a brief history of the iihs small overlap crash test, adrian lund, president iihs & hldi
TRANSCRIPT
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