sensors

Article
Analysis of Head Movement in KPSIT Dummies and the Impact
of Seats and Seat Belts during Low-Speed Collisions 20 km/h
Milos Poliak 1 , Damian Frej 2, * , Marek Jaśkiewicz 2, * , Jacek Caban 3 , Aleksander Górniak 4 ,
Mirosław Gidlewski 5 , Iwona Ewa Hajduk 1 , Przemysław Kubiak 6 and Dariusz Tarnapowicz 7

1 Department of Road and Urban Transport, University of Žilina, 010-26 Žilina, Slovakia;
[email protected] (M.P.); [email protected] (I.E.H.)
2 Department of Automotive Engineering and Transport, Kielce University of Technology, Avenue Tysiaclecia
Państwa Polskiego 7, 25-314 Kielce, Poland
3 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 36,
20-618 Lublin, Poland; [email protected]
4 Department of Automotive Engineering, Mechanical Faculty, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology,
50-370 Wroclaw, Poland; [email protected]
5 Institute of Vehicles and Transportation, Military University of Technology (WAT), gen. Sylwestra Kaliskiego
2 Street, 00-908 Warsaw, Poland; [email protected]
6 Ecotechnology Team, Lodz University of Technology, 266 Piotrkowska Street, 90-924 Lodz, Poland;
[email protected]
7 Faculty of Mechatronics and Electrical Engineering, Maritime University of Szczecin, Willowa 2,
71-650 Szczecin, Poland; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (D.F.); [email protected] (M.J.)

Abstract: The aim of this study was to compare the head displacement of the KPSIT C50 dummy,
representing a 50th percentile male, with the KPSIT C5 dummy, representing a 5th percentile female,
during low-speed collisions. Low-speed collisions, such as those occurring in urban traffic jams, are
increasingly common. The research was conducted on a dedicated educational workstation designed
to measure forces in seat belts. This study is part of a comprehensive research project on crash tests
involving both volunteers and physical KPSIT dummies. The tests were conducted at a speed of
Citation: Poliak, M.; Frej, D.; 20 km/h to simulate real-world low-speed collision scenarios. The findings demonstrate that using a
Jaśkiewicz, M.; Caban, J.; Górniak, A.;
sports bucket seat with four-point or five-point harnesses significantly reduces head displacement
Gidlewski, M.; Hajduk, I.E.; Kubiak,
compared with standard car seats. Such seating configurations enhance safety by minimizing the risk
P.; Tarnapowicz, D. Analysis of Head
of head injuries, which can occur when airbags do not deploy during low-speed collisions. Moreover,
Movement in KPSIT Dummies and
the study highlights that standard three-point seat belts allow for greater forward head movement,
the Impact of Seats and Seat Belts
during Low-Speed Collisions
increasing the risk of head contact with the vehicle’s interior during collisions at speeds too low to
20 km/h. Sensors 2024, 24, 5714. trigger airbag deployment.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175714
Keywords: crash tests; anthropometric dummy; safety
Academic Editor: George Yannis

Received: 27 May 2024

Revised: 9 August 2024
Accepted: 27 August 2024 1. Introduction
Published: 2 September 2024 Presently, there is a global initiative led by the European Union and numerous coun-
tries worldwide to mitigate the number of fatalities resulting from road accidents. Central
to this initiative is the “Vision Zero” philosophy, which has been widely adopted by these
nations. The fundamental goal of Vision Zero is to establish and oversee a transportation
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
system in which human error does not lead to fatalities or severe injuries [1–3]. Among the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
most prevalent errors contributing to road accidents are the failure to adapt speed to road
distributed under the terms and
conditions and the failure to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front [4–6].
conditions of the Creative Commons In line with the Vision Zero philosophy, the management of vehicle safety aims to
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// provide individuals who make errors (such as speeding or failing to maintain distance) with
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ opportunities to prevent accidents or mitigate the severity of injuries through the utilization
4.0/). of active and passive safety systems. Modern automobiles are now equipped with an array

Sensors 2024, 24, 5714. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175714 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 2 of 18

of safety features, including obstacle detection, active cruise control, lane-keeping assist,
and blind spot detection [7–9]. These systems collectively enhance the safety of all road
users. However, it is essential to recognize that seat belts constitute the fundamental safety
system in every vehicle. Originally introduced into mass production by Ford in 1955 and
Volvo in 1958, seat belts were primarily intended to restrain drivers’ and passengers’ bodies
during collisions [10–12].
At the moment of impact, the force of inertia propels a person’s body forward, increas-
ing the likelihood of collision with various cabin elements or even expulsion through the
front windshield. To mitigate such risks, the introduction of airbags has played a pivotal
role in reducing injuries to drivers and passengers during crash scenarios. In today’s
automotive landscape, it is challenging to conceive of a vehicle devoid of both airbags and
seat belts [13–15]. Nevertheless, it’s worth acknowledging the significant transformations
that motor vehicles have undergone in this era of automotive revolution. Modern vehi-
cles feature adjustable steering columns and customizable car seats, providing enhanced
comfort and safety for drivers and passengers alike [16–18]. These advancements reflect an
ongoing commitment within the automotive industry to prioritize both comfort and safety
in vehicle design and manufacturing.
In addition to advancements in vehicle safety features, notable changes have also taken
place in road infrastructure. Across many countries, significant expansions of highways
and expressways have occurred, often resulting in unidirectional traffic flow. This alteration
in road layout has contributed to a reduction in frontal and side collisions observed in
recent decades [19–21]. However, despite these improvements, rear-end collisions remain
a persistent concern, particularly at signalized intersections or during sudden stops in
urban traffic. Even at low speeds, such collisions can lead to severe injuries or fatalities.
It is crucial for car manufacturers to not overlook the significance of these incidents. At
speeds as low as 20 km/h, airbags may not deploy, and standard seat belts may not fully
engage due to the relatively minor impact force. Consequently, drivers and passengers risk
impacting the vehicle’s dashboard in such scenarios [22–25]. These realities underscore
the ongoing need for advancements in vehicle safety technology, coupled with continued
efforts to improve road infrastructure and promote safe driving practices.
Regrettably, it isimportant to acknowledge that each crash test dummy is specifically
designed for a particular type of crash test at a predetermined collision speed. While these
dummies may accurately simulate the human body’s biofidelity, manufacturers generally
do not endorse using a single dummy for multiple crash tests. Moreover, there is currently
a scarcity of specialized dummies tailored to low-speed crash simulations available in the
market [26–28].
In the realm of crash testing, the joints utilized in anthropometric dummies, such as
the Hybrid III, require meticulous disassembly, calibration, and reassembly after under-
going a series of collisions [29–31]. By contrast, the newly developed KPSIT C50 dummy
eliminates the need for recalibration post-collision testing. This highlights a significant
advantage of the KPSIT C50 design, offering enhanced convenience and efficiency in crash
test procedures [32,33].
It is worth emphasizing that an optimal design solution for anthropometric dummies
intended for crash testing would entail a construction that minimizes the need for frequent re-
calibration while ensuring joint durability and consistent test result reproducibility [28,34,35].
This underscores the importance of ongoing research and innovation in the field of crash
test dummy design to improve testing accuracy and reliability.
This article covers the topic of low-speed crash tests. The second chapter presents
the research setup for conducting these tests and describes the research methodology. In
this context, the tools used, measurement procedures, and data collection guidelines are
discussed. The third chapter presents the results of the conducted research. The observed
phenomena and collected data on displacement, acceleration, and other parameters of
low-speed collisions are described. The influence of various factors, such as the type of
car seat or seat belt, on the results of crash tests is also analyzed. Chapter four contains
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 3 of 18

a discussion of the obtained results. The consistency of the collected data with previous
studies available in the literature is analyzed. Differences and similarities in the results
are compared, with attention to potential factors that may affect the interpretation of the
results. Valuable conclusions from these studies can have significant implications for
further scientific research and engineering practice related to improving vehicle safety and
reducing injuries resulting from collisions.

2. Materials and Methods

Research on the movement of body parts, especially the head, during low-speed crash
tests was conducted over four years. Initially, the literature on crash testing was analyzed.
According to the requirements of dummy manufacturers, each dummy available on the
market is tailored to a specific type of crash test (frontal, side, rear) and for testing within
a specific collision speed range. Crash tests are most often conducted at speeds from
30 km/h to 64 km/h, and in the case of “whiplash” tests, speeds of 8 km/h or 16 km/h
are selected. It should be noted that low-speed collisions at 20 km/h are not commonly
conducted by research centers, and there is also a lack of dummies specifically designed for
such collisions.
As part of the research, new KPSIT dummies were constructed that correspond to
the dimensions and weight of an average man (50th percentile) and a small woman (5th
percentile). The 5th percentile dummy simulates smaller individuals, often women, while
the 50th percentile dummy represents an average-sized man. This selection allowed for the
evaluation of safety mechanisms across a wide spectrum of body types, ensuring the broad
applicability of the research results. These dummies were compared with the Hybrid III
dummy and the KPSIT C50 simulation model, allowing for an assessment of their behavior
during crash tests.
Experimental studies were conducted at the Faculty of Automotive Vehicles and
Transport of the Kielce University of Technology using an educational station designed to
simulate low-speed collisions and measure forces acting on seat belts. The research station
allows for crash tests at speeds ranging from 5 km/h to 25 km/h, enabling rear, side, and
frontal crash tests. The experimental setup included two separate measurement circuits.
The first circuit recorded the acceleration of the test platform and seat and monitored the
forces acting on the seat belts. The second measurement system was specifically designed
to document crash tests using a high-speed Digital Phantom V310 camera. This approach
enabled a detailed analysis of the dynamic responses of the dummies during simulated
collisions, providing valuable insights into their comparative performance and effectiveness
in crash scenarios.
Before each series of tests, the dummies were meticulously calibrated to ensure mea-
surement accuracy. Calibration involved checking the dummies’ joints and adjusting them
to specific research requirements. Special attention was given to ensuring that the dummies
were properly positioned and that their parameters were consistent with real test condi-
tions, which was particularly important when comparing results between different types
of dummies.
During the research, the authors encountered several significant challenges. The lack
of existing dummies for low-speed tests necessitated the construction of new models that
would meet the specifications and research objectives. It was also necessary to ensure that
the calibration of the dummies was precise enough for the results to be reliable and suitable
for further comparative analyses. Additionally, the complexity of the data analysis required
advanced methods to accurately assess the differences in dummy behavior in various
crash scenarios. These challenges demanded an innovative approach and the application
of advanced engineering techniques, which allowed for obtaining valuable and reliable
research results.
a. RESEARCH GROUP
Experimental research was conducted at the Department of Automotive Vehicles and
Transport at the Faculty of Mechatronics and Machine Construction, Kielce University
 analysis required advanced methods to accurately assess the differences in dummy be-
havior in various crash scenarios. These challenges demanded an innovative approach
and the application of advanced engineering techniques, which allowed for obtaining
valuable and reliable research results.
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 a. RESEARCH GROUP 4 of 18
Experimental research was conducted at the Department of Automotive Vehicles and
Transport at the Faculty of Mechatronics and Machine Construction, Kielce University of
of Technology,
Technology, in in Kielce.
Kielce. TheThe research
research waswas carried
carried outout
on on an educational
an educational workstation
workstation de-
designed
signed forfor simulating
simulating low-speed
low-speed collisions
collisions and measuring
and measuring forcesforces
in seatin seatThe
belts. belts. The
research
research workstation
workstation is depictedis depicted
in Figure in
1. Figure 1. The workstation
The workstation enables theenables the of
execution execution
low-speed of
low-speed collision
collision tests ranging tests
fromranging
5 km/hfrom
to 255km/h.
km/hThe to 25 km/h.setup
research The features
researchasetup features
measurement
atrack
measurement track
with a length ofwith
10 maalong
lengthwhich
of 10 amtest
along whichwith
platform a test platform
a car seat canwith a carmove.
freely seat
can freely move. The workstation allows for conducting rear, side, and frontal
The workstation allows for conducting rear, side, and frontal collision tests. The collision collision
tests. The collision
tests were conducted tests were conducted
outdoors on a sunnyoutdoors
day. Theon acollision
sunny day.
testsThe
werecollision
recorded tests werea
using
recorded
high-speedusing a high-speed
Digital Pantom V310 Digital Pantom V310 camera.
camera.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Test
Test stand.
stand.

b.
b. IMPLEMENTATION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
The study
The study aimed
aimed toto investigate
investigate andand compare
compare headhead displacement
displacement between
between thethe KPSIT
KPSIT
C50 and
C50 and KPSIT
KPSIT C5 C5 dummies
dummies in in aa simulated
simulated crash
crash scenario.
scenario. Initially,
Initially, crash
crash simulations
simulations
were performed employing
were employing the theKPSIT
KPSITC50 C50dummy,
dummy,succeeded
succeeded bybytests with
tests thethe
with KPSIT
KPSITC5
dummy.
C5 dummy. TheThe experimental
experimental setup comprised
setup comprisedtwotwodistinct measurement
distinct measurement circuits. The The
circuits. first
first circuit
circuit captured
captured the acceleration
the acceleration ofresearch
of the the research platform
platform and theandtested
the tested
seat, seat,
alongalong
with
with monitoring
monitoring the forces
the forces exerted
exerted on the onseat
the seat
belts.belts. Meanwhile,
Meanwhile, the second
the second measurement
measurement sys-
system
tem waswas specifically
specifically designed
designed to document
to document the crash
the crash test using
test using a high-speed
a high-speed DigitalDigital
Phan-
Phantom
tom V310V310 camera.
camera. ThisThis comprehensive
comprehensive approach
approach allowedfor
allowed fora adetailed
detailedanalysis
analysis of the
the
dynamic responses of the dummies during the simulated collisions,
dynamic responses of the dummies during the simulated collisions, providing valuable providing valuable
insights
insightsinto
intotheir
theircomparative
comparative performance
performance and effectiveness
and effectiveness in crash scenarios.
in crash A diagram
scenarios. A dia-
of the of
gram stand
the used
standfor thefor
used crash
the tests
crashistests
shown in Figure
is shown 2.
in Figure 2.
In the experimental low-speed crash tests at 20 km/h, the precise control of variables
such as the seat adjustment angle and seatbelt tension was crucial to ensure the reliability of
the results. Before each test, the seatback angle was precisely measured to ensure uniform
test conditions. An inclinometer, a specialized device known for its high accuracy in
measuring tilt angles, was used for this purpose. The inclinometer allowed for the precise
adjustment of the seat to a specific angle, eliminating discrepancies due to inconsistent
seating positions in different tests.
To ensure proper seatbelt tension, thorough inspections were conducted before each
test. The belts needed to be adequately tightened to eliminate any slack between them
and the dummy’s body, which is key to replicating real-world collision conditions. Si-
multaneously, the tension had to be high enough to prevent body displacement but not
cause discomfort. The target was to achieve a belt tension force of 50 N. Precise tension
measurements were conducted using a handheld dynamometer, allowing for the accurate
determination and maintenance of consistent belt tension levels in each test.
Sensors 2024,
Sensors 24, 5714
2024, 24, 5714 5 of 18
5 of 18

Figure
Figure 2. Diagram
2. Diagram of the
of the stand
stand used
used for for crash
crash tests.
tests.

The application of these procedures ensured high consistency and repeatability of

In the experimental low-speed crash tests at 20 km/h, the precise control of variables
the experiments, contributing to the acquisition of reliable data on the head movement of
such as the seat adjustment angle and seatbelt tension was crucial to ensure the reliability
KPSIT dummies during low-speed collisions. This approach ensured that the study results
of the results. Before each test, the seatback angle was precisely measured to ensure uni-
were robust and could serve as a basis for further analyses of the impact of seatbelts and
form test conditions. An inclinometer, a specialized device known for its high accuracy in
seats on passenger safety.
measuring tilt angles, was used for this purpose. The inclinometer allowed for the precise
c.
adjustmentDATA ANALYSIS
of the seat to a specific angle, eliminating discrepancies due to inconsistent
seating The
positions in different
schematic tests.
representation of the data acquisition process is depicted in Figure 3.
To ensure
Both proper
the KPSIT C50seatbelt
and KPSITtension, thoroughunderwent
C5 dummies inspectionscrash
were tests
conducted beforecollision
at identical each
test. The belts
speeds. Theneeded
capturedto crash
be adequately tightened
test footage from the toDigital
eliminate any slack
Phantom between
V310 camerathem and
was initially
theanalyzed
dummy’susingbody,TEMA
whichCLASSIC
is key to replicating real-world
T2020c software. TEMA collision
CLASSIC conditions. Simultane-
is an advanced motion
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 6 of 18
ously, the tension
analysis softwarehad
usedtoinbecrash
hightests
enough to prevent
to precisely trackbody displacement
the trajectory but notofcause
and velocity objects,
such as test
discomfort. Thedummies,
target wasusing video arecordings.
to achieve belt tensionItforce
allowsof you
50 N.toPrecise
visualize and calculate
tension meas-
speed and
urements wereacceleration
conductedto helpayou
using evaluate
handheld the effectiveness
dynamometer, of vehicle
allowing safety
for the systems.
accurate de-
termination and maintenance of consistent belt tension levels in each test.
The application of these procedures ensured high consistency and repeatability of
the experiments, contributing to the acquisition of reliable data on the head movement of
KPSIT dummies during low-speed collisions. This approach ensured that the study re-
sults were robust and could serve as a basis for further analyses of the impact of seatbelts
and seats on passenger safety.
c. DATA ANALYSIS
The schematic representation of the data acquisition process is depicted in Figure 3.
Both the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies underwent crash tests at identical collision
speeds. The captured crash test footage from the Digital Phantom V310 camera was ini-
tially analyzed using TEMA CLASSIC T2020c software. TEMA CLASSIC is an advanced
motion analysis software used in crash tests to precisely track the trajectory and velocity
of objects, such as test dummies, using video recordings. It allows you to visualize and
calculate speed and acceleration to help you evaluate the effectiveness of vehicle safety
systems.
Schemeofofmeasurement
Figure3.3.Scheme
Figure measurementdatadatarecording
recordingonona acrash
crashtest
teststand.
stand.
Following this, the data pertaining to the displacements of specific body parts of the
dummies were transcribed
Following into pertaining
this, the data an Excel 2019 spreadsheet.
to the displacementsThis facilitated
of specific the
body creation
parts ofofthe
d. Object
graphs of experimental
illustrating research
the comparative
dummies were transcribed into andisplacements of differentThis
Excel 2019 spreadsheet. components
facilitatedofthethe dum- of
creation
mies Theillustrating
under
graphs crash teststhe
of the
test conditions. KPSIT
This C50
meticulous
comparative anddata
C5 dummies
displacementsprocessing involved
approach
of different frontal,
enabled
components rear,
of athe and
compre- side
dummies
collisions.
hensive testEach
underexamination crashoftest
conditions. the using
This the dummy
performance
meticulous was repeated
differences
data between
processing 5 times
approach to ensure
the KPSIT
enabled a the
C50 andcredibility
KPSIT
comprehensive
C5and repeatability
dummies
examination of theof
during thesimulations.
crash data. The
performance final analysis
differences betweencomparing
the KPSIT C50 theanddisplacement
KPSIT C5 dummiesof the
dummy’s head was conducted
during crash simulations. based on averaged data from the 5 samples. The crash tests
were conducted using two types of car seats, as depicted in Figures 4 and 5. The recline
angle of the seat back relative to the ground during the crash tests was 110°, and this range
was checked and corrected after each series of 5 measurements. Tests using the bucket seat
were conducted with four-point and five-point harnesses, while tests using the regular car
seat were conducted with three-point and four-point harnesses.
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 6 of 18

Figure 3. Scheme of measurement data recording on a crash test stand.

d.
d. Object
Object of
of experimental
experimental research
research
The
The crash
crash tests
tests of
of the
the KPSIT
KPSIT C50C50 and
and C5C5 dummies
dummies involved
involved frontal,
frontal, rear,
rear, and
and side
side
collisions. Each crash test using the dummy was repeated 5 times to ensure
collisions. Each crash test using the dummy was repeated 5 times to ensure the credibilitythe credibility
and
andrepeatability
repeatabilityof of
thethe
data. The final
data. The analysis comparing
final analysis the displacement
comparing of the dummy’s
the displacement of the
head
dummy’swas conducted based on based
head was conducted averaged data from
on averaged thefrom
data 5 samples. The crash
the 5 samples. The tests
crashwere
tests
conducted using using
were conducted two types of car of
two types seats,
car as depicted
seats, in Figures
as depicted 4 and 5.
in Figures The 5.
4 and recline angle
The recline
of the seat back ◦ and this range was
angle of the seatrelative to the to
back relative ground duringduring
the ground the crash tests was
the crash tests110
was, 110°, and this range
checked and corrected after each series of 5 measurements. Tests using the
was checked and corrected after each series of 5 measurements. Tests using the bucket bucket seat were
seat
conducted with four-point and five-point harnesses, while tests using the
were conducted with four-point and five-point harnesses, while tests using the regular regular car seat
car
were conducted
seat were with with
conducted three-point and four-point
three-point harnesses.
and four-point harnesses.

Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 7 of 18

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Sport
Sport bucket
bucket car
car seat.
seat.

Figure5.5. Passenger
Figure Passenger car
car seat.
seat.

The
Theaim
aimof of the
the article
article was
was to
to determine
determine the
the differences
differences in in head
head displacement
displacementbetween
between
the
the KPSIT
KPSIT C50 and and KPSIT
KPSITC5 C5dummies
dummiesduring
duringa collision
a collisiontesttest
at aatspeed
a speed
of 20ofkm/h.
20 km/h.
This
This speed is particularly significant because it represents low-speed impacts,
speed is particularly significant because it represents low-speed impacts, which are often which are
often overlooked in traditional crash tests but are frequent in urban
overlooked in traditional crash tests but are frequent in urban traffic scenarios. Under- traffic scenarios.
Understanding the dynamics
standing the dynamics at this at this helps
speed speedimprove
helps improve safety measures
safety measures for everyday
for everyday driving
driving conditions.
conditions.
The
The selection
selection ofof two
two car
carseats
seats aimed
aimedatatexamining
examining the the differences
differences in inthe
thetrajectory
trajectory of
of
the dummy’s head movement, which provides insights into how
the dummy’s head movement, which provides insights into how seat design can impactseat design can impact
occupant
occupantsafety
safetyduring
duringcollisions.
collisions.A A sports
sports bucket
bucket seat
seat significantly
significantly differs
differs in
in construction
construction
from
from standard car seats, offering enhanced lateral support and a snugger fit. These
standard car seats, offering enhanced lateral support and a snugger fit. These seats
seats
are specifically designed to be better tailored to the human body, providing increased sta-
bility during vehicle operation, which can be crucial in high-performance and racing en-
vironments where sharp maneuvers and high g-forces are common.
Additionally, the use of four-point and five-point harnesses in the study highlights
the importance of advanced restraint systems. These harnesses reduce the possibility of
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 7 of 18

are specifically designed to be better tailored to the human body, providing increased
stability during vehicle operation, which can be crucial in high-performance and racing
environments where sharp maneuvers and high g-forces are common.
Additionally, the use of four-point and five-point harnesses in the study highlights the
importance of advanced restraint systems. These harnesses reduce the possibility of lateral
body movement and stabilize the human posture during driving, unlike standard seat belts,
which do not maintain the body posture in one position during vehicle operation. Standard
seat belts allow for some freedom of movement and include features like automatic belt
length adjustment to accommodate different occupant sizes and positions. However,
in the context of collision safety, particularly during low-speed impacts, the additional
restraint provided by multi-point harnesses can significantly enhance occupant protection
by minimizing the risk of injuries due to sudden lateral or forward movement.
This research underscores the necessity of evaluating seat and restraint designs in
various crash scenarios to optimize safety features that can mitigate injury risks across
different impact speeds and angles. By focusing on both the type of seat and the restraint
system, this study provides valuable data that can inform future automotive safety designs
and regulations, ultimately aiming to enhance the overall safety of vehicle occupants in
real-world conditions.

3. Results of Experimental Studies

In Figure 6, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
frontal collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is depicted, using four-point safety harnesses
and a sports bucket seat. In Figure 7, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 heads during a frontal collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is shown, using five-point 8 of 18
safety harnesses and a sports bucket seat. When four-point harnesses were employed,
the maximum head displacement in the X-axis direction was recorded for the KPSIT C50
dummy,
difference amounting to 0.20on
was calculated m.the
Thebasis
differences in head
of the sum trajectory values
of differences in each during
point the collision
of the head
test between
trajectory the aKPSIT
within C50time
specified and interval
KPSIT C5 dummies
(from 0.00 s towere
0.40 minor,
s), thennot exceeding
averaged and 15%.
pre-
This difference was calculated on the basis of the sum of differences
sented as a percentage value. When five-point harnesses were used, the maximum headin each point of the
head trajectory within a specified time interval (from 0.00 s to 0.40 s),
displacement in the X-axis direction was recorded for the KPSIT C50 dummy, amountingthen averaged and
presented
to 0.195 m.asThe
a percentage
differences value. When
in head five-point
trajectory harnesses
values duringwere used, thetest
the collision maximum
betweenhead the
displacement in the X-axis direction was recorded for the
KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were negligible, not exceeding 12%. KPSIT C50 dummy, amounting
to 0.195 m. The differences in head trajectory values during the collision test between the
KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were negligible, not exceeding 12%.

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

0.1
Displacement in the direction

0.05
0
of the Z axis, m

-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m
KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50

Figure 6. Head trajectory of KPSIT dummies during a frontal crash test at 20 km/h—four-point
km/h—four-point belts,
belts,
sports bucket seat.

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

0.1
ment in the direction

0.05
f the Z axis, m

-0.05
 D
-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m
KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50

Figure 6. Head trajectory of KPSIT dummies during a frontal crash test at 20 km/h—four-point belts,
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 8 of 18
sports bucket seat.

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

0.1

Displacement in the direction

0.05

of the Z axis, m
0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m

KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50

Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 9 of 18
Figure7.7.
Figure Head
Head trajectory
trajectory ofof KPSIT
KPSIT dummiesduring
dummies duringa afrontal
frontalcrash
crashtest
testatat2020km/h—five-point
km/h—five-point belts,
belts,
sports bucket seat.
sports bucket seat.

InFigure
Figure
InWhen 8,8,the
thetrajectory
five-point trajectory ofthe
harnessesofwere theKPSIT
KPSIT
used, theC50
C50 andKPSIT
maximum
and KPSIT
headC5
C5 dummyheads
displacement
dummy heads during
in during
the aa
X-axis
rear collision
direction was test at
recordeda speed
for of
the 20 km/h
KPSIT is
C50 presented,
dummy, using four-point
amounting to 0.25safety
m.
rear collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is presented, using four-point safety harnesses and Theharnesses and
differences
asports
ain sports bucketseat.
headbucket
trajectory seat.InInFigure
values Figure
during9,9,the
thetrajectory
the trajectory
collision ofofthe
test theKPSIT
KPSIT
between C50
the
C50 andKPSIT
KPSIT
and KPSIT
C50 andC5
C5 dummy
KPSIT
dummy C5
heads
dummies
heads during
duringwere a rear collision
negligible,
a rear collisionnot test at a
testexceedingspeed
at a speed10%. of 20 km/h is depicted, using five-point
of 20 km/h is depicted, using five-point safety safety
harnessesand
harnesses anda asports
sportsbucket
bucketseat.
seat.
When four-point
-0.3 harnesses
-0.1 were used,0.1 the maximum 0.3 head displacement
0.5 in the X-
0.1 was recorded for the KPSIT C50 dummy, amounting to 0.235 m. The differ-
axis direction
ences in head trajectory values during the collision test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT
Displacement in the direction

C5 dummies0.05 were minor, not exceeding 8%.

0
of the Z axis, m

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m

KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50

Figure 8. Head
Figure Head trajectory
trajectoryofofKPSIT
KPSITdummies
dummiesduring a rear-end
during crash
a rear-end test at
crash 20 at
test km/h—four-point belts.
20 km/h—four-point
belts.
When four-point harnesses were used, the maximum head displacement in the X-axis
direction was recorded for the KPSIT C50 dummy, amounting to 0.235 m. The differences
in head trajectory
-0.3 values-0.1
during the collision
0.1 test between
0.3 the KPSIT0.5
C50 and KPSIT C5
dummies 0.1 were minor, not exceeding 8%.
When five-point harnesses were used, the maximum head displacement in the X-axis
Displacement in the direction

0.05was recorded for the KPSIT C50 dummy, amounting to 0.25 m. The differences
direction
in head trajectory values during the collision test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5
0
of the Z axis, m

dummies were negligible, not exceeding 10%.

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m
 KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50

Figure 8. Head trajectory of KPSIT dummies during a rear-end crash test at 20 km/h—four-point
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 belts. 9 of 18

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

0.1

Displacement in the direction

0.05

of the Z axis, m
-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m

KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50

Figure
Figure 9. Head trajectory
9. Head trajectory of
of KPSIT
KPSIT dummies
dummies during
during aa rear
rear crash
crash test
test at
at 20
20 km/h—five-point belts.
km/h—five-point belts.

In Figure 10, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
In Figure 10, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
frontal collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is presented, using three-point safety belts and a
frontal collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is presented, using three-point safety belts and
regular car seat. When three-point seat belts were used, the differences in head trajectory
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 a regular car seat. When three-point seat belts were used, the differences in head trajectory
10 of 18
values during the collision test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were minor,
values during the collision test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were mi-
not exceeding 12%.
nor, not exceeding 12%.
-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
0.1

0.05
Displacement in the direction

0
of the Z axis, m

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m
KPSIT C50 KPSIT C5

Figure
Figure 10.10. Head
Head trajectory
trajectory of KPSIT
of KPSIT dummies
dummies during
during a frontal
a frontal crash crash
test attest at 20 km/h—three-
20 km/h—three-point
point
belts. belts.

In Figure 11, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
In Figure 11, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
rear collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is depicted, using three-point safety belts and a
rear collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is depicted, using three-point safety belts and a
regular car seat. When three-point seat belts were used, the differences in head trajectory
regular car seat. When three-point seat belts were used, the differences in head trajectory
values during the collision test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were minor,
values during the collision test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were mi-
not exceeding 10%.
nor, not exceeding 10%.

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

0.1

0.05
ment in the direction

0
f the Z axis, m

-0.05

-0.1
 In Figure 11, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
rear collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is depicted, using three-point safety belts and a
regular car seat. When three-point seat belts were used, the differences in head trajectory
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714
values during the collision test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were10mi- of 18
nor, not exceeding 10%.

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

0.1

0.05

Displacement in the direction

0

of the Z axis, m
-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m

KPSIT C50 KPSIT C5

Figure 11. Head trajectory of KPSIT dummies during a rear crash test at 20 km/h—three-point belts.
Figure 11. Head trajectory of KPSIT dummies during a rear crash test at 20 km/h—three-point belts.
In Figure 12, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 In Figure
frontal 12,test
collision the at
trajectory
a speed of
of the KPSITisC50
20 km/h and using
shown, KPSITfour-point
C5 dummy heads
safety during
belts. a
When 1
frontal collision
four-point test at
seat belts a speed
were used,of
the20differences
km/h is shown,
in headusing four-point
trajectory valuessafety
duringbelts. When
the collision
four-point seat belts were used, the differences in head trajectory values
test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were minor, not exceeding 10%.during the colli-
sion test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were minor, not exceeding 10%.
-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
0.1
Displacement in the direction

0.05
of the Z axis, mm

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m

KPSIT C50 KPSIT C5

Figure 12. Head trajectory of KPSIT dummies during a frontal crash test at 20 km/h—four-point belts.
Figure 12. Head trajectory of KPSIT dummies during a frontal crash test at 20 km/h—fou
belts.
In Figure 13, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
rear collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is depicted, using four-point safety belts. When
four-point seat belts In
wereFigure
used,13,
thethe trajectoryinof
differences the trajectory
head KPSIT C50 and KPSIT
values duringC5thedummy
collisionheads du
test between the rear collision
KPSIT testKPSIT
C50 and at a speed of 20 km/h
C5 dummies wereis minor,
depicted,
notusing four-point
exceeding 8%. safety belts.
The comparison of the head acceleration of KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummiesvalues
four-point seat belts were used, the differences in head trajectory during during th
a frontal crash test at a speed of 20 km/h, using four-point safety harnesses and a sports exceedin
sion test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were minor, not
bucket seat, is presented in Figure 14. It should be noted that during the collision, the
maximum head acceleration value was recorded as 205 m/s2 for the KPSIT C50 dummy and
152 m/s2 for the KPSIT C5-0.3
dummy. Lower values were observed
-0.1 0.1 for the
0.3KPSIT C5 dummy
0.5
0.1 using four-point safety harnesses and a sports bucket seat.
during the collision when
acement in the direction

0.05

0
of the Z axis, m

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
 In Figure 13, the trajectory of the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummy heads during a
rear collision test at a speed of 20 km/h is depicted, using four-point safety belts. When
four-point seat belts were used, the differences in head trajectory values during the colli-
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 sion test between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies were minor, not exceeding118%. of 18

-0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

0.1

Displacement in the direction

0.05

of the Z axis, m
-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Displacement in the X-axis direction, m

Sensors 2024, 24, 5714

KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50 12
Figure13.
Figure Head
13.Head trajectory
trajectory of of KPSIT
KPSIT dummies
dummies during
during a rear-end
a rear-end crashcrash test
test at 20 at 20 km/h—four-
km/h—four-point
point belts.
belts.
300
The comparison of the head acceleration of KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies dur-
ing a250
frontal crash test at a speed of 20 km/h, using four-point safety harnesses and a sports
bucket seat, is presented in Figure 14. It should be noted that during the collision, the
200
maximum head acceleration value was recorded as 205 m/s2 for the KPSIT C50 dummy
Acceleration m/s2

150 m/s2 for the KPSIT C5 dummy. Lower values were observed for the KPSIT C5
and 152
dummy during the collision when using four-point safety harnesses and a sports bucket
100
seat.
50

-50

-100
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Time, s
KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50

Figure 14. Comparison

Figure 14.ofComparison
the head acceleration ofacceleration
of the head the KPSIT C50 dummy
of the KPSITand
C50the KPSITand
dummy C5 dummy
the KPSIT C5 dum
during the frontal crash test at 20 km/h—four-point belts, sports bucket seat.
during the frontal crash test at 20 km/h—four-point belts, sports bucket seat.

The comparisonTheof head acceleration

comparison of headbetween the KPSIT
acceleration C50
between and
the KPSIT
KPSIT C50C5and
dummies
KPSIT C5 dum
during a frontal crash test at a speed of 20 km/h using a five-point safety harness and a
during a frontal crash test at a speed of 20 km/h using a five-point safety harness a
sports bucket seat is presented in Figure 15. It should be noted that during the collision, the
sports bucket seat is presented in Figure 15. It should be noted that during the collis
maximum head acceleration value was recorded as 255 m/s2 for the KPSIT C50 dummy and
the maximum head acceleration value was recorded as 255 m/s2 for the KPSIT C50 dum
173 m/s2 for the KPSIT C52 dummy. Lower values were observed for the KPSIT C5 dummy
and 173 m/s for the KPSIT C5 dummy. Lower values were observed for the KPSIT
during the collision when using five-point safety harnesses and a sports bucket seat.
dummy during the collision when using five-point safety harnesses and a sports bu
The comparison of head acceleration between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies
seat.
during a frontal crash test at a speed of 20 km/h using three-point safety belts and a
passenger car seat is depicted in Figure 16. It should be noted that during the collision, the
300
maximum head acceleration value was recorded as 110 m/s2 for the KPSIT C50 dummy
2
and 100 m/s for the 250KPSIT C5 dummy. Lower values were observed for the KPSIT C5
dummy during the collision when using three-point safety belts and a passenger car seat.
200
Acceleration m/s2

150
100
50
0
-50
-100
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
 sports bucket seat is presented in Figure 15. It should be noted that during the collision,
the maximum head acceleration value was recorded as 255 m/s2 for the KPSIT C50 dummy
and 173 m/s2 for the KPSIT C5 dummy. Lower values were observed for the KPSIT C5
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 dummy during the collision when using five-point safety harnesses and a sports bucket
12 of 18
seat.

300
250
200

Acceleration m/s2
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Time, s

KPSIT C50 KPSIT C5

Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 13 of 18
Figure 15. Comparison of the head acceleration of the KPSIT C50 dummy and the KPSIT C5 dummy
Figure 15.aComparison
during of the
frontal crash test head
at 20 acceleration ofbelts,
km/h—five-point the KPSIT
bucket C50 dummy
sports seat. and the KPSIT C5 dummy
during a frontal crash test at 20 km/h—five-point belts, bucket sports seat.
300
The comparison of head acceleration between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies
250
during a frontal crash test at a speed of 20 km/h using three-point safety belts and a pas-
Acceleration m/s2

200
senger car seat is depicted in Figure 16. It should be noted that during the collision, the
150 head acceleration value was recorded as 110 m/s2 for the KPSIT C50 dummy
maximum
100m/s2 for the KPSIT C5 dummy. Lower values were observed for the KPSIT C5
and 100
dummy50 during the collision when using three-point safety belts and a passenger car seat.
0
-50
-100
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Time, s

KPSIT C5 KPSIT C50

Figure 16. Comparison of the head acceleration of the KPSIT C50 dummy and the KPSIT C5 dummy
Figure 16.aComparison
during of the
frontal crash test head
at 20 acceleration of the
km/h—three-point beltsKPSIT C50 car
passenger dummy
seat. and the KPSIT C5 dummy
during a frontal crash test at 20 km/h—three-point belts passenger car seat.
The comparison of acceleration between the KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies during
a rear-end crash test of
The comparison at aacceleration
speed of 20 km/h betweenusing
thethree-point
KPSIT C50 safety
and belts
KPSITandC5a passenger
dummies dur-
car seat is depicted in Figure 17. It should be noted that during the collision,
ing a rear-end crash test at a speed of 20 km/h using three-point safety belts and a passen- the maximum
2 for the KPSIT C50 dummy and 245 m/s2
gerhead acceleration
car seat valuein
is depicted was recorded
Figure asshould
17. It 240 m/sbe noted that during the collision, the max-
for the KPSIT C5 dummy. Lower values were observed for 2the KPSIT C50 dummy during
imum head acceleration value was recorded as 240 m/s for the KPSIT C50 dummy and
the collision when using three-point safety belts and a passenger car seat.
245 m/s2 for the KPSIT C5 dummy. Lower values were observed for the KPSIT C50
dummy during the collision when using three-point safety belts and a passenger car seat.

300
250
200
Acceleration m/s2

150
100
50
0
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 13 of 18

Figure 17. Comparison of acceleration of KPSIT C50 dummy and KPSIT C5 dummy during rear
crash test at 20 km/h—three-point belts, seat, passenger car.

4. Discussion
Article [34] describes a research setup and a specialized control system with data
acquisition for experimental analysis of physical parameters during vehicle crash tests.
These tests were conducted at low speeds using a dummy carriage, employing various
types of seat belts ranging from two-point to multi-point configurations. Details regarding
the research setup, control system, and measurement apparatus utilized are outlined.
During the experiments, the authors delineated the force profiles acting on the three-point
section of the lap and shoulder belts within collision speeds ranging from 15 km/h to
17 km/h. The authors demonstrated that despite the low speeds, the force values between
the dummy and the three-point seat belts can reach significant magnitudes, even up to 5 kN,
with a dynamic increase on the order of 30 kN/s. In the ongoing study, a modified research
setup was employed for crash tests. The setup was expanded, and the measurement track
was extended from 7 m to 10 m. The final 3 m of the measurement track were horizontally
positioned relative to the ground to stabilize the collision velocity.
Previous articles [32,33] have focused on comparing the results of crash tests conducted
on volunteers with computer simulation using a dummy. The authors conducted a series
of crash tests on volunteers, followed by a simulation using a dummy in the MSC ADAMS
2023 program. The simulation results of dummy head displacement aligned with the
results observed during volunteer crash tests, validating the credibility of the simulation
model crafted by the authors in the MSC ADAMS 2023 program. In the ongoing study, a
series of five crash tests were conducted under identical conditions. The results from the
crash test series were averaged to reduce errors stemming from individual tests.
One article [35] presented a research setup and a control and data acquisition system
for experimental low-speed crash tests. The authors conducted experimental crash tests
involving volunteers. The authors’ studies encompassed volunteers of both genders, and
the results indicated that the trajectory of female volunteers’ heads aligned with that of male
volunteers. These findings suggest that the construction of an anthropometric dummy for
low-speed crash tests can be based on data averaged across the entire population, without
the need to account for gender differences. In the ongoing study, it was demonstrated
that the difference in head displacement between KPSIT C50 and KPSIT C5 dummies
ranged from 8% to 12%. The results suggest that differences in the mass and dimensions
of individual dummy body parts during low-speed crash tests do not induce changes.
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175714 www.
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 14 of 18

Perhaps one KPSIT dummy representing the 50th percentile population is sufficient for
determining displacements, irrespective of gender.
Another article [36] conducted research aimed at examining the acceleration and force
resulting from contact between go-karts, a popular amusement park attraction. During
44 low-speed collisions between a stationary go-kart and a moving go-kart involving
passengers, one of the measuring devices used was a male 50th percentile Hybrid III
ATD. The authors demonstrated that the acceleration and velocity changes of the go-
karts increased with higher collision speeds, while the collision duration and restitution
decreased at higher collision speeds. Injury indices such as HIC remained below harmful
thresholds. In the ongoing study, maximum head acceleration during collisions, ranging
from 100 to 260 m/s2 , was recorded, depending on the type of car seat and seat belt used.
The lowest acceleration values occurred when standard three-point belts were employed.
Unfortunately, when using these belts, the dummy head displacement was several times
greater than when using five-point or four-point belts.
The research conducted in [37] showed that tests at a speed of 56 km/h do not
favor the use of technologies reducing chest injuries in cases of lower force. The authors
analyzed the benefits of conducting crash tests with a lower-force front barrier (40 km/h)
using female dummies restrained by 5% belts and more stringent requirements regarding
chest injury. The authors’ preliminary analysis suggested that a standard limiting chest
deflection to 34 mm could reduce the risk of serious chest injuries by 16–24% in the case of
seat-belted individuals during frontal collisions. In the ongoing study, chest deflection was
not measured. The authors focused solely on dummy head displacement and acceleration
during crash testing. Head displacement on the order of 0.3 m can cause the head to
strike the vehicle’s cockpit. Collision at such a speed does not always activate the airbag.
Therefore, improperly positioned car seats may cause additional injuries to the occupant
when the head strikes the car’s cockpit during a low-speed collision. Unfortunately, such
collisions are often encountered in urban traffic jams.
In another article [38], the authors evaluated the effectiveness of Autonomous Emer-
gency Braking (AEB) technology at low speeds in current passenger vehicle models, based
on real accident experiences. The authors’ research results showed an overall reduction in
rear-end collision accidents by 38% for vehicles equipped with AEB compared to a control
group of similar vehicles. Additionally, the authors found no statistical evidence of any
difference in the effectiveness of AEB between urban areas (≤60 km/h) and rural areas
(>60 km/h). The research in [39] suggests that current crash test dummies are based on Eu-
ropean and American models, which may lead to limitations in predicting injuries in other
regions. The authors demonstrated that further research is needed on crash test dummies
that take into account differences between countries and develop dummies representing
different groups of people, such as older individuals or those with obesity. In the ongoing
study, KPSIT dummies were used; these are dedicated to low-speed crash tests in which the
most important parameter is the displacement and acceleration of individual body parts at
the moment of impact.
The aim of the study in [40] was to examine changes in the frequency, risk, and patterns
of lower limb injuries depending on vehicle and passenger parameters as a function
of the vehicle model year. To achieve this, the authors analyzed 10,988 observations
representing 4.7 million drivers involved in frontal collisions. The authors applied a logistic
regression model to understand the relationship between persistent lower limb injuries
and characteristics of car accidents, such as vehicle type, model year, and the intrusion
of footwells and dashboards, as well as passenger characteristics like age, gender, height,
and weight. The authors’ research showed that the risk of lower limb injuries in women
was higher than in men. According to the authors, increased driver mass had a positive
relationship with injury occurrence, while age and height did not affect the likelihood of
injury. In the ongoing study, the authors confirmed that the type of seat belt and car seat
had an impact on injuries during low-speed accidents. The authors emphasized that a
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 15 of 18

properly selected and adjusted car seat contributes to reducing the risk of injury during
low-speed collisions.
In [41], the authors highlighted a significant difference in the number of fatalities and
injuries in car accidents between male and female drivers. Female drivers are 13% more
likely to die in similar car accidents compared to male drivers. Meanwhile, in [42], the
authors presented the full results of a low-intensity frontal collision in which a small vehicle
struck a stationary vehicle at a speed of about 12 m/s, causing it to overturn. The authors’
findings indicated that even a low-intensity collision poses a significant threat and carries
the risk of vehicle rollover as well as head and neck injuries to the passenger. Even at a
relatively low speed, the driver experienced minor neck and head injuries in the following
days, and the longitudinal damages were significant. In the ongoing study, the authors
confirmed that despite the low collision speed, head acceleration in the range of 100 to
260 m/s2 can cause serious cervical injuries.

5. Conclusions
In the literature on the subject, a definition of low-speed collision up to 25 km/h
has been adopted. For low-speed collisions, rear-end crash tests of the whiplash type
are conducted. These are most commonly performed at speeds of 8 km/h and 16 km/h.
Low-speed collisions are also conducted in the case of vehicle front bumper tests. These
tests are typically carried out at speeds of 5 km/h and 10 km/h. For the experimental crash
tests conducted, a speed of 20 km/h was adopted. Both frontal and rear crash tests were
performed. On the basis of the crash tests involving KPSIT dummies, the trajectory of head
movement was determined. The level of potential bodily injury was assessed on the basis
of the displacement of the dummies’ head movement. It should be noted that in the case of
frontal collisions, a collision at 20 km/h is not fatal, but due to incorrect seat positioning and
improperly fastened seat belts, the accident participant may additionally hit the vehicle’s
dashboard, which can cause cervical spine injuries. Moreover, the rebounding head in a
frontal collision, striking a poorly adjusted headrest, can further exacerbate cervical spine
injuries. In the case of rear collisions at a speed of 20 km/h, it can cause severe cervical
spine injuries. Therefore, due to safety reasons, it is not possible to use volunteers in such
crash tests.
In the assessment of low-speed collisions, the accuracy and durability of the dummy
are of particular importance. The constructed KPSIT dummies can be used for crash tests,
including side, rear, and frontal collisions at low speeds. Using a single dummy allows
for a comprehensive understanding of the displacements of various body parts at the
moment of impact at low speeds. According to traffic accident statistics, the number of
frontal and side collisions has significantly decreased in the past decade. This is due to the
development of road infrastructure, especially expressways and highways, on which all
vehicles move in the same direction. Urban infrastructure has also undergone significant
changes, with parallel intersections increasingly being replaced by roundabouts, which also
reduce the likelihood of frontal accidents. It can only be observed that rear-end collisions
have remained almost at the same level for several years across the EU. Rear-end collisions
most often occur at intersections or in traffic jams due to a failure to stop in time. Rear-end
collisions are the most dangerous for passengers and the driver of the vehicle because
even at low speeds, they can cause serious upper cervical injuries. Therefore, experimental
studies of low-speed crash tests are necessary to examine how vehicle elements such as the
driver’s seat or seat belts affect body displacement.
The results of experimental studies highlight minimal differences in the head dis-
placement profiles of the KPSIT dummies. It is noteworthy that gender seems to have a
negligible impact on the differences observed in the displacement patterns of the dummies’
body parts during low-speed collision simulations. The custom-made KPSIT dummy
models tailored for low-speed impact simulations prove to be essential tools for uncovering
the complexities of human injury mechanisms during collisions. Comparative analyses of
the head displacement profiles of the dummies reveal a noticeable influence of changes
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 16 of 18

in car seat designs and types of seat belts on the dynamics of head displacement during
low-speed collisions. The use of four-point or five-point seat belt configurations ensures
less head displacement of the KPSIT C50 dummy during 20 km/h collisions compared to
conventional seat belt systems.
Summarizing the comparative assessment of crash test outcomes between KPSIT C50
and KPSIT C5 dummy variants, nuanced differences in head displacement and acceleration
profiles surfaced. While both dummy iterations exhibit similar behavioral patterns across
frontal, rear, and side impact scenarios at 20 km/h, the KPSIT C50 dummy demonstrates
marginally reduced displacement and acceleration metrics relative to its KPSIT C5 counter-
part. The implementation of four-point and five-point seatbelt systems within bucket sports
seats, alongside three-point seatbelts in passenger car settings, collectively contributes to
the mitigation of head displacement for both dummy variants. Conversely, trials featuring
three-point seatbelts in passenger car configurations manifest the least accelerative forces,
indicative of the efficacy of standard safety mechanisms in passenger vehicles. In essence,
while dissimilarities in dummy responses during crash simulations are discernible, over-
arching parallels underscore the suitability of both dummy models for vehicular safety
assessments. Moreover, these nuances furnish pivotal insights for advancing research
endeavors aimed at enhancing road transport safety, particularly in the realm of passenger
protection system design.
The results of the experimental studies confirmed that gender is not a significant
parameter in low-speed crash tests. The differences between the head displacement of
the KPSIT C50 dummy and the KPSIT C5 dummy were within 10%. However, it should
be noted that the seating preferences of men and women are likely different. Therefore,
in further research, the authors will compare the seat settings, including the angle of the
backrest and headrest, among volunteers divided by gender.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.F., I.E.H., J.C. and P.K.; Methodology, M.P., D.F., M.J.,
A.G., I.E.H. and M.G.; Software, D.F.; Validation, D.F.; Formal analysis, D.F. and I.E.H.; Investigation,
M.P. and D.F.; Resources, D.F. and A.G.; Data curation, D.F.; Writing—original draft, D.F. and M.J.;
Writing—review & editing, D.F., M.J. and A.G.; Visualization, D.F., M.J. and J.C.; Supervision, M.P.,
D.F., M.J. and D.T.; Project administration, M.P., D.F. and P.K.; Funding acquisition, M.P. and D.F. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This publication was created as part of the KEGA research project: 025ŽU-4/2023 Identifi-
cation of the impact of driver fatigue on road safety.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The article was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Kielce University of Tehnologi
(004 of the day 3 November 2022).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the article.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Almqvist, S.; Djurberg, P.; Edgren, T.; Fredriksson, R. The Development of a New Test Method to Evaluate Pedestrian Head
Impact Protection Using an Anthropomorphic Test Device. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2017, 18, 400–406.
2. Anund, A.; Fors, C.; Nordström, T. The Use of the Vision Zero Strategy for Road Safety in Sweden: Investigating the Effect of
Increasingly Strict Speed Limits. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 137, 105457. [CrossRef]
3. Aydin, N.; Karaca, F.; Demirci, E. Real-Time Traffic Accident Detection and Condition Analysis Using High-Resolution Traffic
Cameras. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 87, 249–261. [CrossRef]
4. Bach, P.; Sadagopan, A.; Morando, A.; Schoettle, B.; Gao, Y.; Al-Naami, B.; Sherony, R.; Toma, S.; Fasil, H.; Flannagan, C.; et al.
Vehicle Automation and Electrification on Urban Traffic Energy Consumption: Evidence from Real-World Applications and
Implications for Energy Policy. Appl. Energy 2020, 259, 114137. [CrossRef]
5. Baumann, J.; Durbin, D.R.; Arbogast, K.B.; Seacrist, T. Comparison of Thoracic Responses of ATD and Pediatric PMHS in
Low-Speed Frontal Impacts. Stapp Car Crash J. 2014, 58, 179–202. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 17 of 18

6. Bellem, H.; Thiel, B.; Schrauf, M.; Krems, J.F. Comfort in Automated Driving: An Analysis of Preferences for Different Automated
Driving Styles and Their Dependence on Personality Traits. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 55, 90–100. [CrossRef]
7. Boström, O.; Bohman, K.; Pipkorn, B.; Jakobsson, L.; Haland, Y.; Eriksson, J.L.; Pywell, J.; Wolf, H.; Schell, H. Development and
Evaluation of a New Rear-Seat Frontal Impact Concept. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2020, 21, 152–159.
8. Broberg, T.; Rosander, M.; Andréasson, R.; Pettersson, H. Assessment of Driver Inattention—Two Different Ways of Measuring
Driver’s Gaze Behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 150, 105872. [CrossRef]
9. Brumbelow, M.L.; Zuby, D.S. Impact of Rear Seat Belt Reminders on Adult Rear Seat Belt Use. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 125, 51–58.
[CrossRef]
10. Burns, A.; Kanarachos, S.; Thite, A.; Mandal, M.; Mathai, S.K. Development of a Framework for the Evaluation of Integrated
Safety Systems for Vehicles. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 71, 33–40.
11. Carlsson, A.; Bohman, K.; Jakobsson, L.; Svensson, M.Y. Performance of Different Rear Seat Frontal Impact Protection Principles
for the Adult Passenger. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 159, 106275. [CrossRef]
12. Chockalingam, V.; Chinnadurai, V.; Periyasamy, P. Analysis of Vehicle Dynamics and Stability Control Systems Using the
MATLAB/SIMULINK Framework. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 95, 497–515. [CrossRef]
13. Choi, E.; Eluru, N.; Paleti, R.; Bhat, C.R. Modeling Crash Propensity Using Multilevel Mixed Models: An Analysis of the Effects
of Vehicle, Driver, and Roadway Characteristics on Crash Occurrence. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 76, 84–95. [CrossRef]
14. Collins, L.M.; Kahlon, S.; McCarthy, S.; Thompson, J. An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
(ADAS) in Reducing Road Traffic Crashes: A Case Study of the Australian Market. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 142, 105557.
15. Cordell, S.; Williamson, B.; Dumitru, G.; Lim, C.; Kang, H.; Shin, Y.; McAlpine, A.; Howard, D. Acoustic Signature Prediction of
Motor Vehicles in an Urban Environment for Enhanced Pedestrian Safety. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2021, 97, 102888.
[CrossRef]
16. Decker, M.; McKinley, T.; Stitz, M.; Lowry, J. Advancements in Adaptive Cruise Control Systems and Their Role in Enhancing
Vehicle Safety. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 170, 1165–1172. [CrossRef]
17. Dingus, T.A.; Guo, F.; Lee, S.; Antin, J.F.; Perez, M.; Buchanan-King, M.; Hankey, J. Driver Crash Risk Factors and Prevalence
Evaluation Using Naturalistic Driving Data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 2636–2641. [CrossRef]
18. Donaldson, L.; Cohen, J.; Turoff, S.; Salunkhe, A.; Mancuso, R.; Rubin, D. Integration of Passive and Active Safety Systems in
Modern Vehicles: A Review of Current Technologies and Their Effectiveness. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 22, 4550–4563.
19. Engelbrecht, R.; Richardson, B.; Streff, F. Safety Impact of Connected and Automated Vehicle Systems on Traffic Accidents in
Michigan. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 124, 231–243. [CrossRef]
20. Fagerlind, H.; Ydenius, A.; Kullgren, A.; Ohlin, M.; Tingvall, C. Driver Behavior in Relation to Automatic Emergency Braking
System Activation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 146, 105714. [CrossRef]
21. Fujita, S.; Taniguchi, K.; Takeuchi, M. The Effects of Infrastructure Development on Traffic Safety: A Study of Expressway
Expansion in Japan. J. Transp. Land Use 2019, 12, 151–167.
22. Grembek, O.; Shaheen, S. The Role of Advanced Vehicle Technologies in Achieving Vision Zero Goals: A Case Study of Automated
Vehicle Deployment in Urban Areas. J. Saf. Res. 2020, 72, 171–180.
23. Gribble, J.N.; Ezzati, A.M.; Kononov, J.; Sokolow, J. Effects of Driver Assistance Systems on Traffic Safety in the United States.
Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 81, 21–31. [CrossRef]
24. Hamdar, S.H.; Mahmassani, H.S.; Chen, R. Aggressiveness Propensity Index for Driver Behavior Interventions. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2015, 75, 236–249. [CrossRef]
25. Han, Y.; Zhu, X.; Wang, L.; Song, C.; Lu, Y. Analysis of Front Crash Prevention Technology’s Impact on Reducing Vehicle Accident
Rates. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 2019, 20, 915–923.
26. Henning, M.J.; Dickerson, C.R.; McGowan, D.; Reimer, B.; Mehler, B. Influence of In-Vehicle Technology on Driver Vigilance and
Response Time. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 64, 411–420. [CrossRef]
27. Huang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Xie, L. Advancements in Airbag Systems for Enhanced Occupant Safety in Side-Impact Collisions. Int. J.
Automot. Technol. 2018, 19, 383–392. [CrossRef]
28. Inomata, Y.; Nakamura, M.; Tanaka, K. Innovative Approaches to Reduce Rear-End Collisions Using Machine Learning Models
in Traffic Flow Analysis. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 24, 300–312.
29. Jia, X.; Ding, Y.; Hu, Z.; Liu, H.; Feng, Z. Research on the Comprehensive Evaluation of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems. IEEE
Access 2021, 9, 67839–67851.
30. Johansen, T.; Lundberg, P.; Kristensen, N. Effects of Autonomous Vehicles on Road Safety and Traffic Congestion. J. Transp. Saf.
Secur. 2020, 12, 1056–1075.
31. Frej, D. The Effect of Changing the Angle of the Passenger Car Seat Backrest on the Head Trajectories of the 50th Percentile Male
Dummy. Sensors 2024, 24, 3868. [CrossRef]
32. Jaśkiewicz, M.; Frej, D.; Matej, J.; Chaba, R. Analysis of the Head of a Simulation Crash Test Dummy with Speed Motion. Energies
2021, 14, 1476. [CrossRef]
33. Laureshyn, A.; Jenvald, J.; Jonsson, T. Using Video Analysis for Traffic Safety Research: A Systematic Literature Review. Transp.
Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 44, 150–162. [CrossRef]
34. Li, Y.; Yin, S.; Liu, H.; Zhao, F.; Yu, Y. The Effects of Connected Vehicle Technology on Traffic Safety: An Assessment Using
Simulation and Real-World Data. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 21, 2025–2034.
Sensors 2024, 24, 5714 18 of 18

35. Ma, T.; Wei, S.; Shao, C.; Yang, D. Evaluation of the Impact of Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies on Road Traffic Safety in
China. J. Saf. Res. 2020, 75, 49–56.
36. Kloppenborg, N.; Amenson, T.; Wernik, J.; Wiechel, J. Low-Speed Go-Kart Crash Tests and a Comparison to Activities of Daily
Living. ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Part B 2018, 4, 041010. [CrossRef]
37. Digges, K.; Dalmotas, D. Benefits of a Low Severity Frontal Crash Test. Annu. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Automot. Med. 2007, 51, 299–317.
[PubMed]
38. Fildes, B.; Keall, M.; Bos, N.; Lie, A.; Page, Y.; Pastor, C.; Tingvall, C. Effectiveness of Low Speed Autonomous Emergency Braking
in Real-World Rear-End Crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 81, 24–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Ye, X.; Poplin, G.; Bose, D.; Forbes, A.; Hurwitz, S.; Shaw, G.; Crandall, J. Analysis of Crash Parameters and Driver Characteristics
Associated with Lower Limb Injury. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 83, 37–46. [CrossRef]
40. Xu, T.; Sheng, X.; Zhang, T.; Liu, H.; Liang, X.; Ding, A. Development and Validation of Dummies and Human Models Used in
Crash Test. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 2018, 2018, 3832850. [CrossRef]
41. Frye, H.E.; Ko, D.; Kotnik, E.; Zelt, N. Policy Memo: Motor Vehicle Crash Testing Regulations for More Inclusive Populations.
J. Sci. Policy Gov. 2021, 18, e410. [CrossRef]
42. Coufal, T.; Semela, M. Determination of Selected Crash Parameters in Head-On Vehicle Collision with Rollover. Promet-Traffic
Transp. 2016, 28, 71–79. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.