Comparative biofidelity of the Hybrid III and THOR 50th male ATDs under three restraint conditions during frontal sled tests

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to provide a whole-body biofidelity assessment of the Hybrid III (HIII) and THOR 50th percentile male anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) during frontal sled tests, incorporating data from kinematics, chest deflection, and test buck reaction load cells. Additionally, the accuracy of the injury risk prediction capabilities for each ATD was evaluated against injuries observed in matched postmortem human surrogate (PMHS) tests. Methods Sled tests, designed to simulate a United States New Car Assessment Program (US-NCAP) frontal test, were conducted using the HIII, THOR, and 8 approximately 50th percentile male PMHS under 3 restraint conditions. The test buck was instrumented with load cells on the steering column, knee bolster supports, and foot supports. ATD and PMHS reaction force–time histories were quantitatively compared using the ISO/TS-18571 objective rating metric. Previously published biofidelity analyses of kinematic and chest deflection data from the same tests were combined with the reaction force analyses to perform an overall assessment of the comparative biofidelity of each ATD. Injury risk predictions from existing HIII and proposed THOR injury risk curves for the US-NCAP were compared to observed injuries. Results For the reaction forces, the HIII and THOR had similar levels of biofidelity on average, except for 2 locations. The HIII produced more biofidelic knee bolster support forces, and the THOR lap belt forces were more biofidelic. The comparative biofidelity of the ATDs also varied by body region. The THOR head response was more biofidelic, whereas the HIII thorax and lower extremity responses had higher biofidelity. When all body regions were pooled, the HIII was more biofidelic, but differences between ATDs were generally small. Both ATDs were able to predict the observed injuries, except for the HIII chest, HIII neck, and THOR neck, all of which underpredicted PMHS injury outcomes. Conclusions This study revealed that biofidelity assessed through response time histories and accuracy of injury risk predictions do not always align. Specifically, the HIII had marginally better time history biofidelity, whereas the THOR had better injury prediction. However, not all THOR responses could be fully assessed, so more work is needed to assess the THOR in complex loading environments.