Serre, Child anthropometry regarding safety belt

Anthropometric data of the 3 and 6 year-old child

regarding the position of the safety belt
T. SERRE*, L. LALYS and S. LECOZ
Laboratoire de Biomcanique Applique UMRT24 IFSTTAR-Universit de la Mditerrane
Facult de mdecine Nord, Bd. P. Dramard, 13916 Marseille, France
CNRS-UPR2147, Paris, France

Abstract
This anthropological study intends to describe first the morphological characteristics of 3 and 6 years old
children, and then to evaluate the safety belt position regarding the children seated in a car with different Child
Restraint System (CRS).
This work is based on a measurement survey which allowed to acquire anthropometric data in two approaches:
somatologic data, including dimensions in standing and sitting positions (14 measurements)
biometric data on the same subjects seated in a car with different restraint systems (15 measurements)
The survey was conducted in a school located in the northern part of France, after obtaining compulsory
authorizations from the relevant authorities. 71 children have been measured (33 three year-old and 38 six yearold). The car used for the survey is a Peugeot 308 and the backseat has been measured. The two CRSs which
have been used and measured are: a child seat (CRS1) which belongs to the European standard group 1 (children
weight between 9 to 18 kg) and a booster which belongs to the groups 2 and 3 (15 to 36 kg). Children of 3 years
old have been measured in the CRS1 and CRS2. Those of 6 years old have been measured in the CRS2 and
without CRS. Standard anthropometric tools have been used: height gauge, sliding calipers, tape measure, scales.
For each age, the main percentile values of all dimensions of the children morphology have been provided.
Several measurements of the belt position regarding morphological anatomical points of the child in the car with
the different Child Restraint Systems (CRSs) have been performed. This allows to check the suitability of the
belt regarding the morphology of the child in a restraint system.
The European mass classification appears as not relevant for 75% of the 3 year-old because they can be both in
CRS1 and CRS2 according to their weight. The 95th percentile of the 3 year-old appears to be out of the limit and
can only be in the booster seat. As for the 6 year-old, if all the children fit in the booster seat according to their
weight, children between the 5th and the 25th percentile could also be placed in a child seat.
This work has been performed within the European Project CASPER Child Advanced Safety Project for
European Roads co-funded by the EC under the 7th Framework Program (http://www.casper-project.eu).
Keywords: Measurement, Children, Anthropometry, Posture, Seatbelt

1. Introduction
European transport policy intends to reduce by half
the number of fatalities on the road, and considers
that approximately half of the 1200 children killed
on European roads could have been saved in 2007.
Moreover 80000 children are injured per year and it
is not acceptable for different aspects (ethical,
economic, etc). Safety issues concerning the
children involved in car accidents are in
consequence fundamental.

*Corresponding author. Email: Thierry.serre@ifsttar.fr

Use of Child Restraint System (CRS) is the

main measure to protect children in a vehicle
(Alonzo et al., 2005). As so, numerous researches
were conducted the past years thanks to European
Project such as CHILD and CREST. The main
results show more specifically an incorrect use of
restraints because of inappropriateness or misuse
CRS (Campbell et al., 1997; Morris et al., 2000)
and variability of child anatomy (Burdi et al.,
1969). Those CRSs must be designed according to
the particular morphology of the child - who is not

Serre, Child anthropometry regarding safety belt

an adult of little size from an anatomy point of

view- (Burdi et al., 1969; Floret, 1999; Huang and
Reed, 2006), its variability and eventually its
growth (Bull et al., 2002).
In addition, a CRS that obtains good results in term
of protection could be less efficient in another car
(Reed et al., 2008). This issue is partially resolved
with Isofix system (Kappoor et al., 2005).
However, this concerns only groups 0 and 1(birth to
10kg and 9 to 18kg). The European legislation
divides CRSs in 4 groups. The second group (15 to
25kg) and the third one (22 to 36kg) present
important differences in the fitting with the child
morphology (IIH, 2008, 2009; Reed et al., 2009)
and with the rear seat (Bilston and Sagar, 2007).
The weight overlap is made to provide the
transition between each CRS easier. The choice of
such a predictor to graduate is criticized since
premature graduation was observed (Anderson and
Hutchinson, 2007) as well as a gap in the
graduation between a forward facing system and a
booster for the 3 or 4-year-old (Serre et al., 2009).
Mismatch between a system and the child implies a
decrease protection (Durbin et al., 2003, 2005).
Mostly for practical reasons, none research focused
on all of those factors. In most of them, child
variability is not studied or updated in favour of
backseats and CRSs geometry confronted to old
anthropometric databases, typically Snyders
(Snyder et al., 1975, 1977) or to dummies, ignoring
secular growth trend (Smith and Norris, 2001,
2004) and variability of child (Serre et al., 2005).
This study offers to acquire new anthropometric
data of 3-year-old children in a CRS forward facing
system 5-points (group 1-2) and in a booster seat
(group 2-3) in a car. Confrontation between
anthropometry, special measurements involving the
belt and CRSs geometry should help to precise the
gap already observed. This study also considers the
6-year-old children because numerous researches
are focused on this age. But these previous
researches are mainly based on dummy use or on
old anthropometric databases. So it appeared
interesting to obtain better knowledge of the actual
variability of this age. In particular it was shown
that the real variability and morphology of the child
pelvis could increase biofidelity of crash dummies
(Reed et al., 2009) and eventually to help in the
prediction of booster-backseat transition (Ebel et
al., 2003). The goal of this paper is to answer the
following question: which CRS is better for the 3year-old? 5-points forward facing or booster
system? What about the 6-year-old child, booster or
not?
This work has been performed within the European
Project CASPER Child Advanced Safety Project
for European Roads co-funded by the EC
under the 7th Framework Program

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample
The survey was conducted in a school located in the
northern part of France, after obtaining compulsory
authorizations from the relevant authorities and of
the CASPER ethical board committee (CNIL,
IFSTTAR ethic committee, Education Authority,
Headmaster, parents). So ethical rules have been
strictly
observed.
During
the
classical
anthropometric measures, children stayed fully
clothed, preferably with lightly ones and shoes off,
while they wore their usual seasonal clothes when
measured in the car. At least two researchers were
needed. The school nurse was attending during
some sessions and the parents have been invited to
watch if they wanted to. In that way, familiar faces
were around the children in order to allay them.
The campaign took place according to the French
school schedule, during 4 full days.
The measurement protocol has been established in
order no to be too long. 15 minutes maximum
length appeared as acceptable both for children and
for the pedagogical program of the school teachers.
To respect their necessary nap time, 3 years old
children have been measured only in the morning
sessions.
71 children have been measured. A Chi-square test
has been performed and confirmed sex ratio was
unbalanced (See Table 1).
Table 1 Sample

2.2. Car and CRS measurements

The car used for the survey is a Peugeot 308
which is a medium size vehicle with 5 seating
positions. The following measurement have been
performed on the backseat (See Figure 1,
measurements are reported in Table2 of the Results
section)

Figure 1 - Backseat dimensions

Two CRSs have been used and measured: (See

Figure 2 and the corresponding values in Table3 of
the Results section)

Serre, Child anthropometry regarding safety belt

CRS1 BEBECONFORT Trianos safeside,

which belongs to the European standard groups
1-2-3 but has been used in the group 1 (9-18
kg) configuration. In this case, the CRS is
restrained by the seatbelt and the child is
restrained using a 5-points harness.
CRS2 GRACCO Booster, which belongs to the
European standard 2 and 3 and is usable for
children between 15 and 36 kg.

Figure 4 Measurements involving the restraint system

(depending on the age of the child - 20 to 29)
Figure 2 CRS1 (left) Harness system and CRS2
(right) simple booster seat

2.3. Anthropometric measurements

The measurement protocol was a two-steps
procedure. First a set of 14 standard measures was
proceeded in standing and sitting position (see
figure 3). Concerning the sitting position, children
were seated on a chair against a wall in order to
have an angle of 90 between the thigh and the back
(see figure 3). The head was oriented in order to
have the Francfort plane in a horizontal position.
Then additional measurements into the car in real
restraint conditions were performed (see Figure 4).
Children of age close to 3 years have been
measured in the CRS1 and in the CRS2, and the 6
years old ones have been measured in the CRS2
and on the rear bench of the car. Standard
anthropometric tools have been used: height gauge,
sliding calipers, tape measure, scales. Standard
measurements have been selected based on
literature (Serre and al., 2009, 2006; Bartoli and al.
2006).

Figure 3 Standard measurements (taken for every child1 to 19)

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate all the dimensions and the

below list describes these 29 dimensions:
In standing and sitting position:
1. Stature
2. Sitting height
3. Acromion-seat height
4. Knee-heel height
5. Buttock-heel length
6. Thorax depth
7. Abdominal depth
8. Bi-acromial width
9. Thorax width
10. Abdominal width
11. Bi-trochanter width
12. Thigh length
13. Sternum length
14. Weight
In car and CRSs:
15. Manubrium height
16. Navel height
17. Iliac crest height
18. Elbow height
19. Transverse neck diameter
20. Thigh height at the belt navel
21. Distance between the two belts at the
acromion level
22. Distance between the two belts at the
navel level
23. Diagonal belt height at the shoulder level
24. Diagonal belt height at the mi-clavicle level
25. Diagonal belt height at the sternum level
26. Diagonal belt at the iliac crest level
27. Ventral belt height
28. Diagonal belt distance from the navel
29. Diagonal belt distance at the
mi-acromion-sternum level from the
opposite acromion

Serre, Child anthropometry regarding safety belt

The measurement order list has been proceeded in

order to manage measure tools in the better way. A
turnaround of the operators was set up in order to
alternate measuring operations and results
recording. The data acquisition was performed by
qualified operators in the anthropological field and
experienced in taking children's measurement.
3. Results
3.1. Car and CRS measurements
Following measurements of the car and the CRSs
have been collected (See Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2: Car rear bench dimensions

3.2. Anthropometric measurements

A t-test has been processed on a previous database
of about 2000 french children (Bartoli et al., 2006)
to evaluate the influence of the gender on the
measurements. For each standing and sitting
measurement, p value showed no significant
difference. As so, results have been merged without
any distinction between female and male.
The database has been statistically processed and
for each dimension, the 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 95th
percentiles values have been calculated. The
minimal, maximal, mean and standard deviation are
indicated too in the Tables 4 and 5.

Tables 3: CRSs dimensions (mm and degrees)

Serre, Child anthropometry regarding safety belt

Table 1 Measurements of the 3 year-old

Serre, Child anthropometry regarding safety belt

Table 2 Measurements for the 6 year-old

Serre, Child anthropometry regarding safety belt

4. Discussion
Based on these measurements, several preliminary
results can be highlighted:
Results of childrens weight have to be confronted
with legislative standard groups. First, the European
mass classification appears as not relevant: 75% of
the 3 year-old can be both in CRS1 and CRS2
according to their weight, while its known that
children of this age are better protected in harness
systems than using a simple booster cushion both in
frontal and side impacts. The 95th percentile of the 3
year-old appears to be out of the limit and can only
be in the booster seat (see figure 5).

anthropometric data. More specifically, most of the

existing and available data have been mainly
collected in standard positions and so appear as not
suitable to the real restraint conditions.
Concerning the seatbelt position, diagonal belt at
the mi-clavicle level appears as too high regarding
the real clavicle position. Indeed, for the 3 year-old
in the CRS2 for the 50th percentile, the acromionseat height (which is similar to the clavicle height)
is clearly higher than the height of the seatbelt at
this level (31 mm of difference). As for the 6 yearold, it is also higher for the 50th percentile (23 mm)
in the CRS2 and much higher in the backseat (58
mm).
The lower part of the seatbelt has to fit at the iliac
crest level. For the 3 year-old, the ventral belt in the
CRS2 is always close or below the iliac crests level.
For the 6 year-old, the same pattern appears in the
CRS2 while in the backseat ventral belt is slightly
above the iliac crest for the smallest percentiles, and
close for the higher ones.
In the CRS1, the harness straps (at their maximal
position) are below the acromion level at the 50th
percentile and higher.

Figure 5 - Weight confronted to legislative classification

groups.

As for the 6 year-old, if all the children fit in the

booster seat according to their weight, children
between the 5th and the 25th percentile could also be
placed in a child seat (see figure 5).

From an ergonomic point of view, CRSs width is

always larger than each percentile of the bitrochanter width of the children that they are
supposed to restrain.
5. Conclusion

Another observed phenomenon is that thoracic and

abdominal depths show important differences in the
measurement according to the fact that the child is
simply seated or installed in a car. They appear to
be smaller in restraint systems and in the rear bench
than in standard sitting position.

The objective of this work was to provide the main

characteristics of the anthropometry of children
aged of 3 and 6 years old and allow evaluation the
suitability between restraint systems and children
morphology. Dimensions in standing and sitting
positions have been reported in order to give a
general overview of the children external geometry.
Additional measurements in car and CRSs have
been taken to verify the suitability of the belt
regarding the children morphology.
Preliminary results already highlighted some
interesting points:
Differences between a same measure in
sitting position and in a CRS or in the
backseat possibly revealed changes in the
child external morphology and so issues in
the CRSs designing.
The European mass classification do not
seems to be relevant because the seatbelt
appears as bad designed for some children
even if they are seated in the good CRS
regarding their weight.

This shows the importance of developing tools

(human models for example) which fit with correct

Further analyses have to be conducted to check the

suitability of the belt in several anatomical points

Moreover it appears interesting to compare some

dimensions which have been measured both in
classical sitting position (90 backseat) and in a
CRS. In particular the acromion-seat height is an
important dimension to evaluate if the position of
the seatbelt is correct because it has a heavy
influence of the quality of the protection of
children. Results show that this measurement is
shorter in the standard position than for the
situations using CRS2 or the car rear bench. So, it
seems to be very important to choose the good
dimension for designing CRS system for example.

Serre, Child anthropometry regarding safety belt

and to calculate its ideal position considering our

sample.
These data can be used to develop numerical child
body model using scaling technique. Also, data
could be used for improvement of test procedures,
dummies (and associated models), cars and CRS
designs.
Acknowledgement
This work has been performed within the European
Project CASPER Child Advanced Safety Project
for European Roads co-funded by the EC
under the
7th
Framework
Program
(http://www.casper-project.eu). Authors would like
to thank the headmaster of the school Mr HuotMarchand, parents of the children and the children.
References
Anderson RWG, Hutchinson TP (2007). The
feasibility of aged-based criteria for child restraint
selection. ESV conference, Paper 07-02220, 10p.
Alonzo, F., Brun, F., Djidi, E., Gonon, M.,
Javouhey, E., Khann, N., et al. (2005). L'enfant
victime de l'inscurit routire : bilan, prvention et
perspectives. Bron: Compte rendu de la Journe
spcialise du 13 octobre 2004.
Bartoli C, Lalys L, Serre T, Brunet C, Leonetti G,
2006 - Upper limb anthropometry for children aged
from 3 to 15 years. Journal of Biomechanics.
Vol.39, Supp 1, pS79.
Bilston, L. E., & Sagar, N. (2007). Geometry of
Rear Seats and Child Restraints Compared to Child
Anthropometry. In A. I. King, J. W. Melvin & L.
W. Schneider (Eds.), Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol
51 (Vol. 51, pp. 275-298).
Bull, M. J., Agran, P., Garcia, V., Gardner, H. G.,
Laraque, D., Pollack, S. H., et al. (2002). Selecting
and using the most appropriate car safety seats for
growing children: Guidelines for counseling
parents. Pediatrics, 109(3), 550-553.
Burdi, A. R., Huelke, D. F., Snyder, R. G., &
Lowrey, G. H. (1969). Infants and children in adult
world of automobile safety design - pediatric and
anatomical considerations for design of child
restraints. Journal of Biomechanics, 2(3), 267-&.
Campbell, H., Macdonald, S., & Richardson, P.
(1997). High levels of incorrect use of car seat belts
and child restraints in Fife--an important and underrecognised road safety issue. Inj Prev, 3(1), 17-22.
Durbin, D. R., Chen, I., Smith, R., Elliott, M. R., &
Winston, F. K. (2005). Effects of seating position
and appropriate restraint use on the risk of injury to
children in motor vehicle crashes. Pediatrics,
115(3), E305-E309.
Durbin, D. R., Runge, J., Mackay, M., Meissner,
U., Pedder, J., Wodzin, E., et al. (2003). Booster
seats for children: closing the gap between science
and public policy in the United States. Traffic Inj
Prev, 4(1), 5-8.

Ebel, B. E., Koepsell, T. D., Bennett, E. E., &

Rivara, F. P. (2003). Too small for a seatbelt:
Predictors of booster seat use by child passengers.
Pediatrics, 111(4).
Floret, D. (1999). Safety of children as car
passengers: integrate their specificities. Archives De
Pediatrie, 6(3), 247-250.
Huang, S., & Reed, M. P. (2006). Comparison of
child body dimensions with rear seat geometry.
SAE technical paper series, 10.
IIHS. (2008). Too big for her child restraint, she
needs a booster that fits. 43(8), 7. Status report of
the Insurance Institute of Highway safety
IIHS. (2009). Which booster is best for me? Status
report of the Insurance Institute of Highway safety.
44(11), 7.
Kapoor, T., Altenhof, W., & Howard, A. (2005).
The effect of using universal anchorages in child
restraint seats on the injury potential for children in
frontal crash. [Article]. International Journal of
Crashworthiness, 10(3), 305-314.
Morris, S. D., Arbogast, K. B., Durbin, D. R., &
Winston, F. K. (2000). Misuse of booster seats. Inj
Prev, 6(4), 281-284.
Reed, M. P., Ebert, S. M., Sherwood, C. P., Klinich,
K. D., & Manary, M. A. (2009). Evaluation of the
static belt fit provided by belt-positioning booster
seats. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(3),
598-607.
Reed, M. P., Sochor, M. M., Rupp, J. D., Klinich,
K. D., & Manary, M. A. (2009). Anthropometric
specification of child crash dummy pelves through
statistical analysis of skeletal geometry. Journal of
Biomechanics, 42(8), 1143-1145.
Serre, T., Lalys, L., Brunet, C., Bartolli, C.,
Christia-lotter, G., & Leonetti, G. (2005). 3 and 6
years old anthropometry and comparison with crash
dummies. SAE, 5.
Serre, T., Thouvenin, S., Brunet, C., Lalys, L.,
Bartolli, C., & Leonetti, G. (2009). Comparison
between new data on children anthropometry and
CRS dimensions. Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 7.
Smith, S., & Norris, B. (2001). Childata :
Assessment of the validity of data. Nottingham:
University of Nottingham, Product Safety and
Testing Group.
Smith, S. A., & Norris, B. J. (2004). Changes in the
body size of UK and US children over the past
three decades. Ergonomics, 47(11), 1195-1207.
Snyder, R. G., Schneider, C. L., Owings, C. L.,
Reynolds, H. M., Golomb, D. H., & Schork, M. A.
(1977). Anthropometry of infants, children and
youths to age 18 for product safety design.
Bethesda: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Snyder, R. G., Spencer, M. L., & Schneider, L. W.
(1975). Physical characteristics of children as
related to death and injury for consumer product
safety design. Bethesda: Highway Safety Research
Institute.