<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>TMA Truck Safety</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2577119</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study evaluates the effectiveness of in-vehicle safety countermeasures in reducing injury risk for TMA (Truck-Mounted Attenuator) truck occupants during collisions. With increasing incidents involving TMAs in work zones, understanding the protective impact of advanced safety features has become crucial. A review of historical TMA crash reports revealed that rear-end collisions are the primary issue, with whiplash injuries being the most common type of injury among drivers. Current in-vehicle safety countermeasures were examined, including active headrests, reactive seatbacks, and anti-whiplash systems, which were tested across six simulated collision scenarios incorporating varying vehicle weights, speeds, and impact angles. Using a biomechanical simulation model and telematic data, results indicated that active headrests, particularly with 40 mm travel level, consistently reduced injury criteria values (NIC, Nij, Nkm), effectively lowering head and neck injury risks in both straight and angled collisions. In contrast, the reactive seatback and anti-whiplash systems demonstrated mixed efficacy, performing well in low-impact conditions but poorly in high-impact scenarios. Limited high-impact telematic data, particularly with 80,000-pound vehicles, highlight the need for further validation for high-impact collision scenarios. Findings suggest that integrating advanced head restraint systems could significantly enhance TMA truck driver safety.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:50:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2577119</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design and Validation of an Active Headrest System with Integrated Sensing in Rear-End Crash Scenarios</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2587112</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Rear-end collisions represent a major concern in automotive safety, particularly due to the risk of whiplash injuries among vehicle occupants. The accurate simulation of occupant kinematics during such impacts is critical for the development of advanced safety systems. This paper presents an enhanced multibody simulation model specifically designed for rear-end crash scenarios, incorporating integrated active headrest mechanisms and sensor-based activation logic. The model combines detailed representations of vehicle structures, suspension systems, restraint systems, and occupant biomechanics, allowing for the precise prediction of crash dynamics and occupant responses. The system was developed using Simscape Multibody, with CAD-derived components interconnected through physical joints and validated using controlled experimental crash tests. Special attention was given to modelling contact forces, suspension behaviour, and actuator response times for the active headrest system. The model achieved a root mean square error (RMSE) of 4.19 m/s² and a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 0.71% when comparing head acceleration in frontal collision tests, confirming its high accuracy. Validation results demonstrate that the model accurately reproduces occupant kinematics and head acceleration profiles, confirming its reliability and effectiveness as a predictive tool. This research highlights the critical role of integrated sensor-actuator systems in improving occupant safety and provides a flexible platform for future studies on intelligent vehicle safety technologies.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 10:18:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2587112</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of a New Concept Structure for 4-Way Electric Headrest Adjustment</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2539564</link>
      <description><![CDATA[At present, electric head restraints have been developed locally, so overseas mechanisms are used. In this study, two concept mechanisms were developed, and in addition, one patent for a wing-out head restraint mechanism was additionally applied. The new mechanism has had an excellent effect on cost reduction and improvement of operating noise compared to the current one.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 09:33:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2539564</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reclined postures in vehicle seats: Preferred seatback contours and head support locations</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2512749</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Reclined postures in vehicle seats have received increasing attention due to vehicle automation, but research using current seats may not be applicable. Furthermore, published recommendations for longitudinal seat back contour in automotive seats are difficult to apply to seat design due to insufficient information concerning reference points and contours. To address these gaps, a laboratory study was conducted with a specially constructed seat with a seat back pivot coincident with the seat H-point. Thirty men and women adjusted the seatback longitudinal to their preference at varying reclined angles and three different starting contours. Preferred head support locations were measured in each condition. The participants’ selected seat back contours were strongly influenced by the starting contour but were unrelated to seat back angle and to participant characteristics. Bézier parameters were used to estimate the range of contours that would be needed to accommodate the preferences of a large percentage of sitters.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:21:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2512749</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Research on side impact parameters of child safety seat based on ECE R129 regulation and SIP optimized protection</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2035964</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In this paper, a side impact simulation model is established based on ECE R129 regulations. The four design parameters of headrest stiffness, head cushion foam density, the gap between headrest and dummy head, and seat wing shell stiffness are taken as objects to study their effects on side impact protection of children's safety seats, respectively. And through orthogonal test and variance analysis, the gap between headrest and dummy head and seat wing shell stiffness are selected as optimization parameters. Then, the response surface model of damage index aH and HPC₁₅ is established, and the optimal value is solved by multi-objective optimization method based on NSGA-II algorithm. In order to further improve the side impact protection capability of child safety seat, a side impact model of child safety seat with SIP is built. The influence of structural stiffness, length and installation position of SIP on the side protection performance of child safety seat is studied. Then the optimal design scheme of SIP is obtained by experimental design and comprehensive comparison. It is concluded by above analysis of research that: extending the contact time between the occupant's head and the side wing of the child safety seat can effectively reduce the Y-direction speed of the occupant's head during contact, thus effectively reducing the head injury of children in side impact.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2022 16:57:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2035964</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Retrospective evaluation of vehicle whiplash-reducing head restraint systems to prevent whiplash injury in Victoria, Australia</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1760158</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Head restraint systems specifically engineered to reduce the impact of whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision were introduced in the late 1990s with the aim of reducing whiplash injury risk that went 'beyond simple geometric improvements’ to head restraints. Whilst studies have shown that whiplash-reducing head restraint systems are highly effective in reducing whiplash injury, these were based on a limited range of systems including Toyota’s Whiplash Injury Lessening (WIL) seating system, Volvo’s Whiplash Injury Prevention System (WHIPS) and the Saab Active Head Restraint (SAHR) and have generally focused on Swedish crash and insurance data. However, there has been no broad real-world crash-based evaluation of the effectiveness of whiplash-reducing head restraint systems currently present in the vehicle fleet that validates the results of these studies in other populations. The objective of this study was to undertake a retrospective evaluation of vehicle whiplash-reducing head restraint systems to prevent whiplash injury using real-world crash data linked to insurance claims data in Victoria, Australia. It was found that whiplash-reducing head restraint systems are associated with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of driver and front seat passenger whiplash injury in a vehicle struck in a rear-end collision of 11.6 % (95 % CI 0.20 %, 21.6 %). The results indicate that whiplash-reducing head restraint systems are an effective technology for reducing the risk of whiplash injury to drivers and front seat passengers in a vehicle struck in a rear-end collision. Considering that around a quarter of all casualty crashes involving passenger and light commercial vehicles are rear-end, the fitment of whiplash-reducing head restraint systems to all vehicles as a standard safety feature would likely see a significant reduction in the incidence of whiplash injury.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:08:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1760158</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>3D Audio Reproduction via Headrest Equipped with Loudspeakers—Investigations on Acoustical Design Criteria</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1742931</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper focuses on the analysis and evaluation of acoustical design criteria to produce a plausible 3D sound field solely via headrest with integrated loudspeakers at the driver/passenger seats in the car cabin. Existing audio systems in cars utilize several distributed loudspeakers to support passengers with sound. Such configurations suffer from individual 3D audio information at each position.         Therefore, we present a convincing minimal setup focusing sound solely at the passenger’s ears. The design itself plays a critical role for the optimal reproduction and control of a sound field for a specific 3D audio application. Moreover, the design facilitates the 3D audio reproduction of common channel-based, scene-based, and object-based audio formats.         In addition, 3D audio reproduction enables to represent warnings regarding monitoring of the vehicle status (e.g.: seat belts, direction indicator, open doors, luggage compartment) in spatial accordance. Furthermore, individual sound zones enable superior in-car communication between seats regardless of the current driving situation.         An often overlooked topic is the acoustical privacy of in-car systems towards the exterior especially during telephony which is also tackled by the presented design as a by-product. We present how the structural shape, the assembly and alignment of the loudspeakers affects the frequency response, the effective sound pressure levels at the passenger’s ears, the inter-aural crosstalk, and the crosstalk to other seats.         We further show that person affects the sound field by movements and therefore can change the overall performance. Finally, we present our approach for 3D audio reproduction for the car cabin schematically.       ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:17:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1742931</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Injury Rates by Crash Severity, Belt Use and Head Restraint Type and Performance in Rear Impacts</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1702222</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study assesses the exposure distribution and injury rate (MAIS 4+F) to front-outboard non-ejected occupants by crash severity, belt use and head restraint type and damage in rear impacts using 1997-2015 NASS-CDS data. Rear crashes with a delta V <24 km/h (15 mph) accounted for 71% of all exposed occupants. The rate of MAIS 4+F increased with delta V and was higher for unbelted than belted occupants with a rate of 11.7% ± 5.2% and 6.0% ± 1.5% respectively in 48+ km/h (30 mph) delta V. Approximately 12% of front-outboard occupants were in seats equipped with an integral head restraint and 86% were with an adjustable head restraint, irrespective of crash severity. The overall injury rate was 0.14% ± 0.05% and 0.22% ± 0.06%, respectively. It was higher in cases where the head restraint was listed as “damaged”. Thirteen cases involving a lap-shoulder belted occupant in a front-outboard seat in which “damage” to the adjustable head restraint was identified. Review of these cases showed that intrusion and crash severity were important factors and that the term “damage” was often used by NASS investigators to represent significant occupant loading.         A mathematical simulation was conducted using MADYMO to understand the relationship between seatback stiffness and head restraint loading using a typical modern seat design. This simulation was also used to investigate the relationship between the head restraint stiffness and occupant head acceleration and neck loads and moments. This analysis supports the findings that damage to an adjustable head restraint is most likely a result of a front seat that has been supported by intruding vehicle structures and is indicative of crash severity. Furthermore, the response of biomechanical metrics to stiffness variation demonstrates a complex coupling, in particular revealing that an increase to head restraint stiffness does not directly lead to improvement in biomechanical responses. As such, the assessment of the effect of head restraint stiffness on occupant response merits additional research.       ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2020 17:26:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1702222</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Effects of Active and Conventional Head Restraints on Front Seat Occupant Responses in Rear Impacts</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1702218</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study assesses front seat occupant responses in rear impacts with active head restraints (AHR) and conventional head restraints (CHR) using field accident data and test data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). 2003-2015 NASS-CDS data were analyzed to determine injury rates in 1997+ model year seats equipped with AHR and CHR. Results indicated that less than 4% of occupants were in seats equipped with AHR. Crashes of delta-V <24 km/h accounted for more than 70% of all exposed front seat occupants, irrespective of head restraint design. Rear crashes with a delta-V < 24 km/h included 35.6% fewer occupants who sustained a MAIS 1-2 injury overall and 26.4% fewer who sustained a MAIS 1-2 cervical injury in vehicles equipped with AHR compared to CHR. In IIHS 16 km/h rear sled tests, the biomechanical response of an instrumented BioRID was evaluated on seats with AHR and CHR. HIC15 and concussion risk were calculated from head acceleration data. Test data with AHR and CHR were matched by make and model. First, older model seats with CHR were compared to models with AHR. Then, the models with AHR were compared to newer models with CHR. These analyses generally showed a reduction in head and upper neck responses with AHR compared to prior generation CHR. Further reduction in these responses was observed in newer CHR compared to prior model AHR, in general. Time at initiation of head contact was 89.1 ±13.7 ms (mean ± standard deviation) with older CHR, 62.4 ± 8.7 ms with AHR, and 60.6 ± 9.0 ms with newer CHR. However, contact duration was longest in the AHR tests. The average seatback deflection was 13.6 ± 3.6 degrees with older CHR, 12.3 ± 3.0 degrees with AHR, and 10.4 ± 3.0 degrees with newer CHR. Similar trends of decreasing concussion risk with between AHR and older CHR were observed, and concussion risk was comparable between AHR and newer CHR. However, the risk of concussion was negligible across all tests. The results from this study underline continuous improvement in injury mitigation, regardless of head restraint design.       ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2020 10:16:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1702218</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Posture and Belt Fit in Reclined Passenger Seats</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1644272</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Highly reclined postures may be common among passengers in future automated vehicles. A laboratory study was conducted to address the need for posture and belt fit in these seating configurations. In a laboratory vehicle mockup, the postures of 24 men and women with a wide range of body size were measured in a typical front vehicle seat at seat back angles of 23°, 33°, 43°, and 53°. Data were gathered with and without a sitter-adjusted headrest. Posture was characterized by the locations of skeletal joint centers estimated from digitized surface landmarks.  Regression analysis demonstrated that the pelvis rotated rearward and lumbar spine flexion decreased with increasing recline. The lap portion of the 3-point belt was more rearward relative to the pelvis in more-reclined postures, and the torso portion crossed the clavicle closer to the midline of the body. Regression equations were developed to predict posture and belt fit variables as a function of passenger characteristics, seat back angle, and the use of the headrest. Spine posture changes as the torso reclines in an automotive seat, and belt fit is altered by the change in posture. The results can be used to accurately position crash test dummies and computation human models and to guide the design of belt restraints.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:16:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1644272</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Neck Posture and Muscle Activity in a Reclined Business Class Aircraft Seat Watching IFE With and Without Head Support</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1602699</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The purpose of this study is to research if a headrest benefits the comfort of the passenger and lowers muscle activity in the neck when sitting in a reclined (slouched) posture while watching in flight entertainment (IFE) in an aircraft business class seat.No significant differences in muscle activity in the musculus sternocleidomastoid and musculus trapezius pars descendant were found between the conditions with headrest and without headrest. A significant difference in expected comfort rating was found. Subjects indicated they expect to experience more comfort with a headrest when watching IFE for a duration of two movies during a long-haul flight. This study also found a significant difference in posture. In the condition without headrest the head was more upright compared to the condition with headrest.The lack of significant difference in muscle activity and the significant difference in posture may indicate that humans tend to look for a head position that is neutral, in the sense of minimal muscle effort. This study shows that the use of a headrest may benefit the comfort experience of the passenger during flight. However, further research is necessary on the design of the headrest and the long-term effects of head support on comfort, discomfort, muscle activity and fatigue for watching IFE in a slouched posture.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:41:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1602699</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Comfortable Head and Neck Postures in Reclined Seating for Use in Automobile Head Rest Design</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1604339</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Little information is available on passenger preferences for posture and support in highly reclined seat configurations. To address this gap, a laboratory study was conducted with 24 adult passengers at seat back angles from 23 to 53 degrees. Passenger preferences for head and neck posture with and without head support were recorded. This paper presents the characteristics of the passengers’ preferred head support with respect to thorax, head, and neck posture.       ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2019 16:50:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1604339</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Simulation Approach for Identification and Design Optimization to Prevent Headrest Rattle</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1578798</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Squeak and rattle concerns account for approximately 10% of overall vehicle Things Gone Wrong (TGW) and are a major quality concern for automotive OEM’s. Seat is one of the major contributors of squeak and rattle issues observed in customer verbatim. Seat head rest rod and bezel are designed concentric to each other with a gap that allows free movement and a locking pin to position at different levels. Due to the design gap and weight of the head rest there is always tendency for relative displacement leading to rattle issues. Seat headrest, is close to the customer ear and any rattles at headrest will create annoying driving experience. Also, the contradictory requirements between efforts and rattle makes the scenario more difficult to fine tune the bezel specifications. The root cause for head rest rattle issues can also be related to free play between bezel and seat frame, free play between bezel and cap, looseness between locking pin and headrest rod etc. Identification of issue at physical testing is common practice subject to availability of test sample and road load data. Also, source identification and modification comes at the later part of the project. This paper establishes a process to perform the head rest rattle analysis by utilizing existing FE techniques. The FE analysis is performed using SNRD software available in hyper works platform. An older program seat FE model is built and validated with experimental results. Also, relative displacement measured between the headrest rod and bezel are correlated well with the simulation results. The occurrence and severity of rattle can be understood when the relative displacement is more than the design gap. Also, root cause analysis is performed by modal contribution analysis which gives an option for design sensitivity studies and compare relative displacements of different designs. The proposed methodology using FE techniques can help in identifying head rest rattle issues at early design stage.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2019 17:00:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1578798</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design for Headrest Including Guides Slot to Reduce the Neck Force in Rear End Impact</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1574642</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Whiplash injuries are one of the most common injuries reported in automotive rear end collisions. Automobile seat back and head restraints play a role in reducing neck injuries during low speed rear end collisions. Currently, many studies are being conducted on ways to reduce neck injuries. These deal with the design parameters that cause neck injuries and do not address the design of the head restraint connection structure. In this paper, we analyze the various trajectories of the headrest and propose a new design for a connection structure that can move along the corresponding trajectory. We model the headrest connection mechanism as a virtual link using kinematic modeling and perform trajectory analysis. Using the trajectory of motion, we select an oblong shape for the guide slot by fitting it with the equation of an ellipse and propose a new headrest connection mechanism. To evaluate the design of the proposed mechanism, we model the shape of the mechanism and test it using dynamic simulation under collision conditions. In addition, we design a prototype for the proposed guide, conduct a sled test, and confirm that the neck force is reduced by the proposed connection structure. In the proposed structure, the values of maximum upper neck shear and tension decreased by more than 20 % compared to existing headrest.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:31:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1574642</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Occupant Preferred Back Angle Relative to Head Restraint Regulations</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1431085</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Having, by now, introduced several new vehicles that comply with FMVSS 202a, manufacturers are reporting an increased number of complaints from consumers who find that the head restraint is too close; negatively affecting their posture. It is speculated that one of the reasons that head restraints meeting the new requirement are problematic is that the FMVSS backset measurement is performed at a back angle that is more reclined than the back angle most drivers choose and the back angle at which the seat / vehicle was designed. The objective of this paper is to confirm this hypothesis and elaborate on implications for regulatory compliance in FMVSS 202a.       ]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:20:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1431085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>