Effect of ABTS and conventional seats on occupant injury in rear impacts: Analysis of field and test data

This study addressed the potential effect of higher seat stiffness with ABTS (All-Belt-to-Seat) compared to conventional seats in rear impacts. It analyzed field accidents and sled tests over a wide range in delta V and estimated the change in number of injured occupants if front-seats were replaced with stiffer ABTS.The rear-impact exposures and serious-to-fatal injury rates were determined for 15+ year old non-ejected drivers and right-front passengers in 1994+ model year vehicles using 1994-2015 NASS-CDS. More than 50 rear sled tests were analyzed using conventional and ABTS seats. An injury risk was calculated for selected ATD biomechanical responses. The results obtained with the ABTS and conventional seats were compared for matched tests based on head restraint position, ATD size and initial position and delta V. The change in risk was used to estimate the change in injury in the field by adjusting the injury rate by delta V.On average, front seat occupants were 39 years old, weighed 78 kg and were 171 cm tall. About 29.3% of serious-to-fatally injured (MAIS 3 + F) front seat occupants were involved in delta Vs less than 24 km/h and about 28.4% in a delta V of 48 km/h or greater. The average biomechanical response and injury risk in sled tests were higher with an ABTS seat than with a conventional seat. The average maximum injury risk was assessed by delta V groups for conventional and ABTS seats. The relative risk of ABTS to conventional seats was 1.34 in less than 16 km/h, 1.69 in 16-24 km/h, 1.65 in 24-32 km/h, 1.33 in 32-40 km/h, 5.77 in 40-48 km/h and 48.24 in the 56-64 km/h delta V category. The estimated relative risk was 11.90 in 48-56 km/h and 34.11 in 64+ km/h. The number of serious-to-fatally injured occupants was estimated to increase by up to 6.88-times if stiffer ABTS seats replaced conventional seats.The field data indicate that the 50