Search Results

This study examines the biofidelity, repeatability, and reproducibility of various anthropomorphic devices in rear impacts. The Hybrid III, the Hybrid III with the RID neck, and the TAD-50 were tested in a rigid bench condition in rear impacts with ΔVs of 16 and 24 kph. The results of the tests were then compared to the data of Mertz and Patrick[1]. At a AV of 16 kph, all three anthropomorphic devices showed general agreement with Mertz and Patrick's data [1]. At a AV of 24 kph, the RID neck tended to exhibit larger discrepancies than the other two anthropomorphic devices. Also, two different RID necks produced significantly different moments at the occipital condyles under similar test conditions. The Hybrid III and the Hybrid III with the RID neck were also tested on standard production seats in rear impacts for a AV of 8 kph. Both the kinematics and the occupant responses of the Hybrid III and the Hybrid III with the RID neck differed from each other.

Recent design characteristic changes in a small segment of production passenger car front seats have focused attention on the influence of seat back strength on occupant kinematics and potentially injurious loads placed on occupants during rear end collisions. The National Accident Sampling Study database from the years of 1980 to 1993 was interrogated to determine the relationship between vehicle change in velocity, and the nature and severity of injuries sustained by passengers occupying those seats in rear end collisions. The results of the NASS data analysis show that the yielding seats in most current automobiles perform well as a passive restraint system. When the yielding passenger car seats are compared to the stiffer seat/cab, the passenger car seats offered improved protection. Additionally, the data indicate that the three point restraint system provides protection and restraint for front seat occupants in rear impact.