Background to nhtsa ncap ratings for rollover resistance l.jpg
Advertisement
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 28

Background to NHTSA NCAP Ratings for Rollover Resistance PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Background to NHTSA NCAP Ratings for Rollover Resistance Why are they based on Static Stability Factor? Criticism of Rollover Ratings Vehicle properties have little effect Static Stability Factor (SSF) is too simplistic SSF does not reward Electronic Stability Control (ESC)

Download Presentation

Background to NHTSA NCAP Ratings for Rollover Resistance

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Background to nhtsa ncap ratings for rollover resistance l.jpg

Background to NHTSA NCAP Ratings for Rollover Resistance

Why are they based on

Static Stability Factor?


Criticism of rollover ratings l.jpg

Criticism of Rollover Ratings

  • Vehicle properties have little effect

  • Static Stability Factor (SSF) is too simplistic

  • SSF does not reward Electronic Stability Control (ESC)

  • Rollover ratings should be on dynamic tests

  • Rollover ratings will confuse customers


What this presentation addresses l.jpg

What This Presentation Addresses

  • Why we think vehicle properties affect rollover

  • Requirements for a rollover rating system

  • Evaluation of several laboratory metrics

  • Our measure of rollover risk – ro/svc

  • The problem of rewarding ESC

  • Observations about dynamic maneuver tests


Overview of vehicle effect l.jpg

Overview of Vehicle Effect


Requirements for rollover rating system l.jpg

Requirements for Rollover Rating System

  • Represent tripped and untripped rollovers

  • Correlation with rollover crash statistics

  • Clear causal relationship to rollover

  • Objective and repeatable measurements

  • Low potential for unintended consequences

  • Understandable by consumers


Tripped and untripped rollover l.jpg

Tripped and Untripped Rollover

  • 82% of Rollovers are in SVC

  • 95% are tripped (curb, soft soil, ditch, guard rail, side slope, rim dig, etc.)

  • <5% are untripped (external forces provided by pavement friction)

  • Driving maneuvers test only for untripped

    • Low tire traction, massive understeer and some ESC strategies that have no effect on a vehicle that encounters a tripping mechanism will prevent wheel lift in maneuver tests.

  • Laboratory Metrics better relate to tripped rollover


Laboratory metrics l.jpg

Laboratory Metrics

  • Tilt Table Ratio or Centrifuge Test

  • Critical Sliding Velocity

  • SSF

  • Highly cross correlated because of the importance of cg height and track width

  • Each correlate with crash statistics


Tilt table angle tta minimum table angle at which a vehicle on the table will tip over l.jpg

Tilt Table Angle (TTA)Minimum table angle at which a vehicle on the table will tip over.


Centrifuge test apparatus l.jpg

Centrifuge Test Apparatus


Why not tilt table or centrifuge l.jpg

Why Not Tilt Table or Centrifuge?

  • Their advantage is measurement of suspension and tire deflection effect

  • Test performance increases when both tires lift simultaneously

  • Roll stiffness ratios for best score cause more oversteer than current practice

  • Potential for unintended consequences


Critical sliding velocity csv theoretical minimum lateral speed for tripped rollover l.jpg

Critical Sliding Velocity (CSV)Theoretical minimum lateral speed for tripped rollover:

Vehicle Motion


Why not critical sliding velocity l.jpg

Why Not Critical Sliding Velocity?

  • CSV adds the effect of roll moment inertia on tripped rollovers

  • The rigid body model causes CSV to be less than realistic (range 10 to 15 mph)

  • Increase in CSV through higher roll moment causes theoretical loss of maneuver test performance

  • Consumer perception is the problem


Slide14 l.jpg

Static Stability Factor (SSF) - t/2hFirst order estimate of steady state lateral acceleration at wheel lift


Ssf is the best choice l.jpg

SSF is the Best Choice?

  • Represents 1st order causal influences on rollover - overturning and restoring moments

  • C.G. height measurement accurate to 0.5%

  • Least possibility of bad trade-offs

  • Simple concept - intuitive to consumers

  • Remaining Questions

    • What is its correlation to real rollover crashes?

    • How important is its effect?

    • What about untripped rollover?


Slide16 l.jpg

Adjusted RO/SVC; 220,000 SVC; R2 = 0.88Adjusted to National Avg. Road Use and for Differences in State Reporting


Slide17 l.jpg

Phase II Rollover Testing

* ABS Failure


Star rating intervals summary linear approach l.jpg

Star Rating Intervals - Summary (Linear) Approach


Measure of rollover risk rollovers per single vehicle crash ro svc l.jpg

Measure of Rollover RiskRollovers per Single Vehicle Crash (ro/svc)

  • single veh. ro/ 10k register vehicles = (# c/10k rv) X (svc/# c) X (ro/svc)

  • # c/10k rv: driven by driver/road effects

  • svc/# c: influenced by driver/road; also will show effect of ESC

  • ro/svc; least sensitive to driver/road effects

  • Better to consider factors separately


Rewarding esc a problem for ssf l.jpg

Rewarding ESCA Problem for SSF

  • What is ESC?

  • Treatment in consumer info web-site

  • Expected to reduce (svc/total crashes)

  • Expected to reduce untripped rollover

  • Too new for much statistical evidence

  • NHTSA monitoring ESC effectiveness


Slide21 l.jpg

Monitoring ESC Effectiveness1996-7 Cadillac Seville, Deville, Eldorado1996-9 data from 9 statesNote: very scant data for Lexus LS 400 and M-B ML320 is more encouraging


Dynamic maneuver testing two main types l.jpg

Dynamic Maneuver TestingTwo Main Types

  • Path following – Double Lane Change

    • Plus – Face Validity

    • Minus – Objectivity and Repeatability

  • Defined Steering- Fishhook

    • Plus – Objectivity and repeatability

    • Minus – Less Face Validity

  • Information added by maneuver tests

    • Roll momentum effect at steering reversal

    • Operation of ESC


Path following test double lane change l.jpg

Path Following TestDouble Lane Change


Comparison of double lane change steer input for two drivers l.jpg

Comparison of Double Lane Change Steer Input for Two Drivers


Defined steering of fishhook maneuver l.jpg

Defined Steering of Fishhook Maneuver

Close to full lock

Approx. 270 degrees


Defined steering test fish hook l.jpg

Defined Steering Test - Fish Hook

Vehicle 1 Path

Vehicle 2 Path


Difficulties common to all driving maneuver tests l.jpg

Difficulties Common to All Driving Maneuver Tests

  • Driver safety

  • High cost

  • Effect of outriggers

  • Effect of tire wear

  • Complexity of ratings

  • Correlation to crash statistics unlikely

  • Effect of pavement friction variation

  • May be overwhelmed by the brake intervention aspect of ESC- good or bad?


How best to reward esc l.jpg

How Best to Reward ESC?

  • Yaw Stability

    • Original purpose of ESC

    • Cannot be duplicated by driver action

    • May not be rewarded by maneuver tests

    • Future data needed to know effectiveness

  • Brake Intervention

    • Not different from driver input

    • Biggest vehicle attribute in maneuver test?

    • Future data needed to know effectiveness

  • Treatment of ESC requires wisdom


  • Login