Real-world adjustments of driver seat and head restraint in Saab 9-3 vehicles

Objective: Whiplash-associated disorder (WAD), commonly denoted whiplash injury, is a worldwide problem. These injuries occur at relatively low changes of velocity (typically <25 km/h) in impacts from all directions. Rear impacts, however, are the most common in the injury statistics. Females have a 1.5–3 times higher risk of whiplash injury than males.

?Improved seat design is the prevailing means of increasing the protection of whiplash injury for occupants in rear impacts. Since 1997, more advanced whiplash protection systems have been introduced on the market, the Saab Active Head Restraint (SAHR) being one of the most prominent. The SAHR—which is height adjustable—is mounted to a pressure plate in the seatback by means of a spring-resisted link mechanism.

?Nevertheless, studies have shown that seats equipped with reactive head restraints (such as the SAHR) have a very high injury-reducing effect for males (～60–70%) but very low or no reduction effect for females. One influencing factor could be the position of the head restraint relative to the head, because a number of studies have reported that adjustable head restraints often are incorrectly positioned by drivers.

?The aim was to investigate how female and male Saab drivers adjust the seat in the car they drive the most.

Methods: The seated positions of drivers in stationary conditions have been investigated in a total of 76 volunteers (34 females, 42 males) who participated in the study. Inclusion criteria incorporated driving a Saab 9–3 on a regularly basis.

Results: The majority of the volunteers (89%) adjusted the head restraint to any of the 3 uppermost positions and as many as 59% in the top position.

?The average vertical distance between the top of the head and the top of the head restraint (offset) increase linearly with increasing statures, from an average of ?26 mm (head below the head restraint) for small females to an average of 82 mm (head above the head restraint) for large males. On average, the offset was 23 mm for females, which is within a satisfactory range and in accordance with recommendations; the corresponding value for males was 72 mm.

?The backset tended to be shorter among female volunteers (on average 27 mm) compared to the male volunteers (on average 44 mm). Moreover, the backset tended to increase with increasing statures.

Conclusions: Incorrect adjustment of the head restraint cannot explain the large differences found between the sexes in the effectiveness of the SAHR system.     

An energy-absorbing sliding seat for reducing neck injury risks in rear impact—analysis for prototype built

Objective: This study investigated overall performance of an energy-absorbing sliding seat concept for whiplash neck injury prevention. The sliding seat allows its seat pan to slide backward for some distance under certain restraint force to absorb crash energy in rear impacts.

Methods: A numerical model that consisted of vehicle interior, seat, seat belt, and BioRID II dummy was built in MADYMO to evaluate whiplash neck injury in rear impact. A parametric study of the effects of sliding seat parameters, including position and cushion stiffness of head restraint, seatback cushion stiffness, recliner characteristics, and especially sliding energy-absorbing (EA) restraint force, on neck injury criteria was conducted in order to compare the effectiveness of the sliding seat concept with that of other existing anti-whiplash mechanisms. Optimal sliding seat design configurations in rear crashes of different severities were obtained. A sliding seat prototype with bending of a steel strip as an EA mechanism was fabricated and tested in a sled test environment to validate the concept. The performance of the sliding seat under frontal and rollover impacts was checked to make sure the sliding mechanism did not result in any negative effects.

Results: The protective effect of the sliding seat with EA restraint force is comparable to that of head restraint–based and recliner stiffness–based anti-whiplash mechanisms. EA restraint force levels of 3 kN in rear impacts of low and medium severities and 6 kN in impacts of high severity were obtained from optimization. In frontal collision and rollover, compared to the nonsliding seat, the sliding seat does not result in any negative effects on occupant protection. The sled test results of the sliding seat prototype have shown the effectiveness of the concept for reducing neck injury risks.

Conclusion: As a countermeasure, the sliding seat with appropriate restraint forces can significantly reduce whiplash neck injury risk in rear impacts of low, medium, and high severities with no negative effects on other crash load cases.     

Rear impact responses of different sized adult Hybrid III dummies

Rear impact sled tests were conducted using 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile Hybrid III dummies to evaluate proposed injury criteria. Different head restraint height (750, 800 mm) and backset (0, 50, 100 mm) positions were used to determine axial and shear forces, bending moments, and injury criteria (NIC, N(ij), and N(km)). The time sequence to attain each parameter was also determined. Three events were identified in the response. Event I was coincident with the maximum rearward motion of the torso, Event II occurred at the time of the peak upper neck flexion moment, and Event III occurred at the time of maximum rearward motion of the head. Parameters such as backset, head restraint height, seat-head restraint interaction, and anthropometry affected impact responses. Head rotations increased with increasing backset and increasing head restraint height. However, N(ij) and N(km) did not exhibit such clear trends. The 50th percentile dummy responded with consistent injury criteria values (e.g., the magnitude of the injury criteria increased with backset increase or head restraint height decrease). However, the 5th and 95th percentile dummies did not demonstrate such trends. These findings underscore the need to include subject anthropometry in addition to seat and head restraint characteristics for better assessment of rear impact responses.     

Seat properties affecting neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why whiplash has increased

Whiplash has increased over the past two decades. This study compares occupant dynamics with three different seat types (two yielding and one stiff) in rear crashes. Responses up to head restraint contact are used to describe possible reasons for the increase in whiplash as seat stiffness increased in the 1980s and 1990s. Three exemplar seats were defined by seat stiffness (k) and frame rotation stiffness (j) under occupant load. The stiff seat had k=40 kN/m and j=1.8 degrees /kN representing a foreign benchmark. One yielding seat had k=20 kN/m and j=1.4 degrees /kN simulating a high-retention seat. The other had k=20 kN/m and j=3.4 degrees /kN simulating a typical yielding seat of the 1980s and 1990s. Constant vehicle acceleration for 100 ms gave delta-V of 6, 10, 16, 24, and 35 km/h. The one-dimensional model included a torso mass loading the seatback, head motion through a flexible neck, and head restraint drop and rearward displacement with seatback rotation. Neck displacement was greatest with the stiff seat due to higher loads on the torso. It peaked at 10 km/h rear delta-V and was lower in higher-severity crashes. It averaged 32% more than neck displacements with the 1980s yielding seat. The high-retention seat had 67% lower neck displacements than the stiff seat because of yielding into the seatback, earlier head restraint contact and less seatback rotation, which involved 16 mm drop in head restraint height due to seatback rotation in the 16 km/h rear delta-V. This was significantly lower than 47 mm with the foreign benchmark and 73 mm with the 1980s yielding seat. Early in the crash, neck responses are proportional to ky/mT, seat stiffness times vehicle displacement divided by torso mass, so neck responses increase with seat stiffness. The trend toward stiffer seats increased neck responses over the yielding seats of the 1980s and 1990s, which offers one explanation for the increase in whiplash over the past two decades. This is a result of not enough seat suspension compliance as stronger seat frames were introduced. As seat stiffness has increased, so have neck displacements and the Neck Injury Criterion (NIC). High-retention seats reduce neck biomechanical responses by allowing the occupant to displace into the seatback at relatively low torso loads until head restraint contact and then transferring crash energy. High-retention seats resolve the historic debate between stiff (rigid) and yielding seats by providing both a strong frame (low j) for occupant retention and yielding suspension (low k) to reduce whiplash.     

Injuries in Full-Scale Vehicle Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier and Pole Tests Using Postmortem Human Subjects

Objective: To conduct near-side moving deformable barrier (MDB) and pole tests with postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in full-scale modern vehicles, document and score injuries, and examine the potential for angled chest loading in these tests to serve as a data set for dummy biofidelity evaluations and computational modeling.

Methods: Two PMHS (outboard left front and rear seat occupants) for MDB and one PMHS (outboard left front seat occupant) for pole tests were used. Both tests used sedan-type vehicles from same manufacturer with side airbags. Pretest x-ray and computed tomography (CT) images were obtained. Three-point belt-restrained surrogates were positioned in respective outboard seats. Accelerometers were secured to T1, T6, and T12 spines; sternum and pelvis; seat tracks; floor; center of gravity; and MDB. Load cells were used on the pole. Biomechanical data were gathered at 20 kHz. Outboard and inboard high-speed cameras were used for kinematics. X-rays and CT images were taken and autopsy was done following the test. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005 scoring scheme was used to score injuries.

Results: MDB test: male (front seat) and female (rear seat) PMHS occupant demographics: 52 and 57 years, 177 and 166 cm stature, 78 and 65 kg total body mass. Demographics of the PMHS occupant in the pole test: male, 26 years, 179 cm stature, and 84 kg total body mass. Front seat PMHS in MDB test: 6 near-side rib fractures (AIS = 3): 160–265 mm vertically from suprasternal notch and 40–80 mm circumferentially from center of sternum. Left rear seat PMHS responded with multiple bilateral rib fractures: 9 on the near side and 5 on the contralateral side (AIS = 3). One rib fractured twice. On the near and contralateral sides, fractures were 30–210 and 20–105 mm vertically from the suprasternal notch and 90–200 and 55–135 mm circumferentially from the center of sternum. A fracture of the left intertrochanteric crest occurred (AIS = 3). Pole test PMHS had one near-side third rib fracture. Thoracic accelerations of the 2 occupants were different in the MDB test. Though both occupants sustained positive and negative x-accelerations to the sternum, peak magnitudes and relative changes were greater for the rear than the front seat occupant. Magnitudes of the thoracic and sternum accelerations were lower in the pole test.

Conclusions: This is the first study to use PMHS occupants in MDB and pole tests in the same recent model year vehicles with side airbag and head curtain restraints. Injuries to the unilateral thorax for the front seat PMHS in contrast to the bilateral thorax and hip for the rear seat occupant in the MDB test indicate the effects of impact on the seating location and restraint system. Posterolateral locations of fractures to the front seat PMHS are attributed to constrained kinematics of occupant interaction with torso side airbag restraint system. Angled loading to the rear seat occupant from coupled sagittal and coronal accelerations of the sternum representing anterior thorax loading contributed to bilateral fractures. Inward bending initiated by the distal femur complex resulting in adduction of ipsilateral lower extremity resulted in intertrochanteric fracture to the rear seat occupant. These results serve as a data set for evaluating the biofidelity of the WorldSID and federalized side impact dummies and assist in validating human body computational models, which are increasingly used in crashworthiness studies.     

Chest injuries of elderly postmortem human surrogates (PMHSs) under seat belt and airbag loading in frontal sled impacts: Comparison to matching THOR tests

Abstract

Objective: The goal of the study was to develop experimental chest loading conditions that would cause up to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2 chest injuries in elderly occupants in moderate-speed frontal crashes. The new set of experimental data was also intended to be used in the benchmark of existing thoracic injury criteria in lower-speed collision conditions.

Methods: Six male elderly (age >63) postmortem human subjects (PMHS) were exposed to a 35?km/h (nominal) frontal sled impact. The test fixture consisted of a rigid seat, rigid footrest, and cable seat back. Two restraint conditions (A and B) were compared. Occupants were restrained by a force-limited (2.5?kN [A] and 2?kN [B]) seat belt and a preinflated (16?kPa [A] and 11?kPa [B]; airbag). Condition B also incorporated increased seat friction. Matching sled tests were carried out with the THOR-M dummy. Infra-red telescoping rod for the assessment of chest compression (IRTRACC) readings were used to compute chest injury risk. PMHSs were exposed to a posttest injury assessment. Tests were carried out in 2 stages, using the outcome of the first one combined with a parametric study using the THUMS model to adjust the test conditions in the second. All procedures were approved by the relevant ethics board.

Results: Restraint condition A resulted in an unexpected high number of rib fractures (fx; 10, 14, 15 fx). Under condition B, the adjustment of the relative airbag/occupant position combined with a lower airbag pressure and lower seat belt load limit resulted in a reduced pelvic excursion (85 vs. 110?mm), increased torso pitch and a substantially lower number of rib fractures (1, 0, 4 fx) as intended.

Conclusions: The predicted risk of rib fractures provided by the THOR dummy using the C_max and PC Score injury criteria were lower than the actual injuries observed in the PMHS tests (especially in restraint condition A). However, the THOR dummy was capable of discriminating between the 2 restraint scenarios. Similar results were obtained in the parametric study with the THUMS model.     

Variations in occupant response with seat belt slack and anchor location during moderate frontal impacts

Both seat belt slack and anchor location are known to affect occupant excursion during high-speed frontal collisions, but their effects have not been studied at moderate collision severities. The goal of this study was to quantify how seat belt slack and anchor location affect occupant kinematics and kinetics in moderate severity frontal collisions. A Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy was seated on a programmable sled and exposed to frontal collisions with a speed change of 17.5 km/h. The seat belt was adjusted either snugly or with 10 cm slack (distributed 60/40 between the shoulder and lap portions) and the anchor location was varied by adjusting the seat position either fully forward or rearward (seat travel = 13 cm). Accelerations and displacements of the head, T1 and pelvis were measured in the sagittal plane. Upper neck loads and knee displacements were also measured. Five trials were performed for each of the four combinations of belt adjustment (snug, slack) and anchor location (seat forward, seat rearward). For each trial, kinematic and kinetic response peaks were determined and then compared across conditions using ANOVAs. Peak displacements, accelerations and loads varied significantly with both seat belt slack and anchor location. Seat belt slack affected more parameters and had a larger effect than anchor location on most peak response parameters. Head displacements increased a similar amount between the snug/slack belt conditions and the rearward/forward anchor locations. Overall, horizontal head displacements increased from 23.8 cm in the snug-belt, rearward-anchor configuration to 33.9 cm in the slack-belt, forward-anchor configuration. These results demonstrated that analyses of occupant displacements, accelerations and loads during moderate frontal impacts should consider potential sources of seat belt slack and account for differences in seat belt anchor locations.     

Influence of ATD versus PMHS reference sensor inputs on computational brain response in frontal impacts to advanced combat helmet (ACH)

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study analyzed the influence of reference sensor inputs from anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) versus postmortem human subjects (PMHSs) on simulations of frontal blunt impacts to the advanced combat helmet (ACH).

Methods: A rigid-arm pendulum was used to generate frontal impacts to ACHs mounted on ATDs and PMHS. An appropriately sized ACH was selected according to standard fitting guidelines. The National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) head was selected for ATD tests due to shape features that enabled a realistic helmet fit. A custom procedure was used to mount a reference sensor internally near the center of gravity (CG) of the PMHS. Reference sensor data from the head CG were used as inputs for the Simulated Injury Monitor (SIMon). Brain responses were assessed with the cumulative strain damage measure set at 10%, or CSDM(10).

Results: Compared to ATD tests, PMHS tests produced 18.7% higher peak linear accelerations and 5.2% higher peak angular velocities. Average times to peak for linear accelerations were relatively similar between ATDs (5.5?ms) and PMHSs (5.8?ms). However, times to peak for angular velocities were higher by a factor of up to 3.4 for PMHSs compared to ATDs. Values for were also higher by a factor of up to 13.1 when PMHS inputs were used for SIMon.

Conclusions: The preliminary findings of this work indicate that small differences in ATD versus PMHS head kinematics could lead to large differences in strain-derived brain injury metrics such as CSDM.     

The Influence of Enhanced Side Impact Protection on Kinematics and Injury Measures of Far- or Center-Seated Children in Forward-Facing Child Restraints

Objective: To evaluate the influence of forward-facing child restraint systems’ (FFCRSs) side impact structure, such as side wings, on the head kinematics and response of a restrained, far- or center-seated 3-year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD) in oblique sled tests.

Methods: Sled tests were conducted utilizing an FFCRS with large side wings and with the side wings removed. The CRS were attached via LATCH on 2 different vehicle seat fixtures—a small SUV rear bench seat and minivan rear bucket seat—secured to the sled carriage at 20° from lateral. Four tests were conducted on each vehicle seat fixture, 2 for each FFCRS configuration. A Q3s dummy was positioned in FFCRS according to the CRS owner's manual and FMVSS 213 procedures. The tests were conducted using the proposed FMVSS 213 side impact pulse. Three-dimensional motion cameras collected head excursion data. Relevant data collected during testing included the ATD head excursions, head accelerations, LATCH belt loads, and neck loads.

Results: Results indicate that side wings have little influence on head excursions and ATD response. The median lateral head excursion was 435 mm with side wings and 443 mm without side wings. The primary differences in head response were observed between the 2 vehicle seat fixtures due to the vehicle seat head restraint design. The bench seat integrated head restraint forced a tether routing path over the head restraint. Due to the lateral crash forces, the tether moved laterally off the head restraint reducing tension and increasing head excursion (477 mm median). In contrast, when the tether was routed through the bucket seat's adjustable head restraint, it maintained a tight attachment and helped control head excursion (393 mm median).

Conclusion: This testing illustrated relevant side impact crash circumstances where side wings do not provide the desired head containment for a 3-year-old ATD seated far-side or center in FFCRS. The head appears to roll out of the FFCRS even in the presence of side wings, which may expose the occupant to potential head impact injuries. We postulate that in a center or far-side seating configuration, the absence of door structure immediately adjacent to the CRS facilitates the rotation and tipping of the FFCRS toward the impact side and the roll-out of the head around the side wing structure. Results suggest that other prevention measures, in the form of alternative side impact structure design, FFCRS vehicle attachment, or shared protection between the FFCRS and the vehicle, may be necessary to protect children in oblique side impact crashes.     

Seat influences on female neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why women have higher whiplash rates

Since the earliest crash investigations, whiplash has been found to occur more often in women than men. This study addresses seat properties that may explain a reason for the higher rates in women, and changes in whiplash in general over the past two decades. Three exemplar seats were defined on the basis of seat stiffness (k) and frame rotation stiffness (j) for rearward occupant load. Stiff seats have k=40 kN/m and j=1.8 degrees /kN representing a foreign benchmark loaded by a male. One yielding seat had k=20 kN/m and j=1.4 degrees /kN simulating a high-retention seat (1997 Grand Prix) and another k=20 kN/m and j=3.4 degrees /kN simulating a 1980s to 1990s yielding seat (1990 Buick Park Avenue). Constant vehicle acceleration for 100 msec gave delta-V of 6, 10, 16, and 24 km/h. The one-dimensional model included a torso mass loading the seatback with flexible neck and head mass. Based on biomechanical data and scaling, neck stiffness was 5 kN/m and 3 kN/m for the male and female, respectively. Based on validation tests, seat stiffness was 25% less with the female. Occupant dynamics were simulated in a step-forward solution based on the differential displacement between the head, torso, and seat up to head restraint contact. Neck responses were 30% higher in the female than male through most of the rear impact and are proportional to (kF/mTF)/(kM/mTM), which is the ratio of seat stiffness divided by torso mass for the female and male. Neck displacements were higher with the stiff seat than the 1990 C car seat for both the female and male. They peaked at 10 km/h and dropped off for higher severity crashes due to the shorter time to head contact. Neck displacements were greater in the female than male for the lowest severity crashes with the stiff and 1990 C car seats, when displacement was scaled for equal tolerance. The female in 1997 W car seat had the lowest neck displacements. Stiff seats increased neck displacements over the yielding seats of the 1980s in rear crashes. The trend is similar in men and women, but early neck displacements are greater in women because of a higher ratio of seat stiffness to torso mass. This implies that seat stiffness is not sufficiently low in proportion to the female mass in comparison to males. The j and k seat properties influence neck biomechanics and occupant dynamics, but k is important in determining early response differences between males and females.     

Cervical spine loads and intervertebral motions during whiplash

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the dynamic loads and intervertebral motions throughout the cervical spine during simulated rear impacts. METHODS: Using a biofidelic whole cervical spine model with muscle force replication and surrogate head and bench-top mini-sled, impacts were simulated at 3.5, 5, 6.5, and 8 g horizontal accelerations of the T1 vertebra. Inverse dynamics was used to calculate the dynamic cervical spine loads at the centers of mass of the head and vertebrae (C1-T1). The average peak loads and intervertebral motions were statistically compared (P < 0.05) throughout the cervical spine. RESULTS: Load and motion peaks generally increased with increasing impact acceleration. The average extension moment peaks at the lower cervical spine, reaching 40.7 Nm at C7-T1, significantly exceeded the moment peaks at the upper and middle cervical spine. The highest average axial tension peak of 276.9 N was observed at the head, significantly greater than at C4 through T1. The average axial compression peaks, reaching 223.2 N at C5, were significantly greater at C4 through T1, as compared to head-C1. The highest average posterior shear force peak of 269.5 N was observed at T1. CONCLUSION: During whiplash, the cervical spine is subjected to not only bending moments, but also axial and shear forces. These combined loads caused both intervertebral rotations and translations.     

Small female rib cage fracture in frontal sled tests

Objectives: The 2 objectives of this study are to (1) examine the rib and sternal fractures sustained by small stature elderly females in simulated frontal crashes and (2) determine how the findings are characterized by prior knowledge and field data.

Methods: A test series was conducted to evaluate the response of 5 elderly (average age 76 years) female postmortem human subjects (PMHS), similar in mass and size to a 5th percentile female, in 30 km/h frontal sled tests. The subjects were restrained on a rigid planar seat by bilateral rigid knee bolsters, pelvic blocks, and a custom force-limited 3-point shoulder and lap belt. Posttest subject injury assessment included identifying rib cage fractures by means of a radiologist read of a posttest computed tomography (CT) and an autopsy. The data from a motion capture camera system were processed to provide chest deflection, defined as the movement of the sternum relative to the spine at the level of T8.

?A complementary field data investigation involved querying the NASS-CDS database over the years 1997–2012. The targeted cases involved belted front seat small female passenger vehicle occupants over 40 years old who were injured in 25 to 35 km/h delta-V frontal crashes (11 to 1 o'clock).

Results: Peak upper shoulder belt tension averaged 1,970 N (SD = 140 N) in the sled tests. For all subjects, the peak x-axis deflection was recorded at the sternum with an average of ?44.5 mm or 25% of chest depth. The thoracic injury severity based on the number and distribution of rib fractures yielded 4 subjects coded as Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 (serious) and one as AIS 5 (critical). The NASS-CDS field data investigation of small females identified 205 occupants who met the search criteria. Rib fractures were reported for 2.7% of the female occupants.

Conclusions: The small elderly test subjects sustained a higher number of rib cage fractures than expected in what was intended to be a minimally injurious frontal crash test condition. Neither field studies nor prior laboratory frontal sled tests conducted with 50th percentile male PMHS predicted the injury severity observed. Although this was a limited study, the results justify further exploration of the risk of rib cage injury for small elderly female occupants.     

Variability in vehicle and dummy responses in rear-end collisions

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the occupant response variability due to differences in vehicle and seat design in low-speed rear-end collisions. METHODS: Occupant response variability was quantified using a BioRID dummy exposed to rear-end collisions in 20 different vehicles. Vehicles were rolled rearward into a rigid barrier at 8 km/h and the dynamic responses of the vehicle and dummy were measured with the head restraint adjusted to the up most position. In vehicles not damaged by this collision, additional tests were conducted with the head restraint down and at different impact speeds. RESULTS: Despite a coefficient of variation (COV) of less than 2% for the impact speed of the initial 8 km/h tests, the vehicle response parameters (speed change, acceleration, restitution, bumper force) had COVs of 7 to 23% and the dummy response parameters (head and T1 kinematics, neck loads, NIC, N(ij) and N(km)) had COVs of 14 to 52%. In five vehicles tested multiple times, a head restraint in the down position significantly increased the peak magnitude of many dummy kinematic and kinetic response parameters. Peak head kinematics and neck kinetics generally varied linearly with head restraint back set and height, although the neck reaction moment reversed and increased considerably if the dummy's head wrapped onto the top of the head restraint. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the proposition that the vehicle, seat, and head restraint are a safety system and that the design of vehicle bumpers and seats/head restraint should be considered together to maximize the potential reduction in whiplash injuries.     

Investigating cervical muscle response and head kinematics during right, left, frontal and rear-seated perturbations

Objective: Whiplash research has largely focused on rear collisions because they account for the majority of whiplash injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of 4 perturbation directions (anterior, posterior, right, and left) on muscle activity and head kinematics to provide insight into the whiplash mechanism of injury. Methods: The effects of 4 perturbation directions induced by a parallel robotic platform, with peak acceleration of 8.50?m/s(2), were analyzed on 10 subjects. Surface electromyography (EMG) measures were collected from the sternocleidomastoid (SCM), trapezius, and splenius capitus muscles. Kinematics of the head, thorax, and head relative to thorax were also measured. Results: We observed stereotypic responses for kinematics and SCM EMG for the various perturbation directions; the trapezius and splenius capitus muscles showed amplitudes that were less than 5 percent maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Rear perturbations elicited the smallest onset latencies for the SCM (30?ms) and kinematic variables and greatest linear head center of mass (COM) accelerations. Frontal perturbations resulted in an average SCM onset latency of 143?ms and demonstrated the greatest magnitude of head translations and rotations relative to the thorax. Left and right perturbations demonstrated similar kinematics and SCM onset latencies (55 and 65?ms, respectively). Conclusions: Compared to frontal, left, and right directions, rear perturbations showed smaller SCM onset latencies, greater SCM amplitudes, and larger head accelerations, relating to a greater potential for injury. We suggest that the greater contact area and stiffness of the seatback, in the posterior direction, compared to restrictions in other directions, led to increased peak head accelerations and shorter SCM onset latencies.     

Differences in the kinematics of booster-seated pediatric occupants using two different car seats

Objective: The objective of this article is to compare the performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (CRS) mounted on 2 different seats.

Methods: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. Two different seats (seat A, seat B) were used. Three repetitions per ATD and mounting seat were done, resulting in a total of 12 sled crashes. Dummy sensors measured the head tri-axial acceleration and angular rate and the thorax tri-axial acceleration, all acquired at 10,000 Hz. A high-speed video camera recorded the impact at 1,000 frames per second. The 3D kinematics of the head and torso of the ATDs were captured using a high-speed motion capture system (1,000 Hz). A pair-matched statistical analysis compared the outcomes of the tests using the 2 different seats.

Results: Statistically significant differences in the kinematic response of the ATDs associated with the type of seat were observed. The maximum 3 ms peak of the resultant head acceleration was higher on seat A for the P3 dummy (54.5 ± 1.9 g vs. 44.2 ± 0.5 g; P =.012) and for the P6 dummy (56.0 ± 0.8 g vs. 51.7 ± 1.2 g; P =.015). The peak belt force was higher on seat A than on seat B for the P3 dummy (5,488.0 ± 198.0 N vs. 4,160.6 ± 63.6 N; P =.008) and for the P6 dummy (7,014.0 ± 271.0 N vs. 5,719.3 ± 37.4 N; P =.015). The trajectory of the ATD head was different between the 2 seats in the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes.

Conclusion: The results suggest that the overall response of the booster-seated occupant exposed to the same impact conditions was different depending on the seat used regardless of the size of the ATD. The differences observed in the response of the occupants between the 2 seats can be attributed to the differences in cushion stiffness, seat pan geometry, and belt geometry. However, these results were obtained for 2 particular seat models and a specific CRS and therefore cannot be directly extrapolated to the generality of vehicle seats and CRS.     

Reconstruction of crashes involving injured child occupants: the risk of serious injuries associated with sub-optimal restraint use may be reduced by better controlling occupant kinematics

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether injuries to sub-optimally restrained child occupants in real-world crashes were likely to be preventable by alternative restraint usage practices and to assess the usefulness of crash reconstruction for exploring injury mechanisms in child occupants. METHODS: Real-world crashes in which child occupants sustained significant injuries were reconstructed on a laboratory crash sled using the Hybrid III family of child dummies. Alternative restraint scenarios and cases in which children were not seriously injured were also simulated to compare dummy kinematics and dynamic responses in optimal restraint configurations. RESULTS: Restraint misuse was associated with greater motion of the dummy torso and head during crashes, often allowing contact between the child and the vehicle interior, resulting in injury. Poor pre-crash posture for a child inappropriately restrained in an adult belt appeared to worsen the geometry of the sash (shoulder) belt, resulting in a cervical injury due to direct interaction with the belt. Dynamic dummy data did not appear to discriminate between injury and non-injury cases. CONCLUSIONS: Dummy kinematics suggest that injuries in which inappropriate use and misuse were a factor were less likely if the most appropriate restraint was used correctly. Adequately controlling the head and upper body of the child occupant was seen to prevent undesirable interactions with the vehicle interior and restraint system, which were associated with injury in the real world. Neck forces and moments and injury criteria calculated from these did not predict injury reliably.     

Occupant responses in conventional and ABTS seats in high-speed rear sled tests

Objective: This study compared biomechanical responses of a normally seated Hybrid III dummy on conventional and all belts to seat (ABTS) seats in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests. It determined the difference in performance with modern (≥2000 MY) seats compared to older (<2000 MY) seats and ABTS seats.

Methods: The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap–shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position. The testing included 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented, including head accelerations, upper and lower neck 6-axis load cells, chest acceleration, thoracic and lumbar spine load cells, and pelvis accelerations. The peak responses were normalized by injury assessment reference values (IARVs) to assess injury risks. Statistical analysis was conducted using Student's t test. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

Results: Biomechanical responses were lower with modern (≥2000 MY) seats than older (<2000 MY) designs. The lower neck extension moment was 32.5 ± 9.7% of IARV in modern seats compared to 62.8 ± 31.6% in older seats (P =.01). Overall, there was a 34% reduction in the comparable biomechanical responses with modern seats. Biomechanical responses were lower with modern seats than ABTS seats. The lower neck extension moment was 41.4 ± 7.8% with all MY ABTS seats compared to 32.5 ± 9.7% in modern seats (P =.07). Overall, the ABTS seats had 13% higher biomechanical responses than the modern seats.

Conclusions: Modern (≥2000 MY) design seats have lower biomechanical responses in 40.2 km/h rear sled tests than older (<2000 MY) designs and ABTS designs. The improved performance is consistent with an increase in seat strength combined with improved occupant kinematics through pocketing of the occupant into the seatback, higher and more forward head restraint, and other design changes. The methods and data presented here provide a basis for standardized testing of seats. However, a complete understanding of seat safety requires consideration of out-of-position (OOP) occupants in high-speed impacts and consideration of the much more common, low-speed rear impacts.     

A comparison of volunteers and dummy upper torso kinematics with and without shoulder belt slack in a low speed side/pre-roll environment

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the occupant and dummy kinematics in a low-speed lateral environment with and without shoulder belt slack. METHODS: A buck of a small European car was mounted on a side impact sled. The parameters evaluated were pulses, sitting location, and belt slack. A total of 24 tests were carried out. Three 50th-percentile male volunteers and one Hybrid III 50th-percentile male were tested. The pulses consisted of Pulse 1:+/- 0.7 g's pulse and Pulse 2: a -0.9 g pulse to simulate low-speed pre-roll/side events. Both pulses had a duration of 500 msec. RESULTS: The peak lateral head excursion was higher in the far-side occupants than in the near-side occupants. Furthermore, for the far-side volunteers, lateral head displacements were lower in the no-slack condition than in the slack condition, at 388 +/- 64 mm and 455 +/- 84 mm respectively for Pulse 1 and at 138 +/- 2 mm and 207 +/- 70 mm for Pulse 2. The timing required to reach peak lateral displacement was higher in Pulse 1 than in Pulse 2. In comparison to the volunteers, the Hybrid III dummy lateral motion was lower. The peak lateral displacement in Pulse 1 was 231 mm with slack and 194 mm without and 98 mm and 107 mm for Pulse 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in this study indicate that removing seatbelt slack would be more beneficial for far-sided occupants than near-sided. They also point to the lack of biofidelity of the Hybrid III dummy in low g lateral pulses.     

Experimental investigation of the effect of occupant characteristics on contemporary seat belt payout behavior in frontal impacts

Objective: The goal of this study was to investigate the influence of the occupant characteristics on seat belt force vs. payout behavior based on experiment data from different configurations in frontal impacts.

Methods: The data set reviewed consists of 58 frontal sled tests using several anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and postmortem human subjects (PMHS), restrained by different belt systems (standard belt, SB; force-limiting belt, FLB) at 2 impact severities (48 and 29 km/h). The seat belt behavior was characterized in terms of the shoulder belt force vs. belt payout behavior. A univariate linear regression was used to assess the factor significance of the occupant body mass or stature on the peak tension force and gross belt payout.

Results: With the SB, the seat belt behavior obtained by the ATDs exhibited similar force slopes regardless of the occupant size and impact severities, whereas those obtained by the PMHS were varied. Under the 48 km/h impact, the peak tension force and gross belt payout obtained by ATDs was highly correlated to the occupant stature (P =.03, P =.02) and body mass (P =.05, P =.04), though no statistical difference with the stature or body mass were noticed for the PMHS (peak force: P =.09, P =.42; gross payout: P =.40, P =.48). With the FLB under the 48 km/h impact, highly linear relationships were noticed between the occupant body mass and the peak tension force (R² = 0.9782) and between the gross payout and stature (R² = 0.9232) regardless of the occupant types.

Conclusions: The analysis indicated that the PMHS characteristics showed a significant influence on the belt response, whereas the belt response obtained with the ATDs was more reproducible. The potential cause included the occupant anthropometry, body mass distribution, and relative motion among body segments specific to the population variance. This study provided a primary data source to understand the biomechanical interaction of the occupant with the restraint system. Further research is necessary to consider these effects in the computational studies and optimized design of the restraint system in a more realistic manner.