Objective: Current European restraint systems may not realise their full protection potential in real world frontal crashes because they are highly optimised for specific conditions. This research sought to quantify the potential benefit of adapting seat belt load limit thresholds to a wider range of occupant and crash characteristics.Methods: Numerical simulations using hybrid III dummies were conducted to determine how varying load limiter thresholds could affect occupant kinematics and injury outcome in frontal impacts. Occupant-compartment models were developed with a restraint system consisting of a frontal airbag, a 3-point belt with retractor, buckle pretensioner and load limiting at the shoulder. Load limiting threshold was varied in five frontal impact scenarios, covering as wide a range of real frontal crash conditions as possible. The simulated thoracic injury risks were converted into injury probability values using AIS 2+ age dependent thoracic risk curves. These values were then applied to a British real-world frontal impact sample to determine the injury reduction potential of optimised load limiting; taking into account occupant seating position, impact scenario, occupant size and occupant age, and assuming an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all cars.
Results:In low severity impacts, a low load limit provided the best chest protection, without increasing risk to other body regions, for both the 50 th and 95 th percentile dummy in both front seating positions. In high severity impacts, the low limit was not recommended since it allowed the driver dummy to move into close proximity with the vehicle interior, although there appeared to be some benefit of lower load limiting for the 50 th percentile front passenger dummy, due to the increased ride down space in that seating position. Adapting the load limit showed no injury reduction potential for 5 th percentile drivers. Utilising the best load limit threshold in real world crashes, could reduce the number of occupants with AIS 2+ chest injury from belt loading from 377 to 251 (a 33% reduction). Correspondingly reducing the number of occupants with AIS 2+ chest injury (from all sources) in the whole frontal impact population from 496 to 370. This is a reduction in injury rate from 6.4% to 4.8%.
Conclusions:The concept of an adaptive load limiter shows most promise in low speed frontal crashes where it could lower the AIS 2+ chest injury risk for most front seat occupants, except the smallest of drivers. Generally, adaptive limiters show less potential effectiveness with increased crash severities. Overall, an intelligent adjustment of load limiting threshold could result in a reduction of at least a third of front seat occupants with AIS 2+ chest injury associated with restraining loads and an overall reduction in AIS 2+ chest injury rate in frontal crashes from 6.4 to 4.8%