| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | Validation of Pedestrian Safety Flex-GTR model | ||||||||
| Reference Number | GTR9-06-12 | ||||||||
| Date |
14 Mar 2013
|
||||||||
| 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 6 | 19-20 Mar 2013 |
Dr. Konosu presented document GTR9-6-12 that explains how the FlexPLI model was validated at JAMA/JARI. Dr. Konosu showed that in the process used in Japan the performance of the impactor does not influence the impactor thresholds. Coming back to document GTR9-6-12, Mr. Zander wondered why the validation of the FlexPLI against vehicle models now should be skipped. Simplified vehicle models could be used for such purposes where the load paths can be modified. This had also been done in other cases in the past. Dr. Konosu and Mr. Takahashi replied that this may be time consuming and that it nevertheless adds variability. Mr. Zander stated that he nevertheless would prefer to have simulation and physical testing against a simplified vehicle model. |
||||||||