This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Geometry of Rear Seats and Child Restraints Compared to Child Anthropometry
Published October 29, 2007 by The Stapp Association in United States
Annotation ability available
The objective of this study was to evaluate the geometry of a wide range of restraints (child restraints, booster seats and rear seats) used by children, and how these match their anthropometry, and to determine limitations to restraint size for the population of children using them. The study is motivated by the widespread premature graduation from one restraint type to another, which parents often attribute to children outgrowing their previous restraint. Currently, recommended transitions are based on a small sample of vehicles and children. Outboard rear seat and seat belt geometry (anchorage locations, sash belt angles) from 50 current model vehicles were measured using a custom-developed measuring jig. For 17 child restraints, a 3-dimensional measuring arm was used to measure the geometry of the restraint including interior size and strap slot locations (where relevant). These measurements were compared to anthropometric measurements, to determine the suitability of a given restraint for children of particular ages. The results for the rear seat geometry indicate that all seat cushions were too deep for a child whose upper leg length is at the 50th percentile until approximately 11.5 years, and half of vehicle seat cushions were too deep for a 15 year old child whose upper leg length is at the 50th percentile. Sash belt geometry was more variable, with approximately a third of vehicles accommodating 6-8 year olds who approximate the shoulder geometry measurements at the 50th percentile. Dedicated child restraints accommodated most children within recommended age groups, with two exceptions. Several high back booster seats were not tall enough for a child whose seated height is at the 50th percentile for 8 year olds (who is still too short for an adult belt according to current guidelines and the results from the rear seat geometry study), and a small number of forward facing restraints and high back boosters were too narrow for children at the upper end of the recommended age ranges. Analysis of the results from this study indicates that alterations in restraint geometry, particularly shortening the seat cushion, allowing for adjustable upper sash belt anchorages in the rear seat of vehicles, and increasing the height of high back booster seats would substantially improve the fit of restraints for child occupants. This data confirms findings from a recent study that looked only at rear seat cushion depths and provides new data on seat belt and child restraint geometry for child occupants.
- Lynne E. Bilston - Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, University of New South WalesAddress correspondence to A/Prof Lynne Bilston, Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute Barker St, Randwick, Sydney NSW 2031 Australia. Electronic mail: L.Bilston@unsw.edu.au
- Nipun Sagar - Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, University of New South WalesAddress correspondence to A/Prof Lynne Bilston, Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute Barker St, Randwick, Sydney NSW 2031 Australia. Electronic mail: L.Bilston@unsw.edu.au
CitationBilston, L. and Sagar, N., "Geometry of Rear Seats and Child Restraints Compared to Child Anthropometry," SAE Technical Paper 2007-22-0012, 2007, https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-22-0012.
- American Academy of Pediatrics. (2005) Car Safety Seats: A Guide for Families. http://www.aap.org/family/carseatguide.htm
- Australian/New Zealand Standards. (2004) AS/NZS 1754. Child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles. Standards Australia, Sydney.
- BidezM., SysonS. (2001) Kinematics, injury mechanisms and design considerations for older chidlren in adult torso belts. Proc. 2001 SAE World Congress, pp. 1-10. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
- BrownJ., McCaskillM.E., HendersonM., BilstonL.E. (2006) Serious injury is associated with suboptimal restraint use in child motor vehicle occupants. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 42(6):345-349.
- CDC. (2000) Clinical Growth Charts. Atlanta, GA, USA: Centres for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/growthcharts/clinical_charts.htm
- EbyD.W., BinghamC.R., VivodaJ.M., RagunathanT. (2005) Use of booster seats by Michigan children 4-8 years of age. Accident Analysis & Prevention 37(6): 1153.
- EdwardsS., AndersonR., HutchinsonT. (2006) A survey of drivers' child restraint choice and knowledge in South Australia. Centre for Automotive Safety Research, University of Adelaide. Report nr CASR012, Adelaide.
- EppingerR. (1993) Occupant restraint systems. In Accidental Injury: Biomechanics and Prevention, ed. NahumA. M., MelvinJ. W. pp. 186-197. Springer-Verlag, New York.
- FergusonS.A., WellsJ.K., WilliamsA.F. (2000) Child seating position and restraint use in three states. Injury Prevention 6(1):24-28.
- FernandezJ.E. (1995) Ergonomics in the workplace. Facilities 13(4):20-27.
- GlassbrennerD. (2005) Safety Belt Use in 2005 - Overall Results. NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts Research Note DOT HS 809 932:104.
- HuangS., ReedM.P. (2006) Comparison of child body dimensions with rear seat geometry. Proc. 2006 SAE World congress, pp. 1-10. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
- KlinichK., PritzH., BeebeM., WeltyK. (1994) Survey of older children in automotive restraints. Proc. Stapp car crash conference, pp. 245-264. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
- LoeschD.Z., StokesK., HugginsR.M. (2000) Secular trend in body height and weight of Australian children and adolescents. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111(4):545-56.
- ParcellsC., StommelM., HubbardR.P. (1999) Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions: empirical findings and health implications. Journal of Adolescent Health 24(4):265-73.
- ReedM., Ebert-HamiltonS., ManaryM., KlinichK.D., SchneiderL.W. (2005) A new database of child anthropometry and seated posture for automotive safety applications. Proc. SAE 2005 World Congress & Exhibition, pp. 123-136. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
- ReedM.P., Ebert-HamiltonS.M., ManaryM.A., KlinichK.D., SchneiderL.W. (2006) Improved Positioning Procedures for 6YO and 10YO ATDs Based on Child Occupant Postures. Stapp Car Crash Journal 50:337-388.
- SnyderR.G., SchneiderL.W., OwingsOwingsC.L., ReynoldsH.M. (1977) Anthropometry of infants, children, and youths to age 18 for product safety design. Highway Safety Research Institute, University of Michigan Report nr UM-HSRI-77-17,
- SnyderR.G., SpencerM.L., OwingsC.L., SchneiderL.W. (1975) Physical characteristics of children as related to death & injury for consumer product safety design. University of Michigan. Report nr UM-HSRI-BI-75-5.
- SteenbekkersL.P.A. (1993) Child development, design implications and accident prevention. Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
- TrosseilleX., ChamouardF., TarriereC. (1993) Abdominal injury risk to children and its prevention. Proc. International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, pp. 153-63.
- TylkoS., DalmotasD. (2005) Protection of Rear Seat Occupants in Frontal Crashes. Proc. The 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, pp. 1-8.
- WinstonF.K., DurbinD.R., KallanM.J., MollE.K. (2000) The danger of premature graduation to seat belts for young children. Pediatrics 105(6):1179-83.