Investigation of THOR-AV 5F Biofidelity in Sled Test Conditions with A Semi-Rigid Seat.

THOR-AV 5F, a modified THOR-5F dummy, was designed to represent both upright and reclined occupants in vehicle crashworthiness studies. The dummy was evaluated in four test conditions: a) 25° seatback, 15 km/h, b) 25° seatback, 32 km/h, c) 45° seatback, 15 km/h, d) 45° seatback, 32 km/h. The dummy's biomechanical responses were compared against those of postmortem human subjects (PMHS) tested in the same test conditions. The latest National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) BioRank method was used to provide a biofidelity ranking score (BRS) for each data channel in the tests to assess the dummy's biofidelity objectively. The evaluation was categorized into two groups: restraint system and dummy. In the four test conditions, the restraint system showed good biofidelity with BRS scores of 1.49, 1.47, 1.15, and 1.79, respectively. The THOR-AV 5F demonstrated excellent biofidelity in three test conditions: 25° seatback, 15 km/h (BRS = 0.76); 25° seatback, 32 km/h (BRS = 0.89); and 45° seatback, 32 km/h (BRS = 0.93). In the fourth test condition, 45° seatback, 15 km/h, the dummy demonstrated good biofidelity with a BRS score of 1.06. The dummy demonstrated good durability. No damage was identified with a full inspection conducted after the tests.

The influence of child restraint lower attachment method on protection offered by forward facing child restraint systems in oblique loading conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The research objective was to quantify the influence of child restraint lower attachment method on head kinematics, head impact potential, and head, neck, and thorax injury metrics for a child occupant secured in a forward-facing child restraint system (FFCRS) in oblique side impacts. METHODS: Fifteen sled tests were conducted with a Q3s seated in an FFCRS secured to the center position on a production small SUV bench seat. Three lower attachment methods were evaluated: rigid ISOFIX, a flexible single loop lower anchors and tethers for children (LATCH) webbing routed through the vehicle belt path of the FFCRS, and dual flexible LATCH webbing attachments on either side of the FFCRS. All were tested with and without a tether with one repeat test in each test condition. The same model FFCRS was used for all tests; only the attachment method varied. The vehicle bench seat was fixed on the sled carriage at 80° (from full frontal). The input pulse was the proposed FMVSS 213 side impact pulse scaled to a 35 km/h delta-v. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the effect of lower attachment and tether use on 3 outcome metrics: lateral head excursion, neck tension, and neck lateral bending. Data included anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) head excursions, head linear accelerations and angular velocities, neck loads and moments, thoracic accelerations, lateral chest deflections, lower anchor loads, and tether webbing loads. ATD head kinematics were collected from 3-dimensional motion capture cameras. RESULTS: Results demonstrated a reduction in injury measures with the rigid ISOFIX and dual webbing attachment compared to the single webbing attachment with decreased lateral head excursions (331, 356, and 441 mm for the rigid ISOFIX, dual webbing, and single webbing systems, respectively, P <.0001), neck tension (1.4, 1.6, and 2.2 kN, P <.01), and neck lateral bending (31.8, 38.7, and 38.0 Nm, P =.002). The tether had a greater influence on lateral head excursion for the FFCRS with flexible webbing attachments than those with the rigid attachment, with the tether forces being highest with the single webbing attachment. Lateral head excursions were significantly lower and lateral neck bending moments were significantly higher with tether use (P <.0001) across all lower attachments. The effect of tether on neck tension was mixed, only showing an increased effect with the rigid ISOFIX system. CONCLUSION: The CRS lower attachment system influenced occupant kinetics. The results indicate that CRS attached to the vehicle via rigid and dual webbing systems exhibit improved kinematics by reducing the rotation and tipping seen with the single webbing attachment. This leads to reduced lateral head excursions and neck tension values. The advantages of the tether in reducing lateral head excursion in side impacts are most pronounced with the flexible webbing attachments. With tether use low in the United States, a dual webbing type FFCRS attachment system may be a better attachment method than single webbing and provide a simpler engineering solution than rigid ISOFIX attachment.

Protection of children in forward-facing child restraint systems during oblique side impact sled tests: Intrusion and tether effects.

OBJECTIVE: Testing was conducted to quantify the kinematics, potential for head impact, and influence on head injury metrics for a center-seated Q3s in a forward-facing child restraint system (FFCRS) in oblique impacts. The influences of a tether and intruded door on these measures were explored. METHODS: Nine lateral oblique sled tests were conducted on a convertible forward-facing child restraint seat (FFCRS). The FFCRSs were secured to a bench seat from a popular production small SUV at the center seating position utilizing the lower anchor and tether for children (LATCH). The vehicle seat was fixed on the sled carriage at 60° and 80° from full frontal (30° and 10° forward rotation from pure lateral) providing an oblique lateral acceleration to the Q3s and FFCRS. A structure simulating an intruded door was mounted to the near (left) side of vehicle seat. The sled input acceleration was the proposed FMVSS 213 lateral pulse scaled to a 35 km/h delta-V. Tests were conducted with and without the tether attached to the FFCRS. RESULTS: Results indicate the influence of the tether on kinematics and injury measures in oblique side impact crashes for a center- or far-side-seated child occupant. All tests without a tether resulted in head contact with the simulated door, and 2 tests at the less oblique angle (80°) with a tether also resulted in head contact. No head-to-door contact was observed in 2 tests utilizing a tether. High-speed video analysis showed that the head moved beyond the CRS head side wings and made contact with the simulated intruded door. Head injury criterion (HIC) 15 median values were 589 without the tether vs. 332 with the tether attached. Tests utilizing a tether had less lateral head excursion than tests without a tether (median 400 vs. 442 mm). CONCLUSION: These tests demonstrate the important role of the tether in controlling head excursion for center- or far-side-seated child occupants in oblique side impact crashes and limiting the head injury potential with an intruded door. The tether may not influence the kinematics of a near-side-seated occupant as strongly where the vehicle door or side structure interacts with the CRS and influences its motion. The results indicate that there may be an opportunity to improve child head kinematics and head protection in oblique side impacts through different CRS attachment methods and/or alternative vehicle side structure protection or padding.

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.

Injury potential at center rear seating positions in rear-facing child restraint systems in side impacts.

Head injuries occur to occupants of rear-facing child restraint systems in side impacts. This study examined the head injury potential of center-seated occupants using sled tests at change in velocities of 35, 29 and 24 km/h. Other parameters included combinations of with and without a simulated door. A twelve-month-old child dummy was used in combination, convertible and infant rear-facing child restraint systems. Head excursions and head injury criteria (HIC) were obtained. In 35 km/h tests without simulated door, head excursions ranged from 568 to 655 mm, exceeding the simulated door intrusion plane. HIC ranged from 87 to 157, below the 390 limit. At this velocity but with the simulated door, HIC ranged from 804 to 1297. Head excursions ranged from 424 to 480 mm. In 29 and 24 km/h tests, the dummy and child restraint system impacted the simulated door. HIC ranged from 275 to 604 and 141 to 314, and head excursions ranged from 388 to 470 mm and 365 to 460 mm, respectively. Far-side belt loads were 2.4-3.2 kN and 1.7-2.3 kN for the 35 km/h tests without and with the simulated door, and 1.5-2.1 kN and 1.0-1.6 kN for 29 and 24 km/h tests with the simulated door. These findings indicate that occupants in the center seating position in smaller/medium-size vehicles may impact an intruding door and sustain head injuries. A need exists for better protection/attachment methods for center positioned rear-facing child restraint systems to reduce the injury potential in side impacts at velocities greater than 29 km/h.