Citation

Viano DC, Parenteau CS, Burnett R. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012; 45: 423-431.

Affiliation

ProBiomechanics LLC, 265 Warrington Rd., Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.aap.2011.08.009

PMID

22269526

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is a question whether the standing or seated pelvis should be used in Hybrid III dummy evaluations of seats and belt restraint systems in severe rear impacts. This study compares the standing and seated Hybrid III pelvis in matched rear sled tests. METHODS: Sixteen sled tests were found at 10, 16 and 24km/h rear delta V in Ford's archives where matched tests were run with the standing and seated pelvis in a belted Hybrid III dummy. Two new tests were conducted at 40km/h rear delta V to extend the severity range. The head, chest and pelvis were instrumented with triaxial accelerometers and the upper and lower neck, thoracic spine and lumbar spine had transducers measuring triaxial loads and moments. Belt Loads were measured. High-speed video recorded different views of the dummy motion. Dummy kinematics and biomechanical responses were compared for all of the data with the two different Hybrid III pelvic designs. RESULTS: In the 40km/h sled tests, the dummy motion and excursion were essentially similar with the standing and seated pelvis. The similarities included the lap belt interaction with the pelvis and the leg movement upward flexing the hip joint. Overall, similar biomechanic and kinematic responses were found, including the pelvic acceleration, spinal forces and moments. For the lower speed tests at 10, 16 and 24km/h, the motion sequence was also similar with the two different pelvises, including the upward movement of the legs as the seat was loaded and rebound kinematics. The biomechanical responses were similar. The seated pelvis involves only a small portion of the upper leg molded into the vinyl skin of the pelvis and does not limit leg rotation at the hip joint. Furthermore, lap belt loads were minimal during the rearward movement of the dummy. CONCLUSIONS: The matched testing showed no significant difference in occupant kinematics or biomechanical responses between the standing and seated pelvis in rear sled tests. The Hybrid III dummy with the seated pelvis is suitable for FMVSS 301 and other testing of seats and belt restraint systems in severe rear impacts.

Language: en