Comparison of Head, Neck, and Chest Injury Risks between Front and Rear-Seated Hybrid III 50th-Percentile Male ATDs in Matched Frontal NCAP Tests

Abstract

<div>The objective of this study was to compare head, neck, and chest injury risks between front and rear-seated Hybrid III 50th-percentile male anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) during matched frontal impacts. Seven vehicles were converted to rear seat test bucks (two sedans, three mid-size SUVs, one subcompact SUV, and one minivan) and then used to perform sled testing with vehicle-specific frontal NCAP acceleration pulses and a rear seated (i.e., second row) Hybrid III 50th male ATD. Matched front seat Hybrid III 50th male ATD data were obtained from the NHTSA Vehicle Crash Test Database for each vehicle. HIC15, Nij, maximum chest acceleration, and maximum chest deflection were compared between the front and rear seat tests, as well as between vehicles with conventional and advanced three-point belt restraint systems in the rear seat. Additionally, a modified version of the NCAP frontal star rating was calculated for the front and rear seat tests. All injury metrics, except for chest acceleration, were higher in the rear seat compared to the front. In addition, injury thresholds were exceeded or nearly exceeded in the rear seat for Nij in three vehicles, chest acceleration in one vehicle, and chest deflection in three vehicles, while no thresholds were exceeded in the front seat. When comparing advanced and conventional restraints in the rear seat, all injury metrics were higher in the vehicles with conventional restraints. All vehicles with conventional restraints in the rear had a star rating of 1, while those with advanced restraints in the rear ranged from 2 to 3. Conversely, all vehicles had 5 stars for the front seat, except one that had 4 stars. Overall, these data highlight the disparity between front and rear seat occupant protection and the benefits of advanced rear seat safety restraints, and the need for future testing.</div>