Assessing injury risks of reclined occupants in a frontal crash preceded by braking with varied seatbelt designs using the SAFER Human Body Model.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of different seatbelt geometries and load-limiting levels on the kinematics and injury risks of a reclined occupant during a whole-sequence frontal crash scenario, using simulations with the Active SAFER Human Body Model (Active SHBM). METHODS: The Active SHBM was positioned in a reclined position (50°) on a semi-rigid seat model. A whole-sequence frontal crash scenario, an 11 m/s2 Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) phase followed by a frontal crash at 50 km/h, was simulated. The seatbelt geometry was varied using either a B-pillar-integrated (BPI) or Belt-in-seat (BIS) design. The shoulder belt load-limiting level of the BPI seatbelt was also varied to achieve either similar shoulder belt forces (BPI_Lower_LL) or comparable upper body displacements (BPI_Higher_LL) to the BIS seatbelt. Kinematics of different body regions and seatbelt forces were compared. The risks of sustaining a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), two or more fractured ribs (NFR2+), and lumbar spine vertebral fractures were also compared. RESULTS: During the pre-crash phase, head, first thoracic vertebra, and first lumbar vertebra displacements were greater with the BPI seatbelt than with the BIS, mainly due to the lack of initial contact between the torso and the seatbelt. Pelvis pre-crash displacements, however, remained consistent across seatbelt types. In the in-crash phase, variations in shoulder belt forces were directly influenced by the different load-limiting levels of the shoulder belt. The mTBI (around 20%) and NFR2+ (around 70-100%) risks were amplified with BPI seatbelts, especially at higher load-limiting force. However, the BPI design demonstrated reduced lumbar spine fracture risks (from 30% to 1%). CONCLUSIONS: The BIS seatbelt appears promising, as seen with the reduced mTBI and NFR2+ risks, for ensuring the protection of reclined occupants in frontal crashes. However, additional solutions, such as lap belt load limiting, should be considered to reduce lumbar spine loading.

Repositioning forward-leaning passengers by seatbelt pre-pretensioning.

OBJECTIVE: The study determined the seatbelt pre-pretensioner force needed and the time required to reposition average male front-seat passengers from forward-leaning to upright using finite element simulations of the Active SAFER Human Body Model (Active SHBM). METHODS: The Active SHBM was positioned in an initial forward-leaning position (29° forward from upright) on a deformable vehicle seat. A pre-pretensioner was modeled as a pre-loaded spring and its ability to reposition the forward-leaning Active SHBM to an upright position was simulated for twenty-four different pre-crash conditions. Four parameters were varied: (1) Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) active with 11 m/s2 or no AEB, (2) type of seatbelt system: Belt-In-Seat or B-pillar, (3) pre-pretensioner activation time (200 ms before, 100 ms before, or at the same time as AEB ramp-up), and (4) pre-pretensioner force (200 N, 300 N, 400 N, 600 N). The first thoracic vertebra fore-aft (T1 X) trajectories were compared against a reference upright position to determine the force and time needed to reposition and the effectiveness of repositioning in the different conditions. RESULTS: The lowest force enabling repositioning in all simulations was 400 N (no AEB, Belt-In-Seat). It took about 350 ms. In the presence of AEB, activating the pre-pretensioner 200 ms before AEB and using 600 N pre-pretensioner force was needed for repositioning (taking 200 ms with Belt-In-Seat and 260 ms with B-pillar installations). Repositioning was faster and thus more effective with the Belt-In-Seat seatbelt in all simulations. CONCLUSIONS: All four parameters (presence of AEB, type of seatbelt system, pre-pretensioner activation time and force) affected the repositioning ability and time required. Far from all combinations repositioned a forward-leaning average male occupant model, but those found to be effective and fast appear as a feasible option for vehicle safety systems to reposition out-of-position occupants during pre-crash events.

Effect of high heel gait on hip and knee-ankle-foot rollover characteristics while walking over inclined surfaces - A pilot study.

Given the massive number of individuals wearing high-heeled shoes, understanding the gait biomechanics associated with their use could provide insight into clinically preventable abnormalities. The effects of inclined surfaces on the high-heeled gait have been investigated in the present pilot study, as most walking surfaces encountered in routine life are rarely perfectly level grounded. The rollover shapes of the high-heel shod gait are calculated to obtain the desired results. An adjustable inclined walkway setup was fabricated and comprising fixed slots permitting discrete and variable angle of inclinations (≤30°). The gait trials were recorded for the heel shod walking of ten healthy female volunteers using the three-dimensional motion analysis system by varying the inclination of the fabricated walkway. From the calculated rollover shapes, the necessary radii of the hip and the knee-ankle- foot rollover shapes were obtained and a repeated measures analysis of variance was carried out to establish the existence of correlation between the angle of inclination and rollover radii. The results of the present pilot study show that for high heel-shod walking there exist variable radii of curvature for early and late stance phases and that the same may vary depending upon the inclination. The same information can be used to modify the design of high-heel shoes to improve the stability while retaining their aesthetics.