Influence of seat properties on occupant dynamics in severe rear crashes

Seat performance in retaining an occupant, transferring energy, and controlling neck responses is often questioned after severe rear crashes when fatal or disabling injury occur. It is argued that a stiffer seat would have improved occupant kinematics. However, there are many factors in occupant interactions with the seat. This study evaluates four different seat types in 26 and 32 mph (42 and 51 km/h), rear crash delta Vs. Two seats were yielding with k = 20 kN/m occupant load per displacement. One represented a 1970s yielding seat with j = 3.4 degrees /kN frame rotation per occupant load, and 3 kN maximum load (660 Nm moment), and the other a high retention seat phased into production since 1997 with j = 1.4 degrees /kN, and 10 kN maximum load (2200 Nm). Two seats were stiff with k = 40 kN/m. One represented a 1990s foreign benchmark with j = 1.8 degrees /kN and a 7.7 kN maximum load (1700 Nm), and the other an all belts to seat (ABTS) with j = 1.0 degrees /kN and 20 kN maximum load (4400 Nm). The crash was a constant acceleration of 11.8 g, or 14.5 g for 100 ms. Occupant interactions with the seat were modeled using a torso mass, flexible neck and head mass. By analysis of the equations of motion, the initial change in seatback angle (Deltatheta) is proportional to jk(y - x), the product jk and the differential motion between the vehicle (seat cushion) and occupant. The transition from 1970s-80s yielding seats to stronger seats of the 1990s involved an increase in k stiffness; however, the jk property did not change as frame structures became stronger. The yielding seats of the 1970s had jk = 68 degrees /m, while the stiff foreign benchmark seat had jk = 72 degrees /m. The foreign benchmark rotated about the same as the 1970s seat up to 50 ms in the severe rear crashes. While it was substantially stronger, it produced higher loads on the occupant, and the higher loads increased seatback rotations and neck responses. The ABTS seat had the lowest rotations but also caused high neck responses because of the greater loads on the torso. Neck displacement (d) is initially proportional to (k/m(T)) integral integral y, seat stiffness times the second integral of vehicle displacement divided by torso mass. As seat stiffness increases, head-torso acceleration, velocity, and neck displacement increase. This study shows that the jk seat property determines the initial seatback rotation in rear crashes. If a stronger seat has a higher stiffness, it rotates at higher loads on the occupant, reducing the overall benefit of the stronger frame, while increasing neck responses related to whiplash or neck extension prior to subsequent impacts. The aim of seat designs should be to reduce jk, provide pocketing of the pelvis, and give head-neck support for the best protection in severe rear crashes. For low-speed crashes, a low k is important to reduce early neck responses related to whiplash.     

Seat properties affecting neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why whiplash has increased

Whiplash has increased over the past two decades. This study compares occupant dynamics with three different seat types (two yielding and one stiff) in rear crashes. Responses up to head restraint contact are used to describe possible reasons for the increase in whiplash as seat stiffness increased in the 1980s and 1990s. Three exemplar seats were defined by seat stiffness (k) and frame rotation stiffness (j) under occupant load. The stiff seat had k=40 kN/m and j=1.8 degrees /kN representing a foreign benchmark. One yielding seat had k=20 kN/m and j=1.4 degrees /kN simulating a high-retention seat. The other had k=20 kN/m and j=3.4 degrees /kN simulating a typical yielding seat of the 1980s and 1990s. Constant vehicle acceleration for 100 ms gave delta-V of 6, 10, 16, 24, and 35 km/h. The one-dimensional model included a torso mass loading the seatback, head motion through a flexible neck, and head restraint drop and rearward displacement with seatback rotation. Neck displacement was greatest with the stiff seat due to higher loads on the torso. It peaked at 10 km/h rear delta-V and was lower in higher-severity crashes. It averaged 32% more than neck displacements with the 1980s yielding seat. The high-retention seat had 67% lower neck displacements than the stiff seat because of yielding into the seatback, earlier head restraint contact and less seatback rotation, which involved 16 mm drop in head restraint height due to seatback rotation in the 16 km/h rear delta-V. This was significantly lower than 47 mm with the foreign benchmark and 73 mm with the 1980s yielding seat. Early in the crash, neck responses are proportional to ky/mT, seat stiffness times vehicle displacement divided by torso mass, so neck responses increase with seat stiffness. The trend toward stiffer seats increased neck responses over the yielding seats of the 1980s and 1990s, which offers one explanation for the increase in whiplash over the past two decades. This is a result of not enough seat suspension compliance as stronger seat frames were introduced. As seat stiffness has increased, so have neck displacements and the Neck Injury Criterion (NIC). High-retention seats reduce neck biomechanical responses by allowing the occupant to displace into the seatback at relatively low torso loads until head restraint contact and then transferring crash energy. High-retention seats resolve the historic debate between stiff (rigid) and yielding seats by providing both a strong frame (low j) for occupant retention and yielding suspension (low k) to reduce whiplash.     

Seat influences on female neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why women have higher whiplash rates

Since the earliest crash investigations, whiplash has been found to occur more often in women than men. This study addresses seat properties that may explain a reason for the higher rates in women, and changes in whiplash in general over the past two decades. Three exemplar seats were defined on the basis of seat stiffness (k) and frame rotation stiffness (j) for rearward occupant load. Stiff seats have k=40 kN/m and j=1.8 degrees /kN representing a foreign benchmark loaded by a male. One yielding seat had k=20 kN/m and j=1.4 degrees /kN simulating a high-retention seat (1997 Grand Prix) and another k=20 kN/m and j=3.4 degrees /kN simulating a 1980s to 1990s yielding seat (1990 Buick Park Avenue). Constant vehicle acceleration for 100 msec gave delta-V of 6, 10, 16, and 24 km/h. The one-dimensional model included a torso mass loading the seatback with flexible neck and head mass. Based on biomechanical data and scaling, neck stiffness was 5 kN/m and 3 kN/m for the male and female, respectively. Based on validation tests, seat stiffness was 25% less with the female. Occupant dynamics were simulated in a step-forward solution based on the differential displacement between the head, torso, and seat up to head restraint contact. Neck responses were 30% higher in the female than male through most of the rear impact and are proportional to (kF/mTF)/(kM/mTM), which is the ratio of seat stiffness divided by torso mass for the female and male. Neck displacements were higher with the stiff seat than the 1990 C car seat for both the female and male. They peaked at 10 km/h and dropped off for higher severity crashes due to the shorter time to head contact. Neck displacements were greater in the female than male for the lowest severity crashes with the stiff and 1990 C car seats, when displacement was scaled for equal tolerance. The female in 1997 W car seat had the lowest neck displacements. Stiff seats increased neck displacements over the yielding seats of the 1980s in rear crashes. The trend is similar in men and women, but early neck displacements are greater in women because of a higher ratio of seat stiffness to torso mass. This implies that seat stiffness is not sufficiently low in proportion to the female mass in comparison to males. The j and k seat properties influence neck biomechanics and occupant dynamics, but k is important in determining early response differences between males and females.     

Thoracic and lumbar spine responses in high-speed rear sled tests

Objective: This study analyzed thoracic and lumbar spine responses with in-position and out-of-position (OOP) seated dummies in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests with conventional and all-belts-to-seat (ABTS) seats. Occupant kinematics and spinal responses were determined with modern (≥2000 MY), older (<2000 MY), and ABTS seats.

Methods: The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap–shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position or OOP, including leaning forward and leaning inboard and forward. There were 26 in-position tests with 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS and 14 OOP tests with 6 conventional and 8 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented. This study addressed the thoracic and lumbar spine responses. Injury assessment reference values are not approved for the thoracic and lumbar spine. Conservative thresholds exist. The peak responses were normalized by a threshold to compare responses. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

Results: The extension moments were higher in the thoracic than lumbar spine in the in-position tests. For <2000 MY seats, the thoracic extension moment was 76.8 ± 14.6% of threshold and the lumbar extension moment was 50.5 ± 17.9%. For the ≥2000 MY seats, the thoracic extension moment was 54.2 ± 26.6% of threshold and the lumbar extension moment was 49.8 ± 27.7%. ABTS seats provided similar thoracic and lumbar responses. Modern seat designs lowered thoracic and lumbar responses. For example, the 1996 Taurus had ?1,696 N anterior lumbar shear force and ?205.2 Nm extension moment. There was ?1,184 N lumbar compression force and 1,512 N tension. In contrast, the 2015 F-150 had ?500 N shear force and ?49.7 Nm extension moment. There was ?839 N lumbar compression force and 535 N tension. On average, the 2015 F-150 had 40% lower lumbar spine responses than the 1996 Taurus. The OOP tests had similar peak lumbar responses; however, they occurred later due to the forward lean of the dummy.

Conclusions: The design and performance of seats have significantly changed over the past 20 years. Modern seats use a perimeter frame allowing the occupant to pocket into the seatback. Higher and more forward head restraints allow a stronger frame because the head, neck, and torso are more uniformly supported with the seat more upright in severe rear impacts. The overall effect has been a reduction in thoracic and lumbar loads and risks for injury.     

Seat strength in rear body block tests

Purpose: This study collected and analyzed available testing of motor vehicle seat strength in rearward loading by a body block simulating the torso of an occupant. The data were grouped by single recliner, dual recliner, and all belts to seat (ABTS) seats.

Methods: The strength of seats to rearward loading has been evaluated with body block testing from 1964 to 2008. The database of available tests includes 217 single recliner, 65 dual recliner, and 18 ABTS seats. The trends in seat strength were determined by linear regression and differences between seat types were evaluated by Student's t-test. The average peak moment and force supported by the seat was determined by decade of vehicle model year (MY).

Results: Single recliner seats were used in motor vehicles in the 1960s to 1970s. The average strength was 918 ± 224 Nm (n = 26) in the 1960s and 1,069 ± 293 Nm (n = 65) in the 1980s. There has been a gradual increase in strength over time. Dual recliner seats started to phase into vehicles in the late 1980s. By the 2000s, the average strength of single recliner seats increased to 1,501 ± 335 Nm (n = 14) and dual recliner seats to 2,302 ± 699 Nm (n = 26). Dual recliner seats are significantly stronger than single recliner seats for each decade of comparison (P < .001). The average strength of ABTS seats was 4,395 ± 1,185 in-lb for 1989–2004 MY seats (n = 18). ABTS seats are significantly stronger than single or dual recliner seats (P < .001). The trend in ABTS strength is decreasing with time and converging toward that of dual recliner seats.

Conclusions: Body block testing is an quantitative means of evaluating the strength of seats for occupant loading in rear impacts. There has been an increase in conventional seat strength over the past 50 years. By the 2000s, most seats are 1,700–3,400 Nm moment strength. However, the safety of a seat is more complex than its strength and depends on many other factors.     

Occupant responses in conventional and ABTS seats in high-speed rear sled tests

Objective: This study compared biomechanical responses of a normally seated Hybrid III dummy on conventional and all belts to seat (ABTS) seats in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests. It determined the difference in performance with modern (≥2000 MY) seats compared to older (<2000 MY) seats and ABTS seats.

Methods: The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap–shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position. The testing included 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented, including head accelerations, upper and lower neck 6-axis load cells, chest acceleration, thoracic and lumbar spine load cells, and pelvis accelerations. The peak responses were normalized by injury assessment reference values (IARVs) to assess injury risks. Statistical analysis was conducted using Student's t test. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

Results: Biomechanical responses were lower with modern (≥2000 MY) seats than older (<2000 MY) designs. The lower neck extension moment was 32.5 ± 9.7% of IARV in modern seats compared to 62.8 ± 31.6% in older seats (P =.01). Overall, there was a 34% reduction in the comparable biomechanical responses with modern seats. Biomechanical responses were lower with modern seats than ABTS seats. The lower neck extension moment was 41.4 ± 7.8% with all MY ABTS seats compared to 32.5 ± 9.7% in modern seats (P =.07). Overall, the ABTS seats had 13% higher biomechanical responses than the modern seats.

Conclusions: Modern (≥2000 MY) design seats have lower biomechanical responses in 40.2 km/h rear sled tests than older (<2000 MY) designs and ABTS designs. The improved performance is consistent with an increase in seat strength combined with improved occupant kinematics through pocketing of the occupant into the seatback, higher and more forward head restraint, and other design changes. The methods and data presented here provide a basis for standardized testing of seats. However, a complete understanding of seat safety requires consideration of out-of-position (OOP) occupants in high-speed impacts and consideration of the much more common, low-speed rear impacts.     

An energy-absorbing sliding seat for reducing neck injury risks in rear impact—analysis for prototype built

Objective: This study investigated overall performance of an energy-absorbing sliding seat concept for whiplash neck injury prevention. The sliding seat allows its seat pan to slide backward for some distance under certain restraint force to absorb crash energy in rear impacts.

Methods: A numerical model that consisted of vehicle interior, seat, seat belt, and BioRID II dummy was built in MADYMO to evaluate whiplash neck injury in rear impact. A parametric study of the effects of sliding seat parameters, including position and cushion stiffness of head restraint, seatback cushion stiffness, recliner characteristics, and especially sliding energy-absorbing (EA) restraint force, on neck injury criteria was conducted in order to compare the effectiveness of the sliding seat concept with that of other existing anti-whiplash mechanisms. Optimal sliding seat design configurations in rear crashes of different severities were obtained. A sliding seat prototype with bending of a steel strip as an EA mechanism was fabricated and tested in a sled test environment to validate the concept. The performance of the sliding seat under frontal and rollover impacts was checked to make sure the sliding mechanism did not result in any negative effects.

Results: The protective effect of the sliding seat with EA restraint force is comparable to that of head restraint–based and recliner stiffness–based anti-whiplash mechanisms. EA restraint force levels of 3 kN in rear impacts of low and medium severities and 6 kN in impacts of high severity were obtained from optimization. In frontal collision and rollover, compared to the nonsliding seat, the sliding seat does not result in any negative effects on occupant protection. The sled test results of the sliding seat prototype have shown the effectiveness of the concept for reducing neck injury risks.

Conclusion: As a countermeasure, the sliding seat with appropriate restraint forces can significantly reduce whiplash neck injury risk in rear impacts of low, medium, and high severities with no negative effects on other crash load cases.     

A Simulation Study on the Efficacy of Advanced Belt Restraints to Mitigate the Effects of Obesity for Rear-Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes

Objective: Recent field data analyses have shown that the safety advantages of rear seats relative to the front seats have decreased in newer vehicles. Separately, the risks of certain injuries have been found to be higher for obese occupants. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of advanced belt features on the protection of rear-seat occupants with a range of body mass index (BMI) in frontal crashes.

Methods: Whole-body finite element human models with 4 BMI levels (25, 30, 35, and 40 kg/m²) developed previously were used in this study. A total of 52 frontal crash simulations were conducted, including 4 simulations with a standard rear-seat, 3-point belt and 48 simulations with advanced belt features. The parameters varied in the simulations included BMI, load limit, anchor pretensioner, and lap belt routing relative to the pelvis. The injury measurements analyzed in this study included head and hip excursions, normalized chest deflection, and torso angle (defined as the angle between the hip–shoulder line and the vertical direction). Analyses of covariance were used to test the significance (P <.05) of the results.

Results: Higher BMI was associated with greater head and hip excursions and larger normalized chest deflection. Higher belt routing increased the hip excursion and torso angle, which indicates a higher submarining risk, whereas the anchor pretensioner reduced hip excursion and torso angle. Lower load limits decreased the normalized chest deflection but increased the head excursion. Normalized chest deflection had a positive correlation with maximum torso angle. Occupants with higher BMI have to use higher load limits to reach head excursions similar to those in lower BMI occupants.

Discussion and Conclusion: The simulation results suggest that optimizing load limiter and adding pretensioner(s) can reduce injury risks associated with obesity, but conflicting effects on head and chest injuries were observed. This study demonstrated the feasibility and importance of using human models to investigate protection for occupants with various BMI levels. A seat belt system capable of adapting to occupant size and body shape will improve protection for obese occupants in rear seats.     

Human Volunteer Kinematics in Rear-End Sled Collisions

Validation of new crash test dummies for rear-end collision testing requires human response data from pertinent test situations. Eleven human volunteers were exposed to 23 low-speed rear impacts to determine human response in well-defined test seats, and to quantify repeatability, variability and the effect of seat design on human response.

The results showed vertical motion of the volunteers’ H-point caused by ramping up along the seat, and an upward motion of the volunteers’ torso and head. The latter was caused by a combination of ramping up along the seatback and straightening of the thoracic kyphosis. During the first 100 ms, the volunteers flexed their necks. Thereafter, the volunteers extended their necks. These new data have proven to be useful in validation of rear-impact dummies.     

Investigation of occupant kinematics and injury risk in a reclined and rearward-facing seat under various frontal crash velocities

Introduction: The availability of highly automated driving functions will vastly change the seating configuration in future vehicles. A reclined and rearward-facing seating position could become one of the popular seating positions. The occupant safety needs to be addressed in these novel seating configurations, as novel occupant loading conditions occur and the current standards as well as regulations are not fully applicable. Method: Twelve finite element simulations using a series production seat model and a state of the art 50th percentile male human body model were conducted to investigate the influences of various parameters on the occupant kinematics and injury risk. The varied parameters included the seatback angle, impact speed, and seatback rotational stiffness. Results: The seat model shows a large seatback rotation angle during the frontal crash scenario with high impact speed. A reclining of the seatback angle leads to no significant increase of the injury risk for the assessed injury values. However, the reclining does affect the interaction among the occupant, seatbelt, and seatback. An increase of the seatback rotational stiffness helps reduce brain and chest injury metrics, while neck injury values are higher for the stiffer seatback.     

Influence of Seat Foam and Geometrical Properties on BioRID P3 Kinematic Response to Rear Impacts

As the primary interface with the human body during rear impact, the automotive seat holds great promise for mitigation of Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD). Recent research has chronicled the potential influence of both seat geometrical and constitutive properties on occupant dynamics and injury potential. Geometrical elements such as reduced head to head restraint, rearward offset, and increased head restraint height have shown strong correlation with reductions in occupant kinematics. The stiffness and energy absorption of both the seating foam and the seat infrastructure are also influential on occupant motion; however, the trends in injury mitigation are not as clear as for the geometrical properties. It is of interest to determine whether, for a given seat frame and infrastructure, the properties of the seating foam alone can be tailored to mitigate WAD potential. Rear impact testing was conducted using three model year 2000 automotive seats (Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet S-10 pickup, and Pontiac Grand Prix), using the BioRID P3 anthropometric rear impact dummy. Each seat was distinct in construction and geometry. Each seat back was tested with various foams (i.e., standard, viscoelastic, low or high density). Seat geometries and infrastructures were constant so that the influence of the seating foams on occupant dynamics could be isolated. Three tests were conducted on each foam combination for a given seat (total of 102 tests), with a nominal impact severity of Delta V = 11 km/h (nominal duration of 100 msec). The seats were compared across a host of occupant kinematic variables most likely to be associated with WAD causation. No significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between seat back foams for tests within any given seat. However, seat comparisons yielded several significant differences (p < 0.05). The Camaro seat was found to result in several significantly different occupant kinematic variables when compared to the other seats. No significant differences were found between the Grand Prix and S-10 seats. Seat geometrical characteristics obtained from the Head Restraint Measuring Device (HRMD) showed good correlation with several occupant variables. It appears that for these seats and foams the head-to-head restraint horizontal and vertical distances are overwhelmingly more influential on occupant kinematics and WAD potential than the local foam properties within a given seat.     

Influence of seat foam and geometrical properties on BioRID P3 kinematic response to rear impacts

As the primary interface with the human body during rear impact, the automotive seat holds great promise for mitigation of Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD). Recent research has chronicled the potential influence of both seat geometrical and constitutive properties on occupant dynamics and injury potential. Geometrical elements such as reduced head to head restraint, rearward offset, and increased head restraint height have shown strong correlation with reductions in occupant kinematics. The stiffness and energy absorption of both the seating foam and the seat infrastructure are also influential on occupant motion; however, the trends in injury mitigation are not as clear as for the geometrical properties. It is of interest to determine whether, for a given seat frame and infrastructure, the properties of the seating foam alone can be tailored to mitigate WAD potential. Rear impact testing was conducted using three model year 2000 automotive seats (Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet S-10 pickup, and Pontiac Grand Prix), using the BioRID P3 anthropometric rear impact dummy. Each seat was distinct in construction and geometry. Each seat back was tested with various foams (i.e., standard, viscoelastic, low or high density). Seat geometries and infrastructures were constant so that the influence of the seating foams on occupant dynamics could be isolated. Three tests were conducted on each foam combination for a given seat (total of 102 tests), with a nominal impact severity of Delta V = 11 km/h (nominal duration of 100 msec). The seats were compared across a host of occupant kinematic variables most likely to be associated with WAD causation. No significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between seat back foams for tests within any given seat. However, seat comparisons yielded several significant differences (p < 0.05). The Camaro seat was found to result in several significantly different occupant kinematic variables when compared to the other seats. No significant differences were found between the Grand Prix and S-10 seats. Seat geometrical characteristics obtained from the Head Restraint Measuring Device (HRMD) showed good correlation with several occupant variables. It appears that for these seats and foams the head-to-head restraint horizontal and vertical distances are overwhelmingly more influential on occupant kinematics and WAD potential than the local foam properties within a given seat.     

Driver and front passenger injury in frontal crashes: Update on the effect of unbelted rear occupants

Purpose: This is a study of the influence of an unbelted rear occupant on the risk of severe injury to the front seat occupant ahead of them in frontal crashes. It provides an update to earlier studies.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for severe injury (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score [MAIS] 4+F) to belted drivers and front passengers in frontal crashes by the presence of a belted or unbelted passenger seated directly behind them or without a rear passenger. Frontal crashes were identified with GAD1 = F without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front and rear outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4+F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0+F. Standard errors were determined.

Results: The risk for severe injury was 0.803 ± 0.263% for the driver with an unbelted left rear occupant and 0.100 ± 0.039% with a belted left rear occupant. The driver's risk was thus 8.01 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted occupant (P <.001). With an unbelted right rear occupant behind the front passenger, the risk for severe injury was 0.277 ± 0.091% for the front passenger. The corresponding risk was 0.165 ± 0.075% when the right rear occupant was belted. The front passenger's risk was 1.68 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant behind them than a belted occupant (P <.001). The driver's risk for MAIS 4+F was highest when their seat was deformed forward. The risk was 9.94 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted rear occupant when the driver's seat deformed forward. It was 13.4 ± 12.2% with an unbelted occupant behind them and 1.35 ± 0.95% with a belted occupant behind them.

Conclusions: Consistent with prior literature, seat belt use by a rear occupant significantly lowered the risk for severe injury to belted occupants seated in front of them. The reduction was greater for drivers than for front passengers. It was 87.5% for the driver and 40.6% for the front passenger. These results emphasize the need for belt reminders in all seating positions.     

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.     

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.     

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 safest seat: effect of seating position on occupant mortality

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the survival rates of occupants of passenger cars involved in a fatal crash between 2000 and 2003. METHODS: The information from every fatal crash in the United States between 2000 and 2003 was analyzed. Variables such as seat position, point of impact, rollover, restraint use, vehicle type, vehicle weight, occupant age, and injury severity were extracted from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Univariate and a full logistic multivariate model analyses were performed. RESULTS: The data show that the rear middle seat is safer than any other occupant position when involved in a fatal crash. Overall, the rear (2(nd) row) seating positions have a 29.1% (Univariate Analysis, p<.0001, OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22 - 1.37) increased odds of survival over the first row seating positions and the rear middle seat has a 25% (Univariate Analysis, p<.0001, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17 - 1.34) increased odds of survival over the other rear seat positions. After correcting for potential confounders, occupants of the rear middle seat have a 13% (Logistic Regression, p<.001, 95% CI 1.02 - 1.26) increased chance of survival when involved in a crash with a fatality than occupants in other rear seats. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that the safest position for any occupant involved in a motor-vehicle crash is the rear middle seat. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The results of this research may impact how automobile manufacturers look at future rear middle seat designs. If the rear seat was to be designed exactly like its outboard counterparts (headrest, armrests, lap and shoulder belt, etc.) people may choose to sit on it more often rather than waiting to use it out of necessity due to multiple rear seat occupants.     

Computational modeling and analysis of thoracolumbar spine fractures in frontal crash reconstruction

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to reconstruct 11 motor vehicle crashes (6 with thoracolumbar fractures and 5 without thoracolumbar fractures) and analyze the fracture mechanism, fracture predictors, and associated parameters affecting thoracolumbar spine response.

Methods: Eleven frontal crashes were reconstructed with a finite element simplified vehicle model (SVM). The SVM was tuned to each case vehicle and the Total HUman Model for Safety (THUMS) Ver. 4.01 was scaled and positioned in a baseline configuration to mimic the documented precrash driver posture. The event data recorder crash pulse was applied as a boundary condition. For the 6 thoracolumbar fracture cases, 120 simulations to quantify uncertainty and response variation were performed using a Latin hypercube design of experiments (DOE) to vary seat track position, seatback angle, steering column angle, steering column position, and D-ring height. Vertebral loads and bending moments were analyzed, and lumbar spine indices (unadjusted and age-adjusted) were developed to quantify the combined loading effect. Maximum principal strain and stress data were collected in the vertebral cortical and trabecular bone. DOE data were fit to regression models to examine occupant positioning and thoracolumbar response correlations.

Results: Of the 11 cases, both the vertebral compression force and bending moment progressively increased from superior to inferior vertebrae. Two thoracic spine fracture cases had higher average compression force and bending moment across all thoracic vertebral levels, compared to 9 cases without thoracic spine fractures (force: 1,200.6 vs. 640.8 N; moment: 13.7 vs. 9.2?Nm). Though there was no apparent difference in bending moment at the L1–L2 vertebrae, lumbar fracture cases exhibited higher vertebral bending moments in L3–L4 (fracture/nonfracture: 45.7 vs. 33.8?Nm). The unadjusted lumbar spine index correctly predicted thoracolumbar fracture occurrence for 9 of the 11 cases (sensitivity?=?1.0; specificity?=?0.6). The age-adjusted lumbar spine index correctly predicted thoracolumbar fracture occurrence for 10 of the 11 cases (sensitivity?=?1.0; specificity?=?0.8). The age-adjusted principal stress in the trabecular bone was an excellent indicator of fracture occurrence (sensitivity?=?1.0; specificity?=?1.0). A rearward seat track position and reclined seatback increased the thoracic spine bending moment by 111–329%. A more reclined seatback increased the lumbar force and bending moment by 16–165% and 67–172%, respectively.

Conclusions: This study provided a computational framework for assessing thoracolumbar fractures and also quantified the effect of precrash driver posture on thoracolumbar response. Results aid in the evaluation of motor vehicle crash–induced vertebral fractures and the understanding of factors contributing to fracture risk.     

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.     

A Comparison of Volunteer,BioRID P3 and Hybrid III Performance in Rear Impacts

The most important tool for testing seat-systems in rear impacts is a crash test dummy. However, investigators have noted limitations of the most commonly used dummy, the Hybrid III. The BioRID I is a step closer to a biofidelic crash test dummy, but it is not user-friendly and the straightening of the thoracic spine kyphosis is smaller than that 220of humans. To reduce these problems, a new BioRID prototype was developed, the P3. It has new neck muscle substitutes, a softer thoracic spine and a softer rubber torso than does the BioRID I.

The BioRID P3 was compared with volunteer test data in a rigid and a standard seal without head restraints. The dummy kinematic performance, pressure distribution between subject and seatback, neck loads and accelerations were compared with those of ten volunteers and a Hybrid III. The BioRID P3 provided repeatable test results and its response was very similar to that of the average volunteer in rear impacts at Δv = 9 km/h.