Application of a Knee Injury Criteria for the Hybrid III Dummy to Address a Variety of Car Crash and Restraint Scenarios

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Atkinson ◽  
Roger Haut ◽  
Chris Eusebi ◽  
Tim Hill
Keyword(s):  
Knee Injury ◽  
Injury Criteria ◽  
Car Crash ◽  
Hybrid Iii

Injury criteria of the IMO and the Hybrid III dummy as indicators of injury potential in free-fall lifeboats

1996 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 385-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
James K. Nelson ◽  
Peter J. Waugh ◽  
Alan J. Schweickhardt
Keyword(s):  
Free Fall ◽  
Injury Criteria ◽  
Hybrid Iii ◽  
Injury Potential

Responses of Hybrid-III 50th and Thor-NT 50th in Sled Tests With Different Seat Belt Pretensioner Configurations

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang In Paek ◽  
Greg Shaw ◽  
Jeff Crandall ◽  
Yoon Ho Baek ◽  
Ol Suk Ko
Keyword(s):  
Head Injury ◽  
Seat Belt ◽  
Relative Sensitivity ◽  
Forward Movement ◽  
Similar Test ◽  
Injury Criteria ◽  
Hybrid Iii ◽  
Head Injury Criteria ◽  
Test Repeatability

This study quantifies the effectiveness of the various seat belt pretensioner configurations relative to the no pretensioner condition and defines the relative sensitivity of the Hybrid-III 50th and THOR-NT 50th percentile male anthropomorphic test devices to pretensioner effects. The results of this study indicate that pretensioners reduced the chest accelerations and Head Injury Criteria (HIC) of both Hybrid-III and THOR-NT dummies. In addition, the pretensioners reduced the chest forward movement by providing restraint earlier in the event. The dual pretensioners and the retractor pretensioners were more effective than the buckle pretensioner and the no pretensioner conditions. Although the Hybrid-III and THOR-NT were different in construction and sitting depth, the Hybrid-III and THOR-NT's responses to the pretensioner conditions were similar. Test-to-test repeatability was acceptable for both dummies.

Effect of Head Restraint Position and Neck Injury Criteria in Rear Impact

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
John DeRosia ◽  
Narayan Yoganandan ◽  
Frank A. Pintar
Keyword(s):  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Vehicle Safety ◽  
Bending Moments ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Acceleration Pulse ◽  
Head Restraint ◽  
Rear Impact ◽  
Injury Criteria ◽  
Hybrid Iii ◽  
Impact Acceleration

The objective of this study was to determine the forces and bending moments at the top of the Hybrid III dummy neck secondary to rear impact acceleration and evaluate the various proposed injury criteria. Rear impact sled tests were conducted by applying the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards FMVSS 202 acceleration pulse. Differing positions of the head restraint in terms of height (750 and 800 mm) and backset (zero, 50, and 100 mm) were used to determine the axial and shear forces, bending moments, and injury criteria (NIC, Nij, and Nkm). The time sequence of attainment of these parameters was determined along with peak values.

Coupling Lateral Bending and Shearing Mechanisms to Define Knee Injury Criteria for Pedestrian Safety

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fuhao Mo ◽  
Catherine Masson ◽  
Dominique Cesari ◽  
Pierre Jean Arnoux
Keyword(s):  
Knee Injury ◽  
Pedestrian Safety ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Injury Criteria

THE INFLUENCES OF ARM RESIST MOTION ON A CAR CRASH TEST USING HYBRID III DUMMY WITH HUMAN-LIKE ARM

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (09n11) ◽  
pp. 1748-1753
Author(s):  
YONGCHUL KIM ◽  
YOUNGIL YOUM ◽  
HANIL BAE ◽  
HYEONKI CHOI
Keyword(s):  
Seat Belt ◽  
Crash Test ◽  
Design Element ◽  
Reactive Force ◽  
Lumped Mass ◽  
Mass Model ◽  
Car Crash ◽  
Hybrid Iii ◽  
Oscillation Test ◽  
Flexion Moment

Safety of the occupant during the crash is very essential design element. Many researches have been investigated in reducing the fatal injury of occupant. They are focusing on the development of a dummy in order to obtain the real human-like motion. However, they have not considered the arm resist motion during the car accident. In this study, we would like to suggest the importance of the reactive force of the arm in a car crash. The influences of reactive force acting on the human upper extremity were investigated using the impedance experimental method with lumped mass model of hand system and a Hybrid III dummy with human-like arm. Impedance parameters (e.g. inertia, spring constant and damping coefficient) of the elbow joint in maximum activation level were measured by free oscillation test using single axis robot. The results showed that without seat belt, the reactive force of human arm reduced the head, chest, and femur injury, and the flexion moment of the neck is higher than that of the conventional dummy.

Head and Neck Response of an Active Human Body Model and Finite Element Anthropometric Test Device During a Linear Impactor Helmet Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Bruneau ◽  
Duane S. Cronin
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Muscle Activation ◽  
Fe Model ◽  
Human Body Model ◽  
Neck Stiffness ◽  
Body Model ◽  
Injury Criteria ◽  
Hybrid Iii ◽  
Primary Impact

Abstract It has been proposed that neck muscle activation may play a role in head response resulting from impacts in American Football. The importance of neck stiffness and active musculature in the standard linear impactor helmet test was assessed using a detailed head and neck finite element (FE) model from a current human body model (HBM) compared to a validated hybrid III head and neck FE model. The models were assessed for bare-head and helmeted impacts at three speeds (5.5, 7.4, and 9.3 m/s) and three impact orientations. The HBM head and neck was assessed without muscle activation and with a high level of muscle activation representing a braced condition. The HBM and hybrid III had an average cross-correlation rating of 0.89 for acceleration in the primary impact direction, indicating excellent correspondence regardless of muscle activation. Differences were identified in the axial head acceleration, attributed to axial neck stiffness (correlation rating of 0.45), but these differences did not have a large effect on the overall head response using existing head response metrics (head injury criteria, brain injury criteria, and head impact power). Although responses that develop over longer durations following the impact differed slightly, such as the moment at the base of the neck, this occurred later in time, and therefore, did not considerably affect the short-term head kinematics in the primary impact direction. Though muscle activation did not play a strong role in the head response for the test configurations considered, muscle activation may play a role in longer duration events.

scholarly journals Windblast testing of an aircrew helmet: An approach to neck load analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 ◽  
pp. 77-82
Author(s):  
NK Tripathy ◽  
N Divya ◽  
V Raghunandan
Keyword(s):  
Structural Integrity ◽  
Test Facility ◽  
Performance Limits ◽  
Fighter Aircraft ◽  
Injury Criteria ◽  
Test Conditions ◽  
Entire Duration ◽  
Hybrid Iii ◽  
Total Exposure Time ◽  
Structural Failures

Introduction: Modern generation fighter aircraft has expanded the escape envelope for a fighter aircrew. With the ejection occurring at very high airspeeds, windblast is a cause of major injuries and fatalities. Flying helmet, before its induction into operational usage, must be tested in simulated windblast conditions to ensure that they provide adequate safety. Material and Methods: Windblast tests were conducted on a newly designed/procured helmet in a standard windblast test facility as per Mil Std MIL-V-29591/1. A large instrumented Hybrid III male dummy was used for the tests. The test conditions were: Wind speed 600 ± 60 KEAS, rise time of 125 ± 20 ms, time at peak wind velocity of 300 ± 50 ms, and total exposure time of ≥3 s. Structural integrity, retention with the headform, and recorded neck loads were assessed for interpretation of test results. Results: Helmets could withstand the windblast conditions without any significant structural failures and were retained with the headform during the entire duration of test conditions. However, analysis of the neck loads resulted in a significant dilemma in aeromedical decision-making, there being no laid down criteria in the Mil Specification. The neck tension forces were more than the acceptable limits and found to have the potential for significant neck injuries as per the Injury Assessment Reference Values specified in AGARD-AR-330 specifically in the tests where blast was head on and outer visor in up configuration; however, these values were within the acceptable limits as per the other proposed criteria. Similarly, analysis of the neck tension extension combined effects revealed conflicting outcomes for Nij performance limits specified in various standards. This paper discusses the critical analysis of neck loads vis-à-vis the neck injury criteria to understand the neck loads generated during windblast conditions and its implication on aircrew safety. Conclusion: Neck loads assessment is critical in predicting aircrew safety during windblast testing. In the absence of a clearly defined criteria in the Mil Specification, critical ananlysis of neck loads vis-à-vis recommended standards in scientific literature be done to make meaningful conclusion.

scholarly journals Quasi-Static and Dynamic Sled Testing of Prototype Commuter Rail Passenger Seats

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristine Severson ◽  
A. Benjamin Perlman ◽  
Richard Stringfellow
Keyword(s):  
Public Transportation ◽  
Dynamic Test ◽  
Static Tests ◽  
Occupant Protection ◽  
Injury Criteria ◽  
Commuter Rail ◽  
Seat Cushions ◽  
Hybrid Iii ◽  
Male Hybrid ◽  
Test Requirements

In support of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Railroad Equipment Safety Program, tests have been conducted on prototype commuter rail passenger seats which have been designed for improved occupant protection during commuter train accidents. Quasi-static tests were conducted to evaluate the moment versus rotation behavior of the seat back and to improve the fidelity of the finite element seat model. Dynamic sled tests were conducted with instrumented Hybrid III anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) to evaluate occupant protection under collision conditions and to improve the fidelity of seat/occupant computer models. The three-passenger prototype seats were designed to meet the following dynamic test requirements: 1. Seats must remain attached to the test fixture. 2. Occupants must be compartmentalized between seat rows. 3. Injury criteria for the head, chest, neck and femur must be within tolerance thresholds specified by the automotive industry. 4. All seat components, including seat cushions, must remain attached. Test conditions were specified for two dynamic sled tests as follows: three forward-facing 50th percentile male Hybrid III ATDs subjected to an 8G, 250 millisecond triangular crash pulse; and three rear-facing 50th percentile male Hybrid III ATDs subjected to a 12G, 250 millisecond triangular crash pulse. The 8G crash pulse is specified in the existing American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Standard for Row-to-Row Seating in Commuter Rail Cars [1] and in the Federal Code of Regulations 49 CFR 238.233 [2], and represents nominal collision conditions. The 12G crash pulse represents the collision environment measured in the cab car during a previous full-scale train-to-train impact test of passenger rail cars incorporating crash energy management [3, 4]. The final test results indicate that all test requirements were met: the seats remained attached to the test sled; the ATDs were compartmentalized; all the injury criteria were within accepted tolerance thresholds; and all the seat cushions remained attached.

Evaluation of Rear Impact Seat System Performance Using a Combined Load Neck Injury Criteria and Hybrid III Surrogates

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Saczalski ◽  
Joseph Lawson Burton ◽  
Paul R. Lewis ◽  
Todd K. Saczalski ◽  
Peter E. Baray
Keyword(s):  
System Performance ◽  
Dynamic Tests ◽  
Actual Case ◽  
Combined Load ◽  
Occupant Protection ◽  
Rear Impact ◽  
Injury Criteria ◽  
Vehicle To Vehicle ◽  
Hybrid Iii

Abstract Vehicle to vehicle rear impact crash tests and sled buck tests were run to evaluate seat system performance related to Hybrid III surrogate response and comparison with NHTSA proposed combined load injury assessment values, as well as standard injury criteria. The crash and sled buck test impact conditions were modeled after actual case study incidents where changes in the rear impacted vehicle speeds ranged from about 25 to 50 kph. With the exception of one baseline vehicle-to-vehicle rear impact test, the dynamic tests provided side-by-side comparisons, and test-to-test evaluations, of surrogate response in conventional yielding front seats versus much stronger seat systems such as the belt integrated seat designs. Head, neck and chest injury criteria were used in the evaluations, including both the proposed NHTSA combined load neck criteria and SAE J 885 injury values. The surrogate response injury levels for the conventional yielding seats correlated well with the actual case study injury results. The seat comparison response generally indicated much reduced head and neck injury potential to surrogates seated in the stronger seat designs. The dynamic tests also demonstrate the importance of testing within the full vehicle interior structure to insure that floor strength is compatible with seat strength, so as to attain optimum occupant protection in stronger seat designs, and to assess injury risk to occupants in yielding or collapsing seat designs, as well as rear seated occupants, such as children. The tests indicate that quasi-static seat strength measurements made with more realistic “torso body block” load devices can provide reasonable estimates on the ultimate failure modes and dynamic load capabilities of the seat systems if the seat systems are properly mounted to the vehicle. Quasi-static seat strength results are presented for a variety of conventional collapsing seat designs and stronger seat systems like the belt integrated designs. One sled buck test was run with a rear-seated child surrogate to demonstrate the hazard of front seat collapse into the rear seat occupant area. The results of these tests further demonstrate the need for dynamic testing to assess total seat system performance and full occupant protection in rear impacts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document