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). The HIII used in this study was tested with the Ford-designed abdomen described in Rouhana (2006) and Elhagediab et al. (2006). The data collected from the 3 different ATDs were filtered using SAE J211 (SAE International 2003), aligned using the methodology described by Donnelly and Moorhouse (2012), 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), the abdominal biofidelity target suggested in van Ratingen et al. (1997), and the biofidelity targets published in Rhule et al. (2013). 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). 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.研究目标：本研究旨在通过侧向冲击测试，评估并对比Q6、Q6s及Hybrid III（HIII）6岁拟人测试装置（anthropomorphic test devices, ATDs）的肩部、胸部、腹部与骨盆的当前侧向冲击生物逼真度。 研究方法：本研究基于ISO/TR 9790（1999）中详述的试验流程，参照Irwin等（2002）的方法按6岁儿童体型进行缩放，开展了一系列侧向冲击摆锤试验、垂直跌落试验及韦恩州立大学（Wayne State University, WSU）滑车试验。本研究中使用的Hybrid III（HIII）测试装置搭载了Rouhana（2006）与Elhagediab等（2006）中描述的福特定制腹部组件。针对3款不同测试装置采集的数据，采用SAE J211（国际自动机工程师学会SAE International 2003）标准进行滤波处理，参照Donnelly与Moorhouse（2012）所述方法进行对齐，并针对各测试身体区域（肩部、胸部、腹部与骨盆）开展对比分析。基于Irwin等（2002）发布的缩放后生物逼真度目标、van Ratingen等（1997）提出的腹部生物逼真度参考目标，以及Rhule等（2013）发布的生物逼真度目标，对3款受试装置的侧向冲击生物逼真度性能进行评估。同时采用ISO 9790生物逼真度评级系统（ISO/TR 9790 1999）与美国国家公路交通安全管理局（National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA）外部生物逼真度评级系统（Biofidelity Ranking System, BRS；Rhule et al. 2013），对3款测试装置的各身体区域及整体生物逼真度进行排名。 研究结果：基于ISO与BRS生物逼真度评级系统，3款6岁拟人测试装置的骨盆均被评为4个测试身体区域中生物逼真度最差的部位，其次依次为肩部与腹部。在上述评级体系下，3款测试装置的胸部均被评为生物逼真度最优的身体区域。两款评级系统均显示，Hybrid III（HIII）6岁测试装置在3款受试装置中的整体生物逼真度排名垫底，而Q6s测试装置的整体生物逼真度表现最优。 研究结论：3款测试装置在胸部与腹部的生物逼真度均优于肩部与骨盆，其中骨盆为4个测试身体区域中生物逼真度最差的部位。基于BRS评级系统，3款受试的6岁测试装置的整体评级均未达到2.0及以下。因此，依据该评级系统，3款测试装置在侧向冲击碰撞试验中的力学响应均无法媲美尸体标本（postmortem human subject, PMHS）。就ISO生物逼真度评级而言，Hybrid III测试装置被认定为不适用于侧碰乘员保护评估，而Q系列测试假人则被认定为边缘合格。