Citation

Zaseck LW, Orton NR, Gruber R, Rupp J, Scherer R, Reed M, Hu J. Traffic Injury Prev. 2017; 18(6): 642-649.

Affiliation

Department of Mechanical Engineering , University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , MI.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15389588.2017.1282156

PMID

28095025

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although advanced restraint systems, such as seatbelt pretensioners, and load limiters, can provide improved occupant protection in crashes, such technologies are currently not utilized in military vehicles. The design and use of military vehicles presents unique challenges to occupant safety - including differences in compartment geometry and occupant clothing and gear - that make direct application of optimal civilian restraint systems to military vehicles inappropriate. For military vehicle environments, finite element (FE) modeling can be used to assess various configurations of restraint systems and determine the optimal configuration that minimizes injury risk to the occupant. The models must, however, be validated against physical tests before implementation. The objective of this study was therefore to provide the data necessary for FE model validation by conducting sled tests using anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). A secondary objective of this test series was to examine the influence of occupant body size (5(th) %-tile female, 50(th) %-tile male, and 95(th) %-tile male), military gear (helmet/vest/tactical assault panels), seatbelt type (3-point and 5-point), and advanced seatbelt technologies (pretensioner and load limiter) on occupant kinematics and injury risk in frontal crashes.

METHODS: In total, 20 frontal sled tests were conducted using a custom sled buck that was reconfigurable to represent both the driver and passenger compartments of a light tactical military vehicle. Tests were performed at a delta-V of 30 mph and a peak acceleration of 25 g. The sled tests used the Hybrid III 5(th) %-tile female, 50%-tile male, and 95%-tile male ATDs outfitted with standard combat boots and advanced combat helmets. In some tests, the ATDs were outfitted with additional military gear, which included an Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV), IOTV and Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) gunner with a Tactical Assault Panel (TAP), or IOTV and Rifleman with TAP. ATD kinematics and injury outcomes were determined for each test.

RESULTS: Maximum excursions were generally greater in the 95(th) %-tile male compared to the 50(th) %-tile male ATD, and in ATDs wearing TAP compared to ATDs without TAP. Pretensioners and load limiters were effective in decreasing excursions and injury measures, even when the ATD was outfitted in military gear.

CONCLUSIONS: ATD injury response and kinematics are influenced by the size of the ATD, military gear, and restraint system. This study has provided important data for validating FE models of military occupants, which can be used for design optimization of military vehicle restraint systems.

Language: en

Keywords

Frontal crashes; occupant protection; occupant size; personal protection equipment; restraint system; tactical vehicle