Strain Response in the Facet Joint Capsule During Physiological Joint Rotation and Translation Following a Simulated Impact Exposure: an in Vitro Porcine Model

Low back pain (LBP) is frequently reported following rear impact collisions. Knowledge of how the facet joint capsule (FJC) mechanically behaves before and after rear impact collisions may help explain LBP development despite negative radiographic evidence of gross tissue failure. This study quantified the Green strain tensor in the facet joint capsule during rotation and translation range-of-motion tests completed before and following an in vitro simulation of a rear impact collision. Eight FSUs (4 C3-C4, 4 C5-C6) were tested. Following a preload test, FSUs were flexed and extended at 0.5 degrees/second until an ±8 Nm moment was achieved. Anterior and posterior joint translation was then applied at 0.2 mm/s until a target ±400 N shear load was imposed. Markers were drawn on the facet capsule surface and their coordinates were tracked during pre- and post-impact range-of-motion tests. Strain was defined as the change in point configuration relative to the determined neutral joint posture. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) observed in all calculated FJC strain components in rotation and translation before and after the simulated impact. Our results suggest that LBP development resulting from the initiation of strain-induced mechanoreceptors and nociceptors with the facet joint capsule is unlikely following a severe rear impact collision within the boundaries of physiological joint motion.

Design and Evaluation of the Initial 50th Percentile Female Prototype Rear Impact Dummy, BioRID P50F – Indications for the Need of an Additional Dummy Size

The objective of this study was to present the design of a prototype rear impact crash test dummy, representing a 50th percentile female, and compare its performance to volunteer response data. The intention was to develop a first crude prototype as a first step toward a future biofidelic 50th percentile female rear impact dummy. The current rear impact crash test dummy, BioRID II, represents a 50th percentile male, which may limit the assessment and development of whiplash protection systems with regard to female occupants. Introduction of this new dummy size will facilitate evaluation of seat and head restraint (HR) responses in both the average sized female and male in rear impacts. A 50th percentile female rear impact prototype dummy, the BioRID P50F, was developed from modified body segments originating from the BioRID II. The mass and rough dimensions of the BioRID P50F is representative of a 50th percentile female. The prototype dummy was evaluated against low severity rear impact sled tests comprising six female volunteers closely resembling a 50th percentile female with regard to stature and mass. The head/neck response of the BioRID P50F prototype resembled the female volunteer response corridors. The stiffness of the thoracic and lumbar spinal joints remained the same as the average sized male BioRID II, and therefore likely stiffer than joints of an average female. Consequently, the peak rearward angular displacement of the head and T1, and the rearward displacement of the T1, were lesser for the BioRID P50F in comparison to the female volunteers. The biofidelity of the BioRID P50F prototype thus has some limitations. Based on a seat response comparison between the BioRID P50F and the BioRID II, it can be concluded that the male BioRID II is an insufficient representation of the average female in the assessment of the dynamic seat response and effectiveness of whiplash protection systems.

Dynamic Responses of Female Volunteers in Rear Impact Sled Tests at Two Head Restraint Distances

The objective of this study was to assess the biomechanical and kinematic responses of female volunteers with two different head restraint (HR) configurations when exposed to a low-speed rear loading environment. A series of rear impact sled tests comprising eight belted, near 50th percentile female volunteers, seated on a simplified laboratory seat, was performed with a mean sled acceleration of 2.1 g and a velocity change of 6.8 km/h. Each volunteer underwent two tests; the first test configuration, HR10, was performed at the initial HR distance ∼10 cm and the second test configuration, HR15, was performed at ∼15 cm. Time histories, peak values and their timing were derived from accelerometer data and video analysis, and response corridors were also generated. The results were separated into three different categories, HR10C (N = 8), HR15C (N = 6), and HR15NC (N = 2), based on: (1) the targeted initial HR distance [10 cm or 15 cm] and (2) whether the volunteers’ head had made contact with the HR [Contact (C) or No Contact (NC)] during the test event. The results in the three categories deviated significantly. The greatest differences were found for the average peak head angular displacements, ranging from 10° to 64°. Furthermore, the average neck injury criteria (NIC) value was 22% lower in HR10C (3.9 m2/s2), and 49% greater in HR15NC (7.4 m2/s2) in comparison to HR15C (5.0 m2/s2). This study supplies new data suitable for validation of mechanical or mathematical models of a 50th percentile female. A model of a 50th percentile female remains to be developed and is urgently required to complement the average male models to enhance equality in safety assessments. Hence, it is important that future protection systems are developed and evaluated with female properties taken into consideration too. It is likely that the HR15 test configuration is close to the limit for avoiding HR contact for this specific seat setup. Using both datasets (HR15C and HR15NC), each with its corresponding HR contact condition, will be possible in future dummy or model evaluation.

Is Acceleration a Valid Proxy for Injury Risk in Minimal Damage Traffic Crashes? A Comparative Review of Volunteer, ADL and Real-World Studies

Injury claims associated with minimal damage rear impact traffic crashes are often defended using a “biomechanical approach,” in which the occupant forces of the crash are compared to the forces of activities of daily living (ADLs), resulting in the conclusion that the risk of injury from the crash is the same as for ADLs. The purpose of the present investigation is to evaluate the scientific validity of the central operating premise of the biomechanical approach to injury causation; that occupant acceleration is a scientifically valid proxy for injury risk. Data were abstracted, pooled, and compared from three categories of published literature: (1) volunteer rear impact crash testing studies, (2) ADL studies, and (3) observational studies of real-world rear impacts. We compared the occupant accelerations of minimal or no damage (i.e., 3 to 11 kph speed change or “delta V”) rear impact crash tests to the accelerations described in 6 of the most commonly reported ADLs in the reviewed studies. As a final step, the injury risk observed in real world crashes was compared to the results of the pooled crash test and ADL analyses, controlling for delta V. The results of the analyses indicated that average peak linear and angular acceleration forces observed at the head during rear impact crash tests were typically at least several times greater than average forces observed during ADLs. In contrast, the injury risk of real-world minimal damage rear impact crashes was estimated to be at least 2000 times greater than for any ADL. The results of our analysis indicate that the principle underlying the biomechanical injury causation approach, that occupant acceleration is a proxy for injury risk, is scientifically invalid. The biomechanical approach to injury causation in minimal damage crashes invariably results in the vast underestimation of the actual risk of such crashes, and should be discontinued as it is a scientifically invalid practice.