STATUS REPORT OF IHRA COMPATIBILITY AND FRONTAL IMPACT WORKING GROUP Peter O’Reilly DfT (United Kingdom) Chairman of IHRA Vehicle Compatibility and Frontal Impact Working Group on behalf of the Group Paper Number 05-0365 ABSTRACT Enhanced Vehicle -safety Committee (EEVC) has continued to provide the chairman.) The work of this International Harmonised Research Activity (IHRA) group has continued to focus on AIMS OF THE GROUP AND BROAD compatibility research with the prime aim of APPROACH improving occupant protection in cars by developing internationally agreed test procedures designed to The prime aim of the compatibility work is to improve the compatibility of structures in front to develop internationally agreed test procedures front, and front to side, impact. designed to improve the compatibility of car structures in front to front and front to side impact, Compatibility is a complex issue but offers an thus improving the level of occupant protection important step towards the better protection of car provided in these impacts. A secondary consideration occupants. To date the group has focussed on frontal for compatibility is to bear in mind any implications performance tests although benefits need not be for protection in impacts with pedestrians, heavy confined to frontal impact. Group members continue goods vehicles and other obstacles. The prime focus to work actively in research programmes to enhance up to now has been on front to front impacts (car to understanding and develop potential test procedures car including LTV/SUVs). to assess compatibility. Research will continue on improved understanding of A number of potential test procedures remain open in side impact compatibility to define the possibility for the longer term. But, in recent meetings, effort has a side impact test procedure or, at least, to ensure that concentrated on defining key aspects and assessment any front test procedure helps or does not criteria for a potential phase 1 test as a first step to disadvantage side impact protection. Similarly, improve vehicle compatibility. There is a significant research will continue to help ensure that steps to degree of common thinking and purpose and, improve compatibility help or do not disadvantage although issues and challenges remain, a phase 1 step frontal impact self-protection. should be possible. Car-to-car and car-to-LTV/SUV crashes have been INTRODUCTION the main area of work, with LTV crashes the dominant concern in North America. Recently the It has been recognised for many years that the group has concentrated on the development of a protection of vehicle occupants is influenced, not potential Phase 1 test procedure and assessment only by the characteristics of the vehicle they are criteria aimed at improving frontal structural travelling in, but also by the characteristics of the interaction. Initially this would mainly influence vehicle with which it collides. Historically, the LTVs but could also influence car design. The emphasis was on mass alone being dominant. But addition of further metrics or test procedures in later now structural interaction, passenger compartment phases should ideally allow the evaluation of further strength and frontal force are seen as key compatibility aspects i.e. frontal force levels and compatibility factors. compartment strength. Vehicles of interest in the different regions represented by members were Up to 2001, there were separate IHRA groups for covered in the last ESV report. frontal impact and compatibility. In 2001, the IHRA Frontal Group suggested a first step towards frontal Potential users of any test procedures could vary impact harmonisation based on using both existing widely and range from manufacturers wishing to frontal full width and offset impact tests. Future evaluate the compatibility of their products to activity in both frontal impact and compatibility areas regulators. The judgements and the administrative was combined within one IHRA group from ESV process in considering the suitability of any proposed 2001. (The European Union and the European test(s) as a potential basis for regulation would be O’Reilly 1 individual to each region. were open to members of the group if able to attend. This included one on 23/24 February 2005 on VC- This paper seeks to distil the position of the group COMPAT results and industry work. and, while it draws on the research of members, it does not attemp t to summarise the range of data Co-operation Within Regions which individual members have presented. The work of members and their associated organisations Aside from the links through IHRA, there is a appears in individual reports and publications significant amount of co-operation within and including ESV papers. between the regional organisations involved in IHRA. Some direct links are outlined below. INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION EEVC and European industry – Links through Membership, Participation And Meetings industry representation in working groups and industry co-operation with VC -COMPAT Members represent governments in Europe, USA, Individual EEVC members – co-operation with Australia, Canada and Japan and industry members Renault, PSA Peugeot Citroen, VW, Ford and others are nominated by industry in Japan, Europe and NHTSA – co-operation with Ford, Australia, Canada, USA. In addition individual experts have sometimes Europe, MIRA, Cellbond, TRL, Japan, Honda and attended meetings, particularly when from the host VW country or group. Australia – co-operation with Subaru, Ford, Renault, NHTSA Opportunities are sought to have common technical Japan – co-operation with JAMA, NHTSA, Australia, sessions with EEVC compatibility (WG15) meetings. UTAC. Informal links with the IHRA Side Impact group continue through some common membership and a Reviews Of Data joint meeting with this group was held after ESV 2003. Structural Survey: Links continued following earlier structural survey work. Japan had led on this Recent Meetings work topic and continued to report to the group both on results and, in addition, those aspects where it had Since the last ESV, there have been 7 meetings. identified differences or inconsistencies between 19th meeting 27-28 May 2003 (27 May jointly with different teams, when using the same VC -COMPAT IHRA Side Impact Working Group) Tokyo Japan protocol. Large lateral differences were seen for 20th meeting 17-18 September 2003 (17 September engine/gearbox data and Japanese measurements of jointly with EEVC WG15) Paris France one vehicle were up to 133 mm different to the 21st meeting 20-22 January 2004 (jointly with EEVC European data. To resolve this issue, the WG15) Gothenburg Sweden measurement protocol was revised by UTAC in co- 22nd meeting 13-14 May 2004 (open to wider US operation with Japan. Points made included attendance) Washington USA determining a reference plane to remove any effects 23rd meeting 13-15 September 2004 London due to suspension ride height differences, England investigating point differences and listing the high 24th meeting 14-16 December 2004 Paris France priority measurements. Liaison on this was mainly 25th meeting 14-15 February 2005 London England direct between the groups involved. It was felt that any issues were worth resolving. NHTSA which has There continues to be an open flow of information on work in this area also wanted to use the most findings between members with normally at least a consistent protocol so that results in databases could day spent on presentations of the latest research. be used with high reliability in future analyses. Three joint meetings have been held, two with EEVC WG15 and one with the IHRA Side Impact WG. Accident Review: Canada presented work on its There has been a partial move towards three day review of research related to published analyses of meetings, as used when joint meetings are held with accident data, essentially North American sources, the EEVC. This gives more time for presentations including some estimates related to potential casualty and discussions and also offers the prospect of fewer benefits. Members were asked to provide accident meetings overall. Unusually there were 4 meetings in data related to front, side, belted, unbelted and 2004, mainly linked to the effort towards a phase 1 vehicle class and, if possible, others eg gender and test outline. EEVC/European industry workshops age group to allow further work on its review. O’Reilly 2 Vehicle types now range from minicar, mini truck, addition some member states have carried out extra car, small LTV, one box vehicles, small truck and research which supports the work of EEVC WG15. truck and there has been further clarification on accident classes. This work should progress further in A new one year European project (IMPROVER) 2005. Some regions have submitted statistics covers diverse topics, one of which deals with SUVs. although Europe has encountered difficulties in This element is led by TNO and the aim is to report obtaining the desired data. Preliminary analysis of on the potential effect of an increasing SUV data provided by Japan shows that, in frontal two population on safety. vehicle crashes, car and minicar fatalities dominate the fatality totals, a high proportion being in car to US industry gave general information on some of the truck collisions with car to car featuring less strongly. US activity aimed at a voluntary approach, including For minicar fatalities, the truck and car are both frontal impact compatibility subgroups investigating dominant. For two vehicle side impact, the car and full width test procedures, possible LTV to car testing minicar fatalities are dominant with truck and car (short term) and the use of an MDB (longer term), followed by one box (MPVs and minivans) being the and a possible supplementary test for secondary dominant striking vehicles. energy absorbing structure (SEAS). In addition some findings were presented from car to LTV tests. Outline Of Members’ Research Programmes NHTSA has reported on LTV to car (mid sized) full Members are actively involved in compatibility frontal and 50% offset tests plus side impact tests research programmes, often with cross-links.