Search Results

This study investigates the performance of a 3-point restraint system incorporating an inflatable shoulder belt with a nominal 2.5-kN load limiter and a non-inflatable lap belt with a pretensioner (the “Airbelt”). Frontal impacts with PMHS in a rear seat environment are presented and the Airbelt system is contrasted with an earlier 3-point system with inflatable lap and shoulder belts but no load-limiter or pretensioners, which was evaluated with human volunteers in the 1970s but not fully reported in the open literature (the “Inflataband”). Key differences between the systems include downward pelvic motion and torso recline with the Inflataband, while the pelvis moved almost horizontally and the torso pitched forward with the Airbelt. One result of these kinematic differences was an overall more biomechanically favorable restraint loading but greater maximum forward head excursion with the Airbelt.

Data suggest that in response to substantial educational efforts, more children are being placed in the rear seats of vehicles. As this transition occurs, it is important to make efforts to optimize the performance of rear seat restraints for children. Prior to developing new restraints for children for the rear seat, a better understanding of child responses in various crash scenarios is needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of various restraint systems and countermeasures for child occupants in different crash scenarios. Sled tests were carried out with a Hybrid III 6 year old anthropomorphic test device (ATD) in frontal, oblique and side impact configurations. The performance of a highback and a backless booster seat was assessed. The results were compared with two standard 3 point belt restraint systems: 1. a package shelf mounted belt, and 2. a C-pillar mounted belt.