Robert W. Hultman

REPEATABILITY EVALUATION OF THE PRE-PROTOTYPE NHTSA ADVANCED DUMMY COMPARED TO THE HYBRID III

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.

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THOR AND HYBRID III

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 THORs 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.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SID-IIS DUMMY

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.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR LOWER LATERAL FORCE ARMRESTS

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.