Introduction 1 st SENIORS Expert Meeting Marcus Wisch, BASt Adri - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Introduction 1st SENIORS Expert Meeting

Marcus Wisch, BASt Adrià Ferrer, IDIADA

September 11, 2015

2

DRAFT AGENDA – 1ST SENIORS EXPERT MEETING

1:00 p.m. Welcome / Roll Call (Marcus Wisch, Adrià Ferrer) 1:15 p.m. Introduction to the Horizon2020 project SENIORS (Marcus Wisch)

• Background
• Objectives
• Project Structure and Timeline

1:30 p.m. First questions & answers 1:35 p.m. Introduction of Work Package 1 – Accidentology and Behaviour of Elderly in Road Traffic (Marcus Wisch)

• Structure and timeplan
• Objectives
• First results of literature review regarding road traffic safety of elderly

and obese persons (focus on car occupants, pedestrians, cyclists)

1:50 p.m. Open discussion towards Work Package 1 2:15 p.m. Introduction of Work Package 2 – Biomechanics (David Hynd)

• Structure and timeplan
• Objectives
• Methodology
• Overview HBM

2:35 p.m. Coffee Break

3

DRAFT AGENDA – 1ST SENIORS EXPERT MEETING

2:55 p.m. Open discussion towards Work Package 2 3:30 p.m. Introduction of Work Package 3 – Test Tool Development (Paul Lemmen)

• Structure and timeplan
• Objectives

3:40 p.m. Open discussion towards Work Package 3 3:55 p.m. Wrap-up Discussion about potential collaborations Concluding remarks 4:30 p.m. Closure

4

INTRODUCTION - MOTIVATION

Figures from CARE (Community Road Accident Database)

 Number of fatally injured road users is decreasing; however, share of elderly is increasing

5

INTRODUCTION Key target

5

6

INTRODUCTION

What stands SENIORS for and who are we?

Safety ENhanced Innovations For Older Road UserS

Key facts:

• EC Horizon 2020 programme, GA n° 636136
• Run time:

June 2015 – May 2018 (36 months)

• Budget:

2.9M€ Main Goal:

• To improve the safe mobility of the elderly, and
• f obese persons, using an integrated approach.

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)

INTRODUCTION – FOCUS AND OBJECTIVES Focus of the project and key objectives

Focus:

• SENIORS investigates and assesses the injury reduction that can be achieved

through innovative and suitable tools as well as safety systems targeting the protection of the elderly (and obese persons) as car occupants and external road users (pedestrians, cyclists, e-bike riders) being involved in a crash. Key Objectives:

• Improve protection of elderly (all transport modes)
• Understand the influence of age in pre-crash and crash occupant dynamics
• Identify the anthropometric and injury mechanism particularities of elderly
• Develop and optimise test tools, procedures and assessment methods
• Transfer knowledge and results to interested experts, regulatory bodies,

consumer entities (e.g., Euro NCAP) etc.

7

INTRODUCTION – PROJECT IDEA / APPROACH Integrated approach

8

INTRODUCTION – PROJECT STRUCTURE

9

INTRODUCTION – TIME PLAN Structure and Time Plan

WP1 - Accidentology and Behaviour of Elderly WP2 – Biomechanics WP3 – Test Tools Development WP4 – Impact of new safety systems

June 2015 November 2015 June 2017 May 2018 10

INTRODUCTION - EXPECTED RESULTS Expected achievements and results (selection)

• Identified distinctions in kinematics of road users by age in pre-crash

and crash phase.

• Identified anthropometric and injury mechanism particularities of

elderly, and also obese persons, compared to younger people.

• Customised R-scripts package for the calculation of injury risk curves.
• Developed and optimised test tools, procedures and assessment

methods in the area of passive vehicle safety with special regard to elderly and obese users.

Note: The figure provides a simplified overview of some expected results during the project runtime. Many other deliverables, information on workshops etc. can be found on the SENIORS website.

11

1ST SENIORS EXPERT MEETING Expectations / Goals for this meeting

• To present the project idea and concept
• To answer questions to the project in general
• To get comments / guidance on the overall methodology
• To discuss first project results and next steps
• To seek synergies with ongoing research
• To establish a platform for same / similar research fields which

can be used to exchange knowledge and accelerate harmonisation activities

12

For further information:

www.seniors-project.eu

Partners 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° 636136

Marcus Wisch (wisch@bast.de) Project Coordinator Adrià Ferrer (adria.ferrer@idiada.com) Project Manager

WP1 – Accidentology and Behaviour 1st SENIORS Expert Meeting

Marcus Wisch, BASt

September 11, 2015

WORK PACKAGE 1 - FIRST ANALYSIS RESULTS

Figures from CARE*

*European centralised database on road accidents which result in death or injury across the EU

 New drivers and elderly are killed more frequent than middle-aged road users

15

WORK PACKAGE 1 - FIRST ANALYSIS RESULTS

Figures from CARE

 Police-reported numbers of seriously injured persons differ a lot in Europe  Reasons are e.g., definitions, traffic rates, underreporting, rescue services

16

WORK PACKAGE 1 - OVERVIEW

WP1 – Accidentology and Behaviour of Elderly in Road Traffic

Key facts:

• WP leader: BASt
• Run time:

June 2015 – August 2016 Objectives with regard to older road users:

• Identify the most critical accident scenarios and injuries sustained
• f elderly and obese persons in road traffic (focus on pedestrians,

cyclists and car occupants)

• Understand the characteristics and mechanisms of relevant injuries
• Identify human factors that influence mobility and safety
• Analyse risk factors and safety potentials of different transport

modes and weigh the risk of injury based on exposure

17

WORK PACKAGE 1

Structure and Time Plan

Task 1.1 - Road traffic accidents involving the elderly Task 1.2 – Novel information Task 1.3 – Behavioural aspects of elderly road traffic participants Task 1.4 – Derivation of safety strategies  WP1 provides the key starting points in the project and derives safety strategies for the following WPs

June 2015 September 2015 March 2016 July 2016

Source: GIDAS

18

WORK PACKAGE 1 - STRUCTURE Task 1.1 – Road traffic accidents involving the elderly in Europe

• Overview of road traffic accidents involving elderly and obese (literature)
• Identification of existing research gaps

Task 1.2 – Novel information

• Detailed accident data analysis to complement knowledge; identification
• f key body regions and injury mechanisms; refine injury risk curves
• Analysis of hospital statistics to approach underreporting issues and to

complement knowledge about injuries and injury mechanisms

Task 1.3 – Behavioural aspects of elderly road traffic participants

• Behaviour of elderly and obese in different transport modes; human

factors that influence mobility and safety

• Analysis of accident risk factors and injury risk based on exposure

Task 1.4 – Derivation of safety strategies

• Review of already implemented safety measures considering vehicle safety

systems, infrastructure and traffic education related to elderly

• Estimate potential impact of the measures to be developed in SENIORS

19

WORK PACKAGE 1

Expected Achievements

No. Description Due Date D1.1 Behavioural aspects of elderly as road traffic participants and modal split May 2016 D1.2 Road traffic accidents involving the elderly and obese people in Europe incl. investigation of the risk of injury and disabilities May 2016 D1.3 Road Safety measures towards the elderly, Effects of active vehicle safety systems and derivation of safety strategies July 2016

Source: GIDAS Source: GIDAS

20

WORK PACKAGE 1

Review of scientific papers & project reports – first findings

• Mobility trends and usage patterns, e.g.,

– Women tend to use their cars less with increasing age. Women aged 65 to 85 increase their journeys by bus. (Vance et al, 2005) (Mitchell, 2009) – Older drivers in the US have lower police-reported crash involvement rates per capita than younger drivers, largely because older drivers travel fewer miles annually than most other age groups. (Ciccino, 2014) – Restricting driving by the elderly (66+) to daylight hours and to a speed of 80 km/h was found to decrease the risk of an accident by 87%. (Nasvadi and Wister, 2009) – Elderly car owners are using top seller cars; cars with a higher seating position that allows easier access into the car and suggests a better overview or premium cars.

(Johannsen and Müller, 2013)

 Older drivers travel fewer but have a high risk of being involved in a crash, in particular during night and at higher speeds  Elderly drive medium and higher-class cars.

Source: highwaytosafety.com

21

WORK PACKAGE 1

Review of scientific papers & project reports – first findings

• Injury severity of elderly compared to younger ones, e.g.:

– The three most common chest injuries of the elderly victims were rib fractures (23.58%), flail chest (9.55%), and sternum fractures (5.97%). (Yee at al. 2006) – Mean ISS for the 18-64 was 2.8; 65-74 was 5.9; 75+ was 6.1. (Nagata et al. 2010) – Patients aged 65+ had more chest wall injury, intracranial injury, lower extremity fracture, and intrathoracic injury than patients aged 18-64 - likely associated with injuries from bicycles or pedestrians (Nagata et al. 2010) – Incidence of sustaining severe injuries to extremities, head and maxillofacial region was significantly higher in the group of elderly people compared to a younger age (P < 0.05) (Brand et al. 2012)  Frequency and nature of injuries associated with traffic incidents shows different patterns by age groups, particularly among the elderly

Source: GIDAS

22

WORK PACKAGE 1

Review of scientific papers & project reports – first findings

• Effects of obesity, e.g.:

– Risk ratio increased with higher BMI categories; estimated BMI effects varied by gender (Rice and Zhu, 2012) – Frontal impact sled tests comparing obese and non-obese PMHS showed that for

• bese subjects there was significantly greater upper shoulder force, greater lower

shoulder belt force and greater lap belt force. (Forman et al., 2009) – A study of cases in the US found that occupants with increased BMI may be more susceptible to ankle fractures in frontal crashes, particularly malleolar fractures.

(Urban et al, 2010) (Rupp, 2013)

– Occupants with a normal BMI were more likely to have a pelvis fracture compared with overweight and obese occupants in nearside impacts. (Bansal, 2009)  Higher injury risk was found for obese persons based on data from the US; however, currently such a trend can’t be seen in Europe  But share of obesity is increasing in Europe

Source: YouTube “Smart Car for Two Fat Dudes“

23

WORK PACKAGE 1

From literature: Identified gaps / Research needs

• Elderly, e.g.:

– Definition of “elderly” in terms of the age range is not consistently handled – In which way do different types of restraint systems (airbags, seat belts) influence the occurrence of certain injuries (driver, co-driver, passenger)? – How do elderly behave inside of cars (using seat cushions, wearing belt wrongly)? – In what extent do injuries and their mechanisms differ for pedestrians and cyclists?

• Obese persons, e.g.:

– Will Europe face issues with obese persons in road traffic? – Injury mechanisms – in what extent does obesity improve or deteriorate certain injuries?  Questions to be answered in Task 1.2 and by consultation of experts in the field  Results of accident and hospital data analyses will significantly influence the project

24

WORK PACKAGE 1 - FIRST ANALYSIS RESULTS

• GIDAS often contains:

 Body weight and height  Body-Mass-Index  Age of the casualties  MAIS 2005 (with update 2008)  Basic injury levels (slight, serious, killed)

GIDAS* analysis on obese persons - Descriptive Analysis

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity

BMI (kg/m2) Classification[ from up to 18.5 underweight 18.5 25.0 normal weight 25.0 30.0

• verweight

30.0 35.0 class I obesity 35.0 40.0 class II obesity 40.0 class III obesity

* German In-Depth Accident Study

25

GIDAS: Car drivers and co-drivers, all ages

N = 26,438

• No. of

casualties Underweight 788 Normal weight 11,979 Overweight 9,994 Class I obesity 2,814 Class II obesity 656 Class III obesity 207

WORK PACKAGE 1 - FIRST ANALYSIS RESULTS

26

GIDAS: Pedestrians, all ages

N = 2,401

 Largest effects of BMI seen, but are there confounders such as the age?

• No. of

casualties Underweight 412 Normal weight 1,077 Overweight 662 Class I obesity 187 Class II obesity 44 Class III obesity 19

WORK PACKAGE 1 - FIRST ANALYSIS RESULTS

27

GIDAS: Pedestrians by age

 Strong effect of age, but small effect due to BMI category

N = 690 N = 1,166 N = 545

WORK PACKAGE 1 - FIRST ANALYSIS RESULTS

28

• Hypothesis: increased risk ratios with higher

BMI categories to suffer from serious injuries / to be killed

• US study: estimated BMI effects varied by

gender; however there were no meaningful variation across levels of vehicle type, collision type or seat belt use.

(Rice TM and Zhu M, Emerg Med J Published, 2012)

GIDAS analysis on obese persons - Statistical analysis

WORK PACKAGE 1 - FIRST ANALYSIS RESULTS

• SENIORS: same / similar approach using European figures
• GIDAS study on drivers and co-drivers
• Draft results:

 No significant effects seen in GIDAS (probably due to lowered number of cases and low numbers of killed car occupants in general)  Next step: study will be adjusted to raise available number of casualties

Source: Rice TM and Zhu M conducted a matched pairs cohort study and have used a conditional Poisson regression for the calculation of the risk ratios.

29

WORK PACKAGE 1 – NEXT STEPS

Detailed analysis

30

• Detailed accident data analysis to complement knowledge; identification
• f key body regions and injury mechanisms; refine injury risk curves
• Analysis of hospital statistics to approach underreporting issues and to

complement knowledge about injuries and injury mechanisms Partner Accident / Injury Database Hospital Data National European In-Depth

Autoliv

STRADA

BASt

DESTATIS IRTAD / CARE EU Injury DB GIDAS X

FIAT

ISTAT CIREN NASS GES X GIDAS

IDIADA

iGLAD X

TRL

RAIDS

For further information:

www.seniors-project.eu

Partners 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° 636136

Marcus Wisch (wisch@bast.de) Project Coordinator

WP2 - Biomechanics 1st SENIORS Expert Meeting

Jolyon Carroll, TRL

11 September 2015

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS WP2 - Biomechanics

Key facts:

• WP leader: TRL
• Run time:

June 2015 – July 2017 Objectives with regard to older road users:

• Determine the exact age-related changes which affect body

‘stiffness’ and injury mechanism

• Update and tune human body models to represent the elderly
• Develop /modify / adapt injury criteria and risk functions
• Characterise the response of older occupants to low-speed

manoeuvres and collisions

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Overview

• Activities include:

– Collating biomechanical knowledge regarding effects of ageing and obesity – Preparation for testing and simulation:

• Volunteer tests (WP2)
• PMHS tests (WP2)
• HBM simulations (WP2)
• Dummy tests and simulations (WP3)
• Pedestrian impactor tests and simulations (WP3)

– Development of injury risk curves

• Throughout – parallel branches considering car occupants and

external road users (pedestrians and cyclists)

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Overview

• Support WP – provide tools for use in other WP

– Biomechanical requirements for tools – Human body FE models – Volunteer and PMHS response data – Statistical methods and updated IRC

• 6 Tasks

– Task 2.1: Biomechanical requirements – Task 2.2: Muscular reaction of elderly car occupants – Task 2.3: Improved IRC for car occupants – Task 2.4: Updated human body models – Task 2.5: Injury criteria for external road users – Task 2.6: Injury risk statistics

WORK PACKAGE 1

Structure and Time Plan

Task 2.1 – Biofidelity Task 2.2 – Elderly muscular reaction Task 2.3 – Improved IRC Task 2.4 – Updated HBM  WP2 provides updated numerical tools and injury risk functions to the following WPs

01 June 2015 September 2015 January 2016 July 2017

Task 2.5 – Injury criteria for external road users Task 2.6 – Injury risk statistics

May 2016 November 2016 March 2017 June 2017 November 2015

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS

Expected Achievements

No. Description Due Date D2.1 Biofidelity requirements for older car occupants and external road users September 2015 D2.2 Muscle reaction of older occupants cf. other age groups May 2016 D2.3 Kinematic comparison between THOR, older volunteers and

• lder PMHS

November 2016 D2.4 Updated human body models representing older and obese

• ccupants and pedestrians

March 2017 D2.5 Updated injury criteria for THOR and pedestrian test tools July 2017

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.1: Biomechanical Requirements

• Tasks (guided by WP1 outputs)

– Literature reviews:

• to evaluate if test tools reflect properties of the elderly

which affect mechanical behaviour

• to evaluate if specific attributes need to be considered in

the development of test tools

– Define biofidelity requirements:

• for a THOR obese suit using previous test data from UVa
• for pedestrian tools with information from literature and

from what is currently available for femur, pelvis, abdomen and thorax

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.2: Muscular Reaction of Elderly Car Occupants

• Collect valuable information on the different kinematics of

elderly in low-speed tests and evasive manoeuvres in order to improve the performance of the current safety systems and understand if some active safety systems (e.g. AEB) have unknown effects on occupant positioning – Driving simulator tests – Low-speed test and PMHS data

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.2: Reaction of Elderly Car Occupants

• Tasks

– Analyse the muscular response of elderly occupants in ‘last chance evasive manoeuvres' using a driving simulator – Analyse the 3D kinematics of older car occupants in non- injurious low-speed tests – Understand the differences between the passive behaviour (PMHS data) and an active behaviour (volunteers)

• Comparative study on the kinematics between human

volunteers (10) and PMHS (6) in matching low-speed non- injurious frontal and oblique impacts

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.2: Reaction of Elderly Car Occupants

• Volunteer tests will be frontal
• A total of 6 PMHS will be exposed to 6 low-speed and 6

moderate-speed impacts

• Different combinations of age/impact direction are possible:

For example… 9 km/h 35 km/h Volunteers 10

• PMHS

6 6*

* Same PMHS will be exposed to the 9 km/h and then to the 35 km/h

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.3: Improved IRC for car occupants

• Aim is to provide greater understanding of thoracic injury risk at

the AIS 2+ (moderate) injury level – Key injury mechanism for older occupants – Leading to improved restraint design, especially for older

• ccupants in lower severity collisions

– Resource-permitting, focus on Dc and rib strain measurements

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.3: Improved IRC for car occupants

• Tasks

– Collate paired PMHS and THOR data from THORAX FP7 and NHTSA/UVa – Reconstruct key PMHS tests by HBM simulation – Simulate additional configurations/severities, especially airbags and lower severity – Develop strain-based and deflection-based criteria – Moderate severity PMHS tests

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.3: Improved IRC for car occupants

• Tasks

– Consider results from THORAX Project as starting point – Extend the set of load cases to address gaps – Add:

• Lower speed cases
• Oblique
• Gold standard with airbag?

– Generic test rigs / environments (preferred)

EuroNCAP 6° Oblique 15° Oblique 25°

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.3: Improved IRC for car occupants

• Acknowledge:

– Planning required for PMHS and dummy tests and FE simulations

• Robust test and simulation matrix
• Produce necessary results to support our claims
• Avoid unnecessary duplication

– Collaborations with external experts

• Key to maximising resource
• Supplement achievements in SENIORS
• Mutually beneficial for all

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.4: Updated human body models

• Objectives:

– Main objective is to provide updated human body models taking into account age-related differences (e.g. anthropometry and material properties) – Other objectives:

• Provide an obese occupant HBM
• Provide an updated active occupant HBM

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.4: Updated human body models

• Objectives:

– Further objective to be added

• Evaluate the capability of HBMs to predict injuries relevant

to other tasks  occupant and pedestrian rib fractures, pedestrian leg and head(?) injuries

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Summary of available human body models

• The following Human Body Models (HBMs) are available within the

SENIORS project partners: – THUMS V3 – THUMS TUC – THUMS V4 – GHBMC

MODEL

THUMS TUC THUMS V4 GHBMC

Available as

• AM 50 ped. & occ.
• AM 50 ped. & occ.
• AM 50 occ.

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.5: Injury Criteria for External Road Users (BASt)

• Overview

– Provision of injury criteria and injury risk curves for the refined impactors representing highly affected body reasons, focusing

• n:
• FlexPLI with Upper Body Mass (UBM), representing lower extremities
• Head Neck Impactor, representing head
• Thorax Impactor / Thorax Injury Prediction Tool, representing thorax

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.5: Injury Criteria for External Road Users (BASt)

• Tasks

– HBM simulations with focus on head, thorax and femur/knee/tibia against SAE buck (different front shapes) – Correlation studies

• FlexPLI vs FlexPLI-UBM
• Headform impactor vs head neck impactor

– Development of transfer functions

• HBM to FlexPLI-UBM
• HBM to head neck impactor
• HBM to thorax impactor

– Derivation of new / updated injury criteria for body regions head, thorax, lower extremities

• 50th male
• Scaling of injury risks to elderly ?

WORK PACKAGE 2 – BIOMECHANICS Task 2.6: Injury Risk Statistics

• Overview and tasks

– Survival analysis recently adopted by ISO WG6 for defining IRC

• Correct handling of data ‘censoring’ and zero risk at zero dose
• However, can’t handle multiple co-variates

– To account for diversity (age, sex, BMI etc.)

• More flexible approach desired by WG6 and needed by the SENIORS

project

– Liaise with ISO WG6 – Develop ‘R’ software scripts for chosen method

WORK PACKAGE 2 - DISCUSSION HBM based approach for improved thoracic injury criteria

– The aim is to provide greater understanding of thoracic injury risk at the AIS 2+ (moderate) injury level Updated thoracic injury criteria for THOR to improve car occupant safety for elderly – Consider results from EU-THORAX project as starting point – Extend the set of load cases (mainly simulation based ) to address the gaps

WORK PACKAGE 2 - DISCUSSION

Injury risk curves for THOR

• Biomechanical load cases from

literature reproduced with THOR

• Based on this Multi-point injury

criteria Dmax, DC-THOR and injury risk curves developed

• Limitation in EU-THORAX:
• Lack of low speed/severity

(AIS2+) conditions

• 3pt-belt only sled tests /

few airbag tests

In SENIORS: continue the work from THORAX focusing on elderly occupants:

• Extent the data set by additional virtual load cases (HBM and dummy

simulations) and some PMHS/dummy tests  Improved criteria and injury risk curves addressing elderly occupants

Background: EU-Project THORAX

Improved injury criteria and risk curves for THOR addressing elderly

WORK PACKAGE 2 - DISCUSSION HBM based approach for improved thoracic injury criteria

Identify key load cases from literature (EU-THORAX, NHTSA/UVA tests, literature,…)

• Repeat key PMHS tests by THOR dummy and HBM simulation
• Extent data set by additional virtual load cases (HBM and dummy simulations)

Some PMHS tests for validation Dummy tests for model validation e.g. DcTHOR = Dm + Dup + Dlow

For further information:

www.seniors-project.eu

Partners 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° 636136

Marcus Wisch wisch@bast.de WP2: David Hynd dhynd@trl.co.uk

WP3 TEST TOOL DEVELOPMENTS 1st SENIORS Expert Meeting

Paul Lemmen, Humanetics

September 11th 2015

WP3: TEST TOOL DEVELOPMENTS Facts & Figures

Goal:

• Adopt existing test tools for occupant and pedestrian safety to better represent the elderly

Partners

• BASt, Autoliv, FCA, Ford, HIS, IDIADA, TRL

General info

• Total effort 59 MM
• Start – November 2015
• End – July 2017

57

WP3: TEST TOOL DEVELOPMENTS Facts & Figures

Tasks

• Task 3.1 Design specifications (HIS; 7.5 PM; November 2015 – May 2016)
• Task 3.2 Tool designs (HIS; 18 PM; March 2016 – February 2017)
• Task 3.3 Tool Validations (BASt; 33.5 PM; May 2016 – July 2017)

Interfaces to other WPs

• Specifications and priorities defined in WP1 and WP2
• Test tools developed transferred to WP4 for test procedure developments

58

WP3: TEST TOOL DEVELOPMENTS Facts & Figures

Tasks

• Task 3.1 Design specifications (HIS; 7.5 PM; November 2015 – May 2016)
• Task 3.2 Tool designs (HIS; 18 PM; March 2016 – February 2017)
• Task 3.3 Tool Validations (BASt; 33.5 PM; May 2016 – July 2017)

Interfaces to other WPs

• Specifications and priorities defined in WP1 and WP2
• Test tools developed transferred to WP4 for test procedure developments

59

WP3: TEST TOOL DEVELOPMENTS Findings and Results of Influence on WP3

SENIORS Findings

• Accident surveys correlating BMI to injuries and fatalities are currently being done under WP1

– Using GIDAS database, literature reviews, hospital data analysis, etc. – Activity by BASt

• Preliminary findings tend to indicate correlation with age of occupants but no / weak correlation
• nly to BMI

– Yet to be further investigated and confirmed

• WP2 is looking into age related scaling of injury risk curves for the THOR

External

• In the ISO TC22 WG5 - ATD’s & WG6 - Injury Biomechanics meetings a new work item is being

defined related to development of an Upper Body Mass for the FlexPLI – Lead by JAMA / JARI – Contact with SENIORS project through BASt (details to be defined)

60

WP3: TEST TOOL DEVELOPMENTS External Links

• Key inputs from other/previous projects

– APROSYS: Headform impactor and FlexPLI UBM – THORAX: THOR Dummy

• External Links

– UVa (US): PMHS data – University of Michigan: Elderly and Obese anthropometry data – University of Michigan: Elderly dummy developments – ISO: FlexPLI Upper Body Mass activities – OEMs: Requested for Obese dummy testing

62

For further information:

www.seniors-project.eu

Partners 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° 636136

Paul Lemmen plemmen@Humanetics.eu