Road vehicles. Injury risk curves for the evaluation of occupant protection in side impact tests

IntroductionParametric survival models are used to develop injury risk curves (IRCs) from impact tests using postmortem human surrogates (PMHS). Through the consideration of different output variables, input parameters and censoring, different IRCs could be created. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of the Brier Score Metric (BSM) to determine the optimal IRCs and derive them from lower leg impact tests.MethodsTwo series of tests of axial impacts to PMHS foot–ankle complex were used in the study. The first series used the metrics of force, time and rate, and covariates of age, posture, stature, device and presence of a boot. Also demonstrated were different censoring schemes: right and exact/uncensored (RC-UC) or right and uncensored/left (RC-UC-LC). The second series involved only one metric, force, and covariates age, sex and weight. It contained interval censored (IC) data demonstrating different censoring schemes: RC-IC-UC, RC-IC-LC and RC-IC-UC-LC.ResultsFor each test set combination, optimal IRCs were chosen based on metric–covariate combination that had the lowest BSM value. These optimal IRCs are shown along with 95% CIs and other measures of interval quality. Forces were greater for UC than LC data sets, at the same risk levels (10% used in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)). All data and IRCs are presented.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a novel approach to examining which metrics and covariates create the best parametric survival analysis-based IRCs to describe human tolerance, the first step in describing lower leg injury criteria under axial loading to the plantar surface of the foot.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Arm Up and Down in Side Impacts With BioSID and Different Armrests

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering ◽

10.1115/1.2895730 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 116 (3) ◽

pp. 270-277 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

David C. Viano

Keyword(s):

Injury Risk ◽

Side Impact ◽

High Position ◽

Occupant Protection ◽

The Third ◽

Side Impacts ◽

Protection Systems ◽

Serious Injury ◽

Safety Features ◽

Animal Tests

BioSID dummy tests were run with the arm down at the side during loading of different armrests in simulated side impact crashes. The Hyge sled tests duplicated previous studies of BioSID with the arm up, SID, and animals. When the BioSID arm is against the side, the arm extends from the shoulder to the bottom of the third rib and has a steel shank covered by foam and vinyl. Loading through the arm transfers force to the three chest ribs and shoulder. In comparison, direct armrest loading of the chest or abdomen primarily involves a single rib and substantial rib deflection, when the armrest crush-force exceeds the strength of the rib. The Viscous response in BioSID showed the greatest difference of all criteria for the arm up or down. The response of the third rib correlated with injury risks determined from animal tests using the different armrest designs in a simulated high position. While injury data are not available for the arm at the side or for the armrest in the low position, the STIFF armrest may cause injury when the arm is not at the side and the armrest loads the liver and spleen. Rib deflection in BioSID showed the protrusion of the STIFF armrest into the abdominal region in both arm positions, because the loading was below the arm even in the down position. However, the arm extends laterally so it involves the upper ribs earlier than in the arm-up condition where more space is available. Torso deflection showed similar maxima with the arm down and a high armrest position, because the bridging action of the arm and shoulder increases the stiffness of the dummy. The armrest designs cover a range in crush characteristics for occupant protection systems based on experience with other interior safety features, knowledge of human tolerance, and results of injury in animal tests. The SOFT design was most appropriate for interior use. The STIFF design produced serious injury in companion tests with animals, and the BioSID correctly assessed injury risk by peak rib deflection or Viscous response when tested similarly. In contrast, SID and TTI(d) did not indicate injury risks or safety performance. The current study indicates that response differences can be expected with arm placement, and BioSID can assess safety implications of different armrest types and arm placement.

Download Full-text