Assessment of Injury 

Potential in Aircraft SideFacing Seats Using the ES-2 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummy

Richard DeWeese

David Moorcroft

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

Tom Green

AmSafe Aviation

Phoenix, AZ 85043

M.M.G.M. Philippens

TNO Defense, Security and Safety

2600 JA Delft

The Netherlands

May 2007

Final Report

DOT/FAA/AM-07/13

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest 

of information exchange. The United States Government 

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.

___________

This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine 

technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: 

www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/index.cfm
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-07/13 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Assessment of Injury Potential in Aircraft Side-Facing Seats Using the May 2007 

ES-2 Anthropomorphic Test Dummy 6. Performing Organization Code 

 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

DeWeese RL,1 Moorcroft DM,1, Green T,2 Philippens MMGM3 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

1

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical 

Institute 

P.O. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

2

AmSafe Aviation 

Phoenix, Ariz. 85043 

3

TNO Defense, Security, & Safety 

The Netherlands

 

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

 

 

 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

Work accomplished under approved Task: PSRLAB.AV9100 

16. Abstract 

A project was conducted to assess the injury potential of current side facing aircraft seat configurations using 

the ES-2 Anthropomorphic Test Dummy proposed for use in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The 

ability of inflatable restraint systems to mitigate injuries in these configurations was also assessed. Impact sled 

tests were conducted at the Federal Aviation Administration’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute using a sidefacing sofa fixture with cushion construction representative of current business jets. The tests simulated three 

typical seating configurations: occupant in the middle seat, occupant seated next to a rigid wall, and 

occupant seated next to an armrest end closure. Two types of restraints were evaluated: a three-point body 

centered conventional restraint with inertia reel and a similar restraint incorporating a new inflatable 

shoulder restraint (airbag). The test conditions were the 16g, 44 ft/s, horizontal impact specified in 14 CFR 

25.562 but without yaw. Test setup techniques were developed to ensure consistent occupant positioning. 

Test repeatability was assessed for some test conditions. 

The suitability of the ES-2 for use in aircraft seat testing was evaluated. Injury criteria were calculated from 

the data gathered during the tests, including criteria currently published in the Federal Aviation Regulations 

and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards such as the Head Injury Criteria, upper torso restraint loads, 

Thoracic Trauma Index, and peak lateral pelvis acceleration. Other research criteria and those identified in 

proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were also calculated. These criteria included neck forces 

and moments, Preliminary Lateral Nij, Viscous Criteria, rib deflection, abdominal forces, pubic force, upper 

spine acceleration, and femur torsion. Results were analyzed to identify criteria relevant for aviation use and 

seating and restraint system configurations that indicated potential improvements in occupant protection for 

side-facing seats. 

 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

 

 

Injury Criteria, ES-2, Side Facing Seat, FMVSS 

No. 214, Aircraft Seat Tests, Inflatable Restraint

Document is available to the public through the Defense 

Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvior, VA 22060; and 

the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 30 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Authors acknowledge the companies that contributed to the side-facing seat configuration survey. 

Providing data were BE Aerospace, Cessna Aircraft, and DeCrane Aircraft. The information they provided was 

invaluable during design of the test protocol and contributed toward the validity of the results.

We also thank BE Aerospace for providing the representative aircraft seat cushions used in the tests.

1

Assessment of Injury Potential in Aircraft Side-Facing Seats

Using the ES-2 Anthropomorphic Test Dummy

INTRODUCTION

Dynamic testing and occupant injury assessment have 

been required for seats in newly certified aircraft since the 

adoption of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 25, 25.562, and similar regulations in Parts 

23, 27, and 29 (1). The occupant injury criteria contained 

in those regulations are primarily focused on protecting 

the occupant from forward and vertical impacts. Since 

the biomechanics of side impacts differ significantly 

from forward or vertical impacts, research was conducted 

in 1998 to assess injury risk using available side-facing 

Anthropomorphic Test Dummies (ATDs). The ATDs 

evaluated included the U.S. Side Impact Dummy (SID), 

used for U.S. auto safety compliance tests, the Euro-SID 

1, used for European Union auto safety compliance tests, 

and the BioSID, an advanced research dummy (2). Results 

of this research were used as the basis of Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) policy concerning certification 

of side-facing seats (3). The aviation industry used the 

research findings as a guide for seat designs intended to 

mitigate injury. Recent auto safety research has yielded 

a better understanding of the biomechanics of side impact (4). Based on this research, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to use ES-2re 50% 

male-size ATD and the SID-IIsFRG 5% female-size 

ATD and their associated injury criteria to assess new 

car safety (5). The ES-2re is an improved version of the 

Euro-SID 1, and the SID-IIsFRG is a scaled down version of the BioSID.

Evaluation of Improved

Side-Impact Protection

Requirements

Current and Proposed Testing Requirements

Recent biomechanical research has resulted in a better 

understanding of how to quantify the injury risks associated with side impacts in automobiles. These findings were 

used to develop advanced test dummies and associated 

injury criteria. Table 1 summarizes the ATDs and injury 

criteria referenced in current and proposed U.S. Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, current European Union 

regulations, and current FAA regulations and policy guidance. Current FAA policy also requires that there be no 

significant body-to-body contact between occupants of 

a multiple-place seat.

Project Goals

To support FAA policy making activities, a project was 

conducted by the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

(CAMI) using the ES-2 ATD to evaluate the injury risk 

presented by a typical side-facing couch configuration 

Table 1 - Current and Proposed Side Facing Injury Criteria 

Body EU 96/27/EC FMVSS-208 FMVSS-214 FMVSS-214 Proposed FAA Policy 

Region

EuroSID 1 HIII 50M HIII 5F US SID 50M ES-2re 50M SID-IIsFRG 5F US SID 50M 

Head HPC = 1000 HIC15 = 700 HIC15 = 700 NA HIC36 = 1000 HIC36 = 1000 HIC = 1000 

Neck NA Nij =1 

T = 937 lb 

C= 899 lb 

Nij =1 

T = 589 lb 

C= 567 lb 

NA NA NA NA 

Chest D = 42 mm 

V*C =

1.0 m/s 

Chest

Ax = 60 g 

D = 63 mm 

Chest

Ax = 60 g 

D = 52 mm 

TTI = 85 D = 35–44 mm 

T12Axyz = 

82 g 

T12Axyz = 

82 g 

TTI = 85 

Shoulder

Belt Tension 

= 1750 lb 

Abdomen Abd F =

562 lb 

NA NA NA Abd F = 540 - 

630 lb (Total) 

NA No Belt 

Contact

Pelvis Pubic F = 

1349 lb 

NA NA Ay = 130 g Pubic F = 

1349 lb 

Iliac+acet F = 

1147 lb 

Ay = 130 g 

Lower 

Limbs

NA Femur Fz = 

2250 lb 

Femur Fz = 

1530 lb 

NA NA NA NA 
2

and assess the potential for injury mitigation provided by 

inflatable restraint systems. The following specific tasks 

were accomplished:

Conducted dynamic tests with typical aircraft sidefacing seat configurations using the ES-2 ATD

Evaluated the potential for injury using current, proposed, and preliminary injury criteria

Evaluated the ES-2 ATD’s functionality when used in 

the aviation environment

Investigated test methods unique to side-facing seats

Evaluated the ability of inflatable restraint systems to 

mitigate injuries in these seating configurations

RESEARCH PROTOCOL

Industry Survey

An informal survey was conducted to determine the seat 

geometry and restraint configurations of seats currently 

being built to meet 14 CFR 23.562, 14 CFR 25.562, and 

existing FAA policy. Three seat manufacturers provided 

input. The survey results are summarized in Figures 1 

and 2 and Tables 2 and 3. The survey indicates that a 

restraint geometry with the forward lap and shoulder 

belt anchor points near the centerline of the occupant 

(commonly referred to as the body-centered location) 

has been widely adopted.

Seat Specification

The results of the survey were used to derive a research 

seat configuration. The specifications of the test seat are 

identified as the CAMI Configuration in Figure 1 and 

Table 2. To allow multiple tests to be conducted with 

a maximum amount of repeatability, a seat with rigid 

seating support surfaces and rigid belt anchor points 

was used for the study. Since many side-facing seats are 

attached to the aircraft side wall in addition to the floor, 

their seating surfaces and restraint attachment points are 

typically very stiff. For this reason, use of a rigid seat for 

this test series should produce similar results to stiffer 

seat designs and conservative (higher) loading results 

compared with more flexible seats.

•

•

•

•

• D

A

H

B

J

E

G

Theta

C

F

Lap Belt

Anchor

Shoulder

Belt Guide

K

I-Reel Shaft

Armrest

Figure 1 - Seat End View 

M

R

L

P

Left Lap

Belt Anchor

Right Lap

Belt Anchor

Shoulder

Belt Guide

Occupant Centerline

Armrest or Wall

(Padded with

1 inch of

 IV3 foam)

Floor

Belt Tie Point

T

N

Figure 2 - Seat Front View 

Table 2 - Seat Dimensions and Test Configurations Corresponding to Seat End View (Figure 1) 

(Dimensions in inches) A B C D E F G H J K 

Manufacturer A 19.3 26.7 3.2 3.4 1.0 1.6 25.7 - 13.3 - 

Manufacturer B 20 - 26 18.8 2.2 2.2 0.6 2.9 27.5 - 13.5 - 

Manufacturer C 20 - 22 17.4 3.4 2.5 1.0 3.6 24.0 12.0 13 - 14 - 

CAMI Configuration 20.2 23.8 5.5 2.1 0.8 1.6 24.1 12.1 13.2 30.0
3

The seat cushion thickness and the density and stiffness 

of the foam selected were at the median range of the seat 

designs surveyed. The foam selected was a DAX 47 that 

had a density of 3.0 lb/cu ft and a stiffness of 96 - 115 

ILD at 65% indention. The cushions were rectangular in 

shape and covered in upholstery grade, smooth leather. 

The bottom cushion was 4 in thick by 18 in wide by 22.75 

in long. The back cushion was the same thickness and 

length but was 19 in wide. The cushions were attached to 

the seat with hook-and-loop fastener material to preclude 

sliding. The cushions assemblies were supplied by one of 

the seat manufacturers that participated in the survey.

ATD

The ATD used to assess injury was an ES-2, build level 

E2.AI. This version differs somewhat from the ES-2re 

currently proposed for use in the NPRM in that it does 

not have rib extensions. The primary purpose of the rib 

extension (re) modification to the ES-2 is to prevent 

unrealistic interaction between heavily contoured seat 

cushions, found in typical automobile applications, and 

the back plate of the ATD when subjected to oblique acceleration vectors (6). Since aircraft side-facing couches are 

not typically contoured and the tests would be conduced 

with no yaw, it was determined that the E2.AI version 

of the ES-2 ATD should provide sufficiently equivalent 

results for this test series.

An FAA Hybrid-III (7) was also used in one test to allow 

direct comparison with the ES-2 results and with other 

side-facing research conducted using the Hybrid-III.

Restraints

Two configurations of restraints were evaluated.

Conventional Restraint. The first restraint was a conventional AMSAFE three-point system consisting of a 

lap belt and shoulder belt with an inertial reel. A pushbutton (automotive style) buckle was located on the right 

side, positioned just above the right thigh. The shoulder 

belt was attached to the buckle mating tang. The left lap 

belt segment incorporated a manual length adjustment 

mechanism. The inertia reel was set to lock at 1.25 G ± 

.25 G of webbing acceleration.

Inflatable Restraint. The second system evaluated was 

identical to the first but incorporated an inflatable shoulder 

belt. The AMSAFE Aviation Inflatable Restraint (AAIR) 

was designed to function as follows. When exposed to a 

16 G horizontal deceleration with a 90 ms linear rise time, 

the system crash sensor closes the inflation firing circuit 

at approximately 42 ms. This sends sufficient energy to 

fire the pyrotechnic initiator in the inflator assembly, 

releasing stored gas to inflate the tubular restraint. The 

inflating airbag pretensions the webbing and pre-loads the 

occupant. After airbag deployment, the restraint deflates 

to facilitate the occupant’s egress from the aircraft with 

minimal obstruction from the airbag. 

Figure 3 - AAIR System 

Diagnostic Tool 

Connector

Interface

Cable

Airbag Belt Inertia Reel 

Electronic Module Assembly Inflator

End Release Buckle 

Detachable Shoulder Harness 

Table 3 - Seat Dimensions and Test Configurations Corresponding to Seat Front View (Figure 2) 

(Dimensions in inches) L M N P R T Theta

(degrees)

Manufacturer A 0 9.0 0 9.5 - - 8.0 

Manufacturer B 0 13.2 13.2 13.2 - - 7.0 

Manufacturer C 3 - 4 11.3 – 13.3 0 11.3 – 13.3 - - 11.0 

CAMI Center 3.0 10.0 0 40.0 4.5 1.7 13.0 

CAMI Close Wall 3.0 10.0 0 10.0 4.5 1.7 13.0 

CAMI Far Wall 3.0 10.0 0 13.0 4.5 1.7 13.0 

CAMI Armrest 3.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 4.5 1.7 13.0 
4

The crash sensor’s predetermined deployment threshold is designed to prevent inadvertent deployment during 

normal operations, such as hard landings, vibration, or 

turbulence. The system is activated by joining (buckling) 

the three-point restraint in the same manner as any other 

three-point seatbelt. Unbuckling the seatbelt safes the 

AAIR system.

The AAIR system consists of these components, illustrated in Figure 3.

Seatbelt Airbag Assembly (SAA)

Inflator Assembly

Electronics Module Assembly (EMA)

Cable Interface Assembly

The SAA consists of two primary subassemblies: the 

Three-Point Airbag Belt Assembly and the End-Release 

Buckle Assembly. The SAA mounts to the aircraft structure 

using existing mounting points. The End-Release Buckle 

Assembly provides electrical connection to the Inflator 

Assembly and the Cable Interface Assembly. The Inflator 

Assembly mounts under the occupant seat. The Cable 

Interface Assembly connects the EMA to the SAA and also 

provides a Diagnostic Tool Connector leg, which allows 

connection of the System Diagnostic Tool to facilitate 

system functional checks. The EMA contains the crash 

sensor electronics and system power (Lithium-type battery) and is mounted to aircraft structure (simulated by 

the sled floor in this test series).

Test Configurations

Three seat configurations were investigated that represented typical aircraft side-facing seat scenarios. One 

configuration placed the occupant in the second place 

of a multiple place couch. The seat position just forward 

of the occupant was unoccupied. The second configuration placed the occupant adjacent to a rigid wall that was 

padded with 1 in of IV3 energy-absorbing padding, as 

called for by AC 25-785 to provide an impact surface 

typical of an aircraft interior. The padding’s secondary 

purpose was to prevent needless damage to the ATD from 

impacts with a completely rigid surface. The wall extended 

beyond the front of the seat sufficiently to support the 

ATD’s lower legs. As part of the second configuration, 

two occupant/wall distances were investigated. A “Close 

Wall” configuration positioned the ATD centerline (CL) 

10 in from the wall, which corresponded to a 20 in seat 

width (the narrowest reported in the survey). A “Far 

Wall” configuration positioned the ATD CL 13 in from 

the wall, which corresponded to a 26-in seat width (the 

widest seat reported in the survey). The third configuration placed the occupant adjacent to an armrest with no 

impact surfaces forward of the armrest and no lower leg 

support. The ATD CL was 10 in from the armrest. The 

•

•

•

•

•

armrest top and vertical surfaces were padded with 1 in of 

IV3 padding. Figure 2 and Table 3 provide the pertinent 

dimensions of each configuration: Center, Close Wall, 

Far Wall, and Armrest.

Test Conditions

The 16 G, 44 feet per second impact condition defined 

in 14 CFR 25.562 was used. To limit study variables, no 

yaw component of deceleration was included. Figure 4 

illustrates a typical deceleration pulse for this project.

ATD Placement

Procedures were developed to seat the ATD consistently, with the goal of reproducing the seated position of a 

50% male-size human occupant. As the ATD was lowered 

into the seat, a force of 50 lb was applied horizontally 

to the knees to compress the back cushion. The lap belt 

was tightened per the SAE AS8049 procedure that calls 

for the belt to be tightened until only two fingers can be 

placed between the belt and the ATD pelvis. The ATD 

upper torso was then pushed backwards with a nominal 

amount of force to bring it upright and then tied in place 

with 32 lb (total) breaking force string. The design of 

the ES-2 neck permits a significant amount of free head 

rotation about the Z axis. To align the head and torso 

midsagittal planes, the head was set at the midpoint of 

the available range of rotation. The pre-test location of 

the ATD with respect to the seat was measured for each 

test. This procedure resulted in a very consistent pelvis 

location (± 0.1 inch in X and ± 0.3 inch in Y) and a 

somewhat consistent head CG location (± 0.2 inch in 

X and ± 1.0 inch in Y). When this same procedure was 

used with the FAA Hybrid-III, it resulted in a more 

reclined posture, with the head CG 1.9 in further back 

than achieved with the ES-2. This difference is primarily 

due to the protruding, anthropometrically incorrect back 

plate of the ES-2.

Sled Deceleration (A05075)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (ms)

Acceleration (g)

Figure 4 - Typical Sled Deceleration Pulse 
5

Table 4 - ATD Instrumentation 

Test Application Ch. Num Description Filter Class Range Units 

All 3 Head X0 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All 4 Head X2 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All 5 Head X3 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All 6 Head Y0 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All 7 Head Y1 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All 8 Head Y3 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All 9 Head Z0 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All 10 Head Z1 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All 11 Head Z2 Accelerometer 1000 100 G 

All ES-2 12 T1 X Accelerometer 180 2000 G 

All ES-2 13 T1 Y Accelerometer 180 2000 G 

All ES-2 14 T1 Z Accelerometer 180 2000 G 

All ES-2 15 T12 Y Accelerometer 600 2000 G 

All 16 Pelvis Y Accelerometer 600 2000 G 

All 17 Upper Neck Fx 600 2250 lb 

All 18 Upper Neck Fy 600 2250 lb 

All 19 Upper Neck Fz 600 3375 lb 

All 20 Upper Neck Mx 600 2655 in-lb 

All 21 Upper Neck My 600 2655 in-lb 

All 22 Upper Neck Mz 600 2655 in-lb 

All 23 Lower Neck Fx 600 2700 lb 

All 24 Lower Neck Fy 600 2700 lb 

All 25 Lower Neck Fz 600 3150 lb 

All 26 Lower Neck Mx 600 3980 in-lb 

All 27 Lower Neck My 600 3980 in-lb 

All 28 Lower Neck Mz 600 2655 in-lb 

All ES-2 29 Upper Rib Deflection 180 3 in 

All ES-2 30 Middle Rib Deflection 180 3 in 

All ES-2 31 Lower Rib Deflection 180 3 in 

All ES-2 32 Upper Rib Y Accelerometer 180 2000 G 

All ES-2 33 Middle Rib Y Accelerometer 180 2000 G 

All ES-2 34 Lower Rib Y Accelerometer 180 2000 G 

All ES-2 35 Pubic Fy 600 4500 lb 

All ES-2 36 Torso Back Fy 600 1100 lb 

All ES-2 41 Front Abdominal Fy 600 1100 lb 

All ES-2 42 Mid Abdominal Fy 600 1100 lb 

All ES-2 43 Back Abdominal Fy 600 1100 lb 

A05076, A06004 48 Femur Mz 600 3000 in-lb 

A06004 (H-III) 12 Chest X Accelerometer 180 200 G 

A06004 (H-III) 13 Chest Y Accelerometer 180 200 G 

A06004 (H-III) 14 Chest Z Accelerometer 180 200 G 

A06004 (H-III) 15 Pelvis X Accelerometer 180 200 G 

A06004 (H-III) 29 Pelvis Z Accelerometer 180 200 G 
6

Instrumentation

Electronic Instrumentation. ATDs were instrumented 

as shown in Table 4. T12 resultant acceleration is referenced in the proposed changes to FMVSS No. 214 (5), 

but due to channel quantity limitations, only the lateral 

component of T12 acceleration was recorded for this test 

series. Since the lateral component should be the largest contributor to the resultant, the lateral component 

was used to derive the injury criteria for this test series. 

The tension in the lower segment of the shoulder belt 

was measured between the inertia reel and the webbing 

guide for all tests. The tension in the upper segment of 

the shoulder belt was measured between the belt guide 

and the shoulder of the ATD for those tests that did not 

incorporate an inflatable restraint. The tension force 

in the inflatable segment was estimated by adding the 

expected frictional losses to the tension measured below 

the webbing guide. These frictional losses were quantified 

using data from similar tests that have loads measured on 

both sides of the webbing guide. The forces exerted on 

the lap belt attachments were measured for most tests. 

Due to data channel quantity limitations, the left (more 

lightly loaded) belt anchor forces were not recorded on 

some tests. The forces applied to the armrest by the ATD 

were also measured. 

Video Coverage. High-speed (1000 frames per second), 

high resolution (1024 x 512 pixels) color video was captured from the side and overhead directions by cameras 

aimed perpendicular to the sled travel. Rectilinear targets 

were placed on the ATD’s forehead, chin, and knees to 

facilitate motion analysis.

Belt Impingent Detector. A means of determining the 

areas of the ATD that received significant loading by the 

shoulder belt was investigated. A 0.5-in thick piece of soft 

closed cell foam was wrapped around the right side of the 

ATD’s neck and secured with tape. A packing material 

commonly referred to as “bubble wrap” was taped to 

the top of this foam layer and directly to the top of the 

ATD’s standard shoulder foam insert. As shown in Figure 

5, the specific areas loaded by the belt were indicated 

by a pattern of burst cells (manually marked with blue 

dots post-test). The material had 0.45-in diameter cells, 

distributed in a pattern with 0.1 cells per square in. The 

measured force required to burst each cell varied from 11 

lb to 42 lb. The average burst pressure was 84 psi.

Inertia reel pay out. A piece of string was attached 

to the shoulder belt and then passed through a block 

of dense foam fixed to the seat near the inertia reel. By 

measuring the amount of string pulled though the foam 

block, the maximum webbing payout during each test 

was easily determined. 

Figure 5 - Belt Impingement Detector 

Table 5 - Test Matrix 

Configuration Restraint 

Type 

ATD 

Type 

Test 

Number

ES-2 A05066

Conventional ES-2 A05068

ES-2 A05067

Center

Inflatable ES-2 A05070

Close Wall Conventional ES-2 A05065

Conventional ES-2 A05071

Far Wall 

Inflatable ES-2 A05072

ES-2 A05075

Conventional ES-2 A05076

ES-2 A05073

Inflatable ES-2 A05074

Armrest 

Conventional FAA

H-III A06004
7

and intercept values used to calculate the Preliminary 

Lateral Nij are:

Fzc (compression) = 1385 lb

Fzc (tension) = 1530 lb

Mxc (right flexion) = 530 in-lb

Mxc (left flexion) = 530 in-lb

The Preliminary Lateral Nij criteria calculated using 

these suggested intercept values should only be used for 

comparison between test configurations and not considered as an absolute pass/fail evaluation.

Photometric Analysis. The motions of various ATD 

body segments were determined from the videos using a 

2-D planar photometric technique meeting the requirements of SAE J211/2 and SAE ARP 5482 (15, 16). The 

excursions reported were essentially a projection of the 

ATD’s three-dimensional motion into a vertical plane 

parallel to sled travel. While the ATD’s head exhibited 

significant out of plane motion (a maximum of 16 in), 

the potential perspective error was mitigated (less than 

3% understatement) by the 46-ft distance from the sled 

to the camera. The angle of the head with respect to 

the vertical was calculated from the measured location 

of the forehead and chin targets. The maximum angle 

of the T1 (upper thoracic) vertebrae with respect to the 

vertical was determined by calculating the angle from the 

ATD’s centerline at waist height to the base of the neck. 

This calculation should be considered only an estimate 

since there were no discrete target markers at the desired 

locations. The maximum angle of the head with respect 

to T1 was calculated by subtracting the estimated T1 

angle from the measured head angle at the corresponding point in time.

Data Summary

Selected measured parameters and calculated injury 

criteria are summarized in Tables 6 to 8. The results are 

grouped by similar test configurations. Figure 6 compares the HIC after contact and HIC15 results for the 

ES-2 tests. The areas of significant shoulder belt contact, 

as indicated by the investigational Belt Impingement 

Detector, are summarized in Table 9. Upper and lower 

neck peak tension, shear, and lateral bending moment 

responses are summarized in Figures 7 and 8. Shoulder 

belt forces measured above and below the belt guide are 

compared in Figure 9. A detailed evaluation of each test 

configuration and video stills showing the initial condition 

and point of maximum flail for each test are provided 

in Appendix A.

RESULTS

Test Matrix

Table 5 summarizes by test number the seat configurations, restraint systems, and ATDs evaluated in this 

test series.

Data Analysis

Data Processing. The test data were gathered and filtered per the requirements of SAE J211/1 (8). The sign 

convention of the recorded signals conformed to SAE 

J1733 (9). Upper neck forces and moments reported were 

normalized to the occipital condyle location. Lower neck 

forces and moments were normalized to the base of the 

neck. In addition, the T12, Pelvis Y, and rib accelerations 

were all processed using the FIR 100 program, as called 

for by FMVSS No. 214 (10).

Injury Criteria Calculation. Some injury criteria such 

as Head Injury Criteria (HIC), Thoracic Trauma Index 

(TTI), and Viscous Criterion (V*C) are derived from test 

data using mathematical calculations. Instructions for 

calculating them can be found in the regulations that cite 

the criteria and in a useful summary report published by 

the Data Processing Vehicle Safety Workgroup (11). 

The HIC was calculated in two ways: HIC after initial 

contact (as called for by aviation regulations) and HIC15 

(as called for in automotive regulations). HIC after initial 

contact only evaluates impacts that involve head contact 

and limits the evaluation period to the time of initial head 

contact until the end of the test. HIC15 is evaluated for 

the entire test period, regardless of contact, but limits the 

duration of the HIC interval to 15 ms or less. 

The TTI, acceleration-based criteria defined in FMVSS 

No. 214, was calculated using T12 and rib accelerations 

that are filtered with the FIR 100 algorithm.

The V*C, deflection-based criteria, was derived from 

the rib deflection measurements per EU 96/27/EC 

(12).

Neck Injury Assessment. To limit the potential for neck 

injury in forward auto crashes, FMVSS No. 208 (13) 

defines the criteria for neck tension and compression, as 

well as criteria that combine the effect of neck bendingmoment and tension, called Nij. Since the biomechanical 

basis for the fore/aft Nij criteria may also be applicable 

to the lateral direction, a preliminary lateral neck injury 

criteria were developed to allow comparison of tests using 

the same concept. Soltis et al. suggested intercept values 

for this preliminary formulation that were derived from 

existing literature (14). While the tension and compression intercepts suggested are the same as the FMVSS 

No. 208 values, the lateral bending moment intercepts 

are much lower and are likely conservative. The formula 

xc

OCx

zc

z

ij M

M

F

F N = +
8

Table 6 - Center Configuration 

Test Number 

Test parameter Criteria Limit 

05066 05068 05067 05070 

Test Configuration Center Center Center Center 

Restraint Conv * Conv * Inf ** Inf ** 

Impact Vel (ft/s) 44.6 44.6 44.5 44.6

Impact Acc (g) -17.4 -17.7 -17.1 -17.4

HIC After Contact 1000 1259 1391 none none 

HIC15 700 1093 1115 103 96

TTI (g) 85 39 39 24 24

V*C (m/s) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pelvis Ay (g) 130 29 28 17 17

Upper Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 0 0 4 2

Middle Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 0 0 4 2

Lower Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 0 0 2 2

T12 Ay (g) 82 35 38 24 24

Front Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 15 25 19 18

Mid Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 3 5 5 7

Rear Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 6 10 35 34

Pubic Fy (lb) 1350 611 712 496 453

T1 Ay (g) 47.1 47.0 25.2 25.1

Nij (Preliminary Lateral) 1.0 1.07 1.05 0.95 0.79

Up Neck Shear Fy (lb) 212 239 74 90

Up Neck Tension Fz (lb) 938 752 729 297 319

Up Neck Moment Mx (in-lb) -382 -381 402 347

Low Neck Shear Fy (lb) 925 894 -223 -259

Low Neck Tension Fz (lb) 727 760 252 189

Low Neck Moment Mx (in-lb) 3122 2962 860 884

Head Excursion (in) 26.7 26.4 22.3 22.2

Head Latt Angle wrt T1 (deg) -87 -105 -72 -74

T1 Latteral Angle (deg) -37 -41 -20 -22

Upper Shldr Belt Tension (lb) 1750 1735 1705 - - 

Lower Shldr Belt Tension (lb) 1113 1094 491 526

Shoulder Belt Payout (in) 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.5

Right Lap Belt Tension (lb) 2882 2971 2285 2385

Left Lap Belt Tension (lb) 959 1043 591 591

Femur Mz (in-lb) - - - - 

Back Plate Fy (lb) 1266 1002 329 322

Arm Rest Fy (lb) - - - - 

Arm Rest Fz (lb) - - - - 

* Conventional Restraint System ** Inflatable Restraint System 
9

Table 7 - Wall Configuration 

Test Number 

Test Parameter Criteria Limit 

05065 05071 05072 

Test Configuration Close Wall Far Wall Far Wall 

Restraint Conv Conv Inf 

Impact Vel (ft/s) 44.0 44.6 44.6 

Impact Acc (g) -16.4 -16.8 -17.0 

HIC after contact 1000 537 2014 145 

HIC15 700 537 2014 151 

TTI (g) 85 22 41 35 

V*C (m/s) 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 

Pelvis Ay (g) 130 21 31 32 

Upper Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 28 31 4 

Middle Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 19 20 5 

Lower Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 14 12 3 

T12 Ay (g) 82 22 39 34 

Front Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 14 21 8 

Mid Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 25 8 3 

Rear Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 6 4 35 

Pubic Fy (lb) 1350 203 438 323 

T1 Ay (g) 24.6 39.5 34.4 

Nij (Preliminary Lateral) 1.0 0.35 1.05 1.35 

Up Neck Shear Fy (lb) 103 141 49 

Up Neck Tension Fz (lb) 938 140 282 290 

Up Neck Moment Mx (in-lb) 141 -510 625 

Low Neck Shear Fy (lb) 198 371 -299 

Low Neck Tension Fz (lb) 112 269 194 

Low Neck Moment Mx (in-lb) 889 879 648 

Head Excursion (in) Contact Contact Contact 

Head Latt Angle wrt T1 (deg) -36 -7 -62 

T1 Latteral Angle (deg) -4 -11 1 

Upper Shldr Belt Tension (lb) 1750 41 348 - 

Lower Shldr Belt Tension (lb) 44 228 319 

Shoulder Belt Payout (in) 1.0 0.9 1.1 

Right Lap Belt Tension (lb) 510 1046 977 

Left Lap Belt Tension (lb) 366 668 352 

Femur Mz (in-lb) - - - 

Back Plate Fy (lb) 159 294 260 

Arm Rest Fy (lb) - - - 

Arm Rest Fz (lb) - - - 
10

Table 8 - Armrest Configuration 

Test Number 

Test Parameter Criteria Limit 

05075 05076 05073 05074 06004 

Test Configuration Armrest Armrest Armrest Armrest Armrest 

(FAA H-III) 

Restraint Conv Conv Inf Inf Conv 

Impact Vel (ft/s) 45.1 45.1 45.1 45.0 45.2

Impact Acc (g) -17.1 -16.5 -17.4 -17.4 -17.3

HIC after contact 1000 294 298 None None None 

HIC15 700 735 614 84 79 157

TTI (g) 85 38 39 25 26 - 

V*C (m/s) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 

Pelvis Ay (g) 130 26 24 24 22 28

Upper Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 0 1 0 1 - 

Middle Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 0 1 1 2 - 

Lower Rib Deflection (mm) 35 - 44 4 4 3 3 - 

T12 Ay (g) 82 32 34 27 27 - 

Front Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 101 94 52 60 - 

Mid Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 132 122 28 33 - 

Rear Abdominal Fy (lb) 540-630 Total 95 99 37 38 - 

Pubic Fy (lb) 1350 398 424 342 374 - 

T1 Ay (g) 48.3 48.9 24.7 25.4 - 

Nij (Preliminary Lateral) 1.0 1.47 1.50 0.92 0.87 1.17

Up Neck Shear Fy (lb) 207 198 73 70 214

Up Neck Tension Fz (lb) 938 789 735 289 271 430

Up Neck Moment Mx (in-lb) 668 681 414 394 595

Low Neck Shear Fy (lb) 673 648 -242 -246 304

Low Neck Tension Fz (lb) 780 713 223 232 451

Low Neck Moment Mx (in-lb) 2458 2394 698 684 2022

Head Excursion (in) 25.0 24.9 18.4 18.2 22.7

Head Latt Angle wrt T1 (deg) -122 -132 -59 -58 -74

T1 Latteral Angle (deg) -46 -45 -19 -18 -35

Upper Shldr Belt Tension (lb) 1750 1529 1458 - - 813

Lower Shldr Belt Tension (lb) 995 948 410 418 471

Shoulder Belt Payout (in) 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7

Right Lap Belt Tension (lb) 1401 1419 1166 1150 1056

Left Lap Belt Tension (lb) - - - - 525

Femur Mz (in-lb) - 1167 - - 1298

Back Plate Fy (lb) 723 637 306 359 - 

Arm Rest Fy (lb) 2726 2715 2290 - 2993

Arm Rest Fz (lb) 848 820 502 526 1050
11

Table 9 - Belt Impingement Detector Results 

Number of Burst Cells In Each Area 

Configuration Restraint Type Test Number Shoulder Base of Neck 

Center Conv A05066 0 1 

Center Conv A05068 4 3 

Center Inf A05067 0 1 

Center Inf A05070 1 0 

Close Wall Conv A05065 0 0 

Far Wall Conv A05071 0 1 

Far Wall Inf A05072 0 3 

Armrest Conv A05075 7 0 

Armrest Conv A05076 6 0 

Armrest Inf A05073 1 1 

Armrest Inf A05074 2 8 

Armrest (FAA H-III) Conv A06004 6 7 

ES2 Head Injury Response

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

A05066A05068A05067A05070A05065A05071A05072A05075A05076A05073A05074

Cnv Cnv Inf Inf Cnv Cnv Inf Cnv Cnv Inf Inf

Center Close

Wall

Far Wall Armrest

HIC

HIC after contact HIC15

Figure 6 – ES-2 Head Injury Response
12

Upper Neck Peak Response

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

A05066A05068A05067A05070A05065A05071A05072A05075A05076A05073A05074A06004

Cnv Cnv Inf Inf Cnv Cnv Inf Cnv Cnv Inf Inf Cnv

H-III

Center Close

Wall

Far Wall Armrest

Load (lb)

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

Moment (in-lb)

Up Neck Shear Fy (lb) Up Neck Tension Fz (lb) Up Neck Moment Mx (in-lb)

Figure 7 – Upper Neck Peak Response 

Lower Neck Peak Response

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

A05066A05068A05067A05070A05065A05071A05072A05075A05076A05073A05074A06004

Cnv Cnv Inf Inf Cnv Cnv Inf Cnv Cnv Inf Inf Cnv

H-III

Center Close

Wall

Far Wall Armrest

Load (lb)

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Moment (in-lb)

Low Neck Shear Fy (lb) Low Neck Tension Fz (lb) Low Neck Moment Mx (in-lb)

Figure 8 – Lower Neck Peak Response
13

Shoulder Belt Peak Response

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

A05066A05068A05067A05070A05065A05071A05072A05075A05076A05073A05074A06004

Cnv Cnv Inf Inf Cnv Cnv Inf Cnv Cnv Inf Inf Cnv

H-III

Center Close

Wall

Far Wall Armrest

Load (lb)

Upper Shldr Belt Tension (lb) Lower Shldr Belt Tension (lb)

Figure 9 – Shoulder Belt Peak Response 

Table 10 - Summary for Each Seat Configuration 

Tested, the Body Regions at Greatest Risk for Injury, 

and the Injury Criteria Indicating the Risk 

Tested Seat Configurations

(Conventional Restraint) Body 

Region 

Center Close 

Wall

Far 

Wall Armrest 

Head HIC HIC HIC15 

Neck Nij

Prelim

Nij

Prelim

Nij

Prelim

Thorax Belt

Tension

Rib

Def

Belt

Tension

Abdomen 

Pelvis 

Leg Femur

Mz
14

CONCLUSIONS

Injury Assessment

Table 10 summarizes for each seat configuration tested 

the body regions at greatest risk for injury and the injury 

criteria indicating the risk.

For the Center and Far Wall seat configurations, the 

calculated HIC values indicate that head injury is a significant risk. The lateral flail envelope of the conventionally 

restrained occupants allowed head contact with adjacent 

walls and seat structure. For the Armrest configuration, 

the head did not contact any injurious objects; however, 

the value of HIC15 was at or near its established limit 

of 700. HIC15 is an automotive injury criterion used to 

assess the head injury risk for both contact and inertial 

loading situations.

The injury potential, represented by the lateral neck 

forces/moments and belt contact forces measured, are 

not currently well defined. The measured Preliminary 

Lateral Nij values are well above the limit in the Armrest 

and Center configurations. In the Armrest configuration, 

the upper neck tension is within the current FMVSS No. 

208 limits, but the upper neck bending moment is well 

above the AIS-2 injury levels cited by Soltis et al. (10). 

In these configurations, the maximum lateral neck angle 

is also well beyond the cited AIS-2 limits. While there is 

no current regulatory limit, it should be noted that the 

magnitude of the lower neck tension and shear forces 

measured during the Center and Armrest tests were also 

very high. The impingement instrumentation indicated 

that the shoulder belt contacted the base of the neck 

during many of the tests. The magnitude of these loads 

is unknown since the construction of the ATD permitted 

the belt to apply forces to the ATD structure below the 

level of the lower-neck load cell. 

None of the injury measurements indicated a significant risk of injury to the chest, abdomen, or pelvis for 

this group of seat configurations. The upper-shoulder 

belt tension was just below the limit in the Center configuration tests, and the upper-rib deflection approached 

the lower bound of the proposed limits in the Far Wall 

configuration test. All of the other injury criteria for these 

body segments were well below limits. This is likely due 

to the effectiveness of the body-centered lap belt in controlling lateral motion of the pelvis. This directly limits 

pelvic injuries and reduces the loads on the abdomen and 

chest by reducing the effective mass of the torso. This 

finding does not imply that injuries could not occur with 

other side-facing seat configurations. Placing the lap belt 

anchors at their conventional locations beside each hip 

could increase pelvis accelerations and forces. Inclusion 

of an armrest in a seat with a conventional restraint 

configuration could also lead to high abdominal loading. 

A combination of ineffective pelvic and torso restraints 

could also increase chest accelerations and deflections 

during impacts with adjacent walls.

The high femur twisting-moment measured in the 

Armrest configuration is a unique loading condition 

for which an injury criteria has not been established. 

The intent of the femur compression limits in FAA 

transport aircraft regulations was to avoid injuries that 

would impede evacuation. In a similar fashion, a limit 

on the twisting moment may be necessary to provide the 

intended level of safety.

Test Method Evaluation

Some tests were repeated to assess result variability. In 

all cases, occupant kinematics and recorded parameters 

were very similar for the repeated tests. This indicates that 

the ATD placement procedures developed were effective 

in achieving consistent results. Further study is needed 

to develop placement procedures that result in a recline 

angle more representative of a human occupant.

Inflatable Restraint Evaluation

In most cases, the inflatable restraints were effective in 

reducing the lateral flailing of the occupant and significantly reduced the head accelerations, neck loads, chest 

acceleration, rib deflections, and the injury criteria derived 

from these measurements. In only one case (the Far Wall 

configuration) were measured parameters significantly 

greater than without the inflatable. In this case, while the 

inflated torso restraint reduced the severity of impact with 

the adjacent wall, it acted as a fulcrum around which the 

head rotated laterally, increasing the upper-neck bending 

moment. The inflatable restraints did not limit the lateral 

flail envelope sufficiently to preclude significant “body 

to body” contact with an adjacent occupant (if present). 

Further development was conducted by AMSAFE to 

determine if it is possible with current technology to 

prevent “body to body” contact (17). Use of an inflatable 

restraint similar to the tested systems in conjunction with 

body-centered lap belt geometry may mitigate many of 

the injury risks presented by side-facing seat designs that 

are similar to the test seat configuration.

ATD Evaluation

Overall, the ES-2 functioned well in these types of 

tests but some issues were noted. Special ATD installation procedures may be required to achieve the proper 

(human-like) initial position, due to interaction between 

the ATD’s protruding back plate and the seat back. The 

ES-2 (like most side-facing test dummies) was designed 

to primarily assess injuries caused by direct contact with 

adjacent interior structure. The foam on top of the shoulder is very soft, and there is no structure that simulates the 
15

human clavicle. This allows the shoulder belt to penetrate 

significantly into the top of the shoulder and front of the 

torso at relatively low loads. This response would not be 

expected with human occupants who have bony support 

structures in these areas and certainly would not occur 

with frontal test dummies that have very stiff structures 

in these areas. This unrealistic interaction with the top 

of the shoulder also allows the belt to apply forces to 

the upper torso below the level of the lower neck load 

cell, resulting in understated lateral shear force readings. 

Lack of biofidelity in the ES-2 shoulder may increase the 

lateral flail envelope, compared to the Hybrid-II or FAA 

Hybrid-III ATDs. On the other hand, because neither 

the ES-2, the Hybrid-II, nor the FAA Hybrid-III ATDs 

have flexibility in the mid-spine, their lateral flail envelope 

could be less than that of a human occupant of similar 

size when restrained by belts or armrest structure. The 

ES-2’s neck is very flexible, providing superior biofidelity. 

Tensile strength of the design is apparently much less than 

on typical forward-facing ATDs. Accordingly, the ES-2 

cannot be lifted by its head as with other test dummies 

since the repeated loading could damage the neck. Loads 

encountered during some test scenarios were sufficient to 

damage the neck’s rubber center section. Because of this, 

a thorough inspection of the neck for damage is necessary 

after tests that result in high loading. High back plate 

lateral forces were measured in tests with significant lateral 

flailing. The mechanism that caused the back plate loads 

is unknown and requires further investigation.

Recommendations

The ES-2 provides a means of assessing the potential 

for injury using state-of-the-art understanding of sidefacing injury mechanisms. Use of the rib deflection, chest 

acceleration, abdominal forces, and pelvic force limits 

contained in the proposed FMVSS No.214, in lieu of 

the current TTI and pelvis acceleration limits would 

provide the same safety benefits for occupants of aircraft 

seats as they would for motorists. Use of the ES-2 also 

allows assessment of potential aircraft-specific criteria for 

limits on neck loading, femur torsion, and body-to-body 

contact. The current limits on HIC and shoulder belt 

tension cited in the aviation regulations, while not specifically validated for side-facing impacts, remain useful 

indicators of injury for the head and thorax.

The high neck loads measured in some seat configurations emphasize the need for appropriate lateral neck injury 

criteria. Improvements in the ES-2 shoulder’s biofidelity 

would allow better assessment of the potential for injury 

caused by belt contact forces.

This study has demonstrated that the injury criterion 

contained in the current FAA policy, proposed motor 

vehicle safety standards, and preliminary neck-injury 

criteria can be effectively met with a combination of seat 

design features and advanced restraint systems.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Parts 

23.562, 25.562, 27.562, 29.562. Washington, DC: 

US Government Printing Office. 

2. Lankarani H, Gowdy RV, DeWeese R, et al. Compliance Criteria for Side Facing Seats. Warrendale, 

PA: SAE International; Apr. 1999; SAE Report No: 

1999-01-1598.

3. Transport Airplane Directorate ANM-100. Policy 

Statement on Side Facing Seats on Transport Category Airplanes. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation 

Administration; May 2005; Letter No. ANM-03-

115-30.

4. Kuppa, S. Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies. 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration; May 2004. 

5. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 

571 and 598, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Side Impact Protection, Phase-In Reporting 

Requirements, Proposed Rule. Washington, DC: 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 

May 2004; Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694.

6. Vehicle Research and Testing Center. Design, Development, and Evaluation of the ES-2re Side Crash 

Test Dummy. Washington, DC: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration; May 2004.

7. Gowdy RV, DeWeese R, Beebe M, Blaker J, et al. 

A Lumbar Spine Modification to the Hybrid-III 

ATD for Aircraft Seat Tests. Warrendale, PA: SAE 

International; Apr. 1999; Report No: SAE 1999-

01-1609.

8. SAE International. Instrumentation for Impact Test 

– Part 1- Electronic Instrumentation. Warrendale, 

PA: SAE International; Dec 2003; Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice No: J211-1.

9. SAE International. Sign Convention for Vehicle 

Crash Testing. Warrendale, PA: SAE International; 

Dec. 1994; SAE Surface Vehicle Information Report 

No: J1733
16

10. US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 

571.214. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

11. Data Processing Vehicle Safety Workgroup. Crash 

Analysis Criteria Description, Version 1.6.2. The 

Workgroup; April 2005; accessed from: www.crashnetwork.com (Aug. 2006).

12. European Union Side Impact Directive 96/27/EC. 

European Union; May 1996.

13. US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 

571.208. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 

14. Soltis S, Frings G, van Hoof J, et al. Development of Side Neck Injury Criteria and Tolerances 

for Occupants of Sideward Facing Aircraft Seats. 

NATO/PFP; May 2003; RTO-MP-AVT-097.

15. SAE International. Instrumentation for Impact 

Test – Part 1- Photographic Instrumentation. 

Warrendale, PA: SAE International; May 2001; 

SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice No: 

J211-2.

16. SAE International. Photometric Data Acquisition 

Procedures for Impact Test. Warrendale, PA: SAE 

International; May 2003; SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice No: ARP5482.

17. Green T, Barth T. Injury Evaluation and Comparison of Lateral Impacts When Using Conventional 

and Inflatable Restraints. Creswell, OR: SAFE 

Association; Oct. 2006.

18. European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee, 

Working Group 12. Development and Evaluation 

of the ES-2 Test Dummy. The Committee; Aug. 

2001; accessed from: www.eevc.org (Aug. 2006). 
A-1

APPENDIX A 

Detailed Test Evaluation

CENTER CONFIGURATION TEST 

OBSERVATIONS

Center Configuration - Conventional Restraint. 

(Figures A1 to A4)

The action of the legs flailing forward turns the entire 

torso about the Z axis of the occupant to partially align 

it with the deceleration vector.

The upper-torso restraint did not control lateral flailing well. The 12-in length of belt between occupant’s 

shoulder and shoulder belt guide allows the torso to 

swing in a combined horizontal and lateral arc that 

produces a significant head impact with the seat back 

at the center of the next seat place. The shoulder belt 

crushed the soft shoulder foam, penetrating 2 in below 

the nominal shoulder height. Shoulder belt forces were 

near the limit.

Upper-neck tension was within 80% of the FMVSS No. 

208 limit, and the Preliminary Lateral Nij was 1.05.

Since there was no lateral contact between the ribs and 

any structure or restraint system, the rib deflections 

were negligible, and the rib accelerations were low.

Lack of lateral contact also limited the magnitude of 

T1 and T12 accelerations.

The body-centered lap belt configuration effectively 

controls lateral excursion of pelvis and the associated 

lateral acceleration and pubic force.

High lateral shear forces were measured by the backplate load cell. It is unclear whether this was caused 

by interaction with the seat cushion or by direct impingement of the shoulder belt during extreme lateral 

flailing.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Figure A1 - A05066 T = 0

Figure A2 - A05066 T = 151

Figure A3 - A05068 T = 0

Figure A4 - A05068 T = 151
A-2

Center Configuration - Inflatable Restraint. 

(Figures A5 to A8)

Figure A5 - A05067 T = 0

This restraint produced similar kinematics to the 

conventional restraint except lateral head flailing was 

significantly reduced.

The inflatable shoulder belt was fully inflated within 

60 ms after impact. The shoulder belt assumed a tube 

shape that spread the contact forces out over the shoulder, neck, and side of head. The action of filling the 

inflatable shortens the belt somewhat, which tightens 

the system and applies a 300 lb preload (measured 

behind the belt guide). This configuration prevented 

significant head impact with seat structure.

Upper-neck tension was reduced significantly. Lowerneck tension and lateral shear forces were both reduced 

significantly.

The improvement in upper-torso restraint reduced 

chest accelerations and shoulder belt forces. Pelvic 

accelerations and forces, as well as lap belt forces, 

were also reduced (probably due to the affect of belt 

pre-tension).

As with the conventional restraint, the body-centered 

lap belt configuration effectively controls lateral excursion of pelvis and the associated lateral acceleration 

and pubic force.

•

•

•

•

•

Figure A6 - A05067 T = 168

Figure A7 – A05070 T = 0

Figure A8 - A05070 T = 168
A-3

WALL CONFIGURATION TEST 

OBSERVATIONS

Wall Configuration - Conventional Restraint. 

(Figures A9 to A12)

Figure A9 - A05065 T = 0

Figure A10 - A05065 T = 101

Figure A11 – A05071 T = 0

Figure A12 - A05071 T = 106

Since the legs were supported by the wall, the torso 

remained side-facing throughout the event. 

The torso restraint was ineffective in preventing head 

and torso contact with wall surface for either occupant-to-wall spacing. Head impact severity with the 

wall was low for the close spacing and quite high for 

the larger spacing.

The Preliminary Lateral Nij was 1.05 for the Far Wall 

and occurs as the top of the head impacts the wall, 

creating a negative moment at the upper neck.

The ribs contacted the wall surface, producing a moderate level of acceleration and deflections approaching 

the lower limit for both occupant-to-wall spacings investigated. Figure A13 provides the rib deflection time 

history for the test that had the maximum deflection 

measured during this series (upper rib, test A05071). 

The deflection response did not exhibit the “flat topping” anomaly that can indicate rib-guide binding. 

Prior studies identified this as a common problem 

with the EuroSID-1 and led to the development of 

improved rib guides that were incorporated in the 

ES-2 (18). T-12 acceleration and TTI were also well 

within limits.

The body center lap belt configuration effectively 

controlled lateral excursion of pelvis to the extent that 

it prevented significant pelvis contact with the wall 

for both occupant-to-wall spacings. This resulted in 

much lower pelvis accelerations and pubic forces than 

would be expected if contact had occurred. 

•

•

•

•

•
A-4

Wall Configuration - Inflatable Restraint. 

(Figures A14 to A15)

After filling, the inflatable restraint was positioned 

between the wall and the ATD’s head. The kinematics 

of the lower torso and legs was similar to that produced 

by the conventional restraint.

The inflatable restraint acted as a cushion between the 

head and the wall, significantly reducing the severity 

of the head contact with the wall.

Upper-neck lateral bending moments and Preliminary 

Lateral Nij were higher than with the similar conventional restraint and the other seat configurations with 

inflatable restraints. In this case, the reaction surface 

provided by the wall increased the inflatable’s effectiveness in reducing the lateral excursion of the neck. This 

effect apparently raised the point of lateral rotation to 

the top of the neck as the head rotated laterally over 

the inflated belt.

The improved upper-torso restraint resulted in less 

lateral torso movement and significantly reduced the 

severity of the contact between the thorax and the 

wall, nearly eliminating rib deflection.

Pelvis forces and accelerations were similar to the 

conventional restraint test. 

•

•

•

•

•

Figure A14 - A05072 T = 0

Figure A15 - A05072 T = 122

Upper-Rib Deflection (A05071)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (ms)

Deflection (mm)

Figure A13 - Maximum Rib Deflection 
A-5

ARMREST CONFIGURATION TEST 

OBSERVATIONS

Armrest Configuration - Conventional Restraint. 

(Figures A16 to A27)

Figure A16 - A05075 T = 0

Figure A17 - A05075 T = 168

Figure A18 - A05075 (overhead) T = 0

The ATD’s upper legs were supported by the armrest, 

keeping the pelvis and torso side-facing during the 

test. 

The upper-torso restraint did not control lateral flailing well. The 12-in length of belt between occupant’s 

shoulder and shoulder belt guide allowed the torso to 

swing in a combined horizontal and lateral arc that 

resulted in head excursion well beyond the armrest 

and behind the plane of the seat back. The shoulder 

belt crushed the soft shoulder foam, penetrating 2 in 

below the nominal shoulder height. The head did not 

contact any structure but made significant contact with 

the left shoulder, producing a value of HIC15 that was 

at or approaching its limit of 700 for both tests.

•

•

Figure A19 - A05075 (overhead) T = 165
A-6

The “head lag” effect exhibited by human subjects (14) 

was replicated well by the ES-2 in these tests. This effect produces negative upper neck bending moments 

due to the inertia of the head during the first phase of 

a lateral impact. The moments rapidly reverse direction when the head “catches up” to the rotation of the 

torso. Figure A24 illustrates this effect. In this case, 

the neck flexed so far that the head contacted the top 

of the right shoulder. This extreme flailing produced 

very high upper-neck tension and lateral bending 

moments, as shown in Figure A25. These forces and 

moments produced the highest Preliminary Lateral Nij 

value (1.5) of any configuration tested in this series. 

Lower-neck tension was also the highest recorded of 

any of the configurations. It should be noted that after 

test A05076, a 1.5-in wide separation was found in 

the middle of the right-front quadrant of the rubber 

neck. This part failure may have affected the test results. However, since the results were consistent with 

the immediately preceding test in which this failure 

had not been noted, it was decided to include the data 

from A05076 in the comparison.

•

Figure A20 - A05076 T = 0

Figure A21 - A05076 T = 168

Figure A22 - A05076 (overhead) T = 0

Figure A23 - A05076 (overhead) T = 165

Figure A24 - A05075 T = 110 (Head Lag)
A-7

As the ATD flailed laterally, the left arm became entrapped between the chest and the top of the armrest. 

This applied some force to the lower rib, compressing 

it somewhat. Chest accelerations and rib deflections 

were all far below limits.

As was observed with the Close Wall configuration, the 

body-centered lap belt geometry effectively controlled 

lateral excursion of pelvis to the extent that it prevented 

significant pelvis contact with the armrest.

Due to the action of the ATD flailing over the corner 

of the armrest, abdominal loads were much higher 

than in the other test configurations. The total load, 

however, was well below limits.

The left thigh was supported by the armrest, resulting in both lower legs flailing in an arc that applied 

a twisting-moment to the femur. Figure A26 shows 

the lower-leg angle time history for both the ES-2 

and the H-III tests. Figure A27 shows the relationship 

between the femur twisting moment and the lowerleg angle observed during these tests. Essentially, the 

lower legs of the ES-2 swung freely in an arc about 

the long axis of the femur until the mechanical stop 

in the hip joint was reached. At this point, the twisting-moment rose rapidly. 

High lateral shear forces were measured by the backplate load cell. It is unclear whether this was caused 

by the interaction with the seat cushion or by direct 

impingement of the shoulder belt during extreme 

lateral flailing.

•

•

•

•

•

Upper-Neck Mx (A05075)

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (ms)

Bending Moment (in-lb)

Figure A25 – A05075 Upper Neck Mx 

Leg Angle

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (ms)

Lower Leg Angle (deg)

ES-2 H-3

Figure A26 – Lower Leg Angle 

Femur Mz vs Leg Angle

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

-20 0 20 40 60 80

Lower Leg Angle (Degrees)

Twisting Moment (in-lb)

ES-2 H-3

Figure A27 - Femur Twist vs. Lower Leg Angle 
A-8

Figure A28 - A05073 T = 0

Figure A29 - A05073 T = 158

Figure A30 - A05073 (overhead) T = 0

Figure A31 - A05073 (overhead) T = 151

Armrest Configuration - Inflatable Restraint. 

(Figures A28 to A35)

As in the conventional restraint test, the torso and 

pelvis remained side-facing.

The inflatable restraint improved the upper-torso 

restraint significantly. The head’s forward excursion 

was reduced considerably (6.7 in less), and the rearward excursion seen in the conventional restraint tests 

was completely eliminated. Head accelerations were 

significantly reduced. 

The “head lag” effect was mitigated by the reduced 

upper torso excursion. Upper- and lower-neck forces 

and moments were all significantly reduced.

•

•

•
A-9

Figure A32 - A05074 T = 0

The interaction of the ATD arm and the armrest 

was similar to what was observed with the conventional restraint system. Overall, chest accelerations, 

rib deflections, and abdominal forces were all reduced 

somewhat.

Pelvic forces and accelerations were similar to the 

conventional restraint.

•

•

Figure A33 - A05074 T = 158

Figure A34 - A05074 (overhead) T = 0

Figure A35 - A05074 (overhead) T = 151

ATD rebound excursion was increased somewhat due 

to a combination of the energy returned by the inflatable restraint and the torque applied to the pelvis by 

the flailing of the lower legs.

The lower legs flailed in a similar fashion to the conventional restraint test

•

•
A-10

Armrest Configuration – Conventional Restraint 

–Hybrid III Comparison. (Figures A36 to A39)

The Armrest Configuration with the conventional 

restraint was chosen for this comparison test because 

it provided the greatest overall magnitude of kinematic 

response.

The overall kinematics of the H-III were similar to the ES-2 

other than the magnitude of the lateral flail envelope.

There was less lateral excursion than with the ES-2, but 

a significant amount of lateral flailing still occurred. 

The 10.5-in length of belt between occupant’s shoulder 

and shoulder belt guide allowed the torso to swing in a 

combined horizontal and lateral arc that allowed head 

excursion beyond the armrest and just behind the plane 

of the seat back. The more rigid load path in the shoulder 

and chest of the H-III provided a solid reaction surface 

for the shoulder belt. This is the primary factor that 

reduced the lateral excursion of the torso.

The H-III neck is much stiffer laterally than the 

ES-2. This results in lower forces and moments 

and lower head excursions and rotation angles. The 

stiffer compliance of the neck reduces the dynamic 

•

•

•

•

Figure A36 - A06004 T = 0

Figure A37 - A06004 T = 160

Figure A38 - A06004 (overhead) T = 0

Figure A39 - A06004 (overhead) T = 182

overshoot (amplification) of the neck loads. Head 

motion was reduced to the extent that there was no 

head impact.

Shoulder belt forces were nearly half of what was measured with tests using the ES-2. This may be due to 

differences in the shoulder compliance and geometry 

between the dummies.

As with the ES-2 tests, the body-centered lap-belt 

configuration effectively controlled the lateral excursion of pelvis to the extent that it prevented significant 

pelvis contact with the armrest. Lap-belt forces were 

75% of the forces measured with the ES-2. Pelvic accelerations were similar to the ES-2 tests.

The left thigh was supported by the armrest resulting in both lower legs flailing in an arc that applied 

a twisting moment to the femur. The peak measured 

twisting moment was somewhat higher than measured 

with the ES-2 and occurred at a lower leg angle. Both 

the leg-angle time history and the twisting-moment 

vs. leg-angle plots (A26 and A27) indicate that the HIII femur has a much higher initial torsional stiffness 

than the ES-2. The biofidelity of this articulation is 

unknown for either ATD.

•

•

•