Hector Serber
American Ergonomics Corporation
Copyright © 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Abstract
Introduction
Background
Injury Load Trade Offs
CBM Seat Mechanics
Sled Test Results
Optimization Methodology
MADYMO Crash Simulations
Road Test
Performance Summary
Performance Summary
During crash simulations, the CBM Seat maintains seat contact with the buttocks, remains in place as long as the body mass has forward momentum, and returns in rebound with instantaneous redeployment. In summary the CBM Seat:
1. Increases safety: significantly reduces crash forces on the body and can drastically reduce lower body injuries. Improves the performance of other safety restraints, allowing safe depowering of the air bag.
2. Increases comfort: automatically balances seat tilt and lumbar angle with optimal weight distribution. Passively supports posture change without hand activated adjustment.
3. Is simple, light and cost effective: does not require the cost of any outside power source to function, either for safety or for comfort.
Conclusion
The CBM Seat responds on demand of a crash impact pulse and on demand of occupant's posture choice during normal driving.
This experience is supported by the scientific facts as described in dynamic equations of motion, Madymo crash simulations, and sled tests. Tests show that new levels of safety can be reached for improvement in crash survivability and reduction of severe injury.
In addition, the seat's simplified mechanics automatically adjust seat and lumbar angle to improve comfort. The safety and comfort properties of the mechanism complement each other.
The simplicity of use likely will allow the CBM to be an easily accepted safety and comfort system in the automobile.
The CBM Seat uses crash energy to function, providing a reliable passive restraint. Integrating the CBM Seat cushion as an additional restraint helps belts and air bags work well below their critical limits, significantly improving overall occupant safety performance.
Contact
Hector Serber is President of American Ergonomics Corporation, Sausalito, CA. He has dedicated the past ten years to developing Dynamic Seating products and designs, obtaining six US Patents and foreign patents in the field. He graduated Technico Mechanico from Collegio Industrial de la Nacion, Buenos Aires. Argentina, 1963 and studied Mechanical Engineering at California State University, Sacramento, USA.
American Ergonomics Corporation is making prototype seats available to vehicle OEM's and seating manufacturers for evaluation and production development.
References
1. Serber, H., "DYNAMIC SEATING: Counter Balanced Motion Seat," I.B.E.C., Sept. 1997
2. Serber, H., "The Study of Lumbar Motion in Seating,” Hard Facts about Soft Machines: The Ergonomics of Seating, Rani Lueder and Kageyu Noro, Taylor & Francis 1994, pp. 423-431.
3. Stadler, W., A.B. Johnson, Multicriterion Response of a Dynamically Responsive Safety Seat, Symposium on Optimization of Mechanical Systems, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 1995.
4. Serber, H., U.S. Pat. # 5,244,252, Seat Assembly and Method, September 14, 1993.
5. Serber, H., U.S. Pat. # 5,460,427, Seat Assembly and Method, October 24, 1995.
6. Serber, H., U.S. Pat. # 5,558,399, Seat and Lumbar Motion Chair, Assembly and Method, September 24, 1996.
7. Atkinson, P., C. Mackenzie, and R. Haut, Michigan State University, Patellofemoral Joint Fracture Load Prediction Using Physical and Pathological Parameters, Mechanics of Protection, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 1998.
8. MADYMO simulation project of CBM seat for American Ergonomics Corporation by Kev1n Hayes and Dr. Upali Fonseka of Altair Engineering, Troy, Michigan.
Back | Top |