Parameters influencing AIS 1 neck injury outcome in frontal impacts

In order to gain more knowledge of the neck injury scenario in frontal impacts, a statistical study of parameters influencing incidences of AIS 1 neck injuries was performed. The data set consisted of 616 occupants in Volvo cars. Information regarding the crash, the safety systems, occupant characteristics (including prior neck problems), behavior and sitting posture at the time of impact, and neck symptoms (including duration) was collected and analyzed. Occupant characteristics (mainly gender, weight, and age), kinematics (head impacts) and behavior at the time of impact were identified as the most prominent parameter areas with regard to AIS 1 neck injury outcome. Specifically, women had a significantly higher AIS 1 neck injury rate as compared to men, occupants under the age of 50 had a significantly higher AIS 1 neck injury rate as compared to those above 50 and occupants weighing less than 65 kg have a significantly higher AIS 1 neck injury rate than heavier occupants. Drivers stating that they impacted their head against a frontal interior structure had a significantly higher AIS 1 neck injury rate than those without head impact. Also, occupants who stated they had tensed their neck muscles at the time of impact, had a significantly higher AIS 1 neck injury rate as compared to occupants who did not. Occupant activities, such as tightly gripping the steering wheel or straightening their arms showed a significantly increased AIS 1 neck injury rate, indicating that occupant behavior at time of impact could be influential with respect to AIS 1 neck injury outcome. Also, occupants reporting prior neck problems had a higher rate of persistent symptoms (>1 year) but no difference with respect to passing symptoms (<3 months) as compared to those without prior neck problems. Additionally, there was no distinct pattern for the duration of neck symptoms.     

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters

Objective: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits.

Methods: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars.

Results: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt–induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%.

Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.     

Factors contributing to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes

Abstract

Objectives: Earlier research has shown that the rear row is safer for occupants in crashes than the front row, but there is evidence that improvements in front seat occupant protection in more recent vehicle model years have reduced the safety advantage of the rear seat versus the front seat. The study objective was to identify factors that contribute to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes in newer model year vehicles.

Methods: A case series review of belted rear seat occupants who were seriously injured or killed in frontal crashes was conducted. Occupants in frontal crashes were eligible for inclusion if they were 6 years old or older and belted in the rear of a 2000 or newer model year passenger vehicle within 10 model years of the crash year. Crashes were identified using the 2004–2015 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and included all eligible occupants with at least one Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 or greater injury. Using these same inclusion criteria but split into younger (6 to 12 years) and older (55+ years) cohorts, fatal crashes were identified in the 2014–2015 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and then local police jurisdictions were contacted for complete crash records.

Results: Detailed case series review was completed for 117 rear seat occupants: 36 with Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3+ injuries in NASS-CDS and 81 fatalities identified in FARS. More than half of the injured and killed rear occupants were more severely injured than front seat occupants in the same crash. Serious chest injury, primarily caused by seat belt loading, was present in 22 of the injured occupants and 17 of the 37 fatalities with documented injuries. Nine injured occupants and 18 fatalities sustained serious head injury, primarily from contact with the vehicle interior or severe intrusion. For fatal cases, 12 crashes were considered unsurvivable due to a complete loss of occupant space. For cases considered survivable, intrusion was not a large contributor to fatality.

Discussion: Rear seat occupants sustained serious and fatal injuries due to belt loading in crashes in which front seat occupants survived, suggesting a discrepancy in restraint performance between the front and rear rows. Restraint strategies that reduce loading to the chest should be considered, but there may be potential tradeoffs with increased head excursion, particularly in the absence of rear seat airbags. Any new restraint designs should consider the unique needs of the rear seat environment.     

The Importance of Non-struck Side Occupants in Side Collisions

Current occupant protection assessment for side impact is focused on struck side occupants sitting alone. In a representative sample of tow-away side collisions from the UK, only one-third of front seat occupants in side collisions were alone, on the struck side of the car. The other two-thirds were either a non-struck side occupant alone or a situation where the adjacent seat was also occupied. In terms of restraint protection for non-struck side occupants, belts appeared to be less effective in perpendicular compared to oblique side crashes. Front seat occupancy had bearing on injury outcome. With both front seats occupied, there was a reduction in AIS 27+ injury to belted non-struck side occupants due to a reduction in chest and lower limb injuries. Struck side occupants sustained increased injury rates to the extremities when accompanied by a belted non-struck side occupant but no notable increases in moderate to serious injury to the head, chest, abdomen or pelvis.     

Differences in Long-term Medical Consequences Depending on Impact Direction Involving Passenger Cars

Objective: There is limited knowledge of the long-term medical consequences for occupants injured in car crashes in various impact directions. Thus, the objective was to evaluate whether injuries leading to permanent medical impairment differ depending on impact direction.

Methods: In total, 36,743 injured occupants in car crashes that occurred between 1995 and 2011 were included. All initial injuries (n = 61,440) were classified according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005. Injured car occupants were followed for at least 3 years to assess permanent medical impairment. The data were divided into different groups according to impact direction and levels of permanent impairment. The risk of permanent medical impairment was established for different body regions and injury severity levels, according to AIS.

Results: It was found that almost 12% of all car occupants sustained a permanent medical impairment. Given an injury, car occupants involved in rollover crashes had the highest overall risk to sustain a permanent medical impairment. Half of the head injuries leading to long-term consequences occurred in frontal impacts. Far-side occupants had almost the same risk as near-side occupants. Occupants who sustained a permanent medical impairment from cervical spine injuries had similar risk in all impact directions (13%) except from rollover (17%). However, these injuries occurred more often in rear crashes. Most of the injuries leading to long-term consequences were classified as minor injuries by AIS for all impact directions.

Conclusions: Studying crash data from a perspective of medical impairment is important to identify injuries that might not be prioritized only considering the AIS but might lead to lower quality of life for the occupant and also costs for society. These results can be used for road transport system strategies and for making priority decisions in vehicle design.     

Association Between NCAP Ratings and Real-World Rear Seat Occupant Risk of Injury

Objective: Several studies have evaluated the correlation between U.S. or Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) ratings and injury risk to front seat occupants, in particular driver injuries. Conversely, little is known about whether NCAP 5-star ratings predict real-world risk of injury to restrained rear seat occupants. The NHTSA has identified rear seat occupant protection as a specific area under consideration for improvements to its NCAP. In order to inform NHTSA's efforts, we examined how NCAP's current 5-star rating system predicts risk of moderate or greater injury among restrained rear seat occupants in real-world crashes.

Methods: We identified crash-involved vehicles, model year 2004–2013, in NASS-CDS (2003–2012) with known make and model and nonmissing occupant information. We manually matched these vehicles to their NCAP star ratings using data on make, model, model year, body type, and other identifying information. The resultant linked NASS-CDS and NCAP database was analyzed to examine associations between vehicle ratings and rear seat occupant injury risk; risk to front seat occupants was also estimated for comparison. Data were limited to restrained occupants and occupant injuries were defined as any injury with a maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 2 or greater.

Results: We linked 95% of vehicles in NASS-CDS to a specific vehicle in NCAP. The 18,218 vehicles represented an estimated 6 million vehicles with over 9 million occupants. Rear seat passengers accounted for 12.4% of restrained occupants. The risk of injury in all crashes for restrained rear seat occupants was lower in vehicles with a 5-star driver rating in frontal impact tests (1.4%) than with 4 or fewer stars (2.6%, P =.015); results were similar for the frontal impact passenger rating (1.3% vs. 2.4%, P =.024). Conversely, side impact driver and passenger crash tests were not associated with rear seat occupant injury risk (driver test: 1.7% for 5-star vs. 1.8% for 1–4 stars; passenger test: 1.6% for 5 stars vs 1.8% for 1–4 stars).

Conclusions: Current frontal impact test procedures provide some degree of discrimination in real-world rear seat injury risk among vehicles with 5 compared to fewer than 5 stars. However, there is no evidence that vehicles with a 5-star side impact passenger rating, which is the only crash test procedure to include an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) in the rear, demonstrate lower risks of injury in the rear than vehicles with fewer than 5 stars. These results support prioritizing modifications to the NCAP program that specifically evaluate rear seat injury risk to restrained occupants of all ages.     

Case study: 128 injured in rollover coach crashes in Sweden—Injury outcome,mechanisms and possible effects of seat belts

The risk for injuries in rollover coach crashes are dependent on whether the occupants are belted or not. However, the influence of the different belt systems for reducing injuries has remained unclear. Since many injuries sustained are caused by impacts with the interior, passenger interactions or ejection through a window, the advantages by proper seat belt systems are evident. In this study, representing the most common serious crash scenario for serious injury, 128 injured in rollover cases were analysed with regard to the injury outcome, mechanisms and the possible injury reduction for occupants when using a safety belt. Furthermore, the different belt systems were compared to explain their contribution to increased safety. Based on medical reports and questioning of the passengers, the injuries sustained are recorded according to the AIS classification. The next step was the identification of the injury mechanisms, using the passenger statements as well as results from numerical occupant simulations. It is important to mention that this study was purely focused on detection of the injury mechanism to avoid the reported injuries. The possibility of additional injuries due to the wearing of a belt were not taken into account. However, the analysis of the 128 injured showed a considerable increase in safety for belted occupants through limiting interior contacts, minimising passenger interaction and reducing the possibility of ejection.     

Reconstruction of crashes involving injured child occupants: the risk of serious injuries associated with sub-optimal restraint use may be reduced by better controlling occupant kinematics

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether injuries to sub-optimally restrained child occupants in real-world crashes were likely to be preventable by alternative restraint usage practices and to assess the usefulness of crash reconstruction for exploring injury mechanisms in child occupants. METHODS: Real-world crashes in which child occupants sustained significant injuries were reconstructed on a laboratory crash sled using the Hybrid III family of child dummies. Alternative restraint scenarios and cases in which children were not seriously injured were also simulated to compare dummy kinematics and dynamic responses in optimal restraint configurations. RESULTS: Restraint misuse was associated with greater motion of the dummy torso and head during crashes, often allowing contact between the child and the vehicle interior, resulting in injury. Poor pre-crash posture for a child inappropriately restrained in an adult belt appeared to worsen the geometry of the sash (shoulder) belt, resulting in a cervical injury due to direct interaction with the belt. Dynamic dummy data did not appear to discriminate between injury and non-injury cases. CONCLUSIONS: Dummy kinematics suggest that injuries in which inappropriate use and misuse were a factor were less likely if the most appropriate restraint was used correctly. Adequately controlling the head and upper body of the child occupant was seen to prevent undesirable interactions with the vehicle interior and restraint system, which were associated with injury in the real world. Neck forces and moments and injury criteria calculated from these did not predict injury reliably.     

Motor vehicle restraint system use and risk of spine injury

OBJECTIVE: Motor vehicle collision (MVC)-related spinal injury is a severe and often permanently disabling injury. In addition, strain injuries have been reported as a common outcome of MVCs. Although advances in automobile crashworthiness have reduced both fatalities and severe injuries, the impact of varying occupant restraint systems (seatbelts and airbags) on thoracolumbar spine injuries is unknown. This study examined the relationship between the occurrence of mild to severe cervical and thoracolumbar spine injury and occupant restraint systems among front seat occupants involved in frontal MVCs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among subjects obtained from the 1995-2004 National Automotive Sampling System. Cases were identified based on having sustained a spine injury of >/=1 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), 1990 Revision. Risk risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed comparing occupant restraint systems with unrestrained occupants. RESULTS: We found an overall incidence of AIS1 cervical (11.8%) and thoracolumbar (3.7%) spinal injury. Seatbelt only restraints were associated with increased cervical AIS1 injury (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.88). However, seatbelt only restraints showed the greatest risk reduction for AIS2 spinal injuries. Airbag only restraints reduced thoracolumbar AIS1 injuries (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.08-1.04). Seatbelt combined with airbag use was protective for cervical AIS3+ injury overall (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.14-0.58), cervical neurological injury (RR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.81), and thoracolumbar AIS3+ injury overall (RR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that seatbelts alone or in combination with an airbag increased the incidence of AIS1 spinal injuries, but provide protection against more severe injury to all regions of the spine. Airbag deployment without seatbelt use did not show increased protection relative to unrestrained occupants.     

Effects of head restraint and seat redesign on neck injury risk in rear-end crashes

Automobile insurance claims were examined to determine the rates of neck injuries in rear-end crashes for vehicles with and without redesigned head restraints, redesigned seats, or both. Results indicate that the improved geometric fit of head restraints observed in many newer vehicle models are reducing the risk of whiplash injury substantially among female drivers (about 37% in the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable), but have very little effect among male drivers. New seat designs, such as active head restraints that move upward and closer to drivers' heads during a rear impact, give added benefit, producing about a 43% reduction in whiplash injury claims (55% reduction among female drivers). Estimated effects of Volvo's Whiplash Injury Prevention System and Toyota's Whiplash Injury Lessening design were based on smaller samples and were not statistically significant.     

Predictors of rear seat belt use among U.S. adults, 2012

IntroductionSeat belt use reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities among motor vehicle occupants in a crash, but belt use in rear seating positions is consistently lower than front seating positions. Knowledge is limited concerning factors associated with seat belt use among adult rear seat passengers.MethodsData from the 2012 ConsumerStyles survey were used to calculate weighted percentages of self-reported rear seat belt use by demographic characteristics and type of rear seat belt use enforcement. Multivariable regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios for rear seat belt use, adjusting for person-, household- and geographic-level demographic variables as well as for type of seat belt law in place in the state.ResultsRear seat belt use varied by age, race, geographic region, metropolitan status, and type of enforcement. Multivariable regression showed that respondents living in states with primary (Adjusted Prevalence Ratio (APR): 1.23) and secondary (APR: 1.11) rear seat belt use enforcement laws were significantly more likely to report always wearing a seat belt in the rear seat compared with those living in a state with no rear seat belt use enforcement law.Conclusions and practical applicationsSeveral factors were associated with self-reported seat belt use in rear seating positions. Evidence suggests that primary enforcement covering all seating positions is an effective intervention that can be employed to increase seat belt use and in turn prevent motor vehicle injuries to rear-seated occupants.     

Estimated Injury Risk for Specific Injuries and Body Regions in Frontal Motor Vehicle Crashes

Objective: Injury risk curves estimate motor vehicle crash (MVC) occupant injury risk from vehicle, crash, and/or occupant factors. Many vehicles are equipped with event data recorders (EDRs) that collect data including the crash speed and restraint status during a MVC. This study's goal was to use regulation-required data elements for EDRs to compute occupant injury risk for (1) specific injuries and (2) specific body regions in frontal MVCs from weighted NASS-CDS data.

Methods: Logistic regression analysis of NASS-CDS single-impact frontal MVCs involving front seat occupants with frontal airbag deployment was used to produce 23 risk curves for specific injuries and 17 risk curves for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ to 5+ body region injuries. Risk curves were produced for the following body regions: head and thorax (AIS 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+), face (AIS 2+), abdomen, spine, upper extremity, and lower extremity (AIS 2+, 3+). Injury risk with 95% confidence intervals was estimated for 15–105 km/h longitudinal delta-Vs and belt status was adjusted for as a covariate.

Results: Overall, belted occupants had lower estimated risks compared to unbelted occupants and the risk of injury increased as longitudinal delta-V increased. Belt status was a significant predictor for 13 specific injuries and all body region injuries with the exception of AIS 2+ and 3+ spine injuries. Specific injuries and body region injuries that occurred more frequently in NASS-CDS also tended to carry higher risks when evaluated at a 56 km/h longitudinal delta-V. In the belted population, injury risks that ranked in the top 33% included 4 upper extremity fractures (ulna, radius, clavicle, carpus/metacarpus), 2 lower extremity fractures (fibula, metatarsal/tarsal), and a knee sprain (2.4–4.6% risk). Unbelted injury risks ranked in the top 33% included 4 lower extremity fractures (femur, fibula, metatarsal/tarsal, patella), 2 head injuries with less than one hour or unspecified prior unconsciousness, and a lung contusion (4.6–9.9% risk). The 6 body region curves with the highest risks were for AIS 2+ lower extremity, upper extremity, thorax, and head injury and AIS 3+ lower extremity and thorax injury (15.9–43.8% risk).

Conclusions: These injury risk curves can be implemented into advanced automatic crash notification (AACN) algorithms that utilize vehicle EDR measurements to predict occupant injury immediately following a MVC. Through integration with AACN, these injury risk curves can provide emergency medical services (EMS) and other patient care providers with information on suspected occupant injuries to improve injury detection and patient triage.     

Variability in vehicle and dummy responses in rear-end collisions

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the occupant response variability due to differences in vehicle and seat design in low-speed rear-end collisions. METHODS: Occupant response variability was quantified using a BioRID dummy exposed to rear-end collisions in 20 different vehicles. Vehicles were rolled rearward into a rigid barrier at 8 km/h and the dynamic responses of the vehicle and dummy were measured with the head restraint adjusted to the up most position. In vehicles not damaged by this collision, additional tests were conducted with the head restraint down and at different impact speeds. RESULTS: Despite a coefficient of variation (COV) of less than 2% for the impact speed of the initial 8 km/h tests, the vehicle response parameters (speed change, acceleration, restitution, bumper force) had COVs of 7 to 23% and the dummy response parameters (head and T1 kinematics, neck loads, NIC, N(ij) and N(km)) had COVs of 14 to 52%. In five vehicles tested multiple times, a head restraint in the down position significantly increased the peak magnitude of many dummy kinematic and kinetic response parameters. Peak head kinematics and neck kinetics generally varied linearly with head restraint back set and height, although the neck reaction moment reversed and increased considerably if the dummy's head wrapped onto the top of the head restraint. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the proposition that the vehicle, seat, and head restraint are a safety system and that the design of vehicle bumpers and seats/head restraint should be considered together to maximize the potential reduction in whiplash injuries.     

Injuries in Full-Scale Vehicle Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier and Pole Tests Using Postmortem Human Subjects

Objective: To conduct near-side moving deformable barrier (MDB) and pole tests with postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in full-scale modern vehicles, document and score injuries, and examine the potential for angled chest loading in these tests to serve as a data set for dummy biofidelity evaluations and computational modeling.

Methods: Two PMHS (outboard left front and rear seat occupants) for MDB and one PMHS (outboard left front seat occupant) for pole tests were used. Both tests used sedan-type vehicles from same manufacturer with side airbags. Pretest x-ray and computed tomography (CT) images were obtained. Three-point belt-restrained surrogates were positioned in respective outboard seats. Accelerometers were secured to T1, T6, and T12 spines; sternum and pelvis; seat tracks; floor; center of gravity; and MDB. Load cells were used on the pole. Biomechanical data were gathered at 20 kHz. Outboard and inboard high-speed cameras were used for kinematics. X-rays and CT images were taken and autopsy was done following the test. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005 scoring scheme was used to score injuries.

Results: MDB test: male (front seat) and female (rear seat) PMHS occupant demographics: 52 and 57 years, 177 and 166 cm stature, 78 and 65 kg total body mass. Demographics of the PMHS occupant in the pole test: male, 26 years, 179 cm stature, and 84 kg total body mass. Front seat PMHS in MDB test: 6 near-side rib fractures (AIS = 3): 160–265 mm vertically from suprasternal notch and 40–80 mm circumferentially from center of sternum. Left rear seat PMHS responded with multiple bilateral rib fractures: 9 on the near side and 5 on the contralateral side (AIS = 3). One rib fractured twice. On the near and contralateral sides, fractures were 30–210 and 20–105 mm vertically from the suprasternal notch and 90–200 and 55–135 mm circumferentially from the center of sternum. A fracture of the left intertrochanteric crest occurred (AIS = 3). Pole test PMHS had one near-side third rib fracture. Thoracic accelerations of the 2 occupants were different in the MDB test. Though both occupants sustained positive and negative x-accelerations to the sternum, peak magnitudes and relative changes were greater for the rear than the front seat occupant. Magnitudes of the thoracic and sternum accelerations were lower in the pole test.

Conclusions: This is the first study to use PMHS occupants in MDB and pole tests in the same recent model year vehicles with side airbag and head curtain restraints. Injuries to the unilateral thorax for the front seat PMHS in contrast to the bilateral thorax and hip for the rear seat occupant in the MDB test indicate the effects of impact on the seating location and restraint system. Posterolateral locations of fractures to the front seat PMHS are attributed to constrained kinematics of occupant interaction with torso side airbag restraint system. Angled loading to the rear seat occupant from coupled sagittal and coronal accelerations of the sternum representing anterior thorax loading contributed to bilateral fractures. Inward bending initiated by the distal femur complex resulting in adduction of ipsilateral lower extremity resulted in intertrochanteric fracture to the rear seat occupant. These results serve as a data set for evaluating the biofidelity of the WorldSID and federalized side impact dummies and assist in validating human body computational models, which are increasingly used in crashworthiness studies.     

Frontal crash simulations using parametric human models representing a diverse population

Abstract

Objective: Analyses of crash data have shown that older, obese, and/or female occupants have a higher risk of injury in frontal crashes compared to the rest of the population. The objective of this study was to use parametric finite element (FE) human models to assess the increased injury risks and identify safety concerns for these vulnerable populations.

Methods: We sampled 100 occupants based on age, sex, stature, and body mass index (BMI) to span a wide range of the U.S. adult population. The target anatomical geometry for each of the 100 models was predicted by the statistical geometry models for the rib cage, pelvis, femur, tibia, and external body surface developed previously. A regional landmark-based mesh morphing method was used to morph the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) M50-OS model into the target geometries. The morphed human models were then positioned in a validated generic vehicle driver compartment model using a statistical driving posture model. Frontal crash simulations based on U.S. New Car Assessment Program (U.S. NCAP) were conducted. Body region injury risks were calculated based on the risk curves used in the US NCAP, except that scaling was used for the neck, chest, and knee–thigh–hip injury risk curves based on the sizes of the bony structures in the corresponding body regions. Age effects were also considered for predicting chest injury risk.

Results: The simulations demonstrated that driver stature and body shape affect occupant interactions with the restraints and consequently affect occupant kinematics and injury risks in severe frontal crashes. U-shaped relations between occupant stature/weight and head injury risk were observed. Chest injury risk was strongly affected by age and sex, with older female occupants having the highest risk. A strong correlation was also observed between BMI and knee–thigh–hip injury risk, whereas none of the occupant parameters meaningfully affected neck injury risks.

Conclusions: This study is the first to use a large set of diverse FE human models to investigate the combined effects of age, sex, stature, and BMI on injury risks in frontal crashes. The study demonstrated that parametric human models can effectively predict the injury trends for the population and may now be used to optimize restraint systems for people who are not similar in size and shape to the available anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). New restraints that adapt to occupant age, sex, stature, and body shape may improve crash safety for all occupants.     

Occurrence of Serious Injury in Real-World Side Impacts of Vehicles with Good Side-Impact Protection Ratings

Objective: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) introduced its side impact consumer information test program in 2003. Since that time, side airbags and structural improvements have been implemented across the fleet and the proportion of good ratings has increased to 93% of 2012–2014 model year vehicles. Research has shown that drivers of good-rated vehicles are 70% less likely to die in a left-side crash than drivers of poor-rated vehicles. Despite these improvements, side impact fatalities accounted for about one quarter of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2012. This study is a detailed analysis of real-world cases with serious injury resulting from side crashes of vehicles with good ratings in the IIHS side impact test.

Methods: NASS-CDS and Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) were queried for occupants of good-rated vehicles who sustained an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 3 injury in a side-impact crash. The resulting 110 cases were categorized by impact configuration and other factors that contributed to injury. Patterns of impact configuration, restraint performance, and occupant injury were identified and discussed in the context of potential upgrades to the current IIHS side impact test.

Results: Three quarters of the injured occupants were involved in near-side impacts. For these occupants, the most common factors contributing to injury were crash severities greater than the IIHS test, inadequate side-airbag performance, and lack of side-airbag coverage for the injured body region. In the cases where an airbag was present but did not prevent the injury, occupants were often exposed to loading centered farther forward on the vehicle than in the IIHS test. Around 40% of the far-side occupants were injured from contact with the struck-side interior structure, and almost all of these cases were more severe than the IIHS test. The remaining far-side occupants were mostly elderly and sustained injury from the center console, instrument panel, or seat belt. In addition, many far-side occupants were likely out of position due to events preceding the side impact and/or being unbelted.

Conclusion: Individual changes to the IIHS side impact test have the potential to reduce the number of serious injuries in real-world crashes. These include impacting the vehicle farther forward (relevant to 28% of all cases studied), greater test severity (17%), the inclusion of far-side occupants (9%), and more restrictive injury criteria (9%). Combinations of these changes could be more effective.     

Small female rib cage fracture in frontal sled tests

Objectives: The 2 objectives of this study are to (1) examine the rib and sternal fractures sustained by small stature elderly females in simulated frontal crashes and (2) determine how the findings are characterized by prior knowledge and field data.

Methods: A test series was conducted to evaluate the response of 5 elderly (average age 76 years) female postmortem human subjects (PMHS), similar in mass and size to a 5th percentile female, in 30 km/h frontal sled tests. The subjects were restrained on a rigid planar seat by bilateral rigid knee bolsters, pelvic blocks, and a custom force-limited 3-point shoulder and lap belt. Posttest subject injury assessment included identifying rib cage fractures by means of a radiologist read of a posttest computed tomography (CT) and an autopsy. The data from a motion capture camera system were processed to provide chest deflection, defined as the movement of the sternum relative to the spine at the level of T8.

?A complementary field data investigation involved querying the NASS-CDS database over the years 1997–2012. The targeted cases involved belted front seat small female passenger vehicle occupants over 40 years old who were injured in 25 to 35 km/h delta-V frontal crashes (11 to 1 o'clock).

Results: Peak upper shoulder belt tension averaged 1,970 N (SD = 140 N) in the sled tests. For all subjects, the peak x-axis deflection was recorded at the sternum with an average of ?44.5 mm or 25% of chest depth. The thoracic injury severity based on the number and distribution of rib fractures yielded 4 subjects coded as Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 (serious) and one as AIS 5 (critical). The NASS-CDS field data investigation of small females identified 205 occupants who met the search criteria. Rib fractures were reported for 2.7% of the female occupants.

Conclusions: The small elderly test subjects sustained a higher number of rib cage fractures than expected in what was intended to be a minimally injurious frontal crash test condition. Neither field studies nor prior laboratory frontal sled tests conducted with 50th percentile male PMHS predicted the injury severity observed. Although this was a limited study, the results justify further exploration of the risk of rib cage injury for small elderly female occupants.     

Comparison of mid-block and intersection-related left turn collisions

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the factors that might influence an occupant's injury severity during a left turn movement. METHODS: We used the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (1995-2005) to compare crash characteristics and injury outcome between intersection and midblock left turn collisions. RESULTS: A total of 7,396 collisions were evaluated. Traffic control devices were present in 82% of intersection and 10% of mid-block collisions. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, drivers' injury severity was not significantly associated with the crash location. However, front seat passengers in mid-block collisions had 72% higher odds of experiencing an injury with injury severity score > or =9 (odds ratio: 1.72, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.69). Our analysis did not show that drivers or passengers in larger vehicles, e.g., sport utility vehicles and mini-vans, were at lower risk of more severe injuries in comparison to the car occupants in sedans. CONCLUSION: We found that in comparison to intersection-related left turn collisions, mid-block crashes are associated with more severe injuries for front seat passengers. Furthermore, size of the turning vehicle was not significantly associated with injury severity for drivers or front seat passengers.