Carhs 2019 Safety Companion PDF

SAFETY
COMPANION
for Tomorrowʼs Automotive Engineering

Knowledge
SEMINARS CONFERENCES KNOWLEDGE

Active & Passive Safety News & Updates Tables & Graphs
Dummy & Crash Test Knowledge Exchange & Summarizing all Important
Engineering & Simulation Networking for Experts Rules & Regulations in
Vehicle Safety
gns – GESELLSCHAFT FÜR
NUMERISCHE SIMULATION MBH
Am Gaußberg 2 38114 Braunschweig
Phone: 0531-80112-0 mbox@gns-mbh.com
SOLUTIONS
for the automotive Industry
OPENFORM
ENGINEERING SOFTWARE DEVELOPEMENT CONSULTING
The industrial solution for
sheet metal forming simulation
Extremely easy to use, wide range
of applications, highly accurate
results, open concept
GENERATOR 4
Pedestrian & Occupant Safety at its best
Fulfill various regulations:
FMVSS201, ECE-R21,
2003/102/EC, EuroNCAP...
ANIMATOR 4
The next generation of
FEA postprocessing
Handle plot and time history
data in one superior user
interface while working
with large models!
www.gns-mbh.com
SafetyCompanion
Advertisement
2019
Passive Safety
Gain Page 13 - 112
efficiency
with built-
in DTI
961-078e-08.18
Dummy & Crash Test
Page 113 - 125
Kistler’s efficient in-dummy measurement so-

lution for crash tests
Our groundbreaking Digital Transducer Inter-
face (DTI) technology opens up a new dimen-
sion of process efficiency for you. With just
one single cable, this holistic in-dummy measu-
rement solution for crash tests makes for fast Active Safety,
and efficient vehicle test setup. With DTI, you Driver Assistance &
save important space and — what’s more — autonomous Driving
your energy consumption is cut. Page 126 - 154
Wherever you require technical support: we
offer you complete customized solutions ba-
cked up by our comprehensive service experti-
se across the globe.
Simulation &
www.kistler.com Engineering
Page 155 - 170

SAFETY
WISSEN
SafetyWissen Navigator
Canada CMVSS § Euro NCAP
 EU §
208 Frontal.............78 Frontal..28, 32, 36, 80 Overview.................21
214 Side............86, 87 Side.......28, 34, 86, 88 78/2009................100
226 Ejection Mit. ...92 Far side....................44 631/2009..............100
Whiplash.......103-105
Pedestrian.....100-102
U.S. FMVSS § Child prot..............108
Assistance syst......126
Overview.................21 AEB.......126, 141-146
126 ESC.................140 LSS..........................148
201U........................94 Overall rating..........46
202a.......................103 Dual Rating..............46
208 Frontal.76, 79, 80
214 Side..... 86, 87, 88
216a Roof Crush.....74
226 Ejection Mitig..92
305 Electric veh......25
U.S. NCAP

Frontal...............28, 48
Side............. 28, 48, 86
Pole............. 28, 48, 86
Rollover / SSF........128
CIB..........................152
FCW.......................152
LDW.......................128
Rear Auto Brake...150
Overall rating..........50
IIHS

Frontal........ 28, 52, 80
Side.......28, 53, 86, 87
Whiplash.52, 103, 105
Roof Crush........53, 74 Impactors/Dummies
Top Safety Pick.......53
Size/Weight..........120
Small Overlap...28, 54
Dummies...............116
Bumper Test.........111
THOR.....................118
AEB / FCW....145, 150

EEVC Leg...............124
Advanced Light.....128 Bharat NCAP
Upper Legform.....124
Head Impactors....124 Test items ...............69

Flex PLI...................124 Overall rating..........69
Latin NCAP
Frontal ..............28, 57
Side....................28, 57
RCAR
 India AIS §
Child prot....... 57, 109 Whiplash ..............105 098 Frontal.............22
Assistance syst......126 Bumper.................111 099 Side..................23
4
SAFETY
WISSEN
GTR § UNECE § JNCAP


Overview.................21 Overview.................21 Frontal........ 29, 62, 80
8 ESC......................140 R21...........................94 Side............. 29, 62, 90
9 Pedestrian..........100 R94 Frtl..22, 26, 78, 80 Whiplash........ 64, 103
14 Side.....................86 R95 Seite.... 23, 26, 86 ASV........................128
R100 .......................26 Pedestrian.............100
R127............... 96, 100 Overall rating..........64
R135 Pole..........23, 86
R137 Frontal.....22, 78
R140 ESC ..............140
Japan §
R.E.3: Veh. classes.112 Art. 18/23 Frontal..22
Art. 18/24 Side.......23
Art. 18/99 Ped......100
KNCAP

Frontal...............29, 66
Side....................29, 68
Whiplash......... 68,103
Pedestrian.............100
Child prot..............110
Brakes....................126
Rollover/SSF..........126
Assistance syst......126
Korea KMVSS §
102 Frontal.............22
102 Side..................23
102-2 Pedestrian..100
China NCAP

Frontal ....... 29, 60, 80
Side ............ 29, 61, 90
Whiplash........ 61, 103
Assistance sys..126,154
China GB §
ANCAP
See Euro NCAP
 Overview.................21
11551 Frontal.........22
20913 Frontal.........22
Australia ADR § 20071 Side..............23
69/00 Frontal....22, 78
73/00 Frontal....22, 78
ASEAN NCAP

Frontal ..............29, 58
C-IASI

72/00 Side...............23 Child prot....... 58, 109 Small Overlap .........29
85/00 Pole..............23 Assistance syst......126 Side..........................29
5
carhs.training
Seminar Guide Dummies + Crash Test

►► SafetyTesting p. 113
►► Introduction to Data Acquisition p. 114
Here you find the courses you need to get your ►► Dummy Training p. 122
job done! ►► SafetyUpDate p. 15
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 16
►► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 13
Legend
►► Seminar/Event that focusses on this topic
►► Seminar/Event that deals with this topic (among others)
Frontal Impact
►► Workshop Euro NCAP MPDB Frontal Crash p. 42
►► Knee Mapping Workshop p. 45
►► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems p. 77
►► Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact p. 84
►► SafetyUpDate p. 15
Sem
►► International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations p. 18
►► NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs p. 30
►► Crashworthy Car Body Design p. 73
►► Crash-Sensing and Restraint Control p. 85
►► Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers p. 155
Gui
Side Impact
►► Side Impact – Requirements and Development Strategies p. 91
Rear Impact
►► PraxisConference Rear Impact - Seats - Whiplash p. 106
►► Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts p. 107
Pedestrian Protection
►► PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection p. 99
►► Pedestrian Protection Strategies p. 98
►► Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures p. 123
►► Pedestrian Protection Workshops p. 123
6
carhs.training
Car Bodies
►► Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies p. 156
►► Robust Design and Stochastics for Car Body Development p. 162
►► Light Weight Design Summit p. 158
Interiors
►► Knee Mapping Workshop p. 45
►► Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors p. 95
►► Whiplash Testing and Evaluation p. 107
Restraint Systems
►► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems p. 77
►► Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact p. 84
inar
►► Crash-Sensing and Restraint Control p. 85
►► SAFE ROADS India Summit p. 131
Regulations and Requirements

ide
►► Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification p. 20
►► Crash Safety of Hybrid- and Electric Vehicles p. 24
►► Euro NCAP Update p. 27
►► Product Liability in the Automobile Industry p. 72
►► Worldwide Status of Automated Vehicle Policies p. 134
►► PraxisConference AEB|AES p. 138
Accident Avoidance, Automated Driving

►► Introduction to Active Safety p. 130
►► Briefing on the Worldwide Status of Automated Vehicle Policies p. 134
►► Highly Automated and Autonomous Driving p. 135
►► PraxisConference AEB|AES p. 138
Materials
►► Design of Composite Structures p. 164
►► Material Models of Composites p. 165
►► Material Models of Metals p. 166
►► Material Models of Plastics and Foams p. 165
►► Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies p. 156
►► Light Weight Design Summit p. 158 Haven’t found what you need?
►► Automotive CAE Grand Challenge p. 160 Get in touch with us!
 +49-6023-964060
7
Table of Contents
4 SafetyWissen Navigator 60 SafetyWissen: C-NCAP

6 Seminar Guide 62 SafetyWissen: JNCAP
10 Preface 65 SafetyWissen: KNCAP
12 In-house Seminars 69 SafetyWissen: Bharat New Car Assessment Program
Passive Safety 70 Seminar: Static Vehicle Safety Tests in Automotive
Development
13 Conference: Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai
72 Seminar: Product Liability in the Automobile
14 Conference: SafetyWeek Industry
15 Conference: SafetyUpDate 73 Seminar: Crashworthy Car Body Design for new and
16 Seminar: Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles classic Vehicle Concepts
17 Seminar: Safety of Commercial Vehicles 74 SafetyWissen: Roof Crush
18 Seminar: International Safety and Crash-Test 76 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 208
Regulations 77 Seminar: Development of Frontal Restraint
20 Seminar: Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification Systems meeting Legal and Consumer Protection
« NEW Requirements
21 SafetyWissen: Crash-Regulations: Europe, United 78 SafetyWissen: Protection Criteria for Frontal Impact
Nations, USA and China Tests
22 SafetyWissen: Rules and Regulations on Occupant 80 SafetyWissen: Frontal Impact Protection Criteria
Protection Compared
24 Seminar: Crash Safety of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles 82 Seminar: Early Increase of Design Maturity of
Restraint System Components in the Reduced
25 SafetyWissen: Safety Requirements for Electric Prototype Vehicle Development Process
Vehicles
83 SafetyWissen: Safety Requirements for Rear Seats
27 Conference: Euro NCAP UpDate 2019 and Restraint Systems
28 SafetyWissen: NCAP-Tests 84 Seminar: Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal
30 Seminar: NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs: Impact
Tests, Assessment Methods, Ratings 85 Seminar: Crash-Sensing and Restraint Control -
32 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Functions and Applications
36 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP: MPDB Frontal 86 SafetyWissen: Side Impact
Impact « NEW 88 SafetyWissen: Seat Adjustments for Side Impact
42 Seminar: Workshop Euro NCAP MPDB Frontal Crash Tests
« NEW 90 SafetyWissen: Side Impact Protection Criteria
44 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Far Side Compared
Occupant Protection in Side Impacts 91 Seminar: Side Impact - Requirements and
45 Seminar: Knee Mapping Workshop Development Strategies
46 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Rating: 2019 - 92 SafetyWissen: Ejection Mitigation
2023 94 SafetyWissen: Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors
48 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP 95 Seminar: Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS
52 SafetyWissen: IIHS Rating 201 and UN R21
57 SafetyWissen: Latin NCAP 96 SafetyWissen: Pedestrian Protection
58 SafetyWissen: ASEAN NCAP 98 Seminar: Pedestrian Protection - Development
Strategies
8
Table of Contents
99 Conference: PraxisConference Pedestrian 137 Conference: SafetyLighting

Protection
138 Conference: PraxisConference AEB|AES
100 SafetyWissen: Test Procedures and Protection
140 SafetyWissen: Test of ESC Systems
Criteria for Pedestrian Protection
141 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB
102 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP - Pedestrian
Protection: Head and Leg Impact Grid Method 145 SafetyWissen: IIHS AEB Pedestrian « NEW
104 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Whiplash 148 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP LSS « NEW
105 SafetyWissen: Static Geometry Assessment by 150 SafetyWissen: IIHS AEB Front Crash Prevention
IIWPG / IIHS 150 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP Rear Automatic Braking
106 Conference: PraxisConference Rear Impact - Seats - 152 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP CIW / FCW
Whiplash
154 SafetyWissen: C-NCAP Active Safety Rating
107 Seminar: Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear
Impacts Engineering & Simulation
108 SafetyWissen: Child Occupant Protection 155 Seminar: Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers
111 SafetyWissen: RCAR Insurance Tests 156 Seminar: Lightweight Design Strategies for Car
112 SafetyWissen: UNECE Vehicle Classification Bodies
157 Seminar: Interior Development - Fundamentals,
Dummy & Crash Test
Materials, Design, Manufacturing
113 Conference: SafetyTesting 158 Conference: Lightweight Design Summit
114 Seminar: Introduction to Data Acquisition in Safety 160 Conference: automotive CAE Grand Challenge
Testing
161 Seminar: Structural Optimization in Automotive
116 SafetyWissen: Current Dummy Landscape Design
118 SafetyWissen: THOR 50 % Male 162 Seminar: Robust Design - Vehicle Development
120 SafetyWissen: Dummies: Weights, Dimensions, under Uncertainty
Calibration 163 Seminar: Improving Efficiency and Reducing Risk in
122 Seminar: Dummy-Trainings CAE Driven Product Development
123 Seminar: Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures 164 Seminar: Design of Composite Structures
124 SafetyWissen: Impactors for Pedestrian Protection 165 Seminar: Material Models of Composites for Crash
Simulation
Active Safety
166 Seminar: Material Models of Metals for Crash
126 SafetyWissen: NCAP Tests for Active Safety and Simulation
Driver Assistance
168 Seminar: Material Models of Plastics and Foams for
130 Seminar: Introduction to Active Safety of Vehicles Crash Simulation
131 Conference: SAFE ROADS India Summit 169 Seminar: Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation
132 SafetyWissen: Levels of Driving Automation 170 Seminar: Introduction to the Python Programming
134 Seminar: Briefing on the Worldwide Status of Language
Automated Vehicle Policies « NEW 171 SafetyWissen: Important Abbreviations
135 Seminar: Highly Automated and Autonomous
Driving: Facts, State of Technology and Legislation
174 Terms & Conditions
« NEW
175 Index
136 Seminar: NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs:
Tests, Assessment Methods, Ratings 176 Seminar Calendar
9
carhs.training
AI: Will the automotive development engineer be needed in the future?
SAFETY
Artificial intelligence is on everyone's lips. It is seen at the same time as a savior and a dan- COMPANION
ger. Self-improving algorithms will be able to recognize and evaluate all kind of situations. SafetyWissen on
And that much faster and better than man. This applies to many areas from medicine to 77 pages
autonomous driving. At the same time, however, it also means that many job profiles will
change or even disappear altogether. more than 150
seminares & events
The shift towards the use of artificial intelligence is taking place much more rapidly than
expected just a few years ago. There are several reasons for this: on the one hand, the methods of artificial intelligence
have developed rapidly. Deep Learning has given a big boost, which was first brought to the public's attention in 2016
with the victory of a computer program over the world's best Go player. Today, large amounts of data are also stored,
the most important prerequisite for deep learning, along with computing power. And all three areas: Methods, data and
computing power will continue to develop rapidly in the future.
Does the automotive development engineer also have to worry about his job? I don't think so, quite the contrary.
The engineering activity is characterized by creativity, i.e. the creation of something new without a model. Artificial intelli-
gence is not (yet) creative. It needs templates (examples) to learn and act within this domain. But the artificial intelligence
can support the engineer in the creative process by e.g. analyzing data of all kinds and providing knowledge or making
new products possible e.g. by image recognition.
The engineering profession will therefore not disappear, but it will change. The engineer must constantly learn to use the
new possibilities of modern technology in the best possible way in his field of work. It is also important to cross borders.
Mechanics, electronics and software are increasingly growing together and can no longer be separated.
We support you in your permanent learning through our attractive further education program consisting of seminars,
practical conferences and events. It covers the whole range of vehicle safety: from passive safety to accident prevention
and safety in automatic and autonomous driving.
In addition to the offers in SafetyCompanion, we are also available to you for individual training, e.g. at your premises.
Take advantage of our experience and the expertise of our trainers to achieve your training goals.
Now is the best time for your company and your employees to take advantage of the current changes in the automotive
industry as a development opportunity. We are happy to support you.
For the whole team of carhs.training
Rainer Hoffmann Ralf Reuter

President & CEO Executive Vice President
10
New Generation in Crash Simulation
Instron‘s CSAadvanced with

active controlled pitch simulation
Your benefits:
• Peak acceleration up to 110g
• Acceleration force up to 2,75 MN
• Improved Pulse matching
2,75 MN
Instron GmbH | Schenck Technologie- und Industriepark | Landwehrstraße 65 |64293 Darmstadt

go.instron.com/crash-test | +49 6151 3917 0
InhouseSeminars
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 retain full cost control. 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.
Your Contacts at carhs.training
Dr. Dirk Ulrich Sofia Antoniadou

Tel. +49-6023-96 40 - 66 Tel. +49-6023-96 40 - 76
dirk.ulrich@carhs.de sofia.antoniadou@carhs.de
References
ACTS, AUDI, Autoform, 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, Key Safety
Systems, LEAR, Magna, Mahindra & Mahindra, MBtech, MESSRING, MGA, Opel, Open Air Systems, PATAC, P+Z, SAIC, SMP,
SMSC, SEAT, Siemens, TAKATA, TASS, Tata, TECOSIM, TRW, TTTech, VIF, Visteon, 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
Passive Safety
The »Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai« is attracting

more than 300 automotive safety experts from China and
beyond to discuss the latest requirements and innovations
in active and passive safety. Accompanied by a comprehen-
sive trade show with the worldwide vendors in develop-
ment technologies and services, the summit is the leading
event for everyone involved in automotive safety. The 2019
event will focus on automotive safety in the context of cur-
rent Megatrends: NEV, ADAS and AD.
Join »Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai« on July 15 - 16, 2019 at the Kerry Hotel in
Pudong, Shanghai, China.
Keynotes from international experts, presentations on requirements and innovations, the
latest developments in testing and simulation for active and passive systems will make this
event a true highlight for every decision maker and engineer in the fields of active and pas-
sive safety. With the rapid rise of New Energy Vehicles (EV, PHEV and FCV), new challenges
are surfacing for the safety community. The »Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai« is
setting a focal point on Safety of New Energy Vehicles, discussing requirements, technolo-
gies and validation aspects for safety of NEVs.
The event will have dedicated sessions on the following topics:
Safety of new energy vehicles
Global legal and consumer requirements
Pedestrian safety
Autonomous emergency braking
Safety testing and simulation
Safety in autonomous driving
Who should attend?

»Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai« is addressing decision makers and engineers at
all stages of the development phase, managers during the conceptual phase who need
to understand upcoming global requirements, design engineers, testing and simulation
specialists.
DATE 15.-16. July 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/safetysummit
VENUE Shanghai, China
LANGUAGE English / Chinese with simultaneous translation
13
Passive Safety
Supporting automotive development engineers to further

improve automotive safety, that is the essence of SafetyWeek.
In a unique combination of knowledge congress, events and exhibition, SafetyWeek offers
participants and visitors the opportunity, to bring their expertise up-to-date and to learn
about the latest developments and technologies in product development and product
verification.
In 2019 SafetyWeek will feature numerous highlights:
The knowledge congress SafetyUpDate+active with the most current updates on
requirements and solutions in active and passive safety.  page 15
The SafetyLighting with all news regarding the safety ratings and regulations for
automotive headlights.  page 137
The SafetyTesting+active with the innovations from the Leaders in Testing and
Simulation of components and systems in active and passive safety.  page 113
NEW: Auto[nom]Mobil, the expert forum on safe urban mobility
The accompanying exhibition SafetyExpo, the meeting point for suppliers and
decision makers in automotive safety.
SAFETYTESTING
SAFETYUPDATE
Who should attend?

SafetyWeek is the meeting point for everyone involved in vehicle safety. This includes
developers as well as test and simulation engineers from OEMs and suppliers, manufactur-
ers of test systems, representatives of governments and consumer protection organiza-
tions and researchers from universities and research institutes.
DATE 14.-16. May 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/safetyweek
VENUE VCC Vogel Convention Center, Würzburg
LANGUAGE German with translation into English
PRICE from 890 EUR (single event)
14
Passive Safety
SAFETYUPDATE
The concept is familiar: To keep software up-to-date you regularly make an update. The
same is true for automotive safety engineering: To keep yourself up-to-date you have to
attend the SafetyUpDate on a regular basis. Here you get a comprehensive overview of all
relevant news in automotive safety.
Active + Passive Safety = SafetyUpDate+active
The SafetyUpDate reflects the close integration of active and passive safety and combines
both topics in one event. General topics such as the NCAP consumer tests are dealt with
in plenary presentations, whereas specific topics such as testing are presented in parallel
session on active respectively passive safety.
Conference topics include:

Regulations for active and passive safety
NCAP consumer protection tests
Development tools: Test & simulation
Development strategies & solutions
Biomechanics & accident research
From Experts for Experts

The speakers are leading experts from government agencies, consumer protection organi-
zations, industry and universities. We consider it important that the UpDate presentations
are product-neutral and practical.
Meeting Point: Expert Dialog
In addition to the presentations the SafetyUpDate encourages the communication among
experts. After the presentations the speakers are available for discussions at the Meeting-
Point.
Who should attend?
The SafetyUpDate is aimed at automotive developers, who are interested in active or pas-
sive vehicle safety and want to bring their knowledge up-to-date. In addition to the knowl-
edge update, SafetyUpDate offers excellent opportunities to build and maintain contacts in
the safety community.
DATE 15.-16. May 2019 17.-18. September 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/update www.carhs.de/gsu
VENUE VCC Vogel Convention Center, Würzburg Technische Universität Graz
LANGUAGE German with translation into English German with translation into English
PRICE 1.490,- EUR till 17.04.2019, thereafter 1.750,- EUR 1.490,- EUR till 20.08.2019, thereafter 1.750,- EUR
15
Passive Safety
Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles
Course Description you obtain a valuable and unique reference book for your daily
Ever increasing requirements regarding vehicle safety have led work.
to rapid developments, with major innovations in the field of Who should attend?
Active and Passive Safety. Especially legal requirements in the The seminar addresses everybody who wants to obtain an up-
USA (FMVSS 208, 214), the consumer information tests U.S. to-date overview of this wide area. It is suited for novices in the
NCAP, Euro NCAP and IIHS, as well as pedestrian protection field of Passive Safety of Vehicles such as university graduates,
should be mentioned here. So far an end of this development career changers, project assistants, internal service providers,
is not in sight. but also for highly qualified technicians from the crash-test lab.
The seminar provides an introduction to Passive Safety of
Vehicles. Passive Safety is about initiatives and legal provisions Course Contents
for the limitation of injuries following an accident. All impor- Introduction to vehicle safety
Overview active and passive safety
tant topics are covered in the seminar, from accident statistics
Crash physics
and injury-biomechanics, which are decisive parts of accident
Accident research
research, to the crash-rules and regulations that are derived Classifications
from the latter, and also to consumer information-tests with Statistics
protection criteria and test procedures, and eventually to Biomechanics
crash tests, where the compliance with the compulsory limits Human anatomy
is tested and proven in test procedures. Specific attention is Injury mechanisms and criteria
given to dummies, with which the potential loads on a person Dummy technology
in an accident can be measured. Finally the basic principles of Crash testing
occupant protection are explained, and the components of Crash test systems and components
occupant protection systems, respectively restraint-systems Test methods
in motor vehicles such as airbags, belt-system, steering wheel, Crash rules and regulations
Institutions
seat, interior, stiff passenger compartment and others, as well
Rules and regulations
as their increasingly complex interaction, also in terms of new NCAP tests
systems, will be discussed. Insurance tests (IIHS, RCAR, C-IASI, ...)
Course Objectives Protection principles, occupant protection systems
It is the primary objective of this seminar to communicate an Protection principles of passive safety
Occupant protection systems with sensors technology, ECU,
understanding for the entire field of Passive Safety with all its
airbag, belt system
facets and correlations, but also for its limits and trends. In Passenger compartment, interior with steering wheel and
the seminar you are going to learn about and understand the steering column, seat
most important topics and can then judge their importance OOP, pre crash, post crash, sensor system, vehicle body
for your work. With the extensive, up-to-date documentation Optimization of restraint systems, adaptive systems
Integrated safety
Rainer Hoffmann (carhs.training gmbh) has been involved in automotive safety throughout his ca-
Instructor
reer. After graduating from Wayne State University, he joined Porsche as a research associate in passive safety.
Mr. Hoffmann advanced safety simulation during his subsequent tenure at ESI Group where he introduced new
techniques like airbag simulation, numerical airbag folding and FE dummy modeling. As the head of the simu-
lation department of PARS (now Continental Safety Engineering), Mr. Hoffmann led the R&D efforts for some
of the first series production side airbag developments. In 1994 Mr. Hoffmann founded EASi Engineering
GmbH, which in 2006 was 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

Dates
27.-28.05.2019 17/3362 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 29.04.2019, thereafter 1.590,- EUR
04.-05.06.2019 17/3314 Landsberg am Lech 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 07.05.2019, thereafter 1.590,- EUR
02.-03.09.2019 17/3315 Tappenbeck 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 05.08.2019, thereafter 1.590,- EUR
16
Passive Safety
Safety of Commercial Vehicles
Course Description Who should attend?

Freight transport has increased by more than 50 % within 15 The seminar is focused on specialists and experts from the
years. An end of this trend is not foreseeable. Forecasts pre- passenger car and commercial vehicle sector, engineers and
dict that a further increase of up to 80 % over the next 10 years technicians from calculation and testing, project engineers
will occur. Accompanied by this, vehicle safety in commercial and managers, who want to get an overview of the require-
vehicles has been increasingly coming into focus for several ments and technological solutions for the development of
years and initial successes have already been achieved. For safety-relevant systems for commercial vehicles and the
example, the number of accident victims of heavy commercial resulting conclusions to provide compatibility with other road
vehicle accidents has fallen by around 35 % since the turn of users.
the millennium. Current adjustments in UN Regulations and Course Contents
European legislation on active and passive commercial vehicle Requirements for commercial vehicle development
safety also go hand in hand with development requirements Vehicle classes and types for commercial vehicles
that go far beyond the previous level. An important step Design of heavy commercial vehicles
towards improving active safety is, for example, the adop- Drivers in the development of commercial vehicles
tion of UN regulations UN R130 and UN R131, which have Measures for passive safety
introduced the introduction of Advanced Emergency Braking Overview of regulations and test methods for passive
Systems (AEBS) and Lane Departure Warning (LDW) since commercial vehicle safety
Effects of the regulations on vehicle design
1 November 2015 for all heavy commercial vehicles. Both
Technological feasibility
systems have great potential for avoiding frontal collisions, Protection potential and limits of passive safety measures
accidents with oncoming traffic and rollover accidents or at Measures for active safety
least for reducing the consequences of accidents. Activities Overview of regulations and test methods for active
are currently underway to further tighten the UN R131 and commercial vehicle safety
to introduce a regulation on Blind Spot Information Systems Effects of the regulations on vehicle design
(Turning assistance). However, the design of direct and indi- Technological feasibility
rect fields of vision (e.g. also via cameras), the cab structure, Protection potential and limits of active safety measures
load securing and underride protection systems are still of Development strategies
Energy management
major importance with regard to commercial vehicle safety.
Structural design for passive safety
In this context, among other things, the regulation UN R29 on Compatibility considerations
the crash behavior of the cab structure and the UN R58.03 on Solution approaches for conflicting objectives
the rear underrun protection are of central importance. Simulation of driving sequences in active safety
Course Objectives
In this seminar you will get an overview of the requirements
and regulations of different vehicle classes and types in the
commercial vehicle sector. There is a consideration of today's
legal requirements in the areas of passive and in particular
active vehicle safety. Based on the requirement profile, the
current state-of-the-art as well as current trends are shown.
Prof. Dr. Harald Bachem (Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences) has been in charge of
Instructor
teaching and research in vehicle safety at the Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences since 2011. Prior to join-
ing the university he held various management positions in industry where he was in charge of development
and testing of vehicle safety functions. His last management position was head of cab body development at
MAN Truck & Bus AG. Prof. Bachem is chairman of VDI Brunswick and of the Wolfsburg Institute for Research,
Development and Technology Transfer e. V.

Date
24.10.2019 158/3300 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 26.09.2019, thereafter 940,- EUR
17
Passive Safety
International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations:

Current Status and Future Developments
Course Description understanding current regulatory directions and guidance on
Since the 1960's, the regulation of vehicle safety performance how to follow, and even influence, future requirements.
has had a major impact on vehicle and system design. As auto- Who should attend?
motive manufacturing has evolved into an integrated global This seminar should be of interest to anyone involved with
system, understanding and anticipating legal requirements meeting and anticipating legal requirements for vehicle
has become an immense challenge. Regulators collaborate safety performance across international markets. The course
and diverge in how they address road-safety policy goals. provides a compact review of changes in passive safety
Regulatory changes in a single market can translate into global requirements and current priorities across the international
customer requirements. And these requirements are continu- regulatory community. Moreover, the course provides knowl-
ously evolving. In a compact program, this two-day seminar edge critical to understanding differences in the way regula-
provides a worldwide update on the passive safety landscape, tors establish and enforce these legal requirements.
covering local, national, regional, and international policy and
rulemaking developments. Course Contents
The first segment of the seminar focuses on regulatory insti- History of safety regulation and development of legal
tutions and processes. By understanding the regulatory envi- regimes
Regulatory agencies and rulemaking processes (e.g., UN,
ronment, including the trend towards an integrated global
regulatory system, businesses can better prepare for changes European Commission, U.S. NHTSA, etc.)
Regulatory drivers and priorities
that impact competitiveness and customer satisfaction.
Types and purposes of regulations (UN Regulations, GTR,
The second segment applies this knowledge to current and
future regulatory requirements. The seminar covers crash- FMVSS, EU Regulations and Directives, etc.)
Developments in crashworthiness and occupant
worthiness (frontal, side, rear impact, etc.) as well as pedes-
trian protection and new technologies. protection requirements (frontal impact, side impact,
pole-side impact, full width barrier, offset deformable
Course Objectives barrier, mobile barrier, etc.)
This course informs participants of recent developments Vulnerable road user (VRU) protection
and discussions within the global regulatory community Safety of new propulsion technologies (electric vehicles,
concerning passive safety. The seminar explores differences hydrogen fuel-cells, minimum vehicle noise levels)
in regulatory systems and philosophies, in compliance and Passive safety implications of new safety technologies
enforcement, and in the forces behind the regulation of (e.g., emergency call systems, collision avoidance, VRU
vehicle safety. The course provides participants with a broad detection, automated driving)
John Creamer (GlobalAutoRegs.com) is the founder of GlobalAutoRegs.com and a partner in The

Instructors
Potomac Alliance, a Washington-based international regulatory affairs consultancy. In his client advisory role,
Mr. Creamer is regularly involved with meetings of the UN World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Re-
gulations (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 represen-
tative of the US auto parts industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc.
Dr. Thomas Kinsky (Humanetics Europe GmbH) completed his studies in automotive engineer-
ing at the TU Dresden in 1991 and received his doctorate at the TU Graz in 2015. From 1991 to 1995 he
worked as an officially certified expert at TÜV Rheinland and then took over the management of the vehicle
construction department at a small medium-sized company. From 1999 to 2018 he was employed at Opel
Automobile GmbH in the area of vehicle regulations. Most recently, he was responsible for the development
of legislation on passive safety and represented Opel in discussions with authorities and associations. He has
been Director Business Development at Humanetics since 2018. In this role he is Humanetics' representative
for all topics regarding dummy development as well as for the requirements of passive and active safety.

Dates
18
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
Passive Safety
NEW
Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification:

Principles, Obligations, Enforcement, and Remedies
When looking at regulatory requirements across different mar- The seminar is aimed at employees from the development
kets, it's common to think in terms of technical specifications, departments of automobile manufacturers and suppliers who
checking for differences in test procedures and performance develop vehicles for the U.S. market as well as all employees
criteria. However, failure to consider how the regulations are in the areas of product strategy, sales and warranty and defect
used can be a fatal mistake because safety authorities differ in management for the U.S. market.
how they apply and enforce their requirements.
This seminar looks at the self-certification compliance and Course Contents
enforcement system which focuses heavily on monitoring Background and origins of self-certification
the performance of vehicles in use. Compliance with the legal Players and processes in U.S. rulemaking
standards is only one part of a much larger, more complex Principles of U.S. safety compliance and enforcement
system requiring the assurance of safety throughout the life- Role of product liability laws
time of every vehicle on the road. Manufacturers must have Role of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
systems in place to detect possible safety concerns regardless NHTSA and FMVSS compliance
of whether they relate to compliance with specific standards NHTSA and safety monitoring
and must communicate continuously with safety authorities Non-regulatory methods to ensure safety
or run the risk of damaging recalls that can place the company Safety defects and motor vehicle recalls
in peril. Manufacturer roles and responsibilities
Course Objectives Outlook for U.S. safety policies
This seminar provides a review of self-certification compliance
and enforcement mechanisms toward helping manufacturers
avoid expensive recalls, costly penalties, and lost reputation.
Images: NHTSA

Instructor
tative of the US auto parts industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc. (a leading global automotive safety systems
supplier).

Date
20
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Crash-Regulations: Europe, United Nations, USA and China
Instrument panel Side windows Interior Roof Headrests

UN R21, 32, 33 UN R43 UN R12, 21, 43 FMVSS 216, 216a UN R17, 25
FMVSS 201 GTR 6 GTR 6 GB 26134-2010 GTR 7
FMVSS 205, 226 FMVSS 201, 203, 204, 205 FMVSS 202a
GB 11552-2009 GB 11550-2009, GB 15083-2006
Windscreeen Rollover
UN R43
GTR 6 UN R44
FMVSS 205, 212, 219 FMVSS 201, 216, 216a, 301
Pedestrian protection
EC/78/2009, EC/631/2009
UN R127
GTR 9
GB/T 24550-2009
Rear impact
UN R17, 25, 32, 34, 42, 58
FMVSS 202a, 207, 301, 581
GB 11550-2009, GB 18296-2001
20072-2006
Seat belts
UN R14, 16, 17
FMVSS 208, 209, 210
Frontal impact GB 14166-2013, GB 14167-2013,
15083-2006
UN R12, 14, 16, 33, 34, 94, 137
FMVSS 203, 204, 208, 209, 210, 301
GB 11551-2014 , 11557-2011 , 14166-2013, Bumper Steering Side impact Seats Doors
14167-2013
GB/T 20913-2007
UN R42
FMVSS 581 wheel UN R95, 135
GTR 14
UN R16, 17, 21, 44, 129, 145
FMVSS 201, 202a, 207, 213, 225
UN R11
GTR 1
GB 17354-1998 UN R12 FMVSS 214 GB 11550-2009, 14166-2013, 15083- FMVSS 206
FMVSS 203, 204 GB 20071-2006 2006, 27887-2011 GB 15743-1995, 15086-2013
SafetyWissen by GB 11557-2011
21
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Rules and Regulations on Occupant Protection

Full Width Frontal Offset Frontal
0° / ± 30° ODB 40%
0° 0° / ± 5° 0° / ± 5°  mm
FMVSS 208
FMVSS 208
200
 0o
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  mm
200 0o
UN R1371
UN R94
Europe
56 km/h
Hybrid III Hybrid III

50 % 5%
50 % 50 %
ODB 40%
Art. 18 Attachmt. 232
0°
50 km/h  mm
200
 0o
56 km/h
Japan
Art 18
50 % 50 %
50 % 50 %
ODB 40%
0°
GB/T 20913-2007
GB 11551-2014
50 km/h  mm
200
 0o
56 km/h
China

50 % 50 %
50 % 50 %
ODB 40%
 mm
200
 0o
AIS-098
56 km/h
India

50 % 50 %
0°
South Korea
KMVSS 102
48.3 km/h

50 % 50 %
ODB 40%
0°
48 km/h  mm
ADR 69/00
ADR 73/00
200 0o
Australia

56 km/h

50 % 50 %
50 % 50 %
SafetyWissen by
1
Expected to become mandatory as part of the EU type appoval in 2020.
2
Application of UN R137 from 1 September 2018 for M1 Vehicle < 3.5 t (except imports), from 1 September 2020 incl. imports.
22
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Side Barrier Side Pole Pedestrian Rear Head Impact Rollover
 mm
279

ES-2 re SID IIs / 0-32 km/h
54
Roof crush:
FMVSS 214
km
/h /
27°
FMVSS 214 ES-2 re 75°
FMVSS 202a FMVSS 216a

FMVSS 201
48 km/h FMVSS 301 Ejection Mitigation:
Rigid 254 mm Pole
MDB, 1368 kg FMVSS 226
SID IIs
ES-2 WS 32 km/h
 mm
300 50 % 75°
UN R1351

R (EC) 78/2009
UN R95
50 km/h
90°
R (EC) 631/2009 UN R34 UN R21
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Rigid 254 mm Pole UN R127
Art. 18 Attachmt. 24
ES-2 32 km/h WS
 mm
300 75° 50 %
UN R1352
Article 18 Article 18
50 km/h
90° Attachment 99 Attachment 34
Rigid 254 mm Pole
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
GB 20071-2006
ES-2
 mm
300

Roof crush:
50 km/h GB/T 24550-2009 GB 20072-2006 GB11552-2009
90° GB26134-2010
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
ES-1/
 mm
300
ES-2 
AIS-099
50 km/h
90°
AIS-100 AIS-101
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
ES-1/
 mm
KMVSS 102
Introducing
300
 ES-2
50 km/h
90°
KMVSS 102-2
SAFETYWISSEN.com
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Find requirements, protocols...

AT&T 12:34 PM
SAFETYWISSEN
Find requirements, protocols, products...

90 km/
OMDB, 2486 kg
15°
35 %
h
sen.com!
Start using safetywis
THOR THOR
50 % 50 %
ES-2 32 km/h WS
 mm
300 75° 50 %
ADR 72/00
ADR 85/00
50 km/h
90°
Rigid 254 mm Pole
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
SafetyWissen by

1
Expected to become mandatory as part of the EU type appoval in 2020.
Ground clearance of the lower edge of the deformable barrierb
 2
From 15 June 2018 for M1 Vehicles < 3.5t and from 20 January 2023 for N1
23
Passive Safety
Crash Safety of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

Course Description Course Objectives
During recent years, electric vehicles have achieved an ever- Participants will get an overview about automotive safety of
increasing importance for the automotive market. A com- electric vehicles and will learn the special challenges and solu-
pliance of future restrictions for CO2 emissions will not be tions which come along. Participants will be able to apply test
possible without electrified power trains. All mayor OEM offer methods and safeguarding concepts and to pursue develop-
an increasing variety of hybrid vehicles (HEV), plug-in hybrid ment strategies in a target-oriented way.
vehicles (PHEV) and pure electric vehicles (BEV). Also a first Who should attend?
offer of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) is in the market. The seminar addresses development and research engineers
Worldwide over 2 million electrified vehicles (BEV and PHEV) as well technicians in the fields of testing and engineering with
were on the road in 2017. The breakthrough of the automo- electric vehicles. Due to its current relevance the course suits
tive electrification is evident. young professionals as well as experienced engineers who
want to deepen their knowledge in this field.
Nevertheless, several challenges for vehicle safety arise with
new these technologies. Course Contents
Electric shock risks on high-voltages systems, fire hazards in Overview alternative drive systems: hybrid, electric
case of lithium-ion batteries and risks of rupture in case of gas vehicles, fuel cell, gas vehicles
Challenges for vehicle safety
tanks are the most important issues here. For every mode of
Legal requirements and standards, safety requirements
drive, specific drive components and their particular safety
requirements are described. In addition to common rules and for real-world accidents
Safety of high voltage systems
standards, specific needs based on real-life accidents are being
Battery safety
discussed.
Gas tank safety
Fuel cell safety
For all relevant vehicle components the respective safety
Structural safety
requirements, safety concepts and exemplary safety initiatives
Safety concepts
will be discussed. The state of the art concerning test stan-
Rescuing, recovering and towing of electric vehicles
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.
Rainer Justen (Daimler AG) has 30 years of experience in the field of vehicle safety. After his studies
Instructor
in mechanical engineering with a focus on automotive engineering he started his career in the automotive
development at Daimler AG in 1987. Several career milestones in the fields of vehicle safety, project manage-
ment, 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. In 2015 Rainer Justen received the SAE
Automotive Safety Award for his work on the Safety of Li-Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles from the American
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

Dates
24
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.
Post-crash 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,
each HV source in the vehicle must meet one of the 3 following electrical safety requirements
(1) electrical isolation must be greater than or equal to:
500 ohms/V for an AC HV source,
100 ohms/V for an AC HV source if it is conductively connected to a DC HV source, but only if the AC HV source meets the physical
barrier protection requirements specified in the first 3 sub-items of (3)
100 ohms/V for all DC HV sources,
(2) the voltage level of the HV source (Vb, V1, V2) must be ≤ 30 VAC for AC components or 60 VDC for DC components.
(3) physical barrier protection against electric shock shall be demonstrated by meeting the following conditions:
the HV source meets protection degree IPXXB
resistance between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier (EPB) of the HV source and the electrical chassis is
< 0.1 ohms
resistance between an exposed conductive part of the EPB of the HV source and any other simultaneously reachable exposed
conductive parts of EPBs within 2.5 meters of it must be < 0.2 ohms
voltage between exposed conductive parts of the EPB of the HV source and the electrical chassis is ≤ 30 VAC or 60 VDC
voltage between an exposed conductive part of the EPB of the HV source and any other simultaneously reachable exposed conductive
parts of EPBs within 2.5 meters of it must be ≤ 30 VAC or 60 VDC
Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0085-0001
Test Conditions:
Frontal impact against a rigid barrier at 48 km/h TP-305-01 September 2008
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
25
SAFETY
WISSEN
UNECE: Safety Requirements for Electric Vehicles
Extension of UN R94 / R95:

UN R94, 03 series
UN R95, 03 Series, Supplement 6

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 Electrical Energy 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
UN R100, 02 Series, Supplement 3
26
Passive Safety
Euro NCAP UpDate 2019


MPDB/XT-ADAC
1400 kg
0°, 50 %
50 km/h
50 km/h
In 2020, Euro NCAP will implement the last but perhaps most important point of the Road-
map 2020: The classic ODB crash is replaced by the new MPDB test against a mobile barrier, THOR Hybrid III
which for the first time allows an assessment of compatibility. Shortly before the start of 50 % 50 %
the new test procedure, the Euro NCAP UpDate provides you with the final details of the
test and evaluation. Q6 Q10
The active safety working groups also define further scenarios: In 2020 and 2022 further
AEB scenarios will be added. AES (Autonomous Emergency Steering) functions will also be
tested.
Euro NCAP is currently working intensively on concretizing and implementing Roadmap
2025. All future changes will be presented and explained in this seminar.
By participating in this event, you will prepare yourself efficiently for the upcoming changes
and gain a deep insight into the current Euro NCAP discussions and decisions:
Find out the current state of discussion on the upcoming protocols.
Take advantage of the discussion with the experts active in the Euro NCAP working
groups.
Contents
Roadmap 2020
New frontal crash MPDB
Side crash: Assessment of far side occupant protection
Roadmap 2025
Driver Monitoring
Reverse, Crossing, Junction and Head-on AEB Scenarios
Automatic Emergency Steering
New Pedestrian Legform Impactor
Rescue, Extrication and Safety
Child Presence Detection
#TestingAutomation
Assessment of automated driving functions
Who should attend?
The Euro NCAP UpDate is suited for everybody who wants to be prepared for Euro NCAP's
upcoming requirements.
Image: Thatcham Research
DATE 11.-12. Dezember 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/euroncap
VENUE Frankfurt am Main
LANGUAGE
PRICE 1.490,- EUR till 12.11.2019, thereafter 1.750,- EUR
27
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCAP-Tests in Europe, America and Australia

Items written in italics are not part of the overall rating 2019 2020 date of implementation unknown
Euro NCAP / ANCAP U.S. NCAP IIHS Latin NCAP
0o
50 km/h
0o
56 km/h
Get familiar with all NCAP tests in just 2 days with
Full Width
our seminar:
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs:
Tests, Assessment Methods, Ratings
5% 5% THOR 5%
50 %
5% 5%
learn more on  page 30
MPDB/XT-ADAC
90 km
ODB 40% 1400 kg OMDB, 2486 kg ODB 40% Flat 150 ODB 40%
15°
0°, 50 % 35 % SOB 25 % R=150 mm
50 km/h /h
 mm 0  mm
ODB / SOB
 mm
200  mm
150 200 0o mm 0o 200 0o
 0o  0o  
64 km/h 50 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h
THOR Hybrid III THOR THOR Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
Hybrid III Hybrid III 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
Q6 Q10 Q6 Q10 Q3 Q1,5
WS  mm
279
 mm
300 
 50 % ES-2 re SID IIs ES-2
62  mm  mm
km WS 50 % 379
 300

/h /
27°
MDB
50/60 km/h 90°

@ R +250 mm 50 km/h 50 km/h
55 km/h 90° 90°
AE-MDB v3.9, 1300 /1400 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° WS 50 % 75°
Pole
Rigid 254 mm Pole Rigid 254 mm Pole Rigid 254 mm Pole
(prerequisite for 5)

Rollover
SSF Roof Crush
Flex PLI Flex PLI Award

Pedestrian
Upper Legfom Upper Legfom Flex PLI

Headforms Headforms AEB Pedestrian Upper Legform
AEB/AES VRU Pedestrian & Cyclist AEB Pedestrian Headforms
AEB Reverse Pedestrian Rear Automatic Braking AEB VRU
Whiplash Child Safety
Frontal ODB MPDB Frontal ODB

LATCH (Lower Anchors and
Side MDB Side MDB
Tethers for Children)
CRS - Installation CRS - Installation
Booster Seats
Vehicle based assessment Vehicle based assessment
static front / rear static

static
dynamic (3 pulses) dynamic (1 pulse)
dynamic (1 pulse)
AEB City SafetyWissen by
AEB City
SBR, SAS, AEB, LSS, AEB Junction AEB, FCW SBR, ABS, ESC, SAS, BSD,
Other
FCW, LDW, AEB, DBS,

& Crossing, Occupant Status, AES, Headlights LSS, AEB, Rescue sheet,
BSD, Headlights
Rescue, AD Low Speed Bumper Rear impact: UN R32
 page 32  page 48  page 52  page 57

28
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCAP-Tests in Asia
Items written in italics are not part of the overall rating 2019 2020
JNCAP C-NCAP C-IASI KNCAP ASEAN NCAP
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
5% 50 % 50 % 50 % 5% 5%
Hybrid III Q3 Hybrid III
5% 5%
ODB 40% ODB 40% Flat 150 ODB 40%

SOB 25 % ODB 40%
R=150 mm
 mm  mm 0
mm
 mm  mm
ODB / SOB
200 0o 200 0o 0o 200 0o 200 0o

   
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
50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
Hybrid III Hybrid III Q6 Q10 Q1,5 Q3
5% 5%
WS WS SID IIs WS 50 % ES-2

 mm  mm  mm  mm
300  mm
300
50 % 300
 350
 50 % 379
  
MDB
55 km/h 90° 50 km/h 90° 50 km/h 55/60 km/h 90° 50 km/h

@ R +250 mm @ R +250 mm 90° @ R +250 mm 90°
AE-MDB, 1300 kg AE-MDB, 1400 kg MDB IIHS, 1500 kg MDB, 950 kg

AE-MDB, 1300/1400 kg
SID IIs Q10 Q1,5
SID IIs Q3
Q6
WS 50 % 32 km/h
75°
Pole
Rigid 254 mm Pole

Rollover
Curtain Airbag Roof Crush SSF
Flex PLI
Pedestrian
Flex PLI Flex PLI Flex PLI Upper Legform

Headforms Headforms Upper Legfom (on bumper only)
AEB Pedestrian AEB Pedestrian Headforms Headforms
AEB Pedestrian / Cyclist
Whiplash Child Safety
Frontal ODB
Q3 in Full Width
Frontal ODB Side MDB
CRS Rating Frontal
Side MDB CRS - Installation
CRS Rating
Vehicle based assmt.
static
dynamic dynamic static
dynamic (1 pulse)
(1 pulse) (1 pulse) dynamic (1 pulse)
rear seats static
SBR, AEB, LSS, Rear Brakes, SBR, FCW,

ESC
Other
View, Headlights, AEB, FCW LDW, SLD, AEB, BSD, Safety Assist
SBR
Usability rear belts, Low Speed Bumper ASCC, LKA, RCTA, ISA, Technologies
Pedal misapplication AEB, FCW
Advanced Airbag
29
Passive Safety
NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs:

Course Description In both focusses the current overall rating methods are
In 1978 the first New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was described and explained. In addition to that an outlook is
established by NHTSA in the United States. The goal was given on the roadmaps and future developments of the NCAP
to motivate competing car manufacturers to enhance the programs.
safety level of their cars beyond the minimum safety stan- Who should attend?
dards defined by regulations. The same approach has been The seminar addresses design, simulation, testing and project
followed globally by other organizations (e.g. by Euro NCAP, engineers as well as managers who want to get a current over-
IIHS, ANCAP, JNCAP, KNCAP, C-NCAP, ...) Euro NCAP which view on the global range of NCAP programs with an outlook
has been established in 1997 has taken a leading role and on upcoming topics and trends from an insider. Depending on
has significantly influenced other countries and regions. The the focus of their work attendees should chose the appropri-
NCAP programs in many cases are highly dynamic, especially ate focus of the seminar.
in comparison with rulemaking activities. In order to reach Course Contents
the goal to continuously improve the safety level of cars, the New Car Assessment Programs - overview
requirements need to be permanently adapted to the state U.S. NCAP
of technology. Developers in the automotive industry need to IIHS
know about upcoming changes at an early stage in order to be Euro NCAP
able to design or equip their vehicles accordingly. ANCAP
In this seminar attendees get an overview of the organizations JNCAP
in charge of the NCAP programs and become familiar with the KNCAP
various test and assessment methods. C-NCAP
The seminar is conducted several times a year with C-IASI
changing focuses: Latin NCAP
Focus passive safety: Here the focus is on test and ASEAN NCAP
assessment methods for passive safety. Frontal and Bharat NCAP
side impact, whiplash, child protection and pedestrian Global NCAP
protection are discussed in detail. Tests for active safety
are only mentioned in as far as they are relevant for the
overall rating.
Focus active safety: Here the focus is on active safety
systems such as AEB or lane assistance. The tests and
assessments for these systems are explained in detail.
Tests for passive safety are only mentioned in as far as
they are relevant for the overall rating.
Director and Professor Andre Seeck (Federal Highway Research Institute) is head of the
Instructor
division "Vehicle Technology" with the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt). In this position he
is responsible for the preparation of European Safety Regulations. Furthermore he represents the German
Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure in the Board of Directors of Euro NCAP and he is the
chairman of the strategy group on automated driving and of the rating system. These positions enable him to
gain deep insight into current and future developments in vehicle safety. In 2017 NHTSA awarded him the U.
S. Government Special Award of Appreciation.

Dates
30
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 active and • Subsystem safety testing

passive safety systems • Predictive, active and passive pedestrian
• Algorithm development for protection
cooperative safety systems • Integration of new NCAP requirements
• Crash and structure computations, • Sensor selection for active and passive systems
passenger simulation • Crash and catapult testing, pre-crash testing
We create efficient solutions: www.iav.com

SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP Protection Criteria in Frontal Impact

Dummy Region Criteria 4 Points 0 Points Capping Modifiers
Frontal Impact against ODB with 40 % Overlap @ 64 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80
Unstable airbag/steering wheel
My,extension (Nm) < 42 > 57 > 57
contact (-1 pt)
< 2.7 @ 0 ms > 3.3 @ 0 ms > 3.3 @ 0 ms Hazardous airbag deployment
Head1 Fz,tension (kN) < 2.3 @ 35 ms > 2.9 @ 35 ms > 2.9 @ 35 ms (-1 pt)
Neck < 1.1 @ 60 ms > 1.1 @ 60 ms > 1.1 @ 60 ms Incorrect airbag deployment
(-1 pt)
< 1.9 @ 0 ms > 3.1 @ 0 ms > 3.1 @ 0 ms
Steering column displacement
< 1.2 @ 25-35 > 1.5 @ 25-35 > 1.5 @ 25-35 (-1 pt)
Fx,shear (kN)
ms ms ms
< 1.1 @ 45 ms > 1.1 @ 45 ms > 1.1 @ 45 ms
A-pillar displacement (-2 pt)
Hybrid III Deflection (mm) < 22 > 42 > 42 Compartment deformed (-1 pt)
50 % Steering wheel contact (-1 pt)
Chest
Incorrect airbag deployment
VC (m/s) < 0.5 > 1.0 > 1.0 (-1 pt)
Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 pt)
> 9.07 -
Axial Force (kN) < 3.8 Variable contact (-1 pt)
> 7.56 @ 10
Femur - Concentrated loading (-1 pt)
ms
Knee Incorrect airbag deployment
Displacement (-1 pt)
<6 >15 -
(mm)
Tibia Index < 0.4 > 1.3 - Z–displacement of worst pedal
Tibia Axial Force (kN) <2 >8 - (-1 pt)
Foot x–Displacement Footwell rupture (-1 pt)
< 100 > 200 -
pedal (mm) Pedal blocking (-1 pt)
Frontal-Impact against Rigid Wall with 100 % overlap @ 50 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700 Unstable airbag/steering wheel
Head1 contact (-1 pt)
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80 Hazardous airbag deployment
(-1 pt)
My,extension (Nm) < 36 > 49 > 574 Incorrect airbag deployment (-1 pt)
Steering column displacement
Hybrid III Neck2 Fz,tension (kN) < 1.7 > 2.62 > 2.94 (-1 pt)
5% Rear seat: head forward excursi-
Fx,shear (kN) < 1.2 > 1.95 > 2.74 on (-4 pt)
Deflection (mm) < 18 > 42 > 42 Steering wheel contact (-1 pt)
Chest Incorrect airbag deployment (-1 pt)
VC (m/s) < 0.5 > 1.0 > 1.0 Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 pt)
Femur Axial Force (kN) < 2.6 > 6.2 - Submarining3 (-4 pt)
1
If there is no hard contact (i.e. ares, peak < 80 g and no other evidence of hard contact) a score of 4 points is awarded. For the rear
passenger in the rigid wall impact the score is based on a3ms only, if there is no hard contact.
2
For the rear passenger, the neck score is the sum of all three criteria, with the following maximum score per criterion:
Shear 1 point, Tension 1 point, Extension 2 points
3
When any of the two iliac forces drops within 1 ms and when the submarining is confirmed on the high speed film.
4
Driver only
Assessment Protocol Version 8.0.3
32
Testing is our passion.
ADAC Technik Zentrum Landsberg.
• Central test lab for Europe’s automobile clubs
• Full-scale crash tests, sled tests of child restraint systems, comprehensive
pedestrian protection tests, components tests of vehicle equipment
• 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. Technik Zentrum

Otto-Lilienthal-Straße 2 | 86899 Landsberg am Lech
T: +49 (0) 8191 93 86 41 | testing@adac.de | adac.de/technikzentrum
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP Protection Criteria in Side Impact


Barrier Side Impact (AE-MDB) @ 50 km/h &
Pole Side Impact @ 32 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700
incorrect airbag deployment
Head1
(-1 point)
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80 door opening (- 1 point/door)
lateral shoulder force > 3.0 kN
World > 50 (MDB)
Chest Deflection (mm) < 28 > 50 (deduction of all chest points)
SID 50 % > 55 (Pole)
VC > 1.0 m/s (deduction of all
Abdo- chest/abdomen points)
Deflection (mm) < 47 > 65 > 65
men head protection device assess-
Pubic Symphysis ment (-4 points)
Pelvis < 1.7 > 2.8 > 2.8
Peak Force (kN)
1
Pole: no sliding scale, only capping if HIC15 > 700 or ares, peak > 80 g or direct head contact with the pole.
Modifier Side Head Protection Device

Inside the ‚Head Protection Device Assessment Zone‘ (green) the head protection system’s coverage is assessed. If the coverage
is insufficient a 4 point modifier is applied the overall pole impact score. Areas outside the Daylight Opening (FMVSS 201) are
excluded from assessment. Seams are not penalized if the un-inflated area is no wider than 15 mm. Any other un-inflated areas
that are no larger than 50 mm in diameter (or equivalent area) are not penalized.
②
82 mm
① r=82 mm
CoG 95 %
693 mm
594 mm
82 mm 82 mm
H-Point
50 %
52 mm
CoG 5 %
The head protection device (HPD) evaluation zone (green) is defined as a rounded rectangle 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 below the bottom edge. The x-position of the CoG is defined relative to the H-Point of the 50 % male:
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 - remaining seat travel
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm + remaining seat travel
34
Crash Test Barriers
Based on Aluminum Honeycomb technology, the M-PDB barrier (mobile
progressive deformable barrier - Euro NCAP V1.1 TB022) is used by car
manufacturers and test laboratories worldwide for the assessment of
motor vehicle passenger protection in offset frontal impact test
procedure according to 2020 European New Car Assessment
Programme (Euro NCAP).
The frontal offset impact replicates a collision with another

vehicle. In this test, 50% of the test vehicle, on the driver's side,
initially makes contact with a crushable aluminum honeycomb
barrier at the impact speed of 50 kph for both: test vehicle & M-PDB
barrier mounted on trolley.
Delivering Performance for

Passive Safety Regulations and
Consumer Tests Worldwide
Pricing Lead Time Quality
CT-Sim GmbH, F: +49 (0) 6221 7271 511 Argosy International sales@argosyinternational.com
Im Weiher 12, E: info@ct-sim.com 225 West 34th Street, T: +1 (212) 268 0003
69121 Heidelberg, Germany www.ct-sim.com Suite 1106 F: +1 (212) 268 4228
T: +49 (0) 6221 7271 510 New York, NY 10122 www.argosyinternational.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW
Euro NCAP / ANCAP: MPDB Frontal Impact (2020)
Assessment Procedure:
MPDB/XT-ADAC
1. Calculation of points for each measured criterion
( p. 38) ①: 1400 kg
Where a value falls between the higher ② and lower
③ performance limit, the score is calculated by linear
0°, 50 %
interpolation. The maximum score is 4 points. Exceeding 50 km/h
the capping limit ④ leads to loss of all points related to
that tests.
2. Calculation of points for each body region ⑤:  mm
150
The lowest scoring criterion is used to determine the 
performance of each region. 50 km/h
There are four body regions:
Head and neck
Chest and abdomen
Pelvis, femur and knee
Lower leg and foot
THOR Hybrid III
The Modifiers ⑥ are deducted from the body region
3.
score. 50 % 50 %
4. Calculation of point for the test:
For each body region the lowest score of driver ⑦
or passenger ⑧ is used to determine the score. The
Q6 Q10
maximum score for the test is 16 points.
5. When a door opens in the test, a minus one-point
modifier for each opening door will be applied to the
score for that test.
6. The Compatibility assessment ( page 40) comprises:
Homgenity of barrier deformation ⑨
Barrier bottoming out ⑩
Occupant Load Criterion OLC ⑪ Protocols
It is applied as a modifier ⑫ to the total test score. The Testing MPDB Testing Protocol Version 1.0
dedcution is limited to 8 points. In 2020 and 2021 the
deduction is halved and limited to 4 points. Assessment Assessment Protocol AOP Version 9.0
7. For the overall rating ( page 46) the score of the Dummy Technical Bulletin 026 Version 1.0
MPDB test is scaled by a factor of 0.5, i.e. a maximum of 8 Barrier Technical Bulletin 022 Version 1.1
points is available.
Compatibility Technical Bulletin 027 Version 1.0
36
!
PUTTING SAFETY TO THE
TEST
ATDS
TEST EQUIPMENT
SENSORS
FEA MODELS
DAS INTEGRATION
CALIBRATION
TRAINING
LAB INSTALLATION
ELITE DELIVERY
www.humaneticsatd.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW

⑤ ① ② ③ ④ ⑥
Frontal Impact against MPDB with 50 % Overlap @ 50/50 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700 Unstable airbag/steering wheel
Head1 a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80 contact (-1 pt)
SUFEHM Monitoring Hazardous airbag deployment
(-1 pt)
My,extension (Nm) < 42 > 57 > 57 Incorrect airbag deployment
Neck Fz,tension (kN) < 2.7 > 3.3 > 3.3 (-1 pt)
Fx,shear (kN) < 1.9 > 3.1 > 3.1 Steering column displ. (-1 pt)
Deflection A-pillar displacement (-2 pt)
Chest < 35 > 60 > 60 Compartment deformed (-1 pt)
Rmax (mm)
Driver: Steering wheel contact (-1 pt)
THOR Abdo- Incorrect airbag deployment (-1 pt)
Deflection (mm) - > 88 -
50 % men Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 pt)
SBL-B AcetabulumCom-
⑦ Pelvis < 3.28 > 4.1 - Incorrect airbag deployment
pression (kN)
(-1 pt)
> 9.07
Femur Axial Force (kN) < 3.8 - Submarining2 (-4 pt)
> 7.56 @ 10 ms
Variable contact (-1 pt)
Displacement Concentrated loading (-1 pt)
Knee <6 > 15 -
(mm)
Tibia Index < 0.4 > 1.3 - Z–displacement of worst pedal
Tibia
Axial Force (kN) <2 >8 - (-1 pt)
x–Displacement Footwell rupture (-1 pt)
Foot < 100 > 200 - Pedal blocking (-1 pt)
pedal (mm)
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700
Head1 Unstable airbag/steering wheel
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80
contact (-1 pt)
My,extension (Nm) < 42 > 57 > 57
Hazardous airbag deployment
< 2.7 @ 0 ms > 3.3 @ 0 ms > 3.3 @ 0 ms (-1 pt)
Fz,tension (kN) < 2.3 @ 35 ms > 2.9 @ 35 ms > 2.9 @ 35 ms Incorrect airbag deployment
Neck < 1.1 @ 60 ms > 1.1 @ 60 ms > 1.1 @ 60 ms (-1 pt)
< 1.9 @ 0 ms > 3.1 @ 0 ms > 3.1 @ 0 ms Steering column displacement
Pas- Fx,shear (kN) < 1.2 @ 25-35 ms > 1.5 @ 25-35 ms > 1.5 @ 25-35 ms (-1 pt)
senger: < 1.1 @ 45 ms > 1.1 @ 45 ms > 1.1 @ 45 ms
Hybrid Deflection (mm) < 22 > 42 > 42 Incorrect airbag deploymt. (-1 pt)
Chest
III 50 % VC (m/s) < 0.5 > 1.0 > 1.0 Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 pt)
⑧ > 9.07
Femur Axial Force(kN) < 3.8 - Variable contact (-1 pt)
> 7.56 @ 10 ms
Concentrated loading (-1 pt)
Displacement Incorrect airbag deployment (-1 pt)
Knee <6 > 15 -
(mm)
Tibia Index < 0.4 > 1.3 -
Tibia
Axial Force(kN) <2 >8 -
x–Displacement
Foot < 100 > 200 -
pedal (mm)
1
If there is no hard contact (i.e. ares, peak < 80 g and no other evidence of hard contact) a score of 4 points is awarded.
2
When any of the two iliac forces drops within 1 ms and when the submarining is confirmed on the high speed film.
38
MPDB TESTING
N O W A V A I L A B L E A T
T A S S I N T E R N A T I O N A L
M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N : I N F O @ TA S S I N T E R N AT I O N A L . C O M
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW

Compatibility Assessment
Homogenity assessement based on the standard deviation of the post-test barrier deformation within the rating area of the
PDB front face ⑨
Scanning the deformed PDB front and generating a
mesh with a maximum element size of 10 mm from the
resulting point cloud.
Creation of a point grid centered on the undeformed PDB
front with uniform spacings of 20 mm (1400 grid points). 45 % of vehicle width
Projection of the grid points on the mesh and calculation
of the intrusion at each of the points in the rating area.
Calculation of the standard deviation s [mm] of the 200 mm
Rating Area
intrusion (i.e. the deviation from the mean intrusion
within which 68.2 % of the intrusion values fall). 650 mm
Calculation of the homogenity factor h [%]:
for s < 50 mm: h = 0
for 50 mm ≤ s ≤ 150 mm: h = (s - 50 mm) / 100 mm 250 mm
for s > 150 mm: h = 100 %
Bottoming out of the PDB ⑩

A 2 point modifier MBO is applied if a barrier face penetration depth of 630 mm in an area that is larger than 40 mm x 40 mm
occurs.
Calculation of the Occupant Load Criterion OLC ⑪

Determine velocity course of the MPDB by integrating the measured X-acceleration (ax) on the centre of gravity of the
MPDB (filtered with CFC 180):
‫ݒ‬௩ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ න ܽ௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ݀‫ ݐ‬൅ ‫ݒ‬଴
with v0 = initial velocity of the MPDB.

OLC, t1 and t2 can be calculated with solving the following equation system:
௧ୀ௧భ ௧ୀ௧భ
න ‫ݒ‬଴ ݀‫ ݐ‬െ න ‫ݒ‬௩ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ݀‫ ݐ‬ൌ ͲǤͲ͸ͷ
௧ୀ଴ ௧ୀ଴
௧ୀ௧మ ௧ୀ௧మ
න ൫‫ݒ‬଴ െ ܱ‫ ܥܮ‬ή ሺ‫ ݐ‬െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሻ൯ ݀‫ ݐ‬െ න ‫ݒ‬௩ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ݀‫ ݐ‬ൌ ͲǤʹ͵ͷ
௧ୀ௧భ ௧ୀ௧భ
‫ݒ‬଴ െ ܱ‫ ܥܮ‬ή ሺ‫ݐ‬ଶ െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሻ ൌ ‫ݒ‬௩ ሺ‫ݐ‬ଶ ሻ
with t1 = end of the free-flight-phase of a virtual dummy on the barrier along a displacement of 65 mm
t2 = end of the restraining-phase of a virtual dummy on the barrier along a displacement of 235 mm after the
free-flight-phase (i. e. a total displacement of 300 mm)
For compatibility assessment OLC shall be converted from SI units into g.
40
SAFETY
WISSEN
Displacement NEW
sO Displacement virtual occupant

sV Displacement MPDB
Δs = sO - sV
300 mm
65 mm
t1 t2 time
Velocity
vO Velocity virtual occupant

vV Velocity MPDB
aconst = OLC [g]
time
Calculation of the Compatibility Modifier ⑫

for OLC < 25 g:
MCompat = -2·h - MBO
for 25 g ≤ OLC ≤ 40 g:
MCompat = -2·OLC/15 + 10/3 - h ·((4·OLC/10 - 8) - (2·OLC/15 - 10/3)) - MBO
MCompat is limited to -8 points
for OLC > 40 g:
MCompat = -2 - 6·h - MBO
MCompat is limited to -8 points
in 2020 and 2021 MCompat is multiplied with 0.5 (i. e. MCompat is limited to -4 points)
MCompat is deducted from the total score (max. 16 points) of the MPDB frontal crash
41
Passive Safety
NEW
Workshop Euro NCAP MPDB Frontal Crash n

xis Sessio
with Pra
In 2020 Euro NCAP will introduce the MPDB (Moving Progres- The workshop is aimed at all those who design vehicles for this
sive Deformable Barrier) frontal crash. With this new crash load case or test vehicles to that effect.
test, Euro NCAP wants to assess not only the self-protection Course Contents
of vehicles, but also partner protection, i.e. compatibility. Overview of the MPDB Test
The new test procedure poses a number of challenges: The Roadmap / schedule
test with 2 moving objects (vehicle + barrier car) is much more Development of the test and assessment procedure
demanding than a test against the crash block. In addition Current status of the working group
there is the use of the new THOR dummy. Due to the new Integration into the overall rating (scores, modifiers)
compatibility evaluation, the test evaluation also goes beyond Trolley and barrier
the previous scope. For example, the energy input into the Specifications
Praxis: Test preparation
barrier and the deformation pattern must be evaluated.
THOR dummy
Dummy specifications (build level)
The MPDB Workshop shows the new test procedure from Experiences from the round robin test
test preparation (trolley, barrier and dummy seating). The Praxis: Seating procedure
workshop will be held at the ADAC Technical Centre in Injury criteria, limit values, modifiers
Landsberg, where the new test procedure was developed to Explanation of head injury assessment with SUFEHM
a large extent, and will ensure the greatest possible practical Compatibility rating
relevance. Compatibility modifier components
Determining the OLC
Course Objectives Praxis: Evaluation of barrier deformation (barrier scan)
Course participants will become familiar with the practical
preparation, execution and evaluation of the MPDB crash.
ADAC experts will answer questions about the new Euro NCAP
test procedure.
Bild: ADAC
Volker Sandner (ADAC Technik Zentrum Landsberg) has been head of the Vehicle Safety
Instructor
Department of ADAC, which includes active safety, passive safety and accident research, since 2010. Before
that, from 1999-2007 he was in charge of the construction of ADAC’s crash test lab as a team manager. From
2007-2010 he lead the Passive Safety Department of ADAC. At Euro NCAP he is a member of the Board of
Directors and chairman of the frontal impact working group. In addition to that he is member of the side
impact working group, the techincal working group and the ratings group of Euro NCAP. He is also lecturer for
vehicle safety at the University of Applied Sciences in Munich.

Date
13.-14.03.2019 182/3422 Landsberg am Lech 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 13.02.2019, thereafter 1.590,- EUR
42
Research Areas
Passive Safety
Integrated Safety
Test Systems
Safe Electromobility
info@carissma.eu | Tel +49 841 9348-6120 | www.carissma.eu

SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP Far Side Occupant Protection in Side Impacts
Test & Assessment Protocol Version 1.1

Test Procedure
2 sled tests on acceleration based sled rig

WS 75°
Pulses: 50 %
Test 1: AX, SLED = AY, VEHICLE (AE-MDB @ 60 km/h) x 1.035
Test 2: AX, SLED = AY, VEHICLE (Pole @ 32 km/h) x 1.035
BIW mounted with centerline angled 75° towards direction of travel
Spacers (EPP60) fitted in gaps between the struck side and the passenger seat and A X, SLED
the passenger seat and center console
WorldSID 50 % on driver seat
Assessment
Prerequisites:
Structural stability of doors, hinges, roof rail and sill in MDB and pole crash. No opening of doors on struck side in MDB and pole crash.
Total score from MDB and pole crash ≥ 10 points out of 12 (2020)
No failure of restraint systems for side impact protection in MDB and pole crash.

Far Side Occupant Protection Sled Test
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700 Pelvis and Lumbar Spine:
PSPF > 2.8 kN or
Lumbar Fy > 2.0 kN or
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80 Lumbar Fz > 2.84 kN or
Head Lumbar Mx > 100 Nm
Excursion > yellow line > red line (-4 points)
Head Excursion:
SUFEHM Monitoring
> green line
World (- 50 % of all points)
Tension Fz (kN) < 3.74 > 3.74 - max. Seat Seat
SID 50 % Intrusion Center Center
Lateral flexion MDB/Pole - 250 mm
Neck < 50 Nm > 50 Nm -
Mx (Nm)
Extension
< 50 Nm > 50 Nm -
negative My (Nm)
Chest Deflection (mm) < 28 > 50 > 50

Abdo-
men Deflection (mm) < 47 > 65 > 65
Excursion Lines:
Red Line: Maximum post test intrusion of the interior door panel from AE-MDB (60 km/h) and 75° pole impacts
respectively.
Yellow Line: Seat centerline of the passenger seat
Green Line: 250 mm inboard of the passenger seat centerline
The total score (max. 12 from test 1 + 12 from test 2 = 24 points) will be scaled down to a maximum of 4 points and is part of
the AOP score.
In 2019 far side occupant protection will be monitored based on data supplied by the manufacturer. If a manufacturer does not
provide far side data, the pole side impact score will be 0 points. From 2020 the far side assessment will become an integral part
of the rating.
44
Passive Safety
Knee Mapping Workshop: The Euro NCAP Test Procedure

Euro NCAP plays a leading role among the tests assessing The seminar addresses specialists from the field of crash,
the passive safety of vehicles in Europe. Its influence now engineers and technicians from numerical simulation and
also extends to other countries. Recently the knee impact testing, project engineers and managers who want to have a
test procedure within the Euro NCAP frontal impact test was first-hand, up-to-date information and hints on how to avoid
modified, the goal being a less subjective assessment. A hard knee modifiers in Euro NCAP.
contact or a sharp edge in the knee area implies the danger Course Contents
for a car manufacturer to be punished with a so-called knee Overview of Euro NCAP crash tests
modifier (reduction in points). The knee modifier is the most Euro NCAP requirements in the knee area
frequent penalty within the Euro NCAP and impairs some Knee modifier, knee mapping test procedure
vehicles' otherwise 5-star ratings. The allocation of a knee Sled test procedure for knee impact
modifier often is a controversial decision. If a knee modifier Discussion of the assessment procedure and possibilities
has been allocated by the Euro NCAP inspector the car manu- of interpretation
facturer has the possibility of proving - by means of a complex Workshop with analysis of test vehicles, which can be
sled test procedure - that the modifier was not justified. provided by participants
After a short introduction the main focus of the workshop is Future development of the test procedure
on the current Euro NCAP assessment procedure for frontal
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.
In the afternoon a demo vehicle, which can be provided by
participants, will be analyzed. Ralf Ambos, a trained Euro NCAP
inspector, can give valuable hints here.
A perspective regarding the future development of the test
procedure will be given at the end of the seminar.
The workshop was very informative and rele-
vant. The final analysis of a test vehicle was
very helpful.“
Ray Longbottom,
SAIC Motor UK Technical Centre Ltd., UK
Ralf Ambos (DEKRA Automobil GmbH) studied automotive technology at the University for
Instructor
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
45
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP Rating: 2019 - 2023 Euro NCAP Rating Review 2018 V 1.1
Adult Occupant Protection Child Occupant Protection VRU Protection Safety Assist
2020 2022 2020 2022 2020 2022 2020 2022
2019 2019 2019 2019
2021 2023 2021 2023 2021 2023 2021 2023
max. points max. points max. points max. points
Offset/MPDB Dyn. Tests Seat Belt
Frontal Impact Head Impact
8 8 8 Frontal 16 16 16 24 24 18 Reminder 3 2
 page 32  page 96
 page 108  page 126
/ 36
Full-width Speed Assis-
Dyn. Tests Side Leg Impact
Frontal Impact 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 tance Systems 3 3 3
18
Side impact CRS Upper Leg Lane Support
(MDB) 8 6 6 Installation 12 12 12 Impact 6 6 Systems 4 4 3
Side Impact Vehicle based AEB / AES CCR
AEB VRU-Pe
(Pole) 8 6 6 assessment 13 13 13 6 7 7 (Inter-Urban) 3 4 3
 page 142
 page 34  page 108  page 146
Side Impact
(Far Side Oc- AEB VRU-Cy AEB Junction
4 4 6 9 9 2 3
cupants MDB &  page 144 Assist C2C
Pole) p. 44
Whiplash Front
Seats 1,5 3 3 AEB Reverse Pe 2 2 AEB Head-on 3
 page 105
Whiplash Rear
AEB Junction Occupant
Seats 0,5 1 1 6 1 3
Assist PTW Status
 page 104
AEB City
4 LSS PTW 3
 page 141
Rescue 2 4
max. points (1) 38 38 40 max. points (1) 49 49 49 max. points (1) 48 54 63 max. points (1) 13 16 18
normalised actual points normalised actual points normalised actual points normalised actual points
score (2) / (1) score (2) / (1) score (2) / (1) score (2) / (1)
weighting (3) 40 % weighting (3) 20 % weighting (3) 20 % weighting (3) 20 %
weighted score (4) (2) x (3) weighted score (4) (2) x (3) weighted score (4) (2) x (3) weighted score (4) (2) x (3)
Balancing: minimum normalised score (2) by box for the respective star rating:
 80 % 80 % 80 % 80 % 80 % 80 % 60 % 60 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 %
+ + +
 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 50 % 50 % 60 % 60 % 60 % 60 %
 60 % 60 % 60 % 60 % 60 % 60 % 40 % 40 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 30 % 30 % 40 % 40 % 40 % 40 %
 40 % 40 % 40 % 40 % 40 % 40 % 20 % 20 % 30 % 30 % 30 % 30 %
Overall score (5) = ∑(4)
The overall score is used only for ranking the results within vehicle categories.
Bold figures indicate changes with respect to the previous year
VSSTR Protocol Version 7.2 Euro NCAP Logo Guidelines

Dual Rating
Euro NCAP issues a base rating for standard equipment only. Fitment rates for safety assist technologies are no longer
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 manufacturer. The safety package must
be available, at least as an option, on all variants in the model range.
46
ENGINEERING AND R&D
FOR THE MOST PRECIOUS
THINGS IN LIFE
We take care of full vehicle safety
Altran is the world leader in Engineering and R&D services.

Our World Class Center Passive Safety is your trusted partner
for engineering, simulation and testing services. Combined
with our product line Microsys safety developments tools,
we can help you to achieve you development goals faster.
www.altran.com/passivesafety
SAFETY
WISSEN
U.S. NCAP: Tests and Criteria Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555
Laboratory Test Procedure Oct 2015
0o  mm
279

56 km/h 62 ES-2 re SID IIS 32 km/h
km 75°
/h /
27°

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 against Rigid
Injury Risk Wall
Curves forfor with
Injury Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP
Injury Risk Curves Frontal
Frontal 100 % overlapInjury
NCAP
NCAP
Injury Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP
@ 56 km/h
Criteria
(HIII 5F dummy):
Risk Curve
(HIII 5F dummy):
(HIII 50M dummy): Injury Criteria (HIII 5F dummy):
Risk Curve
(HIII 50M dummy):
Dummy HybridRisk
III Curve
50 % (Driver) Hybrid IIIRisk
5Risk
%Curve
(Passenger)
(HIII 50M dummy):
(HIII 50M dummy): Injury Criteria Curve
Injury Criteria Injury Criteria
Injury
Injury Criteria
Criteria Risk
Risk Curve
Curve
⎛ ln( HIC15) − 7.45231 ⎞
Injury Criteria Risk Curve
⎛ ln( HIC 15) − 7.45231 ⎞
Head(HIC Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜ ⎛ ln( ⎛ ln( HIC 15)− −7.45231⎟ ⎞ Head
7.45231 Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ⎛⎜ ln( HIC15) − 7.45231 ⎞⎟
15) − 7.45231⎠ ⎞⎞⎟ ⎟ (HIC
Head
(AIS3+3)+=) =⎝Φ⎛Φ HIC
⎜ HIC 15)
Head
Head) Phead(AIS
Phead ⎜ln( 0.73998 Head15) Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ⎜⎝ ⎛ ln( HIC 0.73998
15) − 7.45231 ⎟⎠ ⎞
(AIS 3+ ) = Φ
15
(HIC15)(HIC
(HIC)15)
Head Phead ⎜⎝ ⎝ 0.73998
0.73998 ⎟⎠ ⎠ (HICHead
15) P (AIS 3 + ) = Φ⎛ ln( 0.73998
15) −distribution
7.45231 ⎞⎠ ⎟
15
where Φ = cumulative ⎝ normal distributi on⎠
0.73998 head Φ = cumulative ⎝ ⎜ HIC normal
Pwhere
head (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜ ⎝
(HIC15) Head
whereΦΦ= =cumulative
cumulativenormalnormaldistributi (HIC15)
distributionon (HIC 0.73998 ⎟⎠
where
where Φ = cumulative normal distributi 15) where Φ = cumulative ⎝ 0.73998
normal distribution
⎠
cumulative normal1distribution
1 on
where Φ
defl ( AIS
=) =
3+)3=+) = Φ 3=+cumulative
Chest
Chest
Chest
Chest Pchest _ defl ( AIS 11 Pchest _where normal distribution
1 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
Chest
(deflection in mm) Pchest
PPchest defl( AIS
_ _defl 3+) = 10.5456−1.568*(1ChestDefl
( AIS (deflection
Chest
) 0.4612
in mm)
Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.5456 −1.7212*( 1
_ defl ( AIS 3+ ) =1 + 1e + 10.5456
(deflection
Chest in in mm)
(deflection
(Deflection
(deflection in in
mm)
mm)
chest −1.568*(
−1.568*(
10.5456 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
0.4612
(deflection in mm)
Chest Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) =1 + e10.5456 −1.7212*( 1 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
11++ee10.5456−1.568*(ChestDefl(deflection
mm) e ChestDefl )0.4612
_ defl ( AIS 3+) =
Chest
) Femur in mm) Pchest
e10.5456 1−1.7212*(ChestDefl ) 0.4612
(deflection
(force ininkN)
Femur
mm) P ( AIS 2+ ) 1= +1 + 10.5456 −1.7212*(ChestDefl ) 0.4612
1 Femur _ Force
e e 5.7949−0.7619
Femur
Femur 1 1 (forceFemur
in kN) P ( AIS 2+ ) = 1+
Femur
(force Femur
in kN)
P ( AIS 2 + )2 +
=) = 5.795 − 0.51961Femur 1
Femurin kN) 1 + e 5.7949 −0.7619 Femur _ Force
P ( AIS 2+ ) = 1 −10.7619 Femur _ Force
22++)) ==1 +11+e+e5.795
(force
Femurin in kN) (force
(force kN) P AIS
( AIS −1
_ Force
(Force ininkN)
(force kN)
PP((AIS 5.795
5.795 −
e − 0.51960.5196
0.5196 (force in kN)
Femur_ Force
Femur _ Force
Neck ( AIS 2++
Pneck_NijP(AIS3 )=) = 1 +5.7949
1 +3.2269
e 5.7949
0.7619 Femur _ Force
e 1−−1.9688
(AIS3+) = 1 + e
Femur _ Force
Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = 1 + e
1 (Nij and Nij
1 Neck 1
P
1 + e 3.2269 1−1.9688
Neck tension/compression in
+)+1=)+=e 3.2269
neck_Nij −1 1 (NijNeck
and Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = Nij
Neck
Neck
(Nij and tension/compression in Pneck_Nij
Pneck_Nij (AIS3
(AIS3 1.9688 Nij
−1.9688 kN) and in
Neck Pneck (AIS3 + ) = 1 Nij
3.2269 −1.9688
(Nij and tension/compression
in in Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = 1 +1 +e 3.2269 e 3.2269 −1.9688 NijNij tension/compression
(Nij P neck_Nij
_ Tens ( AIS 3+ ) = 1 +3.2269
e −1.9688
(Nij and Neck
tension/compression 3.2269 −1.9688
1 +e e10.958−3.770 1 Nij
Neck _ Tension
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) =1 +
kN) (Nij and
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e
kN)
(Nij and tension/compression in 1 Nij kN)
tension/compression in
kN) 1 tension/compression in 1
3+3)+1=)+=e10.9745 − 2.37511Neck _ Tension kN) Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.958−3.770 1 Neck _ Tension
10.958−3.7701Neck _ Tension
kN) Pneck _ Tens( AIS
( AIS
Neck Pneck
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 +
_ Tens
1 +e10.9745
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 _ Compression
1 1_ Compression
Compression in kN) Pneck _ Comp( AIS
Pneck 3+3)+1=)+=e10.9745
( AIS − 2.375 Neck
1 Neck
− 2.375 P52
Pneck
neck=_max ( AIS(P
imum 1 + e10.958
3+neck_Nij
)= −3.770 Neck
, 10.958
Pneck −_3.770 1 Pneck
Tens ,Neck _ Comp )
Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) = 1 +
_ Comp
1 +e10.9745
e10.9745
10.9745 − 2.375 _ Compression
Neck _ Compression P 52
52_
Comp ( AIS 3+ ) =
52 = max imum(Pneck_Nij10.958 1 + e _ Compression
Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij 1 + , Pneck _−Tens
e 2.375, Neck
Pneck_ _Compression
Comp )
Pneck
neck Comp
1 + e , Pneck −3.770
_ Tens , Pneck
Neck _ Comp )
_ Compression
Pneck
Injury = =max
PneckRisk max imum
imum
Curves (P (Pneck_Nij
for Side NCAP , P, neck
Pneck _ Tens, P, Pneck _ Comp)) Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck _ Comp ) 53
Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck __Comp
neck_Nij _ Tens neck Comp ) Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ 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
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.
chest((AIS
(ribdeflection
(rib
(rib deflection
deflection in rib deflection
(acetabular p pelvis ( AIS 2+) =
(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*FF
0.002133*
1 +
in N) abdomen where Φ = cumulative normal distribution
1+ e
F
where F =total abdominal e
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+) =
1 + 11−0.0011*F
7.5969
Pelvis(Force)
Pelvis
Pelvis
Pelvis (Force)
(Force) PPpelvis
pelvis
pelvis(( AIS
AIS 33
++))== e
7.5969−−0.0011*
7.5969 0.0011*FFF
+ iliac force in N)
1 + e 6.3055−0.00094 *F
(Force in N) where F is the pubic 11++ee7.5969
force −in0.0011*
the ES - 2re in Newtons where F is the sum of acetabular and iliac force
whereFF isisthe
where the pubic
pubic force
forceininthe 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)
48
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)
49
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
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 48 and page 49, 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     

The rollover star rating is determined using the following table:
RR(roll) 0 0.67 1.33 2.0 2.67
Stars     

The Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) is calculated as follows: (5/12) × RR(front) + (4/12) × RR(side) + (3/12) × RR(roll). The VSS star rating
is determined using the following table:
VSS 0 0.67 1 1.33 2.67
Stars     

50
cutting edge
high-speed
imaging pco.dimax cs
on & offboard testing
compact and ruggedized
pco.dimax cs
on & offboard testing
compact and ruggedized
2128 fps 12-bit

Full HD resolution dynamic
range
automatic
image calibration resists
150G
for 11ms
pco.de
SAFETY
WISSEN
IIHS Rating Testing Protocol Version XVIII (Jul 2017)
Rating Guidelines September 2014
Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

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 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 @ 0 ms ≤ 9.1 @ 0 ms ≤ 10.9 @ 0 ms > 10.9 @ 0 ms

(Force duration corridors) ≤ 6.1 @ 10 ms ≤ 7.6 @ 10 ms ≤ 9.1 @ 10 ms > 9.1 @ 10 ms
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 IV (Feb 2016)

Seat/Head Restraints: Static Assessment ( page 105)
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“.
52
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
IIHS Rating Rating Guidelines Nov 2016 Testing Protocol Version X (Jul 2017)

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
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 III (July 2016)
Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

Roof Crush ( page 74)
Stiffness to weight
Fmax / m x g ≥ 4.00 ≥ 3.25 ≥ 2.50 < 2.5
ratio (SWR)
Year TSP Criteria TSP+ Criteria

Crash tests (except SO passenger side): „Good“
Crash tests (incl. SO passenger side): „Good“
SO passenger side: at least „Acceptable
Front Crash Prevention: at least „Advanced“
2019
Front Crash Prevention: at least „Advanced“
 page 150
 page 150
Advanced Headlights: „Good“
Advanced Headlights: at least „Acceptable“
53
SAFETY
WISSEN
IIHS Rating: Small Overlap Testing Protocol Version VI (Jul 2017)
Rating Protocol Version V (Jul 2017)

Frontal Impact against Small Overlap Barrier 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
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
54
P+Z Engineering GmbH
Your development in the best possible hands

The globally active ARRK Engineering Division is a key part of the international ARRK Group which
specialises in all servicesrelating to product development.
With 400 engineers in the CAE & Simulation area, we are one Our crash competence
of the largest companies in Germany specialising in this field.
In our target market of the automotive industry we are involved • Structural crash
in strategic and long-term projects for renowned German • Occupant safety
premium manufacturers.
• Pedestrian protection
We guarantee you a smooth process of
your crash simulation. • Test validation
In the area of passive safety 170 crash experts work in-house • Passive safety concepts
on solutions for our customers. • Robustness evaluation
Our customers benefit here from the extensive expertise of our • Material models
engineers in the field of crash simulation as well as the intensive
networking and cross-sectoral collaboration across the world- • Optimisation & form
wide locations of the ARRK Engineering division. finding methods
ARRK ENGINEERING
Germany I Romania I UK I Japan I China
info@arrk-engineering.com I www.arrk-engineering.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
IIHS Rating: Small Overlap

Frontal Impact against Small Overlap Barrier 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
56
SAFETY
WISSEN
Latin NCAP Rating in Adult- and Child-Occupant Protection

Adult Occupant Protection Assessment Protocol Version 3.2
Required Score Additional Requirements
Frontal ODB + Seat Belt Reminder ABS ESC Pole-Side Impact
Side MDB SBR acc. GTR 8 acc. Euro NCAP
Star Rating (max. 16+16=32 Pt.)1 (max. 2 Pt.) Protocol 5.2
 ≥ 27 ≥1  
 ≥ 22 ≥1 
 ≥ 16 ≥ 0.5 
 ≥ 10
 ≥4 SafetyWissen by
1
If the scores for frontal and side impact differ more than 35 % the rating will be reduced by 1 star.
Child Occupant Protection  page 109 Assessment Protocol Version 3.1
Star Rating Required Score (out of max. 49 points)
 ≥ 41
 ≥ 35
 ≥ 27
 ≥ 18
 ≥9 SafetyWissen by

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 > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 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
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
57
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
ASEAN NCAP Overall Assessment Protocol Version 1.0

Overall Rating 2017 - 2020
Adult Occupant Protection Child Occupant Protection Safety Assist
Offset Frontal Impact 16 Dynamic Assessment Frontal 16 Effective Braking & Avoidance 8
Side Impact (MDB) 16 Dynamic Assessment Side 8 Seat Belt Reminder 6
Head Protection Technology 4 CRS Installation 12 Blind Spot Technology 2
Vehicle-based Assessment 13 Advanced SATs 2
max. points (1) 36  page 109 49  page 126 18
normalized score (2) actual points / (1) actual points / (1) actual points / (1)
weighting (3) 50 % 25 % 25 % Overall score (5)
weighted score (4) (2) x (3) (2) x (3) (2) x (3) ∑(4)
Rating Balancing: minimum normalized score (2) per box required for the respective star rating: min. overall score (5)
score points score points score points Score
 75 % 27.00 75 % 36.75 60 % 10.80 75 %
 65 % 23.40 60 % 29.40 40 % 7.20 65 %
 45 % 16.20 30 % 14.70 30 % 5.40 50 %
 30 % 10.80 25 % 12.25 20 % 3.60 40 %
 20 % 7.20 15 % 7.35 10 % 1.80 30 %
AOPAssessment
AssessmentProtocol
ProtocolVersion
Version2017
1.1
Adult Occupant Protection
Dummy Region Points Criteria
HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
4
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Head, Neck
HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
0
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
max. 16 points
H III 50 % Chest 4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
front 0 Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 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; Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN
4
Tibia Pedal rearward displacement < 100 mm
Foot TI > 1.3; Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN
0
Pedal rearward displacement > 200 mm
Barrier Side Impact (MDB) @ 50 km/h

4 HIC36 < 650; a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC36 > 1000; a3ms > 88 g
max. 16 points
Chest
ES-2
4 Forcecompression < 1.0 kN
Abdomen
0 Forcecompression > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN
58
VEHICLE SAFETY
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SAFETY TESTING … AIRBAG … PEDESTRIAN …
IS ...
HIGH-VOLTAGE … HIGH AND LOW SPEED CRASH … SLED …

OUT OF POSITION … AEB … ELK ... DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
Maximising quality, minimising development

time, cutting costs: to achieve all these, we
develop individual testing methods for our
clients. A high level of active and passive
safety is one of the most important develop-
ment goals in the automobile industry. The
targeted application of state-of-the-art simu-
lation tools combined with rigorous testing
ensures that we provide the optimum results
for safety-relevant vehicle components.
THE BEST SOLUTION FOR EVERY CLIENT.

www.bertrandt.com
Bertrandt AG, Birkensee 1, 71139 Ehningen, Germany, testing@bertrandt.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
C-NCAP Protocol 2018

Frontal Impact with 100 % Overlap @ 50 km/h ❶
5 HIC36 < 650; a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC36 > 1000; a3ms > 88 g
2 Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Neck
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
max. 20 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
1.6 HIC15 < 500
Head
0 HIC15 > 700
H III 5 % 0.4 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
2 Deflection < 23 mm
Chest
0 Deflection > 48 mm
Frontal Impact against ODB with 40 % Overlap @ 64 km/h ❷ SafetyWissen by
HIC36 < 650; a3ms < 72 g

4
Head, Neck
HIC36 > 1000; a3ms > 88 g
0
H III 50 % Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
front
max. 20 points

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
2 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 2 Deflection < 23 mm
Chest
60
SAFETY
WISSEN
C-NCAP
Barrier Side Impact (AE-MDB) @ 50 km/h ❸
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80g
WS 50 Chest
front 0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s; Shoulder Lateral Force > 3.0 kN
Abdomen
max. 20 points
4 PSPF < 1.7 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 2.8 kN
1 HIC15 < 500
Head
0 HIC15 > 700
Chest
SID-IIs 0 Deflection > 41 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
rear 1 Deflection < 38 mm
Abdomen
1 Force < 3500 N
Pelvis
0 Force > 5500 N
Whiplash Test @ Δv = 20 km/h ❹

2 < 8 m²/s²
NIC
0 > 30 m²/s²
1.5 Fx+ < 340 N; Fz+ < 475 N; My < 12 Nm
BioRID II Upper Neck
0 Fx+ > 730 N; Fz+ > 1130 N; My > 40 Nm
max. 5 points
1.5 Fx+ < 340 N; Fz+ < 257 N; My < 12 Nm
Lower Neck
0 Fx+ > 730 N; Fz+ > 1480 N; My > 40 Nm
Max. dyn.
-2 > 25.5°
seatback defl.
Dyn. seat
-5 > 20 mm
displacement
HRMD
-2 Y/N
interference
Additional Points ❺
1 Visual / audio signal with occupant detection
SBR passenger
max. 5 pt.
0.5 Visual / audio signal without occupant detection

SBR 2nd row 1 Status indicator for each 2nd row seat
Side protection 3 Side / curtain-airbag
Overall Rating Weighting: Occupant Protection 70 %,Pedestrian Protection + Active Safety 15 % each
Stars Total score Balancing Alle Details in:
Occupant Protection Pedestrian Protection Active Safety
❶+❷+❸+❹+❺ 2018 2019 2020
 90 % 95 % 75 % 50 % 55 % 72 %
 82 % 85 % 65 % 26 % 38 % 55 %
 72 % 75 % 50 % 26 % 26 % 26 %
 60 % 65 % 40 %
 45 % 55 % 20 %
 < 45 % < 55 % < 20 %
61
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
JNCAP Protocol 2018

Dummy Region Weight Points Criteria
Frontal Impact against Rigid Wall with 100 % overlap @ 55 km/h &
against ODB with 40 % overlap @ 64 km/h
4 HIC 36 < 650
Head 0.923 0 HIC 36 > 1000
0...-1 Modifier: steering wheel upward displacement 72...88 mm
max. 12 points (after weighting)

4 Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Neck 0.231
0 Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
H III Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
50 %
Chest 0.923 Rating Scheme Frontal &
0 Deflection > 42 mm; a3ms > 60 g
Side Impact, Whiplash:
2 Axial Forcecompression < 7 kN
Femur 0.923 Level Points
0 Axial Forcecompression > 10 kN
2 TI < 0.4 5 ≥ 10.5
Tibia 0.923 0 TI > 1.3
-1 Modifier: Axial Force > 8.0 kN 4 ≥9
4 HIC15 < 500
Head 0.8 3 ≥ 7.5
0 HIC15 > 700
Fx,shear < 1200 N; Fz,tension < 1700 N;
4 2 ≥6

Neck 0.2
Fx,shear > 1950 N; Fz,tension > 2620 N;
0
My,extension > 49 Nm 1 <6
Deflection < 23 mm (ODB)
4
Deflection < 18 mm (Full-width, ODB from 4/2020)
H III 5 % Chest 0.8 Deflection > 48 mm (ODB)
0 Deflection > 42 mm (Full-width, ODB from 4/2020)
Deflection > 34 mm (Full-width from 4/2020)
4 4 points awarded by default
Abdomen 0.8 -2 Modifier: Left belt strap rising (submarining)
-2 Modifier: Right belt strap rising (submarining)
4 Axial Forcecompression < 4.8 kN
Femur 0.4
0 Axial Forcecompression > 6.8 kN SafetyWissen by
Barrier Side Impact (AE-MDB) @ 55 km/h

4 HIC15 < 500
max. 12 pt. (after weighting)
Head 1.0
0 HIC15 > 700
Chest 1.0
WS 50 0 Deflection > 50 mm, Shoulder Lateral Force > 3.0 kN
front 4 Deflection < 47 mm
Abdomen 0.5
4 PSPF < 1.7 kN
Pelvis 0.5
0 PSPF > 2.8 kN SafetyWissen by
62
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
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

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).
Passive Safey Rating

max. weighted
max. score weight score total total
Occupant Protection
Full-width Frontal
Driver 12 0.875 10.5
Passenger 12 0.875 10.5
Offset Frontal
Driver 12 0.875 10.5
Passenger (rear) 12 0.875 10.5
59 100
Side Impact
Driver 12 0.625 7.5  ≥ 822
Passenger1 12 0.625 7.5  ≥ 72.5
 ≥ 63
Whiplash
 ≥ 53.5
Driver 12 0.083 1  < 53.5
Passenger 12 0.083 1
Pedestrian Protection ( page 100)
Head Impact 4 8 32
37
Leg Impact 4 1.25 5
Seat Belt Reminder
Front 50 0.04 2
4 SafetyWissen by
Rear 50 0.04 2
1
For the passenger the same score as for the driver is assumed.
2
Downgrade to 4 stars, unless at least level 4 is reached for occupant protection and pedestrian protection.
64
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
KNCAP Protocol 2019
Category Impact Safety Pedestrian Safety Driving Safety

Full Width Frontal 16 Head Impact 24 Rollover 5
Offset Deformable Barrier 16 Leg Impact 6 Braking 5
Barrier Side Impact 16 Basic Active Devices:
Child Protection 8 FCW 1
Whiplash 4 LDW 1
Pole Side Impact (optional 1) 2 SLD 1
SBR front 1
SBR rear 1
AEB Inter-Urban 2
AEB City 3
Additional Active Devices1 2
max. total
60 points 30 points 20 points
points (1)
normalized
actual points / (1) actual points / (1) actual points / (1)
score (2)
weighting
60 % 20 % 20 %
(3)
weighted Overall score (5)
(2) x (3) (2) x (3) (2) x (3)
score (4) max. 100
Overall classification: Minimum normalized scores (2) and total score (5) per rating class
1st Grade ≥ 90.1 % ≥ 60.1 % - ≥ 86.1 %
2nd Grade ≥ 83.1 % ≥ 50.1 % - ≥ 81.1 %
3rd Grade ≥ 76.1 % ≥ 40.1 % - ≥ 76.1 %
4th Grade ≥ 69.1 % ≥ 35.1 % - ≥ 71.1 %
5th Grade ≤ 69.0 % ≤ 35.0 % - ≤ 71.0 %
Star rating per category: Minimum normalized scores (2) for the respective star rating
Category Impact Safety Pedestrian Safety Driving Safety
 ≥ 93.1 % ≥ 83.1 % ≥ 84.8 %
 ≥ 90.1 % ≥ 63.1 % ≥ 70.5 %
 ≥ 87.1 % ≥ 43.1 % ≥ 55.4 %
 ≥ 84.1 % ≥ 23.1 % ≥ 40.3 %
 ≤ 84.0 % ≤ 23.0 % ≤ 40.2 %
1
Optional items can be assessed upon the manufacturers request. The maximum total points remains the same. ASCC (0.5); BSD
(0.5); RCTA (0.5); LKA (0.5); ISA (0.5); AEB Pedstrian (1); Advanced Airbag (1) - Max. total points for Additional Active Devices = 2
65
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
KNCAP Protocol 2019

HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g;
4
My,extension < 42 Nm; Fz,tension < 2.7 kN; Fx,shear < 1.9 kN
Head, Neck
HIC15 > 700 ; a3ms > 80 g;
0
My,extension > 57 Nm; Fz,tension > 3.3 kN; Fx,shear > 3.1 kN
H III 50 % Chest
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
max. 16 points
0 TI > 1.3; Axial Forcecompr > 8 kN
-1 Unstable airbag/incorrect airbag deployment (from head score)
-1 Excessive head forward excursion (from head score)
-1 Steering wheel detachment from steering column (from driver score)
0...-1 Steering wheel upward displacement 72...88 mm (from head score)
0...-1 Steering wheel rearward displacement 90...110 mm (from head score)
-1 Steering wheel contact (from chest score)
-2 Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (from chest score)
Modifiers
0...-1 A-pillar rearward displacement 100...200 mm (from chest score)
-1 Door latch or hinge failure (from chest score)
-1 Incorrect airbag deployment (from femur score)
0...-1 Pedal upward displacement 72...88 mm (from tibia score)
0...-1 Pedal rearward displacement 100...200 mm (from tibia score)
-1/door Door opening during impact
-1 Fuel leakage
Frontal-Impact against Rigid Wall with 100 % overlap @ 56.3 km/h

4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
Head1
0 HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
4 Fx,shear < 1.2 kN; Fz,tension < 1.7 kN; My,extension < 36 Nm
Neck 2
0 Fx,shear > 1.95 kN, Fz,tension > 2.62 kN, My,extension > 49 Nm
H III 5 %
Chest
4 Axial Forcecompr < 2.6 kN
Femur max. 16 points4
0 Axial Forcecompr > 6.2 kN
-1 Unstable airbag/incorrect airbag deployment (from head score)
-1 Excessive head forward excursion (from head score)
-1 Steering column displacement (from head score)
-1 Steering wheel detachment from steering column (from driver score)
-4 Rear seat: excessive head forward excursion (from head score)
-2 Rear seat: head contact with vehicle interior (from head score)
Modifiers
-1 Steering wheel contact (from chest score)
-2 Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (from chest score)
-1 Incorrect airbag deployment (from femur score)
-4 Submarining3 (from femur score)
-1/door Door opening during impact
-1 Fuel leakage
1
For the rear passenger in the rigid wall impact the score is based on a3ms only, if there is no hard contact.
2
For the rear passenger, the neck score is the sum of all three criteria, with the following maximum score per criterion:
Shear 1 point, Tension 1 point, Extension 2 points
3
When any of the two iliac forces drops 1 kN within 1 ms and when the submarining is confirmed on the high speed film.
4
The total score is the weighted average of the front seat score (weight = 2) and the rear seat score (weight = 1)
66
SAFETY
WISSEN
KNCAP

4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
4 Deflection < 28 mm;
Chest
0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s; Shoulder ForceLateral ≥ 3.0 kN
max. 16 points
WS 50 %
4 Deflection < 47 mm;
Abdomen
0 Deflection > 65 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
4 PSPF < 1.7 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 2.8 kN
-1 Incorrect airbag deployment (from head score)
Modifiers -1/door Door opening during impact
-1 Fuel leakage
Pole Side Impact @ 32 km/h

2 HIC15 < 500
WS 50 % Head
max. 2 pt.
0 HIC15 > 700
-1 Incorrect airbag deployment (from head score)
Modifiers -1/door Door opening during impact
-0.5 Fuel leakage
Whiplash Test
Dynamic Assessment Front Seat 1.5 Points 0 Points
NIC 11.00 24.00
Nkm 0.15 0.55
max. 9 points
Rebound velocity (m/s) 3.2 4.8
max. 10 points
BioRID
Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 190
IIg
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 360 750
T1 acceleration1 (g) 9.30 13.10
T-HRC1 (ms) 57 82
max. 14 points (scaled to 4)

Geometry Assessment Front Seat 1 Point -1 Point
Backset (mm) 40 100
max.
HRMD
1 pt
Height (mm) 0 80
Geometry Assessment Rear Seat 1 Point 0 Points
Heff in highest position ≥ 770 < 770
(mm) in worst case postion ≥ 720 < 720
max. 4 points
≤ 504.5  sin (Torso angle- ≤ 504.5  sin (Torso angle-

ΔCP X in highest position
2.6) + 116 2.6) + 116
≤ 504.5  sin (Torso angle- ≤ 504.5  sin (Torso angle-
ΔCP X in worst case postion
2.6) + 116 2.6) + 116
Non-Use Position acc. to KMVSS or no
yes no
Non-Use position
Modifiers
Fixed or integrated head restraint / no height lock -2
Height lock failure -2
Only the maximum score from either T1 acceleration or head restraint contact time is used in the rating.
1
68
SAFETY
WISSEN
Bharat New Car Assessment Program (India)

Phase I Assessment scheme
Max. points
available for
meeting relevant Max. points
legal (AIS) available for meet-
Category Test / Requirement requirements ing BNCAP criteria Max. total score
ODB Frontal Test 40 % / 56 km/h
4 12
Adult Occupant (AIS 098 / UN R94)
24
Protection MDB Side Test 50 km/h
4 4
(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
Seat Belt Reminder (SBR)
1
all forward facing rear seats
Other
Validated Electronic Stability Control
Safety Features - 1 12
(ESC)
(OSF)
Validated Electronic Brake
1
Distribution (EBD)
Type approved head restraint system
1
(for all forward facing outboard seats)
Child lock functionality check 1
Speed Warning system 1
Total score 44
Overall Rating Adult Occupant Protection

required points required points
Rating % of max % of max
(out of max. 44) (out of max. 24)
1 37.4 85 21 87.5
 34.1 77.5 19 79.2
 30.8 70 17 70.8
 27.5 62.5 14.5 60.4
 24.2 55 12 50
 20.9 47.5 8.4 35
 17.6 40 4.8 20
 15.4 35 3.6 15
 13.2 30 2.4 10
6.6 15 1.2 5
1
To be eligible for 5 stars the frontal offset crash test must be conducted at 64 km/h
Note: BNCAP is still in its introduction phase. Therefore modifications may still occur.
69
Passive Safety
Static Vehicle Safety Tests in Automotive Development
Course Description Static roof crush according to FMVSS 216a

When thinking about vehicle safety testing people first think Static door intrusion according to FMVSS 214
about dynamic crash tests of the full vehicle or crash simula- Test procedures for exterior and interior parts FMVSS
tions performed on a sled test facility. In addition to these 201U, UN R21 & R42
dynamic tests, however, numerous other tests on the car Testing of seats and head restraints according to FMVSS
body and components such as seats, steering, instrument 202 and UN R17, R21 and R25
panel, pillars, bumpers, etc. have to be performed during the Test procedures on seat-belts according to UN R14 and
development of a car. At first sight, these experiments perhaps R21
are less spectacular, but in practice they are also very complex. Test procedures for steering systems according to FMVSS
The seminar provides an introduction to static vehicle safety 203, UN R12
testing. Static vehicle safety tests serve the determination of Test procedures for child seat anchors (ISOFIX) of FMVSS
criteria to minimize injury that may occur due to an accident. 225
The seminar covers the entire field of static vehicle safety test-
ing, ranging from biomechanical research to legal regulations
and consumer protection related requirements. It discusses
the required test equipment (impactors, test facilities) and
the typical load cases of the experiments. Finally, the testing
specifications, including the protection criteria are explained.
Course Objectives
After participating in the seminar "Static Vehicle Safety Tests
in Automotive Development", the participants have gained an
overview of the static vehicle safety tests to be performed on
the car body and the components. They have acquired knowl-
edge about the essential procedures in Europe and North
America as well as their backgrounds and gained insight into
equipment necessary to carry out the experiments.
Who should attend?
The seminar is aimed at specialists from crash-related car
body and component development, engineers and techni-
cians from test and analysis departments as well as project
engineers and managers.
Course Contents
Introduction
Alexander Martellucci (ACTS GmbH & Co. KG) began his professional career in physical labo-
Instructor
ratories in the pharmaceutical industry. Since 1992 he is involved in the testing of components for vehicle
safety. Until 1995 he worked in the steering wheel laboratory and until 1998 he headed the airbag testing at
TRW. Since 1998 he has been with ACTS GmbH & Co. KG until 2002 as head of the component laboratory, and
since then as manager Technology.

Dates
70
The Evaluation Solution for
Vehicle Safety Tests
x Analysis of crash tests, sled tests, component
tests and dummy calibration
x Evaluation according to international regula-
tions such as EURO NCAP, IIHS, ASEAN NCAP
and JNCAP and others
x Synchronisation of test and video data and
comparative test analyses
Euro NCAP recommends X-Crash x Expandable with advanced HIC (SUFEHM)
for the rule-compliant analysis and
documentation of crash tests. analysis and own evaluation scripts
www.measx.com/x-crash
Passive Safety
Product Liability in the Automobile Industry

In the framework of the ongoing extension of active and pas- The aim of this course is to convey the importance of product
sive safety systems automobiles are becoming increasingly liability for businesses and employees as well as an under-
complex. standing of preventive measures.
In this context the faultlessness of systems becomes more Who should attend?
and more important, as with growing complexity not only the The seminar is aimed at all decision-makers in the automotive
number but also the severity of possible faults is increasing. development, production and at suppliers who want to learn
Even implemented equal parts strategies can quickly lead to a about the consequences of product liability and want to get
large number of affected vehicles in case of defects. An indica- familiar with preventive measures.
tor for this is the growing number of recalls in recent years.
Each manufacturer holds the responsibility for consequential Course Contents
damages caused by its products when used as intended. This Fundamentals of product liability
Civil and criminal responsibility of the company and
responsibility is defined by law in all countries and has civil and
criminal penalties. personal liability of employees
Liability for defects
Examples include cases of damage and recalls of large num-
Product liability in Europe and in the U.S.
bers of vehicles that several OEMs were obliged to do during
U.S. TREAD Act, reporting obligation for OEMs and
the last few years.
suppliers
Motor Vehicle Whistleblower Act (what to expect?)
Obviously a safety related recall of a mass product may have
Importance of norms and standards (e.g. ISO26262
severe or even existence-threatening consequences.
Functional Safety)
Product liability and advertisement / public relations of
Consequently, manufacturers must ensure faultlessness
throughout their organization. Amongst others, questions companies
Quality management and its relevance from a product
may raise like:
Who in the company is responsible for product safety?
liability point of view
Product liability in the supply chain
Is your entire organization set up to avoid safety-related
Consequences of new technologies (driver assistance
errors or to reduce the risk?
Is compliance with product liability ensured throughout
systems, autonomous vehicles)
Instructions, warnings
the company?
Risk minimization within the organization, prevention
In the case of allegations, can targeted and
Preventive product safety measures during product
comprehensive evidence be quickly provided?
How can unwarranted claims be averted?
development
Product observation and resulting consequences
What can be learned from the product liability cases,
Documentation, conclusive evidence
which are particularly well received by the public?
Insurance of product liability risk
Recall decision and processing
Hans-Georg Lohrmann was Manager of Reliability & Conformity of Production at ZF TRW Automotive
Instructor
GmbH. He has many years of experience in the field of safety, reliability and product liability in the automo-
tive 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 reli-
ability, safety planning and methods of verification and litigation support.

Dates
30.09.-01.10.2019 116/3340 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 02.09.2019, thereafter 1.590,- EUR
72
Passive Safety
Crashworthy Car Body Design for new and classic Vehicle Concepts
- 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. Depending on Accelerations during collisions
the intended drive unit, the fulfilling of the crash regulations Structural loading during collisions
Examination of real crash events
is a key task. Therefore it is mandatory that designers have
Stability problems
a good understanding of the crash behavior of mechanical Plasticity
structures. The combination of knowledge about mechan- Design methods
ics and the ability to use modern design tools allows for an Function based design
efficient development process without unnecessary design Car body design
iterations. The objective of the seminar is to present new CAE conform design
methods for crashworthy car body design. At the beginning Crash simulation
of the course the mechanical phenomena of crash events will Finite Element modelling of a car body
be discussed. Subsequently modern development methods Finite Element analysis with explicit methods
Possibilities and limitations
(CAD design and crash simulation) will be treated. Thereafter
modern implementations of safety design measures will be Technical implementation of safety measures
Energy absorbing members
presented. Mathematical optimization of structural design - Car bodies
which is increasingly used in industry - will be covered at the Electric car bodies
end of the course. Safety systems
Who should attend? Pedestrian protection
Post crash
This 2 day course addresses designers, test and simulation
Use of mathematical optimization procedures in real
engineers as well as project leaders and managers working in
world applications
car body development and analysis. Approximation techniques
Optimization software & strategies
Shape and topology optimization
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Axel Schumacher (University of Wuppertal) studied mechanical engineering

Instructor
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 optimization. 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 optimization of mechanical structures.
DATE COURSE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE

PRICE LANGUAGE
Dates
29.-30.04.2019
28.-29.04.2016 69/3319 Alzenau
Alzenaz 2 Days
Tage 1.340,-
1.290,-EUR
EURtill
bis01.04.2019,
31.03.2016,thereafter
danach 1.540,-
1.590,-
EUREUR
28.-29.04.2016
05.-06.09.2019 69/3320 Alzenau
Alzenaz 2 Days
Tage 1.340,-
1.290,-EUR
EURtill
bis08.08.2019,
danach 1.540,-
1.590,-
EUREUR
73
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
FMVSS 216a TP-216a-00, May 2009

IIHS Testing Protocol Version III (July 2016) Application:
Platen Displacement: 127 mm Vehicles with a GVWR ≤ 4536 kg
Feed Rate: 5 mm/s Applied Force:

for vehicles with a GVWR ≤ 2722 kg:
Single Side Test: Lab selects worst case F = 3.0 x UVW x 9.8 m/s2
Assessment: for vehicles with a GVWR > 2722 kg:
based on Strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) = Fmax / m x g F = 1.5 x UVW x 9.8 m/s2
SWR Rating Feed Rate: ≤ 13 mm/s
≥ 4.00 Good Double Sided Test
≥ 3.25 till < 4.00 Acceptable Requirements:
Platen displacement ≤ 127 mm
≥ 2.50 till < 3.25 Marginal Load on headform located at head position of 50 % male
< 2.50 Poor ≤ 222 N
A „Good“ rating in the roof crush test is a requirement for UVW = Unloaded Vehicle Weight
the Top Safety Pick award. GVWR = Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
SafetyWissen by SafetyWissen by
74
Searching for international
vehicle safety regulations? VISIT OUR
WEBSITE FOR A
FREE
TRIAL
Search no more, InterRegs.NET has got it covered.
Call: 01329 820 450

Email: sales@interregs.com
www.interregs.com
102619_RoadSafety_Ad_136x96mm_v3.indd 1 20/10/2017 11:32

SAFETY
WISSEN
FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact Requirements: In-Position

TP-208-14, April 2008
In-Position – Test Configurations

Full-Width Test ODB Test
unbelted belted
ODB 40%
5 % Female Dummy
 mm
200
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 12 m 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
76
Passive Safety
Development of Frontal Restraint Systems meeting Legal and

Consumer Protection Requirements
Course Description In this seminar you will become familiar with a procedure for
Belts, belt-load limiters, airbags, steering column, knee bol- the successful development of a frontal restraint system. Fur-
ster, seat, … - only if all the components of a frontal restraint thermore you will learn which development tool, simulation
system are in perfect harmony it is possible to meet the differ- or test, is best suited for the respective sub task. Moreover
ent legal limit values as well as the requirements of consumer you will be made aware of the influence of the individual com-
tests. However, these requirements, e.g. FMVSS 208, U.S. ponents of a restraint system (belts, belt-load limiters, airbags,
NCAP, Euro NCAP et al. are manifold and extensive, partly con- steering column, knee bolster, seat, ...) on the efficiency of the
tradict each other, or the requirements superpose each other. entire system.
Therefore it is a challenge for every development engineer Finally future topics such as the compatibility of vehicles as
to develop a restraint system by a clear, strategic procedure; well as pre-crash preparation and prevention of accidents are
time-saving and target-oriented with an optimal result. integrated into the seminar.
In this 2-day seminar this strategic way of development will Who should attend?
be shown. You will learn a procedure how to ideally solve The seminar addresses simulation and test engineers, project
the complex development task of a typical frontal restraint- engineers and project managers as well as the heads of devel-
system design within the scope of the available tools test opment departments in the field of passive safety who work
and simulation. Especially the importance and the influence on the design of restraint-systems for vehicles.
of individual system components (e.g. belt-load limiters) for
the accomplishment of development-sub tasks (e.g. minimum Course Contents
chest deflection) will be covered. In addition the influence of Identification of the relevant development load cases
Procedures for the development of a restraint system
the airbag module design on the hazards of Out-of-Position
Influence and importance of individual system
(OoP) situations is going to be discussed, and a possible
development-path for the compliance with the OoP require- components on the overall performance
Development strategy for UN regulations and NAR
ments according to the FMVSS 208 legislation will be shown.
The possibilities and limits of the development tools test and restraint systems
Development path for the conformance to the OoP
simulation will be discussed and communicated. Last but not
least tips and tricks for a successful overall system design will requirements according to FMVSS 208
be part of this seminar.
Kai Golowko (Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH) has been working in the area of vehicle safety
Instructor
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 has managed the
department vehicle safety at Bertrandt in Gaimersheim. He has also been responsible for active and passive
vehicle safety for the Bertrandt Group since 2017.

Dates
07.-08.02.2019 20/3418 Gaimersheim 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 10.01.2019, thereafter 1.590,- EUR
04.-05.11.2019 20/3420 Tappenbeck 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 07.10.2019, thereafter 1.590,- EUR
77
Rigid Barrier Deformable Barrier
Configuration Criterion Out of Position
In-Position In-Position
CMVSS 208 (old),
FMVSS 208 UN R94, FMVSS 208 FMVSS 208
Requirements ADR 69/00, UN R137
CMVSS 208 ADR 73/00 CMVSS 208 CMVSS 208
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
Protection Criteria for Frontal Impact Tests
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
Head HIC15 [-] 700 (CMVSS) 700 700 700 700 700 570 390
a3ms [g] 80 80 80
Nij [-] (4 Values) 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 60 60 60 60 60 55 50
76.2 (FMVSS. ADR)
Chest Deflection [mm] 63 52 42 42 [34]1 42 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
7.58 @ > 10 ms
Knee Displacement [mm] 15
TI [-] 1.3 (4 Values)
Tibia SafetyWissen by
WISSEN
SAFETY
Axial Forcecompr. [kN] 8.0

tightening of requirements as of 2020
1
78
currently no measurement possible
2
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
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 6 y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP CRABI 12 m
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
UN R137 FWRB HIII 5/50
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
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
Euro NCAP ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP FWRB HIII 5
JNCAP FWRB HIII 5
JNCAP ODB HIII 5
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
1
assessed only if Head ares peak > 80 g
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.
80
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE

SafetyWissen by
Criterion Type [UoM]
Chest a3ms [g] 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FMVSS 208 FWRB/ODB HIII 5/50
Chest VCmax [m/s] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 5/50
Femur Faxial [kN] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

UN R94 ODB HIII 50
UN R137 FWRB HIII 5
UN R137 FWRB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 ODB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 ODB/FWRB HIII 5
Euro NCAP FWRB HIII 5
C-NCAP ODB HIII 50
JNCAP ODB HIII 5
Knee Displacement [mm] 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

UN R94 ODB HIII 50
Tibia Index [-] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
Tibia Compression [kN] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

UN R94 ODB HIII 50
81
Passive Safety
Early Increase of Design Maturity of Restraint System Components

in the Reduced Prototype Vehicle Development Process
The number of hardware prototypes available for the devel- The seminar is aimed at engineers and project managers of
opment of restraint systems and restraint system components restraint systems and restraint system components develop-
is declining steadily due to an increasing cost pressure in auto- ment, as well as heads of teams or departments in the field
motive development. In the project schedule the availability of of passive safety, which want to gain, in addition to the pure
hardware (restraint system components and / or vehicle envi- functional development of restraint systems, an overview of
ronments) shifts to the late vehicle development phases. As a the requirements of the prototype-reduced restraint system
result, ensuring the required degree of maturity of restraint development with regard to achieving and ensuring the nec-
system components, in addition to the sole functional devel- essary degree of maturity of belts and airbags.
opment of seatbelts and airbag, necessitates new strategies Course Contents
and development paths. Overview and differences of vehicle development
In this seminar, current risks in the development of seatbelts schedules
and airbags are addressed and ideas for the early increase Standard project schedule
of maturity are elucidated. This is done by explaining the Prototype-reduced development of lead series
link between milestones in the development schedule, the Prototype-reduced development of derivatives
functional requirements of restraint system components, the Safety belts
development duration of restraint system components and Examples of requirements for safety belts
the description of approaches for the creation of substitutes Prerequisites and timing for functional development
Timing for homologation and certification
of vehicle environments in the early development process.
Ideas / possibilities for creating vehicle environments
In addition the project schedules of conventional vehicle Interactions with surrounding components
development processes and prototype-reduced development Airbags
processes of base line models and derivatives are shown. Examples of requirements for airbags
Interactions of the development of seatbelts and airbags with Prerequisites and timing for functional development
surrounding components (e.g. trim parts) are also discussed. Ideas / possibilities for creating vehicle environments
Interactions with surrounding components
Course Objectives
The course provides thoughts and ideas for a successful
approach in the development of restraint systems within
vehicle development processes in which only a small number
of prototypes are available for verification and optimization of
the systems.
Name (Firma)
Sandro HübnerBeschreibung.
(EDAG Engineering GmbH) studied mechanical engineering at the University of
Instructor
Applied Sciences Schmalkalden. After completing his studies he worked as an engineer in the FEM laboratory
of Schmalkalden University of Applied Sciences. From 2003 he worked as a CAE engineer for occupant safety
at EASi Engineering GmbH. In 2006, he moved to EDAG Engineering GmbH as a CAE engineer for vehicle
safety and has been project manager for vehicle safety and CAE since 2013.

PRICE LANGUAGE
Dates
28.-29.04.2016
03.06.2019 166/3329 Alzenau
Alzenaz 21Tage
Day 790,-
1.290,-
EUR
EUR
tillbis
06.05.2019,
31.03.2016,
thereafter
danach 1.540,-
940,- EUR
EUR
28.-29.04.2016
14.10.2019 166/3328 Alzenau
Alzenaz 21Tage
Day 790,-
1.290,-
EUR
EUR
tillbis
16.09.2019,
31.03.2016,
thereafter
danach 1.540,-
940,- EUR
EUR
82
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Safety Requirements for Rear Seats and Restraint Systems

Frontal impact tests with rear seat occupants
2020
Euro NCAP FWRB Euro NCAP / ANCAP / KNCAP KNCAP FWRB ASEAN NCAP ODB
ODB / MPDB
MPDB/XT-ADAC
ODB 40% 1400 kg ODB 40%
0°, 50 %
50 km/h
0 o 0o
50 km/h  mm  mm 56 km/h  mm
200
200 0o 150 0o  0o
 
64 km/h 50 km/h 64 km/h

5% 5% THOR Hybrid III 5% 5%
Hybrid III 50 % 50 % Hybrid III 50 % 50 %
50 % 50 %
5% 5%
Q6 Q10 Q6 Q10 Q1,5 Q3
JNCAP ODB C-NCAP FWRB C-NCAP ODB Latin NCAP ODB

ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40%
0o
 mm
200 50 km/h  mm
200  mm
200
 0o  0o  0o
64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

50 % 50 %
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50 % Hybrid III Q3 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
5%
Hybrid III Hybrid III Q3 Q1,5
5% 5%
FMVSS 201: Head impact on belt UN R14: Belt

anchorages UN R16: Belt system
FMVSS 207: Seat stability UN R17: Seat anchorages
FMVSS 208: Belt system UN R21: Head impact
FMVSS 209: Belt system UN R25: Head rests
FMVSS 213: Child seats UN R44: Child seats
FMVSS 225: ISOFIX anchorages UN R129: Child seats
UN R145: ISOFIX anchorages
Side impacts tests with rear seat occupants
FMVSS 214 U.S. NCAP IIHS / C-IASI C-NCAP

 mm  mm
279
279
 
ES-2 re 62 ES-2 re SID IIs WS
54 km WS 50 %  mm
379  mm
350
km   50 %
/h / /h /
27° 27°
50 km/h 50 km/h 90°

48 km/h 55 km/h 90° @ R +250 mm
MDB, 1368 kg MDB, 1368 kg MDB IIHS, 1500 kg AE-MDB, 1400 kg

SID IIs SID IIs SID IIs SID IIs
Euro NCAP MDB Latin NCAP MDB ASEAN NCAP KNCAP
WS ES-2 ES-2 WS 50 %
 mm  mm  mm
300  mm
300
300
 50 % 300
  
50 km/h 50 km/h 55/60 km/h 90°

50/60 km/h 90°
@ R +250 mm 90° 90° @ R +250 mm
MDB EEVC, 950 kg MDB, 950 kg

AE-MDB v3.9, 1300 /1400 kg AE-MDB, 1300/1400 kg
Q10 Q1,5 Q1,5 Q10
Q6 Q3 Q3 Q6
83
Passive Safety
Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact

Rear seat occupant protection has been a low priority until The objective of the seminar is to provide an understanding
the recent introduction of safety assessment for rear adult of the requirements and specifics in rear seat occupant pro-
and child occupants by Euro NCAP. Now it has moved into the tection, to provide the knowledge of test configurations and
focus of research and development. dummies, and to provide a view on state-of-the-art solutions.
Who should attend?
In addition to the Euro NCAP requirements, further NCAP rat- The seminar addresses simulation and test engineers, project
ings as well as legal requirements need to be considered in the engineers and project managers as well as the heads of devel-
design of the restraint systems. And real world aspects cannot opment departments in the field of passive safety who work in
be neglected either. R&D of occupant restraint-systems.
During the 1-day seminar legal and NCAP requirements for Course Contents
rear seat occupant protection in frontal impact will be dis- Legal requirements
Requirements from consumer testing
cussed. Furthermore the dummies used in the assessment will
Dummies on the rear seat; Q6 and Q10 child dummies
be presented with an emphasis on the Q6 and Q10 child dum-
Relevant protection criteria for the most important load
mies. For the most important load cases the relevant criteria
and possible influencing parameters of the restraint system cases
Solutions for restraint system design and optimization
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.
Dr.-Ing. Burkhard Eickhoff (Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG) studied mechanical engineering in Hannover
Instructor
(Germany) focusing on vehicle engineering and applied mechanics. Starting 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. He was involved in the definition and assessment
of new restraint systems and he conducted feasibility studies using system simulation as well as dynamical
tests. Moreover he had a consultant role regarding restraint system design. He finished his doctoral thesis at
the Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg in 2012 on the reduction of belt induced thorax deflection in frontal
crashes. Since 2016 he has been head of the department Virtual & System Engineering, Homologation at
Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG.

Date
84
Passive Safety
Crash-Sensing and Restraint Control - Functions and Applications
Course Description (Predictive-) crash sensors, restraint (pre-) triggering crash

Sensors are the organs of perception of vehicle safety: Recog- algorithms and (pre-crash) occupant protection systems are
nizing accident risks in split of seconds, they control accident discussed for the following accident scenarios: Frontal- and
mitigation systems and occupant protection systems accu- rear-end collisions, side impact, vehicle rollover, accidents
rately, reliably and effectively. Mechanical Electrical Micro Sys- with pedestrians and cyclists. From scratch, the seminar
tems (MEMS) such as micro-oscillators or gyros on the scale explains simply and understandably the physical principles of
of micrometers sense even the most subtle movements and sensors and measuring systems, their properties and applica-
shocks and will stabilize the car, prevent vehicle roll and acti- tion specific benefits and drawbacks, including the restraint
vate the occupant protection systems such as seat belt pre- triggering algorithms. A specific focus of the seminar is on
tensioners, airbags and other protection devices according to future safety systems and technologies, such as artificial
crash type and severity. Predictive surround sensors such as intelligence / neural networks, and new occupant protection
radar, LiDAR, cameras and ultrasonic detect accident risks at systems in autonomous cars.
an early stage and do not only mitigate accidents by automatic Who should attend?
emergency braking or evasive maneuvers, but also optimize The seminar addresses all engineers, technicians and experts
the effectiveness of occupant protection systems. working in the development, application and research of
Since the introduction of seat belt pre-tensioners and driver vehicle safety, both at automotive manufacturers and tier 1 / 2
airbag in the early eighties, the requirements to crash sen- / 3 suppliers, system engineers, project engineers and project
sors and restraint control have been increased continuously: leaders in particular. Basically, all experts somehow dealing
Starting with single point sensing with focus on frontal crashes with vehicle safety and being interested in current and future
with full barrier overlap to trigger driver airbags and seat belt sensor and actuator technologies in passive and active safety
pre-tensioners, all real accident types and severities must be are very welcome.
discriminated today utilizing up to a dozen peripheral crash
satellites in order to control appropriately up to two dozens of Course Contents
occupant protection devices. New crash tests such as the lat- Sensors for frontal-, rear and side impacts, roll-over,
eral pole impact or the frontal small overlap crash mandated collisions with pedestrians & cyclists, occupant
by regulations and consumer ratings, have permanently tight- recognition & monitoring
Predictive (surround) sensors (radar, LiDAR, cameras,
ened the requirements to crash sensing and smart restraint
control. Above and beyond, utilizing the predictive sensors of ultrasonic)
Intelligent restraint control and triggering, artificial
accident avoidance and advanced driver assistance systems
(ADAS), occupant protection can be increase significantly: pro- intelligence and neural networks
Structure and function of sensors and electronic control
tection devices can be pre-triggered while a crash is imminent,
and new protection measures are possible. Last but not least, units, system-architectures
Today’s and future occupant protection systems,
the occupant protection can be adapted and tailored to the
occupant size, weight and position (out-of-position) which integrated safety
will be particularly important in autonomous cars with new
vehicle interior variances.
Dr. Lothar Grösch has been working in safety engineering for more than 40 years, both at one of the
Instructor
leading OEMs in Passive & Active Safety, and with a major supplier in pioneering new automotive safety
sensors & systems. From 2000 to 2009, he worked in the United States as a Product Director for Automo-
tive Safety Systems, thus he is particularly familiar with U.S. specific requirements. Although he only joined
the carhs team quite recently, he has a long experience in guest teaching at several universities in the U.S. &
Germany, as well as in company internal training seminars, technical marketing, customer presentations &
workshops. In 2009 Dr. Grösch has founded Groesch Automotive Safety Consulting and is primarily working
in driver assist and accident avoidance systems.

Date
85
SAFETY
WISSEN
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 50 km/h (60 km/h as of 2020) 50 km/h
Barrier (MDB) EEVC AE-MDB IIHS
Mass 950 kg 1300 kg (1400 kg as of 2020) 1500 kg
Ground clearance 300 mm 300 mm (bumper 350 mm) 379 mm (bumper 430 mm)
Upper edge height 800 mm 800 mm 1138 mm
Width 1500 mm 1700 mm 1676 mm
Dummy front seat ES-2 impact side WS 50 % impact side SID IIs impact side
Q10 impact side
Dummy rear seat SID IIs impact side
Q6 far side
Head HPC < 1000
Chest VC < 1.0 m/s
Rib deflection D < 42 mm  page 34 (Adults)
Protection Criteria  page 53
Abdomen sum of APF <  page 108 (Children)
SafetyWissen by
2.5 kN
Pelvis PSPF < 6.0 kN
Pole Side Impact Tests according to Euro NCAP, UN R135, GTR 14,
FMVSS 214 and CMVSS 214
Requirement Euro NCAP UN R135 / GTR 14 FMVSS 214 / CMVSS 214 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 width1)
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 34 ES-2 re: HIC36 < 1000  page 48
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
Test Configuration WS 50 %
SafetyWissen by
GTR 14 only
1
86
SAFETY
WISSEN
MDB Side Impact Tests according to FMVSS 214, CMVSS 214 and
U.S. NCAP
Requirement FMVSS 214 / CMVSS 214 U.S. NCAP U.S. NCAP Upgrade1
Impact angle lateral 90°, 27° crab angle
53 ±1 km/h (33.5 mph)
Impact velocity 61.9 ±0.8 km/h (~55 km/h in 90° direction)
(~47 km/h in 90° direction)
Barrier NHTSA MDB
Mass 1368 kg
Ground clearance 279 mm (bumper 330 mm)
Upper edge height 838 mm
Width 1676 mm
Dummy front seat ES-2 re impact side ES-2 re impact side WorldSID 50 % (SBL F) impact side
Dummy rear seat SID IIs (Build Level D) impact side SID IIs (Build Level D) impact side SID IIs (Build Level D) impact side
SID IIs: HIC36 < 1000

Chest acceleration < 82 g
Pelvis force < 5.525 kN
Protection
ES-2 re: HIC36 < 1000  page 48 Criteria not yet defined
Criteria
Chest deflection < 44 mm
Abdominal force < 2.5 kN
Pelvis force < 6 kN
1
planned
27°
1/2
w
SafetyWissen by
940
w
Introducing
mm
SAFETYWISSEN.com
w = Wheelbase
Find requirements, protocols...
AT&T 12:34 PM
SAFETYWISSEN
Find requirements, protocols, products...

90 km/
OMDB, 2486 kg
15°
35 %
h
sen.com!
Start using safetywis
THOR THOR
50 % 50 %
87
SAFETY
WISSEN
Seat Adjustments for Side Impact Tests ⑤
②
①
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 top surface

non-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
U.S. NCAP / manuf. design „absolute“

mid + 20 mm lowest2 uppermost most forward
WorldSID 50 position or 25° mid2
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.
88
SAFETY
WISSEN
Side Impact Protection Criteria Compared

HIC15 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole1 WS 50
JNCAP MDB WS 50
C-NCAP MDB WS 50
C-NCAP MDB SID 2s
IIHS MDB SID 2s
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/SID 2s
Head a3ms [g] 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole2 WS 50
C-NCAP MDB WS 50
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 WS 50
JNCAP MDB WS 50
Shoulder Lateral Force [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UN R135 Pole WS 50
C-NCAP/JNCAP MDB 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 WS 50
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
Abdomen Compression [mm] 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
C-NCAP MDB WS 50
JNCAP MDB WS 50
PSPF [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UN R95 MDB ES-2
UN R135 Pole WS 50
C-NCAP MDB WS 50
JNCAP MDB WS 50
Pelvis Force [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole SID 2s
C-NCAP MDB SID 2s
Legend: Regulations: requirements are met / NCAP: maximum score
Regulations: requirements not met / NCAP: zero score
90 Linear interpolation of the score between the upper and lower limit
Passive Safety
Side Impact - Requirements and Development Strategies
Course Description managers, who deal with side impact and who would like to
In addition to the frontal impact, the protection in a side gain a deeper understanding of this topic in order to use it for
impact has a fixed place in the development of vehicles. an improvement of procedures.
Continuous aggravation of consumer tests and legal regula- Course Contents
tions, e.g. due to new pole tests (UN ECE R135 and U.S. Challenges of side impacts
NCAP), enhanced deformable barriers and the introduction of Explanation of the different measuring means, in
World-SID Dummies (5 / 50%ile) with test specific measuring particular the different dummies
methods are causing a need to further improve side impact Overview of current test procedures and side impact
protection. In order to achieve this enhancement, it is neces- relevant protection criteria
sary to get a much more profound understanding of the highly Legal tests (FMVSS 214, UN ECE R95, UN ECE R135, ...)
complex phenomena and modes of action in a side impact Other tests (Euro NCAP, U.S. NCAP, further NCAPs, IIHS,
which goes far beyond the simple application of additional manufacturer specific tests)
airbags. The seminar provides a comprehensive overview of Development methods and tools:
today's standard test procedures including country-specific Crash and occupant simulation, range of application and
variations, the legal regulations and the requirements of con- limitations.
Analysis of the performance of protection and restraint
sumer protection as well as an outlook on changes in the near
systems in side impact. Discussion of the boundary conditions,
future. In addition, tools, measuring methods and criteria, and limits, conflicts and problems
virtual methods such as crash and occupant simulation, as well Development strategy for an optimal restraint system for side
as the analysis of the performance of the restraint systems will impact
be discussed. Furthermore it will be explained how a target- Target oriented use of CAE-simulation and hardware tests to
oriented use of CAE-simulation and hardware tests can lead develop optimal occupant load values
to optimal passenger values, while at the same time obeying Workshop with analysis of crash-data and discussion of
to boundary conditions such as costs, weight and time-to- the results
market. A workshop with crash-data analysis finally 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
experience in the field of safety, as well as developers of
assemblies that have to fulfil a sidecrash-relevant function.
Furthermore it is also interesting for project managers and
Stephanie Wolter (BMW AG) studied engineering physics at the University of Applied Sciences Mu-
Instructors
nich. 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. ISO Working Groups, etc.
Bart Peeters Weem (BMW AG) studied mechanical engineering at the University of Technology in
Eindhoven with focus on system and control. Since 2003 he has worked at BMW on passive safety develop-
ment. First as simulation engineer, later as team leader and project referent. Since 2015 he is head of the de-
velopment of full vehicle side impact protection for BMW 1-, 2- and 3-series, MINI and BMW-i.

Dates
04.-05.04.2019 28/3359 Gaimersheim 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 07.03.2019, thereafter 1.590,- EUR
91
SAFETY
WISSEN
FMVSS 226, CMVSS 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
Locating Targets: m = 18 kg
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  Eliminate If Dx (B1 - B4) < 135 mm and Dz (B1 - B4) < 170 mm  Eliminate
7
A3 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  Eliminate If Dx (B3 - B2) < 135 mm and Dz (B3 - B2) < 170 mm  Eliminate
10
A4 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.
U.S. Test Procedure TP-226-00, Mar 2011 CAN. Test Procedure TSD-226 Rev. 0, Nov 2016
92
High-Speed Cameras for Professionals
Choosing the right camera is crucial

With AOS you are always on the winner side
AOS Technologies AG Tel. +41 (0)56 483 34 88 info@aostechnologies.com Get results while others try!
Taefernstrasse 20 Fax +41 (0)56 483 34 89 www.aostechnologies.com
CH-5405 Baden-Daettwil
Safety Engineering at its Best

> Specialist for vehicle safety development
> Development and testing Partner for vehicle and component manufacturers
> Expert in system application and validation for passive and integrated safety
Continental Safety Engineering International GmbH l www.continental-safety-engineering.com

Contact: Uwe Gierath l Tel.: +49 (0) 6023 942 120 l uwe.gierath@continental-corporation.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors
UN R21 UN R21, 01 Series, Supplement 3
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)
Test Procedure TP-201-02, Jan 2016

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-201U-02 (each side, left and right)
other pillars: OP 1, OP 2
upper roof: UR
RH
sliding door track: SD
roll bar: RB 1, RB 2 RP 1
stiffener / brace: ST 1, ST 2 / BT
SR 3
RP 2
BP 1
SR 2
FH 2 SR 1
FH 1 BP 2
AP 1
BP 3
AP 2
BP 4
AP 3
SafetyWissen by
94
Passive Safety
Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 and UN R21

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 who work on the development of vehicle interior parts and
designed in a way which allows sufficient deformation space who want to become familiar with the safety requirements
to reduce the loads on the head. Internationally there are two that are relevant for these parts.
important regulations regarding the design of interiors, such Course Contents
as cockpits, roof and door liners: The U.S. FMVSS 201 and the Introduction
Regulation UN R21. Both regulations stipulate requirements Rules and regulations concerning head impact
concerning the maximum head acceleration or the HIC in FMVSS 201
impacts on interior parts. UN R21
Development tools
The objective of this course is to provide an overview of the Numerical simulation
legal requirements and to show how these can be fulfilled. The Test
focus of the seminar is on the development process and the Workshop: Determination of impact locations in a vehicle
development tools and methods. In particular the interaction Development process and methods
of testing and simulation will be described and different design Solving of conflicts of objectives
Typical deformation paths, padding materials
solutions will be discussed. Typical conflicts of objectives in the
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.
Torsten Gärtner (Opel Automobile GmbH) has been working as a simulation expert since 1997.
Instructor
From numerous projects he has extensive experience in the field of occupant simulation and interior safety. He
is Technical Lead Engineer Safety Analytics at Opel Automobile GmbH. Before that he worked as department
manager for safety with TECOSIM GmbH and spent 10 years in various management positions with carhs
gmbh.

Dates
95
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 / ANCAP 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 8.5
20°. Adult Headform Impactor
TB019 V 1.0 4.5 kg
Child-/small Adult Headform Impactor
❶
3.5 kg
❸ ❷
40 k
m/h
Upper Legform 2100 mm
65°
Impactor
40
Legform Impactor
km
1700 mm
/h
Flex PLI 50° 1500 mm
❹ 1000 mm
930 mm
775 mm
40 km/h
IBRL
Bumper
Beam
Upper Legform
Impactor for SUV
❺ 75 mm
SafetyWissen by
Pedestrian Protection Test Procedures according to

UN R127.02 Adult Headform Impactor
4.5 kg
Child Headform Impactor
3.5 kg
❶
❷
35 k
m/h
82.5 mm forward of bonnet

65° rear ref. line/
35
max. 2100 mm
km
Legform Impactor 1700 mm / max. 82.5 mm

/h
Flex PLI 50° forward of bonnet rear

ref. line
❹ 1000 mm / min. 82.5 mm
rearward of Bonnet
Leading Edge
Upper Legform
Impactor for SUV
❺ 75 mm
SafetyWissen by
96
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 GmbH
vehicles. We offer all the services relevant to pedestrian fgs@edag.com
protection, from project management and simulation
through to testing in our fully equipped test facilities.
At many sites, and also close to you.
Are you interested in finding out how our experience

can help you create both function and emotion?
Then ask us.
For more information on the subject

of pedestrian protection see:
fgs.edag.com
Passive Safety
Pedestrian Protection - Development Strategies

Euro NCAP annually adjusts details in its pedestrian rating The seminar is intended for development, project or simula-
protocols and even U.S. NCAP plans to introduce a pedestrian tion engineers working in the field of vehicle safety, dealing
protection assessment. with the design of motor vehicles with regard to pedestrian
Stricter injury criteria, modified testing areas and the testing protection.
of vehicles that were previously not tested because of their Course Contents
weight, require the thorough knowledge of the requirements Introduction with an overview of current requirements
and a strict implementation of the requirements in the devel- regarding pedestrian protection
opment process. Legal requirements (EU, UN Regulations, Japan, GTR)
In the introduction the seminar informs about the different Consumer tests (Euro NCAP, U.S. NCAP, JNCAP, KNCAP)
impactors that are used for pedestrian safety testing. Thereaf- Presentation and discussion of the design and application
ter the various requirements (regulations and consumer tests) of the impactors
are explained and compared. Leg impactors (Flex PLI, Upper Legform)
The focus of the seminar is on the development strategy: Head impactors (Child head, Adult head)
Which decisions have to be taken in which development Methods in numerical simulation, testing and system
phase? What are the tasks and priorities of the person in development
charge of pedestrian protection? As a background, ideas Requirements on the design of vehicle front ends for
and approaches towards the design of a vehicle front end in pedestrian protection
order to meet the pedestrian protection requirements are dis- Development strategy
cussed. In addition to that, the seminar explains how the func- Interaction between simulation and testing
Integration in the vehicle development process
tion of active bonnets can be proven by means of numerical
simulation. This includes both, the pedestrian detection that Solutions to fulfill the requirements
Passive solutions
need to be proven with various impactors or human models, Active solutions (active bonnets, airbags)
as well as the proof that the bonnet is fully deployed at the
time of impact.
Maren Finck (carhs.training gmbh) is a project manager at carhs.training gmbh. From 2008 - 2015
Instructor
she worked at EDAG as a project manager responsible for passive vehicle safety. Previously, she worked
several years at carhs GmbH and TECOSIM as an analysis engineer with a focus on pedestrian safety and
biomechanics.

Dates
04.02.2019 152/3368 Gaimersheim 1 Day 790,- EUR till 07.01.2019, thereafter 940,- EUR
98
Passive Safety
14th PraxisConference
Pedestrian Prote on
The PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection is held every June or July with about 170
participants, including delegates from all major OEMs. It is the world’s largest expert meet-
ing in the field of pedestrian protection. The intensive discussions at the info-points and
between the presentations show that the participants value the innovative conference
concept. Highlights of the event are the demonstrations in the laboratory of Germany’s
Federal Highway Research Institute and the OEM’s presentations of pedestrian protecting
solutions implemented in current car models.
Although the industry has been working on pedestrian protection for many years now, the
constant development of the requirements (regulations and NCAP) continuously raises
new questions that will be answered during this conference.
Expert speakers provide concentrated information regarding current and future require-
ments, latest research findings and technical solutions. Both, testing and numerical simula-
tion are covered in the conference presentations.
In addition to this the conference offers hands-on praxis session in the laboratory. Here,
test equipment and impactors are demonstrated and explained in detail. The preparation,
execution and analysis of pedestrian impact tests are shown in live demonstrations.
Conference Topics:
Current status and future development of the regulations (UN R127, GTR 9)
Global consumer protection requirements for pedestrian protection
Future development of impactors (e.g. aPLI)
Pedestrian AEB systems
Pedestrian safety technologies (active bonnets, airbags)
Test equipment
Who should attend?

The PraxisConference is suited for pedestrian protection experts from throughout the
industry. Even beginners will find the event an excellent opportunity to quickly acquire
theoretical and practical knowledge and become part of the expert community.
DATE 26.-27. June 2019

Facts
Co-hosted with
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/pkf
VENUE Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Brüderstraße 53, 51427 Bergisch Gladbach
PRICE 1.490,- EUR till 29.05.2019, thereafter 1.750,- EUR BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH
99
EU Regulations Japan
Euro NCAP / ANCAP KNCAP UN R127 GTR
JNCAP 78/2009 and Article 18
U.S. NCAP8 C-NCAP KMVSS 102-2 No. 9
Test Procedures and Protection Criteria for Pedestrian Protection
Test Method Parameter 631/2009 Attachment 99

max. score zero score max. score zero score max. score zero score Phase 2
αA (°) 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
❶ VA (km/h) 40 40 40 35 35 35 35
Adult Headform
WAD (mm) 1700 (1500)1 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 210010 1700 - 210010 1700 - 210010 1700 - 2100
4.5 kg
Ø 165 mm on Windscreen yes yes yes no no no no
HPC/HIC (-) 650 1700 650 1700 650 1700 1000 / 17003 1000 / 17003 1000 / 17003 1000 / 17003
αC (°) 50 50 (202) 50 50 50 50 50
❷ VC (km/h) 40 40 40 35 35 35 35
Child Headform
WAD (mm) 1000 - 1700 (1500)1 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 170010 10009 - 170010 1000 - 170010 1000 - 1700
3.5 kg
Ø 165 mm on Windscreen yes yes yes no no no no
HPC/HIC (-) 650 1700 650 1700 650 1700 1000 / 17003 1000 / 17003 1000 / 17003 1000 / 17003
αU (°) 90 w.r.t. IBRL4 - WAD 930
❸ VU (km/h) 20 - 33
Upper Legform
10.5 kg Sum of forces (kN) 5 kN 6 kN
Bending Moment (Nm) 285 Nm 350 Nm
Legform Flex PLI Flex PLI Flex PLI EEVC Flex PLI Flex PLI Flex PLI
VL (km/h) 40 40 (44)5 40 40 40 40 40
Ground clearance d (mm) 75 75 75 25 75 75 75
Acceleration (g) 170 (250)6
❹
Bending angle (°) 19
Lower Legform7
Shearing (mm) 6
Tibia Bending (Nm) 282 340 202 306 282 340 340 (380)6 340 (380)6 340 (380)6
MCL Elongation (mm) 19 22 14.8 19,8 19 22 22 22 22
ACL/PCL Elongation (mm) 10 10 0 13 10 10 13 13 13
VL (km/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40
❺
Upper Legform7 Sum of forces (kN) 5 6 5 7.5 / 611 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
9.5 kg
Bending Moment (Nm) 285 350 300 / 28512 510 / 35011 510 510 510 510
1
Points to be tested that lie between WAD 1500 and 1700 are tested with child-/small 6 In an area no wider than 264 mm.
adult headform impactor, if the points are on the moveable/hinged bonnet top. Other- 7 For vehicles with a lower bumper height < 425 mm the lower legform test ❹ is
wise the adult headform is used. applied. For vehicles with a lower bumper height ≥ 500 mm the upper legform
2 Between "Blue Line" and 1000 mm test ❺ is applied. For vehicles with a lower bumper height ≥ 425 mm an < 500
3 The HPC shall not exceed 1000 over one half of the child headform test area and, in mm the impactor is at the choice of the manufacturer.
addition, shall not exceed 1 000 over 2/3 of the combined child and adult headform 8 Proposed U.S. NCAP rating
WISSEN
SAFETY
test areas. The HPC for the remaining areas shall not exceed 1700 for both headforms. 9 Minimum 82.5 mm rearward of Bonnet Leading Edge
4 IBRL = Internal Bumper Reference Line 10
Maximum 82.5 mm forward of Bonnet Rear Reference Line
100
SafetyWissen by
5 Test velocity will be increased when leg impact is introduced in legal test. 11
C-NCAP
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP - Pedestrian Protection:

Head and Leg Impact Grid Method
Head Impact UBRL
Between WAD 1000 and WAD 2100 impact points are located
on a fixed 100 mm grid, the selection of "Worst Case" points WAD
by the test institute is no longer required. The manufacturer 775
WAD
provides a result prediction (points) for the Grid-Points. Euro 1000
NCAP verifies 10 randomly selected points, the manufacturer
can nominate up to 10 additional randomly selected points. A
tolerance of 10 % is applied to the verification tests, i.e. even if
the actual HIC is 10 % above or below the margins of the pre- WAD
dicted score, the predicted score is applied. At the verification 1500
points the actual test result is divided by the manufacturer‘s WAD

1700
prediction. This so called correction factor is applied to all the
grid points to obtain the final score:
Actual tested score WAD SafetyWissen by
= Correction Factor 2100
Predicted score
Per Grid-Point 0 - 1 points are available according to the fol-
lowing scheme: Total score:
The total score will be calculated as follows:
HIC15 < 650 1.00 Point ∑Predicted Score x Correction Factor
650 ≤ HIC15 < 1000 0.75 Points + ∑Default Scores
+ ∑Scores from Blue Zones
1000 ≤ HIC15 < 1350 0.50 Points = Total
1350 ≤ HIC15 < 1700 0.25 Points ÷ Number of Grid Points
= Percentage of max. achievable score
1700 ≤ HIC15 0.00 Points x 24 (Maximum achievable score)
= Total Score for Headform Test
„Default“ Results Leg Impact
Grid points on the A-pillars are defaulted to red = 0 points. For leg impact a 100 mm grid on WAD 775 (Upper Legform)
Grid points on the windscreen that have distance of more than respectively on Upper Bumper Reference Line (Flex PLI Leg-
165 mm from the windscreen base are defaulted to green = form) is used. Euro NCAP selects either the centerline point or
1 point. Defaulted locations are not included in the random an adjacent point as a starting point for testing. Starting from
selection of verification tests. Where the vehicle manufacturer this position every second grid point will be tested. Symmetry
can provide evidence that shows an A-pillar is not red, those is applied across the vehicle. Grid points that have not been
grid points will be considered in the same way as other points. tested will be awarded the worst result from one of the adja-
cent points. Manufacturers may sponsor additional test for
Unpredictable Grid Locations: Blue Zones those points that are not tested (in advance). Per Grid point
In the following areas up to 1 point is awarded. For the Upper Legform the score is
Plastic scuttle
based upon the worst performing parameter (Sum of Forces /
Windscreen wiper arms and windscreen base
Bending moment). For the Legform the 1 point per grid point
Headlamp glazing
is divided into two independent assessment areas of equal
Break-away structures
weight (0.5 Pts. / each): Tibia moments and ligament elonga-
the manufacturer may define a "blue zone“ consisting of up tions.
to 2 adjacent grid points, for which no prediction is made. A
maximum of eight zones may be blue over the entire head- Total score:
form impact area. The total score for the Upper/Lower Legform tests will be
The laboratory will choose one blue point to assess each zone. calculated as follows:
The test results of blue points will be applied to all the grid ∑Scores of all Grid Points
point(s) in each zone. ÷ Number of Grid Points
Assessment Protocol Version 9.0.3 = Percentage of max. achievable score
x 6 (Maximum achievable score)
Testing Protocol Version 8.5 = Total Score for Legform Test
102 more about the impactors  page 124
SAFETY
WISSEN
Whiplash Requirements Front Seats

FMVSS
Requirement Euro NCAP IIHS/IIWPG JNCAP C-NCAP ANCAP KNCAP
202a
Applicable in
Option static dynamic

Geometrical
measurements     
Backset     
Horizontal load app.
(backward displacement) 
Vertical load app.
STATIC REQUIREMENTS
(height retention) 
Integrated/fixed HR, no
height lock modifier 
Minimum height 
Minimum width  
Gaps 
Energy absorption
(pendulum test) 
Head interference space of
head restraint 
ATD H III BioRID BioRID BioRID BioRID BioRID BioRID
Delta Theta 
HIC15 
Head Contact Time HCT    
Head Rebound Velocity   
Upper Neck Force Fx+      
Upper Neck Force Fz+      
NIC     
DYNAMIC REQUIREMENTS
Nkm   
T1 acceleration    
Seatback deflection angle   
Dummy artefact modifier  
Seat track dynamic
displacement 
Upper Neck Tension Fz +
UN Momentum My
Lower Neck Force Fx+  
Lower Neck Force Fz+  
Upper Neck
Momentum My  
Lower Neck
Momentum My  
This table is based on material generated by: LEAR Whiplash Applied Research Group
103
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP Rear Seat Whiplash Assessment

Testing Protocol Version 1.1
① ΔIP X ① Effective 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) Automatic Return Head Restraint, or
2) > 60° rotation of the headrest in non-use position, or
504.5mm · cos(Torso-Angle - 2.6)
ΔCP Z
3) Δ Torso-Angle use / non-use > 10°, or

4) Height of lower edge of the headrest HLE:
250 mm ≤ HLE ≤ 460 mm
with HLE = ΔX · sin (Torso-Angle) + ΔZ · cos (Torso-Angle),
or
5) 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*
max. total 4
Scaling 1/8n (n = number of seats)
* only if Heff requirements are met
104
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP Front Seat Whiplash Assessment

Assessment Protocol Version 8.0.3 Testing Protocol Version 3.3
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 % - 1 pt
Dummy Artefact Modifier
A two point negative modifier is applied as a means of penal-
izing any seat that, by design, places unfavorable 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 46) the total of max. 11 points (3 per pulse + 1 Geometry + 1 Worst Case Geometry) is scaled
by the factor 1.5/11 and is part of the Adult Occupant Protection rating.
Static Geometry Assessment by IIWPG / IIHS RCAR Version 3 (Mar 2008)
Backset - Distance between the back IIHS Version IV (Feb 2016)

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 as Good, Acceptable,
Good Marginal or Poor.
Acceptable
Marginal International Insurance Whiplash Prevention
Poor Group (IIWPG)
Distance between the height probe

of the HRMD and the top of the
head restraint (cm)
Learn more about IIHS‘s static and
dynamic assessment  page 52
SafetyWissen by
105
Passive Safety
Praxiskonferenz
Heckaufprall Sitze Whiplash

The conference for practising professionals
After the automobile industry drastically improved the protection of occupants in frontal
and side impacts, rear-end collisions have become the focus of consumer protection orga-
nizations and legislators in recent years. In 2020 Euro NCAP plans to tighten the Whiplash
requirements and at the same time increase the number of points for the Whiplash rating.
Then the rear impact will account for more than 10% of the Euro NCAP adult score. Thus an
insufficient result in this discipline can easily lead to the loss of a star in the overall ranking.
Because of the enormous amount of damage, the insurance industry is also very interested
in improving passenger protection in rear-end collisions and is calling for improvements
through its national and international organisations.
With the PraxisConference Rear Impact - Seats - Whiplash we have created a forum
where engineers from the automotive industry can obtain comprehensive and practice-
oriented information on this important topic. Through our concept of the PraxisConfer-
ence, in which part of the conference takes place in the test laboratory, we ideally combine
theory and practice. In the laboratory of the ADAC the participants can have a look at the
BioRID dummy, the seating procedure and the test setup according to the current Euro
NCAP test protocol and gain an impression of the necessary test efforts.
Conference Topics
Accident research on rear impact
Biomechanics of the whiplash
Laws and consumer protection requirements
Praxis part at the ADAC Technology Centre
Positioning Oskar with HRMD
Presentation BioRID, handling and positioning
Sled test according to Euro NCAP
Measurement of rear seat headrest according to Euro NCAP
Test technology for rear-end collisions
Numerical simulation
Development strategies and solutions
Who should attend?
The PraxisConference is aimed at employees of the automotive industry who want to
deal with the rear-end collision and gain a comprehensive overview of the topic. Experts
receive an update on current legal and technical developments and use the conference to
exchange experiences with colleagues. Beginners receive a practice-oriented introduction
to the topic and can make contacts with experts.
DATE 14.-15. November 2019

Facts
In co-operation with:
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/pkh
VENUE Steigenberger Hotel Sonnenhof, Bad Wörishofen
LANGUAGE German
106
Passive Safety
Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts
Course Description All discussions about the assessment of whiplash injuries

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

Dates
107
SAFETY
WISSEN
Child Occupant Protection Assessment in Euro NCAP / ANCAP

Protocol Version 7.2.1
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 does not prevent 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.
Modifier: If, during the forwards movement of the dummy, the diagonal belt moves into the gap between the clavicle and upper arm with folding of the belt
webbing, a penalty of -4 points will be applied to the overall dummy score of the impact in which it occurs.
Frontal impact (ODB)
4 HIC151 ≤ 500; a3ms ≤ 60 g
0 HIC151 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g
Head
- 2 (Modifier2) Head forward excursion > 450 mm
Q6 / - 4 (Modifier) Head forward excursion > 550 mm
Q10 2 Fz ≤ 1.7 kN
Upper Neck
max. 24 points
0 Fz ≥ 2.62 kN; My ≥ 36 (Q6) / 49 (Q10) Nm

2 a3ms ≤ 41 g (Q10); Deflection ≤ 30 mm (Q6)
Chest
max. 49 points
0 a3ms ≥ 55 g (Q10); Deflection ≥ 42 mm (Q6)

Side impact (MDB)
2 HIC151 ≤ 500, a3ms ≤ 72 g
Head
0 HIC151 ≥ 700, a3ms ≥ 88 g
Q6 / 1 Fres < 2.4 kN (Q6); Fres < 2.2 kN (Q10)
Upper Neck
Q10 0 Fres ≥ 2.4 kN (Q6); 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 & TopTether marking (for ISO/B2 i-Size fixture defined in UN ECE
points 2
R16 sup. 9)
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 / automatic 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
2
Q10 only
108
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Child Occupant Protection Assessment in Latin NCAP Protocol Version 3.1

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 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
Frontal impact
Head 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
worst score from
max. 16 points
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 upper Neck Fz kN ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62 ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62
Chest ares 3ms g ≤ 41 ≥ 55 ≤ 50 ≥ 66
Side impact
max. 8 points
max. 49 points
Requirements for Points in Side Impact: head containment within shell of CRS, also there must be no fracturing of the CRS
points 4 0 4 0
g
Installation of CRS
CRS from the reference list points 10
12
CRS recommended by the manufacturer points 2

if any passenger seat is not equipped with a 3 point belt 0 points
provision of three-point seat belts
are awarded for the vehicle based assessment
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
max. 13 points
2 passenger seats equipped with ISOFIX according to UN ECE R14 points 1

+ these 2 passenger seats meet i-Size requirements points +1
2 seating positions comply with requirements for largest
points 1
size of rearward facing ISOFIX seats
no passenger airbag points 2
passenger airbag warning and disabling points max. 4
1 integrated CRS points 1
1 integrated “Group I-III” CRS points 1
Child Occupant Protection Assessment in ASEAN NCAP Protocol Version 1.4

Dynamic assessment: Frontal impact Dummy Q1½ Q3
Head points 4 0 4 0
g
worst score from
max. 16 points
Forward facing CRS points 4 0 4 0

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 4 0 4 0
fully restrained within CRS
points 2 0 2 0
Neck upper Neck Fz kN ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62 ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62
Chest ares 3ms g ≤ 41 ≥ 55 ≤ 50 ≥ 66
Dynamic assessment: Side impact
max. 8 pt.
Head points 4 0 4 0
g
Installation of CRS
13 12
more about Latin NCAP  page 57 & ASEAN NCAP  page 58 109
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW
KNCAP Child Occupant Protection Protocol 2019

4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 60 g
Head1 0 HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g
-4 Modifier: Head forward excursion ≥ 550 mm
Q6 2 My,extension < 36 Nm; Fz,tension < 1.7 kN
Neck2
0 My,extension ≥ 36 Nm; Fz,tension ≥ 2.62 kN
max. 16 points
Chest
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 60 g;
Head1 0 HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g;
-2 / -4 Modifier: Head forward excursion ≥ 450 mm / 550 mm
Q10 2 My,extension < 49 Nm; Fz,tension < 1.7 kN
Neck2
0 My,extension ≥ 49 Nm; Fz,tension ≥ 2.62 kN
2 a3ms < 41 g
max. 32 points scaled down to 8 points in the overall rating

Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 55 g
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 60 g
Head1
0 HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g
2 Fz,tension < 2.4 kN
Q6 Neck
0 Fz,tension ≥ 2.4 kN
max. 16 points
2 a3ms < 67 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 67 g
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 60 g;
Head 1
0 HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g;
2 Fz,tension < 2.2 kN
Q10 Neck
0 Fz,tension ≥ 2.2 kN
2 a3ms < 67 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 67 g
If, during the forwards movement of the dummy, the diagonal belt moves into
the gap between the clavicle and upper arm with folding of the belt webbing,
Modifier -4
a penalty of -4 points will be applied to the overall dummy score of the impact
in which it occurs.
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 does not
prevent 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 ancho-
rages or any other attachments which are specifically used to anchor the CRS to the vehicle fail.
1
In the absence of hard contacts the score is based on a3ms only.
2
In the absence of hard contacts the score is based on neck tension force only.
110
SAFETY
WISSEN
RCAR Insurance Tests

Lowspeed Structural Crash Tests Protocol Version 2.3 (Oct 2017)
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
(700 mm+/-10 mm) (200 mm +/- 10 mm)
Bumper Test Protocol Version 2.1 (July 2017)
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±3 mm EU and Asia (AZT ...) 405 mm, USA (IIHS) 455 mm
Front / Rear 15 % 405±3 mm or 455±3 mm Asia (IAG ...) and USA (IIHS) 405 mm
111
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
UNECE Vehicle Classification

Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), Revision 6
Engine Maximum Unladen

Wheels Power Seats Maximum Mass
Category Capacity Design Speed Mass
L1 2 ≤ 50 cm³ ≤ 50 km/h
L2 3 ≤ 50 cm³ ≤ 50 km/h
L3 2 > 50 cm³ > 50 km/h
L4 31 > 50 cm³ > 50 km/h
L5 32 > 50 cm³ > 50 km/h
L6 4 ≤ 50 cm³ ≤ 45 km/h ≤ 350 kg 3 ≤ 4 kW
L7 4 ≤ 400 kg 3,4 ≤ 15 kW
M Vehicles used for the carriage of passengers
M1 ≥4 ≤9
M2 ≥4 >9 ≤5t
M3 ≥4 >9 >5t
N Vehicles used for the carriage of goods
N1 ≥4 ≤ 3.5 t
N2 ≥4 3.5 t < m ≤ 12 t
N3 ≥4 > 12 t
O Trailers (including semi-trailers)
O1 ≤ 0.75 t
O2 0.75 t < m ≤ 3.5 t
O3 3.5 t < m ≤ 10 t
O4 > 10 t
T Agricultural or forestry vehicles
G Off-road vehicles
1
asymmetrically arranged in relation to the longitudinal median plane
2
symmetrically arranged in relation to the longitudinal median plane
3
not including the mass of the batteries in case of electric vehicles
4
≤ 550 kg for vehicles intended for carrying goods
Applicabilty of selected UN Regulations to vehicle categories:
UN R L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 M1 M2 M3 N1 N2 N3 O1 O2 O3 O4
11 ● ●
12 ● ●
14 ● ● ● ● ● ●
16 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
17 ● ● ● ● ● ●
21 ●
25 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
32 ●
33 ●
42 ●
94 ●
95 ● ●
100 ● ● ● ● ● ●
127 ● ●
135 ● ●1 ● ●1
137 ●
145 ● SafetyWissen by
1
optional up to 4500 kg
112
Dummy & Crashtest
SAFETYTESTING
Crash and Safety Testing are key elements in the product development cycle of any new
vehicle development. The partners of SafetyTesting+active are leading companies in crash
and safety testing technology serving the global automotive markets.
You can expect a full day of expert presentations focussing on the hot topics in crash and
safety testing, presented by the technology leaders in the industry.
The SafetyTesting+active conference that has been established in 2011 is part of the
SafetyWeek in Würzburg, Germany.
Conference Topics
The SafetyTesting+active conference will feature presentations on the following topics:
Full scale crash testing technologies
Advanced sled simulation
Measuring technologies and data acquisition
Lighting and video technology
Testing for ADAS development
AEB testing (Car-to-Car, VRU, …)
Who should attend?

The SafetyTesting+active conference is suited for engineers and decision makers from
testing departments for active and passive safety. Both experts and newcomers get an
overview over the latest innovations in test equipment and software tool and find ample
opportunity to share their own experiences with industry colleagues.
DATE 14. Mai 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/safetytesting
PRICE 890,- EUR till 16.04.2019, thereafter 990,- EUR
113
Dummy & Crash Test
Introduction to Data Acquisition in Safety Testing

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 ...)
measurement errors will be explained.
Sources of errors in crash testing
The course provides the basic knowledge in crash data acquisi- Interpretation of signals
tion and gives a comprehensive overview on the procedures Calibration and Certification
employed in data acquisition in the crash testing environment. Dummy certification
Course Objectives Sensor calibration
The course participants will learn about the technology and SAE J211
terminology of sensor and data acquisition technology used in Procedures
Test preparation
safety testing. They will be qualified to define tests, to super- Test execution
vise tests and to interpret and evaluate test results. Test evaluation
Who should attend?
This introductory course aims at new test engineers and
project engineers as well as engineers from simulation depart-
ments at automotive OEMs, suppliers and engineering service
providers.
Thomas Wild (Continental Safety Engineering International GmbH) studied Electrical and
Instructor
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 addi-
tional responsibilities 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
114
LED Lamps for High-speed Photography
Crash Tests | Sledge Tests | Airbag Tests
Our LED lamps offer the perfect lighting for

testing applications in the Automotive Industry.
Flicker-free, reliable and individual.
www.hoenle.com
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 ● ● ●
Current Dummy Landscape
Latin NCAP ● ● ●
Japan Regulations ● ● ● ● ●
JNCAP ● ● ● ●
China Regulations ● ●
Asia
C-NCAP ● ● ● ● ● ●
KNCAP ● ● ● ● ● ●
UPDATE
ASEAN NCAP ● ● ●
ADR (Frontal, Side) ● ● ●
AUS
ANCAP ● ● (●) ● ● ● ●
GTR 7 (Head Restr.) ● ●
WISSEN
SAFETY
GTR
GTR 14 (Pole Side) ●
116
SafetyWissen by
2018 2020 2022 ○ = planned, no date specified
IMPACTING ON SAFETY
Cellbond Barriers
& Absorbers
Cellbond ATD
Design & Development
Testing, Calibration
& Equipment
aPLI Legform
Q6
Q10 Euro NCAP 2020 version
Euro NCAP THOR-50M

with Hybrid III Lower Legs
Setting the standard

for automotive passive
safety testing worldwide
since 1988.
www.cellbond.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
THOR 50 % Male: Injury Criteria, Risk Functions

and proposed Limits
Proposed Limits Limits for Euro

for U.S. NCAP1 NCAP 2020
APPENDIX G. G.
APPENDIX Full Zero Full Zero
Region Criterion Calculation1 Table 8. Summary
Table of injury
8. Summary of injury Riskand
criteria
criteriaFunction
and 1 injury
associated
associated riskrisk
injury functions
functionsscore
used
used score
to assess injury
to assess score
riskrisk
injury using score
THOR
using testtest
THOR resul
re
Criterion
Criterion [ref]
[ref] Calculation
Calculation Vars Vars Variable
Variable Definition
Definition
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
15 15
𝑡𝑡2 𝑡𝑡2 2.5 2.5 𝑡𝑡1 𝑡𝑡1 Beginning
Beginningof time window
of time windowin 𝑠𝑠in 𝑠𝑠
1 1 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
EndEnd
of time window in
HIC15 (-) 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
15 = |(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) 𝑡𝑡[1 ) [
15 = 2|(𝑡𝑡2 − (𝑡𝑡2 (𝑡𝑡
∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
1 ) 𝑡𝑡1 )
−2𝑡𝑡−
] ]| |
∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡2 𝑡𝑡2 of time window in 𝑠𝑠 500
𝑠𝑠
700 500 700
APPENDIX G. 𝑡𝑡1 𝑡𝑡1 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) Head CGCG
Head resultant acceleration
resultant in Beginning
acceleration of time
in Beginning window
of time in 𝑔𝑔in 𝑔𝑔
window
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Table 8. Summary of injury criteria and associated injury risk functions used to assess injury risk using THOR test resu
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Angular
Angular velocity
velocity of the of the head head about about the the local local[x, [x,
y, ory,z] oraxis, in in
z] axis,
Criterion [ref] Calculation Vars
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, filtered at CFC60
Variable Definition 𝑝𝑝
2 2 2 2 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, filtered at CFC60
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 max⁡ max⁡ |) 𝑥𝑥 |) 2 max⁡
(|𝜔𝜔(𝑥𝑥|𝜔𝜔 (|𝜔𝜔(𝑦𝑦|𝜔𝜔
max⁡ |) 𝑦𝑦𝑡𝑡|) max⁡
max⁡
2.5 |) 𝑧𝑧 |) 2
(|𝜔𝜔(𝑧𝑧|𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡1 Beginning of time window in 𝑠𝑠
= √=(√(
2
) + ) (+ ( 1 ) + ) (+ ( ) ) 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical
Criticalangular
angular velocities
velocities in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Head Brain Injury 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥=𝜔𝜔|(𝑡𝑡 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [
𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑]𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 )
𝑡𝑡2
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
End of time window in 𝑠𝑠
66.25 66.25𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) Head CG resultant acceleration in Beginning of time window in 𝑔𝑔
Criterion with ω[x,y,z] = Angular 1velocity (rad/s)
𝑡𝑡
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 56.45 56.45𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 0.71 1.05 - -
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 ωxC = 66.25 rad/s 𝜔𝜔
𝜔𝜔 Angular
42.87 velocity of the head about the local [x, y, or z] axis, in
42.87 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
BrIC𝑁𝑁(-) 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 2
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, filtered at CFC60
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ( |𝜔𝜔
max⁡ 𝑥𝑥 𝑁𝑁 =yC + |)
2
ω max⁡ = 𝑧𝑧 56.45
𝐹𝐹
(𝑧𝑧|𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦 |) 𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀rad/s𝑦𝑦 max⁡ 𝑧𝑧( |𝜔𝜔 |)
2
𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧
Z-axisZ-axisforce measured
force measured at upper
at upper neck neck load cell
load in
cell 𝑁𝑁
in 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝(
APPENDIX = √( G. ) 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖+𝑁𝑁(𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐹𝐹= 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 + ) +( ) 𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Criticalforce
Critical angular velocities
(tension in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 in 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640]
or compression)
APPENDIX 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 G. ωzC 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 = 𝜔𝜔 42.87
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑀𝑀 rad/s
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 Critical force (tension or compression) in 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640]
Table 8.𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦Summary of injury criteria and𝑀𝑀associated 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 66.25 moment
injury
Y-axis 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
risk functions
measured
used at upper
to assess neck
injury
loadload
risk
cellinjury
using THOR test results.
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁risk using THOR test r
Table 8. Summary of injury criteria 𝑦𝑦and𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 associated Y-axisinjury moment risk measured
functions atused
upper toneck assess cell
a3ms
Criterion [ref]
Criterion [g] [ref] Calculation
Calculation
Vars𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑀𝑀Vars 56.45 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Critical
Criticalmomentmoment (flexion
Variable Definition
(flexion or extension) - Definition
or extension)
Variable in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 -[48/-72]
in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/-72]72 80
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 𝑡𝑡2 2.5 𝑡𝑡1 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Beginning
42.87 of time window in 𝑠𝑠
Multi-point
Multi-point 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 1, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚, 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡2 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 )2.5 )
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡1 Overall Beginning
Overall peak peak of
resultanttimedeflection
resultant windowdeflection inin𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
≥
Thoracic 𝑁𝑁Injury
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Injurywhere 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 15 = |(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [ 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 ∫1𝑀𝑀 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] | 𝑡𝑡 2 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 End of
Z-axistime window
force measuredin 𝑠𝑠 at upper neck load cell in 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝
Thoracic where 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 = |(𝑡𝑡2𝑁𝑁(𝑡𝑡 − =1−) 𝑡𝑡[1 )+
𝑦𝑦
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑡𝑡 Peak End of
resultant time window
deflection in
of the 𝑠𝑠 [upper/lower | left/right] quadrant in in= 1 − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2𝑡𝑡 ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑] | [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 2 Peak resultant deflection ofinthe [upper/lower | left/right] quadrant
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚Head CG resultant acceleration Beginning in of time window in (
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑔𝑔
Criterion 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧(𝑡𝑡2𝑡𝑡1− 𝑀𝑀𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦1 ) 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) Critical = 1 − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
Criterion [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Headforce
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (tension
CG resultant or compression)
acceleration in Beginning 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640]of time window in 𝑔𝑔
ij (-)
N𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑡𝑡1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2 2𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 2 2 Angular Y-axis
Time-history moment
velocity ofofthemeasured
the head
[left/right] at 0.39
about upper
chestthe neck
local
deflection
0.85along
load
[x, y,cell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
or along
z] axis,
the the
-in
[X/Y/Z]
-
=with F G.= 4200 N / -6400 N (tension/compression)
2 2 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 2 2
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
APPENDIX (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
zC + + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 ) )[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] Time-history of the [left/right] chest deflection [X/Y/Z]
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 Angular
filtered velocity
at CFC60 of the head about the local [x, y, or z] axis, in 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
M(|𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] axis
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, relative
Critical
axis moment
relative to the
to [upper/lower]
(flexion
the orused
[upper/lower] spine
extension)to spine segment
insegment
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
[48/-72]inrisk
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚using THOR test resu
max⁡ yC𝑥𝑥=|)88.1 2 Nm max⁡ /Table
-117 Nm
2 (|𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦 |)
8.2 Summary (flexion/extension)
max⁡2 (|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧 |)
of injury
2 criteria and
2
associated injury
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,risk functions
filtered at CFC60 assess injury
Compression
Compression
Multi-point
Criterion [ref]= √( =𝑅𝑅𝜔𝜔 √
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔+𝑥𝑥 |)
= )𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 ( Calculation max⁡ max⁡
, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅(𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, |𝜔𝜔
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
)(𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, ,+𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 |)
(𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅max⁡
𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) ))(|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧 |) 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅] 𝑅𝑅] Critical
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
Vars 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
Peak Peak
Overallangular
X-axis
Critical
X-axis
peak velocities
deflection
deflection
resultant
angular
ofinVariable
velocities
the
of
deflection leftleft
the orin right
or
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Definition
in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
rightabdomenabdomen in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3
( 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐴𝐴 )=𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 +𝜔𝜔=𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦( 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) + ( 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 ) 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(
FShear
Thoracic 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶Injury [kN] where the𝑠𝑠-[upper/lower - | left/right] [1.9] [3.1]
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
Neck 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡2 2.5 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑡𝑡𝑑𝑑1𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 66.25 Undeformed
Undeformed
Peak𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Beginningresultant depth
of depth
time ofwindow
deflection the
of the abdomen
of in abdomen [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚] quadrant in
Criterion
15
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 1 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 66.25 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 = 1 −𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
Acetabulum
Acetabulum 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 = |(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡 ) [ 2 2 2 2∫ 2 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] | 𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] X-,
56.45 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
End Y-,
X-, and
ofY-,
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠time Z-window
and axis
Z- axis force force
in 𝑠𝑠measuredmeasured at the at theacetabulum
acetabulum loadloadcellcell
in in
Load 𝐹𝐹 =
𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹
2 √𝐹𝐹
2𝑅𝑅 = 𝑥𝑥√𝐹𝐹
1 +
(𝑡𝑡2𝑥𝑥 −+ 𝐹𝐹 +
𝑦𝑦𝑡𝑡 𝐹𝐹)𝑦𝑦 2 + 𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧
2 2
𝜔𝜔 56.45 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
FLoad
Tension [kN]= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 1
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑡𝑡1
2
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦2
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
42.87 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Time-history
Head CG resultant
42.87 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
[left/right] -chest
of theacceleration deflection
in Beginning - ofalong the
time window 2.7[X/Y/Z]in 𝑔𝑔 3.3
Femur 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖Axial
Femur Axial 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 Z-axisaxis
Z-axis relative
Z-axisfemur
force femur to the
load
measured in[upper/lower]
load 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
at inupper filtered
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, neckatload
filtered spine
CFC600
at CFC600segment
cell in 𝑁𝑁 in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Angular velocity of the head about the local 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
LoadLoad𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
Compression
M
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = + 𝐹𝐹
max⁡ ( 𝑧𝑧𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝑅𝑅]
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧 Z-axis
PeakforceX-axis force measured
deflection at upper
of the left orinright neck abdomen in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 in
load [x,
cell y, inor 𝑁𝑁z] axis, 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Extension 𝐴𝐴 𝑁𝑁
𝐹𝐹=𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 + 2 𝐹𝐹 Critical
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, (tension
filtered at or
CFC60 compression) 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640] 𝑝𝑝
Revised
Revised Tibia Tibia 2
max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |) 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =max⁡ 𝐹𝐹 (𝐹𝐹
+𝑑𝑑
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑀𝑀|)𝑀𝑀
|𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 max⁡(|𝜔𝜔 |) 2 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑑𝑑 Measured
Y-axis
Critical
Measured
Undeformed
moment
force
compressive (tension
compressive
depth
measured
of theaxial
at
orforce
axial
abdomen
upper -neck
compression)
force in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 in- 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640]
in [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
load cell [42] [57]
[Nm] 𝑀𝑀𝜔𝜔
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑦𝑦 𝑧𝑧 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
Index = √ ( ) + 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
( = + ) + ( ) Critical angular velocities in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 2)
≥
Index
Acetabulum 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 𝑦𝑦
𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical
X-, Y-axis
Critical and moment
Y-,compressive Z- axis measured
compressive axial
force axialforce
measured at[12
force upper 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
[12at the neck
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] load cell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
acetabulum load cell in
2 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 2 2 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑐𝑐 𝑦𝑦
Load 𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅 = √𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 + 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 + 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔 Critical
66.25 moment
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 (flexion or extension) in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/-72] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Measured
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 Critical
Measured bending
moment
bending moment(flexion
moment in or 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant
inextension)
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant inof𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁medial-lateral
[48/-72] andand
of medial-lateral
Multi-point 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Overall
56.45 peak
anterior-posterior resultant deflection in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
Femur Axial
Multi-point 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Z-axis 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
anterior-posterior
Overallfemur peakloaddirections)
indirections)
resultant 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered
deflection at CFC600
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Multi-point
Thoracic
Load
Injury where
Thoracic Injury where with [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑀𝑀𝜔𝜔𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 Peak resultant
Critical
42.87
Criticalbending deflection
bending
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 moment moment of [240the[240 [upper/lower
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] | left/right] quadrant in = 1 − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝
Criterion [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 Peak resultant deflection of the [upper/lower | left/right] quadrant in = 1 (−
Thoracic
Criterion
Proximal
Revised
Proximal 𝑁𝑁Tibia
Tibia
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Tibia
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑁𝑁 = =
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀
+
+
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Z-axis
Measured
Z-axis
Z-axis
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚upper
force
uppertibia
compressive loadload
measured
tibia inataxial upper
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
in filtered
force
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, neck inat
filtered load
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘CFC600
at cell
CFC600 in 𝑁𝑁 −
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴 2𝑝𝑝
Axial
Index
AxialForce Force = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚=(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
2
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 +2[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹
2
𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀
2
+2[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) 2 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] 𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹
2 Time-history
Critical of the
compressive
force [left/right]
(tension axial
or chest[12
force
compression) deflection
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] in 𝑁𝑁 along the [X/Y/Z]
[2520/-3640]
Chest Injury
Distal
DistalTibia Tibia
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑀𝑀
𝑐𝑐
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 2
axis
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
Z-axis
Time-history
relative
Z-axislower to
lower
the of the [left/right]
[upper/lower]
tibiatibia
load in
load 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, 37.9
inat𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
spine
filtered
chest
segment
filtered at 52.3
deflection
CFC600
at
in
CFC600
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 along35 the [X/Y/Z]60
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 axis
Measured
Y-axis relative
bending
moment to the
moment
measured [upper/lower] inupper
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 spine
(resultant
neck load segment
of in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
cellmedial-lateral
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 and 𝑝𝑝(
Criterion
Compression
Axial
AxialForce Force
Compression [L/R][X/Y/Z]
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = [U/L]Smax⁡
max⁡
2 (𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
: Time-History(𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) of the
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝑅𝑅]
𝑀𝑀𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑅𝑅]
Peakanterior-posterior
X-axis deflectiondirections)
Peakmoment
Critical X-axis deflection
of the left or right abdomen in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(flexion orofextension) the left or in right
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁abdomen
[48/-72] in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Dorsiflexion
Dorsiflexion 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑑𝑑=𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥the
𝐷𝐷 [x / y / z] 𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 Undeformed
Y-axisY-axis moment depthmeasured
moment ofmoment
the abdomen
measured at lower [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
tibiatibia loadload cellcellin 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
R max
Multi-point (mm) [left
𝑅𝑅 /𝑀𝑀
right]
= chest
= 𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 =𝑌𝑌deflection
−, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹− 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥− , along
−
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 ) 𝑅𝑅
𝑌𝑌 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌
𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 Critical
Overall
bending
Undeformedpeak depth
resultant of [240theatabdomen
deflection
lower
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚] in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
≥ 3
Moment
Moment
Acetabulum 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑌𝑌 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2 2 2spine segment
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 X-,X-axis
Y-, and
X-axis forceZ- axis
measured
force force measured
measured atinlowerat𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
lower attibia
tibia theload acetabulum
cellcell in 𝑁𝑁in load𝑁𝑁 cell in
Proximal
Thoracic
Acetabulum Tibia where
Injury axis relative 𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅 =to √𝐹𝐹 the 2 [upper
+ 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 22+ /𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧lower] 𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Z-axis upper
X-,resultant
Y-, and tibia
Z- load
axis force filtered
measured atload
atCFC600
the acetabulum load cell in in 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
Load 𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅𝑥𝑥 = √𝐹𝐹 2 2 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘Distance Peak deflection of and the [upper/lower | left/right] quadrant 𝑝𝑝
𝑝𝑝(
Axial
Criterion
Load Force [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑥𝑥 + 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 + 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 between
Distance
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
between ankle ankle joint joint and lower lower tibiatibia load cellcell
load [0.0907m]
[0.0907m] = 1 − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
Abdo- Femur Axial
Compression
Distal
Femur Tibia Axial = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 max(δL,δR):
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 2Peak X-axis
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 deflection
2 of the2[left / [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 )
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑚𝑚𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 2
Z-axis
Mass femur
Z-axis
Mass between
Z-axis
Time-history
lowerloadtibia
between
femur
inankle
ankle 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
load
of the
joint
load filtered
injoint
[left/right]
and
in𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, and atfiltered
lower CFC600
lower
filtered
chest at
tibia at load
tibiaCFC600
CFC600
deflection
cellcell
load [0.72kg]
2 288.6along the-[X/Y/Z] 88
[0.72kg] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝
in- 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
LoadAxial Force
Load 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 X-axis X-axis acceleration to theof
acceleration the
of the tibiatibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠segment
men Revised δ max Tibia (mm) right]
𝐹𝐹 abdomen 𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹 axis
Measured relative
compressive [upper/lower]
axial force in spine
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Dorsiflexion
Inversion/
Inversion/
Revised Tibia 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = + 𝐹𝐹 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷
𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 𝑀𝑀 𝑌𝑌 𝐹𝐹 Y-axis
X-axisX-axis moment
moment
Measured moment measured
measured
measured
compressive at
atthe lower
lower
at
axial lowerforcetibia
tibia tibia
in load
load load
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 cell
cellcell in
in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
Compression
Index 𝑀𝑀 = 𝑀𝑀 max⁡ − (
𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, − 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) 𝑦𝑦 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝑅𝑅] Peak X-axis deflection of left or right abdomen in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 2) =𝑝𝑝
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎= 𝑀𝑀 −𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥 − 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝(
𝑥𝑥
Moment
Eversion 𝑀𝑀 =𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑐𝑀𝑀
𝑌𝑌 = −
𝑀𝑀 𝑐𝑐𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦+ 𝐷𝐷 − 2 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 Critical
X-axis compressive
force measured axial force ataxial [12tibia 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] load cell in 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝≥
Eversion atlower
𝑥𝑥𝐴𝐴
Index 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑀𝑀2 Y-axis force measured of at thelower tibiatibia load cellcell in 𝑁𝑁in 𝑁𝑁
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑑𝑑𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐 2 𝑦𝑦 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 Y-axis
Critical force measured
compressive lower force [12load 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
res.
Moment
Moment
𝑐𝑐
𝑀𝑀 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 Undeformed
Measured
Distance
Distance
bending
Measured between
between
depth
momentankle
ankle
in abdomen
joint
joint
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
andand (resultant
lower
lower
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚] of medial-lateral
tibia
tibia load
load cell
cell
and
[0.0907m]
[0.0907m]
Acetabulum 𝐷𝐷
𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀 X-,Distance
Y-, andbetween
anterior-posterior Z-bending
axis force
directions)ankle moment joint and
measured in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 lower
at the(resultant
tibia load
acetabulum of medial-lateral
cell cell in and
[0.0907m]
load
Pelvis Actetabulum
Load 𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅 = √𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 + 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 + 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 2 2 2
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Mass
Mass Mass
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Critical
between
anterior-posterior
between
bendingbetween ankle
ankle
moment ankle joint
jointdirections)
joint
[240
and and2.583 lower
lower
and
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] lower tibia
tibia 3.486
load
load
tibia cell
cell
load [0.72kg]
cell 3.28
[0.72kg]
[0.72kg] 4.1 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 X-axis acceleration
Critical bendingof of
momentthethe tibia inin𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
[240 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 22 2
LoadTibia
Femur
Proximal FR (kN)
Axial 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦
Y-axis
Z-axis Y-axis
Z-axis
upper
acceleration
acceleration
femurtibialoadloadinin𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
the
of
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
tibia tibia
filtered
filtered at𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
in CFC600
at𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
CFC600
Inversion/
Load
Axial Proximal
Force Tibia 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 X-axis
Z-axis momentupper measured
tibia load atin lower
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, tibia
filtered loadat cell
CFC600 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝
Eversion 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 − 𝑝𝑝
AxialTibia Force 2 𝐹𝐹 Y-axis force measured at lower tibia load
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 cell in 𝑁𝑁
Axial
Distal TibiaLoad
Revised
Moment F z 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀
+ 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 Z-axisMeasured
lower tibia compressive
load in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, axial force
filtered inCFC600
at 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥2
Femur AxialIndex Distal Tibia
Force 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 - 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧
𝐷𝐷 Z-axis
Distance
Critical lower tibia
between
compressive ankle load
axial joint 5.331
in
force𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
and[12 filtered
lower 8.588
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]tibia at CFC600
load cell [0.0907m]3.8 9.07 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
(kN)Axial Force
Dorsiflexion 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 𝑚𝑚 𝑀𝑀 Y-axisMass
Measured between
moment bendinganklemoment
measured joint
at lower and in lower tibia cell
tibia(resultant
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 load loadof incell [0.72kg] and
medial-lateral
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
Dorsiflexion 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 − 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 − 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 Y-axis momentdirections) measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Moment 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 − 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 2− 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 X-axisanterior-posterior
Y-axisforce acceleration
measured at oflowerthe tibia tibia inload
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠cell 2
in 𝑁𝑁
Moment 2 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 X-axis force measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁 2
Fz,upper (kN) - 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀 𝑐𝑐
𝐷𝐷
Critical
Distance
bending
Distance between ankle joint and
between
moment
ankle
[240 4.235
joint
lower tibia5.577
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
and lower
load cell [0.0907m]
tibia load cell- [0.0907m] - 2
Proximal Tibia 𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 Mass Z-axis
between upper ankletibiajointloadand in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, lower filtered
tibia load at CFC600cell [0.72kg]
Axial Force 𝑚𝑚 Mass between ankle joint and lower tibia load cell [0.72kg] 𝑝𝑝
𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 X-axis acceleration of the tibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
Tibia Inversion/
Distal Tibia
F (kN) - 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧
𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 X-axis
Z-axis lower acceleration
tibia
X-axis moment measured at lower
load of
in the tibia
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
3.573 filtered in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
tibia load5.861
at
2
CFC600
cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 - 2 - 2
z,lower
Axial Force
Inversion/ 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 − 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 X-axis moment measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝
Eversion 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 2𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 − 𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 Y-axis force measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁
Moment Eversion
Dorsiflexion 𝑥𝑥 2 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 Y-axis
Y-axis momentforce measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁
𝑀𝑀 = 𝑀𝑀 − 𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷 − Distance between ankle joint 𝑝𝑝
MMoment
Moment
res (Nm)
𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹 at and 178lower tibia load
240 cell𝑁𝑁[0.0907m]
- 2[0.0907m] - 2
𝑦𝑦 𝑌𝑌 𝑥𝑥
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 2 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 X-axis
Distanceforce between
measured ankle lower joint tibia
and load lower cell
tibiain load cell
𝑚𝑚 𝐷𝐷 Mass betweenbetween
Distance ankle joint ankle and joint lower andtibia lower load tibiacellload [0.72kg]
cell [0.72kg]
[0.0907m]
𝑚𝑚 Mass between ankle joint and lower tibia load cell
1
as per NHTSA's Request for Comments published in January 2017 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝑚𝑚
𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦
Y-axisMass acceleration
between
Y-axis
of the
ankle joint
acceleration
tibia
of the
in
andtibia 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
lower
2
intibia
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠load cell [0.72kg]
2
2
Euro NCAP uses the lower leg of the Hybrid III dummy 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 X-axis acceleration of the tibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
Inversion/ 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 X-axis moment measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
Eversion 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 −
2 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 Y-axis force measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁
Moment
𝐷𝐷 Distance between ankle joint and lower tibia load cell [0.0907m]
118 𝑚𝑚 Mass between ankle joint and lower tibia load cell [0.72kg]
2
ACTS GmbH & Co. KG
Speed meets Excellence

Expertise in Testing and Test Engineering
Advanced Car Technology Systems GmbH & Co. KG in Sailauf is the competence center
for vehicle safety within the MAGNA Group. In one of the latest test centers worldwide,
modular and functional systems are developed, simulated and tested.
During the last 20 years, ACTS has earned an excellent reputation as a reliable and
flexible development partner in the field of passive vehicle safety. Quality and success
are insured by competence in conjunction with years of experience.
A special feature of ACTS is the own dummy laboratory, which includes dummy and
sensor certification.
ACTS is your independent test laboratory which can offer you fast and competent
solutions for all your challenges.
ACTS GmbH & Co. KG | Kurfürst-Eppstein-Ring 11 | 63877 Sailauf

E-Mail: contact.acts@magna.com | Phone: 06093 / 9942 0 www.acts.de
SAFETY
WISSEN in Cooperation with
BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH
Overview Dummies
Weights, Dimensions and Instructions for Calibration
Adult Dummies for Frontal / Rear Impact
Weight Seating Height
Instruction for Calibration
(kg) (cm)
THOR 50 % Male 76.7 90.7
THOR 5 % Female 46.9 81.3
Hybrid II 50 % Male 74.4 90.7 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart B
SAE J2862, J2878
Hybrid III 5 % Female 49.1 78.7
CRF 49 Part 572, Subpart O
SAE J2779, J2876
Hybrid III 50 % Male 77.7 88.4 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart E
1999/98/EC
Hybrid III 95 % Male 101.3 91.9 SAE J2860
BioRID II 77.7 88.4 User Manual
Adult Dummies for Side Impact

(kg) (cm)
Eurosid 1 Certification Procedure
Eurosid 1 72.0 90.4
96/27/EC, UN R95
ES-2 72.0 90.9 FTSS - User Manual / UN R95
ES-2 re 72.4 90.9 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart U
US-SID 76.7 89.9 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart F
US-SID/Sid-H3 77.2 89.9 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart M
SID IIs 44.12 78.0 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart V
WorldSID 5% Female 48.27 User Manual
WorldSID 50% Male 73.91 86.9 User Manual
Child Dummies
(kg) (cm)
P0. P¾. P6. P10 3.4 - 32.0 34.5 - 72.5 User Manual
P3 15.0 56.0 User Manual
P1½ 11.0 49.5 P1½ User Manual
Q1 9.6 47.9 Q1 User Manual
Q1½ 11.1 49.9 Q1.5 User Manual
Q10 35.5 73.4 Q10 User Manual (Rev. A Draft)
CRABI 12 m 10.0 46.4 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart R
Hybrid II - 3 y/o 15.1 57.2 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart C
Hybrid II - 6 y/o 21.5 64.5 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart I
Hybrid III - 3 y/o 16.19 54.6 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart P
Hybrid III - 6 y/o 23.4 63.5 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart N
Hybrid III - 6 y/o - weighted 27.92 64.06 - 66.6 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart S
Hybrid III - 10 y/o 35.2 71.6 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart T
120
BST 15C BST 26C BST IMU-C Bay SensorTec GmbH
Features Features Advantages Peter Bay

l Very small size l Very small size l Anodized aluminium Erfurter Straße 31
l Meets SEA J211 l DC response to 3.5 kHz housing D-85386 Eching
l High shock resistance l Damping ratio 0.7 l DC response
l Frequency 0 Hz (DC) l Anodized aluminium l Damping 0.7 Tel.: +49 (0)89 189 41 49 11
to 3.5 kHz housing accelerometer Fax: +49 (0)89 189 41 49 29
l Damping 0.05 l Very low power info@bay-sensortec.com
consumption
Applications Applications l Low mass Distributed by:
l Automotive crash test l Crashtest duetto-engineering.com
l In-dummy l Shock test Applications info@duetto-engineering.de
instrumentation l Automobil Crashtest
bay-sensors.com
Dummy & Crash Test Seminars by our Partner
Dummy-Trainings
Course Description DUMMY Hybrid III 5 %, 50 %, 95 %

The seminars give you the opportunity to gain efficiency and security in the use and
DATE 11.-12.02.2019 07.-08.10.2019
handling of dummies.
COURSE ID 707/3375 707/3376
After a short theoretical introduction you are going to be trained in the handling of the
respective dummy-type in a dummy lab in practical exercises in work groups. PRICE 1.590,- EUR each
DUMMY THOR
Course Contents DATE 01.-03.04.2019 25.-27.11.2019

Introduction of the respective dummy-type COURSE ID 721/3391 721/3392
History, development, assemblies, standard instruments, optional measuring PRICE 2.450,- EUR each
points, recent modifications, regulations for application/test, calibration DUMMY BioRID II
Complete disassembly of the dummies in work groups
DATE 18.-19.02.2019 28.-29.10.2019
Explanation of the functions of the assemblies and the individual parts, special
features, deviations from other dummy-types, practical hints for the handling of COURSE ID 708/3381 708/3382
individual assemblies, sensors and cabling, special tools, other devices, cleaning PRICE 1.590,- EUR each
Complete assembly of the dummies in work groups DUMMY WorldSID 50 %
work steps, possible assembly errors, mounting of the sensors, cabling, DATE 18.-19.03.2019 18.-19.11.2019
adjustments of joints, storing / transport
COURSE ID 718/3389 718/3390
Dummy calibration
PRICE 1.750,- EUR each
Demonstration and explanation of the calibration tests
DUMMY ES-2 / ES-2re
Course Objectives DATE 25.-26.02.2019 06.-07.11.2019
Efficiency and security in use and handling of dummies COURSE ID 709/3385 709/3386
Exact knowledge about assembly, mechanics and sensor positions PRICE 1.590,- EUR each
Understanding of the measuring possibilities and limits DUMMY SID IIs
DATE 12.-13.03.2019 12.-13.11.2019
Who should attend? COURSE ID 710/3387 710/3388
Project and test engineers, technicians, mechanics
DUMMY P- / Q-Child Dummy
DATE 15.02.2019 11.10.2019
COURSE ID 711/3379 711/3380
PRICE 875,- EUR each
DUMMY Q6 / Q10
DATE 21.02.2019 04.11.2019
COURSE ID 720/3383 720/3384
DUMMY Hybrid III 3 and 6 y/o
DATE 14.02.2019 10.10.2019
COURSE ID 712/3377 712/3378
VENUE Bergisch Gladbach
LANGUAGE
Dummy Specialists, BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH

Instructors
DATE COURSE ID VENUE of theDURATION PRICEHighway Research Institute (BASt). BGS calibrates
LANGUAGE
Date
BGS operates the dummy calibration laboratory German Federal crash

test dummies for the automotive industry. The seminars are held by experienced engineers from BGS‘ team.
28.-29.04.2016 Alzenaz 2 Tage 1.290,- EUR bis 31.03.2016, danach 1.540,- EUR
122
Seminars by our Partner Dummy & Crash Test
Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures
A basic prerequisite for successful implementation of pedes- Basics and current status of the regulations
trian protection is a detailed knowledge of test requirements. (presentations)
This seminar provides the complete knowledge regarding the Euro NCAP - Rating (presentation)
test methods as defined by the EU regulation on pedestrian Test preparation according to Euro NCAP testing protocol
protection and Euro NCAP’s pedestrian protection assess- and EU regulation (practical exercises)
ment in theory and praxis. Test demonstrations: Head, Upper Legform and Legform
Compact presentations explain the basics and technical details impact (demonstrations and practical exercises)
of the regulation and the test protocols. Practical exercises the Discussion
BASt’s test laboratory include test preparation, vehicle mark- Who should attend?
ing, selection of test points, handling of the impactors and the Project, test and simulation engineers,
actual testing with head and legform impactors. Technicians, mechanics
DATE 09.-11.04.2019 24.-26.09.2019
COURSE ID 713/3407 713/3418
LANGUAGE
Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Flex PLI

Course Objectives Adjustments of the Compound Springs, Clamping Bolts,
Detailed Knowledge of the new Impactor Stopper Cables, etc.
Experience with Handling and Usage of the Impactor Demonstration of both Certification Procedures
Understanding of the Impactor’s Functionality Data Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results
Course Contents Who should attend?
History, Biomechanics, Evaluation, Legislation Project, test and simulation engineers,
Assembly, Transducers, Onboard Data Acquisition, Technicians, mechanics
Technical Details
Disassembly along with Comments on Function of DATE 28.03.2019 12.09.2019
Components COURSE ID 717/3413 717/3414
Assembly along with practical Tips and Pointers to
Specialities and possible Mistakes
LANGUAGE
Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Vehicle Mark-Up

Course Objectives Tolerances
Experience with the new Vehicle Markup Default Green / Default Red Definitions
Certainty in its Application Result Analysis, Point Assessment
Deep Understanding of the Procedure Adaption of the Principle to Upper- and Lowerleg Areas
Course Contents Who should attend?
Basics, Background and Development of the Procedure Project, test and simulation engineers,
Test Area Determination, Borders, Exemption Zones, Technicians, mechanics
Special Cases
DATE 25.03.2019 09.09.2019
Necessary Laboratory Equipment, Helpful Tools
Exemplification by a complete Mark-up of a Vehicle COURSE ID 716/3411 716/3412
Color Scheme, Manufacturers Predictions, allowed VENUE Bergisch Gladbach
LANGUAGE
123
SAFETY
WISSEN in Cooperation with
Impactors for Pedestrian Protection
Lower Legform (EEVC) Flexible Pedestrian Legform

Impactor: Flex PLI
50 mm
max.
FEMUR SECTION
C.G. of femur Instrumentation:

Foam flesh
Femur:
Skin
3 strain gauges
432 mm
Damper attached to
shear system Knee:
217 mm
3 potentiometers
66 mm
Direction of travel
Tibia:
926 mm
4 strain gauges
233 mm
Deformable knee element
Accelerometer
494 mm
Injury Criteria
Criterion
C.G. of tibia
Tibia bending Moment
TIBIA SECTION MCL Elongation
70 mm ACL / PCL Elongation

Diameter
Length Diameter Mass Length Diameter Mass

926 mm ~ 132 mm 13.4 kg 975 mm 132 - 140 mm 13.4 kg
Upper Legform Adult Headform Impactor Child Headform Impactor

50 mm
Load transducer
Weight as
required End plate End plate
Accelerometer Accelerometer
Skin Skin
Torque
50 mm
limiting joint
350 mm
Sphere Sphere
50 mm
Strain gauges
14 mm 14 mm
Rear member Sphere ø 165 mm Sphere ø 165 mm
Front member
Foam with rubber skin

SafetyWissen by
Length Width Mass Diameter Mass Diameter Mass

350 mm ~ 155 mm 11 - 18 kg Adult Headform 165 mm 4.5 kg Child Headform 165 mm 3.5 kg
more on pedestrian protection  page 96

124
Dynamic / Static Deployment Tests
Software Analysis Tools
Fully Automated Turnkey Solutions
Passive Safety Test www.hude.com
Precise Industrial 3D Metrology
High Speed Imaging for Vehicle Testing

[mm]
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
[mm]
80
0
-75
-150
Head-X-Displacement
-225
Head-Y-Displacement
-300 Head-Z-Displacement
-380
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 [ms]
3D film analysis Static and dynamic component testing

Simulation verification Safety testing
GOM Correlate – Evaluation software for 3D testing: www.gom.com/correlate

SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCAP Tests for Active Safety and Driver Assistance

Safety Assist Assessment based on:
Seat Belt Reminder (SBR) Total 3.00
On all front row seats 1.00
additionally rear seats with SBR (n = number of rear seating positions) 1.5/n per seat
additionally rear seats with occupant detection (n = number of rear seating positions) 0.5/n per seat
Speed Assist Systems (SAS) Total 3.00

Basic SLIF 0.50
Speed Limit Informa- Advanced SLIF 0.50
1.50
tion Function (SLIF) System Accuracy 0.25
Warning Function 0.25
Speed Limitation Function (SLF)
Speed Control For cars without SLIF 1.25
1.50
Function For cars with SLIF 0.75
Intelligent Speed Assist (ISA) and/or intelligent ACC 1.50
Euro NCAP / ANCAP
Lane Support Systems (LSS) more  page 148 Total 4.00

Human Machine Lane Departure Warning (LDW) 0.25
0.50
Interface (HMI) Blind Spot Monitoring (BSM) 0.25
Road Edge only 0.25
Road Edge
Road Edge with central lane marking 0.25
Lane Keep Assist Single lane marking 0.25
Dashed Line 2.00
(LKA) Fully marked lane 0.50
Single lane marking 0.25
Solid line
Fully marked lane 0.50
Centreline Road Edge
dashed no line 0.25
Road Edge
Emergency Lane dashed dashed line 0.25
1.50
Keeping (ELK) dashed solid line 0.25
Oncoming vehicle Fully marked lanes 0.50
Overtaking vehicle Fully marked lanes 0.25
AEB Inter-Urban more  page 146 Total 3.00
AEB City: max. 3 Points (as part of the Adult Occupant assessment) more  page 141
AEB VRU: max. 12 Points (as part of the VRU Protection assessment) more  page 142
Seat Belt Reminder
Driver seat 0.5 points
Latin NCAP

Front passenger seats 0.5/n points per seat (n = number of seating positions)
All rear passenger seats 1 point
ABS as a prerequisite for 3 or more stars
ESC compliant with GTR 8 as a prerequisite for 4 or more stars more  page 57
Safety Assist Technology (SAT) Assessment

(Weighting: 25 % of the overall rating)
ASEAN NCAP
Effective Braking & Avoidance (EBA): ABS / ESC: 8 Points

Seat Belt Reminder Driver / Passenger (with seat occupancy detector) / rear seats: 6 Points
Blind Spot Technology: 2 Points
Advanced SAT: AEB, LKA, LDW, FCW etc.: 2 Points Get familiar with all NCAP tests in just 2 days with
more  page 58 our Seminar:
learn more on  page 136
126
Saving More Lives
We can make life safer

by making cars safer
Each year, Autoliv’s products save

over 30,000 lives
autoliv.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCAP Tests for Active Safety and Driver Assistance

planned: Crash Avoidance Rating consisting of
Forward Collision Warning: 10 Points more  page 152
Planned Crash Avoidance Rating
Crash Imminent Braking: 12 Points more  page 152
Dynamic Brake Support: 8 Points Stars required points
Low Beam Headlighting: 20 Points (out of 100)
U.S. NCAP
Semi-automatic headlight beam switching: 10 Points

 80
Amber rear turn signal: 5 Points
Lane Departure Warning: 12 Points  60
Blind Spot Detection: 5 Points 40

Assessment of the risk for rollover (Static Stability Factor SSF): 18 Points
Additionally as part of the pedestrian safety assessment:  20
AEB Pedestrian  0
Rear Auto Braking more  page 150
AEB (part of the Top Safety Pick rating) more  page 53

approach to standing vehicle at 20 km/h and 40 km/h
assessment of the speed reduction:
20 km/h Test 40 km/h Test
Speed reduction < 8 km/h 8 - 14 km/h ≥ 15 km/h < 8 km/h 8 - 14 km/h 15 - 34 km/h ≥ 35 km/h
Points 0 1 2 0 1 2 3
1 additional point for FCW (Forward Collision Warning) meeting the U.S. NCAP criteria
Rating scheme:
IIHS
Points
Rating BASIC ADVANCED SUPERIOR

AEB Pedestrian more  page 145
Advanced Lighting (part of the Top Safety Pick rating)
Assessment of the illumination and glare of high and low beam headlights in various test scenarios. Additional credit is given for
systems that automatically switch between high and low beam.
more  page 64
Max. points for adv. safety systems 2019
SBR: 4 Points AEB Inter-Urban 32
Advanced Safety Award, consisting of: (see table) AEB Pedestrian (day) 25
AEB Pedestrian (night w/ illumination) 40
JNCAP
AEB Pedestrian (night w/o illumination) 15

LSS 16
ASV+ Award for cars achieving ≥ 12 Points Rear View Monitor 6
ASV++ Award for cars achieving ≥ 46 Points Headlights 5
ASV+++ Award for cars achieving ≥ 86 Points
Pedal misapplication 2
max. total 141
Rollover assessment based on SSF like in U.S. NCAP: 5 Points
Braking Performance Tests: Measurement of the stopping distance from 100 km/h on dry and wet road. Check if
vehicle stays within the 3.5 m wide track while braking: 5 Points
Basic Active Devices:
KNCAP
FCW, LDW, SLD, SBR front, SBR rear: 0.5 Points each
AEB Inter-Urban: 1 Points
AEB City: 1.5 Points
Additional Active Devices (optional): Max. total points for Additional Active Devices = 2 Points
ASCC, BSD, RCTA, LKA, ISA: 0.5 Points each more  page 65
AEB Pedestrian, Advanced Airbag: 1 Point each
Active Safety Assessment (Weighting: 15 % of the overall rating): more  page 61, 154
C-NCAP
ESC: 4 Points
AEB / FCW Car to Car Rear: 8 Points
AEB Pedestrian: 3 Points
128
DEKRA Automobil Test Center Klettwitz.
Test regulations for autonomous driving.
The DEKRA Automobil Test Center at EuroSpeedway Lausitz is developing into Europe’s largest
independent test center for automated and connected driving. We test driver assistant systems,
driving dynamics, and vehicle safety.
AEB ESP Pedestrian protection
Test types Test types Test types

> AEB city tests (stationary vehicle) > Sinus steering maneuver with stop times > Head impact tests
> AEB inter-urban tests (stationary, con- > Steering-angle jump test > Leg and hip impact
stantly moving, and braking vehicle) > Track radius reduction test > Sensor tests for actively triggering
> General ACC tests > Double lane change systems
Tasks Tasks Tasks
> Homologation > Homologation > Homologation
> CoP tests > CoP tests > CoP tests
> Support for development > Support for development > Support for development
> Inspections according to manu- > Inspections according to manu- > Manufacturer specifications
facturer’s specifications facturer’s specifications Regulations
Regulations Regulations > ECE, EG, GTR, NCAP, TRIAS
> ECE, ISO, EuroNCAP > ECE, FMVSS
Accredited as test laboratory according to ISO 17025: Germany – DAkkS. Designated technical service in Germany – KBA,
Netherlands – RDW, Japan – TRIAS. Information security management system pursuant to ISO 27001 including VDA prototype
protection. Many years of experience in the automotive sector. Universal test benches. Large number of test tracks. Preparatory
workshops with qualified personnel.
DEKRA Automobil Test Center

Senftenberger Straße 30, 01998 Klettwitz
Phone: +49.35754.7344-500, Fax: +49.35754.7345-500
www.dekratechnologycenter.com
Active Safety, Driver Assistance & Autonomous Driving
Introduction to Active Safety of Vehicles

Increasing demands on the protection of vehicle occupants The seminar is aimed at new and experienced engineers work-
have led to a continuous reduction in the number of injured ing in the field of active vehicle safety in research and develop-
and killed persons. While more than 20,000 persons have ment departments of automotive OEMs or suppliers, as well
been killed on German roads in the early 1970s, this number as for all other interested parties, which want to receive an
is now just over 3,000. Passive safety, i.e. measures which are overview of current and future developments in the areas of
designed to minimize the consequences of an accident, has active vehicle safety, driver assistance and automated driving.
made a significant contribution to this achievement. Course Contents
While the potential of passive safety is considered to be largely Fundamentals of active safety
exhausted and huge efforts are required to achieve further Basic principles of action
progress in occupant protection, active safety has become Legal requirements
increasingly important in recent years. Active Safety means Euro NCAP requirements
measures which prevent an accident or at least reduce the Current active safety systems
collision speed and thus the energy input. ABS
While technologies such as ABS or ESC have been established ESC
Brake assist
years ago and have proven their effectiveness, new tech-
Pre-crash systems
niques such as the emergency brake or the lane keeping assist
Driver assistance systems
and numerous other driver assistance systems are just enter- Basic requirements and design strategies
ing the market. It can be assumed that these systems will be Current and future driver assistance systems
widely used in the next few years and will lead to a further Automated driving
decrease in the number of traffic victims. State of the art
Automated driving can be seen as the next step of active Opportunities and risks
safety. Although there is still a lot of development needed Human machine interface
in this area, it can be assumed that vehicles which will driven Market introduction strategies
at least partially automatically in certain traffic scenarios will
enter the market over the next ten years.
In the seminar first a brief introduction to active safety, in
contrast to passive safety is given. This is followed by a presen-
tation of current active safety systems and an overview of the
requirements of legislation and consumer protection organi-
zations. In addition, current and upcoming developments in
the area of driver assistance systems and automated driving
are presented.
Dr. Gerd Müller (Technical University Berlin) has been working at the department automotive
Instructor
technology of the Technical University of Berlin since 2007. From 2007 to 2015 he was a research assistant.
Since 2015 he has been a senior engineer of the same department. His research focuses on vehicle safety
and friction coefficient estimation. Dr. Müller gives the lecture "Fundamentals of Automotive Engineering"
and conducts parts of the integrated course "Driver Assistance Systems and Active Safety".

Dates
130
INDIA SUMMIT 2019

SAFE ROADS is a Mercedes-Benz initiative to increase the road safety awareness in markets
with high fatality rates. It acknowledges the fact that road safety requires a comprehensive
and systematic approach consisting of continuous improvements in vehicle technology,
road infrastructure, road user behavior and exposure.
SAFE ROADS started as a CSR activity in form of a road show in 2015. After the first success-
ful event in 2017 and in order to achieve continuity and sustainability, SAFE ROADS India
Summit brings together the stakeholders again in 2019.
SAFE ROADS India Summit 2019 is a 2-day conference dedicated to all aspects of road
safety. Expert lectures on vehicle technology, road infrastructure, road user behavior and
exposure are aiming at exchanging the latest advances for making roads and traffic safer
for everyone.
In 2019, Automated Driving and the Future of Road Safety in India, has been selected as
the core theme of SAFE ROADS India Summit.
Conference Topics:
Future of road safety in India
Advanced vehicle safety technology (cars, buses, trucks, two-wheelers)
Infrastructure and road design
ADAS and automated driving
Accident research, field experiences
Crashworthiness
Restraint systems
Who should attend?

SAFE ROADS India Summit 2019 will be of interest to professionals, academics, researchers,
policy makers and practitioners involved in automotive safety, road infrastructure, educa-
tion and health care and mobility. The conference aims to identify and discuss challenges,
initiatives and innovations for safer roads in India and the future of automated driving.
DATE 20.-21. November 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/saferoads
VENUE New Delhi, India
LANGUAGE English
131
Execution of Monitoring of Fallback System BASt Level SAE Level NHTSA Level
Steering and Driving Performance of Capability
Acceleration/ Environment Dynamic Driving
Deceleration Task
0 0
- Driver only
No Automation No automation
according to BASt, SAE and NHTSA definitions
1 1
Some
Assisted Driver Functionspecific
driving modes
assistance automation
2
2
Some Partially Combined
Partial
driving modes automated function
automation
automation
Levels of Driving Automation
3 3
Some Highly
Conditional Limited self driving
driving modes automated
automation automation
4
Some Fully
High
driving modes automated 3/4
automation
Limited self driving
automation /
Full self driving
5 automation
All
- Full
driving modes
WISSEN
SAFETY
automation
132
New for 2019!
VBOX TOUCH
Versatile 10Hz GPS data logger with
2xCAN, 2xSerial, Bluetooth, WiFi
and touch screen with in-built Python
scripted applications allowing users to
create their own custom applications.
INDOOR
POSITIONING
Compatible with our existing VBOX 3i,
our new solution for measuring speed
and position indoors updates at 100Hz
and is accurate to 5cm. Ideal for
Acceleration, Braking, Dynamic Tests,
and for validating ADAS and
Automatic Parking systems.
SOFTWARE PLUGINS
Our next generation of data analysis
software with dedicated plugins for most
vehicle test applications including NCAP,
SAE, FMVSS & ECE testing.
vboxautomotive.co.uk
RACELOGIC Experts in high accuracy GPS based data logging.
NEW
Briefing on the Worldwide Status of Automated Vehicle Policies

Regardless of the hype surrounding “self-driving cars”, it is The briefing is aimed at employees from the development
clear that automated driving systems (ADS) will fundamentally departments of vehicle manufacturers and suppliers working
change the automotive industry. Moreover, despite wide- in the field of automated driving and vehicles equipped with
spread expectations that ADS hold the key to achieving sub- automated driving systems. Given the risks of misuse, it is par-
stantial reductions in road crashes, injuries, and deaths, these ticularly important for all employees in product strategy and
systems also raise concerns among safety authorities. The marketing departments.
validation of ADS requires long-duration testing and develop-
ment to ensure correct behavior under massively variable Course Contents
road conditions. Conventional regulatory methods developed Safety authority expectations for automated vehicle safety
over the past half-century lack methods and tools to assess Role and influence of manufacturers on regulatory thinking
such performance, forcing safety authorities to look for new Pressures on current regulatory methods and tools
ways to ensure that ADS will be safe for public use. Pressure on type approval for near-term framework
Guidance versus regulation: How and when?
Course Objectives Hybridization: Merging of self-certification and type
This seminar reviews current efforts to adapt regulatory sys- approval
tems to meet this challenge, including the vigorous debates Levels of automation from a regulatory perspective
over strategies and methods and the roles of regulators and Current efforts to establish automated vehicle regulations
manufacturers in ensuring the safety of automated vehicles. Outlook: Can regulations ensure automated vehicle safety?

Instructor
tative of the US auto parts industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc. (a leading global automotive safety systems
supplier).

Date
134
NEW
Highly Automated and Autonomous Driving:

Facts, State of Technology and Legislation
Course Description What levels of automation are aimed at in which
The seminar addresses all facts and questions about highly auto- scenarios?
mated and autonomous driving: Market, players, customers & What are the basic functions and which key technologies
affected persons, the worldwide legislation, the required tech- are needed?
nologies, and last but not least the numerous gaps still to be filled. When and why are digital maps needed?
Following the introduction of Advanced Driver Assistance Why and why artificial intelligence is needed?
Systems (ADAS), driven primarily by Euro NCAP, some vehicle How does artificial intelligence work - what are the risks?
manufacturers are now offering systems that enable partially What are the worldwide legal framework conditions like?
automated driving in certain traffic scenarios, but which How will autonomous vehicles affect vehicle safety and
still have to be monitored by the driver. In just a few years, accident statistics?
highly automated systems are to follow, in which the driver What gaps still need to be closed and what are the
only has to take over control when requested to do so. The biggest hurdles still to be overcome?
focus will be on traffic jams and the autopilot on motorways. Who should attend?
The legal framework conditions are currently being created. The seminar is particularly aimed at technicians and engi-
At the same time, internet companies, mobility service pro- neers from the fields of research and development in the
viders, start-ups and cities in the USA, Singapore, China and automotive and automotive supplier industries, i.e. system
Europe are intensifying the testing and operation of driver- developers, test and application engineers, designers, project
less robotic taxis and shuttle buses on public roads: Since managers and managers, who are professionally involved in
2018, even self-driving waymo taxis (Google) that are no some form of highly automated and autonomous driving.
longer monitored by security drivers have been on the road In addition, the seminar is aimed at all those who would like
in a suburb of Phoenix (Arizona). This hype is only clouded by to find out about the current status, facts and perspectives
a deadly collision with a pedestrian caused by an Uber taxi. of autonomous driving: Traffic and city planners, lawyers and
In this field of interest, the seminar discusses all functions and marketing experts.
technologies used in automated driving, sensors, communica-
tion systems and algorithms, especially artificial intelligence. Course Contents
Particular attention will be paid to system boundaries and Motivation, drivers and advantages of autonomous
technical gaps, as well as aspects of functional safety and sys- driving
Scenarios for automated driving and driverless robotic
tem security. The effects on occupant protection and syner-
gies between active and passive safety will also be addressed. taxis
Applied technologies and sensors
In addition, the legal situation of automated driving and the
System boundaries and technical gaps
consequences under type approval law are dealt with.
Legal and other challenges (e.g. system security, driver
Course Objectives monitoring)
The seminar answers the most important questions about Effects on occupant protection
automated driving:
Who are the players/drivers, what are their goals and
strategies?
Dr. Lothar Grösch has been working in safety engineering for more than 40 years, both at one of the
Instructor
leading OEMs in Passive & Active Safety, and with a major supplier in pioneering new automotive safety
sensors & systems. From 2000 to 2009, he worked in the United States as a Product Director for Automo-
tive Safety Systems, thus he is particularly familiar with U.S. specific requirements. Although he only joined
the carhs team quite recently, he has a long experience in guest teaching at several universities in the U.S. &
Germany, as well as in company internal training seminars, technical marketing, customer presentations &
workshops. In 2009 Dr. Grösch has founded Groesch Automotive Safety Consulting and is primarily working
in driver assist and accident avoidance systems.

Dates
135

Course Description In both focusses the current overall rating methods are
In 1978 the first New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was described and explained. In addition to that an outlook is
established by NHTSA in the United States. The goal was given on the roadmaps and future developments of the NCAP
to motivate competing car manufacturers to enhance the programs.
safety level of their cars beyond the minimum safety stan- Who should attend?
dards defined by regulations. The same approach has been The seminar addresses design, simulation, testing and project
followed globally by other organizations (e.g. by Euro NCAP, engineers as well as managers who want to get a current over-
IIHS, ANCAP, JNCAP, KNCAP, C-NCAP, ...) Euro NCAP which view on the global range of NCAP programs with an outlook
has been established in 1997 has taken a leading role and on upcoming topics and trends from an insider. Depending on
has significantly influenced other countries and regions. The the focus of their work attendees should chose the appropri-
NCAP programs in many cases are highly dynamic, especially ate focus of the seminar.
in comparison with rulemaking activities. In order to reach Course Contents
the goal to continuously improve the safety level of cars, the New Car Assessment Programs - overview
requirements need to be permanently adapted to the state U.S. NCAP
of technology. Developers in the automotive industry need to IIHS
know about upcoming changes at an early stage in order to be Euro NCAP
able to design or equip their vehicles accordingly. ANCAP
In this seminar attendees get an overview of the organizations JNCAP
in charge of the NCAP programs and become familiar with the KNCAP
various test and assessment methods. C-NCAP
The seminar is conducted several times a year with C-IASI
changing focuses: Latin NCAP
Focus passive safety: Here the focus is on test and ASEAN NCAP
assessment methods for passive safety. Frontal and Bharat NCAP
side impact, whiplash, child protection and pedestrian Global NCAP
protection are discussed in detail. Tests for active safety
are only mentioned in as far as they are relevant for the
overall rating.
Focus active safety: Here the focus is on active safety
systems such as AEB or lane assistance. The tests and
assessments for these systems are explained in detail.
Test for passive safety are only mentioned in as far as
they are relevant for the overall rating.
Director and Professor Andre Seeck (Federal Highway Research Institute) is head of the
Instructor
division "Vehicle Technology" with the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt). In this position he
is responsible for the preparation of European Safety Regulations. Furthermore he represents the German
Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure in the Board of Directors of Euro NCAP and he is the
chairman of the strategy group on automated driving and of the rating system. These positions enable him to
gain deep insight into current and future developments in vehicle safety. In 2017 NHTSA awarded him the U.
S. Government Special Award of Appreciation.

Dates
136
SAFETYUPDATE
The SafetyWeek in Würzburg, Germany brings the addition of a new event to the established SafetyUpDate+active
( page 15) which presents all current developments in active and passive automotive safety.
SafetyLighting focusses on the increasing importance of headlights in automotive safety,

as new requirements for headlights were just introduced. IIHS established a new rating for
headlights which evaluates both the illumination of the road and the glare of oncoming
traffic. To achieve the highest IIHS award from 2018, the IIHS Top SafetyPick+, vehicles
need to acquire a “Good” rating. NHTSA also included the topic into their plans for the U.S.
NCAP upgrade and already published a test and rating procedure
SafetyLighting presents current and future requirements for headlights as well as solu-
tions and methods to meet these. Experts from consumer protection organizations,
legislation and industry show the current developments on headlights.
Conference Topics
Importance of lighting systems for accident prevention
Current headlight technologies
Legal requirements on headlights
Consumer protection ratings
Test and development methods
Solutions and technologies
Who should attend?

SafetyLighting targets automotive development engineers and technicians, who are
involved with the development and testing of headlights.
DATE 14. May 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/safetyweek
LANGUAGE English
PRICE 890,- EUR till 16.04.2019, thereafter 990,- EUR
137
Consumer protection organizations constantly increase their requirements on emergency

brake assistants for passenger cars: Test cases with visual obstruction and higher expected
speed reductions are the prerequisites for a 5-star rating in Euro NCAP or a Top Safety Pick+
of the IIHS.
As next step, legal working groups prepare the introduction of AEB systems for passenger
cars. Heavy commercial vehicles and buses are already further ahead: since 2015 they have
had to be equipped with emergency brake assist systems as standard. To further reduce
the number of accidents, the requirements defined in UN R131 were tightened in 2016
and the scope was extended to vehicle classes N2 (≤ 8 t) and M2. Intensive work is currently
being carried out on a planned tightening of the requirements of UN R131.
The PraxisConference AEB|AES brings you together with the experts on the topic. Proven
and new technologies for testing and releasing automated emergency functions are used
live. Prepared for you:
The presentation of current and future requirements on emergency braking, evasion
and highly automated driving functions, as well as development strategies that lead to
a robust system.
Direct dialogues with the "designers" of boundary conditions for the development
of automated emergency braking and evasion functions: Legislative representatives,
consumer protection organizations, OEM departments and suppliers of simulation
and testing technologies.
Practical experience with various test setups, targets, driving robots and control
software at the stations of the DemoDay.
Who should attend?

The PraxisConference AEB|AES addresses everyone, who works in the field of safety-
related driver assistance systems. If you want to improve your network, you will meet
interesting conversation partners with development, system integration, regulation and
testing backgrounds.
DATE 24.-25. September 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/pkaeb
VENUE to be announced, Germany
138
active
passive
UFO
Ultra Flat Overrunable robot
DRIVING ROBOT ASIS

driver-less steer & pedal Advanced Side Impact System
SUPPORT & SERVICE CONAS

crash avoidance & automated testing Controlled App for Structure deformation
Humanetics has added a new line-up

of advanced active and passive safety
testing equipment and services to
our extensive product portfolio in a
continuous effort to better serve your
specific testing needs
MOVEABLE CRASH BLOCK
www.humaneticsatd.com four wall impact & in-place rotation
SAFETY
WISSEN
Test of ESC Systems in UN R140, GTR 8 and FMVSS 126

Step 1: Slowly-Increasing-Steer Manoeuvre to determine parameter A
At a constant velocity of 80 ±2 km/h the steering angle is ramped at 13.5 deg/s until a lateral acceleration of 0.5 g is reached. Out of 2
series (1x left turn / 1x right turn) with 3 repetitions of the manoeuvre the steering angle A (in degrees) at which the lateral acceleration
is 0.3 g is determined using linear regression.
Step 2: Sine with Dwell Manoeuvre to assess Oversteer Intervention and Responsiveness
At a velocity of von 80 ±2 km/h the vehicle is subjected to two series of test runs using a steering pattern of a sine wave at 0.7 Hz
frequency with a 500 ms delay beginning at the second peak amplitude:
δ
Steer angle
-δ
SafetyWissen by
One series uses counterclockwise steering for the first half cycle, and the other series uses clockwise steering for the first half
cycle. In each series of test runs, the steering amplitude is increased from run to run, by 0.5 A, starting at 1.5 A. The steering
amplitude of the final run in each series is the greater of 6.5 A or 270 degrees, provided the calculated magnitude of 6.5 A is less
than or equal to 300 degrees. If any 0.5 A increment, up to 6.5 A, is greater than 300 degrees, the steering amplitude of the final
run is 300 degrees.
Performance Requirements:
Yaw Rate
1 s after completion of the steering input (t0) < 35 % of the first peak value of yaw rate recorded after the steering wheel angle changes
sign.
1.75 s after completion of the steering input (t0) < 20 % of the first peak value of yaw rate recorded after the steering wheel angle changes
sign.
Lateral displacement of the vehicle center of gravity with respect to its initial straight path when computed 1.07 seconds
after the Beginning of Steer (BOS)
for vehicles with GVM (GVWR) ≤ 3500 kg > 1.83 m
for vehicles with GVM (GVWR) > 3500 kg > 1.52 m
Steer angle
lateral displacement
1.83 m
(1.52 m)
yaw rate ψ
SafetyWissen by
t
35 % 20 %
100 %
ψPeak
140 t = 1.07 s t0 t0 + 1 s t0 + 1.75 s

SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for Assessment Protocol Version 8.0.3
AEB City Test Protocol Version 2.0.1
Approach to stationary target

CCRs* with ± 50 % / ± 75 % /
100 % overlap
AEB
* CCRs: Car-To-Car Rear: stationary v 0 = 10 km/h ... 50 km/h in 5 km/h steps v = 0 km/h
remaining impact speed Points Prerequisites for scoring in AEB City:

v0 (km/h)
vimpact (km/h) available minimum 1.125 points from the whiplash assessment
of front seats
10 0 >0 1 AEB system needs to be default ON at the start of every
15 0 >0 2 journey and de-activation should not be possible with a

single push on a button
up to 20 km/h accidents must be completely avoided
AEB City
20 0 >0 2
Scoring:
25 <5 < 15 ≥ 15 2 For each test speed 5 grid points representing the 5 overlap
30 < 5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 2 scenarios (-75 %, -50 %, 100 %, +50 %, +75 %) are evaluated.
The score per test speed v0 is calculated as
35 < 5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 2 ∑ grid point scores1 x points available / 6
40 <5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 1 Manufacturers are expected to provide a prediction of the
grid point scores. This prediction is multiplied with the cor-
45 <5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 1 rection factor resulting from 10 verification tests conducted
by Euro NCAP2:
50 <5 < 15 < 30 < 40 ≥ 40 1 Correction factor = actual tested score / predicted score
Grid point 1
where the score of the 100 % overlap grid point is double counted
1.0 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 ∑=14 2
plus up to 10 additional tests sponsored by the manufacturer
score
The raw score of a maximum of 14 points from the AEB test is scaled down to a maximum of 4 points (scaling factor
0.2857). AEB City is part of the Adult Occupant Rating.
SAFETYWISSEN.com
Know anything you need,
anytime, anywhere!
www.safetywissen.com
141
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for Assessment Protocol 9.0.3
AEB VRU-Pe Test Protocol 2.0.3
Adult, Farside, Impact at 50 %

of the Vehicle Width (CPFA-50)
day
AEB v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 8 km/h
Adult, Nearside, Impact at 25

& 75 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPNA-25/75)
day & night
v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 5 km/h
AEB
Child, Obstruction, Nearside,
Impact at 50 % of the Vehicle
Width (CPNC-50)
1m
day & night 1m 1m
AEB
v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h; v = 5 km/h
Adult, Longitudinal, Impact at

25 & 50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPLA-25/50)
day & night
AEB VRU-Pe
CPLA-50: v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 5 km/h

AEB, FCW
CPLA-25: v 0 = 50 km/h ... 80 km/h v = 5 km/h
Prerequisites for scoring:
the AEB system must be default ON at the start of every journey
the AEB system must operate from speeds ≥ 10 km/h in the CPNA-75, must be able to detect pedestrians walking as
slow as 3 km/h and reduce speed in the CPNA-75 scenario at 20 km/h
the system may not automatically switch off at a speed < 80 km/h
the score of the pedestrian impact tests (legforms & head) must be ≥ 22 points
Scoring table: points available per test speed

v0 CPFA- CPNA- CPNA- CPNC- CPLA- CPLA-
AEB FCW
(km/h) 50 25 75 50 50 25
light conditions day day night day night day day & night
function assessed AEB AEB AEB AEB AEB AEB AEB FCW
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
score = points x (v0
30 2 2 1 2 1 2 1
- vimpact) / v0
35 3 3 2 3 2 3 2
40 3 3 2 3 2 3 2
45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
pass /fail: points are
50 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3
awarded if vimpact ≤ pass /fail:
55 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3
v0 - 20 km/h points are
60 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2
awarded if
65 1
warning is
70 1
issued @ TTC ≥
75 1
1.7 s
80 1
max. total scenario score (1) 18 18 18 18 18 18 30
normalized scores = actual score / (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)day / (9)night
AEB Pedestrian total points 3 points x ((2) + (3) + (5) + (7) + (8)) / 5 + 3 points x ((4) + (6) + (9)) / 3
142
VEHICLE SAFETY –
SIMULATION AND TESTING
Specialists for the development of

vehicle safety – From concept to SOP
Development of active and passive vehicle safety

respecting legal, consumer rating and customer
requirements
Validation of conventional and alternative
powertrain variants (HV, H2)
Functional development and management of
safety attributes
CAE
Component development of restraint systems
Testing and coordination of component,
system and the complete vehicle
Execution of certification testing and Contact
homologation support
EDAG Engineering GmbH
Our support throughout the process chain safety@edag.com
is reflected in EDAGs complete vehicle
development projects.
Head Office
EDAG Engineering GmbH · Kreuzberger Ring 40
65205 Wiesbaden · Germany
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
AEB VRU-Cy Test Protocol 2.0.3
Cyclist, Unobstructed,
Nearside, Impact at 50 % of the
Vehicle Width (CBNA-50) 50 %
AEB
v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 15 km/h
Cyclist, Unobstructed, Longi-

tudinal, Impact at 50 % of the
Vehicle Width (CBLA-50) 50 %
AEB
v 0 = 25 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 15 km/h
Cyclist, Unobstructed, Longi-

tudinal, Impact at 25 % of the
25 %
Vehicle Width (CBLA-25)
FCW
v 0 = 50 km/h ... 80 km/h v = 20 km/h
Prerequisites for scoring:

the AEB system must be default ON at the start of every journey
system may not automatically switch off at a speed < 80 km/h
the score of the pedestrian impact tests (legforms & head) must be ≥ 22 points
AEB VRU-Cy
Scoring table:
points available per test speed

test speed
AEB FCW CBNA-50 CBLA-50 CBLA-25
v0 (km/h)
light conditions day day day
function assessed AEB AEB FCW
20 1
25 1 1
30 score = points x (v0 - vimpact)/v0 1 1
35 1 2
40 1 2
45 1 3
50 pass / fail: 1 3 3
points are awarded if
55 vimpact ≤ v0 - 20 km/h 1 3 3
60 pass / fail: 1 1 1
65 points are awarded if warning is 1
70 issued @ TTC ≥ 1.7 s 1
75 1
80 1
max. total scenario score (1) 9 27
normalized score (2) = actual score / (1) (3) (4)
AEB Cyclist total points 6 points x ((3) + (4)) / 2
Additional scenarios will be implemented in 2020.
144
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW
IIHS Test Scenarios for AEB Pedestrian Pedestrian AEB Test Protocol, V. 1, Dec 2018
Adult, Nearside, Impact at
25 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPNA-25)
day AEB
v 0 = 20 / 40 km/h v = 5 km/h
Child, Obstruction, Nearside,
Impact at 50 % of the Vehicle
Width (CPNC-50)
AEB Pedestrian
day AEB 1m 1m
v 0 = 20 / 40 km/h v = 5 km/h
Adult, Longitudinal, Impact
at 25 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPLA-25)
day AEB FCW(@ 60 km/h only)
v 0 = 40 / 60 km/h v = 0 km/h
Speed reduction [km/h] 0 ... 8 9 ... 18 19 ... 28 29 ... 38 39 ... 48 49 ... 58 59 ... 61
Points 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.0 points are awarded if a FCW is given ≥ 2.1 s time to collision in the CPLA-2560 km/h scenario
Overall Score = 0.7 · ( CPNA-2520 + CPNA-2540 + CPNC-5020 + CPNC-5040) + 0.3 · (CPLA-2540 + CPLA-2560 + FCW60)
Overall score 1 ≤ Overall score < 3 3 ≤ Overall score < 5 5 ≤ Overall score
Rating Basic Advanced Superior
A T
.
S
M
E
T
S
Y
S
V E
I
A C T
.
W
W
W
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
AEB Inter-Urban Test Protocol 2.0.1
CCRs*: Approach to stationary

target with ± 50 % / ± 75 % /
100 % overlap
FCW v0 = 30 km/h ... 80 km/h v = 0 km/h
CCRm*: Approach to slower
target with ± 50 % / ± 75 % /
100 % overlap
AEB + FCW v0 = 30 km/h ... 80 km/h v = 20 km/h
CCRb*: d0
Approach to braking target
100 % overlap v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -2 m/s²
AEB + FCW v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 40 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -2 m/s²
* CCR: Car-To-Car Rear; s: stationary; v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -6 m/s²
m: moving; b: braking
v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 40 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -6 m/s²
Prerequisites for scoring in AEB Inter-Urban:
AEB system needs to be default ON at the start of every journey and de-activation should not be possible with a single
push on a button
AEB and/or FCW must operate up to at least 80 km/h
audible component of FCW needs to be loud and clear
Scoring table:
AEB Inter-Urban
Points Points
remaining impact speed available remaining relative impact speed available
v0 (km/h)
vimpact (km/h) v relative impact (km/h)
CCRs CCRb CCRm
30 < 5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 2 <5 ≥5 1
35 < 5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 2 <5 ≥5 1
40 < 5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 2 <5 < 15 ≥ 15 1
45 < 5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 2 <5 < 15 ≥ 15 1
50 < 5 < 15 < 30 < 40 ≥ 40 3 1x4 < 5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 1
55 < 5 < 15 < 30 < 45 ≥ 45 2 < 5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 1
60 < 5 < 20 < 35 < 50 ≥ 50 1 < 5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 1
65 < 5 < 20 < 40 < 55 ≥ 55 1 < 5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 2
70 < 5 < 20 < 40 < 60 ≥ 60 1 < 5 < 15 < 30 < 40 ≥ 40 2
75 < 5 < 25 < 45 < 65 ≥ 65 1 < 5 < 15 < 30 < 45 ≥ 45 2
80 < 5 < 25 < 50 < 70 ≥ 70 1 < 5 < 20 < 35 < 50 ≥ 50 2
Grid point score 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 ∑=18 ∑=4 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 ∑=15
For each test speed 5 grid points representing the 5 overlap scenarios (-75 %, -50 %, 100 %, +50 %, +75 %) are evaluated.
The score per test speed v0 for AEB and FCW is calculated as ∑ grid point scores1 x points available / 6
The score per scenario and system (AEB/FCW) is calculated as ∑ score per test speed v0 / ∑ points available
The score per system (AEB/FCW) is the average score per scenario of that system. The score per system is multiplied
with 1.5 points for AEB and 1.0 points for FCW.
Manufacturers are expected to provide a prediction of the grid point scores. This predicted score per system is multiplied
with the correction factor resulting from 10 verification tests for that system conducted by Euro NCAP2:
Correction factor = actual tested score / predicted score
HMI points are added if there is a supplementary warning (other than audiovisual) for FCW (1 point) and if there is a
reversible belt pre-pretensioning in the pre-crash phase (1 point). The HMI score is scaled down to a max. of 0.5 points.
The maximum total score for AEB Inter-Urban is 3 points (1.5 pt. AEB + 1.0 pt. FCW + 0.5 pt. HMI)
1
where the score of the 100 % overlap grid point is double counted
146 2
plus up to 10 additional tests sponsored by the manufacturer
Occupant
Protection
Testing with
CAE & Testing
HiL/SiL Systems
Driving Simulator Sled Testing
Proving Grounds Front and Side restraint systems
Real Roads Euro NCAP Knee-mapping NEW
Whiplash (Euro NCAP official Lab) THOR
DUMMY
ADAS AVAILABLE
& Automated Driving

Tests
ADAS Systems Tests following OEM
& Euro NCAP Protocols
From Validation Plan Definition
& Test Tool Development to Data Analyses
+34 986 900 300 | www.ctag.com | ctag@ctag.com
A T
.
S
M
E
T
S
Y
S
V E
I
A C T
.
W
W
W
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW
Lane Support Systems Test Protocol 2.0.2
Lane Departure Warning

Dashed Line
LDW
v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.5 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m
Lane Departure Warning

Solid Line
Lane Keep Assist

Road Edge:
road edge /
road edge and centerline
Lane Keep Assist

Dashed Line:
single line
Lane Keep Assist

Dashed Line:
fully marked lane
LKA
Lane Keep Assist

Solid Line:
single line
Lane Keep Assist

Solid Line:
fully marked lane

148
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW
Emergency Lane Keeping

Road Edge: dashed/solid
centerline & no line next to
road edge

centerline & dashed line next
to road edge

centerline & solid line next to
ELK
road edge

Oncoming Vehicle: GVT
fully marked lane
v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.3 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m v = 72 km/h
Emergency Lane Keeping v = 72 km/h / 80 km/h

Overtaking Vehicle: GVT
fully marked lane
v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.3 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m (unintentional)
v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.5 - 0.7 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 800 m (intentional)
Lane Support Systems (LSS) DTLE1 Points

Human Machine Lane Departure Warning (LDW) > -0.2 m 0.25
0.50
Interface (HMI) Blind Spot Monitoring (BSM) - 0.25
road edge only > -0.1 m 0.25
Road Edge
road edge and centerline > -0.1 m 0.25
Lane Keep Assist single line > -0.3 m 0.25
Dashed Line 2.00
(LKA) fully marked lane > -0.3 m 0.50
single line > -0.3 m 0.25
Solid Line
fully marked lane > -0.3 m 0.50
Centerline Road edge
dashed no line > -0.1 m 0.25
Road Edge
Emergency Lane dashed dashed line > -0.1 m 0.25
1.50
Keeping (ELK) dashed solid line > -0.1 m 0.25
Oncoming Vehicle fully marked lane 0.50
Overtaking Vehicle fully marked lane 0.25
Distance To Lane Edge
1
149
SAFETY
WISSEN
IIHS AEB / Front Crash Prevention Test AEB Test Protocol, V. I, Oct 2013
l = 3.05 m d = 9.14 m
Approach to stationary target w = 3.66 m
v 0 = 20 km/h v = 0 km/h
v 0 = 40 km/h v = 0 km/h
Assessment:
20 km/h Test 40 km/h Test FCW
Speed reduction < 8 km/h 8 - 14 km/h ≥ 15 km/h < 8 km/h 8 - 14 km/h 15 - 34 km/h ≥ 35 km/h
Points 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 1
Rating Scheme:
Points
1 2-4 >5
Rating BASIC ADVANCED SUPERIOR
U.S. NCAP Rear Automatic Braking*

Rear Automatic Braking Feature Confirmation Test Procedure (Working Draft), Dec 2015
Child, 20 ft (6.096 m) -2 ft
behind rearmost point 0
of bumper @ 0/+2/-2 +2 ft
ft from centerline 20 ft
Dummy
4a Euro NCAP Pedestrian - Child Dummy static
Test Procedure
Place the direction selector in reverse while maintaining full pressure on the brake pedal.
Release the vehicle’s brake pedal and allow the vehicle to coast backward while maintaining the vehicle’s centerline within
+/- 1 inch of the longitudinal line marked on the ground.
Allow the vehicle to coast until the rear automatic braking feature intervenes by automatically engaging the service brakes
bring the vehicle to a stop or until the vehicle strikes the test object. Once either of these two outcomes occurs, the
vehicle’s brake pedal should be depressed to end the test trial. Every effort must be made to safely conduct this test. If
testing indoors, proper ventilation must be provided. No personnel shall be located to the rear of a test vehicle at any time
during the test trial.
Requirements
A positive test outcome would involve the vehicle coming to a stop before it reaches the location of the test object and with
no physical contact with the test object for each of the three test object locations assessed.
* Please note: The rear automatic brake test is part of the planned U.S. NCAP upgrade. The test procedure and requirements
are based on “Rear Automatic Braking Feature Confirmation Test Procedure (Working Draft), December 2015”. Docket NHTSA-
2015-0119.
150
Whether you need the official EuroNCAP Vehicle Target, Night Testing, or a NCAP
Lighting Solution...
... MoshonData is your one-stop-shop for all vehicle targets.
Park Assist Solutions Flex-Moshon Demonstration / Marketing Moshon City Scapes

Slabs
Night Testing Simulation 5 Lamp Euro NCAP 3D Foam Targets 3D Custom Targets
MD-VT L Vehicle Targets
Vists us at
www.moshondata.com
“Imparting Knowledge”
SAFETY
WISSEN
U.S. NCAP Crash Imminent Braking

CRASH IMMINENT BRAKE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE EVALUTION, Oct 2015
LVS (Lead Vehicle Stopped)

Approach to stationary target v 0 = 25 mph (40.2 km/h) v = 0 mph
LVM (Lead Vehicle Moving)

Approach to slower target v 0 = 25 mph (40.2 km/h) v = 10 mph (16.1 km/h)
v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h) v = 20 mph (32.2 km/h)
d0
LVD (Lead Vehicle Decelerating)
Approach to braking target v 0 = 35 mph (56.3 km/h) d0 = 45.3 ft (13.8 m) v 0 = 35 mph (56.3 km/h).
± 8 ft (2.4 m) a = -0.3 g
False Positive Test

Approach to steel trench plate v 0 = 25 mph (40.2 km/h) 8 ft x 12 ft x 1 in (2.4 m x 3.7 m x 25 mm)
v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h)
Requirements
Scenario LVS LVM 25 mph LVM 45 mph LVD False Positive

Requirement Δv ≥ 9.8 mph no impact Δv ≥ 9.8 mph Δv ≥ 10.5 mph deceleration ≤ 0.5 g
(15.8 km/h) (15.8 km/h) (16.9 km/h)
U.S. NCAP Forward Collision Warning

FORWARD COLLISION WARNING SYSTEM CONFIRMATION TEST, Feb 2013
LVS (Lead Vehicle Stopped)

Approach to stationary target v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h) v = 0 mph
LVM (Lead Vehicle Moving)

Approach to slower target v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h) v = 20 mph (32.2 km/h)
d0
LVD (Lead Vehicle Decelerating)
Approach to braking target v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h) d0 = 89.4 ft (30 m) v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h).
± 8.2 ft (2.5 m) a = -0.3 g
Requirements
Scenario LVS LVM LVD

Requirement Alert no later than Alert no later than Alert no later than
2.1 s TTC 2.0 s TTC 2.4 s TTC
152
Don’t know what
lies ahead?
No need to worry.
It’s not about being able to predict everything.
It’s enough to be prepared.
ZF’s cameras, radar systems, and sensors are designed to detect dangers better
than the human eye. And our connected safety systems help to decide rapidly which
reaction is recommended to the driver. ZF’s innovative assistance systems also make
the unforeseeable less frightening. zf.com/safety
SAFETY
WISSEN
C-NCAP Active Safety Rating Protocol 2018
CCRs*: Approach to stationary

target
AEB + FCW
AEB v0 = 20 / 30 / 40 km/h v = 0 km/h
FCW v0 = 45 / 55 / 75 km/h
CCRm*: Approach to slower

target
AEB + FCW
AEB v0 = 30 / 45 / 65 km/h v = 20 km/h
FCW v0 = 50 / 60 / 75 km/h
CCRb*: d0
AEB CCR
Approach to braking target

v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -4 m/s²
AEB + FCW
v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 40 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -4 m/s²
* CCR: Car-To-Car Rear; s: stationary;
m: moving; b: braking
False Positive Test

Approach to steel trench plate v 0 = 40 / 72 km/h 2.4 m x 3.7 m x 25 mm
False Positive Test

Adjacent lane vehicle braking
d0
v0 = 40 km/h d0 = 15 m v0 = 40 km/h, a = -3 m/s²
8 Points
Adult, Farside, Impact at 25

(CVFA-25/50)
AEB v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 6.5 km/h
Adult, Nearside, Impact at 25

(CVNA-25/75)
AEB v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 5 km/h
3 Points
ESC System must meet the requirements of GB/T 30677-2014. Performance test report issued by a qualified third
party institution must be submitted to C-NCAP. Alternatively the test report can be based on GTR 8, UN R13H (R140) or
FMVSS 126 ( page 140) but should not be in violation of GB/T 30677-2014.
4 Points
154
Simulation & Engineering
Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers

In general analysis engineers have a sound knowledge on Load carrying principles of lightweight design
numerical methods and experience in structural analysis with Load assumptions
the Finite Element Method. To make a valuable contribution Design principles
to the vehicle development process using numerical simula- Technology of car body construction
Car body architecture
tion, knowledge on car body design and functional layout is
Structural materials and pre-products
required. To efficiently undertake lightweight design all funda- Material selection
mental requirements have to be taken into account early in Manufacturing methods
the design process. These requirements will be outlined in the Joining techniques
seminar. Additionally the characteristics of the specific organi- Development process described at the example of the
zation of the development process have to be incorporated. improvement of static properties
Course Objectives Principal structure of the development process
CAE-compatible CAD
The objective of the seminar is to transfer the knowledge Finite Element modelling of a car body
needed for an analysis engineer to play a part in vehicle devel- Static behavior of the car body structure
opment. Especially the examination of design variants of exist- Finite Element Analysis of joints
ing car bodies makes the seminar descriptive and practical. Measures for improved dynamic behavior
Who should attend? Part dimensioning taking into account vehicle vibrations
Dynamic analysis of full vehicles
This 2-day seminar is aimed at analysis engineers working in
Measures for improved acoustic behavior
the automotive industry.
Acoustic design of a car body
Simulation methods
Realization of safety measures
Energy absorption elements
Vehicle car bodies
Safety systems
Pedestrian protection
Post crash
Use of optimization methods in industrial applications
Introduction into mathematical optimization
Approximation techniques
Optimization software
Optimization strategies
Shape optimization
Topology optimization

Instructor

PRICE LANGUAGE
Date
15.-16.10.2019
28.-29.04.2016 72/3321 Alzenau
Alzenaz 2 Days
Tage 1.340,-
1.290,-EUR
EURtill
bis17.09.2019,
danach 1.540,-
1.590,-
EUREUR
155
Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies

Designing and developing light weight vehicles ready for series Potentials of lightweight design
production is becoming increasingly important. Especially Motivation and problem definition
for fully electric vehicles with large and heavy battery packs Current lightweight vehicle concepts
The "Lightweight Spiral"
light car bodies are indispensable. But also for other propul-
sion concepts lightweight is desirable. This seminar will focus Principles of lightweight design
Definition of requirements
on production ready vehicle concepts. Ideas taken from the Determination of design loads
extreme light weight design are integrated into the consider- Principal design rules
ations. A symbiosis of the use of modern lightweight materials Approaches of bionics
and the design of appropriate lightweight structures leads to Fail-safe, safe life, damage tolerance
efficient lightweight design. This multi-disciplinary task is only Methodical concept finding (architecture, topology)
possible with development strategies that can simultaneously Materials and their specific design rules
handle requirements of crash protection, vehicle dynamics, Material selection
Acquisition of material data
comfort, acoustics, durability and production of the vehicle.
Steel, aluminum, magnesium
The aim of this seminar is to provide the competencies for the Fiber composites
development of light vehicle structures. Material mix and recycling
Who should attend? Structures of lightweight design
This seminar is aimed at designers, analysis engineers and Space-frame structures
project managers from car body development. Shell structures (beads, ribs, ...)
Foams and inlays
Composite sandwich structures
Related joining techniques (adhesive bonding, ...)
Advanced CAE methods for lightweight design
Stability (buckling, ...)
Dynamics and acoustics
Fracture mechanics, multi-scale models (observation of cracks,
etc.)
Crash of small structures
Analysis of joints
Robustness analysis
Optimization of shape and dimension
Case studies
Selected vehicle components
Ultra-lightweight vehicle concepts
Vehicle concepts for mass production

Instructor

Dates
156
Simulation and More
Finite Element Solutions
LS-DYNA Applications Service

Crash LS-DYNA support
Occupant safety Consulting
Implicit statics/dynamics Material characterization

Process simulation Pilot projects
Multiphysics Courtesy of Daimler AG Training Courtesy of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG
Development Optimization
Process integration Parameter identication
Material modeling Robustness investigations
Dummy models DOE/sensitivity studies
Courtesy of BMW Group Courtesy of Hyundai Motor Company
DYNAmore GmbH
Stuttgart • Dresden • Ingolstadt • Berlin • Wolfsburg • Langlingen • Zurich (CH) • Linköping (S) • Gothenborg (S) • Turin (I) • Versailles (F) • Dublin, Ohio (USA)
Tel.: +49 (0)711 - 45 96 00 - 0 • E-Mail: info@dynamore.de • www.dynamore.de
Interior Development - Fundamentals, Materials, Design, Manufacturing

Course Description module, the materials and processes used are discussed. Due
The seminar illustrates the subject, in many parts with work- to the complexity of the topic a lot of real components are
shop character: shown and their properties are discussed.
Part 1: Basics of Plastics - physics, chemistry and application Course Objectives
technology, in industry and in the automobile. Processes for The aim of the seminar is to provide the necessary skills for
Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Tooling, as well as the processes the design of vehicle interior components and modules. This
of mass manufacturing, such as injection molding and blow includes in particular the choice of materials, the design and
molding, are discussed. Day 1 ends with a workshop in which, manufacturing processes.
based on practical examples, functionality and choice of mate-
rials are treated. Who should attend?
Part 2: Plastics in Automotive Interiors deals with the use The seminar is aimed at engineers, technicians and managers
of plastics in automotive interiors and their properties. Inte- who are planning and controlling interior development proj-
rior components are subject to many requirements, ranging ects. The focus of the seminar is on the cockpit module.
from the design appearance, look and touch and ergonomics
to production and assembly. The second part explains what
is being done at various stages of the interior development
process. Using the example of the cockpit and the cockpit
Timo Baumgärtner (csi entwicklungstechnik GmbH)

Instructor
SEMINAR ON DEMAND DURATION LANGUAGE

Dates
You can book this seminar as an in-house seminar with a minimum of 5 participants directly at your site. 2 days
Alternatively, if you are interested in the course, you can make a reservation. As soon as a sufficient number
of participants has been reached, we will arrange a specific course date with the interested parties.
157
Leichtbaugipfel
The Automotive Industry Lightweight Design Summit is the top-level networking event for
the pioneers of lightweight design in automotive construction. On March 26/27, OEMs and
suppliers will meet at the Vogel Convention Center in Würzburg, Germany. The Lightweight
Design Summit offers an exchange of know-how – at the highest level, and with a focus on
solutions.
Lightweight Design Summit 2019: Making cars better
Experts already know that lightweight design makes for better cars – particularly now, when
we are designing the mobility of tomorrow. The new mobility will be driven far more by the
demands of users, and lightweight design is seen as the enabler for this.
Lightweight design enables:

Better urban vehicles
Better luxury cars for long-distance driving
Better people movers
Better cargo movers
Better robot taxis
Lightweight design is not a technology that is a perfect fit for every application. Instead, its
use is very much driven by the demands of the mobility concept in question.
The two-day event will use specialist lectures, sessions and live demonstrations to explore
the key role that is played by lightweight design on the path to better cars.
The Lightweight Design Summit will be accompanied by a large exhibition with numerous
innovations and exhibits. At the “Automobil Industrie” Lightweight Design Summit 2019, you
will be able to meet up with OEMs and suppliers and share knowledge and expertise.
Who should attend?
The Automobil Industrie Light Weight Design Summit is the platform for the communication
between OEMs and suppliers. The summit addresses the technical management/CEO level
of OEMs and suppliers, the purchasing management, heads of development and design,
project engineers, innovation managers and materials specialists.
DATE 26.-27. March 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.leichtbau-gipfel.de
VENUE Vogel Convention Center, Würzburg
PRICE 980,- EUR till 31.01.2019, thereafter 1.180,- EUR
158
Get into the Drivers Seat!
Master your safety modelling processes with Simulation-Driven Innovation™
fueled by Altair HyperWorks™.
• Seat mechanism tool for an efficient

set-up of seat positions.
• User friendly interactive positioning

with new graphic manipulators.
• Automatic kinematic positioning.
• Coupling of seat and dummy.
• Multi-position management for

multiple crash load cases.
Initial Seat and Modification of New Seat and

Dummy Position Seat Position Dummy Position
With Simulation-Driven Innovation™

New efficient Altair HyperMesh™ functionalities minimize
the lead time of occupant and seat positioning. Altair
HyperMesh™ offers positioning tools for all commercial
Altair Radioss™ and LS-Dyna dummies. To learn more
about Altair’s safety software offering, go to:
altair.com
Computer simulation has become an indispensable tool in automotive development. Tre-

mendous progress in software and computer technology makes it possible today to assess
product and process performance before physical prototypes have been built. Despite of
significant progress in simulation technology and impressive results in industrial application
there remains a number of challenges which prevent a “100 % digital prototyping”. We at
carhs.training call these Grand Challenges.
Automotive CAE Grand Challenge offers a platform for dialog
The automotive CAE Grand Challenge stimulates the exchange between users, scientists
and software developers in order to solve these challenges. Annually the current, critical
challenges in automotive CAE are being identified through a survey among the simulation
experts of the international automotive industry. In the conference one session is dedicated
to each of the most critical challenges, the so-called Grand Challenges. In each session CAE
experts from industry, research and software development will explain the importance of
the individual Challenge for the virtual development process and talk about their efforts to
solve the challenge.
Automotive CAE Grand Challenges 2019
In September 2018 we have determined the important current challenges of automotive
CAE - the so-called “Grand Challenges” - through a survey among the CAE experts of the
international automotive industry. These "Grand Challenges" will form the topics of the ses-
sions of our automotive CAE Grand Challenge 2019 conference:
CAE General: AI in CAE Process automation and quality assurance
Crash: Modeling of point connections for multi-materials
Durability: Influence of manufacturing processes on durability
Materials: Material and failure models for metals
NVH: Sound design electric vehicles
Multi-simulation: Simulating battery and electrical engine cooling
Special Session: Virtual testing of autonomous driving vehicles
Who should attend?

The conference intends bringing together industrial users, researchers and software developers to discuss these current, critical
challenges of automotive CAE and to initiate collaboration between these groups to help overcoming the Grand Challenges of
automotive CAE. The presentation program of the conference provides both experts and beginners valuable information for
their daily work. The possibility to meet and exchange with all stakeholders of automotive CAE is a great opportunity. In the
accompanying exhibition participants can receive additional information from leading companies of CAE.
DATE 16.-17. April 2019

Facts
HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/grandchallenge
VENUE Congress Park Hanau, Schloßplatz 1, 63450 Hanau
LANGUAGE English
PRICE 980,- EUR till 19.03.2019, thereafter 1.180,- EUR
160
Structural Optimization in Automotive Design -

Theory and Application
In recent years numerical simulation has gained importance The seminar is suited for engineers and technicians from
in all engineering disciplines. In the automotive industry the research and development departments, users that intend
development process evolved from an experiment based to a to enlarge or fresh up their background knowledge and new-
virtual development process. Through this move towards sim- comers that want to get an overview of the subject.
ulation, mathematical optimization also gained importance Course Contents
and new opportunities for its application have been opened Local and global optimization methods and coupled
within the development process. Only a few years ago it would strategies
have been unthinkable to find the optimal cross section and Approximation methods
the number and location of ribs for a cast part through math- Lagrange function, dual method
ematical optimization, which is now common practice. Optimality criteria methods
As there exists no single optimization method that is suited for Bionic optimization procedures (CAO, SKO, evolutionary
all problems it is important to gain an overview over various algorithms, optimization with particle swarms)
optimization methods and their characteristics. In the seminar Coupling with FEM
the most popular and reliable optimization methods will be Formulation of optimization problems
presented. The focus will be on the explanation of the basic Sensitivity analysis
concepts and ideas rather than on the detailed mathematical Determination of important variables and variable
derivations and formulations. reduction
Emphasis will be on practical applications. Possibilities for Sizing
using optimization methods will be demonstrated through Shape optimization, use of morphing techniques,
many industrial examples. topology optimization
The following questions will be answered in the seminar: Robustness optimization
Which optimization methods are suited for which problems Multi disciplinary and multi objective optimization
and which are not? Numerous application examples
How big is the optimization effort?
How can the optimization effort be minimized?
Which possibilities exist for the formulation of different
optimization problems?
What can lead to failure of an optimization?
Course Objectives
At the end of the seminar participants will have gained an
overview over different optimization disciplines and proce-
dures, the areas of application and their individual limitations.
Prof. Dr. Harzheim (Opel Automobile GmbH) worked in the Group of Professor Mattheck on the
Instructor
development of the optimization programs CAO and SKO, before joining the simulation department of Opel.
At Opel he is responsible for optimization, bio engineering and robustness. In this position he not only intro-
duced and applied optimization methods but has also developed software for topology optimization. Prof. Dr.
Harzheim regularly holds seminars for applied structural optimization and teaches at the Technical University
of Darmstadt. He is the author of the book "Strukturoptimierung: Grundlagen und Anwendungen".

Dates
161
Robust Design - Vehicle Development under Uncertainty

The seminar addresses the current state of the art comple- The seminar is proposed for engineers with first experiences
mented by recent achievements in research and development in numerical concept and series development of vehicles, who
to quantify and control uncertainties (lack-of-knowledge and are interested in including robustness, reliability and other
variations) in vehicular development. Aspects of sensitiv- aspects of uncertainty management in their industrial designs.
ity and robustness analysis are discussed as well as topics in Course Contents
reliability, resilience, redundancy and model uncertainty. In Mathematical methods for uncertainty quantification
addition, numerical methods for optimization with consider- Linear and non-linear sensitivity analysis (global / local)
ation of uncertainties and methods for model order reduction Design of Experiments (DoE), Response Surface Methods
(MOR) to reduce computational effort are discussed. Applica- (RSM)
tions (e.g. NVH, crash) illustrate the usage of the methods and Methods for Model Order Reduction (MOR)
the fact that methods should be adapted to the degree of Robustness versus reliability
maturity of the design in the development process. Robustness in early design stages (Set-based Design and
Course Objectives Solution Space Approach)
The seminar is focused on methods and their theoretical Methods for resilience, redundancy, model uncertainty
background to enable the participants to realize applications Optimization under uncertainties
directly in the industrial context. Hence, uncertainties can Applications taken from acoustics and crashworthiness
be characterized, quantified, and – together with sensitivity
analysis – concept and structural evaluations are made pos-
sible, which consider robustness, reliability, resilience, and
redundancy. Corresponding optimizations can then be real-
ized in an efficient manner.
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Fabian Duddeck (Technical University Munich) leads the research group on
Instructor
optimization and robustness at the Technical University Munich (TUM, Chair of Computational Mechanics,
www.cm.bgu.tum.de) since 2010. His research is focusing on numerical methods for optimization of struc-
tures with respect of crashworthiness, NVH (noise vibration and harshness), durability, and other disciplines.
In this framework, new methods for stochastic modeling and robustness assessments for different types of
uncertainties (aleatoric and epistemic) are included. Besides standard approaches using probabilistic theory,
possibilistic and special methods for early phase design are developed and applied for problems in automo-
tive, aerospace, and civil engineering.

Dates
162
SMART VIRTUAL
PROTOTYPING
ESI software and services
enable your digital
transformation
Copyright © ESI Group 2017 - G/OM/16.103/A
www.esi-group.com/smart
Copyright © ESI Group 2017 - G/OM/16.103/A
G.OM.16.103.A_Advert_136x96mm.indd 2 23.11.2017 09:54:00
Improving Efficiency and Reducing Risk in CAE Driven Product De-

velopment
Course Description for risk, performance and efficiency of projects supported by
To avoid mistakes and economic loss, CAE-applications numerical analyses.
require reasonable and reliable workflows. This seminar pro- Inhalte
vides background information on risks of using CAE and gives Motivation to use structured processes in CAE
recommendations of implementing best practice. Maintain- Which risks managers and analysis experts are facing?
ing high quality of CAE applications and enhancing efficiency Use of CAE to minimize risks
within the context of organizational structures and analysis Structured process management in CAE as a means to
tasks are the main focus of this seminar. Use of knowledge focus improvements
management builds a bridge between performing an analysis Duties of analysis experts and managers from liability and
project and improving efficiency. Knowledge management is warranty issues
a basis for efficiency, quality of prognosis and reliability of CAE Efficient and quality driven process management
application. A holistic view onto knowledge management and Specific procedural requirements for CAE environment
knowledge based engineering will be given. and CAE processes
Who should attend? Verification and validation
The seminar is aimed at product developers, CAE engineers Monitoring and documentation
but also managers and decision makers who are responsible Quality driven practices and collaboration with suppliers
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klemens Rother (Munich University of Applied Sciences)

Instructor
SEMINAR ON DEMAND DURATION LANGUAGE

Dates
You can book this seminar as an in-house seminar with a minimum of 5 participants directly at your site. 1 day
Alternatively, if you are interested in the course, you can make a reservation. As soon as a sufficient number
of participants has been reached, we will arrange a specific course date with the interested parties.
163
Design of Composite Structures

Since the mass is one of the main factors influencing the This seminar is especially designed for engineers and techni-
fuel consumption of vehicles, increasing demands to reduce cians who work in the development departments of auto-
energy usage and CO2 emissions, force the automotive motive manufacturers, suppliers and engineering service
industry to consider the use of alternative designs and new providers and deal with the design and development of com-
materials. Composite materials have proven their potential posite components.
to reduce the weight of structures in many applications (e.g. Course Contents
aerospace and motor sports). As composites have a special Introduction
set-up and behave completely different than traditional mate- Elastic behavior of composites
rials, engineers must learn how to employ these materials to Failure of composite materials
take advantage of their special characteristics in the design Mechanics of composite materials and structures
of vehicle structures. In the seminar real world examples are Joining technologies for composites
used to create a basic understanding of designing composite Design of composite structures
structures. Then the theoretical and practical foundations of Fatigue and strength of composites
composite design are explained.
Course Objectives
After participating in the seminar participants are able to
design and develop composite structures. They understand
the specific requirements of composite structures and the
related design concepts. In the seminar special attention is
directed to the concurrent consideration of loading, design
and manufacturing related requirements. Accordingly, the dif-
ferent designs - integral, differential, fully laminated and sand-
wich - are addressed. The seminar also provides knowledge
about preliminary design and FE analysis based on classical
laminate theory.
Dr.-techn. Roland Hinterhölzl (University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria) has been
Instructor
heading the Professorship Composite Materials and the study degree program "Lightweight Design and Com-
posite Materials" at the University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria since 2016. From 2010 to 2016 he was
head of the numerical simulation department of the Institute for Carbon Composites at the Technical Univer-
sity of Munich. The focus of his work is on process simulation and structural analysis for the automotive and
aviation industries. Dr. Hinterhölzl received his doctorate in 2000 at the University of Innsbruck on the simula-
tion of the time-dependent behavior of composite materials, after he had spent several months at the Depart-
ment of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas at Austin and CRREL
(USA). Subsequently, he developed innovative composite components at the aerospace supplier FACC AG and
headed the structural analysis department.

Dates
164
Material Models of Composites for Crash Simulation

Increasing demands for weight reduction paralleled by Current and upcoming areas of application of composite
requirements for improved crash performance and stiff- materials
ness of structures have strongly pushed the development of Analysis of composite materials
advanced composites. The use of composite materials today Available material models and their application
is not limited to niche applications or secondary parts; they Modelling methods for plies and laminates
are increasingly used for important load carrying structural FEM modelling of composites
components in series production. Failure mechanisms and their representation
In this one day seminar Prof. Thomas Karall presents the foun- PAM-CRASH ply and delamination models
dations of structural impact and crash analysis of composites Necessary material tests
with the Finite Element Method. At the beginning of the semi- Examples
nar an overview of current and upcoming industrial applica-
tions of composite materials is given. Thereafter concepts for
the correct physical modeling of the complex load degrada-
tion and failure mechanisms in numerical simulation are pre-
sented. The course concentrates on the numerical simulation
of the crash behavior of composites and is accompanied with
demonstrations using the PAM-CRASH code.
Who should attend?
The course addresses simulation and project engineers, proj-
ect managers as well as researchers involved in the analysis
and design of composite parts and structures.
Prof. Dr. Thomas Karall (Hof University of Applied Sciences) studied mechanical engineering
Instructor
at the Technical University of Vienna and received his PhD as Assistant Professor at the University of Leoben
in the field of fibre-reinforced plastics and the calculation by finite elements. From 2006 to 2010 he was
head of department at the Austrian Research Institute for Chemistry and Technology in Vienna in the field of
mechanical and thermal testing / fibre composites, and Secretary General of the Austrian Working Group for
reinforced plastics. From 2010 to 2015 he worked as Lead Researcher for lightweight design at Virtual Vehicle
Research Center in Graz. He was also a lecturer at the Technical University of Graz and lecturer at the FH
Joanneum Graz. Since 2015 he has been Professor at the Engineering Department of the Hof University. His
areas of work include lightweight design, fibre-reinforced composites and the finite element method.

Dates
165
Material Models of Metals for Crash Simulation

Besides an appropriate spatial discretisation of the structure The course addresses engineers working in the field of crash
and a profound knowledge of the required load cases, appro- simulation and heads of simulation departments interested in
priate material modelling is a key ingredient for predictive the important topic of material modelling.
crash simulations. The load carrying structure of a car today Course Contents
still mainly consists of metallic materials. The materials to be Overview of metallic materials used in cars
described are diverse. Influence of material structure on mechanical behavior
Phenomenological material models for metals
The seminar deals with the following materials: Overview of experimental methods for material
characterization
Mild and high strength steels, Identification of material parameters from experiments
Cold formable AHSS and UHSS steels, Discussion of the sensitivity material parameters
Hot formable and quenchable boron steels,
Wrought Al and Mg alloys,
Cast Al and Mg alloys.
The objective of this 1 day course is to give the participants an

overview of material models of metals used in crash simula-
tion. In a first step the deformation behavior and the failure
mechanisms of each material class are explained based on
the material structure. The influence of strain rate on mate-
rial behavior is an important aspect in the context of crash
simulation and will be discussed in the seminar. In a second
step phenomenological material models for crash simulation
are introduced. In the third step the tests needed for the
characterization of materials are described and the parameter
identification for the material models is discussed. Finally and
using example simulations the sensitivity of simulation results
regarding the identified material parameters is shown.
The seminar was extremely well received in

our company! Even our colleagues, who had
already worked a lot in this area, were able to
learn many new things.“
Fabian Wolf, P+Z Engineering GmbH
Dr.-Ing. Helmut Gese (MATFEM - Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer) founded the
Instructor
engineering consultancy MATFEM in 1993 (from 1999 the company has been named MATFEM partnership
Dr. Gese & Oberhofer). MATFEM offers technical and scientific consultancy services at the intersection of
material science and finite element methods. Besides performing FEM analysis projects the area of activity
covers experimental and theoretical characterization of materials and the development of new material
models for simulation.

Dates
166
Material Models of Plastics and Foams for Crash Simulation

Numerical simulation has become a fundamental element in The seminar addresses experienced CAE engineers and
the development of motor vehicles. Today, many important heads of CAE departments with an interest in plastic and
design decisions, especially in the field of crash, are based on foam materials simulation. At least 1-year of experience with
simulation results. During the last few years there has been FEM-programs such as LS-DYNA, PAM-CRASH or RADIOSS is
an increase in the use of foams in vehicles. These are, due to suggested for participating in this course.
their variety and structure, much more complicated regarding Course Contents
the characteristics of the materials than "simple" materials Overview of polymer materials used in vehicle
such as steel or aluminum, which can be modelled rather well. construction
Characterization of foam materials is a great challenge for the Verification and validation procedure for crash simulation
simulation expert. Although by now there are different model- Introduction to mechanics of materials
ling approaches available in explicit FEM-programs such as LS- Simulation of elastic and visco-elastic rubbers and foams
DYNA, PAM-CRASH or RADIOSS, these are, however, often not with volume elements
satisfactory. The application of these special material models Overview of available material models in explicit finite
requires a sound knowledge and experience. element codes
The seminar provides an overview over plastics and foam Simulation of elastic-plastic polymers under crash loading
materials used in automotive engineering and their phe- for validation
nomenology. On the first day you obtain an introduction into Simulation of anisotropic materials with application to
the simulation of elastic and visco-elastic polymers, such as glass-fiber reinforced plastics
elastomers and elastic polymer foams with volume elements.
You are thereby coming to understand the available material
models in explicit finite element programs.
On the second day the focus is on the treatment of plastics,
such as thermo- and duroplastics through elasto-plasticity
with isotropic hardening. Non-associated deformation is going
to be discussed as well. The seminar is rounded off with the
procedure for simulation of glass-fiber reinforced plastics
using both isotropic and anisotropic material laws.
For a demonstration you are going to see examples created
with the program LS-DYNA. References to material models
in LS-DYNA an PAM-CRASH are going to help you in applying
what you will have learnt.
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Kolling (Giessen University of Applied Sciences) is Professor for Me-
Instructor
chanics at the Giessen University of Applied Sciences (THM). Previously he worked as a simulation engineer at
the Mercedes Technology Center in Sindelfingen. He was responsible for methods development in crash simula-
tion. In particular he was involved in the modelling of non-metal materials such as glass, polymers and plastics.
Prof. Kolling graduated from the Universities of Saarbrücken and Darmstadt, from where he also received his
Ph.D. He is author of numerous publications in the field of material modeling.

Date
168
Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation

For the efficient assembly of components and complete struc- The course addresses engineers working in the field of crash
tures many different joining techniques are available. Joints simulation and heads of simulation departments interested
have to ensure that the assembly will fulfill crashworthiness, in the important topic of modelling of joints including failure.
durability and other requirements. Therefore the best joining Course Contents
technique has to be selected for each application. Modern Overview of modeling techniques for different joining
lightweight design often uses a material mix. Using different techniques
materials, like various steel grades, lightweight alloys, plastics Tests and methods for characterization of joints
or composites for applications for which the individual mate- Local loading conditions at joints during testing under
rial is best suited allows for weight savings. The efficient and shear, tension and bending load
reliable joining of different materials is even more challenging. Characteristics of failure behavior
Failure of joints can be a reason for collapse of vehicle struc- Failure modelling of
tures during crash testing. Therefore failure of joints must be Spot welded joints including spot welds in press hardened
precisely predicted in numerical crash simulation applied in steels
the virtual design process of vehicle development. Self-piercing riveted joints
Laser welded joints
Course Objectives Adhesive joints
The objective of this one day course is to give the participants Calibration methods for determination of model
an overview of failure modelling of different joints (puncti- parameters
form, linear, planar joints) for crash simulation and also of Validation of calibrated models through testing and
the characterization tests and methods that are necessary for simulation
calibrating the model parameters. Also recommendation for
validation tests and simulations of calibrated joint models are
given. Examples of typical and used models are shown in all
common crash codes.
Dr.-Ing. Silke Sommer (Fraunhofer Institute for Mechanics of Materials IWM) studied
Instructor
Physics at the RWTH Aachen University and obtained her PhD degree at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technol-
ogy about modelling of the deformation and failure behaviour of spot welds. She has been working at the
Fraunhofer Institute for Mechanics of Materials IWM in Freiburg since 2000 in the field of damage and failure
modelling of materials and joints for crash simulation. Since 2013 she is a group leader for joining and joints.

Dates
169
Introduction to the Python Programming Language

Python is a modern programming language that is increas- The seminar is aimed at newcomers to the Python language.
ingly used in the field of Scientific Computing. Together with Experience in other scripting or programming languages
the environment www.scipy.org Python is an open source would be an advantage but is not a requirement.
alternative to the commercial software MATLAB. A series of Course Contents
CAE software products, including the Pre-Processor ANSA, Basic concepts of the Python programming language
the solvers ABAQUS and PAM-CRASH and the Post-Processor Introduction to the language
META, are already using Python as an integrated scripting Data and control structures, functions
language. Python puts the emphasis on well-readable code, Advanced topics
so beginners can learn the language very quickly. Neverthe- Processing of data
less, Python is a powerful programming language and can also Important modules of the Python standard library
be used for larger projects. Further advantages of Python are Examples from scientific computing
Modularization in bigger Python projects
the platform independence and the very extensive standard
library supplied. Practical exercises
Course Objectives
The seminar provides a comprehensive introduction to the
basics of the Python programming language. It also includes
an introduction to object-oriented programming. Practical
exercises, such as processing text-based files from the CAE
world, will be treated. After the seminar, participants will be
able to acquaint themselves with the Python interfaces of CAE
software products.
Dr. André Backes (TECOSIM Technische Simulation GmbH) studied Mathematics at the Uni-
Instructor
versity of Duisburg. From 2000 to 2006 he was a researcher at the Institute for Mathematics at the Humboldt
University in Berlin. His PhD studies at the chair for Numerical Mathematics introduced him to the field of
CAE. Since 2006 he works at TECOSIM GmbH in Rüsselsheim and specialized in NVH. In the area of Virtual
Benchmarking he helped developing the TECOSIM-owned process TEC|BENCH

PRICE LANGUAGE
Dates
11.-12.03.2019
28.-29.04.2016 161/3351 Alzenau
Alzenaz 2 Days
Tage 1.340,-
1.290,-EUR
EURtill
bis11.02.2019,
danach 1.540,-
1.590,-
EUREUR
28.-29.04.2016
03.-04.12.2019 161/3352 Alzenau
Alzenaz 2 Days
Tage 1.340,-
1.290,-EUR
EURtill
bis05.11.2019,
danach 1.540,-
1.590,-
EUREUR
170
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Important Abbreviations
A Device COP (1) Carry over Parts
A-PCS Advanced Pre-Collision AZT Allianz Zentrum Technik COP (2) Child Occupant Protection
System (Lexus) (e.g. Euro NCAP)
B COPD Child Occupant Presence
AAA American / Australian
BAS Brake Assistant Detection
Automobile Association
BASt Bundesanstalt für COS Completion of Steer
AAAM Association for the
Straßenwesen (German CP Contact Point
Advancement of Automotive
Federal Highway Research CPFA Car to Pedestrian Farside
Medicine
Institute) Adult
AAM Alliance of Auto
BDA Bonnet Deployment Actuator CPLA Car to Pedestrian
Manufacturers (OSRP,
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle Longitudinal Adult
USCAR)
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards CPNA Car to Pedestrian Nearside
aBAS Advanced Brake Assist
BLE Bonnet Leading Edge Adult
System
BoD Board of Directors (Euro CPNC Car to Pedestrian Nearside
ACC Adaptive Cruise Control
NCAP) Child
ACEA Association of European
BOS Beginning of Steer CRABI Child Restraint Airbag
Automobile Manufacturers
BRIC Brain Injury Criterion Interaction (OoP-child
ACL Anterior cruciate ligament
BSD Blind Spot Detection dummy), USA
ACN Automatic Collision
BST Blind Spot Technology CRS Child Restraint System
Notification
BTA Bumper Test Area CSM Computational Structural
ACSF Automatically Commanded
Steering Function C Mechanics
ACU Airbag Control Unit CSMA/CA Carrier Sense Multiple Access
C-IASI China Insurance Automotive
AD Automated Driving / Collision Avoidance
Safety Index
ADAC Allgemeiner Deutscher CSMA/CD Carrier Sense Multiple Access
C-NCAP China New Car Assessment
Automobil Club / Collision Detection
Programme
ADAS Advanced Driver Assistance CV Closing Velocity
C2C Car-to-Car
Systems CA Crash Avoidance D
ADOD Average Depth of CAD Computer Aided Design DAS Data Acquisition System
Deformation CAE Computer Aided Engineering DBS Dynamic Brake Support
ADR Australian Design Rules CAN Controller Area Network DCU Domain Control Unit
AE-MDB Advanced European Mobile CAT Computer Aided Testing DGPS Differential Global Positioning
Deformable Barrier CATARC China Automotive System
AEB Autonomous Emergency Technology and Research DLO Daylight Opening
Braking Center DPPS Deployable Pedestrian
AEBS Autonomous Emergency CBLA Car to Bicyclist Longitudinal Protection Systems
Brake System Adult DT Deployment Time
AHOD Average Height of CBNA Car to Bicyclist Nearside DTLE Distance To Lane Edge
Deformation Adult
AHOF Average Height of Force CCR Car to Car-Rear E
AHR Active Head Rest CDC Collision Deformation EBA Emergency Brake Assist
AIS (1) Abbreviated Injury Scale Classification EBA Effective Braking &
AIS (2) Automotive Industry CEA Comité Européen des Avoidance (ASEAN NCAP)
Standards (India) Assurances EBD Electronic Brake Force
AISC Automotive Industry CFD Computational Fluid Distribution
Standards Committee Dynamics EBT Euro NCAP Bicyclist Target
ANCAP Australasian New Car CFR Code of Federal Regulations ECE Economic Commision for
Assessment Program (USA) Europe (United Nations)
AOP Adult Occupant Protection CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced ECOSOC United Nationions Economic
(Euro NCAP) Plastic and Social Council
APF Abdominal Peak Force CIB Crash Imminent Braking EDM Engineering Data
APSS Active Pedestrian Safety CLEPA Comité de liaison européen Management
System des fabricants d’equipements EES Energy Equivalent Speed
ARAI Automotive Research et de pièces automobiles EEVC European Enhanced Vehicle-
Association of India CMM Coordinate Measuring Safety Committee
ASCC Adaptive Speed Cruise Machine EIF Entry Into Force
Control CMVR Central Motor Vehicle Rules ELK Emergency Lane Keeping
ASIC Application-Specific CMVSS Canadian Motor Vehicle ELSA ELectric SAfety (UNECE/
Integrated Circuit Safety Standards WP29 working group)
ASIL Automotive Safety Integrity COG Center of Gravity EMC Electromagnetic
Level (functional safety) CONTRAN Conselho Nacional de Compatibility
ATD Anthropomorphic Test Trânsito EOU Ease of use
171
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
EPB Electrical Protection Barrier GVM Gross Vehicle Mass (UNECE)
EPT Euro NCAP Pedestrian Target GVT Global Vehicle Target IWVTA International Whole Vehicle
ES-2 re Euro SID 2 Rib Extension GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Type Approval
ESC Electronic Stability Control
ESP Electronic Stability Program
H J
ETC European Test Consortium HAD Highly Automated Driving JA Junction Assist
ETSC European Transport Safety HAV Highly Automated Vehicle J-MLIT Japan: Ministry of Land,
Council HBM Human Body Model Infrastructure and Transport
Euro NCAP European New Car HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle JAMA Japan Automotive
Assessment Programme HIC Head Injury Criterion Manufacturers Association
EVPC Electric Vehicles Post Crash HIT Head Impact Time JARI Japan Automobile Research
EVS Electric Vehicle Safety HLDI Highway Loss Data Institute Institute
EVT Euro NCAP Vehicle Target HLLC High Level Liaison Committee JASIC Japan Automobile Standards
HMI Human Machine Interface Internationalization Center
F HNI Head Neck Impactor JNCAP Japan New Car Assessment
FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting HNT Horizontal Negative deviation Program
System from Target cell load
FCEV Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle HOF Height of Force
K
FCW Forward Collision Warning HPC Head Performance Criterion KMVSS Korean Motor Vehicle Safety
FCWS Forward Collision Warning HPM H-Point Manikin Standards
System HPS Head Protection System KNCAP Korean New Car Assessment
FEM Finite Elemente Methode HPT Head Protecting Technology Program
FFC Femur Force Criterion HRC Time to Head Restraint first KTH Knee - Thigh - Hip (body
FIWG Frontal Impact Working Contact region)
Group (Euro NCAP) HRMD Head Restraint Measuring L
Flex PLI Flexible Pedestrian Legform Device
LDW Lane Departure Warning
Impactor HRV Head Rebound Velocity
LDWS Lane Departure Warning
FMH Free Motion Headform HTD Hardest to detect
System
(FMVSS 201) HV High Voltage
LHD Left Hand Drive
FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
I LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
IARV Injury Assessment Reference LIN Local Interconnect Network
FPS Frontal Protection System
Value LKAS Lane Keeping Assist System
FPSLE Frontal Protection System
IBRL Internal Bumper Reference LKD Lane Keeping Device
Leading Edge
Line LKS Lane Keeping System
FRG Floating Rib Guide
ICPL Injury Criteria Protection LL Lower Leg
FRP Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Level LNL Lower Neck Load
FRS Fitment Rating System
ICRT International Consumer LSS Lane Support System
(ASEAN NCAP)
Research and Testing LTR Land Transport Rules (New
FSI Fluid-Structure-Interaction
IG Informal Group Zealand)
FW Full Width
FWDB Full Width Deformable IHC Intelligent Headlight Control M
Barrier IHRA International Harmonized
MAIS Maximal AIS (Abbreviated
FWRB Full Width Rigid Barrier Research Activities
Injury Scale)
IIHS Insurance Institute for
G MCL Medial Collateral Ligament
Highway Safety
MDB Mobile Deformable Barrier
G.S.R. General Statutory Rules IIWPG International Insurance
MoD Motor own Damage
GAMBIT Generalized Acceleration Whiplash Prevention Group
(Insurance)
Model for Brain Injury INSIA Instituto Universitario de
MPDB Moving Progressive
Threshold Investigación del Automóvil
Deformable Barrier
GCS Glasgow Coma Scale IP Intersection Point
MSA Manual Speed Assist
GIDAS German in-Depth Accident IRC Injury Risk Curve
MTBI Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Study IRCOBI International Research
MVWG Motor Vehicle Working
GRSG Groupe de Rapporteurs sur Council on the Biomechanics
Group (EU)
la Sécurité Générale (Expert of Impact
group for UN WP29 - General IRF Injury Risk Function N
Safety) ISA Intelligent Speed Assistance NASS National Automotive
GRSP Groupe de Rapporteurs sur ISM Intelligent Speed Sampling System
la Sécurité Passive (Expert Management NASVA National Agency for
group for UN WP29 - Passive ISO International Organization for Automotive Safety & Victims‘
Safety) Standardization Aid (Japan)
GSR General Safety Regulation ISS Injury Severity Score NCAP New Car Assessment
GTR Global Technical Regulation ITC Inland Transport Committee Program
172
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCSA National Center for Statistics RCAR Research Council for (Insurance)
and Analysis (an Office of Automobile Repairs TREAD Transportation Recall,
NHTSA) RCTA Rear Cross Traffic Alert Enhancement, Accountability
NHTSA National Highway Traffic RE Rib Extension (for EuroSID II) and Documentation
Safety Administration (USA) RFCRS Rearward Facing Child TRL Transport Research
NIC Neck Injury Criterion Restraint System Laboratory (UK)
NISS New Injury Severity Score RHD Right Hand Drive TRT Total Reaction/Response
NPACS New Programme for the RID Rear Impact Dummy Time
Assessment of Child-restraint RR Repeatability & TSP Top Safety Pick (IIHS)
Systems Reproducibility TT Top Tether
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule TTB Time to Brake
Making
S TTC Time to Collision
NTSEL National Traffic Safety and S.O Statutory Order TTD Time to Decision
Environment Laboratory SA Safety Assist (Euro NCAP) TTI Thoracic Trauma Index
(Japan) SAE Society of Automotive TTS Time to Steer
Engineers
O SAS Speed Assistance System U
OC Occipital Condyles SAT Safety Assist Technology U.S. NCAP United States New Car
ODB Offset Deformable Barrier SBR Seat Belt Reminder Assessment Program
OICA Organisation Internationale SCOE Standing Committee on UBM Upper Body Mass
des Constructeurs Implementation of Emission UL Upper Leg
d’Automobiles Legislation UMTRI University of Michigan
OLC Occupant Load Criterion SD Standard Deviation Transportation Research
OMDB Oblique Moving Deformable SEAS Secondary Energy Absorbing Institute
Barrier Structure UN United Nations
OoP Out of Position SgRP Seating Reference Point USCAR The United States Council for
SID Side Impact Dummy Automotive Research
P SLD Speed Limitation Device UUT Unit Under Test
PADI Procedures for the assembly SLIF Speed Limit Information
disassembly and inspection Function
V
PAEB Pedestrian Automatic SOB Small Overlap Barrier (IIHS) VAN Vehicle Area Network
Emergency Braking SRA Swedish Road Administration VC Viscous Criterion
PCL Posterior Cruciate Ligament SRP Seat Reference Point VDC Vehicle Dynamics Control
PDB (1) Partnership for SRS Supplementary Restraint VNT Vertical Negative deviation
Dummytechnology and System from Target cell load
Biomechanics SSF Static Stability Factor (U.S. VR Virtual Reality
PDB (2) Progressive Deformable NCAP, KNCAP) VRTC Vehicle Research & Test
Barrier SSR Speed Sign Recognition Center (NHTSA)
PDC Park Distance Control ST Sensing Time VRU Vulnerable Road User
PDI Pedestrian Detection STNI Soft Tissue Neck Injury VSS Vehicle Safety Score (U.S.
Impactor SUFEHM Strasbourg University Finite NCAP)
PEAS Primary Energy Absorbing Element Head Model VUT Vehicle Under Test
Structure SUV Sports Utility Vehicle
PLI Pedestrian Legform Impactor
W
SWR Strength-to-weight ratio (roof
PMA Parking and Maneuvering WAD (1) Wrap Around Distance
crush)
Assistant WAD (2) Whiplash Associated
PMHS Post Mortem Human T Disorders
Subjects TA Type Approval WG Working Group
PMTO Post Mortal Test Object TAP Turn Across Path WP Working Party (UN)
PNCAP Primary New Car Assessment TCMV Technical Committee - Motor WS World SID
Programme Vehicles (EU) WS5F World SID 5th%ile Female
PoC Point of Collision TEG Technical Evaluation Group Dummy
PP Pedestrian Protection (Euro ThCC Thoracic Compression WSTC Wayne State University
NCAP) Criterion Tolerance Curve
PPA Pedestrian Protection Airbag THOR Test Device for Human WSU Wayne State University
PPAD Partner Protection Occupant Restraint
Assessment Deformation THUMS Total Human Model for
PSPF Pubic Symphysis Peak Force Safety
PTS Poly Trauma Score TIPT Thorax Injury Prediction Tool
PTW Powered Two Wheeler ToPI Time of pedestrian
identification
R TOR Takeover Request
Radar Radio Detection and Ranging TPL Third Party Liability
173
Terms & Conditions
Registration obtain a refund for the fees already paid, further entitlements are
You can register for seminars directly via our webpage www.carhs. excluded.
de or send us the completed and signed registration form by mail
Liability
or fax.
Naturally the lecturers express their personal opinions, and infor-
By signing the registration or by transmitting the e-mail/internet-
mation and data are published or made available. We cannot
registration the participant accepts the terms of participation.
assume liability for the content of the information given, or for the
Your registration data are saved for internal purposes.
data, or for the success of the seminar. We are not liable for the
Confirmation of registration/invoice loss of or damage to objects brought to the seminar, unless the
Immediately after receipt of the registration you obtain a written damaging of this object can be ascribed to deliberate or negligent
confirmation of registration and an invoice. Invoices need to be behaviour by our employees or other auxiliary persons. We thus
paid within 30 days from the issuing date of the invoice, however, kindly ask you to not leave valuables or important materials in the
not later than 7 days before the beginning of the seminar, without seminar room during breaks. We do not guarantee that the prod-
deductions. We reserve the right to exclude participants who have ucts, procedures and names mentioned in seminars and manuals
not paid in time from the participation in the seminar. are free from industrial property rights.
Participation fee Copyright
The participation fee for one seminar is in Euro per person plus The manuals distributed within our seminars are copyrighted and
VAT and includes training material, participation certificate, drinks must not – not even in extracts – be copied or used commercially
during breaks and lunch. without the consent of carhs.training gmbh and the respective
Since the place of provision of seminars held in Germany is inland, lecturers.
participants from abroad have to pay VAT too (it may however be
Seminars held by our Partner Companies
possible to apply for a refunding of the purchase tax at the Federal
For Seminars organized by our partners BGS Böhme & Gehring
Tax Office). A partial participation in our seminars does not entitle
GmbH, Batteryuniversity GmbH and Vogel Communications
to a reduction in the participation fee.
Group GmbH & Co. KG, carhs acts as an agent only. For these
Discount for universities and public reasearch institutions Seminars only the terms and conditions of our partner apply.
Universities and public research institutions receive a 40 % dis-
Applicable law/Jurisdiction
count on seminar fees.
The contract is subject to German law.
Number of participants For businessmen in the sense of HGB (German Commercial Code)
The number of participants is limited in order to ensure an effi- the following applies: Jurisdiction for all claims and litigations
cient realization of the seminar. Registrations are considered in the resulting from the contractual relationship, including special pro-
order of their arrival. An early registration is thus recommended. cedures deciding claims arising out of a bill of exchange or sum-
In the case of additional registrations we try to set an alternative mary procedures, is Aschaffenburg.
date.
Cancellation
The cancellation of the registration is possible free of charge until
4 weeks before the beginning of the seminar. In the case of a
cancellation until 2 weeks before the beginning of the seminar we Imprint
have to charge a fixed charge of EUR 100. In the case of a later Published by
cancellation or if the participant does not attend the seminar, the carhs.training gmbh, Siemensstrasse 12, D-63755 Alzenau, Germany
full amount has to be paid. For conferences and seminars listed in Tel. +49 (0) 6023-9640-60, Fax +49 (0) 6023-9640-70
the category 'Events' the following terms apply for cancellations: Managing Directors: Constantin Hoffmann, Rainer Hoffmann
Commercial Register: Aschaffenburg HRB 9961
The cancellation of the registration is possible free of charge until
4 weeks before the beginning of the seminar. In the case of a Copyright
cancellation until 2 weeks before the beginning of the seminar we © 2019 by carhs.training gmbh. All details, including but not limited to,
charge 50 % of the seminar fee. In the case of a later cancellation illustrations, product descriptions and documents published in this book are
the sole property of carhs gmbh. Any copying or distribution in whole or in
or if the participant does not attend the seminar, the full amount parts is subject to a written permit by carhs gmbh. All rights reserved. carhs is a
has to be paid. registered trademark of carhs gmbh
Replacement participant Liability
It is possible at any point to register a substitute participant for the No warranty is given, either expressly or tacitly, for the completeness or
correctness of the information in this publication or on websites referred to in
registered participant. The same terms of participation as for the this publication. We can and will not be liable for any damages arising from the
registered participant apply for him or her. use or in connection with the use of the information in this publication, being
direct or indirect damages, consequential damages and/or, but not limited to,
Cancellation or postponing of a seminar damages such as loss of profit or loss of data. We reserve the right of changes
of the information contained without previous announcement. We can and
We reserve the right to cancel or postpone seminars for organ- will not be held liable nor responsible for the information contained in and on
isational reasons (e.g. if the minimum number of participants is webpages referred to in this publication. Furthermore we declare, that we do
not have any influence, outside of our domain, for the pages presented in the
not achieved). In the case of a cancellation we try to book you to Internet. Should any illegal information be spread via one of our links, please be
another date and/or location, if you should wish so. Otherwise you so kind to inform us immediately, to enable us to remove said link.
174
Index
Index Creamer, John 18, 20, 134 H

Head Impact 95
A D Headlights 137
Abbreviations 171 Data Acquisition 114 HIC 118
ACL 124 Dual Rating 46 Hinterhölzl, Roland 164
Active Safety 17, 126, 128, 130 Duddeck, Fabian 162 Hoffmann, Rainer 16
ADAS 135 Dummy 116, 120, 122 HRMD 106
ADR 22, 78 Hybrid III (HIII) 116
AEB 126, 128, 138, 141, 142, 144, E Hybrid Vehicles 24
146, 148, 150, 154 Efficiency 163
AES 27, 138 Eickhoff, Burkhard 84 I
Airbag 82 Ejection Mitigation 92 IIHS 28, 30, 52, 74, 86, 136, 145,150
Ambos, Ralf 45 Electric Vehicles 24, 25, 26, 73 India 131
ANCAP 30, 36, 46, 136 Emergency Lane Keeping 149 Inhouse Seminars 12
ASEAN NCAP 29, 30, 58, 109, 136 ES-2 116 Injury Risk Curves 49
ASV 128 ESC 126, 130, 140, 149 Insurance Tests 111
Automated Driving 130, 134, 135 Euro NCAP 27, 30, 36, 42, 45, 46, 86, Interiors 95, 157
Autonomous Driving 7, 135 100, 102, 108, 136, 141
AZT 111 Euro SID 116 J
JNCAP 29, 30, 62, 64, 100, 136
B F Joints 169
Bachem, Harald 17 Far Side Occupant 44 Justen, Rainer 24
Backes, André 170 Finck, Maren 98
BASt 132 Flex PLI 96, 123, 124 K
Baumgärtner, Timo 157 FMVSS 18, 20
Karall, Thomas 165
Bharat NCAP 30, 69, 136 FMVSS 126 140
Kinsky, Thomas 18
BioRID 106, 116 FMVSS 201 94, 95
KMVSS 22
Brain Injury Criterion 118 FMVSS 208 76, 77, 78
KNCAP 29, 30, 65, 66, 68, 100, 110,
BrIC 118 FMVSS 214 86, 87, 88, 91 136
Bumper Test 111 FMVSS 216a 70, 74 Knee Mapping 45
FMVSS 226 92 Kolling, Stefan 168
C Foams 168
Forward Collision Warning 128, 152
CAE 160
Frank, Thomas 107 L
Car Body 73, 155, 156 Lane Departure Warning 128, 148
Child Occupant Protection 108, 110 Frontal Impact 32, 36, 76, 78, 80, 84
Front Crash Prevention 150 Latin NCAP 28, 30, 57, 109, 136
C-IASI 29, 30, 136 Legal Requirements 18
CMVSS 208 78 Fuel Cell 24
Lightweight Design 156, 158
C-NCAP 29, 30, 60, 61, 136, 154 Lohrmann, Hans-Georg 72
Commercial Vehicles 17 G Lower Legform 124
Compatibility 40 Gärtner, Torsten 95
Compliance 20 Gese, Helmut 166
Composites 164, 165 Global NCAP 30, 136 M
Concentrated Loading 45 Golowko, Kai 77 Martellucci, Alexander 70
Crash Imminent Braking 152 Grand Challenge 160 Material Models 165, 166, 168
Crash-Sensing 85 Grid Method 102 MCL 124
Crash Simulation 73, 165, 166, 168, Groesch, Lothar 85, 135 Metals 166
169 GTR 9 100 MPDB 36, 42
Crashworthiness 73 GTR 14 86 Müller, Gerd 130
175
Index
Multi-point Thoracic Injury Criterion SafetyUpDate 15, 137 Vehicle Safety Score 50
118 SafetyWeek 14 VRU 142, 144
SafetyWissen Navigator 4
N Sandner, Volker 42 W
NCAP 28, 30, 36, 48, 49, 50, 136 Schumacher, Axel 73, 155, 156 Whiplash 104, 106, 107
NHTSA 18, 20, 132 Seat 106 Wild, Thomas 114
Seat Adjustments 88 Wolter, Stephanie 91
Seat Belt 82
O Seat Belt Reminder 126
WorldSID 88, 116, 122
OLC 40 Seeck, Andre 30, 136
Optimization 73, 161 Self-Certification 20
Out-of-Position 77 Seminar Guide 6
Sensors 85
P SID 116
Passive Safety 16, 17 Side Impact 88, 90, 91
PCL 124 SID-IIs 116
P-Dummy 116 Sine with Dwell 140
Pedestrian Protection 73, 98, 100, Slowly-Increasing-Steer 140
123, 124 Small Overlap 54, 56
Peeters Weem, Bart 91 Sommer, Silke 169
Plastics 157, 168 Static Vehicle Safety Tests 70
Product Liability 72
Python 170 T
Terms & Conditions 174
Q Testing 113, 114
Q-Dummy 109, 116, 120 THOR 42, 118, 122
Top Safety Pick 53
R TREAD Act 72
Rating 50, 58
RCAR 111 U
Rear Automatic Braking 150 Uncertainty 162
Rear Impact 106 UN R12 70
Rear Seats 83, 84 UN R14 70
Recall 72 UN R21 94, 95
Regulations 18, 21, 22 UN R29 17
Restraint Systems 77, 82, 84 UN R94 22, 26
Risk 163 UN R95 23, 26, 86
Robust Design 162 UN R100 26
Rollover 128 UN R127 96, 100
Roof Crush 74 UN R130 17
Rother, Klemens 163 UN R131 17, 138
UN R135 23
S U.S. NCAP 28, 30, 48, 49, 50, 86,
136, 150, 152
SAE 132
SAFE ROADS India Summit 131
SafetyLighting 137 V
Safety Summit Shanghai 13 Variable Contact 45
Safety Testing 113, 114 Vehicle Classification 112
176
Seminar Calendar 2019
January February March April May June
1 Tu New Year 1 Fr 1 Fr Design for Durability www 1 Mo 1 We Labor Day 1 Sa
2 We 2 Sa 2 Sa 2 Tu Head Impact p. 95 2 Th Active Safety p. 130 2 Su
3 Th 3 Su 3 Su 3 We Low-Speed-Crash www 3 Fr 3 Mo Design Maturity Restraints
4 Fr 4 Mo Pedestrian Protection p. 98 4 Mo 4 Th 4 Sa 4 Tu Passive Safety Regu-
Side Impact
5 Sa 5 Tu International Safety and 5 Tu Material Models Composites p. 165 5 Fr p. 91 5 Su 5 We Safety p. 16 lations p. 18
6 Su Epiphany 6 We Crash-Test Regulations p. 18 6 We 6 Sa 6 Mo 6 Th NCAP- New Car Assessment
Product Liability
7 Mo 7 Th Frontal Retraint Sytems p. 77 7 Th 7 Su 7 Tu p. 72 7 Fr Programs p. 27
NVH
8 Tu 8 Fr Whiplash p. 107 8 Fr www 8 Mo 8 We Safety of Lithium-Batteries www 8 Sa
9 We 9 Sa 9 Sa 9 Tu Design of Composite 9 Th 9 Su Pentecost
10 Th 10 Su 10 Su 10 We Structures p. 164 10 Fr 10 Mo Pentecost
11 Fr 11 Mo Modeling of Joints p. 169 11 Mo Introduction to Python 11 Th Crash Safety of Hybrid- 11 Sa 11 Tu
12 Sa 12 Tu 12 Tu Programming p. 170 12 Fr and Electric Vehicles p. 24 12 Su 12 We
Product Liability
13 Su 13 We p. 72 13 We Workshop 13 Sa 13 Mo 13 Th
14 Mo 14 Th 14 Th Euro NCAP MPDB p. 42 14 Su 14 Tu 14 Fr
Robust Design
15 Tu 15 Fr p. 162 15 Fr 15 Mo 15 We 15 Sa
16 We 16 Sa 16 Sa 16 Tu automotive CAE 16 Th p. 14 16 Su
17 Th 17 Su 17 Su 17 We Grand Challenge 2019 p. 160 17 Fr 17 Mo
18 Fr 18 Mo Static Vehicle Safety Tests p. 70 18 Mo Euro NCAP- Compact www 18 Th 18 Sa 18 Tu
19 Sa 19 Tu Highly Automated and 19 Tu Ejection Mitigation www 19 Fr Good Friday 19 Su 19 We
20 Su 20 We Autonomous Driving p. 135 20 We 20 Sa 20 Mo Introduction to Data Ac- 20 Th Corpus Christi
21 Mo 21 Th Crash-Sensing p. 85 21 Th Lightweight Design Strate- 21 Su Easter 21 Tu quisition in Safety Testing p. 114 21 Fr
22 Tu 22 Fr 22 Fr gies for Car Bodies p. 156 22 Mo Easter 22 We Material Models of Plastics 22 Sa
23 We 23 Sa 23 Sa 23 Tu 23 Th and Foams p. 168 23 Su
24 Th 24 Su 24 Su 24 We 24 Fr Material Models Metals 24 Mo Development of Frontal
25 Fr 25 Mo NCAP - New Car 25 Mo 25 Th 25 Sa 25 Tu Restraint Systems p. 77
26 Sa 26 Tu Assessment Programs p. 30 26 Tu 26 Fr 26 Su 26 We PraxisConference
Lightweight Summit 2019
27 Su 27 We 27 We p. 158 27 Sa 27 Mo Introduction to Passive 27 Th Pedestrian Protection p. 99
Structural Optimization
28 Mo 28 Th p. 161 28 Th 28 Su 28 Tu Safety of Vehicles p. 16 28 Fr Head Impact p. 95
29 Tu 29 Fr 29 Mo Crashworthy Car Body 29 We 29 Sa
30 We 30 Sa 30 Tu Design p. 73 30 Th Ascension of Christ 30 Su
31 Th 31 Su 31 Fr
Course venue Alzenau Course venue Hanau Course venue Landsberg am Lech Subject to changes.
Find updates and additional information at
Course venue Würzburg Course venue Gaimersheim/Ingolstadt Course venue Bergisch Gladbach www.carhs.de
Seminar Calendar 2019
July August September October November December
1 Mo Euro NCAP - Compact www 1 Th 1 Su 1 Tu Product Liability 1 Fr All Saints 1 Su
2 Tu Functional Safety 2 Fr 2 Mo Introduction to Passive p. 16 2 We 2 Sa 2 Mo Design for Durability www
3 We ISO 26262 www 3 Sa 3 Tu Safety 3 Th German National Holiday 3 Su 3 Tu Introduction to
4 Th Crash Safety of Hybrid- and p. 24 4 Su 4 We Structural Optimization p. 161 4 Fr 4 Mo Development of Frontal 4 We Python Programming p. 170
5 Fr Electric Vehicles 5 Mo 5 Th Robust Crashworthy Car 5 Sa 5 Tu Restraint Systems p. 77 5 Th
6 Sa 6 Tu 6 Fr Design p. 162 Body Design p. 72 6 Su 6 We Static Vehicle Safety Tests p. 70 6 Fr
7 Su 7 We 7 Sa 7 Mo Highly Automated and 7 Th Crash Safety of Hybrid- and 7 Sa
8 Mo 8 Th 8 Su 8 Tu Autonomous Driving p. 135 8 Fr Electric Vehicles p. 24 8 Su
9 Tu 9 Fr 9 Mo Knee Mapping Workshop p. 45 9 We Safety of Lithium-Batteries www 9 Sa 9 Mo
10 We p. 91 10 Sa 10 Tu Frontal Restraints Advanced www 10 Th Material Models Metals p. 166 10 Su 10 Tu
Side Impact Euro NCAP UpDate 2019
11 Th 11 Su 11 We Modeling of Joints p. 169 11 Fr 11 Mo Active Safety p. 130 11 We p. 27
12 Fr 12 Mo 12 Th 12 Sa 12 Tu International Safety and 12 Th
NVH
13 Sa 13 Tu 13 Fr www 13 Su 13 We Crash-Test Regulations p. 18 13 Fr
14 Su 14 We 14 Sa 14 Mo Design Maturity Restraints p. 82 14 Th PraxisConference p. 106 14 Sa
15 Mo Automotive Safety 15 Th Assumption Day 15 Su 15 Tu Car Body Desgin Self - 15 Fr Rear Impact-Seats-Whiplash 15 Su
16 Tu Summit Shanghai p. 13 16 Fr 16 Mo 16 We p. 155 certification p. 20 16 Sa 16 Mo
17 We 17 Sa 17 Tu 17 Th Head Impact automat. Vehic.. 17 Su 17 Tu
SafetyUpDate Graz 2019
18 Th 18 Su 18 We p. 15 18 Fr 18 Mo Introduction to Passive 18 We
SafetyUpDate Japan
19 Fr www 19 Mo 19 Th 19 Sa 19 Tu Safety p. 16 19 Th Pedestrian Protection p. 98
20 Sa 20 Tu 20 Fr Whiplash p. 107 20 Su 20 We NCAP SAFE Roads 20 Fr
21 Su 21 We 21 Sa 21 Mo 21 Th p. 30 India p. 131 21 Sa
Side Impact
22 Mo 22 Th 22 Su 22 Tu p. 91 22 Fr 22 Su
23 Tu 23 Fr 23 Mo 23 We Low-Speed-Crash www 23 Sa 23 Mo
24 We 24 Sa 24 Tu PraxisConference AEB|AES 24 Th Commercial Vehicles p. 17 24 Su 24 Tu Christmas Eve
25 Th 25 Su 25 We 2019 p. 138 25 Fr 25 Mo Rear Seat Occupant Prot. p. 84 25 We Christmas
26 Fr 26 Mo 26 Th 26 Sa 26 Tu Ejection Mitigation www 26 Th Christmas
27 Sa 27 Tu 27 Fr Material Models Composites p. 165 27 Su 27 We 27 Fr
28 Su 28 We 28 Sa 28 Mo Pedestrian Protection p. 98 28 Th 28 Sa
29 Mo 29 Th 29 Su 29 Tu 29 Fr 29 Su
30 Tu 30 Fr 30 Mo Product Liability p. 72 30 We 30 Sa 30 Mo
31 We 31 Sa 31 Th 31 Tu New Year's Eve
Course venue Alzenau Course venue Graz Course venue Frankfurt Course venue Bad Wörishofen Course venue Shanghai Subject to changes.
Find updates and additional information at
Course venue New Delhi Course venue Gaimersheim/Ingolstadt Course venue to be announced Course venue Tappenbeck/Wolfsburg Course venue Tokyo www.carhs.de
Authorized Distributor
Germany & Austria
EXCELLENT CRASH TEST RESULTS
Compact Data Acquisition System for

Automotive Crash Test – DIS-7000A
_ A Crash Test Data Acquisition System with high impact
resistance, realizing small size, lightweight.
_ More than 1,000 sensors can be connected.
_ Equipped with a large-capacity flash memory and
lithium ion rechargeable battery
_ By combining such as Airbag timer unit or
CAN unit to the Master Module,
systems which match the pur-
pose of measurement can be
NEW realized.
The compact 3-channel logger DIS-503A is

suitable in the head impactor or child dummies
Crash-Aufnehmer
Abdominal-Pressure-Twin-Sensors für Q-Dummies
The TRANSPOLIS patented abdominal pressure Double sensors are in-
tegrated in pairs for crash test in the abdomen Q dummy series. These
dummy series simulate children aged 1 to 10 years. The APT sensors
are a reliable tool for a thorough assessment of child restraint systems
in crash tests. Since 2014, the use of these sensors has been recom-
mended by UN Regulation No. 129 "Enhanced Child Restraint System"
(ECRS). In Germany, the sensors are already in use at well-known
companies. The sensors are available in three sizes.
We are exhibiting:
ad-1710-carhs01-en
25th – 27th of June 2019 21st – 23rd May 2019

Messe Nuremberg, stand no. 1-307 Messe Stuttgart, stand no. 8404
ZSE ELECTRONIC MESS-SYSTEME & SENSORTECHNIK GmbH | phone: +49 (0) 71 42 68 45 | info@zse.de | www.zse.de

Carhs 2019 Safety Companion PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Carhs 2019 Safety Companion PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SAFETY

for Tomorrowʼs Automotive Engineering

SEMINARS CONFERENCES KNOWLEDGE

Gain Page 13 - 112

Page 113 - 125

Kistler’s efficient in-dummy measurement so-

Page 155 - 170

GTR § UNECE § JNCAP

Seminar Guide Dummies + Crash Test

Regulations and Requirements

Accident Avoidance, Automated Driving

4 SafetyWissen Navigator 60 SafetyWissen: C-NCAP

99 Conference: PraxisConference Pedestrian 137 Conference: SafetyLighting

AI: Will the automotive development engineer be needed in the future?

For the whole team of carhs.training

Rainer Hoffmann Ralf Reuter

Instron‘s CSAadvanced with

Instron GmbH | Schenck Technologie- und Industriepark | Landwehrstraße 65 |64293 Darmstadt

Dr. Dirk Ulrich Sofia Antoniadou

1 Day Seminar 2 Day Seminar

The »Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai« is attracting

Who should attend?

DATE 15.-16. July 2019

VENUE Shanghai, China

LANGUAGE English / Chinese with simultaneous translation

Supporting automotive development engineers to further

Who should attend?

DATE 14.-16. May 2019

VENUE VCC Vogel Convention Center, Würzburg

LANGUAGE German with translation into English

PRICE from 890 EUR (single event)

Conference topics include:

From Experts for Experts

DATE 15.-16. May 2019 17.-18. September 2019

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/update www.carhs.de/gsu

VENUE VCC Vogel Convention Center, Würzburg Technische Universität Graz

Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles

DATE COURSE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Safety of Commercial Vehicles

Course Description Who should attend?

DATE COURSE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations:

John Creamer (GlobalAutoRegs.com) is the founder of GlobalAutoRegs.com and a partner in The

DATE COURSE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

New test track

Crash test facilities

DTC Dynamic Test Center AG

Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification:

John Creamer (GlobalAutoRegs.com) is the founder of GlobalAutoRegs.com and a partner in The

DATE COURSE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Crash-Regulations: Europe, United Nations, USA and China

Instrument panel Side windows Interior Roof Headrests

Rules and Regulations on Occupant Protection

Hybrid III Hybrid III

Hybrid III Hybrid III

Hybrid III Hybrid III

Hybrid III Hybrid III

Hybrid III Hybrid III

Side Barrier Side Pole Pedestrian Rear Head Impact Rollover

FMVSS 202a FMVSS 216a

Find requirements, protocols...

Find requirements, protocols, products...

Crash Safety of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

SSF Roof Crush

Flex PLI Flex PLI Award

Upper Legfom Upper Legfom Flex PLI

Frontal ODB MPDB Frontal ODB

static front / rear static

FCW, LDW, AEB, DBS,

Curtain Airbag Roof Crush SSF

Flex PLI Flex PLI Flex PLI Upper Legform

SBR, AEB, LSS, Rear Brakes, SBR, FCW,

2 sled tests on acceleration based sled rig