Parametric analysis of an anti-whiplash system composed of a seat suspension arrangement

  • Mustafa Özdemir
  • Sıtkı Kemal İder
  • Mustafa İlhan Gökler
Technical Paper

Abstract

Neck injuries frequently seen in low-speed rear-end collisions are referred to as whiplash injuries. Most of the proposed anti-whiplash systems in the literature rely on reducing the backset. A relatively new and promising alternative concept is a slideable seat. This study aimed to parametrically analyze an anti-whiplash vehicle seat that can slide backward against a horizontal suspension arrangement composed of a spring and a damper in response to a rear-end collision, and to investigate the effects of the suspension parameters on the injury risk. A simplified model of a slideable vehicle seat is developed, and simulations are conducted in LS-DYNA® environment using this slideable seat model and the commercially available finite element model of the BioRID II dummy. The maximum value of the Neck Injury Criterion (NICmax) is used as the measure of the injury risk. As a result, a strong linear inverse correlation is observed between NICmax and the maximum seat sliding distance, while the stiffness and damping coefficients of the suspension are varied. This result is also verified by obtaining the same NICmax value for the same maximum seat sliding distance (although the stiffness and damping coefficients are different). It is also shown that, for a given backset value as large as 60 mm, a slideable seat with the suspension parameters selected to yield a reasonable maximum seat sliding distance such as 100 mm significantly improves NICmax compared to a standard seat. As the maximum seat sliding distance is increased, the injury risk becomes smaller.

Keywords

Whiplash Safety Rear impact Neck injury 

List of symbols

\(a_{\text{head}} (t)\)

Horizontal acceleration of the center of gravity of the head

\(a_{T1} (t)\)

Horizontal acceleration of the first thoracic vertebrae

b

Backset distance

c

Damping coefficient of the anti-whiplash seat suspension damper

d

Maximum sliding distance of the seat

Fb

Initial bias force of the anti-whiplash seat suspension spring

k

Stiffness of the anti-whiplash seat suspension spring

NIC

Neck Injury Criterion

t

Time

x

Amount of the initial compression given to the anti-whiplash seat suspension spring

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Hüseyin Dicle, Evren Anık, and Murat Sefa İnce, at the Seat Design Management of TOFAŞ R&D Directorate, for their valuable discussions. Additionally, Mustafa Özdemir is thankful to the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for the support provided through the National Scholarship Programme for PhD students. Last but not least, thanks to the METU-BILTIR Center Vehicle Safety Unit for the facilities provided.

References

  1. 1.
    Eck JC, Hodges SD, Humphreys SC (2001) Whiplash: a review of a commonly misunderstood injury. Am J Med 110(8):651–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sterner Y, Gerdle B (2004) Acute and chronic whiplash disorders—a review. J Rehabil Med 36(5):193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis CG (2013) Mechanisms of chronic pain from whiplash injury. J Forensic Leg Med 20(2):74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Svensson MY, Lövsund P, Håland Y, Larsson S (1996) The influence of seat-back and head-restraint properties on the head-neck motion during rear-impact. Accid Anal Prev 28(2):221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siegmund GP, Heinrichs BE, Wheeler JB (1999) The influence of head restraint and occupant factors on peak head/neck kinematics in low-speed rear-end collisions. Accid Anal Prev 31(4):393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chapline JF, Ferguson SA, Lillis RP, Lund AK, Williams AF (2000) Neck pain and head restraint position relative to the driver’s head in rear-end collisions. Accid Anal Prev 32(2):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watanabe Y, Ichikawa H, Kayama O, Ono K, Kaneoka K, Inami S (2000) Influence of seat characteristics on occupant motion in low-speed rear impacts. Accid Anal Prev 32(2):243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Golinski WZ, Gentle CR (2001) Biomechanical simulation of whiplash—some implications for seat design. Int J Crashworthiness 6(4):573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farmer CM, Wells JK, Lund AK (2003) Effects of head restraint and seat redesign on neck injury risk in rear-end crashes. Traffic Inj Prev 4(2):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szabo TJ, Voss DP, Welcher JB (2003) Influence of seat foam and geometrical properties on BioRID P3 kinematic response to rear impacts. Traffic Inj Prev 4(4):315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eriksson L (2005) Influence of head restraint position on long-term AIS 1 neck injury risk. Int J Crashworthiness 10(6):545–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sendur P, Thibodeau R, Burge J, Tencer A (2005) Parametric analysis of vehicle design influence on the four phases of whiplash motion. Traffic Inj Prev 6(3):258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stemper BD, Yoganandan N, Pintar FA (2006) Effect of head restraint backset on head-neck kinematics in whiplash. Accid Anal Prev 38(2):317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Viano DC (2008) Seat design principles to reduce neck injuries in rear impacts. Traffic Inj Prev 9(6):552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ivancic PC, Sha D, Panjabi MM (2009) Whiplash injury prevention with active head restraint. Clin Biomech 24(9):699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shin MK, Park KJ, Park GJ (2003) Occupant analysis and seat design to reduce neck injury from rear end impact. Int J Crashworthiness 8(6):573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee J-W, Yoon K-H, Park G-J (2003) A study on occupant neck injury in rear end collisions. Proc Inst Mech Eng D J Automob Eng 217(1):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Viano DC (2003) Seat properties affecting neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why whiplash has increased. Traffic Inj Prev 4(3):214–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Viano DC (2003) Influence of seat properties on occupant dynamics in severe rear crashes. Traffic Inj Prev 4(4):324–336CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar S, Ferrari R, Narayan Y, Vieira ER (2004) The effect of occupant position in volunteers subjected to whiplash-type rear impacts. Int J Crashworthiness 9(6):599–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Latchford J, Chirwa EC, Chen T, Mao M (2005) The relationship of seat backrest angle and neck injury in low-velocity rear impacts. Proc Inst Mech Eng D J Automob Eng 219(11):1293–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bring G, Björnstig U, Westman G (1996) Gender patterns in minor head and neck injuries: an analysis of casualty register data. Accid Anal Prev 28(3):359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Viano DC (2003) Seat influences on female neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why women have higher whiplash rates. Traffic Inj Prev 4(3):228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hong SJ, Choi HY (2009) Effects of head restraint and vehicle damage severity on neck injury risk. Int J Automot Technol 10(3):347–353CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carlsson A, Siegmund GP, Linder A, Svensson MY (2012) Motion of the head and neck of female and male volunteers in rear impact car-to-car impacts. Traffic Inj Prev 13(4):378–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCreesh K, Arthurs S, Horgan S, Keane L, Meagher L (2012) Vehicle head restraint positioning knowledge and behaviours in a sample of Irish drivers. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot 19(4):340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Farmer CM, Wells JK, Werner JV (1999) Relationship of head restraint positioning to driver neck injury in rear-end crashes. Accid Anal Prev 31(6):719–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kumar S, Narayan Y, Amell T (2000) Role of awareness in head-neck acceleration in low velocity rear-end impacts. Accid Anal Prev 32(2):233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Latchford J, Chirwa EC (2000) Airbag head restraint system. Proc Inst Mech Eng D J Automob Eng 214(3):229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmitt K-U, Muser MH, Niederer PF (2003) Evaluation of a new visco-elastic foam for automotive applications. Int J Crashworthiness 8(2):169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krafft M, Kullgren A, Ydenius A, Tingvall C (2002) Influence of crash pulse characteristics on whiplash associated disorders in rear impacts–crash recording in real life crashes. Traffic Inj Prev 3(2):141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Panjabi MM, Cholewicki J, Nibu K, Grauer JN, Babat LB, Dvorak J (1998) Mechanism of whiplash injury. Clin Biomech 13(4–5):239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Gennarelli TA (2002) Biomechanical mechanisms of whiplash injury. Traffic Inj Prev 3(2):98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chen HB, Yang KH, Wang ZG (2009) Biomechanics of whiplash injury. Chin J Traumatol 12(5):305–314MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fice JB, Cronin DS (2012) Investigation of whiplash injuries in the upper cervical spine using a detailed neck model. J Biomech 45(6):1098–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schmitt K-U, Muser M, Heggendorn M, Niederer P, Walz F (2003) Development of a damping seat slide to reduce whiplash injury. Proc Inst Mech Eng D J Automob Eng 217(11):949–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luo M, Zhou Q (2010) A vehicle seat design concept for reducing whiplash injury risk in low speed rear impact. Int J Crashworthiness 15(3):293–311CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Himmetoglu S, Acar M, Bouazza-Marouf K, Taylor AJ (2008) Energy-absorbing car seat designs for reducing whiplash. Traffic Inj Prev 9(6):583–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Himmetoglu S, Acar M, Taylor AJ, Bouazza-Marouf K (2007) A multi-body head-and-neck model for simulation of rear impact in cars. Proc Inst Mech Eng D J Automob Eng 221(5):527–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Deter T, Malczyk A, Kuehn M (2007) Validation of a seat-dummy simulation model for rear-impact. Paper presented at: 20th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles conference (ESV); June 18–21, 2007; Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stahlschmitd S, Keding B, Franz U, Hirth A (2006) BioRID II dummy model development—influence of parameters in validation and consumer tests. Paper presented at: 9th international LS-DYNA conference; June 04–06, 2006; Dearborn, Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stahlschmitd S, Keding B, Witowski K, Müllerschön H, Franz U (2006) BioRID II dummy model development—stochastic investigations. Paper presented at: 5th LS-DYNA forum; October 12–13, 2006; Ulm, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Özdemir M, İder SK, Gökler Mİ, Dicle H, Anık E, İnce MS (2010) “BioRID II” ve basitleştirilmiş koltuk modelleri ile “whiplash” analizi (in Turkish). Paper presented at: 5th automotive technologies congress (OTEKON 2010); June 07–08, 2010; Bursa, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Özdemir M (2013) Analysis of whiplash during rear crash and development of an anti-whiplash seat mechanism. Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boström O, Fredriksson R, Håland Y, Jakobsson L, Krafft M, Lövsund P, Muser MH, Svensson MY (2000) Comparison of car seats in low speed rear-end impacts using the BioRID dummy and the new neck injury criterion (NIC). Accid Anal Prev 32(2):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) (2008) The dynamic assessment of car seats for neck injury protection testing protocol. Version 2.8Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yuen M, Bilston LE (2004) Development of an anti-whiplash seat. A research and analysis report performed by the Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, sponsored by/available from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Golinski WZ, Gentle R (2005) The influence of seat back rake on ligament loadings in rear-end impact. Proc Inst Mech Eng D J Automob Eng 219(2):197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP) (2013) Assessment protocol—adult occupant protection. Version 5.5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mustafa Özdemir
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sıtkı Kemal İder
    • 3
  • Mustafa İlhan Gökler
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMiddle East Technical UniversityÇankayaTurkey
  2. 2.METU-BILTIR CenterMiddle East Technical UniversityÇankayaTurkey
  3. 3.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentÇankaya UniversityYenimahalleTurkey

Personalised recommendations