Traffic Injury Prevention

ISSN: 1538-9588 (Print) 1538-957X (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/gcpi20

Relationship between frontal car-to-car test result

and vehicle crash compatibility evaluation in
mobile progressive deformable barrier test

Taisuke Watanabe, Ippei Kuroda, Taichi Nakajima & Mitsutoshi Masuda

To cite this article: Taisuke Watanabe, Ippei Kuroda, Taichi Nakajima & Mitsutoshi Masuda
(2019) Relationship between frontal car-to-car test result and vehicle crash compatibility
evaluation in mobile progressive deformable barrier test, Traffic Injury Prevention, 20:sup1,
S78-S83, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1597348

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1597348

© 2019 The Author(s). Published with View supplementary material

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 05 Aug 2019. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3008 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcpi20
TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION
2019, VOL. 20, NO. S1, S78–S83
https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1597348

Relationship between frontal car-to-car test result and vehicle crash

compatibility evaluation in mobile progressive deformable barrier test
Taisuke Watanabea, Ippei Kurodaa, Taichi Nakajimab, and Mitsutoshi Masudaa
a
Safety Subcommittee, Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., Tokyo, Japan; bSafety Research Division, Japan Automobile
Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Objective: In 2020, the world’s first crash compatibility rating test will be introduced in the European Received 8 November 2018
mobile progressive deformable barrier (MPDB) test. In this research, the quantitative change in part- Accepted 16 March 2019
ner protection performance of large vehicles in car-to-car (C2C) impacts was studied if these large
KEYWORDS
vehicles were designed in future based on MPDB tests addressing crash compatibility ratings.
Crashworthiness; frontal
Methods: Representative vehicles of the European fleet were selected and a Computer Aided impact; compatibility;
Engineering (CAE) parameter study was conducted. In particular, by changing an indicator of struc- MPDB; car-to-car impact
tural interaction performance (SD; i.e., the degree of uniformity of barrier deformation)/mass/stiff-
ness of large vehicles systematically in a step-by-step approach, the compatibility evaluation
results of large vehicles in MPDB and the occupant injury score of small vehicles in C2C impacts
were compared. The CAE result was evaluated compared to that of C2C physical impact tests.
Results: The CAE parameter study showed that in the C2C impact condition, the effects on occu-
pant injury in a small vehicle due to changes in the large vehicle were as follows: (1) SD change:
The effect was minor except for small overlap condition. (2) Mass and stiffness change: The effect
was relatively major.
On the other hand, compatibility evaluation in the MPDB showed a tendency to overestimate the
effect of SD change in comparison with the above-mentioned C2C impact condition.
In addition, physical impact tests showed that, based on SD evaluation, the large vehicle with a
relatively inferior compatibility rating compared to those with superior compatibility ratings
showed a contradicting trend of better compatibility performance in the C2C test.
Conclusions: The currently proposed compatibility evaluation method of the MPDB test showed
some tendency to overestimate the effect of SD change and resulted in quantitatively inconsistent
outcomes regarding occupant injury in the partner car in C2C impact conditions.

Introduction Japan, and European consortium activity such as Improvement

The self-protection (SP) performance of passenger vehicles in
car-to-car (C2C) collisions has been continuously improved
due to the implementation of government regulations or New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP) protocols and the continu-
ous R&D effort by automobile manufacturers addressing chal-
lenges in technological development. Compatibility, or dealing
with issues of both SP and partner protection (PP), has
remained as the next step in crash safety for the last 20 years.
Full-scale research on compatibility was started with
International Harmonised Research Activity (IHRA) compati-
bility working group in 1997, followed by NHTSA, the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) in the United States,
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) and
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) in
of Vehicle Crash Compatibility Through the Development of
CrashTest Procedures (VC-COMPAT) and Frontal Impact and
Compatibility Assessment Research (FIMCAR). As a result,
numerous proposals have been made (e.g. Edwards et al. 2012;
Johannsen et al. 2013; Johannsen and Thomson 2016).
However, C2C collisions, which are the main focus of com-
patibility, are a complicated phenomenon because the combi-
nations of vehicle models and collision conditions are quite
diverse. Therefore, it was difficult to determine a practical and
rational method that can comprehensively explain C2C colli-
sions. There is no widely agreed-upon evaluation method.
In addition, fixed barriers have mainly been used in
research studies, and the corresponding validation of the
effectiveness of these studies in C2C tests is inadequate.
Specifically, though in many studies experts subjectively
categorize PP performance based on the honeycomb

CONTACT Taisuke Watanabe ts-watanabe@mail.nissan.co.jp Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., Jidosha Kaikan, 1-30, Shiba Daimon 1-
chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0012, Japan.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/gcpi.
Associate Editor Jonathan Rupp oversaw the review of this article.
Supplemental material for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.
ß 2019 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

deformation shape or load distribution of barrier load cells,
there are limited studies in which the consequences due to
implementation of the proposed evaluation methods was
verified in C2C conditions.
Under those circumstances, research on compatibility
evaluation was undertaken by Euro NCAP in 2013, and the
mobile progressive deformable barrier (MPDB) test was
reported at the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference in
2017 (Sandner et al. 2017). The basis of this test method
was originally proposed by FIMCAR (del Pozo de Dios et al.
2013) and further modified by ADAC (Sandner and Ratzek
2015). Although this is still under study with final imple-
mentation proposed for 2020, a concrete method has been
defined as the world’s first compatibility rating method.
Furthermore, in contrast to many PP evaluations proposed
in previous research that were based on on–off evaluation as
the regulation test, this method is based on score evaluation
because it is a rating test. Hence, it is possible to compare
the PP performance of the vehicle and the occupant injury
risk of the opponent vehicle with the same index based on
the rating score basis.
In this study, the effect on casualty reduction due to the
introduction of this test method was verified by investigating
the correlation between the body structure modification to
address this MPDB test and the occupant injury risk of the
struck vehicle. Specifically, a typical large passenger vehicle
in the European market was selected and a CAE study
under MPDB conditions was conducted in which 3 major
compatibility performance-related factors (structural inter-
action, stiffness matching, mass ratio) were independently
changed and the sensitivity of each factor with respect to PP
evaluation was evaluated. This was followed by another CAE
study under C2C conditions (larger passenger vehicle vs.
smaller passenger vehicle), and the correlation between the
aforementioned PP evaluation of larger vehicles and the
occupant injury risk of smaller vehicles was examined. In
addition, MPDB and C2C physical tests were conducted and
the trends observed in the CAE studies were verified.
Methods
Overview
The structure of a larger vehicle was studied in detail to
achieve a good PP evaluation in the MPDB test method.
Next, the effect of the same structure on occupant injury
reduction in a smaller vehicle under C2C conditions was
evaluated by a CAE parametric study and physical crash
tests. Details of the studied cases are shown in Table A1 (see
online supplement).
The MPDB testing protocol and evaluation method used
in this study were in accordance with the latest MPDB pro-
cedure (Euro NCAP 2018) as shown in Figure A1 (see
online supplement). In this test method, a 1,400 kg trolley
with a Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) honeycomb
collides from the front with 50% overlap of the vehicle. The
impact velocity is 50 km/h for both the trolley and vehicle.
The evaluation is divided into 2 parts—(1) SP and (2) PP—
as follows:
TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION S79
1. The overall SP score, ranging from 0 to 16 points, is
calculated from individual head/chest/pelvis/lower leg
scores based on the injury value using a sliding scale
method. A THOR-AM50 (with a Hybrid-III leg)
anthropomorphic test device (ATD) is placed on the
driver (DR)-side seat instead of a Hybrid-III AM50.
2. The PP score, which is basically a point deduction pen-
alty scheme, varies from 0 to
8 points. The max-
imum/minimum number of points deducted is
determined by deceleration characteristic (i.e., Occupant
Load Criterion (OLC); K€ ubler et al. 2009) of the MPDB
trolley. The score is calculated along with the standard
deviation (SD) of honeycomb deformation within the
specified range as mentioned above (Euro NCAP 2018).
The threshold of the sliding scale is defined as 25 to 40
g for OLC and 50 to 150 mm for SD.
With regard to C2C crash conditions, 50% overlap of the
smaller vehicle and 50 km/h impact velocity for both vehicles
were set to be consistent with the MPDB test condition. A
THOR-AM50 (with Hybrid-III leg) is used for the DR-side
ATD in the physical crash test. In evaluating the injury value
of the smaller vehicle only the DR-side THOR ATD (superior
in biofidelity) was taken into consideration. The SP score was
calculated based on the evaluation method as described in the
latest MPDB evaluation procedure (Euro NCAP 2018).
CAE study
As the representative vehicle segments for compatibility tar-
gets within the European fleet, a C-SUV (larger vehicle) and
B-hatchback (HB; smaller vehicle) were selected from the
viewpoint of composition ratios and trend of vehicle popula-
tion in the European Union market (Figure A2, see online
supplement). At that time, in order to prevent any bias,
each car model was selected from 2 different OEMs (A and
B). With regard to the vehicle CAE model used for the pre-
sent study, the correlation was verified by 50 km/h MPDB
(Figure A3, see online supplement) test results.
For the C-SUV, MPDB and C2C (vs. B-HB) simulations
were conducted with changing 3 major factors of compati-
bility step by step as shown in Table A1. Details of C-SUV
variation are as follows:
1. C-SUV: Baseline design.
2. C-SUV (SD): A structural interaction improvement
measure is incorporated (i.e., SD in MPDB changed to
the segment top level).
3. C-SUV (M): In addition to (2), the vehicle mass was reduced
(i.e., the mass of the whole vehicle was set to 0.8 times).
4. C-SUV (S): In addition to (3), the vehicle body stiffness
was reduced (i.e., the strength of side member and cra-
dle frame were set to 0.8 times).
The order of the changes was taken into account when
changing the vehicle weight and strength. First, the case
with reduced mass was calculated. Subsequently, the stiffness
of the vehicle was reduced. Thereby, the demerits and
S80 T. WATANABE ET AL.
Figure 1. SD reduction structure of a C-SUV (OEM-A).
disadvantages that might arise due to insufficient energy
absorption of the engine compartment were eliminated.
In the C2C analysis, the overlap ratio was also changed in
3 steps (i.e., 30, 50, and 100% of the smaller vehicle). The pos-
itional relationships of the main body members for each over-
lap ratio are shown in Figure A4 (see online supplement).
The body structure for SD reduction is shown in Figure 1
and Figure A5 (see online supplement). For both types of
vehicle, the bumper-reinforce-member and apron-reinforce-
member were reinforced and extended outward. The extended
part helps to crush some portion of the honeycomb in front of
wheels and thereby SD was improved. In addition, by main-
taining the crush space of the engine compartment and the
strength of the main longitudinal members as much as possible,
it became a realistic and feasible vehicle structure with compat-
ible structural crash performance in 15 km/h Offset Rigid
Barrier (ORB), 64 km/h Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB), and
56 km/h Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB) conditions.
With regards to the total injury risk indicator of the
occupant of the smaller vehicle, the injury rating score as
described in the latest MPDB procedure (Euro NCAP 2018)
was used. Because it is difficult to accurately predict injury
risk with a CAE, it was calculated using the multiple regres-
sion equation (Eq. (1)) derived from the physical test group
set of MPDB with THOR AM50. Vehicle deceleration and
cabin deformation, which are dominant factors for occupant
injury values, were used as explanatory variables.
IS ¼
0:367g
0:003D þ 21:423; (1)
where IS (point) is the injury score; g is the OLC of the vehicle;
and D (mm) is the average rearward displacement of the toe-
board and a cross-car beam attachment point on the A-pillar.
The correlation fitness is shown in Figure A6 (see online
supplement). The regression coefficient (R2) was 0.756 and
the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was 3.04 of the multiple
regression equation (Eq. (1)).
Thus, the injury score can be estimated solely from the
vehicle body crash characteristics with the precondition of
generic restraint systems of recent vehicles. Because this
method is not affected by the seatbelt, airbags, dummy seat-
ing, and time to fire, this method has an advantage of being
able to extract the differences purely caused by vehicle body
characteristics compared to the occupant response analysis
by the CAE (MADYMO etc.). For details, refer to Appendix
A (see online supplement).
The correlation between the larger vehicle in the MPDB
condition and occupant injury score of the smaller vehicle
in the C2C condition calculated by the above-mentioned
methods was verified by comparing the PP evaluations.
Physical crash test
In contrast to the CAE study, it is difficult to change the
vehicle body characteristics freely in physical tests. Hence, to
narrow down the purpose of how to clarify the sole influence
of the structural interaction evaluation of larger vehicles,
vehicle models used in this study were selected as follows:
 Larger Vehicle: A C-SED and a B-SUV were selected as the
combination with similar trolley OLC with different SD.
 Smaller vehicle: A B-HB was selected by the same logic
as the CAE study.
For each of the 3 models, the body structure and the
restraint device are equivalent to models sold in Europe.
Using these models, 3 MPDB tests and 2 sets of C2C
tests (B-HB vs. 2 larger vehicle models) were conducted as
shown in Table A1. In order to compare with the MPDB
tests, the C2C test condition was set to 50 km/h impact vel-
ocity for both vehicles with an overlap ratio of 50% of the
smaller vehicle. In addition, in accordance with the latest
MPDB procedure (Euro NCAP 2018), a THOR AM50 (with
a Hybrid-III leg) was placed in the DR seat, a Hybrid-III
AM50 was placed in the passenger seat, and a Q6 þ Q10
child ATD equivalent weight was placed in the rear seat.
Results
CAE study
An example of the calculation results in each step (refer to
Table A1) is described below. It consists of (1) the SD of a
larger vehicle in MPDB, (2) trolley OLC in MPDB, (3) cabin
deformation of the smaller vehicle in C2C, and (4) OLC of
the smaller vehicle in C2C. Cabin deformation was calcu-
lated as the average rearward deformation of the toeboard
and a cross-car beam attachment point on the A-pillar.
Vehicle models shown are from OEM-A for both larger and
smaller vehicles. The overlap ratio in the C2C is 50%. For
detailed results including other overlap ratios and OEM,
refer to Table A2 (see online supplement).
 Base (Nos. 2/10): (1) 129, (2) 33.0 g, (3) 132 mm, (4)
31.2 g.
 SD (Nos. 3/11): (1) 78, (2) 31.8 g, (3) 138 mm, (4) 30.7 g.
 M (Nos. 4/12): (1) 78, (2) 30.1 g, (3) 97 mm, (4) 30.2 g.
 S (Nos. 5/13): (1) 72, (2) 29.6 g, (3) 83 mm, (4) 30.0 g.
Calculated scores based on these result are shown in
Figures 2 and 3. The horizontal axis shows the PP score of
larger vehicles in the MPDB test, and the vertical axis shows
the DR injury score of the smaller vehicle in the C2C crash.
For both models, a tendency can be seen that the injury
score of smaller vehicle improved marginally with the

Figure 2. Relationship between MPDB and C2C (OEM-A).
Figure 3. Relationship between MPDB and C2C (OEM-B).
reduced SD structure. In contrast, it improves at the same
level as the PP score in cases where the mass and stiffness
were reduced. In addition, though the SD reduction struc-
ture is relatively effective in reducing the injury score at the
overlap ratio of 30%, its effect decreases as the overlap ratio
increases, and it shows the opposite effect at 100% overlap
in the OEM-A case, the cause of which can be explained as
follows. Elongated cross-members of the larger vehicle
engaged the load wheels of the smaller vehicle and thus new
load path was created and the energy-absorbing capability of
the frontal part of the vehicles was slightly improved at the
overlap ratio of 30% (Figure A7, see online supplement).
However, these effects were almost eliminated at 50% over-
lap (Figure A8, see online supplement). At 100% overlap,
the reinforced cross-member was improperly engaged
between the engines of the 2 vehicles and consequently
deteriorated the deceleration characteristics of the vehicles
(Figure A9, see online supplement).
Physical crash test
The results of MPDB tests are shown in Table 1. In line
with the intention of vehicle model selection, larger vehicles
TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION S81
Table 1. Summary of MPDB test results.
MPDB test
No. 1 B-SUV No. 2 B-HB No. 3 C-SED
Test weight (kg) 1,480 1,283 1,664
Vehicle OLC (g) 32.4 35.9 26.2
SD (mm) 92 62 53
Trolley OLC (g) 28.5 25.5 28.9
PP score
1.7
0.32
0.61
showed different SDs despite similar trolley OLCs and also
resulted in a difference in PP scores.
Figures A10 and A11 (see online supplement) show the
state of the vehicle after the C2C tests conducted using these
vehicles. Neither override effects nor fork effects were
observed in either case. Therefore, there is no issue to be
noted in structural interaction.
Occupant injury scores of smaller vehicles are shown in
Tables 2 and 3. For both cases, the total injury score was
decided by the DR side with the THOR dummy as the
occupant. Chest deflection and tibia index contributed to
the differences noted. This result shows a tendency oppos-
ite that of the PP score of larger vehicles; that is, the
larger vehicle with a relatively inferior PP evaluation
causes lower occupant injury risk to the opponent of the
smaller vehicle.
Comparing the vehicle body deceleration in C2C, the
amount of energy absorption in the front part of the vehicle
(engine compartment) is almost equal in the 2 tests (Figures
A12 and A13, see online supplement) and hence it is con-
sidered that there was no significant difference in structural
interaction. In addition, deceleration (OLC) and cabin
deformation, which were influential characteristics of the
vehicle body with regard to occupant injury, were also
almost equal, as shown below. For details, refer to Table A3
(see online supplement).
 vs. C-SED: OLC ¼ 27.8 g, cabin deformation ¼ 33 mm.
 vs. B-SUV: OLC ¼ 27.6 g, cabin deformation ¼ 27 mm.
A difference was observed in the results for the occupant
restraint system. Figure A14 (see online supplement) shows
the belt tension force data of the B-HB. In the case of colli-
sion with the C-SED, the start time of the occupant restraint
is about 7 ms later and resulted in more pelvis movement.
Consequently, the lap belt tension increased and caused a
difference in chest deflection.
The relationship between the injury score obtained in
this test series and the estimated value calculated by Eq. (1)
is plotted in Figure A6. These 2 results correlated closely
and the validity of Eq. (1) was thus confirmed.
A comparison of deceleration curves of the smaller
vehicle in MPDB and C2C tests is shown in Figure A15 (see
online supplement). The OLC in the MPDB was 35.9 g,
whereas in the C2C condition, it was 27.6 g for the B-SUV
and 27.8 g for the C-SED. In other words, although the
weight of MPDB trolley is equivalent to the test weight of
the B-SUV, the induced deceleration for the smaller vehicle
was more severe.
S82 T. WATANABE ET AL.

Table 2. Occupant injury scores of a B-HB (No. 4: vs. B-SUV).a

Upper Lower Scoring (points) Driver data Points per value Points per body region
HIC15 700 500 4 277.5 4.00 4.00
SUFEHM — — — —
Fx 3.1 1.9 0.49 4.00
Fz 3.3 2.7 1.02 4.00
My 57 42 7.42 4.00
Chest D/Rmax 60 35 4 47.11 2.06 2.06
Abdomen compression 88 — 41.53 4.00
V.C. 1 0.5 — —
Left acetabulum 4.1 3.28 4 2.22 4.00 4.00
Right acetabulum 4.1 3.28 2.07 4.00
Left femur 9.07 3.8 1.26 4.00
Right femur 9.07 3.8 0.39 4.00
Knee shear displacement 15 6 0.10 4.00
Left tibia index 1.3 0.4 4 0.75 2.44 0.88
Right tibia index 1.3 0.4 0.48 3.64
Left tibia compression 8 2 2.65 3.56
Right tibia compression 8 2 2.25 3.83
Pedal rearward displacement 200 100 178 0.88
Total 10.94
HIC ¼ head injury criterion; SUFEHM ¼ Strasbourg University Finite Element Head Model; V.C. ¼ Viscous Criterion.
a

Table 3. Occupant injury scores of a B-HB (No. 5: vs. C-SED).

Upper Lower Scoring (points) Driver data Points per value Points per body region
HIC15 700 500 4 449.8 4.00 4.00
SUFEHM — — — —
Fx 3.1 1.9 0.59 4.00
Fz 3.3 2.7 1.41 4.00
My 57 42 8.36 4.00
Chest D/Rmax 60 35 4 49.93 1.61 1.61
Abdomen compression 88 — 44.99 4.00
V.C. 1 0.5 — —
Left acetabulum 4.1 3.28 4 2.75 4.00 4.00
Right acetabulum 4.1 3.28 2.25 4.00
Left femur 9.07 3.8 1.68 4.00
Right femur 9.07 3.8 0.54 4.00
Knee shear displacement 15 6 0.96 4.00
Left tibia index 1.3 0.4 4 1.15 0.66 0.66
Right tibia index 1.3 0.4 0.47 3.69
Left tibia compression 8 2 1.56 4.00
Right tibia compression 8 2 1.89 4.00
Pedal rearward displacement 200 100 132 2.72
Total 10.27
HIC ¼ head injury criterion; SUFEHM ¼ Strasbourg University Finite Element Head Model; V.C. ¼ Viscous Criterion.
a

Discussion These facts suggest the following:

With the Euro NCAP MPDB test method, research on com-
patibility that lasted over 20 years reached a new stage.
In this research, the amount of PP performance improve-
ment of a large car in a C2C collision was investigated using
MPDB test parameters. As a result, with respect to the
vehicle models and test conditions selected in this study, no
clear correlation between SD and opponent occupant inju-
ries was observed in both CAE and physical tests. The fac-
tors were further disassembled and the correlation between
SD, vehicle deceleration, and cabin deformation was further
reinvestigated, but no clear correlation was found (Figures
A16 and A17, see online supplement).
On the other hand, a higher correlation between the trol-
ley OLC and vehicle deceleration and cabin deformation of
the opponent vehicle in C2C was observed in both the CAE
study and physical tests (Figures A18 and A19, see
online supplement).
1. There is room for further improvement in the SD
evaluation procedure to be used as an indicator of
structural interaction.
2. MPDB trolley-related OLC is a reasonably appropriate
indicator of stiffness matching and mass ratio.
For further improvement related to SD, both evaluation
metrics and the threshold values can be considered. There
is a possibility that the resolution required to properly
determine the rating under the current threshold and slid-
ing scale is insufficient for the current SD metric.
However, even if the resolution is insufficient, there are
cases where it can be utilized as on–off evaluation by
proper adjustment of the threshold value. Future research
will be needed in order to determine which one should
be improved.

In addition, from the viewpoint of SP performance, the
deceleration given by the MPDB trolley to the B-HB selected
this time was 1.3 times stricter in OLC than that in C2C
conditions with the car having a similar weight as the
MPDB trolley. This suggests that the balance between the
weight and stiffness of the MPDB could be different from
that of the actual vehicles. Thus, the burden on smaller
vehicles in the MPDB test could be stricter than that in the
actual C2C collision.
As shown in Figure A15, MPDB seems to well repro-
duce the vehicle deformation mode in C2C because the 3
deceleration stroke waveforms of the B-HB shown on the
right side are similar but the position and height of the
peak are different. The idle stroke brought by the space
around the bumper of vehicles produced the stroke differ-
ence of the first peak (72 mm), but the stroke difference
at the maximum peak (139 mm) and the difference in
height (1.35 times) cannot be explained only by that.
Comparing the deceleration crash pulse of the MPDB trol-
ley and C-SED/B-SUV shown on the left side, the second
layer (progressive part) of the PDB honeycomb is consid-
ered to be stiffer than that of the vehicle body at the
same stroke. This could increase the maximum deceler-
ation of the B-HB, shorten the absolute stroke with
respect to the ground, and possibly cause a severe OLC.
For details of vehicle body crash characteristics of the B-
HB in C2C and MPDB conditions, refer to Appendix B
(see online supplement).
However, because the above series of results might
change depending on the vehicle models and the test condi-
tions (velocity, overlap ratio, etc.), careful consideration is
required to in order to draw any concrete conclusions.
Further research activity is expected to be published in
order to further enrich this test method to be more effective
in the real world in the near future.
Acknowledgments
This article was written on behalf of the members of the Frontal
Impact Working Group of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers
Association, Inc. (JAMA). Members from Euro-NCAP FI-WG and
ACEA EG-FI provided various opportunities for meaningful
TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION S83
discussions, for which the authors are grateful. There are no concerns
about intellectual property.
Funding
The physical crash tests in this study were funded by JAMA.
References
del Pozo de Dios E, Lazaro I, Delannoy P, Thomson, Versmissen T,
van Nunen E. Development of a structural interaction assessment
criteria using progressive deformable barrier data. Paper presented
at: 23rd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety
of Vehicles (ESV); May 27–30, 2013; Seoul, South Korea.
Edwards M, Cuerden R, Price J, Broughton J. Estimation of the bene-
fits for potential options to modify UNECE regulation number 94 to
improve a car’s compatibility. Paper presented at: 5th International
Conference at Expert Symposium Accident Research (ESAR);
September 7–8, 2012; Hannover, Germany.
European New Car Assessment Programme. Assessment Protocol Adult
Occupant Protection Version 9.0. 2018. Available at: https://cdn.
euroncap.com/media/41761/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-aop-v90.
201811081418161176.pdf. Accessed November 9, 2018.
European New Car Assessment Programme. MPDB Frontal Impact Testing
Protocol Version 1.0. 2018. Available at: https://cdn.euroncap.com/
media/41747/euro-ncap-mpdb-testing-protocol-v10.201811061520121613.
pdf. Accessed November 9, 2018.
European New Car Assessment Programme. Technical Bulletin (TB
027) Compatibility Assessment Version 1.0. 2018. Available at:
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/41786/tb-027-compatiblity-assessment-
v10.201811161304153907.pdf. Accessed November 9, 2018.
Johannsen H, Adolph T, Edwards M, Lazaro I, Versmissen T,
Thomson R. Proposal for a frontal impact and compatibility assess-
ment approach based on the European FIMCAR Project. Traffic Inj
Prev. 2013;14:S105–S115
Johannsen H, Thomson R. Compatibility Assessment: can the current
ADAC MPDB test properly assess compatibility? Paper presented at:
2016 International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury
(IRCOBI); September 14–16, 2016; Malaga, Spain
K€ubler L, Gargallo S, Els€aßer K. Frontal crash pulse assessment with
application to occupant safety. ATZ Worldwide. 2009;111:12–13.
Sandner V, Ellway J, van Ratingen M. EURO NCAP Frontal Impact
Working Group report. Paper presented at: 25th International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV);
June 5–8, 2017; Detroit, MI.
Sandner V, Ratzek A. MPDB—mobile offset progressive deformable
barrier. Paper presented at: 24th International Technical Conference
on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV); June 8–11, 2015;
Gothenburg, Sweden.