05 0284 W
05 0284 W
05 0284 W
Daniel Rhule
Heather Rhule
Bruce Donnelly
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
United States
RHULE 1
test procedure and (3) that vehicle compliance be addresses the public comments. Publication of the
based upon instrument readings (crash test dummies) final rule completes the addition of the ATD into the
as opposed to the opinions of human beings. Part 572 regulation.
RHULE 2
Part 572 49 CFR by reference. The weight and agreement cannot be reached, NHTSA will make a
center of gravity (CG) of the dummy component decision and incorporate a satisfactory design into the
segments are also specified in the drawing package. Part 572 drawing package.
The actual physical drawings reside in the docket The Federalization requirement for a drawing
room at NHTSA headquarters in Washington, D.C. package is satisfied in the disassembly and inspection
and are also available from the Docket in electronic task (See Figure 2).
graphics format (.pdf). The drawing package is
intended to minimally specify the dimensional and Modification
mass properties of the dummy and all of the dummy
parts. Before proceeding on to the testing phases of the
evaluation process, the drawing and physical
The drawing package is usually produced by a configuration issues must be resolved. Otherwise, it
dummy manufacturer and obtained by NHTSA is likely that changes will be made to the dummy
during the dummy evaluation process. Most after testing has begun and these changes will
dummies are designed and developed in collaboration invalidate the test results and require retesting. This
with national and international organizations such as process of examination and testing leading to
the SAE, ISO, OSRP, EEVC, etc. Before the dummy
is considered for incorporation into Part 572, the TASKS
agency assures that the drawings and all associated Dummy Lab Sled Crash
information are accessible and freely available to the Inspection Testing Testing Testing
public without any restrictions, such as proprietary Drawing
Package
claims, patent rights, trade names, etc.
Certification
Inspection
FUNCTIO NS
Durability
Several dummies are acquired and completely
disassembled and inspected. If more than one R&R
manufacturer supplies the dummy, at least one
dummy from each supplier will be purchased for Biofidelity
inspection and subsequent testing. Physical
dimensions of each part of the disassembled dummy PADI
will be measured and compared to the drawing
package and any discrepancies will be noted. This TIME →
includes a check on the weights and CGs of Figure 2. Drawing package requirement satisfied
component segments. In the case of flesh and foam by the dummy inspection task.
parts with irregular shapes the critical dimensions are
checked against the drawing, allowing for an modifications continues throughout the evaluation
appropriate tolerance on these soft parts. process. It is a time consuming and frequently
expensive iterative process. This examination and
The list of discrepancies is brought to the attention of modification process is the principal reason that the
the dummy manufacturer and the party responsible evaluation proceeds from the least expensive to the
for the drawings. Often the discrepancy is a simple most expensive type of examination, i.e., inspection,
mistake in a drawing and easily corrected; however, lab testing, sled testing and crash testing. It is quite
sometimes a modification to the physical dummy is possible at any point in the Federalization process
required. If a significant modification to the dummy that a shortcoming of the dummy will become
is needed, the dummy may be returned to the apparent and modification will be required. If this
manufacturer for correction. In many cases work can occurs it is often necessary to back up and repeat
continue while the modified part is produced either some, or all, of the testing. This iterative, exacting
by working with other dummy components that are and often expensive process results in a dummy that
not affected by the change or by substituting a meets the Federalization requirements for durability,
prototype part that does not affect the dummy biofidelity, repeatability and reproducibility.
configuration or dynamic response. In the case when
there are two, or more, manufacturers of a dummy
who make a component part differently, a
compromise on the discrepancy is sought. If
RHULE 3
HIII Ten-year-old Child Dummy identical. In the case of the Ten-year-old, NHTSA
bought a whole dummy from each manufacturer and
The Ten-year-old Hybrid III child dummy (Figure 3) also bought the half of the dummy each had
was developed under the direction of the SAE Hybrid designed, assembling the two halves to make a third
III Dummy Family Task Force and in collaboration dummy.
with First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and
Denton Anthropometric Test Devices (DATD). The SAE committee provided the drawings and CAD
NHTSA participated in this dummy design and files to NHTSA for the purposes of inspection. As
evaluation. This dummy was divided into an upper would be expected under this collaborative design
half and a lower half and each half was designed and approach, the inspection process for the HIII Ten-
prototype parts fabricated by different manufacturers. year-old yielded only a small list of discrepancies
Drawings and computer aided design (CAD) files between drawings and dummies. Table 1 shows the
were then exchanged, through the SAE committee, segment weight specifications and the actual weights
and each manufacturer then fabricated the other half of the dummies from each manufacturer indicating
of the dummy. The result was dummies very good compliance with fairly tight tolerances.
manufactured by both suppliers that were nearly
RHULE 4
• head drop relegated to the status of design guidelines, which are
• neck flexion and extension used in the development of the design, but not
• thorax impact required for certification purposes. As a result, all of
• knee/femur impact the certification tests would be dynamic impact tests
• torso flexion – a heel of foot impact; a ball of foot impact; and an
inversion/eversion impact.
Generally, by the time the Agency begins the
federalization process, a preliminary set of After establishing the test procedures, the next step
certification procedures have been developed. was to determine the response corridors. To
NHTSA must then acquire or fabricate any new accomplish this, multiple leg samples were acquired
equipment required to conduct the tests. The process from several manufacturers and each leg was
of evaluating the certification test procedures can subjected to three repeats of the test procedures.
then be initiated. This includes assessing: From the data collected, the mean values of the
• Test procedures. Can the set-up be significant responses were computed. Finally, the
repeatably achieved? Are the speeds response corridors were constructed using a tolerance
realistic? Is the test user-friendly? of 10% of the mean response value - the upper limits
• Response corridors. Can the dummy meet were set at 110% of the mean and the lower limits
the corridors? Are the corridors reasonable were set at 90% of the mean.
approximations of the loading that the
dummy will experience in its intended The final step is to document the certification test
application? Are the corridors within the procedures in sufficient detail including:
dummy’s mechanical limits and the • identification of the components included in
instrumentation capacities? each test
• Repeatability and reproducibility. Does • a description of the test set-up geometry,
each dummy provide repeatable responses? speed, and orientation
Do all of the dummies respond similarly? • a diagram which supports the text
description of the set-up
In some cases, as with the Thor Lx and FLx advanced • definition of test probe properties including
instrumented lower legs, the Agency has led the geometry and mass moment of inertia
development of the design, independent of broad • clearly stated response requirements
industry involvement. In this instance, there were no
preliminary set of certification procedures and thus The Federalization requirement of developing
the Agency independently developed procedures and certification procedures and response requirements is
response corridors. achieved through lab testing as shown in Figure 4.
(torque-angle) Durability
o inversion/eversion response (torque-
angle) R&R
• dynamic response characteristics for
o axial loading at the heel (force-deflection) Biofidelity
o dorsiflexion response (torque-angle)
PADI
After fabricating the necessary hardware, a
preliminary test procedure was developed for each of TIME →
these biomechanical requirements. Initial testing, Figure 4. Certification requirement is satisfied by
however, revealed that the quasi-static testing was the Lab testing.
time consuming and difficult to set-up. Further
development led to a dynamic inversion/eversion test
procedure and thus the quasi-static tests were
RHULE 5
DURABILITY
RHULE 6
be loaded with a three-point belt restraint in a booster Crash Testing
seat. Also, the process of careful inspection and
possible modification is again followed with the Crash testing in the anticipated FMVSS configuration
possibility of iteratively repeating previous tests is the final phase of durability assessment. If a
always present. dummy is to be used in NCAP testing, the higher
energy crash test would be performed on the
Out-of-Position Testing assumption that a durable dummy at NCAP speed
would also be durable at the lower FMVSS crash
In the case of small adult dummies or some child speed.
dummies, out-of-position (OOP) testing is performed.
In these cases the OOP tests are performed with Federalization Requirement
known aggressive airbag restraint systems to assure
that the dummy can withstand severe loading to the The Federalization requirement for dummy durability
head, neck and thorax. Figure 6 is an example of the is satisfied by laboratory testing, sled testing and
Ten-year-old child dummy in the head-to-bag OOP crash testing (See Figure 7).
position.
TASKS
Dummy Lab Sled Crash
Inspection Testing Testing Testing
Drawing
Package
FUNCTIONS Certification
Durability
R&R
Biofidelity
PADI
Sled Testing
REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY
Sled testing of the dummies is performed at FMVSS
and at NCAP crash test energy levels. For frontal Repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) are
dummies sled testing is normally performed in a sled important considerations in the evaluation of a
buck modeling a typical vehicle in the current fleet. dummy. In the context of dummy evaluation,
For side impact dummies sled testing is normally repeatability is defined as the similarity of responses
performed in a flat wall sliding hard-seat type buck from a single dummy when subjected to multiple
with and without wall padding. For child dummies repeats of a given test condition. Reproducibility is
the stylized FMVSS 213 bench seat is normally used defined as the similarity of test responses from
with a Child Restraint System (CRS) or a booster multiple dummies when subjected to multiple repeats
seat. Note that the sled testing used to assess dummy of a given test condition. Any ATD that is to be used
durability may also be used to assess dummy for federal regulatory testing must have an acceptable
repeatability and reproducibility. level of R&R to ensure confidence in the responses
provided by the dummy.
Among other considerations, the typical sled testing
matrix will be designed to subject the dummy to R&R analysis requires the replication of tests on
various seating positions and test conditions that may multiple samples of a dummy, preferably samples
expose potential weaknesses of the dummy design. from multiple manufacturers. Clearly, the R&R
results will depend largely on the dummy’s ability to
provide similar responses to each test. However,
RHULE 7
several external factors may also play a role in the Table 2.
R&R results, such as the repeatability of the Assessment of CV Scores.
dummy’s setup or the impact speed. In order to
provide a meaningful R&R analysis, control of the CV Score Assessment
test conditions must be exercised. Component tests, 0 – 5% Excellent
such as the certification tests, are more readily >5 – 8% Good
controlled and thus may be expected to provide the >8 – 10% Marginal (Acceptable)
best estimates of a dummy’s R&R. Sled testing >10% Poor (Unacceptable)
provides an efficient alternative to vehicle crash
testing and offers insight into the dummy’s this scenario, a poor CV score may not provide
performance as a complete system. Full vehicle sufficient reason for concern. Consideration must
crash testing does not provide a desirable also be given to the magnitude of the response. If the
environment for R&R testing as the variation in mean response is small, then even a small number for
structural materials of the crash vehicle are difficult the standard deviation can result in a large CV. This
to account for. consideration is closely related to the first one, in that
responses which exhibit a low mean generally have
Additionally, the severity of the test conditions less relevance to the given test condition.
utilized for R&R assessment must also be considered.
For example, if the test conditions are so severe that As an example, the agency recently initiated an
the responses are near or beyond the dummy’s evaluation of the EuroSID-2re (ES-2re) dummy. To
mechanical limits or electronic capacity, then the that end, the ES-2re was subjected to repeated
corresponding R&R analysis may not be meaningful. certification and sled tests to establish its
Consider a dummy that is mechanically limited to 50 repeatability and reproducibility as a test tool.
mm of rib displacement. The rib is impacted
repeatedly and the dummy measures rib To assess the ES-2re’s R&R in certification tests, two
displacements of 50 mm for each test. The analysis sample dummies were each subjected to five repeats
would indicate excellent R&R; however, due to the of each of the certification tests. The response data
dummy’s mechanical limitations, it is unknown was collected and filtered according to the test
whether this response is truly repeatable. A better procedures. Next, statistical analysis of the response
evaluation might seek to impart, for example, 40 mm criteria resulted in CV scores of repeatability for each
of rib deflection so that the mechanical limits are not dummy and reproducibility for both dummies. Table
approached. 3 presents a summary of the ES-2re’s R&R analysis
for certification tests. It is observed that the vast
A quantitative assessment of R&R is achieved using majority of the responses would be considered
a statistical analysis of variance. The coefficient of excellent, with only four CV scores falling in the
variation (CV) is a measure of variability expressed ‘good’ range and just one score in the ‘marginal’
as a percentage of the mean. CV is calculated range.
according to the formula below:
σ The Federalization requirement for repeatability and
CV = × 100%
X reproducibility is satisfied by laboratory and sled
testing (See Figure 8).
where
σ = standard deviation of responses BIOFIDELITY
X = mean of responses
Biofidelity is a measure of how well a dummy
replicates the response of a human. If a dummy
Historically, NHTSA has categorized the CV scores replicates the human response quite well, it is said to
according to Table 2. have good biofidelity, or be quite biofidelic.
Although not a requirement in Part 572, the dummy’s
There are several considerations that must be taken biofidelity is an important consideration in the
into account when CV scores are interpreted. One decision of whether or not the dummy is suitable for
such consideration would be the relevance of the incorporation into Part 572.
response. For example, the lateral shearing forces
measured in a dummy designed for frontal impacts
are generally considered to be of less significance. In
RHULE 8
TASKS Until recently, NHTSA assessed dummy biofidelity
Dummy Lab Sled Crash based on subjective, qualitative analysis of dummy
Inspection Testing Testing Testing
data fit within cadaver response corridors. Two
Drawing
methods are currently available for assessing the
Package
biofidelity of a dummy in side impact testing: 1) the
Certification ISO 9790 Biofidelity Classification System [4] and 2)
the Biofidelity Ranking System developed by Rhule
FUNCTIONS
Durability et al in 2002.
RHULE 9
assigned weights for the response measurements, test Table 5. Internal Biofidelity Ranks for the ES-2re
conditions and body regions. The weights were and SID-HIII. (ref. Docket NHTSA-2004-18865-8)
determined by averaging results of a poll of the ISO INTERNAL BIOFIDELITY ES-2re SID-HIII
members. Since the responses of the poll may or
may not be in line with the philosophies of the Overall Rank with abdomen n/a n/a
NHTSA, and since all body regions must pass their Overall Rank without
individual injury criteria in an FMVSS test, all body 1.6 1.9
abdomen
regions should be equally weighted when assessing Head Rank 1.0 1.1
dummy biofidelity. Moreover, the dummy responses 1
are subjectively assigned a numeric value based on Thorax Rank 1.9 2.22
the qualitative assessment of the data fit within the Abdomen Rank n/a n/a
cadaver corridors. Pelvis Rank 2.0 2.53 3
As the Biofidelity Ranking System [5] quantifies the n/a - not applicable (No human subject internal
biofidelity of a dummy in an objective manner, it was force data for comparison with the ES-2re; SID-
used by NHTSA to evaluate recent dummy HIII dummy does not make a measurement in the
biofidelity. The Biofidelity Ranking System is abdomen.)
comprised of multiple tests of various types that have re - rib extensions
associated human response corridors. Each test is 1. Upper & lower thorax rib deflections & T-12
assigned a test condition weight in an objective lateral acceleration
manner that gives the highest weights to those tests 2. TTI
that are most representative of the intended dummy 3. Pelvis lateral acceleration
test environment and that have response corridors
developed from a large number of human subjects. The biofidelity requirement is satisfied in lab and
For each measurement of each test, the dummy and sled testing as shown in Figure 9.
human responses are compared over time and their
differences quantified, where a lower number TASKS
indicates better response similarity between the Dummy Lab Sled Crash
dummy and human. External and Internal biofidelity Inspection Testing Testing Testing
ranks, which are both deemed equally important for a Drawing
Package
dummy to possess, are computed to assess the overall
biofidelity of a dummy. Certification
FUNCTIONS
RHULE 10
incorporated by reference into Part 572. The PADI TASKS
serves as a manual that illustrates how the dummy is Dummy Lab Sled Crash
Inspection Testing Testing Testing
put together and taken apart, as well as where and
Drawing
how the instrumentation is installed, and where to
Package
route the sensor cables within the dummy. It also
includes procedures for inspection to aid in Certification
determining if certain parts are worn or damaged and
FUNCTIONS
need to be replaced. Durability
RHULE 11
and WorldSID) and it is important for those
organizations to realize that the products of their
extensive efforts must still undergo the rigorous
Federalization process if the dummy is to be
considered for use in the FMVSS. Further it is
required that NHTSA possess, without restriction of
any kind, an accurate and complete drawing package
for the dummy for incorporation into part 572 by
reference.
REFERENCES
RHULE 12