Search Results

In order to evaluate the THOR-50M as a front impact Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) for vehicle safety design, the ATD was compared to the H3-50M in matching vehicle crash tests for 20 unique vehicle models from 2 vehicle manufacturers. For the belted driver condition, a total of fifty-four crash tests were investigated in the 56.3 km/h (35 mph) front rigid barrier impact condition. Four more tests were compared for the unbelted driver and right front passenger at 40.2 km/h (25 mph) in the flat frontal and 30-degree right oblique rigid barrier impact conditions. The two ATDs were also evaluated for their ability to predict injury risk by comparing their fleet average injury risk to Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) accident data for similar conditions. The differences in seating position and their effect on ATD responses were also investigated.

Sled tests simulating full-frontal rigid barrier impact were conducted using the Hybrid III 5th female and the 50th male anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). The ATDs were positioned in the outboard rear seat of a generic small car environment. Two belt configurations were used: 1) a standard belt with no load limiter or pre-tensioner and 2) a seatbelt with a 4.5 kN load-limiting retractor with a stop function and a retractor pre-tensioner (LL-PT). In the current study, the LL-PT belt system reduced the peak responses of both ATDs. Probabilities of serious-to-fatal injuries (AIS3+), based on the ATDs peak responses, were calculated using the risk curves in NHTSA’s December 2015 Request for Comments (RFC) proposing changes to the United States New Car Assessment Program (US-NCAP). Those probabilities were compared to the injury rates (IRs) observed in the field on point estimate basis.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the biofidelity rating schemes of ISO/TR9790 and the NHTSA Bio Rank System. This paper describes the development of new impact response corridors being proposed for ISO/TR9790 from the results of a recent series of side-impact sled tests. The response data were analyzed by methods consistent with ISO/TR9790, including normalization by impulse-momentum analysis and the elimination of subjects that sustained six or more rib fractures. Unlike ISO/TR9790, this paper proposes the elimination of the data from tests in which the timing and the sequence of loading of the individual impact plates were inconsistent compared to other tests conducted with the same impact wall configuration.

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.