Search Results

Due to the lack of biofidelity seen in GHBMC M50-O in rear-facing impact simulations involving interaction with the seat back in an OEM seat, it is important to explore how the boundary conditions might be affecting the biofidelity and potentially formulate methods to improve biofidelity of different occupant models in the future while also maintaining seat validity. This study investigated the influence of one such boundary condition, which is the seat back foam material properties, on the thorax and pelvis kinematics and injury outcomes of the GHBMC 50th M50-O model in a high-speed rear-facing frontal impact scenario, which involves severe occupant loading of the seat back. Two different seat back foam materials were used – a stiff foam with high densification and a soft foam with low densification. The peak magnitudes of the T-spine resultant accelerations of the GHBMC M50-O increased with the use of soft foam as compared to stiff foam.

Many vehicles allow consumers to adapt the vehicle environment to their families’ needs by folding or removing one or more rear row seats. It is currently unclear how different seat configurations affect child restraint systems (CRS) installed in adjacent seats. The objective is to quantify CRS performance in far-side impacts when the seating position adjacent to the CRS is in its normal upright position, folded in half, or removed. Twelve tests were conducted. Second row seats from a recent model year minivan were obtained, including full size captain’s chairs from the outboard positions and narrow seats from the center position. Rear-facing (RF) and forward-facing (FF) CRS were installed one at a time in either the outboard or center position. The seating position adjacent to the CRS was set in either the standard upright position, folded in half, or removed. Far-side impacts were conducted at 10° anterior of pure lateral at 24.8 ± 0.2 g. The Q3s ATD was used for all tests.

During high-speed rear impacts with delta-V > 25 km/h, the front seats may rotate rearward due to occupant and seat momentum change leading to possibly large seat deflection. One possible way of limiting this may be by introducing a structure that would restrict large rotations or deformations, however, such a structure would change the front seat occupant kinematics and kinetics. The goal of this study was to understand the influence of seat back restriction on head, neck and torso responses of front seat occupants when subjected to a moderate speed rear-impact. This was done by simulating a rear impact scenario with a delta-V of 37.4 km/h using LS-Dyna, with the GHBMC M50 occupant model and a manufacturer provided seat model. The study included two parts, the first part was to identify worst case scenarios using the simplified GHBMC M50-OS, and the second part was to further investigate the identified scenarios using the detailed GHBMC M50-O.

The objective is to determine whether responses and injury risks for pediatric occupants in child restraint systems (CRS) are affected by vehicle seat cushion stiffness and fore/aft cushion length. Eighteen sled tests were conducted using the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213 frontal pulse (48 km/h). Seats from a recent model year vehicle were customized by the manufacturer with three different levels of cushion stiffness: compliant, mid-range, and stiff. Each stiffness level was quantified using ASTM D 3574-08 and all were within the realistic range of modern production seats. The usable length of each seat cushion was manipulated using foam spacers provided by the manufacturer. Two different seat lengths were examined: short (34.0 cm) and long (43.5 cm).