Search Results

Ford Motor Company introduced the automotive industry’s first second row inflatable seatbelt system in 2011. The system is currently available in the outboard seating positions of the second row of several Ford and Lincoln models. An important consideration for this system is the interaction with child restraint systems (CRS) when it is used to install a CRS or used in conjunction with belt position booster. A novel test methodology to assess the interaction of CRS with Ford and Lincoln inflatable seatbelts through frontal impact sled tests is explained. Details of test methods including construction of additional fixtures and hardware are highlighted. This procedure is designed to enable test labs capable of running Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213 testing to adapt this test method, with minimal fabrication, by utilizing existing test benches.

Ford Motor Company introduced the inflatable seatbelt system in 2011 and the system is now available in the second row of several Ford and Lincoln models. An important consideration is the interaction of the inflatable seatbelt system with child restraint systems (CRS). A comprehensive series of frontal impact sled tests, using a standardized test method, was conducted to compare the performance of rear-facing-only CRS installed using an inflatable seatbelt to the same CRS installed using a standard seatbelt. CRS models from several manufacturers in the North American market were tested both with and without their bases. CRABI 12 month old or Hybrid III 3 year old anthropomorphic test devices (ATD) were restrained in the CRS. The assessment included the ability to achieve a satisfactory installation with the inflatable seatbelt, comparisons of ATD and CRS kinematics, CRS system integrity, and comparisons of ATD responses.

A provisional, age-dependent thoracic risk equation (or, “risk curve”) was derived to estimate moderate-to-fatal injury potential (AIS2+), pertaining to men with responses gaged by the advanced mid-sized male test dummy (THOR50). The derivation involved two distinct data sources: cases from real-world crashes (e.g., the National Automotive Sampling System, NASS) and cases involving post-mortem human subjects (PMHS). The derivation was therefore more comprehensive, as NASS datasets generally skew towards younger occupants, and PMHS datasets generally skew towards older occupants. However, known deficiencies had to be addressed (e.g., the NASS cases had unknown stimuli, and the PMHS tests required transformation of known stimuli into THOR50 stimuli).