John M. cavanaugh, Timothy Walilko, Jaekoo Chung, and Albert I.

King
Wayne State Univ.
962410
Abdominal Injury and Response in Side Impact
Copyright 1996 Society of Automotive Engineers. Inc.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to address abdominal
injury and response in cadaver whole body side impacts
and abdominal injury risk functions in SID and BIOSID
in whole body impacts. Side impact sled tests were
performed at Wayne State University using cadavers,
SID and BIOSID, with response measured at the
shoulder, thorax, abdominal and pelvic levels. The data
at the abdominal level are presented here. These data
provide further understanding of abdominal tolerance
and response in lateral impact and the ability of side
impact dummies to predict abdominal injury. In addition,
the padding data provide insight into tolerable armrest
loads.
INTRODUCTION
Abdominal organs are a significant source of injuries
in side impact. Bondy (1980) reviewed abdominal
injuries in the 1980 National Crash Severity Study
(NCSS) files from 1977-79 accident data. There were
1,519 abdominal injuries in the NCSS file for this
period. Abdominal organs accounted for 2.6% of all
injuries and 14.6% of all severe injuries (AIS 3,4,5) to
occupants of towaway vehicles. Injuries to kidney, liver
and spleen accounted for 32 % of all injuries to the
abdomen. Front damaged vehicles produced 739
abdominal injuries and side damaged vehicles 419, with
226 of these 419 being AIS 3-5. Contact points in liver,
kidney and spleen injuries included side interior surfaces
(which were second obly to the steering wheel as a
contact point) and to a lesser extent, armrests. Few
injuries occurred to restrained occupants (2.6% of all
AIS 3-5 injuries).
Siegel et aI (1993) studied 76 frontal impact and 45
lateral impact motor vehicle accident victims admitted to
a Level I trauma center. They utilized accident recon-
1
struction and medical data analysis. Contact with the
intruded side door caused lung, aorta, liver and pelvic
injuries. Contact with the side door without intrusion
was responsible for lung, liver and spleen injuries.
Abdominal organ injuries occurred in 47 patients, 23 in
frontal crashes and 24 in lateral crashes. The organ
injuries were to the spleen in 22 patients, the liver in 22,
the kidney in eight, the bowel in eight and the colon in
two. The authors concluded that belts did not prevent
thoracic and abdominal solid organ injuries in lateral
collisions in this group of patients but other investigators
have pointed out the benefits of seat belts to far side
occupants in side impact (ie. Warner et ai, 1990).
The side impact sled tests run at the WSU
Bioengineering Center can shed some light on the overall
side impact severity necessary to produce these
abdominal injuries and provides data on padding and
armrest stiffness that can reduce these injuries.
Ratwall tests: In the WSU cadaver flatwall tests the
shoulder (Irwin et al 1993), thoracic (Cavanaugh et al
1990b, Cavanaugh et al 1993) and pelvic (Cavanauglt et
al 1990b, Zhu et al 1993) injury and response data have
already been reported. The SID thoracic response data
has also been reported (Cavanaugh et at 1992, 1994).
The abdominal injury and response data has never been
reported and is presented here.
Armrest tests: In addition, the data from a series of
honeycomb armrest tests run with SID and BIOSID are
presented.
METHODS
Two types of tests were run: flatwall tests with SID,
BlOSID and cadavers and armrest tests with SID and
BIOSID. All the tests utilized the WSU WHAMill sled,
which was accelerated to 6.7 or 8.9 mls (15 or 20 miles
per hour) and suddenly decelerated upon impacting a
hydraulic snubber. During the deceleration, the subject
slid across a TeflonTM seat into a wall instrumented with
load cells. The velocity of the wall was zero at time of
dummy impact. The velocity of the subject just before
impact was close to peak sled velocity. All subjects were
instrumented with accelerometers to measure rib, spine,
pelvic and head accelerations. In addition, the BIOSID
was instrumented with six potentiometers, including two
at the abdominal ribs (ribs 4 and 5). High speed cameras
run at 500-1000 frames per second were used to monitor
the impact event.
Flatwall tests
Eight types of SID and BIOSID tests were run.
They are listed in Table 1 along with the number of
cadaver tests. The subject's left side impacted the wall
with the arm down. The impact wall included two load
cells at the abdominal level (Figure 1).
Armrest tests
SID and BIOSID were instrumented as for the
flatwall tests but in the armrest tests BIOSID was run
arm up and the subject's right side impacted the wall.
The overall dimensions and padding profile of the
impacted wall also differed from the flatwall tests and
included a projecting piece of padding at the abdominal
level. Two load cells were placed behind the shoulder,
thorax, and abdominal load plates and four behind the
pelvic load plate (Figure 2). Figure 2 further describes
padding types and dummy placement relative to the
padding. Eight dummy tests were run with two armrest
types as described in Table 2.
Crush data on the soft and stiff paper honeycomb
armrests is given in Table 3. The crush strengths were
derived from quasi-static tests of 15 x 15 x 10 em (6 x
6 x 4 inch) thick samples. A sample was taken from
each four foot by four foot billet for testing. The crush
strengths listed were the average value of compressive
strength from 1.3 to 7.5 cm (0.5 inch to 3 inches) of
crush. These values are somewhat less than the previous
crush strengths for this type of paper honeycomb used in
our laboratory.
Data processing
In the flatwali tests the data were analog filtered at
SAE channel class 1000 and digitized at a 10 kHz
sampling rate using a DSP Technologies Inc. off-board
data acquisition system. In the armrest tests the data
were filtered at 3.57 kHz and digitized at a 14.7 kHz
sampling rate using an IDDAS on-board data acquisition
system. The data were then filtered at SAE channel class
1000. The data were further processed after uploading to
a SUN workstation. The acceleration data were
2
processed using NHTSA FIRI00 software and as
outlined in Morgan et al (1986). BIOSID deflection data
were processed using the WSU V-STAR-C program. Rib
deflection, velocity and barrier force data were filtered
using a digital 300 Hz Butterworth filter.
RESULTS
Aatwall tests
Cadavers: Flatwall tests with cadavers demonstrate
that at sled velocities of 8.9 mls (twenty miles per hour),
injury of abdominal organs is a common occurrence as
is fracture of the lower ribs overlying these organs. Of
five unpadded tests run at 8.9-10.4 mis, three cadavers
sustained lacerations of liver or spleen and these same
three cadavers had 6-8 rib fractures at ribs 8-12 (Table
4A). Out of three tests run at 6.7 mls one cadaver
sustained abdominal organ injuries, and had two rib
fractures. The other two cadavers at this impact velocity
had no abdominal injury. Soft paper honeycomb of 55-
69 kPa (8-10 psi) crush strength substantially reduced
abdominal injury in 9 mls impacts. In five cadavers, no
abdominal organs were injured and four of five subjects
had no fractures of ribs 8-12. On the other hand, four
tests were run at 9 mls with stiffer padding and two
cadavers sustained abdominal injury and two had 6
fractures of ribs 8-12.
Figures 3A-G are scatter plots of abdominal injury
versus biomechanical response. The biomechanical
responses are listed in Table 4B for each test.
Abdominal injury in these plots is the sum of the squares
of the AIS of the three fonowing regions: left ribs 8-12,
right ribs 8-12 and abdominal organs. The value
obtained is similar to the Injury Severity Score of Baker
et al (1974) which is used for multiple body regions.
Biomechanical response includes peak acceleration of the
struck side eighth rib (100 Hz FIR filtered), average rib
acceleration (ARA) of the struck side eighth rib,
Average Spine Acceleration (ASA) and Thoracic Trauma
Index (TI1) using peak eighth rib acceleration. Lighter
subjects tend to have higher accelerations in an identical
impact to heavier subjects. A 75 kg standard mass was
used to normalize the response data, as is used in TIl.
Older subjects tend to have more injury than younger
subjects in identical impacts (although this was not
always the case in this study, Table 4A). Therefore, the
subjects' ages were nonnalized to a value of 45 years.
The acceleration responses in the Figure 3 include values
adjusted as follows: ASA and ARA were multiplied by
AGE/45 x MASS/75. The TTl kernel was multiplied by
MASS175 and summed with the product 1.4 x AGE
(Eppinger et ai, 1984). These data show that abdominal
injury started to occur at nonnalized T12y values of 72
g's, ASA of 37 g's, and TTl of 143 g's. It can also be
TABLE 1
No. of tests per subject
Velocity SID BIOSID CADAVERS PADDING
(Mileslhour)
15 4 2 3 unpadded
20 2 2 2 unpadded
20 2 1 3 4 inches of soft paper honeycomb
20 2 1 2 34 inches of stiff paper honeycomb
20 2 2 6 inches of ARCEL 310
-
20 2 2 12 inches of soft paper honeycomb
-
20 2 2 2 6-8 inches of soft paper honeycomb
20 2 2 8 inches of stiff paper honeycomb
-
The paper honeycomb used in these tests is a product of Hexacomb Corporation (Kalamazoo, MI). Arcel
is a product of ARCa Chemical Co. (Newton Square, PA).
TABLE 2
No. of tests per subject
Velocity SID BIOSID CADAVERS Armrest Padding
(Mileslhour)
20 2 2 10 inch thick stiff paper honeycomb
-
armrest
20 2 2 IO inch thick soft paper honeycomb
-
armrest
TABLE 3
Proposed armrest Tested Paper Armrest Padding
crush strength armrest honeycomb
(pounds per crush cell size
square inch) strength (inches)
10 (soft) 8.4 I IO inch thick stiff paper
honeycomb armrest
20 (stiff) 19.8 3/4 10 inch thick soft paper
honeycomb armrest
3
NOTE: AU. DlMENSIONS IN mil\.
Figure 1. Diagram of the flatwall test fixture showing the load plate and the two
load cells at the abdominal level.
4
6
Black squares represent load cells.
.00
v

[::;

24
t:::

:::.

:::
:::

I--'
l::
"......
Armrest FiXtUre
9.50
L L------J '--_-'
l.4.00...J
10.00
3,00 ; r- 3.00, I i I


PHC = PAPER HONEYCOMB
(ALL DIMENSIONS IN INCHES)
Figure 2. Diagram of armrest fixture used in this test series. The padding affixed
to the load plates was three and four inch thick paper honeycomb. The load plate
heights are as shown and were twenty inches wide. Each piece of paper
honeycomb was precrushed one-half inch. The armrest padding projected three
inches beyond the other pads. The SID was aligned so that the rib cage impacted
the shoulder and thoracic pads. The SID abdominal insert impacted the armrest
pad. The BIOSID was aligned such that ribs 1, 2 and 3 impacted the shoulder and
thoracic pads and ribs 4 and 5 impacted the armrest padding. Rib 4 was aligned
such that the top edge of the rib was the same height as the top edge of the
abdomen barrier.
1 OR 3/4 INCH CEll-SIZE PHC -'Oil DD
0.75
1 INCH CELl-SIZE PHC
3/4 INCH CELL-SIZE PHC---.....
5/8 INCH CELL-SIZE PHC---
TABLE 4A: ABDOMINAL INJURY SUMMARY, WSU-CDC CADAVER SIDE IMPACT FLATWALLTESTS
ABDOMINAL INTERNAL ORGAN INJURY RIB INJURY, RIBS 8-12 SUM OF
LEFT RIGHT SQUARES
RUN NO. AGE MASS SEX LEFT RIGHT TOTAL RIB RIB OF 3 AIS
(KG) AIS DESCRIPTION RIB FX RIB FX RIB FX ArS AIS
UNPADDED, PELVIC OFFSET +
SICOI 60 70.3 M 2 10 MM LIVER LAC. 4 3 7 3 2 17
SIC02 64 49.4 F 2 LAC. OF CAPSULE OF SPLEEN 6 2 8 3 2 17
SIC03 37 69.9 M Q NONE
l Q l l Q 1
AVG 54 63.2 1.3 4.0 1.7 5.7 2.7 1.3 12.7
UNPADDED, 9 m/s
srC04 69 57.6 M 2 TWO 25 x. 13 MM LAC. OF SPLEEN 5 1 6 3 1 14
SIC06 60 61.2 M Q NONE Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
AVO 65 59.4 1.0 2.5 0.5 3.0 1.5 0.5 7.0
UNPADDED, 6.7 mls
SIC05 67 44.0 M o NONE 0 0 0 0 0 0
SIC07 66 74.8 M o NONE 0 0 0 0 0 0
SlC08 64 73.9 F 1 25 MM LAC SPLEEN x. 2, 10 MM LAC LIVER
1 1 ! 1 11
AVG 66 64.3 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 3.7
SOFT PAD (8-10 PSI), 9 m/s
SICI0 60 62.1 M o NONE 0 0 0 0 0 0
SICll 54 55.3 F o NONE 0 0 0 0 0 0
SIC13 62 66.7 M o NONE 1 2 3 1 2 5
SIC15 43 68.9 F o NONE 0 0 0 0 0 0
SICI7 65 93.0 M Q NONE Q Q Q
Q 0
Q
AVO 57 69.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 1.0
STIFFER PAD (1325 PSI), 9 m/s
srC09 61 54.9 F o NONE 5 I 6 3 1 10
SICI2 68 54.4 F o NONE 2 1 3 2 1 5
SIC14 72 55.3 M 2 50 x. 12 MM LAC. SPLEEN NA NA NA NA NA NA
SICI6 58 56.7 F 1 LAC THROUOH SPLEEN
~ 1 .2 ~
I 26
AVO 65 55.3 1.5 4.0 1.0 5.0 2.7 1.0 13.7
0>
PELVIC OFFSET TESTS WERE RUN AT 8.9 TO 10.5 m/s NA = NOT AVAILABLE
.....
TABLE 4B: ABDOMINAL RESPONSE SUMMARY, WSU-CDC CADAVER SIDE IMPACT FLATWALL TESTS
300 HZ NORM AGE/45 AGE/45 AGE/45 AGE/45
ABD ABD FIRIOO It MASS175 FIR100 It MASSI75 ll. MASS175 ll. MASS/75
RUN NO. AGE MASS SEX FORCE FORCE T12Y TI2Y RIB 8 RIB 8 R8 R8 ll.RIB 8 T12Y T12Y
(KO) (kN) (kN) (O'S) (O'S) (O'S) (G'S) Ttl ARA15 ARA15 ASA15 ASA15
UNPADDED, PELVIC OFFSET
SICOI 60 70.3 M 3.52 3.68 --- --- 132.1 165.1 --- 50.1 62.7 --- ---
SlC02 64 49.4 F 2.44 3.23 116.0 108.7 114.2 107.0 165.5 57.0 53.4 69.5 65.1
SIC03 37 69.9 M 5.36 5.62 127.7 97.8 164.2 125.7 187.7 22.8 17.5 80.8 61.9
AVG 54 63.2 3.77 4.17 121.8 145.6 136.8 132.6 176.6 43.3 44.5 75.1 63.5
UNPADDED, 9 m/a
SIC04 69 57.6 M 3.77 4.49 75.5 88.9 163.3 192.3 188.3 38.0 44.7 53.2 62.6
SIC06 60 61.2 M 4.10 4.69 92.8 10LO 145.4 158.2 181.2 70.4 76.7 47.1 51.3
AVG 65 59.4 3.93 4.59 84.2 95.0 154.3 175.3 184.8 54.2 60.7 50.2 57.0
UNPADDED, 6.7 m/a
SlC05 67 44.0 M 2.63 3.75 92.3 80.6 100.4 87.7 150.3 76.6 66.9 68.7 60.0
S1C07 66 74.8 M 2.82 2.82 42.0 61.5 117.8 172.4 172.2 30.9 45.2 31.6 46.3
SIC08 64 73.9 F 2.80 2.83 51.4 72.0 --- --- --- ---
-_.
36.7 51.5
- - - - -
AVO 66 64.3 2.75 3.13 61.9 71.4 109.1 130.1 161.2 53.8 56.1 45.7 52.6
SOFT PAD (8-10 PSI), 9 m/s
SIC10 60 62.1 M --- --- 97.3 107.5 95.0 104.9 163.7 20.9 23.1 32.6 36.0
SICII 54 55.3 F 3.15 3.93 54.7 48.4 81.4 72.0 125.8 41.0 36.3 25.4 22.5
SICI3 62 66.7 M 3.30 3.57 -- -- 79.5 97.4 --- 20.2 24.7 --- ---
SIC15 43 68.9 F --- --- 53.0 46.6 57.8 50.7 111.1 21.7 19.0 34.4 30.2
SIC17 65 93.0 M 3.20 2.77 67.0 120.1 87.5 156.8 186.8 15.8 28.3 26.4 47.3
AVG 57 69.2 3.22 3.42 68.0 80.6 80.2 96.4 146.8 23.9 26.3 29.7 34.0
STIFFER PAD (13-25 PSI), 9 m/s
SIC09 61 54.9 F --- --- 80.8 80.2 77.7 77.1 143.4 63.8 63.3 41.6 41.2
SlC12 68 54.4 F 3.66 4.62 72.3 79.3 104.4 114.5 159.3 30.2 33.1 48.4 53.1
SIC14 72 55.3 M 3.09 3.79 100.8 118.9 148.4 175.0 192.7 71.7 84.6 38.1 44.9
SIC16 58 56.7 F 3.76 4.53 81.8 79.7 227.2 221.3 198.0 46.0 44.8 38.2 37.2
AVG 65 55.3 3.50 4.31 83.9 89.5 139.4 147.0 173.3 52.9 56.5 41.6 44.1
26 26
24
A
24
B
Vl 22 Vl 22
< 20 < 20
8 18
F
8 18
16
16
014 M 5 14
Vl 12
F
Vl 12
I") I")
..... 10 F ..... 10
0
8
0
8

6

6

F

Vl
4 M
Vl
4
2 2
0 m '11

_,Yl' 0
a 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0
PEAK T12Y ACCEL (FlR100, G'S)
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
TTl (RIB 8)
240
F
F M
F F
F
M F M
F
lY lY 'M' nol
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
AGE-MASS NORM T12Y (G'S)
Figures 3A-G. Seatter plots of abdominal injury
versus biomechanical response for the cadaver
flatwall teSt series. Abdominal injury is the sum of
the squares of the AIS of the three following
regions: left ribs 8-12, right ribs 8-12 and abdominal
organs. M and F in the plots stand for male and
female. Acceleration responses in the figure include
values adjusted as follows: Values noted as age-mass
normalized are multiplied by AGE/45 x MASS/75.
The TIl acceleration kernel is multiplied by
MASS175 and summed with the product 1.4 x AGE.
26.----------------F-...,
24 D
Vl 22
< 20
8 18
16
o 14
Vl 12
I")
..... 10
o 8
6
Vl 4
2
o-f---r----r-r-r-i"T'ioI- ....... __..rM-r-----.-..---l
o 40 80 120 160 200
AGE-MASS NORM PEAK RIB 8 ACCEL (G'S)
8
26
24
F
Vl 22
< 20
8 18
F M
16
5 14 M
Vl 12
I")
..... 10 F
0
8

6
M F
Vl
4- M
2
0
"" ov_
-...-
80 0 20 40 60 80
AGE-MASS NORM ARA (G'S)
240
F
200
M
F
F
F
F
F
F M
F
M F
F
26...----------------F--,
24 C
Vl 22
< 20
8 18
16
514
Vl 12
I")
..... 10
o 8
6
Vl 4
2
o-f---r----,----;;;---i'-'M!;l ""MVlIllt-fll---.fl.........-..---,---.----l
o 40 80 120 160
PEAK RIB 8 ACCEL (G'S)
26.---------F---------,
24 E
Vl 22
< 20
8 18
16
5 14
Vl 12
I")
..... 10
o 8
6
Vl 4
2
o-f---r--rf=-----lF-""Iaf--,----l""' ...... '!'tl..---_...-..------l
o 20 40 60
AGE-MASS NORM ASA (G'S)
26.--------------F-----,
24 G
Vl 22
< 20
8 18
. 16
514
Vl 12
I")
..... 10
o 8
6
Vl 4
2
o+--r--r--r--r-F-,-...--tl,,, .........'kH ..,',, ......
80
Figures 4A-D. Force-time histories of the abdominal load plate in four types of flatwall tests: A. 6.7 m/s with no padding. B. 9 mls with no padding.
C. 9 mls with soft padding (8-10 psi honeycomb). D. 9 m/s with stiff padding (18-25 psi honeycomb).
A
P
[
F

B
A
(

d
\

/'\.
V
v
120.0
120.0
90.0
90.0
t!J CADAVER
o SID
.eo BlOSID
t!J CADAVER
o SID
.eo BIOSID
30,0 60,0
Time (ms)
30.0 60.0
Time (ms)

0
4

o
o
to
9 m/eec (20 mph) unpadded
9 m/eec. 3-4 inches
stiff honeycomb
o
o
to
......
Zo
::I.
o
(\J
OJ
U
L
a

o
(\J
I
120.0 0.0
......
Zo
::I..
o
(\J
Ql
U
L
a

o
(\J
I
120.0 0.0 90.0
90.0
t!J CADAVER
o SID
.eo BIOSID
t!J CADAVER
o SID
.eo BIOSID
30.0 60.0
Time (ms)
30.0 60.0
Time (ms)
c

d
(J
!! "
\v
o
o
to
.-..
Z

a
(\J
OJ
U
L
a

o
(\J
I
0.0
a
a
to
6.7 m/aec (15 mph) unpadded
9 m/selc. 4 inches
soft honeycomb
......
Z
::1.
0
'-' .
a
(\J
Ql
U
L
o
lL
a
a
(\J
I
0.0
tD
seen in the figures that above these threshold values.
only male cadavers were uninjured.
Force Comparison: SID, BIOSID and cadaver:
Figures 4A-D show force-time histories of the
abdominal load plate in four types of flatwall tests: 6.7
and 9 mls with no padding, 9 mls with soft padding (8-
10 psi [55-69 kPaJ paper honeycomb) and 9 mls with
stiff padding (18-25 psi paper honeycomb). The
unpadded tests indicate that both SID and BIOSID had
less effective mass than cadavers at the abdominal load
plate level as indicated by the corresponding areas under
the foree-time history curves in Figures 4A and B.
Figure 4C indicates that the soft paper honeycomb acted
as a force limiter, with forces in the 2-2.5 kN range over
most of the impact. In stiff paper honeycomb tests, peak
force approached 4 kN (Figure 4D).
BIOSID: The BIOSID responses at ribs four and
five predicted which test conditions were injurious in the
cadaver tests, and the benefits of the soft padding over
the stiff padding (Table 5). In unpadded tests VCmax of
nos 4-5 averaged 2.03 mls in 9 mls impacts and 0.39
mis in 6.7 mls impacts. In the case of stiff padding
(ARCEL 310 and 18-25 psi 3/4 inch cell paper
honeycomb) VCmax of ribs 4-5 was 1.05 to 2.12 mls.
In the case of soft padding (8-10 psi, one inch cell paper
honeycomb) VCmax was low (0.20-0.57 m/s).
SID: Table S indicates a marked difference
between SID and BIOSID in lower rib response. In both
soft and stiff padded tests, BIOSID lower rib response is
greater than SID. The difference is more pronounced in
the stiff padded tests, where BIOSID lower rib
accelerations are three or more times those in
corresponding SID tests. The end result is that BIOSID
TTIs are over 85 g's in stiff padded tests and SID TTIs
are not. The SID TIIs indicate a safe impact to the
abdominal region of the hard thorax in these impacts
with stiff padding while BIOSID TTIs indicate the stiff
padding is injurious. Cadaver data in Table 4A indicate
that the use of stiff padding can result in abdominal
injury while the soft padding does not.
Armrest tests
The SID peak response values are listed in Table 6.
In these tests the SID abdominal insert impacted the
abdominal load plate. The data in this table includes
peak rib and spine accelerations, Thoracic Trauma Index
(TII), Average Spine Acceleration (ASA), and peak
barrier load behind the annrest.
The BIOSID peak response values are listed in
Table 7. The data in this table includes the same type
data as for SID and also rib deflection and the viscous
response at the ribs. The peak response of ribs 1-2-3
(upper ribs) is listed along with the peak response of ribs
4-5 (lower ribs). The responses are separated in this way
10
because ribs 1-2-3 made contact with the shoulder and
thoracic load plates and ribs 4 and 5 with the armrest at
the abdominal load plate.
Tn hoth the SID and BTOSID test.e; the peak
abdominal barrier load was quite sensitive to padding
crush strength. Using SID the stiffer honeycomb annrest
resulted in peak abdominal loads 85.5% greater than
with the soft honeycomb armrest. Using BIOSID the
stiffer honeycomb armrest resulted in peak abdominal
loads 71.6% greater than with the soft honeycomb
armrest. These differences are illustrated by the force-
time history curves of Figures SA and B. Peak
accelerations were less sensitive to annrest strength.
Peak values for the stiffer armrest were at most 29.3 %
higher than for the soft armrest (Tables 6 and 7).
In the SID, TIl(d) was not sensitive to change in
armrest stiffness (Table 6). This is to be expected,
however, since the SID rib cage did not contact the
armrest, but instead impacted the load plates above the
annrest. SID ASA was moderately sensitive to armrest
stiffness, with the value for the stiffer armrest being
29.3% higher than for the soft armrest.
In the BIOSID tests TIl, ASA, Cmax and VCmax
were calculated and are presented in Table 7. Cmax and
VCmax were quite sensitive to armrest stiffness, with
Cmax for the stiffer armrest being 82.8% higher than for
the soft armrest and VCmax being 100% higher for the
stiffer annrest compared to the soft. However, there was
a large difference in peak VCmax in the two stiff
annrest tests (tests nos. 94 and 95). BIOSID ASA and
TIl were only moderately sensitive to changes in
armrest stiffness, as can be seen in the last portion of
Table 7.
DISCUSSION
FIatwaIl tests
ASA is an overall dummy response and a review of
Table 5 indicates that SID and BIOSID ASA were not as
sensitive in predicting the harm of stiff padding as was
BIOSID rib 4-5 response. BIOSID rib 4-5 responses that
were quite sensitive to changes in padding stiffness
included rib acceleration, rib deflection and the viscous
response. On the other hand. ASA performed better than
SID TTl in predicting the harm of stiff padding at the
abdominal level.
Armrest Tests
The viscous criterion was validated for the abdomen
by Rouhana et aI (1985) and Lau et aI (1987). TIl was
developed for the "hard thorax" which includes the
organs just below the diaphragm but still within the
lateral margins of the rib cage (Eppinger et ai, 1984).
...
...
TABLE 5: SID AND BIOSID FLATWALL TESTS - LOWER SPINE AND ABDOMINAL RESPONSE DATA
SID BIOSID FIR100 T12Y SID BIOSID BIOSID SID BIOSID BIOSID BIOSlO
THORAX, SHOULD, PAD PAD SLED SLED (G'S) FIRI00 FIR100 SID 4-5 RIB ASA ASA 4-5 RIB 4-5 RIB
TEST ABDOMEN PELVIS THICK. PRE- VEL. VEL. LOW RIB 4-5 RIB TTl TTl 15-85% 15-85% Dmux VCm!lx
TYPE RUN PAD PAD (IN) CRUSH (m/s) (m/s) SID BIOSIO (O'S) (O'S) (O'S) (G'S) (O'S) (G'S) (mm) (m/s)
UNPADDED
1 A NONE NONE 0
---
6.6 6.6 61 39 113 132 90 85 42 33 29.5 0.32
B NONE NONE a --- 6.6 6.9 61 50
ill
271 90
ill
41 39 32.0 0.46
AVO 6.6 6.8 61 44 112 201 90 123 41 36 30.7 0.39
2 A NONE NONE 0 --- 8.6 8.9 101 98 192 230 147 164 71 65 60.6 1.83
B NONE NONE 0
--- 2:l
9.0
ill
--- 209 221 164
---
74 --- 62.7 2.23
- - -
AVO 8.9 8.9 108 98 201 226 156 164 73 65 61.6 2.03
SOFT PADDINO
3 A 1 IN PHC 1 IN PHC 12 YES 8.9 8.8 22 20 29 85 29 53 16 15 29.3 0.31
B 1 IN PHC 1 IN PHC 12 YES 8.9 8.7 25 19 36 64 30 42 15 16 18.9 0.22
AVO 8.9 8.8 24 19 33 75 30 47 15 15 24.1 0.27
4 A 1 IN PHC 3/4 IN PHC 8 YES 9.0 8.9 35 28 35 90 39 59 27 25 21.2 0.20
B 1 IN PHC 3/4 IN PHC 8 YES
2:l
8.9
~ 11
33 85 38 58 26 25 22.9 0.27
AVO 9.1 8.9 34 30 34 88 39 59 27 25 22.1 0.23
5 A 1 IN PHC 3/4 IN PHC 4 NO 8.9 9.1 52 51 74 136 69 94 37 37 35.9 0.57
B 1 IN PHC 3/4 IN PHC 4 NO 8.9 --- 50 --- 63 --- 64 --- 37 --- --- ---
- - - - - - -
AVO 8.9 9.1 51 51 69 136 67 94 37 37 35.86 0.57
STIFF PADDINO
6 A 3/4 IN PHC 5/8 IN PHC 8 YES 9.1 8.9 55 --- 52 147 57 --- 40 --- 71.6 1.40
B 3/4 IN PHC 5/8 IN PHC 8 YES 9.0
2:l ~
42 50 149 53 95 40 36 59.5 1.20
AVO 9.1 9.0 53 42 51 148 55 95 40 36 65.5 1.30
7 A 3/4 IN PHC 5/8 IN PHC 4 NO 9.1 9.1 54 46 62 222 60 134 36 38 70.8 2.12
B 3/4 IN PHC 5/8 IN PHC 4 NO 8.9 --- 50 --- 58
---
54 ---
il --- --- ---
- - -
- -
AVO 9.0 9.1 52 46 60 222 57 134 38 38 70.8 2.12
8 A ARCEL 310 ARCEL 310 6 NO 9.0 8.9 56 46 48 178 52 112 46 41 63.1 1.05
B ARCEL 310 ARCEL 310 6 NO 9.0 8.9 60
~
47 153 55 102 49 45 53.7 1.08
AVO 9.0 8.9 58 49 48 166 54 107 47 43 58.4 1.06
TABLE 6: SID ARMREST DATA
PEAK BARRIER LOADS (kN, 300 HZ BUTTERWORTH FILTERED)
TEST SLED VEL ARMREST
NO. (m/s) ARMREST SHOULDER THORAX ABDOMEN PELVIS DEFL (mm)
85 8.75 SOFT 3.77 2.02 2.63 14.96 77.0
89 8.73 SOFT 4.15 2.30 2.22 12.56 106.4
AVERAGE 3.96 2.16 2.42 13.76 91.7
86 8.86 HARD 4.03 2.02 4.98 13.63 59.0
88 8.70 HARD 3.46 1.97 4.01 11.78 66.9
AVERAGE 3.74 2.00 4.50 12.71 62.9
% DIFF: HARDISOFT ARMREST: -5.5 -7.5 85.5 -7.6 -31.4
PEAK ACCELERATIONS (G'S, 100 HZ FIR FILTERED)
TEST SLED VEL UPPER LOWER UPPER LOWER
NO. (mls) ARMREST SPINE SPINE PELVIS RIB RIB
85 8.75 SOFT 27.3 42.0 72.0 33.0 41.8
89 8.73 SOFT 24.8 38.2 71.1 28.0 33.5
AVERAGE 26.0 40.1 71.6 30.5 37.7
86 8.86 HARD 31.9 51.5 76.7 31.5 36.9
88 8.70 HARD 27.6 42.3 78.4 26.7 38.2
AVERAGE 29.7 46.9 77.5 29.1 37.5
% DIFF: HARD/SOFT ARMREST: 14.1 16.9 8.3 -4.6 -0.3
INJURY CRITERIA
TEST SLED VEL UPPER LOWER
NO. (mls) ARMREST RIB TTl RIB TTl ASA15
85 8.75 SOFT 37.5 41.9 29.6
89 8.73 SOFT 33.1 35.8 27.6
AVERAGE 35.3 38.9 28.6
86 8.86 HARD 41.5 44.2 37.9
88 8.70 HARD 34.5 40.3 36.0
AVERAGE 38.0 42.2 37.0
% DIFF: HARD/SOFT ARMREST: 7.6 8.6 29.3
12
TABLE 7: BIOSID ARMREST DATA
PEAK BARRIER LOADS (kN, 300 HZ BUTTERWORTH FILTERED)
TEST SLED VEL ARMREST
NO. (mls) ARMREST SHOULDER THORAX ABDOMEN PELVIS DEFL (mm)
92 9.19 SOFT 3.54 1.99 2.44 16.26 114.0
93 9.22 SOFT 4.27 2.34 2.71 13.69 112.0
AVERAGE 3.90 2.16 2.57 14.97 113.0
94 9.34 HARD 4.27 2.11 4.40 14.33 59.0
95 9.20 HARD 4.05 2.11 4.44 13.91 100.3
AVERAGE 4.16 2.11 4.42 14.12 79.6
% DIFF: HARD/SOFT ARMREST: 6.7 -2.6 71.6 -5.7 -29.5
PEAK ACCELERATIONS (G'S, 100 HZ FIR FILTERED)
TEST SLED VEL UPPER LOWER UPPER LOWER
NO. (mls) ARMREST SPINE SPINE PELVIS RIB RIB
92 9.19 SOFT 26.9 30.9 63.1 64.5 71.3
93 9.22 SOFT 28.1 33.5 61.2 62.4 90.3
AVERAGE 27.5 32.2 62.1 63.5 80.8
94 9.34 HARD 36.7 37.9 64.3 64.9 99.1
95 9.20 HARD 34.4 39.3 71.1 49.9 94.5
AVERAGE 35.5 38.6 67.7 57.4 96.8
% DIFF: HARD/SOFT ARMREST: 29.3 19.7 9.0 -9.5 19.8
PEAK DEFLECTION AND VISCOUS RESPONSE
TEST SLED VEL UPPER RIB LOWER RIB UPPER RIB LOWER RIB
NO. (mls) ARMREST Dmax (mm) Dmax (mm) VCmax (m/s) VCmax (m/s)
92 9.19 SOFT 15.5 22.4 0.14 0.29
93 9.22 SOFT 16.3 22.5 0.11 0.30
AVERAGE 15.9 22.4 0.13 0.30
94 9.34 HARD 17.8 40.8 0.11 0.78
95 9.20 HARD 16.6 41.2 0.08 0.40
AVERAGE 17.2 41.0 0.10 0.59
% DIFF: HARD/SOFT ARMREST: 8.5 82.8 -24.0 100.0
INJURY CRITERIA
TEST SLED VEL UPPER LOWER Cmax VCmax
NO. (mls) ARMREST RIB TTl RIB TIl ASA15 (DmaxlI75) (mls)
92 9.19 SOFT 47.7 51.1 27.2 0.13 0.29
93 9.22 SOFT 48.0 61.9 26.9 0.13 0.30
AVERAGE 47.8 56.5 27.0 0.13 0.30
94 9.34 HARD 51.4 68.5 31.4 0.23 0.78
95 9.20 HARD 44.6 66.9 31.6 0.24 0.40
AVERAGE 48.0 67.7 31.5 0.23 0.59
% DIFF: HARD/SOFT ARMREST: 0.3 19.8 16.5 82.8 100.0
13
14
Figures SA and B. Force-time histories of the abdominal load plate in two types of armrest tests:
A. 9 mls SID impacts into soft and stiff paper honeycomb armrests.
B. 9 mls BIOSID impacts into soft and stiff paper honeycomb armrests.
120.0
B5-Soft
B9-Soft
S6-Stiff
BS Stiff
120.0
92-Soft
93-Soft
94-Stiff
95-Stiff
90.0
I!l No.
(!) No.
.:!l. No.
+ No.
90.0
I!l No.
(!) No.
.:!l. No.
+ No.
30.0 60.0
Time ems)
30.0 60.0
Time (ms)
B
/' JA
{-J
f\
/ 1\
_I

\A.,
I\.
o
lD
C\l
9 m/sec (20 mph)
SID Armrest Force
Z
::i.
o
ill
U
L
o
!.La

I
C.O
a
lD
C\J
9 m/sec. (20 mph)
BIOSID Armrest Force
Z
::i.
o
ill
U
L
o
!..La
C\J
I
0.0
These organs include the liver and the spleen. In some
cadaver tests used in the development of TIl edge
loading may have contributed to liver injury. Eleven sled
tests had a 90 mm gap between thoracic and pelvic load
plates (Marcus et al, 1983; Eppinger et al, 1984).
Rouhana et al (1989) noted that in sixteen swine left-
sided side impact tests run at 7.2 to 15 mls a large gap
(203 mm) between load plates produced AIS 2-4 liver
injury in six of eight tests and AIS 2-5 spleen injury in
seven of eight tests. When there was no gap there was
no liver injury in eight tests and AIS 2 spleen contusions
in five of these eight tests. The injuries in the tests with
the large gap were thought to be due to edge effects and
extrusion of part of the body through the gap.
Animal studies have demonstrated that a force
limiting interface can reduce abdominal injury. In a
study of214 anesthetized New Zealand White rabbits by
Rouhana et al (1986), the addition of 33-40 psi Hexcell
to the impact face significantly reduced renal lacerations
but not liver injury. Viano et al (1991) compared the
response of BIOSID to the injury seen in anesthetized
swine in a side impact test series with impact into sheet-
metal armrests of three different stiffnesses (soft, stiff
and very stiff). In soft armrest tests an average
abdominal AIS of 2.2 in the swine corresponded with 37
mm rib deflection and 0.33 mls VCmax in the BIOSID.
In stiff armrest tests an average abdominal AIS of 3.6 in
the swine corresponded with 61. 6 mm rib deflection and
1.16 mls VCmax in the BIOSID. In our tests, rib 4-5
Dmax averaged 22.4 mm with the soft armrests and 41
mm with the hard armrests. Rib 4-5 VCmax averaged
0.30 mls with the soft armrests and 0.59 mls with the
hard armrests. Thus, the WSU paper honeycomb
armrests produced a less severe response in BIOSID than
the corresponding GM sheet-metal armrest.
The cadaver and BIOSID flatwall data suggest that
abdominal injury or lower rib cage injury can occur with
padding of about 20 psi (138 kPa) crush strength at
impact velocities of 8.9 mls while a reduction of crush
strength to 10 psi (69 kPa) will result in little or no
injury. The Viscous Response of the BIOSID abdominal
ribs provide a reliable measure of this outcome. The
injury data are based on the use of unembalmed cadavers
with an average age in the early sixties. A tolerable
armrest crush strength is likely to be higher than 10 psi
for living middle aged subjects.
CONCLUSIONS
Flatwall tests
1) Injury to abdominal organs or lower rib cage was a
common occurrence in 20 mile per hour impacts
into an unpadded wall.
2) With the use of soft padding (8-10 psi crush
strength), no abdominal organ injuries occurred.
15
3) BIOSID no 4-5 response (VCmax, Cmax, TIl)
predicted the harm of stiff padding and the benefit
of soft padding in impacts to the abdominal region.
4) SID and BIOSID appear to have less effective mass
at the abdominal level than cadavers.
Armrest tests
1) The following measures were quite sensitive
to the change from a soft to a stiff armrest: Peak
barrier load behind the armrest (for both SID and
BIOSID tests) and rib 4-5 Cmax and VCmax in
BIOSID.
2) The following measures showed moderate
sensitivity to changes in armrest stiffness: SID and
BIOSID peak Tl2y acceleration, SID and BIOSID
ASA, and BIOSID TIl utilizing rib 4-5 response.
3) SID TIl was not sensitive to the change in
armrest stiffness, but a valid test for this was not
performed. The SID rib cage was positioned so that
it did not impact the armrest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The data analysis in this paper was supported by CDC
Grant No. CCR 502347 as were the cadaver impact
tests. Most of the dummy impact tests were supported by
the American Automobile Manufacturers Association.
However, the analysis and conclusions contained in this
paper are solely those of the authors and have not been
reviewed or approved by other parties.
REFERENCES:
1. Baker SP, O'Neill B, Haddon W, Long WB: The
Injury Severity Score: a method for descnoing patients
with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J
Trauma 14: 187-196, 1974.
2. Bondy N: Abdominal injuries in the national crash
severity study. National Center for Statistics and
Analysis. ISO. 15.00188, 1980.
3. Cavanaugh 1M, Wali1ko T, Malhotra A, Zhu Y, King
AI: Biomechanical response and injury tolerance of the
pelvis in twelve sled side impacts. SAE Paper No.
902305, 34th Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 1-12,
1990a.
4. Cavanaugh 1M, Wali1ko T, Malhotra A, Zhu Y, King
AI: Biomechanical response and injury tolerance of the
thorax in twelve sled side impacts. SAE Paper No.
902307, 34th Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 23-38,
1990b.
5. Cavanaugh J, Huang Y, King AI: SID response in a
side impact sled test series. SAE Paper No. 920350,
SAE International Congress and Exposition, 1992.
6. Cavanaugh JM, Zhu Y, Huang Y, King AI: Injury
and response of the thorax in side impact cadaveric tests.
SAE Paper No. 933127, 37th Stapp Car Crash
Conference, pp. 199-221, 1993.
7. Cavanaugh JM, Walilko TI, Walbridge A, Huang Y
and King AI: An Evaluation of 1TI and ASA in SID
side impact sled tests. SAE Paper No. 942225, 38th
Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 293-308, 1994.
8. Eppinger RH, Marcus JR, Morgan RM: Development
of dummy and injury index for NHTSA's thoracic side
impact protection research program. SAE Paper No.
840885, GovernmentlIndustry Meeting and Exposition,
Washington, D.C., 1984.
9. FMVSS 214, 49 CPR Part 571 (1990) Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact
Protection, Federal Register, Docket No. 88-06, Notice
8, RIN 2127-AB86, Vol. 55(210), Oct. 30, 1990.
10. Irwin AL, Walilko TJ, Cavanaugh JM, Zhu Y, and
King AI: Deflection responses of the shoulder and thorax
in lateral impact. SAE Paper No. 933124, Proc. 37th
Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 165-173, 1993.
11. Lau IV, Horsch JD, Viano DC and Andrzejak DV:
Biomechanics of liver injury by steering wheel loading.
J Trauma 27(3):225-235, 1987.
12. Marcus JH, Morgan RM, Eppinger RH, Kallieris D,
Mattern R, Schmidt G: Human response and injury from
lateral impact. SAE Paper No. 831634, 27th Stapp Car
Crash Conference, pp. 419-431, 1983.
13. Morgan RM, Marcus JH, and Eppinger RH: Side
impact - the biofidelity ofNHTSA's proposed AID and
efficacy of1TI. SAE Paper No. 861887, 30th Stapp Car
Crash Conference, pp. 27-40, 1986.
14. Rouhana SW and Kroell CK: The effect of door
topography on abdominal injury in lateral impact. SAE
Paper No. 892433, 33rd Stapp Car Crash Conference,
pp. 143-151, 1989.
15. Rouhana SW, Lau IV and Ridella SA: Influence of
velocity and forced compression on the severity of
abdominal injury in blunt, nonpenetrating lateral impact.
J Trauma 25(6):490-500, 1985.
16
16. Rouhana SW, Ridella SA and Viano DC: The Effect
of limiting impact force on abdominal injury: a
preliminary study. SAE Paper No. 861879, Thirtieth
Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp 65-79, 1986.
17. Siegel JH, Mason-Gonzales S, Dischinger P, et al:
Safety belt restraints and compartment intrusions in
frontal and lateral motor vehicle crashes: mechanisms of
injuries, complications, and acute care costs. J Trauma
5(34):736-759, 1993.
18. Viano DC, Lau IV, Asbury C, King AI and
Begeman P: Biomechanics of the human chest, abdomen
and pelvis in lateral impact. Accident Analysis and
Prevention 21(6):553-574, 1989.
19. Viano DC: Evaluation of annrest loading in side
impacts. SAE Paper No. 912899, 35th Stapp Car Crash
Conference, pp. 145-162, 1991.
20. Warner CY, James MB, Strother CE: A perspective
on side impact occupant crash protection. SAE Paper
No. 900373, 1990.
21. Zhu JY, Cavanaugh JM and King AI: Pelvic
biomechanical response and padding benefits in side
impact based on a cadaveric test series. SAE Paper No.
933128, 37th Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 223-233,
1993.