safety enhanced innovations for older road users … · issue date . 29/05/2018 : deliverable 3.2b...

SAFETY ENHANCED INNOVATIONS FOR OLDER ROAD USERS

EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

HORIZON 2020 GA No. 636136

The research leading to the results of this work has received funding

from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme under grant agreement No 636136.

Deliverable No. D3.2b

Deliverable Title Updated Impactor Test and Validation Report

Dissemination level Public

Written by

Zander, Oliver BASt

Ott, Julian

Lundgren, Christer Autoliv

Fornells, Alba IDIADA

Luera, Andrea FCA

Checked by David Hynd TRL 26/05/2018

Mark Burleigh Humanetics 26/05/2018

Approved by Wisch, Marcus BASt 26/05/2018

Issue date 29/05/2018

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 2 out of 107

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The demographic change european society is facing during the next decades will be

challenging also for passive vehicle safety. The external road user safety branch of

the HORIZON 2020 SENIORS project addresses special safety needs in particular of

the elderly by defining equivalent safety requirements to passenger cars within test

and assessment procedures, alongside with a provision of new and revised test

tools, towards an appropriate assessment of the vehicle protection potential, also

taking into account the ongoing changes in injury patterns of vulnerable road users

since the introduction of consumer test programmes and regulative requirements.

This report resumes the results of baseline pedestrian simulations with human body

models and impactor models against generic test rigs. For that purpose, subsequent

to the work reported about in Deliverable D2.5b (Zander et al., 2017), various

impactor simulations vs. actual vehicle models and a generic SAE Buck and its

derivatives (representing a Sedan, an SUV and a Van/MPV frontend) have been

carried out and compared to the results from human body model simulations against

identical frontends. The Deliverable compares kinematics, time histories as well as

peak loadings and identifies possible correlations between the loadings to the human

body model and the impactor models. The results will be used to establish test and

assessment procedures for vulnerable road users in a later project stage and to be

evaluated by means of physical component and full-scale tests.

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 3 out of 107

Following participants contributed to this deliverable report: Partner Representative Chapters BASt Oliver Zander 1-4 BASt Julian Ott 3 Autoliv Christer Lundgren 3.2 IDIADA Alba Fornells 3.2, 4.2 FCA Andrea Luera 3.2

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 4 out of 107

CONTENTS

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

1.1 The EU Project SENIORS ................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Background and Objectives of this Deliverable .............................................................. 5 2 Simulation programme .............................................................................................. 6

2.1 Aim .............................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Simulation matrix ......................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Setups .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 Lower Extremities ..................................................................................... 9 2.3.2 Thorax .................................................................................................... 10

3 Simulations and results............................................................................................ 12

3.1 Lower Extremities ...................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 HBM (THUMSv4) .................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 FlexPLI and its derivatives ...................................................................... 18

3.1.2.1 FlexPLI Baseline.................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.2.2 FlexPLI-UBMrigid (PK1.1) ........................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2.3 FlexPLI-UBMrubber (WS) ........................................................................................................... 25

3.1.3 Comparison HBM vs. impactor simulations ............................................ 28 3.1.3.1 Kinematics, peak results, time histories .............................................................................. 29 3.1.3.2 Quantitative correlations (transfer functions) ..................................................................... 44

3.1.3.2.1 All impacts .................................................................................................................. 45 3.1.3.2.2 Centreline impacts .................................................................................................... 49 3.1.3.2.3 Vehicle categorization .............................................................................................. 51

3.1.3.3 Vehicle rotation ................................................................................................................... 56

3.2 Thorax ....................................................................................................................... 61 3.2.1 SAE Buck ............................................................................................... 61

3.2.1.1 HBM (TUC THUMS) .............................................................................................................. 61 3.2.1.2 TIPT ...................................................................................................................................... 64

3.2.1.2.1 Loop 1........................................................................................................................... 64 3.2.1.2.2 Loop 3r1 ....................................................................................................................... 74 3.2.1.2.3 Loop 5........................................................................................................................... 79

3.2.2 Actual vehicles ........................................................................................ 82 3.2.2.1 SUV ...................................................................................................................................... 82

4 Summary and conclusions........................................................................................ 91

4.1 Conclusions of validations and impact on SENIORS project .......................................... 91

4.2 Transfer of results ...................................................................................................... 93 Glossary ......................................................................................................................... 99 References ..................................................................................................................... 100 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 102 Disclaimer...................................................................................................................... 102 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 103 Diagrams ....................................................................................................................... 103

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 5 out of 107

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE EU PROJECT SENIORS Because society is aging demographically and obesity is becoming more prevalent,

the SENIORS (Safety ENhanced Innovations for Older Road userS) project aims to

improve the safe mobility of the elderly, and overweight/obese persons, using an

integrated approach that covers the main modes of transport as well as the specific

requirements of this vulnerable road user group.

This project primarily investigates and assesses the injury reduction in road traffic

crashes that can be achieved through innovative and suitable tools, test and

assessment procedures, as well as safety systems in the area of passive vehicle

safety. The goal is to reduce the numbers of fatally and seriously injured older road

users for both major groups: car occupants and external road users (pedestrians,

cyclists, e-bike riders).

Implemented in a project structure, the SENIORS project consists of four technical

Work Packages (WP1 – WP4) which interact and will provide the substantial

knowledge needed throughout the project. These WPs are:

WP1: Accidentology and behaviour of elderly in road traffic

WP2: Biomechanics

WP3: Test tool development

WP4: Current protection and impact of new safety systems

In addition, there is one Work Package assigned for the Dissemination and

Exploitation (WP5) as well as one Work Package for the Project Management (WP6).

1.2 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS DELIVERABLE The demographic change European society is facing during the next decades will be

challenging also for passive vehicle safety. The external road user safety branch of

the HORIZON 2020 SENIORS project will address special safety needs in particular

of the elderly by defining equivalent safety requirements to passenger cars within test

and assessment procedures, alongside with a provision of new and revised test

tools, towards an appropriate assessment of the vehicle protection potential.

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 6 out of 107

Deliverable D3.2b of the SENIORS project resumes the results of baseline

pedestrian simulations with human body models and impactor models against

generic test rigs. For that purpose, subsequent to the work reported about in

Deliverable D2.5b, various impactor simulations vs. actual vehicle models and a

generic SAE Buck and its derivatives (representing a Sedan, an SUV and a

Van/MPV frontend) are carried out and compared to the results from human body

model simulations against identical frontends. Impact kinematics, time histories as

well as peak loadings are compared and possible correlations between the loadings

to the human body model and the impactor models defined.

2 SIMULATION PROGRAMME

2.1 AIM

The simulation programme reported about in this Deliverable is intended as

validation of impactor results formerly obtained against generic vehicle frontends vs.

actual vehicle models on the one hand, and as a further investigation of possible

correlations between human body models simulations and impactor simulations, as

depicted in Figure 1 on the other hand. These correlations would then go into the

assessment procedure further described in SENIORS Deliverables D4.1(b) (Zander

et al., 2018-2) and D4.2(b) (Zander et al., 2018-3).

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 7 out of 107

Figure 1: Context of impactor validations within overall pedestrian flowchart, example lower extremities.

2.2 SIMULATION MATRIX

Subsequent to baseline simulations with the human body model THUMS v4 (Total

HUman Model for Safety), FlexPLI (Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor), FlexPLI-

UBM (Upper Body Mass), HNI (Head Neck Impactor) and TIPT (Thorax Injury

Prediction Tool) vs. a generic test rig and generic vehicle frontends, as reported in

Deliverable D2.5b (Zander et al., 2018-1), a variety of simulations with the mentioned

impactors were carried out against actual vehicles, the SAE Buck and its derivatives,

representing a Sedan, an SUV and a Van/MPV. Since baseline simulations with the

HNI did not demonstrate a potential benefit in terms of an improved kinematic

behaviour nor in regarding the impactor readings in simulations against the SAE

Buck, this approach was not followed further during the project. Thus, subsequent

work was focused on the refinement of the FlexPLI with applied upper body mass as

well as the further development of a prediction tool for thoracic injuries of vulnerable

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 8 out of 107

road users. An overview of all validation simulations regarding the FlexPLI-UBM

development including ambient conditions is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Context of impactor validations within overall pedestrian flowchart.

Surrogate/ Vehicle

THUMSv4 FlexPLI Baseline

FlexPLI-UBMrigid

(PK1.1)

FlexPLI-UBMrubber (WS)

Impact height 0mm 75mm 25...72mm 25...72mm

Actual Van/MPV -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB

Actual SUV -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB

Actual Sedan I -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB

Actual Sedan II -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB

SAE Buck (Sedan) y0 y0 y0 y0

SAE Buck (SUV) y0 y0 y0 y0

SAE Buck (Van/MPV) y0 y0 y0 y0

FlexPLI tests were performed with the baseline impactor (FlexPLI Baseline), with

applied upper body mass with rigid connection (FlexPLI-UBMrigid) and a protection kit

(PK1.1) for avoiding unintended interaction between mass and vehicle frontend, and

with applied upper body mass with flexible connection (FlexPLI-UBMrubber), consisting

of rubber material used for the neck of the WorldSID dummy (WS). All impact points

of tests against actual vehicle models were located at vehicle centreline (y0) and at

either end of the bumper beam (-EoB, EoB). Tests against the SAE Buck and its

derivatives were performed at vehicle centreline, only.

Regarding the TIPT, several simulation loops have been carried out whose results

had already been partially reported in Deliverable D2.5b. An overview of all loops is

given in Table 2:

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 9 out of 107

Table 2: Overview of simulation loops with TIPT.

Simulation loop Description Frontends (SAE Buck)

Vehicle Speed

Loop1 TIPT baseline simulations

Sedan, SUV, Van/MPV 20 / 30 / 40 / 50 km/h

Loop 2a TIPT with additional neck weight


Loop 2b TIPT with aditional neck and pelvis weight


Loop 3 TIPT with z-rotation locked


Loop 3r1 TIPT with no initial z-rotation


Loop 4 TIPT w/o arm vs. vehicle interaction


Loop 5 as loop3r1 but with stowed arm, w/o

abdomen SUV, Van/MPV 30 / 40 km/h

2.3 SETUPS

2.3.1 Lower Extremities While the human body model simulations with THUMS were performed with the

THUMS always positioned at ground level height, the FlexPLI Baseline impacts the

vehicle frontend with the bottom of the legform at 75mm according to the technical

prescriptions within UN-R 127.01 (UNECE, 2013) as well as Euro NCAP (Euro

NCAP, 2017). The FlexPLI-UBMrigid and the FlexPLI-UBMrubber follow the draft test

procedure described in SENIORS Deliverable D4.1(b): For wrap around distances

(WAD) of the bonnet leading edge reference line (BLE-RL) up to and including

953mm, the impact height is 25mm above ground level. In case of the BLE-RL WAD

between 954mm and including 1000mm, the FlexPLI-UBM impact height is further

raised by between 1mm and 47mm, resulting in an impact height between 26mm and

72mm. In case of the BLE-RL WAD greater than 1000mm, the FlexPLI-UBM impact

height remains unchanged at 72mm. The impact height is derived from the human

anthropometry as well as the dimensions of the FlexPLI as illustrated in Figure 2. A

more detailed description of the derivation of the impact conditions can be found in

Deliverable D4.1(b).

Deliverable 3.2b

Page | 10 out of 107

Figure 2: FlexPLI-UBM impactor dimensions.

2.3.2 Thorax In the first thorax simulation loop (loop 1), baseline simulations with isolated ES-2

thorax under ambient conditions derived from TUC THUMS simulations had been

carried out. Additional weights were added to the neck and pelvis area of TIPT in

loop 2. Loop 3 investigated the effects of a limited rotation of the TIPT around its

vertical axis; at first instance with entire elimination of z-rotation, and secondly

without z-rotation until the time of first contact of TIPT with the vehicle front. Loop 4

analyzed the effect of elimination of arm interaction with the vehicle. Loop 5 finally

was carried out with stowed arm on the struck side and without abdomen and pelvis

due to practical reasons, reducing impactor weight during subsequent hardware

testing.

Since loop 3r1 and loop 5 were chosen by the SENIORS consortium as combination

of most realistic as well as most pragmatic impact conditions, this report will analyze

their results in the following chapters.

The impact conditions for TIPT simulations were derived from corresponding TUC

THUMS HBM simulations vs. the SAE Buck at different vehicle speeds, as

exemplarily shown in Figure 3 for the SUV. A more detailed description of HBM and

impactor simulations can be found in SENIORS Deliverable D2.5b.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 3: TUC THUMS vs. TIPT loop 1 simulations. Example SAE Buck (SUV), 40 km/h vehicle speed.

HBM simulations were carried out at vehicle speeds of 20 km/h, 30 km/h, 40 km/h

and 50 km/h, resulting in velocity vectors and TIPT x and z velocities according to

Table 3.

Table 3: Impact speeds and angles of velocity vectors of TIPT simulations.

Deliverable 3.2b


The impact parameters for 40 km/h (TIPT impact angles, angles of the velocity vector

and TIPT impact speeds) are exemplarily summarised in Table 4 Table 4:

Table 4: TIPT impact parameters for 40 km/h vehicle speed.

3 SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS The following chapters provide detailed test results obtained in human body model

simulations with TUC THUMS and THUMSv4 and a comparison of results between

HBM simulations and impactor simulations using the different versions of TIPT and

FlexPLI.

3.1 LOWER EXTREMITIES

3.1.1 HBM (THUMSv4)

The THUMS version 4 human body model (THUMSv4) was used for finite element

pedestrian simulations against the SAE Buck model described by Pipkorn et al.

(2012) and two derivatives (SUV, Van/MPV), see Figure 4, as well as against four

actual vehicle models representing the categories Sedan, SUV and Van/MPV.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 4: Load path allocation of SAE Buck and its derivatives SUV and Van/MPV.

Since the behaviour of the HBM as well as the different versions of the FlexPLI

impactor were investigated not only in principal at flat but also at angled surfaces,

simulations were carried out at vehicle centreline as well as the end of the test area

as defined by the bumper beam according to Euro NCAP (2017), see Table 1.

Please note that due to the “two dimensional” front surface of the SAE Buck and its

derivatives, the tests at the end of the bumper beam (EoB) were only carried out

against the actual vehicle models.

Deliverable 3.2b


An example of the positioning of THUMSv4 is given in

Figure 5 for the Sedan derivative of the SAE Buck. THUMSv4 is positioned with the

struck side leg vertically to the ground while the other leg inclined at 20 degrees in

forward motion according to the JAMA-JARI stance defined by Konosu et al. (2007).

This setup was intended to replicate the vertical FlexPLI position and to avoid

interaction between the two legs.

Figure 5: THUMSv4 positioning in SAE Buck and vehicle simulations. Example SAE Buck (Sedan).

THUMSv4 was positioned with the struck side leg 25 mm above ground level which

was realized with a shoe sole of 25 mm thickness.

An overview of the peak results with THUMSv4 vs. the SAE Buck (bending moments

and elongations over segments) and its derivatives are displayed in Figure 6. Here, it

can be seen that the Van/MPV derivative of the SAE Buck is simulating the most

aggressive vehicle frontend considering the femur and medial collateral ligament

(MCL), while for the tibia and cruciate ligaments the SAE Buck in its original version

(Sedan) is causing the highest readings. It is also obvious that the unsymmetrical

allocation of ligaments in the human knee leads to unsymmetrical results.

Furthermore, the elongations of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) seem to be far

more sensitive to a change in vehicle frontend geometry than those of the posterior

cruciate ligament (PCL).

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 6: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, THUMSv4 vs. SAE Buck.

THUMSv4 vs. the actual Van/MPV vehicle peak results are illustrated in Figure 7.

Here, the highest femur bending moments and posterior cruciate ligament

elongations were acquired when impacting the end of the bumper beam (right hand

side – RHS), while the vehicle centreline provided the highest tibia bending moments

and elongations of the medial collateral ligament. The different results of ACL and

PCL for LHS and RHS underline the dissymmetry of the human knee.

Figure 7: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, THUMSv4 vs. actual Van/MPV.

The simulations with THUMSv4 vs. the actual SUV representative are summarised in

Figure 8. Here, the highest readings were obtained for all segments except for the

cruciate ligaments at vehicle centreline.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 8: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, THUMSv4 vs. actual SUV.

The THUMSv4 peak bending moment and ligament elongation results for two actual

Sedan representatives, thereof the first one a compact car and the second one a

limousine, are summarised in Figure 9 and Figure 10. For the compact car the impact

on vehicle centreline produced the highest results of femur bending moments, while

the maximum readings of tibia, PCL and MCL were observed at the end of the

bumper beam (RHS). The highest THUMSv4 readings during impact against the

limousine were obtained at the end of the bumper beam (RHS) for femur, ACL and

PCL. Tibia and MCL has the highest loadings at vehicle centreline. The MCL

maximum elongation was almost identical at vehicle centreline and end of beam

(RHS).

Figure 9: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, THUMSv4 vs. actual Sedan (compact car).

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 10: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, THUMSv4 vs. actual Sedan (Limousine).

Altogether, it can be noted that impacts on the end of bumper beam (LHS) produced

apart from very few exceptions (MCL vs. actual SUV, femur and ACL vs. compact

car) lower loadings than those on the opposite end of beam (RHS). Besides, in most

cases ACL was lower than PCL output. This phenomenon is assumed to occur due

to the knee geometry depicted in Figure 11 and HBM orientation according to Figure

5.

Figure 11: THUMSv4 knee geometry and ligament elongations during impact.

Deliverable 3.2b


3.1.2 FlexPLI and its derivatives To validate the effect of the pedestrian’s torso on the kinematics and loadings of

lower extremities, as investigated in SENIORS Deliverable D2.5b (Zander et al.,

2018-1), FE impactor simulations with the FlexPLI were carried out against the SAE

Buck model and two derivatives (SUV, Van/MPV), see Figure 4, as well as against

four actual vehicle models representing the categories Sedan, SUV and Van/MPV for

comparison with the results obtained with THUMS v4 (compare Chapter 3.1.1).

According to Table 1, the FlexPLI Baseline impactor as well as two versions with

applied upper body mass (UBM) representing the torso of a pedestrian were used for

the simulations. While the first UBM version is rigidly connected to the femur upper

end of the FlexPLI (FlexPLI-UBMrigid (PK1.1)), the second one is attached by a

flexible rubber element derived from the neck of the World SID dummy (FlexPLI-

UBMrubber (WS)). An entire description of the two FlexPLI derivatives with applied

UBM can be found in SENIORS Deliverables D2.5b and D3.3b (Burleigh et al.,

2017). As also described in SENIORS Deliverable D2.5b, the lower centre position of

the UBM tended to result in the best correlation during generic simulations between

HBM and FlexPLI with rigid UBM during simulations against generic vehicle

frontends. Therefore, for the subsequent validations against actual vehicle models

and the SAE Buck the centre lower position was chosen. While as impactor height

for the FlexPLI Baseline always 75 mm were chosen according to regulatory and

consumer test requirements (UNECE, 2013 and Euro NCAP, 2017), the impactor

height for the FlexPLI derivatives with applied upper body mass was determined

according to the procedure described in Chapter 2.3.1. Thus, the impactor height for

the FlexPLI impactors with UBM (rigid as well as flexible connection) was 50mm

above ground level for the SUV at vehicle centreline and 72mm above ground level

for the tests at the end of the bumper beam. The impact height during the tests

against the SUV derivative of the SAE Buck was 40mm above ground level. For all

remaining tests with UBM the impact height was identical at 25mm above ground

level. An overview of the impact heights derived according to the test procedure is

given in Table 5:

Deliverable 3.2b


Table 5: Summary of impact heights for FE simulations with FlexPLI.

Surrogate/ Vehicle

THUMSv4 FlexPLI Baseline

FlexPLI-UBMrigid

(PK1.1)

FlexPLI-UBMrubber (WS)

Impact height [mm] -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB -EoB y0 EoB

Actual Van/MPV 0 0 0 75 75 75 25 25 25 25 25 25 Actual SUV 0 0 0 75 75 75 72 50 72 72 50 72

Actual Sedan I 0 0 0 75 75 75 25 25 25 25 25 25 Actual Sedan II 0 0 0 75 75 75 25 25 25 25 25 25

SAE Buck (Sedan) 0 75 25 25 SAE Buck (SUV) 0 75 40 40

SAE Buck (Van/MPV) 0 75 25 25

3.1.2.1 FlexPLI Baseline Figure 12 depicts the femur and tibia peak bending moments and maximum ligament

elongations during simulations with the FlexPLI Baseline against the SAE Buck and

its derivatives. While the highest results for femur, PCL and MCL were obtained

during tests against the Van/MPV derivative, the SUV signed responsible for the

highest tibia bending moments and ACL elongations. The aggressiveness of the

Van/MPV frontend during HBM simulations was thus partly confirmed in the baseline

tests.

Figure 12: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI Baseline vs. SAE Buck.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

F-3 F-2 F-1 T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 Fmax Tmax

SAE Buck 40 y0

SAE Buck (SUV) 40 y0

SAE Buck (Van / MPV) 40 y0

Femur / Tibia Bending Moments [Nm]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

ACL PCL MCL

SAE Buck 40 y0



Knee Ligament Elongations [mm]

Deliverable 3.2b


An overview of femur and tibia peak bending moments and ligament elongations of

the FlexPLI Baseline against the actual Van/MPV representative is given in Figure

13:

Figure 13: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI Baseline vs. actual Van/MPV.

The Van/MPV demonstrates a high symmetrical behaviour and performance of the

FlexPLI Baseline on both ends of the test area. Besides, ACL and PCL results do not

differ a lot from each other on either side. In terms of frontend aggressiveness, the

ends of the bumper beam show the highest peak tibia bending moments and

maximum PCL and MCL elongations, while the vehicle centreline provided, as it was

also the case during the HBM simulations, the highest tibia bending moments and

furthermore maximum elongations of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Figure 14 shows the peak results of the FlexPLI Baseline simulations against the

actual SUV representative. Symmetrical behaviour on both ends of the bumper beam

alongside with the highest aggressiveness for all femur, the two uppermost tibia as

well as all ligament elongations at vehicle centreline confirm the observations during

HBM simulations where the vehicle centreline was most aggressive for femur and

MCL.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Van/MPV 40 -EoB

Van/MPV 40 y0

Van/MPV 40 EoB

Femur / Tibia Bending Moments [Nm]Femur / Tibia Bending Moments [Nm]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

ACL PCL MCL

Van/MPV 40 -EoB

Van/MPV 40 y0

Van/MPV 40 EoB

Knee Ligament Elongations [mm]Knee Ligament Elongations [mm]

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 14: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI Baseline vs. actual SUV.

The peak bending moment and ligament elongation results of FlexPLI Baseline

simulations against the Compact Car are depicted in Figure 15. Besides a high

symmetrical performance of the vehicle on both ends of the bumper beam, the

highest bending moments were achieved at vehicle centreline, while the

aggressiveness w.r.t. the loads on the ligaments was slightly higher at the outboard

areas. However, the influence of the impact location on the peak results was very low

for the knee area. For most cases the HBM tendencies were confirmed.

Figure 15. Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI Baseline vs. actual Sedan (Compact car).

The peak results for the second Sedan representative, the Limousine, are

summarised in Figure 16. One again, the performance of the frontend was quite

symmetrical in all cases. Contrarily to most of the remaining vehicles, the centreline

signed responsible for the lowest bending moments close to the knee as well as the

significantly lowest knee elongations which was regarding tibia opposing to the

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500


SUV 40 -EoB

SUV 40 y0

SUV 40 EoB


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

ACL PCL MCL

SUV 40 -EoB

SUV 40 y0

SUV 40 EoB


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Sedan I (Compact Car) 40 -EoB

Sedan I (Compact Car) 40 y0

Sedan I (Compact Car) 40 EoB


0

5

10

15

20

25

ACL PCL MCL





Deliverable 3.2b


outcome achieved during simulations with the HBM against the identical frontend,

compare Figure 10.

Figure 16: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI Baseline vs. actual Sedan (Limousine).

Altogether, during most simulations the FlexPLI Baseline demonstrated a

symmetrical performance of most vehicle frontends on both ends of the bumper

beam. A ranking of aggressiveness of the frontends gives heterogeneous results.

While the vehicle centreline generated the highest responses for tibia and ACL of the

Van/MPV as well as femur and all knee sections of the SUV and femur, tibia and

PCL of the Compact Car, femur, PCL and MCL of the Van/MPV, tibia of the SUV

and tibia as well as all knee elongations of the Limousine were significantly higher at

the ends of the bumper beam. These tendencies could not always confirm the

loadings on the human body model during simulations against identical impact

locations.

3.1.2.2 FlexPLI-UBMrigid (PK1.1) Simulations with the FlexPLI-UBMrigid against the SAE Buck and its derivatives draw

a clearer picture in terms of aggressiveness of the vehicle frontends, as shown in

Figure 17. The highest results for femur, tibia as well as the knee were obtained in

the simulations against the SUV representative which is not in line with the HBM

simulations.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


Sedan II (Limousine) 40 -EoB

Sedan II (Limousine) 40 y0

Sedan II (Limousine) 40 EoB


0

5

10

15

20

25

ACL PCL MCL





Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 17: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrigid vs. SAE Buck.

Simulations with the FlexPLI-UBMrigid against the actual Van/MPV representative

confirm the symmetrical performance of the frontend as already shown in the

baseline tests, see Figure 18. Furthermore, the highest femur bending moments

were produced at vehicle centreline, while tibia, PCL and MCL were higher at the

outboard areas. The aggressiveness assessment was not in line with the HBM

results.

Figure 18: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrigid vs. actual Van/MPV.

Figure 19 gives the peak results for the FlexPLI-UBMrigid against the SUV. Alongside

with a high symmetry, the outboard areas at the end of the bumper beam sign for the

highest results except for femur and tibia sections close to the knee where the

vehicle centreline produced the highest values. During HBM simulations the vehicle

centreline was most aggressive for the femur and tibia moments around the knee

area as well; but besides, MCL had the highest elongations at y0, different to the

FlexPLI-UBMrigid.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


SAE Buck 40 y0




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ACL PCL MCL

SAE Buck 40 y0




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Van/MPV 40 -EoB

Van/MPV 40 y0

Van/MPV 40 EoB


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ACL PCL MCL

Van/MPV 40 -EoB

Van/MPV 40 y0

Van/MPV 40 EoB


Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 19: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrigid vs. actual SUV.

FlexPLI-UBMrigid results against the Compact Car are depicted in Figure 20:

Figure 20: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrigid vs. actual Sedan (Compact car).

Here, all results except for PCL were highest at vehicle centreline. The behaviour of

the human body model was confirmed for some cases only. Symmetry was good,

even though not as high for femur as for the remaining segments.

Figure 21 summarises the FlexPLI-UBMrigid peak simulation results against the actual

Limousine. Except for PCL, the peak results were entirely highest at vehicle

centreline. Thus, the trend shown during HBM simulations could only be confirmed

for tibia, PCL and MCL.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


SUV 40 -EoB

SUV 40 y0

SUV 40 EoB


0

5

10

15

20

25

ACL PCL MCL

SUV 40 -EoB

SUV 40 y0

SUV 40 EoB


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500






0

5

10

15

20

25

ACL PCL MCL





Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 21: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrigid vs. actual Sedan (Limousine).

The peak loadings on femur, tibia and knee sections of the human body model

THUMSv4 could only partially be reflected during simulations with the FlexPLI and

rigidly attached upper body mass.

3.1.2.3 FlexPLI-UBMrubber (WS) SENIORS Deliverable D2.5b highlighted the superior kinematics correlation between

the human body model THUMSv4 and the FlexPLI derivative with flexible attachment

of the upper body mass (FlexPLI-UBMrubber) during simulations against a generic test

rig. It thus was expected that this more realistic kinematic of the FlexPLI-UBMrubber

also being reflected in terms of loadings correlations during simulations against

actual vehicle models.

Figure 22 depicts the peak results of impactor tests with the FlexPLI-UBMrubber

(FlexPLI with UBM attached with flexible rubber element out of WorldSID neck

material) during simulations against the SAE Buck and its derivatives SUV and

Van/MPV.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450






0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

ACL PCL MCL





Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 22: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrubber vs. SAE Buck.

Though not significant for the femur part, the diagrams illustrate the highest

aggressiveness of the SUV version of the SAE Buck, while – except for the tibia - the

original Sedan resulting in the lowest signals. Peak results of the HBM simulations

were only partly confirmed, compare Figure 6.

Simulation results of FlexPLI-UBMrubber against the actual Van/MPV are shown in

Figure 23. Tibia, PCL and MCL show the highest results at the end of the bumper

beam. For Femur and ACL, the vehicle centreline demonstrates the highest

aggressiveness, a trend in most cases reverse to the HBM simulations in most

segments. Symmetrical behaviour was, as in all other cases, good.

Figure 23: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrubber vs. actual Van/MPV.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


SAE Buck 40 y0




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ACL PCL MCL

SAE Buck 40 y0




0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Van/MPV 40 -EoB

Van/MPV 40 y0

Van/MPV 40 EoB


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ACL PCL MCL

Van/MPV 40 -EoB

Van/MPV 40 y0

Van/MPV 40 EoB


Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 24 shows the SUV results. Stability of the simulation model was not

satisfactory at the end of the bumper beam at the proposed impact height of 72mm

(compare Chapter 2.3.1), so that only the vehicle centreline results could be

depicted. Thus, no comparison regarding aggressiveness or symmetry could be

made.

Figure 24: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrubber vs. actual SUV.

The results of the FlexPLI-UBMrubber against the Compact car are depicted in Figure

25. The aggressiveness was highest in all cases at vehicle centreline. HBM results

were partially confirmed regarding the aggressiveness assessment. Symmetry of

results at the end of the bumper beam again was high.

Figure 25: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrubber vs. actual Sedan (Compact car).

Finally, Figure 26 shows the peak results of FlexPLI-UBMrubber against the actual

Limousine. As for the Compact Car, the highest results were obtained during impacts

at vehicle centreline while maintaining a high symmetrical behaviour at the ends of

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


SUV 40 -EoB

SUV 40 y0

SUV 40 EoB


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

ACL PCL MCL

SUV 40 -EoB

SUV 40 y0

SUV 40 EoB


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500






0

5

10

15

20

25

ACL PCL MCL





Deliverable 3.2b


the beam. Again, HBM results in terms of aggressiveness assessment were

confirmed to a high extent.

Figure 26: Peak bending moment and ligament elongation results, FlexPLI-UBMrubber vs. actual Sedan (Limousine).

Altogether, the injury assessment of the FlexPLI-UBMrubber did not entirely meet the

expectations due to the high kinematic correlation of the impactor with the human

body model. Although giving the best correlation with peak loadings of the THUMSv4

simulations, especially the results of the simulations against the Van/MPV did not

confirm those of the HBM simulations. However, aggressiveness assessment ability

under consideration of the SAE Buck and its derivatives as well as the two Sedan

representatives was good.

3.1.3 Comparison HBM vs. impactor simulations

Subsequent to the evaluation of the capability of symmetry detection and

aggressiveness assessment ability of the human body model as well as the FlexPLI

as baseline impactor and with different upper body masses, the following chapters

compare the loadings on femur, tibia and the knee ligaments regarding kinematics,

peak results as well as the corresponding time histories. In this context it has to be

stated, that - as for the impactors - the waveforms of the femur and tibia bending

moments of the human body model were entirely generated with the moments

around the y axis (My) only, in order to demonstrate the direction of the primary load

and indicate correct sign conventions. As a consequence, the actual resultant

moments are not reflected in these plots. This however has a remarkable effect on

the time histories during angled impacts only, when a moment around the x axis (Mx)

is induced, as e.g. at the end of the bumper beam of the actual Van/MPV, see left

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450






0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

ACL PCL MCL





Deliverable 3.2b


plot in Figure 27. At vehicle centreline, the vast majority of bending is induced around

the y axis, as shown in the right plot of Figure 27.

Figure 27: HBM Femur-1 bending moment My vs. Mres at vehicle centreline (left) and at end of beam (right) of MPV.

All remaining diagrams, illustrating peak values as columns, as well as correlation

plots include the actual resultant moments of the HBM.

Subsequently, possible correlations between human body model and impactor

results will be defined.

3.1.3.1 Kinematics, peak results, time histories Figure 28 depicts the impact kinematics of the FlexPLI-UBMrigid, the FlexPLI-

UBMrubber, the human body model and the FlexPLI Baseline (from left to right) at

different points in time (9ms, 30ms, 48ms and 69ms) after the first point of contact at

the vehicle front for the simulations against the SAE Buck.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 28: Impact kinematics during simulations against SAE Buck.

It is obvious that the duration and characteristics of the impact of the UBM derivatives

of the FlexPLI is more alike to THUMSv4 than those of the baseline impactor. After

48ms, while the FlexPLI is already entirely in the rebound phase and out of the

biofidelic assessment interval, femur and knee of the HBM and the UBM impactors

are still in the biofidelic interval. This is also demonstrated in the time history curves

of the MCL, as illustrated in Figure 29. Here, the zero crossing of the MCL of the

FlexPLI occurs at approximately 50ms, a point in time when the rigid UBM impactor

has its maximum MCL elongation and the rubber UBM impactor is still under high a

loading.

Figure 29: Time histories of MCL elongation during simulations against SAE Buck.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 30 summarises the femur and tibia peak bending moments and maximum

ACL/PCL and MCL ligament elongations during all simulations against the SAE Buck

(Sedan). While for the bending moments the additionally applied upper body mass of

the FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber contribute to a more realistic femur peak

value, the extraordinary high MCL elongation of THUMSv4 is not reflected when

using additional torso masses with the FlexPLI.

Figure 30: Peak bending moments and ligament elongations, SAE Buck.

The time history curves for the MCL ligament elongation confirm the not humanlike

behaviour of the signals provided by the FlexPLI and the derivative FlexPLI-UBMrigid,

see Figure 29. However, the shape and duration of the waveforms of HBM and

FlexPLI-UBMrubber are in a comparable range.

Impact kinematics during the simulations against the SUV derivative of the SAE Buck

are shown in Figure 31:

Figure 31: Impact kinematics during simulations against SAE Buck (SUV).

Deliverable 3.2b


The illustration clearly shows the impact kinematics of the FlexPLI-UBMrigid and

FlexPLI-UBMrubber being superior to the FlexPLI Baseline. While the initiation process

of the rebound phase of the FlexPLI has already started at 30ms, its UBM derivatives

are still in the biofidelic assessment interval, as defined in UNECE (2013) with the

kinematics very similar to THUMSv4. At 48ms, when the FlexPLI Baseline is already

in complete rearward movement with negative moments, the UBM impactors are still

sustaining biofidelic loads. At 69ms, after release of the UBM impactors from the

vehicle front the HBM is still being loaded, which indicates that the duration of impact

cannot fully be addressed by the surrogate of the upper body.

Time history curves in Figure 32 illustrate exemplarily for Femur-2 the very long

duration of impact of the HBM lower extremities. However, they also demonstrate

that the duration of the loadings on the human lower extremities is in most cases

much better reflected by the UBM impactor derivatives.

Figure 32. Time histories of Femur-2 bending moment (HBM: My) during simulations against SAE Buck (SUV).

The peak results for HBM and impactor simulations against the SUV derivative of the

SAE Buck are depicted in Figure 33. Despite the significantly improved impact

kinematics and biofidelity, the application of pedestrian torso masses to the FlexPLI

Deliverable 3.2b


do not show a benefit in terms of global maxima, which are in most cases closer

between HBM and FlexPLI Baseline.

Figure 33. Peak bending moments and ligament elongations, SAE Buck (SUV).

The kinematics during the impact against the Van/MPV derivative of the SAE Buck

are illustrated in Figure 34:

Figure 34: Impact kinematics during simulations against SAE Buck (Van/MPV).

Until a time of 30ms after first contact the kinematics between all impactor versions

looks quite alike and comparable to the kinematics of the human lower extremities in

the THUMSv4 human body model, with a however lower bending of the FlexPLI

Baseline. At 48ms the FlexPLI Baseline is already completely released from the

vehicle front and within the rebound phase while FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-

UBMrubber are still in forward movement with their upper part and within the

Deliverable 3.2b


assessment interval. Again, the biofidelity and qualitative correlation of the UBM

derivatives are much more in line with HBM than the FlexPLI Baseline.

The described phenomena are also illustrated by the waveforms generated during

the simulations against the Van/MPV Buck. Figure 35 shows the MCL time histories

with their shape much closer to each other between HBM and UBM impactors than

between HBM and the FlexPLI Baseline. Also the longer biofidelic interval points

towards and improved biofidelity. However, the MCL peak values already indicate the

quantitative correlation being unsatisfactory.

Figure 35: Time histories of MCL elongation during simulations against SAE Buck (Van/MPV).

This observation is confirmed by the peak loadings of Femur and MCL, as depicted

in Figure 36. In case of tibia loading, no significant effect of an upper body surrogate

on the correlation with the human body model signals can be observed; all peak

impactor results are in a very comparable range.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 36: Peak bending moments and ligament elongations, SAE Buck (Van/MPV).

The maximum bending moments and elongations during simulations against the

actual Van/MPV are summarised in Figure 37:

Figure 37: Peak bending moments and ligament elongations, actual Van/MPV.

In most cases, the peak loadings on the lower extremities are overpredicted by the

FlexPLI with upper body mass; however, the high maximum MCL elongations of the

HBM during impacts against the vehicle centreline as well as the end of the bumper

beam are much better reflected by the UBM versions of the impactor, as can also be

exemplarily seen for the good qualitative correlation in Figure 38 for vehicle

centreline.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 38: Time histories of MCL elongation during simulations at vehicle centreline against actual Van/MPV.

Besides, also the peak femur bending moments at the end of the beam (RHS) are

better represented by FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber.

The improved qualitative correlation between HBM and FlexPLI at the end of the

bumper beam when using the upper body mass is also demonstrated by the impact

kinematics, as illustrated for the time of maximum loadings of THUMSv4 and the

FlexPLI-UBM:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 39: Impactor and HBM kinematics during impact against actual MPV at EoB for time of maximum HBM loading (upper) and the time of maximum FlexPLI-UBM loading (lower) – side view.

It can be seen that also in terms of rotation of the lower extremities the FlexPLI-

UBMrigid as well as the FlexPLI-UBMrubber getting much closer to the HBM than the

FlexPLI Baseline.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 40: Impactor and HBM kinematics during impact against actual MPV at EoB for time of maximum HBM loading (upper) and the time of maximum FlexPLI-UBM loading (lower) – top view.

A comparison of the FlexPLI with and without applied UBM and the HBM shows that

the rotation of the human lower extremities is overpredicted by the FlexPLI Baseline

but in its extent well represented by the FlexPLI-UBM, though with a certain time lag,

as demonstrated in Figure 41:

Figure 41: Comparison of Impactor and HBM rotation during impact against actual MPV at EoB.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 42 summarises the peak results during simulations against the SUV vehicle

model:

Figure 42: Peak bending moments and ligament elongations, actual SUV.

In all cases, the rigidly attached UBM signs for an overprediction of femur bending

moments, while the peak bending moments of the HBM are best represented by the

FlexPLI-UBMrubber. This is also the case for the waveforms, see Figure 43:

Figure 43: Time histories of Femur-1 bending moment (HBM: My) during simulations at vehicle centreline against actual SUV.

Deliverable 3.2b


Regarding the ligament elongations, both FlexPLI versions with UBM well represent

the human loads, in many cases also with respect to the shapes of the waveforms.

However, the extraordinary high peak value of MCL at SUV centreline was not

observed during the simulations with FlexPLI and its derivatives.

Peak bending moments and ligament elongations during simulations against the

Compact Car representative are depicted in Figure 44:

Figure 44: Peak bending moments and ligament elongations, actual Compact Car.

In particular, the peak femur and tibia bending moments as well as the MCL

elongation at vehicle centreline are well represented by FlexPLI-UBMrigid and

FlexPLI-UBMrubber. This is also demonstrated by the time history curves, as

exemplarily shown for Femur-1 in Figure 45:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 45: Time histories of Femur-1 bending moment (HBM: My) during simulations at vehicle centreline against actual Compact Car.

Towards the end of the bumper beam with more angled surfaces, the upper body

masses seem to overpredict the femur loads and to underpredict the tibia loads.

On the other hand, duration and shape of the HBM waveforms are still much better

reflected by the UBM impactors, as shown for the lowermost femur segment in

Figure 46:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 46: Time histories of Femur-1 bending moment (HBM: My) during simulations at EoB against actual Compact Car.

Figure 47 summarises the peak bending moment and maximum elongation results

during the simulations against the Limousine:

Figure 47: Peak bending moments and ligament elongations, actual Limousine.

The diagrams demonstrate in particular the benefit of FlexPLI with applied UBM on

the peak bending moments as well as MCL elongations in comparison to the FlexPLI

Baseline. The superior behaviour of FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber

compared to the Baseline impactor is confirmed by the time history curves, as

exemplarily shown in Figure 48 for Femur-2 and in Figure 49 for MCL:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 48: Time histories of Femur-2 bending moment (HBM: My) during simulations at vehicle centreline against actual Limousine.

Figure 49: Time histories of MCL elongation during simulations at vehicle centreline against actual Limousine.

A comparison of the simulation results against the different versions of the SUV Buck

and four actual vehicle models reveals the significantly superior behaviour of the

FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber over the FlexPLI Baseline in terms of

Deliverable 3.2b


kinematics and biofidelity, with further advantages of the FlexPLI-UBMrubber such as

the ability of simulating the hip rotation and time lag (Figure 50), a sometimes later

UBM interaction with vehicle front, leading to more humanlike results, and a

sometimes slightly more realistic shape of the waveforms. This however was only

partially reflected by the peak loadings on femur, tibia, and knee ligaments.

Subsequent correlation studies will further investigate this phenomenon.

Figure 50: Impact kinematics during simulations against the generic test rig (Zander et al., 2017).

3.1.3.2 Quantitative correlations (transfer functions)

As described in the previous chapter, the application of a pedestrian torso mass to

the flexible pedestrian legform impactor FlexPLI contributed in most cases to a

significant improvement of the kinematics and impact biofidelity when being

compared to the human body model THUMS4 under identical loads. Nonetheless,

this improvement was not always reflected in peak femur and tibia bending moments

and knee elongations closer to those of THUMS.

Deliverable 3.2b


3.1.3.2.1 All impacts

Figure 51 summarises the quantitative correlations (peak values) for the maximum

femur and tibia bending moments between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI Baseline,

FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber calculated from the simulations carried out

against the SAE Buck and its derivatives and the four actual vehicle models

representing a Van/MPV, an SUV, a Compact Car and a Limousine. It has to be

noted that while for the two dimensional SAE Buck frontend only one impact point at

vehicle centreline was chosen, all the actual vehicle models were additionally

impacted at both ends of the bumper beam for investigating the behaviour of the

impactor at angled surfaces.

Figure 51: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – maximum femur and tibia bending moments (all impacts).

A comparison of the coefficient of determination R2 for linear regression surprisingly

shows the best correlation with HBM in the femur area for FlexPLI Baseline, followed

by FlexPLI-UBMrubber. The correlation between HBM and FlexPLI-UBMrigid is poor.

With regards to the tibia area all correlations in terms of peak values are

unsatisfactory, with the FlexPLI-UBMrubber correlating best. This for the FlexPLI

Baseline unexpected result is inconsistent to the good biofidelity and injury

assessment ability attributed to its tibia area, see Figure 52. The additional torso

mass is meant towards an improvement of biofidelity mainly in the femur area;

however, as demonstrated in Figure 51, the biofidelity of the baseline impactor is

best for femur, which is not in line with the biofidelity determined during the

development of the FlexPLI.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 52: Quantitative correlations between Human FE model and FlexPLI– maximum tibia bending moments (JASIC, 2016).

Figure 53 illustrates the quantitative correlations of maximum bending moments in

the particular femur segments between THUMSv4 and the FlexPLI and its

derivatives:

Figure 53: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of femur segments (all impacts).

While the FlexPLI Baseline maintains a similar correlation for all femur segments (R²

between 0.44 and 0.57), the FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber correlate the

better with the HBM the closer to the knee. At the lowermost femur segment, FlexPLI

Baseline correlates with the best coefficient of determination (R²=0.56), followed by

FlexPLI-UBMrubber (R²=0.49) and FlexPLI-UBMrigid (R²=0.42). Altogether, in terms of

peak bending moments, an additional UBM did not lead to a significantly better

correlation with the HBM.

Deliverable 3.2b


The quantitative correlation of the peak tibia bending moments in the different areas

of the lower leg only partly confirm the observation from the maximum moments over

the entire length of the tibia:

Figure 54: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of tibia segments (all impacts).

At tibia-1, the quantitative correlation in terms of maxima between HBM and FlexPLI

is poor. Since most of the maximum tibia bending moments are acquired close to the

knee, the upmost tibia bending moment signs responsible for the overall poor

correlation as depicted in Figure 51. On the other hand, correlation gets better with

increased distance of the particular impactor strain gauge from the knee. Altogether,

the best correlation can be found for FlexPLI-UBMrubber, followed by FlexPLI-UBMrigid.

The quantitative correlation of maximum knee elongations between HBM and

FlexPLI, FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber is summarised in Figure 55:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 55: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – elongations of knee ligaments (all impacts).

While the correlation between THUMSv4 and the FlexPLI, the FlexPLI-UBMrigid and

FlexPLI-UBMrubber is very poor for the cruciate ligament elongations, correlation of

MCL is best for the FlexPLI (R²=0.33), followed by FlexPLI-UBMrigid (R²=0.24) and

FlexPLI-UBMrubber (R²=0.22). As for the maximum tibia bending moments, the ACL

correlations between the human FE model and the FlexPLI Baseline was found much

better during the development of the FlexPLI, see Figure 56. On the other hand, the

comparatively unsatisfactory MCL correlation during FlexPLI development was

confirmed.

Figure 56: Quantitative correlations between Human FE model and FlexPLI – maximum ligament elongations (JASIC, 2016).

Altogether, the good correlations between HBM and FlexPLI-UBM in terms of

kinematics and time histories were not confirmed under consideration of correlating

maximum loadings in all impacts. This effect needs to be considered during the

Deliverable 3.2b


subsequent establishment of impactor thresholds for the FlexPLI-UBM in the

framework of new test and assessment procedures for implementation within

regulatory and consumer programmes.

3.1.3.2.2 Centreline impacts Figure 57 shows the quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI,

FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber for all impacts against vehicle centreline,

only:

Figure 57: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – maximum femur and tibia bending moments (centreline impacts).

Neglecting the simulations against angled surfaces significantly improves the

coefficient of determination for FlexPLI Baseline in the femur area. For FlexPLI with

UBM the evaluation of perpendicular impacts only has no positive effect. It can be

concluded that test results of the FlexPLI Baseline are sensitive to the inclination of

the vehicle frontend, with a lower effect on the UBM derivatives.

The positive effect of evaluating the perpendicular impacts only on FlexPLI Baseline

femur correlation is confirmed when focusing on particular segments, see Figure 58:

Figure 58: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of femur segments (centreline impacts).

Deliverable 3.2b


For all strain gauges, the highest correlation is found between THUMSv4 and

FlexPLI Baseline, followed by FlexPLI-UBMrubber and FlexPLI-UBMrigid. The segments

confirm a significantly improved correlation for FlexPLI Baseline when eliminating the

oblique impacts on the one hand, and no further improvement for FlexPLI-UBM on

the other hand. It can be concluded the robustness of FlexPLI-UBM towards impacts

on angles surfaces while the degree of correlation of the FlexPLI Baseline depends

to a great extent on angle of the impacted surface.

In terms of the maximum tibia bending moment, no meaningful correlation can be

established under evaluation of the centreline impacts, only (see Figure 57). This

tendency can be confirmed with an evaluation of the different tibia strain gauges:

Figure 59: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of tibia segments (centreline impacts).

The correlation of ligament elongations during impacts against vehicle centrelines are

summarised in Figure 60:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 60: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – elongations of knee ligaments (centreline impacts).

As under consideration of all impacts (compare Figure 55), no correlation could be

established for the maximum cruciate ligament elongations. For MCL however, the

correlation between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI-UBM is significantly improved, with no

improvement for FlexPLI Baseline.

3.1.3.2.3 Vehicle categorization For a categorization of quantitative correlations of peak bending moments and

maximum ligament elongations a limited number of results was available for each

vehicle category, only. Since for the SUV category only the simulations at vehicle

centreline could be carried out with the FlexPLI-UBMrubber under the proposed impact

conditions, the linear regression always results in a coefficient of determination of 1

without providing information on the actual degree of correlation. For the Van/MPV

category only four data points per impactor are available, decreasing the quality of

correlation analysis. However, the results of both vehicle categories are plotted in the

annex to this report.

The quantitative correlations of maximum femur and tibia bending moments between

THUMSv4 and FlexPLI Baseline, FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber for impacts

against the Sedan vehicle category (Compact Car, Limousine and SAE Buck – seven

data points altogether) are depicted in Figure 61. Best correlations can be stated for

both versions of the FlexPLI-UBM in the femur area (R²=0.79 and 0.77). In the tibia

area, FlexPLI-UBMrigid correlates best with THUMSv4, followed by FlexPLI Baseline

and FlexPLI-UBMrubber. Thus, the correlation of the FlexPLI-UBM bending moments

is mostly superior to the FlexPLI Baseline when tested against Sedan vehicles.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 61: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – maximum femur and tibia bending moments (Sedan).

A comparison by sections of the femur correlations is plotted in Figure 62, where the

very good correlation of FlexPLI-UBMrigid and FlexPLI-UBMrubber can be stressed in

particular for the two uppermost femur segments.

Figure 62: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of femur segments (Sedan).

The maximum tibia bending moment correlation as shown in Figure 61 is mainly

driven by the peak bending moments in the upmost tibia area with the highest

loadings close to the knee, see Figure 63. For all remaining tibia sections, the peak

correlations are much better (R² between 0.72 and 0.8 for FlexPLI-UBMrigid and

between 0.66 and 0.84 for FlexPLI-UBMrubber), with the FlexPLI-UBM superior to the

FlexPLI Baseline.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 63: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of tibia segments (Sedan).

The correlations of the maximum knee ligament elongations for the Sedan category

are depicted in Figure 64. Altogether, best correlations can be observed for the

FlexPLI-UBMrigid at ACL and MCL (R²=0.26 and 0.21) and for the FlexPLI-UBMrubber

at MCL (R²=0.21).

Figure 64: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – elongations of knee ligaments (Sedan).

To summarise, the good qualitative correlations between the human body model

THUMSv4 and FlexPLI-UBM in terms of impact kinematics and time histories could

not be confirmed by the correlation of peak values. No relationship between this

Deliverable 3.2b


phenomenon and angled impacts could be found; thus both the FlexPLI-UBMrigid as

well as the FlexPLI-UBMrubber reveal improvements compared to the FlexPLI

Baseline when tested on areas at or around the end of the bumper beam. Further

analysis of peak values results in overall good correlations between THUMSv4 and

FlexPLI-UBM for the Sedan category with a superior behaviour to the FlexPLI

Baseline. The individual number of data points of SUV and Van/MPV categories did

not further allow a reliable correlation of peak results. However, as displayed in the

annex, the results are not satisfactory. A reason thus for the altogether not always

good correlations, as particularly shown in Figure 51, can be suspected due to the

results from SUV (upper femur and tibia) impacts with unintended or premature

interactions between the upper body mass and the vehicle frontend.

As an example, the time histories of the femur bending moments during simulations

against the actual SUV at vehicle centreline are plotted in Figure 65. While no

significant difference between the waveforms of FlexPLI Baseline at the different

measurement locations can be observed, the shape and duration of the time histories

of FlexPLI-UBMrigid as well as FlexPLI-UBMrubber are getting closer to those of the

human body model when moving downwards:

Figure 65: Time histories of Femur bending moments (HBM: My) during simulations at vehicle centreline against actual SUV.

Figure 66 depicts the kinematics of the human body model THUMSv4 and the

different FlexPLI impactors at different points in time of the impact against the actual

SUV at vehicle centreline. As can be seen in the waveforms of Figure 65, both

versions of the FlexPLI with UBM have their maximum at around 30 ms after the first

contact, caused by the interaction and stop of forward motion of the upper body mass

with the leading edge of the vehicle, while the HBM reaches the maximum loadings

Deliverable 3.2b


of the femur approx. 10 ms later, likely due to the impact of the human pelvis with the

upper vehicle load path. The FlexPLI-UBM maxima thus are driven by the impact of

the additional torso mass at a point in time different to the human pelvis being

loaded. It can be concluded that under modification of the UBM the femur would

reach its maximum at a later point in time and thus would correlate better with the

human femur in terms of peak loadings.

Figure 66: Impact kinematics during simulations against actual SUV at vehicle centreline.

Altogether, removing outline with premature interaction between UBM and vehicle

front is expected to contribute to a better peak correlation between HBM and

FlexPLI-UBM. Simulations against the Sedan frontends with good femur correlations

(see Figure 61) support this hypothesis. All three Sedan representatives (SAE Buck,

Deliverable 3.2b


Compact Car, Limousine) interact between their upper body surrogate and the

vehicle front after having reached their maximum femur bending moments.

3.1.3.3 Vehicle rotation During component tests with the FlexPLI, an extraordinary rotation around the z-axis

of the impactor is sometimes observed when tested against angled surfaces, e.g. in

particular at the end of the test area. Since the test area is limited by either the ends

of the bumper beam or the corners of bumper, as defined by the contact points

between a vertical plane or corner gauges making an angle of 60 degrees to the

vertical longitudinal vehicle centreplane, it seems convenient for achieving a

perpendicular impact to rotate the vehicle by 30 degrees around its z axis for the

impact, as illustrated in Figure 67:

Figure 67: Vehicle rotation to compensate for FlexPLI rotation at angled surfaces.

For estimation of the additional benefit of a changed procedure at the end of the test

area, additional simulations have been carried out against the actual Van/MPV

representative at both ends of the bumper beam, using both the FlexPLI-UBMrigid and

the FlexPLI-UBMrubber.

60°60°

30°

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 68 compares the femur-3, tibia-1 and MCL time histories for the impact point

at the end of the bumper beam (LHS) with and without the vehicle being rotated by

30 degrees:

Figure 68: Simulations against actual Van/MPV at the end of the bumper beam (LHS) without (left) and with (right) rotation of the vehicle.

The time histories sometimes show a change of peak value (femur and MCL) as well

as the shape of the waveform during the time of maximum loadings; however getting

closer to the human body model results in case of the tibia bending moments only.

A comparison of impactor kinematics with and without rotation of the vehicle during

time of maximum loading is illustrated in Figure 69; kinematics after initiation of

impactor release from the vehicle front in Figure 70:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 69: Impactor and HBM kinematics during impact against non-rotated and rotated vehicle (time of maximum loading).

w/o Vehicle Rotation

30° Vehicle Rotation

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 70: Impactor kinematics during impact against non-rotated and rotated vehicle (release of impactor).

The illustrations show that during the impact against the non-rotated vehicle the

impactor is transferred into z rotation after having reached its maximum loadings.

When impacting the vehicle rotated by 30 degrees, no additional impactor rotation

can be noted at the same point in time. It can be concluded that a perpendicular

impact can contribute to a minimization of unrealistic impactor rotation during the

impact.

The comparison of quantitative correlations for the Van/MPV shows a significant

improvement for the rotated vehicle with respect to the maximum femur and tibia

bending moment results with decreasing degree of correlation for MCL at the same

time, see Figure 71:

w/o Vehicle Rotation

30° Vehicle Rotation

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 71: Comparison of quantitative correlation during simulations against the actual Van/MPV without (left) and with (right) rotation of the vehicle.

The impactor behaviour during tests against a rotated vehicle will be further

investigated during physical tests and reported in SENIORS Deliverable D4.2(b).

R² = 0,7288

R² = 0,091R² = 0,5068

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

200 250 300 350 400

Femurmax

THUMS vs. FlexPLI

THUMS vs. FlexPLI-UBMrigid

THUMS vs. FlexPLI-UBM rubber

R² = 0,8451

R² = 0,2536

R² = 0,1785

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

100 150 200 250

Tibiamax

THUMS vs. FlexPLI



R² = 0,8622

R² = 0,4417

R² = 0,2752

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

15 20 25 30 35

MCL

THUMS vs. FlexPLI



R² = 0,7288

R² = 0,0868R² = 0,6208

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

200 250 300 350 400

Femurmax (Vehicle Rotation)

THUMS vs. FlexPLI



R² = 0,8451

R² = 0,3768

R² = 0,2084

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

100 150 200 250

Tibiamax (Vehicle Rotation)

THUMS vs. FlexPLI



R² = 0,8622

R² = 0,218

R² = 0,1821

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

15 20 25 30 35

MCL (Vehicle Rotation)

THUMS vs. FlexPLI



Deliverable 3.2b


3.2 THORAX

3.2.1 SAE Buck

3.2.1.1 HBM (TUC THUMS) Since the following investigations were focused on injuries related to the thorax

rather than to those to the lower extremities, THUMS TUC version 2.01 was used.

The THUMS TUC V2.01 was positioned to SAE stance according to the table in

Surface Vehicle Information Report, J2782, Sep 2009, see table below, and impacted

on its right side i.e. rear leg impacted first.

Directions from SAE J2782 Issued proposed draft Sep 2009

Segment Aspect Units Axis (SAE J211-1) Target Tol TUC

V2.0.1 A Head Angle deg About Y -7 ±5 5.8 B deg About X 0 ±5 0 C Torso Angle deg About Y 83 ±5

D deg About X 0 ±5 0 E Knee Height Impact Side mm Z 505 ±10 500 F Non-Impact

Side mm Z 520 ±10 530 G Knee Bend Angle Impact Side deg Angle in XZ-

plane 164 ±5 169 H Non-Impact

Side deg Angle in XZ-plane 171 ±5 173

I Tibia Angle Impact Side deg About Y 73 ±5 75 J Non-Impact

Side deg About Y 98 ±5 100 K Femur Angle Impact Side deg About Y 89 ±5 85 L Non-Impact

Side deg About Y 107 ±5 104 M Impact Side deg About X 87 ±5 91 N Non-Impact

Side deg About X 94 ±5 91 O Knee To Knee

Width mm Y 280 ±10 236 P Heel To Heel

Distance mm X 310 ±10 310 Q mm Y 280 ±10 287 R Elbow to Elbow

Width mm Y 420 ±10 424 S Upper Arm Angle deg About X 65 ±5 86 T Upper Arm Angle deg About X 65 ±5 88 Figure 72: SAE positioning table.

The THUMS TUC model was impacted by three different buck models, SAE, MPV

and SUV buck, each one with four different velocities 20km/h, 30km/h, 40km/h and

50km/h.

TUC V2.01 SAE Stance

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 73: THUMS Impacted by SAE, MPV and SUV buck.

Tracking points on THUMS TUC V2.01 that were recorded during simulations were

head COG, neck (C1 and C7), thorax (T1 and T12), and pelvis. Rib 4, 6 and 8 lateral

deflections were also recorded with implemented spring elements. In this section only

thorax results will be presented.

Table 6: Thorax impact timing was taken when complete thorax side is in contact with buck.

Thorax impact velocity relative to the buck is dependent on both buck impact velocity

and geometry. The SAE buck impacts THUMS lower on the legs compared to the

other two buck geometries and gives the highest thorax rotational velocity and as a

consequence the highest impact velocity relative to the buck.

T1 and T12 impact velocities relative to the buck can be seen in Figure 74:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 74: T1 and T12 velocities at impact

Impact velocities are taken when complete thorax side (including shoulder) is in

contact with the buck. The overall trend that can be seen is that T1 and T12 x-

velocity and T1 z-velocity relative to the car increases when buck impact velocity

increases. The trend for T12 z-velocity is not so clear. The reason is that T12

rebound phase has not started, is just about to start or has already started.

Figure 75: Rib deflections on impact side.

Overall THUMS thorax deflection depends on buck geometry, impacting velocity and

impacting location but also if the arm on the impacting side is trapped between the

thorax and bonnet or not.

Thorax deflection on the impact side (right) is dependent on impact location, impact

velocity, buck geometry and THUMS kinematic. In all 30km/h load cases the left arm

get trapped between the thorax and the bonnet causing the higher rib deflections.

The highest deflection on the impact side is measured for the 30km/h MPV load case

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 76: Rib deflections on non-impact side.

On the non-impact side (left) the trend is an increasing deflection with increasing

impacting velocity and seems not to be effected by impact location. The highest

thorax deflection on non-impact side is measured for the 50km/h SUV load case.

3.2.1.2 TIPT As explained in Chapter 2.3.2, the torso of the ES-2 has been adopted as thorax

injury prediction tool (TIPT). To understand its viability as impactor, a broad set of FE

simulations has been performed. Several loops of simulations were done with the

aim to compare results from the most realistic HBM simulations, the TIPT simulations

best correlating to the HBM simulations and the most simplified TIPT simulations

under the same ambient conditions as the physical tests reported in Deliverable

D4.2(b). An overview of all TIPT simulations is given in Chapter 2.2, Table 2. Besides

the baseline simulations from loop 1, the most promising simulations in terms of

degree of correlation with HBM simulations (loop 3r1 and loop 5) are described in the

subsequent chapters. All remaining simulations are reported about in SENIORS

Deliverable D2.5b.

3.2.1.2.1 Loop 1 In order to compare the results between HBM and TIPT simulations, the impactor

was propelled at angles, speeds and arm positions identical to those of the HBM

thorax at the moment of impact.

A total of 12 tests were performed with the HBM, at four different vehicle speeds (20,

30, 40 and 50km/h) against three different models of the generic SAE Buck (Sedan,

Deliverable 3.2b


SUV and Van/MPV). Therefore, also 12 TIPT simulations were performed, taking into

account the above mentioned variables.

To proceed with the TIPT simulations loop 1, the following actions were performed:

1. Design of the TIPT impactor model, cutting the Thorax of the ES-2 in LS-DYNA.

Figure 77: Reduced ES-2 dummy model and nodes for rib intrusions, rib accelerations and lower spine accelerations.

2. Identification of the key signals to be taken from the TIPT:

The output from the TIPT for comparison with the HBM results were rib intrusion,

spine acceleration and the tracking points. To match the HBM with the TIPT anatomy

for the tracking points, T1 and T12 were used:

Deliverable 3.2b


3.

Figure 78: HBM and TIPT points used for tracking and speed matching.

Deliverable 3.2b


Table 7: TIPT elements used for variables registration (tracking, acceleration and intrusion).

Item Component

Rib intrusions Change in length – Element 10500 Change in length – Element 10501 Change in length – Element 10502

Spine accelerations

Acceleration upper spine (T1) – Node 10264 (next to 10001 for global coord syst) Acceleration lower spine (T12) – Node 10461 (next to 10003 for global coord syst)

Tracking points T1 – Node 10001 (used ide history to obtain values in global coord. syst.) T11 (used T12 instead) – Node 10003 (used ide history to obtain values in global coord. syst.) T8, L5, T6 – are not possible to track using the TIPT

Figure 79: Elements used for rib intrusion registration.

Figure 80: TIPT elements used for tracking and speed registration.

Rib 1 – Element 10500



Lower spine Node 10461 for spine acceleration. Node 10003 for global coord syst.

Upper spine Node 10264 for spine acceleration Node 10001 for global coord syst.

Deliverable 3.2b


3. Identify the thorax impact position:

The TIPT was rotated and translated so that the position of T1 and T12 were

approximately the same as for the HBM. It had been necessary to apply a move back

in order to avoid the intersection of the TIPT arm with the buck. Because of having a

big influence on the rib deflection, the arm was also positioned for each load case.

4. Calculate the thorax impact speed:

In the HBM simulations the SAE Buck impacted the stationary HBM, similar to a real

crash. The output from the accelerometers located at T1 and T12 of the HBM was

given in local coordinate system located in the corresponding positions. However, in

impactor simulations, the impactor was thrown against the bonnet, and therefore in

this case, the TIPT was moving against the stationary SAE Buck.

For simplification of the process, the output of equivalent nodes located near T1 and

T12 of the HBM were obtained in global coordinate system. Then the T1 and T12

speed were calculated in relative coordinates (over the vehicle). Finally, the average

of the relative T1 and T12 speed were calculated in order to apply the same launch

speed to all the TIPT nodes.

Deliverable 3.2b


Initial velocity was applied to all the nodes

of the TIPT in x and z directions.

Vx and vz values were extracted from the

average relative velocity of T1 and T12 at

the instant of impact. The impactor moved

in free flight during the whole simulation.

Figure 81: T1 and T12 impact speed at absolute reference, relative reference and average as well as the TIPT impact speed description

5. Determine test configuration variables:

From the following table, summarizing the test configuration variables, the TIPT

impact parameters obtained from the HBM simulations were extracted.

Deliverable 3.2b


Table 8: TIPT impact test characteristics.

SEDAN 20 km/h 30 km/h 40 km/h 50 km/h

Instant of impact (ms) 200 150 125 100 T1-T12 average relative translational velocity *with respect to the car **values in global coordinate system

Vx (mm/ms) -3.0336 -4.7968 -7.1123 -8.7779

Vz (mm/ms) -2.3742 -2.0062 -2.5074 -3.0757

Speed Angle (º) 38.05 22.70 19.42 19.31 Arm angle (º) -40º -46º -58º -60º

MPV

20 km/h 30 km/h 40 km/h 50 km/h Instant of impact (ms) 165 110 90 75 T1-T12 average relative translational velocity *with respect to the car **values in global coordinate system

Vx (mm/ms) -2.5244 -4.1483 -5.8309 -6.1619

Vz (mm/ms) -1.0681 -1.0188 -0.4892 -1.1085

Speed angle (º) 22.93 13.80 4.80 10.20 Arm angle (º) -30 -54º -55º -66º

SUV

20 km/h 30 km/h 40 km/h 50 km/h Instant of impact (ms) 160 100 80 65 T1-T12 average relative translational velocity *with respect to the car **values in global coordinate system

Vx (mm/ms) -1.6580 -2.8462 -3.8425 -4.3661

Vz (mm/ms) -0.9340 -1.3079 -1.6420 -2.5955

Speed angle (º) 29.39 24.68 23.14 30.73 Arm angle (º) -22º -36º -60º -63º

Arm angle Speed angle Figure 82: Arm angle and impact speed angle description

During the TIPT test loop 1 it could be observed that the TIPT speed and the HBM

thorax speed were quite similar in all cases. However, the differences observed when

comparing the T1 and T12 speed of the HBM and the TIPT were due to the speed

Deliverable 3.2b


average at which the TIPT was launched. In z direction (which is perpendicular to the

rib deflections), the TIPT speed (vz) was always higher than the THUMS speed (vz)

in T1, but the TIPT speed (vz) was always lower than the THUMS speed (vz) at T12.

Figure 83: T1 and T12 of the THUMS and TIPT impact speed at the MPV vehicle configuration 40km/h.

The main results of loop 1 regarding rib deflections showed a low sensitivity of the

ES-2 rib set at low speed tests and a high sensitivity of the ES-2 rib set at tests with

higher speed in comparison with the rib deflections observed in the HBM simulations.

Figure 84 shows the THUMS and TIPT rib deflections during tests at 20 km/h and

50 km/h against the Sedan buck. All remaining time histories are displayed in the

Appendix.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 84: THUMS vs. TIPT rib deflection at Sedan vehicle configuration for 20 and 50 km/h.

The described behaviour is also demonstrated in the following table with the rib

deflections of the HBM THUMS and the TIPT:

Table 9: Rib deflection for THUMS and TIPT and correlation factor.

THUMS (mm) TIPT (mm) Factor THUMS (mm) TIPT (mm) Factor THUMS (mm) TIPT (mm) Factor25_20km/h 14,5 -4,28 3,39 13,3 -3,39 3,92 17,5 -2,93 5,9826_30km/h 21 -7,60 2,76 17,1 -9,33 1,83 23,5 -7,26 3,2439_40km/h 22,2 -39,94 0,56 18,9 -27,19 0,70 18,7 -0,81 23,0328_50km/h 22,4 -42,78 0,52 11,6 -22,51 0,52 13,2 -22,11 0,6029_20km/h 12,6 -3,65 3,45 14,9 -2,21 6,73 19,5 -2,16 9,0330_30km/h 14,9 -10,92 1,36 21,6 -9,23 2,34 33,8 -1,50 22,5131_40km/h 22 -31,70 0,69 18,5 -17,03 1,09 21,5 -1,48 14,5532_50km/h 17,1 -32,63 0,52 16 -26,17 0,61 18,8 -2,83 6,6333_20km/h 9,6 -3,75 2,56 9,5 -2,85 3,34 15,5 -2,82 5,4934_30km/h 14,7 -5,74 2,56 16,7 -4,27 3,91 27,4 -3,41 8,0435_40km/h 11,8 -14,71 0,80 10,8 -8,49 1,27 17,9 -9,98 1,7936_50km/h 10,4 -27,16 0,38 12,6 -17,41 0,72 15,2 -11,70 1,30

MPV

SUV

SEDAN

4th rib 6th rib 8th rib

Deliverable 3.2b


Correlating the HBM and the TIPT rib deflection for the different ribs results in a

negative lope for the 4th rib linear regression, and a positive slope for the 8th rib linear

regression:

4th Rib 6th Rib 8th Rib

Figure 85: THUMS and TIPT rib deflection correlations (4th rib, 6th rib, 8th rib)

In general, the THUMS upper rib deflection (4th rib) is lower or similar than the

THUMS lower rib deflection (8th rib), while the TIPT 4th rib deflection is higher than

the TIPT 8th rib deflection. A possible explanation for this behaviour may be the

different impact speed of the T1 and the T12 between the THUMS and the TIPT, due

to the speed average at which the impactor is launched (as described above).

Altogether, the TIPT baseline simulations (first loop) showed a very low sensitivity of

the ES-2 rib set during low speed tests (see Figure 123 in the Appendix).

Simulations at higher impact speeds resulted in higher intrusions.

The same tests have also been performed with additional weights in the neck (5kg)

and in the abdomen part of the TIPT (12kg). Those weights were meant as

compensation for the lacking upper (head, upper extremities) and lower (abdomen,

lower extremities) body masses having a certain influence on kinematics and

loadings of the ribcage in real world VRU accidents.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 86: TIPT with the additional neck (5kg) and abdomen (12kg) mass.

Some differences could be observed between the initial TIPT and the impactor with

additional weights. Nevertheless, no improvement could be achieved regarding the

quantitative correlation between THUMS and the TIPT rib deflection, as it can be

observed in the following diagrams:

4th Rib 6th Rib 8th Rib

Figure 87: THUMS and TIPT rib deflection correlations (4th rib, 6th rib, and 8th rib) with the added weight combinations

3.2.1.2.2 Loop 3r1 Using the test setup coming from the baseline loop methodology, the TIPT impact

simulations were replicated neglecting the initial impactor rotation around local z axis.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 88: Loop3r1 TIPT initial position in red.

Results coming from this simulation loop are reported and compared to THUMS

results in Table 10:

Deliverable 3.2b


Table 10: THUMS vs. TIPT - Rib deflections peak comparison.

An analysis of the absolute values of the TIPT peak rib deflections results in a good

to acceptable correlation with THUMS at low impact velocity for all the SAE Buck

models. For higher velocities, the rib deflection is overestimated by TIPT.

One of the reasons of this overestimation could be imputed to the different impact

locations of THUMS ribs compared to those of TIPT.

THUMS TIPT loop3r1

4th Rib 14.5 9.4

6th Rib 13.3 13.3

8th Rib 17.5 16.7

4th Rib 21 27

6th Rib 17.1 13.6

8th Rib 23.5 23.9

4th Rib 22.2 35.6

6th Rib 18.9 22.8

8th Rib 18.7 14.1

4th Rib 22.4 43.3

6th Rib 11.6 38.6

8th Rib 13.2 38.1

4th Rib 9.6 3.5

6th Rib 9.5 9.2

8th Rib 15.5 21.8

4th Rib 14.7 9.5

6th Rib 16.7 11.6

8th Rib 27.4 17.6

4th Rib 11.8 21.7

6th Rib 10.8 11.4

8th Rib 17.9 13.4

4th Rib 10.4 26.6

6th Rib 12.6 17.5

8th Rib 15.2 12.8

4th Rib 12.6 8.9

6th Rib 14.9 10.5

8th Rib 19.5 16.4

4th Rib 14.9 15.1

6th Rib 21.6 13

8th Rib 33.8 15.6

4th Rib 22 50.1

6th Rib 18.5 24.7

8th Rib 21.5 18.4

4th Rib 17.1 56.6

6th Rib 16 35.6

8th Rib 18.8 17.2

Maximum Rib deflection

SEDAN20

SEDAN30

SEDAN40

SEDAN50

SUV20

MPV40

MPV50

SUV30

SUV40

SUV50

MPV20

MPV30

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 89 and Figure 90 demonstrate this observation. During simulations at 50 km/h

with the Van/MPV Buck, a remarkably different thorax kinematics during the impact

event (rotation with THUMS and translational sliding with TIPT), being the main

responsible of the different impact location of the ribs, can be observed. In this load

case, the upper and middle TIPT rib deflection were influenced by the lower part of

the windshield while during the THUMS simulation the ribs didn’t get in contact at all

with the windshield.

Figure 89: THUMS vs. TIPT kinematic on MPV SAE Buck 50 km/h simulation – rotation vs. translation.

Figure 90: THUMS vs. TIPT impact point on MPV SAE Buck 50 km/h simulation – different impact locations.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 125 shows the time histories of THUMS and TIPT ribs deflection at 20 km/h

and 50 km/h vehicle speed during simulations against the Sedan Buck. Predominant

discrepancy between THUMS and TIPT is represented by a rib extension phase of

the HBM before the thorax impact against SAE buck models, during all simulations. It

was not possible to catch this phenomena using TIPT impactor; thus the starting

conditions of THUMS and TIPT ribs, immediately before the impact against all SAE

Buck derivatives, in high velocity load cases were very different.

Figure 91: THUMS vs. TIPT rib deflection at Sedan vehicle configuration for 20 and 50 km/h.

The time histories for the SUV and Van/MPV vehicle configuration are summarised in

the Appendix (Figure 124 and Figure 125).

Deliverable 3.2b


The results previously described are well represented by the correlation graphs (see

Figure 92), where an acceptable correlation between THUMS and TIPT ribs

deflection for low speeds, especially on the 4th rib, can be stated.

Figure 92: THUMS vs. TIPT correlation on ribs peaks deflection

3.2.1.2.3 Loop 5 A final simulation loop was carried out using a new TIPT FE impactor model with

stowed arm on the struck side and without abdomen, pelvis and without arm on the

non-struck side, reducing the TIPT mass from 32.85kg to 22.15kg. These

modifications aimed for increased feasibility and a higher repeatability for subsequent

physical testing.

The final geometry of the TIPT is shown in Figure 93.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 93: TIPT loop5.

Using this TIPT configuration, the load cases at 30 km/h and 40 km/h on SUV and

Van/MPV SAE Buck models were replicated.

The impactor position and velocities were the same as the ones used in loop3r1.

Results coming from this simulation loop are reported in Table 11.

Table 11: THUMS vs. TIPT - Rib deflections peak comparison.

Main differences between loop5 and loop3r1 results were a low level rib deflection

mainly due to the decrease of the impactor mass, and a more uniformity of peak ribs

deflection due to the stowed arm. In each load case the TIPT arm was always

THUMS TIPT loop5 TIPT loop3r14th Rib 14.7 5.4 9.56th Rib 16.7 5.4 11.68th Rib 27.4 16.4 17.64th Rib 11.8 6.9 21.76th Rib 10.8 5.7 11.48th Rib 17.9 15.8 13.44th Rib 14.9 9 15.16th Rib 21.6 6.3 138th Rib 33.8 12.8 15.64th Rib 22 27 50.16th Rib 18.5 15.5 24.78th Rib 21.5 8.5 18.4

Maximum Rib deflection

SUV30

SUV40

MPV30

MPV40

Deliverable 3.2b


interposed between bonnet and ribs resulting in smaller differences on peak rib

deflection, see Figure 94:

Figure 94: THUMS vs. TIPT time history ribs deflection for all tested load cases according to Table 11.

For the same reasons as described in Chapter 3.2.1.2.2 (rib extension phase in

THUMS and different TIPT kinematics during the impact), the time history ribs

deflection of THUMS and TIPT were hardly comparable with each other.

A correlation study using loop 5 simulations resulted in a reasonable correlation with

THUMS results, especially for the 4th rib, with a very good linear correlation:

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 95: THUMS vs. TIPT correlation on ribs peaks deflection

3.2.2 Actual vehicles

3.2.2.1 SUV After the TIPT model set up through impact tests on simplified vehicle models, the

simulation was carried out on an actual SUV representative.

Four tests were performed with TIPT impact points in different bonnet areas, using as

reference the test setup coming from loop 5 simulations. Three additional tests were

performed assuming as impact area the grille of the vehicle, this to replicate a

possible impact between vehicle with high front-end and e.g. child pedestrian.

The impact points on the SUV were identified through the WAD (Wrap Around

Distance) positions, as shown in Figure 96.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 96: WAD distribution.

The tests configurations are summarised in Table 12:

Table 12: Summary of configurations for simulation.

WAD Y impact coordinate Impact speed Speed

angle Positioning

impact angle TEST 1 850 0 40 km/h 0° 0°

TEST 2 850 -SRL+133.5 40 km/h 0° 0°

TEST 3 850 +SRL-133.5, 40 km/h 0° 0°

TEST 4 1010 0 15 km/h 23° 70°

TEST 5 1190 0 15 km/h 23° 70°

TEST 6 1330 0 15 km/h 23° 70°

TEST 7 1330 +SRL -133.5 15 km/h 23° 70°

Deliverable 3.2b


The TIPT impactor position has been identified as follows:

- The reference point for the alignment is defined by the intersection between

the middle rib plane and the vertical plane passing through the shoulder

reference point and the central rib (Figure 97).

- The TIPT was rotated and aligned on the WAD along the direction of the

velocity vector, as listed in the Table 12.

Figure 97: TIPT reference point

In Figure 98, an example of the alignment as used in Test 6 is depicted.

Figure 98: TIPT alignment in test 6.

Deliverable 3.2b


The analysis of results comprised of the TIPT rib deflections and its lower and upper

spine accelerations.

Table 13: Ribs deflection and acceleration.

RIB DEFLECTION [mm] ACCELERATION [g]

UPPER RIB MIDDLE RIB LOWER RIB LOWER SPINE (T12)

UPPER SPINE (T1)

TEST 1 24.5 28.5 47 29.5 30.6

TEST 2 17.8 18.9 38.0 33.4 36.5

TEST 3 44.2 34.1 55.3 50.7 54.4

TEST 4 11 6.5 4 9.8 8.8

TEST 5 3.5 6.1 7.6 8.3 7.6

TEST 6 2.9 2.8 8.2 6.5 5.5

TEST 7 4.8 3.6 10 8.6 6.4

The results for each configuration are shown in the following images.

Figure 99: TEST 1 - WAD850, Y=0.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 100: TEST 2 - WAD850, Y = –SRL+133.5.

Figure 101: TEST 3 - WAD850, Y = +SRL-133.5.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 102: TEST 4 – WAD1010, Y = 0.

Figure 103: TEST 5 – WAD1190, Y = 0

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 104: TEST 6 – WAD1330, Y = 0.

Figure 105: TEST 7 – WAD1330, Y = +SRL-133.5

The results of the FE simulation were also compared with the experimental tests. A

description of the experimental tests is provided in SENIORS Deliverable 4.2(b).

Deliverable 3.2b


In Table 14 the maximum values of the rib deflection (experimental and numerical)

are compared:

Table 14: Ribs deflection.

RIB DEFLECTION [mm]

UPPER RIB MIDDLE RIB LOWER RIB

EXP. RESULT NUM. RESULT EXP. RESULT NUM. RESULT EXP. RESULT NUM. RESULT

TEST 4 3.8 11 3.1 6.5 6.5 4

TEST 5 0.7(*) 3.5 2.8(*) 6.1 7.1(*) 7.6

TEST 6 0.4 2.9 2.1 2.8 6.2 8.2

TEST 7 2.0 4.8 3.7 3.6 6.6 10 (*) average value for the three repetitions

In Table 15 the maximum values of the spine acceleration (experimental and

numerical) are compared:

Table 15: Spine acceleration.

ACCELERATION [g]

LOWER SPINE (T12) UPPER SPINE (T1) EXP. RESULT NUM. RESULT EXP. RESULT NUM. RESULT

TEST 4 12.5 9.8 7.0 8.8

TEST 5 10.7(*) 8.3 10.4(*) 7.6

TEST 6 10.8 6.5 9.0 5.5

TEST 7 13.0 8.6 12.5 6.4 (*) average value for the three repetitions Both, simulations as well as experimental tests showed low levels of rib deflection

and spine acceleration.

Different considerations have to be made regarding the tests with a perpendicular

TIPT angle (test 1, 2 and 3). In these cases the different kinematics of the impactor

during the tests leads to high rib deflections and spine accelerations.

The readings of Test 2 were less severe compared to those of Test 3 due to the hood

profile near the SRL and the different area of interaction between ribs and frontend.

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 106: TEST 2 and 3

Deliverable 3.2b


4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 CONCLUSIONS OF VALIDATIONS AND IMPACT ON SENIORS PROJECT This report resumes the results of baseline pedestrian simulations with human body

models and impactor models against generic test rigs. Subsequent to the work

reported about in Deliverable D2.5b, a number of impactor simulations vs. four actual

vehicle models and a generic SAE Buck and its derivatives (representing a Sedan,

an SUV and a Van/MPV frontend) have been carried out and compared to the results

from THUMSv4 human body model simulations against identical frontends. The

Deliverable compares kinematics, time histories as well as peak loadings and

identifies possible correlations between the loadings to the human body model and

the impactor models.

The simulations reported about in this Deliverable and related to the assessment of

lower extremity injuries state an altogether good quantitative correlation in terms of

time histories as well as impact kinematics between the THUMSv4 human body

model and the FlexPLI derivatives with applied upper body mass (FlexPLI-UBMrigid

and FlexPLI-UBMrubber), with some further advantages of the FlexPLI-UBMrubber, as

shown in chapter 3.1.3.1 (compare Figure 50), and significant advantages over the

FlexPLI Baseline.

However, the good qualitative correlation cannot always be demonstrated with the

quantitative correlation of peak femur and tibia bending moments and maximum knee

ligament elongations. The obviously good quantitative correlation between the

FlexPLI Baseline and HBM femur bending moments is not in line with the

obeservations made during the development of the FlexPLI. The sometimes poor

quantitative correlation between FlexPLI-UBMrigid / FlexPLI-UBMrubber and HBM, in

particular in terms of femur bending moments, can be partly explained by premature

or unintended interaction between the upper body surrogate and the vehicle’s front

leading edge, resulting in incorrect timings and magnitudes of the peaks. Removing

those results contributes to significant better quantitative correlations, as also

demonstrated in Figure 62 and Figure 63.

Deliverable 3.2b


Application of an upper body mass to the FlexPLI contributes to an improved

kinematics not only at vehicle centreline, but also towards the ends of the bumper

beam.

Finally, the FlexPLI with UBM shows a superior behaviour over the FlexPLI Baseline

regarding time histories and impact kinematics. When avoiding premature or

unintended loading of the mass, also the peak values correlate well with the HBM in

most cases.

Remaining action item is the establishment of impactor limits to be derived from

human injury risks as described in Deliverable D2.5b, for finally using the FlexPLI-

UBMrubber within an assessment procedure that will be reported about in Deliverable

D4.1(b). In this context, also the appropriateness of peak values as injury indicators

needs to be further discussed.

The simulations reported about in this Deliverable and related to the assessment of

thoracic injuries show the in principle good approach of using the isolated ribcage of

the ES-2 dummy during component tests. However, several limitations need to be

taken into account at this point in time. First of all, the ES-2 dummy was designed as

vehicle occupant for the assessment of lateral impacts. HBM simulations with TUC

THUMS show the kinematics of the human thorax differing from this loadcase, with

oblique thorax angle and the velocity vector not perpendicular to the thorax. The

capacity of capturing oblique loadings with the available instrumentation is limited.

THUMS rib extension before the impact, rotational elements in THUMS kinematics

and translational movement of the TIPT furthermore result in different impact

locations and loadings. Thus, besides the diverging time histories of THUMS and

TIPT rib intrusions, also the quantitative correlations are unsatisfactory in most

cases. When using a TIPT based on the ES-2 ribcage, establishing impactor limits

should rather be based on injury criteria for the ES-2.

Deliverable 3.2b


4.2 TRANSFER OF RESULTS The FE simulations reported in this Deliverable will be used as input parameters for

the definition of draft test and assessment procedures as described in Deliverable

D4.1(b). Furthermore, the setups will be replicated during physical tests reported in

Deliverable D4.2(b). Regarding the FlexPLI and its derivatives with upper body mass,

the test setup is, in principle, well established and described in Euro NCAP (2017)

and UNECE (2015). Furthermore, correlations between FE simulations and testing

will be investigated and the draft procedures will be finalized, based on further

insights during the physical tests.

The TIPT physical tests will be performed under the same conditions as the last

simulation loop. This section describes the transfer of the variables and results from

the simulation to the physical tests reported in D4.2(b).

1. Test tool and acquisition values:

The test tool consists of the thorax/ribcage of the ES-2 with only one arm (RHS) and

no abdomen. The arm is parallel and stowed to the body. Moreover, a support to be

attached to the launcher bracket is to be added. The total mass for this configuration

is 22.5 kg. The TIPT should be instrumented with the IR-TRACCS in order to obtain

the rib deflections and with two accelerometers close to the theoretical T1 and T12

locations in order to compare the impact speed values.

ES-2 thorax

simulation model TIPT model with

one arm TIPT impactor drawing with

supports and bracket

Figure 107: TIPT model evolution.

Deliverable 3.2b


2. Impact speed:

According to the impact parameters as defined in Chapter 3.2.1.2.1 par. 5, the impact

speed of the TIPT and angle of the velocity vector at vehicle speeds of 40 km/h are

as follows, according to Table 16:

Table 16: TIPT impact velocities.

TIPT impact velocities Vx Vy Vz Angle (m/s) (km/h) (m/s) (km/h) (m/s) (km/h) (deg)

Sedan 40km/h -7,11 -25.60 0 0 -2,51 -9,04 19,42 SUV 40km/h -3,84 -13,82 0 0 -1,64 -5.90 23,14 MPV 40km/h -5,83 -20,99 0 0 -0,49 -1.76 4,8

Figure 108: Angle of the velocity vector for TIPT.

The TIPT impact speed at vy was considered to be negligible, thus the impact speed

was calculated from vx and vz only.

3. Impact angles:

In accordance with simulation loop 5, the impact angles of the TIPT are presented in

the following table, as also illustrated in Figure 109 and Figure 110. These angles

were obtained from a review of the last loop simulations against the SAE Buck;

however the angle around the z axis (ß) was not determined for the Sedan

configuration.

For the physical testing only the TIPT y rotation was considered in order to simplify

physical tests and taking into account the comparatively low value of the z angle.

Deliverable 3.2b


Table 17: TIPT impact angles.

TIPT angles

y angle (α)

z angle (β)

Sedan 75.9 n/a SUV 69.8 6.6 MPV 62.5 5.1

Figure 109: α angle - rotation around y axis.

Figure 110: β angle - rotation around z axis.

4. Impact points:

The impact point in the previous simulation loop was defined as the contact point on

the bonnet where the centre of the TIPT shoulder is touching the bonnet. From the

loop 5 simulation, the position points under the global coordinates were obtained as

summarised in Table 18 and illustrated in Figure 111. Please note that the

coordinates values – presented in tables 18, 19 and 20 - were obtained from a

review of the last loop; however they were not determined for the SAE Buck

configuration since the shoulder impact point was clear, in the middle of the bonnet (x

= 0) and on the top end of the bonnet.

Table 18: Impact point and bonnet reference point regarding general coordinates.

Buck reference point (mm)

Shoulder impact point (mm)

x y z x y z Sedan n/a SUV -280,3 0 1010,3 -542,2 -37,3 1058,0

MPV -336,1 0 949 -711,7 -60,9 1092,7

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 111: Impact point and bonnet reference point.

Therefore, the shoulder impact points on the bonnet (yellow), regarding the SAE

Buck bonnet reference point (red point), are as follows:

Table 19: Shoulder impact point regarding the bonnet reference point.


x y z Sedan 0,0 n/a SUV 261,9 37,3 -47,7 MPV 375,6 60,9 -143,7

Figure 112: Shoulder impact point regarding the bonnet reference point.

Table 20 gives a summary of all impact parameters:

Table 20: Summary of all the TIPT impact parameters.

Deliverable 3.2b


Vehicle category

TIPT Impact angle

Angle of velocity

TIPT impact speed


x y z Sedan 14,9º (75,9º) 19,42º 27,15km/h 0,0 n/a SUV 10,2º (69,8º) 23,14º 15,04 km/h 261,9 37,3 -47,7

Van / MPV 27,5º (62,5º) 4,8º 21,05km/h 375,6 60,9 -143,7

Figure 113: Scheme of the TIPT impact angle.

In order to proceed with the physical tests, those parameters have been rounded to

integer values and summarised in Table 21. The shoulder impact point in z axis is not

needed, since the impact point will be on the bonnet surface and will have the

inclination previously defined for each vehicle category.

Table 21: Summary of the simplified TIPT impact parameters.

Vehicle category

TIPT Impact angle

Angle of velocity

TIPT impact speed


x y Sedan 75º 20º 27km/h ? 0 SUV 70º 23º 15 km/h 262 0

Van / MPV 63º 5º 21km/h 376 0

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 114: Schematic view of the impact parameters.

Deliverable 3.2b


GLOSSARY

Term Definition

ACL Anterior Collateral Ligament

APROSYS Advanced Protection Systems (European FP6 EU Project)

BASt Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen

BLE-RL Bonnet Leading Edge Reference Line

Euro NCAP European New Car Assessment programme

FE Finite Element; a type of numerical modeling

FlexPLI Flexible Pedestrian Leg Impactor

GIDAS German In-Depth Accident Study

HBM Human Body Model

HIC Head Injury Criterion

HNI Head Neck Impactor

HPC Head Performance Criterion

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LBRL Lower Bumper Reference Line

MCL Medial Collateral Ligament

MPV Multi Purpose Vehicle

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PCL Posterior Cruciate Ligament

PMHS Post Mortem Human Subject

SAE Society of Automobiles Engineers

SENIORS Safety ENhanced Innovations for Older Road userS

SRL Side Reference Line

STRADA Swedish Traffic Accident Data Aquisition

SUV Sports Utility Vehicle

THUMSv4 Total Human Model for Safety, Version 4

UBM Upper Body Mass

VRU Vulnerable Road User

WAD Wrap Around Distance

Deliverable 3.2b


REFERENCES

Burleigh M., Lemmen P. 2017. “Updated Pedestrian Impactor Certification.”

SENIORS Deliverable D 3.3b.

European New Car Assessment Programme. 2017. “Pedestrian Testing Protocol

Version 8.4” Euro NCAP, November 2017. www.euroncap.com.

Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Centre (JASIC). 2013.

“Development of Flex-GTR Master Leg FE model and evaluation of validity of the

current threshold values against Flex-GTR Master Leg.” Document GTR9-7-08 of

the seventh meeting of UN/ECE GRSP Informal Working Group on the

Development of Phase 2 of GTR9 (IG GTR9-PH2). July 3rd, 2013.

Konosu A., Issiki T., Tanahashi M., Suzuki H. 2007. “Development of a biofidelic

flexible pedestrian legform impactor Type GT (Flex-GT).” Paper no. 07-0178 of 20th

ESV conference proceedings. Lyon, 2007.

Pipkorn B., Fredriksson R., Oda S., Takahashi Y., Suzuki S., Ericsson M. 2012.

“Development and validation of a generic universal vehicle front buck and a

demonstration of its use to evaluate a hood leading edge bag for pedestrian

Protection”. Paper No. 25 of IRCOBI conference proceedings 2012.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2013. “Agreement Concerning the

adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts

which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for

reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions*

(Revision 2, including the amendments which entered into force on 16 October

1995). Addendum 126: Regulation No. 127. Entry into force: 17 November 2012.

Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to their

pedestrian safety performance.” United Nations, 2013.

Deliverable 3.2b


United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2015. “Agreement

Concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles,

equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the

conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these

prescriptions* (Revision 2, including the amendments which entered into force on 16

October 1995). Addendum 126: Regulation No. 127. 01 series of amendments to the

Regulation – Date of entry into force: 22 January 2015. Uniform provisions

concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to their pedestrian safety

performance.” United Nations, 2015.

Zander O., Burleigh M. 2017. “EU Project SENIORS: Evaluation of test tools for

an improved assessment of pedestrian and cyclist injuries.” Proceedings of 12th

Pedestrian Protection Conference. Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, 2017.

Zander O., Ott J., Burleigh M., Fornells A., Fuchs T., Hynd D., Luera A., Lundgren

C., Pipkorn B. 2018-1. "Updated injury criteria for pedestrian test tools.” SENIORS

Deliverable D2.5b.

Zander O., Hynd D. 2018-2. “Draft Test and Assessment Procedures for current and

advanced passive VRU Safety Systems.” SENIORS Deliverable D4.1(b)

Zander O., Fornells A., Hynd D., Melloncelli A., Lundgren C. 2018-3. “Evaluated

Test and Assessment Procedures for current and advanced passive VRU Safety

Systems.” SENIORS Deliverable D4.2(b).

Deliverable 3.2b


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project has received funding from the European Union's

Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under

grant agreement No 636136.

DISCLAIMER

This publication has been produced by the SENIORS project, which is funded under

the Horizon 2020 Programme of the European Commission. The present document

is a draft and has not been approved. The content of this report does not reflect the

official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views

expressed therein lies entirely with the authors.

Deliverable 3.2b


APPENDIX A

DIAGRAMS

Figure 115: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – maximum femur and tibia bending moments (SUV).

Figure 116: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of femur segments (SUV).

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 117: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of tibia segments (SUV).

Figure 118: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – elongations of knee ligaments (SUV).

Figure 119: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – maximum femur and tibia bending moments (Van/MPV).

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 120: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of femur segments (Van/MPV).

Figure 121: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – bending moments of tibia segments (Van/MPV).

Figure 122: Quantitative correlations between THUMSv4 and FlexPLI and its derivatives – elongations of knee ligaments (Van/MPV).

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 123: THUMS and TIPT rib deflections for each test (vehicle class and speed).

Deliverable 3.2b


Figure 124: THUMS vs. TIPT rib deflection at SUV vehicle configuration for 20 and 50 km/h.

Figure 125: THUMS vs. TIPT rib deflection at Van/MPV vehicle configuration for 20 and 50 km/h.

safety enhanced innovations for older road users … · issue date . 29/05/2018 : deliverable 3.2b...

Documents