Search Results

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.

Objective: This study analyzes rear sled tests with a 95th% male and 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in various seating positions on ABTS (All Belt to Seat) seats in severe rear impact tests. Dummy interactions with the deforming seatback and upper body extension around the seat frame are considered. Methods: The 1st series involved an open sled fixture with a Sebring ABTS seat at 30 mph rear delta V. A 95th% Hybrid III dummy was placed in four different seating positions: 1) normal, 2) leaning inboard, 3) leaning forward and inboard, and 4) leaning forward and outboard. The 2nd series used a 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in a Grand Voyager body buck at 25 mph rear delta V. The dummy was leaned forward and inboard on a LeSabre ABTS or Voyager seat. The 3rd series used a 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in an Explorer body buck at 26 mph rear delta V. The dummy was leaned forward and inboard on a Sebring ABTS or Explorer seat.

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.

The average body weight of the US population has increased over time. This study investigates the effect of increasing weight on seat and occupant responses in 15-18 km/h and 42 km/h rear sled tests. The effect of initial occupant posture is also discussed. Seven tests were conducted with lap-shoulder belted ATDs (anthropometric test device) placed on older and modern driver seats. Four tests were conducted with a 50th percentile male Hybrid III, two with 95th percentile male Hybrid III and one with a BioRID. The ATDs were ballasted to represent a Class I or II obese occupant in three tests. The tests were matched by seat model and sled velocity. The effect of occupant weight was assessed in three matches. The results indicated an increase in seatback deflection with increasing occupant weight.

The objective of this study was to analyze available anthropomorphic test device (ATD) responses from FMVSS 301-type rear impact tests. Rear impact test data was obtained from NHTSA and consisted of dummy responses, test observations, photos and videos. The data was organized in four test series: 1) NCAP series of 30 New Car Assessment Program tests carried out at 35 mph with 1979-1980 model year vehicles, 2) Mobility series of 14 FMVSS 301 tests carried out at 30 mph with 1993 model year vehicles, 3) 301 MY 95+ series of 79 FMVSS 301 tests carried out at 30 mph with 1995-2005 model year vehicles and 4) ODB series of 17 Offset Deformable Barrier tests carried out at 50 mph with a 70% overlap using 1996-1999 model year vehicles. The results indicate very good occupant performance in yielding seats in the NCAP, Mobility and 301 MY 95+ test series.

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.

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.

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.