motor vehicle safety standards and ncaptripp.iitd.ernet.in/assets/newsimage/motor-vehicle...5 harald...

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NCAP

Dr. Harald Zellmer

03.12.2018


Introduction

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Dummies

NCAP

Harald Zellmer: Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NCAP2

Standard: Definition Wikipedia

• A technical standard is an established norm or requirement in regard to technical systems

• It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes, and practices

• The standardization process may be by edict or may involve the formal consensus of technical experts



Introduction


Dummies

NCAP



• Are minimum requirements

• They should focus on performance

• They should not be design restrictive

• There are two types of automotive standards

• Performance requirements on component level

• Whole vehicle performance requirements

• Two ways of meeting the standards

• Homologation by authority (most of the rest of the world)

• Self certification (USA, Canada)



Two main systems

• The World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations is a working party (WP.29) of the Sustainable Transport Division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). It is tasked with creating a uniform system of regulations, called UN Regulations, for vehicle design to facilitate international trade (ECE or UN Regulations and GTR)

• Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are U.S. federal regulations specifying design, construction, performance, and durability requirements for motor vehicles and regulated Automobile safety-related components, systems, and design features


Safety Standards


Source: Carhs, 2018

Safety Standards for Frontal Impact

ECE-R 137 Frontal impact HIII 50th / 5th ; 50 km/h


Example for a Component Test


Sled Test G-lock Test

Source: Autoliv

Introduced in 1970

Sled Test ECE R-16

• Stiff seat and B-pillar

• TNO 10 - manekin

• Collision speed: 50 km/h 1 km/h

• Stopping distance: 40 cm 5 cm

• Acceleration time-history in defined corridor

• Belt anchorage position as in the car


ECE-R 16: Acceleration Time History


No damage to the belt system

Buckle opening force < 60 N

Pelvis forward displacement: 80 mm - 200 mmwith pretensioner: 40 mm - 200 mm

Chest forward displacement: 100 mm - 300 mmwith pretensioner: 50 mm - 300 mm

ECE-R 16: Requirements


Seatbelt Sequence TestTest series consisting of 1) function test new parts,

2) endurance/ aging cycles, 3) function test after endurance, 4) static/ dynamic strength test and/

or pretensioner performance test


Example for a Full-Vehicle Test


Source: Autoliv

Introduced in 1995

Frontal Impact

ECE-R 94

2 Dummys H-III, 50% belted

Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB), 40% overlap

Impact velocity 56 km/h


Represents Car-to-Car Crash with a collission speed

of each 50 km/h and 50 % overlap

Frontal Impact

ECE-R 94



Introduction


Dummies

NCAP


Introduction to Dummies

• What is a dummy?Dummies are mechanical surrogates of the human body.

Thus, they are also called:

ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DEVICES

• What uses do they have?To measure the impact loading of different body parts (By using a suite of

instrumentation built into the Dummy)

To correctly load a vehicle to assess type and severity of injury by mimicking human dynamic impact responses


Dummy Terminology

• Percentile• Anthropometry• Biofidelity• Measuring capability• Repeatability• Reproducibility• Durability• Sensitivity• Simplicity and ease of use


Percentile•Sizes of adult dummies are expressed as ‘Percentiles’

•Three percentile masses are used:

• 5th percentile

• 50th Percentile

• 95th PercentileExample:

A 5th percentile indicates that 5%

of the adult population is smaller

than the Dummy

Source: SIMULATING THE ROAD FORWARD: THE ROLE OF COMPUTATIONAL MODELING IN

REALIZING FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES IN TRAFFIC SAFETY. Jeff Crandall, IRCOBI 2009.

Hybrid III percentiles on a stature and mass scale in

comparison to the resp. distribution of the population

Percentile

Anthropometry

•Dummies should have and duplicate the following:

• Have similar mass distribution to that of a living human

• Have similar shape to that of a living human

• I.E. ATTRIBUTED WITH HUMAN

• CHARACTERISTICS


ACHIEVED BY:

Dummy matching the human

cadaver test corridor response

DUMMIES SHOULD:

• Duplicate the biomechanical

response behaviour of a living

human exposed to the same

impact conditions

Biofidelity

Force min/max envelope: “Corridors”

Biofidelity: Human Corridors

Measuring Capability

The dummy should be instrumented to provide the following measurements:

Appropriate forcesDeflectionsAccelerations


Repeatability & Reproducibility

Different Dummies of same design should:

Receive the same response (output) to the same impact conditions (input)

Repeatability is assessed from responses to tests with the same dummy, and

Reproducibility from responses to tests with different dummies of the same design.


Durability

Durability implies that the Dummy should:

Be structurally sound (intact) following an impact

Have responses that remain repeatable

Durable Exceptions:

Deliberate designed replacement parts


Environmental Sensitivity

The dummy should not be sensitive to temperature and humidity. These factors may affect its biofidelity and repeatability.

Examples for calibration

Hybrid II and US SID temperature limits between 18.9°C and 25.6°C

Hybrid III, BIOSID temperature limits between 20.6°C and 22.2°C

The relative Humidity limits between 10% RH and 70%RH


Simplicity and Ease to Use

The Dummy should….

Be easy to calibrate

Require minimal external support equipment

Be readily repairable

Have parts that are easy to change and replace


The Dummy Family

Frontal Impact

Adult Dummies

Hybrid 35th, 50th, 95th

Pregnant 5th% female

THOR50th percentile male5th percentile female (in development)

Child Dummies

CRABI3, 6,12, 18 monthHybrid 33, 6, 10 year oldEuropeP series (P0, P3/4, P3, P10)Q series (Q0, Q1, Q1.5, Q3, Q6, Q10)

Side Impact

(US SID)

BioSID

EuroSID

SIDIIs

WorldSID

Rear Impact

BioRID

EvaRID

Other

Pedestrian


Example of Frontal Impact Dummies

Hybrid III cutaway


THOR – The New Frontal Impact Dummy


2000 - 2009 THOR-FTEurope

2005THOR-NT

USA

Modified after Dan Parent: THOR 50TH PUBLIC MEETING 20.01.2015. NHTSA

THOR = Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint

Example of Side Impact Dummies

SIDIIs

WorldSID


Dummies in Legislation & NCAP

Harald Zellmer: Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NCAP35Source: Carhs, 2018


Introduction


Dummies

NCAP


NCAP: New Car Assessment Programme

Introduction

US NCAP

Euro NCAP

Japan NCAP


Consumer Tests provides motoring consumers with a realistic

and independent assessment of the safety performance of some

of the most popular cars

The following NCAPs exist: US NCAP started with model year 1979 cars

Japan NCAP started with model year 1996 cars

Euro NCAP established in 1997 (similar: Australasian NCAP)

Korea NCAP established in 1999

China NCAP established in 2006

Latin NCAP established in 2010

Global NCAP established in 2011

Asean NCAP established in 2013

Bharat NCAP established in 2018

Several changes occured since the introduction




Introduction

US NCAP

Euro NCAP

Japan NCAP


Fatalities of Car Occupants USAUSA: Annual average of fatal occupant injuries 1995 – 1999

Source: Donald Friedman, Carl E. Nash, Justin Caplinger: RESULTS FROM TWO SIDED QUASI-

STATIC (M216) AND REPEATABLE DYNAMIC ROLLOVER TESTS (JRS) RELATIVE TO FMVSS 216

TESTS, 2007 ESV Conference, Paper Number 07-0361

Accident Type Percentage No. Casualties

Frontal Impact 39 12 384

Side Impact 25 8 169

Rear Impact 3 1 023

Rollover 32 10 149

Other 1 432

Total 100 32 157

History of US NCAP

NHTSA established NCAP in response to Title II of the Motor

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972. Its goal is

to improve occupant protection by providing consumers with

a measure of the relative safety of passenger vehicles to aid

consumers in their purchasing decisions.

The agency established a frontal impact test program whose

protocol is based on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 208 “Occupant Crash Protection” except that

the frontal NCAP test is conducted at 56 km/h (35 mi/h),

rather than 48 km/h (30 mi/h) as required by FMVSS No.

208.

Model year (MY) 1979 vehicles were the first tested and

rated using this protocol. The five-star rating system was first

used for MY 1994 vehicles.Harald Zellmer: Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NCAP41

History of US NCAP

The agency began testing and rating vehicles for side impact

protection in the 1997 MY. As with the frontal program, the

test protocol was based on an existing Federal standard,

FMVSS No. 214 “Side Impact Protection”, and again the test

speed was increased by 8 km/h (5 mi/h).

Starting with the 2001 MY, the agency began using NCAP to

rate vehicles for rollover resistance based on a static

measurement of a vehicle’s track width and the height of its

center of gravity. Beginning with the 2004 MY, NCAP rollover

resistance ratings have been based on both the static

measurements of a vehicle and the results of a dynamic test

(fishhook test).


History of US NCAP

In June 2008 the agency announced major changes to the

program starting from MY 2011 vehicles:

- The rating in frontal impact is changed,

- A pole side impact is introduced,

- A new overall Vehicle Safety Score will combine the star

ratings from the front, side, and rollover programs.

Additional text will be added to the Star-Rating to inform

consumers of the availability (optional or standard

equipment) of three crash avoidance technologies:

- ESC (Electronic Stability Control)

- FCW (Forward Collision Warning)

- LDW (Lane Departure Warning)


Frontal Impact

FMVSS 208

2 Dummys H-III 50% belted and unbelted

2 Dummys H-III 5% belted and unbelted

Belted loadcases full frontal barrier 0° - 30° at 48 km/h

Impact speed increased to 56 km/h in 2011

Unbelted loadcases full frontal barrier 0° - 30° or

Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) with reduces impact

velocityHarald Zellmer: Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NCAP44

Dummy Criteria

HIC15 < 700 (700)

NIJ < 1,0

Thorax: a 3ms < 60g, Defl. < 63 mm (52 mm)

Femurs axial < 10,2 kN (< 6,8 kN)

no "Submarining“

Figures put in parentheses are for H-III 5% Dummy

Frontal Impact

FMVSS 208


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

CHEST ACCELERATION [g]

HIC

***** **** *** ** *

Legal limits

US NCAP until Model Year 2010

Like FMVSS 208

35 mph = 56 km/h

Driver HIII-50%

Passenger HIII-50%

belted

Star rating


US NCAP Frontal Impact


Side impact FMVSS 214

2 Loadcases:

Crab barrier,

54 km/h (= 48 km/h relative speed)

2 dummies EuroSID 2

Car-to-pole impact,

32 km/h,

1 dummy SID IIs


Increased

speed

compared to

FMVSS 214

63 km/h

US NCAP Side Impact


Static and

dynamic

requirement

(fishhook test)

US NCAP Rollover Assessment


Source: www.safercar.gov/

US NCAP Rollover Assessment


Combined Crashworthiness Rating

The combined Vehicle Safety Score (VSS), is the weighted average of the

Relative Risk Scores (RSS) in front, side and Rollover Crashes. The Vehicle

Safety Score for the Combined Crashworthiness Rating is:

Combined Rating = (5/12)*RRS(front) + (4/12)*RRS(side) + (3/12)*RRS(roll)

5 Stars 4 Stars 3 Stars 2 Stars 1 Star

VSS VSS<0.67 0.67≤VSS<1.00 1.00≤VSS<1.33 1.33≤VSS<2.67 VSS≥2.67

Probability P< 0.1 0.10≤P<0.150 0.15≤P<0.20 0.20≤P<0.40 P ≥ 0.4

US NCAP Combined Rating

US NCAP Combined Rating

Passenger vehicles (with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms or less) manufactured on

or after January 31, 2012 will be required to have the new safety rating label.

US NCAP EvolutionIt was planned to update US NCAP, but activities are delayed

Intended changes are given in green

FrontalSide

Source: Cahrs 2018


Introduction

US NCAP

Euro NCAP

Japan NCAP


Euro NCAP

Euro NCAP claims to provide motoring consumers with a realistic and independent assessment of the safety performance of some of the most popular cars sold in Europe

Euro NCAP was established in 1997 and is backed by seven European Governments, the European Commission and motoring and consumer organisations

For more information: www.EuroNCAP.com


Fatalities in Road Traffic Accidents EU15


Areas of Assessment: Boxes

Euro NCAP


Adult & Child Occupant Protection: Required Full Scale Crash Tests

Euro NCAP

Source: Cahrs


Euro NCAP Frontal Impact

Source: Cahrs

Euro NCAP


Euro NCAP


Euro NCAP Side Impact

Source: Euro NCAP


Euro NCAP Low Speed Rear Impact

Dummy: BioRID

Pulses: Dv 16 km/h 4.5g mean trapetzoid

Dv 16 km/h 5.5g mean triangular

Dv 24 km/h 6.5g mean trapetzoid

Whiplash assessment criteria:

NICmax, Nkm, Head Rebound,

Time to head restraint contact

Fx and Fz upper neck, T1g

Seat Stability

Geometry assessment front and rear


Euro NCAP Child Occupant Protection

In the frontal and side impact barrier tests, dummies representing 6 and 10 year

old children are placed in the rear of the car in the type of child restraint

recommended by the car manufacturer.

Source: Cahrs


Euro NCAP Pedestrian Protection

A series of tests are carried out to replicate accidents involving child and adult

pedestrians where impacts occur at 40km/h. Impact sites are then assessed and

rated fair, weak and poor. As with other tests, these are based on European

Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee guidelines

Source: Euro NCAP


Euro NCAP Safety Assist


+ AEB City in Adult Occupant Protection (4 of 38 points)+ AEB Vulnerable Road User (12 of 48 points)

max.

3 points

3 points

4 points

3 points

13 points

_________

Euro NCAP

Minimum requirement for 5 stars Adult Occupant Protection 80%Child Occupant Protection 80% Pedestrian Protection 60%Safety Assisst 70%


Euro NCAP Roadmap


Euro NCAP Roadmap

Frontal Impact:

Movable Progressive Deformable Barrier (MPDB) to replace Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB)

Introduction of THOR dummy on driver’s seat

Side Impact:

Far-Side Occupant Protection



Introduction

US NCAP

Euro NCAP

Japan NCAP


Japan NCAP

Frontal Full Overlap 55 km/h Side 55 km/h Frontal ODB 64 km/h

Low Speed Rear Impact

Pedestrian Head Impact & Knee Impact

Seat Belt Reminder


Source: JNCAP New Car Assessment 2012.3

Japan NCAP



Japan NCAPOverall Evaluation

Occupant Protection

100 Points

Seat Belt Reminder

Pedestrian Protection

Total = 208 Points

100 Points

100 Points



Japan NCAPOverall Evaluation



To evaluate usability the following is taken into account:

Japan NCAP Rear Seat

Accessibility

of seat belt

Insertability

of tongue

into buckle

Wearing

comfort

Identification

of buckle




Introduction


Dummies

NCAP


motor vehicle safety standards and ncaptripp.iitd.ernet.in/assets/newsimage/motor-vehicle...5 harald...

Documents