Transcript 5.4 Direction for Integrated Safety Satandards in Korea_V2_korea

Title: How to Make Integrated safety
Standards In Korea
Presenter’s Name: Seongkyun Cho
Economy: Republic of KOREA
Contents
1. History
2. Comparison among nations
3. How to make integrated standards
-2-
1. History
The first automotive MOU between Korea and U.S. in 1995
- “US-Korea Automotive Memorandum of Understanding to
increase the market access for foreign passenger vehicles in the
republic of Korea”
- 28 US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards(FMVSS) deemed
to be equivalents to the corresponding Korean Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (KMVSS)
The agreement for trades between Korea and EU in 1996
- “Framework agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the
Republic of Korea, on the one hand, and the European
Community, on the other hand”
- 26 UNECE regulations introduced as equivalent to the
corresponding Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (KMVSS)
-3-
1. History
Equivalent table in Korean regulation in 1997
- When an imported vehicle complies with 28 FMVSSs at the
same time or with 26 UNECE at the same time, it is regarded as
complying with the set of corresponding KMVSSs
- Assumption: only small amount of motor vehicles imported
The second Automotive MOU with US in 1998
- Total 33 FMVSSs and 6 UNECE introduced as equivalents to the
corresponding KMVSSs
- Threshold to be exempted from compliance test increased from
1,000 to 2,000 per a model
• Assumption: only small amount of motor vehicles imported
- Introduction of self certification in 2003
-4-
1. History
Free Trade Agreement between Korea and EU in 2011
- Equivalency was enlarged from 26 UNECE to 32 UNECE for EU originating
vehicles
Free Trade Agreement between Korea and US in 2012
- When a US originating vehicles complies with the whole set of FMVSS, it is
regarded as complying with whole set of KMVSS until 25,000 vehicles per a
manufacturer
→ As for identical items, KMVSS, FMVSS, UNECE exist
at the same time in the same territory
-5-
2. Comparison among nations
One of the biggest difference-> Passive safety
- Collision and impacts
Passenger
Car’s
protection
of
passengers
UNECE
KMVSS
FMVSS
1.Offset collision (40%)
with 56km/h
2.HIC(Head Injury
Criteria): 1,000(36ms)
- Neck injury: axis 3.3kN,
shear 3.1kN, Bending
Moment 57NM
- Chest: deformation
50mm, deformation
velocity 1m/s
- Thigh: 9.07kN
- Knee deformation:
15mm
3. Using 50% male
dummy
4. All tests with belt
1. Frontal collision
with 48.3km/h
2. HIC: 1,000(36MS)
- Chest: deformation
76.2mm,
acceleration 60g
- Thigh: 1,020kg
3. Using 50% male
dummy
4. All tests with belt
1. 11 collisions
- Fontal, left/right inclinations
with 32km/h/40km/h and with
50% male dummy and without
belt
- Frontal with 56km/h with
50%
male dummy with belt
Frontal with 32km/h with 5%
female dummy without belt
Frontal with 40km/h with 5%
female dummy without belt
Offset (40%) with 5% female
with belt
Frontal with 56km/h with 5%
female with belt
2. Static Airbag expansion 7 tests
…..Wawoo
-6-
2. Comparison among nations
# of traffic accidents per 10,000 vehicles
- (Average) EU : 49.7, Korea: 139, US: 83.9
- (T-test) considering equivalency of variance or pair wise, 1996-2010
• (Korea-US) significant difference, p=9.27 E-06, 9.95 E-09(pair)
• (Korea-EU) significant difference, p=1.84E-08, 1.52 E-09(pair)
• (US-EU) significant difference, p=8.31E-07, 2.96 E-10(pair)
# of traffic accidents per a billion kms (more accurate)
i.e) 2 cars per a family v.s. 1 cars per a family…a family usually uses 1 car..
- (Average) EU: 565.2, Korea: 830.5, US: 424.1
- (T-test) considering equivalency of variance or pair wise, 1996-2010
• (Korea-US) significant difference, p=1.4 E-04, 2.18 E-05(pair)
• (Korea-EU) significant?, p=0.0081, 0.13(pair)
• (US-EU) significant ?, p=0.033, 0.067(pair)
-7-
2. Comparison among nations
# Comparison of passive safety
How to measure: the death toll in the vehicles per unit number of accidents
- (Average) EU : 2.02, Korea: 0.644, US: 1.1
- (T-test) considering equivalency of variance or pair wise, 2002-2010
• (Korea-US) significant difference, p=1.9 E-05, 9.95 E-09(pair)
• (Korea-EU) significant difference, p=1.84E-08, 1.52 E-09(pair)
• (US-EU) significant difference, p=1.9 E-05, 0.0005(pair)
→ Lessons from Here!!!
- UNECE in passive safety needs to be reviewed
- KMVSS has some advantages in passive safety?
• Anyway, we have more items in performance testing criteria
- Needs for more investigation!!
-8-
3. How to make integrated safety standard
Principle 1: Not create new standards…
- (Range) performance test criteria for passenger car
- (Assembly) Select most appropriate parts from UNECE, FMVSS or KMVSS in a
item in order to make an integrated standard for the item
- (Reason) too expensive to make new standards…and UNECE/FMVSS are also
regarded as global standards…
Principle 2: Based on the traffic accidents analysis
- What kinds of accidents caused what kinds of damage?
- What kinds of standards protected passengers from what kinds of accidents
- Have the standards prevented the relevant damage?
- (How) Random sampling from the insurance companies records
• Answers to what should have been enforced in the current KMVSS to have
relieved the injured damage…
-9-
3. How to make integrated safety standard
Detailed methodology
- (Multiple regression analysis) Y=degree of damage (dependent variable), Xi=i th
standard’s relevant influence(independent variable)
- (Relevant influence) Likert type scale in 5 steps, from ‘Very Strong need to be
enforced’ to ‘nothing to do with’
• (Very Strong need to be enforced) the standard should be stronger than the
strongest among UNECE/FMVSS/KMVSS in the item
• (Strong need to be enforced) stronger than the middle level’s one among
UNECE/FMVSS/KMVSS
• (Need to be enforced) stronger than the lowest level among
• (Related but not sure if enforcement is needed)
• (Never related)
 We can see the pattern of Korean accidents with relative significance of each
safety standard!!
- 10 -
3. How to make integrated safety standard
Injury of the driver
- Fracture of Foot Joint
- Sprain of Lumbar spine
- Bruise of right knee
- Sprain of Cervical spine
- Total 6 weeks displaced!
 Protection of passenger from
the frontal /side collision needs
to be enforced than KMVSS
because the mechanism of
collision is beyond the
KMVSS’s test model. In
addition, it needs to be enforced
than FMVSS because FMVSS
does not deal with the foot
injury ---- 5 in one of frontal
or side collision test criteria
- 11 -
Thank you very much ! !
- 12 -