Thatcham International Dynamic Testing for Whiplash

Matthew Avery Thatcham

May 2005

Thatcham

Safety Improvements
The role of the consumer test

Soft Tissue Neck Injuries - Whiplash

UK Insurer Perspective

Whiplash The most frequently reported injury in motor

vehicle crashes

10% of injuries long term (+1 month)

1% of injuries permanent
Predominantly occurs in rear crashes 250 000 cases annually in UK

Current homologation requirements do not address issue

UK WAD Problem?

UK Motor Insurance Costs

UK Insurer Costs

70% Material Damage

6% Security

24% Personal Injury

10 Billion

UK Motor Insurance Costs

UK Insurer Costs

80+% WHIPLASH
24% Personal Injury

Costing the UK Insurance Industry approx 2 Billion Annually

Soft Tissue Neck Injuries - Whiplash

Fundamentals What DO and DONT know

Whiplash Caused by the rapid differential movement of

the OC relative to T1

Injury mechanisms subject of many years of international

research but still poorly understood

Injury criteria proposed:

NIC (Neck Injury Criteria) NKm Rebound Velocity

Relate to unproven theoretical injury mechanisms

Head Restraints
Real World Usage

Head Restraints
Real World Usage
Real-World Head Restraint Usage Newbury, UK November 1999

80%

70%

60%

50%

72%
40%

30%

20%

28%

10%

0%

Correct Head Restraint Adjustment

Correct Head Restraint Adjustment

Incorrect Head Restraint Adjustment

Incorrect Head Restraint Adjustment

Head restraint measuring device

Thatcham Geometric rating for head restraints

International standard through RCAR
4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 Distance above/below top of average males head

good acceptable

-8

marginal
-10

poor
-12 -14 -16 -18 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 backset (cm)

Most head restraints have Acceptable & Good Geometry

Thatcham evaluations in model years 2001 and 2004

2001
Good Acceptable Marginal

2004
Poor

Improved head restraint geometry reduced injury claims

Farmer, Wells & Lund (IIHS, 2002)

1999 Ford Taurus

Neck Injury rear crashes -

24 %

2003 Ford Taurus

Neck injury Rear crashes -

20 %

Seats with initially acceptable/good geometry dont always perform well dynamically

Seat height adjustor failure & seatback deflection defeat good geometry

Too soft head restraint defeats acceptable height

International Insurance Whiplash Prevention Group

Dynamic Whiplash testing aims

Develop dynamic tests and evaluation criteria to

compare and rate seat and head restraint designs for consumer information

Encourage manufacturers to design and develop

effective anti-whiplash systems to reduce real world injuries

Ultimately establish minimum neck protection

requirements for regulation

International Insurance Whiplash Prevention Group

Members and Countries A global community

Thatcham - UK IIHS USA

GDV Germany Folksam - Sweden IAG Australia ICBC Canada Cesvi - Spain

The IIWPG dynamic test

12 10 16 km/h, 5 g mean
Acceleration (g)

8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40
Time (ms)

60

80

100

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

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

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

Examples of Seats with good seat design characteristics

Saab 93 with reactive HR and Volvo V70

Saab 93 HR contact = 47 ms

WHIPS T1xg = 6.7

Real World Injury Reduction

Reduction of neck injury claims in rear crashes by seat compared with predecessors
20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Reactive Head Restraint Volvo WHIPS Toyota WIL Improved Geometry

Dynamic test philosophy

3. Limit the work the neck does in a rear crash by limiting neck tension and rear shear forces

Neck shear force

Neck tension

Dynamic test philosophy

3. Neck Force Ratings

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 bivariant 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

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

300
Maximum (rearward) upper neck shear (N)

HIGH Neck Force

250 200
MODERATE Neck Force

exceeds 75th percentile of results for seats with Good geometry

150 100
LOW Neck Force

50 0 0

30th percentile neck forces from tests of seats with Good geometry

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Maximum upper neck tension (N)

450

IIHS tests
400

Maximum (rearward) upper neck shear (N)

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0

Thatcham tests Series2

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Maximum upper neck tension (N)

Dynamic Rating based on sled test result

Seat Design Parameter Neck Force Rating Dynamic Rating LOW MODERATE HIGH GOOD ACCEPTABLE MARGINAL

PASS

T1 x-acceleration 9.5 g Or

Time to HR contact 70 ms T1 x-acceleration > 9.5 g

And Time to HR contact > 70 ms

LOW
MODERATE HIGH

ACCEPTABLE
MARGINAL POOR

FAIL

Geometry Rating

Dynamic Rating GOOD

Overall Rating GOOD

GOOD

ACCEPTABLE
MARGINAL POOR

ACCEPTABLE
MARGINAL POOR

GOOD
ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE MARGINAL POOR MARGINAL POOR No dynamic test

ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE MARGINAL POOR POOR

2005 IIWPG Dynamic Tests

Small Cars Poor to Good

MARGINAL BMW 1 Series

GOOD Ford Focus II

Dynamic Test Comparison

A Good and Poor Performer

Thatcham (IIWPG) Ratings

International launch of ratings in Europe, North America and Australia

IIWPG Dynamic Test Ratings

Publication of 2005 dynamic results

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

Thatcham Seat Ratings

125 Cars seats rated

WWW.Thatcham.org

2005 IIWPG Dynamic Tests

Thatcham (Europe) evaluations of Dynamic Tests Results Percentage
24% 24% 16%

24%

36%

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Poor

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Seat Ratings

97 Car seats rated

WWW.highwaysafety.org

2005 IIWPG Dynamic Tests

IIHS (USA) evaluations of Dynamic Tests Results - Percentage
17% 17% 20% 8%

55%
Good Acceptable

55%

Marginal

Poor

Will Dynamic Testing Lead to better designs?

Its already driving new designs...

VW Golf mk 4

Poor

VW Golf mk 5 Acceptable

Even better protection

Future design concepts driven by IIWPG dynamic testing

Active Head Restraint Keiper

Active Head Restraint CRH

IIWPG and Thatcham; The future

2005 research and launch

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

WWW.Thatcham.org