Dummy Channel Coding

[DiVe]

On the March 2008 Meeting we stated some genral rules to follow for future coding definitions on dummy measurements. This "principles" will adress the following situations:

a) Unique FL3 codes for one Dummy
There exists Advanced Lower Legs that could be mounted also to the HIII 50th and 5th percentile dummies and might change the dummy performance.
The channels for the advanced lower legs for the 50th percentile (LX 50th) will be coded with "X3" in Fine Location 3 of the ISO code. Therefore also all other measurements on the HIII dummy must be coded with "X3" for this dummy. Example: 11HEAD0000H3ACXP -> 11HEAD0000X3ACXP
Same applies to 5th percentile HIII with FLX legs and FL3 coding "XF".

b) THOR Dummy variants
For the THOR Dummy there are two variants existing: Thor-NT (FL3=NT) and THOR_FT (FL3=FT). Moreover there is a Fine Location 3 code for the THOR dummy "TH". In the proposal to be found in this forum for THOR coding the measurements found on both dummies have been given as "TH" and the specific measurements for the NT and FT variant with the "FT" and "NT". To follow the directive in a) the codings has to be unique for one dummy FL3 part. Therefore all codes must be used with "FT" or "NT". As soon as there might be a future compromise to design one THOR dummy out of the variants or to reject one variant then "TH" will be used instead for the THOR dummy.

c) Variants of SIDIIs (C and D Level) will use the same Coding
Measurements are identical on these Dummies and as far as we understand the performance requirements in the calibration are the same. So we see no need to specify different Fine Location 3 codes. In principle the "Type of the test" and "Subtype of the test" descriptors in the test descriptor file will allow to identify indirectly which procedure and which dummy has been used (IIHS, FMVSS214 new).

[DiVe]

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to document the current status of the topic of finding a solution
for the FL3-coding of a "Composed Dummy".

I already send around this topic by e-mail in December 2016. But now I would like to anchor
it in the discussion forum and made also some corrections in the Pros and Cons below.

Motivation
The concrete cause to have this discussion (again) is the intention of EuroNCAP to use the
THOR dummy (FL3=TH) in future frontal impact testing, but with the Lower legs taken from
the H3 50th percentile dummy (FL3=H3).

The major decision for the coding of this type of a "composed dummy" is how to
handle the Fine Location 3 Part (FL3) of the coding.
For the THOR all channels use a "TH" and on the H3-50th percentile
a "H3": like 11TIBILELOTHFOZP or 11TIBILELOH3FOZP

History
As you might remember we have had this topic already discussed a while ago (2008).
There the intention was to use the "new" Advanced Lower Extremities (ALEX, LX, FLX) on
the H3 50th dummy.
Actually we have made a decision in 2008 that is documented in the above post.

Code: Select all

a) Unique FL3 codes for one Dummy
There exists Advanced Lower Legs that could be mounted also to the HIII 50th 
and 5th percentile dummies and might change the dummy performance.
The channels for the advanced lower legs for the 50th percentile (LX 50th) will 
be coded with "X3" in Fine Location 3 of the ISO code. 
Therefore also all other measurements on the HIII dummy must be coded with 
"X3" for this dummy. Example: 11HEAD0000H3ACXP -> 11HEAD0000X3ACXP
Same applies to 5th percentile HIII with FLX legs and FL3 coding "XF". 

Quite contradictory we have recorded later on this kind of combination in the RED A:

Code: Select all

A.2.12   Combination of dummy parts 
When combining parts of different dummy types a unique FineLocation3 
has to be used. Esp. when using THOR legs together with the 50th percentile 
male Hybrid III the FineLocation3 should be H3 for all dummy channels.

From my point of view the latter decision has some risks in the processing and analysis process.
And also the first intention from 2008 might not be the best one.

In order to finalise this discussion and let all interested parties contribute with arguments
I would like to give some possible solutions with the aspects I would like to highlight the
pros and cons from my point of view.
In February 2017 an ISO MME Task Force meeting is planned and would be the ideal occasion
to discuss all the incoming aspects until then.

Possible Solution for ISO MME Coding on "Composed Dummies":

A) Use the unique coding all over the Dummy;
apply the TH coding also to the Legs (of the H3-50th)

Pros:
- unique coding of the dummy
- no new codes needed
- may no new figure needed (?; but at least a comment on the existing one for LL coding)

Cons:
- coding "hides" to device used to some extend
- Same naming for different devices, which needs different calculation parameters, calculation methods (critical for analysis software)
- Re-Coding of H3-LL devices when used alternating on H3-Dummy and TH-Dummy (test execution software)
- software modules based on analysis of incoming channel naming will deliver wrong results
- may new figure needed with this special combination (or at least a comment on the existing one for LL coding)

B) Use the unique coding all over the Dummy; recode the whole dummy code in FL3 with a
special (new) coding (like "TH"+"H3" -> "T3" or "TE" (THOR European))

Pros:
- unique coding of the dummy
- different coding highlights the special variant used
- no need to vary coding in test preparation for sensors

Cons:
- dual naming for devices: recoding of H3-LL devices (test execution software)
- new codes needed in DB
- new figure needed (or comment on TH figure?)
- find new coding for other upcoming combinations
- software products need "new" modules support the new coding

C) Use the original coding on the measurement locations and allow a
"Mixed Mode" FL3 coding (TH and H3 on one dummy/seating position)

Pros:
- no new codes needed
- software products need no new modules for new codes

Cons:
- new figure needed (for this combination)
- standard coding "hides" to some extend the special variant used
- no unique coding of the dummy (is this a really a problem for other software tools?)

I guess there might be more arguments, other opinions and may also other solutions.
So I would like to appeal to all of you to send in ideas and arguments in order to find
the best and practical solution.

Kind regrads,
Dirk

[pfeiffge]

Dear collegues,

the People of Porsche also prefer a unique coding of the dummy (one FL3)
If the "mixed" dummy will be part of a new procedure our solution should be a new FL3 which describes this combination of dummy parts.

Kind regards
Gerd Pfeiffer
Porsche AG

[Paul Wellicome]

We must have gone some way down the route of codifying the channels, because these old figures exist.
I don't have any masters though...

[derpmann]

As a base for your discussion you will find here the presentation from the netmeeting 15.02.2017.

Peter

[derpmann]

Dear colleagues,
as a result of our discussion AUDI, Porsche, Skoda and VW agreed to use the unique new coding solution.
proposal for the discussion:

• TH with H3 legs -> T3
• TF with HF legs -> T5
• TM with HM legs -> T9

Best regards
Peter

[derpmann]

Dear colleagues,
at the web meeting 13.09.2017 the MME TaskForce decided to use the following codes:

• TH with H3 legs -> T3
• TF with HF legs -> T5
• TM with HM legs -> T9

The document THOR Dummy with Hybrid III legs.pdf (see reply 15.02.2017) used in the discussion created confusion,
because the whole H3 legs were highlighted, but only the lower legs underneath the knee slider are used.
Please use the corrected document.

THOR Dummy with Hybrid III legs 20171127.pdf

corrected document

(363.07 KiB) Downloaded 717 times