Search

A comparison of the Q3 and Hybrid III 3-year-old crash test dummies is presented in this paper. The performance of the dummies were compared in sixty biofidelity tests, seventy-seven static out-of-position airbag tests and sixty-three calibration tests. Various time histories and other data pertaining to accelerations, deflections, forces and moments are compared. In addition, the ease of positioning, handling, and the durability of the dummies in various out-of-position test configurations was assessed. Both the Q3 and Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies were calibrated to their respective specifications. The Hybrid III 3-year-old met its calibration requirements, while the Q3 did not always meet its own calibration requirements. The calibration specifications of the Q3 dummy need to be re-examined and possibly refined. The biofidelity of the Q3 and Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies were evaluated in both frontal and lateral test modes. Each dummy was evaluated against its own and the other's specified requirements, when possible. In the frontal test mode, the Hybrid III 3-year-old acceptably met all of its requirements. The Q3 dummy did not meet all of its own frontal biofidelity requirements. Based on these results, the Hybrid III 3-year-old is more biofidelic for primarily frontal loading conditions. With respect to the lateral biofidelity specifications, neither the Hybrid III 3-year-old nor the Q3 dummy met the requirements for the thorax and pelvis tests performed. Both dummies met the head drop requirements. Neither dummy is recommended for lateral loading conditions. For lateral testing where only the head is impacted, the Hybrid III 3-year-old could be used. In general, the responses of both dummies were repeatable in both the frontal and lateral biofidelity tests performed. The Hybrid III 3-year-old and the Q3 dummies were evaluated in static out-of-position airbag tests with three different side airbag systems (two seat-mounted and one door-mounted system), and one frontal passenger airbag system. Throughout this testing, the Q3 resultant head accelerations exhibited an excessive amount of high-frequency noise causing this dummy to be unacceptable for static out-of-position airbag testing. No significant issues were found with the Hybrid III 3-yearold. It was also determined that the Q3 dummy was more difficult to position repeatedly than the Hybrid III 3-yearold. This was due to the dummy's construction and its lack of rigid landmarks.

A comparison of the NHTSA advanced dummy, THOR, and the Hybrid III dummy is presented in this paper, based on their performance in four vehicle barrier tests, six HYGE sled tests and twenty-two pendulum chest-impact tests. Various time-histories pertaining to accelerations, angular motions, deflections, forces and moments are compared between the two dummies in light of their design difference. In general, in the vehicle crash tests, the resultant head acceleration and chest deflection in THOR are greater than those in the HYBRID III. The shear, axial force and lateral moment in THOR's lumbar are less than those in the Hybrid III in frontal impacts. The differences in the head/chest acceleration and chest deflection could be due to the differences in the construction of the neck and the thorax of the THOR when compared to those of the Hybrid III. The THOR and the Hybrid III have the same level of repeatability in the rear impact sled tests. The THOR is less repeatable in tests involving pendulum impacts on the chest. No major durability problems were identified in the THOR. The construction of the THOR is much more complex than that of the HYBRID III. In order for the THOR to be as easy to use as the HYBRID III, greater effort is needed to improve convenience in terms of data processing, documentation and handling. (A) For the covering abstract see ITRD E106349.

A comparison of the NHTSA advanced dummy and the Hybrid III is presented in this paper based on their performance in repeated sled tests under 3 different restraint systems. The restraint systems considered are: the airbag alone, the 3-point belt alone, and a combined use of the airbag and the 3-point belt. Various time-histories pertaining to accelerations, angular velocities, deflections and forces have been compared between the two dummies in order to study their repeatability. The Hybrid III appears to be more repeatable than the NHTSA advanced dummy in its response in one case, that of restraint with the 3-point belt alone. The response of the NHTSA advanced dummy in two other restraint modes, the airbag alone and the combination of 3-point belt and airbag, appears to be no less repeatable than that of Hybrid III in this series of tests. The variability in the sled pulse appears to mask the differences, if any, in the variability of response between the two dummies in two later cases. Under some restraint configurations, for some body segments, the NHTSA advanced dummy appears to show better repeatability. In addition, it appears that the read-out of the chest-deflection measurement system in the NHTSA advanced dummy is not well defined because it is influenced by the rotation of the upper spine relative to the lower spine. (A) For the covering abstract see ITRD E106439.

This paper presents the results of biomechanical testing of the SID-IIs (a small, second-generation side impact dummy) beta+-prototype dummy by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership. The purpose of this testing was to evaluate the dummy against its previously established biomechanical response corridors for its critical body regions. The response corridors were scaled from the 50th percentile adult male corridors defined in International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Report 9790 to corridors for a 5th percentile adult female, using established ISO procedures. Tests were performed for the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvis regions of the dummy. Testing included drop tests, pendulum impacts, and sled tests. The biofidelity of the SID-IIs beta+-prototype was calculated using a weighted biomechanical test response procedure developed by the ISO. The overall biofidelity rating of the SID-IIs beta+-prototype is 7.0, which corresponds to an ISO classification of "good". Detailed design and instrumentation updates made to the alpha-, beta- and beta+-prototypes of the SID-IIs are included. Verification test results and updated dummy verification response corridors are also included. (A) See also IRRD 883008 and 896689. For the covering abstract of the conference see IRRD E201429.

A new dummy, the SID-IIs, a small (s) second generation (II) side impact dummy (SID) is reported. The SID-IIs is being developed to: 1) help evaluate proposed side impact countermeasures, such as side airbags, for the smaller segment of the population. This smaller segment includes both children and small adults; 2) help harmonize between existing side impact dummies toward one design worldwide by offering the begining of a family of biofidelic Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATD) with as much worldwide input as possible. The dummy weighs 43.5 kg, is 790 mm high and has over 100 data channels available.

During 1990 and 1991, a number of crash tests were experimentally conducted to help evaluate the then-new BIOSID advanced side impact dummy in relation to its durability and measurement capability. The BIOSID delta-deflection test procedure has made it possible to begin phasing in lower lateral force armrests in all Ford cars and trucks. The BIOSID dummy realistically indicates armrest lateral stiffness and therefore is the best tool currently available to assess armrest lateral stiffness in relation to abdominal injury potential. The BIOSID dummy may be used effectively to help develop lower lateral force armrests. The EUROSID-1 dummy also can be used to help indicate abdominal injury potential, although the injury potential has to be inferred from internal loading instead of direct compression and viscous criterion measurements.