Search Results

Analysis of the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) data reveals that vehicle rollover accidents account for a relatively a small number of accidents, but the associated frequency of serious injury is high compared to frontal or side impact. These data demonstrate the apparently elevated probability of head and neck injury during rollover, with head injury occurring more frequently, injured 4.5 times more frequently than the neck when considering all injuries. Automotive industry researchers have performed numerous rollover tests with instrumented ATD's and have predicted an elevated probability of neck injury with little chance of head injury. This contradicts field data (NASS-CDS) which suggests a high frequency of head injury with little chance of neck injury. This difference may be explained in part, through the different volumes of data presented in the literature.

Rollover crashes are responsible for a significant proportion of traffic fatalities each year, while they represent a relatively small proportion of all motor vehicle collisions. The purpose of this study was to focus on rollover events from an occupant's perspective to understand what type of industry test method, ATD, computer based model, and injury assessment measures are required to provide occupant protection during rollovers. Specific injuries most commonly experienced in rollovers along with the associated injury sources were obtained by review of 1998-2000 NASS-CDS records. These data suggest that models capable of predicting the likelihood of brain injuries, specifically subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage, are desirable. Ideally, the model should also be capable of predicting the likelihood of rib fractures, lung contusions and shoulder (clavicular and scapular) fractures, and facet, pedicle, and vertebral body fractures in the cervical spine.

A variety of test methodologies currently exist to assess the propensity of a vehicle to roll laterally, the vehicle performance during a rollover event, and the associated risk of injury to the occupant. There are indications as to which tests are appropriate when attempting to replicate rollover events observed in the field. Due to the complexity of a rollover, test repeatability is a concern as well as cost, and field relevance. Since revisions to governmental rollover regulations are currently being considered, an assessment of currently available rollover test methodologies would provide a context to compare the different experimental designs. Additionally, the design of injury prevention strategies such as side air curtains, 4-point belts, etc. will also require the establishment of repeatable, robust, and economical test methods.

Numerous human cadaver impact studies have shown that acute injury to the knee, femoral shaft, and hip may be significantly reduced by increasing the contact area over the anterior surface of the knee. Such impact events are common in frontal crashes when the knee strikes the instrument panel (IP). The cadaveric studies show that the injury threshold of the knee-thigh-hip complex increases as the contact area over the knee is likewise increased. Unfortunately, no prior methodology exists to record the spatial and temporal contact pressure distributions in dummy (or cadaver) experiments. Previous efforts have been limited to the use of pressure sensitive film, which only yields a cumulative record of contact. These studies assumed that the cumulative pressure sensitive film image correlated with the peak load, although this has never been validated.

Use of the top tether attachment in three commonly available anchor points provides added restraint of child restraint systems (CRS). Three tether attachment positions were used; floor, behind the head rest (parcel deck) and at the ceiling. The three anchor points are comparable in efficacy while no tether allows increased travel of the anthropomorphic test device (ATD) head. Two series of six tests were conducted at a max speed of 20 mph and peak deceleration of 16 G's using a deceleration sled test apparatus. The first series of tests was conducted at a 90 degree impact angle. On average there is 9% less head travel when using the tether attachment compared to not using the tether attachment, all other conditions begin equal. The second series of tests was conducted at a 73 degree impact angle, there is 15% less head travel when using the tether attachment compared to not using the tether attachment, all other conditions begin equal.

The current study examined field data in order to document injury rates, injured body regions, and injury sources for persons seated in the second row of passenger vehicles. It was also intended to identify whether these varied with respect to age and restraint use in vehicles manufactured in recent years. Data from the 2007-2012 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS/CDS) was used to describe occupants seated in the second row of vehicles in frontal crashes. Injury plots, comparison of means and logistic regression analysis were used to seek factors associated with increased risk of injury. Restraint use reduced the risk of AIS ≥ 2 injury from approximately 1.8% to 5.8% overall. Seventy nine percent of the occupants in the weighted data set used either a lap and shoulder belt or child restraint system. The most frequently indicated injury source for persons with a MAIS ≥ 2 was “seat, back support”, across restraint conditions and for all but the youngest occupants.

Government accident statistics show that approximately 35% of all car accident victims suffer an injury to the head and face. Such injuries are common during frontal, side, and rollover accidents as the head may impact the steering wheel, side pillars, windshield, or roof. Further, non-threatening injuries (i.e abrasions) may be suffered due to contact with the deployed airbag, or, in the case of an out-of-position occupant, a deploying airbag. While the forces and accelerations measured internal to the head are known to correlate with serious head injury (i.e. concussion, skull fracture, diffuse axonal injury), it is currently not possible to record how the loads are distributed over the head and face with the current ATD. Ultimately, such data could eventually be used to provide improved resolution as to the probability of superficial, soft tissue damage since past cadaver studies show that the distribution of contact pressures are related to such injuries.