This article was downloaded by: [University of Sherbrooke]On: 19 November 2014, At: 03:43Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of CrashworthinessPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Evaluation of a new security system to reduce thoracicinjuries in case of motorcycle accidentsL. Thollon a , Y. Godio a , S. Bidal b & C. Brunet aa Laboratory of Biomechanics and Applications, Faculté de Médecine Nord , Université de laméditerranée , Marseille, Franceb Altair Development France , Marseille, FrancePublished online: 15 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: L. Thollon , Y. Godio , S. Bidal & C. Brunet (2010) Evaluation of a new security system to reducethoracic injuries in case of motorcycle accidents, International Journal of Crashworthiness, 15:2, 191-199, DOI:10.1080/13588260903102062

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588260903102062

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of CrashworthinessVol. 15, No. 2, April 2010, 191–199

Evaluation of a new security system to reduce thoracic injuries in case of motorcycle accidents

L. Thollona∗, Y. Godioa, S. Bidalb and C. Bruneta

aLaboratory of Biomechanics and Applications, Faculte de Medecine Nord, Universite de la mediterranee, Marseille, France; bAltairDevelopment France, Marseille, France

(Received 29 May 2009; final version received 4 June 2009)

A study sponsored by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1981 showed that the most deadlyinjuries to the accident victims were injuries of the chest and head. In this context, the present paper focuses on the use ofthe numerical simulation to predict rib fractures in case of motorcycle accidents and to evaluate a new safety system, i.e. anairbag integrated in the jacket. Different simulations were performed, with and without airbag, according to experimentaltests (pendulum subsystem tests with post-mortem human subjects (PMHS)) to evaluate the influence of various parameters.For each configuration test, we analysed the load versus time curve of the pendulum and performed an injury report toevaluate ribs fractures. Concerning the airbag system, the study showed that this type of protection increases motocyclist’ssecurity. Indeed, for each simulations test, performed with airbag, no injuries were noted when the airbag was used.

Keywords: finite element model; human; motorcycle; trauma; safety; crash

Introduction

A study performed by The French National Institute forTransport and Safety Research (INRETS) [8] in 2007 de-scribes injuries of the riders of motorised two-wheelers sus-tained in road crashes between 1996 and 2003 and recordedby the Rhone Road Trauma Registry in France. Throughthis study, it seems that 50% of the severely injured riderssustained severe chest injuries and 44.8% suffered severehead injuries.

In the same context, a study sponsored by NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1981[4] examined nearly 4500 motorcyclist crashes occurringin the Los Angeles area of the United States. This studyshowed firstly that the most deadly injuries for the accidentvictims were injuries to the chest and head. Secondly, it isinteresting to note that unlike the head, no effective securitysystems were used by motorcyclists to prevent or reducethorax injuries.

This observation is confirmed by a study performed byKrauss in 2002 [5]. Indeed, while the safety helmet allowedthe reduction of severe head injuries, few technologicaladvances have been made to reduce the severity of tho-racic injuries in motorcycle crashes [5]. Moreover, Kraussobserved that the number of rib fractures were stronglyassociated with chances of injuries to the thoracic and ab-dominal organs.

However, the development of a new safety system forthe thorax requires a standardisation to evaluate thoracic

∗Corresponding author. Email: lionel.thollon@inrets.fr

injuries in the case of motorcycles before analysing thebenefits of these safety devices.

In this regard, some studies were performed to developinjury criteria. After acceleration tolerance studies by Stapp[16,17] and force tolerance studies by Patrick [11,12], com-pression criterion appeared as better alternative accordingto Kroell [6,7], who performed a large number of frontalchest impacts (using a 152-mm diameter rigid pendulum)and found a better correlation of the abbreviated injuryscale (AIS) with chest compression (r = 0.730) than withmaximum plateau force (r = 0.524).

Viano [18] recommended a 32% chest compressionlimit instead of a 40% limit leading to severe injury tothe thoracic viscera.

Later frontal thoracic tolerance studies led to an alter-nate injury criterion by Viano [19], the Viscous Criteriondefined as the instantaneous product of chest wall veloc-ity and chest compression expressed in percentage of chestdepth.

Therefore, if human tolerance of the chest to the bluntimpact was initially dedicated to protect unbelted driversinvolved in frontal crashes and later to understand the inter-action between the belt and the ribcage, some recent studiesfocused on the development of new safety systems in thecase of motorcycle accidents.

In this context, the study presented is a part of aPREDIT (Land Transport Research Innovation Program)project, ‘Improved Protection Motorcyclists by a Vest with

ISSN: 1358-8265 print / ISSN: 1754-2111 onlineC© 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13588260903102062http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

192 L. Thollon et al.

Integrated Airbag’ (PROMOTO), where the objectives areto analyse motorcyclist accidents, to perform experimentaland numerical tests for different motor crash configurationsand to test a new airbag system directly integrated in themotorcyclist’s jacket.

This paper focuses on the use of simulation to predictrib fractures and to evaluate the airbag system. The hu-man model used is the Radioss

©RHUman MOdel for Safety

(HUMOS), developed and validated from the HUMOS Eu-ropean project.

Materials and methods

The aims of this study are as follows:

� To develop the knowledge of vulnerable body seg-ments in case of motorcycle accident.

� To confirm and achieve the assumptions of injurymechanisms.

� To evaluate the benefit of a new safety system interms of injuries reduction.

The numerical study was performed in two steps:

� Firstly, analysis consisted in evaluating the criteriamaking it possible to understand the thoracic injuriesand more particularly the ribs fractures; the aimswere, through the simulation, to understand the injurymechanisms observed in these types of accidents.

� Secondly, we performed simulations focusing on thebenefit of a new safety system.

For both the above-mentioned approaches, we used thefinite element human model, HUMOS, based on the 3Dreconstruction of a car driver [14,15].

Description of HUMOS model

For all the tests, we performed simulations with and withoutairbag positioned on the HUMOS model.

The HUMOS model is a 50th percentile European hu-man model, in height and weight. This model was developedbetween 1998 and 2001, in the framework of a Europeanproject gathering software and automobile manufacturers,research institute and universities.

The HUMOS model used for our study is validatedlocally for each anatomical part through subsystem tests andglobally through sled tests, as detailed in [2,13] (Figure 1).

Description of simulation procedure

First step

The simulations were based on the experimental tests per-formed at the Laboratory of Biomechanics and Applica-tions (LBA), pendulum tests with a post-mortem humansubject (PMHS) (impact mass = 12 kg). The impact wasset at the lower sternum level, at the left side of the PMHS,

Figure 1. HUMOS model.

in a perpendicular position to HUMOS model, at three dif-ferent impact velocities (3.33, 4.33 and 5.33 m/s). Afterthat, to estimate the possibility of using the load applied tothe chest as a rib criterion, we performed other simulationsat three different impact areas (lower, centre and upper ster-num), and compared the results focusing on the type of theimpact (pendulum orientation: perpendicular or lateral) andon the impact of the body segment (Figures 2 and 3).

Second step

It consists of performing simulation tests with and withoutthe new safety system (airbag), based on those describedbelow. These simulations take into account the influencesof the impact speed, the type of impactor and the impactarea. These tests were performed with the HUMOS model.

1st configuration:

� Impact speeds: 3.33, 4.33, 5.33 m/s.� Impact area: Lower sternum.� Impactor: Flat pendulum (mass = 12 kg and di-

ameter = 76 mm) perpendicular to the impact area(Figure 2).

2nd configuration:

� Impact speeds: 2.78, 5.56, 8.33, 11.11 m/s.� Impact area: Upper sternum.

Figure 2. Perpendicular pendulum position.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

International Journal of Crashworthiness 193

Figure 3. Lateral pendulum position.

� Impactor: Same flat pendulum (mass = 12 kg anddiameter = 80 mm) lateral to the impact area(Figure 3).

For both the approaches, sensors were used to analysethe results.

� Force sensor of the pendulum was measured to evalu-ate the load applied to the rib cage during the impact.

Concerning the criterion used to evaluate the thoracic in-juries, AIS was used [1]. The current FMVSS 208 isbased on Kroell’s results, which were analysed by Neathery[9]. These studies allowed determining the percentageof chest depth and compression for the 50th percentilemale and the corresponding AIS values as shown inTable 1.

The AIS can be computed using the percentage of chestcompression: AIS = −-3.78 + 19.56 C. This calculationmethod was used in the current study.

Description of simulation with airbag

For the simulations with airbag, each run was performed intwo steps.

� Step 1. Inflation of the airbag: this step corresponds tothe airbag positioning on the HUMOS model. Firstly,we pre-positioned the airbag, not inflated, aroundthe human model, whose development was based onthe CAO provided by the manufacturers. During theairbag inflation (60 ms) the airbag shape is controlledin order to cover the whole HUMOS external surface,particularly the thoracic part (Figure 4a).

Table 1. Chest compression injury criteria.

Chest compression (%)50th percentile

chest compression (mm) AIS

30 69 233 76 340 92 4

Figure 4. (a) Position of the uninflated airbag. (b) Position of theinflated airbag.

� Step 2. Impact simulations: numerical simulationswere performed like those described in Step 1. Theaim of this approach is to evaluate the benefits of asafety system for the different tested configurationswithout airbag (Figure 4b).

Results

First Step: Simulations without airbag

From the sensitivity study of the model for various im-pact speeds and impactor forms, a first injury report wasestablished.

Influence of impact speed for the perpendicular pendu-lum position (Table 2)

This injury report has been obtained for quite low im-pact speeds; the higher impact speed in this step is 5.33m/s.

Influence of impact area on the sternum, at v = 5.33m/s for the lateral pendulum position (Table 3)

We can notice an AIS increase for the upper ster-num impact configuration compared with two othercases.

Moreover, the load level applied on the model also in-creases for lateral pendulum configurations compared withperpendicular pendulum impact simulations.

Table 2. Injury report for three different impact speeds.

Impact speed, v (m/s) 3.33 4.33 5.33Load, F (N) 1940 2208 2572Injuries (AIS) 0 0 1.2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

194 L. Thollon et al.

Table 3. Injury report for the three different pendulumpositions.

Pendulumposition

Uppersternum

Centresternum

Lowersternum

Load, F (N) 4444 5201 4640Injuries (AIS) 1.45 0 0

Second Step: Comparison of simulation with andwithout airbag, for the two configurationsdescribed in the materials and methods

A first study concerning the airbag has been led by com-paring kinematics and injury report in order to evaluate theinfluence of this safety system.

1st configuration

A stress reduction can be noticed on the rib cage (Figure 5)in the simulations with the airbag system.

Concerning injury reports, no rib fracture on theHUMOS model was noticed for all the simulations withairbag and for all impact speeds.

Nevertheless, the load level measured the impact pendu-lum worth being studied for the three speeds in simulationswith airbag (Figure 6).

A load level decrease of 32% and 21% is obtained forimpact speeds of 3.33 m/s and 4.33 m/s respectively withthe airbag system.

For a speed of 5.33 m/s, the resulting decrease is onlyabout 1.5%.

Concerning the sternum deflection measured for eachimpact, a decrease can also be observed with the airbag:around 10 mm of maximal deflection instead of more than40 mm for impact speed inferior to 5.55 m/s without anyprotection system (Figure 7).

By using the AIS scale for each test, low-impact speeds(<4.5 m/s) lead to similar injury reports with or withoutairbag. For higher impact speeds (5.33 m/s), the AIS in-creased up to 1.3 without airbag, whereas it is always nullwith airbag (Figure 8). Injury level remains minor in allcases (AIS 1).

The correspondence between AIS and ribs fractures isdetailed below [3]:

AIS: rib fractures.

� AIS 1: 1 rib fracture.� AIS 2: 2–3 rib fractures.� AIS 3: >3 on one side, ≤3 on the other side.� AIS 4: >3 rib fracture on both sides, flail chest.� AIS 5: bilateral flail chest.

2nd configuration

With airbag, the applied load level decreases by 50%, 32%and 31% for impact speeds of 2.78 m/s, 5.56 m/s and 8.33m/s respectively (Figure 9). At a speed of 11.11 m/s, theobserved load reduction is only about 5%.

As for perpendicular pendulum tests, a reduction ofsternum deflection is observed (Figure 10) when the airbagsystem is used at speeds of 2.77 to 8.33 m/s. With airbagthe maximal deflection remains inferior to 10 mm, whereasit rises to 40 mm during a 8.33-m/s impact if no safety

Figure 5. Von Mises stress distribution for the ribcage in case of subsystem tests with and without airbag.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

International Journal of Crashworthiness 195

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

543.5 4.5 5.53

Impact speed (m/s)

Fo

rce

max

. (N

)

Without airbagWith airbag

Figure 6. Comparing maximum load versus impact speed in the case of perpendicular pendulum position with and without airbag.

system is worn. Nevertheless, for a 11.11-m/s impact withairbag, a significant increase of the sternum deflection isobserved, which represents more than 300% compared tothe 8.33-m/s impact with airbag.

From the injury report based on AIS, the influence ofthe airbag system is clearly highlighted (Figure 11). For a8.33-m/s impact, if no safety system is worn, the impact

induces major injuries (AIS 5+), whereas no injuries areobserved with airbag (AIS = 0).

For the 11.11-m/s impact with airbag, injuries are re-ported (AIS = 1.8), but it is interesting to notice again thedifference in terms of severity: the airbag allows reduc-ing the AIS from 5 (bilateral flail chest) to 1.8 (1–2 ribfractures). It confirms that such a safety system can allow

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

543 3.5 4.5 5.5Impact speed (m/s)

Def

lect

ion

max

(m

m)

Without airbagWith airbag

Figure 7. Comparing rib deflection versus impact speed in case of perpendicular pendulum position with and without airbag.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

196 L. Thollon et al.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

5.554.543.53

Impact speed (m/s)

AIS

Without airbagWith airbag

Figure 8. Comparing AIS versus impact speed in case of perpendicular pendulum position with and without airbag.

the avoidance of life-threatening injuries, or at least reducethem to minor fractures.

Discussion

First Step: Simulations without airbag

Two solicitation configurations were used in this approach:

� 1st configuration: A 76-mm diameter rigid pendulumimpacting the chest in perpendicular position, whichleads to local stress on the HUMOS model.

� 2nd configuration: The same pendulum impactingthe chest in lateral position, which lead to stressdistributed on a bigger area of the HUMOS modelchest.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10,000

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Impact speed (m/s)

Fo

rce

max

. (N

)

Without airbagWith airbag

Figure 9. Comparing load versus impact speed in case of lateral pendulum position with and without airbag.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

International Journal of Crashworthiness 197

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Impact speed (m/s)

Def

lect

ion

s (m

m)

Without airbagWith airbag

Figure 10. Comparing sternum deflection versus impact speed in case of lateral pendulum position with and without airbag.

From the results of this approach, the influence of theimpactor form on the applied load level is shown. Neverthe-less, this load increase does not induce a more severe injuryreport as expected; on the contrary, the injury severity isreduced for the 2nd configuration tests (AIS = 0 instead ofAIS = 1.2 for the 1st configuration), despite an approxi-

mately 80% increase of the applied load in configuration 2(F = 4639) compared with configuration 1 (F = 2572 N).

Concerning the impact area, by comparing load levelsand injury reports for high-sternum impacts ((F = 4444 N;AIS = 1.45) to low-sternum impacts (F = 4639 N; AIS =0) in lateral impactor configuration, for the same load range

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Impact speed (m/s)

AIS

Without airbagWith airbag

Figure 11. Comparing AIS versus impact speed in case of lateral pendulum position with and without airbag.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

198 L. Thollon et al.

(around 4% of variation), more severe injuries are observedin case of high-sternum impacts.

This first study leads to the following main result:

� The maximum force level measured during impactcannot be considered as a good injury criterion. Thisresult is also detailed by Kroell [6,7], who performeda large number of frontal chest impacts.

Second Step: Comparison of simulation with andwithout airbag, for the two configurationsdescribed in the materials and methods

1st configuration

These tests were performed in the same configuration asthose carried out in the first approach, i.e. with impactspeeds of 3.33, 4.33 and 5.33 m/s, a perpendicular pendu-lum position and an impact area close to the lower ster-num, but for these tests an airbag was used in order tocheck its contribution in terms of reduction of the injuryassessment.

As we have already noticed, the load level is stronglydecreased when an airbag was used as a safety system.Indeed, the airbag makes it possible to dissipate the im-pact energy and thus to minimise the load applied onthe rib cage. This results in a very positive injury assess-ment, since no injury was observed when the airbag wasused.

Concerning the loads applied, it is interesting to con-sider the last test at v = 5.33 m/s. Indeed, for this loadingcase, it appears that the loads observed with and withoutairbag are similar. Thus, we can consider that in this casewith a perpendicular pendulum position, the airbag wasfully loaded (total crushing). It should be noted, however,that for a similar level of maximum load with or withoutairbag, the injury assessment is different: no injury withairbag (AIS = 0) and ribs fractures without airbag (AIS =1.2) (cf. Table 2).

So for this type of load, with an impact mass of 12 kg andan impact speed V = 5.33 m/s, the resulting load cannotbe used as a predictive injury criterion. This confirms theobservations carried out in the first approach.

2nd configuration

The aim of this second series of tests was first to comparethe results with the previous ones, for weak loading ranges,and also to load more severely the airbag until an impactspeed of 11.11 m/s (approximately 11.11 m/s).

The level of load applied was clearly reduced with adifference compared to the first test carried out with a lateralpendulum position.

If for the first type of load we reached a threshold valuefor the reduction of the load applied with an impact speedof about 4.33 m/s (beyond this speed, the load measured

for a test with airbag converges towards the load measuredfor a test without airbag), for this new series of test, untilan impact speed of about 8.33 m/s, we note a decrease of31% of the load applied; it is only starting from this impactspeed value that the measured load with airbag configura-tion converges towards that measure when the airbag is notused, to reach a similar level of load (approximately 9000N) around 11.11 m/s.

With regard to the deflection of the sternum, two obser-vations can be made:

� For an impact speed of about 8.33 m/s with airbag,we measured a deflection lower than 10 mm, whichcorresponds to a decrease of 80% compared to thecase of the test at 8.33 m/s without airbag.

� For an impact speed of about 11.11 m/s with airbag,if we observed an increase of 300% compared tothe case described above (impact speed = 8.33 m/s,with airbag), it is important to note that a decreaseof the sternum deflection (approximately 47%) wasmeasured as compared to the case of the test at 11.11m/s without airbag.

Thus, following this second series of tests, with and withoutairbag, the first report arises. Within the framework of thistype of load, closer to a real accident situation for the two-wheel motorised vehicle (impact speed ranging between8.33 m/s and 11.11 m/s, larger impact surface on the bodysegments), the airbag fully plays its role: large decreaseof the sternum deflection resulting in a very positive injuryassessment; AIS = 0 up to 8.33 m/s and AIS < 2 in the caseof impact at 11.11 m/s. It should be noted that these impactspeeds are in agreement with the impact speeds estimated byHurt [4]. Indeed, the median pre-crash landing speed wasestimated to be 29.8 mph, and the median crash landingspeed close to 21.5 mph (9.72 m/s).

Conclusion

This study had determined that 21.7% of deaths in roadcrashes in France and 32.5% of those severely injured in-volved motorcyclists, according to the ONISR 2005 statis-tics [10].

The objectives were first to evaluate the use of the loadapplied on the chest as an injury criterion, and secondly todevelop and evaluate a digital model of airbag jacket basedon an existing prototype.

According to our results, the load applied on the chestas unique injury criterion raises strong limitations.

The benefits of using of an airbag jacket as a new pro-tection system were also assessed, as it could significantlyreduce the sternum deflection and the injury gravity (fromAIS = 5 without airbag to AIS = 2 with the airbag jacket).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

International Journal of Crashworthiness 199

Future work

The next steps of this study will consist of the following:

� Performing subsystem tests in order to evaluate theairbag benefit in terms of injuries reduction (impacton the backside and lateral side of the motorcyclist,use of different impacting objects with different im-pact angles to simulate an impact on the sidewalk,B-pillar etc.).

� Simulating real motorcyclist accidents based on anaccidentology approach. The aims will be to analysethe motorcyclist behaviour in case of direct impacton a car (frontal and lateral impact).

AcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge the Holding Trophy Group, motor-cycle equipment specialist, and more particularly Fabien Dufourfrom API R&D, for their implications in the project concerningthe conception of the airbag system.

This current work is partly included in the framework ofthe PREDIT project ‘Protection of the Motorcyclists’ (PRO-MOTO) supported by the French national research agency(ANR).

References[1] AAAM, The Abbreviated Injury Scale (1990 revision).

AAAM, Des Plaines, 1990.[2] M. Behr, P.J. Arnoux, T. Serre, S. Bidal, H.S. Kang, L.

Thollon, C. Cavallero, K. Kayvantash, and C. Brunet, AHuman model for road safety: From geometrical acquisitionto model validation with Radioss, Comput. Meth. Biomech.Biomed. Eng. 6 (2003), pp. 263–268.

[3] J. Cavanaugh, The biomechanics of thoracic trauma, Paperpresented at BME 7160, Winter, Wayne State University,Michigan, 2000.

[4] H.H. Hurt, J.V. Ouellet, and D.R. Thom, Motorcycle acci-dent cause factors and identification of countermeasures,Tech. Rep., Traffic Safety Center, University of SouthernCalifornia, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160, 1981.

[5] J.F. Krauss, C. Peek-Asa, and H.G. Cryer, Incidence, sever-ity, and patterns of intrathoracic and intra-abdominal in-

juries in motorcycle crashes, J. Trauma. 52 (2002), pp. 548–553.

[6] C.K. Kroell, D.C. Schneider, and A.M. Nahum, Impact tol-erance and response of the human thorax, 15th Stapp CarCrash Conference, Coronado, CA, 1971.

[7] C.K. Kroell, S.C. Schneider, and A.M. Nahum, Impact tol-erance and response of the human thorax II, 18th Stapp CarCrash Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, 1974.

[8] A. Moskal, Injuries among motorised two-wheelers in rela-tion to vehicle and crash characteristics in Rhone, France,Enhanced Safety Vehicle Conference, Lyon, 2007.

[9] R.F. Neathery, Prediction of thoracic injury from dummyresponses, 19th Stapp Car Crash Conference, San Diego,CA, 1975.

[10] ONISR. La securite routiere en France. Bilan de l’annee2004, La Documentation Francaise, Paris, 2005.

[11] L.M. Patrick, C.K. Kroell, and H.J. Mertz, Forces on thehuman body in simulated crashes, 9th Stapp Car Crash Con-ference, Minneapolis, MN, 1965.

[12] L.M. Patrick, C.K. Kroell, and H.J. Mertz, Cadaver knee,chest and head impact loads, 11th Stapp Car Crash Confer-ence, Anaheim, CA, 1967.

[13] S. Robin, Humos: Human Model for Safety – a joint efforttowards the development of refined human like car occupantmodels, Stapp Car Crash Conference, San Antonio, TX,2001.

[14] T. Serre, S. Bidal, D. Durand, M. Behr, F. Basile, and C.Brunet, 3D geometric acquisition of the human body in driv-ing posture for modelling purposes, Arch. Physiol. Biochem.108 (2000), p. 92.

[15] T. Serre, C. Brunet, S. Bidal, M. Behr, S. Ghannouchi, L.Chabert, F. Durand, C. Cavallero, and J. Bonnoit, The seatedman: Geometry acquisition and three-dimensional recon-struction, Surg. Radiol. Anat. 24 (2002), pp. 382–387.

[16] J.P. Stapp, Human exposure to linear decelerations, part 2.The forward facing position and the development of a crashharness. AFTR 5915, pt. 2, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton,Ohio, 1951.

[17] J.P. Stapp, Voluntary human tolerance levels, in Impact In-jury and Crash Protection, E.S. Gurdjian, W.A. Lange, L.M.Patrick, and L.M. Thomas, eds., Springfield, Illinois, 1970.

[18] D.C. Viano, Thoracic injury potential, 3rd InternationalMeeting Simulation Reconstruction Impacts Collisions,Berlin, Germany, 1978.

[19] D.C. Viano and I.V. Lau, Role of impact velocity and chestcompression in thoracic injury, Avia. Space Environ. Med.54 (1983), pp. 16–21.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

erbr

ooke

] at

03:

43 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014