Comparing the kinematics of the head and spine between volunteers and PMHS: A Methodology to estimate the kinematics of pediatric occupants in a frontal impact

Traumatic brain and skull injuries are the most common serious injuries sustained by children in motor vehicle crashes. The spine dictates the position and orientation of the head during the impact. Research has shown major discrepancies between the spinal kinematics of current pediatric Anthropomorphic Test Devices and humans during frontal impacts. The paucity of pediatric experimental data requires of applying scaling methods to predict the pediatric response using adult data. This paper presents data on four different experimental data sets corresponding to non-injurious low-speed impacts with pediatric and adult volunteers and to low-speed and high-speed impacts with Post Mortem Human Surrogates (PMHS). Two published scaling methods (mass scaling and SAE scaling) were assessed using volunteer data and failed to predict the actual pediatric displacement. A new scaling method was developed to improve the prediction of the pediatric response at low speed. The new method was then applied to the high-speed PMHS data to provide an approximation of the displacements of the head, thoracic spine and pelvis of a 6-year-old occupant in a 40 km/h frontal impact. The limitations of the method are discussed in the paper.

[1]  Maryvonne Dejeammes,et al.  Exploration of Biomechanical Data Towards a Better Evaluation of Tolerance for Children Involved in Automotive Accidents , 1984 .

[2]  Stanley Lemeshow,et al.  Selected body measurements of children 6-11 years. , 1973, Vital and health statistics. Series 11, Data from the National Health Survey.

[3]  Harold J. Mertz,et al.  Size, Weight and Biomechanical Impact Response Requirements for Adult Size Small Female and Large Male Dummies , 1989 .

[4]  Greg Shaw,et al.  A Normalization Technique for Developing Corridors from Individual Subject Responses , 2004 .

[5]  Dimitrios Kallieris,et al.  Response and vulnerability of the human body at different impact velocities in simulated three-point belted cadaver tests , 1978 .

[6]  Jason F Luck,et al.  Pediatric thoracoabdominal biomechanics. , 2009, Stapp car crash journal.

[7]  Francisco J Lopez-Valdes,et al.  The biomechanics of the pediatric and adult human thoracic spine. , 2011, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

[8]  Jason Forman,et al.  A comparison between a child-size PMHS and the Hybrid III 6 YO in a sled frontal impact. , 2009, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

[9]  John W. Melvin,et al.  Whole-Body Human Surrogate Response to Three-Point Harness Restraint , 1978 .

[10]  Jason Forman,et al.  The Frontal-Impact Response of a Booster-Seated Child-Size PMHS , 2010, Traffic injury prevention.

[11]  G L Kinzel,et al.  Measurement of the total motion between two body segments. I. Analytical development. , 1972, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  Greg Shaw,et al.  Impact response of restrained PMHS in frontal sled tests: skeletal deformation patterns under seat belt loading. , 2009, Stapp car crash journal.

[13]  Kristy B Arbogast,et al.  Comparison of kinematic responses of the head and spine for children and adults in low-speed frontal sled tests. , 2009, Stapp car crash journal.

[14]  D. Kallieris,et al.  Prediction of Cervical Spine Injury Risk for the 6-Year-Old Child in Frontal Crashes , 2003, Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

[15]  Kristy B Arbogast,et al.  Analysis of spinal motion and loads during frontal impacts. Comparison between PMHS and ATD. , 2010, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

[16]  Rolf H. Eppinger,et al.  Development of dummy and injury index for NHTSA's thoracic side impact protection research program , 1984 .

[17]  Dimitrios Kallieris,et al.  COMPARISON BETWEEN CHILD CADAVERS AND CHILD DUMMY BY USING CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS IN SIMULATED COLLISIONS , 1976 .

[18]  Jason Forman,et al.  Occupant restraint in the rear seat: ATD responses to standard and pre-tensioning, force-limiting belt restraints. , 2008, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

[19]  Jeffrey Richard Crandall,et al.  SPINAL KINEMATICS OF RESTRAINED OCCUPANTS IN FRONTAL IMPACTS , 2001 .

[20]  Jac Wismans,et al.  Child restraint evaluation by experimental and mathematical simulation , 1979 .

[21]  Priya Prasad,et al.  Biomechanical and scaling bases for frontal and side impact injury assessment reference values. , 2003, Stapp car crash journal.

[22]  Kristy B Arbogast,et al.  Injuries to children in forward facing child restraints. , 2002, Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

[23]  Claude Tarriere,et al.  Comparative Study of Restrained Child Dummies and Cadavers in Experimental Crashes , 1993 .