Introduction 2 nd SENIORS Experts Meeting. Marcus Wisch, BASt Adrià Ferrer, IDIADA Málaga, September 16, 2016

Transcription

1 Introduction 2 nd SENIORS Experts Meeting Marcus Wisch, BASt Adrià Ferrer, IDIADA Málaga, September 16, 2016

2 DRAFT AGENDA 2ND SENIORS EXPERT MEETING 1:30 p.m. Welcome / Roll Call (Marcus Wisch) 1:40 p.m. Collision data (Marcus Wisch) Early results on accident and hospital data analysis of older road users in Europe 1:50 p.m. Pedestrian approach and IRFs (Oliver Zander, David Hynd) Overview of the approach for pedestrians, especially lower limb and head Injury risk functions and injury criteria Overview of HBM for each body region, generic vehicle models and impactormodels / purpose Overview of test matrix and timeplan Questions for the experts / discussion 2:50 p.m. Coffee Break 3:10 p.m. Start Session on Car Occupants(see next slide) 2

3 DRAFT AGENDA 2ND SENIORS EXPERT MEETING 3:10 p.m. Car occupant generic sled test set-up and fracture modelling (Andre Eggers, Bengt Pipkorn) Review of car occupant THOR IRC approach Generic sled test set-up Justification Implementation/components Evaluation in THOR sled tests Implementation for volunteer tests and PMHS tests Proposed rib fracture modelling approach Questions for the experts / discussion 4:00 p.m. Car occupant Initial results from volunteer tests (Francisco López Valdés) Initial feedback from the first tests with volunteers 4:20 p.m. Wrap-up (Marcus Wisch) 3

4 INTRODUCTION What stands SENIORS for and who are we? Safety ENhanced Innovations For Older Road UserS Main Goal: To improve the safe mobility of the elderly, and of obese persons, using an integrated approach. Key facts: EC Horizon 2020 programme, GA n Run time: June 2015 May 2018 (36 months) Budget: 2.9M Consortium: 8 European partners: Autoliv (SWE), BASt(DE), Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (IT), Ford (DE), Humanetics(DE), IDIADA (ES), LMU Munich (DE), Transport Research Laboratory (UK) 4

5 PROJECT OVERVIEW Quantification of needs Literature (injury, behaviour, ) Accident studies Initial benefit assessment Achievable injury prevention Analysis of risks Derivation of safety strategies IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS / PRIORITIES FOR OLDER ROAD USERS Prioritise Future project activities Biomechanical testing Dummies / impactors Numerical models Injury criteria IMPROVED TOOLS Injury risk curves Test procedures Assessment procedures * To be confirmed from the accident analysis CAR OCCUPANT Better older thorax IRC * Obese occupant Active HBM PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST Flex-PLI with UBM Head-neck Pedestrian thorax Head-neck and pedestrian thorax will be early-stage research Safety of older road users Effectiveness of new tools and advantages of new procedures Applied to current and advanced new safety systems Passive Active BENEFIT AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Integrated benefit analysis 5 5

6 PROJECT TIMELINE today 06/ / / / / / /2018 Project Start 1st Experts Meeting 2nd Experts Meeting 09/2016 Analyses of accident data and behavioural aspects completed Kinematic comparison between ATDs, volunteers and PMHS completed Updated HBM representing elderly Dummy confirmed on overweight and updates to pedestrian impactors End of Project Final Event 6

7 2ND SENIORS EXPERTS MEETING Expectations / Goals for this meeting To focus on pedestrian and car occupant vehicle safety: To get comments / guidance on the overall method To discuss first project results and next steps To seek synergies with ongoing research To maintain a platform for same / similar research fields which can be used to exchange knowledge and accelerate harmonisation activities 7

8 Collision data 2 nd SENIORS Experts Meeting Marcus Wisch, BASt September 16, 2016

9 ACCIDENTOLOGY Accident and hospital data analyses Several European accident databases (and from the US) have been analyzed towards specific injury patterns seen for the elderly as car occupant, pedestrian and cyclist Comparison of body regions injury severity between older (65 years and more) and younger road users (25-64 years) All results will be reported in Deliverable 1.2 (expected for October 2016) including inclusion criteria for data analysis Similar conclusions from different databases 2

10 PEDESTRIANS (GERMANY) Injury severity of older pedestrians Similar conclusions from different databases Elderly suffer more often from higher severity injuries compared with younger road users Pedestrians (n=360) Source: GIDAS each column adds up to 100% by adding % for AIS 0 and AIS 9 3

11 PEDESTRIANS (SWEDEN) Injury severity of older pedestrians Similar conclusions from different databases Elderly suffer more often from higher severity injuries compared with younger road users Pedestrians (n=2,761) Source: STRADA each column adds up to 100% by adding % for AIS 0 and AIS 9 4

12 CYCLISTS (SWEDEN) Injury severity of older cyclists Similar conclusions from different databases Head, thorax and lower extremities are key affected body regions Cyclists (n=3,443) Source: STRADA each column adds up to 100% by adding % for AIS 0 and AIS 9 5

13 CYCLISTS (GERMANY) Injury severity of older cyclists Similar conclusions from different databases Head, thorax and lower extremities are key affected body regions Cyclists (n=847) Source: GIDAS each column adds up to 100% by adding % for AIS 0 and AIS 9 6

14 CAR OCCUPANTS (SWEDEN) Injury severity of older car occupants Similar conclusions from different databases Apart from head, lower extremities, abdomen/pelvis, thorax has highest in risk for elderly and clearest difference to adults Car Occupants (n=33,638) Source: STRADA each column adds up to 100% by adding % for AIS 0 and AIS 9 7

15 CAR OCCUPANTS (US) Injury severity of older car occupants Similar conclusions from different databases Apart from the pelvis, thorax has highest in risk for elderly and clearest difference to adults Car Occupants (n=~3,100,000) Source: NASS/CDS each column adds up to 100% by adding % for AIS 0 and AIS 9 8

16 Injury Criteria for External Road Users SENIORS Expert Meeting Málaga, 16 September 2016 Oliver Zander, Julian Ott, Marcus Wisch (BASt) Alba Fornells (IDIADA) David Hynd (TRL) Christer Lundgren, Bengt Pipkorn (Autoliv) Mark Burleigh (Humanetics)

17 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- CONTENT Outline SENIORS VRU Safety Lower Extremities: FlexPLI-UBM Head: Head Neck Impactor (HNI) Thorax: Injury Prediction Tool (TIPT) IRF & Injury Criteria CAE Models Simulation Matrix & Timeline 2

18 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- OUTLINE Head Thorax Lower Extremities 3

19 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- CONTENT Outline SENIORS VRU Safety Lower Extremities: FlexPLI-UBM Head: Head Neck Impactor (HNI) Thorax: Injury Prediction Tool (TIPT) IRF & Injury Criteria CAE Models Simulation Matrix & Timeline 4

20 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS FLEXPLI-UBM Why? Zander (2011) 5

21 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS FLEXPLI-UBM OVERALL PLAN HBM Simulation Impactor Simulation Generic test rig Centre /lower Centre /higher Offset /lower Offset /higher Loadings Correlatio on & Validation HBM FlexPLI-UBM Initially, four adjustable CoG locations Revision / Fine Tuning Transfer Function Actual vehicles SAE Buck Validation 6

22 EXTERNALROADUSERS FLEXPLI Q&A Clarification point: C1) Why FlexPLI tests with applied pedestrian torso mass surrogate (UBM, Dummy) at ground level(+25 mm)? 75 mm impactheightwas introducedbyjama/jari foran improved injury assessment ability of baseline FlexPLI. Whenaddingan UBM totheimpactorthisshouldnot be necessary anymore. Good correlations from these tests confirmed this assumption. 7

23 EXTERNALROADUSERS FLEXPLI Q&A Clarification point: C2) SENIORS (FlexPLI-UBM) and ISO (apli): pedestrian activities Aim: exchange experiences, models, results, impactors, test setups ISO web meetings are attended by SENIORS partners SENIORS resultswill beatall timestransparent andopen tothepublic Design specificationsfoimprovedpedestriantools(deliverabled3.1b) already published on the SENIORS website. 8

24 EXTERNALROADUSERS FLEXPLI Q&A Q1) Compensation of differences in kinematics and loadings between real world impact and component testing(inverse) A1) Kinematics correlation / tracking points Transfer functions Huge differences in masses should make this effect neglectible Other experiences? 9

25 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- CONTENT Outline SENIORS VRU Safety Lower Extremities: FlexPLI-UBM Head: Head Neck Impactor (HNI) Thorax: Injury Prediction Tool (TIPT) IRF & Injury CRiteria CAE Models Simulation Matrix & Timeline 10

26 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- HNI Why? Source: BASt Source: APROSYS 11

27 EXTERNALROADUSERS HNI OVERALLPLAN Impactor Simulation Kinematics Study HBM Simulation HBM HNI Different vehicle categories: Sedan / MPV / SUV Revision / Fine Tuning Loadings Correlation & Validation Transfer Function? Validation 12

28 EXTERNALROADUSERS HNI Q&A Q2) Head Neck Impactor so far has an enormous additional mass, sometimes causing a huge damage on the bonnet unlike real world data. A2) Within APROSYS - significantly improved kinematics -(moderate) picture of deformation -reasonable head loadings/ injury correlation Source: APROSYS Neck protection could be considered Other experiences? 13

29 EXTERNALROADUSERS HNI Q&A Q3) Limitation of impactor rotation by HNI additional mass sometimes expected to be outside the HIC window. Source: APROSYS A3) Not necessarily. Can be determined by rotational acceleration. Other experiences? 14

30 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- CONTENT Outline SENIORS VRU Safety Lower Extremities: FlexPLI-UBM Head: Head Neck Impactor (HNI) Thorax: Injury Prediction Tool (TIPT) IRF & Injury Criteria CAE Models Simulation Matrix & Timeline 15

31 EXTERNALROADUSERS TIPT Why? 16

32 EXTERNALROADUSERS TIPT OVERALLPLAN Kinematics Study HBM Simulation HBM TIPT Impactor Simulation Different vehicle categories: Sedan / MPV / SUV Revision / Fine Tuning Loadings Correlation & Validation Transfer Function? Validation 17

33 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- CONTENT Outline SENIORS VRU Safety Lower Extremities: FlexPLI-UBM Head: Head Neck Impactor (HNI) Thorax: Injury Prediction Tool (TIPT) IRF & Injury Criteria CAE Models Simulation Matrix & Timeline 18

34 EXTERNALROADUSERS IRF & CRITERIA: TIBIA, MCL State oftheart(50th): Tibia Bending Moment (IRF, Criteria) (FlexPLI: Nm) 30% AIS2+ injury 330 Nm Source: Ivarsson J. et al. (Ircobi 2004) Source: Konosu A. (IGPS Doc 82, 2004) 50% AIS2+ injury risk (18,2 ) Averaging: MCL (IRF, Criteria) (FlexPLI: mm) 19

35 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS IRF & CRITERIA: FEMUR Future criteria: Femur Bending Moment (IRF, Criteria) UBM makes femur injury assessment possible Literature review completed Most promising IRF: Kerrigan et al.2004 (incorporating Funk et al. 2004; Kerrigan et al. 2003) 34 datapoints(29 M; 5 F) Bare femurorthighwithflesh Meanage60 Source: Kerrigan et. al.. (2004) Meanweight85 kg; meanheight1.77 m 50% femurfracturerisk(thigh): 447 Nm(midshaft) 372 Nm(distal third) 50% femurfracturerisk(bare femur): 387 Nm(midshaft) 322 Nm(distal third) 20

36 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS IRF & CRITERIA: FEMUR(Q&A) Q4) Femur injury Kerrigan 2004 questions Scaling greatly reduces mean moment(approx. 17%) Scaling based on femur length 50 th percentilebasedon onesubjectin a modellingstudy! Meanstatureof34 subjectsis1.77 m verycloseto50 th Change to stature-based scaling or no scaling? Mass and pre-mortem lifestyle must also influence? Noagescaling(60 yearscloseenoughto65)? Scaling factors λl = 50 th length/ anatomicallength Force scaledby~λl 2 Moment scaledbyλl 3 A4) Opinions? 21

37 EXTERNALROADUSERS IRF & CRITERIA: ACL, PCL State oftheart(50th): Damage mechanism in knee shear loading [Source: Bhalla et al, 2003] ACL, PCL (Criteria) (FlexPLI: 13 / 10 mm) Limited PMHS Data: Toleranceof12,7 mm and17,8 mm forhuman kneesheardisplacement Source: Bhalla et al. (2003) Comparison of FlexPLI MCL and ACL readings(55 vehicle tests): Transfer function from MCL to ACL Consideration of FlexPLI geometry: Shearing of 12,7 mm causing approx. 10,1 mm ACL EL Source: Zander (2010) Source: Zander (2010) 22

38 EXTERNALROADUSERS IRF & CRITERIA: ACL, PCL Future criteria: ACL/PCL (IRF, Criteria) Literature review completed Injurydata: Mo et al subjects(10 knees) (all F) Potted femur & tib/fib Meanage86 Meanweight60 kg; meanheight1.63 m (~av. F) Injury criterion: tibial translation at ligament failure Mean lateral tibial translation = 14.0 mm (PCL injury) Mean medial tibial translation = 14.8 mm (ACL injury) LCL frequently a secondary injury 23

39 EXTERNALROADUSERS IRF & CRITERIA: ACL, PCL Future criteria: ACL/PCL (IRF, Criteria) Literature review completed Injurydata: Bose et al.2008 Combined loading (bending and shearing) worse than isolated loading 19 7 mm SD 7mm shearing at 19 knee bending angle 24

40 EXTERNALROADUSERS IRF & CRITERIA: ACL, PCL (Q&A) Q5) ACL/PCL injury questions Most data from isolated ACL testing Useproposedvalues? (Mo et al.? Bose et al.?) Develop transfer function to FlexPLI as presented Stick to current requirements(derived from Bhalla et al.)? Any other data available(or to be published)? No age scaling? (already 86 years) A5) Any further data available? Opinions? 25

41 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS IRF & CRITERIA: HEAD, THORAX State oftheart(50th): Acceleration HIC (IRF, Criterion) (ISO Headform: HIC ) 50% AIS2+ injury risk Rib deflection Viscous Criterion (ES-2: mm / 0,32-1,0) 26

42 EXTERNALROADUSERS IRF Q&A Q6) Modified/ improved impactors and new tools representing 50th. Not possible to develop elderly impactor. Thus, injury criteria needtobetransferred: 50th 65YO HowtoapplyIRF / injurycriteriaforthe50th totheelderly? Injury shift needed? Scaling? Age groupsthecurrentirf have been derived from not farawayfrom65+. Thus, averageinjured population would be covered. Injury pro obability Load on body region A6) Ideas? 27

43 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- CONTENT Outline SENIORS VRU Safety Lower Extremities: FlexPLI-UBM Head: Head Neck Impactor (HNI) Thorax: Injury Prediction Tool (TIPT) IRF & Injury Criteria CAE Models Simulation Matrix & Timeline 28

44 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS CAE MODELS Human Body Models: - THUMS 4 - TUC THUMS - MADYMO Vehicle Models: - 4 FE Models SAE Buck: - Sedan Generic Test Rig: - adjustable load pathes -4 frontends - SUV - MPV (representing > 160 actual vehicles): Starting Point for Impactors: -FlexPLI model from FE Model Consortium -UBM model from BASt -HNI model from FP6 APROSYS -TIPT derived from ES-2 FE model Sedan SUV } Van/MPV Sports Car -IHRA categories 29

45 EXTERNALROADUSERS CAE MODELS HBM THUMS TUC v3.01 / v2.01 THUMS 4 MADYMO 30

46 EXTERNALROADUSERS CAE MODELS Q&A Q7) Level of HBM validation, in particular for head and thorax when looking at injury criteria! A7) Experiences? 31

47 EXTERNALROADUSERS CAE MODELS TEST RIG Four vehicle categories: Sedan, SUV, Sports Car, Van/MPV Measurement of 160 actual vehicles Sedan (A) SUV (B) Sports (D) MPV (C) Sim Sim Sim Sim hol hml hul vol vul BASt project FE /

48 EXTERNALROADUSERS CAE MODELS SAE BUCK Shape and stiffness of Sedan, SUV, MPV The geometry profiles used to shape the buck as Sedan are described by Pipkorn et al. (IRCOBI 2014 IRC-14-82) The geometry profiles used to shape the buck as MPV and SUV are described in AP SP31 007R D312A. The stiffness curves were taken from AP SP31 009R D312B. (APROSYS reports). 33

49 EXTERNALROADUSERS CAE MODELS TIPT 34

50 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS- CONTENT Outline SENIORS VRU Safety Lower Extremities: FlexPLI-UBM Head: Head Neck Impactor (HNI) Thorax: Injury Prediction Tool (TIPT) IRF & Injury Criteria CAE Models Simulation Matrix & Timeline 35

51 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS SIMULATION MATRIX FlexPLI-UBM: 60 * Flex_UBMvs. Rig 12 * HBM vs. Rig X * Flex_UBMvs. Rig 12 * Flex_UBM vs. Vehicle 9 * Flex_UBMvs. SAE 12 * HBM vs. Vehicle 12 * HBM vs. SAE 36

52 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS SIMULATION MATRIX HNI: 12 * MAD vs. SAE 12 * ISO vs. SAE 12 * HNI vs. SAE X * HNI vs. SAE 18 * MAD vs. SAE 18 * HNI vs. SAE 12 * HNI vs. Vehicle 37

53 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS SIMULATION MATRIX TIPT: 12 * HBM vs. SAE 12* TIPT vs. SAE X * TIPT vs. SAE 12 * TIPT vs. Vehicle 38

54 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS TIMELINE 39

55 EXTERNAL ROAD USERS Thanks! 40

56 Car occupant generic sled test set-up Andre Eggers 2 nd SENIORS Expert Meeting Málaga, September 16th, 2016

57 CAR OCCUPANT SENIORS Car Occupant THOR IRC Approach Objective: To enable better protection of elderly car occupants provide greater understanding of thoracic injury risk at AIS 2+ (moderate) and low risk (e.g. 5%) AIS 3+ injury Method: Perform paired sled simulations with HBM and ATD models covering a wider range of loading conditions than is currently available in literature Include more test conditions with belt and airbag Loading at lower severity (low speed pulses) 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 2

58 CAR OCCUPANT Methodology of simulation based IRC approach Define which parts of the simulation space need validation for HBM and ATDM DEFINE SIMULATION SPACE Ensure simulation space not homogeneous need large range of loading conditions Select HBM based on existing publications and experience with the models HBM ATDM HBM = Human Body Model ATDM = Anthropometric Test Device Model Literature and Uni Michigan Volunteer tests with seniors AGE THE HBM IMPLEMENT MUSCLE Validate against test data Published key PMHS load cases SENIORS volunteer/pmhs tests VALIDATE VALIDATE Use Also the validate complete against simulation new test space data defined generated above by stakeholders? Paired tests with HBM and ATDM in the same loading conditions Use the complete simulation space defined above MATCHED HBM AND ATDM SIMULATIONS Scope for stakeholders to perform additional paired tests? SENIORS to perform selected tests with second model and active model for robustness / sensitivity analysis E.g. probabilistic rib # prediction (Forman et al., 2012)?? For other injuries HBM INJURY RISK ESTIMATES ATDM MEASUREMENTS Existing and new injury criteria Focus on AIS 2 and low risk (5-20%) part of AIS 3 IRC CORRELATE ATDM MEASUREMENTS WITH HBM INJURY RISK Low-risk focus important for finetuning advanced restraint systems to protect older occupants in a wide range of accident scenarios Need different set of validation data to that used to validate the models VALIDATE Can stakeholders provide new validation data? 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 3

59 CAR OCCUPANT SENIORS generic test environment to support the Car Occupant THOR IRC Approach Justification of a new generic sled test set-up Existing generic sled test data mainly with fixed belts (little airbag / distributed loads), not representative of current restraint systems Sled test data representative of current restraint systems (vehicle buck) is difficult to reproduce (components not available anymore, CAE models not available) Within SENIORS define a new generic sled test set-up Hardware test fixture to be used for THOR, PMHS and volunteer tests CAE sled model for HBM and dummy simulations Belt (with load limiter) and distributed (airbag) loading For dummy and PMHS tests tunable to low/moderate chest loading 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 4

60 CAR OCCUPANT SENIORS generic test environment to support the Car Occupant THOR IRC Approach Advantages of a generic sled test set-up and components Generic components to make sure the tests can be repeated later if needed With updated dummy/instrumentation For further PMHS tests to extend data set Generic components easy to implement in a CAE sled model without major validation or patent issues Generic test set-up can be used for further applications New frontal dummy R&R or sensitivity studies in a robust, repeatable and representative loading environment Evaluation if dummy updates are performance relevant 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 5

61 CAR OCCUPANT Implementation of generic SENIORS sled test set-up Overview of components 3-point seat belt, with load limiter (generic) Rigid plate seat No knee bolster Foot rest with 6-axis load cells Generic driver airbag with steering wheel 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 6

62 CAR OCCUPANT Details of SENIORS generic test environment Gold standard fixture rigid seat plate and cable seat back SAFER seat: Rigid seat modified Gold Standard with 6-axis-load cell Foot rest with load cells 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 7

63 CAR OCCUPANT Details of SENIORS generic test environment Reusable steel D-Ring Generic buckle with uni-axial load cell 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 8

64 CAR OCCUPANT Details of SENIORS generic test environment Generic (UVA GS2) load limiter 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 9

65 CAR OCCUPANT Details of SENIORS generic test environment Generic static pre-inflated airbag (different airbags evaluated) Two different designs (without tethers, with tethers) Pre-inflated before test with pressure supply during test Vent hole opened right before dummy-airbag contact 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 10

66 CAR OCCUPANT Evaluation Overview of THOR testing at BASt Two different pulses (25 km/h, 35 km/h) Belt only tests with static belt (no load limiter) Belt only and belt/airbag tests with various load limiter settings to tune load limit Evaluation of different airbag designs and settings Different D-ring positions Validation data for CAE model Define relevant parameters for test and simulation matrix with high variation of loading conditions for paired HMB-THOR simulations Parameter definition for two PMHS test configurations 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 11

67 CAR OCCUPANT Some preliminary THOR test results Belt only with load limiter, 25 km/h Peak belt loads: Shoulder B3: 2.8 kn Outer Lap B6: 4.8 kn Peak Resultant chest deflection Rmax: 38 mm (17% AIS3+) PCA 5.96 (31% AIS3+) 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 12

68 CAR OCCUPANT Some preliminary THOR test results Belt and airbag with load limiter, 35 km/h Peak belt loads: Shoulder B3: 3.4 kn Outer Lap B6: 7.9 kn Peak Resultant chest deflection Rmax: 47 mm (41% AIS3+) PCA 6.73 (47% AIS3+) 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 13

69 CAR OCCUPANT Implementation for volunteer and PMHS tests Approach for consistent positioning of the subject in THOR, volunteer and PMHS tests THOR H-point, Pelvis and head angle (tilt-sensors), tibia, femur angles Volunteer H-point (align great trochanter with H-point line) tibia, femur angles (adjust footrest position) Torso position: sternum angle and T1/T12 angle 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 14

70 CAR OCCUPANT Implementation for volunteer and PMHS tests Proposals for aligning restraint system with anthropometric landmarks to ensure equivalent restraint fit for different-sized volunteers, PMHS and dummies Adjust D-ring to occupant in THOR, volunteer and PMHS tests Y-position at certain distance to acromion z-position on level of EAM (External Auditory Meatus) Shoulder belt angle on chest (about x-axis) 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 15

71 CAR OCCUPANT Airbag position in PMHS tests How to position the airbag/steering wheel wrt occupant? At fixed position wtr Seat/H-point At certain distance to the occupant chest (THOR, PMHS) 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 16

72 CAR OCCUPANT Questions for the experts Comments or remarks on the SENIORS THOR IRC approach based on HBM/THOR simulations Views on validation of generic sled test set-up (including CAE model) Views on extrapolation e.g. to other test severities, loading conditions Feedback on proposals for consistent dummy/volunteer/pmhs position Feedback on proposals for aligning restraint system (D-ring, airbag) wrt. Occupant 16 September 2016 Andre Eggers 17

73 Partners For further information: Project Coordinator Marcus Wisch The research leading to the results of this work has received funding from the European Community's Eighth Framework Program (Horizon2020) under grant agreement n