Implications of head and neck restraint test repeatability for specification improvement

Abstract

Objective: Since 2005, National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Incorporated (NASCAR) drivers have been required to use a head and neck restraint system (HNR) that complies with SFI Foundation, Inc. (SFI) 38.1. The primary purpose of the HNR is to control and limit injurious neck loads and head kinematics during frontal and frontal oblique impacts. The SFI 38.1 performance specification was implemented to establish a uniform test procedure and minimum standard for the evaluation of HNRs using dynamic sled testing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the current SFI 38.1 test setup and explore the effects of a polyester seat belt restraint system.Method: Eight sled tests were conducted using the SFI 38.1 sled test protocol with additional test setup constraints. Four 0° frontal tests and 4 30° right frontal (RF) oblique tests were conducted. The first 3 tests of each principal direction of force (PDOF) used nylon SFI 16.1 seat belt restraint assemblies. The fourth test of each PDOF used polyester SFI 16.6 seat belt restraint assemblies. A secondary data set (Lab B Data) was also supplied by the HNR manufacturer for further comparisons. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 18571 objective comparison method was used to quantify the repeatability of the anthropomorphic test device (ATD) resultant head, chest, and pelvis acceleration and upper neck axial force and flexion extension bending moment time histories across multiple tests.Results: Two data sets generated using the SFI 38.1 test protocol exhibited large variations in mean ISO scores of ATD channels. The 8 tests conducted with additional setup constraints had significantly lower mean ISO score coefficients of variation (CVs). The Lab B tests conducted within the current specification but without the additional test setup constraints had larger mean ISO score standard deviation and CV for all comparisons. Specifically, tests with the additional setup constraints had average CVs of 3.3 and 2.9% for the 0° and 30° RF orientations, respectively. Lab B tests had average CVs of 22.9 and 24.5%, respectively. Polyester seat belt comparisons had CVs of 5.3 and 6.2% for the 0° and 30° RF orientations, respectively.Conclusion: With the addition of common test setup constraints, which do not violate the specification, the SFI 38.1 test protocol produced a repeatable test process for determining performance capabilities of HNRs within a single sled lab. A limited study using polyester webbing seat belt assemblies versus the nylon material called for in SFI 38.1 indicates that the material likely has less effects on ATD upper neck axial force and flexion extension bending moment time histories than the test setup freedom currently available within the specification. The additional test setup constraints are discussed and were shown to improve ATD response repeatability for a given HNR.