Responses of the scaled pediatric human body model in the rear- and forward-facing child seats in simulated frontal motor vehicle crashes

Abstract

Objective: The study presents the first-ever endeavor at developing 18-, 24-, 30-, 36-, 42-, and 48-month-old pediatric finite element models from the 6-year-old PIPER human body model as a baseline and comparing their responses systematically in rear-facing and forward-facing simulations across similar boundary conditions.

Methods: A 6-year-old PIPER model was scaled down to create anthropometric models of the 18-, 24-, 30-, 36-, 42-, and 48-month-old child using the PIPER scaling tool. The models were installed on a convertible car seat (rear-facing and forward-facing configurations) installed with a 3-point lap–shoulder belt in the rear outboard seat of a 2012 Toyota Camry vehicle model finite element model and setup for full-frontal crash simulation (24 G, 120 ms pulse).

Results: The forward-facing models showed higher head resultant accelerations for 24-, 36-, 42-, and 48-month-old models (reduction for rear-facing seats ranging from 10% to 32%). For the 18- and 30-month-old models, the maximum head acceleration showed similar values (difference of less than 10%). Upper neck forces and moments were consistently lower for rear-facing models compared to forward-facing. The neck forces were reduced by 83%–90% and the neck moments were reduced by 63%–85% in the rear-facing models compared to their respective forward-facing configurations. The reduction in head injury criterion (HIC₃₆) for rear-facing models ranged from 14% to 51%. The neck injury criterion (N_ij) for all forward-facing models was 6 to 9 times the values of their rear-facing counterpart.

Conclusions: The study shows the potential benefit of rear-facing orientation compared to forward-facing for children up to 4 years of age in a controlled environment.

Keywords:

• Biomechanics
• pediatrics
• child safety
• child restraining seats
• frontal impacts
• human body model
• finite element analysis

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Center for Child Injury Prevention Studies (CChIPS) at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the Ohio State University (OSU) for sponsoring this study and its Industry Advisory Board (IAB) members for their support, valuable input, and advice. The views presented here are solely those of the authors and not necessarily the views of CHOP, CIRP, or IAB members.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.