Search Results

The risk for severe injury (MAIS 4+F) was determined by crash type, seatbelt use and crash severity (delta V) using 22 years of NASS-CDS from 1994-2015 with all light vehicles and occupants 15+ years old. There were 9 increments of delta V from <16-72+ km/h (<10-45+ mph). Crashes were grouped by the location of damage to the front, near-side, far-side and rear. Injury risk was calculated by dividing the number of severely injured (MAIS 4+F) by the number of exposure (MAIS 0+F) occupants using weighted data. Standard errors were determined. The data and plots provide a national estimate of injury by delta V in front, near-side, far-side and rear impacts based on the multi-year field data in NASS-CDS.

The risk for severe injury (MAIS 4+F) was determined by crash type, seatbelt use and crash severity (delta V) using 22 years of NASS-CDS from 1994-2015 with all light vehicles and occupants 15+ years old. There were 9 increments of delta V from <16-72+ km/h (<10-45+ mph). Crashes were grouped by the location of damage to the front, near-side, far-side and rear. Injury risk was calculated by dividing the number of severely injured (MAIS 4+F) by the number of exposure (MAIS 0+F) occupants using weighted data. Standard errors were determined. The data and plots provide a national estimate of injury by delta V in front, near-side, far-side and rear impacts based on the multi-year field data in NASS-CDS.

Field data was analyzed on second-row children in front, side and rear impacts to study fatality trends by model year (MY) and calendar year (CY) with 1980-2020 MY vehicles. The different MY and CY perspectives show changes in rates that are useful for setting priorities for second-row child safety in rear impacts. 1990 to 2019 FARS was queried to assess the number of fatally injured and non-ejected second-row children (0-15 years old) in crashes without fires. The children included outboard occupants seated behind an occupied front seat and center occupants. The data was analyzed for rear, front and side impacts to assess crash frequency. 1990-2015 POLK was queried to assess exposure of registered vehicles and estimate a fatality rate. The FARS and POLK data were sub-grouped by MY of the vehicle and CY of the crash. There were 2.8-times more fatally injured children in frontal crashes than in the rear crashes. The ratio of frontal and rear crashes varied with CY sub-groups.

Blunt impacts to the back of the torso can occur in vehicle crashes due to interaction with unrestrained occupants, or cargo in frontal crashes, or intrusion in rear crashes, for example. Six pendulum tests were conducted on the back of an instrumented 50th percentile male Hybrid III ATD (Anthropomorphic Test Device) to determine kinematic and biomechanical responses. The impact locations were centered with the top of a 15-cm diameter impactor at the T1 or at T6 level of the thoracic spine. The impact speed varied from 16 to 24 km/h. Two 24 km/h tests were conducted at the T1 level and showed repeatability of setup and ATD responses. The 16 and 24 km/h tests at T1 and T6 were compared. Results indicated greater head rotation, neck extension moments and neck shear forces at T1 level impacts. For example, lower neck extension was 2.6 times and 3.8 times greater at T1 versus T6 impacts at 16 and 24 km/h, respectively.

Seat strength has increased over the past four decades which includes a transition to dual recliners. There are seat collision performance issues with stiff ABTS and very strong seats in rear impacts with different occupant sizes, seating positions and physical conditions. In this study, eight rear sled tests were conducted in four series: 1) ABTS in a 56 km/h (35 mph) test with a 50th Hybrid III ATD at MGA, 2) dual-recliner ABTS and F-150 in a 56 km/h (35 mph) test with a 5th female Hybrid III ATD at Ford, 3) dual-recliner ABTS in a 48 km/h (30 mph) test with a 95th Hybrid III ATD leaning inboard at CAPE and 4) dual-recliner ABTS and Escape in 40 km/h (25 mph) in-position and out-of-position tests with a 50th Hybrid III ATD at Ford. The sled tests showed that single-recliner ABTS seats twist in severe rear impacts with the pivot side deformed more rearward than the stanchion side.

NHTSA has recently been petitioned to address the protection of second-row children in rear crashes due front seatback performance. The protection of children is important. However, it is more complex than assessing front seat performance in rear impacts. Viano, Parenteau (2008 [1]) analyzed cases of serious-to-fatally injured (MAIS 3+F) children up to 7 years old in the second row in rear impacts involving 1990+ model year vehicles using 1997-2005 NASS-CDS. They observed that intrusion was an important factor pushing the child forward into the back of the front seat, B-pillar or other front structure. To help assess whether stiffening the front seats would be beneficial for second-row child safety, the 2008 study was updated using more recent data and model year vehicles. In the present study, 1997-2015 NASS-CDS data were analyzed for serious-to-fatally (MAIS 3+F) injured 0- to 7-year old children in the second row with 1994+ model year vehicles.

Seats have become stronger over the past two decades and remain more upright in rear impacts. While head restraints are higher and more forward providing support for the head and neck, serious-to-fatal injuries to the thoracic and cervical spine have been seen in occupants with spinal disorders, such as DISH (diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis), ankylosis, spondylosis and/or osteophytes that ossify the joints in the spine. This case study addresses the influence of spinal disorders on fracture-dislocation and spinal cord injury in rear impacts with relatively upright seats. Nineteen field accidents were investigated where serious-to-fatal injuries of the thoracic and cervical spine occurred with the seat remaining upright or slightly reclined. The occupants were lap-shoulder belted, some with belt pretensioning and cinching latch plate.

Objective: Sled test video and data were independently analyzed to assess the validity of statements and conclusions reported in Bidez et al. SAE paper 2005-01-1708 [7]. Method: An independent review and analysis of the test data and video was conducted for 9 sled tests at 35 km/h (21.5 mph). The 5th female Hybrid III was lap-shoulder belted in the 2nd or 3rd row seat of a SUV buck. For one series, the angle was varied from 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 deg PDOF. The second series involved shoulder belt pretensioning and other belt modifications. Results: Bidez et al. [7] claimed “The lap belts moved up and over the pelvis of the small female dummy for all impact angles tested.” We found that there was no submarining in any of the tests with the production lap-shoulder belts. Bidez et al. [7] claimed “H3-5F dummies began to roll out of their shoulder belt at… 30 degrees. Complete loss of torso support was seen at 45 degrees without significant kinetic energy dissipation.”

This study examined occupant and seat responses with ABTS (all-belts-to-seat) in rear end collisions. Some have claimed improved ABTS seat performance and retention in rear impacts than conventional seats. ABTS seats tend to have higher ultimate yield strengths than conventional yielding seats. Most ABTS seats have asymmetric seatback stiffness due to the need for additional structure on one side of the seat to support shoulder belt loads. Many designs use a single-side recliner and single stanchion that anchors the D-ring. This asymmetry results in twisting of the seatback in severe rear impacts. Seatback twist can allow the occupant to move away from the shoulder belt. Rearward pull tests on ABTS seats also demonstrates seatback twisting and in some cases large drops in load during the test. The added strength and stiffness of ABTS seats lead to designs that are vulnerable to sudden force drops from separated parts.

Various methods have been used to load a seat in the rear direction, including FMVSS 207, assorted body blocks and QST (quasistatic seat test). However, each method lacks some critical aspect of occupant loading of the seat or is too complex for routine development work. A new method is presented to determine the strength and energy transfer of a seat to an occupant in rear impacts that reflects how an occupant interacts with the seat in a rear impact. A metal-cast H-point manikin, called FRED II, was modified to support a loading bar and was pulled rearward into the seatback by a hydraulic ram. The force and displacement of the loading and the inboard and outboard seatback angle were measured. The response of the seat was recorded by video. The moment about the recliner pivot at peak force was determined by aligning the center of the recliner in side views of the seat position initially and at peak load.

Objective: This is a descriptive study of the incidence of spinal injury by crash type using NASS-CDS. It provides an understanding of impacts to the undercarriage of the vehicle and injuries to the lumbar spine by reviewing electronic cases in NASS-CDS to determine crash circumstances for fractures of the lumbar spine with undercarriage impacts. Methods: 1997-2015 NASS-CDS was evaluated for serious injury (MAIS 3 + F) to front-seat occupants by seatbelt use and crash type in 1994+ MY vehicles. Undercarriage impacts were defined by GAD1 = U without a rollover. Serious injury was defined as MAIS 3 + F. Spinal injuries AIS 3+ were separated into cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions. Weighted data was determined using ratio weight. NASS-CDS electronic cases were downloaded from NHTSA with AIS 3+ lumbar spine injuries in undercarriage impacts. Results: There were 2,160 MAIS 3 + F injured occupants in undercarriage impacts. This was 0.23% of all serious injury.

Objective: This study investigated the incidence of abdominal injuries in frontal crashes by occupant age and seating position. It determined the risk for abdominal injury (AIS 2+) by organ and injury source. Methods: 1997-2015 NASS-CDS was analyzed to estimate the occurrence of abdominal injuries in non-ejected, belted occupants involved in frontal crashes. Vehicles were included with 1997+ model year (MY). The annual incidence and rate for different types of abdominal injury were estimated with standard errors. The sources for abdominal injury were determined. Results: 77.8% of occupants were drivers, 16.7% were right-front passengers and 5.4% were rear passengers. Rear passengers accounted for 77.1% of 8-11 year old (yo) and 17.2% of 12-17 yo group. The risk for moderate abdominal injury (MAIS 2 + abdo) was 0.30% ± 0.053% in drivers, 0.32% ± 0.086% in right-front passengers and 0.38% ± 0.063% in rear occupants.

Objective: This study involved a number of different tests addressing theories for recliner and track release of front seats in rear impacts. It addresses the validity of the theories. Method: Several separate test series were conducted to address claims made about recliner and track release of front seats in rear impacts. The following theories were evaluated to see the validity of the issues: 1 Recliner teeth slipping with minimal damage to the teeth 2 Recliner teeth bypass by disengaging and re-engaging under load without damaging the teeth 3 Recliner shaft bending and torque releasing the recliners 4 Track release by heel loading 5 Track release with occupant load on the seat 6 Recliner handle rotation causing recliner release 7 Double pull body block tests Results: Many of the theories were found to be uncorroborated once actual test data was available to judge the merits of the issue raised. The laboratory tests were set-up to specifically address particular issues.

Purpose: This study investigates NASS-CDS data on basilar skull fractures by crash type and injury source for various crash scenarios to understand the injury risks, injury mechanisms and contact sources. Methods: 1993-2008 NASS-CDS data was used to study basilar skull fractures in adult front occupants by crash type and injury source. Injury risks were determined using weighted data for occupants with known injury status in 1994+ model year vehicles. In-depth analysis was made of far-side occupants in side impacts and rear crashes using the NASS electronic cases. Results: Basilar skull fractures occur in 0.507 ± 0.059% of rollovers and 0.255 ± 0.025% of side impacts. The lowest risk is in rear impacts at 0.015 ± 0.007%. The most common contact source is the roof, side rails and header (39.0%) in rollovers, the B-pillar (25.8%) in side impacts and head restraint (55.3%) in rear crashes.

Objective: This study analyzed available rear impact sled tests with Starcraft-type seats that use a diagonal belt behind the seatback. The study focused on neck responses for out-of-position (OOP) and in-position seated dummies. Methods: Thirteen rear sled tests were identified with out-of-position and in-position 5 th , 50 th and 95 th Hybrid III dummies in up to 47.6 mph rear delta Vs involving Starcraft-type seats. The tests were conducted at Ford, Exponent and CSE. Seven KARCO rear sled tests were found with in-position 5 th and 50 th Hybrid III dummies in 21.1-29.5 mph rear delta Vs involving Starcraft-type seats. In all of the in-position and one of the out-of-position series, comparable tests were run with production seats. Biomechanical responses of the dummies and test videos were analyzed.

Purpose: This study presents cases of fracture-dislocation of the thoracic spine in extension during severe rear impacts. The mechanism of injury was investigated. Methods: Four crashes were investigated where a lap-shoulder-belted, front-seat occupant experienced fracture-dislocation of the thoracic spine and paraplegia in a severe rear impact. Police, investigator and medical records were reviewed, the vehicle was inspected and the seat detrimmed. Vehicle dynamics, occupant kinematics and injury mechanisms were determined in this case study. Results: Each case involved a lap-shoulder-belted occupant in a high retention seat with ≻1,700 Nm moment or ≻5.5 kN strength for rearward loading. The crashes were offset rear impacts with 40-56 km/h delta V involving under-ride or override by the impacting vehicle and yaw of the struck vehicle. In each case, the occupant's pelvis was restrained on the seat by the open perimeter frame of the seatback and lap belt.

Safety is a key element in new vehicle design and active safety, together with driver distraction prevention, has become one of the most talked about issues in the mobility industry. This book features 20 SAE technical papers, originally published in 2009 and 2010, which showcase how the mobility industry is considering all aspects of safety in designing and producing safer vehicles. These papers were selected by SAE International's 2010 President Dr. Andrew Brown Jr., Executive Director and Chief Technologist for Delphi Corporation. The contents of this book explore a variety of safety issues in the areas of market and consumer preferences; driver assistance and modeling; active safety system, crash sensing and sensor fusion; communications; and road safety. The publication also includes a number of articles authored by renowned experts in the field of active safety.

This book features 20 SAE technical papers, originally published in 2009 and 2010, which showcase how the mobility industry is developing greener products and staying responsive - if not ahead of - new standards and legal requirements. These papers were selected by SAE International's 2010 President Dr. Andrew Brown Jr., Executive Director and Chief Technologist for Delphi Corporation. Authored by international experts from both industry and academia, they cover a wide range of cutting-edge subjects including powertrain electrification, alternative fuels, new emissions standards and remediation strategies, nanotechnology, sustainability, in-vehicle networking, and how various countries are also stepping up to the "green challenge".

This paper is an overview of the current state (calendar year 2010) of in-vehicle multiplexing and what pertinent technologies are emerging. Usage and trends of in-vehicle networking protocols will be presented and categorized. The past few years have seen a large growth in the number and type of communication buses used in automobiles, trucks, construction equipment, and military, among others. Development continues even into boating and recreation vehicles. Areas for discussion will include SAE Class A, B, C, Diagnostics, SafetyBus, Mobile Media, Wireless, and X-by-Wire. All existing mainstream vehicular multiplex protocols (approximately 40) are categorized using the SAE convention as well as categories previously proposed by this author. Top contenders will be pointed out along with a discussion of the protocol in the best position to become the industry standard in each category.

Estimation of vehicle roll angle, lateral velocity and side slip angle for the purpose of crash sensing is considered. Only roll rate sensor and the sensors readily available in vehicles equipped with ESC (Electronic Stability Control) systems are used in the estimation process. The algorithms are based on kinematic relationships, thus avoiding dependence on vehicle and tire models, which minimizes tuning efforts and sensitivity to parameter variations. The estimate of roll angle is obtained by blending two preliminary estimates, each valid in different conditions, in such a manner that the final estimate continuously favors the more accurate one. The roll angle estimate is used to compensate the gravity component in measured lateral acceleration due to vehicle roll or road bank angle. This facilitates estimation of lateral velocity and side slip angle from fundamental kinematic relationships involving the gravity-compensated lateral acceleration, yaw rate and longitudinal velocity.