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.     

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.     

Driver injury in near- and far-side impacts: Update on the effect of front passenger belt use

Purpose: This is a study that updates earlier research on the influence of a front passenger on the risk for severe driver injury in near-side and far-side impacts. It includes the effects of belt use by the driver and passenger, identifies body regions involved in driver injury, and identifies the sources for severe driver head injury.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 4 + F driver injury in near-side and far-side impacts by front passenger belt use and as a sole occupant in the driver seat. Side impacts were identified with GAD1 = L or R without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front-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: Overall, belted drivers had greater risks for severe injury in near-side than far-side impacts. As a sole driver, the risk was 0.969 ± 0.212% for near-side and 0.313 ± 0.069% for far-side impacts (P < .005). The driver's risk was 0.933 ± 0.430% with an unbelted passenger and 0.596 ± 0.144% with a belted passenger in near-side impacts. The risk was 2.17 times greater with an unbelted passenger (NS). The driver's risk was 0.782 ± 0.431% with an unbelted passenger and 0.361% ± 0.114% with a belted passenger in far-side impacts. The risk was 1.57 times greater with an unbelted passenger (P < .10). Seat belt use was 66 to 95% effective in preventing MAIS 4 + F injury in the driver. For belted drivers, the head and thorax were the leading body regions for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 4+ injury. For near-side impacts, the leading sources for AIS 4+ head injury were the left B-pillar, roof, and other vehicle. For far-side impacts, the leading sources were the other occupant, right interior, and roof (8.5%).

Conclusions: Seat belt use by a passenger lowered the risk of severe driver injury in side impacts. The reduction was 54% in near-side impacts and 36% in far-side impacts. Belted drivers experienced mostly head and thoracic AIS 4+ injuries. Head injuries in the belted drivers were from contact with the side interior and the other occupant, even with a belted passenger.     

Analysis of injury mechanism of the elderly and non-elderly groups in minor motor vehicle accidents

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate the injury patterns of noncatastrophic accidents by individual age groups.

Methods: Data were collected from the Korean In-Depth Accident Study database based on actual accident investigation. The noncatastrophic criteria were classified according to U.S. experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations for field triage guidelines of high-risk automobile crash criteria by vehicle intrusions more than 12 in. on occupant sites (including the roof) and more than 18 in. on any site. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was used to determine injury patterns for each body region. Severely injured patients were classified as Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3 or higher.

Results: In this study, the most significant injury regions were the head and neck, extremities, and thorax. In addition, the incidence of severe injury among elderly patients was nearly 1.6 times higher than that of non-elderly patients. According to age group, injured body regions among the elderly were the thorax, head and neck, and extremities, in that order. For the non-elderly groups, these were head and neck, extremities, and thorax. Severe injury rates were slightly different for the elderly group (head and neck, abdomen) and non-elderly group (thorax, head and neck).

Conclusions: In both age groups, the rate of severe injury is proportional to an increase in crush extent zone. Front airbag deployment may have a relatively significant relationship to severe injuries.     

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.     

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.     

Driver Injury Risk Variability in Finite Element Reconstructions of Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) Frontal Motor Vehicle Crashes

Objective: A 3-phase real-world motor vehicle crash (MVC) reconstruction method was developed to analyze injury variability as a function of precrash occupant position for 2 full-frontal Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) cases.

Method: Phase I: A finite element (FE) simplified vehicle model (SVM) was developed and tuned to mimic the frontal crash characteristics of the CIREN case vehicle (Camry or Cobalt) using frontal New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) crash test data. Phase II: The Toyota HUman Model for Safety (THUMS) v4.01 was positioned in 120 precrash configurations per case within the SVM. Five occupant positioning variables were varied using a Latin hypercube design of experiments: seat track position, seat back angle, D-ring height, steering column angle, and steering column telescoping position. An additional baseline simulation was performed that aimed to match the precrash occupant position documented in CIREN for each case. Phase III: FE simulations were then performed using kinematic boundary conditions from each vehicle's event data recorder (EDR). HIC15, combined thoracic index (CTI), femur forces, and strain-based injury metrics in the lung and lumbar vertebrae were evaluated to predict injury.

Results: Tuning the SVM to specific vehicle models resulted in close matches between simulated and test injury metric data, allowing the tuned SVM to be used in each case reconstruction with EDR-derived boundary conditions. Simulations with the most rearward seats and reclined seat backs had the greatest HIC15, head injury risk, CTI, and chest injury risk. Calculated injury risks for the head, chest, and femur closely correlated to the CIREN occupant injury patterns. CTI in the Camry case yielded a 54% probability of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ chest injury in the baseline case simulation and ranged from 34 to 88% (mean = 61%) risk in the least and most dangerous occupant positions. The greater than 50% probability was consistent with the case occupant's AIS 2 hemomediastinum. Stress-based metrics were used to predict injury to the lower leg of the Camry case occupant. The regional-level injury metrics evaluated for the Cobalt case occupant indicated a low risk of injury; however, strain-based injury metrics better predicted pulmonary contusion. Approximately 49% of the Cobalt occupant's left lung was contused, though the baseline simulation predicted 40.5% of the lung to be injured.

Conclusions: A method to compute injury metrics and risks as functions of precrash occupant position was developed and applied to 2 CIREN MVC FE reconstructions. The reconstruction process allows for quantification of the sensitivity and uncertainty of the injury risk predictions based on occupant position to further understand important factors that lead to more severe MVC injuries.     

Crash and injury prevention estimates for intersection driver assistance systems in left turn across path/opposite direction crashes in the United States

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this research study was to estimate the number of left turn across path/opposite direction (LTAP/OD) crashes and injuries that could be prevented in the United States if vehicles were equipped with an intersection advanced driver assistance system (I-ADAS).

Methods: This study reconstructed 501 vehicle-to-vehicle LTAP/OD crashes in the United States that were investigated in the NHTSA National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS). The performance of 30 different I-ADAS system variations was evaluated for each crash. These variations were the combinations of 5 time-to-collision (TTC) activation thresholds, 3 latency times, and 2 different response types (automated braking and driver warning). In addition, 2 sightline assumptions were modeled for each crash: One where the turning vehicle was visible long before the intersection and one where the turning vehicle was only visible within the intersection. For resimulated crashes that were not avoided by I-ADAS, a new crash delta-V was computed for each vehicle. The probability of Abbreviated Injury Scale 2 or higher injury in any body region (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale [MAIS] 2+F) to each front-row occupant was computed.

Results: Depending on the system design, sightline assumption, I-ADAS variation, and fleet penetration, an I-ADAS system that automatically applies emergency braking could avoid 18–84% of all LTAP/OD crashes. Only 0–32% of all LTAP/OD crashes could have been avoided using an I-ADAS system that only warns the driver. An I-ADAS system that applies emergency braking could prevent 47–93% of front-row occupants from receiving MAIS 2?+?F injuries. A system that warns the driver in LTAP/OD crashes was able to prevent 0–37% of front-row occupants from receiving MAIS 2?+?F injuries. The effectiveness of I-ADAS in reducing crashes and number of injured persons was higher when both vehicles were equipped with I-ADAS.

Conclusions: This study presents the simulated effectiveness of a hypothetical intersection active safety system on real crashes that occurred in the United States. This work shows that there is a strong potential to reduce crashes and injuries in the United States.     

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.     

Real-World Rib Fracture Patterns in Frontal Crashes in Different Restraint Conditions

Objective: The purpose of this study was to use the detailed medical injury information in the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) to evaluate patterns of rib fractures in real-world crash occupants in both belted and unbelted restraint conditions. Fracture patterns binned into rib regional levels were examined to determine normative trends associated with belt use and other possible contributing factors.

Methods: Front row adult occupants with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ rib fractures, in frontal crashes with a deployed frontal airbag, were selected from the CIREN database. The circumferential location of each rib fracture (with respect to the sternum) was documented using a previously published method (Ritchie et al. 2006) and digital computed tomography scans. Fracture patterns for different crash and occupant parameters (restraint use, involved physical component, occupant kinematics, crash principal direction of force, and occupant age) were compared qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results: There were 158 belted and 44 unbelted occupants included in this study. For belted occupants, fractures were mainly located near the path of the shoulder belt, with the majority of fractures occurring on the inboard (with respect to the vehicle) side of the thorax. For unbelted occupants, fractures were approximately symmetric and distributed across both sides of the thorax. There were negligible differences in fracture patterns between occupants with frontal (0°) and near side (330° to 350° for drivers; 10° to 30° for passengers) crash principal directions of force but substantial differences between groups when occupant kinematics (and contacts within the vehicle) were considered. Age also affected fracture pattern, with fractures tending to occur more anteriorly in older occupants and more laterally in younger occupants (both belted and unbelted).

Conclusions: Results of this study confirmed with real-world data that rib fracture patterns in unbelted occupants were more distributed and symmetric across the thorax compared to belted occupants in crashes with a deployed frontal airbag. Other factors, such as occupant kinematics and occupant age, also produced differing patterns of fractures. Normative data on rib fracture patterns in real-world occupants can contribute to understanding injury mechanisms and the role of different causation factors, which can ultimately help prevent fractures and improve vehicle safety.     

Evaluation of Vehicle-Based Crash Severity Metrics

Objective: Vehicle change in velocity (delta-v) is a widely used crash severity metric used to estimate occupant injury risk. Despite its widespread use, delta-v has several limitations. Of most concern, delta-v is a vehicle-based metric which does not consider the crash pulse or the performance of occupant restraints, e.g. seatbelts and airbags. Such criticisms have prompted the search for alternative impact severity metrics based upon vehicle kinematics. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of the occupant impact velocity (OIV), acceleration severity index (ASI), vehicle pulse index (VPI), and maximum delta-v (delta-v) to predict serious injury in real world crashes.

Methods: The study was based on the analysis of event data recorders (EDRs) downloaded from the National Automotive Sampling System / Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) 2000–2013 cases. All vehicles in the sample were GM passenger cars and light trucks involved in a frontal collision. Rollover crashes were excluded. Vehicles were restricted to single-event crashes that caused an airbag deployment. All EDR data were checked for a successful, completed recording of the event and that the crash pulse was complete. The maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS) was used to describe occupant injury outcome. Drivers were categorized into either non-seriously injured group (MAIS2?) or seriously injured group (MAIS3+), based on the severity of any injuries to the thorax, abdomen, and spine. ASI and OIV were calculated according to the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware. VPI was calculated according to ISO/TR 12353-3, with vehicle-specific parameters determined from U.S. New Car Assessment Program crash tests. Using binary logistic regression, the cumulative probability of injury risk was determined for each metric and assessed for statistical significance, goodness-of-fit, and prediction accuracy.

Results: The dataset included 102,744 vehicles. A Wald chi-square test showed each vehicle-based crash severity metric estimate to be a significant predictor in the model (p < 0.05). For the belted drivers, both OIV and VPI were significantly better predictors of serious injury than delta-v (p < 0.05). For the unbelted drivers, there was no statistically significant difference between delta-v, OIV, VPI, and ASI.

Conclusions: The broad findings of this study suggest it is feasible to improve injury prediction if we consider adding restraint performance to classic measures, e.g. delta-v. Applications, such as advanced automatic crash notification, should consider the use of different metrics for belted versus unbelted occupants.     

Assessment of Bilateral Thoracic Loading on the Near-Side Occupant Due to Occupant-to-Occupant Interaction in Vehicle Crash Tests

Objective: This study aims, by means of the WorldSID 50th percentile male, to evaluate thoracic loading and injury risk to the near-side occupant due to occupant-to-occupant interaction in combination with loading from an intruding structure.

Method: Nine vehicle crash tests were performed with a 50th percentile WorldSID male dummy in the near-side (adjacent to the intruding structure) seat and a THOR or ES2 dummy in the far-side (opposite the intruding structure) seat. The near-side seated WorldSID was equipped with 6 + 6 IR-Traccs (LH and RH) in the thorax/abdomen enabling measurement of bilateral deflection. To differentiate deflection caused by the intrusion, and the deflection caused by the neighboring occupant, time history curves were analyzed. The crash tests were performed with different modern vehicles, equipped with thorax side airbags and inflatable curtains, ranging from a compact car to a large sedan, and in different loading conditions such as car-to-car, barrier, and pole tests. Lateral delta V based on vehicle tunnel acceleration and maximum residual intrusion at occupant position were used as a measurement of crash severity to compare injury measurements.

Result: In the 9 vehicle crash tests, thoracic loading, induced by the intruding structure as well as from the far-side occupant, varied due to the size and structural performance of the car as well as the severity of the crash. Peak deflection on the thoracic outboard side occurred during the first 50 ms of the event. Between 70 to 150 ms loading induced by the neighboring occupant occurred and resulted in an inboard-side peak deflection and viscous criterion. In the tests where the target vehicle lateral delta V was below 30 km/h and intrusion less than 200 mm, deflections were low on both the outboard (20–40 mm) and inboard side (10–15 mm). At higher crash severities, delta V 35 km/h and above as well as intrusions larger than 350 mm, the inboard deflections (caused by interaction to the far-side occupant) were of the same magnitude or even higher (30–70 mm) than the outboard deflections (30–50 mm).

Conclusion: A WorldSID 50th percentile male equipped with bilateral IR-Traccs can detect loading to the thorax from a neighboring occupant making injury risk assessment feasible for this type of loading. At crash severities resulting in a delta V above 35 km/h and intrusions larger than 350 mm, both the inboard deflection and VC resulted in high risks of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ injury, especially for a senior occupant.     

Efficacy of seat-mounted thoracic side airbags in the German vehicle fleet

Objective: Thoracic side airbags (tSABs) deploy within close proximity to the occupant. Their primary purpose is to provide a protective cushion between the occupant and the intruding door. To date, various field studies investigating their injury mitigation has been limited and contradicting. The research develops efficacy estimations associated for seat-mounted tSABs in their ability to mitigate injury risk from the German collision environment.

Methods: A matched cohort study using German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) data was implemented and aims to investigate the efficacy of seat-mounted tSAB units in preventing thoracic injury. Inclusion in the study required a nearside occupant involved in a lateral collision where the target vehicle exhibited a design year succeeding 1990. Collisions whereby a tSAB deployed were matched on a 1:n basis to collisions of similar severity where no airbag was available in the target vehicle. The outcome of interest was an incurred bodily or thoracic regional injury. Through conditional logistic regression, an estimated efficacy value for the deployed tSAB was determined.

Results: A total of 255 collisions with the deployed tSAB matched with 414 collisions where no tSAB was present. For the given sample, results indicated that the deployed tSAB was not able to provide an unequivocal benefit to the occupant thoracic region, because individuals exposed to the deployed tSAB were at equal risk of injury (Thorax Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (Tho.MAIS)2+ odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–2.62; Tho.MAIS3+ OR = 1.15, 95% CI, 0.41–3.18). When attempting to isolate an effect for skeletal injuries, a similar result was obtained. Yet, when the tSAB was coupled with a head curtain airbag, a protective effect became apparent, most noticeable for head/face/neck (HFN) injuries (OR = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.21–1.65).

Conclusion: The reduction in occupant HFN injury risk associated with the coupled tSAB and curtain airbag may be attributable to its ability to provide coverage over previous mechanisms of injury. Yet, the sole presence of the tSAB showed no ability to provide additional benefit for the occupant's thoracic region. Future work should identify mechanisms of injury in tSAB cases and attempt to quantify improvements in the vehicle's ability to resist intrusion.     

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.     

Estimated benefit of automated emergency braking systems for vehicle–pedestrian crashes in the United States

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this research study is to estimate the benefit to pedestrians if all U.S. cars, light trucks, and vans were equipped with an automated braking system that had pedestrian detection capabilities.

Methods: A theoretical automatic emergency braking (AEB) model was applied to real-world vehicle–pedestrian collisions from the Pedestrian Crash Data Study (PCDS). A series of potential AEB systems were modeled across the spectrum of expected system designs. Both road surface conditions and pedestrian visibility were accounted for in the model. The impact speeds of a vehicle without AEB were compared to the estimated impact speeds of vehicles with a modeled pedestrian detecting AEB system. These impacts speeds were used in conjunction with an injury and fatality model to determine risk of Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale of 3 or higher (MAIS 3+) injury and fatality.

Results: AEB systems with pedestrian detection capability, across the spectrum of expected design parameters, reduced fatality risk when compared to human drivers. The most beneficial system (time-to-collision [TTC]?=?1.5?s, latency = 0?s) decreased fatality risk in the target population between 84 and 87% and injury risk (MAIS score 3+) between 83 and 87%.

Conclusions: Though not all crashes could be avoided, AEB significantly mitigated risk to pedestrians. The longer the TTC of braking and the shorter the latency value, the higher benefits showed by the AEB system. All AEB models used in this study were estimated to reduce fatalities and injuries and were more effective when combined with driver braking.     

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.