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.

Analysis of occupant kinematics and dynamics in nearside oblique impacts.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to analyze the kinematics and dynamics of restrained postmortem human surrogates (PMHS) exposed to a nearside oblique impact and the injuries that were found after the tests. METHODS: Three male PMHS of similar age (64 ± 4 years) and anthropometry (weight: 61 ± 9.6 kg; stature: 172 ± 2.7 cm) were exposed to a 30° nearside oblique impact at 34 km/h. The test fixture approximated the seating position of a front seat occupant. A rigid seat was designed to match the pelvic displacement in a vehicle seat. Surrogates were restrained by a 3-point seat belt consisting of a 2 kN pretensioner (PT), 4.5 kN force-limiting shoulder belt, and a 3.5 kN PT lap belt. The shoulder belt PT was not fired in one of the tests. Trajectories of the head, shoulder, and hip joint (bilaterally) were recorded at 1,000 Hz by a 3D motion capture system. The 3D acceleration and angular rate of the head, T1, and pelvis, and the 3D acceleration of selected spinal locations was measured at 10,000 Hz. Seat belt load cells measured the belt tension at 4 locations. PMHS donation and handling were performed with the approval of the relevant regional ethics review board. RESULTS: Activation of the shoulder PT reduced substantially the peak forward excursion of the head but did not influence the lateral displacement of the head center of gravity (CG). In all 3 subjects, the lateral excursion of the head CG (291.1, 290, 292.1 mm) was greater than the forward displacement (271.4, 216.7, 171.5 mm). The hip joint excursion of the PMHS that was not exposed to the shoulder PT seat belt was twice the magnitude observed for the other 2 subjects. The 3 PMHS sustained clavicle fractures on the shoulder loaded by the seat belt and 2 of them were diagnosed atlantoaxial subluxation in the radiologist examination. Avulsion fractures of the right lamina of T1, T2, T3, and T4 were found when the PT was not used. The 3 PMHS received multiple fractures spread over both aspects of the rib cage and involving the posterior aspect of it. CONCLUSION: In this study of nearside oblique impact loading, the PMHS exhibited kinematics characterized by reduced torso pitching and increased lateral head excursion as compared to previous frontal impact results. These kinematics resulted in potential cervical and thoracic spinal injuries and in complete, displaced fractures of the lateral and posterior aspects of the rib cage. Though this is a limited number of subjects, it shows the necessity of further understanding of the kinematics of occupants exposed to this loading mode.