<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Integrated Evaluation of Pre-Crash Braking and Crash Injury Outcomes Using Human Body Models and ATDs</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2712074</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Traditionally, occupant safety research has centered on passive safety systems such as seatbelts, airbags, and energy-absorbing vehicle structures, all designed under the assumption of a nominal occupant posture at the moment of impact. However, with increasing deployment of active safety technologies such as Forward Collision Warning (FCW) and Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), vehicle occupants are exposed to pre-crash decelerations that alter their seated position before the crash. Although AEB mitigates the crash severity, the induced occupant movement leads to out-of-position behavior (OOP), compromising the available survival space phase and effectiveness of passive restraint systems during the crash. Despite these evolving real-world conditions, global regulatory bodies and NCAP programs continue to evaluate pre-crash and crash phases independently, with limited integration. Moreover, traditional Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) such as Hybrid III dummies, although highly repeatable, lack the bio-fidelity necessary to capture human-like kinematics during pre-crash braking events involving low g. ATDs do not simulate the spinal articulation, posture adjustments and active muscle contraction that occur during emergency maneuvers or pre-crash scenarios. To overcome these limitations, researchers have increasingly turned to Human Body Models (HBMs) such as Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS) and Global Human Body Model Consortium (GHBMC). These models enable high-fidelity finite element (FE) simulations with anatomical realism, allowing for the inclusion of active musculature and posture changes.This study aims to quantify the occupant forward excursion under pre-crash phase (due to AEB) and explore the possibility of an integrated simulation framework that evaluates occupant safety across both pre-crash and crash events. For this, the approach was to carry out full vehicle braking tests (1g braking pulse) with adult male (AM50) volunteers at different speeds to measure forward head excursion during pre-crash. These scenarios were replicated in LS-Dyna using THUMS HBM, showing strong agreement with experimental data. The resulting excursed postures were then used in crash simulations with ATDs to evaluate the effect on injury outcomes. Overall, the findings demonstrate effect of forward excursion on occupant injuries and the effectiveness of HBMs in capturing occupant kinematics, during pre-crash events.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 17:05:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2712074</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Characterization of Longitudinal Lumbar Acceleration in Low-Speed Rear-End Impacts Across Different Surrogate Occupant Types</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692078</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Longitudinal lumbar acceleration is often overlooked as a key variable when biomechanically assessing lumbar response in rear-end collisions. The objective of this study is twofold: (1) to conduct a comprehensive literature review of peak longitudinal lumbar acceleration to statistically evaluate differences between three surrogate occupant types: human volunteers, post-mortem human subjects (PMHS), and anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and (2) to construct a mathematical predictive model of longitudinal lumbar acceleration using peak longitudinal vehicle or sled change in velocity (delta-V) and vehicle acceleration in rear-end impacts. Peak longitudinal lumbar acceleration was obtained from peer-reviewed literature and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety database. Tests included belted human volunteers, PMHS, and ATD occupants seated upright in unmodified, conventional driver seats. Compared to human volunteers instrumented at L5-S1, BioRID ATDs instrumented at L1 displayed greater ratios of longitudinal lumbar acceleration to delta-V, but lower ratios when normalized by vehicle acceleration. Accelerometer placement, crash severity, test configuration and pulse duration across surrogate occupant types were found to influence overall lumbar response, relative to vehicle acceleration and delta-V. Regressions for human volunteers indicated positive relationships for longitudinal lumbar acceleration with respect to vehicle acceleration (R2 = 0.93, p<0.001) and all surrogate occupant types for vehicle delta-V (R2 = 0.96, p<0.001). Longitudinal lumbar acceleration was highly correlated to vehicle delta-V in both human volunteers and BioRID ATDs and was sensitive to crash severity and vehicle crash parameter choice (vehicle acceleration vs. delta-V). Close alignment was found between L1 BioRID ATD and L5-S1 human volunteer longitudinal accelerations at vehicle delta-Vs ≤ 14.3 km/h, suggesting that BioRID ATDs at L1 can reasonably replicate human lumbar response at L5-S1 within this crash severity range. This study quantified differences in longitudinal lumbar acceleration across occupant types in rear-end collisions and developed surrogate-specific and cumulative models for prediction of longitudinal lumbar acceleration from delta-V.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 17:09:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692078</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of an Improved Biodynamic Model for SOM-LA/TA</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2698476</link>
      <description><![CDATA[An improvised SOM-LA/TA biodynamics model has been developed for the Hybrid II Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (ATD). This improved model more accurately predicts the HIC and lumbar load of an ATD subjected to the dynamic tests specified in FAR Part 23.562.b(1) & (2). Then dynamic tests were conducted at the Impact Dynamics Laboratory at National Institute for Aviation Research at various deceleration loads of 14, 19, 25 and 32 g's. The effect of the occupant size on the response of a seat/occupant/restraint system was studied by the construction of a few non-standard occupant data bases. In an effort to improve the head injury protection for passengers seated behind interior walls in transport aircraft, a head strike test apparatus was designed and constructed. Preliminary tests were conducted to evaluate Head Injury criteria (HIC) using the head component tests. Suitable energy absorbing padding materials were identified using both analytical and experimental measures. Guidelines were also developed for design and development of infant and child seats and restraint systems. Finally, recommendations for further improvements and research to be carried out is discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 10:09:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2698476</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Advancing MASH Roadside Safety Design Standards (Year 4)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2703690</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) provides guidelines for crash testing and
evaluating highway safety features. However, these guidelines predominantly rely on research using 50th-percentile crash test dummies, potentially overlooking the safety needs of a broader group of motorists of various sizes and statures. This project aims to address this gap by investigating the suitability of the MASH impact safety requirements for a diverse range of motorists and recommending necessary adjustments. The proposed research will evaluate the existing criteria to identify potential shortcomings in
representing 5th-percentile and 95th-percentile drivers and passengers. By conducting thorough assessments and performance evaluations of highway safety standards, the project seeks to identify areas requiring adjustments to ensure the safety of all road users. The project’s significance lies in its potential to enhance highway safety measures by considering the specific needs and characteristics of all motorists.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 14:30:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2703690</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of an Alternative Shoulder for the THOR-50M</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2701098</link>
      <description><![CDATA[NHTSA has actively supported development of an advanced frontal anthropomorphic test device (ATD or crash test dummy), the THOR-50M (Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint), incorporating an enhanced shoulder design. This project was to design, manufacture, test, and evaluate an alternative shoulder for the THOR-50M, taking care not to infringe on current U.S. patents or patent applications. The alternative was to include elements ensuring no effective change in fit, function, or range of motion of the shoulder. Two concepts for the alternative were initiated, Option “A” shoulder and Option “B” shoulder. The term “baseline shoulder” refers to the shoulder assembly components described in the THOR-50M September 2018 drawing package, while the term “alternative” shoulder refers to new design components. The baseline shoulder has four key elements as seen in the baseline shoulder patent application by Been and Burleigh in 2014: shoulder pivot, shoulder housing, spring, and adjustable element to adjust the friction of the spring. Significantly changing one or more of these elements should eliminate possible patent infringements. For the two alternatives in this project, the spring and friction adjustment element found in the baseline shoulder were eliminated. A right-side version of the Option “A” shoulder and left-side version of the Option “B” shoulder were fabricated for evaluation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 09:47:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2701098</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A two-rescuer-method significantly alters CPR-quality during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an airliner cabin - a randomized, controlled manikin trial</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2646876</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Between 1/15,000-1/50,000 passengers suffer in-flight medical emergencies (IFME) with cardiac arrest accounting for 0.3 %. Confined space can have a negative impact on quality of chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), thus the authors have conducted a randomized controlled study to find the most effective approach of performing CPR in a one - vs. two-rescuer method in a simulated airliner cabin. The authors randomized 20 healthcare professionals to perform a set of 10 min Basic Life Support (BLS, chest compressions and bag-mask-ventilation) in a one- vs. two-rescuer scenario and in confined space vs. open space in a randomized order using a full-body manikin. The primary outcome was compression depth as sensitive marker for differences in CPR-quality. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02002481). Mixed ANOVAs with post-hoc false-discovery-rate adjusted pairwise comparisons indicated that one- vs. two-rescuer method showed differences in no-flow-time (confined: 8.05 +/- 0.17 vs. 24.25 +/- 1.05 s/2min and open space: 7.51 +/- 0.02 vs. 21.31 +/- 0.43 s/2min; p < 0.001) and missing releases (confined: 27.09 +/- 5.55 vs. 46.64 +/- 9.66 number/10 minutes and open space: 27.09 +/- 2.44 vs. 43.36 +/- 6.4 number/10minutes; p < 0.001). A confined space significantly elevated no-flow-time in the two-rescuer-method vs. the one-rescuer-method (24.24 +/- 1.06 s/2min vs. 21.26 +/- 0.44 s/2min; p < 0.001), whereas compression frequency and compression depth were different but still within the current recommendations of ERC/AHA in both methods per condition. Limited space in an airliner cabin has significant impact on no-flow-time in a two-rescuer-method. In case of CPR and limited access to the patient, the authors recommend a one-rescuer-method as first approach to ensure early and high-quality CPR for experienced personnel.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:29:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2646876</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Occupant and Seat Responses in Various Moderate- to High-Speed Rear Impact Conditions: Focus on Head-to-Head Restraint Interactions</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692090</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Head restraint requirements and designs have evolved to minimize the delay in head support and reduce differential loading in the neck. As a result, they have become bigger, closer to the occupant’s head, and angled forward relative to the seat back. Head restraints have been found missing or detached in the field; they may be removed pre-crash due to occupant comfort issues, or post-crash for better accessibility during extrication. Additionally, although rare, head restraints may become detached in severe rear impacts due to occupant loading.To better understand occupant-to-head restraint dynamic interactions, nine rear sled tests were conducted. The test conditions were selected to represent worst case severe loading scenarios. An instrumented 50th Hybrid III ATD (Anthropomorphic Test Device) was lap-shoulder belted on a right-front seat. The neck was equipped with a bracket and lower neck load cell designed for rear impacts.Three series of sled tests were performed wherein the kinematics and kinetics of a restrained ATD were compared across 3 seat configurations: a conventional modern seat, a rigidized modern seat, and an ABTS (all-belts-to seat). Occupant postures evaluated included seated nominally and leaning forward, as may occur in response to hard pre-impact braking and/or an initial frontal impact. Two crash severities were evaluated including a moderate speed (24 km/h delta V pulse based on Euro NCAP) and a very high-speed (49 km/h delta V) condition. Within each series, the sled pulse and ATD initial posture were held constant.The first series (Match #1) was conducted at 24 km/h with a leaned occupant. All biomechanical responses were below IARVs (Injury Assessment Reference Values). The highest responses relative to IARV were for upper and lower neck tension and extension. The Nij was greatest with the ABTS seat for upper neck and with the rigidized seat for lower neck, highlighting the importance of using both the upper neck and lower neck instrumentation.The second series (Match #2) was at 49 km/h with the nominally seated ATD, and the third (Match #3) was at 49 km/h with a leaning forward ATD. The biomechanical responses were below IARV when nominally seated. The biomechanical responses of Match #2 were more favourable than Match #3, highlighting the benefits of early energy absorption during the ride-down. For example, the upper neck Nij was 2.4 in the conventional seat, 4.2 in the rigidized seat and 5.1 in the ABTS. The corresponding lower neck Nij was 4.2, 5.5 and 2.3. The normalized chest 3 ms response was greatest in the rigidized seat, followed by the ABTS, irrespective of sitting posture.There are numerous reasons for an occupant to be out of position prior to a rear impact. In this study, the test conditions were selected to assess head-to-head restraint interactions in severe conditions, including leaning forward. Though the head restraints remained attached in all tests, the results provide insight on the seat and head restraint performance, and head and shoulder loading characteristics, in particular in some non-nominal postures.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:11:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692090</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sideswipe Impact Severity Testing and Analysis with an Instrumented Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD)</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692089</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Vehicle-to-vehicle sideswipe collisions are unique in their impact characteristics because the vehicles typically do not reach a common velocity at impact. To better understand the characteristics and dynamics of sideswipe collisions, vehicle-to-vehicle crash testing was performed to find the relationships between variables related to the impact, such as closing speed, relative angle, and overlap depth. This paper discusses data collected for three sideswipe (oblique) impact tests conducted at a testing facility in Buffalo, New York. The tests were conducted using a passenger vehicle as the sideswiping vehicle, which impacted a stationary cargo van. The passenger vehicle was towed into the van at relative angles ranging from 8 to 15 degrees and at velocities of 5 to 20 mph. Two different (but identical) passenger cars and two cargo vans were used during the testing series. Test results were then utilized to investigate a methodology of analyzing sideswipe collisions as a combination of low-speed lateral impact in conjunction with longitudinal sliding friction for application to accident reconstruction.One instrumented Hybrid III 5th percentile female Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) outfitted with a 15 pound weighted vest was placed in the front driver designated seating position according to instructions specified in the TP-208 Test Procedure. TP-208 is the USDOT laboratory test procedure for FMVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection. The testing facility performed all acquisition, setup, and instrumentation operations for the vehicles utilized in crash testing, as well as provided the reported data obtained during testing. For testing, the ATD and test vehicles were instrumented with accelerometers, which were used to record the accelerations to the occupant and vehicles throughout each sideswipe impact test. The ATD was additionally instrumented with force transducers to measure the forces experienced by the ATD during the testing. The objective of this research was to examine the collision dynamics and the instrumented ATD responses for each sideswipe test performed to provide data relevant to accident reconstruction and biomechanical analysis. The research also compared the collected test data to a proposed methodology for reconstructing sideswipe collisions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:11:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692089</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Study of Automatic Emergency Braking Effects on Human and Surrogate Passengers</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692070</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The influence of modern Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) on the head and neck behavior of the occupants in a vehicle continues to be an active area of research. Occupant kinematics and kinetics were evaluated using a vehicle equipped with a pedestrian AEB system. The vehicle was tested in several different scenarios with speeds between 15 and 45 mph. Two instrumented 50th-percentile male Hybrid-III Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATD) were positioned in certain seats of the vehicle, while minimally instrumented human volunteers occupied the remaining seats. Displacement transducers and video analysis were utilized to capture the kinematics of each occupant. The findings of this study indicate that in AEB-only events with belted-occupants, the test vehicle did not result in any occupant motion that would have placed the occupants out-of-position (OOP) had an impact occurred immediately following the AEB event. This means that when evaluating real-world AEB events, it may not be necessary to analyze and model properly seated and restrained occupant kinematics prior to an impact event when only AEB occurs. Consistent with the published literature, the kinetic results continue to show that the belted occupant exposure is significantly below any accepted injury criteria and is comparable to routine activities of daily living. Tests were also completed in two seating configurations with unbelted ATDs to evaluate the difference in vehicle braking (if any) and the excursion differences when unbelted. The study found greater excursion for unbelted ATDs compared to that of belted volunteers and provides a sample of unbelted ATD kinematics via AEB activation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:11:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692070</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluating the Effects of Improper Positioning and Unbuckling of a Restraint System on a 10-Year-Old Child ATD in a Far Side Side-Impact Environment</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692065</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Five sled tests were performed with a Hybrid III (H-III) 10-year-old child sized Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) positioned in the 2nd row left seat of a three row 2006 Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV). A HYGE Sled buck was positioned to represent/replicate a side impact collision to the passenger (right) side of the SUV, with a Principal Direction of Force (PDOF) of 60 degrees, resulting in a far side side-impact for the ATD. Of the 5 tests performed, three of the five tests were performed with a delta-V of 17 mph, and two of the tests at a delta-V of 24 mph. Of the 17 mph tests, one test was performed with a properly restrained ATD, and two tests performed with improper restraint positioning. Both of the 24 mph tests were performed with improper restraint positioning, effectively identical to the two 17 mph delta-V tests. The two improper restraint use tests (at both 17 and 24 mph delta-V) included two different improper restraint scenarios. The first scenario of improper restraint positioning involved moving the torso belt from the left shoulder, over the head, and onto the right shoulder. The second scenario involved the same belt re-positioning as the first scenario, but additionally a disengaged latch plate from the buckle, essentially creating a condition of seat belt entanglement. Each of the five tests utilized its own salvage-vehicle-harvested seat belt assembly, originating from the same model series of SUV. All tests were documented with 4 high-speed video cameras. Occupant kinematics and seat belt physical evidence were analyzed and compared across the test series. Head accelerations and upper neck loads were also evaluated. The results demonstrated the uniqueness of physical evidence left behind on components of the seat belt system, both in terms of locations of the evidence as well as the extent and geometric orientation of the evidence, across the three demonstrated scenarios (proper, improper, and improper and unbuckled). Additionally, the three scenarios exhibited significant differences with respect to the head accelerations and neck loads experienced by the ATD.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:11:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692065</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Numerical Investigation on Thorax Rib Deflections of 50th Male in Vehicle Side Oblique Pole Impact Using Human Body Model</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692063</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The WorldSID-50M dummy is widely adopted in regulatory and third-party testing programs (e.g., ECE, Euro-NCAP, C-NCAP) owing to its advanced design and superior biofidelity. However, in vehicle side oblique pole crash tests involving shoulder-covered side airbags - an expanded testing modality - excessive deflection of the upper thoracic ribs was observed. Notably, this phenomenon was absent in standard side moving deformable barrier (SMDB) tests.This study pursued two core objectives: (1) to systematically document the excessive upper thoracic rib deflection of the WorldSID-50M dummy in side oblique pole crash tests; and (2) to investigate the influence of arm-thorax interaction on such deflection using a Human Body Model (HBM) representative of a 50th percentile male occupant. Numerical simulation results reveal that while arm-thorax interaction does contribute to rib deflection, its impact on the excessive deflection of the upper thoracic ribs is negligible.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:11:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2692063</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>High Biofidelity Modification of Thoracolumbar Structure in THOR Model for Reclined Occupant</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2691959</link>
      <description><![CDATA[With the rapid development of automated driving and the increasing adoption of “zero-gravity” seats, the crash safety of highly reclined occupants has become a critical issue. The current THOR dummy, designed for frontal impacts in the standard upright posture, exhibits limitations when directly applied to reclined seating configurations, including insufficient spinal flexion capability and excessive posterior pelvic rotation.In this study, the thoracolumbar spine kinematics of the THUMS human body model, reconstructed against post-mortem human subject (PMHS) tests, were analyzed. A two-segment linear fitting was employed to characterize a “dummy-like” spinal flexion response, yielding a virtual rotational hinge located near the thoracolumbar joint of the original THOR model. The characteristic rotation angle obtained from THUMS showed a strong linear correlation with the flexion moment of the T12–L1 vertebrae. Based on this relationship, the rotational joint of the THOR dummy was unlocked during impact and assigned a torsional stiffness of 600 Nm/rad. Additional modifications were implemented in the hip region to enhance model applicability. Comparative simulations demonstrated that the modified THOR model achieved closer agreement with PMHS responses than both the Hybrid III and the baseline open-source THOR models. In particular, the posterior pelvic tilt was reduced from approximately 20° in the baseline THOR to about 10° in the modified version. These results indicate that incorporating PMHS-based thoracolumbar flexion characteristics together with targeted hip modifications significantly improves the biofidelity of the THOR dummy for reclined-occupant crash scenarios, providing a solid foundation for future dummy development and safety assessment.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:11:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2691959</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research on injury characteristics of dummies based on secondary collision between occupant and seat in metro trains</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2635599</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Collision accidents, such as frontal collisions in metro trains, can cause serious occupant injuries. This study investigates the injury characteristics of dummies based on secondary collision between occupant and seat in metro trains. A full-scale finite element model of a frontal collision was developed. Using a simplified dummy-carriage coupling model, we compared acceleration boundary conditions and explored the protective effects of three seat structures, as well as the influence of occupant numbers and seating angles on secondary collisions. Results showed that enclosed seats offered the best protection. Occupants sitting at larger angles experienced more severe injuries, with those closest to the seat side panel suffering the most. Injury severity increased with the number of occupants. The research results are helpful for understanding the mechanisms of secondary collision injuries in metro trains.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2026 14:45:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2635599</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Car passenger safety - to the next level</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2666479</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Protecting passengers in cars requires the use of seatbelts. Although most passengers are restrained today, some are not, and some are not optimally restrained. Those individuals are thereby exposed to higher injury risks in case of a crash. In line with the future mobility services, the challenges are even more pronounced, exemplified by availability of boosters for children in shared mobility, and automated driving cars with a larger spread in seat positions and self-selected postures, such as reclined. Hence there is a need to enhance knowledge on passengers' variations in size, perceptions, sitting postures and beltfit, as input to restraint developments, in addition to assessment tools and evaluation methods beyond the current standardized crash test methods. This research project, ongoing from November 2020 to June 2024, has taken knowledge and tools needed for car passenger safety assessment to the next level, focusing on restraint interaction.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 08:32:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2666479</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research on the centre-of-mass adjustment method for the head of an anthropometric test device based on a head impact biomechanics model</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2563923</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Head injury is the primary cause of serious lesions or death in automobile accidents. During crash tests, the mass and centre-of-mass position of the head of anthropometric test devices are crucial factors determining the accuracy of head injury test data. However, owing to the irregular shape as well as complex structure and material composition of the head of dummies, problems such as uneven mass distribution easily occur, resulting in deviations between the actual and designed positions of the centre-of-mass of the head. This study conducted research on head impact biomechanics and the centre-of-mass adjustment method for the head of dummies. Specifically, the biomimetic mechanical equivalent of the head was investigated, and head impact mechanics were analysed. Then, a predictive model was established for head drop mechanical response; the accuracy of this model was verified through head drop experiments. Based on the model, the law of centre-of-mass influence on the mechanical response of the dummy head was investigated, yielding an evaluation method for the different mechanical responses of the head. Using the rotational centre-of-mass measurement method, the mass and centre-of-mass position of the head were obtained. The distributed centre-of-mass adjustment method based on the principle of torque equilibrium was utilized to solve the deviations in the centre-of-mass position, the geometric dimensions of the counterweights and the centre-of-mass itself. Two counterweights were distributed on both sides of the internal cavity wall of the dummy head, resolving the positioning issue of the counterweights in the head cavity. The rationality of the centre-of-mass adjustment results was analysed using the predictive model for head impact mechanical response. The analysis results indicate that the centre-of-mass-adjusted dummy head better aligned with the mechanical response of the head in real collision scenarios, providing a new approach for the adjustment of the centre-of-mass of the head of dummies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:44:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2563923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>