Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III-10 Year Old Child Test Dummy, 40281-40301 [05-13659]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(202) 366–2992 and by fax at (202) 366–
3820.
You may send mail to both of these
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
19, 2005, the agency published in the
Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 208, Occupant crash protection (70
FR 28878). We proposed test procedures
applicable to vehicles that have a child
restraint anchorage system, commonly
referred to as a ‘‘LATCH’’ system, in a
front passenger seating position and that
comply with advanced air bag
requirements through the use of a
suppression system. Beginning
September 1, 2006, these vehicles must
suppress the air bag in the presence of
a child restraint system that is attached
to the vehicle’s LATCH system. The
procedures proposed in the NPRM
specify a repeatable, reproducible, and
realistic method of attaching child
restraints to the LATCH system for the
suppression test.
The proposed procedure was
developed by NHTSA to replicate realworld CRS installations in vehicles by
experienced installers, particularly with
respect to the appropriate load vector to
be applied and the amount of load relief
when LATCH belts are manually
tightened. The procedure was
developed using four installers working
with three vehicles and four CRSs. The
agency prepared a technical report
detailing this development. The NPRM
was published May 19, 2005, and open
for a 60-day comment period. However,
public availability of the technical
report was delayed until after the
comment period had started.
On June 20, 2005, we received a letter
from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance) 1 requesting an
extension of the comment period. The
Alliance stated that because of the delay
it is not able to adequately review the
technical report and prepare comments
by the close of comment period.
Further, the Alliance stated that some of
the illustrations in the technical report
were not legible. The Alliance therefore
requested a short extension of the
comment period.
As stated in the NPRM, the proposed
procedure is for child restraint systems
to which vehicles must certify under the
suppression requirements, beginning
1 The Alliance is a trade association of nine
automobile manufacturers, including BMW Group,
DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota,
and Volkswagen.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
September 1, 2006. Consequently, we
believe the 30-day extension of the
comment period will not adversely
affect safety. Further, we believe that
providing additional time for review of
the technical report will result in more
helpful comments. We note that the
technical report has been resubmitted to
the docket with legible illustrations.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all submissions
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment or petition (or signing the
comment or petition, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (volume 65, number 70; pages
19477–78), or you may visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on July 8, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05–13760 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 572
[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–21247]
RIN 2127–AJ49
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid
III–10 Year Old Child Test Dummy
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Today’s NPRM proposes
specifications and qualification
requirements for the new test dummy
that is representative of a 10-year-old
child. NHTSA plans to use the new 10year-old child test dummy to test child
restraints under Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 213 and in other
applications. The dummy has the
capability to be placed in a slouched
posture, which allows the evaluation of
vehicle belt systems under real world
occupant conditions.
DATES: You should submit your
comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not
later than September 12, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40281
You may submit comments
(identified by the DOT DMS Docket
Number) by any of the following
methods:
• Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
Public Participation heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act discussion under the
Public Participation heading.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5
pm, Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call Stan
Backaitis, NHTSA Office of
Crashworthiness Standards (telephone
202–366–4912). For legal issues, you
may call Chris Calamita, NHTSA Office
of Chief Counsel (telephone 202–366–
2992). You may send mail to these
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Table of Contents
I. Anton’s Law
II. Overview
III. Background
A. Need for the dummy
B. Evolution of the dummy
IV. General Description
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40282
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
A. Biofidelic consistency of the HIII 10year-old dummy with the Hybrid III 50th
percentile component responses
B. Repeatability and reproducibility
C. Component tests
D. Sled tests
V. The Dummy’s Response Sensitivity and
Structural Durability
A. Sensitivity of responses to booster seat
design
B. Sensitivity of response to dummy’s
posture
C. Sensitivity of the dummy in three point
belt applications
D. Sensitivity of dummy response and
durability in NCAP pulse and different
restraint systems
E. Dummy performance in OOP
Environment
1. Test Set-Up
2. General Observations
3. Neck Durability
4. Response Differences Due to Dummy
Makes
5. Dummy Positioning
VI. Proposed Calibration Tests
A. Head drop specification
B. Neck pendulum test
C. Knee impact
D. Thorax impact
E. Torso flexion
VII. Benefits and Costs
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Anton’s Law
On December 4, 2002, the President
signed Pub. L. 107–318, ‘‘Anton’s Law,’’
in order ‘‘to provide for the
improvement of the safety of child
restraints in passenger motor vehicles,
and other purposes.’’ Section 4 of
Anton’s Law directed that:
(a) Not later than 24 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary [of Transportation] shall
develop and evaluate an
anthropomorphic test device that
simulates a 10-year-old child for use in
testing child restraints used in
passenger motor vehicles;
(b) Within 1 year following the
development and evaluation carried out
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the
adoption of anthropomorphic test
device as developed under subsection
(a).
In September 2004, the agency
completed evaluation of the HIII–10C
and tentatively determined that it is
suitable for use in testing child
restraints.
II. Overview
Today’s NPRM proposing to adopt
specifications and performance criteria
for the HIII–10C into 49 CFR Part 572
initiates the rulemaking referenced in
Section 4(b) of Anton’s Law. The test
dummy is based on recent growth charts
for U.S. children and scaled
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
measurements from the Hybrid III
family of dummies. The Hybrid III 10year-old test dummy (referred to as the
‘‘HIII–10C’’) has a seated height of 2 feet
5 inches, a standing height of 4 feet 3
inches, and weighs 77.6 pounds (35
kilograms). By seated height and weight
it very closely approximates the average
10-year-old child in the U.S.
Additionally, the HIII–10C has been
designed to more closely replicate the
posture of older children than current
Hybrid III test dummies, which can
enable the dummy to more closely
replicate older children interacting with
seat belt systems. The HIII–10C has an
adjustable lumbar spine that allows the
dummy to slouch and a shoulder
construction that provides a more
representative interaction of the
shoulder and shoulder belt.
Consideration is underway at NHTSA
on using the HIII–10C in compliance
tests of child restraints under Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint systems’’ (49
CFR 571.213). The agency is proposing
to expand the applicability of the
standard to restraints recommended for
children weighing up to 80 pounds (36
kilograms). The proposed amendment to
FMVSS No. 213 is intended to ensure
that all child restraint systems,
including booster seats, are robustly
assessed to make sure that they would
perform soundly in a 30 mile per hour
(mph) crash when used by children at
the upper limit of their recommended
weight range (e.g., up to 80 lb). The
agency tentatively believes that the
dummy is a sound test device that will
provide valuable data in assessing the
potential for injury of child restraint
system (CRS) occupants that weigh
more than 50 lb in a 30 mph crash.
III. Background
A. Need for the Dummy
The agency has long recognized the
need for a test dummy representative of
a child larger than that currently
represented by the Hybrid III 6-year-old
test dummy (HIII–6YO). Some child
restraint manufacturers began offering
child restraints for children weighing 50
lb and greater. The agency has wanted
to expand the applicability of FMVSS
No. 213 to increase the likelihood that
child restraints will provide robust
protection for a wider array of children.
This interest goes hand-in-hand with
efforts to increase booster seat use
among children who have outgrown
their harness-equipped child safety seat,
but who cannot adequately fit a
vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt system.
(The agency advises that children
between the ages of 4-to 8-years of age
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
should remain in a belt-positioning
booster seat and secured with a
vehicle’s lap/shoulder belt, unless they
are a minimum 4 feet and 9 inches tall.)
Agency reports have indicated that
older children do not fit properly into
vehicle safety belt systems without the
use of a child restraint system (e.g., a
belt-positioning booster seat). This poor
fit is due to the fact that children have
highly sloped shoulders and tend to sit
slouched in vehicle seats because their
legs are too short to maintain an upright
seat posture. In a crash, slouched child
show a tendency to ‘‘submarine;’’ i.e.,
the child may slide under the lap belt,
which in most cases causes the lap belt
to load the abdomen, while the shoulder
belt may migrate into the child’s upper
neck area. In such an event a child
would be exposed to forces that could
result in serious abdomen, lumbar and
cervical spine injuries.
Use of a belt-positioning booster seat
improves the fit of a vehicle’s lap/
shoulder belt system for children 10
years of age and younger. In conjunction
with a vehicle’s lap/shoulder belt, a
belt-positioning booster provides a 5-to
8-year-old child with the same level of
safety as a 9-to 14-year-old child
receives from use of a lap/shoulder belt
only. When used in conjunction with a
booster seat, the effectiveness of a lap/
shoulder belt for a child between the
ages of 5 and 8 years improves from 48
percent to 54 percent.1
Adding a new child test dummy to
the array of devices used to test child
restraints will enhance child passenger
safety. Currently, the oldest child
represented by an instrumented dummy
in FMVSS No. 213 is a 6-year-old child.
The agency has tentatively determined
that the HIII–10C will permit a useful
evaluation of booster seats that are
recommended for children weighing up
to 80 lb (36 kg), and help ensure that
these restraints meet the dynamic test
requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
B. Evolution of the Dummy
In 1994, the agency began to
investigate if the introduction of a test
dummy larger than the 6-year-old test
dummy would benefit the development
of safety improvements in occupant
restraint systems. Initially, the agency
considered the P10 test dummy, which
is part of the P series of test dummies
used primarily in Europe. The P10 was
intended to replicate the size and
weight of a 10-year-old child. However,
the agency had concerns with the
1 See, ‘‘Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the
Back Outboard Seating Positions,’’ Evaluation
Division, Plans and Policy, NHTSA. Washington,
DC, June 1999. DOT HS 808 945.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40283
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
stability and predictability of the P10’s
kinematic structure, its limited
instrumentation capabilities, and the
fact that it weighs 10 lbs. less than the
average 10-year-old child. As a result of
these concerns, the agency decided
against using the P10.
The agency initiated discussions in
1999 with the Hybrid III Dummy Family
Task Group (DFTG) at the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) on the
need to develop a child type test
dummy approximating the average 10year-old. DFTG noted that such a
dummy would be useful in the
evaluation of booster seats and the
injury causing potential of passenger
side air bags, and agreed to develop a
Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy.2 By the
spring of 2001 the first prototype was
constructed under a collaborative effort
between dummy manufacturers First
Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and
Denton ATD (Denton).3 After
preliminary testing and minor
modifications, the agency was furnished
a production prototype of the DFTGapproved dummy for its initial
assessment. Subsequently, the agency
bought two dummies for more rigorous
testing and evaluation.
During the development of the 10year-old dummy, the Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability,
and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub.
L. 106–414, November 1, 2000) was
signed. The TREAD Act in part directed
that the agency determine whether the
safety of children would be improved if
additional anthropomorphic test devices
were used, including a test dummy
representative of a 10-year-old dummy.
NHTSA updated Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 in
response to the TREAD Act (68 FR
37620; June 24, 2003; Docket No.
15351), but the 10-year-old dummy was
not sufficiently developed for inclusion
in that rulemaking.
IV. General Description
The HIII–10C was targeted to
represent a 10-year-old child as defined
by the National Center for Health
Statistics for the Center for Disease
Control (NCHS–CDC) growth charts
published in December 2000 for
children between 2 and 20 years of age
and has the same general construction
as the adult dummies of the Hybrid III
dummy family. The HIII–10C has a
seated height of 2 feet 5 inches, a weight
of 77.6 pounds, and a standing height of
4 feet 3 inches. Table I below compares
the major characteristics of the dummy
with the U.S. growth charts.
TABLE I.—COMPARISON OF TEST DUMMIES AND PEOPLE
Seated Height**,
(feet & inches)
2′7″
2′5″
2′1″
Weight (lb)*,
H–III
People
(min/ave/max)
H–III
5th Percentile Female ......
10-year-old .......................
6-year-old .........................
****
(2′4″/2′7″/2′9″)
(2′2″/2′4″/2′6″)
(1′10″/2′0″/2′2″)
108
77.6
51.6
Standing Height (feet &
inches)*, ***, ****
****
People
(min/ave/max)
H–III
(101/106/117)
(57.7/79.3/120.2)
(37.2/47.2/75.5)
4′11″
4′3″
3′9″
People
(min/ave/max)
(4′8″4′11″/5′1″)
(4′4″/4′8″/5′1″)
(3′7″/3′11″/4′3″)
* Data from CDC Growth Charts (1988–1994), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
December 4, 2000.
** Anthropometry of U.S. Infants and Children, SAE SP–394, 1975 SAE Automotive Engineering Congress and Exhibition, Detroit, MI, 1975. ′
*** Erect posture; calculated, rounded to the nearest whole number (dummies are built in seated posture).
**** Average of male and female.
Table I demonstrates that the HIII–
10C fits reasonably well between the 6year-old and 5th percentile adult female
test dummies. (A 5th percentile adult
female is about the size of a 12-yearold.)
Additional anthropomorphic
dimensions and masses of the HII–10C
were based on scaling those
specifications from the HIII 50th
percentile adult male dummy rather
than the 5th percentile female dummy.
The decision to scale down from the
male dummy was based on the fact that
the 50th percentile male dummy was
supported by a well established
biomechanical database, while all other
Hybrid III dummies were scaled down
versions from the 50th percentile male
dummy. Accordingly, there was no
advantage to scale down from another
dummy.
Information on the HIII–10C key
exterior dimensions and weights for the
major body sections are included in the
drawing package, which is included in
the docket for this notice.
Similar to the construction of adult
dummies in the Hybrid III family, the
10-year-old dummy consists of an
articulated, damped steel ‘‘skeleton’’
that is covered by foam and plastic
simulating human flesh and skin.
However, the lumbar spine is
constructed of a butyl rubber cylinder
with an adjusting bracket located
between the lumbar spine and pelvis
bone. This adjusting bracket allows for
upper torso orientation adjustment of
approximately 24 degrees relative to the
lower torso to simulate a range of
normal and ‘‘slouched’’ seating
positions. Slouch is a critical design
feature, because children not in booster
seats tend to slouch to keep the
underside of their knees from interfering
with the front edge of a vehicle seat as
their legs bend over the edge of the seat.
As explained above, this slouched
posture has the potential to result in
abdominal and neck injuries from a
vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt in a
crash. The slouched position would
allow the HIII–10C to provide data on
the interaction of a vehicle belt system
and older children seated in this
posture.
The specifications for the HIII–10C
would consist of: (a) A drawing package
containing all of the technical details of
the dummy; (b) a parts list; and (c) a
user manual containing instructions for
inspection, assembly, disassembly, use,
and adjustments of dummy components
(PADI). These drawings and
specifications would ensure that the
dummies would be the same in their
design, construction, and kinematics. In
addition, three-dimensional engineering
aids are available from the NHTSA
website for complex dummy part
dimensions. While these aids are not
part of this specification, they can be
used by the public for reference
purposes. The performance calibration
2 H.J. Mertz, et al., ‘‘The Hybrid III 10-Year-Old
Dummy,’’ #2001–22–0014, Proceedings, Stapp Car
Crash Conference, Vol. 45, November 2001, The
Stapp Association.
3 FTSS manufactured the head, neck, upper
extremities, and upper torso of the prototype.
Denton manufactured the lower half of the dummy,
including the pelvis and lower extremities.
Subsequently, the manufacturers have exchanged
drawings allowing each one to manufacture a
complete dummy.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40284
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
tests proposed in this NPRM would
serve to assure that the HIII–10C
responses are within the established
biomechanical corridors and further
assure the uniformity of dummy
assembly, structural integrity,
consistency of response and adequacy of
instrumentation. As a result, the
repeatability of the dummy’s impact
response would be ensured.
Drawings and specifications for the
HIII–10C are available for examination
in the NHTSA docket section. Copies of
those materials and the user manual
may also be obtained from LeetMelbrook, Division of New RT, 18810
Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD
20879, tel. (301) 670–0090.
A technical report and other materials
describing the HIII–10C in detail have
been placed in the docket for today’s
NPRM.
A. Biofidelic Consistency of the HIII 10Year-Old Dummy With the Hybrid III
50th Percentile Component Responses
An important characteristic of a
dummy for use as a test tool is how well
it simulates a human undergoing
impact, a property otherwise known as
biofidelity. For adult sized dummies
such as the Hybrid III 50th percentile
male, the component responses can be
compared directly to post-mortem
human subject (PMHS) response data to
assess biofidelity. Due to the scarcity of
biomechanical data for children,
response corridors for child dummies
have to be constructed by scaling adult
PMHS data, using geometric factors
such as mass and length. Given the
current lack of pediatric data, if it is
accepted that the HIII 50th percentile
male dummy has adequate biofidelity,4
the biofidelity of the HIII–10C can be
assessed by comparing the child dummy
responses to response specification data
(certification data) scaled from the adult
dummy.
Following this approach, the SAE
DFTG examined the response of the
HIII–10C head, neck, thorax and knee
and determined that prototype HIII–10C
components displayed an acceptable
level of biofidelity with respect to the
scaled corridors.5 Scaling relationships
developed by Irwin and Mertz 6 were
used by NHTSA to define the
biomechanical response corridors of the
HIII–10C as compared to the HIII 50th
percentile male data. Following the
International Standard Organization
(ISO) TR 9790 biofidelity scaling
procedure,7 the head and knee of the
dummy could be given a rating of 10,
and the neck and thorax a rating of 5,
indicating that no components have
unacceptable biofidelity. This
methodology yields an overall
biofidelity assessment of ‘‘excellent’’
which is in agreement with the DFTG
assessment.
The NHTSA Bio Rank System 8 was
applied to HIII–10C dummy component
peak responses from testing at VRTC 9
for the head, neck, thorax, and knees to
quantify how well they fit within their
respective certification corridors
derived from scaling. The dummy’s
cumulative variance (DCV) was
calculated as the absolute value of the
difference between the mean dummy
peak response and mean value from the
scaled certification corridor for each
individual measurement. The cadaver
cumulative variance (CCV), normally
the accumulated standard deviation of a
sample of human data, was modified to
be one-fourth of the tolerance presented
in the scaled 50th certification corridor.
This assumes that the certification
corridor is the mean plus or minus two
standard deviations:10
DCV mdummy - mscaled 50th
=
sscaled50th
CCV
A DCV/CCV value of 2.0 or below
indicates that particular HIII–10C
component response is within two
standard deviations of the HIII–50th
scaled data. In other words, the next
HIII–10C component can be considered
to respond as much like the scaled data
as a HIII–50th component would match
the corresponding adult corridor. Table
II summarizes the DCV/CCV values for
each component measurement.
TABLE II.—DCV/CCV VALUES FOR HIII–10C COMPONENT RESPONSES IN VRTC TESTS
Dummy data
(N=2)
Component
Mean
Head:
Resultant (g) ...........................................................................
Neck Flexion:
Moment (Nm) ..........................................................................
Rotation (deg) .........................................................................
Neck Extension:
Moment (Nm) ..........................................................................
Rotation (deg) .........................................................................
Thorax:
Deflection (mm) ......................................................................
Force (N) .................................................................................
Hysteresis (%) ........................................................................
Knee:
Force (N) .................................................................................
277
Scaled corridor
DCV/CCV
Mean
Std dev
6
Std dev
267.5
13.75
0.69
54.8
81.7
1.9
2
58
81
3.5
3.5
0.91
0.20
41.5
107.7
1.9
2.7
41
106.3
3
3.7
0.17
0.36
45.8
2202
74.2
1
107
1.5
43
2080
75
2
25
5
1.40
0.98
0.40
2819
106
2850
145
0.21
two dummies had DCV/CCV values
below 2.0 (in fact, all but the thorax had
values less than 1.0), indicating that
each response is within 2 standard
4 Foster, et al. (1977). ‘‘Hybrid III—A
Biomechanically-Based Crash Test Dummy,’’ Proc.
Twenty-First Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE
770938. Society of Automotive Engineers,
Warrendale, PA.
5 Mertz, et al., (2001). ‘‘The Hybrid III 10-YearOld Dummy,’’ Proc. Forty-Fifth Stapp Car Crash
Conference, Paper 2001–22–0014.
6 Irwin and Mertz (1997), ‘‘Biomechanical Bases
for the CRABI and Hybrid III Child Dummies,’’
Proceedings, 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE
973317, SAE, Warrendale, PA.
7 Scherer et al., Proceedings, 42nd Stapp Car
Crash Conference, SAE 983151, SAE, Warrendale,
PA.
8 Rhule, et al., (2002). ‘‘Development of a New
Biofidelity Ranking System for Anthropomorphic
Test Devices,’’ Proc. 46th Stapp Car Crash
Conference, Paper 2002–22–0024.
9 Stammen, J. ‘‘Technical Evaluation of the
Hybrid III Ten Year Old Dummy (HIII–10C),’’
September 2004.
10 Rhule, ibid.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
EP13JY05.165</GPH>
As seen in Table II, all nine of the
HIII–10C component responses based on
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
deviations of the mean of the HIII–10C
scaled corridors. As noted earlier, there
is no human pediatric data for direct
HIII–10C dummy biofidelity evaluation.
However, because the HIII–10C
components are consistent with the
HIII–50th components and Foster (id.)
showed that the HIII–50th components
were consistent with human component
response data, NHTSA believes that the
components of this dummy have
acceptable biofidelity.11
B. Repeatability and Reproducibility
A dummy’s repeatability 12 and
reproducibility 13 are typically based on
the performance of the most critical
body segments, as components and as a
complete dummy system. A dummy and
its components must respond within
boundaries that relate to biomechanical
corridors. In the tests for repeatability
and reproducibility, impact input as
well as the test equipment are carefully
controlled to minimize external effects
on a dummy’s response. Component
tests are typically better controlled and
thus produce more reliable estimates of
the dummy’s repeatability and
reproducibility than is possible in sled
and vehicle tests. Component tests
identify whether a component will
respond properly in impact tests. Sled
tests, on the other hand, offer a method
of efficiently evaluating a dummy as a
complete system in an environment
much like a vehicle test. Sled tests
establish the consistency of the
dummy’s kinematics, its impact
response as an assembly, and the
integrity of a dummy’s structure and
instrumentation under controlled and
crash-representative test conditions.
The repeatability and reproducibility
of dummy responses are assessed by
coefficient of variation (cv) values of
impact responses (coefficient of
variation = standard deviation divided
by the mean). This approach was
introduced for automotive dummy
assessment in 1974 at the Third
International Conference of Occupant
Protection (154 FR 369, August 9, 1975)
as a means of evaluating dummy
repeatability. The repeatability
assessment specifies that the dummy’s
response must fall within specified
performance limits and that it does not
exceed a CV value of 10% in repeated
identical impact exposures.
40285
Reproducibility is a statistical
assessment of compiled responses of
multiple dummies in a duplicated
impact environment. Multiple dummies
produce a wider dispersion of response
measurement than in testing a single
dummy for repeatability. Accordingly, a
CV of 15% for reproducibility is being
proposed as a practical limit for
maximum allowable variance in
repeated tests of multiple dummies, as
long as any single dummy within that
set conforms to the 10% repeatability
requirement.
C. Component Tests
The critical body segments were
evaluated by conducting certification
tests on the head, neck, thorax, torso,
and knee. These tests were conducted in
accordance with the procedure specified
in the most recent version of the DFTG’s
user manual developed for the HIII–10C.
Components from a dummy
manufactured by FTSS and those from
a dummy manufactured by Denton were
tested prior to and after a series of sled
tests. The CV values used to assess the
quality of repeatability and
reproducibility are provided in Table III.
TABLE III.—DUMMY RATING SCORES FOR REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY
Repeatability
% CV
Reproducibility
% CV
0–5 .........................................................................................................................................................................
>5–8 .......................................................................................................................................................................
>8–10 .....................................................................................................................................................................
>10 .........................................................................................................................................................................
For each of the dummies, the head,
neck, knee and thorax all responded
with a rating of excellent in the
repeatability and the reproducibility
evaluations.
The repeatability values from the
torso evaluation were acceptable with
CV values below 10 percent, except that
data in one channel from the
reproducibility evaluation narrowly
missed an ‘‘acceptable’’ value. Torso
flexion tests were conducted on both
dummies before and after the sled test
series per the procedure defined in CFR
Part 572, Subpart O (Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Female Dummy), except that
the resistance force was measured at 35
degrees of torso flexion instead of 45
degrees. The smaller size of the HIII–
10C and the pelvis angle required for
slouching prohibited the test dummy
from achieving an angle of 45 degrees.
The reproducibility value for the
11 Foster,
ibid.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
resistance force at 35 degrees of torso
flexion was in the excellent range
(CV=4.5%), and the CV for the initial
mean angle value of the torso was in the
acceptable range (CV=14.2%). However,
the return angle of the torso after the
flexion test produced a CV value of 16.7
percent, which is above the 15% limit
for acceptability. Inasmuch as the torso
return angle average of 5.67 degrees is
well below the maximum allowable 8
degree limit, the slightly higher
repeatability CV value than the
maximum allowable is of little concern
in this case. Evidence of a specific
return angle is indicative of the torso
mid-section having certain elastic, more
human-like properties. A return within
the 8 degree limit indicates that the
forces of restitution are intact. No
return, or an indefinite return, would
indicate a substantial change within the
internal mechanisms of the mid-torso
12 Repeatability is defined as a similarity of
responses of a single dummy measured under
identical repeated test conditions.
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0–6
>6–11
>11–15
>15
Rating
Excellent.
Good.
Marginal.
Poor.
structure, such as failure of the lumbar
spine, abdomen, or a substantial shift
between interfacing body segments
within the abdominal cavity. Although
the dummies’ responses were just
outside the acceptable range for
repeatability, each response
demonstrated elastic properties and no
structural failures.
D. Sled tests
To assess the repeatability and
reproducibility of the HIII–10C as a
complete dummy, the agency conducted
two sets of FMVSS No. 213 type sled
tests with the dummy placed in a
booster seat and with test environment
variables minimized. A more repeatable
test environment was constructed in the
form of a rigid bench seat, as opposed
to a cushioned seat, to minimize seat
cushion related variables and facilitate
consistent dummy positioning
13 Reproducibility is defined as response
similarity between different dummies of the same
design under identical test conditions.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40286
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
throughout the test series. The seat was
built to permit vertical adjustment of its
base to either allow proper belt restraint
placement on the elevated dummy or to
accommodate a booster seat to the same
sitting height on the lowered base. The
seat base was carpeted (1⁄4″ thick, 0.5 lb/
square foot weight carpet) to prevent
excessive sliding of the booster seat.
Again, repeatability and reproducibility
of the dummies in systems tests are
assessed using the ISO developed CV
scale discussed above.
In the first set of sled tests, the two
dummies were set-up on the existing
rigid bench seat specified in FMVSS No.
213. The features of the bench seat were
not modified as specified by a June 24,
2003 final rule amending FMVSS No.
213 (68 FR 37620; Docket No. NHTSA–
IV, below. Data for repeatability display
averages of five responses for each
dummy, their respective standard
deviations, and the corresponding CV
values. The data for reproducibility
combine the measurements of both
dummies and provide averages,
standard deviations, and CV values for
each data channel. The responses on the
whole are reasonably similar between
the two dummies. Table V displays the
distribution of the measured CV values
of the major body segments from Table
IV that fell into each of the repeatability
and reproducibility rating categories
listed in Table III. The only channel that
failed to meet the ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘excellent’’
categories was the upper neck X force in
Dummy #1, which received an
‘‘acceptable’’ rating.
2003–15351).14 Because of the
possibility of the rigid seat causing the
dummies to absorb more of the impact
energy, a softer 20 g, 27 mph pulse was
applied in the two dummies test series.
This pulse represents 19 percent
reduced energy from the FMVSS No.
213 sled pulse. A good belt fit on the
dummies’ shoulders and pelvis was
achieved by raising the seat to the
equivalent height of a booster seat
cushion. None of the dummy responses
from this series of tests resulted in CV
values that were in the unacceptable
range, which demonstrates that the
HIII–10C has good repeatability and
reproducibility as a complete system.
Test data from the repeatability and
reproducibility tests in the reduced
energy environment are shown in Table
TABLE IV.—RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF THE HIII–10C IN SIMULATED BOOSTER HEIGHT
Repeatability
Reproducibility
Dummy #1
(n=5)
Channel
AVG
Head X (g) .......................................................................
Head Z (g) ........................................................................
Head Resultant (g) ...........................................................
HIC 36 ..............................................................................
Upper Neck X Force (N) ..................................................
Upper Neck Z Force (N) ..................................................
Upper Neck Y Moment (N-m) ..........................................
Chest X (g) .......................................................................
Chest Z (g) .......................................................................
Chest Resultant (g) ..........................................................
Chest Clip (g) ...................................................................
Chest Deflection (mm) .....................................................
Pelvis Resultant (g) ..........................................................
Dummy #2
(n=5)
CV
(percent)
39
47
51
355
820
1728
34
40
9
41
40
31
39
CV
(percent)
AVG
5.0
7.1
7.7
7.1
9.6
5.0
4.1
4.7
6.0
4.4
3.2
5.4
5.0
Both test dummies
(n=10)
37
40
43
317
695
1525
38
39
10
39
38
26
39
AVG
2.6
4.0
3.9
5.2
2.2
4.5
3.1
2.4
8.0
1.6
2.2
5.4
1.8
38
44
47
336
758
1627
36
40
10
40
39
28
39
CV
(percent)
4.2
10.3
10.1
8.5
11.2
8.0
7.1
4.1
6.9
3.7
3.5
10.6
4.0
TABLE V.—DISTRIBUTION OF THE MEASURED CV VALUES OF THE MAJOR BODY SEGMENTS BY THE REPEATABILITY AND
REPRODUCIBILITY RATING SCALES BY FREQUENCY COUNT
[Ref. Table IV, supra]
Repeatability
Rating
Test dummy
#1
Excellent ......................................................................................................................................
Good ............................................................................................................................................
Acceptable ...................................................................................................................................
Unacceptable ...............................................................................................................................
% Acceptable ...............................................................................................................................
7
5
1
0
100
Test dummy
#2
11
2
0
0
100
Reproducibility
both dummies
5
7
1
0
100
The second set of sled tests to
evaluate repeatability and
reproducibility was conducted with
three HIII–10C dummies. The third
dummy was constructed with the upper
half manufactured by Denton ATD and
the lower half manufactured by FTSS
(combination dummy). Testing of the
combination dummy was to determine
if the drawing specifications would
produce interchangeable parts
irrespective of the manufacturer, and if
a combination test dummy would
provide the same repeatability,
reproducibility, and durability as a test
dummy manufactured by a single
company. The three dummies were
seated side by side at booster seat height
14 The June 24, 2003 final rule increased the test
bench’s seat cushion angle from 8 degrees off
horizontal to 15 degrees; increased the test bench’s
seat back angle from 15 degrees off vertical to 22
degrees; increased the spacing between the anchors
of the lap belt from 222 mm to 400 mm in the center
seating position and from 356 mm to 472 mm in
the outboard seating positions; and specified a rigid
seat back as opposed to a flexible back.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40287
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
mph) was used in these tests. Four
repeat tests with the three dummies
yielded a total of 12 sets of data. Results
are shown in Table VI and summarized
in Table VII by how well the dummies
fit within the repeatability and
reproducibility rating categories.
the seat foam was removed and replaced
by carpeting material to minimize
possible bench seat interaction effects
on the dummies’ responses. The three
dummies were set up in identical
upright postures and restrained by
three-point belts representative of
vehicle lap and shoulder belts. The full
FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse (24 g and 30
on the updated FMVSS No. 213 bench
seat specified in the June 2003 final
rule. (The bench seat was slightly
modified to provide a lap/shoulder belt
for the center seating position.) Testing
all three dummies side-by-side
permitted a comparison of the test
dummies’ kinematics in the same crash
environment. As in the first set of tests,
TABLE VI.—SUMMARY OF SELECTED THREE HIII–10C DUMMIES REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY TEST RESPONSES
[Full FMVSS No. 213 Sled Pulse]
Dummy # 1
(n=4)
Dummy #2
(n=4)
Combination test dummy
(n=4)
All test dummies
(n=12)
Channel
CV
(percent)
AVG
Head X (g) .......................
Head Z (g) ........................
Head Resultant (g) ...........
HIC 36 ..............................
Upper Neck X Force (N) ..
Upper Neck Z Force (N) ..
Upper Neck Y Moment
(N-m) ............................
Chest X (g) .......................
Chest Z (g) .......................
Chest Resultant (g) 3 .......
Chest Clip (g) ...................
Chest Deflection (mm) .....
Pelvis Resultant (g) ..........
CV
(percent)
AVG
CV
(percent)
AVG
CV
(percent)
AVG
34
55
60
545
841
1923
10.7
3.6
3.0
4.6
6.5
4.0
37
48
51
464
885
1713
9.2
2.0
1.2
3.3
8.3
3.8
29
49
53
483
720
1757
....................
2.0
1.9
5.8
5.6
1.9
33
51
55
498
815
1797
13.9
6.8
7.4
8.4
11.0
6.1
41
37
16
38
32
37
41
7.0
5.1
3.0
5.1
7.0
4.1
4.3
38
37
14
39
31
38
48
5.3
4.5
8.0
3.9
6.9
3.8
3.4
39
38
16
40
33
39
47
3.3
2.9
10.2
3.6
6.3
4.4
4.2
39
37
15
39
32
38
45
6.4
4.0
9.5
4.8
6.6
4.6
7.5
TABLE VII.—DISTRIBUTION OF THE MEASURED CV VALUES OF THE MAJOR BODY SEGMENTS BY THE REPEATABILITY AND
REPRODUCIBILITY RATING SCALE BY FREQUENCY COUNT
[Ref. Table VI, supra]
Repeatability
Rating
Test dummy
#1
Excellent ..........................................................................................................
Good ................................................................................................................
Acceptable .......................................................................................................
Unacceptable ...................................................................................................
% Acceptable ...................................................................................................
Test dummy #2 and the combination
of test dummy responses demonstrated
100 percent acceptability for
repeatability and reproducibility. Test
dummy #1 demonstrated approximately
93 percent acceptability for repeatability
and 100 percent acceptability for
reproducibility. We believe the 93
percent value can be accepted as
repeatable. Test dummy #1 was
prevented from achieving 100 percent
acceptability by a head ‘‘X’’ acceleration
CV rating of 10.7 percent, which is only
0.7 percent above the acceptability
limit. The dummy still demonstrated an
acceptable repeatability CV value for the
HIC 36 measurement.
Based on the above, the agency
tentatively concludes that the HIII–10C
provides sufficient repeatability and
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
7
5
0
1
93
reproducibility at both the component
level and the system level.
V. The Dummy’s Response Sensitivity
and Structural Durability
A variety of sled tests were conducted
to substantiate the functionality of the
HIII–10C dummy’s sensitivity in
differentiating the effects of
substantially different but repeatable
restraint configurations in several
environments. Durability of the
dummy’s structure was also assessed in
each of these test environments. These
sled tests evaluated the dummy’s
sensitivity to the following variables:
• Booster seat design
• Posture
• Three-point belt application
• Applied pulse
• Vehicle seat
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Test dummy
#2
8
3
2
0
100
Reproducibility
Combination
test dummy
8
3
2
0
100
Dummies
3
9
1
0
100
• Airbag interaction.
As discussed below, based on these
tests, we tentatively conclude that the
HIII–10C is capable of differentiating
between restraint systems and
incremental improvements in restraint
configurations. It also displayed
sufficient durability in all
environments.
A. Sensitivity of Responses to Booster
Seat Design
Tests were conducted with both
dummies in the FMVSS No. 213
configuration with two different makes
of booster seats, the Graco Grand Cargo
and the Century Breverra. These booster
seats were chosen because they
appeared similar in design and
appeared to result in similar dummy
postures in the pretest set-up.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40288
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
In sled tests, the dummies in each
type of booster seat showed similar
torso kinematics, except for some
outboard rotation of the legs in the
Century mode. Test results indicate that
both HIII–10C dummies were capable of
similar differentiation between booster
seat models through response
measurements. In the Graco Grand
Cargo booster seat, both dummies
exhibited very similar impact responses.
In the Century Breverra seat, similarities
in impact responses between the
dummies were somewhat less strong. It
appears that relatively good consistency
of the response by both dummies in the
Graco Grand Cargo booster seat and
somewhat less consistency by the same
dummies in the Century Breverra seat
were due to differences in the
containment characteristics of the two
booster seats during the test rather than
differences between the dummies
themselves.
B. Sensitivity of Response to Dummy’s
Posture
As explained previously, the HIII–10C
dummy is capable of being seated in a
‘‘slouched’’ position, similar to
adolescent children sitting in adult
seats. The slouched position permits the
lower portion of the dummy to be
brought forward so that the knees can
bend and orient the lower legs
downwards at the front of a seat. This
forward positioning of the legs puts the
slouched dummy’s upper torso in a
reclined orientation approximately 12
degrees from the normal upright torso
orientation.15 In testing, the slouched
dummies ‘‘submarined’’ under the lap
belt, demonstrating that the HIII–10C is
suitable for detecting and assessing
submarining tendencies within belt
restraint-seat systems that are not built
to prevent such an event.
C. Sensitivity of Response of the Dummy
in Three-Point Belt Applications
This series of tests was to determine
if the dummy could differentiate
between properly and improperly used
shoulder belts when a booster seat is not
utilized, and also to evaluate impact
responses between dummies in threepoint belt systems and booster seats.
The tests compared the effects of belt
placement on the impact kinematics and
response of the HIII–10C dummy. Each
dummy was seated on the FMVSS No.
213 type bench seat in two repeated
frontal impact tests. To represent
incorrect three-point belt application
(misuse), adult belt restraints were
15 Normal upright orientation means the upper
torso midsagittal backline is essentially parallel to
the seat back incline plan.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
applied on the upright-seated HIII–10C
torso in the normal manner, except that
the shoulder belt, instead of being
routed over the shoulder, was routed
under the seated dummy’s arm.
Each dummy placed in the misuse
configuration exhibited distinctly
different kinematics from when it was
properly restrained. The upper torso,
while pitching forward, forced the
shoulder belt to slide down the torso
towards the abdomen to become like a
lap belt. At extreme flexion, the upper
torso jack-knifed over the belt restraint
far enough to allow the head to impact
the knees. However, during the upper
torso jack-knifing motion, the head
movement relative to the upper torso
was relatively small.
Comparison of test data indicate that
the HIII–10C dummy is suitable for
detecting and assessing misuse of the
shoulder belt on the child’s upper torso.
Misalignment of the shoulder belt
produces not only a very large chest
deflection, but also can damage the
chest deflection measuring system.
However, since compliance test
conditions do not typically include belt
misuse evaluations, mechanical failure
of the deflection measuring system in
this test set-up is of little concern.
Nonetheless, the deflection measuring
system would be able to detect whether
a shoulder slid off the dummy’s
shoulder.
Dummies restrained in booster seats
indicate fairly sizable impact response
reductions over dummies restrained in
three-point belt systems, except for
relatively minor differences in chest
deflections. Chest deflections of
dummies in booster seats were on the
average about 5 percent higher than in
three-point belt systems at comparable
sled impact speeds.
D. Sensitivity of Dummy Response and
Durability in NCAP Pulse and Different
Restraint Systems
Subsequent to completion of the
FMVSS No. 213 type tests, the FTSS
and Denton dummies were evaluated in
a vehicle environment at NCAP speed
on the HYGE sled. The objectives were:
(1) To evaluate the dummy’s durability
under severe loading conditions; (2) to
compare the dummy’s responses in
booster seat versus non-booster in
normal seating configurations, including
the slouch posture; and (3) to measure
differences in kinematic excursions of
the head and knees in the different test
configurations. This sled was set up for
this test series to represent the vehicle
environment of a 2000 Ford Expedition
XLT. The sled pulse was based on the
NCAP 35 mph vehicle to barrier crash
acceleration profile.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For the dummies in booster seats and
in normal upright and slouched set-ups,
the belt was positioned correctly by
adjusting the D-ring position. A D-ring
is the anchorage for a shoulder belt and
its position can be adjusted to enhance
the correctness of shoulder belt fit. For
the slouch tests, the D-ring was kept in
the same position as for the normal
upright posture, resulting in incorrect
belt fit on the dummy (shoulder belt
medial to the clavicle, and lap belt top
surface superior to the pelvis lip). As
expected, the dummies seated in booster
seats yielded significantly lower
response levels than three-point belted
dummies in upright and in slouched
postures.16
While no durability problems were
encountered in component certification
and FMVSS No. 213 type sled tests, one
type of problem emerged during the
NCAP test series. Some ribs from both
dummies experienced delamination of
the damping material. Upon
investigation, this was found to be an
anomalous initial manufacturing
problem, because replacement ribsets
used in subsequent dummy tests
survived well over 30 relatively severe
sled impact exposures and numerous
certification tests without indication of
any structural or functional failures.
Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the
ribs raise neither fatigue nor durability
issues.
VI. Dummy Performance in OOP
Environment
The HIII–10C was evaluated for its
usefulness and robustness in the static
out-of-position (OOP) airbag compliance
test of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash
protection. Under the requirements of
FMVSS No. 208, vehicle manufacturers
may comply with an OOP air bag
requirement which, in part, tests the
interaction of an air bag and a child
occupant under two ‘‘worst-case’’
scenarios. In those, the air bag is
deployed with the child’s head on the
vehicle’s instrument panel (head-to-IP),
and the air bag is deployed with the
child’s chest on the instrument panel
(chest-to-IP). In testing the HIII–10C
16 While no durability problems were
encountered in component certification and FMVSS
No. 213 type sled tests, one type of a problem
emerged during the NCAP test series. Some ribs
from both dummies experienced delamination of
the damping material. Upon investigation, we
preliminarily determined that this problem is most
likely related to either the manufacturing process or
adhesive selection, rather than a flaw in design.
This was confirmed in subsequent testing in which
new ribsets of the same design mounted in the two
dummies survived well over 30 sled tests and
numerous certification tests without indication of
any structural or functional failures. Accordingly,
the agency believes that the ribs pose neither fatigue
nor durability issues.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
5. Dummy Positioning
The IP positions for the Hybrid III 6year-old (HIII–6C) found in S24.4 of
FMVSS No. 208 were used as reference.
One modification to the procedure was
required to better position the HIII–10C.
In the chest IP position, the lower legs
below the femur were removed to allow
mid-chest contact with the IP without
wedging the head against the
windshield.
under the OOP conditions, three
objectives were of primary interest:
• Evaluate the neck’s durability;
• Establish the capacity and
performance of the head/neck and
thorax instrumentation;
• Determine ease of dummy
positioning for OOP testing.
1. Test Set-Up
In the head-to-IP tests, the neck angle
was set at 16 degrees flexion relative to
the perpendicular to the neck base
mounting plateau so that the chin of the
dummy was level with the centerline of
the airbag flap. For the chest-to-IP
position, the neck angle was changed to
0 degrees so that the head was not
touching the windshield. The seat back
was reclined fully. The doorsill, striker
face, and windshield were used as
measurement references to position the
dummy.
2. General Observations
Video analysis of the dummies’
kinematics exhibited minimal torso
twisting around the superior-inferior
axis during the forward and backward
translation while in contact with the
airbag. Chalk transfer to the airbag, in
addition to video analysis, did not show
the airbag entering the cavity between
the chin and neck.
3. Neck Durability
The neck structure exhibited no
visible damage during the OOP tests.
Dummy calibration tests following the
OOP test series indicated that both
FTSS test dummy neck and Denton
ATD test dummy neck continued to
pass the calibration response
requirement in both flexion and
extension. Except for minor abrasions
and mini-tears to the chin area of the
head skin due to airbag membrane
interaction, no other failures were
encountered.
4. Response Differences Due to Dummy
Makes
With the exception of HIC values, the
average response values for each
dummy appear to be consistent with
each another. The FTSS test dummy
experienced HIC values of 91 and 169
for the head-to-IP and chest-to-IP
configurations, respectively. The Denton
test dummy experienced HIC values of
179 and 589 for the head-to-IP and
chest-to-IP configurations, respectively.
However, the small number of tests
prevents drawing definitive conclusions
on differences between the two
dummies.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
VI. Proposed Calibration Tests
The agency proposes the following
calibration test specifications and
procedures for the HIII–10C dummy.
Performance certification specifications
would test response requirements for
components of the dummy (the head;
neck; thorax; and knees), and a semistatic flexion test of the upper torso with
respect to the lower torso of a fully
assembled seated dummy.
A. Head Drop Specification
Since the HIII–10C head is the same
as the Hybrid III small female head, we
are proposing the same head drop
specification for the HIII–10C as that of
the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O, Hybrid
III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy,
Alpha Version. Under Subpart O the
head is dropped from a 376 mm height
targeting the forehead to impact at the
midsagittal plane a flat, rigid surface.
When the dummy head is dropped in
accordance with the above test, the
agency proposes the following
certification specifications:
1. The peak resultant acceleration
must not be less than 250 g and not
more than 300 g;
2. The resultant acceleration vs. time
history curve shall be unimodal;
oscillations occurring after the main
pulse must be less than 10 percent of
the peak resultant acceleration; and
3. The lateral acceleration shall not
exceed 15 g (zero to peak).
B. Neck Pendulum Test
The proposed test procedure for the
neck pendulum test corresponds to the
calibration test specified for the Hybrid
III series of test dummies. Under the
proposed procedure the head-neck
assembly would be mounted on the
pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49
CFR part 572 so that the leading edge of
the lower neck bracket coincides with
the leading edge of the pendulum. The
pendulum would then be released from
a height to achieve an impact velocity
of 6.1 ± 0.12 m/s (20.0 ± 0.4 ft/s) for
flexion tests and 5.03 ± 0.12 m/s (16.50
± 0.4. ft/s) for extension tests. The
pendulum would then be stopped from
the initial velocity with an acceleration
vs. time pulse that meets the velocity
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40289
change as specified below. When the
HIII–10C neck is tested in accordance
with the proposed test procedure, the
following specifications would have to
be met:
1. Flexion
(a) The plane D (i.e., an imaginary
plane perpendicular to the skull cap/
skull interface) shall rotate upon arrest
of the pendulum motion in the direction
of pre-impact flight with respect to the
pendulum’s longitudinal centerline
between 74 and 88 degrees.
(b) During the time interval while
rotation is within the specified corridor,
the peak moment about the occipital
condyles must not be less than 50 N-m
(36.9 ft-lbf) and not more than 62 N-m
(45.7 ft-lbf).
(c) The positive moment shall decay
for the first time to 10 N-m (7.4 ft-lbf)
between 85 ms and 105 ms after time
zero.
2. Extension
(a) The plane D (i.e., an imaginary
plane perpendicular to the skull cap/
skull interface) shall rotate upon arrest
of the pendulum motion in the direction
of pre-impact flight with respect to the
pendulum’s longitudinal centerline
between 99 and 114 degrees.
(b) During the time interval while
rotation is within the specified corridor,
the peak moment about the occipital
condyles must not be less than ¥35 Nm (¥25.8 ft-lbf) and not more than ¥47
N-m (¥34.7 ft-lbf).
(c) The positive moment shall decay
for the first time to ¥10 N-m (¥7.4 ftlbf) between 100 ms and 120 ms after
time zero.
C. Knee impact
This calibration test would be
performed on a knee assembly, which
consists of the lower upper leg
assembly, the knee and the distal
portion of the femur including the
femur load transducer or its structural
replacement. When impacted by the test
pendulum at 2.1 m/s, the peak knee
response force would be required to be
between 2560 N and 3140 N.
D. Thorax impact
The thorax impact calibration test
would be performed on a fully
assembled, seated dummy. The dummy
set-up and impact procedures would be
similar to that in 59 CFR Part 572,
Subpart O. Under the proposed
calibration requirement, when the test
probe impacts the test dummy at the
chest midsagittal plane below the
number three rib, the following
specifications must be met:
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40290
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(1) The chest in pendulum impact at
6.0 m/s develops a resistance force
between 1830 N and 2330 N at peak
sternum deflection between 40.5 mm
and 48.5 mm, and
(2) The force deflection plot is to have
an internal hysteresis between the
loading and unloading portions of the
curve between 69 percent and 85
percent.
E. Torso flexion
As with the thorax impact calibration
test, the torso flexion calibration test
would be performed on a fully
assembled, seated dummy. The test
procedure would determine the
combined stiffness of the molded
lumbar assembly, abdominal insert, and
chest flesh assembly resisting
articulation between the upper torso
assembly and the lower torso assembly.
The resistance to flexion of the upper
torso relative the lower torso at 35 deg.
of upper torso rotation would be
required to be between 190 N and 240
N. Upon removal of the force, the torso
would be required to return to within 8
degrees of it initial position.
VII. Benefits and Costs
Direct safety benefits to the public by
the issuance of this regulation are not
quantifiable. However, the availability
of this dummy in a regulated format will
have indirect safety benefits since it will
provide a more suitable, stabilized, and
objective test tool to the safety
community for use in research and
development of improved after market
and/or integrated restraint systems. In
addition, incorporation of the test
dummy will permit CRS manufacturers
to begin offering new CRS systems
commercially with certification that
they have been proof tested with an
appropriately used and certified test
dummy.
The cost of an uninstrumented HIII–
10C dummy is approximately $32,700.
The cost for a minimum set of
instruments for compliance type testing,
which may include 3 accelerometers
each for the head, thorax, and the
pelvis, a chest deflection potentiometer,
a force and moment transducer for the
upper neck and the lumbar spine, and
single axis force transducer for each
femur would add approximately
$46,200. A full set of instrumentation as
shown below would add approximately
$71,900 to the cost of an
uninstrumented dummy.
TABLE VIII.—INSTRUMENTATION AVAILABLE FOR THE HIII–10C DUMMY
Location
Measurement
Number of channels
Head C.G.* ........................................................
Head Tilt Sensor ................................................
Upper Neck Load Cell* ......................................
Lower Neck Load Cell .......................................
Thorax C.G.* ......................................................
Shoulder* ...........................................................
Sternum* ............................................................
Sternum .............................................................
Sternum .............................................................
Spine ..................................................................
Lumbar Spine* ...................................................
Pelvis C.G.* .......................................................
A–P Iliac Spine* .................................................
Femur* ...............................................................
Femur ................................................................
Mid-shaft Tibia ...................................................
Mid-shaft Tibia ...................................................
Acceleration ......................................................
Acceleration ......................................................
Forces & Moments ...........................................
Forces & Moments ...........................................
Acceleration ......................................................
Force ................................................................
Displacement ....................................................
Displacement (IR–TRACC) ..............................
Acceleration ......................................................
Acceleration ......................................................
Forces and Moments .......................................
Acceleration ......................................................
Forces ...............................................................
Force ................................................................
Forces and Moments .......................................
Force ................................................................
Forces and Moments .......................................
3
1
6
6
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
1
6
1
6
(optional)
(optional)
(optional)
(optional)
(optional)
each
each
each
each
rt<
rt<
rt<
rt<
(optional)
(optional)
(optional)
(optional)
*Instruments intended to be used in NHTSA FMVSS No. 213 type testing.
IX. Public Participation
How Do I Prepare and Submit
Comments?
Your comments must be written and
in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the
Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your
comments.
Your comments must not be more
than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
NHTSA established this limit to
encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion.
However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your
comments. There is no limit on the
length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your
comments, including the attachments,
to Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
You may also submit your comments
to the docket electronically by logging
onto the Dockets Management System
Web site at https://dms.dot.gov. Click on
‘‘Help & Information’’ or ‘‘Help/Info’’ to
obtain instructions for filing the
document electronically.
If you wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your
comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope
containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by
mail.
complete submission, including the
information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you
have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket
Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a
comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business
information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR Part
512.)
How Do I Submit Confidential Business
Information?
Will the Agency Consider Late
Comments?
If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you
should submit three copies of your
NHTSA will consider all comments
that Docket Management receives before
the close of business on the comment
How Can I Be Sure That My Comments
Were Received?
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
closing date indicated above under
DATES. To the extent possible, the
agency will also consider comments that
Docket Management receives after that
date. If Docket Management receives a
comment too late for the agency to
consider it in developing a final rule
(assuming that one is issued), the
agency will consider that comment as
an informal suggestion for future
rulemaking action.
How Can I Read the Comments
Submitted By Other People?
You may read the comments received
by Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The
hours of the Docket are indicated above
in the same location.
You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on
the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management
System (DMS) Web page of the
Department of Transportation (https://
dms.dot.gov/).
2. On that page, click on ‘‘search.’’
3. On the next page (https://
dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the fourdigit docket number shown at the
beginning of this document. Example: If
the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–
1998–1234,’’ you would type ‘‘1234.’’
After typing the docket number, click on
‘‘search.’’
4. On the next page, which contains
docket summary information for the
docket you selected, click on the desired
comments. You may download the
comments. Although the comments are
imaged documents, instead of word
processing documents, the ‘‘pdf’’
versions of the documents are word
searchable.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available.
Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, the agency
recommends that you periodically
check the Docket for new material.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order.
This rulemaking action was not
considered a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking action was also
determined not to be significant under
the Department of Transportation’s
(DOT’s) regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979). The cost of an uninstrumented
HIII–10C is approximately $32,700.
Instrumentation would add
approximately $46,200 for minimum
requirements and approximately
$71,900 for maximum instrumentation
to the cost of the dummy.
This document proposes to amend 49
CFR Part 572 by adding design and
performance specifications for a test
dummy representative of a ten-year-old
child that the agency may use in
research and in compliance tests of the
Federal child restraint system safety
standards. If this proposed Part 572 rule
becomes final, it would not impose any
requirements on anyone. Businesses
would be affected only if they choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy.
Because the economic impacts of this
proposal are minimal, no further
regulatory evaluation is necessary.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required
to publish a proposed or final rule, it
must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions),
unless the head of the agency certifies
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Small
Business Administration’s regulations at
13 CFR Part 121 define a small business,
in part, as a business entity ‘‘which
operates primarily within the United
States.’’ (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
We have considered the effects of this
rulemaking under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the
proposed rulemaking action would not
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40291
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the
addition of the test dummy to Part 572
would not impose any requirements on
anyone. NHTSA would not require
anyone to manufacture the dummy or to
test motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment with it.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for
the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and
determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health, or safety risk that
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
we must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This proposed rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires
agencies to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed
amendment in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in
Executive Order 13132. The agency has
determined that this proposal does not
have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant consultation and the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have
any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40292
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
30103, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the
extent that the state requirement
imposes a higher level of performance
and applies only to vehicles procured
for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of
final rules establishing, amending, or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid control
number from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule
would not have any requirements that
are considered to be information
collection requirements as defined by
the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320.
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
NHTSA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards. The proposed test dummy
and certification requirements have
been based on the work of the SAE
DFTG. Differences between the DFTG
recommendations and this proposal are
minor and are based on additional
research performed by the agency.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Public Law 104–4, requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include
a Federal mandate likely to result in the
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:55 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of more than $100
million annually (adjusted for inflation
with base year of 1995). Before
promulgating an NHTSA rule for which
a written statement is needed, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires the
agency to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule.
This proposed rule would not impose
any unfunded mandates under the
UMRA. This proposed rule would not
meet the definition of a Federal mandate
because it would not impose
requirements on anyone. It would
amend 49 CFR Part 572 by adding
design and performance specifications
for a 10-year-old test dummy that the
agency may use in the Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. If this
proposed rule becomes final, it would
affect only those businesses that choose
to manufacture or test with the dummy.
It would not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private sector.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
—Has the agency organized the material
to suit the public’s needs?
—Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
—Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
—Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
—Would more (but shorter) sections be
better?
—Could the agency improve clarity by
adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
—What else could the agency do to
make this rulemaking easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments on this NPRM.
Regulation Identifier Number
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by
reference.
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR
Part 572 as follows:
PART 572—ANTHROPOMORPHIC
TEST DUMMIES
1. The authority citation for Part 572
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
2. 49 CFR part 572 would be amended
by adding a new subpart T to read as
follows:
Subpart T—Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy (HIII–10C)
Sec.
572.170 Incorporation by reference.
572.171 General description.
572.172 Head assembly and test procedure.
572.173 Neck assembly and test procedure.
572.174 Thorax assembly and test
procedure.
572.175 Upper and lower torso assemblies
and torso flexion test procedure.
572.176 Knees and knee impact test
procedure.
572.177 Test conditions and
instrumentation.
Appendix—Figures to Subpart T of Part 572
§ 572.170
Incorporation by reference.
(a) The following materials are hereby
incorporated into this Subpart by
reference:
(1) A drawings and inspection
package entitled ‘‘Drawings and
Specifications for the ‘‘Hybrid III 10year-old Child Test Dummy (HIII–10C),
April 2005, consisting of:
(i) Drawing No. 420–0000, Complete
Assembly HIII 10-year-old, incorporated
by reference in § 572.171 and § 572.177.
(ii) Drawing No. 420–100, Head
Assembly, incorporated by reference in
§ 572.171, § 572.172, § 572.173, and
§ 572.177.
(iii) Drawing No. 420–2000, Neck
Assembly, incorporated by reference in
§ 572.171, § 572.173, and § 572.177.
(iv) Drawing No. 420–3000, Upper
Torso Assembly, incorporated by
reference in § 572.171, § 572.174,
§ 572.175, and § 572.177.
(v) Drawing No. 420–4000, Lower
Torso Assembly, incorporated by
reference in § 572.171, § 572.175, and
§ 572.177.
(vi) Drawing No. 420–5000–1,
Complete Leg Assembly—left,
incorporated by reference in § 572.171,
§ 572.176, and § 572.177.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(vii) Drawing No. 420–5000–2,
Complete Leg Assembly—right,
incorporated by reference in § 572.171,
§ 572.176, and § 572.177.
(viii) Drawing No. 420–7000–1,
Complete Arm Assembly—left, and
(ix) Drawing No. 420–7000–2,
Complete Arm Assembly—right.
(2) A procedures manual entitled
‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly
and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III
10-year-old Child Test Dummy (HIII–
10C), April 2005’’;
(3) SAE Recommended Practice J211,
Rev. Mar 95 ‘‘Instrumentation for
Impact Tests ‘‘Part 1—Electronic
Instrumentation’’;
(4) SAE J1733 of 1994–12 ‘‘Sign
Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing’’.
(b) The Director of the Federal
Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies of the materials may be
inspected at NHTSA’s Technical
Reference Library, 400 Seventh Street
S.W., room 5109, Washington, DC, or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC.
(c) The incorporated materials are
available as follows:
(1) The Drawings and Specifications
for the Hybrid III 10-year-old Child Test
Dummy (HIII–10C), April 2005, referred
to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and
the Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of
the Hybrid III 10-year-old Child Test
Dummy (HIII–10C), April 2005, referred
to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, are
available through the DOT Docket
Management System Docket No. 7659,
dms.dot.gov. They are also available
from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New
RT, 1881 Woodfield Rd., Gaithersburg,
Md. 20879, (301) 670–0090.
(2) The SAE materials referred to in
paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this
section are available from the Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pa.
15096.
§ 572.171
General description.
(a) Hybrid III 10-year-old Child Crash
Test Dummy (HIII–10C) is defined by
drawings and specifications containing
the following materials:
(1) Technical drawings and
specifications package P/N 420–0000,
the titles of which are listed in Table A;
(2) Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) of
the Hybrid III 10-year-old Child Test
Dummy (HIII–10C), (April 2005).
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
40293
376.0 ± 1.0 mm (14.8 ± 0.04 in) from the
impact surface. The 1.57 mm (0.062 in)
Drawing
diameter holes located on either side of
Component assembly
number
the dummy’s head shall be used to
ensure that the head is level with
Head Assembly ....................
420–100
Neck Assembly .....................
420–2000 respect to the impact surface.
(4) Drop the head assembly from the
Upper Torso Assembly .........
420–3000
Lower Torso Assembly .........
420–4000 specified height by means that ensure a
smooth, instant release onto a rigidly
Complete Leg Assembly—
left .....................................
420–5000–1 supported flat horizontal steel plate
Complete Leg Assembly—
which is 50.8 mm (2 in) thick and 610
right ...................................
420–5000–2 mm (24 in) square. The impact surface
Complete Arm Assembly—
shall be clean, dry and have a micro
left .....................................
420–7000–1
finish of not less than 203.2 × 10¥6 mm
Complete Arm Assembly—
(8 micro inches) (RMS) and not more
right ...................................
420–7000–2
than 2032.0×10¥6 mm (80 micro inches)
(RMS).
(b) Adjacent segments are joined in a
(5) Allow at least 2 hours between
manner such that, except for contacts
existing under static conditions, there is successive tests on the same head.
no contact between metallic elements
§ 572.173 Neck assembly and test
throughout the range of motion or under procedure.
simulated crash impact conditions.
(a) The neck assembly for the
(c) The structural properties of the
purposes of this test consists of the
dummy are such that the dummy
assembly of components shown in
conforms to this Subpart in every
drawing 420–2000.
respect before use in any test similar to
(b) When the head-neck assembly
those specified in Standard 213, Child
consisting of the head (drawing 420–
Restraint Systems, and Standard 208,
100), neck (drawing 420–2000), sixOccupant Crash Protection.
channel neck transducer (SA572–S11),
lower neck bracket assembly (420–
§ 572.172 Head assembly and test
2070), and either three uniaxial
procedure.
accelerometers (drawing SA572–S4) or
(a) The head assembly for this test
their mass equivalent installed in the
consists of the complete head (drawing
head assembly as specified in drawing
420–100), a six-axis neck transducer
420–100, is tested according to the test
(drawing SA572–S11) or its structural
replacement (drawing 78051–383X), and procedure in paragraph (c) of this
section, it shall have the following
3 accelerometers (drawing SA572–S4).
characteristics:
(b) When the head assembly is
(1) Flexion. (i) Plane D, referenced in
dropped from a height of 376.0 ± 1.0
Figure T2, shall rotate in the direction
mm (14.8 ± 0.04 in) in accordance with
of preimpact flight with respect to the
paragraph (c) of this section, the peak
pendulum’s longitudinal centerline
resultant acceleration at the location of
between 74 degrees and 88 degrees.
the accelerometers at the head CG may
not be less than 250 G or more than 300 During the time interval while the
rotation is within the specified corridor,
G. The resultant acceleration vs. time
the peak moment, measured by the neck
history curve shall be unimodal;
transducer (drawing SA572–S11), about
oscillations occurring after the main
the occipital condyles may not be less
pulse must be less than 10 percent of
than 50 N-m (36.9 ft-lbf) and not more
the peak resultant acceleration. The
than 62 N-m (45.7 ft-lbf). The positive
lateral acceleration shall not exceed 15
moment shall decay for the first time to
G (zero to peak).
10 N-m (7.4 ft-lbf) between 85 ms and
(c) Head test procedure. The test
105 ms after time zero.
procedure for the head is as follows:
(ii) The moment shall be calculated by
(1) Soak the head assembly in a
the following formula: Moment (N-m) =
controlled environment at any
My ¥ (0.01778m) × (Fx).
temperature between 18.9 and 25.6 °C
(iii) My is the moment about the y(66 and 78 °F) and a relative humidity
axis, Fx is the shear force measured by
from 10 to 70 percent for at least four
the neck transducer (drawing SA572–
hours prior to a test.
(2) Prior to the test, clean the impact
S11), and 0.01778m is the distance from
surface of the skin and the impact plate
the shear force to the occipital condyle.
(2) Extension. (i) Plane D, referenced
surface with isopropyl alcohol,
in Figure T3, shall rotate in the
trichloroethane, or an equivalent. The
direction of preimpact flight with
skin of the head must be clean and dry
respect to the pendulum’s longitudinal
for testing.
(3) Suspend and orient the head
centerline between 99 degrees and 114
assembly as shown in Figure T1. The
degrees. During the time interval while
lowest point on the forehead must be
the rotation is within the specified
PO 00000
TABLE A
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40294
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
corridor, the peak moment, measured by
the neck transducer (drawing SA572–
S11), about the occipital condyles may
not be more than ¥35 N-m (¥25.8 ftlbf) and not less than ¥47 N-m (¥34.7
ft-lbf). The positive moment shall decay
for the first time to ¥10 N-m (¥7.4 ftlbf) between 100 ms and 120 ms after
time zero.
(ii) The moment shall be calculated by
the following formula: Moment (N-m) =
My ¥ (0.01778m) × (Fx).
(iii) My is the moment about the yaxis, Fx is the shear force measured by
the neck transducer (drawing SA572–
S11), and 0.01778m is the distance from
the shear force to the occipital condyle.
(3) Time zero is defined as the time
of initial contact between the pendulum
striker plate and the honeycomb
material. All data channels shall be at
the zero level at this time.
(c) Test Procedure. The test procedure
for the neck assembly is as follows:
(1) Soak the neck assembly in a
controlled environment at any
temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 °C
(69 and 72 °F) and a relative humidity
between 10 and 70 percent for at least
four hours prior to a test.
(2) Torque the hex nut (drawing
9000130) on the neck cable (drawing
420–2060) to 0.9 ± 0.2 N-m (8 ± 2 inlbf) before each test on the same neck.
(3) Mount the head-neck assembly,
defined in subsection (b) of this section,
on the pendulum described in Figure 22
of 49 CFR 572 so that the leading edge
of the lower neck bracket coincides with
the leading edge of the pendulum as
shown in Figure T2 for flexion tests and
Figure T3 for extension tests.
(4)(i) Release the pendulum and allow
it to fall freely from a height to achieve
an impact velocity of 6.1 ± 0.12 m/s
(20.0 ± 0.4 ft/s) for flexion tests and 5.03
± 0.12 m/s (16.50 ± 0.40 ft/s) for
extension tests, measured by an
accelerometer mounted on the
pendulum as shown in Figure T2 at the
instant of contact with the honeycomb.
(ii) Stop the pendulum from the
initial velocity with an acceleration vs.
time pulse that meets the velocity
change as specified below. Integrate the
pendulum acceleration data channel to
obtain the velocity vs. time curve:
TABLE B.—PENDULUM PULSE
Flexion
Time
(ms)
m/s
10 .....................................................................................................................
20 .....................................................................................................................
30 .....................................................................................................................
§ 572.174 Thorax assembly and test
procedure.
(a) The thorax consists of the part of
the torso assembly designated as the
upper torso (drawing 420–3000).
(b) When the anterior surface of the
thorax of a completely assembled
dummy (drawing 420–0000) is impacted
by a test probe conforming to section
572.177 at 6.00 ± 0.12 m/s (22.0 ± 0.4
ft/s) according to the test procedure in
paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Maximum sternum displacement
(compression) relative to the spine,
measured with chest deflection
transducer (drawing SA572–T4), must
be not less than 40.5 mm (1.59 in) and
not more than 48.5 mm (1.91 in). Within
this specified compression corridor, the
peak force, measured by the impact
probe as defined in section 572.177 and
calculated in accordance with paragraph
(b)(3) of this section, shall not be less
than 1830 N (411 lbf) and not more than
2330 N (524 lbf). The peak force after 20
mm (0.79 in) of sternum displacement
but before reaching the minimum
required 40.5 mm (1.59 in) sternum
displacement limit shall not exceed
2330 N (524 lbf).
(2) The internal hysteresis of the
ribcage in each impact as determined by
the plot of force vs. deflection in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be
not less than 69 percent but not more
than 85 percent. The hysteresis shall be
calculated by determining the ratio of
the area between the loading (from time
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Extension
1.64–2.04
3.04–4.04
4.45–5.65
zero to maximum deflection) and
unloading portions (from maximum
deflection to zero force) of the force
deflection curve to the area under the
loading portion of the curve.
(3) The force shall be calculated by
the product of the impactor mass and its
measured deceleration.
(b) Test Procedure. The test procedure
for the thorax assembly is as follows:
(1) The dummy is clothed in a form
fitting cotton stretch above-the-elbow
sleeved shirt and above-the-knees pants.
The weight of the shirt and pants shall
not exceed 0.14 kg (0.30 lb) each.
(2) Torque the lumbar cable (drawing
420–4130) to 0.9 ± 0.2 N-m (8 ± 2 inlbf) and set the lumbar adjustment angle
to 12 degrees. Set the neck angle to 16
degrees.
(3) Soak the dummy in a controlled
environment at any temperature
between 20.6 and 22.2 °C (69 and 72 °F)
and a relative humidity between 10 and
70 percent for at least four hours prior
to a test.
(4) Seat and orient the dummy on a
seating surface without back support as
shown in Figure T4, with the limbs
extended horizontally and forward,
parallel to the midsagittal plane, the
midsagittal plane vertical within ± 1
degree and the ribs level in the anteriorposterior and lateral directions within ±
0.5 degrees.
(5) Establish the impact point at the
chest midsagittal plane so that the
impact point of the longitudinal
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ft/s
5.38–6.69
9.97–13.25
14.60–18.53
m/s
1.59–1.89
2.88–3.68
4.20–5.20
ft/s
4.89–6.20
9.45–12.07
13.78–17.06
centerline of the probe coincides with
the midsagittal plane of the dummy
within ± 2.5 mm (0.1 in) and is 12.7 ±
1.1 mm (0.5 ± 0.04 in) below the
horizontal-peripheral centerline of the
No. 3 rib and is within 0.5 degrees of a
horizontal line in the dummy’s
midsagittal plane.
(6) Impact the thorax with the test
probe so that at the moment of contact
the probe’s longitudinal centerline falls
within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in
the dummy’s midsagittal plane.
(7) Guide the test probe during impact
so that there is no significant lateral,
vertical, or rotational movement.
(8) No suspension hardware,
suspension cables, or any other
attachments to the probe, including the
velocity vane, shall make contact with
the dummy during the test.
§ 572.175 Upper and lower torso
assemblies and torso flexion test
procedure.
(a) The test objective is to determine
the stiffness of the molded lumbar
assembly (drawing 420–4100),
abdominal insert (drawing 420–4300),
and chest flesh assembly (drawing 420–
3560) on resistance to articulation
between the upper torso assembly
(drawing 420–3000) and lower torso
assembly (drawing 420–4000).
(b) When the upper torso assembly of
a seated dummy is subjected to a force
continuously applied at the head to
neck pivot pin level through a rigidly
attached adaptor bracket as shown in
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Figure T5 according to the test
procedure set out in paragraph (c) of
this section:
(1) The lumbar spine-abdomen-chest
flesh assembly shall flex by an amount
that permits the upper torso assembly to
translate in angular motion relative to
the vertical transverse plane 35 ± 0.5
degrees at which time the force applied
must be not less than 190 N (42.7 lbf)
and not more than 240 N (54.0 lbf).
(2) Upon removal of the force, the
torso assembly must return to within 8
degrees of its initial position.
(c) Test Procedure. The test procedure
for the upper/lower torso assembly is as
follows:
(1) Torque the lumbar cable (drawing
420–4130) to 0.9 ± 0.2 N-m (8 ± 2 inlbf) and set the lumbar adjustment angle
to 12 degrees. Set the neck angle to 16
degrees.
(2) Soak the dummy in a controlled
environment at any temperature
between 20.6 and 22.2 °C (69 and 72 °F)
and a relative humidity between 10 and
70 percent for at least four hours prior
to a test.
(3) Assemble the complete dummy
(with or without the legs below the
femurs) and attach to the fixture in a
seated posture as shown in Figure T5.
(4) Secure the pelvis to the fixture at
the pelvis instrument cavity rear face by
threading four 1⁄4 inch cap screws into
the available threaded attachment holes.
Tighten the mountings so that the test
material is rigidly affixed to the test
fixture and the pelvic-lumbar joining
surface is 18 degrees from horizontal
and the legs are parallel with the test
fixture.
(5) Attach the loading adaptor bracket
to the spine of the dummy as shown in
Figure T5.
(6) Inspect and adjust, if necessary,
the seating of the abdominal insert
within the pelvis cavity and with
respect to the chest flesh, assuring that
the chest flesh provides uniform fit and
overlap with respect to the outside
surface of the pelvis flesh.
(7) Flex the dummy’s upper torso
three times between the vertical and
until the torso reference frame, as
shown in Figure T5, reaches 30 degrees
from the vertical transverse plane. Bring
the torso to vertical orientation and wait
for 30 minutes before conducting the
test. During the 30-minute waiting
period, the dummy’s upper torso shall
be externally supported at or near its
vertical orientation to prevent it from
drooping.
(8) Remove all external support and
wait two minutes. Measure the initial
orientation angle of the torso reference
plane of the seated, unsupported
dummy as shown in Figure T5. The
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
initial orientation angle may not exceed
20 degrees.
(9) Attach the pull cable and the load
cell as shown in Figure T5.
(10) Apply a tension force in the
midsagittal plane to the pull cable as
shown in Figure T5 at any upper torso
deflection rate between 0.5 and 1.5
degrees per second, until the angle
reference plane is at 35 ± 0.5 degrees of
flexion relative to the vertical transverse
plane.
(11) Continue to apply a force
sufficient to maintain 35 ± 0.5 degrees
of flexion for 10 seconds, and record the
highest applied force during the 10second period.
(12) Release all force at the
attachment bracket as rapidly as
possible, and measure the return angle
with respect to the initial angle
reference plane as defined in paragraph
(c)(7) of this section three minutes after
the release.
§ 572.176 Knees and knee impact test
procedure.
(a) The knee assembly for the purpose
of this test is the part of the leg assembly
shown in drawing 420–5000.
(b) When the knee assembly,
consisting of lower upper leg assembly
(420–5200), femur load transducer
(SA572–S10) or its structural
replacement (127–4007), lower leg
assembly (420–5300), ankle assembly
(420–5400), and foot molded assembly
(420–5500) is tested according to the
test procedure in paragraph (c) of this
section:
(1) The peak resistance force as
measured with the test probe-mounted
accelerometer must not be less than
2560 N (576 lbf) and not more than 3140
N (706 lbf).
(2) The force shall be calculated by
the product of the impactor mass and its
deceleration.
(c) Test Procedure. The test procedure
for the knee assembly is as follows:
(1) Soak the knee assembly in a
controlled environment at any
temperature between 20.6 and 22.2 °C
(69 and 72 °F) and a relative humidity
between 10 and 70 percent for at least
four hours prior to a test.
(2) Mount the test material and secure
it to a rigid test fixture as shown in
Figure T6. No part of the foot or tibia
may contact any exterior surface.
(3) Align the test probe so that
throughout its stroke and at contact with
the knee it is within 2 degrees of
horizontal and collinear with the
longitudinal centerline of the femur.
(4) Guide the pendulum so that there
is no significant lateral, vertical, or
rotational movement at the time of
initial contact between the impactor and
the knee.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40295
(5) The test probe velocity at the time
of contact shall be 2.1 ± 0.03 m/s (6.9
± 0.1 ft/s).
(6) No suspension hardware,
suspension cables, or any other
attachments to the probe, including the
velocity vane, shall make contact with
the dummy during the test.
§ 572.177 Test conditions and
instrumentation.
(a) The test probe for thoracic impacts
shall be of rigid metallic construction,
concentric in shape, and symmetric
about its longitudinal axis. It shall have
a mass of 6.89 ± 0.012 kg (15.2 ± 0.05
lbs) and a minimum mass moment of
inertia of 2040 kg-cm2 (1.69 lbf-in-sec2)
in yaw and pitch about the CG. Onethird (1⁄3) of the weight of the
suspension cables and their attachments
to the impact probe must be included in
the calculation of mass, and such
components may not exceed five
percent of the total weight of the test
probe. The impacting end of the probe,
perpendicular to and concentric with
the longitudinal axis, must be at least
25.4 mm (1.0 in) long, and have a flat,
continuous, and non-deformable 121 ±
0.25 mm (4.76 ± 0.01 in) diameter face
with a maximum edge radius of 12.7
mm (0.5 in). The probe’s end opposite
to the impact face must have provisions
for mounting of an accelerometer with
its sensitive axis collinear with the
longitudinal axis of the probe. No
concentric portions of the impact probe
may exceed the diameter of the impact
face. The impact probe shall have a free
air resonant frequency of not less than
1000 Hz, which may be determined
using the procedure listed in Docket No.
NHTSA–7659–6.
(b) The test probe for knee impacts
shall be of rigid metallic construction,
concentric in shape, and symmetric
about its longitudinal axis. It shall have
a mass of 1.91 ± 0.01 kg (4.21 ± 0.02 lbs)
and a minimum mass moment of inertia
of 140 kg-cm2 (0.12 lbf-in-sec2) in yaw
and pitch about the CG. One third (1⁄3)
of the weight of the suspension cables
and their attachments to the impact
probe may be included in the
calculation of mass, and such
components may not exceed five
percent of the total weight of the test
probe. The impacting end of the probe,
perpendicular to and concentric with
the longitudinal axis, must be at least
12.5 mm (0.5 in) long, and have a flat,
continuous, and non-deformable 76.2 ±
0.2 mm (3.00 ± 0.01 in) diameter face
with a maximum edge radius of 12.7
mm (0.5 in). The probe’s end opposite
to the impact face must have provisions
for mounting an accelerometer with its
sensitive axis collinear with the
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40296
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
longitudinal axis of the probe. No
concentric portions of the impact probe
may exceed the diameter of the impact
face. The impact probe must have a free
air resonant frequency of not less than
1000 Hz, which may be determined
using the procedure listed in Docket No.
NHTSA–7659–6.
(c) Head accelerometers shall have
dimensions, response characteristics,
and sensitive mass locations specified
in drawing SA572–S4 and be mounted
in the head as shown in drawing 420–
0000, sheet 2 of 6.
(d) The upper neck force/moment
transducer shall have the dimensions,
response characteristics, and sensitive
axis locations specified in drawing
SA572-S11 and be mounted in the headneck assembly as shown in drawing
420–0000, sheet 2 of 6.
(e) The thorax accelerometers shall
have the dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive mass
locations specified in drawing SA572–
S4 and be mounted in the torso
assembly in a triaxial configuration
within the spine box instrumentation
cavity.
(f) The lumbar spine force-moment
transducer shall have the dimensions,
response characteristics, and sensitive
axis locations specified in drawing
SA572–S12 and be mounted in the
lower torso assembly as shown in
drawing 420–4000.
(g) The iliac spine force transducers
shall have the dimensions and response
characteristics specified in drawing
SA572–S13 L&R and be mounted in the
lower torso assembly as shown in
drawing 420–4000.
(h) The pelvis accelerometers shall
have the dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive mass
locations specified in drawing SA572–
S4 and be mounted in the torso
assembly in triaxial configuration in the
pelvis bone as shown in drawing 420–
0000, sheet 2 of 6.
(i) The single axis femur force
transducer (SA572–S10) shall have the
dimensions, response characteristics,
and sensitive axis locations specified in
the appropriate drawing and be
mounted in the upper leg assembly,
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
replacing the femur load cell simulator
(drawing 127–4007) s shown in drawing
420–5100.
(j) The chest deflection transducer
shall have the dimensions and response
characteristics specified in drawing
SA572–S50 and be mounted to the
upper torso assembly as shown in
drawing 420–3000, sheet 2 of 6.
(k) The following instrumentation is
available for installation in the dummy
for research purposes but is not to be
used for calibration and/or compliance
certification:
(1) The thorax accelerometers have
the dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive mass
locations specified in drawing SA572–
S4 and be mounted in the torso
assembly in uniaxial fore-and-aft
oriented configuration arranged as
corresponding pairs in two locations
each on the sternum and at the spine
box of the upper torso assembly as
shown in drawing 420–0000, sheet 2 of
6.
(2) The optional IR–Tracc chest
deflection system transducer has the
dimensions and response characteristics
specified in drawing SA572–S43 and is
mounted to the spine box assembly as
shown in drawing 420–8000.
(3) The lower neck force/moment
transducer has the dimensions, response
characteristics, and sensitive axis
locations specified in drawing SA572–
S40 and is mounted to the neck
assembly by replacing the lower neck
mounting bracket 420–2070 as shown in
drawing 420–2000.
(4) The tilt sensor has the dimensions
and response characteristics specified in
drawing SA572–S42 and is mounted to
the head and pelvis accelerometer
assemblies as shown in drawing 420–
0000, sheet 2 of 6.
(5) The clavicle force/moment
transducer shall have the dimensions,
response characteristics, and sensitive
axis locations specified in drawing
SA572–S41 and is mounted in the
shoulder assembly as shown in drawing
420–3800.
(l) The outputs of acceleration and
force-sensing devices installed in the
dummy and in the test apparatus
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specified by this part shall be recorded
in individual data channels that
conform to SAE Recommended Practice
J211, Rev. Mar95, ‘‘Instrumentation for
Impact Tests,’’ except as noted, with
channel classes as follows:
(1) Head acceleration—Class 1000
(2) Neck:
(i) Forces—Class 1000
(ii) Moments—Class 600
(iii) Pendulum acceleration—Class
180
(3) Thorax:
(i) Rib acceleration—Class 1000
(ii) Spine and pendulum
accelerations—Class 180
(iii) Sternum deflection—Class 180
(iv) Forces—Class 1000
(v) Moments—Class 600
(vi) Shoulder forces—Class 180
(4) Lumbar:
(i) Forces—Class 1000
(ii) Moments—Class 600
(iii) Torso flexion pulling force—Class
60 if data channel is used
(5) Pelvis:
(i) Accelerations—Class 1000
(ii) Iliac forces—Class 180
(6) Femur forces—Class 600
(m) Coordinate signs for
instrumentation polarity shall conform
to the Sign Convention For Vehicle
Crash Testing, Surface Vehicle
Information Report, SAE J1733, 1994–
12.
(n) The mountings for sensing devices
shall have no resonant frequency less
than 3 times the frequency range of the
applicable channel class.
(o) Limb joints must be set at one G,
barely restraining the weight of the limb
when it is extended horizontally. The
force needed to move a limb segment
shall not exceed 2G throughout the
range of limb motion.
(p) Performance tests of the same
component, segment, assembly, or fully
assembled dummy shall be separated in
time by not less than 30 minutes unless
otherwise noted.
(q) Surfaces of dummy components
may not be painted except as specified
in this subpart or in drawings subtended
by this subpart.
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
40297
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
EP13JY05.166</GPH>
Appendix—Figures to Subpart T of Part 572
VerDate jul<14>2003
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
EP13JY05.167</GPH>
40298
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
40299
EP13JY05.168</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VerDate jul<14>2003
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
EP13JY05.169</GPH>
40300
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules
[FR Doc. 05–13659 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–C
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 050127019–5178–02; I.D.
120304D]
RIN 0648–AS01
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Commercial Fishing Operations;
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Plan Regulations
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
public comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On June 21, 2005, a proposed
rule to amend the regulations
implementing the Atlantic Large Whale
Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) was
published in the Federal Register.
NMFS is extending the comment period
on this proposed rule by 30 days to
August 22, 2005, to allow the public a
full 60 days to submit comments.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:35 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Comments on the proposed rule
must be received by 5 p.m. EST on
August 22, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted on this proposed rule,
identified by RIN 0648–AS01, by any
one of the following methods:
(1) NMFS/Northeast Region website:
https://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/
com.html. Follow the instructions on
the website for submitting comments.
(2) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:/
/www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instruction on the website for
submitting comments.
(3) E-mail:
whalerule.comments@noaa.gov. Please
include the RIN 0648–AS01 in the
subject line of the message.
(4) Mail: Mary Colligan, Assistant
Regional Administrator for Protected
Resources, NMFS, Northeast Region, 1
Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930,
ATTN: ALWTRP Proposed Rule.
(5) Facsimile (fax) to: 978–281–9394,
ATTN: ALWTRP Proposed Rule.
Copies of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact
Review for this action can be obtained
from the ALWTRP website listed under
the Electronic Access portion of this
document. Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting
summaries, and progress reports on
implementation of the ALWTRP may be
obtained by writing Diane Borggaard,
NMFS, Northeast Region, 1 Blackburn
Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930 or Juan
Levesque, NMFS, Southeast Region,
9721 Executive Center Dr.,
St.Petersburg, FL 33702–2432. For
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
additional ADDRESSES and web sites for
document availability see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Borggaard, NMFS, Northeast
Region, 978–281–9300 Ext. 6503,
diane.borggaard@noaa.gov; Kristy Long,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
301–713–2322, kristy.long@noaa.gov; or
Barb Zoodsma, NMFS, Southeast
Region, 904–321–2806,
barb.zoodsma@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Several of the background documents
for the ALWTRP and the take reduction
planning process can be downloaded
from the ALWTRP web site at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/. Copies
of the most recent marine mammal stock
assessment reports may be obtained by
writing to Richard Merrick, NMFS, 166
Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543 or
can be downloaded from the Internet at
https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/
assesspdfs.htm. In addition, copies of
the documents entitled ‘‘Defining
Triggers for Temporary Area Closures to
Protect Right Whales from
Entanglements: Issues and Options’’ and
‘‘Identification of Seasonal Area
Management Zones for North Atlantic
Right Whale Conservation’’ are available
by writing to Diane Borggaard, NMFS,
Northeast Region, 1 Blackburn Dr.,
Gloucester, MA 01930 or can be
downloaded from the ALWTRP website
at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/.
The complete text of the regulations
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
EP13JY05.170</GPH>
Issued: June 28, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
40301
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40281-40301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13659]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 572
[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-21247]
RIN 2127-AJ49
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III-10 Year Old Child Test
Dummy
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's NPRM proposes specifications and qualification
requirements for the new test dummy that is representative of a 10-
year-old child. NHTSA plans to use the new 10-year-old child test dummy
to test child restraints under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 213 and in other applications. The dummy has the capability to be
placed in a slouched posture, which allows the evaluation of vehicle
belt systems under real world occupant conditions.
DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than September 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT DMS Docket
Number) by any of the following methods:
Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 am
and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the Public Participation
heading.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Stan Backaitis, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone
202-366-4912). For legal issues, you may call Chris Calamita, NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992). You may send mail to
these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Anton's Law
II. Overview
III. Background
A. Need for the dummy
B. Evolution of the dummy
IV. General Description
[[Page 40282]]
A. Biofidelic consistency of the HIII 10-year-old dummy with the
Hybrid III 50th percentile component responses
B. Repeatability and reproducibility
C. Component tests
D. Sled tests
V. The Dummy's Response Sensitivity and Structural Durability
A. Sensitivity of responses to booster seat design
B. Sensitivity of response to dummy's posture
C. Sensitivity of the dummy in three point belt applications
D. Sensitivity of dummy response and durability in NCAP pulse
and different restraint systems
E. Dummy performance in OOP Environment
1. Test Set-Up
2. General Observations
3. Neck Durability
4. Response Differences Due to Dummy Makes
5. Dummy Positioning
VI. Proposed Calibration Tests
A. Head drop specification
B. Neck pendulum test
C. Knee impact
D. Thorax impact
E. Torso flexion
VII. Benefits and Costs
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Anton's Law
On December 4, 2002, the President signed Pub. L. 107-318,
``Anton's Law,'' in order ``to provide for the improvement of the
safety of child restraints in passenger motor vehicles, and other
purposes.'' Section 4 of Anton's Law directed that:
(a) Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall develop and evaluate
an anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-year-old child for
use in testing child restraints used in passenger motor vehicles;
(b) Within 1 year following the development and evaluation carried
out under subsection (a), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking
proceeding for the adoption of anthropomorphic test device as developed
under subsection (a).
In September 2004, the agency completed evaluation of the HIII-10C
and tentatively determined that it is suitable for use in testing child
restraints.
II. Overview
Today's NPRM proposing to adopt specifications and performance
criteria for the HIII-10C into 49 CFR Part 572 initiates the rulemaking
referenced in Section 4(b) of Anton's Law. The test dummy is based on
recent growth charts for U.S. children and scaled measurements from the
Hybrid III family of dummies. The Hybrid III 10-year-old test dummy
(referred to as the ``HIII-10C'') has a seated height of 2 feet 5
inches, a standing height of 4 feet 3 inches, and weighs 77.6 pounds
(35 kilograms). By seated height and weight it very closely
approximates the average 10-year-old child in the U.S. Additionally,
the HIII-10C has been designed to more closely replicate the posture of
older children than current Hybrid III test dummies, which can enable
the dummy to more closely replicate older children interacting with
seat belt systems. The HIII-10C has an adjustable lumbar spine that
allows the dummy to slouch and a shoulder construction that provides a
more representative interaction of the shoulder and shoulder belt.
Consideration is underway at NHTSA on using the HIII-10C in
compliance tests of child restraints under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems'' (49 CFR 571.213).
The agency is proposing to expand the applicability of the standard to
restraints recommended for children weighing up to 80 pounds (36
kilograms). The proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 213 is intended to
ensure that all child restraint systems, including booster seats, are
robustly assessed to make sure that they would perform soundly in a 30
mile per hour (mph) crash when used by children at the upper limit of
their recommended weight range (e.g., up to 80 lb). The agency
tentatively believes that the dummy is a sound test device that will
provide valuable data in assessing the potential for injury of child
restraint system (CRS) occupants that weigh more than 50 lb in a 30 mph
crash.
III. Background
A. Need for the Dummy
The agency has long recognized the need for a test dummy
representative of a child larger than that currently represented by the
Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy (HIII-6YO). Some child restraint
manufacturers began offering child restraints for children weighing 50
lb and greater. The agency has wanted to expand the applicability of
FMVSS No. 213 to increase the likelihood that child restraints will
provide robust protection for a wider array of children. This interest
goes hand-in-hand with efforts to increase booster seat use among
children who have outgrown their harness-equipped child safety seat,
but who cannot adequately fit a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system.
(The agency advises that children between the ages of 4-to 8-years of
age should remain in a belt-positioning booster seat and secured with a
vehicle's lap/shoulder belt, unless they are a minimum 4 feet and 9
inches tall.)
Agency reports have indicated that older children do not fit
properly into vehicle safety belt systems without the use of a child
restraint system (e.g., a belt-positioning booster seat). This poor fit
is due to the fact that children have highly sloped shoulders and tend
to sit slouched in vehicle seats because their legs are too short to
maintain an upright seat posture. In a crash, slouched child show a
tendency to ``submarine;'' i.e., the child may slide under the lap
belt, which in most cases causes the lap belt to load the abdomen,
while the shoulder belt may migrate into the child's upper neck area.
In such an event a child would be exposed to forces that could result
in serious abdomen, lumbar and cervical spine injuries.
Use of a belt-positioning booster seat improves the fit of a
vehicle's lap/shoulder belt system for children 10 years of age and
younger. In conjunction with a vehicle's lap/shoulder belt, a belt-
positioning booster provides a 5-to 8-year-old child with the same
level of safety as a 9-to 14-year-old child receives from use of a lap/
shoulder belt only. When used in conjunction with a booster seat, the
effectiveness of a lap/shoulder belt for a child between the ages of 5
and 8 years improves from 48 percent to 54 percent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, ``Effectiveness of Lap/Shoulder Belts in the Back
Outboard Seating Positions,'' Evaluation Division, Plans and Policy,
NHTSA. Washington, DC, June 1999. DOT HS 808 945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding a new child test dummy to the array of devices used to test
child restraints will enhance child passenger safety. Currently, the
oldest child represented by an instrumented dummy in FMVSS No. 213 is a
6-year-old child. The agency has tentatively determined that the HIII-
10C will permit a useful evaluation of booster seats that are
recommended for children weighing up to 80 lb (36 kg), and help ensure
that these restraints meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No.
213.
B. Evolution of the Dummy
In 1994, the agency began to investigate if the introduction of a
test dummy larger than the 6-year-old test dummy would benefit the
development of safety improvements in occupant restraint systems.
Initially, the agency considered the P10 test dummy, which is part of
the P series of test dummies used primarily in Europe. The P10 was
intended to replicate the size and weight of a 10-year-old child.
However, the agency had concerns with the
[[Page 40283]]
stability and predictability of the P10's kinematic structure, its
limited instrumentation capabilities, and the fact that it weighs 10
lbs. less than the average 10-year-old child. As a result of these
concerns, the agency decided against using the P10.
The agency initiated discussions in 1999 with the Hybrid III Dummy
Family Task Group (DFTG) at the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
on the need to develop a child type test dummy approximating the
average 10-year-old. DFTG noted that such a dummy would be useful in
the evaluation of booster seats and the injury causing potential of
passenger side air bags, and agreed to develop a Hybrid III 10-year-old
dummy.\2\ By the spring of 2001 the first prototype was constructed
under a collaborative effort between dummy manufacturers First
Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD (Denton).\3\ After
preliminary testing and minor modifications, the agency was furnished a
production prototype of the DFTG-approved dummy for its initial
assessment. Subsequently, the agency bought two dummies for more
rigorous testing and evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H.J. Mertz, et al., ``The Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy,''
2001-22-0014, Proceedings, Stapp Car Crash Conference, Vol.
45, November 2001, The Stapp Association.
\3\ FTSS manufactured the head, neck, upper extremities, and
upper torso of the prototype. Denton manufactured the lower half of
the dummy, including the pelvis and lower extremities. Subsequently,
the manufacturers have exchanged drawings allowing each one to
manufacture a complete dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the development of the 10-year-old dummy, the Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub.
L. 106-414, November 1, 2000) was signed. The TREAD Act in part
directed that the agency determine whether the safety of children would
be improved if additional anthropomorphic test devices were used,
including a test dummy representative of a 10-year-old dummy. NHTSA
updated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 in
response to the TREAD Act (68 FR 37620; June 24, 2003; Docket No.
15351), but the 10-year-old dummy was not sufficiently developed for
inclusion in that rulemaking.
IV. General Description
The HIII-10C was targeted to represent a 10-year-old child as
defined by the National Center for Health Statistics for the Center for
Disease Control (NCHS-CDC) growth charts published in December 2000 for
children between 2 and 20 years of age and has the same general
construction as the adult dummies of the Hybrid III dummy family. The
HIII-10C has a seated height of 2 feet 5 inches, a weight of 77.6
pounds, and a standing height of 4 feet 3 inches. Table I below
compares the major characteristics of the dummy with the U.S. growth
charts.
Table I.--Comparison of Test Dummies and People
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seated Height**, **** (feet & Weight (lb)*, **** Standing Height (feet &
inches) ------------------------------------ inches)*, ***, ****
------------------------------------ H-III ------------------------
H-III People (min/ave/max) People (min/ave/max) H-III People (min/ave/max)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Percentile Female....................... 2'7'' (2'4''/2'7''/2'9'') 108 (101/106/117) 4'11'' (4'8''4'11''/5'1'')
10-year-old................................. 2'5'' (2'2''/2'4''/2'6'') 77.6 (57.7/79.3/120.2) 4'3'' (4'4''/4'8''/5'1'')
6-year-old.................................. 2'1'' (1'10''/2'0''/2'2'') 51.6 (37.2/47.2/75.5) 3'9'' (3'7''/3'11''/4'3'')
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data from CDC Growth Charts (1988-1994), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 4, 2000.
** Anthropometry of U.S. Infants and Children, SAE SP-394, 1975 SAE Automotive Engineering Congress and Exhibition, Detroit, MI, 1975. '
*** Erect posture; calculated, rounded to the nearest whole number (dummies are built in seated posture).
**** Average of male and female.
Table I demonstrates that the HIII-10C fits reasonably well between
the 6-year-old and 5th percentile adult female test dummies. (A 5th
percentile adult female is about the size of a 12-year-old.)
Additional anthropomorphic dimensions and masses of the HII-10C
were based on scaling those specifications from the HIII 50th
percentile adult male dummy rather than the 5th percentile female
dummy. The decision to scale down from the male dummy was based on the
fact that the 50th percentile male dummy was supported by a well
established biomechanical database, while all other Hybrid III dummies
were scaled down versions from the 50th percentile male dummy.
Accordingly, there was no advantage to scale down from another dummy.
Information on the HIII-10C key exterior dimensions and weights for
the major body sections are included in the drawing package, which is
included in the docket for this notice.
Similar to the construction of adult dummies in the Hybrid III
family, the 10-year-old dummy consists of an articulated, damped steel
``skeleton'' that is covered by foam and plastic simulating human flesh
and skin. However, the lumbar spine is constructed of a butyl rubber
cylinder with an adjusting bracket located between the lumbar spine and
pelvis bone. This adjusting bracket allows for upper torso orientation
adjustment of approximately 24 degrees relative to the lower torso to
simulate a range of normal and ``slouched'' seating positions. Slouch
is a critical design feature, because children not in booster seats
tend to slouch to keep the underside of their knees from interfering
with the front edge of a vehicle seat as their legs bend over the edge
of the seat. As explained above, this slouched posture has the
potential to result in abdominal and neck injuries from a vehicle's lap
and shoulder belt in a crash. The slouched position would allow the
HIII-10C to provide data on the interaction of a vehicle belt system
and older children seated in this posture.
The specifications for the HIII-10C would consist of: (a) A drawing
package containing all of the technical details of the dummy; (b) a
parts list; and (c) a user manual containing instructions for
inspection, assembly, disassembly, use, and adjustments of dummy
components (PADI). These drawings and specifications would ensure that
the dummies would be the same in their design, construction, and
kinematics. In addition, three-dimensional engineering aids are
available from the NHTSA website for complex dummy part dimensions.
While these aids are not part of this specification, they can be used
by the public for reference purposes. The performance calibration
[[Page 40284]]
tests proposed in this NPRM would serve to assure that the HIII-10C
responses are within the established biomechanical corridors and
further assure the uniformity of dummy assembly, structural integrity,
consistency of response and adequacy of instrumentation. As a result,
the repeatability of the dummy's impact response would be ensured.
Drawings and specifications for the HIII-10C are available for
examination in the NHTSA docket section. Copies of those materials and
the user manual may also be obtained from Leet-Melbrook, Division of
New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20879, tel. (301) 670-
0090.
A technical report and other materials describing the HIII-10C in
detail have been placed in the docket for today's NPRM.
A. Biofidelic Consistency of the HIII 10-Year-Old Dummy With the Hybrid
III 50th Percentile Component Responses
An important characteristic of a dummy for use as a test tool is
how well it simulates a human undergoing impact, a property otherwise
known as biofidelity. For adult sized dummies such as the Hybrid III
50th percentile male, the component responses can be compared directly
to post-mortem human subject (PMHS) response data to assess
biofidelity. Due to the scarcity of biomechanical data for children,
response corridors for child dummies have to be constructed by scaling
adult PMHS data, using geometric factors such as mass and length. Given
the current lack of pediatric data, if it is accepted that the HIII
50th percentile male dummy has adequate biofidelity,\4\ the biofidelity
of the HIII-10C can be assessed by comparing the child dummy responses
to response specification data (certification data) scaled from the
adult dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Foster, et al. (1977). ``Hybrid III--A Biomechanically-Based
Crash Test Dummy,'' Proc. Twenty-First Stapp Car Crash Conference,
SAE 770938. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following this approach, the SAE DFTG examined the response of the
HIII-10C head, neck, thorax and knee and determined that prototype
HIII-10C components displayed an acceptable level of biofidelity with
respect to the scaled corridors.\5\ Scaling relationships developed by
Irwin and Mertz \6\ were used by NHTSA to define the biomechanical
response corridors of the HIII-10C as compared to the HIII 50th
percentile male data. Following the International Standard Organization
(ISO) TR 9790 biofidelity scaling procedure,\7\ the head and knee of
the dummy could be given a rating of 10, and the neck and thorax a
rating of 5, indicating that no components have unacceptable
biofidelity. This methodology yields an overall biofidelity assessment
of ``excellent'' which is in agreement with the DFTG assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Mertz, et al., (2001). ``The Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy,''
Proc. Forty-Fifth Stapp Car Crash Conference, Paper 2001-22-0014.
\6\ Irwin and Mertz (1997), ``Biomechanical Bases for the CRABI
and Hybrid III Child Dummies,'' Proceedings, 41st Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE 973317, SAE, Warrendale, PA.
\7\ Scherer et al., Proceedings, 42nd Stapp Car Crash
Conference, SAE 983151, SAE, Warrendale, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NHTSA Bio Rank System \8\ was applied to HIII-10C dummy
component peak responses from testing at VRTC \9\ for the head, neck,
thorax, and knees to quantify how well they fit within their respective
certification corridors derived from scaling. The dummy's cumulative
variance (DCV) was calculated as the absolute value of the difference
between the mean dummy peak response and mean value from the scaled
certification corridor for each individual measurement. The cadaver
cumulative variance (CCV), normally the accumulated standard deviation
of a sample of human data, was modified to be one-fourth of the
tolerance presented in the scaled 50th certification corridor. This
assumes that the certification corridor is the mean plus or minus two
standard deviations:\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Rhule, et al., (2002). ``Development of a New Biofidelity
Ranking System for Anthropomorphic Test Devices,'' Proc. 46th Stapp
Car Crash Conference, Paper 2002-22-0024.
\9\ Stammen, J. ``Technical Evaluation of the Hybrid III Ten
Year Old Dummy (HIII-10C),'' September 2004.
\10\ Rhule, ibid.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JY05.165
A DCV/CCV value of 2.0 or below indicates that particular HIII-10C
component response is within two standard deviations of the HIII-50th
scaled data. In other words, the next HIII-10C component can be
considered to respond as much like the scaled data as a HIII-50th
component would match the corresponding adult corridor. Table II
summarizes the DCV/CCV values for each component measurement.
Table II.--DCV/CCV Values for HIII-10C Component Responses in VRTC Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dummy data (N=2) Scaled corridor
Component -------------------------------------------------------- DCV/CCV
Mean Std dev Mean Std dev
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head:
Resultant (g)......................... 277 6 267.5 13.75 0.69
Neck Flexion:
Moment (Nm)........................... 54.8 1.9 58 3.5 0.91
Rotation (deg)........................ 81.7 2 81 3.5 0.20
Neck Extension:
Moment (Nm)........................... 41.5 1.9 41 3 0.17
Rotation (deg)........................ 107.7 2.7 106.3 3.7 0.36
Thorax:
Deflection (mm)....................... 45.8 1 43 2 1.40
Force (N)............................. 2202 107 2080 25 0.98
Hysteresis (%)........................ 74.2 1.5 75 5 0.40
Knee:
Force (N)............................. 2819 106 2850 145 0.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As seen in Table II, all nine of the HIII-10C component responses
based on two dummies had DCV/CCV values below 2.0 (in fact, all but the
thorax had values less than 1.0), indicating that each response is
within 2 standard
[[Page 40285]]
deviations of the mean of the HIII-10C scaled corridors. As noted
earlier, there is no human pediatric data for direct HIII-10C dummy
biofidelity evaluation. However, because the HIII-10C components are
consistent with the HIII-50th components and Foster (id.) showed that
the HIII-50th components were consistent with human component response
data, NHTSA believes that the components of this dummy have acceptable
biofidelity.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Foster, ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Repeatability and Reproducibility
A dummy's repeatability \12\ and reproducibility \13\ are typically
based on the performance of the most critical body segments, as
components and as a complete dummy system. A dummy and its components
must respond within boundaries that relate to biomechanical corridors.
In the tests for repeatability and reproducibility, impact input as
well as the test equipment are carefully controlled to minimize
external effects on a dummy's response. Component tests are typically
better controlled and thus produce more reliable estimates of the
dummy's repeatability and reproducibility than is possible in sled and
vehicle tests. Component tests identify whether a component will
respond properly in impact tests. Sled tests, on the other hand, offer
a method of efficiently evaluating a dummy as a complete system in an
environment much like a vehicle test. Sled tests establish the
consistency of the dummy's kinematics, its impact response as an
assembly, and the integrity of a dummy's structure and instrumentation
under controlled and crash-representative test conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Repeatability is defined as a similarity of responses of a
single dummy measured under identical repeated test conditions.
\13\ Reproducibility is defined as response similarity between
different dummies of the same design under identical test
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The repeatability and reproducibility of dummy responses are
assessed by coefficient of variation (cv) values of impact responses
(coefficient of variation = standard deviation divided by the mean).
This approach was introduced for automotive dummy assessment in 1974 at
the Third International Conference of Occupant Protection (154 FR 369,
August 9, 1975) as a means of evaluating dummy repeatability. The
repeatability assessment specifies that the dummy's response must fall
within specified performance limits and that it does not exceed a CV
value of 10% in repeated identical impact exposures. Reproducibility is
a statistical assessment of compiled responses of multiple dummies in a
duplicated impact environment. Multiple dummies produce a wider
dispersion of response measurement than in testing a single dummy for
repeatability. Accordingly, a CV of 15% for reproducibility is being
proposed as a practical limit for maximum allowable variance in
repeated tests of multiple dummies, as long as any single dummy within
that set conforms to the 10% repeatability requirement.
C. Component Tests
The critical body segments were evaluated by conducting
certification tests on the head, neck, thorax, torso, and knee. These
tests were conducted in accordance with the procedure specified in the
most recent version of the DFTG's user manual developed for the HIII-
10C. Components from a dummy manufactured by FTSS and those from a
dummy manufactured by Denton were tested prior to and after a series of
sled tests. The CV values used to assess the quality of repeatability
and reproducibility are provided in Table III.
Table III.--Dummy Rating Scores for Repeatability and Reproducibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproducibility
Repeatability % CV % CV Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-5............................. 0-6 Excellent.
>5-8............................ >6-11 Good.
>8-10........................... >11-15 Marginal.
>10............................. >15 Poor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each of the dummies, the head, neck, knee and thorax all
responded with a rating of excellent in the repeatability and the
reproducibility evaluations.
The repeatability values from the torso evaluation were acceptable
with CV values below 10 percent, except that data in one channel from
the reproducibility evaluation narrowly missed an ``acceptable'' value.
Torso flexion tests were conducted on both dummies before and after the
sled test series per the procedure defined in CFR Part 572, Subpart O
(Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Dummy), except that the resistance
force was measured at 35 degrees of torso flexion instead of 45
degrees. The smaller size of the HIII-10C and the pelvis angle required
for slouching prohibited the test dummy from achieving an angle of 45
degrees. The reproducibility value for the resistance force at 35
degrees of torso flexion was in the excellent range (CV=4.5%), and the
CV for the initial mean angle value of the torso was in the acceptable
range (CV=14.2%). However, the return angle of the torso after the
flexion test produced a CV value of 16.7 percent, which is above the
15% limit for acceptability. Inasmuch as the torso return angle average
of 5.67 degrees is well below the maximum allowable 8 degree limit, the
slightly higher repeatability CV value than the maximum allowable is of
little concern in this case. Evidence of a specific return angle is
indicative of the torso mid-section having certain elastic, more human-
like properties. A return within the 8 degree limit indicates that the
forces of restitution are intact. No return, or an indefinite return,
would indicate a substantial change within the internal mechanisms of
the mid-torso structure, such as failure of the lumbar spine, abdomen,
or a substantial shift between interfacing body segments within the
abdominal cavity. Although the dummies' responses were just outside the
acceptable range for repeatability, each response demonstrated elastic
properties and no structural failures.
D. Sled tests
To assess the repeatability and reproducibility of the HIII-10C as
a complete dummy, the agency conducted two sets of FMVSS No. 213 type
sled tests with the dummy placed in a booster seat and with test
environment variables minimized. A more repeatable test environment was
constructed in the form of a rigid bench seat, as opposed to a
cushioned seat, to minimize seat cushion related variables and
facilitate consistent dummy positioning
[[Page 40286]]
throughout the test series. The seat was built to permit vertical
adjustment of its base to either allow proper belt restraint placement
on the elevated dummy or to accommodate a booster seat to the same
sitting height on the lowered base. The seat base was carpeted (\1/4\''
thick, 0.5 lb/square foot weight carpet) to prevent excessive sliding
of the booster seat. Again, repeatability and reproducibility of the
dummies in systems tests are assessed using the ISO developed CV scale
discussed above.
In the first set of sled tests, the two dummies were set-up on the
existing rigid bench seat specified in FMVSS No. 213. The features of
the bench seat were not modified as specified by a June 24, 2003 final
rule amending FMVSS No. 213 (68 FR 37620; Docket No. NHTSA-2003-
15351).\14\ Because of the possibility of the rigid seat causing the
dummies to absorb more of the impact energy, a softer 20 g, 27 mph
pulse was applied in the two dummies test series. This pulse represents
19 percent reduced energy from the FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse. A good
belt fit on the dummies' shoulders and pelvis was achieved by raising
the seat to the equivalent height of a booster seat cushion. None of
the dummy responses from this series of tests resulted in CV values
that were in the unacceptable range, which demonstrates that the HIII-
10C has good repeatability and reproducibility as a complete system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The June 24, 2003 final rule increased the test bench's
seat cushion angle from 8 degrees off horizontal to 15 degrees;
increased the test bench's seat back angle from 15 degrees off
vertical to 22 degrees; increased the spacing between the anchors of
the lap belt from 222 mm to 400 mm in the center seating position
and from 356 mm to 472 mm in the outboard seating positions; and
specified a rigid seat back as opposed to a flexible back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test data from the repeatability and reproducibility tests in the
reduced energy environment are shown in Table IV, below. Data for
repeatability display averages of five responses for each dummy, their
respective standard deviations, and the corresponding CV values. The
data for reproducibility combine the measurements of both dummies and
provide averages, standard deviations, and CV values for each data
channel. The responses on the whole are reasonably similar between the
two dummies. Table V displays the distribution of the measured CV
values of the major body segments from Table IV that fell into each of
the repeatability and reproducibility rating categories listed in Table
III. The only channel that failed to meet the ``good'' or ``excellent''
categories was the upper neck X force in Dummy 1, which
received an ``acceptable'' rating.
Table IV.--Response Analysis of the HIII-10C in Simulated Booster Height
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability Reproducibility
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dummy 1 (n=5) Dummy 2 (n=5) Both test dummies
Channel ---------------------------------------------------- (n=10)
-------------------------
AVG CV AVG CV CV
(percent) (percent) AVG (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head X (g)........................ 39 5.0 37 2.6 38 4.2
Head Z (g)........................ 47 7.1 40 4.0 44 10.3
Head Resultant (g)................ 51 7.7 43 3.9 47 10.1
HIC 36............................ 355 7.1 317 5.2 336 8.5
Upper Neck X Force (N)............ 820 9.6 695 2.2 758 11.2
Upper Neck Z Force (N)............ 1728 5.0 1525 4.5 1627 8.0
Upper Neck Y Moment (N-m)......... 34 4.1 38 3.1 36 7.1
Chest X (g)....................... 40 4.7 39 2.4 40 4.1
Chest Z (g)....................... 9 6.0 10 8.0 10 6.9
Chest Resultant (g)............... 41 4.4 39 1.6 40 3.7
Chest Clip (g).................... 40 3.2 38 2.2 39 3.5
Chest Deflection (mm)............. 31 5.4 26 5.4 28 10.6
Pelvis Resultant (g).............. 39 5.0 39 1.8 39 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.--Distribution of the Measured CV Values of the Major Body Segments by the Repeatability and
Reproducibility Rating Scales by Frequency Count
[Ref. Table IV, supra]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability
-------------------------------- Reproducibility
Rating Test dummy Test dummy both dummies
1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent...................................................... 7 11 5
Good........................................................... 5 2 7
Acceptable..................................................... 1 0 1
Unacceptable................................................... 0 0 0
% Acceptable................................................... 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second set of sled tests to evaluate repeatability and
reproducibility was conducted with three HIII-10C dummies. The third
dummy was constructed with the upper half manufactured by Denton ATD
and the lower half manufactured by FTSS (combination dummy). Testing of
the combination dummy was to determine if the drawing specifications
would produce interchangeable parts irrespective of the manufacturer,
and if a combination test dummy would provide the same repeatability,
reproducibility, and durability as a test dummy manufactured by a
single company. The three dummies were seated side by side at booster
seat height
[[Page 40287]]
on the updated FMVSS No. 213 bench seat specified in the June 2003
final rule. (The bench seat was slightly modified to provide a lap/
shoulder belt for the center seating position.) Testing all three
dummies side-by-side permitted a comparison of the test dummies'
kinematics in the same crash environment. As in the first set of tests,
the seat foam was removed and replaced by carpeting material to
minimize possible bench seat interaction effects on the dummies'
responses. The three dummies were set up in identical upright postures
and restrained by three-point belts representative of vehicle lap and
shoulder belts. The full FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse (24 g and 30 mph) was
used in these tests. Four repeat tests with the three dummies yielded a
total of 12 sets of data. Results are shown in Table VI and summarized
in Table VII by how well the dummies fit within the repeatability and
reproducibility rating categories.
Table VI.--Summary of Selected Three HIII-10C Dummies Repeatability and Reproducibility Test Responses
[Full FMVSS No. 213 Sled Pulse]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dummy 1 (n=4) Dummy 2 (n=4) Combination test dummy All test dummies (n=12)
---------------------------------------------------- (n=4) -------------------------
Channel --------------------------
AVG CV AVG CV CV AVG CV
(percent) (percent) AVG (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head X (g)...................................... 34 10.7 37 9.2 29 ........... 33 13.9
Head Z (g)...................................... 55 3.6 48 2.0 49 2.0 51 6.8
Head Resultant (g).............................. 60 3.0 51 1.2 53 1.9 55 7.4
HIC 36.......................................... 545 4.6 464 3.3 483 5.8 498 8.4
Upper Neck X Force (N).......................... 841 6.5 885 8.3 720 5.6 815 11.0
Upper Neck Z Force (N).......................... 1923 4.0 1713 3.8 1757 1.9 1797 6.1
Upper Neck Y Moment (N-m)....................... 41 7.0 38 5.3 39 3.3 39 6.4
Chest X (g)..................................... 37 5.1 37 4.5 38 2.9 37 4.0
Chest Z (g)..................................... 16 3.0 14 8.0 16 10.2 15 9.5
Chest Resultant (g) 3........................... 38 5.1 39 3.9 40 3.6 39 4.8
Chest Clip (g).................................. 32 7.0 31 6.9 33 6.3 32 6.6
Chest Deflection (mm)........................... 37 4.1 38 3.8 39 4.4 38 4.6
Pelvis Resultant (g)............................ 41 4.3 48 3.4 47 4.2 45 7.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VII.--Distribution of the Measured CV Values of the Major Body Segments by the Repeatability and
Reproducibility Rating Scale by Frequency Count
[Ref. Table VI, supra]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability Reproducibility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rating Test dummy Test dummy Combination
1 2 test dummy Dummies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent...................................... 7 8 8 3
Good........................................... 5 3 3 9
Acceptable..................................... 0 2 2 1
Unacceptable................................... 1 0 0 0
% Acceptable................................... 93 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test dummy 2 and the combination of test dummy responses
demonstrated 100 percent acceptability for repeatability and
reproducibility. Test dummy 1 demonstrated approximately 93
percent acceptability for repeatability and 100 percent acceptability
for reproducibility. We believe the 93 percent value can be accepted as
repeatable. Test dummy 1 was prevented from achieving 100
percent acceptability by a head ``X'' acceleration CV rating of 10.7
percent, which is only 0.7 percent above the acceptability limit. The
dummy still demonstrated an acceptable repeatability CV value for the
HIC 36 measurement.
Based on the above, the agency tentatively concludes that the HIII-
10C provides sufficient repeatability and reproducibility at both the
component level and the system level.
V. The Dummy's Response Sensitivity and Structural Durability
A variety of sled tests were conducted to substantiate the
functionality of the HIII-10C dummy's sensitivity in differentiating
the effects of substantially different but repeatable restraint
configurations in several environments. Durability of the dummy's
structure was also assessed in each of these test environments. These
sled tests evaluated the dummy's sensitivity to the following
variables:
Booster seat design
Posture
Three-point belt application
Applied pulse
Vehicle seat
Airbag interaction.
As discussed below, based on these tests, we tentatively conclude
that the HIII-10C is capable of differentiating between restraint
systems and incremental improvements in restraint configurations. It
also displayed sufficient durability in all environments.
A. Sensitivity of Responses to Booster Seat Design
Tests were conducted with both dummies in the FMVSS No. 213
configuration with two different makes of booster seats, the Graco
Grand Cargo and the Century Breverra. These booster seats were chosen
because they appeared similar in design and appeared to result in
similar dummy postures in the pretest set-up.
[[Page 40288]]
In sled tests, the dummies in each type of booster seat showed
similar torso kinematics, except for some outboard rotation of the legs
in the Century mode. Test results indicate that both HIII-10C dummies
were capable of similar differentiation between booster seat models
through response measurements. In the Graco Grand Cargo booster seat,
both dummies exhibited very similar impact responses. In the Century
Breverra seat, similarities in impact responses between the dummies
were somewhat less strong. It appears that relatively good consistency
of the response by both dummies in the Graco Grand Cargo booster seat
and somewhat less consistency by the same dummies in the Century
Breverra seat were due to differences in the containment
characteristics of the two booster seats during the test rather than
differences between the dummies themselves.
B. Sensitivity of Response to Dummy's Posture
As explained previously, the HIII-10C dummy is capable of being
seated in a ``slouched'' position, similar to adolescent children
sitting in adult seats. The slouched position permits the lower portion
of the dummy to be brought forward so that the knees can bend and
orient the lower legs downwards at the front of a seat. This forward
positioning of the legs puts the slouched dummy's upper torso in a
reclined orientation approximately 12 degrees from the normal upright
torso orientation.\15\ In testing, the slouched dummies ``submarined''
under the lap belt, demonstrating that the HIII-10C is suitable for
detecting and assessing submarining tendencies within belt restraint-
seat systems that are not built to prevent such an event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Normal upright orientation means the upper torso
midsagittal backline is essentially parallel to the seat back
incline plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Sensitivity of Response of the Dummy in Three-Point Belt
Applications
This series of tests was to determine if the dummy could
differentiate between properly and improperly used shoulder belts when
a booster seat is not utilized, and also to evaluate impact responses
between dummies in three-point belt systems and booster seats. The
tests compared the effects of belt placement on the impact kinematics
and response of the HIII-10C dummy. Each dummy was seated on the FMVSS
No. 213 type bench seat in two repeated frontal impact tests. To
represent incorrect three-point belt application (misuse), adult belt
restraints were applied on the upright-seated HIII-10C torso in the
normal manner, except that the shoulder belt, instead of being routed
over the shoulder, was routed under the seated dummy's arm.
Each dummy placed in the misuse configuration exhibited distinctly
different kinematics from when it was properly restrained. The upper
torso, while pitching forward, forced the shoulder belt to slide down
the torso towards the abdomen to become like a lap belt. At extreme
flexion, the upper torso jack-knifed over the belt restraint far enough
to allow the head to impact the knees. However, during the upper torso
jack-knifing motion, the head movement relative to the upper torso was
relatively small.
Comparison of test data indicate that the HIII-10C dummy is
suitable for detecting and assessing misuse of the shoulder belt on the
child's upper torso. Misalignment of the shoulder belt produces not
only a very large chest deflection, but also can damage the chest
deflection measuring system. However, since compliance test conditions
do not typically include belt misuse evaluations, mechanical failure of
the deflection measuring system in this test set-up is of little
concern. Nonetheless, the deflection measuring system would be able to
detect whether a shoulder slid off the dummy's shoulder.
Dummies restrained in booster seats indicate fairly sizable impact
response reductions over dummies restrained in three-point belt
systems, except for relatively minor differences in chest deflections.
Chest deflections of dummies in booster seats were on the average about
5 percent higher than in three-point belt systems at comparable sled
impact speeds.
D. Sensitivity of Dummy Response and Durability in NCAP Pulse and
Different Restraint Systems
Subsequent to completion of the FMVSS No. 213 type tests, the FTSS
and Denton dummies were evaluated in a vehicle environment at NCAP
speed on the HYGE sled. The objectives were: (1) To evaluate the
dummy's durability under severe loading conditions; (2) to compare the
dummy's responses in booster seat versus non-booster in normal seating
configurations, including the slouch posture; and (3) to measure
differences in kinematic excursions of the head and knees in the
different test configurations. This sled was set up for this test
series to represent the vehicle environment of a 2000 Ford Expedition
XLT. The sled pulse was based on the NCAP 35 mph vehicle to barrier
crash acceleration profile.
For the dummies in booster seats and in normal upright and slouched
set-ups, the belt was positioned correctly by adjusting the D-ring
position. A D-ring is the anchorage for a shoulder belt and its
position can be adjusted to enhance the correctness of shoulder belt
fit. For the slouch tests, the D-ring was kept in the same position as
for the normal upright posture, resulting in incorrect belt fit on the
dummy (shoulder belt medial to the clavicle, and lap belt top surface
superior to the pelvis lip). As expected, the dummies seated in booster
seats yielded significantly lower response levels than three-point
belted dummies in upright and in slouched postures.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ While no durability problems were encountered in component
certification and FMVSS No. 213 type sled tests, one type of a
problem emerged during the NCAP test series. Some ribs from both
dummies experienced delamination of the damping material. Upon
investigation, we preliminarily determined that this problem is most
likely related to either the manufacturing process or adhesive
selection, rather than a flaw in design. This was confirmed in
subsequent testing in which new ribsets of the same design mounted
in the two dummies survived well over 30 sled tests and numerous
certification tests without indication of any structural or
functional failures. Accordingly, the agency believes that the ribs
pose neither fatigue nor durability issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While no durability problems were encountered in component
certification and FMVSS No. 213 type sled tests, one type of problem
emerged during the NCAP test series. Some ribs from both dummies
experienced delamination of the damping material. Upon investigation,
this was found to be an anomalous initial manufacturing problem,
because replacement ribsets used in subsequent dummy tests survived
well over 30 relatively severe sled impact exposures and numerous
certification tests without indication of any structural or functional
failures. Accordingly, NHTSA believes that the ribs raise neither
fatigue nor durability issues.
VI. Dummy Performance in OOP Environment
The HIII-10C was evaluated for its usefulness and robustness in the
static out-of-position (OOP) airbag compliance test of FMVSS No. 208,
Occupant crash protection. Under the requirements of FMVSS No. 208,
vehicle manufacturers may comply with an OOP air bag requirement which,
in part, tests the interaction of an air bag and a child occupant under
two ``worst-case'' scenarios. In those, the air bag is deployed with
the child's head on the vehicle's instrument panel (head-to-IP), and
the air bag is deployed with the child's chest on the instrument panel
(chest-to-IP). In testing the HIII-10C
[[Page 40289]]
under the OOP conditions, three objectives were of primary interest:
Evaluate the neck's durability;
Establish the capacity and performance of the head/neck
and thorax instrumentation;
Determine ease of dummy positioning for OOP testing.
1. Test Set-Up
In the head-to-IP tests, the neck angle was set at 16 degrees
flexion relative to the perpendicular to the neck base mounting plateau
so that the chin of the dummy was level with the centerline of the
airbag flap. For the chest-to-IP position, the neck angle was changed
to 0 degrees so that the head was not touching the windshield. The seat
back was reclined fully. The doorsill, striker face, and windshield
were used as measurement references to position the dummy.
2. General Observations
Video analysis of the dummies' kinematics exhibited minimal torso
twisting around the superior-inferior axis during the forward and
backward translation while in contact with the airbag. Chalk transfer
to the airbag, in addition to video analysis, did not show the airbag
entering the cavity between the chin and neck.
3. Neck Durability
The neck structure exhibited no visible damage during the OOP
tests. Dummy calibration tests following the OOP test series indicated
that both FTSS test dummy neck and Denton ATD test dummy neck continued
to pass the calibration response requirement in both flexion and
extension. Except for minor abrasions and mini-tears to the chin area
of the head skin due to airbag membrane interaction, no other failures
were encountered.
4. Response Differences Due to Dummy Makes
With the exception of HIC values, the average response values for
each dummy appear to be consistent with each another. The FTSS test
dummy experienced HIC values of 91 and 169 for the head-to-IP and
chest-to-IP configurations, respectively. The Denton test dummy
experienced HIC values of 179 and 589 for the head-to-IP and chest-to-
IP configurations, respectively. However, the small number of tests
prevents drawing definitive conclusions on differences between the two
dummies.
5. Dummy Positioning
The IP positions for the Hybrid III 6-year-old (HIII-6C) found in
S24.4 of FMVSS No. 208 were used as reference. One modification to the
procedure was required to better position the HIII-10C. In the chest IP
position, the lower legs below the femur were removed to allow mid-
chest contact with the IP without wedging the head against the
windshield.
VI. Proposed Calibration Tests
The agency proposes the following calibration test specifications
and procedures for the HIII-10C dummy. Performance certification
specifications would test response requirements for components of the
dummy (the head; neck; thorax; and knees), and a semi-static flexion
test of the upper torso with respect to the lower torso of a fully
assembled seated dummy.
A. Head Drop Specification
Since the HIII-10C head is the same as the Hybrid III small female
head, we are proposing the same head drop specification for the HIII-
10C as that of the 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th
Percentile Female Test Dummy, Alpha Version. Under Subpart O the head
is dropped from a 376 mm height targeting the forehead to impact at the
midsagittal plane a flat, rigid surface. When the dummy head is dropped
in accordance with the above test, the agency proposes the following
certification specifications:
1. The peak resultant acceleration must not be less than 250 g and
not more than 300 g;
2. The resultant acceleration vs. time history curve shall be
unimodal; oscillations occurring after the main pulse must be less than
10 percent of the peak resultant acceleration; and
3. The lateral acceleration shall not exceed 15 g (zero to peak).
B. Neck Pendulum Test
The proposed test procedure for the neck pendulum test corresponds
to the calibration test specified for the Hybrid III series of test
dummies. Under the proposed procedure the head-neck assembly would be
mounted on the pendulum described in Figure 22 of 49 CFR part 572 so
that the leading edge of the lower neck bracket coincides with the
leading edge of the pendulum. The pendulum would then be released from
a height to achieve an impact velocity of 6.1 0.12 m/s
(20.0 0.4 ft/s) for flexion tests and 5.03
0.12 m/s (16.50 0.4. ft/s) for extension tests. The
pendulum would then be stopped from the initial velocity with an
acceleration vs. time pulse that meets the velocity change as specified
below. When the HIII-10C neck is tested in accordance with the proposed
test procedure, the following specifications would have to be met:
1. Flexion
(a) The plane D (i.e., an imaginary plane perpendicular to the
skull cap/skull interface) shall rotate upon arrest of the pendulum
motion in the direction of pre-impact flight with respect to the
pendulum's longitudinal centerline between 74 and 88 degrees.
(b) During the time interval while rotation is within the specified
corridor, the peak moment about the occipital condyles must not be less
than 50 N-m (36.9 ft-lbf) and not more than 62 N-m (45.7 ft-lbf).
(c) The positive moment shall decay for the first time to 10 N-m
(7.4 ft-lbf) between 85 ms and 105 ms after time zero.
2. Extension
(a) The plane D (i.e., an imaginary plane perpendicular to the
skull cap/skull interface) shall rotate upon arrest of the pendulum
motion in the direction of pre-impact flight with respect to the
pendulum's longitudinal centerline between 99 and 114 degrees.
(b) During the time interval while rotation is within the specified
corridor, the peak moment about the occipital condyles must not be less
than -35 N-m (-25.8 ft-lbf) and not more than -47 N-m (-34.7 ft-lbf).
(c) The positive moment shall decay for the first time to -10 N-m
(-7.4 ft-lbf) between 100 ms and 120 ms after time zero.
C. Knee impact
This calibration test would be performed on a knee assembly, which
consists of the lower upper leg assembly, the knee and the distal
portion of the femur including the femur load transducer or its
structural replacement. When impacted by the test pendulum at 2.1 m/s,
the peak knee response force would be required to be between 2560 N and
3140 N.
D. Thorax impact
The thorax impact calibration test would be performed on a fully
assembled, seated dummy. The dummy set-up and impact procedures would
be similar to that in 59 CFR Part 572, Subpart O. Under the proposed
calibration requirement, when the test probe impacts the test dummy at
the chest midsagittal plane below the number three rib, the following
specifications must be met:
[[Page 40290]]
(1) The chest in pendulum impact at 6.0 m/s develops a resistance
force between 1830 N and 2330 N at peak sternum deflection between 40.5
mm and 48.5 mm, and
(2) The force deflection plot is to have an internal hysteresis
between the loading and unloading portions of the curve between 69
percent and 85 percent.
E. Torso flexion
As with the thorax impact calibration test, the torso flexion
calibration test would be performed on a fully assembled, seated dummy.
The test procedure would determine the combined stiffness of the molded
lumbar assembly, abdominal insert, and chest flesh assembly resisting
articulation between the upper torso assembly and the lower torso
assembly. The resistance to flexion of the upper torso relative the
lower torso at 35 deg. of upper torso rotation would be required to be
between 190 N and 240 N. Upon removal of the force, the torso would be
required to return to within 8 degrees of it initial position.
VII. Benefits and Costs
Direct safety benefits to the public by the issuance of this
regulation are not quantifiable. However, the availability of this
dummy in a regulated format will have indirect safety benefits since it
will provide a more suitable, stabilized, and objective test tool to
the safety community for use in research and development of improved
after market and/or integrated restraint systems. In addition,
incorporation of the test dummy will permit CRS manufacturers to begin
offering new CRS systems commercially with certification that they have
been proof tested with an appropriately used and cert
