Search Results

This investigation addresses and evaluates: (1) belted drivers in frontal crashes; (2) crashes divided into low, medium, and high severity; (3) air-bag-equipped passenger vehicles separated into either model years 1985 - 1997 (with airbags) or model years 1998 - 2008; (4) rate of Harm as a function of crash severity and vehicle model year; and (5) injury patterns associated with injured body regions and the involved physical components, by vehicle model year. Comparisons are made between the injury patterns related to drivers seated in vehicles manufactured before 1998 and those manufactured 1998 or later. The purpose of this comparative analysis is to establish how driver injury patterns may have changed as a result of the introduction of more recent safety belt technology, advanced airbags, or structural changes.

A common injury type among foot and ankle injury is the Lisfranc trauma, or injury to the forefoot. The Lisfranc injury indicates abnormal alignment of the tarsal-metatarsal joints with the loss of their normal spatial relationships. In 2003, Smith completed a laboratory study of this injury mechanism at Wayne State University [1, 2]. He found Lisfranc trauma was correlated with impact force to the forefoot. He proposed a probability of injury function that is based on the applied force to the forefoot. This study examined the instrumentation in the foot of the dummies in the USA New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) frontal crashes. Nineteen different passenger vehicles representing four different vehicle classes were selected based mostly on a large presence in the USA vehicle fleet. Both NCAP and IIHS crashed these nineteen makes and models.

The research question investigated in this study is what are the key attributes of foot and ankle injury in the between-rail frontal crash? For the foot and ankle, what was the type of interior surface contacted and the type of resulting trauma? The method was to study with in-depth case reviews of NASS-CDS cases where a driver suffered an AIS=2 foot or ankle injury in between-rail crashes. Cases were limited to belted occupants in vehicles equipped with air bags. The reviews concentrated on coded and non-coded data, identifying especially those factors contributing to the injuries of the driver's foot/ankle. This study examines real-world crash data between the years 1997-2009 with a focus on frontal crashes involving 1997 and later model year vehicles. The raw data count for between-rail crashes was 732, corresponding to 227,305 weighted, tow-away crashes.

In December 2003, fifteen participating Automobile Manufacturers announced the adoption of voluntary standards for geometric compatibility in frontal crashes. In an October 2003 report, Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) estimated that an 8 to 28 percent fatality reduction might be achieved with better geometric and stiffness compatibility (O’Neill, 2003). This benefit was based on comparing the fatality risks of car occupants in car-to-car collisions and in car-to-SUV collisions. Reduced occupant compartment intrusion was cited as the principal advantage gained by compatibility improvements. However, the study did not actually examine the role that intrusion played in causing the fatalities. This study examines the magnitude of serious injuries in frontal crashes that could be addressed by reducing occupant compartment intrusion. Each frontal vehicle-to-vehicle case in William Lehman Injury Research Center (WLIRC) data was examined to determine the cause of each injury.

In the effort to understand and solve the frontal crash compatibility problem, one needs to use values of frontal stiffness. Various definitions of stiffness have been used in other studies based on measurements from NHTSA's 35mph frontal NCAP test. Those definitions varied from assuming a linear stiffness based on static crush to more refined ones that vary with time dependent crush. A major consideration in selecting a method is the amount of vehicle damage that occurs in an incompatible crash. To partially address this issue, a method was introduced based on the energy absorbed in a front to front crash at 25mph approach speed. Four alternative definitions of stiffness were studied.

Since model year 1983, one hundred and seventy five light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (LTVs) have been included in the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) frontal crash tests. In this frontal test, vehicles are crashed at 35 mph such that the entire front impacts against a rigid, fixed barrier. Instrumented anthropometric dummies are placed in the driver and right front passenger seats. Accelerometers are placed on the vehicle to record the response of the structure during the crash. A number of recent papers have examined the compatibility of LTVs and cars in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. The studies in these papers, generally, consider three factors for vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility: (1) mass, (2) stiffness, and (3) geometry. On June 5, 1998, Transport Canada and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration held a forum entitled “Transport-NHTSA International Dialogue on Vehicle Compatibility,” in Windsor, Canada.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a total of 28 frontal crashes in the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) involving the 10-year-old child Hybrid III dummy. The 10-year-old child dummy was in the rear seat. All types of vehicles (passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, vans and pick-up trucks) were tested to assess the effect of restraint systems such as booster and pretensioner on the rear seat occupant. In this study, the readings of the 10-year-old child dummy in rear-left and rear-right seat positions are examined. The authors apply a possible 5 star rating system, based on head and chest readings of the 10-year-old dummy. The paper also assesses the safety performance of rear seat occupants and the effect of the restraint systems on a child in the rear seat. This paper suggests that a star rating for rear seat occupants is independent of the present ratings for the driver and front adult passenger in NCAP.

According to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS, 1995-2004), over 20 percent of fatal frontal crashes are into fixed narrow objects such as trees and utility poles in real world crashes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has studied the frontal pole impact test since 2005, conducting a series of tests using passenger cars that are rated “Good” from the IIHS frontal offset test. Passenger cars were impacted into a 10-inch-diameter rigid pole at 64-kph. The alignment of the pole along the centerline of the vehicles in frontal impact was varied to study the influence on dummy injury metrics. This paper evaluates the frontal center pole test conducted by the IIHS. The IIHS tests 21 crashes impacted by the rigid pole using 5 vehicle models with two dummies in the front seat. Intrusions and dummy readings were reviewed according to the frontal offset rating criteria of the IIHS for structural performance and injury measurement.