Search Results

The objective of this study was to analyze rear crashes for the risk of serious injury (AIS 3+) by delta V. Rear impacts were analyzed for occupants sitting in front seats of light vehicles. Data was obtained from NASS-CDS for calendar years 1991-2004. Tow-away crashes with ≤15 mph rear delta V account for 67% of rear impacts and 15% of serious injury. Even for crashes <30 mph delta V, the risk for serious injury is only 0.24% (less than 1 per 420 exposed occupants). Risks increase for higher delta Vs. Individual cases in the 1997-2004 NASS-CDS electronic database were reviewed for serious injury in crashes with ≤15 mph delta V and ≥35 mph for light vehicles with calendar year >1996 to better understand injury mechanisms. Nine cases were available where a front-seat occupant was seriously injured in ≤15 mph rear delta V impact. Most cases involved older occupants, some of whom had stenosis of the cervical spine.

The objective of this study was to analyze available anthropomorphic test device (ATD) responses from KARCO rear impact tests and to evaluate an injury predictive model based on crash severity and occupant weight presented by Saczalski et al. (2004). The KARCO tests were carried out with various seat designs. Biomechanical responses were evaluated in speed ranges of 7-12, 13-17, 18-23 and 24-34 mph. For this analysis, all tests with matching yielding and stiff seats and matching occupant size and weight were analyzed for cases without 2nd row occupant interaction. Overall, the test data shows that conventional yielding seats provide a high degree of safety for small to large adult occupants in rear crashes; this data is also consistent with good field performance as found in NASS-CDS. Saczalski et al.'s (2004) predictive model of occupant injury is not correct as there are numerous cases from NASS-CDS that show no or minor injury in the region where serious injury is predicted.

This paper provides an overview of rollover crash safety, including field crash statistics, pre- and rollover dynamics, test procedures and dummy responses as well as a bibliography of pertinent literature. Based on the 2001 Traffic Safety Facts published by NHTSA, rollovers account for 10.5% of the first harmful events in fatal crashes; but, 19.5% of vehicles in fatal crashes had a rollover in the impact sequence. Based on an analysis of the 1993-2001 NASS for non-ejected occupants, 10.5% of occupants are exposed to rollovers, but these occupants experience a high proportion of AIS 3-6 injury (16.1% for belted and 23.9% for unbelted occupants). The head and thorax are the most seriously injured body regions in rollovers. This paper also describes a research program aimed at defining rollover sensing requirements to activate belt pretensioners, roof-rail airbags and convertible pop-up rollbars.

In this study, U.S. crash data was analyzed to better understand bounce-over rollovers. Crash data was reviewed to evaluate the distribution of bounce-over crashes and injuries, initiation objects and impact locations. In passenger cars, bounce-over crashes account for 8.4% of rollovers but involve 36.2% of the seriously injured belted drivers. Most bounce-overs are initiated by contact with narrow objects such as a pole, tree or barrier, or large objects such as a ditch or embankment. Contact often occurs in the front of the vehicle. After contact, the vehicle yaws and rolls, and serious injuries are often sustained to the head. Based on field data, a laboratory test was developed to simulate a narrow object bounce-over. The test consists of towing a vehicle laterally on a fixture towards a stationary, angled barrier resting in gravel. The moving fixture is decelerated and the vehicle is released. The vehicle front impacts the edge of the barrier, simulating a narrow object impact.

During the past decade, there has been a steady increase in studies addressing rollover crashes and injuries. Though rollovers are not the most frequent crash type, they are significant with respect to serious injury and interest in rollovers has grown with the introduction of SUVs, vans, and light trucks. A review of Occupant and Vehicle Responses in Rollovers examines relevant conditions for field roll overs, vehicle responses, and occupant kinetics in the vehicle. This book edited by Dr. David C. Viano and Dr. Chantal S. Parenteau includes 62 technical documents covering 15 years of rollover crash safety, including field crash statistics, pre- and rollover dynamics, test procedures and dummy responses.

In 1995, new seat specifications were adopted by GM to provide high retention and improve occupant safety in rear crashes. With more than five years of phase-in of high retention (HR) seats, an analysis of FARS was undertaken to determine the initial field performance of HR seats in preventing fatalities. The 1991-2000 FARS was sorted for fatal rear-impacted vehicles. Using a VIN decoder, GM vehicles with HR front seats were sorted from those with baseline (pre-HR) seats. The fatal rear-impacted vehicle crashes were subdivided into several groups for analysis: 1) single-vehicle rear impacts, 2) two-vehicle rear crashes involving light striking vehicles, and 3) two-vehicle crashes involving heavy trucks and tractor-trailers, and multi-vehicle (3+) rear crashes.

A new generation of seats has been designed to specifications for high retention (HR) in a Quasistatic Seat Test (QST). The QST involves occupant loading of the seat in a rearward direction and targets peak H-point moment to >1700 Nm giving an energy transfer capability of 2000 J. QST tests from 1998-2000 were compared to results from pre-HR seat designs of the late 1980s and early 1990s to determine performance improvements. Twenty-seven QST tests of HR seats were randomly selected from a larger series and were evaluated for strength and seat deformation under occupant loading. They represented 20 different seat types from four suppliers. Averages and standard deviations in QST results were computed. In addition, eight repeat tests were conducted with one seat to determine repeatability of the QST. These data were compared to an earlier repeatability study of the 1994 W pre-HR seat, which was evaluated at two facilities.

For several decades, there has been a debate on the safety merits of yielding and rigidized (stiff) seats. In 1995, GM adopted requirements for high retention seats and introduced a new generation of yielding seatbacks. These seats have the same stiffness as the yielding seats of the 1980s and early 1990s, but have a strong frame structure and recliners to substantially limit seatback rotation in severe rear crashes. The yielding behavior is given by compliance of the seat suspension across the side structures and an open perimeter frame, which allows the occupant to penetrate into the seatback. The purpose of this study is to compare the energy transfer characteristics and occupant dynamics of yielding and stiff seats in 35 km/h and 16 km/h rear crashes. Based on benchmarking tests, the stiff seatback is defined as one having a 40 kN/m stiffness in rearward loading by a Hybrid dummy.

Rollovers are an important vehicle safety issue. Various technologies have been developed to help prevent rollovers from occurring, but the evaluation of rollover resistance typically involves vehicle-handling tests that are conducted on flat road surfaces with a uniform or split coefficient of friction. The purpose of this study is to determine the precipitating events leading to rollovers by analyzing real-world rollover crashes. This is a first step in identifying and developing vehicle tests that are representative of the principal driving scenarios leading to rollovers. The sequence of events leading to rollovers was determined from 63 in-depth investigated cases in the NASS-CDS database from 1995-1999. The sequence was evaluated by vehicle maneuvers, vehicle stability, surface type, road and shoulder transition condition, posted and estimated speeds, vehicle type and driver injury severity.

Since more occupants are using rear seats of vehicles, a better understanding of priorities for rear occupant protection is needed as future safety initiatives are considered. A two-part study was conducted on occupant injuries in rear seating positions. In Part I, adult and teenage occupants ≥13 years of age are investigated. In Part II, children aged 4-12 years old and toddlers and infants aged 0-3 are studied separately because of the use of infant and child seats and boosters involve different injury mechanisms and tolerances. The objectives of this study on adult and teenager, rear-seated occupants (≥13 years old) are to: 1) review accident data, 2) identify the distribution of rear occupants, and 3) analyze injury risks in various crash modes, including rollovers, frontal, side and rear impacts. Three databases were investigated: NASS-CDS, GES and FARS.

Child safety continues to be an important issue in automotive safety for many reasons, including reported cases of serious injury from airbag deployments. As a result of extensive public education campaigns, most children are now placed in rear seats of vehicles. Accordingly, a more precise understanding of rear-seat occupant protection is developing as the second and third rows have become the primary seating area for children in SUVs, vans and passenger cars. The objective of this study was to review field crash and injury data from rear seats, identify the distribution of children and infants in rear seats, and analyze injury risks in various crash modes. The database used was the 1991-1999 NASS-CDS. When looking at crash configurations for 1st and 2nd row children, rollover crashes involved the highest incidence of MAIS 3+ injury, followed by frontal and side impacts. Lap-shoulder belt usage was similar for 1st and 2nd row children.

Role of the Seat in Rear Crash Safety addresses the historic debate over seatback stiffness, energy absorbing yielding, occupant retention and whiplash prevention; and it provides a scientific foundation for the direction GM pursued in the development and validation of future seat designs. It also describes the multi-year research study into the role of the seat in rear crash safety - first by addressing the need for occupant retention in the more severe rear crashes; and then by addressing the needs for an adequately positioned head restraint and changes in the compliance of the seatback to lower the risks of the whiplash in low-speed crashes.

Active head restraints are being used to reduce the risk of whiplash in rear crashes. However, their evaluation in laboratory tests can vary depending on the injury criteria and test dummy. The objective of this study was to conduct barrier tests with BioRID and sled tests with Hybrid III to determine the most meaningful responses related to whiplash risks in real-world crashes. This study involved: (1) twenty-four rear barrier tests of the Saab 9000, 900, 9-3 and 9-5 with two fully instrumented BioRID dummies placed in the front or rear seats and exposed to 24 and 48.3 km/h barrier impacts, and (2) twenty rear sled tests at 5-38 km/h delta V in three series with conventional, modified and SAHR seats using the Hybrid III dummy. A new target superposition method was used to track head displacement and rotation with respect to T1. Insurance data on whiplash claims was compared to the dummy responses.

In this study, U.S. accident data was analyzed to determine interior contacts and injuries for front-seated occupants in rollovers. The injury distribution for belted and unbelted, non-ejected drivers and right front passengers (RFP) was assessed for single-event accidents where the leading side of the vehicle rollover was either on the driver or passenger door. Drivers in a roll-left and RFP in roll-right rollovers were defined as near-side occupants, while drivers in roll-right and RFP in roll-left rollovers were defined as far-side occupants. Serious injuries (AIS 3+) were most common to the head and thorax for both the near and far-side occupants. However, serious spinal injuries were more frequent for the far-side occupants, where the source was most often coded as roof, windshield and interior.

Crash-test-data on local longitudinal and shear stiffness of the vehicle front is needed to estimate impact severity from car deformation in offset or pole impacts, and to predict vehicle acceleration and compartment intrusion in car-to-car crashes. Repeated full frontal crash-tests were carried out with a load-cell barrier to determine the local longitudinal stiffness with increasing crush. Repeated off-set tests were run to determine shear stiffness. Two single high-speed tests (full frontal and offset) were carried out and compared to the repeated tests to determine the rate sensitivity of the front structure. Four repetitions at 33.4 km/h provided equivalent energy absorption to a single 66.7 km/h test, when rebound was considered. Power-train inertial effects were estimated from highspeed tests with and without power-train. Speed effects averaged 2% per [m/s] for crush up to power-train impact, and post-crash measurements were a reasonable estimate of front-structure stiffness.

Vehicle fleet downsizing has been discussed in Europe as an aspect to reduce fuel emissions. A recently developed mathematical model was used to study the individual effects of fleet mass distribution, impact speed reductions and inherent vehicle protection on average injury and fatality rates for downsized fleets. A baseline fleet of 700-2000 kg was downsized by a) reducing all vehicle masses by 10% or 20% and b) by removing all cars heavier than 1400 or 1200 kg. The results showed that the safety can be maintained if the vehicle masses are reduced proportionally to their original mass. A higher safety level can be achieved by removing the heavier vehicles. Traffic safety can be further enhanced by impact speed reductions or by improvements of restraint systems and vehicle compatibility.

As the driving population ages, there is a need to understand the accident patterns of older drivers. Previous research has shown that side impact collisions, usually at an intersection, are a serious problem for the older driver in terms of injury outcome. This study compares the frequency of side impact, intersection collisions of different driver age groups using state and national police-reported accident data as well as an in-depth analysis of cases from a fatal accident study. All data reveal that the frequency of intersection crashes increases with driver age. The state and national data show that older drivers have an increase frequency of intersection crashes involving vehicles crossing paths prior to the collision compared to their involvement in all crash types. When taking into account traffic control devices at an intersection, older drivers have the greatest involvement of multiple vehicle crashes at a signed intersection.

The causes for 131 fatal crashes of lap-shoulder belted occupants were analyzed for crash causation and avoidance opportunities. Fourteen crash scenarios were determined to depict the situation and circumstance of the accidents. Each scenario is discussed in relation to driver age, actions, behavior, errors and aggressiveness, as well as crash type and other factors influencing the crash. Nearly a third of crashes involved a rapid, unpredictable onset by reckless action or mistake of another driver. The remainder were caused by the driver of the case-vehicle. Some were single vehicle crashes primarily related to excessive speed, aggressive driving, and drifting out of lane. The others were multi-vehicle crashes due primarily to inadvertent errors. The most common errors were right-of-way violations at an intersection, loss of control on wet roads, impact of a stationary vehicle, and lane changing errors.

Fatal crash circumstances for 48 belted female drivers were studied in-depth and compared to those of 83 belted male drivers in a similar population of vehicles. Women had a higher incidence of crashes on slippery roads, during lane changes and passing maneuvers than men who had a higher rate of aggressive driving and speed related crashes (χ2 = 10.47, p < 0.001). Driver-side damage was significantly more frequent in female than male crashes (χ2 = 5.74, p < 0.025) and women had a higher fraction of side impacts (45.9% v 31.4%) and crashes during daylight (87.0% v 72.3%, χ2 = 3.65, p < 0.05) than men. Women also had a higher fraction of potentially avoidable crashes than men (57.5% v 39.0%) and a lower involvement related to aggressive driving (10.6% v 25.6%). These differences were statistically significant (χ2 = 5.41, p < 0.025).

Side impact pendulum tests were conducted on Eurosid I and Biosid to assess the biofidelity of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis, and determine injury tolerance levels. Each body region was impacted at 4.5, 6.7, and 9.4 m/s using test conditions which duplicate cadaver impacts with a 15 cm flat-circular 23.4 kg rigid mass. The cadaver database establishes human response and injury risk assessment in side impact. Both dummies showed better biofidelity when compared to the lowest-speed cadaver response corridor. At higher speeds, peak force was substantially higher. The average peak contact force was 1.56 times greater in Biosid and 2.19 times greater in Eurosid 1 than the average cadaver response. The Eurosid I abdomen had the most dissimilar response and lacks biofidelity. Overall, Biosid has better biofidelity than Eurosid I with an average 21% lower peak load and a closer match to the duration of cadaver impact responses for the three body regions.