Citation

Jakobsson L, Lundgren K, Norin H, Svensson M. Traffic Injury Prev. 2004; 5(4): 374-381.

Affiliation

Volvo Car Corporation, Goteborg, Sweden. ljakobss@volvocars.com

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15389580490510408

PMID

15545077

Abstract

Two situations with an expected higher AIS 1 neck injury rate in frontal impact were compared to a reference situation using a Madymo human body model in three different sitting postures and four different crash pulses. The two situations were reduced occupant weight and occupant with initial forward arm resistance, respectively. Occupant neck motion phases were identified and corresponding possible evaluation criteria were evaluated within the phases. Typical neck kinematics was seen for the two different situations. Occupants of lower weight had a more extended neck in the initial protraction phase and also a generally more pronounced upper neck link angle. Occupants with initial arm resistance had generally greater lower neck link angle at the time when the upper neck link angle was straight. No evaluation criteria reflected the anticipated AIS 1 neck injury rate consistently. In the initial protraction phase, NICmin correlated to expected injury outcome in almost half of the cases. In the protraction-flexion shift phase, Nkm, Nij, upper neck shear force and neck tension force reflected anticipated severity outcome to some extent. In the flexion phase, upper and lower neck extension correlated to anticipated AIS 1 neck injury rate only to a minor extent. The different sitting postures were more influential than the different crash pulses, emphasizing the importance of not only considering the spectra of impact severity but also differences in sitting postures in safety system development and evaluation.