Driving position field study, differences with the whiplash protocol and biomechanics experimental responses

Carlos Arregui-Dalmases, Eduardo Del Pozo, David Lessley, Jose Manuel Barrios, Mario Nombela, Oscar Cisneros, Juan Luis De Miguel, María Seguí-Gómez

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Rear-impact collisions at low speed are a leading cause of economic costs among motor vehicle accidents. Recently, EuroNCAP has incorporated in its protocol the whiplash test, to reproduce a low-speed rear impact. This paper presents a field driving study to assess the potential differences between the EuroNCAP dummy tests and actual drivers in the field, focusing on occupant position and biomechanics experimental results. A total of 182 drivers were randomly selected in two geographical areas in Spain. The driving position of each driver was recorded with a focus on the most relevant measurements for rear impact. Statistical analysis was performed to obtain means, standard deviations and density functions to compare observational seating position with that of the EuroNCAP testing protocol. The observational data showed a similar seatback angle to that used in the EuroNCAP protocol (24° in front of 25° for the protocol), a greater distance between the head vertex and the top of the head restraint (53mm compared to 39.5mm), and less distance between the occipital bone of the head and the headrest (67.9 compared to 89.3mm). Based on these data, 4 dummy tests were conducted using the dummy BioRID Hg. The baseline test was designed to reproduce the dummy position according to EuroNCAP 3.0 whiplash protocol. Three different additional tests were defined to reproduce the actual observed driving position as well as to assess a "worst case" scenario in terms of reduced seatback angle. These variations in initial driver position, comparing the EuroNCAP protocol to the observational study results, were not observed to cause significant differences in the biomechanical values measured in the BioRID IIg, The T1 acceleration was reduced less than 8%, the NIC was increased about 8%, and the NKm presented a reduction of 20%. Reducing the seat angle was observed to be more harmful in terms of NIC.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationAnnals of Advances in Automotive Medicine
Pages71-79
Number of pages9
Volume55
StatePublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes
Event55th Annual Scientific Conference on Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine - Paris, France
Duration: Oct 3 2011Oct 5 2011

Other

Other55th Annual Scientific Conference on Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine
CountryFrance
CityParis
Period10/3/1110/5/11

Fingerprint

Biomechanics
Biomechanical Phenomena
Head
Seats
Occipital Bone
Probability density function
Statistical methods
Accidents
Bone
Motor Vehicles
Spain
Economics
Observational Studies
Testing
Costs
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Automotive Engineering
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Arregui-Dalmases, C., Del Pozo, E., Lessley, D., Barrios, J. M., Nombela, M., Cisneros, O., ... Seguí-Gómez, M. (2011). Driving position field study, differences with the whiplash protocol and biomechanics experimental responses. In Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine (Vol. 55, pp. 71-79)

Driving position field study, differences with the whiplash protocol and biomechanics experimental responses. / Arregui-Dalmases, Carlos; Del Pozo, Eduardo; Lessley, David; Barrios, Jose Manuel; Nombela, Mario; Cisneros, Oscar; De Miguel, Juan Luis; Seguí-Gómez, María.

Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. Vol. 55 2011. p. 71-79.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Arregui-Dalmases, C, Del Pozo, E, Lessley, D, Barrios, JM, Nombela, M, Cisneros, O, De Miguel, JL & Seguí-Gómez, M 2011, Driving position field study, differences with the whiplash protocol and biomechanics experimental responses. in Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. vol. 55, pp. 71-79, 55th Annual Scientific Conference on Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine, Paris, France, 10/3/11.
Arregui-Dalmases C, Del Pozo E, Lessley D, Barrios JM, Nombela M, Cisneros O et al. Driving position field study, differences with the whiplash protocol and biomechanics experimental responses. In Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. Vol. 55. 2011. p. 71-79
Arregui-Dalmases, Carlos ; Del Pozo, Eduardo ; Lessley, David ; Barrios, Jose Manuel ; Nombela, Mario ; Cisneros, Oscar ; De Miguel, Juan Luis ; Seguí-Gómez, María. / Driving position field study, differences with the whiplash protocol and biomechanics experimental responses. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. Vol. 55 2011. pp. 71-79
@inproceedings{f73dc73aa1084a11b6da67c60e358aef,
title = "Driving position field study, differences with the whiplash protocol and biomechanics experimental responses",
abstract = "Rear-impact collisions at low speed are a leading cause of economic costs among motor vehicle accidents. Recently, EuroNCAP has incorporated in its protocol the whiplash test, to reproduce a low-speed rear impact. This paper presents a field driving study to assess the potential differences between the EuroNCAP dummy tests and actual drivers in the field, focusing on occupant position and biomechanics experimental results. A total of 182 drivers were randomly selected in two geographical areas in Spain. The driving position of each driver was recorded with a focus on the most relevant measurements for rear impact. Statistical analysis was performed to obtain means, standard deviations and density functions to compare observational seating position with that of the EuroNCAP testing protocol. The observational data showed a similar seatback angle to that used in the EuroNCAP protocol (24° in front of 25° for the protocol), a greater distance between the head vertex and the top of the head restraint (53mm compared to 39.5mm), and less distance between the occipital bone of the head and the headrest (67.9 compared to 89.3mm). Based on these data, 4 dummy tests were conducted using the dummy BioRID Hg. The baseline test was designed to reproduce the dummy position according to EuroNCAP 3.0 whiplash protocol. Three different additional tests were defined to reproduce the actual observed driving position as well as to assess a {"}worst case{"} scenario in terms of reduced seatback angle. These variations in initial driver position, comparing the EuroNCAP protocol to the observational study results, were not observed to cause significant differences in the biomechanical values measured in the BioRID IIg, The T1 acceleration was reduced less than 8{\%}, the NIC was increased about 8{\%}, and the NKm presented a reduction of 20{\%}. Reducing the seat angle was observed to be more harmful in terms of NIC.",
author = "Carlos Arregui-Dalmases and {Del Pozo}, Eduardo and David Lessley and Barrios, {Jose Manuel} and Mario Nombela and Oscar Cisneros and {De Miguel}, {Juan Luis} and Mar{\'i}a Segu{\'i}-G{\'o}mez",
year = "2011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "55",
pages = "71--79",
booktitle = "Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Driving position field study, differences with the whiplash protocol and biomechanics experimental responses

AU - Arregui-Dalmases, Carlos

AU - Del Pozo, Eduardo

AU - Lessley, David

AU - Barrios, Jose Manuel

AU - Nombela, Mario

AU - Cisneros, Oscar

AU - De Miguel, Juan Luis

AU - Seguí-Gómez, María

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Rear-impact collisions at low speed are a leading cause of economic costs among motor vehicle accidents. Recently, EuroNCAP has incorporated in its protocol the whiplash test, to reproduce a low-speed rear impact. This paper presents a field driving study to assess the potential differences between the EuroNCAP dummy tests and actual drivers in the field, focusing on occupant position and biomechanics experimental results. A total of 182 drivers were randomly selected in two geographical areas in Spain. The driving position of each driver was recorded with a focus on the most relevant measurements for rear impact. Statistical analysis was performed to obtain means, standard deviations and density functions to compare observational seating position with that of the EuroNCAP testing protocol. The observational data showed a similar seatback angle to that used in the EuroNCAP protocol (24° in front of 25° for the protocol), a greater distance between the head vertex and the top of the head restraint (53mm compared to 39.5mm), and less distance between the occipital bone of the head and the headrest (67.9 compared to 89.3mm). Based on these data, 4 dummy tests were conducted using the dummy BioRID Hg. The baseline test was designed to reproduce the dummy position according to EuroNCAP 3.0 whiplash protocol. Three different additional tests were defined to reproduce the actual observed driving position as well as to assess a "worst case" scenario in terms of reduced seatback angle. These variations in initial driver position, comparing the EuroNCAP protocol to the observational study results, were not observed to cause significant differences in the biomechanical values measured in the BioRID IIg, The T1 acceleration was reduced less than 8%, the NIC was increased about 8%, and the NKm presented a reduction of 20%. Reducing the seat angle was observed to be more harmful in terms of NIC.

AB - Rear-impact collisions at low speed are a leading cause of economic costs among motor vehicle accidents. Recently, EuroNCAP has incorporated in its protocol the whiplash test, to reproduce a low-speed rear impact. This paper presents a field driving study to assess the potential differences between the EuroNCAP dummy tests and actual drivers in the field, focusing on occupant position and biomechanics experimental results. A total of 182 drivers were randomly selected in two geographical areas in Spain. The driving position of each driver was recorded with a focus on the most relevant measurements for rear impact. Statistical analysis was performed to obtain means, standard deviations and density functions to compare observational seating position with that of the EuroNCAP testing protocol. The observational data showed a similar seatback angle to that used in the EuroNCAP protocol (24° in front of 25° for the protocol), a greater distance between the head vertex and the top of the head restraint (53mm compared to 39.5mm), and less distance between the occipital bone of the head and the headrest (67.9 compared to 89.3mm). Based on these data, 4 dummy tests were conducted using the dummy BioRID Hg. The baseline test was designed to reproduce the dummy position according to EuroNCAP 3.0 whiplash protocol. Three different additional tests were defined to reproduce the actual observed driving position as well as to assess a "worst case" scenario in terms of reduced seatback angle. These variations in initial driver position, comparing the EuroNCAP protocol to the observational study results, were not observed to cause significant differences in the biomechanical values measured in the BioRID IIg, The T1 acceleration was reduced less than 8%, the NIC was increased about 8%, and the NKm presented a reduction of 20%. Reducing the seat angle was observed to be more harmful in terms of NIC.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84055193474&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84055193474&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

C2 - 22105385

AN - SCOPUS:84055193474

VL - 55

SP - 71

EP - 79

BT - Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine

ER -