Citation

Burnett RA, Viano DC, Parenteau CS. Traffic Injury Prev. 2022; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15389588.2022.2140280

PMID

36383644

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Various methods have been used in the past 50 years to apply Quasi-static load to a seat in the rear direction and measure seat performance in rear impacts. This study compared five of the most-common test procedures to evaluate seats. In addition, occupant mass and center of gravity are discussed as important characteristics of rear loading of seats.

METHOD: Data was collected and analyzed from five different seat pull tests, including FMVSS 207, modified FMVSS 207, QST, body block and FRED II. Test data included peak force, moment and angle at peak moment. Occupant loading height of was determined using body segment weights and position in the forward (x) and vertical (z) directions based on anthropometry data.

RESULTS: Some of the inherent differences in the tests are shown by comparing data with the same seat structure. The QST and FRED II use a lower height of loading than FMVSS 207. The QST and FRED II peak moment and force did not coincide with the same seatback angle as in FMVSS 207 and body block testing. Center of gravity height varies depending on whether the whole body or only the upper torso is considered. For the 50th male, it is 171.5 mm (6.8") with the whole body and 246.7 mm (9.7") with the upper torso.

CONCLUSION: Results from different tests cannot be readily compared because of different loading conditions, including body shape and height of load about the H-point, which can cause the seat structure to respond differently.

Language: en

Keywords

Seats; energy; moment; rear loading