Biofidelity assessment of the GHBMC M50-O in a rear-facing seat configuration during high-speed frontal impact.

The objective of this study was to assess the biofidelity of the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) 50th male (M50-O) v6.0 seated in an upright (25-degree recline) all-belts-to-seat (ABTS) in a 56 km/h rear-facing frontal impact. The experimental boundary conditions from the post-mortem human subjects (PMHS) tests were replicated in the computational finite element (FE) environment. The performance of the rigidized FE ABTS model obtained from the original equipment manufacturer was validated via simulations using a Hybrid III FE model and comparison with experiments. Biofidelity of the GHBMC M50-O was evaluated using the most updated NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System (BRS) method, where a biofidelity score under 2 indicates that the GHBMC response varies from the mean PMHS response by less than two standard deviations, suggesting good biofidelity. The GHBMC M50-O received an occupant response score and a seat loading score of 1.71 and 1.44, respectively. Head (BRS = 0.93) and pelvis (BRS = 1.29) resultant accelerations, and T-spine (avg. BRS = 1.55) and pelvis (BRS = 1.66) y-angular velocities were similar to the PMHS. The T-spine resultant accelerations (avg. BRS = 1.93) and head (BRS = 2.82), T1 (BRS = 2.10) and pelvis (BRS = 2.10) Z-displacements were underestimated in the GHBMC. Peak chest deflection in the anterior-posterior deflection in the GHBMC matched with the PMHS mean, however, the relative upward motion of abdominal contents and subsequent chest expansion were not observed in the GHBMC. Updates to the GHBMC M50-O towards improved thorax kinematics and mobility of abdominal organs should be considered to replicate PMHS characteristics more closely.

Thoracic responses and injuries to male postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in rear-facing seat configurations in high-speed frontal impacts.

Objective: One potential nonstandard seating configuration for vehicles with automated driving systems (ADS) is a reclined seat that is rear-facing when in a frontal collision. There are limited biomechanical response and injury data for this seating configuration during high-speed collisions. The main objective of this study was to investigate thoracic biomechanical responses and injuries to male postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in a rear-facing scenario with varying boundary conditions.Method: Fourteen rear-facing male PMHS tests (10 previously published and 4 newly tested) were conducted at two different recline angles (25-degree and 45-degree) in 56 km/h frontal impacts. PMHS were seated in two different seats; one used a Fixed D-Ring (FDR) seat belt assembly and one used an All Belts To Seat (ABTS) restraint. For thoracic instrumentation, strain gages were attached to ribs to quantify strain and fracture timing. A chestband was installed at the mid-sternum level to quantify anterior-posterior (AP) chest deflections. Data from the thorax instrumentation were analyzed to investigate injury mechanisms.Results: The PMHS sustained a greater number of rib fractures (NRF) in the 45-degree recline condition (12 ± 7 NRF for ABTS45 and 25 ± 18 NRF for FDR45) than the 25-degree condition (6 ± 4 NRF for ABTS25 and 12 ± 8 NRF for FDR25), despite AP chest compressions in the 45-degree condition (-23.7 ± 9.4 mm for ABTS45 and -39.6 ± 11.9 mm for FDR45) being smaller than the 25-degree condition (-38.9 ± 16.9 mm for ABTS25 and -55.0 ± 4.4 mm for FDR25). The rib fractures from the ABTS condition were not as symmetric as the FDR condition in the 25-degree recline angle due to a belt retractor structure located at one side of the seatback frame. Average peak AP chest compression occurred at 45.7 ± 3.4 ms for ABTS45, 45.6 ± 3.1 ms for FDR45, 46.7 ± 1.9 ms for ABTS25, and 46.9 ± 2.3 ms for FDR25. Average peak seatback resultant force occurred at 43.9 ± 0.9 ms for ABTS45, 44.6 ± 0.8 ms for FDR45, 42.5 ± 0.2 ms for ABTS25, and 41.5 ± 0.5 ms for FDR25. The majority of rib fractures occurred after peak AP chest compression and peak seatback resultant force likely due to the ramping motion of the PMHS, which might create a combined loading (e.g., AP deflection and upward deflection) to the thorax. Although NRF in the 45-degree reclined condition was greater than the 25-degree recline condition, similar magnitudes of rib strains were observed regardless of seat and restraint types, while strain modes varied.Conclusions: The majority of rib fractures occurred after peak AP chest compression and peak seatback force, especially in FDR25, ABTS45, and FDR45, while the PMHS ramped up along the seatback. AP chest compression, seatback load, and strain measured along the rib could not explain the greater NRF in the 45-degree recline conditions. A complex combination of AP chest deflection with upward deflection was discovered as a possible mechanism for rib fractures in PMHS subjected to rear-facing frontal impacts in this study.

Mechanical Aspects of Intervertebral Disc Injury and Implications on Biomechanics.

STUDY DESIGN: This article comprises a review of the literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to elucidate the different types of structural failures exhibited in intervertebral discs (IVDs), summarize their potential causes with respect to mechanical loading conditions and the consequences on cell homeostasis and biomechanics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many studies have been performed to gain insight into how discogenic back pain progresses in humans both in vitro and in vivo as well as in animal disc models. However, there is a major need to summarize the common factors which initiate the structural failures observed in IVDs and the typical biomechanical changes. This work could help in developing mechanisms aiming to restore the biochemical and biomechanical balance of IVDs. METHODS: The different types of structural failures encountered in IVDs were reviewed from published literature. The types of mechanical loading causing these injuries and their physiological and biomechanical consequences were then summarized and linked to ongoing research in this area. RESULTS: The most prominent structural failures associated with IVDs are annulus tears, disc prolapse, endplate damage, disc narrowing, radial bulging, and osteophyte formation in the vertebrae. IVDs were found to be vulnerable to compression, flexion, axial rotation, and complex loading mechanisms through single impact, cyclical, and continuous loading. However, chronic loadings had a more damaging impact on the spine. Significant consequences include imbalance of metabolic enzymes and growth factors, alteration in stress profiles of IVDs and a decrease in mechanical stiffness resulting in impaired biomechanics of the spine. CONCLUSION: The mode of loading has an important impact on the severity and nature of failures seen in IVDs and the resulting consequences to biomechanics. However, further research is necessary to better understand to the mechanisms that link injury to degeneration and regeneration of IVD tissues. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.