Occupant restraint in the rear seat: ATD responses to standard and pre-tensioning, force-limiting belt restraints.

Recent studies have shown that restrained occupants over the age of 50 in frontal crashes have a higher risk of injury in the rear seat than in the front, and have hypothesized that the incorporation of technology such as belt pre-tensioning and force limiting preferentially in the front seat is at least partially responsible for this trend. This study investigates the potential benefits and trade-offs of seat belt pretensioners and force-limiters in the rear seat using a series of frontal impact sled tests at two speeds (48 km/h and 29 km/h DeltaV) with a buck representing the interior of the reat seat occupant compartment of a contemporary mid-sized sedan. Four different dummies were tested: the Hybrid III six year old (in a booster seat, H3 6YO), the Hybrid III 5(th) percentile female (H3 AF05), the Hybrid III 50(th) percentile male (H3 AM50), and the THOR-NT. The restraints consisted of either a standard three point belt, or a 3-point belt with a retractor pretensioner and a progressive force-limiter (FL+PT). Each test condition was repeated in triplicate. The FL+PT restraints (compared to the standard restraints) resulted in a significant (p < or = 0.05) decrease in peak internal chest deflection for each of the Hybrid III dummies at both test speeds (48 km/h: 29% decrease for H3 6YO, 38% decrease for H3 AF05, 30% decrease for H3 AM50), and for the THOR-NT at a DeltaV of 29 km/h. At 48 km/h, the FL+PT restraint qualitatively decreased the average peak internal chest deflection of the THOR-NT, however this decrease was not statistically significant (p=0.06). Furthermore, the FL+PT system allowed little or no increase in forward head excursion, and improved whole-body kinematics for all dummies by restricting pelvic excursion and slightly increasing torso pitch. The results suggest that the FL+PT system studied here may provide injury-reducing benefit to rear seat occupants in moderate to high severity frontal crashes, although more study is needed to evaluate these restraints in other crash scenarios.

[1]  Peter Cummings,et al.  Passenger seating position and the risk of passenger death or injury in traffic crashes. , 2004, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Shigeru Ogawa,et al.  Optimized Restraint Systems for Various-Sized Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal Crash , 2003 .

[3]  K M Smith,et al.  Passenger seating position and the risk of passenger death in traffic crashes: a matched cohort study , 2006, Injury Prevention.

[4]  C Morgan,et al.  EFFECTIVENESS OF LAP/SHOULDER BELTS IN THE BACK OUTBOARD SEATING POSITIONS , 1999 .

[5]  Erik G. Takhounts,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVED INJURY CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE RESTRAINT SYSTEMS - II , 1999 .

[6]  Harald Zellmer,et al.  Optimized restraint systems for rear seat passengers , 1998 .

[7]  Greg Shaw,et al.  The Utility of Hybrid III and THOR Chest Deflection for Discriminating Between Standard and Force-Limiting Belt Systems. , 2003, Stapp car crash journal.

[8]  P. Prasad,et al.  Derivation and Evaluation of a Provisional, Age-Dependent, AIS3+ Thoracic Risk Curve for Belted Adults in Frontal Impacts , 2005 .

[9]  Xavier Trosseille,et al.  Laboratory Reconstructions of Real World Frontal Crash Configurations using the Hybrid III and THOR Dummies and PMHS. , 2002, Stapp car crash journal.

[10]  J. Forman,et al.  Thoracic response of belted PMHS, the Hybrid III, and the THOR-NT mid-sized male surrogates in low speed, frontal crashes. , 2006, Stapp car crash journal.

[11]  H. George Johannessen,et al.  Rear Seat Occupant Protection , 1981 .

[12]  Richard W. Kent,et al.  Development of an age-dependent thoracic injury criterion for frontal , 2003 .

[13]  Matthew P Reed,et al.  Development of ATD Installation Procedures Based on Rear-Seat Occupant Postures. , 2005, Stapp car crash journal.

[14]  R W Kent,et al.  The influence of superficial soft tissues and restraint condition on thoracic skeletal injury prediction. , 2001, Stapp car crash journal.

[15]  Jeffrey Richard Crandall,et al.  Thoracic response and injury with belt, driver side airbag, and force limited belt restraint systems , 1996 .

[16]  Marie Walz,et al.  NCAP Test Improvements with Pretensioners and Load Limiters , 2004, Traffic injury prevention.

[17]  D Adomeit,et al.  MOTION SEQUENCE CRITERIA AND DESIGN PROPOSALS FOR RESTRAINT DEVICES IN ORDER TO AVOID UNFAVORABLE BIOMECHANIC CONDITIONS AND SUBMARINING. IN: SEAT BELTS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ESSENTIAL SAFETY FEATURE , 1975 .

[18]  Shashi Kuppa,et al.  Rear seat occupant protection in frontal crashes , 2005 .

[19]  T. Shams,et al.  Response of thor in frontal sled testing in different restraint conditions , 1998 .

[20]  Fumio Matsuoka,et al.  On the fatal crash experience of older drivers. , 2005, Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

[21]  Harold J. Mertz,et al.  Prediction of thoracic injury from dummy responses , 1975 .

[22]  Bryan C. Baker,et al.  Effects of seat belt load limiters on driver fatalities in frontal crashes of passenger cars , 2007 .

[23]  David C. Viano,et al.  Field Data Analysis of Rear Occupant Injuries Part I: Adults and Teenagers , 2003 .

[24]  C. Got,et al.  Thoracic Injury Risk in Frontal Car Crashes with Occupant Restrained with Belt Load Limiter , 1998 .

[25]  Jason Forman,et al.  Whole-body kinematic and dynamic response of restrained PMHS in frontal sled tests. , 2006, Stapp car crash journal.

[26]  J Forman,et al.  Biomechanical considerations for the optimization of an advanced restraint system: assessing the benefit of a second shoulder belt , 2005 .

[27]  Jason Forman,et al.  Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes and Its Feasibility , 2007 .