Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026

A Test Bed to Examine Helmet Fit and Retention and Biomechanical Measures of Head and Neck Injury in Simulated Impact
Published on: September 21, 2017
Injury potential at center rear seating positions in rear-facing child restraint systems in side impacts
Hans W Hauschild1, John R Humm2, Narayan Yoganandan2
1University of Wisconsin - Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Insights
Center-seated children in rear-facing child restraint systems face head injury risks in side impacts. Sled tests revealed significant head excursion and high Head Injury Criteria (HIC) when a simulated door intrudes, especially above 29 km/h.
Area of Science:
- Automotive safety engineering
- Biomechanics
- Pediatric injury prevention
Background:
- Rear-facing child restraint systems (CRS) are used for infants and young children.
- Side impact collisions pose a significant risk to vehicle occupants, including children.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the head injury potential for center-seated, rear-facing CRS occupants in simulated side impacts.
- To determine the influence of simulated door intrusion on head excursion and Head Injury Criteria (HIC).
Main Methods:
- Sled tests were conducted using a 12-month-old child dummy in rear-facing CRS.
- Tests simulated side impacts at velocities of 35, 29, and 24 km/h, with and without a simulated door.
- Head excursions and HIC values were measured.
Main Results:
- At 35 km/h without a door, head excursions exceeded the intrusion plane.
- With a simulated door at 35 km/h, HIC values (804-1297) exceeded injury limits.
- At lower velocities (29 and 24 km/h) with the door, impacts occurred, resulting in HIC values up to 604.
Conclusions:
- Center-seated rear-facing CRS occupants are at risk of head injury from intruding doors in side impacts, particularly at speeds above 29 km/h.
- Improved protection and attachment methods for center-positioned CRS are needed to mitigate head injury risks in side impacts.
Abstract:
Head injuries occur to occupants of rear-facing child restraint systems in side impacts. This study examined the head injury potential of center-seated occupants using sled tests at change in velocities of 35, 29 and 24 km/h. Other parameters included combinations of with and without a simulated door. A twelve-month-old child dummy was used in combination, convertible and infant rear-facing child restraint systems. Head excursions and head injury criteria (HIC) were obtained. In 35 km/h tests without simulated door, head excursions ranged from 568 to 655 mm, exceeding the simulated door intrusion plane. HIC ranged from 87 to 157, below the 390 limit. At this velocity but with the simulated door, HIC ranged from 804 to 1297. Head excursions ranged from 424 to 480 mm. In 29 and 24 km/h tests, the dummy and child restraint system impacted the simulated door. HIC ranged from 275 to 604 and 141 to 314, and head excursions ranged from 388 to 470 mm and 365 to 460 mm, respectively. Far-side belt loads were 2.4-3.2 kN and 1.7-2.3 kN for the 35 km/h tests without and with the simulated door, and 1.5-2.1 kN and 1.0-1.6 kN for 29 and 24 km/h tests with the simulated door. These findings indicate that occupants in the center seating position in smaller/medium-size vehicles may impact an intruding door and sustain head injuries. A need exists for better protection/attachment methods for center positioned rear-facing child restraint systems to reduce the injury potential in side impacts at velocities greater than 29 km/h.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Impact
The coefficient of restitution is a metric for understanding the dynamics of impacts. It quantifies the ratio of relative velocity...
Normal and Tangetial Components: Problem Solving
Rigid Body Equilibrium Problems - II
Consider two children sitting on a seesaw, which has negligible mass. The first child has a mass (m1) of 26 kg and sits at point A, which is 1.6 meters (r1) from the pivot point B; the second child has a mass (m2) of 32 kg and sits at point C. How far from the pivot point B should the second child sit (r2) to balance the seesaw?
Herniated Intervertebral Disc l: Introduction
Teratogenicity
Spinal Cord Injury ll: Pathophysiology

