Responses of the Q6/Q6s ATD Positioned in Booster Seats in the Far-Side Seat Location of Side Impact Passenger Car and Sled Tests.

Passenger car side impact crash tests and sled tests were conducted to investigate the influence of booster seats, near-side occupant characteristics and vehicle interiors on the responses of the Q6/Q6s child ATD positioned in the rear, far-side seating location. Data from nine side impact sled tests simulating a EuroNCAP AEMD barrier test were analyzed with data obtained from 44 side impact crash tests. The crash tests included: FMVSS 214 and IIHS MDB, moving car-to-stationary car and moving car-to-moving car. A Q6 or prototype Q6s ATD was seated on the far-side, using a variety of low and high back booster seats. Head and chest responses were recorded and ATD motions were tracked with high-speed videos. The vehicle lateral accelerations resulting from MDB tests were characterized by a much earlier and more rapid rise to peak than in tests where the bullet was another car. The near-side seating position was occupied by a Hybrid III 10-year-old ATD in the sled tests, and a rear or front facing child restraint or a 5th percentile side impact ATD in the crash tests. Head impacts occurred more frequently in vehicles where a forward facing child restraint was present behind the driver seat for both the low and high back booster seats. Pretensioners were found to reduce lateral head displacements in all sled test configurations but the greatest reduction in lateral excursion was obtained with a high back booster seat secured with LATCH and tested in combination with pretensioners.

Comparative performance of forward-facing child restraint systems on the C/FMVSS 213 bench and vehicle seats.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the fidelity of the C/FMVSS 213 test bench, by comparing the dynamic performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (FFCRS) mounted on the C/FMVSS 213 sled bench versus mounted on a selection of production vehicle seats. METHODS: The C/FMVSS 213 bench or one of 3 second-row original equipment manufacturer vehicle seats was mounted to the deck of acceleration crash sled. An FFCRS with a restrained anthropomorphic test device (ATD) was secured by 3-point belt (3-PT) or LATCH lower anchor (LLA) on the C/FMVSS 213 bench or vehicle seat, with or without a tether. The sled was then exposed to a 48 km/h acceleration pulse. Three unique make and model vehicle seats and FFCRS were tested. Fifty-three sled tests were performed. RESULTS: When FFCRS were secured with LLA and no tether, little difference between the vehicle seats and 213 bench was observed. Similarly, when FFCRS were affixed with 3-PT and no tether, few kinematic variable differences achieved statistical significance; chest resultant acceleration was, on average, 9.1 g (SD=6.6, P=.006) higher on the vehicle seats compared to the bench, as was CRS seatback excursion (difference [Δ] of 39.8 mm, SD=32.7, P=.011) and ATD knee excursion (Δ=36.4 mm, SD=12.0, P<.001). However, when the tether was added to either the 3-PT or LLA attachment methods, the difference between the bench and vehicle seats was more pronounced. ATD kinematic measures such as head resultant acceleration (Δ=14.6 g, SD=7.2, P<.001) and pelvis resultant acceleration (Δ=8.6 g, SD=6.0, P=.005) were higher on the vehicle seats compared to the bench, as were the injury metrics for head and chest injury: ΔHIC15=162.2 (SD=87.4, P=.001) and ΔChest 3 ms clip=5.5 g (SD=6.2, P=.040). Of note, CRS (Δ=62.8 mm, SD=32.7, P=.000) and ATD head (Δ=66.3 mm, SD=30.9, P=.000) and knee (Δ=46.9 mm, SD=25.8, P=.001) forward excursion were all higher on the vehicle seats compared to the bench in 3-PT with tether condition. CONCLUSIONS: Without the tether attached, we observed few kinematic and kinetic differences between the vehicle seat and the C/FMVSS 213 bench, suggesting that the bench is an adequate surrogate for the vehicle seat in this condition. With the tether attached, we found significant differences between the C/FMVSS 213 bench and vehicle seats, suggesting that the fidelity of the bench could be improved in the tethered mode. When differences were statistically significant, excursion and injury metrics were generally greater on the vehicle seats than on the C/FMVSS 213 bench.

Comparative Performance of Rear Facing Child Restraint Systems on the CMVSS 213 Bench and Vehicle Seats.

The purpose of this study was to compare the dynamic response of rear-facing child restraint systems (RFCRS) installed on the CMVSS 213 sled bench and a selection of vehicle seats. Thirty-six sled tests were conducted: three models of rear facing CRS with an anthropomorphic test device (ATD) representing a 12 month old child (CRABI) were affixed via lower anchors (LATCH), 3 point belt without CRS base, and 3 point belt with CRS base to one of three vehicle seats or the CMVSS 213 bench seat. All CRS were subjected to an identical sled acceleration pulse. Two types of matched pair analysis: "bench-to-vehicle" and "method of attachment" were conducted. Statistically significant differences were observed in the kinematic responses of the ATD and the CRS.This is the first study to quantify differences between the regulatory bench and vehicle seats on a system level and evaluate the influence of attachment method. Our results show that the difference in RFCRS forward excursion between 3-point belt with base and LATCH installations was between 1 and 7 percent on the bench and 22 to 76 percent on the vehicle seats. When evaluating the dynamic performance of RFCRS, the use of real vehicle seats from vehicles that commonly carry children may provide valuable insight. The findings would require further confirmation using a broader selection of RFCRS and vehicle seats, before generalizable conclusions can be drawn.

Occupant-to-occupant interaction and impact injury risk in side impact crashes.

To date, efforts to improve occupant protection in side impact crashes have concentrated on reducing the injuries to occupants seated on the struck side of the vehicle arising from contact with the intruding side structure and/or external objects. Crash investigations indicate that occupants on the struck side of a vehicle may also be injured by contact with an adjacent occupant in the same seating row. Anecdotal information suggests that the injury consequences of occupant-to-occupant impacts can be severe, and sometimes life threatening. Occupant-to-occupant impacts leave little evidence in the vehicle, and hence these impacts can be difficult for crash investigators to detect and may be underreported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of impact injury from occupant-to-occupant impacts in side impact vehicle crashes. The study examined 9608 crashes extracted from NASS/CDS 1993--2006 to investigate the risk of occupant-to-occupant impacts. The study computed relative risk ratio of serious injury (MAIS 3 or greater) for drivers with and without an adjacent front seat passenger present. This approach avoids uncertainties in the coding of occupant-to-occupant contact. The NASS data showed an 8% increased injury risk for struck side drivers in cases where a belted front seat passenger was present. If the front seat passenger was unbelted, struck side driver injury risk was found to be 30% higher than for struck side drivers without a front seat passenger. A series of 6 full scale vehicle side impact crash tests, both mobile deformable barrier to vehicle and vehicle-to-pole, were conducted to assess injury risk and determine the occupant kinematics which lead to occupant-to-occupant impact. Limitations of the biofidelity of current ATDs to simulate occupant interaction were noted. Occupant interaction indicating risk of serious head injury to both the driver and front seat passenger was observed in vehicle-to-pole side impact. The results show that despite the introduction of countermeasures to protect struck side occupants from contact with intruding structure or external objects, these occupants may be severely injured by impacting adjacent occupants. The feasibility of a potential countermeasure, developed to offer protection for two adjacent occupants as well as a single occupant seated on the non-struck side, was investigated through analysis of the dummy injury responses produced in pole side impact tests, with and without the countermeasure installed. The countermeasure was observed to reduce the risk of head injury from occupant interaction.

The effect of breast anthropometry on the Hybrid III 5th female chest response.

Two manufacturers, Denton ATD and FTSS, currently produce the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. In response to concerns raised by industry that differences in the anthropometry of the molded breasts between the two manufacturers may influence chest responses, Transport Canada conducted a comparative testing program. Thorax biofidelity tests were conducted to compare force-deflection characteristics; full frontal rigid-barrier tests were conducted at 40, 48 and 56 km/h to compare chest responses, and out-of-position chest on module static airbag deployment tests were conducted to compare peak chest deflections of the Denton and FTSS dummy jackets and of a prototype jacket without breasts. Differences in force-deflection characteristics were observed during biofidelity pendulum impacts of the two dummies, with much of the differences attributed to the different chest jackets. Differences of up to 11 mm in the peak sternum deflection and of the order of 15 g for the 3-ms chest acceleration clips were noted in rigid-barrier vehicle tests. In the out-of-position airbag-deployment tests, differences in the magnitude of peak chest deflections were observed. The prototype chest jacket without breasts was found to improve repeatability in the belted crash tests and in out-of-position airbag testing. Though neither the Denton nor the FTSS chest jackets fully meet the original design intent of the Hybrid III 5th percentile dummy, the Denton dummy more closely met the drawing specifications and had less manufacturing variability. The results demonstrate the importance of detailed chest flesh assembly specifications, provide evidence that a fully molded jacket design would eliminate manufacturing variability and suggest that removal of the breasts may further improve test repeatability.

Field investigation of child restraints in side impact crashes.

OBJECTIVE: Various test procedures have been suggested for assessing the protection afforded by child restraints (CRS) in lateral collisions. Analyses of real world crashes can be used to identify relevant characteristics of the child, restraint, collision, and injury mechanisms that should be incorporated into the design of the test procedures as well as in the design of related ATDs and injury metrics. The objective of this work is to use in-depth crash investigations of children restrained in CRS in side impacts to elucidate specific sources and mechanisms of injuries and explore the role of crash severity variables such as magnitude and location of intrusion and specific impact angle. METHODS: Real world crashes involving children restrained in forward facing CRS in side impacts were analyzed from Partners for Child Passenger Safety, an on-going child specific crash surveillance system in which insurance claims are used to identify cases. In-depth crash investigations using standardized protocols were used to calculate the crash severity and determine the mechanisms and sources of the injuries sustained. RESULTS: Cases of 32 children restrained in CRS in 30 side impact crashes were examined. Twenty-five percent sustained AIS 2+ injuries. The most common injuries sustained by children restrained in CRS in side impact crashes were to the face, head, and lower extremity. Characteristics of the crashes that appeared related to injury were intrusion that entered the child's occupant space or caused an interior part of the vehicle to enter the child's occupant space, forward component of the crash, and the rotation of the CRS, restrained by a seat belt, towards the side of the impact. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to assess the injury potential in a laboratory setting for the body regions of common injury, the head, face, and lower extremity, must be explored. Characteristics of a regulatory-based test procedure to assess injury risk should include a frontal component to the crash and intrusion into the occupant's seating position. Design enhancements of the CRS should address rotation during lateral impacts. These results provide guidance to current efforts to design and regulate these restraints for the safety of child passengers in side impacts.

Evaluation of the ES-2re Dummy in Biofidelity, Component, and Full Vehicle Crash Tests.

This technical paper presents the results from tests conducted with the ES-2re, a version of the ES-2 side impact dummy that was modified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve its performance in crash tests. Through the series of biofidelity tests conducted on the ES-2re, described in International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Report (TR)9790 (1999), the OSRP observed a final overall biofidelity ranking of 4.1 for the ES-2re, which corresponds to an ISO classification of "marginal." The biofidelity of the ES-2re is compared to that of the ES-2 and the WorldSID. Repeatability was also evaluated on the ES-2re based on the biofidelity test data. Additional pendulum tests were performed to assess the response of the dummy in oblique loading conditions, and results indicate that oblique loading from the front leads to significantly reduced rib deflections. To evaluate inconsistencies observed in the response of the ES-2, the OSRP analyzed the shoulder biofidelity via additional sled and drop tests. Due to the shoulder design of the ES-2 and ES-2re, the dummies appear to have significant sensitivity to initial conditions, potentially increasing variability in full vehicle tests. Finally, the responses of the ES-2re in full vehicle tests are compared to those of the ES-2 and the WorldSID.

ES-2 Dummy Biomechanical Responses.

This technical paper presents the results of biomechanical testing conducted on the ES-2 dummy by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership and Transport Canada. The ES-2 is a production dummy, based on the EuroSID-1 dummy, that was modified to further improve testing capabilities as recommended by users of the EuroSID-1 dummy. Biomechanical response data were obtained by completing a series of drop, pendulum, and sled tests that are outlined in the International Organization of Standardization Technical Report 9790 that describes biofidelity requirements for the midsize adult male side impact dummy. A few of the biofidelity tests were conducted on both sides of the dummy to evaluate the symmetry of its responses. Full vehicle crash tests were conducted to verify if the changes in the EuroSID-1, resulting in the ES-2 design, did improve the dummy's testing capability. In addition to the biofidelity testing, the ES-2 dummy repeatability, reproducibility and durability are discussed. Finally, this technical paper will compare the biofidelity ratings of the current adult side impact dummies with the ES-2 dummy, which received an overall dummy biofidelity rating of 4.6.