Search Results

This study was conducted to assess the occupant restraint use and injury risks by seating position. The results were used to discuss the merit of selected warning systems. The 1989-2015 NASS-CDS and 2017-2021 CISS data were analyzed for light vehicles in all, frontal and rear tow-away crashes. The differences in serious injury risk (MAIS 3+F) were determined for front and rear seating positions, including the right, middle and left second-row seats. Occupancy and restraint use were determined by model year groups. Occupancy relative to the driver was 27% in the right-front (RF) and 17% in the second row in all crashes. About 39% of second-row passengers were in the left seat, 15% in the center seat and 47% in the right seat. Restraint use was lower in the second row compared to front seats. It was 43% in the right-front and 32% in the second-row seats in all crashes involving serious injury. Restraint use increased with model year groups.

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.

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.

Interest in rear-seat occupant safety has increased in recent years. Information relevant to rear-seat occupant interior space and kinematics are needed to evaluate injury risks in real-world accidents. This study was conducted to first assess the effect of size and restraint conditions, including belt misuse, on second-row occupant kinematics and to then document key clearance measurements for an Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) seated in the second row in modern vehicles from model years 2015-2020. Twenty-two tests were performed with non-instrumented ATDs; three with a 5th percentile female Hybrid III, 10 tests with a 10-year-old Hybrid III, and 9 tests with a 6-year-old Hybrid III. Test conditions included two sled bucks (mid-size car and sport utility vehicle (SUV)), two test speeds (56 and 64 km/h), and various restraint configurations (properly restrained and improperly restrained configurations). Head and knee trajectories were assessed.

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.

This study focused on occupant responses in very large pickup trucks in rollovers and was conducted in three phases. Phase 1 - Field data analysis: In a prior study [9], 1998 to 2020 FARS data were analyzed; Pickup truck drivers with fatality were 7.4 kg heavier and 4.6 cm taller than passenger car drivers. Most pickup truck drivers were males. Phase 1 extended the study by focusing on the drivers of very large pickup trucks. The size of 1999-2016 Ford F-250 and F-350 drivers involved in fatal crashes was analyzed by age and sex. More than 90% of drivers were males. The average male driver was 179.5 ± 7.5 cm tall and weighed 89.6 ± 18.4 kg. Phase 2 – Surrogate study: Twenty-nine male surrogates were selected to represent the average size of male drivers of F-250 and F-350s involved in fatal crashes. On average, the volunteers weighed 88.6 ± 5.2 kg and were 180.0 ± 3.2 cm tall with a 95.2 ± 2.2 cm seated height.

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.

Forensic evidence left behind in the form of markings on the seatbelt system can reveal details of how the belt system was being used and how it performed in a collision. Information about how belt systems are being used and how they perform in the field is useful to the design engineer, but interpreting this forensic evidence can be very difficult. Most studies to date have looked at the evidence left behind after a collision simply to determine if the seat belt was being used. This study undertakes the next step and addresses the question of how the belt system was being used. Test data is also presented to allow investigators to determine if the retractor locked and remained locked during the collision or if it spooled out during the collision. The results of 22 HYGE sled tests were analyzed to investigate the types and patterns of marks left behind.

This study assesses the exposure distribution and injury rate (MAIS 4+F) to front-outboard non-ejected occupants by crash severity, belt use and head restraint type and damage in rear impacts using 1997-2015 NASS-CDS data. Rear crashes with a delta V <24 km/h (15 mph) accounted for 71% of all exposed occupants. The rate of MAIS 4+F increased with delta V and was higher for unbelted than belted occupants with a rate of 11.7% ± 5.2% and 6.0% ± 1.5% respectively in 48+ km/h (30 mph) delta V. Approximately 12% of front-outboard occupants were in seats equipped with an integral head restraint and 86% were with an adjustable head restraint, irrespective of crash severity. The overall injury rate was 0.14% ± 0.05% and 0.22% ± 0.06%, respectively. It was higher in cases where the head restraint was listed as “damaged”. Thirteen cases involving a lap-shoulder belted occupant in a front-outboard seat in which “damage” to the adjustable head restraint was identified.

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.

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.

Prior to developing or modifying the protocol of a performance evaluation test, it is important to identify field relevant conditions. The objective of this study was to assess the distribution of selected crash variables from rear crash field collisions involving modern vehicles. The number of exposed and serious-to-fatally injured non-ejected occupants was determined in 2008+ model year (MY) vehicles using the NASS-CDS and CISS databases. Selected crash variables were assessed for rear crashes, including severity (delta V), impact location, struck vehicle type, and striking objects. In addition, 15 EDRs were collected from 2017 to 2019 CISS cases involving 2008+ MY light vehicles with a rear delta V ranging from 32 to 48 km/h. Ten rear crash tests were also investigated to identify pulse characteristics in rear crashes. The tests included five vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests and five FMVSS 301R barrier tests matching the struck vehicle.

This study was conducted to assess the effects of differing rear impact pulse characteristics on restraint performance, front-seat occupant kinematics, biomechanical responses, and seat yielding. Five rear sled tests were conducted at 40.2 km/h using a modern seat. The sled buck was representative of a generic sport utility vehicle. A 50th percentile Hybrid III ATD was used. The peak accelerations, acceleration profiles and durations were varied. Three of the pulses were selected based on published information and two were modeled to assess the effects of peak acceleration occurring early and later within the pulse duration using a front and rear biased trapezoidal characteristic shape. The seatback angle at maximum rearward deformation varied from 46 to 67 degrees. It was lowest in Pulse 1 which simulates an 80 km/h car-to-car rear impact.

To determine the relationship between seatback stiffness or strength and the likelihood of serious/fatal injury for drivers and rear seat occupants in rear-impact crashes, analyses were performed using 1995-2006 police-reported crash data from eleven states. Seatback stiffness and strength data was included for 29 different seatback designs used in 40 vehicle models (model years 1995-2006). Results indicate there is no statistically significant relationship between seatback stiffness or strength and the risk of serious/fatal injury in rear-impact crashes. Factors shown to have statistically significant effect on the likelihood of serious/fatal injury in rear-impact collisions include occupant age, gender, and alcohol impairment; vehicle type; and vehicle mass ratio.

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.

Occupant protection in rear crashes is complex. While seatbelts and head restraints are effective in rear impacts, seatbacks offer the primary restraint component to front-seat occupants in rear impacts. Seatback deflection due to occupant loading can occur in a previous rear crash and/or in multiple-rear event crashes. Seatback deflection will in-turn affect the plastic seatback deformation and energy absorption capabilities of the seat. This study was conducted to provide information on seatback deflection and seat energy consumption in low and high-speed rear impacts. The results can be used to examine seatback deflection and energy consumed in a previous rear impact, or in collisions with multiple rear impacts. Prior seatback deflection and energy absorption can affect the total remaining energy absorption and seat performance for a subsequent rear impact.

Seatback strength and injury potential in moderate to high-speed rear-end collisions were investigated in a series of 12 HYGE sled tests. The test methodology included the use of instrumented Hybrid-III anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). Four tests employed a 95th percentile male ATD ballasted to a total weight of 300 lbs and subjected to approximate 15 mph Delta-V impacts. The remaining tests employed an unmodified 50th percentile male ATD with impacts of approximately 25 mph Delta-V, and three ATD positions, including two "out of position" postures corresponding to leaning forward ("forward" position), and leaning forward and inboard ("radio" position). Seats from three different vehicles were tested, representing a range of strength values. Upper neck values for N were less than 1.0 in all cases. Lower neck N values sometimes exceeded 1.0 with the 50th percentile male ATD out of position, and these values did not trend with seatback strength.

This paper updates the findings of prior research addressing the relationship between seatback strength and likelihood of serious injury/fatality to belted drivers and rear seat occupants in rear-impact crashes. Statistical analyses were performed using 1995-2014 CY police-reported crash data from seventeen states. Seatback strength for over 100 vehicle model groupings (model years 1996-2013) was included in the analysis. Seatback strength is measured in terms of the maximum moment that results in 10 inches of seat displacement. These measurements range from 5,989 in-lbs to 39,918 in-lbs, resulting in a wide range of seatback strengths. Additional analysis was done to see whether Seat Integrated Restraint Systems (SIRS) perform better than conventional belts in reducing driver and rear seat occupant injury in rear impacts. Field data shows the severe injury rate for belted drivers in rear-impact crashes is less than 1%.

Occupant protection in side impacts, in particular for near-side occupants, is a challenge due to the occupant’s close proximity to the impact. Near-side occupants have limited space to ride down the impact. Curtain and side airbags fill the gap between occupant and the side interior. This analysis was conducted to provide insight on the characteristics of side impacts and the relevancy of currently regulated test configurations. For this purpose, 2007-2015 NASS-CDS and 2017-2021 CISS side crash data were analyzed for towed light vehicles. 2008 and newer model year vehicle data was selected to ensure that most vehicles were equipped with side/curtain airbags. The results showed that side impacts accounted for approximately 26.7% of the vehicles involved and 18.9% of the vehicles with at least one seriously injured occupant. Most side impacts involved damage to the front and front-to-center of the vehicle.

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.