MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121583641 · doi:10.4271/2021-01-0918

Effect of Occupant Weight and Initial Position in Low-to-High Speed Rear Sled Tests with Older and Modern Seats

2021· article· en· W3121583641 on OpenAlexaff
Chantal S. Parenteau, Roger Burnett, David C. Viano, Samuel White

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Computer scienceAutomotive engineeringSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The average body weight of the US population has increased over time. This study investigates the effect of increasing weight on seat and occupant responses in 15-18 km/h and 42 km/h rear sled tests. The effect of initial occupant posture is also discussed.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Seven tests were conducted with lap-shoulder belted ATDs (anthropometric test device) placed on older and modern driver seats. Four tests were conducted with a 50th percentile male Hybrid III, two with 95th percentile male Hybrid III and one with a BioRID. The ATDs were ballasted to represent a Class I or II obese occupant in three tests.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The tests were matched by seat model and sled velocity. The effect of occupant weight was assessed in three matches. The results indicated an increase in seatback deflection with increasing occupant weight. For example, the average dynamic deflection was 2.8-times greater with a ballasted 95th ATD than with a 50th ATD (20.2 v 7.3 degree) in the 15-18 km/h sled tests and 1.4-times greater with a 95th ATD than with a 50th ATD (35.4 v 25.3 degree) in the 42 km/h sled tests.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The effect of initial posture was assessed with an obese Class I 50th ATD initially placed in-position versus leaning inboard. Being out-of-position led to increased occupant loading due to inertial loads from the unsupported portion of the ATD. The thoracic-spine extension moment was 1.3-times greater (−155 Nm v −123 Nm) when the ATD was out-of-position than in-position.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">All biomechanical responses were below the relevant injury assessment reference values (IARV) for head, neck and chest. The highest responses relative to IARVs were for lower neck extension in the 17 km/h out-of-position test, which was recorded up to 44.7% of the IARV. The lower neck extension moment increased with occupant weight in the Expedition seat. It was similar with the F-250 and Mustang seat. Additionally, lower neck extension was 1.2-times greater when leaning inboard than when positioned in a nominal driving position. The highest normalized responses were chest acceleration in the 42 km/h tests, at 30.3% with the 50th and 28.6% with the 95th ATD.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The results highlight an increase in seatback rotation with occupant weight. Seatback rotation was lower in modern than in older seats. Seat strength, occupant weight, seating position and crash severity influence occupant kinematics and loading in rear impacts.</div></div>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207