Article

Analysis of spinal motion and loads during frontal impacts. Comparison between PMHS and ATD.

University of Virginia ECIP- Universidad de Navarra.
Annals of advances in automotive medicine 01/2010; 54:61-78.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Quantifying the kinematics of the human spine during a frontal impact is a challenge due to the multi-degree-of-freedom structure of the vertebral column. This papers reports on a series of six frontal impacts sled tests performed on three Post Mortem Human Surrogates (PMHS). Each subject was exposed first to a low-speed, non-injurious frontal impact (9 km/h) and then to a high-speed one (40 km/h). Five additional tests were performed using the Hybrid III 50(th) percentile male ATD for comparison with the PMHS. A 3D motion capture system was used to record the 6-degree-of-freedom motion of body segments (head, T1, T8, L2, L4 and pelvis). The 3D trajectories of individual bony structures in the PMHS were determined using bone-mounted marker arrays, thus avoiding skin-attached markers and their potential measurements artifacts. The PMHS spines showed different behavior between low and high speed. While at low speed the head and upper spinal segments lagged the lower portion of the spine and pelvis in reaching their maximum forward displacement (time for maximum forward head excursion was 254.3±31.9 ms and 140.3±9 ms for the pelvis), these differences were minimal at high speed (127±2.6 ms for the head vs. 116.7±3.5 ms for the pelvis). The ATD did not exhibit this speed-dependant behavior. Furthermore, the ATD's forward displacements were consistently less than those exhibited by the PMHS, regardless of the speed. Neck loads at the atlanto-occipital joint were estimated for the PMHS using inverse dynamics techniques and compared to those measured in the ATD. It was found that the axial and shear forces and the flexion moment at the upper neck of the PMHS were higher than those measured in the ATD.

Full-text

Available from: Patrick O Riley, Jun 08, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
104 Views
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clavicle injuries were frequently observed in automotive side and frontal crashes. Finite element (FE) models have been developed to understand the injury mechanism, although no clavicle loading response corridors yet exist in the literature to ensure the model response biofidelity. Moreover, the typically developed structural level (e.g., force-deflection) response corridors were shown to be insufficient for verifying the injury prediction capacity of FE model, which usually is based on strain related injury criteria. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop both the structural (force vs deflection) and material level (strain vs force) clavicle response corridors for validating FE models for injury risk modeling. 20 Clavicles were loaded to failure under loading conditions representative of side and frontal crashes respectively, half of which in axial compression, and the other half in three point bending. Both structural and material response corridors were developed for each loading condition. FE model that can accurately predict structural response and strain level provides a more useful tool in injury risk modeling and prediction. The corridor development method in this study could also be extended to develop corridors for other components of the human body.
    Journal of Biomechanics 06/2014; 47(11). DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.06.004 · 2.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The goal of this study is to characterize the in situ 6-degree-of-freedom kinematics of the head, 3 vertebrae (T1, T8, and L2), and the pelvis in a 40 km/h frontal impact. Methods: Three postmortem human surrogates (PMHS) were exposed to a deceleration of 15 g over 125 ms and the motion of selected anatomical structures (head, T1, T8, L2, and pelvis) was tracked at 1000 Hz using an optoelectric stereophotogrammetric system. Displacements of the analyzed structures are reported in the sagittal and the transverse planes. Rotations of the structures are described using the finite helical axis of the motion. Results: Anterior displacements were 530.5 ± 39.4 mm (head), 434.7 ± 20.0 mm (T1), 353.3 ± 29.6 mm (T8), 219.9 ± 19.3 mm (L2), and 78.9 ± 22.1 mm (pelvis). The ratio between peak anterior and lateral displacement was up to 19 percent (T1) and 26 percent (head). Magnitudes of the rotation of the head (69.9 ± 1.5°), lumbar (66.5 ± 9.1°), and pelvis (63.8 ± 11.8°) were greater than that of the thoracic vertebrae (T1: 49.1 ± 7.8°; T8: 47.7 ± 6.3°). Thoracic vertebrae exhibited a complex rotation behavior caused by the asymmetric loading of the shoulder belt. Rotation of the lumbar vertebra and pelvis occurred primarily within the sagittal plane (flexion). Conclusion: Despite the predominance of the sagittal motion of the occupant in a pure (12 o'clock) frontal impact, the asymmetry of belt loading induced other relevant displacements and rotations of the head and thoracic spine. Attempts to model occupant kinematics in a frontal impact should consider these results to biofidelically describe the interaction of the torso with the belt.
    Traffic Injury Prevention 04/2014; 15(3):294-301. DOI:10.1080/15389588.2013.817668 · 1.29 Impact Factor