DEVELOPMENT AND REFINEMENT OF ABDOMINAL-RESPONSE CORRIDORS FINAL REPORT ...

88 Pages·2001·1.27 MB·English

UMTRI-2001-10

DEVELOPMENT AND REFINEMENT OF
ABDOMINAL-RESPONSE CORRIDORS

FINAL REPORT

Project D2a
Development of a Reusable, Rate-Sensitive Abdomen

Warren N. Hardy
Lawrence W. Schneider

University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute
Biosciences Division
2901 Baxter Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150

Submitted to
General Motors Corporation
Warren, Michigan

July 2001

Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
DEVELOPMENT AND REFINEMENT OF ABDOMINAL - July 2001
RESPONSE CORRIDORS, Project D2a - Development of a
6. Performing Organization Code
Reusable, Rate-Sensitive Abdomen1
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Warren N. Hardy and Lawrence W. Schneider UMTRI-2001-10
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit no. (TRAIS)
University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute 11. Contract or Grant No.
2901 Baxter Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 U.S.A.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
General Motors Corporation Final Report
30500 Mound Rd.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Warren, MI 48090-9055
15. Supplementary Notes
1The work covered by this report was financed by General Motors (GM) pursuant to an
agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation.

16. Abstract
This study was conducted in support of the development of a new, reusable, biofidelic
abdomen for the Hybrid III ATD in Project D2b. The goals were to resolve discrepancies
and fill in some of the gaps with regard to the biomechanical response of the human
abdomen to dynamic loading in the automotive environment. Three types of impact tests
were conducted. Following a review and reanalysis of the data in the literature on
abdominal impact response, rigid-bar tests were performed into the mid and upper abdomen
of unembalmed instrumented human cadavers using different impactor speeds. Most tests
were conducted using a free-back condition, but several tests were conducted using a fixed-
back condition to examine the effects of body mass and spinal flexion on the response.
Force-deflection corridors were developed and compared to those previously established by
other researchers. The second type of test involved dynamic belt loading of the
unembalmed cadaver abdomen at the lower and midabdomen regions. The results were used
to establish new abdominal force-deflection corridors for belt loading. The third type of test
conducted involved static deployment of passenger frontal-impact airbags into the closely
positioned abdomen. Three airbag tests were conducted using three unembalmed cadavers.
The deflection-time histories were used to guide the development of a repeatable high-speed
surrogate airbag loading device that uses a low-mass cylinder to simulate close-proximity
passenger airbag loading of the abdomen. This device was used to conduct out-of-position,
airbag-loading tests into the cadaver abdomen and to develop force-deflection corridors for
this type of abdomen loading.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Abdominal response, ATD, Crash dummy, Impact response, Unlimited
Response corridors, Belt loading, Airbag loading
19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classi. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
None None 88

iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was sponsored by the General Motors Corporation (GM) pursuant to an
agreement between GM and the U.S. Department of Transportation. The authors are
thankful for the opportunity and support provided for this project.

This work was conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, Biosciences Division, and was carried out in accordance with the practices
outlined by the Anatomical Donations Program of the University of Michigan Medical
School. Necropsy assistance and pathology analysis were provided by Dr. Kanu Virani,
consulting forensic pathologist.

Thanks are also extended to members of the Biosciences Division: Brian Eby and James
Whitley for fixture fabrication assistance, Thomas Jeffreys for specimen preparation
assistance, Stewart Simonett for instrumentation assistance, Anthony King for data
processing assistance, and to Leda Ricci for assistance in coordinating project activities.

v
vi
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................ v
CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................... xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES............................................................. 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Rigid-Bar Loading......................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Belt Loading.................................................................................................. 4
1.2 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 5
2.0 METHODS............................................................................................................ 7
2.1 RIGID-BAR TESTS.............................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Free-Back Loading....................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Fixed-Back Loading..................................................................................... 11
2.2 SEATBELT TESTS............................................................................................... 11
2.3 AIRBAG TESTS.................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Passenger Airbag Loading........................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Surrogate Airbag Loading............................................................................ 16
2.4 TEST CONTROL.................................................................................................. 17
2.4.1 Facilities and Fixtures.................................................................................. 17
2.4.2 Signal Conditioning and Data Acquisition................................................... 17
2.4.3 Event Sequencing......................................................................................... 19
2.5 DATA PROCESSING........................................................................................... 19
2.5.1 Film Analysis............................................................................................... 19
2.5.2 Data Analysis............................................................................................... 19
3.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................... 23
3.1 FREE-BACK RIGID-BAR TESTS...................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Load and Penetration Measurement............................................................. 23
3.1.2 Load and Penetration Data........................................................................... 24
3.1.3 Load-Penetration Responses........................................................................ 24
3.1.4 Comparison to Cavanaugh Data................................................................... 27
3.1.5 Development of New Response Corridors................................................... 27
3.1.6 Injury-Related Findings................................................................................ 30
3.2 FIXED-BACK RIGID-BAR TESTS.................................................................... 30
3.2.1 Load and Penetration Data........................................................................... 30
3.2.2 Load-Penetration Responses........................................................................ 32
3.2.3 Comparison to Stalnaker Data...................................................................... 34
3.2.4 Low-Speed (3-m/s) Response...................................................................... 34
3.2.5 Injury-Related Findings................................................................................ 34
vii
3.3 SEATBELT TESTS............................................................................................... 35
3.3.1 Load and Penetration Measurement............................................................. 35
3.3.2 Load, Penetration, and Penetration Speed Data........................................... 37
3.3.3 Load-Penetration Responses........................................................................ 37
3.3.4 Development of New Response Corridor.................................................... 41
3.3.5 Comparison to Miller and Cavanaugh Data................................................. 41
3.3.6 Injury-Related Findings................................................................................ 44
3.4 AIRBAG TESTS ................................................................................................... 44
3.4.1 Surrogate Airbag Load Measurement.......................................................... 44
3.4.2 Surrogate Airbag Repeatability.................................................................... 45
3.4.3 Passenger and Surrogate Airbag Penetration Data....................................... 46
3.4.4 Passenger and Surrogate Airbag Penetration Speed Data............................ 46
3.4.5 Surrogate Airbag Load-Penetration Responses............................................ 49
3.4.6 Surrogate Airbag Response Corridor........................................................... 49
3.4.7 Comparison to Cavanaugh Data................................................................... 49
3.4.8 Injury-Related Findings................................................................................ 49
4.0 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................ 55
4.1 IMPACT RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS...................................................... 55
4.1.1 General Issues.............................................................................................. 55
4.1.2 Rigid-Bar Tests............................................................................................ 56
4.1.3 Seatbelt Tests................................................................................................ 57
4.1.4 Airbag Testing.............................................................................................. 58
4.1.5 Data Normalization...................................................................................... 59
4.2 INJURY RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS....................................................... 59
4.2.1 Laboratory Investigations............................................................................. 59
4.2.2 Field Investigations...................................................................................... 60
4.3 APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................ 62
5.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX A. Autopsy Results from Rigid-Bar Impacts ........................................... 65
APPENDIX B. Autopsy Results from Seatbelt Tests................................................... 69
APPENDIX C. Autopsy Results from Passenger Airbag and Surrogate Airbag Tests 71
APPENDIX D. Estimation of Reaction Load During Airbag-Abdomen Interaction... 73
viii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Free-Back Rigid-Bar Test Matrix of Subjects and Conditions................. 10
2. Fixed-Back Rigid-Bar Test Matrix of Subjects and Conditions............... 12
3. Seatbelt Loading Test Matrix of Subjects and Conditions....................... 14
4. Airbag Loading Test Matrix of Subjects and Conditions......................... 15
5. Surrogate Airbag Loading Test Matrix of Subjects and Conditions........ 18
6. Free-Back Rigid-Bar Test Results: Peak Values...................................... 30
7. Seatbelt Test Results: Peak Values........................................................... 44
8. Airbag Test Results: Maximum Values.................................................... 53

ix
x