Search Results

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.