The European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) has carried out a study looking at the repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed test procedures and injury criteria. For repeatability, 3 repeat tests were carried out on 3 different seats using a 16 km/h delta-V test pulse. To evaluate reproducibility, the same 3 seats were tested to a common protocol at 5 different test labs using two different test pulses (16 and 25 km/h delta-V). The sleds used included both acceleration and deceleration types. A wide range of acceleration, simple force/moment and combined force and moment injury criteria were evaluated. In general, repeatability of the sled pulses was reasonable but significant variations in pulses and test set up were found between laboratories. As a result, more precise procedures, test pulse corridors and an agreed definition of T{sub}(zero) (beginning of impact) are needed. Repeatability of most of the injury criteria at 16 km/h was acceptable but reproducibility was poor, with variations of up to 40% for some of the criteria. The situation was even worse at 25 km/h, with some criteria showing variations of over 100%. Great care therefore needs to be exercised in selecting appropriate injury criteria, in selecting the stringency of assessment limits and in comparing results from different laboratories. The variation in results also questions the use of high severity pulses for neck injury assessment.
展开▼
机译：欧洲汽车制造商协会（ACEA）进行了一项研究了拟议的试验程序和伤害标准的可重复性和再现性。对于可重复性，使用16 km / h delta-V测试脉冲在3个不同的座椅上进行3个重复测试。为了评估再现性，使用两个不同的测试脉冲（16和25km / hΔ-V），在5个不同的测试实验室中测试相同的3个座位。使用的雪橇包括加速和减速类型。评估广泛的加速度，简单的力/时刻和组合的力和力矩损伤标准。通常，雪橇脉冲的可重复性是合理的，但在实验室之间发现了脉冲和测试设置的显着变化。结果，需要更精确的程序，测试脉冲走廊和T {sub}（零）的商定定义（影响的开始）。大多数伤害标准的可重复性为16公里/小时是可接受的，但重现性差，一些标准的变化高达40％。这种情况在25公里/小时的情况下更差，其中一些标准显示出100％以上的变化。因此，需要在选择适当的伤害标准方面进行很好的照顾，在选择评估限额的严格性以及比较不同实验室的结果时。结果的变化还询问了使用高严重性脉冲进行颈部损伤评估。
展开▼
