[Federal Register: December 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 240)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75342-75384]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14de06-13]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 572
Docket No. NHTSA 25442
RIN 2127-AJ16
Anthropomorphic Test Devices; SID-IIs Side Impact Crash Test
Dummy 5th Percentile Adult Female
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the agency's regulation on
anthropomorphic test devices to add specifications and qualification
requirements for the 5th percentile adult female crash test dummy,
called the SID-IIs Build Level D (``SID-IIs'') test dummy. The SID-IIs
dummy is instrumented in the head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis, which
enables it to assess in a comprehensive manner the performance of
vehicles in protecting small-stature occupants in side impacts. NHTSA
plans to use the SID-IIs dummy in an upgraded Federal motor vehicle
safety standard on side impact protection.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 12, 2007. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 12, 2007. If you
wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must
be received by January 29 2007.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, Room 5220, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590.
The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents 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 http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Stanley Backaitis, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone
202-366-4912). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992) (fax 202-366-3820).
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. Background
a. Need for the Dummy
b. Development of the SID-IIs
c. Development of the FRG and Build Level D Dummies
II. Response to the Comments on the FRG
III. Other Issues
a. Overview
b. How this Final Rule Differs from the NPRM
c. Description and Reference Materials
d. Biofidelity
e. Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R)
1. Component and Sled Tests Generally
2. Repeatability and Reproducibility Assessments
3. NPRM
4. Comments on the NPRM
5. Agency Response
i. Component Qualification Tests
A. Repeatability in Component Tests
B. Reproducibility in Component Tests
ii. Sled Tests
A. Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s
1. Repeatability in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s
2. Reproducibility in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s
B. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at MCW
C. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC
1. Repeatability in Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC
2. Reproducibility in Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC
iii. Conclusion
f. Pelvis of the Dummy
1. Pelvis Plug
2. Iliac Load Cell
3. Iliac Wing
g. The Shoulder with Arm Test
h. Other
1. Directional Impact Sensitivity
2. Toyota Suggests an Improved Upper Arm
3. Injury Assessment Reference Values
4. Reversibility
i. Test Dummy Drawing Package
1. Three-Dimensional (3-D) Shape Definitions
2. Material Specifications
3. Dummy Drawing Changes
IV. Qualification Procedures and Response Corridors
a. Qualification Procedures
b. Response Corridors
V. Dummy Performance in Full-Scale Vehicle Crash Tests
a. Oblique Vehicle-to-Pole Crash Tests
b. MDB Tests
c. Summary
VI. Conclusions
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Appendix A: Durability and Overload Analysis of the SID-IIsD Test
Dummy
NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
214, ``Side Impact Protection'' (49 CFR 571.214) by, among other
things, adopting a dynamic pole test into the standard (May 17, 2004;
69 FR 27990; Docket 17694; reopening of comment period, January 12,
2005, 70 FR 2105). The proposed pole test is similar to, but more
demanding than, that currently used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. In the
proposed pole test, a vehicle is propelled sideways into a rigid pole
at an angle of 75 degrees, at any speed up to 32 km/h (20 mph). The
NPRM proposed that compliance with the pole test would be determined in
two test configurations, one using a ``SID-IIs'' test dummy
representing 5th percentile adult females and the other using an ``ES-
2re'' test dummy representing mid-size adult males. Vehicles tested
with the SID-IIs would have to comply with a head injury criterion and
with thoracic and pelvic injury criteria developed for the new dummy.
The agency also proposed using the dummies in FMVSS No. 214's existing
moving deformable barrier (MDB) test, which simulates a vehicle-to-
vehicle ``T-bone'' type intersection crash.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the ``Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users,'' (SAFETEA-LU), P.L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 Stat.
1144), to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. Section
10302(a) of SAFETEA-LU provides:
Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash Protection Rulemaking.
(a) Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall complete a rulemaking
proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to
establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor vehicle
occupant protection, in all seating positions, in side impact
crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule by July 1, 2008.
At the time of the enactment of Sec. 10302(a), the agency's
notice of proposed rulemaking to upgrade FMVSS No. 214 was already
pending. The final rule completing the rulemaking proceeding will be
issued at a future date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document establishes the specifications and qualification
requirements for the SID-IIs 5th percentile adult female crash test
dummy which would be used in the upgraded FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM
preceding this Part 572 final rule was published on December 8, 2004
(69 FR 70947; Docket 18865; extension of comment period, March 8, 2005;
70 FR
[[Page 75343]]
11189). NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to amend 49 CFR Part 572 to
add the specifications for the 50th percentile adult male ES-2re test
dummy on September 15, 2004 (69 FR 55550; Docket 18864; reopening of
comment period, January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2105). The SID-IIs Build Level
D dummy has most of the features of the SID-II dummy proposed in the
NPRM preceding this final rule, except for the floating rib guide
design in the dummy's thorax. Commenters on the NPRM maintained that
the floating rib guide design in the dummy's thorax was unnecessary and
needlessly reduced the biofidelity and functionality of the dummy. Some
commenters suggested alternative means of improving the durability of
the dummy. After reviewing the comments to the NPRM and available test
data, we have decided to adopt many of the proposed design features of
the dummy, but not the design features that restricted vertical
movement of the dummy's ribs. The resulting dummy adopted today into
Part 572 is called the ``SID-IIsD'' dummy, for the SID-IIs Build Level
D test dummy.
Technical reports and other materials relating to the December 8,
2004 SID-IIs NPRM have been placed in the docket for that NPRM (Docket
18865) and in the docket for the May 17, 2004 NPRM proposing the pole
test upgrade to FMVSS No. 214 (Docket 17694). While technical materials
discussed in today's final rule generally have been placed in the
docket for today's rule (Docket 25442), occasionally an item might be
found in another docket. When we refer in this preamble to technical
materials, we will identify the docket where the item is filed.
In the May 17, 2004 FMVSS No. 214 NPRM, NHTSA proposed injury
criteria for the SID-IIs injury measuring instrumentation of the
dummy's head, thorax, and pelvis. HIC would be limited to 1000 measured
in a 36 millisecond time interval (HIC36). Lower spine
acceleration would be limited to 82 g. For pelvic injury, the maximum
of the sum of the measured acetabular and iliac force would be limited
to 5,100 N. The agency did not propose in the May 17, 2004 NPRM to
limit chest deflection because the agency wanted to obtain more data on
the rib deflection measurement capabilities of the proposed dummy. (A
technical report titled, ``Injury Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,''
discusses these proposed injury criteria. Docket 17694.)
I. Background
a. Need for the Dummy
Data from the 1990-2001 National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
and Crashworthiness Data System (CDC) show a need for a dummy that has
the capability of predicting the risk of injury to a segment of small-
statured vehicle occupants in side crashes. Table 1 shows the injury
distribution of the estimated target population less than 65 inches
(in) in stature in all types of side impact crashes between 12 and 25
mph delta V.
Table 1.--U.S. Motor Vehicle Small Stature Adult Occupant Population Injury Severity Distribution in Side
Crashes
[For delta-V of 12-25 mph]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body region MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatality Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head and face...................... 6706 1864 99 142 163 527 9049
Thorax............................. 4377 295 1213 671 11 446 7094
Abdomen............................ 264 86 20 112 27 96 670
Pelvis............................. 0 0 123 0 0 6 136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1990-2001 NASS/CDS data also indicate that there are
differences in the body region distribution of serious injuries between
small and medium stature occupants in these side collisions. The data
suggests that small stature occupants have a higher proportion of head,
abdominal and pelvic injuries than medium stature occupants, and a
lower proportion of chest injuries (Samaha et al, ``NHTSA Side Impact
Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test Procedures,'' 18th ESV
Conference Proceedings). Use of a small-statured dummy in side impact
testing, in addition to a mid-size adult male dummy, would better
represent the population at-risk in side impacts and substantially
enhance protection for small adult occupants.
b. Development of the SID-IIs
The development of a small, second-generation side impact dummy was
undertaken by the Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP), a
consortium of the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), and
dummy manufacturer First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS). (USCAR was
formed in 1992 by DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors as a
research and development organization.) The OSRP determined that there
was a need for a test dummy that would be better suited to help
evaluate the performance of advanced side impact countermeasures,
notably air bags, for occupants that are smaller than the 50th
percentile size male. The new dummy was named the SID-IIs: ``SID'' for
``side impact dummy,'' ``II'' for second generation, and ``s'' for
small.
The SID-IIs dummy was extensively tested in the late 1990s and
early 2000 in vehicle crashes by Transport Canada, and to a limited
extent by U.S. automobile manufacturers and suppliers, and the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Continuous use of the
SID-IIs dummy by various users uncovered some limitations and potential
structural problems of the dummy that led to modifications of and
upgrades to the dummy, resulting in OSRP's developing Build Levels A, B
and C versions of the dummy. NHTSA modified the Build Level C dummy to
develop a floating rib guide (``FRG'') design to address what were then
NHTSA concerns about the durability of the dummy, and proposed in the
December 8, 2004 NPRM to incorporate the SID-IIs with the floating rib
guide design (``SID-IIsFRG'') into 49 CFR Part 572.
c. Development of the FRG and Build Level D Dummies
In response to the comments on the NPRM, this final rule adopts a
version of the SID-IIs that has many of the design features of the
proposed FRG dummy, but not the particular floating rib guide design
that constrained the vertical motion of the dummy's ribs. This dummy is
referred to as the SID-IIs Build Level D dummy.
The Build Level D dummy is an outgrowth of the SID-IIsFRG, which
had originated from the Build Level C dummy. NHTSA's laboratory
evaluation of the biofidelity of the SID-IIs Build Level C dummy found
mechanical failures in chest displacement transducers and some ribcage
and shoulder structural problems. The
[[Page 75344]]
agency believed that much of the problem was caused by the ribs of the
Build C dummy not remaining constrained by the rib guides, which
allowed their vertical motion during some impactor and sled tests. The
agency was concerned the motion could affect the structural integrity
of the ribs and that of the deflection potentiometers, and could also
affect the accuracy of the deflection measurements. To address these
concerns, the agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) modified
the Build Level C dummy's thorax to incorporate the FRG (floating rib
guide) system to prevent the compressed ribs from leaving the outside
perimeter of the rib guides, and thereby prevent damage to the
deflection measurement system and surrounding areas. Rib guides were
used to ``float'' with the ribs as they expanded in the anterior-
posterior direction during rib compression. This was intended not only
to eliminate the problem of ribs' extending outside the boundaries of
the rib guides, but also to retain the ribs in their initial plane and
thereby prevent damage to the deflection potentiometer shaft. To
further prevent damage (bending) of potentiometer shafts and damage to
potentiometer housings, the rib stops were reshaped and changed from a
flexible urethane material to vinyl-coated aluminum. The maximum
lateral rib deflection of the dummy was also reduced from 69 mm to 60
mm to further protect the instrumentation.\2\ The modified dummy was
referred to as the ``SID-IIsFRG,'' the ``FRG'' indicating the addition
of the floating rib guide and other modifications to the dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FRG design also encompassed other changes to improve the
durability of the dummy. The shoulder rib guide of the dummy was
reshaped and deepened beyond the front edge of the shoulder rib to
keep the shoulder rib from moving vertically during its compression.
The damping material of the shoulder rib assembly was made thinner
and spanned the entire width of the steel band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 8, 2004 NPRM proposed to incorporate the SID-IIsFRG
into Part 572. While NHTSA tentatively determined there was a need for
the FRG modifications, the agency noted in the December 8, 2004 NPRM
that there were other views as to the need for the FRG changes to the
dummy (69 FR at 70954, footnote 21). The NPRM noted that Transport
Canada, IIHS and the industry have used the SID-IIs Build Level C dummy
to their satisfaction without the entirety of FRG modifications.
II. Response to the Comments on the FRG
NHTSA received comments on the December 8, 2004 NPRM from IIHS,
FTSS, Autoliv, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance),
Denton ATD, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Toyota Motor North
America, and several private individuals (Docket 18865). In addition,
many entities responding to the May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214
(Docket 17694) also commented on the proposal to use the SID-IIsFRG
dummy.
All commenters responding to the issue of the need for the FRG
design (Dockets 18865 and 17694) were strongly opposed to or were
concerned about adopting the SID-IIsFRG dummy. Some commenters
supported the use of an unmodified Build Level C dummy and/or a ``Build
Level D'' dummy, which the commenters said would be a Build Level C
dummy with many of the FRG enhancements developed by VRTC, except for
the floating rib guide changes that constrain the vertical rib motion.
Commenters believed that the Build Level C and Build Level D dummies
were sufficiently durable for crash tests.
In opposing the SID-IIsFRG (October 14, 2004 comment to the FMVSS
No. 214 NPRM (Docket 17694)), the Alliance stated that the OSRP SID-IIs
Upgrade Task Group \3\ had unanimously agreed to a majority of the
proposed enhancements developed by NHTSA, ``which are recommended as
either a running change to the Build Level C dummy or as major
modifications to be incorporated into the Build Level D dummy.''
However, the Alliance emphasized, OSRP steadfastly maintained that
there is no durability problem requiring the floating rib guide change
to the dummy's thorax. The Alliance stated that NHTSA's Vehicle
Research and Test Center (VRTC) (p. 11)--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Alliance stated that ``The OSRP SID-IIs Upgrade Task
Group is responsible for coordinating, evaluating and approving any
design modifications to the SID-IIs dummy, originally designed in
1994-95.'' Id., page 8.
proposed the addition of floating rib guides to the SID-IIs dummy
based on a small series of sled tests, including a single abdominal
offset sled test in which the ribs were damaged and exited the
original rib guides. The test was performed with an improperly
positioned and improperly scaled abdominal plate that simulated a
rigid armrest. This setup produced a very severe impact condition
for the SID-IIs (AF05) dummy. Instead of being scaled for the AF05,
the test was performed with an abdominal plate that was offset 100
mm, which are the test conditions for the ES-2 (AM50) dummy.
Further, the 100 mm offset is at the extreme end of the range of
armrest width in typical vehicles. In addition, the abdominal plate
is rigid and therefore provided a more severe impact surface than do
typically padded and deformable vehicle armrests. This test setup
produced an impact condition for the AF05 dummy more severe than
that of full-scale vehicle tests, since the dummy's ribs were
damaged in the sled test but no rib damage occurred in the vehicle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tests using the SID-IIs Version C.
The Alliance further stated that the agency's concern about the
accuracy of the acceleration and deflection measurements of the Build
Level C dummy due to the ribs' not staying in place ``does not follow
logically because it is quite normal to have the ribs deform during
impact by expanding in the fore-aft dimension of the chest. The fact
that they change shape and do not stay in place has nothing to do with
the accuracy of the deflection measurements.''
IIHS also objected to the agency's FRG design, finding the FRG
version of the SID-IIs to be ``an unacceptable and unnecessary
compromise of the original dummy's biofidelity to address an unproven
durability problem'' (March 4, 2005 comment to Docket 18865). IIHS
stated:
Not only have NHTSA's own vehicle crash tests failed to show any
durability problems with the original dummy design, but Institute
and industry experience confirms the dummy is durable enough for
crash testing. As of October 2004 the Institute had conducted 48
side impact tests with the SID-IIs dummies positioned in the driver
and rear outboard seating positions, for a total of 96 SID-IIs test
exposures. Of these only 6 caused any damage to the dummy; in 4
tests the dummy's shoulder was damaged, and in 2 tests one of the
abdominal ribs did not pass post-test verification. Similar trends
are found in the Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP)
dataset, which includes tests conducted by DaimlerChrysler, General
Motors, the Institute, and Transport Canada. Of the 241 SID-IIs test
exposures (or 1,446 exposures to the dummies' individual ribs), only
21 tests (8.7 percent) caused any dummy damage; of these only 3
tests (0.3 percent of total rib exposures) exhibited any evidence of
ribs catching on the vertical guides.
IIHS recommended that NHTSA adopt the SID-IIs Build Level C or the
Build Level D dummy into FMVSS No. 214. IIHS stated (Docket 18865):
Build Level D would incorporate many of the design upgrades
currently in the FRG version that would improve the dummy while
maintaining its high biofidelity rating. The changes IIHS supports
for build level D include redesign of the shoulder rib and rib
guide, neck mounting bracket, rib stops, and spine box. Using either
C- or D-level SID-IIs would permit the agency to draw on the dummy's
accumulated crash test experience
[[Page 75345]]
to incorporate rib deflection data among the FMVSS 214 requirements.
Some commenters expressed the view that the SID-IIsFRG dummy was
itself not adequate for incorporation into 49 CFR Part 572. The
Alliance stated that in full vehicle crash tests, there are significant
differences in the shape and magnitude of the chest deflection
responses of the SID-IIsFRG and the Build C dummy, with the SID-IIsFRG
having ``greatly reduced'' deflections. The Alliance stated that
researchers at Transport Canada and elsewhere found ``no flat-topping
in the original SID-IIs, but severe flat topping in the SID-IIsFRG.''
Nissan stated (Docket 17694) that it has observed scratching of the
SID-IIsFRG's rib guides created by rib contact and was concerned that
this phenomenon could reduce test repeatability using the dummy over
time, or may negatively affect the accuracy of the rib data.
Some commenters believed that it was more advantageous to adopt the
SID-IIs Build Level C or Build Level D dummy than the SID-IIsFRG. The
Alliance stated that the ISO 9790 biofidelity rating of the SID-IIsFRG
is only ``fair'' (5.9), while that of the SID-IIs Build C was ``good''
(7.0). IIHS expressed serious concern that the FRG modification ``has
considerably degraded'' the SID-IIs dummy's biofidelity. IIHS supported
the Build Level C or D dummies in the rulemaking because it would
permit the agency to incorporate rib deflection data in test
requirements. IIHS stated:
Without rib deflection limits for tests with the small dummy,
the proposed side impact standard will not establish the same
minimum levels of protection for vehicle occupants of various sizes.
It is disappointing that part of NHTSA's reason for not including
SID-IIsFRG rib deflection limits was the need to study the issue
further. By favoring the FRG modified dummy the agency is ignoring
the accumulated test experience with the original dummy.
Advocates expressed ``misgivings over the lack of chest deflection
measurement capability for the 5th percentile SID-IIsFRG female
dummy.'' Honda expressed concern that the SID-IIsFRG is not commonly
used by automakers today (Docket 17694). Honda stated that, ``The use
of SID-IIs [Build Level C or D] will expand because it is specified in
the [industry's] voluntarily commitment on FMVSS No. 214.'' TRW said
that using ``known and accepted'' test dummies could help expedite
motor vehicle manufacturers' meeting their ``voluntary commitment'' to
install inflatable side head protection systems (Docket 17694).
Agency response: After reviewing the comments and other
information, we have decided not to adopt the entirety of the FRG
design; this final rule adopts the SID-IIs Build Level D dummy (SID-
IIsD) into 49 CFR Part 572 for use in FMVSS No. 214.\4\ The SID-IIsD
dummy has the enhancements of the SID-IIsFRG without the thorax design
that prevents the compressed ribs from leaving the outside perimeter of
the rib guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A final rule adopting the Build Level D dummy into FMVSS No.
214 (49 CFR 571.214) will be published separately from this final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SID-IIsFRG floating rib guide concept was developed to improve
the durability of the SID-IIs dummy under extremely severe impact
conditions. We have concluded that test results do not support a need
for all of the floating rib guide design. The test conditions
precipitating the development of the FRG were exceptionally severe and
appear to be unlike vehicle crashes to which the crash dummy is
exposed.
The OSRP task group and IIHS noted that the type of damage reported
by NHTSA in VRTC sled tests was not experienced in their full scale
vehicle crash tests. Our own testing bears this out. Since the time of
the NPRM, NHTSA has used the SID-IIs (Build D) in over 24 oblique pole
and MDB vehicle crash tests without seeing structural or functional
problems with the dummy. In addition, the agency evaluated four SID-IIs
Build D dummies in extensive component, sled, and pole and MDB vehicle
crash tests without experiencing functionality and durability problems.
See Appendix A to this preamble, ``Durability and Overload Analysis of
the SID-IIsD Test Dummy.''
The Build D dummy has many of the enhancements of the SID-IIsFRG
and some enhancements similar to FRG features, including new rib stops,
larger motion ranges of potentiometers pivots, \1/2\ inch diameter
potentiometers, and enhancements to the shoulder structure. The
shoulder enhancements address bending deformation (including gouging
and/or delamination of the damping material) of the shoulder rib and
damage to the deflection transducer. All of these enhancements have
improved the structural integrity of the dummy and eliminated the need
for floating rib guides.
We further believe that there are advantages to adopting the SID-
IIsD dummy rather than the SID-IIsFRG beyond what is needed for the
durability of the dummy. As noted by the commenters, while the FRG was
very successful in containing the ribs within the rib guides and in
preventing potentiometer-transducer failures, the floating rib guides
added mass and additional stiffness to the ribs. As a result, the FRG
became less human-like, rib deflections seriously reduced, and the
shape of the deflection-time histories changed compared to testing
under similar loading conditions without the FRG.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OSRP minutes dated September 18, 2004 and August 8, 2003.
NHTSA Docket 25442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIHS uses the SID-IIs in its side impact consumer information
program. IIHS noted in its comments to the NPRM that the Build Level D
dummy would incorporate many of the design upgrades currently in the
FRG version that would improve the dummy while maintaining the dummy's
high biofidelity rating. Transport Canada plans to continue using the
SID-IIs in its research program. Using the SID-IIs Build Level D dummy
in FMVSS No. 214 means that the same dummy will be used in governmental
and non-governmental consumer information and research programs. This
consistency will enhance the testing of vehicles by making the test
results from NHTSA, Transport Canada, IIHS and industry in many ways
more comparable. Using the same test dummy will also more effectively
focus research and design efforts on more consistent and effective
countermeasures that will most successfully protect smaller stature
occupants.
For the aforementioned reasons, after reviewing the comments to the
May 17, 2004 (Docket 17694) and December 8, 2004 (Docket 18865) NPRMs
and available test data, including the performance of the SID-IIs dummy
in vehicle tests conducted with recent model year vehicles, we have
decided to adopt the majority of the features of the proposed dummy,
except for the floating rib guide that constrained the vertical motion
of the dummy's ribs. This dummy adopted today is the SID-IIs Build
Level D test dummy (``SID-IIsD'').
III. Other Issues
a. Overview
The agency received comments on the December 8, 2004 NPRM (Docket
18865) on issues other than those relating to the merits of the
floating rib guide design. These included comments on: the biofidelity
of the dummy; the adequacy of the agency's assessment of the
repeatability and reproducibility of the dummy (Alliance and Autoliv);
reported problems with the proposed pelvis plug test (the Alliance);
reported sensitivity of the dummy to oblique impacts (the Alliance);
the merits of the proposal to delete the shoulder with arm test
[[Page 75346]]
(Autoliv); suggested improvements to the upper arm of the dummy
(Toyota); and the injury assessment reference values that NHTSA should
use in tests with the dummy. In addition, comments were received on the
drawing package, qualification corridors, and other technical matters
of the NPRM. These and other comments are addressed in this section III
and in section IV of this preamble.
b. How This Final Rule Differs From the NPRM
In response to the comments and other information, we have
reconsidered some of the tentative decisions we made in the NPRM.
Notable changes are outlined below and explained in detail in this
preamble. More minor changes are not highlighted here, but are
discussed in the appropriate sections of this preamble.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, we have not adopted
the entirety of the ``floating rib guide'' components that were
proposed, notably the floating rib guide design that restricted
vertical movement of the dummy's ribs.
At the urging of commenters, we have reviewed the proposed
method of selecting and analyzing acetabulum plug characteristics
needed to assure consistent and reliable acetabulum responses in
compliance tests. After considering the results from a series of
pendulum impact tests, we selected a 3 mm pre-crush requirement to
determine the suitability of acetabulum plugs instead of the proposed
22-25 mm requirement.
Qualification of the pelvis using the acetabulum load cell
was proposed in the NPRM. This final rule includes a test of the iliac
load cell to assure that the iliac load cell as mounted in the dummy is
capable of repeatable and consistent response. The iliac test is
similar to the acetabulum pendulum test, with the impact point centered
on the iliac load cell.
c. Description and Reference Materials
Description
The following general description of the SID-IIsD is the same as
that of the SID-IIsFRG provided in the NPRM. The descriptions are
identical because the dummies are versions of the same.
The SID-IIsD has a mass of 44 kg (97 pounds) and a seated height of
788 millimeters (mm) (31 inches). The dummy is capable of measuring
accelerations, deflections and/or forces in the head, thorax, shoulder,
abdomen, lumbar spine, and pelvis body regions, as well as femurs.
The anthropometry and mass of the SID-IIsD are based on the Hybrid
III 5th percentile frontal female dummy and also generally match the
size and weight of a 12- to 13-year-old child. The head and neck
designs are based on the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. The
legs are Hybrid III 5th percentile female design available also with
femur load cell instrumentation.
At the same time, unlike the Hybrid III series of dummies, the SID-
IIsD's torso construction is particularly oriented for assessing the
potential for side impact injury. The dummy's upper torso is made up of
a rigid metallic spine to which six spring steel bands lined with
bonded polymer damping material are attached to simulate the impact
performance of the human shoulder (1 rib), thorax (3 ribs) and abdomen
(2 ribs). Linear potentiometers are attached from the ribs to the spine
for compression measurements. Provisions are available for mounting
tri-axial accelerometer packs to the spine at T1 and
T12 and at each rib.\6\ Replaceable foam pads are secured
directly to the ribs and a neoprene jacket covers the complete chest
assembly. The upper torso accommodates the attachment of the neck at
the upper end and the lumbar spine at the lower end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ T 1--sensor location on the dummy's thoracic
spine equivalent to the first cervical on the human thoracic spine.
T 1--sensor location on the dummy's thoracic spine
equivalent to the 12th cervical on the human thoracic spine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A stub arm on the impacted side is attached to the lateral aspect
of the shoulder through a three-axis load cell. Tri-axial accelerometer
packs can also be installed at the shoulder and at the upper and lower
parts of the stub arm for assessing injuries in upper extremities in
side crashes.
The dummy's pelvis is a machined assembly with detachable hard
urethane iliac wings at each side and covered by vinyl flesh. The
pelvis design is shaped in a seated human-like posture and allows the
attachment of the lumbar spine at its top and the legs at the left and
right sides. The pelvis can be impacted from either side without any
change in hardware. Foam crush plugs at the hip joint, which are
replaced after each impact, are used to control the lateral pelvis
response. The pelvis design allows the measurement of impact loads at
the acetabulum and iliac wing as well as accelerations at the pelvis
center of gravity (cg).
Reference Materials for the Dummy
The specifications for the SID-IIsD consist of: (a) A drawing
package containing all of the technical details of the dummy; (b) an
parts list; and (c) a user manual containing instructions for
inspection, assembly, disassembly, use, and adjustments of dummy
components. These drawings and specifications ensure that SID-IIsD
dummies will be the same in their design and construction. The
drawings, parts list and user manual are available for examination in
the NHTSA docket for this final rule (Docket 25442). Copies of those
materials may also be obtained from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New RT,
18810 Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20879, telephone (301)
670-0090.
d. Biofidelity
Biofidelity is a measure of how well a test device duplicates the
responses of a human in an impact. As discussed in the NPRM, two
methods are currently available for assessing the biofidelity of a
dummy in side impact testing. These are: (a) An International
Organization of Standardization (ISO) procedure, referred to as ISO
Technical Report (TR) 9790, which determines the biofidelity of a dummy
by how well the dummy's body segment and/or subsystem impact responses
replicate cadaver responses in defined impact environments; and (b) a
NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System.\7\ The latter method determines the
dummy's biofidelity based on two assessment measures: the ability of a
dummy to load a vehicle or some other type of an impact surface as a
cadaver does, termed ``External Biofidelity''; and the ability of a
dummy to replicate those cadaver responses that best predict injury
potential, termed ``Internal Biofidelity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System method was reported by
Heather Rhule et al., in a technical paper in the 2002 Stapp Car
Crash Journal, Vol. 46, p. 477, ``Development of a New Biofidelity
Ranking System for Anthropomorphic Test Devices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO Technical Report 9790 Methodology
The biofidelity requirements defined in ISO TR 9790 are based on
two types of head drop tests, three types of lateral neck bending
tests, four types of shoulder impact tests, six types of lateral
thoracic tests, five abdominal test conditions, and thirteen lateral
pelvis impact tests. The measured response values are assessed on their
fit to the established cadaver response corridors.
The ISO rating system is based on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0
signifying total lack of biofidelity and 10 signifying that the body
segment has a biofidelic response much like that of a human subject.
Once the ratings are established for each body segment, the overall
dummy's biofidelity is calculated and
[[Page 75347]]
its ranking determined using the following classification scale: 0 to
<=2.6 (Unacceptable); <=2.6 to <=4.4 (Marginal); > 4.4 to <=6.5 (Fair);
>6.5 to <=8.6 (Good); >8.6 to <=10 (Excellent).
The NPRM stated that the ISO methodology was used by OSRP members
to evaluate the SID-IIsFRG in September 2004 ( Technical Summary of
OSRP-SIDIIs Upgrade,'' September 2004, Docket 18865). The SID-IIsFRG
received an ISO Biofidelity rating of 5.9, which corresponds to a
``fair'' classification. Scherer et al. had rated the SID-IIs Beta
prototype dummy a rating of 7.0, placing it in the ISO classification
of ``good.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Scherer et al. ``SID IIs Beta+-Prototype Dummy Biomechanical
Responses,'' 1998, SAE 983151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, the agency stated that a biofidelity rating of the
SID-IIs and SID-IIsFRG compare favorably with other side impact
dummies. The overall ES-2re \9\ dummy's biofidelity rating was
determined to be 4.6, while the SID (49 CFR part 572 subpart M) and
EuroSID-1 dummies received ratings of 2.3 and 4.4,\10\ respectively.
The SID/HIII received an overall rating of 3.8 (63 FR 41468).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The ES-2re dummy is a 50th percentile European designed
adult male side impact crash test dummy that the agency has proposed
to use in the proposed upgrade of FMVSS No. 214 (69 FR 27990,
supra).
\10\ Byrnes, et al. ``ES-2 Dummy Biomechanical Responses,''
2002, Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, 2002-22-0014, p.
353.
\11\ The biofidelity rating for the SID dummy used in FMVSS No.
214 is 2.3. The rating for the SID/HIII of 3.8, using the ISO
method, reflects use of the special purpose side impact HIII head
and neck as noted in 63 FR 41468, August 4, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: In its comment, the Alliance provided recalculated ISO
9790 biofidelity scores for the SID-IIs Build Level C (SID-IIsC) and
the SID-IIsFRG test dummies. The overall biofidelity score for the SID-
IIsC dummy was 6.8 (classification of ``good''), while the SID-IIsFRG
dummy had a score of 6.1 (``fair''). The commenter expressed concern,
as did IIHS, that the FRG modification lowered the SID-IIsC dummy's
biofidelity score.
Agency response: In the SID-IIs Upgrade Task Group draft meeting
minutes for May 25, 2006, the OSRP provided calculations for the SID-
IIsD and SID-IIsD + biofidelity ratings (Docket 25542).
(This final rule SID-IIsD version is equivalent to the OSRP
D+ version.) The SID-IIsD received an overall score of 6.0
(``fair'') and the SID-IIsD + a score of 6.2 (``fair''),
which is comparable to the ISO 9790 rating of the SID-IIsFRG, while the
overall biofidelity score for the SID-IIsC dummy was 6.8 (``good'').
Table 2, below, ``Updated OSRP SID-IIs Biofidelity Ratings,'' shows the
biofidelity scores for the SID-IIs C, FRG, D and D +
dummies.
Table 2.--Updated OSRP SID-IIs Biofidelity Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO 9790 Biofidelity Scores for the SID-IIs (excellent >8.6 to 10;
good >6.5 to 8.6; >fair >4.4 to 6.5; marginal >2.6 to 4.4;
unacceptable 0 to 2.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Segment/Build Level.................... ``C'' FRG ``D''* ``D+''**
Head Biofidelity (B1)....................... 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Neck Biofidelity (B2)....................... 5.2 4.7 5.1 5.1
Shoulder Biofidelity (B3)................... 6.2 5.1 5.2 5.8
Thorax Biofidelity (B4)..................... 7.9 6.6 5.2 6.6
Abdomen Biofidelity (B5).................... 7.4 6.9 7.6 7.7
Pelvis Biofidelity (B2)..................... 5.5 5.2 5.3 4.3
Overall Biofidelity (B)..................... 6.8 6.1 6.0 6.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Build Level D (BLD) by OSRP designation without VRTC upgrades for rounded shoulder rib guide.
** BLD+ by OSRP designation is equivalent to NHTSA designated SID-IIsD dummy with rounded shoulder rib guide.
As shown in the above table, the SID-IIsD has a very satisfactory
ISO 9790 biofidelity rating. Its rating is markedly higher than that of
the SID (ISO 9790 biofidelity rating of 2.3) and SID/HIII (ISO 9790
biofidelity rating of 3.8) side impact test dummies used today. Both of
the latter dummies have performed well in the Federal motor vehicle
safety standards, and have facilitated the installation of effective
life-saving countermeasures.
NHTSA Biofidelity Ranking System
The biofidelity ranking system developed by NHTSA (Heather Rhule,
et al., supra) consists of an assessment of the dummy's External
Biofidelity and Internal Biofidelity. The Overall External and Internal
Biofidelity ranks are an average of each of the external and internal
body region ranks, respectively. A lower biofidelity rank indicates a
more biofidelic dummy. A dummy with an External and/or Internal
Biofidelity rank of less than 2.0 is considered to respond much like a
human subject.
The NHTSA ranking system is based on a variety of cadaver and dummy
exposures, such as head drop tests, thorax and shoulder pendulum tests,
and whole body sled tests. The NHTSA ranking system also includes
abdominal and pelvic offset sled test conditions. Each test condition
is assigned a weight factor, based on a number of human subjects
tested, to form a biomechanical response corridor and the relevance of
the biofidelity test to the intended test environment. For each
response requirement, the cumulative variance of the dummy response
relative to the mean cadaver response (DCV) and the cumulative variance
of the mean cadaver response relative to the mean plus one standard
deviation (CCV) are calculated. The ratio of DCV/CCV expresses how well
the dummy response duplicates the mean cadaver response: a smaller
ratio indicating better biofidelity.
Although this method does not establish an ``absolute'' ranking
scale, the ranks provide a relative sense of the ``number of standard
deviations away'' the dummy's responses are from the mean human
response. Rhule conducted an analysis and found that if the dummy's
biofidelity ranking is below two, then the dummy is behaving similar to
the human cadaver. The evaluation methodology provides a comparison of
both dummy response to cadaver response as well as a comparison of two
or more dummies.
The NPRM provided a comparison of external and internal
biofidelities of SID-IIsFRG, the ES-2re and the SID/HIII test dummies.
Data indicated that the SID-IIsFRG dummy had Overall External
Biofidelity comparable to that of the ES-2re and better biofidelity
than the SID/HIII dummy. At the body segment level, the SID-IIsFRG
produced
[[Page 75348]]
better External Biofidelity ranks than the ES-2re in the Head/Neck,
Thorax and Abdomen and worse ranks than the ES-2re in the Shoulder and
Pelvis. The SID-IIsFRG produced better External Biofidelity ranks than
the SID/HIII in all body regions except the Head/Neck. Based on the
Overall External and Internal Biofidelity ranks, the agency tentatively
concluded that the SID-IIsFRG and the ES-2re dummies were nearly
equivalent and lower (better) than the SID/HIII dummy. The NPRM also
noted that the SID-IIsC and the SID-IIsFRG dummy responses were
substantially comparable to the mean cadaver responses and to each
other. 69 FR at 70951, footnote 11.
To establish the biofidelity rankings for the SID-IIsD dummy, the
agency reran some of the biofidelity tests using the SID-IIsD dummy
(Heather Rhule et al., ``Biofidelity Assessment of the SID-IIs Build
Level D Dummy,'' hereinafter Biofidelity Assessment report, April 2006,
Docket 25442). These tests, conducted at the Medical College of
Wisconsin (MCW), included:
(a) A rigid flat wall test at 6.7 m/s, one dummy, one test each--
Flat wall (dummy's arm down);
Pelvis lead (76 mm) with dummy's arm down;
Abdominal lead (97 mm) with dummy's arm at 90 degrees from
vertical forward;
(b) A padded wall test at 6.7 m/s, one dummy--
Flat wall (dummy's arm down);
(c) And rigid and padded wall tests at 8.9 m/s, one dummy, one test
each--
Flat wall (dummy's arm down).
In reviewing the data from sled tests of the SID-IIs Build Level D
at MCW, it was observed that the impact speed was faster than the
impact speed from comparable SID-IIsFRG testing performed previously at
the same lab. Because the Build Level D test results were intended to
compare directly with the lower speed FRG test results, the force,
displacement, and acceleration responses of the Build Level D dummy
were scaled using the momentum and energy balance formulas to the delta
V observed in the similar test with the FRG. The scaling factor is the
ratio of the maximum delta V calculated from T12 lateral acceleration
of the Build Level D and FRG dummies. NHTSA determined that the
momentum equation (F*deltaT=m*deltaV) was appropriate to scale for
force between two tests (F1/F2=deltaV1/deltaV2), under the assumption
that the mass and deltaT are constant between the tests (i.e., the time
period is the same) and the stiffness of the dummy is about the same at
different deltaVs.
The actual process of scaling the Build Level D results was based
on the measured change in velocity determined from the dummy's T12
lateral accelerometers. The delta velocity of the FRG dummy and the
Build Level D (BLD) dummy was obtained by integrating the T12 lateral
accelerometers, and the ratio of FRG to BLD delta velocity was
calculated for each test. This ratio, shown in Table 3, was then used
to scale results for the BLD dummy.
Table 3.--Scale Factors Used To Correct BLD Data Due to Increased Impact Velocity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum delta V
calculated from FRG to BLD
Test condition SID-IIs dummy design Test < greek- T12 lateral delta V
i> acceleration (m/ ratio
s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HPF..................................... BLD....................... 301 13.1454 0.88806
FRG....................... 269 11.6739
HRF..................................... BLD....................... 302 13.0473 0.93985
FRG....................... 270 12.2625
LPF..................................... BLD....................... 292 9.60399 0.87947
FRG....................... 265,267 8.44641
LRF..................................... BLD....................... 294 10.3005 0.9219
FRG....................... 268 9.49608
LRA..................................... BLD....................... 303 7.848 0.8375
FRG....................... 275 6.5727
LRP..................................... BLD....................... 296 8.95653 0.90361
FRG....................... 273 8.09325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 4 and 5 show the External and Internal Biofidelity ranks,
respectively, for the SID-IIsFRG, SID-IIsD, SID/HIII and ES-2re
dummies. The SID-IIsFRG and BLD and ES-2re ranks were calculated based
primarily on sled testing at the Medical College of Wisconsin and
impactor testing at VRTC and MGA. The SID-IIsFRG, SID/HIII and ES-2re
biofidelity ranks have been calculated previously and presented in
Docket 18865. The SID-IIsD dummy data traces and the ``standard''
response corridors are shown in Appendix A of the Biofidelity
Assessment report, id.
External Biofidelity
Table 4 indicates that External Biofidelity of the FRG and BLD
versions of the SID-IIs dummy both have similar overall ranks at 2.5
and 2.6, respectively. This biofidelity is very good, is similar to
that of the ES-2re, and is better than that of the SID/HIII. The BLD
External Biofidelity ranks are better than those of the SID-HIII for
the shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvis. The head/neck biofidelity of
the SID-HIII is somewhat better than the BLD, but both provide human-
like responses. The BLD External Biofidelity ranks for the head/neck
and thorax are better than those of the ES-2re. However, the ES-2re
External Biofidelity ranks for the shoulder, abdomen and pelvis are
better than those of the BLD.
Table 4.--External Biofidelity Rankings of Side Impact Dummies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SID-IIsFRG SID-IIsD SID/HIII ES-2re
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Rank................................................ 2.6 2.5 3.8 2.6
Head/Neck................................................... 1.8 1.8 1.0 3.7
Shoulder.................................................... 2.6 2.1 5.1 1.4
Thorax...................................................... 2.8 2.7 6.1 2.9
[[Page 75349]]
Abdomen..................................................... 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.6
Pelvis...................................................... 3.4 3.5 3.8 2.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Biofidelity
Internal Biofidelity of the FRG and BLD versions of the SID-IIs
dummy (Table 5) have similar overall ranks at 1.5 and 1.6,
respectively. As both ranks are less than 2.0, it indicates that both
dummies would respond quite like cadavers when considering the
instrumentation used within the dummy. Since the head design did not
change between the FRG and BLD, the FRG data was used to rank the head
for both the FRG and BLD, thus obtaining the exact same rank for both.
The remainder of the body regions had similar ranks between the FRG and
BLD, with the largest discrepancy being 0.5 in the abdomen.
The overall Internal Biofidelity of the BLD is the same as that of
the ES-2re and similar to that of the SID/HIII. The BLD Internal
Biofidelity ranks are better than those of the SID/HIII for the head,
thorax and pelvis. Since the SID/HIII has no measurement capability in
the abdomen, no rank was given. The BLD Internal Biofidelity ranks for
the head and pelvis are better than those of the ES-2re. However, the
ES-2re Internal Biofidelity rank for the thorax is slightly better than
that of the BLD. Since the ES-2re has no measurement capability in the
abdomen comparable to what can be measured in a post-mortem human
subject, no rank was given.
Table 5.--Internal Biofidelity Rankings of Side Impact Dummies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SID-IIsFRG SID-IIsD SID/HIII ES-2re
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Rank................................................ 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.6
Head........................................................ 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.0
Thorax...................................................... 1.8 2.1 2.2 1.8
Abdomen..................................................... 2.0 2.5 n/a n/a
Pelvis...................................................... 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The SID-IIsD and SID-IIsFRG Overall External and Internal
Biofidelity ranks are quite similar. The SID-IIsD Overall External and
Internal Biofidelity ranks are comparable to those of the ES-2re. The
SID-IIsD Overall External Biofidelity rank is much better than that of
the SID/HIII, but its Overall Internal Biofidelity rank is only
slightly better than that of the SID/HIII.
The agency concludes that the SID-IIsD based on NHTSA Internal
Biofidelity ranking of 1.6 is as humanlike, if not more so, than any
other side impact dummy. Similarly, based on the ISO 9790 Biofidelity
scoring methodology, the Build Level D dummy with a score of 6.2
(``fair'') has a much higher Biofidelity rating than all of the side
impact dummies in current use. The agency concludes that all
biofidelity indicators support the SID-IIsD dummy's suitability for use
in occupant injury risk assessment in side impact crash testing.
e. Repeatability and Reproducibility (R&R)
1. Component and Sled Tests Generally
The agency's analysis of the repeatability and reproducibility \12\
of the SID-IIs was based on component tests and a series of sled tests.
In the tests, the impact input was carefully controlled to minimize the
variability of external effects on the dummy's response. Component
tests were conducted on the SID-IIs's head, neck, shoulder, thorax with
arm, thorax without arm, abdomen, and pelvis acetabulum and iliac
regions. In sled tests the primary measures of interest were the HIC,
chest and abdomen deflections, T1, T12 and pelvis accelerations, lumbar
spine and acetabulum loadings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Repeatability refers to a similarity of responses of a
single dummy measured under identical test conditions.
Reproducibility refers to the smallness of response variability
between different dummies of the same design under identical test
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component tests are better controlled than is possible in sled and
vehicle tests, and thus produce more reliable estimates of the dummy's
repeatability and reproducibility. Component tests are also used to
qualify the dummy's performance relative to the established response
corridors for each major body segment. That is, if the dummy's
component is or becomes deficient, the qualification test will identify
to the user that the component will not respond properly in impact
tests, and that a replacement of parts should precede further testing.
Sled tests offer a method of efficiently evaluating the dummy as a
complete system in an environment much like a vehicle test. The SID-IIs
test dummies were positioned on a bench seat mounted to a sled. During
the test, the SID-IIs dummies slid down the bench seat and impacted the
rigid load wall. Sled tests established the consistency of the dummy's
kinematics, its impact response as an assembly, and the integrity of
the dummy's structure and instrumentation under controlled and
representative crash environment test conditions.
2. Repeatability and Reproducibility Assessments
We used the Coefficient of Variation (CV) in percentage as a
measure of repeatability. A CV value of less than 5 percent is
considered excellent, 5-8 percent good, 8-10 percent acceptable, and
above 10 percent unacceptable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ISO/TC22/SC12/WG5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability of the dummy was assessed on two levels. The agency
first identified those measurements that comprise injury assessment
reference values (IARVs) proposed or considered for use in the May 17,
2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214. The repeatability of those measurements was
assessed based on the 10 percent CV limit. Second, the agency
identified measurements that were not used in the proposed IARVs, but
are of interest as monitored indicators of potential injuries. A CV
above 10 percent value for these latter
[[Page 75350]]
measurements is not necessarily considered unacceptable.
The reproducibility assessment of the dummy is derived through
statistical summation of data from repeatability tests of multiple
dummies. Reproducibility is related more to the measurement of design
quality, and manufacturing precision and consistency. Inasmuch as any
dummy used for compliance purposes must conform to the performance
specifications of Part 572, reproducibility is not a measure of the
dummy's acceptance or exclusion from Part 572. However, if the
population of dummies as a group exceeds the CV by 15%,
this would be a sign of concern that the dummy manufacturing process is
flawed. The reproducibility of dummies is judged on the following
qualitative scale: CV of 0-8% is ``excellent''; CV of 8-12% is
``good'', 12-15% ``acceptable''; and CV over 15% is ``poor.''
3. NPRM
The NPRM stated that two SID-IIsFRG dummies were tested and exposed
to both component and sled test conditions multiple times to determine
the dummy's ability to respond consistently in a human-like manner. The
NPRM tentatively concluded that the two test dummies demonstrated
excellent or good repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) in component
and sled tests. The results of the component tests indicate
``excellent'' repeatability for the SID-IIsFRG dummy for all components
except for the thorax with arm, which has a ``good'' rating. The
results of the component tests generally indicated ``excellent'' to
``good'' reproducibility for the dummy for all components. The pelvis
lateral acceleration was the only elevated reproducibility response at
a CV of 9.1 (``acceptable''). The agency believed that some of this
elevated variability was due to inconsistent force-deflection
characteristics of the pelvis plug used in those dummies, which was not
subjected to force-deflection limits that had been proposed in the
NPRM. The results of the sled tests indicated generally excellent or
good R&R results for the dummy. Instances of elevated CV for pelvis
responses were thought to be due to the variability of the pelvis plug
responses.
4. Comments on the NPRM
The Alliance disagreed with NHTSA's finding that the R&R of the
SID-IIsFRG responses established the suitability for use in the agency
side impact test programs, because only two dummies were evaluated. The
Alliance argued for tests with more than two dummies in a
reproducibility evaluation program, believing that R&R cannot be
adequately assessed with only two dummies in one laboratory. Autoliv
also was concerned that the assessment of the R&R of the dummies was
based on a ``rather limited sample of dummies.''
5. Agency Response
As discussed above in this document, after considering the comments
on the NPRM, NHTSA has decided to incorporate numerous SID-IIsFRG
features, except for the proposed floating rib guide design, described
in the NPRM into the SID-IIsD dummy. The SID-IIsD dummy has the design
features that NHTSA wishes to adopt of the FRG design and not those
that it has decided, after review of the comments, to be unnecessary.
NHTSA also retained for the SID-IIsD essentially all of the
qualification test procedures that were proposed in the NPRM for the
SID-IIsFRG version, as supplemented with the shoulder test and the
iliac test.
To fully assess the R&R of the SID-IIsD dummy, following the NPRM
the agency evaluated four SID-IIsD dummies at two facilities. (These
dummies are referred to by serial numbers 032, 033, 020 and 056.) The
additional testing also addressed the concerns of the Alliance and of
Autoliv about the sample size used in the previous R&R assessment. We
analyzed the response data from R&R tests of these dummies, as well as
data from qualification tests performed as our vehicle and sled test
program progressed. The R&R and vehicle test programs yielded large
amounts of response data from each impacted body area consisting of
some 394 individual impact tests.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Listing of all responses and their statistical analysis may
be found in the technical report in docket No.18865 under the title
``Development of Calibration Performance Specifications for the SID-
IIsD Crash Test Dummy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evaluation of the R&R of the SID-IIsD is described in the
following technical reports (see Docket 25442): ``Repeatability and
Reproducibility Analysis of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the
Certification Environment,'' Jessica Gall, MGA, December 2005, and
``Repeatability, Reproducibility and Durability Evaluation of the SID-
IIs Build Level D Dummy in the Sled Test Environment,'' Felicia L.
McKoy et al, January 2006.
i. Component Qualification Tests. A. Repeatability in Component
Tests. The initial assessment of the dummy's repeatability by component
tests was performed with SID-IIsD dummies 032 and 033 upon their
refurbishment with new body parts.\15\ See ``Repeatability and
Reproducibility Analysis of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the
Certification Environment,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The dummies were originally SID-IIsFRG dummies. They were
refurbished when they were converted to SID-IIsD dummies. Floating
rib guide components constraining vertical rib movement were
removed, and replaced by BLD designated parts. Worn parts were
either refurbished or replaced with new ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 lists dummy responses from initial repeatability tests,
consisting of five repeated sets of qualification test type impacts of
dummies 032 and 033 (except for the iliac qualification test, which
consisted of 5 repeated impacts each for iliacs L1 (left side) and R1
(right side) on dummy 033). (Repeated impact tests were performed on
dummy 033 right iliac to determine if response differences existed
between the left and right sides. Since the responses were virtually
identical, the left and right side impact responses were merged.) The
data are compiled and calculations made to include the following
information for each repeated set: averages, standard deviations (SD),
and coefficients of variation (CV). The data show that the CVs for
repeatability of measurements covered by IARVs are all in the
``excellent'' range.
Table 6.--Repeatability of Retrofitted SID-IIsD 032 and 033 Dummies in Qualification-Type Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. 032 Serial No. 033
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mean SD CV *** Mean SD CV ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head
Resultant Accel. (g)...................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
[[Page 75351]]
Peak X Accel (g).......................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Neck
Peak D-Plane Rotation (deg)............... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Peak Lat. Flex Moment (N-m)............... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Time Moment Decay (ms).................... n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Shoulder--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm).............. 33.5 0.09 0.26 33.6 0.27 0.89
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (G's) *........ -18.4 0.23 1.27 -17.9 0.20 1.14
Thorax w. Arm--Impact Speed (6.7m/s)
Impact Speed (m/s)........................ 6.7 0.01 0.20 6.7 0.01 0.13
Probe Force (kN).......................... 4.8 0.03 0.70 4.51 0.05 1.10
Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm).............. 37.6 0.70 1.86 39.0 0.41 1.05
Upper Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)........ 29.0 0.16 0.55 30.1 0.29 0.97
Middle Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)....... 33.6 0.37 1.09 33.7 0.31 0.91
Lower Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)........ 34.8 0.50 1.42 35.3 0.44 1.25
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)............ 40.1 0.62 1.54 37.9 1.07 2.83
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)............ 31.6 1.40 4.41 29.3 0.72 2.47
Thorax w/o Arm--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
Upper Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)........ 35.8 1.04 2.90 37.6 0.68 1.81
Middle Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)....... 42.3 0.58 1.36 42.5 0.58 1.37
Lower Thoracic Rib Deflection (mm)........ 39.3 0.62 1.58 39.8 0.71 1.79
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)............ 8.4 0.32 3.77 7.8 0.29 3.74
Abdomen--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm)....... 40.6 0.48 1.18 41.8 1.41 3.37
Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm)....... 38.2 0.78 2.03 39.3 1.35 3.44
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)............ 13.2 0.25 1.93 13.2 0.71 5.42
Acetabulum--Impact Speed (6.7 m/s)
Pelvis Y Acceleration (g)................. 43.9 1.17 2.66 47.4 1.36 2.86
Acetabulum Force (kN)..................... 3.9 0.06 1.42 3.9 0.08 2.13
Iliac--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s) **
Pelvis Y Acceleration (g)................. 28.6 1.10 3.86 31.9 1.05 3.29
Iliac Force (kN).......................... 4.0 0.09 2.34 4.4 0.15 3.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Second set of repeat shoulder qualification tests conducted solely to establish upper spine qualification
corridors.
** Six different iliac wings and four different pelvis skins were used to formulate the statistics for these
test responses using dummy 033.
*** CV=SD/Mean x 100.
B. Reproducibility in Component Tests. In Table 7 below,
information on the reproducibility of dummies 032 and 033 under highly
controlled, consecutive qualification tests are compared to the
reproducibility of dummies 032, 033, 020 and 056 that were evaluated in
conjunction with qualification tests performed as part of sled and
vehicle tests. The reproducibility assessment was established by
combining the responses of the dummies from all of the qualification
tests and calculating the combined mean and the CV values for each set
of tests. Data in Table 7 indicate that newly refurbished dummies 032
and 033 in repeated consecutive tests have slightly lower CV values
than summation of all dummies that have been used in other crash tests.
As some of the dummies have been subjected to more than 10 crash tests,
this continuous use is reflected in slightly larger CVs, indicating a
shift within the excellent towards the good category, and in only one
instance (the lower spine acceleration value in the thorax without arm
test) did the reproducibility shift into the good range.
Table 7.--Reproducibility of Dummies 032 and 033 and the Composite of All Dummies in Qualification Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. 032 & 033 (newly Serial No. 020, 032, 033 & 056
retrofitted) --------------------------------
---------------------------------
Mean SD CV *** Mean SD CV ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head:
Resultant Accel. (g).......................... n/a n/a n/a 128.2 4.32 3.37
Neck:
Peak D-Plane Rotation (deg)................... n/a n/a n/a 74.25 1.09 1.47
Peak Lat. Flex Moment (N-m)................... n/a n/a n/a 42.1 1.48 3.52
Time Moment Decay (ms)........................ n/a n/a n/a 114.3 2.28 2.0
Shoulder Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
Shoulder Rib Defl. (mm)....................... 33.5 0.21 0.63 33.4 1.65 4.93
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)................ -18.2* 0.35* 1.9* -18.2 0.32 1.77
Thorax w Arm--Impact Speed (6.7 m/s)
[[Page 75352]]
Shoulder Rib Deflect (mm)..................... 38.3 0.92 2.41 35.6 2.74 7.70
Upper Rib Defl. (mm).......................... 29.6 0.60 2.04 28.5 1.40 4.92
Middle Rib Defl. (mm)......................... 33.7 0.32 0.96 32.5 1.21 3.73
Lower Rib Defl. (mm).......................... 35.0 0.51 1.46 34.6 1.10 3.17
Lower Spine Accel. (g)........................ 30.5 1.61 5.27 31.7 1.69 5.34
Thorax w/o Arm--Impact Speed
(4.3 m/s)
Upper Rib Deflect. (mm)....................... 36.7 1.25 3.41 36.3 1.77 4.86
Middle Rib Deflect. (mm)...................... 42.4 0.56 1.32 41.6 1.01 2.43
Lower Rib Deflect. (mm)....................... 39.6 0.70 1.76 39.4 1.61 4.08
Lower Spine Accel. (g)........................ 8.1 0.42 5.23 8.7 0.73 8.42
Abdomen--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s)
Upper Rib Defl. (mm).......................... 41.2 1.16 2.82 42.8 2.06 4.81
Lower Rib Defl. (mm).......................... 38.7 1.19 3.07 42.5 3.24 7.62
Lower Spine Accel. (g)........................ 13.2 0.50 3.84 12.58 0.71 5.68
Acetabulum--Impact Speed (6.7 m/s)
Pelvis Lateral Accel. (g)..................... 45.6 2.12 4.64 45.7 2.20 4.81
Acetabulum Force (kN)......................... 3.9 0.07 1.67 4.02 0.16 3.89
Iliac--Impact Speed (4.3 m/s) **
Peak Lateral Accel. (g)....................... 30.0 2.01 6.70 29.6 1.73 5.86
Iliac Force (kN).............................. 4.2 0.21 4.91 4.1 0.20 4.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] New plug used for each test.
* Second set of repeat shoulder qualification tests conducted solely to establish upper spine qualification
corridors.
** Six different iliac wings and four different pelvis skins were used to formulate the statistics for these
test responses using dummy 033.
*** CV = SD/Mean x 100.
ii. Sled Tests. Sled tests of the SID-IIsD dummies were conducted
to determine the repeatability and consistency of the dummy's impact
response in an environment more similar to full vehicle crash tests
than qualification-type tests. See, ``Repeatability, Reproducibility
and Durability Evaluation of the SID-IIs Build Level D Dummy in the
Sled Test Environment,'' supra.
The performance of each of the SID-IIsD dummies was evaluated in
five repeated tests at 6.0 m/s. At the Medical College of Wisconsin,
dummies 032 and 033 were tested in a deceleration sled. They impacted
laterally a ``Heidelberg'' type three segment flat rigid wall with and
without an armrest attached to it. In tests at the Transportation
Research Center (TRC), test dummies 020 and 056 were placed in the HYGE
sled to impact laterally a flat rigid wall with an armrest attached to
it.
The SID-IIsD was evaluated using the test configurations to which
the SID-IIsFRG was exposed (69 FR at 70952). The tests involved: (a)
The dummy impacting a flat wall at 6.0 m/s with the lateral aspect of
its torso, pelvis and lower extremities, with the dummy's arm oriented
in the down position (lowest detent); and (b) tests conducted at 6.0 m/
s with an abdomen offset block on the load wall, with the dummy's arm
oriented 90 degrees forward to the inferior superior axis of the torso.
The abdomen offset test provides a test environment with severe loading
of the abdominal region.
A. Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s. Table 8 provides a summary of
the responses of dummies 032 and 033 in flat wall tests at 6 m/s. The
data is presented by the mean, standard deviation and percent CV for
the responses of 5 sled tests for each dummy (repeatability) as well as
their composite responses (reproducibility).
Table 8.--Repeatability and Reproducibility of SID-IIsD 032 and 033 Dummies in Flat Wall Sled Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability Reproducibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. 032 Serial No. 033 Serial No. 032 & 033
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean SD CV * Mean SD CV * Mean SD CV *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC............................................ 62.0 5.0 8.0 67.9 4.6 6.8 64.9 5.6 8.7
T1 acceleration................................ 42.7 0.6 1.3 42.3 2.0 4.7 42.5 1.5 3.5
Shoulder Rib Defl. (mm)........................ 41.4 1.9 4.5 41.3 0.8 2.0 41.4 1.5 3.5
Upper Rib Defl. (mm)........................... 32.8 1.6 4.9 36.5 0.7 2.0 34.7 2.2 6.4
Middle Rib Defl. (mm).......................... 37.0 2.0 5.3 40.3 0.7 1.7 38.7 2.2 5.8
Lower Rib Defl. (mm)........................... 38.7 2.5 6.5 44.2 0.8 1.9 41.4 3.3 8.0
T12 acceleration............................... 59.1 2.8 4.7 57.9 2.7 4.6 58.5 2.8 4.8
Abd.Upper Rib Defl. (mm)....................... 29.6 3.4 11.5 39.5 0.9 2.2 34.6 5.5 16.0
Abd.Lower Rib Defl. (mm)....................... 14.9 0.5 3.4 16.8 0.8 4.5 15.6 1.1 7.1
Pelvis Lateral Accel. (g)...................... 68.0 4.2 6.2 71.1 8.8 12.3 69.5 7.1 10.2
Acetabulum Force (kN).......................... 3.89 0.185 4.8 3.9 0.039 1.0 3.89 1.34 3.4
[[Page 75353]]
Iliac Force (kN)............................... -0.28 0.001 4.4 -0.26 0.002 7.0 -0.27 0.002 6.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CV = SD/Mean x 100.
1. Repeatability in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s. The data in
Table 8 for each of the dummies indicate excellent and good CV's for
repeatability for all IARV-based measurements. For non-IARV
measurements, the repeatability for most measurements is also good to
excellent, with only a few exceptions. For dummy 033, the pelvis
lateral (Y) and resultant accelerations have CVs of 12.3 and 12.4,
respectively. For dummy 032, the abdomen rib 1 displacement
has a CV of 11.5. The above test results indicate that the dummy is
capable of providing excellent and good repeatable measurements in flat
wall rigid surface impact environment.
2. Reproducibility in Flat Wall Sled Tests at 6.0 m/s. The data
presented in Table 8 shows the reproducibility of the two dummies for
IARV measures are at the excellent level. For non-IARV measurements,
the reproducibility for pelvis lateral acceleration at 10.2 is
considered good, and at 16.0 the upper abdominal rib deflection is just
outside the satisfactory range at the poor level.
B. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at MCW. The abdominal offset test
set-up with simulated armrest was the same as in 6.0 m/s flat wall
tests, except that the barrier had a wooden armrest attached to the
impact surface, and the dummy's arm was oriented 90 degrees forward of
torso superior-inferior axis. The simulated wooden armrest was 58 mm
deep, 76 mm wide, 250 mm long. Dummies 032 and 033 were employed at MCW
for these tests.
During the repeatability assessment of dummies 032 and 033 at MCW,
several body segments showed CV measures that were not rated as either
good or excellent repeatability. A thorough video review was conducted
on the kinematics of the dummies and their interaction with the armrest
and impact wall. The review of the crash event indicated that early
armrest contact of the abdomen caused the dummies' upper torso to start
leaning somewhat towards the barrier. During this process, the shoulder
rib of the dummy interfaced with and became ``snagged'' by the upper
edge of the thoracic force plate, causing the shoulder to dwell in the
hung-up position for several milliseconds. The snagging was
particularly evident in tests SD320 and SD322, in which the shoulder
force went into tension after 70 ms. The snagging interaction also
changed the profile of the shoulder loading curve of these two tests
compared to the other three tests in the series. Inasmuch as the rest
of the tests also indicated the effects of snagging, though to a lesser
extent, it was decided to redo the test series with a higher load cell
wall using the HYGE sled at TRC.
C. Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC. In view of the experience
with shoulder snagging at MCW, the agency repeated the armrest test
series at TRC with newly refurbished dummies 020 and 056 in the HYGE
sled. The test set-up was the same as at MCW except that the upper edge
of the barrier thoracic loading plate was set approximately 2.5 in
above the shoulder pivot.
Table 9 provides a summary of peak responses of dummies 020 and 056
in the TRC sled test series with simulated arm rest.
Table 9.--Repeatability and Reproducibility of SID-IIsD 020 and 056 Dummies in Flat Wall Sled Tests with Simulated Armrest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatability Reproducibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. 020 Serial No. 056 Serial No. 020 & 056
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean SD CV* Mean SD CV* Mean SD CV*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIC............................................ 80.7 1.4 1.7 81.3 2.8 3.4 81.0 2.2 2.7
T1 acceleration................................ 59.2 5.7 9.7 53.4 5.6 10.5 56.3 6.4 11.3
Shoulder Rib Defl. (mm)........................ 49.1 0.5 1.0 53.2 0.8 1.5 51.2 2.1 4.2
Upper Rib Defl. (mm)........................... 26.4 0.7 2.6 24.7 0.4 1.7 25.6 1.0 4.0
Middle Rib Defl. (mm).......................... 11.7 0.2 1.6 11.5 0.3 2.4 11.6 0.3 2.2
Lower Rib Defl. (mm)........................... 12.6 0.4 3.0 12.7 0.3 2.3 12.7 0.3 2.7
T12 acceleration............................... 38.3 1.7 4.3 37.5 1.7 4.4 37.9 1.7 4.5
Abd. Upper Rib Defl. (mm)...................... 49.6 0.2 0.4 49.1 0.2 0.4 49.3 0.3 0.7
Abd. Lower Rib Defl. (mm)...................... 48.2 0.9 1.8 45.7 0.4 0.8 47.0 1.4 3.0
Pelvis Lateral Accel. (g)...................... 72.5 0.6 0.8 65.1 0.9 1.4 68.8 3.8 5.5
Acetabulum Force (kN).......................... 3.44 0.03 0.9 3.36 0.05 1.5 3.40 0.55 1.6
Iliac Force (kN)............................... -0.32 0.005 1.8 -0.29 0.005 1.6 -0.30 0.016 5.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CV = SD/Mean x 100.
1. Repeatability in Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC.
Repeatability of the responses for IARV assessment in sled tests of
dummies 020 and 056, as shown in Table 9, were all excellent, except
that the T1 acceleration of dummy 20
[[Page 75354]]
had a CV at 9.7 and a CV of 10.5 for dummy 56 which is borderline
acceptable.
The good to excellent CVs in repeatability tests of the dummies
conducted at TRC illustrate that the arm snagging by the upper top edge
of the barrier was the cause of poor dummy repeatability at MCW and
that the dummy itself might not be the source of the problem.
2. Reproducibility in Abdominal Offset Sled Tests at TRC. To assess
the reproducibility of dummies in sled tests, the repeatability
responses of common measurements for both dummies were pooled for the
calculation of mean response values, standard deviations and their
respective CVs. Similar to flat wall sled tests, data in Table 9
indicate that armrest tests on the whole have shifted somewhat towards
wider variability from their individual repeatability values. The
addition of the armrest however, has not altered the reproducibility
levels of the dummy responses. All pertinent IARV values are well
within excellent reproducibility range.
iii. Conclusion. To enhance the quality and the quantity of
available data, the agency evaluated four SID-IIsD dummies at two
facilities. The response data from the dummies in sequentially repeated
component tests indicated the repeatability and reproducibility of the
dummy's impact responses to be excellent to good. Continued
qualification tests of the four SID-IIsD dummies during their extensive
use in sled and vehicle crash tests produced somewhat higher levels of
response variability in component tests, but not enough to shift them
out of excellent and good repeatability and reproducibility ranges.
Nearly all of the dummy responses corresponding to IARVs injury
assessment values fell into good to excellent repeatability categories.
In addition, we found reasonably good match and overlap of dummy
responses and respective coefficient of variation (CV) values between
NHTSA SID-IIsD and a much larger SID-IIsC dummy population reported by
FTSS in docket comments (``Development of Calibration Performance
Specifications for the SID-IIsD Crash Test Dummy,'' supra). This
finding of a good match confirms that the upgrades to bring the SID-
IIsFRG to the SID-IIsD level have not affected either the response or
the repeatability of the dummy.
The SID-IIsD dummies were evaluated for repeatability and
reproducibility in a variety of sled tests. The SID-IIs dummies showed
the repeatability and reproducibility of the dummy's responses to be
excellent to good for the relevant injury assessment measurements under
consideration for use in FMVSS No. 214, as proposed at 69 FR 27990. For
the reasons provided above, the agency concludes that the SID-IIsD
dummy is a suitable, reliable and consistent dummy to warrant
incorporation into 49 CFR Part 572 and FMVSS No. 214.
f. Pelvis of the Dummy
The agency noted in the NPRM that it was concerned about the
repeatability of the data obtained in tests of the SID-IIs's pelvis (69
FR at 70592). As discussed in the NPRM, during the agency's evaluation
of the R&R of the dummy, NHTSA observed that some of the data traces of
the dummy's pelvis acceleration showed an inconsistent first peak in
the data trace that was generated by the probe's impact.\16\ NHTSA
believed that the inconsistency of the first peak acceleration response
could partly be attributed to an absence of control over aspects of the
dummy that affect the consistency of the pelvis responses. To improve
the consistency of the pelvis responses, the NPRM included provisions
that provide checks on the performance of various parts of the dummy's
pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Summary of the NHTSA Evaluation of the SID-IIsFRG Side
Impact Crash Test Dummy Including Assessment of Durability,
Biofidelity, Repeatability, Reproducibility and Directional
Sensitivity'' (November 2004), Docket 18865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pelvis Plug
In the pelvis qualification test developed by dummy manufacturer
FTSS, the pendulum impact probe is centered on the pelvis plug that is
mounted within the pelvis flesh cavity in front of and in line with the
acetabulum load cell's longitudinal axis at the H-point of the dummy.
Because there was practically no control over the stiffness
characteristics of the SID-IIs plugs, the agency believed that
inconsistency of the first peak acceleration response was caused by
variability of the crush characteristics of the pelvis plugs (i.e.,
variability of the resistance force during compression) rather than by
other characteristics of the dummy (69 FR at 70953). Thus, to improve
the consistency of all of the dummy's pelvis responses as well as the
force values measured by the impact probe, the agency proposed to
control the crush characteristics of the pelvis plug.
NHTSA developed a force-displacement corridor for the pelvis plug
and a test procedure for measuring the force-displacement
characteristics of the plugs. The proposed procedure involved
evaluating a plug by quasi-statically compressing it to a deflection
range between a proposed range of 22 to 25 mm and a corresponding
resistance force between 1920 and 2160 Newtons (N) at minimum
compression and 2000 to 2240 N at maximum compression. Under the
proposed procedure, only plugs that met the specified force levels at
prescribed compression would be ``certified'' for use in a side impact
test using the dummy.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ A pelvis plug can only be used once per either vehicle
crash test or pelvis qualification application. In the pelvis
qualification test procedure under consideration, a certified plug
is inserted into the pelvis cavity of the dummy and the dummy's
pelvis is qualified according to the Part 572 test procedure. Since
the pelvis plug can only be used once, after the dummy's pelvis is
qualified, the plug must be discarded and a new ``certified'' plug
is inserted into the pelvis cavity prior to the vehicle crash test.
The agency stated in the NPRM that it believed that ``Carefully
controlled and certified crush characteristics of the plugs will
assure that their use will produce consistent and reliable pelvis
response in the impact environment.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received: The Alliance believed that the 22-25 mm
deflection range was excessive. The commenter stated that FTSS
conducted ``numerous tests to understand the effects of different
amounts of pre-crush on the pelvis plug and has tentatively determined
that a 2 mm pre-crush provides the greatest consistency for the quasi-
static force deflection performance of the pelvis plug.'' FTSS in its
comments noted that it has evaluated SID-IIs dummies with a variety of
plugs having different pre-crushes. It observed ``that the plug
properties change after each test if the quasi-static compression is
higher than 3 mm. With 25 mm of compression the plug properties change
significantly, which stiffens the pelvis response as well''. FTSS
further stated that studies of plugs pre-crushed to a number of depth
levels show that ``* * *the plug properties have no noticeable change
with a 2 mm compression specification. The 2 mm compression can be
repeated without damaging the plug. The tests can also distinguish
between plugs with different stiffness.''
Agency Response. Adopting a force-displacement corridor for the
pelvis plug and the proposed test procedure to control the crush
characteristics of the pelvis plug are warranted to improve the
consistency of the dummy's pelvis responses. However, upon review of
the Alliance and FTSS comments, the agency evaluated the effects on
pelvis response by plugs of several pre-crush depths. We have
determined that a 22-25 mm crush specification is too high and does
stiffen the pelvis response excessively. We have also determined
[[Page 75355]]
that a nominal 3 mm pre-crush procedure would more assuredly sort out
differences between plugs having different crush properties than a 2 mm
pre-crush procedure. Accordingly, we selected a compression force
requirement that pelvis plugs must exhibit when pre-crushed to a depth
of 2.5-3.5 mm. The pelvis plug crush development is discussed in the
technical report entitled, ``SID-II Pelvis Plug Certification
Development,'' Alena Hagedorn and Heather Rhule, May 3, 2006, Docket
25442. The pre-crush procedure and certification requirements are set
forth in the plug drawing 180-4450.
2. Iliac Load Cell
Along with specifying proposed stiffness characteristics for the
pelvis plug to improve consistency in the pelvis responses, the
December 8, 2004 NPRM proposed performance limits on the peak
acceleration of the pelvis and the peak force responses of the
acetabulum and iliac load cells when subjected to the proposed pelvis
qualification test. However, in that test, the impact probe contacts an
area of the dummy covering just a small part of the iliac load cell,
resulting in a minimal force on the iliac load cell.\18\ (See ``SID-IIs
Iliac Certification Development,'' Alena V. Hagedorn, August 2006,
Docket 25442.) A question arose as to whether the qualification
procedure for the pelvis should more fully assess the properties of the
iliac load cell. The Alliance noted in its comment to the NPRM (Docket
18865-35) that there could be higher loads from the iliac load cell
than the acetabulum load cell, and suggested that the qualification
test should limit both the iliac and acetabulum loads. We too observed
that in agency pole and MDB side crash tests, impacts into the iliac
area were occurring quite frequently and at magnitudes sometimes
equaling and sometimes exceeding the loadings imparted to the
acetabulum. Because the May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 proposed
that the sum of the acetabular and iliac forces would be used for the
pelvic injury criterion, it appeared prudent to have a procedure that
checks the response consistency of the iliac load cell as installed in
the dummy's pelvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The NPRM proposed in Sec. 572.197(c)(4) that the peak
iliac wing force (load cell) response would have to be not less than
524 N and not more than 730 N. Because the impact probe in the
proposed procedure barely exercised the iliac load cell, the
proposed iliac load cell loads were much less than the proposed
acetabulum loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Response. After considering the comments and other
information, the agency has decided that the proposed pelvis
qualification test should continue to measure the properties of the
acetabulum load cell, and should also have a comparable procedure that
involves impacting the iliac region for assessing the properties and
repeatability of the iliac load cell response. The pelvis test will
consist of the acetabulum impact test, and an impact test conducted on
the iliac load cell area of the pelvis as well (see ``SID-IIs Iliac
Certification Development,'' id.). In the iliac load cell test, a 13.97
kg impactor is accelerated to 4.30.1 meters per second (m/
s) and directed laterally into the pelvis such that its impact surface
strikes the centerline of the iliac access hole in the iliac load cell.
Performance limits are adopted for peak impactor and pelvis lateral
accelerations and peak iliac forces. In addition, the procedure calls
for use of a thin steel plate between the iliac wing and iliac load
cell to prevent the iliac wing urethane material from deforming and
offloading a portion of the iliac load cell measurement, which can
affect the repeatability of test results. Id. The iliac test procedure
will ensure the validity and repeatability of the data produced by the
iliac load cell and the pelvic responses of the dummy.
3. Iliac Wing
During the course of NHTSA's R&R evaluation of the SID-IIsD, the
agency observed that our SID-IIs set of left side wings had been used
extensively for several years in numerous crash exposures, and was
showing signs of wear. The agency decided to obtain six new iliac wings
from the dummy manufacturer producing the dummies at the time (FTSS)
for iliac R&R tests. During quasi-static and dynamic impact tests of
the six new iliac wings, it was observed that the wings produced
approximately 20% lower impact responses (softer) than previously-
tested wings. NHTSA contacted FTSS and was informed that formulation of
the urethane materials for currently-manufactured wings changed in
2004, as the material previously used was no longer available. (Agency
memorandum, June 1, 2006, Docket 18865, number 18865-36.)
All agency vehicle and sled testing of the SID-IIs dummies was done
with pelves equipped with pre-2004 iliac wings. We estimate \19\ that
in crash tests the softer iliac wings would lower the average driver
occupant pelvis force approximately 8% and that of the passenger about
3%. In only one of 25 dummy occupants responses reviewed would the
pelvis IARV change from just being above the IARV limit to just being
below. In view of these findings, the agency decided to specify the
softer iliac wing for the SID-IIsD dummy. Accordingly, all of the
pendulum response data have been revised to reflect the softer iliac
wings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Based on calculated adjustments of the total force on the
pelvis by taking into account lower impact responses of the softer
iliac wing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. The Shoulder With Arm Test
Although a shoulder qualification test in which the dummy's
shoulder has to meet deflection and acceleration limits was described
in the FTSS user manual for the SID-IIs dummy, the agency tentatively
concluded that the qualification test was redundant to a thorax with
arm test and was thus unnecessary. The agency made this tentative
determination because both the shoulder with arm test and the thorax
with arm test produced identical shoulder response values in our
evaluation of the dummy.
Comments on the NPRM: Both Autoliv and the Alliance urged the
agency to adopt the separate shoulder qualification test developed by
FTSS. The commenters believed that the shoulder test provides needed
data specifically about the shoulder rib performance, and that it can
influence dummy kinematics in full scale crash tests.
Agency Response: We agree with the commenters that the shoulder
with arm test has merit, and that it should be included in today's
regulation. The thorax with arm test is conducted with the dummy's arm
in the ``down'' position, with the impact probe contacting the dummy 93
mm below the centerline of the shoulder yoke assembly arm pivot
(measured along the length of the arm). The shoulder with arm test is
conducted with the arm positioned so that it points forward at 90
degrees relative to the centerline of the dummy's thorax, with the
pendulum impact probe impacting the centerline of the rubber shoulder
plug.
The shoulder with arm test is needed to assess properly the
performance of the dummy's shoulder. In the agency's pole and MDB
tests, we observed that the shoulder of the small female dummy was one
of the first body segments to contact the vehicle structure. Because of
this, we believe that the response of the shoulder has implications on
subsequent dummy kinematics and impact responses and should thus be
evaluated in a separate qualification test. To assure that the shoulder
impact response is not influenced by the arm's interaction with parts
of the torso, the
[[Page 75356]]
test procedure requires the arm of the dummy to be in the raised
position.
Accordingly, this final rule includes a separate shoulder with arm
test. The test specifies that the shoulder is impacted with a 14 kg,
120.7 mm diameter probe at 4.4 m/s. The impact probe experiences a
maximum deceleration of not less than 14 g and not more than 18 g, and
the concurrent shoulder deflection is between 30-37 mm. Peak lateral
acceleration of the upper spine (T1) is not less than 17 g and not more
than 19 g.
h. Other
1. Directional Impact Sensitivity
The NPRM stated that limited NHTSA tests indicated that the SID-
IIsFRG dummy's thoracic and abdominal rib deflections were reduced in
+30 and +15 degree pendulum tests, as compared to deflections resulting
from pure lateral pendulum impacts. Also, the SID-IIsFRG's peak lateral
acceleration of the upper and lower spines in oblique pendulum impacts
showed, as compared to non-oblique lateral impacts, elevated ratios
(compared to non-oblique) of the upper spine in abdominal impact at +15
degrees (1.27), and higher ratios of lower spine (3.22) and upper spine
(2.20) accelerations in +30 degree impacts. The agency explained,
however, that the loading of the dummy in the pendulum tests is unlike
the loading experienced in a vehicle crash test. The agency tentatively
concluded that, while the dummy demonstrated some sensitivity to impact
direction in the pendulum tests, this demonstration has not been
established as being relevant to loading conditions in vehicle tests.
Comments on NPRM: The Alliance said it believed that laboratory
pendulum tests show that the SID-IIs dummies ``exhibit sensitivity to
impact direction that can adversely affect the ability of the dummy to
accurately measure deflection* * *. As the impact angle increases, the
peak rib deflection decreases.'' The commenter believed that in single
rib oblique angle pendulum tests, the Build Level C rib was able to
deflect more freely than the FRG rib, but this caused the potentiometer
shaft to be oriented off axis to the housing, which resulted in the
shaft scraping along the inside of the housing causing noise in the
data response. The commenter believed that based on these data, it
would be premature to require thoracic injury criteria (deflection and
acceleration) in oblique loading conditions for the SID-IIsFRG.
Agency Response: With regard to comments pertaining to the effect
of the floating rib guides on the SID-IIs's deflection measurement
capabilities, this final rule does not adopt the guide mechanism. With
regard to comments opposed to the use of SID-IIs dummies in oblique
impacts to measure rib deflection, NHTSA wanted to obtain more
information on the SID-IIsFRG's rib deflection measurement capability
under oblique loading conditions before proceeding with a proposal
limiting rib deflections in oblique side impact tests (69 FR at 28006).
We did not propose to use rib deflections in FMVSS No. 214, and the
final rule on adopting the pole test into FMVSS No. 214 will not
include an injury assessment reference value limiting the rib
deflection of the SID-IIsD.
However, we do not agree with the comments opposing use of the
dummy's chest acceleration measurements in oblique impacts. In our
vehicle pole and MDB test program using the SID-IIsD, we did not
observe ``noise'' in the data responses caused by the potentiometer
shaft scraping along the inside of the housing or by any other factor.
The SID-IIsD's acceleration responses in vehicle crash tests appeared
to be fully satisfactory (see Section V of this preamble, ``NHTSA Crash
Test Experience,'' infra), as were the deflection responses.
We also do not believe that the SID-IIsD's response characteristics
in the oblique pendulum tests demonstrate that the dummy is unsuitable
for assessing the risk of thoracic injury in oblique vehicle tests. The
two test environments are very different. The pendulum has a small and
rigid impact face and a relatively small mass that is intended to load
a specific localized region of the dummy. In contrast, in a vehicle
crash test, an intruding vehicle structure loads the dummy in multiple
areas during a collision. The intruding area is usually fairly large,
is typically energy absorbing, changes its configuration, and changes
its direction of impact force during the crash. No commenter provided
vehicle crash test data showing consistent increases or decreases in
the dummy responses due to oblique loading. Further, as noted in the
NPRM, the directional sensitivity of the dummy in 15
degree impacts appears at most comparable to or less than those of
other side impact dummies. The agency's 49 CFR part 572, subpart F SID
dummy has been successfully used in FMVSS No. 214's oblique MDB impact
since 1990.
2. Toyota Suggests an Improved Upper Arm
Toyota stated in its comments that the current SID-IIs upper arm is
not biofidelic and that it negatively affects the thoracic rib
responses. Toyota stated that the SID-IIs upper arm is stiffer, smaller
and lighter than the human arm. The commenter believed that the arm
increases deflection responses of the upper and middle thoracic ribs.
Toyota stated that it has developed a biofidelic upper arm, which was
used in Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 50 km/h side
impact tests. According to Toyota, when compared to the results
measured by the current SID-IIs arm, the upper rib deflection for the
driver was reduced by 4.3 mm. Toyota claims that the reductions are
even more pronounced for the rear passenger, showing upper and middle
thoracic rib deflections lowered by 13.5 mm and 7.6 mm, respectively,
as well as a decrease in upper rib acceleration. Toyota noted that the
modified arm resulted in a slight decrease in shoulder biofidelity, but
overall whole dummy biofidelity was improved from 6.24 to 6.35. Toyota
believed that the biofidelity rating of the SID-IIs prototype with the
modified arm would maintain an overall rating of ``fair.''
Agency Response: Toyota has not established the need for or
usefulness of the new arm as it relates to the FMVSS No. 214 rulemaking
underway or generally to the prediction of the risks of occupant
injury. We do not believe that this rulemaking should be delayed to
ascertain the improvements to the SID-IIs's arm. The OSRP is compiling
data on the Toyota proposed arm modifications and will be examining
their effect on the biofidelity and usefulness of the dummy. Meanwhile,
NHTSA believes that the current arm of the dummy is acceptable. The
agency is satisfied with the biofidelity of the current SID-IIs arm and
will proceed with this rulemaking to adopt the Build Level D dummy into
part 572.
3. Injury Assessment Reference Values
In the May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214, NHTSA proposed the
following injury assessment reference values (IARVs) for use with the
SID-IIs: HIC36 would be limited to 1000; lower spine lateral
acceleration would be limited to 82 g; and the sum of the measured
acetabular and iliac force would be limited to 5,100 N. The agency did
not propose in the May 17, 2004 NPRM to limit chest deflection because
the agency wanted to obtain more data on the rib deflection measurement
capabilities of the dummy.
[[Page 75357]]
Comments Received: The agency received comments on the IARVs in
response to both the May 17, 2004 NPRM (Docket 17694) and the December
8, 2004 NPRM (Docket 18865). Comments on the proposals in the FMVSS No.
214 rulemaking on the IARVs used with the SID-IIs will be addressed in
that rulemaking proceeding rather than in today's final rule. (These
comments include, for example, whether FMVSS No. 214 should limit lower
spine (T12) acceleration of the SID-IIs.) Comments relating to the
ability of the dummy to measure the relevant injury assessment values
accurately and with acceptable repeatability and reproducibility have
been addressed in this final rule. All tests conducted and/or analyzed
to support the incorporation of the SID-IIsD dummy into Part 572 have
shown reliable and repeatable responses suitable for the qualification
testing required.
4. Reversibility
The NPRM explained that the SID-IIs is designed to have equivalent
performance when impacted from either the left or right side. Most
agency tests have been left side impacts. To convert the dummy's impact
side from left to right side and vice versa, the entire dummy's thorax,
abdomen, and shoulder structure, upon disengagement of the neck and of
the lumbar spine at the lower torso interfaces, is rotated as a unit
around the vertical axis with respect to the neck and the lumbar spine
without any further modifications.
No comments were received on the reversibility of the dummy. The
agency has determined that the dummy is appropriate for use for both
right and left side impacts. The method for reversing the dummy for use
in either left-or right-side impacts is discussed in the Procedures for
Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection (PADI) document for the SID-IIsD
dummy.
i. Test Dummy Drawing Package
The SID-IIs test dummy is specified by way of a drawing package,
parts list, PADI users manual, and performance qualification tests. The
two-dimensional drawings and the PADI ensure that the dummies are the
same in their design and construction. The performance qualification
tests serve to establish the uniformity of dummy assembly, structural
integrity, consistency of impact response and adequacy of
instrumentation. The repeatability of the dummy's impact response in
vehicle certification tests is thereby ensured.
Both Denton ATD (DATD) and FTSS suggested changes to the drawing
package. DATD believed that to be ``complete,'' the specification
package must have a ``definition of all 3 dimensional shapes with a
pattern (definition of surfaces) with tolerances and complete material
specifications.''
1. Three Dimensional (3-D) Shape Definitions
DATD recommended that NHTSA specify 3-D patterns, either physical
or electronic, ``for all complex dummy parts.'' DATD suggested that
NHTSA should make available physical patterns made from stable
materials, and that the 3-D patterns ``must be stored and maintained by
NHTSA to have traceability for the rule, and must be available now and
as long as the rule is in effect to anyone who wants to verify the
basic shape of dummy components or start building the dummy.''
Agency Response: We are denying the request to provide 3-D patterns
to specify the dummy. The SID-IIsD drawings are comparable in detail to
all other dummies previously incorporated into 49 CFR part 572. No
dummy specification in Part 572 contains 3-D patterns. This is because
3-D patterns are unnecessary in inspecting whether the dummy is
acceptable for use in an agency test, and in some respects, would be
overly design restrictive. The drawing package sets forth the criteria
that the agency uses to determine acceptability of the dummy through an
inspection process. The drawing package is not intended for use in
manufacturing a dummy, or to ensure the interchangeability of parts
between dummies manufactured by different business entities. Although
the agency does not provide 3-D drawings, shape dimensions are provided
in the form of surface widths, lengths, and circumferences. The drawing
package specifies features that are important to establish the
appropriate anthropometry and composition of the dummy. The test device
is typically intended to be representative of a segment of an
identified population, e.g., small adult females. Accordingly, the
dimensions and mass of the dummy are specified to ensure that the dummy
physically represents the population intended. The dimensions, mass
distribution and range of motion of dummy parts are also specified to
ensure that the kinematics of the test device in a crash test
replicates that of the human occupant and to assure that the dummy's
instrumentation performs as intended. The PADI document also provides
procedures for a dummy's assembly and disassembly during inspection.
The document insures that a dummy inspection is carried out using
uniform disassembly procedures and in a proper sequence.
The performance specifications that are set forth in 49 CFR part
572 establish the impact response requirements for the dummy. To
determine the acceptability of a dummy, the dummy is inspected for its
conformance to the drawing package and is tested according to the
qualification tests in part 572. The agency conducts impact tests for
individual body segments and their assemblies, and on the dummy as a
whole to determine acceptance. The impact qualification tests and
associated instrumented measurements address the accuracy and
consistency of dummy responses in crash events.
The two-dimensional drawings, PADI document and impact performance
requirements enable the establishment of an objective, repeatable test
device. Dummies reflecting the configuration of the parts and their
assemblies contained in these drawings have been successfully used for
the development and evaluation of occupant protection systems in a
variety of simulated and full-scale crash tests. Use of the two-
dimensional drawings limited to minimal but critical specifications
affords dummy manufacturers an amount of flexibility to generate their
own manufacturing and process drawings and to use whatever procedures
are needed to facilitate production, which would be constrained if the
drawings and other specifications were specified such as by use of 3-D
patterns. Such restrictions in the design and production of the test
dummy by government regulation is unnecessary, may impede technology
development and manufacturing innovation, and may increase the costs of
test dummies and crash tests. If manufacturers want more explicit
design and manufacturing specifications and construction instructions
to enable them to interchange parts among different test devices, the
dummy manufacturers could work with or through technical societies and
manufacturer associations to attain their desired objectives.
For the aforementioned reasons, the agency is not specifying three-
dimensional (3-D) patterns for the dummy parts.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Although two-dimensional drawing specifications are
sufficient for agency rulemaking purposes, we will explore the
feasibility of developing three-dimensional scans for future
research and development purposes. Furthermore, for a period of 180
days following publication of this final rule, we will have
available for public inspection one of the SID-IIsD dummies used by
the agency in the development of the rule. To make arrangements to
inspect the dummy, contact Dr. Bruce Donnelly at NHTSA's Vehicle
Research and Test Center, P.O. Box B37, East Liberty, Ohio 43319, or
by telephone at 1-800-262-8309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75358]]
2. Material Specifications
DATD stated that the drawings lacked sufficient specification of
materials necessary to manufacture a reproducible dummy. DATD
recommended that NHTSA provide performance-based specifications for all
materials. ``For materials, the drawing should call out the density
with a tolerance, minimum tensile strength, and hardness with a
tolerance. For materials that require a dynamic performance (such as
rubbers, urethanes, foams), they should have basic performance-based
specifications such as density with a tolerance, some stiffness
specification with a tolerance, and a measure of the damping of the
material with a tolerance.''
Agency Response: The agency does not have the resources to provide
the detailed performance-based specifications recommended by DATD for
all materials used in the dummy, nor do we believe it is necessary to
provide such exhaustive specifications. We have added ``or equivalent''
to the drawing when particular plastic or rubber materials are
specified. The drawing package can provide a starting point for
material selection, but the non-metallic materials referenced in the
drawings are not required to be used to exact specifications as long as
the material that is used has functional, density and stiffness
similarities enabling the dummy to meet the drawing package
specifications and the dynamic performance requirements in the 49 CFR
Part 572 qualification tests. The materials used by the dummy
manufacturer do not have to be identical, but must be generically alike
with similar properties to the materials listed on the individual
component drawings.
3. Dummy Drawing Changes
Comments on the SID-IIsFRG drawing package were made by First
Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) and Denton ATD (DATD). While a number
of comments related to the floating rib guide design, the majority of
comments dealt with issues addressing design details of the base SID-
IIs dummy which are common to both the SID-IIsFRG and SID-IIsD
versions. FTSS comments (Docket entry 18865-25) consisted of 11
separate issues dealing mostly with the base dummy design. DATD (Docket
entry 18865-32) identified by mark-ups 110 drawings that it felt were
in need of specific changes.
The agency examined the dummy manufacturers' comments in great
detail by performing a review of the specifications within the drawings
and additional laboratory inspection of parts as needed.
As a result of this review, the agency developed a table,
``September 15, 2006: SID-IIsD Drawing Changes Since SID-IIs NPRM
Docketed in December 2004,'' in which all changes made to the drawings
since publication of the NPRM are summarized (the table has been placed
in Docket 25442). While changes to the drawing package relating to the
removal of floating rib guides are self-evident, most other drawing
changes deal with relatively minor adjustments, such as: Eliminating
dimensioning inconsistencies, filling in missing specifications,
adjusting some dimensional tolerances, clarifying material callouts,
and correcting misplaced dimensions and typographical errors.
The table has been structured to identify the changes by part
number, drawing title, description of the change, initiating source and
reason for the change, change letter, and date of revision.
Furthermore, the reason for the change has been coded for the following
categories:
1. Identical cross reference drawings--drawings identical to
Subpart O, Hybrid III 5th percentile female parts;
2. ``Same as except for'' cross reference drawings--drawings
identical to Subpart O; Hybrid III 5th percentile female parts with
minor revisions;
3. Changes made with regard to Denton docket comments;
4. Changes made with regard to FTSS docket comments;
5. Changes made due to corrections/clarifications found as a result
of internal review;
6. Changes due to change from FRG design;
7. Changes due to OSRP recommendations; and,
8. Changes due to design revisions based upon agency test results.
Of the 170 drawings involving revisions, 34 are associated with
changes from FRG to SID-IIsD. While most other drawing changes are
minor, the more substantive changes include revisions suggested by OSRP
to improve the basic SID-IIsC dummy, and consequently the SID-IIsD,
without affecting the dummy's performance. They involve:
Use \1/2\-inch linear potentiometers instead of \3/8\-inch
potentiometers and modifications of their attaching mounts to allow the
potentiometer for more angular motion;
Modified thorax and abdominal rib stops to allow further
motion of the ribs at oblique impact angles; and
Modified thorax and abdominal rib stop attachment brackets
to accommodate 60 mm of rib deflection.
The drawings encompass also a number of modifications developed by
FTSS for the FRG dummy and adopted for the SID-IIsC and D versions of
the dummy, including:
Shoulder rib revision to include thinner, taller damping
material to improve durability and associated modification of the front
guide to improve rib control and eliminate gouging;
Inclusion of a shoulder rib bumper; and
Revision of the neck bracket to accommodate the modified
shoulder rib guides.
IV. Qualification Procedures and Response Corridors
a. Qualification Procedures
The NPRM proposed qualification tests composed of impact tests of
the head and neck, thorax with and without arm, abdomen, and pelvis
(acetabulum). As discussed above in this preamble, commenters Autoliv
and the Alliance recommended including a separate shoulder
qualification test. Further, the Alliance raised a concern about the
acetabulum test not fully exercising the iliac load cell.
Agency Response: We agree with the commenters that the shoulder
with arm test has merit. We also agree that the pelvis qualification
test should include a pendulum test of the iliac. Both tests have been
included in the procedures. In general, the qualification procedures
for the SID-IIsD are the same as those proposed in the NPRM for the
SID-IIsFRG, except for the addition of separate shoulder and iliac
qualification test requirements. The qualification tests include impact
tests of the head and neck, shoulder, thorax with and without arm,
abdomen, and pelvis (acetabulum and iliac).
The performance qualification tests in this final rule serve to
assure that the SID-IIsD is within the established performance response
corridors and further assure the uniformity of dummy assembly,
structural integrity, consistency of impact response under identical
loading conditions, and adequacy of instrumentation. The tests ensure
the reliability of the dummy's impact response in vehicle compliance
tests. They are generally conducted at energy levels that are just
short of or at the threshold levels that result in dummy readings
corresponding to
[[Page 75359]]
IARVs associated with moderate to serious injury.
The below listing provides an overview of test procedures that the
SID-IIsD dummies need to conform to in order to qualify as Part 572
test devices. Performance criteria based on the results of these tests
are provided in the next section b, infra.
Head Drop Test: Test procedure is the same as for SID-IIsFRG
proposed in the NPRM. The disarticulated head is suspended 200 mm above
a rigid flat surface, with the D-plane of the head at an angle of 35
degrees from vertical. After release, the head impacts the rigid flat
surface on the lateral-superior aspect of the skull. Accelerations of
the head center of gravity are measured in the 3 orthogonal axes.
Lateral Neck Bending Pendulum Test: Test procedure is the same as
for SID-IIsFRG proposed in the NPRM. The headform-neck complex is
attached at the base of the neck (C7-T1) to the bottom of a swinging
arm pendulum such that the arc of swing of the pendulum is
perpendicular to the mid-saggital plane of the head-neck. To initiate
the test, the pendulum is rotated upward from the vertical hanging
position and released. The pendulum swings downward under the influence
of gravity until it reaches the vertical hanging position at an impact
speed of 5.51-5.63 m/s. At that instant an attenuator begins to arrest
its motion. The arresting force causes the head form to decelerate and
bend the neck laterally relative to the pendulum. Measurements include
the time and magnitude of rotation of the neck, and the forces and
moments generated by the neck at the upper load cell.
Shoulder Impactor Test: This test procedure is similar to the
thorax with arm impact procedure proposed in the NPRM. A 13.97 kg
impactor with a 120.7 mm diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is
accelerated to 4.40.1 m/s and directed laterally to impact
the shoulder of the dummy. The dummy is seated on a rigid bench
developed by the WorldSID design team \21\ (hereinafter referred to as
``the certification bench''). Measurements include lateral deflection
of the shoulder and the acceleration of T1 and the impactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ WorldSID is a next-generation 50th percentile male side
impact dummy developed by industry representatives from the U.S.,
Europe and Japan (see Docket No. 2000-17252). The design team
developed a WorldSID test bench for use in testing the dummy. The
seat back angle and other features of the WS bench provide more
stability in supporting the dummy than conventional test benches,
which facilitates the evaluation of the dummy. NHTSA believes that
the WorldSID bench will also make testing of the SID-IIsD more
thorough and efficient, and so the agency will use that bench in its
tests of the SID-IIsD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorax with Arm Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor with a 120.7 mm
diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is accelerated to 6.7< plus-
minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally to impact the thorax of the dummy.
The dummy is seated on a the certification bench. The arm in this test
is down, positioned to the lowest detent, interposed between the ribs
and the impactor. Longitudinal centerline of the probe is centered on
the most lateral centerpoint of the middle rib within 2 mm.
Measurements include the deflection of the shoulder and thorax ribs,
accelerations of the spine at T1 and T12 and the impactor.
Thorax without Arm Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor with a 120.7
mm diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is accelerated to 4.3< plus-
minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally into the thorax of the dummy. The
dummy is seated on the certification bench. The arm in this test is
removed to allow the impactor to contact the thorax directly so that
the longitudinal centerline of the probe is centered on the centerline
of the middle rib within 2 mm. Measurements include the deflection of
the thorax ribs, and accelerations of the spine at T1 and T12 and of
the impactor.
Abdominal Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor with a 76.2 mm
diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is accelerated to 4.4< plus-
minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally to impact the abdomen of the dummy
with the longitudinal probe aligned to coincide with the centerpoint
between the two abdominal ribs. The dummy, with arm removed, is seated
on the certification bench. The dummy is positioned so that the
longitudinal centerline of the impact probe is centered at time of
impact on the lateral midpoint between the two abdominal ribs within
2 mm. Measurements include the deflection of the abdominal
ribs, accelerations of the spine at T12 and of the impactor.
Pelvis Acetabulum Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor with a 120.7
mm diameter face and 12.7 mm edge radius is accelerated to 6.7< plus-
minus>0.1 m/s and directed laterally and targeted to impact the
longitudinal center of the pelvis plug of the dummy. The dummy, without
the torso jacket installed, is seated on the certification bench. The
dummy is positioned in the seat so that the longitudinal centerline of
the impact probe at time of impact coincides with the longitudinal
centerline of the pelvis plug, as installed within the acetabulum
access hole in the pelvis flesh within 2 mm. With the
dummy's thoracic lateral plane set at 1 deg. relative to
the horizontal, the orientation of the impactor face is within < plus-
minus>1 degree of the vertical at the time of impact. Measurements
include peak impactor and pelvis lateral accelerations and peak
acetabulum force.
Iliac Impactor Test: A 13.97 kg impactor, with a 50.8 x 88.9 mm
rigid, flat face and a depth of at least 76 mm at these dimensions, is
accelerated to 4.30.1 m/s and directed laterally to impact
the pelvis of an upright postured dummy seated with legs stretched out
on a rigid flat horizontal surface. The dummy is positioned such that
the longitudinal centerline of the impact probe coincides at the time
of impact with the laterally oriented centerline of the iliac access
hole in the iliac load cell within 2 mm. With the dummy's
thoracic lateral plane set at 1 deg. relative to the
horizontal, the orientation of the impactor is adjusted so that its
50.5 mm wide surface is horizontal within 1 degree at the
time of impact. Measurements include peak impactor and pelvis lateral
accelerations and peak iliac force.
b. Response Corridors
To develop the qualification corridors set forth in today's final
rule, NHTSA first conducted qualification tests on each major body
segment of dummies 032 and 033, yielding an initial data base of at
least five sets of impacts to each dummy. The upper torso was tested in
two configurations: one with the arm down in which the arm was impacted
by the probe at the second rib level; and one directly into ribcage
with the arm removed. In addition, the agency also accumulated
considerable amount of data from qualification tests of four dummies
performed in conjunction with vehicle pole and MDB crash tests,
extensive sled impacts, as well as special durability and biofidelity
tests, for a total of nearly 400 component tests. The qualification
data from the tests of the four dummies were obtained at two test
laboratories.
The distribution of final qualification data used for corridor
establishment from each of the four dummies per body segment are shown
in Table 10. It should be noted that the number of qualification tests
vary between body regions and between dummies. Inasmuch as the heads
and necks are identical for all SID-IIs dummies, including the FRG
version, and repeatability of these components was already established,
we determined that there was no reason to subject these components to
additional testing. In other instances, some dummies were used fewer
times in vehicle tests. Also, the results of some tests had to be
eliminated due to such circumstances as
[[Page 75360]]
incorrect impact speeds, transducer or data collection problems, etc.
Additionally, as much as this data set included data from dummies used
in crash tests, and as those dummies were not new, some judgment had to
be used based on scatter plot dispersion as to which data points were
outliers not fitting the general pattern of all other responses. Only
two responses of nearly 400 were found to be significantly out of the
range of all others, and were thus eliminated from consideration in
setting the performance corridors. The final set of valid qualification
data was obtained from a total of 394 component tests. Peak responses
from each of the qualification tests, the complete list of
qualification data, and a detailed discussion of data are provided in
the Technical Report, ``Development of Certification Performance
Specifications for the SID-IsD Crash Test Dummy,'' September 2006,
NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Docket 25442 (hereinafter
referred to as ``the Certification Performance Specifications
Report'').
Table 10.--Number of Qualification Tests per Body Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body region/No. of tests Dummy 20 Dummy 32 Dummy 33 Dummy 56 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head........................................... 9 9 13 11 42
Neck........................................... 10 9 13 13 45
Shoulder....................................... 9 19 22 15 65
Thorax w/Arm................................... 12 14 18 10 54
Thorax w/o Arm................................. 9 14 18 10 51
Abdomen........................................ 10 14 17 9 50
Pelvis......................................... 10 14 18 10 52
Iliac.......................................... 0 0 35 0 35
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Tests on Dummy............. 69 93 154 78 394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combined data of all four dummies for a specific body segment
were then subjected to a statistical analysis which included the
calculation of the mean, the standard deviation and percent standard
deviation from the mean. The construction of initial performance
corridors was based on the following formulation:
If the percent standard deviation was equal to or below
3%, the performance limits were set at 3 standard
deviations from the mean;
If the percent standard deviation was above 3%, but not
more than 5%, the performance limits were set at 2 standard
deviations from the mean;
If the percent standard deviation was above 5%, the
performance limits were set at 10% from the mean.
Upon derivation of initial upper and lower performance
limits, any residual values beyond the first decimal in the lower part
of the corridor were reduced to the next lowest first decimal value,
and any residual beyond the first decimal in the upper part of the
corridor was incremented to the next highest first decimal value.
The intent of the above formulation was to keep the initial
performance corridors within 10% of the mean of the data, yet
facilitate the ability to use narrower corridors where warranted by
tightly grouped data.
Initial Response Ranges of the SID-IIsD Dummy in Qualification Tests
Based on the data compiled during the qualification tests in these
test series and using the formulation cited above, the initial
performance corridors for the SID-IIsD dummy were constructed for
further consideration. They are shown in Table 11. The performance
corridors developed by the agency using its own data and processing
methods match relatively closely to the draft performance corridors
developed by the OSRP for the Build Level SID-IIsC dummy, and to those
submitted by FTSS in comments to the NPRM for the FRG dummy version,
also shown in Table 11. Although control of the dummy maintenance is
unknown for the OSRP testing, the results still were comparable to
NHTSA's initial corridors. The reasonably well-matching responses
between the two data sets indicate that improvements done to convert
the SID-IIsC to SID-IIsD version did not significantly alter the
dummy's performance, and substantiates the consistency and reliability
of the dummy's design to reproduce similar responses. It also
corroborates the corridors established and shows that they should be
very representative of all dummies, regardless of qualification test
lab. It should also be noted that this database is limited to dummies
manufactured by FTSS, since at the time of the formulation of the data
there were no other manufacturers producing this dummy.
Table 11.--Comparison of NHTSA Initial Corridors for the SID-IIsD With Those Suggested by the OSRP and FTSS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA SID- Draft OSRP* OSRP***
Body region/performance range Measurement IIsD --------------------------------------- FTSS**
parameter (initial) Option 1* Option 2* Final
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Head......................... Max Resultant 119.5-136.9 ........... ........... ........... 115-135*
Acceleration
(g).
Neck......................... Max D-Plane 70.9-77.6 72-82 ........... ........... 72-82*
Rotation (deg).
Max O-C Moment 37.6-47.5 36-43 ........... ........... 36-42*
(N-m).
Shoulder..................... Max Shoulder 30.1-36.8 30-36 29-36 29-36 ...........
Deflection (mm).
Max Upper Spine -17.2-(- ........... ........... ........... ...........
Y Acceleration 19.1)
(g).
Thorax with Arm.............. Max Shoulder 31.7-38.8 35-40 33-42 32-40 29-41
Deflection (mm).
Max Upper Rib 25.5-31.3 27-33 26-33 24-32 24-34
Deflection (mm).
Max Middle Rib 30.0-34.9 32-38 31-39 31-39 28-35
Deflection (mm).
[[Page 75361]]
Max Lower Rib 32.3-37.1 33-39 32-40 33-41 31-37
Deflection (mm).
Max Lower Spine 28.6-35.1 29-34 28-35 28-36 32-41
Acceleration
(g).
Thorax without Arm........... Max Upper Rib 32.7-39.9 33-39 32-40 32-40 33-43
Deflection (mm).
Max Middle Rib 38.5-44.7 40-46 38-47 38-46 40-46
Deflection (mm).
Max Lower Rib 36.1-42.6 37-43 35-44 34-42 36-44
Deflection (mm).
Max Lower Spine 7.8-9.6 9-12 8.5-12.6 8-13 9-13
Acceleration
(g).
Abdomen...................... Max Upper Rib 38.7-47.0 40-46 39-48 40-48 37-47
Deflection (mm).
Max Lower Rib 38.2-46.8 38-44 37-46 38-46 36-46
Deflection (mm).
Max Lower Spine 11.3-13.9 10-12 8.8-13.2 9-13 11-16
Acceleration
(g).
Pelvis--Acetabulum........... Max Pelvis 41.3-50.1 47-54 45-56 46-56 ...........
Accleration (g).
Max Acetabulum 3.7-4.3 3.8-4.8 3.9-4.8 3.9-4.8 ...........
Force (kN).
Pelvis-Iliac................. Max Pelvis 26.6-32.6 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Accleration (g).
Max Iliac Force 3.7-4.5 ........... ........... ........... ...........
(kN).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on BLC version of dummy (Docket 25442, OSRP Upgrade Task Group (UTG) Chairman note of August 24, 2005);
**based on FTSS docket comments; ***based on BLD version (Docket 25442, OSRP UTG minutes of July 20, 2006).
Performance Specification Selection for the SID-IIsD Dummy
The agency evaluated the effect of the conversion of floating rib
guides to fixed rib guides and other changes to the features of the
dummy on the qualification performance corridors proposed in the NPRM
and determined that the corridors should be adjusted. To arrive at the
amount of adjustment needed, the agency pooled all of the available
qualification data in its test records and performed a statistical
analysis including the plotting of scattergrams for selection of
potential upper and lower performance boundaries. Specific response
data and statistical analysis for the combined dummy population can be
found in the Certification Performance Specifications Report, id. These
were subsequently compared to those made available in docket comments
and those proposed in the NPRM, as well as the data provided by OSRP on
SID-IIs Build Level C and D dummies. The final setting of performance
corridors was to assure that the selected corridor limits reflected the
entire set of response data generated by the agency, and that they also
were in general agreement with the data made available through docket
comments and by the OSRP SID-IIs dummy working group, who had the
responsibility of developing performance criteria for the Alliance.
(Minutes of the OSRP meeting containing suggested corridors have been
submitted to the docket for today's final rule (Docket 25442).)
Table 12 provides the final performance specification selections
for each body segment. The first column, under NHTSA SID-IIsD
Statistics, is a listing of performance corridors based on NHTSA
qualification tests of dummies 020, 032, 033 and 056.
Except for the head and neck, they include on the average just a little
over 50 data points for each body segment. (Inasmuch as the heads and
necks are the same as those tested under the FRG series, repeatability
qualification tests for them were omitted. Accordingly, those tests are
fewer in number.) Also, several impact tests were omitted from the
statistics due to their higher or lower impact speeds than allowed by
the limits.
The initial limits related to IARVs shown in the NHTSA SID-IIs
Statistics column were then reviewed in the context of FTSS scatter
plots for the head and neck and the OSRP drafted corridors for the
thorax and abdomen. Except for the pelvis acetabulum and iliac response
values which were developed without FTSS and OSRP data, this review and
adjustment took into account and attempted to reconcile both the limits
developed by OSRP and the response ranges developed by the agency,
including some certification test control values not related to IARVs.
Some of the IARV-related corridors were adjusted to take into account
the larger base of submitted qualification data, but only to the extent
that adjustments were within approximately 10% of the mean
of the agency's data. As indicated by Table 12, there was reasonably
close correspondence between NHTSA SID-IIsD Statistics and the FTSS and
OSRP ``Final'' suggested performance ranges,\22\ and adjustments needed
to arrive at final qualification performance specifications were
relatively minor. The specifications listed in Table 12 constitute the
performance requirements to which Part 572 SID-IIsD dummies must
conform, as specified in today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Final corridors are in Table 11, supra.
Table 12.--Performance Specifications for the SID-IIsD in Certification Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probe NHTSA final rule
Body region/performance range impact Response measurement NHTS A SID-HsD performance
velocity statistics specification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head............................... ........... Max Resultant Acceleration 119.5-136.9 115-137
(g).
Neck............................... ........... Max D-Plane Rotation (deg) 70.9-77.6 71-81
........... Max O-C Moment (N-m)...... 39.0-45.1 36-44
Shoulder........................... 4.4 m/s Peak impactor acceleration 14.1-17.8 14-18
(g).
Max Shoulder Deflection 30.1-36.8 30-37
(mm).
Max Upper Spine Y 17.2-19.1 17-19
Acceleration (g).
Thorax with Arm.................... 6.7 m/s Peak impactor acceleration 31.3-36.0 31-36
(g).
[[Page 75362]]
Max Shoulder Deflection 31.7-38.8 31-40
(mm).
Max Upper Rib Deflection 25.5-31.3 26-32
(mm).
Max Middle Rib Deflection 30.0-34.9 30-36
(mm).
Max Lower Rib Deflection 32.3-37.1 32-38
(mm).
Max Upper Spine Y 34.9-42.4 34-43
Acceleration (g).
Max Lower Spine 28.6-35.1 28-35
Acceleration (g).
Thorax without Arm................. 4.3 m/s Peak impactor acceleration 14.8-17.3 14-18
(g).
Max Upper Rib Deflection 32.7-39.9 33-40
(mm).
Max Middle Rib Deflection 38.5-44.7 39-45
(mm).
Max Lower Rib Deflection 36.1-42.6 36-43
(mm).
Max Upper Spine Y 13.9-16.5 14-17
Acceleration (g).
Max Lower Spine 7.8-9.6 7-10
Acceleration (g).
Abdomen............................ 4.4 m/s Peak impactor acceleration 12.2-15.7 12-16
(g).
Max Upper Rib Deflection 38.5-47.1 39-47
(mm).
Max Lower Rib Deflection 38.2-46.8 37-46
(mm).
Max Lower Spine 11.3-13.9 11-14
Acceleration (g).
Pelvis--Acetabulum................. 6.7 m/s Peak impactor acceleration 38.5-46.9 38-47
(g).
Max Pelvis Acceleration 41.3-50.1 41-50
(g).
Max Acetabulum Force (kN). 3.7-4.3 3.8-4.6
Pelvis--Iliac*..................... 4.3 m/s Peak impactor acceleration 34.9-38.9 34-40
(g).
Max Pelvis Acceleration 26.5-32.5 27-33
(g).
Max Iliac Force (kN)...... 3.7-4.5 3.7-4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Based on ``new'' (softer-version 2) iliac wings.
V. Dummy Performance in Full-Scale Vehicle Crash Tests
The agency conducted a series of vehicle crash tests utilizing a
broad variety of passenger vehicles. The test program method and
results are discussed in detail in a technical report entitled, ``NHTSA
Fleet Testing for FMVSS 214 Upgrade, MY 2004-2005, January 2006,''
Docket 25442.
The objectives of the test program were to evaluate the dummy's
responses in different loading conditions with respect to the injury
assessment reference values (IARV) proposed in the May 17, 2004 NPRM on
FMVSS No. 214, to assess the dummies' durability, and to investigate
the crashworthiness characteristics of a broad range of fleet vehicles.
The series consisted of ten vehicle-to-pole tests (according to the
FMVSS No. 214 proposed upgrade) and eight moving deformable barrier
(MDB) tests (see test matrix in Table 13, below). In the MDB tests,
SID-IIsD dummies were seated in both the driver and rear passenger
positions, resulting in 16 total MDB exposures with SID-IIsD dummies.
The tests provided information on how the SID-IIsD dummies function in
a variety of impact environments and the extent to which their response
signatures are consistent with the crash event and free of disruptions
and anomalies.
Table 13.--Vehicle Crash Test Matrix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oblique impact/SID-IIsD dummy
-----------------------------------------
Vehicle class/ Pole 32 km/h MDB 52 km/h
Vehicles Side airbag type weight -----------------------------------------
Rear
Driver Driver Passenger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Corolla................. Curtain + Torso... Light PC......... X X X
VW Jetta....................... Curtain + Torso... Compact PC....... X X X
Saturn Ion..................... Curtain........... Compact PC....... X X X
Honda Accord*.................. Curtain + Torso... Medium........... X X X
Ford 500....................... Curtain + Torso... Heavy PC......... X X X
Toyota Sienna*................. Curtain + Torso... Mini Van......... X
Subaru Forester................ Head + Torso Bag.. Small SUV........ X X X
Honda CRV...................... Curtain + Torso... Small SUV........ X X X
Chevy Colorado (4x2 Ext. Cab).. Curtain........... Small Pickup..... X
Ford Expedition................ Curtain........... Large SUV........ X
Suzuki Forenza................. Combo............. Small SUV........ ............ X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ 2004 Vehicles.
Tables 14 and 15 provide summaries of IARV-based dummy responses
that were recorded in pole and MDB crash tests, respectively. Although
rib deflections were not proposed as IARVs in the FMVSS No. 214 NPRM,
the tables also include thorax and abdomen rib deflection measurements
because the deflections are potential indicators of injury potential to
the occupant and also provide information on the paths and sequence of
loading that the intruding
[[Page 75363]]
vehicle interior imparts to the occupant. In this test series, the
measured data traces were reviewed and correlated with visual
observations of dummy kinematics and interaction with vehicle interior
or intruding exterior surfaces.
a. Oblique Vehicle-to-Pole Crash Tests
Test results for the 10 vehicles evaluated in the oblique pole test
are presented in Table 14. In these tests, seven vehicles exceeded at
least one or more IARVs of the FMVSS No. 214 NPRM. Two of the tested
vehicles did not exceed any of the proposed IARV limits, but they had
T12 accelerations and/or pelvic loads in excess of 80% of the IARVs.
The Toyota Corolla test failed to record the pelvis force response
because of electrical malfunction; all other IARV values for the
vehicle were below the proposed thresholds.
Table 14.--SID-IIsD Driver Response in Pole Oblique Crash Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Results
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorax Abdomen Pelvis
Vehicles HIC 36 Lower defl. defl. force ***
spine (g) (mm) (mm) (N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARV........................................ 1,000 82 ** 38 ** 45 5,100
Toyota Corolla....................................... 418 69.6 47 49 \1\
VW Jetta............................................. 478 54.2 33.3 33.8 7876
Saturn Ion........................................... 5203 109.6 32 52 5755
Ford 500............................................. 7017 92.4 37 57 6542
Subaru Forester...................................... 160 54.6 31 45 4707
Honda CRV............................................ 531 67.9 26 36 4670
Chevy Colorado....................................... 896 135.3 31 59 9387
Ford Expedition...................................... 5661 95.6 35.3 53.3 8249
Honda Accord*........................................ 567 63.0 31 30 10848
Toyota Sienna *...................................... 2019 67 45.6 57.9 6956
Average.............................................. 2295 82.9 34.9 47.3 7221.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No data.
* 2004 MY.
** Informal thresholds; all measured values have been rounded to the nearest full number.
*** Crush based pelvis plug and original (stiffer) iliac wing.
Overview of Driver Injury Assessment and Impact Mechanics in Pole Test
Head
Four of the 10 vehicles tested with the SID-IIsD in the driver's
seating position exceeded the HIC36 1000 limit. These were
the Saturn Ion, Ford Five Hundred, Toyota Sienna, and Ford Expedition.
In the Saturn Ion test, the pole partially penetrated the air
curtain, exposing a hard spot beneath the air pocket/tether attachment
interface where the front portion of the dummy's head made contact.
The Ford Five Hundred was equipped with a head curtain and a thorax
bag, but review of the test film indicated that the Ford Five Hundred's
sensor began to deploy the air curtain at approximately 70 ms. The
dummy's head hit the pole at approximately 60 ms. In the Ford
Expedition and the Toyota Sienna tests, air curtains deployed, but the
dummies' heads hit the front edge of the curtain's front pocket. This
allowed the heads to hit the pole, resulting in high HIC values.
In contrast, the same four vehicles produced relatively moderate
HIC scores with the ES-2re 50th percentile adult male dummy in the
oblique pole test. Id. The difference in results can be attributed in
large part to seat fore-and-aft position differences between the
dummies, as well as to the ES-2re's taller seated height.
Lower Spine and Thorax/Abdomen
Lower spine acceleration magnitudes were generally consistent with
the SID-IIsD thoracic and abdominal rib deflections. Seven of the 10
vehicle tests with the SID-IIsD produced rib deflection measurements
exceeding 38 mm for thoracic ribs and/or 45 mm for abdominal ribs. In
six of the seven vehicle tests, the lower spine (T12) acceleration
values were also elevated (within 80 to 100 percent of 82 g). The six
vehicles were the 2005 Toyota Corolla, 2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford 500,
2004/05 Toyota Sienna, 2005 Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab, and the
2005 Ford Expedition. Likewise, the lower spine acceleration criterion
identified elevated loading conditions in the test of the 2005 Honda
CRV. In that test, the abdominal rib deflection and the lower spine
acceleration were within 80 percent of the respective IARV limits.
Pelvis Force
Seven of the 10 vehicles exceeded the proposed 5,100 N pelvis force
injury criterion. (One of the tested vehicles (Toyota Corolla) lost the
pelvis data due to electrical problems not related to the dummy.)
During pole impact, the collapsing door structure usually impacts the
dummy in the pelvis area at significant severity levels. Video analysis
shows the dummy, upon initial contact with the vehicle structure,
typically being pushed towards the vehicle's interior and, in some
tests, being wedged between the center console and the collapsed door
structure. The dummies in the Honda Accord and the VW Jetta tests
exceeded only the pelvis IARV limits while having relatively low
responses for the remaining IARVs. The data from the tests indicate
that the small dummy is capable of identifying a major potentially
injurious load path in pole tests that current occupant protection
systems will need to address.
The above analysis was based on tests with SID-IIsD dummies used
with the ``precrushed'' pelvis plug, and with the original (stiffer)
iliac wing. The agency analyzed the vehicle crash test data and scaled
down their iliac load component to reflect current ``softer'' iliac
wing properties. The analysis estimated that softer iliac wings would
lower the average driver occupant's pelvis force between 7% and 8%. In
only one case of the 9 dummy occupants' responses reviewed would the
pelvis IARV revert from just being above the proposed IARV limit to
just being below the proposed limit. (It is also noted that the agency
is considering comments to the
[[Page 75364]]
FMVSS No. 214 NPRM that suggest revising the proposed IARV limit.)
b. MDB Tests
The test matrix included eight MDB tests. All eight vehicles in MDB
crashes were the same model vehicles as in pole tests, except for the
Chevy Colorado and Ford Expedition, which were not tested by the MDB.
The SID-IIsD dummies were used in both the driver and rear passenger
positions. Data from the tests are set forth in Table 15. The data show
that dummies' impact responses in five out of eight crashed vehicles
were all below the IARV limits for both the driver and rear occupant
positions. Dummies in the three remaining vehicles exceeded the pelvis
IARV. The data in the table also show that the average responses of any
measurement were higher by rear passenger than driver dummies. The
differences were most substantial in the HIC, thorax and abdominal
deflections.
Table 15.--SID-IIsD Driver-Rear Passenger Response in MDB Crash Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Rear pass Driver Rear pass Driver Rear pass Rear Pass pass Driver Rear pass
---------------------- lower lower pelvis pelvis thorax thorax abdomen abdomen
Vehicles spine spine force force defl.** defl.** defl. ** defl.**
HIC 36 HIC 36 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) (g) (N)*** (N)*** (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed IARV....................... 1,000 1,000 82 82 5,100 5,100 **38 **38 **45 **45
Toyota Corolla...................... 78 330 58.6 56.6 4655 3183 16.7 35.3 25.7 32.2
VW Jetta............................ 46 103 30.4 52 2639 3026 12.2 48.8 18.2 43.1
Saturn Ion.......................... 189 220 53.2 73.1 8993 3964 19.1 46.7 39.3 51.7
Ford 500............................ 46 216 30.6 42.4 2140 2925 15.8 45.1 25.2 45.6
Subaru Forester..................... 43 150 37.1 43.1 3066 3572 11.4 24.2 11.2 25.9
Honda CRV........................... 38 107 31.5 55.8 1350 3149 16.3 37.3 7.5 40
Honda Accord*....................... 104 298 50.2 56.8 4150 6917 19.9 29.6 21.7 32.4
Suzuki Forenza...................... 69 773 53 73.1 4948 6558 27 41.2 27.5 46.2
Average............................. 77 275 43.1 56.6 3993 4162 17.3 38.5 22 39.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2004 MY.
** Informal thresholds; all measured values have been rounded to the nearest full number.
*** Crush based pelvis plug and original iliac wing.
Overview of Injury Assessments and Impact Mechanics in MDB Tests
Head
All driver and passenger dummies passed the HIC 1000 criterion. All
of the vehicles were equipped with air curtains and front seat torso
air bags, except the Suzuki Forenza, which had only an air curtain. The
front seat torso air bag in the vehicles interfaced the dummy's torso
high near the shoulder, which appeared to provide additional head
protection to the smaller driver dummy.
Lower Spine
All of the driver SID-IIsD dummies' lower spine T12 responses were
well below the proposed IARV limit. The rear passenger dummies in six
of eight vehicles tested were also below the proposed IARV value. The
two exceptions, the Saturn Ion and the Suzuki Forenza, had rear
passenger dummies measuring T12 responses within 80 percent of the
proposed IARV.
Pelvis
The Saturn Ion driver dummy pelvis response was well above the
proposed pelvis IARV limit. In addition, pelvis responses for the
driver dummies of the Suzuki Forenza and the Toyota Corolla were within
80% of the proposed pelvis IARV limit. The responses for the dummy in
the rear passenger position in the Honda Accord and the Suzuki Forenza
also exceeded the IARV threshold, but by a lesser margin than in the
Ion test.
The above analysis is based on tests with SID-IIsD dummies used
with the ``precrushed'' pelvis plug and the original (stiffer) iliac
wing. The agency analyzed the vehicle crash test data and scaled down
their iliac load component to reflect current ``softer'' iliac wing
properties. The analysis estimated that softer iliac wings would lower
the average driver occupant'' pelvis force between 7% and 8% and the
passenger's just above 3%. In none of the 16 dummy occupants responses
reviewed would the pelvis IARV revert from just being above the IARV
limit to just being below the IARV limit.
Thorax and Abdomen
All dummies in the driver position exhibited thorax and abdominal
rib deflections below the informal IARV thresholds. The dummy in the
Saturn Ion had an abdomen rib deflection (39 mm) within 80% of the 45
mm informal IARV. The measurement reflected the significant intrusion
of the passenger compartment and jamming the dummy between the
displaced seat and the intruding door structure.
Dummies in the rear passenger position in the VW Jetta, Saturn Ion,
Suzuki Forenza, and Ford Five Hundred had thorax deflections exceeding
the informal IARV limits. Abdominal rib deflections exceeded the
informal IARV limit for rear-seated dummies in the Saturn Ion, Suzuki
Forenza, and Ford Five Hundred. Rear passengers in the remaining
vehicles, except for Subaru Forrester, did not exceed the limit but
were within 80% of the thorax/abdomen informal IARV threshold values.
The Subaru Forrester was the only vehicle in which all of the dummy's
deflections were below 80% of the thorax and abdominal rib deflection
thresholds.
The average thorax and abdominal rib deflections of the SID-IIsD
dummies in the vehicle test program were nearly twice as high for rear
passengers than for drivers.
c. Summary
The dummy responses in the MDB and pole crash tests showed that the
SID-IIsD is well suited and equipped to assess the potential of injury
to small stature occupants in the oblique pole
[[Page 75365]]
and MDB test environments. In the environments tested, the dummies'
structure and the data acquisition systems retained their physical and
response integrities, sometimes under very severe vehicle structural
failures. The dummies did not produce data signals with indications of
faults, disruptions, or distortions due to mechanical failures of the
dummy.
The SID-IIs dummies demonstrated necessary sensitivity to
differentiate not only between vehicles having different structural
side impact crush properties, but also between the protection systems
offered in driver and passenger seating locations. The driver dummy in
general was showing lower intensity impact responses than the rear
passenger dummy. The most apparent reason for lower loadings on the
driver was the crush characteristics of the crash which produced
greater intrusion and concentrated loading to the rear passenger
seating location. Importantly, the SID-IIsD demonstrated an ability to
assess quantitatively insufficient countermeasures, such as unprotected
environments or improperly operating occupant protection systems, e.g.,
late deployment timing.
VI. Conclusions
For the aforementioned reasons, NHTSA has decided to amend 49 CFR
Part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for the SID-
IIsD 5th percentile adult female side impact dummy. The agency
concludes that the SID-IIsD dummy is a sound and useful test device
that will provide valuable information for assessing the injury
potential of small stature driver and rear seated passenger occupants
in motor vehicle side crashes. The test dummy will allow the agency to
assess the degree to which vehicle systems protect small stature
occupants in side crashes, and will be a valuable tool in the agency's
endeavors to increase the protection of smaller stature occupants in
side impacts.
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 SID-IIsD is approximately $47,000. Instrumentation adds
approximately $24,000 for minimum requirements. The total cost of a
minimally-instrumented compliance dummy is approximately $71,000.
This document amends 49 CFR Part 572 by adding design and
performance specifications for a 5th percentile adult female side
impact dummy that the agency will use in research and in compliance
tests of the Federal side impact protection safety standards. This 49
CFR Part 572 final rule does 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 final rule 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 this rulemaking
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
addition of the test dummy to Part 572 will not impose any requirements
on anyone. This rule does not require anyone to manufacture the dummy
or to test vehicles with it.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 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 13132 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this amendment in accordance with the principles
and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. The agency has
determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation and the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule would not have any retroactive effect. 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 final rule does 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, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The following voluntary consensus standards have been used in
developing the SID-IIsD dummy:
SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar95
``Instrumentation for Impact Tests''; and
SAE J1733 of 1994-12 ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash
Testing''.
[[Page 75366]]
There were no relevant voluntary consensus standards that were not
used in the formulation of this final rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Pub. L. 104-4, Federal requires 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
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 a 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 final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the
UMRA. This rule does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate
because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49 CFR
Part 572 by adding design and performance specifications for a side
impact dummy that the agency will use to evaluate manufacturers'
compliance with applicable Federal safety standards and for research
purposes. This rule affects only those businesses that choose to
manufacture or test with the dummy. It does not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector.
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 the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Appendix A to Preamble: Durability and Overload Analysis of the SID-
IIsD Test Dummy
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Durability Analysis
a. NHTSA Durability Assessment Analysis
1. Dummy Durability in Qualification Test Exposures
2. Dummy Durability in Sled Tests
3. Dummy Durability in Vehicle Crash Tests
4a. Dummy Durability in Overload Sled Tests
4b. Overload of Thorax and Abdomen Responses in Pendulum Tests
b. Comparison of SID-IIsD With SID-IIsC Reported by Alliance
III. Summary of Appendix A
I. Introduction
Durability of a crash test dummy is an important consideration in
determining its suitability for adoption into Part 572 for use as a
test device in FMVSS compliance and New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
consumer information programs. In FMVSS compliance testing, test
dummies are exposed to a wide range of crash conditions, ranging from
vehicles with highly advanced crashworthiness technologies to vehicles
that lack either sufficient structural integrity and/or occupant
protection provisions to mitigate crash forces adequately. A crash test
dummy must be durable to maintain structural and data acquisition
integrities sufficiently when used for testing throughout this range of
crash conditions.
II. Durability Analysis
The agency analyzed the durability of the SID-IIsD to assess
whether the dummy will be durable enough to be used in FMVSS No. 214 as
a compliance test instrument, and potentially as a test device in
NHTSA's NCAP Program. The durability assessment was based on--
(a) the results of our tests of four SID-IIsD dummies that were
exposed to a total of:
over 400 qualification-type impacts;
30 sled tests;
11 full scale vehicle to pole crash tests and 20 MDB full
scale crash tests; and
sled and pendulum tests at elevated impact speeds
(elevated to assess durability and biofidelity); and
(b) the data OSRP supplied on the durability of the predecessor
SID-IIsC dummy.
The dummy's structural robustness as assessed in the items under
section (a) above is discussed in a technical report entitled,
``Certification and Maintenance Records of the SID-IIs Build Level D
Dummies used in NHTSA Rulemaking Support Tests'' (Docket 25422). Table
A1, below, provides information on the number and the types of impacts
to which each of the four dummies was exposed in agency testing.
Table A1.--Number of SID-IIsD Dummy Exposures for Assessment of Durability in a Variety of Impact Environments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of impact/dummy 032 033 020 056 Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of pendulum type qualification Impactor Probe........... 75 128 50 54 Dummies 032 & 033 were refurbished after
procedure--does not include head and 10 pole tests. 20
neck tests or faulty tests). was refurbished after
completion of MDB tests. No
structural failures prior to
refurbishments.
Sled tests R&R........................ Flat Wall................ 5 5 ............ .............................
Abdomen Offset........... 5 5 5 5 .............................
Pole tests at 32 km................... Driver................... 2 3 3 3 .............................
MDB tests at 53 km/h.................. Driver................... 1 1 3 3 .............................
Passenger................ 1 1 3 3 .............................
MDB test at NCAP speed................ Driver................... 1 ............ 1 ............
Passenger................ ............ 1 ............ 1 .............................
Sled tests durability................. Various.................. ............ 8 ............ ............ .............................
Specialty tests (biofidelity, Impactor Probe........... ............ 5 ............ ............ .............................
overload).
Total Dummy Impact Exposures.......... ......................... 90 157 60 69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75367]]
a. NHTSA Durability Assessment Analysis
1. Dummy Durability in Qualification Test Exposures
Insight into the dummies' durability was gained in qualification
level tests when two dummies were tested for repeatability at the
subsystem-component levels, and when the dummies were demonstrated to
pass these Part 572 tests prior to sled and vehicle crash tests. Prior
to this agency assessment series, dummies 032 and 033 had been
subjected to a considerable number of crash tests. For this reason,
since the dummies were already subjected to wear, the durability
assessment based on qualification-type tests reflects a conservative
estimate of the dummy's capability to withstand exposures in various
types of impact environments.
In the Build Level D test series, as shown in Table A2 below,
individual body segments of dummies 032 and 033 were subjected each
from 9 to 35 qualification test impacts, for a total of 93 and 154
impacts, respectively. Prior to their scheduled repeatability test
series, both dummies were retrofitted with new ribs, potentiometers,
and pelvis flesh. The evaluation for repeatability consisted of a
series of five consecutive qualification tests to each dummy's
shoulder, thorax, abdomen and pelvis (acetabulum and ilium).
Table A2.--Number of Qualification Tests per Body Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body region/No. of tests Dummy 20 Dummy 32 Dummy 33 Dummy 56 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head..................................................... 9 9 13 11 42
Neck..................................................... 10 9 13 13 45
Shoulder................................................. 9 19 22 15 65
Thorax w/Arm............................................. 12 14 18 10 54
Thorax w/o Arm........................................... 9 14 18 10 51
Abdomen.................................................. 10 14 17 9 50
Pelvis................................................... 10 14 18 10 52
Iliac.................................................... 0 0 35 0 35
����������������������������������������������������������
Total Tests on Dummy....................... 69 93 154 78 394
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, individual body segments of dummies 020 and 056 were
subjected to about 9 to 15 qualification test impacts each during the
test program.
None of the dummies experienced any structural or instrumentation
failures, except for noted structural degradation of the left iliac
wings. In the subsequently adjusted qualification test loadings, the
right iliac wings have not shown any evidence of structural
degradation. Further details may be found in ``SID-IIs Iliac
Certification Development,'' supra, Docket 25422.
2. Dummy Durability in Sled Tests
Sled tests were performed at the Medical College of Wisconsin by
permitting the seated dummy to slide laterally at 6.0 m/s and impact a
flat rigid wall with and without armrest. Dummies 032 and 033 were
exposed at MCW for a total of 10 sled tests each. The first five tests
were lateral impacts into a flat wall rigid barrier configuration, and
the subsequent five tests were into a flat barrier configuration with a
protruding armrest simulation attached to it. In two armrest-equipped
barrier tests, dummy 032 experienced clearly visible shoulder clipping
as evidenced by the dummy being momentarily hung-up on the top edge of
the barrier rigid load wall plate. In three other tests of dummy 032,
as well as with dummy 033, the shoulder hang-up was still in evidence
but to a lesser time duration as less distinct indications of clipping.
Importantly for this durability analysis, despite the clipping, none of
the dummies experienced structural or functional damage.
It was also observed that at the time of clipping the shoulder
deflection trace near peak compression went from a smooth to a
distorted pattern and continued with some distortion during the
unloading portion of the deflection time trace. While the clipping
effects had nothing to do with the dummy's performance as a measuring
test device, the agency was not certain how they might have affected
all other sensor responses. Because the suspect data could not be used
for decision-making, the agency decided to repeat the abdominal test
offset test series at TRC with dummies 020 and 056 on the HYGE sled
with the upper edge of the barrier raised sufficiently high to preclude
shoulder clipping. In these tests, the dummies experienced neither
shoulder clipping nor any other structural or functional problems.
Further details on these sled tests may be found in ``Repeatability,
Reproducibility and Durability Evaluation of the SID-IIs Build Level D
Dummy in the Sled Test Environment,'' supra, Docket 25422 (hereinafter,
``the MCW report'').
3. Dummy Durability in Vehicle Crash Tests
Full scale crash testing in the proposed FMVSS No. 214 pole test
configuration was a crucial phase of the dummy's durability assessment.
Except to the extent discussed below regarding the Saturn Ion test, the
SID-IIs dummies experienced no structural or functional problems, and
even in the Ion test the damage was incidental.
As indicated in Table A1, dummy 032 was used in two pole and two
MDB crash tests, and dummy 033 in three pole and two MDB crash tests.
In addition, each dummy was also used in an NCAP MDB crash at 62 km/h.
In the pole crash test of the Saturn Ion, the driver dummy became
jammed between the crushed door, the displaced and rotated seat, and
the steering wheel. The vehicle structure had to be cut to extract the
dummy from the driver compartment. Inspection of the dummy showed the
abdominal ribs having been driven upwards and jammed into the interior
aspects of the thoracic ribcage. As a result, both abdominal
telescoping potentiometer rods were bent. In view of the very extensive
vehicle intrusion and seat rotation into the lateral path of the
dummy's motion, and the armrest driving the abdominal ribs upward into
the thoracic ribcage in excess of the informal IARV limit by a
considerable margin, the test facility judged that the extent of
occupant compartment penetration was beyond any dummy's capability to
withstand without structural damage. However, it must be noted that
while the abdominal potentiometers were bent and needed replacement,
they appeared to measure accurately beyond the informal IARV
[[Page 75368]]
limit. Both abdominal ribs sustained no permanent damage in the crash
test. Upon release from the jammed position, the ribs snapped back into
place and remained in use throughout all further vehicle tests.
Dummies 020 and 056 were each used in the vehicle test program in
six MDB crashes alternating as drivers and rear passengers, and in
three pole test crashes. In addition, dummies 020 and 056 were exposed
as driver and passenger, respectively, in an NCAP MDB crash at a test
speed of 62 km/h. In that severe test, the shoulder potentiometer of
dummy 020 was found to be bent. Investigation as to the cause indicated
that a set screw, controlling the rotational stiffness of the pivoting
mechanism of the potentiometer body, was over-tightened and exceeded
the torque specification callouts in the SID-IIsD User Manual.
Subsequent MDB tests of that dummy with proper torque setting did not
produce any further potentiometer failures.
4a. Dummy Durability in Overload Sled Tests
Eight special durability tests were conducted at MCW to determine
the dummy's structural integrity and ability to acquire useful
responses under overload impact conditions. Table A3 provides a matrix
for these tests and the types of exposures to which the SID-IIs dummy
(033) was subjected. Details on test set-up, dummy seating and
positioning may be found in the MCW report, id.
Table A3.--Special Durability and Biofidelity Overload Sled Tests at MCW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test ref.
Test No. Wall configuration Padding Speed m/s Arm position Dummy Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... SD292 Flat Wall.......... Yes................ 6.7 Down............... 033
2............................... SD294 Flat Wall.......... No................. 6.7 Down............... 033
3............................... SD295 Pelvis Offset...... Yes................ 6.7 Up................. 033
4............................... SD296 Pelvis Offset...... No................. 6.7 Up................. 033
5............................... SD298 Thorax Offset...... No................. 6.7 Up................. 033
6............................... SD301 Flat Wall.......... Yes................ 8.9 Down............... 033
7............................... SD302 Flat Wall.......... No................. 8.9 Down............... 033 Bent Pot.
8............................... SD303 Abdomen Offset..... No................. 6.7 Up................. 033
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durability tests were conducted at 8.9 m/s for tests SD301 and
SD302 and at 6.7 m/s for tests SD292, SD294, SD295, SD296, SD298, and
SD303. Test speed tolerance was maintained to 0.19 m/s.
Some minor gouging of the shoulder damping material was observed at the
location of the posterior rib guide in all of the tests. The first four
tests were conducted using the original shoulder rib guide adapted from
the FRG, which permitted some perceptible rib guide gouging. The last
four tests used a modified FRG rib guide with rounded edges, which
resulted in barely perceptible gouging (shallow and smooth scraping
like indications). There was no damage to any of the displacement
potentiometers, except for test 302 conducted at 8.9 m/s into a flat
rigid wall, in which the shoulder rib contacted the rib stop. The
potentiometer became slightly bent during this impact, but continued to
measure the shoulder displacement accurately beyond the informal IARV
limit without signal disruption. This was verified by re-qualifying the
dummy and checking to see that the shoulder displacement was within the
certification specifications.
Maximum thoracic rib displacement of 61 mm was measured in test
SD298 (6.7 m/s rigid wall thoracic offset test) and maximum abdominal
rib displacement of 60.1 mm occurred in test SD301 (6.7 m/s rigid wall
abdominal offset test). The corresponding ribs contacted the rib stops,
as indicated by the contact switches, but there was no flat-topping in
the displacement-time trace.
In sum, the dummy demonstrated good durability in overload impact
conditions.
4b. Overload of Thorax and Abdomen Responses in Pendulum Tests
To further assess the dummy's durability at elevated impact loads,
two 5 m/s pendulum impacts were administered to the thorax and abdomen
of dummy 020. In both tests, the dummy's arm was removed. The 5 m/s
impact tests represent an impact energy higher by 35% than the 4.3 m/s
standard qualification test. Tables A4 and A5 show thorax and abdomen
rib deflection and upper and lower spine acceleration values measured
in these tests. While, as expected, none of the spine acceleration
values were near any of the IARV limits, both thorax and abdominal rib
deflections were either at or above the injury limit.
Table A4.--SID-IIsD Responses in Thorax Overload 5 m/s Impacts
[Dummy's arm removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probe loading and dummy response Measurement IARV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendulum Probe Acceleration (g)............... 18.2 ...........
Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm).............. 43.4 38
Middle Thorax Rib Deflection (mm)............. 50.3 38
Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm).............. 46.1 38
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)................ 17.8 n/a
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)................ 10.5 82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A5.--SID-IIsD Responses in Abdominal Overload 5 m/s Impacts
[Dummy's arm removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probe loading and dummy response Measurement IARV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendulum Probe Acceleration (g)............... 16.2 ...........
Upper Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm)........... 48.3 45
Lower Abdominal Rib Deflection (mm)........... 45.6 45
[[Page 75369]]
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g)................ 8.7 n/a
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g)................ 17.0 82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the agency conducted three biofidelity tests with
dummy 020 to provide test response values for the calculation of the
NHTSA based biofidelity ranking. The first shoulder impact test
followed the procedure outlined in ``Shoulder Biofidelity Lateral
Shoulder Pendulum Test,'' reported by Bolte et al. (John H. Bolte IV,
et al., ``Shoulder Impact Response and Injury Due to Lateral and
Oblique Loading,'' 2003-22033, Proceedings 47th Stapp
Conference 2003.) The tests consisted of a dummy seated on the
calibration bench and its shoulder impacted laterally at a speed of 4.3
m/s with an impactor that had a mass of 13.98 kg and a 20 cm wide by 15
cm high ram face, covered with a 5 cm thick piece of Arcel 730 foam.
The impactor was centered on the shoulder/arm pivot with the arm down.
The second and third shoulder impacts followed the procedure described
in ISO 9790, section 4.1 for the shoulder and section 4.2 for the
thorax. A 14 kg pendulum (150 mm diameter and rigid face) was used in
these tests in lieu of the ISO specified 23 kg pendulum for the ES-2
dummy. The shoulder impact probe for the second test was centered on
the shoulder/arm pivot with the arm down at a speed of 4.5 m/s, and for
the third test the impactor was centered on the middle thorax rib with
the dummy's arm set 90 degrees forward (horizontal) at a speed of 4.3
m/s.
Results from the biofidelity tests are summarized in Table A6. As
expected, the Bolte test data indicate a lower level of dummy responses
due to the impactor's face being covered by a 5 cm thick Arcel 730
foam. The ISO 9790 test data are similar in trends but of elevated
responses from the results of the Bolte dummy shoulder tests. The dummy
experienced neither structural nor functional damage in these tests.
Table A6.--Summary of Impact Responses in Biofidelity Impact Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO 9790 Sect. 4.1&2
Bolte --------------------------
Biofidelity Test Series shoulder Shoulder Thorax test
test* test 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendulum Impact Speed (m/s)..... 4.3 4.5 4.3
Pendulum Probe Force (kN)....... 2.0 2.7 2.2
Shoulder Fx (N)................. 38.2 82.3 127.7
Shoulder Fy (N)................. 1002.9 1256.2 1208.4
Shoulder Fz (N)................. 223.8 236.9 809.6
Shoulder Rib X Acceleration (g). 15.9 31.9 24.3
Shoulder Rib Y Acceleration (g). 96.5 167.8 148.4
Shoulder Rib Z Acceleration (g). 54.2 79.1 149.7
Shoulder Rib Deflection (mm).... 25.2 33.5 15.7
Upper Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) 11.2 16.9 14.6
Middle Thorax Rib Deflection 10.1 16.6 17.3
(mm)...........................
Lower Thorax Rib Deflection (mm) 6.3 13.7 20.1
Upper Thorax Rib X Acceleration 12.9 15.4 14.8
(g)............................
Upper Thorax Rib Y Acceleration 49.6 125.4 46.8
(g)............................
Middle Thorax Rib X Acceleration 4.4 8.1 20.4
(g)............................
Middle Thorax Rib Y Acceleration 47.3 67.19 98.9
(g)............................
Lower Thorax Rib X Acceleration 6.8 10.1 19.7
(g)............................
Lower Thorax Rib Y Acceleration 41.9 43.2 123.7
(g)............................
Upper Spine X Acceleration (g).. 2.5 3.6 3.2
Upper Spine Y Acceleration (g).. 17.2 22.6 22.8
Lower Spine X Acceleration (g).. 1.6 2.9 3.4
Lower Spine Y Acceleration (g).. 8.4 13.6 15.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Procedure in Stapp Conference Paper 2003-22033.
b. Comparison of SID-IIsD With SID-IIsC Reported by Alliance
In its docket comments (Docket 17694 and 18865), the Alliance
included damage rates for the SID-IIsC dummy evaluated by its member
companies. Table A7 provides a summary of these damage rates, as well
as those the agency experienced with the SID-IIsD. The Alliance noted
7.8 dummy damages per 100 crash applications. The comparable damage
rate for the SID-IIsD in agency testing is 5.8 per 100. Based on the
six ribs and telescoping potentiometer units per dummy, the SID-IIsD
had a damage rate of zero for ribs and 1.2 per 100 for the
potentiometers. Comparable Alliance damage rates are 0.7 for the ribs
and 0.4 for telescoping potentiometers. Inasmuch as the impact
intensities of the Alliance reported dummy exposures are not known, it
is difficult to establish direct comparability between Build Level C
and Build Level D dummies. However, the agency observed failures rates
for the Build Level D might be far lower, since damage was experienced
by only one abdominal set of telescoping potentiometers associated with
a vehicle crush deformation that is considerably in excess of the
anticipated IARVs.
[[Page 75370]]
Table A7.--Damage to SID-IIsD Dummies in Agency and OSRP reported SID-IIsC Dummies in Sled and Vehicle Crash
Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposures
----------------------------------------------------------
No. of SID-
IIsDs in
sled & No of ribs or SID-IIsC** No of ribs &
vehicle potentiometers* related**
tests*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported.................................... 69 414 283 1698
With damage................................ 4 5 22 31
% With damage........................................ 5.8 1.2 7.8 1.8
Indications ribs leaving the guides........ 1 2 3 4
% Indications ribs leaving the guides................ 1.5 0.5 1.1 0.2
With specific damage
Damping material damaged............................. 4 NA NA 6
Damping material de-bonded........................... 5.8 0 NA 6
Ribs bent............................................ 0 0 NA 12
% Ribs bent.......................................... 0 0 NA 0.7
Potentiometer shaft bent............................. 4 5 NA NA
Potentiometer shaft broken........................... 0 0 NA 6
% Potentiometers bent or broken...................... 5.8 1.2 NA 0.4
Other................................................ ............ ............... NA 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Agency tests based on 10 Pole tests; 8 MDB tests (2 dummies per test); 2 MDB tests at NCAP speed (2 dummies
per test); 8 Bio/Durability sled tests; 20 R/R sled tests at MCW; 5 R/R sled tests at TRC (2 dummies per
test).
** OSRP data.
III. Summary of Appendix A
The SID-IIsD dummy's durability was examined in at least four types
of impact applications. The dummy was found to be extremely durable and
capable of yielding measurements for occupant injury assessment over a
wide range of impact conditions. While we do not have information at
this time to estimate the service life for this dummy, the service life
appears to be comparable or better than other crash dummies. We
conclude that the SID-IIsD is well suited for use in research, FMVSS
and NCAP test programs.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572
Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as
follows:
PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES
0
1. The authority citation for Part 572 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. 49 CFR part 572 is amended by adding a new subpart V consisting of
Sec. Sec. 572.190 through 572.200 to read as follows:
Subpart V, SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, Small Adult Female
Sec.
572.190 Incorporated materials.
572.191 General description.
572.192 Head assembly.
572.193 Neck assembly.
572.194 Shoulder.
572.195 Thorax with arm.
572.196 Thorax without arm.
572.197 Abdomen.
572.198 Pelvis acetabulum.
572.199 Pelvis iliac.
572.200 Instrumentation and test conditions.
Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572--Figures
Subpart V, SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, Small Adult
Female
Sec. 572.190 Incorporated materials.
(a) The following materials are hereby incorporated into this
Subpart by reference:
(1) A parts/drawing list entitled, ``Parts/Drawings List, Part 572
Subpart V, SID-IIsD, September 2006,''
(2) A drawings and inspection package entitled ``Drawings and
Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572
Subpart V, September 2006,'' consisting of:
(i) Drawing No. 180-0000, SID-IIsD Complete Assembly;
(ii) Drawing No. 180-1000, 6 Axis Head Assembly;
(iii) Drawing No. 180-2000, Neck Assembly;
(iv) Drawing No. 180-3000, Upper Torso Assembly;
(v) Drawing No. 180-3005, Washer, Clamping;
(vi) Drawing No. 9000021, Screw, SHCS \3/8\-16 x 1 NYLOK;
(vii) Drawing No. 900005, Screw, SHCS \1/4\-20 x \5/8\ NYLOK;
(viii) Drawing No. 180-4000, Lower Torso Assembly Complete;
(ix) Drawing No. 180-5000-1, Complete Leg Assembly, Left;
(x) Drawing No. 180-5000-2, Complete Leg Assembly, Right;
(xi) Drawing No. 180-6000-1, Arm Assembly Left Molded;
(xii) Drawing No. 180-6000-2, Arm Assembly Right Molded; and,
(xiii) Drawing No. 180-9000, SID-IIsD Headform Assembly.
(3) A procedures manual entitled, ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash
Test Dummy, September 2006,'' incorporated by reference in Sec.
572.191;
(4) SAE Recommended Practice J211, Rev. Mar 95 ``Instrumentation
for Impact Tests--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation''; and,
(5) 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 the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and in electronic format
through the DOT docket management system (DMS). For information on the
availability and inspection of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
For information on the
availability and inspection of this material at the DOT DMS, call 1-
800-647-5527, or go to: http://dms.dot.gov.
(c) The incorporated materials are available as follows:
[[Page 75371]]
(1) The Parts/Drawings List, Part 572 Subpart V, SID-IIsD,
September 2006, referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the
package entitled Drawings and Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female
Crash Test Dummy, Part 572 Subpart V, September 2006, referred to in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the PADI document referred to in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, are available in electronic format
through the DOT docket management system and in paper format from Leet-
Melbrook, Division of New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD
20879, telephone (301) 670-0090.
(2) The SAE materials referred to in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5)
of this section are available from the Society of Automotive Engineers,
Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, telephone 1-877-
606-7323.
Sec. 572.191 General description.
(a) The SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, small adult female,
is defined by:
(1) The drawings and specifications contained in the ``Drawings and
Specifications for SID-IIsD Small Female Crash Test Dummy, Part 572
Subpart V, September 2006,'' which includes the technical drawings and
specifications described in Drawing 180-0000, the titles of which are
listed in Table A;
Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component assembly Drawing No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Axis Head Assembly.................................... 180-1000
Neck Assembly........................................... 180-2000
Upper Torso Assembly.................................... 180-3000
Washer, Clamping........................................ 180-3005
Lower Torso Assembly Complete........................... 180-4000
Complete Leg Assembly, Left............................. 180-5000-1
Complete Leg Assembly, Right............................ 180-5000-2
Arm Assembly Left Molded................................ 180-6000-1
Arm Assembly Right Molded............................... 180-6000-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The ``Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart V, SID-IIsD,'' dated
September 2006 and containing 7 pages,
(3) A listing of available transducers-crash test sensors for the
SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, 5th percentile adult female, is
shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 2 of 5, dated September 2006,
(4) ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI)
of the SID-IIsD Side Impact Crash Test Dummy, September 2006,'' and,
(5) Sign convention for signal outputs reference document SAE J1733
Information Report, titled ``Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash
Testing,'' dated July 12, 1994, incorporated by reference in Sec.
572.200(k).
(b) Exterior dimensions of the SID-IIsD Small Adult Female Side
Impact Crash Test Dummy are shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 3 of 5,
dated September 2006.
(c) Weights and center of gravity locations of body segments are
shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 4 of 5, dated September 2006.
(d) Adjacent segments are joined in a manner such that, except for
contacts existing under static conditions, there is no additional
contact between metallic elements of adjacent body segments throughout
the range of motion.
(e) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy
conforms to this Subpart in every respect before use in any test
similar to that set forth in Standard 214, Side Impact Protection (49
CFR 571.214).
Sec. 572.192 Head assembly.
(a) The head assembly consists of the head (180-1000) and a set of
three (3) accelerometers in conformance with specifications in 49 CFR
572.200(d) and mounted as shown in drawing 180-0000 sheet 2 of 5. When
tested to the procedure specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the
head assembly shall meet performance requirements specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. The head shall be tested according to the
procedure specified in 49 CFR 572.112(a).
(c) Performance criteria.
(1) When the head assembly is dropped from either the right or left
lateral incline orientations in accordance with procedure in Sec.
572.112(a), the measured peak resultant acceleration shall be between
115 g and 137 g;
(2) The resultant acceleration-time curve shall be unimodal to the
extent that oscillations occurring after the main acceleration pulse
shall not exceed 15% (zero to peak) of the main pulse;
(3) The longitudinal acceleration vector (anterior-posterior
direction) shall not exceed 15 g.
Sec. 572.193 Neck assembly.
(a) The neck assembly consists of parts shown in drawing 180-2000.
For purposes of this test, the neck assembly is mounted within the
headform assembly (180-9000) as shown in Figure V1 in Appendix A to
this subpart. When subjected to the test procedure specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, the neck-headform assembly shall meet
the performance requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(b) Test procedure.
(1) Soak the assembly in a test environment as specified in 49 CFR
572.200(j);
(2) Attach the neck-headform assembly, as shown in Figure V2-A or
V2-B in Appendix A to this subpart, to the 49 CFR Part 572 pendulum
test fixture (Figure 22, 49 CFR 572.33) in either the left or right
lateral impact orientations, respectively, so that the midsagittal
plane of the neck-headform assembly is vertical and at right angle (90
1 degrees) to the plane of motion of the pendulum
longitudinal centerline;
(3) Release the pendulum from a height sufficient to achieve a
velocity of 5.57 0.06 m/s measured at the center of the
pendulum accelerometer, as shown in 49 CFR Part 572 Figure 15, at the
instant the pendulum makes contact with the decelerating mechanism;
(4) The neck flexes without the neck-headform assembly making
contact with any object;
(5) Time zero is defined as the time of initial contact between the
pendulum mounted striker plate and the pendulum deceleration mechanism;
(6) Allow a period of at least thirty (30) minutes between
successive tests on the same neck assembly.
(c) Performance Criteria.
(1) The pendulum deceleration pulse is characterized in terms of
decrease in velocity as obtained by integrating the pendulum
acceleration output from time zero:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pendulum Delta-V
Time (ms) (m/s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0................................................ -2.20 to -2.80
15.0................................................ -3.30 to -4.10
20.0................................................ -4.40 to -5.40
25.0................................................ -5.40 to -6.10
>25.0 < 100......................................... -5.50 to -6.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The maximum translation-rotation of the midsagittal plane of
the headform disk (180-9061 or 9062) in the lateral direction measured,
with the rotation transducers specified in 49 CFR 572.200(e) shall be
71 to 81 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the pendulum
(see Figure V2-C in Appendix A to this subpart) occurring between 50
and 70 ms from time zero;
(3) Peak occipital condyle moment shall not be higher than -36 Nm
and not lower than -44 Nm. The moment measured by the upper neck load
cell (Mx) shall be adjusted by the following formula: Mx(oc) \1\=
Mx+0.01778Fy;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mx(oc) is the moment at occipital condyle (Newton-meters)
and Fy is the lateral shear force (Newtons) measured by the load
cell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75372]]
(4) The decaying moment shall cross the 0 Nm line after peak moment
between 102 ms-126 ms after time zero.
Sec. 572.194 Shoulder.
(a) The shoulder structure is part of the upper torso assembly
shown in drawing 180-3000. For the shoulder impact test, the dummy is
tested as a complete assembly (drawing 180-0000). The dummy is equipped
with T1 laterally oriented accelerometer as specified in 49 CFR
572.200(d), and deflection potentiometer as specified in 180-3881
configured for shoulder and installed as shown in drawing 180-0000
sheet 2 of 5. When subjected to the test procedure as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, the shoulder shall meet the performance
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
(2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the torso jacket (180-3450) and
cotton underwear pants on a certification bench, specified in Figure V3
in Appendix A to this subpart, the seat pan and the seatback surfaces
of which are covered with a 2 mm thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet;
(3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 10
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V4-A in Appendix A
to this subpart, while the midsagittal plane of the dummy is in
vertical orientation.
(4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat
back.
(5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is
24.6 2.0 degrees relative to horizontal, as shown in
Figure V4-B in Appendix A to this subpart.
(6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible.
(7) Orient the arm to point forward at 90 degrees relative to the
interior-superior orientation of the upper torso spine box incline.
(8) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(a).
(9) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
dummy's arm rotation centerline (ref. item 23 in drawing 180-3000) the
impactor's longitudinal axis is within 1 degree of a
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the
dummy. The centerpoint of the impactor face at contact is within 2 mm
of the shoulder yoke assembly rotation centerline (drawing 180-3327),
as shown in Figure V4-A in Appendix A to this subpart.
(10) The dummy's arm-shoulder is impacted at 4.40.1 m/s
with the impactor meeting the alignment and contact point requirements
of paragraph (b)(9) of this section.
(c) Performance criteria.
(1) While the impactor is in contact with the dummy's arm, the
shoulder shall compress not less than 30 mm and not more than 37 mm
measured by the potentiometer specified in (a);
(2) Peak lateral acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be
less than 17 g and not more than 19 g;
(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall be not less than 14 g and not
more than 18 g.
Sec. 572.195 Thorax with arm.
(a) The thorax is part of the upper torso assembly shown in drawing
180-3000. For the thorax with arm impact test, the dummy is tested as a
complete assembly (drawing 180-0000). The dummy's thorax is equipped
with T1 and T12 laterally oriented accelerometers as specified in 49
CFR 572.200(d), and deflection potentiometers for the thorax and
shoulder as specified in 180-3881, installed as shown in drawing 180-
0000 sheet 2 of 5. When subjected to the test procedure as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, the thorax shall meet performance
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
(2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the torso jacket (180-3450) and
cotton underwear pants on a certification bench, specified in Figure
V3, the seat pan and the seatback surfaces of which are covered with a
2-mm-thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet.
(3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 10
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V5-A, while the
midsagittal plane of the dummy is in vertical orientation.
(4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat
back.
(5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is
24.6 2.0 degrees relative to horizontal as shown in Figure
V5-B in Appendix A to this subpart.
(6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible.
(7) Orient the arm downward to the lowest detent.
(8) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(a).
(9) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
dummy's arm, its longitudinal axis is within 1 degree of a
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the
dummy. The centerpoint of the impactor face is within 2 mm of the
vertical midpoint of the second thoracic rib and coincident with a line
parallel to the seat back incline passing through the center of the
shoulder yoke assembly arm rotation pivot (drawing 180-3327), as shown
in Figure V5-A in Appendix A to this subpart.
(10) The dummy's arm is impacted at 6.7 0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria.
(1) While the impactor is in contact with the dummy's arm, the
thoracic ribs and the shoulder shall conform to the following range of
deflections:
(i) Shoulder not less than 31 mm and not more than 40 mm;
(ii) Upper thorax rib not less than 26 mm and not more than 32 mm;
(iii) Middle thorax rib not less than 30 mm and not more than 36
mm;
(iv) Lower thorax rib not less than 32 mm and not more than 38 mm;
(2) Peak lateral acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be
less than 34 g and not more than 43 g, and the lower spine (T12) not
less than 28 g and not more than 35 g;
(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall be not less than 31 g and not
more than 36 g.
Sec. 572.196 Thorax without arm.
(a) The thorax is part of the upper torso assembly shown in drawing
180-3000. For this thorax test, the dummy is
[[Page 75373]]
tested as a complete assembly (drawing 180-0000) with the arm (180-
6000) on the impacted side removed. The dummy's thorax is equipped with
T1 and T12 laterally oriented accelerometers as specified in 49 CFR
572.200(d) and with deflection potentiometers for the thorax as
specified in drawing 180-3881, installed as shown in drawing 180-0000
sheet 2 of 5. When subjected to the test procedure specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, the thorax shall meet the performance
requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
(2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the torso jacket (180-3450) and
cotton underwear pants on a calibration bench, specified in Figure V3
in Appendix A to this subpart, the seat pan and the seatback surfaces
of which are covered with a 2-mm-thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet.
(3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 25
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V4-A, while the
midsagittal plane of the dummy is in vertical orientation.
(4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat
back.
(5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is
24.6 2.0 degrees relative to horizontal, as shown in
Figure V6-B in Appendix A to this subpart.
(6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible.
(7) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(a).
(8) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
thorax, its longitudinal axis is within 1 degree of a horizontal plane
and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the dummy. The
centerpoint of the impactor face is within 2 mm of the vertical
midpoint of the second thorax rib and coincident with a line parallel
to the seat back incline passing through the center of the shoulder
yoke assembly arm rotation pivot (drawing 180-3327), as shown in Figure
V6-A in Appendix A to this subpart.
(9) The dummy's thorax is impacted at 4.3 0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria.
(1) While the impactor is in contact with the dummy's thorax, the
ribs shall conform to the following range of deflections:
(i) Upper thorax rib not less than 33 mm and not more than 40 mm;
(ii) Middle thorax rib not less than 39 mm and not more than 45 mm;
(iii) Lower thorax rib not less than 36 mm and not more than 43 mm;
(2) Peak acceleration of the upper spine (T1) shall not be less
than 14g and not more than 17 g and the lower spine (T12) not less than
7 g and not more than 10 g;
(3) Peak lateral impactor acceleration shall not be less than 14 g
and not more than 18 g.
Sec. 572.197 Abdomen.
(a) The abdomen assembly is part of the upper torso assembly (180-
3000) and is represented by two ribs (180-3368) and two linear
deflection potentiometers (180-3881). The abdomen test is conducted on
the complete dummy assembly (180-0000) with the arm (180-6000) on the
impacted side removed. The dummy is equipped with a lower spine
laterally oriented accelerometer as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(d) and
deflection potentiometers specified in drawing 180-3881, installed as
shown in sheet 2 of drawing 180-0000. When subjected to the test
procedure as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the abdomen
shall meet performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
(2) Seat the dummy, outfitted with the torso jacket (180-3450) and
cotton underwear pants on a calibration bench, specified in Figure V3,
the seat pan and the seatback surfaces of which are covered with a 2 mm
thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet.
(3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 25
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V7-A in Appendix A
to this subpart, while the midsagittal plane of the dummy is in
vertical orientation.
(4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat
back.
(5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in
paragraph (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is
24.6 2.0 degrees relative to horizontal, as shown in
Figure V7-B in Appendix A to this subpart);
(6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible;
(7) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(b);
(8) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
abdomen, its longitudinal axis is within 1 degree of a
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the
dummy and the centerpoint of the impactor's face is within 2 mm of the
vertical midpoint between the two abdominal ribs and coincident with a
line parallel to the seat back incline passing through the center of
the shoulder yoke assembly arm rotation pivot (drawing 180-3327), as
shown in Figure V7-A in Appendix A to this subpart;
(9) The dummy's abdomen is impacted at 4.4 0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria. (1) While the impact probe is in contact
with the dummy's abdomen, the deflection of the upper abdominal rib
shall be not less than 39 mm and not more than 47 mm, and the lower
abdominal rib not less than 37 mm and not more than 46 mm.
(2) Peak acceleration of the lower spine (T12) laterally oriented
accelerometer shall be not less than 11 g and not more than 14 g;
(3) Peak impactor acceleration shall be not less than 12 g and not
more than 16 g.
Sec. 572.198 Pelvis acetabulum.
(a) The acetabulum is part of the lower torso assembly shown in
drawing 180-4000. The acetabulum test is conducted by impacting the
side of the lower torso of the assembled dummy (drawing 180-0000). The
dummy is equipped with a laterally oriented pelvis accelerometer as
specified in 49 CFR 572.200(d), acetabulum load cell SA572-S68, mounted
as shown in sheet 2 of 5 of drawing 180-0000, and an unused and
certified pelvis plug (180-4450). When subjected to the test procedure
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the pelvis shall meet
[[Page 75374]]
performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
(2) Seat the dummy, without the torso jacket (180-3450) and without
cotton underwear pants, as shown in Figure V8-A in Appendix A to this
subpart, on a calibration bench, specified in Figure V3 in Appendix A
to this subpart, with the seatpan and the seatback surfaces covered
with a 2-mm-thick PTFE (Teflon) sheet;
(3) Align the outermost portion of the pelvis flesh of the impacted
side of the seated dummy tangent to a vertical plane located within 10
mm of the side edge of the bench as shown in Figure V8-A in Appendix A
to this subpart, while the midsagittal plane of the dummy is in
vertical orientation.
(4) Push the dummy at the knees and at mid-sternum of the upper
torso with just sufficient horizontally oriented force towards the seat
back until the back of the upper torso is in contact with the seat
back.
(5) While maintaining the dummy's position as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib
mount (drawing 180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is
24.6 1.0 degrees relative to horizontal, as shown in
Figure V8-B in Appendix A to this subpart;
(6) Adjust orientation of the legs such that they are symmetrical
about the mid-sagittal plane, the thighs touch the seat pan, the inner
part of the right and left legs at the knees are as close as possible
to each other, the heels touch the designated foot support surface and
the feet are vertical and as close together as possible.
(7) Rotate the arm downward to the lowest detent.
(8) The impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(a).
(9) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
pelvis, its longitudinal axis is within 1 degree of a
horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane of the
dummy. The centerpoint of the impactor's face is in line within 2 mm of
the longitudinal centerline of the \1/4\-20x\1/2\ flat head cap screw
through the center of the acetabulum load cell (SA572-S68), as shown in
Figure V8-A in Appendix A to this subpart;
(10) The dummy's pelvis is impacted at the acetabulum at 6.7 < plus-
minus> 0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria. While the impactor is in contact with the
pelvis:
(1) Peak acceleration of the impactor is not less than 38 g and not
more than 47 g;
(2) Peak lateral acceleration of the pelvis is not less than 41 g
and not more than 50 g;
(3) Peak acetabulum force is not less than 3.8 kN and not more than
4.6 kN.
Sec. 572.199 Pelvis iliac.
(a) The iliac is part of the lower torso assembly shown in drawing
180-4000. The iliac test is conducted by impacting the side of the
lower torso of the assembled dummy (drawing 180-0000). The dummy is
equipped with a laterally oriented pelvis accelerometer as specified in
49 CFR 572.200(d), and acetabulum load cell SA572-S68, mounted as shown
in sheet 2 of 5 of drawing 180-0000. When subjected to the test
procedure as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the pelvis
shall meet performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Test procedure. (1) Soak the dummy assembly (180-0000) in a
test environment as specified in 49 CFR 572.200(j).
(2) Seat the dummy, without the torso jacket and without cotton
underwear pants, as shown in Figure V9-A in Appendix A to this subpart,
on a flat, rigid, horizontal surface covered with a 2-mm-thick PTFE
(Teflon) sheet.
(3) The legs are outstretched in front of the dummy such that they
are symmetrical about the midsagittal plane, the thighs touch the
seated surface, the inner part of the right and left legs at the knees
are as close as possible to each other, and the feet are in full
dorsiflexion and as close together as possible.
(4) The midsagittal plane of the dummy is vertical and superior
surface of the lower half neck assembly load cell replacement (180-
3815) in the lateral direction is within 1 degree relative
to the horizontal as shown in Figure V9-A.
(5) While maintaining the dummy s position as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the top of the shoulder rib
mount (180-3352) orientation in the fore-and-aft direction is within
1.0 degrees relative to horizontal as shown in Figure V9-B
in Appendix A to this subpart.
(6) The pelvis impactor is specified in 49 CFR 572.200(c).
(7) The dummy is positioned with respect to the impactor such that
the longitudinal centerline of the impact probe is in line with the
longitudinal centerline of the iliac load cell access hole and the 88.9
mm dimension of the probe's impact surface is aligned horizontally.
(8) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the
pelvis, the longitudinal axis of the impactor is within 1
degree of a horizontal plane and perpendicular to the midsagittal plane
of the dummy.
(9) The dummy s pelvis is impacted at the iliac location at 4.3
0.1 m/s.
(c) Performance criteria. While the impactor is in contact with the
pelvis:
(1) Peak lateral acceleration of the impactor is not less than 34 g
and not more than 40 g;
(2) Peak lateral acceleration of the pelvis is not less than 27 g
and not more than 33 g;
(3) Peak iliac force is not less than 3.7 kN and not more than 4.5
kN.
Sec. 572.200 Instrumentation and test conditions.
(a) The test probe for shoulder, lateral thorax, and pelvis-
acetabulum impact tests is the same as that specified in 49 CFR
572.137(a) except that its impact face diameter is 120.70
0.25 mm and it has a minimum mass moment of inertia of 3646 kg-cm\2\.
(b) The test probe for the lateral abdomen impact test is the same
as that specified in 572.137(a) except that its impact face diameter is
76.20 0.25 mm and it has a minimum mass moment of inertia
of 3646 kg-cm\2\.
(c) The test probe for the pelvis-iliac impact tests is the same as
that specified in 49 CFR 572.137(a) except that it has a rectangular
flat impact surface 50.8 x 88.9 mm for a depth of at least 76 mm and a
minimum mass moment of inertia of 5000 kg-cm\2\.
(d) Accelerometers for the head, the thoracic spine, and the pelvis
conform to specifications of SA572-S4.
(e) Rotary potentiometers for the neck-headform assembly conform to
SA572-S51.
(f) Instrumentation and sensors conform to the Recommended Practice
SAE J-211 (March 1995), Instrumentation for Impact Test, unless noted
otherwise.
(g) All instrumented response signal measurements shall be treated
to the following specifications:
(1) Head acceleration--digitally filtered CFC 1000;
(2) Neck-headform assembly translation-rotation--digitally filtered
CFC 60;
(3) Neck pendulum, T1 and T12 thoracic spine and pelvis
accelerations--digitally filtered CFC 180;
(4) Neck forces (for the purpose of occipital condyle calculation)
and moments--digitally filtered at CFC 600;
(5) Pelvis, shoulder, thorax and abdomen impactor accelerations--
digitally filtered CFC 180;
(6) Acetabulum and iliac wings forces--digitally filtered at CFC
600;
[[Page 75375]]
(7) Shoulder, thorax, and abdomen deflection--digitally filtered
CFC 600.
(h) Mountings for the head, thoracic spine and pelvis
accelerometers shall have no resonant frequency within a range of 3
times the frequency range of the applicable channel class;
(i) Leg joints of the test dummy are set at the force between 1 to
2 g, which just support the limb's weight when the limbs are extended
horizontally forward. The force required to move a limb segment does
not exceed 2 g throughout the range of the limb motion.
(j) Performance tests are conducted, unless specified otherwise, at
any temperature from 20.6 to 22.2 degrees C. (69 to 72 degrees F.) and
at any relative humidity from 10% to 70% after exposure of the dummy to
those conditions for a period of 3 hours.
(k) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity shall conform to
the Sign Convention For Vehicle Crash Testing, Surface Vehicle
Information Report, SAE J1733, 1994-12 (refer to Sec. 572.191(a)(5)).
Appendix A to Subpart V of Part 572--Figures
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.009
[[Page 75376]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.010
[[Page 75377]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.011
[[Page 75378]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.013
[[Page 75379]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.015
[[Page 75380]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.017
[[Page 75381]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.019
[[Page 75382]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.021
[[Page 75383]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.023
[[Page 75384]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14DE06.025
Issued: November 24, 2006.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-9555 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C