Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 25, 2025

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
Evaluation of LATCH vs. non-LATCH installations for boosters in frontal impacts
Julie A Mansfield1, Gretchen H Baker1, Rakshit Ramachandra1
1Injury Biomechanics Research Center, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Objectives:
The objective was to understand how the use or nonuse of the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) system affects the performance of booster seats during frontal impacts.
Methods:
Sixteen frontal impact sled tests were conducted at 24.8 ± 0.3 g and 50.1 ± 0.2 kph. A production vehicle seat buck was attached to the sled. Four high-back boosters or combination seats in high-back booster mode and two backless booster models were tested. Each booster model was installed two different ways: using the LATCH system ("LATCH" installation) and without using the LATCH system ("non-LATCH" installation). All installations used a 3-point seat belt with retractor in emergency locking mode (ELR) to restrain a Hybrid III 6-year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD). The retractor, belt webbing, buckle, vehicle seat cushion, and booster were replaced after each test. Some conditions were tested twice to establish repeatability. ATD and booster responses were compared between LATCH and non-LATCH tests.
Results:
Using LATCH reduced the forward movement of the booster itself by 32.3% to 71.5% compared to non-LATCH installations. Differences in most other metrics were small and often within the range of normal test-to-test variation. Forward movements of the ATD head and heel were similar between LATCH and non-LATCH tests (typically less than 10% difference). HIC36 values trended slightly higher for LATCH installations compared to non-LATCH installations (0.8% to 17.2%). Chest resultant accelerations were typically 7.3% to 21.2% higher for LATCH installations, except for one booster for which it was lower with LATCH. Chest deflections trended higher for LATCH installations compared to non-LATCH installations for the backless boosters (6.9% to 14.1%). For high-back boosters, chest deflection was similar between installation conditions (less than 5% difference). Shoulder belt loads showed the greatest reductions when LATCH installations included a top tether (12.9% to 20.8%). Instances of the ATD submarining under the lap belt were not observed in these tests.
Conclusions:
Overall, the differences in kinematics and injury metrics were small between boosters installed using LATCH vs. non-LATCH.
Related Concept Videos
Design Consideration
The factor of safety is another key...
Lift
Design Example: Automobile Ignition System
One can generate a large voltage using a car battery of 12 volts with the help of inductors. Inductors are known for opposing...
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation II: ACLS Airway Management
Impulse
Additionally, it can be shown that the...

