Occupant Kinematic and Injury Responses in Zero-Gravity Seat Under Low-, Medium-, and High-Speed Rear Impacts with Different Seat Belt Systems

This study investigates occupant kinematic and injury responses in zero-gravity seats under rear impacts at 16 km/h, 40 km/h, and 56 km/h and evaluates the protective performance of a conventional three-point seat belt system and a four-point seat belt system. First, a THUMS (Total Human Model for Safety)-based finite element assembly consisting of a regular seat model and a conventional three-point seat belt system was verified by comparing the kinematic responses and time-history curves of head acceleration, head rotation, and the T1 acceleration of PMHS (Postmortem Human Subject) tests. Then, a THUMS-based finite element assembly in a zero-gravity seat with a three-point seat belt system was created, and computational biomechanical analyses revealed that at low-to-medium impact speeds (16 and 40 km/h), the occupant exhibited backward sliding in the zero-gravity seat along the seatback with lower limb rotation and did not experience head and neck injury. However, a 56 km/h impact induced an excessive seatback rotation and caused the head to become out of position. The neck collided with the upper part of the headrest and caused a surge in the contact force between the neck and the headrest. The head injury and neck injury were comprehensively analyzed via the head injury metrics and neck injury metrics, including cervical spine injury metrics and cervical ligament injury metrics. Further, a four-point seat belt system was adopted and demonstrated better and more balanced restraining effects by reducing the relative displacement between the occupant’s head and chest in the x- and y-directions by 26% and 84%, respectively. Therefore, the occupant’s head remains in position and the collision between the neck and the headrest can be avoided. Maximum reductions in the head and neck injury metrics reached 70% and 57%, respectively. The current study illustrates the disadvantages of the traditional three-point seat belt system in restraining the occupant in a zero-gravity seat under rear impact and shows the four-point seat belt to be a better alternative. This study sheds light on seat belt system design and optimization towards future zero-gravity seats under rear impact.