Upload
others
View
12
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
iihs.org
IIHS Crashworthiness Research Update
Humanetics Crash Meeting 2019
Raul ArbelaezVice President, Vehicle Research Center
Enhancements to IIHS consumer information program
Crash Avoidance
– Pedestrian AEB, Rear AEB, Assessment of Level 2 driver assistant systems
Crashworthiness
– Rear (head restraints)
– Side
– Frontal
Side crashworthiness
50 km/h perpendicular impactBegan in 2003
IIHS side impact crashworthiness test
Vehicle ratings based on dummy
injury measures, restraints/dummy
kinematics and structural performance
cceptable
P
A
M
G ood
arginal
oor
Vehicle Ratings
Side crash fatalities in the United States
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Nu
mb
er
of
Fata
litie
s
Calendar Year
Side impact ratings: crash tests and field data
Fatal crash analysis - 2011
– Fatality risk in side impact crashes 70 percent lower in ‘good’
rated vehicles versus ‘poor’
Remaining Fatal/Serious Injury case review - 2015
– Predominantly involve more severe crashes: higher impact
speed and heavier striking vehicles
Modified crash configuration - 2017
– Laboratory crash test configuration to best promote vehicle-
design improvements
• Higher Speed
• Vehicle-to-vehicle
• Heavier crash partner (LTV)
2016 Fatal Side Crashes (FARS)
Good
Not Rated
Poor
Marginal
Acceptable
IIHS side crash test measures and driver death riskRated-vehicle drivers in left-impact police-reported crashes during 2000-16
Crash test measure
Change in
measure
Change* in
death risk
B-pillar intrusion -10cm -25%
HIC-15 -100 -8%
Maximum shoulder deflection -10mm -10%
Average torso deflection -10mm -12%
Maximum torso deflection -10mm -12%
Maximum torso deflection rate -1m/s -9%
Maximum torso viscous criterion -0.5m/s -14%
Acetabulum force -1kN -7%
Iliac force -1kN -9%
Combined pelvic force -1kN -8%
* All effects were statistically significant at 0.05 level, controlled for
driver age and sex and vehicle type and curb weight
MDB test speed underrepresents crash severity50 km/h
0
25
50
75
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
erc
en
t
Lateral delta-V (km/h)
NASS Side Crash Delta V
MAIS 2+
MAIS 3+
Fatal
Average IIHS side
crash Delta V
MDB mass underrepresents current SUVs and pickups
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1985 1995 2005 2015
Vehic
le M
ass (
kg)
Vehicle Year
Pickups
SUVs
IIHS MDB
Cars
2,100 kg
1,900 kg
1,500 kg
1,500 kg
2017 models average mass
Vehicles for evaluationVery strong Good rated structures
Toyota Camry Volkswagen Atlas
Research testing: Comparison of IIHS barrier, SUV and Pickup impacts at higher mass and higher speed60 km/h
IIHS Barrier, 1,900 kg Ford F-150, 2,200 kgHonda Pilot, 1,900 kg
How does the IIHS barrier represent a pickup or SUV striking vehicle?Ford F-150 into Toyota Camry at 60 km/h
Struck vehicle kinematicsDifferent vehicle interaction
IIHS barriervehicle rolls away from barrier partner
SUVvehicle rolls toward SUV partner
Higher severity IIHS barrier test does not capture impact pattern of SUV striking vehicles
Longitudinal distance from impact point (cm)
SUV
IIHS barrier
IIHS barrier striking vehicle
uniform stiffness construction creates uniform damage across length of vehicle and height
SUV striking vehicle
varying stiffness construction creates a “M” shape of varying deformation across the length of the vehicle and greatest intrusion at mid-door height
Maximum vehicle deformation along side of vehicle
Higher severity IIHS barrier test does not capture impact pattern of SUV striking vehicles
IIHS barrier striking vehicle
uniform stiffness construction creates uniform damage across length of vehicle and height
SUV striking vehicle
varying stiffness construction creates a “M” shape of varying deformation across the length of the vehicle and greatest intrusion at mid-door height
Maximum vertical vehicle deformation along b-pillar
SUV
IIHS barrier
Dummy injury measures
F-150 Pilot MDBCamry
Atlas
Driver
Passenger
Driver
Passenger
Body regions with injury risks exceeding IARVs
Summary of crash partner comparisonsLTVs and IIHS Barrier
Higher speed test with a heavier MDB will encourage structural and restraint system design changes
– Must consider tradeoffs for safety performance in lower-speed crashes
With a higher severity test, modification of the IIHS MDB is necessary to make it more representative of SUV or Pickup striking vehicles
– Different vehicle kinematics
– Differences in structural deformation produced different injury patterns
MDB indicated high risk of head and chest injuries
SUV/Pickups indicated high risk of pelvic injuries
Side crashworthiness can be improved with more stringent evaluation criteria
Updating the IIHS side impact barrier design
?
Barrier-face redesign
Create “M” shape along vehicle side
Similar amount of maximum b-pillar intrusion
Height of maximum deformation at mid-door height
No barrier-face bottoming or tire interaction
Crash cart redesign
Crash kinematics (redistribution of weight)
Different trial barriersMixed stiffness honeycomb designs
IIHS MDB modified AE-MDB raised to
SUV height
IIHS MDB AE-MDB mod raised to
SUV height
Different trial barriersMixed stiffness honeycomb designs
MDB modified AE-MDB raised to
SUV height
MDB AE-MDB mod raised to
SUV height
MDB MDB modified AE-MDB raised AE-MDB mod raised
Vehicle kinematics ✓
Deformation shape
Amount of structural deformation
✓ ✓
Injury patterns ✓
n/a
No barrier bottoming
Next StepsDevelopment of a new IIHS side impact test
Barrier redesign effort in Summer/Fall 2019
– Mixed stiffness honeycomb design
Re-examine ratings criteria based on review of updated injury risk data
Explore potential trade-offs of a higher severity test
Test protocol to be released in 2020
Rear occupants in frontal crashes
Percent difference in risk of fatal injury for rear vs. front row by vehicle model yearBelted occupants
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
2000 to 2002 2002 to 2006 2007 and newer
vehicle model year
front seat is safer
rear seat is safer
Rear-seat occupant protectionUnderstanding rear-seat occupant injuries and fatalities in MY 2000 and newer vehicles
Rear-seat occupants comprise 8 percent of frontal crash fatalities
Prior studies showed rear-seated adolescents and older occupants at risk
New study of frontal crashes with rear-seat injuries or fatalities:
Fatalities or serious injuries from NASS CDS database
– Detailed review of crash investigation documentation, photos, injury data
– 36 belt-restrained occupants ages 6 to 92 years
Fatal crashes from FARS database
– Review of police crash report, scene photos, autopsy records
– 33 occupants ages 6 to 12 years using boosters or safety belts alone
– 48 belt-restrained occupants over 55 years
Case crash severities compared with average crash test severitiesBy maximum injury severity of case occupant
US NCAP
IIHS Small Overlap
IIHS Moderate Overlap
serious injuries and fatalities occur at or below current crash test speeds
serious criticalsevere fatal
Distribution of documented AIS 3+ injured body regions in rear-seat occupants in frontal crashes
chest, spine and abdomen trauma
from seat belt loading
2019 research testingDevelopment of rear-seat occupant test protocol
Initial matrix of 16 tests to inform decisions on
– Frontal crash configuration
– Dummy size and type
Hybrid III 50M, 5F, 10YO, and THOR 5F
– Seat position
– Performance and injury metrics
Explore effect of potential countermeasures
4 of 16 tests include THOR 5th female in the rear seat
Front crash: summary and next steps
Improved front restraint technologies are making the rear less safe by comparison
High seat belt loads exceeding human tolerances –older occupants at particular risk
Countermeasures exist but are not widespread
– Current regulatory and consumer information crash tests do not drive rear seat belt improvements
Next steps
Develop rear-seat occupant test protocol in frontal crash test
More information at iihs.org and on our social channels:
iihs.org
/iihs.org
@IIHS_autosafety
@iihs_autosafety
IIHS
Raul Arbelaez
Vice President, VRC