Advertisement

Comparison of Dynamic Response of Humans and Test Devices (Dummies)

  • L. M. Patrick

Abstract

Comparison of the dynamic response of humans and dummies is an ambiguous task since the inference is that a simple comparison is possible with a quantitative value or finite number of quantitative values available for comparison, while in fact it consists of comparing a finite number of variables with an infinite number. The dummy has a fixed number of parts and can, supposedly, be adjusted to have a fixed measurable force and/or torque displacement characteristics between the parts. The individual human, on the other hand, has a far greater number of parts that are connected by tissues of infinite adjustability. There are a relatively few dummies available, while the variety of humans is endless with new variations being produced daily. Thus, for the comparison to be meaningful it is essential that the dynamics of a single dummy type be compared to the dynamics of some limited, representative human under predetermined muscle tonus. Further, the comparison must be made under a range of identical acceleration environments.

Keywords

Dynamic Response Severity Index Human Cadaver Occipital Condyle Body Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    FMVSS 208 — 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant Crash Protection (effective January 1, 1972 ), Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 232, December 2, 1971.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. J. Mertz, Jr. — “The Kinematics and Kinetics of Whiplash”, Ph.D. Disertation, Wayne State University, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. J. Mertz and L. M. Patrick — “Investigation of the Kinematics and Kinetics of Whiplash” Eleventh Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, pp. 267–317, SAE Paper No. 670919, October 10–11, 1967, Anaheim California.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. L. Ewing and D. J. Thomas — “Human Head and Neck Response to Impact Acceleration” Report to Naval Aerospace Medical Laboratory, USAARL 73–1. August 10, 1972, Pensacola Florida.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. M. Patrick, C. K. Kroell and H. J. Mertz — “Forces on the Human Body in Simulated Crashes”, Ninth Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, Nolte Center for Continuing Education, University of Minnesota, 1966.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    IIT — “Design, Development and Fabrication of a Full Scale Anatomical Display”, Final Report to U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, Natick Mass., Contract No. DAAG17–70-C-0161.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. G. Rieser, J. Chabal and C. W. Lewis — “Low Velocity Impacts and Temperature Sensitivity of Automotive Windshields”, Fifteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, pp. 613–144, SAE Paper No. 710869, November 17–19, 1971, Coronado California.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. M. Patrick and R. P. Daniel — “Comparison of Standard and Experimental Windshields”, Eighth Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, pp. 147–166, October 21–23, 1964, Wayne State University, Detroit Michigan.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. R. Hodgson and L. M. Thomas — “Breaking Strength of the Human Skull vs. Impact Surface Curvature”, Final Report to Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., Contract No. FH-11–7609, June 1971, DOT HS-800 583.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. M. Patrick and K. R. Trosien — “Volunteer, Anthropometric Dummy and Cadaver Responses with Three and Four Point Restraints” Automotive Engineering Congress, Paper No. 710079, January 11–15, 1971, Detroit Michigan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. M. Patrick
    • 1
  1. 1.Wayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations