asessment protocol and biomechanical limits

ASESSMENT
PROTOCOL AND
BIOMECHANICAL
LIMITS
Version 2.0
September 2013
ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL
Table of Contents
1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
2
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT................................................................................................ 1
2.1
3
ADULT OCCUPANT PROTECTION ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 3
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
4
Criteria and Limit Values ...........................................................................................................3
Head ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Neck ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Chest ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Knee, Femur and Pelvis .......................................................................................................................... 5
Lower Leg ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Foot/Ankle .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Modifiers ......................................................................................................................................6
Driver ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Passenger ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Door Opening during the Impact .......................................................................................................... 10
Door Opening Forces after the Impact .................................................................................................. 10
Scoring & Visualisation.............................................................................................................10
CHILD OCCUPANT PROTECTION ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 12
4.1
4.1.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.5
4.5.1
5
Points Calculation ........................................................................................................................2
Preconditions..............................................................................................................................12
CRS Selection ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Dynamic Assessment .................................................................................................................12
Ejection ................................................................................................................................................. 12
Head Contact with the Vehicle ............................................................................................................. 12
Frontal Impact ....................................................................................................................................... 12
CRS Based Assessment .............................................................................................................14
CRS Marking ........................................................................................................................................ 14
CRS to Vehicle Interface ...................................................................................................................... 17
Vehicle Based Assessment .........................................................................................................18
Use of CRS on the Front Seat ............................................................................................................... 18
Provision of Three-point Seat Belts ...................................................................................................... 20
Gabarit .................................................................................................................................................. 21
All Passenger Seats Suitable for Universal CRS .................................................................................. 22
ISOFIX ................................................................................................................................................. 22
Integrated CRS...................................................................................................................................... 23
Scoring and Visualisation .........................................................................................................24
Scoring .................................................................................................................................................. 24
CONCEPTS BEHIND THE ASSESSMENTS..................................................................... 26
i
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
5.1.7
Head ...................................................................................................................................................... 26
Neck ...................................................................................................................................................... 26
Chest ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
Abdomen .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Knee, Femur & Pelvis ........................................................................................................................... 27
Lower Leg ............................................................................................................................................. 27
Foot and Ankle ..................................................................................................................................... 28
5.2
Door Opening .............................................................................................................................28
5.3
Child Dynamic Assessment .......................................................................................................29
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
5.5.6
6
Frontal Impact ...........................................................................................................................26
Ejection ................................................................................................................................................. 29
Frontal Impact ....................................................................................................................................... 29
CRS Based Assessment .............................................................................................................29
CRS Marking ........................................................................................................................................ 29
CRS to Vehicle Interface ...................................................................................................................... 29
Vehicle Based Assessments .......................................................................................................29
Use of CRS on Front Seat ..................................................................................................................... 29
Provision of Three-point Seat Belts ...................................................................................................... 30
Gabarit .................................................................................................................................................. 30
All Passenger Seats Suitable for Universal CRS .................................................................................. 30
ISOFIX ................................................................................................................................................. 30
Integrated CRS...................................................................................................................................... 30
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 31
APPENDIX I .................................................................................................................................. 32
ii
1
INTRODUCTION
The ASEAN NCAP programme is designed to provide a fair, meaningful and objective
assessment of the impact performance of cars and provide a mechanism to inform consumers.
This protocol is based upon those used by the European New Car Assessment Programme for
adult occupant protection and child occupant protection ratings.
DISCLAIMER: ASEAN NCAP has taken all reasonable care to ensure that the information
published in this protocol is accurate and reflects the technical decisions taken by the
organisation. In the unlikely event that this protocol contains a typographical error or any other
inaccuracy, ASEAN NCAP reserves the right to make corrections and determine the assessment
and subsequent result of the affected requirement(s).
2
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
The starting point for the assessment of adult occupant protection is the dummy response data
recorded the frontal impact. Initially, each relevant body area is given a score based on the
measured dummy parameters. These scores can be adjusted after the test based on supplementary
requirements. For example, consideration is given to whether the original score should be
adjusted to reflect occupant kinematics or sensitivity to small changes in contact location, which
might influence the protection of different sized occupants in different seating positions. The
assessment also considers the structural performance of the car by taking account of such aspects
as steering wheel displacement, pedal movement, foot well distortion and displacement of the A
pillar. The adjustments, or modifiers, are based on both inspection and geometrical considerations
are applied to the body area assessments to which they are most relevant.
For Adult occupant protection, the overall rating is based on the driver data, unless part of the
passenger fared less well. It is stated that the judgement relates primarily to the driver. The
adjusted rating for the different body regions is presented, in a visual format of coloured segments
within a human body outline for the driver and passenger.
This protocol also defines how protection for 1½ year old and 3 year old children is assessed
using P Series dummies. The protocol is not suitable for use with vehicles, where there is no
provision for carrying Child Restraints (CRS) in the rear seats. The starting point for the
assessment of child occupant protection is the dummy head response data recorded in frontal
impact. For this purpose the dummies are placed in child seats recommended by the car
manufacturer. The dynamic assessment focuses on head and chest only due to the limited
biofidelity of the dummies for other body regions. During post-crash vehicle inspection,
additional assessments are made on the CRS with respect to marking and the way the seats
interface with the car. Similarly, the car is assessed on aspects as labelling, airbag disabling,
ISOFIX usability amongst others. The scores achieved in the three main categories are combined
to calculate the total Child Occupant Protection Score.
Version 2.0
September 2013
1
No attempt is made to rate the risk of life threatening injury any differently from the risk of
disabling injury. Similarly, no attempt is made to rate the risk of the more serious but less
frequent injury any differently from the risk of less serious but more frequent injury. Care has
been taken to try to avoid encouraging manufacturers to concentrate their attention on areas which
would provide little benefit in accidents.
2.1
Points Calculation
A sliding scale system of points scoring has been adopted for the biomechanical assessments.
This involves two limits for each parameter, a more demanding limit (higher performance),
beyond which a maximum score is obtained and a less demanding limit (lower performance),
below which no points are scored. For the adult rating, the maximum score for each body region
is four points. Where a value falls between the two limits, the score is calculated by linear
interpolation.
Version 2.0
September 2013
2
3
ADULT OCCUPANT PROTECTION ASSESSMENT
3.1
Criteria and Limit Values
The basic assessment criteria, with the upper and lower performance limits for each parameter,
are summarised below. Where multiple criteria exist for an individual body region, the lowest
scoring parameter is used to determine the performance of that region. The lowest scoring body
region of driver or passenger is used to determine the score.
3.1.1 Head
3.1.1.1 Drivers with Steering Wheel Airbags and Passengers
If a steering wheel airbag is fitted the following criteria are used to assess the protection of the
head for the driver. These criteria are always used for the passenger.
Note: HIC36 levels above 1000 have been recorded with airbags, where there is no hard
contact and no established risk of internal head injury. A hard contact is assumed, if the
peak resultant head acceleration exceeds 80g, or if there is other evidence of hard contact.
If there is no hard contact, a score of 4 points is awarded. If there is hard contact, the following
limits are used:
Higher performance limit
HIC36
Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence
650
72g
Lower performance and capping limit
HIC36
Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence
1000*
88g
(5% risk of injury  AIS3 [1,2])
(20% risk of injury  AIS3 [1,2])
(*EEVC limit)
3.1.1.2 Drivers with No Steering Wheel Airbag
If no steering wheel airbag is fitted, and the following requirements are met in the frontal impact
test:
HIC36
Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence
<1000
<88g
then 6.8kg spherical headform test specified in ECE Regulation 12 [3] are carried out on the
steering wheel. The tester attempts to choose the most aggressive sites to test and it is expected
that two tests will be required, one aimed at the hub and spoke junction and one at the rim and
spoke junction. The assessment is then based on the following criteria:
Version 2.0
September 2013
3
Higher performance limit
Resultant peak Acc.
Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence
80g
65g
Lower performance and capping limit
HIC36
Resultant peak Acc.
Resultant Acc. 3 msec exceedence
1000
120g
80g
From the spherical headform tests, a maximum of 2 points are awarded for performance better
than the higher limits. For values worse than the lower performance limit, no points are awarded.
For results between the limits, the score is generated by linear interpolation. The results from the
worst performing test are used for the assessment. This means that for cars, not equipped with a
steering wheel airbag, the maximum score obtainable for the driver’s head is 2 points.
3.1.2 Neck
Higher performance limit
Shear
1.9kN @ 0 msec,
Tension
2.7kN @ 0 msec,
Extension
42Nm
1.2kN @ 25 - 35msec,
2.3kN @ 35msec,
Lower performance and capping limit
Shear
3.1kN @ 0msec,
1.5kN @ 25 - 35msec,
Tension
3.3kN @ 0msec,
2.9kN @ 35msec,
Extension
57Nm*
1.1kN @ 45msec
1.1kN @ 60msec
1.1kN @ 45msec*
1.1kN @ 60msec*
(Significant risk of injury [4])
(*EEVC Limits)
Note: Neck Shear and Tension are assessed from cumulative exceedence plots, with the
limits being functions of time. By interpolation, a plot of points against time is computed.
The minimum point on this plot gives the score. Plots of the limits and colour rating
boundaries are given in Appendix I.
3.1.3 Chest
Higher performance limit
Compression
Viscous Criterion
22mm
0.5m/sec
(5% risk of injury  AIS3 [5])
(5% risk of injury  AIS4)
Lower performance and capping limit
Compression
Viscous Criterion
50mm*
1.0m/sec*
(50% risk of injury  AIS3 [5])
(25% risk of injury  AIS4)
(*EEVC Limits)
Version 2.0
September 2013
4
3.1.4 Knee, Femur and Pelvis
Higher performance limit
Femur compression
Knee slider compressive displacement
Lower performance limit
Femur Compression 9.07kN @ 0msec,
Knee slider compressive displacement
3.8kN
6mm
(5% risk of pelvis injury [6])
7.56kN @  10msec*
(Femur fracture limit [4])
15mm*
(Cruciate ligament failure limit [4,7])
(*EEVC Limit)
Note: Femur compression is assessed from a cumulative exceedence plot, with the limits
being functions of time. By interpolation, a plot of points against time is computed. The
minimum point on this plot gives the score. Plots of the limits and colour rating boundaries
are given in Appendix I.
3.1.5 Lower Leg
Higher performance limit
Tibia Index
Tibia Compression
0.4
2kN
Lower performance limit
Tibia Index
Tibia Compression
1.3*
8kN*
(10% risk of fracture [4,8])
(*EEVC Limits)
3.1.6 Foot/Ankle
Higher performance limit
Pedal rearward displacement
100mm
Lower performance limit
Pedal rearward displacement
200mm
Notes:
1. Pedal displacement is measured for all pedals with no load applied to them.
2. If any of the pedals are designed to completely release from their mountings during the
impact, no account is taken of the pedal displacement provided that release occurred in the
test and that the pedal retains no significant resistance to movement.
3. If a mechanism is present to move the pedal forwards in an impact, the resulting position
of the pedal is used in the assessment.
4. The passenger’s foot/ankle protection is not currently assessed.
Version 2.0
September 2013
5
3.2
Modifiers
3.2.1 Driver
The score generated from driver dummy data may be modified where the protection for different
sized occupants or occupants in different seating positions, or accidents of slightly different
severity, can be expected to be worse than that indicated by the dummy readings or deformation
data alone. In any single body region, the score may reduce by up to a maximum of two points.
The concepts behind the modifiers are explained in Section 5.
3.2.1.1 Head
Unstable Contact on the Airbag
If during the forward movement of the head its centre of gravity moves further than the outside
edge of the airbag, head contact is deemed to be unstable. The score is reduced by one point. If for
any other reason head protection by the airbag is compromised, such as by detachment of the
steering wheel from the column, or bottoming-out of the airbag by the dummy head, the modifier
is also applied.
Note: Head bottoming-out is defined as follows: There is a definite rapid increase in the
slope of one or more of the head acceleration traces, at a time when the dummy head is
deep within the airbag. The acceleration spike associated with the bottoming out should
last for more than 3ms.The acceleration spike associated with the bottoming out should
generate a peak value more than 5 g above the likely level to have been reached if the spike
had not occurred. This level will be established by smooth extrapolation of the curve
between the start and end of the bottoming out spike.
Hazardous Airbag Deployment
If, within the head zone, the airbag unfolds in a manner in which a flap develops, which sweeps
across the face of an occupant vertically or horizontally the -1 point modifier for unstable airbag
contact will be applied to the head score. If the airbag material deploys rearward, within the “head
zone” at more than 90 m/s, the -1 point modifier will be applied to the head score.
Incorrect Airbag Deployment
Any airbag(s) which does not deploy fully in the designed manner will attract a -1 point modifier
applicable to each of the most relevant body part(s) for the affected occupant. For example, where
a steering wheel mounted airbag is deemed to have deployed incorrectly, the penalty will be
applied to the frontal impact driver’s head (-1). Where, a passenger knee airbag fails to deploy
correctly, the penalty will be applied to the frontal impact passenger left and right knee, femur and
pelvis (-1). Where the incorrect deployment affects multiple body parts, the modifier will be
applied to each individual body part with a maximum of 2 body regions. For example, where a
seat or door mounted side airbag deploys incorrectly in the frontal impact that is intended to
provide protection to the head as well as the thorax, abdomen and pelvis, the penalty will be
applied to two body regions, -1 to the head and -1 to the chest. The modifier will be applied even
Version 2.0
September 2013
6
if the airbag was not intended to offer protection in that particular impact. For example, the
penalty will be applied if a seat mounted side airbag deploys incorrectly in the frontal impact.
Where any frontal protection airbag deploys incorrectly, ASEAN NCAP will not accept knee
mapping data for that occupant.
Unstable Contact on a Steering Wheel without an Air Bag
If, during the forward movement of the head, its centre of gravity moves radially outwards further
than the outside edge of the steering wheel rim, head contact is deemed to be unstable. The score
is reduced by one point. If for any other reason head contact on the steering wheel is unstable,
such as detachment of the steering wheel from the column, the modifier is also applied.
Displacement of the Steering Column
The score is reduced for excessive rearward, lateral or upward static displacement of the top end
of the steering column. Up to 90 percent of the EEVC limits, there is no penalty. Beyond 110
percent of the EEVC limits, there is a penalty of one point. Between these limits, the penalty is
generated by linear interpolation. The EEVC recommended limits are: 100mm rearwards, 80mm
upwards and 100mm lateral movement. The modifier used in the assessment is based on the worst
of the rearward, lateral and upward penalties.
3.2.1.2 Chest
Displacement of the A Pillar
The score is reduced for excessive rearward displacement of the driver’s front door pillar, at a
height of 100mm below the lowest level of the side window aperture. Up to 100mm displacement
there is no penalty. Above 200mm there is a penalty of two points. Between these limits, the
penalty is generated by linear interpolation.
Integrity of the Passenger Compartment
Where the structural integrity of the passenger compartment is deemed to have been
compromised, a penalty of one point is applied. The loss of structural integrity may be indicated
by characteristics such as:




Door latch or hinge failure, unless the door is adequately retained by the door frame.
Buckling or other failure of the door resulting in severe loss of fore/aft compressive
strength.
Separation or near separation of the cross facia rail to A pillar joint.
Severe loss of strength of the door aperture.
When this modifier is applied, knee mapping data will not be accepted.
Restraint System Integrity
Where a seat or seatbelt component fails or does not operate in its designed manner and this might
result in increased risk of injury then a one point penalty is applied to the chest score for that
occupant (driver or passenger). Examples are seat slides releasing, seat mounts detaching, seat
Version 2.0
September 2013
7
belt pretensioners not deploying correctly and seatbelt retractors allowing excessive payout of the
seat belt.
3.2.1.3 Knee, Femur & Pelvis
Variable Contact
The position of the dummy’s knees is specified by the test protocol. Consequently, their point of
contact on the facia is pre-determined. This is not the case with human drivers, who may have
their knees in a variety of positions prior to impact. Different sized occupant and those seated in
different positions may also have different knee contact locations on the facia and their knees may
penetrate into the facia to a greater extent. In order to take some account of this, a larger area of
potential knee contact is considered. If contact at other points, within this greater area, would be
more aggressive penalties are applied.
The area considered extends vertically 50mm above and below the maximum height of the actual
knee impact location [9]. Vertically upwards, consideration is given to the region up to 50mm
above the maximum height of knee contact in the test. If the steering column has risen during the
test it may be repositioned to its lowest setting if possible. Horizontally, for the outboard leg, it
extends from the centre of the steering column to the end of the facia. For the inboard leg, it
extends from the centre of the steering column the same distance inboard, unless knee contact
would be prevented by some structure such as a centre console. Over the whole area, an additional
penetration depth of 20mm is considered, beyond that identified as the maximum knee
penetration in the test. The region considered for each knee is generated independently. Where,
over these areas and this depth, femur loads greater that 3.8kN and/or knee slider displacements
greater than 6mm would be expected, a one point penalty is applied to the relevant leg.
Concentrated Loading
The biomechanical tests, which provided the injury tolerance data, were carried out using a
padded impactor which spread the load over the knee. Where there are structures in the knee
impact area which could concentrate forces on part of the knee, a one point penalty is applied to
the relevant leg.
Where a manufacturer is able to show, by means of acceptable test data, that the Variable Contact
and/or Concentrated Loading modifiers should not be applied, the penalties may be removed.
If the Concentrated load modifier is not applied to any of the driver's knees, the left and right knee
zones (defined above) will both be split into two further areas, a ‘column’ area and the rest of the
facia. The column area for each knee will extend 60mm from the centreline of the steering
column and the remainder of the facia will form the other area for each knee. As a result, the one
point penalty for Variable Contact will be divided into two with one half of a point being applied
to the column area and one half of a point to the remainder of the facia for each knee.
Version 2.0
September 2013
8
3.2.1.4 Lower Leg
Upward Displacement of the Worst Performing Pedal
The score is reduced for excessive upward static displacement of the pedals. Up to 90 percent of
the limit considered by EEVC, there is no penalty. Beyond 110 percent of the limit, there is a
penalty of one point. Between these limits, the penalty is generated by linear interpolation. The
limit agreed by EEVC was 80mm.
3.2.1.5 Foot & Ankle
Footwell Rupture
The score is reduced if there is significant rupture of the footwell area. This is usually due to
separation of spot welded seams. A one point penalty is applied for footwell rupture. The
footwell rupture may either pose a direct threat to the driver’s feet, or be sufficiently extensive to
threaten the stability of footwell response. When this modifier is applied, knee mapping data will
not be accepted.
Pedal Blocking
Where the rearward displacement of a ‘blocked’ pedal exceeds 175mm relative to the pre-test
measurement, a one point penalty is applied to the driver’s foot and ankle assessment. A pedal is
blocked when the forward movement of the intruded pedal under a load of 200N is <25mm.
Between 50mm and 175mm of rearward displacement the penalty is calculated using a sliding
scale between 0 to 1 points.
3.2.2
Passenger
The score generated from passenger dummy data may be modified where the protection for
different sized occupants or occupants in different seating positions, or accidents of slightly
different severity, can be expected to be worse than that indicated by the dummy readings alone.
In any single body region, the score may reduce by up to a maximum of two points. The concepts
behind the modifiers are explained in section 5. The modifiers applicable to the passenger are:





Unstable Contact on the airbag
Hazardous airbag deployment
Incorrect airbag deployment
Knee, Femur & Pelvis, Variable Contact
Knee, Femur & Pelvis, Concentrated loading
The assessments airbag stability, head bottoming-out (where present) and the knee impact areas
are the same as for driver. For the outboard knee, the lateral range of the knee impact area extends
from the centre line of the passenger seat to the outboard end of the facia. For the inboard knee,
the area extends the same distance inboard of the seat centre line, unless knee contact is prevented
by the presence of some structure such as the centre console. The passenger knee zones and
penalties will not be divided into two areas even if the Concentrated load modifier is not applied.
Version 2.0
September 2013
9
3.2.3
Door Opening during the Impact
When a door opens in the test, a minus one-point modifier will be applied to the score for that
test. The modifier will be applied to the frontal impact assessment for every door (including
tailgates and moveable roofs) that opens. The number of door opening modifiers that can be
applied to the vehicle score is not limited.
3.2.4
Door Opening Forces after the Impact
The force required to unlatch and open each side door to an angle of 45 degrees is measured after
the impact. A record is also made of any doors which unlatch or open in the impact. Currently,
this information is not used in the assessment but it may be referred to in the text of the published
reports.
Door opening forces are categorised as follows:
Opens normally
Limited force
Moderate force
Extreme hand force
Tools had to be used
3.3
Normal hand force is sufficient
 100N
> 100N to < 500N
 500N
Tools necessary
Scoring & Visualisation
The protection provided for adults for each body region are presented visually, using coloured
segments within body outlines. The colour used is based on the points awarded for that body
region (rounded to three decimal places), as follows:
Green
Yellow
Orange
Brown
Red
4.000
2.670 - 3.999
1.330 - 2.669
0.001 - 1.329
0.000
points
points
points
points
points
For frontal impact, the body regions are grouped together, with the score for the grouped body
region being that of the worst performing region or limb. Results are shown separately for driver
and passenger. The grouped regions are:
• Head and Neck,
• Chest,
• Knee, Femur, Pelvis (i.e. left and right femur and knee slider)
• Leg and Foot (i.e. left and right lower leg and foot and ankle).
Version 2.0
September 2013
10
The contribution of the frontal impact test to the Adult Occupant Protection Score is calculated by
summing the body scores for the relevant body regions, taking the lower of the driver and
passenger scores. The total achievable score is 16.00 points and the overall scores are then used to
generate star ratings as follows:
Frontal Impact:
14.00 – 16.00
11.00 – 13.99
8.00 – 10.99
5.00 – 7.99
2.00 – 4.99
0.00 – 1.99
points
points
points
points
points
points
5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star
0 stars
In order to avoid the highly undesirable situation of a vehicle gaining a rating of multiple stars
when an important body region is poorly protected, the rating will be limited to no more than 1
star regardless of the total number of points scored.
This assessment will be applied on the basis of dummy response alone, for any body region where
there is an unacceptably high risk of life-threatening injury. I.e. the dummy response has
exceeded the lower performance limit. The body regions which could give rise to a ‘star cap’ are
the head, neck and chest.
Below are the requirements for 5 star rating for ASEAN NCAP;
The variant or model of the car needs to be equipped with Electronic Stability Control and Seat
Belt Reminder for driver and front passenger.
Additional requirements for 4 star rating and above for ASEAN NCAP;
The variant or model of the car needs to comply with UN Regulation No. 95.
Version 2.0
September 2013
11
4
CHILD OCCUPANT PROTECTION ASSESSMENT
4.1
Preconditions
4.1.1 CRS Selection
4.1.1.1 The CRS brand and model must be recommended by the vehicle manufacturer and
available to customers.
4.1.1.2 The CRS must be available for normal or online purchase by the public in at least 3
ASEAN countries.
4.1.1.3 Where the manufacturer makes no recommendation for CRS, ASEAN NCAP will choose
any suitable CRS which can be installed in the vehicle for use in the crash test. Where this
is the case, the points for CRS to Vehicle Interface will not be awarded.
4.2
Dynamic Assessment
4.2.1 Ejection
4.2.1.1 If the child dummy is ejected or partially ejected from the CRS at any time throughout the
impact including rebound, that CRS is awarded zero points for its dynamic performance.
Otherwise, points are awarded as given below.
4.2.1.2 If the CRS is partially or wholly unrestrained by any of the vehicle interfaces at any time
throughout the impact including rebound, that CRS is awarded zero points for its dynamic
performance. The vehicle interfaces of ISOFIX restraints are the two ISOFIX anchorages,
top tether anchorage or any other means of rotation limiting device such as a support leg.
Seat belt lock-offs, tethers, straps or any other attachments which are specifically used to
anchor the CRS to the vehicle will also be penalised, if their failure presents a risk of total
or partial ejection of the child or child restraint. Where the CRS is fully restrained
throughout the impact, points are awarded as given below.
4.2.2 Head Contact with the Vehicle
4.2.2.1 If there is head contact with any part of the vehicle at any time throughout the impact
including rebound, the CRS containing that dummy is awarded zero points for its head and
neck performance, in that test. Otherwise, points are awarded as given below.
4.2.3 Frontal Impact
4.2.3.1
Head Contact with the CRS
Contact is defined by either:
a) Direct evidence of contact
b) Peak resultant acceleration > 80g
In the absence of contact:
Version 2.0
September 2013
12
P1½ is awarded 3 points
P3 is awarded 6 points
In the presence of contact, the score is based on the Head Resultant Acceleration,
3msec exceedence. Hard contacts occurring during the head rebound will not be
considered.
P1½
3 points  72g;
0 points  88g
P3
6 points  72g;
0 points  88g
Note: Between limit values, a sliding scale will be used, for this and other parameters.
4.2.3.2
Head Excursion (Forward Facing CRS)
Where possible the maximum forward excursion of the head, relative to the Cr point,
is estimated. If the forward excursion cannot be estimated, it will be deemed to be 
549mm; otherwise the points will be based on the following:
P1½
3 points  549mm;
0 points  550mm
P3
6 points  549mm;
0 points  550mm
If in future a more precise method of measuring head excursion becomes available, a
sliding scale may be introduced. Again, in future, consideration may be given to
basing the limits on internal geometry of the vehicle.
4.2.3.3
Head Exposure (Rearward Facing CRS)
Where the following requirements are complied with, the P1½ will be awarded 3
points and the P3 will be awarded 6 points.
a) No compressive loads shall be applied to the top of the head.
b) The head must remain fully contained within CRS shell, during the forward
movement of the dummy (i.e. the top of the head must not be exposed to the
possibility of direct contact with parts of the vehicle)
4.2.3.4
Neck Tension (Rearward Facing CRS)
As a surrogate for neck tension, the score is based on the Head Vertical Acceleration,
3msec exceedence.
P1½ (only) 3 points  20g; 0 points  40g
Note: With the neck transducer now available, forces will be measured directly and
may be used in the future.
4.2.3.5
Chest
The chest score is based on the worst scoring of the two parameters, as detailed below.
Chest resultant acceleration, 3msec exceedence
P1½ and P3 6 points  41g; 0 points  55g
Version 2.0
September 2013
13
Absolute value of chest vertical acceleration, 3 msec exceedence
P1½ and P3 6 points  23g; 0 points  30g
4.2.3.6
Overall Dynamic Score for Frontal impact
The Overall Dynamic Score for the Frontal Impact is calculated as:
 Head Contact with the CRS (Section 4.2.3.1) 


Worst score from  Head Excursion (Section 4.2.3.2)

 Head Exposure (Section 4.2.3.3)



+ Score from Neck Tension (Section 4.2.3.4)
+ Score from Chest (Section 4.2.3.5)
4.3
CRS Based Assessment
This section is applicable to all child seats assessed, including those that have been
chosen by ASEAN NCAP where the manufacturer has made no (suitable)
recommendation for specific child seats.
4.3.1
CRS Marking
If the markings on the CRS fully comply with the following “CRS Marking
Requirements” and the relevant “Additional CRS Marking Requirements,” that CRS
will be awarded 4 points. Otherwise it will be awarded zero points.
Where a CRS, or part of a CRS, is approved for use in different configurations,
ASEAN NCAP will assess the marking for each configuration. Points will only be
awarded if the requirements are met for all approved configurations.
The CRS markings must fully comply with the requirement of UN ECE Regulation
44, Revision 2. As this requirement may be updated, so consideration will be given to
updating the ASEAN NCAP requirements with the aim of avoiding conflict.
Note: The paragraph numbers below are those of the UN Regulation No. 44 Rev2.
§4.3 If the restraint is to be used in combination with an adult
safety belt the correct routing of the webbing shall be clearly
indicated by means of a drawing permanently attached to the
restraint. If the restraint is held in place by the adult safetybelt, the routes of the webbing shall be clearly marked on the
product by colour coding. The colours for the safety-belt route to be
used when the device is installed forward facing shall be red and
when installed rear-facing shall be blue. The same colours shall also
be used on the labels on the device that illustrate the methods of
use.
There must be a clear differentiation between the intended routes for
the lap section and the diagonal section of the safety belt.
Indication such as colour coding, words, shapes etc. shall
Version 2.0
September 2013
14
distinguish each section of the safety belt.
In any illustration of the belt route on the product, the orientation
of the child restraint relative to the vehicle must be clearly
indicated. Belt route diagrams that do not show the vehicle seat are
not acceptable.
The marking defined in this paragraph shall be visible with the
restraint in the vehicle. For group 0 restraints, this marking shall
also be visible with the child in the restraint.
§4.4 On the visible inner surface (including the side wing beside the
child's head) in the approximate area where the child's head rests
within the child restraint, rearward facing restraints shall have the
following label permanently attached (the text information shown is a
minimum).
This label shall be provided in the language(s) of the country where
the device is sold.
Label minimum size: 60 x 120 mm
The label shall be stitched to the cover around its entire perimeter
and/or permanently bonded to the cover over its entire back surface.
Any other form of attachment that is permanent and not liable to
removal from the product or to becoming obscured is acceptable. Flag
type labels are specifically prohibited.
If sections of the restraint or any accessories supplied by the child
restraint manufacturer are able to obscure the label an additional
label is required. One warning label shall be permanently visible in
all situations when the restraint is prepared for use in any
configuration.
Version 2.0
September 2013
15
§4.5 In the case of child restraints that can be used forward and
rear-facing, include the words:
"IMPORTANT - DO NOT USE FORWARD FACING BEFORE THE CHILD'S WEIGHT
EXCEEDS .......... (Refer to instructions)"
§4.6 In the case of child restraints with alternative belt routes,
the alternative load bearing contact points between the child
restraint and the adult safety-belt must be permanently marked. This
marking shall indicate that it is the alternative belt route, and
shall conform with the above coding requirements for forward and
rearward facing seats.
§4.7 If the child restraint offers alternative load bearing contact
points, the marking required in paragraph 4.3 shall include an
indication that the alternative belt route is described in the
instructions.”
In addition, ASEAN NCAP has the following requirements:
a) The markings must be permanently marked on the CRS.
b) These markings must be easily visible to a user installing the CRS from either side
of the CRS. Any relevant information must be easily visible, at the time an
installation action is to be performed.
c) These markings must show how all the required CRS components are used for
each size of child.
4.3.1.1
Additional Marking Requirements (ISOFIX)
a) The markings on the CRS must show how the ISOFIX attachments should be used.
b) These markings must indicate how the seat should be prepared for installation.
This must include information on how the ISOFIX latch system is extended.
c) These markings must indicate the position, function and meaning of any tell tales.
d) These markings must indicate the position and method of use of the “top tether” or
other means of limiting CRS rotation.
e) These markings must indicate how the ISOFIX latch system, top tether or other
means of limiting CRS rotation are to be adjusted.
f) The markings must also meet the requirements for “vehicle specific” child
restraints.
g) For Universal ISOFIX, the markings must indicate the following:



Version 2.0
September 2013
That the CRS should only be used on seats provided with a top tether and be
approved for use with three-point Universal ISOFIX.
That use on seats without a top tether should be avoided.
That the top tether is an essential part of the restraint system.
16
h) For Semi-universal ISOFIX, the markings must indicate the following:



4.3.1.2
That the CRS should only be used in combination with an “anti-rotation
device” and be approved for use with an anti-rotation device.
Advice on how to use and adjust the anti-rotation device.
That the anti-rotation device is an essential part of the restraint system.
Additional Marking Requirements (Vehicle Specific and Semi-universal ISOFIX)
a) Seats approved as Vehicle Specific or Semi-universal ISOFIX must have the
following additional information clearly and permanently displayed on the seat.
The content is important, the specific wording of the second and third items is not:



Attention: This child seat is only approved for use in certain models of vehicle.
A list of suitable models of vehicle is contained in or attached to the instruction
manual for the CRS.
Information on how to obtain the latest information regarding suitable vehicles.
(e.g. web site address, telephone or fax number.)
b) The vehicle specific list, current at the time of production, must be contained in or
attached to the instruction manual for the CRS.
c) The text must be in at least one of the languages of the country in which the CRS
is sold.
4.3.2
CRS to Vehicle Interface
For the outboard rear seating positions, compatibility is assessed for all combinations
of CRS and vehicle adjustment unless they are specifically excluded, as indicated by
permanent markings on the seat or on the vehicle. Such markings must be clearly
visible to the user installing the CRS. Currently, this assessment does not assess space
requirements.
Where there are no compatibility issues, the CRS is awarded two points. Otherwise,
zero points are scored.
4.3.2.1
Additional Interface Requirements (Universal CRS)
Examples of incompatibility:
a) Adult belt hardware which is loaded in bending, due to the interaction between the
buckle and seat belt contact point.
b) Adult belt geometry where the belt anchorage is forward of the seat belt contact
point. This allows excessive forward movement of the CRS, before tension is
generated in the adult belt.
4.3.2.2
Additional Interface Requirements (ISOFIX and other CRS)
Examples of incompatibility:
a) Inadequate support provided for a leg used to supplement restraint of the CRS.
Version 2.0
September 2013
17
b) ISOFIX seats where predictable mis-latching situations are identified. Mis-latching
may be related to the ISOFIX interface attachments or any latching between the
CRS seat and its mounting frame or support leg.
To avoid mis-latching:
(i) The CRS markings must include instructions to physically check that the
latches are engaged e.g. by pulling on the CRS, and
(ii) A visual tell tale or tell tales must indicate when the latches are correctly
locked. The tell tale(s) must be easily visible to a user installing the CRS.
ASEAN NCAP welcomes other attachment systems for CRS to the car and will consider them
(e.g. LATCH).
4.4
Vehicle Based Assessment
This section is applicable to all vehicles assessed by ASEAN NCAP.
4.4.1
Use of CRS on the Front Seat
4.4.1.1
Airbag Warning Marking
If the vehicle is fitted with a front seat passenger’s frontal protection airbag and an
airbag warning marking exists which fully complies with the following requirements,
2 points are awarded to the Child Protection score.
If no airbag is fitted to the model variant tested by ASEAN NCAP but it is available as
an option, the assessment will be carried out on a vehicle with the optional airbag
fitted.
a) The label must contain text and a pictogram warning of the hazard associated with
the use of a rearward facing CRS on a seat equipped with a frontal protection
airbag. The ISO pictogram is preferred as it should be used on the CRS.
b) The text must be in at least one of the languages of the country in which the
vehicle is sold.
c) The text must refer to “death and serious injury” as a possible consequence of
ignoring the advice.
d) The label must be of conspicuous design and it must be permanently visible.
e) The label must be permanently attached to the vehicle but not to the windscreen,
which may be replaced during the life of the vehicle. OR
f) The label is according to latest revision of UN Regulation No. 94.
4.4.1.2
Airbag Disabling Requirements
If the vehicle is equipped with a system which automatically detects the presence of
ANY rearward facing CRS and obviates any risk associated with airbag deployment, 3
points are awarded to the Child Protection score. Such a system must re-activate the
airbag when the CRS is removed.
Version 2.0
September 2013
18
If a front seat passenger’s frontal protection airbag is fitted and the following
requirements are complied with, 2 points are awarded to the Child Protection score.
a) Dealer disconnect is available for vehicles with rear seats.
Note: This is not an acceptable disconnection measure for car without rear
seats such as two seaters, which would be awarded no credit.
b) The airbag can be de-activated by a manual switch meeting the following
requirements:
 Easily visibly information and warnings must be provided for the driver and
front seat passenger, showing the status of the airbag.
 Text must be in at least in English. Alternatively, the words ‘Passenger
AIRBAG OFF/ON’ are acceptable where the requirements of 4.4.1.1 are also
met.
Note: ‘Pass’, ‘AB’ or other abbreviations are NOT acceptable.
 Pictograms are required to indicate the airbag status (ON and OFF).
 If the information to indicate that the airbag is enabled is provided by an
illuminated signal, the signal is only required to be illuminated for a period of
60 seconds after the ignition is switched on. The AIRBAG ON pictogram must
be the same as that used in the airbag warning label (section 4.4.1.1).
 Information to indicate that the airbag is disabled must be permanently
displayed, when the ignition is on.
 The switch must be accompanied by text in at least one of the languages of the
country which the vehicle is sold. Alternatively, the switch may be labelled
with the text ‘Passenger AIRBAG OFF/ON’ providing it has also been used for
the airbag status warning.
 The individual switch positions must be marked with the same pictograms that
are used to indicate that airbag status. However, they need not be illuminated
on the switch.
 Any labelling/instructions must be permanently attached to the vehicle. The
switch labelling/instructions must be adjacent to the switch itself and clearly
visible at the time of activation/deactivation.
 The information provided must be clear, without reference to the vehicle’s
handbook or other source.
 There must be no possibility of the users being given false information.
 If, with the ignition on and with engine running or not, the switch position can
be changed, the system must react correctly to the change immediately.
Systems will be checked once the vehicle diagnostics/system checks have been
completed.
 If at any time the airbag is switched from the OFF position to the ON position,
the status indicator showing that the airbag is ON must signal this immediately
for at least 60 seconds, regardless of the length of time the ignition has been
Version 2.0
September 2013
19
switched on, or until the ignition is switched off again.
Notes:
Where reference made to the airbag deactivation components as ‘the system’, this
refers to the switch, airbag status indicator, airbag any other components
associated with the deactivation of the airbag.
If ‘dealer disconnect’ is available for a car fitted with a ‘manual or automatic
switch’, the requirements for the switch must also be met for the points to be
awarded.
c) The airbag can be de-activated by an automatic switch/system meeting the
following requirements:
 Easily visibly information and warnings must be provided for the driver and
front seat passenger, showing the status of the airbag.
 Text must be in at least one of the languages of the country in which the
vehicle is sold. Alternatively, the words ‘Passenger AIRBAG OFF/ON’ are
acceptable where the requirements of 4.4.1.1 are also met. Note: ‘Pass’, ‘AB’
or other abbreviations are NOT acceptable.
 Pictograms are required to indicate the airbag status (ON and OFF).
 If the information to indicate that the airbag is enabled is provided by an
illuminated signal, the signal is only required to be illuminated for a period of
60 seconds after the ignition is switched on. The AIRBAG ON pictogram must
be the same as that used in the airbag warning label (4.4.1.1)
 Information to indicate that the airbag is disabled must be permanently
displayed, when the ignition is on.
 Any labelling/instructions must be permanently attached to the vehicle.
 The information provided must be clear, without reference to the vehicle’s
handbook or other source.
 There must be no possibility of the users being given false information.
 If, with the ignition on and with engine running or not, the airbag status can be
changed, the system must react correctly to the change immediately. Systems
will be checked once the vehicle diagnostics/system checks have been
completed.
 If at any time the airbag is switched from the OFF position to the ON position,
the status indicator showing that the airbag is ON must signal this immediately
for at least 60 seconds, regardless of the length of time the ignition has been
switched on, or until the ignition is switched off again.
4.4.2
Provision of Three-point Seat Belts
If all forward or rearward facing passenger seats are equipped with three-point
automatic seatbelts, 1 point is awarded to the Child Protection score.
Version 2.0
September 2013
20
4.4.3
4.4.3.1
4.4.3.2
4.4.3.3
4.4.3.4
4.4.3.5
4.4.3.6
4.4.3.7
4.4.3.8
4.4.3.9
Gabarit
Where both outboard rear seats, used by a CRS in the crash tests, are in compliance
with the following requirements, which are based on, but not identical to, UN
Regulation No. 16 Rev5, 1 point shall be awarded to the Child Protection score. The
Gabarit, as specified in Appendix II, shall be installed on both of the 2nd row outboard
seats according to the following procedure:
Adjust the seat to its fully rearward and lowest position, the seat back to an angle of
25 degrees from the vertical or nearest fixed position and the upper seat belt
anchorage to its lowest position.
If an alternative seat, seat-back or safety-belt anchorage adjustment is to be used when
installing CRS, information about the alternative position must be included in the
Vehicle Handbook giving the information required in 4.4.4 a). Where this information
is provided, set the seat to this position.
Place a cotton cloth on the seat-back and cushion.
Place the Gabarit on the vehicle seat.
Arrange the safety-belt strap around the fixture in approximately the correct position
as shown in Figures 1 and 2, and then latch the buckle.
Ensure that the fixture is located with its centreline on the apparent centreline of the
seating position ±25 mm with its centreline parallel with the centreline of the vehicle.
Ensure that all webbing slack is removed. Use sufficient force to remove the slack, do
not attempt to tension the webbing.
Push rearwards on the centre of the front of the fixture with a force of 100 N ±10 N,
applied parallel to the lower surface, and remove the force.
Push vertically downwards on the centre of the upper surface of the fixture with a
force of 100 N ±10 N, and remove the force.
Figure 1
Version 2.0
September 2013
Figure 2
21
4.4.3.10
Requirements:
a) With correct routing of the adult seat belt around the Gabarit, the base of the
Gabarit shall contact both the forward and rearward parts of the seat cushion upper
surface. If such contact does not occur due to the belt access gap in the Gabarit,
this gap may be covered in line with the bottom surface of the Gabarit.
b) The lap portion of the belt shall touch the fixture on both sides at the rear of the lap
belt path.
c) There shall be sufficient seat belt webbing to fit around the entire Gabarit while
allowing the contact between the Gabarit and both the forward and rearward parts
of the seat cushion upper surfaces.
d) With nothing placed within the adult belt system and with the buckle fastened, it
must be possible to establish a tension of at least 50 N in the lap section of the belt
by external application of tension in the diagonal section of the belt in the direction
of the upper seat belt guide. This may result in movement of the lower anchorages
and/or buckles from their anticipated ‘design position’. For example, the tension
may cause the lap section of the belt to slide between the rear of the seat base and
bottom of the seat back, hence shortening the length of the lap section. However, if
this is considered to be achievable though ‘normal use’ then the assessment will be
made with the anchorage/buckle in this position.
4.4.4
All Passenger Seats Suitable for Universal CRS
Where the following requirements are complied with, 1 point shall be awarded to the
Child Protection score. The Gabarit shall be installed on the front passenger seat and
all remaining rear seats in accordance with the procedure detailed in 4.4.3. If the
vehicle is a 2 seater then only the passenger seat is required to meet the requirements.
a) The Vehicle Handbook indicates that all the passenger seats are suitable for use
with a Group 0 and Group 1 Universal CRS (U). (UN Regulation No. 16 Rev5,
Annex 17, Appendix 3.)
b) All passenger seats meet the requirements detailed in the Gabarit Section 4.4.3
above.
c) If an alternative seat, seat-back or safety-belt anchorage adjustment is used for the
Gabarit check, information about the alternative position must be included in the
Vehicle Handbook table giving the information required in 4.4.4 a).
4.4.5
ISOFIX
4.4.5.1
Usability
Where two passenger seats are in compliance with the following requirements, 1 point
shall be awarded to the Child Protection score. If the vehicle is a 2 seater then only the
passenger seat or seats is required to meet the requirements.
a) Each seat which is equipped with ISOFIX anchorages must be marked. It must be
Version 2.0
September 2013
22
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
4.4.5.2
clear which pairs of ISOFIX anchorages should be used together.
The location of each ISOFIX anchorage must be marked.
The location of each top tether anchorage must be marked.
The markings must include both text and a pictogram.
The markings must be of conspicuous design and both the text and pictogram must
have colours which contrast with their background.
The markings must be permanently visible. Flag type labels are not acceptable.
The marking must be permanently attached to the vehicle.
Each ISOFIX anchorage must be equipped with permanent guidance which
physically helps the ISOFIX latches to line up with the anchorages.
It must be possible to fit the top tether easily, without having to carry out any
preparatory actions on the vehicle other than the simple opening of a cover over
the top tether anchorage, or adjustment of the head restraint position. For example,
it would not be acceptable to have to remove the head restraint.
Three or More Positions for Universal ISOFIX
Where the vehicle is in compliance with the following requirements, 1 point shall be
awarded to the Child Protection score.
a) Three or more passenger seats are suitable for simultaneous use with a Universal
ISOFIX CRS, equipped with a top tether.
b) All these passenger seats meet the requirements detailed in the “ISOFIX Usability”
section above.
4.4.5.3
Allocations for Largest ISOFIX
Where the vehicle is in compliance with the following requirements, 1 point shall be
awarded to the Child Protection score.
a) For vehicles with rear seats, two or more passenger seats are suitable for
simultaneous use with the largest size of rearward facing (Class C) ISOFIX CRS,
Fixture (CRF) ISO/R3.
b) For vehicles without rear seats, one or more passenger seats are suitable for
simultaneous use with the largest size of rearward facing (Class C) ISOFIX CRS,
Fixture (CRF) ISO/R3.
c) When checking a CRF on a rear seat, the vehicle seat located in front of this rear
seat may be adjusted longitudinally forward but not further than the mid position
between its rearmost and foremost positions. The seat backrest angle may also be
adjusted, but not to a more upright angle than corresponding to a torso angle of 15
degrees.
4.4.6
Integrated CRS
4.4.6.1
Availability of Integrated CRS
Where the vehicle is provided with two or more integrated CRS, as standard
Version 2.0
September 2013
23
equipment, 1 point shall be awarded to the Child Protection score. For vehicles
without rear seats, 1 point will be awarded in case one or more passenger seats are
provided with integrated CRS.
4.4.6.2
One or More Group I-III Integrated CRS
Where the vehicle is provided with one or more “Group I-III” integrated CRS, as
standard, 1 point shall be awarded to the Child Protection score.
Note: Group I for children of mass from 9kg to 18kg Group II for children of mass
from 15kg to 25kg Group III for children of mass from 22kg to 36kg ([1],
Paragraph 2.1.1.)
4.5
Scoring and Visualisation
4.5.1
Scoring
The maximum number of points available for child protection is 49 points, the rating is based on
the total points scored in the assessment as follows:
Child Impact:
43.00 - 49.00
34.00 – 42.99
25.00 – 33.99
15.00 – 24.99
0.01 – 14.99
0.00
points
points
points
points
points
points
5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star
0 stars
Points are awarded in the following categories:
The maximum possible score in each category is given in brackets
4.2 Dynamic Assessment
4.2.1 Ejection
4.2.2 Head Contact with the Vehicle
4.2.3 Frontal Impact
4.2.3.1 Head Contact with the CRS
4.2.3.2 Head Excursion (Forward Facing CRS)
4.2.3.3 Head Exposure (Rearward Facing CRS)
4.2.3.4 Neck Tension (Rearward Facing CRS)
4.2.3.5 Chest
(12 points/CRS)
4.3 CRS Based Assessment
4.3.1 CRS Marking
(4 points/CRS)
4.3.1.1 Additional Marking Requirements (ISOFIX CRS)
4.3.1.2 Additional Marking Requirements (Vehicle Specific CRS)
4.3.2 CRS to Vehicle Interface
(2 points/CRS)
Version 2.0
September 2013
24
4.3.2.1 Additional Interface Requirements (Universal CRS)
4.3.2.2 Additional Interface Requirements (ISOFIX and other CRS)
4.4 Vehicle Based Assessment
4.4.1 Use of CRS on the Front Seat
4.4.1.1 Airbag Warning Marking
4.4.1.2 Airbag Disabling
4.4.2 Provision of Three-point Seat Belts
4.4.3 Gabarit
4.4.4 All Passenger Seats Suitable for Universal CRS
4.4.5 ISOFIX
4.4.5.1 Usability
4.4.5.2 Three or More Positions for Universal ISOFIX
4.4.5.3 Two or More Positions for Largest ISOFIX
4.4.6 Integrated CRS
4.4.6.1 Two or more integrated CRS
4.4.6.2 One or more for Groups I – III
Version 2.0
September 2013
(2 points)
(3 points)
(1 point)
(1 point)
(1 point)
(1 point)
(1 point)
(1 point)
(1 point)
(1 point)
25
5
CONCEPTS BEHIND THE ASSESSMENTS
5.1
Frontal Impact
5.1.1 Head
CONCEPT: The driver's head should be predictably restrained by the airbag, and should remain
protected by the airbag during the dummy's forward movement. There should be no bottoming out
of the airbag.
CONCEPT: Hazardous airbag deployment
The deployment mode of the airbag should not pose a risk of facial injury to occupants of any
size.
CONCEPT: Incorrect airbag deployment
All airbags that deploy during an impact should do so fully and in the designed manner so as to
provide the maximum amount of protection to occupants available. It is expected that, where
required, all airbags should deploy in a robust manner regardless of the impact scenario.
CONCEPT: Geometric control of steering wheel movement is needed to ensure that the airbag
launch platform remains as close as possible to the design position, to protect a full range of
occupant sizes.
5.1.2 Neck
CONCEPT: Neck injuries are frequent, but relatively little is known about appropriate injury
criteria. The neck criteria recommended by EEVC are used to identify poorly designed restraint
systems. It is not expected that many cars will fail these requirements.
In addition to the EEVC recommended limits, additional ones have been added, at the request of
the car manufacturers. It is assumed that good restraint systems will have no problems meeting
these criteria.
5.1.3 Chest
CONCEPT: Rib compression is used as the main guide to injury risk. It is expected that the
Viscous Criterion will only identify cars with poorly performing restraint systems.
The injury risk data is relevant for seat belt only loading rather than combined seat belt and airbag
loading. No change is made in the event of combined seat belt and airbag restraint. This avoids
value judgements about the extent of airbag restraint on the chest and is in line with the EEVC
recommendation.
Version 2.0
September 2013
26
CONCEPT: There is an interrelationship between chest loading, as measured by the above
dummy criteria, and intrusion. To ensure that a good balance is struck, a geometric criterion on
waist level intrusion, as measured by door pillar movement at waist level, is used.
CONCEPT: When the passenger compartment becomes unstable, any additional load can result
in unpredictable excessive further collapse of the passenger compartment. When the passenger
compartment becomes unstable the repeatability of the car’s response in the test becomes poor
and confidence in the car’s performance is reduced.
CONCEPT: The chest performance criteria are developed for loads applied by a seat belt. The
more concentrated loading from a “stiff” steering wheel exposes the chest to direct loading
injury.
5.1.4 Abdomen
Protection of the abdomen is important, but no criteria or assessment techniques are available at
present.
5.1.5 Knee, Femur & Pelvis
CONCEPT: Transmitting loads through the knee joint from the upper part of the tibia to the
femur can lead to cruciate ligament failure.
Zero knee slider displacement is both desirable and possible. The higher performance limit allows
for some possible movement due to forces transmitted axially up the tibia.
CONCEPT: The knee impact area should have uniformly good properties over a wide area of
potential impact sites. This is to account for people sitting with their knees in different positions
and slight variations in impact angle. The characteristics of the area should not change markedly
if knee penetration is slightly greater than that observed with the 50 percentile dummy in this test.
This takes into account the protection of different sized occupants or occupants in different
seating positions.
CONCEPT: Loading on the knee should be well distributed and avoid concentration that could
result in localised damage to the knee.
The injury tolerance work that supports the legislative femur criterion was conducted with padded
impactors that spread the load over the knee.
5.1.6 Lower Leg
CONCEPT: Loads resulting in fracture of the tibia produce bending moments and forces
measurable at the upper and lower ends of the tibia. These measurements on the tibia relate to
risk of tibia fracture.
Version 2.0
September 2013
27
At the request of the car manufacturers, further limits were added to those proposed for lower leg
protection. These limits can be expected to help protect the ankle joint.
CONCEPT: Pedal blocking
There should be no blocking of any foot operated pedals which have displaced rearward after the
impact; blocked pedals represent a greater hazard to the lower limbs of the driver than nonblocked pedals.
5.1.7 Foot and Ankle
CONCEPT: Expert opinion suggests that a Tibia Index of less than 0.2 would be necessary to
prevent ankle joint failure. Until a biofidelic ankle and foot become available, the assessment will
be based on intrusion. Intrusion is highly correlated with the risk of injury.
CONCEPT: Rupture of the footwell exposes the occupant to additional dangers. Objects outside
the passenger compartment may enter, parts of the occupant may contact items outside the
passenger compartment, there is a risk from exposed edges and the structure may become
unstable.
5.2
Door Opening
CONCEPT: The intention is to ensure that the structural integrity is maintained. The underlying
principle is to minimise the risks of occupant ejection occurring.
The ‘door opening’ modifier will be applied if any of the following have occurred:
 the latch has fully released or shows significant partial release, either by release of its
components from one another, or effective separation of one part of the latch from its
supporting structure
 the latch has moved away from the fully latched condition
 if any hinge has released either from the door or bodyshell or due to internal hinge failure
 if there is a loss of structure between the hinges and latches
 if door or hinges fail whilst the door opening tests are being conducted post impact, as
loading from an occupant could have a similar effect.
 if there was any potential risk of occupant ejection and/or partial ejection/entrapment from
openings such as sliding doors or moveable roofs. Dynamic opening during the impact of
any apertures, such as roofs, will also be considered even if the openings have closed post
test.
 if both side doors latch together with no b-pillar or other form of restraint, the modifier
may apply to both the front and rear doors.
Version 2.0
September 2013
28
5.3
Child Dynamic Assessment
5.3.1
Ejection
CONCEPT: The child should be held securely in the restraint and not be ejected from the
restraint.
Ejection is an unusual and highly undesirable situation. The idea of “partial ejection” has been
included to allow ASEAN NCAP to deal with situations where the dummy is only partly held
within the restraint, such as: by a foot under the impact shield.
5.3.2
Frontal Impact
5.3.2.1
Head Exposure (Rearward Facing CRS)
CONCEPT: The CRS shell must be in a position to provide some energy absorption between the
child’s head and an intruding object at all times during the forward excursion of the dummy.
5.4
CRS Based Assessment
5.4.1
CRS Marking
CONCEPT: The information provided on the child seat should be sufficient to allow the user to
correctly install the restraint. Such information should be clear, always visible to the user and
last the life of the seat.
CONCEPT: Users of child seats that can be used rearward-facing should be clearly informed
and reminded of the risks posed, by a frontal protection air bag, to the occupants of such seats.
5.4.1.1
Additional Marking (Vehicle Specific)
CONCEPT: The user of a Vehicle Specific or Semi-universal ISOFIX restraint should be aware
of the fact that the seat is only approved for use in a limited number of named vehicles.
5.4.2
CRS to Vehicle Interface
CONCEPT: The child seat should be compatible with the methods of fixation in the vehicle
recommended by the car manufacturer.
5.5
Vehicle Based Assessments
5.5.1
Use of CRS on Front Seat
5.5.1.1
Airbag Warning Marking
CONCEPT: A warning regarding the hazard posed by a frontal protection air bag to the
occupant of a rearward-facing child restraint should be permanently and explicitly marked on the
vehicle and be designed to last the lifetime of the vehicle.
5.5.1.2
Airbag Disabling Requirements
CONCEPT: The vehicle should make provision for the safe carrying of a child in a rearward
Version 2.0
September 2013
29
facing CRS in the front passenger seat, ideally without additional actions by the installer.
CONCEPT: Where a manual switch is used to disable the airbag. Precautions should be taken to
ensure that the switch cannot be operated by a child, without the knowledge of the driver.
5.5.2
Provision of Three-point Seat Belts
CONCEPT: All forward or rearward facing seats should be equipped with a three-point belt.
5.5.3
Gabarit
CONCEPT: The layout of the adult seat belt should ensure compatibility between the adult seat
belt and a Universal CRS.
5.5.4
All Passenger Seats Suitable for Universal CRS
CONCEPT: All possible seating positions should be capable of providing a good interface with
a conventional Universal child seat, secured by an adult seat belt.
5.5.5
ISOFIX
5.5.5.1 Usability
CONCEPT: The user of a vehicle equipped with ISOFIX anchorages should be made aware of
the existence and location of the anchorages, including any top tether anchorages. There should
also be permanent guidance to facilitate the correct installation of the CRS.
5.5.5.2 Three or More Positions for Universal ISOFIX
CONCEPT: Vehicles that provide three or more seating positions suitable for a Universal
ISOFIX CRS equipped with top tether should be rewarded.
5.5.5.3 Two or More Positions for Largest ISOFIX
CONCEPT: Vehicles in which at least two ISOFIX positions are capable of accommodating the
largest size of rearward-facing ISOFIX CRS should be rewarded.
5.5.6
Integrated CRS
5.5.6.1 Two or More Integrated CRS
CONCEPT: Vehicles that provide, as standard, two or more integrated restraints should be
rewarded.
5.5.6.2 One or More Group I-III Integrated CRS
CONCEPT: Vehicles that offer at least one integrated restraint suitable for all age groups except
the youngest children, who use portable restraint systems, should be rewarded.
Version 2.0
September 2013
30
6
REFERENCES
1
Prasad, P. and H. Mertz. The position of the US delegation to the ISO Working Group 6 on
the use of HIC in the automotive environment. SAE Paper 851246. 1985
2
Mertz, H., P. Prasad and G. Nusholtz. Head Injury Risk Assessment for forehead impacts.
SAE paper 960099 (also ISO WG6 document N447)
3
ECE Regulation 12 Revision 3 - Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles
With Regard To the Protection of the Driver against the Steering Mechanism in the Event
of Impact. 1994.
4
Mertz, H. Anthropomorphic test devices. Accidental Injury - Biomechanics and
Prevention, Chapter 4. Ed. Alan Nahum and John Melvin. Pub. Springer-Verlag 1993.
5
Mertz, H., J. Horsch, G. Horn and R Lowne. Hybrid III sternal deflection associated with
thoracic injury severities on occupants restrained with force-limiting shoulder belts. SAE
paper 910812. 1991.
6
Wall, J., R. Lowne and J. Harris. The determination of tolerable loadings for car
occupants in impacts. Proc 6th ESV Conference. 1976
7
Viano, D., C. Culver, R. Haut, J. Melvin, M. Bender, R. Culver and R. Levine. Bolster
impacts to the knee and tibia of human cadavers and an anthropomorphic dummy. SAE
Paper 780896, Proc 22nd Stapp conference.
8
EEVC WG. The Validation of the EEVC Frontal Impact Test Procedure. Proc 15th ESV
Conference, Melbourne, 1996.
9
Schneider, L.W., Vogel, M. and Bosio, C.A. Locations of driver knees relative to knee
bolster design. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. UMTRI-88-40. September 1988.
Version 2.0
September 2013
31
APPENDIX I
GRAPHICAL LIMITS FOR CUMULATIVE EXCEEDENCE PARAMETERS
1
Upper Neck Shear FX - Positive
2
Upper Neck Shear FX - Negative
3
Upper Neck Tension FZ
4
Femur Compression
Version 2.0
September 2013
32
5
4
3
2
Red
Brown
Orange
Yellow
Green
1
0
-1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Positive Cumulative Exceedence Time
Filtered at CFC_1000
65
70
75
80
85
Time - ms
Cumulative Exceedence Limits
Version 2.0
September 2013
33
1
0
Green
Yellow
Orange
Brown
Red
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Negative Cumulative Exceedence Time
Filtered at CFC_1000
65
70
75
80
85
Time - ms
Cumulative Exceedence Limits
Version 2.0
September 2013
34
5
4
3
2
Red
Brown
Orange
Yellow
Green
1
0
-1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Positive Cumulative Exceedence Time
Filtered at CFC_1000
Pro cessed
o n 2 9 .0 1 .2 0 0 2
Version 2.0
September 2013
70
75
80
85
Time - ms
Cumulative Exceedence Limits
35
2
0
-2
Green
-4
Yellow
Orange
-6
Brown
-8
Red
-10
-12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Negative Cumulative Exceedence Time
65
70
75
80
85
Time - ms
Filtered at CFC_600
Pro cessed
o n 0 1 .0 2 .2 0 0 2
Version 2.0
September 2013
Cumulative Exceedence Limits
36
ASEAN NCAP Technical Committee
Khairil Anwar Abu Kassim
Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS)
Mohd Hafzi Md Isa
Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS)
Yahaya Ahmad
Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS)
Special Acknowledgement:
This protocol is based on Euro NCAP Car Assessment Protocol – Adult
Occupant Protection Version 5.4 and Child Occupant Protection Version
5.3 which is the intellectual property of Euro NCAP. Permission is
granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial and educational
purposes. Copying of parts of the original text is by permission of Euro
NCAP.
Version 2.0
September 2013
ASEAN NCAP
Ground Floor, Lot 127,
Jalan TKS 1,
Taman Kajang Sentral,
43000 Kajang,
Selangor, Malaysia.
+603-8924 9200 (ext. 425)
+603-8733 2005
enquiries@aseancap.org
Version 2.0
September 2013
www.aseancap.org
Download PDF
Similar pages