Response of Out-of-Position Dummies in Rear Impact

1994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles E. Strother ◽  
Michael B. James ◽  
John Jay Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Rear Impact

scholarly journals Is Acceleration a Valid Proxy for Injury Risk in Minimal Damage Traffic Crashes? A Comparative Review of Volunteer, ADL and Real-World Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 2901
Author(s):  
Paul S. Nolet ◽  
Larry Nordhoff ◽  
Vicki L. Kristman ◽  
Arthur C. Croft ◽  
Maurice P. Zeegers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Angular Acceleration ◽  
Traffic Crashes ◽  
Rear Impact ◽  
Comparative Review ◽  
Minimal Damage ◽  
Injury Causation ◽  
Crash Tests ◽  
Biomechanical Approach

Injury claims associated with minimal damage rear impact traffic crashes are often defended using a “biomechanical approach,” in which the occupant forces of the crash are compared to the forces of activities of daily living (ADLs), resulting in the conclusion that the risk of injury from the crash is the same as for ADLs. The purpose of the present investigation is to evaluate the scientific validity of the central operating premise of the biomechanical approach to injury causation; that occupant acceleration is a scientifically valid proxy for injury risk. Data were abstracted, pooled, and compared from three categories of published literature: (1) volunteer rear impact crash testing studies, (2) ADL studies, and (3) observational studies of real-world rear impacts. We compared the occupant accelerations of minimal or no damage (i.e., 3 to 11 kph speed change or “delta V”) rear impact crash tests to the accelerations described in 6 of the most commonly reported ADLs in the reviewed studies. As a final step, the injury risk observed in real world crashes was compared to the results of the pooled crash test and ADL analyses, controlling for delta V. The results of the analyses indicated that average peak linear and angular acceleration forces observed at the head during rear impact crash tests were typically at least several times greater than average forces observed during ADLs. In contrast, the injury risk of real-world minimal damage rear impact crashes was estimated to be at least 2000 times greater than for any ADL. The results of our analysis indicate that the principle underlying the biomechanical injury causation approach, that occupant acceleration is a proxy for injury risk, is scientifically invalid. The biomechanical approach to injury causation in minimal damage crashes invariably results in the vast underestimation of the actual risk of such crashes, and should be discontinued as it is a scientifically invalid practice.

The relationship of seat backrest angle and neck injury in low-velocity rear impacts

2005 ◽  
Vol 219 (11) ◽  
pp. 1293-1302 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Latchford ◽  
E C Chirwa ◽  
T Chen ◽  
M Mao
Keyword(s):  
Close Correlation ◽  
Neck Injury ◽  
Low Velocity ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Rear Impact ◽  
Test Specifications ◽  
Lower Neck ◽  
Rear Impacts ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

Car-rear-impact-induced cervical spine injuries present a serious burden on society and, in response, seats offering enhanced protection have been introduced. Seats are evaluated for neck protection performance but only at one specific backrest angle, whereas in the real world this varies greatly owing to the variation in occupant physique. Changing the backrest angle modifies the seat geometry and thereby the nature of its interaction with the occupant. Low-velocity rear-impact tests on a BioRID II anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) have shown that changes in backrest angle have a significant proportionate effect on dummy kinematics. A close correlation was found between changes in backrest angle and the responses of neck injury predictors such as lower neck loading and lower neck shear but not for the neck injury criterion NICmax. Torso ramping was evident, however, with negligible effect in low-velocity impacts. The backrest angle ranged from 20° to 30° whereas the BioRID II spine was adapted to a range from 20° to 26.5°. Nevertheless, in general, instrumentation outputs correlated well, indicating that this ATD could be used for evaluating seats over a 20–30° range rather than solely at 25° as required by current approval test specifications.

scholarly journals Rear-impact neck protection devices for adult wheelchair users

2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 499
Author(s):  
Ciaran K. Simms ◽  
Brian Madden ◽  
David FitzPatrick ◽  
John Tiernan
Keyword(s):  
Wheelchair Users ◽  
Rear Impact ◽  
Protection Devices

scholarly journals Design and Analysis of Go-Kart Chassis for Front, Side and Rear Impact

2019 ◽  
Vol Volume-3 (Issue-3) ◽  
pp. 718-723
Author(s):  
Chetan Mahatme ◽  
Pratik Lande ◽  
Surendra Nagpure | Abhishek Pawar | Nikhil Kharabe ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Front Side ◽  
Rear Impact

Effect of Seat Back Restriction on Head, Neck and Torso Responses of Front Seat Occupants When Subjected to a Moderate Speed Rear-Impact

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rakshit Ramachandra ◽  
Vikram Pradhan ◽  
Yun Seok Kang ◽  
Russell Davidson ◽  
Mladen Humer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Front Seat ◽  
Rear Impact ◽  
Head Neck

scholarly journals Car seat design to improve rear-impact protection

2011 ◽  
Vol 225 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Himmetoglu ◽  
M Acar ◽  
K Bouazza-Marouf ◽  
A J Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Car Seat ◽  
Rear Impact ◽  
Impact Protection
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document