A Brief History of the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test, Adrian Lund, President IIHS & HLDI
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•8,741 views
The document summarizes the history and development of the small overlap front crash test conducted by the IIHS. It describes how small overlap crashes account for a significant portion of real-world frontal crashes but vehicles were not adequately tested for this type of impact. The IIHS developed a new small overlap test in 2012 and found most vehicles performed poorly. However, automakers have since redesigned vehicles, with over 70 models improving performance after design changes to better protect occupants in these types of crashes.
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to A Brief History of the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test, Adrian Lund, President IIHS & HLDI
Similar to A Brief History of the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test, Adrian Lund, President IIHS & HLDI (20)
More from Global NCAP
More from Global NCAP (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
A Brief History of the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test, Adrian Lund, President IIHS & HLDI
- 1. iihs.org A Brief History of the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test Global NCAP Meeting Brasilia, Brasil November 15-17, 2015 Adrian Lund, Ph.D. President, IIHS and HLDI
- 2. 1995 – inaugural year of IIHS 40 percent overlap, 40 mi/h (64 km/h) front crash test
- 3. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Good Acceptable Marginal Poor IIHS moderate overlap front crash tests Ratings by model year through October 2015
- 4. Improved ratings mean greater safety Still frontal crashes account for thousands of deaths in USA 12,113 1995 frontal side rear other 8,815 2013 0 20 40 60 1995 2013 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
- 5. 116 real world frontal crashes with serious injuries in IIHS good-rated vehicles center 19% small overlap 24% moderate overlap 24% full width 6% underride 14% override 2% low severity 11% Brumbelow and Zuby, 2009 Center Impact Small Overlap Moderate Overlap
- 6. Definition of small overlap Majority of loading outside longitudinal structures Longitudinal largely undamaged
- 7. Prior research on small overlap 1980-1990’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)
- 8. Frontal crash performance comparison moderate overlap small overlap
- 9. Ratings in IIHS moderate overlap do not always translate to small overlap performance good structure moderate overlap test poor structure small overlap test
- 10. 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)
- 11. Crash tests of three small overlap crash configurations
- 12. Similar vehicle structures were loaded by all small overlap research configurations
- 13. 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 with 150 mm radius, 25% overlap Flat 150 250 mm radius pole, 25% overlap Pole 250 Offset deformable barrier, 20% overlap ODB
- 14. Final IIHS small overlap test configuration Impact speed and overlap 64.4 km/h 25% overlap Hybrid III midsize male driver dummy Evaluation based on – Dummy measures, – Occupant kinematics – Structural performance Barrier specifications available at www.iihs.org
- 15. Inaugural front small overlap ratings August 2012 11 models – 2 Good – 1 Acceptable – 4 Marginal – 4 Poor
- 16. Range of vehicle performance Midsize luxury car
- 17. Range of occupant compartment intrusion Midsize luxury car Volvo S60Lexus IS
- 18. Best and worst occupant kinematics Midsize luxury car
- 19. Media coverage of small overlap ratings
- 20. Sales before and after small overlap release Surveys of automobile dealerships week before announcement week after announcement percent change 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. 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
- 22. Visible design modifications Engagement structures attached to frame rail Bumper beam reinforcement Occupant compartment reinforcement Shotgun structure
- 23. 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
- 24. IIHS small overlap ratings By model year, 2012-15 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 good acceptable marginal poor
- 25. Not all trim levels of a model have received small overlap countermeasures – 2015 Ford F-150 SuperCrew SuperCab
- 26. 2015 Ford F-150 overall structure restraints & kinematics head/ neck chest hip/ thigh lower leg/foot SuperCrew SuperCab SuperCrew SuperCab
- 27. Small overlap countermeasures are not always applied symmetrically
- 28. 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 M P G A P G P Upcoming test vehicles 2015 Mazda CX-5 2015 Subaru Forester 2015 Buick Encore 2015 Nissan Rogue 2016 Hyundai Tucson
- 29. iihs.org More information and links to our YouTube channel and Twitter feed at iihs.org
Editor's Notes
- A 2009 NASS study by Brumbelow and Zuby found that 24% of seriously injured occupants in frontal crashes with IIHS Good rated vehicles were a small overlap configuration.
- A NASS study by Sherwood and Zuby in 2009 studied 21 small overlap crashes(with serious head and chest injuries to the occupant) in greater detail to understand different types of small overlap crashes and injury causing mechanisms. Found stationary object crashes and vehicle to vehicle crashes. In the stationary object crashes, the vehicle struck the object head on and the majority of structural loading was outside the longitudinal rails. The vehicle to vehicle crashes were further divided into head-on and oblique crashes. A greater number of oblique crashes were present in this study.
- Examine the effects of three different sized barrier configurations. Each barrier is meant to provide some interaction with the wheel to avoid results from the pole 125 tests. Larger diameters are expected to promote more glance off of the vehicle, but may provide trade-offs with less severity to the structure.