Traffic injury prevention · 2024
The effectiveness of Q6 and PIPER 6-year-old models on quantification of the change of child sitting posture with AEB and its impact on child's injures in frontal crash.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Xuerong, Feng Benchi, Xue Zhixiang, Liu Yang, Ye Xin, Tu Wenqiong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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 HIC15, Head acceleration 3 ms, Nij decrease 43.7%, 19.6% and 28.8%, respectively and the chest deflection increases 15.5% compared to the simulation without AEB.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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 HIC15, Head acceleration 3 ms, Nij decrease 43.7%, 19.6% and 28.8%, respectively and the chest deflection increases 15.5% compared to the simulation without AEB.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.