Óscar Juste-Lorente

Objective: The objective of this study is to analyze the 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) motion of the spine using the finite helical axis (FHA) in three postmortem human surrogates (PMHS) sled tests. Methods: The sled test configurations corresponded to a 30° nearside oblique impact at 35 km/h. Two different restraint system versions (RSv) were used. RSv1 was used for PMHS A and B while RSv2 was used for PMHS C. The 6 DOF motion of the head and three selected vertebrae have been analyzed using the FHA which describes the 3 D motion of a rigid body between two instants of time as a rotation about and a translation along a unit vector. A minimal amount of rotation is necessary to the FHA calculation, thus the FHA components have been calculated based on a pre-defined interval of 8° of rotation. Results: The analysis of the FHA components demonstrated right lateral bending until around 100 ms, when the rebound phase was reached and the head and the lower spine undergoes left lateral bending. The three PMHS exhibited, in general, flexion movement of the whole body and torsion to the right side of the occupant. This general motion can be associated to the effect of the seatbelt acting as a fulcrum of the rotational movement of the bony landmarks. The interaction of the PMHS with the retention system can be noted by analyzing the time in which the head and the upper spine initiated the rotation and the sudden changes of rotational direction of the three PMHS’s head. Conclusions: The rotational analyses have shown to be more sensitive to experimental events than the trajectory analyses for the studied physical tests. Additionally, the results presented in the present study contributes to the analysis of the body kinematics during an oblique impact and adds new experimental data for Human Body Models (HBM) and Anthropometric Test Devices (ATD) benchmarking.

Regulation ECE-22.05/06 does not require a helmet penetration test. Penetration testing is controversial since it has been shown that it may cause the helmet to behave in a non-desirable stiff way in real-world crashes. This study aimed to assess the effect of the penetration test in the impact performance of helmets. Twenty full-face motorcycle helmets were penetration tested at multiple locations of the helmet shell. Then, 10 helmets were selected and split into two groups (hard shell and soft shell) depending on the results of the penetration tests. These 10 helmets were then drop tested at front, lateral, and top areas at two different impact speeds (5 m/s and 8.2 m/s) to assess their impact performance against head injuries. The statistical analyses did not show any significant difference between the two groups (hard/soft shell) at 5 m/s. Similar results were observed at 8.2 m/s, except for the top area of the helmet in which the peak linear acceleration was significantly higher for the soft shell group than for the hard shell group (230 ± 12 g vs. 211 ± 11 g; p-value = 0.038). The results of this study suggest that a stiffer shell does not necessarily cause helmets to behave in a stiffer way when striking rigid flat surfaces. These experiments also showed that hard shell helmets can provide better protection at higher impact speeds without damaging helmet performance at lower impact speeds.

Oblique impacts of the helmet against the ground are the most frequent scenarios in real-world motorcycle crashes. The combination of two factors that largely affect the results of oblique impact tests are discussed in this work. This study aims to quantify the effect of the friction at the interface between the headform and the interior of a motorcycle helmet at different magnitudes of tangential velocity. The helmeted headform, with low friction and high friction surface of the headform, was dropped against three oblique anvils at different impact velocities resulting in three different magnitudes of the tangential velocity (3.27 m/s, 5.66 m/s, 8.08 m/s) with the same normal component of the impact velocity (5.66 m/s). Three impact directions (front, left-side and right-side) and three repetitions per impact condition were tested resulting in 54 impacts. Tangential velocity variation showed little effect on the linear acceleration results. On the contrary, the rotational results showed that the effect of the headform’s surface depends on the magnitude of the tangential velocity and on the impact direction. These results indicate that a combination of low friction with low tangential velocities may result into underprediction of the rotational headform variables that would not be representative of real-world conditions.

Objective: The objective of this article is to compare the performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (CRS) mounted on 2 different seats.Methods: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. Two different seats (seat A, seat B) were used. Three repetitions per ATD and mounting seat were done, resulting in a total of 12 sled crashes. Dummy sensors measured the head tri-axial acceleration and angular rate and the thorax tri-axial acceleration, all acquired at 10,000Hz. A high-speed video camera recorded the impact at 1,000 frames per second. The 3D kinematics of the head and torso of the ATDs were captured using a high-speed motion capture system (1,000 Hz). A pair-matched statistical analysis compared the outcomes of the tests using the 2 different seats.Results: Statistically significant differences in the kinematic response of the ATDs associated with the type of seat were observed. The maximum 3ms peak of the resultant head acceleration was higher on seat A for the P3 dummy (54.5 1.9 g vs. 44.2 +/- 0.5 g; P =.012) and for the P6 dummy (56.0 +/- 0.8 g vs. 51.7 +/- 1.2 g; P =.015). The peak belt force was higher on seat A than on seat B for the P3 dummy (5,488.0 +/- 198.0N vs. 4,160.6 +/- 63.6N; P =.008) and for the P6 dummy (7,014.0 +/- 271.0N vs. 5,719.3 +/- 37.4N; P =.015). The trajectory of the ATD head was different between the 2 seats in the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes.Conclusion: The results suggest that the overall response of the booster-seated occupant exposed to the same impact conditions was different depending on the seat used regardless of the size of the ATD. The differences observed in the response of the occupants between the 2 seats can be attributed to the differences in cushion stiffness, seat pan geometry, and belt geometry. However, these results were obtained for 2 particular seat models and a specific CRS and therefore cannot be directly extrapolated to the generality of vehicle seats and CRS.