A computational biomechanical analysis to assess the trade-off between chest deflection and spine translation in side impact.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to evaluate how the impact energy is apportioned between chest deflection and translation of the vehicle occupant for various side impact conditions.

METHODS

The Autoliv Total Human Model for Safety (modified THUMS v1.4) was subjected to localized lateral constant velocity impacts to the upper body. First, the impact tests performed on postmortem human subjects (PMHS) were replicated to evaluate THUMS biofidelity. In these tests, a 75-mm-tall flat probe impacted the thorax at 3 m/s at 3 levels (shoulder, upper chest, and mid-chest) and 3 angles (lateral, +15° posterolateral, and -15° anterolateral), for a stroke of 72 mm. Second, a parametric analysis was performed: the Autoliv THUMS response to a 250-mm impact was evaluated for varying impact levels (shoulder to mid-thorax by 50-mm increments), obliquity (0° [pure lateral] to +20° [posterior impacts] and to -20° [anterior impacts], by 5° steps), and impactor pitch (from 0 to 25° by 5° steps). A total of 139 simulations were run. The impactor force, chest deflection, spine displacement, and spine velocity were calculated for each simulation.

RESULTS

The Autoliv THUMS biofidelity was found acceptable. Overall, the predictions from the model were in good agreement with the PMHS results. The worst ratings were observed for the anterolateral impacts. For the parametric analysis, maximum chest deflection (MCD) and maximum spine displacement (MSD) were found to consistently follow opposite trends with increasing obliquity. This trend was level dependent, with greater MCD (lower MSD) for the higher impact levels. However, the spine velocity for the 250-mm impactor stroke followed an independent trend that could not be linked to MCD or MSD. This suggests that the spine velocity, which can be used as a proxy for the thorax kinetic energy, needs to be included in the design parameters of countermeasures for side impact protection.

CONCLUSION

The parametric analysis reveals a trade-off between the deformation of the chest (and therefore the risk of rib fracture) and the lateral translation of the spine: reducing the maximum chest deflection comes at the cost of increasing the occupant lateral displacement. The trade-off between MCD and MSD is location dependent, which suggests that an optimum point of loading on the chest for the action of a safety system can be found.