Sie sind auf Seite 1von 148

SAFETY

COMPANION
Empowering Engineers

SAFETY
WISSEN
NEU

KNCAP Protocol 9/2015


Dummy Region Punkte Kriterien
Frontalaufprall mit 40% Überdeckung bei 64 km/h
4 HIC36 < 650; My,extension < 42 Nm; Fz,tension < 2,7 kN; Fx,shear < 1,9 kN
Kopf, Hals
0 HIC36 > 1000; My,extension > 57 Nm; Fz,tension > 3,3 kN; Fx,shear > 3,1 kN
max. 16 Punkte

4 Eindrückung < 22 mm; VC < 0,5 m/s


Brust
0 Eindrückung > 50 mm; VC > 1,0 m/s
H III 50%
Oberschenkel 4 AxialkraftDruck < 3,8 kN; Knieverschiebung < 6 mm
Knie 0 AxialkraftDruck > 9,07 kN; Knieverschiebung > 15 mm
4 TI < 0,4; AxialkraftDruck < 2 kN
Unterschenkel
0 TI > 1,3; AxialkraftDruck > 8 kN

Frontalaufprall mit 100% Überdeckung bei 50 km/h


6 HIC36 < 650; My,extension < 42 Nm; Fz,tension < 2,7 kN; Fx,shear < 1,9 kN
Kopf, Hals
0 HIC36 > 1000; My,extension > 57 Nm; Fz,tension > 3,3 kN; Fx,shear > 3,1 kN
6 Eindrückung < 22 mm; VC < 0,5 m/s
H III 50% Brust
0 Eindrückung > 50 mm; VC > 1,0 m/s
max. 16 Punkte

4 AxialkraftDruck < 3,8 kN


Oberschenkel
0 AxialkraftDruck > 9,07 kN
6 HIC15 < 500, Fx,shear < 1,2 kN, Fz,tension < 1,7 kN, My,extension < 36 Nm
Kopf, Hals
0 HIC15 > 700, Fx,shear > 1,95 kN, Fz,tension > 2,62 kN, My,extension > 49 Nm
6 Eindrückung < 22 mm
H III 5% Brust
0 Eindrückung > 48 mm
4 AxialkraftDruck < 3,8 kN
Oberschenkel

SeminarS COnferences Knowledge


0 AxialkraftDruck > 6,8 kN

Barrieren-Seitenaufprall (MDB) mit 55 km/h


4 HIC36 < 650
Kopf
0 HIC36 > 1000
max. 16 Punkte

4 Eindrückung < 22 mm; VC < 0,32 m/s


Brust
0 Eindrückung > 42 mm; VC > 1,0 m/s
ES-2
4 KraftDruck < 1,0 kN
Bauch

Active & Passive Safety News Tables & Graphs


0 KraftDruck > 2,5 kN
4 PSPF < 3,0 kN
Becken
0 PSPF > 6,0 kN

Dummy & Crashtest Knowledge exchange summarizing all important


Whiplash Test
Dynamische Bewertung 1,5 Punkte 0 Punkte
NIC 11,00 24,00

Engineering & Simulation Networking for Experts rules & regulations in


Nkm 0,15 0,55
Rebound velocity (m/s) 3,2 4,8
max. 10 Punkte

BioRID
max. 9 Punkte

Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 190


IIg
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 360 750

vehicle safety
T1 acceleration* (g)
T-HRC* (ms)
Geometrie Bewertung
9,30
57
1 Punkt
13,10
82
-1 Punkt
Backset (mm) 40 100
1 Pkt
max.

HRMD
Height (mm) 0 80
* Nur das besser bewertete Kriterium geht ins Rating ein.
64
Advertisement SafetyCompanion
2016
From Sensor to
Software – Events

All Crash Products


Page 14 - 20
from one Single
Source.

Passive Safety
Requirements &
Strategies

Page 21 - 101

200-738e-10.15

Dummy and Crashtest


Kistler – your partner for more safety and comfort in the
vehicle.

Page 102 - 113


Kistler – the leading technology supplier for measurement
systems around the vehicle in the field of automotive R&D
– offers also a comprehensive product and service portfolio
in the field of Crash & Safety. In addition to our standard
products we have customized solutions to instrument off-
board, on-board and in-dummy applications as well as
corresponding DAS software and associated services. This
Active Safety,
is our daily business.
Driver Assistance,
Electronics, Sensors

Page 114 - 127


www.kistler.com

Simulation &
Engineering

Page 128 - 140


SAFETY
WISSEN

SafetyWissen Navigator
Canada CMVSS
§ Euro NCAP
 EU
§
„„208 Frontal.............68 „„Frontal........ 32, 36, 70 „„78/2009............86, 88
„„Side.......32, 39, 76, 78 „„631/2009................86
„„Whiplash...........93, 94
U.S. FMVSS § „„Pedestrian.. 86, 88, 90
„„Child Prot................98
„„126 ESC.................120
„„201U........................83 „„Safety Assist..........114
„„208 Frontal.66, 68, 70 „„AEB.......121, 122, 124
„„214 Side............74, 78 „„Overall Rating.........40
„„216a Roof-Crush....63 „„Dual Rating..............40
„„226 Ejection Mitig..80
„„305 Electric Vehic... 28

U.S. NCAP

„„Frontal...............32, 42
„„Side............. 32, 42, 75
„„Pole............. 32, 42, 75
„„Rollover / SSF........116
„„FCW.......................116
„„LDW.......................116
„„Rear View Cam.....116
„„Overall Rating.........44

IIHS

„„Frontal........ 32, 45, 70
„„Side.......32, 46, 74, 78
„„Whiplash...........44, 94
„„Roof Crush........46, 63
„„Top Safety Pick.......46
„„Small Overlap...32, 47
„„Bumper Test.........101
„„AEB / FCW.............116
„„Advanced Light.....116

Latin NCAP

„„Frontal ..............32, 51


„„Side....................32, 51 Impactors/Dummies India BNVSAP
„„Child Prot..........51, 97
„„Assistance sys.......114 „„Size/Weight..........108 „„Time schedule .......61
„„Dumm Landsc......104 „„Overall Rating.........61
„„THOR.....................106
RCAR

„„EEVC Legform.......112
„„Upper Legform.....121
India AIS §
„„Whiplash ................94 „„Head Impactors....121 „„098/F Frontal..........24
„„Bumper.................101 „„Flex PLI...................121 „„099/F Side...............25

4
SAFETY
WISSEN

GTR
§ UN ECE
§ JNCAP

„„8 ESC......................120 „„R13H ESC: ............120 „„Frontal........ 33, 56, 70
„„9 Pedestrian............86 „„R21...........................83 „„Side............. 33, 56, 78
„„14 Side.....................74 „„R94 Frtl..24, 29, 68, 70 „„Whiplash.................57
„„R95 Side..25,29,74,78 „„Brakes....................116
„„R100 .......................29 „„Pedestrian...............86
„„R135..................25, 74 „„Overall Rating.........57

Japan §
„„Art. 18/23 Frontal..24
„„Art. 18/24 Side.......25
„„Art. 18/99 Ped........86

KNCAP

„„Frontal........ 33, 58, 60
„„Side.................... 33,60
„„Whiplash.................60
„„Pedestrian...............86
„„Brakes....................116
„„Rollover/SSF..........116
„„Assistance sys.......116
„„Overall Rating.........58

Korea KMVSS §
„„102 Frontal.............24
„„102 Side..................25

China NCAP

„„Frontal ....... 33, 53, 70
„„Side ............ 33, 54, 78
„„Whiplash.................54
„„Overall Rating.........54

China GB §
„„11551 Frontal.........24
„„20913 Frontal.........24
ANCAP

„„Frontal.....................33
„„20071 Side..............25

„„Side..........................33
„„Pedestrian...............50
Australia ADR § ASEAN NCAP

„„Whiplash.................50 „„69/00 Frontal....24, 68 „„Frontal ..............35, 56
„„Assistance sys.........50 „„73/00 Frontal....24, 68 „„Child Prot....... 56, 106
„„Overall Rating.........50 „„72/00 Side...............25 „„Assistance sys.......126

5
carhs.training

Here you find the courses you need to get your Dummies + Crash Test
job done! ►► SafetyTesting p. 16 / p. 18
Haven’t found what you need? Get in touch with us! ►► Introduction to Data Acquisition p. 102
►► Dummy Training S. 110
 +49-6023-964060
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21
Legend
►► Seminar/Event that focusses on this topic
►► Seminar/Event that deals with this topic (among others)

Frontal Impact
►► Knee Mapping Workshop p. 38
►► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems p. 67
►► Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact p. 73
►► Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes p. 100
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21
►► International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations p. 26

Sem
►► Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer Protection p. 34
►► Crashworthy Car Body Design p. 64
►► Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers p. 128

Side Impact
►► Side Impact – Requirements and Development Strategies p. 77

Gui
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21
►► International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations p. 26
►► Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer Protection p. 34
►► Crashworthy Car Body Design p. 64
►► Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers p. 128

Rear Impact
►► Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts p. 96
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21
►► International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations p. 26
►► Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer Protection p. 34

Pedestrian Protection
►► PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection p. 17
►► Pedestrian Protection Strategies p. 92
►► Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures p. 113
►► Pedestrian Protection Workshops p. 113
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21
►► International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations p. 26
►► Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer Protection p. 34
►► Crashworthy Car Body Design p. 64
►► Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes p. 100

6
carhs.training

Car Bodies
►► Crashworthy Car Body Design p. 64
►► Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes p. 100
►► Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers p. 128
►► Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies p. 130
►► Robust Design and Stochastics for Car Body Development p. 132
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21

Interiors
►► Knee Mapping Workshop p. 38
►► Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors p. 84
►► Whiplash Testing and Evaluation p. 96

Restraint Systems

inar
►► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems p. 67
►► Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact p. 73
►► Ejection Mitigation p. 82
►► Automotive Safety Sensors p. 126
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21
►► Model Based Head Injury Criteria p. 22

ide Regulations and Requirements


►► International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations p. 26
►► Crashworthiness of Vehicles with Alternative Drive Systems p. 30
►► Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer Protection p. 34
►► Product Liability in the Automobile Industry p. 62
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21

Accident Avoidance
►► PraxisConference Autonomous Emergency Braking p. 19
►► Towards Autonomous Driving p. 117
►► Advanced Driver Assistance and Crash Avoidance Systems p. 118
►► Automotive Safety Sensors p. 126
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20

Materials
►► Material Models of Composites S. 134
►► Material Models of Metals p. 136
►► Material Models of Plastics and Foams p. 138
►► Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation p. 140
►► Lightweight Design Summit p. 14
►► Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies p. 130

7
Table of Contents

4 SafetyWissen: Navigator 39 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Protection Criteria in


6 Seminar Guide Side Impact

10 Preface 40 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Rating: 2016 - 2020

12 In-house Seminars 42 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP


Conferences 2016 45 SafetyWissen: IIHS Rating
14 Lightweight Design Summit 2016 50 SafetyWissen: Australasian NCAP (ANCAP)
15 automotive CAE Grand Challenge 2016 51 SafetyWissen: Latin NCAP
16 SafetyWeek 2016 52 SafetyWissen: ASEAN NCAP
17 11th PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection 53 SafetyWissen: China NCAP
18 SafetyTesting China 56 SafetyWissen: JNCAP
19 PraxisConference AEB 58 SafetyWissen: KNCAP ◀ NEW
20 Grazer SafetyUpDate 2016 61 SafetyWissen: BNVSAP Bharat New Vehicle
Safety Assessment Program (India) ◀ NEW
20 Symposium Human Modeling
Passive Safety 62 Product Liability in the Automobile Industry
21 Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles 63 SafetyWissen: Roof Crush
22 Model Based Head Injury Criteria for Innovative 64 Crashworthy Car Body Design - Design,
Protection Design Simulation, Optimization
23 SafetyWissen: Crash-Regulations Europe, 66 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact
United Nations and USA Requirements
24 SafetyWissen: Rules and Regulations on 67 Development of Frontal Restraint Systems
Occupant Protection 68 SafetyWissen: Protection Criteria for Frontal
26 International Safety and Crash-Test Impact Tests
Regulations: Current Status and Future 70 SafetyWissen: Frontal Impact Protection
Developments Criteria Compared
28 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 305: Safety 72 SafetyWissen: Safety Requirements for Rear
Requirements for Electric Vehicles Seats and Restraint Systems
29 SafetyWissen: UN ECE: Safety Requirements 73 Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal
for Electric Vehicles ◀ NEW Impact
30 Crash Safety of Alternative Fuel Vehicles 74 SafetyWissen: Side Impact Test Procedures
32 SafetyWissen: NCAP-Tests in Europe & America 76 SafetyWissen: Seat Adjustments for Side
33 SafetyWissen: NCAP-Tests in Asia / Australia Impact Tests
34 Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer 78 SafetyWissen: Side Impact Protection Criteria
Protection through Active and Passive Safety Compared
36 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Protection Criteria in 79 Side Impact - Requirements and Development
Frontal Impact Strategies
38 Knee Mapping Workshop: The Euro NCAP Test 80 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 226 - Ejection Mitigation
Procedure 82 Ejection Mitigation FMVSS 226: Requirements -
Testing - Development Strategies

8
Table of Contents

83 SafetyWissen: Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors Active Safety & Driver Assistance
84 Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 114 SafetyWissen: NCAP Tests for Active Safety and
and UN R21 Driver Assistance
86 SafetyWissen: Test Procedures and Protection 117 Autonomous Driving - Technologies, Legal
Criteria for Pedestrian Protection Status, Introduction Scenarios
88 SafetyWissen: Pedestrian Protection 120 SafetyWissen: Test of ESC Systems in UN R13H,
GTR 8 and FMVSS 126
90 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP - Pedestrian
Protection: Head Impact Grid Method 121 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP AEB City
92 Pedestrian Protection - Development Strategies 122 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP AEB VRU-Pe
93 SafetyWissen: Rear Impact: Euro NCAP Rear 124 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP AEB Inter-Urban
Whiplash Assessment 126 Automotive Safety Sensors - Requirements,
94 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Whiplash Seat Test Features, Functions and Applications
94 SafetyWissen: Static Geometry Assessment by Engineering & Simulation
IIWPG / IIHS 128 Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers
96 Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear 130 Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies
Impacts 132 Robust Design and Stochastics for Car Body
97 SafetyWissen: Child Occupant Protection Development
Assessment in Latin NCAP 134 Material Models of Composites for Crash
97 SafetyWissen: Child Occupant Protection Simulation
Assessment in ASEAN NCAP 136 Material Models of Metals for Crash Simulation
98 SafetyWissen: Child Occupant Protection 138 Material Models of Plastics and Foams for
Assessment in Euro NCAP Crash Simulation
100 Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes ◀ NEW 140 Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation ◀ NEW
101 SafetyWissen: RCAR Insurance Tests 141 SafetyWissen: Important Abbreviations
Dummy & Crash Test 145 Terms & Conditions
102 Introduction to Data Acquisition in Safety
146 Seminar Calendar
Testing
104 SafetyWissen: Current Dummy Landscape
106 SafetyWissen: THOR 50% Male: Injury Criteria
and Risk Functions ◀ NEW
108 SafetyWissen: Overview Dummies
Weights, Dimensions and Calibration
110 Dummy – Trainings
112 SafetyWissen: Impactors for Pedestrian
Protection
113 Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures
113 Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Flex PLI
113 Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Euro NCAP
Grid Procedure

9
carhs.training

The requirements in automotive safety are further increasing

Safety
„You need all the safety you can get.“, that was the answer of a consumer on the question Companion
what the wants to see in terms of safety on future cars.* SafetyWissen on
more than 50 pages
Protection from bodily harm is one of the fundamental human needs and in the eye of the
consumer more safety is equal to better safety. The requirements in vehicle safety are on more than 130
the rise around the world. And much to the dismay of safety engineers there is still a huge seminars & events
lack of global harmonization of the requirements.

With our offering on courses, events and knowledge services, we support automotive safety engineers around the world
to understand and successfully apply the diverse safety requirements.

The newly developed web app SAFETYWISSEN.com is an important building block. Many thousand developers are al-
ready using the knowledge database regularly. They stay informed about current developments in active and passive
safety and have a direct and reliable access to the requirement documents which they need for their work.

The new SafetyCompanion 2016 contains the updated summaries of the most important worldwide safety require-
ments. We are happy to support you support you again in 2016 with our offering and wish you much success and with
the SafetyCompanion.

For the whole team of carhs.training

Rainer Hoffmann Ralf Reuter


President & CEO Executive Vice President

* IIHS Status Report Volume 27 No. 7

10
Austria
Tel: +49 341 8780102

Australia
Tel: +61 3 9720 3477

Benelux
Tel: +31 10 2440706

Brasil
Tel: +55 11 5052 8723

China
Tel: +86 216215 8568

Czech Republik
Tel: +420 25164 2011

Denmark
Tel: +31 10 2440706

France
Tel: +33 1 39 30 6644

India
Tel: +91 20 2528 1444

Italy
Tel: +39 02 36597000

Japan
Tel: +81 44 853 8520

Pakistan
Tel: +92-21-2735734

Poland
Mobile: +48 609 09 4114

Portugal
Tel: +34 935 947 562

Russia
Tel: +7 495 788 5523

Skandinavia
Tel: +46 8 758 4447

Slovakia
Tel: +42 0 5164 2011

South Africa
Tel: +27 41 365 1284

South East Asia


Tel: +65 6774 3188

South Korea
Tel: +82 10 3795 4311

Spain
Tel: +34 935 947 562

Switzerland
Tel: +41 341 8780102
Brose, Coburg
Taiwan
Tel: +886 3 317 3577
Dummy-Picture: Fotolia, © Taras Livyy

Thailand
Tel: +66 2 513 8751

USA
Mobile: +1 248 705 2229
Inhouse Seminars

In-house Seminars
Seminars at your site - efficient, flexible and customized
Are you looking for an individual and customized training for your employees?

Most of the seminars from our training program can also be booked as in-house seminars in English language. Whether on your
company site or at another venue of your choice, the scale of our in-house seminars is tailored to your needs.

Your advantages
„„ You are in full control the cost. We offer attractive fixed prices for our in-house seminars, depending on the number of
participants and the related service.
„„ Even for a small number of participants you can save a lot of money compared to the individual booking of seminars.
Additionally, there are no costs for travel and time of your employees.
„„ We respect your target dates as far as possible – also upon short notice in „urgent cases“.
„„ You benefit from our professional organization and the top-quality seminar manuals.
„„ Our lecturers answer your individual questions.
„„ Even if you are interested in very specific questions – we are looking for a qualified lecturer and develop the seminar.
Many of our customers have integrated our in-house seminars into their company’s training program.
Take advantage of this offer, too! We will be pleased to prepare you an individual offer.
Contact persons

Dr. Dirk Ulrich Margarete Debes


Tel. 06023-96 40 - 66 Tel. 06023-96 40 - 73
dirk.ulrich@carhs.de margarete.debes@carhs.de

References
ACTS, Adam Opel, Audi, AZOS, Bentley Motors, Bertrandt, BMW, Bosch, Brose, CATARC, Continental, CSI, Daimler, Dalphimetal,
Delphi, Dura Automotive, EDAG, Faurecia, Ford, Global NCAP, Grammer, HAITEC, Honda, IAV, Idiada, IEE, JCI, IVM, Lear, Magna,
Mahindra & Mahindra, MBtech, Messring, Open Air Systems, PATAC, P+Z, SAIC, SMP, SMSC, Seat, Siemens, TAKATA, TASS, Teco-
sim, TRW, TTTech, VIF, Volkswagen.

Attractive Prices
With reference to our regular seminar fees we offer attractive discounts on our in-house seminars:

1 Day Seminar 2 Day Seminar


Discount for the Discount for the
30% 5 - 8 Participant
th th
50% 5th - 8th Participant
60% 9th - 12th Participant 70% 9th - 12th Participant
70% 13 - 16 Participant
th th
75% 13th - 16th Participant
75% 17th - 20th Participant 80% 17th - 20th Participant
80% from the 21 Participant
st
85% from the 21st Participant

12
TRUST IN FOCUS
Taking your hands off the wheel violates the fundamental principles of responsible
driving. As we move towards fully autonomous automobiles, ZF TRW’s safety systems
are engineering trust with the world’s top manufacturers by helping pass increasingly
stringent safety regulations. With a focus on holistic, seamlessly integrated safety
systems, ZF TRW is helping manufacturers earn the trust of a new breed of driver.

COGNITIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS

© ZF TRW 2015
Events

KO N G R E S S - PA RT N E R

LEICHTBAUGIPFEL 2016
March 14-15, 2016, Vogel Convention Center, Würzburg

2016 Automobil Industrie


Lightweight Design Summit
Simultaneous translation German to English

MANAGING LIGHTWEIGHT DESIGN

HOW TO GET THE LIGHTWEIGHT


DESIGN TO THE RIGHT PLACE!

Register now!

www.leichtbau-gipfel.de

EVENT ORGANIZER
FOTO: FOTOLIA©DAHABIANS

10989

www.carhs.de

www.vogel.de

14
Events

automotive

CAE

2016
GRAND
CHALLENGE

CrAsH

FATIGUE

NVH

OCCUPANT sAFETY

sHEET METAL FOrMING

sPECIAL sEssION

Congress Park Hanau, Germany


April 12 + 13, 2016
more information www.carhs.de/grand-challenge

15
Events

May 10 - 12, 2016 ASCHAFFENBURG, GERMANY

KNOWLEDGE
INNOVATIONS
NETWORKING
SafetyUpDate +active
Current Requirements and Strategies in active and
passive Safety

SafetyTesting +active
Innovations from the Leaders in Testing and Simulation
of Safety Systems

Cooperation Forum Driver Assistance Systems


digital - connected - automated
organized by Bayern Innovativ

SafetyExpo
Technologies and Services for the Development of active
and passive Safety

www.safetyweek.de
16
Events

11th PraxisConference
Pedestrian Protecon
June 28 - 29, 2016 Bergisch Gladbach, Germany

The 1st Conference

The Pedestrian Protection Conference


in a Test Lab

No. 1 - Worldwide

Organized by:

more information

BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH www.carhs.de/pkf


17
Events

July 19-20, 2016 Shanghai, China

Meeting Worldwide Automotive Safety


Requirements through Advanced Testing

▪ Full-Scale Crash Testing Technology


▪ Advanced Sled Simulation Technology
▪ Measurement Technology, Data Aquisition
▪ Lighting & Video
▪ Engineering & Testing Services
▪ Testing Technologies for ADAS and Active Safety

More information:
www.carhs.de/safetytesting-china
18
Events

PraxisConference
Autonomous Emergency
Braking
September 14-15, 2016 Dresden, Germany

TRY OUT ALL RELEVANT


TESTING SYSTEMS!

Real World Data


Current and Future Requirements
AES and Autonomous Driving
Vehicle Technologies

Testing Hardware The event language is German.


For the international guests, we will
provide simultaneous translation of
Organized by: in Cooperation with: the lectures into English.

www.carhs.de/aeb
19
Events

SAFETYUPDATE
2016.2  GRAZ

K�������� ���
��������‘� ����������
�����������
in cooperation with September 27-28, 2016
Prof. Dr. Steffan

more information www.carhs.de/gsu

6th International Symposium October 21+22, 2016

www.carhs.de/humo

20
Passive Safety

Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles

Course Description Who should attend?


Ever increasing requirements regarding vehicle safety have led The seminar addresses everybody who wants to obtain an up-
to rapid developments, with major innovations in the field of Ac- to-date overview into this wide area. It is suited for novices in
tive and Passive Safety. Especially legal requirements in the US the field of Passive Safety of Vehicles such as university gradu-
(FMVSS 208, 214), the consumer information tests U.S. NCAP, ates, career changers, project assistants, internal service provid-
Euro NCAP and IIHS should be mentioned here. So far an end of ers, but also for highly qualified technicians from the crash-test
this development is not in sight. lab.
The seminar provides an introduction to Passive Safety of Ve- Course Contents
hicles. Passive Safety is about initiatives and legal provisions for „„ Introduction to vehicle safety
the limitation of injuries following an accident. All important „„ Overview active and passive safety
topics are covered in the seminar, from accident statistics and „„ Crash physics
injury-biomechanics, which are decisive parts of accident re- „„ Accident research
search, to the crash-rules and regulations that are derived from „„ General accident research
the latter, and also to consumer information-tests with protec- „„ Classification
„„ Statistics
tion criteria and test procedures, and eventually to crash tests,
„„ Biomechanics
where the compliance with the compulsory limits is tested and „„ Human anatomy
proven in test procedures. Specific attention is given to dum- „„ Injury mechanisms and Injury criteria
mies, with which the potential loads on a person in an accident „„ Dummy technology
can be measured. Finally the basic principles of occupant pro- „„ Dummy family
tection are explained, and the components of occupant protec- „„ Crash testing
tion systems, respectively restraint-systems in motor vehicles „„ Crash test systems and components
such as airbags, belt-system, steering wheel, seat, interior, stiff „„ Test methods
passenger compartment and others, as well as their increas- „„ Crash rules and regulations
„„ Institutions
ingly complex interaction, also in terms of new systems, will be „„ Rules and regulations
discussed. „„ NCAP tests
Course Objectives „„ Latest trends
It is the primary objective of this seminar to communicate an „„ Protection principles, occupant protection systems
„„ Protection principles of passive safety
understanding for the entire field of Passive Safety with all its „„ Occupant protection systems with sensors technology, ECU,
facets and correlations, but also for its limits and trends. In the airbag, belt system
seminar you are going to learn about and understand the most „„ Passenger compartment, interior with steering wheel and
important topics and can then judge their importance for your steering column, seat
work. With the extensive, up-to-date documentation you ob- „„ OOP, pre crash, post crash, sensor
system, vehicle body
tain a valuable and unique reference book for your daily work. „„ Integrated safety
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Rainer Hoffmann, carhs gmbh
Rainer Hoffmann has been involved in automotive safety throughout his career. After graduating from Wayne State University, he joined
a research group on passive safety at Porsche where he was involved in many aspects of automotive safety including accident research,
occupant simulation, crash testing and safety engineering. Mr. Hoffmann advanced safety simulation by introducing new techniques like
airbag simulation, airbag folding and Finite-Element dummy modeling during his subsequent work with ESI Group. As the head of the
simulation department of PARS (now Continental Safety Engineering), Mr. Hoffmann led the R&D efforts for some of the first series pro-
duction side airbag developments. In 1994 Mr. Hoffmann founded EASi Engineering GmbH, which in 2006 he renamed to carhs GmbH. He
has authored numerous technical papers and has been granted German and international patents in the automotive safety field.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

19.-20.04.2016 2716 Landsberg am Lech 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 22.03.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

08.-09.06.2016 2673 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 11.05.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

06.-07.09.2016 2687 Tappenbeck 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 09.08.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

09.-10.11.2016 2688 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 12.10.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German! 21


Passive Safety

Model Based Head Injury Criteria for Innovative Protection Design

Course Description Course Contents


To prevent injuries resulting from head impacts inside and „„ Introduction
outside the car, the next generation of head protection design „„ Human head surrogates and existing head injury criteria
will have to be based on improved model based head injury „„ Overview of head protection standards
criteria including virtual or coupled experimental and virtual „„ The state of the art in human head FE modeling
methods. These novel approaches will consider linear and „„ Overview of existing head models
rotational head acceleration and take into account a range „„ Model validation issues
of head injury mechanisms. By implementing recent research „„ Real world head trauma simulation
„„ Head trauma database
into new design methods, it will be possible in a near future,
„„ Victim kinematics and head impact conditions
to propose protective structures and panels to be optimized „„ FE modeling of the head trauma
against biomechanical injury criteria including the challenging „„ Model based head injury criteria
aspect of mild brain injury. „„ Methodology
„„ Injury criteria for different injury mechanisms
Course Objectives „„ Age dependent issues (elderly and children)
The objective of this course is to provide an overview of head „„ Application to head protection
„„ Optimization against biomechanical injury criteria
trauma biomechanics and existing head injury criteria. Focus „„ Implementation in virtual testing
will then be on the state of the art in the domain of human „„ Conclusion and next steps
head modeling, both its limitations and its achievements.
Special attention will be paid to real world head trauma re-
construction and the derivation of model based head injury
criteria. Finally a novel head injury prediction tool will be pre-
sented as well as its application to head injury risk assessment
both in a protection design context and within the virtual test-
ing environment.

Who should attend?


This seminar is especially suited for engineers and technicians
who work on the development of vehicle interior parts or pe-
destrian protection who want to prepare the next generation
of head protection design based on virtual methods.

Course Instructor:
Prof. Dr. Remy Willinger, University of Strasbourg
Since 1990 Remy Willinger leads a research group focusing on head & neck impact biomechanics at Strasbourg University, Strasbourg,
France. The research activity of this lab focuses on experimental characterization of biological tissue, head and neck FE modeling and
injury mechanisms investigation via accident simulation. Development of injury criteria and protection systems modeling and optimiza-
tion are also part of his skills. This group contributed to seven EU projects and conducted no less than 70 contracts with public institu-
tions and private companies.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

19.10.2016 2723 Heidelberg 1 Day 740,- EUR till 21.09.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

22 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and French!


SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Crash-Regulations Europe, United Nations and USA


Roof
FMVSS 216
Side Windows Interior
FMVSS 226 FMVSS 201, 202, 203, 204,
205, 207, 213, 225
Headrests
Instrument panel
FMVSS 202 UN R17, 25 GTR 7
UN R12, 16, 17, 21, 44

FMVSS 201 UN R21, 32, 33 Rollover


FMVSS 201, 208, 216, 216a, 301
UN R21 UN R44.04

Pedestrian protection
EU/78/2009
EU/631/2009
GTR 9
UN R127

Rear impact
FMVSS 202, 207, 223, 224, 301, 581
UN R17, 25, 32, 42

Frontal impact Seat belts


FMVSS 208, 209, 210, 213 UN R14, 16
FMVSS 203, 204, 205, 208,
209, 210, 212, 301 Bumper Side impact
UN R12, 14, 16, 33, 94, 137 FMVSS 581 UN R42 Steering FMVSS 201, 205, 206, 214, 301
Seats
wheel UN R11, 95, 135
GTR 14 FMVSS 201, 207
FMVSS 203, 204 UN R16, 17, 21, 44, 129
SafetyWissen by
UN R12

SPEED MEETS EXCELLENCE

Test evaluation Test technology


 Test and test material co-ordination  Dummy maintenance services
 Evaluation of test data for specific  Dummy laboratory design and
development targets manufacturing
 Test rig planning, development, CAD,
simulation, manufacturing and delivery
Testing  Test laboratory planning and optimization
 Application trainings
 Test conduction and evaluation
- Vehicle safety  Development and design of new test
- Environmental simulation methods
- Endurance strength and durability
www.acts.de
www.magna.com

23
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Rules and Regulations on Occupant Protection

Full Width Frontal Offset Frontal


0° / ± 30° ODB 40%

0° 0° / ± 5° 0° / ± 5° 0°
FMVSS 208

FMVSS 208
56 km/h 56 km/h 32-40 km/h 32-40 km/h 40 km/h
USA

Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 50% 50% 5% 5%

ODB 40%

0o

50 km/h 0°
UN R137

UN R94
Europe

56 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III


50% 5%
Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50%

ODB 40%
Art. 18 Attachmt. 23

50 km/h 0°

56 km/h
Japan

Art 18
Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50%
Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50%

ODB 40%


GB 11551-2014

GB 20913-2007

50 km/h 0°

56 km/h
China

Hybrid III Hybrid III


50% 50%
Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50%

ODB 40%


AIS-098/F

56 km/h
India

Hybrid III Hybrid III


50% 50%


South Korea

KMVSS 102

48,3 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III


50% 50%

ODB 40%

48 km/h 0°
ADR 69/00

ADR 73/00
Australia

56 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III


50% 50%
Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50%

SafetyWissen by

24
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Side Barrier Side Pole Pedestrian Rear Head Impact Rollover

Tilted Ramp:
ES-2 re SID IIs / 0-32 km/h
54
FMVSS 208
FMVSS 214

FMVSS 214
km ES-2 re 75°
/h /
27°

FMVSS 202a Roof crush:


FMVSS 201U
48 km/h FMVSS 301 FMVSS 216a
Rigid 254 mm Pole
MDB, 1368 kg Ejection Mitigation:
SID IIs
FMVSS 226

ES-2 WS 32 km/h
50% 75°
R (EC) 78/2009
UN R135
UN R95

50 km/h
90°
R (EC) 631/2009 UN R32 UN R21
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Rigid 254 mm Pole UN R127
Art. 18 Attachmt. 24

ES-2

Article 18 Article 18
50 km/h
90° Attachment 99 Attachment 34
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
GB 20071-2006

ES-2

Roof crush:
50 km/h GB/T 24550-2009 GB 20072-2006
90° GB26134-2010
MDB EEVC, 950 kg

ES-1/
ES-2
AIS-099/F

50 km/h
90°
AIS-100 AIS-101
MDB EEVC, 950 kg

EuroSID Find all details in:


KMVSS 102

50 km/h
90°
KMVSS 102-2
MDB EEVC, 950 kg

EuroSID
ADR 72/00

Free Download @ carhs.com/app


50 km/h
90°

MDB EEVC, 950 kg

SafetyWissen by

25
Passive Safety

International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations:


Current Status and Future Developments
Course Description automotive markets that can be applied to product develop-
Passive Safety regulations play a central role in vehicle develop- ment plans and technology roadmaps towards meeting and
ment. Crash tests and other assessment procedures must ad- anticipating customer needs. In addition, the course provides
here to mandatory national and international regulations that practical guidance to enable manufacturers to build from the
set performance requirements and design restrictions. Project seminar in following and, where warranted, by participating in
managers and engineers must contend with a host of require- these regulatory developments.
ments (e.g., UN Regulations, EU directives and regulations, FM- Who should attend?
VSS) that often differ significantly across markets. Moreover, This seminar addresses the interests of product-development
product plans and investment decisions must anticipate future and project managers and engineers, safety-test managers
laws, guidelines, and regulations as early as possible in order to and specialists, regulatory compliance officers, and others
reduce risks and capture opportunities. Indeed, customer de- whose work requires an up-to-date understanding of global
mand is often driven by specific regulatory mandates. regulatory requirements and future directions in a compact
During the first day, the seminar provides a comparative review course.
of the current body of vehicle safety regulations and the drivers
behind their development across major vehicle markets (e.g., Course Contents
US, EU, Japan, China, India). The course looks at the various „„ Rulemaking overview and contexts:
regulatory systems and the policy priorities in major markets. Historical and legal traditions that underpin regulations
In addition, the seminar explores global cooperation efforts and and their enforcement (e.g., type approval, self-
especially the impact on national and regional requirements of certification, product liability)
the UN World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regula- „„ Institutions, rulemaking processes, and priorities:

tions (WP.29) in producing uniform test procedures and perfor- From safety concern to regulatory requirement: how
mance requirements for worldwide application. policymakers and regulatory agencies (e.g., BASt, EC,
During the second day, the seminar turns its attention to key NHTSA, CATARC, MoRTH) establish test procedures and
current and future regulations. In particular, the seminar draws performance requirements; current regulatory priorities
on specific passive-safety case studies with an emphasis on comparison
crash testing requirements to focus in detail on critical differ- „„ Current passive-safety and crash-testing regulations:

ences across national and regional requirements. (The course Overview of current requirements (e.g., UN Regulations,
focuses on government-mandated manufacturer requirements EC Directives, FMVSS), case studies highlighting
with only marginal reference to consumer-oriented tests (NCAP differences and conflicts across test procedures and
systems) since the latter are addressed extensively by other performance thresholds
seminars.) This segment finishes with an overview of emerging „„ Future trends and priorities in passive-safety:

priorities for future regulatory action, covering new technolo- Outlook for new and emerging regulatory priorities (e.g.,
gies, accident categories, and global harmonization efforts. collision-avoidance, driver-assist systems, autonomous
vehicles, pedestrian safety, interactive communications,
Course Objectives electric/hydrogen vehicles, and global
The course aims to provide participants with a working knowl- harmonization)
edge of regulatory systems and priorities across the major

Course Instructor:
John Creamer, GLOBALAUTOREGS.COM
John Creamer is the founder of GlobalAutoRegs.com and a partner in The Potomac Alliance, a Washington-based international regula-
tory affairs consultancy. In his client advisory role, Mr. Creamer is regularly involved with meetings of the UN World Forum for the Har-
monization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). Previously, he has held positions with the US International Trade Commission and the Motor
& Equipment Manufacturers Association (representing the US automotive supplier industry), as the representative of the US auto parts
industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc. (a leading global automotive safety systems supplier).

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

15.-16.02.2016 2694 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 18.01.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

06.-07.06.2016 2701 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 09.05.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

21.-22.09.2016 2695 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 24.08.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

26 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


DTC Dynamic Test Center AG
Your partner in vehicle and aircraft safety

New test track


- Vehicle dynamics analyses
- Noise measurements
- Brake tests
- Analysis of driver assistance
systems
- Testing of Emergency Brake Assist
systems (EBA)

Crash test facilities


- Static and dynamic component
tests
- Pedestrian protection tests
- Sled tests
- Full vehicle crash tests

Test facilities
- Operational stability analyses
- Endurance tests
- Vibration and oscillation analyses
- 3D laser scanning

DTC Dynamic Test Center AG


Route principale 127
CH-2537 Vauffelin
www.dtc-ag.ch
Phone: +41 32 321 66 00
SAFETY
WISSEN

FMVSS 305: Safety Requirements for Electric Vehicles

Scope:
Cars, busses, trucks with a GVWR of 4536 kg or less that use electrical components with working voltages higher than 60 volts
direct current (VDC) or 30 volts alternating current (VAC), and whose speed attainable is more than 40 km/h.

Requirements:
Under the test conditions described below (impact test and subsequent static rollover)
„„ max. 5 litres of electrolyte may spill from the batteries,
„„ there shall be no evidence of electrolyte leakage into the passenger compartments,
„„ all components of the electric energy storage/conversion system must be anchored to the vehicle,
„„ no battery system component that is located outside the passenger compartment shall enter the passenger compartment,
„„ electrical isolation must be greater than or equal to:
„„ 500 ohms/V for all DC high voltage sources without isolation monitoring and for all AC high voltage sources,
„„ 100 ohms/V for all DC high voltage sources with continuous monitoring of electrical isolation,
„„ the voltage of the voltage source (Vb, V1, V2) must be less than or equal to 30 VAC for AC components or 60 VDC for DC
components.

Test Conditions:
Frontal impact against a rigid barrier at 48 km/h
rigid Barrier

0- 48 km/h
0° / ± 30°

Rear moving barrier impact at 80 km/h (FMVSS 301)

0-80 km/h
70%

1368 kg

Side moving deformable barrier impact at 54 km/h (FMVSS 214)

50%
0 - 54 km/h
1368 kg
5%

SafetyWissen by

Post-impact test static rollover in 90 degree steps

28
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW

UN ECE: Safety Requirements for Electric Vehicles

Extension of UN R94 / R95:

R94 R95

After crash tests according to UN R94 and R95 vehicles with a high voltage electrical powertrain ( > 60 V DC or > 30 V AC) must
meet the following requirements:
1. Protection against electrical shock
at least one of the four criteria specified. below shall be met: Electrical Chassis
„„ Absence of high voltage:
Motor assembly V2 REESS assembly
The voltages Vb, V1 and V2 shall be High Voltage Bus
≤ 30 V AC or ≤ 60 V DC :

Traction Sytem
Motor Vb REESS

V1
„„ Low electrical energy: Electrical Chassis
The total energy (TE) on the high voltage buses shall < 2.0 J.
Electrical Chassis
Prior to the impact a switch S1 and a known discharge resistor Re
is connected in parallel to the relevant capacitance . Motor assembly REESS assembly

Not earlier than 5 s and not later than 60 s after impact S1 shall High Voltage Bus

be closed while the voltage Vb and the current Ie are recorded. S1


From this TE is caluclated as follows: Vb
Motor REESS
th Re
TE = ∫ Vb × Ie dt Ie
tc

with tc = time of closing S1


th = time when voltage drops below 60 V DC
Electrical Chassis

„„ Physical protection:
For protection against direct contact with high voltage live parts, the protection IPXXB shall be provided.
„„ Isolation resistance:
„„ If the AC HV buses and the DC high voltage buses are galvanically isolated from each other, isolation resistance between the HV bus and
the electrical chassis shall be ≥ 100 Ω/V of the working voltage for DC buses, and ≥ 500 Ω/V of the working voltage for AC buses.
„„ If the AC HV buses and the DC HV buses are galvanically connected isolation resistance between the HV bus and the electrical chassis shall
be ≥ 500 Ω/V of the working voltage. (if the protection IPXXB is satisfied for all AC HV buses or the AC voltage is ≤ 30 V after the vehicle
impact, the isolation resistance shall be Ri ≥ 100 Ohm/V)
2. Electrolyte spillage
„„ In the period from the impact until 30 minutes after no electrolyte from the REESS (Rechargeable Engery Storage System)
shall spill into the passenger compartment and no more than 7% of electrolyte shall spill from the REESS.
3. REESS retention
REESS located inside the passenger compartment shall remain in the location in which they are installed and REESS components
shall remain inside REESS boundaries. No part of any REESS that is located outside the passenger compartment for electric safety
assessment shall enter the passenger compartment during or after the impact test.
UN R100:
M and N class vehicles with a maximum speed > 25 km/h must also comply with UN R100 Rev. 2

29
Passive Safety

Crash Safety of Alternative Fuel Vehicles


Course Description Course Objectives
During recent years, vehicles with alternative drive systems Participants will get an overview about automotive safety for
have achieved an ever-increasing importance for the automo- alternative drive systems and will learn the special challenges
tive market. In addition to gas-powered vehicles, which have and solutions which come along. Participants will be able to
already been existing for many years on the manufacturer and apply test methods and safeguarding concepts and to pursue
retrofit market, a wide range of hybrid vehicles has also es- development strategies in a target-oriented way.
tablished meanwhile. Even for pure electric vehicles, the first
acquirable products are already on the market. By decision of Who should attend?
the German government, one million electric vehicles should The seminar addresses development and research engineers
be found driving on German roads by the year 2020. Only the as well technicians in the fields of testing and engineering. Due
future will show whether a fundamental paradigm change is to its current relevance the course suits young professionals
thereby taking place or an alternative offering is just evolving. as well as experienced engineers who want to deepen their
It is clear, however, that the automotive electrification cannot knowledge in this field.
be stopped anymore.

With this new technology, new challenges for vehicle safety Course Contents
arise. „„ Overview alternative drive systems: gas, hybrid, electric
Electric shock risks on high-voltages systems, fire hazards in vehicles
„„ Challenges for vehicle safety
case of lithium-ion batteries and risks of rupture in case of gas
„„ Legal requirements and standards for safety
tanks are the most important issues here. For every mode of
„„ Safety requirements for real-world accidents
drive, specific drive components and their particular safety re-
„„ Safety of high voltage systems
quirements are described. In addition to common rules and
„„ Battery safety
standards, specific needs based on real-life accidents are being
„„ Gas tank safety
discussed.
„„ Fuel cell safety
„„ Structural safety
For all relevant vehicle components the respective safety re-
„„ Safety concepts
quirements, safety concepts and exemplary safety initiatives
„„ Rescuing, recovering and towing of electric vehicles
will be discussed. The state of the art concerning test stan-
dards, verification methods and possibilities for virtual safety
will be shown. Future trends will be presented with the help of
current research projects and results. Practical experience of
rescuing, recovering and towing of electric vehicles complete
the spectrum of accident safety.

Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Justen, Daimler AG
Rainer Justen has more than 25 years of experience in the field of vehicle safety. After his studies in mechanical engineering with a focus on
automotive engineering he started his career in 1987 in the automotive development for Mercedes-Benz at Daimler AG. Several career
milestones in the fields of vehcile safety, project management, safety concepts and active safety / driver assistance systems made him an
expert on all relevant topics of automotive safety. Since 2008 he is working in the field of safety for alternative drive systems. Rainer Justen
is author of numerous publications and papers on this topic.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

14.-15.03.2016 2674 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 15.02.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

16.06.2016 2676 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 19.05.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

13.-14.10.2016 2675 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 15.09.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

30 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


We make your car fit for newest EuroNCAP rating
We save occupants with… We care for vulnerable We assist We protect
road users with… the driver with… children with…
> extensive system
integration competence > innovative test tools > comprehensive system/function > comprehensive testing experience
> broad safety testing experience > qualified test methods development know-how > extensive product know-how
> best available testing infrastructure > comprehensive development > vehicle integration competence of childseat protection systems
> qualified numerical know-how > qualified vehicle simulation skills
simulation know-how > approved testing concepts
> long-standing algorithm > extensive testing experience
development experience

Kontakt: Continental Safety Engineering International GmbH l Alzenau l Germany l www.continental-safety-engineering.com l Uwe Gierath l Tel.: +49 (0) 6023 942 120 l uwe.gierathcontinental-corporation.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

NCAP-Tests in Europe & America


2016 2017 2018
Euro NCAP U.S. NCAP IIHS Latin NCAP

0o 0o

50 km/h 56 km/h
Full Width

Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III


5% 5% 50% 5%
Hybrid III
5%

ODB 40% ODB 40% Flat 150 ODB 40%


SOB 25%

R=150 mm
0o 0o 0o 0o
ODB / SOB

64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Q6 Q10 Q3 Q1,5

WS
50% ES-2 re SID IIs ES-2
62
km
/h /
27°
MDB

50 km/h 90°
@ R +250 mm 50 km/h 50 km/h
55 km/h 90° 90°
AE-MDB v3.9, 1300 kg
MDB, 1368 kg MDB IIHS, 1500 kg MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Q10
Q6 SID IIs Q1,5
SID IIs
Q3
„„ Far Side Occupant Protection

ES-2 29 km/h
WS 32 km/h SID IIS 32 km/h 90°
50% 75° 75°
Pole

Rigid 254 mm Pole Rigid 254 mm Pole Rigid 254 mm Pole

(prerequisite for 5 star rating)


Rollover

„„ SSF „„ Roof Crush

„„ Flex PLI
Pedestrian

„„ Upper Legfom
„„ Headforms „„ Award
„„ AEB VRU Pedestrian
„„ AEB VRU Cyclist
Whiplash Child Safety

„„ Frontal ODB
„„ Frontal ODB
„„ Side MDB „„ LATCH (Lower Anchors and
„„ CRS- Installation
„„ CRS- Installation Tethers for Children)
„„ Vehicle based assessment
„„Vehicle based assessment

„„ static front / rear


„„ static
„„ dynamic (3 pulses)
„„ dynamic (1 pulse)
„„ AEB City SafetyWissen by

„„ SBR (prerequisite for ≥ 3 star


Other

„„ Assistance systems: „„ FCW, LDW, Rear View „„ AEB, FCW


rating)
SBR, SAS, AEB, LDW, LKA.. Cameras, AEB „„ Headlights
„„ ESC (prereq. f. ≥ 4 star)

 page 36  page 42  page 46  page 51


32
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

NCAP-Tests in Asia / Australia


2016 2017 2018
JNCAP C-NCAP KNCAP ASEAN NCAP ANCAP

0o 0o 0o

55 km/h 50 km/h 56 km/h


Full Width

Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 5% 5%
Hybrid III P3
5%

ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40%


ODB 40%

0o 0o 0o 0o 0o
ODB / SOB

64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Hybrid III Hybrid III Q6 Q10 P1,5 P3 P1,5 P3
5% 5% Q1,5 Q3

ES-2
ES-2 ES-2 ES-2 ES-2
WS 50%
MDB

50 km/h
55 km/h 50 km/h 90° 50km/h
55 km/h 90°
90° 90° @ R +250 mm 90°
MDB, 950 kg
MDB EEVC, 950 kg MDB EEVC, 950 kg AE-MDB, 1300 kg Q1,5 MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Q10 Q3 P1,5
SID IIs
Q6 P3
„„ UN R95 for ≥ 3 

ES-2 32 km/h 29 km/h ES-2


WS50% 75° 90°
Pole

Rigid 254 mm Pole


Rigid 254 mm Pole
Rollover

„„ Curtain Airbag „„ SSF

„„ Flex PLI
Pedestrian

„„ Flex PLI „„ Upper Legform „„ Flex PLI


„„ Headforms (on bumper only) „„ Upper Legform
„„ AEB Pedestrian „„ Headforms „„ Headforms
„„ AEB Pedestrian
Whiplash Child Safety

„„ Frontal
„„ P3 in Full Width „„ Q6, Q10 in ODB and „„ CRS-based „„ ODB, MDB (no
Frontal MDB assessment assessment)
„„ Vehicle based ass..

„„ static „„ static
„„ dynamic „„ dynamic
„„ dynamic (1 pulse) „„ dynamic
(1 pulse) (1 pulse)
„„ rear seats dynamic (1 pulse)

„„ Brakes, SBR, Usability „„ ESC „„ Brakes, SBR, FCWS, „„ ESC, SBR


„„ Assistance systems
Other

rear belts, LDW, AEB, „„ SBR LDWS, SLD, AEB, AEB (prerequisite for 5
LKA, Around View „„ AEB, FCW, LDW City, ACC, LKAS star rating) SafetyWissen by

 page 57  page 54  page 58  page 52  page 50


33
Passive Safety

Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer Protection through


Active and Passive Safety
Course Description Who should attend?
More than 35 years ago the U.S. Senate demanded with a The seminar addresses specialists from the field of crash, en-
decree by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to com- gineers and technicians from numerical simulation and testing
paratively examine new vehicles under economical and safety departments, project engineers and managers who want to
aspects and to publish the results. This was to motivate au- have a first-hand, up-to-date overview over consumer infor-
tomakers in their competition to optimize the safety level mation tests with current topics and future trends in a com-
of the vehicles beyond legal minimum standards. These ap- pact seminar.
proaches have been taken up by several organizations since
then (Euro NCAP, ADAC, AMS, IIHS, ANCAP, NASVA, JNCAP) Course Contents
and partly developed further with different main focuses. The „„ Overview over crash-tests for consumer information
multitude of tests and especially the differences in the assess- „„ U.S. NCAP: Frontal impact with full overlap, side impact,
ment of crash tests have quite often led to uncertainties with new rating scheme, crash avoidance technolgogies rating
consumers. Some tests have thus been harmonized in recent „„ IIHS: Frontal impact with offset, side impact, headrest, roof
years. Since its introduction in 1997 the Euro NCAP has been crush, small overlap
taking a leading role in Europe and also has gained significant „„ Euro NCAP: General information, frontal impact ODB
influence on other countries. In the beginning the tests that & full-width, side impact (barrier & pole), whiplash test,
were carried out were frontal impact tests and side impact modifiers, safety assist systems (SBR, SAS, ESC, AEB,
tests with a moving barrier. In the last few years the lateral LDW...), overall assessment, the new rating scheme, road
pole impact as well as tests for pedestrian protection have map
been added, child safety was added in 2003. A rear impact test „„ Child seat assessment in Euro NCAP, JNCAP
has been added in 2008. In this seminar, after a short look at „„ Pedestrian protection-assessment: Euro NCAP
the history of NCAP testing and an overview over the respon- „„ Australasian NCAP
sible organizations, you are going to learn about the different „„ JNCAP: Frontal impact full-width and offset, side impact,
tests. The current crash-tests are going to be compared and overall assessment
discussed, and the stipulated tests are going to be included as „„ Korea NCAP
well. The assessment criteria (points, star-rating and especially „„ China NCAP
the modifiers) will be explained in detail. The main focus is on „„ Latin NCAP / ASEAN NCAP
the current Euro NCAP. An outlook on the future development „„ Future development of the NCAP-Tests: Harmonization
of Euro NCAP with an extension of the tests towards Active „„ Global NCAP
Safety (Beyond NCAP) and global harmonization completes
the seminar.

Course Instructor:
Director & Professor Andre Seeck, German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)
Andre Seeck is head of the division “Vehicle Technology” with the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt). In this position he
is responsible for the preparation of European Safety Regulations. He also represents the German Federal Ministry of Transport and
Digital Infrastructure in the Board of Directors of Euro NCAP. These positions enable him to gain deep insight into current and future
developments in vehicle safety.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

06.-07.04.2016 2679 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 09.03.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

22.-23.06.2016 2681 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 25.05.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

19.-20.10.2016 2680 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 21.09.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

34 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


Excellence in Vehicle Safety
Integral Safety Development & Validation
Active and passive vehicle safety systems are an essential part of future automotive
development targets. IAV meets the requirements on your vehicle by developing
integral functions. We use state-of-the-art methodology and testing facilities – from
the concept to manufacturing readiness.

• Algorithm development for • Predictive, active and passive


active and passive safety systems pedestrian protection
• Algorithm development for • Integration of new NCAP requirements
cooperative safety systems • Sensor selection for active and passive
• Crash and structure computations, systems
passenger simulation • Crash and catapult testing, pre-crash testing
• Subsystem safety testing

We create efficient solutions: www.iav.com


SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Euro NCAP
Protection Criteria in Frontal Impact
Hybrid III 50% Male
For each body region (grey boxes) the score is calculated based
on the worst injury criterion and applicable modifiers. Where a Head
value falls between the upper and lower limit the score is calcu- 4 Points HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
lated by linear interpolation. The scores are presented visually, 0 Points HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
unstable airbag/steering wheel contact
using colored segments within body outlines. The color used (-1 point)
is based on the points awarded for that body region as shown Modifier Hazardous Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
below. The total score is scaled by a factor of 0.5. Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
Steering column displacement (-1 point)

4.000 points Neck


2.670 – 3.999 points My,extension < 42 Nm
Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms
1.330 – 2.669 points < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms
4 Points < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
0.001 – 1.329 points
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms
0.000 points < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms
< 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
My,extension > 57 Nm
Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms
> 2.9 kN @ 35 ms
Hybrid III 5% Female 0 Points > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms
Head > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms
4 Points HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
0 Points HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
unstable airbag/steering wheel contact
(-1 point) Chest
Hazardous Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
Modifier Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point) 4 Points Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Steering column displacement (-1 point) 0 Points Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
Exceeding forward excursion line* (-4 Displacement of the A Pillar (-2 points)
points) Passenger Compartment Integrity (-1 point)
Modifier Steering Wheel Contact (-1 point)
Neck Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
My,extension < 36 Nm Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 points)
4 Points Fz,tension < 1.7 kN
Fx,shear < 1.2 kN
My,extension > 49 Nm Femur
0 Points Fz,tension > 2.62 kN
4 Points Axial ForceCompression < 3.8 kN
Fx,shear > 1.95 kN
SafetyWissen by Axial ForceCompression > 9.07 kN
0 Points
> 7.56 kN @ ≥10 ms

Chest Knee
4 Points Deflection < 18 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s 4 Points Displacement < 6 mm
0 Points Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s 0 Points Displacement > 15 mm
Steering Wheel Contact (-1 point) Variable contact (-1 point)
Modifier Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point) Modifier Concentrated Loading (-1 point)
Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 points) Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point)

Femur Tibia
4 Points Axial ForceCompression < 2.6 kN 4 Points TI < 0.4; Axial ForceCompression < 2 kN
0 Points Axial ForceCompression > 6.2 KN 0 Points TI > 1.3; Axial ForceCompression > 8 kN
Submarining (-4 points) Doors Upward Displacement of the Worst
Modifier Modifier
Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point) Door Opening during Performing Pedal (-1 point)
Modifier the Impact (-1 point/
* Rear Passenger only door)* Foot
4 Points Pedal rearward displacement < 100 mm
* modifier will be applied to the
Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3 overall score for that test 0 Points Pedal rearward displacement > 200 mm
Footwell Rupture (-1 point)
Modifier
Pedal Blocking (-1 point)

36
Testing is our passion.
ADAC Technik Zentrum Landsberg.
7 Central test lab for Europe’s automobile clubs
7 Full-scale crash tests, sled tests of child restraint systems,
comprehensive pedestrian protection tests, components tests
of vehicle equipment
7 Tests of driver assistance and full auto brake systems for
the prevention of rear-end collisions, protection of pedestrians
and cyclists, prevention of accidents at intersections

ADAC e.V. Technikzentrum · Otto-Lilienthal-Straße 2 · 86899 Landsberg am Lech


Telefon: +49 (0) 81 91 93 86 41 · testing@adac.de · www.adac.de/technikzentrum
Passive Safety

Knee Mapping Workshop: The Euro NCAP Test Procedure

Course Description Who should attend?


Euro NCAP plays a leading role among the tests assessing the The seminar addresses specialists from the field of crash, engi-
passive safety of vehicles in Europe. Its influence now also ex- neers and technicians from numerical simulation and testing,
tends to other countries. Recently the knee impact test proce- project engineers and managers who want to have a first-
dure within the Euro NCAP frontal impact test was modified, hand, up-to-date information and hints on how to avoid knee
the goal being a less subjective assessment. A hard contact modifiers in Euro NCAP.
or a sharp edge in the knee area implies the danger for a car
manufacturer to be punished with a so-called knee modifier Course Contents
(reduction in points). The knee modifier is the most frequent „„ Overview of Euro NCAP crash tests
penalty within the Euro NCAP and impairs some vehicles’ oth- „„ Euro NCAP requirements in the knee area
erwise 5-star ratings. The allocation of a knee modifier often is „„ Knee modifier, knee mapping test procedure
a controversial decision. If a knee modifier has been allocated „„ Sled test procedure for knee impact
by the Euro NCAP inspector the car manufacturer has the pos- „„ Discussion of the assessment procedure and possibilities
sibility of proving - by means of a complex sled test procedure of interpretation
- that the modifier was not justified. „„ Workshop with analysis of test vehicles, which can be
After a short introduction the main focus of the workshop is provided by participants
on the current Euro NCAP assessment procedure for frontal „„ Future development of the test procedure
impact in the knee area (knee mapping). The current require-
ments will be explained in detail, in particular the knee modi-
fiers ‘Variable Contact’ and ‘Concentrated Loading’, the areas
of inspection and the threshold values. Positive / negative
examples will facilitate the participants’ understanding of the
requirements and the assessment procedure. Participants will
learn how to avoid a modifier. The sled test procedure will also
be explained and discussed in detail. The workshop was very informative and rele-
In the afternoon a demo vehicle, which can be provided by vant. The final analysis of a test vehicle was
participants, will be analyzed. Ralf Ambos, a trained Euro NCAP very helpful.“
inspector, can give valuable hints here. Ray Longbottom,
A perspective regarding the future development of the test SAIC Motor UK Technical Centre Ltd., UK
procedure will be given at the end of the seminar.

Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Ralf Ambos, DEKRA Automobil GmbH
Ralf Ambos studied automotive technology at the university for technology and economy in Dresden, Germany. He has worked as a
project manager in passive vehicle safety for eight years. In 2004 he was trained as an inspector for Euro NCAP. In 2009 he joined DEKRA
Automobil GmbH.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

16.09.2016 2724 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 19.08.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

38 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3

Protection Criteria in Side Impact (MDB and Pole)


World SID 50% Male For each body region (grey boxes) the score is calcu-
lated based on the worst injury criterion and appli-
Head 1
cable modifiers. Where a value falls between the up-
4 Points HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
0 Points HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
per and lower limit the score is calculated by linear
Modifier Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point) interpolation. The scores are presented visually, us-
ing colored segments within body outlines. The color
1
Pole: no sliding scale, only capping if HIC15 > 700 or
ares, peak > 80 g or direct head contact with the pole.
used is based on the points awarded for that body
region as shown below. The total score is scaled by
Chest a factor of 0.5.
4 Points Deflection < 28 mm;
0 Points Deflection > 50 mm 4.000 points
Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
shoulder lateral force ≥ 3.0 kN (no points will
2.670 – 3.999 points
Modifier be awarded for the chest) 1.330 – 2.669 points
VC ≥ 1.0 m/s (no points will be awarded for
the chest) 0.001 – 1.329 points
0.000 points
Abdomen
4 Points Deflection < 47 mm; SafetyWissen by

0 Points Deflection > 65 mm


VC ≥ 1.0 m/s (no points will be awarded for
Modifier
the abdomen)

Modifier Side Head Protection Device


Inside the ‚Head Protection Device Assessment Zone‘ (green) the head pro-
Pelvis tection system’s coverage is assessed. If the coverage is insufficient a 4 point
4 Points PSPF < 1.7 kN
modifier is applied the overall pole impact score. Areas outside the Daylight
0 Points PSPF > 2.8 kN
Opening (FMVSS 201) are excluded from assessment. Seams are not penal-
ized if the un-inflated area is no wider than 15mm. Any other un-inflated ar-
Side Head Protection Device eas that are no larger than 50mm in diameter (or equivalent area) are not
Modifier
insufficient protection in the ‚Head Protec- penalized.
tion Device Assessment Zone‘ (-4 points)*
* modifier will be applied to the overall pole impact
82 mm

score.
r=82 mm
CoG 95%
Doors
Door Opening during the Impact
Modifier
(-1 point/door)*
* modifier will be applied to the overall score for 82 mm 82 mm
that test
52 mm

② CoG 5%


The head protection device (HPD) evaluation zone (green) is defined as a rounded rect-
angle around the head CoG box (defined by the head CoGs of the 5% female and 95%
male occupants) at a distance of 82 mm from the upper and fore/aft edges and 52 mm
693 mm
594 mm

below the bottom edge. The x-position of the CoG is defined relative to the H-Point of
H-Point the 50% male:
50% Front seats:
① = H-Point(x) + 126 mm - seat travel(5th%ile-50th%ile)
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm + seat travel(50th%ile-95th%ile)
Rear seats:
① = H-Point(x) + 126 mm - seat travel
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm 39
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Euro NCAP Rating: 2016 - 2020

Adult Occupant Protection Child Occupant Protection Pedestrian Protection Safety Assist
2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020
max. score max. score max. score max. score
Offset
Dyn. Tests Seat Belt
Frontal Head Impact
8 8 8 Frontal 16 16 16 24 24 24 Reminder 3 3 3
impactl  Page 86
 Page 98  Page 114
 Page 36
Full-width
Dyn. Tests Speed Assi-
Frontal Leg Impact
8 8 8 Side 8 8 8 6 6 6 stance Syst. 3 3 3
impact  Page 86
 Page 98  Page 114
 Page 36
Side impact CRS Upper Leg
ESC
(MDB) 8 8 8 Installation 12 12 12 Impact 6 6 6 - - -
 Page 114
 Page 39  Page 98  Page 86
Side impact LDW / LKD
Vehicle AEB VRU-Pe
(Pole) 8 8 8 13 13 13 6 6 6 / LSS 3 4 4
 Page 98  Page 122
 Page 39  Page 114
Whiplash AEB Inter-
Front seats 2 1.5 1.5 AEB VRU-Cy - 6 6 Urban 3 3 4
 Page 94  Page 114
Whiplash
Junction
rear seats 1 0.5 0.5 2
Assist
 Page 93
AEB City
3 4 4
 Page 121
max. score (1) 38 38 38 max. score (1) 49 49 49 max. score (1) 42 48 48 max. score (1) 12 13 16
normalised normalised normalised normalised
score (2)
actual score / (1) score (2)
actual score / (1) score (2)
actual score / (1) score (2)
actual score / (1)
weighting (3) 40% weighting (3) 20% weighting (3) 20% weighting (3) 20%
weighted weighted weighted weighted
score (4)
(2)x(3) score (4)
(2)x(3) score (4)
(2)x(3) score (4)
(2)x(3)

Balancing: minimum normalised score (2) by box for the respective star rating:
 80% 80% 80% 75% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 50% 70% 70%

+ + +
 70% 70% 70% 60% 70% 70% 50% 50% 50% 40% 60% 60%
 60% 60% 60% 30% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 25% 50% 50%
 50% 50% 50% 25% 50% 50% 30% 30% 30% 15% 40% 40%
 40% 40% 40% 15% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 10% 30% 30%
Overall score (5) = ∑(4)
As of 2016 the overall score is used only for ranking the results within vehicle categories.
Bold figures indicate changes with respect to the previous year
Euro NCAP 2016 Logo Guidelines

Dual Rating VSSTR Protocol Version 7.0


As of 2016 Euro NCAP will issue a base rating for standard equipment only. Fitments rates for safety assist technologies will no
longer be considered. Optionally manufacturers of cars that have achieved at least 3 stars can apply for a secondary rating of a
model equipped with an optional safety package that meets a certain market installation rate (an average of 25% in the first 3
years and of 55% in the subsequent 3 years). The safety package must be actively promoted by the manufcaturer. The safety
package must be available, at least as an option, on all variants in the model range.

40
Applus+ IDIADA
Pedestrian Lab

Universal Impact Test System with High Dynamics Actuator for Active Bonnet
Misuse inside climatic chamber featuring Pedestrian Protection and Steering
System, Interior Impact, Ejection Mitigation - Combined Head Impact Test Machines
- Seats Static Strenght - Seat Belt Anchrages - Side Intrussion and Roof Crush -
Bumper Pendulum ... BOOSTING INNOVATION.
www.encopim.com

The Evaluation System


for Crash and Sled Tests
x Evaluation of crash tests, sled tests,
component tests and dummy calibration
x Compliant to international regulations,
laws and rating programs
x Powerful, expandable and flexible
by using National Instruments DIAdem
x Open for your data: VSAS database,
DIAdem, ISO-MME, ASAM-ODS,...
x Comparative test analysis
x Synchronization of test and video data

measX GmbH & Co. KG ● Trompeterallee 110 ● D-41189 Moenchengladbach, Germany


Phone: +49(0)2166 95200 ● FAX: +49(0)2166 952020 ● info@measx.com ● www.measx.com

carhs 2014 XCrash_en.indd 1 01.10.2015 11:39:02


SAFETY
WISSEN

U.S. NCAP Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555


Tests and Criteria
0o

56 km/h ES-2 re SID IIS 32 km/h


62 75°
km
/h
/2

Hybrid III Hybrid III


50% 5% 55 km/h

Rigid 254 mm Pole


MDB, 1368 kg

SID IIs

45
45
Injury Criteria Injury Risk
44 Curves
44
SafetyWissen by
45
44 45
44 (HIII 5F dummy):
Frontal Impact RigidInjury
Wall
Injury 100%
Risk Curves Overlap
Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP
Injury Risk Curves for
for Frontal
Frontal / 56 km/h
NCAP
NCAP
Injury Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP
Injury Criteria
(HIII 5F dummy):
Risk Curve
(HIII 5F dummy):
(HIII 50M dummy): Injury Criteria (HIII 5F dummy):
Risk Curve
(HIII
(HIII 50M
50M dummy):
dummy):
Dummy
Injury Criteria
Hybrid
(HIII 50M dummy): III 50% (Driver)
Risk Curve
Injury Criteria
Injury Criteria
Hybrid IIIRisk
5%
Risk(Passenger)
Curve
Curve
Injury
Injury Criteria
Criteria Risk
Risk Curve
Curve
⎛ ln( HIC15) − 7.45231 ⎞
Injury Criteria Risk Curve
⎛ ln( HIC 15) − 7.45231 ⎞
Head
Head(HIC Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜ ⎛ ln( ⎛ ln( HIC 15)− −7.45231
15) 7.45231
⎟ ⎞ Head Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ⎛⎜ ln( HIC15) − 7.45231 ⎞⎟
15) − 7.45231⎠ ⎞⎞⎟ ⎟ (HIC
Head Phead(AIS
(AIS3+3)+=) =⎝Φ⎛Φ HIC
⎜ HIC
Head
15) Phead ⎜ln( 0.73998
0.73998 Head15) Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ⎜⎝ ⎛ ln( HIC 0.73998
15) − 7.45231 ⎟⎠ ⎞
(HIC)15)
(HIC15)(HIC
Head Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜⎝ ⎝ 0.73998 ⎟⎠ ⎠ (HICHead 0.73998
15
where Φ = cumulative ⎝ normal distributi on⎠
0.73998 15) P (AIS 3 + ) =
head Φ = cumulativeΦ⎛
⎝ ln(
⎜ HIC 15) −distribution
normal 7.45231 ⎞⎠ ⎟
Pwhere
head (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜ ⎝
(HIC15) Head
cumulativenormal
whereΦΦ= =cumulative normaldistributi
distributionon (HIC
(HIC15) 0.73998 ⎟⎠
where
where Φ = cumulative normal distributi 15) where Φ = cumulative ⎝ 0.73998
normal distribution ⎠
1 on
where Φ cumulative normal1distribution
=) =
Chest
Chest
Chest
Chest
(deflection in mm) Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+)3=+) =
( AIS 11 Chest
defl ( AIS
Pchest _where Φ 3=+cumulative normal distribution
1 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
Pchest defl( AIS
_ _defl 3+) = 10.5456−1.568*(1ChestDefl ) 0.4612
(deflection
Chest in mm)
Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.5456 −1.7212*(
(deflection
Chest in in
(deflection
(Deflection
(deflection in in
mm)
mm)
mm) PPchest
chest
_ defl ( AIS 3+ ) =1 + 1e + 10.5456
10.5456 −1.568*(
−1.568*( ) 0.4612
0.4612
(deflection
ChestDefl )0.4612in mm)
Chest Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) =1 + e10.5456 −1.7212*(
1
1 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
11++ee10.5456−1.568*(ChestDefl(deflection
mm) e ChestDefl
) Chest
Femur in mm) Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) = 1−1.7212*(ChestDefl ) 0.4612
(deflection
(force ininkN)
Femur
mm) P ( AIS 2+ ) 1= +1 + e10.5456
10.5456 −1.7212*(ChestDefl ) 0.4612
Femur
1 1 1+ 1 Femur _ Force
e e 5.7949−0.7619
Femur (forceFemur
in kN) P ( AIS 2+ ) =
(force Femur
Femur in kN)
(force
in in kN) P ( AIS 2 + )2 +
( AIS =) = 5.795 − 0.51961Femur Femurin kN) 1
1 + e 5.7949 −0.7619 Femur _ Force
P ( AIS 2+ ) = 1 −10.7619 Femur _ Force
PP((AIS 22++)) ==1 +11+e+e5.795
Femur
(force kN) P AIS _ Force (force
(Force ininkN) 5.795 −10.5196 (force in kN)
_ Force ( AIS 2++ ) = 1 +5.7949 e 5.7949
(force kN) 5.795 − 0.5196
e − 0.5196 Femur_ Force
Femur Neck Pneck_NijP(AIS3 )= 1 +3.2269 0.7619 Femur _ Force
e 1−−1.9688
(AIS3+) = 1 + e
1 Femur _ Force
(Nij and
Neck Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = 1 + e
Nij
Neck P 1 1 1
Neck
Neck
(Nij and tension/compression in
neck_Nij
Pneck_Nij
Pneck_Nij (AIS3
(AIS3 +)+1=)+=e 3.2269 1.9688
−1 Nij tension/compression
(NijNeck
and in Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = 1 + e 3.2269 1−1.9688 Nij
1 Nij
(Nij and tension/compression (AIS3+) = 1 +1 +e 3.2269 e 3.2269 −1.9688
−1.9688 NijNij kN) and in
Neck
tension/compression Pneck (AIS3
( +3)
+ =
) = 3.2269 −1.9688
1 +3.2269
(Nij and Neck
tension/compression
kN) in in Pneck_Nij (Nij P neck_Nij
_ Tens AIS e −1.9688 1 Nij
kN)
(Nij and tension/compression
kN) in
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e
3.2269 −1.9688 1 Nij
1
(Nij
kN)and
tension/compression in Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) =1 + 1 +e e10.958−3.770 1
Neck _ Tension
( AIS3+3)+1=)+=e10.9745 − 2.37511Neck _ Tension tension/compression
kN) in
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.958−3.770 1 Neck _ Tension
10.958−3.7701Neck _ Tension
kN) Pneck _ Tens( AIS
Neck Pneck
Pneck _ Tens
_ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.9745
1 +e10.9745
10.9745 − 2.375
− 2.375 Neck
Neck _ Tension
_ Tension kN) PPneck _
neck _ Comp
( (
AIS
AIS3 +
3 )
+ =
) = 1 + e
− 2.3751Neck _ Tension
Tens 10.958
10.958 −3.770
−3.770 1Neck_ Tension
_ Compression
Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) =1 1++e e
Neck
(Nij and Tension/ Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e 1 1_ Compression 1 _ Compression
Compression in kN) ( AIS
Pneck _ Comp( AIS
Pneck 3+3)+1=)+=e10.9745 − 2.375 Neck
1 Neck P52
Pneck
neck=_max ( AIS(P
imum 1 + e10.958
3+neck_Nij
)= −3.770 Neck
, 10.958
Pneck −_3.770 1 Pneck _ Comp )
_ Comp
e10.9745 − 2.375 _ Compression ( 3+ ) = Tens ,Neck
Comp _ Compression
Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) = 1 + 1 +e10.9745
10.9745 − 2.375 Neck _ Compression P
Pneck52
52_ AIS
52 = max imum(Pneck_Nij10.958 1 + e
1 + e , Pneck _ Comp )
neck Comp −3.770 _ Compression
Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij 1 + , Pneck _−Tens
e 2.375, Neck
Comp )
Pneck_ _Compression _ TensNeck
, Pneck
PneckRisk
Pneck max
= =max imum
imum (P (Pneck_Nij , P, neck
Pneck _ Tens, P, Pneck _ Comp)) Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck _ Comp ) 53
Injury
Pneck
Curves for
= max imum(Pneck_Nij neck_Nij
Side NCAP
, Pneck _ Tens neck _ Comp Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck _ Comp )
_ Tens , Pneck _ Comp )
InjuryRisk
Injury
Injury RiskCurves
Risk Curvesfor
Curves forSide
for SideNCAP
Side NCAP
NCAP
(ES-2re 50M dummy):
Overall (ES-2re50M
(ES-2re
(ES-2re 50Mdummy):
50M dummy):
dummy): Pjoint = 1-(1-Phead)x(1-Pneck)x(1-Pchest)x(1-Pfemur)
Injury Criteria Risk Curve (SID-IIs 5F dummy):

Side Impact (MDB & Pole Test)


InjuryCriteria
Injury
Injury Criteria
Criteria RiskCurve
Risk
Risk Curve
Curve
Injury Criteria Risk Curve

ES-2re 50% SID-IIs 5%


Head
⎛ ln(HIC36) − 7.45231 ⎞
(HIC 36)
Head
Head
Head Phead (AIS3+) = Φ⎜⎛ln( ln(HIC36) 7.45231⎞⎟⎞
36)−−7.45231
Head
(HIC3636
(HIC
(HIC )))
36
PPhead
head(AIS3
head Φ⎛⎜⎝⎜ HIC0.73998
(AIS3++))==Φ ⎟⎠⎟ (HIC
Head ⎛ ln( HIC 36) − 7.45231 ⎞
Phead (AIS3+ ) = Φ⎜ ⎟ 53
⎝ ⎝ 0.73998
0.73998 ⎠⎠ 36) ⎝ 0.73998 ⎠
(HIC36) where Φ = cumulativenormal distribution
where Φ
where cumulativenormaldistribution
Φ ==cumulativenormal distribution where Φ = cumulative normal distribution
Chest
1 (SID-IIs 5F dummy):
(rib deflection
Chest
Chest in
Chest
Chest Pchest ( AIS 3+) = 11 Pelvis
1
mm) inin
AIS33++)) == 1 + e5.3895 −0.0919*max. Injury Criteria Risk Curve
(ribdeflection
deflection in p pelvis ( AIS 2+) =
chest((AIS
(rib
(rib deflection rib deflection
(acetabular
(Rib Deflection in PPchest
mm)
mm)
mm)
1 + 5.3895− 0.0919*max.
5.3895−0.0919*max. rib + iliac force in N)
ribdeflection
deflection 1 + e 6.3055−0.00094 *F
mm) 1+ e e
where F is the sum of acetabular and iliac force
Abdomen (total
abdominal
Abdomenforce
(totalin 1 in the SID − IIs dummy in HIC
⎛ ln( Newtons
36) − 7.45231 ⎞
Abdomen
Abdomen
Abdomen (total
(total
N)force
abdominal
abdominal forceinin
force in Pabdomen ( AIS 3+) = 11−0.002133*(HIC
Head
F )
Phead (AIS3+ ) = Φ⎜
⎝ 0.73998


abdomen((AIS
AIS33++)) == 1 + e6.04044
abdominal
(Abdominal Force 6.04044 36

N)
N)
N) PPabdomen 6.04044 − 0.002133*
6.04044−−0.002133*
0.002133*FF
11++ee
in N) abdomen F where Φ = cumulative normal distribution
where F =total abdominal force (N) in ES-2re
whereFFF=total
where
where =totalabdominal
=total abdominalforce
abdominal force(N)
force (N)inin
(N) inES-2re
ES-2re
ES-2re
1 Pelvis
1
Pelvis (Force) Ppelvis ( AIS 3+) = (acetabular p pelvis ( AIS 2+) =
AIS33++))== 1 + e 11−0.0011*F
7.5969
Pelvis(Force)
Pelvis
Pelvis
Pelvis (Force)
(Force) pelvis((AIS
PPpelvis
pelvis 7.5969−−−0.0011*
7.5969
7.5969 0.0011*FFF
0.0011*
+ iliac force in N)
1 + e 6.3055−0.00094 *F
(Force in N) where F is the pubic 11++eeforce in the ES - 2re in Newtons where F is the sum of acetabular and iliac force
whereFF isisthe
where the pubic
pubic force
forcein inthe ES--2re
theES 2rein
in Newtons
Newtons
in the SID − IIs dummy in Newtons

Overall Pjoint = 1-(1-Phead)x(1-Pchest)x(1-Pabdomen)x(1-Ppelvis) Pjoint = 1-(1-Phead)x(1-Ppelvis)

42
SAFETY
WISSEN

U.S. NCAP: Injury Risk Curves Hybrid III 50% ES-2re 50%
Hybrid III 5% SID-IIs 5%
multiple Dummys SafetyWissen by

40% 40%

35% 35%

30% 30%

Pchest (AIS 3+)


Phead (AIS 3+)

25% 25%

20% 20%

15% 15%

10% 10%

5% 5%

0% 0%
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

HIC (15 / 36) Chest Deflection (mm)

40% 40%

35% 35%

30% 30%
Pabdomen/pelvis (AIS 3+)
Pfemur (AIS 2+)

25% 25%

20% 20%

15% 15%

10% 10%

5% 5%

0% 0%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

Femur (Force in kN) Abdomen / Pelvis (Force in N)

40% 40%

35% 35%

30% 30%
Pneck_tens/compr (AIS 3+)

Pneck_Nij (AIS 3+)

25% 25%

20% 20%

15% 15%

10% 10%

5%
5%

0%
0%
1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4

Neck (compression/tension Force in kN) Neck (Nij)

43
SAFETY
WISSEN

U.S. NCAP:
Rating Scheme
Frontal Crash Test Side Pole Test Side MDB Test Rollover Test

Driver Passenger Front Seat Front Seat Rear Seat

Injury Criteria Injury Criteria Injury Criteria Injury Criteria Injury Criteria

Probabilty of In- Probabilty of In- Probabilty of In- Probabilty of In- Probabilty of In- Probabilty of
jury (Risk Curves) jury (Risk Curves) jury (Risk Curves) jury (Risk Curves) jury (Risk Curves) Rollover
Pjoint Pjoint Pjoint Pjoint Pjoint Proll

RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Proll/base**

Stars Stars
Driver Stars Passenger Stars (20%) (80%) Rear Seat Stars
(50%) (50%) Front Seat Stars (50%) Overall Rollover
(50%) Star Rating
(3/12)
Overall Frontal Star Rating Overall Side Star Rating
(5/12) (4/12) SafetyWissen by

Vehicle Safety Score (VSS)

*RR = relative risk; **base = baseline risk = 15%

Rating procedure
Using the Injury Risk Curves on  page 42 and page 43, the risk of a serious injury (AIS 3+) can be calculated from the injury
criteria measured in the crash test. The joint risk for an occupant can be determined using the following formulae:
Frontal Impact: Pjoint = 1 − (1 − Phead ) × (1 − Pneck ) × (1 − Pchest ) × (1 − Pfemur )

Side Impact: Pjoint =1−(1− Phead)×(1− Pchest)×(1− Pabdomen)×(1− Ppelvis)


This risk is compared to a so called baseline risk which was set to 15 %. This ratio is called relative risk (RR) from which the star
rating is determined using the following table:

RR 0 0.67 1 1.33 2.67

Stars     

44
SAFETY
WISSEN

IIHS Rating
Testing Protocol Version XV (May 2014)

Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor


Frontal Impact with 40% Overlap @ 64 km/h
HIC15 ≤ 560 ≤ 700 ≤ 840 > 840

Nij ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20


Head
Fz,tension (kN) ≤ 2.6 ≤ 3.3 ≤ 4.0 > 4.0
& Neck
Fz,compression (kN) ≤ 3.2 ≤ 4.0 ≤ 4.8 > 4.8

ares peak (g) Values > 70 g result in downgrading

a3ms (g) ≤ 60 ≤ 75 ≤ 90 > 90

Deflection (mm) ≤ 50 ≤ 60 ≤ 75 > 75


H III Chest
50% Deflection rate (m/s) ≤ 6.6 ≤ 8.2 ≤ 9.8 > 9.8

VC (m/s) ≤ 0.8 ≤ 1.0 ≤ 1.2 > 1.2

Femur Axial Force (kN) ≤ 7.3 @ 0ms ≤ 9.1 @ 0ms ≤ 10.9 @ 0ms > 10.9 @ 0ms
(Force duration corridors) ≤ 6.1 @ 10ms ≤ 7.6 @ 10ms ≤ 9.1 @ 10ms > 9.1 @ 10ms
Knee Displacement (mm) ≤ 12 ≤ 15 ≤ 18 > 18
Legs &
Feet TI (upper, lower) ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20

Tibia Axial Force (kN) ≤ 4.0 ≤ 6.0 ≤ 8.0 > 8.0

Foot acceleration (g) ≤ 150 ≤ 200 ≤ 260 > 260

Testing Protocol Version 3 (Mar 2008)

Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor


Seat/Head Restraints: Static Assessment ( page 94)
Backset (mm) ≤ 70 ≤ 90 ≤ 110 > 110
Head
HRMD Distance from top of head
& Neck ≤ 60 ≤ 80 ≤ 100 > 100
(mm)

Seat/Head Restraints: Dynamic Assessment


Vector sum of the standardized
shear (FX) and tension (FZ)
< {0.450}2 ≤ {0.825}2 > {0.825}2
values
BioRID Head {FX / 315}2 + {(FZ – 234) / 1131}2
IIg & Neck
Time to head restraint contact (ms) for values > 70 ms the rating is reduced by one level*
T1 acceleration (g) for values > 9.5 the rating is reduced by one level*
* only if both exceed the given level

The overall rating equals the static or dynamic rating. whichever is worse. Exceptions:
If the static rating is „acceptable“ but the backset is sufficient for a „good“ rating and the dynamic rating is „good“ then the overall rating is also
„good“. If the static rating is „marginal“ or „poor“ no dynamic test is made and the overall rating is „poor“.
45
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

IIHS Rating Testing Protocol Version VII (May 2014)

Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor


Barrier Side Impact (IIHS MDB) @ 50 km/h
HIC15 ≤ 623 ≤ 779 ≤ 935 > 935
Head/
Fz,tension (kN) ≤ 2.1 ≤ 2.5 ≤ 2.9 > 2.9
Neck
Fz,compression (kN) ≤ 2.5 ≤ 3.0 ≤ 3.5 > 3.5

Shoulder deflection (mm) Values > 60 result in downgrading

Ø Rib deflection (mm) ≤ 34 ≤ 42 ≤ 50 > 50


Chest/
Worst Rib deflection (mm) 51 - 55 > 55
Torso
Deflection rate (m/s) ≤ 8.20 ≤ 9.84 ≤ 11.48 > 11.48

VC (m/s) ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 ≤ 1.40 > 1.40


SID-IIs
5% Acetabulum force (kN) ≤ 4.0 ≤ 4.8 ≤ 5.6 > 5.6

Ilium force (kN) ≤ 4.0 ≤ 4.8 ≤ 5.6 > 5.6


Combined acetabulum and
≤ 5.1 ≤ 6.1 ≤ 7.1 > 7.1
ilium force (kN)
Pelvis/
Left Femur A-P force (3 ms clip, kN) ≤ 2.8 ≤ 3.4 ≤ 3.9 > 3.9
Femur Femur L-M force (3 ms clip, kN) ≤ 2.8 ≤ 3.4 ≤ 3.9 > 3.9
Femur A-P bending moment
≤ 254 ≤ 305 ≤ 356 >356
(3 ms clip, Nm)
Femur L-M bending moment
≤ 254 ≤ 305 ≤ 356 >356
(3 ms clip, Nm)
Intrusion: B-pillar to driver seat
Structure ≥ 125 ≥ 50 ≥0 <0
centerline distance (mm)

Testing Protocol Version II (Dec 2012)

Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor


Roof Crush ( page 63)
Stiffness to weight
Fmax / m x g ≥ 4.00 ≥ 3.25 ≥ 2.50 < 2.5
ratio (SWR)

Year TSP Criteria TSP+ Criteria


„„ „Good“ rating in all crash tests „„ „Good“ rating in all crash tests
2016 „„ at least „basic“ rating in front crash prevention „„ at least „advanced“ rating in front crash prevention
 page 116  page 116

46
SAFETY
WISSEN

IIHS Rating: Small Overlap Testing Protocol Version III (Mai 2014)

Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor


Small Overlap Frontal Impact with 25% Overlap @ 64 km/h
lower hinge pillar (resultant)
Lower Occupant Compartment

footrest (resultant)
Structure Rating: Intrusions (mm) 

left toepan (resultant) ≤ 150 ≤ 225 ≤ 300 > 300

brake pedal (resultant)

parking brake pedal (resultant)

rocker panel (lateral) ≤ 50 ≤ 100 ≤ 150 > 150

steering column (longitutinal) ≤ 50 ≤ 100 ≤ 150 > 150


Upper Occupant
Compartment

upper hinge pillar (resultant)

upper dash (resultant) ≤ 75 ≤ 125 ≤ 175 > 175

left instrument panel (resultant)

HIC15 ≤ 560 ≤ 700 ≤ 840 > 840

Head Nij ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20


& Neck
 Fz,tension (kN) ≤ 2.6 ≤ 3.3 ≤ 4.0 > 4.0

Fz,compression (kN) ≤ 3.2 ≤ 4.0 ≤ 4.8 > 4.8

a3ms (g) ≤ 60 ≤ 75 ≤ 90 > 90

Chest/ Deflection (mm) ≤ 50 ≤ 60 ≤ 75 > 75


Torso
H III  Deflection rate (m/s) ≤ 6.6 ≤ 8.2 ≤ 9.8 > 9.8
50%
VC (m/s) ≤ 0.8 ≤ 1.0 ≤ 1.2 > 1.2

Femur
KTH Injury Risk (%) ≤5 ≤ 15 ≤ 25 > 25

Knee Displacement (mm) ≤ 12 ≤ 15 ≤ 18 > 18

Leg & TI (upper, lower) ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20


Foot
 Tibia Axial Force (kN) ≤ 4.0 ≤ 6.0 ≤ 8.0 > 8.0

Foot Acceleration (g) ≤ 150 ≤ 200 ≤ 260 > 260

47
SAFETY
WISSEN

IIHS Rating: Small Overlap


Small Overlap Frontal Impact with 25% Overlap @ 64 km/h
Restraints & Dummy Kinematics Rating SafetyWissen by

Rating system based on a demerit system Demerits


Frontal Head Protection
Partial frontal airbag interaction 1
Minimal frontal airbag interaction 2
Excessive lateral steering wheel movement (>100 mm) 1
Two or more head contacts with structure 1
Late deployment or non deployment of frontal airbag automatic Poor
Lateral Head Protection
Side head protection airbag deployment with limited forward coverage 1
No side head protection airbag deployment 2
Excessive head lateral movement 1
Front Chest Protection
Excessive vertical steering wheel movement (>100 mm) 1
Excessive lateral steering wheel movement (>150 mm) 1
Occupant containment and miscellaneous
Excessive occupant forward excursion (>250 mm) 1
Occupant burn risk 1
Seat instability 1
Seat attachment failure automatic Poor
Vehicle door opening automatic Poor

Restraints & Kinematics  Good Acceptable Marginal Poor


Sum of Demerits ≤1 ≤3 ≤5 >5

Small Overlap Overall Rating


Rating system based on a demerit system. Demerits result from the injury, structure and restraints & kinematics ratings.
Component Rating Good Acceptable Marginal Poor
Vehicle Structure Rating  0 2 6 10
Head/Neck Injury Rating  0 2 10 20
Chest Injury Rating  0 2 10 20
Thigh and Hip Injury Rating  0 2 6 10
Leg and Foot Injury Rating  0 1 2 4
Restraints / Kinematics Rating  0 2 6 10
The overall rating depends on the sum of demerits: SafetyWissen by

Overall Rating Good Acceptable Marginal Poor


Sum of demerits ≤3 ≤9 ≤ 19 > 19
48
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Australasian NCAP (ANCAP) Roadmap Update 23. April 2014

ANCAP was harmonized with Euro NCAP until 2009. The harmonization ended with the introduction of Euro NCAP‘s overall rating
in 2009. ANCAP has now developed a new overall rating scheme that will be introduced in the period from 2011 -2017. As of 2018
ANCAP will re-align with Euro NCAP.
ODB Frontal Impact Barrier Side Impact Safety Assist Pedestrian Protection
Euro NCAP Test Prot. 5.1 Euro NCAP Test Prot. 5.1 Technologies (SAT) Euro NCAP PP Test Prot. 8.0
Euro NCAP AOP Ass. Prot 5.3 Euro NCAP AOP Ass. Prot 5.3 Assessment of the equipment Euro NCAP PP Ass. Prot 8.0
max. 16 Points max. 16 Points with assistance Scale
systems Poor/Marginal/Acceptable/Good

Seatbelt Reminder Pole Side Impact Number of Whiplash


mandatory
additional
Euro NCAP SA Ass. Prot 5.4 Euro NCAP Test Prot. 5.1 systems RCAR V3 , 2008
systems
max. 3 Points Euro NCAP AOP Ass. Prot 5.3 Scale
max. 2 Points Poor/Marginal/Acceptable/Good

Combined Score
max. 37 Points „Alignment“ with Euro NCAP
As of 2018 ANCAP will take over protocols
and results from Euro NCAP. In a transition
SafetyWissen by phase from 2015 to 2017 ANCAP will pub-
lish Euro NCAP results (based on Euro NCAP
Overall Rating protocols) in addition to their own tests
based on ANCAP protocols.

The requirements on which the overall rating is based are increasing until 2017 according to the following scheme:
Score required for the

additional SAT (count)


Pedestrian Protection
respective star rating

Frontal- and Barrier-


Side-Impact each
Pole-Side-Impact

Combinied Score

mandatory SAT
Whiplash

SafetyWissen by
as of 20.. 16 16 17 16 16 17 16 17 16 17 16 17
ESC + 3PSB1
Good

Good


Acc

Acc

12.5 1 1 32.5 + HPT1+2 + SBR1+3 2016 + TT 6 6


+ EBA
ESC + 3PSB + HPT1+2 +
Good

Good


Acc

Acc

8.5 - 1 24.5 2016 + SBR3 + TT 4 5


SBR1+ EBA
ESC +
Marg


Acc

Acc

Acc

4.5 - - 16.5 2016 + SBR1 + EBA + TT 3 4


3PSB + HPT1
ESC +
Marg Marg


Acc

1.5 - - 8.5 - - 2016 + SBR1 + HPT1 + TT 2 3


3PSB


Acc

- - - 0.5 - - ESC 2016 + 3PSB + SBR1 + TT - 2


1
front (1 row of seats)
st
ESC: Electronic Stability Control 3PSB: 3-Point Seat Belts
2
2nd row of seats SBR: Seat Belt Reminder EBA: Emergency Brake Assist
3
fixed seats in 2nd row of seats HPT: Head-protecting technology - side airbags TT: Top Tether
More details, including a list of additional SAT, are available in the „ANCAP RATING ROAD MAP 2011-2017“ which can be down-
loaded from http://www.ancap.com.au/media or can be found on SafetyWissen.com
50
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Latin NCAP Rating in Adult- and Child-Occupant Protection


Adult-Occupant Protection Assessment Protocol Version 3.0
Required Score Additional Requirements
Frontal ODB + Seat Belt Reminder ESC Pole-Side Impact acc.
Side MDB SBR acc. GTR 8 Euro NCAP Protocol
Star Rating (max. 16+16=32 Pt.) (max. 2 Pt.) 5.2
 ≥ 27 ≥1  

 ≥ 22 ≥1 

 ≥ 16 ≥ 0.5

 ≥ 10

 ≥4 SafetyWissen by

Child-Occupant Protection ( page 97) Assessment Protocol Version 3.0 New Assessment Protocol (TBC)
Star Rating Required Score (out of max. 49 points) Required Score (out of max. 49 points)
 ≥ 43 ≥ 43

 ≥ 36 ≥ 32

 ≥ 25 ≥ 24

 ≥ 14 ≥ 13

 ≥8 ≥8 SafetyWissen by

Frontal Impact with mit 40% Overlap @ 64 km/h


HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
My,extension < 42 Nm
4
Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Head, Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Neck HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 88 g
My,extension > 57 Nm

max. 16 points
0
Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
H III 50%
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
front
4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Chest
0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Femur, 4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN; Knee Displacement < 6 mm
Knee 0 Axial Forcecompr > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms; Knee Displacement > 15 mm
Tibia, 4 TI < 0.4, Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN; x–Displacement Pedals < 100 mm
Foot 0 TI > 1.3, Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN; x–Displacement Pedals > 200 mm

Barrier Side Impact (MDB) @ 50 km/h


4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
head
0 HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 88 g
max. 16 points

4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.32 m/s


Chest
ES-2 0 Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
front 4 Forcecompression < 1.0 kN
Abdomen
0 Forcecompression > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN
51
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

ASEAN NCAP Rating in Adult- and Child-Occupant Protection


Adult Occupant Protection Assessment Protocol Version 2.1
Required Score Additional Requirements
Frontal ODB Side Impact (MDB) Seat Belt Reminder ESC
(out of max. 16 compliance with (SBR) on driver and
Star Rating points) UN R95  page 74 front passenger seat
 ≥ 14   

 ≥ 11 

 ≥8 

 ≥5

 ≥2 SafetyWissen by

If the dummy response exceeds the lower performance limit of head, neck or chest, the rating is limited to no more than 1 star
regardless of the total number of points scored.
Child-Occupant Protection ( page 97) Assessment Protocol Version 2.1
Star Rating Required Score (out of max. 49 points)
 ≥ 43

 ≥ 34

 ≥ 25

 ≥ 15

 >0

Dummy Region Points Criteria


Frontal Impact with 40% Overlap @ 64 km/h
HIC36 < 650, a3ms < 72 g
My,extension < 42 Nm
4
Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Head, Neck
HIC36 > 1000, a3ms > 88 g
My,extension > 57 Nm
0
Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
max. 16 points

Deflection < 22 mm
4
H III 50% Chest VC < 0.5 m/s
front Deflection > 50 mm
0
VC < 0.5 m/s
Axial Forcecompression < 3.8 kN
Femur, 4
Knee Displacement < 6 mm
Knee
Axial Forcecompression > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms
0
Knee Displacement > 15 mm
TI < 0.4
4
Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN
Tibia
TI > 1.3
0
Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN

52
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

China NCAP Protocol 2015

Dummy Region Points Criteria


Frontal Impact with 100% Overlap @ 50 km/h ❶
5 HIC36 < 650; a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC36 > 1000; a3ms > 88 g
My,extension < 42 Nm
2 Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Neck
My,extension > 57 Nm
0 Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
H III 50% Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
front 5 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Chest
0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s

max. 18 points
Axial Forcecompression < 3.8 kN;
2
Femur Knee Displacement < 6 mm
Knee Axial Forcecompression > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms;
0
Knee Displacement > 15 mm
2 TI < 0,4; Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN
Tibia
0 TI > 1,3; Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN
0.8 HIC15 < 500
Head
0 HIC15 > 700
H III 5% 0.2 Fx,shear < 1200 N; Fz,tension < 1700 N; My,extension < 36 Nm
Neck
rear 0 Fx,shear > 1950 N; Fz,tension > 2620 N; My,extension > 49 Nm
1 Deflection < 23 mm
Chest
0 Deflection > 48 mm

Frontal Impact with 40% Overlap @ 64 km/h ❷ SafetyWissen by

HIC36 < 650, a3ms < 72 g


My,extension < 42 Nm
4
Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Head, Neck
HIC36 > 1000, a3ms > 88 g
My,extension > 57 Nm
0
Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
H III 50% Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
front
max. 18 points

4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s


Chest
0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC < 1.0 m/s
4 Axial Forcecompression < 3.8 kN, Knee Displacement < 6 mm
Femur
Knee Axial Forcecompression > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms, Knee Displacement
0
> 15 mm
4 TI < 0.4; Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN
Tibia
0 TI > 1.3; Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN
1 HIC15 < 500, Fx,shear < 1200 N, Fz,tension < 1700 N, My,extension < 36 Nm
Head, Neck
H III 5% 0 HIC15 > 700, Fx,shear > 1950 N, Fz,tension > 2620 N, My,extension > 49 Nm
rear 1 Deflection < 23 mm
Chest
0 Deflection > 48 mm

53
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

China NCAP Protocol 2015


Dummy Region Points Criteria
Barrier Side Impact (MDB) @ 50 km/h ❸
4 HIC36 < 650, a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC36 > 1000, a3ms > 88 g
Deflection < 22 mm,
4
VC < 0.32 m/s
Chest
ES-2 Deflection > 42 mm,
0
vorn VC > 1.0 m/s

max. 18 points
4 Axial Forcecompression < 1.0 kN
Abdomen
0 Axial Forcecompression > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN
1 HIC15 < 500
Head
SID-IIs 0 HIC15 > 700
hinten 1 Force < 3500 N
Pelvis
0 Force > 5500 N

Whiplash Test @ v=15,65 km/h ❹


2 < 8 m²/s²
NIC
0 > 30 m²/s²
1 Fx+ < 340 N, Fz+ < 475 N, My < 12 Nm
BioRID II Upper Neck
0 Fx+> 730 N, Fz+> 1130 N, My > 40 Nm

max. 4 points
1 Fx+ < 340 N, Fz+ < 257 N, My < 12 Nm
Lower Neck
0 Fx+> 730 N, Fz+> 1480 N, My > 40 Nm
max. dyn.
-2 > 19°
seatback defl.
dyn. seat
-4 > 20 mm
displacement
HRMD
-2 Y/N
interference

Additional Points ❺
1 Visual / Audio Signal with occupant detection
SBR Passenger
max. 3 pt.

0.5 Visual / Audio Signal without occupant detection


Side Protection 1 Side / Curtain-Airbag
ESC 1 acc. GTR 8 or FMVSS 126 or UN R13H

Overall Rating
Total Score Stars Alle Details in:
❶+❷+❸+❹+❺
≥ 60 5+ 
≥ 54 ... < 60 5 
≥ 48 ... < 54 4 
≥ 36 ... < 48 3 
Free Download @ carhs.com/app
≥ 24 ... < 36 2 
< 24 1 
54
SAFETY
WISSEN

JNCAP
ODB 40%

0o
ES-2
0o
55 km/h

64 km/h

55 km/h
Hybrid III Hybrid III 90°
50% 50%
Hybrid III
50%
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Hybrid III
5%

Dummy Region Weight Points Criteria


Frontal Impact
4 HIC 36 < 650
Head 0.923
0 HIC 36 > 1000
My,extension < 42 Nm

max. 12 points (after weighting)


4 Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Neck 0.231
My,extension > 57 Nm
0 Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
H III 50% Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
front
4 Deflection < 22 mm, a3ms < 38 g
Chest 0.923 Rating Scheme Frontal &
0 Deflection > 50 mm, a3ms > 60 g
Side Impact, Whiplash:
2 Axial Forcecompression < 7 kN
Femur 0.923 Required
0 Axial Forcecompression > 10 kN Level
Score
2 TI < 0.4
Tibia 0.923
0 TI > 1.3 5 ≥ 10.5
4 HIC15 < 500
Head 0.8
0 HIC15 > 700

max. 12 points (after weighting)


4 ≥9
Fx,shear < 1200 N, Fz,tension < 1700 N,
4
My,extension < 36 Nm
Neck 0.2 3 ≥ 7.5
Fx,shear > 1950 N, Fz,tension > 2620 N,
0
H III 5% My,extension > 49 Nm
rear 4 Deflection < 23 mm 2 ≥6
Chest 0.8
0 Deflection > 48 mm
Abdomen 0.8 4 4 points awarded by default 1 <6
4 Axial Forcecompression < 4.8 kN
Femur 0.4
0 Axial Forcecompression > 6.8 kN SafetyWissen by

Side Impact
4 HIC 36 < 650
max. 12 pt. (after weighting)

Head 1.0
0 HIC 36 > 1000
4 Deflection < 22 mm
Chest 1.0
ES-2 0 Deflection > 42 mm
front 4 Forcecompression < 1.0 kN
Abdomen 0.5
0 Forcecompression > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis 0.5
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN SafetyWissen by

56
SAFETY
WISSEN

JNCAP
Dummy Criteria Weight Points Limits
Whiplash Test
4 < 8 m²/s²
NIC 1
0 > 30 m²/s²
4 < 340 N
Upper Neck Fx+

score is calculated based on the worst injury criterion


0 > 730 N
4 < 475 N

max. 12 points (after weighting)


Upper Neck Fz+
0 > 1130 N
4 < 12 Nm
Upper Neck My Flexion
0 > 40 Nm
4 < 12 Nm
BioRID II Upper Neck My Extension
0 > 40 Nm
2
4 < 340 N
Lower Neck Fx+
0 > 730 N
4 < 257 N
Lower Neck Fz+
0 > 1480 N
4 < 12 Nm
Lower Neck My Flexion
0 > 40 Nm
4 < 12 Nm
Lower Neck My Extension
0 > 40 Nm

Where a value falls between the upper and lower limit, the score is calculated by linear interpolation (sliding scale).

Overall Rating
max. weighted
max. score weight score total total
Occupant Protection
Full-width Frontal
Driver 12 1.250 15
Passenger 12 1.250 15
Offset Frontal
Driver 12 1.250 15
Passenger (rear) 12 1.250 15
100 208
Side Impact
Driver 12 1.042 12.5 ≥170
Passenger* 12 1.042 12.5 ≥150
≥130
Whiplash
≥110
Driver 12 0.625 7.5 <110
Passenger 12 0.625 7.5
Pedestrian Protection ( page 86)
Head Impact 4 18.750 75
100
Leg Impact 4 6.250 25
Seat Belt Reminder
Front 50 0.08 4
8 SafetyWissen by
Rear 50 0.08 4
*for the passenger the same score as for the driver is assumed

57
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

KNCAP Protocol 9/2015

Overall Rating
Pedestrian Driving Safety
Category Crashworthiness Protection
 page 86  page 116

Frontal FWRB Frontal ODB Side MDB Whiplash


Head Impact Rollover
16 km/h
0o ODB 40%
ES-2 24 Points 5 Points
56 km/h BioRID II
0o

64 km/h
55 km/h 90°
Hybrid III Hybrid III @ R +250 mm
50% 5%
AE-MDB, 1300 kg
Hybrid III
50%
Hybrid III
50% Leg Impact Brakes
6 Points 5 Points

max. score (1) 16 Points 16 Points 16 Points 10 Points 30 Points 10 Points


max. total
58 Points 30 Points 10 Points
score (2)
normalized actual score / actual score /
actual score / (2)
score (3) (2) (2)
weighting (4) 65% 25% 10%
weighted score
(3) x (4) (3) x (4) (3) x (4)
(5)
sum (6) Σ (5) (max. 100)
additional Side Pole 2 Points
scores (7) Safety Assistance (FCW 0.2 Points, LDW 0.2 Points, SBR 0.4 Points, AEB Inter-Urban 0.2 Points) 1 Point
total (8) (6)+(7) (max. 103)

Overall classification: Minimum total score (8) per rating class


Class 1 ≥ 86.1
Class 2 ≥ 81.1
Class 3 ≥ 76.1
Class 4 ≥ 71.1
Class 5 ≤ 71.0
Balancing: Minimum normalized score per category (3) per rating class
Pedestrian
Category Crashworthiness
Protection
Class 1 ≥ 90.1 % ≥ 60.1 %
Class 2 ≥ 83.1 % ≥ 50.1 %
Class 3 ≥ 76.1 % ≥ 40.1 %
Class 4 ≥ 69.1 % ≥ 35.1 %
Class 5 ≤ 69.0 % ≤ 35.0 %

58
With Semcon.
With Safety.
Semcon is a well-respected development partner to the global
automotive industry, and provides its customers with exactly
the resources they need, from design and engineering to testing,
simulation and prototype construction. Benefit from the potential
of our expert „Crash & Safety“ team in the fields of

ƒ Body structure development


ƒ Occupant protection
ƒ Pedestrian protection
ƒ Head impact
ƒ Sensor simulation and configuration
ƒ Impact energy management and pulse design
ƒ Validation and updating of material data

Creating the future


www.semcon.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW

KNCAP Protocol 9/2015


Dummy Region Points Criteria
Frontal Impact with 40% Overlap @ 64 km/h
4 HIC36 < 650; My,extension < 42 Nm; Fz,tension < 2,7 kN; Fx,shear < 1,9 kN
Head, Neck
0 HIC36 > 1000; My,extension > 57 Nm; Fz,tension > 3,3 kN; Fx,shear > 3,1 kN

max. 16 points
4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Chest
0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
H III 50%
Femur 4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN; Knee displacement < 6 mm
Knee 0 Axial Forcecompr > 9.07 kN; Knee displacement > 15 mm
4 TI < 0,4; Axial Forcecompr < 2 kN
Tibia
0 TI > 1,3; Axial Forcecompr > 8 kN

Frontal Impact with 100% Overlap @ 50 km/h


6 HIC36 < 650; My,extension < 42 Nm; Fz,tension < 2.7 kN; Fx,shear < 1.9 kN
Head, Neck
0 HIC36 > 1000; My,extension > 57 Nm; Fz,tension > 3.3 kN; Fx,shear > 3.1 kN
6 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
H III 50% Chest
0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s

max. 16 points
4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN
Femur
0 Axial Forcecompr > 9.07 kN
6 HIC15 < 500, Fx,shear < 1.2 kN, Fz,tension < 1.7 kN, My,extension < 36 Nm
Head, Neck
0 HIC15 > 700, Fx,shear > 1.95 kN, Fz,tension > 2.62 kN, My,extension > 49 Nm
6 Deflection < 22 mm
H III 5% Chest
0 Deflection > 48 mm
4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN
Femur
0 Axial Forcecompr > 6.8 kN

Barrier Side Impact (MDB) with 55 km/h


4 HIC36 < 650
Head
0 HIC36 > 1000

max. 16 points
4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.32 m/s
Chest
0 Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
ES-2
4 Forcecompr < 1.0 kN
Abdomen
0 Forcecompr > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN

Whiplash Test
Dynamic Assessment 1.5 Points 0 Points
NIC 11.00 24.00
Nkm 0.15 0.55
Rebound velocity (m/s) 3.2 4.8
max. 10 points

BioRID
Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 190
max. 9 points

IIg
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 360 750
T1 acceleration* (g) 9.30 13.10
T-HRC* (ms) 57 82
Geometry Assessment 1 Point -1 Point
Backset (mm) 40 100
max.
1 pt.

HRMD
Height (mm) 0 80
* Only the maximum score from either T1 acceleration or head restraint contact time is used in the rating.
60
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW

BNVSAP Bharat New Vehicle Safety Assessment Program (India)


Time schedule
„„ Phase I
„„ starting october 2016: Manufacturers can have their vehicles assessed on a voluntary basis
„„ starting october 2017: BNVSAP selects vehicles to be assessed
„„ Phase II starting october 2020: Extension of the tests: ODB 64 km/h, FW 50 km/h, Rear Impact 35 km/h, Whiplash
„„ Phase III starting october 2022: adapatation of the rating based on accident data
Phase I Assessment scheme
Max. score
available for Max. score
meeting relevant available for
legal (AIS) meeting BNVSAP
Category Test / Requirement requirements criteria Max. total score
ODB Frontal Test 40% / 56 km/h
4 12 16
Adult Occupant (AIS 089 / UN R94)
Protection MDB Side Test 50 km/h
4 4 8
(AIS 099 / UN R95)
Child Occupant Dynamic Assessment in
- 4 4
Protection ODB Frontal Test
Pedestrian
Head Impact (AIS 100) 4 - 4
Protection
Rear Impact (AIS 101 / UN R34) 2
Type approved ABS System 2
Seat Belt Reminder (SBR)
2
Driver 1 point, Passenger 1 point
Validated Electronic Stability Control
Other 1
(ESC) - max. 8
Requirements
Validated Electronic Brake
1
Distribution (EBD)
Type approved head restraint system
1
(for all forward facing outboard seats)
Child lock functionality check 1
Total max. 40

Overall Rating Adult Occupant Protection


required score required score
Rating % of max % of max
(out of max. 40) (out of max. 24)

 34 85 21 87.5

 28 70 17 70.8

 22 55 12 50

 16 40 8 20

 12 30 4 10

Note: BNVSAP is still in its introduction phase. Therefore modifications may still occur.

61
Passive Safety

Product Liability in the Automobile Industry

Course Description Who should attend?


In the framework of the ongoing extension of active and pas- The seminar is aimed at all decision-makers in the automotive
sive safety systems automobiles are becoming increasingly development, who want to learn about the consequences of
complex. product liability and want to learn about preventive measures.
In this context the faultlessness of systems becomes more
and more important, as with growing complexity not only the Course Contents
number but also the severity of possible faults is increasing. „„ Fundamentals of Product Liability
An indicator for this is the growing number of recalls in recent „„ Civil and criminal responsibility of the company and
years. personal liability of employees
Each manufacturer holds the responsibility for consequential „„ Liability for Defects
damages caused by its products when used as intended. This „„ Product liability in Europe and in the U.S.
responsibility is defined by law in all countries and has civil and „„ U.S. TREAD ACT, Reporting obligation for OEMs and
criminal penalties. suppliers
Examples include the recalls of large numbers of vehicles that „„ Product liability and advertisement and public relations
several OEMs were obliged to do during the last few years. of companies
„„ Quality management and its relevance from a product
Obviously a safety related recall of a mass product may have liability point of view
severe or even existence-threatening consequences. „„ Product liability in the supply chain
„„ Instructions, warnings
Consequently, manufacturers must ensure faultlessness „„ Risk minimization within the organization, prevention
throughout their organization. „„ Documentation, conclusive evidence
„„ Insurance of product liability risk
Course Objectives „„ Recall decision and processing
The aim of this course is to convey the importance of product
liability for businesses and employees as well as an under-
standing of preventive measures.

Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Georg Lohrmann
Hans-Georg Lohrmann was Manager of Reliability & Conformity of Production at ZF TRW Automotive GmbH. He has many years of ex-
perience in the field of safety, reliability and product liability in the automotive sector. Since September 2015 he has retired and is still
active as a freelance consultant. He specializes in the area of ​​restraint systems for vehicle occupant protection and supports his clients
in the areas of reliability, safety planning and methods of verification, application and development of a product conformity certificate
system and litigation support.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

22.-23.02.2016 2732 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 25.01.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

27.-28.06.2016 2734 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 30.05.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

04.-05.10.2016 2733 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 06.09.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

62 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


SAFETY
WISSEN

Roof Crush
1829 mm

5° Centerline of Test Device

Headform with Load Cell


Forwardmost Point of Roof (FMVSS only)

762 254 mm
mm
Rigid Horizontal Support of
25° Sills / Chassis Frame

Centerline of Test Device

Initial Point of Contact

Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093


FMVSS 216a
SafetyWissen by
Application:
Vehicles with a GVWR ≤ 4536 kg
Applied Force:
for vehicles with a GVWR ≤ 2722 kg:
F = 3.0 x GVWR x 9.8 m/s2
for vehicles with a GVWR > 2722 kg:
F = 1.5 x GVWR x 9.8 m/s2
Feed Rate: ≤ 13 mm/s
IIHS Testing Protocol Version II (Dec 2012)
Double Sided Test
Platen Displacement: 127 mm Requirements:
Feed Rate: 5 mm/s Platen displacement ≤ 127 mm
Single Side Test: Lab selects worst case Load on headform located at head position of 50% male ≤ 222 N

Assessment: Phase-In for GVWR ≤ 2722 kg:


based on Strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) = Fmax / m x g Manufacturing Period %*
SWR Rating 01.09.2012-30.08.2013 25%
≥ 4.00 Good 01.09.2013-30.08.2014 50%
≥ 3.25 till <4.00 Acceptable 01.09.2014-30.08.2015 75%
≥ 2.50 till <3.25 Marginal on or after 01.09.2015 100%
< 2.50 Poor * in % of the production of the respective period or in % of
A „Good“ rating in the roof crush test is a requirement for the average production of the 3 previous years
the Top-SafetyPick award. SafetyWissen by Introduction for GVWR > 2722 kg: 01.09.2016
63
Passive Safety

Crashworthy Car Body Design - Design, Simulation, Optimization

Course Description Course Contents


In the development of a car body different - sometimes con- „„ Mechanics of crash events
flicting - design requirements have to be met. Fulfilling crash „„ Accelerations during collisions
regulations is a key task. Therefore it is mandatory that de- „„ Structural loading during collisions
„„ Examination of real crash events
signers have a good understanding of the crash behavior of
„„ Stability problems
mechanical structures. The combination of knowledge about „„ Plasticity
mechanics and the ability to use modern design tools allows „„ Design methods
for an efficient development process without unnecessary de- „„ Functional based design
sign iterations. The objective of the seminar is to present new „„ Car body design
methods for crashworthy car body design. „„ CAE conform design
At the beginning of the course the mechanical phenomena of „„ Crash simulation
crash events will be discussed. Subsequently modern devel- „„ Finite Element modelling of a car body
opment methods (CAD design and crash simulation) will be „„ Finite Element analysis with explicit methods
„„ Possibilities and limitations
treated. Thereafter modern implementations of safety design
measures will be presented. Mathematical optimization of „„ Technical implementation of safety measures
„„ Energy absorbing members
structural design - which is increasingly used in industry - will „„ Car bodies
be covered at the end of the course. „„ Safety systems
„„ Pedestrian protection
Who should attend? „„ Post crash
This 2 day course addresses designers, test and simulation en- „„ Use of mathematical optimization procedures in real
gineers as well as project leaders and managers working in car world applications
„„ Approximation techniques
body development and analysis. „„ Optimization software & strategies
„„ Shape and topology optimization

Course Instructor:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Axel Schumacher, University of Wuppertal
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Axel Schumacher studied mechanical engineering at the universities of Duisburg and Aachen. He received his doctorate on
structural optimization from the University of Siegen. Following research projects for Airbus were focused on the optimization of aircraft
structures. Thereafter he worked in the CAE methods development department of Adam Opel AG as project leader for structural opti-
mization. From 2003 - 2012 he was a professor at the University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg and taught structural design, passive
safety and structural optimization. Since 2012 he has been professor at the University of Wuppertal, where he holds the chair for Opti-
mization of mechanical structures.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

21.-22.04.2016 2711 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 24.03.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

08.-09.09.2016 2712 Gaimersheim 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 11.08.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

64 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


SAFETY
WISSEN

FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact Requirements: In-Position

In-Position – Test Configurations


Full-Width Test ODB Test
unbelted belted
ODB 40%
5 % Female Dummy

0° / ± 5° 0° / ± 5° 0o

32-40 km/h 56 km/h 40 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

0° / ± 30°
50 % Male Dummy

0o

32-40 km/h 56 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III


50% 50% 50% 50%

SafetyWissen by

FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact Requirements: Out of Position


Front seat Dummy Test configuration
chin on airbag module in steering wheel
Driver side Hybrid III 5 % female
chin on top of steering wheel
CRABI 12m in 23 defined CRS / positions
chest on instrument panel
Hybrid III 3 y/o
Passenger side head on instrument panel
chest on instrument panel
Hybrid III 6 y/o
head on instrument panel

66
Passive Safety

Development of Frontal Restraint Systems meeting Legal and


Consumer Protection Requirements
Course Description you will be made aware of the influence of the individual com-
Belts, belt-load limiters, airbags, steering column, knee bol- ponents of a restraint system (belts, belt-load limiters, airbags,
ster, seat… - only if all the components of a frontal restraint steering column, knee bolster, seat,...) on the efficiency of the
system are in perfect harmony it is possible to meet the differ- entire system.
ent legal limit values as well as the requirements of consumer Finally future topics such as the compatibility of vehicles as
tests. However, these requirements, e.g. FMVSS 208, U.S. well as pre-crash preparation and prevention of accidents are
NCAP, Euro NCAP et al. are manifold and extensive, partly con- integrated into the seminar.
tradict each other, or the requirements superpose each other.
Therefore it is a challenge for every development engineer Who should attend?
to develop a restraint system by a clear, strategic procedure; The seminar addresses simulation and test engineers, project
time-saving and target-oriented with an optimal result. engineers and project managers as well as the heads of devel-
In this 2-day seminar this strategic way of development will opment departments in the field of passive safety who work
be shown. You will learn a procedure how to ideally solve with on design of restraint-systems for vehicles.
the complex development task of a typical frontal restraint-
system design within the scope of the available tools test
and simulation. Especially the importance and the influence Course Contents
of individual system components (e.g. belt-load limiters) for „„ Identification of the relevant development load cases
„„ Procedures for the development of a restraint system
the accomplishment of development-sub tasks (e.g. minimum
„„ Influence and importance of individual system
chest deflection) will be covered. In addition the influence of
the airbag module design on the hazards of Out-of-Position components on the overall performance
„„ Development strategy for UN regulations and NAR
(OoP) situations is going to be discussed, and a possible
development-path for the compliance with the OoP require- restraint systems
„„ Development path for the conformance to the OoP
ments according to the FMVSS 208 legislation will be shown.
The possibilities and limits of the development tools test and requirements according to FMVSS 208
simulation will be discussed and communicated. Last but not
least tips and tricks for a successful overall system design will
be part of this seminar.

In this seminar you will become familiar with a procedure for


the successful development of a frontal restraint system. Fur-
thermore you will learn which development tool, simulation
or test, is best suited for the respective sub task. Moreover

Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Kai Golowko, Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH
Kai Golowko has been working in the area of vehicle safety since 1999. He started his career as a test engineer for passive safety at ACTS.
Since 2003 he has been working as senior engineer for occupant safety and pedestrian protection. Since 2005 he manages the depart-
ment vehicle safety at Bertrandt in Gaimersheim. In this position he is responsible for component development and validation and inte-
grated safety.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

15.-16.02.2016 2668 Gaimersheim 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 18.01.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

23.-24.05.2016 2670 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 25.04.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

07.-08.11.2016 2669 Tappenbeck 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 10.10.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German! 67


Rigid Barrier Deformable Barrier
Configuration Criterion Out of Position
In-Position In-Position
CMVSS 208 (old), UN R94,
FMVSS 208 FMVSS 208 FMVSS 208
Requirements ADR 69/00, UN R137 ADR 73/00,
CMVSS 208 CMVSS 208 CMVSS 208
FMVSS 208 (old) FMVSS 208 (old)
Dummy Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III CRABI
Size 50% male 50% male 5 % female 50% male 5 % female 50% male 5 % female 5 % female 6 year 3 year 1 year
HIC36 /HPC36 [-] 1000 (FMVSS, ADR) 1000 1000 1000
Protection Criteria for Frontal Impact Tests

Head HIC15 [-] 700 (CMVSS) 700 700 700 700 700 570 390
a3ms [g] 80 80 80
Nij [-] (4 Werte) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
3.1 @ 0 ms
Fx,shear [kN] 3.1 2.7 1.5 @ 25-35 ms
1.1 @ ≥ 45 ms
Neck 3.3 @ 0 ms
Fz,tension [kN] 4.17 2.62 3.3 2.9 2.9 @ 35 ms 2.62 2.07 1.49 1.13 0.78
1.1 @ ≥ 60 ms
Fz,compr. [kN] 4.0 2.52 2.52 2.52 1.82 1.38 0.96
My [Nm] 57 57 57
a3ms [g] 60 g 60 60 60 60 60 55 50
76.2 (FMVSS. ADR)
Chest Deflection [mm] 63 52 42 42 [34]1 50 52 52 40 34 302
50 (CMVSS)
VC [m/s] 1.0 1.0 1.0
9.07 @ 0 ms
Femur Axial Force [kN] 10 10 6.805 9.07 7 6.805 6.8
UPDATE

7.58 @ > 10 ms
Knee Displacement [mm] 15
TI [-] 1.3 (4 Werte)
Tibia SafetyWissen by
Axial Forcecompr. [kN] 8.0
WISSEN
SAFETY
1 planned tightening of requirements as of 2020
2 currently no measurement possible

68
MESSRING is the leading
global manufacturer of crash
test systems, testing com-
ponents, data acquisition
systems and lighting solu-
tions. The German company
has implemented more
than 100 large crash test
AND A QUESTION OF ABSOLUTE PRECISION. systems – more than any
other company in the world.
MESSRING GmbH Learn more about us!
Robert-Stirling-Ring 1 Phone: +49-89-89 81 39 0 sales@messring.de
D-82152 Krailling Fax: +49-89-89 81 39 924 info@messring.de www.messring.com
SAFETY
WISSEN

Frontal Impact Protection Criteria Compared


Regulation Crash ATD
SafetyWissen by
Criterion Type [UoM]
HIC15 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
FMVSS 208 FWRB/ODB HIII 5/50
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 5
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 6y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 3y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP CRABI 12m
Euro NCAP1 ODB/FWRB HIII 5/50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 5
JNCAP ODB HIII 5
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50

HIC36 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

Head a3ms [g] 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95


UN R94 ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP1 ODB/FWRB HIII 5/50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

Chest Compression [mm] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80


UN R94 ODB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 FWRB/ODB HIII 5
FMVSS 208 FWRB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 5
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 6y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 3y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP CRABI 12m
Euro NCAP ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP FWRB HIII 5
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 5
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50
JNCAP ODB HIII 5

1
assessed only if Head ares peak > 80g

Please note that the values indicated in this graph may be rounded and that additional criteria may exist. Please take exact values
and additional criteria from the tables for the respective regulation.

70
SAFETY
WISSEN

Regulation Crash ATD


SafetyWissen by
Criterion Type [UoM]
Chest a3ms [g] 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FMVSS 208 FWRB/ODB HIII 5/50
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 5
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 6y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 3y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP CRABI 12m
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

Chest VCmax [m/s] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50
Euro NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 5/50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

Femur Faxial [kN] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14


UN R94 ODB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 ODB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 ODB/FWRB HIII 5
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 5
Euro NCAP ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP FWRB HIII 5
C-NCAP ODB HIII 50
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50
JNCAP ODB HIII 5

Knee Displacement [mm] 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


UN R94 ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP ODB HIII 50
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

Tibia Index [-] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP ODB HIII 50
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

Tibia Compression [kN] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14


UN R94 ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP ODB HIII 50
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

Legend:: Regulations: requirements are met / NCAP: maximum score


Regulations: requirements not met / NCAP: zero score
Linear interpolation of the score between the upper and lower limit
71
SAFETY
WISSEN

Safety Requirements for Rear Seats and Restraint Systems


Frontal impact tests with rear seat occupants

Euro NCAP FWRB Euro NCAP ODB ANCAP ODB ASEAN NCAP ODB
ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40%

0o

50 km/h 0o 0o 0o

64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III


5% 5%
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
Hybrid III 50% 50% 50% 50%
50% 50%
5%
Q6 Q10 P1,5 P3 P1,5 P3

JNCAP ODB C-NCAP FWRB C-NCAP ODB Latin NCAP ODB


ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40%

0o

0o 0o 0o
50 km/h

64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III


50% 50%
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% Hybrid III P3 50% 50% 50% 50%
5%
Hybrid III Hybrid III Q3 Q1,5
5% 5%

FMVSS 201: Head impact on belt UN R14: Belt and ISOFIX


anchorages anchorages
FMVSS 207: Seat stability UN R16: Belt system
FMVSS 208: Belt system UN R17: Seat anchorages
FMVSS 209: Belt system UN R21: Head impact
FMVSS 225: ISOFIX anchorages UN R25: Head rests
UN R44: Child seats
UN R129: Child seats

Side impacts tests with rear seat occupants

FMVSS 214 U.S. NCAP IIHS C-NCAP

ES-2 re ES-2 re SID IIs ES-2


54 62
km km
/h /h
/2 /2
7° 7°

50 km/h 50 km/h
48 km/h 55 km/h 90° 90°

MDB, 1368 kg MDB, 1368 kg MDB IIHS, 1500 kg MDB EEVC, 950 kg

SID IIs SID IIs SID IIs


SID IIs

72
Passive Safety

Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact

Course Description Who should attend?


Rear seat occupant protection has been a low priority until the The seminar addresses simulation and test engineers, project
recent introduction of safety assessment for rear adult and engineers and project managers as well as the heads of devel-
child occupants by Euro NCAP. Now it has moved into the fo- opment departments in the field of passive safety who work in
cus of research and development. R&D of occupant restraint-systems.

In addition to the Euro NCAP requirements, further NCAP rat- Course Contents
ings as well as legal requirements need to be considered in the „„ Legal Requirements
design of the restraint systems. And real world aspects cannot „„ Requirements from consumer testing
be neglected either. „„ Dummies on the rear seat; Q6 and Q10 Child Dummies
„„ Relevant protection criteria for the most important load
During the 1-day seminar legal and NCAP requirements for cases
rear seat occupant protection in frontal impact will be dis- „„ Solutions for restraint system design and optimization
cussed. Furthermore the dummies used in the assessment will
be presented with an empasis on the Q6 and Q10 child dum-
mies. For the most important load cases the relevant criteria
and possible influcening parameters of the restraint system
will be discussed and explored. Finally solutions for the design
of the restraint system on rear seat will be shown.

Note: Only frontal impact load cases will be considered.

Course Objectives
The objective of the seminar is to provide an understanding
of the requirements and specifics in rear seat occupant pro-
tection, to provide the knowledge of test configurations and
dummies, and to provide a view on state-of-the-art solutions.

Course Instructor:
Dr.-Ing. Burkhard Eickhoff, Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG
Burkhard Eickhoff studied mechanical engineering in Hannover (Germany) focusing on vehicle engineering and applied mechanics. Start-
ing from 1999 he worked with Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG as a test engineer for sled and crash tests. Since 2003 he has been project manager
in systems development (safety belt) of the same company. Since 2012 he has worked as a group leader at Autoliv. He is involved in the
definition and assessment of new restraint systems and he conducts feasibility studies using system simulation as well as dynamical
tests. Moreover he has a consultant role regarding restraint system design. He finished his doctoral thesis at the Helmut Schmidt Uni-
versity Hamburg in 2012 on the reduction of belt induced thorax deflection in frontal crashes.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

07.10.2016 2703 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 09.09.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German! 73


SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

MDB Side Impact Test Procedures according to UN R95, Euro NCAP


and IIHS
Requirement UN R95 Euro NCAP IIHS
Impact angle lateral 90°
MDB velocity 50 km/h
Barrier (MDB) EEVC AE-MDB IIHS
Mass 950 kg 1300 kg 1500 kg
Ground
300 mm 300 mm (bumper 350 mm) 379 mm (bumper 430 mm)
clearance
Upper edge
800 mm 800 mm 1138 mm
height
Width 1500 mm 1700 mm 1676 mm
1 WS 50% frontal seat on
1 ES-2 frontal seat on impact impact side, on rear seat
Dummy 2 SID IIs on impact side
side Q10 on impact side and Q6
far side
Different weight in
assessment driver and
Head HPC < 1000
passenger values for
Chest VC < 1.0 m/s
HIC15, Neck-Tens./Compr.,
Protection Rib deflection D < 42 mm  page 39 (Adults) SafetyWissen by
Head kinematics, Shoulder,
Criteria Abdomen sum of APF <  page 98 (Children)
Chest deflection, VC, Pelvis
2.5 kN
and Femur;
Pelvis PSPF < 6.0 kN
Car body evaluation, B-pillar
 page 46

Pole Side Impact Tests according to Euro NCAP, UN R135, GTR 14 and
FMVSS 214 new

Requirement Euro NCAP UN R135 / GTR 14 FMVSS 214 new U.S. NCAP
Vehicle Velocity up to 32 km/h (26 km/h for
32 km/h up to 32 km/h 32 km/h
(on Flying Floor) vehicles up to 1.5 m width)
Impact angle oblique 75° on fixed pole
Pole diameter 254 mm
ES-2 re or SID IIs (Build Level D) on impact
Dummy WorldSID 50% on impact side SID IIs 5 % on impact side
side
SID IIs: HIC36 < 1000
Head HIC36 < 1000
Lower Spine Acc. < 82 g
Shoulder Flateral < 3.0 kN
Pelvis Force < 5.525 kN
Protection Chest deflection < 55 mm
 page 39 ES-2 re: HIC36 < 1000  page 42
Criteria Abdomen deflection < 65 mm
Chest deflection < 44 mm
Lower Spine Acc. < 75 g
Abdominal Force < 2.5 kN
PSPF < 3.36 kN
PSPF < 6 kN

WS 50%
Test Configuration

SafetyWissen by

74
SAFETY
WISSEN

MDB - Side Impact Tests according to FMVSS 214 / U.S. NCAP

Requirement FMVSS 214 old rule FMVSS 214 new rule U.S. NCAP
Impact angle lateral 90°, 27° crab angle
61.9 ±0.8 km/h (~55 km/h in 90°
Impact velocity 53±1 km/h (33.5 mph) (~47 km/h in 90° direction)
direction)
Barrier NHTSA MDB
Mass 1368 kg
Ground clearance 279 mm (bumper 330 mm)
Upper edge height 838 mm
Width 1676 mm
Front seat: ES-2 re / Back seat: SID IIs Front seat: ES-2 re / Back seat: SID IIs
Dummy 2 DOT-SID
(Build Level D) (impact side) (Build Level D) (impact side)

SID IIs: HIC36 < 1000


Chest TTI < 85 g (4-doors) Chest acceleration < 82 g
Chest TTI < 90 g (2-doors) Pelvis force < 5.525 kN
Protection
Pelvis acceleration < 130 g ES-2 re: HIC36 < 1000  page 42
Criteria
Chest deflection < 44 mm
Abdominal force < 2.5 kN SafetyWissen by
Pelvis force < 6 kN

Alle Details in:

SafetyWissen by

Free Download @ carhs.com/app

Phase-In Schedule FMVSS 214 new rule


SafetyWissen by Pole MDB
Test speed Vehicles with GVWR Convertibles excluded Percentage Percentage
> 8500 lbs (3855 kg) that must that must
Production Period excluded comply comply
1.9.2010 - 31.8.2011 26 - 32 km/h yes yes 20 % 20 %
1.9.2011 - 31.8.2012 26 - 32 km/h yes yes 40 % 40 %
1.9.2012 - 31.8.2013 26 - 32 km/h yes yes 60 % 60 %
1.9.2013 - 31.8.2014 26 - 32 km/h yes yes 80 % 80 %
after 1.9.2014 0 - 32 km/h yes yes 100 % 100 %
after 1.9.2015 0 - 32 km/h no no 100 % 100 %
after 1.9.2016 0 - 32 km/h no no 100 %* 100 %*
* incl. altered and multistage vehicles

75
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Seat Adjustments for Side Impact Tests


① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
Seat Fore/Aft Seat Height Seat Back Angle Head Restraint Head Restraint Seat Base Tilt
Height Fore/Aft

Euro NCAP manuf. design


mid + 20 mm lowest mid mid1 mid
MDB position or 23°

Euro NCAP manuf. design


mid + 20 mm lowest mid mid1 mid
Pole position or 23°

height of non- top surface


adjustable manuf. design level with
UN R95 mid mid mid
passenger seat position or 25° head COG or
or mid uppermost
uppermost or
manuf. design
UN R135 mid + 20 mm lowest manuf. design most rearward mid
position or 23°
position.

U.S. NCAP /
manuf. design „absolute“
FMVSS 214 mid lowest2 uppermost most forward
position or 25° mid2
ES-2RE

U.S. NCAP /
most forward „absolute“
FMVSS 214 mid head at 0° lowest most forward
position mid2
SID-2s

uppermost or
ISO manuf. design
mid + 20 mm lowest manuf. design
WorldSID 50 position or 23°
position.
SafetyWissen by
1
If there is any interference with the rear of the dummy head, move the HR to the most rearward position..
2
seat base tilt adjustment ⑥ has priority w.r.t. seat height adjustment ②
76
A dynamic approach
to product development

Your development –
in the best possible hands
ARRK|P+Z Engineering is a leading provider of engineering services for the product
development process. For nearly 50 years, you can count for smooth development of
your product, underpinned by our five areas of competence Design, CAE & Simulation,
Test & Validation, Electrics & Electronics and Project & Quality Management.
With 350 engineers in the CAE & Simulation area of competence, we are one of the
largest companies in Germany specializing in this field. In our target market of the
automotive industry we are involved in strategic and long-term projects for renowned
German premium manufacturers. In this regard, we cover all of the simulation methods
established in the automobile industry.
In the area of crash simulation 130 crash experts work in-house for our customers.

Our crash competences:


• Structural crash
• Occupant safety
• Pedestrian protection
• Test validation
• Passive safety concepts
• Robustness evaluation
• Materials expertize
• Optimization

Our competence ensures a smooth control of your development.


ARRK|P+Z Engineering is a member of the ARRK Global Network. Within the
engineering field it holds a fixed and leading position in this globally operating group.

Member of ARRK
MUNICH I INGOLSTADT I STUTTGART I COLOGNE I WOLFSBURG I AUGSBURG I HAMBURG I HEIMSHEIM I LAUPHEIM
P+Z Engineering GmbH l Frankfurter Ring 160 l 80807 Munich l info@puz.de l www.puz.de
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Side Impact Protection Criteria Compared


Regulation Crash ATD
HIC15 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole1 WS 50
JNCAP MDB ES-2
C-NCAP MDB SID2s
IIHS MDB SID2s
1
Pole: no sliding scale but capping only for HIC > 700
HPC [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Please note that the values indicated in this graph may be rounded and that additional criteria may exist. Please take exact values and additional criteria from the tables for the respective regulation.
UN R95 MDB ES-2
HIC36 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
UN R135 Pole WS 50
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2/SID2s
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
Head a3ms [g] 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole2 WS 50
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
2
Pole: no sliding scale but capping only for ares, peak > 80 g
Chest Compression [mm] 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
UN R95 MDB ES-2
UN R135 Pole WS 50
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
IIHS MDB ES-2
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
JNCAP MDB ES-2
Shoulder Lateral Force [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UN R135 Pole WS 50
Chest VCmax [m/s] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
UN R95 MDB ES-2
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
IIHS MDB ES-2
Lower Spine a3ms [g] 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
UN R135 Pole WS 50
Abdomen Force [kN] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
UN R95 MDB ES-2
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
JNCAP MDB ES-2
Abdomen Compression [mm] 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
PSPF [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UN R95 MDB ES-2
UN R135 Pole WS 50
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
JNCAP MDB ES-2
Pelvis Force [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole SID2s
C-NCAP MDB SID2s
Legend: Regulations: requirements are met / NCAP: maximum score
Regulations: requirements not met / NCAP: zero score
Linear interpolation of the score between the upper and lower limit
78
Passive Safety

Side Impact - Requirements and Development Strategies

Course Description it is especially interesting for project managers and managers,


In addition to the protection in a frontal impact, the protec- who deal with side impact and who would like to gain a deeper
tion in a side impact has a fixed place in the development of understanding of this topic in order to use it for an improve-
vehicles. Continuous aggravation of consumer tests and legal ment of procedures.
regulations, e.g. due to new pole tests (UN ECE-R135 and Euro
NCAP), enhanced deformable barriers and the prospective Course Contents
introduction of World-SID-Dummies (5 / 50%ile) are causing „„ Challenges of side impacts
a need to further improve side impact protection. In order to „„ Side impact-relevant protection criteria. Legal tests
achieve this enhancement, it is necessary to get a much more (FMVSS 214, UN ECE R95, UN ECE R135, ...) Other
profound understanding of the highly complex phenomena tests (Euro NCAP, U.S. NCAP, further NCAPs, IIHS, car
and modes of action in a side impact which goes far beyond manufacturer-specific tests)
the simple application of additional airbags. „„ Development methods and tools:
The seminar provides a comprehensive overview of today’s Crash and occupant simulation, range of application and
standard test procedures including country-specific variations, limitations.
the legal regulations and the requirements of consumer pro- „„ Performance of restraint systems in side impact:
tection as well as an outlook on changes in the near future. In Analysis of the performance of protection and restraint
addition, tools, measuring methods and criteria, and especially systems in side impact. Discussion of the limitations,
virtual methods such as crash and occupant simulation, as well conflicts and problems.
as the analysis of the performance of the restraint systems will „„ Development strategy for an optimal restraint system for
be discussed. Furthermore it will be explained how a target- side impact
oriented use of CAE-simulation and hardware tests can lead „„ Target-oriented use of CAE-simulation and hardware
to optimal passenger values, while at the same time obeying tests
to boundary conditions such as costs, weight and time-to- „„ Workshop with analysis of crash-data and discussion of
market. A part of the workshop with crash-data analysis finally the results
deepens the understanding.

Who should attend?


The seminar addresses development engineers who are new
in the field of side crash, or who have already gained some ex-
perience in the field of safety, as well as developers of assem-
blies that have to fulfil a crash-relevant function. Furthermore

Course Instructors:
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Stephanie Wolter and Bart Peeters Weem, MSc., BMW AG
Stephanie Wolter, Dipl.-Ing. (FH) studied Engineering Physics at the University of Applied Sciences Munich. Since 1995 she has been
working at BMW AG in different functions in the field of side protection, such as pre-development, development of side airbags and as
a project engineer in various car lines. Moreover, she represents BMW-Group in various national and international bodies that deal with
side impact and other aspects of side protection, e.g. German Side Impact Working Group, ISO Working Groups, etc.
Bart Peeters Weem, MSc. studied mechanical engineering at the University of Technology in Eindhoven with focus on system and con-
trol. Since 2003 he has worked at BMW on passive safety development. First as Simulation Engineer, later as team leader and project
referent. Since 2015 he is head of the development of full vehicle side impact protection for BMW 1-, 2- and 3-series, MINI and BMW-i.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

28.-29.04.2016 2708 Gaimersheim 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 31.03.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

14.-15.06.2016 2710 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 17.05.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

23.-24.11.2016 2709 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 26.10.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German! 79


SAFETY
WISSEN

FMVSS 226 - Ejection Mitigation

Requirements:
„„ At up to 4 impact test locations on each side window in the first 3 rows max. 100 mm
of seats the head excursion may not exceed 100 mm
„„ Tests at two impact velocities: 16 km/h and 20 km/h
„„ Head protection systems (e.g. curtain airbags) must be fired before
the impact: v=16 km/h / 20 km/h
„„ at 20 km/h with a time delay of 1.5 s prior to the impact
„„ at 16 km/h with a time delay of 6 s prior to the impact
„„ Tests are done without glazing or with pre-damaged glazing
„„ pre-damage: perforation in a 75 mm grid pattern
„„ Valid for vehicles with GVWR ≤ 4536 kg
„„ Phase-In: 2013 - 2017
m=18 kg
Locating Targets: SafetyWissen by

Front Row Window Rear Row Windows

Daylight Opening (DLO)


25 mm Offset
Primary- B3 B4
A4
en by

Target
A3
SafetyWiss

Secondary- A1 A2 B1 B2
Target

1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3

Steps Front Row Window Rear Row Windows SafetyWissen by


1 Set Primary Target A1 in lower front corner Set Primary Target B3 in upper front corner
2 Set Primary Target A4 in upper rear corner Set Primary Target B2 in lower rear corner
3 Divide horizontal distance between A1 and A4 in thirds Divide horizontal distance between B3 and B2 in thirds
4 Move A3 at the first third vertically upward Move B1 at the first third vertically downward
5 Move A2 at the second third vertically downward Move B4 at the second third vertically upward
6 Measure Distances Dx (horizontal) and Dz (vertical) of the target center points
If Dx (A2 - A3) < 135 mm and Dz (A2 - A3) < 170 mm  Elimi- If Dx (B1 - B4) < 135 mm and Dz (B1 - B4) < 170 mm  Elimi-
7
nate A3 nate B4
If Dx (A4 - A3) (or A2 if A3 was eliminated in step 7) < 135 mm If Dx (B3 - B4) (or B1 if B4 was eliminated in step 7) < 135 mm
8
and Dz (A4 - A3/2) < 170 mm  Eliminate A3/2 and Dz (B3 - B4/1) < 170 mm  Eliminate B4/1
If Dx (A4 - A2) (or A3 if A2 was eliminated in step 8) < 135 mm If Dx (B2 - B1) (or B4 if B1 was eliminated in step 8) < 135 mm
9
and Dz (A4 - A2/3) < 170 mm  Eliminate A2/3 and Dz (B2 - B1/4) < 170 mm  Eliminate B1/4
If Dx (A1 - A4) < 135 mm and Dz (A1 - A4) < 170 mm  Elimi- If Dx (B3 - B2) < 135 mm and Dz (B3 - B2) < 170 mm  Elimi-
10
nate A4 nate B3
11 If only 2 targets remain: Measure absolute distance D the center points of the targets
12 If D > 360 mm, set additional 3rd target on the center of the line connecting the targets
If less than 4 targets remain, repeat steps 1-12 with the impactor rotated by 90 degrees. If this results in a higher number of
13
targets use the rotated targets.
If no target is found rotate the impactor in 5 degree steps, until it is possible to fit the impactor in the DLO-offset. Then place
14
the center of the target as close to the geometric center of the DLO as possible.

80
Part of the Altran Group

Part of the Altran Group

We take care of vehicle safety


Engineering, Simulation, Testing and Safety Development Tools
out of a single hand to achieve your development goals faster

As a full-range provider for vehicle safety we speak exactly your langu-


age. This is what gives us the lead in many safety development projects
and makes our Microsys airbag test equipment the most popular system
on the market.
With local expertise and global support, Concept Tech, member of the
Altran Group, is your partner of choice for vehicle safety.
Passive Safety

Ejection Mitigation FMVSS 226:


Requirements - Testing - Development Strategies
Course Description Who should attend?
In 2011, the U.S. legislation adopted - with the Federal Mo- The seminar is aimed at development, test and simulation
tor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 226 - a new safety rule, engineers who have to deal with the requirements of FMVSS
which aims at reducing the risk to be thrown out of the vehicle 226 and want to get a comprehensive overview on the topic.
during a car crash, especially in a rollover. The regulation calls
for appropriate safety measures to secure the side windows Course Contents
of cars so that passengers can’t lean out further than allowed. „„ The requirements of FMVSS 226
To verify this, impactor tests are carried out on the side win- „„ Performance requirements on the vehicle
dows of the standing vehicle. For these tests, a new specially „„ Special requirements for non-standard vehicles
designed impactor has been developed. In these tests curtain „„ Requirements for the test bench
airbags are usually employed as protective systems. For the „„ Requirements regarding test preparation and execution
tests specific requirements on the duration of the inflation of „„ Testing procedure
the airbag are introduced, since the impact of the impactor „„ Vehicle preparation
„„ Pre-damaging of laminated glass side windows
takes place up to 6 seconds after the ignition of the airbag.
„„ Determination of impact points
Additional retaining effects can be achieved using laminated „„ Measurement equipment
safety glass for the side windows. However, these must be „„ Implementation and evaluation of the tests
pre-damaged before testing. „„ Practical hints
„„ Development strategies for the fulfillment of the
The seminar begins with the requirements of the new regula- regulation
tion. This includes demands on vehicle performance, as well as „„ Design of appropriate airbags
requirements for the test rig (accuracy, stability, friction etc.) „„ Benefits and effectiveness of safety glass windows
and rules for the preparation and execution of the test. In the „„ Dealing with fixed side windows
„„ Conflicts with other safety requirements
second part of the course, the testing procedure is described
in detail. This includes the preparation of the test vehicle, the
perforation of the side windows and the determination of the
impact points. The actual implementation of the test, and the
evaluation and documentation of results are also discussed.
A description of the measurement equipment and practical
hints on the experimental procedure complete this section.
The last part of the seminar focuses on development strat-
egies to meet the legal requirements. Here it is shown with
which basic measures the performance can be improved with
regard to the requirements of FMVSS 226. Finally conflicts
with other safety requirements are identified and discussed.

Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Valentin Zimmermann, Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH
Since 2009 Valentin Zimmermann has worked at Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH in Munich in the area of vehicle safety testing services.
A main focus of his work as Lead Engineer in vehicle safety development is on testing for FMVSS 226.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

28.04.2016 2736 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 31.03.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

06.10.2016 2735 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 08.09.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

82 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


SAFETY
WISSEN

Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors

UN R21
Test Procedure
A pendulum equipped with a spherical impactor (165 mm) hits the interior parts in front of the driver and passenger
(side, pedal and steering wheel excluded) with a velocity of 24.1 km/h.
Protection Criteria
a3ms < 80 g; no failure of structure and sharp edges in impact zone
Pendulum test is not necessary, if it can be shown that there is no contact between head and the instru-
ment panel in case of a frontal impact.
This can be done by crash tests, sled tests and/or numerical occupant simulation.
(See app. 8 of UN R21)

FMVSS 201U
Test Procedure
A Free Motion Headform (FMH) impactor hits the upper interior parts with a velocity of 24 km/h (A-, B-, C-pillar, roof
etc.).
FMH Impactor Data
Mass of FMH impactor: 4.54 kg
Head form according to SAE J 921 and J 977 including triaxial acceleration sensor.
Protection Criteria

HIC Calculation HIC = supt1,t2 t2-t1 < 36 ms; a [g]; t [s]

HIC value for FMH HIC(d) = 0.75446 HIC + 166.4


HIC(d) must not exceed 1000.
24 points defined for impact according Test Procedure TP-201 (each side, left and right)
other pillars: OP 1, OP 2
upper roof: UR
sliding door track: SD RH

roll bar: RB 1, RB 2
RP 1
stiffener / brace: ST 1, ST 2, BT
SR 3
RP 2
SafetyWissen by BP 1
SR 2
FH 2 SR 1
FH 1 BP 2
AP 1

BP 3
AP 2
BP 4

AP 3

83
Passive Safety

Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 and UN R21

Course Description Who should attend?


To prevent injuries resulting from impacts of the occupants’ This seminar is especially suited for engineers and technicians
heads on vehicle interior parts, these parts need to be de- who work on the development of vehicle interior parts and
signed in a way which allows sufficient deformation space to who want to become familiar with the safety requirements
reduce the loads on the head. Internationally there are two that are relevant for these parts.
important regulations regarding the design of interiors, such
as cockpits, roof and door liners: The U.S. FMVSS 201 and the Course Contents
Regulation UN R21. Both regulations stipulate requirements „„ Introduction
concerning the maximum head acceleration or the HIC in im- „„ Rules and regulations concerning head impact
pacts on interior parts. „„ FMVSS 201
„„ UN R21
The objective of this course is to provide an overview of the „„ Development tools
legal requirements and to show how these can be fulfilled. The „„ Numerical Simulation
focus of the seminar is on the development process and the „„ Test
development tools and methods. In particular the interaction „„ Workshop: Determination of impact locations in a vehicle
of testing and simulation will be described and different design „„ Development process and methods
solutions will be discussed. Typical conflicts of objectives in the „„ Solving of conflicts of objectives
„„ Typical deformation paths, padding materials
design - e.g. to fulfil NVH requirements, static stiffness, or mis-
use, while fulfilling the safety standards at the same time - are
addressed in this seminar. Examples of practical solutions will
be shown and discussed.

In addition, the development according to the head impact


requirements in the overall-context of vehicle development is
described in this seminar.

In a workshop exemplary head impact locations in a vehicle


interior and impact areas on a dashboard are determined.

Course Instructors:
Dipl.-Ing. Torsten Gärtner, Adam Opel AG
Since 1997 Torsten Gärtner has been working as a simulation expert. From numerous projects he has extensive experience in the field
of occupant simulation and interior safety. He is Technical Lead Engineer Safety Analytics at Adam Opel AG. Before that he worked as
department manager for safety with Tecosim GmbH and spent 10 years in various management positions with carhs gmbh.
Dipl.-Ing. Karsten Wolff, Continental Safety Engineering International GmbH
Karsten Wolff studied Traffic Safety Technology at the University of Wuppertal. During his studies he worked at BGS (Böhme & Gehring
Sicherheitstechnik) in the fields of dummy calibration and head impact. In 1998 he joined Continental Safety Engineering International
as an engineer. In 2000 he established FMVSS201U testing at Continental and in 2002 he introduced pedestrian protection testing.
Later on UN ECE R21 and FMVSS201L testing was added, followed by ejection mitigation. In 2003 he became team leader for pedestrian
protection and interior head impact, in 2009 he started leading the development and testing for FMH und pedestrian protection and
since 2012 he has been team leader of the competence center for pedestrian protection and interior head impact. In this role he acts as
a link between simulation, project and testing.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

03.03.2016 2704 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 04.02.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

17.06.2016 2706 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 20.05.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

16.11.2016 2705 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 19.10.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

84 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


www.bia.fr
AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY TESTING
Universal Impact Simulation  Seat Belt Anchorage  Head & Seat Back Restraint  Roof
Crush & Door Intrusion  Instrumented Crash Wall  Acceleration-Deceleration Sled  Sled
Crash Facility  Laser-Measurement Device  Bumper Pendulum AUTOMOTIVE
SAFETY
TESTING

VEHICLE
DYNAMICS
TESTING

ENGINE
POWERTRAIN
TESTING
BHIA250-VC Launcher for FMH and Guided BIA Universal Impact Simulation Test System
Head Impacts

COMPONENTS
FOR
TEST SYSTEMS

ENVIRONMENTAL
TEST
CHAMBERS

Seat Belt Anchorage Test System BIA Universal Impact Simulation Test System
FMVSS 226 Ejection Mitigation

Beyond Expectations
Your global partner who will optimize your automotive testing investment.

Automotive Safety Testing  Engine & Powertrain Testing  Vehicle Dynamics Testing
 Components for Test Systems  Environmental Test Chambers

BIA FRANCE BIA GERMANY BIA ITALY BIA RUSSIA BIA NORTH AMERICA
ZA Les Boutries Hansaring 22 Viale Monza, 291 Technopark "Zhiguly Valley" 100 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 200
8 rue de l'Hautil D-63843 Niedernberg 20126 Milano 161-B, Yuzhnoe Shosse Troy, MI 48084
FR-78700 Conflans Ste Honorine Germany Italy 445043 Togliatti, Samara Region USA
France Tel. +49 6028 9930-0 Tel. +39 0293970198 Russian Federation Tel. +1 248 524 0320
Tel. + 33 1 3490 2222 Fax +49 6028 9930 30 Fax +39 3357121724 Tel.+7 (8482) 27 07 02 info@bia-na.com
contact@bia.fr info@biadeutschland.de f.masera@bia.fr info@bia.ru.com
EU 78/2009 Japan
Euro NCAP JNCAP KNCAP GTR
Test method Parameter 631/2009 UN R127.1 Article 18
Nr. 9
Test Procedures and Protection Criteria for Pedestrian Protection

Phase 2 max. score zero score max. score zero score max. score zero score Attachment 99
Velocity 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h
EEVC lower legform Impact angle 0° 0° 0°
Acceleration 170 g (250 g) 170 g (250 g) 170 g (250 g)
impactor to bumper
Bending 19° 19° 19°
Shearing 6 mm 6 mm 6 mm
Velocity 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 (44)5) km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h
Impact angle 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0°
Flex PLI to bumper Tibia Bending 340 Nm (380 Nm) 282 Nm 340 Nm 224 Nm 380 Nm 282 Nm 340 Nm 340 Nm(380 Nm) 340 Nm (2
MCL Elongation 22 mm 19 mm 22 mm 16,4 mm 22 mm 19 mm 22 mm 22 mm 22 mm (2
ACL/PCL Elong. 13 mm 10 mm 10 mm 0 mm 13 mm 10 mm 10 mm 13 mm 13 mm (2
Velocity 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h
upper legform impactor Impact angle 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0°
to bumper Sum force 7,5 kN 7,5 kN 5 kN 6 kN 5 kN 7,5 kN 7,5 kN 7,5 kN
Bending 510 Nm 510 Nm 285 Nm 350 Nm 300 Nm 510 Nm 510 Nm 510 Nm
Velocity 20 - 40 km/h 20 - 33 km/h
upper legform impactor Impact angle 10° - 47° 90° zu IBRL - WAD 930
to bonnet leading edge Sum force 5 kN (1 5 kN 6 kN
Bending 300 Nm (1 285 Nm 350 Nm
Velocity
Impact angle
small adult headform
Diameter
impactor to bonnet Mass
HPC
Velocity 40 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h
Impact angle 65° (AH) / 50° (CH) 40° / 40° / 45° (AH + CH) 65° (AH) / 50° (CH)
adult headform impactor,
WAD (mm) 1500-2100 (AH) / 1000-1500 (CH) 1700-2100 (AH) / 1000-1700 (CH) 1700-2100 (AH) / 1000-1700 (CH)
child headform impactor 165 mm 165 mm (AH + CH) 165 mm
Diameter
to windscreen 4.5 kg (AH) / 3.5 kg (CH) 4.5 kg (AH) / 3.5 kg (CH) 4.5 kg (AH) / 3.5 kg (CH)
Mass
HPC 650 1700 650 2000 650 1700
Velocity 35 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 35 km/h 35 km/h
Impact angle 65° 65° 65° 65° / 90° / 50° 65° 65° 65°
WAD (mm) 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100
adult headform impactor
Diameter 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm
to bonnet 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg
Mass
1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3
HPC 1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3
650 1700 650 2000 650 1700
1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3
Velocity 35 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 35 km/h 35 km/h
Impact angle 50° 50° 50° 65° / 60° / 25° 50° 50° 50°
WAD (mm) 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1350 / 1350 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700
Diameter 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm
child headform impactor Mass 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg
to bonnet 1000 (1/2) (4 1000 (1/2) (4 1000 (1/2) (4 1000 (1/2) (4
UPDATE

1700 (1/2) (4 1700 (1/2) (4 1700 (1/2) (4 1700 (1/2) (4


HPC or (only for (4) or (only for (4) 650 1700 650 2000 650 1700 or (only for (4) or (only for (4)
1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3
1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3
BAS AEB VRU  page 122 AEB Pedestrian as of 2016 AEB Pedestrian as of 2017
active interventions alternative: Collision
Avoidance System
1
Monitoring only
2
injury criteria proposed by GRSP Flex-TEG
WISSEN
SAFETY
3
entire bonnet SafetyWissen by
4
child headform area

86
5
test velocity will be increased when leg impact is introduced in legal test (J-MLIT) Table based on O. Zander, BASt
THE ROAD
IS THERE
FOR EVERYONE!

From virtual analysis to validation in our test centre:


we are making the roads that little bit safer for pedestrians.
AGEMEN
MAN T
Single-source pedestrian protection function
development: one partner for the customer

Cars arouse emotions in us. For all sorts of reasons.


SI M U

Sometimes it‘s the colour, sometimes the shape,

NG
LA
TI

TI
sometimes performance, and sometimes safety. N
O

ES
T

From our experience as the world‘s leading indepen-


dent engineering service provider, we know that vehicle Contact
safety is of key importance when developing complete EDAG Engineering AG
vehicles. We offer all the services relevant to pedestrian fgs@edag.de
protection, from project management and simulation
Jan Schäfer · Management
through to testing in our fully equipped test facilities.
Tel.: +49 89 350989-285
At many sites, and also close to you.
Jörg Barnscheid · Simulation
Are you interested in finding out how our experience
Tel.: +49 89 350989-189
can help you create both function and emotion?
Then ask us. Thomas Kerschbaum · Testing
Tel.: +49 89 350300-575

For more information on the subject


of pedestrian protection see:
fgs.edag.de
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Pedestrian Protection

Pedestrian Protection Test Procedures Where the bonnet leading edge reference Points to be tested that lie between WAD
in Euro NCAP line (BLERL) is located between WAD 930 1500 und 1700 are tested with child-/small
mm and WAD 1000 mm, an additional test adult headform impactor, if the points are on
with the child headform will be performed the moveable/hinged bonnet top. Otherwise
on the BLERL at a speed of 40 km/h under the adult headform is used.
Protocol Version 8.1
20°. Adult Headform Impactor
TB 19 V 1.0 4.5 kg
Child-/small Adult Headform Impactor
3.5 kg

40 k
m/h
Upper Legform 2100 mm
65°
Impactor

40
Legform Impactor

km
1700 mm

/h
Flex PLI 50° 1500 mm

1000 mm
930 mm
775 mm

40 km/h

IBRL
Bumper
Beam

Upper Legform
Impactor for SUV

75 mm

SafetyWissen by

Pedestrian Protection Test Procedures according to


UN R127.01 Adult Headform Impactor

4.5 kg
Child Headform Impactor
3.5 kg
35 k
m/h

65° 82.5 mm forward of bonnet


rear ref. line/
35

max. 2100 mm
km

1700 mm / max. 82.5 mm


/h

Legform Impactor 50° forward of bonnet rear


Flex PLI 1000 mm / min. 82.5 mm ref. line
rearward of Bonnet
Leading Edge

Upper Legform
Impactor for SUV

75 mm

SafetyWissen by

88
SAFETY Assessment Protocol Version 8.1
WISSEN
Testing Protocol Version 8.1

Euro NCAP - Pedestrian Protection:


Head Impact Grid Method
Between WAD 1000 and WAD 2100 impact points are located
on a fixed 100 mm grid, the selection of „Worst Case“ points
UBRL
by the test institute is no longer required. The manufacturer
provides a result prediction (points) for the Grid-Points. Euro
NCAP verifies 10 randomly selected points, the manufacturer WAD
can nominate up to 10 additional randomly selected points. A 775

tolerance of 10 % is applied to the verification tests, i.e. even if WAD


1000
the actual HIC is 10 % above or below the margins of the pre-
dicted score, the predicted score is applied. At the verification
points the actual test result is divided by the manufacturer‘s
prediction. This so called correction factor is applied to all the
grid points to obtain the final score:
Actual tested score WAD
= Correction Factor 1500
Predicted score
Per Grid-Point 0 - 1 points are available according to the fol- WAD
1700
lowing scheme:

HIC15 < 650 1.00 Point


650 ≤ HIC15 < 1000 0.75 Points
WAD SafetyWissen by

1000 ≤ HIC15 < 1350 0.50 Points 2100

1350 ≤ HIC15 < 1700 0.25 Points


SafetyWissen by
1700 ≤ HIC15 0.00 Points Total score:
„Default“ Results The total score will be calculated as follows:
Grid points on the A-pillars are defaulted to red = 0 points. ∑Predicted Score x Correction Factor
Grid points on the windscreen that have distance of more than + ∑Default Scores
165 mm from the windscreen base are defaulted to green = + ∑Scores from Blue Zones
1 point. Defaulted locations are not included in the random = Total
selection of verification tests. Where the vehicle manufacturer ÷ Number of Grid Points
can provide evidence that shows an A-pillar is not red, those = Percentage of max. achievable score
grid points will be considered in the same way as other points. x 24 (Maximum achievable score)
= Total Score for Headform Test
Unpredictable Grid Locations: blue Zones
In the following areas Leg Impact
„„ Plastic scuttle For leg impact a 100 mm grid on WAD 775 (Upper Legform)
„„ Windscreen wiper arms and windscreen base respectively on Upper Bumper Reference Line (Flex PLI Leg-
„„ Headlamp glazing form) is used. Euro NCAP selects either the centerline point or
„„ Break-away structures an adjacent point as a starting point for testing. Starting from
the manufacturer may define a „blue zone“ consisting of up this position every second grid point will be tested. Symmetry
to 2 adjacent grid points, for which no prediction is made. A is applied across the vehicle. Grid points that have not been
maximum of eight zones may be blue over the entire head- tested will be awarded the worst result from one of the ad-
form impact area. jacent points. Manufacturers may sponsor additional test for
The laboratory will choose one blue point to assess each zone. those points that are not tested (in advance). Per Grid point
The test results of blue points will be applied to all the grid up to 1 point is awarded. For the Upper Legform the score is
point(s) in each zone. based upon the worst performing parameter (Sum of Forces /
Bending moment). For the Legform the 1 point per grid point
is divided into two independent assessment areas of equal
weight (0.5 Pts./each): Tibia moments and ligament elonga-
tions.
more about the impactors  page 112
90
Passive Safety

Pedestrian Protection - Development Strategies

Course Description Who should attend?


Phase 2 of the EU regulation on pedestrian safety was intro- The seminar is intended for development, project or simula-
duced, Japan recognizes the UN Regulation 127 and Euro tion engineers working in the field of vehicle safety, dealing
NCAP annually adjusts details in its pedestrian rating protocols. with the design of motor vehicles with regard to pedestrian
Currently, the greatest challenge regarding pedestrian protec- protection.
tion in the vehicle development process is to generate a face-
lift of successor model based on a car that had received a 5 Course Contents
star Euro NCAP rating prior to 2010, that will be type approved „„ Introduction with an overview of current requirements
according to phase 2 of the European regulation and also regarding pedestrian protection
continue to receive a 5 star rating according to Euro NCAP’s „„ Legal requirements (EU, UN Regulations, Japan, GTR)
latest protocols. Stricter injury criteria, modified testing areas „„ Consumer tests (Euro NCAP, JNCAP, KNCAP)
and the testing of vehicles that were previously not tested „„ Presentation and discussion of the design and application
because of their weight, require the thorough knowledge of of the impactors
the requirements and a strict implementation of the require- „„ Leg Impactors (Flex PLI, EEVC, Upper Legform)
ments in the development process. „„ Head Impactors (Child head, Adult head)
In the introduction the seminar informs you about the dif- „„ Methods in numerical simulation, testing and system
ferent impactors that are used for pedestrian safety testing. development
Thereafter the various requirements (regulations and con- „„ Requirements on the design of vehicle front ends for
sumer tests) are explained and compared. pedestrian protection
The focus of the seminar is on the development strategy: „„ Solutions to fulfill the requirements
Which decisions have to be taken in which development „„ Passive solutions
„„ Active solutions (active bonnets, airbags)
phase? What are the tasks and priorities of the person in
charge of pedestrian protection? As a background, ideas and „„ Development strategy
„„ Interaction between simulation and testing
approaches towards the design of a vehicle front end in or- „„ Integration in the vehicle development process
der to meet the pedestrian protection requirements are dis-
cussed. In addition to that, the seminar explains how the func-
tion of active bonnets can be proven by means of numerical
simulation. This includes both, the pedestrian detection that
need to be proven with various impactors or human models,
as well as the proof that the bonnet is fully deployed at the
time of impact.

Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Maren Finck, carhs.training gmbh
Maren Finck is a Project Manager at carhs.training gmbh. From 2008 - 2015 she worked at EDAG as a project manager responsible for
passive vehicle safety regarding pedestrian safety. Previously, she worked several years at carhs GmbH and TECOSIM as an analysis en-
gineer with a focus on pedestrian safety and biomechanics.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

16.03.2016 2626 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 17.02.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

23.09.2016 2726 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 26.08.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

92 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


SAFETY
WISSEN

Rear Impact: Euro NCAP Rear Whiplash Assessment


Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3
Testing Protocol Version 1.0
① ΔIP X ①Effective Height Heff requirements for the headrest:
in highest position ≥ 770 mm
and
in worst case position ≥ 720 mm
IP
Calculation of Heff:
eff

Heff= ΔIP X · sin (Torso-Angle) + ΔIP Z · cos (Torso-Angle)


H
ΔIP Z

IP: Intersection Point

Determination of IP X and IP Z:
IP X = 88.5 · sin (Torso-Angle - 2.6) + 5 + CP X
H-Point IP Z = uppermost intersection of the headrest contour in the
seat centerline with a vertical line through IP X

② Backset ΔCP X requirements for the headrest


in mid position
and
in worst case position:
ΔCP X
ΔCP X ≤ 7.128 · Torso-Angle + 153
② CP CP: Contact Point
203 mm

③ Requirements for the non-use position of the headrest:


1) > 60° rotation of the headrest in non-use position
2) Δ Torso-Angle use / non-use > 10°
504.5mm · cos(Torso-Angle - 2.6)
ΔCP Z

3) Height of lower edge of the headrest HLE:


250 mm≤ HLE ≤ 460 mm
with HLE = ΔX · sin (Torso-Angle) + ΔZ · cos (Torso-Angle)
4) Thickness of the lower edge of the headrest S ≥ 40 mm

Score if the requirements (see above) are met:


H-Point The outboard seating positions of rear seating rows are assessed.
Any centre seating position needs to comply with the requirements
of UN R17-08.
③ Parameter Points per seat
S ① Heff 1.5
② ΔCP Xmid 1*
LE
H

② ΔCP Xworstcase 0.5*


H-Point
③ Non-Use 1*
Summe max. 4
Scaling 1/4n (n=number of seats)
* only if Heff requirements are met
93
SAFETY
WISSEN

Euro NCAP Whiplash Seat Test Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3

Testing Protocol Version 3.2


Seat Performance Criteria
Whiplash Test Low Severity Pulse Medium Severity Pulse High Severity Pulse
Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower
Capping Capping Capping
SafetyWissen by perfor- perfor- perfor- perfor- perfor- perfor-
Limit Limit Limit
mance mance mance mance mance mance
NIC 9.00 15.00 18.30 11.00 24.00 27.00 13.00 23.00 25.50
Nkm 0.12 0.35 0.50 0.15 0.55 0.69 0.22 0.47 0.78
Rebound velocity (m/s) 3.0 4.4 4.7 3.2 4.8 5.2 4.1 5.5 6.0
Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 110 187 30 190 290 30 210 364
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 270 610 734 360 750 900 470 770 1024
T1 acceleration* (g) 9.40 12.00 14.10 9.30 13.10 15.55 12.50 15.90 17.80
T-HRC (ms) 61 83 95 57 82 92 53 80 92
* up to T-HRC (=Time to Head Restraint Contact)
If the Higher Performance Limit is reached, 0.5 Points are awarded per criterion. A sliding scale is used between Higher and Lower
Performance Limit (0.5 .... 0 Points). Only the maximum score from either T1 acceleration or head restraint contact time (T-HRC)
is used in the assessment. If the capping limit is exceeded by one criterion, the entire test is rated with zero points.
Geometry assessment  Worst Case Geometry
Backset - Distance bewteen Head
and Headrest (cm)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1/n points (where n = the number of front seats) will be
100 %
2
1 available for each front seat scoring more than 0 points in
0 mm 0
-1 the worst case (= lowest and rearmost position) geometry
-2
-3 assessment.
-4
-5
-6
-7 Seat Stability Modifier
80 mm 0 % -8

40 mm 100 mm
-9 The high severity pulse is subject to an additional seatback
Distance between the deflection assessment where a 3 point penalty is applied to
top of the head and the
Modifier top of the headrest (cm) seats with a rotation of 32° or greater
100 % + 1 pt
50 % 0 pt
0 % - 1pt
Dummy Artefact Modifier
A two point negative modifier is applied as a means of penal-
ising any seat that, by design, places unfavourable loading on
SafetyWissen by other body areas or exploits a dummy artefact.
The assessment is based on the worst performing parameter from either the height or backset.
Overall Rating
For the overall rating ( page 40) the total of max. 11 points (3 per pulse + 1 Geometry + 1 Worst Case Geometry) is scaled
by the factor 2/11 and is part of the Adult Occupant Protection rating.

Static Geometry Assessment by IIWPG / IIHS


Backset - Distance between the back
surface of the HRMD and the front
surface of the head restraint (cm) Measurement of the head restraint position
by a „Head Restraint Measuring Device“
(HRMD) and rating in good, acceptable,
good marginal and poor.
acceptable
marginal International Insurance Whiplash Prevention
poor Group (IIWPG)

Distance between the height probe


of the HRMD and the top of the Learn more about IIHS‘s static
head restraint (cm)
and dynamic assessment
 45
SafetyWissen by
94
LED-lights by BBS Licht

BOOSTNOVA
www.bbs-licht.de
Passive Safety

Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts

Course Description using a generic acceleration pulse. It turns out to be problem-


In real-world accidents, distortions of the cervical spine or atic, however, that presently there is no traumato-mechanical
so-called whiplash injuries following a rear impact are among explanation of the phenomenon “whiplash injury” and that all
the most expensive injuries for the insurance industry. About the currently discussed dummy-criteria with the respective
75 % of all injury costs of the insurers are caused by whiplash limit values follow a so-called “black-box approach”. Experts
injuries in highly-motorized countries. About 80 % of all inju- try to correlate the measured dummy criteria with the find-
ries in a rear impact are whiplash-injuries. This is why this type ings from accident data and to thus derive limit values. In this
of injury – even though it is neither very serious nor lethal – context the available dummy-technology with the different
has reached a high priority in the endeavors to develop test measuring devices and criteria, as well as the proposed limit
procedures and assessment criteria which help in designing values are going to be presented.
constructive measures in the car in order to avoid this type In the last part of the seminar different seat design concepts
of injury. (energy-absorbing, respectively geometry-improving), sub-
As an introduction, this seminar refers to the different acci- divided into active and passive systems will be introduced, and
dent data for whiplash injuries, which offer many realizations their advantages and disadvantages will be discussed.
but no consistent pattern with regard to the biomechanical Who should attend?
injury mechanisms. However, some organizations – mainly The seminar addresses development engineers who are new
from the field of consumer information and insurance insti- in the field of rear impacts or who have already got some ex-
tutes – are working on the development of test procedures perience in the field of safety, as well as developers of sub-
and assessment criteria. The most active ones are Thatcham assemblies which have to fulfill a crash-relevant function. It is
(UK) and IIHS (USA) which are united in the group IIWPG (In- furthermore especially interesting for project managers and
ternational Insurance Whiplash Prevention Group), SNRA and managers who deal with the topic of rear-end impacts and
Folksam (Sweden) and the German ADAC. who would like to obtain a better knowledge of this subject in
In 2008 Euro NCAP has introduced a whiplash test procedure order to use it for an improvement of procedures.
as part of its rating system. In 2014 an additional assessment
for the rear seats was added. The Euro NCAP assessment will Course Contents
be explained in detail in the seminar. Furthermore, the EEVC „„ Introduction into the characteristics of a rear-end impact
„„ Overview of the most important whiplash requirements
working group 20 is active as a consulting authority concerning
„„ Injury criteria
whiplash injuries for the legislation in Europe.
„„ Dummy-technology for rear impacts
The new Global Technical Regulation No. 7 (Head Restraints) is
„„ Presentation of the Euro NCAP and FMVSS 202-dynamic
unsatisfactory from the European point of view. Therefore the
United Nations work on a second phase of this regulation. The test procedures
„„ Outlook on possible harmonization-tendencies
focus of this work is on improving the BioRID dummy and on
„„ Explanation of the possible design measures in car seats
the definition of so called Seat Performance Criteria.
All discussions about the assessment of whiplash injuries
within the framework of consumer information have in com-
mon, that the protection effect in a rear-end impact needs to
be examined in an isolated vehicle seat by means of a sled test

Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Frank, LEAR Corporation GmbH
Thomas Frank joined the passive safety department of Lear Corporation in 2002 after graduating from the Technical University of Berlin
in physical engineering sciences. At Lear Thomas Frank initially worked as a test engineer in crash testing, later he developed head rests.
Today he is expert for low speed rear impact safety. In his position he guides the seat development with respect to meet whiplash protec-
tion requirements in regulations and consumer tests.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

08.04.2016 2666 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 11.03.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

11.11.2016 2667 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 14.10.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

96 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


SAFETY
WISSEN

Child Occupant Protection Assessment in Latin NCAP Protocol Version 3.0


Requirements for points for Child Protection Rating: child seats (CRS) must be recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. CRS must be available for purchase
from dealers, in the 3 big Latin NCAP markets (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico). CRS must be available at the 3 most important cities of each of the 3 big markets in at
least 2 retailers per city. The CRS manufacturer must be officially represented locally in each one of the 3 big markets.
Dynamic assessment: Frontal Impact Dummy Q1½ Q3
Requirements for Points in Dynamic Assessments: no partial or full ejection of child dummy out of CRS / CRS must not be partially or wholly unre-
strained by any of the vehicle interfaces
Head Contact with the vehicle: any head contact with the vehicle results in 0 points for the head performance
points 4 0 4 0
no head contact with CRS no direct evidence + Head ares peak < 80 < 96
g
head contact with CRS Head ares 3ms ≤ 72 ≥ 88 ≤ 87 ≥ 100
max. 16 points
worst score from

Forward Facing CRS points 4 0 4 0


forward head excursion relative to Cr point mm ≤ 549 ≥ 550 ≤ 549 ≥ 550
Rearward Facing CRS
no compressive load on top of head, head
head exposure points 4 0 4 0
fully restrained within CRS
points 2 0 2 0
neck tension upper Neck F z kN ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62 ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62
points 2 0 2 0
Please note: A new COP protocol
max. 49 points

chest acceleration ares 3ms g ≤ 41 ≥ 55 ≤ 50 ≥ 66


including side impact will be
Installation of CRS published and applied in 2016:
CRS from the reference list 16 points dynamic test frontal points 10
max. 12

8 points dynamic test side


CRS recommended by the manufacturer 12 points CRS installation points 2
Vehicle Based Assessment 13 points Vehicle Assessment

3-point belts meeting UN or FMVSS standards on all seats points 5


compatibility of all passenger seats with Gabarit according to UN ECE R16.05 points 2
3 seating positions that can simultaneously accommodate any reference list CRS points 1
3 seating positions that can simultaneously accommodate i-Size CRS points 1
2 passenger seats equipped with ISOFIX according to UN R14 points 1
max. 21 points

+ these 2 passenger seats meet ISOFIX labeling requirements points +1


+ these 2 passenger seats meet i-Size requirements points +1
2 seating positions comply with requirements for largest
points 2
size of rearward facing ISOFIX seats
no passenger airbag points 2
passenger airbag warning and disabling points max. 5
1 integrated CRS points 1
1 integrated “Group I-III” CRS points 1

Child Occupant Protection Assessment in ASEAN NCAP Protocol Version 2.1


Dynamic assessment: Frontal Impact Dummy P1½ P3
points 3 0 6 0
no head contact with CRS no direct evidence + Head ares peak < 80 < 80
g
head contact with CRS Head ares 3ms ≤ 72 ≥ 88 ≤ 72 ≥ 88
worst score from

Forward Facing CRS points 3 0 6 0


max. 24 points

forward head excursion relative to Cr point mm ≤ 549 ≥ 550 ≤ 549 ≥ 550


Rearward Facing CRS
max. 49 points

no compressive load on top of head, head


head exposure points 3 0 6 0
fully restrained within CRS
points 3 0
Head avert3ms
neck g ≤ 20 ≥ 40
(rearward facing CRS only)
points 6 0 6 0
resultant acc. (3ms) and absolute ares ≤ 41 ares ≥ 55 ares ≤ 41 ares ≥ 55
chest acceleration g
vertical acc. (3ms), worst value counts avert ≤ 23 avert ≥ 30 avert ≤ 23 avert ≥ 30
13 12

CRS Based Assessment


Vehicle Based Assessment

more about Latin NCAP  page 51 & ASEAN NCAP  page 52 97


SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

Child Occupant Protection Assessment in Euro NCAP


Protocol Version 7.0.1
Dynamic assessments SafetyWissen by

Testing:
Q6: The Q6 dummy shall be seated in an appropriate CRS for a six year old child or a child with a stature of 125 cm. This will be either the CRS recommended by
the vehicle manufacturer, or if there is no recommendation, a suitable CRS from the top pick list.
Q10: The Q10 dummy shall be seated on a booster cushion only. This will be the booster cushion recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. Where the vehicle
manufacturer recommends a high back booster with detachable backrest it will be used without backrest. If there is no recommendation for a booster cushion,
one will be chosen by Euro NCAP from a list of suitable options contained in the Technical Bulletin TB012.
Preconditions: Where any of the following events occur zero points will be awarded to the dummy.
Frontal impact: During the forwards movement of the dummy only, the diagonal belt slips off the shoulder
Frontal impact: The pelvis of the dummy submarines beneath the lap section of the belt or the lap section prevents the dummy from moving upwards during
rebound and is no longer restraining the pelvis.
Frontal and side impacts: The dummy pelvis does not remain in the booster seat /cushion and is not correctly restrained by the lap section of the seatbelt.
Frontal and side impacts: CRS does not remain within the same seating position or is no longer correctly restrained by the adult belt.
Frontal and side impacts: There is any breakage or fracturing of load-bearing parts of the belt system including buckles, webbing and anchorage points.
Frontal and side impacts: There is any breakage or fracturing of any seat belt lock-offs, tethers, straps, ISOFIX anchorages or any other attachments which are
specifically used to anchor the CRS to the vehicle fail.
Dummy Region Points Criteria
Frontal impact (ODB)
4 HIC151 ≤ 500, a3ms ≤ 87 g
0 HIC151 ≥ 700, a3ms ≥ 100 g
Head
- 2 (Modifier2) Head forward excursion > 450 mm
Q6 / - 4 (Modifier) Head forward excursion > 550 mm
Q10 2 Upper Neck Fz ≤ 1.7 kN
Neck
0 Upper Neck Fz ≥ 2.62 kN
max. 24 points

2 a3ms ≤ 41 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 55 g
max. 49 points

Side impact (MDB)


2 HIC151 ≤ 500, a3ms ≤ 72 g
Head
0 HIC151 ≥ 700, a3ms ≥ 88 g
Upper Neck Fres < 2.4 kN (Q6)
1
Q6 / Upper Neck Fres < 2.2 kN (Q10)
Neck
Q10 Upper Neck Fres ≥ 2.4 kN (Q6)
0
Upper Neck Fres ≥2.2 kN (Q10)
1 a3ms < 67 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 67 g
Installation of CRS
Universal CRS points 4
max. 12 pt.

ISOFIX CRS points 2


i-Size CRS points 4
manufacturer recommended CRS points 2
Vehicle based assessment
Preconditions:
Provision of three-point seat belts on all passenger seats
Tables in the vehicle handbook stating clearly, which seating positions are suitable or not suitable for Universal / ISOFIX / i-Size CRS
Where a passenger frontal airbag is fitted (both front and rear seats if applicable), the CRS tables in the vehicle handbook must clearly indicate that when these
passenger airbags are active the seat is NOT suitable for any rearward facing CRS.
Compatibility of the 2nd row outboard seats with Gabarit according to
points 1
UN ECE R16 Annex 17 - Appendix 1
Compatibility of all other passenger seats with Gabarit according to
points 1
UN ECE R16 Annex 17 - Appendix 1
max. 13 points

2 seats with i-Size and TopTether marking points 2


3 independent seats with i-Size and TopTether marking points 1
2 or more seating positions are suitable for fully independent use with the largest
points 1
size of rearward facing (Class C) ISOFIX CRS, Fixture (CRF) ISO/R3,
passenger airbag warning marking and manual / automatix disabling points 2/4
integrated CRS points 1 (1 CRS) / 3 (2 or more CRS)
1
HIC15 is only applied if there is hard head contact, otherwise the score is based on a3ms only
98
2
Q10 only
NEW
SAFETY
TECHNOLOGY

SecureGuard
The extra 4th point helps to reduce abdominal
forces in the event of a frontal collision by up to

35 %*
* Britax internal tests with a Q6 dummy, representing an average 6 year old child
Passive Safety

Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes


Course Description crash sensors and which could be implemented in the future,
In addition to the design of car structures for the protection are discussed.
of its occupants at high impact velocities, requirements and
test procedures for collisions at low speeds, which massively Who should attend?
influence the design of the vehicle front, were brought to the The seminar is aimed at specialists from passenger car and
fore in recent years. light commercial vehicle development, engineers and techni-
For the initial insurance classification of passenger cars clas- cians from simulation and testing, project engineers and man-
sification tests of RCAR / AZT (impact speed up to 15 km / h) agers who want to get an overview of the requirements and
are used to determin standardized repair costs. To meet the technological solutions for the development of passive and in-
insurance classification tests, many vehicles are equipped with tegrated safety systems for passenger cars in low-speed crash.
cross member systems that feature energy absorbing ele-
ments (crash boxes), that can be connected via a detachable
connection to the longitudinal members in the vehicle front. Course Contents
Additional partly conflicting requirements are added through „„ Requirements and test procedures for low-speed crash
„„ Introduction to the requirements for low-speed crash tests
the EC Regulation 78/2009/EC and the NCAP tests for pe-
„„ Legal tests
destrian protection. Compliance with the directive in the leg „„ Consumer protection tests
impact area is usually achieved by energy absorption in con- „„ Other requirements
junction with a targeted support of the impacting leg in the „„ Energy management and structural forces in the vehicle
immediate front area of the vehicle. front
In connection with the design of vehicles for the different re- „„ Load paths and structure loading
quirements, numerous conflicts occur, which often can only „„ Connections to high-speed test
be solved at the expense of a non-optimum front end package „„ Workshop for analyzing crash data and the impact of structural
or increased weight and manufacturing costs. design changes
„„ Changes of structural design
Additional requirements regarding the design of the vehicle
„„ Influence of crash sensing and restraint systems
front result from legislation for vehicle protection (UN R42,
„„ Design of passive systems
...) and internal testing procedures of the manufacturer for „„ Conceptual solution approaches
ensuring management of everyday damages for his vehicles. „„ Effective use of CAE methods in system design
„„ Conflicts of objectives
„„ Technological feasibility and limits
Course Objectives
In this seminar, you first get an overview on the requirements „„ Discussion of integral safety systems
„„ Simulation of driving maneuvers and time – distance
and regulations which have an impact on the design of cars considerations
for the various low-speed crash constellations. This is followed „„ Potential of integrated solutions
by a presentation of current energy management in the front „„ Technological feasibility and limits
body structure and an introduction of technical solutions.
Based on the state of the art approaches of integral safety are
discussed. Using interactive visualization of driving maneu-
vers, possibilities and limits of safety concepts, using e.g. pre-

Course Instructor:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bachem, Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences
Professor Harald Bachem has been in charge of teaching and research in vehicle safety at the Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences since
2011. Prior to joining the university he held various management positions in industry where he was in charge of development and test-
ing of vehicle safety functions. His last management position was head of cab body development at MAN Truck & Bus AG.

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

20.04.2016 2697 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 23.03.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

21.10.2016 2698 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 23.09.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

100 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


SAFETY
WISSEN

RCAR Insurance Tests


Lowspeed Structural Crash Tests
Front
Vehicle width (front)

40% Overlap

R = 150 mm 15 km/h

75Kg
SafetyWissen by

10°
Rear
R = 150 mm

R=50mm
Vehicle Width Mobile Barrier
15 km/h
15 km/h

40%

10°
Mobile Barrier
Barrier height Ground clearance
(700mm+/-10 mm) (200 mm +/- 10 mm)

Bumper Test

15%

5 km/h 5 km/h
SafetyWissen by

10 km/h 10 km/h
75Kg

Vehicle Width at Front Axle

Barrier ground clearance measured from the track surface to the lower surface of the bumper barrier:
Test Ground Clearance Remarks
Front 100% 455±3 mm
Rear 100 % 405±3 mm or 455±3mm EU and Asia (AZT...) 405 mm, USA (IIHS) 455 mm
Front / Rear 15% 405±3 mm or 455±3mm Asia (IAG...) and USA (IIHS) 405 mm

101
Dummy & Crash Test

Introduction to Data Acquisition in Safety Testing

Course Description Course Contents


Sensor technology and data acquisition are central elements „„ Sensors
of safety testing. A 100 % reliability of the used technology in „„ Basic sensor principles
combination with the highest accuracy of the employed sen- „„ Sensors in safety testing
„„ Selection of sensor systems
sors are the basis for the success and usefulness of the tests in
vehicle development. „„ Systems for data acquisition (DAS)
„„ State of the art in DAS technology
The course first presents a short overview on the historical „„ InDummy and Onboard DAS
development of data acquisition technology in the safety field „„ Filtering
and continues by going into details of current technologies of „„ Instrumentation
sensors, data acquisition as well as dummy and vehicle instru- „„ Overview dummy instrumentation
mentation. „„ Overview vehicle instrumentation
Based on the procedures of a safety test, the different tasks „„ Overview instrumented barriers
of calibration and certification of sensors, filtering and evalu- „„ Evaluation & Measuring Errors
ation of signals, as well as the calculation and evaluation of „„ Error calculation (set-up of sensors, sensors, DAS, evaluation...)
„„ Sources of errors in crash testing
measurement errors will be explained.
„„ Interpretation of signals
The course provides the basic knowledge in crash data acquisi-
„„ Calibration and Certification
tion and gives a comprehensive overview on the procedures „„ Dummy certification
employed in data acquisition in the crash testing environment. „„ Sensor calibration
„„ SAE J211
Course Objectives „„ Procedures
The course participants will learn about the technology and „„ Test preparation
„„ Test execution
terminology of sensor and data acquisition technology used in „„ Test evaluation
safety testing. They will be qualified to define tests, to super-
vise tests and to interpret and evaluate test results.

Who should attend?


This introductory course aims at new test engineers and proj-
ect engineers as well as engineers from simulation depart-
ments at automotive OEMs, suppliers and engineering service
providers.

Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Wild, Continental Safety Engineering International GmbH
Thomas Wild studied Electrical and Tele-Communications Engineering at the Technical University Darmstadt. Since 1996 he has been
employed at Continental Safety Engineering International as a measurement engineer. 1998 - 2001, he assumed additional responsibili-
ties as an application engineer in the algorithm development. Since 2003 he is team leader measurement and video technology. Since
1997 he works in the working group Data Processing in Vehicle Safety (MDVFS).

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

18.-19.04.2016 2721 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 21.03.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

11.-12.10.2016 2722 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 13.09.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

102 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!


compact and ruggedized
Frontal Impact Side Impact Rear Impact Child
HIII HIII HIII THOR World HIII BioRID P Q
Dummies 50% 5% 95% 50%
ES-2 ES-2re SID-IIs
SID 50% II
Crabi Cami HIII
Series Series
UN R94 ●
UN R95 ●
UN R44 ● ○
Europe

UN R129 ●
UN R135 ●
UN R137 ● ●
Euro NCAP ● ● (●) ● ● ● ●
FMVSS 208 ● ● ● ●
FMVSS 214 ● ● ○
FMVSS 213 ● ● ● ● ○
America

FMVSS 202a ●
FMVSS xxx (OMDB) ○
U.S. NCAP ● ● ● ● ○
IIHS ● ● ●
Latin NCAP ● ● ●
Current Dummy Landscape

Japan Regulations ● ●
JNCAP ● ● ● ●
China Regulations ● ●
Asia

China NCAP ● ● ● ● ○ ● ● ○
Korean NCAP ● ● ● ● ● ●
ASEAN NCAP ● ● ● ●
UPDATE

ADR (Frontal, Side) ● ● ●


AUS
Australian NCAP ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
GTR 7 ● ●

GTR
WISSEN
SAFETY
GTR 14 (Pole Side) ●

104
SafetyWissen by
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ○ = planned, no date specified
Testing Services
Full‐scale Crash Facility
Road Guidance System testing
Measuring Bridge
Sled Test Facility
www.dsd.at
Structure Deformation

Engineering
UFO – Ultra Flat Overrun able Robot
ASIS – Advanced Side Impact System
DynAS– Dynamic Application for Structure Deformation
MCB – Moveable Crash Block

p a s s i o n f o r c r a s h

www.asc-sensors.de

We are in touch
with your challenges!
quick responses technical advice customized solutions short delivery times

Capacitive accelerometers
Piezoresistive accelerometers
Gyros
Inertial Measurement Units ACTIVE DRIVING SAFETY
PASSIVE DRIVING SAFETY

ASC GmbH · Advanced Sensors Calibration Pfaffenhofen · Germany · Tel. +49 (0) 84 41 / 78 65 47-0 · office@asc-sensors.de
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW

THOR 50% Male: Injury Criteria and Risk Functions

APPENDIX G. G.
APPENDIX
IX G.
Region Criterion
Table 8. Summary Calculation
of injury criteria and associated injury risk
Table 8. Summary
Table 8. Summaryof injury
of injury Risk
criteria andFunction
criteria
functions used to assess injury risk using THOR
associated
and injury
associated
test results.
riskrisk
injury functions used
functions to assess
used injur
to assess in
Criterion Criterion [ref] [ref] Calculation Calculation Vars Vars Variable Variable Definition
Definition
Calculation Vars Variable Definition Risk Function
15 15APPENDIX G. Beginning of timetime window in 𝑠𝑠in 𝑠𝑠
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 2.5 2.5 𝑡𝑡1 𝑡𝑡1
𝑡𝑡2 𝑡𝑡2 Beginning ln⁡(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶of window
IX G.
IX G. 𝑡𝑡2 2.5 𝑡𝑡1 Beginning of time
APPENDIX G. window in 𝑠𝑠 1 1 15 ) − 7.45231

𝐶𝐶15 = |(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [Table Table


1 8. Summary
∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 HIC of15
] of | injury (-) criteria and
injury criteria 𝑡𝑡2Criterion associated End
[ref]
APPENDIX
of time
injury 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
risk 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
window
= 15 =G.
15functions |(𝑡𝑡2|(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡1used
in 𝑠𝑠2 − Table (𝑡𝑡2to
Calculation
Table
) 𝑡𝑡[1 ) [to assess
−8.
(𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡−
8.
) 𝑡𝑡1 ) ∫
1Summary
Summary
∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 injury 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
injuryofrisk
of
] ]| using
injury
injury
|
criteria
THOR
criteria and
and
test
𝑡𝑡
Vars
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
2 𝑡𝑡2
associated
results.
associated
results. injury
≥ 3) End = Φof
injury [ time
End of time window in 𝑠𝑠
risk
risk window functions in 𝑠𝑠
0.73998 used to assess injury
functions Variable
used] to assess
Definition
inju
(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡8.
Calculation 1)
Summary and
Vars
associated injury risk functions
Variable
used 2assess
Definition
Table 𝑡𝑡1 8.
risk
𝑡𝑡1 Summary of injury criteria
using THOR test
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
and associated Head Head
Risk
CG CG
Function
injury resultant riskacceleration
resultant acceleration
functions in Beginning
used in to Beginning
assess of it
Calculation 1 𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
Criterion
Vars 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 [ref] Head CG resultant acceleration Calculation
Variable in Beginning
Definition 𝑡𝑡2
of time 2.5window
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 in 𝑔𝑔 Vars 𝑡𝑡1 Risk Function
Beginning of time window Variable in Definition
𝑠𝑠
IX G. 𝑡𝑡2 2.5 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡1 Criterion 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
15 [ref]
Beginning
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵Beginning 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 of time window in 𝑠𝑠 Calculation
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 1 𝑡𝑡2 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Vars
𝜔𝜔𝑡𝑡 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] AngularAngular ln⁡ (𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
velocity velocity 15 ) )of−the 7.45231
of head
the headVariable
about about the Definition
local
the local [x, [y
2.5 𝑡𝑡 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 of time window in 𝑠𝑠 2.5 𝑡𝑡 Beginning
≥ 3) End = Φof ln⁡ of (
[ time window 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
time window − 7.45231 in 𝑠𝑠
Angular
injuryvelocity of |(𝑡𝑡 the2 head − 𝑡𝑡1 )about [ to the local [x, y, or z]| 2.5
axis, in 1 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ) inwindow𝑠𝑠 ]
𝑡𝑡2 2.84
Table 1
1 8. Summary of injury criteria 𝜔𝜔 and 1
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑡𝑡 associated
15
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶End 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15
risk
15 of time window in 𝑠𝑠
=
functions 2 used 1 2(− assess ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
) 2 injury 𝑡𝑡22 ]risk using 2 THOR test 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
2results. ≥ 3)𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
𝑡𝑡1 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 =𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, [=filtered
ΦBeginning filtered
− 𝑒𝑒0.73998
15
at
−(
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
of0.987 CFC60
time
at CFC60 ] in 𝑠𝑠
𝐶𝐶 = |(𝑡𝑡2 −2 𝑡𝑡1 )) [ ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑] | (𝑡𝑡 |𝜔𝜔(𝑡𝑡∫ End≥ of3)time 1window
2
APPENDIX𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
End filtered
of𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
time max⁡
window (|(𝑡𝑡
at |𝜔𝜔CFC60 |)in𝑥𝑥𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠|) max⁡ 1|)𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ]max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔(𝑧𝑧|𝜔𝜔 |) 𝑧𝑧 |) 2 0.73998 inacceleration
√(G.
𝑡𝑡22 =max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 1 )+[ (
max⁡ 𝑦𝑦1 |𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦1|) |max⁡ 𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) Head CG resultant 𝑠𝑠 in Beginning of
𝑥𝑥 |) Head
𝐶𝐶15
15 = (|𝜔𝜔|(𝑡𝑡 2 − 𝑡𝑡1Calculation[max⁡
(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡 ) ∫ 2𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] (||𝜔𝜔 |) 2 Vars 2𝑥𝑥 −) Variable
max⁡ (𝑡𝑡2 − (|𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡11𝑦𝑦)|) max⁡ Head =CG √=( 15
resultant
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 15acceleration
= |(𝑡𝑡 )2 (𝑡𝑡 −+ 2𝑡𝑡1 (in
− ) Definition
1)
𝑡𝑡[Beginning ) +)∫of (+ time( window
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚|) ) in 𝑔𝑔 𝜔𝜔2[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑡𝑡2 Risk
Critical EndFunction
Critical angular timevelocities
ofangular window
velocities inin 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝜔𝜔𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝑧𝑧
) +( 2 𝑡𝑡1𝑡𝑡) + (
𝑡𝑡1 ) 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) Critical
Head CG angular
resultant 𝜔𝜔velocities
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝜔𝜔acceleration inTable 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 in𝜔𝜔8. Beginning
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔
(𝑡𝑡 Summary − 𝑡𝑡 ) of time of 𝜔𝜔injury
window
𝜔𝜔 in 𝑔𝑔 and
criteria 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)associated Headinjury CG risk resultant functions acceleration used in Beginning of timr
headto assess injury
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 ln⁡ ( 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 ) − 7.45231
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Beginning 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵of time window in 𝑠𝑠
2.5 𝑡𝑡
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡1 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 2 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 1 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
AngularHead velocity
CG 15 resultant of the acceleration about theBeginning
in local [x,
IX𝜔𝜔G. 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 66.25 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
1
66.25 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Brain Injury Criterion 𝜔𝜔
2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑡𝑡1 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3) = Φ [ ]
1 𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔
Criterion Angular
66.25of𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
[ref] Angular velocity of the head
Calculation about the local2[x, y, or z] axis, in 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 2.84
𝜔𝜔Vars
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵Variable Definition
End 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵time window inω𝑠𝑠head Angular 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, = filtered
velocity −(at
𝑒𝑒0.73998
of the CFC60 head
𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] velocity of the about the local [x, y, or z] axis, in )2.84 about the local [x, y, o
𝐶𝐶15 = |(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [Table 8. Summary ∫ 2𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑] of| injury criteria 𝜔𝜔 2 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 56.45 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
(𝑡𝑡 ) and [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] associated 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
injury filtered max⁡
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
risk at with
(
functions |𝜔𝜔
CFC60 |)
2
[x,y,z]used = max⁡ Angular
to ( |𝜔𝜔
assess |) velocity
injury max⁡ (rad/s)
risk ( |𝜔𝜔using |)
2
THOR 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
test 𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
results. ≥

3)
56.45
3)
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Angular =
1
1
− velocity
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
− 𝑒𝑒 −(0.987 )
of the head about the local
− 𝑡𝑡
BrIC (-) 56.45 CG
𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Beginning 0.987
max⁡((|𝜔𝜔 |) 2
2
max⁡ 2 (|𝜔𝜔1 |) 2 max⁡ ( |𝜔𝜔 |)
2
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Head = filtered
√resultant
( at CFC60 𝑥𝑥
2 ) + ( in Beginning
acceleration 𝑡𝑡2 2𝑦𝑦
) + of (
2.5
time window
𝑧𝑧
2 ) in 𝑔𝑔 𝑡𝑡1𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Critical filtered ofangular time at CFC60 windowvelocities in 𝑠𝑠in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
max⁡ |𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |)) +Calculation
𝑥𝑥
(max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦 |)1) + (max⁡(|𝜔𝜔
𝑦𝑦 𝑡𝑡
𝑧𝑧 |))
𝑧𝑧 2
𝜔𝜔Vars Critical max⁡(|𝜔𝜔velocities
angular |)
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 (|𝜔𝜔Variable
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥G. inmax⁡ ω xC
2𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 1(=66,25|𝜔𝜔 Definition
𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦|) rad/s max⁡ 2 (|𝜔𝜔 |)
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝜔𝜔 42.87 42.87
Risk 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Function𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 filtered at CFC60
IX𝜔𝜔G. ) + ( 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ) + ( 2.5 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 ) 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 APPENDIX
42.87=√
Critical 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
(angular
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 = |(𝑡𝑡 velocities
max⁡ )− 𝑡𝑡+𝑥𝑥)|) ([in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 max⁡ ∫ 𝑀𝑀 )(𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
|𝜔𝜔+𝑦𝑦 |) ( ] | max⁡ )(|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧 |)
2
𝑡𝑡2 𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 End
Critical of
66.25 time
angular window
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 velocities in 𝑠𝑠 2.84in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
inω −𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 =56,45 rad/s Z-axis force measured at upper neck loadload cellcell in
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Beginning 15 √
( of2window the 1head (𝑡𝑡 𝑧𝑧𝑡𝑡1𝐹𝐹 )the 𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝜔𝜔 𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical
Z-axis ln⁡ (force
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 angular measured velocities at upper in neck
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
1)0.987
− 7.45231
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
Angular velocity
= of𝜔𝜔 about
2𝑠𝑠+ 𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 local 𝑦𝑦 [x, ) y,+ 𝜔𝜔or z] axis, in )criteria and
IX𝜔𝜔G. 𝐹𝐹𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 time ) ( ( of 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
of injury criteria 𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡1 associated yC 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀 𝑡𝑡2 𝜔𝜔 66.25
Z-axis 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
force measured
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥at 𝑁𝑁 upper = neck + 𝑡𝑡load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧
≥Head CG resultant 15
acceleration in
] Beginning assessofinju tim
𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 THOR𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] −( )
Table 𝑧𝑧1 8. Summary
𝑦𝑦 and 𝑧𝑧 injury
66.25 risk
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 functions 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁
used 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖Table = to assess 1𝜔𝜔 +𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦Summary
8. injury risk injury
𝜔𝜔
using 𝜔𝜔test associated
results.
𝜔𝜔𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴3)Critical
66.25 ≥ =3)
56.45injury
Φ=[=
3)
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 1−
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 risk 𝑒𝑒(tensionfunctions used to
2 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖) = + 2 𝑡𝑡 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
End of filtered
time window at CFC60 in 𝑠𝑠 ω zC 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 =42,87 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑀𝑀 rad/s 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ Critical
66.25 force force
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 0.73998 (tension or 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖compression)
or compression) in 𝑁𝑁in[252 𝑁𝑁 [2
𝐶𝐶15 =
IX (G.
max⁡ |𝜔𝜔|(𝑡𝑡
𝑥𝑥 |)2 − 𝑡𝑡1Calculation[Table
max⁡
(𝑡𝑡 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧(|𝜔𝜔8. 𝑀𝑀) |) ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Summary ] of
max⁡ (||𝜔𝜔 |)
injury 2
criteria and 𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
Vars
𝜔𝜔
2Criterion
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 associated APPENDIX
56.45
[ref]
Critical
injury
56.45
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
force
risk
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 G.
(tension
functions or Variable
compression)
used Calculation to 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
Definition
assess in 𝑁𝑁𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
[2520/-3640]
injury 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
risk using THOR 𝜔𝜔 test 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
Vars 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
results. 56.45 Risk
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 1
Function + 𝑒𝑒 3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
Variable Definition
) + ( 2 − 𝑡𝑡1 𝑡𝑡 ) + ( 2.5
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦 𝑧𝑧
𝜔𝜔𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
Critical angular velocities in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 in 𝑔𝑔 𝜔𝜔and 𝑀𝑀𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Angular 42.87
Y-axis velocity
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
moment ofmeasured
the head at about theneck local [x,load y, o
)
usedupper load cell
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 Head CG resultant acceleration Y-axis
56.45 (moment ) −measured atto𝑠𝑠upper neck
IX𝜔𝜔G. G. 𝑠𝑠 in Beginning of time windowcriteria 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
IX Calculation Vars
𝜔𝜔 42.87 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 Variable to𝐹𝐹Definition
2.5 𝑡𝑡1results. Risk
Beginning Function
ln⁡ 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 of time window
7.45231 in
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Beginning of time window in
𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦8. Summary 1𝑡𝑡2 𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀
𝑡𝑡𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 Y-axis moment measured at Tableupper neck
8. Summary 2load
𝑡𝑡2 cell of
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 injury associated injury filtered risk functions assess injury
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 Table of𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
injury criteria and 𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧associated
1𝑦𝑦 42.87
injury 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
risk functions used assess 𝑀𝑀 𝑦𝑦 injury risk using THOR𝜔𝜔test 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
42.87
3)Critical 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Z-axis
=Critical
Φ42.87 forceatmeasured
[ moment
15CFC60 at upper neck load cell[48 in
66.25 or] extension)
2 𝑧𝑧1 2
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 1)(flexion inin𝑠𝑠or𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠extension) in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧1 8. 𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
max⁡ (time
|𝜔𝜔 |) inat𝑠𝑠 Calculation max⁡ =(neck |𝜔𝜔 |) max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 |) 𝑡𝑡𝑀𝑀 moment −(flexion in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑧𝑧 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝜔𝜔
𝑀𝑀Summary Criterion APPENDIX
[ref]Beginning
Z-axis of√force G. measured
ofwindow =window or𝑁𝑁
−upper 𝑡𝑡in + local
𝑀𝑀load cell in y,𝑁𝑁 Vars End ofln⁡ (𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
time window Variable
7.45231 Definition
2.5 injury criteria and 𝐹𝐹
Table 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧1+8.𝑀𝑀Summary 𝑦𝑦𝑡𝑡2 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] of 𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑧𝑧 associated Endinjury
Angular time risk
velocity functions
𝑥𝑥of the2at head used 𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠[𝑧𝑧(𝑡𝑡
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖)about to assess
𝑦𝑦the injury
[x, orrisk
] z] using
| axis, in THOR test results. 0.73998
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 2.84
𝐶𝐶15 = |(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑁𝑁 ) [=
𝑡𝑡1Calculation
Table ∫ of| injury criteria 𝜔𝜔 and 𝑀𝑀
Vars𝐹𝐹 1
2
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] associated
𝑁𝑁 Critical
injury
Z-axis
= force
( 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
moment
risk measured
15 (flexion
functions |(𝑡𝑡
) + Variable used
upper
( 1extension) neck to
𝐹𝐹 Definition
assessload ) in𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑀𝑀 ∫
+ 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
cell (𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
injury [48/-72]
in 𝑁𝑁 risk using
) THOR 𝜔𝜔 test
𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 results.
2
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
≥ Critical
Z-axis
3) ≥ Risk
Critical
= 3) Φ angular
force
= [ Function measured
force velocities
15
(tension
−(
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
10.987 at) upper
or neck
compression)
] load cell
in in
𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁
[25
=(𝑡𝑡𝐹𝐹2𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧−+𝑡𝑡1𝑀𝑀 ) 2 𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦Multi-point
Multi-point
𝑧𝑧 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 56.45 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =CFC60 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 ,in 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧− 𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑧𝑧𝑡𝑡12in ), 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑀𝑀 , time
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 ) criteria [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝑧𝑧
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥≥
Overall 3) ==CG peak 1+peak − 𝑒𝑒3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
resultant deflection in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Neck N (-) Z-axis
Overall force measured
resultant at
deflection upper neck
in loadrisk ce
𝑁𝑁 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖End 𝜔𝜔 𝑁𝑁Table =𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔 + 𝜔𝜔 ) in 𝑔𝑔and associated 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 3)
Calculation Vars𝑡𝑡 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 Critical
Head of
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
CG filtered
force
time 𝑅𝑅 at
(tension
window
resultant = in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
or
acceleration Variable
𝑠𝑠 compression) ,
2Definition𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
Beginning 𝑁𝑁 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
[2520/-3640]
𝑦𝑦of ,
2.5𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅window 𝑡𝑡 𝑅𝑅
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝐹𝐹 BeginningRisk
Head Function
1 of time 𝑒𝑒
resultant
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
0.73998 window acceleration in 𝑠𝑠 in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Beginning of
ij 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝐶𝐶15 (= = |(𝑡𝑡 −
|𝜔𝜔𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
2 𝑡𝑡 Calculation
)
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [ 𝐹𝐹, 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀|) ∫
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦,1𝑡𝑡𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ,max⁡ ]
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
2.5 | ) |) 2 Vars
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝑅𝑅Thoracic
𝑡𝑡𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 15 Overall
Beginning
Critical peak
force
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
of resultant
time
(tension window Variable
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
deflection
or in𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁
compression) 8. 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑠𝑠𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1in Definition
Summary
=𝑀𝑀
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
in
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
+1𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640] of 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚injury 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑧𝑧
≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, injury Riskrisk
𝑅𝑅Y-axis
Critical )ln⁡
force Function
functions
(+
1moment 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 𝑒𝑒 15 )measured
(tension −or used
7.45231
compression) to assess injury
in 𝑁𝑁 load [2520/
≥66.25
max⁡ |)2 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 (|𝜔𝜔 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2
Injury where
𝑡𝑡
𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
at upper neck ce
IX G. 𝑥𝑥 ) + ( (𝑡𝑡2 − 1 𝑡𝑡1𝑦𝑦) 𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡)22 + ( 2.5 𝑡𝑡𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧Thoracic Injury where mit F|(𝑡𝑡 =2520N/-3640N(tension/compression)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑧𝑧
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔 1
42.87
Beginning 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 of time zCwindow inin 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦cell 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑡𝑡2 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝐹𝐹 3)Peak
End =𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
ΦCritical
Peak
of time[ln⁡
resultant
ln⁡ ((window
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
resultant force deflection
)Variable
− 𝑠𝑠2.84 ofor
(tension
7.45231
deflection
in7.45231 of]compression)
the [upper/lower
the [upper/lower in| lef
𝑁𝑁|
2.5 ) 𝜔𝜔Criterion
Criterion 𝑀𝑀
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) [ref]APPENDIX
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡112𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦Criterion
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical
Head
Y-axis
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Beginning
End
Peakof CG angular
moment
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
time
resultant of
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] G.
resultant
time
15window
velocities
measured acceleration
ofwindow
=deflection −Calculation
in 𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠1of )atat[inthe upper𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 [upper/lower
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 in Beginning neck ∫ load
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ofleft/right]
|cell ]time 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁| window quadrant in 𝑔𝑔 Vars
in in 𝜔𝜔
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 15 )
0.73998 − Definition
5.03896
𝐶𝐶15𝜔𝜔=𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥|(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [ 𝐹𝐹𝜔𝜔1 𝑀𝑀 Y-axis moment measured upper 𝑡𝑡1neck load y,𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 =𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥56.45
Y-axis
3)𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Φmoment
Angular
= 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 [[ resultant velocity measured of )the athead upper ]] about neck ) the load local cell [x,𝑁𝑁
∫ 1 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] 15
𝜔𝜔|𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Angular velocity
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 2the head about the local [x, or z] axis, 1𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔𝑀𝑀
1𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦8.𝑀𝑀 criteria 𝜔𝜔 (𝑡𝑡 2− )load Critical moment (flexion or
] extension) in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Z-axis force measured M =48Nm/-72Nm(flexion/extension)
inat𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 upper neck cell 2.5in 𝑁𝑁 risk using THOR − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (− [3) = Φ −(10.987
𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
𝐶𝐶15 = = |(𝑡𝑡2 − − 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡1𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖)) [[=(𝑡𝑡2 𝑧𝑧−
Table 𝑡𝑡1 ) Summary ∫𝑦𝑦
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑]] of|| injury and [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 associated End
66.25 of𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
injury
Critical
End
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 of time risk
moment
time window
windowfunctions yC𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(flexion in or used extension) to 𝑡𝑡2assess 𝑡𝑡1 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 injury [48/-72] 𝑡𝑡1 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) test 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
results. Head
Beginning ≥ 3)Y-axis
CG
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853of =time −moment
1 functions
− 𝑒𝑒0.73998
window
0.73998
0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎) measured
acceleration
in2.84𝑠𝑠 toinatassess upper
Beginning neck ofloadtim
2 2 𝑁𝑁 1 (𝑡𝑡𝐹𝐹 −+ Head CG resultant acceleration 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3) = filtered at CFC60
𝐶𝐶 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
|(𝑡𝑡 ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜔𝜔 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 2
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦15 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Angular filtered
velocity at ofCFC60 the head Table about in 8. Beginning
Summary
the local [x, of time
of
y, injury
or window
z] axis, inin
criteria 𝑔𝑔 and 𝑀𝑀 associated injury
Critical 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, risk
moment (flexion
used injury ri
𝑀𝑀 Critical moment (flexion or21extension) in 2 +[48/-72] 2 42.87 ) or 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖extension) in [48/-
2 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
15
max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |) 2 Calculation (𝑡𝑡22𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧−
max⁡ ( |𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡11𝑀𝑀))|)𝑡𝑡 1 2
max⁡ ( |𝜔𝜔 |)
2
𝐹𝐹
2
Multi-point
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
Vars
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Critical
Head =CG 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
force
= 𝑅𝑅(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
(tension
max⁡
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
resultant
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (=|𝜔𝜔
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
or
|)
acceleration
2
Variable
2
compression) +max⁡
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 in + ,Definition
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
(
Beginning|𝜔𝜔 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2
in |) ,𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640]
of
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 + ,max⁡
time 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 (
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2
|𝜔𝜔
window
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2 )
|)
2
)𝑧𝑧[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆in) 𝑔𝑔
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆2
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Overall
Time-history
Time-history
Risk
3)Critical= 11
Functionpeak
+−𝑒𝑒moment of
𝑒𝑒 resultant
−( the
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
of
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
the deflection
[left/right]
[left/right]
(flexion orchest in deflection
chest
extension)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 deflectio in al
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
IX G.
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 + ,[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 𝑦𝑦
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
2
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,11) 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 +([𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2 Criterion
) )2) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑧𝑧
, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 2 [ref] 56.45
Head
Overall 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
CG
Time-history
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Critical = peakresultant

=(|(𝑡𝑡
filtered
angular of2atvelocities
the
resultant −CFC60acceleration
𝑥𝑥 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
[Calculation
𝑡𝑡[left/right]
deflection
1 )deflection) in
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
+ ( chestinin ∫ Beginning
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚deflection
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑦𝑦 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
) ] ,+ of|along(time window [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
the [X/Y/Z] ) in 𝑔𝑔 𝑡𝑡Vars 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 ≥ 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 EndAngular
of𝑅𝑅Critical
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, time )window
velocity angular in
of
0.987
𝑠𝑠the Variable
velocities head inneck
about Definition
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
the local [x, y,
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = )
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 2+(
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 +
2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 )
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔
Multi-point
𝑅𝑅 Thoracic
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑁𝑁 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆Injury Overall
Angular where
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
15peak
𝑅𝑅velocity resultant
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
𝜔𝜔of𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 the
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝐹𝐹
, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 in 𝑀𝑀𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 ) 2𝜔𝜔
𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, axis
Z-axis
Overall𝑅𝑅 relative
force
axis
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚peak
) relativemeasured to
resultant the
to [upper/lower]
the at upper
deflection
[upper/lower] in spine
load
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 spine segment
cell in
segme 𝑁𝑁 io
=2𝑁𝑁head about the local 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚[x, y, or z] axis,)in
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝜔𝜔(|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |)
max⁡ max⁡ 𝜔𝜔(𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦|𝜔𝜔 |)𝑡𝑡2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 |)
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑀𝑀 Y-axis moment measured (𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2at −upper 𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡1 )+ neck load [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Peak
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 resultant deflection 2.84
of5.03896
the [upper/lower | le
,|cell
𝜔𝜔 𝑦𝑦
,𝜔𝜔
𝑧𝑧 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ln⁡(time 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
)0.987
− 7.45231
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔
2.5