Search Results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

This study analyzed FMVSS 301 rear impact tests with an instrumented rear-seat dummy. NHTSA conducted 15 FMVSS 301 rear crash tests with an instrumented and belted 50th Hybrid III dummy in the rear seat. In series 1, there were three repeat tests with the Jeep Liberty and two others, but no onboard camera view. In series 2, there were 8 tests with 2003-2005 MY (model year) vehicles that had rear head restraints. In series 3, there were two tests with 2004-2005 MY vehicles that did not have rear head restraints. There was an onboard camera view of the rear occupant in series 2 and 3. The dummy responses were evaluated and compared to relevant IARVs (injury assessment reference values). Based on the HRMD, the average height of the rear head restraints was 80.4 ± 3.4 cm (31.6″ ± 1.3″) above the H-point. In series 1, the delta V was 24.4 ± 2.0 km/h (15.2 ± 1.3 mph).

Objective: This study involved a number of different tests addressing theories for recliner and track release of front seats in rear impacts. It addresses the validity of the theories. Method: Several separate test series were conducted to address claims made about recliner and track release of front seats in rear impacts. The following theories were evaluated to see the validity of the issues: 1 Recliner teeth slipping with minimal damage to the teeth 2 Recliner teeth bypass by disengaging and re-engaging under load without damaging the teeth 3 Recliner shaft bending and torque releasing the recliners 4 Track release by heel loading 5 Track release with occupant load on the seat 6 Recliner handle rotation causing recliner release 7 Double pull body block tests Results: Many of the theories were found to be uncorroborated once actual test data was available to judge the merits of the issue raised. The laboratory tests were set-up to specifically address particular issues.

The legends of Table 6 and Table 7, found on pages 924 and 925, did not properly reference multiple characters used within the tables.

Purpose: This study investigates NASS-CDS data on basilar skull fractures by crash type and injury source for various crash scenarios to understand the injury risks, injury mechanisms and contact sources. Methods: 1993-2008 NASS-CDS data was used to study basilar skull fractures in adult front occupants by crash type and injury source. Injury risks were determined using weighted data for occupants with known injury status in 1994+ model year vehicles. In-depth analysis was made of far-side occupants in side impacts and rear crashes using the NASS electronic cases. Results: Basilar skull fractures occur in 0.507 ± 0.059% of rollovers and 0.255 ± 0.025% of side impacts. The lowest risk is in rear impacts at 0.015 ± 0.007%. The most common contact source is the roof, side rails and header (39.0%) in rollovers, the B-pillar (25.8%) in side impacts and head restraint (55.3%) in rear crashes.

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: A friction rollover test was conducted as part of a rollover sensing project. This study evaluates vehicle and occupant responses in the test. Methods: A flat dolly carried a Saab 9-3 sedan laterally, passenger-side leading to a release point at 42 km/h (26 mph) onto a high-friction surface. The vehicle was equipped with roll, pitch and yaw gyros near the center of gravity. Accelerometers were placed at the vehicle center tunnel, A-pillar near the roof, B-pillar near the sill, suspension sub-frame and wheels. Five off-board and two on-board cameras recorded kinematics. Hybrid III dummies were instrumented for head and chest acceleration and upper neck force and moment. Belt loads were measured. Results: The vehicle release caused the tires and then wheel rims to skid on the high-friction surface. The trip involved roll angular velocities >300 deg/s at 0.5 s and a far-side impact on the driver’s side roof at 0.94 s. The driver was inverted in the far-side, ground impact.

Objective: This study analyzes rear sled tests with a 95th% male and 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in various seating positions on ABTS (All Belt to Seat) seats in severe rear impact tests. Dummy interactions with the deforming seatback and upper body extension around the seat frame are considered. Methods: The 1st series involved an open sled fixture with a Sebring ABTS seat at 30 mph rear delta V. A 95th% Hybrid III dummy was placed in four different seating positions: 1) normal, 2) leaning inboard, 3) leaning forward and inboard, and 4) leaning forward and outboard. The 2nd series used a 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in a Grand Voyager body buck at 25 mph rear delta V. The dummy was leaned forward and inboard on a LeSabre ABTS or Voyager seat. The 3rd series used a 5th% female Hybrid III dummy in an Explorer body buck at 26 mph rear delta V. The dummy was leaned forward and inboard on a Sebring ABTS or Explorer seat.

Objective: This study addresses severe injury risks in rear impacts for front-outboard occupants using the seatback incline variable in NASS-CDS. Methods: Severe injury risk (MAIS 4+F) was determined for front-seat occupants in rear impacts involving passenger cars from 1995–2006 NASS-CDS data. The risk of severe injury to front-seat occupants was determined as a function of the rotated position of the seatback and crash severity in three delta V ranges: <20, 20–30, >30 mph. The data was also analyzed for newer model vehicles (≥1997 MY) to assess changes with newer seats and head restraints. The effects of seatbelt use, occupant age and BMI (Body Mass Index) were also examined. Individual NASS-CDS electronic cases were also reviewed with MAIS 4+F injury. There were 25 injured occupants in rotated seats and 46 in non-rotated seats. Results: Severe injury risk for front-seat occupants in rear impacts is lower with a rotated seatback in the most severe rear crashes.

Purpose: This study analyzes the effect of front seat performance on occupant injury in rear crashes where there is a 2nd row passenger seated behind the front occupant. Methods: The study was carried out for rear impact crashes in the 1991–2006 NASS-CDS. Only cases where there was a 2nd row occupant seated behind an occupied front seat were chosen. Serious injury (MAIS 3+F) was determined for the front and 2nd row occupants. The performance of the front seat was determined using eight NASS-CDS investigator categories, including no failure, seat failure of the adjuster, seatback or track-anchor and seat deformation by the occupant or intrusion. The rear crashes were subdivided into four severities (<15, 15–25, 25–45 and >45 mph). The risk for serious injury was determined for each category of seat performance. Next, individual cases were reviewed from the online NASS electronic files to better understand the determination of seat performance by the NASS-CDS investigators.

Purpose: A better understanding of rear occupant fatality risks is needed to guide the development of safety improvements for 2nd and 3rd row occupants. This study investigates fatal accidents of 1st, 2nd and 3rd row occupants by principal direction of force (PDOF), irrespective of restraint use. It determined the number of fatalities, exposure and fatality risk. Methods: 1996-2005 FARS was analyzed for occupant fatalities by seating position (1st, 2nd and 3rd row) and principal direction of force (1-12 o'clock PDOF, rollover and other/unknown). Light vehicles were included with model year 1990+. 1996-2005 NASS-CDS was similarly analyzed for occupant exposure. Fatality risk was defined as the number of fatalities in FARS for a given category divided by the exposure from NASS-CDS. Results: Ten percent (9.6%) of fatalities were to 2nd row occupants in FARS. About 2,080 deaths occur to 2nd row occupants annually. 38.4% died in rollovers and 26.8% in frontal crashes.