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.     

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.     

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.     

Occupant restraint use in Canada

Legislation regarding seat belt use in Canada is a provincial/territorial responsibility. Each of the 13 jurisdictions has enacted legislation and set the penalties regarding non-use of seat belts and appropriate child restraint systems. The federal government regulates occupant restraint systems and child restraints. In addition, Transport Canada (TC) gathers annual survey data on the use of seat belts and child restraints on Canadian roads and provides research support. National coordination toward the Canadian Road Safety Vision 2010 goal of a 40% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries related to non-belt/child restraint use and a 95% restraint usage rate is provided by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators' (CCMTA) National Occupant Restraint Program (NORP). The paper examines the history of legislation, provincial/territorial penalties, NORP, and TC involvement in promoting the use of occupant restraints.     

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.     

大客车正面碰撞乘客约束系统仿真分析

为探究约束系统在全承载客车正面碰撞事故中对乘客损伤的影响,利用有限元分析软件LS_DYNA建立某大客车正面碰撞仿真模型,并开展整车50 km/h正面100％重叠碰撞固定刚性壁障试验;从车身变形、加速度曲线和乘员损伤等3方面验证仿真模型;基于已验证的仿真模型,开展不同座椅间距、车厢位置及安全带类型的乘员运动响应和损伤等综...     

Potential of a Precrash Lateral Occupant Movement in Side Collisions of (Electric) Minicars

Objective: In minicars, the survival space between the side structure and occupant is smaller than in conventional cars. This is an issue in side collisions. Therefore, in this article a solution is studied in which a lateral seat movement is imposed in the precrash phase. It generates a pre-acceleration and an initial velocity of the occupant, thus reducing the loads due to the side impact.

Methods: The assessment of the potential is done by numerical simulations and a full-vehicle crash test. The optimal parameters of the restraint system including the precrash movement, time-to-fire of head and side airbag, etc., are found using metamodel-based optimization methods by minimizing occupant loads according to European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP).

Results: The metamodel-based optimization approach is able to tune the restraint system parameters. The numerical simulations show a significant averaged reduction of 22.3% in occupant loads.

Conclusion: The results show that the lateral precrash occupant movement offers better occupant protection in side collisions.     

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.     

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.     

Variability in vehicle and dummy responses in rear-end collisions

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

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 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.     

Rating child passenger safety laws relative to best practice recommendations for occupant protection

Background: State laws regarding child passenger protection vary substantially.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system to rate child passenger safety laws relative to best practice recommendations for each age of child.

Methods: State child passenger safety and seat belt laws were retrieved from the LexisNexis database for the years 2002–2015. Text of the laws was reviewed and compared to current best practice recommendations for child occupant protection for each age of child.

Results: A 0–4 scale was developed to rate the strength of the state law relative to current best practice recommendations. A rating of 3 corresponds to a law that requires a restraint that is sufficient to meet best practice, and a rating of 4 is given to a law that specifies several options that would meet best practice. Scores of 0, 1, or 2 are given to laws requiring less than best practice to different degrees. The same scale is used for each age of child despite different restraint recommendations for each age. Legislation that receives a score of 3 requires rear-facing child restraints for children under age 2, forward-facing harnessed child restraints for children aged 2 to 4, booster seats for children 5 to 10, and primary enforcement of seat belt use in all positions for children aged 11–13. Legislation requiring use of a “child restraint system according to instructions” would receive a score of 1 for children under age 2 and a 2 for children aged 2–4 because it would allow premature use of a booster for children weighing more than 13.6 kg (30 lb).

Conclusions: The scoring system developed in this study can be used in mathematical models to predict how child passenger safety legislation affects child restraint practices.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of the effectiveness of toe board energy-absorbing material for foot,ankle, and lower leg injury reduction

Objective: Since 2000, numerous improvements have been made to the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Incorporated (NASCAR®) driver restraint system, resulting in improved crash protection for motorsports drivers. Advancements have included seats, head and neck restraints (HNRs), seat belt restraint systems, driver helmets, and others. These enhancements have increased protection for drivers from severe crash loading. Extending protection to the driver's extremities remains challenging. Though the drivers’ legs are well contained for lateral and vertical crashes, they remain largely unrestrained in frontal and frontal oblique crashes.

Method: Sled testing was conducted for the evaluation of an energy-absorbing (EA) toe board material to be used as a countermeasure for leg and foot injuries. Testing included baseline rigid toe boards, tests with EA material–covered toe boards, and pretest positioning of the 50th percentile male frontal Hybrid III anthropomorphic test device (ATD) lower extremities. ATD leg and foot instrumentation included foot acceleration and tibia forces and moments.

Results: The sled test data were evaluated using established injury criteria for tibial plateau fractures, leg shaft fractures, and calcaneus, talus, ankle, and midfoot fractures.

Conclusion: A polyurethane EA foam was found to be effective in limiting axial tibia force and foot accelerations when subjected to frontal impacts using the NASCAR motorsport restraint system.     

Epidemiology of injury patterns for 4- to 10-year-olds in side and oblique impacts

Abstract

Objectives: With regard to the pediatric population involved in vehicle side impact collisions, epidemiologic data can be used to identify specific injury-producing conditions and offer possible safety technology effectiveness through population-based estimates. The objective of the current study was to perform a field data analysis to investigate injury patterns and sources of injury to 4- to 10-year-olds in side and oblique impacts to determine the potential effect of updated side impact regulations and airbag safety countermeasures.

Methods: The NASS-CDS, years 1991 to 2014, was analyzed in the current study. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005–Update 2008 was used to determine specific injuries and injury severities. Injury distributions were examined by body region as specified in the AIS dictionary and the Maximum AIS (MAIS). Children ages 4 to 10 were examined in this study. All occupant seating locations were investigated. Seating positions were designated by row and as either near side, middle, or far side. Side impacts with a principal direction of force (PDOF) between 2:00 and 4:00 as well as between 8:00 and 10:00 were included. Restraint use was documented only as restrained or unrestrained and not whether the restraint was being used properly. Injury distribution by MAIS, body region, and source of injury were documented. Analysis regarding occupant injury severity, body region injured, and injury source was performed by vehicle model year to determine the effect of updated side impact testing regulation and safety countermeasures. Because the aim of the study was to identify the most common injury patterns and sources, only unweighted data were analyzed.

Results: Main results obtained from the current study with respect to 4- to 10-year-old child occupants in side impact were that a decrease was observed in frequency of MAIS 1–3 injuries; injuries to the head, face, and extremities; as well as injuries caused by child occupant interaction with the vehicle interior and seatback support structures in 1998 model year passenger cars and newer.

Conclusions: Results from this study could be useful in design advances of pediatric anthropomorphic test devices, child restraints, as well as vehicles and their safety countermeasure systems.     

THOR dummy chest deflection response in oblique and lateral far-side sled tests

Abstract

Objective: The focus of this study is side impact. Though occupant injury assessment and protection in nearside impacts has received considerable attention and safety standards have been promulgated, field studies show that a majority of far-side occupant injuries are focused on the head and thorax. The 50th percentile male Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR) has been used in oblique and lateral far-side impact sled tests, and regional body accelerations and forces and moments recorded by load cells have been previously reported. The aim of this study is to evaluate the chestband-based deflection responses from these tests.

Methods: The 3-point belt–restrained 50th percentile male THOR dummy was seated upright in a buck consisting of a rigid flat seat, simulated center console, dashboard, far-side side door structure, and armrest. It was designed to conduct pure lateral and oblique impacts. The center console, dashboard, simulated door structure, and armrest were covered with energy-absorbing materials. A center-mounted airbag was mounted to the right side of the seat. Two 59-gage chestbands were routed on the circumference of the thorax, with the upper and lower chestbands at the level of the third and sixth ribs, respectively, following the rib geometry. Oblique and pure lateral far-side impact tests with and without airbags were conducted at 8.3 m/s. Maximum chest deflections were computed by processing temporal contours using custom software and 3 methods: Procedures paralleling human cadaver studies, using the actual anchor point location and actual alignment of the InfraRed Telescoping Rods for the Assessment of Chest Compression (IR-TRACC) in the dummy on each aspect—that is, right or left,—and using the same anchor location of the internal sensor but determining the location of the peak chest deflection on the contour confined to the aspect of the sensor; these were termed the SD, ID, and TD metrics, respectively.

Results: All deformation contours at the upper and lower thorax levels and associated peak deflections are given for all tests. Briefly, the ID metrics were the lowest in magnitude for both pure lateral and oblique modes, regardless of the presence or absence of an airbag. This was followed by the TD metric, and the SD metric produced the greatest deflections.

Conclusion: The chestbands provide a unique opportunity to compute peak deflections that parallel current IR-TRACC-type deflections and allow computation of peak deflections independent of the initial point of attachment to the rib. The differing locations of the peak deflection vectors along the rib contours for different test conditions suggest that a priori attachment is less effective. Further, varying magnitudes of the differences between ID and TD metrics underscore the difficulty in extrapolating ID outputs under different conditions: Pure lateral versus oblique, airbag presence, and thoracic levels. Deflection measurements should, therefore, not be limited to an instrument that can only track from a fixed point. For improved predictions, these results suggest the need to investigate alternative techniques, such as optical methods to improve chest deflection measurements for far-side occupant injury assessment and mitigation.     

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

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