Browse Topic: Rear-end crashes
Accidents during lane changes are increasingly becoming a problem due to various human based and environment-based factors. Reckless driving, fatigue, bad weather are just some of these factors. This research introduces an innovative algorithm for estimating crash risk during lane changes, including the Extended Lane Change Risk Index (ELCRI). Unlike existing studies and algorithms that mainly address rear-end collisions, this algorithm incorporates exposure time risk and anticipated crash severity risk using fault tree analysis (FTA). The risks are merged to find the ELCRI and used in real time applications for lane change assist to predict if lane change is safe or not. The algorithm defines zones of interest within the current and target lanes, monitored by sensors attached to the vehicle. These sensors dynamically detect relevant objects based on their trajectories, continuously and dynamically calculating the ELCRI to assess collision risk during lane changes. Additionally, adherence to R79 regulations and usage of safety distances enhance the algorithms handling uncertainties in the system and environment. Additionally, separate thresholds for ELCRI in each zone allow modular lane change assessments. The inclusion of the above additions to the algorithm serves as an extension to already existing similar risk index concepts, therefore the term “Extended” LCRI has been used. The algorithm has been tested in simulated scenarios and compared with real-world data to evaluate its strengths and limitations. While very high relative velocities between the object and self-vehicle can affect ELCRI accuracy, the algorithm has proven effective in improving lane change safety under typical traffic conditions.
The impact configuration has a strong influence on the rear seat survival space intrusion pattern during severe rear-impact collisions. The relative contributions of rear seat pan forward intrusion versus rear seatback intrusion vary depending on the nature of the crash. In underride impacts, the rear wheels are pushed forward into the occupant survival space from below, causing the rear seat-pan to move forward and upward relative to the vehicle interior. Conversely, override impacts tend to produce direct seatback intrusion into the rear compartment. This study used a validated computer model from the NHTSA website to simulate various types of rear compartment intrusions under different impact configurations. The analysis also assessed structural countermeasures designed to minimize occupant survival space intrusion. The results demonstrate that underride impacts primarily drive the forward motion of the rear wheels into the structure, establishing load paths that lead to structural failures and forward propulsion of the seat pan, in contrast to the seatback-dominant intrusion observed in override impacts. Furthermore, the study shows that structural reinforcements located above, and below the beltline are effective in mitigating survival space intrusion across different rear-impact scenarios.
Rear-facing infant seats that are positioned behind front outboard vehicle seats are at risk of being compromised by the rearward yielding of occupied front seat seatbacks during rear-impact collisions. This movement can cause the plastic shell of the infant seat to collapse and deform, increasing the risk of head injuries to the infant. Current designs of rear-facing infant seats typically do not consider the loading effects from the front seatback during rear-impact situations, which results in weak and collapsible shell structures. Moreover, regulatory compliance tests, such as FMVSS 213, do not include assessments of rear-facing infant seats under realistic rear-impact conditions. as the bench used for the regulatory test lacks realistic vehicle interior components. This study emphasizes the need for revised testing methodologies that employ sled tests with realistic seatback intrusion conditions to facilitate the development of improved infant seat designs. Research shows that rear-facing infant seats designed for real-world loading conditions can improve safety and injury outcomes for infants in severe rear-impact collisions in the presence of front-occupied seats.
Safety improvements in vehicle crashworthiness remain a primary concern for automotive manufacturers due to the increasing complexity of traffic and the rising number of vehicles on roads globally. Enhancing structural integrity and energy absorption capabilities during collisions is paramount for passenger protection. In this context, longitudinal rails play a critical role in vehicle crashworthiness, particularly in mitigating the effects of rear collisions. This study evaluates the structural performance of a rear longitudinal rail extender, characterized by a U-shaped, asymmetric cross-section, subjected to rear-impact scenarios. Seventy-two finite-element models were systematically developed from a baseline configuration, exploring variations in material yield conditions, sheet thickness, and targeted geometric modifications, including deformation initiators at three distinct positions or maintaining the original geometry. Each model was simulated according to ECE R32 regulation standards, ensuring validity and compliance with relevant safety criteria. Specific energy absorption (SEA), load uniformity, and structural acceleration were used as key measures of crashworthiness. Simulation outcomes indicated that reductions in thickness significantly increased SEA due to enhanced deformability. Thinner configurations demonstrated greater energy absorption and improved load uniformity, whereas thicker components increased structural rigidity, resulting in decreased energy absorption and higher accelerations transmitted to the vehicle’s B-pillar. Material properties had moderate influence, with higher-strength materials elevating accelerations. Geometric modifications, particularly deformation initiators at specific positions, substantially improved SEA, achieving enhancements up to 42% compared to baseline. These findings highlight the potential of strategic adjustments in geometry, material selection, and thickness to significantly enhance vehicle crashworthiness and occupant safety.
Theory and principles of occupant protection for automobiles in rear-end collisions have experienced significant evolution over the decades. Performance of the seatback, specifically the stiffness of the structure, during such a collision has been a subject of particular interest and debate among design engineers, accident reconstruction experts, critics, etc. The majority of current seat designs rely on plastic deformation of the seatback structure to protect the occupant from the dynamics of the crash. In attempt to highlight and provide background information for understanding this subject, this work highlights significant events, research, and publications over the past five decades to illustrate how this subject, automobile design, government regulation and public opinion has evolved. It is observed that technology and design for improving rear-impact protection has received less attention than collisions of other principal directions of force. The different types of Anthropometric Test Devices (ATDs) used in research are quantified. Lessons may be learned by design engineers to ensure seatback safety moves forward with progress to improve future generations of automobile seats. It is also observed that the quantity of published works could be influenced by historical events as well as certain research topics trending in the automotive industry.
Rear-end vehicle collisions may lead to whiplash-associated disorders (WADs), comprising a variety of neck and head pain responses. Specifically, increased axial head rotation has been associated with the risk of injuries during rear impacts, while specific tissues, including the capsular ligaments, have been implicated in pain response. Given the limited experimental data for out-of-position rear impact scenarios, computational human body models (HBMs) can inform the potential for tissue-level injury. Previous studies have considered external boundary conditions to reposition the head axially but were limited in reproducing a biofidelic movement. The objectives of this study were to implement a novel head repositioning method to achieve targeted axial rotations and evaluate the tissue-level response for a rear impact condition. The repositioning method used reference geometries to rotate the head to three target positions, showing good correspondence to reported interverbal rotations. Under a 7 g rear impact scenario, the head-turned models were compared with the neutral position and demonstrated increases in the maximum capsular ligament distractions. Increased head rotation was associated with increased ligament distractions. The locations with critical ligament distractions shifted to the lower cervical spine (below C3) and lateral portion of the capsular ligaments for the head-turned position cases. The proposed repositioning method introduced in this study enabled the model to achieve steady head rotations with realistic cervical spine movements, increasing the biofidelity of out-of-position rear impact simulations.
This study was conducted to assess the occupant restraint use and injury risks by seating position. The results were used to discuss the merit of selected warning systems. The 1989-2015 NASS-CDS and 2017-2021 CISS data were analyzed for light vehicles in all, frontal and rear tow-away crashes. The differences in serious injury risk (MAIS 3+F) were determined for front and rear seating positions, including the right, middle and left second-row seats. Occupancy and restraint use were determined by model year groups. Occupancy relative to the driver was 27% in the right-front (RF) and 17% in the second row in all crashes. About 39% of second-row passengers were in the left seat, 15% in the center seat and 47% in the right seat. Restraint use was lower in the second row compared to front seats. It was 43% in the right-front and 32% in the second-row seats in all crashes involving serious injury. Restraint use increased with model year groups. It was 63% in the ‘61-‘89 MY vehicles and 90% in the ‘10-‘22 MYs for drivers. The corresponding rate was 59% and 91% for right-front passengers, and 48% and 91% for second-row passengers. Overall, the injury risk was 2.59% ± 0.20% for drivers, 2.52% ± 0.16% for RF passengers and 1.70% ± 0.16% for second-row passengers in all crashes. The risk was significantly higher (p<0.001) for RF passengers than for second-row occupants in all crashes. Injury risks were significantly higher in RF passengers in frontal crashes (2.58% ± 0.20% v. 1.43% ± 0.24%, p<0.001) than second-row occupants, but lower in rear crashes (0.63% ± 0.15% v. 0.99% ± 0.20%, p>0.1). The injury risk was lowest in modern (‘10-‘22 MY) vehicles compared to other model years. For second-row occupants, the risk was highest in the right-rear seat in all crashes and in frontal crashes, at 1.91% ± 0.23% (1.45%-2.36% 95th CI) and 1.82% ± 0.49% (0.86-2.78 95th CI) respectively. The risk was 41% higher (p< 0.06, 0.75% diff with 0.21%-1.70% 95th CI) for right-rear than left-rear occupants in frontal crashes. The injury risks were similar in rear crashes. The rear seat is still the safest seating position overall, even with lower restraint use in rear seats. Current mandated warning systems to place children in the rear seat are relevant. Regulations, policies, seatbelt laws and test programs seem successful in increasing restraint use and reducing injury rates to front-and rear-seat occupants. Some have suggested adding a warning to place children behind empty front seats if possible. This would tend to move children to the right side of the vehicle as the left front seat is always occupied. However, the results from this study showed that the overall injury risk was higher in the right-rear seat than in the left. The results were however only statistically significant in frontal impacts.
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 204