Improved protection for children in forward-facing restraints during side impacts

The effects of postural support padding modifications to child restraints for children with disability on crash protection

OBJECTIVE

Many children with physical disabilities need additional postural support when sitting and supplementary padding is used on standards approved child restraints to achieve this when traveling in a motor vehicle. However, the effect of this padding on crash protection for a child is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the effect of additional padding for postural support on crash protection for child occupants in forward facing child restraints.

METHODS

Forty frontal sled tests at 49 km/h were conducted to compare Q1 anthropometric test device (ATD) responses in a forward-facing restraint, with and without additional padding in locations to increase recline of the restraint, and/or support the head, trunk and pelvis. Three padding materials were tested: cloth toweling, soft foam, and expanded polystyrene (EPS). The influence of padding on head excursion, peak 3 ms head acceleration, HIC15, peak 3 ms chest acceleration and chest deflection were analyzed.

RESULTS

The influence of padding varied depending on the location of use. Padding used under the restraint to increase the recline angle increased head injury metrics. Toweling in multiple locations which included behind the head increased head excursion and chest injury metrics. There was minimal effect on injury risk measures with additional padding to support the sides of the head or the pelvis position. Rigid EPS foam, as recommended in Australian standards and guidelines, had minimal effect on injury metrics when used inside the restraint, as did tightly rolled or folded toweling secured to the restraint at single locations around the body of the child.

CONCLUSIONS

This study does not support the use of postural support padding to increase recline of a forward-facing restraint or padding behind the head. Recommendations in published standards and guidelines to not use foam that is spongy, soft or easily compressed, with preference for secured firm foam or short-term use of tightly rolled or folded toweling under the child restraint cover is supported. This study also highlights the importance of considering the whole context of child occupant protection when using additional padding, particularly the change in the child's seated position when adding padding in relation to the standard safety features of the restraint.

Child occupant safety in unconventional seating for vehicles with automated driving systems

The objective of this study was to use computational models to study how unconventional seating positions and orientations in vehicles with Automated Driving System (ADS) may affect occupant response metrics of children with various restraint conditions. A literature review was first conducted to frame a simulation plan, including selections of surrogate ADS-equipped vehicles, potential seating arrangements, impact scenarios, anthropomorphic test device (ATD) models, and child restraint system (CRS) models that are relevant to the selected ATD models. Due to the lack of impact tests with child ATDs and CRS in farside, oblique, and rear impacts, 17 sled tests were conducted with CRS harness-restrained ATDs and vehicle belt-restrained ATDs in frontal, farside, oblique, and rear impact conditions. The sled tests were then used to validate a set of MADYMO (MAthematical DYnamic MOdels) v7.7 models. A total of 550 simulations were then conducted with four child ATDs and various CRS conditions across a range of conventional and unconventional seating locations and orientations under five impact directions. We did not find major safety concerns with ATDs restrained by harnessed CRSs based on the nature of ATD contacts. Compared with frontal and rear impacts, CRSs may rotate laterally in farside and oblique impacts, which could result in higher head and chest injury measures than frontal due to inertial loading to the CRS, and the larger lateral rotation of the CRS may lead to a contact between the CRS and vehicle interior. The major safety concern for vehicle belt-restrained ATDs (with and without booster) is that they have the potential to contact the seat next to them or the instrument panel behind them in a farside or oblique impact. Unconventional seating does not necessarily create additional safety concerns beyond what we know with the conventional seating. However, due to the orientation of the unconventional seats, the occupants on those seats may be involved in a higher percentage of oblique and rear-oblique impacts relative to their seating orientations than conventional seats, which may be considered in the future safety design process. This is the first study using different child ATDs and CRSs to investigate child occupant responses in a wide range of impact directions and seating orientations. Results from the sled tests and simulations provide a better understanding of child occupant responses in those crash conditions, but also identified several limitations of using frontal ATDs in other crash directions.

Head excursion in frontal impacts is lower in high back booster seats than in forward facing child seats with internal harnesses designed for children up to 8 years of age

OBJECTIVE

It is often assumed that a child restraint with a five or six-point internal harness provides greater protection for children in frontal crashes than a booster seat with a lap-sash seat belt. However, most research comparing these restraint types has focused on protection for children aged up to approximately 3-4 years of age. Recently, harnessed child restraints for older children up to approximately 8 years of age have become available, but there is little data on their performance compared to booster seats for children over 4 years of age. This study aimed to compare frontal crash performance of a series of harnessed child restraints for children aged 4-8 years to booster seats.

METHODS

Four large harnessed child restraints (Type G in the Australian Standard, AS/NZS 1754:2013) and six high back booster seats (Type E in AS/NZS 1754:2013) were tested in frontal impact on a deceleration sled. Head and pelvis accelerations were recorded and head excursions were measured from high speed video.

RESULTS

Head excursion was an average of 92 mm greater in the large harnessed child restraints than the high back booster seats. The initial position of the head in Type G restraints, an average of 58 mm further forward compared to Type E boosters, was the main contributor to the larger head excursion during impact. Conversely, peak head accelerations in the impact phase were, on average, 37.2 g lower in the large harnessed child restraints than the high back booster seats.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that recommendations for harnessed restraints and booster seats for children aged 4-8 years is not as obvious as is sometimes assumed. Harnessed restraints allow greater head excursion in frontal impacts, potentially increasing the chances of head impacts, especially in vehicles with limited clearance between the restraint and the seat in front. The likelihood, and types of, incorrect use that occur in each restraint type, the vehicle occupant space, and the restraint's crash performance under ideal conditions should be considered in recommending restraints for these older children.

Analysis of mechanics of side impact test defined in UN/ECE Regulation 129

OBJECTIVE

This article discusses differences between a side impact procedure described in United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation 129 and scenarios observed in real-world cases.

METHODS

Numerical simulations of side impact tests utilizing different boundary conditions are used to compare the severity of the Regulation 129 test and the other tests with different kinematics of child restraint systems (CRSs). In the simulations, the authors use a validated finite element (FE) model of real-world CRSs together with a fully deformable numerical model of the Q3 anthropomorphic test device (ATD) by Humanetics Innovative Solution, Inc.

RESULTS

The comparison of 5 selected cases is based on the head injury criterion (HIC) index. Numerical investigations reveal that the presence of oblique velocity components or the way in which the CRS is mounted to the test bench seat fixture is among the significant factors influencing ATD kinematics. The results of analyses show that the side impact test procedure is very sensitive to these parameters. A side impact setup defined in Regulation 129 may minimize the effects of the impact.

CONCLUSIONS

It is demonstrated that an artificial anchorage in the Regulation 129 test does not account for a rotation of the CRS, which should appear in the case of a realistic anchorage. Therefore, the adopted procedure generates the smallest HIC value, which is at the level of the far-side impact scenario where there are no obstacles. It is also shown that the presence of nonlateral acceleration components challenges the quality of a CRS and its headrest much more than a pure lateral setup.

The influence of child restraint lower attachment method on protection offered by forward facing child restraint systems in oblique loading conditions

OBJECTIVE

The research objective was to quantify the influence of child restraint lower attachment method on head kinematics, head impact potential, and head, neck, and thorax injury metrics for a child occupant secured in a forward-facing child restraint system (FFCRS) in oblique side impacts.

METHODS

Fifteen sled tests were conducted with a Q3s seated in an FFCRS secured to the center position on a production small SUV bench seat. Three lower attachment methods were evaluated: rigid ISOFIX, a flexible single loop lower anchors and tethers for children (LATCH) webbing routed through the vehicle belt path of the FFCRS, and dual flexible LATCH webbing attachments on either side of the FFCRS. All were tested with and without a tether with one repeat test in each test condition. The same model FFCRS was used for all tests; only the attachment method varied. The vehicle bench seat was fixed on the sled carriage at 80° (from full frontal). The input pulse was the proposed FMVSS 213 side impact pulse scaled to a 35 km/h delta-v. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the effect of lower attachment and tether use on 3 outcome metrics: lateral head excursion, neck tension, and neck lateral bending. Data included anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) head excursions, head linear accelerations and angular velocities, neck loads and moments, thoracic accelerations, lateral chest deflections, lower anchor loads, and tether webbing loads. ATD head kinematics were collected from 3-dimensional motion capture cameras.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated a reduction in injury measures with the rigid ISOFIX and dual webbing attachment compared to the single webbing attachment with decreased lateral head excursions (331, 356, and 441 mm for the rigid ISOFIX, dual webbing, and single webbing systems, respectively, P <.0001), neck tension (1.4, 1.6, and 2.2 kN, P <.01), and neck lateral bending (31.8, 38.7, and 38.0 Nm, P =.002). The tether had a greater influence on lateral head excursion for the FFCRS with flexible webbing attachments than those with the rigid attachment, with the tether forces being highest with the single webbing attachment. Lateral head excursions were significantly lower and lateral neck bending moments were significantly higher with tether use (P <.0001) across all lower attachments. The effect of tether on neck tension was mixed, only showing an increased effect with the rigid ISOFIX system.

CONCLUSION

The CRS lower attachment system influenced occupant kinetics. The results indicate that CRS attached to the vehicle via rigid and dual webbing systems exhibit improved kinematics by reducing the rotation and tipping seen with the single webbing attachment. This leads to reduced lateral head excursions and neck tension values. The advantages of the tether in reducing lateral head excursion in side impacts are most pronounced with the flexible webbing attachments. With tether use low in the United States, a dual webbing type FFCRS attachment system may be a better attachment method than single webbing and provide a simpler engineering solution than rigid ISOFIX attachment.

Child passenger restraints in relation to other second-row passengers: an analysis of the 2007-2009 National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats

OBJECTIVE

Child restraint systems (CRS) are increasingly being designed to accommodate larger children and to mitigate side impact injuries. Little is known about the impact of CRS on the safety of other vehicle passengers due to limitations of existing crash databases. This study provides the first assessment of the seating positions occupied by child passengers and the relationship between CRS and other second-row passengers in a national sample of vehicles transporting children.

METHODS

A secondary analysis was conducted of data from the 2007-2009 National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS), a direct in-vehicle observational study of child passenger restraint use. Passengers riding in the same vehicle were identified and passenger position was determined. Vehicles with second-row child passengers were included in analyses of seat positions occupied by child passengers with and without CRS. Frequency counts for the different combinations of CRS and passengers in second rows were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 17,065 vehicles observed in 2007-2009 NSUBS, 14,506 (85%) vehicles contained at least 1 child passenger in a second row that contained no more than 3 total passengers. Of these 14,506 vehicles, 55 percent contained a lone child passenger in the second row. A CRS was in use in 4656 (59%) of the 7949 vehicles with a lone child passenger in the second row compared to 4077 (62%) of the 6557 vehicles with multiple passengers in the second row (P < .001). A passenger was adjacent to a CRS within 1333 (33%) of the 4077 vehicles containing a CRS in the second row. There were 3 second-row passengers in nearly 1 in 5 vehicles containing a CRS in the second row.

CONCLUSION

Adults and children not using CRS are frequently seated in vehicle second rows adjacent to a child restrained in a CRS. These findings should be used to inform the regulation, design, and testing of CRS and to determine the risks of larger CRS designs to other passengers seated in the same vehicle row relative to the benefits of the CRS for the passenger it restrains.

Parameter study for child injury mitigation in near-side impacts through FE simulations

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of crash-related car parameters on head and chest injury measures for 3- and 12-year-old children in near-side impacts.

METHODS

The evaluation was made using a model of a complete passenger car that was impacted laterally by a barrier. The car model was validated in 2 crash conditions: the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the US New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) side impact tests. The Small Side Impact Dummy (SID-IIs) and the human body model 3 (HBM3) (Total HUman Model for Safety [THUMS] 3-year-old) finite element models were used for the parametric investigation (HBM3 on a booster). The car parameters were as follows: vehicle mass, side impact structure stiffness, a head air bag, a thorax-pelvis air bag, and a seat belt with pretensioner. The studied dependent variables were as follows: resultant head linear acceleration, resultant head rotational acceleration, chest viscous criterion, rib deflection, and relative velocity at head impact. The chest measurements were only considered for the SID-IIs.

RESULTS

The head air bag had the greatest effect on the head measurements for both of the occupant models. On average, it reduced the peak head linear acceleration by 54 g for the HBM3 and 78 g for the SID-IIs. The seat belt had the second greatest effect on the head measurements; the peak head linear accelerations were reduced on average by 39 g (HBM3) and 44 g (SID-IIs). The high stiffness side structure increased the SID-IIs' head acceleration, whereas it had marginal effect on the HBM3. The vehicle mass had a marginal effect on SID-IIs' head accelerations, whereas the lower vehicle mass caused 18 g higher head acceleration for HBM3 and the greatest rotational acceleration. The thorax-pelvis air bag, vehicle mass, and seat belt pretensioner affected the chest measurements the most. The presence of a thorax-pelvis air bag, high vehicle mass, and a seat belt pretensioner all reduced the chest viscous criterion (VC) and peak rib deflection in the SID-IIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The head and thorax-pelvis air bags have the potential to reduce injury measurements for both the SID-IIs and the HBM3, provided that the air bag properties are designed to consider these occupant sizes also. The seat belt pretensioner is also effective, provided that the lateral translation of the torso is managed by other features. The importance of lateral movement management is greater the smaller the occupant is. Light vehicles require interior restraint systems of higher performance than heavy vehicles do to achieve the same level of injury measures for a given side structure.

Child passenger safety

Despite significant reductions in the number of children killed in motor vehicle crashes over the past decade, crashes continue to be the leading cause of death for children 4 years and older. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics continues to recommend inclusion of child passenger safety anticipatory guidance at every health-supervision visit. This technical report provides a summary of the evidence in support of 5 recommendations for best practices to optimize safety in passenger vehicles for children from birth through adolescence that all pediatricians should know and promote in their routine practice. These recommendations are presented in the revised policy statement on child passenger safety in the form of an algorithm that is intended to facilitate their implementation by pediatricians with their patients and families. The algorithm is designed to cover the majority of situations that pediatricians will encounter in practice. In addition, a summary of evidence on a number of additional issues that affect the safety of children in motor vehicles, including the proper use and installation of child restraints, exposure to air bags, travel in pickup trucks, children left in or around vehicles, and the importance of restraint laws, is provided. Finally, this technical report provides pediatricians with a number of resources for additional information to use when providing anticipatory guidance to families.

Reconstruction of crashes involving injured child occupants: the risk of serious injuries associated with sub-optimal restraint use may be reduced by better controlling occupant kinematics

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether injuries to sub-optimally restrained child occupants in real-world crashes were likely to be preventable by alternative restraint usage practices and to assess the usefulness of crash reconstruction for exploring injury mechanisms in child occupants.

METHODS

Real-world crashes in which child occupants sustained significant injuries were reconstructed on a laboratory crash sled using the Hybrid III family of child dummies. Alternative restraint scenarios and cases in which children were not seriously injured were also simulated to compare dummy kinematics and dynamic responses in optimal restraint configurations.

RESULTS

Restraint misuse was associated with greater motion of the dummy torso and head during crashes, often allowing contact between the child and the vehicle interior, resulting in injury. Poor pre-crash posture for a child inappropriately restrained in an adult belt appeared to worsen the geometry of the sash (shoulder) belt, resulting in a cervical injury due to direct interaction with the belt. Dynamic dummy data did not appear to discriminate between injury and non-injury cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Dummy kinematics suggest that injuries in which inappropriate use and misuse were a factor were less likely if the most appropriate restraint was used correctly. Adequately controlling the head and upper body of the child occupant was seen to prevent undesirable interactions with the vehicle interior and restraint system, which were associated with injury in the real world. Neck forces and moments and injury criteria calculated from these did not predict injury reliably.