Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic Response of the Thoracolumbar and Sacral Spine to Simulated Underbody Blast Loading in Whole Body Post Mortem Human Subject Tests

  • WIAMan Biomechanics
  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fourteen simulated underbody blast impact sled tests were performed using a horizontal deceleration sled with the aim of evaluating the dynamic response of the spine in under various conditions. Conditions were characterized by input (peak velocity and time-to-peak velocity for the seat and floor), seat type (rigid or padded) and the presence of personnel protective equipment (PPE). A 50% (T12) and 30% (T8) reduction in the thoracic spine response for the specimens outfitted with PPE was observed. Longer duration seat pulses (55 ms) resulted in a 68–78% reduction in the magnitude of spine responses and a reduction in the injuries at the pelvis, thoracic and lumbar regions when compared to shorter seat pulses (10 ms). The trend analysis for the peak Z (caudal to cranial) acceleration measured along the spine showed a quadratic fit (p < 0.05), rejecting the hypothesis that the magnitude of the acceleration would decrease linearly as the load traveled caudal to cranial through the spine during an Underbody Blast (UBB) event. A UBB event occurs when an explosion beneath a vehicle propels the vehicle and its occupants vertically. Further analysis revealed a relationship (p < 0.01) between peak sacrum acceleration and peak spine accelerations measured at all levels. This study provides an initial analysis of the relationship between input conditions and spine response in a simulated underbody blast environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Babu V., R. Thyagarajan and S. Arepally. Retractor-Based Stroking Seat System and Energy-Absorbing Floor to Mitigate High Shock and Vertical Acceleration. NATO/STO AVT-221 Specialists Meeting on “Design and Protection Technologies for Land and Amphibious NATO Vehicles”: TARDEC, 2014, p. 17.

  2. Bailey, A. M., J. J. Christopher, F. Brozoski, and R. S. Salzar. Post mortem human surrogate injury response of the pelvis and lower extremities to simulated underbody blast. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 43:1907–1917, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailey A. M., J. J. Christopher, K. Henderson, F. Brozoski and R. Salzar. Comparison of Hybrid-III and PMHS Response to Simulated Underbody Blast Loading Conditions. In: Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference 2013.

  4. Bosch K., K. Harris, J. Melotik, D. Clark and R. Scherer. Blast mitigation seat analysis: Drop tower data review. Booz-Allen and Hamilton Inc Troy MI Ground Systems Survivability, 2014.

  5. Chubb, R. M., W. R. Detrick, and R. H. Shannon. Compression fractures of the spine during USAF ejections. Aerosp. Med. 36:968–972, 1965.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Danelson, K., L. Watkins, J. Hendricks, P. Frounfelker, W. I. C. R. Team, K. Pizzolato-Heine, R. Valentine, and K. Loftis. Analysis of the frequency and mechanism of injury to warfighters in the under-body blast environment. Stapp. Car Crash J. 62:489–513, 2018.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Danelson, K. A., A. R. Kemper, M. J. Mason, M. Tegtmeyer, S. A. Swiatkowski, J. H. T. Bolte, and W. N. Hardy. Comparison of ATD to PMHS Response in the Under-Body Blast Environment. Stapp Car Crash J. 59:445–520, 2015.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dooley C. J. Spinal Response and Injury Association from Whole Body PMHS in the Under Body Blast Loading Environment. Master’s Thesis Johns Hopkins University, 2016.

  9. Evans, F. G., H. R. Lissner, and L. M. Patrick. Acceleration-induced strains in the intact vertebral column. J. Appl. Physiol. 17:405–409, 1962.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jackson, K. E., E. L. Fasanella, R. Boitnott, J. McEntire, and A. Lewis. Occupant responses in a full-scale crash test of the sikorsky ACAP helicopter. J. Am. Helicopter Soc. 49:127–139, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Loftis, K. L., E. L. Mazuchowski, M. C. Clouser, and P. J. Gillich. Prominent injury types in vehicle underbody blast. Mil. Med. 184:261–264, 2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller K. and L. Morelli. Ejection Tower Evaluation of the Rate-Dependant Foam Cushions for the NACES Seat. DTIC Document, 1993.

  13. Morgan, R. M., J. H. Marcus, and R. H. Eppinger. Side impact: the biofidelity of NHTSA’s proposed ATD and efficacy of TTI. Stapp Car Crash J. 30:27–40, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ott K. A., C. K. Demetropoulos, M. E. Luongo, J. M. Titus, A. C. Merkle and D. G. Drewry, 3rd. Evaluation of the whole body spine response to sub-injurious vertical loading. Ann Biomed Eng. 2020.

  15. Paquette S., C. Gordon and B. Bradtmiller. Anthropometric Survey (ANSUR) II Pilot Study: Methods and Summary Statistics. Anthrotech Yellow Spring OH, 2009.

  16. Patrick, L. M. Impact force deflection of the human thorax. Stapp Car Crash J. 25:471–496, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Possley, D. R., J. A. Blair, B. A. Freedman, A. J. Schoenfeld, R. A. Lehman, and J. R. Hsu. The effect of vehicle protection on spine injuries in military conflict. Spine J. 12:843–848, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Prasad, P., A. King, and C. Ewing. The role of articular facets during+ Gz acceleration. J. App. Mech. 41:321–326, 1974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramalingam J. and R. Thyagarajan. Analysis of design range for a stroking seat on a stroking floor to mitigate blast loading effects. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2017.

  20. Reed, M. P., and S. M. Ebert. The seated soldier study: Posture and body shape in vehicle seats. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Rupp, J. D., C. S. Miller, M. P. Reed, N. H. Madura, K. D. Klinich, and L. W. Schneider. Characterization of knee-thigh-hip response in frontal impacts using biomechanical testing and computational simulations. Stapp Car Crash J. 52:421–474, 2008.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Slykhouse L., L. W. Zaseck, C. Miller, J. R. Humm, A. Alai, Y. S. Kang, C. Dooley, D. Sherman, B. Bigler and C. K. Demetropoulos. Anatomically-based skeletal coordinate systems for use with impact biomechanics data intended for anthropomorphic test device development. J. Biomech. 2019.

  23. Somasundaram K., A. Kalra, D. Sherman, P. Begeman, K. H. Yang and J. Cavanaugh. An experimental and numerical study of hybrid III dummy response to simulated underbody blast impacts. J. Biomech. Eng. 139: 2017.

  24. Somasundaram K., D. Sherman, P. Begeman, T. Ciarelli, S. A. McCarty, J. J. Kochkodan, C. K. Demetropoulos and J. M. Cavanaugh. Mechanisms and timing of injury to the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine in simulated underbody blast PMHS impact tests. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 104271, 2020.

  25. Somasundaram, K., L. Zhang, D. Sherman, P. Begeman, D. Lyu, and J. M. Cavanaugh. Evaluating thoracolumbar spine response during simulated underbody blast impact using a total human body finite element model. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 100:103398, 2019.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Spink R. J. A simple method for processing measurements of vehicle response to underbody blast during live fire test and evaluation. US Army Research Lab, 2014.

  27. Spurrier E. J. Spinal Injury in Underbody Blast. MD(res) thesis Imperial College London, 2016.

  28. Vulcan, A. P., A. I. King, and G. S. Nakamura. Effects of bending on the vertebral column during +Gz acceleration. Aerosp. Med. 41:294–300, 1970.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang, J., R. Bird, B. Swinton, and A. Krstic. Protection of lower limbs against floor impact in army vehicles experiencing landmine explosion. J. Battlefield Tech. 4:11–15, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yoganandan, N., J. Moore, M. W. Arun, and F. A. Pintar. Dynamic responses of intact post mortem human surrogates from inferior-to-superior loading at the pelvis. Stapp Car Crash J. 58:123, 2014.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported under Contract #N00024-13-D-6400, sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Lab in support of the Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin Program. I gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the WIAMan Engineering Office. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the U. S. Government, the Department of Defense (or its branches), or the Department of the Army. The Authors acknowledge the assistance provided by the Research Design and Analysis Unit (RDA) with the statistical analysis presented in this study. The authors would like to thank Dr. James Kochkodan for his expertise in radiology, Dr. Neil Patel, Dr. Andrew Gambone, Dr. Scott McCarty and Dr. Sanar Yokhana for their assistance with spinal instrumentation. The authors also would like to thank Dr. Carl Schmidt, Dr. Lokman Sung and and Dr. Kanubhai Virani for their assistance identifying injuries during autopsy as well as Corey Nicholson, Donovan Paige and Dr. Traci Ciarelli for their support in the coordination of PMHS testing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

    Donald Sherman, Karthik Somasundaram, Paul Begeman, Sierra Foley, Jason Greb, Cynthia Bir & John M. Cavanaugh

  2. John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, USA

    Constantine K. Demetropoulos

Authors
  1. Donald Sherman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karthik Somasundaram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Begeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sierra Foley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jason Greb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cynthia Bir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Constantine K. Demetropoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John M. Cavanaugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald Sherman.

Additional information

Associate Editor Frank A. Pintar oversaw the review of this article.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Seat Input Pulse and Spine Response Plots

See Fig. A

Figure A
figure 5

Linear and integrated seat acceleration for fourteen whole-body UBB tests. The dotted line represents the seat velocity for this condition.

Full size image

Appendix B: Spine Acceleration Plots with Injury Timing and Peak Values

See Figs. B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, B.6, B.7, B.8, B.9, B.10, B.11, B.12, B.13 and B.14.

Figure B.1
figure 6

Z Acceleration for test WSU01. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The red and blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.2
figure 7

Z acceleration for the test WSU02. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The red and blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.3
figure 8

Z acceleration for test WSU03. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.4
figure 9

Z acceleration for the test WSU04. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.5
figure 10

Z acceleration for test WSU05. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.6
figure 11

Z acceleration for the test WSU06. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.7
figure 12

Z acceleration for test WSU07. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis.

Full size image
Figure B.8
figure 13

Z acceleration for the test WSU08. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The blue circle represents the initial sacrum peak described in results section. The blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.9
figure 14

Z acceleration for test WSU09. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The blue circle represents the initial sacrum peak described in results section.

Full size image
Figure B.10
figure 15

Z acceleration for the test WSU10. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The blue circle represents the initial sacrum peak described in results section.

Full size image
Figure B.11
figure 16

Z acceleration for test WSU11. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The red and blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.12
figure 17

Z acceleration for the test WSU12. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The red, blue and green lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.13
figure 18

Z acceleration for test WSU13. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The blue lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image
Figure B.14
figure 19

Z acceleration for the test WSU14. The red circle represents the peak value used for analysis. The red, blue and green lines indicate the time of the corresponding injury listed above them.

Full size image

Appendix C: Selected Linear Regression Plots

See Fig. C.

Figure C
figure 20

Regression Analysis: First column shows a linear relationship (p < 0.05) between peak seat acceleration and peak spine acceleration measured at S1, T12 and T8 for rigid seats. Second column shows a linear relationship (p < 0.01) between the peak sacrum acceleration and the peak spine acceleration measured at T12, T8, T5 and T1 for rigid and padded seats.

Full size image

Appendix D: Exemplar Still Images from High Speed Video

See Fig. D.

Figure D
figure 21figure 21

Right, center and left still images from high speed video of test WSU11 at 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 ms.

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sherman, D., Somasundaram, K., Begeman, P. et al. Dynamic Response of the Thoracolumbar and Sacral Spine to Simulated Underbody Blast Loading in Whole Body Post Mortem Human Subject Tests. Ann Biomed Eng 49, 3046–3079 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-021-02753-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-021-02753-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation