Pediatric occupant human body model kinematic and kinetic response variation to changes in seating posture in simulated frontal impacts - with and without automatic emergency braking.

OBJECTIVE

The study quantifies the kinematics of children in booster child restraint systems (CRSs) in various naturalistic seating postures exposed to frontal impacts in a full-vehicle environment, with and without the application of pre-crash automatic emergency braking.

METHODS

The PIPER 6YO and 10YO pediatric human body models were positioned in CRSs. The 6YO was restrained on a lowback (LBB) and highback (HBB) booster, while the 10YO was positioned on an LBB and in a NoCRS condition. All simulations used the 3-point seatbelt. The child models were pre-positioned (gravity settled, seatbelt tensioned) in four naturalistic seating postures: leaning-forward, leaning-forward-inward, leaning-forward-outward, and a pre-submarining position, along with a baseline reference seating position. A 2012 Toyota Camry finite element (FE) model was used as the vehicle environment. A standard 3-point lap-shoulder belt system was modeled to restrain the child and CRS in the left-rear vehicle seat. Two vehicle impact cases were considered: with and without a pre-crash AEB. For with-AEB cases, a pre-crash phase was run to incorporate postural changes due to the application of AEB. All seating positions were ultimately subjected to a full-frontal rigid-barrier impact at 35 MPH. A total of 40 conditions were simulated in LS-DYNA.

RESULTS

Injury metrics varied widely for both occupants. Shoulder belt slippage was observed for the 6YO leaning-forward-inward on HBB. No head contact was observed for any simulated cases. Forward-leaning and forward-inward-leaning postures generally had greater head excursion across all seating postures. The lap belt rode over the pelvis for pre-submarining postures. Injury metrics for cases with pre-crash AEB were lower compared to their corresponding without-AEB cases. HIC15, head acceleration, upper neck tension force, and upper neck flexion moment were similar or lower for with-AEB scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-crash AEB reduces the effect of the impact despite the same collision speed as cases without-AEB. This is primarily due to the limited travel distance of the occupant, thus, starting an earlier ride-down during the crash. Moreover, different initial seating postures lead to a wide range of injury exposures. Vehicle and child restraint design should incorporate these seating postures to ensure robust protection of the occupant in a crash.