Assessing the Effects of Limiting on - IRCOBI · 1.5 mph). S g. 3). With the forward Fig. 2. pact...
Transcript of Assessing the Effects of Limiting on - IRCOBI · 1.5 mph). S g. 3). With the forward Fig. 2. pact...
Abstract Load limiting restraint devices used in conjunction with frontal airbags have been shown to provide
a means to reduce belt induced occupant loads and the risk of belt induced injury. These load limiting devices have become increasingly common since the mid to late 90’s and are currently commonplace in contemporary production vehicles. These devices are intended to feed out additional belt webbing during the collision when the belt loads exceed a predetermined threshold. Load limiters have been shown to reduce chest injury measures, both deflections and accelerations, in full frontal barrier impacts. During the full frontal barrier tests, however, the occupant benefits not only from the seatbelt (typically including a pretensioner), but also from full engagement of the frontal airbag. As the belt spools out webbing, it also allows additional occupant excursion. The challenge of balancing the dangers associated with this additional excursion against the potential for belt induced injury reduction has long been recognized. Unlike the full frontal test environment, real world crashes often direct the occupant off of 12 o’clock, result in additional structural intrusion, and produce longer duration crash pulses and/or include multiple impacts. This study reviews a series of selected cases in which occupant forward excursion allowed by a force limiting seatbelt resulted in injurious contact with vehicle interior structures. Often other contributing factors were involved (e.g., airbag or seatbelt malfunction, oblique collision, offset collision) that caused differences compared to what would typically be observed in the United States’ New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) barrier tests. Force limiter spoolout observed in each reviewed case is compared and contrasted to that observed in frontal NCAP tests for equivalent vehicles. Keywords Torsion Bar, Load Limiting, Belt Spoolout, Belt Payout, Offset Frontal Impact
I. INTRODUCTION
Seatbelts are often referred to as the most important and valuable safety device ever developed in the field
of automotive safety. The United States National Highway Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA)
consistently attributes the seatbelt to saving more lives than any other single crash protection device [1]. The
seatbelt also, however, has long been acknowledged as a device against which the occupant is loaded and
which has the potential itself to cause injury. Seatbelt load limiting devices have been recognized as a means to
reduce and/or control the loading between the occupant and the belt itself. Common early designs included
looped sections of seatbelt webbing that had been stitched together in such a way that the stitches would tear
at a given load resulting in additional webbing being imparted while the seatbelt load was being “limited”. The
additional webbing was also seen to result in additional occupant excursion which, in some cases, was found to
result in ineffective occupant restraint. As such, these devices were not widely used prior to the development
and incorporation of the supplemental airbag restraint.
The first NCAP was created in 1979 by NHTSA in order “to improve occupant safety by developing and
implementing meaningful and timely comparative safety information that encourages manufacturers to
voluntarily improve the safety of their vehicles” [2]. Since that time, NHTSA has added a star rating system to
the NCAP program to provide vehicle performance data to consumers in a more user‐friendly format. By
placing a simple star rating system on the vehicle’s window sales sticker, the consumer is provided a simple
comparative shopping tool. The star ratings for the NCAP’s 56 kph (35 mph) frontal impact evaluate injury
assessment of the anthropometric test devices (ATDs) in standardized crash testing (full frontal barrier at 56 kph
(35 mph)). Head injury criterion (HIC), neck injury criterion (Nij), femur loads, and chest injury criteria are all
S. Meyer is a Professional Engineer and Principal of the automotive engineering firms of Safety Analysis & Forensic Engineering (SAFE) and SAFE Laboratories, L.L.C, in Goleta, CA, USA (805‐964‐0676, [email protected]). A. Nelson and D. Hock are Senior Engineers at SAFE, L.L.C. J. McMillin is a Mathematician and Accident Reconstructionist at SAFE, L.L.C.. B. Herbst is a Professional Engineer and Principal of the automotive engineering firm SAFE Laboratories, L.L.C.
Assessing the Effects of Load Limiting Retractors on Occupant Motion
Steven E. Meyer, Arin Oliver Nelson, Davis A. Hock, Jeremy T. McMillin, Brian R. Herbst
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 114 -
considered in determining a frontal safety rating from one to five stars [3].
Load limiting seatbelts when used together with frontal airbags and pretensioners, have been shown to
reduce chest injury criteria measured by the ATDs in these full frontal barrier impacts [4]. A contemporary load
limiting device now typically incorporates a “torsion bar” within the retractor mechanism as compared to the
earlier “rip‐stitch” type stitched belt loops seen previously. The result is similar in that the torsion bar design
limits the belt load by allowing webbing to spool off the retractor when the belt load reaches a predesigned
threshold. Although this belt spoolout limits chest loading, it still correspondingly results in increased occupant
excursions. In the full frontal test mode this additional excursion is managed by the frontal airbag.
In 2007, however, Brumbelow et al. [5] reported that in evaluating the 123 passenger car frontal offset tests that had been conducted by IIHS as of June 2006, “evidence from test film and dummy instrumentation plots suggests that driver dummy head impacts into the airbag resulted in steering wheel contact in 52% of vehicles with load limiters and in 20% of vehicles without”. It was also noted that although many of these head contacts would be unlikely to cause serious injury, the contacts in about two‐thirds (2/3) of the cases produced the maximum resultant head accelerations recorded during the tests. In other words, the load limiters were allowing sufficient forward excursion that the dummies’ heads were seen to bottom out the airbag and impact the steering wheel such that the steering wheel impact itself caused the highest head accelerations recorded during the test.
Brumbelow et al. further utilized data from the 1996 through 2003 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and examined the effects of load limiters on driver fatality risk in real world crashes. They noted that because these devices were usually integrated into vehicle designs at the same time as other crashworthiness changes, it was difficult to isolate the effects of their performance, but also noted that there was “unlikely a better opportunity [i.e., in 2007] to conduct such an evaluation.” Their analysis concluded that, “Changes in driver fatality rates associated with the installation of load limiting belts in passenger cars suggests this restraint technology has not reduced and may have increased the risk of driver fatality in some crashes.” [5]
More recently, in 2013, Kahane [6] published a report, “Effectiveness of Pretensioners and Load Limiters for Enhancing Fatality Reduction by Seat Belts”, wherein he reported an estimate 12.8% lower fatality risk in passenger cars, CUVs and minivans for belted drivers or right front passengers where the belt was equipped with a pretensioner and a load limiter than if not equipped with either. Kahane’s analysis looked at FARS data for 1986 to 2011 and considered the efficacy of load limiters and pretensioners, but also noted that the published effectiveness may have, “to some extent reflected the affects of other belt or belt‐related improvements introduced in some makes and models at or about the same time as pretensioners and load limiters, such as adjustable anchors; integrated belt systems; or tuning the airbag, vehicle structure, or seats especially to improve protection for a belted occupant.”
II. METHODS
This study focuses on real world crashes involving belted front outboard occupants in various crash modes. The study presents and describes a cases series wherein forward excursion allowed by seatbelt force limiters was, for various reasons, seen to allow sufficient forward excursion to result in injurious occupant contacts with various interior surfaces. Force limiter seatbelt spoolout recorded in frontal NCAP barrier tests for each corresponding case series vehicle is reported and compared/contrasted to that observed in the individual case study. In many of the cases reviewed contributing factors included circumstances such as airbag or seatbelt malfunctions, oblique collisions or offset collisions that caused differences compared to crash circumstances and kinematics typically observed in NCAP barrier tests. NCAP Tests: Load Limiter Belt Spoolout
A review of various NHTSA NCAP tests reveals the amount of webbing added to the restraint system via deployment of the load limiter in this 56 kph (35 mph) full frontal impact into a rigid barrier. Many of these publically available tests record belt extension data along with belt force data for the driver and right front passenger ATDs. Photographic analysis of the test films and approximation of the webbing spoolout is also possible if restraint data is not recorded/reported.
A summary of various NCAP test data, including measured or photogrammetrically determined belt spoolout relative to the field cases presented below is summarized in Appendix A. In some cases, a review of head acceleration data indicates, consistent with Brumbelow, et al.’s 2007 analysis of IIHS tests [5], that load limiting equipped seatbelts may allow sufficient forward excursion of the ATD such that the head can bottom out the
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 115 -
aiacBrinreai
Fi
wthfo75spin(2Fito
Im
offrthsycr
man
foThCaad
irbag and stcceleration drumbelow’s njurious leveecorded ATDirbag penetr
ig. 1. NHTSA Additionall
was disabled”he airbag. Torward as th5 millisecondpeed of apprndicating the21.5 mph). Sg. 3). With o the forward
Fig. 2.
mpact OrientA study of
f force (PDOontal collisiohat a significystems (seatrash tests wiOffset and
may result in nd associate The signifi
or Highway She 40% overar Assessmedded a “sma
rike the hubdata shows findings, thels. Fig. 1 deD Driver’s Heation.
A #5677 2007
ly, a review ”, demonstraThis tests shoe vehicle deds into the croximately 4e dummy’s hSimilarly, thethe load limd movement
50th PercenStee
tation frontal crash
OF) is not froons are offsecant percenttbelt and froth a 12 o’clo/or angled impartial or nd forward exicance of offSafety (IIHS) rlap orientatent Program ll overlap” (2
b and/or insa spike in e complete spicts this cirad Peak G’s
7 Toyota Yar
of NHTSA Nates the effecows that, decelerates uncollision (See43 kph (27 mead impactee belted 5th iting seatbet of the ATDs
ntile Male ATering Wheel
h statistics bom straight et as opposetage of “froontal airbag)ock PDOF. mpacts will non‐engagemxcursion. fset impacts in the mid 1tion is also u(JNCAP), Au25% overlap
strument panthe head asystem in thcumstance icorresponds
is NCAP, Hea
CAP Test #6ctive occupaspite being bntil the ATD’se Fig. 2). A mph) while thed the steeripercentile felt systems ans (Note: neit
TD Contactin
y Sullivan [8ahead (12 od to occurrinntal” accide are typicall
direct vehiclment with th
is reflected i1990s of a 40used by Euroustralian New) offset front
nel. Consistcceleration is test circumin the 2007 Ts to video an
ad Peak G’s C
6946 [7] wheant excursionbelted, the 5s face impacvideo analyhe vehicle hng wheel huemale passend without ther ATDs we
ng Fig. 3
8] shows thato’clock) but ng across thnts are in faly optimized
le occupantshe frontal ai
in the test co0% overlap 6opean New w Car Assesstal test to its
tent with thwhen such mstance doeToyota Yarisnalysis of the
Correspond t
erein “the ven allowed by 50th percenticts the vehicysis indicatesas deceleratub with a relanger ATD wthe benefit oere instrume
3. 5th Percen
t for 35% of rather at ane full width act offset and to yield fav
s inboard or rbag and inc
onfiguration64 kph (40 mCar Assessmsment Progrs test matrix.
at reported contact occes prevent suNHTSA NCA
e driver’s forw
to Noted Ma
ehicle’s suppthe load limile male drivle’s steerings the head isted to approative speed as also noteof frontal airnted in this t
ntile Female A
frontal collisn angle. Simof the vehiclnd/or angledvorable injur
outboard ofcreased seat
established mph) frontal ment Programam (ANCAP).
by Brumbecurs. Also couch contact AP Test #567ward most m
aximum Forw
plemental remiter withoutver ATD contg wheel hub s still movingoximately 9 kof approximed to impact rbags, there test).
ATD Contact
sions the primilarly, morele. Such numd while the ry measures
f the airbag tbelt load lim
by the Insuinto a deform (EuroNCA). More rec
elow, the heonsistent wifrom reachi77 wherein tmovement a
ward Excursio
estraint systet the benefit tinues to moapproximateg forward atkph (5.5 mph
mately 34.5 kthe dash (Swas little lim
ting Dash
mary directioe than 50% mbers indicavehicle safe
s in full front
centerline amiter spoolo
rance Institurmable barrieP), Japan Neently, IIHS h
ad ith ng he nd
on
em of
ove ely t a h), ph ee mit
on of ate ety tal
nd out
ute er. ew has
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 116 -
cowrefreflimatsideth
Ca
seinlimPoofalloob
quwexinInva
auocspcoocwthchcotofritswcoFi
A review oollisions endwere found toeported thatontal impactffective occumiting featurt the time ognificant froepriving the he load limite
ase Series ReThe autho
equence, ananvestigationsmiter alloweotential contffset impact ong with thoad limiter spbserved in NThe includ
uantifiable awebbing loadxcursion suffncluded case nclusion of tarious height
A review outhors, incluccupant datpecific casesontact and Accupant did
wherein the ahe second imhosen to illuontributing rorsion bar spictional contself and eva
wherein quanorrespondingield Case 1 (2
Fig. 4. O
of accident ure more tho be associatt approximatt occurs initiupant restrare in the firstof secondaryontal impactoccupant ofer equipped
eview rs routinely alysis of the s this study ed forward etributing facorientation e general crpoolout is doNCAP tests ofded case seramount of marks and/ficient to resseries vehicthe case serts and weigh
of specific reauding accidea including s in which foAIS 3+ injurnot fully en
airbag deploympact, and/oustrate whenreal world cpoolout can otact (polymealuation of tntified load lg vehicle. 2007 Toyota
Offset Frontal
and injury dhan one collted with occtely half of tially or subseint can be ht impact cany, or subsequ can put anf the supplemseatbelt.
investigate restraint syshas specificaexcursions thctors are alsand/or multrash circumsocumented af the correspries was choload limiter/or inspectiosult in injuriocles were equies was nothts. The case
al world collent vehicle iphysical attrorward excury. The indngage the aiyed during ar cases whern force limitecrash characoften be evider D‐ring tratorsion bar imiter spool
a Yaris, Drive
l Impact
data by Diggision during upants in vehe multiple equent to othindered. A leave an ocuent, collisio occupant omental restra
real world stem and theally intendedhat have resuso presentedtiple impact stance and rand reportedonding caseosen based ur spoolout (on of the loaous occupanuipped with limited by
e series was
ision cases (nspections, ributes and rsion alloweividual caserbag, cases n initial imparein intrusioner allowed fteristics dissdenced by trnsferring to twist/metal out exceede
er Load Limit
Fig. 5. Drive
Durin
ges [9] indicthe crash s
ehicles that ecollision vehther impactsA collision wcupant withons. Similarout of positiaint relied u
crashes incle resulting od to identifyulted in undd and may incollisions. Tresulting kined and compa series vehicupon the au(based uponad limiters tont contact wboth pretenoccupant anlimited to inj
III. RESULTS
(case series rreview of aresulting injed by the shes selected iwherein theact and was n compromisforward excusimilar to Nransfer of mbelt webbinstriations [
ed that reco
ter spooled o
er’s Door Op
ng Collision
cates that 2equence. Cencounteredhicles suffere, the timing hich deploysout a fully inly, non‐deplon and precpon by, and
uding conduoccupant kiny and presenesirable occnclude airbaThe effected ematics and ared/contrascle. uthors’ field n observableorsion bar it
with interior vsioners as wnthropometrjury levels ab
S
review) persand/or perfojuries, is prehoulder belt included offe airbag did subsequentsed the occuursion can bCAP barrier aterial or abng under loa10,11]. Therded or obse
out ~12” wit
ened Fig
4% of vehiconsequentlya multiple ced a frontal and/or abilits an airbag flated airbagoyment leveclude deployintended to
ucting reconematics and nt individual upant kinemag or seatbeoccupant’s aoccupant inted with sea
investigatioe forensics tself [10]) whvehicle strucwell as load liry and as subove AIS 3.
onally investormance of esented withload limiter
fset and angnot deploy,ly then not fupant compae problemattests. As s
brasion to loaad) or via dise selected cerved in the
th Intrusion)
. 6. 304 mm
Belt
cles involvedy, 42% of MAcollision crasimpact first.ty of the airas well as ag and with a el impacts leyment of a o work in con
nstructions o injuries. Frcases that i
matics and reelt malfunctianthropomenjuries. Resatbelt load lim
ns which deincluding trhich allowedctures or commiters and fuch includes
tigated and reconstructh the intentr contributegled impacts, cases of mfully inflatedartment. Thetic and, thershown belowad bearing ssassembly ofcase series ie NCAP barri
m (12”) of Loa
t Spoolout
d in tow awAIS 3+ injurish. Digges al Whether tbag to provia seatbelt loloose seatbeeading up tofrontal airbanjunction wit
of the collisiom these fieillustrate foresulting injuon, oblique try is reportulting seatbemiter spoolo
emonstratedraditional bed for occupamponents. Afrontal airbags occupants
studied by tion, review tion to includ to occupas wherein t
multiple impa at the timeese cases werefore, incluw, load limiturfaces durif the retractncluded caser test for t
ad Limiter
way ies lso he de ad elt o a ag, th,
on eld rce ry. or ed elt out
d a elt ant All gs. of
he of de ant he act of ere de ter ng tor ses he
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 117 -
vewcosith
(Sfrwreasw
ofye(SATtocilim
teVwwst
pereincom
In Field Caehicle of stuwith a PDOF ollision, the de door struhe driver’s sidInspection
See Fig. 6). ontal impact
with his headegion of his ssociated witweighed appr
Similar occffset frontal ear) at approSee Fig. 8 & FTD was seeno his left (Srcumstance miter allowe
Fig. 7. IIH
Fig. 9. D
IIHS had al
est resulted ideo analysis
which allowedwith the doorteering wheeA review o
ercentile ATecorded drivn the field compartmentmeasures wer
se 1, oncomdy (See Fig. of approximdriver’s dooucture. Addide A‐pillar inof the driveThis belt spot, caused the. The driverhead with th the contaroximately 77cupant kinemtest of a 20
oximately 65Fig. 10), simin to move forSee Fig. 9). the occupan
ed forward ex
HS 50% Offse
Driver Does N
lso conductein a more frs of the loadd the head tr structure stel contact waof 2007 ToyTDs in a 12 er load limitase, howevet allowed forre below IAR
ing traffic cr4). The colmately 10‐1or unlatched itionally, thentruded into er’s belt systoolout, the e driver to mr sustained aassociated sact between 7‐82 kg (170matics were 009 Toyota 5 kph (40 mplar intrusionrward and gl Both the nt did not rexcursion.
t 65 kph (40
Not Fully Eng
ed a 40% Ovontal PDOF limiter seatto bottom otill in place, tas not aboveyota Yaris NCo’clock PDOter spoolout er, the 12 or full engageRV values (Se
rossed the rollision recon5 degrees tsuch that th
e benefit of tthe occupantem revealedleft directedmove to the ln open, depsoft tissue ahis head and‐180 lbs). observed inCamry into ph) (See Fig. was observlance off thetest and theceive the fu
mph) Fronta
gage Airbag
erlap frontathan the fiebelt spoolouut the airbathe driver ATe injury assesCAP test (NHOF and approf approxim
o’clock PDOFement of theee Appendix A
oadway centstruction indto the left, he driver wathe load trannt compartmd approximad PDOF, and left of the aipressed, comand permand the left A‐
n an IIHS cara 2009 Toyo7) [12]. Theed, the PDOe left side of he field studull benefit o
al Fig.
F
l barrier testld case or IIut showed apg and impacTD was seenssment referHTSA #5677roximately 6mately 330 mF and the lae driver ATDA).
terline resultdicated a deor counter‐as allowed tnsfer througment (See Figately 304 mmthe structurbag and agg
mminuted skuent brain inpillar. The m
r‐to‐car crashota Yaris (eqe driver’s doF was again the frontal ady demonstrf the fronta
. 8. Blue Yar
Fig. 10. Blue
t on a 2007 HS car‐to‐capproximatelyct the steerin to more furence values 7) shows driv64 kph (40 mm (13 in), sack of any sD with the fr
ting in an offeltaV approxclockwise. o travel to th the side do5). m (12 in) of ral damage gressively imull fracture tnjuries. Themale driver w
h test. The quivalent plaor in the Yarforward andairbag and imrate that inl airbag whil
is Driver’s Do
Yaris’s Door
Toyota Yarisr test and thy 406 mm (~ng wheel (Selly engage th(IARV). ver and righmph) deltaVimilar to theignificant introntal airbag
fset frontal cimately 67 kDuring this the left unimoor structur
load limiterassociated w
mpact the A‐pto the left teese head injwas 178 cm
car‐to‐car teatform to thris was againd to the left, mpact the ven such a cale also expe
oor Opens d
r Opens duri
s at 65 kph (he door rem~16 in) of seaee Appendixhe airbag an
ht front seatV impact. Te 304 mm (1trusion intog. All record
collision to tkph (~42 mpoffset front
mpeded by te was lost a
r belt spoolowith the offspillar structumporoparieturies were (70 in) tall a
est was a 50he 2007 modn seen to opand the drivhicle structur‐to‐car offsrienced a lo
uring Impact
ng Impact
40 mph). Thmained latcheatbelt spoolox B). Althoud the head‐t
ted male 50The test vid2 in) observthe occupa
ded ATD inju
he ph) tal he nd
out set ure tal all nd
0% del en ver ure set ad
t
his ed. out gh to‐
0th eo ed ant ury
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 118 -
Fi
*S
FiwoctethleFi
rerem
apexfieen
Fi
ield Case 2
Available W
Fig. 11.
Showing RF Pas
Field Case
g. 11). The was very firmccupant wasests demonsthat in the aneft, she moveg. 12 & Fig. 1Inspection
emaining avaestraint systemade during l
Fig. 1
A review
pproximatelyxceeding theeld case stungage the fro
ield Case 3 (2
(2010 Kia F
Webbing)
Offset Front
ssenger allowed
2 experiencpolice report
mly lodged bs a female, atrating frontgled frontal ed between 13). of the righ
ailable webbem anchor, oload limiter s
14. RF Load L
Webbi
of the NCAy 241 mm (9e potentiomdy. The 50tontal airbags
2005 Toyota
Fig. 16
Forte, Right
tal Impact
d to travel towa
ed an offsett narrative detween the pproximatelytal airbag dewith the PDthe two fron
ht front seabing, or appror D‐ring, arspoolout (Se
Limiter Spoo
ing, ~280 mm
AP frontal b9.5 in) of driveter’s capabth percentiles such that n
a Corolla, Dri
6. Offset Fro
t Front Load
Fig(Depic
ards Driver’s Sid
t frontal collidescribes thasteering why 150‐152 cmployment reOF and vehicntal airbags m
atbelt demoroximately 2e consistente Fig. 15).
led Out All A
m (~11 in)
arrier test fver load limitbility, as come male ATDsno ATD IARVs
iver Load Lim
ontal Impact
F
d Limiter sp
g. 12. Airbagcting Gap Betwe
de of Vehicle
ision when oat post‐accidheel of the vm (59‐60”) taeveals a gap cle rotation making fatal
nstrated loa280 mm (~11t with the tra
Available
for a 2010 ter spoolout mpared to ths in the 12 s were excee
miter spoole
t
FRONT PASSMOVEME
ooled out ~
g Deploymeneen Deployed F
opposing traent the fatalvehicle and all and approbetween thetaking the rihead contac
ad limiter d1 in) (See Figansfers note
Fig. 15.
model Kia and 240 mm
he approximo’clock PDOeded (See Ap
d out ~12”)
F
SENGER ENT
~11”, Full Sp
nt in NCAP Frontal Airbags)
ffic crossed lly injured rigthe driver’s oximately 11e driver’s andght front occct with the fr
eployment g. 14). Abraed on the we
D‐ring Abra
Spoo
Forte (NHTSm (9.4 in) on ately 280 m
OF NCAP testppendix A).
Fig. 17. 300 m
Limiter
poolout of A
) Fig. 13
Defor
into its laneght front pasright leg. T
14 kg (251#).d passenger’cupant forwront vehicle
to the full asions notedebbing and a
ded during W
olout
TSA Test #67the passeng
mm (11 in) obt were again
mm (~12”) o
Belt Spoolou
All Remainin
. Vehicle
rmation*
e of travel (Sssenger’s heThe right fro. NCAP barri’s airbags su
ward and to tstructure (S
extent of td on the uppas having be
Webbing
766) recordger side befobserved in tn seen to fu
of Load
ut
ng
ee ad ont ier ch he ee
he per en
ed ore he ully
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 119 -
ulwdeupge
wsuap
lopeth
Fi
Field Case ltimately tra
was approximemonstratedp and cut byeometry cha
Once the b
with the centustaining trapproximately
Review of oad limiter percentile frohe occupant
ield Case 4
Deploymen
3 involves aveling into omately 35 md evidence oy the latch plnges associa
belt had beeer console, umatic and y 75‐82 kg (1
the NCAP fopayout was ont seated ATcompartmen
(2010 Toy
t)
a 2005 Toyoon‐coming trmph with aof approximaate (See Fig.ated with the
Fig. 18. D
n cut, the drdash and rigpermanent 165‐180 lbs).
Fig. 19. D
or the 2003 194 mm (7.TDs moved fnt and recor
yota Prius,
Fig. 2
ota Corolla wraffic and exa PDOF forwately 300 mm. 17 & 18). Te PDOF and t
river’s Belt C
river was theght front doobrain injurie
Deformed Int
Toyota Coro.6 in) while forward squaded non‐inju
Driver Load
20. Multiple
which lost coxperiencing award and sm (~12”) of The tearing tthe significan
Cut via Ropin
en free to traor before ultes (See Fig. 1
terior and Ri
olla (NHTSA the passengarely into thurious IARVs
d Limiter sp
Angled Fron
ontrol in a dan offset froignificantly webbing spothe belt was nt belt spool
ng in the Latc
avel across ttimately bein19). The driv
ght Front Do
Test #4266)ger side washe frontal air(See Appen
pooled out
ntal Impacts
dangerous sental collisionto the righoolout befordetermined out.
ch Plate
the occupantng ejected over was 175‐
oor Structure
reveals thas 278 mm (rbags with ndix A).
~23”, Mult
ection of cun (See Fig. 16ht. The drire the belt b to be assoc
t compartmeout the right‐178 cm (69‐
e
at the driver 10.9 in). Ago significant
tiple Impact
rved roadwa6). The deltiver’s seatbebecame bouiated with be
ent interacti front windo‐70 in) tall a
side recordgain, the 50t intrusion in
t/Prior Airba
ay, aV elt nd elt
ng ow nd
ed 0th nto
ag
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 120 -
tuthinremseapimlimabsucoexch
F
limsefr
Fi
hydeth(m
Field Case urned left in he subject venvolved multevealed loadmodule data, everal inchespproximatelympact such tmiter would ble to spoolouch, the drivolumn was fxcursion. Thhest and abd
Fig. 21. 590 m
A review o
miter spooloeatbelt failedontal airbag
ield Case 5 (2
Field Case
ydroplaned, eploy and thhe A‐pillar (Smid 30’s mph
4 experiencefront of theehicle acrostiple frontal limiter spooresulted in s of load limy 48 kph (30that at the talso have spout further, ver was allowfound strokehe male drivdominal trau
mm (~23”) o
of the NCAP out for the d after 44 ms and record
2010 Mini Co
Fig. 24. O
5 experienlost control,he driver’s siSee Fig. 24 &h).
ed an intersee subject vehs the interseimpacts. Tholout of appa deltaV of iter spoolou0 mph). The time of the pooled out dhowever, a
wed to moveed and the ver was repoma.
of Load Limite
data for thedriver ATD’sm (1.7 in) ofded no injury
ooper Clubm
Offset Front
nced an offs, and crossedide door unl
& Fig. 25). Th
ection collisihicle. This reection and ihe frontal airoximately 5approximatet. The seconairbag contsecond impduring the int this point e aggressiveloccupant suorted as bein
er Belt Spoo
e 2005 Toyots seatbelt af spoolout. y measures a
man, Driver L
al Impact
set frontal cd into its lanatched, resuhe PDOF was
ion when anesulted in annto a concrrbag deploy590 mm (23 ely 51 kph (3nd frontal imrol module iact the airbnitial impact the airbag wly forward inustained fatng 183 cm (
lout Fig
D
ta Prius (NHnd that the Both 50th peabove IARVs.
Load Limiter
collision whne of travel. ulting in the s to the left o
other vehicln initial vehicete barrier (ed and physin) (See Fig. 32 mph), sufmpact was esindicated thaag would hasuch that atwould have nto the steeal traumatic72 in), 109
g. 22. Abrade
river’s D‐ring
TSA Test #55data chann
ercentile ma
spooled out
Fig. 25. D
en a vehicleDuring the closs of suppof forward a
e, that had fcle‐to‐vehicle(See Fig. 20)sical evidenc21). The inifficient to destimated to hat the airbagave been pat the time ofbeen less thring wheel (c injuries asskg (240 lbs)
ed
g
Fi
587) reportsnel for the rle ATDs wer
t ~17”, No Ai
river’s Airba
Failed to Re
e traveling collision, theporting side and the delta
failed to yiele impact wh). This collice on the dritial impact, eploy the airhave producg had deployartially deflatf the secondhan optimall(See Fig. 23)sociated witand sustain
ig. 23. Strok
Colum
s 325 mm (1right front pre seen to fu
irbag & Intru
ag Did Not De
emain Closed
in the oppoe vehicle’s aistructure anaV was in the
d right of wahich redirectsion therefoiver’s webbiper the airbrbag as well ced a deltaV yed at the firted. The lod impact it wy inflated. . The steerith his forwaned fatal hea
ed Steering
mn
12.8 in) of lopassenger ATully engage t
usion)
eploy, Door
d
osite directiorbags failed nd intrusion e mid 50’s k
ay, ed ore ng bag as of rst ad
was As ng ard ad,
ad TD he
on to of ph
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 121 -
bemap
ofre
Fi
Fi
it defraibeinmfrcm
Evidence foelt to be sp
multiple skullpproximately
A review of load limiterecorded.
ield Case 6
Deploymen
g. 27. Multi
Field Case ultimately ieployed durontal embanirbags as theelted front snto the occupmm (22 in) suactures resum (69‐70 in)
F
ound on theooled out o fractures asy 183 cm (72
of the NCAP fr payout for
(2008 Kia S
t)
ple Frontal I
6 experienceimpacted aning a curb imnkment collisey had deploseat occupanpant compauch that his ulting in permtall and weig
Fig. 30. 560 m
e seatbelt weof the retracs a result of2 in) and 111
Fig. 26.
for the 2008the driver 5
Spectra, Rig
mpacts
ed a loss of cn embankmempact as thesion, the occoyed previounts as well artment was head was abmanent quadghed approx
mm (~22”) o
ebbing indicactor (See Figf contact wit1 kg (244 lbs)
432 mm (~1
8 Mini Coope0th percentil
ght Front Lo
Fig. 28
Com
control withent (See Fig.e vehicle exitcupants did usly at the cus an unbelteobserved. Tble to make driplegia (Seeximately 75‐7
of Load Limite
ates the loadg. 26). The th the A‐pill).
17”) of Load
er (NHTSA Tee male ATD.
oad Limiter s
8. Occupant
mpartment
the car exit 27). The vted the roadnot have theurb. At the ed occupantThe right froforcible cone Fig. 28, 30 77 kg (165‐17
er Belt Spoo
d limiter allodriver movear and was
Limiter Belt S
est #6291) re The airbag
spooled out
F
ing the roadvehicle’s frondway such the benefit of time of the t in the rear nt occupantntact with th& 31). The m70 lbs).
lout
owed approxed forward killed. The
Spoolout
evealed apprdeployed an
t ~22”, Mult
Fig. 29. Occu
way into thental airbags hat at the timinteracting wcollision theseating area’s belt spoole front headmale right fro
Fig
ximately 432and to the male driver
roximately 3nd no injurio
ltiple Impact
upant Compa
e adjacent shwere determme of the mwith a fully ie vehicle waa. No signifled out apprder structureont occupan
g. 31. Abrad
mm (17 in) left sustainir’s stature w
330 mm (13 ous IARVs we
t Prior Airba
artment
houlder whemined to ha
more significanflated fronts carrying twicant intrusioroximately 5e causing nent was 175‐1
ded D‐ring
of ng
was
in) ere
ag
ere ve ant tal wo on 60 eck 78
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 122 -
todeocw
29fu
Fi
a evspm
pelimfr
re
th
pr
al
pr
ty
sp
The disasseo 60 degreeeformation (ccupant, 3 ½
webbing. A review o
92 mm (11.5ully engage t
ield Case 7 (2
In Field Caslarge tree (vidence of lpoolout of grmultiple facia
Fig
A review o
ercentile ATmiter spooloontal airbag
Retractor b
elative to fro
hese systems
rovided the
so producin
rovide an op
ypically desig
poolout. In c
embled retraes of twist (See Fig. 29)½ rotations i
of the NCAP 5 in) of load he frontal ai
2005 Mazda
Fig. 32. N
se 7, the vehSee Fig. 32)oad limiter reater than 5l fractures. T
g. 34. ≥ 560
of 2004 MaTDs, 12 o’cloout was apprs deployed a
based seatb
ontal impact
s’ ability to p
full benefit
ng fairly sho
ptimum envi
gned with co
contrast, a r
actor revealindicating it). Given theis consistent
for a 2007 limiter spoorbag and the
a 3, Driver Lo
Narrow Obje
hicle exited t. The vehicspoolout (S560 mm (22 The male dri
mm (~22”) o
azda 3 NCAPock PDOF anroximately 4and recorded
elt load limi
protection [
produce non
of timely de
ort duration
ironment for
onstant dep
eview of fiel
ed the torsiot allowed the amount oft with the ap
model year lout for the e injury meas
oad Limiter s
ect Frontal Im
the roadway le’s frontal aSee Fig. 33).in) (See Fig.iver was 185
of Load Limit
P test (NHTSnd deltaV of428 mm (16.9d ATD injury
IV
ters used in
6]. A review
n‐injurious in
eployed fron
crash pulse
r the seatbe
loyment thr
d accident d
on bar comphe webbingf webbing thpproximately
Kia Spectra right front 5sures record
spooled out ≥
mpact
after swervairbags faile. D‐ring loa. 34). In this5 cm (73 in) t
ter Belt Spoo
SA #4864) sf approximat9 in) and 56measures w
V. DISCUSSIO
conjunction
w of the case
njury measur
ntal airbags
es, no vehicl
elt/airbag sys
resholds and
data indicate
ponent of thg spool to rhat would bey 560 mm (2
(NHTSA Tes50th percentilded by the AT
≥ 22”, No Air
ing to avoid ed to deploy ad marks ons case, the dall and weig
olout
shows a drivtely 64 kph 8 mm (22.4
were below IA
ON
n with fronta
e series vehic
res. The occ
and 12 o’clo
le rotation,
stem to wor
d without pr
es that 24% o
e load limiterotate 3 ½ e present on22 in) of tra
t# 5906) demle male ATD.TD are below
rbag Deploy
Fig. 33
an animal anand the sea
n the webbiriver’s injuriehed 82 kg (1
Fig
ver and righ(40 mph). in) for the rARV values (S
al airbags ha
cle NCAP tes
cupants in th
ock PDOFs.
no notable
k together.
ractical limita
of vehicle inv
er to have etimes durinn the spool wansfer marks
monstrates . The ATD isw IARVs.
yment)
3. Driver’s A
Not Deplo
nd ultimatelatbelt demoing indicate es were fata180 lbs).
g. 35. Abrad
ht front seaThe reporte
right front pSee Appendi
ave become
sts supports
hese tests ar
These barrie
intrusion, a
Seatbelt loa
ations as to
volved tow a
xperienced ng torsion bwith this sizs noted on t
approximates again seen
Airbag did
oy
y collided wionstrated cleshoulder be
al and includ
ed D‐ring
ated male 50ed driver loassenger. Tx A).
commonpla
the efficacy
re consistent
er impacts a
and effective
ad limiters a
the extent
away collisio
up bar ed he
ely to
ith ear elt ed
0th ad he
ace
of
tly
are
ely
are
of
ons
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 123 -
and 42% of resulting MAIS 3+ injuries were attributable to occupants involved in multiple impact collisions [9].
Moreover, 35% of the most common frontal crash mode involve angular frontal impacts with PDOFs different
than the 12 o’clock PDOF seen in the full barrier crash tests [8]. Additionally, more than 50% of frontal collisions
are described at offset as opposed to full width [8]. These real world type crashes will include not only multiple
type impacts, but longer duration crash pulses, vehicle rotations, and impact force directions that will move the
occupant away from the centerline of the airbag. These real world crashes will also often result in varying
degrees of intrusion, all of which greatly enhance the risk of excursion related injuries that may, or may not be,
alleviated by the frontal airbag.
The case series reviewed included cases that were selected targeting these specific types of kinematic
phenomenon that differentiate these real world collisions from the NCAP tests in terms of both collision
characteristics as well as occupant size versus NCAP employed ATDs. While the NCAP events are full frontal
with 50th percentile ATDs, limited to no intrusion and well performing airbags with predictable occupant
kinematics, the included case series specifically targeted inclusion of case studies wherein various sized
occupants were seen to experience significant forward excursion, while spooling out load limiter provided
shoulder belt webbing, such that injurious contact with vehicle interior structures was allowed.
In Field Cases 1 & 2, the load limiter spoolout observed was similar to that observed in the NCAP test,
however, vehicle intrusion and/or oblique angles of impact force contributed to injurious vehicle interior
contacts. In Field Cases 4, 5 & 6, field load limiter spoolout was observed to be significantly more, in Cases 4 &
6 nearly twice, than that observed in the NCAP test environment. In Field Case 4, this was likely due to multiple
impact circumstance providing two load limiter deploying events in addition to a second event having occurred
with a previously deployed airbag. This case also included a 183 cm (72 in), 109 kg (240 lb) occupant as
compared to the 175 cm (69 in), 78 kg (172 lbs) HIII ATD used in the NCAP tests. The larger occupant will of
course provide a greater force demand on the load limiter.
Field Case 6, although having a similar sized occupant to the HIII ATD, nearly twice the amount of load limiter
spoolout was observed than that reported in the NCAP test. This case again, however, involves a previously
deployed airbag that would have been less than optimally inflated at the time of the load limiter deploying
impact. Field Case 5 & 7 again highlight the importance of occupant‐to‐airbag interaction such that in these
studies the airbag did not deploy at all and the load limiter spoolout was again seen to be significantly greater
than that observed in the NCAP test. This is true with both the larger occupant in Field Case 5 (111 kg/244 lbs)
as well as in the closer to the 50th percentile occupant in Field Case 7 (82 kg/180 lbs).
This case series review suggests that although current airbag/load limiter tuning may be effective in
reducing injury measures in the NCAP test environment, the extent of belt spoolout allowed when other
contributing factors described above are present may result in injurious occupant excursions and contacts. In
these cases, the occupant was rarely seen to move forward into the center of a timely deployed frontal airbag
and illustrate specific circumstances in which occupant forward excursion with load limited restraints allowing
injurious contact with vehicle interior structures. These cases demonstrated characteristics that are not
typically observed in full frontal tests such as those of NCAP. Any reduction in chest injury measures provided
by the load limiter must be balanced against risk of excursion related injuries. In the case series, these injuries
are significantly affected by the occupants’ interaction with the airbag. Non‐injurious load limiter spoolout in an
NCAP environment is seen in the case series to become injurious with intrusion and/or oblique or angled
kinematics. The case series also suggests that forward kinematics, typically seen to be non‐injurious in the
NCAP environment, can result in significantly increased load limiter spoolout in multiple impact circumstances
or failure to deploy circumstances.
Limitations of Analysis
This study specifically intended to seek out and present cases that illustrate when forward excursion allowed by load limiters can be problematic. As such, the results are not intended to suggest that any additional forward excursion allowed by the inclusion of a load limiter in a particular broadly described crash mode (e.g. frontal impacts) would be undesirable, but rather highlights and describes kinematics that may be observed in specific circumstances.
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 124 -
V. REFERENCES
[1] NHTSA, “Lives Saved by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Other vehicle Safety Technologies,
1960‐2002”, DOT HS 809 833, October 2004.
[2] NHTSA, “The New Car Assessment Program Suggested Approaches for Future Program Enhancements”, DOT
HS 810 698, January 2007.
[3] Sohr, S, Heym, A. “Benefit of Adaptive Occupant Restraint Systems with Focus on the New US‐NCAP Rating
Requirements,” 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Paper
Number 09‐0322, June 15‐18, 2009.
[4] NHTSA, “The NCAP Test Improvements with Pretensioners and Load Limiters,” Evaluations Note, DOT HS 809
563, March 2003.
[5] Brumbelow, M, Baker, B, Nolan, J. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). “Effects of Seat Belt Load
Limiters on Driver Fatalities in Frontal Crashes of Passenger Cars,” 20th International Technical Conference
on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Paper Number 07‐0067, June 18‐21, 2007.
[4] NHTSA, “The NCAP Test Improvements with Pretensioners and Load Limiters,” Evaluations Note, DOT HS 809
563, March 2003.
[6] Kahane, C. “Effectiveness of Pretensioners and Load Limiters for Enhancing Fatality Reduction by Seat Belts,”
NHTSA, DOT HS 811 835, November 2013.
[7] NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC). “2005 Honda Odyssey into a High Resolution Load Cell
Barrier,” NHTSA Test #6946, Test Date: May 13, 2010.
[8] Sullivan, K, Henry, S, and Laituri, T. "A Frontal Impact Taxonomy for USA Field Data," Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) World Congress, Paper SAE 2008‐01‐0526, 2008.
[9] Digges, K, Bahouth, G. “Frequency of Injuries in Multiple Impact Crashes,” 47th Annual Proceedings
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), September 22‐24, 2003. [10] Meyer, S, Hock, D, Oliver, A, Herbst, B. “Forensic Analysis of Belt Use Evidence in Rollover Crashes: A
Methodology,” Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Paper IMECE2010‐37925, November 12‐18, 2010.
[11] Jenkins, J, Steffens, C, Turvill, W. “Forensic Analysis of Seat Belt Retractor Torsion Bars,” SAE World Congress, Paper SAE 2009‐01‐1242, 2009.
[12] Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Crashworthiness Evaluation. “Crash Test Report 2009 Toyota Yaris,”
Test CF09001B, Test Date: February 10, 2009.
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 125 -
VI. APPEN
DIX A
TABLE
1
NCAP & Field Case Data
Field
Case
/ Test #
NCAP Vehicle
(Equivalent
Model Years),
Field Veh
icle
ATD
Size &
Max Belt Load
s (Shoulder / Lap)
Injury M
easurements
NCAP Belt Spoolout
Field Case
Spool
out
Occupan
t Location/
Gender/
Stature
Injury
Accident
Data
Field
Case #1
/
NHTSA
#5677
2007 Toyota
Yaris,
(2006‐2009),
2007 Toyota
Yaris
LF, 50th M
ATD
: 3743 N / 6935 N
RF, 50th M
ATD
: 4125 N / 9815 N
LFRF
HIC
427
485
Chest
Accel
45 g
48 g
Chest
Defl
22
mm
25
mm
Not Reported
Video
Analysis indicates:
LF: ~13” (~330 m
m) spoolout
12”
(304 m
m)
LF,
M,
5’10”,
170‐180#
Skull
fractures &
permanen
t brain
injuries
Left Offset,
~‐10 to ‐15⁰
PDOF,
~42 m
ph ΔV
Field
Case #2
/
NHTSA
#6766
2010 Kia Forte
4‐dr,
(2009‐2012),
2010 Kia Forte
2‐dr
LF, 50th M
ATD
: 7298 N / 8686 N
RF, 50th M
ATD
: 6819 N / 9397 N
LFRF
HIC
332.8
461.9
Chest
Accel
43.7 g
38.3 g
Chest
Defl
27.6
mm
30.9
mm
LF
RF
Pretens
1.3”
(34 m
m)
1.1”
(29 m
m)
Spool
out
9.5”
(34 + 207
mm)
9.4+”
(29 + 211 m
m
before
exceed
ing
Potentiometer)
All
available
web
bing:
~11”
(~280
mm)
RF,
F,
4’11”‐5’,
251#
Fatal head
injuries
Left Offset
Field
Case #3
/
NHTSA
#4266
2003 Toyota
Corolla 4‐dr,
(2003‐2006),
2005 Toyota
Corolla 4‐dr
LF, 50th M
ATD
: 4887 N / 7610 N
RF, 50th M
ATD
: 4886 N / 8263 N
LFRF
HIC
435.5
391.9
Chest
Accel
42.4 g
41.4 g
Chest
Defl
28.7
mm
22.1
mm
LF
RF
Pretens
1.9”
(48 m
m)
2.2”
(55 m
m)
Spool
out
7.6”
(48 + 146.3
mm)
10.9”
(55 + 222.5 m
m)
~12”
(300 m
m)
LF,
M,
5’9‐10”,
165‐180#
Traumatic
and
permanen
t brain
injuries
Right
Offset,
Forw
ard &
significantly
to Right
PDOF,
~35 m
ph ΔV
Field
Case #4
/
NHTSA
#5587
2005 Toyota
Prius,
(Gen 2: ’03‐09)
(Gen 3: ’10‐15),
2010 Toyota
Prius
LF, 50th M
ATD
: 6500 N / 9311 N
RF, 50th M
ATD
: 5749 N / 9175 N
LFRF
HIC
511.2
430.9
Chest
Accel
45.8 g
45.7 g
Chest
Defl
24.7
mm
24.7
mm
LF
RF
Pretens
1.9”
(47 m
m)
1.7”
(44 m
m)
Spool
out
12.8”
(47 + 278
mm)
Channel failed
after ~1.7” (44
mm) of spoolout
~23”
(590 m
m)
LF,
M,
6’,
252#
Fatal head,
chest &
abdominal
trauma
Multiple
frontal
impacts,
both
~30mph ΔV,
Prior Airbag
Dep
loym
ent
Field
Case #5
/
NHTSA
#6291
2008 M
ini
Cooper 2‐dr,
(2007‐2010),
2010 M
ini
Cooper
Clubman
LF, 50th M
ATD
: 4935 N / 8868 N
RF, 50th M
ATD
: 4555 N / 8908 N
LFRF
HIC
379.4
622.2
Chest
Accel
47.7 g
45.9 g
Chest
Defl
27.1
mm
31.8
mm
Not Reported
Video
Analysis indicates:
LF: ~2” (~51 m
m) pretens &
~13” (~330 m
m) spoolout
~17”
(432 m
m)
LF,
M,
6’,
244#
Fatal,
Multiple
skull
fractures
Left Offset,
Left PDOF,
Mid 30’s
mph ΔV,
No Airbag
Dep
loym
ent
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 126 -
/ C C
Vi d
Field
Case
/ Test #
NCAP Ve
(Equiva
Model Ye
Field Ve
Field
ase #6
/
NHTSA
#5906
2007 K
Spectra 4
(2004‐20
2008 K
Spectra
Field
ase #7
/
NHTSA
#4864
2004 M
a4‐dr
(2003‐20
2005 M
a4‐dr
deo
Analysis
Field Case # 1 ~e
hicle
lent
ears),
hicle
ATD
Siz
Max Belt
(Shoulder
Kia
4‐dr,
008),
Kia
4‐dr
LF, 50th M
5088 N / 7
RF, 50th M
2531 N / 6
zda 3
, 008),
zda 3
r
LF, 50th M
3587 N / 8
RF, 50th M
3779 N / 9
1 / NHTSA #5677 2
~ 330 m
m (~13”) Bze
&
Load
s r / Lap)
Injury M
M ATD
: 7144 N
M ATD
: 6172 N
HIC
Chest
Accel
Chest
Defl
M ATD
: 8580 N
M ATD
: 9396 N
HIC
Chest
Accel
Chest
Defl
2007 Toyota Yaris
Belt Spoolout
Measurements
LFRF
500.5
344.2
43.3 g
38.6 g
25.7
mm
25.4
mm
LFRF
498.7
296.3
45.1 g
48.3 g
21.2
mm
24.4
mm
s NCAP,
NCAP Be
Not R
Video
Analy
RF: ~2.5” (~64
~11.5” (~292
LF
Pretens
0.0”
(0 m
m)
Spool
out
16.9”
(428 m
mlt Spoolout
eported
ysis indicates:
4 m
m) pretens &
2 m
m) spoolout RF
) 0.0”
(0 m
m)
m)
22.4”
(568 m
m)
Field Case #5
/~ 3
Field Case
Spool
out
~22”
(560 m
m)
≥ 22”
(~560
mm)
/ NHTSA #6291 20
330 m
m (~13”) Be
Occupan
t Location/
Gender/
Stature
In
RF,
M,
5’ 9
‐10”,
165‐170#
Nfra
quad
LF,
M,
6’1”,
180#
Finj
Inc
mf
fra
008 M
ini Cooper
elt Spoolout
njury
Acciden
Data
Neck
ctures,
driplegia
Multiple
frontal
impacts
Prior Airb
Dep
loym
e
Fatal
juries,
cluding
ultiple
facial
actures
Narrow
object
frontal
impact,
No Airba
Dep
loym
e
NCAP,
t e s,
bag
ent
w , ag
ent
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 127 -
Field Case #6
/
~ NHTSA #5906 20
64 m
m (~2.5”) Be007 Kia Spectra 4‐
elt Pretension
dr Sedan,
Field Case #6
/ N
~ 2N
HTSA #5906 200
292 m
m (~11.5”) B07 Kia Spectra 4‐d
Belt Spoolout
r Sedan,
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 128 -
IIHS 2007 Toyota Yaris
V
s Moderate O
VII. APPENDIX
Overlap Fron
X B
ntal, ~ 406 mm (~16”) Bellt Spoolout
IRC-15-21 IRCOBI Conference 2015
- 129 -