Search Results

The objectives of this study were to provide insights on how injury risk is influenced by occupant demographics such as sex, age, and size; and to quantify differences within the context of commonly-occurring real-world crashes. The analyses were confined to either single-event collisions or collisions that were judged to be well-defined based on the absence of any significant secondary impacts. These analyses, including both logistic regression and descriptive statistics, were conducted using the Crash Investigation Sampling System for calendar years 2017 to 2021. In the case of occupant sex, the findings agree with those of many recent investigations that have attempted to quantify the circumstances in which females show elevated rates of injury relative to their male counterparts given the same level bodily insult. This study, like others, provides evidence of certain female-specific injuries.

Injury Risk Curves are developed from cadaver data for sternal deflections produced by anterior, distributed chest loads for a 25, 45, 55, 65 and 75 year-old Small Female, Mid-Size Male and Large Male based on the variations of bone strengths with age. These curves show that the risk of AIS ≥ 3 thoracic injury increases with the age of the person. This observation is consistent with NASS data of frontal accidents which shows that older unbelted drivers have a higher risk of AIS ≥ 3 chest injury than younger drivers.

In 1983, General Motors Corporation (GM) petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow the use of the biofidelic Hybrid III midsize adult male dummy as an alternate test device for FMVSS 208 compliance testing of frontal impact, passive restraint systems. To support their petition, GM made public to the international automotive community the limit values that they imposed on the Hybrid III measurements, which were called Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs). During the past 20 years, these IARVs have been updated based on relevant biomechanical studies that have been published and scaled to provide IARVs for the Hybrid III and CRABI families of frontal impact dummies. Limit values have also been developed for the biofidelic side impact dummies, BioSID, ES-2 and SID-IIs.

Light duty vehicles in the US are designed to meet and exceed regulatory standards, self-imposed industry agreements and safety rating tests conducted by NHTSA and IIHS. The evolution of side impact regulation in the US from 1973 to 2015 is discussed in the paper along with two key industry agreements in 2003 affecting design of restraint systems and structures for side impact protection. A combination of all the above influences shows that vehicles in the US are being designed to more demanding and comprehensive requirements than in any other region of the world. The crash environment in the US related to side impacts was defined based on data in the nationally representative crash database NASS. Crash environment factors, including the distribution of cars, light trucks and vans (LTV’s), and medium-to-heavy vehicles (MHV’s) in the fleet, and the frequency of their interactions with one another in side impacts, were considered.

A small overlap frontal crash test has been recently introduced by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in its frontal rating scheme. Another small overlap frontal crash test is under development by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Whereas the IIHS test is conducted against a fixed rigid barrier, the NHTSA test is conducted with a moving deformable barrier that overlaps 35% of the vehicle being tested and the angle between the longitudinal axis of the barrier and the longitudinal axis of the test vehicle is 15 degrees. The field relevance of the IIHS test has been the subject of a paper by Prasad et al. (2014). The current study is aimed at examining the field relevance of the NHTSA test.

This paper presents the analysis of a series of frontal crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety that are commonly referred to as Small Overlap Impacts (SOI). The occurrence and severity of such frontal impacts in the real world were estimated using two different methods. Both methods used the National Automotive Sampling Scheme (NASS), which is a stratified sample of crashes in the US. The first method utilized an algorithm commonly known as Frontal Impact Taxonomy (FIT). The second method was based on comparison of deformation patterns of vehicles involved in frontal crashes in the NASS data files with those produced in tests conducted by the IIHS. FIT analysis of the data indicate that approximately 7.5% of all 11-1 o'clock frontal crashes in NASS are represented by the IIHS SOI test condition and they account for 6.1% of all serious-to-fatal injuries to front seat occupants restrained by seat belts and airbags.

An overview NASS study of US frontal crashes was performed to investigate crash involvement, driver injury distributions and rates in airbag equipped vehicles by vehicle class and structural engagement. Frontal crash bins were based on taxonomy of structural engagement, i.e., Full Engagement, Offset, Between Rails and Corner impact crashes. A new classification of Corner impacts included frontal small overlap impacts with side damage as coded by NASS CDS. Belted drivers of two age groups, between 16 and 50 and over 50 years old, were considered. Vehicles were grouped into light and heavy passenger cars and lights trucks, and vans. A method to identify and address overly influential NASS weights was developed based on considerations of weighting factor statistics. The new taxonomy, with an expanded definition of corner impacts, allowed a more comprehensive classification of frontal crash modes.

An evaluation of the four injury risk curves proposed in the NHTSA NCAP for estimating the risk of AIS≻=3 injuries to the head, neck, chest and AIS≻=2 injury to the Knee-Thigh-Hip (KTH) complex has been conducted. The predicted injury risk to the four body regions based on driver dummy responses in over 300 frontal NCAP tests were compared against those to drivers involved in real-world crashes of similar severity as represented in the NASS. The results of the study show that the predicted injury risks to the head and chest were slightly below those in NASS, and the predicted risk for the knee-thigh-hip complex was substantially below that observed in the NASS. The predicted risk for the neck by the Nij curve was greater than the observed risk in NASS by an order of magnitude due to the Nij risk curve predicting a non-zero risk when Nij = 0. An alternative and published Nte risk curve produced a risk estimate consistent with the NASS estimate of neck injury.