Sheila Ebert-Hamilton

Effects of Obesity on Seat Belt Fit

Introduction: Obesity has been shown to increase the risks of some types of injury in crashes. One way in which obesity may increase injury risk is by changing the routing of the belt relative to the underlying skeletal structures. Methods: Belt fit was measured in a laboratory study of 54 men and women, 48 percent of whom were obese, defined by body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater. Test conditions included a wide range of upper and lower belt anchorage locations and ranges of seat height, seat cushion angle, and seat back angle spanning the conditions in a large fraction of front and rear seats in passenger cars and light trucks. In some conditions, foot position was restricted to simulate the typical situation in the second row of a small sedan. Results: Across individuals, an increase in BMI of 10 kg/m2 was associated with a lap belt positioned 43 mm further forward and 21 mm higher relative to the anterior–superior iliac spines of the pelvis. Each 10 kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with an increase in lap belt webbing length of 130 mm. The worsening of lap belt fit with restricted foot position was slightly greater for obese participants. Obesity was associated with a more-inboard shoulder belt routing across a wide range of upper belt anchorage locations, and the shoulder belt webbing length between the D-ring and latch plate increased by an average of 60 mm with each 10 kg/m2 increase in BMI. Discussion and Conclusions: The results suggest that obesity effectively introduces slack in the seat belt system by routing the belt further away from the skeleton. Particularly in frontal crashes, but also in rollovers and other scenarios, this slack will result in increased excursions and an increased likelihood and severity of contacts with the interior. The higher routing of the lap belt with respect to the pelvis also increases the likelihood of submarining in frontal crashes.

A New Database of Child Anthropometry and Seated Posture for Automotive Safety Applications

This paper presents a laboratory study of body dimensions, seated posture, and seatbelt fit for children weighing from 40 to 100 lb (18 to 45 kg). Sixty-two boys and girls were measured in three vehicle seats with and without each of three belt-positioning boosters. In addition to standard anthropometric -measurements, three-dimensional body landmark locations were recorded with a coordinate digitizer in sitter-selected and standardized postures. This new database quantifies the vehicle-seated postures of children and provides quantitative evidence of the effects of belt-positioning boosters on belt fit. The data will provide guidance for child restraint design, crash dummy development, and crash dummy positioning procedures.

Effects of vehicle seat and belt geometry on belt fit for children with and without belt positioning booster seats

A laboratory study was conducted to quantify the effects of belt-positioning boosters on lap and shoulder belt fit. Postures and belt fit were measured for forty-four boys and girls ages 5-12 in four highback boosters, one backless booster, and on a vehicle seat without a booster. Belt anchorage locations were varied over a wide range. Seat cushion angle, seat back angle, and seat cushion length were varied in the no-booster conditions. All boosters produced better mean lap belt fit than was observed in the no-booster condition, but the differences among boosters were relatively large. With one midrange belt configuration, the lap belt was not fully below the anterior-superior iliac spine (ASIS) landmark on the front of the pelvis for 89% of children in one booster, and 75% of children failed to achieve that level of belt fit in another. In contrast, the lap belt was fully below the ASIS for all but two children in the best-performing booster. Child body size had a statistically significant but relatively small effect on lap belt fit. The largest children sitting without a booster had approximately the same lap belt fit as the smallest children experienced in the worst-performing booster. Increasing lap belt angle relative to horizontal produced significantly better lap belt fit in the no-booster condition, but the boosters isolated the children from the effects of lap belt angles. Reducing seat cushion length in the no-booster condition improved lap belt fit but changing cushion angle did not. Belt upper anchorage (D-ring) location had a strong effect on shoulder belt fit in conditions without shoulder belt routing from the booster. Unexpectedly, the worst average shoulder belt fit was observed in one highback booster with a poorly positioned shoulder belt routing clip. The shoulder belt was routed more outboard, on average, with a backless booster than without a booster, but raising the child also amplified the effect of D-ring location, such that children were more likely to experience poor shoulder belt fit due to outboard and forward D-ring locations when sitting on the booster. Taller children experienced more-outboard shoulder belt fit in conditions without shoulder belt routing by the booster and in the one booster with poor shoulder belt routing. Adjustable shoulder belt routing on three of the highback boosters effectively eliminated stature effects, providing approximately the same shoulder belt fit for all children. Seat back angle did not have a significant effect on shoulder belt fit. The results of this study have broad applicability toward the improvement of occupant restraints for children The data show substantial effects of booster design on belt fit, particularly the effects of alternative lap and torso belt routing approaches. The data quantify the critical importance of belt anchorage location for child belt fit, providing an important foundation for efforts to optimize belt geometry for children.

Distribution of Belt Anchorage Locations in the Second Row of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Seat belt anchorage locations have a strong effect on occupant protection. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 210 specifies requirements for the layout of the anchorages relative to the seating reference point and seat back angle established by the SAE J826 H-point manikin. Sled testing and computational simulation has established that belt anchorage locations have a strong effect on occupant kinematics, particularly for child occupants using the belt as their primary restraint. As part of a larger study of vehicle geometry, the locations of the anchorage points in the second-row, outboard seating positions of 83 passenger cars and light trucks with a median model year of 2005 were measured. The lower anchorage locations spanned the entire range of lap belt angles permissible under FMVSS 210 and the upper anchorages (D-ring locations) were distributed widely as well. Combined with the findings from concurrent research on the effects of belt geometry, these results suggest that occupant kinematics in frontal impact can be expected to differ widely across vehicles due to differences in belt geometry. Language: en

Hand Positions and Forces during Truck Ingress

Many truck drivers are injured each year due to falls while getting into and out of their vehicles. Design guidelines for steps and handholds are not based on biomechanical data and do not reflect a systems approach to design. As part of a broader effort to improve ingress/egress safety, a laboratory study was conducted to quantify driver postures and motions for a wide range of step and handhold configurations. Data from thirty men and women with a wide range of body size were analyzed to determine the location of the right hand and the force exerted on the aft handhold during the initial phase of ingress. Drivers grasped the external handhold at between 90 and 110 percent of stature above the ground. Peak hand forces averaged 25 percent of body weight, although heavier drivers did not exert significantly more force. Handhold position affected hand force only when the lower step was relatively far from the handhold.

Upper-Extremity Postures and Activities in Naturalistic Driving

6