Biofidelity assessment of the 6-year-old ATDs in lateral impact

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the current lateral impact biofidelity of the shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis of the Q6, Q6s, and Hybrid III (HIII) 6-year-old anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) through lateral impact testing.

Methods: A series of lateral impact pendulum tests, vertical drop tests, and Wayne State University (WSU) sled tests was performed, based on the procedures detailed in ISO/TR 9790 (1999) and scaling to the 6-year-old using Irwin et al. (2002 Irwin AL, Mertz HJ, Elhagediab AM, Moss S. Guidelines for assessing the biofidelity of side impact dummies of various sizes and ages. Stapp Car Crash J. 2002;46:297–319.PubMed] , Google Scholar]). The HIII used in this study was tested with the Ford-designed abdomen described in Rouhana (2006 Rouhana SW. Abdominal impact injury research—a review. J Biomech. 2006;39(Suppl 1):S157–S158. Google Scholar]) and Elhagediab et al. (2006 Elhagediab AM, Hardy WN, Rouhana SW. Advancements in the rate-sensitive abdomen for the Hybrid III family of dummies. J Biomech. 2006;39(Suppl 1):S158.Crossref], PubMed], Web of Science ®] , Google Scholar]). The data collected from the 3 different ATDs were filtered using SAE J211 (SAE International 2003 SAE International. Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice. Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation. Warrendale, PA: SAE International; 2003. SAE Standard J211-1. Google Scholar]), aligned using the methodology described by Donnelly and Moorhouse (2012 Donnelly BR, Moorhouse K. Optimized phasing of PMHS response curves for biofidelity targets. Paper presented at: IRCOBI Conference; 2012. Google Scholar]), and compared for each body region tested (shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis). The biofidelity performance in lateral impact for the 3 ATDs was assessed against the scaled biofidelity targets published in Irwin et al. (2002 Irwin AL, Mertz HJ, Elhagediab AM, Moss S. Guidelines for assessing the biofidelity of side impact dummies of various sizes and ages. Stapp Car Crash J. 2002;46:297–319.PubMed] , Google Scholar]), the abdominal biofidelity target suggested in van Ratingen et al. (1997 van Ratingen M, Twisk D, Schrooten M, Beusenberg M. Biomechanically based design and performance targets for a 3-year-old child crash dummy for frontal and side impact. Paper presented at: 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference; 1997. Google Scholar]), and the biofidelity targets published in Rhule et al. (2013 Rhule H, Donnelly B, Moorhouse K, Kang YS. A methodology for generating objective targets for quantitatively assessing the biofidelity of crash test dummies. Paper presented at: 23rd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference; 2013. Google Scholar]). Regional and overall biofidelity rankings for each of the 3 ATDs were performed using both the ISO 9790 biofidelity rating system (ISO/TR 9790 1999) and the NHTSA's external biofidelity ranking system (BRS; Rhule et al. 2013 Rhule H, Donnelly B, Moorhouse K, Kang YS. A methodology for generating objective targets for quantitatively assessing the biofidelity of crash test dummies. Paper presented at: 23rd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference; 2013. Google Scholar]).

Results: All 3 6-year-old ATD's pelvises were rated as least biofidelic of the 4 body regions tested, based on both the ISO and BRS biofidelity rating systems, followed by the shoulder and abdomen, respectively. The thorax of all 3 ATDs was rated as the most biofidelic body region using the aforementioned biofidelity rating systems. The HIII 6-year-old ATD was rated last in overall biofidelity of the 3 tested ATDs, based on both rating systems. The Q6s ATD was rated as having the best overall biofidelity using both rating systems.

Conclusions: All 3 ATDs are more biofidelic in the thorax and abdomen than the shoulder and pelvis, with the pelvis being the least biofidelic of all 4 tested body regions. None of the 3 tested 6-year-old ATDs had an overall ranking of 2.0 or less, based on the BRS ranking. Therefore, it is expected that none of the 3 ATDs would mechanically respond like a postmortem human subject (PMHS) in a lateral impact crash test based on this ranking system. With respect to the ISO biofidelity rating, the HIII dummy would be considered unsuitable and the Q-series dummies would be considered marginal for assessing side impact occupant protection.