Search Results

In this study, three dummies were evaluated on the component level and as a whole. Their responses were compared with available volunteer and embalmed Post Mortem Human Subject (PMHS) data obtained under similar test conditions to evaluate their biofidelity The volunteer and PMHS data, used as comparators in this study, were used previously to establish some of the biofidelity requirements of the Hybrid III. The BioRID II, the Hybrid III, and the RID2 were all subjected to rear impact HYGE sled tests with ΔVs of 17 and 28 km/hr to determine their biofidelity in these conditions. A static pull test, where a load was manually applied to the head of each dummy, was used to evaluate the static strength of their necks in flexion and extension. Finally, pendulum tests were conducted with the Hybrid III and RID2 to evaluate the dynamic characteristics of their necks in flexion and extension.

A BioRID II dummy and a Hybrid III dummy, each representative of a midsize adult male, were tested side-by-side in simulated rear-impact sled tests. In all tests the dummies were restrained by 3-point belt systems. The results of 4 test sets conducted at a nominal change in velocity (ΔV) of 16 km/hr are presented and discussed. In three of the test sets, bucket seats were used. The head restraints were placed in the up-position in two of the three test sets and in the down-position in the third set of tests. In the fourth test set, rigid seats without any head restraints were used. While analyzing the BioRID II data, the presence of an axial neck load acting on the head, which bypassed the upper neck load transducer, was discovered in all the reported tests. The implication of this observation is that the axial force and all the moments measured by the BioRID II upper neck load transducer could be erroneous.

This study examines the biofidelity, repeatability, and reproducibility of various anthropomorphic devices in rear impacts. The Hybrid III, the Hybrid III with the RID neck, and the TAD-50 were tested in a rigid bench condition in rear impacts with ΔVs of 16 and 24 kph. The results of the tests were then compared to the data of Mertz and Patrick[1]. At a AV of 16 kph, all three anthropomorphic devices showed general agreement with Mertz and Patrick's data [1]. At a AV of 24 kph, the RID neck tended to exhibit larger discrepancies than the other two anthropomorphic devices. Also, two different RID necks produced significantly different moments at the occipital condyles under similar test conditions. The Hybrid III and the Hybrid III with the RID neck were also tested on standard production seats in rear impacts for a AV of 8 kph. Both the kinematics and the occupant responses of the Hybrid III and the Hybrid III with the RID neck differed from each other.

Recent design characteristic changes in a small segment of production passenger car front seats have focused attention on the influence of seat back strength on occupant kinematics and potentially injurious loads placed on occupants during rear end collisions. The National Accident Sampling Study database from the years of 1980 to 1993 was interrogated to determine the relationship between vehicle change in velocity, and the nature and severity of injuries sustained by passengers occupying those seats in rear end collisions. The results of the NASS data analysis show that the yielding seats in most current automobiles perform well as a passive restraint system. When the yielding passenger car seats are compared to the stiffer seat/cab, the passenger car seats offered improved protection. Additionally, the data indicate that the three point restraint system provides protection and restraint for front seat occupants in rear impact.