Summary Report: Requirements and Assessment of Low-Speed Rear Impact Whiplash Dummies

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Summary Report: Requirements and Assessment of Low-Speed Rear Impact Whiplash Dummies"

Transcription

1 Summary Report: Requirements and Assessment of Low-Speed Rear Impact Whiplash Dummies WG12 report October 2008 Report published on the EEVC web site:

2 Report obtained from EEVC web site

3 EEVC WG12 Report Document Number 505C Summary Report: Requirements and Assessment of Low-Speed Rear Impact Whiplash Dummies Date October, 2008 Authors D Hynd, JA Carroll On behalf of European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) Working Group 12 Number of Pages (including Appendices) 19

4 CONTENTS Executive Summary i 1 Introduction 1 2 Dummy Requirements for Low-Speed Rear Impact Testing General Requirements Biofidelity Response Requirements Available Data Sets for Dummy Evaluation WG12 Rear Impact Biofidelity Requirements 3 3 Biomechanical Basis for Proposed Whiplash Injury Criteria 5 4 Crash Test Dummies for Whiplash Injury 7 5 Summary of Biofidelity Evaluation Introduction Subjective Biofidelity Assessment Hybrid III RID 3D BioRID II Overall Subjective Evaluation Objective Biofidelity Assessment Injury Criteria Results Summary of Biofidelity Results 13 6 Summary of Literature Review of Hybrid III Biofidelity 14 7 Conclusions 16 8 Recommendations 17 References 18 Working Document Number 505C

5 Executive Summary AIS 1 neck injuries, or Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD), are associated with huge costs for society. Whiplash injuries constitute a serious problem with tremendous implications for the individual as well as for society as a whole. At the same time, it is recognised that major progress in neck injury mitigation could be achieved by improving the use, design and efficiency of seats and head restraints in vehicles. Various research initiatives have been undertaken, such as the EU Whiplash I & II projects, Swedish national research and the work by the International Insurance Whiplash Prevention Group, in order to develop a proposal for a test procedure for neck injury protection assessment. A test procedure adopted into a standard would ensure that seat systems are optimised to reduce the risk of whiplash injury in low-severity rear-end collisions. Realising the need for neck injury protection assessment, the EEVC Steering Committee has initiated a new activity on neck injury protection in rear-end collisions with the aim of producing a proposal for a new European regulatory test procedure. A dedicated working group, WG20, was formed with the over all responsibility for this activity. At the same time, EEVC WG12 was given the new task to assist WG20 in the selection of an appropriate crash test dummy and associated biomechanically-based criteria for this new test procedure. This report summarises the EEVC WG12 evaluation of dummies and injury criteria for low-speed rear impact seat testing for the mitigation of whiplash-type neck injuries. This includes: The selection of biofidelity requirements from volunteer and PMHS tests, including the development of target corridors and the selection of key biofidelity criteria. An overview of the candidate dummies developed or proposed for low-speed rear impact testing (BioRID II, RID 3D, Hybrid III and THOR) A review of biomechanical basis for the injury criteria proposed in the literature Evaluation of the biofidelity of the BioRID II, RID 3D and Hybrid III dummies and the performance of proposed injury criteria compared with volunteer and PMHS test findings Evaluation of the repeatability and reproducibility of the three candidate dummies in laboratory seats and standard production seats A review of the literature relating to the biofidelity of the Hybrid III in low-speed rear impact loading conditions The key conclusions and recommendations from this work were: General requirements for a rear impact dummy were proposed by EEVC WG20 and were reviewed by WG12. The requirements include suggestions for anthropometry, likely test severities, temperature sensitivity, and repeatability and reproducibility. Proposed injury criteria for use in assessing whiplash injury risk were assessed by WG12 based on the biomechanical basis for the criterion, the applicability to dummy measurements and the availability of an injury risk function. The five criteria considered were N ij, N km, LNL, NDC and NIC. N km and NIC max were evaluated more thoroughly than the other criteria and these are the only two criteria with established injury risk curves. None of the criteria reviewed have a definite biomechanical basis and their validity in predicting the risk of injury needs to be established. None of the criteria can be recommended on a strictly biomechanical basis. Several of the proposed injury criteria make sense mechanically and could be evaluated further if the strict biomechanical requirement (that requires identification of the injury) is relaxed. For instance, these parameters may be suitable for use as a seat evaluation criterion, rather than an injury criterion. i Working Document Number 505C

6 EEVC WG12 reviewed 19 of the published data sets from which biofidelity assessments of a rear impact dummy could be made. The WG prioritised the data sets and selected five to be used to assess the currently available candidate rear impact dummies. The candidate dummies that were available were the Hybrid III and the specialist rear impact dummies, BioRID II and RID 3D. Tests have been successfully conducted with the candidate dummies that were available (BioRID II, RID 3D and Hybrid III) using the five biofidelity assessment conditions selected by EEVC WG12. The assessments have shown that the Hybrid III has insufficient biofidelity for it to be considered further for use as a test tool in the assessment of whiplash injury risk in low-severity rear impact testing. The two rear impact dummies, the RID 3D and BioRID II, demonstrated similar performance in the biofidelity assessments. The BioRID II was judged to have marginally better biofidelity, subjectively and objectively, in the conditions assessed. Therefore the BioRID II is recommended for use in low-severity rear impact testing to assess whiplash injury risk, based on its biofidelity. No inappropriate results (i.e. where suggested injury thresholds were exceeded) were found for NIC, N km or N ij in the biofidelity tests in which the volunteers were uninjured. The LNL threshold was exceeded and the NDC did not seem to rate injury risk appropriately for these test conditions. However, these results are not able to conclusively include or exclude any of the proposed injury criteria that were considered. A review of the literature found that the poor biofidelity of the Hybrid III in low-speed rear impact conditions could send head restraint design in the wrong direction and reduce the level of whiplash protection offered to car occupants. The Hybrid III is therefore not appropriate for low-speed rear impact whiplash protection testing. ii Working Document Number 505C

7 1 Introduction Neck injuries, even those with a minor threat to life, are associated with huge costs for society. Recently, the cost of long-term whiplash injury to the UK was estimated to be approximately 3 billion pounds per annum, using the Department for Transport willingness to pay approach to injury costing [EEVC WG20, 2007]. Consequently, it is understood in most industrialised countries that whiplash injuries constitute a serious problem with implications for the individual as well as for society as a whole. At the same time, it is recognised that progress in injury mitigation could be achieved by improving the use, design and efficiency of seats and head restraints in vehicles. Various research initiatives have been undertaken in order to develop a proposal for a test procedure for neck injury protection assessment. An appropriate test procedure adopted into a standard would ensure that seat systems are optimised to reduce the risk of whiplash injury in low-severity rear-end collisions. Realising the need for an assessment of neck injury protection, the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) Steering Committee has initiated a new activity on neck injury protection in rear end collisions with the aim of producing a proposal for a new European regulatory test procedure. A dedicated rear-impact working group, WG20, was formed with the overall responsibility for this activity. At the same time, the EEVC Working Group (WG12) was given the task to assist WG20 in the selection of an appropriate crash test dummy and associated biomechanically-based criteria for this new test procedure. The background to this work and the nature of the collaboration between WG12 and 20 is summarised in Hynd and Van Ratingen [2005]. This report summarises the findings of the EEVC WG12 work relating to rear impact dummies. This work has been reported in three parts as follows: Part A [Hynd et al., 2007] Selection of biofidelity requirements Overview of the candidate dummies developed or proposed for low-speed rear impact testing (BioRID II, RID 3D, Hybrid III and THOR) Review of the biomechanical basis for the injury criteria proposed in the literature Part B [Carroll et al., 2007] Evaluation of the biofidelity of three of the candidate dummies - BioRID II, RID 3D and THOR - through subjective and objective analyses Check on the injury criteria and thresholds proposed in the literature compared with the results from the biofidelity testing In addition to this, a review of the literature on the biofidelity of the Hybrid III was undertaken by WG12 [Hynd, 2007a] and WG12 and 20 published a joint report showing why it is important that the dummy used in a low-speed rear impact test procedure has good biofidelity. Both reports are summarised herein. 1 Working Document Number 505C

8 2 Dummy Requirements for Low-Speed Rear Impact Testing 2.1 General Requirements In order to identify the main requirements for a whiplash dummy, WG20 was asked to provide clear indications about the expected use of the dummy in the test procedure, as well as other relevant information. The input received was subsequently reviewed by WG12. Further research was undertaken to support the development of appropriate requirements for a whiplash dummy. Taller female occupants seem to have overall higher risk of WAD. This would support the specification of a 95th percentile female dummy, representing the taller female population. However, existing whiplash dummies are of 50th percentile male stature. On review of the main body dimensions of the 95th percentile female and the 50th percentile male, using body data generated by GEBOD, it was found that dimensional differences between the sizes are generally small. It was noted by WG12 that it may be necessary to study the differences between male and female neck characteristics, as these differ more significantly. This is also true for body weight. The dummy will generally be subjected to a Δv range between 10 to 25 kph for whiplash injury assessment, with average acceleration levels between 3-7 g and peak accelerations between 6-15 g. As a durability limit, a Δv of 30 kph should be considered. Sensitivity to temperature should be equivalent or better than standard crash test dummies as documented by ISO. Repeatability (repeated test with the same dummy) should be demonstrated with a coefficient of variation (CV) of less than 5% in certification tests and 7% on sled test results (particularly for measurements used in injury criteria). Reproducibility (repeated tests with different dummies of same type) should be demonstrated with a CV of less than 10%. Any dummy recommended for the test procedure should be commercially available (including during the evaluation phase) and readily available. 2.2 Biofidelity Response Requirements Anthropometric test dummies must possess the general mechanical properties of the humans that they represent and have sufficient mechanical impact response fidelity to interact with the vehicle s interior in a human-like manner (biofidelity). Most importantly, dummies must mimic those specific, localised, impact responses of the body that are known to be predictive of the occurrence and severity of human injury. They should also mimic accurately those responses that influence the injury predictive measurements, such as seat interaction. In the case of whiplash injury, the underlying injury mechanisms are largely unknown. This, of course, has large implications when making a judgement on the appropriateness of a dummy design for whiplash impact testing. The following biomechanical requirements have been derived under the assumption that the most suitable dummy would best replicate the kinematics and dynamics of an average human subject being subjected to low severity loading through a seat system, in particular for the head-neck complex Available Data Sets for Dummy Evaluation A review of published rear impact studies with human subjects gave a total of 19 data sets. Five data sets were given the highest priority and were therefore selected for evaluation of the candidate dummies, based on the following criteria: Availability of data; Quality of test set-up, instrumentation, subject quality; Reproducibility; 2 Working Document Number 505C

9 Relevance of the test conditions, loading condition, velocity change; Distribution of subject anthropometry, gender and age; Number of tests and test subjects WG12 Rear Impact Biofidelity Requirements The prioritised data sets include both PMHS and volunteer data and were generated on rigid as well as laboratory or standard vehicle seats. The use of volunteer data for requirements is generally preferred as volunteer responses would include any effects due to muscle activity; however, the severity of loading environment can be higher, and therefore more realistic, using PMHS. Similarly, tests using standard or lab seats are closer to the real world situation than rigid seat tests, but may generate responses that are more characteristic of the seat used than of the test subject. Therefore dummy requirements based on a mix of test conditions, seat and subject types were chosen to provide the best basis. The prioritised data sets are: 1. LAB data set In the Brite Euram Whiplash project (Whiplash I), six rear impact sled tests were performed with three different PMHS subjects [Bertholon et al., 2000]. The tests used a rigid seat without a headrest, with an impact velocity of 10 km.hr -1 and a peak acceleration of 12 g. These tests are used to define biofidelity requirement for the RID2 dummy in rear impact evaluations. 2. AZT and Chalmers data set The Allianz ZT set-up used in a series of volunteer tests was described by Davidsson [1998]. From this study the results of a sub-set of five volunteer tests will be considered as the human reference for the comparison with dummies in this configuration. A custom made seat, mounted on a stationary sled, was impacted by a second sled. The Δv was 1.9 m.s -1 (7.0 km.hr -1 ), with a peak acceleration of the target sled of about 33 m.s JARI data set These volunteer tests were carried out 1997 and 1998 at Japan Automobile Research Institute (JARI) and are summarised in Davidsson et al. [1999b]. Seven healthy male volunteers (25 ± 4 years old) of approximately 50th percentile stature were exposed to a total of 28 rear impact deceleration sled tests at Δv s of 1.9 to 2.6 m.s -1 (7.0 to 9.3 km.hr -1 ) and mean peak decelerations of 36.2 to 39.0 m.s TRL data set The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) in the UK performed a series of rear impact tests with volunteers using a lab seat [Roberts and Carroll, 2005]. The ten volunteers selected were male with an average age of 26.5 years, height of m and average mass of 77.5 kg. Each volunteer was subjected to a test with a Δv of 7 km.hr -1. The volunteers were restrained using two three-point belts. 5. GDV / Allianz data set Five rear impact tests were performed with two male and three female volunteer subjects with a Δv of 9 km.hr -1 and a peak acceleration of 3 g, as part of the Whiplash 2 EC project. The mean age of the subjects was 35 years (18 to 43), their mean height was 1.67 m (1.57 to 1.78 m) and their mean mass was 74 kg (60 to 95 kg). The required impact pulse was achieved using a dual sled system. Even this small sample of biofidelity test conditions gives rise to a large number of biofidelity requirements. Therefore, to simplify the assessment, seven key requirements were chosen for each 3 Working Document Number 505C

10 data set. Other requirements were also considered where it was thought that the additional information added to the biofidelity assessment. However, this extra analysis was carried out on an ad hoc basis rather than the formal approach used with the key requirements. The seven key requirements selected by WG12 were: 1. T1 angle with respect to the sled 2. T1 x-axis displacement with respect to the sled 3. T1 x-axis acceleration 4. Head rotation with respect to T1 5. Head centre of gravity x-axis displacement with respect to T1 6. Head rotation with respect to the sled 7. Head centre of gravity x-axis displacement with respect to the sled For each biofidelity requirement, target corridors were defined based on the mean and standard deviation of the volunteer or PMHS data using the method defined by EEVC WG9. The test conditions and target corridors may be found in Hynd et al. [2007]. 4 Working Document Number 505C

11 3 Biomechanical Basis for Proposed Whiplash Injury Criteria The symptoms of injury following neck trauma in rear-end collisions include pain, weakness or abnormal responses in the parts of the body (mainly the neck, shoulders and upper back) that are connected to the central nervous system via the cervical nerve-roots. Vision disorder, dizziness, headaches, unconsciousness, and neurological symptoms in the upper extremities are other symptoms that have been reported. Many researchers have also distinguished between short- and long-term symptoms. The exact injury or injuries that lead to these symptoms have not been established definitively, but it appears likely that several types of neck injury may appear as a result of a whiplash trauma (including injury to muscles, ligaments, facet joint, discs, nerve tissue etc.). Several injury types may be present in the same patient at the same time. The relation between these possible injuries and the large set of known whiplash symptoms, and between short and long duration symptoms, is unclear. The apparent influence of the crash pulse on the risk of long term consequences in patients with initial symptoms may indicate that there could be a separate injury and a separate injury mechanism behind the long-term symptoms. This particular injury could, in the acute stage, often co-exist with other injuries that normally heal without causing residual pain. Several neck injury mechanisms and neck injury criteria have been proposed during recent years. A few of these proposed injury criteria, e.g. NIC, have been used in different versions and this must be taken into account when making comparisons. The five main criteria published in the literature were reviewed by WG12 (no new criteria were proposed by the WG). These were: N km LNL NDC NIC N ij An assessment of each criterion was made based on its correlation to an injury mechanism, its biomechanical basis, its applicability to dummy measurements, and the availability of an injury risk function associated with it. Further detail on this assessment may be found in Hynd et al. [Hynd et al., 2007]. The review of injury criteria concluded that: The injury symptoms are well known both regarding type and duration. The injuries causing the acute symptoms are not known though several possibilities have been suggested in the literature. Several injuries may coexist and cause very similar symptoms. It is unknown if one or several of these injuries could cause chronic neck symptoms. Neither the relation between acute injury and chronic pain, nor the origin of the chronic pain, is known. However, there are strong indications that there is central nervous system pain sensitisation in the chronic stage. The head and neck kinematics during whiplash-type motions at sub-injury level are relatively well known. Injury-level whiplash motion head and neck kinematics are not well known. There are three ways that injury criteria could be verified: 1. By identification of the actual acute injury that causes chronic pain. This would probably tell us which injury mechanism is the cause. 2. Through evaluation of proposed criteria against experimental data where certain injuries have been caused and where injury threshold levels can be identified (this will however 5 Working Document Number 505C

12 leave an uncertainty about the relationship between the observed injuries and the symptoms experienced by living patients) 3. By high quality evaluation of proposed criteria against field accident data. An injury criterion with proven correlation to injury risk is a requirement for a future test procedure. Injury risk curves have been developed for NIC max and N km. None of the proposed injury criteria were found to have a definite biomechanical basis and their validity in predicting the risk of injury needs to be established. None of the criteria can be recommended on a strictly biomechanical basis. Several of the proposed injury criteria make sense mechanically and could be evaluated further if the strict biomechanical requirement (that requires identification of the injury) is relaxed. For instance, these parameters may be suitable for use as a seat evaluation criterion, rather than an injury criterion. 6 Working Document Number 505C

13 4 Crash Test Dummies for Whiplash Injury The key design attributes of a dummy to serve as an effective human surrogate are anthropometry, biofidelity, repeatability, reproducibility, durability, measurement capability, sensitivity, simplicity and handling. Dummies are designed to represent a particular population at risk and with their planned test application in mind. The standard dummies are designed primarily for regulatory, consumer and product development testing, taking into account one single (principal) direction of impact. It is not uncommon, however, that dummies are used for a wider range of R&D testing, even though their suitability in those test conditions may be open to question. Development of a whiplash standard requires a test device that is capable of effectively mimicking the human car occupant behaviour in low severity rear impact and to take relevant measurements that correlate to the risk of whiplash associated disorders. Historically, standard, primarily frontal impact, dummies have been used for seat and head restraint tests in rear impact. More recently, special Whiplash dummies have been designed that have been optimised for low severity rear impact. Two dummies that were developed principally for frontal impact testing but which have been proposed as being suitable for rear impact test work are the Hybrid III and THOR. The Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy (see Figure 4.1) is the most widely used front impact dummy today. The dummy was developed by General Motors in the early 1970s to improve the biofidelity of the 50th percentile dummy used in crash testing to evaluate automotive restraint systems. Today it is included in most regulatory test procedures world-wide for frontal collision testing, but also has been used extensively for seat performance testing. The Test device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR) is an advanced prototype 50th percentile male dummy. The original design of the dummy has been specified by NHTSA with several modifications proposed by other organisations world-wide (see Figure 4.2). Figure 4.1: Part 572 Hybrid-III 50 th percentile dummy Figure 4.2: Test device for Human Occupant Restraint - THOR Two dummies specifically designed for rear impact are available: the RID2/RID 3D and the BioRID II. Both are adult male dummies developed with Whiplash testing in mind, but the requirements for the biofidelity were derived from different sets of human tests for each dummy. BioRID is a rear impact crash dummy with a fully articulated, two-dimensional lumbar, thoracic and cervical spine, with 24 vertebrae included (see Figure 4.4). The BioRID was developed to mimic 7 Working Document Number 505C

14 volunteer responses in experiments performed at a low Δv (7-9 km/h). The typical S-shape formed by the human neck in rear impacts, causing head lag, was designed into the BioRID II. The RID2 is a rear impact crash dummy with flexible elements in the lumbar and thoracic spine and a fully flexible neck design (see Figure 4.3). In principle it is a 3D dummy, which is designed to handle angled rear-end impacts up to 30º of oblique motion. The RID 3D is the latest design of the RID dummy for rear impact that includes an improved neck design with optimised frontal performance for low severity. This dummy was developed under the EC Whiplash-2 project and evaluated in low severity rear and frontal test conditions. Figure 4.4: The BioRID segmented spine and whole dummy Figure 4.3: RID2 In order to be fully objective and up-to-date, WG12 conducted a test programme to repeat the selected biofidelity requirements with the most up to date versions of the candidate dummies. The THOR was not used as no final version of this dummy was available at the time of testing; hence the test matrix used BioRID IIg, RID 3D (final available version, incorporating modifications identified within the Whiplash II Project) and Hybrid III. 8 Working Document Number 505C

15 5 Summary of Biofidelity Evaluation 5.1 Introduction The response of each dummy compared with the target corridor for each of the seven key criteria and other measured parameters was assessed subjectively by the members of EEVC WG12. The dummy responses relative to the target corridors were then assessed objectively using the CORA (CORelation and Analysis) software from PDB. Finally, where possible (i.e. where the dummy incorporated appropriate instrumentation) the injury criteria proposed in the literature were calculated for each test and the results compared with proposed injury thresholds from the literature. Given that the volunteer tests resulted in no injuries to the volunteers, it would be expected that the proposed thresholds for the criteria would not be exceeded. 5.2 Subjective Biofidelity Assessment Hybrid III Considering horizontal displacements relative to the sled, the Hybrid III performed reasonably well against the GDV and Chalmers requirements (soft seat), but less well against the harder seats as used by TRL, JARI and LAB (stiff seat and rigid seat, respectively). Its behaviour was different to that of the other dummies in terms of head z-displacement for all test conditions. The Hybrid III had too much head rotation relative to some corridors and not enough relative to others. The LAB criterion, with a rigid seat and no head restraint, shows this limitation (Figure 5.1). In general, the Hybrid III was not able to put the head in the correct position in any of the test conditions and therefore it would not interact with the head restraint in a human-like manner in a regulatory or consumer test Angle (deg) RID3D Test 1 RID3D Test 2 RID3D Test 3 Hybrid III Test 1 Hybrid III Test 2 Hybrid III Test 3 BioRID Test 1 BioRID Test 2 BioRID Test 3 Upper limit Lower limit Time (s) Figure 5.1: Head rotation with respect to the sled (LAB testing) 9 Working Document Number 505C

16 The Hybrid III T1 x-displacement was good relative to the Chalmers and GDV criteria, probably due to the compliant seats used in these tests, but poor compared with the TRL, JARI and LAB requirements. T1 z displacement was poor compared with all requirements; regardless of test severity or seat compliance; the dummy showed no sign of ramping up the seat, which is seen in volunteer and PMHS tests. Its T1 rotation was similarly poor and in general its T1 motion was not human-like (Figure 5.2 shows T1 rotation results from the JARI testing). This implies that the Hybrid III does not engage the seat back in the same way as a human and has implications for the measurement of injury criteria, since these are usually concerned with some measure of the relative motion of the head and T1. The Hybrid III head acceleration was also poor compared with all criteria. Based on these results the Hybrid III is unsuitable for the assessment of whiplash prevention car seats and for use in a regulatory test designed to assess WAD injury potential. 5 0 Angular displacement (deg) RID3D Hybrid-III BioRID Upper limit Lower limit Time (ms) Figure 5.2: T1 angle with respect to the sled (JARI testing) RID 3D The RID 3D head displacement responses were similar to those of the BioRID II. In some cases the RID 3D responses were closer to the performance corridors and in other cases the BioRID responses were closer. In general it appears that the RID 3D performs better at higher accelerations and is more able to position the head correctly under these conditions. As the test conditions that will be used in a regulatory test are likely to be more severe that those used for the volunteer tests, but probably similar in severity to the LAB PMHS tests, its performance may be more suitable. However, it appears to be less able to perform well in a soft, compliant seat as compared to one that is more rigid and all the seats it will be tested in should be quite soft. The RID 3D had good T1 x-displacements relative to the Chalmers, JARI and GDV criteria and was closest to the corridors for both the TRL and LAB requirements. Its z-displacement was not very close to any of the corridors and there were significant differences between its response to the Chalmers tests and to the GDV tests this is likely to be due to initial position. The T1 rotation was good relative to the Chalmers requirement and just outside the LAB and TRL corridors. 10 Working Document Number 505C

17 The RID 3D head x and z-displacements relative to T1 were good with respect to the LAB requirement and poor with respect to those of the other tests (although the z-axis displacement was also reasonable in the JARI tests and the x-axis displacement was good in the Chalmers tests). Its head rotation about T1 was quite good. The RID 3D head acceleration was as good as that of the BioRID II if the differences in backset for the INSIA tests are taken into account BioRID II The BioRID II performed well against the head x-displacement requirements. Its z-displacement was too small but closest to the corridor against the TRL requirements and close to the corridor for the LAB requirements. It should be noted that these tests used laboratory seats and not the soft, shaped car seats for which the BioRID II has been designed. Its head rotation was good against all criteria and overall it put the head closest to the correct position in more of the test conditions that either of the other dummies. The BioRID II had good T1 x-displacement relative to Chalmers and GDV criteria (soft seat), but insufficient displacement relative to the TRL requirement and too much relative to the LAB and JARI requirements. Its T1 z-displacements did not meet any of the requirements. The BioRID II head x-displacement relative to T1 was generally good although it was not within the corridor for the GDV or JARI requirements. Its z-displacement was quite poor and only came close to the corridor in the LAB condition, in which the RID 3D response was within the corridor. Its head rotation about T1 was generally good. The BioRID II head acceleration was quite good compared with most criteria Overall Subjective Evaluation The BioRID II positioned the head the closest to most of the requirements, although the RID 3D responses were also good in this respect. Neither of the rear impact dummies has the correct T1 z-displacement. For a soft-seat, BioRID II appears to have the most human-like behaviour overall. Overall the BioRID comes closest to achieving human-like head displacement relative to T1. The Hybrid III had very poor responses in most test conditions. In particular, its T1 motion is very poor and it is not capable of engaging the seat back and head restraint in the same way as a human. It should not be used for low-speed rear impact testing. 5.3 Objective Biofidelity Assessment To make the biofidelity assessment less subjective, more quantitative and more reproducible, a standard numerical means of interpreting the results was sought. It was decided to use the CORA software (CORrelation and Analysis), which has been developed on behalf of PDB (the Partnership for Dummy technology and ). The software was used to compare a dummy response with an inner and outer corridor; as defined from the human subject data. The rating produced a result between 0 and 1, where 0 is commensurate with no correlation between the response and the corridor and 1 is a perfect match. In practice this is defined as the response scoring 1 if it is entirely within the inner corridor for the selected time duration, and scoring 0 when the response is entirely outside of the outer corridor. The dummy responses were evaluated between 30 and 180 ms, which was the longest period where consistent data was available from each laboratory for all parameters. The corridors were defined on a similar basis to that used in the subjective analysis. The inner corridor was set to be the mean human subject response plus or minus one standard deviation. The outer corridor was set to be plus or minus two standard deviations. 11 Working Document Number 505C

18 Each of the seven key parameters from each of the five prioritised data sets were assessed in this manner for each of the three candidate dummies tested. It should be noted that it is possible to obtain misleading results from such automated interpretations of data. For instance a response just on the outside of the corridor might receive a lower score than one which bears no relation to the shape of the corridor but happens to cross through it a few times during the evaluation period. This was found to occur for several responses across the testing, but generally the biofidelity scores for each response were reasonable and correlated well with the subjective assessment. The overall CORA results for each dummy are shown in Table 5.1. Note that each biofidelity requirement was weighted equally for the purposes of this assessment. Table 5.1: Overall CORA assessment scores from the biofidelity testing (five test conditions) Parameter RID 3D Hybrid III BioRID II T1 angle w.r.t. the sled T1 x-axis displacement T1 x-axis acceleration Head rotation w.r.t. T Head C of G x-axis displacement w.r.t. T Head rotation w.r.t. the sled Head C of G x-axis displacement w.r.t. the sled Overall The subjective observations have been supported by the results from the objective CORA rating of the biofidelity responses. The overall mean scores from the seven parameters in each of the five data sets show that the Hybrid III had the lowest score (0.41) and the RID 3D had the second highest score (0.53).The BioRID II that had the highest score according to the CORA biofidelity assessment, at Injury Criteria Results Where possible, the selected injury criteria (NIC, N km, N ij, LNL and NDC) have been calculated for each dummy and test series. The test series replicate testing with volunteers, and with PMHS in the case of the LAB tests. During the volunteer testing no injuries to the subjects were observed or recorded (other than some discomfort for one subject from the JARI testing). Therefore one would expect the measured criteria values to be below the threshold levels, particularly for the test series other than the LAB testing. The injury threshold levels that were used for each of the criteria are as follows: NIC 15 m 2.s -2 N km 1.0 N ij 1.0 LNL 3.0 NDC corridors with acceptance limits for different dummies 12 Working Document Number 505C

19 No inappropriate results were found for NIC, N km or N ij. The LNL threshold was exceeded and the NDC did not seem to rate injury risk appropriately for these test conditions. These results are not able to conclusively confirm or exclude any of the proposed injury criteria that were calculated. 5.5 Summary of Biofidelity Results In all of the test conditions selected by WG12 for the biofidelity assessment, the Hybrid III showed performance that was further from the response corridors that define the requirements than the RID 3D and BioRID II. The Hybrid III has insufficient biofidelity for it to be considered further for use as a test tool in the assessment of whiplash injury risk in low-severity rear impact testing. In many parameters from the whole test programme, the BioRID II and RID3D were similarly close to meeting the biofidelity requirements. The CORA rating system for comparing response curves with corridor requirements was used to obtain an objective interpretation of the biofidelity results. Overall scores were produced giving equal weighting to each of the five test series conducted and the seven parameters which were judged to be the most important for the assessment of biofidelity. The results ranked the Hybrid III as having the lowest biofidelity score (0.41). Whilst the results for the BioRID II and RID 3D were close, it was the BioRID II that had the highest score according to the CORA rating, at The RID 3D had an overall score of 0.53 from the seven key parameters assessed in the five test series. The BioRID II head restraint and seat back interaction were the most human-like when assessed under the TRL test conditions. It is recommended that, based on the currently available biofidelity data, the BioRID II is the most suitable dummy for use in a rear impact test procedure. No inappropriate results (i.e. where suggested injury thresholds were exceeded) were found for NIC, N km or N ij in these biofidelity tests in which the volunteers were uninjured. The LNL threshold was exceeded and the NDC did not seem to rate injury risk appropriately for these test conditions. These results are not able to conclusively confirm or exclude any of the proposed injury criteria that were calculated. 13 Working Document Number 505C

20 6 Summary of Literature Review of Hybrid III Biofidelity The Hybrid III dummy was developed by General Motors Corporation in the 1970s, and the development of the dummy is summarised in Backaitis and Mertz [1994]. It is a high-speed front impact dummy that has been used in front impact regulations (e.g. FMVSS 208 and ECE Reg 94) and consumer testing (e.g. NCAP) world-wide for many years. The neck design requirements for the Hybrid III included rear impact, with a torque-angle performance target for hyper extension [Mertz and Patrick, 1971]. The dummy has a flexible (steel cable and rubber) lumbar spine (the lower part of the back), a rigid steel thoracic spine (the main, upper part of the back) and a flexible neck. In an effort to improve the low-speed rear impact response of the Hybrid III several new necks were developed (the RID neck [Svensson and Lövsund, 1992] and the TRID neck [Thunnissen et al., 1996]). One study [Prasad et al., 1997] found that the Hybrid III met the original rear impact neck design target from Mertz and Patrick [1971], which was based on dynamic tests with one volunteer and with two PMHS at two speeds, plus quasi-static volunteer tests. However this requirement is limited to head rotations only, which is not an adequate measure for the neck kinematics themselves. Viano and Davidsson [2002] found that both the BioRID P3 (an early version of the BioRID II dummy) and the Hybrid III closely simulated the neck kinematics relative to T1. Given the poor T1 rotation biofidelity of the Hybrid III identified by Davidsson et al. [Davidsson et al., 1999a; Davidsson et al., 1999b], this implies that the overall biofidelity of the Hybrid III is inadequate when interaction with the seat is considered. The remainder of the evidence reviewed (nearly 20 publications) showed that the Hybrid III is not biofidelic in low-speed rear impacts and should not be used to test seats in these conditions. For some seat designs, some head-neck motion and force parameters are reasonably good compared with a human occupant, but this is dependent on the particular interaction between the Hybrid III back (the shoulders and/or the thoracic spine) and the seat back. All studies that have specifically examined the interaction between the Hybrid III and the seat back have found that the interaction is not at all human-like due to the rigid thoracic spine of the dummy. In order to ensure that the dummy interacts with the seat in the same way as a human in a low-speed rear impact, and thereby to ensure that the assessment of the seat is reliable and the prediction of injury savings is robust, the dummy used should have a more flexible spine than the Hybrid III. In a joint report [Hynd, 2007b], WG12 and WG20 noted that the primary benefit of a dynamic test of head restraint geometry is that reactive head restraint systems can be fairly and adequately assessed. These restraints are actuated by the inertia of the occupant loading the seat back and pushing an arrangement of levers that move the head restraint forwards and, typically, upwards. This moves the head restraint from an unfavourable geometry to a favourable geometry before head contact occurs. In order for such a dynamic test to be meaningful, the dummy must load the seat back (and therefore load the reactive part of the head restraint mechanism) in an equivalent way as a human occupant. The relevant biofidelity studies all show that the interaction of the rigid thoracic spine of the Hybrid III with the seat back is not humanlike. As a result, there is a very real risk that a reactive head restraint would deploy less effectively for a human occupant than when tested with the Hybrid III, or even not deploy at all. There is evidence that it is possible to design a better seat using the Hybrid III - some seats that have been developed with the Hybrid III have been shown to reduce whiplash insurance claims. However, developing an effective seat using the Hybrid III requires an understanding of the limitations of the dummy in low-speed rear impact loading conditions and compensation for these limitations in the design process. It is not possible, in a regulatory test procedure, to ensure that appropriate compensation is made. It is therefore possible to design a seat that meets a given regulatory requirement based on the Hybrid III measurements that will have no real-world benefit for some or all occupants. In addition, the literature reviewed indicates that it would even be possible to develop an active head restraint that would be disbeneficial to a real-world occupant compared with a good static geometry. For instance, protection could rely on a reactive head restraint that is actuated quickly and moves forward and upwards by a large amount when loaded by the rigid spine of the Hybrid III 14 Working Document Number 505C

21 dummy, but which may move to a lesser extent and later in the impact event when loaded by a human occupant with a flexible spine. Test data showing inadequate activation of a reactive head restraint when the seat is occupied by a more biofidelic dummy (BioRID II) have been published [Minne, 2006]; the same seat shows very efficient activation of the reactive head restraint when the Hybrid III dummy is used in the test. It was concluded that the poor biofidelity of the Hybrid III in low-speed rear impact conditions could send head restraint design in the wrong direction and reduce the level of whiplash protection offered to car occupants. The Hybrid III is therefore not appropriate for whiplash protection testing. 15 Working Document Number 505C

22 7 Conclusions General requirements for a rear impact dummy were proposed by EEVC WG20 and were reviewed by WG12. The requirements include suggestions for anthropometry, likely test severities, temperature sensitivity, and repeatability and reproducibility. Proposed injury criteria for use in assessing whiplash injury risk were assessed by WG12 based on the biomechanical basis for the criterion, the applicability to dummy measurements and the availability of an injury risk function. The five criteria considered were N ij, N km, LNL, NDC and NIC. N km and NIC max were evaluated more thoroughly than the other criteria and these are the only two criteria with established injury risk curves. None of the criteria reviewed have a definite biomechanical basis and their validity in predicting the risk of injury needs to be established. None of the criteria can be recommended on a strictly biomechanical basis. Several of the proposed injury criteria make sense mechanically and could be evaluated further if the strict biomechanical requirement (that requires identification of the injury) is relaxed. For instance, these parameters may be suitable for use as a seat evaluation criterion, rather than an injury criterion. WG12 reviewed 19 of the published data sets from which biofidelity assessments of a rear impact dummy could be made. The WG prioritised the data sets and selected five to be used to assess the currently available candidate rear impact dummies. The candidate dummies that were available were the Hybrid III and the specialist rear impact dummies, BioRID II and RID 3D. Tests have been successfully conducted with the BioRID II, RID 3D and Hybrid III dummies using the five biofidelity assessment conditions selected by EEVC WG12. The assessments have shown that the Hybrid III has insufficient biofidelity for it to be considered further for use as a test tool in the assessment of whiplash injury risk in low-severity rear impact testing. The two rear impact dummies, the RID 3D and BioRID II, demonstrated similar performance in the biofidelity assessments. The BioRID II was judged to have marginally better biofidelity, subjectively and objectively, in the conditions assessed. Therefore the BioRID II is recommended for use in low-severity rear impact testing to assess whiplash injury risk, based on its biofidelity. No inappropriate results (i.e. where suggested injury thresholds were exceeded) were found for NIC, N km or N ij in the biofidelity tests in which the volunteers were uninjured. The LNL threshold was exceeded and the NDC did not seem to rate injury risk appropriately for these test conditions. However, these results are not able to conclusively include or exclude any of the proposed injury criteria that were considered. A review of the literature found that the poor biofidelity of the Hybrid III in low-speed rear impact conditions could send head restraint design in the wrong direction and reduce the level of whiplash protection offered to car occupants. The Hybrid III is therefore not appropriate for low-speed rear impact whiplash protection testing. 16 Working Document Number 505C

23 8 Recommendations The BioRID II is recommended for use in low-severity rear impact testing to assess whiplash injury risk, based on its biofidelity. From the EEVC testing conducted to date and the data currently available from those specific test conditions, it is recommended that the BioRID II is the most suitable dummy for use in a rear impact test procedure. However, it should be noted that the BioRID II T1 vertical motion could be improved upon and this may have a direct effect on its ability to detect injury potential (i.e. the BioRID II lower spine may be too stiff, whilst the neck behaves as if it is too soft under certain loading conditions; modifications to these areas should produce a more human-like response). Due to its poor biofidelity in low-speed rear impact loading conditions, both in terms of headneck kinematics and of seat-back interaction, it is recommended that the Hybrid III is not suitable for low-speed rear impact whiplash protection testing. 17 Working Document Number 505C

24 References Backaitis S and Mertz H (1994). Hybrid III: The First Human-Like Crash Test Dummy. Society of Automotive Engineers. Bertholon N, Robin S, Le Coz J-Y, Potier P, Lassau J and Skalli W (2000). Human head and cervical spine behaviour during low-speed rear-end impacts: PMHS sled tests with a rigid seat. International IRCOBI Conference, Montpellier, France, September, IRCOBI. Carroll J, Willis C and Hynd D (2007). Assessment of Rear Impact Dummy Biofidelity. EEVC WG12 Report 505B. EEVC WG12. December, Davidsson J, Deutscher C, Hell W, Linder A, Lövsund P and Svensson M (1998). Human volunteer kinematics in rear-end sled collisions. International IRCOBI Conference, Göteborg, Sweden, September, IRCOBI. Davidsson J, Flogård A, Lövsund P and Svensson M (1999a). BioRID P3 - Design and performance compared to Hybrid III and volunteers in rear impacts of delta-v = 7 km/h. 43rd Stapp Car Crash Conference, San Diego, California, USA, October, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, USA. Davidsson J, Lövsund P, Ono K, Svensson M and Inami S (1999b). A comparison between volunteer, BioRID P3 and Hybrid III performance in rear impacts. International IRCOBI Conference, Sitges, Spain, September, IRCOBI. EEVC WG20 (2007). UK Cost-benefit Analysis: Enhanced Geometric Requirements for Vehicle Head Restraints. WD167. European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee. September Hynd D and Van Ratingen M (2005). Challenges in the development of a regulatory test procedure for neck protection in rear impacts: status of the EEVC WG20 and WG12 joint activity. 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington DC, USA, 6-9 June, NHTSA. Hynd D (2007a). Review of Recommendations regarding the use of Hybrid III in Low-speed Rear Impact 'Whiplash' Tests. EEVC WG12 Report Document Number 510. September Hynd D (2007b). The use of the Hybrid III Dummy in Low-speed Rear Impact Testing. EEVC WG12-20 Report Document Number 511. September Hynd D, Svensson M, Trosseille X, van Ratingen M and Davidsson J (2007). Dummy Requirements and Injury Criteria for a Low speed Rear Impact Whiplash Dummy. EEVC WG12 Report Document Number 505A. September Mertz H and Patrick L (1971). Strength and response of the human neck. 15th Stapp Car Crash Conference, San Diego, California, USA, November, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, USA. Minne F (2006). Consideration of active head restraints. Accessed 23 Sept, Prasad P, Kim A and Weerappuli D (1997). Biofidelity of anthropomorphic test devices for rear impact. 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, November, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, USA. 18 Working Document Number 505C

WHIPLASH INJURIES, NOT ONLY A PROBLEM IN REAR-END IMPACT

WHIPLASH INJURIES, NOT ONLY A PROBLEM IN REAR-END IMPACT WHIPLASH INJURIES, NOT ONLY A PROBLEM IN REAR-END IMPACT Hans Cappon Michiel van Ratingen Jac Wismans TNO Automotive The Netherlands Wolf Hell and Dina Lang German Institute for Vehicle Safety (GDV) Germany

More information

Assessing the Female Neck Injury Risk

Assessing the Female Neck Injury Risk Content 1 Assessing the Female Neck Injury Risk 3 Thesis About why Females are at Greater Risk of Sustaining Whiplash Injuries Assessing the Female Neck Injury Risk 4 High Speed X-Ray Motion Analysis of

More information

A NEW TEST METHOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NECK INJURIES IN REAR-END COLLISIONS

A NEW TEST METHOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NECK INJURIES IN REAR-END COLLISIONS A NEW TEST METHOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NECK INJURIES IN REAR-END COLLISIONS Hans Cappon, Mat Philippens, Jac Wismans TNO Automotive The Netherlands Paper # 242 ABSTRACT Whiplash injuries due to rear-end

More information

ENHANCEMENT OF SEAT PERFORMANCE IN LOW-SPEED REAR IMPACT

ENHANCEMENT OF SEAT PERFORMANCE IN LOW-SPEED REAR IMPACT ENHANCEMENT OF SEAT PERFORMANCE IN LOW-SPEED REAR IMPACT Harald Zellmer Michael Stamm Alexander Seidenschwang Autoliv GmbH, Elmshorn, Germany Anton Brunner Winterthur Insurance Corp., Dep. of Accident

More information

A multi-body head and neck model for low speed rear impact analysis

A multi-body head and neck model for low speed rear impact analysis 12th IFToMM World Congress, Besançon (France), June18-21, 27 A multi-body head and neck model for low speed rear impact analysis S. Himmetoglu *, M. Acar, A.J. Taylor, K. Bouazza-Marouf Mechanical and

More information

ADSEAT. An EU funded project within the 7th Framework Programme. Adaptive Seat to Reduce Neck Injuries for Female and Male Occupants

ADSEAT. An EU funded project within the 7th Framework Programme. Adaptive Seat to Reduce Neck Injuries for Female and Male Occupants ADSEAT An EU funded project within the 7th Framework Programme Adaptive Seat to Reduce Neck Injuries for Female and Male Occupants Citizens who annually suffer whiplash injuries in the EU 800 000 Socio-economic

More information

BioRID, a Crash Test Dummy for Rear Impact: A Review of Development, Validation and Evaluation

BioRID, a Crash Test Dummy for Rear Impact: A Review of Development, Validation and Evaluation , a Crash Test Dummy for Rear Impact: A Review of Development, Validation and Evaluation Astrid Linder 1,2, Mats Y. Svensson 1 1 Department of Machine and Vehicle Design Chalmers University of Technology,

More information

Biomechanics of the Neck in Rear Impacts for improved Seat Design

Biomechanics of the Neck in Rear Impacts for improved Seat Design Biomechanics of the Neck in Rear Impacts for improved Seat Design Dr.-Ing. Tjark Kreuzinger Regulatory & Technical Affairs Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA Studiedag BEPALING VAN MENSELIJKE SCHADE DOOR SLINGERLETSELS

More information

Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety Introduction and Status per January 2012 SAE 2012 Government/Industry Meeting

Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety Introduction and Status per January 2012 SAE 2012 Government/Industry Meeting Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety Introduction and Status per January 2012 Paul Lemmen, Bernard Been David Hynd, Jolyon Carroll Johan Davidsson Boris Steeger (Humanetics) (TRL) (Chalmers)

More information

Euro NCAP Whiplash Rating - Toyota Position & Proposal. May 2011

Euro NCAP Whiplash Rating - Toyota Position & Proposal. May 2011 Euro NCAP Whiplash Rating - Toyota Position & Proposal May 2011 1 Content Background and Priority J-NCAP Extended Review Overall Conclusion 2 Schedule 2011 February June 7 14 21 28 Folksam Chalmers TNO

More information

Rear Impact Dummy Biofidelity

Rear Impact Dummy Biofidelity GTR 7 Informal Working Group February 28 March 1 211 Brussels, Belgium Rear Impact Dummy Biofidelity Kevin Moorhouse, Ph.D. NHTSA Yun-Seok Kang Ohio State University Objectives & Tasks Evaluate biofidelity

More information

Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety Introduction and Status per April 2012 GRSP IG Frontal Impacts

Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety Introduction and Status per April 2012 GRSP IG Frontal Impacts Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety Introduction and Status per April 2012 Paul Lemmen, Bernard Been David Hynd, Jolyon Carroll Johan Davidsson Boris Steeger (Humanetics) (TRL) (Chalmers)

More information

Assessment of Whiplash Protection in Rear Impacts. Crash Tests and Real-life Crashes

Assessment of Whiplash Protection in Rear Impacts. Crash Tests and Real-life Crashes Assessment of Whiplash Protection in Rear Impacts Crash Tests and Real-life Crashes Maria Krafft, Anders Kullgren Folksam Anders Lie, Claes Tingvall Swedish National Road Administration June 2004 Summary

More information

Assessment of Whiplash Protection in Rear Impacts. Crash Tests and Real-life Crashes

Assessment of Whiplash Protection in Rear Impacts. Crash Tests and Real-life Crashes Assessment of Whiplash Protection in Rear Impacts Crash Tests and Real-life Crashes Maria Krafft, Anders Kullgren Folksam Anders Lie, Claes Tingvall Swedish National Road Administration June 24 Summary

More information

Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety

Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety Thoracic Injury Assessment for Improved Vehicle Safety Introduction and Status per March 2012 Paul Lemmen, Bernard Been David Hynd, Jolyon Carroll Johan Davidsson Boris Steeger (Humanetics) (TRL) (Chalmers)

More information

FIRST RESULTS FROM THE JAMA HUMAN BODY MODEL PROJECT

FIRST RESULTS FROM THE JAMA HUMAN BODY MODEL PROJECT FIRST RESULTS FROM THE JAMA HUMAN BODY MODEL PROJECT Tomiji Sugimoto Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. Kunio Yamazaki Japan Automobile Research Institute Japan Paper Number 05-0291 ABSTRACT

More information

INFLUENCE OF CRASH SEVERITY ON VARIOUS WHIPLASH INJURY SYMPTOMS: A STUDY BASED ON REAL-LIFE REAR-END CRASHES WITH RECORDED CRASH PULSES

INFLUENCE OF CRASH SEVERITY ON VARIOUS WHIPLASH INJURY SYMPTOMS: A STUDY BASED ON REAL-LIFE REAR-END CRASHES WITH RECORDED CRASH PULSES INFLUENCE OF CRASH SEVERITY ON VARIOUS WHIPLASH INJURY SYMPTOMS: A STUDY BASED ON REAL-LIFE REAR-END CRASHES WITH RECORDED CRASH PULSES Maria Krafft*, Anders Kullgren*, Sigrun Malm**, Anders Ydenius* *Folksam

More information

Thatcham International Whiplash Research

Thatcham International Whiplash Research Thatcham International Whiplash Research Matthew Avery Research Manager - Crash Thatcham Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre Thatcham, Berkshire Occupant Safety Frontal Crash Testing- consumer tests

More information

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED INJURY CRITERIA WITH VARIOUS DUMMIES TO DETERMINE THEIR ABILITY TO PREDICT THE LEVELS OF SOFT TISSUE NECK INJURY SEEN IN REAL WORLD ACCIDENTS Frank Heitplatz Raimondo

More information

DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL INFORMATION

DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL INFORMATION AUSTRALIAN TRANSPORT SAFETY BUREAU DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL INFORMATION Title and Subtitle Development of an Anti-Whiplash Seat Authors Michael Yuen, Mr. Lynne E. Bilston, Dr. Performing Organisation The Prince

More information

COMPARISON OF BIORID INJURY CRITERIA BETWEEN DYNAMIC SLED TESTS AND VEHICLE CRASH TESTS

COMPARISON OF BIORID INJURY CRITERIA BETWEEN DYNAMIC SLED TESTS AND VEHICLE CRASH TESTS COMPARISON OF BIORID INJURY CRITERIA BETWEEN DYNAMIC SLED TESTS AND VEHICLE CRASH TESTS David A. Aylor David S. Zuby Insurance Institute for Highway Safety United States Paper No. 11-235 ABSTRACT The Insurance

More information

ABSTRACT INJURY CRITERION TO ASSESS WHIPLASH INJURY IN FMVSS NO. 202 DYNAMIC TEST OPTION

ABSTRACT INJURY CRITERION TO ASSESS WHIPLASH INJURY IN FMVSS NO. 202 DYNAMIC TEST OPTION KINEMATICALLY BASED WHIPLASH INJURY CRITERION Shashi Kuppa, James Saunders, Jason Stammen National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Ann Mallory Transportation Research Center Inc. U.S.A 05-0211 ABSTRACT

More information

SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORT (SST)-2008-RTD-1 ADSEAT Adaptive seat to reduce neck injuries for female and male occupants Project no. 233904 Summary from 1 st Periodic Report

More information

EU POSITION PAPER TEST CASE ON FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR AUTOMOTIVE REGULATORY EQUIVALENCE 1.

EU POSITION PAPER TEST CASE ON FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR AUTOMOTIVE REGULATORY EQUIVALENCE 1. round of 29 September-3 October 2014 and made public on 7 January 2015. EU POSITION PAPER TEST CASE ON FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR AUTOMOTIVE REGULATORY EQUIVALENCE 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

More information

LinearDampingSeattoReduceWhiplashInjuryinRearendCollision

LinearDampingSeattoReduceWhiplashInjuryinRearendCollision Global Journal of Researches in Engineering: B Automotive Engineering Volume 14 Issue 3 Version 1.0 Year 2014 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals

More information

Minutes. GTR No. 7 / BioRID TEG. Group of Experts Whiplash Injury Criteria Meeting

Minutes. GTR No. 7 / BioRID TEG. Group of Experts Whiplash Injury Criteria Meeting Minutes GTR No. 7 / BioRID TEG Group of Experts Whiplash Injury Criteria Meeting Date & Timing: Location: Minutes drafted by: Participants: Documents: Monday September 8 th 2014, 13:00-17:30 (CET) and

More information

Volvo Trucks view on Truck Rollover Accidents

Volvo Trucks view on Truck Rollover Accidents Volvo Trucks view on Truck Rollover Accidents Mario Ligovic, Volvo Truck Corporation, Göteborg, Sweden INTRODUCTION Rollover is the most common heavy truck accident type. Experiencing a rollover is like

More information

STUDY OF SECOND ROW OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN FRONTAL VEHICLE CRASHES AND POTENTIAL RESTRAINT SYSTEM COUNTERMEASURES

STUDY OF SECOND ROW OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN FRONTAL VEHICLE CRASHES AND POTENTIAL RESTRAINT SYSTEM COUNTERMEASURES STUDY OF SECOND ROW OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN FRONTAL VEHICLE CRASHES AND POTENTIAL RESTRAINT SYSTEM COUNTERMEASURES Ingo Mueller Dr. Steffen Sohr TAKATA AG, Berlin Germany Paper Number 13-0430 ABSTRACT Legal

More information

Proposing a 2D Dynamical Model for Investigating the parameters Affecting Whiplash Injuries

Proposing a 2D Dynamical Model for Investigating the parameters Affecting Whiplash Injuries Proposing a 2D Dynamical Model for Investigating the parameters Affecting Whiplash Injuries Seyed Mohammad Rajaai i, and Mohammad H Farahani ii ABSTRACT: This paper proposes a 2D dynamical model for evaluating

More information

THREE YEARS OLD CHILD HEAD-NECK FINITE ELEMENT MODELING. SIMULATION OF THE INTERACTION WITH AIRBAG IN FRONTAL AND SIDE IMPACT.

THREE YEARS OLD CHILD HEAD-NECK FINITE ELEMENT MODELING. SIMULATION OF THE INTERACTION WITH AIRBAG IN FRONTAL AND SIDE IMPACT. THREE YEARS OLD CHILD HEAD-NECK FINITE ELEMENT MODELING. SIMULATION OF THE INTERACTION WITH AIRBAG IN FRONTAL AND SIDE IMPACT. Meyer F., Roth S., Willinger R. Mechanical Institute of Fluids and Solids,

More information

OPTIMIZATION OF SEAT BELT BUCKLE MOTION FOR REDUCING CHEST DEFLECTION, USING RIB EYE SENSORS

OPTIMIZATION OF SEAT BELT BUCKLE MOTION FOR REDUCING CHEST DEFLECTION, USING RIB EYE SENSORS OPTIMIZATION OF SEAT BELT BUCKLE MOTION FOR REDUCING CHEST DEFLECTION, USING RIB EYE SENSORS Burkhard Eickhoff Werner Schrenk Harald Zellmer Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG, Elmshorn, Germany Martin Meywerk Helmut-Schmidt

More information

Drop Damping Seat to Reduce Whiplash Injury in Rear-end Collision

Drop Damping Seat to Reduce Whiplash Injury in Rear-end Collision Global Journal of Researches in Engineering: B Automotive Engineering Volume 14 Issue 3 Version 1.0 Year 2014 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals

More information

REDESIGN OF REAR END OF A CAR TO MINIMISE WHIPLASH INJURY

REDESIGN OF REAR END OF A CAR TO MINIMISE WHIPLASH INJURY Abstract REDESIGN OF REAR END OF A CAR TO MINIMISE WHIPLASH INJURY *V. R. Kiran, Vinod K. Banthia, M. L. J. Suman Automotive & Aeronautical Engineering Department M. S. Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies,

More information

Whiplash Testing and Assessment Summary of Current Activities in Europe

Whiplash Testing and Assessment Summary of Current Activities in Europe 136 B. Lorenz Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), Passive Safety & Biomechanics, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany R. Sferco Ford Motor Company, Vehicle Safety, Automotive Safety Office (ASO), Köln, Germany

More information

Dynamic Analysis of Child in Misused CRS During Car Accident

Dynamic Analysis of Child in Misused CRS During Car Accident Dynamic Analysis of Child in Misused CRS During Car Accident T. KOIZUMI, N. TSUJIUCHI, and R. KAWAMURA Department of Mechanical Engineering Doshisha University Kyotanabe, Kyoto 610-0321 JAPAN Abstract

More information

A NEW NECK INJURY CRITERION CANDIDATE FOR REAR-END COLLISIONS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SHEAR FORCES AND BENDING MOMENTS

A NEW NECK INJURY CRITERION CANDIDATE FOR REAR-END COLLISIONS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SHEAR FORCES AND BENDING MOMENTS A NEW NECK INJURY CRITERION CANDIDATE FOR REAR-END COLLISIONS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SHEAR FORCES AND BENDING MOMENTS K.-U. Schmitt 1,2, M. H. Muser 2 and P. Niederer 1 1 Institute of Biomedical Engineering,

More information

An Example of the Crash Protection Provided by a Driver Airbag in an Offset Frontal Crash Test. David S. Zuby Joseph M. Nolan Susan L.

An Example of the Crash Protection Provided by a Driver Airbag in an Offset Frontal Crash Test. David S. Zuby Joseph M. Nolan Susan L. An Example of the Crash Protection Provided by a Driver Airbag in an Offset Frontal Crash Test David S. Zuby Joseph M. Nolan Susan L. Meyerson July 1997 ABSTRACT A comparison of two severe frontal offset

More information

Evaluation of Seat Performance Criteria for Future Rear-end Impact Testing

Evaluation of Seat Performance Criteria for Future Rear-end Impact Testing EEVC WG12 Report Document Number 578 final version Evaluation of Seat Performance Criteria for Future Rear-end Impact Testing May 2013 Authors Johan Davidsson, Chalmers University of Technology Anders

More information

Mechanical Evidence of Cervical Facet Capsule Injury During Whiplash. A Cadaveric Study Using Combined Shear, Compression, and Extension Loading

Mechanical Evidence of Cervical Facet Capsule Injury During Whiplash. A Cadaveric Study Using Combined Shear, Compression, and Extension Loading 1 Mechanical Evidence of Cervical Facet Capsule Injury During Whiplash A Cadaveric Study Using Combined Shear, Compression, and Extension Loading SPINE 2001;26:2095-2101 (October 1, 2001) Gunter P. Siegmund,

More information

DEVELOPMENT OF A BIOFIDELIC PEDESTRIAN LEGFORM IMPACTOR - INTRODUCTION OF JAMA-JARI LEGFORM IMPACTOR Ver

DEVELOPMENT OF A BIOFIDELIC PEDESTRIAN LEGFORM IMPACTOR - INTRODUCTION OF JAMA-JARI LEGFORM IMPACTOR Ver DEVELOPMENT OF A BIOFIDELIC PEDESTRIAN LEGFORM IMPACTOR - INTRODUCTION OF JAMA-JARI LEGFORM IMPACTOR Ver. 22 - Atsuhiro Konosu Japan Automobile Research Institute Masaaki Tanahashi Japan Automobile Manufacturers

More information

Digges 1 INJURIES TO RESTRAINED OCCUPANTS IN FAR-SIDE CRASHES. Kennerly Digges The Automotive Safety Research Institute Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

Digges 1 INJURIES TO RESTRAINED OCCUPANTS IN FAR-SIDE CRASHES. Kennerly Digges The Automotive Safety Research Institute Charlottesville, Virginia, USA INJURIES TO RESTRAINED OCCUPANTS IN FAR-SIDE CRASHES Kennerly Digges The Automotive Safety Research Institute Charlottesville, Virginia, USA Dainius Dalmotas Transport Canada Ottawa, Canada Paper Number

More information

Injury Biomechanics of the Cervical Spine in Car Collisions - Some needs for further research

Injury Biomechanics of the Cervical Spine in Car Collisions - Some needs for further research Injury Biomechanics of the Cervical Spine in Car Collisions - Some needs for further research Mats Y. Svensson Crash Safety Division, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden http://www.mvd.chalmers.se/~mys/

More information

Long-term medical consequences to children injured in car crashes and influence of crash directions

Long-term medical consequences to children injured in car crashes and influence of crash directions Long-term medical consequences to children injured in car crashes and influence of crash directions Katarina Bohman 1,2), Helena Stigson 2,3), Maria Krafft 3,4) 1) Autoliv Research, 2) Karolinska Institutet,

More information

A STUDY OF CURRENT NECK INJURY CRITERIA USED FOR WHIPLASH ANALYSIS. PROPOSAL OF A NEW CRITERION INVOLVING UPPER AND LOWER NECK LOAD CELLS.

A STUDY OF CURRENT NECK INJURY CRITERIA USED FOR WHIPLASH ANALYSIS. PROPOSAL OF A NEW CRITERION INVOLVING UPPER AND LOWER NECK LOAD CELLS. A STUDY OF CURRENT NECK INJURY CRITERIA USED FOR WHIPLASH ANALYSIS. PROPOSAL OF A NEW CRITERION INVOLVING UPPER AND LOWER NECK LOAD CELLS. D. Muñoz 1, A. Mansilla 1,2, F. López-Valdés 1,2. R. Martín 1

More information

The safety of child wheelchair occupants in road passenger vehicles

The safety of child wheelchair occupants in road passenger vehicles TRL Report TRL667 The safety of child wheelchair occupants in road passenger vehicles C Visvikis, M Le Claire, O Goodacre, A Thompson and J Carroll The safety of child wheelchair occupants in road passenger

More information

Thoracic Injury Criterion for Frontal Crash Applicable to All Restraint Systems

Thoracic Injury Criterion for Frontal Crash Applicable to All Restraint Systems Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 47 (October 2003), pp. 323-348 Copyright 2003 The Stapp Association Stapp Car Crash Journal 2003-22-0015 Thoracic Injury Criterion for Frontal Crash Applicable to All Restraint

More information

DRIVER HEAD DISPLACEMENT DURING (AUTOMATIC) VEHICLE BRAKING TESTS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF DISTRACTION

DRIVER HEAD DISPLACEMENT DURING (AUTOMATIC) VEHICLE BRAKING TESTS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF DISTRACTION DRIVER HEAD DISPLACEMENT DURING (AUTOMATIC) VEHICLE BRAKING TESTS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF DISTRACTION Lex van Rooij, Jasper Pauwelussen, Olaf Op den Camp, Robby Janssen TNO The Netherlands Paper Number

More information

Relationship of Dynamic Seat/Head Restraint Ratings to Real-world Neck Injury Rates

Relationship of Dynamic Seat/Head Restraint Ratings to Real-world Neck Injury Rates Relationship of Dynamic Seat/Head Restraint Ratings to Real-world Neck Injury Rates Charles M. Farmer, Laurie A. Hellinga, Jo Ann K. Wells, David S. Zuby Basic method Collect insurance claims for late

More information

PERFORMANCE OF SEATS WITH ACTIVE HEAD RESTRAINTS IN REAR IMPACTS

PERFORMANCE OF SEATS WITH ACTIVE HEAD RESTRAINTS IN REAR IMPACTS PERFORMANCE OF SEATS WITH ACTIVE HEAD RESTRAINTS IN REAR IMPACTS Liming Voo Bethany McGee Andrew Merkle Michael Kleinberger Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory United States of America

More information

Effects of a Forward Displaced Position on Driver Injury Levels in Frontal Crashes

Effects of a Forward Displaced Position on Driver Injury Levels in Frontal Crashes 5th International Conference on Advanced Engineering Materials and Technology (AEMT 2015) Effects of a Forward Displaced Position on Driver Injury Levels in Frontal Crashes Xiao Luo a, Wenjing Du b, Shucai

More information

Chronic whiplash and whiplash-associated disorders: An evidence-based approach

Chronic whiplash and whiplash-associated disorders: An evidence-based approach Chronic whiplash and whiplash-associated disorders: An evidence-based approach 1 Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons October 2007;15(10):596-606 Schofferman J, Bogduk N, Slosar P. FROM

More information

Whiplash: a review of a commonly misunderstood injury

Whiplash: a review of a commonly misunderstood injury 1 Whiplash: a review of a commonly misunderstood injury The American Journal of Medicine; Volume 110; 651-656; June 1, 2001 Jason C. Eck, Scott D. Hodges, S. Craig Humphreys This review article has 64

More information

Neck injuries in car collisions - Injury mechanisms

Neck injuries in car collisions - Injury mechanisms Injuries and symptoms Neck injuries in car collisions - Injury mechanisms Mats Svensson Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden The symptoms of injury following neck trauma in rear-end collisions

More information

Safety Analysis of the Five Point Harness

Safety Analysis of the Five Point Harness ENSC 490 - Introduction to Biomechanics - Project Report - Safety Analysis of the Five Point Harness Student name & number: Miguel Cruz - 301074030 Student name & number: Luke Gall 301089500 Student name

More information

The multitude of symptoms following a whiplash injury has given rise to much discussion because of the lack of objective radiological findings.

The multitude of symptoms following a whiplash injury has given rise to much discussion because of the lack of objective radiological findings. HELPFUL PERSONAL INJURY INFORMATION COURTESY OF RIVERVIEW CHIROPRACTIC FROM ABSTRACT: Dynamic kine magnetic resonance imaging in whiplash patients Pain Research and Management 2009 Nov-Dec 2009;Vol. 14,

More information

PEDESTRIAN HEAD IMPACT ANALYSIS

PEDESTRIAN HEAD IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJMET) International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6340 (Print) ISSN 0976 6359

More information

UPDATED REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TEST PROCEDURES FOR FMVSS NO. 208

UPDATED REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TEST PROCEDURES FOR FMVSS NO. 208 UPDATED REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TEST PROCEDURES FOR FMVSS NO. 208 Prepared By The OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY RESEARCH WILLIAM T. HOLLOWELL HAMPTON C. GABLER SHELDON L. STUCKI STEPHEN SUMMERS JAMES R. HACKNEY,

More information

Head Position and Impact Direction in Whiplash Injuries: Associations with MRI-Verified Lesions of Ligaments and Membranes in the Upper Cervical Spine

Head Position and Impact Direction in Whiplash Injuries: Associations with MRI-Verified Lesions of Ligaments and Membranes in the Upper Cervical Spine Head Position and Impact Direction in Whiplash Injuries: Associations with MRI-Verified Lesions of Ligaments and Membranes in the Upper Cervical Spine 1 Journal of Neurotrauma Volume 22, Number 11, November

More information

THUMS User Community

THUMS User Community THUMS User Community Project Overview Th. Fuchs 1, K. Zhou 1, Prof. Dr. S. Peldschus 1,2 1 Biomechanics Group, Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Munich 2 Hochschule Furtwangen University Stuttgart,

More information

Side Impact Causes Multiplanar Cervical Spine Injuries

Side Impact Causes Multiplanar Cervical Spine Injuries Side Impact Causes Multiplanar Cervical Spine Injuries 1 The Journal of Trauma, Injury, infection and Critical Care Volume 63(6), December 2007, pp 1296-1307 Maak, Travis G. MD; Ivancic, Paul C. PhD; Tominaga,

More information

US FMVSS 202 Final Rule

US FMVSS 202 Final Rule Comparison of Regulations FMVSS 202 (Current standard, Final Rule, and ) A. Application 1. Vehicles Front outboard seating positions in passenger cars, MPVs and trucks with a GVWR 4536 kg 2. Requirements

More information

CORRELATION OF VEHICLE AND ROADSIDE CRASH TEST INJURY CRITERIA

CORRELATION OF VEHICLE AND ROADSIDE CRASH TEST INJURY CRITERIA CORRELATION OF VEHICLE AND ROADSIDE CRASH TEST INJURY CRITERIA Douglas Gabauer Rowan University United States Robert Thomson Chalmers University Sweden Paper Number 5-3 ABSTRACT The vehicle safety and

More information

Biomechanics of the cervical spine Part 3: minor injuries. Clin Biomech 2001 May;16(4):267-75

Biomechanics of the cervical spine Part 3: minor injuries. Clin Biomech 2001 May;16(4):267-75 1 Biomechanics of the cervical spine Part 3: minor injuries. Bogduk N, Yoganandan N. FROM ABSTRACT: Clin Biomech 2001 May;16(4):267-75 Minor injuries of the cervical spine are essentially defined as injuries

More information

Q dummy family. Fahrzeugsicherheit Berlin e.v. Robert Kant, Christian Kleessen (Humanetics)

Q dummy family. Fahrzeugsicherheit Berlin e.v. Robert Kant, Christian Kleessen (Humanetics) Computational models of Q dummy family Ines Lehmann, Heiko Johannsen (VFSB) Robert Kant, Christian Kleessen (Humanetics) Protection of children hld in cars, December 2 3, 2010, Munich Fahrzeugsicherheit

More information

Investigation for New Side Impact Test Procedures in Japan

Investigation for New Side Impact Test Procedures in Japan Investigation for New Side Impact Test Procedures in Japan Hideki Yonezawa Naruyuki Hosokawa Yoshinori Tanaka Yasuhiro Matsui Shunsuke Takagi National Traffic Safety and Environment Laboratory Takahiro

More information

Factors related to serious injury in post ncap european cars involved in frontal crashes

Factors related to serious injury in post ncap european cars involved in frontal crashes Loughborough University Institutional Repository Factors related to serious injury in post ncap european cars involved in frontal crashes This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional

More information

STATUS REPORT. The seats and head restraints in many vehicles don t protect people s necks, but new designs show promise

STATUS REPORT. The seats and head restraints in many vehicles don t protect people s necks, but new designs show promise STATUS REPORT INSURANCE INSTITUTE Special issue: neck injuries in rear-end crashes Vol. 34, No. 5, May 22, 1999 FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY The seats and head restraints in many vehicles don t protect people s

More information

MADYMO SIMULATION STUDY TO OPTIMIZE THE SEATING ANGLES AND BELT POSITIONING OF HIGH BACK BOOSTER SEATS

MADYMO SIMULATION STUDY TO OPTIMIZE THE SEATING ANGLES AND BELT POSITIONING OF HIGH BACK BOOSTER SEATS MADYMO SIMULATION STUDY TO OPTIMIZE THE SEATING ANGLES AND BELT POSITIONING OF HIGH BACK BOOSTER SEATS Rajiv Menon Yoganand Ghati Prashant Jain The Children s Hospital of Philadelphia United States Paper

More information

INFLUENCE OF SEATBACK CONTENT AND DEFLECTION ON FMVSS 202A DYNAMIC RESPONSE

INFLUENCE OF SEATBACK CONTENT AND DEFLECTION ON FMVSS 202A DYNAMIC RESPONSE INFLUENCE OF SEATBACK CONTENT AND DEFLECTION ON FMVSS 22A DYNAMIC RESPONSE Gerald Locke Eric Veine Lear Corporation Andrew Merkle Michael Kleinberger Ian Wing Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

More information

REDUCING OCCUPANT INJURY IN REAR-END COLLISIONS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY-ABSORBING FOAM TO THE SEAT BASE. Rami Mansour

REDUCING OCCUPANT INJURY IN REAR-END COLLISIONS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY-ABSORBING FOAM TO THE SEAT BASE. Rami Mansour REDUCING OCCUPANT INJURY IN REAR-END COLLISIONS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY-ABSORBING FOAM TO THE SEAT BASE by Rami Mansour B.A.Sc., University of Waterloo, 2008 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

More information

DEVELOPMENT OF HELICOPTER SAFETY DEVICES

DEVELOPMENT OF HELICOPTER SAFETY DEVICES 25 TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES DEVELOPMENT OF HELICOPTER SAFETY DEVICES Wayne Lam, Cees Bil *RMIT University Keywords: helicopter, crash, simulation, MADYMO Abstract Recent investigations

More information

Injury Criteria for Q Dummies in Frontal Impact

Injury Criteria for Q Dummies in Frontal Impact CRS-1-3 Injury Criteria for Q Dummies in Frontal Impact Analysis performed for EEVC WG12 & 18 Prepared by: Kees Waagmeester (on behalf of EEVC WG12&18) Date: June 13, 2007 Presentation Contents Summary

More information

THE VEHICLE REAR-END COLLISION

THE VEHICLE REAR-END COLLISION THE VEHICLE REAR-END COLLISION 1 Drd.Eng. Daniel-Dragoş TRUŞCǍ, 2 Reader.Dr.Eng. Adrian Şoica TRANSILVANIA University of Brasov, Department of Automotive and Engines, c- am@unitbv.ro Abstract This paper

More information

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL ADULT OCCUPANT PROTECTION

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL ADULT OCCUPANT PROTECTION EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL ADULT OCCUPANT PROTECTION June 2011 Copyright Euro NCAP - This work is the intellectual property of Euro NCAP. Permission is granted

More information

Pedestrian protection - Pedestrian in collision with personal car

Pedestrian protection - Pedestrian in collision with personal car Pedestrian protection - Pedestrian in collision with personal car Authors: Jiří Svoboda, Ing; Zdeněk Šolc, Ing. Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Automotive

More information

INVESTIGATION OF LOWER SPINE COMPRESSION FRACTURES IN FRONTAL CRASHES

INVESTIGATION OF LOWER SPINE COMPRESSION FRACTURES IN FRONTAL CRASHES INVESTIGATION OF LOWER SPINE COMPRESSION FRACTURES IN FRONTAL CRASHES Rodney W. Rudd, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Company Logo Here Overview Lower spine includes: 10 th through 12 th

More information

REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE OF CITY SAFETY BASED ON SWEDISH INSURANCE DATA

REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE OF CITY SAFETY BASED ON SWEDISH INSURANCE DATA REAL-WORLD PERFORMANCE OF CITY SAFETY BASED ON SWEDISH INSURANCE DATA Irene Isaksson-Hellman If P&C Insurance Sweden Magdalena Lindman Volvo Car Corporation Sweden Paper Number 15-0121 ABSTRACT The number

More information

ACTIVE SEAT BELT BUCKLE FOR COMFORT AND SAFETY

ACTIVE SEAT BELT BUCKLE FOR COMFORT AND SAFETY ACTIVE SEAT BELT BUCKLE FOR COMFORT AND SAFETY TRW has developed an active restraint system that simplifies the seat belt buckling process and helps to improve occupant safety. The Active Buckle Lifter

More information

Biomechanics of whiplash injury

Biomechanics of whiplash injury Chinese Journal of Traumatology 2009; 12(5):305-314. 305. Review Biomechanics of whiplash injury CHEN Hai-bin 陈 海 斌 *, King H YANG and WANG Zheng-guo 王 正 国 Despite a large number of rear-end collisions

More information

Comparison of HIC and BrIC head injury risk in IIHS frontal crash tests to real-world head injuries

Comparison of HIC and BrIC head injury risk in IIHS frontal crash tests to real-world head injuries Comparison of HIC and BrIC head injury risk in IIHS frontal crash tests to real-world head injuries 2015 ESV Conference Gothenburg, Sweden June 10, 2015 Becky Mueller Senior Research Engineer iihs.org

More information

SFI SPECIFICATION 38.1 EFFECTIVE: MARCH 16, 2015 *

SFI SPECIFICATION 38.1 EFFECTIVE: MARCH 16, 2015 * SFI SPECIFICATION 38.1 EFFECTIVE: MARCH 16, 2015 * PRODUCT: Head and Neck Restraint Systems 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 This SFI Specification establishes uniform test procedures and minimum standards

More information

Sidan 1. Epidemiology - 1. Chest Injury Biomechanics and Standards. Thorax intercostal wall. Epidemiology. Thoracic aorta. Thorax: Basic anatomy

Sidan 1. Epidemiology - 1. Chest Injury Biomechanics and Standards. Thorax intercostal wall. Epidemiology. Thoracic aorta. Thorax: Basic anatomy Epidemiology - 1 Chest Injury Biomechanics and Standards Basic anatomy, injury mechanisms Biomechanical response, injury criteria & tolerances New Delhi, December 4, 2010 Harms 1987, 11:th ESV Restrained

More information

FE SIMULATIONS OF MOTORCYCLE CAR FRONTAL CRASHES, VALIDATION AND OBSERVATIONS

FE SIMULATIONS OF MOTORCYCLE CAR FRONTAL CRASHES, VALIDATION AND OBSERVATIONS FE SIMULATIONS OF MOTORCYCLE CAR FRONTAL CRASHES, VALIDATION AND OBSERVATIONS A. CHAWLA, S. MUKHERJEE, D. MOHAN, Dipan BOSE, Prakash RAWAT, Transportation Research & Injury Prevention Programme Indian

More information

Whiplash and Whiplash- Associated Disorders

Whiplash and Whiplash- Associated Disorders Whiplash and Whiplash- Associated Disorders North American Spine Society Public Education Series What Is Whiplash? The term whiplash might be confusing because it describes both a mechanism of injury and

More information

NCAP New Car Assessment Programme

NCAP New Car Assessment Programme New Car Assessment Programme Harald Zellmer Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG, Elmshorn, Germany International Course on Transportation Planning and Safety New Delhi December 2010 PRIVATE/PROPRIETARY : New Car Assessment

More information

Overview of evidence: Prognostic factors following whiplash injury

Overview of evidence: Prognostic factors following whiplash injury Overview of evidence: Prognostic factors following whiplash injury Confidence in conclusions (that an association exists) are presented in both text and graphical format, using the following legend: =

More information

BioRID II Dummy Model Development -- Influence of Parameters in Validation and Consumer Tests

BioRID II Dummy Model Development -- Influence of Parameters in Validation and Consumer Tests 9 th International LS-DYNA Users Conference Crash/Safety (2) BioRID II Dummy Model Development -- Influence of Parameters in Validation and Consumer Tests S. Stahlschmidt*, B. Keding*, U. Franz*, A. Hirth**

More information

Soft-tissue injuries of the neck in automobile accidents: Factors influencing prognosis

Soft-tissue injuries of the neck in automobile accidents: Factors influencing prognosis Soft-tissue injuries of the neck in automobile accidents: Factors influencing prognosis 1 Mason Hohl, MD FROM ABSTRACT: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) December 1974;56(8):1675-1682 Five years

More information

VEHICLE CRASH SAFETY

VEHICLE CRASH SAFETY VEHICLE CRASH SAFETY (Computer Aided Engineering) 1. Vehicle Crashworthiness 2. Pedestrian Protection 3. Research for Whiplash Injury 4. Research for Lower Extremity Injury 5. Advanced Research

More information

www.italy-ontheroad.it HEADREST Headrest General information and advices. The most frequent road car accident is collision from the back, that is a crash at the back of the vehicle caused by another vehicle,

More information

Working Paper. Extended Validation of the Finite Element Model for the 2010 Toyota Yaris Passenger Sedan

Working Paper. Extended Validation of the Finite Element Model for the 2010 Toyota Yaris Passenger Sedan Working Paper NCAC 2012-W-005 July 2012 Extended Validation of the Finite Element Model for the 2010 Toyota Yaris Passenger Sedan Dhafer Marzougui Randa Radwan Samaha Chongzhen Cui Cing-Dao (Steve) Kan

More information

Correlating crash severity with injury risk, injury severity, and long-term symptoms in low velocity motor vehicle collisions

Correlating crash severity with injury risk, injury severity, and long-term symptoms in low velocity motor vehicle collisions Correlating crash severity with injury risk, injury severity, and long-term symptoms in low velocity motor vehicle collisions Medical Science Monitor, October 2005; 11(10): RA316-321 FROM ABSTRACT: Arthur

More information

Neck Exercises for Car Accident Victims 3 Steps to a Healthier Neck

Neck Exercises for Car Accident Victims 3 Steps to a Healthier Neck Neck Exercises for Car Accident Victims 3 Steps to a Healthier Neck DR BARRY L. MARKS CHIROPRACTOR AUTHOR LECTURER Neck Exercises for Car Accident Victims 3 Steps to a Healthier Neck 2012 Dr. Barry L.

More information

20XX. Car safety rating 2015 by Folksam

20XX. Car safety rating 2015 by Folksam 20XX Car safety rating 2015 by Folksam Preface Folksam has a long tradition in the area of traffic safety research. We have been collecting and analyzing information about road traffic crashes and injuries

More information

The Prognosis Of Neck Injuries Resulting From Rear-end Vehicle Collisions. The Journal Of Bone And Joint Surgery (British)

The Prognosis Of Neck Injuries Resulting From Rear-end Vehicle Collisions. The Journal Of Bone And Joint Surgery (British) The Prognosis Of Neck Injuries Resulting From Rear-end Vehicle Collisions 1 S. H. Norris, I. Watt FROM ABSTRACT The Journal Of Bone And Joint Surgery (British) November 1983, Vol. 65-B. No. 5 Injury of

More information

Field Accident Data Analysis of 2 nd Row Children and Individual Case Reviews

Field Accident Data Analysis of 2 nd Row Children and Individual Case Reviews Field Accident Data Analysis of 2 nd Row Children and Individual Case Reviews David C Viano, Chantal S Parenteau ProBiomechanics LLC SAE 2008-01 01-18511851 CSS 38% U 50% Front 45% Background Children

More information

HUMOS : HUMAN MODEL FOR SAFETY A JOINT EFFORT TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF REFINED HUMAN-LIKE CAR OCCUPANT MODELS

HUMOS : HUMAN MODEL FOR SAFETY A JOINT EFFORT TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF REFINED HUMAN-LIKE CAR OCCUPANT MODELS HUMOS : HUMAN MODEL FOR SAFETY A JOINT EFFORT TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF REFINED HUMAN-LIKE CAR OCCUPANT MODELS Stéphane Robin LAB PSA Peugeot-Citroën RENAULT, France Paper Number 297 ABSTRACT : Car occupant

More information

THE WHIPLASH INJURY IN REAR-END COLLISION USING 3-D HUMAN WHOLE BODY MODEL

THE WHIPLASH INJURY IN REAR-END COLLISION USING 3-D HUMAN WHOLE BODY MODEL THE WHIPLASH INJURY IN REAR-END COLLISION USING 3-D HUMAN WHOLE BODY MODEL Yu-Bong KANG 1, Masatoshi TANAKA 1, Sadami TSUTSUMI 1 and Ken IKEUCHI 1 Dept. Medical Simulation Engineering, Research Center

More information

DEVELOPMENT OF MOVING DEFORMABLE BARRIER IN JAPAN - PART 2 -

DEVELOPMENT OF MOVING DEFORMABLE BARRIER IN JAPAN - PART 2 - DEVELOPMENT OF MOVING DEFORMABLE BARRIER IN JAPAN - PART 2 - Masanori Ueno Takeshi Harigae Haruo Ohmae Japan Automobile Research Institute Takahiko Uchimura Eiji Fujiwara Japan Automobile Manufacturers

More information

MARTIN CHARLES HILLIER

MARTIN CHARLES HILLIER HEAD ACCELERATION AND ASSOCIATED PAIN FELT IN THE NECK REGION DURING A SIMULATED AUTOMOBILE LOW VELOCITY REAR-END COLLISION AS A FUNCTION OF SEAT BACK ANGLE By MARTIN CHARLES HILLIER A THESIS PRESENTED

More information