Responses of Hybrid III 3YO and Q3 dummies in various CRSs tested using ECE R44 impact conditions

Tanaka, Yoshinori; Yonezawa, Hideki; Hosokawa, Naruyuki; Matsui, Yasuhiro; Mizuno, Koji; Yamaguchi, Masatomo; Yoshida, Ryoichi

Affiliations

¹National Traffic Safety and Environment Laboratory

Abstract

There are various types of child restraint systems (CRSs), and the child kinematic response behavior during a crash is different according to which CRS type is being used. In general, P3, Q3 and Hybrid III 3-year-old (3YO) dummies are used to evaluate the performance of the forward-facing CRSs in sled and crash tests. In this study, the Hybrid III 3YO and Q3 dummies were seated in 7 types of CRSs and were tested under the impact conditions specified in ECE R44. The tested CRSs include a 5-point harness and an impact shield, and their installations on the vehicle seat were accomplished by using the seat belt or the ISOFIX with a top tether. The dummy response and injury measures were compared.

The neck flexed in the 5-point harness CRS and the chest deflection was small due to the shoulder harness restraint. In the impact shield CRS, the chest was loaded and the chest deflection was large. The chest deflection in the impact shield CRS depends on the shield structure, and it was small when the shield supported the pelvis. For the 5-point harness CRS, the injury measures of the dummy were smaller in the ISOFIX CRS with a top tether than in the seat belt installed CRS, especially that for the head excursion. For the impact shield CRS, the injury measures were comparable between the ISOFIX CRS with a top tether and in the seat belt installed CRS.

The global dummy kinematic behavior was comparable between the Hybrid III 3YO and Q3 dummies, though the Q3 showed more flexible behavior. This less-stiff characteristics of the Q3 affected the head kinematic behavior. In the 5-point harness CRS, the neck tension force of the Q3 was higher than that for the Hybrid III 3YO, possibly because the Q3 head severely contacted the chest due to its less-stiff neck. The chest deflection of the Q3 was larger than that of Hybrid III 3YO. This large chest deflection was more prominent for the impact shield CRS where the chest was directly loaded. The bottoming-out of the chest occurred for the Hybrid III 3YO seated in the impact shield CRS.

Links

URL: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0242.pdf

Cited Works (1)

Year	Entry
2000	Berliner JM, Athey J, Baayoun E, Byrnes K, Elhagediab A, Hultman R, Jensen J, Kim A, Kostyniuk G, Mertz H, Prest J, Rouhana S, Scherer R, Xu L. Comparative evaluation of the Q3 and Hybrid III 3-year-old dummies in biofidelity and static out-of-position airbag tests. Stapp Car Crash J. 2000;44:25-50. SAE 2000-01-SC03.

Cited By (3)

Year	Entry
2011	Hu J, Wang D, Mellor M, Chen G, Wang D, Li Z, Wang Y, Su X, Ma J, Tang X. Safety performance comparisons of different types of child seats in high speed impact tests. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). June 13-16, 2011; Washington, DC.
2013	Johannsen H, Beillas P, Lesire P. Analysis of the performance of different architectures of forward facing CRS with integral restraint system. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). May 27-30, 2013; Seoul, South Korea.
2016	Han Y, Ouyang J, Mizuno K, Cang A. Analysis of chest injuries to child occupants seated in impact shield CRS based on dummy tests, FE simulations and animal tests. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Injury. September 14-16, 2016; Malaga, Spain.339-349.