|
Abstract
|
RESEARCH QUESTIONS / OBJECTIVE: Test protocols evaluate restraint performance with pediatric ATDs placed in an ideal seating posture. However, real-world evidence suggests that ideal test conditions do not always reflect actual occupant positions. Prior studies have also shown that booster seat designs affect the position of the seatbelt around the child. Occupants in naturalistic seating postures, coupled with potentially unfavorable seatbelt positions, could result in adverse kinematics and kinetics in a crash. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify the effect of different naturalistic seating postures on the response of the Q6 ATD restrained on boosters with varying initial static belt fit in a frontal impact.
METHODS/DATA SOURCES: The Q6 ATD was positioned on two booster seats of similar design but varying static belt fit metrics in three seating postures: reference, leaning forward, and leaning inboard. These booster seats were chosen from extensive belt fit studies on human volunteers and ATDs, and were defined as follows:The booster-seated ATD was restrained on the simulated Consumer Reports test buck (2010 Ford Flex 2nd row seat) with a front blocker plate using a 3-point lap-shoulder belt with a retractor and pretensioner. The sled environment was subjected to the FMVSS 213 frontal impact pulse, and each booster and seating posture was evaluated twice (n = 12 sled tests). Kinematic and kinetic measures were recorded. A linear regression analysis was conducted across postures on each booster. Further, a paired t-test analysis was conducted across booster seats for each seating posture.
RESULTS: Across seating postures, the reference posture exhibited similar or higher kinematic and kinetic metric values compared to the leaning forward and leaning inboard postures on both boosters. However, both leaning forward (Booster A = 279.5 ± 21.6 mm; Booster B = 298.8 ± 1.5 mm) and leaning inboard (Booster A = 308.7 ± 1.1 mm; Booster B = 331.4 ± 8.5 mm) postures generally resulted in greater head excursion than the reference posture (Booster A = 285.0 ± 16.9 mm; Booster B = 288.1 ± 1.5 mm), indicating greater potential for head contact. Between boosters, Booster A resulted in significantly lower head 3 ms clip acceleration (p = 0.0026), HIC15 (p = 0.0008), upper neck tensile force (F(z))(p = 0.0057), chest 3 ms clip acceleration (p = 0.0013), and right abdominal pressure (p = 0.0163), and significantly higher left ASIS force (F(x))(p = 0.0150) and left (p = 0.0489) and right (p = 0.0088) ASIS moment (M(y)) than Booster B. Upper neck tensile forces on Booster B crossed the 20% and 50% thresholds for AIS3 + injury. Lower abdominal pressure and higher ASIS forces and moments on Booster A suggest that the lap belt loaded the ASIS appropriately, and hence, relatively better kinematics than Booster B. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study shows that booster design affects static belt fit which can have an effect on dynamic crash performance and assessment criteria. By connecting static belt fit to dynamic performance, these effects may have the potential to help guide booster seat design.
Language: en |