processes
Article
Optimization Design and Injury Analysis of Driver’s Restraint
System in Sedan Small Offset Collision
Xiuju Yang 1 , Jingjing Shi 2 , Qianying Fu 2 , Shanshan Pu 2 , Zhixin Pan 2 , Chunxiao Lian 2 , Zhiyong Yin 1,3, *,
Shengxiong Liu 2, * and Guixue Wang 1, *
Citation: Yang, X.; Shi, J.; Fu, Q.; Pu,
S.; Pan, Z.; Lian, C.; Yin, Z.; Liu, S.;
Wang, G. Optimization Design and
Injury Analysis of Driver’s Restraint
System in Sedan Small Offset
Collision. Processes 2022, 10, 940.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10050940
Academic Editors: Guangdong Tian,
Amir M. Fathollahi-Fard, Vigen
H. Arakelian, Zhiwu Li and
Zixian Zhang
Received: 27 March 2022
Accepted: 4 May 2022
Published: 9 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Processes 2022, 10, 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10050940
1 Key Laboratory for Biorheological Science and Technology of Ministry of Education,
State and Local Joint Engineering Laboratory for Vascular Implants, College of Bioengineering,
Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China; yangxiuju00182@sina.com
2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Chongqing University of
Technology, Chongqing 400054, China; lychee@2020.cqut.cn (J.S.); fyq13858101251@icloud.com (Q.F.);
pssxjh170601@139.com (S.P.); panxin@2019.cqut.edu.cn (Z.P.); lcx19961215@sina.com (C.L.)
3 China Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co., Ltd., Chongqing 401122, China
* Correspondence: yinzhiyong@caeri.com.cn (Z.Y.); shengxiongliu@cqut.edu.cn (S.L.);
wanggx@cqu.edu.cn (G.W.)
Abstract: A combination of airbag, seatbelt, and other restraint systems greatly reduces injury to
drivers in small offset collisions. However, the airbag causes accidental injury to the driver in the
deployment process. To maximize the protection effect of the restraint system on the driver, this
study proposes a pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt. A small offset collision accident with video
information was simulated by using a Neon sedan and the THUMS (v.4.0.2) finite element model.
The effectiveness of the accident model and the matching use of a pre-tensioned force-limiting
seatbelt and airbag for driver protection were verified. To obtain the best parameter matching of
protection effect, first, the seatbelt force-limiting A, pre-tensioned force B, pre-tensioned time C, airbag
ignition time D, and mass flow coefficient E were selected as influencing factors, and orthogonal
tests with different factor levels were designed. Then, the direct analysis method was applied to
analyze the influence laws of each factor on driver dynamic response and injury. In addition, the
radial basis function surrogate model was constructed by synthesizing each kind of critical injury
value to the human body. Combined with NSGA-II multi-objective genetic algorithm, the structural
performance parameters of the restraint system were optimized and matched. Results showed that
the optimal protection matching parameters of the restraint system were 4933.5 N−2499.9 N−16
ms−15.3 ms−0.5 (A−B−C−D−E). Finally, the best matching parameters were input into the accident
model for verification. After optimization, the WIC and Nij of drivers were reduced by 37.9% and
45.3%, respectively. The results show that the optimized restraint system can protect the driver
the most.
Keywords: small offset collision; accident reconstruction; pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt; multi-
objective optimization; driver injury
1. Introduction
In the process of automobile collision, frontal collision is the main type of automobile
collision accident. Small offset collisions account for approximately 1/5 of frontal collision
fatalities [1].
In 2012, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety of the United States released
the test specification [2] and evaluation standard [3] for small offset frontal collision of
vehicles. In a small offset frontal collision, the impact force is applied to the outside of
the longitudinal frame track of the vehicle [4]. Moreover, the front suspension, left front
wheel, and bottom of the A-pillar play a major role in absorbing energy during the collision.
Therefore, occupant compartment invasion is the main factor that causes driver injury.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes
Processes 2022, 10, 940 2 of 18

Mueller [5] proposed to strengthen the passenger compartment, increase the struc-
ture to promote lateral translation of the vehicle, and design the wing plate with better
energy absorption effect. This method reduced the extent of intrusion into the occupant
compartment and improved the motion posture of the dummy. Chen et al. [6] proposed to
optimize crashworthiness in the A-pillar and side panels by filling structural foam, adding
roof beams, and strengthening the rear wall of the cab. Urbina et al. [7] and Elliott et al. [8]
proposed different energy-absorbing structures to improve crashworthiness.
Compared with 100% frontal overlap collision, small offset collision not only increases
the amount of invasion deformation of the occupant cabin but also changes the trajectory of
the occupant’s head [9]. With the increased amount of invasion in the occupant cabin, the
injury value of lower limb and chest fracture of the occupant also increases significantly [10].
The obvious lateral acceleration generated by the offset collision causes the occupant’s head
track to deviate from the center position of the airbag and contact with the side components
of the car (such as the door), thereby making the side components become the source of
head injury [11]. Traffic accident statistics show that using the airbag alone can reduce
collision mortality by 32%, while using the airbag and seatbelt at the same time can reduce
the mortality by 67% [12]. Therefore, the reasonable matching use of the airbag and seatbelt
plays an important role in improving vehicle safety performance. At present, research on
restraint systems mainly focuses on the seatbelt, airbag and seat, as well as coordination
and matching design for them to achieve optimal restraint performance and reduce the
risk of occupant injury [13–15]. To reduce the injury risk caused by airbag deployment,
Tian et al. [16] used computer simulation methods to study the single-stage and double-
stage airbag, and the results showed that the double-stage generator airbag had a better
protection effect on the occupant. To improve the protective performance of seatbelts on
the occupants, Liu et al. [17] corrected the numerical model of seatbelts through real vehicle
crash experiments and optimized the dynamic characteristic parameters of seatbelts by
using IP-GA genetic algorithm. Zhang et al. [18] applied approximate model parameter
optimization technology and the robustness optimization method to optimize the vehicle
member restraint system. The results show that the performance of the occupant restraint
system is improved and robustness is considered.
The combination of airbag and seatbelt can significantly improve the protective effect
of the restraint system [19,20]. However, in a small offset collision, the movement track
of the driver’s head deviates from the center position of the airbag and the restraint
of the seatbelt is not reasonable, so the airbag and seatbelt do not protect the driver
well. Therefore, matching the appropriate restraint system can effectively restrain the
driver’s motion attitude and reduce the injury. To improve the protection effect of the
restraint system, Hirosuke et al. [21] and Zhang et al. [22], combined with the engineering
optimization theories such as multi-objective optimization design, robustness optimization
design, and reliability optimization design, established an optimization platform and
conducted matching optimization analysis on the key parameters of the restraint system.
NSGA-II is an improved version of the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA),
which exhibits excellent exploration performance [23,24]. Ge et al. [25] used the NSGA-II
genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization of the occupant restraint system, and the
results showed that the optimized restraint system could effectively reduce the weighted
injury criterion of dummy frontal collision and offset collision.
The purpose of this study is to obtain the matching parameters of the seatbelt and
airbag that achieve the best effect on driver protection in a small offset collision. HyperMesh
software was used to reconstruct a case small offset collision accident of the sedan, which
has a detailed injury report and video record. The effectiveness of the simulation model and
pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt were verified, and the effects of different structural
performance parameters of the restraint system on the occupant’s head, neck, chest, and
leg are analyzed. Moreover, based on the radial basis function (RBF) replacement model,
the key parameters of seat belt and airbag restraint system were optimized by using NSGA-
II genetic algorithm. The results show that the optimized restraint system can protect
Processes 2022, 10, 940 3 of 18

the driver well, which provides a reference for the engineering design of this type of
restraint system.

2. Methods
2.1. Accident Data
Our study is based on the in-depth accident investigation conducted by a research
team at the Surgical Institute of Army Military University in Chongqing, China, which
collected more than 2700 road traffic accidents with detailed injury information from 2013
to 2018 and established a database [26]. For each accident case, relevant data are collected
from the traffic police department to determine how the accident occurred. A small offset
collision accident involving a sedan was selected from the database, which has detailed
accident scene photos, a police traffic accident scene map, an injury report, vehicle trace
deformation information, and clear monitoring video. The whole motion process of the
sedan collision with obstacles can be clearly observed from the video. The details of the
accident are that the left front of a Toyota sedan collided with the right rear of a red truck
parked in front. The collision velocity of the sedan was 64 km/h. The driver was wearing
a seat belt and the airbag deployed at the time of the collision. The injury information of
drivers in accidents was coded according to the abbreviated injury scale (AIS), which was
revised in 2005. According to this standard, AIS values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 represent minor,
moderate, serious, severe, critical, and untreated injuries, respectively. Table 1 summarizes
collision information, vehicle information and damage, and driver information and injuries.
Table 1. Information of driver, vehicle, and collision.

Collision Information
Weather Sunny
Ground Dry asphalt pavement
Collision type 25% offset collision
Impact velocity 64 km/h [27]
Driver information
Age 48
Gender Male
Height Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 168 cm
Seat belt Use
Airbag Deploy
Vehicle information
The front of the sedan was seriously
Vehicle type Toyota sedanwas
deformed, the front windshield
Curb weight (kg) 1295
Wheelbase (mm)
broken, the door of the left
2700
driver’s
Length × Width × Height (mm) side was seriously deformed,
4630 × 1775 × the
1480
left front window glass fell off, and
Driver injury
the airbag of the driver was ignited.
Injury part Injury information AIS
Head Left ear fracture, bleeding on wound surface, left occipital scalp hematoma 3
Neck 2.2.Fracture
AccidentofReconstruction
thyroid cartilage of neck 2+
Thorax Fractures of the left 3rd, 5th, 6th and 8th ribs, traumatic wet lung 4
Upper limb Contusion and laceration of left shoulder and open fracture of left scapula 3
Lower limb A large open laceration was seen in the anterior middle of the left calf 3
Extent of vehicle damage
The front of the sedan was
seriously deformed, the front
windshield was broken, the door
of the left driver’s side was
seriously deformed, the left front
window glass fell off, and the
airbag of the driver was ignited.

The workflow chart of the accident reappearance is shown in Figure 1. Step

Processes 2022, 10, 940 4 of 18

2.2. Accident Reconstruction

The workflow chart of the accident reappearance is shown in Figure 1. Step 1 in
Figure 1 shows that the driver’s seat of the Neon sedan model is depressed in this paper.
Steps 2–5 demonstrate that, based on the Neon sedan finite element model, a small off-
set collision model was established by assembling the occupant restraint system model
(including dummy, seatbelt, and airbag) and the barrier. First, step 2: Import the human
body model into the vehicle model, and position it correctly. Then, steps 3–4 display that
the three-point seatbelt and airbag were installed. Finally, a small offset collision model
is established based on the simplified rigid barrier model of arc structure. Finally, the
simulation results are compared with the dynamic response of the vehicle and the driver in
the accident, as well as the injury of each part of the driver.

Figure 1. Process of small offset collision model establishment.

Occupant Restraint System Model

(1) Vehicle, dummy, and barrier model
According to the accident information, it can be determined that the traffic accident
case vehicle in this study is a Toyota sedan, but we do not have the interior matching the
finite element model of Toyota sedan. Therefore, in order to better reproduce the accident
case, we chose a Neon model similar to Toyota model with the same level to replace it. The
Neon model was jointly developed by the National Center for Collision Analysis (NCAC)
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Figure 1 (step 1) shows
that the Neon sedan model has passed the credibility verification of the real vehicle test and
finite element simulation [28]. The model includes the body, windshield, steering system,
seat system, pedal, instrument panel, and others. The model consists of 1,487,639 elements,
and the materials and properties meet the basic requirements of collision regulations. The
essence of the automobile collision process is to absorb the kinetic energy of the vehicle
in the form of deformation and friction, and the mass of the accident vehicle is one of
the main factors affecting the kinetic energy. Therefore, in order to improve the accuracy
of the accident reconstruction study of the Neon model, we weighted the whole vehicle
model, or some parts are weighted by the Assign ms function module in the preprocessing
software Oasys Primer. Make the mass and centroid position of the model consistent
with the accident vehicle. To better simulate the relative position between the dummy
and the seat, we need to under press the seat model in advance [29]. This study adopts
the THUMS human body finite element model (v.4.0.2), which was jointly studied by the
Central Research Institute of Japan and Toyota Corporation. The attitude of the human
model has an important influence on the motion state of dummy after the collision of
Processes 2022, 10, 940 5 of 18

accident vehicles. As shown in Figure 1 (step 2), the dummy posture was adjusted by
applying initial force or initial velocity [30]. According to the regulations of C-IASI, and
to improve the efficiency of calculation, the rigid barrier with simplified arc structure was
used to simulate the barrier in the actual test. As shown in Figure 1 (step 5), the height of
the barrier is 1524 mm; the radius of the arc circle is 150 mm; the radian is 115◦ .
The boundary conditions include the relative position of the collision between the
sedan, the barrier, and the ground. The barrier is located on the left side of the sedan body,
and the overlap rate with the sedan body is 25% of the vehicle width. The barrier is set as
full constraint. The vehicle is set as the slave surface, the barrier is the main surface, the
static friction coefficient is 0.2, and the dynamic friction coefficient is 0.1. The ground in the
accident is dry asphalt pavement, which can be defined as a rigid body [31]. The friction
coefficient is set to 0.7, and the vehicle velocity is 64 km/h.
(2) Seatbelt model
a. Ordinary seatbelt
In case of vehicle collision, the seatbelt is the most important protective device
in the occupant restraint system. At present, three-point seatbelts are commonly
used. As shown in Figure 1 (step 3), a finite element model of the ordinary
three-point seatbelt was established according to the seatbelt performance of the
vehicle in a collision accident. The model mainly includes safety belt webbing,
retractor, D-ring, and fixing device.
b. Pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt
Hong et al. [32] verified that the combination of pre-tensioned force and limiting
force has a significant effect on the injuries of various parts of the driver, and they
explored the optimal combination form to provide the best protection for the driver.
The pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt is modeled by adding a force limiter
and pretensioner device based on the seatbelt model of the accident sedan. The
force limiter device is defined by the card * ELEMENT_SEATBELT_RETRACTOR
in PRIMER to achieve the function of the force limiter. The pretensioner device
is simulated by the card * ELEMENT_SEATBLET_PRETENSIONER. As shown
in Figure 2a, the Seatbelt_1D unit and Seatbelt_2D unit constitute the seatbelt
webbing. Figure 2b shows the material characteristic curve of the Seatbelt_1D
unit. Figure 2c,d show the force limiting characteristic curve and pre-tensioned
characteristic curve of the seatbelt, respectively.

Figure 2. Seatbelt model: (a) composition of pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt, (b) material
characteristic curve of Seatbelt_1D element, (c) force limiting characteristic curve of seatbelt, and
(d) pre-tightening curve of seatbelt.
Processes 2022, 10, 940 6 of 18

(3) Airbag model

An airbag is a device that prevents the head and chest of occupants from directly
contacting the steering wheel and plays a cushioning role for them. Therefore, studying
the sensitivity analysis of the effect of the airbag on driver protection is an important task.
The finite element model is established by taking the airbag in the collision accident as
the prototype. The airbag model is mainly composed of the air sac, gas generator, and
steering wheel. At present, three main methods are applied to establish the airbag model:
computational fluid dynamics, pressure equalization, and the particle method [33]. Among
them, the pressure equalization method has the advantages of data stability, lack of ease
in reporting errors in simulation, and high calculation efficiency. As shown in Figure 3a,
this study uses HyperMesh and Primer software and pressure equalization method to
model the airbag. The modeling process involves static tiling size, folding mode, weaving
material, gas generator, and other related parameters. The diameter of the airbag in the
tiled state is 680 mm, which is divided into upper and lower layers of fabric that is divided
by a triangular grid with a size of 10 mm. Finally, the divided model was imported into
Primer software for airbag folding. The keyword * AIRBAG_WANG_NNEFSKE_ID is
used to define the airbag, and the inflating characteristics are defined by the mass flow
curve. Figure 3b,c show the airbag structure diagram and mass flow curve, respectively.
In the simulation, the airbag ignition time is controlled by the type in Sen, and the airbag
ignition time is set to 18 ms, according to the airbag performance parameters of the original
accident vehicle.

Figure 3. Airbag model: (a) schematic of airbag modeling, (b) structural diagram of airbag, and
(c) gas mass flow curve of airbag.

2.3. Restraint System Design Based on Pre-Tensioned Force-Limiting Seatbelt

In a small offset collision, the driver’s head movement trajectory deviates from the
center position of the airbag. At this time, if the seatbelt and airbag are not properly
matched, the driver may suffer serious secondary injuries. Therefore, this study designs a
restraint system based on a pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt. By reasonably matching
the key parameters of the pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt and the airbag, the driver’s
Processes 2022, 10, 940 7 of 18

motion state is restrained, and the violent secondary collision energy is buffered, which
further improves the driver’s protection performance of the restraint system. These param-
eters include seatbelt force-limiting A, pre-tensioned force B, pre-tensioned time C, airbag
ignition time D, and mass flow coefficient E.

2.4. Injury Criteria

The head is the most important part of the body and has the highest percentage of
injuries statistically available. At present, the most commonly used evaluation criteria for
a head injury in automobile collisions is head injury criteria (HIC) [34]. The calculation
formula of HIC value is
(  Z t2 2.5 )
1
H IC = max ( t2 − t1 ) a(t)dt (1)
T0 ≤t1 ≤t2 ≤ TE t 2 − t 1 t1

where a(t) is the synthetic acceleration of the human head during vehicle collision, and T0
and TE , respectively, represent the start and end times of the simulation. Furthermore, t1
and t2 are the start and end times when the HIC value reaches the maximum value during
the collision. We use t2 − t1 = 15 ms according to regulations.
In the process of vehicle collision, neck injury of humans mainly includes compression
injury, rotation injury, and so on. In this study, the biomechanical neck injury predictor Nij
was used to evaluate the neck injury of the vehicle occupants, and the calculation formula is

Fz Mocy
Nij = + (2)
Fzc Myc

where Fz is the axial force of neck, and Fzc is the tolerance limit value of axial force of
neck. Mocy is the neck-bending moment, and Myc is the neck-bending moment tolerance
limit. FMVSS208 standard stipulates that the tolerance of the biomechanical neck injury
prediction index in a collision accident is 1 [35].
Chest injury is usually caused by the compression of the thoracic cavity of occupants
caused by the restraint of the seatbelt and airbag, which can lead to rib fracture, lung
contusion, heart contusion, and hemopneumothorax. The key indexes to evaluate the
degree of chest injury in frontal impact are the continuous 3 ms injury standard and
maximum compression degree of chest. FMVSS208 standard stipulates that the maximum
synthetic acceleration of the chest shall not exceed 60 g within a continuous period of 3 ms.
That is, C3ms ≤ 60 g [35].
Human lower limb fracture is one of the common injuries in traffic accidents, especially
in a small offset collision. In this study, the tibial index (TI) was used to evaluate the leg
injury, and its calculation formula is

M(t) F (t)
TI = + (3)
Mc Fc
q
M(t) = ( Mx )2 + ( My)2 (4)
where M (t) is the instantaneous composite bending moment of the tibia, Mx is the bending
moment in X direction, and My is the bending moment in Y direction. F (t) is the instanta-
neous axial compressive force of the tibia, Mc is the critical composite bending moment
(valued at 225 Nm), and Fc is the axial critical compressive f force (valued at 35.9 kN). TI
has a tolerance limit of 1.3 [36].
There is a different degree of injury to each part of the driver’s body in the small
offset collision. In this study, weighted injury criterion (WIC) was used to comprehensively
Processes 2022, 10, 940 8 of 18

evaluate the injury degree of the driver’s head, chest, and leg [37]. The calculation formula
of WIC is  
  0.35 C3ms + Ccomp  
H IC15 60 63 FL + FR
W IC = 0.6 + + 0.05 (5)
700 2 20
where Ccomp is the compression of the chest, left and right legs have maximum axial forces
of FL and FR , respectively, in units of KN.

2.5. Terms and Definitions

To better understand the accident reconstruction process of this study and the compar-
ison between numerical simulation and real vehicle recorded collision, the terms in this
paper are clearly and formally defined. The terms and definitions used in this paper are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Terms and definitions.

Terms Defined
IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
NSGA Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms
IP-GA Intergeneration Projection Genetic Algorithms
RBF Radial Basis Function
AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NCAC National Crash Analysis Center
THUMS Total Human Model for Safety
C-IASI China Insurance Automotive Safety Index
HIC Head Injury Criteria
WIC Weighted Injury Criterion
RE Relative Error
ME Maximum Error
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
R2 Determination Coefficient

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Accident Model Verification
Figure 4a shows the small offset collision scene of the sedan under the simulation
and real-world accident (white sedan rear-end collision with a stationary red van), and
the deformation of the sedan at different times is observed. The small offset kinematics
of the sedan, reconstructed in the simulation, is compared with the video recording. The
reconstructed small offset kinematics of the sedan is basically consistent with the video
recording. Figure 4b shows the simulation results in which the front left side of the sedan is
severely deformed, the left front wheel tire is burst, the hub is broken, the left front door is
severely deformed, the window glass falls off, and the left A-pillar is bent and deformed.
Compared with the sedan deformation in a real-world accident, the vehicle deformation is
basically the same. The contact position between the vehicle model and barrier is close to
the collision position of the accident vehicle (with an overlap rate of 25%), and the airbag is
all deployed during the collision. As can be seen from Figure 4c, kinetic energy is converted
into internal energy in the collision process, the curve is smooth and the fluctuation is
small, and the total energy is basically stable, which meets the requirements of energy
conservation law. At the same time, the hourglass can be kept within an acceptable 5% of
the total energy. Therefore, the results of the simulation model are reliable.
Processes 2022, 10, 940 9 of 18

Figure 4. Comparison between simulation results and real-world accidents: (a) Comparison between
sedan reconstruction dynamic response and video recording. (b) Comparison between simulation
results and real-world accidents. (c) Energy curve.

To obtain the difference of the driver protection effect between the pre-tensioned
force-limiting seatbelt and ordinary seatbelt, we compared the dynamic response of the
dummy and injuries of various parts of the body when two types of seatbelts were used.
Figure 5 shows that the dummy has a dynamic response of the left front motion during
the collision process, which is caused by the action of X and Y acceleration forces on the
dummy. Figure 5a shows that, during the collision, the legs of the dummy first contact the
interior of the vehicle body. Then, due to the inertia effect, the dummy continues to move
Processes 2022, 10, 940 10 of 18

forward to the front left. There was contact between the airbag and the dummy’s chest,
head, and neck. Finally, under the action of the tension of the ordinary seatbelt, the dummy
stops moving forward and instead moves backward. Figure 5b shows that the contact time
between the dummy’s head, chest, and the airbag is shortened under the action of the
pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt, thereby protecting the head.

Figure 5. Dynamic response of a dummy under an ordinary seatbelt and a pre-tensioned force-
limiting seatbelt. (a) Ordinary seatbelt. (b) Pre-tensioned force limiting seatbelt.

In the simulation collision, according to the dynamic response, one can conclude that
the pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt can effectively protect the head and neck of the
dummy. To effectively verify the protection effect, the injuries of the dummy’s head, neck,
chest, and leg, when using ordinary seatbelt and pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt, were
compared. Table 3 shows the injury values for each dummy.
Table 3. Injury values of various parts of the dummy in a simulation test.

Pre-Tensioned
Injury Indexes Injury Threshold Ordinary Seat Belts Force-Limiting Reduction
Seat Belts
Skull von mises
10 9.6 5.4 43.8%
stress (MPa)
Intracranial
235 232 185 20.3%
Head [34,38,39] pressure (kPa)
Intracranial von
15–20 19.1 12.3 35.6%
mises stress (kPa)
HIC 700 798 497 37.7%
Neck [35] Nij 1 1.04 0.76 26.9%
C3ms (g) 60 98 102 −0.04%
Ccomp (mm) 50 37 44 −0.19%
Rib strain 3% 12% 16% −0.33%
Thorax [35,37]
Lung strain 30% 29.4% 31.3% −0.06%
Cardiac strain 30% 12% 11% 0.08%
Liver strain 30% 19.4% 17.3% 0.11%
TI (left) 1.3 1.49 1.35 0.09%
Leg [36]
TI (right) 1.3 0.93 0.78 0.16%
Processes 2022, 10, 940 11 of 18

As shown in Table 2, the skull von Mises stress, intracranial pressure, and intracranial
von Mises stress of the ordinary seatbelt dummy are all close to the threshold, which may
lead to a severe head injury. This is basically consistent with the driver’s head injury
recorded as AIS3 in Table 1. This injury may be caused by the contact of the driver’s
head and face with the airbag, steering wheel, and instrument panel [40]. The neck Nij ,
chest C3ms , and rib indexes all exceed the threshold, and the lung indexes are close to the
threshold. These index values indicate the possible serious injury to the driver’s neck and
chest. This is basically consistent with the driver’s neck injury AIS2+ and chest injury AIS4
recorded in Table 1. This is caused by the driver’s chest being squeezed by the seatbelt
webbing and a direct violent collision with the airbag. TI of the dummy’s left and right legs
were 1.49 and 0.93, respectively, and TI (left) exceeded the threshold of 1.3, indicating that
the driver’s left lower limb was seriously injured. This is basically consistent with AIS3
recorded by the driver’s leg injury in Table 1. The reason is that the collision area is on the
front-left side of the vehicle, the area has a large amount of invasion, and the left lower limb
contacts with the foot pedal, A-pillar lower hinge, and sill [41]. Video-based deep accident
reconstruction can verify the kinematics of the sedan small offset collision and ensure the
reliability of the accident simulation model. By comparing the vehicle deformation and
driver’s injury in the simulation results to the real-world accident, the effectiveness of the
simulation model is further verified.
As shown in Table 2, compared with the ordinary seatbelt, the use of the pre-tensioned
force-limiting seatbelt has improved the injuries on the dummy’s head, neck, and legs, and
the injury values of the head and neck are lower than the threshold. The chest injury was
slightly greater than that of the dummy under the ordinary seatbelt, but the difference
was not significant. In a small offset collision, the head injury of the driver is affected by
the mass flow impact of the airbag [42], which affects the hardness of the airbag when
the dummy head contacts the airbag [43]. The strongest impact on the injury value of the
driver’s chest is the mass flow coefficient of the airbag, followed by the force-limiting level
of the seatbelt. Therefore, the injury values of the driver’s head, neck, chest, and legs can
be reduced by adjusting the design parameters of the restraint system [44].

3.2. Effects of Different Parameters of Restraint System on Driver Injury

To minimize the injuries caused to the driver by the mass flow coefficient of the
airbag and force-limiting level of the seatbelt, we selected seatbelt force-limiting A, pre-
tensioned force B, pre-tensioned time C, airbag ignition time D, and mass flow coefficient
E as optimization parameters. Five-factor and five-level orthogonal experimental design
was used with a total of 25 sample points. These sample points were input in the model for
simulation calculation using LS-DYNA software. The orthogonal experimental design is
shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Orthogonal experimental design.

Design Variables Initial Value Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Force-limiting, A (N) 4500 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500
Pre-tensioned force, B (N) 2500 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
Pre-tensioned time, C (ms) 18 16 18 20 22 24
Ignition time, D (ms) 9 0 5 10 15 20
Mass flow coefficient, E 1.02 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3

The range analysis method is used to analyze the driver injury under different restraint
system matching parameters, and the influence of each design variable on the driver’s
body injury is studied. Table 5 displays the results of the analysis, where Ki (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
is the sum of the test results of each factor and level. The average of the test results for each
factor and level is the ki (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Under the same factor and at different levels, the
R represents the range of test results.
Processes 2022, 10, 940 12 of 18

Table 5. Results of the injury simulation for each part of the dummy.

HIC Nij C3ms TI

Index
A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E
K1 1420 2483 2063 2328 2109 4.06 4.74 2.93 3.58 4.33 560 411 474 458 514 4.68 6.62 5.66 5.59 5.91
K2 1978 2206 1978 2790 2691 3.66 4.62 3.19 4.23 4.16 541 467 500 550 485 5.57 6.44 5.93 5.81 4.9
K3 2232 2385 2225 2094 2504 4.11 4.14 4.79 4.11 4.1 454 607 506 493 473 5.15 5.57 4.94 5.75 5.64
K4 2976 2219 2252 1987 1824 3.72 3.51 4.26 3.87 3.62 448 510 464 442 486 5.84 4.9 5.81 5.61 6.01
K5 2529 1842 2617 1936 2007 4.16 2.7 4.54 3.92 3.5 421 429 480 480 466 6.72 4.43 5.62 5.2 5.5
k1 284 497 413 466 422 0.81 0.95 0.59 0.72 0.87 112 82 95 92 103 0.94 1.32 1.13 1.12 1.18
k2 396 441 396 558 538 0.73 0.92 0.64 0.85 0.83 108 93 100 110 97 1.11 1.29 1.19 1.16 0.98
k3 446 477 445 419 501 0.82 0.83 0.96 0.82 0.82 91 121 101 99 95 1.03 1.11 0.99 1.15 1.13
k4 595 444 450 397 365 0.74 0.7 0.85 0.77 0.72 90 102 93 88 97 1.17 0.98 1.16 1.12 1.2
k5 506 368 523 387 401 0.83 0.54 0.91 0.78 0.7 84 86 96 96 93 1.34 0.89 1.12 1.04 1.1
R 311 129 127 171 173 0.1 0.41 0.37 0.13 0.17 28 39 16 22 10 0.4 0.43 0.2 0.12 0.22

By comparing range R, the change of the pre-tensioned force B has the most remarkable
effect on the driver’s neck, chest, and legs, while the change of force-limiting A has a strong
impact on the head. At the same time, the driver’s head and chest have the lowest sensitivity
to the changes of pre-tensioned time C and mass flow coefficient E, respectively, while the
neck and leg have the least impact on the changes of force-limiting A and ignition time
D, respectively.
The aim of the range analysis results of orthogonal experimental design was to gain
an intuitive understanding of the effects of different levels of each factor on the dummy’s
injury. We obtained the influence degree of each factor on the dummy’s head, neck, chest,
and leg injury.
As shown in Figure 6, with the continuous increase in force-limiting A, the driver’s
chest injury decreases, while the neck injury fluctuates continuously. As the force-limiting
A was greater than 4750 N, causing the head injury value to increase first, then decrease,
and the leg injury value to decrease first, then increase. With the continual increase in
pre-tensioned force B, the injury value of the driver’s neck and leg decreases without
interruption, while the degree of chest injury increases first and then decreases with the
change of pre-tensioned force B. The head injury first increases and then decreases when
the pre-tensioned force B is greater than 1750 N. With the change of pre-tightening time C,
the neck and chest injuries of the driver first increased, then decreased, and then increased,
with the maximum value at 20 ms. The head injury value of the driver increases with the
increase in pre-tightening time C. In addition, leg injury fluctuates continuously. With the
further increase in ignition time D, the head and leg injuries of the driver were improved.
With the change of ignition time D, the neck and chest injury values of the driver first
increased, then decreased, and then increased, with the maximum value at 5 ms. With the
continual increase in the mass flow coefficient E, the neck and chest injury values of the
driver decreased. The head injury value of the driver increased first, then decreased, and
then increased, while the change trend of the leg injuries were the opposite.
According to the relationship between each injury value and the design variables of
the constraint system, when one target reaches the optimal state, another injury target
may reach the worst state. This condition leads to the driver’s overall failure to achieve
the optimal low injury value. Therefore, using Isight optimization software, this study
achieved the optimum compromise of design variables, of the constraint system matching,
by optimizing multiple objectives of the driver injury at the same time.
Processes 2022, 10, 940 13 of 18

Figure 6. Influence laws of change in restraint system variables on injuries to head, neck, thorax, and
legs. (a) Head injury. (b) Neck injury. (c) Thorax injury. (d) Leg injury.

4. Multi-Objective Optimization of Constraint System Matching Design Variables

After comprehensive consideration, the weighted injury values WIC of the driver’s
head, chest, and leg were selected, and the neck injury predictor Nij was taken as the
design objective. Additionally, force-limiting A, pre-tensioned force B, pre-tightening
time C, ignition time D, and mass flow coefficient E were used as design variables. The
orthogonal experimental design approach is then utilized to pick sample points for the
model’s construction.

4.1. Approximate Model of Radial Basis Function and Error Analysis

The radial basis function model (RBF) was created using Isight optimization software
in conjunction with the aforementioned design experiments. Then, the relationship between
WIC and neck injury criterion (Nij ) and the force-limiting A, pre-tensioned force B, pre-
tightening time C, ignition time D, and mass flow coefficient E were studied [45]. The
approximate expression of the design variable’s response function in the design space can
be expressed as
!
N
Y ( X ) = ye( x ) + ε = ∑ ai gi (k x − xi kci + a N +1 ) +ε (6)
i =1

where ye( x ) indicates the approximate function of the objective. The relative error (RE)
between the actual and approximation values, the number of terms of the basis function
gi , the indeterminate coefficient, and the Euclidean distance of the basis function are
indicated by N, ai , and x − xi , respectively. The shape parameter is represented by ci . The
accuracy rate of the RBF approximate model varies with the shape parameters. Using
Processes 2022, 10, 940 14 of 18

Isight optimization software, the shape parameters were optimized internally when the
RBF approximate model was established. By constantly changing the shape parameter
c, the established approximate model minimized errors. In general, the value of c was
between 0.2 and 0.3.
To evaluate whether the fitting response surface was reasonable, The RBF response
surface was evaluated using relative error (RE), maximum error (ME), root mean square
error (RMSE), and determination coefficient (R2 ). The specific formula is as follows:

|yei − yi |
RE =100% × (7)
yi

ME = 100% × (yei − yi ) (8)

s
2
∑iM
=1 ( yei − yi )
RMSE = (9)
M
2
SSE ∑m (ye − yi )
R2 = 1 − = 1 − im=1 i 2
(10)
SST ∑ i =1 ( y i − y )
where M stands for the number of samples used to test the accuracy of the model, yi
represents the simulation analysis value of the ith response, and yei represents the predicted
value of the model. y indicates the average of the samples in the simulation analysis. The
determination coefficient R*2 has a range of values from [0, 1]. The accuracy of the model
increases as the value approaches 1. The maximum allowable error for RE, MR, and RMSE
in this model is 0.2, 0.3, and 0.2, respectively. It is better if the value is smaller. Analyzed
were the errors of 25 sample points. In Table 6, we demonstrate that the RBF response
surface model is highly accurate and can be applied to analyze multi-objective optimization
problems further.
Table 6. Error estimation for the RBF model.

Response RE ME RMSE R2
W IC 1.64564 × 10−15 2.91092 × 10−15 1.80383 × 10−15 0.9985
Nij 2.26274 × 10−15 3.96508 × 10−15 2.40359 × 10−15 0.9973

4.2. Multi-Objective Optimization Model

The multi-objective optimization mathematical model can be expressed, as follows,
using the multi-objective genetic algorithm NSGA-II:

minW IC = W IC (A, B, C, D, E)






 minNij = Nij (A, B, C, D, E)
 s.t. 4500 N ≤ A ≤ 5500 N


1500 N ≤ B ≤ 2500 N (11)
16 ms ≤ C ≤ 24 ms




0 ms ≤ D ≤ 20 ms





0.5 ≤ E ≤ 1.3

Figure 7 shows the multi-objective Pareto frontier of the protection matching parame-
ters, of the optimal driver restraint system, derived from the genetic algorithm NSGA-II [46].
Based on the response surface model, the figure shows the optimal solutions of WIC and
Nij , and WIC and Nij always show an inverse ratio. Nij , a neck injury predictor, decreased
as WIC increased. Furthermore, reducing WIC can continuously increase the predictor Nij
of neck injury. Additionally, the two endpoints of the Pareto frontier correspond to optimal
single-objective values for different response surface models. The minimum neck injury
response value of the driver is Nij = 0.330 (A = 4853 N, B = 2500 N, C = 16 ms, D = 5.3 ms,
and E = 0.89) at optimal point F. Based on the response model, the minimum weighted
Processes 2022, 10, 940 15 of 18

injury value for the driver obtained is WIC = 0.498 (A = 4879.9 N, B = 2500 N, C = 17.9 ms,
D = 16.7 ms, and E = 0.5) at the optimal point E.

Figure 7. Pareto frontier of optimal restraint system protection, matching parameters of the driver.

In addition to the optimal-single objective value at both ends of Pareto frontier in

the collision, the optimal values of WIC and Nij of the driver should also be considered
comprehensively so that each part of the driver ’s body with a slight injury is the focus of
our research. In this study, the balance point between WIC and Nij in optimization was
found using the distance minimization method. In accordance with the principle of distance
minimization, if it meets the condition that the sum of distances between two response
values of the Pareto optimal point are the smallest, we will obtain the comprehensive
optimal point [47]. The equation is
!
n  2
minZ = ∑ f i − min( f i )
k
(12)
i =1

The number of optimization objectives is indicated by n, and n = 2 indicates that WIC

and Nij are the two optimization objectives. The response value of the ith optimization
goal, at the ith Pareto response point, is denoted by f ik . Point G in Figure 7 represents
the equilibrium solution of the conflict between two response values, according to the
multi-objective optimal solution set computed by formula (8). The WIC and Nij values,
derived by the response model at the equilibrium point G, are 0.545 and 0.403 (A = 4933.5 N,
B = 2499.9 N, C = 16 ms, D = 15.3 ms, and E = 0.5), respectively.

4.3. Results
The optimal parameter value 4933.5−2499.9−16−15.3−0.5 was input into LS-DYNA
for calculation. The results show that the WIC value is 0.558 with an error of 2.3%, and the
Nij value is 0.416 with an error of 3.1%. Based on the preceding results, all errors are within
a reasonable range, which further verifies the accuracy of the surrogate model, as shown in
Table 7. The results show that after optimization, the WIC and Nij of drivers are reduced by
37.9% and 45.3%, respectively. The above results show that the optimized restraint system
has great application potential in driver protection.
Processes 2022, 10, 940 16 of 18

Table 7. Comparison of simulation injury of dummy results before and after optimization.

Force-Limiting, Pre-Tensioned Pre-Tensioned Ignition Mass Flow

WIC Nij
A Force, B time, C Time, D Coefficient, E
Before 4500 2500 18 9 1.02 0.899 0.760
After 4933.5 2499.9 16 15.3 0.5 0.558 0.416
Reduction - - - - - 37.9% 45.3%

5. Limitations and Future Work

Some limitations in the present study still exist. First, the finite element model of
the vehicle corresponding to the accident is lacking, so a small offset crash accident re-
production study is carried out using the adjusted Neon vehicle model. Although the
verification results are ideal, there are still some errors. The next step is to expand the model
base of vehicles and make specific analyses for specific models. Second, this study only
focuses on the protection of sedan drivers. In future research, it is necessary to study the
safety performance of restraint system for drivers of other models. Third, this paper only
qualitatively analyzes the driver’s injury caused by the pre-tensioned force-limiting seat
belt, and the future work will focus on the optimization of the restraint system parameters
of the inflatable seat belt and the airbag.

6. Conclusions
In this work, based on the detailed accident case information, a sedan small offset
collision simulation model is established to verify its accuracy. The protection effect of
pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt on the driver is studied. The orthogonal experimental
design method of five factors and five levels is designed. The influence law of each factor
to the driver’s injury is determined by using the direct analysis method. Finally, combined
with the RBF model and the NSGA-II multi-objective genetic algorithm, the structural
performance parameters of pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt and airbag are optimized.
The results show that the optimized restraint system can protect the driver well, which
provides a reference for the engineering design of this type of restraint system.
The specific conclusions are as follows:
(1) The injury values of each part of the driver were evaluated by reconstructing the sedan
small offset collision accident. The simulation results showed that the accident model
could accurately analyze the driver’s dynamic response and effectively evaluate the
injury degree. The feasibility of the accident model was verified. The effectiveness of
the matching use of the pre-tensioned force-limiting seatbelt and the airbag for driver
protection was also verified.
(2) The change of pre-tensioned force B had a remarkable effect on the neck, chest, and
legs of the vehicle occupants, and the change of force-limiting A had the most serious
influence on the head. In addition, the neck and legs were the least sensitive to the
changes of force-limiting A and airbag ignition time D, respectively, while the changes
of pre-tightening time C and airbag mass flow coefficient E had the least impact on
the injury of the occupant’s head and chest, respectively.
(3) When the variable of the restraint system is 4933.5−2499.9−16−15.3−0.5, the driver’s
WIC was reduced by 37.9%, and the Nij value was reduced by 45.3%. This condi-
tion indicates that the optimized restraint system has great potential in improving
driver protection.
Processes 2022, 10, 940 17 of 18

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.Y. and J.S.; methodology, Q.F. and C.L.; software, S.P.;
investigation, Z.P.; resources, Z.Y.; data curation, J.S.; writing original draft preparation, X.Y.; writing
review and editing, S.L.; supervision, G.W.; project administration, Z.Y. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is financially supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China
(grant number: 31800788) and Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau, China (cstc2021jcyj-
msxmX0109, cstc2020jscx-msxmX0132).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not report any data.
Acknowledgments: It is appreciated that the Institute of Surgery, Army Military University, Chongqing,
China supply the data in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sherwood, C.P.; Nolan, J.M.; Zuby, D.S. Characteristics of Small Overlap Crashes. In Proceedings of the 21th International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Stuttgart, Germany, 15–18 June 2009.
2. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Frontal Small Overlap Crashworthiness Evaluation, Crash Test Protocol; (Version I);
IIHS: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 3–11.
3. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Small Overlap Program Protocol and Rating Guidelines [S/OL]; IIHS: Washington, DC,
USA, 2012; p. 9-01.
4. Kikuchi, T.; Naokao, T.; Watanabe, T.; Saeki, H.; Okabe, T. An investigation of injury factors concerning drivers in vehicles
involved in small-overlap frontal crashes. SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars-Mech. Syst. 2012, 1, 801–806. [CrossRef]
5. Mueller, B.C.; Brethwaite, A.S.; Zuby, D.S.; Nolan, J.M. Structural design strategies for improved small overlap crashworthiness
performance. SAE Tech. 2014, 22, 145–173.
6. Chen, D.Y.; Wang, L.M.; Wang, C.Z.; Yuan, L.K.; Zhang, T.Y.; Zhang, Z.Z. Finite element based improvement of a light truck
design to optimize crashworthiness. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 2015, 16, 39–49. [CrossRef]
7. Urbina, P.; Orta, P.; Ahuett, G.H. Crashworthiness design based on a simplified deceleration pulse. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 2014,
15, 909–917. [CrossRef]
8. Elliott, E.S.; Roche, C.; Reddy, J. Small Overlap Impact Countermeasure-Front Door Hinge Pillar Dual Box; SAE Technical Paper No.
2016-01-0402; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
9. Lindquist, M.O.; Hall, A.R.; Björnstig, U.L. Kinematics of belted fatalities in frontal collisions: A new approach in deep studies of
injury mechanisms. J. Trauma Inj. Infect. Crit. Care 2006, 61, 1506–1516. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Zuby, D.S.; O’Neill, B. Steering column movement in severe frontal crashes and its potential effect on airbag performance. In
Proceedings of the 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Nagoya, Japan, 19–22
May 2003.
11. Conroy, C.; Tominaga, G.T.; Erwin, S.; Pacyna, S.; Vellky, T.; Kennedy, F.; Sise, M.; Coimbra, R. The influence of vehicle damage on
injury severity of drivers in head-on motor vehicle crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 1589–1594. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Cummins, J.S.; Koval, K.J.; Cantu, R.V.; Spratt, K.F. Do seat belts and air bags reduce mortality and injury severity after car
accidents? Am. J. Orthop. 2011, 40, 26–29.
13. Hamid, M.S.; Narayanasamy, N.; Shah, M.J.; Riefe, R.K. Systems Approach in Development of Adaptive Energy Absorbing Steering
Columns by Virtual Engineering; SAE Technical Paper No. 2005-01-0705; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2005.
14. Tyan, T.; Vinton, J.; Beckhold, E.; Zhang, X.; Rupp, J.; Kochhar, N.; Barbat, S. Modeling of adaptive energy absorbing steering
columns for dynamic impact simulations. SEA Int. J. Mater. Manuf. 2014, 7, 337–365. [CrossRef]
15. Zhou, H.J.; Zhong, Z.H.; Hu, M.J. Design and Occupant-Protection Performance Analysis of a New Tubular Driver Airbag.
Engineering 2018, 4, 291–297. [CrossRef]
16. Tian, G.H.; Cheng, H.D.; Sun, P.Y.; Wu, X.L. Simulation of dual-stage gas generator airbag. Auto Eng. 2016, 11, 23–26.
17. Liu, X.; Wu, G.; Yin, L.R. Optimal design of a seat belt restraint system based on approximate model management. J. Vib. Shock.
2016, 35, 132–136.
18. Zhang, H.Y.; Hu, S.S.; Zhou, D.Y.; Gao, J.W.; Gu, X.G. Robust optimization of occupant restraint system based on PSO-SVR
approximation model. Automot. Eng. 2020, 42, 462–467.
19. Hassan, M.T.Z.; Meguid, S.A. Effect of seat belt and head restraint on occupant’s response during rear-end collision. Int. J. Mech.
Mater. Des. 2017, 14, 1–12. [CrossRef]
20. Zhai, K.N.; Li, X.Y.; Wang, Z.Y.; Yang, S. Multi-objective Optimization of the driver restraint system in the offset crash. Automob.
Appl. Technol. 2017, 16, 93–95.
Processes 2022, 10, 940 18 of 18

21. Horii, H. Vehicle occupant restraint system design under uncertainty by using multi-objective robust design optimization. Int. J.
Comput. Methods Exp. Meas. 2018, 6, 827–834. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, J.Y.; Wang, D.Q.; Ni, Y.Y.; Chen, C. A two degrees of freedom model–based optimization method for occupant restraint
systems in vehicle crash. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 2019, 60, 2598–2614. [CrossRef]
23. Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput. 2002, 6, 182–197. [CrossRef]
24. Marzbanrad, J.; Ebrahimi, M.R. Multi-objective optimization of aluminum hollow tubes for vehicle crash energy absorption using
a genetic algorithm and neural networks. Thin-Walled Struct. 2011, 49, 1605–1615. [CrossRef]
25. Ge, R.H.; Zhang, S.X.; Hong, L. Optimization of front-row occupant restraint system with NSGA-II genetic algorithm. Automot.
Eng. 2017, 39, 1382–1389.
26. Duan, A.W.; Zhou, M.X.; Qiu, J.L.; Feng, C.J.; Yin, Z.Y.; Li, K. A 6-year survey of road traffic accidents in southwest china:
Emphasis on traumatic brain injury. J. Saf. Res. 2020, 73, 161–169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Liu, S.X.; Yang, X.J.; Cui, J.G.; Yin, Z.Y. A novel pixel-based method to estimate the instantaneous velocity of a vehicle from CCTV
images. J. Forensic Sci. 2017, 62, 1071–1074. [CrossRef]
28. Magee, C.L.; Thornton, P.H. Design considerations in energy absorption by structural collapse. SAE Trans. 1978, 87, 2041–2055.
29. Powell, W.R.; Ojala, S.J.; Advani, S.H.; Martin, R.B. Cadaver femur responses to longitudinal impacts. Proc. Stapp Car Crash Conf.
1975, 45, 561–579.
30. Cai, Z.H.; Lan, F.C.; Chen, Y.H. Development of a human biomechanical model and its application in vehicle safety. Sci. Sin. Tech.
2014, 44, 870–882. [CrossRef]
31. Hu, Y.Z.; Zeng, B.Q.; Xie, S.G. The Simulation and Analysis of Automobile Safety Based on IS-DYNA and HyperWorks; Tsinghua
University Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
32. Hong, L.; Ge, R.H.; Zhou, H.C.; Liu, X. Research on the protective effect of seat belt restraint system during the frontal collision. J.
Guangxi Univ. 2016, 41, 363–370.
33. Shi, L.Z.; Yan, X.H. Finite element model establishment and benchmarking analysis of driver airbag. Highw. Automot. Appl. 2015,
4, 10–13. [CrossRef]
34. Marjoux, D.; Baumgartner, D.; Deck, C.; Willinger, R. Head injury prediction capability of the HIC, HIP, SIMon and ULP criteria.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 1135–1148. [CrossRef]
35. Wen, H.; Lin, L.Y.; Chen, D.Q.; Wu, F.; Zhu, L.L. Features of survived casualties and treatment after “July 23” EMU railway
accident at Wenzhou station. Chin. J. Emerg. Med. 2011, 20, 1248–1250.
36. Kuppa, S.; Wang, J.; Haffner, M.; Eppinger, R. Lower extremity injuries and associated injury criteria. In Proceedings of the 17th
ESV Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4–7 June 2001; Volume 457, pp. 1–15.
37. Viano, D.C.; Arepally., S. Assessing the safety performance of occupant restraint system. In Proceedings of the Stapp Car Crash
Conference, Warrendale, PA, USA, 4–7 November 1990; pp. 301–327.
38. Mertz, H.J.; Prasad, P.; Irwin, A.L. Injury risk curves for children and adults in frontal and rear collisions. In Proceedings of the
Stapp Car Crash Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 13–14 November 1997; Volume 41, pp. 13–30.
39. Willinger, R.M.; Baumgartner, D. Human head tolerance limits to specific injury mechanisms. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2003, 8,
605–617. [CrossRef]
40. Pappachan, B.; Alexander, M. Biomechanics of cranio-maxillofacial trauma. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2012, 11, 224–230. [CrossRef]
41. Xiao, L.; Li, L.; Duan, D.W.; Liu, Y.B. Modification design of a sedan based on 25% overlap frontal crash test. Automot. Eng. 2018,
40, 184–191.
42. Yan, L.B.; Jie, W.N.; Cao, L.B.; Liu, Y.F.; Dai, H.L. Study on optimization of restraint system in oblique crash under car collision. J.
Hunan Univ. 2018, 45, 11–17.
43. Yan, L.B.; Jie, W.N.; Xu, W.; Cao, L.B.; Dai, H.L.; Zhang, K. Injury responses of the dummy based on chinese anthropometric data
in frontal crash. Automot. Eng. 2019, 41, 289–297.
44. Hu, J.; Reed, M.P.; Rupp, J.D.; Fischer, K.; Adler, A. Optimizing seat belt and airbag designs for rear seat occupant protection in
frontal crashes. Stapp Car Crash J. 2017, 61, 67–100.
45. Yin, H.F.; Wen, G.L.; Liu, Z.B.; Qing, Q.X. Crashworthiness optimization design for foam-filled multi-cell thin-walled structures.
Thin-Walled Struct. 2014, 75, 8–17. [CrossRef]
46. Cao, L.B.; Ouyang, Z.G.; Xu, Z.; Zhang, G.J. Research on the optimization of reversible restraint systems. J. Mech. Eng. 2016, 52,
133–141. [CrossRef]
47. Yang, W.L.; Xie, S.C.; Li, H.H.; Chen, Z.T. Design and injury analysis of the seated occupant protection posture in train collision.
Saf. Sci. 2019, 117, 263–275. [CrossRef]