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.