The role of door orientation on occupant injury in a nearside impact: a CIREN, MADYMO modeling and experimental study

OBJECTIVE: This study addressed the effects of vehicle height mismatch in side impact crashes. A light truck or SUV tends to strike the door of a passenger car higher causing the upper border to lead into the occupant space. Conversely, an impact centered lower on the door, from a passenger car, causes the lower border to lead. We proposed the hypothesis that the type of injury sustained by the occupant could be related to door orientation during its intrusion into the passenger compartment. METHOD: Data on door orientation and nearside occupant injuries were collected from 125 side impact crashes reported in the CIREN database. Experimental testing was performed using a pendulum carrying a frame and a vehicle door, impacting against a USDOT SID. The frame allowed the door orientation to be changed. A model was developed in MADYMO (v 6.2) using the more biofidelic dummies, BIOSID, and SIDIIs as well as USDOT SID. RESULTS: In side impact crashes with the lower border of the door leading, 81% of occupants sustained pelvic injury, 42% suffered rib fractures, and the rate of organ injury was 0.84. With the upper border leading, 46% of occupants sustained pelvic injury, 71% sustained rib fracture, and the rate of organ injuries per case increased to 1.13. The differences in the groups with respect to pelvic injury were significant at p = 0.01, rib fracture, p = 0.10, and organ injury, p = 0.001. Experimental testing showed that when the door angle changed from lower to upper border leading, peak T4 acceleration increased by 273% and pelvic acceleration decreased by 44%. The model demonstrated that when the door angle changed from lower to upper border leading, the USDOT SID showed a 29% increase in T4 acceleration and a 57% decrease in pelvic acceleration. The BIOSID dummy demonstrated a 36% increase in T1 acceleration, a 44% increase in abdominal rib 1 deflection, a 91% increase in thoracic rib 1 deflection, and a 33% decrease in pelvic acceleration. CONCLUSIONS: These data add more insight to the problem of mismatch during side impacts, where the bumper of the striking vehicle overrides the door beam, causing the upper part of the door to lead the intrusion into the passenger compartment. Even with the same delta V and intrusion, with the upper border of the door leading, more severe chest and organ injuries resulted. This data suggests that door orientation should be considered when testing subsystems for side impact protection.     

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.     

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.     

Side impact crashes--factors affecting incidence and severity: review of the literature

Many traffic crashes are side impact collisions resulting in significant death and injury. A review was conducted of the evidence of driver, road, and vehicle characteristics affecting either the risk of occurrence or the severity of injury in such crashes for papers published from 1996 to early 2003. For drivers, evidence was found of increased crash risk or injury severity only for age and age-related medical conditions (e.g., dementia). Traffic roundabouts and other traffic control devices--stop signs, traffic lights, and so on--had mixed results; traffic controls were better than no controls, but their effectiveness varied with circumstance. Most vehicle characteristics have had little or no effect on crash occurrence. Antilock braking systems (ABS) in the striking vehicle had been anticipated to reduce the risk of crashes, but so far have demonstrated little effect. The primary emphasis in vehicle design has been on protective devices to reduce the severity of injury. Disparity in the size of the two vehicles, especially when the struck vehicle is smaller and lighter, is almost a consistent risk factor for occupant injury. The occupants of light trucks, however, when struck by passengers cars on the opposite side, were at higher risk of injury. Wearing seat belts had a consistently protective effect; airbags did not, but there were few studies, and no field studies, of lateral airbags found. Of all the characteristics examined, vehicle design, including occupant restraints, is the most easily modified in the short term, although road design, traffic control, and the monitoring of older drivers may also prove effective in reducing side impact crashes in the longer term.     

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.     

A preliminary analysis of aortic injuries in lateral impacts

Injuries to the aorta are among the more serious injuries that result from vehicle impacts, and often may be fatal. This article examines the incidence of aortic injuries in the United States and United Kingdom by using two international databases of real-world crashes. The main outcome of interest was the level of risk associated with each principal direction of force for drivers and front-seat passengers with respect to sustaining aortic injuries. The results indicate that the risk of sustaining an injury to the aorta is greater for near-side crashes than for far-side crashes. Further it is apparent that, given a near-side crash, the risk of an aortic injury is greater on the left side of the body (and left side of the vehicle) than on the right. It also was found that the delta-V of crashes where occupants sustained an injury to the aorta was considerably higher than crashes where occupants did not sustain aortic injuries. It is speculated that the anatomical asymmetry of the thorax might play a role in the differences seen in injury risk associated with different impact directions. The results presented in this article could be of use to both the emergency physician treating patients involved in motor vehicle collisions as well as the engineer involved in occupant design countermeasures. Limitations and further planned research are discussed.     

Overview of a combined computational–experimental evaluation for the assessment of panoramic sunroof impact characteristics for ejection mitigation

Abstract

Objective: To meet increasing customer demand, many vehicle manufacturers are now offering a panoramic sunroof option in their vehicle lineup. Currently, there is no regulatory or consumer test aimed at assessing the potential for ejection mitigation of roof glazing, which leaves manufacturers to develop internal performance standards to guide designs. The goal of this study was to characterize the variety of occupant-to-roof impacts involving unbelted occupants in rollover crashes to determine the ranges of possible effective masses and impact velocities. This information can be used to define occupant retention requirements and performance criteria for roof glazing in occupant ejection protection.

Methods: This study combined computational (MADYMO and LS-Dyna) simulations of occupant kinematics in rollover crashes with laboratory rollover crash tests using the dynamic rollover test system (DRoTS) and linked them through controlled anthropomorphic test device (ATD)-to-roof (“drop”) impact tests. The DRoTS and the ATD drop tests were performed to explore impact scenarios and estimate dummy-to-roof impact impulses. Next, 13 sets of vehicle kinematics and deformation data were extracted from a combination of vehicle dynamics and finite element model simulations that reconstructed variations of rollover crash cases from the field data. Then occupant kinematics data were extracted from a full-factorial sensitivity study that used MADYMO simulations to investigate how changes in anthropometry and seating position would affect occupant–roof impacts across all 13 cases. Finite element (FE) simulations of ATD and Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) human body model (HBM) roof impacts were performed to investigate the most severe cases from the MADYMO simulations to generate a distribution of head-to-roof impact energies.

Results: From the multiparameter design of experiment and experimental study, kinematics and energy output were extracted and analyzed. Based on dummy-to-roof impact force and dummy-to-roof impact velocity, the most severe rollover scenarios were identified. In the DRoTS experiments followed by the drop tests, the range of identified impact velocities was between 2 and 5.8 m/s. However, computational simulations of the rollover crashes showed higher impact velocities and similar effective masses. The largest dummy-to-roof impact velocity was 11 m/s.

Conclusions: This study combined computational and experimental analyses to determine a range of possible unbelted occupant-to-roof impact energies. These results can be used to determine design parameters for an impactor for the assessment of the risk of roof glazing ejection for unbelted occupants in rollover crashes.     

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.     

Field investigation of child restraints in side impact crashes

OBJECTIVE: Various test procedures have been suggested for assessing the protection afforded by child restraints (CRS) in lateral collisions. Analyses of real world crashes can be used to identify relevant characteristics of the child, restraint, collision, and injury mechanisms that should be incorporated into the design of the test procedures as well as in the design of related ATDs and injury metrics. The objective of this work is to use in-depth crash investigations of children restrained in CRS in side impacts to elucidate specific sources and mechanisms of injuries and explore the role of crash severity variables such as magnitude and location of intrusion and specific impact angle. METHODS: Real world crashes involving children restrained in forward facing CRS in side impacts were analyzed from Partners for Child Passenger Safety, an on-going child specific crash surveillance system in which insurance claims are used to identify cases. In-depth crash investigations using standardized protocols were used to calculate the crash severity and determine the mechanisms and sources of the injuries sustained. RESULTS: Cases of 32 children restrained in CRS in 30 side impact crashes were examined. Twenty-five percent sustained AIS 2+ injuries. The most common injuries sustained by children restrained in CRS in side impact crashes were to the face, head, and lower extremity. Characteristics of the crashes that appeared related to injury were intrusion that entered the child's occupant space or caused an interior part of the vehicle to enter the child's occupant space, forward component of the crash, and the rotation of the CRS, restrained by a seat belt, towards the side of the impact. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to assess the injury potential in a laboratory setting for the body regions of common injury, the head, face, and lower extremity, must be explored. Characteristics of a regulatory-based test procedure to assess injury risk should include a frontal component to the crash and intrusion into the occupant's seating position. Design enhancements of the CRS should address rotation during lateral impacts. These results provide guidance to current efforts to design and regulate these restraints for the safety of child passengers in side impacts.     

Effect of vehicle and crash factors on older occupants

PROBLEM: The expected substantial increase in people aged 65 or older is important for those concerned about transportation injuries. However, much of the previous research concentrates on older drivers and overlooks the fact that vehicle and crash factors may provide significant explanations of older occupant injury rates. METHOD: Differences across age groups are explored using two nationwide travel surveys, crash involvement, fatalities, and injuries from crash databases and an ordered probit model of injury severity. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Two noticeable differences that help explain injury risk are that older people are more likely to travel in passenger cars than younger people who frequently use light trucks, and that seriously injured older occupants are more likely to be involved in side-impact crashes than their younger counterparts. IMPACT: Increased attention to vehicle engagement in side-impact crashes and to vehicle technologies that can help drivers avoid side collisions would be particularly helpful for older occupants.     

Census Study of Real-Life Near-Side Crashes with Modern Side Airbag-Equipped Vehicles in the United States

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the crash characteristics, injury distribution, and injury mechanisms for Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score (MAIS) 2+ injured belted, near-side occupants in airbag-equipped modern vehicles. Furthermore, differences in injury distribution for senior occupants compared to non-senior occupants was investigated, as well as whether the near-side occupant injury risk to the head and thorax increases or decreases with a neighboring occupant.

Method: National Automotive Sampling System's Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data from 2000 to 2012 were searched for all side impacts (GAD L&R, all principal direction of force) for belted occupants in modern vehicles (model year > 1999). Rollovers were excluded, and only front seat occupants over the age of 10 were included. Twelve thousand three hundred fifty-four MAIS 2+ injured occupants seated adjacent to the intruding structure (near-side) and protected by at least one deployed side airbag were studied. To evaluate the injury risk influenced by the neighboring occupant, odds ratio with an induced exposure approach was used.

Result: The most typical crash occurred either at an intersection or in a left turn where the striking vehicle impacted the target vehicle at a 60 to 70° angle, resulting in a moderate change of velocity (delta-V) and intrusion at the B-pillar. The head, thorax, and pelvis were the most frequent body regions with rib fracture the most frequent specific injury. A majority of the head injuries included brain injuries without skull fracture, and non-senior rather than senior occupants had a higher frequency of head injuries on the whole. In approximately 50% of the cases there was a neighboring occupant influencing injury outcome.

Conclusion: Compared to non-senior occupants, the senior occupants sustained a considerably higher rate of thoracic and pelvis injuries, which should be addressed by improved thorax side airbag protection. The influence on near-side occupant injury risk by the neighboring occupant should also be further evaluated. Furthermore, side airbag performance and injury assessments in intersection crashes, especially those involving senior occupants in lower severities, should be further investigated and side impact dummy biofidelity and injury criteria must be determined for these crash scenarios.     

Do NHTSA vehicle safety ratings affect side impact crash outcomes?

Introduction: Side impact crash injuries tend to be severe, mainly due to the effects of the mechanism of such crashes. This study addresses the relationship between side impact crash injury severities and side impact safety ratings of the passenger cars involved in such crashes. It is motivated by the lack of research on side impact safety ratings in relation to the real-world crash outcomes. Method: Analysis of Crashworthiness Data System’s (CDS) data show the head and thorax are the most common regions of impact of severe injuries, while the neck is the least. Irrespective of body regions, higher-rated vehicles were found to provide better occupant protection to both younger and older driver age groups. Assessment based on injury severity score (ISS) indicates that higher-rated vehicles have an overall lower average ISS compared to lower-rated vehicles. Results: Ultimately, this study shows that vehicles rated with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) new criteria had lower average ISS compared to vehicles rated under the old criteria. The 2011 NHTSA side impact rating criteria being relatively new, it has very few crashes to draw meaningful statistically significant conclusions. However, this paper establishes the fact that vehicles with higher star ratings (under experimental conditions) indeed offer increased occupant protection in the field conditions. Practical applications: Previous studies have found that safety was given priority while buying new vehicles. However, people associated vehicle safety with technologies and specific safety features rather than the vehicle’s crash test results or ratings (Koppel, Charlton, Fildes, & Fitzharris, 2008). The results from this study provide a point of reference for safety advocates to educate the drivers about the importance of considering vehicle safety ratings during a vehicle purchase.     

The effects of airbags and seatbelts on occupant injury in longitudinal barrier crashes

Introduction

Longitudinal barriers, such as guardrails, are designed to prevent a vehicle that leaves the roadway from impacting a more dangerous object while minimizing the risk of injury to the vehicle occupants. Current full-scale test procedures for these devices do not consider the effect of occupant restraints such as seatbelts and airbags. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which restraints are used or deployed in longitudinal barrier collisions and their subsequent effect on occupant injury.

Methods

Binary logistic regression models were generated to predict occupant injury risk using data from the National Automotive Sampling System / Crashworthiness Data System from 1997 through 2007.

Results

In tow-away longitudinal barrier crashes, airbag deployment rates were 70% for airbag-equipped vehicles. Compared with unbelted occupants without an airbag available, seat belt restrained occupants with an airbag available had a dramatically decreased risk of receiving a serious (MAIS 3+) injury (odds-ratio (OR) = 0.03; 95% CI: 0.004-0.24). A similar decrease was observed among those restrained by seat belts, but without an airbag available (OR = 0.03; 95% CI: 0.001- 0.79). No significant differences in risk of serious injuries were observed between unbelted occupants with an airbag available compared with unbelted occupants without an airbag available (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.10-2.68).

Impact on Industry

This study refutes the perception in the roadside safety community that airbags rarely deploy in frontal barrier crashes, and suggests that current longitudinal barrier occupant risk criteria may over-estimate injury potential for restrained occupants involved in a longitudinal barrier crash.     

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.     

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.     

Implications of Functional Capacity Loss and Fatality for Vehicle Safety Prioritization

Objective: We investigate the use of the Functional Capacity Index (FCI) as a tool for establishing vehicle safety priorities by comparing the life year burden of injuries to the burden of fatality in frontal and side automotive crashes. We demonstrate FCI’s utility by investigating in detail the resulting disabling injuries and their life year costs.

Methods: We selected occupants in the 2000–2013 NASS-CDS database involved in frontal and side crashes, merged their injuries with FCI, and then used the merged data to estimate each occupant’s overall functional loss. Lifetime functional loss was assessed by combining this measure of impairment with the occupants’ expected future life spans, estimated from the Social Security Administration’s Actuarial Life Table.

Results: Frontal crashes produce a large number of disabling injuries, particularly to the lower extremities. In our population, these crashes are estimated to account for approximately 400,000 life years lost to disability in comparison with 500,000 life years lost to fatality. Victims of side crashes experienced a higher rate of fatality but a significantly lower rate of disabling injury (0.3 vs. 1.0%), resulting in approximately 370,000 life years lost to fatality versus 50,000 life years lost to disability.

Conclusions: The burden of disabling injuries to car crash survivors should be considered when setting vehicle safety design priorities. In frontal crashes this burden in life years is similar to the burden attributable to fatality.     

The Influence of Enhanced Side Impact Protection on Kinematics and Injury Measures of Far- or Center-Seated Children in Forward-Facing Child Restraints

Objective: To evaluate the influence of forward-facing child restraint systems’ (FFCRSs) side impact structure, such as side wings, on the head kinematics and response of a restrained, far- or center-seated 3-year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD) in oblique sled tests.

Methods: Sled tests were conducted utilizing an FFCRS with large side wings and with the side wings removed. The CRS were attached via LATCH on 2 different vehicle seat fixtures—a small SUV rear bench seat and minivan rear bucket seat—secured to the sled carriage at 20° from lateral. Four tests were conducted on each vehicle seat fixture, 2 for each FFCRS configuration. A Q3s dummy was positioned in FFCRS according to the CRS owner's manual and FMVSS 213 procedures. The tests were conducted using the proposed FMVSS 213 side impact pulse. Three-dimensional motion cameras collected head excursion data. Relevant data collected during testing included the ATD head excursions, head accelerations, LATCH belt loads, and neck loads.

Results: Results indicate that side wings have little influence on head excursions and ATD response. The median lateral head excursion was 435 mm with side wings and 443 mm without side wings. The primary differences in head response were observed between the 2 vehicle seat fixtures due to the vehicle seat head restraint design. The bench seat integrated head restraint forced a tether routing path over the head restraint. Due to the lateral crash forces, the tether moved laterally off the head restraint reducing tension and increasing head excursion (477 mm median). In contrast, when the tether was routed through the bucket seat's adjustable head restraint, it maintained a tight attachment and helped control head excursion (393 mm median).

Conclusion: This testing illustrated relevant side impact crash circumstances where side wings do not provide the desired head containment for a 3-year-old ATD seated far-side or center in FFCRS. The head appears to roll out of the FFCRS even in the presence of side wings, which may expose the occupant to potential head impact injuries. We postulate that in a center or far-side seating configuration, the absence of door structure immediately adjacent to the CRS facilitates the rotation and tipping of the FFCRS toward the impact side and the roll-out of the head around the side wing structure. Results suggest that other prevention measures, in the form of alternative side impact structure design, FFCRS vehicle attachment, or shared protection between the FFCRS and the vehicle, may be necessary to protect children in oblique side impact crashes.     

Occupant injury severity from lateral collisions: A literature review

Problem

Side impacts are a serious automotive injury problem; they represent about 30% of all fatalities for passenger vehicle occupants. This literature review focuses on occupant injuries resulting from real lateral collisions. It emphasizes the interaction between injury patterns and crash factors, taking into account type of injuries and their severity. It highlights what is known on the subject and suggests further studies.

Method

We reviewed papers identified by searches in two electronic databases for the 1996-2009 publication period, and in specific journals and conference proceedings.

Results

Studies on the Primary Direction of Force (PDOF) have revealed that fatal crashes occur most frequently when the PDOF is at 3 or 9 o'clock. The risk of serious injury is two to three times higher for the near-side occupant than for the far-side occupant. Head injuries predominate in oblique impacts and thoracic injuries in perpendicular ones. A few results are also reported on side airbag protection.

Conclusions

This literature review presents an overall picture of the injuries caused by lateral collisions, though each of the papers or articles examined focuses mostly on some particular aspect of the problem. The incidence of specific injuries depends on the data source used. Very few population-based analyses of lateral collision injuries were found.

Impact on industry

New studies are needed to evaluate new protective devices (e.g., lateral airbags, inflatable curtains). Without interfering with their care duties, Emergency Medical Technicians could be systematically trained to observe the collision's specific characteristics and to report all their relevant observations to the emergency physicians to increase the likelihood of prompt diagnosis and proper care.     

Effects of initial seated position in low speed rear-end impacts: a comparison with the TNO rear impact dummy (TRID) model

Injury-producing mechanisms associated with rear-end impact collision has remained a mystery not withstanding numerous investigations devoted to its scrutiny. Several criteria have been proposed to predict the injury-causing mechanism, but none have been universally accepted. The challenge lies in determining a set of testing procedures representative of real-world collisions, wherein the results obtained are not only the same as human testing, but remain consistent with various subjects and impact conditions. It is hypothesized that one of the most important considerations in the testing methodology is the effect of initial seated position (ISP) on occupant kinematics during a rear impact collision. This study involves two parts that evaluates the effects of ISP during rear-end impact. In the first part, head acceleration results of computer simulation using Hybrid III TNO rear impact dummy (TRID) are compared to physical impact testing (PIT) of humans. The second part focuses on the computer simulation using TRID to obtain different neck parameters such as NIC (Neck Injury Criterion), NIJ (Neck Injury Predictor), neck forces and moments to predict the level of neck injury such as whiplash associated disorder (WAD) during low speed rear-end impact. In PIT, a total of 17 rear-impact tests were conducted with a nominal 8-km/hour change in velocity to 5 subjects in four different seated positions comprising of a normal position (NP) and three out of positions (OOP). The first position was a NP, defined as torso against the seat back, looking straight ahead, hands on the steering wheel, and feet on the floor. The second position was a head flex position (HFP), defined as the normal position with head flexed forward approximately 20 degrees. The third position was a torso lean position (TLP), defined as the normal position with torso leaned forward approximately 10 degrees away from the seat back. Lastly, a torso lean head flex position (TLHFP), defined as the normal position with the head flexed forward approximately 20 degrees and torso leaned forward approximately 10 degrees. The head acceleration plots from PIT reveal that for the third and fourth positions (TLP and TLHFP) when the subject torso leaned forward, the peak head acceleration for the subject decreased and there was also a delay in reaching the peak. The Hybrid III-TRID anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) was used in the same four different seated positions using computer simulation software MAthematical DYnamic MOdel (MADYMO 6.0) and the head acceleration results were compared to PIT. The comparison demonstrates that the Hybrid III-TRID ATD with MADYMO can be a reliable testing procedure during low-speed, rear-end impact for the four ISPs considered since the head acceleration plots deviated within the range of PIT head acceleration plots for different human subjects. This ensures that the second part of the study with neck injury using computer simulation results is a reliable testing procedure. It can be observed that MADYMO results have a greater error when compared to PIT when more than one OOP condition is employed as in TLHFP. All these observations would help in providing a tool to better understand the injury mechanisms and provide an accurate testing procedure for rear-end impact.     

The safety implications of vehicle seat adjustments

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to gather information on the preferred front seat position of vehicle occupants and to determine the impact of variation in seat position on safety during crashes. METHOD: The study evaluated the relationship between seat position and occupant size using the chi-square test and compared the risk of severe injury for small females and large males with regard to forward and rearward seat position using logistic regression. RESULTS: While smaller drivers sat closer to the steering wheel than larger drivers, front passengers of all sizes used similar seat positions. Additionally, the risk of injury was higher for small, unbelted females in rearward seat positions and large males (belted and unbelted) in forward seat positions. CONCLUSIONS: Occupants who adjust their seats to positions that are not consistent with required federal tests are at a greater risk for severe injury in a crash.