LAUSR

Abstract Objective This study presents a comparison of the Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR) 50M and Hybrid III (HIII) 50M anthropomorphic test device (ATD) geometries and rear impact head and neck biofidelity to each other and to postmortem human surrogate (PMHS) data to evaluate the usefulness of the THOR in rear impact testing. Methods Both ATDs were scanned in a seated position on a rigid bench seat. A series of rear impact sled tests with the rigid bench seat with no head restraint support were conducted with a HIII-50M at 16 and 24 kph. Tests at each speed were performed twice with the THOR-50M to allow an assessment of the repeatability of the THOR-50M. A comparison of the test results from THOR-50M testing were made to the results of a previous study that included PMHS. Rear impact sled tests with both ATDs in a modern seat were then conducted at 40 kph. Results The THOR-50M head was 48.4 mm rearward and 60.1 mm higher than the HIII-50M head when seated in the rigid bench seat. In the repeated rigid bench testing at 16 and 24 kph, the THOR-50M head longitudinal and vertical accelerations, upper neck moment, and overall kinematics showed good test-to-test repeatability. In the rigid bench tests, the THOR-50M neck experienced flexion prior to extension in the 16 kph tests, where the neck of the HIII only experienced extension. At 24 kph both ATDs only experienced extension. The THOR-50M head displaced more rearward at both test velocities. The rigid bench tests show that the THOR-50M neck allows for more extension motion or articulation than the HIII-50M neck. The rigid bench test also shows that the head longitudinal and vertical accelerations, angular head kinematics, and upper neck moments were reasonably comparable between the ATDs. The THOR-50M results were closer to the average of the PMHS results than the HIII-50-M results, with the exception of the upper neck. In the 40 kph tests, with a modern seat design, the THOR-50M resulted in more deformation of the seatback with greater head restraint loading than the HIII-50M. The THOR-50M head backset distance was less. Conclusion This study provides insight into the differences and similarities between the THOR and the HIII-50M ATD geometries, instrumentation responses, and kinematics, as well as the repeatability of the THOR-50M in rear impacts testing. The overall geometries of the THOR-50M and the HIII-50M are similar. The seated head position of the THOR-50M is slightly further rearward and higher than the HIII-50M. The results indicate that the THOR-50M matches the PMHS results more closely than the HIII-50M and may have improved neck biofidelity in rear impact testing. The results indicate that the studied THOR-50M responses are repeatable within expected test-to-test variations in rear impacts. Early data suggest that the THOR-50M can be used in rear impact testing, though a more complete understanding of the THOR-50M differences to the HIII ATDs will allow for better correlation to the existing body of HIII rear impact testing.