RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR
`
`EVALUATING OCCUPANT INJURY RISK
`
`FROM DEPLOYING SIDE AIRBAGS
`
`Prepared by
`
`The Side Airbag Out-of-Position Injury Technical Working Group
`(Ajoint project of Alliance, AIAM, AORC, and IIHS)
`
`Adrian K. Lund (IIHS), Chairman
`
`(First Revision — July 2003)
`
`IPR2016—01794
`
`American Vehicular Science, LLC
`Exhibit 201 1
`
`

`
`Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................... ..iv
`1
`Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. ..1
`
`Contents
`
`1.1
`1.2
`2
`2.1
`3
`3.1
`
`3.1.1
`3.1.2
`3.1.3
`
`3.1.4
`3.1.5
`3.1.6
`3.1.6.1
`
`3.1.6.2
`3.1.6.3
`3.1.6.3.1
`
`3.1.6.3.2
`3.2
`3.2.1
`3.2.1.1
`3.2.1.2
`3.2.1.3
`3.3
`
`3.3.1
`3.3.2
`3.3.3
`3.3.3.1
`
`3.3.3.2
`
`3.3.3.3
`
`3.3.3.4
`
`3.3.3.5
`
`3.3.3.6
`3.3.3.7
`
`3.3.4
`3.3.4.1
`
`3.3.4.2
`
`3.3.4.3
`
`3.3.4.4
`
`3.3.4.5
`
`3.3.5
`
`Historical Background .......................................................................................................... .. 1
`Information Considered by the Technical Working Group .................................................. .. 2
`Scope of the Recommendations .............................................................................................................. ..4
`Issues Not Addressed by the Technical Working Group ..................................................... .. 5
`Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... ..5
`Test Devices ........................................................................................................................ .. 5
`
`Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy ................................................................................ .. 6
`Hybrid Ill 6-Year-Old Child Dummy ................................................................................ .. 6
`SID-lls ............................................................................................................................ .. 7
`
`Hybrid Ill 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy .............................................................. .. 7
`instrumented Arm for 5th Percentile Adult Female Dummy ........................................... .. 9
`Dummy Preparation for Side Airbag Tests ..................................................................... .. 9
`General ..................................................................................................................... .. 9
`
`Dummy Test Temperature ........................................................................................ .. 9
`Instrumentation ......................................................................................................... .. 9
`General ..................................................................................................................... .. 9
`
`Electrical Grounding .................................................................................................. .. 9
`Dummy Injury Values .......................................................................................................... .. 9
`Dummy Injury Reference Values .................................................................................. .. 10
`Head Injuries ........................................................................................................... .. 11
`Neck Injuries ........................................................................................................... .. 12
`Thoracic Injuries ...................................................................................................... .. 13
`Test Procedures ................................................................................................................ .. 13
`
`General Seat Preparation Procedure ........................................................................... .. 14
`Suppression Systems ................................................................................................... .. 14
`Tests for Seat-Mounted Airbags .................................................................................. .. 17
`Forward Facing Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy on Booster Block (Passenger
`Positions with Seat-Mounted Airbags) .................................................................... .. 17
`Reanivard Facing Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy (Passenger Positions with
`Seat-Mounted Airbags) ........................................................................................... .. 19
`Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy Lying on Seat with Head on Armrest
`(Passenger Positions with Seat-Mounted Airbags) ................................................. .. 21
`Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy Lying on Seat (Passenger Positions with
`Seat-Mounted Airbags) ........................................................................................... .. 22
`Fonivard Facing Hybrid Ill 6-Year-Old Child Dummy on Booster Block (Passenger
`Positions with Seat-Mounted Airbags) .................................................................... .. 23
`Inboard Facing SID-lls (Driver and Passenger Positions with Seat-Mounted Airbags)25
`SID-lls with instrumented Arm on Armrest (Driver and Passenger Positions with
`Seat-Mounted or Door/Quarter Panel-Mounted Airbags) ....................................... .. 26
`Tests for DoorlQuarter Panel-Mounted Airbags ........................................................... .. 27
`Outboard Facing Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy (Passenger Positions with
`Door/Quarter Panel-Mounted Airbags) ................................................................... .. 27
`Inboard Facing Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy (Passenger Positions with
`Door/Quarter Panel-Mounted Airbags) ................................................................... .. 28
`Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy Lying on Seat with Head on Armrest (Passenger
`Positions with Door/Quarter Panel-Mounted Airbags) ............................................ .. 29
`Hybrid Ill 3-Year-Old Child Dummy Lying on Seat (Passenger Positions with Door/
`Quarter Panel-Mounted Airbags) ............................................................................ .. 30
`Fonivard Facing SID-lls (Driver and Passenger Positions with Door/Quarter
`Panel-Mounted Airbags) ......................................................................................... .. 31
`Tests for Roof-Rail-Mounted Airbags ........................................................................... .. 32
`
`

`
`3.3.5.1
`
`3.3.5.2
`
`Inboard Facing Hybrid Ill 6-Year-Old Child Dummy on Booster Block (Passenger
`Positions with Roof-Rail-Mounted Airbags) ............................................................. .. 32
`Fonivard Facing SID-lls on Raised Seat (Driver and Passenger Positions with Roof-
`Rail-Mounted Airbags) ............................................................................................ .. 33
`Inboard Facing SID-lls on Raised Seat (Driver and Passenger Positions with Roof-
`Rail-Mounted Airbags) ............................................................................................ .. 34
`References ................................................................................................................................................ .. 35
`
`3.3.5.3
`
`Appendix A — Dummy Injury Research Values ........................................................................................ ..A-1
`A.1
`Neck Injuries ........................................................................................................................................ .. A-1
`A.1.1
`Upper Neck Load Cell ...................................................................................................... ..A-1
`A.1.2
`Lower Neck Load Cell ...................................................................................................... ..A-2
`A.2
`Thoracic Injuries ................................................................................................................................... .. A-3
`A.3
`Abdominal and Pelvic Injuries .............................................................................................................. ..A-3
`A.4
`Arm Injuries .......................................................................................................................................... ..A-3
`Appendix B — Chest Deflection (Compression) Rate: Calculation by Integration of Acceleration DifferencesB-1
`
`

`
`Foreword
`
`This document provides the results of the deliberations of the Side Airbag OOP Injury Technical
`Working Group. The working group was sponsored by the Alliance of Automobile
`Manufacturers (Alliance), Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM),
`Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
`(IIHS) for the purpose of developing a common understanding of the risks associated with side
`airbag deployments and ways to minimize those risks. The principal part of this report is a set
`of recommended procedures for assessing the risks, which begins in Section 3.
`In the
`Introduction, we provide background on the formation of the Technical Working Group, its
`goals, and its limitations.
`In addition, we review the substance of the Working Group’s
`deliberations, including the data and philosophies that guided the development of the
`recommendations.
`
`It is the expectation of the Technical Working Group’s members that these recommendations
`will be followed by manufacturers and their suppliers for future airbag designs, and we are
`confident that following the recommendations will reduce the already small risk of injury from
`interactions with side airbags even further. However, three limitations of the Working Group’s
`efforts are important to note:
`
`0
`
`Some level of inflation injury is inherent with any inflatable restraint system that reduces the
`risk of injury in side impacts. The group’s work reflects the best current information on how
`to measure the risk of significant injury from the airbag inflation itself and assure that it is
`very small, but the risk cannot be made zero.
`
`o The level of scientific understanding is not the same for all of the potential OOP injury risks.
`Scientists are more confident in the evidence supporting the conclusions about some of the
`injury values described in this report than in others. The group was concerned that
`misplaced confidence in some of the injury values with limited scientific support might result
`in delaying or discarding some side airbag systems that hold promise for reducing the risk
`of significant injuries in severe side impact crashes.
`
`o Research on side airbag inflation injury is an ongoing, worldwide effort. The final
`recommendations may need revision, as new information becomes available. The
`sponsoring groups have agreed to periodically reconvene the Technical Working Group to
`review the adequacy of the recommendations.
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Recommended Procedures for Evaluating
`Occupant Injury Risk from Deploying Side Airbags
`
`First Revision — July 2003
`
`1
`
`Introduction
`
`Airbags to protect occupants in side impacts are appearing in the new car market rapidly.
`Introduction of these devices can reduce the incidence of serious injury in side impact crashes,
`especially those airbag devices that interpose themselves between the heads of occupants and
`outside structures (trees, poles, other vehicles) that intrude into the occupant compartment
`during the crash.
`In 1998, side impacts of passenger vehicles resulted in 9,482 fatalities, 2,891
`in single vehicle crashes and 6,591 in multiple-vehicle crashes. Occupants of passenger cars
`are particularly vulnerable when their car is struck in the side by large and tall vehicles; side
`airbags offer one major countermeasure to this risk in the face of the growing popularity of light
`truck vehicles.
`
`However, airbags also introduce new energy into the crash, a situation that can exacerbate
`rather than ameliorate injury likelihood under some conditions. Those conditions are typically
`labeled as occupant out—of—position (OOP) situations. With frontal airbags, 150 fatalities have
`occurred to OOP occupants in crashes of such low speed that only minor or moderate injuries
`would have been expected without airbags. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`(NHTSA) data suggest that the incidence of these injuries is declining, as airbag designs evolve
`and as occupants become more aware of their risk and the simple countermeasures to reduce
`them (“buckle up — kids in the back”). Although no deaths or serious injuries have occurred
`from side airbags to date, it is imperative that automakers and the safety community take
`measures that minimize the potential negative side effects of side airbags as they are
`introduced into new cars.
`
`1.1 Historical Background
`
`The Side Airbag OOP Injury Technical Working Group was formed in an effort to meet this
`goal.
`Its genesis began when concerns were expressed about the aggressiveness of side
`airbags, which brought the issue of side airbag risks to the public’s attention. The NHTSA,
`which had been gathering information about side airbags as well, scheduled a public meeting
`for April 19, 1999 to discuss the rising issue. On April 15, 1999, just prior to the public meeting,
`NHTSA received a petition from the Center for Auto Safety asking the agency to develop
`regulatory test requirements that could assure that side airbags would not pose risks to vehicle
`occupants that happened to be in the path of inflating airbags.
`
`At the April 19 public meeting, more test results were presented which demonstrated the high
`forces that could be experienced by out-of-position occupants. However, concerns about these
`test results were balanced by other crash test data showing that side airbags were an important
`crash injury countermeasure. Furthermore, real—world crash investigation programs sponsored
`by both NHTSA and Transport Canada included examples of severe crashes in which side
`airbags apparently prevented serious injuries. Neither organization had yet discovered any
`cases of serious injuries or deaths caused by side airbags. Nevertheless, most participants at
`the meeting recognized the need to coordinate information about the new technology of side
`airbags and promising procedures for assessing their potential risks to out of position
`occupants.
`
`On May 21, 1999 the NHTSA’s administrator, Ricardo Martinez, M.D., sent a letter to the
`Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and the Association of International Automobile
`Manufacturers (AIAM) asking that the industry develop public standards which their member
`companies would follow as they developed future side airbag systems that did not pose serious
`
`Side Airbag Out-of-Position Injury Technical Working Group
`(Alliance, AIAM, AORC, IIHS)
`
`1
`
`

`
`Recommended Procedures for Evaluating
`Occupant Injury Risk from Deploying Side Airbags
`
`First Revision — July 2003
`
`injury risks to vehicle occupants. Dr. Martinez also indicated it was important that the
`deliberations of the industry be:
`
`c Comprehensive of the hardware and risks involved,
`
`0 Open and inclusive of different interest groups, and
`
`o
`
`Timely.
`
`In response, Alliance and AIAM asked the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the
`Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) to join them in sponsoring a technical working
`group comprised of crash safety and biomechanics experts to develop recommended
`procedures and performance requirements.
`Inclusion of AORC assured that the airbag supplier
`industry, which has a separate body of expertise, had a significant voice in the deliberations.
`IIHS was asked to chair the technical working group, in part because of its involvement in the
`analysis of frontal airbag out-of-position problems and because of independence from the auto
`industry and suppliers.
`
`The first meeting of the Side Airbag OOP Injury Technical Working Group (TWG) was held in
`the Detroit area, Michigan, on July 21, 1999. Organizations and companies represented at that
`meeting and subsequent meetings included Alliance; AIAM; AORC; Autoliv; BMW; Bosch;
`Breed; DaimIerChrysIer; Delphi; Ford; General Motors; Honda; Hyundai; IIHS; Dale Kardos and
`Associates; Mazda; Mitsubishi; Nissan; Porsche; Simula; Subaru; Takata; Toyota; TRW; and
`Volkswagen. Thus, automakers and airbag suppliers were represented.
`In addition, the TWG
`invited NHTSA and Transport Canada to attend the meetings, so that the knowledge of these
`two government organizations could inform the deliberations. Finally, Nationwide Insurance
`and George Washington University were included in the working group because of technical
`background and ties to other consumer information and testing organizations. Thus,
`participation in the TWG was as broad as possible, with the provision that participants outside
`the involved industries should have technical backgrounds that allow them to contribute to the
`technical discussions. Although not members of the TWG, Erika Jones of Mayer, Brown, and
`Platt (at the request of the Alliance), and Charles Lockwood of AIAM were present for some
`meetings to provide advice on antitrust and other legal questions that might arise from the
`activities of the TWG.
`
`1.2
`
`Information Considered by the Technical Working Group
`
`The deliberations of the TWG benefited greatly from the expertise of its membership.
`
`0 Members serving on Working Group 3 of the International Organization for Standardization
`(ISO) Technical Committee 22, Subcommittee 10, which also has been considering
`procedures for evaluation of side airbags, kept the TWG apprised of parallel activities there.
`The preliminary work of the ISO Group provided the TWG with a head start on its
`consideration of test procedures. However, based on information provided the TWG,
`primarily test data from Transport Canada, several test positions were replaced with new
`positions that seemed both more realistic and more likely to reveal potentially aggressive
`side airbags.
`It is the understanding of the TWG that the ISO test procedures (TR 14933)
`have been modified to parallel the procedures recommended here.
`
`Side Airbag Out-of-Position Injury Technical Working Group
`(Alliance, AIAM, AORC, IIHS)
`
`2
`
`

`
`Recommended Procedures for Evaluating
`Occupant Injury Risk from Deploying Side Airbags
`
`First Revision — July 2003
`
`As part of the ISO Working Group 3 activities, several auto manufacturers have been
`conducting tests of different child dummies. Results of that testing were important in the
`TWG’s choice and specification of test dummies in its recommendations.
`
`0 Airbag supplier companies updated the TWG on their efforts to develop side airbags that
`meet the conditions being considered. One important implication of their information
`concerns the inherent relationship between the expected effectiveness of side airbags in
`serious crashes and the risk of OOP injury. Suppliers indicated they were developing side
`airbag prototypes that satisfied the OOP test criteria, but these airbags were clearly lower in
`power. There were no estimates as to the degree to which side airbag effectiveness was
`compromised, however, because no comparative tests were being conducted. According to
`suppliers, they are being asked to demonstrate only that new side airbag designs will
`produce good scores in the FMVSS 214 compliance test or the Lateral Impact New Car
`Assessment Program (LINCAP), in addition to satisfying the OOP tests.
`
`Another important issue addressed by the suppliers’ data is that of test-to-test repeatability.
`High repeatability (or low variability) is necessary for airbag system developers to be
`confident that low scores on one test are predictive of low scores on subsequent tests. The
`higher the variability, the harder it is to have confidence in the performance of a system
`regarding a particular injury criterion. Supplier information suggests that some of the neck
`injury tests included in the current recommendations have relatively low repeatability,
`meaning that it would be necessary to design well below any selected injury threshold if a
`manufacturer wanted to assure that most airbags in mass production will meet the criterion.
`A point frequently emphasized by suppliers is that setting injury risk targets very low for
`OOP testing could greatly reduce the effectiveness of side airbags in real crashes, because
`the energy levels will have been set very low.
`
`0 The NHTSA reported on its Special Crash Investigations that involved side airbag vehicles.
`Following the experience with frontal airbags, the agency has maintained a concentrated
`effort to monitor the real-world experience with side airbags in order to be aware as early as
`possible of any untoward incidents. As of October, their program had investigated 37
`crashes of vehicles with side airbags. Those investigations indicated that the side airbags
`already on the road at this time are performing well in the real world. Side airbags appeared
`to have prevented serious or fatal injury in a number of cases, including two where children
`were present. So far, no fatal injuries have been attributed to occupant interaction with side
`airbags; the cause of all fatal injuries in these side impacts has been severe intrusion. One
`serious injury, that to a 76 year old male driver, appears to have been caused by the side
`airbag, although there is continuing discussion about the case with the CIREN team that
`initiated the investigation. Side airbags are causing some injuries, but these tend to be
`minor or moderate. Overall, real-world experience has shown no serious problem with side
`airbags at this time; however, the number of deployment incidents is still quite small.
`
`0 Transport Canada has performed numerous crash tests and static side airbag deployment
`tests to study both out of position injury risk and the effectiveness of side airbags in severe
`side impacts. Based on their data, the TWG decided to replace two of the child OOP tests
`that had been proposed initially by ISO Working Group 3 with two tests that Transport
`Canada had developed. These tests, which address the OOP injury risk from side airbags
`that deploy from seat backs, appeared to adopt realistic risk positions and had been
`carefully specified by Transport Canada.
`
`Side Airbag Out-of-Position Injury Technical Working Group
`(Alliance, AIAM, AORC, IIHS)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Recommended Procedures for Evaluating
`Occupant Injury Risk from Deploying Side Airbags
`
`First Revision — July 2003
`
`Transport Canada has also conducted a number of full—scale side impact crash tests of
`vehicles with side airbags. These tests, in which the side airbag car is struck in the side by
`a utility vehicle, show impressive performance of the systems.
`In one test, a child dummy
`seated in the rear seat of a vehicle equipped with rear seat side airbags appeared to receive
`good protection from the side airbag, which prevented the child dummy’s head from
`contacting the stiff structure of the rear door.
`
`0 Recognized world leaders in the specification and quantification of injury risk from forces
`experienced during car crashes participated in the TWG. One of the difficulties faced by the
`TWG was to specify methods of testing for injury risk with dummies that were not designed
`in anticipation of the test conditions. For example, several of the recommended tests use
`frontal crash test dummies to assess risk from airbags that are more likely to deploy into the
`side of a human. The presence of these experts allowed the TWG to consider thoughtfully
`the problems in using these dummies and to reach reasonable recommendations for their
`use in assessing the risk of OOP injury from side airbags.
`
`2
`
`Scope of the Recommendations
`
`Side airbags are inflatable devices intended to help reduce the crash injury risk of vehicle
`occupants adjacent to the struck side of the vehicle. Side airbags work by interposing an
`inflatable cushion between vehicle occupants and the vehicle’s side structure, which is pushed
`into the occupant by the striking vehicle or stationary roadside object (e.g. tree or pole). During
`the inflation process, an airbag releases considerable energy and, as a result, substantial
`forces can be developed between the deploying airbag and the nearby occupant. The
`interaction forces may be greater than intended by the airbag designer when the seat occupant
`or part of the seat occupant blocks the path of the inflating airbag. This situation may occur for
`a normally seated occupant whose outboard arm would be near a side airbag. Normally seated
`occupants may also be forced out—of—position by pre-crash events such as braking or hard
`maneuvering. Finally, some vehicle occupants drive or ride in positions different from those
`considered normal. A passenger sleeping with his/her head against the vehicle side, for
`example, may experience side airbag forces different from a normally seated passenger. The
`TWG recognizes these as circumstances to be considered in assessing side airbag systems.
`Other circumstances could also occur that are beyond the consideration of this TWG. For
`example, unrestrained occupants in a complex rollover crash may achieve positions
`unanticipated by these recommended procedures. However, the TWG does not believe the
`circumstances of this group should unnecessarily restrict the availability of side airbags to
`protect the remainder of the population.
`
`This report describes the test devices (dummies), instrumentation, test procedures, and
`performance guidelines that should be used for assessing the injury risk of interactions between
`a deploying side airbag and a vehicle occupant. They do not address the issue of secondary
`impacts because the TWG believes the primary risk occurs during interaction with the side
`airbag. The test procedures are sufficiently broad to cover airbags which deploy from the door
`or side trim panel, the armrest, the seat back or cushion, the roof support pillars or roof rail area
`as well as occupants ranging in size from young children through adults. Most of the
`performance criteria are established to assure that the risks of life-threatening injuries to the
`head, neck, thorax and abdomen are low, but they also include criteria that minimize the risks of
`less serious injuries to the arm and pelvis. The test procedures described in this report provide
`as comprehensive an evaluation as possible for current state-of-the-art airbag designs.
`However, only sound engineering judgment can guarantee the comprehensive evaluation of
`
`Side Airbag Out-of-Position Injury Technical Working Group
`(Alliance, AIAM, AORC, IIHS)
`
`4
`
`

`
`Recommended Procedures for Evaluating
`Occupant Injury Risk from Deploying Side Airbags
`
`First Revision — July 2003
`
`any design. Additional tests, with slight variations of the recommended dummy positions, may
`be needed to ensure the robustness of the occupant interaction measurements.
`
`2.1
`
`Issues Not Addressed by the Technical Working Group
`
`The TWG agreed with NHTSA that its deliberations should have a timely conclusion. To that
`end, the focus was on assuring that all those involved in the development of side airbags
`evaluated the potential risk according to the best knowledge of the industry. To achieve this
`focus, it was agreed that the TWG would not address several important issues:
`
`0 Methods for assessing the effectiveness of side airbags. This issue was outside the
`scope of the TWG’s mission, described above. However, the TWG notes that methods to
`evaluate the effectiveness of side airbags have been described elsewhere and include
`vehicle crash tests and impact simulation.
`
`0 Schedules for implementation of the recommended evaluation procedures by
`individual manufacturers.
`It is expected that all side airbag systems currently under
`development or those developed in the future will be designed according to the
`recommended procedures. While the real—world experience with side airbags to date has
`been very positive, there have not been enough deployments to assess the OOP injury risk
`of side airbags from accident data. The majority view of the TWG is that new systems
`should be designed according to these recommendations for further limiting out—of—position
`occupant injury risk largely because new technology is emerging that is expected to meet
`the guidelines while still providing effective side impact protection. Thus, new systems
`should be designed according to these recommendations for the simple reason that they
`now can be. This does not mean that older systems pose an unreasonable risk.
`
`0 Dissemination of information about out of position injury risk and compliance with
`the recommendations. The TWG recognizes that there is considerable public interest in
`the potential risk of side airbags to out-of-position occupants. However, communicating the
`actual risk of out-of-position injury in a meaningful way is complex, and this issue falls
`outside the expertise of the TWG. Moreover, there is likely to be variation in the degree to
`which these recommendations will be applied to side airbag systems that are already in
`vehicles, so this issue must be addressed by individual manufacturers.
`
`3 Recommendations
`
`The recommendations of the TWG address three substantive areas:
`
`0 The tools or test devices (crash test dummies) best suited for assessing injury risk from the
`close-range deployment of side airbags.
`
`0
`
`Performance criteria against which to assess the injury risk indicated by the forces
`measured on the test devices.
`
`0 A standard set of test procedures (occupant positions) for assessing side airbag inflation-
`injury risk associated with various side airbag designs.
`
`3.1 Test Devices
`
`Side Airbag Out-of-Position Injury Technical Working Group
`(Alliance, AIAM, AORC, IIHS)
`
`5
`
`

`
`Recommended Procedures for Evaluating
`Occupant Injury Risk from Deploying Side Airbags
`
`First Revision — July 2003
`
`The Side Airbag Out—of—Position Injury Technical Working Group focused principally on the risk
`of injury to small women, adolescents, and children. Even these occupants have low risk of
`injury from side airbag systems because the small size of side airbags means that occupants
`must be in the deployment path and near the module when the airbags deploy. Larger adults
`and infants are expected to be at even lower risk due to size and/or position in the vehicle seat.
`Given generally lower injury risk as occupant size increases, the small female should
`experience the maximum risk faced by an adult. For infants and toddlers (1-2 years), it is
`expected that the majority will increasingly be restrained in appropriate child restraints. The
`locations of these restraints place them out of the path of deploying side airbags.
`
`These observations led the Technical Working Group (TWG) to conclude that the risk of side
`airbag inflation injury can be assessed using dummies representing the small female (and
`adolescents), the 6-year-old child, and the 3-year-old child. However, the TWG encourages
`vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers to verify whether these conclusions are appropriate
`for a given vehicle configuration.
`If a particular system places a larger adu|t's head nearer the
`airbag deployment area than achieved by the small female or places a restrained child in a child
`seat in the deployment path, then this new risk should be assessed.
`
`In assessing OOP injury risk, the TWG is recommending the use of child dummies developed
`for frontal impact testing and a small adult dummy developed for side impact testing.
`In reality,
`OOP injury risk can occur from forces applied in many directions — frontal, lateral, from the rear,
`from above — directions for which these dummies may not provide direct injury measures.
`There are relatively few test devices available for assessing some of these injury risks (for
`example, lateral forces or forces from the rear). Nevertheless, the TWG has concluded that
`appropriate positioning of the dummies that are available, such that the force transducers are
`oriented as designed with respect to the direction of force from the deploying airbags, can
`provide meaningful assessment of OOP injury risk. This conclusion reflects, in part, the fact
`that some of the risk will occur to occupants whose position in the vehicle exposes them to the
`types of forces that the dummies were designed to measure (i.e., frontal forces for frontal
`dummies).
`It also reflects the fact that each side airbag system will be subject to multiple tests.
`This should become more apparent as the reader considers the array of tests described in
`Section 3.3.
`
`The test dummies recommended for use at this time by the TWG are described in the following
`sections. They are also listed In Table 1,