gns – GESELLSCHAFT FÜR

NUMERISCHE SIMULATION MBH

Am Gaußberg 2 38114 Braunschweig
Phone: 0531-80112-0 mbox@gns-mbh.com

SOLUTIONS
for the automotive Industry
ENGINEERING SOFTWARE DEVELOPEMENT CONSULTING
OPENFORM
The industrial solution for
sheet metal forming simulation
Extremely easy to use, wide range
of applications, highly accurate
results, open concept

GENERATOR 4
Pedestrian & Occupant Safety at its best
Fulfill various regulations:
FMVSS201, ECE-R21,
2003/102/EC, EuroNCAP...

ANIMATOR 4
The next generation of
FEA postprocessing
Handle plot and time history
data in one superior user
interface while working
with large models!

www.gns-mbh.com
961-384e-06.21 © 2021 Kistler Group

The most advanced

crash test dummy

Crash testing: the holistic approach

Crash tests save lives – so data integrity is vital. That's why Kistler offers integrated
solutions – not only the world's most advanced dummy, but also the barrier, sensors,
hardware and software. All from one single source. Plug-and-measure systems,
customized to your needs, backed by professional service worldwide.
Holistic, reliable, fast – from Kistler, of course!

www.kistler.com/dummy-systems
VIRTUAL ENGINEERING
EXCELLENCE

MEETING THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

OF TOMORROW’S VEHICLES
The demands for safety associated with the autonomous vehicles of the future
are particularly high. The concepts for the interior design of future vehicles aim
to provide the occupants with a variety of sitting arrangements and a completely
new passenger experience. The design of such vehicles places great emphasis on
the safety of the vehicle occupants and pedestrians. To meet required safety
standards, new restraining systems and the application of advanced AI systems
will be required in the design process.

As a specialist in the area computer simulation of vehicle safety in the design

stage, CDH AG can support our customers in achieving today the high levels of
occupant and pedestrian safety required for vehicles of tomorrow.

CDH Technology Partners:

CDH AG
Despag-Straße 3
85055 Ingolstadt
Germany
cdh@cdh-ag.com
INGOLSTADT | STUTTGART | DETROIT | SHIN-YOKOHAMA www.cdh-ag.com
 SafetyCompanion
2023

Passive Safety

Page 15 - 121

Dummy & Crash Test

Page 122 - 132

Active Safety,
Driver Assistance &
autonomous Driving

Page 133 - 181

carhs.training gmbh
Siemensstraße 12
63755 ALZENAU
Simulation &
GERMANY Engineering
+49-6023-964060
www.carhs.de Page 182 - 193
 SafetyWissen.com

SafetyWissen Navigator
Canada CMVSS § Euro NCAP
 EU §
„ 208 Frontal.............82 „ Frontal...............30, 34 „ Overview.................21
„ 214 Side..................90 „ Side....................30, 41
„ 226 Ejection Mit. ... 97 „ Whiplash...............111
„ Rescue.....................45
„ Pedestrian.............100
U.S. FMVSS § „ Child Prot..............115
„ Safe Driving...........138
„ Overview.................21 „ Commercial Vans.146
„ 126 ESC.................181 „ AEB........................148
„ 201U Interior..........98 „ LSS..........................161
„ 202a Whiplash.....110 „ Overall Rating.........46
„ 208 Frontal.............82 „ Dual Rating..............46
„ 214 Side..................90 „ Roadmap.................46
„ 216a Roof Crush.....78
„ 226 Ejection Mitig..97
„ 305 EVs....................25

U.S. NCAP

„ Frontal...............30, 48
„ Side............. 30, 48, 90
„ Pole............. 30, 48, 90
„ CIB..........................166
„ FCW.......................166
„ Rear Auto Brake...167
„ Roadmap.................52
„ Overall Rating.........50

IIHS

„ Frontal...............30, 53
„ Side....................30, 54
„ Whiplash..53,110,111
„ Roof Crush........54, 78
„ Top Safety Pick.......54
Impactors/Dummies
„ Small Overlap...30, 56
„ Bumper Test.........109 „ Size/Weight..........129


„ AEB / FCW.............165 „ Dummies...............122
Global NCAP
„ THOR.....................126
„ aPLI........................132 „ Frontal.....................73
Latin NCAP
 „ Flex PLI...................132
„ Head Impactors....132
„ Child Prot................74

„ Overall Rating.........58
„ Frontal ..............30, 58
„ Side....................30, 58
„ Child Prot..............119
„ Safety Assist..........177
India AIS §

RCAR
„ Overview.................21
„ Bumper.................109 „ 098 Frontal.............22
„ Whiplash ..............110 „ 099 Side..................23

6

UNECE § i-VISTA
„ Overview.................21
„ R21 Interior.............98
„ R94 Frtl....... 22, 26, 79
„ R95 Side..... 23, 26, 90
„ R100 Electric...........26
„ R127 Pedestrian...100
„ R135 Pole..........23, 90
„ R137 Frontal.....22, 79
„ R140 ESC ..............181
„ R153 Rear...............26
„ R.E.3: Veh. Classes.121
„ GTR 8 ESC..............181
„ GTR 9 Pedestrian..100
„ GTR 14 Pole............90
ANCAP
„ → Euro NCAP
 „ 20913 Frontal.........22
Australia ADR § ASEAN NCAP
„ 69/00 Frontal....22, 79
„ 73/00 Frontal....22, 79
„ 72/00 Side...............23
„ 85/00 Pole..............23
 Japan
„ AEB .......................172
„ LSS..........................173
„ SSS.........................173
„ Overall Rating.......173
JNCAP

„ Frontal...............31, 67
„ Side....................31, 67
„ Whiplash........ 68, 110
„ Preventive Safety.174
„ Pedestrian.............100
„ Overall Rating.........68

„ Overall Rating.........62
„ Frontal ..............31, 62
„ Side ...................31, 62
„ Child Prot....... 62, 119
SafetyWissen.com
§
„ Art. 18 Frontal........22
„ Art. 18 Side.............23
KNCAP

„ Frontal...............31, 71
„ Side....................31, 72
„ Whiplash........ 72, 110
„ Pedestrian.............100
„ Child Prot..............120
„ AEB........................176
„ Overall Rating.........70
Korea KMVSS §
„ 102 Frontal.............22
„ 102 Side..................23
„ 102-2 Pedestrian..100
TNCAP

„ Overall Rating.........74
C-NCAP

„ Frontal ..............31, 63
„ Side ...................31, 64
„ Whiplash........ 64, 110
„ Assistance syst......168
„ Roadmap...............171
„ Overall Rating.........66
China GB §
„ Overview.................21
„ 11551 Frontal.........22
„ 20071 Side..............23
„ 37337 Pole..............23
C-IASI

„ Small Overlap .........31
„ MPDB .....................31
„ Side..........................31
7
 carhs.training gmbh
i Seminar Guide
Seminar Guide
Here you find the courses you need to get your job done!
Frontal Impact
► Basics of Occupant Protection in Frontal
Crashes p. 80
► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems
p. 81
► Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal
Impact p. 88
► Child Protection in Front and Side Impacts
p. 118
► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 15
► SafetyUpDate p. 17
► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 18
► International Safety and Crash-Test
Regulations p. 20
► NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
p. 32
► Euro NCAP Passive Safety Workshop p. 40
► Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body
Design p. 77
► Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes p. 108
Side Impact
► Side Impact – Requirements and
Development Strategies p. 92
► Child Protection in Front and Side Impacts
p. 118
► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 15
► SafetyUpDate p. 17
► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 18
► International Safety and Crash-Test
Regulations p. 20
► NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
p. 32
► Euro NCAP Passive Safety Workshop p. 40
► Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body
Design p. 77
Restraint Systems
► Basics of Occupant Protection in Frontal
Crashes p. 80
► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems
p. 81
► Development of Frontal Restraint Systems -
Advanced p. 83
► Early Increase of Design Maturity of Restraint
System Components in the Reduced Proto-
type Vehicle Development Process p. 84
► Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal
Impact p. 88
► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 15
► SafetyUpDate p. 17
► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 18
► Introduction to Impact Biomechanics and
Human Body Models p. 186
8
Pedestrian Protection
► PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection
p. 101
► Pedestrian Protection Strategies p. 106
► Workshop Pedestrian Protection and Low-
Speed Crash p. 107
► Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures
p. 131
► Pedestrian Protection Workshops p. 131
► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 15
► SafetyUpDate p. 17
► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 18
► International Safety and Crash-Test
Regulations p. 20
► NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
p. 32
► Euro NCAP Passive Safety Workshop p. 40
► Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body
Design p. 77
► Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes p. 108
Rear Impact
► PraxisConference Rear Impact - Seats -
Whiplash p. 113
► Whiplash Testing and Evaluation
in Rear Impacts p. 114
► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 18
► International Safety and Crash-Test
Regulations p. 20
► NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
p. 32
► Euro NCAP Passive Safety Workshop p. 40
Dummies + Crash Test
► SafetyTesting p. 123
► High Speed Cameras Workshop p. 128
► Dummy Training p. 130
► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 15
► SafetyUpDate p. 17
► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 18
► Introduction to Impact Biomechanics and
Human Body Models p. 186
Legend
► Seminar/Event that focusses on this topic
► Seminar/Event that deals with this topic
(among others)

Regulations and Requirements
► International Safety and Crash-Test
Regulations p. 20
► Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification p. 28
► Crash Safety of Hybrid- and Electric Vehicles
p. 24
► Euro NCAP Update p. 29
► NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
p. 32
► Product Liability in the Automobile Industry
p. 75
► Automated Driving - Safeguarding and
Market Introduction p. 140
► Briefing on the Worldwide Status
of Automated Vehicle Policies p. 141
► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 15
► SafetyUpDate p. 17
► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 18
► The ADAS Experience p. 134
Car Bodies
► Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body
Design p. 77
► Robust Design and Stochastics for Car
Body Development p. 187
► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 15
► Introduction to Passive Safety p. 18
Interiors
► PraxisConference Rear Impact - Seats -
Whiplash p. 113
► Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors p. 99
► Whiplash Testing and Evaluation p. 114
Tools & Methods
► Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and
Machine Learning for Advanced Driver
Assistance Systems and Automated Driving
Functions p. 144
► Scenario-, Simulation- and Data-based
Development, Validation and Safeguarding
of Automated Driving Functions p. 145
► automotive CAE Grand Challenge p. 184
► Introduction to Impact Biomechanics and
Human Body Models p. 186
► Introduction to the Python Programming
Language p. 189
► Python based Machine Learning with
Automotive Applications p. 189
Haven’t found what you need?
Get in touch with us!  +49-6023-964060
carhs.training gmbh
Seminar Guide i
Accident Avoidance, Automated Driving
► Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai p. 15
► SafetyWeek p. 16
► Introduction to Active Safety p. 133
► The ADAS Experience p. 134
► Automated Driving - Safeguarding and
Market Introduction p. 140
► Briefing on the Worldwide Status of
Automated Vehicle Policies p. 141
► Auto[nom]Mobil p. 143
► Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and
Machine Learning for Advanced Driver
Assistance Systems and Automated Driving
Functions p. 144
► Scenario-, Simulation- and Data-based
Development, Validation and Safeguarding
of Automated Driving Functions p. 145
► SafetyUpDate p. 17
► NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
p. 32
Crash Simulation
► Introduction to Impact Biomechanics and
Human Body Models p. 186
► Material Models of Composites p. 190
► Material Models of Metals p. 191
► Material Models of Plastics and Foams
p. 192
► Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation p.
193
► Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body
Design p. 77
► automotive CAE Grand Challenge p. 184
► Robust Design and Stochastics for Car
Body Development p. 187
9
 Table of Contents
i
SafetyCompanion 2023
6 SafetyWissen Navigator
8 Seminar Guide
12 Preface
13 Seminars at carhs.training - Your Benefits
14 In-house Seminars
Passive Safety
15 Event: Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai
16 Event: SafetyWeek
17 Event: SafetyUpDate
18 Seminar: Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles
20 Seminar: International Safety and Crash-Test
Regulations
21 SafetyWissen: Crash-Regulations: Europe, United
Nations, USA, China and India
22 SafetyWissen: Rules and Regulations on Occupant
Protection
24 Seminar: Crash Safety of Hybrid and Electric
Vehicles
25 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 305: Safety Requirements for
Electric Vehicles
26 SafetyWissen: UNECE: Safety Requirements for
Electric Vehicles
28 Seminar: Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification
29 Event: Euro NCAP UpDate 2023
30 SafetyWissen: NCAP-Tests in Europe, America and
Australia
31 SafetyWissen: NCAP-Tests in Asia
32 Seminar: NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
34 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP
40 Seminar: Euro NCAP Passive Safety Workshop
48 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP: Tests and Criteria
52 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP Roadmap
53 SafetyWissen: IIHS Rating
58 SafetyWissen: Latin NCAP Rating: 2020 - 2024
62 SafetyWissen: ASEAN NCAP
63 SafetyWissen: C-NCAP
67 SafetyWissen: JNCAP
70 SafetyWissen: KNCAP
73 SafetyWissen: Global NCAP
#SAFERCARSFORAFRICA #SAFERCARSFORINDIA
74 SafetyWissen: TNCAP Overall Rating Scheme NEW
75 Seminar: Product Liability in the Automobile
Industry
76 Seminar: Static Vehicle Safety Tests in Automotive
Development
77 Seminar: Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body
Design
78 SafetyWissen: Roof Crush Requirements
79 SafetyWissen: Protection Criteria for Frontal
Impact (Legal Requirements)
10
80 Seminar: Basics of Occupant Protection in Frontal
Crashes
81 Seminar: Development of Frontal Restraint
Systems meeting Legal and Consumer Protection
Requirements
82 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact
Requirements: In-Position
82 FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact Requirements: Out-of-
Position
83 Seminar: Development of Frontal Restraint Systems
- Advanced
84 Seminar: Early Increase of Design Maturity of
Restraint System Components in the Reduced
Prototype Vehicle Development Process
85 SafetyWissen: Frontal Impact Protection Criteria
Compared
87 SafetyWissen: Safety Requirements for Rear Seats
and Restraint Systems
88 Seminar: Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal
Impact
89 SafetyWissen: Seat Adjustments for Side Impact
Tests
90 SafetyWissen: Side Impact Test Procedures
92 Seminar: Side Impact - Requirements and
Development Strategies
94 SafetyWissen: Side Impact Protection Criteria
Compared
96 Seminar: Ejection Mitigation FMVSS 226:
Requirements - Testing - Development Strategies
97 SafetyWissen: FMVSS 226, CMVSS 226 - Ejection
Mitigation
98 SafetyWissen: Regulations for Head Impact on
Vehicle Interiors
99 Seminar: Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS
201 and UN R21
100 SafetyWissen: Test Procedures and Protection
Criteria for Pedestrian Protection
101 Event: PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection
102 SafetyWissen: Pedestrian Protection Impact Areas
104 SafetyWissen: Head and Leg Impact Grid Method
106 Seminar: Pedestrian Protection - Development
Strategies
107 Seminar: Workshop Pedestrian Protection and Low
Speed Crash
108 Seminar: Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes
109 SafetyWissen: RCAR Insurance Tests
110 SafetyWissen: Whiplash Requirements Front Seats
111 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Front Seat
Whiplash Assessment
111 SafetyWissen: Static Geometry Assessment by
IIWPG / IIHS
112 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Rear Seat
Whiplash Assessment
113 Event: PraxisConference Rear Impact - Seats -
Whiplash

114 Seminar: Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear
Impacts
115 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Child Occupant
Protection
116 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Child Presence
Detection
118 Seminar: Child Protection in Front and Side Impacts
119 SafetyWissen: Latin NCAP Child Occupant
Protection
119 SafetyWissen: ASEAN NCAP Child Occupant
Protection 2021 - 2025
120 SafetyWissen: KNCAP Child Occupant Protection
121 SafetyWissen: UNECE Vehicle Classification
122 SafetyWissen: Current Dummy Landscape
Dummy & Crash Testing
123 Event: SafetyTesting
124 SafetyWissen: Highspeed Camera Recording
Settings
126 SafetyWissen: THOR 50 % Male
128 Seminar: High Speed Cameras Workshop NEW
129 SafetyWissen: Dummies: Weights, Dimensions and
Calibration
130 Seminar: Dummy-Trainings
131 Seminar: Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures
131 Seminar: Pedestrian Protection Workshop: aPLI
131 Seminar: Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Vehicle
Mark-Up
132 SafetyWissen: Impactors for Pedestrian Protection
Active Safety & Automated Driving
133 Seminar: Introduction to Active Safety of Vehicles
134 Event: The ADAS Experience
136 SafetyWissen: Consumer Testing (NCAP) Assistance
System Rating Matrix NEW
138 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Safe Driving
Assessment NEW
140 Seminar: Automated Driving - Safeguarding and
Market Introduction
141 Seminar: Briefing on the Worldwide Status of
Automated Vehicle Policies
142 SafetyWissen: Levels of Driving Automation
143 Event: Auto[nom]Mobil
144 Seminar: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and
Machine Learning for Advanced Driver Assistance
Systems and Automated Driving Functions
145 Seminar: Scenario-, Simulation- and Data-based
Development, Validation and Safeguarding of
Automated Driving Functions
146 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP Commercial Van
Rating NEW
148 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB VRU-
Pedestrian
Table of Contents
i
150 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB VRU-
Pedestrian
151 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB VRU-Cyclist
154 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB / LSS PTW
156 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for
AEB Car-to-Car
161 SafetyWissen: Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for
Lane Support Systems
164 Seminar: NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
165 SafetyWissen: IIHS AEB / Front Crash Prevention
Test
165 SafetyWissen: IIHS Test Scenarios for AEB
Pedestrian
166 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP Crash Imminent Braking
166 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP Forward Collision
Warning
167 SafetyWissen: U.S. NCAP Rear Automatic Braking
168 SafetyWissen: C-NCAP Active Safety Rating
171 SafetyWissen: C-NCAP Active Safety Roadmap
172 SafetyWissen: i-VISTA Intelligent Vehicle Integrated
Systems Test Area
174 SafetyWissen: JNCAP Preventive Safety
Performance Evaluation NEW
176 SafetyWissen: KNCAP AEB Tests NEW
177 SafetyWissen: Latin NCAP Safety Assist NEW
180 SafetyWissen: Latin NCAP AEB Pedestrian NEW
181 SafetyWissen: Test of ESC Systems in UN R140,
GTR 8 and FMVSS 126
Simulation & Engineering
182 Event: Virtual Testing
184 Event: automotive CAE Grand Challenge
186 Seminar: Introduction to Impact Biomechanics and
Human Body Models
187 Seminar: Robust Design - Vehicle Development
under Uncertainty
188 Seminar: Structural Optimization in Automotive
Design
189 Seminar: Introduction to the Python Programming
Language
189 Seminar: Python based Machine Learning with
Automotive Applications
190 Seminar: Material Models of Composites for Crash
Simulation
191 Seminar: Material Models of Metals for Crash
Simulation
192 Seminar: Material Models of Plastics and Foams for
Crash Simulation
193 Seminar: Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation
194 SafetyWissen: Important Abbreviations
197 Terms & Conditions
198 Index
200 Advertisers Directory
201 Seminar Calendar
11
 Preface
i
The Haddon Matrix

The recently published Euro NCAP Vision 2030 is aligned with the Haddon Matrix SAFETY
in its holistic view of accident occurrence. What is the Haddon Matrix? Where COMPANION
does it come from?
SafetyWissen on
The Haddon Matrix is named after its developer, Dr. William Haddon Jr. 102 pages
In 1966 Dr. Haddon was appointed as the administrator of the newly established
More than 100
U.S. National Traffic Safety Agency and the National Highway Safety Agency. In
seminars & events
1967, the two offices were merged and in 1970 were renamed the National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
With the matrix, Dr. Haddon developed a structured approach to understanding and influencing the occurence of
injuries holistically, taking into account the human, the vehicle and environmental factors in the different phases of
the accident, i.e. pre-crash, crash and post-crash.
In the future, Euro NCAP will also evaluate the different phases of the accident. This will involve moving away from
the previous division of assessing adult, child and vulnerable road user safety. In addition to Crash Avoidance, Crash
Protection and Post-Crash Safety, the Haddon approach has been expanded by Euro NCAP to include Safe Driving.
Furthermore, two points stand out in Euro NCAP's Vision 2030: the emphasis on assessing the robustness of safety
systems and the move toward virtual testing.
The new SafetyCompanion reflects the latest developments in the requirements of Euro NCAP, but also from
global legislation and consumer protection in vehicle safety. The continuous updates of the SafetyCompanion
show the high speed of safety development. In 2022, we decided to launch the ADAS/ADS Companion in order to
give the topic of "Safe Driving" the space it deserves. For the first time, this new Companion provides a structured
overview of the requirements, standards, processes and methods in ADAS and ADS development.
With the SafetyCompanion and the ADAS/ADS Companion, as well as our internet portal SafetyWissen.com you
have the necessary information and knowledge at your fingertips to address the daily issues in your work.
The SafetyCompanion will appear in a new design this year. We would like to hear from you how you like it. Please
send your comments, suggestions for improvement and also your praise to info@carhs.de.
Of course, the SafetyCompanion 2023 will again include a complete overview of our attractive training program
consisting of seminars, PraxisConferences and events. It covers the entire breadth of vehicle safety: from passive
safety to accident prevention and safety in automated and autonomous driving.
In addition to the offerings in the SafetyCompanion, we are also available for individual training, e.g. at your prem-
ises. Take advantage of our experience and the expertise of our trainers to achieve your training goals.
The transformation of the automotive industry is in full swing. With the SafetyCompanion and carhs.training, you
are well prepared.

For the whole team of carhs.training

Rainer Hoffmann Ralf Reuter

President & CEO Editor-in-Chief
12
 carhs.training gmbh
BENEFITS i
Seminars at carhs.training - Your Benefits

Free parking
The carhs TrainingCenter in Alzenau offers plenty of free and secure parking spaces for our course
participants. You don't have to plan any time for searching for a parking space and can start your
course in a relaxed way.

Free EV charging
You can use our charging station for electric and hybrid vehicles free of charge during your course
attendance at the carhs TrainingCenter in Alzenau. Two 11 kW type-2 charging stations are available
at your disposal.

Electronic seminar materials

You will receive the seminar documents from us as a PDF file for storage on your computer.
You can also bring your computer with you to the course and work directly in the PDF file.

Fair cancellation policy

We know that sometimes something interferes. Therefore you can cancel your seminar reg-
istration free of charge until 4 weeks before the course and until 2 weeks before the course
only a lump sum of 100 Euro will be charged. You can send a substitute participant at any time.
So you can register early for your seminar of choice without any risk and benefit from the
→ early bird rates.

Early bird rates reduce your costs

Early registrations give us and the course participants planning security. We return the favour
with a significantly lower early booking price for both seminars and conferences.

All-round catering during the seminar

You don't have to bring anything: During the seminar you will be provided with snacks, fresh
fruit and drinks in the breaks and we invite you to lunch with all course participants and train-
ers - this is the opportunity to network.

Small group sizes for maximum learning success

Our courses take place in small group sizes to ensure optimal interaction with the trainers and
between students.

And WiFi?
Of course, WiFi is also available free of charge at the carhs TrainingCenter in Alzenau. How-
ever, we recommend that you not be distracted while attending the seminar. But that is of
course your choice.

On Site & Online

Most of our events and seminars are available both for on-site and online attendance. You can
choose if you want to talk face to face with other attendees and trainers or if you want to take
part from your office or even from your home.

13
 In-House Seminars
i
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, German or with simulta-
neous translation into your preferred language. Whether on your company site or at another venue of your choice, the scale
of our in-house seminars is tailored to your needs.
Your advantages
„ You retain full cost control. We offer attractive fixed prices for our
in-house seminars, depending on the number of participants and the
related service. Many of our customers have integrated
„ Even for a small number of participants you can save a lot of money our in-house seminars into their
compared to the individual booking of seminars. Additionally, there company's training program.
are no costs for travel and time of your employees.
„ We respect your target dates as far as possible – also upon short
Take advantage of this offer, too! We
notice in „urgent cases“. will be pleased to prepare you an
„ You benefit from our professional organization and the top-quality
individual offer.
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.

References
ACTS, AIT, ARRK, AUDI, Autoform, AZOS, Bentley Motors, Bertrandt, BMW, Bosch, Brose, CATARC, Continental, CSI, Daimler,
Dalphimetal, Delphi, Dura Automotive, EDAG, Faurecia, Ford, F.S. Fehrer Automotive, Global NCAP, Grammer, HAITEC, Honda,
Hopium, IAV, IABG, IDIADA, IEE, JCI, IVM, Key Safety Systems, Kistler, LEAR, Magna, Mahindra & Mahindra, MAHLE, MBtech,
MESSRING, MGA, NEVS, Next.e.GO Mobile, Opel, Open Air Systems, PATAC, Porsche, SAIC, SMP, SMSC, SEAT, Siemens,
StreetScooter, TAKATA, TASS, Tata, TECOSIM, TRW, TTTech, TÜV Süd, Valeo, VIF, Vinfast, Visteon, Volkswagen, ZF

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 % 5th - 8th Participant 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

Your contact at carhs.training

NEW Customer Specific Online-Seminars
Instead of an in-house-seminar, customers can now book our
Dr. Dirk Ulrich seminars as a customer specific online-seminar. This gives cus-
+49-6023-96 40 - 66 tomers the option to choose the date, duration & pace of the
dirk.ulrich@carhs.de seminar and enables them to let staff from multiple locations
take part without extra travel expenses.

14
 Active & Passive Safety
Event

Safety Requirements & Technologies for the

intelligent, autonomous and electrified Automobile
of the Future.
Since 2014, the »Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai« is attracting every year more
than 500 automotive safety experts from China and beyond to discuss the latest
requirements and innovations in active and passive safety. Accompanied by a com-
prehensive trade show with the worldwide vendors in development technologies
and services, the summit is the leading event for everyone involved in automotive
safety. The 2023 event will focus on automotive safety in the context of the dominat-
ing megatrends: ADAS, ADS and NEV.
Join »Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai« at the Kerry Hotel in Pudong, Shanghai,
China.
Keynotes from international experts, presentations on requirements and innova-
tions, the latest developments in testing and simulation for active and passive sys-
tems will make this event a true highlight for every decision maker and engineer in
the fields of active and passive safety.
The event will have dedicated sessions on the following topics:
Safety in Autonomous Driving Systems
Legal Requirements for Level 3 and beyond
Advances in World-wide NCAP Programs
Safety of New Energy Vehicles
Vulnerable Road Users
New Testing Technology for ADAS and ADS
Safety Assurance for ADS
Human Modeling and Simulation for Safety

Who should attend?

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

DATE 19.- 20.07.2023

Facts

VENUE Shanghai, CHINA & ONLINE

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/safetysummit

LANGUAGE English / Chinese with simultaneous translation

15
Active & Passive Safety
Event

Supporting automotive development engineers to further

improve automotive safety, that is the essence of SafetyWeek.
In a unique combination of knowledge congress, events and exhibition, SafetyWeek offers
participants and visitors the opportunity, to bring their expertise up-to-date and to learn
about the latest developments and technologies in product development and product
verification.
In 2023 SafetyWeek will feature numerous highlights:
„ The knowledge congress SafetyUpDate with the latest updates on requirements
and solutions in active and passive safety.  page 17
„ The new SafetyTestingChallenge with the innovations from the Leaders in Testing
and Simulation of components and systems in active and passive safety.  page
123
„ Auto[nom]Mobil, the expert forum on L3 and beyond  page 143
„ The accompanying exhibition SafetyExpo, the meeting point for suppliers and
decision makers in automotive safety.

Who should attend?

SafetyWeek is the meeting point for everyone involved in vehicle safety. This includes
developers as well as test and simulation engineers from OEMs and suppliers, manu-
facturers of test systems, representatives of governments and consumer protection
organizations and researchers from universities and research institutes.

DATE 23.- 25.05.2023

Facts

VENUE Würzburg, GERMANY & ONLINE

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/safetyweek

LANGUAGE English
16
 Active & Passive Safety
Event

The concept is familiar: To keep software up-to-date you regularly make an update. The
same is true for automotive safety engineering: To keep yourself up-to-date you have
to attend the SafetyUpDate on a regular basis. Here you get a comprehensive overview
of all relevant news in automotive safety.

Active + Passive Safety = SafetyUpDate

The SafetyUpDate reflects the close integration of active and passive safety and com-
bines both topics in one event. General topics such as the NCAP consumer tests are
dealt with in plenary presentations, whereas specific topics such as testing are pre-
sented in parallel session on active respectively passive safety.

Conference Topics include:

„ Regulations for active & passive safety and
assisted, automated & autonomous driving
„ NCAP consumer protection tests
„ Development tools: test & simulation
„ Development strategies & solutions
„ Biomechanics & accident research

From Experts for Experts

The speakers are leading experts from government agencies, consumer protection
organizations, industry and universities. We consider it important that the UpDate
presentations are product-neutral and practical.

Meeting Point: Expert Dialog

In addition to the presentations the SafetyUpDate encourages the communication
among experts. After the presentations the speakers are available for discussions at
the MeetingPoint.

Who should attend?

The SafetyUpDate is aimed at automotive developers, who are interested in active or
passive vehicle safety and want to bring their knowledge up-to-date. In addition to the
knowledge update, SafetyUpDate offers excellent opportunities to build and maintain
contacts in the safety community.

DATE 24.- 25.05.2023 19.-20.09.2023

Facts

VENUE Würzburg, GERMANY & ONLINE Graz, AUSTRIA

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

LANGUAGE
17
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles

Course Description Who should attend?

Ever increasing requirements regarding vehicle safety have The seminar addresses everybody who wants to obtain an up-
led to rapid developments, with major innovations in the field to-date overview of this wide area. It is suited for novices in the
of Active and Passive Safety. Especially legal requirements in field of Passive Safety of Vehicles such as university graduates,
the USA (FMVSS 208, 214), the consumer information tests career changers, project assistants, internal service providers,
U.S. NCAP, Euro NCAP, C-NCAP and IIHS, as well as pedestrian but also for highly qualified technicians from the crash-test lab.
protection regulations are drivers behind this trend. Course Contents
The seminar provides an introduction to Passive Safety of „ Introduction to vehicle safety
Vehicles. Passive Safety is about initiatives and legal provisions „ Overview active and passive safety
for the limitation of injuries following an accident. All impor- „ Crash physics
tant topics are covered in the seminar, from accident statistics „ Accident research
and injury-biomechanics, which are decisive parts of accident „ Overview of accident research methods
research, to the crash-rules and regulations that are derived „ Classifications & statistics
from the latter, and also to consumer information-tests with „ Biomechanics
protection criteria and test procedures, and eventually to „ Human anatomy
„ Injury mechanisms & injury criteria
crash tests, where the compliance with the compulsory limits
„ Dummy technology
is tested and proven in test procedures. Specific attention is „ Dummy terminology
given to dummies, with which the potential loads on a person „ Dummy family
in an accident can be measured. Finally the basic principles of „ Crash testing
occupant protection are explained, and the components of „ Crash test systems and components
occupant protection systems, respectively restraint-systems „ Test methods
in motor vehicles such as airbags, belt-system, steering wheel, „ Crash regulations and NCAP tests
seat, interior, stiff passenger compartment and others, as well „ Institutions
as their increasingly complex interaction, also in terms of new „ Passive safety regulations
systems, will be discussed. „ NCAP tests
„ Insurance tests (IIHS, RCAR, C-IASI, ...)
Course Objectives „ Protection principles, occupant protection systems
It is the primary objective of this seminar to communicate an „ Protection principles of passive safety
understanding for the entire field of Passive Safety with all its „ Primary restraints - seat belt, airbag
facets and correlations, but also for its limits and trends. In „ Secondary restraints - interior, steering wheel, steering
the seminar you are going to learn about and understand the column, seat
„ Car body crashworthiness
most important topics and can then judge their importance
„ Pedestrian protection
for your work. With the extensive, up-to-date documentation „ Integrated safety
you obtain a valuable and unique reference book for your daily
work.
Ralf Reuter (carhs.training gmbh) studied mechanical engineering and business administration at
Instructor

the technical universities of Darmstadt and Eindhoven. Since 1997 he has worked for carhs in various manage-
ment positions. He deals with vehicle safety issues intensively, in particular with the latest developments in
rules and regulations as well as consumer testing. As he is in charge of the SafetyWissen which has been
published by carhs for many years, he keeps his knowledge up-to-date and profits from the inputs of carhs'
trainer and expert network.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

14.-17.02.2023 17/4107 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 17.01.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

28.02.-01.03.2023 17/4212 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 31.01.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

28.-29.06.2023 17/4108 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 31.05.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

11.-14.07.2023 17/4109 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 13.06.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

10.-11.10.2023 17/4110 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 12.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

05.-08.12.2023 17/4111 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 07.11.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
18
LED Lamps for High-speed Photography
Crash Tests | Sled Tests | Component Tests
The boostLUX LED product line offers perfect
lighting for testing applications in the
Automotive Industry.
Flicker-free, reliable and customized.

www.hoenle.com
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations

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

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

Instructors

Potomac Alliance, a Washington-based international regulatory affairs consultancy. In his client advisory role,
Mr. Creamer is regularly involved with meetings of the UN World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle
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).
Dr. Thomas Kinsky (Humanetics Europe GmbH) completed his studies of automotive engineer-
ing at TU Dresden in 1991 and received a doctorate at TU Graz in 2015. From 1999 to 2018 Dr. Kinsky worked
for the car manufacturer Opel in the area of vehicle regulations. Lastly as a senior expert, he was responsible
for the development of legislation on passive vehicle safety and represented Opel in the discussion with au-
thorities and associations. Since 2018 he is Director of Business Development at Humanetics Europe GmbH.
In this role he is at Humanetics the contact for all topics regarding dummy development as well as for require-
ments on passive and active safety at Humanetics.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

28.-29.03.2023 16/4115 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 28.02.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

25.-28.07.2023 16/4154 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 27.06.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

28.-29.11.2023 16/4116 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 31.10.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
20
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

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

Instrument Panel Side Windows Interior Roof Headrests
UN R21, 32, 33 UN R43, GTR 6 UN R12, 21, 43, GTR 6 US FMVSS 216, 216a UN R17, 25, GTR 7
US FMVSS 201 US FMVSS 205, 226 US FMVSS 201, 203, 204, 205 CN GB 26134-2010 US FMVSS 202a
IN IS 15223 CN GB 11552-2009 CN GB 11550-2009, 15083-2019
IN IS 15223, AIS 096 IN IS 15546
Windscreeen
UN R43, GTR 6 Rollover
US FMVSS 205, 212, 219 UN R44
CN GB/T 5137.1-5-2020 US FMVSS 201, 216, 216a, 301
IS 15804
IN
Rear Impact
Pedestrian Protection UN R17, 25, 32, 34, 42,
58, 153
EU EU/2019/2144, EU/2021/535
US FMVSS 202a, 207,
UN R127, GTR 9
301, 581
CN GB/T 24550-2009
CN GB 11550-2009,
IN AIS 100
18296-2019, 20072-2006
IN AIS 101

y
Seat Belts
Wissen b UN R14, 16, 17
Safety
US FMVSS 208, 209, 210
CN GB 14166-2013, GB 14167-
2013, 15083-2019
Frontal Impact IN IS 15139, 15140
UN R12, 14, 16, 33, 34, 94, 137
US FMVSS 203, 204, 208, 209, Bumper Steering Side Impact Seats Doors
210, 301
CN GB 11551-2014 , 11557-2011 ,
UN
US
R42
FMVSS 581
Wheel UN
US
R95, 135, GTR 14
FMVSS 214
UN
US
R16, 17, 21, 44, 129, 145
FMVSS 201, 202a, 207, 213, 213a, 225
UN
US
R11, GTR 1
FMVSS 206
14166-2013, 14167-2013
UN R12
CN GB 17354-1998 US FMVSS 203, 204 CN GB 20071-2006, CN GB 11550-2009, 14166-2013, 15083- CN GB 15743-1995,
GB/T 20913-2007, 37437-2019 IN IS 15901 GB/T 37337-2019 2019, 27887-2011/XG1-2019 15086-2013
IN IS 15139, 15140, AIS 096, 098
CN GB 11557-2011
IN AIS 099 IN IS 15546, 15139, 15532, AIS 072 IN IS 14225
IN IS 11939, AIS 096

Virtual & Physical

Engineering and
Validation
State-of-the-art CAE tools, Learn more
latest testing equipment: about testing
We ensure safety for the and simulation.
vehicles of tomorrow.
WE ARE BERTRANDT. w w w.ber trandt.com

21
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Rules and Regulations on Occupant Protection

Full-width Frontal Offset Frontal
0° / ODB
± 30° 40 %
USA

0
o
0° / ± 5° 0° / ± 5° 32-40  mm
FMVSS 208

FMVSS 208
200
 0o
56 km/h 56 km/h 32-40 km/h 40 km/h
km/h

H III H III H III H III H III H III H III H III H III H III
50 % 50 % 5% 5% 5% 5% 50 % 50 % 5% 5%

ODB
40 %
Europe

0o
50 km/h  mm
200
0o
UN R1371

UN R94
56 km/h

H III H III
50 % 5% H III H III
50 % 50 %

ODB
40 %
Japan

0o
50 km/h  mm
200
 0o
56 km/h
Art. 18

Art 18
H III H III
5% 50 % H III H III
50 % 50 %

ODB
GB/T 20913-2007 40 %
China

GB 11551-2014

0o
50 km/h  mm
200
 0o
56 km/h

H III H III
50 % 50 % H III H III
50 % 50 %

ODB
40 %
India

 mm
200
 0o
AIS-098

56 km/h

H III H III
50 % 50 %

ODB
S. Korea

40 %
0o
KMVSS 102-3

50km/h  mm
KMVSS 102

200
 0o
56 km/h

H III H III
50 % 5% H III H III
50 % 50 %

ODB
Australia

40 %
0o
48 km/h  mm
0o
ADR 69/00

ADR 73/00

200

56 km/h

H III H III
50 % 50 % H III H III
50 % 50 %

1 Mandatory as part of the EU type approval for new types since July 6, 2022, for new registrations from July 7, 2024.
22
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE


Ground clearance of the lower edge of the deformable barrier

Side Barrier Side Pole Pedestrian Rear Head Impact Rollover

0-32
ES-2 re km/h
54 SID IIs /
km Roof Crush:
FMVSS 214

FMVSS 214 75°

27° /h ES-2 re
FMVSS 202a FMVSS 216a
48 km/h FMVSS 201
254 mm FMVSS 301 Ejection Mitigation:
MDB, 1368 kg Pole FMVSS 226
SID IIs

32
 mm ES-2 WS 50 % km/h
300
75°
UN R1351


UN R127
UN R95

UN R34
50 km/h R (EU) 2019/21441 UN R21
90° 254 mm UN R153
Pole
R (EU) 2021/535
MDB EEVC,
950 kg

32
ES-2  mm km/h WS 50 %
300
 75°
Art. 18

Art. 18

50 km/h Article 18 Article 22-4 Article 20

90° 254 mm
MDB EEVC, Pole
950 kg

32
GB/T 37337-2019
GB 20071-2006

 mm ES-2 WS 50 % / km/h
300

ES-2 re 75°
Roof Crush:
50 km/h GB/T 24550-2009 GB 20072-2006 GB11552-2009
90° 254 mm GB26134-2010
MDB EEVC, Pole
950 kg

ES-1/
ES-2  mm
300

AIS-099

50 km/h AIS-100 AIS-101 IS15223

90°
MDB EEVC,
950 kg

32
ES-1/
km/h
KMVSS 102-4

 mm ES-2 WS 50 %
KMVSS 102

300
 75°
KMVSS 91
50 km/h KMVSS 102-2 KMVSS 91-2 KMVSS 88
90° 254 mm
Pole
KMVSS 91-3
MDB EEVC,
950 kg

32
ES-2  mm km/h WS 50 %
300
ADR 72/00

ADR 85/00

 75°

50 km/h ADR 21
90° 254 mm
MDB EEVC, Pole
950 kg

1 Mandatory as part of the EU type approval for new types since July 6, 2022, for new registrations from July 7, 2024.
23
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Crash Safety of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

Course Description Course Objectives

During recent years, electric vehicles have achieved an Participants will get an overview about automotive safety of
ever-increasing importance for the automotive market. In electric vehicles and will learn the special challenges and solu-
addition, established OEM suffer increasing pressure by new tions which come along. Participants will be able to apply test
competitors with innovative vehicle concepts. A compliance methods and safeguarding concepts and to pursue develop-
of restrictions for CO2 emissions in EU since 2020 is not pos- ment strategies in a target-oriented way.
sible without electrified powertrains. All major OEM offer Who should attend?
an increasing variety of hybrid vehicles (HEV), plug-in hybrid The seminar addresses development and research engineers
vehicles (PHEV) and pure electric vehicles (BEV). In addition, a as well technicians in the fields of testing and engineering with
first offer of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) is in the market. electric vehicles. Due to its current relevance the course suits
Market acceptance and consumer demands often increase young professionals as well as experienced engineers who
delivery capacity for some models. In 2021 more than 6 mil- want to deepen their knowledge in this field.
lion electrified vehicles (BEV and PHEV) were sold worldwide.
Course Contents
The breakthrough of the automotive electrification is evident.
„ Alternative drive systems: hybrid, electric, fuel cell, gas
For the development of future vehicle generations, the inte-
vehicles
gration of electrified powertrains has not to be considered, it’s
„ Challenges for vehicle safety
the baseline.
„ Legal requirements and standards, safety requirements
Nevertheless, several challenges for vehicle safety arise with
for real-world accidents
new these technologies. Electric shock risks on high-voltages
„ Safety of high voltage systems
systems, fire hazards in case of lithium-ion batteries and risks
„ Battery safety
of rupture in case of gas tanks are the most important issues
„ Gas tank safety
here. For every mode of drive, specific drive components and
„ Fuel cell safety
their particular safety requirements will be described. In addi-
„ Structural safety
tion to common rules and standards, specific needs based on
„ Safety concepts
real-life accidents will be discussed.
„ Rescuing, recovering and towing of electric vehicles
For all relevant vehicle components the respective safety
requirements, safety concepts and exemplary safety initiatives
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.

Rainer Justen (Mercedes-Benz AG) has more than 30 years of experience in the field of vehicle safe-
Instructor

ty. After his studies in mechanical engineering with a focus on automotive engineering he started his career in
the automotive development at Daimler AG in 1987. Several career milestones in the fields of vehicle safety,
project 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. In 2015 Rainer Justen
received the SAE Automotive Safety Award for his work on the Safety of Li-ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles
from the American Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

19.-20.04.2023 173/4112 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 22.03.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

04.-07.07.2023 173/4113 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 06.06.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

21.-22.11.2023 173/4114 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 24.10.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
24
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

FMVSS 305: Safety Requirements for Electric Vehicles

Scope:
Cars, busses, trucks with a GVWR of 4536 kg or less that use electrical components with working voltages higher than 60 volts
direct current (VDC) or 30 volts alternating current (VAC), and whose speed attainable is more than 40 km/h.
Post-crash Requirements:
Under the test conditions described below (impact test and subsequent static rollover)
„ max. 5 litres of electrolyte may spill from the batteries,
„ there shall be no evidence of electrolyte leakage into the passenger compartments,
„ all components of the electric energy storage / conversion system must be anchored to the vehicle,
„ no battery system component that is located outside the passenger compartment shall enter the passenger compartment,
„ each HV source in the vehicle must meet one of the 3 following electrical safety requirements
„ (1) electrical isolation must be greater than or equal to:
„ 500 ohms/V for an AC HV source,
„ 100 ohms/V for an AC HV source if it is conductively connected to a DC HV source, but only if the AC HV source meets the physical
barrier protection requirements specified in the first 3 sub-items of (3)
„ 100 ohms/V for all DC HV sources,
„ (2) the voltage level of the HV source (Vb, V1, V2) must be ≤ 30 VAC for AC components or 60 VDC for DC components.
„ (3) physical barrier protection against electric shock shall be demonstrated by meeting the following conditions:
„ the HV source meets protection degree IPXXB
„ resistance between exposed conductive parts of the electrical protection barrier (EPB) of the HV source and the electrical chassis is
< 0.1 ohms
„ resistance between an exposed conductive part of the EPB of the HV source and any other simultaneously reachable exposed
conductive parts of EPBs within 2.5 meters of it must be < 0.2 ohms
„ voltage between exposed conductive parts of the EPB of the HV source and the electrical chassis is ≤ 30 VAC or 60 VDC
„ voltage between an exposed conductive part of the EPB of the HV source and any other simultaneously reachable exposed conductive
parts of EPBs within 2.5 meters of it must be ≤ 30 VAC or 60 VDC
Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0009
Test Conditions:
Frontal impact against a rigid barrier at 48 km/h TP-305-02
rigid Barrier

0- 48 km/h
0° / ± 30°

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

70 %

0-80 km/h
1368 kg

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

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

Post-impact test static rollover in 90 degree steps

25
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

UNECE: Safety Requirements for Electric Vehicles

EV-specific provsions of UN R94 / R95 / R137 / R153:

R94
UN R94, 04 Series UN R137, 02 Series
R95
UN R95, 05 Series UN R153, 00 Series
R137
After crash tests according to UN R94, R95, R137 and R153 vehicles with a high voltage
electrical powertrain ( > 60 V DC or > 30 V AC) must meet the following requirements: R153
1. Protection against Electrical Shock
Electrical Chassis
at least one of the four criteria specified below shall be met:
„ 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 < 0.2 J. Electrical Chassis

Prior to the impact a switch S1 and a known discharge resistor Re

Motor assembly REESS assembly
is connected in parallel to the relevant capacitance. High Voltage Bus
Not earlier than 5 s and not later than 60 s after impact S1 shall
be closed while the voltage Vb and the current Ie are recorded. S1
From this TE is caluclated as follows: Motor
Vb REESS
Re
th

TE = ∫ Vb × Ie dt Ie
tc

with tc = time of closing S1

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

„ Physical protection:
For protection against direct contact with high voltage live parts, the protection IPXXB shall be provided.
„ Isolation resistance:
„ If the AC HV buses and the DC high voltage buses are galvanically isolated from each other, isolation resistance between the HV bus and
the electrical chassis shall be ≥ 100 Ω/V of the working voltage for DC buses, and ≥ 500 Ω/V of the working voltage for AC buses.
„ If the AC HV buses and the DC HV buses are galvanically connected isolation resistance between the HV bus and the electrical chassis shall
be ≥ 500 Ω/V of the working voltage. (if the protection IPXXB is satisfied for all AC HV buses or the AC voltage is ≤ 30 V after the vehicle
impact, the isolation resistance shall be Ri ≥ 100 Ohm/V)
2. Electrolyte Spillage
„ In the period from the impact until 30 minutes after no electrolyte from the REESS (Rechargeable Electrical Energy Storage
System) shall spill into the passenger compartment and no more than 7 % (max. 5 l) 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 03 series.
UN R100, 03 Series
26
The Drive to Win
Under the tough racing conditions of Formula E, we are gaining valuable insights for the
electrification of serial vehicles. ZF equips the Mahindra racing team with the entire 800-volt
powertrain: from the electric motor to the transmission to the silicon carbide-based power
electronics. More information: zf.com/motorsport

#zfmotorsport
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification

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

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

Instructor

Potomac Alliance, a Washington-based international regulatory affairs consultancy. In his client advisory role,
Mr. Creamer is regularly involved with meetings of the UN World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations (WP.29). Previously, he has held positions with the US International Trade Commission and the
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (representing the US automotive supplier industry), as the
representative of the US auto parts industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc. (a leading global automotive safety
systems supplier).

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

25.-28.04.2023 183/4084 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 28.03.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

04.-05.10.2023 183/4155 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 06.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
28
 Active & Passive Safety
Event

Euro NCAP UpDate 2023

Get ready for Euro NCAP‘s latest rating revision!

Image: Thatcham Research

The Roadmap 2025 systematically expanded and updated all areas of the Euro NCAP rating.
The final steps of this roadmap will be implemented in 2025. Meanwhile the next Roadmap (2030)
has already been published and will govern the rating from 2026 onwards. At the Euro NCAP
UpDate, experts from the respective working groups will provide detailed information on the
current status of the upcoming Euro NCAP requirements.

„ Find out the current state of discussion on the upcoming protocols and roadmaps.
„ Take advantage of the discussion with the experts active in the Euro NCAP working groups.
Contents
„ Roadmap 2025 Who should attend?
„ New requirements for 2025 The Euro NCAP UpDate is suited for
„ Roadmap 2030 everyone who wants to be prepared
„ Implementation of the new roadmap for Euro NCAP's upcoming requirements.
„ New rating scheme
„ New and modifed tests and assessments
„ #TestingAutomation
„ Assessment of automated driving functions
„ Virtual Testing
„ Occupant Monitoring
„ Field reports on the current test procedures

DATE 12.-13.12.2023
Facts

VENUE Frankfurt, GERMANY & ONLINE

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/euroncap

LANGUAGE

PRICE 1.590,- EUR till 14.11.2023, thereafter 1.850,- EUR, ONLINE 990,- EUR
29
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE
NCAP-Tests in Europe, America and Australia
Items written in italics are not part of the overall rating 2023 2026 date of implementation unknown
Euro NCAP / ANCAP U.S. NCAP IIHS Latin NCAP
Sled Test
56 km/h
0o
50/35 km/h
0o
56 km/h
Get familiar with NCAP tests in just 2 days with our
Full-width

HIII HIII seminar:

H III
5%
H III 5% 95 %
TH 50 %
5% H III H III NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs:
THOR 5%
H III 50 % H III Tests, Assessment Methods, Ratings
5% 5% learn more on  page 32
2026 modifications are preliminary
MPDB 1400 kg ODB
90 km
OMDB, 2486 kg SOB 25 % ODB
0°, 50 % 40 %
15°, 35 % R=150 mm 40 %
50 km/h /h
 mm
ODB / SOB

 mm
 mm
150
 0o
200
 0o 0
mm 0o
200
 0o
50 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

THOR H III THOR THOR H III H III H III

H III H III 50 % 50 %
50 % 50/5 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
50 % 50 % Q3 Q1.5
Q6 Q10
H III
5%

 mm
300
WS

50 %  mm
279
ES-2 re  mm
350
 mm
300
 WS  
ES-2
AE-MDB, 62 50 % SID IIs
km
1400 kg 27° /h MDB EEVC
90°
MDB

60 km/h 55 km/h 60 km/h 50 km/h

90°
90°
MDB, SID IIs 1900 kg 950 kg
Q10 Q6
1368 kg Q1.5 Q3
SID IIs Q3 Q1.5
„ Far Side Occupant Protection

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

254 mm
Pole 254 mm
Pole 254 mm
Pole
„ Far Side Occupant Protection
Rollover

„ SSF „ Roof Crush

„ aPLI „ Flex PLI

„ Flex PLI
„ Upper Legfom „ Upper Legfom
„ Upper Legform
VRU

„ Headforms „ Headforms „ AEB Pedestrian

„ Headforms
„ AEB/AES Ped., Cyclist, PTW, PSS „ AEB Pedestrian
„ AEB VRU
„ AEB Reverse Pedestrian „ Rear Automatic Braking
Whiplash Child Safety

„ Frontal MPDB „ Frontal ODB

„ LATCH (Lower Anchors and
„ Side MDB „ Side MDB
Tethers for Children)
„ CRS - Installation „ CRS - Installation
„ Booster Seat Rating
„ Veh. Based Assessment, CPD „ Veh. Based Assessment

„ Static
„ Static Front / Rear „ Static
„ Dynamic (1 Pulse)
„ Dynamic (2 Pulses) „ Dynamic (1 Pulse)
„ AEB City

„ SBR, SAS, AEB, LSS, AEB, „ AEB, FCW, SBR „ SBR, ESC, SAS, BSD, LSS,
Other

„ FCW, LDW, AEB, DBS,

Occupant Status, AES, Rescue, „ Headlights AEB, e-Call, Rescue Sheet,
BSD, Headlights
Pedal Misapplication, AD „ Low Speed Bumper Rear Impact: UN R32

 page 34  page 48  page 53  page 58

30
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE
NCAP-Tests in Asia
Items written in italics are not part of the overall rating 2023 2024 2025 2026
JNCAP C-NCAP C-IASI KNCAP ASEAN NCAP
MPDB 1400 kg
0°, 50 %
0o 0o 50 km/h 0o
55 km/h 50/56 km/h 56 km/h
Full-width

 mm
150
 0o
50 km/h
H III H III H III H III H III H III
5% 50 % 50 % 50 % 5% 5%
H III Q3 THOR H III H III
5% 50 % 50 % 5%
Q6 Q10

MPDB 1400 kg
ODB SOB 25 % ODB ODB
0°, 50 %
40 % R=150 mm 40 % 40 %
50 km/h
ODB / SOB

 mm  mm  mm
200
0
o  mm 0 200
0
o 200
0
o
 150
 0o mm 0o  
64 km/h 50 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h

H III THOR H III H III H III H III H III

H III H III
50 % 50 % 5% 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
H III 50 % 50 % Q6 Q10 Q1.5 Q3
H III Q10
5% 5% H III H III Q6 Q10
„ MPDB 5% 5% „ MPDB @ 56 / 56 km/h

 mm
350
WS  mm
300
WS  mm
300
WS 300
 mm

50 %  mm

50 % 
400 ES-2
50 %  AE/SC-MDB,

SID IIs AE-MDB,
AE-MDB, MDB EEVC
1400/1700
1700 kg AC-MDB 1400 kg AE-MDB
1300 kg
MDB

50/60 50 km/h
50 km/h WS 60 km/h 90°
55 km/h km/h 50 %
90°
90° 90° 950 kg
90°
SID IIs ES-2 Q10 Q6
Q3 Q1.5
SID IIs Q10 Q6
except EV/HEV „ Far Side Occ. Prot.

32 32
WS 50 % km/h WS 50 % km/h
75° 75°
Pole

ES-2
254 mm Q3 254 mm
Pole Pole

EV/HEV only „ Far Side Occ. Prot.

Rollover

„ Curtain Airbag „ Roof Crush

„ aPLI
„ Flex PLI / aPLI „ aPLI „ aPLI
Pedestrian

„ Headforms
„ Headforms „ Upper Legfom „ Headforms „ Flex PLI
„ AEB Ped., Cyclist, PTW
„ AEB Pedestrian „ Headforms „ AEB Pedestrian „ Headforms
„ AEB Reverse Ped, Cyc,
„ AEB Cyclist „ AEB Ped, Cyc, PTW „ AEB Cyclist
PTW
„ Frontal ODB
Whiplash Child Safety

„ Q3 in FW Frtl. / Pole „ LATCH (Lower „ Side MDB

„ Frontal ODB
„ CRS Rating „ Q10 in MPDB Anchors and Tethers „ CRS - Installation
„ Side MDB
„ CRS - Installation for Children) „ Veh. Based Assmt.
„ CPD

„ Dynamic „ Static
„ Dynamic „ Static
(1 Pulse) „ Dynamic (1 Pulse)
(1 Pulse) „ Dynamic (1 Pulse)
„ Rear Seats Dynamic „ Rear Seats Static

„ ESC, SBR, AEB, FCW, „ SBR, FCW, LDW, SLD,

„ SBR, AEB, LSS, „ AEB C2C/C2T, FCW, „ BST, Rear View, AHB,
Other

LDW, BSD, SLIF, SAS, AEB, BSD, LKA, RCTA,

Headlights, e-Call, LSS, e-Call, Headlights, HPT, Safety Assist
Pedal Misapplication LKA, e-Call, V2X, ISA, Adv. Airbag, ESF,
Low Speed Bumper Technologies
Headlights e-Call, BMS
 page 67  page 63  page 70  page 62
31
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs

Tests, Assessment Methods, Ratings
Course Description In both focusses the current overall rating methods are
In 1979 the first New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was described and explained. In addition to that an outlook is
established by NHTSA in the United States. The goal was given on the roadmaps and future developments of the NCAP
to motivate competing car manufacturers to enhance the programs.
safety level of their cars beyond the minimum safety stan-
dards defined by regulations. The same approach has been Who should attend?
followed globally by other organizations (e.g. by Euro NCAP, The seminar addresses design, simulation, testing and project
IIHS, ANCAP, JNCAP, KNCAP, C-NCAP, ...). Euro NCAP which engineers as well as managers who want to get a current over-
has been established in 1997 has taken a leading role and view on the global range of NCAP programs with an outlook
has significantly influenced other countries and regions. The on upcoming topics and trends from an insider. Depending on
NCAP programs in many cases are highly dynamic, especially the focus of their work attendees should chose the appropri-
in comparison with rulemaking activities. In order to reach ate focus of the seminar.
the goal to continuously improve the safety level of cars, the
requirements need to be permanently adapted to the state
Course Contents
of technology. Developers in the automotive industry need to
„ Basics of New Car Assessment Programs
know about upcoming changes at an early stage in order to be
„ Euro NCAP
able to design or equip their vehicles accordingly.
„ Background, Principles and Organisation
In this seminar attendees get an overview of the organizations „ Products, Rating and Rules
in charge of the NCAP programs and become familiar with the „ Adult Occupant Protection (AOP)
various test and assessment methods. „ Child Occupant Protection (COP)
The seminar is conducted several times a year with „ Vulnerable Road User Protection (PP / VRU)
„ Safety Assist (SA)
changing focuses:
„ Automated Driving
„ Commercial Van Safety
„ Focus passive safety: Here the focus is on test and „ Roadmap 2030
assessment methods for passive safety. Frontal and „ IIHS
side impact, whiplash, child protection and pedestrian „ C-NCAP
protection are discussed in detail. Tests for active safety
are only mentioned in as far as they are relevant for the
overall rating.
„ Focus active safety: Here the focus is on active safety
systems such as AEB or lane assistance. The tests and
assessments for these systems are explained in detail.
Tests for passive safety are only mentioned in as far as
they are relevant for the overall rating.

Direktor & Professor Andre Seeck (BASt - German Federal Highway Research Institute)
Instructor

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. Furthermore he represents
the German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport in the Board of Directors of Euro NCAP and he is the
chairman of the strategy group on automated driving and of the rating system. These positions enable him
to gain deep insight into current and future developments in vehicle safety. In 2017 NHTSA awarded him the
U. S. Government Special Award of Appreciation.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

07.-10.02.2023 164/4086 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 10.01.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

26.-27.06.2023 164/4087 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 29.05.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

14.-15.09.2023 164/4088 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 17.08.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

06.-10.11.2023 164/4090 Online 5 Days 1.340,- EUR till 09.10.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
32
• Full Scale Crash Test Labs
• Pedestrian & Component test (E-Launcher)
• Crash Simulaaon Test Labs (Sleds)
• Seat Belt Anchorage (E-SBA)
• Head Restraint Performance (E-HRP)
• Roof Crush & Side Intrusion (RCSI)

• Controlled by electrical linear motors

• High Accuracy & Repeatability
• Reliability & Efficiency
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP

MPDB Frontal Impact
Assessment Procedure: modifier for each opening door will be applied.
1. Calculation of points for each measured criterion 6. The Compatibility assessment ( page 36) comprises:
( p. 35) ①: Where a value falls between the higher „ Homgenity of barrier deformation ⑨
② and lower ③ performance limit, the score is „ Barrier bottoming out ⑩
calculated by linear interpolation. The maximum score is
„ Occupant Load Criterion OLC ⑪
4 points. Exceeding the capping limit ④ leads to loss of
all points related to that test. It is applied as a modifier ⑫ to the total test score. The
dedcution is limited to 8 points.
2. Calculation of points for each body region ⑤:
The lowest scoring criterion is used to determine the 7. For the overall rating ( page 46) the score of the
performance of each of the four body regions: MPDB test is scaled by a factor of 0.5, i.e. a maximum of 8
„ Head and neck
points is available.
„ Chest and abdomen
Protocols
„ Pelvis, femur and knee Testing Test Protocol Version 1.1.3
„ Lower leg and foot
Assessment Assessment Protocol AOP Version 9.2.1
3. Modifiers ⑥ are deducted from the body region score.
DAMAGE TB 035 Version 1.0
4. Calculation of points for the test:
For each body region the lowest score of driver ⑦ Dummy TB 026 Version 1.2
or passenger ⑧ is used to determine the score. The
maximum score for the test is 16 points. Barrier TB 022 Version 1.2
5. When a door opens in the test, a minus one-point Compatibility TB 027 Version 1.1.1
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP: MPDB Frontal Impact Assessment Protocol AOP Version 9.2.1

Test Protocol Version 1.1.3

⑤ ① ② ③ ④ ⑥
Dummy Region Criteria 4 Points 0 Points Capping Modifiers
Frontal Impact against MPDB with 50 % Overlap @ 50/50 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700 Brain DAMAGE ≥ 0.42 (-1 pt)
Head1 a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80 Brain DAMAGE ≥ 0.47 (-2 pt)
SUFEHM/BrIC Monitoring Unstable airbag/steering wheel
contact (-1 pt)
My,extension (Nm) < 42 > 57 > 57 Hazardous airbag deploym. (-1 pt)
Neck Fz,tension (kN) < 2.7 > 3.3 > 3.3 Incorrect airbag deploym. (-1 pt)
Fx,shear (kN) < 1.9 > 3.1 > 3.1 Steering column displ. (-1 pt)
Deflection A-pillar displacement (-2 pt)
Chest < 35 > 60 > 60 Compartment deformed (-1 pt)
Rmax (mm)
Driver: Steering wheel contact (-1 pt)
THOR Abdo- Incorrect airbag deployment (-1 pt)
Deflection (mm) - > 88 -
50 % men Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 pt)
SBL-B AcetabulumCom-
⑦ Pelvis < 3.28 > 4.1 - Incorrect airbag deployment
pression (kN)
(-1 pt)
> 9.07 @ 0 ms
Femur Axial Force (kN) < 3.8 - Submarining2 (-4 pt)
> 7.56 @ 10 ms
Variable contact (-1 pt)
Displacement Concentrated loading (-1 pt)
Knee <6 > 15 -
(mm)
Tibia Index < 0.4 > 1.3 - Z–displacement of worst pedal
Tibia
Axial Force (kN) <2 >8 - (-1 pt)
x–Displacement Footwell rupture (-1 pt)
Foot < 100 > 200 - Pedal blocking (-1 pt)
pedal (mm)
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700
Head1
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80
My,extension (Nm) < 42 > 57 > 57 Unstable airbag contact (-1 pt)
< 2.7 @ 0 ms > 3.3 @ 0 ms > 3.3 @ 0 ms Hazardous airbag deployment
Fz,tension (kN) < 2.3 @ 35 ms > 2.9 @ 35 ms > 2.9 @ 35 ms (-1 pt)
Neck < 1.1 @ 60 ms > 1.1 @ 60 ms > 1.1 @ 60 ms Incorrect airbag deployment
(-1 pt)
Pas- < 1.9 @ 0 ms > 3.1 @ 0 ms > 3.1 @ 0 ms
senger: Fx,shear (kN) < 1.2 @ 25-35 ms > 1.5 @ 25-35 ms > 1.5 @ 25-35 ms
Hybrid < 1.1 @ 45 ms > 1.1 @ 45 ms > 1.1 @ 45 ms
III 50 % Deflection (mm) < 22 > 42 > 42 Incorrect airbag deploymt. (-1 pt)
⑧ Chest
VC (m/s) < 0.5 > 1.0 > 1.0 Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 pt)
> 9.07 @ 0 ms
Femur Axial Force(kN) < 3.8 - Variable contact (-1 pt)
> 7.56 @ 10 ms
Concentrated loading (-1 pt)
Displacement Incorrect airbag deployment (-1 pt)
Knee <6 > 15 -
(mm)
Tibia Index < 0.4 > 1.3 -
Tibia
Axial Force(kN) <2 >8 -
For each door that opens during the test a -1 point modifier will be applied to the score of the test.
1 If there is no hard contact (i.e. ares, peak < 80 g and no other evidence of hard contact) a score of 4 points is awarded.
2 When any of the two iliac forces drops within 1 ms and when the submarining is confirmed on the high speed film.

35
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP: MPDB Frontal Impact TB 027 Version 1.1.1

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

Bottoming out of the PDB ⑩

A 2 point modifier MBO is applied if a barrier face penetration depth of 630 mm in an area that is larger than 40 mm x 40 mm
occurs.

Calculation of the Occupant Load Criterion OLC ⑪

„ Determine velocity course of the MPDB by integrating the measured X-acceleration (ax) on the centre of gravity of the
MPDB (filtered with CFC 180):

‫ݒ‬௩ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ න ܽ௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ݀‫ ݐ‬൅  ‫ݒ‬଴ 

with v0 = initial velocity of the MPDB.

„ OLC, t1 and t2 can be calculated with solving the following equation system:
௧ୀ௧భ ௧ୀ௧భ
න ‫ݒ‬଴ ݀‫ ݐ‬െ න ‫ݒ‬௩ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ݀‫ ݐ‬ൌ ͲǤͲ͸ͷ
௧ୀ଴ ௧ୀ଴
௧ୀ௧మ ௧ୀ௧మ
න ൫‫ݒ‬଴ െ ܱ‫ ܥܮ‬ή ሺ‫ ݐ‬െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሻ൯ ݀‫ ݐ‬െ න ‫ݒ‬௩ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ݀‫ ݐ‬ൌ ͲǤʹ͵ͷ
௧ୀ௧భ ௧ୀ௧భ

‫ݒ‬଴ െ ܱ‫ ܥܮ‬ή ሺ‫ݐ‬ଶ െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ሻ ൌ ‫ݒ‬௩ ሺ‫ݐ‬ଶ ሻ

with t1 = end of the free-flight-phase of a virtual dummy on the barrier along a displacement of 65 mm
t2 = end of the restraining-phase of a virtual dummy on the barrier along a displacement of 235 mm after the
free-flight-phase (i.e. a total displacement of 300 mm)
„ For compatibility assessment OLC shall be converted from SI units into g.

36
 ATD-TH50,
ATD-T350 and
Reclined
ATD-TF05

ATD - Hybrid III and

THOR Dummy Models and
Leg Impactor Models

Well recognized technology supplier

Wide range of OEMs and supplier costumers
worldwide
Specialized in development, distribution and
support of high quality finite element models
ATD-fPLI
Codes: LS-Dyna, PamCrash, Abaqus, Radioss
ATD-aPLI
Always developing new models - get in touch!

ATD-H395 ATD-H350 ATD-H305

ATD-MODELS GmbH | +49 (0) 35 76 - 21 76 88 - 0 | info@atd-models.de | www.atd-models.com

 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
Displacement UPDATE

sO Displacement virtual occupant

sV Displacement MPDB
Δs = sO - sV

300 mm

65 mm

t1 t2 time
Velocity

vO Velocity virtual occupant

vV Velocity MPDB

aconst = OLC [g]

time

Calculation of the Compatibility Modifier ⑫

„ for OLC < 25 g: MPDB/XT-ADAC
MCompat = -2·h - MBO 1400 kg
„ for 25 g ≤ OLC ≤ 40 g: 0°, 50 %
MCompat = -2·OLC/15 + 10/3 - h ·((4·OLC/10 - 8) - (2·OLC/15 - 10/3)) - MBO 50 km/h
MCompat is limited to -8 points
„ for OLC > 40 g:
 mm
150

MCompat = -2 - 6·h - MBO 50 km/h
MCompat is limited to -8 points
„ MCompat is deducted from the total score (max. 16 points) of the MPDB frontal
crash
THOR Hybrid III
50 % 50 %

Q6 Q10

38
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Protection Criteria in Frontal Impact

Dummy Region Criteria 4 Points 0 Points Capping Modifiers
Frontal-Impact against Rigid Wall with 100 % Overlap @ 50 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700 Unstable airbag/steering wheel
Head1 contact (-1 pt)
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80 Hazardous airbag deployment
(-1 pt)
My,extension (Nm) < 36 > 49 > 574 Incorrect airbag deployment (-1 pt)
Steering column displacement
Hybrid III Neck2 Fz,tension (kN) < 1.7 > 2.62 > 2.94 (-1 pt)
5% Rear seat: head forward excursi-
Fx,shear (kN) < 1.2 > 1.95 > 2.74 on (-4 pt)
Deflection (mm) < 18 > 34 > 34 Steering wheel contact (-1 pt)
Chest Incorrect airbag deployment (-1 pt)
VC (m/s) < 0.5 > 1.0 > 1.0 Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 pt)
Femur Axial Force (kN) < 2.6 > 6.2 - Submarining3 (-4 pt)
1 If there is no hard contact (i.e. ares, peak < 80 g and no other evidence of hard contact) a score of 4 points is awarded. For the rear
passenger in the rigid wall impact the score is based on a3ms only, if there is no hard contact.
2 For the rear passenger, the neck score is the sum of all three criteria, with the following maximum score per criterion:
Shear 1 point, Tension 1 point, Extension 2 points
3 When any of the two iliac forces drops within 1 ms and when the submarining is confirmed on the high speed film.
4 Driver only
Test Protocol Version 1.2.1 Assessment Protocol Version 9.2.1

39
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Euro NCAP Passive Safety Workshop n

xis Sessio
with Pra
Course Description Who should attend?
A top rating in Euro NCAP is part of the specs for almost all The workshop is aimed at development and test engineers
newly developed passenger cars. Hardly anything is more of vehicles who have the goal to achieve a good Euro NCAP
unpleasant for a developer than a surprising downgrade in rating. Basic knowledge in the field of passive vehicle safety
the rating. Typical reasons for results that turn out worse than and Euro NCAP rating should already be available. If neces-
expected are often marginal differences in the execution and sary, prior participation in the seminar Introduction to Passive
evaluation of the tests or modifiers assigned by Euro NCAP. To Safety or the seminar Euro NCAP Compact is recommended.
avoid this, it is important to know and understand the Euro Course Contents
NCAP procedure in detail. This is exactly where the Euro NCAP „ Overview of the test and evaluation procedures in passive
Passive Safety Workshop comes in: In the workshop, the latest safety
test and assessment procedures in the area of passive safety „ Current topics
(adult occupant protection, child protection and VRU protec- „ MPDB frontal crash
tion) are presented specifically and illustrated as far as pos- „ Knee Mapping
sible with concrete practical examples. Due to the workshop „ Far Side assessment
character of the event, participants will have the opportunity „ Rescue, Extrication & Safety evaluation
to present their specific problems and questions, of course „ Introduction of aPLI and extended head impact area
„ Child Presence Detection
also regarding the tests that have been established for some „ CRS installation/warning labels/vehicle equipment
time. The course instructor Volker Sandner and his team have „ Post crash inspection
been conducting Euro NCAP tests as an accredited Euro NCAP
laboratory for many years and, as a contributor to or leader of
various Euro NCAP working groups, he has played a significant

Image: ADAC
role in the new and further development of the rating. For
example, the trend-setting MPDB frontal crash was developed
under his leadership.
Course Objectives
The course is designed to help vehicle developers understand
the Euro NCAP approach in detail. It offers a lot of room for
questions from the participants' practice and addresses the
problems that the testers encounter in their practice.

Volker Sandner (ADAC Technik Zentrum Landsberg) has been head of the Vehicle Safety De-
Instructor

partment of ADAC, which includes active safety, passive safety and accident research, since 2010. Before that,
from 1999-2007 he was in charge of the construction of ADAC’s crash test lab as a team manager. From 2007-
2010 he lead the Passive Safety Department of ADAC. At Euro NCAP he is a member of the Board of Directors
and chairman of the frontal impact working group. In addition to that he is member of the side impact working
group, the techincal working group and the ratings group of Euro NCAP. He is also lecturer for vehicle safety at
the University of Applied Sciences in Munich.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

15.-16.06.2023 196/4142 Landsberg am Lech 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 18.05.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

12.-13.10.2023 196/4143 Landsberg am Lech 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 14.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
40
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Protection Criteria in Side Impact

MDB Test Protocol Version 8.2 Pole Test Protocol Version 7.1.2 Assessment Protocol Version 9.2.1

Dummy Region Criteria 4 Points 0 Points Capping Modifiers

Barrier Side Impact (AE-MDB) @ 60 km/h &
Pole Side Impact @ 32 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700
incorrect airbag deployment
Head1
(-1 point)
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80 door opening (-1 point/door)
lateral shoulder force > 3.0 kN
World > 50 (MDB)
Chest Deflection (mm) < 28 > 50 (deduction of all chest points)
SID 50 % > 55 (Pole)
VC > 1.0 m/s (deduction of all
Abdo- chest/abdomen points)
Deflection (mm) < 47 > 65 > 65
men head protection device assess-
Pubic Symphysis ment (-4 points)
Pelvis < 1.7 > 2.8 > 2.8
Peak Force (kN)
1 Pole: no sliding scale, only capping if HIC15 > 700 or ares, peak > 80 g or direct head contact with the pole.

Modifier Side Head Protection Device

Inside the ‚Head Protection Device Assessment Zone‘ (green) the head protection system’s coverage is assessed. If the coverage
is insufficient a 4 point modifier is applied the overall pole impact score. Areas outside the Daylight Opening (FMVSS 201) are
excluded from assessment. Seams are not penalized if the un-inflated area is no wider than 15 mm. Any other un-inflated areas
that are no larger than 50 mm in diameter (or equivalent area) are not penalized.

②
82 mm

① r = 82 mm
CoG 95 %
693 mm
594 mm

82 mm 82 mm
H-Point
50 %
52 mm

CoG 5 %

The head protection device (HPD) evaluation zone (green) is defined as a rounded rectangle around the head CoG box (defined
by the head CoGs of the 5 % female and 95 % male occupants) at a distance of 82 mm from the upper and fore/aft edges and 52
mm below the bottom edge. The x-position of the CoG is defined relative to the H-Point of the 50 % male:
Front seats:
① = H-Point(x) + 126 mm - seat travel (5th %ile- 50th %ile)
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm + seat travel (50th %ile- 95th %ile)
Rear seats:
① = H-Point(x) + 126 mm - remaining seat travel
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm + remaining seat travel

41
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Far Side Occupant Protection in Side Impacts

Test & Assessment Protocol Version 2.3
Test Procedure

„ 2 sled tests on acceleration based sled rig

WS 75°
„ Pulses: 50 %
„ Test 1: AX, SLED = AY, VEHICLE (AE-MDB @ 60 km/h) x 1.035
„ Test 2: AX, SLED = AY, VEHICLE (Pole @ 32 km/h) x 1.035
„ BIW mounted with centerline angled 75° towards direction of travel
„ Spacers (EPP60) fitted in gaps between the struck side and the passenger seat and A X, SLED
the passenger seat and center console
„ WorldSID 50 % on driver seat

Assessment
„ Prerequisites:
„ Structural stability of doors, hinges, roof rail and sill in MDB and pole crash. No opening of doors on struck side in MDB and pole crash.
„ Total score from MDB and pole crash ≥ 10 points out of 12.
„ No failure of restraint systems for side impact protection in MDB and pole crash.
„ Dummy Criteria:
Dummy Region Criteria Max. Points 0 Points Capping
Far Side Occupant Protection Sled Test
HIC15 (with direct contact only) < 500 > 700 > 700
Head
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80
Upper Neck Tension Fz (kN) < 3.74 > 3.74 -
Upper Neck Lateral Flexion MxOC (Nm) < 162 > 248 -
Upper Neck Extension neg. MyOC (Nm) < 50 > 50 -
World Neck
SID 50 % Lower Neck Tension Fz (kN) < 3.74 > 3.74 -
Lower Neck Lateral Flexion Mx (Nm) < 162 > 248 -
Lower Neck Extension neg. My (Nm) - > [100]* -

Chest & Chest Lateral Compression (mm) < 28 > 50 > 50

Abdomen Abdomen Lateral Compression (mm) < 47 > 65 > 65

„ Max Points are depending on Peak Head Excursion and Far Side Countermeasures:
The maximum available points for each body region depends on the amount of head excursion and the availability of a far
side countermeasure.
Peak Head Excursion in Zone
Zone Red*
Capping Orange Yellow Green
Region Countermeasure ≤ 125 mm > 125 mm
with 0 0 2 3 4 4
Head
without 0 0 1 2 4
with 0 4 4 3 4 4
Neck
without 0 1 1 2 4
Chest & with 0 0 0 3 4 4
Abd. without 0 0 1 2 4
Max Dum- with 0 4 6 9 12 12
my Score without 0 1 3 6 12
* Score is depending on wether the red excursion line is > 125 mm outboard of the orange excursion line or not

42
 Veracity.
Evaluation. According to Requirements.

www.measx.com
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE
„ Excursion Lines:
„ Red Line: Maximum post test intrusion of the interior door panel
from AE-MDB (60 km/h) and 75° pole impacts respectively.
„ Orange Line: Seat centerline of the struck side seat
„ Yellow Line: 125 mm inboard from struck side seat centerline
„ Green Line: 250 mm inboard from struck side seat centerline
„ Excursion Zones:
„ Capping Zone: Outboard from the Red Line
„ Red Zone: Between Red Line and Orange Line
„ Orange Zone: Between Orange Line and Yellow Line
„ Yellow Zone: Between Yellow Line and Green Line
„ Green Zone: Inboard from Green Line
„ Pelvis and Lumbar Spine Modifiers
Pefor-
Criteria mance Modifier
Limit
PSPF (kN) > 2.8
Lumbar Fy (kN) > 2.0 -4 Points applied to the dummy
Lumbar Fz (kN) > 3.5 score for each test
Lumbar Mx (Nm) > 120

„ Total Score:
The total score (max. 12 from test 1 + 12 from test 2 = 24 points) will be scaled down to a maximum of 4 points and is part
of the AOP score.
„ Occupant to Occupant Protection:
If the vehicle is equipped with a countermeasure, it must prove that the measure prevents occupant to occupant (O2O)
interaction. This is verified in the full scale pole side impact. This test will be exectued with an additional WS 50 % dummy
on the front passenger seat.
Criteria for O2O head protection:
„ No exceedance of the head lower performance criteria.
„ No evidence of direct contact between the far side occupants head and any part of the nearside occupant.
„ For an assymetric countermeasure the OEM must provide evidence that it provides protection in impacts from both sides.
„ Protection must be offered in a protection zone:

If the countermeasure fails to meet these criteria, the B C B CoG marking from passenger
total far side score (max. 4 points) will be reduced by 1 point. in pole test position
A
A = 120 mm
A B = 82 mm
C = Distance between driver
(mid + 20 mm) and passenger
(rearmost) head CoG locations

44
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test & Assessment Protocol Version 2.2

TB 030 Rescue Sheet Guidelines 2.1

Rescue, Extrication & Safety Assessment
Rescue Sheet Naming Convention 2.0

Rescue Sheet Rescue Sheet Checklist 1.0

Penalty for not meeting
Rescue Sheet Requirements the requirements
ISO compliant Rescue Sheet availability for tested model and all models on sale -2
ISO compliant Emergency Response Guide (ERG) availability for tested model -1
Rescue Sheet must be provided in PDF format
Rescue Sheet should be no more than four A4 sized pages
Commercial licenses and/or exclusive publishing rights may not infringe on the rights of Euro NCAP and its members to make
Rescue Sheets available at no cost to the general public
Rescue Sheets must be supplied in at least one of the official languages of each EU country + UK
ERG must be supplied in English, German, French and Spanish
Rescue sheet must meet ISO 17840 Part 1 format and should include an ERG following ISO 17840 Part 3
Rescue sheet content must be correct (checked in post-crash inspection)
Extrication
Penalty for not meeting
Extrication Requirements the requirements
Automatic Door Locking (ADL): All side doors must be unlocked after frontal crash tests and non-struck
side doors must be unlocked after side crash tests
Post crash side door opening force < 750 N
Post crash hinged side door opening angle ≥ 45°
Post crash sliding side door opening ≥ 500 mm
Electric retracting door handles: After all full scale crash tests, the handles of all side doors must be in the
-1
extended/ready to open position or remain in retracted position but allow to be grabbed nevertheless by
the first responder without any tool
Seat belt buckle unlatching force ≤ 60 N on seats occupied during frontal crashes
Seat belt buckle unlatching force ≤ 100 N on seats occupied during side crashes
EVs/HEVs: Post crash requirements from UN R94/95/135/137
Correct marking of hazards (e.g. high voltage, liquified gas)

Max. total penalties from Rescue Sheet & Extrication -2

Post Crash Technology
Prerequisite for scoring: no penalties for Rescue Sheet requirements
TB 040 e-Call 1.0.0 max Score for meeting
Post Crash Technology Requirements the requirements
Advanced e-Call (112 e-Call) system:
2023: potential number of occupants 0.5 | recent locations N1 and N2 0.5 | direction of impact & ΔV 0.0 1
2024: potential number of occupants 0.33 | recent locations N1 and N2 0.33 | direction of impact & ΔV 0.33
Third Party Service (TPS) e-Call system:
Multilanguage communication 0.5 | hazard detection 0.5 | transfer of paired mobile No. 0.5 |transfer of 1
vehicle type 0.5 | additional functions 0.5
Vehicle Submergence countermeasures: (operational for 2 minutes) 1
door opening with 12 V disabled 0.5 | window opening functionality 0.5
Multi Collision Brake (MCB) 1

Max. total score 4

45
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Rating: 2020 - 2024 Overall Rating Protocol 9.1.1

Adult Occupant Protection Child Occupant Protection VRU Protection Safety Assist
2020 - 2023 - 2020 - 2023 - 2020 - 2023 - 2020 - 2023 -
2022 2024 2022 2024 2022 2024 2022 2024
max. points max. points max. points max. points
MPDB Frontal Dyn. Tests Occupant Sta-
8 8 16 16 Head Impact 24 18 3 3
Impact Frontal tus Monitoring
Full-width Speed Assis-
8 8 Dyn. Tests Side 8 8 Leg Impact 6 3 3
Frontal Impact tance Systems
18
Side Impact CRS Upper Leg Lane Support
6 6 12 12 6 4 3
(MDB) Installation Impact Systems
Side Impact Vehicle Based
6 6 13 13 AEB VRU-Pe 9 9 AEB Car-to-Car 6 9
(Pole) Assessment
Far Side 4 4 AEB VRU-Cy 9 9
Whiplash Front 3 3 AEB VRU-PTW 6
Whiplash Rear 1 1 LSS PTW 3
Rescue 2 4
max. points (1) 38 40 max. points (1) 49 49 max. points (1) 54 63 max. points (1) 16 18
normalised actual points normalised actual points normalised actual points normalised actual points
score (2) / (1) score (2) / (1) score (2) / (1) score (2) / (1)
weighting (3) 40 % weighting (3) 20 % weighting (3) 20 % weighting (3) 20 %
weighted score (4) (2) x (3) weighted score (4) (2) x (3) weighted score (4) (2) x (3) weighted score (4) (2) x (3)
Balancing: minimum normalised score (2) by box for the respective star rating1:
 80 % 80 % 80 % 80 % 60 % 70 % 70 % 70 %

+ + +
 70 % 70 % 70 % 70 % 50 % 60 % 60 % 60 %
 60 % 60 % 60 % 60 % 40 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 30 % 40 % 40 % 40 %
 40 % 40 % 40 % 40 % 20 % 30 % 30 % 30 %
Overall score (5) = ∑(4)
The overall score is used only for ranking the results within vehicle categories.
Bold figures indicate changes with respect to the previous year
1 A vehicle that meets all of the balance criteria for a 5-star overall rating cannot have any critical red body region (after modifiers are
applied). In case of a red critical body region, the vehicle is limited to a maximum of 4-stars.
Dual Rating VSSTR Protocol Version 7.4.3 Euro NCAP Logo Guidelines
Euro NCAP issues a base rating for standard equipment only. Fitment rates for safety assist technologies are no longer
considered. Optionally manufacturers of cars that have achieved at least 3 stars can apply for a secondary rating of a model
equipped with an optional safety package that meets a certain market installation rate (an average of 25 % in the first 3 years and of
55 % in the subsequent 3 years). The safety package must be actively promoted by the manufacturer. The safety package must
be available, at least as an option, on all variants in the model range.

Euro NCAP Roadmap 2030 Rating Scheme Euro NCAP Vision 2030
Safe Driving Crash Avoidance Crash Protection Post-Crash
„ Speed assistance „ AEB / AES „ Occupant protection front „ Rescue information
„ Driver & occupant „ LSS / side „ Extrication, fire,
monitoring / CPD „ Pedal misapplication „ Whiplash submergence
„ Safe assisted / automated „ Child occupant protection „ Digital emergency services
driving „ Pedestrian / cyclist
protection
46
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

U.S. NCAP: Tests and Criteria Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555

Test Procedure May 2018 Test Procedure March 2020 Test Procedure March 2020

0o  mm
279

56 km/h 62 ES-2 re SID IIS 32 km/h
km 75°
/h /
27°

Hybrid III Hybrid III

50 % 5% 55 km/h
Rigid 254 mm Pole
MDB, 1368 kg
SID IIs
45
45
Injury Criteria Injury Risk
44 Curves
44 45
44 45
44 (HIII 5F dummy):
Frontal-Impact against Rigid
Injury Risk Wall
Curves forfor with
Injury Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP
Injury Risk Curves Frontal
Frontal 100 % OverlapInjury
NCAP
NCAP
Injury Risk Curves for Frontal NCAP
@ 56 km/h
Criteria
(HIII 5F dummy):
Risk Curve
(HIII 5F dummy):
(HIII 50M dummy): Injury Criteria (HIII 5F dummy):
Risk Curve
(HIII
(HIII 50M
50M dummy):
dummy):
Dummy
Injury Criteria
HybridRisk
(HIII 50M dummy): III Curve
50 % (Driver) Injury Criteria
Injury Criteria
Hybrid IIIRisk
5Risk
%Curve
(Passenger)
Curve
Injury
Injury Criteria
Criteria Risk
Risk Curve
Curve
Injury Criteria Risk Curve
⎛ ln( HIC 15) − 7.45231 ⎞
HIC ⎛ ln( HIC15) − 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 ⎞⎟
Head
Head
15 ) Phead(AIS
Phead (AIS3+3)+=) =⎝Φ⎛Φ ⎜ HIC
⎜ln( 15) − 7.45231⎠ ⎞⎞⎟ ⎟ (HIC
0.73998 Head15) Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ⎜⎝ ⎛ ln( HIC 0.73998 ⎟⎠ ⎞
(HIC15)(HIC
(HIC)15)
Head Phead (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜⎝ ⎝ 0.73998
0.73998 ⎟⎠ ⎠ (HICHead 15) − 7.45231
15
where Φ = cumulative ⎝ normal 0.73998
distributi on⎠ 15) P (AIS 3 + ) = Φ⎛
⎝ ⎜ HIC
ln( 0.73998
15) −distribution
7.45231 ⎞⎠ ⎟
Pwhere
(HIC15) head Φ = cumulative normal
head (AIS 3+ ) = Φ ⎜ ⎝
Head ⎟⎠
whereΦΦ= =cumulative
where cumulativenormalnormaldistributi
distributionon (HIC
(HIC15) 0.73998
where Φ = cumulative normal distributi on 15) where Φ = cumulative ⎝ 0.73998
normal distribution
⎠
1 where Φ cumulative normal1distribution
=) =
Chest
Chest Pchest _ defl ( AIS
Pchest 3+)3=+) =
( AIS 11 Chest Pchest _where
defl ( AIS
Φ 3=+cumulative normal distribution
1 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
Chest Chest
(deflection in mm)
(deflection
Chest in in mm)
PPchest
chest defl( AIS
_ _defl 3+) = 10.5456−1.568*(1ChestDefl ) 0.4612
(deflection
Chest in mm)
Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.5456 −1.7212*( 1
_ defl ( AIS 3+ ) =1 + 1e + 10.5456 ) 0.4612
(deflection mm) 10.5456 −1.568*( ChestDefl 0.4612
(Deflection
(deflection in in
mm) mm) e −1.568*( (deflection
ChestDefl )0.4612in mm)
Chest Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) =1 + e10.5456 −1.7212*( 1 ChestDefl ) 0.4612
11++ee10.5456−1.568*(ChestDefl(deflection
) Femur in mm) Pchest _ defl ( AIS 3+) =
Chest
e10.5456 1−1.7212*(ChestDefl ) 0.4612
Femur
(deflection
(force ininkN)
Femur
mm) P ( AIS 2+ ) 1= +1 + 10.5456 −1.7212*(ChestDefl ) 0.4612
e e 5.7949−0.7619
1 Femur _ Force
Femur 1 1 (forceFemur
in kN) P ( AIS 2+ ) = 1+
(force Femur
Femur in kN)
(force
in in kN) P ( AIS
P AIS2 + )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
Femur
−1
PP((AIS 22++)) ==1 +11+e+e5.795
(force kN) _ Force (force
(Force ininkN)
(force kN) 5.795
e − 0.5196
5.795 − 0.5196
0.5196 Femur
Femur _ Force
(force in kN)
Femur_ Force
_ Force
Neck Pneck_NijP(AIS3
( AIS 2++ )=) = 1 +5.7949 e 5.7949
0.7619 Femur _ Force
e 1−−1.9688
1 +3.2269
(AIS3+) = 1 + e
1 Nij
Neck P 1
(Nij and
Neck Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = 1 + e 1
neck_Nij
Pneck_Nij (AIS3 1 tension/compression in 1 + e 3.2269 1−1.9688 Nij
Neck
Neck
(Nij and tension/compression in Pneck_Nij (AIS3 +)+1=)+=e 3.2269 −11.9688 Nij (NijNeck
and Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) =
(AIS3 + ) = 1 Nij
(Nij and tension/compression
Neck in in Pneck_Nij (AIS3+) = 1 +1 +e 3.2269 e 3.2269 −1.9688
−1.9688 NijNij kN) and in
Neck
tension/compression
(Nij Pneck
neck_Nij
_ Tens ( AIS 3+ ) = 3.2269 −1.9688
e −1.9688
1 +3.2269
(Nij and tension/compression
kN) 3.2269 −1.9688 1 Nij 1 +e e10.958−3.770 1 Nij
Neck _ Tension
kN)
(Nij and tension/compression
kN) in
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e 1
(Nij
kN)and
tension/compression in Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) =1 + 1
kN) Pneck _ Tens( AIS
( AIS3+3)+1=)+=e10.9745 − 2.37511Neck _ Tension tension/compression
kN) in
Pneck _ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.958−3.770 1 Neck _ Tension
Neck Pneck
Pneck _ Tens
e10.9745 − 2.375 Neck _ Tension kN) PPneck ( AIS
AIS3 + ) = 10.958−3.7701Neck _ Tension
_ Tens ( AIS 3+) = 1 + 1 +e10.9745
10.9745 − 2.375 Neck _ Tension
− 2.3751Neck _ Tension
_ Tens
neck _ Comp ( 3 + ) = 1 + e
10.958
10.958 −3.770
−3.770 1Neck_ Tension
Neck _ Compression
(Nij and Tension/ Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e
1 1_ Compression Pneck _ Comp ( AIS 3+) =1 1++e e 1 _ Compression
Compression in kN) Pneck _ Comp( AIS
Pneck ( AIS
3+3)+1=)+=e10.9745 − 2.375 Neck
1 Neck _ Compression P52
Pneck
neck=_max
Comp ( AIS(P
imum 1 + e10.958
3+neck_Nij
)= −3.770 Neck
Pneck −_3.770
, 10.958 1 Pneck _ Comp )
Pneck _ Comp
_ Comp ( AIS 3+) = 1 + e10.9745
1 +e10.9745
10.9745 − 2.375
− 2.375 Neck _ Compression P 52
52
neck _ Comp ( AIS 3+ ) =
52 = max imum(Pneck_Nij10.958 1 + e
Tens ,Neck _ Compression
Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij
PneckRisk max imum 1 + , Pneck _−Tens
e
(Pneck_Nij
2.375, Neck
Pneck_ _Compression
Comp )
Pneck _ Tens, P, Pneck
Pneck 1 + e , Pneck −3.770
_ Tens , Pneck
Neck _ Comp )
_ Compression
Pneck
Injury = =max imum
Curves (Pfor Side NCAP , P, neck Tens neck _ Comp
Comp )) Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck _ Comp ) 53
Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck __Comp
neck_Nij _ ) Pneck = max imum(Pneck_Nij , Pneck _ Tens , Pneck _ Comp )
InjuryRisk
Injury
Injury RiskCurves
Risk Curvesfor
Curves forSide
for SideNCAP
Side NCAP
NCAP
(ES-2re 50M dummy):
Overall (ES-2re50M
(ES-2re
(ES-2re 50Mdummy):
50M dummy):
dummy): Pjoint = 1 - (1-Phead) x (1-Pneck) x (1-Pchest) x (1-Pfemur)
Injury Criteria Risk Curve (SID-IIs 5F dummy):

Side Impact (MDB & Pole Test)

InjuryCriteria
Injury
Injury Criteria
Criteria RiskCurve
Risk
Risk Curve
Curve
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 (SID-IIs 5F dummy):
1
(rib deflection
Chest
Chest in
Chest
Chest Pchest ( AIS 3+) = 11 Pelvis
Injury Criteria
rib deflection 1
Risk Curve
(rib
(rib mm) inin
(ribdeflection
deflection
deflection
(Rib Deflection
in
in PPchest AIS33++))== 1 + e5.3895−0.0919*max.
chest((AIS
(acetabular p pelvis ( AIS 2+) =
mm)
mm)
mm)
1 + e 5.3895− 0.0919*max. ribdeflection
5.3895−0.0919*max. rib deflection
+ iliac force in N)
1 + e 6.3055−0.00094 *F
mm) 1+ e
where F is the sum of acetabular and iliac force
Abdomen (total
1 in the SID − IIs dummy in HIC
⎛ ln( Newtons
36) − 7.45231 ⎞
abdominal
Abdomenforce
Abdomen
Abdomen
Abdomen (totalin
(total
(total
N)force
abdominal forceinin
in Pabdomen ( AIS 3+) = 11−0.002133*(HIC
Head Phead (AIS3+ ) = Φ⎜
0.73998
⎟
PPabdomen AIS33++)) == 1 + e6.04044
abdominal force F ) ⎝ ⎠
abdomen((AIS
abdominal
(Abdominal Force 6.04044 36

N)
N)
N) abdomen 6.04044−−−0.002133* F
0.002133*FF
in N) 1
1+ e
where F =total abdominal + e
force
6.04044
(N) in
0.002133*
ES-2re
where Φ = cumulative normal distribution
whereFFF=total
where
where =totalabdominal
=total abdominalforce
abdominal force(N)
force (N)inin
(N) inES-2re
ES-2re
ES-2re
1 Pelvis
1
Pelvis (Force) Ppelvis ( AIS 3+) = (acetabular p pelvis ( AIS 2+) =
1 + e 11−0.0011*F
7.5969
Pelvis(Force)
Pelvis
Pelvis
Pelvis (Force)
(Force) PPpelvis
pelvis
pelvis(( AIS
AIS 33
++))==
0.0011*FFF
7.5969−−0.0011*
7.5969
+ iliac force in N)
1 + e 6.3055−0.00094 *F
(Force in N) where F is the pubic 11++ee7.5969
force −in0.0011*
the ES - 2re in Newtons where F is the sum of acetabular and iliac force
whereFF isisthe
where the pubic
pubic force
forceininthe
theES
ES--2re in Newtons
2rein Newtons
in the SID − IIs dummy in Newtons

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

48
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

U.S. NCAP: Injury Risk Curves

Hybrid III 50 % ES-2re 50 %
Hybrid III 5 % SID-IIs 5 %
multiple Dummys
40% 40%

35% 35%

30% 30%

Pchest (AIS 3+)

Phead (AIS 3+)

25% 25%

20% 20%

15% 15%

10% 10%

5% 5%

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

HIC (15 / 36) Chest Deflection (mm)

40% 40%

35% 35%

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

25% 25%

20% 20%

15% 15%

10% 10%

5% 5%

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

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

40% 40%

35% 35%

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

Pneck_Nij (AIS 3+)

25% 25%

20% 20%

15% 15%

10% 10%

5%
5%

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

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

49
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

U.S. NCAP: Rating Scheme Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26555

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)

Vehicle Safety Score (VSS)

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

Rating procedure
Using the Injury Risk Curves on  page 48 and page 49, the risk of a serious injury (AIS 3+) can be calculated from the injury
criteria measured in the crash test. The joint risk for an occupant can be determined using the following formulae:
Frontal Impact: Pjoint = 1 − (1 − Phead ) × (1 − Pneck ) × (1 − Pchest ) × (1 − Pfemur )

Side Impact: Pjoint = 1−(1− Phead) × (1− Pchest) × (1− Pabdomen) × (1− Ppelvis)
This risk is compared to a so called baseline risk which was set to 15 %. This ratio is called relative risk (RR) from which the star
rating is determined using the following table:
RR 0 0.67 1 1.33 2.67

Stars     

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

Stars     

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

Stars     

50
 GLOBAL
SAFETY
TEXTILES

Next generation Automotive Safety Solutions

Global Safety Textiles (GST) history spans more than 185 years - from silk ribbons to specialists in
airbag cushions, 4,500+ employees around the globe drive our success in a highly demanding
and competitive airbag industry. Exceptional knowledge of fabric makes GST an ideal partner for
technical textiles.
We stand prepared for the future with sustainable yarns and recently developed 3-Layer OPW
Designs capable of being adapted for future seating positions, assisting in improving
performance for all positions in the vehicle, and providing cost advantages.
GST continues to meet the exacting industry standards, but additionally has received several
accolades and awards for our special efforts and performance. Therefore, customers outside the
automotive sector can also be assured of obtaining benefits from our exceptional manufacturing
and supply capabilities.
3-Layer OPW Airbag
• Directional deployment
• Solution for current and future applications
• OPW with additional functionality

Sustainable Airbag fabrics

• PET yarn from bio-based raw material
• Yarn from recycled PET material
• High carbon reduction potential

GST – Your safety, our solutions in all cars Global Safety Textiles GmbH
Trottäcker 46
79713 Bad Säckingen, Germany
Email: sales@gst-global.com
[GST LinkedIn] [GST Website] www.global-safety-textiles.com
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

U.S. NCAP Roadmap

Request for Comment (RFC) March 2022
2021

Proposals to add
„ LKS, BSD, BSI and
PAEB
„ Pedestrian protection
impact tests
(head-to-hood, Proposals to
upper leg-to-hood „ use THOR-50M and
2022

leading edge, WS-50M

lower leg-to-bumper) „ add frontal oblique test
„ add adaptive driving
beam headlights,
upgraded lower
beam headlights,
semiautomatic
2023

headlamp beam
switching and rear
automatic braking for Proposals to
pedestrians „ update Monroney
label
„ revise 5-star rating
system
2024
2031 2030 2029 2028 2027 2026 2025

Assessment and test

development for:
„ Intersection safety
assist
„ Opposing traffic safety
assist
„ AEB for all VRU
including bicyclists
and motorcyclists

52
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

IIHS Rating Test Protocol Version I (Dec 2022)

Rating Guidelines Version I (Dec 2022)

Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

Frontal Impact against ODB 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 result in downgrading
H III a3ms (g) ≤ 60 ≤ 75 ≤ 90 > 90
50 % Deflection (mm) ≤ 50 ≤ 60 ≤ 75 > 75
Chest
Front Deflection rate (m/s) ≤ 6.6 ≤ 8.2 ≤ 9.8 > 9.8
seat VC (m/s) ≤ 0.8 ≤ 1.0 ≤ 1.2 > 1.2
Thigh & Hip KTH Injury Risk (%) ≤5 ≤ 15 ≤ 25 > 25
Knee Displacement (mm) ≤ 12 ≤ 15 ≤ 18 > 18
TI (upper, lower) ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20
Legs & Feet
Tibia Axial Force (kN) ≤ 4.0 ≤ 6.0 ≤ 8.0 > 8.0
Foot acceleration (g) ≤ 150 ≤ 200 ≤ 260 > 260
HIC15 ≤ 560 ≤ 700 ≤ 840 > 840
Nij ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20
Head &
Fz,tension (kN) ≤ 2.0 ≤ 2.4 ≤ 2.8 > 2.8
Neck
Fz,compression (kN) ≤ 2.0 ≤ 2.5 ≤ 3.0 > 3.0
H III
ares peak (g) Values > 70 result in downgrading
5%
Deflection (mm) 30 = pass/fail cutoff
Rear Shoulder belt tension (kN) 6.0 = pass/fail cutoff
seat Chest
Maximum shoulder belt
110 = pass/fail cutoff
position c (mm)
Femur axial compression
Thigh & Hip ≤ 4.9 ≤ 6.2 ≤ 7.4 > 7.4
(kN)
Protocol Version VI (Nov 2020)
Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor
Seat/Head Restraints: Static Assessment ( page 111)
Head Backset (mm) ≤ 70 ≤ 90 ≤ 110 > 110
HRMD
& Neck Distance from top of head (mm) ≤ 60 ≤ 80 ≤ 100 > 100

Seat/Head Restraints: Dynamic Assessment Protocol Version IV (Feb 2016)

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 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“.
53
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

IIHS Rating Rating Guidelines Version III (Dec 2022) Test Protocol Version II (Oct 2022)

Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

Barrier Side Impact (IIHS MDB 2.0) @ 60 km/h
HIC15 ≤ 623 ≤ 779 ≤ 935 > 935
Head/
Fz,tension (kN) ≤ 2.1 ≤ 2.5 ≤ 2.9 > 2.9
Neck
Fz,compression (kN) ≤ 2.5 ≤ 3.0 ≤ 3.5 > 3.5

Shoulder deflection (mm) Values > 60 or bottoming out result in downgrading by one category
SID-IIs Ø Peak rib deflection (mm)1 ≤ 28 ≤ 38 ≤ 48 > 48
5% Chest/
Worst peak rib deflection (mm)2 51 - 56 > 56
Torso
Deflection rate (m/s) ≤ 8.2 ≤ 9.8 ≤ 11.5 > 11.5

VC (m/s) ≤ 1.0 ≤ 1.2 ≤ 1.4 > 1.4

Combined acetabulum and
Pelvis ≤ 4.0 ≤ 5.0 ≤ 6.0 > 6.0
ilium force (kN)
HPS contains No head
Head receives
head & prevents protection system
significat restraint Head exposed to
hard contact with or head contacts
Head protection barrier face &
but contacts
vehicle interior
outside objects or
interior contacting MDB
interior with Head ares
ares ≤ 70 g
ares ≤ 70 g > 70 g
Intrusion: B-pillar to driver seat
≥ 180 ≥ 140 ≥ 100 < 100
centerline distance (mm)
Door opening Downgrade structural rating by one category
Structure
Fuel spill Downgrade structural rating according to type/severity

High-voltage system damage Downgrade structural rating according to type/severity

1 Applies when maximum rib deflection does not exceed 50 mm.
2 Applies if any of the rib deflections exceeds 50 mm.

Test Protocol Version V (Nov 2022)

Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

Roof Crush ( page 78)
Stiffness to weight
Fmax / m x g ≥ 4.00 ≥ 3.25 ≥ 2.50 < 2.5
ratio (SWR)

Year TSP Criteria TSP+ Criteria

„ Small Overlap1 + original ODB Crash: Good „ Small Overlap + original ODB + updated side test: Good
1

„ Updated side test: Acceptable or Good
2023 „ Daytime AEB Pedestrian Advanced or Superior
„ Standard Headlights: Acceptable or Good
1 Driver-side and passenger-side
54
„ Daytime & Nightime AEB Pedestrian
Advanced or Superior
„ Standard Headlights: Acceptable or Good
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

IIHS Rating: Small Overlap Test Protocol Version VII (May 2021)

Rating Protocol Version VI (May 2021)

Dummy Region Criteria Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

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

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

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

brake pedal (resultant)

parking brake pedal (resultant)

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

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

Upper Occupant
Compartment

upper hinge pillar (resultant)

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

left instrument panel (resultant)

HIC15 ≤ 560 ≤ 700 ≤ 840 > 840

Head Nij ≤ 0.80 ≤ 1.00 ≤ 1.20 > 1.20

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

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

a3ms (g) ≤ 60 ≤ 75 ≤ 90 > 90

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

56
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

IIHS Rating: Small Overlap

Frontal Impact against Small Overlap Barrier with 25 % Overlap @ 64 km/h
Restraints & Dummy Kinematics Rating Demerits
Rating system based on a demerit system Driver Passenger
side side
Frontal Head Protection impact impact
Partial frontal airbag interaction 1 2
Minimal frontal airbag interaction 2 4
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 11
No side head protection airbag deployment 2 21
Excessive head lateral movement 1 11
Front Chest Protection
Excessive vertical steering wheel movement (> 100 mm) 12
Excessive lateral steering wheel movement (> 150 mm) 12
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
1 Passenger only 2 Driver only
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:
Overall Rating Good Acceptable Marginal Poor
Sum of demerits ≤3 ≤9 ≤ 19 > 19
57
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

Latin NCAP Rating: 2020 - 2024 Protocol Version 1.1.2

Adult Occupant Child Occupant Pedestrian Safety Assist

Protection Protection Protection
2020 - 2020 - 2020 - 2020 - 2023
2024 2024 2024 2022 2024
max. max. max. max. max.
points points points points points
Offset
16 Dyn. Tests Frontal 16 Head Impact 24 Seat Belt Reminder 10 10
Frontal Impact
Speed Assistance
Side Impact (MDB) 8 Dyn. Tests Side 8 Lower Leg Impact 6 3 3
Systems
CRS
Side Impact (Pole) 8 12 Upper Leg Impact 6 AEB Inter-Urban2 9 9
Installation
Whiplash Front
3 Vehicle Based 13 AEB VRU2 12 ESC 15 15
Seats
Lane Support Syst.
AEB City2 3 3 3
(LDW, LKA, RED)2
Rear End Impact Blind Spot
1 3 3
UN R32 Detection2

Rescue Sheet 1 e-Call (2)3

max. points (1) 40 max. points (1) 49 max. points (1) 48 max. points (1) 43 43
actual actual actual actual actual
normalised score (2) points normalised score (2) points normalised score (2) points1 normalised score (2) points points
/ (1) / (1) / (1) / (1) / (1)
Balancing: minimum normalised score (2) by box for the respective star rating:
 75 % 80 % 40 % 75 %
2020 - 2022

+ + +
 70 % 65 % 35 % 65 %
 60 % 50 % 30 % 50 %
 50 % 30 % 20 % 40 %
 40 % 15 % 10 % 10 %
 80 % 80 % 50 % 80 %
2023 - 2024

+ + +
 70 % 70 % 40 % 70 %
 60 % 55 % 30 % 60 %
 50 % 40 % 25 % 50 %
 40 % 20 % 10 % 50 %
1 In 2020 and 2021 the total Pedestrian Protection score is calculated as follows:
(Head score + Upper Leg score + Lower Leg score) x 1.15 + AEB score x 0.55
2 System will be assessed if it is offered in all Latin NCAP markets as option and meets the following fitment rates:
System 2023 2024
AEB City 30 % 30 %
AEB VRU 30 % 30 %

AEB Inter-Urban 30 % 30 %

BSD + LDW + LKA + RED combined 45 % 55 %

3 Bonus points do not increase the max. total points.
Bold figures indicate changes with respect to the previous year

58
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

Latin NCAP Protection Criteria in Frontal Impact

Assessment Protocol AOP 2020 1.1.2 Test Protocol Euro NCAP 7.0.1
Dummy Region Criteria 4 Points 0 Points Capping Modifiers
Frontal Impact against ODB with 40 % Overlap @ 64 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700
a3ms (g) < 72 > 80 > 80 Unstable airbag/steering wheel
contact (-1 pt)
My,extension (Nm) < 42 > 57 > 57
Hazardous airbag deployment
< 2.7 @ 0 ms > 3.3 @ 0 ms > 3.3 @ 0 ms (-1 pt)
Head1,2 Fz,tension (kN) < 2.3 @ 35 ms > 2.9 @ 35 ms > 2.9 @ 35 ms Incorrect airbag deployment
Neck < 1.1 @ 60 ms > 1.1 @ 60 ms > 1.1 @ 60 ms (-1 pt)
Steering column displacement
< 1.9 @ 0 ms > 3.1 @ 0 ms > 3.1 @ 0 ms
(-1 pt)
< 1.2 @ 25-35 > 1.5 @ 25-35 > 1.5 @ 25-35 Passenger head contact w/
Fx,shear (kN)
ms ms ms dashboard (-1 pt)
< 1.1 @ 45 ms > 1.1 @ 45 ms > 1.1 @ 45 ms
A-pillar displacement (-2 pt)
Hybrid III Deflection (mm) < 22 > 42 > 42 Compartment integrity (-1 pt)
50 % Steering wheel contact (-1 pt)
Chest
Incorrect airbag deployment
VC (m/s) < 0.5 > 1.0 > 1.0 (-1 pt)
Shoulder belt load > 6 kN (-2 pt)
> 9.07 -
Axial Force (kN) < 3.8 Variable contact (-1 pt)
> 7.56 @ 10
Femur - Concentrated loading (-1 pt)
ms
Knee Incorrect airbag deployment
Displacement (-1 pt)
<6 >15 -
(mm)
Tibia Index < 0.4 > 1.3 - Z–displacement of worst pedal
Tibia Axial Force (kN) <2 >8 - (-1 pt)
Foot x–Displacement Footwell rupture (-1 pt)
< 100 > 200 - Pedal blocking (-1 pt)
pedal (mm)
door opening (-1 pt/door)
fuel leakage (-1 pt)
1 If there is no hard head contact (i.e. ares, peak < 80 g and no other evidence of hard contact) a score of 4 points is awarded.
2 If no steering wheel airbag is fitted and HIC15 < 700 and a3ms < 80 g, 2 headform tests according to UN R12 are carried out (hub/
spoke junction and rim spoke junction). Assessment is based on the following criteria:

Dummy Region Criteria 2 Points 0 Points Capping

UN R12 HIC15 > 700
6.8 kg Head a3ms (g) < 65 > 80 > 80
headform ares, peak (g) < 80 > 120 > 120

59
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

Latin NCAP Protection Criteria in Side Impact

MDB Test Protocol Euro NCAP 6.0 Pole Test Protocol Euro NCAP 5.0 Assessment Protocol AOP 2020 1.1.2

Dummy Region Criteria 4 Points 0 Points Capping Modifiers

Barrier Side Impact @ 50 km/h &
Pole Side Impact @ 29 km/h
HIC15 < 500 > 700 > 700
Head1
a3ms (g) < 72 > 88 > 88 incorrect airbag deployment
(-1 pt)
backplate loading Fy 1.0 ... 4.0
Deflection (mm) < 22 > 42 > 42
kN (0 ... -2 pt)
ES-2 Chest
T12 Fy 1.5 ... 2 kN / Mx 150 ...
VC (m/s) < 0.32 > 1.0 > 1.0
200 Nm (0 ... -2pt)
Abdo- Forcecompression head protection device assess-
< 1.0 > 2.5 > 2.5 ment (-2 pt front, -2 pt rear²)
men (kn)
Pubic Symphysis
Pelvis < 3.0 > 6.0 > 6.0
Peak Force (kN)
door opening (-1 pt/door)
fuel leakage (-1 pt)
1 Pole: no sliding scale, only capping if HIC15 > 700 or ares, peak > 80 g or direct head contact with the pole.
2 From 2022: -4 pt rear
Modifier Side Head Protection Device
Inside the ‚Head Protection Device Assessment Zone‘ (green) the head protection system’s coverage is assessed for both front
and rear seats. If the coverage is insufficient a -2 point modifier is applied to the overall AOP score. Areas outside the Daylight
Opening (FMVSS 201) are excluded from assessment. Seams are not penalized if the un-inflated area is no wider than 15 mm.
Any other un-inflated areas that are no larger than 50 mm in diameter (or equivalent area) are not penalized.

②
82 mm

① r = 82 mm
CoG 95 %
693 mm
594 mm

82 mm 82 mm
H-Point
50 %
52 mm

CoG 5 %

The head protection device (HPD) evaluation zone (green) is defined as a rounded rectangle around the head CoG box (defined
by the head CoGs of the 5 % female and 95 % male occupants) at a distance of 82 mm from the upper and fore/aft edges and 52
mm below the bottom edge. The x-position of the CoG is defined relative to the H-Point of the 50 % male:
Front seats:
① = H-Point(x) + 126 mm - seat travel (5th %ile- 50th %ile)
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm + seat travel (50th %ile- 95th %ile)
Rear seats:
① = H-Point(x) + 126 mm - remaining seat travel
② = H-Point(x) + 147 mm + remaining seat travel

60
WE KEEP YOUR LOVED ONES SAFE
Safety is the top priority in worldwide mobility. With our extensive
knowledge in automo�ve safety, ARRK Engineering ensures that
your developments meet all func�onal requirements.

Our competences: Engineering offices worldwide:

• Manage turn key safety projects USA | Europe | Asia
• Passive safety concepts and robust designs
• Structural crash
• Child & Occupant safety
• Pedestrian Protec�on
• Prototyping & Tooling
• Tes�ng & Valida�on
• Homologa�on & Cer�fica�on
• CAE Characteriza�on of crash materials
in own material laboratory

ARRK Engineering | WE MAKE IDEAS HAPPEN info@arrk-engineering.com

 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

ASEAN NCAP Overall Assessment Protocol Version 2.1

Overall Rating 2021 - 2025

Adult Occupant Child Occupant
Safety Assist Motorcyclist Safety
Protection Protection
Offset Frontal Impact 16 Frontal Impact 16 Seat Belt Reminder 6 Blind Spot (BST) 8
Side Impact (MDB) 8 Side Impact 8 ABS / ESC 6 Rear View (ARV) 4
HPT 8 CRS Installation 12 AEB 6 Auto High Beam (AHB) 2
Vehicle-based Assmt. 13 Advanced SATs 3 Pedestrian Protection 2
CPD 2 Advanced MST (2)1
max. points (1) 32 51 21 16
normalized score (2) actual points / (1) actual points / (1) actual points / (1) actual points / (1) Overall
weighting (3) 40 % 20 % 20 % 20 % score (5)
weighted score (4) (2) x (3) (2) x (3) (2) x (3) (2) x (3) ∑(4)
Rating Balancing: minimum normalized score (2) per box required for the respective star rating:
score points score points score points score points
 80 % 25.60 75 % 38.25 70 % 14.70 50 % 8.00
 70 % 22.40 60 % 30.60 50 % 10.50 40 % 6.40
 60 % 19.20 30 % 15.30 40 % 8.40 30 % 4.80
 50 % 16.00 25 % 12.75 30 % 6.30 20 % 3.20
 40 % 12.80 15 % 7.65 20 % 4.20 10 % 1.60
1 Bonus points do not increase the max. total points
AOP Assessment Protocol Version 2.0
Adult Occupant Protection
ODB Test Protocol Version 3.0
Dummy Region Points Criteria
Frontal Impact against ODB with 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
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Head, Neck
HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 80 g
My,extension > 57 Nm
0
Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms

max. 16 points
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
H III 50 % 4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Chest
front 0 Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
Axial Forcecompression < 3.8 kN
Femur, 4
Knee Displacement < 6 mm
Knee
Axial Forcecompression > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms
0
Knee Displacement > 15 mm
TI < 0.4; Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN
4
Tibia Pedal rearward displacement < 100 mm
Foot TI > 1.3; Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN
0
Pedal rearward displacement > 200 mm

Barrier Side Impact (MDB) @ 50 km/h MDB Test Protocol Version 2.0
4 HIC36 < 650; a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC36 > 1000; a3ms > 88 g
max. 16 points2

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

Chest
0 Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
ES-2
4 Forcecompression < 1.0 kN
Abdomen
0 Forcecompression > 2.5 kN
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN
62
2
scaled down to 8 points in the overall rating
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

C-NCAP Management Regulation 2021

Dummy Region Points Criteria

Frontal Impact with 100 % Overlap @ 50 km/h
5 HIC15 ≤ 500; a3ms ≤ 72 g
Head
0 HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g
My,extension ≤ 42 Nm
2 Fz,tension ≤ 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / ≤ 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / ≤ 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear ≤ 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / ≤ 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / ≤ 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Neck
My,extension ≥ 57 Nm
0 Fz,tension ≥ 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / ≥ 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / ≥ 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
H III 50 % Fx,shear ≥ 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / ≥ 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / ≥ 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
front 5 Deflection ≤ 22 mm; VC ≤ 0.5 m/s
Chest

max. 20 points
0 Deflection ≥ 50 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
2 Axial Forcecompression ≤ 3.8 kN; Knee Displacement ≤ 6 mm
Femur
Knee Axial Forcecompression ≥ 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / ≥ 7.56 @ 10 ms;
0
Knee Displacement ≥ 15 mm
2 TI ≤ 0.4; Axial Forcecompression ≤ 2 kN
Tibia
0 TI ≥ 1.3; Axial Forcecompression ≥ 8 kN
1.6 HIC15 ≤ 500; a3ms ≤ 72 g
Head
0 HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g
H III 5 % 0.4 Fx,shear ≤ 1200 N; Fz,tension ≤ 1700 N; My,extension ≤ 36 Nm
Neck
rear 0 Fx,shear ≥ 1950 N; Fz,tension ≥ 2620 N; My,extension ≥ 49 Nm
2 Deflection ≤ 18 mm; VC ≤ 0.5 m/s
Chest
0 Deflection ≥ 42 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s

Frontal Impact against MPDB with 50 % Overlap @ 50/50 km/h

HIC15 ≤ 500; a3ms ≤ 72 g
4
My,extension ≤ 42 Nm; Fz,tension ≤ 2.7 kN; Fx,shear ≤ 1.9 kN
Head, Neck
HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g
0
My,extension ≥ 57 Nm; Fz,tension ≥ 3.3 kN; Fx,shear ≥ 3.1 kN
THOR Chest, Abdo- 4 Chest Deflection ≤ 35 mm
50 % men 0 Chest Deflection ≥ 60 mm; Abdomen Deflection ≥ 88 mm
front AcetabulumCompression ≤ 3.28 kN; Femur Axial Forcecompression ≤ 3.8 kN;
driver 4
Pelvis, Femur Knee Displacement ≤ 6 mm
max. 20 points1

Knee AcetabulumCompression ≥ 4.1 kN; Femur Axial Forcecompression ≥ 9.07 kN @ 0

0
ms / ≥ 7.56 @ 10 ms; Knee Displacement ≥ 15 mm
4 TI ≤ 0.4; Axial Forcecompression ≤ 2 kN
Tibia
0 TI ≥ 1.3; Axial Forcecompression ≥ 8 kN
4 front HIC15 ≤ 500; a3ms ≤ 72 g
/ 2 rear My,extension ≤ 36 Nm; Fz,tension ≤ 1.7 kN; Fx,shear ≤ 1.2 kN
Head, Neck
H III 5 % HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g
front/ 0
My,extension ≥ 49 Nm; Fz,tension ≥ 2.62 kN; Fx,shear ≥ 1.95 kN
rear 4 / 2 Deflection ≤ 18 mm; VC ≤ 0.5 m/s
passen- Chest
ger 0 Deflection ≥ 42 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
4/- Axial Forcecompression ≤ 2.6 kN
Femur
0 Axial Forcecompression ≥ 6.2 kN
1 16 points for driver & front passenger (worst body region of either driver or passenger counts), 4 points for rear passenger
63
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

C-NCAP Management Regulation 2021

Dummy Region Points Criteria

Frontal Impact against MPDB with 50 % Overlap @ 50/50 km/h
2 HIC15 ≤ 500; a3ms ≤ 60 g
Head,
0 HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g

max. 4 points
Q10 1 Fz,tension ≤ 1555 N
Neck
rear 0 Fz,tension ≥ 2840 N
1 a3ms ≤ 41 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 55 g
Compatibility Assessment ( page 36 for more details)

max. -6 (-3)1 points

Homogenity 0...-2(-1)1 Standard deviation of barrier deformation: 50 mm ... 150 mm
Bottoming out -2(-1)1 Barrier penetration ≥ 630 mm in an area of ≥ 40 x 60 mm
For vehicles with longitudinal member above 508 mm: Intrusion of 6 consecu-
High intrusion -1 tive 20 x 20 mm cells above the 650 mm upper boundary of the rating area
≥ 480 mm
Occupant Load Criterion 0...-2(-1)1 OLC 25 ... 40 g
1 In Phase 1 - 2022

Barrier Side Impact (AE-MDB) @ 50 km/h (traditional energy vehicles only)

Pole Side Impact @ 32 km/h (new energy vehicles only)
4 HIC15 ≤ 500; a3ms ≤ 72 g
Head
0 HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80g
4 Deflection ≤ 28 mm

max. 20 points (MDB) / 16 points (Pole)

World Chest
0 Deflection ≥ 50 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s; Shoulder Lateral Force ≥ 3.0 kN
SID 50 %
4 Deflection ≤ 47 mm
front Abdomen
0 Deflection ≥ 65 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
4 PSPF ≤ 1.7 kN
Pelvis
0 PSPF ≥ 2.8 kN
1 HIC15 ≤ 500
Head
0 HIC15 ≥ 700
SID-IIs 1 Deflection ≤ 31 mm
Chest
rear 0 Deflection ≥ 41 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
(MDB 1 Deflection ≤ 38 mm
Abdomen
only) 0 Deflection ≥ 48 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
1 Force ≤ 3500 N
Pelvis
0 Force ≥ 5500 N
Dummy Region Points Criteria
Whiplash Test @ Δv = 20 km/h
Front Rear
2 0.8 ≤ 8 m²/s²
NIC
max. 5 points / 2 points

0 0 ≥ 30 m²/s²
1.5 0.6 Fx+ ≤ 340 N; Fz+ ≤ 475 N; My ≤ 12 Nm
BioRID II Upper Neck
0 0 Fx+ ≥ 730 N; Fz+ ≥ 1130 N; My ≥ 40 Nm
1.5 0.6 Fx+ ≤ 340 N; Fz+ ≤ 257 N; My ≤ 12 Nm
Lower Neck
0 0 Fx+ ≥ 730 N; Fz+ ≥ 1480 N; My ≥ 40 Nm
Max. dyn. seatback defl. -2 -0.8 ≥ 25.5°
Dyn. seat displacement -5 -2 ≥ 20 mm
HRMD interference -2 -0.8 Y/N
64
Competence in
Passive Safety
Peters Engineering GmbH supports your team
competently and flexibly, for example:
· in tests of all kinds with „ your view“
· in the office in project coordination
· if they ever need an independent opinion

Get in contact with us:

info@pe-eng.de

Visit our website

www.pe-eng.de

Safety Engineering at its Best

> Specialist for vehicle safety development
> Development and testing Partner for vehicle and component manufacturers
> Expert in system application and validation for passive and integrated safety

Continental Safety Engineering International GmbH l www.continental-safety-engineering.com

Contact: Uwe Gierath l Tel.: +49 (0) 6023 942 120 l uwe.gierath@continental-corporation.com
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

C-NCAP Management Regulation 2021

Static Child Protection Assessment

0.5 Applicabilty of belt mounted child restraints
Vehicle based

max. 3 points
0.5 Applicabilty of ISOFIX mounted child restraints
assessment 0.5 Applicabilty of large child restraints
0.5 Communication function
0.5 Belt mounted child restraints
CRS Installation
0.5 ISOFIX mounted child restraints

Seat Belt Reminder

SBR passenger -1 no SBR with occupant detection available

max. -2
-1 no SBR available
SBR 2 row
nd
-0.5 only SBR without occupant detection available

Bonus Items
Ejection Mitigation 2 Curtain meets FMVSS 226 or maintains 50 % of working pressure for 6 s

max. 2
1 manual emergency call function
e-Call
1 automatic emergency call function

Occupant Protection Pedestrian Protection Active Safety

max. points max. points max. points
MPDB Frontal
24 Head Impact 10 ESC 8
Impact
Full-width AEB
24 Leg Impact 5 11
Frontal Impact Car-to-Car
Side Impact (MDB/ AEB
241 10
Pole) Car-to-Pedestrian
AEB
Child Safety Static 3 11
Car-to-Two-wheeler
Whiplash Front/Rear 7 LKA 3
Ejection Mitigation 2 HMI 6
e-Call 2 BSD Car-to-Car2 2
BSD
3
Car-to-Two-wheeler2
SAS2 2
LDW2 2
max. points ADAS (2) 56
Headlights Low Beam 6
Headlights High Beam 3
Headlights Bonus 1
max. points (1) 86 max. points (1) 15 max. pts. Headlights (3) 10
actual points actual points 80% x act. pts. ADAS / (2) +
normalised score (4) normalised score (4) normalised score (4)
/ (1) / (1) 20% x act. pts. Headl. / (3) Overall Score
weighting (5) 60 % weighting (5) 15 % weighting (5) 25 %
weighted score (6) (4) x (5) normalised score (6) (4) x (5) normalised score (6) (4) x (5) ∑(6)
Balancing: minimum normalised score (4) by box for the respective star rating min. overall score
 95 % 75 % 85 % 92 %
 85 % 65 % 70 % 83 %



75 %
65 %
60 %
+ 50 %
+ 60 % 74 %
65 %
45 %
 < 60 % < 45 %
1 After scaling MDB x 1.2 / Pole x 1.5
2 Optional test items. Maximal total score for all optional items = 7 points.
66
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

JNCAP FW Protocol March 2018

ODB Protocol March 2018

Dummy Region Weight Points Criteria
Frontal Impact against Rigid Wall with 100 % Overlap @ 55 km/h &
against ODB with 40 % Overlap @ 64 km/h
4 HIC 36 < 650
Head 0.923 0 HIC 36 > 1000
0...-1 Modifier: steering wheel upward displacement 72 ... 88 mm
My,extension < 42 Nm
4 Fz,tension < 2.7 kN @ 0 ms / < 2.3 kN @ 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 60 ms

max. 12 points (after weighting)

Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Neck 0.231
My,extension > 57 Nm
0 Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
H III 4 Deflection < 22 mm
50 % Chest 0.923 0 Deflection > 42 mm; a3ms > 60 g
0...-1 Modifier: steering wheel rearward displacement 90 ... 110 mm
2 Axial Forcecompression < 7 kN
Femur 0.923
0 Axial Forcecompression > 10 kN
2 TI < 0.4
0 TI > 1.3
Tibia 0.923 0...-1 Modifier: Pedal upward displacement 72 ... 88 mm
0...-1 Modifier: Pedal rearward displacement 100 ... 200 mm
-1 Modifier: Tibia Axial Force > 8.0 kN
4 HIC15 < 500
Head 0.8
0 HIC15 > 700

max. 12 points (after weighting)

Fx,shear < 1200 N; Fz,tension < 1700 N;
4
My,extension < 36 Nm
Neck 0.2
Fx,shear > 1950 N; Fz,tension > 2620 N;
0
My,extension > 49 Nm
4 Deflection < 18 mm
H III 5 %
Chest 0.8 Deflection > 42 mm (ODB)
0
Deflection > 34 mm (Full-width)
4 4 points awarded by default
Abdomen 0.8 -2 Modifier: Left belt strap rising (submarining)
-2 Modifier: Right belt strap rising (submarining)
4 Axial Forcecompression < 4.8 kN
Femur 0.4
0 Axial Forcecompression > 6.8 kN

Protocol March 2019

Barrier Side Impact (AE-MDB) @ 55 km/h Rating Scheme Frontal &

Side Impact, Whiplash:
4 HIC15 < 500
Head 1.0 Level Points
max. 12 pt. (after weighting)

0 HIC15 > 700

4 Deflection < 28 mm 5 ≥ 10.5
World Chest 1.0 Deflection > 50 mm
0
SID 50 % Shoulder Lateral Force > 3.0 kN 4 ≥9
front 4 Deflection < 47 mm
Abdomen 0.5
0 Deflection > 65 mm 3 ≥ 7.5
4 PSPF < 1.7 kN
Pelvis 0.5 2 ≥6
0 PSPF > 2.8 kN SafetyWissen by

1 <6
67
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

JNCAP
Dummy Criteria Weight Points Limits Protocol July 2020

Whiplash Test
4 < 8 m²/s²
NIC 1
0 > 30 m²/s²
4 < 340 N
Upper Neck Fx+

score is calculated based on the worst injury criterion

0 > 730 N
4 < 475 N

max. 12 points (after weighting)

Upper Neck Fz+
0 > 1130 N
4 < 12 Nm
Upper Neck My Flexion
0 > 40 Nm
4 < 12 Nm
BioRID II Upper Neck My Extension
0 > 40 Nm
2
4 < 340 N
Lower Neck Fx+
0 > 730 N
4 < 257 N
Lower Neck Fz+
0 > 1480 N
4 < 12 Nm
Lower Neck My Flexion
0 > 40 Nm
4 < 12 Nm
Lower Neck My Extension
0 > 40 Nm
Where a value falls between the upper and lower limit, the score is calculated by linear interpolation (sliding scale).
Collision Safety Rating
max. Protocol April 2022
max. weighted
score weight score total total Overall Rating:
Occupant Protection Sum of Collision
Full-width Frontal Safety score,
Driver 12 22/24 11 Preventive Safety
score (max 91
Passenger 12 22/24 11 Star Rating
pts.) and e-Call
Offset Frontal score (max. 8 pts.)
out of
Driver 12 22/24 11 max. 199 pts.:
Passenger (rear) 12 22/24 11 59 100  ≥ 158.23
Side Impact  ≥ 125.21
A-Rank ≥ 84.632
Driver 12 14/24 7  ≥ 94.35
B-Rank ≥ 71.89
Passenger1 12 14/24 7 C-Rank ≥ 59.07  ≥ 63.89
Whiplash D-Rank ≥ 46.33  < 63.89
Driver 12 1/24 0.5 E-Rank < 46.33
Passenger 12 1/24 0.5
Pedestrian Protection ( page 100)
Head Impact 4 8 32
37
Leg Impact 4 1.25 5
Seat Belt Reminder
Front passenger 1.5 4/3.6 1.67
4
Rear passenger 2.1 4/3.6 2.33
1 For the passenger the same score as for the driver is assumed.
2 Downgrade to B-rank, unless at least level 4 is reached for all results.
68
Simulating Human
Safety for Tomorrow
Award-Winning Multi-Physics Simulation
Software

Simcenter Madymo is a CAE software for

simulating human safety of occupants in transport
and road users, including a database of precisely
correlating models of crash test dummies and
humans.
siemens.com/madymo
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

KNCAP Protocol 2023

Overall Rating 2023

Category Crash Safety VRU Safety Safety Assist2
Full Width Frontal 13 Head Impact 9 AEB Inter-Urban 5
Offset Deformable Barrier 13 Leg Impact 6 AEB City 4
Barrier Side Impact 10 AEB Pedestrian 3 ASLD 0.5
Pole Side Impact 10 AEB Cyclist 2 ISA 1.5
Far Side Impact 2 AEB Pedestrian night 2 LKA 4
Child Protection (additional1) BSD 0.5
ODB 5 RCTA 2
Side Impact 3 ESF 2.5
Whiplash 4
Advanced Airbag (additional1) 0.5
SBR (additional1) 0.5
e-Call info3 BMS info3
max. total
60 points 20 points 20 points
points (1)
normalized
actual points / (1) actual points / (1) actual points / (1)
score (2)
weighting
60 % 20 % 20 %
(3)
weighted Overall score (5)
(2) x (3) (2) x (3) (2) x (3)
score (4) max. 100

Overall classification: Minimum normalized scores (2) and total score (5) per rating class
1st Grade ≥ 90.1 % ≥ 70.1 % ≥ 70.1 % ≥ 82.1 %
2nd Grade ≥ 83.1 % ≥ 60.1 % ≥ 60.1 % ≥ 75.1 %
3rd Grade ≥ 76.1 % ≥ 50.1 % ≥ 50.1 % ≥ 68.1 %
4th Grade ≥ 69.1 % ≥ 40.1 % ≥ 40.1 % ≥ 61.1 %
5th Grade ≤ 69.0 % ≤ 40.0 % ≤ 40.0 % ≤ 61.0 %

Star rating per category: Minimum normalized scores (2) for the respective star rating
Category Crash Safety VRU Safety Safety Assist
 ≥ 93.1 % ≥ 85.1 % ≥ 85.1 %
 ≥ 90.1 % ≥ 70.1 % ≥ 70.1 %
 ≥ 87.1 % ≥ 55.1 % ≥ 55.1 %
 ≥ 84.1 % ≥ 40.1 % ≥ 40.1 %
 ≤ 84.0 % ≤ 40.0 % ≤ 40.0 %
1 For additional items, 100 % of the score is given when applied as a basic device to the vehcle. If selected as an optional device to the
vehicle, only 50 % of the points are awarded. The total score for Crash Safety cannot exceed 60 points. The total score of AEBS items in
VRU Safety cannot exceed 5 points.
2 For the items of Safety Assist, 100 % of the score is given when applied as a basic device to the vehicle. If selected as an optional
device to the vehicle, only 50 % of the points are awarded.
3 "Info" items do not score points, but information about availability is provided with the rating.

70
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

KNCAP Protocol 2023

Dummy Region Points Criteria
Frontal Impact against ODB with 40 % Overlap @ 64 km/h
HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g;
4
My,extension < 42 Nm; Fz,tension < 2.7 kN; Fx,shear < 1.9 kN
Head, Neck HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g;
0
My,extension ≥ 57 Nm; Fz,tension ≥ 3.3 kN; Fx,shear ≥ 3.1 kN
capping HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g; My,ext ≥ 57 Nm; Fz,tens ≥ 3.3 kN; Fx,shear ≥ 3.1 kN
4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
H III 50 %
Chest 0 Deflection ≥ 42 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s

max. 16 points (scaled down to 13)

capping Deflection ≥ 42 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
Femur 4 Axial Forcecompr < 3.8 kN; Knee displacement < 6 mm
Knee 0 Axial Forcecompr ≥ 9.07 kN; Knee displacement ≥ 15 mm
4 TI < 0.4; Axial Forcecompr < 2 kN
Tibia
0 TI ≥ 1.3; Axial Forcecompr ≥ 8 kN
-1 Unstable airbag/incorrect airbag deployment (from head score)
-1 Steering wheel detachment from steering column (from driver score)
0...-1 Steering wheel upward displacement 72 ... 88 mm (from head score)
0...-1 Steering wheel rearward displacement 90 ... 110 mm (from head score)
-1 Steering wheel contact (from chest score)
-2 Shoulder belt load ≥ 6 kN (from chest score)
Modifiers 0...-1 A-pillar rearward displacement 100 ... 200 mm (from chest score)
-1 Door latch or hinge failure (from chest score)
-1 Incorrect airbag deployment (from femur score)
0...-4 Pedal upward displacement 72 ... 88 mm (from tibia score)
0...-4 Pedal rearward displacement 100 ... 200 mm (from tibia score)
-1/door Door opening during impact
-1 Fuel leakage

Frontal Impact against Rigid Wall with 100 % Overlap @ 56 km/h

4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
Head1 0 HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g
capping HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g
4 Fx,shear < 1.2 kN; Fz,tension < 1.7 kN; My,extension < 36 Nm
Neck2
0 Fx,shear ≥ 1.95 kN, Fz,tension ≥ 2.62 kN, My,extension ≥ 49 Nm
H III 5 % max. 16 points4 (scaled down to 13)
4 Deflection < 18 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Chest 0 Deflection ≥ 34 (front seat) / 42 (rear seat) mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
capping Deflection ≥ 34 (front seat) / 42 (rear seat) mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s
4 Axial Forcecompr < 2.6 kN
Femur
0 Axial Forcecompr ≥ 6.2 kN
-1 Unstable airbag/incorrect airbag deployment (from head score)
-1 Steering wheel detachment from steering column (from driver score)
0...-1 Steering wheel upward displacement 72 ... 88 mm (from head score)
0...-1 Steering wheel rearward displacement 90 ... 110 mm (from head score)
-2 Rear seat: head contact with vehicle interior (from head score)
Modifiers -1 Steering wheel contact (from chest score)
-2 Shoulder belt load ≥ 6 kN (from chest score)
-1 Incorrect airbag deployment (from femur score)
-4 Submarining3 (from femur score)
-1/door Door opening during impact
-1 Fuel leakage
1 For the rear passenger in the rigid wall impact the score is based on a3ms only, if there is no hard contact.
2 For the rear passenger, the neck score is the sum of all three criteria, with the following maximum score per criterion:
Shear 1 point, Tension 1 point, Extension 2 points
3 When any of the two iliac forces drops dramatically within 1 ms and when the submarining is confirmed on the high speed film.
4 The total score is the average of the front seat score and the rear seat score.
71
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE
Dummy Region Points Criteria Protocol 2023
Barrier Side Impact (AE-MDB) @ 60 km/h | Pole Side Impact @ 32 km/h
4 HIC15 < 500; MDB: a3ms < 72 g Modifiers:
Head 0 HIC15 ≥ 700; MDB: a3ms ≥ 80 g Pole: No installation of

max. 16 points (scaled down to 10)

HIC15 ≥ 700; MDB: a3ms ≥ 80 g, curtain airbag or other
capping
Pole: ares peak ≥ 80 g or head contact w/ pole restraint system intended
4 Deflection < 28 mm; for head protection during
Deflection ≥ 50 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s; poleside impact: -1
Chest 0
World Shoulder ForceLateral ≥ 3.0 kN Incorrect airbag deployment
SID 50 % capping Deflection MDB: ≥ 50 mm; Pole: ≥ 55 mm -1 (from head score)
4 Deflection < 47 mm;
Door opening during impact
Abdomen 0 Defl. ≥ 65 mm; VC ≥ 1.0 m/s; Lower Spine ares ≥ 75 g
-1 / door
capping Deflection ≥ 65 mm
4 PSPF < 1.7 kN Fuel leakage -1
Pelvis 0 PSPF ≥ 2.8 kN
capping PSPF ≥ 2.8 kN
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g Modifiers:
HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g; Head to Head contact; Head Excursion

max. 16 points (scaled down to 1)

Head 0 without center airbag
ares peak ≥ 80 g
capping HIC15 ≥ 700; a3ms ≥ 80 g 125 mm < d < 250 mm: -8
DCL1 < d < 125 mm: -12
4 Upper/Lower Neck MxOC < 162 Nm DCL < d < door panel: -15
World Neck Upper/Lower Neck Fz ≥ 3.74 kN; MxOC ≥ 248 Nm;
0 Head contact to door p.: -16
SID 50 % Upper Neck MyOC ≥ 50 Nm with center airbag
Far side 4 Deflection Chest < 28 mm / Abdomen < 47 mm DCL < d < 125 mm: -4
Chest & 0 Deflection Chest ≥ 50 mm / Abdomen ≥ 65 mm DCL < d < door panel: -8
Abdomen Deflection Chest ≥ 50 mm / Abdomen ≥ 65 mm; Head contact to door p.: -16
capping Head out of protective zone
Lower Spine ares ≥ 75 g
PSPF ≥ 2.8 kN; Lumbar Fy ≥ 2.0 kN, Fz ≥ 3.5 kN, Mx ≥ of far side airbag -4
Pelvis 0 Asymetric protection -4
120 Nm
1 DCL = Driver Center Line
Protocol 2022 Whiplash TP-CS-72
Whiplash Test
Dynamic Assessment Front Seat 1.5 Points 0 Points
NIC 11.00 24.00
Nkm 0.15 0.55
max. 9 points

Rebound velocity (m/s) 3.2 4.8

max. 10 points

BioRID
Upper Neck Fx,shear (N) 30 190
IIg
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 360 750
T1 acceleration1 (g) 9.30 13.10
max. 14 points (scaled to 4)

T-HRC1 (ms) 57 82
Geometry Assessment Front Seat 1 Point -1 Point
Backset (mm) 40 100
max.

HRMD
1 pt

Height (mm) 0 80
Geometry Assessment Rear Seat 1 Point 0 Points
Heff in highest position ≥ 770 < 770
(mm) in worst case position ≥ 720 < 720
max. 4 points

≤ 504.5  sin (Torso angle- ≥ 504.5  sin (Torso angle-

ΔCP X in mid position
2.6) + 116 2.6) + 116
≤ 504.5  sin (Torso angle- ≥ 504.5  sin (Torso angle-
ΔCP X in worst case position
2.6) + 116 2.6) + 116
Non-Use position acc. to KMVSS or no
yes no
Non-Use position
Modifier: Fixed or integrated head restraint / no height lock -2
Modifier: Height lock failure -2
1 Only the maximum score from either T1 acceleration or head restraint contact time is used in the rating.
2 Protocol will remain unchanged in 2023.
72
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Global NCAP #SAFERCARSFORAFRICA #SAFERCARSFORINDIA

Adult Occupant Protection
Dummy Region Points Criteria AOP Assessment Protocol 2022-2025 1.0

Frontal Impact against ODB with 40 % Overlap @ 64 km/h ODB Test Protocol Euro NCAP 7.0.1
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
Fx,shear < 1.9 kN @ 0 ms / < 1.2 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / < 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
Head, Neck
HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 88 g
My,extension > 57 Nm
0
Fz,tension > 3.3 kN @ 0 ms / > 2.9 kN @ 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 60 ms

max. 16 points
Fx,shear > 3.1 kN @ 0 ms / > 1.5 kN @ 25 – 35 ms / > 1.1 kN @ 45 ms
H III 50 % 4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.5 m/s
Chest
front 0 Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
ODB
Axial Forcecompression < 3.8 kN 40 %
Femur, 4
Knee Displacement < 6 mm  mm
200
0 o
Knee 
64 km/h
Axial Forcecompression > 9.07 kN @ 0 ms / > 7.56 @ 10 ms
0
Knee Displacement > 15 mm H III H III
TI < 0.4; Axial Forcecompression < 2 kN 50 % 50 %
4 Q1.5 Q3
Tibia Pedal rearward displacement < 100 mm
Foot TI > 1.3; Axial Forcecompression > 8 kN
0
Pedal rearward displacement > 200 mm
Barrier Side Impact (MDB) @ 50 km/h MDB Test Protocol Euro NCAP 6.0
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 72 g
Head
0 HIC15 > 700; a3ms > 88 g  mm
300

max. 16 points

4 Deflection < 22 mm; VC < 0.32 m/s ES-2
Chest MDB EEVC
0 Deflection > 42 mm; VC > 1.0 m/s
ES-2 50 km/h
4 Forcecompression < 1.0 kN 90°
Abdomen
0 Forcecompression > 2.5 kN 950 kg
4 PSPF < 3.0 kN Q3 Q1.5
Pelvis
0 PSPF > 6.0 kN
0.5 SBR on driver seat SBR Euro NCAP Assessment SA 5.6
Seat Belt Reminders
(SBR)
0.5/n SBR on front passenger seats (n = number of front passenger seats) 2 pts.
1 SBR on all rear seating positions

AOP Star Rating     

ODB+MDB Pts. ≥ 27 ≥ 22 ≥ 16 ≥ 10 ≥4
SBR Pts. ≥1 - -
Fitment 2022/2023:
Fitment year 1 + 2 after rating: 100 % of best
GTR8 compliant offer as option; from
selling variant + offer as stand alone option; - -
ESC 2024: same as 4 and
after 2 years: 100 % of the model
5 stars
Pedestrian
UN R127 or GTR 9 compliance of 100 % of the model - -
Protection
Pole Side Impact according to Euro NCAP Test Protocol 5.0, injury
Pole
criteria not exceeding a3ms of 80 g and the lower performance limits
Side Impact
of all other criteria as specified for MDB side impact. Fitment:
2022 30 % optional - - -
2023 50 % optional -
2024 70 % 30 % optional
2025 90 % 50 % optional

73
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

Global NCAP #SAFERCARSFORAFRICA #SAFERCARSFORINDIA

Child Occupant Protection COP Assessment Protocol 2022-2025 V. 1.0
Dynamic Assessment: Frontal Impact Dummy Q1½ Q3
Head points 4 0 4 0
no head contact with CRS no direct evidence + Head ares peak < 80 < 96
g
head contact with CRS Head ares 3ms ≤ 72 ≥ 88 ≤ 87 ≥ 100
worst score from
max. 24 points

Forward Facing CRS points 4 0 4 0

forward head excursion relative to Cr point mm < 550 ≥ 550 < 550 ≥ 550
Rearward Facing CRS points 4 0 4 0
no compressive load on top of head, head no no
head exposure exposure exposure exposure exposure
fully restrained within CRS
points 2 0 2 0
Neck upper Neck Fz kN ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62 ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62
Chest ares 3ms g ≤ 41 ≥ 55 ≤ 50 ≥ 66
Dynamic Assessment: Side Impact Dummy Q1½ Q3
max. 8 pts.
max. 49 points

Head points 4 0 4 0
no head contact with CRS no direct evidence + Head ares peak < 80 < 96
head contact with CRS Head ares 3ms ≤ 72 ≥ 88 ≤ 87 ≥ 100
CRS Installation
12 pts.

CRS installation list 10

OEM recommended CRS 2
Vehicle Based Assessment
If any passenger seat is not equipped with three-
point automatic seatbelts and/or they do not
Provision of three-point seat belts
meet UN or FMVSS regulations, 0 points are
max. 13 points

awarded for the vehicle based assessments.

Gabarit installation on all passenger seats 2
Three simultaneous use seating positions 2
ISOFIX usability 2
Two or more largest ISOFIX positions 1
Passenger airbag warning marking and disabling 4
Integrated CRS 2

Total COP Points ≥ 41 ≥ 35 ≥ 27 ≥ 18 ≥9

COP Star Rating     
TNCAP Overall Rating Scheme Overall Rating Protocol Draft
Adult Occupant Protection Child Occupant Protection Pedestrian Protection Safety Assist
max. max. max. max.
points points points points
Full-width Frontal 8 Dyn. Tests 24 Head Impact 24 Seat Belt Reminder 3

Offset Frontal Impact 8 CRS Installation 12 Lower Leg Impact 6 Speed Assistance 3

Side Impact (MDB) 8 Vehicle Based 13 Upper Leg Impact 6 Lane Support 3

Side Impact (Pole) 8 AEB Pedestrian 6 AEB Inter-Urban 3

Whiplash 3

AEB City 3
max. points (1) 38 max. points (1) 49 max. points (1) 42 max. points (1) 12
actual actual actual actual
normalised score (2) normalised score (2) normalised score (2) normalised score (2)
pts. / (1) pts. / (1) pts. / (1) pts. / (1)
Balancing: minimum normalised score (2) by box for the respective star rating:
 80 % 75 % 60 % 50 %

+ + +
 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 %
 60 % 30 % 40 % 25 %
 50 % 25 % 30 % 15 %
 40 % 15 % 20 % 10 %
74
 Passive Safety Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Product Liability in the Automobile Industry

Course Description Course Objectives

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

Hans-Georg Lohrmann was Manager of Reliability & Conformity of Production at ZF TRW Automotive
Instructor

GmbH. He has many years of experience in the field of safety, reliability and product liability in the 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 and litigation support.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

20.-23.02.2023 116/4095 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 23.01.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

23.-24.10.2023 116/4096 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 25.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
75
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Static Vehicle Safety Tests in Automotive Development

Course Description Who should attend?

When thinking about vehicle safety testing people first think
about dynamic crash tests of the full vehicle or crash simula-
tions performed on a sled test facility. In addition to these
dynamic tests, however, numerous other tests on the car
body and components such as seats, steering, instrument
panel, pillars, bumpers, etc. have to be performed during the
development of a car. At first sight, these experiments perhaps
are less spectacular, but in practice they are also very complex.
The seminar provides an introduction to static vehicle safety
testing. Static vehicle safety tests serve the determination of
criteria to minimize injury that may occur due to an accident.
The seminar covers the entire field of static vehicle safety test-
ing, ranging from biomechanical research to legal regulations
and consumer protection related requirements. It discusses
the required test equipment (impactors, test facilities) and
the typical load cases of the experiments. Finally, the testing
specifications, including the protection criteria are explained.
Course Objectives
After participating in the seminar "Static Vehicle Safety Tests
in Automotive Development", the participants have gained an
overview of the static vehicle safety tests to be performed on
the car body and the components. They have acquired knowl-
edge about the essential procedures in Europe and North
America as well as their backgrounds and gained insight into
equipment necessary to carry out the experiments.
The seminar is aimed at specialists from crash-related car
body and component development, engineers and techni-
cians from test and analysis departments as well as project
engineers and managers.
Course Contents
„ Introduction
„ Static roof crush according to FMVSS 216a
„ Static door intrusion according to FMVSS 214
„ Test procedures for exterior and interior parts FMVSS
201U, UN R21 & R42
„ Testing of seats and head restraints according to FMVSS
202 and UN R17, R21 and R25
„ Test procedures on seat-belts according to UN R14 and
R21
„ Test procedures for steering systems according to FMVSS
203, UN R12
„ Test procedures for child seat anchors (ISOFIX) of FMVSS
225

Matthias Kunkel (ACTS GmbH & Co. KG) has been with ACTS GmbH & Co. KG in the field of testing
Instructors

since 2000. He is currently a test engineer for component safety tests.

Louis Gautrain (ACTS GmbH & Co. KG) was employed as an engineer at Magna Steyr France from
2008 to 2013. Since 2013 he has been active in the field of testing with ACTS GmbH & Co. KG. He has been
leading the Component Testing - Safety & Airbag teams at ACTS since 2021.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

24.03.2023 140/4061 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 24.02.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

12.10.2023 140/4146 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 14.09.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
76
 Passive Safety Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body Design

Course Description Course Contents

In the development of a car body different - sometimes con- „ Mechanics of crash events
flicting - design requirements have to be met. Depending on „ Accelerations during collisions
the intended drive unit, the fulfilling of the crash regulations „ Structural loading during collisions
„ Examination of real crash events
considering the lightweight principles is a key task. Therefore,
„ Stability problems
it is mandatory that designers have a good understanding of „ Plasticity
the crash behavior of mechanical structures. The combination „ Lightweight principles for the car body design
of knowledge about mechanics and the ability to use modern „ Lightweight design rules
design tools allows for an efficient development process with- „ Car body design
out unnecessary design iterations. „ CAE conform design
Course Objectives „ Crash simulation
„ Finite Element modeling of a car body
The objective of the seminar is to present new methods for
„ Finite Element analysis with explicit methods
crashworthy car body design. At the beginning of the course „ Possibilities and limitations
the mechanical phenomena of crash events will be discussed. „ Technical implementation of safety measures
Subsequently modern development methods (CAD design „ Energy absorbing members
and crash simulation) will be treated. Thereafter modern „ Car bodies
implementations of safety design measures will be presented. „ Electric car bodies
Mathematical optimization of structural design - which is „ Safety systems
increasingly used in industry - will be covered at the end of „ Pedestrian protection
„ Post crash
the course.
„ Use of mathematical optimization procedures in real
Who should attend? world applications
This 2 day course addresses designers, test and simulation „ Approximation techniques
engineers as well as project leaders and managers working in „ Optimization software & strategies
car body development and analysis. „ Shape and topology optimization

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Axel Schumacher (University of Wuppertal) studied mechanical engineering

Instructor

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

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

10.-11.05.2023 188/4126 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 12.04.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

07.-10.11.2023 188/4127 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 10.10.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
77
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Roof Crush Requirements

1829 mm

5° Centerline of Test Device

Headform with Load Cell

Forwardmost Point of Roof (FMVSS only)

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

Centerline of Test Device

Initial Point of Contact

FMVSS 216a TP-216a-00, May 2009

IIHS Test Protocol Version V (Nov 2022) Application:
Platen Displacement: 127 mm Vehicles with a GVWR ≤ 4536 kg

Feed Rate: 5 mm/s Applied Force:

for vehicles with a GVWR ≤ 2722 kg:
Single Side Test: Lab selects worst case F = 3.0 x UVW x 9.8 m/s2
Assessment: for vehicles with a GVWR > 2722 kg:
based on Strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) = Fmax / m x g F = 1.5 x UVW x 9.8 m/s2
Feed Rate: ≤ 13 mm/s
SWR Rating
Double Sided Test
≥ 4.00 Good
Requirements:
≥ 3.25 till < 4.00 Acceptable Platen displacement ≤ 127 mm
≥ 2.50 till < 3.25 Marginal Load on headform located at head position of 50 % male
≤ 222 N
< 2.50 Poor
UVW = Unloaded Vehicle Weight
GVWR = Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

78
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE
Protection Criteria for Frontal Impact (Legal Requirements)
Rigid Barrier Deformable
Configuration Out of Position
In-Position Barrier In-Position
CMVSS
208 (old), FMVSS
UN R94,
ADR FMVSS 208 208 FMVSS 208
Regulation 69/00,
UN R137 ADR
CMVSS 208 CMVSS CMVSS 208
73/00
FMVSS 208
208 (old)
Dummy Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III CRABI
50 % 50 % 5% 50 % 5% 50 % 5% 5%
Size 6 year 3 year 1 year
male male female male female male female female
Region Criterion
1000
HIC/HPC36
(FMVSS, 1000 1000 1000
[-]
ADR)
Head
700
HIC15 [-] 700 700 700 700 700 570 390
(CMVSS)
a3ms [g] 80 80 80
Nij [-]
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
(4 Values)
3.1
@ 0 ms
1.5
Fx,shear [kN] 3.1 2.7 @25-35ms
1.1
@ ≥ 45 ms
Neck 3.3
@ 0 ms
2.9
Fz,tension [kN] 4.17 2.62 3.3 2.9 @ 35 ms
2.62 2.07 1.49 1.13 0.78
1.1
@ ≥ 60 ms
Fz,compr. [kN] 4.0 2.52 2.52 2.52 1.82 1.38 0.96
My [Nm] 57 57 57
a3ms [g] 60 60 60 60 60 60 55 50
76.2
(FMVSS,
Deflection
Chest ADR) 63 52 42 34 42 52 52 40 34 301
[mm]
50
(CMVSS)
VC [m/s] 1.0 1.0 1.0
9.07
Axial Force @ 0 ms
Femur 10 10 6.805 9.07 7 6.805 6.8
[kN] 7.58
@ > 10 ms
Displacement
Knee [mm]
15

TI [-] 1.3
(4 Values)
Tibia Axial
Forcecompr. 8.0
[kN]

1 currently no measurement possible

79
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Basics of Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes

Mechanics, Energy Considerations, Occupant Protection Criteria and Application
Course Description
Constant changes of requirements - in particular in the con-
sumer protection tests - let the design of restraint systems
continuously seem more and more complex. The safety of
rear seat occupants, for example, is playing an important role
in the restraint system development today. In addition, new
seating positions and interior concepts related to automated
driving are discussed. Therefore, in addition to knowledge of
legal requirements and rating protocols, a deep understand-
ing of the complete system vehicle - restraint system - dummy
occupant is necessary to successfully adjust the system.
Starting with the knowledge of typical injury patterns in real
accident events, a profound knowledge of the mechanisms
causing dummy loading and the parameters influencing and
enabling their optimization is essential.
In this 2-day seminar, the mechanics of occupant restraining
and the idea of energy considerations, as well as the most
important occupant protection criteria and strategies for
their reduction, are discussed. This knowledge is then put
in a context of legal requirements and ratings. The seminar
focuses on the influence of the seat belt, whereas unbelted
load cases and an in depth analysis of airbag concepts is not
part of this seminar. The seminar approaches occupant safety
both from a theoretical basis as well as from the interpretation
of experimental data. Attendees will learn about typical injury
patterns in a frontal crash, the phases of retention, the main
parameters influencing occupant loading and approaches
for computing the balances of the restraint forces acting on
the occupant. Another topic of the seminar is the rear seat
occupant protection. In addition, new seating positions in the
context of automated driving will be discussed. The aim of the
seminar is to gain an understanding about the forces involved
in energy absorption and their effects on the occupants.
Who should attend?
The course is intended for simulation engineers, systems
engineers, project engineers, project managers and the heads
of teams or departments in the crash area, dealing with the
development of restraint systems or the analysis of crash data.
Course Contents
„ Typical injury patterns in real accident events and injury
risk curves
„ Mechanical basics of frontal impact
„ Dummies in frontal crash: THOR, HIII 50 %, HIII 5 %, Q6
and Q10
„ Short overview of new regulations and consumer tests
„ Energy considerations - force balances
„ Phases of retention: Coupling and controlled retention
„ Relevant criteria for occupant protection: Mechanisms
and parameters for their reduction
„ Priorities in the design of restraint systems for front and
rear seats
„ Application examples and tips
„ Safety of occupants in new seating positions (automated
driving)

Dr.-Ing. Burkhard Eickhoff (Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG) studied mechanical engineering in Hannover
Instructor

(Germany) focusing on vehicle engineering and applied mechanics. Starting from 1999 he worked with Autoliv
B.V. & Co. KG as a test engineer for sled and crash tests. Since 2003 he has been project manager in systems
development (safety belt) of the same company. He was involved in the definition and assessment of new
restraint systems and he conducted feasibility studies using system simulation as well as dynamical tests.
Moreover he had a consultant role regarding restraint system design. He finished his doctoral thesis at the
Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg in 2012 on the reduction of belt induced thorax deflection in frontal
crashes. Since 2016 he has been head of the department Virtual & System Engineering, Homologation at
Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

09.-10.03.2023 13/4060 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 09.02.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
80
 Passive Safety Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Development of Frontal Restraint Systems meeting

Legal and Consumer Protection Requirements
Course Description steering column, knee bolster, seat, ...) on the efficiency of the
Belts, belt-load limiters, airbags, steering column, knee bol- entire system.
ster, seat … - only if all the components of a frontal restraint Finally future topics such as the compatibility of vehicles as
system are in perfect harmony it is possible to meet the differ- well as pre-crash preparation and prevention of accidents are
ent legal limit values as well as the requirements of consumer integrated into the seminar.
tests. However, these requirements, e.g. FMVSS 208, U.S. Who should attend?
NCAP, Euro NCAP et al. are manifold and extensive, partly con- The seminar addresses simulation and test engineers, project
tradict each other, or the requirements superpose each other. engineers and project managers as well as the heads of devel-
Therefore it is a challenge for every development engineer opment departments in the field of passive safety who work
to develop a restraint system by a clear, strategic procedure; on the design of restraint-systems for vehicles.
time-saving and target-oriented with an optimal result.
Course Contents
In this 2-day seminar this strategic way of development will
„ Identification of the relevant development load cases
be shown. You will learn a procedure how to ideally solve
„ Procedures for the development of a restraint system
the complex development task of a typical frontal restraint-
„ Influence and importance of individual system
system design within the scope of the available tools test
components on the overall performance
and simulation. Especially the importance and the influence
„ Development strategy for UN regulations and NAR
of individual system components (e.g. belt-load limiters) for
restraint systems
the accomplishment of development-sub tasks (e.g. minimum
„ Development path for the conformance to the OoP
chest deflection) will be covered. In addition the influence of
requirements according to FMVSS 208
the airbag module design on the hazards of Out-of-Position
(OoP) situations is going to be discussed, and a possible
development-path for the compliance with the OoP require-
ments according to the FMVSS 208 legislation will be shown.
The possibilities and limits of the development tools test and
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
you will be made aware of the influence of the individual com-
Image: NHTSA
ponents of a restraint system (belts, belt-load limiters, airbags,

Kai Golowko (Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH) has been working in the area of vehicle safety
Instructor

since 1999. He started his career as a test engineer for passive safety at ACTS. Since 2003 he has been working
as senior engineer for occupant safety and pedestrian protection. Since 2005 he has managed the depart-
ment vehicle safety at Bertrandt in Gaimersheim. He has also been responsible for active and passive vehicle
safety for the Bertrandt Group since 2017.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

28.02.-03.03.2023 20/4128 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 31.01.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

27.-28.06.2023 20/4133 Gaimersheim 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 30.05.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

25.-26.10.2023 20/4134 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 27.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
81
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact Requirements: In-Position

TP-208-14, April 2008

In-Position – Test Configurations

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

 mm
200
0° / ± 5° 0° / ± 5°  0o
32-40 km/h 56 km/h 40 km/h

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

0° / ± 30°
50 % Male Dummy

0o
32-40 km/h 56 km/h

Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III Hybrid III

50 % 50 % 50 % 50 %

FMVSS 208: Frontal Impact Requirements: Out-of-Position

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

82
 Passive Safety Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Development of Frontal Restraint Systems - Advanced

Course Description
Building on the seminar 'Development of Frontal Restraint
Systems meeting Legal and Consumer Protection Require-
ments', this seminar deals with the influence of the adjust-
ment screws in today's highly effective restraint systems. After
a short introduction to the worldwide load case mix and the
available components and their parameterization, the optimi-
zation of systems and their effect on system performance will
be elaborated in group work using various practical examples.
The analysis of test parameters is the focus of this course. The
interactions of the different load cases will be clarified once
again and evaluated especially with regard to the new dummy
generation around THOR-M and the new US load case Oblique
Moving Deformable Barrier (OMDB). This is a workshop aim-
ing at intensive collaboration among the participants.
Kai Golowko (Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH) has been working in the area of vehicle safety
Instructor
Course Objectives
The course provides participants with experience in the evalu-
ation of different load cases in frontal passenger protection
using practical examples.
Who should attend?
The seminar is aimed at graduates of the course "Develop-
ment of Frontal Restraint Systems - Advanced" and at devel-
opers who have already gained experience in restraint system
development.
Course Contents
„ Control of the energy of the restraint system
„ Control of the kinematics of the occupants
„ Achieving the functional objectives

since 1999. He started his career as a test engineer for passive safety at ACTS. Since 2003 he has been working
as senior engineer for occupant safety and pedestrian protection. Since 2005 he has managed the depart-
ment vehicle safety at Bertrandt in Gaimersheim. He has also been responsible for active and passive vehicle
safety for the Bertrandt Group since 2017.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

28.-29.03.2023 167/4135 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 28.02.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

29.09.2023 167/4136 Gaimersheim 1 Day 790,- EUR till 01.09.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

ALIS Linear magnetic encoder on ram and model-based control strategy

allow repoducing complex signals with excellent accuracy

SCAT HyperG
1 MN 2 MN
Crash Simulation Systems www.encopim.com
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Early Increase of Design Maturity of Restraint System Components

in the Reduced Prototype Vehicle Development Process
Course Description
The number of hardware prototypes available for the devel-
opment of restraint systems and restraint system components
is declining steadily due to an increasing cost pressure in auto-
motive development. In the project schedule the availability of
hardware (restraint system components and / or vehicle envi-
ronments) shifts to the late vehicle development phases. As a
result, ensuring the required degree of maturity of restraint
system components, in addition to the sole functional devel-
opment of seat belts and airbag, necessitates new strategies
and development paths.
In this seminar, current risks in the development of seat belts
and airbags are addressed and ideas for the early increase
of maturity are elucidated. This is done by explaining the
link between milestones in the development schedule, the
functional requirements of restraint system components, the
development duration of restraint system components and
the description of approaches for the creation of substitutes
of vehicle environments in the early development process.
In addition the project schedules of conventional vehicle
development processes and prototype-reduced development
processes of base line models and derivatives are shown.
Interactions of the development of seat belts and airbags with
surrounding components (e.g. trim parts) are also discussed.
Course Objectives
The course provides thoughts and ideas for a successful
approach in the development of restraint systems within
vehicle development processes in which only a small number
of prototypes are available for verification and optimization of
the systems.
Who should attend?
The seminar is aimed at engineers and project managers of
restraint systems and restraint system components develop-
ment, as well as heads of teams or departments in the field
of passive safety, which want to gain, in addition to the pure
functional development of restraint systems, an overview of
the requirements of the prototype-reduced restraint system
development with regard to achieving and ensuring the nec-
essary degree of maturity of belts and airbags.
Course Contents
„ Overview and differences of vehicle development
schedules
„ Standard project schedule
„ Prototype-reduced development of lead series
„ Prototype-reduced development of derivatives
„ Safety belts
„ Examples of requirements for safety belts
„ Prerequisites and timing for functional development
„ Timing for homologation and certification
„ Ideas / possibilities for creating vehicle environments
„ Interactions with surrounding components
„ Airbags
„ Examples of requirements for airbags
„ Prerequisites and timing for functional development
„ Ideas / possibilities for creating vehicle environments
„ Interactions with surrounding components

Sandro Hübner (EDAG Engineering GmbH) studied mechanical engineering at the University of
Instructor

Applied Sciences Schmalkalden. After completing his studies he worked as an engineer in the FEM laboratory
of Schmalkalden University of Applied Sciences. From 2003 he worked as a CAE engineer for occupant safety
at EASi Engineering GmbH. In 2006, he moved to EDAG Engineering GmbH as a CAE engineer for vehicle safety
and has been project manager for vehicle safety and CAE since 2013.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

02.-03.05.2023 166/4161 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 04.04.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

30.10.2023 166/4162 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 02.10.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
84
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

Frontal Impact Protection Criteria Compared

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

HIC36 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
UN R137 FWRB HIII 5/50
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

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

UN R94 ODB HIII 50
UN R137 FWRB HIII 5/50
Euro NCAP1 MPDB/FWRB TH 50/HIII
C-NCAP FWRB TH 50/HIII

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

UN R94 ODB HIII 50
UN R137 FWRB HIII 50
UN R137 FWRB HIII 5
FMVSS 208 FWRB/ODB HIII 5
FMVSS 208 FWRB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 5
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 6y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 3y/o
FMVSS 208 OOP CRABI 12m
Euro NCAP MPDB TH 50
Euro NCAP FWRB HIII 5
C-NCAP MPDB TH 50
C-NCAP FWRB HIII 50
C-NCAP MPDB/FWRB HIII 5
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50
JNCAP FWRB HIII 5
JNCAP ODB HIII 5
Legend: Regulations: requirements are met / NCAP: maximum score
Regulations: requirements not met / NCAP: zero score
Linear interpolation of the score between the upper and lower limit
1 assessed only if Head ares peak > 80 g
Please note that the values indicated in this graph may be rounded and that additional criteria may exist. Please take exact values
and additional criteria from the tables for the respective regulation.
85
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

Regulation Crash ATD

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

Chest VCmax [m/s] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
UN R137 FWRB HIII 5/50
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50
Euro NCAP MPDB/FWRB HIII 5/50
C-NCAP MPDB/FWRB HIII / TH

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

UN R94 ODB HIII 50
UN R137 FWRB HIII 5
UN R137 FWRB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 ODB HIII 50
FMVSS 208 ODB/FWRB HIII 5
FMVSS 208 OOP HIII 5
Euro NCAP MPDB TH 50/HIII 50
Euro NCAP FWRB HIII 5
C-NCAP MPDB/FWRB TH 50/HIII 50
C-NCAP MPDB HIII 5
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50
JNCAP ODB HIII 5

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

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

Tibia Index [-] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
UN R94 ODB HIII 50
Euro NCAP MPDB TH50 /HIII 50
IIHS ODB/SOB HIII 50
C-NCAP MPDB/FWRB TH 50/HIII 50
JNCAP ODB/FWRB HIII 50

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

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

86
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Safety Requirements for Rear Seats and Restraint Systems

Frontal Impact Tests with Rear Seat Occupants

Euro NCAP FWRB Euro NCAP / ANCAP MPDB KNCAP FWRB / ODB ASEAN NCAP ODB
MPDB 1400 kg
ODB ODB
0°, 50 %
40 % 40 %
0o 50 km/h
50 km/h  mm
150
 0o 0
o  mm
200
 0o
 mm
200
 0o
50 km/h 56 km/h 64 km/h 64 km/h
H III H III
5% 5% H III H III H III H III H III H III
THOR H III
H III 5% 5 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 %
50 % 50 % H III Q6
5% Q6 Q10 Q10 Q1.5 Q3
5%

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

ODB MPDB 1400 kg ODB
40 % 0°, 50 % 40 %
0o 50 km/h
 mm  mm
200
 0o 50/56 km/h  mm
150
 0o
200
 0o
64 km/h 50 km/h 64 km/h
H III H III
H III 50 % 50 % THOR H III H III H III
50 % H III Q3 50 % 5% 50 % 50 %
H III 5% H III Q10 Q3 Q1.5
5% 5%

IIHS ODB
ODB
40 %
 mm
FMVSS 201: Head impact on belt UN R14: Belt
200
0o
anchorages

64 km/h UN R16: Belt system
FMVSS 207: Seat stability UN R17: Seat anchorages
H III FMVSS 208: Belt system UN R21: Head impact
50 %
FMVSS 209: Belt system UN R25: Head restraints (headrests)
H III
5% FMVSS 213: Child seats UN R44: Child seats
FMVSS 213a: Child seats side impact UN R129: Child seats
FMVSS 225: ISOFIX anchorages UN R145: ISOFIX anchorages

Side Impact Tests with Rear Seat Occupants

FMVSS 214 U.S. NCAP IIHS C-NCAP

 mm ES-2 re  mm  mm WS
ES-2 re 279
 WS
350
 350

50 %
54 62 50 % SID IIs
km km
27° /h 27° /h MDB IIHS AE/SC-MDB,
1400/1700
1700 kg
48 km/h 55 km/h 60 km/h 50/60
90° km/h
MDB, SID IIs 90°
MDB, 1368 kg
SID IIs 1368 kg SID IIs SID IIs ES-2

Euro NCAP MDB Latin NCAP MDB ASEAN NCAP KNCAP

 mm WS
300  mm
300  mm
300  mm WS
 300
50 % 
ES-2 ES-2
 
50 %
AE-MDB, AE-MDB,
MDB EEVC MDB EEVC
1400 kg 1400 kg
50 km/h 50 km/h
60 km/h 90° 90° 60 km/h
90° 950 kg 950 kg 90°
Q10 Q6 Q1.5 Q3 Q10 Q6
Q3 Q1.5

87
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact

Course Description Who should attend?

While the design of restraint systems for the rear seats used to
be a secondary issue, it has moved in the focus of research and
development since the introduction of occupant safety assess-
ments on adult and child dummies in rear seats in consumer
protection tests. In addition to looking at Euro NCAP, however,
requirements of other NCAPs as well as legal requirements
must be considered for a sensible design of the restraint sys-
tem. Last but not least, a system design must also consider real
life aspects. Starting from knowledge on typical injury patterns
in real-world accidents, this 1-day seminar discusses both
NCAP and legal requirements for the frontal crash. In addition,
the dummies to be used in the vehicle rear will be presented,
in particular the Q6 and Q10 dummies will be discussed. For
the most important load cases, the most relevant protection
criteria and possibilities for influencing them through the
restraint parameters are being examined. The seminar will be
rounded off by approaches for designing restraint systems for
the back seat and an outlook on new seating positions possible
in the context of automated driving.
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.
The seminar addresses simulation and test engineers, project
engineers and project managers as well as the heads of devel-
opment departments in the field of passive safety who work in
R&D of occupant restraint-systems.
Course Contents
„ Typical injury patterns in real accident events and injury
risk curves
„ Legal requirements
„ Requirements from consumer testing
„ Dummies on the rear seat; Q6 and Q10 child dummies,
Hybrid III 5 %
„ Relevant protection criteria for the most important load
cases
„ Solutions for restraint system design and optimization
„ Overview: Safety of occupants in new seating positions
(automated driving)

Dr.-Ing. Burkhard Eickhoff (Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG) studied mechanical engineering in Hannover
Instructor

(Germany) focusing on vehicle engineering and applied mechanics. Starting from 1999 he worked with Autoliv
B.V. & Co. KG as a test engineer for sled and crash tests. Since 2003 he has been project manager in systems
development (safety belt) of the same company. He was involved in the definition and assessment of new
restraint systems and he conducted feasibility studies using system simulation as well as dynamical tests.
Moreover he had a consultant role regarding restraint system design. He finished his doctoral thesis at the
Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg in 2012 on the reduction of belt induced thorax deflection in frontal
crashes. Since 2016 he has been head of the department Virtual & System Engineering, Homologation at
Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

28.-29.03.2023 146/4119 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 28.02.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
88
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

⑤
Seat Adjustments for Side Impact Tests
④

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°

mid + 20 mm
Euro NCAP manuf. design
passenger3: lowest mid mid1 mid
Pole position or 23°
rearmost4
height of top surface
non-adjustable manuf. design level with
UN R95 mid mid mid
passenger seat position or 25° head COG or
or mid uppermost
uppermost or
manuf. design
UN R135 mid + 20 mm lowest manuf. design most rearward mid
position or 23°
position

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

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

U.S. NCAP / manuf. design „absolute“

mid + 20 mm lowest2 uppermost most forward
WorldSID 50 position or 25° mid2

uppermost or
ISO manuf. design
mid + 20 mm lowest manuf. design
WorldSID 50 position or 23°
position
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.
3 For dual occupancy test to prove that interaction between driver and passenger in side impact is prevented
4 The head center of gravity must be no further rearward than the pole impact line.
89
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com 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 60 km/h 60 km/h
Barrier (MDB) EEVC AE-MDB IIHS 2.0
Mass 950 kg 1400 kg 1900 kg

Ground clearance 300 mm 300 mm (bumper 350 mm) 350 mm (bumper 400 mm)

Upper edge height 800 mm 800 mm 950 mm

Width 1500 mm 1700 mm 1700 mm
WS 50 % impact side,
Dummy front seat ES-2 impact side optional WS 50 % on far side SID IIs impact side
(dual occupancy test)
Q10 impact side
Dummy rear seat SID IIs impact side
Q6 far side
Head HPC < 1000
Chest VC < 1.0 m/s
 page 41 (Adults)
Protection Criteria Rib deflection D < 42 mm  page 54
 page 115 (Children)
Abdomen Σ APF < 2.5 kN
Pelvis PSPF < 6.0 kN

Pole Side Impact Tests according to Euro NCAP, UN R135, GTR 14,
FMVSS 214 and CMVSS 214
Requirement Euro NCAP UN R135 / GTR 14 FMVSS 214 / CMVSS 214 U.S. NCAP
Vehicle Velocity up to 32 km/h (26 km/h for
32 km/h up to 32 km/h 32 km/h
(on Flying Floor) vehicles up to 1.5 m width1)
Impact angle oblique 75° on fixed pole
Pole diameter 254 mm
WorldSID 50 % on impact side
ES-2 re or SID IIs (Build Level D) on impact
Dummy Euro NCAP: optional WS 50 % on far side SID IIs 5 % on impact side
side
(dual occupancy test)
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 41 ES-2 re: HIC36 < 1000  page 48
Criteria Abdomen deflection < 65 mm
Chest deflection < 44 mm
Lower Spine Acc. < 75 g
Abdominal Force < 2.5 kN
PSPF < 3.36 kN
PSPF < 6 kN

Test Configuration WS 50 %

SID IIs 5 %

1 GTR 14 only
90
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

MDB Side Impact Tests according to FMVSS 214, CMVSS 214 and
U.S. NCAP
Requirement FMVSS 214 / CMVSS 214 U.S. NCAP U.S. NCAP Upgrade1
Impact angle lateral 90°, 27° crab angle
53 ±1 km/h (33.5 mph)
Impact velocity 61.9 ±0.8 km/h (~55 km/h in 90° direction)
(~47 km/h in 90° direction)
Barrier NHTSA MDB
Mass 1368 kg
Ground clearance 279 mm (bumper 330 mm)
Upper edge height 838 mm
Width 1676 mm
Dummy front seat ES-2 re impact side ES-2 re impact side WorldSID 50 % (SBL F) impact side
Dummy rear seat SID IIs (Build Level D) impact side SID IIs (Build Level D) impact side SID IIs (Build Level D) impact side

SID IIs: HIC36 < 1000

Chest acceleration < 82 g
Pelvis force < 5.525 kN
Protection
ES-2 re: HIC36 < 1000  page 48 Criteria not yet defined
Criteria
Chest deflection < 44 mm
Abdominal force < 2.5 kN
Pelvis force < 6 kN

1 planned

27°
1/2
w
940
w

mm

w = Wheelbase

91
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Side Impact - Requirements and Development Strategies

Course Description Who should attend?

In addition to the frontal impact, the protection in a side
impact has a fixed place in the development of vehicles.
Continuous aggravation of consumer tests and legal regula-
tions, due to new pole tests (UN ECE R135 and U.S. NCAP),
enhanced deformable barriers and the introduction of
World-SID Dummies (5 / 50%ile) with test specific measuring
methods are causing a need to further improve side impact
protection. In order to achieve this enhancement, it is neces-
sary to get a much more profound understanding of the highly
complex phenomena and modes of action in a side impact
which goes far beyond the simple application of additional
airbags. The seminar provides a comprehensive overview of
today's standard test procedures including country-specific
variations, the legal regulations and the requirements of con-
sumer protection as well as an outlook on changes in the near
future. In addition, tools, measuring methods and criteria, and
virtual methods such as crash and occupant simulation, as well
as the analysis of the performance of the restraint systems will
be discussed. Furthermore it will be explained how a target-
oriented use of CAE-simulation and hardware tests can lead
to optimal passenger values, while at the same time obeying
to boundary conditions such as costs, weight and time-to-
market. A workshop with crash-data analysis finally deepens
the understanding.
The seminar addresses development engineers who are new
in the field of side crash, or who have already gained some
experience in the field of safety, as well as developers of
assemblies that have to fulfil a sidecrash-relevant function.
Furthermore it is also interesting for project managers and
managers, who deal with side impact and who would like to
gain a deeper understanding of this topic in order to use it for
an improvement of procedures.
Course Contents
„ Challenges of side impacts
„ Explanation of the different measuring means, in
particular the different dummies
„ Overview of current test procedures and side impact
relevant protection criteria
„ Legal tests (FMVSS 214, UN ECE R95, UN ECE R135, ...)
„ Other tests (Euro NCAP, U.S. NCAP, further NCAPs, IIHS,
manufacturer specific tests)
„ Development methods and tools:
„ Crash and occupant simulation, range of application and
limitations
„ Analysis of the performance of protection and restraint
systems in side impact. Discussion of the boundary conditions,
limits, conflicts and problems
„ Development strategy for an optimal restraint system for side
impact
„ Target oriented use of CAE-simulation and hardware tests to
develop optimal occupant load values
„ Workshop with analysis of crash-data and discussion of
the results

Stephanie Wolter (BMW Group) studied engineering physics at the University of Applied Sciences
Instructors

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. ISO Working Groups, etc.

Norman Meißner (BMW Group) studied electrical engineering at the University of Applied Sciences
in Dresden with a focus on automation and system technology. He has been working in passive safety since
2011 in different functions, initially in the areas of simulation and pre-development, later as a system- and
project-engineer. Since 2017, he has been working at BMW AG as a project engineer in the side-crash-devel-
opment as part of various vehicle projects.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

28.-29.03.2023 28/4137 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 28.02.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

19.-22.06.2023 28/4138 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 22.05.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

07.-08.11.2023 28/4139 Gaimersheim 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 10.10.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
92
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

Side Impact Protection Criteria Compared

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

Please note that the values indicated in this graph may be rounded and that additional criteria may exist. Please take exact values and additional criteria from the tables for the respective regulation.
UN R95 MDB ES-2
HIC36 [-] 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
UN R135 Pole WS 50
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2/SID 2s
Head a3ms [g] 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole2 WS 50
C-NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
2
Pole: no sliding scale but capping only for ares, peak > 80 g
Chest Compression [mm] 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
UN R95 MDB ES-2
UN R135 Pole WS 50
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
IIHS MDB SID 2s
C-NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
JNCAP MDB WS 50
Shoulder Lateral Force [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UN R135 Pole WS 50
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
C-NCAP/JNCAP MDB/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/Pole WS 50
IIHS MDB SID 2s
Lower Spine a3ms [g] 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
UN R135 Pole WS 50
Abdomen Force [kN] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
UN R95 MDB ES-2
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2
Abdomen Compression [mm] 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
C-NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
JNCAP MDB WS 50
PSPF [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UN R95 MDB ES-2
UN R135 Pole WS 50
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole ES-2
Euro NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
C-NCAP MDB/Pole WS 50
JNCAP MDB WS 50
Pelvis Force [kN] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FMVSS 214 MDB/Pole SID 2s
C-NCAP MDB SID 2s
Legend: Regulations: requirements are met / NCAP: maximum score
Regulations: requirements not met / NCAP: zero score
94 Linear interpolation of the score between the upper and lower limit
 VIT.4.1 – High Speed Camera

VIT.4.1 – high speed images streaming directly into flash

Never lose data again: record full HD with 1000 fps directly into flash memory

AOS Technologies AG Tel. +41 (0)56 483 34 88 Get results while others try!
Taefernstrasse 20 info@aostechnologies.com
CH-5405 Baden-Daettwil www.aostechnologies.com
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Ejection Mitigation FMVSS 226: Requirements - Testing -

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

Valentin Zimmermann (Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbH) has worked at Bertrandt Ingenieur-

Instructor

büro GmbH in Munich in the area of vehicle safety since 2009. A main focus of his work as team leader in
vehicle safety development is on the analysis and implementation of new test methods and requirements,
such as FMVSS 226.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

09.11.2023 133/4141 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 12.10.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
96
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

FMVSS 226, CMVSS 226 - Ejection Mitigation

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

Locating Targets: m = 18 kg

Front Row Window Rear Row Windows

Daylight Opening (DLO)

25 mm Offset
Primary- B3 B4
A4
Target
A3
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

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

U.S. Test Procedure TP-226-00, Mar 2011 CAN. Test Procedure TSD-226 Rev. 0, Nov 2016

97
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

Regulations for Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors

UN R21 UN R21, 01 Series, Supplement 4

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

Test Procedure TP-201U-02, Jan 2016

FMVSS 201U

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

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

HIC value for FMH

HIC(d) = 0.75446 HIC + 166.4
HIC(d) must not exceed 1000.
24 points defined for impact according Test Procedure TP-201U-02 (each side, left and right)

other pillars: OP 1, OP 2
upper roof: UR
RH
sliding door track: SD
roll bar: RB 1, RB 2 RP 1
stiffener / brace: ST 1, ST 2 / BT
SR 3
RP 2
BP 1
SR 2
FH 2 SR 1
FH 1 BP 2
AP 1

BP 3
AP 2
BP 4

AP 3

98
 Passive Safety Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 and UN R21

Course Description Who should attend?

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

In addition, the development according to the head impact

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

In a workshop exemplary head impact locations in a vehicle

interior and impact areas on a dashboard are determined.

Torsten Gärtner (Opel Automobile GmbH) has been working as a simulation expert since 1997.
Instructor

From numerous projects he has extensive experience in the field of occupant simulation and interior safety.
He is Technical Lead Engineer Safety Analytics at Opel Automobile GmbH. Before that he worked as depart-
ment manager for safety with TECOSIM GmbH and spent 10 years in various management positions with
carhs gmbh.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

02.03.2023 46/4101 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 02.02.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

22.-23.06.2023 46/4102 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 25.05.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

22.09.2023 46/4103 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 25.08.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
99
 UN R127.02 GTR
Euro NCAP / ANCAP JNCAP KNCAP C-NCAP
Test Procedures and Protection Criteria for Pedestrian Protection

Test Method Parameter KMVSS 102-2 No. 9

max. score zero score max. score zero score max. score zero score max. score zero score
❶ αA (°) 65 / 4510 / 5011 65 65 / 4510 65 / 609 65 65
Adult VA (km/h) 40 40 40 40 35 35
Headform WAD (mm) 1700 (1500)1 - 2500 1700 - 210012 1700 - 2500 1700 (1500)1 - 2300 1700 - 21008 1700 - 21008
4.5 kg on Windscreen yes yes yes yes no no
Ø 165 mm HPC/HIC (-) 650 1700 650 1700 650 1700 650 1700 1000 / 17003 1000 / 17003
❷ αC (°) 50 / 202 50 / 202 50 50 50 50
Child VC (km/h) 40 40 40 40 35 35
Headform WAD (mm) 1000 - 1700 (1500)1 1000 - 1700 (1500)1 1000 - 1700 1000 - 1700 (1500)1 10007 - 17008 1000 - 17008
3.5 kg on Windscreen yes yes yes yes no no
Ø 165 mm HPC/HIC (-) 650 1700 650 1700 650 1700 650 1700 1000 / 17003 1000 / 17003
❸ αU (°) 90 w.r.t. IBRL4 - WAD 930
Upper Leg- VU (km/h) 20 - 33
form | 10.5 kg Sum of forces (kN) 5 6
Legform aPLI Flex PLI aPLI aPLI Flex PLI Flex PLI
VL (km/h) 40 40 40 40 40 40
❹ Ground clearance d (mm) 25 75 25 25 75 75
Lower Leg- Femur Bending (Nm) 390 440 390 440 390 440
form6 Tibia Bending (Nm) 275 320 202 306 275 320 275 320 340 (380)5 340 (380)5
Passive Safety

MCL Elongation (mm) 27 32 14.8 19.8 27 32 27 32 22 22

ACL/PCL Elongation (mm) 13 13 13 13
UPDATE
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

❺ VL (km/h) 40 40
Upper Leg- Sum of forces (kN) 7.5 7.5
form6 | 9.5 kg Bending Moment (Nm) 510 510
1 Points to be tested that lie between WAD 1500 and 1700 are tested with child-/small adult 6 For vehicles with a lower bumper height < 425 mm the lower legform test ❹ is
headform impactor, if the points are located in front of the bonnet rear reference line (BRRL). applied. For vehicles with a lower bumper height ≥ 500 mm the upper legform
Otherwise the adult headform is used. test ❺ is applied. For vehicles with a lower bumper height ≥ 425 mm and < 500
2 Tests forward of the BLERL mm the impactor is at the choice of the manufacturer.
3 The HPC shall not exceed 1000 over one half of the child headform test area and, in addition, 7 Minimum 82.5 mm rearward of Bonnet Leading Edge
shall not exceed 1 000 over 2/3 of the combined child and adult headform test areas. The 8 Maximum 82.5 mm forward of Bonnet Rear Reference Line
HPC for the remaining areas shall not exceed 1700 for both headforms. 9 Between WAD 2100 and WAD 2300
4 IBRL = Internal Bumper Reference Line 10 Tests to the roof
11 Tests to heavy vehicles
5 In an area no wider than 264 mm.

100
 Co-hosted with Passive Safety
Event
NEW

BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH

The first conference in the test lab

The unique concept of the PraxisConference, which was jointly designed and developed by
BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH and carhs.training gmbh, ideally combines the expertise of
a top-class conference with the conciseness of live tests, highly instructive practical dem-
onstrations and detailed explanations on the vehicle. The PraxisConference has been held
annually since 2006 at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) and has established
itself as the world's largest meeting of experts on pedestrian protection.
Top-class experts
In the lecture session of the conference, representatives from the automotive industry,
authorities and institutions will speak about current developments and research projects.
International experts will report on the progress of the committees working on legislation
and consumer protection test procedures (NCAP). Other presentations will show practical
experience in the execution of tests and present new solutions for pedestrian protection.
What is special about the PraxisConference: Hands-on pedestrian protection
As the name suggests, the PraxisConference is not a normal conference, but brings
together theory and practice. On both conference days there is a detailed practical session.
On the first day, the current test methods for pedestrian protection will be presented in the
laboratory and on the BASt outdoor area, both for passive safety and for active safety. On
the second day of the conference, automobile manufacturers will present the pedestrian
protection measures of their current models directly on the exhibited vehicle and will pro-
vide deep insights into the respective solutions.
More than pedestrian protection
When the conference started in 2006, it was still all about pedestrian protection. In the
meantime the topic has been broadened: All vulnerable road users (VRU) are addressed,
including cyclists and motorcyclists.
Who should attend?
The PraxisConference is aimed at both experts and newcomers in the field of VRU protec-
tion. Experts receive an update on current legal and technical developments and use the
conference to exchange experiences with colleagues. Beginners will get a very practice-
oriented overview of the topic and can use the event to establish contacts with pedestrian
protection experts.

DATE 13.-14.06.2023
Facts

VENUE Bergisch Gladbach, GERMANY & ONLINE

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/pkf

LANGUAGE

PRICE 1.590,- EUR till 16.05.2023, thereafter 1.850,- EUR, ONLINE 990,- EUR
101
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Pedestrian Protection Impact Areas

Pedestrian Protection Test Procedures
in Euro NCAP / ANCAP Where the bonnet leading edge reference Points to be tested that lie between WAD
line (BLERL) is located between WAD 930 1500 und 1700 are tested with child-/small
Test Protocol 9.0.2 mm and WAD 1000 mm, an additional test adult headform impactor, if the points are
with the child headform will be performed located in front of the BRRL. Otherwise the
TB 019 1.0 on the BLERL at a speed of 40 km/h under adult headform is used.
20°.
Adult Headform Impactor
45° (roof tests)
4.5 kg 2500 mm
Child-/small Adult Headform Impactor
❶
Upper Legform 3.5 kg
Impactor
❸ ❷

40 k
m/h
Legform Impactor 65°
aPLI

40
km
/h
50° 1700 mm
1500 mm

❹ 1000 mm
930 mm
775 mm

40 km/h

IBRL
Bumper
Beam

25 mm

130 mm forward of rear

Pedestrian Protection Test Procedures according to
❶Adult Headform Impactor edge of windscreen /
UN R127.03 82.5 mm forward of
max. 2500 mm

❷ Child Headform Impactor 4.5 kg bonnet rear ref. line /

max. 2500 mm1
UN R127 03 Series 3.5 kg
100 mm rearward of
35 k

1700 mm / max. 82.5 mm opaque obscuration

forward of bonnet rear of windscreen
m/h

ref. line 65°

35

50°
km

Legform Impactor
/h

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

Upper Legform
Impactor for SUV

❺ 75 mm

1 Until 1 September 2028, WAD 2100 mm

shall be accepted.

Child headform Adult headform Cowl monitoring Windscreen test area

bonnet top test area bonnet top test area area
102
 AGEMEN
MAN T

SI M U

NG
LA
THE ROAD IS

TI

TI
N

ES
T

THERE FOR EVERYONE!

From virtual analysis to validation in our test centre:
we are making the roads that little bit safer for pedestrians.

Single-source pedestrian protection function Contact

development: one partner for the customer EDAG Engineering GmbH
fgs@edag.com
Cars arouse emotions in us. For all sorts of reasons. Sometimes
it‘s the colour, sometimes the shape, sometimes performance,
and sometimes safety. fgs.edag.com
From our experience as the world‘s leading independent engi-
neering service provider, we know that vehicle safety is of key
importance when developing complete vehicles.
We offer all the services relevant to pedestrian protection, from
project management and simulation through to testing in our
fully equipped test facilities. At many sites, and also close to you.

Are you interested in finding out how our experience can help
you create both function and emotion?
Then ask us.

edag.com
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Pedestrian Protection: Assessment Protocol Version 11.2.1

Head and Leg Impact Grid Method Test Protocol Version 9.0.2

Head Impact UBRL

Between WAD 1000 and WAD 2500 impact points are located
on a fixed 100 mm grid. The manufacturer provides a result WAD
775
prediction (points) for the Grid-Points. Euro NCAP verifies 10 WAD
randomly selected points, the manufacturer can nominate 1000

up to 10 additional randomly selected points. A tolerance of

10 % is applied to the verification tests, i.e. even if the actual
HIC is 10 % above or below the margins of the predicted score,
WAD
the predicted score is applied. At the verification points the 1500

actual test result is divided by the manufacturer‘s prediction. WAD

This so called correction factor is applied to all the grid points 1700

(excluding defaulted and blue points) to obtain the final score:

Actual tested score WAD
= Correction Factor 2100
Predicted score
Per Grid-Point 0 - 1 points are available according to the fol-
WAD
lowing scheme: 2500
Total Score:
HIC15 < 650 1.00 Point The total score will be calculated as follows:
650 ≤ HIC15 < 1000 0.75 Points ∑Predicted score x correction factor
+ ∑Default scores
1000 ≤ HIC15 < 1350 0.50 Points + ∑Scores from blue zones
1350 ≤ HIC15 < 1700 0.25 Points = Total
÷ Number of grid points
1700 ≤ HIC15 0.00 Points = Percentage of max. achievable score
x 18 (Maximum achievable score)
Points excluded from random Selection for Verification
= Total score for headform test
„ Grid points on A-pillars and roof are defaulted to red =
0 points. Where the vehicle manufacturer can provide Leg Impact
evidence that shows an A-pillar or roof point is not red, For leg impact a 100 mm grid on WAD 775 (Upper Legform/
those grid points will be considered in the same way as pelvis) respectively on Upper Bumper Reference Line (aPLI)
other points. is used. Euro NCAP selects either the centerline point or an
„ Grid points on the windscreen that are predicted green adjacent point as a starting point for testing. Starting from
and that are entirely surrounded by green points and this position every second grid point will be tested. Symmetry
have distance of more than 165 mm from the solid strip is applied across the vehicle. Grid points that have not been
around the periphery of the windscreen mounting frame tested will be awarded the worst result from one of the adja-
and without any underlying structures within 100 mm cent points. Manufacturers may sponsor additional tests for
measured in the direction of impact. At least one of the those points that are not tested (in advance). Per grid point
excluded points will be included in the verification tests. up to 1 point is awarded for the Upper Legform. For the aPLI
per grid point 1 point is awarded for the femur and 1 point is
Unpredictable Grid Locations: Blue Zones
awarded for the knee/tibia.
In the following areas
„ Plastic scuttle Total Score:
„ Windscreen wiper arms and windscreen base The total score for the Upper/Lower Legform tests will be
„ Headlamp glazing calculated as follows:
„ Break-away structures ∑Scores of all grid points
the manufacturer may define a "blue zone" consisting of up ÷ Number of grid points
to 2 adjacent grid points, for which no prediction is made. A = Percentage of max. achievable score
maximum of eight zones may be blue over the entire Head- x 4.5 [9]1 (Maximum achievable score)
form impact area. The laboratory will choose one blue point to = Total score
assess each zone. The test results of blue points will be applied The total scores for upper legform (pelvis), femur and knee/
to all the grid point(s) in each zone. tibia are added up. The maximum total leg score is 18 points.
1 4.5 points for upper leg and femur; 9 points for knee/tibia
104 more about the impactors  page 132
More Lives Saved

More Life Lived

We can make life safer by making cars safer.

When a traffic accident occurs, our products have a few milliseconds to prove
themselves, saving the lives of drivers, passengers and vulnerable road users.
Each Year, Autoliv's products save close to 35,000 lives.

autoliv.com
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Pedestrian Protection - Development Strategies

Course Description Course Contents

Euro NCAP annually adjusts details in its pedestrian rating „ Introduction with an overview of current requirements
protocols and even U.S. NCAP plans to introduce a pedestrian regarding pedestrian protection
protection assessment. „ Legal requirements (EU, UN Regulations, Japan, GTR)
Stricter injury criteria, modified testing areas and the testing of „ Consumer tests (e.g. Euro NCAP, U.S. NCAP, JNCAP, KNCAP)
vehicles that were previously not tested, require the thorough „ Presentation and discussion of the design and application
knowledge of the requirements and a strict implementation of of the impactors
„ Leg impactors (Flex PLI, Upper Legform, aPLI)
the requirements in the development process.
„ Head impactors (Child head, Adult head)
In the introduction the seminar informs about the different
„ Methods in numerical simulation, testing and system
impactors that are used for pedestrian safety testing. Thereaf-
development
ter the various requirements (regulations and consumer tests)
„ Requirements on the design of vehicle front ends for
are explained and compared.
pedestrian protection
The focus of the seminar is on the development strategy:
„ Development strategy
Which decisions have to be taken in which development „ Interaction between simulation and testing
phase? What are the tasks and priorities of the person in „ Integration in the vehicle development process
charge of pedestrian protection? As a background, ideas „ Solutions to fulfill the requirements
and approaches towards the design of a vehicle front end in „ Passive solutions
order to meet the pedestrian protection requirements are dis- „ Active solutions (active bonnets, airbags)
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.
Who should attend?
The seminar is intended for development, project or simula-
tion engineers working in the field of vehicle safety, dealing
with the design of motor vehicles with regard to pedestrian
protection.

Maren Finck (carhs.training gmbh) is a Project Manager at carhs.training gmbh. From 2008 - 2015
Instructor

she worked at EDAG as a project manager responsible for vehicle safety.

Previously, she worked several years at carhs GmbH and TECOSIM as an analysis engineer with a focus on
pedestrian safety and biomechanics.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

06.03.2023 152/4121 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 06.02.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

17.-18.07.2023 152/4122 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 19.06.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

13.11.2023 152/4123 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 16.10.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
106
 Passive Safety Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Workshop Pedestrian Protection and Low-Speed Crash

Course Description Who should attend?

While pedestrian protection works best when sufficient defor- The one-day workshop is aimed particularly at CAE engineers
mation space is available, for example by means of component from the fields of pedestrian protection and low-speed crash.
failure, damage to the vehicle must be kept to a minimum for Both regularly face conflicting targets when designing the
the UN R42, FMVSS 581 and RCAR tests. In this workshop, vehicle front end.
the aim is to extend the scope of the simulation engineers' Course Contents
work to include function development. This also includes the „ Mutual presentation of legal and consumer protection
implementation of component changes and the solution of requirements
conflicting objectives. Thus, both disciplines (pedestrian pro- „ Test areas on the vehicle
tection and low-speed crash) first present their requirements „ Load cases
and design criteria, and then search for features that enable „ Criteria and limit values
the resolution of the target conflicts. Subsequently, the tasks „ Consequences of non-compliance
of the function developers are worked out in detail, from the „ Design criteria
definition of a design strategy to the preparation of tests, „ Target conflicts
„ Recognize
including hardware acquisition, up to the final release. The „ Avoid
focus is on method transfer instead of training design criteria, „ Disassemble
which the participants usually master very well due to their „ Solve
daily work. „ Function development
Course Objectives „ Dealing with time schedules
„ Determination of the design space and derivation of a
First, the involved groups (Pedestrian Protection and Low-
development strategy
Speed Crash) present their respective development goals and „ Pushing through of component changes
constraints to each other to provide a basis for solving the „ Test hardware: planning and logistics
target conflicts. Then the physics of the relevant load cases are „ Test execution: ensuring reproducible results
worked out in order to technically solve target conflicts. In the „ Homologation
final part, the participants are prepared to take on the role of
a function developer.

Maren Finck (carhs.training gmbh) is a Project Manager at carhs.training gmbh. From 2008 - 2015
Instructor

she worked at EDAG as a project manager responsible for vehicle safety.

Previously, she worked several years at carhs GmbH and TECOSIM as an analysis engineer with a focus on
pedestrian safety and biomechanics.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

09.10.2023 192/4124 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 11.09.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
107
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course
Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes
Course Description
In addition to the design of car structures for the protection
of its occupants at high impact velocities, requirements and
test procedures for collisions at low speeds, which massively
influence the design of the vehicle front, were brought to the
fore in recent years.
For the initial insurance classification of passenger cars clas-
sification tests of RCAR / AZT (impact speed up to 15 km/h)
are used to determine standardized repair costs. To meet the
insurance classification tests, many vehicles are equipped with
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.
Additional partly conflicting requirements are added through
the UN R127.02 and the NCAP tests for pedestrian protection.
Compliance with the directive in the leg impact area is usually
achieved by energy absorption in conjunction with a targeted
support of the impacting leg in the immediate front area of
the vehicle.
In connection with the design of vehicles for the different
requirements, numerous conflicts occur, which often can only
be solved at the expense of a non-optimum front end package
or increased weight and manufacturing costs.
Additional requirements regarding the design of the
vehicle front result from legislation for vehicle protection
(FMVSS581,UN R42, ...) and internal testing procedures of the
manufacturer for ensuring management of everyday dam-
ages for his vehicles.
Course Objectives
In this seminar, you first get an overview on the requirements
and regulations which have an impact on the design of cars
for the various low-speed crash constellations. This is followed
by a presentation of current energy management in the front
body structure and an introduction of technical solutions.
Based on the state of the art approaches of integral safety are
discussed.
Prof. Dr. Harald Bachem (Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences) has been in charge of
Instructor
teaching and research in vehicle safety at the Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences since 2011. Prior to
joining the university he held various management positions in industry where he was in charge of develop-
ment and testing of vehicle safety functions. His last management position was head of cab body develop-
ment at MAN Truck & Bus AG. Prof. Bachem is chairman of the Wolfsburg Institute for Research, Development
and Technology Transfer e. V.
DATE ID VENUE DURATION
Dates
27.-28.02.2023 159/4159 Online 2 Days
24.11.2023 159/4160 Alzenau 1 Day
108
Who should attend?
The seminar is aimed at specialists from passenger car and
light commercial vehicle development, engineers and tech-
nicians from simulation and testing, project engineers and
managers who want to get an overview of the requirements
and technological solutions for the development of passive
and integrated safety systems for passenger cars in low-speed
crashes.
Course Contents
„ Requirements and test procedures for low-speed crash
„ Introduction to the requirements for low-speed crash tests
„ Legal tests
„ Consumer protection tests
„ Other requirements
„ Energy management and structural forces in the vehicle
front
„ Load paths and structure loading
„ Connections to high-speed test
„ Influencing factors on crash sensing and structural design
changes
„ Changes of structural design
„ Influence of crash sensing and restraint systems
„ Design of passive systems
„ Existing solutions on the market
„ Conceptual solution approaches
„ Conflicts of objectives
„ Technological feasibility and limits
„ Discussion of integral safety systems
„ Potential of integrated solutions
„ Technological feasibility and limits
PRICE LANGUAGE
790,- EUR till 30.01.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
790,- EUR till 27.10.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

RCAR Insurance Tests

Low-Speed Structural Crash Tests Protocol Version 2.3 (Oct 2017)
Front
Vehicle width (front)

40 % Overlap

R = 150 mm 15 km/h

75Kg

10°
Rear
R = 150 mm

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

40 %

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

Bumper Test Protocol Version 2.2 (Feb 2020)

15 %

5 km/h 5 km/h

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
Front 100 % & 15 % 455±3 mm
Rear 100 % & 15 % 405±3 mm

109
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

Whiplash Requirements Front Seats

IIHS/
FMVSS
Requirement UN R17/10 Euro NCAP IIWPG/ JNCAP C-NCAP KNCAP
202a
C-IASI
Applicable in

Option static dynamic static dynamic

Geometrical
Measurements      
Backset     
Horizontal Load App.
(Backward Displacement)  
Vertical Load App.
 
STATIC REQUIREMENTS

(Height Retention)
Integrated/Fixed HR, no
Height Lock Modifier 
Minimum Height   
Minimum Width    
Gaps   
Energy Absorption
(Pendulum Test)  
Head Interference Space of
Head Restraint 
ATD H III BioR. BioRID BioRID BioRID BioRID BioRID
Delta Theta 
HIC15 
Head Contact Time HCT 1  
Head Rebound Velocity 1

Upper Neck Force Fx+      
Upper Neck Force Fz+     
DYNAMIC REQUIREMENTS

NIC   2   
Nkm 1 
T1 Acceleration 1  
Seatback Deflection Angle 1

Dummy Artefact Modifier 
Seat Track Dynamic
Displacement 
Lower Neck Force Fx+  3
1
 
Lower Neck Force Fz+  
Upper Neck
Momentum My  1  
Lower Neck
Momentum My  1  
1 Capping only 2 C-IASI only 3 Monitoring
This table is based on material generated by: LEAR Whiplash Applied Research Group

110
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Front Seat Whiplash Assessment

Assessment Protocol Version 9.2.1 Test Protocol Version 4.1.2
Dynamic Assessment
Whiplash Test Medium Severity Pulse High Severity Pulse
Higher Limit Lower Limit Capping Limit Higher Limit Lower Limit Capping Limit
NIC 11.00 24.00 27.00 13.00 23.00 25.50
Nkm 0.69 0.78
Rebound velocity (m/s) 5.2 6.0
Upper Neck Fx,shear(+ve) (N) 30 190 290 30 210 364
Upper Neck Fx,shear(-ve) (N) 360 360
Upper Neck Fz,tension (N) 360 750 900 470 770 1024
Upper Neck My,extension+flexion (Nm) 30 30
Lower Neck Fx,shear(ABS) (N) 360 360
Lower Neck My,extension+flexion (Nm) 30 30
T1 acceleration (g) 15.55 17.80
T-HRC (ms) 92 92
Seatback Deflection (°) 32
* All parameters, except rebound velocity, are calculated until THRC-end (= End of Head Restraint Contact Time).
If the Higher Performance Limit is reached, 1 point is awarded per criterion. A sliding scale is used between Higher and Lower
Performance Limit (1 .... 0 points). If the capping limit is exceeded by one criterion, the entire test is rated with zero points.
Modifiers
Seatback Dynamic Deflection A -3 point modifier will be applied where the seat has a dynamic deflection ≥ 32° in the high
severity pulse test.
Dummy Artefact Loading A -2 point modifier will be applied as a means of penalizing any seat that, by design, places
unfavorable loading on other body areas or exploits a dummy artefact.
Static Assessment
Head Restraint Geometry Head Restraint Geometry
in Test Position (mid range locking position) in Worst Case Position (lowest & rearmost)
Higher Limit Lower Limit Limit
Score +1 Point -1 Point +1/n Points per front seat (n = number of front seats)
Effective Height (mm) 825 755 > 790
Backset (mm) < 45 ≥ 45 < 70
The assessments are based on the worst performing parameter from either the height or backset.
Overall Rating
For the overall rating the total of max. 8 points (3 per pulse + 1 Geometry + 1 Worst Case Geometry) is scaled by the factor 0.375
to a maximum of 3 points and is part of the Adult Occupant Protection rating.
Static Geometry Assessment by IIWPG / IIHS RCAR Version 3 (Mar 2008)

Backset - Distance between the back IIHS Version VI (Nov 2020)

surface of the HRMD and the front
surface of the head restraint (cm) Measurement of the head restraint position
by a „Head Restraint Measuring Device“
(HRMD) and rating as Good, Acceptable,
Good Marginal or Poor.
Acceptable
Marginal International Insurance Whiplash Prevention
Poor Group (IIWPG)

Distance between the height probe

of the HRMD and the top of the
head restraint (cm)
Learn more about IIHS‘s static and
dynamic assessment  page 53

111
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Rear Seat Whiplash Assessment

Assessment Protocol Version 9.2.1

① ΔIP X Testing Protocol Version 1.1

① Effective Height Heff requirements for the headrest:
in highest position ≥ 770 mm
and
IP in worst case position ≥ 720 mm
eff

Calculation of Heff:
H

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

ΔIP Z

IP: Intersection Point

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

② Backset ΔCP X requirements for the headrest

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

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

1) Automatic Return Head Restraint, or
2) > 60° rotation of the headrest in non-use position, or
504.5mm · cos(Torso-Angle - 2.6)
ΔCP Z

3) Δ Torso-Angle use / non-use > 10°, or

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

Score if the Requirements (see above) are met:

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

② ΔCP Xworstcase 0.5*

H-Point
③ Non-Use 1*
max. total 4
Scaling 1/8n (n = number of seats)
* only if Heff requirements are met
112
 Passive Safety
Event
NEW

PraxisConference Rear Impact - Seats - Whiplash

The Hands-on Conference

The passive safety of motor vehicles has been a major focus of the auto-
motive world over the past 4 decades. In this context, rear impact has also
become the focus of legislators and consumer protection organizations.

Euro NCAP last changed the rating guidelines for whiplash in 2020, increasing
the weighting in the adult rating to over 10%. The 2030 Roadmap announced
a further revision of the whiplash rating. C-NCAP first introduced a dynamic
whiplash rating for rear seats in 2022. On the legislative side, GTR7 - Phase 2
was also further developed and the BioRID dummy was included in Mutual
Resolution 1 (M.R.1). Because of the enormous volume of damage, the insur-
ance industry also has a great interest in protecting occupants in rear-end
collisions.

Autonomous Driving
When the frontal collision turns into a rear-end collision.
Autonomous driving will enable new seating arrangements and occupant
positions. To protect occupants in these situations as well, legislators and
consumer protection organizations will set new requirements. These new
requirements, as well as development strategies and solutions, will be a focus
of this year's conference.

With the PraxisConference Rear Impact Seats-Whiplash, carhs.training has

created a forum where employees of the automotive industry can inform
themselves comprehensively and practically about this topic.

Through our concept of the PraxisConference, where part of the conference

takes place in the test laboratory, we combine theory and practice in an ideal
way. In the ADAC laboratories, participants can take a close look at the BioRID
dummy and the test setup according to the current Euro NCAP test proce-
dures and gain an impression of the necessary testing efforts.

DATE 15.-16.11.2023
Facts

VENUE Landsberg am Lech, GERMANY

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/pkh

LANGUAGE

PRICE 1.590,- EUR till 17.10.2023, thereafter 1.850,- EUR

113
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course
Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts
Course Description
In real-world accidents, distortions of the cervical spine or
so-called whiplash injuries following a rear impact are among
the most expensive injuries for the insurance industry. About
75 % of all injury costs of the insurers are caused by whiplash
injuries in highly-motorized countries. About 80 % of all inju-
ries in a rear impact are whiplash-injuries. This is why this type
of injury - even though it is neither very serious nor lethal -
has reached a high priority in the endeavors to develop test
procedures and assessment criteria which help in designing
constructive measures in the car in order to avoid this type
of injury.
As an introduction, this seminar refers to the different accident
data for whiplash injuries, which offer many realizations but
no consistent pattern with regard to the biomechanical injury
mechanisms. However, some organizations - mainly from the
field of consumer information and insurance institutes - are
working on the development of test procedures and assess-
ment criteria. The most active ones are Thatcham (UK) and
IIHS (USA) which are united in the group IIWPG (International
Insurance Whiplash Prevention Group), SNRA and Folksam
(Sweden) and the German ADAC.
In 2008 Euro NCAP has introduced a whiplash test proce-
dure as part of its rating system. In 2014 an additional static
assessment for the rear seats was added. In 2020 Euro NCAP
introduced a new Whiplash assessment on front seats.
Where concepts and methods from the future legal require-
ment the Global Technical Regulation No. 7 Phase II (Head
Restraints) can be recognised. The Euro NCAP assessment will
be explained in detail in the seminar. Furthermore, the EEVC
working group 20 is active as a consulting authority concern-
ing whiplash injuries for the legislation in Europe. The Global
Technical Regulation No. 7 Phase I (Head Restraints, short
GTR 7) was unsatisfactory from the European point of view.
Therefore the United Nations published a second phase of this
regulation. The content of the GTR 7 Phase II gives the legal
base for the future HR development requirements. The focus
of this work is on improving the BioRID dummy and on the
definition of so called Seat Performance Criteria.
Thomas Frank (LEAR Corporation GmbH) joined the passive safety department of LEAR Corpora-
Instructor
tion in 2002 after graduating from the Technical University of Berlin in physical engineering sciences. At LEAR
Thomas Frank initially worked as a test engineer in crash testing, later he developed head rests. Today he is
expert for head restraints and low speed rear impact safety. In his position he guides the seat development
with respect to meet whiplash protection requirements in regulations and consumer tests.
DATE ID VENUE DURATION
Dates
21.04.2023 50/4144 Alzenau 1 Day
25.09.2023 50/4145 Alzenau 1 Day
114
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
using a generic acceleration pulse. It turns out to be problem-
atic, however, that presently there is no traumato-mechanical
explanation of the phenomenon “whiplash injury” and that
all the currently discussed dummy criteria with the respective
limit values follow a so-called “black-box approach”. Experts
try to correlate the measured dummy criteria with the find-
ings from accident data and to thus derive limit values. In this
context the available dummy-technology with the different
measuring devices and criteria, as well as the proposed limit
values are going to be presented.
In the last part of the seminar different seat design concepts
(energy-absorbing, respectively geometry-improving), sub-
divided into active and passive systems will be introduced, and
their advantages and disadvantages will be discussed.
Who should attend?
The seminar addresses development engineers who are new
in the field of rear impacts or who have already got some
experience in the field of safety, as well as developers of sub-
assemblies which have to fulfill a crash-relevant function. It is
furthermore especially interesting for project managers and
managers who deal with the topic of rear-end impacts and
who would like to obtain a better knowledge of this subject in
order to use it for an improvement of procedures.
Course Contents
„ Introduction into the characteristics of a rear-end impact
„ Overview of the most important whiplash requirements
„ Injury criteria
„ Dummy-technology for rear impacts
„ Presentation of the Euro NCAP and FMVSS 202-dynamic
test procedures
„ Outlook on possible harmonization-tendencies
„ Explanation of the possible design measures in car seats
PRICE LANGUAGE
790,- EUR till 24.03.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
790,- EUR till 28.08.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Child Occupant Protection

Assessment Protocol Version 8.0 TB 012 Version 5.0.2
Dynamic Assessment
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 TB 012.
Preconditions: Where any of the following events occur zero points will be awarded to the dummy.
Frontal impact: During the forwards movement of the dummy only, the diagonal belt slips off the shoulder.
Frontal impact: The pelvis of the dummy submarines beneath the lap section of the belt or the lap section does not prevent the dummy from moving upwards
during rebound and is no longer restraining the pelvis.
Frontal and side impacts: The dummy pelvis does not remain in the booster seat / cushion and is not correctly restrained by the lap section of the seatbelt.
Frontal and side impacts: CRS does not remain within the same seating position or is no longer correctly restrained by the adult belt.
Frontal and side impacts: There is any breakage or fracturing of load-bearing parts of the belt system including buckles, webbing and anchorage points.
Frontal and side impacts: There is any breakage or fracturing of any seat belt lock-offs, tethers, straps, ISOFIX anchorages or any other attachments which are
specifically used to anchor the CRS to the vehicle fail.
Modifier: If, during the forwards movement of the dummy, the diagonal belt moves into the gap between the clavicle and upper arm with folding of the belt
webbing, a penalty of -4 points will be applied to the overall dummy score of the impact in which it occurs.
Dummy Region Points Criteria
Frontal Impact (MPDB)
4 HIC151 ≤ 500; a3ms ≤ 60 g
0 + Capping HIC151 ≥ 700 (capping: 800), a3ms ≥ 80 g
Head
-2 (Modifier2) Head forward excursion > 450 mm
Q6 / -4 (Modifier) Head forward excursion > 550 mm
Q10 2 Fz ≤ 1.7 kN
Upper Neck
max. 24 points

0 Fz ≥ 2.62 kN; My ≥ 36 (Q6) / 49 (Q10) Nm

max. 49 points

2 a3ms ≤ 41 g (Q10); Deflection ≤ 30 mm (Q6)

Chest
0 + Capping3 a3ms ≥ 55 g (Q10); Deflection ≥ 42 (Q6) / 56 (Q10) mm
Side Impact (MDB)
2 HIC151 ≤ 500, a3ms ≤ 60 g
Head
0 + Capping HIC151 ≥ 700 (capping: 800), a3ms ≥ 80 g
Q6 / 1 Fres < 2.4 kN (Q6); Fres < 2.2 kN (Q10)
Upper Neck
Q10 0 Fres ≥ 2.4 kN (Q6); Fres ≥ 2.2 kN (Q10)
1 a3ms < 67 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 67 g
Installation of CRS
CRS listed in Technical Bulletin 012 points 10
12 pt.

manufacturer recommended CRS points 2

Vehicle Based Assessment
Preconditions:
Provision of three-point seat belts on all passenger seats
Completion of website information form according to Technical Bulletin 033
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. Where a low risk deployment passenger airbag is fitted, there must be infor-
mation in the handbook indicating that the airbag can remain active when installing a RWF CRS (+ clear explanation as to why this is safe).
Compatibility of the 2nd row outboard seats with Gabarit according to points 1
UN ECE R16 Annex 17 - Appendix 1
Compatibility of all other passenger seats with Gabarit according to points 1
UN ECE R16 Annex 17 - Appendix 1
max. 13 points

2 seats with i-Size & TopTether marking (for ISO/B2 i-Size fixture defined in UN ECE
points 2
R16 sup. 9)
3 independent seats with i-Size and TopTether marking with at least 2 accomodat- points 1
ing the ISO/R3 fixture
passenger airbag warning marking and manual / automatic disabling points 2/4
Child Presence Detection ( page 116) points 4
1 HIC15 is only applied if there is hard head contact, otherwise the score is based on a3ms only
2 Q10 only
3 Capping applied for Q10 a3ms only, from 2025 capping will also be applied for Q10 chest deflection

115
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Child Presence Detection

Indirect Sensing Test Procedure - Test Actions Test & Assessment Protocol Version 1.1

Step No. Action A Action B Action C Action D Action E

1 Prepare Unlock car Start with unlocked
car, left for [30]
minutes
2 Simulate Open driver's door Open any door (for Open any door (for Open any door (for Open any door (for
entry 7 - 12 sec) adjacent 7 - 12 sec) adjacent 7 - 12 sec) adjacent 7 - 12 sec) adjacent
Close driver's door
to where a child can to where a child can to where a child can to where a child can
be placed1 be placed1 be placed1 be placed1
Place object/CRS on Close door Place object/CRS on Close door
seat2 seat2
Open driver's door
Close door Close door
Close driver's door
Open driver's door
Close driver's door
3 Journey (in No action Ignition on Ignition on Ignition on Simulate driving
motion)
Simulate driving Simulate driving
Simulate second
entry or exit3
4 Stopping No action Ignition off Vehicle stops, Vehicle stops,
ignition on ignition off
5 Simulate Driver door opens Driver door opens Door adjacent to Driver door opens Door adjacent to
exit seating position seating position
Driver door closes Driver door closes Driver door closes
where child can be where child can be
Door adjacent to retrieved is opened Door adjacent to retrieved is opened
seating position seating position
Simulate further Retrieve child/item
where child can be where child can be
driving/stopping/
retrieved is opened retrieved is opened Simulate further
exit
driving/stopping/
Door closed Retrieve child/item
exit
Door closed
6 Activation Doors locked No further actions Doors locked, delay
performed active
7 Initial Warning expected Warning not ex-
warning pected 1 for 3 door car, driver's door included
Actions written in italics can be performed out of order 2 for 3 door car, perform action to access rear seats
3 7 seaters, access through boot lid
Indirect Sensing Test Procedure Use Cases - Sequence of Actions:
Step 7.2.1a 7.2.1b 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6 7.2.7 7.2.8 7.2.9a 7.2.9b
1 A B A A A A A A A A A A A
2 B B B B A B A B B A D B B C
3 C C C C C C C C C C E C C C
4 B B B B B B B B C C D B B B
5 A A A A A A A A E A A B D A
6 A A C C A C A A A A A A A
A A B B A B A A A A A B B
< 10 < 10 < 10
END END END END END END END END END END
7 min min min
A A
END

116
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Child Presence Detection

Test & Assessment Protocol Version 1.1
Direct Sensing Evaluation Scenarios
Scenario Child age CRS Description
New-
rearward-facing Sleeping under blanket/sun shield
born
Sleeping under blanket without limb movement
1 y/o rearward-facing
Awake under blanket with limb movement
1&2
Sleeping under blanket without limb movement
3 y/o forward-facing
Awake under blanket with limb movement
booster + Sleeping without limb movement
6 y/o
3-point belt Awake with limb movement
3 - 6 y/o n/a Any door is opened, test subject enters vehicle and door is closed (not locked)
but with child lock activated.
3 Sensor is triggered (directly, or after a delay time) to check if a living being is in
the vehicle (footwell included).
Where presence is confirmed, the initial warning must be triggered.
Scoring Prerequisites
„ CPD systems must be integrated into the vehicle (not into the CRS).
„ Deactivation must be more complicated than a short push of a button.
„ It is not permitted to deactivate individual parts of the system.
„ The system must automatically re-arm at the commencement of the subsequent journey.
„ Long term deactivation of a CPD system with indirect sensing shall only be performed by a dealer.
„ For vehicles equipped with direct sensing systems, long term deactivation is not permitted.
„ The inactive status of the CPD system must be indicated by a dedicated tell-tale that is clearly visible to the driver.

Scoring Scheme 2023

Sensing Warnings and Points
intervention All seats (excluding driver) Rear seats only
Alert (US commitment) 0.25
Indirect sensing
Initial warning 1 0.5
Direct sensing Initial warning 1.5 0.75
Initial and escalation
3 1.5
warnings
Direct sensing only
Initial, escalation and
4 2
intervention
Scoring Scheme 2025
Sensing Warnings and Points
intervention All seats Rear seats only
Initial and escalation
Direct sensing only 3 1.5
warnings
Coverage of Scenario 1,
Initial, escalation and
2&3 4 2
intervention
All passenger seats Rear seats only
Initial and escalation
2 1
Direct sensing only warnings
Coverage of Scenario 1, 2 Initial, escalation and
3 1.5
intervention

117
 Latest info about Passive Safety
Seminar
this course

Child Protection in Front and Side Impacts

Current and Future Requirements
Course Description
For the transport and the protection of children in cars, child
protection systems have been on the market since the 70ies.
It was, however, only after the introduction of the European
test regulation UN Regulation No. 44 in 1980, that their quality
and effectiveness have reached a minimum standard that was
acceptable at that time. Further developments of the legal
regulations along with additional tests of different European
consumer protection organizations - e.g. the German Stiftung
Warentest, ICRT (International Consumer Research and Test-
ing; governing body of the European product testers), Öko
Test - and also the motor press (auto motor und sport, ADAC,
Auto Bild, ÖAMTC) finally led to a significant decrease in the
number of accident victims among children. Unfortunately the
applied test setups and rating procedures in the sled tests vary
greatly and partly lead to significantly diverging results, which
can cause misunderstandings among consumers, manufactur-
ers and developers.
Right from the start Euro NCAP has also tested child protection
systems in full-size-front and side-impact tests and has intro-
duced a separate test and assessment protocol for the evalu-
ation of the protective effect of Child Restraint Systems (CRS).
However, hereby only CRS recommended by the automotive
OEMs are used in the tests.
The endeavours for research and harmonization of the New
Programme for the Assessment of universal Child Seats
(NPACS), founded in 2002, can be seen as the latest devel-
opment on an European level. Members of NPACS are ICRT,
ADAC and several European governments. In an initial phase,
the test procedures of the ADAC and ICRT are to be harmon-
ised.
Euro NCAP has revised it’s child occupant assessment. Since
2013 Q dummies have been used in the dynamic assessment.
In addition a CRS installation test was introduced. A signifi-
cant change was the consideration of older children (Q6 and
Q10) than in the previous protocol from 2015 onwards. This
enables Euro NCAP to better assess the performance of the
vehicle’s restraint systems.
Course Objectives
In this seminar you will learn to understand the specific prob-
lems in child safety and you will become familiar with the
approaches concerning child safety with which you can meet
the different requirements.
Who should attend?
The seminar addresses engineers who deal with the develop-
ment and design of child restraint systems and their integra-
tion into the passenger protection systems.
Course Contents
„ Introduction: historical development of child safety,
accident statistics, usage rates of child protection
systems, injury biomechanics of children
„ Child dummies: P-series, Q-series
„ Legal requirements: UN R44, R129 and other legal
requirements, sled tests, full-size front and side impact
tests with special requirements concerning child
protection
„ Consumer protection tests, other tests, harmonization:
Euro NCAP, NPACS, ISO proposal side impact, AMS, ADAC,
others
„ Child protection systems: types and classifications,
standards, ISO-FIX, Top Tether, Ease of Use/Misuse

Britta Schnottale (BASt - German Federal Highway Research Institute) is working as a sci-
Instructor

entific assistant in the department for "Passive Safety and Biomechanis" of the German Federal Highway Re-
search Institute (BASt).Here she is responsible for safety issues concerning children in vehicles. This includes
participation in national research projects as well as in EU projects on child safety (CHILD, CASPER). She was
a member of the informal working group of the GRSP "Child Safety" on the development of UN R129. Britta
Schnottale is also a member of the Euro NCAP Child Safety Working Group.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

04.05.2023 45/4147 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 06.04.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
118
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

Latin NCAP Child Occupant Protection Protocol 2020 V1.1.2

Requirements for points for Child Protection Rating: Child seats (CRS) for 11/2 & 3 y/o children must be recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. CRS must be
available for purchase from dealers in the 3 big Latin NCAP markets (AR, BR, MX) and in every other market where the vehicle is sold. CRS must be available at the
3 most important cities of each of the 3 big markets in at least 2 retailers per city. CRS manufacturer must be officially represented in each of the 3 big markets.
Dynamic Assessment Dummy Q1½ Q3
Requirements for Points in Dynamic Assessments: no partial or full ejection of child dummy out of CRS / CRS must not be partially or wholly unre-
strained by any of the vehicle interfaces
Head Contact with the vehicle: any head contact with the vehicle results in 0 points for the head performance
Frontal Impact
Head points 4 0 4 0
no head contact with CRS no direct evidence + Head ares peak < 80 < 96
g
head contact with CRS Head ares 3ms ≤ 72 ≥ 88 ≤ 87 ≥ 100
worst score from
max. 16 points

Forward Facing CRS points 4 0 4 0

forward head excursion relative to Cr point mm ≤ 549 ≥ 550 ≤ 549 ≥ 550
Rearward Facing CRS points 4 0 4 0
no compressive load on top of head, head no no
head exposure exposure exposure
fully contained within CRS exposure exposure
points 2 0 2 0
Neck upper Neck Fz kN ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62 ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62
Chest ares 3ms g ≤ 41 ≥ 55 ≤ 50 ≥ 66
Side Impact
max. 8 points
max. 49 points

Requirements for Points in Side Impact: head containment within shell of CRS, also there must be no fracturing of the CRS
Head points 4 0 4 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
Installation of CRS
CRS from the reference list points 10
12

CRS recommended by the manufacturer points 2

Vehicle Based Assessment
if any passenger seat is not equipped with a 3 point belt 0 points
provision of three-point seat belts
are awarded for the vehicle based assessment
compatibility of all passenger seats with Gabarit according to UN ECE R16.05 points 2
3 seating positions that can simultaneously accommodate any reference list CRS points 1
3 seating positions that can simultaneously accommodate i-Size CRS points 1
max. 13 points

2 passenger seats equipped with ISOFIX according to UN ECE R14 points 1

+ these 2 passenger seats meet i-Size requirements points +1
2 seating positions comply with requirements for largest
points 1
size of rearward facing ISOFIX seats
no passenger airbag points 2
passenger airbag warning and disabling points max. 4
1 integrated CRS points 1
1 integrated “Group I-III” CRS points 1

ASEAN NCAP Child Occupant Protection 2021 - 2025 Protocol Version 2.0
Dynamic Assessment: Frontal Impact Dummy Q1½ Q3
Head points 4 0 4 0
no head contact with CRS no direct evidence + Head ares peak < 80 < 96
g
head contact with CRS Head ares 3ms ≤ 72 ≥ 88 ≤ 87 ≥ 100
worst score from
max. 16 points

Forward Facing CRS points 4 0 4 0

forward head excursion relative to Cr point mm ≤ 549 ≥ 550 ≤ 549 ≥ 550
Rearward Facing CRS points 4 0 4 0
no compressive load on top of head, head no no
max. 51 points

head exposure exposure exposure exposure exposure

fully restrained within CRS
points 2 0 2 0
Neck upper Neck Fz kN ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62 ≤ 1.7 ≥ 2.62
Chest ares 3ms g ≤ 41 ≥ 55 ≤ 50 ≥ 66
Dynamic Assessment: Side Impact
max. 8 pt.

Head points 4 0 4 0
no head contact with CRS no direct evidence + Head ares peak < 80 < 96
g
head contact with CRS Head ares 3ms ≤ 72 ≥ 88 ≤ 72 ≥ 88
Installation of CRS
2 13 12

Vehicle Based Assessment

Child Presence Detection
more about Latin NCAP  page 58 & ASEAN NCAP  page 62 119
 Passive Safety
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

KNCAP Child Occupant Protection Protocol 2023

Dummy Region Points Criteria
Frontal Impact against ODB with 40 % Overlap @ 64 km/h
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 60 g
0 HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g
Head 1

max. 16 points (scaled down to 5 points)

-4 Modifier: Head forward excursion ≥ 550 mm
capping HIC15 ≥ 800 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g
Q6
2 My,extension < 36 Nm; Fz,tension < 1.7 kN
Neck2
0 My,extension ≥ 36 Nm; Fz,tension ≥ 2.62 kN
2 Deflection < 30 mm
Chest
0 Deflection > 42 mm
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 60 g;
0 HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g;
Head1
-2 / -4 Modifier: Head forward excursion ≥ 450 mm / 550 mm
capping HIC15 ≥ 800 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g
Q10 2 My,extension < 49 Nm; Fz,tension < 1.7 kN
Neck2
0 My,extension ≥ 49 Nm; Fz,tension ≥ 2.62 kN
2 a3ms < 41 g
Chest 0 a3ms ≥ 55 g, Deflection ≥ 56 mm
capping a3ms ≥ 55 g
Barrier Side Impact (AE-MDB) @ 60 km/h
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 60 g
Head1 0 HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g
capping HIC15 ≥ 800 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g

max. 16 points (scaled down to 3 points)

Q6 2 Fz,tension < 2.4 kN
Neck
0 Fz,tension ≥ 2.4 kN
2 a3ms < 67 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 67 g
4 HIC15 < 500; a3ms < 60 g;
Head1 0 HIC15 ≥ 700 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g;
capping HIC15 ≥ 800 ; a3ms ≥ 80 g
Q10 2 Fz,tension < 2.2 kN
Neck
0 Fz,tension ≥ 2.2 kN
2 a3ms < 67 g
Chest
0 a3ms ≥ 67 g
If, during the forwards movement of the dummy, the diagonal belt moves into
the gap between the clavicle and upper arm with folding of the belt webbing, a
Modifier -4
modifier of -4 points will be applied to the overall dummy score of the impact in
which it occurs.
Preconditions: Where any of the following events occur, zero points will be awarded to the dummy.
Frontal impact: During the forwards movement of the dummy only, the diagonal belt slips off the shoulder.
Frontal impact: The pelvis of the dummy submarines beneath the lap section of the belt or the lap section does not prevent
the dummy from moving upwards during rebound and is no longer restraining the pelvis.
Frontal and side impacts: The dummy pelvis does not remain in the booster seat / cushion and is not correctly restrained by
the lap section of the seatbelt.
Frontal and side impacts: CRS does not remain within the same seating position or is no longer correctly restrained by the
adult belt.
Frontal and side impacts: There is any breakage or fracturing of load-bearing parts of the belt system including buckles,
webbing and anchorage points.
Frontal and side impacts: There is any breakage or fracturing of any seat belt lock-offs, tethers, straps, ISOFIX anchorages or
any other attachments which are specifically used to anchor the CRS to the vehicle fail.
1 In the absence of hard contacts the score is based on a3ms only.
120 2 In the absence of hard contacts the score is based on neck tension force only.
 Passive Safety
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

UNECE Vehicle Classification R.E.3 Revision 6

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

Engine Maximum Unladen

Wheels Power Seats Maximum Mass
Category Capacity Design Speed Mass
L1 2 ≤ 50 cm³ ≤ 50 km/h
L2 3 ≤ 50 cm³ ≤ 50 km/h
L3 2 > 50 cm³ > 50 km/h
L4 31 > 50 cm³ > 50 km/h
L5 32 > 50 cm³ > 50 km/h
L6 4 ≤ 50 cm³ ≤ 45 km/h ≤ 350 kg3 ≤ 4 kW
L7 4 ≤ 400 kg3, 4 ≤ 15 kW
M Vehicles used for the carriage of passengers
M1 ≥4 ≤9
M2 ≥4 >9 ≤5t
M3 ≥4 >9 >5t
N Vehicles used for the carriage of goods
N1 ≥4 ≤ 3.5 t
N2 ≥4 3.5 t < m ≤ 12 t
N3 ≥4 > 12 t
O Trailers (including semi-trailers)
O1 ≤ 0.75 t
O2 0.75 t < m ≤ 3.5 t
O3 3.5 t < m ≤ 10 t
O4 > 10 t
T Agricultural or forestry vehicles
G Off-road vehicles
1 asymmetrically arranged in relation to the longitudinal median plane
2 symmetrically arranged in relation to the longitudinal median plane
3 not including the mass of the batteries in case of electric vehicles
4 ≤ 550 kg for vehicles intended for carrying goods
Applicabilty of selected UN Regulations to Vehicle Categories:
UN R L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 M1 M2 M3 N1 N2 N3 O1 O2 O3 O4
11 ● ●
12 ● ●
14 ● ● ● ● ● ●
16 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
17 ● ● ● ● ● ●
21 ●
25 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
32 ●
33 ●
42 ●
94 ●
95 ● ●
100 ● ● ● ● ● ●
127 ● ●
135 ● ●1 ● ●1
137 ●
145 ●
1 optional up to 4500 kg
121
 Dummy | Crash Test
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Current Dummy Landscape

Rear
Frontal Impact Side Impact Child
Impact

THOR 50 %

World SID
THOR 5 %
HIII 95 %
HIII 50 %

HIII 50 %

BioRID II

Q Series
HIII 5 %

P Series
ES-2re

SID-IIs

CRABI

CAMI
ES-2

HIII
Dummies

UN R17 ●
UN R44 ●
UN R94 ●
Europe / UN Regulations

UN R95 ●
UN R129 ●
UN R135 ●
UN R137 ● ●
Euro NCAP ● ● (●) ● ● ● ● ● ●
FMVSS 208 ● ● ● ●
FMVSS 214 ● ● ○
FMVSS 213 / 213a ● ● ● ● ●
FMVSS 202a ●
FMVSS xxx (OMDB) ○
U.S. NCAP ● ● ○ ● ● ○
America

IIHS ● ● ● ●
Latin NCAP ● ● ●
Japan Regulations ● ● ● ● ●
JNCAP ● ● ● ● ●
China Regulations ● ● ● ●
C-NCAP ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
KNCAP ● ● ● ● ● ●
Asia

ASEAN NCAP ● ● ●
ADR (Frontal, Side) ● ● ●
AUS

ANCAP ● ● (●) ● ● ● ● ● ●
GTR 7 (Head Restr.) ● ●
GTR

GTR 14 (Pole Side) ●

2023 2024 2025 2026 2029 ○ = planned, no date specified

122
 Dummy | Crash Test
Event

Testing is a key element in the product development cycle of any new

vehicle development and its active and passive safety functions. In
collaboration with the industry experts in our program committee we
defined the current challenges of the safety testing landscape. Join us
for a new conference format where the industry leaders challenge the
test tool and testing suppliers and their hard- and software solutions.
Four sessions will be defined to focus on one of the challenges that will
provide the platform for dialogue and discussion.
We have invited global leaders out of the full safety testing spectrum
to answer these industry calls.

Challenge Topics
Expect discussions on innovations from the following fields:
Passive Safety Session
„ State of the Art Sled Testing - Yaw Pitch Roll
„ Challenges in AV Testing
„ Big Test Data: Modern Crash Test Evaluation

Active Safety Session

„ Swarm Testing
„ Validation Tool Chain
„ Next Level Proving Grounds - PG and Road Digitalization

Plenary Session
„ Virtual Testing for Automotive Safety

Who should attend?

The SafetyTesting Challenge is suited for engineers and decision
makers from validation departments for active and passive safety.
Both experts and newcomers get an overview over the latest innova-
tions in test equipment and software tool and find ample opportunity
to share their own experiences with industry colleagues.

DATE 23.05.2023
Facts

VENUE Würzburg, GERMANY & ONLINE

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/safetytesting

LANGUAGE
123
 Dummy | Crash Test
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

Highspeed Camera Recording Settings

Variable Derivation Symbols Units

Framerate f Framerate fps
v v Velocity m/s
f = s · nframe
s Displacement m
nframe Number of frames frames

40 m/s
f = 1.6 m · 1 frame = 25 fps
Example - Car:
v = 40 m/s
s = 1.6 m 40 m/s
f = 1.6 m · 5 frame = 125 fps

Exposure E Exposure s
B
as derivative of E = vs Bs Acceptable Motion Blur as Displacement m
the displacement v Velocity m/s

0.4 m
E = 10 m/s = 0.04 s = 1/25 s
Example - Bicycle:
v = 10 m/s
BS = 0.4 m or 0.04 m 0.04 m
E = 10 m/s = 0.004 s = 1/250 s

Exposure Br · Dx Br Acceptable Motion Blur as Resolution pixel

as derivative of E = (v · X) Dx lmagewidth m
the resolution Dy lmageheight m
Br · Dy X Horizontal Image Resolution pixel
E = (v · Y)
Y Vertical Image Resolution pixel
B
Br = Ps Bs Acceptable Motion Blur as Displacement m

Dx Dy
P= X P= Y P Pixelcalibration m/pixel

Frame 8
320 ms
Frame 7
280 ms 40 mm
motion blur
Frame 6 @4 ms
240 ms shutter

Frame 5 40 mm 400 mm 400 mm

200 ms displacement displacement motion blur
Frame 4 @25 fps @25 fps @40 ms
160 ms framerate framerate shutter

Frame 3
120 ms
Frame 2
80 ms
Frame 1
40 ms 320 5 frames
@125 fps
1 frame
1600 @25 fps

124 SafetyWissen in Cooperation with Photron Deutschland GmbH

 Dummy | Crash Test
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

THOR 50 % Male
Injury Criteria, Risk Functions and proposed Limits
Limits for U.S. Limits for Euro
NCAP1 NCAP
Table S2. Summary of THOR-50M injury criteria, calculations and risk functions. Full Zero Full Zero
APPENDIX G.
Region Criterion APPENDIX
Calculation
Calculation G. 1
Riskand
Table 8. Summary of injury criteria Function 3
Riskinjury
associated Function score
risk functions used score
to assess score
injury risk scoretest results.
using THOR
Table 8. Summary of injury criteria and associated injury risk functions used to assess injury risk using THOR test resul
TableCriterion
S2. Summary
[ref] of THOR-50M injury Calculation
criteria, calculations and risk functions. Vars Variable Definition
Criterion [ref] Calculation Vars ln ‫ܥܫܪ‬ଵହ െ 6.96362 Variable Definition
௧మ 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15ଶ.ହ ‫ݐ‬ଵ Beginning of time window in𝑡𝑡‫ݏ‬2
Calculation
2.5 ‫(݌‬AIS 𝑡𝑡1 2+) = Ȱ ൤Beginning RiskBeginning
Function of time window ൨ in 𝑠𝑠
1 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 1 𝑡𝑡2 2.5 𝑡𝑡1 0.84687of time window in 𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
End of time window in 𝑠𝑠
‫ܥ‬ଵହ = ተ(‫ݐ‬ଶ െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ) ቎
(‫ݐ‬ଶ െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ )
න ܽ(‫ݐ݀)ݐ‬቏ ተ
15 HIC (-) ‫ݐ‬ଶ End
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
ܽ(‫ )ݐ‬Head
of time window in ‫ ݏ‬1 ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑] |
15 = |(𝑡𝑡2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [
= |(𝑡𝑡 −
15 CG resultant𝑡𝑡 (𝑡𝑡
) − 𝑡𝑡 )
1 acceleration in ݃; x, y, z]components
[ ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 |
𝑡𝑡 2
𝑡𝑡2 End
‫ܥܫܪ‬ of time
െെ 6.96362
window in 𝑠𝑠 500 700 500 700 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
௧భ 2 2
(𝑡𝑡
1
− 𝑡𝑡1)
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
‫(݌‬AIS Head
lnln(‫ܥܫܪ‬
൤ CG ଵହ
2+)==ȰȰ൤ Head CG resultant acceleration
ଵହ) resultant7.45231 acceleration
൨ in Beginning of time window in 𝑔𝑔
௧మ ଶ.ହ ௠௔௫ ‫ݐ‬ Beginning of time window in ‫ݏ‬
ଵ filtered at CFC1000
2 𝑡𝑡1
𝑡𝑡1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ‫(݌‬AIS 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
3+) ൨ in Beginning of time window in 𝑔𝑔
1 0.84687
0.73998
‫ܥܫ‬ଵହ = ተ(‫ݐ‬ଶ െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ) ቎ න ܽ(‫ݐ݀)ݐ‬ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵቏ ተ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵‫ݐ‬ଶ End of time window in ‫ݏ‬ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Angular velocity ofభ.ఴ the head about the local [x, y, or z] axis, in
lnAngular )velocity of the head about the local [x, y, or z] axis, in 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
(‫ݐ‬ଶ െ ଶ‫ݐ‬ଵ ) 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 ଶ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] ஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ
(|߱Head ିቀ filtered at CFC60
ܽ(‫)ݐ‬ ଶCG resultant acceleration in ݃; x, y, z components
௧భ max൫ห߱௬ ห൯ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, െ 7.45231 ቁ
݁(‫ܥܫܪ‬ଵହ଴.ହଷଵ
max(|߱௫ |) ௭(|) 2 2 2 𝑝𝑝
‫ = ܥܫݎ‬ඨቆ ቇ +ቆ ቇ +ቆ
max
max⁡filtered |𝜔𝜔ቇ𝑥𝑥 |)at CFC1000 2 max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦 |) 2 max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧 |) ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS3+) 3+) = =Ȱ 1െ ൤ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, filtered at CFC60 ൨
APPENDIX
௠௔௫
√ G.
max⁡(injury |𝜔𝜔)𝑥𝑥 |)+criteria, max⁡(risk |𝜔𝜔)𝑧𝑧 |)
2
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical angular 0.73998velocities in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
66.25 ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
Table S2. Summary of=THOR-50M
56.45 ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬ 42.87 ( ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
√
= ( 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
( max⁡calculations
) + Table ( 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 8. Summary
(|𝜔𝜔) 𝑦𝑦 |)+ (
) + ( 𝜔𝜔of and functions.
) criteria and 𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical angular velocities in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
߱[௫,௬,௭] Angular Head௫ |) ଶ ofBrain
max(|߱velocity the head ൫ห߱ Injury
about
௬ ห൯
ଶ the local max[x, y, or 𝜔𝜔 z]
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥ଶaxis, in ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬, filtered 𝜔𝜔 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 at CFC60
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 injury
𝜔𝜔 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
‫(݌‬AIS
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 associated
െെ66.25
injury
66.25ିቀିቀ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
݁݁Function
risk
஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ
஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ
଴.଺ସ଻
functions
ቁቁ
భ.ఴ
భ.ఴ used to assess injury risk using THOR test results
[ref]ቇ + ቆCalculation 𝜔𝜔4+) 3+)==1156.45 Risk 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
max (|߱ ௭ |)
‫ܥܫݎܤ‬ = ඨቆCritical angular ቇ +Criterion
ቆ ቇ Calculation ‫(݌‬AIS𝜔𝜔Vars 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
଴.ହଷଵ Variable Definition
߱[௫,௬,௭]஼ 66.25 ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ ݏ‬velocities 56.45in‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬ ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
Criterion 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15
‫ܨ‬
42.87 ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬ with ω[x,y,z] = Angular 𝑡𝑡velocity 2 (rad/s)
2.5
𝜔𝜔
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑡𝑡𝜔𝜔1 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 42.87
56.45 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
Beginning
‫ܥܫܪ‬ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 െ
of time window
஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ భ.ఴ 0.71
in 𝑠𝑠 1.05 - -
Z-axis force measured at upper neck load cell
1 filtered in ܰ, filtered at CFC600 ln 1
ିቀଵହ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
6.96362 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
߱[௫,௬,௭] Angular velocity ௧of
BrIC the head ௭
ଶ.ହabout the local [x,Beginning
y, or z] axis, ω
in ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬, = 66.25 rad/s at CFC60 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
൤ 42.87 ቁ ൨
𝑁𝑁‫𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ܨ‬௭௖(-) ‫ݐ‬ of time xC window in ‫ݏ‬ ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS 𝑡𝑡 𝜔𝜔 2+) = Ȱ End
െ ݁ of time ଴.଺ସ଻window in 𝑠𝑠upper neck load cell in 𝑁𝑁
‫ܨ‬௭ (‫ܯ )ݐ‬௬ (‫)ݐ‬ Critical force𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 ଵ 15 = or 2 − 𝑡𝑡1 ) [ 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 in ܰ𝑀𝑀
|(𝑡𝑡compression) ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑] |
మ
(tension [4200/-4520] 𝐹𝐹 2 2+)4+)
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 = = 1Z-axis force measured at
ܰ‫ܥܫ‬ ߱
௜௝ = ቤ Critical
+‫ ) ݐ‬቎ ቤ angular
1 velocities 𝑁𝑁 in ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬ ‫ݐ‬ଶ End of time𝑁𝑁window 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ω
(𝑡𝑡
=yC =2in56.45 −
𝐹𝐹‫𝑡𝑡 𝑧𝑧ݏ‬1 𝑡𝑡𝑀𝑀
+ ) 𝑦𝑦
rad/s 𝑧𝑧
𝐹𝐹 1 + ݁
Z-axis
0.84687
(ହ.଼ଵଽିହ.଺଼ଵே௜௝)
force measured at upper neck load cell in 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
ଵହ = ተ(‫ݐ‬
[௫,௬,௭]஼
‫ܨ‬௭௖ െ ‫ݐ(ܯ‬ න ܽ(‫ݐ݀)ݐ‬ ‫ܯ‬ ቏ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ተ
Y-axis moment measured at upper neck
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐹𝐹= load𝑀𝑀 cell 𝑦𝑦ܰ݉, filtered at CFC600 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) 𝑧𝑧 Head
Critical force CG resultant acceleration in Beginning of time window in 𝑔𝑔
ଶ ଵ ௬௖ଶ െ௠௔௫ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ) ௬
Head CG resultant 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 +𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 1 in ݃; x, y, z components 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 1 (tension or compression) in 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640] 𝑝𝑝(
௧భ ‫ܯ‬௬௖‫ܨ‬௭ Critical Z-axis moment
forceܽ(‫)ݐ‬measured
(flexionatorupper extension)ωneck zCacceleration
=load 42.87
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧ܰ݉
in 𝑀𝑀rad/s
in𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦ܰ, filtered at𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
cell[60/-79.2] CFC600 ‫(݌‬AIS 𝐹𝐹3+) = ൤lnCritical (‫ܥܫܪ‬ଵହ1)force െ 7.45231 (tension or compression) in 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640]
‫ܨ‬௭ (‫ܯ )ݐ‬௬ (‫)ݐ‬ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
‫ܨ‬௭௖ Critical 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
௠௔௫
force (tension filtered orat CFC1000 in ܰ [4200/-4520]
compression) ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS 𝑀𝑀[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝜔𝜔 𝑦𝑦 3+)
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
2+)==Ȱ 1 Y-axis
+ Angular
݁ moment velocity
(଺.଴ସ଻ିହ.ସସே௜௝) of the൨ head
measured at upper aboutneck the load
localcell [x, y, 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁or z] axis, in
ܰ௜௝ = ቤ + ቤ 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 +Y-axis
1 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠,݁ filtered moment
(ହ.଼ଵଽିହ.଺଼ଵே௜௝)
0.73998
at measured
CFC60 at upper neck load cell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝(
ܷܴ௠௔௫ , a3ms ௬[g] 𝑀𝑀 Critical ோmoment (flexion or extension) in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/-72]
- in-𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/-72] 72 80
2
௠௔௫ = ݉ܽ‫ܮܷ(ݔ‬ ‫ܨ‬௭௖ ௠௔௫ ‫ܯ‬,௬௖ ‫ܮܮ‬௠௔௫ ,‫ܯ‬ ‫ܴܮ‬ ௠௔௫ Y-axis
); ଶ moment max⁡measured 2
(|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥ଶ|) at uppermax⁡ neck (|𝜔𝜔 load 𝑦𝑦 |)
cell ܰ݉,max⁡ filtered(|𝜔𝜔at 𝑧𝑧 |)
2
CFC600 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 1moment
೘ೌೣ
ିቀ ஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ
మ.వళళ
భ.ఴ
௠௔௫
ଶ
‫ܯ‬൫ห߱ APPENDIX
௬ ห൯ = max √( (|߱ G.(flexion + ( , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅in ܰ݉ ) + ,(𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS 𝑀𝑀3+)
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 Critical
െCritical
݁݁ ିቀ angular ቁ ቁ(flexionin
velocities or𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
extension)
max(|߱௫ |) Multi-point max Critical +ଶ ቆmoment
௭ |)𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 or) extension) [60/-79.2] ) ‫(݌‬AIS
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
3+)==1Overall െ ହ଼.ଵ଼ଷ
peak resultant deflection in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
‫ = ܥܫݎܤ‬ඨቆ = ݉ܽ‫ ݔ‬൬ට[‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܺ
ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬ ቇ + ቆ ଶ ௬௖+ [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܻ
Multi-point ቇ APPENDIX 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
=
𝜔𝜔 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥ଶቇG. ൰ Table 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔, 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧) )
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑅𝑅 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 3+) = 1 1 ݁ (଺.଴ସ଻ିହ.ସସே௜௝)
+Overall
଴.ହଷଵ
peak resultantused deflection in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚8. Summary 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 of, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅
injury 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 criteria and associated 𝜔𝜔𝑅𝑅𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 injury risk functions to[upper/lower
assess injury risk 0.42using THOR test 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
results. ≥ 3|
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
-1 Point
66.25 ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ ݏ‬Thoracic ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ ݏ‬where
Injury + [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܼ
௠௔௫ 56.45
[௎/௅]ௌ [௎/௅]ௌ42.87 [௎/௅]ௌ 66.25
Peak 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
resultant deflection of the | left/right] quadrant in
Table 8. Summary of injury criteria
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] and associated injury risk functions used to assess injury risk using THOR= 1 − test𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 resu
ܴ௠௔௫ = ݉ܽ‫ܮܷ(ݔ‬௠௔௫ , ܷܴ௠௔௫
߱[௫,௬,௭] ܴ Angular OverallCriterion
velocitypeak
,Thoracic
Criterion ‫ܮܮ‬௠௔௫ , ‫ܴܮ‬Injury
DAMAGE
of the [ref]
head about
resultant
where
௠௔௫ ); [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
the local
deflection in ݉݉ [x, 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Euro NCAP
Calculation
y, or z] axis, in ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬, filtered at CFC60 TB 035 1.0 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
Vars 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 4+)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Peak
56.45 ିቀ
ோ೘ೌೣ
஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ
resultant
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 ቁ
మ.వళళ
ቁ
భ.ఴ
deflection
Variable of the- [upper/lower
Definition - | left/right] quadrant in = 1 − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
(−
߱[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬
௠௔௫
Critical
= ݉ܽ‫ݔ‬ Table
angular
Peak ൬ට[‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܺ
resultant
Criterion
S2.
Criterion
Summary
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶[௎/௅]ௌ
velocities ଶ in+‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
15deflection
[ref] [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
ofthe THOR-50M
ଶ [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܼinjury
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
ଶ 2
൰ criteria,
Calculation
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 calculations
𝑡𝑡22 2.5 and2risk functions.𝑡𝑡
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍
‫(݌‬AIS
1 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 2
Vars
3+) = 1 െ
Beginning
݁
Time-history
42.87
ହ଼.ଵ଼ଷ଴.଺ସ଻
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 of time window in 𝑠𝑠
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠of of thetime [left/right]
Variable
chest
Definition
deflection along the [X/Y/Z]
0.47 -2 Points
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶15 of= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [upper/lower |[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
left/right] quadrant in
[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬ [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܻ +(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 ݉݉ 2.5 2 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
[௫,௬,௭]஼ ௠௔௫ ௠௔௫
Table S2. Summary of THOR-50M
[௎/௅]ௌ
= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋 injury
[௎/௅]ௌ 2 criteria, 1 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌calculations
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 2 𝑡𝑡2 and
[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 risk
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
functions. 𝑡𝑡 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
2 Beginning
Time-history of the window
[left/right] in 𝑠𝑠
chest deflection along the [X/Y/Z] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3)
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆] + | [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] 1
/ܴ] [ܺ/ܻ/ܼ]ଶ[௎/௅]ௌ Time-history of𝑁𝑁the ‫ܨ‬
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖௭ [left/right]
Z-axis 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
forceCalculation
chest =deflection
measured |(𝑡𝑡 − at 𝑡𝑡upper ) [[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
along the [X/Y/Z]
neck 𝐹𝐹load
𝑧𝑧 ∫ 1𝑀𝑀
cell 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
axis𝑦𝑦in relative
ܰ, filtered to the at CFC600 𝑡𝑡2 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 End axis
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
Riskof relative
Z-axis time
Function window
force
1 time the in
tomeasured [upper/lower]
𝑠𝑠 at upper neck spineload segment cell in in𝑁𝑁𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
ܴ Overall peak resultant deflection 15 ݉݉152 =
in𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 1
|(𝑡𝑡 2𝑁𝑁(𝑡𝑡
−
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2𝑡𝑡 −) 𝑡𝑡[1()+
=max⁡ ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑] | ‫(݌‬AIS 𝑡𝑡2 axis End of
relative towindow
the [upper/lower] in 𝑠𝑠 spine segment in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
‫ܨ‬௭ (‫ )ݐ‬௠௔௫ ‫ܯ‬௬ (‫)ݐ‬ Compression
[upper/lower] spine
‫ܨ‬௭௖ segment Critical force inCalculation
݉݉, filtered
(tension orat CFC180
compression) 1
𝐹𝐹 (𝑡𝑡in𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,
𝑡𝑡1ܰ −𝑀𝑀 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
𝑡𝑡𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦1 )
[4200/-4520] 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑅𝑅]2+) =Head Risk
Peak CG
Critical Function
X-axisresultant
force deflection acceleration
(tension of
or the in
leftBeginning
compression) or rightinabdomen of
𝑁𝑁 time windowin 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 in 𝑔𝑔
[2520/-3640]
݁ (ହ.଼ଵଽିହ.଺଼ଵே௜௝)
Head CG6.96362 resultant acceleration
of the left in or Beginning of time
ܰ௜௝ = ቤ ቤ resultant
- window in-𝑔𝑔
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 2 1 +
[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬
ߜ݉ܽ‫ܨ ݔ‬௭௖Maximum
+௠௔௫ Peak
‫ܯ‬௬௖peak NCompression
X-axis
௠௔௫ ௧𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
(-)‫ܯ‬deflection
ij deflection ௬ ଶ.ହ Y-axis of the
APPENDIX
of the [upper/lower
moment
left or measured
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 with
right abdomen
G.= 4200
Fdeflection
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
at𝐴𝐴upper
N
=
| left/right]
in ݉݉,
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
/the =neck
-6400
max⁡
quadrant
𝑑𝑑filtered
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
N
(𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
load cell
in
𝑡𝑡 ݉݉ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
at 1ܰ݉, filtered at𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(tension/compression)
CFC600
𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
‫(݌‬AIS
𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝑅𝑅]
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 2+) =Angular
lnPeak
ȰUndeformed
൤Y-axis
‫ܥܫܪ‬
‫ܥܫܪ‬
X-axis
ఋଵହ1െ depth
moment
velocity
೘ೌೣ
deflection
ర.యభమళ
൰ofdepth
of the
measured
the head ൨of the abdomen 0.39
atabdomen
about upper the necklocal
right abdomen
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚] 0.85
load
[x, y,cell or z] 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
axis, in
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(
‫ݐ‬ଵ Beginning of time window 𝑑𝑑in ‫ ݏ‬relative to the lnି൬
െ൤ Undeformed ଵହ െvelocity [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
ଶ Time-history of the [left/right] chest along [X/Y/Z] axis
‫ܮ‬/ܴ] [ܺ/ܻ/ܼ] CFC180 మ
‫ܯ‬ zC ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS 𝑑𝑑𝜔𝜔𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ݁Y-, ଵ଴଺.ଶଶଶ
Angular
6.96362
of
[௎/௅]ௌ
1 Acetabulum ௧మ ௬௖ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵ଶ.ହCritical moment ‫ݐ‬ଵ (flexion
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Beginning or extension)
of time 2 window
in ܰ݉
28.2 in
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎[60/-79.2]
‫ݏ‬2 𝐹𝐹‫(݌‬AIS 3+)3+)
2+)== 1X-,
1Ȱ
=𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, ݁filtered and
0.84687 Z-ataxis CFC60 force ൨ themeasuredhead about at thethe local [x, y,load
acetabulum or z]cell
axis,
in in 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
‫ܥܫ‬ଵହ = ተ(‫ݐ‬ଶ െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ) ቎ [upper/lower] නAcetabulum
ܽ(‫ݐ݀)ݐ‬ spine቏ ተsegment max⁡ in‫݉݉ݐ‬,ଶM
( yCEnd
|𝜔𝜔
filtered
=|)
of
88.1 2time
𝐹𝐹 at= Nm window
CFC180
√𝐹𝐹
max⁡ / Table
-117 + in𝐹𝐹‫ݏ‬Nm + Summary
(flexion/extension)
𝐹𝐹 ( |𝜔𝜔 of |) injury
2 criteria and 𝑀𝑀
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦associated
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] +X-,injury
Critical Y-, risk
moment
(଺.଴ସ଻ିହ.ସସே௜௝)
and
0.84687
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, Z-
filtered functions
(flexion
axisat force
CFC60
orusedextension)
measured to assess
at inthe injury
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/-72]
acetabulum risk using
load cell THOR
in test results
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
1 Load 𝑅𝑅 2 (|𝜔𝜔2𝑦𝑦
𝑥𝑥 |)‫ 𝐹𝐹 ݏ‬2 + 𝐹𝐹
𝑦𝑦 𝑧𝑧 max⁡22 [𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
ଶ െ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ) න ܽ(‫ ݐ݀)ݐ‬቏ ተ ); ‫ݐ‬ଶ Head End
𝑥𝑥 of time window in+ 2 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
‫ܥܫܪ‬ ተ(‫ݐ‬ െ ‫ݐ‬ (‫ݐ‬
቎ = √ ( ܽ(‫)ݐ‬ max⁡ ) (
CG |𝜔𝜔+ 𝐹𝐹
|)
resultant
( = √𝐹𝐹 acceleration
max⁡ )( |𝜔𝜔 + |)
(in ݃; x, y, 𝑧𝑧
max⁡z ( |𝜔𝜔
components
) |) 𝜔𝜔 Critical angular െ velocities in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
‫ݐ‬ଵMulti-point Overall peak resultant
మ.వళళ
,భLoad
Criterion , ‫[ܴܮ‬ref] Calculation Vars deflection in
൨ Variable Definition
ܴ௠௔௫ߜ݉ܽ‫ݔ‬
ଵହ = ݉ܽ‫ܮܷ(ݔ‬
= ଶ Maximum
ଵ ) , ܷܴpeak ‫ܮܮ‬௠௔௫
)௧X-axis deflection ௠௔௫ of the left 𝑅𝑅√ or right= 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
abdomen 𝑥𝑥 𝑅𝑅 in ݉݉, , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅filtered
𝑥𝑥
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝑦𝑦 𝑦𝑦 at𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 )
𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧 𝑅𝑅
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 ln 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
(‫ܥܫܪ‬ ோଵହ
ఋ ) ర.యభమళ
7.45231 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎
ଶ െ Femur
௠௔௫(‫ݐ‬ ௠௔௫ ೘ೌೣ
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶 ൤െln ݁݁Critical angular velocities in at 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
= 𝜔𝜔 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(filtered ) 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 +𝜔𝜔 (acceleration ) ݃;+ 𝜔𝜔x, ( y, z components ) 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ିቀ ೘ೌೣ
Axial ௠௔௫ ܽ(‫)ݐ‬ Head CG resultant
𝜔𝜔ଶ𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥at CFC1000𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑡𝑡2
in ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS 3+) ==Ȱ1Z-axis ି൬femur ଵହ ) load
ହ଼.ଵ଼ଷ െቁ ൰7.45231 in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered CFC600
F௧Femur
Thoracic
15[kN]
Injury the𝑠𝑠-[upper/lower - | left/right] 1.9quadrant3.1
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
CFC180 where ‫(݌‬AIS 3+) െ (‫ܥܫܪ‬ ଵ଴଺.ଶଶଶ
[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬௠௔௫ Neck= ݉ܽ‫ ݔ‬൬ට[‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܺ Load
భ

CriterionShear ଶ𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶 Axial

[௎/௅]ௌ + [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܻ[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
௠௔௫ ଶ
[௎/௅]ௌ + [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܼ[௎/௅]ௌ ൰
filtered at CFC1000
1
2.5 𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝜔𝜔 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑡𝑡1𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧3+)
‫(݌‬AIS
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] 3+)
𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
=66.25
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = ȰPeak
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
1 Beginning
൤ Z-axis resultant
66.250.73998 femurof time deflectionwindow
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠loadభ.ఴin 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered
0.73998 ൨ of in at CFC600 in = 1 − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
(−
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝( ≥
ଶ Load ଶ
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ଶ
= |(𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡 ) [ ∫ 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ] | 𝜔𝜔 𝑡𝑡 56.45 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
End 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
of time
஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ window in 𝑠𝑠
max(|߱௫ |) Revised max Tibia
൫ห߱௬ ห൯ ଶ max(|߱ 15 ௭ |) 2 1 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹 2 𝜔𝜔3+) Measured ିቀ compressive
56.45 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠 ቁ భ.ఴaxial force in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
+F (𝑡𝑡 − 𝑡𝑡 ) ‫(݌‬AIS െ ݁ ଴.ହଷଵ
‫ = ܥܫݎܤ‬ቆ ܴ
‫ܥܫݎܤ‬
ඨ
= ඨቆ
௠௔௫(|߱௫Overall
max
66.25 ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
ଶ
|)ቇIndex peak
Revised
ቆ max
Tension
56.45
resultant൫ห߱ Tibia
‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬ [kN]
௬ ห൯
deflection
ቇ +=ቆ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
42.87max in (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
݉݉
(|߱௭ |)ቇ [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
ଶ 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
2 2 +
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹 1 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑀𝑀 +𝑐𝑐
2
𝑡𝑡
𝑀𝑀 + [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
2
𝜔𝜔 ‫(݌‬AIS
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝜔𝜔3+)
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦2
𝐹𝐹 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 = 1
42.87 Time-history
Head
=Critical
Measured
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
1 െ42.87 CG
ିቀ
஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ
݁ compressive
of theቁacceleration
compressive
resultant
଴.ହଷଵ
[left/right] axial -force
axial force [12 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
chest
in Beginning 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 - ofalong
deflection
in time 2.7
the [X/Y/Z]
window in 3.3
𝑔𝑔 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 2) =
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 2)
Peakቇ resultant ቆ ቇ + ቆ [upper/lower ቇ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
𝑐𝑐 1
+Index deflection 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 axis relative to the [upper/lower]
భ.ఴ axial forcespine segment in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬ ௠௔௫ ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
66.25 ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ ݏ‬of the42.87
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 head about the local [x, y, or z] axis, in 𝐹𝐹
𝑁𝑁56.45 ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ | ݏ‬left/right] quadrant
𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐in ݉݉ 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
Z-axis Critical
force compressive
measured
஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ at upperinneck [12 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
load cell inof𝑁𝑁medial-lateral
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 = Measured bending moment (resultant axis, and
𝑧𝑧
߱[௫,௬,௭] Angular velocity of the
Compression 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖[left/right] 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 deflection = ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬,
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖along +[X/Y/Z] (filtered
𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀at CFC60
‫(݌‬AIS𝜔𝜔[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Angular
1Peak
ିቀ velocity
݁Z-axis
െMeasured X-axis force of
measured
deflection
ቁ భ.ఴtheof head about
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
at upper
the left the
orneck local
load [x,
celly,inorin𝑁𝑁z]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 in 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
M inright abdomen
ଶ Time-history ofhead the max⁡ 𝑧𝑧𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, axis
+𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
𝑦𝑦relative 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝑅𝑅] ଴.଺ସ଻
஻௥ூ஼ି଴.ହଶଷ
‫ܮ‬/ܴ]߱[ܺ/ܻ/ܼ] Angular velocity ofExtension
the about the chest local [x, y, or z]𝐴𝐴axis, in 𝑁𝑁
𝐹𝐹= the
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬, filtered 2 at CFC60
to the 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 4+) Critical force
anterior-posterior
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠, ିቀfiltered bending
(tension at ቁ moment
or
directions)
CFC60 compression) in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant
𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640] of medial-lateral and 𝑝𝑝(
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
[௫,௬,௭] Critical ‫(݌‬AIS െ ݁
[௎/௅]ௌ
angular velocities in
߱[௫,௬,௭]஼ ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ݏ‬
[upper/lower] spine segment in ݉݉, filtered at CFC180
߱[௫,௬,௭]஼ Critical angular velocities in ‫݀ܽݎ‬/‫ √ = ݏ‬max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥 |) + max⁡(𝑑𝑑
2
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹
|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 |) 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑀𝑀 max⁡(|𝜔𝜔𝑧𝑧 |)
2 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹 4+) =
Y-axis
1 Critical
anterior-posterior
Undeformed
moment
଴.଺ସ଻
force
depth of
measured
(tension
directions) or
the abdomen
at[240 upper -neck[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
compression)
load cell - 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 42
in 𝑁𝑁 [2520/-3640] 57
[Nm] 𝑀𝑀𝜔𝜔
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑦𝑦
(or right abdomen ) ( )atܰ, +filtered
( ) 𝑦𝑦𝑀𝑀 Critical
Critical bending
angular moment
velocities 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
ߜ݉ܽ‫ ݔ‬Maximum peakAcetabulum X-axis ‫ܨ‬௭ Z-axis
deflection of theforce leftmeasured 𝜔𝜔𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 at upper neck
in ݉݉, load
2 𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 2
filtered cell in 𝜔𝜔 at CFC600 𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]𝐶𝐶
𝐹𝐹[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 𝑦𝑦 X-, Y-axis
Y-,
Critical ఋ 1
and
೘ೌೣ moment
Z-
bending ర.యభమళ
axis measured
force
moment [240 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] measured at upper at neck
the load
acetabulum cell 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
load cell in
‫ܨ‬௭ (‫)ݐ‬CFC180 ‫ܯ‬௬ (‫ )ݐ‬Proximal ‫ܨ‬Tibia‫ ܨ‬Critical Z-axis forceforce measured(tension orat𝐹𝐹 upper
= √𝐹𝐹
compression) neck𝑥𝑥 + load
in𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦ܰcell + 𝐹𝐹 in𝑧𝑧 2ܰ, filtered𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧at CFC600
[4200/-4520] 𝑀𝑀‫(݌‬AIS
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹
‫(݌‬AIS 𝜔𝜔 2+) = = Z-axis
Critical
66.25
െ
ି൬upper
moment
݁݁Critical𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
ଵ଴଺.ଶଶଶ1 tibia ൰ load
(flexion in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
or extension)filteredinat𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 CFC600 [48/-72] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
ܰ௜௝ = ቤ ‫ܨ‬௭ (‫)ݐ‬+ ‫ܯ‬௬ (‫)ݐ‬ቤ Axial Load Proximal ௭௖ ௭Tibia 𝑅𝑅
‫(݌‬AIS
𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥3+)
𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀2+) =11𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 +Z-axis upper moment
(ହ.଼ଵଽିହ.଺଼ଵே௜௝)
tibia load (flexion in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,or extension)
filtered at CFC600 in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 [48/-72] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Force ‫ܨ‬௭௖ Y-axis Critical 𝑅𝑅force (tension or compression) in, 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ܰ [4200/-4520] ) at CFC600 𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝜔𝜔𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑧𝑧
𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
ܰ௜௝ = ቤ ‫ܨ‬௭௖ + ‫ܯ‬௬௖ Multi-point ‫ܯ‬ moment 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
measured at𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
upper , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 neck
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚load cell ,ܰ݉, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
filtered Overall56.45 ݁peak 1resultant deflection in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎, 𝑝𝑝(
(ହ.଼ଵଽିହ.଺଼ଵே௜௝)
ቤ Femur Axial
Multi-point Force
Axial ௬ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
) 𝐹𝐹 1Z-axis
+Overall 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
femur peak load in
resultant𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered
deflection at CFC600
in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿 , 𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 , 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
‫ܨ‬௭௖ ௠௔௫
‫ܯ‬௬௖Thoracic
Distal
௠௔௫ Multi-point
Load
Tibia
Injury
Thoracic
Distal
‫ܯ‬
‫ܯ‬௬௖௬ Critical
Tibia
Y-axis
Injury
moment
where
measured
wheremoment (flexion or extension) in ܰ݉ [60/-79.2]
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 at upper neck
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
with
load 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 cell ܰ݉, 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚filtered at
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 CFC600 ‫(݌‬AIS
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
‫(݌‬AIS
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 3+) =
𝜔𝜔
𝑧𝑧 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
PeakZ-axis resultant
42.87
Z-axis
lower tibia load of
1deflection
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑠𝑠
lower tibia load
in the
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 3+) =1 + ݁Peak resultant deflection of the [upper/lower | left/right] quadrant
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (଺.଴ସ଻ିହ.ସସே௜௝) in
filtered at CFC600
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,[upper/lower
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered at | left/right]
CFC600 quadrant in = 1in− 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (−
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
[𝑝𝑝
Axial Force
Criterion ‫ܯ‬௬௖ Critical moment
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿] (flexion or extension) in ܰ݉ [60/-79.2] [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧

ܴ௠௔௫ = ݉ܽ‫ܮܷ(ݔ‬௠௔௫ , ܷܴ௠௔௫ Thoracic

Revised
, ‫ܮܮ‬
Dorsiflexion
Criterion
Axial 𝑁𝑁Force
Tibia
௠௔௫ ,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖‫ܴܮ‬௠௔௫ );
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑁𝑁 ==− 𝐹𝐹+
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀
+
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷
𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧2
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚1Measured
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Z-axis
Y-axis
+𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ݁ force
(଺.଴ସ଻ିହ.ସସே௜௝)
moment
ோ೘ೌೣ compressive
measured
మ.వళళ
ቁ measured
axial
at atupper force
lower neck in load
tibia loadcell
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 cellinin𝑁𝑁the 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁[X/Y/Z]
= 1 − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
2)𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 =
𝑒𝑒
ܴ௠௔௫ = ݉ܽ‫ܮܷ(ݔ‬௠௔௫ , ܷܴMoment Index , ‫ܮܮ‬௠௔௫ , ‫ܴܮ‬௠௔௫=);𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
Dorsiflexion
2
𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 9= [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
+𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖2𝑀𝑀 𝑌𝑌 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹
2
𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀−𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
𝑥𝑥
+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 2
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) 2 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍 ‫(݌‬AIS 𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧
𝐹𝐹 Time-history
െY-axis
1Critical
ିቀ
݁Time-history
ହ଼.ଵ଼ଷof the
ோmoment
compressive
force
೘ೌೣ (tension
[left/right]
మ.వళళ
measuredaxial
or chest
at lower
force
compression) deflection
[12 tibia
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] 𝑁𝑁along
load
indeflection cell along
[2520/-3640]in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁the [X/Y/Z]
[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬௠௔௫ Chest= ݉ܽ‫ ݔ‬൬ට[‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܺ
௠௔௫
Injury
Moment ଶ
[௎/௅]ௌ + [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܻ[௎/௅]ௌ + [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܼ[௎/௅]ௌ
ଶ = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
𝑀𝑀ଶ 𝑦𝑦
൰
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
=
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 𝑀𝑀 +
𝑌𝑌
𝑐𝑐𝑥𝑥[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
− [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌
𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 𝑐𝑐 22
− [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
2
+ [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍]
‫(݌‬AIS𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥
𝑐𝑐
𝐹𝐹
3+) =
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆
𝑌𝑌 2
axisX-axis
= 1relative
3+) [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 െ
X-axis
force
ିቀ
݁ ହ଼.ଵ଼ଷ
axismoment
to the [upper/lower]37.9
force
relative
measuredቁ of
measured
to
the
the
at [left/right]
lower
at lower
[upper/lower]
tibia chest
spine segmentload
tibia
52.3
load
spine
cell in 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 35
in
cell
segment
𝑁𝑁
in 𝑁𝑁
in[0.0907m]
60 𝑝𝑝(
ଶ ଶ ଶ 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑥𝑥
𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀 Measured
Y-axis
Distance bending moment
measured atin 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant
upper neck load of
cellmedial-lateral
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 and
[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬௠௔௫ = ݉ܽ‫ݔ‬Compression ൬ට[‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܺ[௎/௅]ௌ ൰ max⁡ X-axisbetween ankle joint and or lower tibia load incell
ܴ௠௔௫ OverallCriterion
+ [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܻ[௎/௅]ௌ + [‫ܮ‬/ܴ]ܼ[௎/௅]ௌ (𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿, 𝑅𝑅] Peak deflection of the left right abdomen 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Compression [L/R][X/Y/Z]
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 9= [U/L]Smax⁡
2
: Time-History(𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿, 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿) of the 𝐷𝐷 𝑅𝑅] anterior-posterior
Distance
Peak between
X-axis directions)
ankle or
deflection joint theand
ofextension) left lower
or in tibia
right load cellin[0.0907m]
abdomen
peak
ܴ௠௔௫ Overall peak resultant deflection
resultant deflection in ݉݉
in ݉݉ 𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑑𝑑=𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑀𝑀𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,
𝑑𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
Critical
Mass
Undeformed between moment
depth ankle (flexion
ofmomentjoint
the abdomenand lower tibia
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁cell
load [0.72kg]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
[48/-72] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
𝑝𝑝
R (mm) [left /= right] chest deflection 𝑑𝑑 along the [x )/ y / z] 𝑐𝑐𝑚𝑚
𝑑𝑑 Critical
Mass Undeformed bending
between ankle
depth joint
of [240
the and 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
abdomenlower tibia load cell [0.72kg]
[238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚]
[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬௠௔௫ Peak resultant
Acetabulum
Peak
max deflection of the [upper/lower
Multi-point
resultant
deflection of the [upper/lower
𝑅𝑅 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
|
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑈𝑈𝐿𝐿
|
left/right]𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
left/right]
, quadrant
𝑈𝑈𝑅𝑅 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
quadrant
, 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 in ݉݉
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
in
, 𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅
𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
X-, Overall
X-axis
Y-, and peak
acceleration
Z- axis resultant
forceof the deflection
measuredtibia inat𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 inthe𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2
acetabulum load cell in 𝑃𝑃(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3|⁡𝑎𝑎
[ܷ/‫ܴ|ܮ‬/‫]ܮ‬
‫ܮ‬/ܴ] [ܺ/ܻ/ܼ][௎/௅]ௌ ଶ ௠௔௫ Time-history Proximal
Thoracic Acetabulumof Tibia
Injury
the where
[left/right] axis
chest relative 𝐹𝐹
deflection = to√𝐹𝐹 the
along
2
+ [upper
the 𝐹𝐹 2
[X/Y/Z]+ /𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧lower]
2
axis
݉݉
relativespine to segment
the
[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎[𝑥𝑥,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧] Z-axis
X-axis upper
X-,resultant
Y-, and tibia
acceleration Z- loadaxisofforce inthe 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,tibiafiltered
measured in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 atatCFC600
2
the acetabulum load cell in in 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 3)
Load
Inversion/
Axial Force
𝑅𝑅
𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥
= the 𝑦𝑦
√𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥[X/Y/Z] 2 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
2
+ 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 +𝑦𝑦relative 𝐷𝐷 2
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐷𝐷 to the [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 Peak deflection
X-axis moment measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 of the [upper/lower | left/right] quadrant = 1 − 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
[‫ܮ‬/ܴ] [ܺ/ܻ/ܼ]ଶ[௎/௅]ௌ [upper/lower] Criterion
Time-history Load
Inversion/ ofspine the segment
[left/right] in chest
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿|𝑅𝑅/𝐿𝐿]
݉݉, filtered deflection
𝑀𝑀 along
=
at CFC180 𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀
𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹 𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 − axis𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 X-axis𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 moment measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (−
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Eversion 𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
= 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 −2
𝑦𝑦 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Y-axis force measured
ߜ݉ܽ‫ ݔ‬Abdo-
Femur Distal Axial
Compression
[upper/lower]Eversion
Femur Tibia spine segment in ݉݉, filtered
Axial of the max(δL,δR):
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
at CFC180
2Peak X-axis deflection
2 at 2 of the2[left /
𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 Z-axis Z-axis femur
Y-axisZ-axis lower load
ఋforcefemur
inర.యభమళ
tibia loadat
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
load
lower
filtered
inin𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
at𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
tibia
atfiltered
CFC600
filtered
load
at
cell
atloadCFC600
CFC600
in 𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝
Maximum peak MomentX-axis deflection = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚left or(√[𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑋𝑋
right abdomen in+ ݉݉, [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑌𝑌 filtered
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆at+ [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅]𝑍𝑍[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 ) [𝐿𝐿/𝑅𝑅][𝑋𝑋/𝑌𝑌/𝑍𝑍] 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 2 Time-history of൰measured
the [left/right] lower chesttibia deflection cell along
in 𝑁𝑁 the [X/Y/Z] 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴≥
ߜ݉ܽ‫ ݔ‬CFC180 MaximumLoad peakAxial Moment
X-axis
Load Force deflection of the left or right abdomen [𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 in
right]
݉݉,
abdomen
filtered 𝐷𝐷
‫(݌‬AIS𝐷𝐷3+) = 1 axis
[𝑈𝑈/𝐿𝐿]𝑆𝑆 Distance
െDistance
ି൬ between
݁ relative
೘ೌೣ
ଵ଴଺.ଶଶଶ
ఋ ankle
ర.యభమళ joint and - lower 88.6
tibia load cell -
[0.0907m] 88 𝑝𝑝
menCFC180 Revised δmax
Dorsiflexion Tibia(mm)
Revised Tibia 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝐹𝐹
+
𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷
𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 𝐹𝐹3+) Measured
𝐹𝐹‫(݌‬AIS =Mass െMeasured
1Y-axis
ି൬ ೘ೌೣ
compressive
݁between ଵ଴଺.ଶଶଶ
moment
to
between
ankle
the
൰ [upper/lower]
compressive
ankle
axialand
joint
measured
joint
force
ataxial
lower
and spine
in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
force
lower segment
tibiainload
tibia
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 cell in
in
load 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
cell
[0.72kg]
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
[0.0907m]
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 2) =𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴 1−
Index Compression
Moment 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹 max⁡
𝑌𝑌 −= 𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹(𝑥𝑥𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿,
𝐷𝐷+− 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿)
𝐹𝐹 𝛿𝛿[𝐿𝐿,𝑚𝑚 𝑅𝑅] Peak
Critical Mass X-axisbetween
compressive deflectionankle
axial of the
joint
force and
[12leftloweror right
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] tibiaabdomen
load cellin[0.72kg] 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥ 2
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 2 X-axis
Y-axis forcecompressive
acceleration measured of theataxial lower
tibia in tibia load2 cell in 𝑁𝑁
𝐴𝐴𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2
Index 9 = 𝑐𝑐𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠[12 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐
Calculation 𝑑𝑑𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 Risk Function
Critical force
res. 𝑐𝑐
𝑀𝑀 𝑑𝑑𝐷𝐷 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 Undeformed
Measured Y-axis depth
acceleration
bending moment of of thein the abdomen
tibia
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘]
in [238.4⁡𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚] of medial-lateral and
Distance between anklemoment joint and in lower tibia loadofcell [0.0907m]
Acetabulum Calculation (‫)ݐ‬ 𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀 X-,lnMeasured
Risk
anterior-posteriorY-, and஺ோZ-bending
Function െ axis
directions) force measured 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 (resultant
at the acetabulum medial-lateral
load cell in and
ோ = หඥ‫ܨ‬௫ (‫ )ݐ‬+ ‫ܨ‬௬ (‫ )ݐ‬+ ‫ܨ‬௭ (‫ )ݐ‬ห௠௔௫ ; ‫ܨ‬஺ோ (‫)ݐ‬
ଶ ଶ ଶ = 0 ݂‫ܨ ݎ݋‬ி௘௠௨௥௓
Calculation Risk Function 1.429‫ܨ‬ 1.5751
Pelvis Actetabulum
Load Calculation
𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅 = > 02 + 𝐹𝐹 2 + 𝐹𝐹 2
√𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦 𝑧𝑧 ‫𝑥𝑥[݌݅ܪ(݌‬,𝑦𝑦,𝑧𝑧]
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐
݂‫)݁ݎݑݐܿܽݎ‬
𝑚𝑚 =Ȱ Mass
Risk𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Critical
൤ anterior-posterior
Function
between
bending 0.2339
ankle
moment
joint
െ 1.5751
൨ and
directions)
[240 ൨𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
2.583 lower tibia3.486 load cell 3.28
[0.72kg] 4.1 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
‫ܨ ܨ‬஺ோ= หඥ‫ܨ‬ in ;kN,
ଶ + ‫)ݐ( ܨ‬ଶ + ‫)ݐ( ܨ‬ଶ ห ‫ܨ‬஺ோ 0 ݂‫ܨ ݎ݋‬ி௘௠௨௥௓ ln 1.429‫ܨ‬
Peak (‫)ݐ‬
resultant acetabulum force x, (‫)ݐ‬
y,0z,݂‫ݎ݋‬ = components filtered (‫ > )ݐ‬0
> 0at CFC600 ‫݌݅ܪ(݌‬ 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝑀𝑀 ݂‫)݁ݎݑݐܿܽݎ‬ X-axis
lnȰ ൤ acceleration
Critical െ ஺ோ
஺ோbending of
momentthe tibia [240 in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
=஺ோ ௭Load F ‫(ܨ‬kN) at𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁]
หඥ‫ܨ‬௫ (‫)ݐ‬ ଶ௫+ ‫ܨ‬௬ (‫)ݐ‬ଶ௬+ (‫)ݐ‬ଶ௭ห Axial
‫ܨ‬Femur ;௠௔௫ ‫ܨ‬ி௘௠௨௥௓ (‫)ݐ‬ = 1.429‫ܨ‬ 1.5751
Proximal Tibia
௠௔௫ R ஺ோ (‫= )ݐ‬ Calculation ‫݌݅ܪ(݌‬ 𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑐𝑐 =
݂‫)݁ݎݑݐܿܽݎ‬ Risk
Z-axis ൤ Function
ȰZ-axis upper femur tibia load
load
െ
0.2339 inin ൨𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,filtered
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered at CFC600
CFC600
஺ோ = หඥ‫ܨ‬
ଶ + ‫ܨ‬resultant ଶ ‫ܨ‬௭ (‫)ݐ‬
௬ (‫ )ݐ‬+Inversion/ Proximal
ଶ ห௠௔௫ force ;Tibia
‫ܨ‬஺ோin(‫)ݐ‬ kN,=x,0y,݂‫ݎ݋‬ ‫ܨ‬ி௘௠௨௥௓ (‫)ݐ‬filtered > 0 at CFC600𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 𝑧𝑧
‫)݁ݎݑݐܿܽݎ݂𝑀𝑀݌݅ܪ(݌‬ = X-axis
ln
Ȱ ൤ Z-axis
1.429‫ܨ‬
moment ஺ோ
upper
1.5751
measured ൨ at inlower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴≥
‫ ܨ‬௫ (‫)ݐ‬Peak acetabulum z, components 2.62െ tibia load 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered at CFC600 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Load 𝑥𝑥 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧
0.2339
‫ܨ‬௅஼ ஺ோ peakresultant
compressive Axial Z-axisForce force,
ଶ หforcein inkN,kN,measured in the left and right atfemur, filtered− at CFC600 ௅஼ ) െ0.2339 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
= 0 ݂‫𝑀𝑀ܨ ݎ݋‬ => 𝑀𝑀 0 −CFC600 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷
‫ܨ‬஺ோ Peak acetabulum x, y, z, components filtered CFC600 ln(1.299‫ܨ‬ 𝑝𝑝
஺ோ =‫ܨ‬หඥ‫ܨ‬௫ Peak (‫)ݐ‬ଶ + +Eversion
‫ܨ‬௬ (‫)ݐ‬ଶacetabulum ‫ܨ‬௭ (‫)ݐ‬ Axial Force ; ‫ܨ‬ 𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥
2 ‫(݌‬AIS = Ȱ ቈ = Y-axis ln 1.429‫ܨ‬
force ஺ோ ቉ 1.5751
measured at lower tibia load
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 cell in 𝑁𝑁
(‫)ݐ‬ (‫)ݐ‬ ‫݌݅ܪ(݌‬2+) 𝐹𝐹݂‫)݁ݎݑݐܿܽݎ‬ Ȱ ൤0.3014 ൨axial
஺ோ ‫ܨ‬ resultant
peak compressiveDistal Axial
Revised
Moment Tibia
Z-axis ௠௔௫
Load
force, inFkN,
Tibia
force in஺ோ kN, x, y, z, components
z x,measured
ி௘௠௨௥௓
in the left 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
filtered at 𝐹𝐹
and right = femur, +filtered
𝑀𝑀
filtered at CFC600 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 Z-axis Measured
ln(1.299‫ܨ‬lower ௅஼ compressive
tibia
) െ load
0.2339 2.62 in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, force
filtered inCFC600
at 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
≥ 2) =
‫ܨ‬௅஼‫ܨ‬஺ோ peak
௅஼
PeakFemur
compressive
resultant Z-axis
Index
acetabulum
Axial z-axis Distal
force, Tibia
forcein kN,in measured
kN, y,
Forceforce, in kN, measured in the left and right upper z, in the
components left and right
filtered femur,
at CFC600
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 𝑀𝑀 - at CFC600
‫(݌‬AIS 2+)
‫(݌‬AIS 𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹
2+)
𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐 = Ȱ ቈ ln(1.299‫ܨ‬
𝑧𝑧 = Ȱ ቈ
ln(1.299‫ܨ‬Distance
Critical Z-axis
௅஼ ) െ lower
between
2.62
compressive ቉
tibia቉
ankle load joint
axial force 5.331
in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘,
and filtered
lower
[12 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘] 8.588 at
tibia CFC600
load cell3.8[0.0907m] 9.07
‫ܨ‬௅஼ largest compressive
(kN) tibia, filtered at CFC600
𝑐𝑐 1
௣௘௥௧௜௕௜௔ peak compressive Z-axis force,
Axial Force in kN, measured in the left and right femur, filtered at CFC600 0.3014
) െ 2.62
Dorsiflexion 𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS
𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 𝑚𝑚 𝑀𝑀 ==Ȱ1 ቈY-axis
2+) Mass
0.3014
Measured moment
௅஼
between bending ankle
measured ቉ moment joint and in lower tibia cell
tibia(resultant loadof incell [0.72kg] and
medial-lateral
2+) ൯ at lower 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 load 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
‫ܨ‬௅஼ peak
‫ܨ‬௨௣௣௘௥௧௜௕௜௔ compressive
largest compressive Z-axis force,force,
z-axis
Dorsiflexion in kN,inmeasured
kN, measured in theinleft the= andleft right
and right femur, upper filtered tibia, at CFC600
filtered
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 𝐷𝐷CFC600 at CFC600 ݁ ൫ହ.଻ସଵହି଴.଼ଵ଼ଽி
Y-axis௅஼ ) െmoment measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
force, in kN, measured in𝑀𝑀the 𝑀𝑀right
𝑌𝑌 − upper 𝐹𝐹 𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 −tibia, filtered 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ≥
𝑀𝑀= ln(1.299‫ܨ‬
+ 0.3014 12.62 upper tibia
largest compressive Moment z-axis left𝑀𝑀and
𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌 − 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷 2−
𝑥𝑥at ‫(݌‬AIS
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥‫(݌‬AIS 𝑎𝑎2+) 𝑌𝑌 Ȱ = ቈ Y-axisanterior-posterior
1acceleration ቉ directions)
oflowerthe tibia inload𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠cell2
𝑝𝑝
𝑦𝑦 2+) = X-axis force 11measured at tibia in 𝑁𝑁
௘௥௧௜௕௜௔
௣௘௥௧௜௕௜௔ largest
௪௘௥௧௜௕௜௔ largestcompressive
compressivez-axis Moment
z-axis force,
force,ininkN, kN,measured
measuredininthe theleft leftand andright rightlower uppertibia, tibia,filtered filtered 2 atatCFC600 CFC600 ‫(݌‬AIS 2+) 𝐹𝐹 1 + ݁ ൫ହ.଻ସଵହି଴.଼ଵ଼ଽி
0.3014
X-axis force upper tibia ൯ at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁
measured
F (kN) - ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS𝐷𝐷 𝑀𝑀
2+) 𝑐𝑐 =
𝑥𝑥 ݁ Critical
=1 +Distance൫ହ.଻ସଵହି଴.଼ଵ଼ଽி bending
between ankle moment ൯
joint [240
4.235
and lower 5.577
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁] tibia load cell [0.0907m]
- 2
- 2
z,upper 2+) upper tibia
‫ܨ‬௟௢௪௘௥௧௜௕௜௔largest compressive z-axis force, in kN, measured in the left left
andand rightright upper tibia, filtered at CFC600 𝐷𝐷 =11++݁݁Z-axis Distance 1 1between upper tibiaankle joint and lower tibia load cell [0.0907m]
(ଷ.଻ହସସି଴.ସ଺଼ଷி
൫ହ.଻ସଵହି଴.଼ଵ଼ଽி ) ൯
௣௘௥௧௜௕௜௔ largest compressive z-axis force, in kN, measured in the lower tibia, filtered at CFC600 lower tibia
௘௥௧௜௕௜௔ Proximal Tibia
largest compressive z-axis force, in kN, measured in the left and right lower tibia, filtered at CFC600 ‫(݌‬AIS
𝑚𝑚‫(݌‬AIS 𝐹𝐹2+)
𝑧𝑧 2+) = Mass൫ହ.଻ସଵହି଴.଼ଵ଼ଽி
between 1 upper tibia
ankle joint load in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered
and) lower tibia load cell [0.72kg] at CFC600
Mres largestlargestresultant moment, inforce, Nm, in calculated from the x-axis leftand ‫(݌‬AIS tibia ൯tibiajoint 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
9 y-axis moments tibia,measured filtered atinCFC600 the left ݁+ ൬݁೗೙ಾ Mass 1between ankle and lower tibia load cell [0.72kg]
2+) 𝑚𝑚 ೝ೐ೞ షఱ.ఴళబర൰upperlower
Axial Force = 1 +1(ଷ.଻ହସସି଴.ସ଺଼ଷி (ଷ.଻ହସସି଴.ସ଺଼ଷி
compressive z-axis kN, measured in the and right lower
െ݁݁ ି௘
௪௘௥௧௜௕௜௔ బ.మవరళ
and right upper and lower tibia, filtered at CFC600 ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS
𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 2+) 2+)==11+X-axis acceleration of the)tibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
lower tibia )
௪௘௥௧௜௕௜௔Mreslargest Tibia compressive
largest resultant Distal z-axisTibia
moment, force, in Nm,in kN, measuredfrom
calculated in the theleft and
x-axis 9 and righty-axis lowermoments tibia, filtered measured at CFC600 in the left 𝐹𝐹𝑧𝑧 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 1 + ݁Z-axis X-axis
(ଷ.଻ହସସି଴.ସ଺଼ଷி ೗೙ಾ
ೝ೐ೞlower
1 ೝ೐ೞ acceleration
షఱ.ఴళబర
tibia ൰tibia of
lowerload the tibia
in 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, filtered in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
at CFC600
2
Fand (kN)
൬ షఱ.ఴళబర
Mres largest
Mres and largest
resultantInversion/
and right upper
right resultant
moment,
Axial
andmoment,
upperEversion lower
z,lower in
lower
Force
Inversion/
‫ܨ‬
Nm,
௭ in Nm,
tibia, axial
calculated
tibia,
from
filtered at CFC600
compressive
calculated
filtered at CFC600 from
the
𝑀𝑀the
Z-axis
x-axis
force
x-axis
𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
and y-axis
=time-history,
𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 y-axis
and − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷
moments -−
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎
in N, measured
moments
measured
𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷
𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷
measured
in
in the
the
in the
left
leftleft
‫(݌‬AIS
𝑀𝑀 ‫(݌‬AIS
𝑥𝑥
and ‫(݌‬AIS 2+)𝑀𝑀=𝑥𝑥 1 1
2+) =
2+) =+1ି௘ X-axis ೗೙ಾ
െ ݁ ೗೙ಾ
൬ moment
ି௘
െ ݁ ݁ (ଷ.଻ହସସି଴.ସ଺଼ଷி
൬X-axis
బ.మవరళ
ೝ೐ೞቀ moment
measured
బ.మవరళ
೗೙ೃ೅಺షబ.యయళల
൰
షఱ.ఴళబరlower tibia
൰
at 3.573 5.861
lower tibia load
ቁmeasured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
) cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 - 2
- 2 𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
Eversion 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥 − 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 𝐷𝐷 2𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 − 𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 ‫(݌‬AIS
‫(݌‬AIS 2+) 1Y-axis
െ force
1ି௘െY-axis
=݁Y-axis ݁ ି௘ೝ೐ೞ measured
బ.మవరళ బ.యమభయ at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁
M‫ܨ‬res and right
௭ (‫)ݐ‬largest ‫ܯ‬௥௘௦ upper
resultant
(‫)ݐ‬Moment Dorsiflexion
and
moment, lower tibia,
in right
‫ܨ‬Nm,
upperatand
filtered
calculated
axial CFC600
compressive
lowerthe
from tibia,
x-axis
Z-axis
filtered at CFC600
andtime-history,
force y-axis moments in N, 𝑥𝑥 2
measured
measured ininthe the leftleft and 𝑀𝑀2+)𝑌𝑌 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦
= ൬
೗೙ಾ moment force
షఱ.ఴళబర
൰ measured
೗೙ೃ೅಺షబ.యయళల at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁
=ቤ ቤ and Moment Moment
‫ܨܯ‬௥௘௦ ௭
axial
resultantcompressivemoment Z-axis 𝑀𝑀𝑦𝑦 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
force
time-history, in=Nm,
time-history, 𝑀𝑀𝑌𝑌calculated
− in 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥N, 𝐷𝐷 measured
− from theinx-axis the left andand y- ‫(݌‬AIS𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹2+) = 1Distance
െ ݁ ି௘
బ.మవరళ
between
ቀ
ି௘ ankle
೗೙ೃ೅಺షబ.యయళల బ.యమభయ ቁ
ቁ joint and lower tibia load cell [0.0907m]
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
‫ܯ‬௥௘௦ (‫ )ݐ‬Mres ‫ܨ‬௭ (Nm) 178 240 - 2 [0.0907m] -2
and + right upper lower ௭ tibia, filtered at CFC600 filtered at CFC600 2 ‫(݌‬AIS
𝑥𝑥 𝐷𝐷2+) = 1X-axis
െቀ ݁ ೗೙ೃ೅಺షబ.యయళల
݁ force measured at lower tibia
and load cell in load
𝑁𝑁 cell
right upper and lower tibia, 2+) = 1ି௘
12,000 ‫ܨ‬௭ (‫ )ݐ‬240 rightaxial
axis compressive
upper
moments andmeasured
lower Z-axistibia, force
in the time-history,
filtered leftat and CFC600right in upperN, measured and lowerintibia, the left and ‫(݌‬AIS െ Distance between
బ.యమభయ
ankle joint lower tibia
ܴܶ‫=ܨ ܫ‬௭ (‫)ݐ‬ ቤ ‫ܯ‬௥௘௦ + (‫ )ݐ‬௠௔௫ቤ ‫ܯ‬ resultant moment time-history, in Nm, calculated from the x-axis and y- 𝑚𝑚 ‫(݌‬AIS 𝐷𝐷 𝑚𝑚 2+) Mass 1between
=Distance െ
ቀ
݁ ି௘ between ankle
between
బ.యమభయjoint ቁ
ankle and jointlower andtibia lower load tibiacellload [0.72kg]
cell [0.72kg]
[0.0907m]
= ቤ ‫ܨ‬௭12,000 (‫)ݐ‬+ ‫ܯ‬௥௘௦ (‫)ݐ‬ ቤ ‫ܯ‬௥௘௦‫ܨ‬௭ ௥௘௦ right compressive
resultant
filtered
axial upper
moment
at and lower
CFC600 time-history,
Z-axis tibia,
force filtered
in Nm,atcalculated
time-history, CFC600 in N,from measured the x-axis in the and lefty-and Mass ೗೙ೃ೅಺షబ.యయళల ankle joint and lower tibia load cell
ቤ
=12,000 1 + as 240proposed
240
ቤ ௠௔௫
‫ܯ‬௥௘௦ in axis NHTSA's axis
resultant
rightmoments
upper
moments
momentRequest
measured
and
measured
lower in for
time-history,
tibia,
in
thefilteredComments
left
theinand left
Nm,atright
andcalculated
CFC600 upperpublished
right upperfromlower
and
and
tibia,in
lower
the x-axis andJanuary
tibia, y- 𝑎𝑎2017
𝑦𝑦 ‫(݌‬AIS𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑦 2+) Y-axis
=Mass1െ acceleration
ି௘
݁between
Y-axis
ቀ బ.యమభయ
ankle
acceleration
ቁ
of thejoint tibiaand in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠
of the tibia lower
2
intibia
𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠load 2 cell [0.72kg]
Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol 9.2.1
௠௔௫
‫ܨ‬௭ (‫)ݐ‬
12,000 ‫ܯ‬240௥௘௦ (‫)ݐ‬ filtered at CFC600
=ቤ
12,000 2 + Euro 240 NCAP
ቤ௠௔௫ ‫ܯ‬ uses ௥௘௦ filtered themoments
axis
resultant
filtered
lower
at CFC600
moment
at CFC600
legtime-history,
measured of the in the Hybrid left
in Nm, and calculated
right III upper dummy fromand the lower x-axis tibia,and y- 𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥 X-axis acceleration of the tibia in 𝑚𝑚/𝑠𝑠 2
௠௔௫ axis moments measured in the left and right upper𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎 and𝐷𝐷lower tibia,
3 Source: Inversion/ Craig et al.: filtered Injury
at CFC600 Criteria 𝑀𝑀 for the
= 𝑀𝑀 THOR − 𝐹𝐹 𝐷𝐷 50th
−
𝑦𝑦 Male ATD., NHTSA,𝑀𝑀 September
𝑥𝑥 X-axis 2020 moment measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑝𝑝(𝐴𝐴
Eversion 𝑥𝑥 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦
2 Y-axis force measured at lower tibia load cell in 𝑁𝑁
126 Moment
𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦
𝐷𝐷 Distance between ankle joint and lower tibia load cell [0.0907m]
 Latest info about Dummy | Crash Test
Seminar
this course NEW

High Speed Cameras Workshop

Course Description Who should attend?

High-speed cameras are an essential analysis and mea- The seminar is aimed at specialists from crash-related devel-
surement tool in a wide variety of tests in passive safety. opment, engineers and technicians from test and simulation
The video recording or image sequences not only pro- departments, as well as project engineers and managers.
vide spectacular images for all involved. They are also Course Contents
becoming increasingly important for downstream 2D and „ Structure of the sensor of a high-speed camera
3D image analysis. In addition to the direct determina- „ Special features and parameterization of a high-speed
tion of parameters such as velocities or target accuracy, camera
the data is also frequently compared with a simulation. „ Requirements of the image measurement technology
Due to the manifold use of video data today, the demands „ Optimization potential via optics, LED illumination and
on the operation of the cameras are also increasing. This synchronization
is accompanied by an increasing complexity of the over- „ Optimization potential of image post-processing in
all system of camera, optics and lighting. Only by taking software
a holistic view of all components optimal results can be „ Operation of different cameras in a network
achieved for the various departments and customers.
The seminar focuses on high-speed cameras and first
provides a detailed introduction to the technology
used. The special features of a high-speed sensor are
explained via the structure of a pixel cell. Building on
this, the essential basics, special features and optimi-
zation parameters of a high-speed camera are taught.
With the well-founded basics, the essential quality
criteria for the different tasks can now be explained
and demonstrated. For further optimization, the
possibilities of optics and illumination are then dis-
cussed in detail. It is essential to focus on the specific
tasks in the automotive industry and image analysis
in 2D and 3D.
Course Objectives
After attending the course, participants will have gained
in-depth knowledge of the functionality and operation of a
high-speed camera. They will have knowledge about the opti-
mization of video sequences both in the area of parameter-
ization of the cameras themselves, the tuning of the overall
system with optics and light as well as the post-processing of
video data.

Dr.-Ing. Thomas Weber (High Speed Vision GmbH) has been working in the field of high-speed
Instructor

cameras for over 20 years. After studying computer science, he started at the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft in
1987, where he earned his doctorate in the area of process chain optimization and logistics. He then managed
various optimization and logistics projects in full vehicle development. Via a group-wide optimization project
in the area of vehicle safety, he found his home in the field of high-speed cameras more than 20 years ago.
He was responsible for projects concerning the development of high-speed cameras, their accessories and
control software. He designs and leads national and international projects in vehicle development with high
speed cameras. A characteristic of his work is the optimization of the overall process for smooth and efficient
operation of the entire system. Thus, he successfully implements projects in the safety centers of well-known
suppliers and automotive manufacturers.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

07.03.2023 200/4165 Alzenau 1 Tag 790,- EUR bis 07.02.2023, danach 980,- EUR

19.10.2023 200/4166 Alzenau 1 Tag 790,- EUR bis 21.09.2023, danach 980,- EUR
128
 Dummy | Crash Test
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Dummies: Weights, Dimensions and Calibration

Adult Dummies for Frontal / Rear Impact
Weight Seating Height
Instruction for Calibration
(kg) (cm)
THOR 50th Percentile Male (THOR-
THOR 50 % Male 76.7 91.1 50M) Qualification Procedures Manu-
al, September 2018 (NHTSA)
THOR 5 % Female 47.3 81.2
Hybrid II 50 % Male 74.4 90.7 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart B
SAE J2862, J2878
Hybrid III 5 % Female 49.1 78.7
CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart O
SAE J2779, J2876
Hybrid III 50 % Male 77.7 88.4 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart E
1999/98/EC
Hybrid III 95 % Male 101.3 91.9 SAE J2860
BioRID II 77.7 88.4 User Manual

Adult Dummies for Side Impact

Weight Seating Height
Instruction for Calibration
(kg) (cm)
Eurosid 1 Certification Procedure
EuroSID-1 72.0 90.4
1996/27/EC, UN R95
ES-2 72.0 90.9 FTSS - User Manual / UN R95
ES-2 re 72.4 90.9 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart U
US-SID 76.7 89.9 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart F
US-SID/SID-H3 77.2 89.9 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart M
SID IIs 44.12 78.0 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart V
WorldSID 5 % Female 48.27 User Manual
WorldSID 50 % Male 73.91 86.9 User Manual

Child Dummies
Weight Seating Height
Instruction for Calibration
(kg) (cm)
P0. P¾. P6. P10 3.4 - 32.0 34.5 - 72.5 User Manual
P3 15.0 56.0 User Manual
P1½ 11.0 49.5 P1½ User Manual
Q1 9.6 47.9 Q1 User Manual
Q1½ 11.1 49.9 Q1.5 User Manual
Q3 14.5 54.4 Q3 User Manual
Q3s 14.5 56.6 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart W
Q6 23.0 63.6 Q6 User Manual
Q10 35.5 73.4 Q10 User Manual (Rev. A Draft)
CRABI 12 m 10.0 46.4 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart R
Hybrid II - 3 y/o 15.1 57.2 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart C
Hybrid II - 6 y/o 21.5 64.5 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart I
Hybrid III - 3 y/o 16.19 54.6 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart P
Hybrid III - 6 y/o 23.4 63.5 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart N
Hybrid III - 6 y/o - Weighted 27.92 64.06 - 66.6 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart S
Hybrid III - 10 y/o 35.2 71.6 CFR 49 Part 572, Subpart T
in Cooperation with BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH 129
 Latest info about Dummy | Crash Test
Seminar
this course

Dummy-Trainings Seminars by our Partner

BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH

Course Description DUMMY Hybrid III 5 %, 50 %, 95 %

The seminars give you the opportunity to gain efficiency and security in the use and DATE 06.-07.03.2023 16.-17.10.2023
handling of dummies.
ID 707/4171 707/4172
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 1.850,- EUR
DUMMY THOR

Course Contents DATE 08.-10.05.2023 20.-22.11.2023

„ Introduction of the respective dummy-type ID 721/4183 721/4184
History, development, assemblies, standard instruments, optional measuring PRICE 2.940,- EUR
points, recent modifications, regulations for application/test, calibration DUMMY BioRID II
„ Complete disassembly of the dummies in work groups
DATE 14.-15.03.2023 24.-25.10.2023
Explanation of the functions of the assemblies and the individual parts, special
features, deviations from other dummy-types, practical hints for the handling of ID 708/4175 708/4176
individual assemblies, sensors and cabling, special tools, other devices, cleaning PRICE 1.850,- EUR
„ Complete assembly of the dummies in work groups DUMMY WorldSID 50 %
Work steps, possible assembly errors, mounting of the sensors, cabling, DATE 02.-03.03.2023 13.-14.11.2023
adjustments of joints, storing / transport
ID 718/4181 718/4182
„ Dummy calibration
PRICE 1.960,- EUR
Demonstration and explanation of the calibration tests
DUMMY ES-2 / ES-2re

Course Objectives DATE 21.-22.03.2023 30.-31.10.2023

„ Efficiency and security in use and handling of dummies ID 709/4177 709/4178

„ Exact knowledge about assembly, mechanics and sensor positions PRICE 1.850,- EUR
„ Understanding of the measuring possibilities and limits DUMMY SID IIs
DATE 18.-19.04.2023 07.-08.11.2023
Who should attend? ID 710/4179 710/4180
„ Project and test engineers, technicians, mechanics
PRICE 1.850,- EUR
DUMMY Q1.5 / Q3 / Q6
DATE 15.05.2023 28.11.2023
More Specific Needs?
ID 767/4185 767/4186
If you need specifc knowledge regarding dummies or pedestrian protection testing,
PRICE 1.150,- EUR
the experts from BGS Böhme & Gehring can offer an indvidual coaching tailored to
your needs. Interested? Get in touch with ralf.reuter@carhs.de DUMMY Q10
DATE 16.05.2023 29.11.2023
ID 720/4187 720/4188
PRICE 1.150,- EUR
DUMMY Hybrid III 3 and 6 y/o
DATE 09.03.2023 19.10.2023
ID 712/4173 712/4174
PRICE 1.150,- EUR
VENUE Bergisch Gladbach
LANGUAGE

BGS
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 by experienced engi-
neers from BGS‘ team.

130
 Dummy | Crash Test Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Pedestrian Protection - Test Procedures Seminars by our Partner

Course Description
A basic prerequisite for successful implementation of pedes-
trian protection is a detailed knowledge of test requirements.
This seminar provides the complete knowledge regarding the
test methods as defined by the EU regulation on pedestrian
protection and Euro NCAP’s pedestrian protection assess-
ment in theory and praxis.
Compact presentations explain the basics and technical details
of the regulation and the test protocols. Practical exercises in
the BASt’s test laboratory include test preparation, vehicle
marking, selection of test points, handling of the impactors
and the actual testing with head and legform impactors.
Course Contents BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH
„ Basics and current status of the regulations
(presentations)
„ Euro NCAP - Rating (presentation)
„ Test preparation according to Euro NCAP testing protocol
and EU regulation (practical exercises)
„ Test demonstrations: Head, Upper Legform and Legform
impact (demonstrations and practical exercises)
„ Discussion
Who should attend?
„ Project, test and simulation engineers
„ Technicians, mechanics

DATE 25.-27.04.2023 19.-21.09.2023

Dates
COURSE ID 713/4205 713/4206

VENUE Bergisch Gladbach

PRICE 2.520,- EUR

LANGUAGE

Pedestrian Protection Workshop: aPLI

Course Objectives „ Adjustments of the compound springs, clamping bolts,
„ Detailed knowledge of the new impactor stopper cables, etc.
„ Experience with handling and usage of the impactor „ Demonstration of both certification procedures
„ Understanding of the impactor’s functionality „ Data analysis and interpretation of test results
Course Contents Who should attend?
„ History, biomechanics, evaluation, legislation „ Project, test and simulation engineers
„ Assembly, transducers, onboard data acquisition, „ Technicians, mechanics
technical details DATE 30.-31.03.2023 07.-08.09.2023
Dates

„ Disassembly along with comments on function of

components COURSE ID 765/4209 765/4210
„ Assembly along with practical tips and pointers to
VENUE Bergisch Gladbach
specialities and possible mistakes
PRICE 1.960,- EUR

LANGUAGE

Pedestrian Protection Workshop: Vehicle Mark-Up

Course Objectives „ Default green / default red definitions
„ Experience with the new vehicle markup „ Result analysis, point assessment
„ Certainty in its application „ Adaption of the principle to upper- and lowerleg areas
„ Deep understanding of the procedure Who should attend?
Course Contents „ Project, test and simulation engineers
„ Basics, background and development of the procedure „ Technicians, mechanics
„ Test area determination, borders, exemption zones,
DATE 27.03.2023 04.09.2023
Dates

special cases
„ Necessary laboratory equipment, helpful tools COURSE ID 716/4203 716/4204
„ Exemplification by a complete mark-up of a vehicle
VENUE Bergisch Gladbach
„ Color scheme, manufacturers predictions, allowed
tolerances PRICE 1.150,- EUR

LANGUAGE

131
 Dummy | Crash Test
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Impactors for Pedestrian Protection

advanced Pedestrian Legform Flexible Pedestrian Legform

Impactor: aPLI Impactor: Flex PLI
Instrumentation:
Upper body mass: Instrumentation:
1 accelerometer 3-axial1
1 angular rate sensor 3-axial1 Femur:
3 strain gauges1
Femur:
3 strain gauges Knee:
3 potentiometers
Knee: 1 accelerometer 1-axial (Y)1
3 potentiometers
1 angular rate sensor 1-axial (X)1
1 accelerometer 1-axial (Y)1 Tibia:
4 strain gauges
Tibia:
4 strain gauges
Injury Criteria
Length Total Mass Upper Body Mass Criterion
1096 mm 24.7 kg 11.3 kg Tibia Bending Moment
MCL Elongation
ACL / PCL Elongation

1 not assessed
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

Length Width Mass Diameter Mass Diameter Mass

350 mm ~ 155 mm 11 - 18 kg Adult Headform 165 mm 4.5 kg Child Headform 165 mm 3.5 kg

more on pedestrian protection  page 100

132 in Cooperation with BGS Böhme & Gehring GmbH
 Active Safety | Automated Driving Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Introduction to Active Safety of Vehicles

Course Description Who should attend?

Increasing demands on the protection of vehicle occupants The seminar is aimed at new and experienced engineers work-
have led to a continuous reduction in the number of injured ing in the field of active vehicle safety in research and develop-
and killed persons. While more than 20,000 persons have ment departments of automotive OEMs or suppliers, as well
been killed on German roads in the early 1970s, this number as for all other interested parties, which want to receive an
is now about 2,800. Passive safety, i.e. measures which are overview of current and future developments in the areas of
designed to minimize the consequences of an accident, has active vehicle safety, driver assistance and automated driving.
made a significant contribution to this achievement.While Course Contents
the potential of passive safety is considered to be largely „ Fundamentals of active safety
exhausted and huge efforts are required to achieve further „ Basic principles of action
progress in occupant protection, active safety has become „ Legal requirements
increasingly important in recent years. Active Safety means „ Euro NCAP requirements
measures which prevent an accident or at least reduce the „ Current active safety systems
collision speed and thus the energy input.While technologies „ ABS, ESC, Evasive Steering Support, AEBS
such as ABS or ESC have been established years ago and have „ Pre-crash systems
„ Sensor technologies
proven their effectiveness, new techniques such as the emer-
„ Driver assistance systems
gency brake, the lane keeping assist, evasive steering support „ Basic requirements and design strategies
and numerous other driver assistance systems are just enter- „ Current and future driver assistance systems
ing the market. It can be assumed that these systems will be „ General Safety Regulation
widely used in the next few years and will lead to a further „ Automated driving
decrease in the number of traffic victims.Automated driving „ State of the art
can be seen as the next step of active safety. Although there „ Opportunities and risks
is still a lot of development needed in this area, vehicles which „ Human machine interface
can drive automated in certain traffic scenarios, are already „ Legal framework
available.
In the seminar first a brief introduction to active safety, in
contrast to passive safety is given. This is followed by a presen-
tation of current active safety systems and an overview of the
requirements of legislation and consumer protection organi-
zations. In addition, current and upcoming developments in
the area of driver assistance systems and automated driving
are presented.

Dr.-Ing. Gerd Müller (Technical University Berlin) has been working at the department automo-
Instructor

tive technology of the Technical University of Berlin since 2007. From 2007 to 2015 he was a research assis-
tant. Since 2015 he has been a senior engineer of the same department. His research focuses on vehicle safety
and friction coefficient estimation. Dr. Müller gives the lecture "Fundamentals of Automotive Engineering"
and conducts parts of the integrated course "Driver Assistance Systems and Active Safety".

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

19.-20.04.2023 51/4094 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 22.03.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

14.11.2023 51/4125 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 17.10.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
133
Active Safety | Automated Driving
Event
NEW

The requirements by New Car Assessment Programs regarding

safety-supporting driver assistance systems for passenger cars
are constantly increasing: Oncoming traffic scenarios, tests in
darkness and higher expected speed reductions are some of the
prerequisites for a 5-star rating in the Euro NCAP or an IIHS Top
Safety Pick.

The introduction of emergency brake assistants for passenger cars is being

driven forward by legislation: Since 2022 UN Regulation 152 has been applicable
for passenger cars in the EU. The lane departure warning functions have also been
incorporated into UN R 79.03.

At The ADAS Experience, the framework relevant for the development will be
presented: Requirements, technical principles, development and release meth-
ods on the Theory Day in the conference hotel, followed by hands-on experience
on the test track on the Demo Day. Various test scenarios will be performed and
examples of how the test technology is best used, will be shown live in the differ-
ent test setups.

This is what awaits you:

„ The presentation of current and future requirements on emergency braking,
evasion and highly automated driving functions, as well as development
strategies that lead to a robust system.
Who should attend?
„ Face to face talk with the people who set the framework for the
The ADAS Experience addresses
development of safety assist functions: Legislative representatives, consumer
everyone, who works in the field
protection organizations, OEM representatives and suppliers of simulation
of safety-related driver assistance
and testing technologies.
systems. The Conference is the right
„ Practical experience with various test setups, targets, driving robots and
place to broaden and deepen your
control software on the Demo Day.
network: You will meet key players
in development, system integration,
regulation and verification of Safety
Assist Systems.

DATE 07. - 08. June 2023 26. - 27. September 2023

Facts

VENUE Digauto PG, Wuzhen, China Dekra Technology Center Klettwitz

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/adas www.carhs.de/adas

LANGUAGE
134
DEKRA Technology Center
Areas of responsibility: DEKRA Technology Center
Senftenberger Straße 30
 Accreditation as a Testing Laboratory according to ISO 17025 (DAkkS)
01998 Klettwitz
 540 ha proving ground for automated and connected mobility
datc@dekra.com
 FIA Test Laboratory for motorsport safety
 Designation as a Technical Service for type approval in: Germany,
Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Luxembourg
 Recognition as Testing Lab in Japan, Taiwan, Australia and Brazil
 Information management system according to TISAX
 NEW from 2023 Mechanical Shock Testing for high voltage batteries
according to ECE-R 100
dekra-virtual.com/automotive-testing
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

Consumer Testing (NCAP) Assistance System Rating Matrix

Euro NCAP
U.S. NCAP IIHS Latin NCAP
ANCAP
SBR Seat Belt rear seats w/ occupant front seats front seats
Reminder detection rear seats rear seats
OSM / DSM Occu- distraction
pant/Driver Status fatique
Monitoring unresponsivenes
ABS Anti-Lock Braking
System
ESC Electronic Stability
Moose test
Control
MCB Multi Collision
part of the AOP rating
Brake
SAS Speed Assistance Speed Limit Inform. Manual Speed Ass.
Systems Speed Control Speed Control
LSS Lane Support LDW LDW
Systems LKA LDW
LKA
ELK LKS
ELK PTW RED

BSM Blind Spot Car BSW

Motorcycle
Monitoring Motorcycle BSI
AEB Car to Car rear (stat./mov./brake.) rear (stat./mov./brake.)
turn across path
intersection rear (stationary) rear (stat./mov./brake.)
crossing
head on head on
AEB Car to Truck
AEB PSS scenarios tbd
AEB Pedestrian crossing
crossing crossing
longitudinal crossing
longitudinal longitudinal
turn across path
AEB Cyclist crossing
longitudinal tba
turn across path
AEB PTW
rear
tba
turn across path

AEB Reverse Pedestrian (stat./mov.) child (stationary)

Emergency Call part of the AOP rating e-Call
Rear View Monitor
Rear Cross Traffic Alert

Headlights adaptive driving

visibilty
beam lower beam
glare
semiautomatic
Pedal Misapplication based on JNCAP
L2/L3 Assisted Driving rewards/penalty
Other
● 2023 ● 2024 ● 2025 ● 2026 ● 2027 ● introduction to be announced
136
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
NEW

ASEAN NCAP C-NCAP C-IASI JNCAP KNCAP

front seats passenger w/ detection front passenger seat front seats

rear seats rear seats rear seats rear seats

on 2025 Roadmap

UN R13h

UN R13h / UN R140 ESC

ASLD
Optional systems
ISA
LKA
LKA
LDW (optional LDW LKA
LDW
systems) ELK ELK LDW
ESF
LDW curve

Motorcycle Optional systems Car

rear (stat./mov.)
rear (stat./mov./brake.) rear (stat./mov.)
rear (stat./mov.) turn across path rear (stat./mov./brake.)
turn across path junction
crossing
rear (stat.)

crossing
crossing
longitudinal crossing crossing
longitudinal
turn across path

crossing crossing crossing crossing

longitudinal longitudinal longitudinal longitudinal

crossing
crossing
longitudinal
turn across path
turn across path
Pedestrian, PTW, Cyclist
part of the OP rating e-Call e-Call1
Rear View Monitor
perpendicular
on 2025 Roadmap
oblique
Low beam
Low beam Automatic antiglare
Auto High Beam High beam
High beam Automatic switching
Bonus
Pedal Misapplication

BMS
1 part of the Crash Safety Category  page 70
137
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Safe Driving Assessment Assessment Protocol 10.1.1

TB 036 1.0

TB 039 1.0
Seat Belt Reminder
Requirement Total Points
SBR on rear seats with occupant detection (n = number of rear seating positions) 1.0/n per seat

Driver State Monitoring

Distraction Movement
Inattention Type Warning Intervention Sub Total Total Points
Scenario Type
Owl 0.03 0.03 0.06
Away from road /
Lizard 0.03 0.03 0.06
Long non driving task
Body Lean 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.30
Distraction
Owl 0.03 0.03 0.06
Driving task
Lizard 0.03 0.03 0.06
Away from road / Owl 0.03 0.03 0.06
non driving task Lizard 0.03 0.03 0.06
Short
Distraction Owl 0.03 0.03 0.06
Distraction Driving task 0.30
(VATS) Lizard 0.03 0.03 0.06
Away from road
Lizard 0.03 0.03 0.06
(multi-location)
Phone Use Owl +
0.05 0.10 0.15
Detection - Basic Lizard
Phone Use Phone Use 0.30
Detection - Lizard 0.05 0.10 0.15
Advanced
Drowsy 0.25 0.10 0.35 0.35
Fatigue Microsleep 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.30
Sleep 0.05 0.20 0.25 0.25
Unresponsive Driver 0.20 0.20 0.20
Driver State Monitoring Total 2.00

Speed Assist Systems

SPEED LIMIT INFORMATION FUNCTION Points
Basic SLIF (GSR compliant) 0.50
Conditional Speed Limits 0.25
Road Features 0.25
Local Hazards 0.25
System Updates 0.25
SLIF TOTAL 1.50
SPEED CONTROL FUNCTION Points
Speed Limitation Function 0.50
Intelligent Speed Limiter 1.00
Intelligent ACC 1.50
SPEED CONTROL FUNCTION TOTAL 1.50
Speed Assist System Total 3.00

138
 Safety
Testing
Services
& More...
www.digauto.biz
Check our website for
cutomized ICV testing
equipment & solutions

We Support Intelligent Vehicle Safety With

Professional Testing Solutions & Services
Shanghai Digauto Automobile Technology Co., LTD., is a leading intelligent vehicle testing
solution provider located in Shanghai, China, devoted in support ADAS, ADS and ICV
safety with innovative, professional and comprehensive testing and verification.

Innovative ADAS & ADS

Laboratory Solution For
Efficient & Controllable
Scenario Based Tests

Vehicle, Environment, Traffic, Hardware-in-the-loop

solution for realistic validation

Brand New Proving

Ground & Experienced
ADAS & ADS Field Test
Service Provider

Comprehensive engineering services in NCAP, customized ADAS and ICV function testings

Authorized Dealer
& ADAS Service
Center China
 Latest info about Active Safety | Automated Driving
Seminar
this course

Automated Driving - Safeguarding and Market Introduction

Course Description Course Contents

The seminar presents the necessary and sufficient conditions „ National and international laws and regulations
for bringing automated vehicles onto the market. In addition, „ Safety standards (functional safety, safety of the intended
requirements for product monitoring and market surveillance function, cyber security)
will be derived, which can be used to ensure that the technol- „ Positive risk balance
ogy proves itself throughout the entire product life cycle. The „ Technically unavoidable residual risks
question is addressed as to what forms automated driving can „ Proof of operational reliability
be expected to take in private transport, local passenger and „ Epidemiological and systemic approaches in safety and
freight transport, long-distance transport and in very special risk analyses
areas of application, and what opportunities connectivity and „ Development of automation in
digitization of the technology open up. „ Customer vehicles
„ People & goods movers
Course Objectives „ Heavy commercial vehicles
The course teaches the steps necessary to bring an automated „ Special applications
vehicle to the market. In particular, it deals with how the safety „ Connectivity and digital mobility ecosystems
of such vehicles can be proven and documented.
Who should attend?
The seminar is aimed at engineers who are faced with the task
of making automated vehicles ready for the market and pro-
viding legally compliant proof of the safety of these vehicles.

Udo Steininger (TÜV SÜD Rail GmbH) is Chief Expert Automotive Safety at TÜV SÜD Rail GmbH. He
Instructor

has been involved in the safety of complex human-machine systems for over 35 years. After studying physics
at the Technical University of Dresden, he worked for 5 years in reactor safety research. Since 1991, he has
been working at TÜV SÜD on the topics of risk, reliability and safety in various fields of application - first in
industry, then in railroads and, for the last 20 years, in the field of motor vehicles. For the past 15 years, he
has specialized in assisted and automated driving. Initially, the focus of his work was on safety assessment
during development, testing of vehicles and vehicle systems, and safety driver training. He currently supports
manufacturers, suppliers and mobility service providers in the market introduction of systems for automated
driving and related services. He is active in the DIN Automotive Standards Committee (ISO 26262 and ISO
21448) and is a member of the Safety - Methods and Processes - Advisory Board of the VDI Society for Vehicle
and Transport Technology (FVT). Udo Steininger was a lecturer at the Munich University of Applied Sciences
for many years and is a guest lecturer at the Chair of Automotive Engineering at the Technical University of
Munich. His column on the current status and development of automated driving appears regularly in carhs'
SafetyNews.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

23.-24.02.2023 198/4091 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 26.01.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

14.06.2023 198/4085 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 17.05.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
140
 Active Safety | Automated Driving Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Briefing on the Worldwide Status of Automated Vehicle Policies

Course Description Who should attend?

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

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

Instructor

Potomac Alliance, a Washington-based international regulatory affairs consultancy. In his client advisory role,
Mr. Creamer is regularly involved with meetings of the UN World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations (WP.29). Previously, he has held positions with the US International Trade Commission and the
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (representing the US automotive supplier industry), as the
representative of the US auto parts industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc. (a leading global automotive safety
systems supplier).

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

06.-07.06.2023 184/4081 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 09.05.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

30.11.2023 184/4156 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 02.11.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
141
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Levels of Driving Automation

according to BASt, SAE and NHTSA Definitions

Execution of Monitoring of Fallback System BASt / SAE Level NHTSA Level

Steering and Driving Performance Capability Euro NCAP acc. to SAE
Acceleration/ Environment of User J3016
Deceleration Dynamic Communica-
Driving Task tion

0 0
- - No automa- No automa-
tion tion

1
1
Some Functionspe-
Driver
driving modes cific automa-
assistance
tion

Assisted

2
2
Some Combined
Partial
driving modes function
automation
automation

3
3
Some Limited self
Conditional
driving modes Automated driving auto-
automation
mation

4
Some
High
driving modes 3/4
automation
Limited self
driving auto-
Autonomous mation /
Full self
driving auto-
5
All mation
Full
driving modes
automation

142
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Event
NEW

The Experts' Dialogue

Automated Driving and Safety
The hype about what is often called autonomous driving is increasingly giving way to real-
ity. In recent years, even the greatest visionaries have realized that many questions still
have to be answered, many barriers overcome and many challenges mastered in order to
implement vehicle automation.

However, especially in times of the current crisis, it has become all the more clear that
mobility must be regarded as one of the most fundamental basic needs, and mobility for
all means that we must work on vehicle automation with full commitment.

In the Auto[nom]Mobil session of the carhs.training SafetyWeek, fundamental and cross-

competitive necessities for achieving goals will be addressed and possible solutions will
be presented. This expert dialogue provides the platform for an intensive exchange and is
intended to accelerate the essential stronger networking of the participants.

DATE 24.- 25.05.2023

Facts

VENUE Würzburg, GERMANY & ONLINE

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/safetyweek

LANGUAGE
143
 Latest info about Active Safety | Automated Driving
Seminar
this course

Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and Automated Driving Functions
Course Description Course Contents
The functions of automated driving - no matter what degree „ Introduction of data-based development versus analytical
of automation - usually require the application of modern and rule-based approaches
artificial intelligence techniques in order to be able to real- „ Overview of the different procedures and areas of
ize the desired functionalities at all. The aim of this seminar application
is to present the basic methods of Artificial Intelligence and „ Artificial Neural Networks, Deep Learning, various variants
Machine Learning. The methods should be demonstrated and architectures
with concrete examples from the fields of assisted and auto- „ Decision and regression trees
mated driving. Care is also taken about validation, verification „ Support Vector Machines
and safeguarding of the related models and AI-based software „ Validation and safeguarding of models, sampling
components. procedures, robustness assessment
Course Objectives „ Data preparation and problem parameterization

This seminar provides an overview and a brief introduction „ Meta modeling and model committees

to the relevant methods of Artificial Intelligence and Machine

Learning, so that both developers and managers can clearly
decide which methods and procedures are relevant for their
applications and which possible pitfalls they should consider
in the application.
Who should attend?
Developers and (project) managers who have not yet had
deep experience with the methodology and want to get a
quick overview and introduction to the use of artificial intel-
ligence.

Dr. Andreas Kuhn (Andata Entwicklungstechnologie GmbH) studied Technical Mathematics

Instructor

and Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University of Vienna. After his dissertation on the simulation of
special satellite formations for the European Space Agency, he began his professional career in crash simula-
tion at BMW. After further years as a consultant for stochastic simulation at EASI Engineering GmbH (today
carhs), he founded ANDATA in 2004, where he is responsible for development and research as managing
partner. Since 2009 he has also been co-owner of Automotive Safety Technologies GmbH in Gaimersheim. His
professional interests are founded in effective and efficient development, validation and assessment meth-
ods for complex, safety-critical systems. In particular, he has been working for more than 20 years on the
development and combined application of methods from the fields of artificial intelligence, machine learning,
advanced simulation methods, scenario-based approaches and according process models in the virtual devel-
opment of vehicles and autonomous robots. His current activities are the development and implementation
of cooperative, networked, automated driving strategies for effective traffic automation.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

13.-16.03.2023 186/4082 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 13.02.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

05.-06.10.2023 186/4130 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 07.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
144
 Active Safety | Automated Driving Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Scenario-, Simulation- and Data-based Development, Validation

and Safeguarding of Automated Driving Functions
Course Description
The complexity of modern driver assistance systems and auto-
mated driving functions sometimes requires completely new
methods and approaches for their development, validation
and testing. In particular, the wide coverage and analysis of
functions with numerical simulation over the entire operating
range (the so-called Operational Design Domain) is an indis-
pensable tool for the effective and efficient development of
appropriate vehicle functions. The course is about presenting
the basics of scenario-based and data-based development
and putting them in a holistic context.
Course Contents
„ Overview of the basic functions of automated driving
„ Basics of Scenario and Data-based development
„ Basics in Machine Learning, Data Mining and Artificial
Intelligence
„ Stochastic Simulation, Monte-Carlo-Simulation, Design-
of-Experiments
„ Optimization and automated calibration
„ Robustness and complexity management
„ Anomaly and fault detection
„ Development processes for complex systems and

Course Objectives software, top-down versus bottom-up

The course provides an overview and a brief introduction to „ Functional requirements management

the relevant scenario management methods for simulation „ Validation and verification

and data-centric development and validation of automated „ Definitions Operational Design Domain

driving functions. Some key basic principles in the develop- „ Effectiveness assessment of system functions and

ment of complex systems are to be taught. components

„ Quality management for simulation data
Who should attend?
The seminar addresses employees of automotive manufac-
turers, suppliers, engineering service providers, government
agencies and research institutions, who are engaged in the
development and validation of automated driving functions.
In particular, method and process developers, simulation
and test engineers are also addressed, who are responsible
to implement corresponding processes and methods in their
companies to ensure safe development and assessment of
automated driving functions.

Dr. Andreas Kuhn (Andata Entwicklungstechnologie GmbH) studied Technical Mathematics

Instructor

and Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University of Vienna. After his dissertation on the simulation of
special satellite formations for the European Space Agency, he began his professional career in crash simula-
tion at BMW. After further years as a consultant for stochastic simulation at EASI Engineering GmbH (today
carhs), he founded ANDATA in 2004, where he is responsible for development and research as managing
partner. Since 2009 he has also been co-owner of Automotive Safety Technologies GmbH in Gaimersheim. His
professional interests are founded in effective and efficient development, validation and assessment meth-
ods for complex, safety-critical systems. In particular, he has been working for more than 20 years on the
development and combined application of methods from the fields of artificial intelligence, machine learning,
advanced simulation methods, scenario-based approaches and according process models in the virtual devel-
opment of vehicles and autonomous robots. His current activities are the development and implementation
of cooperative, networked, automated driving strategies for effective traffic automation.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

11.-14.04.2023 187/4083 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 14.03.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

17.-18.10.2023 187/4131 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 19.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
145
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

Euro NCAP Commercial Van Rating Test & Assessment Protocol 2.1
Euro NCAP will, where possible, test the best-selling variant (powertrain, gearbox specification), equipped with all
relevant safety equipment available as standard or as an option anywhere in the Euro NCAP Area of Application.
Safety Score
Applicable Protocols Scenario Remark
Function Partial1 Total
VCRs, VCRm,
AEB C2C Test Prot. 3.0.3 17.5
AEB VCRb
30
Van-to-Car HMI 2.5
Assessmt. Prot. SA 9.1
VCFtap 10
VPFA-50 Day 0.55
VPNA-25,
Day & Night 2.77
VPNA-75
AEB VRU Test Prot. 3.0.4 VPNCO-50 Day 1.11
AEB
10
Pedestrian VPLA-25,
Assessmt. Prot. VRU 10.0.4 Day & Night 2.22
VPLA-50
VPTA-50 Day 1.11
VPRA-50, VPRA-s Day 2.22
VBNA-50 1.66
AEB VRU Test Prot. 3.0.4 VBLA-50, VBLA-
3.33
AEB Bicyclist 25 10
Assessmt. Prot. VRU 10.0.4 VBFA-50 1.66
VBNAO-50 3.33
Road Edge, Solid
LSS Test Prot. 3.0.2 ELK Line, oncoming, 15
Lane Support overtaking 20
Systems
Assessmt. Prot. SA 10.0.1 LKA 2.5
HMI LDW, BLIS 2.5
SAS Test Prot. 2.0
Speed Assist
SLIF, SCF 15 15
Systems
Assessmt. Prot. SA 10.0.1
Occupant
Status Assessmt. Prot. SA 10.0.1 SBR, DSM2 15 15
Monitoring
VCRs/m/b - Van to Car Rear stationary/moving/braking Total 100
VCFtap - Van to Car Front turn-across-path
VPFA - Van to Pedestrian Farside Adult Score
Overall Performance Categories
VPNA - Van to Pedestrian Nearside Adult required
VPNCO - Van to Pedestrian Nearside Child Obstructed
VPLA - Van to Pedestrian Longitudinal Adult
PLATINUM ≥ 80
VPTA - Van to Pedestrian Turning Adult GOLD ≥ 60
VPRA(-s) - Van to Pedestrian Reverse Adult (stationary)
VBNA - Van to Bicyclist Nearside Adult SILVER ≥ 40
VBLA - Van to Bicyclist Longitudinal Adult
VBFA - Van to Bicyclist Farside Adult
BRONZE ≥ 20
VBNAO - Van to Bicyclist Nearside Adult Obstructed NOT RECOMMENDED < 20

1 Protocol test scores for AEB Van-to-Car, AEB Pedestrian, AEB Cyclist, LSS, SAS and OSM are scaled down to the partial scores
shown in this table.
2 To be assessed by means of a dossier.
146
ADAC Mobility test center
in Penzing.
The innovation campus for intelligent mobility.

50 km west
of Munich.
» Test track for assistance systems
» 2200m straight
» Approved by Euro NCAP
» Workshops, conference rooms, events

Enhancing the safety of future mobility.

Info online

E-mail: testing@adac.de adac.de

 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB VRU-Pedestrian

Assessment Protocol 11.2.1 Test Protocol 4.3

Adult, Farside, Impact at daylight testing

50 % of the Vehicle Width 50 %
(CPFA-50) nighttime
v 0 = 10 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 8 km/h testing
Adult, Nearside, Impact at nighttime testing
25 & 75 % of the Vehicle 25 % / 75 % with streetlights
Width (CPNA-25/75) high beam
headlights
v 0 = 10 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 5 km/h
low beam
Child, Obstruction, Near- headlights
50 %
side, Impact at 50 % of the
Vehicle Width (CPNCO-50) 1m 1m 1m

v 0 = 10 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 5 km/h

Adult, Longitudinal, Impact
at 25 & 50 % of the Vehicle 25 % / 50 %
Width (CPLA-25 / 50)
CPLA-50: v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 5 km/h
CPLA-25: v 0 = 50 km/h ... 80 km/h v = 5 km/h

Reverse Adult, Nearside,

Impact at 50 % of the 50 %
Vehicle Width
(CPRA Moving)
v = 5 km/h v 0 = -4 km/h / -8 km/h

Reverse Adult, Stationary,

Impact at 25/50/75 % of 25 % / 50 % / 75 %
the Vehicle Width
(CPRA Stationary)
v = 0 km/h v 0 = -4 km/h / -8 km/h

CPTA-Farside: v = 5 km/h
v0 = 10|15|20 km/h
Adult, VUT Turning, Farside
/ Nearside, Same / Op-
posite Direction, Impact at 50 %
50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPTA-Farside / Nearside)
CPTA-Nearside: v = 5 km/h
v 0 = 10 km/h
Prerequistes for Scoring:
„ The AEB system must be default ON at the start of every journey.
„ The AEB system must operate from speeds ≥ 10 km/h in the CPNA-75 day + night, must be able to detect pedestrians
walking as slow as 3 km/h and reduce speed in the CPNA-75 scenario at 20 km/h.
„ The system may not automatically switch off at a speed < 80 km/h.
„ The score of the pedestrian impact tests (legforms & head) must be ≥ 18 points.
„ In CPRA/CPRC the system may not release the brakes after an intervention, unless the threat (EPT) has left the vehicle path
or in case of a positive action by the driver. If the VUT is fitted as standard with a rear-view camera, the brakes may be
released after 1.5 s.
148
 VEHICLE SAFETY –
SIMULATION AND TESTING
Specialists for the development of
vehicle safety – From concept to SOP
Development of active and passive vehicle safety
respecting legal, consumer rating and customer
requirements
Validation of conventional and alternative
powertrain variants (HV, H2)
Functional development and management of
safety attributes
CAE
Component development of restraint systems
Contact
Testing and coordination of component,
EDAG Engineering GmbH
system and the complete vehicle Kreuzberger Ring 40
Execution of certification testing and 65205 Wiesbaden
homologation support Germany
Our support throughout the process chain safety@edag.com
is reflected in EDAGs complete vehicle
development projects.

edag.com
 Scoring Table: points available per test speed
v0
Scenario CPFA CPNA CPNCO CPLA CPLA CPTA CPTA CPRA
Test Protocol 4.3

(km/h) Farside Nearside

Opposite / Same Station-
configuration 50 % 25 % 75 % 25 % 75 % 50 % 50 % 25 % direction ary
Moving
light conditions day night day night day night day & night day day
function assessed AEB AEB AEB AEB AEB FCW AEB AEB AEB
4 1 1
8 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Assessment Protocol 11.2.1

15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
30 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1
Active Safety | Automated Driving

35 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2
Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB VRU-Pedestrian

40 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2
45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
50 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3
55 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3
60 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2
65 1
70 1
75 1
UPDATE
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

80 1
30 day / 30 4 Opposite /
max. total scenario score (1) 20 20 40 40 20 20 4
night 4 Same dir.
normalized scores (2) actual score / (1)
scenario points (3) 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.75 1 0.5 0.5 day / 1 night 2 2
AEB Pedestrian total points Σ (2) · (3) max. 9 points
Scoring method:
AEB VRU Test Speed (km/h)
score = Points according to AEB VRU Points table Points table 10 15 20 25 30 35 - 60
pass / fail: Points are awarded if impact is avoided. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Impact Speed
pass / fail: Points are awarded if Forward Collision Warning >0 0 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.75

(Relative)
(FCW) is issued @ TTC ≥ 1.7 s, or if the manufacturer demon- > 10 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.50

(km/h)
> 20 0 0 0.25
strates that their ESS (Emergency Steering Support) system

150
> 30 0
provides appropriate support to avoid the collision.
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB VRU-Cyclist

Assessment Protocol 11.2.1 Test Protocol 4.3
daylight testing
Cyclist, Unobstructed,
Farside, Impact at 50 % of the 50 %
Vehicle Width
(CBFA-50)
v0 = 10 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 20 km/h

Cyclist, Unobstructed,
Nearside, Impact at 50 % of 50 %
the Vehicle Width
(CBNA-50)
v0 = 10 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 15 km/h
Cyclist, Obstructed,
Nearside, Impact at 50 % of 50 %
the Vehicle Width
(CBNAO-50)
v0 = 10 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 10 km/h

Cyclist, Unobstructed, Longi-

tudinal, Impact at 50 % of the 50 %
Vehicle Width (CBLA-50)
v0 = 25 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 15 km/h

Cyclist, Unobstructed, Longi-

tudinal, Impact at 25 % of the 25 %
Vehicle Width (CBLA-25)
v0 = 50 km/h ... 80 km/h v = 20 km/h

CBTA-Farside: v = 15 km/h
v0 = 10 / 15 / 20 km/h
Cyclist, VUT turning, Farside,
Nearside, Impact at 50 % of
the Vehicle Width
(CBTA-Nearside / Farside)
CBTA-Nearside
v0 = 10 km/h

D
Cyclist, Obstructed, Dooring
(CBDA)
v = 15 km/h operate door handle @ D = 7 m
151
 Scoring Table: points available per test speed
v0
Scenario CBFA CBNA CBNAO CBLA CBTA CBDA
Test Protocol 4.3

(km/h)
configuration 50 % 50 % 50 % 50% 25 % farside nearside dooring
light conditions day
function assessed AEB AEB AEB AEB FCW AEB AEB visual
10 1 1 1 1 1 information
15 1 1 1 1 TTC ≥ 2.3 s
20 1 1 1 1 0.25
Assessment Protocol 11.2.1

25 1 1 1 1
warning
30 1 1 1 1
TTC ≥ 1.7 s
35 1 1 1 2
Active Safety | Automated Driving

40 1 1 1 2 0.25
45 1 1 1 3
door
50 1 1 1 3 3
retention
Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB VRU-Cyclist

55 1 1 1 3 3
60 1 1 1 1 1 0.25
65 1
70 1 all doors
75 1
UPDATE

80 1 0.25
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

max. total scenario score (1) 11 11 11 27 4 1

normalized scores (2) actual score / (1)
scenario points (3) 2 1 1 2 2 1
AEB Cyclist total points Σ (2) · (3) max. 9 points
Scoring method:
score = Points according to AEB VRU Points table AEB VRU Test Speed (km/h)
Points table 10 15 20 25 30 35 - 60
pass / fail: Points are awarded if impact is avoided. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Impact Speed
pass / fail: Points are awarded if Forward Collision Warning >0 0 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.75
(FCW) is issued @ TTC ≥ 1.7 s, or if the manufacturer demon-

(Relative)
> 10 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.50

(km/h)
strates that their ESS (Emergency Steering Support) system > 20 0 0 0.25
> 30 0

152
provides appropriate support to avoid the collision.
June 13 – 14, 2023
Bergisch Gladbach, Germany
www.carhs.de/pkf
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB / LSS PTW

Assessment Protocol 11.2.1 Test Protocol 4.3

Motorcycle, stationary,
Unobstructed, Longitudinal, 50 %
Impact at 50 % of the Vehicle
Width (CMRs)
v0 = 10 km/h ... 60 km/h in 5 km/h steps v = 0 km/h

d0
Motorcycle, braking,
Unobstructed, Longitudinal, Im- 25 %
pact at 25 % of the Vehicle Width
(CMRb)
v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12m v 0 = 50 km/h, a= -4 m/s²
v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 40m v0 = 50 km/h, a= -4 m/s²

Motorcycle, Front turn across

path, Impact at 50 % of the Vehic-
le Width
(CMFtap)

v0 = 10 km/h ... 20 km/h v = 30 / 45 / 60 km/h

in 5 km/h steps

Emergency Lane Keeping

Oncoming Motorcycle:
Fully marked lane,
Impact at 10 % of the Vehicle v = 72 km/h
Width*
(CMoncoming) v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m (unintentional)
* measured from driver side edge v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.5 - 0.7 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 800 m (intentional)

v = ① 60 km/h / ② 80 km/h

Emergency Lane Keeping

Overtaking Motorcycle:
Fully marked lane,
Impact at rear axle
(CMovertaking) ① v0 = 50 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m (unintentional)
① v0 = 50 km/h, vlat = 0.5 - 0.7 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 400 m (intentional)
② v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m (unintentional)
② v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.5 - 0.7 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 800 m (intentional)

daylight testing
Prerequisites for Scoring:
„ The AEB system must be default ON at the start of every journey. It may not be possible to switch off the system with a
momentary single push on a button.
„ The system may not automatically switch off at a speed < 80 km/h.
„ The score of the pedestrian impact tests (legforms & head) must be ≥ 18 points.

154
 Scoring Table: points available per test speed
v0 Sce- CM CM
nario CMRs CMRb CMFtap CMRs CMRb oncom. overtaking
(km/h)
configuration 50 % 25 % 25 % 30 45 60 km/h 50 % 25 % 25 % 72 60 80
12 m 40 m km/h km/h 12 m 40 m km/h km/h km/h
light conditions day
function assessed AEB FCW LSS
10 1 1 1 1
15 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1
25 1
30 1 1
35 1 1
40 1 1
45 1 1
Euro NCAP / ANCAP AEB / LSS PTW

50 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
55 1 1
60 1 1
72 2 11
max. total scenario score (1) 11 2 9 7 2 2 2
UPDATE
Active Safety | Automated Driving

normalized scores (2) actual score / (1)

scenario points (3) 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 2 1
AEB/LSS Motorcyclist total
Σ (2) · (3) max. 9 points
points
Scoring method:
score = Points according to AEB VRU Points table AEB VRU Test Speed (km/h)
Points table 10 15 20 25 30 35 - 60
pass / fail: Points are awarded if impact is avoided. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

pass / fail: Points are awarded if Forward Collision Warning (FCW) is >0 0 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.75
issued @ TTC ≥ 1.7 s. > 10 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.50
1 Intentional 0.5 points + unintentional 0.5 points. > 20 0 0 0.25
(Relative)
Impact Speed
(km/h)

> 30 0

155
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for Assessment Protocol 10.2

AEB Car-to-Car Test Protocol 4.1.1

Prerequisites for Scoring in AEB Car-to-Car:

„ AEB system needs to be default ON at the start of every journey and de-activation should not be possible with a single push
on a button.
„ AEB and/or FCW must be operational up to speeds of at least 130 km/h, excluding stationary targets.
„ performance in CCRm scenario at v0 = 130 km/h / vtarget = 70 km/h must be within one colour band difference from a test
at v0 = 80 km/h / vtarget = 20 km/h
„ audible component of FCW needs to be loud and clear
„ for CCRs only: Whiplash score for front seat must be at least “good”, full avoidance must be achieved for speeds ≤ 20 km/h
in all overlap situations.
Car-to-Car Rear
CCRs*: Approach to stationary
Target with ± 50 % / ± 75 % /
100 % Overlap
AEB + FCW v0 = 10 km/h ... 80 km/h in 5 km/h steps v = 0 km/h
CCRm*: Approach to slower
AEB CCR

Target with ± 50 % / ± 75 % /
100 % Overlap
AEB v0 = 30 km/h ... 80 km/h in 5 km/h steps v = 20 km/h
CCRb*: d0
Approach to braking Target
100 % Overlap v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -2 m/s²
AEB v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 40 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -2 m/s²
* CCR: Car-to-Car Rear; s: stationary; v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -6 m/s²
m: moving; b: braking v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 40 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -6 m/s²
Scoring Table: Points Points
remaining impact speed available remaining relative impact speed available
vimpact (km/h) CCRs CCRb v relative impact (km/h) CCRm
v0 (km/h)
AEB FCW AEB AEB
10 0 >0 1
15 0 >0 2
20 0 >0 2
25 <5 < 15 ≥ 15 2
30 <5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 2 <5 ≥5 1
35 <5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 2 <5 ≥5 1
40 <5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 1 <5 < 15 ≥ 15 1
45 <5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 1 <5 < 15 ≥ 15 1
50 <5 < 15 < 30 < 40 ≥ 40 1 1x4 < 5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 1
55 <5 < 15 < 30 < 45 ≥ 45 1 < 5 < 15 < 25 ≥ 25 1
60 <5 < 20 < 35 < 50 ≥ 50 1 < 5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 1
65 <5 < 20 < 40 < 55 ≥ 55 1 < 5 < 15 < 25 < 35 ≥ 35 2
70 <5 < 20 < 40 < 60 ≥ 60 1 < 5 < 15 < 30 < 40 ≥ 40 2
75 <5 < 25 < 45 < 65 ≥ 65 1 < 5 < 15 < 30 < 45 ≥ 45 2
80 <5 < 25 < 50 < 70 ≥ 70 1 < 5 < 20 < 35 < 50 ≥ 50 2
Grid point score 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 ∑=14 ∑=6 ∑=4 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 ∑=15
Scenario points 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0
156
Safe Automated Driving with
CARISSMA
Integrated Safety Research and Testing
Connected Mobility and V2X
Safe Electrification and System Security
Facilities for Real World and Weather Testing
Human Factors Research and Driver Acceptance
Occupant Monitoring and smart Restraint Systems

www.carissma.eu
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for Assessment Protocol 10.2

AEB Car-to-Car Test Protocol 4.1.1

For each test speed 5 grid points representing the 5 overlap scenarios (-75 %, -50 %, 100 %, +50 %, +75 %) are evaluated.
The score per test speed v0 for AEB and FCW is calculated as: ∑ grid point scores1 x points available / 6
The score per scenario and system (AEB/FCW) is calculated as: ∑ score per test speed v0 / ∑ points available
The score per system (AEB/FCW) is the average score per scenario of that system. The score per system is multiplied with
1.0 scenario points for AEB and 0.5 scenario points for FCW.
Where FCW does not result in full avoidance in the - 50 % overlap2 grid points, the manufacturer can alternatively demonstrate
that their EES (Emergency Steering Support) system functions to avoid the collision.
Manufacturers are expected to provide a prediction of the grid point scores. This predicted score per system is multiplied with
the correction factor resulting from 10 verification tests for that system conducted by Euro NCAP3:
Correction factor = actual tested score / predicted score
1 where the score of the 100 % overlap grid point is double counted
2 + 50 % overlap for RHD vehicles
3 plus up to 10 additional tests sponsored by the manufacturer

Car-to-Car Front turn across path

AEB CCFtap

CCFtap: Front turn across path GVT

Impact at 50 % Overlap
AEB

v0 = 10 km/h ... 20 km/h v = 30 / 45 / 60 km/h

in 5 km/h steps

Scoring Table: points available per test speed

v0 (km/h) vGVT 30 km/h 45 km/h 60 km/h
10 1 1 1
15 1 1 1
20 1 1 1
max. total score (1) 9
normalized scores (2) actual score / (1)
scenario points (3) 1
AEB CCFtap total points Σ (2) · (3) max. 1 point
Scoring method:
pass / fail: Points are awarded for full avoidance
Car-to-Car Crossing straight crossing path

v = 20 - 60 km/h
GVT

in 10 km/h steps
AEB CCCscp

CCCscp: Crossing straight cross-

ing path
Impact at 25 % of GVT lenght
AEB + FCW

v0 = Start from stop & 20 - 60 km/h

in 10 km/h steps

158
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for Assessment Protocol 10.2

AEB Car-to-Car Test Protocol 4.1.1

Scoring Table: points available per test speed

v0 (km/h) vGVT (km/h) 20 30 40 50 60 20 30 40 50 60
function assessed AEB FCW
Start from stop 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
20 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
30 1 1 0.25 0.25 0.25
40 1 1 1 0.25 0.25 1 1 1 0.25 0.25
50 1 1 1 1 0.25 1 1 1 1 0.25
60 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
max. total score (1) 20 12.75
normalized scores (2) actual score / (1)
scenario points (3) 2 1
AEB CCCscp total points Σ (2) · (3) max. 2 points Σ (2) · (3) max. 1 point
Scoring method:
pass / fail: Points are awarded for full avoidance.
Full points are awarded for full avoidance / half points are awarded if speed is reduced by ≥ 30 km/h. Where
a scenario is fully avoided by AEB, the points are automatically awarded for the corresponding FCW scenario.
Car-to-Car Front head on
CCFhos: Front head on straight
AEB

GVT
AEB CCFho

v0 = 50 / 70 km/h v = 50 / 70 km/h
CCFhol: Front head on lane
change GVT
AEB

v0 = 50 / 70 km/h v = 50 / 70 km/h

Scoring Table: points available per test speed

Scenario CCFhos CCFhol
v0 (km/h) vGVT (km/h) 50 70 50 70
function assessed AEB
50 0.25 0.25
70 0.25 0.25
max. total score (1) 1
normalized scores (2) actual score / (1)
scenario points (3) 1
AEB CCFho total points Σ (2) · (3) max. 1 point
Scoring method:
Full points are awarded for if speed is reduced by ≥ 20 km/h. Full points are awarded for if speed is reduced
by ≥ 10 km/h.

159
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for Assessment Protocol 10.2

AEB Car-to-Car Test Protocol 4.1.1

Human Machine Interface TB 037 1.0

HMI points are added if there is a supplementary warning (other than audiovisual) for FCW (1 point) and if there is a reversible
belt pre-pretensioning in the pre-crash phase (1 point). The HMI score is scaled down to a max. of 0.5 points.
Items assessed Points
Supplementary warning for FCW System: 1 point
„ Supplementary warning (other than audiovisual)
„ Issued at TTC > 1.2 s (in all CCRs 55 - 80 km/h scenarios)
„ In case of using braking as a warning:
„ a brake jerk is accepted if it is issued > 0.5 s before the main AEB intervention and with a
peak acceleration < -2 m/s
„ a partial deceleration step is accepted if a constant acceleration ≤ -2 m/s2 is seen for a
duration of ≥ 0.5 s before the main AEB intervention
„ Alternatively the supplementary warning point is awarded if all CCR scenarios
are avoided up to 80 km/h.
„ The supplementary warning is not available for AEB only systems.
Reversible belt pre-pretensioning in the pre-crash phase: 1 point
Alternatively this HMI point can be scored if the vehicle is equipped with ESS meeting
the requirements of TB 037.
Total HMI score 2 points

Total AEB Car-to-Car Score

Multiply normalized scores (i.e. percentages of max. points) with correction factors (where applicable) and scaling factors
to obtain the points for each assessment item:
correction factor scaling max. points
CCRs AEB x 1.0 1.0
CCRm AEB x 1.0 1.0
CCRb AEB 1.0 1.0
CCRs FCW x 0.5 0.5
CCFtap 1.0 1.0
CCCscp AEB 2.0 2.0
CCCscp FCW 1.0 1.0
CCFha 1.0 1.0
HMI 0.5 0.5
max. total points 9.0

160
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

Euro NCAP / ANCAP Test Method for Assessment Protocol 10.2

Lane Support Systems Test Protocol 4.2

Lane Departure Warning
Dashed Line
LDW

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.6 - 1.0 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

Lane Departure Warning

Solid Line

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.6 - 1.0 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

Blind Spot Monitoring v = 80 km/h
Fully Marked Lane GVT
GVT
GVT
v = 80 km/h
BSM

v0 = 72 km/h v0 = 72 km/h
Blind Spot Monitoring v = 80 km/h
Fully Marked Lane
EMT or real motorcycle
v = 80 km/h

v0 = 72 km/h v0 = 72 km/h

Lane Keep Assist

Dashed Line:
Single Line

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

LKA

Lane Keep Assist

Solid Line:
Single Line

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

Emergency Lane Keeping
Road Edge: no Centerline & no
Line next to Road Edge
ELK

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

161
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
UPDATE
Emergency Lane Keeping
Road Edge: Dashed/Solid
Centerline & no Line next to
Road Edge

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

Emergency Lane Keeping

Solid Line:
Fully Marked Lane

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

Emergency Lane Keeping

Solid Line:
Fully Marked Lane
ELK

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

Emergency Lane Keeping

Oncoming Vehicle: GVT
Fully Marked Lane

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m v = 72 km/h

Emergency Lane Keeping v = 72 km/h / 80 km/h

Overtaking Vehicle: GVT
Fully Marked Lane

v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.6 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m (unintentional)
v0 = 72 km/h, vlat = 0.5 - 0.7 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 800 m (intentional)
Lane Support Systems (LSS) DTLE1 Points
Human Machine Lane Departure Warning (LDW) > -0.2 m 0.50
0.502
Interface (HMI) Blind Spot Monitoring (BSM) - 0.50
Lane Keep Assist Dashed Line single line > -0.3 m 0.25
0.50
(LKA) Solid Line single line > -0.3 m 0.25
Centerline Road Edge
Road Edge no line no line > -0.1 m 0.25
Emergency Lane dashed no line > -0.1 m 0.25
2.00
Keeping (ELK) Solid Line fully marked lane > -0.3 m 0.50
Oncoming Vehicle fully marked lane 0.50
Overtaking Vehicle fully marked lane 0.50
1 Distance To Lane Edge
2 max. HMI score limited to 0.50 points

162
Speed and Position. Anywhere.
Industry leading GNSS, Inertial and Indoor
Positioning Systems

• Accurate measurement of speed,

position and attitude in all environments
• Resilient, mobile RTK solutions for
Open Road testing
• Centimetre-level Indoor Positioning
with robot compatibility

vboxautomotive.co.uk
 Latest info about Active Safety | Automated Driving
Seminar
this course

NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs

Tests, Assessment Methods, Ratings
Course Description In both focusses the current overall rating methods are
In 1979 the first New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) was described and explained. In addition to that an outlook is
established by NHTSA in the United States. The goal was given on the roadmaps and future developments of the NCAP
to motivate competing car manufacturers to enhance the programs.
safety level of their cars beyond the minimum safety stan-
dards defined by regulations. The same approach has been Who should attend?
followed globally by other organizations (e.g. by Euro NCAP, The seminar addresses design, simulation, testing and project
IIHS, ANCAP, JNCAP, KNCAP, C-NCAP, ...). Euro NCAP which engineers as well as managers who want to get a current over-
has been established in 1997 has taken a leading role and view on the global range of NCAP programs with an outlook
has significantly influenced other countries and regions. The on upcoming topics and trends from an insider. Depending on
NCAP programs in many cases are highly dynamic, especially the focus of their work attendees should chose the appropri-
in comparison with rulemaking activities. In order to reach ate focus of the seminar.
the goal to continuously improve the safety level of cars, the
requirements need to be permanently adapted to the state
Course Contents
of technology. Developers in the automotive industry need to
„ Basics of New Car Assessment Programs
know about upcoming changes at an early stage in order to be
„ Euro NCAP
able to design or equip their vehicles accordingly.
„ Background, Principles and Organisation
In this seminar attendees get an overview of the organizations „ Products, Rating and Rules
in charge of the NCAP programs and become familiar with the „ Adult Occupant Protection (AOP)
various test and assessment methods. „ Child Occupant Protection (COP)
The seminar is conducted several times a year with „ Vulnerable Road User Protection (PP / VRU)
„ Safety Assist (SA)
changing focuses:
„ Automated Driving
„ Commercial Van Safety
„ Focus passive safety: Here the focus is on test and „ Roadmap 2030
assessment methods for passive safety. Frontal and „ IIHS
side impact, whiplash, child protection and pedestrian „ C-NCAP
protection are discussed in detail. Tests for active safety
are only mentioned in as far as they are relevant for the
overall rating.
„ Focus active safety: Here the focus is on active safety
systems such as AEB or lane assistance. The tests and
assessments for these systems are explained in detail.
Tests for passive safety are only mentioned in as far as
they are relevant for the overall rating.

Direktor & Professor Andre Seeck (BASt - German Federal Highway Research Institute)
Instructor

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. Furthermore he represents
the German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport in the Board of Directors of Euro NCAP and he is the
chairman of the strategy group on automated driving and of the rating system. These positions enable him
to gain deep insight into current and future developments in vehicle safety. In 2017 NHTSA awarded him the
U. S. Government Special Award of Appreciation.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

07.-10.02.2023 164/4086 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 10.01.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

26.-27.06.2023 164/4087 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 29.05.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

14.-15.09.2023 164/4088 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 17.08.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

06.-10.11.2023 164/4090 Online 5 Days 1.340,- EUR till 09.10.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
164
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
UPDATE

IIHS AEB / Front Crash Prevention Test AEB Test Protocol, Version I (Oct 2013)

l = 3.05 m d = 9.14 m

Approach to stationary target w = 3.66 m

v 0 = 20 km/h v = 0 km/h
v 0 = 40 km/h v = 0 km/h
Assessment:
20 km/h Test 40 km/h Test FCW
Speed reduction < 8 km/h 8 - 14 km/h ≥ 15 km/h < 8 km/h 8 - 14 km/h 15 - 34 km/h ≥ 35 km/h
Points 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 1
Rating Scheme:
Points

1 2-4 >5
Rating BASIC ADVANCED SUPERIOR

IIHS Test Scenarios for AEB Pedestrian Pedestrian AEB Test Protocol, Version III (Aug 2022)
Adult, Nearside, Impact at
25 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPNA-25) day + night
AEB
v 0 = 20 / 40 km/h v = 5 km/h
Child, Obstruction, Nearside,
Impact at 50 % of the Vehicle
Width (CPNC-50) day
AEB 1m 1m

v 0 = 20 / 40 km/h v = 5 km/h
Adult, Longitudinal, Impact
at 25 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPLA-25) day + night
AEB FCW (@ 60 km/h only)
v 0 = 40 / 60 km/h v = 0 km/h
Speed reduction [km/h] 0 ... 8 9 ... 18 19 ... 28 29 ... 38 39 ... 48 49 ... 58 59 ... 61
Points 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.0 points are awarded if a FCW is given ≥ 2.1 s time to collision in the CPLA-2560 km/h scenario.
Daytime Scoring
Overall Score = 0.7 · ( CPNA-2520 + CPNA-2540 + CPNC-5020 + CPNC-5040) + 0.3 · (CPLA-2540 + CPLA-2560 + FCW60)
Nightime Scoring
Points are awarded for both scenarios (CPNA/CPLA) at both speeds with low and high beams. For vehicles with high beam assist,
individual scores are multiplied by two based on the activation speed of the high beam assist (low beam scores below the activa-
tion speed and high beam scores above the activation speed).
Overall Score = (2 · (CPNA-2520 LOW + CPNA-2540 LOW + CPNA-2520 HIGH + CPNA-2540 HIGH) + CPLA-2540 LOW + CPLA-2560 LOW
+ FCW60 LOW + CPLA-2540 HIGH + CPLA-2560 HIGH + FCW60 HIGH) / 6
Overall score <1 <3 <5 ≥5
Rating Scale
No Credit Basic Advanced Superior
165
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
U.S. NCAP Crash Imminent Braking
LVS (Lead Vehicle Stopped)
Approach to stationary target
LVM (Lead Vehicle Moving)
Approach to slower target
LVD (Lead Vehicle Decelerating)
Approach to braking target
False Positive Test
Approach to steel trench plate
Requirements
Scenario LVS
Requirement Δv ≥ 9.8 mph
(15.8 km/h)
U.S. NCAP Forward Collision Warning
LVS (Lead Vehicle Stopped)
Approach to stationary target
LVM (Lead Vehicle Moving)
Approach to slower target
LVD (Lead Vehicle Decelerating)
Approach to braking target
Requirements
Scenario LVS
Requirement Alert no later than
2.1 s TTC
166
CRASH IMMINENT BRAKE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE EVALUTION, Oct 2015
v 0 = 25 mph (40.2 km/h) v = 0 mph
v 0 = 25 mph (40.2 km/h) v = 10 mph (16.1 km/h)
v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h) v = 20 mph (32.2 km/h)
d0
v 0 = 35 mph (56.3 km/h) d0 = 45.3 ft (13.8 m) v 0 = 35 mph (56.3 km/h)
± 8 ft (2.4 m) a = -0.3 g
v 0 = 25 mph (40.2 km/h) 8 ft x 12 ft x 1 in (2.4 m x 3.7 m x 25 mm)
v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h)
LVM 25 mph LVM 45 mph LVD False Positive
no impact Δv ≥ 9.8 mph Δv ≥ 10.5 mph deceleration ≤ 0.5 g
(15.8 km/h) (16.9 km/h)
FORWARD COLLISION WARNING SYSTEM CONFIRMATION TEST, Feb 2013
v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h) v = 0 mph
v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h) v = 20 mph (32.2 km/h)
d0
v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h) d0 = 89.4 ft (30 m) v 0 = 45 mph (72.4 km/h).
± 8.2 ft (2.5 m) a = -0.3 g
LVM LVD
Alert no later than Alert no later than
2.0 s TTC 2.4 s TTC
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

U.S. NCAP Rear Automatic Braking

Rear Automatic Braking Feature Confirmation Test Procedure (Working Draft), Dec 2015

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

SAFETYWISSEN.com
Know anything you need,
any�me, anywhere!

www.safetywissen.com
167
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

C-NCAP Active Safety Rating Management Regulation 2021

CCRs*: Approach to station-

ary target with ± 50 % / 100 %
overlap
AEB + FCW AEB v0 = 20 / 30 / 40 km/h v = 0 km/h
AEB CCR

FCW v0 = 50 / 60 / 70 / 80 km/h
CCRm*: Approach to slower
target with ± 50 % / 100 %
overlap
AEB + FCW AEB v0 = 30 / 40 / 50 km/h v = 20 km/h
* CCR: Car-to-Car Rear; s: stationary; m: moving FCW v0 = 60 / 70 / 80 km/h

11 Points
Adult, Farside, Impact at 25
& 50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPFA-25 Day & Night / 50 Day)
AEB v 0 = 20 / 30 /40 / 50 / 60 km/h v = 6.5 km/h
Adult, Nearside, Impact at 25
& 75 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPNA-25/75)
AEB v 0 = 20 / 30 /40 / 50 / 60 km/h v = 5 km/h

Adult, Longitudinal, Impact at

25 & 50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPLA-25/50)
AEB + FCW CPLA-25 v 0 = 50 / 60 / 70 / 80 km/h (FCW) v = 5 km/h
CPLA-50 v 0 = 20 / 30 /40 / 50 / 60 km/h (AEB) v = 5 km/h
AEB VRU

Cyclist, Nearside, Impact at

50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CBNA-50)
AEB
v 0 = 20 / 30 /40 / 50 / 60 km/h v = 15 km/h

Cyclist, Longitudinal, Impact at

25 & 50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CBLA-25/50)
AEB + FCW CBLA-25 v 0 = 50 / 60 / 70 / 80 km/h (FCW) v = 15 km/h
CBLA-50 v 0 = 20 / 30 /40 / 50 / 60 km/h (AEB) v = 15 km/h

Scooter, Farside, Impact at

50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CSFA-50)
AEB
v 0 = 30 /40 / 50 / 60 km/h v = 20 km/h

21 Points (10 Pedestrian + 11 Two-wheelers)

168
 VEHICLE SAFETY & SECURITY

We provide a R&D platform for assessment

of future vehicle safety solutions:
• Integrated crash validation framework
• Effectiveness evaluation
• Occupant and VRU safety assessment
• Continuous, modular virtual pre-crash and crash assessment
• Validation and virtual homologation
• Service oriented
• Open & flexible for new research and
technology developments

VIRTUAL VEHICLE is Austria‘s leading international R&D center for

the automotive and rail industries. Our +300 researchers provide
advanced virtualization of vehicle development, working together
with over 150 leading partners from industry and science.

Virtual Vehicle Research GmbH

Inffeldgasse 21a Phone: +43 316 873 9001
A-8010 Graz Mail: info@v2c2.at www.v2c2.at
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

C-NCAP Active Safety Rating Management Regulation 2021

Lane Keep Assist

Dashed Line:
Single Line

v0 = 80 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.5 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

LKA

Lane Keep Assist

Solid Line:
Single Line

v0 = 80 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.5 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

3 Points
Requirement AEB Car-to-Car AEB Car-to- AEB Car-to-
Pedestrian Two-wheeler
de-activation not possible with a single push on a button   
HMI

supplementary warning (other than audiovisual)  

reversible belt pre-pretensioning in the pre-crash phase 

6 Points
ESC System must meet the requirements of GB/T 30677-2014. Performance test report issued by a qualified third
party institution must be submitted to C-NCAP. Alternatively the test report can be based on GTR 8, UN R13H (R140) or
ESC

FMVSS 126 but should not be in violation of GB/T 30677-2014.

8 Points
Optional ADAS Systems: Lane Departure Warning: 2 points, Speed Assistance System: 2 points, Blind Spot Detection
(Car-to-Car): 2 points, Blind Spot Detection (Car-to-Two-wheeler): 3 points
Opt

Max. 7 Points total

Total 56 Points ADAS - Weight 80 %
Test item Evaluation of
straight line illumination, corner illumination, pedestrian visibility on the left, pedestrian visibility
Low Beam
Headlights

at intersection, width of curve lighting

High Beam illumination range, pedestrian visibility at intersection
adaptive low beam function, adaptive high beam function, automatic low beam turn on function,
Bonus
automatic headlight leveling system
Demerits glare

10 Points
Total 10 Points Headlights - Weight 20 %

170
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
NEW

C-NCAP Active Safety Roadmap 2025

Test item
2021 2025
AEB Car-to-Car Rear  

Turn across path 

Crossing 

AEB Car-to-Pedestrian Crossing  

Longitudinal  

Turn across path 

Reverse 

AEB Car-to-Two-wheeler Cycle crossing  

Scooter crossing  

Cycle longitudinal  

Turn across path of PTW 

Lane Support Emergency Lane Keeping 

Curve LDW 

Dooring 

Rear Cross Traffic Alert 

Driver Monitoring 

Trafic Signal Pre-Warning 

High Speed FCW 

171
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen

i-VISTA Intelligent Vehicle Integrated Systems Test Area

AEB Car-to-Car Test Protocol A0-2020 Rating Protocol A0-2020
System Scenario v0 (km/h) vTarget Criteria Points Σ Σ
(km/h)
CCRs 72 0 Warning issued @ ≥ 2.1 s TTC 1
FCW CCRb 72 72 @ -3m/s² Warning issued @ ≥ 2.4 s TTC 1 3
CCRm 72 30 Warning issued @ ≥ 2.0 s TTC 1
CCRs 30 0 3
50 0 5
AEB Speed reduction 16
CCRm 50 20 3
70 20 5 22
Additional warning: head-up
50 20 display, seat belt vibration, tactile 1
CCRm
Advanced warning
3
Assistance 70 20 Pre-pretensioner 1
AES (Autonomous Emergency Steering)
Collision Avoidance 1
ESA (Emergency Steering Assist)

AEB VRU Test Protocol A0-2020 Rating Protocol A0-2020

System Scenario v0 (km/h) vTarget Light Criteria Points Σ Σ

(km/h) Condition
20 2
CPNA-25 40 4 8
60 2
20 2
Day
CPNSOC-50 40 4 8
60 2
20 2
AEB CPNDOC-50 5
30 5 3
Pedestrian
20 2
CPNA-25 40 Night 4 8
Speed reduction
60 2
56
CPLA-25 25 2
Day 6
45 4
CPFOA-50 20 2
Night 5
30 3
20 2
CBNA-50 40 4 8
60 2
AEB Cyclist 35 15 Day 2
CBLA-50 6
55 4
CBLA-50 FCW: Warning issued
55 2 2
(FCW) @ ≥ 1.7 s TTC

172
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

i-VISTA Intelligent Vehicle Integrated Systems Test Area

Lane Support Systems Test Protocol A0-2020 Rating Protocol A0-2020
System Scenario v0 (km/h) vlat (m/s) Criteria Points Σ Σ
LDP
0.2
Lane
Straight lane 72 DTLE > - 0.3 m 8 8
Departure
0.5
Prevention
14
LDW 0.2
Straight lane 72 4
Lane 0.5 Warning issued before
6
Departure 0.2 DTLE < - 0.3 m
Warning Curve 72 2
0.5

Side Support Systems Test Protocol A0-2020 Rating Protocol A0-2020

System Scenario v0 (km/h) vTarget Criteria Points Σ Σ

(km/h)
70 2
Left side 90 1 4
Overtaking 120 1
BSD 60
car 70 2
Blind Spot
Right side 90 1 4
Detection
120 1
Overtaking Left side 1
20 30 Alarm issued within speci- 2
two-wheeler Right side 1
Left front fied interval
1 15
door
15
DOW Left rear
0.5
Door Overtaking door
0 3
Opening two-wheeler Left front
1
Warning door
30
Left rear
0.5
door
RCW Rear Collision Warning 0.5
Advanced
RCTA Rear Cross Traffic Alert feature availability 0.5 2
Assistance
DOW Rear Independent Warning 1
Bonus Points
If all models across the model range are equipped with the rated systems as standard, bonus points are awarded. Bonus points
do not increase the maximum score per system.
System equipped as standard Bonus
AEB Car-to-Car 1
AEB VRU 3
LDP or LDW 1
BSD or DOW 1
Overall Rating
Rating Protocol A0-2020
The overall rating is based on the normalized total score:
Normalized score =
total points / ≥ 75 % ≥ 65 % ≥ 50 % < 50 %
max. total points
Rating Good Acceptable Marginal Poor
173
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

JNCAP Preventive Safety Performance Evaluation

Test Protocol CCR 2022 Test Protocol Ped Day 2022 Test Protocol Ped Night 2022 Test Protocol Cyc 2022

Evaluation Item Max. Score Ranking

AEB Car-to-Car 11 points A Rank ≥ 73.60 points
Pedestrian daytime 15 points B Rank ≥ 53.32 points
C Rank ≥ 35.28 points
Pedestrian night 38 points D Rank ≥ 17.56 points
Cyclist 9 points E Rank < 17.56 points
Lane Support 11 points
Rearview Monitoring System 2 points
Headlights 4 points
Pedal Misapplication 1 point
max. total score 91 points

CCRs: Approach to stationary

target with 100 % overlap
AEB CCR

AEB + FCW
v0 = 10 - 60 km/h v = 0 km/h

CCRm: Approach to slower

target with 100 % overlap
AEB + FCW
v0 = 35 - 60 km/h v = 20 km/h
Adult/Child, Nearside, Impact
at 25, 50 & 75 % of the Vehicle
Width (CPN-25/50/75)
AEB + FCW v0 = 10 - 60 km/h v = 5/8 km/h
Adult/Child, Nearside, Ob-
struction, Impact at 50 % of
the Vehicle Width (CPNO-50)
AEB + FCW v0 = 25 - 45 km/h v = 5 km/h
Adult, Farside, Impact at 25, 50
& 75 % of the Vehicle Width
(CPF-25/50/75 Night)
AEB + FCW v0 = 30 - 60 km/h v = 5/8 km/h
AEB VRU

Adult, Farside, Obstruction

Impact at 50 % of the Vehicle
Width (CPFO-50 Night)
AEB + FCW v0 = 30 - 60 km/h v = 5 km/h
Cyclist, Farside, Impact at
50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CBF-50)
AEB + FCW v0 = 10 - 60 km/h v = 15 km/h
Cyclist, Nearside, Obstruction,
Impact at 50 % of the Vehicle
Width (CBNO-50)
AEB + FCW v0 = 10 - 50 km/h v = 10 km/h
Cyclist, Longitudinal, Impact
at 50 % of the Vehicle Width
(CBL-50)
AEB + FCW v 0 = 40 - 60 km/h v = 15 km/h

174
 ADAS/ADS
COMPANION

Become part of the 2023 edi�on of the ADAS/ADS Companion

with an adver�sement in this unique publica�on that brings
structure to the informa�on on ADAS/ADS technologies,
development tools, processes, standards, laws and regula�ons
and also creates entry points to more specific informa�on
and resources.

Learn more at
www.carhs.de/media
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

KNCAP AEB Tests

nighttime testing low beam
daylight testing
with streetlights headlights
AEB Car-to-Car Protocol 2022 TP-SS-11 Protocol 2022 TP-SS-21

CCRs: Approach to stationary Target

with ± 50 / ± 75 / 100 % Overlap
AEB + FCW
v0 = 10 - 50 km/h v = 0 km/h

CCRm: Approach to slower Target

with ± 50 / ± 75 / 100 % Overlap
AEB + FCW
v0 = 30 - 70 km/h v = 20 km/h

CCRb: Approach to braking Target d0

with 100 % Overlap
AEB + FCW
v0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12/40 m v0 = 50 km/h, a = -2/-6 m/s²

AEB Pedestrian Protocol 2022 TP-VS-2 1

Protocol 2022 TP-VS-4 1

Adult, Farside, Impact at 50 % of the

50 %
Vehicle Width
(CPFA-50)
v0 = 20 - 60 km/h v = 8 km/h

Adult, Nearside, Impact at 25 & 75 % 25 % / 75 %

of the Vehicle Width
(CPNA-25/75)
v0 = 20 - 60 km/h v = 5 km/h

Child, Obstruction, Nearside, Im- 50 %

pact at 50 % of the Vehicle Width 1m 1m 1m

(CPNCO-50)
v0 = 20 - 60 km/h v = 5 km/h

AEB Cyclist Protocol 2022 TP-VS-31

Cyclist,
Nearside, Impact at 50 % of the 50 %
Vehicle Width
(CBNA-50)
v0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 15 km/h

Cyclist, Longitudinal, Impact at 50 %

of the Vehicle Width 50 %
(CBLA-50)
v0 = 25 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 15 km/h
176 1 Protocols will remain unchanged in 2023.
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
NEW

Latin NCAP Safety Assist Assessment Protocol 2020 1.1.2

Seat Belt Reminder - SBR SBR Test Protocol Euro NCAP 5.6

Requirement Total Points

SBR for driver seating position meets the assessment criteria 3
SBR for passenger seating position meets the assessment criteria AND 3 points have been
3
awarded for the driver position
SBR for ALL rear seating positions meet the assessment criteria AND 6 points have been awarded
4
for all front seating positions
max. total 10
Speed Assist Systems - SAS
SAS Test Protocol Euro NCAP 1.1
Requirement Total Points
Manual Speed Assistance (MSA) with visual and supplementary warning 1
Enhanced speed control funtion AND 1 point has been awarded for MSA 2
max. total 3
Electronic Stability Control - ESC
Scenario A 15 m 45 m 52.5 m 75 m
ESC 4.7 m
2.7 m
0m
Moose Test

-3.5 m

v0 = 60 / 65 / 70 km/h
Scenario B 6m 19.5 m 30.5 m 44 m 50 m
ESC 4m
0m 1m
-3 m
Test Protocol 1.0.1
v0 = 60 / 65 / 70 km/h

Requirement Total Points

ESC system meets the UN R13H, UN R 140 or GTR8 requirements 15
Failure in a 60 km/h moose test (Scenario A or B) -5
Failure in a 65 km/h moose test (Scenario A or B) -3
Failure in a 70 km/h moose test (Scenario A or B) -1
max. total 15
Lane Support Systems - LSS
Lane Keep Assist
Dashed Line:
Single Line
LKA/LDW

v0 = 80 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.5 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

Lane Keep Assist

Solid Line:
Single Line

v0 = 80 km/h, vlat = 0.2 - 0.5 m/s in 0.1 m/s steps, R = 1200 m

LSS Test Protocol Euro NCAP 3.0.2 177

 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

Latin NCAP Safety Assist

Assessment Protocol 2020 1.1.2

Requirement Total Points

VUT passes 3 out of 4 lateral LDW test speeds (on both left and right side) on both line marking
scenarios for each speed. LDW pass criterion: audible and/or haptic warning before DTLE of less 1
than 0.2 m.
VUT passes 3 out of 4 lateral LKA test speeds (on both left and right side), on both line marking
scenarios for each speed. LKA pass criterion: LKS system must not permit the VUT to cross the 1
inner edge (DTLE) of the lane marking by a distance greater than 0.3 m.
VUT passes 1 out of 4 lateral RED test speeds. RED pass criterion: RED system must not permit
1
the VUT to cross the road edge (DTLE) by a distance greater than 0.1 m.
max. total 3
When LKA scenarios are all pass, LDW point is automatically awarded.
Blind Spot Detection - BSD
VUT overtakes Motorcyle
left / right

Dlat
BSD

vMotorcycle = 41 / 50 / 60 km/h, Dlat = ± 3 / 1.5 / 3 m v0 ≥ 56 / 65 / 75 km/h

VUT overtaken by Motorcyle

left / right

Dlat

vMotorcycle ≥ 56 / 65 / 75 km/h , Dlat = ± 3 / 1.5 / 3 m v0 = 41 / 50 / 60 km/h

Requirement Total Points

Passing or passed motorcycle is detected in at least 2 out of 3 speeds in each of the 4 scenarios
1
within a short range (i.e. 3 m behind the rear end of the VUT).
Passing or passed motorcycle is detected in at least 2 out of 3 speeds in each of the 4 scenarios
2
within a longer range (i.e. more than 3 m behind the rear end of the VUT).
max. total 3
e-Call
Requirement Total Points
System cannot be disabled by the driver.
System makes the e-Call automatically without any action by the vehicle occupants.
System automatically sends the GPS location of the accident to the car manufacturer´s call 2
center and to the emergency services the GPS location of the accident.
Prerequisite for scoring: ≥ 28 points in the Adult Occupant Protection Box of the rating.
max. total 2
e-Call points are bonus points that do not increase the maximum total Safety Assist score of 43.

178
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com
NEW

Latin NCAP Safety Assist Assessment Protocol 2020 1.1.2

AEB Test Protocol Euro NCAP 1.1

AEB Inter-Urban

CCRs*:
Approach to stationary target v 0 = 30 km/h ... 80 km/h v=0 km/h

CCRm*:
Approach to slower target v 0 = 30 km/h ... 80 km/h v=20 km/h

d0
CCRb*:
Approach to braking target v 0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12 m v 0 = 50 km/h, a = -2 m/s²
v 0 = 50 km/h d0 = 40 m v 0 = 50 km/h, a = -2 m/s²
* CCR: Car-To-Car Rear; s: standing; v 0 = 50 km/h d0 = 12 m v 0 = 50 km/h, a = -6 m/s²
m: moving; b: braking
v 0 = 50 km/h d0 = 40 m v 0 = 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 -
AEB Inter-Urban

35 2 1 -
40 2 1 -
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 awarded 2 Points
HMI Assessment
„ 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
To be eligible for scoring points in AEB Inter-Urban, the AEB and/or FCW system must operate up to speeds of at least 80
km/h at least.
The AEBscore (respectively FCWscore) is the average score from all the scenarios.
For systems that only offer the AEB function, the results of tests at all speeds (covering AEB and FCW) are used to calcu-
late separate normalized AEB and FCW scores for each scenario. Where AEB and FCW test speeds are overlapping, the
test result of AEB is duplicated for FCW.
The total AEB Inter-Urban score results from the following weighting of the normalized scores (%):
AEB Inter-Urban = FCWscore x 3.0 + AEBscore x 4.5 + HMIscore x 1.5
This results in a maximum total score of 9 points for AEB Inter-Urban, which is part of the Safety Assist assessment.

179
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
SafetyWissen.com Wissen
NEW

Latin NCAP AEB Pedestrian

AEB Test Protocol Euro NCAP 1.0.1

Adult, Farside, Impact at

50 % of the Vehicle Width 50 %
(CPFA-50)
v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 8 km/h
AEB Pedestrian

Adult, Nearside, Impact at

25 % / 75 %
25 & 75 % of the Vehicle
Width (CPNA-25/75)
v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 5 km/h
Child, Obstruction, Near- 50 %
side, Impact at 50 % of the
Vehicle Width (CPNCO-50) 1m 1m 1m

v 0 = 20 km/h ... 60 km/h v = 5 km/h

Prerequistes for Scoring:
„ The AEB system must be default ON at the start of every journey. daylight testing
„ The score of the pedestrian impact tests (legforms & head) must be ≥ 14 points.

April 24 – 25, 2023 | Wuzhen, Zhejiang, China

September 26 – 27, 2023 | Kle�witz, Germany

www.carhs.de/ADAS
180
 Active Safety | Automated Driving
Wissen SafetyWissen.com

Test of ESC Systems in UN R140, GTR 8 and FMVSS 126

Step 1: Slowly-Increasing-Steer Manoeuvre to determine Parameter A
At a constant velocity of 80 ±2 km/h the steering angle is ramped at 13.5 deg/s until a lateral acceleration of 0.5 g is reached. Out of 2
series (1x left turn / 1x right turn) with 3 repetitions of the manoeuvre the steering angle A (in degrees) at which the lateral acceleration
is 0.3 g is determined using linear regression.
Step 2: Sine with Dwell Manoeuvre to assess Oversteer Intervention and Responsiveness
At a velocity of von 80 ±2 km/h the vehicle is subjected to two series of test runs using a steering pattern of a sine wave at 0.7 Hz
frequency with a 500 ms delay beginning at the second peak amplitude:
δ
UN R140

GTR 8

FMVSS 126
Steer angle

-δ
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
t
35 % 20 %

100 %

ψPeak

t = 1.07 s t0 t0 + 1 s t0 + 1.75 s 181

Simulation|Engineering
Event
NEW

Certification and homologation by means of Virtual Testing has been a goal in the automotive
industry for quite some time. However progress in this area has been slow.

Ever increasing requirements from consumer protection and legal organisations are acceler-
ating the pace for accepted procedures to use virtual testing as an alternative or supplement
to physical testing and approval.

carhs.training has started a series of events dealing with the challenges of Virtual Testing:

Past Events:
„ Virtual Testing #1 dealt with the application of Human Missed a Virtual Testing
Modeling in Pedestrian Protection Event? Get the replay:
„ Virtual Testing #2 focussed on Scenario Based ADAS

Validation
„ Virtual Testing #3 was concerned with the Simulation of

Mechanical Battery Overloading

Upcoming Events:
„ Virtual Testing #4 Model Version Control & Traceability
„ Virtual Testing #5 Certified Vehicle Models for Occupant Simulation

„ Virtual Testing #6 Virtual Testing for ISO26262 and SOTIF

„ Virtual Testing #7 Occupant Safety for Autonomous Vehicles

DATE tba
Facts

VENUE ONLINE

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/vt

LANGUAGE
182
Dive into
Engineering Simulation

Experiencing collaborative virtual environments, engineers now can live the evolution of
their most sophisticated creations. Our mission is to bring the right tools and technologies
to broaden simulation horizons and reduce innovation risk. Enhance your engineering
simulation experience and enter the world of your designs.

w w w. b e t a - c a e . c o m
Simulation|Engineering
Event

April 25 – 26, 2023

Congress Park Hanau
Germany
Computer simulation has become an indispensable tool in automotive development. Tre-
mendous progress in software and computer technology makes it possible today to assess
product and process performance before physical prototypes have been built. Despite of
significant progress in simulation technology and impressive results in industrial application
there remains a number of challenges which prevent a “100 % digital prototyping”. We at
carhs.training call these Grand Challenges.
Automotive CAE Grand Challenge offers a Platform for Dialogue
The automotive CAE Grand Challenge stimulates the exchange between users, scientists
and software developers in order to solve these challenges. Annually the current, critical
challenges in automotive CAE are being identified through a survey among the simulation
experts of the international automotive industry. In the conference one session is dedicated
to each of the most critical challenges, the so-called Grand Challenges. In each session CAE
experts from industry, research and software development will explain the importance of
the individual Challenge for the virtual development process and talk about their efforts to
solve the challenge.
Automotive CAE Grand Challenges 2023
The most important current challenges of automotive CAE - the so-called “Grand Challenges”
- were determined through a survey among the CAE experts of the international automotive
industry. These "Grand Challenges" will form the topics of the sessions of our automotive CAE
Grand Challenge 2023 conference:
BODY STIFFNESS & STRENGTH: Structural Properties of Battery Packs
FULL VEHICLE SIMULATION: Virtual Testing of Autonomous Vehicles
MODELING ISSUES CRASH ANALYSIS: Modeling Crash Behavior of Battery Packs
OCCUPANT SAFETY: Virtual Testing with Dummies und HBMs
OPTIMIZATION & ROBUSTNESS: Robust Design – Creating and Verifying Robust Designs
CAE PROCESS & QUALITY ASSURANCE: CAE in Advanced Vehicle Development (pre-CAD)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MACHINE LEARNING, BIG DATA: Massive Data
Exploration of Simulation and Test Results
Who should attend?
The conference intends bringing together industrial users, researchers and software developers to discuss these current, critical
challenges of automotive CAE and to initiate collaboration between these groups to help overcoming the Grand Challenges of
automotive CAE. The presentation program of the conference provides both experts and beginners valuable information for
their daily work. The possibility to meet and exchange with all stakeholders of automotive CAE is a great opportunity. In the
accompanying exhibition participants can receive additional information from leading companies of CAE.

DATE 25.-26.04.2023
Facts

VENUE Hanau, GERMANY & ONLINE

HOMEPAGE www.carhs.de/grandchallenge

LANGUAGE

PRICE 990,- EUR till 28.03.2023, thereafter 1.280,- EUR, ONLINE 840,- EUR
184
EMULATING ENGINEERING
EXPERTISE WITH AI
UNCOVER NEW INSIGHTS WITH
AUTOMATED DESIGN EXPLORATION

Altair simulation-driven design and AI solutions are changing the way vehicles of all types are
designed, helping engineers reduce design iterations and prototype testing. It also increases
computing power, expanding users’ opportunity to apply analysis, and enable large design
studies within program milestones.

Now, computer-aided engineering (CAE) augmented by AI is offering manufacturers the ability

to discover machine learning-guided insights, explore new solutions to complex design problems
through physics and AI-driven workflows, and achieve greater product innovation through
collaboration and design convergence.

Learn more at altair.com/automotive

© Altair Engineering, Inc. All Rights Reserved. / altair.com / Nasdaq: #ONLYFORWARD

 Latest info about Simulation|Engineering
Seminar
this course

Introduction to Impact Biomechanics and Human Body Models

Course Description Who should attend?

To prevent human injury in traffic it is necessary to under- This seminar addresses everyone who wants to obtain an up-
stand the biomechanics of impact. This can be done through to-date overview or who needs a deepened understanding of
experimental studies with human subjects, volunteers, or the field of impact biomechanics, such as university graduates,
post-mortem human subjects (PMHS), after ethical approval. career changers, management, project assistants, internal
The individual variation is large in experiments with human service providers, qualified technicians from the crash-test lab
subjects, due to the wide spread of anthropometry and mate- or anyone basing product development or decision-making on
rial properties that depend on factors such as gender, age, and simulation results with human body models.
health status. Mechanical anthropometric crash test dummies Course Contents
were developed to provide repetitive tools for develop- „ Introduction to impact biomechanics
ment and assessment of safety systems for specific loading „ Human anatomy & physiology
scenarios, representing mid-size males, large males, small „ Medical terminology
females and children of different ages. With the development „ Injury scaling scores
of advanced safety systems, the need for repetitive tools with „ Epidemiology
increased biofidelity and anatomical details, initiated devel- „ Human substitutes
opment of numerical human body models. With increasing „ Material properties
„ Soft tissues
computer capacity, human body models have become popu- „ Hard tissues
lar tools for traffic safety research, crash simulations, safety „ Injury mechanisms, tolerances & criteria
evaluations and to study the effects of population diversity „ Head and neck
on traffic safety. This course covers the basic topics of impact „ Thorax
biomechanics, such as human anatomy, population variance, „ Upper and lower extremities
mechanical properties of human tissues, and injury criteria. „ Population variability
Finally, it focuses on computational models of the human „ Biomechanics of children
body and their use to develop and evaluate safety systems. „ The aging population
„ Gender differences
Course Objectives „ Human body models
The objective of this course is to introduce impact biomechan- „ Introduction to numerical methods
ics, injury biomechanics, and to provide an overview of com- „ Methodology for model development
putational models of the human body. You will learn about the „ Validation of models
most important topics and get a chance to understand how it „ State of the art models
relates to your work and traffic safety in general. „ Strengths and limitations

Dr. Karin Brolin (Lightness by Design AB) has worked in the field of impact biomechanics through-
Instructor

out her career. Brolin earned her Ph.D. in 2002 at the Royal Institute of Technology, and since then she has
worked in both academia and industry on the topic of human body injury mechanisms and tolerances. For ten
years she led a research group focusing on human body simulations for traffic safety and injury prevention, as
Professor in Computational Impact Biomechanics at Chalmers University of Technology. Since, 2019 Dr. Brolin
works as an independent consultant and researcher.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

16.-19.10.2023 193/4140 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 18.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
186
 Simulation|Engineering Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Robust Design - Vehicle Development under Uncertainty

Course Description Who should attend?

The seminar addresses the current state of the art comple-
mented by recent achievements in research and development
to quantify and control uncertainties (lack-of-knowledge and
variations) in vehicular development. Aspects of sensitivity
and robustness analysis are discussed as well as topics in reli-
ability, resilience, redundancy and model uncertainty. In addi-
tion, numerical methods for optimization with consideration
of uncertainties and methods for Model Order Reduction
(MOR) to reduce computational effort are discussed. Appli-
cations (e.g. NVH, crash) illustrate the usage of the methods
and the fact that methods should be adapted to the degree of
maturity of the design in the development process.
Course Objectives
The seminar is focused on methods and their theoretical
background to enable the participants to realize applications
directly in the industrial context. Hence, uncertainties can
be characterized, quantified, and – together with sensitivity
analysis – concept and structural evaluations are made pos-
sible, which consider robustness, reliability, resilience, and
redundancy. Corresponding optimizations can then be real-
ized in an efficient manner.
The seminar is proposed for engineers with first experiences
in numerical concept and series development of vehicles, who
are interested in including robustness, reliability and other
aspects of uncertainty management in their industrial designs.
Course Contents
„ Mathematical methods for uncertainty quantification
„ Linear and non-linear sensitivity analysis (global / local)
„ Design of Experiments (DoE), Response Surface Methods
(RSM)
„ Methods for Model Order Reduction (MOR)
„ Robustness versus reliability
„ Robustness in early design stages (Set-based Design und
Solution Space Approach)
„ Methods for resilience, redundancy, model uncertainty
„ Optimization under uncertainties
„ Applications taken from acoustics and crashworthiness

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Fabian Duddeck (Technical University of Munich) has been the head
Instructor

of the research group on optimization and robustness at the Technical University of Munich (TUM, Chair of
Computational Mechanics, https://www.epc.ed.tum.de/cm) since 2010. His research is focusing on numerical
methods for optimization of structures with respect of crashworthiness, NVH (noise, vibration, and harsh-
ness), durability, and other disciplines. In this framework, new methods for stochastic modeling and robust-
ness assessments for different types of uncertainties (aleatoric and epistemic) are included. Besides standard
approaches using probabilistic theory, possibilistic and special methods for early phase design are developed
and applied for problems in automotive, aerospace, and civil engineering.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

30.-31.03.2023 144/4148 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 02.03.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

13.-16.11.2023 144/4149 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 16.10.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
187
 Latest info about Simulation|Engineering
Seminar
this course

Structural Optimization in Automotive Design

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

Prof. Dr. Lothar Harzheim (Opel Automobile GmbH) worked in the Group of Professor Mattheck
Instructor

on the development of the optimization programs CAO and SKO, before joining the simulation department of
Opel. At Opel he is responsible for optimization, bio engineering and robustness. In this position he not only
introduced and applied optimization methods but has also developed software for topology optimization.
Prof. Dr. Harzheim regularly holds seminars for applied structural optimization and teaches at the Technical
University of Darmstadt. He is the author of the book "Strukturoptimierung: Grundlagen und Anwendungen".

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

27.-28.02.2023 112/4157 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 30.01.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

20.-24.11.2023 112/4158 Online 5 Days 1.340,- EUR till 23.10.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
188
 Simulation|Engineering Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Introduction to the Python Programming Language

Course Description
Python is a modern programming language that is increasingly
used in the field of Scientific Computing. Together with the
environment scipy Python is an open source alternative to the
commercial software MATLAB. A series of CAE software prod-
ucts, including the Pre-Processor ANSA, the solvers ABAQUS
and PAM-CRASH and the Post-Processor META, are already
using Python as an integrated scripting language. Python puts
the emphasis on well-readable code, so beginners can learn
the language very quickly. Nevertheless, Python is a powerful
programming language and can also be used for larger proj-
ects. Further advantages of Python are the platform indepen-
dence and the very extensive standard library supplied.
Course Objectives
The seminar provides a comprehensive introduction to the
basics of the Python programming language. It also includes
an introduction to object-oriented programming. Practical
exercises, such as processing text-based files from the CAE
world, will be treated. After the seminar, participants will be
able to acquaint themselves with the Python interfaces of CAE
software products.
Who should attend?
The seminar is aimed at newcomers to the Python language.
Experience in other scripting or programming languages
would be an advantage but is not a requirement.
Course Contents
„ Basic concepts of the Python programming language
„ Introduction to the language
„ Data and control structures, functions
„ Advanced topics
„ Processing of data
„ Important modules of the Python standard library
„ Examples from scientific computing
„ Modularization in bigger Python projects
„ Practical exercises

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

02.-03.05.2023 161/4150 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 04.04.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

05.-08.12.2023 161/4151 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 07.11.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

Python based Machine Learning with Automotive Applications

Course Description
Especially in the automotive environment, extensive data are
generated in the context of simulation or testing, for which an
automated analysis is often sought. In addition to the classical
interpretation of individual simulation or testing results, the
methods of machine learning allow a new view at models and
results. Based on the analysis of numerous results (big data),
e.g. from parameter studies, it is possible to derive Artificial
Intelligence using methods of machine learning, which is then
used to evaluate further simulations or tests.
Course Objectives
The seminar gives an introduction to machine learning based
on the programming language Python. After the seminar
participants will be able to tackle the implementation of their
own tasks.
Course Contents
„ Basics of data analysis with Python
„ Machine Learning with Python
„ Applications motivated by CAE or testing background

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

09.-12.05.2023 185/4152 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 11.04.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

12.-13.10.2023 185/4153 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 14.09.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

Dr. André Backes (TECOSIM Technische Simulation GmbH) studied Mathematics at the Uni-
Instructor

versity of Duisburg. From 2000 to 2006 he was a researcher at the Institute for Mathematics at the Humboldt
University in Berlin. His PhD studies at the chair for Numerical Mathematics introduced him to the field of CAE.
Since 2006 he works at TECOSIM GmbH in Ruesselsheim and among other topics specialized in NVH. In the
area of Virtual Benchmarking he helped developing the TECOSIM-owned process TEC|BENCH where also the
Python language was used. In current research projects he investigates the use of Python-based methods for
data analysis and machine learning in the CAE process. Since 2020 he has been working at TECOSIM Stuttgart.
189
 Latest info about Simulation|Engineering
Seminar
this course

Material Models of Composites for Crash Simulation

Course Description Course Contents

Increasing demands for weight reduction paralleled by „ Current and upcoming areas of application of composite
requirements for improved crash performance and stiff- materials
ness of structures have strongly pushed the development of „ Analysis of composite materials
advanced composites. The use of composite materials today „ Available material models and their application
is not limited to niche applications or secondary parts; they „ Modeling methods for plies and laminates
are increasingly used for important load carrying structural „ FEM modeling of composites
components in series production. „ Failure mechanisms and their representation
In this one day seminar Prof. Thomas Karall presents the foun- „ PAM-CRASH ply and delamination models
dations of structural impact and crash analysis of composites „ Necessary material tests
with the Finite Element Method. At the beginning of the semi- „ Examples
nar an overview of current and upcoming industrial applica-
tions of composite materials is given. Thereafter concepts for
the correct physical modeling of the complex load degrada-
tion and failure mechanisms in numerical simulation are pre-
sented. The course concentrates on the numerical simulation
of the crash behavior of composites and is accompanied with
demonstrations using the PAM-CRASH code.
Who should attend?
The course addresses simulation and project engineers, proj-
ect managers as well as researchers involved in the analysis
and design of composite parts and structures.

Prof. Dr. Thomas Karall (Hof University of Applied Sciences) studied mechanical engineering
Instructor

at the Technical University of Vienna and received his PhD as Assistant Professor at the University of Leoben
in the field of fibre-reinforced plastics and the calculation by finite elements. From 2006 to 2010 he was
head of department at the Austrian Research Institute for Chemistry and Technology in Vienna in the field of
mechanical and thermal testing / fibre composites, and Secretary General of the Austrian Working Group for
reinforced plastics. From 2010 to 2015 he worked as Lead Researcher for lightweight design at Virtual Vehicle
Research Center in Graz. He was also a lecturer at the Technical University of Graz and lecturer at the FH Joan-
neum Graz. Since 2015 he has been Professor at the Engineering Department of the Hof University. His areas
of work include lightweight design, fibre-reinforced composites and the finite element method.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

03.02.2023 68/4041 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 06.01.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

16.+23.06.2023 68/4213 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 19.05.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
190
 Simulation|Engineering Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Material Models of Metals for Crash Simulation

Course Description
Besides an appropriate spatial discretisation of the structure
and a profound knowledge of the required load cases, appro-
priate material modelling is a key ingredient for predictive
crash simulations. The load carrying structure of a car today
still mainly consists of metallic materials. The materials to be
described are diverse.
The seminar deals with the following materials:
„ mild and high strength steels,
„ cold formable AHSS and UHSS steels,
„ hot formable and quenchable boron steels,
„ wrought Al and Mg alloys,
„ cast Al and Mg alloys,
„ metalic material produced by additive manufacturing.
The objective of this 1-day course is to give the participants an
overview of material models of metals used in crash simula-
tion. Within the first chapter the deformation behavior and
the failure mechanisms of each material class are explained
based on the material structure. In the second chapter phe-
nomenological models for crash simulation of metals are
introduced. This includes elasticity, viscoplasticity and failure
due to localized necking, ductile normal fracture and ductile
shear fracture. In case of crashworthiness simulation the
influence of strain rate on the aforementioned properties is
of high interest. In the third chapter the tests needed for the
characterization of materials are described and the param-
eter identification for the material models is discussed. The
manufacturing process can have a significant impact on the
material properties (pre-straining of sheets, paint bake heat
treatment,local heating in joining processes etc.). Within the
fourth chapter simulation examples are discussed which show
the sensitivity of simulation results regarding the identified
material parameters. In the final chapter the influence of the
discretization on the predictive quality of a crashworthiness
model is discussed. This includes both the element size and
the type of element (shell vs. solid).
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 material modelling.
„ Course Contents
„ Overview of metallic materials used in cars
„ Influence of material structure on mechanical behavior
„ Phenomenological material models for metals
„ Overview of experimental methods for material
characterization
„ Identification of material parameters from experiments
„ Discussion of the sensitivity material parameters

The seminar was extremely well received in

our company! Even our colleagues, who had
already worked a lot in this area, were able
to learn many new things.“
Fabian Wolf - P+Z Engineering GmbH

Dr.-Ing. Helmut Gese (MATFEM Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH) founded the engineering consul-
Instructor

tancy MATFEM in 1993 (from 1999 the company has been named MATFEM partnership Dr. Gese & Oberhofer;
in 2022 the legal status has changed to MATFEM Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH). MATFEM offers technical and
scientific consultancy services at the intersection of material science and finite element methods. Besides
performing FEM analysis projects the area of activity covers experimental and theoretical characterization of
materials and the development of new material models for simulation.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

07.02.2023 70/4062 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 10.01.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

26.-27.09.2023 70/4117 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 29.08.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
191
 Latest info about Simulation|Engineering
Seminar
this course

Material Models of Plastics and Foams for Crash Simulation

Course Description Who should attend?

Numerical simulation has become a fundamental element in The seminar addresses experienced CAE engineers and
the development of motor vehicles. Today, many important heads of CAE departments with an interest in plastic and
design decisions, especially in the field of crash, are based on foam materials simulation. At least 1-year of experience with
simulation results. During the last few years there has been FEM-programs such as LS-DYNA, PAM-CRASH or RADIOSS is
an increase in the use of foams in vehicles. These are, due to suggested for participating in this course.
their variety and structure, much more complicated regarding Course Contents
the characteristics of the materials than "simple" materials „ Overview of polymer materials used in vehicle
such as steel or aluminum, which can be modelled rather well. construction
Characterization of foam materials is a great challenge for the „ Verification and validation procedure for crash simulation
simulation expert. Although by now there are different model- „ Introduction to mechanics of materials
ling approaches available in explicit FEM-programs such as LS- „ Simulation of elastic and visco-elastic rubbers and foams
DYNA, PAM-CRASH or RADIOSS, these are, however, often not with volume elements
satisfactory. The application of these special material models „ Overview of available material models in explicit finite
requires a sound knowledge and experience. element codes
The seminar provides an overview over plastics and foam „ Simulation of elastic-plastic polymers under crash loading
materials used in automotive engineering and their phe- for validation
nomenology. On the first day you obtain an introduction into „ Simulation of anisotropic materials with application to
the simulation of elastic and visco-elastic polymers, such as glass-fiber reinforced plastics
elastomers and elastic polymer foams with volume elements.
You are thereby coming to understand the available material
models in explicit finite element programs.
On the second day the focus is on the treatment of plastics,
such as thermo- and duroplastics through elasto-plasticity
with isotropic hardening. Non-associated deformation is going
to be discussed as well. The seminar is rounded off with the
procedure for simulation of glass-fiber reinforced plastics
using both isotropic and anisotropic material laws.
For a demonstration you are going to see examples created
with the program LS-DYNA. References to material models
in LS-DYNA an PAM-CRASH are going to help you in applying
what you will have learnt.

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Stefan Kolling (TH Mittelhessen University of Applied Sciences) is
Instructor

Professor for Mechanics at the TH Mittelhessen University of Applied Sciences (THM). Previously he worked
as a simulation engineer at the Mercedes Technology Center in Sindelfingen. He was responsible for methods
development in crash simulation. In particular he was involved in the modeling of non-metal materials such
as glass, polymers and plastics. Prof. Kolling graduated from the Universities of Saarbrücken and Darmstadt,
from where he also received his Ph.D. He is author of numerous publications in the field of material modeling.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

14.-15.03.2023 37/4057 Alzenau 2 Days 1.340,- EUR till 14.02.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR

05.-08.09.2023 37/4120 Online 4 Days 1.340,- EUR till 08.08.2023, thereafter 1.650,- EUR
192 192
 Simulation|Engineering Latest info about
Seminar
this course

Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation

Course Description Course Contents

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 modeling 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
Course Objectives simulation
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.

Dr.-Ing. Silke Sommer (Fraunhofer Institute for Mechanics of Materials IWM) studied
Instructor

Physics at the RWTH Aachen University and obtained her PhD degree at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technol-
ogy about modeling of the deformation and failure behaviour of spot welds. She has been working at the
Fraunhofer Institute for Mechanics of Materials IWM in Freiburg since 2000 in the field of damage and failure
modeling of materials and joints for crash simulation. Since 2013 she has been a group leader for joining and
joints.

DATE ID VENUE DURATION PRICE LANGUAGE

Dates

13.03.2023 155/4040 Alzenau 1 Day 790,- EUR till 13.02.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR

16.-17.11.2023 155/4118 Online 2 Days 790,- EUR till 19.10.2023, thereafter 980,- EUR
193
 SafetyWissen.com
Important Abbreviations
A Integrated Circuit
AAA American / Australian
Automobile Association
AAAM Association for the
Advancement of Automotive
Medicine
AAM Alliance of Auto
Manufacturers
aBAS Advanced Brake Assist
System
ACC Adaptive Cruise Control
ACEA Association of European
Automobile Manufacturers
ACL Anterior cruciate ligament
AC-MDB Advanced Chinese Mobile
Deformable Barrier
ACN Automatic Collision
Notification
ACSF Automatically Commanded
Steering Function
ACU Airbag Control Unit
AD Automated Driving
ADAC Allgemeiner Deutscher
Automobil Club (German
Automobile Association)
ADAS Advanced Driver Assistance
Systems
ADL Automatic Door Locking
ADOD Average Depth of
Deformation
ADR Australian Design Rules
AE-MDB Advanced European Mobile
Deformable Barrier
AEB Autonomous Emergency
Braking
AEBS Autonomous Emergency
Brake System
AES Autonomous Emergency
Steering
AHB Auto High Beam
AHOD Average Height of
Deformation
AHOF Average Height of Force
AHR Active Head Rest
AIS (1) Abbreviated Injury Scale
AIS (2) Automotive Industry
Standards (India)
AISC Automotive Industry
Standards Committee
ANCAP Australasian New Car
Assessment Program
AOP Adult Occupant Protection
APF Abdominal Peak Force
APROSYS Advanced PROtection
SYStems
APSS Active Pedestrian Safety
System
ARAI Automotive Research
Association of India
ARV Advanced Rear Visualization
ASCC Adaptive Speed Cruise
Control
ASIC Application-Specific
194
ASIL Automotive Safety Integrity
Level (Functional Safety)
ASIS Adavanced Side Impact
System
ASLD Adjustable Speed Limitation
Device
ATD Anthropomorphic Test
Device
AZT Allianz Zentrum Technik
B CP Contact Point
BAS Brake Assist
BASt Germany's Federal Highway
Research Institute
BDA Bonnet Deployment Actuator
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards
BLE Bonnet Leading Edge
BMDV German Federal Ministry for
Digital and Transport
BMS Battery Management System
BoD Board of Directors (Euro
NCAP)
BOS Beginning of Steer
BRIC Brain Injury Criterion
BSD Blind Spot Detection
BST Blind Spot Technology
BTA Bumper Test Area
C DBS Dynamic Brake Support
C-IASI China Insurance Automotive
Safety Index
C-NCAP China New Car Assessment
Programme
C2C Car-to-Car
CA Crash Avoidance
CAE Computer Aided Engineering
CAN Controller Area Network
CAT Computer Aided Testing
CATARC China Automotive
Technology and Research
Center
CCD Charge Coupled Device
CCR Car to Car-Rear
CDC Collision Deformation
Classification
CEA Comité Européen des
Assurances
CFD Computational Fluid
Dynamics
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
(USA)
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Plastic
CIB Crash Imminent Braking
CLEPA Comité de liaison européen
des fabricants d’equipements
et de pièces automobiles
CMM Coordinate Measuring
Machine
CMOS Complementary Metal Oxide
Semiconductor
CMVR Central Motor Vehicle Rules
CMVSS Canadian Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards
COG Center of Gravity
CONTRAN Conselho Nacional de
Trânsito
COP (1) Carry over Parts
COP (2) Child Occupant Protection
(Euro NCAP)
COPD Child Occupant Presence
Detection
COS Completion of Steer
CPD Child Presence Detection
CRABI Child Restraint Airbag
Interaction (Child Dummy)
CRS Child Restraint System
CSMA/CA Carrier Sense Multiple Access
/ Collision Avoidance
CSMA/CD Carrier Sense Multiple Access
/ Collision Detection
CV Closing Velocity
CVFA Car to Vulnerable road user
Farside Adult
CVNA Car to Vulnerable road user
Nearside Adult
CVNC Car to Vulnerable road user
Nearside Child
D
DAS Data Acquisition System
DCU Domain Control Unit
DGPS Differential Global Positioning
System
DLO Daylight Opening
DOW Door Opening Warning
DPPS Deployable Pedestrian
Protection Systems
DSM Driver State Monitoring
DT Deployment Time
E
EBA Emergency Brake Assist
EBA Effective Braking &
Avoidance (ASEAN NCAP)
EBD Electronic Brake Force
Distribution
EBT Euro NCAP Bicyclist Target
ECE Economic Commision for
Europe (United Nations)
ECOSOC United Nations Economic
and Social Council
EDM Engineering Data
Management
EES Energy Equivalent Speed
EEVC European Enhanced Vehicle-
Safety Committee
EIF Entry Into Force
ELK Emergency Lane Keeping
ELSA ELectric SAfety (UNECE/
WP.29 Working Group)
EMC Electromagnetic
Compatibility
EOU Ease of Use
EPB Electrical Protection Barrier
EPT Euro NCAP Pedestrian Target

Important Abbreviations
ERG Emergency Response Guide
ES-2 re Euro SID 2 Rib Extension
ESA Emergency Steering Assist
ESC Electronic Stability Control
ESS Emergency Steering Support
ESV Enhanced Experimental
Vehicles Safety Program /
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
Program
ETC European Test Consortium
ETSC European Transport Safety
Council
Euro NCAP European New Car
Assessment Programme
EVPC Electric Vehicles Post Crash
EVS Electric Vehicle Safety
EVT Euro NCAP Vehicle Target
F HPM H-Point Manikin
FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting
System
FCEV Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
FCW Forward Collision Warning
FCWS Forward Collision Warning
System
FEM Finite Element Method
FFC Femur Force Criterion
FIWG Frontal Impact Working
Group (Euro NCAP)
Flex PLI Flexible Pedestrian Legform
Impactor
FMH Free Motion Headform
(FMVSS 201)
FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
FPS Frontal Protection System
FPSLE Frontal Protection System
Leading Edge
FRG Floating Rib Guide
FRP Fiber Reinforced Plastic
FRS Fitment Rating System
(ASEAN NCAP)
FSI Fluid-Structure-Interaction
FTDMA Flexible Time Division
Multiple Access
FW Full Width
FWDB Full Width Deformable
Barrier
FWRB Full Width Rigid Barrier
G Investigación del Automóvil
G.S.R. General Statutory Rules
GAMBIT Generalized Acceleration
Model for Brain Injury
Threshold
GCS Glasgow Coma Scale
GIDAS German in-Depth Accident
Study
GRSG Groupe de Rapporteurs sur
la Sécurité Générale (WP.29 -
General Safety Provisions)
GRSP Groupe de Rapporteurs sur
la Sécurité Passive (WP.29 -
Passive Safety)
GSR General Safety Regulation
GTR Global Technical Regulation
GVM Gross Vehicle Mass
GVT Global Vehicle Target
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
H J
HAD Highly Automated Driving
HAV Highly Automated Vehicle
HBM Human Body Model
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
HIC Head Injury Criterion
HIT Head Impact Time
HLDI Highway Loss Data Institute
HLLC High Level Liaison Committee
HMI Human Machine Interface
HNI Head Neck Impactor
HOF Height of Force
HPC Head Performance Criterion
HPS Head Protection System
HPT Head Protection Technology
HRC Time to Head Restraint first
Contact
HRMD Head Restraint Measuring
Device
HRV Head Rebound Velocity
HTD Hardest to detect
HV High Voltage
I LIN Local Interconnect Network
IARV Injury Assessment Reference
Value
IBRL Internal Bumper Reference
Line
ICPL Injury Criteria Protection
Level
ICRT International Consumer
Research and Testing
IG Informal Group
IHC Intelligent Headlight Control
IHRA International Harmonized
Research Activities
IIHS Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety
IIWPG International Insurance
Whiplash Prevention Group
INRETS Institut National de
Recherche sur les Transports
et leur Sécurité
INSIA Instituto Universitario de
IP Intersection Point
IRC Injury Risk Curve
IRCOBI International Research
Council on the Biomechanics
of Impact
IRF Injury Risk Function
ISA Intelligent Speed Assistance
ISM Intelligent Speed
Management
ISO International Organization for
Standardization
ISS Injury Severity Score
ITC Inland Transport Committee
(UNECE)
SafetyWissen.com
i-VISTA Intelligent Vehicle Integrated
Systems Test Area
IWVTA International Whole Vehicle
Type Approval
J-MLIT Japan: Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport
JA Junction Assist
JAMA Japan Automotive
Manufacturers Association
JARI Japan Automobile Research
Institute
JASIC Japan Automobile Standards
Internationalization Center
JNCAP Japan New Car Assessment
Program
K
KMVSS Korean Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
KNCAP Korean New Car Assessment
Program
KTH Knee - Thigh - Hip
L
LDWS Lane Departure Warning
System
LHD Left Hand Drive
LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LINCAP Lateral Impact New Car
Assessment Program (U.S.
NCAP)
LKAS Lane Keeping Assist System
LKD Lane Keeping Device
LKS Lane Keeping System
LL Lower Leg
LNL Lower Neck Load
LSS Lane Support System
LTR Land Transport Rules (New
Zeeland)
M
MAIS Maximum AIS (Abbreviated
Injury Scale)
MCB Multi Collision Brake
MCL Medial Collateral Ligament
MDB Mobile Deformable Barrier
MoD Motor own Damage
(Insurance)
MOST Media Oriented Systems
Transport
MPDB Moving Progressive
Deformable Barrier
MRM Minimum Risk Maneuver
MSA Manual Speed Assist
MST Motorcyclist Safety
Technology
MTBI Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
MVWG Motor Vehicle Working
Group (EU)
N
NASS National Automotive
Sampling System
NASS CDS NASS Crashworthiness Data
195
 SafetyWissen.com
Important Abbreviations
System
NASS GES NASS General Estimates
System
NASVA National Agency for
Automotive Safety & Victims‘
Aid (Japan)
NCAP New Car Assessment
Program
NCSA National Center for Statistics
and Analysis (an Office of
NHTSA)
NHTSA National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (USA)
NIC Neck Injury Criterion
NISS New Injury Severity Score
NNT Number Needed to Treat
NPACS New Programme for the
Assessment of Child-restraint
Systems
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (USA)
NTSEL National Traffic Safety and
Environment Laboratory
(Japan)
O SAT Safety Assist Technology
OC Occipital Condyles
ODB Offset Deformable Barrier
OICA Organisation Internationale
des Constructeurs
d’Automobiles
OLC Occupant Load Criterion
OMDB Oblique Moving Deformable
Barrier
OoP Out of Position
OSM Occupant Status Monitoring
P SOB Small Overlap Barrier (IIHS)
PADI Procedures for the assembly
disassembly and inspection
PAEB Pedestrian Automatic
Emergency Braking
PCL Posterior Cruciate Ligament
PDB (1) Partnership for
Dummytechnology and
Biomechanics
PDB (2) Progressive Deformable
Barrier
PDC Park Distance Control
PDI Pedestrian Detection
Impactor
PEAS Primary Energy Absorbing
Structure
PLI Pedestrian Legform Impactor
PMA Parking and Maneuvering
Assistant
PMD Photonic Mixer Device
PMHS Post Mortem Human
Subjects
PMTO Post Mortal Test Object
PNCAP Primary New Car Assessment
Programme
PoC Point of Collision
PP Pedestrian Protection
PPA Pedestrian Protection Airbag
196
PPAD Partner Protection
Assessment Deformation
PSPF Pubic Symphysis Peak Force
PSS Powered Standing Scooter
PTS Poly Trauma Score
PTW Powered Two Wheeler
R (Insurance)
Radar Radio Detection and Ranging
RCAR Research Council for
Automobile Repairs
RCTA Rear Cross Traffic Alert
REX Range Extender
RFCRS Rearward Facing Child
Restraint System
RHD Right Hand Drive
RID Rear Impact Dummy
RR Repeatability &
Reproducibility
S TTI Thoracic Trauma Index
S.O Statutory Order
SA Safety Assist (Euro NCAP)
SAE Society of Automotive
Engineers
SAS Speed Assistance System
SB Seat Back
SBR Seat Belt Reminder
SD Standard Deviation
SEAS Secondary Energy Absorbing
Structure
SgRP Seating Reference Point
SID Side Impact Dummy
SLD Speed Limitation Device
SLIF Speed Limit Information
Function
SRA Swedish Road Administration
SRP Seat Reference Point
SRS Supplementary Restraint
System
SSF Static Stability Factor
SSR Speed Sign Recognition
SSS Side Support Systems
ST Sensing Time
STNI Soft Tissue Neck Injury
SUFEHM Strasbourg University Finite
Element Head Model
SUV Sports Utility Vehicle
SWR Strength-to-weight Ratio
(Roof Crush)
T WG Working Group
TNCAP Taiwan New Car Assessment
Programme
TA Type Approval
TCMV Technical Committee - Motor
Vehicles (EU)
TEG Technical Evaluation Group
TF BTA Task Force Bumper Test Area
ThCC Thoracic Compression
Criterion, also TCC
THOR Test Device for Human
Occupant Restraint
THUMS Total Human Model for
Safety
TIPT Thorax Injury Prediction Tool
ToPI Time of Pedestrian
Identification
TOR Takeover Request
TPL Third Party Liability
TREAD Transportation Recall,
Enhancement, Accountability
and Documentation
TRL Transport Research
Laboratory (UK)
TRT Total Reaction/Response
Time
TSP Top Safety Pick (IIHS)
TT Top Tether
TTB Time to Brake
TTC Time to Collision
TTD Time to Decision
TTS Time to Steer
U
U.S. NCAP United States New Car
Assessment Program
UBM Upper Body Mass
UL Upper Leg
UMTRI University of Michigan
Transportation Research
Institute
UN United Nations
USCAR The United States Council for
Automotive Research
UUT Unit Under Test
V
VAN Vehicle Area Network
VATS Visual Attention Time Sharing
VC Viscous Criterion
VDC Vehicle Dynamics Control
VSA Voluntary Safety Assessment
VR Virtual Reality
VRTC Vehicle Research & Test
Center (NHTSA)
VRU Vulnerable Road User
VSS Vehicle Safety Score (U.S.
NCAP)
VTA Virtual Test Assessment
W
WAD (1) Wrap Around Distance
WAD (2) Whiplash Associated
Disorders
WP Working Party
WS World SID
WS5F World SID 5th%ile Female
Dummy
WSTC Wayne State University
Tolerance Curve

General Terms for the Participation in Seminars and Events
Subject and Scope of Application
These General Terms and Conditions (AGB) apply exclusively to participation in
seminars and events organized and held by carhs.training GmbH (hereinafter
referred to as carhs.training), Siemensstraße 12, 63755 Alzenau, Germany.
General terms and conditions or other general contractual conditions of the
customer or third parties are not valid, even if carhs.training does not expressly
object to them in individual cases.
Registration
You can register for the seminar, for the event directly via our webpage www.
carhs.de, or send us the completed and signed registration page, which is
attached to each invitation, by mail, fax or e-mail. By signing the written regis-
tration or sending the e-mail/internet registration, the participant accepts the
conditions of participation. Your registration data will be stored for internal
purposes.
Registration Confirmation / Invoice
You will receive a written registration confirmation and an invoice immediately
after receipt of your registration. Invoices are due for payment 30 days after the
invoice is issued, but no later than 7 days before the start of the seminar, before
the start of the event without deductions. We reserve the right to exclude par-
ticipants from the seminar or event if payment is not made in time.
Participation Fee
The participation fee for a seminar, an event is per person plus VAT and includes
training material, certificate of participation, drinks during breaks and lunch.
Since the place of performance for seminars and events held in Germany is
Germany (§ 3a Abs. 3 Nr. 3 lit. a German UStG), participants from abroad must
also pay VAT (but it may be possible to apply to the German Federal Central
Tax Office for a refund of VAT). Participation in our seminars and events only
temporarily does not entitle to a reduction of the participation fee. If you would
like to book a larger number of seminar days and/or event days within a year, it is
advisable to conclude a framework agreement. Please contact us in this regard!
Discount for Participants from Universities and Public Research Institu-
tions
We grant participants from universities and public research institutions a dis-
count of 40 % on the respective seminar prices, event prices.
Number of Participants
The number of participants is limited in order to guarantee an efficient execution
of the seminars, the events. Registrations will be considered in the order in which
they are received. Early registration is therefore recommended. For registrations
beyond this date, we will try to offer an alternative date.
Cancellation
1. Cancellation of the registration up to 4 weeks before the seminar is free of
charge. For cancellations up to 2 weeks before the start of the seminar we have
to charge a flat rate of 100 Euro. If a cancellation is made after this date or if
the participant does not appear at the seminar, the fee is to be paid in full. In
this case, the participant has the right to participate in the next seminar without
further costs.
2. For the conferences and events listed under the heading "Events", the follow-
ing deviating cancellation conditions apply: Cancellation of registration up to 4
weeks before the start of the event is free of charge. Cancellation up to 2 weeks
prior to the start of the event will be charged half the participation fee. If the
cancellation is made after this date or if the participant does not appear at the
event, the fee is payable in full.
Replacement Participants
A substitute participant can be named at any time instead of the registered par-
ticipant at no additional cost. The same conditions of participation apply to this
substitute as to the registered participant. If two persons share the participation
(1 participant per day), both will receive the complete documents. A surcharge
of EUR 100 plus VAT will be charged.
Program Changes
carhs.training reserves the right to change the program of the seminar or event.
Cancellation or Postponement of Seminars and Events
We reserve the right to cancel or postpone seminars and events for organiza-
tional reasons (e.g. if the minimum number of participants, which depends on
the type of seminar or event, is not reached or if the speaker is unavailable at
short notice). In case of cancellation by us, we will try to rebook you on another
date and/or venue, if you wish so. Otherwise you will be refunded the fees
already paid, further claims are excluded.
Liability
Naturally, the speakers will present their own opinions, publish or make avail-
carhs.training gmbh
i
able information and data. We cannot accept any liability for the content of the
statements, for information and data or for the success of the training. We are
not liable for loss of or damage to items brought to seminars or events unless
the loss or damage to these items is due to intentional or grossly negligent
conduct by our employees or other vicarious agents. We would therefore ask
you not to leave any valuables or important materials in the conference room
during breaks. We do not guarantee that the products, processes and names
mentioned in seminars, events and documents are free of property rights.
Copyrights
The materials handed out within the context of our seminars and events are pro-
tected by copyright and may not be reproduced or commercially used, even in
part, without the consent of carhs.training GmbH and the respective instructors.
Image Recordings
carhs.training is entitled, within the framework of the seminar, the event, to cre-
ate, reproduce, broadcast or have created, reproduce or have broadcast, make
available to the public or have made available to the public, as well as to use
or have used in any other way in audio-visual media, image recordings of the
participants that go beyond the reproduction of an event of current events (right
to one's own image) without remuneration.
Partner Seminars and Events
At the seminars, events of our partner companies BGS - Böhme und Gehring
GmbH and Vogel Communications Group GmbH & Co. KG we only act as a bro-
ker and forward your registration to the respective provider. Your contractual
partner becomes the respective seminar provider, event provider. Their condi-
tions of participation apply exclusively.
Validity of the Conditions of Participation
For all seminar bookings, event bookings (with the exception of partner semi-
nars, partner events) these terms and conditions of participation apply exclu-
sively. Deviating terms and conditions of our clients shall not apply even if the
client refers to his own terms and conditions in the course of correspondence
required due to the contractual relationship.
Written Form, Validity of German Law and Place of Jurisdiction
1. All agreements made at the time of the conclusion of the contract or there-
after, which deviate from the provisions of these AGB, must be in writing to be
legally effective. This also applies to a cancellation or waiver of the written form
requirement. For the compliance with the written form it is also sufficient to
send it by fax or e-mail.
2. The present AGB and all individual contracts concluded between carhs.train-
ing and the customer are subject exclusively to the laws of the Federal Republic
of Germany, excluding the UN Convention on Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods (CISG).
3. If the customer is a merchant, legal entity under public law, or special fund
under public law, or has no general place of jurisdiction in Germany, the exclu-
sive place of jurisdiction is the headquarters of carhs.training.
Imprint
Published by
carhs.training gmbh, Siemensstrasse 12, D-63755 Alzenau, Germany
Tel. +49 (0) 6023-9640-60, Fax +49 (0) 6023-9640-70
Managing Directors: Constantin Hoffmann, Rainer Hoffmann
Commercial Register: Aschaffenburg HRB 9961
Copyright
© 2023 by carhs.training gmbh. All details, including but not limited to,
illustrations, product descriptions and documents published in this book are the
sole property of carhs.training gmbh. Any copying or distribution in whole or in
parts is subject to a written permit by carhs.training gmbh. All rights reserved.
carhs is a registered trademark of carhs gmbh
Liability
No warranty is given, either expressly or tacitly, for the completeness or
correctness of the information in this publication or on websites referred to in
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
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
of the information contained without previous announcement. We can and
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
not have any influence, outside of our domain, for the pages presented in the
Internet. Should any illegal information be spread via one of our links, please be
so kind to inform us immediately, to enable us to remove said link.
197
 carhs.training gmbh
i
Index C-NCAP Active Safety Roadmap 2025
171
Forward Collision Warning 166
Frank, Thomas 114
A Compatibility 36 Frontal Impact 34, 39, 59, 79, 82, 85
compliance 28 Front Crash Prevention 165
Abbreviations 194
Composites 190
ACL 132
Active Safety 133
Crash Imminent Braking 52, 166 G
Crash Simulation 77, 190, 191, 192, Gärtner, Torsten 99
ADAS 134
193 Gautrain, Louis 76
ADR 22
Crashworthiness 77 Gese, Helmut 191
AEB 148, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 158,
Creamer, John 20, 28, 141 Global NCAP 73
159, 161, 165, 168, 170, 172,
174, 179, 180 Golowko, Kai 81, 83
AES 172
D Grid Method 104
Airbag 81, 84 Data-based Development 145 GTR 20
ANCAP 34, 46, 136 Driver Assistance 144 GTR 9 100
aPLI 102, 131, 132 Driver State Monitoring 138 GTR 14 90
Artificial Intelligence 144 Dual Rating 46
ASEAN NCAP 31, 62, 119, 136 Duddeck, Fabian 187 H
Automated Driving 133, 140, 141, Dummy 122, 129, 130 Harzheim, Lothar 188
143, 144 Head Impact 98, 99
Auto[nom]Mobil 143 E Head Restraints 53
AZT 108 e-Call 45, 66 HIC 126
Eickhoff, Burkhard 80, 88 High Speed Cameras 128
B Ejection Mitigation 66, 96, 97 Hübner, Sandro 84
Bachem, Harald 108 Electric Vehicles 24, 25, 26 Human Modeling 186
Backes, André 189 Emergency Lane Keeping 161, 162 Hybrid III (HIII) 122
Balancing 46, 74 Emergency Steering Support 150,
BASt 142 152, 158 I
battery 25 ES-2 122 IIHS 30, 32, 53, 78, 90, 111, 136, 164,
Battery 24 ESC 162, 181 165
BEV 24 Euro NCAP 32, 34, 40, 46, 90, 92, 100, IIWPG 111
104, 112, 115, 116, 117, 164 India 21
Biomechanics 186
EuroSID 122 Inhouse Seminars 14
BioRID 122
Extrication 45 Injury Mechanisms 186
Brain Injury Criterion 126
BrIC 126 Injury Risk Curves 49
Brolin, Karin 186
F Insurance Tests 109
Bumper Test 109 Far Side Occupant 42 i-VISTA 172
FCW 172
C Finck, Maren 106, 107 J
Flex PLI 102, 132 JNCAP 31, 67, 68, 100, 136, 174
CAE Grand Challenge 184
FMVSS 20, 28, 92 Joints 193
Camera 124
FMVSS 126 181 Justen, Rainer 24
Child Presence Detection 40, 116
FMVSS 201 98, 99
Child Protection 74, 115, 118
China 15
FMVSS 208 79, 81, 82 K
FMVSS 214 89, 90, 91 Karall, Thomas 190
C-IASI 31
FMVSS 216a 78 Kinsky, Thomas 20
CMVSS 208 79
FMVSS 226 96, 97 KMVSS 22, 23
C-NCAP 31, 32, 63, 64, 66, 100, 136,
164, 168 FMVSS 305 25 KNCAP 31, 71, 100, 120, 136, 176
Foams 192 Kolling, Stefan 192
198
 carhs.training gmbh
i
Kuhn, Andreas 144, 145 Product Liability 28, 75 Sommer, Silke 193
Kunkel, Matthias 76 Programming 189 SOTIF 140
PTW 154 Speed Assist Systems 138, 177
L Python 189 Static Vehicle Safety Tests 76
Lane Departure Warning 161, 173 Steininger, Udo 140
Lane Keep Assist 161, 170, 177 Q
Latin NCAP 30, 58, 62, 119, 136, 177 Q-Dummy 119, 122, 129 T
Lightweight Design 77 Table of Contents 10, 11
Lohrmann, Hans-Georg 75 R Testing 123
Low-Speed Crash 107, 108 Rating 50, 62 THOR 83, 126, 130
RCAR 107, 108, 109 TNCAP 74
M Rear Automatic Braking 167 Top Safety Pick 54
Machine Learning 144, 189 Rear Impact 113 Turn Across Path 158
Material Models 190, 191, 192 Rear Seat 87, 88
MCL 132 Recall 28, 75 U
Meißner, Norman 92 Regulations 20, 21, 22 UN R21 98, 99
Metals 191 Rescue 40, 45 UN R94 22, 26
MPDB 34, 40, 63 Rescue Sheet 45 UN R95 23, 26, 90
Müller, Gerd 133 Restraint Systems 81, 83, 84 UN R100 26
Multi Collision Brake 45 Reuter, Ralf 18 UN R127 100, 102
Multi-point Thoracic Injury Criterion Roadmap 2030 29 UN R135 23
126 Robust Design 187 UN R137 22, 26
Roof Crush 54, 76, 78 UN R153 26
N UN Regulations 121
NCAP 30, 32, 34, 48, 49, 50, 136, 164 S U.S. NCAP 30, 48, 49, 50, 52, 90, 136,
New Energy Vehicles 15 SAE 142 166, 167
NHTSA 20, 142 SAFERCARSFORAFRICA 73
SAFERCARSFORINDIA 73 V
O SafetyExpo 16 Validation 145
Occupant Protection 80, 88 SafetyTesting Challenge 123 Vehicle Classification 121
Occupant to Occupant Protection 44 SafetyUpDate 17 Vehicle Safety Score 50
OLC 36 SafetyWeek 16 Virtual Testing 182
OMDB 83 Sandner, Volker 40 VRU 148, 150, 151
Optimization 188 Scenario-based Development 145
Out-of-Position 81, 82 Schnottale, Britta 118 W
Schumacher, Axel 77 Weber, Thomas 128
P Seat Adjustments 89 Whiplash 64, 110, 112, 113, 114
Passive Safety 18, 40 Seat Belt Reminder 66, 138, 177 Wolter, Stephanie 92
PCL 132 Seats 113 WorldSID 89, 122, 130
P-Dummy 122 Seeck, Andre 32, 164
Pedestrian Protection 100, 101, 106, Self-Certification 28 Z
107, 131, 132 Seminar Guide 8 Zimmermann, Valentin 96
Plastics 192 SID 122
Pole Side Impact 90 Side Impact 41, 60, 89, 90, 92, 94
Positive risk balance 140 SID-IIs 122
Post Crash 45 Sine with Dwell 181
PraxisConference Pedestrian Protec- Slowly-Increasing-Steer 181
tion 101 Small Overlap 56, 57
199
 carhs.training gmbh
i
Want to bec
ome an adve
Advertisers Directory Find more in
rtiser in the
next edition?
formation at
: www.carh
s.de/media

4activeSystems GmbH ERNST + Co Prüfmaschinen GmbH

 p. 153  p. 203

ADAC e.V. GNS mbH

 p. 147  p. 2

ADDITIUM TECHNOLOGIES, S.L. Global Safety Textiles

 p. 33  p. 51

Altair Engineering Inc. Humanetics Europe GmbH

 p. 185  p. 127

AOS Technologies AG IAV Fahrzeugsicherheit GmbH & Co. KG

 p. 95  p. 55

ARRK Engineering GmbH Instron GmbH

 p. 61   p. 204

ATD-MODELS GmbH Kistler Instrumente AG

 p. 37  p. 3

Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG measX GmbH & Co. KG

 p. 105  p. 43

Bertrandt AG OPTOLINK
 p. 21  p. 47

BETA CAE Systems Peters Engineering GmbH

 p. 183  p. 65

CANSINGA Photron Deutschland GmbH

 p. 39  p. 125

CDH AG RACELOGIC Ltd.

 p. 4  p. 163

Continental Safety Engineering Shanghai Digauto Automobile Technol-

International GmbH  p. 65 ogy Co., Ltd.  p. 139

CSI Certificazione e Testing S.P.A. Siemens Digital Industries Software N.V.

 p. 93  p. 69

DEKRA Automobil GmbH Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt

 p. 135  p. 157

Dr. Hönle AG UV Technology VIRTUAL VEHICLE Research GmbH

 p. 19  p. 169

EDAG Engineering GmbH VISOL Inc.

 p. 103, 149  p. 34, 95

ENCOPIM S.L. ZF Friedrichshafen AG

 p. 83  p. 27

200
Seminar Calendar 2023
February April
03.02.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 190 11.-14.04.2023 | Online |  p. 145
Material Models of Composites for Crash Simulation Scenario-, Simulation- and Data-based Development, Vali-
07.02.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 191 dation and Safeguarding of Automated Driving Functions
Material Models of Metals for Crash Simulation 19.-20.04.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 24
07.-10.02.2023 | Online |  p. 32 Crash Safety of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs 19.-20.04.2023 | Online |  p. 133
14.-17.02.2023 | Online |  p. 18 Introduction to Active Safety of Vehicles
Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles 21.04.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 114
16.-17.02.2023 | Online |  www.carhs.de Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts
Structural Mechanics for Simulation Engineers 25.-26.04.2023 | Hanau |  p. 184
20.-23.02.2023 | Online |  p. 75 automotive CAE Grand Challenge
Product Liability in the Automobile Industry 25.-28.04.2023 | Online |  p. 28
23.-24.02.2023 | Online |  p. 140 Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification
Automated Driving - Safeguarding and Market Introduction
27.-28.02.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 188 May
Structural Optimization in Automotive Design 02.-03.05.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 189
27.-28.02.2023 | Online |  p. 108 Introduction to the Python Programming Language
Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes 02.-03.05.2023 | Online |  p. 84
28.02.-03.03.2023 | Online |  p. 81 Early Increase of Design Maturity of Restraint Systems
Development of Frontal Restraint Systems 04.05.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 118
28.02.-01.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 18 Child Protection in Front and Side Impacts
Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles 09.-12.05.2023 | Online |  p. 189
Python based Machine Learning
March 10.-11.05.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 77
02.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 99 Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body Design
Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 and UN R21 23.-25.05.2023 | Würzburg |  p. 16
06.03.2023| Alzenau |  p. 106 SafetyWeek
Pedestrian Protection - Development Strategies
07.03.2023| Alzenau |  p. 128 June
High Speed Cameras Workshop 06.-07.06.2023 | Online |  p. 141
09.-10.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 80 Briefing on the Worldwide Status of Automated Vehicle Policies
Basics of Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes 13.-14.06.2023 | Bergisch Gladbach |  p. 101
13.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 193 PraxisConference Pedestrian Protection
Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation 14.06.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 140
13.-16.03.2023 | Online |  p. 144 Automated Driving - Safeguarding and Market Introduction
Introduction to AI and ML for ADAS and AD Functions 15.-16.06.2023 | Landsberg |  p. 40
14.-15.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 192 Euro NCAP Passive Safety Workshop
Material Models of Plastics & Foams for Crash Simulation 16.+23.06.2023 | Online |  p. 190
24.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 76 Material Models of Composites for Crash Simulation
Static Vehicle Safety Tests in Automotive Development 19.-22.06.2023 | Online |  p. 92
28.-29.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 92 Side Impact - Requirements and Development Strategies
Side Impact - Requirements and Development Strategies 22.-23.06.2023 | Online |  p. 99
28.-29.03.2023 | Online |  p. 88 Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 and UN R21
Rear Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Impact 26.-27.06.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 32
28.-29.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 20 NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations 27.-28.06.2023 | Gaimersheim |  p. 81
30.-31.03.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 187 Development of Frontal Restraint Systems
Robust Design - Vehicle Development under Uncertainty 28.-29.06.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 18
Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles
Seminar Calendar 2023
July 17.-18.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 145
Scenario-, Simulation- and Data-based Development, Vali-
04.-07.07.2023 | Online |  p. 24 dation and Safeguarding of Automated Driving Functions
Crash Safety of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
19.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 128
11.-14.07.2023 | Online |  p. 18 High Speed Cameras Workshop
Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles
23.-24.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 75
17.-18.07.2023 | Online |  p. 106 Product Liability in the Automobile Industry
Pedestrian Protection - Development Strategies
25.-26.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 81
19.-20.07.2023 | Shanghai |  p. 15 Development of Frontal Restraint Systems
Automotive Safety Summit Shanghai
30.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 84
25.-28.07.2023 | Online |  p. 20 Early Increase of Design Maturity of Restraint Systems
International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations
November
September
06.-10.11.2023 | Online |  p. 32
05.-08.09.2023 | Online |  p. 192 NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
Material Models of Plastics & Foams for Crash Simulation
07.-10.11.2023 | Online |  p. 77
14.-15.09.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 32 Crashworthy and Lightweight Car Body Design
NCAP - New Car Assessment Programs
09.11.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 96
19.-20.09.2023 | Graz |  p. 17 Ejection Mitigation FMVSS 226
SafetyUpDate Graz
13.11.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 106
22.09.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 99 Pedestrian Protection - Development Strategies
Head Impact on Vehicle Interiors: FMVSS 201 and UN R21
13.-16.11.2023 | Online |  p. 187
25.09.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 114 Robust Design - Vehicle Development under Uncertainty
Whiplash Testing and Evaluation in Rear Impacts
14.11.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 133
26.-27.09.2023 | Klettwitz |  p. 134 Introduction to Active Safety of Vehicles
The ADAS Experience
14.-15.11.2023 | Landsberg |  p. 113
26.-27.09.2023 | Online |  p. 191 PraxisConference Rear Impact - Seats - Whiplash
Material Models of Metals for Crash Simulation
16.-17.11.2023 | Online |  p. 193
29.09.2023 | Alzenau |  www.carhs.de Modeling of Joints in Crash Simulation
Static & Dynamic Analysis of Long-Fibre-Reinforced Plastics
20.-24.11.2023 | Online |  p. 188
29.09.2023 | Gaimersheim |  p. 83 Structural Optimization in Automotive Design
Development of Frontal Restraint Systems - Advanced
21.-22.11.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 24
Crash Safety of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
October
24.11.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 108
04.-05.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 28 Passenger Cars in Low-Speed Crashes
Vehicle Safety under Self-Certification
28.-29.11.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 20
05.-06.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 144 International Safety and Crash-Test Regulations
Introduction to AI and ML for ADAS and AD Functions
30.11.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 141
09.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 107 Briefing on the Worldwide Status of Automated Vehicle Policies
Workshop Pedestrian Protection and Low Speed Crash
10.-11.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 18 December
Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles
05.-08.12.2023 | Online |  p. 18
12.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 76 Introduction to Passive Safety of Vehicles
Static Vehicle Safety Tests in Automotive Development
12.-13.12.2023 | Frankfurt |  p. 29
12.-13.10.2023 | Alzenau |  p. 189 Euro NCAP UpDate 2023
Python based Machine Learning
 p. 40 Find the latest information on our seminar program at
12.-13.10.2023 | Landsberg |
Euro NCAP Passive Safety Workshop
www.carhs.de
16.-19.10.2023 | Online |  p. 186
Introduction to Impact Biomechanics & Human Body Models
 Innovative Solutions For Next Gen Crash Simulation

Fully Programmable Closed Loop Pitching

Improved Occupant Kinematics For More Accurate Results

Instron GmbH
Schenck Technologie- und Industriepark
Landwehrstraße 65
64293 Darmstadt
www.instron.com