Cervical spine injury in rollover crashes: Anthropometry, excursion, roof deformation, and ATD prediction.

While rollover crashes are rare, approximately one third of vehicle occupant fatalities occur in rollover crashes. Most severe-to-fatal injuries resulting from rollover crashes occur in the head or neck region, due to head and neck interaction with the roof during the crash. While many studies have used anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) to predict head and neck injury, the biofidelity of ATDs in rollover has not been established. This study aims to build on previous research to compare the dynamic response and injuries sustained by four post mortem human surrogates (PMHS) to those predicted by six different ATDs in full-scale rollover crash tests. Additionally, this study evaluates injuries sustained by PMHS relative to possible contributing factors including occupant kinematics, occupant anthropometry, and vehicle roof deformation. While the vehicle kinematics and roof deformation were comparable for all tests, three out of the four PMHS sustained cervical spine injury, but only the tallest specimen sustained cervical spine fracture. Neck flexion at the time of head-to-roof contact appears to have affected cervical spine injury risk in these cases. Despite the injuries sustained in the PMHS, none of the six ATDs measured forces or accelerations that exceeded injury assessment reference values (IARVs), which adds to recent literature illustrating substantial differences between ATDs and PMHS in a rollover-like scenario.

Repeatability study of replicate crash tests: A signal analysis approach.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an objective basis on which to evaluate the repeatability of vehicle crash test methods, a recently developed signal analysis method was used to evaluate correlation of sensor time history data between replicate vehicle crash tests. The goal of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of rollover crash tests performed with the Dynamic Rollover Test System (DRoTS) relative to other vehicle crash test methods. METHODS: Test data from DRoTS tests, deceleration rollover sled (DRS) tests, frontal crash tests, frontal offset crash tests, small overlap crash tests, small overlap impact (SOI) crash tests, and oblique crash tests were obtained from the literature and publicly available databases (the NHTSA vehicle database and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety TechData) to examine crash test repeatability. RESULTS: Signal analysis of the DRoTS tests showed that force and deformation time histories had good to excellent repeatability, whereas vehicle kinematics showed only fair repeatability due to the vehicle mounting method for one pair of tests and slightly dissimilar mass properties (2.2%) in a second pair of tests. Relative to the DRS, the DRoTS tests showed very similar or higher levels of repeatability in nearly all vehicle kinematic data signals with the exception of global X' (road direction of travel) velocity and displacement due to the functionality of the DRoTS fixture. Based on the average overall scoring metric of the dominant acceleration, DRoTS was found to be as repeatable as all other crash tests analyzed. Vertical force measures showed good repeatability and were on par with frontal crash barrier forces. Dynamic deformation measures showed good to excellent repeatability as opposed to poor repeatability seen in SOI and oblique deformation measures. CONCLUSIONS: Using the signal analysis method as outlined in this article, the DRoTS was shown to have the same or better repeatability of crash test methods used in government regulatory and consumer evaluation test protocols.

Repeatability of a dynamic rollover test system.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to characterize the rollover crash and to evaluate the repeatability of the Dynamic Rollover Test System (DRoTS) in terms of initial roof-to-ground contact conditions, vehicle kinematics, road reaction forces, and vehicle deformation. METHODS: Four rollover crash tests were performed on 2 pairs of replicate vehicles (2 sedan tests and 2 compact multipurpose van [MPV] tests), instrumented with a custom inertial measurement unit to measure vehicle and global kinematics and string potentiometers to measure pillar deformation time histories. The road was instrumented with load cells to measure reaction loads and an optical encoder to measure road velocity. Laser scans of pre- and posttest vehicles were taken to provide detailed deformation maps. RESULTS: Initial conditions were found to be repeatable, with the largest difference seen in drop height of 20 mm; roll rate, roll angle, pitch angle, road velocity, drop velocity, mass, and moment of inertia were all 7% different or less. Vehicle kinematics (roll rate, road speed, roll and pitch angle, global Z' acceleration, and global Z' velocity) were similar throughout the impact; however, differences were seen in the sedan tests because of a vehicle fixation problem and differences were seen in the MPV tests due to an increase in reaction forces during leading side impact likely caused by disparities in roll angle (3° difference) and mass properties (2.2% in moment of inertia [MOI], 53.5 mm difference in center of gravity [CG] location). CONCLUSIONS: Despite those issues, kinetic and deformation measures showed a high degree of repeatability, which is necessary for assessing injury risk in rollover because roof strength positively correlates with injury risk (Brumbelow 2009). Improvements of the test equipment and matching mass properties will ensure highly repeatable initial conditions, vehicle kinematics, kinetics, and deformations.

Constrained Laboratory vs. Unconstrained Steering-Induced Rollover Crash Tests.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate how well an in-laboratory rollover crash test methodology that constrains vehicle motion can reproduce the dynamics of unconstrained full-scale steering-induced rollover crash tests in sand. METHODS: Data from previously-published unconstrained steering-induced rollover crash tests using a full-size pickup and mid-sized sedan were analyzed to determine vehicle-to-ground impact conditions and kinematic response of the vehicles throughout the tests. Then, a pair of replicate vehicles were prepared to match the inertial properties of the steering-induced test vehicles and configured to record dynamic roof structure deformations and kinematic response. RESULTS: Both vehicles experienced greater increases in roll-axis angular velocities in the unconstrained tests than in the constrained tests; however, the increases that occurred during the trailing side roof interaction were nearly identical between tests for both vehicles. Both vehicles experienced linear accelerations in the constrained tests that were similar to those in the unconstrained tests, but the pickup, in particular, had accelerations that were matched in magnitude, timing, and duration very closely between the two test types. Deformations in the truck test were higher in the constrained than the unconstrained, and deformations in the sedan were greater in the unconstrained than the constrained as a result of constraints of the test fixture, and differences in impact velocity for the trailing side. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study suggest that in-laboratory rollover tests can be used to simulate the injury-causing portions of unconstrained rollover crashes. To date, such a demonstration has not yet been published in the open literature. This study did, however, show that road surface can affect vehicle response in a way that may not be able to be mimicked in the laboratory. Lastly, this study showed that configuring the in-laboratory tests to match the leading-side touchdown conditions could result in differences in the trailing side impact conditions.

Variation in the human ribs geometrical properties and mechanical response based on X-ray computed tomography images resolution.

Computational models of the human body are commonly used for injury prediction in automobile safety research. To create these models, the geometry of the human body is typically obtained from segmentation of medical images such as computed tomography (CT) images that have a resolution between 0.2 and 1mm/pixel. While the accuracy of the geometrical and structural information obtained from these images depend greatly on their resolution, the effect of image resolution on the estimation of the ribs geometrical properties has yet to be established. To do so, each of the thirty-four sections of ribs obtained from a Post Mortem Human Surrogate (PMHS) was imaged using three different CT modalities: standard clinical CT (clinCT), high resolution clinical CT (HRclinCT), and microCT. The images were processed to estimate the rib cross-section geometry and mechanical properties, and the results were compared to those obtained from the microCT images by computing the 'deviation factor', a metric that quantifies the relative difference between results obtained from clinCT and HRclinCT to those obtained from microCT. Overall, clinCT images gave a deviation greater than 100%, and were therefore deemed inadequate for the purpose of this study. HRclinCT overestimated the rib cross-sectional area by 7.6%, the moments of inertia by about 50%, and the cortical shell area by 40.2%, while underestimating the trabecular area by 14.7%. Next, a parametric analysis was performed to quantify how the variations in the estimate of the geometrical properties affected the rib predicted mechanical response under antero-posterior loading. A variation of up to 45% for the predicted peak force and up to 50% for the predicted stiffness was observed. These results provide a quantitative estimate of the sensitivity of the response of the FE model to the resolution of the images used to generate it. They also suggest that a correction factor could be derived from the comparison between microCT and HRclinCT images to improve the response of the model developed based on HRclinCT images.

Occupant Kinematics in Laboratory Rollover Tests: ATD Response and Biofidelity.

Rollover crashes are a serious public health problem in United States, with one third of traffic fatalities occurring in crashes where rollover occurred. While it has been shown that occupant kinematics affect the injury risk in rollover crashes, no anthropomorphic test device (ATD) has yet demonstrated kinematic biofidelity in rollover crashes. Therefore, the primary goal of this study was to assess the kinematic response biofidelity of six ATDs (Hybrid III, Hybrid III Pedestrian, Hybrid III with Pedestrian Pelvis, WorldSID, Polar II and THOR) by comparing them to post mortem human surrogate (PMHS) kinematic response targets published concurrently; and the secondary goal was to evaluate and compare the kinematic response differences among these ATDs. Trajectories (head, T1, T4, T10, L1 and sacrum), spinal segment (head-to-T1, T1-to-T4, T4-T10, T10-L1, and L1-to-sacrum) rotations relative to the rollover buck, and spinal segment extension/compression were calculated from the collected kinematics data from an optical motion tracking system. Response differences among the ATDs were observed mainly due to the different lateral bending stiffness of the spine from their varied architecture, while the additional thoracic joint in Polar II and THOR did not seem to provide more flexion/extension compliance than the other ATDs. In addition, the ATD response data were compared to PMHS response corridors developed from similar tests for assessing ATD biofidelity. All of the ATDs, generally, drifted outboard and upward during the tests similar to the PMHS. However, accompanied with this upward and outward motion, the ATD head and upper torso pitched forward (~10 degrees) while the PMHS' head and upper torso pitching rearward (~10 to ~15 degrees), due to the absence of flexion/extension compliance in the ATD spine. The differences in these pitch motions resulted in a difference of 130 mm to 160 mm in the longitudinal position of the head at 195 degrees of roll angle. Finally, substantially less lateral spinal bending was also observed in the ATDs compared to the PMHS. The results of the current study suggests there is greater upper spine flexion/extension, and lateral bending stiffness in all of the ATDs in comparison to the PMHS, and provided information for improvement of ATD biofidelity in future for rollover crashes.