Top tether effectiveness during side impacts.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have looked at the effectiveness of the top tether during side impacts. In these studies, limited anthropomorphic test device (ATD) data were collected and/or few side impact scenarios were observed. The goal of this study was to further understand the effects of the top tether on ATD responses and child restraint system (CRS) kinematics during various side impact conditions. METHODS: A series of high-speed near-side and far-side sled tests were performed using the FMVSS213 side impact sled buck and Q3s ATD. Tests were performed at both 10° and 30° impacts with respect to the pure lateral direction. Two child restraints, CRS A and CRS B, were attached to the bench using flexible lower anchors. Each test scenario was performed with the presence and absence of a top tether. Instrumentation recorded Q3s responses and CRS kinematics, and the identical test scenarios with and without a top tether attachment were compared. RESULTS: For the far-side lateral (10°) and oblique (30°) impacts, top tether attachment increased resultant head accelerations by 8-38% and head injury criterion (HIC15) values by 20-140%. However, the top tether was effective in reducing lateral head excursion by 5-25%. For near-side impacts, the top tether resulted in less than 10% increases in both resultant head acceleration and HIC15 in the lateral impact direction. For near-side oblique impacts, the top tether increased HIC15 by 17.3% for CRS A and decreased it by 19.5% for CRS B. However, the injury values determined from both impact conditions were below current injury assessment reference values (IARVs). Additionally, the top tether proved beneficial in preventing forward and lateral CRS rotations. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the effects of the top tether on Q3s responses were dependent on impact type, impact angle, and CRS. Tether attachments that increased head accelerations and HIC15 values were generally counterbalanced by a reduction in head excursion and CRS rotation compared to nontethered scenarios.

Compatibility of booster seats and vehicles in the U.S. market.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze booster and rear vehicle seat dimensions to identify the most frequent compatibility problems. METHODS: Measurements were collected from 40 high-back and backless boosters and 95 left rear and center rear row seating positions in 50 modern vehicles. Dimensions were compared for 3,800 booster/vehicle seat combinations. For validation and estimation of tolerance and correction factors, 72 booster installations were physically completed and compared with measurement-based compatibility predictions. Dimensions were also compared to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) volumetric envelopes of forward-facing child restraints and boosters. RESULTS: Seat belt buckles in outboard positions accommodated the width of boosters better than center positions (success rates of 85.4 and 34.7%, respectively). Adequate head restraint clearance occurred in 71.9 to 77.2% of combinations, depending on the booster's head support setting. Booster recline angles aligned properly with vehicle seat cushion angles in 71.5% of combinations. In cases of poor angle alignment, booster angles were more obtuse than the vehicle seat angles 97.7% of the time. Head restraint interference exacerbated angle alignment issues. Data indicate success rates above 90% for boosters being fully supported by the length of the seat cushion and for adequate height clearance with the vehicle roofline. Comparison to ISO envelopes indicates that most boosters on the U.S. market are taller and angled more obtusely than ISO target envelopes. CONCLUSIONS: This study quantifies some of the common interferences between boosters and vehicles that may complicate booster usage. Data are useful for design and to prioritize specific problem areas.

Biofidelity Evaluation of a Prototype Hybrid III 6 Year-Old ATD Lower Extremity.

Incomplete instrumentation and a lack of biofidelity in the extremities of the 6 year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD) pose challenges when studying regions of the body known to interact with the vehicle interior. This study sought to compare a prototype Hybrid III 6 year-old ATD leg (ATD-LE), with a more biofidelic ankle and tibia load cell, to previously collected child volunteer data and to the current Hybrid III 6 year-old ATD (HIII). Anthropometry, range of motion (ROM), and stiffness measurements were taken, along with a dynamic evaluation of the ATD-LE using knee-bolster airbag (KBA) test scenarios. Anthropometry values were similar in eight of twelve measurements. Total ankle ROM was improved in the ATD-LE with no bumper compared to the HIII. The highest tibia moments and tibia index values were recorded in KBA scenarios when the toes were positioned in contact with the dashboard prior to airbag deployment, forcing the ankle into axial loading and dorsiflexion. While improvements in the biofidelity of the ATD-LE are still necessary, the results of this study are encouraging. Continued advancement of the 6 year-old ATD ankle is necessary to provide a tool to directly study the behavior of the leg during a motor vehicle crash.

Investigation of Child Restraint System (CRS) Compatibility in the Vehicle Seat Environment.

OBJECTIVE: Child restraint system (CRS) misuse is common and can have serious consequences to child safety. Physical incompatibilities between CRS and vehicles can complicate the installation process and may worsen CRS misuse rates. This study aims to identify the most common sources of incompatibility between representative groups of CRS and vehicles. METHODS: Detailed dimensional data were collected from 59 currently marketed CRS and 61 late model vehicles. Key dimensions were compared across all 3,599 theoretical CRS/vehicle combinations and the most common predicted incompatibilities were determined. A subset of 34 physical installations was analyzed to validate the results. RESULTS: Only 58.2% of rear-facing (RF) CRS/vehicle combinations were predicted to have proper agreement between the vehicle's seat pan angle and the CRS manufacturers' required base angle. The width of the base of the CRS was predicted to fit snugly between the vehicle's seat pan bolsters in 63.3% of RF CRS/vehicle combinations and 62.2% of forward-facing (FF) CRS/vehicle combinations. FF CRS were predicted to be free of interaction with the vehicle's head restraint in 66.4% of combinations. Roughly 90.0% of RF CRS/vehicle combinations were predicted to have enough horizontal clearance space to set the front seat in the middle its fore/aft slider track. Compatibility rates were above 98% regarding the length of the CRS base compared to the length of the vehicle seat pan and the ability of the top tether to reach the tether anchor. Validation studies revealed that the predictions of RF CRS base angle range vs. seat pan angle compatibility were accurate within 6%, and head restraint interference and front row clearance incompatibilities may be more common than the dimensional analysis approach has predicted. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that RF CRS base angles and front row clearance space, as well as FF CRS head restraint interference, are frequent compatibility concerns. These results enable manufacturers, researchers, and consumers to focus their attention on the most relevant CRS/vehicle incompatibility issues in today's market.

A new look at an old problem: defining weight acceptance in human walking.

BACKGROUND: Weight acceptance (WA) is an important phase of bipedal gait that has received relatively little study to date. This study tested the hypothesis that the first peak knee flexion would better demarcate the end of WA power absorption activity across varying gait speeds than would the more commonly used event of contralateral toe off (CTO) or the peak hip adduction angle. METHODS: Eight control subjects (4F/4M) walked on a treadmill at slow, self-selected, and fast speeds. Kinematic and kinetic data were recorded. Joint angles and power absorption were analyzed about the, lower extremity joints (sagittal ankle, knee, hip and frontal hip). Differences in event timings and, magnitudes of negative work were analyzed (ANOVA). RESULTS: Knee sagittal power absorption continued after the CTO event at self-selected (p=0.009) and fast speeds (p=0.001), while hip frontal power absorption continued after the CTO event at slow (p=0.019), self-selected (p=0.001), and fast speeds (p=0.001). The contribution of frontal hip to overall power absorption increased as speed decreased. DISCUSSION: Peak hip adduction angle is the best kinematic marker of the end of the WA phase, and peak knee flexion angle is the best alternative marker across speeds. CTO is only appropriate to use when gait speeds are slow. In addition, the relative contribution of power absorbed in the frontal hip during WA highlights the importance of frontal plane pelvic control in locomotion, especially when gait speed is slow.