Browse Topic: Rear-end crashes
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
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
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
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the dynamic and static testing procedures required to evaluate the integrity of the ambulance substructure, to support the safe mounting of an SAE J3027 compliant litter retention device or system, when exposed to a frontal, side or rear impact (i.e., a crash impact). Its purpose is to provide manufacturers, ambulance builders, and end-users with testing procedures and, where appropriate, acceptance criteria that to a great extent ensure the ambulance substructure meets the same performance criteria across the industry. Prospective manufacturers or vendors have the option of performing either dynamic testing or static testing. Descriptions of the test set-up, test instrumentation, photographic/video coverage, test fixture, and performance metrics are included.
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the dynamic testing procedures required to evaluate the integrity of patient compartment interior Storage Compartments such as cabinets, drawers, or refillable supply pouch systems when exposed to a frontal, side or rear impact (i.e., a crash impact). Its purpose is to provide component manufacturers, ambulance builders, and end-users with testing procedures and, where appropriate, acceptance criteria that, to a great extent, ensure interior Storage Compartments or systems meet the same performance criteria across the industry. Descriptions of the test set-up, test instrumentation, photographic/video coverage, test fixture, and performance metrics are included.
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the testing procedures required to evaluate the integrity of a ground ambulance-based patient litter, litter retention system, and patient restraint when exposed to a frontal, side or rear impact. Its purpose is to provide litter manufacturers, ambulance builders, and end-users with testing procedures and, where appropriate, acceptance criteria that, to a great extent ensures the patient litter, litter retention system, and patient restraint utilizes a similar dynamic performance test methodology to that which is applied to other vehicle seating and occupant restraint systems. Descriptions of the test set-up, test instrumentation, photographic/video coverage, test fixture, and performance metrics are included.
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the test procedures for conducting rear impact occupant restraint and equipment mounting integrity tests for ambulance patient compartment applications. Its purpose is to describe crash pulse characteristics and establish recommended test procedures that will standardize restraint system and equipment mount testing for ambulances. Descriptions of the test set-up, test instrumentation, photographic/video coverage, and the test fixtures are included.
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 182