Bortenschlager K, Kramberger D, Barnsteiner K, Hartlieb M, Ferdinand L, Leyer H, Muser M, Schmitt K-U
Partnership for Dummy Technology and Biomechanics, Ingolstadt, Germany.
Stapp Car Crash J. 2003 Oct;47:473-88. doi: 10.4271/2003-22-0021.
The objective of our study was to investigate the properties of the BioRID II and RID2 dummies regarding repeatability and reproducibility as well as their suitability to identify the protection potential of different car seats. For repeatability and reproducibility tests, three BioRID II and three RID 2 dummies at current build levels were seated on a rigid bench seat equipped with a head restraint, and mounted on a HyGe-type sled. The test velocity was prescribed by the proposed ISO-Pulse. For testing the interaction of the dummies with varying car seat geometries and mechanical properties and their ability to assess the protection potential of the seats, three seat types with passive and one seat with an active head restraint system from different car manufacturers were used. The seats were chosen due to their injury protection potential, indicated by accident field data and results of seat evaluation tests. One BioRID II equipped with a T1-load cell and one RID2 were positioned side-by-side on identical seats for each test. The tests were performed at velocities prescribed by the ISO-Pulse (deltav 16km/h / 8 g max.)and a more severe pulse (deltav 24km/h / 13 g max.). The dummy responses were interpreted by applying all currently proposed whiplash injury criteria (e.g. NIC, N(km), NDC, LNL). A comparison of these criteria shows their sensitivity for identification of the respective seat protection potential. This study examines the repeatability, reproducibility, kinematics and sensitivity of these two dummies in sled tests as well as their suitability with regard to the different injury criteria. The RID2 exhibited better repeatability and reproducibility than the BioRID II, because of its simpler mechanical design. The dummies did not give a consistent ranking of the low-speed, rear-end impact protection potentials of the four seat evaluated. More experience is needed to decide which dummy, injury criteria and limits should be used to assess the whiplash protection potential of seat designs.
我们研究的目的是调查BioRID II和RID2假人在可重复性和再现性方面的特性，以及它们识别不同汽车座椅保护潜力的适用性。对于可重复性和再现性测试，将三个当前制造水平的BioRID II假人和三个RID 2假人安置在配备头枕的刚性长椅座椅上，并安装在HyGe型滑橇上。测试速度由拟议的ISO脉冲规定。为了测试假人与不同汽车座椅几何形状和机械性能的相互作用及其评估座椅保护潜力的能力，使用了来自不同汽车制造商的三种带有被动装置的座椅类型和一种带有主动头枕系统的座椅。选择这些座椅是因为它们的伤害保护潜力，这由事故现场数据和座椅评估测试结果表明。每次测试时，一个配备T1载荷传感器的BioRID II假人和一个RID2假人并排放置在相同的座椅上。测试在ISO脉冲规定的速度（速度变化16km/h /最大8g）和更严格的脉冲（速度变化24km/h /最大13g）下进行。通过应用所有当前提出的鞭打损伤标准（例如NIC、N(km)、NDC、LNL）来解释假人的反应。这些标准的比较显示了它们对识别各自座椅保护潜力的敏感性。本研究考察了这两个假人在滑橇测试中的可重复性、再现性、运动学和敏感性，以及它们对于不同损伤标准的适用性。由于其机械设计更简单，RID2比BioRID II表现出更好的可重复性和再现性。对于所评估的四个座椅的低速、追尾碰撞保护潜力，假人没有给出一致的排名。需要更多经验来决定应使用哪种假人、损伤标准和限值来评估座椅设计的鞭打保护潜力。
