Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 21, 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
Quasi-static methods to evaluate seat strength in rear impacts
Roger A Burnett1, David C Viano2, Chantal S Parenteau3
1Ford Motor Company, World Headquarters, Dearborn, Michigan.
Objective:
Various methods have been used in the past 50 years to apply Quasi-static load to a seat in the rear direction and measure seat performance in rear impacts. This study compared five of the most-common test procedures to evaluate seats. In addition, occupant mass and center of gravity are discussed as important characteristics of rear loading of seats.
Method:
Data was collected and analyzed from five different seat pull tests, including FMVSS 207, modified FMVSS 207, QST, body block and FRED II. Test data included peak force, moment and angle at peak moment. Occupant loading height of was determined using body segment weights and position in the forward (x) and vertical (z) directions based on anthropometry data.
Results:
Some of the inherent differences in the tests are shown by comparing data with the same seat structure. The QST and FRED II use a lower height of loading than FMVSS 207. The QST and FRED II peak moment and force did not coincide with the same seatback angle as in FMVSS 207 and body block testing. Center of gravity height varies depending on whether the whole body or only the upper torso is considered. For the 50th male, it is 171.5 mm (6.8") with the whole body and 246.7 mm (9.7") with the upper torso.
Conclusion:
Results from different tests cannot be readily compared because of different loading conditions, including body shape and height of load about the H-point, which can cause the seat structure to respond differently.
Related Concept Videos
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?
Indeterminate Structure
Method of Sections
Method of Sections: Problem Solving II
Statically Indeterminate Problem Solving

