Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008:44:123-8.

Torso side airbag out-of-position evaluation using stationary and dynamic occupants

Jason J Hallman  1 , Narayan Yoganandan, Frank A Pintar
Affiliations

Torso side airbag out-of-position evaluation using stationary and dynamic occupants

Jason J Hallman et al. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2008.

Abstract

The risk of injury from torso side airbags in out-of-position (OOP) scenarios is assessed using stationary occupant conditions. Although stationary tests have been effective in frontal airbag assessments, their applicability to torso side airbags remains uncertain. Using the MADAYMO facet occupant model, thoracic OOP injury was evaluated using full-chest compression criteria (%C) and viscous criteria (VC) under stationary occupant conditions and occupant impact velocities of 6.0 m/s, 7.0 m/s, 8.0 m/s, and 9.0 m/s. During airbag deployment with a stationary occupant, peak %C = 21.8 % while peak VC = 0.86. At 6.0 m/s impact velocity, peak %C increased to 35.1 %; at 9.0 m/s impact velocity %C = 45.0 %. Similarly, peak VC increased from 1.19 at 6.0 m/s and to 1.96 at 9.0 m/s. These results demonstrated that thoracic injury metrics %C and VC increased in dynamic testing conditions. Therefore dynamic occupant tests may be required to effectively assess OOP thoracic injury risk.

Keywords: chest compression; injury biomechanics; lateral thorax; side impact; torso airbags; traffic accidents; viscous criteria.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
MADYMO Facet Occupant Model orientation in the lateral impact apparatus.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Facet Occupant Model thorax levels as viewed from left lateral.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Peak %C (left) and peak VC (right) resulting from close-proximity static airbag deployment.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Peak %C (left) and Peak VC (right) for 9 m/s impact velocity.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Peak %C (left) and Peak VC (right) resulting from impact velocities tested.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Increase in peak %C (left) and peak VC (right) over rigid wall values at impact velocities tested.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Samaha RR, Elliot DS. NHTSA side impact research: Motivation for upgraded test procedures; Proceedings of the Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles; 2003.p. 492.
    1. Olsson JA, Skötte L-G, Svensson S-E. Air bag system for side impact protection; Proceedings of the Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles; 1989.pp. 976–983.
    1. Haland Y, Pipkorn B. A Parametric Study of a Side Airbag System to Meet Deflection Based Criteria. J Biomechanical Engineering. 1996;118:412–419. - PubMed
    1. Weber PR, Cassatta SJ, Sochor MR, Faust DP, Fakry S, Watts D, Mock C, Wang SC. Lateral air bag performance in CIREN field studies; Proceedings of the SAE World Congress; 2004; SAE 2004-01-0331.
    1. Braver ER, Kyrychenko SY. Efficacy of side air bags in reducing driver dealths in driver-side collisions. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(6):556–564. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources