Objective: This study investigated injury outcomes and body kinematics in obese occupants exposed to frontal impacts while seated in reclined postures. With increasing interest in non-traditional seating configurations and a growing population of obese vehicle occupants, the objective was to evaluate how seat stiffness and restraint features influence injury patterns and whole-body excursions. Methods: Nine obese post-mortem human surrogates (PMHS; mean age: 64 years, stature: 1.70 m, body mass: 102 kg, BMI: 35 kg/m2) were tested under frontal impact conditions simulating a delta-V of 50 kph. All specimens were seated on a spring-controlled seat with a 45° reclined seatback and restrained by a three-point belt system with pretensioner and load limiter. Three configurations were evaluated: (1) stiffer seat, (2) softer seat, and (3) stiffer seat with a knee bolster 100 mm from the knees. Each subject underwent one test. Whole-body kinematics were captured using a VICON motion analysis system, and injury outcomes were assessed through radiographs, CT imaging, and autopsy, with severity classified by Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Results: Softer seats produced substantially greater downward (+Z) pelvic displacement compared with stiffer seats. The knee bolster effectively reduced both downward and forward excursions of the lower torso. Rib cage and pelvic injuries were most frequent, with the highest severity observed in softer seat tests. Mean ISS values were: STIFF—27, 13, 27; SOFT—34, 27, 14; STIFF-KB—22, 0, 13. Discussion: Reduced seat stiffness combined with increased occupant mass contributed to greater excursions and anterior torso injuries, whereas the knee bolster mitigated excursion and injury severity. Findings are limited by sample size and test conditions; broader evaluation with production seats is needed to confirm trends and support countermeasure design.
Somasundaram et al. (Wed,) studied this question.