Top tether effectiveness during side impacts.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have looked at the effectiveness of the top tether during side impacts. In these studies, limited anthropomorphic test device (ATD) data were collected and/or few side impact scenarios were observed. The goal of this study was to further understand the effects of the top tether on ATD responses and child restraint system (CRS) kinematics during various side impact conditions. METHODS: A series of high-speed near-side and far-side sled tests were performed using the FMVSS213 side impact sled buck and Q3s ATD. Tests were performed at both 10° and 30° impacts with respect to the pure lateral direction. Two child restraints, CRS A and CRS B, were attached to the bench using flexible lower anchors. Each test scenario was performed with the presence and absence of a top tether. Instrumentation recorded Q3s responses and CRS kinematics, and the identical test scenarios with and without a top tether attachment were compared. RESULTS: For the far-side lateral (10°) and oblique (30°) impacts, top tether attachment increased resultant head accelerations by 8-38% and head injury criterion (HIC15) values by 20-140%. However, the top tether was effective in reducing lateral head excursion by 5-25%. For near-side impacts, the top tether resulted in less than 10% increases in both resultant head acceleration and HIC15 in the lateral impact direction. For near-side oblique impacts, the top tether increased HIC15 by 17.3% for CRS A and decreased it by 19.5% for CRS B. However, the injury values determined from both impact conditions were below current injury assessment reference values (IARVs). Additionally, the top tether proved beneficial in preventing forward and lateral CRS rotations. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the effects of the top tether on Q3s responses were dependent on impact type, impact angle, and CRS. Tether attachments that increased head accelerations and HIC15 values were generally counterbalanced by a reduction in head excursion and CRS rotation compared to nontethered scenarios.

Comparison of Q3s ATD biomechanical responses to pediatric volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: The biofidelity of pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) continues to be evaluated with scaled-down adult data, a methodology that requires inaccurate assumptions about the likeness of biomechanical properties of children and adults. Recently, evaluation of pediatric ATDs by comparison of pediatric volunteer (PV) data has emerged as a valuable and practical alternative to the use of scaled adult data. This study utilized existing PV data to evaluate a 3-year-old side impact ATD, the Q3s. Though ATDs have been compared to volunteer responses in frontal impacts, this study is the first to extend ATD-PV comparison methods to the Q3s ATD and among the first to extend these methods to side impacts. METHODS: Previously conducted experiments were replicated in order to make a direct comparison between the Q3s and PVs. PV data were used from 4- to 7-year-olds (shoulder tests, n=14) and 6- to 8-year-olds (sled tests, n=7). Force-deflection data were captured during quasistatic shoulder tests through manual displacement of the shoulder joint. Resulting shoulder stiffness was compared between the Q3s and PVs. Low-speed far-side sled tests were conducted with the Q3s at lateral (90°) and oblique (60°) impacts. Primary outcomes of interest included (1) lateral displacement of the torso, (2) torso rollout angle, and (3) kinematic trajectories of the head and neck. RESULTS: The Q3s exhibited shoulder stiffness values at least 32 N/mm greater than the PVs for all conditions (PV muscle tensed and relaxed, deflection calculated for full- and half-thoracic). In lateral sled tests, the Q3s demonstrated increased coronal torso rollout (Q3s: 49.2°; PVs: 35.7°±12.4°) and lateral (ΔY) movement of the top of the head (Q3s: -389 mm; PVs: -320±23 mm) compared to PVs. In oblique trials, the Q3s achieved significantly decreased lateral torso displacement (Q3s: 153.3 mm; PVs: 193.6±25.6 mm) and top of the head forward (ΔX) motion (Q3s: 68 mm; PVs: 133 ± 20 mm) compared to PVs. In all tests, greater downward (ΔZ) excursions of C4 and T1 were observed in the Q3s relative to PVs. CONCLUSIONS: Increased Q3s shoulder stiffness could affect head-neck kinematics as well as thorax responses because unrealistic force can be transmitted to the spine from the shoulder. Q3s and PV trajectories were of similar shape, although Q3s head kinematics displayed rigid body motion followed by independent lateral bending of the head, suggesting cervical and thoracic spine rigidity compared to PVs.