Safety Companion 2016 - EN

SAFETY
COMPANION
Empowering Engineers
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEU
KNCAP Protocol 9/2015

Dummy Region Punkte Kriterien
Frontalaufprall mit 40% Überdeckung bei 64 km/h
4 HIC36 < 650; My,extension < 42 Nm; Fz,tension < 2,7 kN; Fx,shear < 1,9 kN
Kopf, Hals
0 HIC36 > 1000; My,extension > 57 Nm; Fz,tension > 3,3 kN; Fx,shear > 3,1 kN
max. 16 Punkte
4 Eindrückung < 22 mm; VC < 0,5 m/s

Brust
0 Eindrückung > 50 mm; VC > 1,0 m/s
H III 50%
Oberschenkel 4 AxialkraftDruck < 3,8 kN; Knieverschiebung < 6 mm
Knie 0 AxialkraftDruck > 9,07 kN; Knieverschiebung > 15 mm
4 TI < 0,4; AxialkraftDruck < 2 kN
Unterschenkel
0 TI > 1,3; AxialkraftDruck > 8 kN
Frontalaufprall mit 100% Überdeckung bei 50 km/h

Kopf, Hals
H III 50% Brust
max. 16 Punkte
4 AxialkraftDruck < 3,8 kN

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

0 AxialkraftDruck > 6,8 kN
Barrieren-Seitenaufprall (MDB) mit 55 km/h

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

Brust
ES-2
4 KraftDruck < 1,0 kN
Bauch
Active & Passive Safety News Tables & Graphs

0 KraftDruck > 2,5 kN
4 PSPF < 3,0 kN
Becken
0 PSPF > 6,0 kN
Dummy & Crashtest Knowledge exchange summarizing all important

Whiplash Test
Dynamische Bewertung 1,5 Punkte 0 Punkte
NIC 11,00 24,00
Engineering & Simulation Networking for Experts rules & regulations in

Nkm 0,15 0,55
Rebound velocity (m/s) 3,2 4,8
max. 10 Punkte
BioRID
max. 9 Punkte
Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 190

IIg
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 360 750
vehicle safety
T1 acceleration* (g)
T-HRC* (ms)
Geometrie Bewertung
9,30
57
1 Punkt
13,10
82
-1 Punkt
Backset (mm) 40 100
1 Pkt
max.
HRMD
Height (mm) 0 80
* Nur das besser bewertete Kriterium geht ins Rating ein.
64
Advertisement SafetyCompanion
2016
From Sensor to
Software – Events
All Crash Products

Page 14 - 20
from one Single
Source.
Passive Safety
Requirements &
Strategies
Page 21 - 101
200-738e-10.15
Dummy and Crashtest

Kistler – your partner for more safety and comfort in the
vehicle.
Page 102 - 113

Kistler – the leading technology supplier for measurement
systems around the vehicle in the field of automotive R&D
– offers also a comprehensive product and service portfolio
in the field of Crash & Safety. In addition to our standard
products we have customized solutions to instrument off-
board, on-board and in-dummy applications as well as
corresponding DAS software and associated services. This
Active Safety,
is our daily business.
Driver Assistance,
Electronics, Sensors
Page 114 - 127

www.kistler.com
Simulation &
Engineering
Page 128 - 140

SAFETY
WISSEN
SafetyWissen Navigator
Canada CMVSS
§ Euro NCAP
 EU
§
208 Frontal.............68 Frontal........ 32, 36, 70 78/2009............86, 88
Side.......32, 39, 76, 78 631/2009................86
Whiplash...........93, 94
U.S. FMVSS § Pedestrian.. 86, 88, 90
Child Prot................98
126 ESC.................120
201U........................83 Safety Assist..........114
208 Frontal.66, 68, 70 AEB.......121, 122, 124
214 Side............74, 78 Overall Rating.........40
216a Roof-Crush....63 Dual Rating..............40
226 Ejection Mitig..80
305 Electric Vehic... 28
U.S. NCAP

Frontal...............32, 42
Side............. 32, 42, 75
Pole............. 32, 42, 75
Rollover / SSF........116
FCW.......................116
LDW.......................116
Rear View Cam.....116
Overall Rating.........44
IIHS

Frontal........ 32, 45, 70
Side.......32, 46, 74, 78
Whiplash...........44, 94
Roof Crush........46, 63
Top Safety Pick.......46
Small Overlap...32, 47
Bumper Test.........101
AEB / FCW.............116
Advanced Light.....116
Latin NCAP

Frontal ..............32, 51

Side....................32, 51 Impactors/Dummies India BNVSAP
Child Prot..........51, 97
Assistance sys.......114 Size/Weight..........108 Time schedule .......61
Dumm Landsc......104 Overall Rating.........61
THOR.....................106
RCAR

EEVC Legform.......112
Upper Legform.....121
India AIS §
Whiplash ................94 Head Impactors....121 098/F Frontal..........24
Bumper.................101 Flex PLI...................121 099/F Side...............25
4
SAFETY
WISSEN
GTR
§ UN ECE
§ JNCAP

8 ESC......................120 R13H ESC: ............120 Frontal........ 33, 56, 70
9 Pedestrian............86 R21...........................83 Side............. 33, 56, 78
14 Side.....................74 R94 Frtl..24, 29, 68, 70 Whiplash.................57
R95 Side..25,29,74,78 Brakes....................116
R100 .......................29 Pedestrian...............86
R135..................25, 74 Overall Rating.........57
Japan §
Art. 18/23 Frontal..24
Art. 18/24 Side.......25
Art. 18/99 Ped........86
KNCAP

Frontal........ 33, 58, 60
Side.................... 33,60
Whiplash.................60
Pedestrian...............86
Brakes....................116
Rollover/SSF..........116
Assistance sys.......116
Korea KMVSS §
102 Frontal.............24
102 Side..................25
China NCAP

Frontal ....... 33, 53, 70
Side ............ 33, 54, 78
Whiplash.................54
China GB §
11551 Frontal.........24
20913 Frontal.........24
ANCAP

Frontal.....................33
20071 Side..............25
Side..........................33
Pedestrian...............50
Australia ADR § ASEAN NCAP

Whiplash.................50 69/00 Frontal....24, 68 Frontal ..............35, 56
Assistance sys.........50 73/00 Frontal....24, 68 Child Prot....... 56, 106
Overall Rating.........50 72/00 Side...............25 Assistance sys.......126
5
carhs.training
Here you find the courses you need to get your Dummies + Crash Test
job done! ►► SafetyTesting p. 16 / p. 18
Haven’t found what you need? Get in touch with us! ►► Introduction to Data Acquisition p. 102
►► Dummy Training S. 110
 +49-6023-964060
►► SafetyUpDate p.16 / p. 20
►► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 21
Legend
►► Seminar/Event that focusses on this topic
►► Seminar/Event that deals with this topic (among others)
Frontal Impact
►► Knee Mapping Workshop p. 38
►► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems p. 67
►► Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact p. 73
►► Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes p. 100
►► International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations p. 26
Sem
►► Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer Protection p. 34
►► Crashworthy Car Body Design p. 64
►► Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers p. 128
Side Impact
►► Side Impact – Requirements and Development Strategies p. 77
Gui
Rear Impact
►► Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts p. 96
Pedestrian Protection
►► PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection p. 17
►► Pedestrian Protection Strategies p. 92
►► Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures p. 113
►► Pedestrian Protection Workshops p. 113
6
carhs.training
Car Bodies
►► Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies p. 130
►► Robust Design and Stochastics for Car Body Development p. 132
Interiors
►► Knee Mapping Workshop p. 38
►► Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors p. 84
►► Whiplash Testing and Evaluation p. 96
Restraint Systems
inar
►► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems p. 67
►► Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact p. 73
►► Ejection Mitigation p. 82
►► Automotive Safety Sensors p. 126
►► Model Based Head Injury Criteria p. 22
ide Regulations and Requirements

►► Crashworthiness of Vehicles with Alternative Drive Systems p. 30
►► Product Liability in the Automobile Industry p. 62
Accident Avoidance
►► PraxisConference Autonomous Emergency Braking p. 19
►► Towards Autonomous Driving p. 117
►► Advanced Driver Assistance and Crash Avoidance Systems p. 118
►► Automotive Safety Sensors p. 126
Materials
►► Material Models of Composites S. 134
►► Material Models of Metals p. 136
►► Material Models of Plastics and Foams p. 138
►► Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation p. 140
►► Lightweight Design Summit p. 14
►► Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies p. 130
7
Table of Contents
4 SafetyWissen: Navigator 39 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Protection Criteria in

6 Seminar Guide Side Impact
10 Preface 40 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Rating: 2016 - 2020
12 In-house Seminars 42 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP

Conferences 2016 45 SafetyWissen: IIHS Rating
14 Lightweight Design Summit 2016 50 SafetyWissen: Australasian NCAP (ANCAP)
15 automotive CAE Grand Challenge 2016 51 SafetyWissen: Latin NCAP
16 SafetyWeek 2016 52 SafetyWissen: ASEAN NCAP
17 11th PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection 53 SafetyWissen: China NCAP
18 SafetyTesting China 56 SafetyWissen: JNCAP
19 PraxisConference AEB 58 SafetyWissen: KNCAP ◀ NEW
20 Grazer SafetyUpDate 2016 61 SafetyWissen: BNVSAP Bharat New Vehicle
Safety Assessment Program (India) ◀ NEW
20 Symposium Human Modeling
Passive Safety 62 Product Liability in the Automobile Industry
21 Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles 63 SafetyWissen: Roof Crush
22 Model Based Head Injury Criteria for Innovative 64 Crashworthy Car Body Design - Design,
Protection Design Simulation, Optimization
23 SafetyWissen: Crash-Regulations Europe, 66 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact
United Nations and USA Requirements
24 SafetyWissen: Rules and Regulations on 67 Development of Frontal Restraint Systems
Occupant Protection 68 SafetyWissen: Protection Criteria for Frontal
26 International Safety and Crash-Test Impact Tests
Regulations: Current Status and Future 70 SafetyWissen: Frontal Impact Protection
Developments Criteria Compared
28 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 305: Safety 72 SafetyWissen: Safety Requirements for Rear
Requirements for Electric Vehicles Seats and Restraint Systems
29 SafetyWissen: UN ECE: Safety Requirements 73 Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal
for Electric Vehicles ◀ NEW Impact
30 Crash Safety of Alternative Fuel Vehicles 74 SafetyWissen: Side Impact Test Procedures
32 SafetyWissen: NCAP-Tests in Europe & America 76 SafetyWissen: Seat Adjustments for Side
33 SafetyWissen: NCAP-Tests in Asia / Australia Impact Tests
34 Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer 78 SafetyWissen: Side Impact Protection Criteria
Protection through Active and Passive Safety Compared
36 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Protection Criteria in 79 Side Impact - Requirements and Development
Frontal Impact Strategies
38 Knee Mapping Workshop: The Euro NCAP Test 80 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 226 - Ejection Mitigation
Procedure 82 Ejection Mitigation FMVSS 226: Requirements -
Testing - Development Strategies
8
Table of Contents
83 SafetyWissen: Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors Active Safety & Driver Assistance
84 Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 114 SafetyWissen: NCAP Tests for Active Safety and
and UN R21 Driver Assistance
86 SafetyWissen: Test Procedures and Protection 117 Autonomous Driving - Technologies, Legal
Criteria for Pedestrian Protection Status, Introduction Scenarios
88 SafetyWissen: Pedestrian Protection 120 SafetyWissen: Test of ESC Systems in UN R13H,
GTR 8 and FMVSS 126
90 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP - Pedestrian
Protection: Head Impact Grid Method 121 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP AEB City
92 Pedestrian Protection - Development Strategies 122 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP AEB VRU-Pe
93 SafetyWissen: Rear Impact: Euro NCAP Rear 124 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP AEB Inter-Urban
Whiplash Assessment 126 Automotive Safety Sensors - Requirements,
94 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Whiplash Seat Test Features, Functions and Applications
94 SafetyWissen: Static Geometry Assessment by Engineering & Simulation
IIWPG / IIHS 128 Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers
96 Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear 130 Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies
Impacts 132 Robust Design and Stochastics for Car Body
97 SafetyWissen: Child Occupant Protection Development
Assessment in Latin NCAP 134 Material Models of Composites for Crash
97 SafetyWissen: Child Occupant Protection Simulation
Assessment in ASEAN NCAP 136 Material Models of Metals for Crash Simulation
98 SafetyWissen: Child Occupant Protection 138 Material Models of Plastics and Foams for
Assessment in Euro NCAP Crash Simulation
100 Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes ◀ NEW 140 Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation ◀ NEW
101 SafetyWissen: RCAR Insurance Tests 141 SafetyWissen: Important Abbreviations
Dummy & Crash Test 145 Terms & Conditions
102 Introduction to Data Acquisition in Safety
146 Seminar Calendar
Testing
104 SafetyWissen: Current Dummy Landscape
106 SafetyWissen: THOR 50% Male: Injury Criteria
and Risk Functions ◀ NEW
108 SafetyWissen: Overview Dummies
Weights, Dimensions and Calibration
110 Dummy – Trainings
112 SafetyWissen: Impactors for Pedestrian
Protection
113 Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures
113 Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Flex PLI
113 Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Euro NCAP
Grid Procedure
9
carhs.training
The requirements in automotive safety are further increasing
Safety
„You need all the safety you can get.“, that was the answer of a consumer on the question Companion
what the wants to see in terms of safety on future cars.* SafetyWissen on
more than 50 pages
Protection from bodily harm is one of the fundamental human needs and in the eye of the
consumer more safety is equal to better safety. The requirements in vehicle safety are on more than 130
the rise around the world. And much to the dismay of safety engineers there is still a huge seminars & events
lack of global harmonization of the requirements.
With our offering on courses, events and knowledge services, we support automotive safety engineers around the world
to understand and successfully apply the diverse safety requirements.
The newly developed web app SAFETYWISSEN.com is an important building block. Many thousand developers are al-
ready using the knowledge database regularly. They stay informed about current developments in active and passive
safety and have a direct and reliable access to the requirement documents which they need for their work.
The new SafetyCompanion 2016 contains the updated summaries of the most important worldwide safety require-
ments. We are happy to support you support you again in 2016 with our offering and wish you much success and with
the SafetyCompanion.
For the whole team of carhs.training
Rainer Hoffmann Ralf Reuter

President & CEO Executive Vice President
* IIHS Status Report Volume 27 No. 7
10
Austria
Tel: +49 341 8780102
Australia
Tel: +61 3 9720 3477
Benelux
Tel: +31 10 2440706
Brasil
Tel: +55 11 5052 8723
China
Tel: +86 216215 8568
Czech Republik
Tel: +420 25164 2011
Denmark
Tel: +31 10 2440706
France
Tel: +33 1 39 30 6644
India
Tel: +91 20 2528 1444
Italy
Tel: +39 02 36597000
Japan
Tel: +81 44 853 8520
Pakistan
Tel: +92-21-2735734
Poland
Mobile: +48 609 09 4114
Portugal
Tel: +34 935 947 562
Russia
Tel: +7 495 788 5523
Skandinavia
Tel: +46 8 758 4447
Slovakia
Tel: +42 0 5164 2011
South Africa
Tel: +27 41 365 1284
South East Asia

Tel: +65 6774 3188
South Korea
Tel: +82 10 3795 4311
Spain
Tel: +34 935 947 562
Switzerland
Tel: +41 341 8780102
Brose, Coburg
Taiwan
Tel: +886 3 317 3577
Dummy-Picture: Fotolia, © Taras Livyy
Thailand
Tel: +66 2 513 8751
USA
Mobile: +1 248 705 2229
Inhouse Seminars
In-house Seminars
Seminars at your site - efficient, flexible and customized
Are you looking for an individual and customized training for your employees?
Most of the seminars from our training program can also be booked as in-house seminars in English language. Whether on your
company site or at another venue of your choice, the scale of our in-house seminars is tailored to your needs.
Your advantages
You are in full control the cost. We offer attractive fixed prices for our in-house seminars, depending on the number of
participants and the related service.
Even for a small number of participants you can save a lot of money compared to the individual booking of seminars.
Additionally, there are no costs for travel and time of your employees.
We respect your target dates as far as possible – also upon short notice in „urgent cases“.
You benefit from our professional organization and the top-quality seminar manuals.
Our lecturers answer your individual questions.
Even if you are interested in very specific questions – we are looking for a qualified lecturer and develop the seminar.
Many of our customers have integrated our in-house seminars into their company’s training program.
Take advantage of this offer, too! We will be pleased to prepare you an individual offer.
Contact persons
Dr. Dirk Ulrich Margarete Debes

Tel. 06023-96 40 - 66 Tel. 06023-96 40 - 73
dirk.ulrich@carhs.de margarete.debes@carhs.de
References
ACTS, Adam Opel, Audi, AZOS, Bentley Motors, Bertrandt, BMW, Bosch, Brose, CATARC, Continental, CSI, Daimler, Dalphimetal,
Delphi, Dura Automotive, EDAG, Faurecia, Ford, Global NCAP, Grammer, HAITEC, Honda, IAV, Idiada, IEE, JCI, IVM, Lear, Magna,
Mahindra & Mahindra, MBtech, Messring, Open Air Systems, PATAC, P+Z, SAIC, SMP, SMSC, Seat, Siemens, TAKATA, TASS, Teco-
sim, TRW, TTTech, VIF, Volkswagen.
Attractive Prices
With reference to our regular seminar fees we offer attractive discounts on our in-house seminars:
1 Day Seminar 2 Day Seminar

Discount for the Discount for the
30% 5 - 8 Participant
th th
50% 5th - 8th Participant
60% 9th - 12th Participant 70% 9th - 12th Participant
70% 13 - 16 Participant
th th
75% 13th - 16th Participant
75% 17th - 20th Participant 80% 17th - 20th Participant
80% from the 21 Participant
st
85% from the 21st Participant
12
TRUST IN FOCUS
Taking your hands off the wheel violates the fundamental principles of responsible
driving. As we move towards fully autonomous automobiles, ZF TRW’s safety systems
are engineering trust with the world’s top manufacturers by helping pass increasingly
stringent safety regulations. With a focus on holistic, seamlessly integrated safety
systems, ZF TRW is helping manufacturers earn the trust of a new breed of driver.
COGNITIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS
© ZF TRW 2015
Events
KO N G R E S S - PA RT N E R
LEICHTBAUGIPFEL 2016
March 14-15, 2016, Vogel Convention Center, Würzburg
2016 Automobil Industrie

Lightweight Design Summit
Simultaneous translation German to English
MANAGING LIGHTWEIGHT DESIGN
HOW TO GET THE LIGHTWEIGHT

DESIGN TO THE RIGHT PLACE!
Register now!
www.leichtbau-gipfel.de
EVENT ORGANIZER
FOTO: FOTOLIA©DAHABIANS
10989
www.carhs.de
www.vogel.de
14
Events
automotive
CAE
2016
GRAND
CHALLENGE
CrAsH
FATIGUE
NVH
OCCUPANT sAFETY
sHEET METAL FOrMING
sPECIAL sEssION
Congress Park Hanau, Germany

April 12 + 13, 2016
more information www.carhs.de/grand-challenge
15
Events
May 10 - 12, 2016 ASCHAFFENBURG, GERMANY
KNOWLEDGE
INNOVATIONS
NETWORKING
SafetyUpDate +active
Current Requirements and Strategies in active and
passive Safety
SafetyTesting +active
Innovations from the Leaders in Testing and Simulation
of Safety Systems
Cooperation Forum Driver Assistance Systems

digital - connected - automated
organized by Bayern Innovativ
SafetyExpo
Technologies and Services for the Development of active
and passive Safety
www.safetyweek.de
16
Events
11th PraxisConference
Pedestrian Protecon
June 28 - 29, 2016 Bergisch Gladbach, Germany
The 1st Conference
The Pedestrian Protection Conference

in a Test Lab
No. 1 - Worldwide
Organized by:
more information
BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH www.carhs.de/pkf

17
Events
July 19-20, 2016 Shanghai, China
Meeting Worldwide Automotive Safety

Requirements through Advanced Testing
▪ Full-Scale Crash Testing Technology

▪ Advanced Sled Simulation Technology
▪ Measurement Technology, Data Aquisition
▪ Lighting & Video
▪ Engineering & Testing Services
▪ Testing Technologies for ADAS and Active Safety
More information:
www.carhs.de/safetytesting-china
18
Events
PraxisConference
Autonomous Emergency
Braking
September 14-15, 2016 Dresden, Germany
TRY OUT ALL RELEVANT

TESTING SYSTEMS!
Real World Data

Current and Future Requirements
AES and Autonomous Driving
Vehicle Technologies
Testing Hardware The event language is German.

For the international guests, we will
provide simultaneous translation of
Organized by: in Cooperation with: the lectures into English.
www.carhs.de/aeb
19
Events
SAFETYUPDATE
2016.2 GRAZ
K��
��‘� ��
��
in cooperation with September 27-28, 2016
Prof. Dr. Steffan
more information www.carhs.de/gsu
6th International Symposium October 21+22, 2016
www.carhs.de/humo
20
Passive Safety
Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles
Course Description Who should attend?

Ever increasing requirements regarding vehicle safety have led The seminar addresses everybody who wants to obtain an up-
to rapid developments, with major innovations in the field of Ac- to-date overview into this wide area. It is suited for novices in
tive and Passive Safety. Especially legal requirements in the US the field of Passive Safety of Vehicles such as university gradu-
(FMVSS 208, 214), the consumer information tests U.S. NCAP, ates, career changers, project assistants, internal service provid-
Euro NCAP and IIHS should be mentioned here. So far an end of ers, but also for highly qualified technicians from the crash-test
this development is not in sight. lab.
The seminar provides an introduction to Passive Safety of Ve- Course Contents
hicles. Passive Safety is about initiatives and legal provisions for Introduction to vehicle safety
the limitation of injuries following an accident. All important Overview active and passive safety
topics are covered in the seminar, from accident statistics and Crash physics
injury-biomechanics, which are decisive parts of accident re- Accident research
search, to the crash-rules and regulations that are derived from General accident research
the latter, and also to consumer information-tests with protec- Classification
Statistics
tion criteria and test procedures, and eventually to crash tests,
Biomechanics
where the compliance with the compulsory limits is tested and Human anatomy
proven in test procedures. Specific attention is given to dum- Injury mechanisms and Injury criteria
mies, with which the potential loads on a person in an accident Dummy technology
can be measured. Finally the basic principles of occupant pro- Dummy family
tection are explained, and the components of occupant protec- Crash testing
tion systems, respectively restraint-systems in motor vehicles Crash test systems and components
such as airbags, belt-system, steering wheel, seat, interior, stiff Test methods
passenger compartment and others, as well as their increas- Crash rules and regulations
Institutions
ingly complex interaction, also in terms of new systems, will be Rules and regulations
discussed. NCAP tests
Course Objectives Latest trends
It is the primary objective of this seminar to communicate an Protection principles, occupant protection systems
Protection principles of passive safety
understanding for the entire field of Passive Safety with all its Occupant protection systems with sensors technology, ECU,
facets and correlations, but also for its limits and trends. In the airbag, belt system
seminar you are going to learn about and understand the most Passenger compartment, interior with steering wheel and
important topics and can then judge their importance for your steering column, seat
work. With the extensive, up-to-date documentation you ob- OOP, pre crash, post crash, sensor
system, vehicle body
tain a valuable and unique reference book for your daily work. Integrated safety
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Rainer Hoffmann, carhs gmbh
Rainer Hoffmann has been involved in automotive safety throughout his career. After graduating from Wayne State University, he joined
a research group on passive safety at Porsche where he was involved in many aspects of automotive safety including accident research,
occupant simulation, crash testing and safety engineering. Mr. Hoffmann advanced safety simulation by introducing new techniques like
airbag simulation, airbag folding and Finite-Element dummy modeling during his subsequent work with ESI Group. As the head of the
simulation department of PARS (now Continental Safety Engineering), Mr. Hoffmann led the R&D efforts for some of the first series pro-
duction side airbag developments. In 1994 Mr. Hoffmann founded EASi Engineering GmbH, which in 2006 he renamed to carhs GmbH. He
has authored numerous technical papers and has been granted German and international patents in the automotive safety field.
Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language
19.-20.04.2016 2716 Landsberg am Lech 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 22.03.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR
08.-09.06.2016 2673 Alzenau 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 11.05.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR
06.-07.09.2016 2687 Tappenbeck 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 09.08.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR
This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German! 21

Passive Safety
Model Based Head Injury Criteria for Innovative Protection Design
Course Description Course Contents

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

This seminar is especially suited for engineers and technicians
who work on the development of vehicle interior parts or pe-
destrian protection who want to prepare the next generation
of head protection design based on virtual methods.
Course Instructor:
Prof. Dr. Remy Willinger, University of Strasbourg
Since 1990 Remy Willinger leads a research group focusing on head & neck impact biomechanics at Strasbourg University, Strasbourg,
France. The research activity of this lab focuses on experimental characterization of biological tissue, head and neck FE modeling and
injury mechanisms investigation via accident simulation. Development of injury criteria and protection systems modeling and optimiza-
tion are also part of his skills. This group contributed to seven EU projects and conducted no less than 70 contracts with public institu-
tions and private companies.
19.10.2016 2723 Heidelberg 1 Day 740,- EUR till 21.09.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR
22 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and French!

SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Crash-Regulations Europe, United Nations and USA

Roof
FMVSS 216
Side Windows Interior
FMVSS 226 FMVSS 201, 202, 203, 204,
205, 207, 213, 225
Headrests
Instrument panel
FMVSS 202 UN R17, 25 GTR 7
UN R12, 16, 17, 21, 44
FMVSS 201 UN R21, 32, 33 Rollover

FMVSS 201, 208, 216, 216a, 301
UN R21 UN R44.04
Pedestrian protection
EU/78/2009
EU/631/2009
GTR 9
UN R127
Rear impact
FMVSS 202, 207, 223, 224, 301, 581
UN R17, 25, 32, 42
Frontal impact Seat belts

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

 Test and test material co-ordination  Dummy maintenance services
 Evaluation of test data for specific  Dummy laboratory design and
development targets manufacturing
 Test rig planning, development, CAD,
simulation, manufacturing and delivery
Testing  Test laboratory planning and optimization
 Application trainings
 Test conduction and evaluation
- Vehicle safety  Development and design of new test
- Environmental simulation methods
- Endurance strength and durability
www.acts.de
www.magna.com
23
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Rules and Regulations on Occupant Protection
Full Width Frontal Offset Frontal

0° / ± 30° ODB 40%
0° 0° / ± 5° 0° / ± 5° 0°
FMVSS 208
FMVSS 208
56 km/h 56 km/h 32-40 km/h 32-40 km/h 40 km/h
USA
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 50% 50% 5% 5%
ODB 40%
0o
50 km/h 0°
UN R137
UN R94
Europe
56 km/h
Hybrid III Hybrid III

50% 5%
50% 50%
ODB 40%
Art. 18 Attachmt. 23
0°
50 km/h 0°
56 km/h
Japan
Art 18
50% 50%
50% 50%
ODB 40%
0°
GB 11551-2014
GB 20913-2007
50 km/h 0°
56 km/h
China

50% 50%
50% 50%
ODB 40%
0°
AIS-098/F
56 km/h
India

50% 50%
0°
South Korea
KMVSS 102
48,3 km/h

50% 50%
ODB 40%
0°
48 km/h 0°
ADR 69/00
ADR 73/00
Australia
56 km/h

50% 50%
50% 50%
SafetyWissen by
24
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Side Barrier Side Pole Pedestrian Rear Head Impact Rollover
Tilted Ramp:
ES-2 re SID IIs / 0-32 km/h
54
FMVSS 208
FMVSS 214
FMVSS 214
km ES-2 re 75°
/h /
27°
FMVSS 202a Roof crush:

FMVSS 201U
48 km/h FMVSS 301 FMVSS 216a
Rigid 254 mm Pole
MDB, 1368 kg Ejection Mitigation:
SID IIs
FMVSS 226
ES-2 WS 32 km/h
50% 75°
R (EC) 78/2009
UN R135
UN R95
50 km/h
90°
R (EC) 631/2009 UN R32 UN R21
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Rigid 254 mm Pole UN R127
Art. 18 Attachmt. 24
ES-2
Article 18 Article 18
50 km/h
90° Attachment 99 Attachment 34
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
GB 20071-2006
ES-2
Roof crush:
50 km/h GB/T 24550-2009 GB 20072-2006
90° GB26134-2010
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
ES-1/
ES-2
AIS-099/F
50 km/h
90°
AIS-100 AIS-101
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
EuroSID Find all details in:

KMVSS 102
50 km/h
90°
KMVSS 102-2
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
EuroSID
ADR 72/00
Free Download @ carhs.com/app

50 km/h
90°
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
SafetyWissen by
25
Passive Safety
International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations:

Current Status and Future Developments
Course Description automotive markets that can be applied to product develop-
Passive Safety regulations play a central role in vehicle development plans and technology roadmaps towards meeting and
ment. Crash tests and other assessment procedures must ad- anticipating customer needs. In addition, the course provides
here to mandatory national and international regulations that practical guidance to enable manufacturers to build from the
set performance requirements and design restrictions. Project seminar in following and, where warranted, by participating in
managers and engineers must contend with a host of require- these regulatory developments.
ments (e.g., UN Regulations, EU directives and regulations, FM- Who should attend?
VSS) that often differ significantly across markets. Moreover, This seminar addresses the interests of product-development
product plans and investment decisions must anticipate future and project managers and engineers, safety-test managers
laws, guidelines, and regulations as early as possible in order to and specialists, regulatory compliance officers, and others
reduce risks and capture opportunities. Indeed, customer de- whose work requires an up-to-date understanding of global
mand is often driven by specific regulatory mandates. regulatory requirements and future directions in a compact
During the first day, the seminar provides a comparative review course.
of the current body of vehicle safety regulations and the drivers
behind their development across major vehicle markets (e.g., Course Contents
US, EU, Japan, China, India). The course looks at the various Rulemaking overview and contexts:
regulatory systems and the policy priorities in major markets. Historical and legal traditions that underpin regulations
In addition, the seminar explores global cooperation efforts and and their enforcement (e.g., type approval, self-
especially the impact on national and regional requirements of certification, product liability)
the UN World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regula- Institutions, rulemaking processes, and priorities:
tions (WP.29) in producing uniform test procedures and perfor- From safety concern to regulatory requirement: how
mance requirements for worldwide application. policymakers and regulatory agencies (e.g., BASt, EC,
During the second day, the seminar turns its attention to key NHTSA, CATARC, MoRTH) establish test procedures and
current and future regulations. In particular, the seminar draws performance requirements; current regulatory priorities
on specific passive-safety case studies with an emphasis on comparison
crash testing requirements to focus in detail on critical differ- Current passive-safety and crash-testing regulations:
ences across national and regional requirements. (The course Overview of current requirements (e.g., UN Regulations,
focuses on government-mandated manufacturer requirements EC Directives, FMVSS), case studies highlighting
with only marginal reference to consumer-oriented tests (NCAP differences and conflicts across test procedures and
systems) since the latter are addressed extensively by other performance thresholds
seminars.) This segment finishes with an overview of emerging Future trends and priorities in passive-safety:
priorities for future regulatory action, covering new technolo- Outlook for new and emerging regulatory priorities (e.g.,
gies, accident categories, and global harmonization efforts. collision-avoidance, driver-assist systems, autonomous
vehicles, pedestrian safety, interactive communications,
Course Objectives electric/hydrogen vehicles, and global
The course aims to provide participants with a working knowl- harmonization)
edge of regulatory systems and priorities across the major
Course Instructor:
John Creamer, GLOBALAUTOREGS.COM
John Creamer is the founder of GlobalAutoRegs.com and a partner in The Potomac Alliance, a Washington-based international regula-
tory affairs consultancy. In his client advisory role, Mr. Creamer is regularly involved with meetings of the UN World Forum for the Har-
monization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). Previously, he has held positions with the US International Trade Commission and the Motor
& Equipment Manufacturers Association (representing the US automotive supplier industry), as the representative of the US auto parts
industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc. (a leading global automotive safety systems supplier).
26 This course is available as an in-house seminar in English and German!

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

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

- Static and dynamic component
tests
- Pedestrian protection tests
- Sled tests
- Full vehicle crash tests
Test facilities
- Operational stability analyses
- Endurance tests
- Vibration and oscillation analyses
- 3D laser scanning
DTC Dynamic Test Center AG

Route principale 127
CH-2537 Vauffelin
www.dtc-ag.ch
Phone: +41 32 321 66 00
SAFETY
WISSEN
FMVSS 305: Safety Requirements for Electric Vehicles
Scope:
Cars, busses, trucks with a GVWR of 4536 kg or less that use electrical components with working voltages higher than 60 volts
direct current (VDC) or 30 volts alternating current (VAC), and whose speed attainable is more than 40 km/h.
Requirements:
Under the test conditions described below (impact test and subsequent static rollover)
max. 5 litres of electrolyte may spill from the batteries,
there shall be no evidence of electrolyte leakage into the passenger compartments,
all components of the electric energy storage/conversion system must be anchored to the vehicle,
no battery system component that is located outside the passenger compartment shall enter the passenger compartment,
electrical isolation must be greater than or equal to:
500 ohms/V for all DC high voltage sources without isolation monitoring and for all AC high voltage sources,
100 ohms/V for all DC high voltage sources with continuous monitoring of electrical isolation,
the voltage of the voltage source (Vb, V1, V2) must be less than or equal to 30 VAC for AC components or 60 VDC for DC
components.
Test Conditions:
Frontal impact against a rigid barrier at 48 km/h
rigid Barrier
0- 48 km/h
0° / ± 30°
Rear moving barrier impact at 80 km/h (FMVSS 301)
0-80 km/h
70%
1368 kg
Side moving deformable barrier impact at 54 km/h (FMVSS 214)
50%
0 - 54 km/h
1368 kg
5%
SafetyWissen by
Post-impact test static rollover in 90 degree steps
28
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW
UN ECE: Safety Requirements for Electric Vehicles
Extension of UN R94 / R95:
R94 R95
After crash tests according to UN R94 and R95 vehicles with a high voltage electrical powertrain ( > 60 V DC or > 30 V AC) must
meet the following requirements:
1. Protection against electrical shock
at least one of the four criteria specified. below shall be met: Electrical Chassis
Absence of high voltage:
Motor assembly V2 REESS assembly
The voltages Vb, V1 and V2 shall be High Voltage Bus
≤ 30 V AC or ≤ 60 V DC :
Traction Sytem
Motor Vb REESS
V1
Low electrical energy: Electrical Chassis
The total energy (TE) on the high voltage buses shall < 2.0 J.
Electrical Chassis
Prior to the impact a switch S1 and a known discharge resistor Re
is connected in parallel to the relevant capacitance . Motor assembly REESS assembly
Not earlier than 5 s and not later than 60 s after impact S1 shall High Voltage Bus
be closed while the voltage Vb and the current Ie are recorded. S1

From this TE is caluclated as follows: Vb
Motor REESS
th Re
TE = ∫ Vb × Ie dt Ie
tc
with tc = time of closing S1

th = time when voltage drops below 60 V DC
Electrical Chassis
Physical protection:
For protection against direct contact with high voltage live parts, the protection IPXXB shall be provided.
Isolation resistance:
If the AC HV buses and the DC high voltage buses are galvanically isolated from each other, isolation resistance between the HV bus and
the electrical chassis shall be ≥ 100 Ω/V of the working voltage for DC buses, and ≥ 500 Ω/V of the working voltage for AC buses.
If the AC HV buses and the DC HV buses are galvanically connected isolation resistance between the HV bus and the electrical chassis shall
be ≥ 500 Ω/V of the working voltage. (if the protection IPXXB is satisfied for all AC HV buses or the AC voltage is ≤ 30 V after the vehicle
impact, the isolation resistance shall be Ri ≥ 100 Ohm/V)
2. Electrolyte spillage
In the period from the impact until 30 minutes after no electrolyte from the REESS (Rechargeable Engery Storage System)
shall spill into the passenger compartment and no more than 7% of electrolyte shall spill from the REESS.
3. REESS retention
REESS located inside the passenger compartment shall remain in the location in which they are installed and REESS components
shall remain inside REESS boundaries. No part of any REESS that is located outside the passenger compartment for electric safety
assessment shall enter the passenger compartment during or after the impact test.
UN R100:
M and N class vehicles with a maximum speed > 25 km/h must also comply with UN R100 Rev. 2
29
Passive Safety
Crash Safety of Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Course Description Course Objectives
During recent years, vehicles with alternative drive systems Participants will get an overview about automotive safety for
have achieved an ever-increasing importance for the automo- alternative drive systems and will learn the special challenges
tive market. In addition to gas-powered vehicles, which have and solutions which come along. Participants will be able to
already been existing for many years on the manufacturer and apply test methods and safeguarding concepts and to pursue
retrofit market, a wide range of hybrid vehicles has also es- development strategies in a target-oriented way.
tablished meanwhile. Even for pure electric vehicles, the first
acquirable products are already on the market. By decision of Who should attend?
the German government, one million electric vehicles should The seminar addresses development and research engineers
be found driving on German roads by the year 2020. Only the as well technicians in the fields of testing and engineering. Due
future will show whether a fundamental paradigm change is to its current relevance the course suits young professionals
thereby taking place or an alternative offering is just evolving. as well as experienced engineers who want to deepen their
It is clear, however, that the automotive electrification cannot knowledge in this field.
be stopped anymore.
With this new technology, new challenges for vehicle safety Course Contents
arise. Overview alternative drive systems: gas, hybrid, electric
Electric shock risks on high-voltages systems, fire hazards in vehicles
Challenges for vehicle safety
case of lithium-ion batteries and risks of rupture in case of gas
Legal requirements and standards for safety
tanks are the most important issues here. For every mode of
Safety requirements for real-world accidents
drive, specific drive components and their particular safety re-
Safety of high voltage systems
quirements are described. In addition to common rules and
Battery safety
standards, specific needs based on real-life accidents are being
Gas tank safety
discussed.
Fuel cell safety
Structural safety
For all relevant vehicle components the respective safety re-
Safety concepts
quirements, safety concepts and exemplary safety initiatives
Rescuing, recovering and towing of electric vehicles
will be discussed. The state of the art concerning test stan-
dards, verification methods and possibilities for virtual safety
will be shown. Future trends will be presented with the help of
current research projects and results. Practical experience of
rescuing, recovering and towing of electric vehicles complete
the spectrum of accident safety.
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Justen, Daimler AG
Rainer Justen has more than 25 years of experience in the field of vehicle safety. After his studies in mechanical engineering with a focus on
automotive engineering he started his career in 1987 in the automotive development for Mercedes-Benz at Daimler AG. Several career
milestones in the fields of vehcile safety, project management, safety concepts and active safety / driver assistance systems made him an
expert on all relevant topics of automotive safety. Since 2008 he is working in the field of safety for alternative drive systems. Rainer Justen
is author of numerous publications and papers on this topic.
16.06.2016 2676 Alzenau 1 Day 740,- EUR till 19.05.2016, thereafter 890,- EUR

We make your car fit for newest EuroNCAP rating
We save occupants with… We care for vulnerable We assist We protect
road users with… the driver with… children with…
> extensive system
integration competence > innovative test tools > comprehensive system/function > comprehensive testing experience
> broad safety testing experience > qualified test methods development know-how > extensive product know-how
> best available testing infrastructure > comprehensive development > vehicle integration competence of childseat protection systems
> qualified numerical know-how > qualified vehicle simulation skills
simulation know-how > approved testing concepts
> long-standing algorithm > extensive testing experience
development experience
Kontakt: Continental Safety Engineering International GmbH l Alzenau l Germany l www.continental-safety-engineering.com l Uwe Gierath l Tel.: +49 (0) 6023 942 120 l uwe.gierathcontinental-corporation.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCAP-Tests in Europe & America

2016 2017 2018
Euro NCAP U.S. NCAP IIHS Latin NCAP
0o 0o
50 km/h 56 km/h
Full Width
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III

5% 5% 50% 5%
Hybrid III
5%
ODB 40% ODB 40% Flat 150 ODB 40%

SOB 25%
R=150 mm
0o 0o 0o 0o
ODB / SOB
64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Q6 Q10 Q3 Q1,5
WS
50% ES-2 re SID IIs ES-2
62
km
/h /
27°
MDB
50 km/h 90°
@ R +250 mm 50 km/h 50 km/h
55 km/h 90° 90°
AE-MDB v3.9, 1300 kg
MDB, 1368 kg MDB IIHS, 1500 kg MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Q10
Q6 SID IIs Q1,5
SID IIs
Q3
Far Side Occupant Protection
ES-2 29 km/h
WS 32 km/h SID IIS 32 km/h 90°
50% 75° 75°
Pole
Rigid 254 mm Pole Rigid 254 mm Pole Rigid 254 mm Pole
(prerequisite for 5 star rating)

Rollover
SSF Roof Crush
Flex PLI
Pedestrian
Upper Legfom
Headforms Award
AEB VRU Pedestrian
AEB VRU Cyclist
Whiplash Child Safety
Frontal ODB
Frontal ODB
Side MDB LATCH (Lower Anchors and
CRS- Installation
CRS- Installation Tethers for Children)
Vehicle based assessment
static front / rear

static
dynamic (3 pulses)
dynamic (1 pulse)
AEB City SafetyWissen by
SBR (prerequisite for ≥ 3 star

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

rating)
SBR, SAS, AEB, LDW, LKA.. Cameras, AEB Headlights
ESC (prereq. f. ≥ 4 star)
 page 36  page 42  page 46  page 51

32
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCAP-Tests in Asia / Australia

2016 2017 2018
JNCAP C-NCAP KNCAP ASEAN NCAP ANCAP
0o 0o 0o
55 km/h 50 km/h 56 km/h

Full Width
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 5% 5%
Hybrid III P3
5%
ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40%

ODB 40%
0o 0o 0o 0o 0o
ODB / SOB
64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Hybrid III Hybrid III Q6 Q10 P1,5 P3 P1,5 P3
5% 5% Q1,5 Q3
ES-2
ES-2 ES-2 ES-2 ES-2
WS 50%
MDB
50 km/h
55 km/h 50 km/h 90° 50km/h
55 km/h 90°
90° 90° @ R +250 mm 90°
MDB, 950 kg
MDB EEVC, 950 kg MDB EEVC, 950 kg AE-MDB, 1300 kg Q1,5 MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Q10 Q3 P1,5
SID IIs
Q6 P3
UN R95 for ≥ 3 
ES-2 32 km/h 29 km/h ES-2

WS50% 75° 90°
Pole
Rigid 254 mm Pole

Rigid 254 mm Pole
Rollover
Curtain Airbag SSF
Flex PLI
Pedestrian
Flex PLI Upper Legform Flex PLI

Headforms (on bumper only) Upper Legform
AEB Pedestrian Headforms Headforms
AEB Pedestrian
Whiplash Child Safety
Frontal
P3 in Full Width Q6, Q10 in ODB and CRS-based ODB, MDB (no
Frontal MDB assessment assessment)
Vehicle based ass..
static static
dynamic dynamic
dynamic (1 pulse) dynamic
(1 pulse) (1 pulse)
rear seats dynamic (1 pulse)
Brakes, SBR, Usability ESC Brakes, SBR, FCWS, ESC, SBR

Assistance systems
Other
rear belts, LDW, AEB, SBR LDWS, SLD, AEB, AEB (prerequisite for 5
LKA, Around View AEB, FCW, LDW City, ACC, LKAS star rating) SafetyWissen by
 page 57  page 54  page 58  page 52  page 50

33
Passive Safety
Euro NCAP and global Tests for Consumer Protection through

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

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

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

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

2.670 – 3.999 points My,extension < 42 Nm
Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms
1.330 – 2.669 points < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms
4 Points < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
0.001 – 1.329 points
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms
0.000 points < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms
< 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
My,extension > 57 Nm
Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms
> 2.9 kN @ 35 ms
Hybrid III 5% Female 0 Points > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms
Head > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms
4 Points HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
0 Points HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
unstable airbag/steering wheel contact
(-1 point) Chest
Hazardous Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
Modifier Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point) 4 Points Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Steering column displacement (-1 point) 0 Points Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
Exceeding forward excursion line* (-4 Displacement of the A Pillar (-2 points)
points) Passenger Compartment Integrity (-1 point)
Modifier Steering Wheel Contact (-1 point)
Neck Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
My,extension < 36 Nm Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 points)
4 Points Fz,tension < 1.7 kN
Fx,shear < 1.2 kN
My,extension > 49 Nm Femur
0 Points Fz,tension > 2.62 kN
4 Points Axial ForceCompression < 3.8 kN
Fx,shear > 1.95 kN
SafetyWissen by Axial ForceCompression > 9.07 kN
0 Points
> 7.56 kN @ ≥10 ms
Chest Knee
4 Points Deflection < 18 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s 4 Points Displacement < 6 mm
0 Points Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s 0 Points Displacement > 15 mm
Steering Wheel Contact (-1 point) Variable contact (-1 point)
Modifier Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point) Modifier Concentrated Loading (-1 point)
Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 points) Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
Femur Tibia
4 Points Axial ForceCompression < 2.6 kN 4 Points TI < 0.4; Axial ForceCompression < 2 kN
0 Points Axial ForceCompression > 6.2 KN 0 Points TI > 1.3; Axial ForceCompression > 8 kN
Submarining (-4 points) Doors Upward Displacement of the Worst
Modifier Modifier
Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point) Door Opening during Performing Pedal (-1 point)
Modifier the Impact (-1 point/
* Rear Passenger only door)* Foot
4 Points Pedal rearward displacement < 100 mm
* modifier will be applied to the
Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3 overall score for that test 0 Points Pedal rearward displacement > 200 mm
Footwell Rupture (-1 point)
Modifier
Pedal Blocking (-1 point)
36
Testing is our passion.
ADAC Technik Zentrum Landsberg.
7 Central test lab for Europe’s automobile clubs
7 Full-scale crash tests, sled tests of child restraint systems,
comprehensive pedestrian protection tests, components tests
of vehicle equipment
7 Tests of driver assistance and full auto brake systems for
the prevention of rear-end collisions, protection of pedestrians
and cyclists, prevention of accidents at intersections
ADAC e.V. Technikzentrum · Otto-Lilienthal-Straße 2 · 86899 Landsberg am Lech

Telefon: +49 (0) 81 91 93 86 41 · testing@adac.de · www.adac.de/technikzentrum
Passive Safety
Knee Mapping Workshop: The Euro NCAP Test Procedure

Euro NCAP plays a leading role among the tests assessing the The seminar addresses specialists from the field of crash, engi-
passive safety of vehicles in Europe. Its influence now also ex- neers and technicians from numerical simulation and testing,
tends to other countries. Recently the knee impact test proce- project engineers and managers who want to have a first-
dure within the Euro NCAP frontal impact test was modified, hand, up-to-date information and hints on how to avoid knee
the goal being a less subjective assessment. A hard contact modifiers in Euro NCAP.
or a sharp edge in the knee area implies the danger for a car
manufacturer to be punished with a so-called knee modifier Course Contents
(reduction in points). The knee modifier is the most frequent Overview of Euro NCAP crash tests
penalty within the Euro NCAP and impairs some vehicles’ oth- Euro NCAP requirements in the knee area
erwise 5-star ratings. The allocation of a knee modifier often is Knee modifier, knee mapping test procedure
a controversial decision. If a knee modifier has been allocated Sled test procedure for knee impact
by the Euro NCAP inspector the car manufacturer has the pos- Discussion of the assessment procedure and possibilities
sibility of proving - by means of a complex sled test procedure of interpretation
- that the modifier was not justified. Workshop with analysis of test vehicles, which can be
After a short introduction the main focus of the workshop is provided by participants
on the current Euro NCAP assessment procedure for frontal Future development of the test procedure
impact in the knee area (knee mapping). The current require-
ments will be explained in detail, in particular the knee modi-
fiers ‘Variable Contact’ and ‘Concentrated Loading’, the areas
of inspection and the threshold values. Positive / negative
examples will facilitate the participants’ understanding of the
requirements and the assessment procedure. Participants will
learn how to avoid a modifier. The sled test procedure will also
be explained and discussed in detail. The workshop was very informative and rele-
In the afternoon a demo vehicle, which can be provided by vant. The final analysis of a test vehicle was
participants, will be analyzed. Ralf Ambos, a trained Euro NCAP very helpful.“
inspector, can give valuable hints here. Ray Longbottom,
A perspective regarding the future development of the test SAIC Motor UK Technical Centre Ltd., UK
procedure will be given at the end of the seminar.
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Ralf Ambos, DEKRA Automobil GmbH
Ralf Ambos studied automotive technology at the university for technology and economy in Dresden, Germany. He has worked as a
project manager in passive vehicle safety for eight years. In 2004 he was trained as an inspector for Euro NCAP. In 2009 he joined DEKRA
Automobil GmbH.

SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3
Protection Criteria in Side Impact (MDB and Pole)

World SID 50% Male For each body region (grey boxes) the score is calcu-
lated based on the worst injury criterion and appli-
Head 1
cable modifiers. Where a value falls between the up-
4 Points HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
0 Points HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
per and lower limit the score is calculated by linear
Modifier Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point) interpolation. The scores are presented visually, us-
ing colored segments within body outlines. The color
1
Pole: no sliding scale, only capping if HIC15 > 700 or
ares, peak > 80 g or direct head contact with the pole.
used is based on the points awarded for that body
region as shown below. The total score is scaled by
Chest a factor of 0.5.
4 Points Deflection < 28 mm;
0 Points Deflection > 50 mm 4.000 points
Incorrect Airbag Deployment (-1 point)
shoulder lateral force ≥ 3.0 kN (no points will
2.670 – 3.999 points
Modifier be awarded for the chest) 1.330 – 2.669 points
VC ≥ 1.0 m/s (no points will be awarded for
the chest) 0.001 – 1.329 points
0.000 points
Abdomen
4 Points Deflection < 47 mm; SafetyWissen by
0 Points Deflection > 65 mm

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

Inside the ‚Head Protection Device Assessment Zone‘ (green) the head pro-
Pelvis tection system’s coverage is assessed. If the coverage is insufficient a 4 point
4 Points PSPF < 1.7 kN
modifier is applied the overall pole impact score. Areas outside the Daylight
0 Points PSPF > 2.8 kN
Opening (FMVSS 201) are excluded from assessment. Seams are not penal-
ized if the un-inflated area is no wider than 15mm. Any other un-inflated ar-
Side Head Protection Device eas that are no larger than 50mm in diameter (or equivalent area) are not
Modifier
insufficient protection in the ‚Head Protec- penalized.
tion Device Assessment Zone‘ (-4 points)*
* modifier will be applied to the overall pole impact
82 mm
score.
r=82 mm
CoG 95%
Doors
Door Opening during the Impact
Modifier
(-1 point/door)*
* modifier will be applied to the overall score for 82 mm 82 mm
that test
52 mm
② CoG 5%
①
The head protection device (HPD) evaluation zone (green) is defined as a rounded rect-
angle around the head CoG box (defined by the head CoGs of the 5% female and 95%
male occupants) at a distance of 82 mm from the upper and fore/aft edges and 52 mm
693 mm
594 mm
below the bottom edge. The x-position of the CoG is defined relative to the H-Point of
H-Point the 50% male:
50% Front seats:
① = H-Point(x) + 126 mm - seat travel(5th%ile-50th%ile)
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm + seat travel(50th%ile-95th%ile)
Rear seats:
① = H-Point(x) + 126 mm - seat travel
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm 39
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Euro NCAP Rating: 2016 - 2020
Adult Occupant Protection Child Occupant Protection Pedestrian Protection Safety Assist
2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020 2016 2018 2020
max. score max. score max. score max. score
Offset
Dyn. Tests Seat Belt
Frontal Head Impact
8 8 8 Frontal 16 16 16 24 24 24 Reminder 3 3 3
impactl  Page 86
 Page 98  Page 114
 Page 36
Full-width
Dyn. Tests Speed Assi-
Frontal Leg Impact
8 8 8 Side 8 8 8 6 6 6 stance Syst. 3 3 3
impact  Page 86
 Page 36
Side impact CRS Upper Leg
ESC
(MDB) 8 8 8 Installation 12 12 12 Impact 6 6 6 - - -
 Page 114
 Page 39  Page 98  Page 86
Side impact LDW / LKD
Vehicle AEB VRU-Pe
(Pole) 8 8 8 13 13 13 6 6 6 / LSS 3 4 4
Whiplash AEB Inter-
Front seats 2 1.5 1.5 AEB VRU-Cy - 6 6 Urban 3 3 4
Whiplash
Junction
rear seats 1 0.5 0.5 2
Assist
 Page 93
AEB City
3 4 4
 Page 121
max. score (1) 38 38 38 max. score (1) 49 49 49 max. score (1) 42 48 48 max. score (1) 12 13 16
normalised normalised normalised normalised
score (2)
actual score / (1) score (2)
actual score / (1)
weighting (3) 40% weighting (3) 20% weighting (3) 20% weighting (3) 20%
weighted weighted weighted weighted
score (4)
(2)x(3) score (4)
(2)x(3) score (4)
(2)x(3) score (4)
(2)x(3)
Balancing: minimum normalised score (2) by box for the respective star rating:
 80% 80% 80% 75% 80% 80% 60% 60% 60% 50% 70% 70%
+ + +
 70% 70% 70% 60% 70% 70% 50% 50% 50% 40% 60% 60%
 60% 60% 60% 30% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 25% 50% 50%
 50% 50% 50% 25% 50% 50% 30% 30% 30% 15% 40% 40%
 40% 40% 40% 15% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 10% 30% 30%
Overall score (5) = ∑(4)
As of 2016 the overall score is used only for ranking the results within vehicle categories.
Bold figures indicate changes with respect to the previous year
Euro NCAP 2016 Logo Guidelines
Dual Rating VSSTR Protocol Version 7.0

As of 2016 Euro NCAP will issue a base rating for standard equipment only. Fitments rates for safety assist technologies will no
longer be considered. Optionally manufacturers of cars that have achieved at least 3 stars can apply for a secondary rating of a
model equipped with an optional safety package that meets a certain market installation rate (an average of 25% in the first 3
years and of 55% in the subsequent 3 years). The safety package must be actively promoted by the manufcaturer. The safety
package must be available, at least as an option, on all variants in the model range.
40
Applus+ IDIADA
Pedestrian Lab
Universal Impact Test System with High Dynamics Actuator for Active Bonnet
Misuse inside climatic chamber featuring Pedestrian Protection and Steering
System, Interior Impact, Ejection Mitigation - Combined Head Impact Test Machines
- Seats Static Strenght - Seat Belt Anchrages - Side Intrussion and Roof Crush -
Bumper Pendulum ... BOOSTING INNOVATION.
www.encopim.com
The Evaluation System

for Crash and Sled Tests
x Evaluation of crash tests, sled tests,
component tests and dummy calibration
x Compliant to international regulations,
laws and rating programs
x Powerful, expandable and flexible
by using National Instruments DIAdem
x Open for your data: VSAS database,
DIAdem, ISO-MME, ASAM-ODS,...
x Comparative test analysis
x Synchronization of test and video data
measX GmbH & Co. KG ● Trompeterallee 110 ● D-41189 Moenchengladbach, Germany

Phone: +49(0)2166 95200 ● FAX: +49(0)2166 952020 ● info@measx.com ● www.measx.com
carhs 2014 XCrash_en.indd 1 01.10.2015 11:39:02

SAFETY
WISSEN
U.S. NCAP Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555

Tests and Criteria
0o
56 km/h ES-2 re SID IIS 32 km/h

62 75°
km
/h
/2
7°

50% 5% 55 km/h
Rigid 254 mm Pole

MDB, 1368 kg
SID IIs
45
45
Injury Criteria Injury Risk
44 Curves
44
SafetyWissen by
45
44 45
44 (HIII 5F dummy):
Frontal Impact RigidInjury
Wall
Injury 100%
Risk Curves Overlap
Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP
Injury Risk Curves for
for Frontal
Frontal / 56 km/h
NCAP
NCAP
Injury Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP
Injury Criteria
(HIII 5F dummy):
Risk Curve
(HIII 5F dummy):
(HIII 50M dummy): Injury Criteria (HIII 5F dummy):
Risk Curve
(HIII
(HIII 50M
50M dummy):
dummy):
Dummy
Injury Criteria
Hybrid
(HIII 50M dummy): III 50% (Driver)
Risk Curve
Injury Criteria
Injury Criteria
Hybrid IIIRisk
5%
Risk(Passenger)
Curve
Curve
Injury
Injury Criteria
Criteria Risk
Risk Curve
Curve
⎛ ln( HIC15) − 7.45231 ⎞
Injury Criteria Risk Curve
⎛ ln( HIC 15) − 7.45231 ⎞
Head
Head(HIC Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜ ⎛ ln( ⎛ ln( HIC 15)− −7.45231
15) 7.45231
⎟ ⎞ Head Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ⎛⎜ ln( HIC15) − 7.45231 ⎞⎟
15) − 7.45231⎠ ⎞⎞⎟ ⎟ (HIC
Head Phead(AIS
(AIS3+3)+=) =⎝Φ⎛Φ HIC
⎜ HIC
Head
15) Phead ⎜ln( 0.73998
0.73998 Head15) Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ⎜⎝ ⎛ ln( HIC 0.73998
15) − 7.45231 ⎟⎠ ⎞
(HIC)15)
(HIC15)(HIC
Head Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜⎝ ⎝ 0.73998 ⎟⎠ ⎠ (HICHead 0.73998
15
where Φ = cumulative ⎝ normal distributi on⎠
0.73998 15) P (AIS 3 + ) =
head Φ = cumulativeΦ⎛
⎝ ln(
⎜ HIC 15) −distribution
normal 7.45231 ⎞⎠ ⎟
Pwhere
head (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜ ⎝
(HIC15) Head
cumulativenormal
whereΦΦ= =cumulative normaldistributi
distributionon (HIC
(HIC15) 0.73998 ⎟⎠
where
where Φ = cumulative normal distributi 15) where Φ = cumulative ⎝ 0.73998
normal distribution ⎠
1 on
where Φ cumulative normal1distribution
=) =
Chest
Chest
Chest
Chest
(deflection in mm) Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+)3=+) =
( AIS 11 Chest
defl ( AIS
Pchest _where Φ 3=+cumulative normal distribution
1 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
Pchest defl( AIS
_ _defl 3+) = 10.5456−1.568*(1ChestDefl ) 0.4612
(deflection
Chest in mm)
Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.5456 −1.7212*(
(deflection
Chest in in
(deflection
(Deflection
(deflection in in
mm)
mm)
mm) PPchest
chest
_ defl ( AIS 3+ ) =1 + 1e + 10.5456
10.5456 −1.568*(
−1.568*( ) 0.4612
0.4612
(deflection
ChestDefl )0.4612in mm)
Chest Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) =1 + e10.5456 −1.7212*(
1
1 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
11++ee10.5456−1.568*(ChestDefl(deflection
mm) e ChestDefl
) Chest
Femur in mm) Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) = 1−1.7212*(ChestDefl ) 0.4612
(deflection
(force ininkN)
Femur
mm) P ( AIS 2+ ) 1= +1 + e10.5456
10.5456 −1.7212*(ChestDefl ) 0.4612
Femur
1 1 1+ 1 Femur _ Force
e e 5.7949−0.7619
Femur (forceFemur
in kN) P ( AIS 2+ ) =
(force Femur
Femur in kN)
(force
in in kN) P ( AIS 2 + )2 +
( AIS =) = 5.795 − 0.51961Femur Femurin kN) 1
1 + e 5.7949 −0.7619 Femur _ Force
P ( AIS 2+ ) = 1 −10.7619 Femur _ Force
PP((AIS 22++)) ==1 +11+e+e5.795
Femur
(force kN) P AIS _ Force (force
(Force ininkN) 5.795 −10.5196 (force in kN)
_ Force ( AIS 2++ ) = 1 +5.7949 e 5.7949
(force kN) 5.795 − 0.5196
e − 0.5196 Femur_ Force
Femur Neck Pneck_NijP(AIS3 )= 1 +3.2269 0.7619 Femur _ Force
e 1−−1.9688
(AIS3+) = 1 + e
1 Femur _ Force
(Nij and
Neck Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = 1 + e
Nij
Neck P 1 1 1
Neck
Neck
(Nij and tension/compression in
neck_Nij
Pneck_Nij
Pneck_Nij (AIS3
(AIS3 +)+1=)+=e 3.2269 1.9688
−1 Nij tension/compression
(NijNeck
and in Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = 1 + e 3.2269 1−1.9688 Nij
1 Nij
(Nij and tension/compression (AIS3+) = 1 +1 +e 3.2269 e 3.2269 −1.9688
−1.9688 NijNij kN) and in
Neck
tension/compression Pneck (AIS3
( +3)
+ =
) = 3.2269 −1.9688
1 +3.2269
(Nij and Neck
tension/compression
kN) in in Pneck_Nij (Nij P neck_Nij
_ Tens AIS e −1.9688 1 Nij
kN)
(Nij and tension/compression
kN) in
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e
3.2269 −1.9688 1 Nij
1
(Nij
kN)and
tension/compression in Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) =1 + 1 +e e10.958−3.770 1
Neck _ Tension
( AIS3+3)+1=)+=e10.9745 − 2.37511Neck _ Tension tension/compression
kN) in
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.958−3.770 1 Neck _ Tension
10.958−3.7701Neck _ Tension
kN) Pneck _ Tens( AIS
Neck Pneck
Pneck _ Tens
_ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.9745
1 +e10.9745
10.9745 − 2.375
− 2.375 Neck
Neck _ Tension
_ Tension kN) PPneck _
neck _ Comp
( (
AIS
AIS3 +
3 )
+ =
) = 1 + e
− 2.3751Neck _ Tension
Tens 10.958
10.958 −3.770
−3.770 1Neck_ Tension
_ Compression
Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) =1 1++e e
Neck
(Nij and Tension/ Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e 1 1_ Compression 1 _ Compression
Compression in kN) ( AIS
Pneck _ Comp( AIS
Pneck 3+3)+1=)+=e10.9745 − 2.375 Neck
1 Neck P52
Pneck
neck=_max ( AIS(P
imum 1 + e10.958
3+neck_Nij
)= −3.770 Neck
, 10.958
Pneck −_3.770 1 Pneck _ Comp )
_ Comp
e10.9745 − 2.375 _ Compression ( 3+ ) = Tens ,Neck
Comp _ Compression
Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) = 1 + 1 +e10.9745
10.9745 − 2.375 Neck _ Compression P
Pneck52
52_ AIS
52 = max imum(Pneck_Nij10.958 1 + e
1 + e , Pneck _ Comp )
neck Comp −3.770 _ Compression
Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij 1 + , Pneck _−Tens
e 2.375, Neck
Comp )
Pneck_ _Compression _ TensNeck
, Pneck
PneckRisk
Pneck max
= =max imum
imum (P (Pneck_Nij , P, neck
Pneck _ Tens, P, Pneck _ Comp)) Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck _ Comp ) 53
Injury
Pneck
Curves for
= max imum(Pneck_Nij neck_Nij
Side NCAP
, Pneck _ Tens neck _ Comp Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck _ Comp )
_ Tens , Pneck _ Comp )
InjuryRisk
Injury
Injury RiskCurves
Risk Curvesfor
Curves forSide
for SideNCAP
Side NCAP
NCAP
(ES-2re 50M dummy):
Overall (ES-2re50M
(ES-2re
(ES-2re 50Mdummy):
50M dummy):
dummy): Pjoint = 1-(1-Phead)x(1-Pneck)x(1-Pchest)x(1-Pfemur)
Injury Criteria Risk Curve (SID-IIs 5F dummy):
Side Impact (MDB & Pole Test)

InjuryCriteria
Injury
Injury Criteria
Criteria RiskCurve
Risk
Risk Curve
Curve
Injury Criteria Risk Curve
ES-2re 50% SID-IIs 5%

Head
⎛ ln(HIC36) − 7.45231 ⎞
(HIC 36)
Head
Head
Head Phead (AIS3+) = Φ⎜⎛ln( ln(HIC36) 7.45231⎞⎟⎞
36)−−7.45231
Head
(HIC3636
(HIC
(HIC )))
36
PPhead
head(AIS3
head Φ⎛⎜⎝⎜ HIC0.73998
(AIS3++))==Φ ⎟⎠⎟ (HIC
Head ⎛ ln( HIC 36) − 7.45231 ⎞
Phead (AIS3+ ) = Φ⎜ ⎟ 53
⎝ ⎝ 0.73998
0.73998 ⎠⎠ 36) ⎝ 0.73998 ⎠
(HIC36) where Φ = cumulativenormal distribution
where Φ
where cumulativenormaldistribution
Φ ==cumulativenormal distribution where Φ = cumulative normal distribution
Chest
1 (SID-IIs 5F dummy):
(rib deflection
Chest
Chest in
Chest
Chest Pchest ( AIS 3+) = 11 Pelvis
1
mm) inin
AIS33++)) == 1 + e5.3895 −0.0919*max. Injury Criteria Risk Curve
(ribdeflection
deflection in p pelvis ( AIS 2+) =
chest((AIS
(rib
(rib deflection rib deflection
(acetabular
(Rib Deflection in PPchest
mm)
mm)
mm)
1 + 5.3895− 0.0919*max.
5.3895−0.0919*max. rib + iliac force in N)
ribdeflection
deflection 1 + e 6.3055−0.00094 *F
mm) 1+ e e
where F is the sum of acetabular and iliac force
Abdomen (total
abdominal
Abdomenforce
(totalin 1 in the SID − IIs dummy in HIC
⎛ ln( Newtons
36) − 7.45231 ⎞
Abdomen
Abdomen
Abdomen (total
(total
N)force
abdominal
abdominal forceinin
force in Pabdomen ( AIS 3+) = 11−0.002133*(HIC
Head
F )
Phead (AIS3+ ) = Φ⎜
⎝ 0.73998
⎟
⎠
abdomen((AIS
AIS33++)) == 1 + e6.04044
abdominal
(Abdominal Force 6.04044 36
N)
N)
N) PPabdomen 6.04044 − 0.002133*
6.04044−−0.002133*
0.002133*FF
11++ee
in N) abdomen F where Φ = cumulative normal distribution
where F =total abdominal force (N) in ES-2re
whereFFF=total
where
where =totalabdominal
=total abdominalforce
abdominal force(N)
force (N)inin
(N) inES-2re
ES-2re
ES-2re
1 Pelvis
1
Pelvis (Force) Ppelvis ( AIS 3+) = (acetabular p pelvis ( AIS 2+) =
AIS33++))== 1 + e 11−0.0011*F
7.5969
Pelvis(Force)
Pelvis
Pelvis
Pelvis (Force)
(Force) pelvis((AIS
PPpelvis
pelvis 7.5969−−−0.0011*
7.5969
7.5969 0.0011*FFF
0.0011*
+ iliac force in N)
1 + e 6.3055−0.00094 *F
(Force in N) where F is the pubic 11++eeforce in the ES - 2re in Newtons where F is the sum of acetabular and iliac force
whereFF isisthe
where the pubic
pubic force
forcein inthe ES--2re
theES 2rein
in Newtons
Newtons
in the SID − IIs dummy in Newtons
Overall Pjoint = 1-(1-Phead)x(1-Pchest)x(1-Pabdomen)x(1-Ppelvis) Pjoint = 1-(1-Phead)x(1-Ppelvis)
42
SAFETY
WISSEN
U.S. NCAP: Injury Risk Curves Hybrid III 50% ES-2re 50%
Hybrid III 5% SID-IIs 5%
multiple Dummys SafetyWissen by
40% 40%
35% 35%
30% 30%
Pchest (AIS 3+)

Phead (AIS 3+)
25% 25%
20% 20%
15% 15%
10% 10%
5% 5%
0% 0%
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
HIC (15 / 36) Chest Deflection (mm)
40% 40%
35% 35%
30% 30%
Pabdomen/pelvis (AIS 3+)
Pfemur (AIS 2+)
25% 25%
20% 20%
15% 15%
10% 10%
5% 5%
0% 0%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
Femur (Force in kN) Abdomen / Pelvis (Force in N)
40% 40%
35% 35%
30% 30%
Pneck_tens/compr (AIS 3+)
Pneck_Nij (AIS 3+)
25% 25%
20% 20%
15% 15%
10% 10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4
Neck (compression/tension Force in kN) Neck (Nij)
43
SAFETY
WISSEN
U.S. NCAP:
Rating Scheme
Frontal Crash Test Side Pole Test Side MDB Test Rollover Test
Driver Passenger Front Seat Front Seat Rear Seat
Injury Criteria Injury Criteria Injury Criteria Injury Criteria Injury Criteria
Probabilty of In- Probabilty of In- Probabilty of In- Probabilty of In- Probabilty of In- Probabilty of
jury (Risk Curves) jury (Risk Curves) jury (Risk Curves) jury (Risk Curves) jury (Risk Curves) Rollover
Pjoint Pjoint Pjoint Pjoint Pjoint Proll
RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Pjoint/base** RR*=Proll/base**
Stars Stars
Driver Stars Passenger Stars (20%) (80%) Rear Seat Stars
(50%) (50%) Front Seat Stars (50%) Overall Rollover
(50%) Star Rating
(3/12)
Overall Frontal Star Rating Overall Side Star Rating
(5/12) (4/12) SafetyWissen by
Vehicle Safety Score (VSS)
*RR = relative risk; **base = baseline risk = 15%
Rating procedure
Using the Injury Risk Curves on  page 42 and page 43, the risk of a serious injury (AIS 3+) can be calculated from the injury
criteria measured in the crash test. The joint risk for an occupant can be determined using the following formulae:
Frontal Impact: Pjoint = 1 − (1 − Phead ) × (1 − Pneck ) × (1 − Pchest ) × (1 − Pfemur )
Side Impact: Pjoint =1−(1− Phead)×(1− Pchest)×(1− Pabdomen)×(1− Ppelvis)

This risk is compared to a so called baseline risk which was set to 15 %. This ratio is called relative risk (RR) from which the star
rating is determined using the following table:
RR 0 0.67 1 1.33 2.67
Stars     
44
SAFETY
WISSEN
IIHS Rating
Testing Protocol Version XV (May 2014)
Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

Frontal Impact with 40% Overlap @ 64 km/h
HIC15 ≤ 560 ≤ 700 ≤ 840 > 840
Nij ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20

Head
Fz,tension (kN) ≤ 2.6 ≤ 3.3 ≤ 4.0 > 4.0
& Neck
Fz,compression (kN) ≤ 3.2 ≤ 4.0 ≤ 4.8 > 4.8
ares peak (g) Values > 70 g result in downgrading
a3ms (g) ≤ 60 ≤ 75 ≤ 90 > 90
Deflection (mm) ≤ 50 ≤ 60 ≤ 75 > 75

H III Chest
50% Deflection rate (m/s) ≤ 6.6 ≤ 8.2 ≤ 9.8 > 9.8
VC (m/s) ≤ 0.8 ≤ 1.0 ≤ 1.2 > 1.2
Femur Axial Force (kN) ≤ 7.3 @ 0ms ≤ 9.1 @ 0ms ≤ 10.9 @ 0ms > 10.9 @ 0ms
(Force duration corridors) ≤ 6.1 @ 10ms ≤ 7.6 @ 10ms ≤ 9.1 @ 10ms > 9.1 @ 10ms
Knee Displacement (mm) ≤ 12 ≤ 15 ≤ 18 > 18
Legs &
Feet TI (upper, lower) ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20
Tibia Axial Force (kN) ≤ 4.0 ≤ 6.0 ≤ 8.0 > 8.0
Foot acceleration (g) ≤ 150 ≤ 200 ≤ 260 > 260
Testing Protocol Version 3 (Mar 2008)

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

Vector sum of the standardized
shear (FX) and tension (FZ)
< {0.450}2 ≤ {0.825}2 > {0.825}2
values
BioRID Head {FX / 315}2 + {(FZ – 234) / 1131}2
IIg & Neck
Time to head restraint contact (ms) for values > 70 ms the rating is reduced by one level*
T1 acceleration (g) for values > 9.5 the rating is reduced by one level*
* only if both exceed the given level
The overall rating equals the static or dynamic rating. whichever is worse. Exceptions:
If the static rating is „acceptable“ but the backset is sufficient for a „good“ rating and the dynamic rating is „good“ then the overall rating is also
„good“. If the static rating is „marginal“ or „poor“ no dynamic test is made and the overall rating is „poor“.
45
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
IIHS Rating Testing Protocol Version VII (May 2014)

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 II (Dec 2012)
Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

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

„Good“ rating in all crash tests „Good“ rating in all crash tests
2016 at least „basic“ rating in front crash prevention at least „advanced“ rating in front crash prevention
 page 116  page 116
46
SAFETY
WISSEN
IIHS Rating: Small Overlap Testing Protocol Version III (Mai 2014)

Small Overlap Frontal Impact with 25% Overlap @ 64 km/h
lower hinge pillar (resultant)
Lower Occupant Compartment
footrest (resultant)
Structure Rating: Intrusions (mm) 
left toepan (resultant) ≤ 150 ≤ 225 ≤ 300 > 300
brake pedal (resultant)
parking brake pedal (resultant)
rocker panel (lateral) ≤ 50 ≤ 100 ≤ 150 > 150
steering column (longitutinal) ≤ 50 ≤ 100 ≤ 150 > 150

Upper Occupant
Compartment
upper hinge pillar (resultant)
upper dash (resultant) ≤ 75 ≤ 125 ≤ 175 > 175
left instrument panel (resultant)
HIC15 ≤ 560 ≤ 700 ≤ 840 > 840
Head Nij ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20

& Neck
 Fz,tension (kN) ≤ 2.6 ≤ 3.3 ≤ 4.0 > 4.0
a3ms (g) ≤ 60 ≤ 75 ≤ 90 > 90
Chest/ Deflection (mm) ≤ 50 ≤ 60 ≤ 75 > 75

Torso
H III  Deflection rate (m/s) ≤ 6.6 ≤ 8.2 ≤ 9.8 > 9.8
50%
VC (m/s) ≤ 0.8 ≤ 1.0 ≤ 1.2 > 1.2
Femur
KTH Injury Risk (%) ≤5 ≤ 15 ≤ 25 > 25

Knee Displacement (mm) ≤ 12 ≤ 15 ≤ 18 > 18
Leg & TI (upper, lower) ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20

Foot
 Tibia Axial Force (kN) ≤ 4.0 ≤ 6.0 ≤ 8.0 > 8.0
Foot Acceleration (g) ≤ 150 ≤ 200 ≤ 260 > 260
47
SAFETY
WISSEN
IIHS Rating: Small Overlap

Small Overlap Frontal Impact with 25% Overlap @ 64 km/h
Restraints & Dummy Kinematics Rating SafetyWissen by
Rating system based on a demerit system Demerits

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

Sum of Demerits ≤1 ≤3 ≤5 >5
Small Overlap Overall Rating

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

Sum of demerits ≤3 ≤9 ≤ 19 > 19
48
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Australasian NCAP (ANCAP) Roadmap Update 23. April 2014
ANCAP was harmonized with Euro NCAP until 2009. The harmonization ended with the introduction of Euro NCAP‘s overall rating
in 2009. ANCAP has now developed a new overall rating scheme that will be introduced in the period from 2011 -2017. As of 2018
ANCAP will re-align with Euro NCAP.
ODB Frontal Impact Barrier Side Impact Safety Assist Pedestrian Protection
Euro NCAP Test Prot. 5.1 Euro NCAP Test Prot. 5.1 Technologies (SAT) Euro NCAP PP Test Prot. 8.0
Euro NCAP AOP Ass. Prot 5.3 Euro NCAP AOP Ass. Prot 5.3 Assessment of the equipment Euro NCAP PP Ass. Prot 8.0
max. 16 Points max. 16 Points with assistance Scale
systems Poor/Marginal/Acceptable/Good
Seatbelt Reminder Pole Side Impact Number of Whiplash

mandatory
additional
Euro NCAP SA Ass. Prot 5.4 Euro NCAP Test Prot. 5.1 systems RCAR V3 , 2008
systems
max. 3 Points Euro NCAP AOP Ass. Prot 5.3 Scale
max. 2 Points Poor/Marginal/Acceptable/Good
Combined Score
max. 37 Points „Alignment“ with Euro NCAP
As of 2018 ANCAP will take over protocols
and results from Euro NCAP. In a transition
SafetyWissen by phase from 2015 to 2017 ANCAP will pub-
lish Euro NCAP results (based on Euro NCAP
Overall Rating protocols) in addition to their own tests
based on ANCAP protocols.
The requirements on which the overall rating is based are increasing until 2017 according to the following scheme:
Score required for the
additional SAT (count)

respective star rating
Frontal- and Barrier-

Side-Impact each
Pole-Side-Impact
Combinied Score
mandatory SAT
Whiplash
SafetyWissen by
as of 20.. 16 16 17 16 16 17 16 17 16 17 16 17
ESC + 3PSB1
Good
Good

Acc
Acc
12.5 1 1 32.5 + HPT1+2 + SBR1+3 2016 + TT 6 6

+ EBA
ESC + 3PSB + HPT1+2 +
Good
Good

Acc
Acc
8.5 - 1 24.5 2016 + SBR3 + TT 4 5

SBR1+ EBA
ESC +
Marg

Acc
Acc
Acc
4.5 - - 16.5 2016 + SBR1 + EBA + TT 3 4

3PSB + HPT1
ESC +
Marg Marg

Acc
1.5 - - 8.5 - - 2016 + SBR1 + HPT1 + TT 2 3

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

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

Adult-Occupant Protection Assessment Protocol Version 3.0
Required Score Additional Requirements
Frontal ODB + Seat Belt Reminder ESC Pole-Side Impact acc.
Side MDB SBR acc. GTR 8 Euro NCAP Protocol
Star Rating (max. 16+16=32 Pt.) (max. 2 Pt.) 5.2
 ≥ 27 ≥1  
 ≥ 22 ≥1 
 ≥ 16 ≥ 0.5
 ≥ 10
 ≥4 SafetyWissen by
Child-Occupant Protection ( page 97) Assessment Protocol Version 3.0 New Assessment Protocol (TBC)
Star Rating Required Score (out of max. 49 points) Required Score (out of max. 49 points)
 ≥ 43 ≥ 43
 ≥ 36 ≥ 32
 ≥ 25 ≥ 24
 ≥ 14 ≥ 13
 ≥8 ≥8 SafetyWissen by
Frontal Impact with mit 40% Overlap @ 64 km/h

HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
My,extension < 42 Nm
4
Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Head, Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Neck HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 88 g
max. 16 points
0
Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
H III 50%
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
front
4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Chest
0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Femur, 4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN; Knee Displacement < 6 mm
Knee 0 Axial Forcecompr > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms; Knee Displacement > 15 mm
Tibia, 4 TI < 0.4, Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN; x–Displacement Pedals < 100 mm
Foot 0 TI > 1.3, Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN; x–Displacement Pedals > 200 mm
Barrier Side Impact (MDB) @ 50 km/h

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

Chest
ES-2 0 Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
front 4 Forcecompression < 1.0 kN
Abdomen
0 Forcecompression > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN
51
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
ASEAN NCAP Rating in Adult- and Child-Occupant Protection

Adult Occupant Protection Assessment Protocol Version 2.1
Required Score Additional Requirements
Frontal ODB Side Impact (MDB) Seat Belt Reminder ESC
(out of max. 16 compliance with (SBR) on driver and
Star Rating points) UN R95  page 74 front passenger seat
 ≥ 14   
 ≥ 11 
 ≥8 
 ≥5
 ≥2 SafetyWissen by
If the dummy response exceeds the lower performance limit of head, neck or chest, the rating is limited to no more than 1 star
regardless of the total number of points scored.
Child-Occupant Protection ( page 97) Assessment Protocol Version 2.1
Star Rating Required Score (out of max. 49 points)
 ≥ 43
 ≥ 34
 ≥ 25
 ≥ 15
 >0
Dummy Region Points Criteria

HIC36 < 650, a3ms < 72 g
4
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Head, Neck
HIC36 > 1000, a3ms > 88 g
0
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
max. 16 points
Deflection < 22 mm
4
H III 50% Chest VC < 0.5 m/s
front Deflection > 50 mm
0
VC < 0.5 m/s
Axial Forcecompression < 3.8 kN
Femur, 4
Knee Displacement < 6 mm
Knee
Axial Forcecompression > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms
0
Knee Displacement > 15 mm
TI < 0.4
4
Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN
Tibia
TI > 1.3
0
Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN
52
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
China NCAP Protocol 2015

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
0 Deflection > 50 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
max. 18 points
Axial Forcecompression < 3.8 kN;
2
Femur Knee Displacement < 6 mm
Knee Axial Forcecompression > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms;
0
Knee Displacement > 15 mm
2 TI < 0,4; Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN
Tibia
0 TI > 1,3; Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN
0.8 HIC15 < 500
Head
0 HIC15 > 700
H III 5% 0.2 Fx,shear < 1200 N; Fz,tension < 1700 N; My,extension < 36 Nm
Neck
rear 0 Fx,shear > 1950 N; Fz,tension > 2620 N; My,extension > 49 Nm
1 Deflection < 23 mm
Chest
0 Deflection > 48 mm
Frontal Impact with 40% Overlap @ 64 km/h ❷ SafetyWissen by
HIC36 < 650, a3ms < 72 g

4
Head, Neck
HIC36 > 1000, a3ms > 88 g
0
front
max. 18 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
1 HIC15 < 500, Fx,shear < 1200 N, Fz,tension < 1700 N, My,extension < 36 Nm
Head, Neck
H III 5% 0 HIC15 > 700, Fx,shear > 1950 N, Fz,tension > 2620 N, My,extension > 49 Nm
rear 1 Deflection < 23 mm
Chest
53
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
China NCAP Protocol 2015

Barrier Side Impact (MDB) @ 50 km/h ❸
4 HIC36 < 650, a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC36 > 1000, a3ms > 88 g
Deflection < 22 mm,
4
VC < 0.32 m/s
Chest
ES-2 Deflection > 42 mm,
0
vorn VC > 1.0 m/s
max. 18 points
4 Axial Forcecompression < 1.0 kN
Abdomen
0 Axial Forcecompression > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN
1 HIC15 < 500
Head
SID-IIs 0 HIC15 > 700
hinten 1 Force < 3500 N
Pelvis
0 Force > 5500 N
Whiplash Test @ v=15,65 km/h ❹

2 < 8 m²/s²
NIC
0 > 30 m²/s²
1 Fx+ < 340 N, Fz+ < 475 N, My < 12 Nm
BioRID II Upper Neck
0 Fx+> 730 N, Fz+> 1130 N, My > 40 Nm
max. 4 points
1 Fx+ < 340 N, Fz+ < 257 N, My < 12 Nm
Lower Neck
0 Fx+> 730 N, Fz+> 1480 N, My > 40 Nm
max. dyn.
-2 > 19°
seatback defl.
dyn. seat
-4 > 20 mm
displacement
HRMD
-2 Y/N
interference
Additional Points ❺
1 Visual / Audio Signal with occupant detection
SBR Passenger
max. 3 pt.
0.5 Visual / Audio Signal without occupant detection

Side Protection 1 Side / Curtain-Airbag
ESC 1 acc. GTR 8 or FMVSS 126 or UN R13H
Overall Rating
Total Score Stars Alle Details in:
❶+❷+❸+❹+❺
≥ 60 5+ 
≥ 54 ... < 60 5 
≥ 48 ... < 54 4 
≥ 36 ... < 48 3 
≥ 24 ... < 36 2 
< 24 1 
54
SAFETY
WISSEN
JNCAP
ODB 40%
0o
ES-2
0o
55 km/h
64 km/h
55 km/h
Hybrid III Hybrid III 90°
50% 50%
Hybrid III
50%
MDB EEVC, 950 kg
Hybrid III
5%
Dummy Region Weight Points Criteria

Frontal Impact
4 HIC 36 < 650
Head 0.923
0 HIC 36 > 1000
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
front
4 Deflection < 22 mm, a3ms < 38 g
Chest 0.923 Rating Scheme Frontal &
0 Deflection > 50 mm, a3ms > 60 g
Side Impact, Whiplash:
2 Axial Forcecompression < 7 kN
Femur 0.923 Required
0 Axial Forcecompression > 10 kN Level
Score
2 TI < 0.4
Tibia 0.923
0 TI > 1.3 5 ≥ 10.5
4 HIC15 < 500
Head 0.8
0 HIC15 > 700

4 ≥9
Fx,shear < 1200 N, Fz,tension < 1700 N,
4
Neck 0.2 3 ≥ 7.5
Fx,shear > 1950 N, Fz,tension > 2620 N,
0
H III 5% My,extension > 49 Nm
rear 4 Deflection < 23 mm 2 ≥6
Chest 0.8
Abdomen 0.8 4 4 points awarded by default 1 <6
4 Axial Forcecompression < 4.8 kN
Femur 0.4
0 Axial Forcecompression > 6.8 kN SafetyWissen by
Side Impact
4 HIC 36 < 650
max. 12 pt. (after weighting)
Head 1.0
0 HIC 36 > 1000
Chest 1.0
ES-2 0 Deflection > 42 mm
front 4 Forcecompression < 1.0 kN
Abdomen 0.5
0 Forcecompression > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis 0.5
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN SafetyWissen by
56
SAFETY
WISSEN
JNCAP
Dummy Criteria Weight Points Limits
Whiplash Test
4 < 8 m²/s²
NIC 1
0 > 30 m²/s²
4 < 340 N
Upper Neck Fx+
score is calculated based on the worst injury criterion

0 > 730 N
4 < 475 N

Upper Neck Fz+
0 > 1130 N
4 < 12 Nm
Upper Neck My Flexion
0 > 40 Nm
4 < 12 Nm
BioRID II Upper Neck My Extension
0 > 40 Nm
2
4 < 340 N
Lower Neck Fx+
0 > 730 N
4 < 257 N
Lower Neck Fz+
0 > 1480 N
4 < 12 Nm
Lower Neck My Flexion
0 > 40 Nm
4 < 12 Nm
Lower Neck My Extension
0 > 40 Nm
Where a value falls between the upper and lower limit, the score is calculated by linear interpolation (sliding scale).
Overall Rating
max. weighted
max. score weight score total total
Occupant Protection
Full-width Frontal
Driver 12 1.250 15
Passenger 12 1.250 15
Offset Frontal
Driver 12 1.250 15
Passenger (rear) 12 1.250 15
100 208
Side Impact
Driver 12 1.042 12.5 ≥170
Passenger* 12 1.042 12.5 ≥150
≥130
Whiplash
≥110
Driver 12 0.625 7.5 <110
Passenger 12 0.625 7.5
Pedestrian Protection ( page 86)
Head Impact 4 18.750 75
100
Leg Impact 4 6.250 25
Seat Belt Reminder
Front 50 0.08 4
8 SafetyWissen by
Rear 50 0.08 4
*for the passenger the same score as for the driver is assumed
57
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Overall Rating
Pedestrian Driving Safety
Category Crashworthiness Protection
 page 86  page 116
Frontal FWRB Frontal ODB Side MDB Whiplash

Head Impact Rollover
16 km/h
0o ODB 40%
ES-2 24 Points 5 Points
56 km/h BioRID II
0o
64 km/h
55 km/h 90°
Hybrid III Hybrid III @ R +250 mm
50% 5%
AE-MDB, 1300 kg
Hybrid III
50%
Hybrid III
50% Leg Impact Brakes
6 Points 5 Points
max. score (1) 16 Points 16 Points 16 Points 10 Points 30 Points 10 Points

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

Class 1 ≥ 86.1
Class 2 ≥ 81.1
Class 3 ≥ 76.1
Class 4 ≥ 71.1
Class 5 ≤ 71.0
Balancing: Minimum normalized score per category (3) per rating class
Pedestrian
Category Crashworthiness
Protection
Class 1 ≥ 90.1 % ≥ 60.1 %
Class 2 ≥ 83.1 % ≥ 50.1 %
Class 3 ≥ 76.1 % ≥ 40.1 %
Class 4 ≥ 69.1 % ≥ 35.1 %
Class 5 ≤ 69.0 % ≤ 35.0 %
58
With Semcon.
With Safety.
Semcon is a well-respected development partner to the global
automotive industry, and provides its customers with exactly
the resources they need, from design and engineering to testing,
simulation and prototype construction. Benefit from the potential
of our expert „Crash & Safety“ team in the fields of
Body structure development

Occupant protection
Head impact
Sensor simulation and configuration
Impact energy management and pulse design
Validation and updating of material data
Creating the future

www.semcon.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW

Head, Neck
max. 16 points
Chest
H III 50%
Femur 4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN; Knee displacement < 6 mm
Knee 0 Axial Forcecompr > 9.07 kN; Knee displacement > 15 mm
4 TI < 0,4; Axial Forcecompr < 2 kN
Tibia
0 TI > 1,3; Axial Forcecompr > 8 kN

6 HIC36 < 650; My,extension < 42 Nm; Fz,tension < 2.7 kN; Fx,shear < 1.9 kN
Head, Neck
0 HIC36 > 1000; My,extension > 57 Nm; Fz,tension > 3.3 kN; Fx,shear > 3.1 kN
H III 50% Chest
max. 16 points
4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN
Femur
0 Axial Forcecompr > 9.07 kN
6 HIC15 < 500, Fx,shear < 1.2 kN, Fz,tension < 1.7 kN, My,extension < 36 Nm
Head, Neck
0 HIC15 > 700, Fx,shear > 1.95 kN, Fz,tension > 2.62 kN, My,extension > 49 Nm
H III 5% Chest
4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN
Femur
0 Axial Forcecompr > 6.8 kN
Barrier Side Impact (MDB) with 55 km/h

4 HIC36 < 650
Head
0 HIC36 > 1000
max. 16 points
Chest
ES-2
4 Forcecompr < 1.0 kN
Abdomen
0 Forcecompr > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN
Whiplash Test
Dynamic Assessment 1.5 Points 0 Points
NIC 11.00 24.00
Nkm 0.15 0.55
Rebound velocity (m/s) 3.2 4.8
max. 10 points
BioRID
Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 190
max. 9 points
IIg
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 360 750
T1 acceleration* (g) 9.30 13.10
T-HRC* (ms) 57 82
Geometry Assessment 1 Point -1 Point
Backset (mm) 40 100
max.
1 pt.
HRMD
Height (mm) 0 80
* Only the maximum score from either T1 acceleration or head restraint contact time is used in the rating.
60
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW
BNVSAP Bharat New Vehicle Safety Assessment Program (India)

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

required score required score
Rating % of max % of max
(out of max. 40) (out of max. 24)
 34 85 21 87.5
 28 70 17 70.8
 22 55 12 50
 16 40 8 20
 12 30 4 10
Note: BNVSAP is still in its introduction phase. Therefore modifications may still occur.
61
Passive Safety
Product Liability in the Automobile Industry

In the framework of the ongoing extension of active and pas- The seminar is aimed at all decision-makers in the automotive
sive safety systems automobiles are becoming increasingly development, who want to learn about the consequences of
complex. product liability and want to learn about preventive measures.
In this context the faultlessness of systems becomes more
and more important, as with growing complexity not only the Course Contents
number but also the severity of possible faults is increasing. Fundamentals of Product Liability
An indicator for this is the growing number of recalls in recent Civil and criminal responsibility of the company and
years. personal liability of employees
Each manufacturer holds the responsibility for consequential Liability for Defects
damages caused by its products when used as intended. This Product liability in Europe and in the U.S.
responsibility is defined by law in all countries and has civil and U.S. TREAD ACT, Reporting obligation for OEMs and
criminal penalties. suppliers
Examples include the recalls of large numbers of vehicles that Product liability and advertisement and public relations
several OEMs were obliged to do during the last few years. of companies
Quality management and its relevance from a product
Obviously a safety related recall of a mass product may have liability point of view
severe or even existence-threatening consequences. Product liability in the supply chain
Instructions, warnings
Consequently, manufacturers must ensure faultlessness Risk minimization within the organization, prevention
throughout their organization. Documentation, conclusive evidence
Insurance of product liability risk
Course Objectives Recall decision and processing
The aim of this course is to convey the importance of product
liability for businesses and employees as well as an under-
standing of preventive measures.
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Georg Lohrmann
Hans-Georg Lohrmann was Manager of Reliability & Conformity of Production at ZF TRW Automotive GmbH. He has many years of ex-
perience in the field of safety, reliability and product liability in the automotive sector. Since September 2015 he has retired and is still
active as a freelance consultant. He specializes in the area of restraint systems for vehicle occupant protection and supports his clients
in the areas of reliability, safety planning and methods of verification, application and development of a product conformity certificate
system and litigation support.

SAFETY
WISSEN
Roof Crush
1829 mm
5° Centerline of Test Device
Headform with Load Cell

Forwardmost Point of Roof (FMVSS only)
762 254 mm
mm
Rigid Horizontal Support of
25° Sills / Chassis Frame
Centerline of Test Device
Initial Point of Contact
Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0093

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

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

In the development of a car body different - sometimes con- Mechanics of crash events
flicting - design requirements have to be met. Fulfilling crash Accelerations during collisions
regulations is a key task. Therefore it is mandatory that de- Structural loading during collisions
Examination of real crash events
signers have a good understanding of the crash behavior of
Stability problems
mechanical structures. The combination of knowledge about Plasticity
mechanics and the ability to use modern design tools allows Design methods
for an efficient development process without unnecessary de- Functional based design
sign iterations. The objective of the seminar is to present new Car body design
methods for crashworthy car body design. CAE conform design
At the beginning of the course the mechanical phenomena of Crash simulation
crash events will be discussed. Subsequently modern devel- Finite Element modelling of a car body
opment methods (CAD design and crash simulation) will be Finite Element analysis with explicit methods
Possibilities and limitations
treated. Thereafter modern implementations of safety design
measures will be presented. Mathematical optimization of Technical implementation of safety measures
Energy absorbing members
structural design - which is increasingly used in industry - will Car bodies
be covered at the end of the course. Safety systems
Who should attend? Post crash
This 2 day course addresses designers, test and simulation en- Use of mathematical optimization procedures in real
gineers as well as project leaders and managers working in car world applications
Approximation techniques
body development and analysis. Optimization software & strategies
Shape and topology optimization
Course Instructor:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Axel Schumacher, University of Wuppertal
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Axel Schumacher studied mechanical engineering at the universities of Duisburg and Aachen. He received his doctorate on
structural optimization from the University of Siegen. Following research projects for Airbus were focused on the optimization of aircraft
structures. Thereafter he worked in the CAE methods development department of Adam Opel AG as project leader for structural opti-
mization. From 2003 - 2012 he was a professor at the University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg and taught structural design, passive
safety and structural optimization. Since 2012 he has been professor at the University of Wuppertal, where he holds the chair for Opti-
mization of mechanical structures.
08.-09.09.2016 2712 Gaimersheim 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 11.08.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

SAFETY
WISSEN
FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact Requirements: In-Position
In-Position – Test Configurations

Full-Width Test ODB Test
unbelted belted
ODB 40%
5 % Female Dummy
0° / ± 5° 0° / ± 5° 0o
32-40 km/h 56 km/h 40 km/h
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
0° / ± 30°
50 % Male Dummy
0o
32-40 km/h 56 km/h
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III

50% 50% 50% 50%
SafetyWissen by
FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact Requirements: Out of Position

Front seat Dummy Test configuration
chin on airbag module in steering wheel
Driver side Hybrid III 5 % female
chin on top of steering wheel
CRABI 12m in 23 defined CRS / positions
chest on instrument panel
Hybrid III 3 y/o
Passenger side head on instrument panel
chest on instrument panel
Hybrid III 6 y/o
head on instrument panel
66
Passive Safety
Development of Frontal Restraint Systems meeting Legal and

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

the successful development of a frontal restraint system. Fur-
thermore you will learn which development tool, simulation
or test, is best suited for the respective sub task. Moreover
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Kai Golowko, Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH
Kai Golowko has been working in the area of vehicle safety since 1999. He started his career as a test engineer for passive safety at ACTS.
Since 2003 he has been working as senior engineer for occupant safety and pedestrian protection. Since 2005 he manages the depart-
ment vehicle safety at Bertrandt in Gaimersheim. In this position he is responsible for component development and validation and inte-
grated safety.
07.-08.11.2016 2669 Tappenbeck 2 Days 1.290,- EUR till 10.10.2016, thereafter 1.540,- EUR

Rigid Barrier Deformable Barrier
Configuration Criterion Out of Position
In-Position In-Position
CMVSS 208 (old), UN R94,
FMVSS 208 FMVSS 208 FMVSS 208
Requirements ADR 69/00, UN R137 ADR 73/00,
CMVSS 208 CMVSS 208 CMVSS 208
FMVSS 208 (old) FMVSS 208 (old)
Dummy Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III CRABI
Size 50% male 50% male 5 % female 50% male 5 % female 50% male 5 % female 5 % female 6 year 3 year 1 year
HIC36 /HPC36 [-] 1000 (FMVSS, ADR) 1000 1000 1000
Protection Criteria for Frontal Impact Tests
Head HIC15 [-] 700 (CMVSS) 700 700 700 700 700 570 390
a3ms [g] 80 80 80
Nij [-] (4 Werte) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
3.1 @ 0 ms
Fx,shear [kN] 3.1 2.7 1.5 @ 25-35 ms
1.1 @ ≥ 45 ms
Neck 3.3 @ 0 ms
Fz,tension [kN] 4.17 2.62 3.3 2.9 2.9 @ 35 ms 2.62 2.07 1.49 1.13 0.78
1.1 @ ≥ 60 ms
Fz,compr. [kN] 4.0 2.52 2.52 2.52 1.82 1.38 0.96
My [Nm] 57 57 57
a3ms [g] 60 g 60 60 60 60 60 55 50
76.2 (FMVSS. ADR)
Chest Deflection [mm] 63 52 42 42 [34]1 50 52 52 40 34 302
50 (CMVSS)
VC [m/s] 1.0 1.0 1.0
9.07 @ 0 ms
Femur Axial Force [kN] 10 10 6.805 9.07 7 6.805 6.8
UPDATE
7.58 @ > 10 ms
Knee Displacement [mm] 15
TI [-] 1.3 (4 Werte)
Tibia SafetyWissen by
Axial Forcecompr. [kN] 8.0
WISSEN
SAFETY
1 planned tightening of requirements as of 2020
2 currently no measurement possible
68
MESSRING is the leading
global manufacturer of crash
test systems, testing com-
ponents, data acquisition
systems and lighting solu-
tions. The German company
has implemented more
than 100 large crash test
AND A QUESTION OF ABSOLUTE PRECISION. systems – more than any
other company in the world.
MESSRING GmbH Learn more about us!
Robert-Stirling-Ring 1 Phone: +49-89-89 81 39 0 sales@messring.de
D-82152 Krailling Fax: +49-89-89 81 39 924 info@messring.de www.messring.com
SAFETY
WISSEN
Frontal Impact Protection Criteria Compared

Regulation Crash ATD
SafetyWissen by
Criterion Type [UoM]
HIC15 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
FMVSS 208 FWRB/ODB HIII 5/50
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 5
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 6y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP CRABI 12m
Euro NCAP1 ODB/FWRB HIII 5/50
C-NCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 5
JNCAP ODB HIII 5
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50
HIC36 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
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 ODB HIII 5
1
assessed only if Head ares peak > 80g
Please note that the values indicated in this graph may be rounded and that additional criteria may exist. Please take exact values
and additional criteria from the tables for the respective regulation.
70
SAFETY
WISSEN

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

Regulations: requirements not met / NCAP: zero score
Linear interpolation of the score between the upper and lower limit
71
SAFETY
WISSEN
Safety Requirements for Rear Seats and Restraint Systems

Frontal impact tests with rear seat occupants
Euro NCAP FWRB Euro NCAP ODB ANCAP ODB ASEAN NCAP ODB
ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40%
0o
50 km/h 0o 0o 0o
64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

5% 5%
Hybrid III 50% 50% 50% 50%
50% 50%
5%
Q6 Q10 P1,5 P3 P1,5 P3
JNCAP ODB C-NCAP FWRB C-NCAP ODB Latin NCAP ODB

ODB 40% ODB 40% ODB 40%
0o
0o 0o 0o
50 km/h
64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

50% 50%
Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III
50% Hybrid III P3 50% 50% 50% 50%
5%
Hybrid III Hybrid III Q3 Q1,5
5% 5%
FMVSS 201: Head impact on belt UN R14: Belt and ISOFIX

anchorages anchorages
FMVSS 207: Seat stability UN R16: Belt system
FMVSS 208: Belt system UN R17: Seat anchorages
FMVSS 209: Belt system UN R21: Head impact
FMVSS 225: ISOFIX anchorages UN R25: Head rests
UN R44: Child seats
UN R129: Child seats
Side impacts tests with rear seat occupants
FMVSS 214 U.S. NCAP IIHS C-NCAP
ES-2 re ES-2 re SID IIs ES-2

54 62
km km
/h /h
/2 /2
7° 7°
50 km/h 50 km/h
48 km/h 55 km/h 90° 90°
MDB, 1368 kg MDB, 1368 kg MDB IIHS, 1500 kg MDB EEVC, 950 kg
SID IIs SID IIs SID IIs

SID IIs
72
Passive Safety
Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact

Rear seat occupant protection has been a low priority until the The seminar addresses simulation and test engineers, project
recent introduction of safety assessment for rear adult and engineers and project managers as well as the heads of devel-
child occupants by Euro NCAP. Now it has moved into the fo- opment departments in the field of passive safety who work in
cus of research and development. R&D of occupant restraint-systems.
In addition to the Euro NCAP requirements, further NCAP rat- Course Contents
ings as well as legal requirements need to be considered in the Legal Requirements
design of the restraint systems. And real world aspects cannot Requirements from consumer testing
be neglected either. Dummies on the rear seat; Q6 and Q10 Child Dummies
Relevant protection criteria for the most important load
During the 1-day seminar legal and NCAP requirements for cases
rear seat occupant protection in frontal impact will be dis- Solutions for restraint system design and optimization
cussed. Furthermore the dummies used in the assessment will
be presented with an empasis on the Q6 and Q10 child dum-
mies. For the most important load cases the relevant criteria
and possible influcening parameters of the restraint system
will be discussed and explored. Finally solutions for the design
of the restraint system on rear seat will be shown.
Note: Only frontal impact load cases will be considered.
Course Objectives
The objective of the seminar is to provide an understanding
of the requirements and specifics in rear seat occupant pro-
tection, to provide the knowledge of test configurations and
dummies, and to provide a view on state-of-the-art solutions.
Course Instructor:
Dr.-Ing. Burkhard Eickhoff, Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG
Burkhard Eickhoff studied mechanical engineering in Hannover (Germany) focusing on vehicle engineering and applied mechanics. Start-
ing from 1999 he worked with Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG as a test engineer for sled and crash tests. Since 2003 he has been project manager
in systems development (safety belt) of the same company. Since 2012 he has worked as a group leader at Autoliv. He is involved in the
definition and assessment of new restraint systems and he conducts feasibility studies using system simulation as well as dynamical
tests. Moreover he has a consultant role regarding restraint system design. He finished his doctoral thesis at the Helmut Schmidt Uni-
versity Hamburg in 2012 on the reduction of belt induced thorax deflection in frontal crashes.

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

and IIHS
Requirement UN R95 Euro NCAP IIHS
Impact angle lateral 90°
MDB velocity 50 km/h
Barrier (MDB) EEVC AE-MDB IIHS
Mass 950 kg 1300 kg 1500 kg
Ground
300 mm 300 mm (bumper 350 mm) 379 mm (bumper 430 mm)
clearance
Upper edge
800 mm 800 mm 1138 mm
height
Width 1500 mm 1700 mm 1676 mm
1 WS 50% frontal seat on
1 ES-2 frontal seat on impact impact side, on rear seat
Dummy 2 SID IIs on impact side
side Q10 on impact side and Q6
far side
Different weight in
assessment driver and
Head HPC < 1000
passenger values for
Chest VC < 1.0 m/s
HIC15, Neck-Tens./Compr.,
Protection Rib deflection D < 42 mm  page 39 (Adults) SafetyWissen by
Head kinematics, Shoulder,
Criteria Abdomen sum of APF <  page 98 (Children)
Chest deflection, VC, Pelvis
2.5 kN
and Femur;
Pelvis PSPF < 6.0 kN
Car body evaluation, B-pillar
 page 46
Pole Side Impact Tests according to Euro NCAP, UN R135, GTR 14 and
FMVSS 214 new
Requirement Euro NCAP UN R135 / GTR 14 FMVSS 214 new U.S. NCAP
Vehicle Velocity up to 32 km/h (26 km/h for
32 km/h up to 32 km/h 32 km/h
(on Flying Floor) vehicles up to 1.5 m width)
Impact angle oblique 75° on fixed pole
Pole diameter 254 mm
ES-2 re or SID IIs (Build Level D) on impact
Dummy WorldSID 50% on impact side SID IIs 5 % on impact side
side
SID IIs: HIC36 < 1000
Head HIC36 < 1000
Lower Spine Acc. < 82 g
Shoulder Flateral < 3.0 kN
Pelvis Force < 5.525 kN
Protection Chest deflection < 55 mm
 page 39 ES-2 re: HIC36 < 1000  page 42
Criteria Abdomen deflection < 65 mm
Chest deflection < 44 mm
Lower Spine Acc. < 75 g
Abdominal Force < 2.5 kN
PSPF < 3.36 kN
PSPF < 6 kN
WS 50%
Test Configuration
SafetyWissen by
74
SAFETY
WISSEN
MDB - Side Impact Tests according to FMVSS 214 / U.S. NCAP
Requirement FMVSS 214 old rule FMVSS 214 new rule U.S. NCAP
Impact angle lateral 90°, 27° crab angle
61.9 ±0.8 km/h (~55 km/h in 90°
Impact velocity 53±1 km/h (33.5 mph) (~47 km/h in 90° direction)
direction)
Barrier NHTSA MDB
Mass 1368 kg
Ground clearance 279 mm (bumper 330 mm)
Upper edge height 838 mm
Width 1676 mm
Front seat: ES-2 re / Back seat: SID IIs Front seat: ES-2 re / Back seat: SID IIs
Dummy 2 DOT-SID
(Build Level D) (impact side) (Build Level D) (impact side)
SID IIs: HIC36 < 1000

Chest TTI < 85 g (4-doors) Chest acceleration < 82 g
Chest TTI < 90 g (2-doors) Pelvis force < 5.525 kN
Protection
Pelvis acceleration < 130 g ES-2 re: HIC36 < 1000  page 42
Criteria
Chest deflection < 44 mm
Abdominal force < 2.5 kN SafetyWissen by
Pelvis force < 6 kN
Alle Details in:
SafetyWissen by
Phase-In Schedule FMVSS 214 new rule

SafetyWissen by Pole MDB
Test speed Vehicles with GVWR Convertibles excluded Percentage Percentage
> 8500 lbs (3855 kg) that must that must
Production Period excluded comply comply
1.9.2010 - 31.8.2011 26 - 32 km/h yes yes 20 % 20 %
1.9.2011 - 31.8.2012 26 - 32 km/h yes yes 40 % 40 %
1.9.2012 - 31.8.2013 26 - 32 km/h yes yes 60 % 60 %
1.9.2013 - 31.8.2014 26 - 32 km/h yes yes 80 % 80 %
after 1.9.2014 0 - 32 km/h yes yes 100 % 100 %
after 1.9.2015 0 - 32 km/h no no 100 % 100 %
after 1.9.2016 0 - 32 km/h no no 100 %* 100 %*
* incl. altered and multistage vehicles
75
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
⑤
Seat Adjustments for Side Impact Tests
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 non- top surface

adjustable manuf. design level with
UN R95 mid mid mid
passenger seat position or 25° head COG or
or mid uppermost
uppermost or
manuf. design
UN R135 mid + 20 mm lowest manuf. design most rearward mid
position or 23°
position.
U.S. NCAP /
manuf. design „absolute“
FMVSS 214 mid lowest2 uppermost most forward
position or 25° mid2
ES-2RE
U.S. NCAP /
most forward „absolute“
FMVSS 214 mid head at 0° lowest most forward
position mid2
SID-2s
uppermost or
ISO manuf. design
mid + 20 mm lowest manuf. design
WorldSID 50 position or 23°
position.
SafetyWissen by
1
If there is any interference with the rear of the dummy head, move the HR to the most rearward position..
2
seat base tilt adjustment ⑥ has priority w.r.t. seat height adjustment ②
76
A dynamic approach
to product development
Your development –
in the best possible hands
ARRK|P+Z Engineering is a leading provider of engineering services for the product
development process. For nearly 50 years, you can count for smooth development of
your product, underpinned by our five areas of competence Design, CAE & Simulation,
Test & Validation, Electrics & Electronics and Project & Quality Management.
With 350 engineers in the CAE & Simulation area of competence, we are one of the
largest companies in Germany specializing in this field. In our target market of the
automotive industry we are involved in strategic and long-term projects for renowned
German premium manufacturers. In this regard, we cover all of the simulation methods
established in the automobile industry.
In the area of crash simulation 130 crash experts work in-house for our customers.
Our crash competences:

• Structural crash
• Occupant safety
• Pedestrian protection
• Test validation
• Passive safety concepts
• Robustness evaluation
• Materials expertize
• Optimization
Our competence ensures a smooth control of your development.

ARRK|P+Z Engineering is a member of the ARRK Global Network. Within the
engineering field it holds a fixed and leading position in this globally operating group.
Member of ARRK
MUNICH I INGOLSTADT I STUTTGART I COLOGNE I WOLFSBURG I AUGSBURG I HAMBURG I HEIMSHEIM I LAUPHEIM
P+Z Engineering GmbH l Frankfurter Ring 160 l 80807 Munich l info@puz.de l www.puz.de
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Side Impact Protection Criteria Compared

HIC15 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole1 WS 50
JNCAP MDB ES-2
C-NCAP MDB SID2s
IIHS MDB SID2s
1
Pole: no sliding scale but capping only for HIC > 700
HPC [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Please note that the values indicated in this graph may be rounded and that additional criteria may exist. Please take exact values and additional criteria from the tables for the respective regulation.
UN R95 MDB ES-2
HIC36 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
UN R135 Pole WS 50
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2/SID2s
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
Head a3ms [g] 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole2 WS 50
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
2
Pole: no sliding scale but capping only for ares, peak > 80 g
Chest Compression [mm] 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
UN R95 MDB ES-2
UN R135 Pole WS 50
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
IIHS MDB ES-2
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
JNCAP MDB ES-2
Shoulder Lateral Force [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UN R135 Pole WS 50
Chest VCmax [m/s] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
UN R95 MDB ES-2
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
IIHS MDB ES-2
Lower Spine a3ms [g] 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
UN R135 Pole WS 50
Abdomen Force [kN] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
UN R95 MDB ES-2
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
JNCAP MDB ES-2
Abdomen Compression [mm] 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
PSPF [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UN R95 MDB ES-2
UN R135 Pole WS 50
C-NCAP MDB ES-2
JNCAP MDB ES-2
Pelvis Force [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole SID2s
C-NCAP MDB SID2s
Legend: Regulations: requirements are met / NCAP: maximum score
Regulations: requirements not met / NCAP: zero score
Linear interpolation of the score between the upper and lower limit
78
Passive Safety
Side Impact - Requirements and Development Strategies
Course Description it is especially interesting for project managers and managers,

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

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

SAFETY
WISSEN
FMVSS 226 - Ejection Mitigation
Requirements:
At up to 4 impact test locations on each side window in the first 3 rows max. 100 mm
of seats the head excursion may not exceed 100 mm
Tests at two impact velocities: 16 km/h and 20 km/h
Head protection systems (e.g. curtain airbags) must be fired before
the impact: v=16 km/h / 20 km/h
at 20 km/h with a time delay of 1.5 s prior to the impact
at 16 km/h with a time delay of 6 s prior to the impact
Tests are done without glazing or with pre-damaged glazing
pre-damage: perforation in a 75 mm grid pattern
Valid for vehicles with GVWR ≤ 4536 kg
Phase-In: 2013 - 2017
m=18 kg
Locating Targets: SafetyWissen by
Front Row Window Rear Row Windows
Daylight Opening (DLO)

25 mm Offset
Primary- B3 B4
A4
en by
Target
A3
SafetyWiss
Secondary- A1 A2 B1 B2
Target
1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3
Steps Front Row Window Rear Row Windows SafetyWissen by

1 Set Primary Target A1 in lower front corner Set Primary Target B3 in upper front corner
2 Set Primary Target A4 in upper rear corner Set Primary Target B2 in lower rear corner
3 Divide horizontal distance between A1 and A4 in thirds Divide horizontal distance between B3 and B2 in thirds
4 Move A3 at the first third vertically upward Move B1 at the first third vertically downward
5 Move A2 at the second third vertically downward Move B4 at the second third vertically upward
6 Measure Distances Dx (horizontal) and Dz (vertical) of the target center points
If Dx (A2 - A3) < 135 mm and Dz (A2 - A3) < 170 mm  Elimi- If Dx (B1 - B4) < 135 mm and Dz (B1 - B4) < 170 mm  Elimi-
7
nate A3 nate B4
If Dx (A4 - A3) (or A2 if A3 was eliminated in step 7) < 135 mm If Dx (B3 - B4) (or B1 if B4 was eliminated in step 7) < 135 mm
8
and Dz (A4 - A3/2) < 170 mm  Eliminate A3/2 and Dz (B3 - B4/1) < 170 mm  Eliminate B4/1
If Dx (A4 - A2) (or A3 if A2 was eliminated in step 8) < 135 mm If Dx (B2 - B1) (or B4 if B1 was eliminated in step 8) < 135 mm
9
and Dz (A4 - A2/3) < 170 mm  Eliminate A2/3 and Dz (B2 - B1/4) < 170 mm  Eliminate B1/4
If Dx (A1 - A4) < 135 mm and Dz (A1 - A4) < 170 mm  Elimi- If Dx (B3 - B2) < 135 mm and Dz (B3 - B2) < 170 mm  Elimi-
10
nate A4 nate B3
11 If only 2 targets remain: Measure absolute distance D the center points of the targets
12 If D > 360 mm, set additional 3rd target on the center of the line connecting the targets
If less than 4 targets remain, repeat steps 1-12 with the impactor rotated by 90 degrees. If this results in a higher number of
13
targets use the rotated targets.
If no target is found rotate the impactor in 5 degree steps, until it is possible to fit the impactor in the DLO-offset. Then place
14
the center of the target as close to the geometric center of the DLO as possible.
80
Part of the Altran Group
Part of the Altran Group
We take care of vehicle safety

Engineering, Simulation, Testing and Safety Development Tools
out of a single hand to achieve your development goals faster
As a full-range provider for vehicle safety we speak exactly your langu-

age. This is what gives us the lead in many safety development projects
and makes our Microsys airbag test equipment the most popular system
on the market.
With local expertise and global support, Concept Tech, member of the
Altran Group, is your partner of choice for vehicle safety.
Passive Safety
Ejection Mitigation FMVSS 226:

Requirements - Testing - Development Strategies
In 2011, the U.S. legislation adopted - with the Federal Mo- The seminar is aimed at development, test and simulation
tor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 226 - a new safety rule, engineers who have to deal with the requirements of FMVSS
which aims at reducing the risk to be thrown out of the vehicle 226 and want to get a comprehensive overview on the topic.
during a car crash, especially in a rollover. The regulation calls
for appropriate safety measures to secure the side windows Course Contents
of cars so that passengers can’t lean out further than allowed. The requirements of FMVSS 226
To verify this, impactor tests are carried out on the side win- Performance requirements on the vehicle
dows of the standing vehicle. For these tests, a new specially Special requirements for non-standard vehicles
designed impactor has been developed. In these tests curtain Requirements for the test bench
airbags are usually employed as protective systems. For the Requirements regarding test preparation and execution
tests specific requirements on the duration of the inflation of Testing procedure
the airbag are introduced, since the impact of the impactor Vehicle preparation
Pre-damaging of laminated glass side windows
takes place up to 6 seconds after the ignition of the airbag.
Determination of impact points
Additional retaining effects can be achieved using laminated Measurement equipment
safety glass for the side windows. However, these must be Implementation and evaluation of the tests
pre-damaged before testing. Practical hints
Development strategies for the fulfillment of the
The seminar begins with the requirements of the new regula- regulation
tion. This includes demands on vehicle performance, as well as Design of appropriate airbags
requirements for the test rig (accuracy, stability, friction etc.) Benefits and effectiveness of safety glass windows
and rules for the preparation and execution of the test. In the Dealing with fixed side windows
Conflicts with other safety requirements
second part of the course, the testing procedure is described
in detail. This includes the preparation of the test vehicle, the
perforation of the side windows and the determination of the
impact points. The actual implementation of the test, and the
evaluation and documentation of results are also discussed.
A description of the measurement equipment and practical
hints on the experimental procedure complete this section.
The last part of the seminar focuses on development strat-
egies to meet the legal requirements. Here it is shown with
which basic measures the performance can be improved with
regard to the requirements of FMVSS 226. Finally conflicts
with other safety requirements are identified and discussed.
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Valentin Zimmermann, Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH
Since 2009 Valentin Zimmermann has worked at Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH in Munich in the area of vehicle safety testing services.
A main focus of his work as Lead Engineer in vehicle safety development is on testing for FMVSS 226.

SAFETY
WISSEN
Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors
UN R21
Test Procedure
A pendulum equipped with a spherical impactor (165 mm) hits the interior parts in front of the driver and passenger
(side, pedal and steering wheel excluded) with a velocity of 24.1 km/h.
Protection Criteria
a3ms < 80 g; no failure of structure and sharp edges in impact zone
Pendulum test is not necessary, if it can be shown that there is no contact between head and the instru-
ment panel in case of a frontal impact.
This can be done by crash tests, sled tests and/or numerical occupant simulation.
(See app. 8 of UN R21)
FMVSS 201U
Test Procedure
A Free Motion Headform (FMH) impactor hits the upper interior parts with a velocity of 24 km/h (A-, B-, C-pillar, roof
etc.).
FMH Impactor Data
Mass of FMH impactor: 4.54 kg
Head form according to SAE J 921 and J 977 including triaxial acceleration sensor.
Protection Criteria
HIC Calculation HIC = supt1,t2 t2-t1 < 36 ms; a [g]; t [s]
HIC value for FMH HIC(d) = 0.75446 HIC + 166.4

HIC(d) must not exceed 1000.
24 points defined for impact according Test Procedure TP-201 (each side, left and right)
other pillars: OP 1, OP 2
upper roof: UR
sliding door track: SD RH
roll bar: RB 1, RB 2
RP 1
stiffener / brace: ST 1, ST 2, BT
SR 3
RP 2
SafetyWissen by BP 1
SR 2
FH 2 SR 1
FH 1 BP 2
AP 1
BP 3
AP 2
BP 4
AP 3
83
Passive Safety
Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 and UN R21

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

requirements in the overall-context of vehicle development is
described in this seminar.
In a workshop exemplary head impact locations in a vehicle

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

www.bia.fr
AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY TESTING
Universal Impact Simulation  Seat Belt Anchorage  Head & Seat Back Restraint  Roof
Crush & Door Intrusion  Instrumented Crash Wall  Acceleration-Deceleration Sled  Sled
Crash Facility  Laser-Measurement Device  Bumper Pendulum AUTOMOTIVE
SAFETY
TESTING
VEHICLE
DYNAMICS
TESTING
ENGINE
POWERTRAIN
TESTING
BHIA250-VC Launcher for FMH and Guided BIA Universal Impact Simulation Test System
Head Impacts
COMPONENTS
FOR
TEST SYSTEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL
TEST
CHAMBERS
Seat Belt Anchorage Test System BIA Universal Impact Simulation Test System
FMVSS 226 Ejection Mitigation
Beyond Expectations
Your global partner who will optimize your automotive testing investment.
Automotive Safety Testing  Engine & Powertrain Testing  Vehicle Dynamics Testing
 Components for Test Systems  Environmental Test Chambers
BIA FRANCE BIA GERMANY BIA ITALY BIA RUSSIA BIA NORTH AMERICA
ZA Les Boutries Hansaring 22 Viale Monza, 291 Technopark "Zhiguly Valley" 100 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 200
8 rue de l'Hautil D-63843 Niedernberg 20126 Milano 161-B, Yuzhnoe Shosse Troy, MI 48084
FR-78700 Conflans Ste Honorine Germany Italy 445043 Togliatti, Samara Region USA
France Tel. +49 6028 9930-0 Tel. +39 0293970198 Russian Federation Tel. +1 248 524 0320
Tel. + 33 1 3490 2222 Fax +49 6028 9930 30 Fax +39 3357121724 Tel.+7 (8482) 27 07 02 info@bia-na.com
contact@bia.fr info@biadeutschland.de f.masera@bia.fr info@bia.ru.com
EU 78/2009 Japan
Euro NCAP JNCAP KNCAP GTR
Test method Parameter 631/2009 UN R127.1 Article 18
Nr. 9
Test Procedures and Protection Criteria for Pedestrian Protection
Phase 2 max. score zero score max. score zero score max. score zero score Attachment 99
Velocity 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h
EEVC lower legform Impact angle 0° 0° 0°
Acceleration 170 g (250 g) 170 g (250 g) 170 g (250 g)
impactor to bumper
Bending 19° 19° 19°
Shearing 6 mm 6 mm 6 mm
Velocity 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 (44)5) km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h
Impact angle 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0°
Flex PLI to bumper Tibia Bending 340 Nm (380 Nm) 282 Nm 340 Nm 224 Nm 380 Nm 282 Nm 340 Nm 340 Nm(380 Nm) 340 Nm (2
MCL Elongation 22 mm 19 mm 22 mm 16,4 mm 22 mm 19 mm 22 mm 22 mm 22 mm (2
ACL/PCL Elong. 13 mm 10 mm 10 mm 0 mm 13 mm 10 mm 10 mm 13 mm 13 mm (2
Velocity 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h 40 km/h
upper legform impactor Impact angle 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0°
to bumper Sum force 7,5 kN 7,5 kN 5 kN 6 kN 5 kN 7,5 kN 7,5 kN 7,5 kN
Bending 510 Nm 510 Nm 285 Nm 350 Nm 300 Nm 510 Nm 510 Nm 510 Nm
Velocity 20 - 40 km/h 20 - 33 km/h
upper legform impactor Impact angle 10° - 47° 90° zu IBRL - WAD 930
to bonnet leading edge Sum force 5 kN (1 5 kN 6 kN
Bending 300 Nm (1 285 Nm 350 Nm
Velocity
Impact angle
small adult headform
Diameter
impactor to bonnet Mass
HPC
Velocity 40 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h
Impact angle 65° (AH) / 50° (CH) 40° / 40° / 45° (AH + CH) 65° (AH) / 50° (CH)
adult headform impactor,
WAD (mm) 1500-2100 (AH) / 1000-1500 (CH) 1700-2100 (AH) / 1000-1700 (CH) 1700-2100 (AH) / 1000-1700 (CH)
child headform impactor 165 mm 165 mm (AH + CH) 165 mm
Diameter
to windscreen 4.5 kg (AH) / 3.5 kg (CH) 4.5 kg (AH) / 3.5 kg (CH) 4.5 kg (AH) / 3.5 kg (CH)
Mass
HPC 650 1700 650 2000 650 1700
Velocity 35 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 35 km/h 35 km/h
Impact angle 65° 65° 65° 65° / 90° / 50° 65° 65° 65°
WAD (mm) 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100 1700 - 2100
adult headform impactor
Diameter 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm
to bonnet 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg 4.5 kg
Mass
1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3
HPC 1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3
650 1700 650 2000 650 1700
1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3
Velocity 35 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 35 km/h 40 km/h 35 km/h 35 km/h
Impact angle 50° 50° 50° 65° / 60° / 25° 50° 50° 50°
WAD (mm) 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1350 / 1350 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700
Diameter 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm 165 mm
child headform impactor Mass 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg 3.5 kg
to bonnet 1000 (1/2) (4 1000 (1/2) (4 1000 (1/2) (4 1000 (1/2) (4
UPDATE
1700 (1/2) (4 1700 (1/2) (4 1700 (1/2) (4 1700 (1/2) (4

HPC or (only for (4) or (only for (4) 650 1700 650 2000 650 1700 or (only for (4) or (only for (4)
1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3 1000 (2/3) (3
1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3 1700 (1/3) (3
BAS AEB VRU  page 122 AEB Pedestrian as of 2016 AEB Pedestrian as of 2017
active interventions alternative: Collision
Avoidance System
1
Monitoring only
2
injury criteria proposed by GRSP Flex-TEG
WISSEN
SAFETY
3
entire bonnet SafetyWissen by
4
child headform area
86
5
test velocity will be increased when leg impact is introduced in legal test (J-MLIT) Table based on O. Zander, BASt
THE ROAD
IS THERE
FOR EVERYONE!
From virtual analysis to validation in our test centre:

we are making the roads that little bit safer for pedestrians.
AGEMEN
MAN T
Single-source pedestrian protection function
development: one partner for the customer
Cars arouse emotions in us. For all sorts of reasons.

SI M U
Sometimes it‘s the colour, sometimes the shape,
NG
LA
TI
TI
sometimes performance, and sometimes safety. N
O
ES
T
From our experience as the world‘s leading indepen-

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

of pedestrian protection see:
fgs.edag.de
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Pedestrian Protection Test Procedures Where the bonnet leading edge reference Points to be tested that lie between WAD
in Euro NCAP line (BLERL) is located between WAD 930 1500 und 1700 are tested with child-/small
mm and WAD 1000 mm, an additional test adult headform impactor, if the points are on
with the child headform will be performed the moveable/hinged bonnet top. Otherwise
on the BLERL at a speed of 40 km/h under the adult headform is used.
Protocol Version 8.1
20°. Adult Headform Impactor
TB 19 V 1.0 4.5 kg
Child-/small Adult Headform Impactor
3.5 kg
40 k
m/h
Upper Legform 2100 mm
65°
Impactor
40
Legform Impactor
km
1700 mm
/h
Flex PLI 50° 1500 mm
1000 mm
930 mm
775 mm
40 km/h
IBRL
Bumper
Beam
Upper Legform
Impactor for SUV
75 mm
SafetyWissen by
Pedestrian Protection Test Procedures according to

UN R127.01 Adult Headform Impactor
4.5 kg
Child Headform Impactor
3.5 kg
35 k
m/h
65° 82.5 mm forward of bonnet

rear ref. line/
35
max. 2100 mm
km
1700 mm / max. 82.5 mm

/h
Legform Impactor 50° forward of bonnet rear

Flex PLI 1000 mm / min. 82.5 mm ref. line
rearward of Bonnet
Leading Edge
Upper Legform
Impactor for SUV
75 mm
SafetyWissen by
88
SAFETY Assessment Protocol Version 8.1
WISSEN
Testing Protocol Version 8.1
Euro NCAP - Pedestrian Protection:

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

1000
the actual HIC is 10 % above or below the margins of the pre-
dicted score, the predicted score is applied. At the verification
points the actual test result is divided by the manufacturer‘s
prediction. This so called correction factor is applied to all the
grid points to obtain the final score:
Actual tested score WAD
= Correction Factor 1500
Predicted score
Per Grid-Point 0 - 1 points are available according to the fol- WAD
1700
lowing scheme:
HIC15 < 650 1.00 Point

650 ≤ HIC15 < 1000 0.75 Points
WAD SafetyWissen by
1000 ≤ HIC15 < 1350 0.50 Points 2100
1350 ≤ HIC15 < 1700 0.25 Points

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

Phase 2 of the EU regulation on pedestrian safety was intro- The seminar is intended for development, project or simula-
duced, Japan recognizes the UN Regulation 127 and Euro tion engineers working in the field of vehicle safety, dealing
NCAP annually adjusts details in its pedestrian rating protocols. with the design of motor vehicles with regard to pedestrian
Currently, the greatest challenge regarding pedestrian protec- protection.
tion in the vehicle development process is to generate a face-
lift of successor model based on a car that had received a 5 Course Contents
star Euro NCAP rating prior to 2010, that will be type approved Introduction with an overview of current requirements
according to phase 2 of the European regulation and also regarding pedestrian protection
continue to receive a 5 star rating according to Euro NCAP’s Legal requirements (EU, UN Regulations, Japan, GTR)
latest protocols. Stricter injury criteria, modified testing areas Consumer tests (Euro NCAP, JNCAP, KNCAP)
and the testing of vehicles that were previously not tested Presentation and discussion of the design and application
because of their weight, require the thorough knowledge of of the impactors
the requirements and a strict implementation of the require- Leg Impactors (Flex PLI, EEVC, Upper Legform)
ments in the development process. Head Impactors (Child head, Adult head)
In the introduction the seminar informs you about the dif- Methods in numerical simulation, testing and system
ferent impactors that are used for pedestrian safety testing. development
Thereafter the various requirements (regulations and con- Requirements on the design of vehicle front ends for
sumer tests) are explained and compared. pedestrian protection
The focus of the seminar is on the development strategy: Solutions to fulfill the requirements
Which decisions have to be taken in which development Passive solutions
Active solutions (active bonnets, airbags)
phase? What are the tasks and priorities of the person in
charge of pedestrian protection? As a background, ideas and Development strategy
Interaction between simulation and testing
approaches towards the design of a vehicle front end in or- Integration in the vehicle development process
der to meet the pedestrian protection requirements are dis-
cussed. In addition to that, the seminar explains how the func-
tion of active bonnets can be proven by means of numerical
simulation. This includes both, the pedestrian detection that
need to be proven with various impactors or human models,
as well as the proof that the bonnet is fully deployed at the
time of impact.
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Maren Finck, carhs.training gmbh
Maren Finck is a Project Manager at carhs.training gmbh. From 2008 - 2015 she worked at EDAG as a project manager responsible for
passive vehicle safety regarding pedestrian safety. Previously, she worked several years at carhs GmbH and TECOSIM as an analysis en-
gineer with a focus on pedestrian safety and biomechanics.

SAFETY
WISSEN
Rear Impact: Euro NCAP Rear Whiplash Assessment

Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3
① ΔIP X ①Effective Height Heff requirements for the headrest:
in highest position ≥ 770 mm
and
in worst case position ≥ 720 mm
IP
Calculation of Heff:
eff
Heff= ΔIP X · sin (Torso-Angle) + ΔIP Z · cos (Torso-Angle)

H
ΔIP Z
IP: Intersection Point
Determination of IP X and IP Z:
IP X = 88.5 · sin (Torso-Angle - 2.6) + 5 + CP X
H-Point IP Z = uppermost intersection of the headrest contour in the
seat centerline with a vertical line through IP X
② Backset ΔCP X requirements for the headrest

in mid position
and
in worst case position:
ΔCP X
ΔCP X ≤ 7.128 · Torso-Angle + 153
② CP CP: Contact Point
203 mm
③ Requirements for the non-use position of the headrest:

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

250 mm≤ HLE ≤ 460 mm
with HLE = ΔX · sin (Torso-Angle) + ΔZ · cos (Torso-Angle)
4) Thickness of the lower edge of the headrest S ≥ 40 mm
Score if the requirements (see above) are met:

H-Point The outboard seating positions of rear seating rows are assessed.
Any centre seating position needs to comply with the requirements
of UN R17-08.
③ Parameter Points per seat
S ① Heff 1.5
② ΔCP Xmid 1*
LE
H
② ΔCP Xworstcase 0.5*

H-Point
③ Non-Use 1*
Summe max. 4
Scaling 1/4n (n=number of seats)
* only if Heff requirements are met
93
SAFETY
WISSEN
Euro NCAP Whiplash Seat Test Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3

Seat Performance Criteria
Whiplash Test Low Severity Pulse Medium Severity Pulse High Severity Pulse
Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower
Capping Capping Capping
SafetyWissen by perfor- perfor- perfor- perfor- perfor- perfor-
Limit Limit Limit
mance mance mance mance mance mance
NIC 9.00 15.00 18.30 11.00 24.00 27.00 13.00 23.00 25.50
Nkm 0.12 0.35 0.50 0.15 0.55 0.69 0.22 0.47 0.78
Rebound velocity (m/s) 3.0 4.4 4.7 3.2 4.8 5.2 4.1 5.5 6.0
Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 110 187 30 190 290 30 210 364
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 270 610 734 360 750 900 470 770 1024
T1 acceleration* (g) 9.40 12.00 14.10 9.30 13.10 15.55 12.50 15.90 17.80
T-HRC (ms) 61 83 95 57 82 92 53 80 92
* up to T-HRC (=Time to Head Restraint Contact)
If the Higher Performance Limit is reached, 0.5 Points are awarded per criterion. A sliding scale is used between Higher and Lower
Performance Limit (0.5 .... 0 Points). Only the maximum score from either T1 acceleration or head restraint contact time (T-HRC)
is used in the assessment. If the capping limit is exceeded by one criterion, the entire test is rated with zero points.
Geometry assessment  Worst Case Geometry
Backset - Distance bewteen Head
and Headrest (cm)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1/n points (where n = the number of front seats) will be
100 %
2
1 available for each front seat scoring more than 0 points in
0 mm 0
-1 the worst case (= lowest and rearmost position) geometry
-2
-3 assessment.
-4
-5
-6
-7 Seat Stability Modifier
80 mm 0 % -8
40 mm 100 mm
-9 The high severity pulse is subject to an additional seatback
Distance between the deflection assessment where a 3 point penalty is applied to
top of the head and the
Modifier top of the headrest (cm) seats with a rotation of 32° or greater
100 % + 1 pt
50 % 0 pt
0 % - 1pt
Dummy Artefact Modifier
A two point negative modifier is applied as a means of penal-
ising any seat that, by design, places unfavourable loading on
SafetyWissen by other body areas or exploits a dummy artefact.
The assessment is based on the worst performing parameter from either the height or backset.
Overall Rating
For the overall rating ( page 40) the total of max. 11 points (3 per pulse + 1 Geometry + 1 Worst Case Geometry) is scaled
by the factor 2/11 and is part of the Adult Occupant Protection rating.
Static Geometry Assessment by IIWPG / IIHS

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

of the HRMD and the top of the Learn more about IIHS‘s static
head restraint (cm)
and dynamic assessment
 45
SafetyWissen by
94
LED-lights by BBS Licht
BOOSTNOVA
www.bbs-licht.de
Passive Safety
Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts
Course Description using a generic acceleration pulse. It turns out to be problem-

In real-world accidents, distortions of the cervical spine or atic, however, that presently there is no traumato-mechanical
so-called whiplash injuries following a rear impact are among explanation of the phenomenon “whiplash injury” and that all
the most expensive injuries for the insurance industry. About the currently discussed dummy-criteria with the respective
75 % of all injury costs of the insurers are caused by whiplash limit values follow a so-called “black-box approach”. Experts
injuries in highly-motorized countries. About 80 % of all inju- try to correlate the measured dummy criteria with the find-
ries in a rear impact are whiplash-injuries. This is why this type ings from accident data and to thus derive limit values. In this
of injury – even though it is neither very serious nor lethal – context the available dummy-technology with the different
has reached a high priority in the endeavors to develop test measuring devices and criteria, as well as the proposed limit
procedures and assessment criteria which help in designing values are going to be presented.
constructive measures in the car in order to avoid this type In the last part of the seminar different seat design concepts
of injury. (energy-absorbing, respectively geometry-improving), sub-
As an introduction, this seminar refers to the different acci- divided into active and passive systems will be introduced, and
dent data for whiplash injuries, which offer many realizations their advantages and disadvantages will be discussed.
but no consistent pattern with regard to the biomechanical Who should attend?
injury mechanisms. However, some organizations – mainly The seminar addresses development engineers who are new
from the field of consumer information and insurance insti- in the field of rear impacts or who have already got some ex-
tutes – are working on the development of test procedures perience in the field of safety, as well as developers of sub-
and assessment criteria. The most active ones are Thatcham assemblies which have to fulfill a crash-relevant function. It is
(UK) and IIHS (USA) which are united in the group IIWPG (In- furthermore especially interesting for project managers and
ternational Insurance Whiplash Prevention Group), SNRA and managers who deal with the topic of rear-end impacts and
Folksam (Sweden) and the German ADAC. who would like to obtain a better knowledge of this subject in
In 2008 Euro NCAP has introduced a whiplash test procedure order to use it for an improvement of procedures.
as part of its rating system. In 2014 an additional assessment
for the rear seats was added. The Euro NCAP assessment will Course Contents
be explained in detail in the seminar. Furthermore, the EEVC Introduction into the characteristics of a rear-end impact
Overview of the most important whiplash requirements
working group 20 is active as a consulting authority concerning
Injury criteria
whiplash injuries for the legislation in Europe.
Dummy-technology for rear impacts
The new Global Technical Regulation No. 7 (Head Restraints) is
Presentation of the Euro NCAP and FMVSS 202-dynamic
unsatisfactory from the European point of view. Therefore the
United Nations work on a second phase of this regulation. The test procedures
Outlook on possible harmonization-tendencies
focus of this work is on improving the BioRID dummy and on
Explanation of the possible design measures in car seats
the definition of so called Seat Performance Criteria.
All discussions about the assessment of whiplash injuries
within the framework of consumer information have in com-
mon, that the protection effect in a rear-end impact needs to
be examined in an isolated vehicle seat by means of a sled test
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Frank, LEAR Corporation GmbH
Thomas Frank joined the passive safety department of Lear Corporation in 2002 after graduating from the Technical University of Berlin
in physical engineering sciences. At Lear Thomas Frank initially worked as a test engineer in crash testing, later he developed head rests.
Today he is expert for low speed rear impact safety. In his position he guides the seat development with respect to meet whiplash protec-
tion requirements in regulations and consumer tests.

SAFETY
WISSEN
Child Occupant Protection Assessment in Latin NCAP Protocol Version 3.0

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

forward head excursion relative to Cr point mm ≤ 549 ≥ 550 ≤ 549 ≥ 550
Rearward Facing CRS
no compressive load on top of head, head
head exposure points 4 0 4 0
fully restrained within CRS
points 2 0 2 0
neck tension upper Neck F z kN ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62 ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62
points 2 0 2 0
Please note: A new COP protocol
max. 49 points
chest acceleration ares 3ms g ≤ 41 ≥ 55 ≤ 50 ≥ 66

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

CRS recommended by the manufacturer 12 points CRS installation points 2
Vehicle Based Assessment 13 points Vehicle Assessment
3-point belts meeting UN or FMVSS standards on all seats points 5

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

+ these 2 passenger seats meet i-Size requirements points +1
2 seating positions comply with requirements for largest
points 2
size of rearward facing ISOFIX seats
no passenger airbag points 2
passenger airbag warning and disabling points max. 5
1 integrated CRS points 1
1 integrated “Group I-III” CRS points 1
Child Occupant Protection Assessment in ASEAN NCAP Protocol Version 2.1

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

max. 24 points
forward head excursion relative to Cr point mm ≤ 549 ≥ 550 ≤ 549 ≥ 550

Rearward Facing CRS
max. 49 points
no compressive load on top of head, head

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

Vehicle Based Assessment
more about Latin NCAP  page 51 & ASEAN NCAP  page 52 97

SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
Child Occupant Protection Assessment in Euro NCAP

Protocol Version 7.0.1
Dynamic assessments SafetyWissen by
Testing:
Q6: The Q6 dummy shall be seated in an appropriate CRS for a six year old child or a child with a stature of 125 cm. This will be either the CRS recommended by
the vehicle manufacturer, or if there is no recommendation, a suitable CRS from the top pick list.
Q10: The Q10 dummy shall be seated on a booster cushion only. This will be the booster cushion recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. Where the vehicle
manufacturer recommends a high back booster with detachable backrest it will be used without backrest. If there is no recommendation for a booster cushion,
one will be chosen by Euro NCAP from a list of suitable options contained in the Technical Bulletin TB012.
Preconditions: Where any of the following events occur zero points will be awarded to the dummy.
Frontal impact: During the forwards movement of the dummy only, the diagonal belt slips off the shoulder
Frontal impact: The pelvis of the dummy submarines beneath the lap section of the belt or the lap section prevents the dummy from moving upwards during
rebound and is no longer restraining the pelvis.
Frontal and side impacts: The dummy pelvis does not remain in the booster seat /cushion and is not correctly restrained by the lap section of the seatbelt.
Frontal and side impacts: CRS does not remain within the same seating position or is no longer correctly restrained by the adult belt.
Frontal and side impacts: There is any breakage or fracturing of load-bearing parts of the belt system including buckles, webbing and anchorage points.
Frontal and side impacts: There is any breakage or fracturing of any seat belt lock-offs, tethers, straps, ISOFIX anchorages or any other attachments which are
specifically used to anchor the CRS to the vehicle fail.
Frontal impact (ODB)
4 HIC151 ≤ 500, a3ms ≤ 87 g
0 HIC151 ≥ 700, a3ms ≥ 100 g
Head
- 2 (Modifier2) Head forward excursion > 450 mm
Q6 / - 4 (Modifier) Head forward excursion > 550 mm
Q10 2 Upper Neck Fz ≤ 1.7 kN
Neck
0 Upper Neck Fz ≥ 2.62 kN
max. 24 points
2 a3ms ≤ 41 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 55 g
max. 49 points
Side impact (MDB)

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

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

3 independent seats with i-Size and TopTether marking points 1
2 or more seating positions are suitable for fully independent use with the largest
points 1
size of rearward facing (Class C) ISOFIX CRS, Fixture (CRF) ISO/R3,
passenger airbag warning marking and manual / automatix disabling points 2/4
integrated CRS points 1 (1 CRS) / 3 (2 or more CRS)
1
HIC15 is only applied if there is hard head contact, otherwise the score is based on a3ms only
98
2
Q10 only
NEW
SAFETY
TECHNOLOGY
SecureGuard
The extra 4th point helps to reduce abdominal
forces in the event of a frontal collision by up to
35 %*
* Britax internal tests with a Q6 dummy, representing an average 6 year old child
Passive Safety
Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes

Course Description crash sensors and which could be implemented in the future,
In addition to the design of car structures for the protection are discussed.
of its occupants at high impact velocities, requirements and
test procedures for collisions at low speeds, which massively Who should attend?
influence the design of the vehicle front, were brought to the The seminar is aimed at specialists from passenger car and
fore in recent years. light commercial vehicle development, engineers and techni-
For the initial insurance classification of passenger cars clas- cians from simulation and testing, project engineers and man-
sification tests of RCAR / AZT (impact speed up to 15 km / h) agers who want to get an overview of the requirements and
are used to determin standardized repair costs. To meet the technological solutions for the development of passive and in-
insurance classification tests, many vehicles are equipped with tegrated safety systems for passenger cars in low-speed crash.
cross member systems that feature energy absorbing ele-
ments (crash boxes), that can be connected via a detachable
connection to the longitudinal members in the vehicle front. Course Contents
Additional partly conflicting requirements are added through Requirements and test procedures for low-speed crash
Introduction to the requirements for low-speed crash tests
the EC Regulation 78/2009/EC and the NCAP tests for pe-
Legal tests
destrian protection. Compliance with the directive in the leg Consumer protection tests
impact area is usually achieved by energy absorption in con- Other requirements
junction with a targeted support of the impacting leg in the Energy management and structural forces in the vehicle
immediate front area of the vehicle. front
In connection with the design of vehicles for the different re- Load paths and structure loading
quirements, numerous conflicts occur, which often can only Connections to high-speed test
be solved at the expense of a non-optimum front end package Workshop for analyzing crash data and the impact of structural
or increased weight and manufacturing costs. design changes
Changes of structural design
Additional requirements regarding the design of the vehicle
Influence of crash sensing and restraint systems
front result from legislation for vehicle protection (UN R42,
Design of passive systems
...) and internal testing procedures of the manufacturer for Conceptual solution approaches
ensuring management of everyday damages for his vehicles. Effective use of CAE methods in system design
Conflicts of objectives
Technological feasibility and limits
Course Objectives
In this seminar, you first get an overview on the requirements Discussion of integral safety systems
Simulation of driving maneuvers and time – distance
and regulations which have an impact on the design of cars considerations
for the various low-speed crash constellations. This is followed Potential of integrated solutions
by a presentation of current energy management in the front Technological feasibility and limits
body structure and an introduction of technical solutions.
Based on the state of the art approaches of integral safety are
discussed. Using interactive visualization of driving maneu-
vers, possibilities and limits of safety concepts, using e.g. pre-
Course Instructor:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bachem, Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences
Professor Harald Bachem has been in charge of teaching and research in vehicle safety at the Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences since
2011. Prior to joining the university he held various management positions in industry where he was in charge of development and test-
ing of vehicle safety functions. His last management position was head of cab body development at MAN Truck & Bus AG.

SAFETY
WISSEN
RCAR Insurance Tests

Lowspeed Structural Crash Tests
Front
Vehicle width (front)
40% Overlap
R = 150 mm 15 km/h
75Kg
SafetyWissen by
10°
Rear
R = 150 mm
R=50mm
Vehicle Width Mobile Barrier
15 km/h
15 km/h
40%
10°
Mobile Barrier
Barrier height Ground clearance
(700mm+/-10 mm) (200 mm +/- 10 mm)
Bumper Test
15%
5 km/h 5 km/h
SafetyWissen by
10 km/h 10 km/h
75Kg
Vehicle Width at Front Axle
Barrier ground clearance measured from the track surface to the lower surface of the bumper barrier:
Test Ground Clearance Remarks
Front 100% 455±3 mm
Rear 100 % 405±3 mm or 455±3mm EU and Asia (AZT...) 405 mm, USA (IIHS) 455 mm
Front / Rear 15% 405±3 mm or 455±3mm Asia (IAG...) and USA (IIHS) 405 mm
101
Dummy & Crash Test
Introduction to Data Acquisition in Safety Testing

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

This introductory course aims at new test engineers and proj-
ect engineers as well as engineers from simulation depart-
ments at automotive OEMs, suppliers and engineering service
providers.
Course Instructor:
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Wild, Continental Safety Engineering International GmbH
Thomas Wild studied Electrical and Tele-Communications Engineering at the Technical University Darmstadt. Since 1996 he has been
employed at Continental Safety Engineering International as a measurement engineer. 1998 - 2001, he assumed additional responsibili-
ties as an application engineer in the algorithm development. Since 2003 he is team leader measurement and video technology. Since
1997 he works in the working group Data Processing in Vehicle Safety (MDVFS).

compact and ruggedized
Frontal Impact Side Impact Rear Impact Child
HIII HIII HIII THOR World HIII BioRID P Q
Dummies 50% 5% 95% 50%
ES-2 ES-2re SID-IIs
SID 50% II
Crabi Cami HIII
Series Series
UN R94 ●
UN R95 ●
UN R44 ● ○
Europe
UN R129 ●
UN R135 ●
UN R137 ● ●
Euro NCAP ● ● (●) ● ● ● ●
FMVSS 208 ● ● ● ●
FMVSS 214 ● ● ○
FMVSS 213 ● ● ● ● ○
America
FMVSS 202a ●
FMVSS xxx (OMDB) ○
U.S. NCAP ● ● ● ● ○
IIHS ● ● ●
Latin NCAP ● ● ●
Current Dummy Landscape
Japan Regulations ● ●
JNCAP ● ● ● ●
China Regulations ● ●
Asia
China NCAP ● ● ● ● ○ ● ● ○
Korean NCAP ● ● ● ● ● ●
ASEAN NCAP ● ● ● ●
UPDATE
ADR (Frontal, Side) ● ● ●

AUS
Australian NCAP ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
GTR 7 ● ●
GTR
WISSEN
SAFETY
GTR 14 (Pole Side) ●
104
SafetyWissen by
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ○ = planned, no date specified
Testing Services
Full‐scale Crash Facility
Road Guidance System testing
Measuring Bridge
Sled Test Facility
www.dsd.at
Structure Deformation
Engineering
UFO – Ultra Flat Overrun able Robot
ASIS – Advanced Side Impact System
DynAS– Dynamic Application for Structure Deformation
MCB – Moveable Crash Block
p a s s i o n f o r c r a s h
www.asc-sensors.de
We are in touch
with your challenges!
quick responses technical advice customized solutions short delivery times
Capacitive accelerometers
Piezoresistive accelerometers
Gyros
Inertial Measurement Units ACTIVE DRIVING SAFETY
PASSIVE DRIVING SAFETY
ASC GmbH · Advanced Sensors Calibration Pfaffenhofen · Germany · Tel. +49 (0) 84 41 / 78 65 47-0 · office@asc-sensors.de
SAFETY
WISSEN
NEW
THOR 50% Male: Injury Criteria and Risk Functions
APPENDIX G. G.
APPENDIX
IX G.
Region Criterion
Table 8. Summary Calculation
of injury criteria and associated injury risk
Table 8. Summary
Table 8. Summaryof injury
of injury Risk
criteria andFunction
criteria
functions used to assess injury risk using THOR
associated
and injury
associated
test results.
riskrisk
injury functions used
functions to assess
used injur
to assess in
Criterion Criterion [ref] [ref] Calculation Calculation Vars Vars Variable Variable Definition
Definition
Calculation Vars Variable Definition Risk Function
15 15APPENDIX G. Beginning of timetime window in 𝑠𝑠in 𝑠𝑠
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 2.5 2.5 𝑡𝑡1 𝑡𝑡1
𝑡𝑡2 𝑡𝑡2 Beginning ln⁡(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶of window
IX G.
IX G. 𝑡𝑡2 2.5 𝑡𝑡1 Beginning of time
APPENDIX G. window in 𝑠𝑠 1 1 15 ) − 7.45231
𝐶𝐶15 = |(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [Table Table

1 8. Summary
∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 HIC of15
] of | injury (-) criteria and
injury criteria 𝑡𝑡2Criterion associated End
[ref]
APPENDIX
of time
injury 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
risk 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
window
= 15 =G.
15functions |(𝑡𝑡2|(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡1used
in 𝑠𝑠2 − Table (𝑡𝑡2to
Calculation
Table
) 𝑡𝑡[1 ) [to assess
−8.
(𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡−
8.
) 𝑡𝑡1 ) ∫
1Summary
Summary
∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 injury 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
injuryofrisk
of
] ]| using
injury
injury
|
criteria
THOR
criteria and
and
test
𝑡𝑡
Vars
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
2 𝑡𝑡2
associated
results.
associated
results. injury
≥ 3) End = Φof
injury [ time
End of time window in 𝑠𝑠
risk
risk window functions in 𝑠𝑠
0.73998 used to assess injury
functions Variable
used] to assess
Definition
inju
(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡8.
Calculation 1)
Summary and
Vars
associated injury risk functions
Variable
used 2assess
Definition
Table 𝑡𝑡1 8.
risk
𝑡𝑡1 Summary of injury criteria
using THOR test
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
and associated Head Head
Risk
CG CG
Function
injury resultant riskacceleration
resultant acceleration
functions in Beginning
used in to Beginning
assess of it
Calculation 1 𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
Criterion
Vars 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 [ref] Head CG resultant acceleration Calculation
Variable in Beginning
Definition 𝑡𝑡2
of time 2.5window
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 in 𝑔𝑔 Vars 𝑡𝑡1 Risk Function
Beginning of time window Variable in Definition
𝑠𝑠
IX G. 𝑡𝑡2 2.5 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡1 Criterion 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
15 [ref]
Beginning
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵Beginning 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 of time window in 𝑠𝑠 Calculation
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 1 𝑡𝑡2 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Vars
𝜔𝜔𝑡𝑡 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] AngularAngular ln⁡ (𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
velocity velocity 15 ) )of−the 7.45231
of head
the headVariable
about about the Definition
local
the local [x, [y
2.5 𝑡𝑡 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 of time window in 𝑠𝑠 2.5 𝑡𝑡 Beginning
≥ 3) End = Φof ln⁡ of (
[ time window 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
time window − 7.45231 in 𝑠𝑠
Angular
injuryvelocity of |(𝑡𝑡 the2 head − 𝑡𝑡1 )about [ to the local [x, y, or z]| 2.5
axis, in 1 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ) inwindow𝑠𝑠 ]
𝑡𝑡2 2.84
Table 1
1 8. Summary of injury criteria 𝜔𝜔 and 1
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑡𝑡 associated
15
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶End 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15
risk
15 of time window in 𝑠𝑠
=
functions 2 used 1 2(− assess ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
) 2 injury 𝑡𝑡22 ]risk using 2 THOR test 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
2results. ≥ 3)𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
𝑡𝑡1 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 =𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, [=filtered
ΦBeginning filtered
− 𝑒𝑒0.73998
15
at
−(
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
of0.987 CFC60
time
at CFC60 ] in 𝑠𝑠
𝐶𝐶 = |(𝑡𝑡2 −2 𝑡𝑡1 )) [ ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑] | (𝑡𝑡 |𝜔𝜔(𝑡𝑡∫ End≥ of3)time 1window
2
APPENDIX𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
End filtered
of𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
time max⁡
window (|(𝑡𝑡
at |𝜔𝜔CFC60 |)in𝑥𝑥𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠|) max⁡ 1|)𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ]max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔(𝑧𝑧|𝜔𝜔 |) 𝑧𝑧 |) 2 0.73998 inacceleration
√(G.
𝑡𝑡22 =max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 1 )+[ (
max⁡ 𝑦𝑦1 |𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦1|) |max⁡ 𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) Head CG resultant 𝑠𝑠 in Beginning of
𝑥𝑥 |) Head
𝐶𝐶15
15 = (|𝜔𝜔|(𝑡𝑡 2 − 𝑡𝑡1Calculation[max⁡
(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡 ) ∫ 2𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] (||𝜔𝜔 |) 2 Vars 2𝑥𝑥 −) Variable
max⁡ (𝑡𝑡2 − (|𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡11𝑦𝑦)|) max⁡ Head =CG √=( 15
resultant
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 15acceleration
= |(𝑡𝑡 )2 (𝑡𝑡 −+ 2𝑡𝑡1 (in
− ) Definition
1)
𝑡𝑡[Beginning ) +)∫of (+ time( window
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚|) ) in 𝑔𝑔 𝜔𝜔2[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑡𝑡2 Risk
Critical EndFunction
Critical angular timevelocities
ofangular window
velocities inin 𝑠𝑠𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝜔𝜔𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝑧𝑧
) +( 2 𝑡𝑡1𝑡𝑡) + (
𝑡𝑡1 ) 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) Critical
Head CG angular
resultant 𝜔𝜔velocities
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝜔𝜔acceleration inTable 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 in𝜔𝜔8. Beginning
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔
(𝑡𝑡 Summary − 𝑡𝑡 ) of time of 𝜔𝜔injury
window
𝜔𝜔 in 𝑔𝑔 and
criteria 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)associated Headinjury CG risk resultant functions acceleration used in Beginning of timr
headto assess injury
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 ln⁡ ( 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 ) − 7.45231
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Beginning 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵of time window in 𝑠𝑠
2.5 𝑡𝑡
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡1 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 2 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 1 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
AngularHead velocity
CG 15 resultant of the acceleration about theBeginning
in local [x,
IX𝜔𝜔G. 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 66.25 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
1
66.25 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Brain Injury Criterion 𝜔𝜔
2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑡𝑡1 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3) = Φ [ ]
1 𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔
Criterion Angular
66.25of𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
[ref] Angular velocity of the head
Calculation about the local2[x, y, or z] axis, in 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 2.84
𝜔𝜔Vars
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵Variable Definition
End 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵time window inω𝑠𝑠head Angular 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, = filtered
velocity −(at
𝑒𝑒0.73998
of the CFC60 head
𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] velocity of the about the local [x, y, or z] axis, in )2.84 about the local [x, y, o
𝐶𝐶15 = |(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [Table 8. Summary ∫ 2𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑] of| injury criteria 𝜔𝜔 2 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 56.45 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
(𝑡𝑡 ) and [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] associated 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
injury filtered max⁡
risk at with
(
functions |𝜔𝜔
CFC60 |)
2
[x,y,z]used = max⁡ Angular
to ( |𝜔𝜔
assess |) velocity
injury max⁡ (rad/s)
risk ( |𝜔𝜔using |)
2
THOR 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔
test 𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
results. ≥
≥
3)
56.45
3)
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Angular =
1
1
− velocity
− 𝑒𝑒 −(0.987 )
of the head about the local
− 𝑡𝑡
BrIC (-) 56.45 CG
𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Beginning 0.987
max⁡((|𝜔𝜔 |) 2
2
max⁡ 2 (|𝜔𝜔1 |) 2 max⁡ ( |𝜔𝜔 |)
2
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Head = filtered
√resultant
( at CFC60 𝑥𝑥
2 ) + ( in Beginning
acceleration 𝑡𝑡2 2𝑦𝑦
) + of (
2.5
time window
𝑧𝑧
2 ) in 𝑔𝑔 𝑡𝑡1𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Critical filtered ofangular time at CFC60 windowvelocities in 𝑠𝑠in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
max⁡ |𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |)) +Calculation
𝑥𝑥
(max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦 |)1) + (max⁡(|𝜔𝜔
𝑦𝑦 𝑡𝑡
𝑧𝑧 |))
𝑧𝑧 2
𝜔𝜔Vars Critical max⁡(|𝜔𝜔velocities
angular |)
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 (|𝜔𝜔Variable
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥G. inmax⁡ ω xC
2𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 1(=66,25|𝜔𝜔 Definition
𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦|) rad/s max⁡ 2 (|𝜔𝜔 |)
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝜔𝜔 42.87 42.87
Risk 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Function𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 filtered at CFC60
IX𝜔𝜔G. ) + ( 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ) + ( 2.5 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 ) 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 APPENDIX
42.87=√
Critical 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
(angular
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 = |(𝑡𝑡 velocities
max⁡ )− 𝑡𝑡+𝑥𝑥)|) ([in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 max⁡ ∫ 𝑀𝑀 )(𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
|𝜔𝜔+𝑦𝑦 |) ( ] | max⁡ )(|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧 |)
2
𝑡𝑡2 𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 End
Critical of
66.25 time
angular window
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 velocities in 𝑠𝑠 2.84in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
inω −𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 =56,45 rad/s Z-axis force measured at upper neck loadload cellcell in
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Beginning 15 √
( of2window the 1head (𝑡𝑡 𝑧𝑧𝑡𝑡1𝐹𝐹 )the 𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝜔𝜔 𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical
Z-axis ln⁡ (force
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 angular measured velocities at upper in neck
1)0.987
− 7.45231
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
Angular velocity
= of𝜔𝜔 about
2𝑠𝑠+ 𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 local 𝑦𝑦 [x, ) y,+ 𝜔𝜔or z] axis, in )criteria and
IX𝜔𝜔G. 𝐹𝐹𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 time ) ( ( of 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
of injury criteria 𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡1 associated yC 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀 𝑡𝑡2 𝜔𝜔 66.25
Z-axis 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
force measured
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥at 𝑁𝑁 upper = neck + 𝑡𝑡load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧
≥Head CG resultant 15
acceleration in
] Beginning assessofinju tim
𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 THOR𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] −( )
Table 𝑧𝑧1 8. Summary
𝑦𝑦 and 𝑧𝑧 injury
66.25 risk
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 functions 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁
used 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖Table = to assess 1𝜔𝜔 +𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦Summary
8. injury risk injury
𝜔𝜔
using 𝜔𝜔test associated
results.
𝜔𝜔𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴3)Critical
66.25 ≥ =3)
56.45injury
Φ=[=
3)
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 1−
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 risk 𝑒𝑒(tensionfunctions used to
2 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖) = + 2 𝑡𝑡 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
End of filtered
time window at CFC60 in 𝑠𝑠 ω zC 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 =42,87 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑀𝑀 rad/s 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝜔𝜔 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ Critical
66.25 force force
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 0.73998 (tension or 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖compression)
or compression) in 𝑁𝑁in[252 𝑁𝑁 [2
𝐶𝐶15 =
IX (G.
max⁡ |𝜔𝜔|(𝑡𝑡
𝑥𝑥 |)2 − 𝑡𝑡1Calculation[Table
max⁡
(𝑡𝑡 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧(|𝜔𝜔8. 𝑀𝑀) |) ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Summary ] of
max⁡ (||𝜔𝜔 |)
injury 2
criteria and 𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
Vars
𝜔𝜔
2Criterion
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 associated APPENDIX
56.45
[ref]
Critical
injury
56.45
force
risk
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 G.
(tension
functions or Variable
compression)
used Calculation to 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
Definition
assess in 𝑁𝑁𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
[2520/-3640]
injury 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
risk using THOR 𝜔𝜔 test 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
Vars 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
results. 56.45 Risk
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 1
Function + 𝑒𝑒 3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
Variable Definition
) + ( 2 − 𝑡𝑡1 𝑡𝑡 ) + ( 2.5
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦 𝑧𝑧
𝜔𝜔𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
Critical angular velocities in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 in 𝑔𝑔 𝜔𝜔and 𝑀𝑀𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Angular 42.87
Y-axis velocity
moment ofmeasured
the head at about theneck local [x,load y, o
)
usedupper load cell
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 Head CG resultant acceleration Y-axis
56.45 (moment ) −measured atto𝑠𝑠upper neck
IX𝜔𝜔G. G. 𝑠𝑠 in Beginning of time windowcriteria 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
IX Calculation Vars
𝜔𝜔 42.87 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 Variable to𝐹𝐹Definition
2.5 𝑡𝑡1results. Risk
Beginning Function
ln⁡ 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 of time window
7.45231 in
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Beginning of time window in
𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦8. Summary 1𝑡𝑡2 𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀
𝑡𝑡𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 Y-axis moment measured at Tableupper neck
8. Summary 2load
𝑡𝑡2 cell of
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 injury associated injury filtered risk functions assess injury
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 Table of𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
injury criteria and 𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧associated
1𝑦𝑦 42.87
injury 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
risk functions used assess 𝑀𝑀 𝑦𝑦 injury risk using THOR𝜔𝜔test 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
42.87
3)Critical 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Z-axis
=Critical
Φ42.87 forceatmeasured
[ moment
15CFC60 at upper neck load cell[48 in
66.25 or] extension)
2 𝑧𝑧1 2
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 1)(flexion inin𝑠𝑠or𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠extension) in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧1 8. 𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
max⁡ (time
|𝜔𝜔 |) inat𝑠𝑠 Calculation max⁡ =(neck |𝜔𝜔 |) max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 |) 𝑡𝑡𝑀𝑀 moment −(flexion in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑧𝑧 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝜔𝜔
𝑀𝑀Summary Criterion APPENDIX
[ref]Beginning
Z-axis of√force G. measured
ofwindow =window or𝑁𝑁
−upper 𝑡𝑡in + local
𝑀𝑀load cell in y,𝑁𝑁 Vars End ofln⁡ (𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
time window Variable
7.45231 Definition
2.5 injury criteria and 𝐹𝐹
Table 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧1+8.𝑀𝑀Summary 𝑦𝑦𝑡𝑡2 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] of 𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑧𝑧 associated Endinjury
Angular time risk
velocity functions
𝑥𝑥of the2at head used 𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠[𝑧𝑧(𝑡𝑡
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖)about to assess
𝑦𝑦the injury
[x, orrisk
] z] using
| axis, in THOR test results. 0.73998
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 2.84
𝐶𝐶15 = |(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑁𝑁 ) [=
𝑡𝑡1Calculation
Table ∫ of| injury criteria 𝜔𝜔 and 𝑀𝑀
Vars𝐹𝐹 1
2
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] associated
𝑁𝑁 Critical
injury
Z-axis
= force
( 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
moment
risk measured
15 (flexion
functions |(𝑡𝑡
) + Variable used
upper
( 1extension) neck to
𝐹𝐹 Definition
assessload ) in𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑀𝑀 ∫
+ 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
cell (𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
injury [48/-72]
in 𝑁𝑁 risk using
) THOR 𝜔𝜔 test
𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 results.
2
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
≥ Critical
Z-axis
3) ≥ Risk
Critical
= 3) Φ angular
force
= [ Function measured
force velocities
15
(tension
−(
10.987 at) upper
or neck
compression)
] load cell
in in
𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁
[25
=(𝑡𝑡𝐹𝐹2𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧−+𝑡𝑡1𝑀𝑀 ) 2 𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦Multi-point
Multi-point
𝑧𝑧 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 56.45 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =CFC60 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 ,in 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧− 𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑧𝑧𝑡𝑡12in ), 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑀𝑀 , time
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 ) criteria [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝑧𝑧
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥≥
Overall 3) ==CG peak 1+peak − 𝑒𝑒3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
resultant deflection in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Neck N (-) Z-axis
Overall force measured
resultant at
deflection upper neck
in loadrisk ce
𝑁𝑁 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖End 𝜔𝜔 𝑁𝑁Table =𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔 + 𝜔𝜔 ) in 𝑔𝑔and associated 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 3)
Calculation Vars𝑡𝑡 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 Critical
Head of
CG filtered
force
time 𝑅𝑅 at
(tension
window
resultant = in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
or
acceleration Variable
𝑠𝑠 compression) ,
2Definition𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
Beginning 𝑁𝑁 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
[2520/-3640]
𝑦𝑦of ,
2.5𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅window 𝑡𝑡 𝑅𝑅
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝐹𝐹 BeginningRisk
Head Function
1 of time 𝑒𝑒
resultant
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
0.73998 window acceleration in 𝑠𝑠 in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Beginning of
ij 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝐶𝐶15 (= = |(𝑡𝑡 −
|𝜔𝜔𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
2 𝑡𝑡 Calculation
)
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [ 𝐹𝐹, 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀|) ∫
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦,1𝑡𝑡𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ,max⁡ ]
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
2.5 | ) |) 2 Vars
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝑅𝑅Thoracic
𝑡𝑡𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 15 Overall
Beginning
Critical peak
force
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
of resultant
time
(tension window Variable
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
deflection
or in𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁
compression) 8. 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑠𝑠𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖1in Definition
Summary
=𝑀𝑀
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
in
+1𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640] of 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚injury 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑧𝑧
≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, injury Riskrisk
𝑅𝑅Y-axis
Critical )ln⁡
force Function
functions
(+
1moment 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 𝑒𝑒 15 )measured
(tension −or used
7.45231
compression) to assess injury
in 𝑁𝑁 load [2520/
≥66.25
max⁡ |)2 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 (|𝜔𝜔 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2
Injury where
𝑡𝑡
𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
at upper neck ce
IX G. 𝑥𝑥 ) + ( (𝑡𝑡2 − 1 𝑡𝑡1𝑦𝑦) 𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡)22 + ( 2.5 𝑡𝑡𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧Thoracic Injury where mit F|(𝑡𝑡 =2520N/-3640N(tension/compression)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑧𝑧
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔 1
42.87
Beginning 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 of time zCwindow inin 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦cell 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑡𝑡2 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝐹𝐹 3)Peak
End =𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
ΦCritical
Peak
of time[ln⁡
resultant
ln⁡ ((window
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
resultant force deflection
)Variable
− 𝑠𝑠2.84 ofor
(tension
7.45231
deflection
in7.45231 of]compression)
the [upper/lower
the [upper/lower in| lef
𝑁𝑁|
2.5 ) 𝜔𝜔Criterion
Criterion 𝑀𝑀
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) [ref]APPENDIX
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡112𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦Criterion
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical
Head
Y-axis
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Beginning
End
Peakof CG angular
moment
time
resultant of
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] G.
resultant
time
15window
velocities
measured acceleration
ofwindow
=deflection −Calculation
in 𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠1of )atat[inthe upper𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 [upper/lower
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 in Beginning neck ∫ load
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ofleft/right]
|cell ]time 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁| window quadrant in 𝑔𝑔 Vars
in in 𝜔𝜔
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 15 )
0.73998 − Definition
5.03896
𝐶𝐶15𝜔𝜔=𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥|(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [ 𝐹𝐹𝜔𝜔1 𝑀𝑀 Y-axis moment measured upper 𝑡𝑡1neck load y,𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 =𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥56.45
Y-axis
3)𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Φmoment
Angular
= 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 [[ resultant velocity measured of )the athead upper ]] about neck ) the load local cell [x,𝑁𝑁
∫ 1 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] 15
𝜔𝜔|𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Angular velocity
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 2the head about the local [x, or z] axis, 1𝑦𝑦𝜔𝜔𝑀𝑀
1𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦8.𝑀𝑀 criteria 𝜔𝜔 (𝑡𝑡 2− )load Critical moment (flexion or
] extension) in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Z-axis force measured M =48Nm/-72Nm(flexion/extension)
inat𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 upper neck cell 2.5in 𝑁𝑁 risk using THOR − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (− [3) = Φ −(10.987
𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
𝐶𝐶15 = = |(𝑡𝑡2 − − 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡1𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖)) [[=(𝑡𝑡2 𝑧𝑧−
Table 𝑡𝑡1 ) Summary ∫𝑦𝑦
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑]] of|| injury and [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 associated End
66.25 of𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
injury
Critical
End
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 of time risk
moment
time window
windowfunctions yC𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(flexion in or used extension) to 𝑡𝑡2assess 𝑡𝑡1 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 injury [48/-72] 𝑡𝑡1 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) test 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
results. Head
Beginning ≥ 3)Y-axis
CG
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853of =time −moment
1 functions
− 𝑒𝑒0.73998
window
0.73998
0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎) measured
acceleration
in2.84𝑠𝑠 toinatassess upper
Beginning neck ofloadtim
2 2 𝑁𝑁 1 (𝑡𝑡𝐹𝐹 −+ Head CG resultant acceleration 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3) = filtered at CFC60
𝐶𝐶 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
|(𝑡𝑡 ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜔𝜔 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 2
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦15 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,
Angular filtered
velocity at ofCFC60 the head Table about in 8. Beginning
Summary
the local [x, of time
of
y, injury
or window
z] axis, inin
criteria 𝑔𝑔 and 𝑀𝑀 associated injury
Critical 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, risk
moment (flexion
used injury ri
𝑀𝑀 Critical moment (flexion or21extension) in 2 +[48/-72] 2 42.87 ) or 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖extension) in [48/-
2 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
15
max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |) 2 Calculation (𝑡𝑡22𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧−
max⁡ ( |𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡11𝑀𝑀))|)𝑡𝑡 1 2
max⁡ ( |𝜔𝜔 |)
2
𝐹𝐹
2
Multi-point
Vars
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Critical
Head =CG 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
force
= 𝑅𝑅(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
(tension
max⁡
resultant
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (=|𝜔𝜔
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
or
|)
acceleration
2
Variable
2
compression) +max⁡
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 in + ,Definition
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
(
Beginning|𝜔𝜔 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2
in |) ,𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640]
of
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 + ,max⁡
time 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 (
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2
|𝜔𝜔
window
2 )
|)
2
)𝑧𝑧[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆in) 𝑔𝑔
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆2
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
Overall
Time-history
Time-history
Risk
3)Critical= 11
Functionpeak
+−𝑒𝑒moment of
𝑒𝑒 resultant
−( the
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
of
the deflection
[left/right]
[left/right]
(flexion orchest in deflection
chest
extension)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 deflectio in al
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
IX G.
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 + ,[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 𝑦𝑦
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
2
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,11) 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 +([𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2 Criterion
) )2) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑧𝑧
, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 2 [ref] 56.45
Head
Overall 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
CG
Time-history
Critical = peakresultant
√
=(|(𝑡𝑡
filtered
angular of2atvelocities
the
resultant −CFC60acceleration
𝑥𝑥 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
[Calculation
𝑡𝑡[left/right]
deflection
1 )deflection) in
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
+ ( chestinin ∫ Beginning
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚deflection
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑦𝑦 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
) ] ,+ of|along(time window [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
the [X/Y/Z] ) in 𝑔𝑔 𝑡𝑡Vars 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 ≥ 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 EndAngular
of𝑅𝑅Critical
3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, time )window
velocity angular in
of
0.987
𝑠𝑠the Variable
velocities head inneck
about Definition
the local [x, y,
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = )
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 2+(
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 +
, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 )
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔
Multi-point
𝑅𝑅 Thoracic
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑁𝑁 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆Injury Overall
Angular where
15peak
𝑅𝑅velocity resultant
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
𝜔𝜔of𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 the
𝐹𝐹
, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 in 𝑀𝑀𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 ) 2𝜔𝜔
𝑅𝑅 𝐹𝐹
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, axis
Z-axis
Overall𝑅𝑅 relative
force
axis
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚peak
) relativemeasured to
resultant the
to [upper/lower]
the at upper
deflection
[upper/lower] in spine
load
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 spine segment
cell in
segme 𝑁𝑁 io
=2𝑁𝑁head about the local 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚[x, y, or z] axis,)in
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝜔𝜔(|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |)
max⁡ max⁡ 𝜔𝜔(𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦|𝜔𝜔 |)𝑡𝑡2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 |)
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑀𝑀 Y-axis moment measured (𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2at −upper 𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑡1 )+ neck load [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Peak
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 resultant deflection 2.84
of5.03896
the [upper/lower | le
,|cell
𝜔𝜔 𝑦𝑦
,𝜔𝜔
𝑧𝑧 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ln⁡(time 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
)0.987
− 7.45231
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔
2.5
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡Criterion
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
Multi-point Beginning
axis relative oftotime
the
𝑅𝑅 window
[upper/lower] =
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
spine 𝑡𝑡, 2𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 segment 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
𝑧𝑧
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Head CG Overall
resultant peak
acceleration resultant in 𝑠𝑠deflection
)2.84 in Beginning inof𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 time w
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
)2 + (Table 8.𝑦𝑦 Summary )2 + ( of𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧injury )2 criteria 𝜔𝜔
𝜔𝜔
Thoracic
and 1𝑦𝑦 associated
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 15Injury 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, 42.87
Peak
Critical
Angular
where
injury 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
resultant
angular
velocity
risk deflection
atvelocities
of
functions the 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖of
head in
used the 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
about [upper/lower
to the
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
assess local [x,
injury 2.5
left/right]
y, orrisk z]
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
quadrant
axis,
using 2 in THOR in𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑡𝑡𝐹𝐹1𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
test𝜔𝜔𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 results. 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
≥Beginning
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3)
66.25 [=of
filtered 1𝑅𝑅 −𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 at
𝑒𝑒15 −(
window
CFC60 5.03896
𝜔𝜔 66.25 [3)Peak =resultant
Φ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 ]leftleft
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 2𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜔𝜔1(𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔 Compression
𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧Compression Angular
Peak 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
filtered
velocity ofCFC60 the head 𝐹𝐹 1max⁡
about 𝑡𝑡1𝑀𝑀
max⁡ the |)(local 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, [x,
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) y, (or z] |)axis, in [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] −𝑅𝑅] Critical
Peak 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚PeakX-axis
force X-axis 𝑅𝑅(tension
deflection
deflection
deflection of the
or))3.6719
2.84
of the
compression) of
] the [upper/lower or) rightin
or 𝑁𝑁 rightabdome
[2520/- abd
| left/r
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] ofresultant (deflection of the [upper/lower |max⁡left/right] quadrant in = 1 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑅𝑅]𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
(−
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
Thoracic Injury max⁡ |𝜔𝜔 𝑥𝑥 |) in𝐴𝐴of max⁡ (|𝜔𝜔 mit |𝜔𝜔 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 −(
𝐶𝐶15𝜔𝜔= 𝜔𝜔(|𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑡𝑡𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 where −𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
max⁡
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
|𝜔𝜔
|(𝑡𝑡
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 |) − 𝑡𝑡 ) [ max⁡
Calculation max⁡
𝐹𝐹 (𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,
|𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀|) ∫ 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 max⁡
] |𝜔𝜔 |) 𝑀𝑀
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
Criterion
Vars𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑅𝑅] 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 End
Critical
Peak
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Z-axis
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,√ time
moment
X-axis
filtered
force
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] window
deflection
at
measured (flexion
CFC60 at 𝑠𝑠+
Variableor
𝐴𝐴the
upper extension)
=left =
neck or 𝑦𝑦
Definition right
load in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
abdomen
cell in
[48/-72]𝑁𝑁 in 𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜔𝜔 =2𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑡𝑡 1 −𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
(− End ≥
≥
of
Critical 3)
[𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853
3)
Risk Peak
time =Function
=
angular 1resultant
1
window − − 𝑒𝑒0.73998
𝑒𝑒 −(
velocities
0.987
in
𝐴𝐴10.987
0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎) deflection
⁡
𝑠𝑠 in ] of the) [upper/lowe
𝑥𝑥 2 2 1
(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑧𝑧 𝑦𝑦 𝑦𝑦 2
𝑡𝑡1𝑦𝑦)|)2 )2 + (max⁡((|𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 2 𝜔𝜔
2
66.25
56.45 =
Critical
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶(
=filtered
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, angular = |(𝑡𝑡 −
atvelocities
2CFC60 ) 𝑡𝑡 ) [
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ( 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 ∫
𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 )
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
2 + ( ] | )
2 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝜔𝜔𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 2Angular
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 56.45
Undeformed
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853 = 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
velocity
Time-history 1 −of − −(
𝑒𝑒depth the
of0.4247
head
0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎)
the
)
about
of[left/right]
the abdomen theneck local
chest [x,
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
deflectiony,cellor 𝑁𝑁 z]
max⁡ (𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 |)𝐴𝐴 +𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖(=
)22𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
|𝜔𝜔𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 𝑁𝑁 =max⁡ (+ |𝜔𝜔 |))2
|𝜔𝜔2)𝑧𝑧 |) 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶𝑧𝑧
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Criterion 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
15 (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
𝜔𝜔 1
(𝑡𝑡 −+ 𝜔𝜔in [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
in)Beginning
𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 +time [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 window [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) 𝑀𝑀
in 𝑔𝑔[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Y-axis
≥ 3) moment
Undeformed measured depth ofatthe upper abdomen load
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
max⁡ 𝜔𝜔(= |𝜔𝜔
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 𝑥𝑥 |) max⁡ 𝜔𝜔(𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
+ 𝐹𝐹,[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 |𝜔𝜔
𝑑𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 |) , )𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ++ ,max⁡
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅2.5
𝜔𝜔
(Multi-point 𝜔𝜔𝑅𝑅 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝑑𝑑
) )) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
2 Head
Overall CG
Undeformed
Time-history peakresultant
of depth
of 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥theacceleration
resultant of 2the
deflection
[left/right]
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
abdomen 𝑠𝑠chest 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
𝑡𝑡21deflection
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆of
along 2the [X/Y/Z] 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
Head 𝑅𝑅filtered
CG 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 )ln⁡
resultant 𝑒𝑒 3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
acceleration 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 in Beginning of time
𝑀𝑀
Thoracic Injury in2𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 1 1(at +𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 )[left/right]
−force7.45231
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥 )[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 +( (
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2𝑧𝑧 ) 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 Critical
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 Beginning angular
force time velocities
(tension 2window or in+
compression) 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 2 in 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640] 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝜔𝜔𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 66.25
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
axis relative CFC60 to
21𝑡𝑡) 56.45 Z-the [upper/lower] spine segment
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔 Critical
Time-history angular
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 of velocities
the [left/right] in chest deflection Time-history of the chest deflection alon
(2along the
2+
Acetabulum 2 [X/Y/Z]
+ 3)X-, 42.87
Y-, and Z- axis measured atinthe acetabu
2 2
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 )[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 +( [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
42.87 ((√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 +22[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 ) 2 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 15
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧Acetabulum =X-, Y-, 𝑅𝑅and axis force measured at the acet
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝜔𝜔1𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 1
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 66.25 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 |𝜔𝜔 |) 𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅max⁡ |𝜔𝜔 |)[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ≥Critical moment
ΦTime-history
[ln⁡ (flexion or extension) ]
5.03896 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/-
Chest max⁡ ([𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
2|𝜔𝜔 2 |)2 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 2 2max⁡
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔 𝐹𝐹Load
𝑀𝑀
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑡𝑡Compression axis
X-,
Peak
End
Y-axis relative
√Y-, and
ofresultant
time
moment= Z-to𝑥𝑥deflection
window the
axis
measured[upper/lower]
force
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋in =
𝑠𝑠head measured
𝐹𝐹of at the
√𝐹𝐹= upper 𝑥𝑥√𝐹𝐹 spine
[upper/lower
𝑦𝑦 + at+
+neck
𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
the segment
+
𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦load
acetabulum
𝐹𝐹+ |cell
𝐹𝐹 in𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
+
𝑧𝑧left/right]
𝑧𝑧 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
load cell
quadrant in𝜔𝜔 )in [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 2 (𝐹𝐹to /0.72)
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 0.73998 of−the [left/right]
1.6526 chest deflecti
𝐶𝐶 = 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
|(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡 ) [ 2 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 2
𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
2 ] 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
| 𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Load 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑁𝑁 =66.25
axis
Angular
42.87
66.25 relative
( velocity
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 to the ) of [upper/lower]
+ the ( 𝑅𝑅 about spine
max⁡ 𝐹𝐹
𝑥𝑥 ) the ( 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,
+ segment
local
𝑀𝑀 ( 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) [x,
𝑧𝑧 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 in
y, or
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 )z] axis, in
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 = 𝜔𝜔 1
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑅𝑅] (− axis
56.45
Critical 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
[ relative
angular
Peak 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Z-axis X-axis
force velocities the measured[upper/lower]
deflection
1 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵in2.84 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
of
at the
]
upper spine
left neck)or segment
right
load abdom
cell in in𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑅𝑅
15 𝐹𝐹
2 = 1 √𝐹𝐹
2 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = =(𝑡𝑡 2 −+
𝑥𝑥max⁡ + 𝐹𝐹
𝑧𝑧 𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦 )
(𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 1 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
+ 𝑦𝑦 𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧 Criterion2Rmax (mm) 𝜔𝜔
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
𝐹𝐹
Multi-point
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑧𝑧
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦
2
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑅𝑅] 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Z-axis
56.45X-axis
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Peak
Head CG
force
𝑅𝑅𝜔𝜔 measured
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥deflection
filtered
resultant at(flexion
CFC60
acceleration
at 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
of
upper
the
𝑁𝑁
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ,left
𝜔𝜔𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦= 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 neck
=in(𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 or
𝑧𝑧 load
+,𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
right
Beginning
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦 cell
abdomen ,𝜔𝜔 in
𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
of
𝑁𝑁
time in) 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 in 𝑔𝑔 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝜔𝜔
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐹𝐹
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑧𝑧 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3)
Angular
Overall
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 =
≥≥3)
Φ
3) [
velocity
peak
axis
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853 == 1 resultant
relative
−−−( of −( the
𝑒𝑒0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎)
𝐴𝐴0.987
0.1991
head
to deflection
the ) about
[upper/lower]
3.6719
⁡ 3.6719
] the local
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 spine segm [x, y, or
𝑁𝑁 inwindow
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
max⁡
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 (𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝑀𝑀𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)2 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
Compression
𝜔𝜔
𝑀𝑀
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
Femur 𝑅𝑅] Injury
Axial 56.45
Peak
Critical
Z-axis X-axis
moment
force deflection
measured atof or
upper max⁡
theextension) left neck 𝐹𝐹or 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, right
𝑑𝑑load 2𝑀𝑀in abdomen
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/-72]
cell[2520/-3640]
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅] 𝑑𝑑𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝐹 66.25 Peak
42.87
Z-axis
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, X-axis
filtered
Undeformed
=femur
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 deflection
at 𝑒𝑒load CFC60
depth in ⁡of
𝐴𝐴1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁 of
) the
)inthe
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, left
abdomen
filtered oratright abdomen
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
CFC600
(|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |)𝐴𝐴 Thoracic 𝑧𝑧 Femur 2 Axial 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥Critical = 1 force (tension ofor compression) in [25
𝑧𝑧(|𝜔𝜔𝑀𝑀 56.45
where ≥ 3)Z-axis 1− femur
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 1load filteredthe leftat or CFC600 | 𝑁𝑁
Critical force[L/R][X/Y/Z]
(tension 2 or 2 compression)
:(chestTime-History in(𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 of +
𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑁𝑁 (the [left/right] 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
0.4247 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
max⁡
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
𝐴𝐴[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
2 max⁡
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 𝑦𝑦 |) 2𝑦𝑦1 max⁡(|𝜔𝜔
+([𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 2𝑧𝑧 |) 𝜔𝜔
) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 Compression 42.87
Z-axis𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Time-history max⁡ of
(depth
|𝜔𝜔 the
|)inof 𝐴𝐴 the[U/L]S
[left/right] =
max⁡ |𝜔𝜔at 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧max⁡ 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
deflection 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) along |𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧 |)
2
the [X/Y/Z][𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑅𝑅] Peak
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 3) Peak
resultant −X-axis 𝑒𝑒 −(
deflection deflection the of[upper/lower right left/rab
𝑁𝑁 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖(= +𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 Undeformed femur load 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered
abdomen 𝑦𝑦 |) CFC600
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚] max⁡
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑑𝑑 𝐹𝐹 0.4247
) 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
+ 𝑑𝑑 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) + )
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔 Load
Criterion
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑧𝑧
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
Acetabulum
𝑑𝑑[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Load [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 Critical
Undeformed angular
√𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
=[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
Overall
42.87 peak depth 𝑥𝑥velocities
resultant of
the
deflection in
abdomen
𝐴𝐴 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 2in =
𝑑𝑑 [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
𝑀𝑀)𝑦𝑦local 𝑑𝑑 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Undeformed
Critical 𝑅𝑅X-, Y-,
angular and depth 𝑒𝑒Z-
velocities axisof
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁 the inabdomen
force measured [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
at the acetab
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝜔𝜔= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐹𝐹 ,𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝜔𝜔 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) 𝑅𝑅 𝜔𝜔
𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Critical 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
force
(force chest (tension )
deflection + or (compression) along 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 +
in𝑑𝑑 ( [2520/-3640]
𝑁𝑁 )axis, into 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑 ≥𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 56.45
3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, Z-axis
≥𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
2)
Y-axis = ) 1moment
force +measured measured at2.84upper at neck
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 upper loadneck cellload in ce 𝑁𝑁
atthe [x/y/z] axis relative 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑧𝑧 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦
𝜔𝜔 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀
𝜔𝜔 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 Y-axis
42.87
Angular
axis
Z-axis moment
relative velocityto
measured
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚measured
the of the
[upper/lower]at𝑁𝑁head at=upper
upper about
neck spine neck
the
load 2 load
segment cell𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧[x,cell
2iny,
𝜔𝜔in𝑁𝑁 or
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 z]load 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Undeformed
1(+ −(10.987
depth of𝑧𝑧 the abdomen [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒/0.72)
+ ln⁡ 𝐹𝐹 5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
/0.72) −) 1.6526
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝜔𝜔 Load𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] X-, Y-, and 𝜔𝜔Z- axis force 𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖measured
= √𝐹𝐹𝜔𝜔 𝑥𝑥 𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 the
𝑀𝑀 +𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 acetabulum cell in 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3) =
ln⁡(1Z-
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖√𝐹𝐹 = 22𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝐹Revised
Acetabulum Tibia 66.25
X-, 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
2𝐹𝐹 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 X-, Measured
≥ 3)
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Y-, =
and 𝑅𝑅−
compressive
𝐹𝐹 axis 𝑒𝑒3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
1force − axial
1.6526
measured 5.03896
force atinthe 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
inacetabulu
=Y-, and Z-𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥axis force measured at the acetabulum 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 load
Revised Tibia )cell[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
in in𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹 2= 𝑧𝑧+ 𝐹𝐹 2𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀 + 𝐹𝐹 2 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀 Z-axis
Peak force
filtered
resultant
Y-axis moment measured
at CFC60
deflection
measured 2 at upper
of at+the 𝐹𝐹
upper neck
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧[upper/lower 𝑀𝑀
neck load load cell in
|cell 𝑁𝑁
left/right] quadrant 𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Critical
≥66.25
42.87 3) = Measured
ΦX-, [force
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅(tension compressive ⁡or3.6719 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 axial
compression) force
]measured in 𝑁𝑁𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
in[2520/
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑥𝑥max⁡ 𝐹𝐹(+ (𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,
𝑀𝑀
2 𝑀𝑀+ 𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) 2𝑧𝑧 2 2 𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦𝑅𝑅]
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 Acetabulum Z-axis
Peak
Measured
Critical
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 force
X-axis
force measured
moment deflection
compressive
(tension the
(flexion at
or [upper/lower]
of
axial upper
or the
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
compression)
𝑥𝑥𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
left
force= +neck
2[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
extension) orin
= +
2 load
2
right𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 + 𝐹𝐹spine
in 𝑧𝑧 𝑁𝑁
2 cell
+
abdomen
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 segment
in
[48/-72]
2 [2520/-3640]
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 in2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 1 −𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 3) 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
≥Time-historyCritical [ 1Y-, +of
moment 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑒𝑒andthe 𝐴𝐴1 [left/right]
Z- (flexion
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅) axis) − force ] chest
or
0.2468 ] deflection
extension) at the alon
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ac[
|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |)𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = √𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
= √𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝐹[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ≥= Φ=
𝑁𝑁 = 𝑧𝑧 𝑦𝑦 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧= 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (−
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 [≥ 3) 0.1991 )
max⁡(𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑁𝑁
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =max⁡
𝑥𝑥
=𝐹𝐹 +|𝜔𝜔
+𝑀𝑀 𝑦𝑦 |) 𝑧𝑧
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧 |) Load Index
𝜔𝜔
𝑧𝑧
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
Femur Index Axial 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
56.45 2[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑀𝑀 𝑐𝑐𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀
2 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
≥ 2)𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
= 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
1 ≥− 3)
Critical
3)
Z-axis
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 =
= compressive
1femur − 𝑒𝑒 −(
load
0.1991
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
in axial 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 force
filtered [12 at 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
CFC600
) +
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ( 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀 ) + ( ) 𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹
𝑁𝑁 Multi-point
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Load 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Critical
Critical force
angular
force
moment (tension
velocities
(tension (flexion or
or 𝐹𝐹
compression)
in
𝐹𝐹
compression)
or =
𝑧𝑧extension)
√𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀 𝑐𝑐 + in
inload 𝑁𝑁 + 𝐹𝐹
[2520/-3640]
𝑁𝑁𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿[2520/-3640]
,𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑐𝑐 [48/-72] 𝐹𝐹𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹
𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹 axis
Y-axis
56.45
Z-axis forceCritical
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853
relative
moment
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 (−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
measured
1 +
to
+ compressive
− the
𝑒𝑒 [0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎)
0.4247
[upper/lower]
measured at
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
upper 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,axial
at neckupper force
spine
load ])
neck [12segment
cell 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
load in cell
𝑁𝑁 in 𝑁𝑁𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝜔𝜔= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
𝜔𝜔 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
, 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝜔𝜔 ) 𝑑𝑑[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 Undeformed
Overall
Y-axis
Z-axis peak
moment
femur 𝑅𝑅depth
compressiveresultant
load =inof𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
measured the
axial
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,deflection
= filtered at
𝑅𝑅
abdomen
force upper [12 ,𝑦𝑦𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
in
at [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
neck 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
CFC600
𝑦𝑦
cell
𝑧𝑧 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 )
,𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑦𝑦𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑧𝑧 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑧𝑧
≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, 𝑅𝑅Overall
𝑐𝑐
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) peak resultant 1 0.2728 deflection in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
2𝑐𝑐 thein𝑁𝑁[left/right] +
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 2 Femur 𝐹𝐹Load
𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦 Axial
𝑧𝑧 2 Z-axiswherefemur
Time-history load
of measured 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered chest at𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, CFC600
deflection along 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 the [X/Y/Z] 𝐹𝐹𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑅𝑅] 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Z-axis
Measured femur load
bending in1 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,moment filtered in at
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 CFC600
(resultant of m
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] 42.87 ≥ 2)Measured
=)ln⁡ bending −ofmoment in in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant o
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
Compression
𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅𝜔𝜔
𝑀𝑀 Thoracic Injury Y-axis
66.25
Y-axis
Overall moment
moment
peak measured
Z-resultant deflection at
𝐹𝐹at upper
max⁡
upper 𝑀𝑀(in neck
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦neck 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) load
load cell
cell 𝑀𝑀
𝜔𝜔𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Peak
Critical
Critical
42.87 X-axis
force =moment
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 1(tension
(+ deflection
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅femur
𝐹𝐹 /0.72) orload
(flexion the
compression)
or 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
1.6526 left
5.03896
𝑧𝑧extension)
or right 𝑁𝑁inat abdomen
[2520/-364
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) 𝑦𝑦 Femur AxialX-, Y-,
Measured and bending axis force
moment measured at
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 the acetabulum 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 load cell andin in 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ≥𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑧𝑧3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, ≥𝑅𝑅Peak
2) Z-axis in filtered CFC600
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧in (resultant 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁|of medial-lateral resultant deflection of the [upper/lower |l
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
Load 𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
Revised
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Tibia Peak
Critical resultant
moment deflection
(flexion𝐴𝐴 of
or= the
extension) 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [upper/lower 𝐹𝐹 in𝑀𝑀 left/right]
[48/-72] quadrant [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] anterior-posterior
Measured 𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
compressive directions) axial force in
𝐹𝐹 = √𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 + 𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
Criterion axis relative
Z-axis𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
force to the
measured [upper/lower]ataxial
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 upper neck spine load segment cell in in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1 − 𝐹𝐹 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
≥
(− [
3) = anterior-posterior
Φ [ 1 + 𝑒𝑒 5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
1 directions) 𝑧𝑧 ]5.03896 ] ) 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑅𝑅 𝑥𝑥 𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹
Multi-point
𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧 𝑁𝑁Load
𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Critical
56.45
Measured
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 moment
anterior-posterior
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
compressive (flexion
directions)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 or extension)
𝐹𝐹force
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑧𝑧, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 =𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀 𝑦𝑦+
in𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
, 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , mit
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑁𝑁𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) quadrant in𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑𝐹𝐹
[48/-72]
|, left/right] 𝑅𝑅𝑧𝑧𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 Y-axisUndeformed
Z-axis
Overallmoment
force
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853 peak depth
measured
measured
𝑅𝑅 resultant
− 0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎)
0.1991 of at
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅)theat abdomen
upper
upper
deflection
− 0.2468 neck
neck in[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
loadloadcell
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 cellin𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁
𝑁𝑁 ==max⁡ 𝐹𝐹 + [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] Tibia Critical Peak resultant
moment deflection
(flexion of
or the
extension) [upper/lower in [48/-72] 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≥ 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥𝑅𝑅Critical
3) =
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 (+𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝑀𝑀,𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) Revised
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, Index
𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑅𝑅]𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Overall
Measured
Peak peak
X-axis resultant
compressive
deflection 𝑁𝑁ordeflection
axial
of = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
the force
left 𝐹𝐹+ inor
𝐹𝐹in 𝑀𝑀 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
right
𝑀𝑀2𝑐𝑐abdomen in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
= 𝐹𝐹
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 1 𝑀𝑀 − 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀
≥ 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2) 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,
(−
= Measured
[
1 Critical
− Critical
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 )(−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
compressive
bending 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
compressive
bending [ 𝐴𝐴moment
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅)
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁 ⁡ axial
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚moment −𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖[240
axial
3.6719
force
0.2468
] force
[240 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]in[12 )𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
])
Abdomen 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀
+ Compression Amax 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐(mm)
1 + 𝑒𝑒
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =+=,,[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
𝐹𝐹 +𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Thoracic
𝐹𝐹
Acetabulum Injury
Revised Tibia Critical
where
Overall force
bending
peak (tension
δ[L/R]:
resultantmoment Peak 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
deflectioncompression)
X-axis
2[240 =2𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
𝐹𝐹 +
+deflection
in 𝑀𝑀2𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐 in
𝐹𝐹 2 𝑀𝑀of + 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640]
the [leftthe/[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
2
right] 𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐
≥𝐹𝐹2)
𝑐𝑐 X-,
=Critical 𝑅𝑅Y-, and
Measured
Time-history
force 1Z- (tension axis −(
of 1force
compressive
theor ) measured
[left/right]
compression) axial at
chest the
forcein acetabulu
in[48/-72]
deflection𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
[2520/-3
))
2
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 2
𝐴𝐴[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦2
𝑐𝑐,, 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 2 𝑅𝑅𝜔𝜔
) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 2 Z-axis
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
42.87
Critical femur
Time-history
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
compressive
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 load
of(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
the in [left/right]
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
axial filtered
force 𝐹𝐹chest [12 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
at 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
CFC600
deflection
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
along [X/Y/Z] 𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] ≥≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, 1
Critical
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Peak
≥−𝑅𝑅 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
moment
3) =))(−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
resultant − −
𝑅𝑅(flexion [0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎)
𝑒𝑒deflection or0.2728
extension)
of the5.03896 in
[upper/lower ]) 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁 | left/r
Overall peak resultant deflection 𝐹𝐹in quadrant [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
0.4247
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑀𝑀[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Index
𝑅𝑅 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Proximal
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑧𝑧
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 Tibia Peak
Critical resultant
compressive deflection 𝐹𝐹of =
𝑅𝑅axial √𝐹𝐹of
𝑥𝑥the𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
force + 𝑦𝑦 =
[upper/lower
𝑐𝑐[12
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑀𝑀 +𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧+
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆| left/right] in 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,Critical
Z-axis𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
=compressive
upper tibia axial
load inforce in[12 filtered 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] at CFC600
𝐹𝐹 =𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐1𝐹𝐹− 0.2728 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 [≥ 2)
Measured bending moment (resultant of
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2𝑐𝑐 Load 𝑑𝑑 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Criterion
𝑀𝑀 𝑐𝑐 ProximalIndex Tibia
Undeformed
Y-axis moment depth measured the abdomen [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚] 𝑧𝑧𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹 (−𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 Z-axis
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 upper 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
to tibia load in5.03896
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁filtered at CFC
,at𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 upper , neck load cell 𝑁𝑁)𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 axis relative the [upper/lower] 𝑧𝑧 ]5.03896 )spine [12 segment
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 2
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 + 𝐹𝐹 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 𝑀𝑀[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 2
) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 2 axis relative
Time-history
upper toof
tibiathetheload[upper/lower]
[left/right]
in of 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, chest
filtered spine
abdomen 𝐹𝐹at𝑐𝑐segment
deflection CFC600 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐|of in
along 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 thequadrant
[X/Y/Z] 𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Y-axis Critical
moment 1 +𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 compressive 1deflection
5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
measured at upper axial force
neck load 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
cell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
ForceZ-axis Peak force
resultant = measureddeflection at upper
of the neck
[upper/lower load 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ,cell in
left/right] quadrant in
Multi-point
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] Measured bending moment in (resultant medial-lateral andin 𝑐𝑐 Overall peak resultant in]]in𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦Axial
𝑀𝑀 𝑅𝑅 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹Axial Force 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑧𝑧 𝑦𝑦 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
𝑀𝑀 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Peak
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Measured
X-, Y-, resultant
andbending
Z- deflection
axis moment
force measured the
in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [upper/lower (resultant
at(𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 |of left/right]
medial-lateral cell and = 𝑦𝑦
𝑀𝑀 1 −
− 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
(− [[𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853
≥≥anterior-posterior
Measured 2) ==ln⁡ bending
(𝐹𝐹load −
𝑅𝑅 /0.72)
momentdirections)
− 1.6526 (resultant
) of me
2the acetabulum 2load in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 2 𝐹𝐹 + ( 2𝑀𝑀𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)2 Femur Compression 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Axial axis relative
Measured to
compressivethe [upper/lower] axial force spine
max⁡ in 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,segment 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =𝐹𝐹 1𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 2 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑅𝑅] (−Z-axis 3)femur
Peak X-axis in
deflection 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅) filtered
−of the
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑧𝑧0.2468 at
left )
CFC600or right abdom
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅2= √𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥max⁡ 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝐹𝐹 Peak X-axis deflection
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] Thoracic 𝑀𝑀 Injury anterior-posterior
Critical moment directions)
(flexion 2 of or the left
extension) or right in abdomen [48/-72] in ⁡ 3.6719
𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 + 𝐹𝐹 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅] where
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
Critical 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
force (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
(tension or +
compression) d [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 =238,4 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
mm
𝑁𝑁 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
[2520/-3640] 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑀𝑀 ≥ Time-history
3)
Critical = Φ Measured
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853 [
moment
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853 1 1 ++ of
−
𝑒𝑒
− 𝑒𝑒 thebending
3.227−1.969𝑁𝑁
(flexion [left/right]
5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎) or moment
inextension) chest
] in deflection
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultan
[48/-7 alo
Tibia𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑧𝑧
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅+=[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
𝐴𝐴[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 + 2
𝑦𝑦 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑧𝑧 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 2
Distal
) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧Distal Tibia
2 Time-history
anterior-posterior
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 of the [left/right]
directions) 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 abd chest deflection [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 along [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 the [X/Y/Z] [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀
𝑧𝑧 ≥ 𝐹𝐹 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
2) Peak
=
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 1 resultant
anterior-posterior
≥Z-axis
− Critical
Z-axis
3) = lower deflection
(−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
1 bending
lower
− 𝑒𝑒 tibia
−(
[ directions)
tibia
0.1991
0.4247 ofload
load
moment ) the [upper/lower
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
[240
in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filteredfiltered
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] ]) at| left/righ
CFC600
at CFC
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 Load
Criterion [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
anterior-posterior ) directions)
2
+max⁡ 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑(𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,𝑀𝑀2𝑐𝑐,𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
2 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 2 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
𝑑𝑑 𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅] Force
2 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
Z-axis
Peak
Critical
Undeformed lower
X-axis
Time-history compressive
bending tibia
deflection
depth
ofthe the load
moment of axial
the in
of [240
[left/right] the
force
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
abdomen leftfiltered
chest [12 orneck right
𝑑𝑑
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚] at
deflection CFC600 abdomen along in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚[X/Y/Z]
the [X/Y/Z] 𝑅𝑅 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑐𝑐 𝑧𝑧
𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, axis𝑅𝑅Undeformed
relative to the 𝐴𝐴1
depth [upper/lower]
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ⁡of
3.6719
0.2728the abdomen spine [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
segment in
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 2
+ ,[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 + + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 2)
, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀
Axial
𝑀𝑀
Multi-point 2 Overall
axis
Time-history
Y-axis peak
relative
moment resultant
toof the
measured[upper/lower]deflection
[left/right] at ,upper 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
chest in
spine 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
,deflection segment
load cell in𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
along ) the
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) resultant
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 )
𝑐𝑐Axial Force 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Overall 2)peak 1 deflection in filtered
𝑧𝑧 𝑅𝑅 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 at CFC60
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐴𝐴[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Revised 𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝐹Proximal
𝑧𝑧𝑐𝑐 Tibia
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 Tibia Critical
Z-axis bending
femur load moment
in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [240
filtered 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
𝐹𝐹 at
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 CFC600
𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝐹𝐹2𝑅𝑅] 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴Critical
≥ ≥Z-axis
Measured
3) bending
== 1upper − 𝑒𝑒 −(
compressive moment
tibia
0.4247 loadaxial[240in𝑧𝑧 force
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, in right
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
=axis relative to the [upper/lower] spine segment in
𝑑𝑑(𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, CompressionAcetabulum Undeformed
Measured
X-, Y-, and Z- depth
bending axis of
moment
force the abdomen
measured in max⁡ (2𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
(resultant
atright 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
the acetabulum |of 2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐷𝐷medial-lateral in in 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
and 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Peak X-, Critical
X-axis
Y-, ln⁡ 1(and +
𝐹𝐹the bending
𝑒𝑒Z-
deflection
/0.72) 4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
𝐴𝐴axis
1 − moment
of
⁡ force the
1.6526 left
5.03896
measured [240
or 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
at theabdomen acetab
max⁡ 2 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)2 𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑑
Thoracic 𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹
Dorsiflexion
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 𝑅𝑅]Injury Z-axis
axis
where
Peak
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 upper
relative
resultant
X-axis tibia
to the 2load
deflection
deflection [upper/lower] in
+of
of 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
the the
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
= left𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
filtered spine
[upper/lower
+ or+ at 2 CFC600
segment
+ 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
+[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
abdomen 𝑥𝑥left/right] in load
in𝑥𝑥[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ) quadrantcell
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] ≥
𝑐𝑐 Time-history 2)Y-axis
Y-axis = of
[ moment
𝑅𝑅 [left/right]
measured 3.6719
chest ]deflection
𝑧𝑧at][upper/lower
lower tibia |along
load cellth
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Pelvis
= √𝐹𝐹 =𝑥𝑥max⁡
2
max⁡ + 𝐹𝐹 (
(
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,
𝑦𝑦
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,
+𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 res. Actetabulum 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
Index 𝑀𝑀
Proximal
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
Criterion
𝐹𝐹 Load
𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀
Moment
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
Axial
𝑧𝑧 Dorsiflexion
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
Load
𝑧𝑧
𝑌𝑌 𝑅𝑅]
Proximal
Moment
𝑅𝑅]
F
Force
Tibia
R (kN)
Critical
Z-axis
Y-axis
moment
upper
moment
anterior-posterior
Tibia
Peak
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
X-,
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Peak Y-,X-axis
and
X-axis Z-
tibia
deflection
axis
deflection
(flexion
load
𝑀𝑀
measured 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
directions)
𝑀𝑀
force
in
𝐹𝐹
of
𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
of
𝑦𝑦
or
𝑅𝑅 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,=extension)
=
at
the
measured
theforce
√𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀
lower
=
left
filtered
𝐹𝐹
left in𝑌𝑌𝑐𝑐𝑥𝑥𝑀𝑀
2[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
−𝑑𝑑or 𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹
tibia
at− 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝐷𝐷𝑦𝑦at
right
𝑥𝑥
orin[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
𝑌𝑌 right the𝐹𝐹
in−
𝑥𝑥
CFC600
load
𝐷𝐷
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
−
abdomen
acetabulum
abdomen
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
2
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧cell [48/-72]
2 2 in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
in
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
load cell
in
=𝐹𝐹
𝑑𝑑
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧1𝑀𝑀
𝑐𝑐
−
𝑀𝑀
𝑌𝑌 𝑌𝑌𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐹𝐹
(−
axis
Z-axis
≥Peak [≥
3) ≥ =
Critical 2)
3)
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Undeformed
≥ 2)
relative
Φupper
resultant
==
Z-axis
= 11 +
compressive
ln⁡
to1 ( −
moment
𝐹𝐹
the
+
𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
tibia
deflection
upper
depth
𝑒𝑒
− /0.72)
1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚measured
load
5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹
−(
𝐴𝐴1𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
0.4247
[upper/lower]
0.1991 of axial
tibia
0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎) the
−
in
)of
3.6719the
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
force
load
abdomen
1.6526
⁡ 3.6719 in
𝑧𝑧 spine
at
filtered
[12
lower
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, )
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] at tibia
CFC600
filtered
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
segment in
load
left/rig
at 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
CF
c
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
=√𝐹𝐹
𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴 = =𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑌𝑌2, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
−
𝐹𝐹 𝑑𝑑
+ 𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷
2𝑀𝑀− 2
𝑥𝑥𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐹𝐹 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 ) Axial
𝑅𝑅 Distal
𝑑𝑑[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝐹𝐹 Force Tibia Overall Undeformed
Measured peak depth
resultant
compressive of the abdomen
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
deflection
axial
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹≥
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑧𝑧
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,
≥ 3) ≥
≥X-axis
𝑅𝑅
= 2)
Z-axis
3) Φ =
X-axis
=[ ) force
11lower +−
𝑅𝑅
force𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒 measured
−( 𝐴𝐴
tibia
measured
5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹
−( 0.4247𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
⁡
load) at−
)
inlower
𝑧𝑧at lower
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
0.2468 ] tibiatibia
filtered load cell
atloadCFC60 in
cell
=
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅+=[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦
𝑑𝑑+𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑧𝑧 2+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 2
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑑𝑑 𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹
Acetabulum Femur Axial2 Axial Force X-axis femur
Critical
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Undeformed
Z-axis force
bending
lower measured
tibia
depth
load moment
load
in of the
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, at
inmax⁡ lower
[240
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,2(filtered
abdomen
filtered 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] tibiaat load
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
CFC600 at CFC600 cell inalong 𝑁𝑁 2 the [X/Y/Z]𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹2𝑧𝑧≥ 2)Peak 𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 X-,≥
Measured 3)
Y-,
Z-axis =and 11
bending
femur+−
Z- 𝑒𝑒
𝑒𝑒axis 6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀
loadmoment
0.4247
0.19911of force in infiltered
measured
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑦𝑦
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant
at at theCFC600 of med
acetabulu
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2
𝑑𝑑 2
) Compression
Distal 𝐹𝐹
𝑑𝑑 Axial
𝑥𝑥 𝑐𝑐 Tibia Force Time-history
Undeformed
X-,
= Y-,
Z-axis and
lower of
depth
Z-tibiaaxisthe of
load [left/right]
force the abdomen
measured chest
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) deflection
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
at𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] the acetabulum load ) cell 𝑅𝑅]
in in 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐷𝐷 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 = 1 −
X-axis𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
Distance
Z-axis lower (−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
deflection
ln⁡ ( 𝐹𝐹
between
tibia /0.72) [ 1
load ankle−the
in left
1.6526
joint or and
filtered
5.03896 right ])
lower abdomen
atlower tibia
CFC600 in
along𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
load
=in filtered at𝐹𝐹CFC600 Time-history = of the [left/right] 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,chest deflection
2 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
2 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 2𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝐹𝐹
𝑧𝑧
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Critical
Peak (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
compressive
resultant deflection
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹 axial +
√𝐹𝐹
of force
the + [12 𝐹𝐹
[upper/lower
2
+ + 2
| left/right] quadrant [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐷𝐷 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥≥=2) Distance
2) == 𝑅𝑅 between ankle
0.2728 joint and tibia l
≥anterior-posterior directions)
2 𝑧𝑧 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Load Load
𝑐𝑐 Distal 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Tibia Distance between ankle[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
injoint 𝑥𝑥 and 𝑦𝑦[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
lower tibia load incell
[0.0907m] in 𝑑𝑑 = 1 −𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 [ ≥relative
3) ΦZ-axis
2) [ln⁡ lower 1 tibia load 𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧 ]in]𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, ) filtered at CF
𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅 = √𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 2 + 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 2 + 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 2 𝐷𝐷 upper tibia load 𝑑𝑑filtered atsegment
CFC600 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑅𝑅 𝑧𝑧
𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
Axial 𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧 Force axis
X-,
Z-axis relative
Y-, and
femur Z-toloadthe
axis [upper/lower]
in force𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
measured
filtered spine
at at
CFC600 the acetabulum
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚loadload cell in 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (−
Undeformed ln⁡
11 1
depth((to+ +𝑅𝑅the
𝐹𝐹+ /0.72)
𝑒𝑒/0.72)
𝑒𝑒of
4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
𝑒𝑒5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
the − 1.6526
abdomen1.6526 [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅 Femur 2 Axial Load F (kN) 𝐹𝐹 Dorsiflexion X-,
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 Y-, and Z- axis force measured 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 at-the acetabulum cell ≥axis Y-axis moment𝐹𝐹 [upper/lower] −
measured atand spine
lower segment
tibiatibia loadin 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
ce
and 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀
4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
= √𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 2 + + 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 2𝑀𝑀+ + 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 z 𝑀𝑀
Axial Force 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Measured bending moment
𝑀𝑀joint in
=lower 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌or − (resultant
𝐹𝐹𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀 − ofcell medial-lateral 𝑌𝑌𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ ≥Mass
Critical
3) = 2)Mass
Φ=
3)𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒(4.4853
= Φ between
[[ 1 between
bending
𝑅𝑅− ankle
0.1991
moment 1 ankle
0.0113𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎) joint [240
𝑧𝑧 and
joint 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] ]]force lower load
𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅 = √𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 max⁡ 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 ( 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) Femur
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,𝑀𝑀
𝑚𝑚 Revised
𝐹𝐹
Moment 𝑅𝑅] Axial Tibia Y-axis
Mass
Measured
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Peak
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 moment
between
X-axis measured
ankle
compressive
deflection 𝑦𝑦 axial
of at
and
the force
leftlower 𝐹𝐹
tibia
in tibia
right 𝑥𝑥 load load
abdomen
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷2 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
[0.72kg]
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 Z-axis Measured
femur + compressive
𝑒𝑒
load 5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹
in
5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
0.1991
𝐴𝐴 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
⁡ 3.6719
− axial
filtered 𝑧𝑧0.2468 at CFC600 in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝐷𝐷 2− 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎+𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 Acetabulum X-, Y-, and Z- axis force 1 measured at
orinthe acetabulum il
𝑦𝑦 𝑧𝑧
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 𝐴𝐴 ==𝑀𝑀
2 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
+= − 𝐹𝐹
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 2
) Dorsiflexion
Compression
𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹
𝑌𝑌
𝑌𝑌 2 Y-axis femur
Z-axis moment
anterior-posterior
Time-history load
of measured
the in 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
directions)
[left/right] 2at max⁡
filtered
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅lower chest(=
2𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,
at tibia 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
CFC600+ 2 load𝑥𝑥 cell
deflection along the [X/Y/Z] 𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅]
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹
𝑌𝑌𝑎𝑎 ≥
𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
2) =
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Y-axis
Peak
1 ≥
≥ X-axis
X-axis
2)
X-axis
− moment
3) =
X-axis
= deflection
force
acceleration
1 −acceleration
𝑒𝑒 measured
−(
[0.1991
measured 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
of
of ) the
the
ofatatthe lower
left
lower
tibia tibia tibia
right
tibia
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
])
in load
2 2cell
abdomen
load
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 cellin in
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 − 𝑌𝑌
𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷
𝑥𝑥 − 2 Proximal
Load Index
𝑧𝑧 Dorsiflexion
Tibia Undeformed Z-axis lower tibia𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅𝑦𝑦load= √𝐹𝐹 in = 𝑀𝑀
+𝑌𝑌force −
𝐹𝐹filtered 𝐹𝐹at
+ 𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]−at 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥
𝑌𝑌𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘Z-axis Y-axis
2)upper +tibia 𝑒𝑒moment
0.4247
1
load
1 in
6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀 measured
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered at lower at 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] tibia load
CFC600
𝐹𝐹CFC600
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 X-axis femur
Measured
Critical
Z-axis force measured
compressive
compressive
acceleration
femur load 𝐴𝐴
in of axial at
the 𝑥𝑥=
axial 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
lower
force
tibia
filtered 𝑦𝑦in tibia
[12 𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹
in load
𝑧𝑧𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑐𝑐CFC600
2𝑀𝑀
𝑐𝑐cell in 𝑁𝑁 𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ Critical = 1 compressive 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅) axial
−𝑦𝑦𝑧𝑧0.2468
𝑦𝑦
force [12
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑+𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑐𝑐 2 LoadMoment 𝐹𝐹
Inversion/
𝑧𝑧
𝑥𝑥
𝑐𝑐
𝑧𝑧
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 Z-axis
X-axis
axis force
relative
Critical bending
depth
toload
measured
the in
moment
of 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚the
𝑀𝑀
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
[upper/lower] at𝑦𝑦[240 abdomen
filtered
lower =𝑑𝑑tibia at𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
𝑀𝑀
spine [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
CFC600
𝑌𝑌load −segment 𝐷𝐷
2 −𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
𝑥𝑥cell
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 in 𝑁𝑁𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷in
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀
𝑑𝑑𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 X-axis
=Undeformed
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥Distance
X-axis 2) force 1 depth
==(−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
moment +measured
𝑒𝑒5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
between [ of 1
6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀
measured the 0.2728
at
ankle lower
abdomen joint tibia and load
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
lower celltibia incell𝑁𝑁
loa
𝑀𝑀 Moment 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] ≥ 2) 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 1≥ ≥− 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
2) 𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧at atlower ])tibia load
𝑧𝑧𝑐𝑐Inversion/ X-axis moment measured at lower tibia load
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀 Axial
Revised
𝑥𝑥 Force Tibia X-, Distance
Critical between
compressive ankle axial joint force and 𝐹𝐹[12 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
lower 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷the tibia load 𝑦𝑦2
incell [0.0907m]
𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Measured 2) =
X-axis
Measured 1(+
compressive force
𝐹𝐹+axis
bending measured
4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
𝑒𝑒5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹 axial
moment force lower in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 tibia load cec
2 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 2𝑀𝑀−
𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 Femur 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷
𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹Eversion
Acetabulum Axial
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑥𝑥Eversion Measured
X-axisY-,
Measured
Distance moment
and bending
Z-
compressive
between 𝑀𝑀
measured
axis moment
force
ankle 𝑀𝑀 axial
joint =
at
measured 𝑀𝑀
inlower =
force
and 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑥𝑥 𝑀𝑀 −lower 𝐹𝐹at
tibia
𝑥𝑥in − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
(resultant𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐹𝐹− load
at𝑦𝑦tibia
−cell
𝐷𝐷acetabulum of medial-lateral
load m2incell
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 load
[0.0907m] cell andin 𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥
Z-axis femur
Distance 1
ln⁡
load
1 Φ+force
between 𝑒𝑒𝑀𝑀
[𝑅𝑅𝑒𝑒in
/0.72) −
𝑥𝑥 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹 40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
ankle − 0.2728
filtered1.6526
joint − at in
𝑧𝑧0.2468
and 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
CFC600
lower (resultant
tibia load of
inc
(+𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝐷𝐷 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 2= + 𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷 ≥X-, Y-,Mass and Z- force inmeasured and at the acetabulum load
𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑦𝑦 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =√𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅 =𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥=max⁡
𝑥𝑥 − +
𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀+𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎2
𝑧𝑧 2𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
Distal
Index 𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀 𝑧𝑧𝑌𝑌𝑅𝑅]
Tibia Peak
Z-axis
Y-axis X-axis
upper
moment
anterior-posterior
deflection
tibia load
measured
directions)
𝑥𝑥of
in the
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
at left
lower filtered
𝐹𝐹 2tibia
𝑀𝑀 2CFC600
load 2cell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚
≥𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝐷𝐷 2) 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
= 3) Y-axis
Z-axis
1 −≥= 2)
Φ
Y-axis
lower[=
Distanceforce
anterior-posterior
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 tibia measured
between
[
1
measured
1 axial
load at ]lower
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
ankle
directions) at lower
filtered
joint][12 tibia and
]) atload
tibia load
CFC600
lower cell cell
tibia
= 𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀 Load 𝑚𝑚
𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹 Measured
Mass
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 between
Y-axisbetween
Measured force compressive
bending ankle
measured
compressive 𝐹𝐹 moment =
joint axial
√𝐹𝐹
at
axial and
lower in force
+
force lower
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝐹𝐹tibia in +
(resultant𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
tibia
load 𝐹𝐹 load
cell in of cell [0.72kg]
medial-lateral and 𝐹𝐹
𝑧𝑧 𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Critical
≥
≥ 2) == compressive − 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅)
10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 −force 0.2468 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀=𝑌𝑌 − 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀− Load 𝐹𝐹
Moment
𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑐𝑐Moment Critical compressive 𝑅𝑅 axial force
𝑥𝑥 [12in𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
𝑐𝑐 𝑦𝑦 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, mit
𝑐𝑐 𝑧𝑧 𝑁𝑁 [0.72kg] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 ≥ 2) =(−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 0.1991
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅) 0.2728 −𝑧𝑧0.2468
2 Revised TibiaRevised Index RTI (-) Z-axis Mass ankle joint and lower tibia load cell Mass between ankle joint and lower tibia load cell
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑+ +𝑥𝑥𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐 Axial 𝑚𝑚 Force U m m 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑎𝑎 ≥ 2) = 1 − X-axis
Distance 1 acceleration
+
between 𝑒𝑒 [
5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹
ankle of the
joint tibiaand𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] in ]) 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
lower
2
tibia ofload
6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹 X-axis force
anterior-posterior measured directions) at [240 lower tibia load 2 cell in 𝑁𝑁 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀≥
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 2) = 1
𝑐𝑐𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚 Measured
−Critical
Distance
Mass (−𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
1bending+between
bending𝑒𝑒between [ 1moment ankle
moment ankle joint joint
in[240 inatand and ]) lower
lower tibiatibia loal
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦
𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹 Critical bending
compressive loadmoment axial force
𝐹𝐹inand 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] [12 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] Measured 0.2728 (resultant me
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀 Femur 𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹 𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷
𝐹𝐹
𝑥𝑥 𝑐𝑐Tibia
𝑥𝑥 Axial
𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑐𝑥𝑥
Inversion/
X-axis
Critical
Distance
Measured
Z-axis
X-axis
X
acceleration
femur
Y lower compressive
between
Ztibia ankle
bending
acceleration in
load
of𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
ofaxial
moment the
injoint
the =m
tibia
filtered
force
tibia
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁in
in[12
+filtered F𝑀𝑀atClower
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
=12
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 CFC600
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
(resultant at2 kNtibia
CFC600
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷load
𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷cell
of𝑦𝑦medial-lateral m [0.0907m] and 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀 𝑧𝑧𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Z-axis
X-axis compressive
femur
X-axis acceleration momentload
𝐹𝐹 measured in1𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, axial
of −the force
0.2728
filtered
tibia
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
atin
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
CFC600
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
1measured lower tibia load ce
𝑐𝑐
Dorsiflexion 𝑧𝑧
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Y-axis
≥Mass 2) moment
=between ankle joint at lower
and lower tibia load
tibia cell in
𝐹𝐹 = √𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝐹 + 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 Index 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷
𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀
𝑧𝑧
Proximal Tibia Distance
Critical
Z-axis
Measured
X-axis upper between
bending
moment tibia
bending ankle
moment
load
𝑀𝑀measured moment
𝑀𝑀 in= joint[240
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑀𝑀
at in
𝐹𝐹= and
lower − 𝑀𝑀𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
filtered
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 lower
𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥− (resultant
𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹− 𝑦𝑦at 𝐷𝐷tibia
CFC600
− load
ofcell incell
medial-lateral [0.0907m] and 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑌𝑌𝑚𝑚𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚 𝐴𝐴𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥= Mass
≥ anterior-posterior
Z-axis
2) =1upper
ΦX-axis between acceleration
𝑀𝑀 − ankle
directions)
tibia load
40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 joint
in
of the
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,and lower
filtered
tibia in atload
tibia
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2 load
CFC60 ce
M𝑀𝑀 tibia load cell ++𝑒𝑒𝑀𝑀 5.7949−0.5196𝐹𝐹
Load 𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀 anterior-posterior
Measured
Mass
𝑘𝑘 between bending ankle 𝑦𝑦directions)
momentjoint atin
and lower
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant
tibia load of 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
medial-lateral
in[0.72kg] and Critical compressive axial force 𝑧𝑧[12 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
𝑚𝑚Eversion C𝑐𝑐=240 Nm
𝑐𝑐
𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 Moment
Inversion/
𝑀𝑀 𝑧𝑧𝑥𝑥
X-axis moment measured 𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐𝑌𝑌
lower tibia 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
load 2𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 cell 2cell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 X-axis
≥ 2)
≥Y-axis moment 1
==acceleration
force
𝑥𝑥4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
[ 𝑒𝑒5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹
measured− 40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑥𝑥measured atat lower
lower tibia
tibia load
load 2cell
cell 𝑁𝑁in
in
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
X-axis 2) force Φmeasured at ]𝑧𝑧the
lower tibia load
𝑀𝑀 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀− Axial Force 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀 2cell inload
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀 −𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷 − 2𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥
Inversion/ anterior-posterior
Mass
Z-axis
Measured between
upper
anterior-posterior
Y-axis acceleration
force ankle
tibia
compressive𝑀𝑀
measured directions)
load joint
𝑥𝑥directions) in
axial
=
at [240 and
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑀𝑀
lower force lower
filtered
− 𝐹𝐹
tibia in𝐷𝐷 tibia−
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
load at CFC600 load
2 cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑦𝑦 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 [0.72kg]
𝐷𝐷 Y-axis
Critical
≥ Y-axis
2) bending
X-axis
= 1 Φ + acceleration
[ moment
𝑒𝑒 moment1
10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 of the
of
[240
measured −] 𝑧𝑧tibia
0.2468 tibia
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] in
at 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
in
lower 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 tibia
Tibia
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 −
𝑥𝑥
+
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷
𝑦𝑦
𝑀𝑀−
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎2 Revised
Eversion
Proximal
𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀 Moment
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹
𝑧𝑧 Tibia
𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦
Distal
𝑐𝑐
𝑌𝑌
𝑦𝑦 Eversion Tibia Critical
Tibia
Critical
Y-axis
Z
Y-axis
Z-axis lower
X-axis
bending
moment
m
force
bending
acceleration
measured moment
measured
tibiamoment load
moment
of
ofaxial
the
𝑀𝑀
𝑘𝑘 at
in [240
the 𝑥𝑥
at
tibia
lower
[240=
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
tibia
𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
lower in
=
filtered
in +tibia
𝑀𝑀
tibia
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
𝑦𝑦
𝑀𝑀 C
𝑥𝑥 −
load at C load
𝐹𝐹
2 CFC600 𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷
2
cell −cell in in
𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑐𝑐 ≥𝑦𝑦2)
𝐷𝐷𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑥𝑥Measured
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴= Measured
1 ≥
Y-axis
−
Distance
Z-axis
2) bending
≥Distance
Z-axis
=
force
2) Y-axis
upper
compressive
=between 1lower
measured
+between
moment
[ 1 axial
10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
ankle
tibia 1measured at
ankle
load
inlower
joint
force(resultant
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑧𝑧and
injoint 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, tibia in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
lower
and load
])
filtered lower
of
tibiacell medial
attibia in
loadloa
CFC60 𝑁𝑁c
+tibia load in filtered 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]at CFC600
𝑀𝑀 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2cell [0.0907m] anterior-posterior 𝑒𝑒force 5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, 𝑦𝑦 at lower tibia load ce
𝑐𝑐 2 Index
Moment 𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷
𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧
𝑐𝑐𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑐 Distance
Z-axis
X-axis compressive
bending
upper
forcebetween tibia ankle
measured ankle
load joint
injoint
at force
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
lower and
𝐹𝐹 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
𝑐𝑐filtered
[12
tibia 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
lower load tibia
attibia CFC600 cellload loadin 𝑁𝑁cell 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝐷𝐷 𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴Critical
≥ ≥ 2) =
compressive1+
=between 𝑒𝑒directions) 1axial
6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀 0.2728
force [12
𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀− 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 z,upper
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷 F (kN) Axial 𝐷𝐷Axial
𝑧𝑧
𝑥𝑥
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑥𝑥
𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹
𝑐𝑐
Moment
Force Force Distance
Z-axis
Measured
Z-axis
Mass
lower
upper
X-axisbetween between
moment
upper tibia
bending
tibia load
measured
ankle moment
load joint
in
injoint atinlower
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
and
and filtered
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁lower
filtered
lower
lowertibia
(resultant-
tibia atload
at CFC600
CFC600 load cell
ofcell in[0.72kg]
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
medial-lateral
[0.0907m]
and 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Distance
Mass
Critical
𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
≥
Measured
Mass
2)between
=
bending
Distance
==bending1Φ+moment
ankle
1 +𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹
[𝑒𝑒ankle
ankle
between
𝑥𝑥
1
4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
moment
joint
−1 40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑅𝑅[240
joint
and
in
𝑧𝑧
]𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
ankle
and
lower
joint
lower tibia
and
(resultant
tibia
load
lower
load
cell
tibia
c[
𝑚𝑚
𝐷𝐷
𝐹𝐹 Distance
M betweenm ankle and 𝑘𝑘tibia load cell [0.0907m] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥≥2) 2)2) − 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 2 of med
𝑧𝑧
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝑧𝑧
Dorsiflexion Mass 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 Mass between joint and lower intibia load cell ce[
Y-axisbetween ankle joint and lower tibia load cell in[0.72kg] 𝑌𝑌 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Y-axis moment measured at lower tibia load 𝑥𝑥𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀
≥ = moment 1of measured at inlower 2tibia load
Distal 𝑚𝑚
𝑀𝑀 𝑌𝑌 Tibia cellcell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦≥ X-axis
Z-axis Y-axis acceleration
lower acceleration
1 ++ tibia load
𝑒𝑒5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹 the in tibia
of the 𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧 tibia
𝑧𝑧 filtered
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 at CFC600
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅= 𝑀𝑀=𝑌𝑌 − + − 2𝑥𝑥 anterior-posterior directions) 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹 1 + 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒load 5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹
10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
Proximal 𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹 𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦 Tibia Z-axis force measured
lower tibia load
𝑀𝑀 at
in lower 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, = lower filtered
𝑀𝑀 tibia − tibia load
𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥at
2𝐷𝐷CFC600 − in 𝑁𝑁 𝐴𝐴 𝑚𝑚 =anterior-posterior
Z-axis −upper
2)𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒= tibia
Mass 1− 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
between 1in ankle
directions) 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered
joint and at CFC600
lower tibia loa
𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎2 𝐷𝐷 Axial 𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝐹
𝑚𝑚 𝑦𝑦
Moment Force Y-axis
Mass
C acceleration
between m ankle of joint the
𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 tibia
and in 𝑌𝑌 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 𝑘𝑘 load cell [0.72kg] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
Axial 𝑀𝑀
Inversion/
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹
Force Y-axis lower
X-axis
Z-axis
Critical moment
acceleration
force
lower
bending measured
tibia measured
load of the at
injoint at
tibia
lower
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, lower in
filtered tibia tibia
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 load 2
at𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 load
CFC600 cell𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷cell in2 𝑁𝑁 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎 𝐹𝐹 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑀𝑀 Y-axis
X-axis≥X-axis
2)moment
=1force
acceleration + 𝑒𝑒 measured 6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀
measured
1of the at at
tibia lowerin 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
𝑧𝑧 lower tibia load cell
𝑦𝑦 tibia load cellinin
2
𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀moment =[240 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] 1
𝑥𝑥
𝐹𝐹 Z-axis
Distance between tibia load
ankle in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥and filtered 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦lower at CFC600
𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦𝑌𝑌𝑐𝑐
- 2 tibia load cell [0.0907m] 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 1 +acceleration 𝑒𝑒moment
4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 − 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 − ≥≥
Critical≥2) ==
2)bending
Y-axis [240 of the tibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎2𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 Fz,lower (kN) Distal Eversion 𝑎𝑎𝑀𝑀
Dorsiflexion
𝐹𝐹
𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑧𝑧𝑥𝑥𝑌𝑌
Tibia
X-axis
M
X-axis
Distance acceleration
forcebetweenmeasured mof m
𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
ankle the
at
injoint
tibia
lower and
− 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁in tibia
− 𝐹𝐹lower
𝐷𝐷 −
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 load attibia
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 2 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷
cell loadinm𝑁𝑁
cellincell [0.0907m] 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 𝐷𝐷 𝑦𝑦𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Z-axis Y-axis
Y-axis lower
2) moment
Distance
force 11 between
1+measured
tibia + 𝑒𝑒load 6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒measured
4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
1in in ankle
at lower at 𝑧𝑧joint
𝑧𝑧𝑦𝑦
filtered lower tibia and attibia lower
load
CFC600 load
cell cell
tibiain 𝑁𝑁lo in
Tibia Z-axis Y-axis upper
moment tibia load
measured at𝑀𝑀lower filtered tibia CFC600
load loadcell + 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 − 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 − 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷 Proximal
Moment
𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀
𝑚𝑚 Mass between ankle
𝑀𝑀 joint =𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,and 𝑌𝑌lower 𝐷𝐷tibia − 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
[0.72kg] 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑦𝑦 Z-axis 2)upper tibia 𝑀𝑀 Saunders load 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, 21 filtered at CFC600
Moment X-axisbetween
moment measured at lower lower 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ Mass = 𝑥𝑥 − 40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑀𝑀 𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥tibia load cell incell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷 Axial 𝑀𝑀
Force
𝐷𝐷
𝑚𝑚 Y-axis
Distance
Mass
Y-axis moment
between
moment measured
ankle ankle
measured joint joint at
and
at and
lower lower lowertibia
tibia tibia load
tibia
load load2 cell
load
cell cell in
in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
[0.72kg] [0.0907m] 𝐹𝐹 𝑚𝑚 X-axis
Distance force between
between measured 1
ankle
1 at lower
joint and tibialower load tibiacellload in 𝑁𝑁cc
load
𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑦𝑦𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =
= 𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀 −− 𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷
𝐷𝐷 −
− 2𝑥𝑥 Axial𝑀𝑀
𝑥𝑥
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑦𝑦Force
𝑎𝑎 𝑌𝑌
𝑌𝑌 X-axis acceleration
Y-axis force measured of at lower
the tibia in tibia 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 load 2 cell in 𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ ≥2) 2)== 1Φ+[𝑒𝑒 ankle joint 6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀
5.6654−0.8189𝐹𝐹 ] and lower
𝑦𝑦
𝑧𝑧 tibia
𝑀𝑀 = 𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥
𝑌𝑌 − 𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦
𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 − 2 𝑀𝑀 C
Y-axisbetween
force measured
measured m m at lower 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 tibia load cell in in 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 2) = 10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹 𝑁𝑁 [0.72kg] 6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀
𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑌𝑌 𝑥𝑥 2 𝐹𝐹 X-axis
Mass force ankle ofjoint at lower
and lower tibia load
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
tibia 2 𝐷𝐷 cell
load cell 𝑁𝑁 Distance 1acceleration
between + 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒ankle ankle joint 𝑦𝑦 and lower tibia2 load c
Dorsiflexion cell [0.0907m] 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑚𝑚𝐷𝐷 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 X-axis 1 joint inatof the tibia intibia
𝑦𝑦
2 𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦 Z-axis
X-axis
Distance lower
acceleration
forcebetween tibia
measured load
ankle in lower
the
at tibia
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered
in tibia 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 load at 𝑥𝑥CFC600 cell in 𝑁𝑁 Y-axisMass moment
between 1 + measured 6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀 lower
and tibia
lower load
at𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 cell
load incell𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [
Distal 𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑧𝑧𝑥𝑥Tibia
𝐹𝐹 Z
Distance 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
between ankle = 𝑀𝑀joint 𝑌𝑌 −
joint 𝑘𝑘 and 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 lower
and − 2 tibia C Cload Z-axis ≥ 2) lower = tibia 4.572−0.670𝐹𝐹 load 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered CFC600
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 Moment
Axial𝑀𝑀 𝐷𝐷Inversion/
𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚
𝐷𝐷 Force X-axisbetween
moment
between measured
ankleof the joint tibia
at lower
and in lower 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
lowertibia 2tibia
load
tibia 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎load
cell
load , 𝐷𝐷 incell
mit cell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [0.0907m]
[0.0907m] 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 X-axis Mass
𝐴𝐴 Y-axis≥ force between
X-axis = measured
acceleration 1moment+𝑀𝑀 ankle
𝑒𝑒𝑥𝑥 −of at joint
measured
40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
lower
the tibia and 𝑧𝑧 tibia atlower
inlower 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠tibia
load tibiaload
cell
2 inload𝑁𝑁cell ce
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 − 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷
𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥
Eversion
Mass ankle 𝑀𝑀joint and
and = lower lower
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − tibia tibia
𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 − load
load
cell
𝑦𝑦
cell
[0.72kg]
[0.72kg]
𝑦𝑦 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 2) = Φ+[ Saunders Saunders 1
21
]
21
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎2𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀
𝑚𝑚 Y-axis
Mass
X-axis moment
between
moment measured
ankle 𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
joint at lower tibia load cell 2 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑎𝑎 X-axis acceleration 𝑀𝑀 − of
40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 the tibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑦𝑦 = 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑌𝑌 − − 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷 − − 𝑀𝑀
Dorsiflexion
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹
𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥𝑌𝑌𝑥𝑥 Y-axisbetween
Mass
X-axis
Z force
w measured
acceleration Mmeasured
ankle y(Nm), ofjoint at Flower
the at
and (N)
tibia lower lower
inof tibia tibia
the
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 load
tibia 2𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎load
lowerCload 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷
cell Ccell incell
tibia in[0.72kg]
𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 cell
load 𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 𝑥𝑥 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Distance
Y-axis≥≥Y-axis
2)between
moment
2)==
force ankle
measured𝑥𝑥measured
10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 jointatand atlower lower
lower tibia tibia
tibia load load
load cell cell
cell in in [
𝑁𝑁
2M (Nm) Moment
𝑀𝑀 = 𝐹𝐹 Moment 𝑀𝑀 = 𝑀𝑀 x𝑘𝑘𝑌𝑌 − in 𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 −load 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 =1Φ+[𝑒𝑒 6.535−0.1085𝑀𝑀]𝑦𝑦
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎2𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 y,ankle Y-axis
𝑎𝑎
𝐹𝐹
Inversion/ X-axis force
accelerationmeasured of
of the
𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 at lower
tibia tibia 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
2cell 𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 in
in 𝑁𝑁 𝐴𝐴X-axis ≥Distance
X-axis moment 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥measured at lower tibia load cell in
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹
𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 Y-axis
X-axis
Distance
X-axis force
acceleration
between
moment measured ankle
measured
𝑀𝑀
atjoint
the lower
tibia
ataxlower and
(m/s²) in tibia lower
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
tibia of load 2
tibia
the
load cell load
tibia
cell 𝑁𝑁
incell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [0.0907m] 𝑚𝑚𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 Mass between force ankle + between
measured joint
− 40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 and
ankle
at lower lower joint tibia tibia
and load load
lower cellcell tibia
in [0.7
𝑁𝑁lo
Eversion 𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 −
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 − 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
𝑚𝑚 𝐷𝐷
𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥
𝐷𝐷 Distance
X-axisbetween
Distance
Mass
X-axis
Y between
moment
between
moment
m m ankle ankle
measured
ankle
measured
m joint joint
joint at lower
and
at and
lower
andlower
w lower
lowertibia
tibia tibia tibia
load
tibia
load load2 cell load
cell
load cell in cell
incell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
[0.72kg] [0.0907m] 𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
[0.0907m] X-axis
Distance≥acceleration
Y-axis 2)force
Mass =between
between Φ measured
[𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 Saundersof −
ankle
− the
ankle 40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 at
tibia
joint
joint ]in
lower
21 and and
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 tibia
lower 2 load cell in 𝑁𝑁
lower tibia
tibia load load ce c
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 =
𝑀𝑀 = 𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − − 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷 − 2 𝑦𝑦
Moment
𝑚𝑚
𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥 Y-axis force measured at lowerDtibia = 0,0907 load cell m in 𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑥𝑥 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐴𝐴 ≥≥ ≥ 2) 2)== =Φ Φ [[
𝑥𝑥
𝑥𝑥 10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
]]
𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦 − 2 𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹 Mass between
Y-axisbetween
force m ankleofjoint
measured joint at lower and
lower lower tibia tibia
load
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 2 𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 load
cell in incell [0.72kg]
𝑁𝑁 [0.72kg] 10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
2 Inversion/ 𝑚𝑚 Mass
Y-axis
X force
acceleration ankle
measured at and w𝐹𝐹 lower tibia tibia
load load
cell cell 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝐷𝐷 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 X-axis Distance
Mass moment
between
Y-axis between + measured
ankle
acceleration ankle
10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 joint atofjoint
lower
and 𝑀𝑀 lower
the and tibia
tibia lower
inload
tibia 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 tibia
cell
load 2 cell load
in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [0c
Eversion
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹
𝐷𝐷𝑦𝑦 Distance between
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ankle = the 𝑀𝑀joint tibia
− and in𝐷𝐷 m=0,72kg− 22 tibia load𝑁𝑁cell [0.0907m]
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
lower
X-axis acceleration of the 𝑥𝑥 tibia 𝑦𝑦in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
Foot 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 Moment
𝑎𝑎𝐷𝐷
𝐷𝐷𝑦𝑦𝑥𝑥
𝑎𝑎
𝑚𝑚
Distance
Y-axis
D
Distance
Mass between
between
acceleration
w ankle
between ankle
ankleofjoint the joint
joint tibia
and
and
andlower in lower lower
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 wtibia tibia load
2tibia load
load cell
cell
cell [0.0907m]
[0.72kg]
[0.0907m] m 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚 Y-axis Mass
X-axis force between measured
acceleration
𝑀𝑀
ankle
−
ofatjoint lower
the
40𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
and
tibia tibiainlower loadtibia
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2 cell load in 𝑁𝑁cell
𝑀𝑀
Inversion/𝑚𝑚 X-axis
Mass moment
between measured
ankle joint at
and lower lower tibia tibia 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 load load 𝐷𝐷 cell cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
[0.72kg] 𝑎𝑎 Y-axis
Distance
X-axis acceleration
between
moment ankle jointatand of the tibia in
lower 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 tibia 2
load cellcell [
M w inw 𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦 = Φ [ measured ]lower tibia load in 𝑁𝑁
𝑥𝑥
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 − 𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑦𝑦 𝑥𝑥 Mass
Y-axisbetween
acceleration ankleofjoint the and
tibia lower tibia 2 load cell [0.72kg] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 2)
2 Eversion Y-axis force measured 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = at 𝑀𝑀 lower𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹 tibia
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 − load 2 cell in 𝑁𝑁
𝑦𝑦
Saunders 10𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 21
𝑎𝑎𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑎𝑎 Y-axis acceleration
X acceleration of
of the the tibia
tibia in in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2 2 , mit 𝑚𝑚𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 MassY-axis between force ankle measured joint atand lower lower tibia tibia load load cellcell in [0.7𝑁𝑁
Moment Distance
𝑚𝑚 𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷 X m between
m M mxankle(Nm), joint
F (N) and w of lower
the tibia load
lower tibia cell
load
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [0.0907m]
cell 𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷 Y-axis
between 𝑀𝑀 of −
ankle the 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
tibia
joint in
and 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 lower 2
tibia load ce
𝑀𝑀 = 𝑀𝑀 − 𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷 − Mz,ankle (Nm) 𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚 Mass betweenmankle joint and
Y
y
awy(m/s²) lower tibia load cell
of2the tibia𝑁𝑁 [0.72kg]
𝑦𝑦
𝑚𝑚
𝐴𝐴 ≥
Mass between ankle
= Φ Saunders 21
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 and lower tibia load cell [0
joint
𝑎𝑎𝐷𝐷𝑦𝑦 Y-axis acceleration of the tibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 Y-axis acceleration of the tibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
Saunders 21
D w D = 0,0907 w m m 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦
𝑚𝑚 M w w
m=0,72kg Saunders 21
Saunders 21
Saunders 21
ou und P n Am NH A OB QU CRA HY R U V H C P R ORMANC 𝑚𝑚 AND OCCUPAN N UR R K A M N N V H C W H MA
OV R AP COUN RM A UR V 2015 P p Numb 15 0108
Saunders 21
106
>>
Focus
Innovation
Focus Support Adult Side Impact
Design
Focus
Process
Focus
Service
FEA Models Lo a d Ce lls
Test Fixtures In-DAS ATDs
Pedestrain Testing Child ATDs
Putting Safety to the Test

www.humaneticsatd.com
SAFETY
WISSEN in Cooperation with
BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH
Overview Dummies
Weights, Dimensions and Instructions for Calibration
Adult Dummies for Frontal / Rear Impact
Seating
Weight
Height Instruction for Calibration
(kg)
(cm)
Hybrid II 50 % Male 74.4 90.7 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart B
SAE Engineering Aid 25
Hybrid III 5 % Female 49.1 78.7
CRF 49 Part 572, Subpart O
CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart E
Hybrid III 50 % Male 77.7 88.4
1999/98/EG
Hybrid III 95 % Male 101.2 93.5 SAE Engineering Aid 26
BioRID II 77.7 88.4 User Manual
Adult Dummies for Side Impact

Seating
Weight
(kg)
(cm)
Eurosid 1 Certification Procedure
Eurosid 1 72.0 90.4
96/27/EG, UN R95
ES-2 72.0 90.9 FTSS - User Manual / UN R95
ES-2 re 72.0 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 44.5 79.0 User Manual
WorldSID 5% Female 48.27 User Manual
WorldSID 50% Male 74.88 87.0 User Manual
Child Dummies
Seating
Weight
(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 (18m) 11.1 49.9 Q1,5 User Manual
Q10 35.5 73.4 Q10 User Manual (Rev. A Draft)
CRABI 12m 10.0 46.4 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart R
Hybrid II - 3 Jahre 15.1 57.2 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart C
Hybrid II - 6 Jahre 21.5 64.5 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart I
Hybrid III - 3 Jahre 16.7 54.6 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart P
Hybrid III - 6 Jahre 23.4 63.5 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart N
Hybrid III - 10 Jahre 35.2 72.39 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart T
108
Automotive Test Solutions www.hude.com
testingreen
LED lighting Impactors
Energy efficient Component

automatic chamber crash test
Airbag test systems

HuDe GmbH • Gewerbestrasse Sued 55 • D-41812 Erkelenz • info@hude.com
Atlas has over 40 years of experience in customized global high-speed

lighting systems for crash testing. We specialize in complete solutions from
initial consultation to full realization of turnkey projects.
Crash Test Lighting

Overhead • On-board • Pit • Static
Partnered with
• HMI and LED lighting technology

• High illuminance up to 200,000 Lux
• Flicker-free light at rates up to 25,000 fps
• Reliable and precise positioning solutions
• Professional interface management
Phone: +49 (0)6105 9128-6 E-mail: atlas.info-khs@ametek.de
Web: www.atlas-mts.com/highspeed-lighting
Dummy & Crash Test Seminars by our Partner
Dummy – Trainings
Course Description DUMMY Hybrid III 5%, 50%, 95%

N EU
The seminars give you the opportunity to gain efficiency and security in the use and DATE 18.-19.02.16 29.-30.09.16
handling of dummies.
COURSE ID 2741 2742
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 1.290,- EUR (each)
DUMMY THOR
Course Contents DATE 04.-05.04.16 14.-15.11.16

Introduction of the respective dummy-type COURSE ID 2757 2758
History, development, assemblies, standard instruments, optional measuring PRICE 1.490,- EUR (each)
points, recent modifications, regulations for application/test, calibration DUMMY BioRID II
Complete disassembly of the dummies in work groups
DATE 22.-23.02.16 04.-05.10.16
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 2743 2744
individual assemblies, sensors and cabling, special tools, other devices, cleaning PRICE 1.290,- EUR (each)
Complete assembly of the dummies in work groups DUMMY WorldSID 50%
work steps, possible assembly errors, mounting of the sensors, cabling, DATE 14.-15.03.16 07.-08.11.16
adjustments of joints, storing/transport
COURSE ID 2755 2756
Dummy calibration
PRICE 1.490,- EUR (each)
Demonstration and explanation of the calibration tests
DUMMY ES-2 / ES-2re
DATE 03.-04.03.16 27.-28.10.16
Course Objectives
Efficiency and security in use and handling of dummies COURSE ID 2751 2752
Exact knowledge about assembly, mechanics and sensor positions PRICE 1.290,- EUR (each)
Understanding of the measuring possibilities and limits DUMMY SID IIs
DATE 07.-08.03.16 01.-02.11.16
Who should attend? COURSE ID 2753 2754
Project and test engineers, technicians, mechanics
PRICE 1.290,- EUR (each)
DUMMY P-/Q-Child Dummys
DATE 29.02.16 24.10.16
COURSE ID 2747 2748
PRICE 740,- EUR (each)
DUMMY Q6 / Q10 NEU
DATE 01.03.16 25.10.16
COURSE ID 2749 2750
DUMMY Hybrid III 3 & 6 y/o
DATE 25.02.16 07.10.16
COURSE ID 2745 2746
VENUE Bergisch Gladbach
LANGUAGE
Course Instructors:
Dummy Specialists, BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH
BGS operates the dummy calibration laboratory of the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt). BGS calibrates crash test
dummies for the automotive industry. The seminars are held
Alzenau by experienced
2 Tage engineers
1.290,- EUR from danach
bis 26.03.16, BGS‘ team.
1.540,- EUR
110
Automotive Testing
for accelerated development cycles,
increased safety and simulation verification
Find out more about non-contact

measurement for crash, impact, wind
tunnel and climate chamber testing.
Visit us at Automotive Testing Expo in Stuttgart from May 31 to June 2, 2016.

Additionally, you can order a free CD of the GOM Testing Workshop at
www.gom.com/events
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
Proposed criteria and limits for Flex PLI:

Criterion Limit
C.G. of tibia
Tibia bending Moment 340 Nm
(380 Nm in exception
TIBIA SECTION zone)
70 mm MCL Elongation 22 mm
Durchmesser
ACL / PCL Elongation 13 mm
Length Diameter Mass
926 mm ca. 132 mm 13.4 kg Length Diameter Mass
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 ca. 155 mm 11 - 18 kg Adult Headform 165 mm 4.5 kg Child Headform 165 mm 3.5 kg
more on pedestrian protection  page 86

112
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 Directive on pedestrian Test preparation according to Euro NCAP Testing Protocol
protection and Euro NCAP’s pedestrian protection assess- and EU Directives (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
26.-28.04.2016 2775 Bergisch Gladbach 3 Days 1.790,- EUR
20.-22.09.2016 2776 Bergisch Gladbach 3 Days 1.790,- EUR
Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Flex PLI

Course Objectives Assembly along with practical Tips and Pointers to
Detailed Knowledge of the new Impactor Specialities and possible Mistakes
Experience with Handling and Usage of the Impactor Adjustments of the Compound Springs, Clamping Bolts,
Understanding of the Impactor’s Functionality Stopper Cables, etc.
Course Contents Demonstration of both Certification Procedures
History, Biomechanics, Evaluation, Legislation
Data Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results
Assembly, Transducers, Onboard Data Acquisition, Who should attend?
Technical Details Project-, test- and simulation engineers,
Disassembly along with Comments on Function of Technicians, mechanics
Components
14.04.2016 2781 Bergisch Gladbach 1 Day 740,- EUR
Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Euro NCAP Grid Procedure

Course Objectives Exemplification by a complete Mark-up of a Vehicle
Experience with the new Vehicle Markup Colour Scheme, Manufacurer’s Predictions, allowed
Certainty in its Application Tolerances
Deep Understanding of the Procedure Default Green / Default Red Definitions
Course Contents Result Analysis, Point Assessment
Basics, Background and Development of the Procedure
Adaption of the Principle to Upper- and Lowerleg Areas
Test Area Determination, Borders, Exemption Zones, Who should attend?
Special Cases Project-, test- and simulation engineers,
Necessary Laboratory Equipment, Helpful Tools Technicians, mechanics
113
SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCAP Tests for Active Safety and Driver Assistance

Safety Assist Assessment based on:
Seat Belt Reminder (SBR):
On all front row seats 2 Points
additionally on all rear seats 1 Point
Speed Assist Systems (SAS) Assessment Protocol Version 7.0
SLIF Speed Limit MSA Manual Speed ISA Intelligent Speed
Information Function Assistance Assistance
Communicating Subsign recognition
Speed Limit (conditional speed limits):
no 0.25 Points 0.25 Points
camera based
yes 0.5 Points 0.5 Points
map based
yes 0.5 Points 0.5 Points
combined
yes 1 Point 1 Point
Warning Function 0.5 Points 1 Points
precision -10/+0 km/h 0.75 Points 0.75 Points
Speed Limitation
precision -5/+0 km/h 1 Point 1 Point
In total, max. 3 points are available for Speed Asssist Systems
Euro NCAP
Lane Support Systems (LSS):

Vehicle under Test (VUT) leaves straight line path in a turn with 1200 m radius followed by a straight line path

Test speed 72 km/h

LDW Systems: 1.5 Points
lane marking: single dashed line / solid line
lateral velocities 0.1 & 0.3 m/s
Assessment criterion: Warning must occur at Distance to Line Crossing (DTLC) ≤ -0.3 m
LKA Systems: 1 Point
lane marking: solid line
lateral velocities 0.1 - 1.0 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps
Assessment criterion: Distance to Line Crossing (DTLC) ≤ -0.4 m in 3 out of 5 tests at lateral velocities between 0.1 - 0.5 m/s
HMI: Default ON (0.2 Points), Haptic/supplementary warning (0.2 Points), Blind Spot Monitoring (0.1 Points): Total: 0.5 Points
AEB Inter-Urban: max. 3 Points more  page 124
AEB City: max. 3 Points (as part of the Adult Occupant assessment) more  page 121
AEB VRU Pedestrian: max. 6 Points (as part of the Pedestrian Protection assessment) more  page 122
Planned extensions:
additional scenarios for AEB City / AEB Inter-Urban (starting 2018): Variation of impact point / angle
Extension of the Lane Support Systems assessement in the areas “Run Off Road / Road Edge Detection (starting 2018). Higher
total score available: 4 Points.
AEB VRU Cyclist (as of 2018): max. 6 Points (as part of the Pedestrian Protection assessment)
Junction Assist (as of 2020)
Latin NCAP
Seat Belt Reminder compliant with FMVSS 208 as a prerequisite for 3 or more stars
ESC compliant with GTR 8 as a prerequisite for 4 or more stars more  page 51
Seat Belt Reminder as a prerequisite for 5 stars

ESC as a prerequisite for 5 stars more  page 52
ASEAN NCAP

As of 2017: Safety Assist Technology (SAT) assessement (Weighting 25 % of the overall rating)
Effective Braking & Avoidance (EBA): ABS / ESC: 8 Points
Seat Belt Reminder driver/front passenger/rear passenger: 6 Points
Blind Spot Technology: 2 Points
Advanced SAT: integrated child seats/AEB, LDW, FCW etc.: 2 Points
114
Insassenschutz. Aktive Sicherheit. Fahrerassistenz.
Driven for Life.

SAFETY
WISSEN
UPDATE
NCAP Tests for Active Safety and Driver Assistance

Assessment of the rollover risk (as part of the Vehicle Safety Score) more  page 44
Calculation of the Static Stability Factor (SSF) = track width / 2* CoG height
Dynamic Test: Fishhook Maneuver
Rollover Rating based on statistical model
Forward Collision Warning (confirmation test for existence of FCW systems, not part of the Vehicle Safety Score)
Test 1: approach to standing vehicle at 72 km/h - Criterion: Warning at ≥ 2.1 s TTC
U.S. NCAP
Test 2: approach to decelerating vehicle (30 m ahead, -0.3g) at 72 km/h, - Criterion: Warning at ≥ 2.4 s TTC
Test 3: approach to slower (32 km/h) vehicle at 72 km/h - Criterion: Warning at ≥ 2.0 s TTC
Lane Departure Warning (confirmation test for existence of LDW systems, not part of the Vehicle Safety Score)
5 tests at 72 km/h and 0.5 m/s lateral velocity per departure direction (left/right) and line type (solid/dashed/Bott’s Dots) (a total
of 30 tests)
Criteria: Lane departure alert must occur in a corridor of 0.75 m before and 0.3 m after crossing the lane line.
To be awarded an overall passing grade, the LDW system must satisfy the pass criteria for 3 of 5 individual trials for each
combination of departure direction and lane line type (60 percent), and pass 20 of the 30 trials overall (66 percent).
Rear View Video Systems (confirmation test for existence of rear view systems, not part of the Vehicle Safety Score)
AEB (part of the Top Safety Pick rating) more  page 46

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
IIHS
Rating scheme:
Points
Rating BASIC ADVANCED SUPERIOR

Advanced Lighting
Assement 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.
Brake Performance Tests: Measurement of the stopping distance from 100 km/h on dry and wet road.
Publication of results without further evaluations: http://www.nasva.go.jp
SBR: 8 Points
more  page 57
JNCAP
Advanced Safety Award, consisting of:

AEB (similar to Euro NCAP AEB Inter-Urban, max 60 km/h without CCRb scenario) max. 32 Points
LDW (at 60 and 70 km/h) : max. 8 Points
Around View Monitor: max. 6 Points
ASV Award for cars achieving > 2 Points
ASV+ Award for cars achieving > 12 Points
Rollover assessment based on SSF like in U.S. NCAP (see above): 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
LDW (Lane Departure Warning) 0.2 Points
KNCAP

SBR (Seat Belt Reminder) 0.4 Points
FCW (Forward Collision Warning) 0.2 Points
AEB Inter-Urban 0.2 Points
more  page 58
116
Active Safety, Driver Assistance, Elektronics, Sensors
Autonomous Driving - Technologies, Legal Status,

Introduction Scenarios
Course Description The seminar offers an introduction in the world auf auto-
After the successful introduction of Advanced Driver Assis- mated driving, not only the legislative and technical gaps to
tance Systems (ADAS) by virtually all automobile manufac- be closed, but also the new possibilities to use future vehicles.
turers, some OEMs and suppliers have announced to offer As a result, it is useful for all experts working on automobiles
systems in the near future which enable partially or highly au- and traffic systems, be it sensors, safety technologies, Human-
tomated driving in specific traffic scenarios. This is particularly Machine-Interface, communication systems, interior design,
true for the automated driving in traffic jams, or the autono- vehicle equipment or traffic planning.
mous cruising on highways. Furthermore, the number of ac-
cidents shall be reduced significantly by automatic interactions Who should attend?
of the auto-pilot in critical situations. Everybody who is interested in automated driving.
The seminar starts with the motivations, drivers and benefits
of autonomous driving, going on with the legal barriers, along Course Contents
with the resulting conflicts of goals. While consumers will buy Motivations, drivers and benefits of automated driving
Legal barriers and conflicts of goals: what does the driver
auto-pilots in order to do something else during driving, how-
ever the driver must take again the control of the vehicle in want to do, what is he allowed to do during driving?
Human-Machine-Interface, driver monitoring and
certain situations. This dilemma will have major consequences
on the requirements to autonomous systems and the tech- recording
Scenarios and limits of automated driving
nologies utilized. Particularly challenging is the driver behavior
Roadmap from ADAS to temporary autonomous driving
when to be brought back into-the-loop, along with the com-
Requirements and gaps to be closed
munication between driver and vehicle, including the driver
Potentials of auto-pilots to avoid accidents
monitoring potentially needed. Starting with the available
Usage of auto-pilot, and the resulting changes to future
technologies, both in self-driving prototypes and systems in
production, the technical requirements and gaps to be closed automobiles
in order to enhance ADAS to partially or fully automated driv-
ing will be discussed. This includes not only the technologies
enabling autonomous driving, but also the changes in the de-
sign of future automobiles, resulting from the new utilization
possibilities. Finally, the potential of auto-pilots to prevent ac-
cidents is described extensively.
Course Instructor:
Dr. rer. nat. Lothar Groesch, Groesch Automotive Safety Consulting
Dr. Lothar Groesch has been working in safety engineering for more than 37 years, both at one of the 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 Automotive 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.

Advanced Driver Assistance and Crash Avoidance Systems
Course Description functional safety, and the test and validation procedures. Fi-
After the quantum leaps in passive safety in the last three nally, new architectures are discussed which are needed due
decades, the hope for further improvements is on accident to the increased system complexity, as well as the synergies
avoidance. A major step is already underway with the imple- and advantages resulting from system networking, both the
mentation of the Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and the functional and packaging aspects of integrated safety.
Brake Assist. Similar benefits are anticipated through Ad-
vanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) which support and Who should attend?
unburden the driver to address driver errors which are re- The seminar addresses technicians and engineers working
sponsible for 90 % of all accidents. Sensors (cameras, radar, in research and development in the automotive industry,
laser, ultrasonic) monitor the traffic to provide safety relevant especially systems engineers, project engineers and project
information to the driver and warn him of any accident haz- managers as well as all experts from vehicle safety, who would
ards before ultimately intervening to mitigate a crash. Systems like to get an overview of the current and future solutions and
like the Adaptive Cruise Control even enable semi-autono- methods in Active Vehicle Safety.
mous driving in specific traffic scenarios.
The seminar describes today’s and tomorrow’s active safety Course Contents
systems, their requirements, modes of operation, and the uti- Active Safety: accident analysis, legislation, market trends,
lized sensors. After introducing of the vehicle dynamic systems customer expectations
The sensors of Active Safety
(ABS, ESC, Brake Assist, Active Steering), the driver assistance
Vehicle dynamic control: ABS, ESC, brake assist, active
systems are discussed according to the escalation strategy 1.
informing -, 2. warning -, 3. intervening -, and 4. autonomous steering
Driver assistance:
systems. Based on the findings of accident analysis, the sys-
Informing systems
tems are consistently mirrored on real world accidents in or-
Warning systems
der to understand the accident causes, and how the system Intervening systems
can avoid the accident. The seminar also provides an outlook Autonomous systems
how today’s ADAS systems will be enhanced step by step to System / driver interaction: HMI, dilemmas, conflicts
temporary autonomous driving. Functional safety
Integrated safety
In addition to these technical aspects, the seminar discusses
the system’s interactions with the driver. A key topic is the Hu-
man Machine Interface (HMI), the driver acceptance of the
system, his reactions and behavior. A major issue however
is the conflict between the system and the driver, the warn-
ing and intervention dilemma in particular. Other points of
interest are legal barriers such as the Vienna Convention, the
Course Instructor:
Dr. Lothar Groesch has been working in safety engineering for more than 37 years, both at one of the 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 Automotive 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.

Simplify AEB testing
with VBOX
TIME TO COLLISION: 0.23S
DISTANCE TO TARGET: 0.45M
ANGLE TO TARGET : 1.26°
VBOX GPS data-logging systems are

accurate to 1cm and have been proven
to match or exceed the Euro NCAP
standards for Autonomous Emergency
Brake (AEB) testing. VBOX3i DUAL
ANTENNA WITH RTK
RACELOGIC provide a range of

solutions to simplify the AEB testing
process, enabling engineers to obtain
accurate data in nearly all test
conditions. www.vboxautomotive.co.uk/AEB
SAFETY
WISSEN
Test of ESC Systems in UN R13H, 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
t=1.07 s t0 t0 + 1 s t0 + 1.75 s
120
SAFETY
WISSEN
Euro NCAP Test Method for AEB City Assessment Protocol Version 7.0.3
Test Protocol Version 1.1
Approach to stationary target

v0 =10 km/h ... 50 km/h in 5 km/h steps v=0 km/h
Points for Remarks

v0 (km/h)
Accident Avoidance
10 1 Prerequisites for scoring in AEB City:
minimum 1.5 points (out of 2) from the whiplash assessment of front seats
15 2
(see page 81)
20 2 up to 20 km/h accidents must be completely avoided
AEB City
25 2 For v0 > 20 km/h accident mitgation is rewarded. The score is calculated from the
remaining impact velocity vI
30 2
Points for Accident Avoidance * (v0-vI)/v0
35 2 Example: At v0=30 km/h the target is impacted at a remaining velocity of vI=10
40 1 km/h:
2 Points * (30 km/h - 10 km/h) / 30 km/h = 1.333 Points
45 1
50 1
AEB City systems, that are default ON at the start of every journey and can not be
HMI Assessment
de-activated by the driver with a single push on a button are awarded 2 Points
The raw score of a maximum of 14 points from the AEB test is scaled down to a maximum of 2.5 points (scaling factor
0.179). The HMI points are scaled to a maximum of 0.5 points (scaling factor 0.25). The total maximum score for AEB City
is 3 points and is part of the Adult Occupant Rating.
Organized by:
PraxisConference
Autonomous Emergency in Cooperation with:
Braking
try out all

relevant testing systems!
Sept 14-15, 2016
www.carhs.de/aeb
121
WISSEN
UPDATE Test Protocol Version 1.0.1
Euro NCAP Test Method for AEB VRU-Pe
Adult, Farside, Impact at 50%

of the Vehicle Width (CVFA)
v 0=20 km/h ... 60 km/h v=8 km/h
Adult, Nearside, Impact at 25

& 75 % of the Vehicle Width
(CVNA-25/75)
v 0=20 km/h ... 60 km/h v=5 km/h
Child, Obscured, Nearside,

Impact at 50 % of the Vehicle
Width (CVNC) 1m
OV1* OV2*
v 0=20 km/h ... 60 km/h; v=5 km/h

Remarks
*Obstruction Vehicle Dimensions:
Preconditions for scoring AEB VRU-Pe points:
at least 22 points for passive pedestrian protection OV 1 OV2
AEB VRU System must work from 10 km/h in the CVNA-75 scenario Length (mm) 4300 - 4700 4100 - 4400
AEB VRU-Pe
AEB VRU System must reduce speed in the CVNA-75 scenario at

20km/h Width (mm) 1750 - 1900 1700 - 1900
AEB VRU System must be able to detect pedestrians walking as slow Height (mm) 1500 - 1800 1300 - 1500
as 3 km/h
AEB VRU System may not automatically switch off at speeds below 60
km/h.
HMI assessment
no deactivation with a single push on a button: 2 points
FCW function: loud and clear audiovisual warning in critical situations at speeds > 40 km/h, at least 1.2 sec TTC in scenario CVNA-
75 at 45 km/h: 1 point
No switching off at low ambient lighting conditions (< 1000 lux): 1 point
Scoring table for all 3 scenarios:
v0 (km/h) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Points 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1
scoring by linear sliding scale min. speed reduction of 20 km/h
(e.g. 40 % speed reduction → 40 % score) per test PASS / FAIL
For each scenario normalized scores are calculated for AEB. The total normalized AEB score is the average of the
scenario scores.
The total score for AEB-VRU-Pe is the sum of the total normalized AEB score multiplied by 5 and the normalized HMI
score, resulting in a maximum of 6 points available that are part of the Pedestrian Protection assessment.
Example:
Test Points max. Points Normalized Score Factor Points
CVFA 14.5 18 80.6%
CVNA-25 13.8 18 76.7%
CVNA-75 18.0 18 100.0%
CVNC 8.2 18 45.3%
Σ AEB Scenarios 54.5 72 75.7% 5x 3.785
HMI 2 4 50% 1x 0.5
total AEB VRU-Pe Score 4.285
122
Advanced testing technologies
for active safety systems
to reduce road fatalities
www.4activesystems.at
WISSEN
Test Protocol Version 1.1
Euro NCAP Test Method for AEB Inter-Urban
CCRs*:
Approach to stationary target v0 =30 km/h ... 80 km/h v=0 km/h
CCRm*:
Approach to slower target v0 =30 km/h ... 80 km/h v=20 km/h
d0
CCRb*:
Approach to braking target v0 =50 km/h d0 =12 m v0 =50 km/h, a=-2 m/s²
v0 =50 km/h d0 =40 m v0 =50 km/h, a=-2 m/s²
* CCR: Car-To-Car Rear; s: standing; 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
stationary target (CCRs) slower target (CCRm) braking target
v0 (km/h) Points for FCW Points for AEB Points for FCW (CCRb)
30 2 1 -
35 2 1 -
40 2 1 -
AEB Inter-Urban
45 2 1 -
50 3 1 1 1 point each
for AEB and
55 2 1 1
for FCW per
60 1 1 1 scenario
65 1 2 2
70 1 2 2
75 1 - 2
80 1 - 2
Ʃ 18 11 11 2x4
Preconditions for HMI points: AEB and/or FCW system are default ON at

the start of every journey and the FCW alert (if available) is loud and clear.
Systems that can not be de-activated with a single push on a button are
HMI Assessment awarded 2 Points
Supplementary warning for the FCW system( e.g. head-up display, belt
jerk, brake jerk): 1 Point
Reversible pre-tensioning of the belt in the pre-crash phase: 1 Point
The total AEB Inter-Urban score results from the following weighting of the normalized scores (%):
AEB Inter-Urban = FCWscore x 1.0 + AEBscore x 1.5 + HMIscore x 0.5
This results in a maximum total score of 3 points for AEB Inter-Urban, which is part of the Safety Assist assessment.
The AEBscore (respectively FCWscore) is the average score from all the scenarios.
Example:
System FCW AEB HMI
Scenario CCRs CCRm CCRb CCRm CCRb De-activation Warning Pretension
Points 15.264 8.404 4 5.078 2.700 2 0 0
Score 84.7% 76.4% 100.0% 46.2% 67.5% 50.0%
FCWscore = (84.7 % + 76.4 % + 100 %) / 3 = 87.0 % AEBscore = (46.2 % + 67.5 %)/2 = 56.9 % HMIscore=50.0%
Total 87% x 1.0 + 56.9% x 1.5 + 50% x 0.5 = 1.974 points (out of 3)
For systems that only offer the AEB function, the results of tests at all speeds (covering AEB and FCW) are used to
calculate separate normalized AEB and FCW scores for each scenario. Where AEB and FCW test speeds are overlap-
ping, the test result of AEB is duplicated for FCW.
124
DEKRA Automobile Test Center Klettwitz.
Active and passive systems for pedestrian protection.
The DEKRA Automobile Test

Center at EuroSpeedway
Lausitz, an integral compo-
nent of the DEKRA Technology
Center, is divided into four
centres of excellence, so-
called modules. Each one
of these modules is assigned
a specific key field of activity.
There you will find the appro-
priate expertise, relevant
technical facilities and equip-
ment and your professional
contact partner.
Test bench for driver assistant Test bench for head impact Test bench for lower and
systems to prevent accidents upper leg impact
Test scenarios Types of tests Accredited as test laboratory

> Pedestrians crossing > Head impact tests according to ISO 17025
> Pedestrians walking parallel > Upper and lower leg impact > Germany – DakkS
> Collisions between pedestrians > Sensor tests for actively Designated technical service
> Preventing collisions triggering systems > Germany – KBA
Vehicle systems Tasks > Netherlands – RDW
> Mono and stereo camera systems > Homologation > Japan – TRIAS
> Radar and LIDAR sensors > CoP tests Certified according to ISO 27001
> Thermal detection tasks > Support for development > Information, safety and management
Tasks > Manufacturer specifications systems including VDA prototype
> Support for development Regulations protection
> Manufacturer specifications > ECE, EG, GTR, NCAP, TRIAS
> Comparison test
Regulations
> vFSS, NCAP
DEKRA Automobil Test Center

Senftenberger Straße 30 | 01998 Klettwitz
Phone: +49 (0)35754.7344-500 | Fax: +49 (0)35754.7345-500
www.datc.de
Automotive Safety Sensors - Requirements, Features, Functions and Applications
Course Description mous driving in specific situations is possible, such as the adap-
Sensors are the crucial sensory organs of vehicle safety sys- tive cruise control
tems: Recognizing accident hazards and events in millisec- 3. Communication with satellites (GPS), from car-to-car- and
onds, they activate and control crash avoidance and occupant from car-to-infrastructure (C2C2X) along with digital maps
protection systems accurately, reliable and effectively. Micro- will play an important role in the future of automotive safety
mechanical oscillators feel vibrations due to shocks, thus con- systems.
trolling seat belt pre-tensioners and airbags according to the The seminar illustrates the physical principles of these sensor
crash type and severity. Micro-mechanical gyroscopes regis- and measuring systems, their characteristics, their advantages
ter any vehicle rotations, thus stabilizing the vehicle path and and drawbacks with respect to specific applications, along with
movement as needed. Driver assistance systems controlled by their applications in today’s and future vehicle safety systems.
cameras keep the vehicle in the lane and recognize a pedes- Who should attend?
trian surfacing in front of the vehicle. Radar and laser beams The seminar addresses technicians and engineers working in
are scanning the road for frontal, side and rear collisions. research and development in the automotive industry, espe-
In order to adequately control restraint systems, crash sensors cially systems engineers, project engineers and project man-
must accurately discriminate frontal crashes, side impacts, agers as well as all experts from vehicle safety, who would like
rear-end collisions and vehicle rollover. New tests such as the to get an overview of the sensors used in current and future
lateral pole crash or the small overlap frontal crash continu- automotive safety systems.
ously increase the requirements to the crash sensors and the
intelligent restraint control. Utilizing predictive sensors will Course Contents
effectively increase the effectiveness of occupant protection Introduction: Automotive sensor systems
Physical sensor and measurement principles
systems. During multiple collisions, the restraint controller can
Requirements and applications in automotive safety
activate the vehicle brakes in order to reduce the crash sever-
ity. Interior sensors recognize the presence, position (out-of- systems
Passive Safety:
position), size and weight of the occupants, thus tailoring the
Crash sensors, rollover sensing, pedestrian impact sensors,
protection specifically to each occupant.
predictive crash sensors, sensor topologies and configurations
Driver assistance and crash avoidance systems are utilizing Interior sensing, occupant sensing
three types of sensors: Intelligent restraint control, restraint triggering algorithms,
1. Inertial sensors to monitor the vehicle movements, both structure and functions of restraint controllers
accelerations along and rotations around the vehicle axes. Active Safety:
Utilizing micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) smaller Radar-, laser- and ultrasonic sensors, sensor data analysis and
than one tenth of a millimeter, they are extremely sensitive to evaluation, system control algorithms
control the vehicles intended path by activating the steering Monocular and stereo camera, Photon-Mixing Device, digital
image processing
and braking system.
Communication systems
2. Surround sensors such as radar, laser, ultrasonic and cam- Sensor fusion
eras scan the vehicle environment for any hazards, not only
for driver information and warning, rather to avoid accidents
by activating the brakes and the steering. Even today, autono-
Course Instructor:
Dr. Lothar Groesch has been working in safety engineering for more than 37 years, both at one of the 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 Automotive 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 inter-
nal 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.

/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚ
^ĂĨĞƚǇŵŽǀŝĞ
/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐŝŶŐ^ĂĨĞ͕^ŵĂƌƚĂŶĚ'ƌĞĞŶDŽďŝůŝƚǇ
'ƌŽƵŶĚďƌĞ ZĞůŝĂďůĞĂŶĚƉƌŽǀĞŶƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐǇ
ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚƐĂĨĞƚǇ ƌĞĂůͲůŝĨĞƐĂĨĞƚǇŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨKϮĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ
ǁǁǁ͘ƚĂƐƐŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů͘ĐŽŵ
Simulation & Engineering
Car Body Design for Analysis Engineers

In general analysis engineers have a sound knowledge on nu- Load carrying principles of lightweight design
merical 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
Principal structure of the development process
CAE-compatible CAD
Course Objectives Finite Element modelling of a car body
The objective of the seminar is to transfer the knowledge Static behaviour of the car body structure
needed for an analysis engineer to play a part in vehicle devel- Finite Element Analysis of joints
opment. Especially the examination of design variants of ex- Measures for improved dynamic behavior
isting car bodies makes the seminar descriptive and practical. Part dimensioning taking into account vehicle vibrations
Dynamic analysis of full vehicles
Measures for improved acoustic behavior
Who should attend?
Acoustic design of a car body
This 2 day seminar is aimed at analysis engineers working in Simulation methods
the automotive industry. Realization of safety measures
Energy absorption elements
Vehicle car bodies
Safety systems
Post crash
Use of optimization methods in industrial applications
Introduction into mathematical optimization
Approximation techniques
Optimization software
Optimization strategies
Shape optimization
Topology optimization
Course Instructor:

RADIOSS...
...when detail matters!
Increase the prediction quality of your crash and airbag models

by using Altair RADIOSS from the HyperWorks product family.
RADIOSS enables you to:
• accurately calculate the internal airflow of an airbag inflation.

• include fine details in large models without ending up with long
CPU times thanks to multi domain technology.
• increase detail and prediction levels with the extended finite element
method (XFEM) for crack formation and advanced failure criteria.
RADIOSS is highly parallelizable and scalable and is used to develop the safest
vehicles in the world by leading automotive manufacturers.
Learn how at altair.com/safety
I N N OVAT I O N I N T E L L I G E N C E ®
Lightweight Design Strategies for Car Bodies
Course Description Materials and their specific design rules

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

www.iatmbh.com
+49 (0)30 47 39 31-0
Crash Simulation
Crash Test Software
Crash Test Equipment
Our Art of Engineering – Expertise, Fairness, Trust

Original Painting by Sigrid Schrumpf
Robust Design and Stochastics for Car Body Development

The course gives a profound introduction into robustness First Day
analysis, which assures the optimality of car body concepts Introduction
and designs considering the relevant and unavoidable uncer- Mathematical background
Overview of statistical methods for uncertainty and robustness
tainties. An overview of the corresponding numerical methods
assessment
is given and their applications are studied in detail. Sources of uncertainties
Quantification of uncertainties
Course Objectives Robustness versus reliability
Objective of this course is to enable car body developers to EXERCISE 1: Uncertainty quantification (MATLAB, Python)
Methods for sampling and Design of Experiments (DoE)
account in their virtual design processes for uncertainties and Global and local Sensitivity Analysis (correlation, ANOVA,
to assure the robustness of their designs with respect to the Sobol, elementary effects etc.)
most relevant functional requirements. This will be achieved Methods for reduction of the complexity / improvement of
by first reviewing the basic theory via simple engineering ex- efficiency
amples and then by adapting these methods to the specific EXERCISE 2: DoE and Sensitivity Analysis
characteristics of car body development. Here real world ex- Second Day
amples originating from crashworthiness, NVH (noise vibra- Revision
tion and harshness) and other disciplines will be studied. Discussion of real world problems for stochastic and
robustness assessments
Definition of a sample problem taken from car body design
Who should attend? EXERCISE 3: Application of the methods to the sample problem
This seminar is especially suited for engineers interested in and discussion
effective and accurate virtual development methods where Methods for robustness assessments
Overview of optimization methods for car body design (crash
uncertainties need to be considered. This is often the case
& NVH)
in optimization and robustness studies for car body design Methods for robust design optimization (RDO) applied to car
(crashworthiness, NVH, durability, etc.) but applies more body design
generally to most engineering fields. The seminar can hence Advanced methods for highly efficient RDO
also be recommended to other structural engineers looking
for deeper understanding into methods for stochastic assess-
ments.
Course Instructor:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Fabian Duddeck, Technical University Munich
Since 2010, Fabian Duddeck leads the research group on optimisation and robustness at the Technische Universität München (TUM). His
research is focusing on shape and topology optimization for crash, NVH (noise vibration and harshness) and other disciplines including
stochastic modelling and robustness assessments. Holding the chair for Computational Mechanics at the TUM, he also teaches and di-
rects research at Queen Mary University of London (QML) and at the French Ecole des Ponts ParisTech (ENPC). His group was and is in-
volved in several national and international research projects, for example the EU projects FLOWHEAD (Fluid Optimisation Workflows
for Highly Efficient Automotive Development Processes) and AMEDEO (Aerospace Multi-disciplinarity Enabling Design Optimisation).
Prof. Duddeck has obtained his PhD (1997) and his Habilitation degree (2001) at the Technische Universität München.

Can you assess the
effectiveness of ADAS?
The „ViF“-Toolchain integrates existing
simulation models into a comprehensive
system description
Car-2-X
Communication
Human
Precrash Behavior
Systems
Pedestrian
Protection
Systems ACC
Automated
Braking
SENSORS STRUCTURE DRIVER ENGINE DRIVETRAIN CONTROL BATTERY ü OK
Virtual Integration Platform Online Co-Simulation
Toolchain for system integration:

● Integration of existing simulation models
e.g. sensors, FEM Crash, Vehicle dynamics, controller
● Automated switch from MBS to FEM Crash simulation

● Real accident data as basis for evaluation of effectiveness
in cooperation with Prof. Steffan / TU Graz
Contact & Information: www.v2c2.at

Dr. Andreas Rieser VIRTUAL VEHICLE - Kompetenzzentrum Tel.: +43-316-873-9001
Tel.: +43 316 873 9034 Das virtuelle Fahrzeug Forschungs-GmbH Fax: +43-316-873-9002
E-Mail: andreas.rieser@v2c2.at Inffeldgasse 21A, 8010 Graz, AUSTRIA E-Mail: office@v2c2.at
Material Models of Composites for Crash Simulation

Increasing demands for weight reduction paralleled by re- Current and upcoming areas of application of composite
quirements for improved crash performance and stiffness materials
of structures have strongly pushed the development of ad- Analysis of composite materials
vanced composites. The use of composite materials today is Available material models and their application
not limited to niche applications or secondary parts; they are Modelling methods for plies and laminates
increasingly used for important load carrying structural com- FEM modelling of composites
ponents in series production. Failure mechanisms and their representation
In this one day seminar Dr. Anthony Pickett 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.
Course Instructor:
Dr. Anthony Pickett, University of Stuttgart
Dr. Anthony Pickett studied at the University of Surrey (UK) where he also received his doctorate on composite materials. He then
worked at ESI GmbH for more than 15 years, during which time he led numerous industrial, national and international research projects
on composites processing and composite crash simulation. From 2002 until 2007 he had a chair in composite materials at Cranfield
University (UK). Currently he is a researcher and teaches composite materials modelling at the Institute of Aircraft Design at the Univer-
sity of Stuttgart.

LS-DYNA – One code for many applications
  Explicit and implicit structural analysis
  Thermo-mechanically coupled simulations
 Incompressible CFD and FSI
  Compressible CFD and FSI
  Electromagnetism
 Frequency domain analysis
 Particle methods
Courtesy of Daimler AG
THUMS™ Courtesy of Daimler AG
DYNAmore GmbH
Stuttgart Dresden Ingolstadt Berlin Langlingen Zürich Linköping Göteborg Turin Versailles
        
Tel.: +49 (0)711 - 45 96 00 - 0 E-Mail: info@dynamore.de www.dynamore.de

 
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, ap- simulation and heads of simulation departments interested in
propriate material modelling is a key ingredient for predictive the important topic of material modelling.
crash simulations. The load carrying structure of a car today
still mainly consists of metallic materials. The materials to be Course Contents
described are diverse. Overview of metallic materials used in cars
Influence of material structure on mechanical behaviour
The seminar deals with the following materials: Phenomenological material models for metals
Overview of experimental methods for material
mild and high strength steels, characterization
cold formable AHSS and UHSS steels, Identification of material parameters from experiments
hot formable and quenchable boron steels, Discussion of the sensitivity material parameters
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 simula-
tion 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.
Course Instructor:
Dr.-Ing. Helmut Gese, MATFEM - Partnerschaft Dr. Gese & Oberhofer
In 1993 Dr.-Ing. Helmut Gese founded the engineering consultancy MATFEM (from 1999 the company has been named MATFEM part-
nership 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 characteriza-
tion of materials and the development of new material models for simulation.

m y E S I C us t o m er P o rt a l
myesi.esi-group.com
INNOVATE WITH
VIRTUAL
PROTOTYPING
BRING YOUR NEW PRODUCT

TO LIFE VIRTUALLY
Build, test and experience your
virtual prototype
Get your product right the first time
Reduce the impact on our environment
www.esi-group.com/innovate
info@esi-group.com
SAFETYWISSEN.com
Know anything you need,
anytime, anywhere!
www.safetywissen.com
Material Models of Plastics and Foams for Crash Simulation

Numerical simulation has become a fundamental element in The seminar addresses experienced CAE engineers and heads
the development of motor vehicles. Today, many important of CAE departments with an interest in plastic and foam ma-
design decisions, especially in the field of crash, are based on terials simulation. At least 1-year of experience with FEM-
simulation results. During the last few years there has been programs such as LS-DYNA and PAM-CRASH is suggested for
an increase in the use of foams in vehicles. These are, due to participating in this course.
their variety and structure, much more complicated regard- Course Contents
ing the characteristics of the materials than “simple” materi- Overview of polymer materials used in vehicle
als such as steel or aluminum, which can be modelled rather construction
well. Characterization of foam materials is a great challenge Verification and validation procedure for crash simulation
for the simulation expert. Although by now there are different Simulation of elastic and visco-elastic rubbers and foams
modelling approaches available in explicit FEM-programs such with volume elements
as LS-DYNA and PAM-CRASH, these are, however, often not Overview of available material models in explicit finite
satisfactory. The application of these special material models element codes
requires a sound knowledge and experience. Modelling of crushable foams
The seminar provides an overview over plastics and foam ma- Simulation of elastic-plastic polymers under crash loading
terials used in automotive engineering and their phenomenol- for validation
ogy. On the first day you obtain an introduction into the simu- Simulation of anisotropic materials with application to
lation of elastic and visco-elastic polymers, such as elastomers glass-fiber reinforced plastics
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 us-
ing 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 and PAM-CRASH are going to help you in applying
what you will have learnt.
Course Instructor:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Kolling, Giessen University of Applied Sciences
Stefan Kolling is Professor for Mechanics at the Giessen University of Applied Sciences (THM). Previously he worked as a simulation en-
gineer at the Mercedes Technology Center in Sindelfingen. He was responsible for methods development in crash simulation. In particu-
lar he was involved in the modelling of non-metal materials such as glass, polymers and plastics. Prof. Kolling graduated from the Univer-
sities of Saarbrücken and Darmstadt, from where he also received his Ph.D. He is author of numerous publications in the field of mate-
rial modeling.

Bringing together engineering excellence and software development
For more information or to arrange a

free trial please contact us via:
www.arup.com/dyna
+44 (0)121 213 3399
NEW
Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation

For the efficient assembly of components and complete struc- Overview of modeling techniques for different joining
tures many different joining techniques are available. Joints techniques
have to ensure that the assembly will fulfill crashworthiness, Tests and methods for characterization of joints
durability and other requirements. Therefore the best joining Local loading conditions at joints during testing under
technique has to be selected for each application. Modern shear, tension and bending load
lightweight design often uses a material mix. Using different Characteristics of failure behavior
materials, like various steel grades, lightweight alloys, plastics Failure modelling of
or composites for applications for which the individual mate- spot welded joints including spot welds in press hardened
rial is best suited allows for weight savings. The efficient and steels
self-piercing riveted joints
reliable joining of different materials is even more challenging.
laser welded joints
Failure of joints can be a reason for collapse of vehicle struc- adhesive joints
tures during crash testing. Therefore failure of joints must be Calibration methods for determination of model
precisely predicted in numerical crash simulation applied in parameters
the virtual design process of vehicle development. Validation of calibrated models through testing and
simulation
Course Objectives
The objective of this one day course is to give the participants
an overview of failure modelling of different joints (puncti-
form, linear, planar joints) for crash simulation and also of
the characterization tests and methods that are necessary for
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.
Who should attend?

The course addresses engineers working in the field of crash
simulation and heads of simulation departments interested
in the important topic of modelling of joints including failure.
Course Instructor:
Dr.-Ing. Silke Sommer, Fraunhofer Institute for Mechanics of Materials IWM
Silke Sommer studied Physics at the RWTH Aachen University and obtained her PhD degree at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
about modelling of the deformation and failure behavior 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.

SAFETY
WISSEN
Important Abbreviations
A BDA Bonnet Deployment Actuator CSM Computational Structural
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards Mechanics
AAA American / Australian
BLE Bonnet Leading Edge CSMA/CA Carrier Sense Multiple Access /
Automobile Association
BMVI German Federal Ministry Collision Avoidance
AAAM Association for the
of Transport and digital CSMA/CD Carrier Sense Multiple Access /
Advancement of Automotive
Infrastructure Collision Detection
Medicine
BoD Board of Directors (Euro NCAP) CV Closing Velocity
AAM Alliance of Auto Manufacturers
BOS Beginning of Steer CVFA Car to Vulnerable road user
(OSRP, USCAR)
BRIC Brain Injury Criterion Farside Adult
aBAS Advanced Brake Assist System
BSD Blind Spot Detection CVNA Car to Vulnerable road user
ACC Adaptive Cruise Control
Nearside Adult
ACEA Association of European
C CVNC Car to Vulnerable road user
Automobile Manufacturers
Nearside Child
ACL Anterior cruciate ligament C-NCAP China New Car Assessment
ACN Automatic Collision Notification Programme
ACU Airbag Control Unit C2C Car-to-Car D
ADAC Allgemeiner Deutscher CAD Computer Aided Design DAS Data Acquisition System
Automobil Club(German CAE Computer Aided Engineering DBS Dynamic Brake Support
Automobile Association) CAN Controller Area Network DCU Domain Control Unit
ADAS Advanced Driver Assistance Cars21 A Competitive Automotive DGPS Differential Global Positioning
Systems Regulatory System for the 21st System
ADOD Average Depth of Deformation Century DLO Daylight Opening
ADR Australian Design Rules CAT Computer Aided Testing DT Deployment Time
AE-MDB Advanced European Mobile CATARC China Automotive Technology
Deformable Barrier and Research Center E
AEB Autonomous Emergency CCD Charge Coupled Device
EBA Emergency Brake Assist
Braking CCIS Co-operative Crash Injury
EBD Electronic Brake Force
AEBS Autonomous Emergency Brake Survey
Distribution
System CCR Car to Car-Rear
ECE Economic Commision for
AHOD Average Height of Deformation CDC Collision Deformation
Europe (United Nations)
AHOF Average Height of Force Classification
ECOSOC United Nationions Economic
AHR Active Head Rest CEA Comité Européen des
and Social Council
AIS (1) Abbreviated Injury Scale Assurances
EDM Engineering Data Management
AIS (2) Automotive Industry Standards CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
EES Energy Equivalent Speed
AISC Automotive Industry Standards CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EEVC European Enhanced Vehicle-
Committee (USA)
Safety Committee
ANCAP Australasian New Car CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic
ELSA ELectric SAfety (UNECE/WP29
Assessment Program CIB Crash Imminent Braking
Working Group)
AOP Adult Occupant Protection CLEPA Comité de liaison européen des
EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility
(Euro NCAP) fabricants d’equipements et de
EOU Ease of use
APF Abdominal Peak Force pièces automobiles
ES-2 re Euro SID 2 Rib Extension
APPO Assessment Protocol Prove Out CMbB Crash Mitigation by Braking
ESC Electronic Stability Control
(Euro NCAP) (Ford)
ESV Enhanced Experimental
APROSYS Advanced PROtection SYStems CMBS Crash Mitigation Brake System
Vehicles Safety Program /
APSS Active Pedestrian Safety (Honda)
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
System CMM Coordinate Measuring Machine
Prog.
ARAI Automotive Research CMOS Complementary Metal Oxide
ETC European Test Consortium
Association of India Semiconductor
ETSC European Transport Safety
ASIC Application-Specific Integrated CMVR Central Motor Vehicle Rules
Council
Circuit CMVSS Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety
Euro NCAP European New Car Assessment
ASIL Automotive Safety Integrity Standards
Programme
Level (functional safety) COG Center of Gravity
EVPC Electric Vehicles Post Crash
ASIS Adavanced Side Impact System CONTRAN Conselho Nacional de Trânsito
EVT Euro NCAP Vehicle Target
ATD Anthropomorphic Test Device COP (1) Carry over Parts
AZT Allianz Zentrum Technik COP (2) Child Occupant Protection
(Euro NCAP) F
B COS Completion of Steer FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting
CP Contact Point System
BAS Brake Assist
CRABI Child Restraint Airbag FCW Forward Collision Warning
BASt Germany’s Federal Highway
Interaction (Child Dummy), USA
Research Institute
CRS Child Restraint System
141
SAFETY
WISSEN
FCWS Forward Collision Warning contact L
System HRMD Head Restraint Measuring
LDWS Lane Departure Warning
FEM Finite Element Method Device
System
FFC Femur Force Criterion HRV Head Rebound Velocity
LHD Left Hand Drive
Flex PLI Flexible Pedestrian Legform HTD Hardest to detect
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
Impactor HV High Voltage
LIN Local Interconnect Network
FMH Free Motion Headform (FMVSS
LINCAP Lateral Impact New Car
201) I Assessment Program (U.S.
FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
IARV Injury Assessment Reference NCAP)
Standards
Value LKAS Lane Keeping Assist System
FPS Frontal Protection System
IBRL Internal Bumper Reference LKD Lane Keeping Device
FPSLE Frontal Protection System
Line LKS Lane Keeping System
Leading Edge
ICPL Injury Criteria Protection Level LL Lower Leg
FRG Floating Rib Guide
ICRT International Consumer LNL Lower Neck Load
FRP Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Research and Testing LTR Land Transport Rules (New
FSI Fluid-Structure-Interaction
IG Informal Group Zeeland)
FTDMA Flexible Time Division Multiple
IHC Intelligent Headlight Control
Access
FW Full Width
IHRA International Harmonized M
Research Activities
FWDB Full Width Deformable Barrier MAIS Maximum AIS (Abbreviated
IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway
FWRB Full Width Rigid Barrier Injury Scale)
Safety
MCL Medial Collateral Ligament
IIWPG International Insurance
G MDB Mobile Deformable Barrier
Whiplash Prevention Group
MOST Media Oriented Systems
G.S.R. General Statutory Rules INRETS Institut National de Recherche
Transport
GAMBIT Generalized Acceleration sur les Transports et leur
MPDB Moving Progressive
Model for Brain Injury Sécurité
Deformable Barrier
Threshold INSIA Instituto Universitario de
MSA Manual Speed Assist
GCS Glasgow Coma Scale Investigación del Automóvil
MTBI Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
GIDAS German in-Depth Accident IP Intersection Point
MVWG Motor Vehicle Working Group
Study IRC Injury Risk Curve
(EU)
GRSG Groupe de Rapporteurs sur IRCOBI International Research Council
la Sécurité Générale (WP29 - on the Biomechanics of Impact
General Safety Provisions) IRF Injury Risk Function
N
GRSP Groupe de Rapporteurs sur ISA Intelligent Speed Assistance NASS National Automotive Sampling
la Sécurité Passive (WP29 - ISM Intelligent Speed Management System
Passive Safety) ISO International Organization for NASS CDS NASS Crashworthiness Data
GSR General Safety Regulations Standardization System
GTR Global Technical Regulation ISS Injury Severity Score NASS GES NASS General Estimates System
GVM Gross Vehicle Mass ITC Inland Transport Committee NASVA National Agency for
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (UN ECE) Automotive Safety & Victims‘
Aid (Japan)
H J NCAP New Car Assessment Program
NCSA National Center for Statistics
HBM Human Body Model J-MLIT Japan: Ministry of Land,
and Analysis (an Office of
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle Infrastructure and Transport
NHTSA)
HIC Head Injury Criterion JAMA Japan Automotive
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety
HIT Head Impact Time Manufacturers Association
Administration (USA)
HITS Harmonisation Interlab Test JARI Japan Automobile Research
NIC Neck Injury Criterion
Series Institute
NNT Number Needed to Treat
HLDI Highway Loss Data Institute JASIC Japan Automobile Standards
NPACS New Programme for the
HLLC High Level Liaison Committee Internationalization Center
Assessment of Child-restraint
HMI Human Machine Interface JNCAP Japan New Car Assessment
Systems
HNT Horizontal Negative deviation Program
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule
from Target cell load
Making
HOF Height of Force K NTSEL National Traffic Safety and
HPC Head Performance Criterion
KMVSS Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Environment Laboratory
HPM H-Point Manikin
Standards (Japan)
HPS Head Protection System
KNCAP Korean New Car Assessment
HPT Head Protecting Technology
Program
HRC Time to head restraint first
KTH Knee - Thigh - Hip
142
SAFETY
WISSEN
O SID Side Impact Dummy V
SINCAP Side Impact New Car
OC Occipital Condyles VAN Vehicle Area Network
Assessment Program (U.S.
ODB Offset Deformable Barrier VC Viscous Criterion
NCAP)
OICA Organisation Internationale des VDC Vehicle Dynamics Control
SLD Speed Limitation Device
Constructeurs d’Automobiles VERPS Vehicle Related Pedestrian
SLIF Speed Limit Information
OLC Occupant Load Criterion Safety
Function
OoP Out of Position vFSS Advanced Forward Looking
SMA Shape Memory Alloy
Safety Systems (Working
SOB Small Overlap Barrier (IIHS)
P Group)
SRA Swedish Road Administration
VNT Vertical Negative deviation
PADI Procedures for the assembly SRP Seat Reference Point
from Target cell load
disassembly and inspection SRS Supplementary Restraint
VR Virtual Reality
PCL Posterior Cruciate Ligament System
VRTC Vehicle Research & Test Center
PDB (1) Partnership for SSF Static Stability Factor (U.S.
(NHTSA)
Dummytechnology and NCAP)
VRU Vulnerable Road User
Biomechanics SSR Speed Sign Recognition
VSS Vehicle Safety Score (U.S.
PDB (2) Progressive Deformable Barrier ST Sensing Time
NCAP)
PDC Park Distance Control STNI Soft Tissue Neck Injury
VUT Vehicle Under Test
PDI Pedestrian Detection Impactor SUV Sports Utility Vehicle
PEAS Primary Energy Absorbing SWR Strength-to-weight ratio (roof
Structure crush)
W
PLI Pedestrian Legform Impactor WAD (1) Wrap Around Distance
PMD Photonic Mixer Device T WAD (2) Whiplash Associated Disorders
PMHS Post Mortem Human Subjects WG Working Group
TCMV Technical Committee - Motor
PMTO Post Mortal Test Object WP Working Party
Vehicles (EU)
PNCAP Primary New Car Assessment WPI Worchester Polytechnic
TDM Time Division Multiplex
Programme Institute
TDMA Time Division Multiple Access
PoC Point of Collision WS World SID
TEG Technical Evaluation Group
PP Pedestrian Protection (Euro WS5F World SID 5th%ile Female
TF BTA Task Force Bumper Test Area
NCAP) Dummy
ThCC Thoracic Compression
PPAD Partner Protection Assessment WSTC Wayne State University
Criterion, also TCC
Deformation Tolerance Curve
THOR Test Device for Human
PSPF Pubic Symphysis Peak Force WSU Wayne State University
Occupant Restraint
PTS Poly Trauma Score
THUMS Total Human Model for Safety
TRL Transport Research Laboratory
R (UK)
Radar Radio Detection and Ranging TRT Total Reaction/Response Time
RCAR Research Council for TSP Top Safety Pick (IIHS)
Automobile Repairs TT Top Tether
RE Rib Extension (for EuroSID II) TTB Time to Brake
RFCRS Rearward Facing Child Restraint TTC Time to Collision
System TTD Time to Decision
RHD Right Hand Drive TTI Thoracic Trauma Index
RID Rear Impact Dummy TTP/A Time-Triggered Protocol Class A
TTP/C Time-Triggered Protocol Class C
S TTS Time to Steer
S.O Statutory Order
SA Safety Assist (Euro NCAP) U
SAE Society of Automotive U.S. NCAP United States New Car
Engineers Assessment Program
SAS Speed Assistance System UART Universal Asynchronous
SAT Safety Assist Technology Receiver Transmitter
SB Seat Back UBM Upper Body Mass
SBR Seat Belt Reminder UMTRI University of Michigan
SCOE Standing Committee on Transportation Research
Implementation of Emission Institute
Legislation UN United Nations
SEAS Secondary Energy Absorbing USCAR The United States Council for
Structure Automotive Research
SgRP Seating Reference Point
143
Terms & Conditions
Registration can be ascribed to deliberate or negligent behaviour by our employees

You can register for seminars directly via our webpage www.carhs.de or other auxiliary persons. We thus kindly ask you to not leave valu-
or send us the completed and signed registration form, by mail or fax. ables or important materials in the seminar room during breaks. We do
By signing the registration or by transmitting the e-mail/internet-regis- not guarantee that the products, procedures and names mentioned in
tration the participant accepts the terms of participation. Your registra- seminars and manuals are free from industrial property rights.
tion data are saved electronically for internal purposes.
Copyright
Confirmation of registration/Invoice The manuals distributed within our seminars are copyrighted and must
Immediately after receipt of the registration you obtain a written con- not – not even in extracts – be copied or used commercially without the
firmation of registration and an invoice. Invoices need to be paid within consent of carhs.training gmbh and the respective lecturers.
30 days from the issuing date of the invoice, however, not later than 7
Seminars held by our Partner Companies
days before the beginning of the seminar, without deductions. We re-
For Seminars organized by our partner BGS, carhs acts as an agent only.
serve the right to exclude participants who have not paid in time from
the participation in the seminar. For these Seminars only the terms and conditions of our partners apply.
Participation fee Applicable law/Jurisdiction

The participation fee for one seminar is in Euro per person plus VAT and The contract is subject to German law, excluding the Convention of
includes training material, participation certificate, drinks during breaks Contracts for the International Sales of Goods, CSIG.
and lunch. Since the place of provision of seminars held in Germany is For businessmen in the sense of HGB (German Commercial Code)
inland, participants from abroad have to pay VAT too (it may however the following applies: Jurisdiction for all claims and litigations resulting
be possible to apply for a refunding of the purchase tax at the Federal from the contractual relationship, including special procedures decid-
Tax Office). A partial participation in our seminars does not entitle to a ing claims arising out of a bill of exchange or summary procedures, is
reduction in the participation fee. Aschaffenburg, Germany.
Discount for universities and public research institutions

Universities and public research institutions receive a 40% discount on All prices mentioned in this publication are exclusive of
seminar fees. VAT.
Number of participants
The number of participants is limited in order to ensure an efficient
realization of the seminar. Registrations are considered in the order of
their arrival. An early registration is thus recommended. In the case of
additional registrations we try to set an alternative 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 cancel-
lation until 2 weeks before the beginning of the seminar we have to
charge a fixed charge of EUR 100. In the case of a later cancellation or if
the participant does not attend the seminar, the full amount has to be
paid. For conferences and seminars listed in the category ‘Events’ the
following terms apply for cancellations: The cancellation of the registra-
tion is possible free of charge until 4 weeks before the beginning of the Imprint
seminar. In the case of a cancellation until 2 weeks before the begin-
Published by
ning of the seminar we charge 50 % of the seminar fee. In the case of a
carhs.training gmbh, Siemensstrasse 12, D-63755 Alzenau Germany
later cancellation or if the participant does not attend the seminar, the Tel. +49 (0) 6023-9640-60, Fax +49 (0) 6023-9640-70
full amount has to be paid. Managing Director: Rainer Hoffmann; Commercial Register: Aschaffenburg
HRB 9961
Replacement participant Copyright
It is possible at any point to register a substitute participant for the © 2015 by carhs.training gmbh. All details, including but not limited to,
registered participant. The same terms of participation as for the regis- illustrations, product descriptions and documents published in this book are
tered participant apply for him or her. the sole property of carhs gmbh. Any copying or distribution in whole or in
parts is subject to a written permit by carhs gmbh. All rights reserved. carhs is a
Cancellation or postponing of a seminar registered trademark of carhs gmbh, viilab is a registered trademark of
We reserve the right to cancel or postpone seminars for organisational carhs.communication gmbh
reasons (e.g. if the minimum number of participants is not achieved). Title © iStockphoto.com/sskfoto
In the case of a cancellation we try to book you to another date and/or Liability
No warranty is given, either expressly or tacitly, for the completeness or
location, if you should wish so. Otherwise you obtain a refund for the correctness of the information in this publication or on websites referred to in
fees already paid, further entitlements are excluded. this publication. We can and will not be liable for any damages arising from the
use or in connection with the use of the information in this publication, being
Liability direct or indirect damages, consequential damages and/or, but not limited to,
damages such as loss of profit or loss of data. We reserve the right of changes
Naturally the lecturers express their personal opinions, and informa- of the information contained without previous announcement. We can and
tion and data are published or made available. We cannot assume li- will not be held liable nor responsible for the information contained in and on
webpages referred to in this publication. Furthermore we declare, that we do
ability for the content of the information given, or for the data, or for not have any influence, outside of our domain, for the pages presented in the
the success of the seminar. We are not liable for the loss of or damage Internet. Should any illegal information be spread via one of our links, please be
to objects brought to the seminar, unless the damaging of this object so kind to inform us immediately, to enable us to remove said link.
144
Seminar Calendar 2016
July August September October November December
1 F 1 M 1 T 1 S 1 T 1 T
2 S 2 T 2 F 2 S 2 W 2 F
3 S 3 W 3 S 3 M 3 T 3 S
4 M Car Body Design for Analysis 4 T 4 S 4 T Product Liability in the 4 F 4 S
5 T Engineers p.128 5 F 5 M Child Protection www 5 W Automobile Industry p.62 5 S 5 M
6 W 6 S 6 T Introduction to Passive 6 T Ejection Mitigation p.82 6 S 6 T
7 T 7 S 7 W Safety p.21 7 F Rear Seat Occupant Prot. p.73 7 M 7 W
Frontal Restraint Systems
8 F 8 M 8 T Crashworthy Car Body 8 S 8 T p.67 8 T
9 S 9 T 9 F Design p.64 9 S 9 W Introduction to Passive 9 F
10 S 10 W 10 S 10 M Autonomous Driving p.117 10 T Safety p.21 10 S
11 M 11 T 11 S 11 T Data Acquisition in Safety 11 F Whiplash p.96 11 S
12 T 12 F 12 M 12 W Testing p.102 12 S 12 M
13 W 13 S 13 T Effectiveness of act. Safety www 13 T Crash Safety of Alternative 13 S 13 T
14 T 14 S 14 W 14 F Fuel Vehicles p.30 14 M 14 W
PraxisConference AEB
15 F 15 M 15 T p.19 15 S 15 T 15 T
16 S 16 T 16 F Knee Mapping Workshop p.38 16 S 16 W Head Impact p.84 16 F
17 S 17 W 17 S 17 M Functional Safety 17 T Car Body Design for Analysis 17 S
18 M 18 T 18 S 18 T ISO 26262 www 18 F Engineers p.128 18 S
19 T 19 F 19 M Driver Assistance and Crash 19 W Euro NCAP p.34 Head Injury p.22 19 S 19 M
SafetyTesting China
20 W p.18 20 S 20 T Avoidance Systems p.118 20 T Internat. Symposium 20 S 20 T
21 T 21 S 21 W International Safety and 21 F Human Modelling p.20 21 M Automotive Composite 21 W
22 F 22 M 22 T Crash-Test Regulations p.26 22 S 22 T Safety Sensors Struct. www 22 T
23 S 23 T 23 F Pedestrian Protection p.92 23 S 23 W 23 F
Side Impact
24 S 24 W 24 S 24 M Material Models of Metals p.136 24 T p.79 24 S
25 M 25 T 25 S 25 T Material Models of Plastics 25 F Static Vehicle Safety Tests www 25 S
26 T 26 F 26 M Robust Design & Stochastics p.132 26 W and Foams p.138 26 S 26 M
27 W 27 S 27 T 27 T Material Mod. Composites p.134 27 S 27 T
Grazer SafetyUpDate 2016
28 T 28 S 28 W p.20 28 F Modeling of Joints p.140 28 M 28 W
Interior Development
29 F 29 M 29 T 29 S 29 T www 29 T
30 S 30 T 30 F 30 S 30 W Euro NCAP - Compact www 30 F
31 S 31 W 31 M 31 S
Course Venue Alzenau Course Venue Graz Course Venue Garching/Munich Course Venue Heidelberg Course Venue Shanghai Subject to changes.
Find updates and additional information at
Course Venue Bergisch Gladbach Course Venue Gaimersheim/Ingolstadt Course Venue Dresden Course Venue Tappenbeck/Wolfsburg www.carhs.de
Seminar Calendar 2016
January February March April May June
1 F 1 M 1 T Introduction to Fatigue 1 F 1 S 1 W
2 S 2 T 2 W Analysis www 2 S 2 M 2 T Composites p.134
3 S 3 W 3 T Automotive Head Impact p.84 3 S 3 T 3 F Metals p.136
4 M 4 T 4 F Safety Sensors p.126 4 M 4 W 4 S
Structural Optimization
5 T 5 F 5 S 5 T www 5 T 5 S
6 W 6 S 6 S 6 W Euro NCAP and global Tests 6 F 6 M International Safety and
7 T 7 S 7 M 7 T for Consumer Protection p.34 7 S 7 T Crash-Test Regulations p.26
8 F 8 M 8 T Lightweight Design 8 F Whiplash p.96 8 S 8 W Introduction to Passive
9 S 9 T 9 W Strategies p.130 9 S 9 M 9 T Safety p.21
10 S 10 W 10 T Occupant Simulation & 10 S 10 T 10 F
11 M 11 T 11 F Validation www 11 M 11 W 11 S
12 T 12 F 12 S 12 T automotive CAE 12 T p.16 12 S
13 W 13 S 13 S 13 W Grand Challenge 2016 p.15 13 F 13 M
14 T 14 S 14 M LeichtWEIGHT DESIGN 14 T Static Vehicle Safety Tests www 14 S 14 T
Side Impact
15 F 15 M Frontal Restr. Safety/Crash 15 T SUMMIT 2016 p.14 15 F Modeling of Joints p.140 15 S 15 W p.79
16 S 16 T p.67 Regulations p.26 16 W Pedestrian Protection p.92 16 S 16 M 16 T Safety alternat. Fuel p.30
17 S 17 W Airbag Sim. Euro NCAP www 17 T 17 S 17 T 17 F Head Impact p.84
Interior Development
18 M 18 T 18 F www 18 M Data Acquisition in Safety p.102 18 W 18 S
NVH
19 T 19 F www 19 S 19 T Passive Safety 19 T 19 S
20 W 20 S 20 S 20 W Low Speed Crash p.100 p.21 20 F 20 M
21 T 21 S 21 M 21 T Virtual-based Development www 21 S 21 T
22 F 22 M Product Liability in the 22 T 22 F Crashworthy Car Body p.64 22 S 22 W Euro NCAP and global Tests
23 S 23 T Automobile Industry p.62 23 W 23 S 23 M Development of Frontal 23 T for Consumer Protection p.34
24 S 24 W Robust Design and 24 T 24 S 24 T Restraint Systems p.67 24 F
25 M 25 T Stochastics p.132 25 F 25 M Commercial Vehicle Safety www 25 W 25 S
26 T 26 F Autonomous Driving p.117 26 S 26 T Occupant Protection in 26 T 26 S
27 W 27 S 27 S 27 W Frontal Crashes www 27 F 27 M Product Liability p.62
28 T 28 S 28 M 28 T Ejection Mitigation p.82 28 S 28 T 11. PraxisConference
29 F 29 M CAE Driven Development www 29 T 29 F Side Impact p.79 29 S 29 W Pedestrian Protection p.17
30 S 30 W 30 S 30 M Material Models of Plastics 30 T Lightweight Design p.130
31 S 31 T 31 T and Foams p.138
Course Venue Alzenau Course Venue Hanau Course Venue Landsberg am Lech Course Venue Gaimersheim/Ingolstadt Subject to changes.
Find updates and additional information at
Course Venue Würzburg Course Venue Aschaffenburg Course Venue Bergisch Gladbach www.carhs.de
THE PERFECT INTEGR ATION OF CR ASH EQUIPMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION
SYSTEMS SETS NEW STANDARDS.
MESSRING not only develops and installs innovative, high quality crash
test facilities and components but also the proper lighting systems and
data acquisition technology, e.g. the revolutionary M=BUS Pro Onboard
Series. Integrative, intelligent and versatile. The M=BUS Pro Analog
DAS is an advanced system designed to acquire signals from any resistive
transducer. It can easily be integrated into your system ensuring
seamless operation, optimum recording and analysis of results. Ask
MESSRING, the world market leader in safety testing!
M=BUS PRO ANALOG DAS: PROGRAMMABLE FRONT END WITH 8 CHANNELS www.messring.com
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 Test Transducers
Euro NCAP requires damped accelerometers for tests in pedestrian undamped accelerometers
damped accelerometers
protection. The oil-damped Kyowa transducers are the perfect ASE-A-500 by KYOWA
drop-in replacement for old, undamped accelerometers. The advan-
tage of these accelerometers over their undamped counterparts is
Sampling: 100 kHz
that excessive peaks in the measurement output signal near the

upper frequency limit are almost completely excluded. The new
angular rate gyro GSAT-A-900 can be operated connected to
any crash data recorder. Mounted together with the ASE-A type
When using a damped accelerometer, such as the ASE-A series, there
accelerometer, it forms a very compact unit. is no high resonant vibration during impact tests on the windscreen
and the bonnet, in contrast to the undamped accelerometer.
We are exhibiting:
ad-1510-carhs01-en
10th – 12th of May 2016 31st of May – 2nd of June 2016

Messe Nuremberg Messe Stuttgart
KYOWA Electronic Instruments CO., LTD | Overseas Department | Chofu, Tokyo, 182-8520, Japan | overseas@kyowa-ei-co.jp | www.kyowa-ei.com
ZSE ELECTRONIC MESS-SYSTEME & SENSORTECHNIK GmbH | Distributor Germany | Tel.: +49 (0) 71 42 68 45 | info@zse.de | www.zse.de

Safety Companion 2016 - EN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Safety Companion 2016 - EN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAFETY

KNCAP Protocol 9/2015

4 Eindrückung < 22 mm; VC < 0,5 m/s

Frontalaufprall mit 100% Überdeckung bei 50 km/h

4 AxialkraftDruck < 3,8 kN

SeminarS COnferences Knowledge

Barrieren-Seitenaufprall (MDB) mit 55 km/h

4 Eindrückung < 22 mm; VC < 0,32 m/s

Active & Passive Safety News Tables & Graphs

Dummy & Crashtest Knowledge exchange summarizing all important

Engineering & Simulation Networking for Experts rules & regulations in

Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 190

All Crash Products

Dummy and Crashtest

Page 102 - 113

Page 114 - 127

Page 128 - 140

ide Regulations and Requirements

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

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

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

The requirements in automotive safety are further increasing

For the whole team of carhs.training

Rainer Hoffmann Ralf Reuter

* IIHS Status Report Volume 27 No. 7

South East Asia

Dr. Dirk Ulrich Margarete Debes

1 Day Seminar 2 Day Seminar

COGNITIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS

2016 Automobil Industrie

MANAGING LIGHTWEIGHT DESIGN

HOW TO GET THE LIGHTWEIGHT

sHEET METAL FOrMING

Congress Park Hanau, Germany

May 10 - 12, 2016 ASCHAFFENBURG, GERMANY

Cooperation Forum Driver Assistance Systems

The 1st Conference

The Pedestrian Protection Conference

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

July 19-20, 2016 Shanghai, China

Meeting Worldwide Automotive Safety

▪ Full-Scale Crash Testing Technology

TRY OUT ALL RELEVANT

Real World Data

Testing Hardware The event language is German.

more information www.carhs.de/gsu

6th International Symposium October 21+22, 2016

Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles

Course Description Who should attend?

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

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

Model Based Head Injury Criteria for Innovative Protection Design

Course Description Course Contents

Who should attend?

Date Course ID Venue Duration Price Language

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

Crash-Regulations Europe, United Nations and USA

FMVSS 201 UN R21, 32, 33 Rollover

Frontal impact Seat belts

SPEED MEETS EXCELLENCE

Test evaluation Test technology

Rules and Regulations on Occupant Protection

Full Width Frontal Offset Frontal

SSF Roof Crush

static front / rear

SBR (prerequisite for ≥ 3 star

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

Curtain Airbag SSF

Flex PLI Upper Legform Flex PLI

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