The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of sedan wheelbase size on the kinematics and injury severity of left rear-seat occupants by using the finite element (FE) modeling method. A total of 270 cases with detailed accidental information records were analyzed to define the influence laws of wheelbase size and impact speed on the injury of left rear-seat occupants. First, the THUMS (Ver. 4.0.2) FE model was used to reconstruct two small offset collisions with different wheelbases size and unbelted left rear-seat occupants, and the effectiveness of the accident model was verified. Then, seatbelts were added to the left rear-seat occupant models. Finally, LS-DYNA software was used to study the correlation among head and chest injury and five sedan wheelbases sizes (2300, 2450, 2600, 2750, and 2905 mm) at three impact velocities (54, 64, and 74 km/h). The results showed that the occupants’ chest injuries showed an upward trend at the impact velocity of 64 and 74 km/h when the wheelbases sizes was reduced to 2300 mm. This research illustrated that at higher impact velocities, excessively small wheelbases might increase the chest injury severity of left rear-seat occupants.
Traffic Management Bureau of Ministry of Public Security. Road traffic accident statistics’ annual report of PRC (2018). Beijing: Traffic Management Bureau of Ministry of Public Security, 2019.
3.
AugensteinJPerdeckEStrattonJ, et al. Characteristics of crashes that increase the risk of serious injuries. Ann Proc2003; 47: 561–576.
4.
RayMHHiranmayeeK.Evaluating human risk in side impact collisions with roadside objects. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board2000; 1720: 67–71.
5.
YeYLYangJFuQ.Discussion of load path design for front crash. Shanghai Auto2009; 4: 11–15.
6.
BrumbelowMLZubyDS. Impact and injury patterns in frontal crashes of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection, In: Proceedings of the 21st ESV Conference; Stuttgart, Germany, June, 2009. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
7.
SteffanHMoserA. The collision and trajectory models of PC-CRASH. International Congress & Exposition, SAE Technical Paper Series, 1996.
8.
EichbergerASchimplWWerberC, et al. A new crash test configuration for car-to-car frontal collisions with small lateral overlap. Int J Crashworthiness2007; 12(2): 93–100.
9.
SherwoodCPNolanJMZubyDS. Characteristics of small overlap crashes. In: Proceedings of the 21st International ESV Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 2009. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
10.
KikuchiTNakaoTWatanabeT, et al. An investigation of injury factors concerning drivers in vehicles involved in small-overlap frontal crashes. SAE Int J Passenger Cars Mech Syst2012; 5(2): 801–806.
11.
MuellerBCSherwoodCPNolanJP, et al. Repeatability of the IIHS small overlap frontal crash tests. Natioanal Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2013.
12.
LiuHLiGLeiB, et al. The analysis and research of dummy injury of a domestic vehicle’s small overlap crash. Int J Autom Technol2018; 4: 50–57.
13.
FeiJChenKYueZY, et al. Study on development and optimization of driver restraint system for car-to-car oblique collision. Chin J Automot Eng2014; 95(3): 393–406.
14.
NguyenPTLLeeJYYimHJ, et al. Analysis of vehicle structural performance during small-overlap frontal impact. Int J Autom Technol2015; 16(5): 799–805.
15.
LiuQKChenGChenC, et al. The automobile body frontal structure design based on the research of small overlap collision force. Sci Technol Eng2017; 17(14): 92–96.
16.
MuellerBCBrethwaiteASZubyDS, et al. Structural design strategies for improved small overlap crashworthiness performance. SAE technical paper 2014-22-0006, 2014, pp.145–173.
17.
XavierDSAdriàF, et al. Crashworthiness analysis of real small overlap impact (SOI) accidents in Spain and comparison to SOI tests. In: Proceedings of the 11th International forum of automotive traffic safety, Chongqing, China, 2014, 91–99.
18.
HuangM.Vehicle crash mechanics. Basics of impact and excitation modeling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press, 2002, pp.82–90.
19.
KarushS. Small overlap crashes: new consumer-test program aims for even safer vehicles.. IIHS Status Report 2012-12-10, 2012; 47(6): 1–6. https://trid.trb.org/view/1243855 (accessed 27 September 2019).
20.
PeddiSN.Selection of optimal design parameters to achieve improved occupant performance in frontal impacts. SAE Tech Paper2013; 24(6): 19–21.
21.
LamJDennisNJDixJ, et al. A Comparison of the NHTSA research offset oblique and small overlap impact tests and the IIHS moderate and small overlap tests. SAE Int J Transp Saf2014; 2(2): 268–278.
22.
DurbinDRJermakianJSKallanMJ, et al. Rear seat safety: variation in protection by occupant, crash and vehicle characteristics. Accid Anal Prev.2015; vol. 80: 185–192.
23.
FreedmanMLeviSZadorP, et al. The effectiveness of enhanced seat belt reminder systems: observational field data collection methodology and findings. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2007.
24.
WangYXiaoHTZhangHY, et al. Study on side impact of 2018 version C-NCAP. Automot Eng2017; 1: 41–46.
25.
PengCZhangDWYangL, et al. Study on injury to occupants in car left rear line of seats in offset collision. China Saf Sci J2019; 3: 21–26.
26.
ArbogastKBLoceyCMHammondR, et al. Injury risk for rear-seated occupants in small overlap crashes. Ann Adv Automot Med2013; 57: 267–280.
27.
LiuSYangXCuiJ, et al. A novel pixel-based method to estimate the instantaneous velocity of a vehicle from CCTV images. J Forensic Sci2017; 62(4): 1071–1074.
28.
ManageCLThorntonPH.Design considerations in energy absorption by structural collapse. SAE Technical Paper Series1978; 87(2): 2401–2055.
29.
SchneiderDCNahumAM.Impact studies of facial bones and skull. SAE technical paper, 1972.
30.
PowellWROjalaSJAdvaniSH, et al. Cadaver femur responses to longitudinal impacts. SAE technical paper, 1975.
31.
MertzHJPrasadPIrwinAL. Injury risk curves for children and adults in frontal and rear collisions. In: Proceedings of the 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference, 1997, vol. 41, pp.13–30. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
32.
CavanaughJM. The biomechanics of thoracic trauma. In: NahumAMMelvinJW(eds.) Accidental injury biomechanics and prevention. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1993, pp. 362–90.
33.
SchafferKEMcNultyWPJrCareyC, et al. Mechanisms in development of interstitial emphysema and air embolism on decompression from depth. J Appl Physiol1958; 13(1): 15–29.
34.
KallierisDRizzettiAMatternR.Some observation to the skull-brain trauma, In: Advisory group for aerospace research and development conference, 1997, vol. 597, pp.1–4.
35.
BeckBBrownJBilstonLE.Assessment of vehicle and restraint design changes for mitigating rear seat occupant injuries. Traffic Inj Prev2014; 15(7): 711–719.
36.
HuangXZhangJYLuSB, et al. CAE analysis and lightweight design of a car rear seat frame. Automot Technol2010; (5):18–22.
37.
HassanMTZMeguidSA. Effect of seat belt and head restraint on occupant’s response during rear-end collision. Int J Mech Mater Des2018; 14(2): 231–242.
38.
BaoSXiongHBuonarosaML, et al. Using naturalistic driving data to examine drivers’ seatbelt use behavior: Comparison between teens and adults. J Saf Res2015; 54: 69–73.
39.
HuangJLiuXHuYZ, et al. Protection effect on rear seat female occupant by airbag-belt. J Automot Saf Energy2019; 10(1): 74–81.
40.
RaglandCLFessahaieOEllottD. Evaluation of frontal offset/oblique crash test conditions. In: Proceedings of the 17th International technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, Amsterdam, Netherland, 2001, pp. 17–385.
41.
WangZGZhouJHYinZY, et al. International traffic medicine. Wuhan, China: Hubei Science and Technology Publishing House, 2020.
42.
LiBRuanSLiHY, et al. Effects of dynamic brain response under different setting of skull-brain interface and mesh density division of cerebrospinal fluid. J Med Biomech2019; 34(6): 586–593.
43.
YangJKPengYXuW, et al. Establishment of a head finite element model of craniocerebral trauma and model validation. J Clin Rehabil Tissue Eng Res2009; 13(52): 10391–10396.
44.
HallmanJJYoganandanNPintarFA, et al. Injury differences between small and large overlap frontal crashes. Ann Adv Automot Med2011; 55(55): 147–157.
45.
MitchellRJBambachMRTosonB.Injury risk for matched front and rear seat car passengers by injury severity and crash type: An exploratory study. Accid Anal Prev2015; 82: 171–179.
46.
ZhangGHZhangDWXiaoLY, et al. Research on rear passenger injury in vehicle oblique crash. China Saf Sci J2018; 028(003): 38–43.
