中型男性THOR和混合III型ATD在汽车正面碰撞试验中的比较。

Q2 Medicine Stapp car crash journal Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.4271/2022-22-0005
Chris O'Connor, Agnes Kim, Tim Barrette, Jeff Dix
{"title":"中型男性THOR和混合III型ATD在汽车正面碰撞试验中的比较。","authors":"Chris O'Connor,&nbsp;Agnes Kim,&nbsp;Tim Barrette,&nbsp;Jeff Dix","doi":"10.4271/2022-22-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In order to evaluate the THOR-50M as a front impact Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) for vehicle safety design, the ATD was compared to the H3-50M in matching vehicle crash tests for 20 unique vehicle models from 2 vehicle manufacturers. For the belted driver condition, a total of fifty-four crash tests were investigated in the 56.3 km/h (35 mph) front rigid barrier impact condition. Four more tests were compared for the unbelted driver and right front passenger at 40.2 km/h (25 mph) in the flat frontal and 30-degree right oblique rigid barrier impact conditions. The two ATDs were also evaluated for their ability to predict injury risk by comparing their fleet average injury risk to Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) accident data for similar conditions. The differences in seating position and their effect on ATD responses were also investigated. This study showed that the belted THOR-50M injury responses were higher than the H3-50M by 25%-180%, in all reported ATD responses, except chest acceleration. For one unbelted condition, the THOR-50M reported 200%-300% higher neck responses than the H3-50M, primarily due to head contact to the roof structure in a mid-sized sedan. The THOR-50M overpredicted the injury risk based on chest deflection compared to the CISS accident data by at least a factor of 4 times. The THOR-50M also overpredicted the injury risk based on BrIC by at least a factor of 10 times. Future work is needed to investigate these overpredictions with respect to ATD construction, injury risk curves, and seating procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":35289,"journal":{"name":"Stapp car crash journal","volume":"66 ","pages":"143-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of the Mid-Size Male THOR and Hybrid III ATDs in Vehicle Frontal Crash Tests.\",\"authors\":\"Chris O'Connor,&nbsp;Agnes Kim,&nbsp;Tim Barrette,&nbsp;Jeff Dix\",\"doi\":\"10.4271/2022-22-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In order to evaluate the THOR-50M as a front impact Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) for vehicle safety design, the ATD was compared to the H3-50M in matching vehicle crash tests for 20 unique vehicle models from 2 vehicle manufacturers. For the belted driver condition, a total of fifty-four crash tests were investigated in the 56.3 km/h (35 mph) front rigid barrier impact condition. Four more tests were compared for the unbelted driver and right front passenger at 40.2 km/h (25 mph) in the flat frontal and 30-degree right oblique rigid barrier impact conditions. The two ATDs were also evaluated for their ability to predict injury risk by comparing their fleet average injury risk to Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) accident data for similar conditions. The differences in seating position and their effect on ATD responses were also investigated. This study showed that the belted THOR-50M injury responses were higher than the H3-50M by 25%-180%, in all reported ATD responses, except chest acceleration. For one unbelted condition, the THOR-50M reported 200%-300% higher neck responses than the H3-50M, primarily due to head contact to the roof structure in a mid-sized sedan. The THOR-50M overpredicted the injury risk based on chest deflection compared to the CISS accident data by at least a factor of 4 times. The THOR-50M also overpredicted the injury risk based on BrIC by at least a factor of 10 times. Future work is needed to investigate these overpredictions with respect to ATD construction, injury risk curves, and seating procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stapp car crash journal\",\"volume\":\"66 \",\"pages\":\"143-173\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stapp car crash journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-22-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stapp car crash journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-22-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

为了评估THOR-50M作为车辆安全设计的前碰撞拟人试验装置(ATD),在2家汽车制造商的20款独特车型的匹配车辆碰撞试验中,将ATD与H3-50M进行了比较。对于系安全带的驾驶员情况,在56.3公里/小时(35英里/小时)的前刚性护栏碰撞条件下,共进行了五十四次碰撞测试。在平坦正面和30度右倾斜刚性壁障碰撞条件下,以40.2公里/小时(25英里/小时)的速度对无安全带驾驶员和右前排乘客进行了另外四次测试比较。通过将两辆ATD的车队平均伤害风险与类似条件下的碰撞调查采样系统(CISS)事故数据进行比较,还评估了它们预测伤害风险的能力。还研究了座位的差异及其对ATD反应的影响。这项研究表明,在所有报告的ATD反应中,除了胸部加速外,系腰带的THOR-50M损伤反应比H3-50M高25%-180%。对于一种未系安全带的情况,THOR-50M报告的颈部反应比H3-50M高200%-300%,主要是由于中型轿车的头部与车顶结构接触。与CISS事故数据相比,THOR-50M基于胸部偏转的受伤风险高估了至少4倍。THOR-50M还将基于BrIC的损伤风险高估了至少10倍。未来的工作需要调查ATD结构、伤害风险曲线和座位程序方面的这些过度预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparison of the Mid-Size Male THOR and Hybrid III ATDs in Vehicle Frontal Crash Tests.

In order to evaluate the THOR-50M as a front impact Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) for vehicle safety design, the ATD was compared to the H3-50M in matching vehicle crash tests for 20 unique vehicle models from 2 vehicle manufacturers. For the belted driver condition, a total of fifty-four crash tests were investigated in the 56.3 km/h (35 mph) front rigid barrier impact condition. Four more tests were compared for the unbelted driver and right front passenger at 40.2 km/h (25 mph) in the flat frontal and 30-degree right oblique rigid barrier impact conditions. The two ATDs were also evaluated for their ability to predict injury risk by comparing their fleet average injury risk to Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) accident data for similar conditions. The differences in seating position and their effect on ATD responses were also investigated. This study showed that the belted THOR-50M injury responses were higher than the H3-50M by 25%-180%, in all reported ATD responses, except chest acceleration. For one unbelted condition, the THOR-50M reported 200%-300% higher neck responses than the H3-50M, primarily due to head contact to the roof structure in a mid-sized sedan. The THOR-50M overpredicted the injury risk based on chest deflection compared to the CISS accident data by at least a factor of 4 times. The THOR-50M also overpredicted the injury risk based on BrIC by at least a factor of 10 times. Future work is needed to investigate these overpredictions with respect to ATD construction, injury risk curves, and seating procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Stapp car crash journal
Stapp car crash journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Child Anthropometries in Relation to Modern Vehicle Seat and Booster Dimensions. Isolated Rib Response and Fracture Prediction for Young Mid-Size Male, Enabled by Population Specific Material Models and Rib Cross-Sectional Geometry. Effects of head restraint (HR) interference on child restraint system (CRS) performance in frontal and far-side impacts. Effect of A-Pillar Blind Spots on a Driver's Pedestrian Visibility during Vehicle Turns at an Intersection. Standardized Assessment of Gravity Settling Human Body Models for Virtual Testing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1