Technical Bulletin

Pedestrian Human Model
Certification
Version 1.1

October 2018
TB 024

TitleVersionDocument Number
AuthorDate
Related Documents
StatusApplication Date

Pedestrian Human Model Certification
1.1
TB024
C Klug & J Ellway
October 2018
Pedestrian Testing Protocol
Information
January 2019

TB 024-2/38

1

INTRODUCTION

The Pedestrian Test Protocol requires that the vehicle manufacturer provides Euro NCAP withdetailed information relevant to the deployment of the active pedestrian protection system, if
available. Based on the evidence provided by the vehicle manufacturer, the Secretariat will
decide whether the vehicle qualifies for subsystem testing in either the deployed or undeployed
position or if dynamic tests are required.
A combination of physical testing and numerical Human Body Model (HBM) simulations isrequired to demonstrate the suitability of the sensing system for the range of pedestrian sizes;
the timing of system deployment; and the bonnet deflection due to body loading.
To date, suitable and accepted HBMs for this purpose have been listed in TB013. From 2018
onwards, only CAE simulation results, generated with HBMs that meet the certification
requirements laid down in this document, will be accepted by Euro NCAP. HBM compliancemust be demonstrated by the vehicle manufacturer in accordance with the procedure in thisdocument1. If HBM compliance can’t be demonstrated, the active bonnet will be tested
undeployed.
Throughout this document, the following definitions are used:
•

•

•

•
•

1

A Human Body Model (HBM) is understood as a virtual geometric and mechanicalrepresentation of the human body. The geometry of the model should result in
dimensions, masses and moments of inertia per body parts in agreement with standard
anthropometry databases. It has to consider the complex human anatomy and consist ofa full skeleton composed of all bones (except for the feet, hands, face and ear where
simplifications are allowed) and soft tissue. All the bones should be articulated in arealistic manner enabling a biofidelic range of motion for all joints.
More simplified human models, referred to as humanoid models, may lack detail to
improve calculation time and are not consisting of a full skeleton and use simplified
modelling approaches. In all parts of the protocol without special specification forhumanoid models, a consistent procedure as for HBMs should be applied for humanoid
models.
Certification simulations: A computer simulation providing evidence that the specifichuman body model is comparable with other models and shows consistent results – inparticular referring to body kinematics and Head Impact Time.
Active bonnet simulation: A computer simulation for the assessment of deployablesystems as specified in the Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol.
Generic Vehicle (GV) Models are generic replications of current car fronts and areprovided in all FE codes. The car fronts were developed for kinematic comparisons onlyand should not be used for evaluations of injury metrics as they do not meet the UNR127.

TB013 is now obsolete and all models previously accepted will need to be certified if used in the future.

TB 024-3/38

1.1 General Requirements
1. The pedestrian human model that is certified is the exact same model used for final active
bonnet simulations. This applies to:• Version of the human body model;• Node-Position of every single node of the human body model;• If applicable:o identical initial element stresses/strains;o identical initial contact penetrations/contact forces;• Identical material cards (including fracture mode), contact cards, control cards andconstraints.
• The time step used for simulations.
2. Furthermore, it is important that all simulations (certification and active bonnet) are
performed with consistent settings. This applies to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Solver-Version;
Solver-Platform (SMP, MPP);
Solver-Precision (Single, Double Precision);
Number of CPUs/ nodes used (on cluster/computer);Time-step settings (relating to initial and dynamic mass scaling);
Contact settings (between Human Body Model and Vehicle);
Control settings which are affecting the pedestrian model.

Ideally, HBM certification and active bonnet simulations shall be performed on the same
computer system and with the same number of CPUs. If the cluster architecture does notallow simulations to be performed with either a consistent number of CPUs or on the same
platform, evidence must be provided showing that the results are reproducible andcomparable. This must be done by providing results of the FCR and SUV load case at 40
kph using varying CPU numbers and platforms.
3. HBM certification data is to be submitted in the prescribed format. The complete output
dossier must be send to the Euro NCAP Secretariat at the earliest possible moment but latest
together with active bonnet simulation result. Fully completed Excel templates and a
PowerPoint presentation must be submitted using the latest versions of the documents
provided by Euro NCAP2. The summary table and the diagram showing the trajectories andthe diagram showing the contact force (created with the provided excel) should be presented
for each load case within the PowerPoint presentation. Furthermore, a video of the animatedsimulation results should be submitted (from t=0 to H) including timestamp and using thetime of the head impact (=H) as “poster frame3” of the video. The Secretariat reserves theright to reject data that are not provided in the correct format, are provided incomplete or
not on time.
4. The following seven files are requested for each certification:•

Excel Files with HBM-GV simulation results:
i. FCR.xlsx
ii. MPV.xlsx

2

Excel and PowerPoint templates can be downloaded as part of the certification pack via the download link
available from https://www.euroncap.com/en/for-engineers/supporting-information/3
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Add-a-poster-frame-to-your-video-c513b04a-52c5-4d6e-856c27dafa17c954 (11.10.2017)

TB 024-4/38

iii. RDS.xlsx•

iv. SUV.xlsx
Fill in your data into the yellow fields in the templates provided with thecertification template (they should not be renamed). Do not forget to include thetotal mass of your setup and to check if automatic H detection was applicable.
Excel File specifying the applied models and environment:
v. Documentation.xlsx•

Excel File with impactor simulation results
vi. GV_Check_YYMMDD.xlsx•

PowerPoint File: Summary of Results including videos. Use the template
provided as certification template. Please rename the template with yourCompany name and Date of creating the reportvii. TB024-Summary_COMPANY_DD-MM-YYYY.pptx

TB 024-5/38

2

BACKGROUND

The Pedestrian HBM certification procedure was developed within the CoHerent project(Methodology for Comparison of Human Body Models for pedestrian simulations) at Graz
University of Technology (Klug et al. 2017). The certification procedure should ensure thathuman body models have comparable and reproducible results. For this reason, the procedure
is aimed to be:••••

Independent of FE solver used (procedure applicable in all defined FE codes);Independent of human body model (reference points applicable for all HBM);
Reproducible (accurately defined boundary conditions);
In accordance with boundary conditions of Pedestrian Test Protocol;

In the HBM certification procedure, the kinematics of one model is compared against the
response of known consistent state-of-the-art models in pedestrian impacts against genericvehicle models at speeds ranging from 30 to 50 kph. To that extent, four generic vehicle models
are prescribed, representing the following categories:••••

Family Cars (FC)Multi-Purpose Vehicles and Superminis (MPV)
Roadsters (RDS)Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV)The vehicle models provide a representative and up-to-date vehicle shape for the selectedvehicle categories, median structural response upon pedestrian impact in terms of forcedeflection characteristics and are modelled to be robust and transferable to all considered
explicit FE codes considered. The generic vehicle models required to certify the human bodymodels are offered in the four most relevant explicit FE solvers on the market4:••••

LS-Dyna by LSTC;
VSP by ESI;Radioss by Altair;
Abaqus by Dassault.

The detailed modelling approach to the development of the generic vehicle models issummarised in Annex D.

4

The procedure provides detailed guidelines for each of these four codes. If a vehicle manufacturer opts for another
FE code, evidence needs to be provided, that modelling is consistent with the modelling guidelines outlined in thisdocument. Available models can be downloaded from the website.

TB 024-6/38

3

PEDESTRIAN HBM CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE

3.1 Generic Vehicle Robustness Check
To avoid any issues with upcoming or outdated solver versions, the generic vehicle models
have to be checked ahead of the HBM certification simulations. Therefore, 4 impactor
simulations with the provided simulation setups have to be performed at the vehicle centreline(ID 1, 3, 5 and 7).
A rigid cylindrical impactor with a total mass of 5.95 kg should be propelled against the genericvehicle front at four different specified impact locations. Force (calculated from the impactor
acceleration) and displacements of the impactor simulations have to be provided and comparedto the reference responses of the respective code (see Annex C) for each vehicle geometry,using the provided template.
The history (resultant deflection and resultant acceleration) of the node with ID 10000 should
be used. The full simulation setup for the impactor simulations including the specification of
the impact points is available in LS-Dyna, VPS, Abaqus and Radioss on the Euro NCAP
website. The latest release of this setup should be used and the release date should be provided
within the documentation template.
If any issues with the GV models are identified, they should be reported to the responsible codehouse first, before contacting Euro NCAP.

3.2 Certification Simulations
3.2.1 HBM Pre-processing
Shoes
The HBM shall be fitted a pair of shoes – with a sole thickness (at the heels) between 20 and
30 mm at the heel. The pair of shoes can consist of a sole only. In the latter case, the sole has
to be tied – without failure – to the foot. The pair or shoes for the mid-sized male pedestrianshall not weight more than 1.300 g5.
Output Parameters
The HBM must be equipped with “sensors” and other output definitions, which allow tracking
the trajectories of selected body parts. The centre specifies the centre of all nodes; i.e. the nodewith averaged coordinates. The “sensors” have to be located at the locations specified in Annex
B and constrained to the surrounding structures such that the movement of the surrounding
nodes is averaged and applied to the sensor node. The corresponding keywords are also
specified in Annex B.
Positioning
The car manufacture has the freedom to choose a positioning tool. Positioning can be achieved
through pre-simulation (pulling/pushing the limbs to the desired position) or remeshing/morphing. The target posture of the AM 50 model are specified within Table 1. The
joint angles of the legs are based on SAE J2782 and the arm posture is based on a natural
posture6.

5
6

A pair of shoes used with the 50th HIII dummy weights 1.300 g.
Referring to 50% Position described in Untaroiu et al. (2009) (based on Perry (1992)).

TB 024-7/38

Table 1
Initial Posture AM 50.
Abbrev.

Measure

Ref.
Value

Tolerance
(+/-)

Px

Heel to heel distanceLongitudinal

310 mm

5.0%

Py

Heel to heel distance lateral

185 mm

15.0%

949 mm

2.0%

89°

3°

ACz
K
L
G
H
Ty
Uy
Tx
Ux
V
W
HCx
HCz

Height of AC relative to theground level
Right Upper Leg Angle(around Y w.r.t. horizontal)
Left Upper Leg Angle(around Y w.r.t. thehorizontal)
Right Knee flexion Angle(Y)
Left Knee flexion Angle (Y)Right Upper Arm Angle (Yw.r.t. horizontal)
Left Upper Arm Angle (Yw.r.t. horizontal)
Right Upper Arm Angle (Xw.r.t. horizontal)
Left Upper Arm Angle (Xw.r.t. horizontal)
Right Elbow flexion Angle
Left Elbow flexion Angle
Left
x-Position of HC relative to
AC
Height of HC relative to theground level

Angle Definition

U
T

HCz

106°

5°

164°

3°

175°

5°

98°

3°

70°

3°

100°

10°

100°

10°

140°

5°

160°

10°

44 mm

15 mm

1694 mm

1.0%

V

W

L

ACz

HCx

K

G

H

right

left

x
z

SCr

SCl
Tx

HMr

Ux

HMl

y
z

The angles should be measured using the reference axis as defined in Annex A. A reference
skeleton is available within the certification pack on the Euro NCAP website and should be
used for qualitative comparison of the initial position of the AM 50 model. A screenshot
showing an overlay of the HBM and the reference skeleton should be added in the
documentation of the HBM shared with Euro NCAP. The reference point AC should bealigned between the actual model and the reference skeleton. The initial posture of the othersizes of the pedestrian models should be in line with the AM 50 model (in terms of orientationof the body parts). The reference measures for the other sizes of models are listed in Table 2.
Note: Results of a sensitivity study (Klug et al. 2017) indicate that the arm posture hasremarkable influence on Head Impact Time. The best correlation between two models wasachieved when models were positioned as close as possible. Therefore, the posture of the HBM
should match the target posture as close as possible.

TB 024-8/38

Table 2
Reference Posture of other pedestrian sizes.
Abbrev.

Unit

Px
Py
ACz
K
L
G
H
Ty
Uy
Tx
Ux
V
W
HCx
HCz

mm
mm
mm
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°
mm
mm

Reference

Tolerance

6YO

AF05

AM95

all

199
152
640
89°
106°
164°
175°
98°
70°
100°
100°
140°
160°
6.5
1117

243
164
831
89°
106°
164°
175°
98°
70°
100°
100°
140°
160°
27
1468

340
265
1043
89°
106°
164°
175°
98°
70°
100°
100°
140°
160°
16
1836

5.0%
15.0%
2.0%
3°
5°
3°
5°
3°
3°
10°
10°
5°
10°
15 mm
1.0%

The right side of the HBM is defined as the struck side. The z-direction is defined as the verticalaxis, positive in inferior direction. The local HBM x-axis is the frontal axis, facing anterior. The
angle of the shoes is not given as reference measure as the sensitivity study did not show asignificant influence on the kinematics. Anyway, the initial posture should aim for a natural
walking posture. The shoe sole angle can be varied to get as close as possible to the target heightof AC (Both shoe soles should ideally contact the ground – if ACz can’t be achieved withground contact, a z-offset of the model is permitted).
None of the limbs, i.e. arms/legs shall be artificially connected, tied or constrained to each other(e.g. wrists tied)7 The HBM should be exposed to a vertical acceleration field constituting thegravitational loading, both, in certification and assessment simulation.
Note: A sensitivity study showed a neglectable difference in terms of kinematics when presimulations were carried out until the ground contact force was equal to the HBM weight force.
Therefore, pre-simulations are not obligatory, but allowed.
3.2.2 Impact Simulations
In total twelve simulations should be carried out. The HBM must be impacted by all provided
vehicles at three different impact velocities (30 kph, 40 kph and 50 kph). The simulation timemust be higher than the expected Head Impact Time. The HBM should be positioned as close
to the vehicle as possible (check initial penetrations especially for SUV).

7

Most of the PMHS tests were conducted with tied wrists to gain better reproducibility. But in real world crashes,
the arms will be unconstrained, which is why it was chosen to prescribe a more realistic arm position.

TB 024-9/38

A segment-based contact should be defined between the vehicle and the outer surface of the
HBM. The static and dynamic coefficient of friction between the car and the HBM 8 should be
set to 0.3.
The Head COG of the HBM must be positioned in line with the vehicle centreline (y=0 in the
global coordinate system).
The mass scaling and timestep settings should be chosen such that they can be also used for theassessment simulations. The process for deriving the timestep is shown in Figure 1.

Procedure (within one solver version at one platform with consistent control settings):
check artificial added mass in all steps
Max. timestep for HBM vs. full FE vs. Simulation(used for all steps in the procedure)
Use same time stepfor impactor and HBM simulations –Check GV response!

Max. timestep from HBM (time step Max. timestep from full
required for reliable HBM)
FE vehilce1.) Check Generic Vehicle Models

2.) Certification of HBM

3.) Assessment of Deployable
System

Impactor vs. GV Models

HBM vs. GV Models

HBM vs. full FE vehicle model

Figure 1: Process for defining timestep settings
Note: The activation of fracture mode led to marginal changes of the monitored results.
Therefore, it is open to the user to use HBMs with or without element elimination, as long as
they show consistent results and no numerical instabilities. However, the same settings haveto be applied for all steps.
3.2.3 Post-processing
The following output is required:••••x and z coordinate history of tracking points in the global coordinate system.
x displacement of vehicle COG in the global coordinate system.
Resultant and z acceleration of HC.
Contact forces (total contact force between vehicle and HBM and contact force per8

A sensitivity study (Klug et al. (2017)) showed that the coefficient of friction between HBM and car has aremarkable effect on trajectories and Head Impact Time and was therefore set to 0.3 which is accordance withseveral studies (e.g. Crocetta et al. (2015), Mizuno and Ishikawa (2001); Simms and Wood (2006)).

TB 024-10/38

••interface layer and body part as specified in the template).
Hourglass, contact and internal energies.
Animations.

The time interval between the outputs has to be 0.1 ms for all outputs except animations where
1 ms is sufficient. No filtering needs to be applied. The output curves should be included in the
postprocessing template for the respective vehicle categories. Figure 2 shows the functionalityof the postprocessing template.
3.2.4 Quality Checks
All checks and quality criteria9 defined within the postprocessing template must be met:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

FE surfaces getting in contact do not cross each other.
Surfaces getting in contact do not get trapped one in the other (no sticky nodes).
Contact force (between HBM and vehicle) is zero at simulation start.
Total energy remains constant within a 15% tolerance.
Hourglass energy <= 10% of the total energy.
Contact energy at the simulation start <= 1% of the total energy.
Artificial energy (contact energy and hourglass energy) <= 15% of the total energy.
Artificial mass increase <= 3%.

HBM – GV
Contact Force

Offsetted time

Final HITFor each line n

is offsetted
time >0?

Trajectories (xt,zt)

GV x-cooridnate

yes

is offsetted
time <HIT

no

no

#NV

#NV

xn-x1

yes

xt- ΔxGV
yt

Transformed
trajectories(C-H)

GV x-displ.(ΔxGV)

Figure 2: Flowchart of postprocessing template
3.2.5 Calculation of Head Impact TimeThe Head Impact Time (HIT) is defined as the time from the first increase of the bumper contact
force (C) until the first increase of the contact force between head and generic vehicle (H) likeshown in Figure 3. Figure 4 describes the process of deriving HIT.
Quality criteria were chosen based on the recommendations from the IMVITER project (FP7- 2007 SST –218688 - D4.3).
9

TB 024-11/38

H is defined as the time where the contact force starts to increase (first time where contact force
is not zero anymore) and automatically derived in the provided template. If this is not clearly
identifiable, the resultant and z acceleration of the head COG should be used additionally. If
the upper extremities are stuck between the head and the vehicle and avoid that the head iscontacting the vehicle, the contact between head and upper extremities should be disabled toenable a clear determination of H. The respective simulations have to be rerun with the disabledcontact. For the determination of C, a first contact between upper extremities and bumper
should be ignored.

Figure 3: Example for calculation of HIT=H-C

HIT calculation

Time channel

HBM - bumper
Contact Force

Time - C

Offsetted time

t when > 0C

H_auto - C

HIT_auto

Final HIT

Manualevaluationnecessary

Upperextremities
betweenhead andGV?

yeshead – GV
Contact Force

Resultant Headacc

t when > 0

Automatic
derived
H_autot_acc >
H_auto andt_accH_auto<20?

not of max head acc = t_acc
Rerun simulations with disabledcontact upper extremities - headnoyesManualevaluation
based on headacc necessary

Figure 4: Flowchart describing determination of HIT

TB 024-12/38

3.2.6 Calculation of Trajectories
Trajectories of HC, T12 and AC should be provided and compared with the corridors. Nodehistories are trimmed from C to H automatically in the postprocessing template. The x
displacement of the vehicle COG is subtracted from the x coordinate of every tracking point to
get the transformed x coordinate. The z coordinate is plotted over the transformed x coordinate.
3.2.7 Evaluation of Contact Forces
The total contact force between vehicle and HBM should be compared with the provided
corridors. Furthermore, all contact forces specified in the postprocessing templates have to beprovided. The time of the contact curves must be offset with C (Note: explained within section
3.2.5) so that they start at the first increase of bumper contact force. This is done automaticallywithin the excel template. A first contact between vehicle and upper extremities of the HBM is
disregarded. Therefore, the contact forces between bumper and lower extremities and torso arerequested in the template. Contact forces are monitored only.

3.3 Corridors for AM50 Pedestrian Size
Trajectories should be compared with the proposed corridors for all 12 simulations. Contact
forces will be monitored only. The difference to the reference HIT and the derived HIT has tobe within the interval of +3.5% and -7%.
The graphs on the left show the corridors for the resultant contact forces between pedestrianmodel and GV, which are monitored only. The graphs on the right show the corridors for HC,
T12 and AC, which should be met.
Note: The reference HIT values and corridors were derived from consistent simulations withpedestrian models which were listed in TB013 v1.5 (2016) in all four codes.

TB 024-13/38

3.3.1 Corridors for Family Car
Figures 5a-c show the corridors for the impact with the generic Family car model at 30, 40
and 50 kph respectively.
3000

35

2500

30
2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

1000

AC

10

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

150

200

-2500

-2000

Time [ms]

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 5a: Family car, 30 kph– Reference HIT = 172.3 ms
3000

35

2500

30
2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

1000

AC

10

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0

0

50

100

150

200

-2500

-2000

Time [ms]

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 5b: Family car, 40 kph – Reference HIT = 138.1 ms
3000

35

2500

30
2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

1000

AC

10

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

Time [ms]

150

200

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 5c: Family car, 50 kph – Reference HIT= 114.3 ms

TB 024-14/38

3.3.2 Corridors for MPV
Figures 6a-c show the corridors for the impact with the generic MPV model at 30, 40 and 50
kph respectively.
3000

35

2500

30
2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

1000

AC

10

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

150

200

-2500

-2000

Time [ms]

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 6a: MPV, 30 kph – Reference HIT= 151.5 ms
3000

35

2500

30

2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

1000

AC

10

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

150

200

-2500

-2000

Time [ms]

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 6b: MPV, 40 kph- Reference HIT=120.4 ms
3000

35

2500

30
2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

AC

10

1000

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

Time [ms]

150

200

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 6c: MPV, 50 kph – Reference HIT=100.8 ms

TB 024-15/38

3.3.3 Corridors for Roadster
Figures 7a-c show the corridors for the impact with the generic roadster model at 30, 40 and
50 kph respectively.
3000

35

2500

30
2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

AC

10

1000

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

150

200

-2500

-2000

Time [ms]

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 7a: RDS, 30 kph – Reference HIT = 176.9 ms
3000

35

2500

30
2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

AC

10

1000

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

150

200

-2500

-2000

Time [ms]

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 7b: RDS, 40 kph – Reference HIT =142.1 ms
3000

35

2500

30
2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

AC

10

1000

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

Time [ms]

150

200

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 7c: RDS, 50 kph – Reference HIT =119.3 ms

TB 024-16/38

3.3.4 Corridors for SUV
Figures 8a-c show the corridors for the generic SUV model at 30, 40 and 50 kph respectively.
The contact force does not start at 0 because the first contact between hand and car was notconsidered for C.
3000

35

2500

30

2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

AC

10

1000

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5

0

0
0

50

100

150

200

-2500

-2000

Time [ms]

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 8a: SUV, 30 kph – Reference HIT = 136.5 ms
3000

35

2500

30

2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

AC

10

1000

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

150

200

-2500

-2000

Time [ms]

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 8b: SUV, 40 kph – Reference HIT =109.0 ms
3000

35

2500

30

2000

25

HC
20

1500

T12

15

AC

10

1000

local z coordinate [mm]Total Contact Force Pedestrian - GV [kN ]

40

500

5
0

0
0

50

100

Time [ms]

150

200

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

local x coordinate [mm]Figure 8c: SUV, 50 kph – Reference HIT =92.9 ms

TB 024-17/38

3.4 Corridors for Other Pedestrian Sizes
At the current stage only corridors and tolerances for the AM50 pedestrian size are provided.
The response of the 6yo model will be monitored from January until December 2019. Results
shall be provided within the excel templates available within the certification pack10(FCR_6yo.xlsx, MPV_6yo.xlsx, RDS_6yo.xlsx, SUV_6yo.xlsx). From January 2020 a
certification of the 6yo model will be mandatory. If the 6yo model does not belong to a modelfamily, the model can be used for the assessment simulations when it fulfils the requirements.
The other sizes of one model family (AM 95 and AF 05) qualify when the AM 50 model passes
the certification. All model sizes have to meet the required initial posture defined in Table 2 (onpage 9) as well as the general requirements in Section 1.1.

3.5 Compliance of the Trajectories
Within the postprocessing template, the actual trajectories of HC, T12 and AC are compared
every 0.1 ms with the minimum and maximum z and x values derived from the simulations
with consistent models. The method is shown in Figure 9 schematically. The red points
represent the response of the model to be certified at tn and tn+1. At the time tn this point has tolie within the blue box and at tn+1 within the green one. The figures presented in 3.3 show z asa function of x (black line) created from the outside corners of the boxes and are for easier
illustration only.

zmax (tn)zmin (tn)

tn+1

z(x)
tn

xmin (tn) xmax (tn)Figure 9: Trajectory Compliance
Note: As the major aim of the procedure is to make the location of the head and other bodyparts comparable at a specific time, it was decided to consider the timing for the trajectories
instead of evaluating z as a function of x only.
The compliance check works automatically and the template shows the max. deviation of thelocation of the sensor of the actual model to the inner corridor as well as the total duration inwhich the trajectories of the model are outside the corridor per sensor location for the x and z
coordinate respectively.
The certified models should aim to stay inside the corridors for the whole impact duration. A
maximum deviation of 50 mm to the corridor is tolerated during the introductory period of theprocedure (starting 2018). The tolerance will be narrowed down in the near future after more

10

Excel and PowerPoint templates can be downloaded as part of the certification pack via the download link
available from https://www.euroncap.com/en/for-engineers/supporting-information/

TB 024-18/38

data have been collected. A tolerance of 50 mm was chosen as it represents half of the size ofthe interval of the headform impact area grid.

TB 024-19/38

ANNEX A: REFERENCE SYSTEMS

Global Coordinate System
The global coordinate system is defined as shown in Figure A.2:•••

X direction is the driving direction of the vehicle (longitudinal axis) and X=0 at theforemost point of the vehicle at t=0
Y direction is the vehicle lateral axis with Y=0 at the vehicle centreline
Z direction is parallel to the vehicle height axis facing upwards. Z=0 at the ground level

Figure A.2: Global Coordinate System
Note: All generic vehicle models are already positioned correctly – no transformation of thevehicle is needed

HBM Reference Axis
The HBM reference coordinate system is defined as: The local HBM x-axis is the sagittal axis,
facing anterior. The y-axis is the defined as the frontal axis and the z-direction is defined as thevertical axis, facing in inferior direction.
The reference axis for the skeleton are based on the recommendations of the internationalsociety of biomechanics (ISB) using anatomic landmarks (Wu et al. 2002)11. All axis describing
the initial posture with the corresponding landmarks are shown in Figure A.2 (small capital r
stands for right and l for left side of the body)
For humanoid models the connection of the joint centres shall be used instead of the axis. Afterthat they should be overlaid with at least one HBM in reference posture or the IP free skeleton
to fine adjust the position until the outer surface of the models are as close as possible.

11

Wu et al. (2005), Wu and Cavanagh (1995); Wu et al. (2002)

TB 024-20/38

HC

SCl

SCr

HMl

HMr

USl

x

USr
AC

z

Fr

Fl

right

left

Mr

Ml

Figure A.2: HBM Reference Axis for angle definitions••

The Upper Leg Angle is defined as the angle around Y between the femur reference
axis and the horizontal.
The femur reference axis is defined as the connection between the centre of the nodesof the acetabulum and the midpoint (F) between Epicondylus femoralis medialis (FEM)
and Epicondylus femoralis lateralis (FEL). If FEM and FEL are not clearly identifiable
the approach shown in Figure A.3 can be used12:-

The femur has to be positioned such that the lateral and medial epicondyle are
overlaying as much as possible. A section cut normal to the view plan should becreated. Create a circle from the contour of femoral condyle. The midpoint of
the circle can be used as reference for FEM and FEL which should be placedwith an offset normal to the view plane. Turn the femoral bone 90 degrees
around and identify the most lateral and the most medial point in line with thecentre of the circle created at the previous step.

F

Figure A.3: Construction of FEL and FEM
12Based on Churchill et al. (1998)

TB 024-21/38

•

The Knee Flexion Angle should be measured between the femur reference axis and theconnection between the midpoint of the femoral epicondyles and the inter-malleolar
point (M) located midway between the tip of the medial malleolus (MM) and tip of thelateral malleolus (LM).

Figure A.4: The right inter-malleolar point (MR) located midway
between MM and LM•

The Upper Arm Angle is defined as angle around the Y axis between the horizontal
plane and the humerus reference axis. The humerus reference axis is defined as theconnection between the midpoint (SC) of AA (the most laterodorsal point of theAngulus Acromialis) and PC (the most ventral point of processus coracoideus) and the
midpoint (HM) of EL (the most caudal-lateral point on lateral epicondyle) and EM (themost caudal-medial point on medial epicondyle).

•

The Elbow Flexion Angle is defined as angle between the humerus reference axis andthe connection between the midpoint of EM and EL and the most caudal-medial pointon the ulnar styloid (US).

Figure A.5: Anatomic Landmarks of upper extremities•

The Heel to Heel distance is defined as the distance between the centre of all nodes of
the right and the left calcaneus. If this can’t be determined the distance between the most
posterior node of the left heel to the most posterior node of the right heel of the shoesole.

TB 024-22/38

ANNEX B: HUMAN BODY MODEL OUTPUT
Sensors must be located at several locations – some are for monitoring purposes only:••

Centre of gravity of the head (hereafter called HC) (all parts of skull, scalp, face, brain,
intracranial space, scalp) connected to all nodes of inner cranium (at least 100 nodes)
Centre of all nodes of vertebral body of C1 (hereafter called C1); connected to all nodesof C1 (Figure B.1) for monitoring only

Figure B.1: Centre of C1
For the analysis of the kinematics of the spine, the centre of the vertebral bodies is used likeshown in Figure B.2.
•••

Centre of all nodes of vertebral body C7 (hereafter called C7); connected to all nodesof vertebral body of C7 – for monitoring only
Centre of all nodes of vertebral body of T8 (hereafter called T8), connected to all nodesof vertebral body of T8 – for monitoring only
Centre of all nodes of vertebral body of T12 (hereafter called T12), connected to allnodes of vertebral body of T12

Figure B.2: Definition of Vertebral Body•

Instead of the H-Point which comes from physical crash test dummies, the centre of theright and left acetabulum centres (hereafter called AC) is used: Determine at first thecentre of all nodes within the concave surface: select the sharp edge where the bonechanges curvature as boundary and select all nodes inside like shown in Figure B.3. Thishas to be done at the left and the right side of the Acetabulum. The midpoint of the left
and right acetabulum centre is AC and should be connected to all nodes of the right andleft acetabulum.

TB 024-23/38

Figure B.3: Definition of Acetabulum Centre••

Midpoint of lateral and medial femoral epicondyle (for monitoring purposes) for right(hereafter called Fr) and left femoral epicondyle (hereafter called Fl) – It should beconnected to its surrounding nodes (all nodes of the elements around FEM and FEL on
the femur) – for monitoring onlyInter-malleolar point right (hereafter called Mr) and left (hereafter called Ml) - It should
be connected to its surrounding nodes (all nodes of the elements around MM and LM
of the tibia and fibula like shown in Figure A.2) – for monitoring only

For Humanoid Models at least AC, HC and C7 have to be identifiable. The other nodes can bepositioned with respect to these nodes according to Table B.1.
The sensors must be defined such, that outputs are returned in the global coordinate system,with the x-direction parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis in driving direction and the zdirection parallel to the vehicle height axis facing upwards. The sensor shall be connected tothe bony structure (cortical and trabecular bone) to the nodes which were used for the definitionof the centre. The node output shall be achieved through an interpolation constrained. 13 With
these interpolation constraints, the motion of a single slave (dependent or reference) nodedepends on the motion of a set of master (independent) nodes. For all codes it is advisable that
only the translational components of the master n odes (e.g. IDOF=123) are used to calculate
the motion of the slave nodes (e.g. DDOF=123456)14. All master nodes shall be assigned thesame weighting factor (mostly the default anyways). Automatic adjustments of weighting
factors (e.g. in Radioss) shall be disabled. It is recommended that the slave (dependent orreference) node is not used in any other constrained definitions (e.g. a nodal rigid body). The
user is advised to make sure, that the dependent node is massless and no external forces act on
the dependent node.

13

Rational: An interpolation constrained already provides a pre-filtering of output signals and prevents excessive
noise. It makes data post-processing straightforward and almost obsolete. By contrast to a nodal rigid body, theinterpolation constraint does not rigidify the master nodes, to which the slave node (sensor node) is attached(Approach described in Golman et al. (2015).)
14
Unless the master nodes are all collinear or the master set consists of two nodes only, which seems both very
unlikely in the present application

TB 024-24/38

Table B.1
Reference position of sensors
Long Name

Head Centre of Gravity
Centre of all nodes of vertebral
body of C1
Centre of all nodes of vertebral
body C7
Centre of all nodes of vertebral
body of T8
Centre of all nodes of vertebral
body of T12
Centre of the right and left
Acetabulum centres
Midpoint of lateral and medial
femoral epicondyle

Inter-malleolar point right and
left

Code
LS-DYNA
VPS

RADIOSSABAQUS

Abbreviation

Reference Position(with respect to global CSYS)
x
y
z

HC

170

0

1679

C1

170

33

1618

C7

170

38

1508

T8

170

78

1340

T12

170

78

1234

AC

170

44

944

Fr

84

66

500

Fl

254

-57

511

Mr

75

187

100

Ml

259

-131

101

Table B.2
Slave node interpolation Keywords
KeywordRecommended Parameters*CONSTRAINED_INTERPOLATE DDOF=123456, CIDD=0, ITYP=1,
IDOF=123, TWGHTi=RWHGTi=0
OTMCO_/DOFCOD=111000, IMETH=0,
IELM=1, ITYP=0, RADIUS=0,
WTFAC=1/RBE3
I_MODIF=2 or 3, WTi=1,
TRAROT_REFi=111111,
TRAROT_Mi=111000*MPC
BEAM, NSET1, NSET2

TB 024-25/38

ANNEX C: CORRIDORS FOR GENERIC VEHICLE MODELS
Impactor response corridors
The structural impact response upon impact is aimed to lie within pre-defined corridors. These
corridors, shown in Table C.1 were established by propelling a close-to-rigid cylindricalimpactor against selected full-FE numerical models15. The impactors were propelled againsteight locations on the spoiler, bumper, bonnet lead and bonnet once at the vehicle centrelineand once at the y location of the bumper corner width (definition according to Euro NCAP
pedestrian protocol v8.2: “The Corner of Bumper is the point of contact of the vehicle with avertical plane which makes an angle of 60° with the vertical longitudinal plane of the car and istangential to the outer surface of the bumper”).
In total 11 vehicle models from 5 different car manufacturers were used for deriving thestiffness corridors. As there were only marginal differences of the median stiffness’s fordiffering vehicle categories, they were summarised. So the corridors can be used for all vehicle
categories. Nevertheless, it has to be considered, that roadsters showed less clearance at thebonnet impacts. Four vehicle models with pop up bonnets were impacted too. For the impact at
the centreline, the median of the max. deflection was comparable to the other vehicle, but for
the impact in y-offset direction, a significant higher value for the median of the maximum
deflection was observed.
Table C.1:
Stiffness Corridors derived from Simulations with full FE vehicle models
Centreline

At Bumper Corner Width

15

15

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]Median Loading
UnloadingMedian Loading Median Median
Unloading Min / Max
MinLoading/ Max Loading Min / Max
MinUnloading/ Max Unloading

5

0

5

0
0

25

50

75

100

125

Deflection [mm]Spoiler: Median of max. deflection: 117.5 mm

0

25

50

75

100

125

Deflection [mm]Spoiler: Median of max. deflection: 115.7 mm

15The full-FE models were either provided by OEMs to the Vehicle Safety Institute at Graz University ofTechnology or the OEM conducted the impactor simulations in-house, providing the results for analysis.

TB 024-26/38

Centreline

At Bumper Corner WidthMedian Loading
UnloadingMedian Loading Median Median
Unloading Min / Max
MinLoading/ Max Loading Min / Max
MinUnloading/ Max Unloading

Force [kN]

15

10

5

0
0

20

40

60

80

Deflection [mm]Bumper: Median of max. deflection: 70.7 mm

15

15

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]

Bumper: Median of max. deflection: 70.0 mm

5

5

0

0
0

20

40

60

0

80

20

BLE: Median of max. deflection: 68.7 mm

6080

BLE: Median of max. deflection: 57.3 mm

15

15

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]40
Deflection [mm]Deflection [mm]

5

5

0

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Deflection [mm]

0

20

40

60

80

100

Deflection [mm]Bonnet: Median of max. deflection (all): 91.8 mm

Bonnet: Median of max. deflection (all): 75.8 mm

Roadster only: 63.6 mm

Roadster only: 61.3 mm

wo Roadster: 92.7 mm
with active bonnet: 88.54 mm

wo Roadster: 76.2 mm
with active bonnet: 102.0 mm

Response of Generic Vehicle Models
When checking the result of the generic vehicle models with the provided simulation setup theforce deflection curves should be close to the response of the corresponding reference GVmodel. The comparison should be done within the provided template. The following tables
show the response of the original LS-DYNA model (Revision 1.0) compared to the corridors.
Comparison should be only done at the vehicle centreline.

TB 024-27/38

SimID 1
15

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00120.0015

1010Table C.2:
Optimised stiffness of generic Family car model compared to stiffness corridors
5

Family car

0Centreline

0.00

20.00

Spoiler0
80.00
100.00At Bumper
Corner
Width

60.00

Corridor Unloading

Median Unloading

15

15

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]

Corridor Loading

40.00

5

0

Median Loading

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

15

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]

15

5

80

100

120

100

120

100

120

100

120

5

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

Deflection [mm]

40

60

80

Deflection [mm]

15

15

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]

60

0
0

5

0

5

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

Deflection [mm]

40

60

80

Deflection [mm]

15

15

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]40

Deflection [mm]0Bonnet

GV LS-DYNA

5Deflection [mm]Bumper

120.0000BonnetLeading
Edge

5

5

0

5

0
0

20

40

60

80

Deflection [mm]

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

Deflection [mm]TB 024-28/38

SimID 1
15

0.00

20.00

40.00

120.00
15

10

10

80.00

100.00

Table C.3:
Response of generic MPV model compared to stiffness corridors

5

5

MPV

0
0.00

Spoiler

60.00

20.00
Corridor Loading

Centreline

40.00

Corridor Unloading0
80.00
100.00 WidthAt
Bumper Corner

60.00

Median Unloading

Median Loading

120.00GV LS-DYNA

Force [kN]

15

10

5

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Deflection [mm]BumperBonnetLeading
Edge

BonnetTB 024-29/38

SimID 1
15

0.00

20.00

40.00

120.00
15

10

10

80.00

100.00

Table C.4:
Response of generic Roadster model compared to stiffness corridors

5

5

RDS

0
0.00

Spoiler

60.00

20.00
Corridor Loading

Centreline

40.00

Corridor Unloading

0

60.00

80.00
100.00 WidthAt
Bumper CornerMedian Unloading

Median Loading

120.00GV LS-DYNA

BumperBonnetLeading
Edge

BonnetTB 024-30/38

Table C.5:
Response of generic SUV model compared to stiffness corridors
SUV
Centreline

At Bumper Corner Width

Spoiler

Bumper15

Force [kN]

BonnetLeading
Edge

10

5

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Deflection [mm]BonnetTB 024-31/38

ANNEX D: MODELING OF GENERIC VEHICLE MODELSIn this Annex, the modelling of the Generic Vehicle (GV) is described in larger detail. This isdone for two reasons. First, the modelling approach shall be openly visible and understandable
to the users. Second, the approach shall be implementable to other FE solvers than thoseconsidered in this protocol, e.g. if the vehicle OEM wishes to use another FE code not discussed
here. The description refers to revision 1.0 of the generic vehicle models.
The generic vehicle shall:• Provide a representative and up-to-date vehicle shape for selected vehicle categories.
• Provide a realistic structural response upon pedestrian impact in terms of force
deflection characteristics• Employ simple and clear modelling techniques, which areo Robust,
o Repeatable,o Convertible, i.e. implementable to any FE code.
• Use consistent modelling techniques for all major explicit FE codes.
The original GV models were developed in LS-DYNA. They were translated by the codehouses to the other FE codes (Altair Engineering France translated models to RADIOSS,
3DPLM Software Solutions Limited to ABAQUS and ESI group to VPS).
The generic vehicle is separated into the following areas (acronyms in brackets):
•
•
•
•
•
•

Spoiler (spl)Bumper (bmp)
Grill (grl)Bonnet Lead (ble)Bonnet (bnt)
Rigid Structure (rst)

A consistent approach for all codes was pursued. It was assumed that the structural response
under the loads of a pedestrian impact can be modelled through an outer shell surface, theinterface layer, (for modelling the vehicles fascia) and a generic foam, the foam layer, resting
on a rigid skeletal vehicle structure, the bottom layer. The compaction layer emulates hard
structures and works as an end stop, as a contact with the interface layer is defined. The foam
shall replicate a variety of unknown base structures, like for example rips, collapsible cones,
buckling structures and foams, i.e. structures which absorb energy. Figure D.1 shows the layers
which make up the Generic Vehicle Model.
Generic Vehicle

Interface Layer

Foam Layer

Compaction Layer

Foam Bottom Layer

Figure D.1: Components of the Generic Vehicle Model

TB 024-32/38

The foam layer features:••••

Piecewise-linear behaviour (elasticity, yielding, compaction-initialisation, fullcompaction);
Definable energy absorption;
Negligible expansion upon compression (i.e. a Poisson’s ratio of 0);
No strain rate dependency: It is assumed that interface layer’s inertial effects are more
important for the impact response behaviour than material induced strain-rate effects.

The parameters T1, T2, T3, E1, and E2 describe the structural behaviour of the foam layers(compare Table D.1). T4, the compaction stiffness is assumed to be 3 GPa (the young’s
modulus of polystyrene). Compaction strain is assumed to be 95%. The approach is summarized
in Figure D.
The density of all parts except the bonnet is defines with the parameter RO. For the bonnet, thedensity of the foam had to be decreased to avoid too soft behaviour because of inertia effects
and is defined with the parameter RObnt.
The outer surface of the foam is covered by an interface layer, which• provides a realistic mass of the contact interface and thus inertial effects upon impact,• structural mechanical characteristics (Young’s modulus, Tangential modulus, yieldstress).

Foam (bi-linear)

Compaction Layer (rigid)

Bottom Layer (rigid)

Offset (default=98%)

Interface Layer (elastic-plastic)
Option 2:
Piecewise definition
Rho=7e-8 kg/mm³

S3
S1

Interface Layer- Material (mt)- Thickness (th)Compaction Layer- Offset (of)T4=3GPa
T3

T2
Foam
T1 - T1, T2, T3, E1, E2- Absorption (ab)E1

E2

E3=95%

Figure D.2: Structural impact response model (SIRM)
To calibrate the structural impact response model (SIRM) the following parameters are assigned
to each area (see Table D.1). The name of the parameter is formed by the contact area acronym
and the parameter acronym, e.g. splth is the thickness of the interface layer at the spoiler.

TB 024-33/38

Table D.1
Structural Impact Response Calibration Parameters
Layer
Interface

Abbrev.
MT

Description
Material type (integer)(selection of predefined materials: Null, Steel, Plastic)
Thickness of Layer (real)Primary Stiffness (real)
Secondary Stiffness (real)
Tertiary Stiffness (real)(Yield) Strain at transition between primary and secondary stiffness (real)
Transition Stiffness between yield and compaction stiffness (real)
Energy Absorption (real)
Offset between interface and compaction layer (can be thought as
thickness of foam layer) (real)

TH
T1
T2
T3
S1
S2
AB
OF16

Foam

Compaction

To summarize, the impact response is governed by eight parameters per contact area. The
windshield and all vehicle parts lying behind the windshield are assumed rigid, as these parts
play no role for the head impact kinematics. The first three letters of every parameter refer tothe contact area (e.g. bmpTH = thickness of bumper interface layer).

Geometry
Vehicle geometries were parameterised based on outer shapes provided by car manufactures or
pictures with vehicle dimensions (pictures were scaled according to vehicle length and height).
The whole vehicle front is described with 120 parameters. The vehicle midsection consists of
10 Bézier curves shown in Figure D.3. Start- and endpoint and corresponding slope of thetangents are defined for every curve (Figure D.4).
bntTrMtwsh

bntLdMt

bntTrMx
bntTrMz

bnt
bl2
grl

bl1

bntLdMx
bntLdMz

bp3

BLEH

bp2

bp1
sp2

sp1

Figure D.3: Bézier curves defining thevehicle midsection

Figure D.4 Definition of single curve

Median Values of the parameters describing the vehicle geometry were derived and mediangeometry was created based on median geometric parameters.

16

It is important to understand that the true thickness of the foam and thus the stiffness of the foam is not affectedby the parameter ‘OF’. The motivation to do so is to keep SIRM calibration parameters decoupled (else the foam
stiffness would be a function of thickness and density).

TB 024-34/38

Note: Difference in height between provided pictures and 3D geometry models of vehicles inEuro NCAP position were observed (due to differing loading conditions). Therefore, vehicle
geometries where only pictures were provided were offset in z direction. The mean z offset ofvehicles where 3D models in Euro NCAP position and pictures were available wasdetermined therefore (max. 32 mm).
Figure D.3 shows the midsection of the generated generic median vehicle geometries (reddashed line) compared to the discretised vehicle geometries from current European cars.
SUV

Family car

MPV/ Supermini

RoadsterFigure D.3: Median Geometries for every vehicle category

Discretisation
The vehicle shape is discretized using 4 node shell and 8 node solid elements only. Averageelement size is 12mm. The following parts of the interface layer share nodes: Spoiler, Bumper,
Grill and Bonnet Lead. At the transition between bonnet leading edge and bonnet, coincident
nodes were not merged.
The coincident nodes at the edges of the various parts of the compaction layer are merged. Thismeans that the compaction layer surface is continuous.
None of the foam layer nodes are merged (except for the nodes shared at the interface andbottom layer: E.g. the coincident nodes between the grill foam layer and the bonnet lead foamlayer).

TB 024-35/38

The ‘Foam Bottom Layer’ is assigned a rigid material. All rigid materials are merged with thevehicle COG rigid body using e.g. *CONSTRAINED_RIGID_BODIES in LS-Dyna, in such a
way that the pre-defined mass (and inertia) is not altered (e.g. IFLAG=0 in LS-Dyna).
All foam layers have a thickness of 100 mm, except for the spoiler, which is 200 mm thick. The
foam layer is created through extrusion: The spoiler and bumper nodes are extruded along thex-axis. The bonnet lead is created through extrusion along a vector enclosing 50 deg with thehorizontal x-axis. The bonnets rearmost edge is extruded along the normal to the bonnets
rearmost surface. The other foam elements are extruded such to fill up the gaps between bumperand bonnet lead, as well as bonnet lead and rearmost bonnet edge (see Figure D.4).

Figure D.4: Discretization of foam layer: The three dragging vectors

Boundary Conditions
The vehicle is assigned the median mass as established for each vehicle category. The medianmass consists of the median kerb weight of the vehicle and the additional mass of 150 kg fordriver and front passenger as specified in the Euro NCAP pedestrian testing protocol. The
vehicle’s moments of inertia remain unconsidered, though. The vehicle has only one degree of
freedom, which is the x-direction in the vehicle coordinate system.17

Table D.2
Median Mass per Vehicle Category
Vehicle Category
SUV
Familycar
MPV
RoadsterMedian Kerb Weight [kg]
1625
1540
1440.51312.5Median Total Mass [kg]
1775
1690
1590.51462.517

The boundary conditions were selected to be consistent with experimental crash and PMHS tests. Complex
consideration of the vehicle suspension system remains unconsidered for reasons of simplicity. Hence only one
vehicle DoF is released.

TB 024-36/38

ID-Ranges
The generic vehicle uses the ID ranges 1.000.000 to 9.900.99918. The leading number is also
indicating the sub-section of the generic vehicle (1…spoiler, 2…bumper, 3…grill, 4…bonnet
lead, 5…bonnet, 9…remainder). ID range 9.900.000 to 9.900.999 is for items (e.g. materials,
sets, hourglass models) which are used by multiple sub-sections (see pre-defined materials).

18

Human models like THUMS v4 use the ID ranges 90.000.000 to 99.000.000

TB 024-37/38

REFERENCES
Churchill DL, Incavo SJ, Johnson CC, Beynnon BD. 1998. The Transepicondylar Axis
Approximates the Optimal Flexion Axis of the Knee. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research 356:111–8.
Crocetta G, Piantini S, Pierini M, Simms C. 2015. The influence of vehicle front-end design onpedestrian ground impact. Accident Analysis & Prevention 79:56–69.
Golman AJ, Danelson KA, Gaewsky JP, Stitzel JD. 2015. Implementation and validation ofthoracic side impact injury prediction metrics in a human body model. Computer methods
in biomechanics and biomedical engineering 18(10):1044–55.
Klug C, Feist F, Raffler M, Sinz W, Petit P, Ellway J, van Ratingen M. 2017. Development of
a Procedure to Compare Kinematics of Human Body Models for Pedestrian Simulations.
Paper presented at: IRCOBI. 2017 IRCOBI Conference Proceedings. pp. 509–30; Antwerp,
Belgium.
Mizuno Y, Ishikawa H. 2001. Summary of IHRA Pedestrian Safety WG Activities – Proposed
Test Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian Protection Aforded by Passenger Cars. Paper presented
at: International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. The 17 th ESV
Conference Proceedings. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Perry J. 1992. Gait analysis: Normal and pathological function: Slack Incorporated.
Simms C, Wood DP. 2006. Pedestrian Risk from Cars and Sport Utility Vehicles - A
Comparative Analytical Study. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 220(8):1085–100.
Untaroiu CD, Meissner MU, Crandall JR, Takahashi Y, Okamoto M, Ito O. 2009. Crash
reconstruction of pedestrian accidents using optimization techniques. International Journalof Impact Engineering 36(2):210–9.
Wu G, Cavanagh PR. 1995. ISB recommendations for standardization in the reporting of
kinematic data. Journal of Biomechanics 28(10):1257–61.
Wu G, Siegler S, Allard P, Kirtley C, Leardini A, Rosenbaum D, Whittle M, D’Lima DD,
Cristofolini L, Witte H, Schmid O, Stokes I. 2002. ISB recommendation on definitions ofjoint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—part I:
ankle, hip, and spine. Journal of Biomechanics 35(4):543–8.
Wu G, van der Helm, Frans C.T., Veeger H, Makhsous M, van Roy P, Anglin C, Nagels J,
Karduna AR, McQuade K, Wang X, Werner FW, Buchholz B. 2005. ISB recommendation
on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint
motion—Part II: Shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. Journal of Biomechanics 38(5):981–92.

TB 024-38/38