Head restraint requirements and designs have evolved to minimize the delay in head support and reduce differential loading in the neck. As a result, they have become bigger, closer to the occupant’s head, and angled forward relative to the seat back. Head restraints have been found missing or detached in the field; they may be removed pre-crash due to occupant comfort issues, or post-crash for better accessibility during extrication. Additionally, although rare, head restraints may become detached in severe rear impacts due to occupant loading.
To better understand occupant-to-head restraint dynamic interactions, nine rear sled tests were conducted. The test conditions were selected to represent worst case severe loading scenarios. An instrumented 50th Hybrid III ATD (Anthropomorphic Test Device) was lap-shoulder belted on a right-front seat. The neck was equipped with a bracket and lower neck load cell designed for rear impacts.
Three series of sled tests were performed wherein the kinematics and kinetics of a restrained ATD were compared across 3 seat configurations: a conventional modern seat, a rigidized modern seat, and an ABTS (all-belts-to seat). Occupant postures evaluated included seated nominally and leaning forward, as may occur in response to hard pre-impact braking and/or an initial frontal impact. Two crash severities were evaluated including a moderate speed (24 km/h delta V pulse based on EuroNCAP) and a very high-speed (49 km/h delta V) condition. Within each series, the sled pulse and ATD initial posture were held constant.
The first series (Match #1) was conducted at 24 km/h with a leaned occupant. All biomechanical responses were below IARVs (Injury Assessment Reference Values). The highest responses relative to IARV were for upper and lower neck tension and extension. The Nij was greatest with the ABTS seat for upper neck and with the rigidized seat for lower neck, highlighting the importance of using both the upper neck and lower neck instrumentation.
The second series (Match #2) was at 49 km/h with the nominally seated ATD, and the third (Match #3) was at 49 km/h with a leaning forward ATD. The biomechanical responses were below IARV when nominally seated. The biomechanical responses of Match #2 were more favourable than Match #3, highlighting the benefits of early energy absorption during the ride-down. For example, the upper neck Nij was 2.4 in the conventional seat, 4.2 in the rigidized seat and 5.1 in the ABTS. The corresponding lower neck Nij was 4.2, 5.5 and 2.3. The normalized chest 3 ms response was greatest in the rigidized seat, followed by the ABTS, irrespective of sitting posture.
There are numerous reasons for an occupant to be out of position prior to a rear impact. In this study, the test conditions were selected to assess head-to-head restraint interactions in severe conditions, including leaning forward. Though the head restraints remained attached in all tests, the results provide insight on the seat and head restraint performance, and head and shoulder loading characteristics, in particular in some non-nominal postures.