Search Results

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.

This paper describes the injuries generated during dynamic belt loading to a porcine model of the 6-year-old human abdomen, and correlates injury outcomes with measurable parameters. The test fixture produced transverse, dynamic belt loading on the abdomen of 47 immediately post-mortem juvenile swine at two locations (upper/lower), with penetration magnitudes ranging from 23% – 65% of the undeformed abdominal depth, with and without muscle tensing, and over a belt penetration rate range of 2.9 m/s – 7.8 m/s. All thoracoabdominal injuries were documented in detail and then coded according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Observed injuries ranged from AIS 1 to AIS 4. The injury distribution matched well the pattern of injuries observed in a large sample of children exposed to seatbelt loading in the field, with most of the injuries in the lower abdomen.

This paper compares restrained Hybrid III and THOR thoracic kinematics and cadaver injury outcome in 30° oblique frontal and in full frontal sled tests. Peak shoulder belt tension, the primary source of chest loading, changed by less than four percent and peak chest resultant acceleration changed by less than 10% over the 30° range tested. Thoracic kinematics were likewise insensitive to the direction of the collision vector, though they were markedly different between the two dummies. Mid-sternal Hybrid III chest deflection, measured by the standard sternal potentiometer and by supplemental internal string potentiometers, was slightly lower (∼10%) in the oblique tests, but the oblique tests produced a negligible increase in lateral movement of the sternum. In an attempt to understand the biofidelity of these dummy responses, a series of 30-km/h human cadaver tests having several collision vectors (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°) was analyzed.

This study presents a detailed comparison of internally and externally measured chest deflections resulting from eight tests conducted on three male post mortem human subjects. A hydraulically driven shoulder belt loaded the anterior thorax under a fixed spine condition while displacement data were obtained via a high-speed 16-camera motion capture system (VICON MX™). Comparison of belt displacement and sternal displacement measured at the bone surface provided a method for quantifying effective change in superficial soft tissue depth at the mid sternum under belt loading. The relationship between the external displacement and the decrease in the effective superficial tissue depth was found to be monotonic and nonlinear. At 65 mm of mid-sternal posterior displacement measured externally, the effective thickness of the superficial tissues and air gap between the belt and the skin had decreased by 14 mm relative to the unloaded state.