斜倚座椅条件下THOR-50M-RS的评价。

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Kathleen D Klinich, Nichole R Orton, Carl Miller, Tyler Vallier, Miriam A Manary, Anne Bonifas, Matthew P Reed, J P Donlon, Jason Forman
{"title":"斜倚座椅条件下THOR-50M-RS的评价。","authors":"Kathleen D Klinich, Nichole R Orton, Carl Miller, Tyler Vallier, Miriam A Manary, Anne Bonifas, Matthew P Reed, J P Donlon, Jason Forman","doi":"10.1080/15389588.2025.2522935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Testing was conducted to evaluate the performance of the THOR-50M for Reclined Seating (THOR-50M-RS) with modifications to allow for a more realistic posture and impact response under reclined seating conditions. Results were compared to tests conducted with PMHS under the same conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nine frontal sled tests were conducted using the THOR-50M-RS in a controlled response seat with the seatback angle set to 45 degrees. Three tests were conducted under each of three conditions: (1) nominal 32 km/h delta V, 4.5 kN seatbelt load limiter (LL), knee bolster condition 1 (180 mm spacing); (2) nominal 50 km/h delta V, 2.7 kN LL, knee bolster condition 1; and (3) nominal 50 km/h delta V, 2.7 kN LL, knee bolster condition 2 (100 mm spacing). The ATD was positioned using a seating procedure based on data from volunteers in reclined seats. THOR-50M-RS instrumentation prioritized channels that could be directly compared to PMHS tests, such as head, T1, and pelvis accelerations. Ten cameras were used to track matching kinematic targets for comparison. Emphasis was placed on qualitative comparison of the head, spine, hip, and knee kinematics, but differences were also quantified using Correlation and Analysis (CORA) techniques. Injury assessment reference values (IARVs) were also calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ATD showed good repeatability within test conditions. Minor durability issues included pelvis flesh damage that was repaired and did not reoccur, as well as upper thigh flesh fraying at the rear seams. Comparison to kinematics from PMHS tests run in the same conditions indicated that the response of the THOR-50M-RS generally aligned well with the PMHS signals. However, the initial narrow width of PMHS corridors often led to low CORA scores, with a range of 0.03 to 0.98 across all test conditions and signals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The THOR-50M-RS was able to meet target postures in reclined seats and showed good repeatability within a given test condition. These tests demonstrate the challenges of designing effective occupant protection systems for occupants in reclined postures, with chest and lumbar spine injury measures exceeding recommended limits (derived for non-reclined modes) in the higher-speed (50 km/h) testing condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":54422,"journal":{"name":"Traffic Injury Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of THOR-50M-RS under reclined seating conditions.\",\"authors\":\"Kathleen D Klinich, Nichole R Orton, Carl Miller, Tyler Vallier, Miriam A Manary, Anne Bonifas, Matthew P Reed, J P Donlon, Jason Forman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15389588.2025.2522935\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Testing was conducted to evaluate the performance of the THOR-50M for Reclined Seating (THOR-50M-RS) with modifications to allow for a more realistic posture and impact response under reclined seating conditions. Results were compared to tests conducted with PMHS under the same conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nine frontal sled tests were conducted using the THOR-50M-RS in a controlled response seat with the seatback angle set to 45 degrees. Three tests were conducted under each of three conditions: (1) nominal 32 km/h delta V, 4.5 kN seatbelt load limiter (LL), knee bolster condition 1 (180 mm spacing); (2) nominal 50 km/h delta V, 2.7 kN LL, knee bolster condition 1; and (3) nominal 50 km/h delta V, 2.7 kN LL, knee bolster condition 2 (100 mm spacing). The ATD was positioned using a seating procedure based on data from volunteers in reclined seats. THOR-50M-RS instrumentation prioritized channels that could be directly compared to PMHS tests, such as head, T1, and pelvis accelerations. Ten cameras were used to track matching kinematic targets for comparison. Emphasis was placed on qualitative comparison of the head, spine, hip, and knee kinematics, but differences were also quantified using Correlation and Analysis (CORA) techniques. Injury assessment reference values (IARVs) were also calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ATD showed good repeatability within test conditions. Minor durability issues included pelvis flesh damage that was repaired and did not reoccur, as well as upper thigh flesh fraying at the rear seams. Comparison to kinematics from PMHS tests run in the same conditions indicated that the response of the THOR-50M-RS generally aligned well with the PMHS signals. However, the initial narrow width of PMHS corridors often led to low CORA scores, with a range of 0.03 to 0.98 across all test conditions and signals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The THOR-50M-RS was able to meet target postures in reclined seats and showed good repeatability within a given test condition. These tests demonstrate the challenges of designing effective occupant protection systems for occupants in reclined postures, with chest and lumbar spine injury measures exceeding recommended limits (derived for non-reclined modes) in the higher-speed (50 km/h) testing condition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Traffic Injury Prevention\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Traffic Injury Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2025.2522935\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Traffic Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2025.2522935","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:进行测试以评估THOR-50M斜倚座椅(THOR-50M- rs)的性能,并进行修改以允许在斜倚座椅条件下更真实的姿势和冲击响应。结果与PMHS在相同条件下进行的测试进行了比较。方法:使用THOR-50M-RS在控制响应座椅上进行了9次正面滑橇试验,椅背角设置为45度。三个试验分别在三个条件下进行:(1)标称32 km/h δ V, 4.5 kN安全带限载器(LL),膝盖支撑条件1 (180 mm间距);(2)标称50km /h δ V, 2.7 kN LL,膝盖支撑状态1;(3)标称50km /h δ V, 2.7 kN LL,膝盖支撑条件2 (100mm间距)。ATD的定位采用了一种基于志愿者斜倚座椅数据的座位程序。THOR-50M-RS仪器优先考虑可直接与PMHS测试相比较的通道,如头部、T1和骨盆加速度。使用10台摄像机跟踪匹配的运动目标进行比较。重点放在头部、脊柱、髋关节和膝关节运动学的定性比较上,但也使用相关分析(CORA)技术对差异进行量化。并计算损伤评估参考值(IARVs)。结果:在实验条件下,ATD具有良好的重复性。轻微的耐久性问题包括骨盆肌肉损伤,修复后没有再发生,以及大腿上部后部接缝处的肌肉磨损。与相同条件下PMHS试验的运动学结果比较表明,THOR-50M-RS的响应与PMHS信号基本一致。然而,PMHS走廊的初始宽度较窄,往往导致CORA得分较低,所有测试条件和信号的CORA得分范围为0.03至0.98。结论:在给定的测试条件下,THOR-50M-RS能够满足椅背上的目标姿势,并具有良好的重复性。这些测试表明,在高速(50公里/小时)的测试条件下,为倾斜坐姿的乘员设计有效的乘员保护系统存在挑战,因为胸部和腰椎的损伤措施超过了推荐的限制(非倾斜模式的推导)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of THOR-50M-RS under reclined seating conditions.

Objective: Testing was conducted to evaluate the performance of the THOR-50M for Reclined Seating (THOR-50M-RS) with modifications to allow for a more realistic posture and impact response under reclined seating conditions. Results were compared to tests conducted with PMHS under the same conditions.

Methods: Nine frontal sled tests were conducted using the THOR-50M-RS in a controlled response seat with the seatback angle set to 45 degrees. Three tests were conducted under each of three conditions: (1) nominal 32 km/h delta V, 4.5 kN seatbelt load limiter (LL), knee bolster condition 1 (180 mm spacing); (2) nominal 50 km/h delta V, 2.7 kN LL, knee bolster condition 1; and (3) nominal 50 km/h delta V, 2.7 kN LL, knee bolster condition 2 (100 mm spacing). The ATD was positioned using a seating procedure based on data from volunteers in reclined seats. THOR-50M-RS instrumentation prioritized channels that could be directly compared to PMHS tests, such as head, T1, and pelvis accelerations. Ten cameras were used to track matching kinematic targets for comparison. Emphasis was placed on qualitative comparison of the head, spine, hip, and knee kinematics, but differences were also quantified using Correlation and Analysis (CORA) techniques. Injury assessment reference values (IARVs) were also calculated.

Results: The ATD showed good repeatability within test conditions. Minor durability issues included pelvis flesh damage that was repaired and did not reoccur, as well as upper thigh flesh fraying at the rear seams. Comparison to kinematics from PMHS tests run in the same conditions indicated that the response of the THOR-50M-RS generally aligned well with the PMHS signals. However, the initial narrow width of PMHS corridors often led to low CORA scores, with a range of 0.03 to 0.98 across all test conditions and signals.

Conclusions: The THOR-50M-RS was able to meet target postures in reclined seats and showed good repeatability within a given test condition. These tests demonstrate the challenges of designing effective occupant protection systems for occupants in reclined postures, with chest and lumbar spine injury measures exceeding recommended limits (derived for non-reclined modes) in the higher-speed (50 km/h) testing condition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Traffic Injury Prevention
Traffic Injury Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The purpose of Traffic Injury Prevention is to bridge the disciplines of medicine, engineering, public health and traffic safety in order to foster the science of traffic injury prevention. The archival journal focuses on research, interventions and evaluations within the areas of traffic safety, crash causation, injury prevention and treatment. General topics within the journal''s scope are driver behavior, road infrastructure, emerging crash avoidance technologies, crash and injury epidemiology, alcohol and drugs, impact injury biomechanics, vehicle crashworthiness, occupant restraints, pedestrian safety, evaluation of interventions, economic consequences and emergency and clinical care with specific application to traffic injury prevention. The journal includes full length papers, review articles, case studies, brief technical notes and commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信