Human Torso Response to Blunt Trauma
The most frequent causes of blunt abdominal injury are the steering wheel and the lap belt. The organs most often injured are the liver, pancreas, spleen and intestines. Based on this information, a series of animal abdominal impacts were designed to study the relationship between shape and type of impactor, velocity and direction of impact, body region impacted and injury level. The results of this study are given in the form of an experimental scaling factor which relates the sensitivity to impacts of the various body regions. This scaling factor was found to be dependent of body weight, making it applicable for evaluating human tolerances to abdominal impacts.
A cadaver program was initiated as part of the human response to impact study. Cadavers were received approximately one to three days after death, and were unembalmed. These cadavers were impacted on the front of the chest over the fourth rib. The velocity of the impact and the mass of the impactor were held constant. Static compression tests were also conducted on the chest in the anterior-posterior direction using both cadavers and human volunteers. The results are given as load-deflection curves with comparison to previous published data.
KeywordsBlunt Trauma Average Contact Pressure Tense State Estimate Severity Embalm Cadaver
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.D. L. Beckman, J. H. McElhaney, V. L. Roberts, and R. L. Stalnaker, “Impact Tolerance —Abdominal Injury,” NTIS No. PB204171, 1971.Google Scholar
- 4.L. Grimelius and G. Hellstrom, “Patho-Anatomical Changes After Closed Liver Injury: An Experimental Study in Dogs,” Acta. Chir. Scand., 131: pp. 485–494, 1966.Google Scholar
- 5.G. Hellstrom, “Intra-Vascular Pressure Response to Closed Liver Injury: An Experimental Study in Dogs,” Acta. Soc. Med. Upsal. 70: pp. 167–190, 1965.Google Scholar
- 6.G. Hellstrom, “Electrocardiographic, Blood Pressure, Respiratory and Electroencephalographic Responses to Closed Liver Injury: An Experimental Study in Dogs,” Acta. Soc. Med. Upsal., 70: pp. 152–166, 1965.Google Scholar
- 8.H. Mertz, and C. Kroell, “Tolerance of Thorax and Abdomen,” In Gurdjian, Impact and Crash Protection, C. Thomas, Springfield, 111., pp. 372–401, 1970.Google Scholar
- 9.R. L. Stalnaker, J. H. McElhaney, R. G. Snyder and V. L. Roberts, “Door Crashworthiness Criteria,” NTIS No. PB203721, 1971.Google Scholar
- 11.P. G. Windquist, P. W. Stumm and R. Hansen, “Crash Injury Experiments with the Monorail Decelerator,” AF Technical Report No. AFFTC 53–7, April 27, 1953.Google Scholar
- 12.C. K. KroeU, D. C. Schneider and A. M. Nahum, “Impact Tolerance and Response of the Human Thorax,” Proceedings of the Fifteeth Stapp Car Crash Conference, p. 84, Paper No. 710851, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., New York, 1971.Google Scholar
- 14.A. M. Nahum, C. W. Gadd, D. C. Schneider and C. K. Kroell, “Deflection of the Human Thorax under Sternal Impact,” 1971 International Automobile Safety Conference Compendium, p 30, Paper No. 700400, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., New York, 1970.Google Scholar
- 16.L. M. Patrick, C. K. Kroell and H. J. Mertz, “Forces on the Human Body in Simulated Crashes,” Proceeding of the Ninth Stapp Car Crash Conferences. p. 237, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1965.Google Scholar