Comparison of Occupant Risk Indices in Rear-End Collisions with RIG and TMA
Source abstract
Abstract
Rear-end collisions involving maintenance vehicles remain a critical source of severe injuries and fatalities in highway work zones. Existing studies on Rear Impact Guards (RIGs) and Truck-Mounted Attenuators (TMAs) have primarily relied on vehicle-based acceleration metrics or low-speed tests, leaving uncertainty regarding their performance under high-energy impact conditions. This study investigates occupant injury risk and vehicle crash behavior through full-scale frontal impact tests conducted at 80 km/h using a 2002 Renault SM520 passenger car against (1) a truck equipped with a RIG and (2) the same truck equipped with a TMA. Hybrid III 50th percentile ATDs, high-speed imaging, and multi-axis accelerometers were employed to measure occupant kinematics and injury responses. Occupant Risk Indices (THIV (Theoretical Head Impact Velocity), ASI (Acceleration Severity Index), PHD (Post-impact Head Deceleration), and ORA (Occupant Ridedown Acceleration)) and the ATD-based HIC36 were evaluated to assess crash severity. The RIG test exhibited severe underride, resulting in an HIC36 value of 1810, far exceeding the FMVSS 208 limit. In contrast, the TMA significantly reduced occupant injury risk, lowering HIC36 by 83.5%, and maintained controlled vehicle deceleration without compartment intrusion. Comparisons between FSM-based indices and ATD-measured injury responses revealed discrepancies in impact timing and occupant motion, highlighting limitations of current evaluation methodologies. The findings demonstrate the necessity of high-speed testing and ATD-based injury assessment for accurately characterizing RIG/TMA performance and provide evidence supporting improvements to roadside safety hardware standards and work-zone protection strategies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics · Transportation Safety and Impact Analysis · Traffic and Road Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Korea Expressway Corporation Research Institute, 24, Dongtansunhwandaero 17-gil, Hwaseong 18496, Republic of Korea
Road Kinematics Co., Ltd., 10, Baekseokgongdan 1-ro, Seobuk-gu, Cheonan 31094, Republic of Korea
Department of Convergence System Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daehakro 99, Yuseong, Daejeon 34134, Republic of Korea
Funding
Chungnam National University
References (19)
Show source-provided references
1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (2025, April 05). Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) File Downloads, Available online: https://www.nhtsa.gov/file-downloads?p=nhtsa/downloads/FARS/.
2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2025, April 24). Work Zone Facts and Statistics, Available online: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/facts_stats.htm.
3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (2025, April 25). Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/15/2022-14330/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rear-impact-guards-rear-impact-protection.
4. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2025, April 05). Highway Safety: More Robust DOT Leadership Needed to Address America’s Roadway Death Crisis, Available online: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-264.
5. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (2025, April 05). Analysis of Rear Underride in Fatal Truck Crashes, 2008, Available online: https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/analysis-rear-underride-fatal-truck-crashes-2008.
6. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2016). Regulation No. 58—Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Rear Underrun Protective Devices (RUPDs), Vehicles with Regard to the Installation of RUPDs of an Approved Type, and Vehicles with Regard to Their Rear Underrun Protection (RUP), UNECE.
7. (2023). Rear Impact Protection (Standard No. CMVSS 224).
8. Brumbelow, M.L. (2011). Crash Test Performance of Large Truck Rear Underride Guards, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Report, No. 11.0074.
9. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2016). Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH), AASHTO.
10. Committee for European Norms (CEN) (2018). Road Restraint Systems—Truck Mounted Attenuators—Performance Classes, Impact Test Acceptance Criteria and Test Performance (CEN/TS 16786:2018), CEN.
11. British Standards Institution (BSI) (2020). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: CD 378, Impact Test and Assessment Criteria for Truck Mounted Attenuators, BSI.
12. Collision Risk Assessment Based on Occupant Flail-Space Model
13. Michie, J.D. (1981). Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Appurtenances, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. NCHRP Report 230.
14. Ross, H.E., Sicking, D.L., Zimmer, R.A., and Michie, J.D. (1993). Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. NCHRP Report 350.
15. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023). Evaluation and Comparison of Roadside Crash Injury Metrics, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. NCHRP Research Report.
16. (2010). Road Restraint Systems—Part 1: Terminology and General Criteria for Test Methods (Standard No. EN 1317-1).
17. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (2025). Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208: Occupant Crash Protection, U.S. Department of Transportation.
18. Korea Transportation Safety Authority, Vehicle Performance Test Research Center (2000). Research Report on Crash Tests for New Car Assessment, Korea Transportation Safety Authority.
19. Korea Transportation Safety Authority, Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute (2012). 2012 New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Research Report, Korea Transportation Safety Authority.