ATD Technical Advisory Meeting on Dummy Design · ATD Technical Advisory Meeting on Dummy Design Thursday, October 17th, 2013 6:00 am – 8:00 am EST Humanetics Headquarters in Plymouth,

ATD Technical Advisory Meeting on Dummy Design

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

6:00 am – 8:00 am EST Humanetics Headquarters in Plymouth, MI and via WebEx

October 17, 2013 Michael S. Beebe, Paul Depinet, Joe Bastian, Mark Brown

Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc.

Introductions Harmonization 2.0 – Humanetics, a 5 year plan

•Introduction to the Humanetics ‘H’ standard of certification testing

Small Female •Auto Alliance petition / NHTSA /Harmonized dummy

•Harmonized Jacket and rib set combinations •GM Presentation

•Head and cap skin fit on Harmonized dummy

•EuroNCAP version of the Harmonized dummy

50th Male •Upper/lower arm fit of old and Harmonized parts •Lumbar testing progress •New ankle – SAE J document

General ATD •EuroSID-2 abdomen

•FMVSS 226 headform

Advanced Dummy •WorldSID 50th and 5th

•Thor-M

•Q3s NPRM •BioRID

HARMONIZATION 2.0:

AN INITIAL STUDY INTO VARIATION

©2013 Humanetics Innovative Solutions Inc. – Confidential & Proprietary

Original Mission for Harmonization

• Incrementally improve the repeatability of existing products

o Step 1: Harmonization

o Step 2: Improve Repeatability & Improve Certification testing

o Step 3: Improve production

• Current Activities in the world

o ISO WG5 has a work item to develop a repeatability standard for ATD’s

o NHTSA has been developing a standard set of system tests for full body repeatability for ATD performance

Review of the Goal of the Harmonization Task Force

Combine two brands of crash test

dummies to help reduce test to test

variation.

Background:

Humanetics Innovative Solutions (the merger of FTSS and Denton ATD) is currently producing two dummy brands for many dummy types:

• former FTSS brand • former Denton brand

Rationale:

Some parts are identical between the two brands, but others are not. Differences in the parts may contribute to test to test variability and is generally not good for the industry. It is difficult to design, test, evaluate, and rate vehicles when test to test variability exists. Process:

A global industry group has been formed to make Technical recommendations to Humanetics on which brand to commonize to for each ATD or ATD part.

Review of the Goal of the Harmonization Task Force


Dummy Design Trade-offs

Rep

ea

tab

ility

Frontal Dummy Type Examples

Hybrid I

Hybrid II

Hybrid III

THOR

Bio

fidelity

Humanetics Goal

Repeatability is judged by Certification Testing

Who do certification tests affect?

CERTIFICATION TEST INTERACTION BETWEEN OTHER PROCESSES

Delivery Rate

Crash Test Results

Certification Testing

Raw Material &

Specifications

Material &

Manufacturing

Processes

Harmonization

Step 1


Certification Testing Effects .

Test Variation: Lab-to-Lab

Neck A

y = 0.0417x + 77.733

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Run Order

Deg

rees


Neck Test Trends

STUDY TEST NUM.

Ma

x.

He

ad

form

Ro

tati

on

(d

eg

)

35302520151050

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52

50

S 2.29062

R-Sq 33.8%

R-Sq(adj) 31.4%

Regression

95% CI

95% PI

Fitted Line PlotMax. Headform Rotation (deg) = 60.75 - 0.1659 STUDY TEST NUM.

Honda

TRC

ATD

ATC

Data Spread Review

Data

Fre

qu

en

cy

6420-2-4-6

200

150

100

50

0

LSL USL

VISION OF THE FUTURECenter of the Corridor

Desired shape

relative to

corridors

Corridors

Current Conditions

Are Certification test results seen in the results of crash testing?

YES!


Example of preliminary Test Programs

• ATD Types tested to date: o Eurosid 2 re, Small Female Hybrid III

• Method o Built 2 special dummies

1 at stiff end of certification corridors

1 at soft end of certification corridors

o Ran GR&R program, between cert labs

o Ran sled tests

o Variables: Upper & Lower Stiffness

o Levels: Soft vs Stiff


Eurosid Summary

• Main effects results & effects

o Upper, Mid, and Lower rib deflections

o Abdominal Force

o Pubic Force

Interaction

PARAMETER p-value Stiff Soft Difference p-value Stiff Soft Difference p-value

Upper rib deflection (mm) 0.004 16.0 19.1 -3.2 0.571 0.049 63

Mid rib deflection (mm) 0.007 16.4 19.2 -2.8 0.396 0.026 62

Lower rib deflection (mm) 0.014 28.8 31.8 -3.0 0.083 29.3 31.2 -1.9 0.148 55

Total Abdomen Force (kN) 0.818 0.000 0.442 0.556 -0.114 0.818 89

Abdomen Front (kN) 0.745 0.029 0.120 0.137 -0.017 0.636 29

Abdomen Center (kN) 0.505 0.099 0.857 8

Abdomen Rear (kN) 0.346 0.000 0.260 0.342 -0.083 0.320 83

Pubic Force (kN) 0.532 0.077 0.189 25

Upper Torso Lower Torso R^2 Adj

(%)

Comparing Certification Test Influence on Sled Test Results- Small Female

Link was

established

between, Neck,

Thorax and

Knee slider

results


Conclusions

• Dummy variation within certification tests can produce statistically significant changes in restraint system performance

• Good certification tests are needed to control dummy performance

INITIAL TESTING OF A HARMONIZED HYBRID III 50TH COMPARING TO PREVIOUS ATD


Initial Sled Testing Completed


Reduction of Standard Deviation seen in

Neck, Thorax, and Head Drop tests as

high as 35% in the initial investigation

Initial Certification Test Investigation

Dummy Variation Reduction by Harmonizing of two brands to one, based on Initial sled testing, more to follow.

FTSS DN H

Up to a 14% Difference between peak values Trends to have lower peak

values compared to other

2 dummies

Will be +/- 14 %

different then

harmonized. minimum

Adding in more models


Dummy Variation timeline based on the history and number of ATD Companies

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1949 1973 1988 1991 2000 2010 2013

Variation

SAE Committee

created to address

variation

Baseline 1 ATD

company

FTSS – 1988

Humanetics -2010

1st Harmonization 2nd Harmonization

3 ATD company

ARL, Sierra,

Humanetics

4 ATD company

FTSS, Vector, SEA, Utama

2 ATD company

FTSS, Denton

4 +ATD company

Humanetics, Utama, JASTI,

Dummies for U, etc….

2 ATD company

ARL, Sierra

37% difference between

HIC values in crash tests

DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMANETICS CERTIFICATION LAB TEST STANDARD “H” STANDARD

Certification Test Repeatability using the Humanetics “H” Standard

Lab, “H” Std.

Set Up Procedures

Equipment

Lab inspection Gage R&R

DAS

Data Collection process

Sensors

Dummies

Documentation


Steps to the Process

1. Common Sense Brainstorming approach. 1. Procedure Review

1. How does each lab interpret the procedures 2. Torque of cables, velocity ranges, hexcell adjustments, set up

adjustments, how many tests are too many for a passing results

2. Equipment Review 1. Any differences in Equipment 2. Lab Temperature and Humidity recording and mapping

3. Instrumentation Review 1. Pot cal 2. DAS cal 3. Software review and update 4. Use of update sensors, Gyros vs pots? 5. Accelerometers & Load Cell specifications


Method

• Certification Tests o From our initial investigations, all current certification test from any of the

governmental bodies can not meet an ASTM Gage R&R. Therefore, none of these current tests can adequately discern performance variations between dummies.

o Develop certification “supplements” for customers to use to reduce lab to lab

variation. This would include items such as complete procedures for tools and measurement devices to set cable torque in the dummy.

o Develop a separate set of component tests (meets a Gage R&R) which affects

both the certification tests variation and the whole body system variations as shown from both modeling efforts and sled testing in hard seats. These new tests will be disturbed to customers to help them reduce variation between model and testing results.

27


Increase output through Quality Improvement

28

Reduce corridor width 1% a year Developed and sell updated Test equipment

• Introduce Linear impactors to replace wire hung probes • Hydraulic decel device to replace Hexcell • Increase Rigidity of fixtures • Better load cells (tighter specs) • Accelerometers • 3D ITRACCS for all deflection measurements

Develop and sell new Set up Equipment

• Guide system for probe set ups • Dummy set up devices to improve set up repeatability • Use of movies for set up comparisons

Neck A

y = 0.0417x + 77.733

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Run Order

Deg

rees

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95

EU

Pro

ba

bilit

y

Test Variation Reading Upper Corridor

Lower Corridor Process Total

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=device+to+set+a+person+with+paralysis+in+car+seat&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Lxxq5J7AfkCkeM&tbnid=v7Fi6si7lUCBoM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=https://www.google.com/patents/US5161275&ei=C_7vUdyNC-nsyQGsqICQCw&bvm=bv.49641647,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNHWWxHVBdr2prfkOzbA7j1MsyopxA&ust=1374768926134753


Ex: Intro of Humanetics “H Standards” Model 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Hybrid III 50th Release of Humanetics cert

lab Standards

Implement yearly inspection of all

customer cert labs

Implement narrower certification

corridors

Linear impactor intro


corridors

Small Female Release of Humanetics cert

lab standards


customer cert labs


corridors



corridors

THOR Release of Humanetics cert lab

standards

Implement yearly inspection of

all customer cert labs


corridors


Implement narrower

certification corridors

ESID Release of Humanetics cert lab

standards Implement yearly inspection of all

customer cert labs


corridors



corridors

Q Dummies Release of Humanetics cert lab

standards


customer cert labs


corridors


Implement narrower


Worldsid 50th Release of Humanetics cert

lab standards

Implement yearly inspection of

all customer cert labs


corridors


Implement narrower


Worldsid SF Release of Humanetics cert lab

standards


customer cert labs


corridors


Implement narrower


BIORID Release of Humanetics cert lab

standards


customer cert labs


corridors

Standard list includes: 1. Chest Pot calibration method

2. Rotator pot calibration method

3. Accelerometer & load cell standard practice

4. Pendulum set up method, Linear impactor

5. Neck Pendulum hexcell cutting and mounting standards

6. Velocity measurement method

7. Dummy set up procedures & fixture rigidity specs

8. Signal wave generator standards for instrumentation system

“H” Standard outline

• H-211-1 Instrumentation Recommended Practice o Potentiometer Calibration

Potentiometer Specifications

Calibration Procedures

o Accelerometers Calibration Methods

Response Characteristics

o Load Cells Calibrations

Calibration Repeatability

o Sign Conventions

o Data System Characteristics Effective number of BITs

DAS Setup Information › Gain settings

› Sample Rates

Anti-Alias Filter › Frequency Response

Post Test Processing Routines › Digital Filters

› Mathematical Equations

› Time Zero definition and calculation

• H-572-1.1 Setup Procedures o Pendulum Alignment

o Dummy Alignment

• H-572-2.1 Equipment o Rigidity of Frames

Specs?

o Linear Impactor

o Honeycomb replacement

• H-572-3.1 Lab Inspection o Signal Wave Generator Testing

o Procedures

o Equipment

• H-572-4.1 Continuous Improvement of lab results o Reduction of corridor width 1% a year

o Reduce variation for each fixture (GR&R)

H-211-1 Instrumentation Recommended Practice

• Potentiometer Calibration

o Calibration Procedures

Center Electrical Travel

Collect points when traveling in one direction

Use actual displacement values from standard (not nominal values)

Do not “hunt” for nominal positions

o 10 point calibrations (Minimal)

End Points Not Included as endpoint are generally not used during tests.

Must include normal test operating range

o Linear Regression to calculate slope over range

• Specifications

o % Linearity Error = <0.5%

o Slope corridor calculated from manufacture specifications

Example = Rotary Pot has 350 +/-5 degree electrical travel. Slope Tolerance @10Vexc = 0.355 deg/mv/v – 345 deg/mv/v

• Chest Potentiometer Assemblies –Hybrid III family

o SAE J2517:2010

Use of significant digits

3rd order polynomial

Electrical Center of potentiometer

• Future improvements

o Included a hysteresis calculation into calibration procedures.

H-211-1 Instrumentation Recommended Practice

• Accelerometers

o 7231C-750

All Probes

Neck Pendulum

Calibration Methods

› 10G shaker calibration


› Equivalent to Endevco Product Specifications

o 7264C-2000

Proper mounting for siezmic center

Dummy Channels

Calibration Methods

› 10G shaker calibration


› Equivalent to Endevco Product Specifications

• Load Cells Calibrations

Calibration Repeatability

• Sign Conventions o SAEJ211

o SAE1733

• Data System Characteristics o Effective number of BITs

o DAS Setup Information

Gain settings Sample Rates

› 10Khz › We have 2 sample rates, 10Khz and 250

hz, the 250 is for the slower speed tests.. ie HROM, TORSO , FOOT COMPRESSION

o Anti-Alias Filter Frequency Response

› 2000hz 6pole Butterworth o Post Test Processing Routines

Digital Filters › SAEj211

Mathematical Equations Time Zero definition and calculation

› Time of contact calculated from unfilter probe accelerometer

› Level of 1G unfiltered • Filter roll off = 6 pole • Yes we are on an edge of the J211 corridor. The corridor is

based on a 4 pole design and by using a 6 pole, we have an inherent steeper rolloff.

• Description of filter = 6 pole butterworth.

“H” Standard non-instrumentation outline

• H-572-1.1 Setup Procedures o Pendulum Alignment

o We currently try to hang and align probes to be at nominal settings. Level fore-aft, lateral left –right, probe flight (twist about “z”) . I am sure there isn’t a lot of checking when hanging some probes.

o Dummy Alignment

• H-572-2.1 Equipment o Rigidity of Frames

Specs?

o Linear Impactor

o Honeycomb replacement

• H-572-3.1 Lab Inspection o Signal Wave Generator Testing

o Procedures Regular calibration intervals for all instrumentation

A2LA Accredited

o Equipment

• H-572-4.1 Continuous Improvement of lab results o Reduction of corridor width 1% a year

o Reduce variation for each fixture (GR&R)

HYBRID III FAMILY UPDATE

SMALL FEMALE JACKET


Small Female Chest Jacket

o Both Denton and FT jackets available for current NHTSA option

o Harmonized jacket also available

o J2915 & 2921 are complete as references

o Updating the NHTSA action for compliance testing

Auto Alliance is in process of writing a letter to NHTSA

› Update drawing package for both the jacket and spine box updates

› Propose a 5 year phase in

› Draft completed currently under review

SMALL FEMALE HEAD AND CAP SKIN FIT


1. H head skin and cap skin

Harmonized 5th head delivered to customer

Harmonized 5th head in Huron

-Both heads have large misalignment

between head skin and skull cap.

-The misalignment looks better with FT

head skin as shown. I am not saying to use

FT skin. I just want to show the difference.

-No new cap skin was made

-Head skin thickness spec

2. Head skin top thickness

1. -H head skin has more thickness in its top part.

2. -H head skin is about 4mm higher.

3. -This will change airbag position in testings.

4. – This is a comment from a FT dummy user.

Smaller in back of headskin originally, cap skin

thinner than spec for CG

Need spec change for both drawings

Cap Skin is also call out to be .5 thick

2. Head skin top thickness

3. Chin location

-Align eyes, nose first, then harmonized chin location is different than FT.

-Head location on steering wheel will be different.

-This is just comment from a FT dummy user.

- Harmonized chin head skin has same thickness as 10 year old

4. H head skin lip

-FT head has more depth in its lip. Head drop wire drops together with the head.

-H head has less depth in its lip. Head drop wire slips out soon, and it may be catching other portion of head skin, and this may create noise in head drop test.

-Customer is worrying when they have to wait 3 hours to do another test.


Harmonized Jacket and rib set combinations

Harmonized jacket and rib set combinations

Release of 4 rib sets (currently at review state)

•880105-RS-H, rib set harmonized

•880105-RS-H-C, rib set/jacket combo harmonized

•880105-RS-H-ENCAP, rib set harmonized ENCAP

•880105-RS-H-ENCAP-C, rib set/jacket combo harmonized ENCAP


EURONCAP version of small female

EuroNCAP version of the Harmonized dummy

•Humanetics standard 5th EuroNCAP dummy that meets all of the current requirements:

(880105-000-BKS-H) dummy currently at review state

•9/3- team decided to add zippered lower leg flesh (880105-601SE-H) to the ENCAP dummy, (working on this now)

HYBRID III 50TH UPPER AND LOWER ARM FIT

Upper and Lower Arm fit


Nominal NHTSA Spec

FT Harmonized

1 1.4 1.34 1.3

2 .6 .6 .4

3 2.7 2.5 2.7

4 3.8 4.1 4

5 2.4 2.5 2.4

12

34

5

Taper bottom shape both sides

This part looks as if it has become smaller


• Current update

o Arm mold will have an insert install in current harmonized mold to shorten flesh by ¼ inch.

HYBRID III 50TH LUMBAR TESTING SAE LUMBAR TEST UPDATE

Background Toyota Lumbar Test

• Lumbar bend test was created to provide a force vs angle requirement to the existing durometer requirement.

SAE evaluation of Lumbar Pull Test

• Jesse Buehler of TEMA/Toyota will write J document

• A procedure comparison was completed between Humanetics US, TEMA, Toyota Japan, and Humanetics Japan

• A round robin has begun using three new lumbars, and the testing equipment at TEMA, Plymouth, and Huron. An initial review of the data has been completed

Initial Data Review

• 10 and 20 degree lumbar bend angles o Similar results between labs

and test equipment.

• 30 degrees of lumbar angle o Differences were found

• Current corridor is not linear as expected o The theory is that the

corridors were created including the interference between pot bracket and lumbar

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 10 20 30 40

Forc

e (

N)

Degrees

TTC, Huron Lumbar Flexion Averages

Huron

TTC

A further investigation was completed on November 12, 2012

• Four items were discovered during the investigation

o The pot bracket structure comes in contact with the lumbar spine at approximately 29 deg, effected by initial angle

o Weight of spine boxes were found to be different (.4 lbs)

o One of the test equipment max pull angle is only 29 degrees

o Pull angle similar but test equipment set up is different

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 10 20 30 40

Forc

e (

N)

Degrees

TTC, Huron Lumbar Flexion Averages

Huron

TTC

Contact could occur sooner

depending on initial angle


Part Numbers: 78051-66-02-H, LUMBAR SPINE, MOLDED, T/C 78051-66-03-H, LUMBAR SPINE MOLDED T/C ON L-SPINE LCS

Longer Term for SAE J Document (6 months)

• Update Procedure

o Replace spine box with special design pull device to prevent spine interaction.

• Update Corridors

o Update, as necessary, corridors after round robin is complete


Lumbar Test

• Background: An force vs. angle test for the 50th lumbar was created by Toyota

• Problem Definition: SAE took on the project to explore reproducibility of current test and, if necessary, develop a SAE test recommended practice.

• Current Status:

o SAE is creating a new J document

o Jessie Buehler from TEMA will by the Author

o Test procedures have been reviewed and updated

o SAE will perform a round robin test series to check updated procedure

Humanetics will supply lumbars and analysis support

Initial round robin test will include Toyota headquarters, TEMA, Humanetics Japan, Humanetics US

o 54 different test at three labs currently in progress between Huron, Plymouth, and TEMA Labs, Due Fall 2012

ANKLE DESIGN


Will Restart SAE J Document

78051-649-FT, FOOT / ANKLE ASSEMBLY, LEFT 78051-650-FT, FOOT / ANKLE ASSEMBLY, RIGHT 78051-649-DN, FOOT & ANKLE ASSY, LEFT, SAE 78051-650-DN, FOOT & ANKLE ASSY, RIGHT, SAE

EUROSID ABDOMEN

Certification

• Eurosid, -1, early -2 (2000) o 6.3 m/s

o Pendulum Force

9.5 – 11.1 kN @ 8.8- 10.4 ms

o Total Abdomen Force

5.9 – 7.9kN @ 8.5 – 10.1 ms

• Eurosid- 2 after 2002 o 4 m/s (reduced to achieve

lower abdominal force)

o Pendulum Force

4 – 4.9 kN @ 10.6 – 13 ms

o Total Abdomen Force

2.2 – 2.7 kN @ 10 – 12.3 ms

Easier to pass, save

ES 2 abdomen

50/50 pass, times too short foam has changed, same European manufacturer since beginning Several adjustments have been made to both the material and process

Discovered many labs are trying to extend the time by pushing abdomens to the side to create the largest gap between abdomen and drum


Update

• Original Eurosid Abdomens were made from the ARP foam that is not longer available

• Eurosid, Eurosid-1, -2, -2re Abdomen material has changed over the years due to environmental regulations

• Same vendor has been molding them since the beginning

• For the 6.3 m/s certification abdominal impact test most of the abdomens pass.

• For the 4 m/s certification abdominal impact test the yield is only 50% or less depending on the batch of material.

• Will petition NHTSA for corridor changes


Options for task force

• So far no material, process or procedure has been able to adjust to the time specifications provided in 2002.

• 50/50 passing, with time on the lower end of the specification o Open a project, which could take up to a year to complete to determine if a suitable

material can be found for a replacement. Will require a mold, injection molding machine, materials, lab tests , etc… This was proposed three

years ago.

Should we enlist an University?

• Short term, update procedure to make certain all labs push the abdomen to one side of the pelvis cavity and drum to create the largest gap between the abdomen and drum.

• How can the group petition for an adjustment to the corridor? o Need to assemble data from abdomens before and after 2002 and compare.

Demonstrate how this change was effected by a material change which has not been able to solve.

EJECTION MITIGATION HEADFORM


Head form

• New prototype skins made

• How is it incorporated and are the drawings regulated?

• Need to meet with NHTSA to discuss next steps

WORLDSID UPDATES

Current Cert Status

WS50 Cert updates

WS50 SINGLE RIB CERTIFICATION

Oct 2013


WS50 Thorax Certification

ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5

Leonhard Ferdinand

23.Oct..2012 68


Option List

• Static tests of individual ribs o (Force vs Deflection)

• Drop tower of individual ribs o (Force vs Deflection)

• Single rib pendulum on dummy (2 m/s)

o (Force vs Deflection)

• Single rib Stiffness of all three ribs at the same time with pendulum o Weight? (5th or SID IIs pendulum and add weight)

25 kg probe

o Speed?- standard cert test speed Need enough deflection of ribs

Currently Humanetics is building testing rig for rib testing, lower priority to small female worldsid update, different stiffness ribs has been completed

WSID- 5TH UPDATES

Christine Allen , Mike Beebe, Paul Depinet 17Jan13


Small Female WorldSID

• Current Project List o Shoulder interaction with

neck bracket

o Interaction of pelvis bone and lumbar spine/ S-I load cell (long term redesign req’d)

o Lower rib interaction with top portion of pelvis flesh, under investigation

First prototype due end of October, Cert and Bio testing to be completed in November by Humanetics


THOR-M

1992 2001 2005 2009-2010 2012 TAD-50M THOR Alpha THOR-NT Mod Kit THOR-M


THOR-M Status

• Developments over past few years resulted in THOR Mod Kit and THOR-M releases

o Mod Kit Allowed owners to upgrade ATDs

o THOR-Metric Allow new ATDs to be fabricated

o Currently available THOR dummies

EU: 3 Mod kit dummies + 1 NT + 1 THOR-M end 2013

US: 3 Mod kits dummies + 3 THOR-M (2 end 2013 + 1 march 2014)

Far east: 1 THOR-K + 1 NT planned for update next year

• Decision making by NHTSA expected end 2013 / early 2014 based on

o Biomechanical performance

o Availability drawings / PADI / cert procedures

o Injury criteria this activity is still ongoing especially for chest region

o Seating procedure

• In case not fully available it might be decided to continue development activities e.g. on items like injury criteria an thresholds

• NHTSA considering application in oblique impact test

• GRSP IG FI considering application in Frontal Impact test


• Original NHTSA NPRM by 2013?

• Current work on shoulder & Neck

Q3S NPRM

BIORID UPDATES

Mike Beebe, Paul Depinet 17Jan13


Update on certification test development

• Goal: Develop certification tests which can control dummy reproducibility o Must control setup of neck muscle substitutes and damper

o Must detect critical differences between dummies found in vehicle seat R&R work Spine bumper stiffness

Jacket stiffness

Pelvis stiffness

• Recommended certification tests: o Spine quasi-static setup

o Mini-sled without head restraint

o Mini-sled with seat back & head restraint

o Jacket only impact

o Pelvis only impact (bottom only)

• Recommended inspection tests o Spine bumper stiffness

o Pelvis shape check


Mini-sled with seat back & head restraint • Multi-segment full back support

• Base of spine can translate X and rotate Y

• Double teflon between dummy & sled

• Fairly stiff head restraint surface

• Same pendulum and energy transfer device

• Preliminary indication is that it can clearly distinguish stiff versus normal bumpers on some channels

o Jacket and bumper interact on other channels

• Next steps

o Improve positioning procedure

o Run further tests for statistical analysis of effects/interactions

• Create corridors based on dummies in R&R study

• Check on R&R in lab and between labs


Jacket Only Impact

DN80

43

DN80

22

DN6

072

DN6

015

DN59

11

DN39

76

DN26

18

DM73

00

DM7

030

DM5

631

DM1

454

DL743

6

DL715

0

DL50

27

DL08

70

DL08

54

DL081

3

DK4

092

DK4

063

DK4

062

DK4

059

DK4

051

DK4

000

DK1

986

DK1

985

DK1

948

DJ82

54

DJ15

49

DI95

32

DI951

8

DI900

8

DI 9

573

2000

052

7G

2000

052

5G

2000

010

0G

2000

007

7G

2000

006

8G

2000

005

4G

21

20

19

18

17

16

Serial Number

Pe

ak P

art

Co

mp

ressio

n (

mm

)

18.3

20.3

Peak Part Compression (mm) (Population)

DN80

43

DN80

22

DN6

072

DN60

15

DN59

11

DN3

976

DN26

18

DM73

00

DM7

030

DM56

31

DM14

54

DL74

36

DL71

50

DL502

7

DL08

70

DL08

54

DL081

3

DK4

092

DK4

063

DK4

062

DK4

059

DK4

051

DK4

000

DK1

986

DK1

985

DK1

948

DJ82

54

DJ15

49

DI953

2

DI95

18

DI90

08

DI 9

573

2000

052

7G

2000

052

5G

2000

010

0G

2000

007

7G

2000

006

8G

2000

005

4G

0.42

0.41

0.40

0.39

0.38

Serial Number

Sle

d V

elo

cit

y P

ea

k (

m/

s)

0.378

0.422

Sled Velocity Peak (m/s) (Population)

DN80

43

DN80

22

DN6

072

DN60

15

DN59

11

DN3

976

DN2

618

DM73

00

DM7

030

DM5

631

DM14

54

DL743

6

DL71

50

DL502

7

DL087

0

DL08

54

DL081

3

DK4

092

DK4

063

DK4

062

DK4

059

DK4

051

DK4

000

DK1

986

DK1

985

DK1

948

DJ825

4

DJ154

9

DI95

32

DI951

8

DI900

8

DI 9

573

2000

052

7G

2000

052

5G

2000

010

0G

2000

007

7G

2000

006

8G

2000

005

4G

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

Serial Number

Pe

ak P

en

du

lum

Fo

rce

(N

)

1360

1110

Peak Pendulum Force (N) (Population)

• Detailed study on 4 R&R Jackets • New jacket corridors proposed

o Pendulum impact: 1110N - 1360N (+/- 10%)

o Peak sled velocity: 0.378m/s – 0.422m/s (+/-6%)

o Peak part compression: 18.3mm – 20.3mm (+/-5%)


Pelvis Bottom Impact

• Detailed study on 4 R&R pelvises back and bottom

• Pelvis bottom corridors proposed o Pendulum impact: 3250 N – 4620 N (+/- 17%)

o Peak sled velocity: 0.375 m/s – 0.325 m/s (+/-7%)

o Peak part compression: 17.8 mm – 19.5 mm (+/-5%)

DN99

54

DN95

17

DN94

63

DN94

30

DN93

96

DN74

71

DN46

92

DM98

16

DM95

02

DM59

44

DM21

03

DM16

18

DL9

738

DL9

706

DL8

839

DL8

696

DL8

483

DL8

481

DL8

329

DL6

756

DL1

664

DK88

59

DK8

763

DK8

594

DK80

35

DK7

998

DK5

473

DK52

79

DK4

488

DK3

957

0100

G - O

rig

0077

G - O

rig

0068

G - O

rig

0054

G - O

rig

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

Serial Number

Pe

ak P

en

du

lum

Fo

rce

(N

)

3250

4620

Individual Value Plot of Peak Pendulum Force (N)

DN99

54

DN95

17

DN94

63

DN94

30

DN93

96

DN74

71

DN46

92

DM98

16

DM95

02

DM59

44

DM21

03

DM16

18

DL9

738

DL9

706

DL8

839

DL8

696

DL8

483

DL8

481

DL8

329

DL6

756

DL1

664

DK8

859

DK8

763

DK8

594

DK8

035

DK7

998

DK5

473

DK5

279

DK4

488

DK3

957

0100

G - O

rig

0077

G - O

rig

0068

G - O

rig

0054

G - O

rig

0.39

0.38

0.37

0.36

0.35

0.34

0.33

0.32

Serial Number

Sle

d V

elo

cit

y P

ea

k (

m/

s)

0.325

0.375

Individual Value Plot of Sled Velocity Peak (m/s)

DN99

54

DN95

17

DN94

63

DN94

30

DN93

96

DN74

71

DN46

92

DM98

16

DM95

02

DM59

44

DM21

03

DM16

18

DL9

738

DL9

706

DL8

839

DL8

696

DL8

483

DL8

481

DL8

329

DL6

756

DL1

664

DK88

59

DK8

763

DK8

594

DK80

35

DK7

998

DK5

473

DK52

79

DK4

488

DK3

957

0100

G - O

rig

0077

G - O

rig

0068

G - O

rig

0054

G - O

rig

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

Serial Number

Pe

ak P

art

Co

mp

ressio

n (

mm

)

19.5

17.8

Individual Value Plot of Peak Part Compression (mm)


Bumper Compression On Spine

• Probably An absolutely necessary test for maintaining dummy o Can be an inspection test to be done as part of

maintenance rather than a certification test As long as mini-sled with back support proves to

detect dummy differences adequately

• Currently doing R&R testing to verify procedure works properly

• Further work o Confirm R&R (within 1 lab and between labs)

o Finish building parts for all vertabra locations

o Collect test data Dummies 0054, 0068, 0077, 0100 from

Various bumper stiffnesses going into mini-sled with back support work

o Establish corridors on R&R dummies (and/or similar bumpers)


Pelvis Shape Check

• Inspection test to make sure pelvis has not shrunk too much o Plate with 5 locations for each side

o Measure pelvis offset with a steel ruler Rough check to catch gross

deformations

If we can eventually set limits, a go/no go gage could be used

• Just starting to work with this o Need to test multiple old pelvises

o Verify R&R is sufficient

o Set corridors


Current Work Plan

• Write draft procedures for all tests ready to insert into Mutual Resolution

• Review all procedures with GTR7/TEG

• Complete testing and analysis to

o Set corridors relative to R&R dummies

• Goal: final drafts with preliminary corridors by mid-December meeting

ATD Technical Advisory Group

October 17, 2013

Thank You for your attention

© 2013 Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc. This presentation is the proprietary property of Humanetics Innovative Solutions, Inc; a registered company in Plymouth, Michigan, USA. The report includes confidential information. Disclosure, use, copying, or distribution of this information without the written authorization of Humanetics Innovative Solutions is prohibited.

Documents

ATD Technical Advisory Meeting on Dummy Design · ATD Technical Advisory Meeting on Dummy Design Thursday, October 17th, 2013 6:00 am – 8:00 am EST Humanetics Headquarters in Plymouth,