Your Selections

Child restraint systems
Show Only

Collections

File Formats

Content Types

Dates

Sectors

Topics

Authors

Publishers

Affiliations

Committees

Events

Magazine

   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.

Update on Second-Row Children Responses in Rear and Frontal Crashes with a Focus on the Potential Effect of Stiffening Front Seat Structures

Exponent Inc.-Chantal Parenteau
ProBiomechanics LLC-David Viano
  • Technical Paper
  • 2020-01-1215
To be published on 2020-04-14 by SAE International in United States
The protection of children in rear seats is an important issue, but it is a more complex than assessing front seat performance in rear impacts. 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were analyzed to estimate the distribution and risk of seriously-to-fatally (MAIS 3+F) injured 0-7 year old children in the 2nd row by crash types with 1994+ model year vehicles. The results showed that children were frequently injured in frontal (39.3%) and in side (27.2%) crashes. The injury risk was highest in rollover (1.72% ± 0.36) followed by rear crashes (0.75% ± 0.56%). Individual rear and frontal impact cases were also reviewed to better understand injury mechanisms of children in the 2nd row. The cases were downloaded and reviewed. There were 15 injured children involved in 14 rear impact crashes. Half were associated with significant intrusion (12+ inches) intrusion of their seating area, pushing the child forward. More than half (7 out of 11 cases with known information) of the front seatbacks remained in their pre-crash position or were pushed forward. Rear crashes involving the front-seat rotating rearward…
   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.

Height Adjustment in School Bus Seat to Improve Comfort of Children with Different Age Group

VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd.-Sujit Banginwar
VE Commercial Vehicles, Ltd.-Ravi Joshi
  • Technical Paper
  • 2020-01-0871
To be published on 2020-04-14 by SAE International in United States
Seats are one of the critical component of School Bus for children comfort & safety. Seat Foam thickness, its shape, Cushion width & seat height will play a vital role in comfort. Fatigue is the most common cause due to uncomfortable seating and its due to only one type of seat available in school bus to accommodate different height children. Here different height means, a school has children from class nursery to Senior secondary. Fatigue will cause impact on child health & there overall development. The topic was chosen because of increasing interest in children comfort & safety in school buses. The Present method is making one standard seat with cushion height from bus floor is 450mm. In this case, its generally suitable for children height of 4.5 feet to 5.5 feet. It was found that children range of height from 3 feet to 4feet, it is very difficult for them climb on the seat. A unique arrangement has been design in seats, which will allow flexibility to adjust height of the seat for children…
   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.

The roles of vehicle seat cushion stiffness and length in child restraint system (CRS) performance

Ohio State University-Julie Mansfield, Yun-Seok Kang
Transportation Research Center Inc.-HyunJung Kwon
  • Technical Paper
  • 2020-01-0977
To be published on 2020-04-14 by SAE International in United States
The objective is to determine whether responses and injury risks for pediatric occupants in child restraint systems (CRS) are affected by vehicle seat cushion stiffness and fore/aft length. Eighteen sled tests were conducted using the FMVSS 213 frontal pulse (48 km/h). Seats from a recent model year vehicle were customized by the manufacturer with three different levels of cushion stiffness: compliant, mid-range, and stiff. Each stiffness level was quantified using ASTM D 3574-08 and all were within the realistic range of modern production seats. The usable length of each seat cushion was manipulated using foam spacers provided by the manufacturer. Two different seat lengths were examined: short (34.0 cm) and long (43.5 cm). Three different types of CRS were tested with size-appropriate anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs): rear-facing (RF) CRS with 12-month-old CRABI, forward-facing (FF) CRS with Hybrid III 3-year-old, and high-back booster with Hybrid III 6-year-old. Each CRS, vehicle seat (including cushion and frame), seat belt webbing and buckle were replaced after every test. ATD kinematic and kinetic data were compared across seat cushion lengths…
   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
new

Head Support Concept to Mitigate Neck Injury for Children Installed Forward Facing in Vehicles

General Motors of Brazil-Rodrigo da Silva Ribeiro
Unicamp-Antonio Celso Fonseca De Arruda
  • Technical Paper
  • 2019-36-0106
Published 2020-01-13 by SAE International in United States
The slender neck of a 3-year-old child can be serious injured or even lead to child’s death when loaded under frontal impact by the proportionately larger and heavier head. Accordingly with medical recommendations based on latest studies, a 3-year-old child is safer when installed in a rear-facing child seat, but this configuration is not feasible for some vehicles with limited rear space such as superminis, small MPVs and pick-ups when front seats are occupied. This study aims to explore the potential of neck tension (Fz) reduction in 3-year-old dummy installed forward-facing when subjected to three head static restraints (head strap, head support, cervical collar) as well as an overhead shield car seat in order to identify solutions for a device to avoid or mitigate neck injuries. To simulate frontal impacts, a 3-year-old dummy from Q series was installed on a reinforced vehicle body fixed on a sled test equipment where the United Nations R129 pulse was applied. Both head strap and head support were not able to reduce neck tension due to the high Q3…
Annotation ability available
   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.

Performance Standard for Child Restraint Systems in Transport Category Airplanes

Aircraft SEAT Committee
  • Aerospace Standard
  • AS5276/1
  • Current
Published 2019-10-31 by SAE International in United States
This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) defines minimum performance standards and related qualification criteria for add-on child restraint systems (CRS) which provide protection for small children in passenger seats of transport category airplanes. The AS is not intended to provide design criteria that could be met only by an aircraft-specific CRS. The goal of this standard is to achieve child-occupant protection by specifying a dynamic test method and evaluation criteria for the performance of CRS under emergency landing conditions.
This content contains downloadable datasets
Annotation ability available
   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.

Seatbelt Entanglement: Field Analysis, Countermeasure Development, and Subject Evaluation of Devices Intended to Reduce Risk

Tool Inc.-Jason Sidman, Bill Liteplo
UMTRI-Kathleen DeSantis Klinich, Sheila Ebert, Laura Malik, Miriam A. Manary
Published 2019-04-02 by SAE International in United States
Since 2000, over 200 rear seat occupants have become entangled in the seatbelt when they inadvertently switched it from emergency locking mode (ELR) to automatic locking mode (ALR). Since a method is needed to lock the seatbelt when installing child restraint systems (CRS), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) commissioned tool, inc. to develop prototype devices that could reduce the risk of seatbelt entanglement resulting from the lockability requirement. A field analysis of entanglement incidents was first conducted to inform countermeasure design. Prototype devices were developed and evaluated through testing with volunteer subjects in comparison to standard seatbelt systems by assessing how different designs would be used to install CRS, the quality of the resulting installations, how users would disentangle a trapped child surrogate, as well as to identify volunteer experience when using the belts themselves. Four prototype devices were evaluated in two phases of testing conducted at the UMTRI. All four prototype devices had shorter disentanglement times than trials with the standard seatbelt, but there was not a statistically significant difference between the…
This content contains downloadable datasets
Annotation ability available
   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.

Evaluation of Harness Tightening Procedures for Child Restraint System (CRS) Sled Testing

Ohio State University-Julie Mansfield, Gretchen Baker, John Bolte
Published 2019-04-02 by SAE International in United States
Sled testing procedures should reflect a rigorous level of repeatability across trials and reproducibility across testing facilities. Currently, different testing facilities use various methods to set the harness tension for child restraint system (CRS) sled tests. The objective of this study is to identify which harness tightening procedure(s) produce tensions within a reasonable target range while showing adequate reproducibility, repeatability, and ease-of-use. Five harness tightening procedures were selected: A) FMVSS 213 procedure, B) a 3-prong tension gauge, C) ECE R44/R129 procedure, D) two finger method, and E) pinch test. Two CRS models were instrumented with a tension load cell in the harness system. Seven sled room operators were recruited to perform each of the five harness tightening procedures for ten repetitions apiece on both instrumented CRS using a Hybrid III 3-year-old. The static harness tension measured by the load cell was recorded after each procedure was completed. Data were analyzed for mean, variance, reproducibility, and repeatability. Operator feedback surveys were used to quantify ease-of-use.The ECE R44/R129 procedure produced harness tensions which were quite low. The…
This content contains downloadable datasets
Annotation ability available
   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

1 Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Children’s-Shreyas Sarfare, Jalaj Maheshwari, Nhat Duong, Aditya Belwadi
Published 2018-11-12 by The Stapp Association in United States
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.
This content contains downloadable datasets
Annotation ability available
   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.

Comparative protocol study between R44 and I-Size regulations for child restraint systems

Applus+IDIADA, L’Albornar PO Box 20 E-43710 Santa Oliva (Tar-David Domenech, Nuria Parera, Gustavo Maturana
Published 2018-09-03 by SAE International in United States
Children tend to be victims of road accidents more often than is the case for adults. Children made up 2,5% of the total number of road fatalities in the EU countries in 2015 and about 15% of the world? population. They are at about a sixth regarding the risk of dying in a road accident of the average member of the population across the EU as a whole.[1]The European Union uses the R44.04 [2] homologation standard to assess child restraint systems (CRS), but in 2013 a new regulation was implemented called Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS) or UNECE R-129[3] The first step of this regulation, called Phase 1 or I-Size, adds new performance criterion and improved the requirements for the CRS related to safety by introducing side-impact protection, classification based on stature not mass, use of Isofix and mandatory rearward facing until 15 months. Both regulations have been used simultaneously since 2013.In this paper a comparison study was carried out to analyse the differences between both protocols and regulation requirements in order to assess the…
This content contains downloadable datasets
Annotation ability available
   This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.

Rear-Facing Child Restraint Systems in Rear Impact Sled Tests

Ohio State University-Julie Mansfield, Yun-Seok Kang, John Bolte
Published 2018-04-03 by SAE International in United States
This study examines the performance of rear-facing child restraint systems (RF CRS) in moderate severity rear impact sled tests. The study also investigates the effects of RF CRS features on CRS kinematics and anthropomorphic test device (ATD) injury metrics in this scenario. Twelve tests were conducted at a moderate severity rear impact sled pulse (approximately 28.2 km/h and 18.4 g). Four models of RF CRS were tested in the rear outboard positions of a sedan seat. The CRABI 12-month-old and Hybrid III 3-year-old ATDs were instrumented with head and chest accelerometers, head angular rate sensors, six-axis upper neck load cells, and a chest linear potentiometer (3-year-old only). The effects of carry handle position, occupant size, presence of anti-rebound bar, Swedish style tethering, and lower anchor vs. seat belt installation were investigated. Data were also compared to pediatric injury assessment reference values (IARV). Head Injury Criterion (HIC15) values ranged from 9.6 to 89.2. Chest resultant accelerations (3 ms duration) ranged from 21.3 to 39.9 g. Neck loads and head contact against seat structures varied depending on…
This content contains downloadable datasets
Annotation ability available