DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE HYBRID III THREE

Transcription

DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE HYBRID III THREE-YEAR-OLD, SIX-YEAR-OLDAND SMALL FEMALE TEST DUMMIES IN RESTRAINT SYSTEMAND OUT-OF-POSITION AIR BAG ENVIRONMENTSByRoger A. SaulHoward B. PritzJoeseph McFaddenStanley H. BackaitisNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHeather HallenbeckDan RhuleTransportation Research Center Inc.United StatesPaper Number: 98-S7-O-01

Description and Performance of the Hybrid III Three Year Old, Six-Year-Old and Small Female TestDummies in Restraint System and Out-of-Position Air Bag EnvironmentsRoger A. SaulHoward B. PritzJoeseph McFaddenStanley H. BackaitisNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHeather HallenbeckDan RhuleTransportation Research Center Inc.United StatesPaper Number: 98-S7-O-01INTRODUCTIONWith the introduction of air bags coming intothe market at a brisk pace, and foreseeing the need forassessing the safety benefits of the air bag for all sizesof vehicle occupants, the Center for Disease Control(CDC) awarded in 1987 a contract to the Ohio StateUniversity under the title “Development for MultisizedHybrid III-Based Dummy Family.” At the time thefunding covered only the development of a smallfemale and a large male dummies. Recognizing theneed for dummies with improved biofidelity andextended measuring capability and capacity to evaluatethe safety of children, CDC provided additionalfunding in 1989 to develop a design foundation for theHybrid III-type child size dummies. To support thiswork, the Ohio State University asked the Society ofAutomotive Engineers (SAE) to form an appropriateworking group that would provide advice and guidancefrom the automotive perspective. The SAE, through itsHybrid III Dummy Family Task Group and later, alsothrough the Dummy Testing Equipment Subcommittee,has continued the development work since then,resulting in the construction of prototype Hybrid IIItype 5th percentile female, 95th percentile male, sixyear-old, three-year-old, and CRABI 12-month-olddummies.In 1997, NHTSA, in cooperation with theappropriate technical committess of SAE, initiated anevaluation program for the prototype Hybrid IIIdummies prior to proposing them for incorporation intoPart 572 as regulated test devices. This paper provideshighlights of the Agency program which was used toevaluate the Hybrid III three-year-old and six-year-oldchild dummies and the 5th percentile female dummyfor their sufficiency as measurement devices. Itincludes detailed anthropometry, biofidelity responses,and performance data for out-of-position static air bagtests and dynamic sled tests. Similar evaluations forthe 95th percentile male and the CRABI 12- month- oldare forthcoming.Table 1 summarizes the overall weight andkey dimensions for a number of current dummiesincluding the three dummies described in this paper.The three dummies along with the 50th male are shownin the photograph of Figure 1.Figure 2 illustrates a key feature that has beenadded to the thorax of each of these three dummies.Accelerometers have been added to the sternum andspine box to allow the determination of the viscouscriteria (v*c). Two or three pairs of accelerometers(one accelerometer on the sternum and one on the spinebox constitute a pair) are used to determine the velocityof the sternum relative to the spine.To assess biofidelity, component tests wereconducted with the head, neck, and thorax of eachdummy. The component test responses were thencompared to the appropriate biofidelity corridors whichrepresent estimated typical human responses to similartest conditions. Given the absence of sufficient data forthe three- and six-year-old children, and the 5thpercentile female, the biofidelity corridors weredeveloped by applying the appropriate massdistribution and geometric scaling factors to the H-III50M corridors.When evaluating biofidelity, one mustconsider the limitations imposed by the mechanicalnature of the dummy. For example, the biofidelityrequirements must be balanced with the equallyimportant qualifications that the dummy be durable andthat its responses are repeatable. These requirementsmake it necessary to construct the dummy fromSaul, Pg. 1

Table 1Comparison of Weight, Sitting Height, and Stature for Hybrid III Family12 monthCRABI3 YOChild6 YOChild5th %ileFemale50th %ileMale95th in29.437.247.30*59.0*68.7*73.4*Sitting e 1. Photograph of the Hybrid III Dummy Family: (left to right) three-year-old, six-year-oldsmall female and mid-size male.Saul, Pg. 2

HYBRID III THREE-YEAR-OLD DUMMYDescription of Dummy FeaturesFigure 2. Accelerometer pairs in the thorax of thesmall female. (Middle ribs removed for clarity.)engineering materials which can withstand repeatedimpacts of high energy, whereas the human body,consisting of frangible bones and soft tissue, cannotendure frequent exposures of this destructive nature.Given these limitations, it is not reasonable to expectthat the dummies’ responses can be tuned to fitperfectly within the biofidelity corridors. For thepurposes of this evaluation, biofidelity has beendeemed acceptable when the following subjectivecriteria have been met: (1) the area under the curve ofthe dummy’s response is reasonably similar to that ofthe biofidelity corridor; (2) the hysteresis properties ofthe dummy’s response are reasonably similar to thoseof the biofidelity corridor; (3) the maximum points ofinterest (force, deflection, rotation, etc.) are within thebiofidelity corridor.Each section to follow describes the featuresof the dummy, the instrumentation capability, thebiofidelity responses of the major components, and keyresults of out-of-position and sled tests. All datapresented in this paper conforms to SAE J-211requirements for both filtering and sign convention.The Hybrid III Three-year-old child (H-III3C)dummy was designed to be used in testing childrestraints and assessing the injury risks associated withair bag interactions. The dummy’s final design wasbased on a combination of designs from the Threeyear-old “Air Bag” dummy, scaled-down versions ofthe Hybrid III 50th percentile male, and scaled-upversions of the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction(CRABI) dummy. The dummy’s current designincludes some changes made by General Motors, FirstTechnology Safety Systems and the Vehicle Researchand Test Center (VRTC) to maximize permissablechest deflection and protect instrumentation, andfurther changes made by the SAE as a result of thisevaluation. Some of the distinguishing characteristicsof the H-III3C design are a segmented neck with a steelcable to limit elongation, a set of ribs and rib stiffenersmade of 1095 steel for increased durability, upper andlower rib guides to deter vertical movement of the ribsfor improved accuracy of chest deflection measurementand sternum-to-spine bumpers to preventinstrumentation destruction caused by metal-to-metalcontact in the event of extreme chest deflection. As thedummy was intended to be used while properlyrestrained in child restraint systems as well as out-ofposition with air bags, the dummy’s pelvis allowssitting, standing and kneeling postures.AnthropometryTables A1 and A2 in Appendix A show themeasured segment weights and external dimensions ofa Hybrid III Three-year-old dummy and provide acomparison to the published SAE guidelines (DraftHybrid III Three-Year-Old Dummy User Manual datedMay 13, 1997). The measurement data shows that thesegment weights of the dummy measured at VRTC areall within the SAE specifications, with the exception ofthe head and torso with jacket, which are both only0.03 lb. over the specified weight. All but two of themeasured external dimensions made at VRTC fallwithin the specified range.The outstandingmeasurements were not significant enough to preventtesting.InstrumentationThis dummy has numerous instrumentationcapabilities including 19 accelerometers, 10 load cellsand a rotary potentiometer in the chest, totalling 50 dataSaul, Pg. 3

channels. Unique instrumentation capabilities of thisdummy include a pair of uniaxial accelerometers in theskull to calculate angular acceleration and rotation ofthe head, two sternal uniaxial accelerometer pairs foruse in calculating the viscous criterion (VC), twotriaxial configurations of accelerometers on the spine toallow calculation of angular acceleration and rotationof the thoracic spine, upper and lower neck and left andright iliac, acetabulum and shoulder load cells. Thedummy also has the capacity to mount a pubic load cellto measure loads associated with child restraintsystems. A table of instrumentation is included inTable 2.BiofidelityThe Agency has conducted several tests withthis dummy including component, static out-of-position(OOP) air bag and dynamic sled tests. Repeatedcomponent tests on the head, neck and thorax wereconducted before, after, and throughout a series ofOOP and sled tests to assess the dummy’s biofidelity,repeatability, reproducibility and durability. Figures 36 show typical plots of component test data for thehead drop, neck extension, neck flexion and thoraximpact, respectively, with their biofidelity corridors asdefined by Mertz1.Table 2H-III3C Dummy Instrumentation celerometersHeadAx, Ay, Az1, Az24Upper Thoracic SpineAx, Ay, Az3Middle Thoracic SpineAx, Ay, Az3Lower Thoracic SpineAx, Ay, Az3Upper SternumAx1Lower SternumAx1Lower Spine BoxAx119 max.PelvisAx, Ay, Az3Rotary PotentiometerThoraxDx1Load CellsUpper NeckFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz6Lower NeckFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz6LumbarFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz6Anterior Superior Iliac Spine x 2Fx upper, Fx lower4Acetabulum x 2Fy2PubicFx, Fz2Shoulder x 2Fx, Fz450 max.30 max.# ChannelsSaul, Pg. 4

Figure 3. Typical head drop response withbiofidelity corridor.Figure 4. Typical neck pendulum response inextension with biofidelity corridor.Figure 6. Typical thorax impact response withbiofidelity corridor.Only a limited number of tests have beenperformed thus far on the latest versions of the headskin and neck as they have recently been modifiedtoincorporate improvements. Insufficient componenttest data with the final dummy configuration preventsdiscussion of repeatability, reproducibility anddurability of the head and neck. Note that the steep risein moment during neck extension is caused by thesegments of the neck contacting each other, resistingfurther rotation, producing a dramatic increase in themoment. This is a mechanical limit of the engineeringmaterials and the geometry of the dummy neck. Boththe neck flexion and extension responses show aninertial moment opposite to the direction of the primaryresponse. For example, in the neck extension response,an initial flexion moment occurs. This response isobserved in adult cadaver data and is due to the inertialresponse of the head during impact, but the biofidelitycorridors do not include this inertial response.Also note that the initial rise in force duringthorax impact is due to the dummy skin slapping theribs, is not an indicator of the response of the ribs, andis therefore disregarded when assessing the dummy’sthorax biofidelity. This also is a mechanical limitationof the engineering materials, but one which is not seenin adult cadaver data. The thorax appears to showexcellent repeatability and reproducibility and isreasonably durable.Static Out-of-Position Air Bag TestingFigure 5. Typical neck pendulum response in flexionwith biofidelity corridor.The OOP and sled tests were performed toassess the dummy’s durability and system performance.The OOP tests were conducted in several differentvehicle configurations in ISO positions 1 and 2 tosimulate pre-impact braking positions where severeSaul, Pg. 5

interactions would occur with a deploying passenger airbag. The procedure for seating the dummy in the ISOpositions is described in Appendix B. The air bagsystems were selected based on the current trendtoward depowered systems, in order to representsupplemental restraint systems which will beincorporated into vehicles in the future. The systemschosen were mildly aggressive and aggressive fullpowered air bags which would subject the dummy toappropriate loads in order to evaluate its durability andsystem performance. It should be noted that the OOPand sled tests were conducted with a preliminaryversion of the dummy as some minor improvementswere made to the dummy after the testing wascompleted. Additional tests with the latest dummyrevisions are underway.The tests were conducted in a generic setup,using actual vehicle seats, dash panels and passengerair bag modules to simulate front passengerenvironments. The orientation of each vehicle setupwas representative of the actual vehicle including seatpan and seat back angles, windshield angle, air bagcenter height from the floor of the vehicle, and therelationship among these parts. Table 3 showsmaximum responses from the primary channels duringOOP tests.Table 3.H-III3C Out-of -Position Maximum 848Head Resultant Accelerationg99Upper Neck Force-XN-1771Upper Neck Force-ZN2244Upper Neck Moment-YN-m-56Chest Deflectionmm-30Resultant ChestAccelerationg53Sled TestingThe dynamic simulation vehicle setup was thesame as the OOP setup except two passenger seatswere positioned next to each other, one on the driverside of the dash panel with the seat in the rearwardmosttrack position to keep the dummy from contacting thedash, and the other dummy on the passenger side of thedash panel with the seat in its forwardmost trackposition to ensure dummy contact with the air bagwhen deployed. The steering column was removedfrom the instrument panel for a more passenger-likesetting, allowing more room for excursion. Again, itshould be noted that the sled tests were also conductedwith a preliminary version of the dummy. Additionaltests with the latest dummy are being conducted.The sled test set-ups included several differentvehicle configurations with various child restraints,vehicle restraints and sled pulses. Three types of sledpulses were employed: (1) the FMVSS 213 pulse(approximately 47 kph, 23 g), (2) 208-type crash pulses(approximately 50-54 kph, 34-35 g), and (3) a 208AAMA sled pulse (approximately 47 kph, 17.5 g). Thedummy was typically properly restrained and seated ina child restraint system, except for some partially andcompletely unrestrained tests.The vehicleconfigurations were chosen to represent a range ofaggressive environments in order to evaluate thedurability of the dummy. The sled test matrix (TableC1, Appendix C) was designed to represent severalsled pulses, two different vehicles, and a variety ofrestraint systems. Post-test dummy inspections wereconducted to identify problems and/or ensure structuralintegrity before proceeding to the next test. In thisway, dummy durability could be followed closely.Table 4 shows the maximum responses fromthe primary channels during sled tests.The loading of the OOP and sled tests wassignificant as demonstrated by the magnitude of thepeak values in Tables 3 and 4. Overall peak chestdeflection achieved 80% (38/47 mm at the time;available space now is 41 mm, so overall peakdeflection was 93%) of the available clearance betweenthe sternum and spine bumpers, illustrating that the testmatrix provided chest loadings which were notinconsequential. The measured responses from thevarious conditions on the sled prove the dummy is ableto provide useful and reasonable measurements usingthe different sled pulses, restraint conditions andvehicle setups as a basis for comparison. The dummydid not sustain significant damage throughout the testseries, suggesting that the dummy is quite robust.However, there were minor problemsidentified during the static and dynamic test series thathave since been addressed by SAE and are in theprocess of being validated. For instance, the head skinbegan coming loose and shifting during both OOP andsled testing, which could potentially have affected headacceleration measurements and head injury criterion(HIC) calculations. Several modifications were madeto the head skin and skull which resulted in a moresecure attachment and better fit, as well as slightlySaul, Pg. 6

Table 4.H-III3C Sled Test Maximum ResponsesMaximum ResponseCriteria/MeasurementSled PulseAir bag deployed?Child Restraint Used?213W/AB*W/CRS 208W/O ABW/CRS208W/ABW/CRS208 SledW/O ABW/CRS208 SledW/ABW/CRS208W/O eck Flexion Moment(N-m)315737341321427Neck Extension Moment(N-m)-22-25-27-13-80-59Neck Shear Force (N)933837726-7023734078813Neck Axial Force (N)-17352235-13961178-46715641868Chest ResultantAcceleration (g)676476324411972-13-38-13Chest Deflection (mm)-13-22-13-14*AB Air Bag CRS Child Restraint System#W/O CRS The dummy was not in a child seat and was not beltedimproved biofidelity. In addition, the shoulder belts ofthe child restraint systems became lodged between thedummy’s neck and shoulder, causing unrealisticloading. The shoulder load cell cover and structuralreplacement were modified with the addition of a beltguide to prevent such occurrences. The neck segmentswere shaved down to provide additional rotation as theneck response was short of the biofidelity rotationcorridors in both flexion and extension. Concerns frommembers of the SAE Hybrid III Dummy Family TaskGroup prompted an increase in the depth of thesternum-to-spine bumpers from 4 mm to 10 mm asinstrumentation had been destroyed using the thinnerbumpers. It was thought that thicker bumpers wouldprevent such damage to instrumentation and a depth of10 mm was chosen because it was the thickest depthwhich could be used without affecting thoraxcalibration deflection results.HYBRID III SIX-YEAR-OLD DUMMYDescription of Dummy FeaturesThe Hybrid-III6C dummy was designed foruse in frontal impact testing and scaled from the HybridIII 50th shape and biofidelity response. SAE andindustry were further refining and revising the dummyin 1996 when NHTSA decided to use the dummy inresearch testing to evaluate the injury risks which full-powered passenger air bag systems posed for out-ofposition children. In late 1997 NHTSA evaluated thesuitability of the H-III6C dummy to be proposed forincorporation into the Part 572 standard. The dummyas received from the manufacturer was modified toinclude patches of skin under the chin and at theoccipital condyles of the dummy head and around theshoulder to decrease the possibility of air bag puncturesduring testing. The dummy design included a neckand lumbar which were equipped with nylon inserts toprevent signal noise. The dummy’s thorax wasequipped with both a chest potentiometer andaccelerometers and also has several structuralenhancements to optimize it for use in the air bagenvironment. These enhancements included strongsteel ribs and rib stiffeners, rubber sternum stops likethe kind used on the HIII 50th percentile dummy,additional clearance in the thoracic cavity for travel ofthe chest deflection transducer arm, upper and lower ribstops to prevent vertical motion of the ribs and a metalstrip with recesses to hold each rib from pivoting aboutthe sternum area. A modified abdomen providedadditional clearance for travel of the chest deflectiontransducer arm while maintaining posture.AnthropometryThe dummy’s design is based on establishedscaling procedures from the Part 572 Subpart E 50thSaul, Pg. 7

percentile male Hybrid III crash test dummy matchinganthropometry, mass distribution, sitting heights, andmotion ranges of the average six year old2,3,4.Examination of the dummies anthropometry and massdistribution and the SAE Task Group specified targets(Task Group minutes of May 10, 1991) are shown inAppendix A, Tables A.3 and A.4. A few of thecomponents varied from the SAE specifications butwere not considered sufficiently critical to precludetesting.InstrumentationThe dummy’s instrumentation capabilitiesshown below in Table 5 are particularly suited forassessing air bag induced injuries.BiofidelityComponent tests 5 were performed throughoutthe test program to evaluate critical components,compare their response to the specified biofidelitycorridors and determine repeatability after continuoustesting of the dummy. The component tests were thehead drop test, neck pendulum test, and thoraximpactor test.Typical responses of these three componentsoverlayed onto their appropriate biofidelity corridorsare shown in Figure 7 for the head, Figures 8 and 9 forthe neck in flexion and extension, and in Figure 10 forthe thorax.The responses of the two dummies used in thetest program were found to be excellent for bothrepeatability and reproducibility.None of theresponses showed any tendency to drift in any specificdirection.Table 5.H-III6C InstrumentationDummyH-III6C51 HeadAx, Ay, Az3Upper Thoracic SpineAx, Ay, Az3Middle Thoracic SpineAx, Ay, Az3Upper SternumAx1Lower SternumAx1Upper Spine BoxAx1Lower Spine BoxAx1PelvisAx, Ay, Az3RotaryPotentiometerThoraxDx1Load CellsUpper NeckFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz6Lower NeckFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz6LumbarFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz6Anterior Superior Iliac SpineFx upper, Fx lower4Femur x 2FzFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz212Saul, Pg. 8

Figure 10. Typical H-III6C Thoracic ResponseFigure 7. Typical H-III6C Head ResponseStatic Out-of-Position Air Bag TestingFigure 8. Typical H-III6C Neck Flexion ResponseWhile the aim of the component level testingwas primarily to determine the dummy’s repeatability,the aim of the OOP test program was to determine thedummy’s ability to provide useful and practicablemeasurements and to establish its structural integrity ina relatively severe air bag deployment environment.Front passenger compartments of two popularcompact vehicles were selected for OOP Tests. Thesesystems were chosen as representative compactvehicles with top-mounted passenger-side air bagsystems. The dummy set-up procedures for OOP testsare based on ISO child positions 1 and 2 modified tofacilitate the placement of dummies within the vehicleas described in Appendix B. Sixteen tests wereconducted and maximum primary dummy responsesare shown in Table 6.The OOP test program showed the dummy hasthe ability to provide useful and practicablemeasurements. The OOP test program tried thestructural integrity of the dummy at the outset of thetest program, requiring a modification to the metal stripin the front of the ribs. With this modification, thedurability of the dummy in the relatively severe air bagenvironment was established.Sled TestingThe purpose of the sled tests was to determineif the dummy (1) was capable of useful, consistent andrepeatable measurements; (2) could distinguish amongdifferent crash pulses, seating configurations andrestraint systems; and (3) had adequate durability.Figure 9. Typical H-III6C Neck Extension ResponseSaul, Pg. 9

crash pulses (approximately 50-54 kph, 33 g), and (3)a 208 AAMA sled pulse (approximately 48 kph, 17 g).Twelve sled tests were performed with two dummies.In two tests only one dummy was used, for a total oftwenty-six dummy tests. Table 7 summarizes themaximum responses recorded for the various testingconfigurations.The measured response values in the sled testsvaried from very low to extremely high sensor outputs.Under extremely severe loading conditions, none of themeasurements showed traces of contamination byunusual signals or distortions that would be a cause forquestioning the response validity of the measurements.The patterns of measurements obtained from dummybased sensors appeared to provide correct trends ofcomparative responses based on pulse aggressivity, seatlocations and restraint conditions.Table 6.H-III6C OOP Test Maximum ResponsesCRITERIA/RESPONSEVALUEHIC1085Neck Flexion Moment(N-m)62Neck Extension Moment(N-m)-94Neck Shear Force (N)2541Neck Axial Force (N)-3492Resultant ChestAcceleration (g)90Chest Deflection (mm)-34The same vehicle configurations used in theOOP tests were used in HYGE sled tests. The dummywas positioned with various restraint conditionsincluding booster seats, 3-point belts and air bags. Thedummy was also tested unbelted and completelyunrestrained. See Table C2 in Appendix C. Threetypes of sled pulses were employed: (1) the FMVSS213 pulse (approximately 47 kph, 23 g), (2) 208-typeHYBRID III FIFTH PERCENTILE FEMALEDescription of Dummy FeaturesThe H-III5F dummy is essentially a scaleddown version of the Hybrid III 50th (H-III50M)percentile dummy with several updated componentsto provide more human-like range of motion andimprove performance and durability in the air bagTable 7.H-III6C Sled Test Maximum ResponsesCRITERIA/RESPONSEVALUE213W/OAB*213 W/AB208W/O AB208W/AB208 SLEDW & W/OABHIC69490614761119313Neck Flexion Moment (N-m)3121283424Neck Extension Moment (N-m)-42-60-46-47-15Neck Shear Force (N)-770-940-1439-1172-493Neck Axial Force (N)2544-30163953-20961806Resultant Chest Acceleration (g)5558857040Chest Deflection (mm)-38-33-55-38-39Excursion (mm)624*AB Air BagSaul, Pg. 10

environment. The thorax contains several significantmodifications including rib guides which limit upwardand downward movement of the ribs, similar to thosefound in the H-III3C and H-III6C. The pelvis containsfeatures which reduce the likelihood of submariningwhen tested in a 3-point belt environment. Mounted oneach upper femur is a hard plastic bumper which limitsthe amount of hyperflexion of the femur and preventsmetal-to-metal contact in extreme conditions. A rubberbumper mounted on the ankle limits the range ofmotion of the foot and prevents metal-to-metal contactbetween the foot and ankle. Also incorporated into theheel of the foot is an Ensolite pad which provides adegree of heel compliance.AnthropometryThe external dimensions and segment weightsof an H-III5F dummy were measured and compared todesign guidelines published by SAE. The results ofthese measurements appear in Tables A.5 and A.6 inAppendix A. The external dimensions meet the SAEguidelines and the segment weights meet all of therequirements except for one. The total dummy weightwas well within the published guidelines.InstrumentationThe dummy contains provisions for mountinga wide variety of electronic instrumentation. Similar tothe H-III3C and H-III6C, the H-III5F has capacity formounting three accelerometer pairs to the sternum andspine for computing the viscous criterion (V*C).Another unique feature is the anterior-superior iliacspine (ASIS) load cell which provides useful information relative to belt loading. Table 8 summarizesthe available instrumentation for the H-III5F.BiofidelityThe H-III5F biomechanical impact responserequirements for the head, neck, and chest wereTable 8.Available Instrumentation for H-III5FTypeLocationMeasurements# ChannelsAccelerometersHead CGAx, Ay, Az3ThoraxAx, Ay, Az3PelvisAx, Ay, Az3Sternum - Upper, Middle, LowerAx3Spine - Upper, Lower, MiddleAx3RotaryPotentiometerThorax (Chest Deflection)Dx1LinearPotentiometerKnee Slider*Dx1Load CellsUpper NeckFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz6Lower NeckFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My5Lumbar SpineFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My5Thoracic SpineFx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My5ASIS*Fx, My2Femur - 1 channel*#Fz1Femur - 6 channel*#Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz6Upper Tibia Load Cell*Fx, Fz, Mx, My4Lower Tibia Load Cell*Fx, Fz, Mx, My471 max.* indicates that right and left load cells are required# The two femur load cells are mutually exclusive; if one is used, the other is excluded.Saul, Pg. 11

Neck Extension Biofidelity200Corrected Neck Moment (Nm)obtained by applying the appropriate mass andgeometric scale factors to the response requirements forthe H-III50M6. Multiple head, neck, and thoraxcomponent tests were conducted to assess biofideltyand also to establish the repeatability andreproducibility of the responses. Tests were conductedthroughout the duration of the evaluation to ensure thelong term durability of the biofidelity responses.The biomechanical head impact responserequirements state that the peak resultant accelerationof the head c.g. for a 376 mm drop of the head onto aflat, rigid impact surface shall be between 240 and 295g. Figure 11 shows a typical head drop response incomparison to the biomechanical response requirement.-20-40-60-80020406080100120head rotation (deg)Figure 13. Typical H-III5F Neck ExtensionResponseHead Drop BiofidelityThe biomechanical requirements for the chestspecify the force-deflection characteristics of the thoraxin response to a mid-sternal impact of a 14 kgpendulum at 6.71 m/s. A typical response to a thoracicimpact test compared against the biomechanicalcorridor can be found in Figure 14.resultant head accel. (g)300200100Thoracic Impact Biofidelity5000000.0050.0140000.015time (sec)The biomechanical neck bending requirementsare defined by the head and neck’s response to aprescribed deceleration pulse resulting from a rigidpendulum drop into an energy absorbing material. Atypical response for neck flexion and neck extensiontests compared against their respective biomechanicalcorridors can be found in Figures 12 and 13,respectively.3000force (N)Figure 11. Typical H-III5F Head Impact Response2000100000255075displacement (mm)Figure 14. Typical H-III5F Thorax Impact ResponseStatic Out-of Position Air Bag TestingNeck Flexion Biofidelity100corrected neck moment (Nm)806040200-20-40020406080100head rotation (deg)Figure 12. Typical H-III5F Neck Flexion ResponseDriver and passenger static out-of-positiontests were conducted in several different vehiclesystems. The OOP tests were primarily intended as anevaluation of the dummies’ durability and the integrityof the instrumented measurements. Tests involving thedriver systems were carried out in an actual vehicleusing standard seats, dash panels, and air bags; for thepassenger tests, however, the seats were removed toachieve proper dummy positioning. Tests involvingthe passenger systems were conducted in a genericsetup. The driver test environment was made up of aflat, steel seat

key dimensions for a number of current dummies including the three dummies described in this paper. The t hree dum mies al ong wi th the 50t h m ale are shown in the photograph of Figure 1. Fig ure 2 illu strates a k ey featu re th at h as been added to the thorax of each of these three dummies