BioRID Dummy Responses in Matched ABTS and Conventional Seat Tests on the IIHS Rear Sled

Objective: This study analyzed matched rear sled tests with all belts to seat (ABTS) and conventional seats from the same vehicle model to determine differences in BioRID IIg dummy responses. Methods: The BioRID IIg rear impact dummy was placed on ABTS or conventional seats and subjected to 10 mph rear sled tests using the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) whiplash assessment protocol. Measurements in the dummy included head and pelvis triaxial accelerations, T1 and L1 biaxial accelerations, and upper and lower neck triaxial forces and moments. High-speed video captured the dummy and seat kinematics during seat loading and rebound into the lap–shoulder belts. Four vehicles were available with conventional and ABTS seats in the same model. They were the 2007–2008 Chrysler Sebring, 2006 Ford F-150, 2005–2007 Saab 9-3, and 2006–2007 BMW 3 series. Confidence intervals were used to determine significant differences between the matched ABTS and conventional seat responses. Results: Ten sled tests were available for the 4 vehicle models with ABTS and conventional seats. The upper neck rearward shear force was 75 percent higher (range 17%–156%, P < .05) in the matched ABTS compared to conventional seats. The upper neck tension was 44 percent higher (range 24%–94%, P < .05) and the lower neck extension moment was 102 percent higher (range 38%–187%, P < .05). The Saab 9-3 responses were lower than the 3 other vehicles for both the conventional and ABTS seats. There was less rearward shear and extension of the neck in the Saab seats. Conclusions: The tests show that ABTS seats involved significantly higher neck tensions, rearward shear forces, and extension moments than matched conventional seats. Overall, ABTS seats applied more load on the head and spine, had less control of neck kinematics, and had higher risks for whiplash and more severe injury than conventional seats in the same vehicle model.

[1]  P. Ivancic,et al.  Effect of Active Head Restraint on Residual Neck Instability due to Rear Impact , 2009, Spine.

[2]  J. Kihlberg.  Flexion-torsion neck injury in rear impacts , 1969 .

[3]  David S. Zuby,et al.  GLORIA: Design and Development of a Calibration Jig for H-Point Machines Used for the Measurement of Head Restraint Geometry , 2008 .

[4]  Derwyn M. Severy,et al.  BACKREST AND HEAD RESTRAINT DESIGN FOR REAR-END COLLISION PROTECTION , 1968 .

[5]  David C. Viano,et al.  Serious Injury in Very-Low and Very-High Speed Rear Impacts , 2008 .

[6]  David C Viano,et al.  Seat Properties Affecting Neck Responses in Rear Crashes: A Reason Why Whiplash Has Increased , 2003, Traffic injury prevention.

[7]  Barry Myers,et al.  The influence of seatback characteristics on cervical injury risk in severe rear impacts. , 2004, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  David C. Viano,et al.  Front-Seat Occupant Injuries in Rear Impacts: Analysis of the Seatback Incline Variable in NASS-CDS , 2009 .

[9]  Louis N. Molino,et al.  PERFORMANCE OF SEATING SYSTEMS IN A FMVSS NO. 301 REAR IMPACT CRASH TEST , 2003 .

[10]  David C Viano,et al.  Seat Design Principles to Reduce Neck Injuries in Rear Impacts , 2008, Traffic injury prevention.

[11]  David C. Viano,et al.  Neck Biomechanical Responses with Active Head Restraints: Rear Barrier Tests with BioRID and Sled Tests with Hybrid III , 2002 .

[12]  Robert A. Wolf,et al.  Preliminary ranking of injury causes in automobile accidents , 1961 .

[13]  David C. Viano,et al.  Role of the Seat in Rear Crash Safety , 2002 .

[14]  D. Viano,et al.  Rear Impact Tests of Starcraft-Type Seats with Out-of-Position and In-Position Dummies , 2011 .

[15]  Michael S. Varat,et al.  Automotive Seat Design Concepts for Occupant Protection , 1993 .

[16]  D. Viano.  Fracture-Dislocation of the Thoracic Spine in Extension by Upright Seats in Severe Rear Crashes , 2011 .

[17]  Marcy A. Edwards,et al.  Improved Seat and Head Restraint Evaluations , 2005 .

[18]  Kennerly Digges,et al.  Severe Head and Neck Injuries in NASS Rear Impacts , 2008 .

[19]  D. Viano,et al.  The effectiveness of active head restraint in preventing whiplash. , 2001, The Journal of trauma.

[20]  J. H. Morris,et al.  Safety Performance of Motor Vehicle Seats , 1993 .

[21]  David C. Viano,et al.  Occupant Responses in High-Speed Rear Crashes: Analysis of Government-Sponsored Tests , 2008 .

[22]  Priya Prasad,et al.  Relationships between passenger car seat back strength and occupant injury severity in rear end collisions: field and laboratory studies , 1997 .

[23]  L. M. Patrick,et al.  Investigation of the Kinematics and Kinetics of Whiplash , 1967 .

[24]  David C. Viano,et al.  Stiff versus Yielding Seats: Analysis of Matched Rear Impact Tests , 2007 .

[25]  Joann K. Wells,et al.  Relationship of Dynamic Seat Ratings to Real-World Neck Injury Rates , 2008, Traffic injury prevention.

[26]  Richard W. Kent,et al.  Effect of seat stiffness in out-of-position occupant response in rear-end collisions , 1996 .

[27]  D. Viano,et al.  Influence of Seating Position on Dummy Responses with ABTS Seats in Severe Rear Impacts , 2009 .