iihs.org

A Brief History of the IIHS Small Overlap Crash TestGlobal NCAP Meeting Brasilia, BrasilNovember 15-17, 2015

Adrian Lund, Ph.D.President, IIHS and HLDI

1995 – inaugural year of IIHS 40 percent overlap, 40 mi/h (64 km/h) front crash test

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Good Acceptable Marginal Poor

IIHS moderate overlap front crash tests Ratings by model year through October 2015

Improved ratings mean greater safetyStill frontal crashes account for thousands of deaths in USA

12,113

1995

frontal

side

rear

other

8,815

2013

1995 20130

20

40

60

Driver deaths in frontal crashes per million vehicles 1-3 years old, 1995 vs. 2013

Passenger vehicle driver deaths by initial impact, 1995 vs. 2013

116 real world frontal crashes with serious injuries in IIHS good-rated vehicles

center19%

small overlap23%

moderate overlap23%

full width6%

under-ride14%

over-ride2%

low severity11%

Brumbelow and Zuby, 2009

Center Impact

Small Overlap

Moderate Overlap

Definition of small overlapMajority of loading outside longitudinal structures

Longitudinal largely

undamaged

Prior research on small overlap1980-1990’s

Real-world data from France, UK and Germany found small overlap crashes account for 20-27% of frontal crashes (Foret-Bruno, 1994; Hobbs, 1991; Scheunert, 1992)

Daimler investigated the concept of a “three forked” body structure, for distributing crash forces in low overlap and “glance off” crashes (Zeidler, 1981; Grosch, 1989)

Volvo’s study of Swedish accident data resulted in the development of the Severe Partial Overlap Collision (SPOC) barrier. The first structural design to address small overlap was introduced in 1991 (Planath, 1993; Jakobsson, 2013)

A study of US data by IIHS revealed 23% of AIS 2+ injury crashes and 22% of fatal crashes were small overlap (O’Neill, 1994)

Frontal crash performance comparison

moderate overlap small overlap

Ratings in IIHS moderate overlap do not always translate to small overlap performance

good structure

moderate overlap test

poor structure

small overlap test

Understanding how small overlap configurations occur in real-world crashes

tree/post/pole (38%) passenger vehicle (62%)

head-on oblique head-on

Pole/Fixed Object crashes

Vehicle-to-Vehicle Collinear crashes

Vehicle-to-Vehicle Oblique crashes

ESV (Sherwood et al. 2009)

Crash tests of three small overlap crash configurations

Similar vehicle structures were loaded by all small overlap research configurations

Tested different barriers to determine which best replicates crash damage and vehicle kinematics

flat barrier with 50 mm radius,20% overlap

Flat 50

flat barrier with150 mm radius,

25% overlap

Flat 150

250 mmradius pole,25% overlap

Pole 250

Offsetdeformable barrier,

20% overlap

ODB

Final IIHS small overlap test configurationImpact speed and overlap

64.4 km/h 25% overlap Hybrid III midsize male

driver dummy Evaluation based on

– Dummy measures,

– Occupant kinematics

– Structural performanceBarrier specifications available at www.iihs.org

Inaugural front small overlap ratingsAugust 2012

11 models

– 2 Good

– 1 Acceptable

– 4 Marginal

– 4 Poor

Range of vehicle performanceMidsize luxury car

Range of occupant compartment intrusionMidsize luxury car

Volvo S60Lexus IS

Best and worst occupant kinematics Midsize luxury car

Media coverage of small overlap ratings

Sales before and after small overlap releaseSurveys of automobile dealerships

week before announcement

week after announcement

percentchange

Good rated S60 267 376 41

all Volvo models 809 956 18

Good rated Forester 1,243 1,422 14

all Subaru models 3,970 4,397 11

Poor rated Patriot 426 419 -2

all Jeep models 2,314 2,325 <1

21 models tested before/after design changes

Range of vehicle sizes: minicar to midsize SUV

All vehicles strengthened the occupant compartment

72 percent made other changes forward of the occupant compartment to improve performance

All vehicles saw an improvement in structure rating

85 percent saw an overall rating improvement

Extensions – early engagement of frame with barrier

Shotgun – energy absorbing load path

Occupant compartment - reinforcement

Visible design modifications

Engagement structures attached to frame rail

Bumper beam reinforcement Occupant compartment reinforcement

Shotgun structure

Manufacturer reaction to IIHS small overlap test

Open dialogue with manufacturers and updates on the research testing progress began in 2010

Inaugural test series began April 2012– Within a year, 8 models were already redesigned

As of September 2015, 71 vehicle models from 13 different manufacturers have been redesigned for small overlap performance– 72% of redesigned vehicles have achieved Good, 18% achieved

Acceptable --- almost every redesign was successful

IIHS small overlap ratingsBy model year, 2012-15

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

good acceptable marginal poor

Not all trim levels of a model have received small overlap countermeasures – 2015 Ford F-150

SuperCrew SuperCab

2015 Ford F-150

overall structure

restraints&

kinematicshead/neck chest

hip/thigh

lowerleg/foot

SuperCrew

SuperCab

SuperCrew SuperCab

Small overlap countermeasures are not always applied symmetrically

Driver/Passenger small overlap crash performance

Driver-side impact Passenger-side impact

2015 Honda CRV

2015 Toyota RAV4

2013 Honda CRV

2013 Toyota RAV4

G

MP

G

AP

G P

Upcoming test vehicles

2015 Mazda CX-5

2015 Subaru Forester

2015 Buick Encore

2015 Nissan Rogue

2016 Hyundai Tucson

iihs.org

More information and links to our YouTube channeland Twitter feed at iihs.org