Impact response of Hybrid III dummy and cadaver knee-femur-pelvis complex

The purpose of this work was to compare the Hybrid III and PMHS responses to axial impacts of the lower limb. The tests consisted of impacting the knee joint of the subject in seated position with no back support at 2.8 m/s and 4 m/s with a 12kg pendulum. Force and resultant acceleration time histories were obtained for both kinds of subject and compared. The dummy and PMHS responses concerning the femur, the iliac crest corresponding to the impacted leg and the sacrum followed the same pattern and HIII peak values were in the PMHS corridors for both impact velocities. But nevertheless significant differences were observed. It appeared that the dummy knee impact force was larger in magnitude and shorter in duration than the cadaver knee load in both test conditions. The response of the iliac crest corresponding to the no impacted leg was outside the PMHS corridors. The cinematic of the PMHS was not reproduced by the dummy that had a backward movement and underestimated the rotation of the cadaver. The results showed that the Hybrid III femur-pelvis complex did not provide a completely realistic representation of the human one.

[1]  Jeffrey Richard Crandall,et al.  Costs of lower limb injuries in highway crashes , 1995 .

[2]  John W. Melvin,et al.  Impact response and injury of the pelvis , 1982 .

[3]  William R. S. Fan,et al.  Femur load injury criteria: a realistic approach , 1973 .

[4]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Knee injuries in motor vehicle collisions: a study of the National Accident Sampling System database for the years 1979-1995. , 2000, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[5]  L. M. Patrick,et al.  Cadaver and dummy knee impact response , 1976 .

[6]  Patrick J. Atkinson,et al.  The influence of impact interface on human knee injury: Implications for instrument panel design and the lower extremity injury criterion , 1997 .

[7]  J. B. Benson,et al.  IMPACT RESPONSE AND TOLERANCE OF THE LOWER EXTREMITIES , 1975 .

[8]  Albert I. King,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDY OF KNEE FRACTURE MECHANISMS IN A FRONTAL KNEE IMPACT , 1996 .

[9]  Patrick J. Atkinson,et al.  Insult to the Human Cadaver Patellofemoral Joint: Effects of Age on Fracture Tolerance and Occult Injury , 1995 .

[10]  Patrick J. Atkinson,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF INJURY CRITERIA FOR HUMAN SURROGATES TO ADDRESS CURRENT TRENDS IN KNEE-TO-INSTRUMENT PANEL INJURIES , 1998 .

[11]  J. M. Porter,et al.  Enquête anthropométrique sur les conducteurs français (Anthropometric survey of French drivers): Roger Rebiffé, Jacques Guillien and Patrick Pasquet Laboratoire de physiologie et de biomecanique de L'association Peugeot-Renault , 1985 .

[12]  David P. Roberts,et al.  Comparison of Cadaver and Hybrid III Dummy Response to Axial Impacts of the Femur , 1987 .

[13]  L. M. Patrick,et al.  Cadaver Knee, Chest and Head Impact Loads , 1967 .

[14]  David C. Viano.  Considerations for a femur injury criterion , 1977 .

[15]  Georges Winckler,et al.  Manuel d'anatomie topographique et fonctionnelle , 1974 .

[16]  J. Melvin,et al.  Human tolerance to lower extremities impacts , 1976 .

[17]  Rolf H. Eppinger,et al.  Development of dummy and injury index for NHTSA's thoracic side impact protection research program , 1984 .

[18]  John W. Melvin,et al.  BOLSTER IMPACTS TO THE KNEE AND TIBIA OF HUMAN CADAVERS AND AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC DUMMY. SAE PT-31, PASSENGER CAR INFLATABLE RESTRAINT SYSTEMS: A COMPENDIUM OF PUBLISHED SAFETY RESEARCH , 1978 .

[19]  Catherine Masson,et al.  RESPONSE OF THE HUMAN PELVIS-FEMUR-KNEE COMPLEX DURING LOW SPEED FRONTAL IMPACT , 2002 .

[20]  C. Got,et al.  Study of 'knee-thigh-hip' protection criterion , 1983 .