Anthropomorphic Test Devices

  • Harold J. Mertz
Chapter

Abstract

Anthropomorphic test devices, commonly referred to as dummies, are mechanical surrogates of the human body used in the automotive industry to estimate the effectiveness of occupant restraint systems used in new-vehicle car designs. These human surrogates are designed to mimic pertinent human physical characteristics such as size, shape, mass, stiffness, and energy dissipation so that their mechanical responses simulate corresponding human responses of trajectory, velocity, acceleration, deformation, and articulation when the dummies are exposed to simulated accident conditions. They are instrumented with transducers to measure exterior and interior loading of their body parts. Analyses of these measurements are used to assess the effectiveness of the restraint-system design for the accident conditions that are simulated.

Keywords

Impact Response Side Impact American National Standard Institute Restraint System Anthropomorphic Test Device 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mertz HJ. Anthropomorphic models. In The biomechanics of trauma. Appleton-CenturyCrofts, Norwalk, CT, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Chapter V, Part 572—Anthropomorphic test dummy. Federal Register 38(147) August 1, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foster JK, Kortge JO, Wolanin MJ. Hybrid III—a biomechanically-based crash test dummy. Twenty-First Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 770938, October 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mertz HJ, Neathery RF, Culver CC. Performance requirements and characteristics of mechanical necks. In Human impact response—measurement and simulation. Plenum Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lobdell TE, Kroell CK, Schneider DC, Hering WE. Impact response of the human thorax. In Human impact response—measurement and simulation. Plenum Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horsch JD, Patrick LM. Cadaver and dummy knee impact response. SAE 760799, October 1976.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kroell CK, Schneider DC, Nahum AM. Comparative knee impact response of Part 572 dummy and cadaver subject. Twentieth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 760817, October 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hering WE, Patrick LM. Response comparisons of the human cadaver knee and a Part 572 dummy knee to impacts by crushable materials. Twenty-First Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 770939, October 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McElhaney HJ, Mate PI, Roberts VL. A new crash test device—Repeatable Pete. Seven-teenth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 24. 730983, November 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haslegrave CM, Croke MD. Performance 25. measurements of the OPAT dummy. MIRA Publication, January 1974.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tennant JA, Jensen RJ, Potter RA. GMATD 502 anthropomorphic test dummy-development and evaluation. Fifth Interna- 27. tional Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. London, England, June 1974.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Warner P. The development of UK standard 28. occupant protection assessment test dummy. SAE 740115, March 1974.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hubbard RP, McLeod DG. A basis for crash dummy skull and head geometry. In Human Plenum Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hubbard RP, McLeod DG. Definition and development of a crash dummy head. Eighteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 741193, 30. December 1974.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hodgson VR, Mason MW, Thomas LH. Head model for impact. Sixteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 720969, November 1972. 31.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hodgson VR. Head model for impact tolerance. In Human impact response-measurement and simulation. Plenum Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McElhaney JH, Stalnaker RL, Roberts VL. Biomechanical aspects of head injury. In Human impact response-measurement and simulation. Plenum Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLeod DG, Gadd CW. An anatomical skull. for impact testing. In Human impact response-measurement and simulation. Plenum Press, New York, 1973. 34.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Culver CC, Neathery RF, Mertz HJ. Mechanical necks with humanlike responses. Sixteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 720959, November 1972.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Melvin JW, McElhaney JH, Roberts VL. 35. Evaluation of dummy neck performance. In Human impact response-measurement and simulation. Plenum Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Melvin JW, McElhaney JH, Roberts VL. Improved neck simulation for anthropometric 36. dummies. Sixteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 720958, November 1972.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foster K. Analysis of a slanted-rib model of the 37. human thorax. In Human impact response-measurement and simulation. Plenum Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stalnaker RL, McElhaney JH, Roberts VL, Trollope ML. Human torso response to 38. blunt trauma. In Human impact response-measurement and simulation. Plenum Press, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mertz HJ. Biofidelity of the Hybrid III head. SAE 851245, February 1985.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beebe MS. What is BIOSID?. SAE 900377, February 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mertz HJ, Patrick LM. Strength and response of the human neck. Fifteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 710855, November 1971.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nyquist GW. Static force-penetration response of the human knee. Eighteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 741189, December 1974.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Viano DC, Culver CC, Haut RC. Bolster impacts to the knee and tibia of human cadavers and an anthropomorphic dummy. Twenty-Second Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 780896, October 1978.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nyquist GW, Denton RA. Crash test dummy lower leg instrumentation for axial force and bending moment. ISA Transaction, 18 (3) 1979.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Begeman PC, Prasad P. Human ankle impact response in dorsiflexion. Thirty-Fourth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 902308, November 1990.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    NHTSA Docket 74–14, Notice. General Motors Submission USG 2284, Appendix E. December 19, 1983.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mertz HJ. Injury assessment values used to evaluate Hybrid III response measurements. NHTSA Docket 74–14, Notice, Enclosure 2 of Attachment I of Part III of General Motors Submission USG 2284. March 22, 1984.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Viano DC, Lau IV (1988) A viscous tolerance criterion for soft tissue injury assessment. Biomech 21 (5): 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mertz HJ, Horsch JD, Horn G. Hybrid III sternal deflection associated with thoracic injury severities of occupants restrained with force-limiting shoulder belts. SAE 910812, February 1991.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Horsch JD, Melvin J, Viano D, Mertz H. Thoracic injury assessment of belt restraint systems based on Hybrid III chest compression. Thirty-Fifth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 912895, November 1991.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    NHTSA Docket 74–14, Notice 66. General Motors Submission USG 2842, Appendix A. November 13, 1990.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mertz HJ, Irwin AL, Melvin JW, Stalnaker RL, Beebe MS. Size, weight and biomechanical impact response requirements for adult size small female and large male dummies. SAE 890756, March 1989.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schneider LW, Robbins DH, Pflug MA, Snyder RG. Development of anthropometrically based design specifications for an advanced adult anthropomorphic dummy family. Volume 1, NHTSA Contract No. DTNH22–80-C-07502, December 1983.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wolanin MJ, Mertz HJ, Nyznyk RS, Vincent 49. JH. Description and basis of a three-year-old child dummy for evaluating passenger inflatable restraint concepts. Ninth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety. Vehicles. November 1982. (Republished as SAE 826040, Automatic occupant protection systems,SP-736, 1988.)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mertz HJ, Driscoll JD, Lenox JB, Nyquist GW, Weber DA. Responses of animals exposed to. deployment of various passenger inflatable restraint systems concepts for a variety of collision severities and animal positions. Ninth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. November 1982. 52. (Republished as SAE 826047, Passenger car inflatable restraint systems,PT31, 1987.)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mertz HJ, Weber DA. Interpretations of the impact responses of a three-year-old child dummy relative to child injury potential. Ninth 53. International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. November 1982. (Republished as SAE 826048, Automatic occupant protection systems,SP-736, 1988.)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Melvin JW, Robbins DH, Benson JB. Experi-. mental application of advanced thoracic instrumentation techniques to anthropomorphic test devices. Seventh International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. NHTSA, June 1979. 55.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morgan RM, Marcus JH, Eppinger RH. Correlation of side impact dummy cadaver tests. Twenty-Fifth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 81008, September 1989.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Donnelly BR, Morgan RM, Eppinger RH. 56. Durability, repeatability and reproducibility of NHTSA side impact dummy. Twenty-Seventh Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 831624, October 1983.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eppinger RH, Marcus JH, Morgan RM. Devel- 57. opment of dummy and injury index for NHTSA’s thoracic side impact protection research program. SAE 840885, May 1984.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nyquist GW, Brinn J, Daniel R, Kortge J, 58. Mertz H. An evaluation of APR and SID side impact anthropomorphic dummies. ISO/TC22/ SC12/WG5 Document No. N99. June 1983.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Maltha J, Janssen EG. EEC comparison testing of four side impact dummies. EEC Bio-mechanics Seminar. ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5 59. Document No. N98. June 1983.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Neilson L, Lowne R, Tarriere C, Bendjellal F, Gillet D, Maltha J, Cesari D, Bouquet R. The. EUROSID side impact dummy. Tenth Interna-tional Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. NHTSA, June 1985.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lowne RW, Neilson JD. The development and certification of EUROSID. Eleventh International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. NHTSA, May 1987.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    ISO TR9790–1. Road vehicles-anthropomorphic side impact dummy-lateral head impact response requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy. American National Standards Institute, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    ISO TR9790–2. Road vehicles-anthropomorphic side impact dummy-lateral neck impact response requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy. American National Standards Institute, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    ISO TR9790–3. Road vehicles-anthropomorphic side impact dummy-lateral thoracic impact response requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy. American National Standards Institute, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    ISO TR9790–4. Road vehicles-anthropomorphic side impact dummy-lateral shoulder impact response requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy. American National Standards Institute, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    ISO TR9790–5. Road vehicles-anthropmorphic side impact dummy-lateral abdominal impact response requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy. American National Standards Institute, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    ISO TR9790–6. Road vehicles-anthropomorphic side impact dummy-lateral pelvic impact response requirements to assess the biofidelity of the dummy. American National Standards Institute, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Irwin AL, Pricopio LA, Mertz HJ, Balser JS, Chkoreff WM. Comparison of the EUROSID and SID impact responses to the response corridors of the International Standards Organization. SAE 890604, February 1989.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Janssen EG, Vermissen AC. Biofidelity of the european side impact dummy-EUROSID. Thirty-Second Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 881716, October 1988.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bendjellal F, Tarriere C, Brun-Cassan F, Foret-Bruno J, Caillibot P, Gillet D. Comparative evaluation of the biofidelity of EUROSID and SID side impact dummies. Thirty-Second Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 881717, October 1988.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5. The biofidelity test results on SID and EUROSID. Document No. N213, Submitted by JAMA, October 1988Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5. Summary tables for SID and EUROSID evaluation relative to bio-mechanical impact response requirements of ISO/DP9790–1 to 6. Document No. N216 (Revised June 1989), October 1988.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5. Summary of WG5 evaluation of SID and EUROSID. Document No. N218 (Revised June 1989), October 1988.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5. Resolution 3. Document No. N219, October 1988.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Beebe MS, BIOSID update and calibration requirements. SAE 910319, 1991.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mertz HJ, Irwin A. Biofidelity ratings of SID, EUROSID and BIOSID. ISO/TC22/SC12/ WG5 Document No. N288, October 1990.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mertz HJ. Rating of measurement capacity of side impact dummies. ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5 Document No. N281, July 1990.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5. Resolution 1. Document No. N298, November 1990.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Code of Federal Regulations. Part 572—Anthropomorphic test dummies, sub-part F—anthropomorphic test dummy; side impact protection. November 29, 1990.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Federal Register 49 CFR. Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummy; Side Impact Protection. 55(210):45757–45768, Tuesday, October 30, 1990.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Code of Federal Regulations. Part 571, Paragraph 571.214. November 29, 1990.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lau IV, Capp JP, Obermeyer JA. A comparison of frontal and side impact: crash dynamics, countermeasurers and subsystems. Thirty-Fifth Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE 912896, November 1991.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lau IV, Viano DC, Culver CC, Jedrzejczak E. Design of a modified chest for EUROSID providing biofidelity and injury assessment. SAE 890881, Side impact: injury causation and occupant protection, SP-769, February 1989.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rouhana SW, Viano DC, Jedrzejczak EA, McCleary JD. Assessing submarining and abdominal injury risk in the Hybrid III family of dummies. Thirty-Third Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 892440, October 1989.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rouhana SW, Jedrzejczak EA, McCleary JD. Assessing submarining and abdominal injury risk in the Hybrid III family of dummies: Part II—development of the small female frangible abdomen. Thirty-Fourth Stapp Car Crash Conference. SAE 902317, November 1990.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Melvin JW, Shee TR. Facial injury assessment techniques. Twelfth International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. NHTSA, 1989.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mertz HJ. A procedure for normalizing impact response data. SAE 840884, May 1984.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Krause P. Normalization of side impact cadaver dynamic response data utilizing regression techniques. SAE 840883, May 1984.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    SAE Recommended Practice. Rules for SAE use of SI (metric) units. J916, May, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harold J. Mertz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations