvic injury criterion in side impact. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2007;51:467-488
80.Kuppa S, Wang J, Haffner M, Eppinger R. Lower extremity injuries and associated injury criteria. In: Proceedings of 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. Amsterdam; Paper No. 457; 2001
81.Kitagawa Y, Hayashi S, Yamada K, et al. Occupant kinematics in simulated autonomous driving vehicle collisions: Influence of seating position, direction and angle. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2017;61:101-155
82.Zhao J, Jakkamsetti PK, Katagiri M, Lee S. New passenger restraints with Adaptivity to occupant size, seating positions and crash scenarios through paired ATD-HM study. In: Proceedings of 26th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. Eindhoven. Paper No. 19–0322; 2019
83.Viano DC, White AD. Seat Strength in Rear Body Block Tests. Traffic Injury Prevention; 2016. pp. 502-507. DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2015.1111513
84.Zhao J, Katagiri M, Decker W, Lee S, Gayzik F. A Human Body Study on Restraints for Side-Facing Occupants in Frontal Crashes of an Automatic Vehicle. SAE Technical Paper 2020-01-0980; 2020. DOI: 10.4271/2020-01-0980
85.NHTSA Vehicle Test Database: Test 2335 [Internet]. 1995. Available from: https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/VSR/veh/QueryTest.aspx
86.NHTSA Vehicle Test Database: Test 7461 [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/VSR/veh/QueryTest.aspx
87.NHTSA Vehicle Test Database: Test 3249 [Internet]. 2000. Available from: https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/VSR/veh/QueryTest.aspx
88.NHTSA Vehicle Test Database: Test 3789 [Internet]. 2001. Available from: https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/VSR/veh/QueryTest.aspx
Written By
Jay Zhao and Francis Scott Gayzik
Submitted: 13 January 2022Reviewed: 04 May 2022Published: 05 July 2022
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
