School of Automotive and Traffic Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China.
Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc, Irvine, California.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2024;25(6):825-831. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2024.2345202. Epub 2024 May 8.
Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) has a direct impact on the effectiveness of the restraint systems in providing protection toward child occupants. The objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of Q6 and PIPER 6-year-old models in predicting the kinematic responses of child models, and further to quantify and analyze the child injuries during a frontal crash with and without AEB.
The finite element model of a booster seat has been validated through a full vehicle test. Based on the validated finite element model, two sled test finite element models for the rear seat booster seat with Q6 and PIPER 6-year-old models were constructed. AEB condition was imposed on above the two models and the kinematic responses of sitting posture including head, neck and chest have been compared in detail. The peak head displacement and neck curvature of Q6 dummy and PIPER 6-year-old models have been compared with the test data from child volunteers. Based on the child model with better predictive capability for kinematic response under AEB, child injuries were evaluated and analyzed for the 50 km/h frontal crash test with and without AEB. Last, this study discussed the effects of internal neck and chest structure difference between Q6 and PIPER 6-year-old models on child kinematic response and the injury risks.
Under AEB condition, PIPER 6-year-old model has higher head displacement and lower trunk displacement than Q6 dummy model, and the peak head displacement and neck curvature of PIPER 6-year-old model are similar to the test data of child volunteers. During the 50 km/h frontal crash simulation with pre-crash AEB, the HIC, Head acceleration 3 ms, N decrease 43.7%, 19.6% and 28.8%, respectively and the chest deflection increases 15.5% compared to the simulation without AEB.
This study shows that PIPER 6-year-old model is more suitable for the quantification of sitting posture change under AEB due to its higher biofidelity. The pre-crash AEB can substantially reduce the head, neck injuries. But it also increases the chest injury due to the chest pre-compression. Future efforts are recommended to lower the child chest injury by integrating AEB with active pre-tensioning seatbelts.
自动紧急制动(AEB)对约束系统为儿童乘员提供保护的效果有直接影响。目的是评估 Q6 和 PIPER 6 岁模型在预测儿童模型运动学响应方面的有效性,并进一步量化和分析正面碰撞中有无 AEB 时儿童的受伤情况。
通过整车测试验证了儿童增高座椅的有限元模型。基于经过验证的有限元模型,构建了配备 Q6 和 PIPER 6 岁模型的后排座椅后向儿童增高座椅的两个滑橇试验有限元模型。在上述两个模型上施加 AEB 条件,并详细比较了坐姿的运动学响应,包括头部、颈部和胸部。比较了 Q6 假人和 PIPER 6 岁模型的头部最大位移和颈部曲率与儿童志愿者的测试数据。基于在 AEB 下对运动学响应具有更好预测能力的儿童模型,评估和分析了有无 AEB 的 50km/h 正面碰撞测试中的儿童损伤情况。最后,本研究讨论了 Q6 和 PIPER 6 岁模型内部颈部和胸部结构差异对儿童运动学响应和受伤风险的影响。
在 AEB 条件下,PIPER 6 岁模型的头部位移比 Q6 假人模型高,躯干位移比 Q6 假人模型低,PIPER 6 岁模型的头部最大位移和颈部曲率与儿童志愿者的测试数据相似。在带有预碰撞 AEB 的 50km/h 正面碰撞模拟中,与无 AEB 模拟相比,HIC、头部加速度 3ms、N 减少 43.7%、19.6%和 28.8%,胸部挠度增加 15.5%。
本研究表明,由于 PIPER 6 岁模型的生物逼真度更高,因此更适合量化 AEB 下坐姿变化。预碰撞 AEB 可显著降低头部、颈部受伤。但由于胸部预压缩,也会增加胸部受伤。建议未来通过将 AEB 与主动预紧安全带集成来降低儿童胸部受伤。