Effect of automated versus manual emergency braking on rear seat adult and pediatric occupant precrash motion
Effect of automated versus manual emergency braking on rear seat adult and pediatric occupant precrash motion
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/15389588.2019.1630734
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-12
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Arbogast, Kristy B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Graci, Valentina;Douglas, Ethan;Arbogast, Kristy B.
目的：紧急制动可能会产生碰撞前的乘员运动，这可能会影响随后碰撞中约束的有效性，特别是对于可能不太了解即将发生碰撞的后排乘员。随着自动紧急制动（AEB）的出现，实现制动的机制正在发生变化，可能会改变碰撞前乘员的运动。此外，由于不同年龄的解剖和生物力学差异，儿童和成人乘员在AEB和手动紧急制动（MEB）之间的运动学差异可能会有所不同。因此，本研究的目的是量化AEB和MEB情景下后排成人和儿童运动学和肌肉活动的差异。方法：车辆机动进行了最近的模型年轿车行驶50公里/小时。MEB（类似于1g的加速度）是通过驾驶员以最大的努力踩下刹车踏板来实现的。AEB（类似于0.8 g的加速）由车辆系统触发。收集了惯性和全球定位系统数据。17名年龄在10-33岁的男性参与者被限制在右后排乘客座位上，每个动作都经历了两次。用一个8摄像头三维运动捕捉系统记录受试者的运动学。肌电图（EMG）记录肌肉活动。头部和躯干位移，原始的和标准化的坐位高度，以及峰值头部和躯干速度在不同年龄和机动之间进行比较。计算平均肌电图来解释运动学结果。结果：MEB组的头部、躯干位移和峰值速度均大于AEB组（P = 0.21）。重复1的峰头和干速度大于重复2 (P
Objective: Emergency braking can potentially generate precrash occupant motion that may influence the effectiveness of restraints in the subsequent crash, particularly for rear-seated occupants who may be less aware of the impending crash. With the advent of automated emergency braking (AEB), the mechanism by which braking is achieved is changing, potentially altering precrash occupant motion. Further, due to anatomical and biomechanical differences across ages, kinematic differences between AEB and manual emergency braking (MEB) may vary between child and adult occupants. Therefore, the objective of this study was to quantify differences in rear-seated adult and pediatric kinematics and muscle activity during AEB and MEB scenarios. Methods: Vehicle maneuvers were performed in a recent model year sedan traveling at 50 km/h. MEB (acceleration similar to 1 g) was achieved by the driver pressing the brake pedal with maximum effort. AEB (acceleration similar to 0.8 g) was triggered by the vehicle system. Inertial and Global Positioning System data were collected. Seventeen male participants aged 10-33 were restrained in the rear right passenger seat and experienced each maneuver twice. The subjects' kinematics were recorded with an 8-camera 3D motion capture system. Electromyography (EMG) recorded muscle activity. Head and trunk displacements, raw and normalized by seated height, and peak head and trunk velocity were compared across age and between maneuvers. Mean EMG was calculated to interpret kinematic findings. Results: Head and trunk displacement and peak velocity were greater in MEB than in AEB in both raw and normalized data (P = .21). Peak head and trunk velocities were greater in repetition 1 than in repetition 2 (P