This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Comparative Responses of the PIPER 6YO Human Body Model and the Q6 ATD for Simulated Frontal and Lateral Impacts
Published November 12, 2018 by The Stapp Association in United States
This content contains downloadable datasetsAnnotation ability available
Abstract - Adult and pediatric human body models have focused on developing accurate representation of the human body in terms of anthropometry and kinetics/kinematics in correlation with published PMHS (Post-Mortem Human Subjects) data. This study focuses on comparing the PIPER 6-year-old human body finite element (FE) model with a Q6 FE model to generate comparable metrics. The FE models were simulated in a vehicle environment by positioning them on two different child booster seats with a 3-point lap-shoulder belt for frontal and lateral impacts. The overall kinematic response (head excursion) of the PIPER human body model (HBM) mimics the behavior of the Q6 ATD. However, there is a significant difference in the NIJ values between the PIPER HBM and Q6 ATD (minimum reduction of 67% in PIPER HBM). The head-neck complex of the PIPER is seen to be more flexible (minimum reduction of 12% in neck forces and 64% in neck moments) as compared to the Q6.
- Shreyas Sarfare - 1 Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Children’s
- Jalaj Maheshwari - 1 Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Children’s
- Nhat Duong - 1 Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Children’s
- Aditya Belwadi - 1 Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Children’s
CitationSarfare, S., Maheshwari, J., Duong, N., and Belwadi, A., "Comparative Responses of the PIPER 6YO Human Body Model and the Q6 ATD for Simulated Frontal and Lateral Impacts," SAE Technical Paper SC18-22-0006, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4271/SC18-22-0006.
Data Sets - Support Documents
|[Unnamed Dataset 1]|
|[Unnamed Dataset 2]|
- Belwadi, A, R Hanna, A Eagle, D Martinez, J Kleinert (2015) Development of a Small Rear Facing Child Restraint System Virtual Surrogate to Evaluate CRS-to-Vehicle Interaction and Fitment, SAE 2015-01-1457
- Belwadi, A; Duong, N; Maheshwari, J; Seth, F; Arbogast K (2017) “Effect of seat belt routing schemes on ATD kinetics and kinematics – a sled evaluation study”, In press, Traffic Injury Prevention
- Bing, J (2017) “Measurement of real-world vehicle D-ring positions and their effects of seating postures”, In Press, Traffic Injury Prevention
- Durbin DR, Elliott MR, Winston FK. Belt-Positioning Booster Seats and Reduction in Risk of Injury Among Children in Vehicle Crashes. JAMA. 2003;289(21):2835-2840.
- Klinich KD, Ritchie NL, Manary MA, Reed MP, -- Tamborra N, & Schneider LW. 2005. Transportation Research Record