The association between vehicle rim type and risk of occupant injury.

OBJECTIVES: Modern vehicles generally use steel fabricated or alloy blended rims. The manufacturing process and atomic structure of the rim both yield different responses under destructive loading. The aim of this research was to investigate to what extend the type of vehicle rim may influence occupant injury risk. METHODS: A matched cohort study of frontal German In-Depth Accident Study collisions was devised. The risk of injury to various body regions was compared between vehicles with steel and alloy rims. RESULTS: Occupants in vehicles with alloy rims were at a greater risk of thoracic injury (relative risk [RR] = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.42) and thoracic abdomen injury (RR = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.10-2.39) at the Maximum Abbreviations Injury Scale (MAIS) 2+ severity. Risk of thoracic injury was greatest for the cluster of occupants seated on the nonimpacted side in frontal collisions (RR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.01-4.86). MAIS 2+ injury to the head/face/neck yielded no association (RR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.66-1.47). CONCLUSION: Alloy rims are more brittle and, as a result, destructive loading is realized with less severe impact. The critical failure increases the amount of loading that needs to be distributed by the restraint system and results in injury.

Cross-correlation between the controlled collision environment and real-world motor vehicle collisions: Evaluating the protection of the thoracic side airbag.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic side airbags (tSABs) were integrated into the vehicle fleet to attenuate and distribute forces on the occupant's chest and abdomen, dissipate the impact energy, and move the occupant away from the intruding structure, all of which reduce the risk of injury. This research piece investigates and evaluates the safety performance of the airbag unit by cross-correlating data from a controlled collision environment with field data. METHOD: We focus exclusively on vehicle-vehicle lateral impacts from the NHTSA's Vehicle Crash Test Database and NASS-CDS database, which are replicated in the controlled environment by the (crabbed) barrier impact. Similar collisions with and without seat-embedded tSABs are matched to each other and the injury risks are compared. RESULTS: Results indicated that dummy-based thoracic injury metrics were significantly lower with tSAB exposure (P <.001). Yet, when the controlled collision environment data were cross-correlated with NASS-CDS collisions, deployment of the tSAB indicated no association with thoracic injury (tho. MAIS 2+ unadjusted relative risk [RR] = 1.14; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.62; tho. MAIS 3+ unadjusted RR = 1.12; 90% CI, 0.76-1.65). CONCLUSION: The data from the controlled collision environment indicated an unequivocal benefit provided by the thoracic side airbag for the crash dummy; however, the real-world collisions demonstrate that no benefit is provided to the occupant. This has resulted from a noncorrelation between the crash test/dummy-based design taking the abstracting process too far to represent the real-world collision scenario.

Efficacy of seat-mounted thoracic side airbags in the German vehicle fleet.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic side airbags (tSABs) deploy within close proximity to the occupant. Their primary purpose is to provide a protective cushion between the occupant and the intruding door. To date, various field studies investigating their injury mitigation has been limited and contradicting. The research develops efficacy estimations associated for seat-mounted tSABs in their ability to mitigate injury risk from the German collision environment. METHODS: A matched cohort study using German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) data was implemented and aims to investigate the efficacy of seat-mounted tSAB units in preventing thoracic injury. Inclusion in the study required a nearside occupant involved in a lateral collision where the target vehicle exhibited a design year succeeding 1990. Collisions whereby a tSAB deployed were matched on a 1:n basis to collisions of similar severity where no airbag was available in the target vehicle. The outcome of interest was an incurred bodily or thoracic regional injury. Through conditional logistic regression, an estimated efficacy value for the deployed tSAB was determined. RESULTS: A total of 255 collisions with the deployed tSAB matched with 414 collisions where no tSAB was present. For the given sample, results indicated that the deployed tSAB was not able to provide an unequivocal benefit to the occupant thoracic region, because individuals exposed to the deployed tSAB were at equal risk of injury (Thorax Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (Tho.MAIS)2+ odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-2.62; Tho.MAIS3+ OR = 1.15, 95% CI, 0.41-3.18). When attempting to isolate an effect for skeletal injuries, a similar result was obtained. Yet, when the tSAB was coupled with a head curtain airbag, a protective effect became apparent, most noticeable for head/face/neck (HFN) injuries (OR = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.21-1.65). CONCLUSION: The reduction in occupant HFN injury risk associated with the coupled tSAB and curtain airbag may be attributable to its ability to provide coverage over previous mechanisms of injury. Yet, the sole presence of the tSAB showed no ability to provide additional benefit for the occupant's thoracic region. Future work should identify mechanisms of injury in tSAB cases and attempt to quantify improvements in the vehicle's ability to resist intrusion.