1 / 42

International Dynamic Testing for Whiplash Matthew Avery Thatcham May 2005

finola
Download Presentation

International Dynamic Testing for Whiplash Matthew Avery Thatcham May 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. International Dynamic Testing for Whiplash Matthew Avery Thatcham May 2005

    4. GREAT WORLD WIDE INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSURER SUPPORTED TEST AND RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD THE BOLD ENTRIES ARE PARTIES TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE THAT I’M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, FOLKSAM HAS ATTENDED SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT SWEDEN TRIED TO BE FIRST WITH DYNAMIC WHIPLASH PROTECTION EVALUATIONS, AND THEY HAVE A SYSTEM SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I’M GOING TO DESCRIBE. THEY ARE ADOPTING PARTS OF THE IIWPG TESTS, BUT NOT ALL SO FAR IF EURONCAP IS PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THE IIWPG PROCEDURE, THEN SWEDEN PROBABLY WOULD AS WELLGREAT WORLD WIDE INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSURER SUPPORTED TEST AND RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD THE BOLD ENTRIES ARE PARTIES TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE THAT I’M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, FOLKSAM HAS ATTENDED SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT SWEDEN TRIED TO BE FIRST WITH DYNAMIC WHIPLASH PROTECTION EVALUATIONS, AND THEY HAVE A SYSTEM SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I’M GOING TO DESCRIBE. THEY ARE ADOPTING PARTS OF THE IIWPG TESTS, BUT NOT ALL SO FAR IF EURONCAP IS PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THE IIWPG PROCEDURE, THEN SWEDEN PROBABLY WOULD AS WELL

    8. GREAT WORLD WIDE INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSURER SUPPORTED TEST AND RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD THE BOLD ENTRIES ARE PARTIES TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE THAT I’M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, FOLKSAM HAS ATTENDED SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT SWEDEN TRIED TO BE FIRST WITH DYNAMIC WHIPLASH PROTECTION EVALUATIONS, AND THEY HAVE A SYSTEM SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I’M GOING TO DESCRIBE. THEY ARE ADOPTING PARTS OF THE IIWPG TESTS, BUT NOT ALL SO FAR IF EURONCAP IS PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THE IIWPG PROCEDURE, THEN SWEDEN PROBABLY WOULD AS WELLGREAT WORLD WIDE INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSURER SUPPORTED TEST AND RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD THE BOLD ENTRIES ARE PARTIES TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE THAT I’M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, FOLKSAM HAS ATTENDED SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT SWEDEN TRIED TO BE FIRST WITH DYNAMIC WHIPLASH PROTECTION EVALUATIONS, AND THEY HAVE A SYSTEM SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I’M GOING TO DESCRIBE. THEY ARE ADOPTING PARTS OF THE IIWPG TESTS, BUT NOT ALL SO FAR IF EURONCAP IS PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THE IIWPG PROCEDURE, THEN SWEDEN PROBABLY WOULD AS WELL

    12. Thatcham Geometric rating for head restraints International standard through RCAR IF THE TOP OF THE HEAD RESTRAINT WAS BELOW THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE AVERAGE MALE’S HEAD, OR MORE THAN 11 CM BEHIND IT, THE HEAD RESTRAINT WAS RATED POOR. LOGIC SAYS THAT SUCH LOW HEAD RESTRAINTS WILL NOT PROTECT EVEN THE AVERAGE SIZE MALE, AND DATA FROM SWEDEN SUGGESTED THAT WHIPLASH INJURY RISK INCREASED WITH REARWARD DISTANCE TO THE HEAD RESTRAINT. SOMETIMES WE CALL THIS MINIMUM HEIGHT THE EAR TEST – THAT IS, IF YOUR HEAD RESTRAINT IS AT LEAST AS HIGH AS THE TOP OF YOUR EARS, THEN IT IS AS HIGH AS YOUR HEAD’S cg AND CAN PROTECT YOU FROM WHIPLASH – IF IT’S BELOW YOUR EARS, THEN THE CENTER OF GRAVITY WILL TRY TO GO OVER THE TOP OF THE HEAD RESTRAINT, FORCING YOUR NECK TO DRAG THE HEAD ALONG AS THE SEAT ACCELERATES YOUR TORSO IF THE HEAD RESTRAINT WERE ABOVE THE cg OF THE HEAD AND CLOSER THAN 11 CM, THEN IT COULD BE RATED MARGINAL, ACCEPTABLE, OR EVEN GOOD. THESE IMPROVED RATINGS REFLECTED THAT MORE AND MORE OF THE POPULATION WOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE RESTRAINTS WITH THE BETTER GEOMETRY NOW, THIS IS A RATING PROCEDURE DEVELOPED BY IIHS, BACK IN 1995, BUT IN 1999 IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE RESEARCH COUNCIL FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIRS, RCAR, WHICH IS A COLLECTION OF INSURER SUPPORTED REPAIR RESEARCH CENTERS AROUND THE WORLD. THIS PROCEDURE IS BEING USED TO RATE HEAD RESTRAINTS IN THE UK, AUSTRALIA, AND CANADA --- MAYBE JAPAN IF THE TOP OF THE HEAD RESTRAINT WAS BELOW THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE AVERAGE MALE’S HEAD, OR MORE THAN 11 CM BEHIND IT, THE HEAD RESTRAINT WAS RATED POOR. LOGIC SAYS THAT SUCH LOW HEAD RESTRAINTS WILL NOT PROTECT EVEN THE AVERAGE SIZE MALE, AND DATA FROM SWEDEN SUGGESTED THAT WHIPLASH INJURY RISK INCREASED WITH REARWARD DISTANCE TO THE HEAD RESTRAINT. SOMETIMES WE CALL THIS MINIMUM HEIGHT THE EAR TEST – THAT IS, IF YOUR HEAD RESTRAINT IS AT LEAST AS HIGH AS THE TOP OF YOUR EARS, THEN IT IS AS HIGH AS YOUR HEAD’S cg AND CAN PROTECT YOU FROM WHIPLASH – IF IT’S BELOW YOUR EARS, THEN THE CENTER OF GRAVITY WILL TRY TO GO OVER THE TOP OF THE HEAD RESTRAINT, FORCING YOUR NECK TO DRAG THE HEAD ALONG AS THE SEAT ACCELERATES YOUR TORSO IF THE HEAD RESTRAINT WERE ABOVE THE cg OF THE HEAD AND CLOSER THAN 11 CM, THEN IT COULD BE RATED MARGINAL, ACCEPTABLE, OR EVEN GOOD. THESE IMPROVED RATINGS REFLECTED THAT MORE AND MORE OF THE POPULATION WOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE RESTRAINTS WITH THE BETTER GEOMETRY NOW, THIS IS A RATING PROCEDURE DEVELOPED BY IIHS, BACK IN 1995, BUT IN 1999 IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE RESEARCH COUNCIL FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIRS, RCAR, WHICH IS A COLLECTION OF INSURER SUPPORTED REPAIR RESEARCH CENTERS AROUND THE WORLD. THIS PROCEDURE IS BEING USED TO RATE HEAD RESTRAINTS IN THE UK, AUSTRALIA, AND CANADA --- MAYBE JAPAN

    13. G A M P 1995 3 4 11 82 1997 4 8 18 70 1999 10 22 28 40 2001 29 25 24 22 2003 45 30 14 10 SEATS BEGAN TO IMPROVE, JUST AS FRONTAL CRASH TEST RESULTS BEGAN TO IMPROVE AFTER NHTSA STARTED TESTING AND NAMING NAMES. BY 2003, ONLY 10 PERCENT OF VEHICLES HAD HEAD RESTRAINTS THAT WERE POOR. 45 PERCENT WERE GOOD, 30 PERCENT WERE ACCEPTABLE. G A M P 1995 3 4 11 82 1997 4 8 18 70 1999 10 22 28 40 2001 29 25 24 22 2003 45 30 14 10 SEATS BEGAN TO IMPROVE, JUST AS FRONTAL CRASH TEST RESULTS BEGAN TO IMPROVE AFTER NHTSA STARTED TESTING AND NAMING NAMES. BY 2003, ONLY 10 PERCENT OF VEHICLES HAD HEAD RESTRAINTS THAT WERE POOR. 45 PERCENT WERE GOOD, 30 PERCENT WERE ACCEPTABLE.

    14. Improved head restraint geometry reduced injury claims Farmer, Wells & Lund (IIHS, 2002) WHAT DID THIS CHANGE LOOK LIKE? HERE IS A FORD TAURUS FROM 1999 AND ONE FROM 2003 – THE 1999 WAS RATED POOR, THE 2003 ACCEPTABLE. NOTE THAT FINALLY, IN THE UP POSITION, THE 2003 TAURUS PASSES THE EAR TEST. EVEN IN THE DOWN POSITION, IT’S AS HIGH AS THE OLD TAURUS IN THE UP POSITION. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR INJURIES? OUR RESEARCH FOUND AN 18 PERCENT REDUCTION IN WHIPLASH INJURY CLAIMS FOR THE NEW TAURUS WHEN ITS DRIVERS WERE STRUCK IN THE REAR, COMPARED TO THE OLD TAURUSWHAT DID THIS CHANGE LOOK LIKE? HERE IS A FORD TAURUS FROM 1999 AND ONE FROM 2003 – THE 1999 WAS RATED POOR, THE 2003 ACCEPTABLE. NOTE THAT FINALLY, IN THE UP POSITION, THE 2003 TAURUS PASSES THE EAR TEST. EVEN IN THE DOWN POSITION, IT’S AS HIGH AS THE OLD TAURUS IN THE UP POSITION. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR INJURIES? OUR RESEARCH FOUND AN 18 PERCENT REDUCTION IN WHIPLASH INJURY CLAIMS FOR THE NEW TAURUS WHEN ITS DRIVERS WERE STRUCK IN THE REAR, COMPARED TO THE OLD TAURUS

    15. Seats with initially acceptable/good geometry don’t always perform well dynamically

    16. GREAT WORLD WIDE INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSURER SUPPORTED TEST AND RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD THE BOLD ENTRIES ARE PARTIES TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE THAT I’M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, FOLKSAM HAS ATTENDED SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT SWEDEN TRIED TO BE FIRST WITH DYNAMIC WHIPLASH PROTECTION EVALUATIONS, AND THEY HAVE A SYSTEM SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I’M GOING TO DESCRIBE. THEY ARE ADOPTING PARTS OF THE IIWPG TESTS, BUT NOT ALL SO FAR IF EURONCAP IS PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THE IIWPG PROCEDURE, THEN SWEDEN PROBABLY WOULD AS WELLGREAT WORLD WIDE INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSURER SUPPORTED TEST AND RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD THE BOLD ENTRIES ARE PARTIES TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE THAT I’M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, FOLKSAM HAS ATTENDED SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT SWEDEN TRIED TO BE FIRST WITH DYNAMIC WHIPLASH PROTECTION EVALUATIONS, AND THEY HAVE A SYSTEM SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I’M GOING TO DESCRIBE. THEY ARE ADOPTING PARTS OF THE IIWPG TESTS, BUT NOT ALL SO FAR IF EURONCAP IS PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THE IIWPG PROCEDURE, THEN SWEDEN PROBABLY WOULD AS WELL

    17. GREAT WORLD WIDE INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSURER SUPPORTED TEST AND RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD THE BOLD ENTRIES ARE PARTIES TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE THAT I’M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, FOLKSAM HAS ATTENDED SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT SWEDEN TRIED TO BE FIRST WITH DYNAMIC WHIPLASH PROTECTION EVALUATIONS, AND THEY HAVE A SYSTEM SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I’M GOING TO DESCRIBE. THEY ARE ADOPTING PARTS OF THE IIWPG TESTS, BUT NOT ALL SO FAR IF EURONCAP IS PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THE IIWPG PROCEDURE, THEN SWEDEN PROBABLY WOULD AS WELLGREAT WORLD WIDE INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM WORKING WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSURER SUPPORTED TEST AND RESEARCH FACILITIES AROUND THE WORLD THE BOLD ENTRIES ARE PARTIES TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE THAT I’M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE, FOLKSAM HAS ATTENDED SEVERAL OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT SWEDEN TRIED TO BE FIRST WITH DYNAMIC WHIPLASH PROTECTION EVALUATIONS, AND THEY HAVE A SYSTEM SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I’M GOING TO DESCRIBE. THEY ARE ADOPTING PARTS OF THE IIWPG TESTS, BUT NOT ALL SO FAR IF EURONCAP IS PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THE IIWPG PROCEDURE, THEN SWEDEN PROBABLY WOULD AS WELL

    18. The IIWPG dynamic test

    19. The Three principles of the IIWPG Seat Assessment Test 1. Require adequate geometry to protect all occupants 2. Encourage the adoption of seat design attributes shown to reduce whiplash injury Limit acceleration of the torso Limit time until head is supported by head restraint 3. Reduce the work the neck does in a rear crash Limit neck tension force Limit neck shear force FIRST, WE ARE NOT GOING TO FORGET ABOUT GEOMETRY – WE THINK THAT FOR HEAD RESTRAINTS TO WORK, THEY MUST BE SITUATED HIGH ENOUGH AND CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE HEAD TO PROVIDE PROTECTION – THUS, THE AGENCY’S ACTION TO REQUIRE GOOD GEOMETRY IS VERY IMPORTANT (AND CONSISTENT) SECOND, WE BELIEVE THAT A DYNAMIC TEST SHOULD ENCOURAGE SEAT DESIGN PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO WORK IN THE REAL WORLD – OUR DYNAMIC TEST PROCEDURE BUILDS ON SEAT DESIGNS THAT ALREADY ARE WORKING THIRD, WHATEVER THE DESIGN OF THE SEAT, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WORK THE NECK DOES IN A REAR CRASH AS IT DRAGS THE HEAD ALONG BEHIND IT THESE SEAT DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE WHAT DRIVES OUR EVALUATION PROCEDURE, NOT THEORIES OF WHIPLASH INJURY, AS YOU’LL SEE.FIRST, WE ARE NOT GOING TO FORGET ABOUT GEOMETRY – WE THINK THAT FOR HEAD RESTRAINTS TO WORK, THEY MUST BE SITUATED HIGH ENOUGH AND CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE HEAD TO PROVIDE PROTECTION – THUS, THE AGENCY’S ACTION TO REQUIRE GOOD GEOMETRY IS VERY IMPORTANT (AND CONSISTENT) SECOND, WE BELIEVE THAT A DYNAMIC TEST SHOULD ENCOURAGE SEAT DESIGN PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO WORK IN THE REAL WORLD – OUR DYNAMIC TEST PROCEDURE BUILDS ON SEAT DESIGNS THAT ALREADY ARE WORKING THIRD, WHATEVER THE DESIGN OF THE SEAT, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WORK THE NECK DOES IN A REAR CRASH AS IT DRAGS THE HEAD ALONG BEHIND IT THESE SEAT DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE WHAT DRIVES OUR EVALUATION PROCEDURE, NOT THEORIES OF WHIPLASH INJURY, AS YOU’LL SEE.

    20. Dynamic test philosophy 1. Geometry Seats with Marginal or Poor geometric ratings are rated Poor by default – since they offer inadequate geometry Seats with Acceptable or Good geometry are tested to the 16 Km/h dynamic test Ratings are based on their dynamic performance but in some cases are modified to ensure protection of taller adults

    21. Dynamic test philosophy 2. Seat Evaluation Criteria Control the energy transferred to the occupant during the crash by limiting thoracic accelerations (Volvo Whips) T1 acceleration Limit 9.5g Limit the time with which the head is unsupported by the head restraint (Saab 95) HRC limit (70ms) Seat Evaluation Criteria “PASS or FAIL”

    22. Examples of Seats with good seat design characteristics Saab 93 with reactive HR and Volvo V70

    24. Dynamic test philosophy 3. Limit the work the neck does in a rear crash by limiting neck tension and rear shear forces IF EITHER OF THE ADVANCED SEAT DESIGN PRINCIPLES IS REALIZED, THEN IT STILL IS IMPORTANT THAT THE HEAD BE SUPPORTED BY THE HEAD RESTRAINT – THAT THE NECK DO AS LITTLE WORK AS POSSIBLE IN DRAGGING ALONG THE HEAD IN THE CRASH HERE, WE FOCUS ON TWO FORCE MEASUREMENTS FROM BIORID – NECK SHEAR AND THEN NECK TENSION – IF THE HEAD IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE HEAD RESTRAINT, THEN THESE FORCES WILL BE UNNECESSARILY HIGH.IF EITHER OF THE ADVANCED SEAT DESIGN PRINCIPLES IS REALIZED, THEN IT STILL IS IMPORTANT THAT THE HEAD BE SUPPORTED BY THE HEAD RESTRAINT – THAT THE NECK DO AS LITTLE WORK AS POSSIBLE IN DRAGGING ALONG THE HEAD IN THE CRASH HERE, WE FOCUS ON TWO FORCE MEASUREMENTS FROM BIORID – NECK SHEAR AND THEN NECK TENSION – IF THE HEAD IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE HEAD RESTRAINT, THEN THESE FORCES WILL BE UNNECESSARILY HIGH.

    25. Reduce the work the neck does in a rear crash by limiting neck tension and neck shear forces Upper neck Force and Tension limits based upon bi-variant joint probability distribution scheme Thresholds based on 30th%ile and 75th%iles of European and US seats tested (250) Zones give ratings of Low , Moderate or High neck forces Dynamic test philosophy 3. Neck Force Ratings

    26. Neck forces will be graded on a scale of low, moderate, and high

    28. Dynamic Rating based on sled test result

    31. Dynamic Test Comparison A Good and Poor Performer

    33. Results launched Internationally on November 15th 125 – European by Thatcham 97 – US by IIHS November 15th Global whiplash results release Thatcham, GDV, IAG (European) IIHS, ICBC, IAG (North American) Results fed into Euro NCAP IIWPG Dynamic Test Ratings Publication of 2005 dynamic results

    35. G A M P 1995 3 4 11 82 1997 4 8 18 70 1999 10 22 28 40 2001 29 25 24 22 2003 45 30 14 10 SEATS BEGAN TO IMPROVE, JUST AS FRONTAL CRASH TEST RESULTS BEGAN TO IMPROVE AFTER NHTSA STARTED TESTING AND NAMING NAMES. BY 2003, ONLY 10 PERCENT OF VEHICLES HAD HEAD RESTRAINTS THAT WERE POOR. 45 PERCENT WERE GOOD, 30 PERCENT WERE ACCEPTABLE. G A M P 1995 3 4 11 82 1997 4 8 18 70 1999 10 22 28 40 2001 29 25 24 22 2003 45 30 14 10 SEATS BEGAN TO IMPROVE, JUST AS FRONTAL CRASH TEST RESULTS BEGAN TO IMPROVE AFTER NHTSA STARTED TESTING AND NAMING NAMES. BY 2003, ONLY 10 PERCENT OF VEHICLES HAD HEAD RESTRAINTS THAT WERE POOR. 45 PERCENT WERE GOOD, 30 PERCENT WERE ACCEPTABLE.

    37. G A M P 1995 3 4 11 82 1997 4 8 18 70 1999 10 22 28 40 2001 29 25 24 22 2003 45 30 14 10 SEATS BEGAN TO IMPROVE, JUST AS FRONTAL CRASH TEST RESULTS BEGAN TO IMPROVE AFTER NHTSA STARTED TESTING AND NAMING NAMES. BY 2003, ONLY 10 PERCENT OF VEHICLES HAD HEAD RESTRAINTS THAT WERE POOR. 45 PERCENT WERE GOOD, 30 PERCENT WERE ACCEPTABLE. G A M P 1995 3 4 11 82 1997 4 8 18 70 1999 10 22 28 40 2001 29 25 24 22 2003 45 30 14 10 SEATS BEGAN TO IMPROVE, JUST AS FRONTAL CRASH TEST RESULTS BEGAN TO IMPROVE AFTER NHTSA STARTED TESTING AND NAMING NAMES. BY 2003, ONLY 10 PERCENT OF VEHICLES HAD HEAD RESTRAINTS THAT WERE POOR. 45 PERCENT WERE GOOD, 30 PERCENT WERE ACCEPTABLE.

    38. Will Dynamic Testing Lead to better designs? It’s already driving new designs...

    40. Research into “High” severity 25 Km/h pulse (EuroNCAP) Research into “Low” severity pulses (10, 16 Km/h) Research for EuroNCAP WAD group IIWPG Test program formulation for 2006 MY 16 Km/h seat requests issued March 05 16 Km/h tests to commence June 05 2006 MY launch – November 2005 (International Launch – Thatcham/IIHS IIWPG and Thatcham; The future 2005 research and launch

More Related