{"title":"Rear passenger restraint in frontal NCAP tests compared to the right-front passenger.","authors":"David C Viano","doi":"10.1080/15389588.2024.2419775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compared kinematic and biomechanic responses of the 5<sup>th</sup> female Hybrid III in the right-rear and right-front passenger seats in frontal NCAP tests with 2015-16 MY vehicles. It focused on the lap-shoulder belt restraint of the rear passenger.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven frontal NCAP tests were conducted by NHTSA at 56 km/h with a lap-shoulder belted 5<sup>th</sup> Hybrid III dummy in the right-rear and right-front seats. The right-front passenger had pretensioning and load limiting belts and advanced airbags with inflatable knee bolster. The rear passenger had seatbelts without pretensioning or load limiting. The kinematic and biomechanical responses of the 5<sup>th</sup> Hybrid III dummy in the rear and front were analyzed. The tests included onboard video cameras covering the rear and front passenger. Lap and shoulder belt loads were measured. The responses were compared for the two seating positions and restraint systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only one of 11 vehicles had favorable restraint of the right-rear passenger. All vehicles passed criteria for the right-front passenger. The right-rear passenger HIC<sub>15</sub> was 888 ± 314 (779 IARV) significantly higher than 242 ± 72 in the right-front passenger (<i>t</i> = 6.36, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The right rear Nij was 1.16 ± 0.19 (1.00 IARV) significantly higher than 0.46 ± 0.11 in the right-front (<i>t</i> = 9.18, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and the rear chest deflection was 46.1 ± 9.8 mm (42 mm IARV) significantly higher than 20.8 ± 5.6 mm in the right-front (<i>t</i> = 7.12, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The shoulder belt load was 8,771 ± 2,088 N on the right-rear passenger significantly higher than 3,564 ± 911 N on the right-front (<i>t</i> = 7.28, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Three of the 11 crash tests involved submarining by the right-rear passenger at 76.0 ± 7.2 ms. Two tests with submarining involved the seatbelt buckle lifting by shoulder belt load pulling the lap belt onto the abdomen. One test involved compressing the front of the seat cushion with the H-point dropping, the pelvis rotating rearward and the lap belt sliding onto the abdomen.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Restraining loads on the rear passenger were significantly higher than on the right-front passenger in 2015-16 MY vehicle NCAP tests. The HIC<sub>15</sub> was 3.7-times higher in the rear passenger than the front. The Nij was 2.5-times higher and chest deflection was 2.2-times higher. The dummy responses were significantly higher in the rear seat compared to the front seat because of greater restraining loads, submarining and a hardware failure in NCAP tests. The lack of pretensioning, load limiting and airbags involved higher injury risks in the rear passenger compared to the right-front passenger.</p>","PeriodicalId":54422,"journal":{"name":"Traffic Injury Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Traffic Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2419775","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This study compared kinematic and biomechanic responses of the 5th female Hybrid III in the right-rear and right-front passenger seats in frontal NCAP tests with 2015-16 MY vehicles. It focused on the lap-shoulder belt restraint of the rear passenger.
Methods: Eleven frontal NCAP tests were conducted by NHTSA at 56 km/h with a lap-shoulder belted 5th Hybrid III dummy in the right-rear and right-front seats. The right-front passenger had pretensioning and load limiting belts and advanced airbags with inflatable knee bolster. The rear passenger had seatbelts without pretensioning or load limiting. The kinematic and biomechanical responses of the 5th Hybrid III dummy in the rear and front were analyzed. The tests included onboard video cameras covering the rear and front passenger. Lap and shoulder belt loads were measured. The responses were compared for the two seating positions and restraint systems.
Results: Only one of 11 vehicles had favorable restraint of the right-rear passenger. All vehicles passed criteria for the right-front passenger. The right-rear passenger HIC15 was 888 ± 314 (779 IARV) significantly higher than 242 ± 72 in the right-front passenger (t = 6.36, p < 0.001). The right rear Nij was 1.16 ± 0.19 (1.00 IARV) significantly higher than 0.46 ± 0.11 in the right-front (t = 9.18, p < 0.001) and the rear chest deflection was 46.1 ± 9.8 mm (42 mm IARV) significantly higher than 20.8 ± 5.6 mm in the right-front (t = 7.12, p < 0.001). The shoulder belt load was 8,771 ± 2,088 N on the right-rear passenger significantly higher than 3,564 ± 911 N on the right-front (t = 7.28, p < 0.001). Three of the 11 crash tests involved submarining by the right-rear passenger at 76.0 ± 7.2 ms. Two tests with submarining involved the seatbelt buckle lifting by shoulder belt load pulling the lap belt onto the abdomen. One test involved compressing the front of the seat cushion with the H-point dropping, the pelvis rotating rearward and the lap belt sliding onto the abdomen.
Conclusions: Restraining loads on the rear passenger were significantly higher than on the right-front passenger in 2015-16 MY vehicle NCAP tests. The HIC15 was 3.7-times higher in the rear passenger than the front. The Nij was 2.5-times higher and chest deflection was 2.2-times higher. The dummy responses were significantly higher in the rear seat compared to the front seat because of greater restraining loads, submarining and a hardware failure in NCAP tests. The lack of pretensioning, load limiting and airbags involved higher injury risks in the rear passenger compared to the right-front passenger.
期刊介绍:
The purpose of Traffic Injury Prevention is to bridge the disciplines of medicine, engineering, public health and traffic safety in order to foster the science of traffic injury prevention. The archival journal focuses on research, interventions and evaluations within the areas of traffic safety, crash causation, injury prevention and treatment.
General topics within the journal''s scope are driver behavior, road infrastructure, emerging crash avoidance technologies, crash and injury epidemiology, alcohol and drugs, impact injury biomechanics, vehicle crashworthiness, occupant restraints, pedestrian safety, evaluation of interventions, economic consequences and emergency and clinical care with specific application to traffic injury prevention. The journal includes full length papers, review articles, case studies, brief technical notes and commentaries.