Prepared for Lifebeltlifebeltsafety.com.au/Lifebelt Test Report 30June10.pdfHIE TEST REPORT NO. P10-010 Testing at Autoliv 30 June 2010 Prepared for Lifebelt CONFIDENTIAL 30 June 2010

HUMAN IMPACT ENGINEERING is a registered trading name of Forster & Gibson Pty Ltd

ABN 79 079 040 789 / ACN 079 040 789

Unit 3/36 Albert Street, St. Peters NSW 2044 Australia

PHONE +61 2 9557 0933 FAX +61 2 9557 0096

EMAIL [email protected] WEB http://www.humanimpacteng.com

HIE TEST REPORT NO. P10-010

Testing at Autoliv 30 June 2010

Prepared for Lifebelt

CONFIDENTIAL

30 June 2010

HIE Report No. P10-010 | 30 June 2010 2

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3

2. HONDA JAZZ STANDARD CONTROL TESTS ................. ............................................... 4

3. PERFORMANCE OF LIFEBELT HIII F5 ................... ........................................................ 7

4. PERFORMANCE OF LIFEBELT WITH HIII 50M ............. ................................................ 10

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................ ....................................................... 14


1. Introduction This report is prepared on instructions from Dr Lui Pisaniello provided on 10 June 2010. The following comparisons were requested:

• Two control tests (Crashlab 06/9 standard belt with Honda rear seat and Autoliv 05/10 D1-4260 standard belt with foam seat) using the 5th percentile HIII F (female) dummy

• Two LifeBelt tests (Autoliv 02/10 D1-4189 LifeBelt with standard Honda rear seat and Autoliv 05/10 D1-4258 LifeBelt with foam seat) using the 5th percentile HIII F (female) dummy.

• The LifeBelt test (Autoliv D1-4259 LifeBelt and foam seat) using 50th percentile male H3 dummy.

The test parameters for these five tests are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of the Test configurations compared in this report. Test # Seatbelt

Geometry Dummy Seat Knee

impact Test Facility

Test Date

Control 1 (S090258)

Standard Honda Jazz

5th% F HIII Standard Honda Jazz

No Crashlab 06/09

Control 2 (D1-4260)

Standard Honda Jazz

5th% F HIII Foam Seat Yes Autoliv 05/10

Lifebelt 1 (D1-4189)

Lifebelt 5th% F HIII Standard Honda Jazz

Yes Autoliv 02/10


Lifebelt 5th% F HIII Foam Seat Yes Autoliv 05/10


Lifebelt 50th% M HIII Foam Seat Yes Autoliv 05/10

The Lifebelt seatbelt system was initially tested on a 2003 Honda Jazz single rear seat. This seat was chosen for testing as it is a standard folding rear seat typical of a range of vehicles currently on the market. The seat is secured to the vehicle by two bolts at the base of the seatback, allowing an adaptable seating system which is now necessary for the rear of small vehicles. The seat has a rigid flat seat base covered by a relatively thin layer of foam and does not incorporate any form of anti-submarining device. The later tests are using a simple foam seat base match in terms of stiffness to a typical rear sear.


2. Honda Jazz Standard Control Tests The Honda Jazz single rear seat has a standard 3 point lap sash seatbelt geometry, see Figure 1.

Figure 1 2003 Honda Jazz rear seat standard seatbel t configuration.

Two tests were performed with a 5th percentile female Hybrid III dummy restrained by the standard Honda seatbelt configuration in a standard Honda Jazz rear seat. Table 2 outlines the test parameters of the two tests.

Table 2 Test parameters of the two Honda Jazz Stand ard Seatbelt Configuration Tests Parameter Control

Test # 1 (S090258)

Control Test # 2

(D1-4260) Test Date June 2009 May 2010 Test Facility Crashlab Autoliv Seatbelt configuration Honda Improved Seat Base Honda Foam Knee impact No Yes Sled pulse acceleration 27.5g 28.7g Impact velocity 43.7km/hr 50km/hr

Control Test # 1 used the standard Honda seat belt geometry. This test resulted in the dummy submarining, with the lap belt riding above the right and left ASIS and penetrating into the dummy’s abdomen, see Figure 2. This test did not have a knee bolster. Control Test #2 used an improved geometry for the seat belt reflecting some changes that occurred as the lifebelt was developed. This test also resulted in the dummy submarining, with the lap belt riding above the left ASIS and penetrating into the dummy’s abdomen to a lesser extent, see Figure 3. This test was compromised to some extent as a result of the knee bolster support breaking during the impact, most likely due to the repeated test impacts.


Figure 2 Left - Position of the lap belt in the dum my’s abdomen (arrowed) following Control Test #1.

Right - Position of the lap belt above the left ASI S (arrowed) following Control Test #2. Note that th e other lap belt is a safety strap.

Table 2 compares the peak response values for the dummies during the tests. The Injury Assessment Reference Values IARVs1 are included in Table 2 for comparison. (An IARV is an industry accepted dummy response value where the risk of significant injury (or AIS32) to a vehicle occupant would be unlikely, less than 5% risk). The areas of concern in terms of dummy loading during the tests are shown in yellow highlight and consist of high (with respect to the IARVs) loading) these areas of high loading are to the dummy chest and the tensile load at the upper neck.

1 Mertz (1984) “Injury assessment values used to evaluate Hybrid III response measurements.” 2 Abbreviated Injury Scale AIS is a standard triage scale for impact injury, from 0 for no injury to 6 for fatal.


Table 2 Comparison of peak response values for the two Control Tests. The missing values are due to th e differing data collected by the labs.

Parameter Unit

Control Test #1 (S090258)

Control Test #2 (D1-4260) max/min

HIII 5F dummy

IARV max / min

resultant head acceleration (3ms) g 71.7 193 resultant head acceleration g 72.7 HIC36 999 HIC15 598 779 HIC 1161

resultant chest acceleration (3ms) g 52.4 horizontal head acceleration g -52.4 -44.1 193 lateral head acceleration g -8.2 11.2 vertical head acceleration g 74.4 70.3 horizontal chest acceleration g -79.8 -52.5 73 lateral chest acceleration g 11.4 7.7 vertical chest acceleration g -24.1 18.6 vertical chest acceleration (3ms) g 12.3 chest compression mm -51 -56 41 viscous criteria V.C 0.82 1.0

upper sternum deflection rate m/s -3.59 8.2 lower sternum deflection rate m/s -3.59 8.2 upper neck force FX kN -1.7 -1.22 1.95 upper neck force FY kN 0.4 0.51 1.95 upper neck force FZ kN 2.7 2.54 2.07 upper neck moment MX Nm -25.8 14.2

upper neck moment MY Nm -60 58.7 95 (flexion) 39 (extension)

upper neck moment MZ Nm 14 11.5 femur force left FZ kN -0.9 2 -6.19 femur force right FZ kN -0.8 -2.27 -6.19 resultant pelvis acceleration g 55.4 horizontal pelvis acceleration g -43.3 -54.4 lateral pelvis acceleration g 13.7 7.8 vertical pelvis acceleration g -31.7 -32 shoulder belt force kN 6.6 8.41


3. Performance of Lifebelt HIII F5 The Lifebelt seatbelt configuration, see Figure 3, consists of a standard sash belt which from the fixed retractor goes to the D ring at the upper sash mount, latches into the buckle positioned in a standard 45o angled orientation on the left. The lap belt consists of an upper lap belt which travels across the lap from left to right in a standard manner and through a D ring on the right hand side. The lower lap belt runs along the length of the femur on the right hand side to a second D ring located approximately mid thigh, and then travels under the mid thigh to an anchorage point positioned square with the D ring, on the left hand side. This is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Lifebelt Seatbelt Configuration in the Hon da seat, front (left) and side (right).

Two tests were performed with this seatbelt geometry using a Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy, Lifebelt Test #1 and Lifebelt Test # 2. Table 3 outlines the test parameters of the two tests. Table 3 Test parameters of the two Lifebelt Seatbel t Configuration Tests with 5 th percentile female dummy

Parameter Lifebelt Test # 1

(D1-4189)

Lifebelt Test # 2

(D1-4258) Test Date 2/10 5/10 Test Facility Autoliv Autoliv Seatbelt configuration Lifebelt Lifebelt Seat Base Honda Foam Knee impact Yes Yes Sled pulse acceleration 28.5g 29.1g Impact velocity 49.4km/hr 50.3km/hr

The first test was performed on the standard Honda Jazz rear seat, see Figure 4. The Lifebelt performed well restraining the dummy in the seat. The upper lap belt did however show signs of the belt rising onto the right ASIS, see Figure 5. Following this test a slight change to the The second test was performed with a soft foam seat base, see Figure 4. The Lifebelt performed very well in this test, with no signs of submarining or dummy instability, see Figure 6.


Figure 4 (left) Pre Lifebelt Test #1. Testing with Lifebelt geometry and standard seat base. (right) P re Lifebelt Test #2. Testing with Lifebelt geometry and foam se at base. Note that the other belt in the lap area i s a safety

catch strap.

Figure 5 Post Lifebelt Test #1. Note the final posi tion of the upper lap belt on the right ASIS.

Figure 6 Post Lifebelt Test #2. Note the final posi tion of the lap belt below the ASIS on both sides.


Table 4 compares the peak response values for the dummy during the tests. Again these values are compared with IARVs for the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy for meaning. The only area of high loading is the thoracic deflection, which exceeds the IARV.

Table 4 Comparison of peak response values for the Lifebelt Test #1 and Test #2, with the HIII 50 th%tile female IRAVs.

Parameter Unit

Lifebelt Test #1 (D1-4189)

Lifebelt Test #2 (D1-4258)

HIII 5F dummy

IARV max / min max / min

resultant head acceleration (3ms) g 64.4 58.8 193 resultant head acceleration g 65.8 60.9 HIC36 687 639 HIC15 423 367 779 HIC 849 757

resultant chest acceleration (3ms) g 53.5 53.8 73 horizontal head acceleration g -43 -33.3 lateral head acceleration g -19.8 6 vertical head acceleration g 61.3 58.5 horizontal chest acceleration g -54.6 -54.7 lateral chest acceleration g 10.8 14.4 vertical chest acceleration g 5.4 (-13.2) 4.1 (-15.1)

vertical chest acceleration (3ms) g 12.3 (-1.3) 12.5 (-12.5) chest compression mm -55.5 -57 41 viscous criteria V.C 0.75 0.8 1.0

upper sternum deflection rate m/s 1.61 (-3.4) 1.37 (-3.73) 8.2 lower sternum deflection rate m/s 1.96 (-3.83) 1.36 (-3.49) 8.2 upper neck force FX kN 0.16 (-1.15) 0 (-1.04) 1.9 upper neck force FY kN 0.28 (-0.07) 1.9 upper neck force FZ kN 2.31 2.08 2.07 upper neck moment MX Nm 9.2 (-5.9)

upper neck moment MY Nm 61.2 (-31.4) 49.3 (-32.3) 95 (flexion) 39(extension)

upper neck moment MZ Nm 4.5 (-2.6) femur force left FZ kN 2.09 (-0.3) 1.79 (-0.68) -6.19 femur force right FZ kN 2.51 (-1.4) 0.77 (-3.45) -6.19 resultant pelvis acceleration g 65 56.2 horizontal pelvis acceleration g -56.6 (23.7) -52.8 (38.8) lateral pelvis acceleration g -20.9 (7.7) -9.8 (9.1) vertical pelvis acceleration g -35 (7.5) -35 (6.4) shoulder belt force kN 9.22


4. Performance of Lifebelt with HIII 50M The Lifebelt seatbelt configuration as shown in Figure 3 was also tested with a Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, confirm the extended performance of the seatbelt system. The test was performed on the soft foam seat base, as in Lifebelt Test #2, see Figure 7. Table 5 summarises the test parameters Test #3. Included for comparison are the parameters of cadaver and HIII50M testing conducted by Alem et al. (1978).

Table 5 Test parameters of the Lifebelt 50 th percentile male dummy test and related cadaver and HIII 50 M sled tests.

Parameter Lifebelt Test # 3

(D1-4259)

Cadaver Test3

HIII Test 3

Test Date 2/10 1978 1978 Test Facility Autoliv HSRI HSRI Seatbelt configuration Lifebelt Lap sash Lap sash Seat Base Foam Std car Std car Knee impact Yes No No Sled pulse acceleration 28.8g 20g 20g Impact velocity 50.3km/hr 50km/hr 50km/hr

The Lifebelt performed very well in Test #3, effectively restraining the 50th percentile male dummy with no signs of submarining or instability of the dummy, see Figure 7. The only area of concern is with the high chest compression figures in Table 6.

Figure 7 (left) Pre Lifebelt Test #3 with HIII 50 th%tile M dummy. Tested with Lifebelt configuration o n a soft

seat base. (right) Post Lifebelt Test #3. Note the position of the lap belt below the ASIS of the 50 th% M dummy.

3 Alem N, Bowman B, Melvin J and Benson J. (1978) “Whole Body Human Surrogate Response to Three-Point Harness Restraint.”


The test setup (Figure 8) and sled pulse (Figure 9) used by Alem et al. (1978) are shown here for comparison with the HIII 50th%tile male dummy LifeBelt test. When comparing these test results several points need to be remembered:

• The Autoliv sled pulse was approximately 50% higher than that used by Alem et al.(1978).This makes much of the dummy responses equivalent.

• The restraint geometry was different, this can be seen when the sash position in Figures 7 and 8 are compared.

• The stiffness of the belt webbing is unknown in the earlier tests. Typically this had greater elongation, ie was less stiff.

• The combination of the less stiff belt and the differing geometries and the less severe pulse explain much of the lower magnitude sash belt loading measured by the Alem et al. (1978) in the HIII 50M tests.

• .The cadavers in the Alem et al. (1978) test series all had significant numbers of rib fractures. Other research has shown the tendency for cadavers to show greater injury levels than typically occur in matched field crashes. The reasons for this include the age of the cadavers, and the more severe crash pulse due to the rigidity of the sled and its fixtures.

Figure 8 The test setup used by Alem et al. (1978).


Figure 9 The test sled pulse used by Alem et al. (1 978), note that this was a 20 g square pulse.


Table 6 compares the peak response values for the dummy during the test at Autoliv, with some cadaver and HIII 50 M responses (Alem et al. 1978). These values are compared with IARVs for the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. The only area of any concern is the high chest compression in the Autoliv Test, due to the high sash load.

Table 6 Comparison of peak response values for the Lifebelt Test #3

Parameter Unit

Lifebelt Test #3

D1-4259

Cadaver Tests (Alem et al.1978)

HIII dummy Tests (Alem et al.1978)

HIII 50M dummy

IARV Max/min Max Max

resultant head acceleration (3ms) g 68 44 47 resultant head acceleration g 69.3 180 HIC36 693 678 HIC15 660 HIC 446 700 resultant chest acceleration (3ms) g 45.1 33 34 60 horizontal head acceleration g -47.6 lateral head acceleration g 5.5 vertical head acceleration g 58.4 horizontal chest acceleration g -46 lateral chest acceleration g -7.9 vertical chest acceleration g -22.2

vertical chest acceleration (3ms) g -19.2

chest compression mm 61 50 viscous criteria V.C 0.47 1.0

upper sternum deflection rate m/s

8.2 lower sternum deflection rate m/s 8.2 upper neck force FX kN -1.78 upper neck force FY kN 0.25 upper neck force FZ kN 2.55 3.97 upper neck moment MX Nm -27.3

upper neck moment MY Nm 120.6

190 (flexion) 102

(extension) upper neck moment MZ Nm 8.1 femur force left FZ kN 2.31 9.07 femur force right FZ kN 2.65 9.07 resultant pelvis acceleration g 55.4 horizontal pelvis acceleration g -54.4 -53.4 -57.3 lateral pelvis acceleration g 7.8 vertical pelvis acceleration g -32 shoulder belt force kN 11.28 4.5 4.7


5. Discussion and Conclusions A comparison is presented between the testing under the following conditions at Autoliv.

• Two control tests (Crashlab 06/9 standard belt with Honda rear seat and Autoliv 05/10 D1-4260 standard belt with foam seat) using the 5th percentile HIII F (female) dummy

• Two LifeBelt tests (Autoliv 02/10 D1-4189 LifeBelt with standard Honda rear seat and Autoliv 05/10 D1-4258 LifeBelt with foam seat) using the 5th percentile HIII F (female) dummy.

• The LifeBelt test (Autoliv D1-4259 LifeBelt and foam seat) using 50th percentile male H3 dummy.

All the tests have high peak chest deflection response values when compared with the IARVs. The two control tests were based on the Honda seat belt geometry, and both indicated a tendency for the HIII 5F dummy to submarine. Unfortunately the second control test (at Autoliv) was compromised by failure of the knee impact bulkhead used late in the test. This most likely led to the lower chest acceleration and decompression measured. Both the control tests high neck flexion moments. The two LifeBelt tests compared had seat belt geometry which was developed to work well with the lifebelt . A slight geometric change to the right upper lap anchorage in the second LifeBelt test. This was made to correct for the belt to rise up onto the ASIS late in the first test. As can be seen in the test description this was successfully achieved. The responses of the dummy in both of these tests was very well controlled. When the results in Table 4 are compared with the IARVs the only area of concern is the high chest deflection values. Using the same geometry as the second LifeBelt test (D1-4258), a further lifebelt test was run with the dummy changed to the HIII 50M. In this test the dummy was also very well controlled and there was no sign of submarining. The test responses in Table 6 indicate that the only area of concern is with the chest deflection. Cadaver and HIII 50M test results with a conventional seat belt system are also included in Table 4. Differences in geometry and test pulse make it difficult to make any useful comparisons. The LifeBelt test appears to have consistent dummy responses in comparison. In conclusion, these comparisons confirm that with the correct belt geometry the LifeBelt is well able to control the motion of the dummy. Both the HIII 5F and 50M dummies remained stable and with acceptable responses when tested in the LifeBelt. The high chest deflection readings indicate that this is an area that may need control by means of force limiters and this should be addressed in the next round of testing.

Documents

Prepared for Lifebeltlifebeltsafety.com.au/Lifebelt Test Report 30June10.pdfHIE TEST REPORT NO. P10-010 Testing at Autoliv 30 June 2010 Prepared for Lifebelt CONFIDENTIAL 30 June 2010