Effects of an integrated safety system for swivel seat arrangements in frontal crash

Objective: Autonomous vehicles (Avs) have paved the way for the arrangement of swivel seats in vehicles, which could pose a challenge to traditional safety systems. The integration of automated emergency braking (AEB) and pre-pretension (PPT) seatbelts improves protection for a vehicle’s occupant. The objective of this study is to explore the control strategies of an integrated safety system for swiveled seating orientations. Methods: Occupant restraints were examined in various seating configurations using a single-seat model with a seat-mounted seatbelt. Seat orientation was set at different angles, from −45° to 45° with 15° increments. A pretension was used on the shoulder belt to represent an active belt force cooperating with AEB. A generic full frontal vehicle pulse of 20 mph was applied to the sled. The occupant’s kinematics response under various integrated safety system control strategies was analyzed by extracting a head pre-crash kinematics envelope. The injury values were calculated for various seating directions with or without an integrated safety system at the collision speed of 20 mph. Results: In a lateral movement, the excursions of the dummy head were 100 mm and 70 mm in the global coordinate system for negative and positive seat orientations, respectively. In the axial movement, the head traveled 150 mm and 180 mm in the global coordinate system for positive and negative seating directions, respectively. The 3-point seatbelt did not restrain the occupant symmetrically. The occupant experienced greater y-axis excursion and smaller x-axis excursion in the negative seat position. Various integrated safety system control strategies led to significant differences in head movement in the y direction. The integrated safety system reduced the occupant’s potential injury risks in different seating positions. When the AEB and PPT were activated, the absolute HIC15, brain injury criteria (BrIC), neck injury (Nij), and chest deflection were reduced in most seating directions. However, the pre-crash increased the injury risks at some seating positions. Conclusion: The pre-pretension seatbelt could reduce the occupant’s forward movement in the rotating seat positions in a pre-crash period. The occupant’s pre-crash motion envelope was generated, which could be beneficial to future restraint systems and vehicle interior design. The integrated safety system could reduce injuries in different seating orientations.