Injury risk evaluation using HBMs Sample Clauses

Injury risk evaluation using HBMs. Based on the overview of injury criteria derived from WP2 Chapter 5.1 [2] the body regions as mentioned under Chapter 2 of this report will be assessed by the use of either the THUMS or the FE PAC. Further on, especially as far as the THUMS is concerned, the criteria to be used will be discussed and defined in the course of Task 3.2 (and Task 3.3) and reported in D3.5 (and D3.6 for the occupant accordingly). In addition, a minimum level of required validation of each body region to be used for the assessment will be defined. Furthermore, for each body region reasonable injury criteria will be defined and evaluated during the simulations. Then, a sanity check of the applicability of these criteria is needed. If necessary, possible enhancements of the model(s) will be proposed. However, the model enhancement might not fall into SafeEV project, but has to be performed separately. For the time being, a criteria or body region might not be completely assessed or even not assessed at all. Current regulatory and public domain pedestrian testing protocols for M1 class vehicles focus on the three body regions head, upper and lower leg which are assessed using impactors. However, the application of HBMs offers the possibility to have a more detailed look on injury mechanisms while taking into account realistic kinematics of the impacting pedestrian. Hence, the application of HBMs in Task 3.2 leads to an appropriate consideration of the unique vehicle front end design of future SEVs for each load case. As far as the injury risk assessment is concerned, at least for the head this task is to be consolidated with the application of the SUFEHM and its evaluation tool IRA (Injury Risk Assessment). Main focus of UNISTRA therefore is to consolidate head injury criteria for adults (50th percentile male and 5th percentile female) based on an extended head trauma database under both LS-DYNA and VPS. Specific SUFEHM post-processing tools for these codes will also be developed. As far as possible, if further accidents are available, injury criteria will also be proposed for the 6 years old child head model. In order to ensure realistic results under both FE codes a number of basic head impacts will be simulated under LS- DYNA and VPS for comparison purposes. However the 6YOC will not be considered by VW under VPS code. Finally UNISTRA will assist Daimler AG and Volkswagen for complete pedestrian versus car impact simulations including secondary impact. While the THUMS-D couple t...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Injury risk evaluation using HBMs

  • Self-Evaluation Each regular faculty member shall provide a self-evaluation. It shall address, among other items, the faculty member's fulfillment of professional responsibilities as referenced in Section 18.2.3 and an assessment of his or her own performance. The faculty member will share the self-evaluation with the Faculty Evaluation Committee and the first-level manager or designee. The self-evaluation will become part of the evaluation report.

  • Commercial General Liability and Business Auto Liability will be endorsed to provide primary and non-contributory coverage The Commercial General Liability Additional Insured endorsement will include on-going and completed operations and will be submitted with the

  • Reporting on Utilization of Subject Inventions 1. The Performer agrees to submit, during the term of the Agreement, an annual report on the utilization of a subject invention or on efforts at obtaining such utilization that are being made by the Performer or its licensees or assignees. Such reports shall include information regarding the status of development, date of first commercial sale or use, gross royalties received by the Performer, and such other data and information as the agency may reasonably specify. The Performer also agrees to provide additional reports as may be requested by DARPA in connection with any march-in proceedings undertaken by DARPA in accordance with Paragraph I of this Article. DARPA agrees it shall not disclose such information to persons outside the Government without permission of the Performer, unless required by law.

  • Focused Evaluation The Focused Evaluation is used when a teacher is not evaluated using the Comprehensive Evaluation process, and will include evaluation of one of the eight state criteria (student growth impact required). If a non-provisional teacher has scored at Proficient or higher the previous year, they may be moved to Focused Evaluation. The teacher may remain on the Focused Evaluation for five (5) years before returning to the Comprehensive Evaluation. The teacher or the evaluator can initiate a move from the Focused to the Comprehensive Evaluation. A decision to move a teacher from a Focused to a Comprehensive Evaluation must occur by December 15.

  • JOC EVALUATION If any materials being utilized for a project cannot be found in the RS Means Price Book, this question is what is the markup percentage on those materials? When answering this question please insert the number that represents your percentage of proposed markup. Example: if you are proposing a 30 percent markup, please insert the number "30". Remember that this is a ceiling markup. You may markup a lesser percentage to the TIPS Member customer when pricing the project, but not a greater percentage. EXAMPLE: You need special materials that are not in the RS Means Unit Price Book for a project. You would buy the materials and xxxx them up to the TIPS Member customer by the percentage you propose in this question. If the materials cost you, the contractor, $100 and you proposed a markup on this question for the material of 30 percent, then you would charge the TIPS Member customer $130 for the materials. No response TIPS/ESC Region 8 is required by Texas Government Code § 791 to be compensated for its work and thus, failure to agree shall render your response void and it will not be considered. Yes - No Vendor agrees to remit to TIPS the required administration fee or, if resellers are named, guarantee the fee remittance by or for the reseller named by the vendor?

  • High Risk Use Npcap is not designed, manufactured, or intended for use in hazardous environments requiring fail-safe performance where the failure of the software could lead directly to death, personal injury, or significant physical or environmental damage (“High Risk Activities”). Use of Npcap in High Risk Activities is not authorized.

  • Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.

  • Using Student feedback in Educator Evaluation ESE will provide model contract language, direction and guidance on using student feedback in Educator Evaluation by June 30, 2013. Upon receiving this model contract language, direction and guidance, the parties agree to bargain with respect to this matter.

  • Evaluation Use In the event that the Software is licensed only for Evaluation Use, the terms of this paragraph shall apply. Your license to use the Software commences on installation of the Software and, unless You and NetIQ agree to a different period, will terminate after a period of 30 days (the “Evaluation Period”). You may use the Software for an unlimited number of users and servers during the Evaluation Period. At the end of the Evaluation Period, Your license to use the Evaluation version of the Software is automatically terminated. You may not extend the time limits of the Software in any manner. At the end of the Evaluation Period You agree to de-install the Software and if required by NetIQ, return all copies or partial copies of the Software or certify to NetIQ that all copies or partial copies of the Software have been deleted from Your computer libraries and/or storage devices and have been destroyed. If You desire to continue Your use of the Software beyond the Evaluation Period, You must contact NetIQ to acquire a license to the Software for the applicable fee. EVALUATION SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF TITLE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT.

  • Employees At-Risk Through Medication Use 5.1 Employees who are taking medication which might affect their ability to undertake any kind of work safely, should advise an OH&S representative or the First Aid Officer, who will act immediately to eliminate the risks.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.