Spine Fractures in Open Cockpit

Open Wheel Race Car Drivers

Reducing the Risk through Seat Modification

Terry R Trammell MD
OrthoIndy
Trammell Motorsports and Consulting
Indy Racing League
Henry Bock MD
Indy Racing League

trt@[Link]
 Introduction
• 11,000 cases of Spinal Cord Injury / year
in US
– 47.5% from MVA
• Spinal Cord Injury: Facts and Figures at a Glance.
2004, National Spinal Cord A Injury Statistical
Center.
• CIRENS Data
– Spinal Fractures 18.6% of Injuries in MVA
• Spine and Spinal Cord Injury in MVC: Smith and
Siegel New Jersey Medical School CIREN Center

trt@[Link]
 Introduction
• Incidence of Spinal Fractures in Indy Car
– From 1984 – 1996
• 8.5% of drivers injured
• 9.8% of all injuries (12/123)
– Spinal Injuries in Indy Car – a 12 year experience
Presented at the ICMS Mtg Toronto CA 11/23/06
– IRL 1996 – 2005
• 21.1% of drivers injured

trt@[Link]
 Introduction
PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION

• Spinal Fractures • Determine Kinematics

– Occurrence – Accident analysis
– Location / level – Barrier Impact test
– Type – Sled tests
– Severity – Computer modeling
• Correlate with • Determine Load Path
direction of major • Preventative
impact measures

trt@[Link]
 Material and Methods
Spinal fractures occurring in Open cockpit
Open wheel single occupant racecars

1996-2005 Seasons
IRL,IPS,CART, F-1,Toyota Atlantic, and
Champ Car

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
• Data Extracted
– Impact direction
– Fracture location
– Fracture type and severity
• Data Generated
– Impact Barrier test
– HYGE sled tests
– X-ray Analysis of Spinal Contour
– Measurement of Seated Position in race car
– Computer modeling

trt@[Link]
 Material and Methods
• Driver Data
– Principal Author
• Initial or Final Treating Physician
• 35 of 36 surviving drivers
– Extracted from Medical Records
• Diagnostic Imaging (X-rays, CT and MRI)
• Autopsy Results in two

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
SPINAL REGIONS
Occipital – Cervical (O-C1-2)

Cervical (C3 – T1)

Thoracic (T2 – T9)

Thoracolumbar (T10 – L2)

LumboSacral (L3 – Sacrum)

Courtesy DaVinci

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
• Impact Vector Analysis in 35 of 38
– ADR – 2 data
– Accident reports
– Video tape

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
• ADR – 2 Crash Recorder
– Attached to the chassis of
race car
– 6 axis accelerometer
– Senses and records 1000
times/sec
• Prior to, during and after a
triggering event
– Records
• X,Y,Z accelerations
• Yaw rate
• Steering angle

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
Fracture Classification:
Comprehensive Classification System
Gertzbein in Controversies in Spine Surgery
Vol 1, 1999

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
• Fracture classification
– Gertzbein’s Comprehensive Classification system

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
Definition of Fracture Severity:
1. Compression Fracture without Deformity
(vertebral contusion)
2. Compression Fracture
<10% compression (single endplate)
<15° angulation
3. Compression Fractures
>10%<30% compression
>15° <30° angulation
trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
Definition of Fracture Severity:
4. Compression or single endplate burst fx
>30% compression
≥30° angulation
5. #4 + posterior column injury
Burst Fracture (both endplates)
6. Fracture Dislocation / Cord Injury

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
• Driver Seated Position in the Car
– Series of Measurements (direct and indirect)
• Seated in the car in race trim
– Belts tightened
• HANS
• Helmet

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
• X-ray Analysis of
Spinal contour in race
car
– Indy Pro Series tub
– X-rays obtained w/wo
HANS
• Upright
• Nose down
• Nose up
• Inverted
– Normal standing and
seated posture
trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
• Barrier Impact Test
– Fully loaded Indy Car
– Rearward into a rigid
barrier
– Hybrid III with HANS
and Helmet
– High speed video
– Multiple channels
– Multiple
accelerometers

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods
• HYGE Sled Tests
– Delphi – Vandalia OH
– 80 g pulse
– THOR ATD
• T8 and T12 load cells
• HANS
– Indy Car Posture
• Reclined 45°

trt@[Link]
 Material and Methods
• Computer Model
– MADYMO Full FE
Human body Model
• SAE MSEC # 2006-01-
3659
– MADYMO Facet
Human Body Model
– Correlated with sled
test
– Validated

trt@[Link]
 Materials and Methods

In frontal
impact, up
to 30mph THOR dummy math model
THOR Physical dummy

Real
human
body At frontal and rear
impacts, under low
severity impacts
Human Body math model
trt@[Link]
 Results
• Fracture Data • Seated Position
– Number – Measurements from
– Location driver in car
• Impact direction • HYGE sled tests
– Classification • Computer model
– Severity
• Barrier Impact Test
• Spinal Alignment
– X-ray analysis

trt@[Link]
 Results
Spinal Fractures
• 36 - drivers sustained spinal injury
• 38 - incidents resulted in spinal injury
• Two drivers with two separate incidents
• 54 - spinal levels injured
• 9 sustained injury at more than one level

trt@[Link]
 Results
Fracture Location
Region of Injury

14
13

12
12

10
9

4
4
3

0
OCC Cervical Thoracic ThoracoLumbar LumboSacral

Region 3 9 12 13 4

trt@[Link]
 Results
Cervical Fractures by Level
Fracture Location
4.5

3.5

2.5
Number

1.5

0.5

0
O-C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Level

trt@[Link]
 Results
Fracture Location Thoracic Fractures

4.5

3.5

2.5
Number

1.5

0.5

0
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
Level

trt@[Link]
 Results
Fracture Location Thoracolumbar Fractures

5
Number

0
T10 T11 T12 L1 L2
Level

trt@[Link]
 Results
Fracture Location Lumbosacral Fractures

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
L3 L4 L5 Sacrum
Level

trt@[Link]
 Results
Impact Direction
Impact Direction vs. Injury

25

20

15

10

0
Frontal Rearward Axial Poly
Direction 7 25 3 3

trt@[Link]
 Results
Impact Direction v. Fracture Region

Impact Direction
8

1 Poly
Frontal
0
Axial
Rearward
Rearward
Fracture Region

Frontal
Axial
Cervical

Thoracic

ThoracoL

L/S
Poly
OC

OC
Cervical Thoracic ThoracoL L/S
Fracture Region
Frontal 2 0 2 4 0
Rearward 1 8 7 8 3
Axial 0 0 3 0 0
Poly 0 1 0 0 1

trt@[Link]
 Results
Impact Direction Impact Direction vs. Cervical Level

3.5

2.5

Number 2
Total Number
Rearward Impacts
1.5

0.5

0
O-C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Level

trt@[Link]
 Results
Impact Direction
Thoracic Fractures: Impact Direction Thoracolumbar Fractures: Impact Direction

4 7

3.5 6

3
5

2.5
4
Number 2 All Fractures Number
All Fractures
Rearward 3
Rearward Impact
1.5 Axial Force Only

2
1

0.5 1

0 0
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 L1 L2
Level Level

trt@[Link]
 Results
• Data Segregation
– Study of thoracic and thoraco- lumbar
fractures
– Fractures resulting from rearward impacts
• 22 cases (drivers injured)
– 13 incidents of thoracic and thoracolumbar fractures
» 19 levels fractured

trt@[Link]
 Results
Fracture Classification:
Comprehensive Classification System
Gertzbein in Controversies in Spine Surgery
Vol 1, 1999

trt@[Link]
 Results
Fracture Type by Direction of Impact
Frontal Rearward
Type B2
Flexion Axial Compression Type A1
Axial Compression

trt@[Link]
 Results
Classification of Fractures from Rearward Impacts

• All Type A – Vertebral Body Compression

– Group 1 Impaction Fracture -11
• Subgroup 1 End Plate Infraction – 4
• Subgroup 3 Wedge impaction -7
– Group 3 Burst Fracture
• Subgroup 1 Partial burst - 2

trt@[Link]
 The Injury
FRACTURE SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION

Type 1: Vertebral compression without deformity

Only present on MRI seen best in T2 sagittal

trt@[Link]
 The Injury
Type 2: <10% Comp; <15°

trt@[Link]
 The Injury
Type 3: >10%<30%
compression;>15°<30°

26% & 27°

*

38% & 14°

Type 4: ≥ 30% ≥ 30° ± posterior injury

trt@[Link]
 The Injury
Type 6: Fracture dislocation

T12 Burst Fracture

>50% compression

Type 5: Burst Fracture

trt@[Link]
 Results
Injury Severity Severity vs. Direction

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

1 T-3 -9
0.5 T11 - L1
0 T11 - L1

Overall T-3 -9
forward
Severity rearward
axial

Overall Severity forward rearward axial

T-3 -9 3.2 4.5 2.4 3.7
T11 - L1 3.8 5 3.3 0

trt@[Link]
 The Focus
REARWARD IMPACTS
• 67% of the injuries
• 63% levels injured
• 2.9 [Link]
index
• (frontal = 4.8)
• Large database

trt@[Link]
 Accident Analysis
Analysis of Crash Videos
and ADR data

+ x g’s = 60
-z g’s = 25
Δ V = 68 mph

trt@[Link]
Accident Analysis
A Group 1 Type 4

trt@[Link]
 Accident Analysis
ADR – 2 Data
• 13 incidents of rearward impact with Th
and T/L spinal fractures
– Average ΔV G’s x z

67 72 43

trt@[Link]
Barrier Impact Test

50 mph cv (80kph) ; +x g’s = 146.5

-z g’s = 44.6
Pelvic displacement = 4.7 inches
trt@[Link]
Driver Position in Race Car
MEASUREMENTS
• Driver height
• Below roll hoop
• Forward of roll hoop
• Faceplate to steering
wheel
• Chest to steering wheel
• Height above surround at
visor pivot
• HANS to helmet

trt@[Link]
 H
V

Visor P
Height 69.1
Ch Rollbar V 14.8
es
t Rollbar H 7.8
Pivot 2.0
Visor 13.2
Chest 13.6
HANS 1.1

HANS to Helmet trt@[Link]

 Spinal Contour
Spine X-rays in tub with and without
HANS in 4 orientations

trt@[Link]
Spinal Contour
X-ray
acquisition
and
analysis

trt@[Link]
 Spinal Contour
Normal Seated in race
car
Th Kyphosis 20° -
Th Kyphosis 59°
50°
T10 – L2 0° 55° T10 – L2 +17°
5 (kyphosis)
Lumbar Lordosis
40° - 80° -13° Lumbar Lordosis
- 5°

-40°

trt@[Link]
 Spinal Contour
SEAT CONTOUR and ALIGNMENT

trt@[Link]
Seat Contours

trt@[Link]
 HYGE Sled Testing
ATD CALIBRATION & VALIDATION THOR

Hybrid III

trt@[Link]
 HYGE Sled Testing
New Sled Buck
designed and built to
accommodate
• THOR
• Variable seat back
angle
• Thigh – torso angle
• Complete visibility of
ATD

HyG Sled buck for THOR and variable seat

back angle and thigh torso angle
trt@[Link]
 HYGE Sled Testing ThorFtLowerSpine Rev 1 Rear Impact Sled Test With 6pt Belts
Test# IS66F010

Released By: [Link]

ATD Type: THOR ATD Position: Front Row Left Test Type: Frontal Sled
5000

T-8_X_Y_Z [N]
Process Date: 06.29.2006

(X)-Force X Max.: 1.326E+02[N]

Time of Max. X: 0.0461[Sec]
(X)-Force X Min.: -6.944E+03[N]
Time of Min. X.: 0.0260[Sec]

0
(+)-Force Y Max.: 4.087E+02[N]
Time of Max. Y: 0.0227[Sec]
(+)-Force Y Min.: -2.096E+03[N]
Time of Min. Y.: 0.0247[Sec]

(*)-Force Z Max.: 8.218E+02[N]

Time of Max. Z: 0.0465[Sec]

(*)-Force Z Min.: -1.933E+04[N]

-5000 Time of Min. Z.: 0.0261[Sec]

-10000

CAC:

Filter Class: CFC1000

Page _____ of______

-15000

8360N

Test# IS66F010
Test# IS56F031 -20000
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [Sec]
IRL Rear Impact, Pulse 107, THOR
1
3
R6
8
41
20 A
90C
1
V
2
4
5
7
3 IH ht
187li0H
I0
C1
33S
Ct
6S iftS
ltLd
5S 3S
5
A1
7E2
J0
18
727
Thor T8 Load Cell
SledChk Rev 5

Released By: WT
T
FtRL
6N 0R
O
Std Pulse: PlsI107 ATD Position: Buck/All Positions Test Type: Frontal Sled
20
Sled_X [G's]

Process Date: 07.01.2005

(+)Le Re Accel. Max.: 2.2[G's]
Test# IS66F010
Time of [Link]: 0.0806[Sec]
Le Re Accel. Min.: -73.3[G's] ThorFtLowerSpine Rev 1 Rear Impact Sled Test With 6pt Belts
Time of [Link]: 0.0135[Sec]
0 Released By: [Link]
(*)Std Pulse Accel. Max.: 0.0[G's] ATD Type: THOR ATD Position: Front Row Left Test Type: Frontal Sled
Time of [Link]: 0.0000[Sec] 5000

T-12_X_Y_Z [N]
Std Pulse Accel. Min.: -82.1[G's] Process Date: 06.29.2006
Time of [Link]: 0.0121[Sec]
(X)-Force X Max.: 3.503E+02[N]
Time of Max. X: 0.0418[Sec]
(X)-Force X Min.: -2.810E+03[N]
-20 Time of Min. X.: 0.0309[Sec]

0
(+)-Force Y Max.: 7.912E+01[N]
Time of Max. Y: 0.0225[Sec]
(+)-Force Y Min.: -6.915E+02[N]
Time of Min. Y.: 0.0240[Sec]

(*)-Force Z Max.: 2.367E+03[N]

-40 Time of Max. Z: 0.0462[Sec]

(*)-Force Z Min.: -1.991E+04[N]

-5000 Time of Min. Z.: 0.0280[Sec]

-60

80g’s +x
CAC: -10000
CFC60
Page _____ of______

CAC:

-80 Filter Class: CFC1000

Test# IS56F031

Page _____ of______

-15000

Test# IS66F010
-100
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [Sec] -20000
8430N
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

Indy Car Rear Impact Pulse

Time [Sec]

Thor T12 Load Cell

trt@[Link]
 Computer Modeling
COMPUTER MODELING
• Validation and • Review past work
refinement – SAE papers on FE
• Integration of known model
parameters – Schmidt Thesis
• Acquisition of • Model refinement
software
• Sled – Model
• Model development
integration
• Model Behavior with
variable modification

trt@[Link]
 Computer Modeling
Full MADYMO FE HBM
• Unable to allow
IndyCar Seating
position (SAE 2006 -
01 -3659)
MADYMO Facet Model
• Adapted to position of
the reclined driver
posture
• Reliable at high g’s
MADYMO Facet Human Body Model
trt@[Link]
 Computer Modeling

Facet Model demonstrated large z loads at

all vertebral levels with applied pulse in the
+x direction
trt@[Link]
 HBM Positioning
•HBM Positioning by Rotating the •Pre-positioned HBM From TASS
Whole body

trt@[Link]
Result Analysis – Overall Occupant
Kinematics
•HBM Positioning by Rotating the •Pre-positioned HBM From TASS
Whole body

Movie

trt@[Link]
Result Analysis – Overall Occupant
Kinematics
•HBM Positioning by Rotating the •Pre-positioned HBM From TASS
Whole body

Movie

trt@[Link]
Result Analysis – Overall Occupant
Kinematics
•T=0ms •T=3ms

•T=6ms •T=35ms

•Note: All vertebrae are made of rigid elements, no

deformation, no stress and strain outputs
trt@[Link]
 Result Analysis – Acceleration
Comparison

• The acceleration curves from the THOR dummy

sled test only as a reference point for the HBM
responses.
– THOR dummy math model outputs expected to match
dummy sled test outputs
– The HBM outputs not expected to match those of the
THOR dummy sled test or dummy math model
• General trend of HBM accelerations reasonable
• Rock-and-roll spinal motion resulting in unrealistic
pelvis acc

trt@[Link]
Result Analysis – Numerical
Stability
• Pre-positioned model
becoming unstable
after 35ms
– Excessive element
deformation
– Penetrations among
the internal organs,
the skeleton and the
skin
– Elbow joint dislocation

trt@[Link]
 Computer Modeling
THUMS
• Total Human Model for Safety

Toyota Motor Corporation

Toyota Central Research and Development Laboratory
trt@[Link]
 Validation
Toyota FIA Modeling Project Cooperative with THUMS

trt@[Link]
 Discussion
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY • Superior endplate
• Load required to failed most commonly
produce fracture • Wedging
• Effect of rate of
application
• Effect of position
– Degree of flexion

trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Loads to failure for Endplate and Vertebral
Body were rate dependant
– Higher velocity loading resulted in increased
likelihood of fracture
– Loads from 2500N - 6000N
– Thoracic Vertebral Fractures 4200N – 7600N
• Dependent on the age of the specimen

trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Type and Severity of Fx Effect of loading rate
• Force on endplate and
– Magnitude vertebral body
– Point of application strength in human
– Rate of application lumbar vertebrae
– Associated moment • Ochia, R., Tencer, A.
• Direction & Ching, R.
– +x (rearward) Journal of
– -y (axial compression) Biomechanics
36 (2003) 1875-1881

trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Major Injury Vector • Major Injury Vector
– Compression loading
of the end plate
• z axis (axial)
– Fracture types from
rearward impacts are
variants of axial
loading with some
flexion moment

trt@[Link]
 Discussion
EJECTION SEAT INJURY STUDIES
Biomechanics of fracture
• Load path
– z axis
• Magnitude of load
– >20 g’s
• Rise time (rate)
– Crash pulse **
• Canon shell
• Rocket motor
• Spatial orientation of the
vertebral column
– out of position spinal
flexion
• Dampening effect of the Eccentric Load vs Facet Rotation *
seat material
trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Common Factors
ejection vs. race car
• Fracture type
• Fracture severity
• Anatomical location
– Mid Thoracic
– Upper Lumbar
• Posture at impact
– Out of position
– Indy Car posture
trt@[Link]
 Discussion
EJECTION SEAT INJURIES

Spatial Orientation INJURY LEVELS

• Normal contours • Mid thoracic spine
– Thoracic kyphosis • Compression
– Lumbar lordosis • Fractures less likely
• Straight spine when spine
• Thigh – Trunk angle extended
– 135° – Thoracolumbar
contour preserved
• Pelvis anchored
trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Risk of Fracture Reduced
• Maintaining physiologic
posture
– Contact with seat back
• Altered position of ejection
lever
– Anchoring pelvis
– Thigh – torso angle
• 135°
• Reducing rate of force
application <20g’s
– Limiting rise time with
rocket
– Seat cushion material

trt@[Link]
 Discussion

Results of Previous Modeling

Optimum Position for Rearward Impact

trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Driver Kinematics
• Forward rotation of torso
– Out of position seating
• Ramping phenomenon
– Video analysis
– Rear impact barrier test
– HYGE sled tests
• Viano effect
trt@[Link]
 Discussion
• Compressive Loads
– Ramping with inertial
loading
• Torso rise
• Frontal rise on impact
– Straightening of
thoracic kyphosis
• Viano data
VIANO EFFECT: Impact applied to the
thoracic kyphosis resulted in straightening
of the spine and a compressive load on
the spine remote from the point of force
application

trt@[Link]
 Discussion
THOR in HYGE Sled
• z (axial) loads
produced in rearward
impact (+x)
– T8 and T12 load cells
• Ramping
Model Validation

trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Seated Position

Upright seated posture in aircraft ejection and preservation

of physiologic contours reduced fracture risk

trt@[Link]
 The Mechanism
Seating Position Confirmed by xray
analysis and seat contour

trt@[Link]
 Discussion

Environmental Limitations
• Cockpit /Monocoque
dimensions fixed
• Maximum driver
height below roll hoop
• Driver size
– Anthropometry
• Height 67.9 inches
• Weight 164.5#
• Seated height 35.2 in
trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Variation in Fx Level
• Load Path
– ADR shows -z loads
– Rear crash test high z
loads (compressive)
– Injuries consistent with
z loading
• Rear Crash test
demonstrated chassis
buckling and rise
trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Variation in Fx Level
• Load Path
– ADR shows -z loads
– Rear crash test high z
loads (compressive)
– Injuries consistent with
z loading
• Rear Crash test
demonstrated chassis
buckling and rise
trt@[Link]
 Discussion
Variation in Fx Level
• Load Path
– ADR shows -z loads
– Rear crash test high z
loads (compressive)
– Injuries consistent with
z loading
• Rear Crash test
demonstrated chassis
buckling and rise
trt@[Link]
 Conclusions
• Spinal fractures
occurrence
increasing
– 8.5% to 21%
• 71.4% in rearward
impacts (+x)
• All fractures MIV is
in z axis (axial
compression)

trt@[Link]
 Conclusions
• Rearward (+x) impact generates a
compressive (z) in the driver’s spine
– ADR-2 chassis accelerometer (z)
– ADR-2 ear accelerometer (z)
– Barrier Impact test with Hybrid III ATD
– HYGE sled test with THOR ATD
– MADYMO Facet HBM
• Load is sufficient to produce fracture
– ≥ 6000N or 20g’s vertical

trt@[Link]
 Conclusions
• X-ray Analysis of Driver in Car
– Loss of normal spinal contours
• Loss of lumbar and cervical lordosis
• Accentuated Thoracic Kyphosis
• Thoracolumbar kyphosis
– Pre loads vertebral endplate
• Hydrostatic property of intervertebral
disc

trt@[Link]
 Conclusions
• Development of Spinal Compressive (z)
loads is multifactoral
– Spinal alignment
– Ramping of the torso
– “Viano effect”
– Frontal rise of vehicle during impact

trt@[Link]
 Conclusions
• Interaction of torso
with the seat
– Material
characteristics
• Energy management
• Variable density
– Control ramping
• Pelvic anchorage
• Promote/maintain
lumbar lordosis

trt@[Link]
 Conclusions
Goal of Study to reduce
• Compressive loading of ≤ 6500 N
• Vertical g’s < 20 g’s

trt@[Link]
 HYGE Sled Testing
New Sled Buck
designed and built to
accommodate
• THOR
• Variable seat back
angle
• Thigh – torso angle
• Complete visibility of
ATD

HyG Sled buck for THOR and variable seat

back angle and thigh torso angle
trt@[Link]
 Seat Modification

Drilled IS66F013 – 67F012

EPP 1.76# IS64f030 – 66F012

EAR foam added IS68F025

With
trt@[Link] pelvic void IS68F028
 Seat Modification

EEP 1.76# with carve out IS72F022 With EPS 1.5# IS72F024

Posterior Void filled IS72F25 - 26

Carbon Kevlar unsupported ISbF024
trt@[Link]
 Seat Modification
Hyge Sled Testing Rearward impact
Test No. T1 G's Z T8 Z (N) 8 MnY (Nm T12 Z (N) T12 MnY (Nm)
IS64F029 44.2 -6444.0 -623.0 6965.00 -207.0
IS65F005 56.5 -11080.0 -571.0 11170.00 -81.3
IS66F010 114.8 -19330.0 -679.0 -20000.00 -123.4
IS66F011 x -17890.0 -773.0 -14690.00 -123.0
IS66F012 -469.9 -18700.0 -1008.0 -16025.00 -147.0
IS66F013 -179.0 5012.0 -661.0 -5400.00 -150.0
IS67F002 -392.0 -15480.0 -555.0 -15210.00 -80.6
IS68F025 -74.7 -13130.0 -474.0 -9460.00 -21.0
IS68F026 -27.2 -5356.0 -465.0 -6300.00 -118.0
IS69F012 52.7 -11050.0 -178.0 -7335.00 296.0
IS69F013 -95.2 -15000.0 -460.0 -10230.00 -67.6
IS6BF024 33.8 -5222.0 37.5 -3300.00 151.0
trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
Past Testing and Analysis
• EPS and EPP testing
– Seat back too stiff (hard)
– Unable to manage energy
• Ramping
• Thoracic straightening
– Loads in excess of limits
• Drilled out seat to soften
– Results improved
• Belt Geometry alterations
– 7 point most effective

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
Testing in February 2007
• Proof of Concept
– Carbon – Kevlar Shell
– Foam backed
• Reduced loads
– T8 z’s = 7500
– T12 z’s = 4700
• Excessive excursion
– Available space ~ 2 in

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
Testing in June 2007
• New Bracket design
– All restraint harness
anchor points out of
position relative to
ATD
– Invalid tests !

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
Testing in August 2007
• 8 sled runs
– EPS seats from Mk – 1
• Corrugated
– EPP seats from Createc
– Modular backing
• Fenestrated
• Corrugated

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
Results:
• Data wouldn’t trend
– T8 & T12 loads
remarkable similar
regardless of condition
• Unpredictable effects
of seat modification

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
Analysis of Results
• ATD unsupported by
seatback
• Lack of contact due to
error in original seat
molding - pour
• Original mold used to
form all subsequent seats
• All tests to date
unrepresentative of actual
event
trt@[Link]
 The Problem
New Spine Fx’s in
2007
1 – IRL
2 – IPS
2 – Champ Car

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
• New seat mold made for THOR
• Bald Spot / Createc and Mk-1 have use of
mold
– Both have fabricated new seats with accurate
fit to THOR
• Carbon – Kevlar shell
• EPS and EPP backing and seats

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
Sled Testing at CAPE (preliminary results)
• 6 rearward runs
– BSS - 1.7# EPP
– Mk -1 - 1.5# EPS
– BSS - 1.0# EPS
– Mk- 1 - 1.5# EPS with Carbon Shell
– Mk- 1 - 0.5” EPS beads

• All performed below fracture threshold, issues

with motion and undesirable loading
trt@[Link]
Progress Report

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report

T8 X (N) T8 Z (N) T8 MnY (Nm) T12 X (N) T12 Z (N)

-5717.5 -15698.4 -711.2 -2680.1 -7901.00
-1033.6 -4155.2 -596.8 -2646.0 -5565.30
-1947.6 -5568.8 -346.5 -1665.0 -6043.90
-1229.6 -3587.8 -536.4 -2289.4 -4089.20
991.2 -4788.5 -211.8 -692.6 -4539.20
-1351.1 -6093.0 -148.4 719.5 -5424.60

trt@[Link]
 Progress Report
Summary
• Injury mechanism validated
– Clinical review, sled test analysis, THUMS
• Seating platform design
– Seat parameters defined
• Softer seat with better energy management to
capture pelvis and prevent ramping
• Design to lessens loads below threshold as yet
unidentified
trt@[Link]
 Guidelines
• Obtain Seat from either Bald Spot Sports
or Mark 1 Composites
– DO NOT MAKE IT YOURSELF from 2 part
foam
• Don’t press yourself into the mold when
making seat – try to maintain normal
contour

trt@[Link]
Desired Seat Contour

trt@[Link]
 Guidelines
• 2 inch minimum thickness of the back
• 1 inch minimum thickness of the bottom
• High friction surface
– Don’t cover the seat with glossy duct tape

trt@[Link]
 Guidelines

• Restraints
– Use a 7th center belt
– Use the Schroth HANS 2” over 3” shoulder
belts (HANS goes between the belts)
• Protect your knees
– Pad the forward side of the dash bulkhead

trt@[Link]
Goal of Project

trt@[Link]
Goal of Project

trt@[Link]
 Goal of Project

A Happy Ending

trt@[Link]
The End

trt@[Link]