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.

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 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.

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.

Child safety is an important issue. The objective of this study was to analyze field accident data for 0-7 year old children in the 2nd row by vehicle and crash type, irrespective of restraint use. The data was obtained from NASS-CDS for calendar years 1991-2005. Accidents were selected based on 2nd row occupancy in towaway light vehicles with model year 1990 or newer. Side impacts caused 30.9% of serious-to-fatal injury (MAIS 3+F) to 2nd row children followed by frontal impacts (29.8%), rollovers (24.4%) and rear crashes (15.0%). The highest risk for MAIS 3+F was in rollovers (2.8 ± 0.7%) followed by rear (1.4 ± 0.4%), side (1.0 ± 0.2%) and frontal (0.46 ± 0.10%) crashes. The differences are statistically significant (p <0.01). Individual rear and frontal impact cases were also reviewed to better understand injury mechanisms of children in the 2nd row. The cases were obtained from the 1997-2005 NASS-CDS electronic database.

Motorized shoulder belt tensioning is a new automotive seatbelt technology which has shown promise to reduce automotive crash injuries. The current study was conducted to determine if the Hybrid III family of dummies is an appropriate biofidelic surrogate for studying motorized shoulder belt tensioning. The objective was to measure torso retraction time, torso position, torso velocity, internal resistive moment, changes in torso curvature and the center of rotation of torso extension during seatbelt tensioning for the Hybrid III family. A previous study developed a protocol and test fixture to measure the biomechanics of volunteers subject to quasi-static loading by a motorized shoulder belt tensioner. A fixture supported the occupant leaning forward and applied shoulder belt tension. Kinematics were quantified by analyzing the motion of reflective markers on the dummy using an eight camera digital video system. A three axis load cell measured internal resistance to extension.

The objective of this study was to analyze available anthropomorphic test device (ATD) responses from FMVSS 301-type rear impact tests. Rear impact test data was obtained from NHTSA and consisted of dummy responses, test observations, photos and videos. The data was organized in four test series: 1) NCAP series of 30 New Car Assessment Program tests carried out at 35 mph with 1979-1980 model year vehicles, 2) Mobility series of 14 FMVSS 301 tests carried out at 30 mph with 1993 model year vehicles, 3) 301 MY 95+ series of 79 FMVSS 301 tests carried out at 30 mph with 1995-2005 model year vehicles and 4) ODB series of 17 Offset Deformable Barrier tests carried out at 50 mph with a 70% overlap using 1996-1999 model year vehicles. The results indicate very good occupant performance in yielding seats in the NCAP, Mobility and 301 MY 95+ test series.

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.

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.

Role of the Seat in Rear Crash Safety addresses the historic debate over seatback stiffness, energy absorbing yielding, occupant retention and whiplash prevention; and it provides a scientific foundation for the direction GM pursued in the development and validation of future seat designs. It also describes the multi-year research study into the role of the seat in rear crash safety - first by addressing the need for occupant retention in the more severe rear crashes; and then by addressing the needs for an adequately positioned head restraint and changes in the compliance of the seatback to lower the risks of the whiplash in low-speed crashes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this study was to investigate approaches evaluating the performance of safety systems in crash tests and by analytical simulations. The study was motivated by the need to consider the adequacy of injury criteria and tolerance levels in FMVSS 208 measuring safety performance of restraint systems and supplements. The study also focused on additional biomechanical criteria and performance measures which may augment FMVSS 208 criteria and alternative ways to evaluate dummy responses rather than by comparison to a tolerance level. Additional analysis was conducted of dummy responses from barrier crash and sled tests to gain further information on the performance of restraint systems. The analysis resulted in a new computer program which determined several motion and velocity criteria from measurements made in crash tests.

This paper details the development of an abdominal injury assessment device for loading due to belt restraint submarining in the Hybrid III family of dummies. The design concept and criteria, response criteria, choice of injury criterion, and validation are explained. Conclusions of this work are: 1) Abdominal injury assessment for belt loading due to submarining is now possible in the Hybrid III family of dummies. 2) The abdomen developed has biofidelity in its force deflection characteristics for belt loading, is capable of detecting the occurrence of submarining, and can be used to determine the probability of abdominal injury when submarining occurs. 3) Installation of the abdomen in the Hybrid III dummy does not change the dummy kinematics when submarining does not occur. 4) When submarining does occur, the dummy kinematics are very similar to baseline Hybrid III kinematics, except for torso angle.

The timing of liver laceration in swine during the course of a blunt impact was investigated. The swine were impacted on the upper abdomen by the lower segment of a steering wheel at 6, 9 and 12 m/s. The degree of compression in each impact was controlled independently from 10 to 50%. By varying when “the punch of an impact was pulled,” we reproduced progressive segments of a longer duration blunt impact. Autopsy of the subjects demonstrated that lacerations were initiated after 8 ms of loading at 9 m/s and 6 ms of loading at 12 m/s. The time of injury was concurrent with the time when the Viscous response exceeded a threshold of 1.2 m/s in our specimens. The Viscous injury criterion, defined as the peak Viscous response, was found to be the best predictor of liver laceration. We conclude that the Viscous response relates to the actual etiology of injury, in addition to being an excellent correlative measure.

The discovery of the mechanism of impact-induced soft tissue injury has led to our introduction of a Viscous Injury Criterion, which predicts the severity and the time of occurrence of soft tissue injury induced by impact when other criteria have failed. Human tolerance has been defined by the Viscous response, [VC], a time function generated by the instantaneous product of velocity of deformation [V(t)] and amount of compression [C(t)] of the body. [VC]max = 1.0 m/s corresponds experimentally to a 25% chance of sustaining severe thoracic injury (AIS ≥ 4) in a blunt frontal impact. A similar level of risk for critical abdominal injury (AIS ≥ 5) in a blunt frontal impact is [VC]max = 1.2 m/s. However, human tolerance is defined more completely by the probability function of injury risk versus [VC]max. The Viscous response can be evaluated in the Hybrid III anthropomorphic dummy by a straightforward analysis of the chest deflection data.