Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 173–180

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Occupant thorax response variations due to arm position and restraint MARK
systems in side impact crash scenarios
⁎
Donata Gierczycka, Duane S. Cronin
University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recent epidemiological studies have identified that thoracic side airbags may vary in efficacy to reduce injury
Side impact crash severity in side impact crash scenarios, while previous experimental and epidemiological studies have presented
Pre-crash position contrasting results. This study aimed to quantify the variations in occupant response in side impact conditions
Human body model using a human body computational model integrated with a full vehicle model. The model was analyzed for a
Finite element models
Moving Deformable Barrier side impact at 61 km/h to assess two pre-crash arm positions, the incorporation of a
Thorax response
Passive restraints
seatbelt, and a thorax air bag on thorax response. The occupant response was evaluated using chest compression,
Side airbag the viscous criterion and thoracic spinal curvature. The arm position accounted for largest changes in the thorax
Thoracic airbag response (106%) compared to the presence of the airbag and seatbelt systems (75%). It was also noted that the
results were dependant on the method and location of thorax response measurement and this should be in-
vestigated further. Assessment using lateral displacement of the thoracic spine correlated positively with chest
compression and Viscous Criterion, with the benefit of evaluating whole thorax response and provides a useful
metric to compare occupant response for different side impact safety systems. The thoracic side airbag was found
to increase the chest compression for the driving arm position (+70%), and reduced the injury metrics for the
vertical arm position (−17%). This study demonstrated the importance of occupant arm position on variability
in thoracic response, and provides insight for future design and optimization of side impact safety systems.

1. Introduction and background
In 2015, there were 22,441 passenger vehicle occupant fatalities,
and 2,181,000 injuries reported in the USA (Fatal Accident Reporting
System, FARS, 2016). Although a significant decrease in fatalities has
been achieved in frontal impact crash scenarios, attributed to advanced
active and passive safety systems, side impact motor vehicle crashes
remain a challenge as evidenced by high fatality and severe injury rates.
In 2015, side impacts fatalities constituted 29% of fatalities in pas-
senger cars (IIHS, 2016). It was also found that 58% of the AIS 4+
injuries of front seat occupants in near-side impacts were associated
with the thorax (Kahane, 2007). The odds ratio of sustaining a fatal
injury in a side impact was estimated to be 2.26 times higher for near-
side impact compared to frontal impact, based on the FARS database
over 1975–1998 (Bédard et al., 2002). A study on pulmonary contusion
(PC), which is a serious injury (AIS 3+) resulting from blunt trauma to
the thorax, reported PC sustained by 26.9% of occupants in near-side
impacts (O’Connor et al., 2009). This was almost twice the frequency of
PC for occupants injured in frontal impacts (15%). For the same impact
severity, measured as delta-V, the odds of pulmonary contusion were
1.8 times higher in lateral impacts (35%) compared to frontal impacts
(19%) (O’Connor et al., 2009; NHTSA, 2006).
The most commonly identified source of thoracic injuries is contact
with the door (Tencer et al., 2005), which remains a challenge due to
the limited crush zone and space available. Injuries to thorax include
pneumothorax, hemothorax, rib fractures, pulmonary contusion, con-
tusion and laceration of the internal organs, and aortic rupture (Thomas
and Frampton, 1999). Strother et al. (1984) demonstrated that the se-
verity of injuries in side impact was predominantly affected by a dif-
ference in velocity between the occupant and contacted surface rather
than by the vehicle intrusion itself. Recommendations for effective
countermeasures included solutions that reduce the relative velocity
and distribute the impact (padding, airbags), rather than increasing
vehicle structural strength to reduce intrusion (Strother et al., 1984).
Laboratory experiments and numerical simulations have demon-
strated that certain configurations of side airbags (SABs), such as head-
and-torso airbags have been effective in reducing response and thoracic
injury metrics in Anthropometric Test Devices (ATDs) (Schneider et al.,
2005; Luzon-Narro et al., 2014). Over the past decade, some re-
searchers have identified reductions in maximum occupant injury

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: duane.cronin@uwaterloo.ca (D.S. Cronin).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.017
Received 27 October 2016; Received in revised form 11 May 2017; Accepted 20 May 2017
0001-4575/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Gierczycka, D.S. Cronin Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 173–180

Table 1
Summary of studies on tSAB effectiveness.

tSAB effect Reference

Experimental PMHS tests Rib fractures occurred when a large volume tSAB was deployed, despite low chest Shaw et al. (2014), rigid sled 4.4 m/s impacts, 3 PMHS
deflection values.
Presence of the tSAB affected the load distribution, and therefore deformation profile and Trosseille et al. (2008), static deployment, 3 PMHS
fracture pattern of the ribs.

Experimental ATD tests tSAB reduced HIC and head acceleration, but increased the chest deflection (+22%, SD
5%) and pelvic acceleration (+16%, SD 4%), bringing the chest deflection response above
the IARV range.
Large volume tSAB reduced peak rib deflection by 40% compared to a representative tSAB
in common use.
Viano and Parenteau (2016), FMVSS 214 matched-pair
tests with SID IIs in 2003–2007 MY vehicles
Luzon-Narro et al. (2014). 50 km/h MDB test with ES2

Epidemiological studies tSABs did not contribute to AIS 2+ injuries, and were not observed to cause AIS 3+ chest Yoganandan et al. (2007), NASS 1997–2004
injuries.
Occupants with tSAB deployed had a risk of injury similar to that of occupants without a Griffin et al. (2012),
deployed tSAB (RR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.79-1.24), risk increased for occupants 50 years and 2000–2009 NASS and CIREN data
older (RR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.84-1.93).
Increase in injury risk, including fatal injury, when tSAB fitted in the vehicle (+5.2%), not D’Elia et al. (2013), Police reported crash data
statistically significant. 2001–2010, Transport Accident Commission data
tSABs reduced fatalities by 7.8% (confidence bounds 0.4% to 14.7%). Kahane (2014); Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) 1994–2011
tSABs reduced vehicle driver fatality risk in driver-side crashes by 26% for passenger cars, McCartt and Kyrychenko (2007), Fatality Analysis
and by 30% for SUVs. Reporting System (FARS) 1997–2004
No net reduction of injury severity with a deployed tSAB. Gaylor and Junge (2015), German In-Depth Accident
Study (GIDAS) 1997–2012.

severity for side impact crashes in vehicles equipped with side airbags,
relative to older vehicles without side airbags (McCartt and
Kyrychenko, 2007; Yoganandan et al., 2007). This benefit was not
identified in subsequent studies.
More recent investigations have categorized SABs by location and
engaged body regions. Curtain airbags were defined as airbags covering
the side window, A and B pillars, and engaging the head. Head-and-
thorax or head-and-torso airbags engaged both the head and torso,
while thoracic airbags were defined as those engaging only the thorax
(tSABs) (Table 1) (Griffin et al., 2012 D’Elia et al., 2013; Viano and
Parenteau, 2016).
The curtain and head-and-thorax SABs were found to be very ef-
fective in reducing fatalities in side impacts and also positively con-
tributed to occupant protection in other accident scenarios (D’Elia
et al., 2013; Kahane, 2014). For the near-side impacts, the estimate of
fatality reduction due to a combination of curtain and tSAB was 32.8%,
for the curtain only it was 16.8%. For the tSAB only, the reduction of
driver fatalities was 10.4%. Kahane’s study (2014) demonstrated that
tSAB effectiveness in far-side impacts was lower than in near-side im-
pacts. The tSAB was estimated to have no effect or increase odds of fatal
injuries for the right-front passenger in the near-side (−0.4%), and for
both driver and right-front passenger in far-side (−4.9%) impacts.
Sources of these differences included a wide range of potential impact
forces and directions for the far-side impacts (Kahane, 2014), and po-
tentially the occupant pre-crash position.
Studies based on the National Automotive Sampling System –
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) (Aldaghlas et al., 2010) and
German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) (Gaylor and Junge, 2015)
crash databases did not identify a statistically significant reduction of
injuries attributed to tSABs, comparing similar model year vehicles with
and without tSABs. Interestingly, the results obtained in matched-pair
full vehicle side impacts with ATDs (Viano and Parenteau, 2016) re-
vealed that tSABs reduced the probability of head injury only, and did
not provide a benefit for the thorax (Table 1). In general, older studies
and those with ATDs (Luzon-Narro et al., 2014; Viano and Parenteau,
2016) suggest a benefit of reduced injury metrics using tSAB, while
more recent epidemiological studies have identified neutral effects, or
increases in injury rates (Griffin et al., 2012 D’Elia et al., 2013; Gaylor
and Junge, 2015) for side impacts.
Different approaches have been undertaken to investigate the
sources of variation in side impact restraint effectiveness. Human
occupant surrogates including ATDs and Post Mortem Human
Surrogates (PMHS) have been subjected to lateral sled and pendulum
impacts with and without tSABs in controlled laboratory tests. In ex-
perimental tests, PMHS were tested with a small volume airbag (frontal
airbag sewn to reduce the diameter of deflated airbag to 500 mm)
(Trosseille et al., 2008), and with a large volume airbag (42 l) (Shaw
et al., 2014; Luzon-Narro et al., 2014). Trosseille et al. (2008) found
that a tSAB in a rigid wall sled impact distributed the impact load
evenly over the ribs when the PMHS was seated with arms positioned
above the head, and that the chest deformation was distinguishably
different in terms of pattern and magnitude from a concentrated impact
(e.g. pendulum impact). For the large volume tSAB tested with a PMHS
in a rigid sled configuration (Shaw et al., 2014), numerous rib fractures
were identified despite low chest compression values. Shaw et al. could
not identify the reason for the unexpected fractures. The PMHS studies
have presented valuable information on occupant response in side im-
pact; however, the applicability of the PMHS in parametric studies has
been limited due to variability between the test subjects in terms of
anthropometrics, mechanical properties, and response to impact.
Limitations of experimental studies using ATDs include response
biofidelity and one seating posture in standard tests (Wismans et al.,
2005; Kemper 2013; Park et al., 2016). Kim et al. (2016) highlighted
differences between the ES-2re ATD and PMHS response for a lateral
impact with a large volume tSAB, and identified challenges related to
biofidelity of the ATD arm, lower back, and connection to the pelvis.
Unphysical behaviour of those body regions resulted in the load
transmission path being different between the ATD and the PMHS (Kim
et al., 2016). Trosseille et al. (2010) reported a low sensitivity of the ES-
2re ATD to test configuration, comparing rib deflection for experi-
mental tests in rigid sled and padded sled impact (Trosseille and
Petitjean, 2010). A computational study by Gierczycka et al. (2015)
confirmed Trosseille and Petitjean’s (2010) findings, reporting negli-
gible sensitivity of an ES-2re ATD computational model to changing
door trim material properties in a full-vehicle lateral impact
(Gierczycka et al., 2015). In a computational study including a SID-IIs
ATD, Uduma et al. (2005) reported that while the ATD chest deflection
was not sensitive to augmenting the door padding, increased lateral
clearance in side impact crash reduced chest deflection effectively
(Uduma et al., 2005). Supporting this finding, a computational study by
Kaneko et al. (2007) including an ES-2 ATD model demonstrated that
chest deflection values decreased with the early onset of spine

174
D. Gierczycka, D.S. Cronin
displacement and reduction of relative displacements between the
vertebrae and ribs (Kaneko et al., 2007). While the ES-2re, SID, and
WorldSID computational ATD models were sensitive to varying occu-
pant lateral, longitudinal, and vertical pre-crash position in the vehicle
(Watson and Cronin, 2011), the change in response for the ES-2re ATD,
when the struck arm was moved from a standard driving position to a
vertical position parallel to the torso, was negligible (Gierczycka et al.,
2015).
An epidemiology study conducted by Viano et al. (1989b) analysed
the driving position of 1890 drivers and observed that their arm posi-
tion was changing as they were approaching an intersection. Viano
et al. (1989b) suggested additional ATD positions to evaluate the effect
of the occupant arm position on the predicted response in side impact.
Viano exposed an ATD to side-sled impacts at 8.7 m/s, where the ATD
contacted a padded wall with different armrest designs mounted on the
fixture. Changing the ATD arm position from horizontal (Viano, 1991)
to vertical, Viano (1994) demonstrated that the effect of the arm on the
predicted ATD chest deflection and rib acceleration was strongly de-
pendant on the location and type of armrest (Viano, 1994). In PMHS
experiments, Cesari et al. (1981) and Stalnaker et al. (1979) demon-
strated that the struck arm had a protective effect in low-severity, free-
flight impact. Kemper et al. (2008) confirmed these observations
through PMHS experiments, where the subjects had the arms aligned
with the side of the thorax or elevated to expose the thorax to direct
impact (Kemper et al., 2008). Kemper’s findings identified the protec-
tive effect of the arm in low-severity, velocity-pulse pendulum impacts,
and Gierczycka and Cronin (2015) confirmed it through a computa-
tional study with use of a HBM. However, for a high-severity velocity-
pulse impact, previously demonstrated to represent real vehicle crashes
(Watson and Cronin, 2011), the arm in the vertical position led to the
highest increase of the predicted chest deflection response (over 200%;
Gierczycka et al., 2015), contrary to previous observations regarding a
protective effect of the arm demonstrated with low-severity pendulum
impacts (Kemper, 2008; Gierczycka and Cronin, 2015 Gierczycka and
Cronin, 2015).
To investigate sources of variability in vehicle side impact restraint
effectiveness, a biofidelic occupant HBM enabling repeatable boundary
conditions, and fully controlled impact parameters was evaluated in a
side impact crash scenario. It should be noted that the restraint system
function and design was not optimized in this study. The purpose of this
study was to investigate the changes in thorax response due to varying
arm position and including a seatbelt and thorax airbag.
2. Methods
A mid-sized sedan vehicle computational model (Fig. 1a), pre-
viously updated and validated in lateral impact (Watson and Cronin,
2011), was coupled with a 50th percentile male Human Body Model
(HBM) from the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC
M50-O v4.3) (Fig. 1b) and subjected to a Moving Deformable Barrier
(MDB) impact at the NCAP impact velocity of 61 km/h (NHTSA, 2012).
175
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 173–180
The coupled vehicle-occupant side impact models were solved using a
commercial explicit finite element code (LS-Dyna, version 6.1.1). The
vehicle model was initially validated in LS-Dyna version 5.1.1, and the
vehicle responses were verified again in the 6.1.1 version for the cur-
rent study.
2.1. Computational vehicle model
The vehicle model was a 2001 Ford Taurus, developed by National
Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) and updated for side impact scenarios by
Watson and Cronin (2011). This model has been used in previous side
impact studies as it was found to be representative of mid-sized sedan
fleet vehicle kinematics (Watson and Cronin, 2011), and was available
in the public domain. The computational vehicle response was com-
pared to the 1996–2000 Ford Taurus experimental NCAP and FMVSS
214 intrusion measurements at seventeen locations on the vehicle. The
experimental data from the MY 2000 vehicle, NHTSA test #3263, re-
presented the same generation of Ford Taurus as the computational
model, and the model compared well to the experimental data in terms
of shape and magnitude of intrusion. The MY 1996–1999 experimental
data used for additional verification of the computational model re-
presented the third generation of Ford Taurus, preceding the compu-
tational model. Simulations of the Anthropometric Test Device (ATD)
response were compared to the physical ATD response as measured in
the 1996–1999 model year Ford Taurus impact tests from NCAP and
FMVSS 214. The responses for the thoracic region showed very good
agreement in the 54kph FMVSS 214 test for the ES-2re and SID ATDs
(Gierczycka et al., 2015).
2.2. Seat, restraint and occupant integration with vehicle
The seat model was based on the seat integrated in the NCAC ve-
hicle model (Opiela, 2008), including a seat frame, foam seat and back
cushions, and a headrest. The seat frame material properties were
evaluated with tensile tests and implemented using a piecewise linear
plasticity metal model (Watson and Cronin, 2011). The seat foam ma-
terial was modeled as a low density foam material, defined by material
properties obtained through compression tests for low strain rates, di-
rect impact pendulum tests for intermediate strain rates, and a Poly-
meric Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar tests for a high strain rate response
as reported by Campbell (Campbell and Cronin, 2014).
The seatbelt model consisted of shoulder and lap belt, and was de-
veloped from a 2000 Ford Ranger driver seat belt model (Watson and
Cronin, 2011). The material characteristics were based on experiments
reported by Baudrit et al. (1999) for both the 2-D sections that con-
tacted the occupant, and 1-D sections that were not in contact with the
occupant. Both the pre-tensioner and retractor characteristics were
based on the system developed and described by Baudrit et al. (1999).
The pre-tensioner drew in 60 mm of the seatbelt in over 7.5 ms, and the
delay after firing the pre-tensioner was 10 ms after the acceleration
sensor in the lower seat frame measured a peak acceleration of 5g. The
Fig. 1. a) Moving Deformable Barrier test config-
uration; b) Human Body Model integrated with the
vehicle, seat and the restraints.
D. Gierczycka, D.S. Cronin
force-limiter was set to 6 kN (Baudrit et al., 1999).
A generic thoracic side airbag (tSAB) model (rectangular thoracic
airbag, 7 l volume), was integrated with the vehicle model. The tSAB
was located on the vehicle door and deployed in the vicinity of the
shoulder and upper thorax region (Griffin, et al., 2012; Kahane, 2014).
Airbag inflation properties were based on an existing airbag model
(Opiela, 2008), with the mass flow rate scaled down volumetrically, to
match the smaller volume of the airbag used in this study, and achieve a
peak pressure of 0.4 MPa, to remain within the tSAB pressure and
thickness range recommended by Pipkorn and Haland (1996). The
lateral dimension of the fully inflated tSAB was 130 mm, in agreement
with the side airbag requirements presented by Pipkorn and Haland
(1996).
The HBM was integrated with the vehicle, seat, and restraint sys-
tems and settled during a series of pre-simulations to achieve the final
equilibrium seating position. To couple the occupant in the seat, the
HBM was positioned above the seat avoiding any initial contact or
penetration, and then gravity was applied to the HBM until a standard
driving position was reached and the pelvis vertical acceleration
reached zero.
2.3. Human body model and response assessment
The HBM used for this study was the GHBMC M50-O Version 4.3
(GHBMC, 2014), a mid-sized male occupant finite element model. The
GHBMC M50 model includes a detailed anatomical representation of
the whole human body, specifically including the rib cage, sternum,
spine, heart, lungs and muscle tissues within the thorax. The model was
validated under a wide range of conditions that represented automotive
accidents in terms of direction and severity of impact. Model verifica-
tion and validation was performed at the material level, at the body
region level and finally at the full body level. The full body model va-
lidation scenarios involved lateral shoulder impact, thorax and ab-
dominal hub impact, abdominal bar impact, block impact to pelvis,
lateral impact to the thorax, frontal and lateral NCAP tests, rear seat
impact and frontal sled impact (GHBMC, 2014).
Owing to the nature of the computational model, multiple kinematic
outputs were available from anatomical landmarks to evaluate thorax
response. The occupant response was assessed through the measure-
ment of full chest deflection and calculation of the Viscous Criterion
(VC) (Viano et al., 1989a), measured at three chest band (CB) levels
(Fig. 2), with upper and lower CB locations corresponding to the ac-
cepted PMHS measurement locations (Kuppa et al., 2003). An addi-
tional measurement location, corresponding to a middle CB, was in-
cluded to provide more information on the thorax deformation. Chest
Fig. 2. Thorax measurement locations (three CB levels), HBM arm shown in the driving
position.
176
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 173–180
deflection was measured using the methodology described by Kuppa
et al. (2003) for the full thorax central deflection. Preliminary simula-
tions were analyzed to investigate the time range where the peak
loading occurred and kinematics were tracked for the duration of the
impact (approximately 80 ms for all the load cases). The contact be-
tween the MDB and vehicle occurred at 1 ms after the start of the si-
mulation. Chest deflection was normalized with respect to initial chest
depth at each CB level to obtain thoracic compression, where thoracic
compression of 33.9% corresponded to a 50% probability of AIS 3+
injury (Viano et al., 1989a,b). The VCmax threshold value used was 1.0,
which corresponded to 50% probability of AIS 3+ injury (Viano et al.,
1989a).
In addition to the thorax deformation, spine kinematics were
tracked in the coronal plane using displacements of the HBM vertebral
bodies (T1, T6, T11, L3), and the pelvis center of gravity to assess the
effect of restraint system condition and pre-crash position on the oc-
cupant whole-body kinematics. Chest compression and VC responses
were compared to measured trends of displacements of the spine and
pelvis, to verify the observations from Kaneko et al. (2007) on the de-
crease of chest deflection values when consistent spine curvature was
maintained during the crash (Kaneko et al., 2007).
2.4. Simulation matrix
Two pre-crash arm positions were considered: with arms in the
driving position (arm 35 ° with respect to torso; Fig. 3a), and with arms
in the vertical position (arm less than 10 ° with respect to torso;
Fig. 3b). To modify the arm position, prescribed translational motion
was applied to the hands and forearms only, and the forearms were
moved until a vertical arm position was reached, ensuring that the torso
orientation remained the same as in the driving arm position. After the
desired pre-crash position was obtained, the three-point seatbelt was fit
on the HBM, with 2-D elements across the thorax and pelvis, and 1-D
elements in areas of the belt that did not contact the HBM (Baudrit
et al., 1999).
Four restraint system conditions were considered: unbelted no tSAB,
belted no tSAB, unbelted with tSAB, and belted with tSAB (Table 2).
3. Results
The Human Body Model (HBM) responses were normalized with
respect to values corresponding to 50% probability of sustaining AIS
3+ thoracic injuries (chest compression equal to 33.9%, Viscous
Criterion (VC) equal to 1.0 m/s). Maximum values of chest compres-
sion, normalized chest compression and VC were used to compare the
simulation conditions (Table 3, Fig. 4).
The HBM demonstrated sensitivity to the pre-crash arm position for
all occupant responses considered (Fig. 4) including the presence of the
thoracic side airbag (tSAB) for unbelted occupants. When no tSAB was
Fig. 3. HBM pre-crash position: a) arms in driving position, b) arms in vertical position.
D. Gierczycka, D.S. Cronin Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 173–180

Table 2 with the intruding door (Fig. 5; aD-B + tSAB, 60 ms), increasing re-
Simulation configurations (aD = arms in driving position, aV = arms in vertical position, lative lateral translation between L3-T11-T6 vertebrae, and causing a
−B = unbelted, +B = belted, −tSAB = without tSAB, +tSAB = with tSAB deployed).
change in curvature of the spine. Similarly, an increase of relative
scenario code aD-B aD-B +tSAB aD + B aD + B aV-B aV-B +tSAB translation between L3-T11-T6 vertebrae during the crash was observed
-tSAB -tSAB +tSAB -tSAB for the vertical arm position with no tSAB (Fig. 5; aV-B-tSAB), in ad-
dition to an overall increased translation compared to the driving po-
seatbelt no no yes yes no no
sition. For the vertical arm position when the tSAB was present (Fig. 5;
tSAB no yes no yes no yes
arm position drive drive drive drive vertical vertical aV-B + tSAB), the change of spinal curvature during the crash was
reduced, compared to aV-B-tSAB.
The effect of four restraint combinations on the predicted thorax
Table 3 response was evaluated for the driving arm position (Fig. 6). When no
Maximum compression and Viscous Criterion results (aD = arms in driving position, tSAB was present in the vehicle, the seatbelt led to an increase of chest
aV = arms in vertical position, −B = unbelted, +B = belted, −tSAB = without tSAB, compression values. However, when the tSAB was present, the seatbelt
+tSAB = with tSAB deployed)
slightly reduced chest compression values for all three CB levels
scenario code aD-B aD-B aD + B aD + B aV-B aV-B (Fig. 6). The VC trends were consistent with the chest compression
-tSAB +tSAB -tSAB +tSAB -tSAB +tSAB values.
In terms of spine kinematics, the unbelted case with no tSAB pre-
Compression 21.2% 27.4% 24.6% 26.8% 32.9% 31.4%
dicted the smallest overall lateral translation values compared to other
Compression 0.62 0.81 0.73 0.79 0.97 0.93
normalized restraint configurations for the driving arm position (Fig. 7). With the
VC normalized 0.76 1.05 0.95 0.96 1.38 1.21 seatbelt and no tSAB, although the overall lateral translation values
increased for all the vertebrae, the spine curvature, namely relative
lateral translation between vertebrae, remained consistent during the
present, the arm in the vertical position increased chest compression by impact event. The relative displacement between T1 and T6, and T11
a factor of 2.05 (from 16.0% to 32.9%) compared with the arm in the and L3, was more pronounced in the belted case, compared to the
drive position, with maximum chest compression measured at the unbelted case. When the tSAB was present, the seatbelt had very little
middle chest band (CB). The tSAB increased the chest compression effect on the predicted response, and both the overall lateral translation
values by 75% for the driving arm position, with maximum chest values and relative translation between vertebrae were similar between
compression measured at the upper chest band. For the vertical arm the belted and unbelted tSAB configurations (Fig. 7; aD-B + tSAB and
position, the tSAB led to a reduction of chest compression (from 30.2% aD + B + tSAB). For the belted occupants, while the L3 and pelvis CG
to 25.8% at the lower chest band). The VC trends were comparable to overall lateral translations were comparable between the cases with
the chest compression response. The protective effect of the tSAB with tSAB and without tSAB, the tSAB reduced the change in spinal curva-
the vertical arm position was comparable for both the VC (changing ture during the crash event (Fig. 7; aD + B + tSAB).
from 1.38 m/s to 1.21 m/s at the middle chest band, relative reduction
of 14%) (Fig. 4).
Thoracic spine displacements were tracked for the first 80 ms of the 4. Discussion
impact (Fig. 5), where the maximum chest deflection occurred between
40 and 50 ms. For the spine kinematics, the smallest overall lateral The Human Body Model (HBM) demonstrated sensitivity to the pre-
translation was observed for the unbelted occupant with no tSAB and crash position of the arm, which was more significant than the effect of
arms in the driving position (Fig. 5; aD-B-tSAB), and the spine curva- different combinations of the restraint systems. In general, the verti-
ture, namely relative lateral translation between the vertebrae, did not cally positioned arm in the load path increased the injury metrics,
change appreciably during the crash. For the driving arm position, which is in agreement with the past findings for an earlier HBM
when the tSAB was present, the overall lateral translation values in- (Gierczycka et al., 2015). Importantly, the current study also included a
creased for all vertebrae and the spine curvature changed during the thoracic side airbag (tSAB), which had previously not been in-
impact event. The spine initially translated laterally and vertebrae vestigated. In general, presence of the thoracic tSAB reduced chest
formed almost a straight line between pelvis centre of gravity (CG) and compression values for the vertical arm position, and increased the
T1 (Fig. 5; aD-B + tSAB, 40 ms). At 60 ms the upper body interacted injury metric values for the driving arm position, for the impact case
considered in this study.

Fig. 4. Thoracic side airbag (tSAB) effect for driving versus vertical arm position for the unbelted occupants, 3 chest band (CB) levels a) Normalized chest compression, and b) normalized
Viscous Criterion (VC). The highest increase in chest compression due to vertical arm position indicated by arrows.

177
D. Gierczycka, D.S. Cronin Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 173–180

Fig. 5. Spine kinematics (T1, T6, T11, L3, and pelvis) for four unbelted cases: drive no thoracic side airbag (tSAB), drive with tSAB, vertical no tSAB, vertical with tSAB.

Fig. 6. Thoracic side airbag (tSAB) effect for belted versus unbelted cases for the driving arm position at three chest band (CB) levels: a) Normalized chest compression, and b) normalized
Viscous Criterion (VC). The highest increase of the chest compression due to tSAB deployment in driving position indicated by arrows.

Fig. 7. Spine kinematics (T1, T6, T11, L3, and pelvis) for driving arm position cases and different restraint combinations: unbelted no tSAB, unbelted with tSAB, belted no tSAB, and
belted with tSAB.

For configurations with the tSAB, the combined effect of the seatbelt
and tSAB reduced the predicted occupant response relative to the case
with a tSAB but no seatbelt. The increase in chest compression asso-
ciated with the seatbelt was related to the shoulder belt engaging the
thorax at the location of the lower chest band (CB), where the thorax is
more compliant. To demonstrate the effect of the measurement method
on predicted response, the chest compression response was also mea-
sured using markers located directly on the ribs, similarly to a method
used to assess the Anthropometric Test Device (ATD) response. While
the CB-based response assessment was sensitive to the seatbelt, there
was no change in occupant response when chest compression was
measured based on rib deformation. This observation demonstrates one
of the limitations of the commonly used methodology of collecting
occupant response with use of measurements at discrete points, and the
importance of response measurement methods should be investigated
further.
The trends in spine kinematics, assessed using the findings of Shaw
et al. (2014) and Kaneko et al. (2007), were consistent with the chest
compression and Viscous Criterion (VC) trends. An increase in chest
compression and VC was associated with changes in spine curvature
during the crash event (i.e. changing from initially straight to curved
through interaction with the intruding door). Both an increase in
overall lateral displacement and change in the spine curvature during
the crash were consistent with the largest increase in chest compression
and VC values. Kaneko et al. (2007) in a simulation study with use of
ATD models observed that reducing relative displacements between
vertebrae and ribs decreased chest deflection values, and results of this
study are consistent with these findings (Kaneko et al., 2007).
Limitations of the current study include considering only one seat
design and restraint system configuration. However, the seat model was
validated with experimental data in a previous study (Watson and
Cronin, 2011; Campbell and Cronin, 2014) and the aim of this study
was to demonstrate that arm position could affect the occupant re-
sponse, rather than to optimize the safety systems for this specific side
impact scenario. The importance of this finding is that future research
on side impact safety system optimization should consider the effect of
occupant position. A second limitation of the study is the biofidelity of
the HBM. Recent studies by Kemper (2013) and Park et al. (2016)
highlighted the importance of biofidelic response of the occupant sur-
rogate arm in side impact. Park et al. proposed enhancements to the

178
D. Gierczycka, D.S. Cronin
GHBMC M50 that could improve biofidelity of the shoulder area of this
HBM, leading to a change in chest deflection on the order of 5%.
However, further improvements are not expected to change the trends
observed in the current study.
5. Conclusions
A detailed Human Body Model (HBM) (GHBMC, M50-O v4.3) in-
tegrated with a validated full vehicle model and exposed to a full ve-
hicle side impact crash scenario can provide insights into occupant
response that are not possible with physical tests using Anthropometric
Test Device (ATD) or Post-Mortem Human Subject (PMHS).
It was identified that the HBM arm position accounted for a higher
magnitude of change in occupant response, relative to varying the re-
straint system, for the side impact scenario considered. The increase of
the maximum chest compression due to having the arm located in a
vertical position compared to the driving arm position was 106% (16%
to 32.9% compression, middle chest band (CB)). The maximum increase
in the chest compression due to varying the restraint configuration was
approximately 75% (15.7% to 27.4% compression, upper CB).
While the CB-based method used in this study to assess chest com-
pression is a currently accepted approach in biomechanical research,
the comparison of CB with rib deflection identified that the measured
occupant response was location and methodology dependant.
Changes in the spine curvature during the impact were found to
correlate with higher values of chest compression and Viscous Criterion
(VC) responses, in agreement with previous studies. This method may
be beneficial since it provides an evaluation of the whole thorax re-
sponse compared to the discrete measurements used to evaluate thorax
compression and VC.
The thoracic side airbag (tSAB) investigated in this study decreased
the chest compression for the vertical arm position by −17%; and re-
sulted in an increase in chest compression response for the driving arm
position (increase of +70%). For the standard driving position, the use
of a seatbelt reduced the chest deflection and VC values compared to
the unbelted case when the tSAB was deployed. Using a seatbelt with
the tSAB was more effective in reduction of occupant response than the
tSAB without the belt system.
This study demonstrated that potentially large differences in the
occupant response may occur, depending on the pre-crash position of
the arm, and that the magnitude of these variations secondarily de-
pends on the side impact safety systems employed, providing one po-
tential explanation for variation in side restraint effectiveness reported
in the literature. Previous studies (e.g. Gierczycka and Cronin, 2015)
identified the importance of arm position on thorax response relative to
other factors such as door compliance, fore-aft and lateral position. The
current study expands this finding to include side impact safety systems
and further demonstrates the importance of arm position on the mea-
sured occupant responses. Future studies should consider the occupant
position, in particular the arm position, when evaluating the efficacy
and optimization of side impact safety systems. In addition to providing
a tool for safety system designers, HBM can highlight important biofi-
delic and human-like responses in complex crash scenarios.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Global Human Body
Model Consortium for use of the HBM, the National Crash Analysis
Centre for the vehicle model, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada for funding this study.
References
Bédard, M., Guyatt, G.H., Stones, M.J., Hirdes, J.P., 2002. The independent contribution
of driver, crash, and vehicle characteristics to driver fatalities. Accid. Anal. Prev. 34
(6), 717–727.
179
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 173–180
Baudrit, P., Hammon, J., Song, E., Robin, S., LeCoz, J.-Y., 1999. Comparative studies of
dummy and human body models behavior in frontal and lateral impact conditions. In:
Proceedings of the 43rd Stapp Car Crash Conference, 99SC05. San Diego, CA. pp.
1999.
Campbell, B.M., Cronin, D.S., 2014. Coupled human body and side impact model to
predict thoracic response. Int. J. Crashworthiness 19 (4), 394–413.
Cesari, D., Ramet, M., Bloch, J., 1981. Influence of Arm Position on Thoracic Injuries in
Side Impact. SAE Technical Paperspp. 271–297.
D'Elia, A., Newstead, S., Scully, J., 2013. Evaluation of vehicle side airbag effectiveness in
Victoria, Australia. Accid. Anal. Prev. 54, 67–72.
Fatal Accident Reporting System, 2016. NHTSA. . www-FARS.nhtsa.dot.gov.
GHBMC, 2014. User Manual: M50 Occupant, Version 4.3 for LS-DYNA. Elemance, LLC.
Luke Gaylor, Mirko Junge, 2015. Assessment of the Efficacy of Vehicle Side Airbags: A
Matched Cohort Study of Vehicle–Vehicle Side Collisions Using the GIDAS Database
2015 IRCOBI.
Gierczycka, D., Cronin, D.S., 2015. Investigation of Human Body Model Response to
Different Lateral Loading Conditions 2015 IRCOBI.
Gierczycka, D., Watson, B., Cronin, D., 2015. Investigation of occupant arm position and
door properties on thorax kinematics in side impact crash scenarios-comparison of
ATD and human models. Int. J. Crashworthiness 20 (3), 242–269.
Griffin, Russell, Huisingh, Carrie, McGwin Jr., Gerald, Reiff, Donald, 2012. Association
between side-impact airbag deployment and risk of injury: a matched cohort study
using the CIREN and the NASS-CDS. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 73 (4), 914–918.
Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, 2016. 2015 Fatality Facts. http://www.iihs.org/
iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts.
Kahane C.J., 2007, An Evaluation of Side Impact Protection −FMVSS 214 TTI(d)
Improvements and Side Air Bags. (Report No. DOT HS 810 748, pp. 11–29).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (www-nrd.nhtsa.
dot.gov/Pubs/810748. PDF); Federal Register 55 (October 30, 1990): 45722.
Kahane, C.J., 2014. Updated Estimates of Fatality Reduction by Curtain and Side Air Bags
in Side Impacts and Preliminary Analyses of Rollover Curtains (Report No. DOT HS
811 882).
Kaneko, N., Taguchi, S., Motoki, M., Ogawa, S., 2007. Optimization of the Side Airbag
System Using MADYMO Simulations. SAE Technical Papers: 2007-01-0345.
Kemper, A.R., McNally, C., Kennedy, E.A., Manoogian, S.J., Duma, S.M., 2008. The in-
fluence of arm position on thoracic response in side impacts. Stapp Car Crash J. 52,
379–420.
Kemper, A.R., 2013. Response corridors for the medial-lateral compressive stiffness of the
human arm: implications for side impact protection. Accid. Anal. Prev. 50, 204–222.
Kim, T., Shaw, G., Lessley, D., Park, G., Crandall, J., Svendsen, A., Whitcomb, B.,
Ayyagari, M., Mishra, P., Markusic, C., 2016. Biofidelity evaluation of WorldSID and
ES-2re under side impact conditions with and without airbag. Accid. Anal. Prev. 90,
140–151.
Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R.H., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T., Pintar, F.A., Yoganandan, N., 2003.
Development of side impact thoracic injury criteria and their application to the
modified ES-2 dummy with rib extensions (ES-2re). Stapp Car Crash J. 47, 189.
Luzon-Narro, J., Arregui-Dalmases, C., Hernando, L.M., Core, E., Narbona, A., Selgas, C.,
2014. Innovative passive and active countermeasures for near side crash safety. Int. J.
Crashworthiness 19 (3), 209–221.
McCartt, A.T., Kyrychenko, S.Y., 2007. Efficacy of side airbags in reducing driver deaths
in driver-side car and SUV collisions. Traffic Inj. Prev. 8 (2), 162–170.
NHTSA, 2006. Traffic Safety Facts 2006: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from
the Fatalities Analysis Reporting System and General Estimates System. US
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
NHTSA, 2012. Laboratory Test Procedure for the New Car Assessment Program Side
Impact Moving Deformable Barrier Test. National Highway Transport Safety
Administration, Washington, DC.
O’Connor, J.V., Kufera, J.A., Kerns, T.J., Stein, D.M., Ho, S., Dischinger, P.C., 2009. Scalea
TM: crash and occupant predictors of pulmonary contusion. J. Trauma Inj. Infect.
Crit. Care 66, 1091–1095.
Opiela, K.S., 2008. Finite Element Model of Ford Taurus. NHTSA Finite Element Model
Archive. (Available at: http://www.ncac.gwu.edu/vml/archive/ncac/vehicle/taurus-
v3.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2011).
Park, G., Kim, T., Panzer, M.B., Crandall, J.R., 2016. Validation of shoulder response of
human body finite-element model (GHBMC) under whole body lateral impact con-
dition. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 1–19.
Pipkorn, B., Haland, Y., 1996. A side airbag system to meet chest injury measures: eva-
luation by mathematical simulations. Int. J. Crashworthiness 1 (1), 145.
Schneider, S., Niwa, M., Koyama, T., Tanase, T., Sato, Y., Sakamoto, M., 2005. and M.
Asaoka. 2005. Effectiveness of Thorax and Pelvis Side Airbag for Improved Side-
Impact Protection. NHTSA.
Shaw, G., Lessley, D.J., Ash, J.L., Sochor, M.R., Crandall, J.R., Luzon-Narro, J., Arregui-
Dalmases, C., 2014. Side impact PMHS thoracic response with large-volume air bag.
Traffic Inj. Prev. 15 (1), 40–47.
Stalnaker, R.L., Tarrière, C., Fayon, A., Walfisch, G., Balthazard, M., Masset, J., Got, C.,
Patel, A., 1979. Modification of Part 572 Dummy for Lateral Impact According to
Biomechanical Data. SAE Technical Papers.
Strother, C.E., Smith, G.C., James, M.B., Warner, C.Y., 1984. Injury and Intrusion in Side
Impacts and Rollovers. SAE Technical Paper Series No. 840403.
Tencer, A.F., Kaufman, R., Mack, C., Mock, C., 2005. Factors affecting pelvic and thoracic
forces in near-side impact crashes: a study of US-NCAP, NASS, and CIREN data.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 37 (2), 287–293.
Thomas, P., Frampton, R., 1999. ‘Injury Patterns in Side Collisions – A New Look with
Reference to Current Test Methods and Injury Criteria’. SAE Technical Paper Series
No. 99SC01.
Trosseille, X., Petitjean, A., 2010. Sensitivity of the WorldSID 50th and ES-2re thoraces to
D. Gierczycka, D.S. Cronin
loading configuration. Stapp Car Crash J. 54, 259–287.
Trosseille, X., Baudrit, P., Leport, T., Vallancien, G., 2008. Rib cage strain pattern as a
function of chest loading configuration. Stapp Car Crash J. 52, 205–231.
Uduma, Kalu, Jiaping Wu, Sukbhir Bilkhu, Mark Gielow, and Murthy Kowsika. 2005.
Door Interior Trim Safety Enhancement Strategies for the SID-IIs Dummy. SAE
Technical Papers (SAE World Congress, Detroit, Michigan): 2005-01-0284.
Viano, D.C., Parenteau, C.S., 2016. Difference in dummy responses in matched side im-
pact tests of vehicles with and without side airbags. Traffic Inj. Prev. 17 (5), 524–529.
Viano, D.C., Lau, I.V., Asbury, C., King, A.I., Begeman, P., 1989a. Biomechanics of the
human chest, abdomen, and pelvis in lateral impact. Accid. Anal. Prev. 21 (6),
553–574.
Viano, D.C., Patel, M., Ciccone, M.A., 1989b. Patterns of arm position during normal
driving. Hum. Factors 31 (6), 715–720.
180
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 173–180
Viano, D.C., 1991. Evaluations of injury risks by armrest loading in side impacts. In:
Proceedings of the 35th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No.
912899. Society of Automotive Engineers. pp. 145–162.
Viano, D.C., 1994. Comparison of arm up and down in side impacts with BioSID and
different armrests. J. Biomech. Eng. 116, 271–277.
Watson, B., Cronin, D.S., 2011. Side impact occupant response with varying positions. Int.
J. Crashworthiness 16 (5), 569–582.
Wismans, J., Happee, R., Van Dommelen, J.A.W., 2005. Computational human body
models. Solid Mech. Appl. 124.
Yoganandan, N., Pintar, F.A., Stemper, B.D., Gennarelli, T.A., Weigelt, J.A., 2007.
Biomechanics of side impact: injury criteria, aging occupants, and airbag technology.
J. Biomech. 40 (2), 227–243.