Comparison of child and ATD belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters during self-selected, holding device, and nominal conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are important tools for the assessment of child occupant protection and should represent realistic child belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters. Previous comparisons have been made to children in either self-selected or nominal postural conditions. This study compares belt fit and postural measurements between pediatric ATDs and a single cohort of children assuming different postures on boosters: self-selected, holding a portable electronic device, and nominal. METHODS: A cohort of children (n = 25) were evaluated in a stationary vehicle on five boosters and in three postural conditions: nominal, self-selected, and a representative holding electronic device position. The Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old and Q-Series 6- and 10-year-old ATDs were evaluated in the same five boosters and in two postural conditions: nominal and a representative holding electronic device position. A 3D coordinate measurement device was used to quantify belt fit (shoulder belt score, lap belt score, maximum gap size, and gap length) and anatomic landmark positions (head, suprasternale, ASIS, and patella). Landmark positions and belt fit were compared between ATDs and children for each booster and postural condition, and Pearson correlations (r) were assessed across boosters. RESULTS: ATDs generally represented Nominal child postures across boosters. In the Device condition, ATDs were seldom able to be positioned to represent both the torso and head position of children, due to limited ATD spinal flexibility. When the torso position was matched, the ATD head was more rear by 63 mm. Correlations between Nominal child and ATD belt fit and belt gap metrics were generally weak and not significant, with the exception of lap belt score (all ATDs p < 0.07, r = 0.8549-0.9857). DISCUSSION: ATDs were generally able to represent realistic child postures and lap belt fit in Nominal and short duration Self-selected postures in a laboratory setting. However, these results display the potential difficulty of utilizing ATDs to represent more naturalistic child postures, especially the more forward head positions and flexed spinal posture associated with utilizing a portable electronic device.

Thoracic responses and injuries to male postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in rear-facing seat configurations in high-speed frontal impacts.

Objective: One potential nonstandard seating configuration for vehicles with automated driving systems (ADS) is a reclined seat that is rear-facing when in a frontal collision. There are limited biomechanical response and injury data for this seating configuration during high-speed collisions. The main objective of this study was to investigate thoracic biomechanical responses and injuries to male postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in a rear-facing scenario with varying boundary conditions.Method: Fourteen rear-facing male PMHS tests (10 previously published and 4 newly tested) were conducted at two different recline angles (25-degree and 45-degree) in 56 km/h frontal impacts. PMHS were seated in two different seats; one used a Fixed D-Ring (FDR) seat belt assembly and one used an All Belts To Seat (ABTS) restraint. For thoracic instrumentation, strain gages were attached to ribs to quantify strain and fracture timing. A chestband was installed at the mid-sternum level to quantify anterior-posterior (AP) chest deflections. Data from the thorax instrumentation were analyzed to investigate injury mechanisms.Results: The PMHS sustained a greater number of rib fractures (NRF) in the 45-degree recline condition (12 ± 7 NRF for ABTS45 and 25 ± 18 NRF for FDR45) than the 25-degree condition (6 ± 4 NRF for ABTS25 and 12 ± 8 NRF for FDR25), despite AP chest compressions in the 45-degree condition (-23.7 ± 9.4 mm for ABTS45 and -39.6 ± 11.9 mm for FDR45) being smaller than the 25-degree condition (-38.9 ± 16.9 mm for ABTS25 and -55.0 ± 4.4 mm for FDR25). The rib fractures from the ABTS condition were not as symmetric as the FDR condition in the 25-degree recline angle due to a belt retractor structure located at one side of the seatback frame. Average peak AP chest compression occurred at 45.7 ± 3.4 ms for ABTS45, 45.6 ± 3.1 ms for FDR45, 46.7 ± 1.9 ms for ABTS25, and 46.9 ± 2.3 ms for FDR25. Average peak seatback resultant force occurred at 43.9 ± 0.9 ms for ABTS45, 44.6 ± 0.8 ms for FDR45, 42.5 ± 0.2 ms for ABTS25, and 41.5 ± 0.5 ms for FDR25. The majority of rib fractures occurred after peak AP chest compression and peak seatback resultant force likely due to the ramping motion of the PMHS, which might create a combined loading (e.g., AP deflection and upward deflection) to the thorax. Although NRF in the 45-degree reclined condition was greater than the 25-degree recline condition, similar magnitudes of rib strains were observed regardless of seat and restraint types, while strain modes varied.Conclusions: The majority of rib fractures occurred after peak AP chest compression and peak seatback force, especially in FDR25, ABTS45, and FDR45, while the PMHS ramped up along the seatback. AP chest compression, seatback load, and strain measured along the rib could not explain the greater NRF in the 45-degree recline conditions. A complex combination of AP chest deflection with upward deflection was discovered as a possible mechanism for rib fractures in PMHS subjected to rear-facing frontal impacts in this study.

Evaluation of static belt fit and belt torso contact for children on belt-positioning booster seats.

Objective: Previous studies have indicated that gap between the seatbelt and torso (reduced belt torso contact) for children on belt-positioning booster seats (BPBs) may lead to less torso engagement and increased likelihood of shoulder belt slip-off during evasive vehicle maneuvers, potentially increasing injury risk during crashes. However, current BPB belt fit measures do not quantify belt gap and may not be able to fully discriminate between designs which provide good vs. poor dynamic outcomes. The goal of this study was to evaluate both novel (belt gap characteristics) and conventional measures of seatbelt fit for BPB-seated children.Methods: Ten BPBs and three seatbelt anchor locations were investigated. Fifty volunteers (4-14 years) were recruited and each evaluated on six unique combinations of BPB and seatbelt anchor location on a vehicle rear seat in a laboratory setting. A 3 D coordinate measurement system quantified positions of anatomic, seatbelt, BPB, and vehicle reference points. Novel belt gap (gap size, length, location, and percent torso contact) and conventional belt fit (position of belt on shoulder and pelvis) metrics were calculated using anatomic and seatbelt landmarks. Variation in belt fit and belt gap outcomes due to BPB, seatbelt anchor location, and anthropometry were investigated.Results: BPBs produced significantly different outcomes, while seatbelt anchor location did not. BPBs with features that directly routed the lower portion of the shoulder belt more forward on the buckle side produced the largest (29.3 ± 12.6 mm) and longest (106.9 ± 68.2 mm) belt gap on average, while BPBs that pulled the belt less forward or did not directly route the belt produced the smallest (13.9 ± 6.7 mm) and shortest (16.9 ± 33.9 mm) gap on average. Belt gap outcomes were not strongly correlated with conventional belt fit metrics, indicating that evaluation of belt gap may provide additional insight when attempting to discriminate between BPBs which provide good vs. poor seatbelt engagement during vehicle maneuvers and crashes.Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate belt gap characteristics for BPB-seated children. Results suggest that belt fit and belt gap are influenced by BPB design, particularly lower shoulder belt routings, and may have implications for belt engagement during dynamic events.

Evaluation of LATCH vs. non-LATCH installations for boosters in frontal impacts.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to understand how the use or nonuse of the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) system affects the performance of booster seats during frontal impacts. METHODS: Sixteen frontal impact sled tests were conducted at 24.8 ± 0.3 g and 50.1 ± 0.2 kph. A production vehicle seat buck was attached to the sled. Four high-back boosters or combination seats in high-back booster mode and two backless booster models were tested. Each booster model was installed two different ways: using the LATCH system ("LATCH" installation) and without using the LATCH system ("non-LATCH" installation). All installations used a 3-point seat belt with retractor in emergency locking mode (ELR) to restrain a Hybrid III 6-year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD). The retractor, belt webbing, buckle, vehicle seat cushion, and booster were replaced after each test. Some conditions were tested twice to establish repeatability. ATD and booster responses were compared between LATCH and non-LATCH tests. RESULTS: Using LATCH reduced the forward movement of the booster itself by 32.3% to 71.5% compared to non-LATCH installations. Differences in most other metrics were small and often within the range of normal test-to-test variation. Forward movements of the ATD head and heel were similar between LATCH and non-LATCH tests (typically less than 10% difference). HIC36 values trended slightly higher for LATCH installations compared to non-LATCH installations (0.8% to 17.2%). Chest resultant accelerations were typically 7.3% to 21.2% higher for LATCH installations, except for one booster for which it was lower with LATCH. Chest deflections trended higher for LATCH installations compared to non-LATCH installations for the backless boosters (6.9% to 14.1%). For high-back boosters, chest deflection was similar between installation conditions (less than 5% difference). Shoulder belt loads showed the greatest reductions when LATCH installations included a top tether (12.9% to 20.8%). Instances of the ATD submarining under the lap belt were not observed in these tests. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the differences in kinematics and injury metrics were small between boosters installed using LATCH vs. non-LATCH.

Evaluation of interventions to make top tether hardware more visible during child restraint system (CRS) installations.

Objectives: The objective of the study is to determine whether specific child restraint system (CRS) or vehicle conditions improve top tether attachment rates during volunteer installations. Methods: A factorial randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate 4 different experimental categories: (1) Color of tether adjuster casing (black or red), (2) labeling on tether adjuster casing (labeled with "Tether: Use for forward-facing" or unlabeled), (3) storage location of tether (bundled in a rubber band on the back of CRS or Velcroed over the forward-facing belt path), and (4) labeling in vehicle (labeled under head restraint and below anchor or unlabeled). Ninety-six volunteers were randomly assigned to one combination of conditions. One installation per volunteer was completed. The primary outcome measure was acceptable attachment of the top tether to the tether anchor. The secondary outcome measure was overall secureness of the installation. Pearson's chi-square tests were used to identify significant predictors of acceptable outcomes and logistic regression was used to investigate interaction effects. Results: A total of 66/96 subjects (68.8%) attached the top tether in an acceptable manner, with either zero errors (n = 50) or minor errors (n = 16). A total of 30/96 subjects (31.2%) had unacceptable tether outcomes, with either major errors (n = 10) or nonuse the tether at all (n = 20). None of the 4 experimental categories significantly affected tether outcomes. Subjects who opted to install the CRS with the lower anchors (LAs) had higher rates of acceptable tether attachment compared to subjects who installed using the seat belt or those who used both LA and seat belt together (χ2 = 6.792, P = .034). Tether outcomes were not correlated with previous CRS experience, use of instruction manual(s), age, or sex. Only 15.6% of subjects produced overall correct and tight installations. Of those who used the seat belt in some manner, 70.2% neglected to switch the retractor into locking mode. Conclusions: Conditions in this study including tether color, tether labeling, storage location, and vehicle labeling did not significantly affect tether attachment rates. High rates of tether misuse and nonuse warrant further exploration to find effective solutions to this usability problem.