Browse Topic: Child restraint systems
To harmonize and define terminology associated with occupant protection for children for vehicle manufacturers and child restraint manufacturers in the United States and Canada
Letter from the Special Issue Editors
These recommendations are to aid the international air transport industry by identifying a standard, minimum amount of safety instructions and procedures that should be provided in the PSIS. Aircraft operators are encouraged to customize the PSIS to their own operations. This document also provides recommendations for: a Passenger safety information briefings and associated materials, b Demonstration emergency equipment, c Ensuring passenger suitability for those seated in exit seats, d The standardization of safety briefings for passengers seated at exits who may be responsible for opening exits on transport aircraft during an emergency, and e A standardized protective brace position to reduce the severity of injury during severe turbulence, rapid deceleration, or a sudden impact. In addition, these recommendations pertain to briefings on aircraft on which the cabin crew would conduct the exit seat briefing, and to briefings on aircraft without cabin crew, on which pilots would
This SAE Recommended Practice provides a Glossary of Terms commonly used to describe Seat Belt Restraint Systems Hardware and their function. These terms are currently defined in various SAE Recommended Practices but are sometimes inconsistent. It is intended for this document to supersede the definitions found in separate SAE Recommended Practices
Dynamic simulation sled testing can represent various automotive collision conditions. Acceleration conditions during sled testing are readily reproducible and can be tuned to simulate collision events that occur during vehicle impacts with a fixed barrier or vehicle. Sled tests are conducted on automotive vehicle bodies or other structures to obtain valuable information. This information can be used to evaluate the dynamic performance of, but not limited to, vehicle restraint systems, vehicle seating systems, and body closure systems
Many vehicles allow consumers to adapt the vehicle environment to their families’ needs by folding or removing one or more rear row seats. It is currently unclear how different seat configurations affect child restraint systems (CRS) installed in adjacent seats. The objective is to quantify CRS performance in far-side impacts when the seating position adjacent to the CRS is in its normal upright position, folded in half, or removed. Twelve tests were conducted. Second row seats from a recent model year minivan were obtained, including full size captain’s chairs from the outboard positions and narrow seats from the center position. Rear-facing (RF) and forward-facing (FF) CRS were installed one at a time in either the outboard or center position. The seating position adjacent to the CRS was set in either the standard upright position, folded in half, or removed. Far-side impacts were conducted at 10° anterior of pure lateral at 24.8 ± 0.2 g. The Q3s ATD was used for all tests. CRS
Child safety in the back seat during a rear-impact chiefly depends on how well the survival space is maintained at their location. Collapsing front seatback pose a foreseeable hazard as it intrudes into the survival space of the child on the backseat. Furthermore, the condition gets worse in the presence of a structural intrusion from the rear that tends to push the occupant further closer to the backward collapsing seatbacks. This paper reports two real-world rear impact collisions resulting severe to fatal injuries to the child occupant seating behind the driver. Each collision shows the dangers of seatback collapse into the survival space of the child. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates safety through design concept by employing seats with strong seatback design resisting collapse into the survival space of the child. The crash sled-testing are conducted to show the importance of front seatback strength preventing its collapse and occupant ramping up into the child’s survival space
Child injury performance evaluation is becoming critical part of almost all legal and consumer ratings-based vehicle safety evaluation protocols. Most of New CAR Assessment Programs (NCAP) now have separate ratings exclusively to evaluate child restraint system effectiveness and child dummy performance under various crash testing modes. OEM’s have need and challenge to maximize injury performance. Sled tests are conventionally used for tuning restraints like seat belts and airbags for driver and co-driver under various frontal type test conditions. However, second row seats are used for CRS/ Child injury performance evaluations. In the present study an attempt is made to simulate child injury performance of P3 dummy positioned on second row seat on defined child seat for 64 kmph frontal Offset deformable barrier type test conforming to Global NCAP. Sled pulses are carefully tuned to capture key injury patterns. Thence restraint parameters are tuned to improve child dummy injuries
This SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) provides information and recommended guidelines for handling carry-on baggage prior to emergencies and during the emergency evacuation of transport category aircraft. Recommendations are provided on limiting the size, amount, and weight of carry-on baggage brought into the cabin, improved stowage of carry-on baggage to minimize hazards to passengers in flight and during emergency evacuations, and procedures to ensure carry-on baggage is not removed during an emergency evacuation
Side impacts are disproportionately injurious for children compared to other crash directions. Far side impacts allow for substantial translation and rotation of child restraint systems (CRS) because the CRS does not typically interact with any adjacent structures. The goal of this study is to determine whether minor installation incompatibilities between CRS and vehicle seats cause safety issues in far side crashes. Four non-ideal CRS installation conditions were compared against control conditions having good fit. Two repetitions of each condition were run. The conditions tested were: 1) rear-facing (RF) CRS installed with a pool noodle to create proper recline angle, 2) RF CRS with narrow base, 3) forward-facing (FF) CRS with gap behind back near seat bight (i.e., vehicle seat angle too acute for CRS), 4) FF CRS with gap behind back near top of CRS (i.e., vehicle seat angle too obtuse for CRS). Second row captain’s chairs were set up at 10° anterior of lateral. A sled pulse target
Naturalistic driving studies have shown that pediatric occupants do not assume ideal seating positions in real-world scenarios. Current vehicle assessment programs and child restraint system (CRS) sled tests, such as FMVSS No. 213, do not account for a wide range of seating postures that are typically observed during real-world trips. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the kinematic and kinetic response of a pediatric human body model in various naturalistic seating positions in booster seats when subjected to a frontal offset impact in a full-vehicle environment, with and without the application of pre-crash automatic emergency braking (AEB). A 6YO (seated on a lowback and highback booster) and a 10YO (seated in no-CRS and on a lowback booster) PIPER pediatric human body model’s response was explored in a reference, and two most commonly observed seating postures: forward-leaning and forward-inboard-leaning. The vehicle environment with a side-curtain airbag (SCAB) was subjected to
A correctly used child restraint system (CRS) is associated with a substantial reduction of injury and mortality risks in motor vehicle crashes and epidemiologic data suggests that toddlers are provided greater protection when restrained in a rearward-facing CRS compared to a forward-facing CRS. Some ‘extended-use’ European CRS models can accommodate children up to six years rearward-facing and have a support (load) leg and/or a pair of lower (Swedish) tethers to reduce rotation during frontal and rear impacts, respectively. Laboratory studies have found that a support leg reduces head and neck injury metrics of anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) younger than three years in rearward-facing CRS models during frontal impacts. The objectives of the current study were to perform sled tests to: (1) evaluate the effects of using a support leg in rearward-facing infant and extended-use convertible CRS models during frontal impacts, (2) evaluate the effects of using a pair of lower tethers in
Current recommendations for restraining child occupants are based on biomechanical testing and data from national and international field studies primarily conducted prior to 2011. We hypothesized that analysis to identify factors associated with pediatric injury in motor-vehicle crashes using a national database of more recent police-reported crashes in the United States involving children under age 13 where type of child restraint system (CRS) is recorded would support previous recommendations. Weighted data were extracted from the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS-GES) for crash years 2010 to 2015. Injury outcomes were grouped as CO (possible and no injury) or KAB (killed, incapacitating injury, non-incapacitating injury). Restraint was characterized as optimal, suboptimal, or unrestrained based on current best practice recommendations. Analysis used survey methods to identify factors associated with injury. Factors with significant effect on
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
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
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
This user's manual covers the Hybrid III 10-year old child test dummy. The manual is intended for use by technicians who work with this test device. It covers the construction and clothing, assembly and disassembly, available instrumentation, external dimensions and segment masses, as well as certification and inspection test procedures. It includes guidelines for handling accelerometers, guidelines for flesh repair, and joint adjustment procedures. Finally, it includes drawings for some of the test equipment that is unique to this dummy
This SAE Recommended Practice describes the testing procedures that may be used to evaluate the integrity of ground ambulance-based occupant seating and occupant restraint systems for workers and civilians transported in the patient compartment of an ambulance when exposed to a frontal or side impact. This Recommended Practice was based on ambulance patient compartment dynamics and is not applicable to other vehicle applications or seating positions. This Recommended Practice is structured to accommodate seating systems installed in multiple attitudes including but not limited to side-facing, rear-facing, and forward-facing. Its purpose is to provide ambulance seating manufacturers, ambulance occupant restraint manufacturers, ambulance builders, and end-users with testing procedures and, where appropriate, acceptance criteria that, to a great extent ensures the occupant seating and occupant restraint system meet similar performance criteria as FMVSS 208 requires for seat belted
Oblique crashes to the vehicle front corner may not be characteristic of either frontal or side impacts. This research evaluated occupant response in oblique crashes for a driver, rear adult passenger, and a rear child passenger. Occupant responses and injury potential were evaluated for seating positions as either a far-or near-side occupant. Two crash tests were conducted with a subcompact car. The vehicle’s longitudinal axis was oriented 45 degrees to the direction of travel on a moving platform and pulled into a wall at 56 km/h. Dummies utilized for the seating positions were an adult dummy (50th-percentile-HIII and THOR-Alpha) for the front-left (driver) position, 5th-percentile-female-HIII for the right-rear position, and a 3-year-old HIII for the left-rear position. Test results indicate the driver is at risk of head injury in both conditions and for the far-side position had potential for thoracic/abdominal injuries as the inflatable restraint was not engaged and the occupant
Passenger car side impact crash tests and sled tests were conducted to investigate the influence of booster seats, near-side occupant characteristics and vehicle interiors on the responses of the Q6/Q6s child ATD positioned in the rear, far-side seating location. Data from nine side impact sled tests simulating a EuroNCAP AEMD barrier test were analyzed with data obtained from 44 side impact crash tests. The crash tests included: FMVSS 214 and IIHS MDB, moving car-to-stationary car and moving car-to-moving car. A Q6 or prototype Q6s ATD was seated on the far-side, using a variety of low and high back booster seats. Head and chest responses were recorded and ATD motions were tracked with high-speed videos. The vehicle lateral accelerations resulting from MDB tests were characterized by a much earlier and more rapid rise to peak than in tests where the bullet was another car. The near-side seating position was occupied by a Hybrid III 10-year-old ATD in the sled tests, and a rear or
The current study examined field data in order to document injury rates, injured body regions, and injury sources for persons seated in the second row of passenger vehicles. It was also intended to identify whether these varied with respect to age and restraint use in vehicles manufactured in recent years. Data from the 2007-2012 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS/CDS) was used to describe occupants seated in the second row of vehicles in frontal crashes. Injury plots, comparison of means and logistic regression analysis were used to seek factors associated with increased risk of injury. Restraint use reduced the risk of AIS ≥ 2 injury from approximately 1.8% to 5.8% overall. Seventy nine percent of the occupants in the weighted data set used either a lap and shoulder belt or child restraint system. The most frequently indicated injury source for persons with a MAIS ≥ 2 was “seat, back support”, across restraint conditions and for all but the youngest occupants. The factors most
This study documented the position and orientation of child restraint systems (CRS) installed in the second rows of vehicles, creating a database of 486 installations. Thirty-one different CRS were evaluated, selected to provide a range of manufacturers, sizes, types, and weight limits. Eleven CRS were rear-facing only, fourteen were convertibles, five were combination restraints, and one was a booster. Ten top-selling vehicles were selected to provide a range of manufacturers and body styles: four sedans, four SUVS, one minivan, and one wagon. CRS were marked with three reference points on each moving component. The contours and landmarks of each CRS were first measured in the laboratory. Vehicle interior contours, belt anchors, and LATCH anchors were measured using a similar process. Then each CRS was installed in a vehicle using LATCH according to manufacturers' directions, and the reference points of each CRS component were measured to document the installed orientation. Seven CRS
Automotive interior design optimization must balance the design of the vehicle seat and occupant space for safety, comfort and aesthetics with the accommodation of add-on restraint products such as child restraint systems (CRS). It is important to understand the range of CRS dimensions so that this balance can be successfully negotiated. CRS design is constantly changing. In particular, the introduction of side impact protection for CRS as well as emphasis on ease of CRS installation has likely changed key design points of many child restraints. This ever-changing target creates a challenge for vehicle manufacturers to assure their vehicle seats and occupant spaces are compatible with the range of CRS on the market. To date, there is no accepted method for quantifying the geometry of child seats such that new designs can be catalogued in a simple, straightforward way. In this project, we propose to quantify the geometry of a selection of CRSs currently on the market and develop an
Simulation based design optimization has become the common practice in automotive product development. Increasing computer models are developed to simulate various dynamic systems. Before applying these models for product development, model validation needs to be conducted to assess their validity. In model validation, for the purpose of obtaining results successfully, it is vital to select or develop appropriate metrics for specific applications. For dynamic systems, one of the key obstacles of model validation is that most of the responses are functional, such as time history curves. This calls for the development of a metric that can evaluate the differences in terms of phase shift, magnitude and shape, which requires information from both time and frequency domain. And by representing time histories in frequency domain, more intuitive information can be obtained, such as magnitude-frequency and phase-frequency characteristics. However, Most of the existing metrics only focus on
The scope of this SAE Recommended Practice is to promote compatibility between child restraint systems and vehicle seats and seat belts. Design guidelines are provided to vehicle manufacturers for certain characteristics of seats and seat belts, and to child restraint system (CRS) manufacturers for corresponding CRS features so that each can be made more compatible with the other. The Child Restraint System Accommodation Fixture, shown in Figure 1, is used to represent a CRS to the designers of both the vehicle interior and the CRS for evaluation of each product for compatibility with the other. The features of the accommodation fixture are described as each is used. A CRS accommodation template of transparent plastic, not shown, represents the side of the accommodation fixture for use in approximating its installed position on design drawings
Items per page:
50
1 – 50 of 322