Trend analysis of rear child occupants’ injury influenced by protection system parameters

Abstract

As road traffic accidents are the leading cause of child injuries and deaths, the most common frontal impact is offset impact. Taking into consideration the lack of research on rear seat child occupants’ safety in road accidents, this study focuses on 10-year-old child occupants seated in the rear and establishes an analytical model of child injury during frontal offset impact, which is validated using test data from a real car impact of the same model. The study then examines the effects of restraint system parameters, including seat belt force-limited level, seat belt anchorage position, and seat cushion stiffness, on head, neck, and chest-abdomen injury response in the rear seat child occupants. The study found that reducing the seat belt force-limited level appropriately resulted in a significant decrease in the child occupant’s head resultant acceleration by 39.9% and the upper neck force by 53.2%. Meanwhile, increasing the seat cushion stiffness was found to reduce the child occupant’s head resultant acceleration by 18.8%, the upper neck force by 31%, and the abdominal pressure by 34.4%. This study provides a reference for the protection of rear seat child occupants.

Keywords

Child occupants rear seat occupants offset impact restraint system injury trend

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Social Determinants of Health. WHO global status report on road safety 2018: supporting a decade of action. Report, World Health Organization, Geneva, June 2018.

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Research note: police-reported motor vehicle traffic crash in 2017. Report, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USA, April 2019.

NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. NHTSA traffic safety facts 2016. Report, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USA, February 2018.

Sethi

. European report on child injury prevention. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office Europe, 2008, p.23.

Fang

. Child dummies restrained by an ISOFIX CRS and a universal CRS in different crash pulses and the effect of a crash pulse on dummy accelerations. SAE technical paper 2012-01-0085, 2012.

Cruz-Jaramillo

Torres-San-Miguel

Cortes-Vásquez

, et al. Numerical low-back booster analysis on a 6-year-old infant during a frontal crash test. Appl Bionics Biomech 2018; 2018: 2359262.

Bohman

Stockman

Jakobsson

, et al. Kinematics and shoulder belt position of child rear seat passengers during vehicle maneuvers. Ann Adv Automot Med 2011; 55: 15–26.

Thorbole

Thokade

Lankarani

. Pelvis kinematics assessment for improving far-side child protection positioned in a booster seat. Int J Crashworthiness 2020; 25(5): 536–544.

Takahashi

Fukushima

Kitagawa

, et al. Injury simulation of rear seat child occupant in offset deformable barrier frontal impact. In: 24th International technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles (ESV), Gothenburg, Sweden, 8–11 June 2015, paper no. 15-0048. Washington, DC: NHTSA.

10.

Johansson

Pipkorn

Lövsund

. Child safety in vehicles: validation of a mathematical model and development of restraint system design guidelines for 3-year-olds through mathematical simulations. Traffic Inj Prev 2009; 10(5): 467–478.

11.

Stockman

Bohman

Jakobsson

. Seat belt pre-pretensioner effect on child-sized dummies during run-off-road events. Traffic Inj Prev 2017; 18(sup1): S96–S102.

12.

Bohman

Östh

Jakobsson

, et al. Booster cushion design effects on child occupant kinematics and loading assessed using the PIPER 6-year-old HBM and the Q10 ATD in frontal impacts. Traffic Inj Prev 2020; 21: S25–S30.

13.

Eggers

Schnottale

Ott

. Sensitivity of Q10 and Q6 chest measurements to restraint and test parameters. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, Gothenburg, Sweden, 8–11 June 2015, paper no. 15-0300. Washington, DC: NHTSA.

14.

Belwadi

Duong

Fein

, et al. Efficacy of booster seat design on the response of the Q6 ATD in simulated frontal sled impacts. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference protection of children in cars, Munich, Germany, 7–8 December 2017. Washington, DC: NHTSA.

15.

Mansfield

. Comparison of child restraint system (CRS) installation methods and misuse during far side impact sled testing. SAE technical paper 2023-01-0817, 2023.

16.

Henary

Sherwood

Crandall

, et al. Retraction: car safety seats for children: rear facing for best protection. Inj Prev 2018; 24(1): 398–402.

17.

Ahmad

A Kassim

M Isa

, et al. A comparison between ISOFIX and seatbelt installation methods for child restraint system on child occupant performance. J Mech Eng 2018; 6(1): 131–141.

18.

Zhang

Wang

. Research on the restraint path of children’s elevated seat belts. J Automot Eng 2021; 11(1): 59–65.

19.

Girard

. Older children and submarining: motion pattern and assessment criteria for ten year old children slipping under the seat-belt in child restraint systems. PhD Thesis, University of Surrey, UK, 2015.

20.

Diez

Abajo

Negro

, et al. Study on the influence of seating orientation during frontal impacts by child occupant human body model response analysis. Traffic Inj Prev 2022; 23(3): 135–139.

21.

Cui

, et al. Finite element analysis of head injury on child occupants in city bus. Automot Eng 2021; 43(3): 414–420.

22.

China Automotive Technology & Research Center Co. Ltd. C-NCAP Management Rules (2021 Edition). Tianjin, China: China Automotive Technology & Research Centre Co. Ltd, 2021.

23.

. The rear seat occupant’s mechanical response analysis and occupant restraint system design of passenger car in frontal impact. MA Eng Thesis, Jilin University, 2014.

24.

Schmitt

Niederer

Muser

, et al. Trauma biomechanics accidental injury in traffic and sports. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer, 2004. pp.60, 89, 130.