1981•Unpublished venueRequires access

Comparison study of two 3-year old child dummies (part 572 and p3) in a harness type child restraint system

Jac S. H. M. Wismans, Richard L. Stalnaker, Jaap C. Maltha

Open publisher page 6 citations

Abstract

The frontal crash response of the Part 572 3-year old child dummy in an American child restraint system was compared with that of a child cadaver in a previous study. In this study a new 3-year old dummy, the P3 which is prescribed in the ECE Regulation 44 was compared with both the behaviour of the Part 572 dummy and that of the cadaver. In addition the MADYMO mathematical crash victim simulation program was used in an extensive sensitivity study for detailed analysis of the differences between both dummies. Simulations were performed wth varied dummy characteristics like mass distribution and joint range of motions. Differences between both dummies and the cadaver were shown and explained by means of the results of the sensitivity study. The kinematical effect of the vertebral column of the cadaver was found to be simulated in a more realistic way by the P3 than by Part 572 dummy. Some recommendations on how to improve future child dummy design are given.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The frontal crash response of the Part 572 3-year old child dummy in an American child restraint system was compared with that of a child cadaver in a previous study. In this study a new 3-year old dummy, the P3 which is prescribed in the ECE Regulation 44 was compared with both the behaviour of the Part 572 dummy and that of the cadaver. In addition the MADYMO mathematical crash victim simulation program was used in an extensive sensitivity study for detailed analysis of the differences between both dummies. Simulations were performed wth varied dummy characteristics like mass distribution and joint range of motions. Differences between both dummies and the cadaver were shown and explained by means of the results of the sensitivity study. The kinematical effect of the vertebral column of the cadaver was found to be simulated in a more realistic way by the P3 than by Part 572 dummy. Some recommendations on how to improve future child dummy design are given.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The frontal crash response of the Part 572 3-year old child dummy in an American child restraint system was compared with that of a child cadaver in a previous study. In this study a new 3-year old dummy, the P3 which is prescribed in the ECE Regulation 44 was compared with both the behaviour of the Part 572 dummy and that of the cadaver. In addition the MADYMO mathematical crash victim simulation program was used in an extensive sensitivity study for detailed analysis of the differences between both dummies. Simulations were performed wth varied dummy characteristics like mass distribution and joint range of motions. Differences between both dummies and the cadaver were shown and explained by means of the results of the sensitivity study. The kinematical effect of the vertebral column of the cadaver was found to be simulated in a more realistic way by the P3 than by Part 572 dummy. Some recommendations on how to improve future child dummy design are given.

Key concepts: Cadaver, Crash, Sensitivity (control systems), Engineering, Computer science, Medicine, Surgery, Electronic engineering

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison study of two 3-year old child dummies (part 572 and p3) in a harness type child restraint system — Research Paper | ScholarLens