| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | GTR 9 technical discussion - Injury criteria (revised) | ||||||||
| Reference Number | GTR9-01-06/Rev.1 | ||||||||
| Date |
1 Mar 2012
|
||||||||
| Summary | Revised presentation on injury criteria for the FlexPLI test tool correcting minor errors. | ||||||||
| Source(s) | JASIC | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | GTR No. 9 Pedestrian Safety (GTR) | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| GTR9 | Session 1 | 1-2 Dec 2011 |
Document GTR9-1-06 was also presented by Mr. Takahashi. He explained that the injury criteria for the FlexPLI were derived from different studies and that the thresholds proposed by the Flex-TEG were validated from a biomechanical viewpoint. Ms. Versailles stated on request that the US had raised some concerns during the May 2011 GRSP session regarding the injury thresholds that were chosen for the FlexPLI. With the abilities of the impactor it may be possible to achieve better protection with more stringent criteria. The US does not see a necessity to just achieve a protection level that is comparable to the EEVC LFI. However, NHTSA will investigate this in more detail. Mr. Knotz wondered whether it is possible to derive injury criteria from results of two PMHS tests as it was done in the study for the ACL criterion. Mr. Takahashi replied that this unfortunately is the only available information and thus it is not possible to analyze the data in the same way as that used for tibia fracture. Mr. Takahashi will finally also provide an updated version of this presentation that includes some slight corrections (see doc. GTR9-1-06r1). |
||||||||