Occupant safety effectiveness of proactive safety seat in autonomous emergency braking.

The proactive safety seat (PSS) is a recently developed active safety system for securing occupant safety in out-of-seat position (OOSP), which was applied in the Hyundai Genesis G80 in 2020. However, there has not been sufficient quantifiable verification supporting the effectiveness of the PSS. The present study was performed to determine the effectiveness of the PSS for occupant safety in OOSP and to identify areas for additional improvement. Six test conditions were considered to determine the effectiveness of the PSS for augmentation of occupant safety in OOSP. Ten healthy men participated in the tests. Compared with the no PSS condition, maximum head excursion and neck rotation were significantly decreased in the PSS condition by 0.6-0.8-fold and 0.6-0.7-fold, respectively (P < 0.05). The PSS condition in which the seat pan was moved forward to the mid position showed a greater effect in reducing the characteristic motions related to submarining, compared with the condition in which the seat pan was moved rearward to the mid position (P < 0.05). These results suggested that PSS augments occupant safety in OOSP. This study provides valuable insights in ameliorating risks to the occupant in unintended seat positions before braking and/or collision.

Motion Responses by Occupants in Out-of-Seat Positions During Autonomous Emergency Braking.

The occupant's posture can be changeable to an inadvertent or unintentional out-of-seat position (OOSP) depend on their convenience. Understanding for OOSP has been demanded, but it is not sufficient; especially when AEB is activated. The aim of the current study was to characterize the motion responses of an occupant in various OOSPs when AEB is activated and to identify if there were any additional risks of injury or discomfort to the occupant. The normal seat position (NSP) and three OOSPs were defined to compare the difference of human responses, and six healthy males were participated. Particularly, the maximum rotation angles of the neck in OOSP2 and OOSP3 differed significantly around 1.3 ± 0.3 and 1.4 ± 0.2 times higher respectively than from in the NSP (p < 0.05). Occupants assuming OOSP3 exhibited motion characteristics were not restrained effectively and characterized a hovering and falling upper body and a slipping pelvis. This study has identified, for the first time, a potential risk of injury or discomfort when AEB is activated while an occupant is in an OOSP. This study may serve as fundamental data for the development of safety system that can improve restraint and counteract any deterioration in occupant safety.