Computer Crash Simulations in the Development of Child Occupant Safety Policies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ARTICLE Computer Crash Simulations in the Development of Child Occupant Safety Policies Flaura Koplin Winston, MD, PhD; Kristy B. Arbogast, PhD; Lois A. Lee, MD; Rajiv A. Menon, PhD Objective: To address the predictability of injury from restrained male adults exposed to air bags or for child air bag activation by use of crash simulation software. passengers restrained in the rear seat for the crash sce- narios simulated. Methods: Using current, validated crash simulation soft- ware, the effect of air bag activation on injury risk was Conclusions: Using current crash simulation software, this assessed for the 6-year-old child, both restrained and un- study demonstrated that the risk of air bags to school- restrained. Results were compared with those for adult aged children could be predicted. Our results confirmed occupants in similar crash scenarios. the previously identified risks to unrestrained children and provided the first evidence that air bags, in their current Results: For the unrestrained child passenger, crash design, are not beneficial to restrained children. This study simulations predicted serious head, neck, and chest in- illustrates that computer crash simulations should be used juries with air bag activation, regardless of crash sever- proactively to identify injury risks to child occupants, par- ity. For the restrained child passenger, crash simula- ticularly when limited real-world data are available. tions predicted similar severe injuries for high-severity crashes only. No serious injuries were predicted for un- Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:276-280 of crash scenarios. They have been used Editor’s Note: This study can have significant impact on the man- as a standard, validated tool by vehicle and ner in which automobile crashes would cause air bag injuries. And restraint manufacturers to evaluate the safety of new designs for occupants. With it costs less than the dummy way. Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD computer crash simulations, the forces and accelerations experienced by occupants during different crash scenarios can be N THE AREA of motor vehicle occu- measured. Through recognized math- pant injury prevention, computer ematical relationships that were deter- simulation holds vast, yet unreal- mined through extensive biomechanical ized, potential to supplement ve- testing,2 these engineering measure- hiclesafety(crashworthiness)test- ments can be translated into a predicted Iing. Crashworthiness testing has been used risk of biological and structural injuries for for decades to evaluate the safety of motor distinct body regions of either children or vehicles and, as a result, vehicles are safer adults. Realizing the invaluable contribu- and people are surviving crashes once tion of computer simulations as predic- thoughtunsurvivable.Crashworthinesstest- tors in other areas of health, the Institute ing uses lifelike surrogates (“dummies”) in of Medicine (Washington, DC) has re- actual crash scenarios to predict injury risk. cently called for the increased use of com- But the expense of crashworthiness testing puter simulation as an important tool for has limited federally required test proce- understanding injury causation to pre- dures to adult surrogates and to a meager dict injury risk.3 number of crash scenarios. Although au- One current controversy in injury tomobile manufacturers recommended the control is the safety of air bags for chil- incorporation of child surrogates in crash- dren. It is well accepted that air bags pose worthiness test procedures in 1996 and fed- a substantial risk to young, unrestrained, eral regulations for this testing have been school-age children (aged 5 to 7 years), but proposed,currentregulationsdonotrequire it is unclear whether restrained children From The Children’s Hospital 1 of Philadelphia (Drs Koplin their inclusion. in this age group are at a similar high risk. Winston, Arbogast, Lee, and Computer crash simulations pro- These children have recently outgrown Menon), and the University vide an efficient and economical ap- their child safety seats (the upper weight of Pennsylvania (Dr Koplin proach to extending safety testing to in- limit for most child safety seats is 18 kg) Winston), Philadelphia. clude children and a far greater number and many parents have begun using seat (REPRINTED) ARCH PEDIATR ADOLESC MED/ VOL 154, MAR 2000 WWW.ARCHPEDIATRICS.COM 276 ©2000 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/25/2021 MATERIALS AND METHODS (the young, school-aged child).13 The Hybrid III 50th per- centile adult male dummy model was chosen because cur- COMPUTER CRASH SIMULATIONS rent vehicle safety standards require protection of an oc- cupant of this size against serious injuries. For clarity, this MADYMO (Mathematical Dynamic Model; TNO, Delft, the article henceforth refers to the P6 child dummy model as Netherlands) is an engineering software tool that allows us- the “child passenger” and to the Hybrid III 50th percentile ers to develop, design, and optimize safety systems and to adult dummy model as the “adult male passenger.” assess injury risk to vehicle occupants. The validity of In addition to size of the occupant, 4 other indepen- MADYMO has been demonstrated by verification studies dent variables were simulated: air bag activation (air bag using experimental test data.6,7 MADYMO is currently used activated or air bag deactivated), occupant position (front by vehicle and restraint manufacturers to predict the risk passenger seat or rear seat), restraint usage (unrestrained, of occupant injury under specified crash dynamics and lap-only belt, or lap-shoulder belt), and crash severity occupant parameters, including air bag activation, impact (high or low). The low-severity crash was specified by a speed, preimpact braking, occupant size, occupant posi- speed change (also known as Delta V14) of 5.28 m/s (19 tion, and restraint usage. The effects of these different km/h) and the high-severity crash was specified by a speed crash parameters are measured in terms of forces and change of 10.28 m/s (37 km/h), as defined in a previous accelerations experienced by different body parts of the report.15 occupants. In this study, a model of a leading midsized sedan with OUTCOME MEASURES a top-mounted, passenger air bag was developed as our test vehicle. Because air bags are designed to deploy in frontal From the computer crash simulations, the risk of injury was crashes, a frontal crash into a rigid barrier was simulated. assessed using measurements of crash forces and accelera- In addition, preimpact braking was included in the simula- tions for the head, chest, and neck of vehicle occupants. Head tion because braking has been shown to be a common char- injury risk was measured using the Head Injury Criterion acteristic of air bag crashes with occupant fatalities.8 The rate (HIC), a nondimensional parameter calculated from the oc- of braking was simulated at 6.8 m/s2, previously shown to cupant head acceleration and time over which the accelera- be characteristic of average driver behavior.9 For all simu- tion occurs. When the HIC exceeds the accepted injury tol- lations, the vehicle seat was set at the rearmost position. erance limit of 1000, a risk of concussion for frontal impact Two sizes of vehicle occupant surrogates were se- is predicted.16 A chest acceleration above the accepted tol- lected from standard databases supplied with the MADYMO erance limit of 588.72 m/s2 (60 g) sustained for 3 millisec- program10: a P6 child dummy model (“aged” 6 years)11 and onds predicts severe chest injury.17 Injury tolerance limits a Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy model.12 for neck tensile and shear loads have not been universally These surrogates are mathematical representations of the accepted. Since limits of 1490 to 2900 N in tension and 1200 state-of-the-art in crash test dummies that can be used in N in shear for the P6 child dummy model surrogate are cur- computer simulations to represent occupants. The P6 child rently proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- dummy model was chosen because this surrogate most ministration (Washington, DC) for crashworthiness test- closely approximated the age of children killed in actual ing,2 measurements exceeding these proposed limits were air bag–related crashes and the age of interest for this study used in this study to predict neck injury. belts for these children. In addition, parents may be ques- simulation software. Using standard, validated crash simu- tioning the continued need to place the child in the rear lation software, we evaluated the effect of front passen- seat. Current research indicates that 30% of the chil- ger air bags on child passengers—both restrained and un- dren in this age group are restrained in the right front restrained—in crashes of high and low severity and in seat at the time of a crash.4 Is this a safe practice in pas- crashes where children were placed in the front passen- senger air bag–equipped vehicles? ger seat vs the rear seat. Most safety recommendations are based on crash test results and early injury experience using the device. There RESULTS were very limited crash test data regarding children and air bags and, as a result, there was no initial recommen- COMPUTER CRASH SIMULATIONS dation to place young, school-aged children in the rear seat of passenger air bag–equipped vehicles. Now, after The computer crash simulations predicted that air bag the report of numerous child deaths due to air bags, activation propels an unrestrained front-seated child double-paired comparison methods using Fatal Analy- passenger rearward and upward (Figure). The simula- sis Reporting System data has provided some evidence tions showed a complex relationship between indepen- for the risk of injury to children from front passenger air dent variables (the size of the occupant, air bag activa- bags.5 But children had to die before these analyses could tion, occupant position, restraint usage, and crash be conducted.