-
Differences Between Crash Dummy Responses and Real-World
Injury
Frank A. Pintar Frank A. Pintar N. Yoganandan N. Yoganandan Dale
HallowayDale Halloway
Dennis J. MaimanDennis J. Maiman
Wisconsin CIREN Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
RESEARCH SERVICE
-
Introduction
Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATD)ya. k. a. crash test dummies
yUsed to design modern safety systemsyUsed to evaluate modern
safety systems8NHTSA Regulatory testing8NHTSA NCAP star rating8IIHS
ratings8Euro-NCAP, Japan-NCAP, etc
yDesigned to represent the living humanyAssess injury potential
without getting injured8Non-frangible
-
How human-like is an ATD?
Biofidelity
-
Purpose
Crash test dummy characteristicsyBiofidelityyInjury criteria
US-DOT-NHTSA RegulationsVehicle-related injuries in the
real-worldyCIREN identifies emerging trends
Discuss areas of development
-
Dummy Characteristics - BiofidelityHybridHybrid--III III
Frontal Impact DummyFrontal Impact DummyGMGM--designed
1970designed 1970’’ss
-
Dummy Characteristics - BiofidelityHybridHybrid--III Frontal
Impact DummyIII Frontal Impact Dummy
Chest ComplianceChest Compliance
Lobdell 1972
Force (lb)
Deflection (in)
Force (lb)
Deflection (in)
-
Dummy Characteristics - BiofidelityHybridHybrid--III Frontal
Impact DummyIII Frontal Impact Dummy
Neck ComplianceNeck Compliance
Military personnel volunteersMilitary personnel volunteers
-
Dummy Characteristics – Injury Criteria
MatchedMatched--pair testing withpair testing
withEuroSIDEuroSID--2re Side Impact Dummy2re Side Impact Dummy
PMHS tests PMHS tests –– full Instrumentationfull
Instrumentation
F(t)
x(t)a(t)a(t)
a(t)
Various Various boundary boundary
conditions:conditions:Rigid wallRigid wall
Padded wallPadded wallOffset wallOffset wall
-
Dummy Characteristics – Injury Criteria
Tests with InjuriesTests with Injuries
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Max%CTests without InjuriesTests
without Injuries
Derive Probability of Injury
-
Dummy Characteristics – Injury Criteria
Probability of Serious Chest Injury forProbability of Serious
Chest Injury forEuroSIDEuroSID--2re Side Impact Dummy2re Side
Impact Dummy
Normalized to 45 year oldNormalized to 45 year old
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Max. Rib Defl. (mm)
Prob
. of I
njur
yAIS3+ AIS4+
-
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012Time [s]
Acc
eler
atio
n [g
]WSTC1960 CurveIsolated headIntact cadaverCorrected data
Dummy Characteristics – Injury Criteria
GurdjianGurdjian, 1960s PMHS, 1960s PMHS““hand droppinghand
dropping”” techniquetechnique
HIC15 = [1/(t2-t1) ∫ a dt]2.5 (t2-t1)
where t2-t1 is chosen to maximize HIC, t2-t1 < 15 msa is
resultant acceleration measured at head center of gravity
Head Injury Criteria
-
Dummy Characteristics – Injury Criteria
Accelerometers in the dummy Accelerometers in the dummy head
record head record translational accelerationtranslational
acceleration
Head Injury Criteria
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (ms)
Tran
slat
iona
l Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
XYZXY
Z
-
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
Part 571: Includes Crashworthiness Standardsy 571.208 – Frontal
Impact Occupant Protectiony 571.213 – Child Restraint Systemsy
571.214 – Side Impact Occupant Protection
Part 572: Anthropomorphic Test Devices used in 200-series of
part 571
-
US DOT-NHTSA RegulationsFrontal Impact Crashworthiness FMVSS
208
Front outboard seats Two belted dummiesStationary barrierMoving
vehicleTrauma toyHeadyNeckyChestyThigh 35 mph (belted)
25 mph (unbelted)
Rigid Barrier
-
US DOT-NHTSA RegulationsFrontal Impact CrashworthinessHybrid-III
50th Male Dummy Injury Criteria
Head Injury Criteria (HIC15) – 700 (15 ms)Chest Acceleration –
60 gChest Deflection – 63 mmNeck Injury Criteria Nij < 1.0Femur
Criteria – 10 kN
-
US DOT-NHTSA RegulationsSide Impact Crashworthiness FMVSS
214
Two Belted dummies
Left side seating
Stationary vehicle
Moving deformable barrier “crabbed”
NHTSA-SID Trauma toy Chest
y Pelvis
33.5 miles per hour
-
US DOT-NHTSA RegulationsSide Impact FMVSS 214 UPGRADE
Test Configurations Dummies
BOTH mid-size male & small female
Oblique vehicle to pole impact
MDB--to-vehicle side impact
ES-2re SIDIIs
-
US DOT-NHTSA RegulationsSide Impact CrashworthinessES-2re 50th
Male Dummy Injury Criteria
Head Injury Criteria (HIC36) – 1000 (36 ms)Lower Spine
Acceleration – 82 gRib Deflection – 40 mmAbdomen Force – 2500
NPubic Force – 6000 N
-
US DOT-NHTSA RegulationsChild Restraint Systems FMVSS 213
Newborn, 12-mo, 3-yo, 6-yoHead Injury Criteria (HIC36) – 1000
(36 ms)Chest Acceleration – 60 gHead Excursion LimitKnee Excursion
Limit
-
Real-World TraumaInjuries that dummies don’t tell you about
Types of Abdominal Trauma
Upper Extremity Trauma
-
Real-World TraumaInjuries that dummies don’t tell you about
Types of lower extremity trauma Some spine trauma
Vascular trauma
-
Real-World TraumaPelvic Fractures
Frontal impact of 1999 Jeep CherokeeRt acetabular Fx induced by
knee contact with knee bolster
Frontal impact of 1997 Lexus LX450
Acetabular Fxs induced by knee contact with knee bolster
-
Developments in UnderstandingPelvic Fractures
Knee-Thigh-Hip trauma Knee contact – knee bolsterEffect of
loading rateEffect of position
Rupp & Schneider, Orthop Clin N Am, 2004
-
Developments in UnderstandingPelvic Fractures
Translate PMHS response data to dummy responseTranslate PMHS
injury criteria to dummy criteria
Rupp, et al, ESV 2005
-
Real-World TraumaBrain Injuries
Right Occipital Skull FxCerebellar contusion DAI, IVH, SAH IVH,
SAH
-
Developments in UnderstandingBrain Injuries
FocalFocal MotionMotion
Translational AccelerationTranslational Acceleration Rotational
AccelerationRotational Acceleration
-
Developments in UnderstandingBrain Injuries
Skull
Dura-CSF
Brain
Falx Cerebri
Bridging Veins
Skull
Dura-CSF
Brain
Falx Cerebri
Bridging Veins
Rotational motion induces Rotational motion induces deep brain
traumadeep brain trauma
SIMonSIMonComputation Computation
ModelModel
-
Developments in Advanced Dummies
THORTHORFrontal Impact DummyFrontal Impact Dummy
WorldSIDWorldSIDSide Impact DummySide Impact Dummy
~150 sensors~150 sensors3X3X--4X biofidelity4X biofidelityInjury
Criteria ?Injury Criteria ?
-
Summary
Dummies are valuable tools
Great improvements to human safety
Dummy biofidelity is advancing
Dummy-based injury criteria needed
Dummies don’t measure every type of injury
Development of dummy with computer models
-
This research was supported by
US Dept. of Transportation NHTSA,Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Medical Research
Acknowledgment
Differences Between Crash Dummy Responses and Real-World
InjuryIntroductionHow human-like is an ATD?PurposeDummy
Characteristics - BiofidelityDummy Characteristics -
BiofidelityDummy Characteristics - BiofidelityDummy Characteristics
– Injury CriteriaDummy Characteristics – Injury CriteriaDummy
Characteristics – Injury CriteriaDummy Characteristics – Injury
CriteriaDummy Characteristics – Injury CriteriaFederal Motor
Vehicle Safety StandardsUS DOT-NHTSA Regulations�Frontal Impact
Crashworthiness FMVSS 208US DOT-NHTSA Regulations�Frontal Impact
Crashworthiness�Hybrid-III 50th Male Dummy Injury CriteriaUS
DOT-NHTSA Regulations�Side Impact Crashworthiness FMVSS 214US
DOT-NHTSA Regulations�Side Impact FMVSS 214 UPGRADEUS DOT-NHTSA
Regulations�Side Impact Crashworthiness�ES-2re 50th Male Dummy
Injury CriteriaUS DOT-NHTSA Regulations�Child Restraint Systems
FMVSS 213Real-World Trauma�Injuries that dummies don’t tell you
aboutReal-World Trauma�Injuries that dummies don’t tell you
aboutReal-World Trauma�Pelvic FracturesDevelopments in
Understanding�Pelvic FracturesDevelopments in Understanding�Pelvic
FracturesReal-World Trauma�Brain InjuriesDevelopments in
Understanding�Brain InjuriesDevelopments in Understanding�Brain
InjuriesDevelopments in Advanced DummiesSummary