Improved protection for children in forward-facing restraints during side impacts

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the potential for improved child occupant protection in side impacts that can be obtained using rigid and semi-rigid anchorage systems and the addition of energy-absorbing padding in the side structures of child restraints. METHODS: This study uses a comprehensive set of simulated side impacts to evaluate the potential for improved side impact protection in forward-facing child restraints. Factors investigated included methods of anchoring the restraint to the vehicle, energy-absorbing materials in the side structure of restraints, and design features of the restraints such as side wing geometry and seat belt routing. RESULTS: The results show clearly that completely rigid lower attachment of restraints offers the potential for great reductions in head injury risk, which anchorage systems employing a combination of a rigid anchorage bar and webbing attached to a child restraint cannot match. The addition of energy absorbing material in the side structure of restraint systems is effective when the head is fully contained within an adequately designed side wing structure. For restraints anchored by seat belts and loop style semi rigid anchorage straps, belt routing has the potential to significantly affect occupant head excursion. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that current child restraint standards and consumer testing protocols do not adequately encourage best practice design of child restraints for side impact protection.     

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.     

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.     

Influence of Seat Foam and Geometrical Properties on BioRID P3 Kinematic Response to Rear Impacts

As the primary interface with the human body during rear impact, the automotive seat holds great promise for mitigation of Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD). Recent research has chronicled the potential influence of both seat geometrical and constitutive properties on occupant dynamics and injury potential. Geometrical elements such as reduced head to head restraint, rearward offset, and increased head restraint height have shown strong correlation with reductions in occupant kinematics. The stiffness and energy absorption of both the seating foam and the seat infrastructure are also influential on occupant motion; however, the trends in injury mitigation are not as clear as for the geometrical properties. It is of interest to determine whether, for a given seat frame and infrastructure, the properties of the seating foam alone can be tailored to mitigate WAD potential. Rear impact testing was conducted using three model year 2000 automotive seats (Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet S-10 pickup, and Pontiac Grand Prix), using the BioRID P3 anthropometric rear impact dummy. Each seat was distinct in construction and geometry. Each seat back was tested with various foams (i.e., standard, viscoelastic, low or high density). Seat geometries and infrastructures were constant so that the influence of the seating foams on occupant dynamics could be isolated. Three tests were conducted on each foam combination for a given seat (total of 102 tests), with a nominal impact severity of Delta V = 11 km/h (nominal duration of 100 msec). The seats were compared across a host of occupant kinematic variables most likely to be associated with WAD causation. No significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between seat back foams for tests within any given seat. However, seat comparisons yielded several significant differences (p < 0.05). The Camaro seat was found to result in several significantly different occupant kinematic variables when compared to the other seats. No significant differences were found between the Grand Prix and S-10 seats. Seat geometrical characteristics obtained from the Head Restraint Measuring Device (HRMD) showed good correlation with several occupant variables. It appears that for these seats and foams the head-to-head restraint horizontal and vertical distances are overwhelmingly more influential on occupant kinematics and WAD potential than the local foam properties within a given seat.     

Influence of seat foam and geometrical properties on BioRID P3 kinematic response to rear impacts

As the primary interface with the human body during rear impact, the automotive seat holds great promise for mitigation of Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD). Recent research has chronicled the potential influence of both seat geometrical and constitutive properties on occupant dynamics and injury potential. Geometrical elements such as reduced head to head restraint, rearward offset, and increased head restraint height have shown strong correlation with reductions in occupant kinematics. The stiffness and energy absorption of both the seating foam and the seat infrastructure are also influential on occupant motion; however, the trends in injury mitigation are not as clear as for the geometrical properties. It is of interest to determine whether, for a given seat frame and infrastructure, the properties of the seating foam alone can be tailored to mitigate WAD potential. Rear impact testing was conducted using three model year 2000 automotive seats (Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet S-10 pickup, and Pontiac Grand Prix), using the BioRID P3 anthropometric rear impact dummy. Each seat was distinct in construction and geometry. Each seat back was tested with various foams (i.e., standard, viscoelastic, low or high density). Seat geometries and infrastructures were constant so that the influence of the seating foams on occupant dynamics could be isolated. Three tests were conducted on each foam combination for a given seat (total of 102 tests), with a nominal impact severity of Delta V = 11 km/h (nominal duration of 100 msec). The seats were compared across a host of occupant kinematic variables most likely to be associated with WAD causation. No significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between seat back foams for tests within any given seat. However, seat comparisons yielded several significant differences (p < 0.05). The Camaro seat was found to result in several significantly different occupant kinematic variables when compared to the other seats. No significant differences were found between the Grand Prix and S-10 seats. Seat geometrical characteristics obtained from the Head Restraint Measuring Device (HRMD) showed good correlation with several occupant variables. It appears that for these seats and foams the head-to-head restraint horizontal and vertical distances are overwhelmingly more influential on occupant kinematics and WAD potential than the local foam properties within a given seat.     

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.     

Reality and risk of contact-type head injuries related to bicycle-mounted child seats

Objective

The authors have treated numerous children who have been injured by falling from bicycle-mounted child seats. Despite the greatly increased use of such seats, the understanding of their risk and the importance of helmet use remains alarmingly poor. The objective of this study was to confirm the risk of bicycle-mounted child seats and to evaluate the efficacy of helmets, seat belts, and back seat height in terms of preventing or mitigating contact-type head impacts that occur in falls from bicycle-mounted child seats.

Materials and methods

Biometrical dummy tests were performed to examine contact-type head injuries in falls from stationary bicycles. A bicycle with an anthropometric test dummy placed in a bicycle-mounted child seat was tipped over. Each test was repeated three times and three-dimensional acceleration was measured using accelerometer. Head Injury Criteria (HIC) were calculated and the respective influences of a helmet, a seat belt, and increased height of the back of the seat on such impacts were evaluated.

Results

Only helmets unequivocally lowered maximal acceleration and/or HIC values with statistical significance. The seat belt lowered HIC values as long as it was used with the high-back seat. Only when the dummy wore a helmet sitting in a high-back seat did the HIC show less than the threshold of 570 for three-year-old children. The HIC showed the lowest score of 161.5 when the dummy wore both a helmet and a seat belt sitting in a high-back seat.

Conclusions

Riders in bicycle-mounted child seats definitely have higher risks of contact-type head injuries. In transporting a child on a bicycle-mounted child seat, parents must use both a child-bicycle helmet and a high-back child seat at least; a seat belt is highly recommended as long as it is used with the other safety devices.

Impact on Industry

The bicycle-mounted child seat should have a high enough back and an appropriate seat belt to protect the head of the child from a contact-type injury.     

The Importance of Non-struck Side Occupants in Side Collisions

Current occupant protection assessment for side impact is focused on struck side occupants sitting alone. In a representative sample of tow-away side collisions from the UK, only one-third of front seat occupants in side collisions were alone, on the struck side of the car. The other two-thirds were either a non-struck side occupant alone or a situation where the adjacent seat was also occupied. In terms of restraint protection for non-struck side occupants, belts appeared to be less effective in perpendicular compared to oblique side crashes. Front seat occupancy had bearing on injury outcome. With both front seats occupied, there was a reduction in AIS 27+ injury to belted non-struck side occupants due to a reduction in chest and lower limb injuries. Struck side occupants sustained increased injury rates to the extremities when accompanied by a belted non-struck side occupant but no notable increases in moderate to serious injury to the head, chest, abdomen or pelvis.     

Standardized error severity score (ESS) ratings to quantify risk associated with child restraint system (CRS) and booster seat misuse

Objective: Although numerous research studies have reported high levels of error and misuse of child restraint systems (CRS) and booster seats in experimental and real-world scenarios, conclusions are limited because they provide little information regarding which installation issues pose the highest risk and thus should be targeted for change. Beneficial to legislating bodies and researchers alike would be a standardized, globally relevant assessment of the potential injury risk associated with more common forms of CRS and booster seat misuse, which could be applied with observed error frequency—for example, in car seat clinics or during prototype user testing—to better identify and characterize the installation issues of greatest risk to safety.

Methods: A group of 8 leading world experts in CRS and injury biomechanics, who were members of an international child safety project, estimated the potential injury severity associated with common forms of CRS and booster seat misuse. These injury risk error severity score (ESS) ratings were compiled and compared to scores from previous research that had used a similar procedure but with fewer respondents. To illustrate their application, and as part of a larger study examining CRS and booster seat labeling requirements, the new standardized ESS ratings were applied to objective installation performance data from 26 adult participants who installed a convertible (rear- vs. forward-facing) CRS and booster seat in a vehicle, and a child test dummy in the CRS and booster seat, using labels that only just met minimal regulatory requirements. The outcome measure, the risk priority number (RPN), represented the composite scores of injury risk and observed installation error frequency.

Results: Variability within the sample of ESS ratings in the present study was smaller than that generated in previous studies, indicating better agreement among experts on what constituted injury risk. Application of the new standardized ESS ratings to installation performance data revealed several areas of misuse of the CRS/booster seat associated with high potential injury risk.

Conclusions: Collectively, findings indicate that standardized ESS ratings are useful for estimating injury risk potential associated with real-world CRS and booster seat installation errors.     

Variations in booster seat use by child characteristics

IntroductionChild weight and height are the basis of manufacturer and best practice guidelines for child restraint system use. However, these guides do not address behavioral differences among children of similar age, weight, and height, which may result in child-induced restraint use errors. The objective of this study was to characterize child behaviors across age in relation to appropriate restraint system use during simulated drives. Methods: Fifty mother–child (4–8 years) dyads completed an installation into a driving simulator, followed by a simulated drive that was video-recorded and coded for child-induced errors. Time inappropriately restrained was measured as the total amount of the simulated drive spent in an improper or unsafe position for the restraint to be effective divided by the total drive time. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine differences across age in the frequency of error events and overall time inappropriately restrained. Results: Children in harnessed seats had no observed errors during trips. Within children sitting in booster seats there were differences in time inappropriately restrained across age (p = 0.01), with 4 year-olds spending on average 67% (Median = 76%) of the drive inappropriately restrained, compared to the rest of the age categories spending less than 28% (Medians ranged from 3% to 23%). Conclusion: Some children may be physically compatible with booster seats, but not behaviorally mature enough to safely use them. More research is needed that examines how child behavior influences child passenger safety. Practical Applications: Not all children physically big enough are behaviorally ready to use belt positioning booster seats. Primary sources of information should provide caregivers with individualized guidance about when it is appropriate to transition children out of harnessed seats. Additionally, best practice guidelines should be updated to reflect what behaviors are needed from children to safely use specific types of child restraint systems.     

Prediction of cervical spine injury risk for the 6-year-old child in frontal crashes

This article presents a series of 49 km/h sled tests using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in a high-back booster, a low-back booster, and a three-point belt. Although a 10-year review at a level I trauma center showed that noncontact cervical spine injuries are rare in correctly restrained booster-age children, dummy neck loads exceeded published injury thresholds in all tests. The dummy underwent extreme neck flexion during the test, causing full-face contact with the dummy's chest. These dummy kinematics were compared to the kinematics of a 12-year-old cadaver tested in a similar impact environment. The cadaver test showed neck flexion, but also significant thoracic spinal flexion which was nonexistent in the dummy. This comparison was expanded using MADYMO simulations in which the thoracic spinal stiffness of the dummy model was decreased to give a more biofidelic kinematic response. We conclude that the stiff thoracic spine of the dummy results in high neck forces and moments that are not representative of the true injury potential.     

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.     

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters

Objective: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits.

Methods: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars.

Results: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt–induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%.

Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of LATCH versus Available Seatbelt Installation of Rear Facing Child Restraint Systems on Head Injury Criteria for 6 Month Old Infants in Rear End Collisions

Objective: The Lower Anchor and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH) system was introduced in vehicles made after September 1, 2002 and intended to make installation of rear and forward-facing child safety seats easier. Due to the lack of rear impact testing of RFCRS required per the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), the purpose of this study was to explore the effects, if any, of installation method of RFCRS on the performance of commonly purchased makes and models of RFCRS. Specifically, we hypothesize that in a 48 km/h (29.8 MPH) rear-end collision, installation of RFCRS using the LATCH system will result in higher Head Injury Criteria (HIC) values when compared to using the available lap/shoulder seatbelt (Emergency Locking Retractor - ELR or Automatic Locking Retractor - ALR).

Methods: The test matrix included 36 rear impact sled tests conducted using 3 installation methods on 3 models of RFCRS: the Graco SnugRide® with and without the base, the Britax Chaperone with base-mounted anti-rebound bar, and the Evenflo Tribute®, a model of convertible rearward/forward facing restraint system used in the rearward facing mode. The seats were installed using the LATCH system, ELR lap/shoulder belts, or ALR lap/shoulder belts in seating positions 4 and 6 on a vehicle buck mounted to the sled test base. The infant seat and 6 month old CRABI anthropometric test device (ATD) installation methods were in accordance with standards set forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. All tests were conducted on pneumatic controlled acceleration sled (HYGE, Inc., PA, USA) at 48 km/h.

Results: Installation of infant seat type RFCRS using the LATCH system resulted in higher HIC₁₅ values when compared to using the available lap/shoulder seatbelt (ELR or ALR). The mean HIC₁₅ values were most severe when infant seat type RFCRS were installed using LATCH (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 394 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 133) compared to using either ELR lap/shoulder belts (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 218 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 65) or ALR lap/shoulder belts (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 194 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 78). The installation method did not result in a statistically significant difference in HIC for the convertible type RFCRS (Evenflo Tribute®). In many of the tests, the ATD's head struck the seatback in which the RFCRS was installed. These head strikes resulted in the higher HIC₁₅ scores recorded throughout the testing.

Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that LATCH does not offer equal protection to lap/shoulder belts from head injuries in rear impacts when used with infant seat type RFCRS.     

THOR dummy chest deflection response in oblique and lateral far-side sled tests

Abstract

Objective: The focus of this study is side impact. Though occupant injury assessment and protection in nearside impacts has received considerable attention and safety standards have been promulgated, field studies show that a majority of far-side occupant injuries are focused on the head and thorax. The 50th percentile male Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR) has been used in oblique and lateral far-side impact sled tests, and regional body accelerations and forces and moments recorded by load cells have been previously reported. The aim of this study is to evaluate the chestband-based deflection responses from these tests.

Methods: The 3-point belt–restrained 50th percentile male THOR dummy was seated upright in a buck consisting of a rigid flat seat, simulated center console, dashboard, far-side side door structure, and armrest. It was designed to conduct pure lateral and oblique impacts. The center console, dashboard, simulated door structure, and armrest were covered with energy-absorbing materials. A center-mounted airbag was mounted to the right side of the seat. Two 59-gage chestbands were routed on the circumference of the thorax, with the upper and lower chestbands at the level of the third and sixth ribs, respectively, following the rib geometry. Oblique and pure lateral far-side impact tests with and without airbags were conducted at 8.3 m/s. Maximum chest deflections were computed by processing temporal contours using custom software and 3 methods: Procedures paralleling human cadaver studies, using the actual anchor point location and actual alignment of the InfraRed Telescoping Rods for the Assessment of Chest Compression (IR-TRACC) in the dummy on each aspect—that is, right or left,—and using the same anchor location of the internal sensor but determining the location of the peak chest deflection on the contour confined to the aspect of the sensor; these were termed the SD, ID, and TD metrics, respectively.

Results: All deformation contours at the upper and lower thorax levels and associated peak deflections are given for all tests. Briefly, the ID metrics were the lowest in magnitude for both pure lateral and oblique modes, regardless of the presence or absence of an airbag. This was followed by the TD metric, and the SD metric produced the greatest deflections.

Conclusion: The chestbands provide a unique opportunity to compute peak deflections that parallel current IR-TRACC-type deflections and allow computation of peak deflections independent of the initial point of attachment to the rib. The differing locations of the peak deflection vectors along the rib contours for different test conditions suggest that a priori attachment is less effective. Further, varying magnitudes of the differences between ID and TD metrics underscore the difficulty in extrapolating ID outputs under different conditions: Pure lateral versus oblique, airbag presence, and thoracic levels. Deflection measurements should, therefore, not be limited to an instrument that can only track from a fixed point. For improved predictions, these results suggest the need to investigate alternative techniques, such as optical methods to improve chest deflection measurements for far-side occupant injury assessment and mitigation.     

A comparison of injury criteria used in evaluating seats for whiplash protection

A protocol has been proposed for testing seats for whiplash protection, however injury criteria have not yet been chosen. Assuming that whiplash symptoms arise from non-physiological motions of vertebral segments, we determined the ability of proposed criteria to predict peak individual vertebral displacements. Twenty-eight volunteers were subjected to rear impacts while seated in a car seat with head restraint, mounted onto a sled. Accelerometers were used to record head and torso accelerations. The volunteer data was used as a basis for testing post-mortem human specimens (PMHS). The seat was replaced by a platform onto which was mounted each of 11 cervico-thoracic spines. An instrumented headform was mounted to the upper end of the spine. The head restraint, head-to-restraint geometry, sled, and impact pulse remained the same. Head and T1 accelerations were measured and individual vertebral sagittal (XZ) plane rotations and translations were obtained from high speed video. Proposed injury criteria (NIC, Nkm, Nte, Nd) were tested for their ability to predict average, total, and peak intervertebral displacements. PMHS specimens had chest and head X (horizontal) and Z (vertical) linear accelerations similar to volunteers whose heads hit the head restraint. The best predictors were: Nd shear and peak intervertebral posterior translation (r(2) = 0.80), Nd extension and peak extension angle (r(2) = 0.70), and Nd distraction and peak distraction (r(2) = 0.51). Therefore consideration should be given to a displacement based injury criteria such as Nd in assessment of whiplash protection devices.     

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.