Search Results

Airbags and safety belts are now viewed as complements for occupant protection in a crash. There is also a view that no single solution exists to ensure safety and that a system of protective technologies is needed to maximize safety in the wide variety of real automotive crashes. This paper compares the fatality prevention effectiveness, and biomechanical principles of occupant restraint systems. It focuses on the effectiveness of various systems in preventing fatal injury assuming the restraint is available and used. While lap-shoulder belts provide the greatest safety, airbags protect both belted and unbelted occupants.

This paper covers the development of the General Motors Energy Absorbing Steering System beginning with the work of the early crash injury pioneers Hugh DeHaven and Colonel John P. Stapp through developments and introduction of the General Motors energy absorbing steering system in 1966. evaluations of crash performance of the system, and further improvement in protective function of the steering assembly. The contributions of GM Research Laboratories are highlighted, including its safety research program. Safety Car, Invertube, the biomechanic projects at Wayne State University, and the thoracic and abdominal tolerance studies that lead to the development of the Viscous Injury Criterion and self-aligning steering wheel.

Door armrests of different crush properties and placement were evaluated in a series of side impact sled tests. Three armrest designs were fabricated with an identical shape but different crush force. The crush properties covered a range in occupant protection systems based on knowledge of human tolerance in side impacts. With BioSID, the softest armrest produced the lowest compression and Viscous responses, and the probability of AIS 4+ injury was below 1%. The compression-based responses increased significantly in tests with armrests of a higher crush force. The profile of the stiffer armrests clearly protruded into the dummy, and the probability of serious injury was 86%-100% based on compression. With SID, the lowest TTI(d) was with the intermediate stiffness armrest. The SID dummy and TTI(d) criterion indicated a 4%-8% probability of AIS 4+ injury for all test conditions and armrest designs.

This paper reviews issues relating to seats including design for comfort and restraint, mechanics of discomfort and irritability, older occupants, and low-back pain. It focuses on the interface between seating technology and occupant comfort, and involves a technical review of medical-engineering information. The dramatic increase in the number of features currently available on seats outreaches the technical understanding of occupant accommodation and ride comfort. Thus, the current understanding of seat design parameters may not adequately encompass occupant needs. The review has found many pathways between seating features and riding comfort, each of which requires more specific information on the biomechanics of discomfort by pressure distribution, body support, ride vibration, material breathability, and other factors. These inputs stimulate mechanisms of discomfort that need to be quantified in terms of mechanical requirements for seat design and function.

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.

Purpose: This study presents cases of fracture-dislocation of the thoracic spine in extension during severe rear impacts. The mechanism of injury was investigated. Methods: Four crashes were investigated where a lap-shoulder-belted, front-seat occupant experienced fracture-dislocation of the thoracic spine and paraplegia in a severe rear impact. Police, investigator and medical records were reviewed, the vehicle was inspected and the seat detrimmed. Vehicle dynamics, occupant kinematics and injury mechanisms were determined in this case study. Results: Each case involved a lap-shoulder-belted occupant in a high retention seat with ≻1,700 Nm moment or ≻5.5 kN strength for rearward loading. The crashes were offset rear impacts with 40-56 km/h delta V involving under-ride or override by the impacting vehicle and yaw of the struck vehicle. In each case, the occupant's pelvis was restrained on the seat by the open perimeter frame of the seatback and lap belt.

Objective: This is a descriptive study of the incidence of spinal injury by crash type using NASS-CDS. It provides an understanding of impacts to the undercarriage of the vehicle and injuries to the lumbar spine by reviewing electronic cases in NASS-CDS to determine crash circumstances for fractures of the lumbar spine with undercarriage impacts. Methods: 1997-2015 NASS-CDS was evaluated for serious injury (MAIS 3 + F) to front-seat occupants by seatbelt use and crash type in 1994+ MY vehicles. Undercarriage impacts were defined by GAD1 = U without a rollover. Serious injury was defined as MAIS 3 + F. Spinal injuries AIS 3+ were separated into cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions. Weighted data was determined using ratio weight. NASS-CDS electronic cases were downloaded from NHTSA with AIS 3+ lumbar spine injuries in undercarriage impacts. Results: There were 2,160 MAIS 3 + F injured occupants in undercarriage impacts. This was 0.23% of all serious injury.

Objective: This study investigated the incidence of abdominal injuries in frontal crashes by occupant age and seating position. It determined the risk for abdominal injury (AIS 2+) by organ and injury source. Methods: 1997-2015 NASS-CDS was analyzed to estimate the occurrence of abdominal injuries in non-ejected, belted occupants involved in frontal crashes. Vehicles were included with 1997+ model year (MY). The annual incidence and rate for different types of abdominal injury were estimated with standard errors. The sources for abdominal injury were determined. Results: 77.8% of occupants were drivers, 16.7% were right-front passengers and 5.4% were rear passengers. Rear passengers accounted for 77.1% of 8-11 year old (yo) and 17.2% of 12-17 yo group. The risk for moderate abdominal injury (MAIS 2 + abdo) was 0.30% ± 0.053% in drivers, 0.32% ± 0.086% in right-front passengers and 0.38% ± 0.063% in rear occupants.

In the early 1980's a series of tests was conducted simulating rear-end crashes. The tests demonstrated that a conventional automotive bucket seat adequately retains an unbelted dummy on the seat for rear-end impacts up to 6.4 m/s and 9.5 g severity. For this severity of impact the total rearward rotation of the seatback is less than 60° from the vertical and is associated with a normal acceleration of the dummy's chest into the seatback of up to 10 g. The tangential acceleration of the dummy, which may induce riding up the seat, was generally less than the normal component so that the occupant was prevented from sliding up the deflected seatback. The bucket seat provided adequate containment and control of occupant displacements for each of the initial seatback angles of 9°, 22°, and 35°.

This sled test series involved occupant loading of the seat in rear crashes of 4.3-8.3 m/s (9.6-18.5 mph). The tests were conducted in the early 1980s and involved an unbelted or lap-shoulder belted Part 572 dummy in rear and oblique rear impacts. The research is reported today to provide comparative data for the record and serves as a control benchmark for more current technologies and safety research methodologies on seat performance in rear crashes. Safety belts improved occupant retention on the seat primarily by the lap belt reducing the upward and rearward movement of the pelvis. Tests were also conducted on the mechanisms for energy absorption by seatback deflection.

A case study was conducted of 123 crashes involving 144 fatally injured lap-shoulder belted front-seat occupants. The crashes occurred throughout the United States in 1985-86 and involved 97 driver and 47 right-front passenger deaths in new vehicles. A judgment was made by consensus of a safety panel on the potential for saving the victim's life by the addition of safety technology. Supplemental airbags provided the greatest potential for improving the life-saving effectiveness of current lap-shoulder belts. Overall, airbags may have prevented 12% of the belted occupant fatalities and 27% of the deaths in frontal crashes. The benefit of supplemental airbags was greater for the right-front passenger, in part, because of more females and occupants over 60 years of age in that seating position. A majority (68%) of the belted fatalities were judged unpreventable by reasonable restraint or vehicle modifications.

A new generation of seats has been designed to specifications for high retention (HR) in a Quasistatic Seat Test (QST). The QST involves occupant loading of the seat in a rearward direction and targets peak H-point moment to >1700 Nm giving an energy transfer capability of 2000 J. QST tests from 1998-2000 were compared to results from pre-HR seat designs of the late 1980s and early 1990s to determine performance improvements. Twenty-seven QST tests of HR seats were randomly selected from a larger series and were evaluated for strength and seat deformation under occupant loading. They represented 20 different seat types from four suppliers. Averages and standard deviations in QST results were computed. In addition, eight repeat tests were conducted with one seat to determine repeatability of the QST. These data were compared to an earlier repeatability study of the 1994 W pre-HR seat, which was evaluated at two facilities.

For several decades, there has been a debate on the safety merits of yielding and rigidized (stiff) seats. In 1995, GM adopted requirements for high retention seats and introduced a new generation of yielding seatbacks. These seats have the same stiffness as the yielding seats of the 1980s and early 1990s, but have a strong frame structure and recliners to substantially limit seatback rotation in severe rear crashes. The yielding behavior is given by compliance of the seat suspension across the side structures and an open perimeter frame, which allows the occupant to penetrate into the seatback. The purpose of this study is to compare the energy transfer characteristics and occupant dynamics of yielding and stiff seats in 35 km/h and 16 km/h rear crashes. Based on benchmarking tests, the stiff seatback is defined as one having a 40 kN/m stiffness in rearward loading by a Hybrid dummy.

Rollovers are an important vehicle safety issue. Various technologies have been developed to help prevent rollovers from occurring, but the evaluation of rollover resistance typically involves vehicle-handling tests that are conducted on flat road surfaces with a uniform or split coefficient of friction. The purpose of this study is to determine the precipitating events leading to rollovers by analyzing real-world rollover crashes. This is a first step in identifying and developing vehicle tests that are representative of the principal driving scenarios leading to rollovers. The sequence of events leading to rollovers was determined from 63 in-depth investigated cases in the NASS-CDS database from 1995-1999. The sequence was evaluated by vehicle maneuvers, vehicle stability, surface type, road and shoulder transition condition, posted and estimated speeds, vehicle type and driver injury severity.

Since more occupants are using rear seats of vehicles, a better understanding of priorities for rear occupant protection is needed as future safety initiatives are considered. A two-part study was conducted on occupant injuries in rear seating positions. In Part I, adult and teenage occupants ≥13 years of age are investigated. In Part II, children aged 4-12 years old and toddlers and infants aged 0-3 are studied separately because of the use of infant and child seats and boosters involve different injury mechanisms and tolerances. The objectives of this study on adult and teenager, rear-seated occupants (≥13 years old) are to: 1) review accident data, 2) identify the distribution of rear occupants, and 3) analyze injury risks in various crash modes, including rollovers, frontal, side and rear impacts. Three databases were investigated: NASS-CDS, GES and FARS.

Child safety continues to be an important issue in automotive safety for many reasons, including reported cases of serious injury from airbag deployments. As a result of extensive public education campaigns, most children are now placed in rear seats of vehicles. Accordingly, a more precise understanding of rear-seat occupant protection is developing as the second and third rows have become the primary seating area for children in SUVs, vans and passenger cars. The objective of this study was to review field crash and injury data from rear seats, identify the distribution of children and infants in rear seats, and analyze injury risks in various crash modes. The database used was the 1991-1999 NASS-CDS. When looking at crash configurations for 1st and 2nd row children, rollover crashes involved the highest incidence of MAIS 3+ injury, followed by frontal and side impacts. Lap-shoulder belt usage was similar for 1st and 2nd row children.

Side impact pendulum tests were conducted on Eurosid I and Biosid to assess the biofidelity of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis, and determine injury tolerance levels. Each body region was impacted at 4.5, 6.7, and 9.4 m/s using test conditions which duplicate cadaver impacts with a 15 cm flat-circular 23.4 kg rigid mass. The cadaver database establishes human response and injury risk assessment in side impact. Both dummies showed better biofidelity when compared to the lowest-speed cadaver response corridor. At higher speeds, peak force was substantially higher. The average peak contact force was 1.56 times greater in Biosid and 2.19 times greater in Eurosid 1 than the average cadaver response. The Eurosid I abdomen had the most dissimilar response and lacks biofidelity. Overall, Biosid has better biofidelity than Eurosid I with an average 21% lower peak load and a closer match to the duration of cadaver impact responses for the three body regions.

As the driving population ages, there is a need to understand the accident patterns of older drivers. Previous research has shown that side impact collisions, usually at an intersection, are a serious problem for the older driver in terms of injury outcome. This study compares the frequency of side impact, intersection collisions of different driver age groups using state and national police-reported accident data as well as an in-depth analysis of cases from a fatal accident study. All data reveal that the frequency of intersection crashes increases with driver age. The state and national data show that older drivers have an increase frequency of intersection crashes involving vehicles crossing paths prior to the collision compared to their involvement in all crash types. When taking into account traffic control devices at an intersection, older drivers have the greatest involvement of multiple vehicle crashes at a signed intersection.

The causes for 131 fatal crashes of lap-shoulder belted occupants were analyzed for crash causation and avoidance opportunities. Fourteen crash scenarios were determined to depict the situation and circumstance of the accidents. Each scenario is discussed in relation to driver age, actions, behavior, errors and aggressiveness, as well as crash type and other factors influencing the crash. Nearly a third of crashes involved a rapid, unpredictable onset by reckless action or mistake of another driver. The remainder were caused by the driver of the case-vehicle. Some were single vehicle crashes primarily related to excessive speed, aggressive driving, and drifting out of lane. The others were multi-vehicle crashes due primarily to inadvertent errors. The most common errors were right-of-way violations at an intersection, loss of control on wet roads, impact of a stationary vehicle, and lane changing errors.

Fatal crash circumstances for 48 belted female drivers were studied in-depth and compared to those of 83 belted male drivers in a similar population of vehicles. Women had a higher incidence of crashes on slippery roads, during lane changes and passing maneuvers than men who had a higher rate of aggressive driving and speed related crashes (χ2 = 10.47, p < 0.001). Driver-side damage was significantly more frequent in female than male crashes (χ2 = 5.74, p < 0.025) and women had a higher fraction of side impacts (45.9% v 31.4%) and crashes during daylight (87.0% v 72.3%, χ2 = 3.65, p < 0.05) than men. Women also had a higher fraction of potentially avoidable crashes than men (57.5% v 39.0%) and a lower involvement related to aggressive driving (10.6% v 25.6%). These differences were statistically significant (χ2 = 5.41, p < 0.025).