Berliner J, Athey J, Baayoun E, Byrnes K, Elhagediab A, Hultman R, Jensen J, Kim A, Kostyniuk G, Mertz H, Prest J, Rouhana S, Scherer R, Xu L
Child Dummy Evaluation Task Group of the Occupant Safety Research Partnership.
Stapp Car Crash J. 2000 Nov;44:25-50. doi: 10.4271/2000-01-SC03.
A comparison of the Q3 and Hybrid III 3-year-old crash test dummies is presented in this paper. The performance of the dummies were compared in sixty biofidelity tests, seventy-seven static out-of-position airbag tests and sixty-three calibration tests. Various time histories and other data pertaining to accelerations, deflections, forces and moments are compared. In addition, the ease of positioning, handling, and the durability of the dummies in various out-of-position test configurations was assessed. Both the Q3 and Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies were calibrated to their respective specifications. The Hybrid III 3-year-old met its calibration requirements, while the Q3 did not always meet its own calibration requirements. The calibration specifications of the Q3 dummy need to be re-examined and possibly refined. The biofidelity of the Q3 and Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies were evaluated in both frontal and lateral test modes. Each dummy was evaluated against its own and the other's specified requirements, when possible. In the frontal test mode, the Hybrid III 3-year-old acceptably met all of its requirements. The Q3 dummy did not meet all of its own frontal biofidelity requirements. Based on these results, the Hybrid III 3-year-old is more biofidelic for primarily frontal loading conditions. With respect to the lateral biofidelity specifications, neither the Hybrid III 3-year-old nor the Q3 dummy met the requirements for the thorax and pelvis tests performed. Both dummies met the head drop requirements. Neither dummy is recommended for lateral loading conditions. For lateral testing where only the head is impacted, the Hybrid III 3-year-old could be used. In general, the responses of both dummies were repeatable in both the frontal and lateral biofidelity tests performed. The Hybrid III 3-year-old and the Q3 dummies were evaluated in static out-of-position airbag tests with three different side airbag systems (two seat-mounted and one door-mounted system), and one frontal passenger airbag system. Throughout this testing, the Q3 resultant head accelerations exhibited an excessive amount of high-frequency noise causing this dummy to be unacceptable for static out-of-position airbag testing. No significant issues were found with the Hybrid III 3-yearold. It was also determined that the Q3 dummy was more difficult to position repeatedly than the Hybrid III 3-yearold. This was due to the dummy's construction and its lack of rigid landmarks.
本文对Q3和Hybrid III三岁儿童碰撞测试假人进行了比较。在60次生物逼真度测试、77次静态失位安全气囊测试和63次校准测试中对假人的性能进行了比较。比较了与加速度、挠度、力和力矩相关的各种时间历程及其他数据。此外，还评估了在各种失位测试配置下假人的定位难易程度、操作便利性以及耐用性。Q3和Hybrid III三岁儿童假人均已按照各自的规格进行校准。Hybrid III三岁儿童假人符合其校准要求，而Q3假人并非总能满足自身的校准要求。需要重新审视并可能完善Q3假人的校准规格。在正面和侧面测试模式下对Q3和Hybrid III三岁儿童假人的生物逼真度进行了评估。如有可能，每个假人均对照自身及对方的指定要求进行评估。在正面测试模式下，Hybrid III三岁儿童假人可接受地满足了所有要求。Q3假人未满足其自身所有的正面生物逼真度要求。基于这些结果，对于主要为正面加载的情况，Hybrid III三岁儿童假人的生物逼真度更高。关于侧面生物逼真度规格，Hybrid III三岁儿童假人和Q3假人在进行的胸部和骨盆测试中均未满足要求。两个假人均满足头部跌落要求。不建议在侧面加载条件下使用这两种假人。对于仅头部受到撞击的侧面测试，可使用Hybrid III三岁儿童假人。总体而言，在进行的正面和侧面生物逼真度测试中，两种假人的响应都是可重复的。使用三种不同的侧面安全气囊系统（两个座椅安装式和一个车门安装式系统）以及一个正面乘客安全气囊系统对Hybrid III三岁儿童假人和Q3假人进行了静态失位安全气囊测试。在整个测试过程中，Q3假人头部的合成加速度表现出过多的高频噪声，导致该假人无法用于静态失位安全气囊测试。Hybrid III三岁儿童假人未发现重大问题。还确定Q3假人比Hybrid III三岁儿童假人更难反复定位。这是由于假人的构造及其缺乏刚性标记所致。
