Two Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI) dummies were tested and evaluated. Based on the analysis given, the HSI dummy should not be used for vehicle qualification testing. However, many of its components offer viable alternatives for future dummy development.The dummy was found to have inadequate biomechanical fidelity in the head, neck, and chest, although its characteristics were very promising and, as a whole, biomechanically superior to the Hybrid II. Its repeatability and reproducibility in dynamic component tests were better than the Hybrid II dummy. In particular, the HSRI friction joints were outstanding in repeatability and had a significant advantage in usability in that they do not require resetting between tests.In three-point harness and ACRS systems tests, the values of injury criteria produced by the HSRI dummy were generally lower than those obtained with the Hybrid II, especially the femur loads in the ACRS tests. However, the repeatability and reproducibility of the HSRI dummy were significantly poorer than the Hybrid II. Also, significant durability problems exist with the skin and lumbar spine of the HSRI dummy.Two Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI) dummies were tested and evaluated. Based on the analysis given, the HSI dummy should not be used for vehicle qualification testing. However, many of its components offer viable alternatives for future dummy development.The dummy was found to have inadequate biomechanical fidelity in the head, neck, and chest, although its characteristics were very promising and, as a whole, biomechanically superior to the Hybrid II. Its repeatability and reproducibility in dynamic component tests were better than the Hybrid II dummy. In particular, the HSRI friction joints were outstanding in repeatability and had a significant advantage in usability in that they do not require resetting between tests.In three-point harness and ACRS systems tests, the values of injury criteria produced by the HSRI dummy were generally lower than those obtained with the Hybrid II, especially the femur loads in the ACRS tests. However, the repeatability and reproducibility of the HSRI dummy were significantly poorer than the Hybrid II. Also, significant durability problems exist with the skin and lumbar spine of the HSRI dummy.


    Access

    Check access

    Check availability in my library

    Order at Subito €


    Export, share and cite



    Title :

    The Highway Safety Research Institute Dummy Compared with General Motors Biofidelity Recommendations and the Hybrid II Dummy


    Additional title:

    Sae Technical Papers



    Conference:

    3rd International Conference on Occupant Protection (1974) ; 1974



    Publication date :

    1974-02-01




    Type of media :

    Conference paper


    Type of material :

    Print


    Language :

    English




    WorldSID Dummy Head-Neck Biofidelity Response

    Been, Bernard / Philippens, Mat / van Ratingen, Michiel et al. | SAE Technical Papers | 2004


    Biofidelity of the European Side Impact Dummy - EUROSID

    Janssen,E.G. / Vermissen,A.C. / TNO Road-Vehicles Research Inst.,NL | Automotive engineering | 1988


    Biofidelity of the European Side Impact Dummy – EUROSID

    Vermissen, A. C. M. / Janssen, E. G. | SAE Technical Papers | 1988


    2004-22-0019 WorldSID Dummy Head-Neck Biofidelity Response

    Been, B. / Philippens, M. / de Lange, R. et al. | British Library Conference Proceedings | 2004


    Evaluation of Improved Protection and Dummy Biofidelity in Side Impact

    Cesari,D. / Johnson,A.K. / Organisme National de Securite Routiere,FR et al. | Automotive engineering | 1982