Crashworthiness Evaluation. Roof Strength Test Protocol (Version III)

Similar documents
Vehicle LATCH Hardware Evaluation Protocol (Version II) November 2015

Headlight Test and Rating Protocol (Version I)

Pedestrian Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1) December 2018

STATUS OF NHTSA S EJECTION MITIGATION RESEARCH. Aloke Prasad Allison Louden National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pedestrian Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version II) February 2019

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Toyota Camry

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 214S SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION (STATIC)

Consumer Safety Information Programs at IIHS

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Scion xb

*Friedman Research Corporation, 1508-B Ferguson Lane, Austin, TX ** Center for Injury Research, Santa Barbara, CA, 93109

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Chevrolet Malibu

Vehicle LATCH Hardware Evaluation Protocol (Version I) June 2015

JRS Dynamic Rollover Test Toyota Prius

Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation Crash Test Protocol (Version I) October 2012

Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation Crash Test Protocol (Version II) December 2012

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

Procedure for assessing the performance of Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems in front-to-rear collisions

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 225 CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEMS LOWER AND TETHER ANCHORAGES

Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through Appendixes

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 202a Head Restraints

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems

MGA Research Corporation

Low-Speed Crash Test Protocol (Version V) May 2002

REPORT NO. TR-P NC SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 223 REAR IMPACT GUARDS 2007 TRANSFREIGHT TECHNOLOGY NHTSA NO.

Bumper Test Protocol (Version VII) June 2009

Side Impact Crashworthiness Evaluation. Crash Test Protocol (Version VIII)

Influence of Different Platen Angles and Selected Roof Header Reinforcements on the Quasi Static Roof Strength of a 2003 Ford Explorer FE Model

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURE FOR FMVSS 216. Roof Crush Resistance

Missouri Seat Belt Usage Survey for 2017

VOLKSWAGEN. Volkswagen Safety Features

Methodologies and Examples for Efficient Short and Long Duration Integrated Occupant-Vehicle Crash Simulation

Petition for Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection

Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation. Crash Test Protocol (Version IV)

COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEMS

S06 Update 7th SHRP 2 Safety Research Symposium Washington, DC July 12, Driving Transportation with Technology VTTI 7/12/2012 1

Request for Comments; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 225; Child Restraint Anchorage Systems; Docket No. NHTSA

Roll Over Protection for the Oil & Gas Industry

UMTRI FIFTH-WHEEL LOAD TRANSDUCER USERS GUIDE

The Evolution of Side Crash Compatibility Between Cars, Light Trucks and Vans

Roof Strength and Occupant Protection in Rollover Crashes. Paine M. 1, Newland C

Summary briefing on four major new mass-reduction assessment for light-duty vehicles

Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation

Side Impact Crashworthiness Evaluation Crash Test Protocol (Version VI) December 2012

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Roof Crush Resistance; Docket No.

FMVSS 126 Electronic Stability Test and CarSim

Nat l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., DOT

Determination of Spring Modulus for Several Types of Elastomeric Materials (O-rings) and Establishment of an Open Database For Seals*

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards

6. Relevant safety standards in North America and Europe

Predicted availability of safety features on registered vehicles a 2015 update

Roof Strength and Injury Risk in Rollover Crashes

Roof Intrusion Protection

Development and Validation of a Finite Element Model of an Energy-absorbing Guardrail End Terminal

MIL-STD-883G METHOD LEAD INTEGRITY

Side Impact Crashworthiness Evaluation. Crash Test Protocol (Version V)

Crashworthiness Evaluation Offset Barrier Crash Test Protocol (Version III) June 1996

Safety Briefing on Roof Crush How a Strong Federal Roof Crush Standard Can Save Many Lives & Why the Test Must Include Both Sides of the Roof

Product Specification. ABSORB 350 TM TL-2 Non-Redirective, Gating, Crash Cushion Applied to Quickchange Moveable Barrier

mga research corporation

Special Applications PB 1

U.S. Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG/Fuel Efficiency Standards and Recommendations for the Next Phase

Crashworthiness Evaluation Side Impact Crash Test Protocol (Version I) December 2002

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 49 CFR Part 571. Docket No. NHTSA RIN 2127-AL78

7316 INSTRUCTIONS FOR MILD STEEL STRUT AVENGER CHASSIS CHEVY FULL SIZE WITH 3" TOP CHOP

Safe-Stop TMA (Truck Mounted Attenuator) GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

Chapter 4. Vehicle Testing

Development of a 2015 Mid-Size Sedan Vehicle Model

Incomplete Vehicle Document 2014 Model Year NOTE:

Impact, Torsion, and Crush Tests for 477 kcmil and 795 kcmil 3M Brand Composite Conductor. 3M Company Purchase Order

INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS FOR CUSTOMER-OWNED GENERATING FACILITIES 25 kw OR LESS PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF CHELAN COUNTY

Statement before Massachusetts Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board. Institute Research on Cosmetic Crash Parts. Stephen L. Oesch.

Code of Federal Regulations

School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices

Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection

Special Applications Pick Up Box Removal PB 1

Crashworthiness Evaluation Side Impact Crash Test Protocol (Version II) October 2003

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption from an Electrical Safety Requirement of FMVSS No. 305

Design Evaluation of Fuel Tank & Chassis Frame for Rear Impact of Toyota Yaris

Reconstruction of Low-Speed Crashes using the Quasi-Static Force vs. Deformation Characteristics of the Bumpers Involved in the Crashes

Compression Testing of Single Column Studs with Sheathing Configurations

Statement before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation IIHS research on vehicle roof crush

SPMM OUTLINE SPECIFICATION - SP20016 issue 2 WHAT IS THE SPMM 5000?

Draft Project Deliverables: Policy Implications and Technical Basis

Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation Rating Protocol (Version II)

CRASH TEST REPORT FOR PERIMETER BARRIERS AND GATES TESTED TO SD-STD-02.01, REVISION A, MARCH Anti-Ram Bollards

POLICY MANUAL OPERATING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

7256 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELIMINATOR II A-ARM FRONT, 4-LINK REAR, MILD STEEL, INTERMEDIATE, SERIES CHASSIS

The Sad History of Rollover Prevention 30 Years, Thousand of Deaths and Injuries, and Still No Safety Performance Standard

Repeatability of a Dynamic Rollover Test System

REPORT NUMBER: 301-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301 FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION 2008 MAZDA CX-9 SUV

GRSP ASIA MEETING - MARCH

Crashworthiness Evaluation Offset Barrier Crash Test Protocol (Version XI) December 2004

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection In Interior Impact Upper Interior Head Impact Protection

Technical Report Documentation Page. Quasi Static and Dynamic Roof Crush Testing

7260 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELIMINATOR II STRUT FRONT, 4-LINK REAR, MILD STEEL, FULL SIZE, SERIES CHASSIS

NEW CRASH TESTS: SMALL CARS IMPROVE AND THE TOP PERFORMERS ALSO ARE FUEL SIPPERS

The New Car Assessment Program: Suggested Approaches for Enhancements; Docket No. NHTSA

Riverhawk Company 215 Clinton Road New Hartford NY (315) Free-Flex Flexural Pivot Engineering Data

Transcription:

Crashworthiness Evaluation Roof Strength Test Protocol (Version III) July 2016

CRASHWORTHINESS EVALUATION ROOF STRENGTH TEST PROTOCOL (VERSION III) Supporting documents for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) roof strength program are available from the technical protocols section of the IIHS website. DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY A history of revisions to this document is provided in Appendix B. ROOF STRENGTH TEST OVERVIEW Roof strength evaluations consist of a quasi-static test conducted on a vehicle s roof in a manner similar to tests used to judge compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 (Office of the Federal Register, 2009). The main differences between the procedure specified by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and that specified by the US federal government are that the IIHS procedure: Specifies testing one side of a vehicle s roof, Does not include a headroom criterion, Specifies testing to a given displacement instead of a given force level, and Specifies setting the vehicle s pitch angle during testing based on the measured on-road pitch angle. An overall rating is assigned based on the peak strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) measured within 127 mm of plate displacement. TEST VEHICLE SELECTION AND CURB WEIGHT MEASUREMENT Curb weight values used for calculating SWR are based on IIHS measurements of a vehicle, not the manufacturer s specified curb weight. Test vehicle selection criteria is provided in Appendix B. Vehicle curb weight is measured with full fluid levels using scales manufactured by Longacre Racing Products (Computerscales DX series 72634). Whenever possible, the vehicle acquired for testing is the same vehicle used for the curb weight measurement. At times it is necessary to test a vehicle that does not meet the definition of typically equipped, and the curb weight measurement is applied from another vehicle that does meet the definition. In these cases, the test vehicle does not differ from the typically equipped definition in any way that might influence the roof strength (e.g., a vehicle with a sunroof would not be tested if the typically equipped vehicle lacks this option). When a given model is available in more than one body type (e.g., hatchback and sedan), the most popular version is tested. Counts of insurance policies from the Highway Loss Data Institute serve as the main source for determining the most popular body type. The rating only is applied to the tested body type. Corporate twins of the same body type and with identical roof structure are assigned the same rating based on the one test. Once the test vehicle has been acquired, either the driver or passenger side of the vehicle is selected for testing. For most vehicles, the test side is chosen at random. However, for roof designs that appear asymmetrical, engineering judgment is used to select the side of the roof that may result in a lower peak force. 988 Dairy Rd, Ruckersville, VA 2296 All rights reserved. July 2016 1

TEST VEHICLE PREPARATION With the vehicle on a level surface, the on-road pitch angle at the front door sill is measured on both sides of the vehicle. Unless the vehicle manufacturer requests otherwise, roof racks and other nonstructural items that may be contacted during the test are left as installed from the factory. Any trim or other components are removed if they interfere with supporting the vehicle along its rocker panels. For vehicles with vertical pinch weld flanges on the bottom of the rocker panels, the vehicle support system consists of one I-beam (HR A-36 W4X13) for each rocker panel. Each I-beam has a clamping system incorporated on the top that is tightened against the pinch weld flange to clamp the system in place (Figures 1 & 2). When the pinch weld flange has a bend that prevents supporting the sill with one I-beam, more than one Ibeam can be used on each side of the vehicle. For vehicles with no pinch weld flange, or with a nonvertical flange angle that precludes clamping, mounting by another method may be necessary, such as that described in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration s (2006) Laboratory Test Procedure. Prior to testing, the front row seat back on the side being tested is reclined to prevent interaction with the crushing roof. Rear seats are latched in their upright position. All windows are closed and doors are locked. Figure 1 Rocker Panel Support System - Attached to Vehicle Figure Rocker Panel Support System Detail 988 Dairy Rd, Ruckersville, VA 2296 All rights reserved. July 2016 2

TESTING Roof strength evaluations are conducted on a quasi-static test system manufactured by MGA Research Corporation (Figure 3). The system consists of an upright assembly and attached loading head that can be fixed at varying heights from the ground as well as at pitch angles ranging from -5 to +5 degrees to accommodate testing on the driver or passenger side. The roll angle is permanently fixed at 25 degrees. Four hydraulic actuators control the movement of the platen along two linear guides. The entire system is mounted on a T-slot bed plate anchored to the floor of the test facility. Figure 3 MGA Roof Crush Test System Two HR A-36 W10x88 I-beams are mounted on the bed plate perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the platen. The vehicle, with attached rocker panel support system, is placed on these beams. The vehicle is adjusted so that: 1. The longitudinal centerline of platen is within 10 mm of initial roof contact point. 2. The yaw angle of the vehicle relative to longitudinal axis of the platen is 0 ± 0.5 degrees. 3. The midpoint of the platen s forward edge is 254 ± 10 mm forward of the most forward point of the roof (including windshield trim if it overlaps the roof) lying on the vehicle s longitudinal centerline. 988 Dairy Rd, Ruckersville, VA 2296 All rights reserved. July 2016 3

4. The pitch angle of the vehicle matches the on-road angle, while also accounting for any difference between the platen s pitch angle and the nominal -5 degrees. The maximum combined difference of the vehicle and platen pitch angles from their targets is ± 0.5 degrees. (For example, if the on-road vehicle pitch angle is -0.2 degrees and the platen pitch angle is -5.2 degrees, the target sill angle for the test is -0.4 ± 0.5 degrees.) If necessary to achieve this angle, shims are inserted between the rocker panel supports and the W10x88 I-beams attached to the bed plate. Once the vehicle is positioned correctly, the rocker panel supports are clamped to the two perpendicular Ibeams, and the beams are marked to allow confirmation that the vehicle position is maintained during the test. For body-on-frame vehicles, the frame is supported to prevent the weight of the chassis from stressing the body at the body mounts. The roof is crushed to a minimum displacement of 127 mm at a nominal rate of 5 mm/second. Some tests are conducted to a greater displacement to collect additional strength data for research purposes. Force data are recorded from five load cells (Interface Inc. model 1220) attached to the loading platen. Displacement data are recorded from four linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) (MTS Temposonics model GH) integrated into the hydraulic actuators. Figure 4 shows the locations of the load cells and LVDTs on the loading platen. Figure 4 Position of Load Cells and LVDTs on Loading Platen 72 in. 6 in. 5 in. 30 in. 3.5 in. Load cell LVDT Force and displacement data are collected with a National Instruments USB-6210 data acquisition system and reported at 100 Hz. These data are based on a sampling rate of 2,000 Hz, with every 20 points being averaged to produce the output data at 100 Hz. The displacement-time histories from the LVDTs are compared to verify that the platen s roll angle and pitch angle (relative to the vehicle s on-road pitch) were maintained at 25 ± 0.5 degrees and -5 ± 0.5 degrees, respectively. 988 Dairy Rd, Ruckersville, VA 2296 All rights reserved. July 2016 4

The precrash and postcrash conditions of each test vehicle are documented with still photographs. The position of the vehicle in the test fixture also is recorded. Motion picture photography is made of the test with real-time video cameras. CALCULATION OF SWR RATING Force and displacement data are recorded for 5 seconds prior to each test, while the test system holds the loading platen at initial roof contact. The data recorded from 1 to 4 seconds of this hold time are averaged for each channel to produce a measurement offset that is subtracted from the data recorded during the crushing of the roof. After removing the offset for each channel, the force-displacement curve is plotted using the summed output from the five load cells and the average displacement from the four LVDTs. The maximum force prior to 127 mm of platen displacement is divided by the measured curb weight to obtain the SWR. Both force and curb weight are rounded to the nearest pound prior to performing the calculation, and the resulting SWR is rounded to the nearest one-hundredth of a unit. Displacement is rounded to the nearest 0.1 mm. (The maximum displacement where the load can be used for the vehicle rating is 129 mm.) The vehicle s rating is assigned based on the boundaries listed in Table 1. Table 1 Roof Strength Rating Boundaries SWR Rating 4.00 Good 3.25 to <4.00 Acceptable 2.50 to <3.25 Marginal <2.50 Poor All trim levels sharing the tested vehicle s body type and roof structure are assigned the same rating as the typically equipped trim level, provided their curb weights do not exceed 110 percent of the selected vehicle s weight. Based on published curb weights from multiple sources, any trim levels that may exceed this weight are identified and weighed. If the weight does exceed 110 percent of the weight of the selected vehicle, a unique SWR is calculated for that trim level. If this SWR results in a lower rating, both ratings are reported for the model, with a split according to trim level. If a trim level weighs more than 110 percent of the typically equipped model, but the lower SWR does not fall in a lower rating band, only the original SWR and rating are reported for the model. REFERENCES National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 200 Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance. Report no.tp-216-05. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. Office of the Federal Register. 200 Federal Register, vol. 74, no. 90, pp. 22348-22393. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Final Rule. Docket no. NHTSA-2009-0093; 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Roof Crush Resistance and Phase-In Reporting Requirements. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration. 988 Dairy Rd, Ruckersville, VA 2296 All rights reserved. July 2016 5

APPENDIX A For each vehicle model, the specific trim level selected for measurement is the one that most closely meets the IIHS definition of a typical vehicle of that class. This definition is made for each class by listing the presence or absence of certain features in a prioritized order. Definitions of Typically Equipped Vehicles by Class Microcars and Minicars 2. Four-door 3. Automatic transmission or CVT 4. Base engine (4 cylinders or fewer) 5. Air conditioning No sunroof Manual windows/locks/mirrors Manually adjustable seats Small Cars 3. Base 4-cylinder engine Manually adjustable seats Midsize Cars 3. Base engine Midsize Luxury Cars 3. Base engine 5. Sunroof Large Cars 3. Base 6-cylinder engine Large Luxury Cars 3. Base 6-cylinder engine 5. Sunroof 988 Dairy Rd, Ruckersville, VA 2296 All rights reserved. July 2016 A-1

Small SUVs 1. 4-wheel drive 2. Automatic transmission 3. Base 4-cylinder engine Two rows of seats Power windows/locks No longitudinal roof racks Manually adjustable front seats Third row seat Longitudinal roof racks Two rows of seats Longitudinal roof racks Power adjustable front seats Large SUVs 1. 4-wheel drive 2. Automatic transmission 3. Base engine (6 or 8 cylinder) 5. Sunroof Third row seat Longitudinal roof racks Power adjustable front seats Minivans 3. Base 6-cylinder engine Power sliding doors (both sides) Power tailgate Cloth seats Air conditioning No sunroof Manually adjustable seats Cloth seats Midsize SUVs 1. 4-wheel drive 2. Automatic transmission 3. Base engine Midsize Luxury SUVs 1. 4-wheel drive 2. Automatic transmission 3. Base engine 5. Sunroof Small and Large Pickups 2. Crew cab 3. Short bed (nominal 6 foot) 4. Automatic transmission 5. Base V6 (small trucks) or Base V8 (large trucks) 988 Dairy Rd, Ruckersville, VA 2296 All rights reserved. July 2016 A-2

APPENDIX B Document Revision History Revisions to Version III of the protocol compared to Version II: Test vehicle selection criteria was updated to better cover current trends in vehicle sales and production. Roof rails will not be removed prior to testing unless requested by manufacturer. The vehicle support system (pinch weld clamping) used for testing has been updated. Revisions to Version II of the protocol compared with Version I: Availability of standard or alloy wheels has been given higher priority in the list of definitions of typically equipped vehicles relative to seat adjustment type (power vs. manual) and seating surface material. Availability of antilock braking system (ABS) and electronic stability control (ESC) has been removed from the definitions of typically equipped vehicles because these features now are standard equipment on all passenger vehicles. 988 Dairy Rd, Ruckersville, VA 2296 All rights reserved. July 2016 B-1