This study investigates the performance of a 3-point restraint system incorporating an inflatable shoulder belt with a nominal 2.5-kN load limiter and a non-inflatable lap belt with a pretensioner (the "Airbelt"). Frontal impacts with PMHS in a rear seat environment are presented and the Airbelt system is contrasted with an earlier 3-point system with inflatable lap and shoulder belts but no load-limiter or pretensioners, which was evaluated with human volunteers in the 1970s but not fully reported in the open literature (the "Inflataband"). Key differences between the systems include downward pelvic motion and torso recline with the Inflataband, while the pelvis moved almost horizontally and the torso pitched forward with the Airbelt. One result of these kinematic differences was an overall more biomechanically favorable restraint loading but greater maximum forward head excursion with the Airbelt. The Airbelt is shown to generate generally lower head, neck, and thoracic injury metrics and PMHS trauma than other, non-inflatable rear-seat restraint concepts (viz., a standard 3-point belt and a pre-tensioned shoulder belt with a progressive load limiter). Further study is needed to evaluate the Airbelt system for different size occupants (e.g., children), non-frontal impact vectors, and for out-of-position occupants and to allow the results with this particular system to be generalized to a broader range of Airbelt designs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2011-22-0007DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

shoulder belt
12
restraint system
8
lap belt
8
load limiter
8
airbelt system
8
system
6
belt
6
airbelt
6
assessment three-point
4
restraint
4

Similar Publications

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become a key technique in management of spine metastases. With improved control over treatment plan dosimetry, there is a greater need for accurate patient positioning to guarantee agreement between the treatment plan and delivered dose. With serious potential complications such as fracture and myelopathy, the margins of error in SABR of the spine are minimal.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: The effect of shoulder-belt load-limiting was evaluated on right-front passenger kinematics in 90 km/h oblique OMDB (offset moving deformable barrier) impacts and compared to kinematics in 56 km/h NCAP crash tests. The study focused on the influence of webbing pulling out of the retractor increasing forward excursion of the upper torso and head.

Methods: 18 OMDB crash tests were conducted by NHTSA at 90 km/h.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Rear passenger restraint in frontal NCAP tests compared to the right-front passenger.

Traffic Inj Prev

November 2024

ProBiomechanics LLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Objective: This study compared kinematic and biomechanic responses of the 5 female Hybrid III in the right-rear and right-front passenger seats in frontal NCAP tests with 2015-16 MY vehicles. It focused on the lap-shoulder belt restraint of the rear passenger.

Methods: Eleven frontal NCAP tests were conducted by NHTSA at 56 km/h with a lap-shoulder belted 5 Hybrid III dummy in the right-rear and right-front seats.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This study compared modern vehicle and booster geometries with relevant child anthropometries. Vehicle geometries (seat length, seat pan height, shoulder belt outlet height, and roof height) were obtained for 275 center and outboard rear seating positions of US vehicles (MY 2009-2022). Measurements of 85 US boosters (pan height and pan length) and anthropometries of 80 US children between 4-14yo (seated height, thigh length, leg length, and seated shoulder height) were also collected.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • The study examines how varying the initial belt gap on belt-positioning boosters affects the safety of child anthropomorphic test devices during vehicle impacts, specifically focusing on potential shoulder belt slip-off and its implications during evasive maneuvers.
  • Using sled tests with different booster types and sizes, researchers measured the kinematic (movement) and kinetic (forces) outcomes of child test dummies under different belt fit conditions.
  • Results indicated that larger-gap boosters resulted in increased torso rotation and lumbar moments compared to smaller-gap boosters, suggesting that inadequate initial contact between the shoulder belt and torso may compromise safety during collisions, although no complete belt slip-offs occurred.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!