The influence of child restraint lower attachment method on protection offered by forward facing child restraint systems in oblique loading conditions
Hans W Hauschild,John R Humm,Frank A Pintar,Narayan Yoganandan,Bruce Kaufman,Matthew R Maltese,Kristy B Arbogast
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2017.1369532
2018-02-28
Abstract:Objective: The research objective was to quantify the influence of child restraint lower attachment method on head kinematics, head impact potential, and head, neck, and thorax injury metrics for a child occupant secured in a forward-facing child restraint system (FFCRS) in oblique side impacts. Methods: Fifteen sled tests were conducted with a Q3s seated in an FFCRS secured to the center position on a production small SUV bench seat. Three lower attachment methods were evaluated: rigid ISOFIX, a flexible single loop lower anchors and tethers for children (LATCH) webbing routed through the vehicle belt path of the FFCRS, and dual flexible LATCH webbing attachments on either side of the FFCRS. All were tested with and without a tether with one repeat test in each test condition. The same model FFCRS was used for all tests; only the attachment method varied. The vehicle bench seat was fixed on the sled carriage at 80° (from full frontal). The input pulse was the proposed FMVSS 213 side impact pulse scaled to a 35 km/h delta-v. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the effect of lower attachment and tether use on 3 outcome metrics: lateral head excursion, neck tension, and neck lateral bending. Data included anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) head excursions, head linear accelerations and angular velocities, neck loads and moments, thoracic accelerations, lateral chest deflections, lower anchor loads, and tether webbing loads. ATD head kinematics were collected from 3-dimensional motion capture cameras. Results: Results demonstrated a reduction in injury measures with the rigid ISOFIX and dual webbing attachment compared to the single webbing attachment with decreased lateral head excursions (331, 356, and 441 mm for the rigid ISOFIX, dual webbing, and single webbing systems, respectively, P <.0001), neck tension (1.4, 1.6, and 2.2 kN, P <.01), and neck lateral bending (31.8, 38.7, and 38.0 Nm, P =.002). The tether had a greater influence on lateral head excursion for the FFCRS with flexible webbing attachments than those with the rigid attachment, with the tether forces being highest with the single webbing attachment. Lateral head excursions were significantly lower and lateral neck bending moments were significantly higher with tether use (P <.0001) across all lower attachments. The effect of tether on neck tension was mixed, only showing an increased effect with the rigid ISOFIX system. Conclusion: The CRS lower attachment system influenced occupant kinetics. The results indicate that CRS attached to the vehicle via rigid and dual webbing systems exhibit improved kinematics by reducing the rotation and tipping seen with the single webbing attachment. This leads to reduced lateral head excursions and neck tension values. The advantages of the tether in reducing lateral head excursion in side impacts are most pronounced with the flexible webbing attachments. With tether use low in the United States, a dual webbing type FFCRS attachment system may be a better attachment method than single webbing and provide a simpler engineering solution than rigid ISOFIX attachment.