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.     

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.     

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°/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°/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°/kN and a 7.7 kN maximum load (1700 Nm), and the other an all belts to seat (ABTS) with j = 1.0°/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 (Δθ) 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°/m, while the stiff foreign benchmark seat had jk = 72°/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) ∫∫ 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.     

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

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

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 comparison of injury criteria used in evaluating seats for whiplash protection

A protocol has been proposed for testing seats for whiplash protection, however injury criteria have not yet been chosen. Assuming that whiplash symptoms arise from non-physiological motions of vertebral segments, we determined the ability of proposed criteria to predict peak individual vertebral displacements. Twenty-eight volunteers were subjected to rear impacts while seated in a car seat with head restraint, mounted onto a sled. Accelerometers were used to record head and torso accelerations. The volunteer data was used as a basis for testing post-mortem human specimens (PMHS). The seat was replaced by a platform onto which was mounted each of 11 cervico-thoracic spines. An instrumented headform was mounted to the upper end of the spine. The head restraint, head-to-restraint geometry, sled, and impact pulse remained the same. Head and T1 accelerations were measured and individual vertebral sagittal (XZ) plane rotations and translations were obtained from high speed video. Proposed injury criteria (NIC, Nkm, Nte, Nd) were tested for their ability to predict average, total, and peak intervertebral displacements. PMHS specimens had chest and head X (horizontal) and Z (vertical) linear accelerations similar to volunteers whose heads hit the head restraint. The best predictors were: Nd shear and peak intervertebral posterior translation (r(2) = 0.80), Nd extension and peak extension angle (r(2) = 0.70), and Nd distraction and peak distraction (r(2) = 0.51). Therefore consideration should be given to a displacement based injury criteria such as Nd in assessment of whiplash protection devices.     

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.     

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.     

Differences in the kinematics of booster-seated pediatric occupants using two different car seats

Objective: The objective of this article is to compare the performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (CRS) mounted on 2 different seats.

Methods: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. Two different seats (seat A, seat B) were used. Three repetitions per ATD and mounting seat were done, resulting in a total of 12 sled crashes. Dummy sensors measured the head tri-axial acceleration and angular rate and the thorax tri-axial acceleration, all acquired at 10,000 Hz. A high-speed video camera recorded the impact at 1,000 frames per second. The 3D kinematics of the head and torso of the ATDs were captured using a high-speed motion capture system (1,000 Hz). A pair-matched statistical analysis compared the outcomes of the tests using the 2 different seats.

Results: Statistically significant differences in the kinematic response of the ATDs associated with the type of seat were observed. The maximum 3 ms peak of the resultant head acceleration was higher on seat A for the P3 dummy (54.5 ± 1.9 g vs. 44.2 ± 0.5 g; P =.012) and for the P6 dummy (56.0 ± 0.8 g vs. 51.7 ± 1.2 g; P =.015). The peak belt force was higher on seat A than on seat B for the P3 dummy (5,488.0 ± 198.0 N vs. 4,160.6 ± 63.6 N; P =.008) and for the P6 dummy (7,014.0 ± 271.0 N vs. 5,719.3 ± 37.4 N; P =.015). The trajectory of the ATD head was different between the 2 seats in the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes.

Conclusion: The results suggest that the overall response of the booster-seated occupant exposed to the same impact conditions was different depending on the seat used regardless of the size of the ATD. The differences observed in the response of the occupants between the 2 seats can be attributed to the differences in cushion stiffness, seat pan geometry, and belt geometry. However, these results were obtained for 2 particular seat models and a specific CRS and therefore cannot be directly extrapolated to the generality of vehicle seats and CRS.     

Effectiveness of high back belt positioning booster seats in side impacts

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential of high back booster seats to provide effective protection to children in side impacts. METHOD: This article presents a series of side impact sled tests at a velocity change of 30.5 km/h and a peak deceleration of 15.2 g, using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in two styles of commonly used high-back booster seats: a conventional polystyrene booster seat and a convertible child restraint/booster seat. A series of tests were also performed using alternative anchorage systems in combination with the boosters. Simulated side impact tests were conducted at 90 degrees and 45 degrees. RESULTS: The booster seats tested were found to be too short for the 6-year-old dummy and head contact with the side door occurred in all 90 degree tests, resulting in high HIC values. The greatest potential for achieving effective protection in side impact in this test series was observed when the convertible child restraint/booster was used in combination with a rigid anchorage system. Using this system, the body of the dummy was kept farther away from the door which resulted in a softer head impact with the side door. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this work indicate that current booster seats offer poor torso containment and no head protection for children within the recommended age range. They also showed that the level of protection provided by belt positioning booster seats can be improved through the use of rigid anchorage systems. However, for this potential to be fully realized, belt positioning booster seats must offer better containment of the occupant during the impact.     

Variations in occupant response with seat belt slack and anchor location during moderate frontal impacts

Both seat belt slack and anchor location are known to affect occupant excursion during high-speed frontal collisions, but their effects have not been studied at moderate collision severities. The goal of this study was to quantify how seat belt slack and anchor location affect occupant kinematics and kinetics in moderate severity frontal collisions. A Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy was seated on a programmable sled and exposed to frontal collisions with a speed change of 17.5 km/h. The seat belt was adjusted either snugly or with 10 cm slack (distributed 60/40 between the shoulder and lap portions) and the anchor location was varied by adjusting the seat position either fully forward or rearward (seat travel = 13 cm). Accelerations and displacements of the head, T1 and pelvis were measured in the sagittal plane. Upper neck loads and knee displacements were also measured. Five trials were performed for each of the four combinations of belt adjustment (snug, slack) and anchor location (seat forward, seat rearward). For each trial, kinematic and kinetic response peaks were determined and then compared across conditions using ANOVAs. Peak displacements, accelerations and loads varied significantly with both seat belt slack and anchor location. Seat belt slack affected more parameters and had a larger effect than anchor location on most peak response parameters. Head displacements increased a similar amount between the snug/slack belt conditions and the rearward/forward anchor locations. Overall, horizontal head displacements increased from 23.8 cm in the snug-belt, rearward-anchor configuration to 33.9 cm in the slack-belt, forward-anchor configuration. These results demonstrated that analyses of occupant displacements, accelerations and loads during moderate frontal impacts should consider potential sources of seat belt slack and account for differences in seat belt anchor locations.     

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.     

Influence of seat geometry and seating posture on NIC(max) long-term AIS 1 neck injury predictability

OBJECTIVE: Validated injury criteria are essential when developing restraints for AIS 1 neck injuries, which should protect occupants in a variety of crash situations. Such criteria have been proposed and attempts have been made to validate or disprove these. However, no criterion has yet been fully validated. The objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of seat geometry and seating posture on the NIC(max) long-term AIS 1 neck injury predictability by making parameter analyses on reconstructed real-life rear-end crashes with known injury outcomes. METHODS: Mathematical models of the BioRID II and three car seats were used to reconstruct 79 rear-end crashes involving 110 occupants with known injury outcomes. Correlations between the NIC(max) values and the duration of AIS 1 neck injuries were evaluated for variations in seat geometry and seating posture. Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were also calculated to evaluate the NIC(max) predictability. RESULTS: Correlations between the NIC(max) values and the duration of AIS 1 neck injuries were found and these relations were used to establish injury risk curves for variations in seat geometry and seating posture. Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values showed that the NIC(max) predicts long-term AIS 1 neck injuries also for variations in seat geometry and seating postures. CONCLUSION: The NIC(max) can be used to predict long-term AIS 1 neck injuries.     

Response of the Head,Neck and Torso to Pendulum Impacts on the Back

Pendulum impacts on the back were conducted to determine human head, neck and torso biomechanics. Eight unembalmed cadavers were subjected to 23.4 kg pendulum impacts at 4.4 m/s and 6.6 m/s at T1 and T6. Twenty-four tests were conducted with accelerometers on the pendulum, spine, torso, and head in the WSU 3-2-2-2 array. High-speed photography was taken. Impact displaces the torso forward, deflects the chest, displaces and rotates the head, and extends the neck. Average responses and corridors were determined for head kinematics and chest force-deflection. The head-neck response occurs in two phases. First, the head displaces upwards and rearwards 30—40 mm with respect to the torso along a 45° trajectory. Head rotation is 1O°-15° with essentially no neck moment, but high neck compression forces. Second, the head rotates from 10°-15° to 40°-55° starting with a rapid rise in neck moment and displaces 80–100 mm rearward. Anterior cervical fractures correlate with neck tension. Rib fractures correlate with impact force and chest deflection. This study provides chest bio-mechanical responses for rear impacts resulting in head displacement and rotation, neck extension and cervical-thoracic injury.     

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.     

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.     

Difference in dummy responses in matched side impact tests of vehicles with and without side airbags

Objective: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) high-hooded side impacts were analyzed for matched vehicle tests with and without side airbags. The comparison provides a measure of the effectiveness of side airbags in reducing biomechanical responses for near-side occupants struck by trucks, SUVs, and vans at 50 km/h.

Method: The IIHS moving deformable barrier (MDB) uses a high-hooded barrier face. It weighs 1,500 kg and impacts the driver side perpendicular to the vehicle at 50 km/h. SID IIs dummies are placed in the driver and left second-row seats. They represent fifth percentile female occupants.

IIHS tests were reviewed for matches with one test with a side airbag and another without it in 2003–2007 model year (MY) vehicles. Four side airbag systems were evaluated: (1) curtain and torso side airbags, (2) head and torso side airbag, (3) curtain side airbag, and (4) torso side airbag.

There were 24 matched IIHS vehicle tests: 13 with and without a curtain and torso side airbags, 4 with and without a head and torso side airbag, 5 with and without a side curtain airbag, and 2 with and without a torso airbag. The head, chest, and pelvis responses were compared for each match and the average difference was determined across all matches for a type of side airbag.

Results: The average reduction in head injury criterion (HIC) was 68 ± 16% (P < .001) with curtain and torso side airbags compared to the HIC without side airbags. The average HIC was 296 with curtain and torso side airbags and 1,199 without them. The viscous response (VC) was reduced 54 ± 19% (P < .005) with curtain and torso side airbags. The combined acetabulum and ilium force (7 ± 15%) and pelvic acceleration (?2 ± 17%) were essentially similar in the matched tests.

The head and torso side airbag reduced HIC by 42 ± 30% (P < .1) and VC by 32 ± 26% compared to vehicles without a side airbag. The average HIC was 397 with the side head and torso airbag compared to 729 without it. The curtain airbag and torso airbag only showed lower head responses but essentially no difference in the chest and pelvis responses.

Conclusion: The curtain and torso side airbags effectively reduced biomechanical responses for the head and chest in 50 km/h side impacts with a high-hooded deformable barrier. The reductions in the IIHS tests are directionally the same as estimated fatality reductions in field crashes reported by NHTSA for side airbags.     

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.     

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.