Search Results

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.

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.