Product Development Strategy To Response to Global NCAP Requirements

Transcription

1 Product Development Strategy To Response to Global NCAP Requirements Sigit P. Santosa Sc.D Center for Industrial Engineering Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB)

2 Summary/Agenda Global Consumer Metrics Consumer Metrics vs. Regulation Tier of Safety Requirement Product Development Process Product Development Strategy Product Constraint Summary/Conclusion 10-Dec-14 ASEAN Safety Forum 2

3 Professional Background Mechanical Engineering, ITB Indonesia MSME, MIT USA 1997 Sc.D, MIT USA 1999 Research Scientist, Joint MIT/Industry Consortium on Ultralight Metal Structures 1999 Global Product Development, GM US ( ) Center for Industrial Engineering, ITB Bandung (2013 Current)

4 Consumer Metrics Safety Rating Consumer metrics on Safety : It s a measure to quantify consumer satisfaction of a vehicle that a consumer is about to buy in terms of vehicle safety/injury risk in the event of accident/crash Vehicle safety rating is part of buying decision making process rank number 4-6 in EU/US It s not part of regulation on crashworthiness of a vehicle It s an above and beyond of the regulation requirements It can be an indicant evaluation if a vehicle is in compliance to the regulation It s part of the safer vehicle commitment to reduce traffic fatality 10-Dec-14 AE

5 Consumer Metrics Proliferation - Worldwide # Est. year Countries # Est. year Countries USA South Korea USA China Japan South America Australia & New Zealand Southeast Asian countries FRA, GER, ITA, ESP, SWE, NED, UK (EU) 10-Dec-14 AE

6 Global Safety Regulation Mapping ECE CMVSS ECE FMVSS GB/ECE FMVSS/ ECE FMVSS/ ECE ECE 10-Dec-14 AE

7 Complexity: Global Safety Requirements US NCAP/ kph MVSS208, Unbelted US/Canada Bumper Part 581 EUNCAP & EU Phase 1,2 Pedestrian EuroNCAP Frontal 64 kph Side NCAP 62 kph Total Global Load Cases ~ 120 EuroNCAP 56 kph Frontal IIHS Side Impact 50 kph Global Legally- Required Load Cases ~ 100 EuroNCAP Side 50 kph FMVSS214 Side Pole 32 kph Global Voluntary Load Cases ~ 20 EuroNCAP Side Pole 32 kph Side Barrier to Vehicle 80 kph MVSS301+20% 88 kph FMVSS216 Roof Crush 54 kph RMB Danner/Thatcham Damageability

8 Impact Load Case Mapping 1. US consumer safety rating systems: Using injury risk as the threshold Star Rating 2. Many NCAP systems use similar load case evaluation, but the rating systems are difference NHTSA Side 64 Incorporated in the overall rating

9 ATD Injury Evaluations Occupant performance in frontal ODB is evaluated by many consumer test. However, the dummy requirement and evaluation are different. 64

10 CAN WE MAKE IT UNIVERSAL ASSESSMENT FOR NCAP? Less headache by OEM Common load case will lead to common strategy Cost effective development 10-Dec-14 Sustainable Transportation 10

11 Vehicle/Platform Architecture Lifecycles Vehicle lifecycles: 5-8 years Platform Architecture lifecycles: years Product lifecycle constraints: Structural longevity objective, damage tolerance Structural deterioration due to environment loss of material due to corrosion in steel structures Component functionality due to wear and tear Regulation & consumer metric evaluations changes that force significant change of the vehicle architecture 10-Dec-14 AE

12 Vehicle Development/Architecture 10-Dec-14 AE

13 Vehicle Development Phases Math/Hardware-Based Assessments Phase 1: Virtual Phase 2: Virtual Phase 3: Hardware Phase 4: Hardware Concept Development, Rapid Prototyping Development: Full system analysis, design iteration Validation Product Launch Market Research and intent (Regulation) Competition Benchmarking Model Styling Clay-model - Automation Studio concept realization Performance development Manufacturing/servic e assessment Regulation compliance Certification to regulation Manufacturing validation Performance validation Mass production Service Part Operation After sales support 10-Dec-14 AE

14 TIER System of Safety - Requirements Tier 1 : Mandatory Regulatory: FMVSS, ECE, GB, TRIAS, etc 10-Dec-14 AE

15 TIER System of Safety - Requirements Tier 1 : Mandatory Tier 2: Mandatory Regulatory: FMVSS, ECE, GB, TRIAS, etc Consumer Metrics: NCAP, IIHS, Danner, Tatcham, etc 10-Dec-14 AE

16 TIER System of Safety Strategic Requirements Tier 1: Mandatory Tier 2: Mandatory Tier 3: Strongly Recommended Regulatory: FMVSS, ECE, GB, TRIAS, etc Consumer Metrics: NCAP, IIHS, Danner, Tatcham, etc OEM Internal Requirements: Fire risk, child occupant safety, 95 th Occupant safety, etc 10-Dec-14 AE

17 Product Development Strategy For NCAP NCAP performance development is part of any Major Vehicle Program development: New vehicle architecture/platform Structural crash energy management for frontal impact Structural load path and intrusion management for side impact Passenger compartment arrangement for occupant trajectory and protection NCAP Safety Rating Requirement: As part of corporate requirement (Tier 2) Safety rating is taken as critical decision (rank 4-6) by consumers (Consumer Reports, Magazine, web, etc). Consumer positive impact : 4-5 star rating. Sponsored NCAP test by OEM is part of corporate strategy to show NCAP performance to consumers. Not Rated is seen negatively by consumers as similar to < 3 star rating. 10-Dec-14 ASEAN Safety Forum 17

18 Product Strategy NCAP Requirement Change NCAP change due to regional implementation (ASEAN/LATIN NCAP): Assess the vehicle architecture / platform capability. If it s a plug & play content change as part of global product strategy, it will be a quick implementation schedule install NCAP content enablers If the vehicle architecture does not have capability to improve the NCAP performance, it will need to be developed as part of the midcycle enhancement or major program development Long lead time NCAP load case / requirement changes If it is just ATD/Requirement changes, no architecture change is needed If it is increase speed, new impact load case, new/enhanced architecture is needed 10-Dec-14 ASEAN Safety Forum 18

19 Constraint: Continues Changes on NCAP US NCAP underwent significant changes on frontal and side NCAP performance evaluation as part of CY 2011 NCAP evaluation Significant vehicle architecture and content changes needed to meet 5 star performance US IIHS added Small Overlap evaluation Architecture change is needed: strong construction of front rail, A-pillar, Rocker, and roof structures Add on deflector mechanism on the front rail structures EURO NCAP will add full overlap and ATD changes Need to balance energy management for front ODB and full overlap frontal impact ATD changes from ES2 to World SID will require new strategy on side impact energy management 10-Dec-14 ASEAN Safety Forum 19

20 Summary / Conclusion Global Consumer Metric / NCAP performance rating is used as a marketing push to consumers High NCAP rating is seen as a valuable asset to underline the quality of the vehicle 5 Stars NCAP can be an entry ticket to be allowed to participate in corporate tenders Continuous changes of Global NCAP load cases/requirements drive product development strategy to be in-line with the new requirements Strong product development strategy is needed to respond to global safety requirements 10-Dec-14 ASEAN Safety Forum 20

21 US NCAP Until 2010 Regulation 10-Dec-14 AE

22 Frontal Crash Side Crash New 2011MY NCAP Protocol 56.3 km/h Frontal Barrier NEW - 32 km/h Oblique Pole 62 km/h Crabbed MDB Passenger H III (5 th ) NEW Driver H III (50 th ) NEW Front Passenger SID-IIs ES-2re (Pole) NEW (MDB) Rear Passenger SID-IIs (5 th ) NEW Frontal Crash Side Crash Old 2010MY NCAP Protocol 56.3 km/h Frontal Barrier 62 km/h Crabbed MDB Passenger H III (50 th ) Driver H III (50 th ) Front Passenger SID Rear Passenger SID

23 25% Overlap Small Overlap Test Setup (25% offset flat barrier with 6inch radius) 6in Radius 64KPH

24 Frontal Crash Statistics 10-Dec-14 AE

25 Small Overlap Evaluations GOOD Rating POOR Rating 10-Dec-14 AE

26 Euro NCAP Protocol Update CY 2015 Frontal current Frontal CY 2015 ECE barrier No load cell wall ECE or PDB barrier No load cell wall 40% Offset Full Frontal Load cell wall: 128*2? 50% H III 50% H III 50% H III 50% H III or? 5% H III 5% H III 5% H III?* P3 P1,5 Q6 Q % H III 64 kph 64 kph 50-56? Kph * rediscussion:

27 Euro NCAP Protocol Update Side current Side CY 2015 ECE MDB barrier 950 kg AE MDB barrier kg ES2 WS 50 P 1,5 P3 Q 10,5 Q6 50 kph 50 kph Pole 90 Pole 75 ES2 + Geometrical Assessment of Coverage 29 kph 32 kph

28 Total Fatality Traffic Accident Fatality Data Traffic Fatalities In Europe, USA, Indonesia Fatality - Europe Fatality - USA Fatality - Indonesia Source: BPS, FAR, EC Year 10-Dec-14 ASEAN Safety Forum 28

29 Thank You 10-Dec-14 Sustainable Transportation 29