Search

Objective: This article discusses differences between a side impact procedure described in United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation 129 and scenarios observed in real-world cases.Methods: Numerical simulations of side impact tests utilizing different boundary conditions are used to compare the severity of the Regulation 129 test and the other tests with different kinematics of child restraint systems (CRSs). In the simulations, the authors use a validated finite element (FE) model of real-world CRSs together with a fully deformable numerical model of the Q3 anthropomorphic test device (ATD) by Humanetics Innovative Solution, Inc.Results: The comparison of 5 selected cases is based on the head injury criterion (HIC) index. Numerical investigations reveal that the presence of oblique velocity components or the way in which the CRS is mounted to the test bench seat fixture is among the significant factors influencing ATD kinematics. The results of analyses show that the side impact test procedure is very sensitive to these parameters. A side impact setup defined in Regulation 129 may minimize the effects of the impact.Conclusions: It is demonstrated that an artificial anchorage in the Regulation 129 test does not account for a rotation of the CRS, which should appear in the case of a realistic anchorage. Therefore, the adopted procedure generates the smallest HIC value, which is at the level of the far-side impact scenario where there are no obstacles. It is also shown that the presence of nonlateral acceleration components challenges the quality of a CRS and its headrest much more than a pure lateral setup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]