...
首页> 外文期刊>Traffic Injury Prevention >Rebound After Rear Impacts
【24h】

Rebound After Rear Impacts

机译:后方撞击后反弹

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Objective: A number of field accident studies have found that rebound is a source for occupant injury after rear impacts. Sled tests were run to investigate occupant kinematics and rebound, including head velocity and displacement with 3 different seats, 2 conventional seat designs, and 1 all belts to seat (ABTS). Methods: Nine rear-end sled tests were run with a belted 50th Hybrid III dummy on a Taurus, Mustang, or Sebring ABTS seat in nominally 16.5, 24.1, and 32.5 km/h rear-end delta Vs. There was no sled braking after the rear acceleration to study rebound from the seat. Dummy kinematics were analyzed from high-speed video and biomechanical responses from triaxial head and chest accelerations, triaxial upper and lower neck loads and moments, and seat belt loads. Peak responses were tabulated during seat back rotation rearward and rebound forward. Ratios of biomechanical and kinematic responses were determined comparing ABTS to conventional seat responses for each delta V. Student's t-test was used to determine significant differences between the ratios of ABTS to conventional seat responses. Results: The rebound velocity of the head varied from 2.9 to 6.8 m/s with respect to the sled. Overall, it was 69 ± 22 percent higher than the sled delta V. It was greatest with ABTS in the highest severity test where seat back yielding absorbed energy and reduced rebound in the conventional seats. The time to maximum forward excursion was significantly shorter with ABTS compared to the conventional seats with a ratio of 0.54 ± 0.34 (t = 6.13, df = 5, P <0.001). Conclusions: ABTS seats remain more upright in rear-end crashes and transfer greater load to the occupant during rebound than conventional seats that yield rearward and absorb energy in higher severity crashes. Rebound occurs earlier and at higher velocities with ABTS. This displaces the occupant toward the front interior. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention to view the supplemental file.
机译:目的:许多现场事故研究发现,反弹是后方撞击造成乘员受伤的原因。进行了雪橇测试,以研究乘员的运动学和反弹,包括使用3个不同座椅,2个常规座椅设计和1个安全带到座椅(ABTS)的头部速度和位移。方法:在Taurus,Mustang或Sebring ABTS座椅上以安全带50th Hybrid III假人进行了9次后端雪橇测试,标称速度为16.5、24.1和32.5 km / h。后加速后没有雪橇制动来研究座椅反弹。根据高速视频和虚拟力学响应分析了虚拟运动学,这些响应包括三轴头部和胸部的加速度,三轴上下颈部的载荷和力矩以及安全带的载荷。将座椅靠背向后旋转和向前回弹期间的峰值响应列表。对于每个ΔV,将ABTS与常规座位响应进行比较来确定生物力学和运动学响应的比率。使用学生t检验确定ABTS与常规座位响应的比率之间的显着差异。结果:相对于雪橇,头部的回弹速度从2.9到6.8 m / s不等。总体而言,它比雪橇三角洲V高69±22%。在最高强度测试中,使用ABTS时最大,座椅靠背可产生吸收的能量并减少传统座椅的回弹。与传统座椅相比,ABTS达到最大向前偏移的时间明显缩短,比率为0.54±0.34(t = 6.13,df = 5,P <0.001)。结论:与传统的座椅相比,ABTS座椅在追尾事故中保持更直立,并且在回弹过程中将更大的负载传递给乘员,后者在严重事故中会向后屈曲并吸收能量。回弹发生较早,使用ABTS的速度更快。这使乘员朝着前室内移动。补充材料可用于本文。转到发布者的在线交通伤害预防在线版本以查看补充文件。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号