Upcoming test procedures and regulations consider the use of Q-dummies. Especially Q6 and Q10 will be introduced to assess the safety of child occupants in vehicle rear seats. Therefore detailed knowledge of these dummies is important to improve safety. As recent studies have shown, chest deflection measurements of both dummies are influenced by parameters like belt geometry. This could lead to a non optimized design of child restraint systems (CRS) and belt systems. The objective of this study is to obtain a more detailed understanding of the sensitivity of chest measurements to restraint parameters and to investigate the possibilities of chest acceleration as an alternative for the assessment of chest injury risks.

A study of frontal impact sled tests was performed with Q6 and Q10 in a generic rear seat environment on a bench. Belt parameters like modified belt attachment locations were varied. For the Q6 dummy, different positioning settings of the CRS (booster with backrest) and of the dummy itself were investigated. The Q10 dummy was seated on a booster cushion. Here the position of the upper belt anchorage point was varied. To simulate the influence of vehicle rotation in the ODB crash configuration, the bench was pre-rotated on the sled in additional tests with the Q10. This configuration was tested with and without pretensioner and load limiter.

Chest deflection in Q6 showed a high sensitivity to changes in positioning of the CRS and the dummy itself. A more slouched position of the CRS or dummy resulted in a reduction of measured chest deflection, whereas chest acceleration increased for a more slouched position of the CRS. Chest deflection in Q10 is sensitive to belt geometry as already shown in other studies. In a more outboard position of the shoulder belt anchorage the measured chest deflection is higher. Chest acceleration shows the opposite tendency, which is highest for the rearmost location of the upper belt anchorage. On a pre-rotated bench the highest chest deflection within this test series was observed without load limiter/pretensioner and an outboard belt position. By optimizing the belt location and the use of pretensioner/load limier the chest deflection was significantly reduced.

For the Q6 a criterion based on chest acceleration as well as deflection measured at two locations might be the most reliable approach, which requires further research with an additional upper deflection sensor. In the Q10 the measured chest deflection does not always correctly reflect the severity of chest loading. The deflection is depending on initial belt position and restraint parameters as well as test conditions, which result in different directions of belt migration. A3ms chest acceleration might be a better indicator for severity of chest loading independent of different conditions like belt geometries. However, in some cases the benefit of an optimized restraint system could only be shown by deflection. These findings suggest that further research is needed to identify a chest injury assessment method, which could be based on deflection as well as acceleration or other parameters related to belt to occupant interaction.