Search Results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.