Suppr超能文献

在高速后碰撞模拟台车试验中,常规座椅和 ABTS 座椅上的乘客反应。

Occupant responses in conventional and ABTS seats in high-speed rear sled tests.

机构信息

a ProBiomechanics LLC , Bloomfield Hills , Michigan.

b Ford Motor Company , Dearborn , Michigan.

出版信息

Traffic Inj Prev. 2018 Jan 2;19(1):54-59. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2017.1347782. Epub 2017 Jul 5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study compared biomechanical responses of a normally seated Hybrid III dummy on conventional and all belts to seat (ABTS) seats in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests. It determined the difference in performance with modern (≥2000 MY) seats compared to older (<2000 MY) seats and ABTS seats.

METHODS

The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap-shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position. The testing included 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented, including head accelerations, upper and lower neck 6-axis load cells, chest acceleration, thoracic and lumbar spine load cells, and pelvis accelerations. The peak responses were normalized by injury assessment reference values (IARVs) to assess injury risks. Statistical analysis was conducted using Student's t test. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

RESULTS

Biomechanical responses were lower with modern (≥2000 MY) seats than older (<2000 MY) designs. The lower neck extension moment was 32.5 ± 9.7% of IARV in modern seats compared to 62.8 ± 31.6% in older seats (P =.01). Overall, there was a 34% reduction in the comparable biomechanical responses with modern seats. Biomechanical responses were lower with modern seats than ABTS seats. The lower neck extension moment was 41.4 ± 7.8% with all MY ABTS seats compared to 32.5 ± 9.7% in modern seats (P =.07). Overall, the ABTS seats had 13% higher biomechanical responses than the modern seats.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern (≥2000 MY) design seats have lower biomechanical responses in 40.2 km/h rear sled tests than older (<2000 MY) designs and ABTS designs. The improved performance is consistent with an increase in seat strength combined with improved occupant kinematics through pocketing of the occupant into the seatback, higher and more forward head restraint, and other design changes. The methods and data presented here provide a basis for standardized testing of seats. However, a complete understanding of seat safety requires consideration of out-of-position (OOP) occupants in high-speed impacts and consideration of the much more common, low-speed rear impacts.

摘要

目的

本研究比较了 Hybrid III 假人在传统和所有安全带至座椅(ABTS)座椅上以 40.2 公里/小时(25 英里/小时)后碰撞测试中的生物力学响应。它确定了现代(≥2000 MY)座椅与较旧(<2000 MY)座椅和 ABTS 座椅相比的性能差异。

方法

座椅固定在承受 40.2 公里/小时(25 英里/小时)后碰撞测试的滑橇中。脉冲是 15 g 双峰值加速度,持续时间为 150 ms。50 百分位 Hybrid III 按照 FMVSS 208 设计位置进行了 lap-shoulder 安全带。测试包括 11 个<2000 MY、8 个≥2000 MY 和 7 个 ABTS 座椅。假人进行了全面的仪器测量,包括头部加速度、上下颈部 6 轴负载单元、胸部加速度、胸腰椎负载单元和骨盆加速度。通过伤害评估参考值(IARV)对峰值响应进行归一化,以评估伤害风险。使用学生 t 检验进行统计分析。高速视频记录了乘员的运动学。

结果

与较旧(<2000 MY)设计相比,现代(≥2000 MY)座椅的生物力学响应更低。现代座椅的下颈部伸展力矩为 IARV 的 32.5±9.7%,而较旧座椅为 62.8±31.6%(P=.01)。总体而言,现代座椅的可比生物力学响应降低了 34%。与 ABTS 座椅相比,现代座椅的生物力学响应更低。所有 MY ABTS 座椅的下颈部伸展力矩为 41.4±7.8%,而现代座椅为 32.5±9.7%(P=.07)。总体而言,ABTS 座椅的生物力学响应比现代座椅高 13%。

结论

与较旧(<2000 MY)设计和 ABTS 设计相比,现代(≥2000 MY)设计的座椅在 40.2 公里/小时后碰撞测试中的生物力学响应更低。这种改进的性能与座椅强度的提高以及通过将乘员装入座椅靠背、更高和更靠前的头枕以及其他设计更改来改善乘员运动学一致。本文提出的方法和数据为座椅的标准化测试提供了基础。然而,要全面了解座椅安全性,需要考虑高速碰撞中的非标准位置(OOP)乘员,并考虑更常见的低速追尾碰撞。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验