Effects of Driver Characteristics

on Seat Belt Fit

Matthew P. Reed
Sheila M. Ebert
UMTRI

Jason J. Hallman
Toyota Technical Center USA

Crash Injury Data

40%!

Male, Belted, Driver, Passenger Car,

51 kph V, BMI=25 kg/m2!
Head!
Thorax!
Spine!
Abdomen!
UX!
LX!

30%!
20%!
10%!
0%!
20!

Risk of AIS 3+ Injury (%)!

Risk of AIS 3+ Injury (%)!

Older occupants are at greater risk in crashes

30!

40!

50!
60!
Age (yr.)!

70!

80!

40%! Female, Belted, Driver, Passenger Car,

51 kph V, BMI=25 kg/m2!
Head!
Thorax!
Spine!
Abdomen!
UX!
LX!

30%!
20%!
10%!
0%!
20!

30!

40!

50!
60!
Age (yr.)!

70!

Ridella et al. 2013 IRCOBI

80!

Crash Injury Data

Obese occupants are at greater risk in crashes

Male, Belted, Driver, Passenger Car,

51 kph V, Age=35!

30%!

40%!
Risk of AIS 3+ Injury (%)!

Risk of AIS 3+ Injury (%)!

40%!

UX (OR=1.16)!
LX (OR=1.83)!

20%!
10%!
0%!
20!

25!

30!
35!
BMI (kg/m2)!

*Body Mass Index (BMI) =

40!

45!

Female, Belted, Driver, Passenger Car,

51 kph V, Age=35!

30%!

UX (OR=1.16)!
LX (OR=1.83)!

20%!
10%!
0%!
20!

25!

30!
35!
BMI (kg/m2)!

40!

Body Mass (kg)

[Stature (m)]2

Ridella et al. 2013 IRCOBI

45!

Body Shape Data

Human body shape varies widely

Hybrid-III ATD

Laser Scan Data

Research Question
How is driver belt fit affected by age, gender, stature, and BMI?

Methods
Men and women with a wide range of age and body size
Measure
Stature (mm)
Body Weight (kg)
Body Mass Index (kg/m2)
Erect Sitting Height (mm)
Age (years)

Men (N=46)
1759 (85)
87.9 (17)
28.4 (4.9)
913 (40)
58 (19)

140

1900

120

+ + +
+ +
+ +++
+
+
+
++
++
+ ++
++
+ + +
++
+ +
+ +
+
+
++ +
+
+
+
+

Stature (mm)

Weight (kg)

2000

Women (N=51)
1601 (67)
69.9 (16)
27.3 (5.7)
845 (42)
59 (20)

100

80

60

1800

+
+ + + +
+

1700

+
+
+
+

1600

+ +

+
++ + + + ++
+
+
+
+ + +
++
++ ++
+ +
++
+ ++

1500

40

1400
1400

1500

1600

1700
Stature (mm)

1800

1900

2000

20

30

40

50

60

Age (years)

70

80

90

Methods
Driver mockup with 5 sets of belt anchorage locations
Midsize Sedan Package
L6 = 550 mm
H30 = 270 mm

5 Belt Conditions:
3 lap belt angles with
midrange D-ring
2 D-ring angles at
midrange lap angle

Lap Belt Angle:

30

52

75

FMVSS 210 Definition

Methods
Landmarks measured with FARO Arm coordinate digitizer

Methods
Additional body measurements in hardseat and laser scanner

Methods
Belt fit measures
Shoulder Belt:
Inboard edge of belt
at height of top of
sternum relative to
midline

Lap Belt: Top of belt at

lateral position of
ASIS wrt ASIS

Methods
Pelvis flesh margin estimates
300

Pelvis Depth (mm)

250

Uncorrected

200
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ + + + + +++ + +++++ ++
+
+
+++++ +
+
+
++ + ++ +
++
++++
+++ +++++
++
+
++
+++ + ++
+
+
++++++ +++
++
++ + + ++
++ +
+
++
+

150

100
15

20

25

30

35

+
+

Corrected

+ +
+

40

45

50

BMI (kg m2)

An adjustment was made to correct for the effects of adiposity on the

distance between the surface landmark and the bone.

Results
Lap Belt Fit
X = -64
300
+

Lap Belt Z (mm)

250

A+

200

150
++

100

Z = 61
50

+
+ + ++ + + ++ +
+ + +
++ + ++
+ ++ +++
+++++++ ++ ++ ++
+
+
+ ++++
++ + + + ++
+++++++++
+ +
++ +
++
+
+
+
+
+++ +
+
++ +++ ++++++ +++++++++++ +++++ ++ ++ +
+

+
+ +
+

+
+
++++
+
+
+

+
++

-250

-200

-150

<=== Forward

-100

-50

Lap Belt X (mm)

Large symbols = obese

Male +
Female o

50

T060
80 years
35 BMI
1663 mm
-99, 117

Results
Lap Belt Fit

T044
24 years
29 BMI
1621 mm
-53, 83

X = -64
300
+

Lap Belt Z (mm)

250

T053
72 years
24 BMI
1697 mm
-64, 51

A+

200
150

++

100

Z = 61
50

+
+ + ++ + + ++ +
+ + +
++ + ++
+ ++ +++
+++++++ ++ ++ ++
+
+
+ ++++
++ + + + ++
+++++++++
+ +
++ +
++
+
+
+
+
+++ +
+
++ +++ ++++++ +++++++++++ +++++ ++ ++ +
+
+ +
+
+

+
+
++++
+
+
+

+
++

-250

-200

-150

<=== Forward

-100

-50

Lap Belt X (mm)

Large symbols = obese

Male +
Female o

50

T029
28 years
20 BMI
1779 mm
-5, -1

Results
Lap Belt Fit
LapBelt X (mm) = 156 +
0.297 ELBA
0.30 Age
5.12 BMI
0.04 Stature,
R2adj = 0.57, RMSE = 25.8

Negative X is further forward

Effective Lap Belt Angle (ELBA, deg): LBA taking into

account driver-selected seat position
LapBeltZ (mm) = -70.1 + 4.7 BMI, R2 = 0.52, RMSE = 22.9

All effects and full model p<0.01

Results
Lap Belt Fit
100

0
-50
-100

+
+
+ + +
+
++ + ++
+
+ ++++
+ ++ +
+ + ++
+++ +
+
+
+ + +++ ++
+ ++
+
++++ +++ ++
+++ +
+ ++ +++ ++
++
++ +
+ ++
+
+
++
+ ++
+ ++
+++

-150

50

+
+
++
+ +
+ +
+
+++
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
++
+
+
+

25

30

35

BMI (kg m

0
-50
-100

+
+
+ + + ++
++
++
++
+ ++ ++ ++
+
+
+
+++
+
+
++
+ +++
++
+ + ++
++
+
+ + +
++
+
+
+

-150

+
++
+
+
+
+
+ ++
+
+
+
+

+
+
+ +
+
+
+ +
+
+ +

+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+

-200

-200
20

LapBeltX (mm)

LapBeltX (mm)

50

+ Age < 60
O Age 60

100

+ Men
O Women

40

20

25

30
BMI (kg m2)

belt further forward

wrt pelvis
BMI dominates effects of age and gender

35

40

Results
Shoulder Belt Fit
200

Shoulder Belt Score (mm)

25
150

100

50

+ +
+

++

+
+ +
+
++
+
+
+
+++
++
+ + + ++
+++ + ++ + +
+ +
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+ + + ++++++ + + + ++++
+
+
+
+ ++ + +
+ ++ + + +
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

21

17

2000

Stature (mm)

Shoulder Belt Score (mm) = 338 22.3 YZAngle 0.284 Stature

+ 0.0189 YZAngle*Stature, R2adj = 0.60, RMSE = 24.4
No significant effects of gender, BMI, or age

Results
Comparison of Factor Effects
Over relevant population ranges:
Stature (1500-1850 mm), Age (20-80 years), BMI (20 to 40 kg/m2),
300

50

Stature
BMI
Age

Stature
BMI
Age

250
Population Effect (mm)

Population Effect (mm)

100

-50

200
150
100
50
0

-100
LapBeltX

LapBeltZ

ShoulderBeltScore

-50
LapBeltLength

ShoulderBeltLength

Results
Lap Belt Fit
Mean belt locations with respect to ASIS at lateral location of ASIS
(not occupant centerline)

Midsize male pelvis in mean posture

Results
Lap Belt Fit
Mean belt locations with respect to ASIS at lateral location of ASIS
(not occupant centerline)

Midsize male pelvis in mean posture

Results
Pelvis Locations and Abdomen Contours
T184
30 years
23 BMI
1802 mm

ATD Pelvis

ATD Pelvis Flesh

Laser scans obtained in slightly different posture

Alignment based on measured human pelvis position and orientation

Results
Pelvis Locations and Abdomen Contours
T144
38 years
40 BMI
1865 mm

ATD Pelvis

ATD Pelvis Flesh

Laser scans obtained in slightly different posture

Alignment based on measured human pelvis position and orientation

Results
Pelvis Locations and Abdomen Contours
T147
87 years
27 BMI
1566 mm

ATD Pelvis

ATD Pelvis Flesh

Laser scans obtained in slightly different posture

Alignment based on measured human pelvis position and orientation

Results
Pelvis Locations and Abdomen Contours
T070
70 years
31 BMI
1630 mm

ATD Pelvis

ATD Pelvis Flesh

Laser scans obtained in slightly different posture

Alignment based on measured human pelvis position and orientation

Discussion
Many people could place the lap belt in a lower location,
closer to the pelvis
Could they be educated to position the belt better?

Narrow range of
belt locations

Wide range of
belt locations

Conclusions
Obesity has a strong effect on lap belt routing: On average, an obese
individual places the belt fully above the pelvis and an average of
61 mm forward of the ASIS.
Age has a smaller effect on belt routing than BMI across the
population range
Gender did not have a significant effect after accounting for stature
Lap belt anchorage locations have much smaller effects than driver
factors.
The effects of BMI on lap belt fit were not significantly different for
short/tall, men/women, old/young
Shoulder belt fit is strongly affected by D-ring location and body size

Implications and Future Work

Current ATDs with standard usage procedures are not capable of
representing the large belt-skeleton offset and sub-optimal
belt routing observed in this study, so current testing does not
evaluate the load-sharing situations encountered by most
occupants, particularly those who are obese.

Better Protection for All

Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the
Toyota Collaborative Safety Research Center
http://www.toyota.com/csrc/