Experimental Techniques

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 7–14 | Cite as

Development and Testing of a Simplified Dummy for Frontal Crash

  • K. FungEmail author
  • R. Xu
  • S. Jung
  • J. Sobanjo


Anthropomorphic testing devices (ATDs) used in vehicle crash testing are the industry standard for occupant safety research, but they are expensive and complex equipment. The purpose of this research was to develop and build a simplified dummy and sled for a low-impact frontal crash. The design of the simplified ATD was inspired by the commercially available crash test dummy ECE-R16 model. The dummy was designed such that it matched weight and center of gravity of an adult passenger. A pendulum was created for imposing an impact force to the sled accommodating the dummy. This simplified ATD was used to measure acceleration based injury criteria. The experimental results were compared with a Finite Element (FE) simulation of the Hybrid III dummy in a 2002 Ford Explorer. The simplified physical experiment results followed a similar trend as the FE Hybrid III simulation results.


Anthropomorphic Simplified dummy Frontal crash 


  1. 1.
    Backaitis S, Mertz H. Hybrid III: The first human-like crash test dummy. Society of Automotive Engineers 1994Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Humanetics. 2014 Hybrid III 50th Male Dummy. Humanetics Innovative Solutions <>. Accessed 2014
  3. 3.
    NHTSA. Biomechanical Reponse requirement of the THOR NHTSA advanced frontal dummy. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2005Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Zhang J, Baisden JL (2009) Physical properties of the human head: mass, center of gravity and moment of inertia. J Biomech 42:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berg FA, Walz F, Muser M, Buerkle H, Epple J. Implication of velocity Change Delta-V and energy equivalent speed EES for injury mechanism assessment in various collision Configurations. International Research Council on Biomehcnanics of Injury Conference 1998; Goeteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park BT, Partyka SC, Morgan RM, Hackney JR, Lee J, Summers L, Lowrie JC, Beuse NM (2000) Comparison of vehicle structural integrity and occupant injury potential in full-frontal and offset-frontal crash tests. SAE Transactions 109:1483–1501Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hershman LL (2001) The US new car assessment program (NCAP): past. In: Present and futureGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kemper A, Beeman S, Duma S. Effects of Pre-Impact Bracing on Chest Compression of Human Occupants in Low-Speed Frontal Sled Tests. SAE Journal 11, 2011Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beeman S, Kemper A, Madigan M, Franck C (2012) Occupant kinematics in low-speed frontal sled tests: human volunteers, hybrid III ATD, and PMHS. Accid Anal Prev 47:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang M. Vehicle Crash Mechanics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2002Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    SAE S. J211–1 Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation. SAE International 2007Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ivory M, Richardson F (2001) New Car Assessment Program Frontal Barrier Impact Test: 2002 Ford Explorer XLT 4WD SUV. In: Transportation USDo. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mohan P, Marzougui D, Kan C (2009) Development and validation of hybrid III crash test dummy. SAE Technical Paper 1:0473Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohan P, Park C, Marzougui D, Kan C, Guha S, Maurath C, D. B. LSTC/NCAC Dummy Model Development. 11th International LS-DYNA Users Conference. Dearborn, MI2010Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eppinger R, Sun E, Bandak F, Haffner M, Khaewpong N, Maltese M (1999) Development of improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems - II. In: Administration NHTS (ed) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, p 180Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida A&M University/Florida State University - College of EngineeringTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations