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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This study assesses vehicle and occupant responses in six vehicle-to-vehicle high-speed rear impact crash tests conducted at the Exponent Test and Engineering Center. The struck vehicle delta Vs ranged from 32 to 76 km/h and the vehicle centerline offsets varied from 5.7 to 114 cm. Five of the six tests were conducted with Hybrid III ATDs (Anthropometric Test Device) with two tests using the 50th male belted in the driver seat, one test with an unbelted 50th male in the driver seat, one test with a 95th male belted in the driver seat, and one with the 5th female lap belted in the left rear seat. All tests included vehicle instrumentation and three tests included ATD instrumentation. The ATD responses were analyzed and compared to corresponding IARVs (injury assessment reference values). Ground-based and onboard vehicle videos were synchronized with the vehicle kinematic data and biomechanical responses.

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.

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.

This study assesses front seat occupant responses in rear impacts with active head restraints (AHR) and conventional head restraints (CHR) using field accident data and test data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). 2003-2015 NASS-CDS data were analyzed to determine injury rates in 1997+ model year seats equipped with AHR and CHR. Results indicated that less than 4% of occupants were in seats equipped with AHR. Crashes of delta-V <24 km/h accounted for more than 70% of all exposed front seat occupants, irrespective of head restraint design. Rear crashes with a delta-V < 24 km/h included 35.6% fewer occupants who sustained a MAIS 1-2 injury overall and 26.4% fewer who sustained a MAIS 1-2 cervical injury in vehicles equipped with AHR compared to CHR. In IIHS 16 km/h rear sled tests, the biomechanical response of an instrumented BioRID was evaluated on seats with AHR and CHR. HIC15 and concussion risk were calculated from head acceleration data.

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.

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.

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.

In 1995, new seat specifications were adopted by GM to provide high retention and improve occupant safety in rear crashes. With more than five years of phase-in of high retention (HR) seats, an analysis of FARS was undertaken to determine the initial field performance of HR seats in preventing fatalities. The 1991-2000 FARS was sorted for fatal rear-impacted vehicles. Using a VIN decoder, GM vehicles with HR front seats were sorted from those with baseline (pre-HR) seats. The fatal rear-impacted vehicle crashes were subdivided into several groups for analysis: 1) single-vehicle rear impacts, 2) two-vehicle rear crashes involving light striking vehicles, and 3) two-vehicle crashes involving heavy trucks and tractor-trailers, and multi-vehicle (3+) rear crashes.

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.

Active head restraints are being used to reduce the risk of whiplash in rear crashes. However, their evaluation in laboratory tests can vary depending on the injury criteria and test dummy. The objective of this study was to conduct barrier tests with BioRID and sled tests with Hybrid III to determine the most meaningful responses related to whiplash risks in real-world crashes. This study involved: (1) twenty-four rear barrier tests of the Saab 9000, 900, 9-3 and 9-5 with two fully instrumented BioRID dummies placed in the front or rear seats and exposed to 24 and 48.3 km/h barrier impacts, and (2) twenty rear sled tests at 5-38 km/h delta V in three series with conventional, modified and SAHR seats using the Hybrid III dummy. A new target superposition method was used to track head displacement and rotation with respect to T1. Insurance data on whiplash claims was compared to the dummy responses.

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.