The Highway Safety Research Institute Dummy Compared with General Motors Biofidelity Recommendations and the Hybrid II Dummy 740588
Two Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI) dummies were tested and evaluated. Based on the analysis given, the HSI dummy should not be used for vehicle qualification testing. However, many of its components offer viable alternatives for future dummy development.
The dummy was found to have inadequate biomechanical fidelity in the head, neck, and chest, although its characteristics were very promising and, as a whole, biomechanically superior to the Hybrid II. Its repeatability and reproducibility in dynamic component tests were better than the Hybrid II dummy. In particular, the HSRI friction joints were outstanding in repeatability and had a significant advantage in usability in that they do not require resetting between tests.
In three-point harness and ACRS systems tests, the values of injury criteria produced by the HSRI dummy were generally lower than those obtained with the Hybrid II, especially the femur loads in the ACRS tests. However, the repeatability and reproducibility of the HSRI dummy were significantly poorer than the Hybrid II. Also, significant durability problems exist with the skin and lumbar spine of the HSRI dummy.
Citation: Neathery, R., Mertz, H., Hubbard, R., and Henderson, M., "The Highway Safety Research Institute Dummy Compared with General Motors Biofidelity Recommendations and the Hybrid II Dummy," SAE Technical Paper 740588, 1974, https://doi.org/10.4271/740588. Download Citation
Raymond F. Neathery, Harold J. Mertz, Robert P. Hubbard, Mark R. Henderson
Research Laboratories, General Motors Corp.
3rd International Conference on Occupant Protection (1974)