DOT HS 810 863 November 2007

DOT-VNTSC-NHTSA-07-02 

A Safety Roadmap for Future

Plastics and Composites 

Intensive Vehicles

This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship 

of the Department of Transportation in the interest of 

information exchange. The United States 

Government assumes no liability for its contents or 

use thereof. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 
iii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

 OMB No. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 

November 2007 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

Final Report 

November 2007 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

A Safety Roadmap for Future Plastics and Composites Intensive Vehicles 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Aviva Brecher, Ph.D., National Technical Expert, Policy and Planning Division 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

HS53/DG066 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Advanced Safety Technology Division 

55 Broadway 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

DOT-VNTSC-NHTSA-07-02 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

DOT HS 810 863 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, RITA, U.S. DOT 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

This document is available free of charge from the NHTSA Web site at: 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/Crashworthiness/4680P

CIV_SafetyRoadmap-Nov2007.pdf

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

This report summarizes the approach, activities, and results of a study to evaluate the potential safety benefits of Plastics and 

Composites Intensive Vehicles (PCIVs), to enable their deployment by 2020. The main goals were to review and assess the state 

of knowledge in order to identify gaps, key research needs, and the challenges and opportunities for safety enhancements. PCIVrelated safety enhancements that could benefit an aging driver population were selected as a priority research focus. The Situation 

Analysis was conducted, based on a review of technical literature, national research efforts on automotive light-weighting and the 

crash safety performance of advanced materials, complemented by a focused survey of diverse subject matter experts. The 

analysis identified near-term, midterm, and long-term research needs and priorities to facilitate future PCIV deployment. A PCIV 

Safety Roadmap was developed, which synthesizes the study findings and outlines follow-on research and milestones to measure 

progress towards the design, development and technology integration of fuel-efficient and safe PCIVs by 2020. 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

104 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

Automotive crash safety; plastics and composites intensive vehicles (PCIVs); light-weighting 

advanced materials; older driver safety; technology integration roadmap; public private 

partnership; crash safety standards; integrated safety strategy 16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF REPORT 

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

Unlimited 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 

298-102 
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s (USDOT) Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 

provides research, evaluation, and technical analysis support to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Office of Vehicle Safety Research to assess, develop, and 

implement research strategies for improving vehicle safety. 

In November 2005, the American Plastics Council, in cooperation with NHTSA, sponsored a 

Technology Integration Workshop on “Enhancing Future Automotive Safety With Plastics,” and 

published its findings in a Technology Integration Report in May 2006. The major opportunities 

and challenges for enhancing the safety of next generation vehicles using advanced plastics and 

composite materials in structural and safety applications were identified, as well as the need to 

develop a safety roadmap. The FY06 Transportation Appropriations Senate Report 109-109 

provided both the resources and the guidance to NHTSA to explore the potential safety benefits 

of light-weight, fuel efficient Plastics and Composites Intensive Vehicles (PCIVs), and develop 

the foundation for research cooperation with the Department of Energy, industry, universities 

and other safety stakeholders. NHTSA tasked the Volpe Center to assess the current state of 

knowledge and emerging safety technology opportunities to enhance the crash safety of PCIVs 

by 2020, with special emphasis on improved protection of older drivers and occupants. 

This report summarizes the results of a foundational study undertaken in support of NHTSA to 

identify the research needs and priorities in the near-, mid-, and long-term, as well as the 

challenges and opportunities to the development and commercial deployment of light-weight, 

plastics-rich, and fuel efficient vehicles by 2020 that would be designed to comply with all 

applicable crash safety standards and regulatory requirements. Taking an international and 

national perspective, the Volpe Center reviewed relevant literature, interviewed subject matter 

experts and ongoing research, developed a PCIV 2020 safety Vision, and identified the major 

R&D needs, challenges, and opportunities to develop a roadmap for PCIV safety. 

The primary author of the report is Dr. Aviva Brecher, Principal Investigator, with technical 

support from Dr. John Brewer, as the expert on materials science, composites testing standards, 

and vehicle crash safety. Other Volpe Center managers and colleagues who contributed to many 

aspects of this study and provided technical review and quality assurance include: Kevin Green, 

Chief of Advanced Safety Technology Division; Dr. Wassim Najm for issues related to NHTSA 

integrated safety technologies and strategy; Samuel Toma and Emily Lumley for assistance with 

graphics, report formatting, and organization; and John O’Donnell, Director, and Robert Dorer, 

Deputy Director, Office of Surface Transportation, for their continued support and guidance. 

Special appreciation is due to Dr. William Thomas Hollowell, NHTSA Director of Vehicle 

Safety Research, and Sanjay Patel, NHTSA project manager, for their effective oversight and 

timely review. Dr. David Smith, Chief, Structures and Restraints Research Division, and Barbara 

Hennessey, manager of the Hydrogen Vehicle Safety Research Program are thanked for 

providing technical support, feedback, and guidance as needed. Thanks are due to all NHTSA 

regulatory, policy, and technical staff who conducted an agency-wide review and provided 

helpful comments to improve this report. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

iv
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The American Chemistry Council- Plastics Division (ACC-PD) industry partners supported this 

safety-oriented study with insights from previous technology integration roadmaps, and provided 

technical review comments and inputs throughout the process. They are Dr. Michael Fisher, 

Technical Director, Mr. James Kolb, Communications Director of the Automotive Center, and 

Ms. Suzanne Cole, President of Cole and Associates, Inc. The Volpe team made several 

presentations to NHTSA and ACC-PD collaborators and engaged them in regular telephone 

conferences to obtain feedback. 

Valuable inputs are gratefully acknowledged from the Department of Energy (DOE) managers of 

the FreedomCAR partnership, the DOE National Laboratories Research program managers, the 

industry principals involved in cooperative USCAR R&D efforts, and Subject Matter Experts 

(SMEs) from professional, standards, and trade associations, industry, and academia. Those who 

agreed to be interviewed and generously shared their insights and publications are listed by name 

in Appendix 4.2 and cited or mentioned in footnotes. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

v 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AARP American Association For Retired Persons 

ABS Antilock Brake Systems 

ACC Automotive Composites Consortium, affiliated with USCAR 

ACC-PD American Chemistry Council- Plastics Division 

ACE Advanced Compatibility Engineering 

AFVs Alternative Fueled Vehicles 

APC American Plastics Council (renamed ACC-PD) 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ATP Advanced Technology Program 

AXP Automotive X-Prize 

BIW Body In White 

BSP Best Safety Practices 

CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

CCC Chrysler Composite Car 

CEM Crash Energy Management 

CEMWG Crash Energy Management Working Group 

CFRC Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composites 

CIREN Crash Injury Research And Engineering Network 

CoE Centers of Excellence 

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Program Agency 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOE Department of Energy 

EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility 

EOL End-of-Life 

ESC Electronic Stability Control 

EU European Union 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCVs Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles 

FCVT FreedomCar And Vehicle Technologies 

FFVs Flexi-Fueled Vehicles 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 

HPS High Performance Steel 

HPSS High Performance Stainless Steels 

HUD Heads Up Displays 

IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems 

IVBSS Integrated Vehicle Based Safety Systems 

MEP Manufacturing Extension Program 

METI Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

vi 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NIST National Institute Of Standards And Technology 

NRC National Research Council 

NRL Naval Research Lab 

OEMs Original Equipment Manufacturers 

OSRP Occupant Safety Research Partnership 

PCIV Plastics And Composite Intensive Vehicles 

P3 Public-Private Partnership 

PMC Polymer Matrix Composites 

PNGV Partnership For A New Generation Of Vehicles 

PNNL and ORNL Department Of Energy Labs 

R&D Research And Development 

RD&T Research, Development, And Technology 

RDT&E Research, Development, Test, And Evaluation 

RFI Radio Frequency Interference 

RITA Research And Innovative Technology Administration 

SAE Society Of Automotive Engineers 

SEAS Secondary Energy Absorbing Structures 

SPE Society Of Plastics Engineers 

T&E Test And Evaluation 

TARDEC Tank Automotive Research, Development, And Engineering Center 

TECABS Technologies For Carbon Fiber Reinforced Modular Automotive 

Body Structures 

TVMT Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled 

ULSAB Ultra Light Steel Auto-body 

USAMP US Automotive Materials Partnership 

USCAR United States Council For Automotive Research 

USDOT U.S. Department Of Transportation 

UTC University Transportation Centers 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

VRHS Variable Ride-Height Suspension 

VRP Vehicle Recycling Partnership 

WHIPS Whiplash Protection System 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION............................................................................1

1.1 THE 2006 NHTSA PCIV RESEARCH INITIATIVE AND NATIONAL 

SUSTAINABILITY GOALS................................................................................... 1

1.2 THE AMERICAN PLASTICS COUNCIL WORKSHOP: RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

ENHANCE PCIV SAFETY.................................................................................. 5

1.3 PROJECT SCOPE AND TECHNICAL APPROACH ................................................... 6

2. A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY ...................................................................................8

2.1 RESOURCES FOR A 2020 PCIV SAFETY VISION STATEMENT .............................. 8

2.1.1 The Department of Transportation (DOT) Strategic Plan, 2006-

2011 ..................................................................................................... 8

2.1.2 The DOT Strategic Research Plan ....................................................... 8

2.1.3 NHTSA Vehicle Safety Research Plans and Programs........................ 9

2.1.4 The NHTSA Integrated Vehicle Safety Research Strategy................. 10

2.2 THE NEED TO ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF FUTURE VEHICLES AND OLDER 

DRIVER PROTECTION ..................................................................................... 12

2.2.1 Crash protection needs of older drivers and occupants...................... 12

2.2.2 The need to capture the potential safety benefits of PCIVs................ 17

2.3 VISION STATEMENT FOR PCIV SAFETY........................................................... 19

2.3.1 Resources for PCIV Safety Vision...................................................... 19

2.3.2 PCIV Safety Research Goals and Objectives..................................... 20

2.3.3 Performance Metrics and Milestones ................................................. 20

3. SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS................................................22

3.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH.................................................................................. 22

3.2 THE ACC-PD SAFETY PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE PCIVS................................... 23

3.3 EXISTING RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS RELEVANT TO PCIV SAFETY ................... 25

3.3.1 DOT research relevant to automotive composites and safety 

performance ....................................................................................... 25

3.3.1.1 NHTSA Research Programs.................................................... 25

3.3.1.2 FAA Research Programs......................................................... 26

3.3.1.3 FHWA Research Programs ..................................................... 27

3.3.1.4 FTA Research Programs ......................................................... 27

3.3.1.5 The DOT University Transportation Centers............................ 27

3.3.1.6 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program ............ 27

3.3.2 Public-Private Partnership (P3) Research and Development 

Programs............................................................................................ 27

3.3.3 Other Federal R&D Related to PCIV .................................................. 30

3.4 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR AUTOMOTIVE COMPOSITES 

CRASHWORTHINESS...................................................................................... 31

3.4.1 The Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE) ................. 31

3.4.2 The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)................... 32

3.4.3 ISO TC 61/SC 13................................................................................ 33

3.5 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS ON AUTOMOTIVE 

LIGHT-WEIGHTING WITH COMPOSITES............................................................. 33

3.5.1 European Union Research and Development Partnerships ............... 33

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3.5.2 Research and Development Partnerships in Japan ........................... 34

3.6 CURRENT TRENDS, BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR 

AUTOMOTIVE COMPOSITES INTEGRATION........................................................ 35

3.6.1 Emerging PCIV Concepts and Best Safety Practices (BSP) .............. 35

3.6.2 Lessons Learned................................................................................ 38

4. SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS............................................41

4.1 THE EXPERTS’ SURVEY DESIGN..................................................................... 41

4.2 SUMMARY OF EXPERTS’ INPUTS ON PCIV SAFETY PRIORITIES ......................... 42

4.2.1 Knowledge Gaps in Predicting the Crash Performance of 

Plastics and Composites: ................................................................... 42

4.2.2 Research Needs to Predict the Crashworthiness of Automotive 

Composites ........................................................................................ 44

4.2.3 The American Chemistry Council-Plastics Division Survey ................ 44

4.2.4 Priority Research Opportunities for Future PCIV Safety..................... 45

4.2.5 Research Needs For Occupant Safety............................................... 46

4.2.6 Barriers and challenges to PCIV development and deployment......... 47

4.2.7 Suggested Strategies to Overcome Barriers to PCIV Safety 

Deployment ........................................................................................ 48

4.2.8 Suggested NHTSA Role and Opportunities for PCIV Safety 

R&D.................................................................................................... 48

4.3 RECOMMENDED TOP-3 PCIV SAFETY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND 

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION PRIORITIES FOR ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT ............ 49

4.3.1 Near-term Priorities (3-5 years) for Research, Development and 

Technology......................................................................................... 49

4.3.2 Mid-term priorities (5-10 years) for Test and Evaluation..................... 50

4.3.3 Long-term priorities (10-15 years) ...................................................... 50

5. SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS....................................................................51

5.1 THE 2020 PCIV SAFETY ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ........................ 51

5.2 BUILDING ON EXISTING ROADMAPS FOR PCIV SAFETY ROADMAP..................... 52

5.2.1 The DOE/USCAR and FreedomCAR Roadmaps............................... 52

5.2.2 The NHTSA Integrated Safety Strategy and Timeline ........................ 61

5.2.3 Extending the ACC-PD Automotive Technology Roadmaps to 

PCIV Safety........................................................................................ 61

5.3 TRANSLATING R&D PRIORITIES INTO PCIV SAFETY ROADMAPS ....................... 63

5.4 POTENTIAL NHTSA ROLE IN SAFETY ASSURANCE OF FUTURE PCIVS .............. 63

6. APPENDICES........................................................................................................................70

6.1 APPENDIX 3.1- PRIORITY CROSSCUT SAFETY ISSUES IN THE APC

WORKSHOP REPORT ENHANCING AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY WITH

PLASTICS.................................................................................................. 70

6.2 APPENDIX 4.1- EXPERTS INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................................... 73

6.3 APPENDIX 4.2-LIST OF EXPERTS INTERVIEWED ..................................... 75

7. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................76

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

ix
LIST OF FIGURES & INDEX OF TABLES 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1: Comparative data on materials substitution options for light-weighting vehicles to 

improve fuel efficiency (from Carpenter, 2006)........................................................................5

Figure 2-1: NHTSA Strategic R&D programs support its safety regulatory mission. ..................11

Figure 2-2: NHTSA Vision Statement (W.T. Hollowell “Overview of NHTSA Research for 

Enhancing Safety,” 11.10. 2006, Presentation to MADYMO International Users Meeting 

in Detroit, MI.).........................................................................................................................11

Figure 2-3: From the U.S. Bureau of Census special report “65+ in the United States: 2005”.....12

Figure 2-4: Total fatalities and normalized rates for the over 70 drivers versus time...................14

Figure 2-5: Projected totals of aging “baby boomers” by age group, to 2050...............................15

Figure 2-6: MIT Age Lab forecasts a 35% increase in VMT for aging drivers by 2020. .............16

Figure 2-7: From the Dec. 19, 2006 IIHS Status Report newsletter, “Bigger is generally 

better” shows that the risk of crash fatality is higher for lighter, more fuel-efficient 

vehicles at present....................................................................................................................18

Figure 3-1 : DOE Summary of advantages for Carbon Fiber Polymer Composites in 

automotive and aerospace structural applications and their relatively high crash Energy 

Absorption (EA), when compared with alternative light weighting materials (see DOE/ 

USCAR references). ................................................................................................................31

Figure 5-1: Timeline, performers and roles for the DOE FreedomCAR Automotive 

Composites Consortium partnership for materials technology development..........................55

Figure 5-2 : Lightweight and high strength materials for applications to structures and 

propulsion in next generation vehicles are an explicit objective under the FreedomCAR 

and Fuel Partnerships and the 21st Century Truck Partnership...............................................56

Figure 5-3: Depiction of the USCAR strategy to model, develop, integrate, verify, and 

validate emerging lightweight, high-strength materials and technologies for a future 

reference fuel-efficient vehicle. ...............................................................................................57

Figure 5-4: Figure from “Driving Technology: A Transition Strategy to Enhance Energy 

Security,” DOE/EERE May 26, 2006. Safety is an implicit “utility” in every step on the 

ladder depicting the progress towards energy efficient FCVs over time.................................58

Figure 5-4a: Selected Roadmaps for automotive composite materials from “FreedomCAR 

and FreedomFUEL Partnership: Materials Technology Roadmap,” Oct 2006. ......................59

Figure 5-4b: The structural strength of glazing plastics and composite materials for vehicle 

windows and roofs are very important to occupant safety in crashes (e.g., to prevent 

ejection in rollovers). ...............................................................................................................60

Figure 5-5: Summary of research and development priorities for plastics and composites in 

automotive safety applications, as identified in the May 2006 ACC-PD report. ....................64

Figure 5-6: A and B- NHTSA technology integration timeline for active and passive safety 

technologies.. ...........................................................................................................................65

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

x 
LIST OF FIGURES & INDEX OF TABLES 

Figure 5-7 : Roadmap for Predictive Engineering tools needed to model crash safety 

performance of plastics-intensive vehicles. This is a key mid-term (5-10 years) research 

and technology priority identified in this study. ......................................................................66

Figure 5-8: Timeline for Research and Technology Integration for PCIV Safety Roadmap ........67

Figure 5-9: Roadmap to PCIV Safety............................................................................................68

Figure 5-10: Strategic Priority Activities Leading to PCIV Safety Assurance by 2020 ...............69

INDEX OF TABLES 

Table 3.1: ACC-PD Priority Technology Integration Activities...................................................24

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

xi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Transportation Appropriations Senate Report 109-109 issued guidance to NHTSA to use 

$250,000 of FY2006 money to “begin development of a program to examine the possible safety 

benefits of lightweight plastic and composite intensive vehicle (PCIV),” in cooperation with the 

Department of Energy (DOE) and industry and other automotive safety stakeholders. 

NHTSA requested that the Volpe Center conduct a research study in FY2007 to assess the state 

of knowledge and emerging safety technology opportunities for assuring the crash safety of 

future lightweight vehicles, including PCIVs, with special emphasis on the improved protection 

of older drivers and occupants. The project built on the recommendations of a Technology 

Integration Report and Prospectus (May 2006) summarizing the workshop on Enhancing Future 

Automotive Safety with Plastics (Nov. 2005), which was sponsored by the American Plastics 

Council (APC)1

 in partnership with NHTSA. 

The major goals addressed by this study were to: 

• Develop a vision statement for 2020 PCIV Safety, with special focus on enhanced crash 

safety of older drivers, and identify performance goals, metrics, and milestones. This 

vision is consistent with national priorities for vehicle fuel efficiency, environmental 

preservation, and safety. It is also synergistic with the NHTSA integrated vehicle safety 

strategy and its vehicle safety research program (Chapter 2). 

• Conduct a structured situation analysis of the automotive plastics and composites in 

safety applications to identify knowledge gaps, high-priority research needs, barriers to 

PCIV deployment, and strategies to overcome them. The analysis was based on: 

o The review and evaluation of safety-related components of national and global 

automotive light-weighting research, as well as technology development and 

integration efforts (Chapter 3); and 

o Conduct, analyze, and summarize focused interviews of leading experts on crash 

safety and automotive materials and designs, representing diverse automotive safety 

stakeholders (Federal agencies and laboratories, industry, academia, technical 

standards organizations, and nonprofits) (Chapter 4); 

• Develop a PCIV safety research and technology roadmap to 2020, which highlights nearterm (1-3 years), mid-term (3-5 years) and long-term (to 2020) R&D priorities and 

milestones. The safety roadmap complements and extends the Plastics in Automotive 

Markets: Vision and Technology Roadmap (APC, 2002) to enable PCIV safety design 

verification by 2020 (Chapter 5). 

This study identified the major opportunities and challenges for enhancing the safety of next 

generation vehicles using advanced plastics and composite materials, and developed a PCIV 

Safety Research Roadmap, in order to facilitate the conceptual design, development, and 

deployment of lightweight, fuel-efficient and environmentally sustainable PCIV which meet or 

exceed NHTSA crash-safety standards.

 

1

 APC became the American Chemistry Council - Plastics Division (ACC-PD) in December 2006. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

xii
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

1.1 The 2006 NHTSA PCIV Research Initiative and 

National Sustainability Goals 

This section provides the background and rationale for this study, undertaken on behalf of 

the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) in response to Congressional 

guidance. The FY06 Transportation Appropriations Senate Report 109-109 included the 

requirement for NHTSA to initiate a foundational cooperative research program on the 

potential safety benefits of using plastics and composites in the emerging lighter weight, 

more fuel efficient vehicles: 

“Plastic and Composite Vehicles—The Committee recognizes the development of 

plastics and polymer-based composites in the automotive industry and the important role 

these technologies play in improving and enabling automobile performance. The 

Committee recommends $250,000 to begin development of a program to examine 

possible safety benefits of lightweight Plastics and Composites Intensive Vehicles 

[PCIVs]. The program will help facilitate a foundation between DOT, the Department of 

Energy and industry stakeholders for the development of safety-centered approaches for 

future light-weight automotive design.”

Congress did not define the plastics content of future PCIVs, but a substantially higher 

content than at present is necessary to reduce vehicle mass so as to double fuel 

efficiency.2

On January 23, 2007, in the State of the Union address3

, the President launched a new 

energy “20 in 10” initiative, to reduce domestic gasoline consumption by 20 percent over 

the next 10 years, through a combination of higher vehicle fuel efficiency and greater use 

of renewable fuels like ethanol. The new initiative specifies that CAFE standards for 

passenger vehicles increase 4 percent annually to achieve the 40 mpg fuel efficiency goal 

by 2017. NHTSA Administrator Nicole Nason addressed the CAFE policy and 

implementation challenges in her testimony.4

 Proposed pending legislation will enable 

NHTSA to develop the regulatory framework for improving the fleet-wide fuel efficiency 

in a manner which is consistent with its public safety goals. 

 

2

 The FreedomCAR goal is to “Dramatically reduce oil consumption by improving the efficiency of 

personal vehicles and double fuel economy in commercial vehicles.” See “Driving Technology: A 

Transition Strategy to Enhance Energy” at 

www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/tsp_paper_final.pdf - 2006-08-01 - Text Version

3

 See details posted at http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html

4

 Testimony of NHTSA Administrator on March 6, 2007, on CAFÉ standards to the Senate Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation Committee is posted at http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/nason2.htm

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

1 
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

In response to the global and national pressures to improve energy efficiency and 

preserve the environment, Federal and industry initiatives have proposed and adopted 

multiple strategies and innovative technologies towards a more sustainable, energy 

efficient, and environmentally cleaner transportation system. 

Current research and development (R&D) and test and evaluation (T&E) jointly 

performed by Federal agencies and industry focus on developing the technology base for 

more fuel-efficient and environmentally sustainable transportation options, including 

electric and hybrid propulsion, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), and alternative fuel 

and flexi-fuel vehicles (AFVs and FFVs). Both the energy efficiency and the safety of 

future vehicles might benefit from the PCIV research on light-weighting with strong 

plastics and composites. 

To achieve lightweight architectures, without compromising on rigidity, automakers have 

been researching the replacement of steel with plastics, composites, foams, aluminum, 

and magnesium. Leading experts5

 have argued that the use of advanced materials for 

reducing weight offers the easiest and least expensive way to achieve multiple benefits 

(reduce energy consumption and emissions at equal or better safety). Weight reduction 

also offers a potentially cost-effective means to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse 

gases from the transportation sector. It has been estimated that: 

• For every 10 percent reduction in the weight of the total vehicle, fuel economy 

would improve by 5-7 percent; and 

• For every kilogram of vehicle weight reduction, the potential reduction in carbon 

dioxide emissions is about 20 kg. 

Vehicle programs designed to achieve major fuel economy improvements must 

incorporate significant weight savings. The widespread application of 

lightweight materials and innovative manufacturing processes is necessary to 

attain this goal. FreedomCAR has set a vehicle weight reduction target of 50 

percent, with the additional criterion "affordable cost." 

 Executive Summary, MATERIALS Conclusion from the 

Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel 

Partnership, First report (NRC, 2005) 

The most recent American Chemistry Council-Plastics Division (ACC-PD) data indicate 

that: 

• The average vehicle uses about 150 kg of plastics and composites, versus 1,163 

kg (2,559 lbs) of iron and steel6

; 

• The automotive industry uses engineered polymer composites and plastics in a 

wide range of applications, as the second most common class of automotive 

 

5

 See Chapter 6 for references by Lovins et al. and Jackson and Schlesinger, 2004. 

6

 APC data as cited in “Plastic on the Outside,” SAE Automotive Engineering Journal, Aug. 2006, pp. 

46-49, at www.aei-online.org and in “Automotive Composites-a Design and Manufacturing Guide,” 2nd

edition, 2006. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

2 
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

materials after ferrous metals and alloys (cast iron, steel, nickel) which represent 

68 percent by weight; other non-ferrous metals used include copper, zinc, 

aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and their alloys. 

• The plastics contents of commercial vehicles comprise about 50 percent of all 

interior components, including safety subsystems, and door and seat assemblies. 

• Industry trends project a substantial increase in use of automotive plastics over the 

next two decades for reducing vehicle net weight, and for improving 

environmental impacts and fuel efficiency in response to consumer pressures, and 

to take advantage of the rapid advances in materials science and technology. 

Other options for light-weighting cars for improved fuel efficiency and structural strength 

include: high performance steel (HPS), which today comprises 26 percent of the average 

car body, and aluminum, which has half the weight of iron and better corrosion resistance 

but also has higher costing, energy intensifying, and more difficult manufacturability. 

The next generation of fuel-efficient, light-weight vehicles will have to demonstrate full 

compliance with NHTSA safety regulations for vehicle crashworthiness. 

Statistical crash data indicate that lighter vehicles have some safety challenges in crashes 

with heavier ones (a vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility challenge). PCIV designs, 

materials, and technologies will have to compensate through safety enhancements for 

equal or better crash performance, in order to gain both public acceptance and market 

share. At the same time, if smaller, fuel efficient PCIV vehicles are to gain market share 

in the U.S., the crash compatibility and aggressivity issues of larger vehicles will have to 

be addressed with advanced design, materials, and technology solutions. 

Improved road safety is a major global safety and health concern – the World Health 

Organization (part of the United Nations) has increased its focus on automotive safety as 

a growing concern.7 The ACC Technology Integration Report reflects the plastic 

industry’s strong commitment to enhanced automotive safety and is aligned with both 

domestic and global needs. 

In recognition of the need for safety assurance of the next generation of lightweight, fuel 

efficient vehicles, the Department of Energy vision statement for the FreedomCAR and 

Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) program8

 states that “Transportation energy security will 

be achieved through a U.S. highway vehicle fleet of affordable, full-function cars and 

trucks that are free from petroleum dependence and harmful emissions without 

sacrificing mobility, safety, and vehicle choice.” 

 

7

 World Health Organization (WHO): “World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention” (2004); Fact 

sheets on “Road Safety: a Public Health Issue”; and “Road Traffic Injury Prevention Training Manual “

(2006) posted at www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/en

8

 Details on these research and technology (R&T) partnerships with industry and academia are provided at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

3 
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

Recent reviews of the goals and accomplishments of the FreedomCAR9 and FUEL 

initiatives, and of related light-weighting materials research indicate that a major 

cooperative research effort is devoted to characterizing the Energy Absorption (EA) of 

materials. Another goal of the Crash Energy Management Working Group (CEM-WG), 

of which NHTSA is a member, is to optimize the crashworthiness of light-weight 

components and vehicle designs. This public-private-partnership research and 

development effort is congruent with NHTSA’s mission interests and could augment 

NHTSA’s PCIV and Hydrogen vehicle safety research. 

The DOE-led U.S. Automotive Materials Partnership (USAMP) has undertaken the 

Materials Technologies Research Program with the goal of “halving personal vehicle 

weight by using lighter structural materials could result in a 30-percent increase in fuel 

efficiency”...given that, “as a rule of thumb, for personal vehicles, every 10-percent 

reduction in weight can result in about a 6-percent increase in fuel economy.”10 

The primary goals of the USAMP are to accelerate development of high-strength, lightweight automotive materials, but “without compromising durability, reliability, and 

safety,” and to achieve the "reduction of vehicle weight without compromising safety." 

Several strategies and materials selection options for achieving substantial vehicle weight 

reductions are under active research to address the National Energy Policy goals and the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates. The materials options under investigation are 

summarized in Figure 1-1. The United States Council for Automotive Research 

(USCAR) partnerships are examining, in addition to plastics and composites, other 

alternative materials options for light-weighting, the use of metal alloys, such as 

aluminum, magnesium, titanium, zinc, and high performance stainless steels (HPSS). 

This study focuses on reviewing, in general terms, the state of knowledge and research 

and development priorities related to the safety performance of automotive plastics. 

 

9

 CAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research; also cited in other DOE documents as Council for 

Automotive Research. See references by J. Carpenter, 2006, and R. Sullivan, 2006. 

10 Figures cited in Driving Technology: A Transition to Enhance Energy Security, May 2006. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

4 
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

Materials Technologies

Ref: William F. Powers, Advanced Materials and Processes, May 2000, pages 38 – 41.

Figure 1-1: Comparative data on materials substitution options for light-weighting vehicles to 

improve fuel efficiency (from Carpenter, 2006). 

Lightweight Material Material

Replaced

Mass Reduction 

(%)

Relative Cost

(per part)*

High Strength Steel Mild Steel 10-25 1

Aluminum (AI) Steel, Cast Iron 40 - 60 1.3 - 2

Magnesium Steel or Cast Iron 60 - 75 1.5 - 2.5

Magnesium Aluminum 25 - 35 1 - 1.5

Glass FRP Composites Steel 25 - 35 1 - 1.5

Carbon FRP Composites Steel 50 - 60 2 - 10+

Al matrix Composites Steel or Cast Iron 50 - 65 1.5 - 3+

Titanium Alloy Steel 40 - 55 1.5 - 10+

Stainless Steel Carbon Steel 20 - 45 1.2 - 1.7

* Includes both materials and manufacturing.

Weight Savings and Costs for Automotive

Lightweighting Materials

1.2 The American Plastics Council Workshop: 

Recommendations to Enhance PCIV Safety 

Greater use of engineered composites and plastics in automotive applications offers the 

promise of greater energy efficiency and enhanced safety at affordable cost. However, 

the potential safety benefits of the next generation of fuel-efficient and environmentally 

friendly vehicles would have to be planned for, designed, and demonstrated in order to 

gain market share and public acceptance. 

The American Plastics Council (APC, now ACC-PD) and NHTSA co-sponsored a 

workshop in November 2005 on Enhancing Future Automotive Safety with Plastics. The 

final report (May 2006) summarized the key findings, which are discussed in greater 

detail in Chapter 3 and listed in Appendix 3.1. The development of a safety research, 

technology demonstration and evaluation roadmap was recommended in order to enhance 

automotive safety with plastics, as an integral part of a broader strategy to “light-weight” 

the automotive fleet for improved fuel efficiency. 

The ACC-PD definition of automotive plastics is comprehensive: it includes a broad 

range of lightweight, strong, and durable engineered materials, including both 

thermoplastic and thermoset polymer composites with glass, carbon, or other fiber 

reinforcement embedded in resin matrices and hybrid materials of plastics bonded to 

metals (sandwich) for added structural strength. When integrated into vehicle skin, 

structural frame/chassis, power train, interior seats, padding, and/or safety appliances, 

these plastics must comply with NHTSA’s safety standards. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

5 
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

The workshop identified more than 100 recommended priority activities, as well as the 

critical challenges to overcome in order to enhance future automotive safety, while lightweighting with plastics. ACC-PD also produced a brief Roadmap Prospectus for 

Enhancing Future Automotive Safety with Plastics, which proposed formation of publicprivate partnership to develop it. ACC-PD estimated that development of a technology 

integration roadmap would require $1-1.5 million and between 18-30 months to 

complete. Congress provided NHTSA with a modest amount of research funding 

($250,000) in FY06 to initiate research on the potential safety benefits of using more 

plastics and composites in future PCIVs. 

1.3 Project Scope and Technical Approach 

In order to develop collaboratively the overall plans and objectives for development of a 

PCIV Safety Roadmap, and to jointly review interim progress and findings, NHTSA and 

the Volpe Center hosted regular meetings and maintained continuous telephone 

informational contacts with ACC-PD technical staff. The Volpe Center focused research 

project was structured as follows: 

• Task 1: Establish Vision for 2020 PCIV Safety - The effort was to develop a 

vision for desired future (2020) safety, focusing on improved protection of 65 and 

older drivers with plastics and composites. The vision was based on a review of 

available DOT and NHTSA Strategic Plans.11 Also, a review of literature on 

aging drivers’ safety was completed to extract information relevant to future 

automotive safety needs, knowledge gaps, and research and development 

priorities. The vision statement for 2020 PCIV safety also identified performance 

goals and progress metrics. 

• Task 2: Situation Analysis - This task was a comprehensive and critical literature 

review, complemented by interviews of leading automotive safety and plastics 

industry experts, in order to: 

o Identify the knowledge gaps and research needs, based on industry experience 

with deployment of automotive plastics and composites in safety applications; 

o Derive lessons learned and best practices to build on success; 

o Identify the most promising NHTSA research and development partnership 

opportunities for enhancing the automotive safety performance of lightweight 

vehicles 

o Identify the research, technology and regulatory challenges, and identify 

strategies for overcoming them; and 

o Recommend consensus research and development priorities for the near-, mid-

, and long-term. 

 

11 These documents are currently being updated from the 2005 version discussed in Section 2.1.3, and have 

not yet been released by NHTSA (as of November 2007). They will be referenced in the final report, if 

available. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

6 
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

• Task 3: Develop the 2020 PCIV Safety Roadmap - Based on the findings from the 

situation analysis and on NHTSA and ACC-PD recommendations, the top three 

most promising safety enhancements will be selected for the Safety Technology 

Integration Roadmap. Since the ACC-PD 2002 Technology Roadmap did not 

explicitly address automotive safety, this effort complements and extends 

previous industry and government strategic plans, which identified enabling 

research needs for PCIV technology commercialization. This PCIV Safety 

Roadmap will focus only on the top few applicable safety research and 

development priorities for PCIVs. Particular attention will be paid to protecting 

the vulnerable and growing demographic segment of older occupants. This report 

should identify strategies for improving occupants’ crash protection with plastics 

in safety applications by 2020. It should link the identified safety research and 

development needed to bridge existing knowledge gaps to PCIV deployment 

opportunities. 

The analysis and resulting Safety Roadmap for PCIVs will also focus on multiple 

safety research and development priorities identified. An ultimate goal of the 

road-mapping process is to better align research within industry, academia, and 

government. It provides a technical transitional approach that informs decisions 

regarding public-private partnership R&D investments, as well as serve as a 

useful communications tool throughout the automotive safety value chain. 

• Task 4: Engage the Stakeholders - Automotive safety stakeholders will be 

engaged in this process and will give their support for goal-oriented research and 

development and technology applications. Within the limits of available 

resources, Volpe Center staff will engage a representative cross-section of 

stakeholders through focused telephone interviews, e-mail correspondence, 

conference calls, and selected meetings (such as attendance at the annual 

conferences of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the Society of 

Plastics Engineers (SPE) Automotive Division- ACCE06 and 07). Safety 

technology stakeholders included: leading technical experts on crashworthiness, 

plastics, and composites from federal agencies, universities, automotive Original 

Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), insurers and representative advocacy groups 

for automotive safety and for the aging. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

7 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

2. A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

2.1 Resources for a 2020 PCIV Safety Vision Statement 

2.1.1 The Department of Transportation (DOT) Strategic Plan, 2006-

2011 

The DOT Strategic Plan for 2006-2011 Safety Strategic Goal12 adopts the explicit strategy 

“to enhance vehicle safety through the introduction of new technology and to assess the 

lifesaving benefits of emerging technologies as they enter the vehicle fleet.” 

The behavioral safety goals for reducing the number of crashes and mitigating the severity of 

their consequences include: 

• “increasing occupant protection;” and 

• “extending the mobility of older drivers for as long as medically practicable.” 

Another explicit strategy is to “Partner with key stakeholders to promote the use of 

engineering design features that reduce crashes.” This would encourage NHTSA to develop a 

new research and development partnership initiative on PCIV research with other Federal 

agencies, other DOT modal Administrations, industry, and public-private research consortia. 

The desired outcome is to decrease the rate of fatalities and injuries in motor vehicle crashes. 

The performance measure for this outcome is the annual number of highway fatalities and 

injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

The PCIV vision, goals and performance measures need to be consistent with these DOT and 

NHTSA highway safety goals and performance metrics.

2.1.2 The DOT Strategic Research Plan 

The Transportation Research, Development and Technology Strategic Plan 2006-201013

crosscutting research plan specifies two quantitative safety goals for highway fatalities in 

2011, which NHTSA, FMCSA, FTA, and FHWA would have to address cooperatively and 

contribute to in a quantifiable manner: 

• The 2011 target for highway fatalities per 100 million VMT is about one (1.0). 

• The 2011 target for highway fatalities involving large trucks per 100 million truck 

vehicle miles traveled (TVMT) is 1.65. 

The PCIV Safety Roadmap research project is one of the three NHTSA research initiatives 

identified in the plan in support of the research, development, and technology (RD&T) strategy 

12 The 2006-2011 DOT Strategic Plan is posted at http://stratplan.dot.gov

13 The November 2006 plan is posted on the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Web site 

at http://rita.dot.gov/publications/transportation_rd_t_strategic_plan/html 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

8 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

for the safety goal, namely to “Assess Impacts of New Technologies, Vehicles, Concepts, 

Designs, and Procedures.” 

2.1.3 NHTSA Vehicle Safety Research Plans and Programs 

The NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Supporting Research Priorities for CY 2005-

200914 outline the NHTSA safety regulatory development plans and respective supporting 

research programs. Several research and development priorities are synergistic with the goal of 

enabling the future deployment of fuel-efficient and safe PCIVs. Such ongoing NHTSA safety 

R&D initiatives include efforts to: 

• address crash compatibility challenges (both self- and partner-protection); 

• prevent and mitigate rollover crashes and reduce occupant ejections; 

• develop advanced dummies, injury criteria, and performance levels; and 

• better protect older drivers and occupants in crashes. 

The FY07 NHTSA Congressional Budget Request stated that the desired safety outcome is to 

reach one fatality per 100 million VMT by 2008 (from 1.44 in 2004). This is equivalent to a 

drop in total fatalities from 46,700 to 32,000; in spite of the projected steady growth in vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) and the number of licensed drivers. 

The NHTSA Budget Overview FY07 also stated that a safety priority is to “improve motor vehicle 

crashworthiness, crash protection, and injury mitigation,” which could be achieved by using 

advanced occupant protection and crash avoidance technologies. Although the NHTSA research 

and development program has not explicitly addressed advanced materials research and 

development, several research priorities for future PCIV vehicle safety (further discussed in 

Chapter 4) are compatible with NHTSA research program priorities and strategies. 

Contingent on continued funding by the Congress for exploring potential PCIV safety benefits, 

closer integration and synergies with related NHTSA Safety Systems research programs could be 

developed. Such related research topics include: advanced air bags, improved safety belt and 

head restraints, frontal crash protection, ejection mitigation or reduction, side crash and roof 

crush protection and rollover mitigation. Improved vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility in collisions 

is a strategy being addressed by NHTSA research and by industry initiatives.15

Innovative strategies to ensure occupant crash protection for all vehicles, including PCIV 

collisions, with heavier and larger vehicles, will have to be developed and demonstrated. The 

NHTSA 2004 CAFE Rule16 also discussed the impact of vehicle weight reduction strategies on 

crash safety and survivability, and the statistical evidence for linking safety to vehicle size, 

 

14 The 2005 document, which is currently in update and revision, is posted at 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan-2005.html and a summary for Congress is available at 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/NHTSAReports/PriorityPlan-2005.html 

15 Patel, S., Smith, D., and Prasad, A. (2007). NHTSA’s Recent Vehicle Crash Test Program on Compatibility in 

Front-to-Front Impacts. International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). 

16 49CFR Parts 523, 533 and 537, Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks Model Years 2008-2011 

(2004), pp. 166-167 and 189-196. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

9 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

height, weight, and technologies. NHTSA’s analysis concluded that “... design changes can also 

reduce a vehicle’s weight without reducing crashworthiness, and may in some instances improve 

the safety of a vehicle (e.g., reduce rollover propensity).” This safety performance challenge 

must be met by all future motor vehicles, including PCIV candidate designs. 

Other safety research issues to enable future PCIV deployment are beyond the scope of this 

project. The main thrust of NHTSA’s safety research is the PCIV structural strength 

performance, optimal load distribution or force attenuation (cushioning) in safety devices, and 

crash energy management using “crush boxes” (also called “crumple zones”). Other safety 

considerations for PCIVs might include material damage tolerance and maintainability; 

flammability; the durability of plastics when exposed to environmental stressors (temperature, 

UV and solar heat, corrosion); and the potential toxicity of volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

released at higher environmental temperatures and/or as byproducts of crash-related fires. 

Although some reports17 have claimed that plastics in cars (when new or heated) outgas toxic 

volatile compounds, recent research18 has concluded that there are no apparent air quality health 

hazards due to VOC levels measured in parked motor vehicles. 

2.1.4 The NHTSA Integrated Vehicle Safety Research Strategy 

The new strategic approach to integrated vehicle safety research was outlined in public 

presentations by research and development leadership in the past year. A recent presentation by 

Dr. William T. Hollowell19 articulates in the NHTSA Strategic Plan Goal #1 – the new 

integrative and crosscutting systems approach to research and safety regulatory development, as 

illustrated in Figs. 2-1 and 2-2. 

 

17 See report Toxic at Any Speed: Chemicals in Cars and the Need for Safe Alternatives posted at 

www.healthycar.org and www.ecocenter.org. 

18 See referenced paper by Buters et al. Toxicity of Parked Motor Vehicle Indoor Air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 

41, 2622. 

19 November 10, 2006, presentation to the MADYMO International Users Meeting, entitled Overview of NHTSA 

Research for Enhancing Safety.

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

10 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

Figure 2-1: NHTSA Strategic R&D programs support its safety regulatory mission. 

Figure 2-2: NHTSA Vision Statement (W.T. Hollowell “Overview of NHTSA Research for Enhancing 

Safety,” November 10, 2006, Presentation to MADYMO International Users Meeting in Detroit, Michigan.) 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

11
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

2.2 The need to enhance the safety of future vehicles and 

older driver protection

2.2.1 Crash protection needs of older drivers and occupants

The development of the vision statement for PCIV Safety and the definition of associated targets 

and milestones, as well as the justifications of need that are documented below are based 

primarily on the NHTSA and ACC-PD safety priorities. They were, however, well supported by 

the Situation Analysis literature review as summarized in Chapter 3, and by the experts’ inputs 

discussed in Chapter 4. The 2006 U.S. Census report 65+ in the United States: 2005 projected 

that the aging “baby boomers” will lead to a sizeable increase of the 65 and older population 

segment as shown in Figure 2-3 below: 

Note: The reference population for these data is the resident population. 

Sources: 2000, U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table PCT12; 2010 to 2050, U.S. Census Bureau, 

2004. For full citations, see references at end of chapter. 

Population Age 65 and Over: 2000 to 2050

Figure 2-3: From the U.S. Bureau of Census special report 65+ in the United States: 2005 

Currently, the 12.5 percent of the U.S. population over age 65 accounts for almost one-third of all deaths from 

injury and incurs a higher population-based death rate than any other age group. Motor vehicle crashes are 

the most common reason for the elderly to be transported to a trauma center. Several large studies have shown that 

despite driving less overall, the crash rate per mile driven takes a sharp upward increase after age 60. The 

public health impact of this upward trend is further compounded by the fact that not only are older occupants 

likely to sustain more serious injury in any given motor vehicle crash, but the risk to life is significantly 

greater for a given injury severity. An improved understanding of the mechanisms and patterns of traumatic 

injuries sustained by the elderly in motor vehicle crashes is essential if better preventive countermeasures are 

to be devised.

Reference: “An Aging Population: Fragile, Handle with Care”, Stewart C. Wang, UMTC (from the NHTSA 

CIREN Web site) 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

12
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

Adults 60 and older, so-called “baby boomers,” represent the most rapidly growing demographic 

segment, as shown in Figure 2-4. The 2006 Census Bureau data20 projected that the “over 65” 

of the population is expected to nearly double over the next 25 years (by 2030), from 12 percent 

to 21 percent and reach 71.5 million. This major demographic shift could potentially create road 

safety concerns by 2020 and beyond, in view of their higher crash rates and their greater 

vulnerability to injuries and fatalities in crashes. The future safety challenges for an aging 

population are likely to rise, in view of the fact that drivers in their late seventies have a triple 

fatality rate per VMT than drivers aged 30-65. The risk is even higher for drivers in their 

eighties.21

Balancing the elderly transportation safety and mobility needs is indeed a global concern and the 

subject of numerous studies.22 An important objective is to improve vehicle safety, although this 

is only one of multiple factors, such as: aging drivers’ screening and education, improved 

visibility of signalization and road infrastructure, and transportation alternatives on demand. 

Strategies to enhance vehicle safety include not only structural crashworthiness improvements, 

but also use of multiple adaptive occupant protection devices, and of advanced Intelligent 

Transportation Systems (ITS) consistent with NHTSA’s integrated safety approach. 

The ACC-PD workshop summary stated that more rapid deployment of plastics materials in 

automotive safety applications promises23 to address the highway safety needs of aging babyboomers as a growing demographic segment. The review of relevant literature reveals the 

following demographic trends and related safety challenges and opportunities for future PCIVs: 

• In 2006, about 12.4 percent of the population (or 1 in 8) is 65 and older, but the estimated 

proportion by 2030 will be 20-25 percent. 

• The number of people 65 and older is expected to double to 71.5 million by 2030. 

• An American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) fact sheet indicates that in 2003, a 

high proportion (about 80%) of people older than 65 are licensed drivers. About 1 in 7 

licensed drivers is 65 or older. 

• The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)24 projected that, if current trends hold, 

by 2030 the drivers over 65 will represent 25 percent of all drivers involved in crashes, 

and 16 percent of drivers in fatal crashes, compared to <10 percent at present. 

• Fragility (as related to the risk of death following a crash) is the primary reason for the 

elevated risk per unit exposure for older drivers and passengers. 

 

20 See American Fact Finder Census data on Aging and Age and Sex posted at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

and Elderly (65+) population statistics posted at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/age.html#elderly

21 Shane, J.N., Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy. The Surface Transportation System: Challenges for the 

Future. Testimony before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and 

Transit, US House, January 24, 2007. 

22 See TRB Conference Proceedings, Safe Mobility for Older Americans (2005); Transportation in an Aging 

Society (2004); and The Elderly and Mobility: A Review of the Literature, Report 255 (2006). Monash University. 

23 American Plastics Council (APC). (2006). Enhancing Future Automotive Safety with Plastics: Technology 

Integration Report. 

24 IIHS Status Report Special Issue: Older Drivers Volume 42, No. 3, March 19, 2007. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

13 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

NHTSA crash statistics for drivers over 70, shown in Figure 2-4, indicate that the total number of 

fatalities for older drivers in crashes have increased over time, in spite of decreasing death rates 

over time due to vehicle safety improvements. This is partly due to increasing fragility, 

degradation of vision, health, and reaction time of aging drivers. The crash safety situation for 

older drivers and passengers as summarized in the text box below holds true today and will have 

to be addressed in the future: 

Figure 2-4: Total fatalities and normalized rates for the over 70 drivers versus time. 

As shown by the MIT Age Lab data forecast in Figure 2-6, although crash safety has been 

improving over several years, older drivers are still at higher risk of fatality and injury because of 

the forecasted VMT growth associated with the increase in aging drivers on the road. The 2001 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) analysis and summary of the situation cited below 

is still valid: 

This status report found that the fatality crash rate per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is 

highest for both older and younger drivers. The reason for the higher risk of death of 

older drivers is the increasing body fragility with age, not because they are involved in 

more crashes. Improved vehicle and road changes and changes in driving behavior could 

improve the crash survivability of older drivers. To make the driving environment safer 

and more comfortable for older drivers, “improved occupant protection is needed 

including: vehicle design changes (such as installing belt force limiters, improving safety 

belt systems, and advanced air bag technology), as well as improved vehicle ergonomics, 

road visibility aids, and active crash avoidance technologies.” 

Reference: Older Drivers Up Close Aren’t Dangerous Except Maybe to Themselves, 

Status Report, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Volume 36, No. 8 (2001).

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

14 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

Figure 2-5: Projected totals of aging “baby boomers” by age group, to 2050. 

Because the life expectancy would also continue to grow as medical care improves, the ranks of 

aging drivers will swell, with geographic concentration in sunbelt States.25 As the older drivers’ 

health and driving skills decline with age (impaired vision acuity, reaction time) and their bones 

become more fragile, the threshold for injury and fatality in automobile crashes decreases and 

the severity of injuries increases. The Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) 

data indicate and crash safety experts argued that upgrades in torso and head protection for 

elderly occupants in side impacts are a pressing need, in view of their lower harm thresholds and 

higher vulnerability to injury trauma.26

Older drivers today also tend to drive older model cars, which have fewer and possibly outdated 

safety features. However, since the personal vehicle fleet turnover time is about 15-20 years27, 

the elderly are expected to drive much safer cars by 2020. 

25 Ref: TCRP Report 82 Improving Transportation Options for Older Persons (2002) by Westat, Inc. and Mobility 

and Independence: Changes and Challenges for Older Drivers by Ecosometrics, Inc. for NHTSA. 

26 Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen, Comments on Side Impact Protection NPRM 69CFR27990, May 17, 

2004, Oct 14, 2004. 

27 See Mintz et al. (2000). From Here to Efficiency: Time Lags Between Introduction of Technology and 

Achievement of Fuel Savings (Transportation Research Record 1738), p.100-105, TRB, TRISonline. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

15 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

U.S.

Figure 2-6: MIT Age Lab forecasts a 35-percent increase in VMT for aging drivers by 2020. 

The elderly are less familiar and comfortable with modern electronic active safety devices, which 

may require training and might even distract them. Therefore, there is a need for rapid 

deployment of passive safety systems, along with training in the use of well-designed, integrated 

and user-friendly active safety and driver-assisted devices. Emerging technologies that promise 

to further enhance elderly safety, but may require training, include: haptic and/or audible lanechange or collision warning and avoidance systems, night-vision aids, and heads-up-display 

components (see references by Coughlin et al.). 

Passive and active occupant protection systems are designed to protect all occupants, as are the 

ITS technologies being developed under the Integrated Vehicle Based Safety Systems (IVBSS) 

Program.28 Several emerging automotive safety technologies, if implemented in future PCIVs, 

could provide age-differentiated occupant protection based on driver’s and passenger’s weight, 

size, and fragility: multi-point belt systems, seat belt force limiters, advanced (smart) air bags 

with staged deployments geared to impact force, side air curtains and leg/knee bolsters, 

ergonomically designed enhanced seating systems, visual displays and auditory alerts, and the 

application in commercial vehicles of racecar safety technologies, such as head and neck 

restraint systems (HANS) and padded body harness. 

In view of the clear need to substantially enhance crash protection for vehicle occupants, which 

includes the aging, a major focus of a PCIV safety research and development roadmap would be 

to reduce the number of crash fatalities, and to improve the injury survivability. The integrated 

safety approach adopted by NHTSA is designed to enhance the safety of all next generation 

28 See presentations posted at http://www.itsa.org/ivbss.html

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

16
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

vehicles, including PCIVs. Therefore, the introduction of advanced materials and technologies 

for improved structural crashworthiness and for interior protection appears promising, especially 

when and if synergistically integrated with advanced occupant restraints and active safety 

systems such as Electronic Stability Control (ESC).29

Research is necessary to determine what role various plastics and composites materials could 

play in proposed safety applications for 2020 PCIV designs, relative to other light-weighting 

materials options and safety technologies. Data needs include: 

• Definition of safety performance criteria for 2020 vehicles, sufficient to protect all 

occupants, including the elderly; 

• Age-adjusted thresholds for injury criteria; 

• Evaluation of potential uses of plastics in structural or safety applications so as to 

demonstrably improve the crash safety for all occupants; 

• Determination of quantitative or qualitative tests to demonstrate the PCIV safety 

improvements over time; 

• An attribution methodology, to quantify and evaluate specific contributions of plastics to 

the integrated vehicle safety, separately and due to the simultaneous application of active 

and passive safety technologies, e.g., Electronic Stability Control (ESC), rollover roof air 

bags, variable ride-height suspension (VRHS), and other innovations for vehicle crash 

energy management, crash avoidance, and night visibility enhancements. 

There is a need to clarify how realistic and pertinent it is to set a quantitative goal for reduction 

of the current fatality and injury rates for older drivers by 2020, and to better understand the 

complex interplay of multiple factors and trends, e.g.: 

• The 2020 fleet makeup, with evolving types of vehicles, including PCIVs; 

• The total number of older drivers on the roads, and their normalized risk exposure in 

terms of VMT for 2020; 

• The regulated safety features on all cars, including PCIVs, in 2020; 

• Their safety performance relative to that of current vehicles; 

• Modeling and simulation tools and specific crash tests able to fairly credit and reveal the 

contribution of specific advanced materials and devices to the overall safety performance 

of the vehicle. 

2.2.2 The need to capture the potential safety benefits of PCIVs 

 

Improved vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility in crashes is a key safety issue for all vehicles, 

especially if PCIVs coexist with heavier and larger vehicles. It is also a priority focus of ongoing 

NHTSA and industry research to enhance vehicle safety and improve crash compatibility. 

Currently, the safety performance in crashes for the smaller and more fuel-efficient lighterweight vehicles is considerably worse than that of heavier vehicles. The most recent (Dec. 2006) 

 

29 The NHTSA Final Rule for FMVSS 126 (issued in March 2007) requires ESC for all vehicles under 10,000 lbs. 

to be phased in starting with MY 2009 by 2012. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

17 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

IIHS crash-test data30 indicate that the most fuel-efficient mini-cars, subcompact, and compact 

cars have twice the fatality rates of heavier cars, as shown in Figure 2-7. 

DRIVER DEATHS PER MILLION REGISTERED VEHICLES 

BY VEHICLE WEIGHT, 2000-04 MODELS DURING 2001-05 

Rates are adjusted for some differences in driver age and sex within and 

between vehicle types. Remaining differences plus driver demographics 

may account for some of the death rate differences.

Figure 2-7: From the December 19, 2006, IIHS Status Report newsletter, “Bigger is generally better” shows 

that the risk of crash fatality is higher for lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles at present. 

Analyses of the crash-safety implications of the relative vehicle weight, size, fuel efficiency, and 

other design parameters (vehicle height, geometry) and factors (driver aggressivity) have been 

discussed in the literature.31 32 For instance, Ahmad and Greene’s updated 2004 analysis of 

correlations between fuel economy and safety for passenger cars show that higher mpg are 

actually correlated with fewer fatalities. Some presenters at a recent Experts Workshop33 argued 

30 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). News Release, December 19, 2006: First Crash tests of minicars, 

and Status Report (Vol. 41, No. 10) with crash safety ratings for five 2006 and 2007 minicar models, posted at 

www.iihs.org. 

31 See listed references by NHTSA’s Kahane, and by Evans, Lovins, Ahmad and Greene, and Ross et al. 

32 Gordon, D., Greene, D., Ross, M., and Wenzel, T. (2007). Sipping Fuel and Saving Lives: Increasing Fuel 

Economy Without Sacrificing Safety. Report by October 2006 experts workshop “Simultaneously Improving Vehicle 

Safety and Fuel Economy Through Improvements in Vehicle Design and Materials.” 

33 Sipping Fuel and Saving Lives: Increasing Fuel Economy Without Sacrificing Safety. Summary by Deborah 

Gordon, David L. Greene, Marc H. Ross, and Tom P. Wenzel of an October 3, 2006, Experts Workshop on 

Simultaneously Improving Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy through Improvements in Vehicle Design and 

Materials, posted at 

http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/Environment/Energy/Publications/Sipping+Fuel+and+Saving+Lives.htm

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

18 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

that the “laws of physics” should not be invoked to the disadvantage of lighter and smaller cars 

in collisions; and that in spite of historic crash data, “correlation is not causation.” Others 

attributed safety disadvantages of smaller cars to the fact that historically, the smaller, lighter, 

and cheaper cars have not been equipped with the best passive and active protection systems. 

The workshop summary cited identified future vehicle designs, materials, and technologies that 

could simultaneously ensure safety and improve fuel efficiency. 

Given the superior structural strength of composites, it was argued that lightweight cars could be 

designed to be both safe and fuel-efficient, especially if size can be decoupled from weight 

factors (for instance by allowing composite crush cones in front and back to make a car larger, 

yet lighter). Furthermore, if all modern passive and active safety appliances were provided to 

compensate for their lower momentum and kinetic energy in crashes of smaller and lighter cars, 

they could effectively protect the occupants. Future 2020 lightweight vehicle designs will have 

to demonstrate a high standard of safety performance in order to be accepted by the public and 

obtain sizeable market share. 

2.3 Vision Statement for PCIV Safety 

2.3.1 Resources for PCIV Safety Vision 

A key objective of this project was to develop a 2020 Vision statement for enhancing automotive 

safety with increased use of plastics and composites, with special focus on improving crash 

protection for elderly drivers and passengers. An associated goal was to identify safety 

performance metrics and targets for the near-term (3-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years), and longterm (10-15 years). 

The proposed Vision Statement for 2020 PCIV safety performance considers simultaneously the 

most important ACC PD safety activities, the DOT Strategic Plan and NHTSA research and 

development and regulatory priorities, and the future safety challenges discussed above. Recent 

DOT and NHTSA strategic planning and budget documents (listed in Section 3.1 and in Chapter 

6) were used to identify and document both the NHTSA policy and research objectives to 

enhance automotive safety and efficiency, and clarify their relevance to technical goals for 

plastic and composite vehicles. The APC vision (from the 2002 Technology Plan) and 

automotive industry vision for future PCIVs (from SPE Automotive Division annual conferences 

and panels) were also considered. 

The proposed 2020 Vision Statement for ensuring safety benefits of lightweight PCIVs is a 

“stretch goal,” with interim safety performance targets and milestones suggested for the nearterm (3-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years) and long-term (10-15 years) to 2020. The proposed 

Vision Statement describes a desired future state of automotive design and crash safety 

performance, which can be accomplished not only through policies, funding promoting 

cooperative research and technology “push,” but also through free market competitive “pull” on 

plastics suppliers and the automotive industry. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

19 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

VISION STATEMENT FOR PCIV SAFETY IN 2020: 

“NHTSA—in partnership with other government agencies, industry, and 

academia—will support research on safety-centered design and performance 

modeling and validation to enable and foster superior, integrated safety 

performance of future light-weight Plastics and Composite Intensive Vehicles 

(PCIVs).” 

This vision statement reflects the 2006 Congressional requirements, and is consistent with the 

NHTSA “integrated vehicle safety” mission and with APC workshop recommendations. This 

vision statement, with associated mission activities, and measurable performance goals, can: 

• Support the safety strategic goals and objectives identified in the NHTSA Strategic 

Research Plan and Regulatory Development Plan. 

• Exploit synergies with the ACC-PD and national Department of Energy research and 

development objectives of improving the fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet through 

weight reductions, while preserving or improving their safety performance. 

2.3.2 PCIV Safety Research Goals and Objectives 

The supporting goals and objectives for this PCIV 2020 Vision are to: 

• Conduct cooperative research and development with government, industry, and 

academia, to promote the development and deployment of advanced safety solutions in 

future light-weight PCIVs; 

• Monitor and measure progress towards demonstrating and enhancing the safety 

performance of prototype PCIVs; 

 

• Review and evaluate applicable NHTSA safety regulations and consumer information 

and education programs. NHTSA’s interest is to ensure that they are objective, 

materials-neutral, and performance-based. 

• Participate in the development of voluntary technical consensus safety standards for 

vehicle crashworthiness and related materials testing. This would facilitate the 

development and deployment of innovative plastics or other advanced materials in 

automotive safety applications. 

2.3.3 Performance Metrics and Milestones 

In order to measure progress towards achieving the 2020 PCIV Safety Vision, performance 

metrics and milestones should be defined. For an applied research program, such performance 

metrics, or indicators, frequently refer to intermediate outputs rather than an outcome. The 

outcome would not be achieved until the PCIVs are deployed as a sizeable component of the 

vehicle fleet. Plausible performance indicators for a future NHTSA cooperative research and 

development program on PCIV Safety (if authorized and funded by Congress) could include: 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

20 
A 2020 VISION FOR PCIV SAFETY 

• Development of improved predictive engineering modeling and simulation tools for 

PCIV crashworthiness that can be then compared to actual crash testing performance in a 

verification and validation program (near- and mid-term, by 2015); 

• Research and development projects that monitor, evaluate, contribute to, and integrate the 

knowledge base on mechanical properties and the crashworthiness of composite materials 

in PCIVs (near- and mid-term, by 2015); 

• Development and application of advanced crash modeling and simulation tools to predict 

PCIV safety performance; 

• Support of professional and scientific societies for the development of standardized 

materials testing and best engineering practices for verification and validation of PCIV 

crashworthiness (mid- and long-term). 

• Periodic regulatory reviews to ensure a level playing field for PCIV crash safety 

performance and for alternative vehicle designs and materials. As discussed above, this 

would be accomplished in partnership with professional associations, government, and 

industry (mid- to long-term). 

In each case, the safety performance metric could be any quantitatively demonstrated 

improvement in occupant safety, benchmarked every five years up to 2020, for lightweight 

PCIVs, such as the decrease in normalized fatality and injury rates for occupants, relative to the 

2006 baseline: 

• The fractional reduction in fatality rate per million VMT, for all drivers; 

• The fractional decrease in the crash injury severity for all occupants and the 

corresponding increase in their survivability; and 

• Reduction in the disparity in crash injury severity between average adults and older 

occupants. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, this vision statement, goals, and objectives for a new NHTSA 

research and development foundational initiative to improve PCIV safety are consistent with 

other ongoing DOT multi-modal research and development programs, such as the FAA Aircraft 

Composites Safety and Certification Initiative; the FHWA advanced composites for 

infrastructure applications and for highway safety appliances; and the FTA composite bus 

research, development, and demonstration effort. Related goals and objectives are suggested in 

Chapter 4 by the experts who provided inputs to this study. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

21 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

3. SITUATION ANALYSIS—APPROACH AND 

FINDINGS 

3.1 Technical Approach 

The Volpe Center conducted a comprehensive “Situation Analysis” to define the most promising 

automotive safety applications of plastics and composites, and to identify appropriate safety 

enhancements of future PCIVs in general, as well as to improve protection of aging drivers and 

occupants in particular. This effort included several key environmental scan components: 

• The ACC-PD safety research and technology integration priorities (Sec. 3.2): A review, 

analysis and categorization of the ACC-PD. Workshop findings and recommended safety 

enhancements for future plastics and composite intensive vehicles (PCIVs). 

• Literature review: A comprehensive review of the technical and trade literature on 

automotive plastics and composites and of conference proceedings (e.g., the ACCE06 

and preceding conferences of the Society of Plastics Engineers Automotive Division). A 

comprehensive set of references was critically reviewed (see Chapter 7: References), 

including those provided by the experts surveyed. 

• Older Drivers issues: A review of literature concerning the demographic trends and 

special safety issues for elderly drivers and passengers, which should be addressed to 

enhance their protection in general, with future PCIV safety features, design, and 

materials. 

• Existing Research Partnerships (Sec. 3.4): A critical review and evaluation of ongoing 

Federal agency R&D programs was conducted, including university-based and publicprivate-partnerships (P3), in order to identify: 

o Technical accomplishments relevant to the crashworthiness of automotive plastics 

and composites; 

o Industry Best Practices (BP) and “lessons learned” from the Partnership for a New 

Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) and FreedomCAR and fuel programs; 

o Potential partners, processes, timetables, and procedures that could enable the 

successful integration of automotive plastics with direct safety benefits; 

o Ongoing industry and Federal R&D and demonstration P3 efforts which offer highleverage opportunities for NHTSA safety research, including but not limited to: the 

previous PNGV, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and Manufacturing Extension Program 

(MEP); the National Science Foundation program on Predictive Engineering and 

Advanced Materials; and primarily, as Congress directed, the Department of Energy 

and industry research and development partnerships (within FreedomCAR conducted 

by the U.S. Council for Automotive Research); 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

22 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

o Specific ultra-light and ultra-strong materials proven to contribute to the 

crashworthiness and driver safety of racing cars, high-end sports roadsters (supercars) 

and industry prototypes, which could be commercially deployed in mass-market 

commercial vehicles over the next 15 years; and 

o Concept cars (like those shown at the 2007 North American International Auto Show) 

and emerging vehicle designs and prototypes (like the RMI “hyperlight hypercar”). 

• Safety Standards and Guidelines for Automotive Plastics and Composites (Sec. 3.4): A 

partial survey of existing and draft standards relevant to the crashworthiness of 

automotive components, either existing or under development by professional standards 

organizations and trade associations; Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), American 

Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), Materials Research Society (MRS), and the 

Society of Plastics Engineers (SPE). 

• Advocacy groups: This entailed review of relevant publications by non-governmental 

organizations with highway safety advocacy focus: publications and Congressional 

testimony from non-governmental advocacy groups of stakeholders (e.g., Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS], the American Association for Retired Persons 

[AARP], Consumer Reports, American Automobile Association [AAA], Advocates for 

Highway and Auto Safety, Science Serving Society, Public Citizen, and Environmental 

Defense), regarding the crash safety performance of lightweight vehicles and 

enhancement needs, and the safety issues of elderly drivers and passengers. 

• Survey of Experts: Chapter 4 discusses the process, inputs, consensus research and 

development priorities, and challenges for PCIV safety provided by a focused Delphi 

survey of leading experts on automotive plastics in structural or occupant safety 

applications. They included representatives from government, industry and academia, 

suggested by ACC-PD, NHTSA, and the Department of Energy. They responded to our 

structured interview guide by phone and/or e-mail. The experts who responded focused 

their inputs on PCIV safety research needs, priorities, and strategies to enhance future 

PCIV safety performance and assist in identifying priority consensus issues. The 

structured interviews of experts facilitated the identification of consensus research and 

development priority needs in the near-, mid-, and long-term for the Roadmap 

development effort. 

3.2 The ACC-PD Safety Priorities for Future PCIVs 

Over 100 priority technology roadmap activities to enhance future automotive safety with 

plastics were identified in the ACC-PD workshop and report, and are summarized by category in 

Appendix 3.1. Table 3-1 identifies, consolidates, and categorizes the most promising priorities 

for further development in a safety technology integration Roadmap, which are most closely 

related to the NHTSA safety mission. 

The ACC-PD is engaged in outreach and education to promote increased utilization, diverse 

applications, and more rapid technology integration of automotive plastics and composites. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

23 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

Table 3.1: ACC-PD Priority Technology Integration Activities

Priority Activity for Improved Safety 

1. Body and exterior 

Improve energy absorption in frontal and side impacts 

Rollover roof crash performance; and 

Crash Energy Mgt. (CEM) for occupant protection in frontal, side, and rear impacts

Develop test standards and performance specifications. 

2. Interior 

Master Plan for test standards, materials classification and modeling of plastics 

Improve Vehicle-to-Vehicle Compatibility in side impacts crash performance 

Improve crash energy management with plastics (belts, air bags, foam structures)

3. Powertrain and chassis 

Optimize safety and fuel efficiency 

Improve predictive modeling for polymer composites

Develop and validate non-flammable laminates and sandwich structures (metal-plastic hybrids) 

4. System light-weighting

Characterize safety performance of plastics in partnership with NIST, Department of Energy labs, ACC-PD, 

USCAR using: Materials Database, Models and Simulations, Coupon, Component and System Level Crash Tests 

Standardize materials performance specs in crashes and safety test integrated panels/components 

Active and passive integrative safety strategies 

The ACC-PD has an ongoing Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the 

Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(DOE/EERE)/Argonne National Lab (ANL) and the Vehicle Recycling Partnership of USCAR, 

to develop recycling technologies for end-of-life vehicles of the future and explore recyclable 

automotive plastic components. ACC-PD is also working with other Department of Energy labs 

(PNNL and ORNL) and the National Science Foundation to develop predictive engineering tools 

for material processing and performance behavior and for evaluating the crash performance of 

plastics and composite structural panels, and other components and subsystems in vehicles for 

crash forces and impact geometries. 

The ACC-PD conducted an informal set of interviews with automotive industry leaders, to assess 

their interest in PCIVs for improving the future fleet fuel efficiency and environmental 

performance (in the fall/winter 2006), as a complement to this effort. The ACC-PD industry 

survey focused on the simultaneous application of technology options in addition to lightweighting, as summarized below: 

Existing Conventional Technology Options for Fuel Economy Improvement (ACC-PD 2006 

Automotive Industry Abridged Interview Results) 

1. VEHICLE LOAD REDUCTION 

• Aerodynamic Improvements 

• Rolling Resistance Improvements 

• Targeted Mass Reduction 

• Accessory Load Reduction 

2. INTEGRATED STARTER GENERATORS 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

24 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

3. EFFICIENT ENGINES 

• Variable Valve Control Engines 

• Stoichiometric Burn Gasoline Direct Injection Engines 

4. IMPROVED TRANSMISSIONS 

• 5- and 6-Speed Automatic Transmissions 

• 5-Speed Motorized Gear Shift Transmissions 

• Optimized Shift Schedules 

• Continuously Variable Transmissions 

3.3 Existing Research Partnerships Relevant to PCIV Safety 

The Volpe Center reviewed recent and ongoing national vehicle fuel-efficiency, safety and 

materials research efforts by Federal agencies and by industry and academic consortia to identify 

programs related to PCIV strategic research and technology deployment objectives. This 

revealed a number of partnering opportunities for future research and development initiatives, 

and for developing the requisite automotive composite materials testing standards to predict the 

PCIV crash performance and optimize crash energy management. 

3.3.1 DOT research relevant to automotive composites and safety 

performance 

3.3.1.1 NHTSA Research Programs 

As the “Hydrogen Posture Plan”34 prepared jointly by DOE and DOT in December 2006 

indicates, DOT is a full partner in this multi-agency, industry, and academia cooperative 

research, development, and demonstration effort aimed to field hydrogen-fueled vehicles by 

2015-2020. NHTSA is currently engaged in several research and development programs, which 

promise synergies with a future PCIV research and development initiative. The NHTSA Four 

Year (2005-2009) Plan for Hydrogen, Fuel Cell, and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Safety35 describes 

several cooperative safety research initiatives in support of FreedomCAR goals. NHTSA is an 

active member of the Codes and Standards Technology Team, the national Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cell Codes and Standards Coordinating Committee, the USCAR safety Working Group and the 

Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Test Force. NHTSA will also monitor the real-world 

performance of industry prototype or developmental test vehicles (e.g., the Honda FCX, GM 

Equinox, and BMW dual-fuel Series 7) focusing on crash safety, fuel system integrity, and 

electrical system isolation. As discussed in the most recent program overview,36 this NHTSA 

research effort, in partnership with the Department of Energy and industry on Hydrogen and 

 

34 Hydrogen Posture Plan: An Integrated RD&D Plan. (2006). Posted at www.net1.doe.gov/technologies/hydrogenclean-fuels/refshelf/pubs.

35 Posted at www.rita.dot.gov/agencies_and_offices/research/hydrogen_portal.

36 See Hennessey, B.C., and Nguyen, N. T. Status of NHTSA’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle Safety Research 

Program (ESV07 Paper No. 07-0046). 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

25 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

Fuel-Cell Vehicles safety already entails applications of composites to light-weight, and enable 

development of more fuel-efficient vehicles. 

The new integrative safety approach to research and development, that aims to capture the 

compound safety benefits of advanced active and passive occupant protection strategies, is also 

relevant to the safety of future PCIVs. The NHTSA-sponsored Crash Injury Research and 

Engineering Network has performed studies of older driver injuries. The University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute has analyzed the injury patterns due to aging and their causes, 

to suggest prevention and mitigation options. The University of Michigan Program for Injury 

Research and Engineering Fellowship Program unites medical researchers with engineers to 

examine injury prevention in vehicle crashes and has focused on the elderly and mechanisms of 

crash injury. UMPIRE disseminates and analyzes the CIREN data, to assist the vehicle 

manufacturers with implementation of safety improvements based upon real life crash data. This 

partnership effort promises to improve the design and crash safety of future vehicles, and to 

better protect the elderly. 

3.3.1.2 FAA Research Programs 

The FAA Composites Safety Certification Initiatives37 have focused on aerospace composites in 

aircraft, safety certification standards, and fire safety. Funded research and development 

includes composites characterization, environmental weathering, crashworthiness, nondestructive integrity evaluation methods to assess impact structural damage, damage tolerance, 

and maintenance practices (composite patching), as well as development of Nondestructive Test 

and Evaluation for composite structures. The FAA is actively partnering with standards 

organizations (SAE and ASTM), other Federal agencies (NASA, DOD) and industry, including 

the automotive manufacturers. The FAA has funded research and development on aerospace and 

automotive composites conducted by the Centers of Excellence university consortia. The centers 

are: 

• The Joint Center for Advanced Materials Research (JAMS), led by the University of 

Washington and Wichita State University, and including Northwestern, Purdue, UCLA, 

Oregon State, and other partners. A JAMS effort will contribute to an updated version of 

Mil- Handbook-17, recently renamed the Composite Materials Handbook (CMH-17), 

which will consider testing procedures and the Energy Absorption data on composites 

important to Crash Energy Management. 

• The Airworthiness Assurance consortium which includes several universities with 

composite materials expertise. 

 

37 Program overview presentation by Dr. Larry Ilcewicz, on May 25, 2006, to the Fort Worth DER Seminar. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

26 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

3.3.1.3 FHWA Research Programs 

The FHWA has ongoing research and development programs, which could be relevant to future 

PCIV safety, such as: application of advanced composites for infrastructure applications, nondestructive test and characterization of composites, older drivers’ safety and roadway visibility 

enhancements for aging drivers. 

3.3.1.4 FTA Research Programs 

For several years, FTA has been conducting research and development programs with 

universities and industry partners, focusing on design, testing, and crashworthiness of a 

lightweight Composite Bus, Fuel Cell Buses, and Hydrogen Safety issues. Several of these 

programs are carried out in cooperation with the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies 

program and with State and local transit authorities. 

3.3.1.5 The DOT University Transportation Centers 

The TEA-21 legislation in 2000 and SAFETEA-LU legislation in 2005 authorized numerous 

University Transportation Centers (UTCs) and Regional UTC research consortia, to be cofunded primarily by FHWA and FTA and managed by RITA. Several UTC have recognized 

advanced materials expertise and focus on fuel-efficient vehicle technologies. For instance, the 

University of Alabama Center for Advanced Vehicle Technologies (CAVT) has been focusing 

on vehicle design and performance evaluations, including lightweight, composite advanced bus 

components and overall crash performance. The University of Missouri-Rolla strategic theme is 

“Advanced materials and Non-Destructive Testing Technologies,” several regional UTCs, such 

as the Region I (lead is MIT, which has a Center for the Aging and the Sloan Automotive 

Center). Region III Mid-Atlantic UTC (lead is Pennsylvania State University) and Region X 

(TRANSNOW lead is University of Washington) have expertise in automotive materials and 

safety performance modeling. NHTSA could leverage a PCIV research initiative in the nearterm by targeting such ongoing research and development centers and tapping into their expertise 

on advanced automotive materials. 

3.3.1.6 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program 

This set-aside DOT research and development program is managed and coordinated by the 

Volpe Center for all DOT modal administrations, based on their annual priorities for innovative 

research and technologies. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program offers the 

opportunity to enlist small but cutting-edge automotive materials or design companies, so as to 

enhance future PCIV safety. 

3.3.2 Public-Private Partnership (P3) Research and Development 

Programs 

The Department of Energy and its National Laboratories (ORNL, ANL, and PNL) are currently 

leading the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) and the 21st Century Truck 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

27 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

Partnerships with industry.38 These efforts build on the accomplishments of the Partnership for 

Next Generation Vehicles (PNGV) in the 1990s, which aimed to triple the fuel efficiency by 

2000. Since 2002, the Department of Energy has led the FreedomCAR collaborative research 

and development initiative in partnership with industry and academia. 

A primary goal of FCVT is to improve the fuel efficiency of next generation vehicles by using 

light-weighting materials and new power and propulsion technologies such as hybrid, fuel cells, 

and hydrogen fuels (FreedomFUEL). Light-weighting options for structural applications under 

investigation include plastics and composites, as well as metals (aluminum, magnesium, and 

zinc, high performance steel honeycomb structures) and their alloys. 

The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on the Review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel 

Research Program published its first report in 2005.39 With regard to the materials research and 

development program, the report concluded that the very ambitious target of 50 percent vehicle 

weight reduction, in order to achieve major fuel efficiency improvements at affordable cost, was 

not realistic. In focusing on safety as a crosscutting issue, the report identified the “critical need 

to develop safety-related technology, codes and standards (including vehicle standards) and 

inculcate widespread safety awareness.” To address the hydrogen and transitional vehicles 

safety challenges, the report recommended that: 

• The Department of Energy should form a new crosscutting safety technical team; and 

• The Department of Energy and NHTSA should secure sufficient resources to carry out 

their respective safety roles and responsibilities. 

The President’s 2007 State of the Union address announced the “Twenty in Ten” fuel economy 

initiative, amplified by the Secretary of Transportation in her TRB 2007 address,40 that aims to 

cut gasoline consumption by 20 percent in the next 10 years (by 2017) by improving vehicle fuel 

efficiency and through the use of flexi-fuels and transitional innovative vehicles. The PCIV may 

be one method to meet this goal, as well as with the Department of Energy USCAR and 

Hydrogen Vehicle research and development efforts. 

USCAR has nine research and development consortia, but those of direct relevance to PCIV 

crash safety performance are the: 

• U.S. Automotive Materials Partnership (USAMP); 

• Automotive Composites Consortium (ACC), especially its Crash Energy Management 

Working Group, which conducts research on composite materials characterization, and 

crash performance; 

• Vehicle Recycling Partnership (VRP); and 

• Occupant Safety Research Partnership (OSRP). 

 

38 Driving Technology: A Transition Strategy to Enhance Energy Efficiency. May 26, 2006. DOE/EERE. 

39 Review of the Research program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report available at 

www.nap.edu. 

40 See the White House initiative details at www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html and 

Secretary Peters’ speech at www.dot.gov/affairs/peters012407.htm. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

28 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

The goals of the Materials Crashworthiness research and development performed by the ACC 

Crash Energy Management Working Group are to:41 

• Develop and demonstrate analytical methods and design technology practices required to 

apply composites in crash energy management structural applications; 

• Develop production representative designs, materials, and manufacturing processes; 

• Develop an understanding of the physics that controls crash energy absorption; and 

• Develop design methodology. 

The ACC priority research and development issues for crashworthiness of lightweight vehicles 

are: 

• To determine: 

o Where does the crash energy go? 

o What factors are important during a crash? 

o What factors are interdependent? 

• To develop industry capabilities for: 

o Assembly and validation of a knowledge base of materials energy absorption 

behavior; 

o Methods to characterize materials; 

o Analytical models of material behavior; and 

o Validated design tools and design practices. 

The Department of Energy USCAR/ACC Crash Energy Management Working Group near-term 

priorities are to: 

• Determine experimentally the effects of material, design, environment, and loading on 

macroscopic crash performance to guide the design and the development of predictive 

tools; 

• Determine the key mechanisms responsible for crash energy absorption and examine 

micro-structural behavior during the crash to direct the development of material models; 

• Develop analytical methods for predicting energy absorption and crash behavior of 

components and structures; 

• Conduct experiments to validate analytical tools and design practices; 

• Develop and demonstrate crash design guidelines and practices; and 

• Develop and support design concepts for application in demonstration projects. 

The Advanced Lightweight Materials-Composite Materials 5 Years Plan by the Department of 

Energy/ACC partnership42 identifies the research and development priority projects for 2005-

2009, namely to: 

• Identify and manufacture appropriate plastic materials that are cost-effective compared to 

steel and other metals; 

 

41 May 9, 2006, overview presentation by Dr. Joseph Carpenter, the Automotive Lightweighting Materials Program 

Manager, DOE Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, at the 2006 SAE Government/Industry Meeting. 

42 The ACC ALM- Composite Materials 5 Year Plan, July 2005. Provided by Dr. Chaitra Nailadi, Daimler-Chrysler 

Scientific Labs. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

29 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

• Develop manufacturing processes that will support large volume builds (>150K/year); 

• Develop reliable and low-cost joining and bonding technologies; 

• Achieve high body-fit and finish (tolerances); and 

• Match the Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion of metals versus plastics in hybrid 

structures. 

Specific Energy Management research projects now underway focus on developing analytical 

tools and testing machines for crash absorption characterization of composites, sandwich, and 

adhesively bonded structures in axial and lateral impacts. Future projects will develop a 

comprehensive database of the CEM properties of automotive composites, the validation of 

modeling tools for automotive structures, and structural design optimization for vehicle 

crashworthiness. These projects, which are to be completed by 2010, promise to enable future 

PCIVs to comply with all applicable NHTSA crash safety requirements. 

In addition to this Department of Energy led research and development program, since 2004 the 

Department of Energy Hydrogen Storage Grand Challenge and its National Labs have funded 

three university Centers of Excellence (CoE) on Chemical Hydrogen, Metal Hydride, and 

Carbon-based materials research and development involving over 40 universities, 15 companies, 

and 10 Federal laboratories. Several CoE universities have advanced automotive materials 

expertise relevant to the PCIV safety. 

The Department of Energy National Labs play major roles in managing the USCAR partnerships 

and in performing major research and development programs, most closely matched to their 

facilities and skills base. For instance, ORNL plays a lead role in materials crashworthiness 

testing, PNNL in developing predictive engineering modeling software tools, and ANL in 

developing computational crashworthiness models for green vehicles, and in evaluating their 

environmental impacts and recyclability. 

3.3.3 Other Federal R&D Related to PCIV 

 Other Federal agencies have ongoing research and development programs on advanced 

composites that are of potential interest to NHTSA and industry for future PCIV safety 

assurance. These include: 

• The Department of Commerce National Institute for Standards and Technologies has just 

completed the Advanced Technology Program and Manufacturing Extension Program. 

These cost-shared research, development, test, and evaluation efforts with the automotive 

industry (Tier 1 OEM and plastics suppliers) have been designed to enable manufacturing 

of low-cost, high-quality automotive plastics and composites. 

• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) research and development 

on durable composites and fuel-cells for aircraft (like the composites-rich Boeing 380) 

and spacecraft. 

• A wide range of Department of Defense research and development programs on 

composites applications for lightweight and more fuel-efficient military multi-modal 

vehicles have been conducted by various research centers, such as the USAF Wright 

Patterson Lab; the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

30 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan; the Defense Advanced Research 

Program Agency; and the U.S. Navy/National Research Lab. 

Figure 3-1 : DOE Summary of advantages for Carbon Fiber Polymer Composites in automotive and 

aerospace structural applications and their relatively high crash Energy Absorption (EA), when compared 

with alternative light weighting materials (see DOE/ USCAR references). 

3.4 Standards and Guidelines for Automotive Composites 

Crashworthiness 

3.4.1 The Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE) 

A review was carried out of the SAE standards for crashworthiness of automotive plastics under 

development, and of existing SAE standards for glazing materials (used in windshield and sunroofs), and for air bags. The SAE Committee for Standardization of Tensile Testing for 

automotive plastics and polymers is developing standardized tests for tensile strength of plastics, 

and plans to develop in the next phase compressive testing standards.43 

 

43 Therefore, the experts interviewed in Ch. 4 included the Chair of the SAE Committee (Dr. Jackie Rehkopf, now at 

Exponent, formerly at Ford Research Lab); and Dr. Susan Hill, University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI), 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

31 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

The SAE 2004 Auto Safety Survey Results44 summarize Automotive Industry Safety priorities 

and the potential for plastics-based safety solutions. DuPont sponsored the Automotive 

Consulting Group to survey more than 400 attendees at the 2004 SAE World Congress on their 

safety development and implementation priorities. Their selected Top 10 safety systems in order 

of priority (based on the percentage of respondents which ranked them) from first tier suppliers 

and OEMs in the next five years, and related plastics and composites (without naming any 

specific plastic materials) are: 

• Collision avoidance systems (62%) involved DuPont engineered polymers for electronic 

sensors packaging and new windshield materials for sharper Heads Up Displays (HUD). 

• Side and rear air bag systems (56.5%) include redesigned side air curtains, knee and rear 

systems, including driver and occupant sensors—electronic materials include plastics for 

flexible circuitry, nylons, and resins for air bag deployment doors, etc. 

• Active safety belt pre-tensioning systems (43.5%) use thermoplastic polyester, nylon, acetal 

and other resins for safety belt retractors, buckles, and motor components. 

• Pedestrian protection systems (41%). 

• Electronic Stability Control (ESC, 39%). 

• Side door reinforcement and impact absorbers (36%) – a critical need for improved 

protection and vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility – include engineered plastics for crush 

cones, bladder concepts, honeycomb, and fiber materials. 

Other safety items identified by SAE respondents as having lower priority include tire pressure 

monitors; side, overhead, and rear laminated safety glass; and inflatable seat belt systems. 

3.4.2 The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

The ASTM Committee D30 on Composite materials has six technical subcommittees that 

maintain jurisdiction over 60 standards published in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards for 

testing for performance characterization of existing and emerging composites in a wide range of 

applications. This ASTM D30 committee is currently engaged in developing new materials 

testing standards for polymer matrix composites (PMC) and its activities are closely related to 

the ones of the Composite Materials Handbook-17 (CMH-17) organization. 

CMH-17 is a collaborative effort led by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and 

Department of Defense with the active participation of and in coordination with materials experts 

from Federal agencies (NASA, FAA), academia, and industry partners (aerospace, automotive 

manufacturers and specialty materials suppliers). Their goal is to update the three volumes 

Composite Materials Handbook-17 (CMH-17). 

The Chair of the Crashworthiness Working Group of the CMH-17 (Prof. Paolo Feraboli, 

University of Washington) was one of the expert respondents to the Guided Interview and 

provided additional technical references (see References) and summary materials on ongoing 

who conducted composite materials testing for the OEMs for parts used in commercial vehicles, as well as towards 

the SAE Standard development. 

44 Posted at www.autochannel.com/news/2004/03/03/183246.html. 

 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

32 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

PMC testing standards development and activities related to their crashworthiness. The CMH-17 

process is based on roadmaps to guide the use of data and models to evaluate new materials in 

design and structural applications, including testing for crash safety certification of coupons, 

components, panels, joints, sandwiches, and hybrid structures. 

3.4.3 ISO TC 61/SC 13 

The International Organization for Standardization has Technical Committee, TC 61, developing 

international standards for Plastics. The TC 61 Subcommittee 13 addresses standards for 

polymer matrix composites and fiber reinforcements. These standards will impact the use of 

polymer composites in automotive structural and other applications. 

3.5 International Research and Development Efforts on 

Automotive Light-Weighting with Composites 

3.5.1 European Union Research and Development Partnerships 

EUREKA is a pan-European network for market-oriented, industrial research and development 

created in 1985, as an intergovernmental initiative. It was designed to enhance European 

competitiveness through support of businesses, research centers, and universities. These 

consortia carry out pan-European projects to develop innovative products, processes, and 

services. Through a EUREKA project, the partners develop new technologies for which they 

share Intellectual Property Rights and facilitate the penetration of new markets. 

EUREKA recently funded a program for performing and manufacturing thermoplastic composite 

columns for vehicles. Case study structures will be designed to comply with recent European 

passive safety standards and fabricated to prove the process. 

The European Union has funded several multi-national “green transport” research and 

development initiatives, including development of light-weight, fuel efficient and low-emission 

vehicles, while increasing safety. The leading project on advanced, light-weight composite 

materials for cars is Technologies for Carbon Fiber Reinforced modular Automotive Body 

Structures (TECABS).45 This four year (2000-2004) program used innovative multi-axial woven 

carbon fiber composites for a 50-percent body weight reduction, using 70 percent fewer parts. 

The TECABS partners included auto manufacturers (Volvo, Renault), materials suppliers, and 

five leading universities. Other advanced composite projects were the Fiat-led “3D-Structures” 

and the HYDROSHEET project, aimed at reducing the weight while increasing strength and 

crash safety through the development of rapid manufacturing and resin curing processes. Future 

commercial vehicles developed as a result of these international public-private partnerships 

would have to meet the U.S. crash safety standards, as well as EPA emission regulatory limits. 

Europe (Bayer) and Japan (e.g., Fujitsu, Toyota Motor Co.) also led in the development and 

application of bio-based polymers, which are derived from plants (rather than petroleum), and 

 

45 See postings at www.tecabs.org and news items on the European transport research. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

33 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

are therefore biodegradable and recyclable. Toyota has used bio-plastics since 2003 in its Prius 

and Raum vehicles, for both interior and structural applications. Toyota expects that about 20 

percent of the world’s plastics will be biodegradable by 2020, and has become a producer and 

supplier of bio-plastics from renewable resources. 

Although plastics use a small percentage of petroleum and natural gas, there is a perception that 

the availability of plastics may be limited in the near future. Almost any hydrocarbon source can 

be used for plastic and plastic composite feed stocks and research is expanding relative to the 

future increased use of coal or biomass. It is likely that alternative, bio-based sources of plastics 

and composites will eventually be developed, at low cost and high volume, thereby enabling 

large scale deployment of sustainable PCIVs. The crash and other safety performance of 

emerging biopolymers would have to be evaluated (e.g., fiber-based materials absorb moisture 

and expand). 

U.S. research on the production of biopolymers (from corn, sugar cane, and tapioca) has been 

performed by government, industry, and academia46 (e.g., the Department of Agriculture, 

Cargill/NatureWorks, ADM/Metabolix), including automakers (Ford, John Deere). However, the 

cost of bio-plastics is currently higher than that of petroleum-derived conventional plastics, and 

their structural strength, durability, and other properties (e.g., water absorption, thermal 

expansion) would have to be much improved before integration into future PCIVs. 

Our analysis indicated that there are major challenges to overcome for successful development 

and fielding of PCIVs by or in 2020, which are not related to safety. Since plastics are currently 

derived from petroleum, their cost and availability would be affected by rising costs. 

Furthermore, since energy independence is a major national policy goal, alternative sources of 

plastics are desirable. Any substitute material to oil-derived plastics and composites in 

automotive structural applications will have to meet crash-performance specifications. 

3.5.2 Research and Development Partnerships in Japan 

The “CFRP Automobile Project” in Japan was described at the recent United States-Japan 

Conference on Composite Materials (September 2006, in Dearborn, Michigan).47 This is a fiveyear (2003-2008) partnership effort of Toray Industries and Nissan, cosponsored by the Ministry 

of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) as the NEDO program. Its objective is to design a 

Body in White (BIW) with half the weight and 1.5 times higher crash energy absorption than a 

steel-body conventional car, using continuous fiber fabric reinforced thermoset resin materials. 

The program is also addressing manufacturability, processing time, recyclability, and cost issues, 

to ensure that a crashworthy BIW concept is developed and deployed. 

 

46 See publications on biomaterials for structural applications by Prof. Drzal and colleagues at the Michigan State 

University Composite materials and Structures Center at www.chems.msu.edu. 

47 Kitano, A., Wadahara, E., and Taketa, I. The CFRP Automobile Project in Japan. Paper presented at the 12th

United States-Japan Conference on Composite Materials, September 21-22, 2006. Dearborn, Michigan: University 

of Michigan. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

34 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

3.6 Current Trends, Best Practices, and Lessons Learned 

For Automotive Composites Integration 

3.6.1 Emerging PCIV Concepts and Best Safety Practices (BSP) 

With the increasing aging populations in the United States, Europe, and Asia combined with new 

emerging power plants (hydrogen internal combustion, fuel cell stacks, electrics, diesel-electric 

hybrids and others) and the need to enhance fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

future vehicles will incorporate lightweight materials, facilitating PCIVs by 2020. State 

initiatives have been introduced in California and the northeast to improve fuel efficiency of the 

vehicle fleet, and to reduce the transportation environmental impacts. For example, Montana 

created a new vehicle category called Medium Speed Electric Vehicles (MSEVs). MSEVs, like 

the Zenn electric car and Chrysler neighborhood vehicles, are plastic intensive lightweight 

vehicles being sold in the United States today. They can be driven at speeds up to 35 mph, and 

represent a niche market that could speed up commercialization of innovative vehicles. 

Washington and California have similar legislation pending. 

Innovative lightweight concept cars that make use of advanced plastics and safety features have 

often been shown at auto shows, but the challenge remains bringing them into production for 

mass markets. Designing the future PCIV for superior safety performance can build on industry 

Best Safety Practices and on lessons learned over the past decade, such as the successful designs 

and superior performance of high-end sports and racing cars, and concept cars that used 

advanced composites higher speed performance, and enhanced crash safety (e.g. Ferrari Enzo, 

Porsche Carrera GT). For instance, the 1998 Chrysler Composite Car (CCC) was designed as a 

five-passenger lightweight, fuel-efficient vehicle (50 mpg), from fiberglass composites with 15-

percent plastics content derived from recycled plastic bottles. However, it was designed for the 

emerging (China) market and could not meet the U.S. crash testing requirements. 

Minicars that can meet the current crash safety standards are already being sold in the United 

States. They incorporate to varying degrees plastics, plastic composites, and plastic hybrid 

materials for interior and structural applications. BMW’s Mini Cooper and DaimlerChrysler’s 

SMART car have had market success in Asia. The Mini Cooper has been already sold in the 

United States, and the SMART Fortwo and Forfour will be marketed in 2008. The subcompact 

Chrysler Smart Fortwo vehicle features a solid steel frame for crash strength and a front crumple 

zone, with interchangeable, light, and recyclable plastic body panels. Similar vehicles are under 

consideration by automobile manufacturers in response to higher fuel prices, a possible change in 

U.S. fuel-economy regulations, and changes in Americans’ buying patterns for small vehicles to 

mitigate climate change and improve fleet sustainability. 

Plastics and plastic composites are gaining popularity with automobile manufacturers for the 

compact car segment. Several polymer intensive vehicles are slated for introduction within the 

next few years. Industry leaders have recently developed concept vehicle designs that use 

advanced materials for both fuel efficiency and for crash safety and promise early deployment. 

Among the concepts shown in 2007 in Detroit, New York, and Los Angeles, and at international 

auto shows: 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

35 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

• The Ford Edge, with HySeries Drive technology, was demonstrated as the first plug-in 

hybrid vehicle with a hydrogen fuel-cell, although it features a lightweight aluminum 

body, rather than plastics. 

• General Motors introduced its new minicar platform, designed to serve a variety of 

distinctive body styles, and to meet crash safety standards in the United States, Europe, 

and Japan. The Chevrolet Beat, Trax, and Groove are three minicar models which will 

share the GM global platform architecture. A common feature is the use of plastics for 

exterior body panels, as well as extensive interior and structural plastic, plastic composite 

and plastic hybrid materials integration. GM stated that one of the three concepts will be 

selected for production by 2009, to be sold in the United States and worldwide. 

• The GM concept car Chevy Volt is a new plug-in series hybrid, which is lightweight and 

compact.48 It features a new electric propulsion and flexi-fueled (E-Flex) system. 

Lightweight components use resins and composite materials developed by GE Plastics to 

save 30-50 percent of weight, yet offer superior strength for the frontal and rear energy 

absorbers (e.g., high-performance thermoplastic composite [HPPC] in doors, hood, and 

front fenders) and polycarbonate glazing. 

• The Hyundai concept QarmaQ, shown at the 2007 Geneva Auto Show, was developed as 

a joint project with GE Plastics and uses a wide range of plastic composites. Although it 

is only 60 kg lighter than if it were made from conventional steel (using about 900 

recycled plastic bottles per car), its “elastic front” plastic nose design promises improved 

crash safety for both occupants and pedestrians, thanks to better energy absorption and 

flexibility. 

Other recently advanced fuel-efficient vehicle design concepts were developed by non-profit or 

public interest organizations to demonstrate the fuel efficiency achievable with advanced 

materials and current technologies, but not commercialized as yet. They utilize lightweight 

materials and were designed for equal or improved crash safety: 

• The Rocky Mountain Institute and Hypercar, Inc. designed in 2000 the Revolution 

concept “hyperlight hypercar.”49 It is a mid-size five-passenger SUV crossover with half 

the weight of a conventional analog, which achieves superior crashworthiness by using 

carbon-fiber composites and aluminum for the structural strength of both the body-inwhite frame and the passengers “composite safety cell.” This advanced fuel cell vehicle 

(FCV) was also designed with an integrated digital vehicle dynamics control and 

suspension, for a novel manufacturing and assembly process, to cite: “...new design and 

manufacturing opportunities can make advanced composites the best choice for replacing 

steel, to save over 60 percent of BIW mass.” 

• The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) developed the Vanguard minivan blueprint, 

designed to meet the new California GHG emission standards while maintaining 

equivalent levels of safety and performance.50

48 See GE’s weight reducing contributions to the Chevrolet Volt, January 14, 2007. Posted at 

www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/ges_weightreduc.html. 

49 Lovins and Cramer. (2004). Hypercars, Hydrogen and the Automotive Transitions. International Journal of 

Vehicle Design, Vol. 35, Nos. 1-2, 50-85. 

50 See postings at www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles for details on the Vanguard and other proposed and existing fuel 

efficient vehicles (40 mpg fleet is considered feasible within 10 years with today’s technologies). 

 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

36 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

Barriers to the increased utilization of advanced composites in commercial vehicles include their 

relatively high cost (both materials and retooling the manufacturing and assembly process), as 

well as the still unproven lifecycle cost-effectiveness, durability, reliability and maintainability. 

Even if the knowledge gaps and R&T priorities identified below in Chapter 4 were to be 

successfully met by 2020, these attributes remain the key concerns for the successful commercial 

PCIV deployment in the future. Best practices can help overcome these barriers. Below are 

listed examples of industry “best practices” and case studies for increased use of plastics and 

composites in commercial vehicle applications.51 

Partnerships: Partnering between composites materials suppliers, designers, and modelers and 

vehicle manufacturers is a proven best practice. The pre-competitive and cost-shared cooperative 

research and technology undertaken by public-private partnerships (like USCAR) and university 

consortia is another BSP relevant to future PCIV safety. Accomplishments can subsequently be 

commercialized by the participating industry partners in their various vehicle models. 

In the PNGV, program successful commercial partnerships for composites (cited by Brylawski 

and Lovins) included the Bayer/GE Plastics development of polycarbonate glazing and of 

DSM/BASF for structural resins, etc. Trade associations, like the American Chemistry CouncilPlastics Division could facilitate industry inter-sector partnerships. In the PNGV program, this 

was accomplished by the steel industry for the Ultra Light Steel Auto-Body (ULSAB) and by the 

aluminum industry, to develop lightweight prototype vehicles and associated design concepts 

and manufacturing processes. 

Standardization and global platforms: A promising strategy to overcome the barriers identified 

below in Section 4.2.5 by the Automotive Composite Consortium (ACC) might be to use 

“standardization” and “global platforms.”52 For instance, common and modular hybrid drivetrains were developed, standardized, and integrated into a broad range of vehicles to reduce costs 

and enable scale-up, as done previously for Antilock Brake Systems (ABS), to enable 

widespread adoption. “Global platforms” (adopted by Ford, Toyota, Hyundai, Renault-Nissan, 

VW, and others) use common building blocks and vehicle architectures (basic body materials 

and geometries, mounting points, standardized manufacturing processes) for families of vehicles, 

to cut cost and allow high-volume production of subsystems. 

Voluntary measures to improve safety: Industry leaders in automotive safety have developed 

and deployed advanced safety systems on a voluntary basis and derived business benefits from 

publicizing them. Examples include Volvo’s Whiplash Protection System designed to prevent 

and mitigate head-neck injuries in crashes, the Honda Advanced Compatibility Engineering 

(ACE) structural designs, etc. These business best safety practices are expected to accelerate and 

expand for next-generation vehicles, since “safety sells” and the public expects higher levels of 

safety and reliability. 

 

51 Hazen and Musselman in the 2006 Automotive Composites-Design and Manufacturing Guide. 

52 See articles: The Power of Platforms in Automotive Engineering online, January 2007; and Developing Hybrid 

Drive Systems for a Broad Range of Vehicles, ibid. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

37 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

Voluntary measures that address compatibility challenges are relevant to the safety of future 

light-weighted PCIVs. The automotive industry has voluntarily adopted improved 

crashworthiness and compatibility vehicle designs, and developed a wide range of fuel-efficient 

concept cars which appear to hold promise for safety as well. These include improved structural 

alignment implementation of Secondary Energy Absorbing Structures (SEAS) and the Honda 

Advanced Compatibility Engineering (ACE) body structure to minimize the impacts of a 

mismatch in size and weight. Integrative safety solutions that are being explored include the 

benefits of combined collision avoidance prevention strategies with existing and emerging active 

and passive safety crash impact mitigation systems. As an example, in 2003 the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers adopted voluntary crash compatibility enhancements like the 

Electronic Stability Control (ESC), to be completed by 2009 in advance of the mandated 2012 

phase-in date. 

Another recent example is Ford’s rollout of its advanced safety canopy, side air curtains, and 

rollover sensor as standard equipment on fourteen 2007 vehicle models, and promise for early 

introduction of rear seat inflatable seat belts shown on the Ford Interceptor concept in 2007. The 

advanced four-point seat belt technology evaluated in Mustang Cobra tests for user friendliness, 

and shown in the Ford Interceptor and Airstream concepts promises to improve safety for older 

drivers and passengers. 

Peer recognition: The best automotive plastics applications are evaluated annually by the Society 

of Plastics Engineers (SPE) Automotive Division by a panel of peers and recognized with 

awards, including a safety category. This type of peer recognition rewards the teaming of 

plastics suppliers, engineering design firms and the OEMs in developing and commercializing 

new designs or advanced materials applications, and the integration of innovative assemblies. 

Currently, there is no SPE award for “weight reduction for fuel-efficiency with plastics,” because 

each and every nominated plastic component is reviewed by the judges for weight reduction, cost 

reduction, and parts elimination, and thus would not warrant a dedicated category. 

At the World Traffic Safety Symposium, DOT and NHTSA representatives served on a panel of 

judges along with other industry and association safety stakeholders, to recognize innovative 

automotive safety features. The 2007 award recognized Volvo’s improved child protection 

integrated booster seat system, combined with inflatable curtains and load-limiting seat belts. 

The X-Prize Foundation has announced in 2007 an Automotive X-Prize (AXP)53 competition 

offering a multi-million dollar award for a super-efficient 100 mpg (or equivalent), productionready automobile. 

3.6.2 Lessons Learned 

Useful "Lessons Learned" for future PCIV safety performance can be derived from the 

utilization of advanced plastics and composites in structural and safety applications for racing 

cars (Formula-1 and NASCAR), concept cars (Chrysler Composite Car54 [CCC], VW EcoRacer, 

53 See http://www.xprize.org/xprizes/automotive_x_prize.html

54 In general, this report refrains from mentioning specific materials or industry suppliers, in order to avoid 

perceived favoritism. Any industry or trade product names appear merely for illustrative purposes, and should not 

be construed as endorsements. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

38 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

FORD Reflex, GM Hywire), and high-end sports supercars (“roadsters”). Their designs feature 

lighter and tougher aerospace materials as panels or monocoque bodies (carbon fiber reinforced 

composites), and demonstrate superior crash safety performance, both in impact resistance and 

occupant survivability. The advanced composite materials used in motorsports to reduce 

subsystems and body weight, while enhancing their crash safety, were discussed at the 2007 

Global Motorsports Congress in Germany. 

Other light and strong materials are used in the space-frame, wheels, and other structural and 

non-structural elements of sports vehicles, such as metals (aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and 

high-performance steel). Furthermore, the goals in using these advanced materials in sports cars 

are to achieve high speeds and high acceleration at equal safety, not to improve fuel efficiency. 

Experience gained to date, however, may be applicable to future PCIVs, although these 

categories of vehicles are typically produced at very low-volume and high-cost. NASCAR 

racing cars (like Formula-1) and high-end, high-performance sports vehicles (e.g., Mustang, 

Corvette, and Viper), which make extensive use of plastics and composites in their monocoque 

shell body, wheels, and other chassis and propulsion subsystems, have also met NHTSA 

crashworthiness requirements. Their superior safety performance and occupant protection 

strategies for high-speed impact survivability include: four point belt restraints, Head and Neck 

Support (HANS) system and composite helmets, and nonflammable body suits. If modified, 

clearly some, but not all, of these might be transferable to commercial and personal vehicles, 

assuming that the high costs of materials and manufacturing can be reduced by economies of 

scale at high-volume mass-production. 

Another lesson can be learned from the use of plastics in commercial cars, specifically the plastic 

body and door panels for GM Saturn cars, which have satisfied all NHTSA safety standards for 

over 16 years. Based on trade news articles, GM discontinued the Saturn plastic body in 05-06 

models because of fit and surface finish issues. Issues included gaps between panels in cold 

weather due to mismatched linear coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of thermoplastic 

materials used, which also contributed to door expansion in hot weather, and to difficulty in 

extricating injured or trapped passengers after a crash. 

The literature claims that U.S. vehicle manufacturers have developed and marketed in Europe 

smaller, lighter, and more fuel-efficient vehicles, which are not available in the U.S. Generally, 

European and Japanese cars are smaller, lighter, and more fuel-efficient than U.S. counterparts, 

and make greater use of plastics at equal or better safety performance.55 Further study is needed 

to provide concrete evidence for this and to evaluate transferability as a best practice to the U.S. 

market and highway environment. In Europe, the automotive plastics are also fully recyclable to 

comply with the End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) requirement. Similarly, U.S. manufacturers tend to 

use lower amounts and different types of plastics in their U.S. models, although they incorporate 

more plastics in their lighter car models distributed in foreign markets. There is a need to 

examine and compare the relative crashworthiness of similar models and size vehicles, in order 

to identify and overcome the barriers for U.S. manufacture of future PCIV designs. 

55Recent trade news including: Can US adopt Europe’s Fuel-Efficient Cars? (2007, June 26). Wall Street Journal,; 

and Top 10 Fuel-Efficient Cars; Which are the Most Fuel-Efficient Cars?; Why aren’t US-based car makers already 

building great small cars?; and Small cars to be big part of Ford comeback.” Retrieved from www.About.com/Cars

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

39 
SITUATION ANALYSIS-APPROACH AND FINDINGS 

Several authors of references listed in Chapter 7 (e.g., Lynn, Lovins, and Cirincione) discussed 

the lessons learned from the Public-Private Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles 

(PNGV) in the early through mid-1990s, which aimed to triple fuel-economy by 2000 through 

mass reduction, use of advanced materials, and other innovations in power and propulsion 

technologies. For instance, in the late 90s the Advanced Composites Consortium designed and 

built a Ford Escort glass-composite front end which was 25-percent lighter than the steel 

counterpart, yet passed all Federal crash safety tests with superior performance even without air 

bags (cited by Brylawski and Lovins, 2000). 

The PNGV materials options studied and demonstrated for body and chassis construction with 

structural strength at reduced weight included: aluminum unibody, aluminum and steel spaceframes with polymer composite panels, and polymer composite monocoque, or steel honeycomb 

structures. These innovative designs and technologies could be applied to PCIVs if materials 

processing complexity and duration, quality control and manufacturing costs could be 

substantially reduced for high volume vehicle production. Although much technological progress 

was made under the PNGV program, its goals were not fully accomplished and prototypes were 

not commercialized. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

40 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

4. SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF 

FINDINGS 

4.1 The Experts’ Survey Design 

One method for using experts’ opinions to assist in decision-making under uncertainty is the socalled Delphi Approach. In order to complement the literature review summarized in Chapter 3, 

a focused Delphi survey of leading experts on automotive plastics in structural or occupant safety 

applications was designed and conducted. 

A structured survey interview guide was developed (Appendix 4.1) summarizing the key issues 

of interest to a future research initiative on PCIV safety, and to a safety technology integration 

roadmap for automotive plastics and composites. Specific recommendations were sought on 

PCIV safety-related applications, including: 

• the technology deployment process to-date versus the future projected timetable for 

integrating new materials and safety devices into commercial vehicles; 

• knowledge gaps and research priorities for automotive plastics in the near-, mid- and 

long-term; 

• the research opportunities with highest leverage for a potential NHTSA research 

partnership initiative on PCIV safety; and 

• the barriers that would have to be overcome to deploy advanced plastics and composites 

in safe and lightweight PCIVs by 2020. 

The pool of recognized experts was identified with APC, NHTSA, and Department of Energy 

assistance, as well as based on the technical literature review. They were first contacted by 

phone or e-mail to ascertain their interest and availability for brief interviews. The experts on 

automotive plastics and their value in enhancing future PCIV safety performance were broadly 

representative of all stakeholders and included: 

• NHTSA experts familiar with crash safety performance and occupant protection, and/or 

with crash data for aging drivers and passengers (from the Office of Vehicle Safety 

Research, the Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC), and the Crash Injury Research 

and Engineering Network (CIREN); 

• Department of Energy experts (both from Headquarters and from National Laboratories), 

who manage cooperative research efforts on composites crashworthiness modeling and 

testing; 

• Tier 1 plastic materials suppliers, who understand automotive safety needs and solutions 

for Original Equipment Manufacturers specifications for design, materials, and crash 

performance; 

• Automotive industry experts (from Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler), who understand 

the practical aspects of plastic components integration process, from research through 

deployment into commercial vehicles, and who participate in the USCAR Automotive 

Composites Consortium Crashworthiness Working Group; 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

41 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

• Members of professional and technical associations and their standards committees 

familiar with both plastics and automotive safety: Society of Automotive Engineers 

Cooperative Research Program and Standards Development Committee, and the 

Automotive Division of the Society of Plastics Engineers; 

• Representatives of non-profit stakeholder organizations (e.g., the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety); and 

• Leading university researchers, who either specialize in safety issues of older drivers, or 

develop and test the safety performance of aerospace or automotive plastics. 

The survey was conducted via phone interviews and e-mail exchanges. About half of the experts 

contacted responded (see Appendix 4.2). In order to comply with OMB guidelines on surveys, 

the brief telephone interviews conducted were tailored to the specific research or development 

expertise of each respondent, and several also completed the written Interview Guide. 

The subject matter experts were asked by the Volpe Center team to: 

• Select their recommended “Top 3” specific safety applications of composites with 

greatest safety benefit; 

• Identify the specific Plastics/Composites materials and technologies for each safety 

application; 

• Indicate how and to what realistic extent they could/would better protect aging drivers 

and passengers, if implemented by 2020; and 

• Suggest how to test and demonstrate quantitatively safety improvements for the elderly in 

earlier (research, development, test, and evaluation or prototyping) stages. 

The inputs from the structured expert interviews facilitated the identification of consensus 

research and development priority needs in the near-, mid-, and long-term summarized below. 

The experts provided valuable inputs regarding knowledge gaps and barriers to greater 

deployment of automotive plastics, as summarized below. 

4.2 Summary of Experts’ Inputs on PCIV Safety Priorities 

4.2.1 Knowledge Gaps in Predicting the Crash Performance of 

Plastics and Composites: 

• Develop and Standardize Test Protocols for composite materials over broad range of 

strain rates (specimen sizes, shapes, and stress geometry and rates) to derive failure 

thresholds and input parameters for predictive mechanical models. 

• Understand the materials-specific Energy Absorption for parts configured to improve 

energy absorption throughout the vehicle structure. 

• Standardize engineering classification and naming of composites based on 

physical/mechanical properties (as done for steel grades). 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

42 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

• Standardize fatigue tests for aged plastics/composites. 

• Identify all possible damage and failure modes as function of material structure, 

manufacturing process, bonding, and safety application. 

• Improve predictive engineering models for crashworthiness of composite materials to 

consider: 

o Fundamental material crush properties of structural plastics/composites; 

o Yield and strain to failure at high strain rates; 

o Creep, fatigue and aging, and behavior under extreme environmental conditions 

(humidity and temperature) over the lifespan of the vehicle (>10 years); 

o All damage and failure modes for composite materials, with arbitrary structures under 

arbitrary loads; 

o Energy Absorption dependence on size, geometry, and impact force configuration; 

age and environmental effects processing; manufacturing; and design factors; 

o Crush initiators and high strain rate response for crack propagation prediction; and 

o Performance of dissimilar materials in hybrid structures. 

• Standardize PCIV designs and composites for safety applications so that the safety 

advantages can be well proven, and the costs can be reduced for high-volume production. 

The interviews with experts were conducted by phone, with either individuals and/or teams. 

Notes were supplemented by the completed Interview Guides and supporting published papers, 

which were attached to e-mail replies (as indicated in Appendix 4.2.). 

Selected Quotes from Experts Interviews: 

• “Multiple materials solutions are available to solve any safety problem...plastics are no 

better or worse.” 

• “There is no basic understanding to predict the performance of automotive structural 

composites in real crashes.” 

• “There is no correlation between testing of small composite specimens and the crash 

failure behavior of a full-size vehicle in real crashes.” 

• “Safety standards are written for metal—not composite—vehicles.” 

• “Laminates and sandwiches are expensive materials and components... must determine 

their damage tolerance within three to five years before going into production...we are 

not ready to produce PCIVs now, can’t use the existing knowledge base.” 

• “Industry can now create vehicles that are equally safe, using all materials candidates... 

but the current advantage is weight loss, not enhanced safety! They can design vehicles to 

meet all safety criteria, within the cost and design (volume, packaging) constraints.” 

• “Other than using aerospace composites in structural applications in high-end cars, there 

are NO clear safety advantages, there are several equally safe materials to use, at lower 

cost. (Some stronger glazing materials are under development.)” 

• “To realize the x3-5 better energy absorption in safer designs for CFC structures, we need 

large scale deployment.” 

• “If Congress passed a law tomorrow requiring PCIVs for niche markets, we still can’t do 

it: there is not enough CFRC material, and a high cost to implement production, even if 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

43 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

the cost of fiber polymers were low and the supply abundant: tooling, bonding 

technologies, manufacturing, assembly, certification are all barriers.” 

• “The current restraints system protects everyone, not just the elderly.” 

• “The issue is not so much the technical challenges, but is more about the lack of design 

and integration of advanced composites into current vehicle development. If a major 

OEM released an advanced composite component, the market would respond.” 

• “From a safety standpoint, energy absorption and dissipation is key and is why metals 

have been the preferred choice of materials to manage energy during crash.” 

• “Regulations for PCIV should be the same as for current passenger vehicles.” 

• “There should not be any reduction in the performance requirements regardless of the 

materials used in the vehicle. Materials must meet current performance requirements”. 

• “There should not be any compromise in safety to facilitate the increased use of any 

material.” 

4.2.2 Research Needs to Predict the Crashworthiness of 

Automotive Composites 

The high-priority research56 needs that would enable greater utilization of automotive plastics 

and composite materials in future PCIVs include the: 

• Development of full three-dimensional analysis modeling tools; 

• Understanding of how failure and energy absorption are controlled by processes at 

several length-scales; 

• Inclusion of all damage modes (and associated failure models/criteria); 

• Consideration of interaction effects in crashes; 

• Standardized tests for fatigue, creep, and aging effects; 

• Consideration of structural configurations in impact crash performance; 

• Understanding the issues related to manufacturing and lifetime handling; 

• Consideration of system-wide effects in crashes; 

• Inclusion of probabilistic failure aspects; and 

• Identification and proper modeling of the actual crash reality (geometry and force). 

4.2.3 The American Chemistry Council - Plastics Division Survey 

An independent and complementary industry survey was conducted by the ACC-PD principals.57 

In 10 personal interviews with vehicle manufacturers and Tier 1 suppliers, it targeted the higherrank officials (Vice Chairmen, Vice Presidents, product engineers, regulatory managers, and 

directors of vehicle platforms) responsible for vehicle design and safety performance. The ACCPD summary of industry interviews58 noted that there is industry interest in plastics for light56 These knowledge gaps were identified by Prof. P. Lagace, MIT for the CEM-WG in October 2006, and 

complemented by inputs from Prof. P. Feraboli, the CEM-17 Chair and Dr. J. Rehkopf (SAE Composite Testing 

Standards Committee Chair). 

57 Dr. M. Fisher, Mr. James Kolb, and Ms. S. Cole also served as a peer advisory group for the entire study. 

58 Cole and Associates, Inc. (December 2006). Industry Interview Summary - ACC/APC Enhancing Automotive 

Safety with Plastics. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

44 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

weighting and for safety enhancements, especially for protecting aging drivers, but that cost, 

manufacturability, regulatory, and other challenges remain. There was interest in greater use of 

plastics and plastic-metal hybrids for improved safety performance of: 

• the hood as the “head impact zone for pedestrian collisions;” 

• bumpers for lower leg impact zone and pedestrian protection; 

• “breakaway” softer parts for vehicle interiors; 

• plastic foams for front header, side air bags, and head impact countermeasures; 

• adaptive restraint systems and force limiters for aging drivers; 

• balanced weight reduction of front and rear seat assemblies and lowering the center of 

gravity to prevent rollovers; and 

• structural applications. 

4.2.4 Priority Research Opportunities for Future PCIV Safety 

Subject Matter Experts who were interviewed identified the following priority research topics by 

time horizon: 

A. Near-Term Research and Development Priorities (three to five years) include: 

• Stronger foam filling on side doors and posts, combined with soft foams to mitigate sideimpact intrusions; 

• Squirted, rigid “structural foams” to fill in and reinforce metal roof structure and pillars 

mitigate rollover injuries; 

• Use of plastics in roofs to lighten top-heavy vehicles and lower center of gravity; 

• Lighter but stronger vehicles (e.g., replace metal pillars with tubes filled with structural 

foams); 

• Improvement of cushioning and belt restraints (e.g., use woven cylindrical seat belts, 

four-point attachments); 

• Adaptive restraint systems “tuned” to occupant size, weight, and age; 

• Use of “smart” materials for “smart” safety devices; and 

• Standardization to the best and safest subsystems designs (such as head restraints, seat 

system designs, etc.). 

A cross-functional industry team identified additional near-term research objectives, to 

address specific NHTSA safety requirements in the relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS) by using: 

• Interior plastics and foams to address applicable NHTSA safety requirements (FMVSS 

nos. 208, 214, 201 and 201U, 207); 

• Body enhancement foams that address NHTSA regulations (FMVSS nos. 208, 214, 216); 

• Seatbacks responsive to standards (ECE17, FMVSS no. 202A); and 

• Exteriors structural strength – per FMVSS no. 215 Exterior Protection in CFR Part 581. 

B. Mid-Term Research Priorities (5 to 10 years) include: 

• Computer-based models for crashworthiness prediction; 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

45 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

• Validated composite components; 

• OEM design guidelines for automotive composites; 

• Validated crashworthiness performance of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composites using 

improved: 

o Testing standards for high-rate impacts;

o Energy absorption predictive tools;

o 3-D computer modeling of materials behavior versus time;

o Durability testing standards;

o Verification in full-scale field testing; and

o Integrated designs for active belt, air bags, and seat systems to enhance protection in 

side impacts.

• Development of new PCIV designs (three to seven years); 

• Marketing of successful PCIV prototype (7 to 10 years); and 

• Industry-identified priorities include: 

o New Federal requirements (FMVSS) for vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility 

development that appropriately accommodate PCIVs; and 

o Interior and exterior plastic applications and body engineered systems to support new 

FMVSS requirements. 

C. Long-term Research Priorities (10-15 years) include: 

• Make use of improved fiber reinforced plastics for rigid door panels, to tailor energy 

absorption to depth of deformation in side crashes; 

• Improve vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility; 

• Lightweight the entire fleet, or lightweight the heaviest vehicles; 

• Compensate with improved passive and active safety devices any disadvantage of lighter 

weight and smaller size cars in collisions with larger and heavier vehicles; and 

• Use advanced materials in automotive safety applications, such as nano-composites, 

hybrid polymers, bio-polymers, and natural fiber materials (which are claimed to be ecofriendly and recyclable to meet End-of-Life goals), but only if they can be shown to 

perform optimally in crash situations. 

The industry-identified priorities also include the development of high-performance polymers 

that meet both cost and safety needs. 

4.2.5 Research Needs for Occupant Safety 

• Improve statistical crash data analysis to understand how severity of injuries and 

survivability vary with age, and identify mitigation options. 

• Develop stronger passenger compartment designs with frontal crush boxes. 

• Improve the occupant restraints and seating systems to restrict side head movements and 

limit head and neck injuries. 

• Adaptive restraint systems “tuned” to occupant size, weight, and age or fragility (to 

“normalize” injury criteria). 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

46 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

• Reduce impact loads with customized occupant space (seating, bolsters, belt system) for 

improved protection and comfort. 

• Optimize the design and performance of the combined passive and active restraints 

system (“sum total of interior passive foams, active air bags and belts”). 

• Other industry-identified priority PCIV safety applications include: 

o Four-point seat belts and seat belt limiters that can do more to protect aging drivers 

than a body structure that meets FMVSS requirements; 

o Plastics that have strain-to-fail characteristics similar to steel that are not strain rate or 

temperature sensitive; 

o Vehicle structure that produces a similar vehicle crash pulse as current production 

vehicle structures using metal (aluminum or steel); 

o Enhanced visibility (glass composites to reduce nighttime glare); and 

o Pre-crash sensors for gentler deployment of safety devices (smart air bags, load 

limiters, inflatable seat belts). 

4.2.6 Barriers and challenges to PCIV development and deployment 

The challenges to market adoption of composites, prioritized by the USCAR Automotive 

Composites Consortium Board:59

1. Total Accounted Cost 

2. Manufacturing (Feasibility and Variability) 

3. Body Construction (Bonding, Joining and Assembly, Feasibility and Variability) 

4. Tier 1 Supplier Capability 

5. Crash (Energy Absorption and Structural Integrity) 

6. Material Performance 

7. Durability 

8. Recycling 

9. Design Methods and Capability 

10. Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) to Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) 

11. Reparability and Maintainability 

12. Flammability 

13. NVH Performance 

Other barriers and challenges identified by the Volpe survey and literature review are: 

• The high cost and limited supply of carbon fiber; 

• The high cost to implement vehicle production (for retooling, bonding and processing 

technologies, manufacturing, assembly, safety certification), even if the cost of fiber 

polymers were low and the supply abundant; 

• Manufacturability and production retooling; 

• Rapid and reliable joining methods; 

• The need to certify crash performance for new materials and/or new applications; and 

• The current, complex, and long OEM process to select, test, integrate, and field 

composites in commercial vehicles. Below are typical durations of each step: 

59 Written communication to complement telephone interview of the ACC-Crash Energy Management (CEM) 

Working Group (WG) 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

47 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

o Screen and select materials for performance and cost: one to two years. 

o Develop and evaluate design (modeling): 6 to 12 months. 

o Develop and implement manufacturing process: three to six months. 

o Perform verify and validate: 6 to 12 months. 

o Field test prototype (crashworthiness, durability, creep, fatigue, aging): one to two 

years. 

o Integrate technology into production vehicles: two to five years. 

o Pass NHTSA safety certification and voluntary standards (NCAP, SAE): one year. 

4.2.7 Suggested Strategies to Overcome Barriers to PCIV Safety 

Deployment 

The experts suggested several strategies to speed up the integration of novel advanced materials 

and their safety applications in the next generation of commercial vehicles. Selected 

representative citations are provided below for future consideration: 

• “The only way to qualitatively and quantitatively prove new materials/applications for all 

drivers is to improve anthropomorphic dummy design and feedback as well as increasing 

the range of seating positions beyond 5% and 95% percentile dummies.” 

• “There will always be some level of testing that is required to validate and quantify the 

performance of the component, system and vehicle during crash.” 

• “Computer Assisted Engineering and Design (CAE/CAD) tools can be used prior to 

validation testing to quantify performance, but the output from the CAE tools is only as 

good as the material data that is used as input for the simulations.” 

• “It is critical to be able to characterize the materials under the same operating conditions 

as seen in the field. The first step is to characterize the materials and use CAE to 

develop a material model. Second step is to develop a lab scale validation test so that 

material models can be verified to CAE. Third step is full vehicle CAE models using 

validated material models. Last step is full vehicle crash test. These results can be 

compared to the full vehicle CAE crash model.” 

4.2.8 Suggested NHTSA Role and Opportunities for PCIV Safety 

R&D 

The experts consulted were enthusiastic about potential NHTSA participation in cooperative 

research efforts on light-weighting and standards development activities. They made the 

following constructive suggestions for consideration towards a future NHTSA PCIV initiative: 

• Provide industry-wide forums to exchange ideas and results of pre-competitive research; 

• Provide funding for Working Groups and organizations (SAE) engaged in precompetitive research; 

• Participate in development of guidelines and standards for crashworthiness of structural 

composites; 

• Establish and/or certify databases on materials properties for industry use; 

• Be an integral part of current ongoing research early in the development phase; 

• Crash test, analyze, and monitor performance of new PCIV prototypes in partnership with 

industry; 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

48 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

• Participate in the design, or monitor industry standardized crash testing, of prototype 

PCIV vehicles to demonstrate any safety advantages of strong, high-energy absorbing 

composites versus alternative materials; 

• Require adaptive safety appliances to enhance protection of older occupants (e.g., knee 

bolsters, side air bags, and curtains); 

• Optimize combined passive and active safety system so as to protect the older and most 

fragile, rather the average adults; and 

• Exploit additional passive safety opportunities (mandate side curtain air bags, knee 

bolsters, etc.) 

4.3 Recommended Top-3 PCIV Safety Research and 

Development and Technology Integration Priorities for 

Roadmap Development 

Several research topics suggested by the experts also appear as priority activities identified by 

the ACC-PD workshop (Appendix 3.1). Those selected for the Safety Roadmap development in 

Chapter 4 have near-term aspects (e.g., development of improved predictive tools and certified 

databases on the mechanical properties of advanced automotive composites) that can be 

continued in the mid-term, such as verification and validation of the improved crashworthiness 

modeling tools developed. 

Similarly, the most promising mid-term activities should also have promise and payoffs for longterm PCIV safety technology integration and deployment. For instance, PCIV prototyping and 

crash testing are needed to demonstrate enhanced protection for all occupants, including the 

elderly. This is the basis for recommending the Top 3 priority activities in each temporal 

category below: 

4.3.1 Near-term Priorities (3-5 years) for Research, Development, 

and Technology 

1. Develop improved statistical crash data analysis tools to: 

• Understand how the severity of injuries and survivability vary with age (to “normalize” 

injury criteria), and 

• Identify integrated safety mitigation options tied to specific applications of advanced 

plastics and composites. 

2. Develop improved predictive crashworthiness tools and databases to enable utilization of 

plastics and composites in PCIVs such as: 

• Stronger passenger compartment designs with frontal crush boxes; 

• Roof designs and materials that are rollover proof; 

• Padded seating systems integrated with weight and impact force sensors; 

• Improved restraints to restrict side head movements and limit head and neck injuries; and 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

49 
SURVEY OF EXPERTS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

• Adaptive smart seat belts restraint systems “tuned” to occupant size, weight, and age or 

fragility. 

3. Review NHTSA safety standards and cooperate with standards organizations in developing 

new standards for testing plastics and composites, to remove any bias and enable PCIV 

deployment. 

4.3.2 Mid-term priorities (5-10 years) for Test and Evaluation 

1. Verify and validate predictive engineering tools for: 

• Structural panels and interior components; 

• Prototype PCIV designs; 

• Alternative materials options; and 

• Performance in realistic crash scenarios. 

2. Evaluate and quantify the PCIV safety benefits due to the application of:

• Specific composite materials; 

• Advanced safety appliances based on plastics and composites; and

• Improved models of PCIV crashes with larger, heavier vehicles.

4.3.3 Long-term priorities (10-15 years) 

1. Partner in cooperative safety research related to PCIV technology integration. 

2. Demonstrate and evaluate PCIV crash safety performance. 

3. Participate in partnership research and demonstration efforts to enhance PCIVs crash 

safety for older occupants. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

50 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

5. SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVs 

5.1 The 2020 PCIV Safety Roadmap Development Strategy 

The Senate Report 109-293 guidance to NHTSA was to “facilitate a foundation of 

cooperation...for the development of safety-centered approaches for future lightweight 

automotive design.” Therefore, this report was designed to lay the foundation for future research 

cooperation, by conducting outreach to a broad cross-section of well-informed and diverse 

stakeholders on PCIV safety issues and goals. Their inputs on knowledge gaps, research 

priorities, and strategies to address the PCIV development and safety challenges and 

opportunities, as summarized in Chapter 4, provide the basis for consensus building on PCIV 

safety goals and milestones that can be translated into Safety Roadmaps. This process and 

resulting work product could also serve as a foundation for future public-private research 

partnerships and collaborative efforts with NHTSA centered on PCIV safety benefits, as desired 

by the Congress. At the same time, this research prioritization and safety-related roadmapping 

effort can inform and support other automotive technology roadmaps for emerging lightweight 

and fuel-efficient vehicles, to ensure that they too include a safety-centered component as part of 

their agenda. 

The situation analysis, trends, and best practices discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 indicate that the 

automotive industry and their materials suppliers have both the expertise and great latitude in the 

adoption of composites in emerging and future fuel efficient and crash-safe vehicles, if 

affordability, reliability and manufacturability barriers can be overcome. This is shown also by 

the increasingly diverse uses of advanced composites in current potentially global compact 

concept cars (such as the 2007 GM Chevrolet VOLT), and in high-end sports cars, which feature 

advanced safety applications. 

It is likely that a global platform PCIV will emerge by 2020, when competing material choices 

and structural designs will be optimized, in order to achieve desired economies of scale and 

secure market share. At present, competing light-weighting materials under investigation 

include aluminum, magnesium, and titanium alloys; hi-performance-steel; carbon fiber and other 

composites; and metal-plastic hybrids. 

Public-private partnerships like USCAR are currently engaged in pre-competitive R&T efforts 

intended to overcome remaining barriers to commercial development and deployment of PCIVs, 

and are making progress towards that goal. 

Crash safety is an implicit requirement for current FreedomCAR RDT&E efforts, no matter 

which materials and designs will be used (see for example the R&D program goals for 

automotive plastics and composites in Figure 5-4). Of the nine USCAR R&D consortia 

discussed in Section 3.3.2, at least four conduct research relevant to crash safety. 

Although a comprehensive approach to crash safety has not been an explicit or central goal of 

existing technology roadmaps, it has been addressed through research projects conducted by the 

DOE/USCAR Crash Energy Management Working Group, and the Automotive Lightweight 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

51 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

Materials (ALM). If completed, the results could be used by the global automotive industry to 

cost-effectively achieve the 50-percent weight reduction and doubling of fuel efficiency goals by 

2020. 

Since the ACC Plastics Division’s Technology Roadmap has not explicitly outlined the 

milestones and strategies focused on vehicle safety, this NHTSA-sponsored project complements 

it by explicitly addressing PCIV crash safety research needs, and provides a consistent timeline 

and milestones for achieving them. Furthermore, this project builds on existing roadmaps and 

leverages ongoing R&T partnership efforts, to cost-effectively capture and extend their potential 

safety benefits for future PCIVs. 

As understanding of plastics and composites performance in structural safety applications 

improves, there will be no need to overdesign with plastics for crash safety assurance. 

Therefore, the materials and designs selected for vehicle shells will have to be both stronger and 

thinner, and therefore potentially cheaper and lighter. 

5.2 Building on Existing Roadmaps for PCIV Safety 

Roadmap 

5.2.1 The DOE/USCAR and FreedomCAR Roadmaps 

The Federal government traditionally has played a key role in the pre-competitive Research, 

Development, and Demonstration (RD&D), with industry assuming the key role in subsequent 

commercialization of materials and technologies. The R&T roadmaps developed by the 

FreedomCAR teams are synergistic with the PCIV safety technology integration and deployment 

goals to some extent, and may serve as a reference point for some aspects of the 2020 PCIV 

safety roadmap. 

The future 2020 PCIV concepts and vehicle technologies will support the ongoing development 

of multiple fuel-efficient design and innovative propulsion solutions, all of which would use 

strong and lightweight plastic and composite materials (hybrid electric, advanced ICE, flexifueled, fuel cell vehicles, etc.). It is assumed that all components, assemblies, and parts will have 

undergone safety verification and validation (V&V), as will the integrated PCIV vehicle system. 

Therefore, a “production-ready PCIV” based on “safety-centered design” principles is really a 

“system of systems.” 

In a critical review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership program, the National Academy of 

Sciences60 2005 report concluded that vehicle safety has not been addressed sufficiently, 

although it is a crosscutting issue of critical importance to successful transition to commercial 

hydrogen-fueled vehicles. It recommended (on pp. 8-9) that “DOE should form a new, 

crosscutting safety technical team”... and that “Both DOE and NHTSA need enough resources 

to carry out their assigned safety roles.” Furthermore, the National Research Council emphasized 

NHTSA’s lead role in a technical team dedicated to ensuring crash safety of future hydrogen 

60 National Research Council. (2005). Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel PartnershipFirst Report. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

52 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

vehicles, which should absorb the existing Safety Codes and Standards development team (pp. 

36-37, ibid.) 

R&D programs related to next-generation Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle Technology (FCVT) 

are already focused on advanced propulsion system development and safety. Advanced 

composites used in lighter propulsion systems and chassis PCIV applications will also improve 

safety by redistributing the weight for greater stability and for rollover prevention. Advanced 

plastics for lighter tops and glazing materials for integrated moon-roof assemblies would also 

contribute to improved mass distribution and rollover stability, as well as confer greater strength 

to the passenger “safety cage.” 

Although they do not explicitly focus on crashworthiness, most existing research and technology 

roadmaps overlap and address to some extent the knowledge gaps and R&D priorities identified 

by the experts surveyed (see Chapter 4). Expanding the knowledge base through research is 

necessary, but not sufficient to fully explore the safety of future PCIVs. 

For over a decade, DOT participated in the PNGV and FreedomCAR partnerships that produced 

automotive technology roadmaps that included development and integration of advanced highstrength, lightweight materials (ALM) into the next generation of vehicles, such as the 

referenced: 

• Technology Roadmap for 21st Century Truck Program (2000); 

• National H2 Energy Roadmap (2002); 

• FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: Materials Technology Roadmap (2006); 

• Hydrogen Posture Plan- An Integrated RD&D Plan (2006); and 

• FreedomCAR and FreedomFUEL Partnership: Materials Technology Roadmap (2006). 

Safety appears to be an implicit goal for all USCAR R&T team efforts, which can be leveraged 

as “building blocks” for future PCIV safety-oriented designs and development, as illustrated in 

excerpted Figures 5-1 through 5-5: 

• Figure 5-1 shows the general Automotive Composites Consortium (ACC) timeline for 

developing new automotive materials and technologies, which set a commercialization 

decision milestone in 2015. It is consistent with the PCIV safety roadmap and NHTSA 

Technologies integration timetable shown in Figure 5-7. 

• Figure 5-2 excerpted from the Materials Technologies Roadmap, shows activities 

focusing on diverse Automotive Light-weighting Materials, as well as on high-strength 

materials for structural applications to the entire fleet of light and heavy duty vehicles, 

and on specialty high-temperature materials for propulsion systems. 

• Figure 5-3, reproduced from the recent FreedomCAR Vehicle Systems Analysis 

Technical Team (VSATT)61 Roadmap, shows on the left side that the strategy for 

integrating emerging lightweight, high-strength materials and technologies into a future 

61 FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership-Vehicle Systems Analysis Technical Team, (September 2006). 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

53 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

reference fuel-efficient vehicle is congruent with the R&D priorities identified in Chapter 

4. These goals include: modeling and simulation for a “reference vehicle” (including a 

PCIV), benchmarking the performance of components and the full vehicle, as well as 

Verification and Validation (V&V) prior to technology integration into commercial 

production vehicles. The USCAR Vehicle Systems Analysis Technical Team (VSATT) 

has not yet defined the 2010 reference vehicle, but it plans to integrate the results from all 

other USCAR teams, use advanced modeling and simulation tools, and conduct 

validation testing, benchmarking and field demonstrations of components and system 

fleet performance of concept vehicles. 

• The FreedomCAR Materials Technology Roadmap specifies strategic research goals and 

objectives for lightweight automotive composite materials essential to enabling PCIV 

safety, as shown in Figure 5-4. In particular the FreedomCar Roadmap focuses on 

alternative light-weighting materials, including Carbon Fiber/Polymer Matrix 

Composites, Glazing materials, as shown in Figure 5-4a and 5-4b, respectively. 

o The USCAR Carbon Fiber/Polymer Matrix Composites (CF/PMC) materials roadmap 

shown in Figure 5-4a includes as an explicit Long-term goal (5-10 years): 

“Predictive Modeling for Crashworthiness” and “Optimum design and prediction of 

durability and failure.” 

o Similar structural performance and durability goals are explicit research objectives for 

the Glazing plastics roadmap (Fig 5-4b). 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

54 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

Materials Technologies

Transitional 

Phases

I. Technology 

 Development 

 Phase

II. Initial Market 

 Penetration 

 Phase 

III. Infrastructure 

 Investment 

 Phase 

IV. Fully Developed 

 Market and 

 Infrastructure 

 Phase 

Strong Government 

R&D Role

Strong Industry 

Commercialization Role

20002020201020302040

Phase

I

Phase

II

Phase

III

Phase

IV

RD&D I

Transition to the Marketplace

Commercialization Decision

II

Expansion of Markets and Infrastructure III

Realization of the Hydrogen Economy IV

Timeline Timeline

Figure 5-1: Timeline, performers, and roles for the DOE FreedomCAR Automotive Composites Consortium 

partnership for materials technology development. Source: The DOE/USCAR Technology Roadmap for 

lightweight, energy-efficient vehicles (from the presentation by J. Carpenter, May 2006 SAE/Industry) 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

55 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

Figure 5-2 : Lightweight and high-strength materials for applications to structures and propulsion in nextgeneration vehicles are an explicit objective under the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnerships and the 21st 

Century Truck Partnership. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

56 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

Figure 5-3: Depiction of the USCAR strategy to model, develop, integrate, verify, and validate emerging 

lightweight, high-strength materials and technologies for a future reference fuel-efficient vehicle. (Reference: 

“FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership-Vehicle Systems Analysis Technical Team,” September 2006) 

-Wheel

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

57
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

ced

Figure 5-4: Figure from “Driving Technology: A Transition Strategy to Enhance Energy Security,” 

DOE/EERE May 26, 2006. Safety is an implicit “utility” in every step on the ladder depicting the progress 

towards energy-efficient FCVs over time. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

58
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

Figure 5-4a: Selected Roadmaps for automotive composite materials from “FreedomCAR and 

FreedomFUEL Partnership: Materials Technology Roadmap” (October 2006). See Carbon-Fiber/Polymer 

matrix composites at 

www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/materials_team_technical_roadmap.pdf 

 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

59 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

Figure 5-4b: The structural strength of glazing plastics and composite materials for vehicle windows and 

roofs are very important to occupant safety in crashes (e.g., to prevent ejection in rollovers). 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

60 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

5.2.2 The NHTSA Integrated Safety Strategy and Timeline 

In light of NHTSA’s interest in crashworthiness (passive safety) and crash avoidance (active 

safety), this Roadmap focuses on the structural safety of advanced composite materials, 

including thermoset and thermoplastic polymer matrix composites and newer nano-composites, 

that could be used in future PCIVs. The Roadmap highlights the key enabling research areas 

needed to fill existing knowledge gaps and their probable timetable. 

Recently, NHTSA adopted an “integrated safety” approach to vehicle crash safety research, in 

order to reap the safety benefits from the synergistic deployment of multiple safety technologies. 

These are depicted in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 and discussed above in Section 2.1.4, PCIV 2020 

Vision. This approach is intended to better prevent crashes, manage the impact shock, mitigate 

injury severity, and enhance occupant protection through the integration of active and passive 

safety technologies. In addition, the NHTSA safety research program has developed a safety 

technology integration strategy and timeline, shown in Figure 5-7. This safety research strategy 

will capture the benefits of industry innovations and inform future regulatory development. This 

research and technology strategy cuts across all phases of Haddon’s Matrix for crash injury 

prevention, event response and injury mitigation, and recognizes the complex interactions of 

vehicle performance, driver behavior and the environment. 

As shown in Figure 5-7B, NHTSA’s strategy is to monitor and quantify the safety benefits of 

deploying and integrating the broad range of innovative active and passive occupant protection 

systems. The technologies listed include improved energy absorbing structures, and 

comprehensive and adaptive restraint systems, in which advanced composites and other highstrength materials and structures envisioned for PCIVs could play a key role. 

In the mid-term, by 2014, NHTSA envisions capturing the safety benefits of deploying active 

safety technologies for Driver Warning and Assistance Systems, ranging from the currently 

mandated Electronic Stability Control (ESC) to Automatic Braking and Collision Notification 

systems. Several driver assistance technologies appear particularly promising for enhancing 

older drivers’ and passengers’ protection, such as night-vision systems, lane departure warning, 

and intersection collision avoidance systems. 

This crosscutting, integrated safety research strategy could be extended to embrace the 

application of advanced materials in structural safety applications, and any complementary safety 

enhancements to future PCIVs. 

5.2.3 Extending the ACC-PD Automotive Technology Roadmaps to 

PCIV Safety 

The American Chemistry Council – Plastics Division’s automotive technology roadmap for 

plastics62 treated safety (see Chapter 3) as an integral part of the “Safety, Environment, and 

Health” issue. It noted, however, the rapid progress in passive and active safety features 

dependent on plastics improvements, and improvements in crash energy management (CEM) 

62See Plastics in Automotive Markets Vision and Technology Roadmap, American Plastics Council, 2001. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

61 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

through use of advanced structural materials, crumple zones, and design strategies. The ACCPD roadmap’s coverage of Advanced Materials Systems (in Ch. 4, ibid.), as well as the 

Predictive Engineering, Testing, and Modeling coverage (Chapter 5, ibid. reproduced in Figure 

5-7) and strategic objectives are very similar to the USCAR Roadmaps discussed above. 

Furthermore, there is broad consensus between the ACC-PD roadmap and the RDT&E priority 

needs that resulted from the experts’ survey in Chapter 4. This broad-based consensus suggests 

that vehicle safety will be able to benefit from, and build on the progress achieved by ongoing 

partnership programs in the next decade. 

The American Chemistry Council Plastics Division (ACC-PD) provided the following guidance 

regarding the definition of a “baseline” 2020 PCIV and probable milestones and progress metrics 

relevant to a PCIV Safety Roadmap:63 

• “Through PCIV designs, cars will be on the average 50-percent lighter than today’s 

passenger automobiles.” 

• “A PCIV will include multiple materials in its construction...Major automotive systems 

are at least partially designed and manufactured in plastics and composites.” 

• “PCIVs incorporate all light vehicles including passenger cars, SUVs, and pick-ups, and 

have the potential to embrace medium and heavy-duty vehicles as well.” 

The ACC-PD also offered the following clarifications regarding the probable PCIV technology 

readiness level (TRL) by 2020, to reflect on whether the PCIV would be only in the conceptual 

design stage by 2020, or technology prototypes in the Test and Evaluation (T&E) phase, or if 

PCIVs will actually be commercially deployed: 

• “At least one manufacturer will introduce a production PCIV by 2020 acceptable to 

consumers, which meets applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).” 

• “In addition, all major vehicle manufacturers will be PCIV design-capable by 2020.” 

Continuing improvements in traditional vehicle interior plastics applications will enable future 

PCIVs to feature: 

• An improved “safety cocoon” in the passenger cabin to better protect older occupants; 

• More effective interior padding, such as a roof canopy to protect occupants in rollover 

crashes; 

• Improved, adaptive seat assemblies that cradle the passengers in impacts; and 

• Advanced, smart safety appliances able to cushion and attenuate impact forces, and to 

redistribute or deflect impact loads. 

Since plastics and composites are already used to a large extent for interior safety applications 

(air bags, foam padding, seat assemblies) and industry continues to improve them incrementally, 

the major growth opportunities for future PCIVs are in exterior and propulsion system 

applications. 

 

63 American Chemistry Council Plastics Division (ACC-PD), PCIV Automotive Safety Roadmap Input for the Volpe 

Center, March 19, 2007. E-mailed by Cole & Associates, Inc. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

62 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

5.3 Translating R&D Priorities into PCIV Safety Roadmaps 

The RD&T priorities identified for each time horizon in Chapter 4 could be met progressively 

over time and integrated seamlessly into best industrial practices in order to develop a 

production-ready commercial PCIV prototype fully compliant with NHTSA safety requirements 

and industry Best Practices: 

• In the near-term (3-5 years): address materials engineering knowledge gaps (standardized 

test procedures, databases, modeling and simulation tools) and identify effective 

protection strategies for older occupants. 

• In the mid-term (5-10 years): develop PCIV designs with >50 percent plastics and plastic 

composites content, then Test and Evaluate (T&E) components and subsystems to model 

integrated system crash performance and benefits. 

• In the long-term (15-20 years): document, analyze, verify, and validate the effectiveness 

of the integrated crash safety strategy for PCIVs. Another specific long-term goal is to 

demonstrate superior PCIV crash safety protection of older drivers and occupants, to 

better advance PCIV public acceptance and market penetration. 

The present report and PCIV Safety Roadmap are intentionally general and designed to offer a 

high level status report on current R&D, knowledge gaps on materials safety performance and to 

guide future national RDT&E activities and milestones. The new safety Roadmap schematics in 

Figures 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10 preserve the ACC-PD’s Technology Integration Report format, as well 

as extend and complement it. If addressed by future R&D efforts, the Roadmap could serve to 

fill existing knowledge gaps concerning the predicted and actual crash safety performance of 

composite materials in specific PCIV designs (as shown in Figure 5-9, Strategic PCIV safety 

priorities and in Figure 5-10). Therefore, this initial effort gives industry freedom in innovative 

design, choice of materials and of safety technology solutions. Follow-on collaborative and 

coordinated research is needed to further develop the safety roadmap in greater depth and detail, 

to evaluate potential safety benefits from specific materials and technology applications. 

5.4 Potential NHTSA Role in Safety Assurance of Future 

PCIVs 

In the near- and mid-term, industry, academia, and professional standards organizations will 

continue to play a major role in developing and implementing the PCIV safety roadmaps, with 

the cooperation and funding support of multiple Federal agencies. 

Road safety and consumer stakeholder organizations, as well as NHTSA, as a safety regulatory 

agency, will have important roles in the long-term facilitation and acceptance of PCIV as safe 

consumer market products. Prototype PCIV crash safety will have to be modeled, tested, and 

evaluated under realistic field-conditions, to verify their compliance with NCAP and FMVSS 

regulations, and perhaps improved for large scale commercial deployment and consumer 

acceptance beyond 2020. 

 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

63 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

NHTSA’s role in influencing a safety-centered future PCIV will be consistent with its mission as 

a vehicle safety regulatory agency. NHTSA’s ability to participate in public-private R&T 

partnerships and to cooperate in development of technical standards applicable to PCIVs would 

depend on agency policy and priorities, as well as on resources. In the near and mid-term, 

NHTSA could continue to monitor and evaluate the findings of FreedomCAR technical groups 

focused on vehicle safety and occupant protection. 

Figure 5-5: Summary of research and development priorities for plastics and composites in automotive safety 

applications, as identified in the May 2006 ACC-PD report. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

64

integrate safety into
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

Figure 5-6: A and B- NHTSA technology integration timeline for active and passive safety technologies, from 

“Overview of NHTSA Research for Enhancing Safety,” October 11, 2006. Detroit presentation by Dr. W. T. 

Hollowell. 

lash Protection

air bags)

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

65
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

66 

Figure 5-7 : Roadmap for Predictive Engineering tools needed to model crash safety performance of plasticsintensive vehicles reproduced from the 2001 ACC-PD report “Plastics in Automotive Markets-Vision and 

Technology Integration.” This is a key mid-term (5-10 years) research and technology priority identified in 

this study. 
SAFETY ROADMA

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

Present SCREEN & SELECT COMPOSITE MATERIALS FOR PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTE

LIGHT-WEIGHTING DATABASE TAILORED TO PART DESIGN AND FEATURES.

Near-term (3-5 years) Mid-term (5-10 years) Long-term (10-15 years) Far-

Use Computational 

Crashworthiness Model to Predict 

Loading, Crash Energy 

Management, and Failure 

Behavior. 

Integrate Into Full Scale Concept 

Car, Field Test, and Compare 

Safety Performance in 

Standardization Tests 

Prototype Component or SubSystem (e.g. Door Panels) NHT

R

PCIV C

Compile a Comprehensive 

Database on Mechanical 

Properties (Static & Dynamic) 

Develop Test Procedures 

Perform Accelerated Validation & 

Verification Static And Dynamic

Lab Scale Test to Optimize Crash 

Performance 

Coll

 Crash-Te

Optimize Design for Crash Oc

Field Test PCIV Prototypes Safety Performance, focusing on 

Older Demographic to Improve Production Model

Figure 5-8: Timeline for Research and Technology Integration for PCIV Safety Roadmap 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

67 
SAFETY ROADMA

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

68 

Enhancing Plastics and Composites Intensive Vehicles Safety Performance With Plastics 

Challenges / Milestones • Design concepts 

• Materials screening • Testing standards • Simulations and validation

• Systems integration• Crash safety testing• Performance metrics • PCIV deployment

Performers Near-term (3-5 years) Mid-term (5-10 years) Long-

Research, Development, and 

Technology on Automotive 

Composites 

Test & Evaluation 

Of PCIV Prototype Crash Safety 

System 

Safe

Develop Testing Standards 

and Safety Evaluation Tools for 

PCIV Designs

1 yr. Crash Safety Verification & Validation Simulations

Sel 5-6 yrs. ect Lightweight Structural

Materials for PCIV 

2-3 yrs.

Industry – Government – 

University 

Public Private Partnerships 

(P3)

Develop PCIV Materials Processing /

Parts Fabrication 

3-5 yrs.

Crash Safety Testing & Validation

For PCIV Subsystems and Vehicle 

6-8 yrs.

PC

NHTSA 

Role

NHTSA Monitors Progress in 

Crash Safety Research and 

Development

NHTSA Evaluates Results of 

Crashworthiness 

Verification & Validation

NHT

Crash 

(NC

Figure 5-9: Roadmap to PCIV Safety 
SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PCIVS 

Milestones PCI

V

Testing Crash Perform

ance Materials Selection Major Challenges 

Strategic Priorities for 2020 Plastics and Composite Intensive Vehicles Safety Assurance 

Integration 

Perform focused, coordinated and integrated safety research, development, 

test, and evaluation Program to improve crash-safety performance of 

plastic/composite components and subsystems for a 2020 PCIV. 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Priority

Near-term (2007-2010) Mid-term (2010-2015) Long-term (2015-2020) 

Perform research and technology Modeling and simulation to Demonstrate integrated safety 

to address “knowledge gaps” on verify and validate performance for prototype PCIV 

crash-safety performance of PC plastic/composite crash safety in to enable commercial 

materials structural, semi-structural deployment

applications

• Standardize testing protocols • Validate plastic/composite • Industry crash-test and selffor composite materials materials choices in safety certify PCIV safety 

applications

• Characterize mechanical • Prototype and test • Identify and overcome PCIV

behavior of plastic/composite components (door panels, roof, crash-compatibility problems

materials in safety applications front and back “crush boxes”) for all occupants 

• Establish comprehensive • Verify and validate for • Demonstrate enhanced PCIV

Database for light-weighting baseline PCIV design to safety performance for older 

materials options evaluate integrative safety occupants (using advanced

system performance dummies) 

• Refine predictive engineering • Devise and evaluate special • NHTSA verifies PCIVs 

tools for Modeling and crash- protection needs for compliance with crash- safety 

Simulation of PCIV components older occupants regulatory requirements 

and system crash performance 

↑ ↑

• Test Standards Issued • PCIV Structural and Propulsion 

• CHM-17 Crash Energy Validated for Realistic Crash

Database Standardized and Loads 

Current • Full PCIV System is 

• Modeling and Simulation Crashworthy 

Crash Safety Tools Available • Improved Older Occupants 

Survivability is Demonstrated

Figure 5-10: Strategic Priority Activities Leading to PCIV Safety Assurance by 2020

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

69 
APPENDICES 

6. Appendices 

6.1 Appendix 3.1- PRIORITY CROSSCUT SAFETY ISSUES IN 

THE APC WORKSHOP REPORT ENHANCING 

AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY WITH PLASTICS 

1. Accommodate Changing Demographics - Older Population Growth 

 

• Increasing vehicle side impact compatibility 

o Development of “Smart Plastics” 

o Optimize energy management for side impact 

o Design side air bags to meet new standards 

o Improve rollover safety 

• How to accommodate older population and other diversity issues 

o Optimize energy absorption and transfer 

o Develop energy-absorbing plastic structure covering door-to-door 

o Develop a practical elderly test dummy 

o Develop age-based air bags and performance metrics 

o Develop appropriate lower-body countermeasures 

o Improve effective part design for energy management 

 New materials 

 Inflatable air bags 

o Define Material energy absorption characteristics 

o Develop inflatable seat belts for the elderly 

o Consider multi-stage air bags 

o Develop belt materials that can uniformly transfer occupant loads 

• Providing safety solutions in reduced package spaces 

o Develop inflatable padding for rollovers 

o Develop unconventional air bags 

 Smart air bags 

2. General safety priorities 

• Further integrate safety into existing platforms (ongoing product cycles) [body and 

exterior] 

• *Compose master plan for developing test standards, material classifications, and 

modeling of plastics in safety applications [interior] 

• Characterize plastic safety performance [light-weighting] 

• Standardize material performance specifications [light-weighting] 

• Optimize safety and fuel efficiency [Powertrain & Chassis] 

• Improve predictive modeling capabilities for composites. [Powertrain & Chassis] 

• Enhance crash performance with improved energy management 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

70 
APPENDICES 

• Accommodate changing demographics to older population 

• Plastics can contribute to vehicle compatibility through light-weighting, structural 

interactions, and energy sharing. 

• Plastics can enable tighter integration of active and passive safety systems 

• Plastics experts should observe full-vehicle crash testing to gain insight into real-world 

challenges. 

2.1 INTERIOR 

• Improving passenger impact protection 

• Reducing passenger ejection 

• Retarding fire and warning of potential problems 

• Enabling safer driving 

• Challenge: Improving passive safety 

• Providing safety solutions in reduced package space 

o Smaller/lighter systems could allow for overall reductions in weight 

• Increasing vehicle compatibility (Side Impact)64 

o Develop pre-crash sensing and adaptive restraints 

• Providing safety solutions in reduced package spaces 

o Design to increase crush space 

o Develop integral seat design with functional fabric and pre-crash mechanism 

• Competition between lightweight versus safety 

o Design and safety test integrated components 

o Define active safety capabilities and light-weighting impacts 

• Improving seat belt design 

o Demonstrate new plastics potential 

• Crosscutting issues: 

o For structural component, improve testing and understanding of fatigue, high-rate 

response, material aging effects 

o Update OEM specifications and test methods to target plastic properties or 

performance needed 

o Improve systems for grouping plastics 

o Understand aged material performance and design 

2.2 BODY AND EXTERIOR 

• Absorbing crash energy and improving stability 

• Reducing head and body injuries 

• Challenges: passive safety 

o Managing crash energy to protect occupants 

o Achieving weight reduction for body/exteriors without compromising safety 

o Improving roof crush performance in rollovers 

• Challenges: validation 

o Lack of demonstrated durability and reliability data from materials providers 

 

64 Note that current vehicle incompatibilities challenge the ability to balance side impact, intrusion resistance, and 

energy absorption, but could be overcome in PCIVs by using a modular approach. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

71 
APPENDICES 

• Priority activities 

o Resisting vehicle intrusion and roof crush (demonstrate and validate) 

o Reducing body and exterior weight without negatively impacting safety 

• Activities needed to enhance future automotive safety in the body and exterior 

o Vehicle intrusion and roof crush 

 Develop, test, and certify body panels as part of safety structure 

 Design foam interior structure. 

 Improve energy absorption in frontal or side impacts 

 Evaluate plastic-metal hybrid for roof crush 

o Develop prototype structure and performance data 

2.3 POWERTRAIN AND CHASSIS 

• Challenges: 

o Fuel efficiency 

 Light-weighting vehicles without compromising crash performance 

o Computational Methods 

 Limited predictive modeling capabilities for all types of polymer composites 

(testing is essential) 

• Activities needed: 

o Optimizing Safety and Fuel Efficiency 

 Improve the understanding of safety factors influenced by light-weighting 

 Study trade-offs of parts integration 

o Expanding predictive modeling capabilities for all types of Polymer Composites 

 Develop FEA models and standard test methods 

o Responding to impacts of alternative fuel vehicles and power-train options 

 Develop non-flammable laminates and sandwich structures 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

72 
APPENDICES 

6.2 Appendix 4.1- EXPERTS INTERVIEW GUIDE 

1. Field of Expertise: Please indicate your professional background and affiliation (check 

box) 

• Federal 

• Industry 

• Academia 

• Professional or Standards Association 

• Nonprofit NGO 

• Other 

2. Please indicate if and how you have been/are involved with automotive 

• safety applications 

• plastics and composites design and development 

• technology integration and deployment 

• vehicle crashworthiness and energy management (testing) 

3. Which safety applications used plastics and composites (please specify material and 

check one or more, if applicable): 

• Structural strength (body chassis, motor) 

• Interior foam 

• Seat belt or 

• Air bag system 

• Other (windshield, glazing, roof, bumpers) 

Notes (please discuss): 

4. Please estimate how long it took in the past and would take in the future for automotive 

plastics and composites R&DT&E through technology integration for commercial 

deployment: 

• Screen for materials and select supplier 

• Develop and evaluate design using Modeling and Simulation 

• Perform Verification and Validation 

• Prototype and field- test (components or full scale vehicle?) 

• Develop material quality and manufacturing processes 

• Integrate the technology into commercial vehicles 

• Confirm and prove its value (benefits to cost ratio) over time 

• Pass the NHTSA crash tests for safety certification (FMVSS, NCAP, Voluntary standards 

and guidelines) 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

73 
APPENDICES 

5. Please designate your Top 3 priority safety applications of plastics and composite 

materials for the: 

• near-term (3-5 years) 

• mid-term (5-10 years) 

• long-term (10-15 years) 

(Please match if possible a specific material to a specific safety application in a real 

vehicle model, and justify your recommendation). 

6. Please comment on the crashworthiness performance of composites in existing vehicles 

and proposed PCIV and identify: 

i. Knowledge gaps 

ii. Research needs 

iii. Time to develop and demonstrate safety 

iv. Time to penetrate the market (in United States? Abroad?) 

7. If a major objective is to enhance the protection of aging drivers and passengers in 

crashes, what are the most promising safety enhancements for PCIVs in your opinion? 

8. How can the safety advantages of new materials/applications for everyone in general, 

and for aging drivers in particular, be proven both qualitatively and quantitatively? 

9. What are the major knowledge gaps and technical challenges to greater use of advanced 

composites)? 

10. Please identify any safety-related regulatory barriers and standards development needs to 

foster PCIV deployment. 

 

11. How can DOT/NHTSA best facilitate and speed up the deployment of lightweight 

PCIVs, while ensuring they perform at equal or better safety? 

12. Please suggest when and how should NHTSA be involved in the safety performance of 

automotive plastics and composites? 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

74 
APPENDICES 

6.3 Appendix 4.2-LIST OF EXPERTS INTERVIEWED65

Name Affiliation Responses 

Dr. Joseph DOE HQ Phone interview, papers received 

Carpenter 

Rogelio DOE HQ Discussion at ACCE06, phone conversation, presentation

Sullivan received 

Dr. David DOE/ORNL Phone interview, form completed

Warren 

Dr. Mark Smith DOE/PNL Phone interview (DOE/APC/NSF CRADA)

Drs. David DOE/ANL Phone contact, form completed and e-mailed 

Weber and Ron 

Kulak 

Dr. Steve NHTSA HQ Phone interview 

Riddella (formerly TRW) 

Don Willke NHTSA/VRTC Phone interview 

Felix Wu DOC/NIST/ATP Phone interview, web posted refs. 

Prof. Joseph MIT Age Lab Meeting, papers provided

Coughlin and CTS 

Prof. Paul MIT Aero/Astro Phone interview, form and supporting information was eLagace Adv. Composite mailed

Lab 

Prof. Marc Ross U. Phone interview, form completed and papers e-mailed 

Mich./UMTRI 

Dr. Susan Hill UDRI Phone interview, papers e-mailed

Prof. Paolo UW/Dept. of Phone interview, form completed and papers e-mailed 

Feraboli Aero. & Astro.

Dr. Jackie Exponent, Chair Phone interview, meeting at ACCE06, form completed

Rehkopf SAE Plastics 

Stds. Devpt. 

Comm. 

Richard Jeryan, Ford R&D Ctr. Phone interview with ACC Crash Energy Management (CEM) 

Mark Botkin, GM R&D Ctr. Working Group (WG), e-mailed ACC Plastics issues 

Chaitra Nailadi DaimlerChrysler 

Dr. David Zuby VP Res., IIHS Phone Interview, papers provided 

D. McLeod & Dow Form completed, e-mail suggestions 

team Automotive 

 

65 About a dozen other experts were approached by phone or e-mail and did not respond, including: NSF, AARP, 

and several industry experts identified by APC or literature search. The total number of non-Federal respondents is 

less than the 10 allowed by OMB PRA limitations on surveys. The CEM-WG group interview included several Big3 and DOE labs representatives. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

75 
REFERENCES 

7. REFERENCES 

1. Commission for Global Road Safety. Global Road Safety Factfile 2006. Retrieved from 

www.fiafoundation.com/commisionforglobalroadsafety/factfile/index.html. 

2. Society of Plastics Engineers (SPE) – Automotive & Composites Division. (2007) 

Proceeding and presentations from the 7th Annual SPE Automotive Composites 

Conference in Troy, Michigan. 

3. AFP. (2006). GM to launch more than 100 Fuel Cell SUV’s Worldwide. World Business 

Council for Sustainable Development – AFP. Retrieved in September 2006 from 

www.afp.com. 

4. Ahmad, S. and Greene, D. (2004). The Effect of Fuel Economy on Automobile Safety: A 

Reexamination (TRB-05-1336). Posted at www.ornl.gov. 

5. Aksys. (2005). GMT Composite Pedestrian Beam Wins in New Safety Category at SPE 

Innovation Award Gala Pedestrian Beam Protects at Lower Weight, Cost. Retrieved in 

December 2005 from www.quadrant.ch. 

6. Albright, B. (2006, September). Toyota Debuts Collision Avoidance Systems in Lexus. 

(Origin of article is unknown). 

7. American Plastics Council. (2001). Plastics in Automotive Markets Vision and 

Technology Roadmap. 

8. Lovins, A.B., Datta, E.K., et al. (2004). Winning the Oil Endgame American Innovation 

for Profits, Jobs, and Security. RMI. 

9. Argonne National Laboratory. (2005). DOE Officials Visit Argonne’s Transportation 

Facilities. Retrieved from 

www.transportation.anl.gov/features/20050506_bodman_visit.htm. 

10. Argonne National Laboratory.(2005). Recycling Automotive Scrap. 

11. Houser, A. (2005) Fact Sheet on Older Drivers and Automobile Safety. AARP Public 

Policy Institute. 

12. ASC. (2006, January). ASC (American Specialty Cars) Shows off Capabilities in Design, 

Open Air, Performance Materials Like. Retrieved from www.ascglobal.com. 

13. Associated Press. (2006, September). GM Adding Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle to 

California Fleet. 

14. Aucken, A. (2006, March). Fully Composite Car Leads the Way. Retrieved from

www.advanced-composites.com. 

15. Auto Alliance (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers). Driving Innovation- Factsheets 

posted at www.autoalliance.org: 

a. Auto Safety Enhancements. 

b. Automakers Compatibility Commitment. 

c. Improving Everyone’s Safety Through Voluntary Industry Cooperation. 

d. Alliance Response to NHTSA Electronic Stability Control Announcement. 

e. Obsessed with Safety: Your car- a Cocoon of Safety. 

16. Automotive Composites Alliance. (2006). Latest Developments in Thermoset Composites 

from the 2006 Automotive Composites Conference & Exhibition. CD. 

17. Automotive Composites Consortium. Developing Structural Composites for Large 

Automotive Parts. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

76 
REFERENCES 

18. Automotive Design and Production. Cost-Effective Composite Cars? Retrieved from 

www.autofieldguide.com/articles/wip/0505wip02.html. 

19. Automotive Learning Center. (2004). Frequently Asked Questions on Safety, Retrieved 

from www.plastics-car.com/s_plasticscar/doc.asp?CID=407&DID=1610. 

20. Automotive Plastics Web site

www.americanplasticscouncil.org/s_apc/sec.asp?CID=303&DID=902. American 

Plastics Council, Accessed July 2006. 

21. Automotive.com. (2006). 2006 Toyota Prius Review: Model Lineup – The environment’s 

best friend. Retrieved from 

www.automotive.com/2006/43/toyota/prius/reviews/lineup/index.html. 

22. Autoworld. Composites: Multiple Strengths, Infinite Possibilities. Sponsored by the 

Automotive Composites Alliance of the ACMA. 

23. Barret, R. (2006, September). Racing Speeds up Auto Innovation. Boston Sunday Globe. 

24. Braver, E.R., and Trempel, R.E. (2004). Are Older Drivers Actually at Higher Risk of 

Involvement in Collisions Resulting in Deaths or Nonfatal Injuries Among their 

Passengers and other Road Users? Injury Prevention 10, 27-32.

25. Brosius, D. (2006, June) Engineering Insights: LFRT Uncovers Hidden Value for New 

Jeep Vehicle. Composites Technology. 

26. Brown, K. (2006, October). Gentlemen, start your hydrogen rotary, turbo parallel 

hybrids, what’s next; concept cars go green, even using solar panels to turn on the cool 

air. FutureCars. 

27. Bunkley, N. (2006, October). Compact Cars May Not be Brawny, but They Are Getting 

Safer. The New York Times. 

28. Burkhardt, J, and Eberhard, J. (2003). Technical Background for a Symposium on 

Transportation Mobility for the Elderly (NCHRP Project 20-24[24]). 

29. Burkhardt, J. (2003). Improving Transportation Services – Visions for Mobility. CalACT 

Spring Conference, April 2003. 

30. Burr, S., Hill, S., and Ramoo, R. (2003). Determining Accuracy of and Establishing 

Guidelines for Use of High Strain Rate Polymeric Material Data in Predictive 

Crashworthiness Models. Joint Project between SAE, University of Dayton, and Altair 

Engineering. 

31. Busel, J. (2006). CM Multiple Strengths, Infinite Possibilities: On My Honor: Scouts 

Need Industry Pros to Support Composite Material Merit Badge. Composites 

Manufacturing Association. 

32. Buters, J.T., Schober, W. et al. (2007). Toxicity of Parked Motor Vehicle Indoor Air. 

Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 41. No 7, 2622-2629. 

33. Caird, J. (2004). In-vehicle Intelligent Transportation Systems: Safety and Mobility of 

Older Drivers. Conference Proceedings 27, Transportation Research Board, 236-255. 

34. Cameron, K. (2006, October). Aluminum is Striving for Mass Appeal, but With a Lot 

Less Mass. The New York Times. 

35. Carbon-Fiber. Retrieved in May 2006 from www.answers.com/topic/carbon-fiber. 

36. Carpenter, J., Daniels, E., Sklad, P., Warren, D., and Smith, M. (2006). The R&D of the 

FreedomCAR Materials Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 

37. Carpenter, J. (2006). PNGV/FreedomCAR Materials Crashworthiness R&D. Washington, 

DC: U.S Department of Energy. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

77 
REFERENCES 

38. Chappell, L., and Nussel, P. (2006, August). Weight Watchers: Suppliers to make 

vehicles lighter. Automotive News. 

39. Chea, T. (2006). Silicon Valley Entrepreneurs race for Electric Car Market. San 

Francisco Chronicle. 

40. Chea, T. (2006, October). Race is on to bring electric sports cars to market. Boston 

Sunday Globe. 

41. Cirincione, R. (2006). Innovation and Stagnation – In Automotive Safety and Fuel 

Efficiency. Center for the Study of Responsive Law. 

42. Claybrook, J., (2004). President, Public Citizen. Comments on Side Impact Protection, 

NPRM 69FR27900 et seq., May 17, 2004. 

43. The Budd Company, Design Center. (2001). Composite Materials Promise Increased 

Fuel Efficiency. 

44. Composites: Low-Cost Carbon Fiber – Will the Market Develop? (2006, June). 

Composites Technology.

45. Reinforced Thermoplastics – Thermoformable Composite Panels, Part II. (2006, June).

Composites Technology.

46. Coughlin, J.F. Testimony before United States Senate Special Committee on Aging, April 

27, 2004. 

47. Coughlin, J., and Reimer, B. (2006). New Demands form an Older Population: An 

Integrated Approach to Defining the Future of Older Driver Safety. SAE Convergence 

Paper #06SS-51, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

48. Coughlin, J. (2005). Disruptive Demographics: Old Age & New Transportation 

Demands. New England University Transportation Center. 

49. Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) postings at wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-50/ciren/CIREN.html. 

50. Crashworthiness Resource. (2006, July). 2006 Most Recalled Vehicles. Automobile 

Manufacturer Recalls and News. 

51. Crashworthiness Resource. (2005, June). GM Issues Saturn Recall. Automobile 

Manufacturer Recalls and News..

52. Crashworthiness Resource. (2006, June). New Technology Could Reduce Rollover Risk. 

Automobile Manufacturer Recalls and News. 

53. Crashworthiness Resource. Airbag Failure. Automobile Manufacturer Recalls and News. 

54. Crashworthiness Resource. (2005, December). Attorney Generals Challenge Roof 

Strengthening Bill. Automobile Manufacturer Recalls and News. 

55. Crashworthiness Resource. Auto Accident Facts. Automobile Manufacturer Recalls and 

News. 

56. Crashworthiness Resource. Automotive Defects-Roof Crush. Automobile Manufacturer 

Recalls and News. 

57. Crashworthiness Resource. (2005, April). GAO Report Confirms Government Test Crash 

Program Out-Dated. Automobile Manufacturer Recalls and News. 

58. Crashworthiness Resource. Roof Crush Injury. Automobile Manufacturer Recalls and 

News. 

59. Cummings-Saxton, J. (2001). Automobile Materials Competition: Energy Implications of 

Fiber-Reinforced Plastics, Argonne National Lab, ANL/CNSV-25. 

60. D’Amico, R. (2006). Breaking Molds – Bayer Material Science and Rinspeed Develop 

New Concept Car. American Composites Manufacturers Association. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

78 
REFERENCES 

61. Dallmeyer, K. Fuel Cell Transit Bus, Alternative Fuels, Infrastructure Technologies, Bus 

Technologies and Testing Information. Washington, DC: USDOT Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA). 

62. Das, S. et al. (2001). Evaluation of the Benefits Attributable to Automotive Lightweight 

Materials Program Research and Development Projects. Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2001-237. 

63. Das, S. (2001). The Cost of Automotive Polymer Composites: A Review and Assessment 

of DOE’s Lightweight Materials Composites Research, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

64. DeCicco, J.M. (2005). Environmental Defense. Steel and Iron Technologies for 

Automotive Lightweighting. 

65. Decina, L.E. et al. (2003). Model Driver Screening and Evaluation Program Final 

Technical Report Volume I: Project Summary and Model Program Recommendation

(DOT HS 809 582). Office of Research and Traffic Records. 

66. Declining death rates due to safer vehicles, not better drivers or improved roadways. 

IIHS, August 2006. 

67. Designing Roadways to Safely Accommodate the Increasingly Mobile Older Drives: A 

Plan to Allow Older Drivers to Maintain Their Independence. The Roadway Information 

Program, 2003. 

68. Detroit Auto Show. (2006). 2006 Detroit Auto Show – Dodge Challenger Concept. 

Retrieved from www.edmunds.com. 

69. Detroit Auto Show. (2006). 2006 Detroit Auto Show – Ford Reflex. Retrieved from 

www.edmunds.com. 

70. Detroit Auto Show. (2006). 2006 Detroit Auto Show – Mitsubishi Concept-CT. Retrieved 

from www.edmunds.com. 

71. Dittow, C. (2006). Stabholder – Advocacy Group. Center for Auto Safety. Retrieved from 

www.autosafety.org. 

72. El Nasser, H. (2006). A Nation of 300 Million. USA Today. 

73. Electronic stability control could prevent nearly one-third of all fatal crashes and reduce 

rollover risk by as much as 80%; effect is found on single – and – multiple – vehicle 

crashes. IIHS, June 2006. 

74. Enhancing Future Automotive Safety with Plastics – Technology Integration Report. 

Energetics Incorporated. Prepared for the American Plastics Council, May 2006. 

75. Evans, L., President, Science Serving Society. How to Make a Car Lighter and Safer. 

SAE TP 2004-01-1172. Retrieved from www.scienceservingsociety.com. 

76. Johnson, N.F., Warren, D., Carpenter, J., and Sklad, P. (2004). FY 2004 Progress Report 

on Automotive Lightweighting Materials: Composite-Intensive Body Structure 

Development for Focal Project 3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

77. Fambro, S. (2006). A 330 MPG Car for Everyone? Three San Diego Engineers Form 

Company to Build, Sell Revolutionary Car. Retrieved in January 2006 from 

www.acceleratedcomposites.com. 

78. Farina, A. (2006). DuPont Launches New Material with Kevlar for Rubber-Based 

Applications. Retrieved in July 2006 from www.dupont.com. 

79. Fatality Facts 2004. (2004). Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

80. Feraboli, P. (2006). Toward The Development of a Test Standard for Characterizing The 

Energy Absorption of Composite Materials. Proceeding of the 6th SPE Automotive 

Composites Conference, Warren, Michigan.. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

79 
REFERENCES 

81. Feraboli, P. (2006). Current efforts in standardization of composite materials testing for 

crashworthiness and energy absorption (AIAA 2006-2217). University of Washington. 

82. Feraboli, P. (2006). Current efforts in standardization of composite materials testing for 

crashworthiness and energy absorption. Proceeding of the 47th American Institute of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics Structures, Dynamics and Materials Conference, Newport, 

Rhode Island, 2006-2217. 

83. Feraboli, P. (2006). Discussion on Issues of Relevance to the NHTSA Safety R&T 

Roadmap for Future Plastics and Composite Intensive Vehicles (PCIV). University of 

Washington, private communication. 

84. Feraboli, P. (2005). Minutes of the 1st Crashworthiness Working Group Meeting, CMH17 Coordination meeting – Charlotte, NC. 

85. Feraboli, P. (2005). Minutes of the 2nd Crashworthiness Working Group Meeting, CMH17 Coordination Meeting – Santa Monica, CA. 

86. Feraboli, P. (2006). Minutes of the 3rd CMH-17 Crashworthiness Working Group 

Meeting, CMH-17 Coordination Meeting – Chicago. 

87. FHWA’s Enhanced Night Visibility Report Series. Transportation Research Board, 

September 2006. 

88. Fiat, C.R., (2004). The Research Requirements of the Transport Sectors to Facilitate an 

Increased Usage of Composite Materials, Part II: the Composite Material Research 

Requirements of the Automotive Industry. . 

89. Francfort, J. (2006). FreedomCAR & Vehicle Technologies Program. Idaho National 

Laboratory. 

90. Frank, G.J, and Brockman, R.A. (2001).: A Viscoelastic-viscoplastic constitutive model 

for glassy polymers. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 38, 5149-5164. 

University of Dayton. 

91. Frucci, A. (2006). Honda: Fuel-cell Vehicles on the Road by...(Page cutoff). Retrieved in 

June 2006 from www.fuelcellmagazine.com. 

92. Gangloff, C. (2006). Automotive Coatings, Adhesives & Sealants Demand to Exceed $7 

Billion in 2010. Retrieved in April 2006 from www.freedoniagroup.com. 

93. Gangloff, C. (2006). Polyurethane Resin Demand to Reach 7.6 Billion Pounds in 2009. 

Retrieved in April 2006 from www.freedoniagroup.com. 

94. Gehm, R. (2006, July). Materials Innovations: OEMs Stick with SMC. Automotive 

Engineering Journal of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

95. Gehm, R. Plastic on the Outside. (2006, August). Automotive Engineering Journal of 

SAE 1-114-8-46. 

96. General Motors. (2006). General Motors Recalls 30,000 Corvettes. Retrieved in May 

2006 from www.gm.com. 

97. General Motors. Saturn Vue Sport Utility Specification Sheet. 

98. Gerald, D. (2000). Extrication Safety: Hybrid Vehicles, Airbags and Moveable Pedals. 

Institute for PreHospital Medicine. 

99. Gordon, D., Greene, D., Ross, M., and Wenzel, T. (2007). Sipping Fuel and Saving 

Lives: Increasing Fuel Economy Without Sacrificing Safety. Report by October 2006 

experts workshop “Simultaneously Improving Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy 

Through Improvements in Vehicle Design and Materials.” 

100. Gottimukkala, R.(2004). Review Article on Carbon Fiber Composites, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

80 
REFERENCES 

101. Gould, L. (2004). Match Analysis with Materials. Automotive Design and Production. 

Retrieved from www.autofieldguide.com/articles/040409.html. 

102. Harris Interactive. Advanced Automotive Technologies Assessment – U.S Consumer 

Acceptance of Advanced Automotive Technologies. AutotechCAST. 

103. Hazen, J. (2006). Automotive Composites - A Design and Manufacturing Guide – 2nd

Edition. 

104. Heudorfer, B., Breuninger, M., Karlbauer, U., Kraft, M., and Maidel, J. Roofbag-A 

Concept Study to Provide Enhanced Protection for Head and Neck in Case of Rollover. 

Takata-Petri Germany. 

105. Hill, H.D., and Ng Boyle, L. (2006). Assessing the Relative Risk of Severe Injury in 

Automotive Crashes for Older Female Occupants. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 

38, No. 1, 148-154. 

106. Hill, S., and Sjoblom, P. (1998). Practical Considerations in Determining High Strain 

Rate Material Properties (University of Dayton Research Institute for SAE Technical 

Paper Series #981136). 

107. Hollowell, W.T. (2006). Overview of NHTSA Research for Enhancing Safety. 

USDOT/NHTSA Presentation to the MADYMO International Users’ Meeting, Detroit, 

Michigan. . 

108. Honda shows off cleaner diesel, streamlined fuel-cell cars. Retrieved in September 2006 

from www.boston.com. 

109. Hopkins, H. (2006). New “Stars on Cars” Rule Announced Today Will Help Consumers 

Evaluate Safety of New Cars. Washington, DC: NHTSA. 

110. www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-50/ciren/CIREN.html. 

111. Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program 

www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells. 

112. Icon aims for a muscular return. Boston Globe Associated Press. 

113. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2005). Vehicle Incompatibility in Crashes. IIHS 

Status Report Special issue, Vol. 40, No. 5. 

114. Ilcewicz, L. (2006). Composite Safety & Certification Initiatives (Presentation at Fort 

Worth DER Seminar). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

115. Improving the Safety of Older Drivers. (2002). Transportation Association of Canada. 

116. Industry Statistics. Retrieved in July 2006 from 

www.americanplasticscouncil.org/s_apc/sec.asp?TRACKID=&SID=6&VID=86&CID=2

96&DID=895. American Plastics Council. 

117. Information Resources www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/index.html. 

118. Inside Line. (2006). Coming Soon: Honda Unveils Driveable Fuel-Cell Prototype. 

Retrieved in September 2006 from 

www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleid=116937. 

119. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). (2003). Status Report Vol. 38. No. 3.. 

120. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). (1999). Special Issue: Vehicle 

compatibility in crashes STATUS REPORT. Vol. 34 #9. 

121. Jackson, R.B. and Schlesinger, W.H. (2004). Curbing the US Carbon Deficit. PNAS vol. 

101, No. 45, 15627-15629. Retrieved November 9, 2004 from 

www.pnas.org/doi/101073/pnas.0403631101. 

122. Jacob, A., et al. (2003). Reinforced Plastics Automotive Supplement, Ashland Specialty 

Chemical Company. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

81 
REFERENCES 

123. Jacob, G., Fellars, J., Simunovic, S., and Starbuck, M. (2003). Crashworthiness of 

Automotive Composite Material Systems. University of Tennessee – Materials Science 

and Engineering Department and Polymer Matrix Composites Group. 

124. Jacob, G., Fellars, J., Simunovic, S., and Starbuck, M. (2001). Energy Absorption in 

Polymer Composites for Automotive Crashworthiness. University of Tennessee – 

Materials Science and Engineering Department and Polymer Matrix Composites Group. 

125. Jeryan, R., Warren, D., and Carpenter, J. (2005). Automotive Lightweighting Materials – 

Composite Crash Energy Management. Ford Research and Innovation Center. 

126. Johnson, K., and Mascarin, A. (2002). New Materials Technologies in the Automotive 

Industry: A Review of Successes and Failures. SAE International Technical Papers 2002-

01-2038. 

127. Kahane, C.J. (2003). Vehicle Weight, Fatality Risk And Crash Compatibility Of Model 

Year 1991-99 Passenger Cars And Light Trucks. Washington, DC: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf. 

128. Kahane, C. (2004). Lives Saved By The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards And 

Other Vehicle Safety Technologies, 1960-2002 - Passenger Cars And Light Trucks - With 

A Review Of 19 Fmvss And Their Effectiveness In Reducing Fatalities, Injuries And 

Crashes. National Center for Statistics and Analysis; National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Retrieved from 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809833Part1.pdf. 

129. Kahn, A. MIT Group Presents Research on City Car of the Future. Retrieved from 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/smartcars.html. September 2004. 

130. Karsner, A. Asst. Secretary, USDOE/EERE. Congressional Testimony on the next 

generation of vehicle and fuels technology, before House Committee on Energy and Air 

Quality, May 24, 2006. 

131. Khaleel, M., Valimont, J., and Carpenter, J. (2005). Automotive Lightweighting Materials 

– Structural Reliability of Lightweight Glazing Alternatives. Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory. 

132. Klavora, P., and Heslegrave, R.J., (2002). Senior Drivers: An Overview of Problems and 

Intervention Strategies. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, Volume 10, Issue 3, 322-

335. 

133. Kos, E. (2006). CM In-Frastructure: A future Solution to Infrastructure and Fuel 

Challenges Faced by the Transportation Industry? American Composites Manufacturers 

Association. 

134. Kos, E. (2006). CM In-Frastructure: New Hybrid Bridge Deck Process. American 

Composites Manufactureres Association. 

135. Kreysler, B. (2006). CM President’s Message: Load and Resistance Factor Design: Why 

Investments now could Mean Revenue Later. American Composites Manufacturers 

Association. 

136. Krisher, T. DaimlerChrylser is Betting the U.S. has Smartened Up. 

137. Krisher, T. High-end Brands Finish at High End of Car Survey. 

138. Kurcz, M., Baser, B., Dittmar, H., Sengbush, J., and Pfister, H. (2005). Replacing Steel 

with Glass-Mat Thermoplastic Composites in Automotive Spare-Wheel Well 

Applications. SAE International Technical Papers 2005-01-1678. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

82 
REFERENCES 

139. Lackey, E., Hutchcraft, E., Vaughan, J., and Averill, R. (2006). ZAPPED: 

Electromagnetic Radiation and Polymer Composites. American Composites 

Manufacturers Association. 

140. Left Lane News. BMW moves to plastic for some coupe body panels. Retrieved from 

www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/28/bmw-moves-to-plastic-for-some-3er-body-panels. 

141. Li, G., Braver, E.R., and Chen, L.-H. (2003). Fragility versus Excessive Crash 

Involvement as Determinants of High Death Rates per vehicle-mile of Travel Among 

Older Drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, John Hopkins University, 35, 227-35. 

142. Lightweight Materials Program. Retrieved from 

www.ornl.gov/sci/lightmat/Lightweight.html, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

143. Lovins, A.B. Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org). 

a. Advanced Composites: the Car is at the Crossroads, by M.M. Brylawski and A. 

B. Lovins, 2000, posted at www.hypercar.com.

b. Comments on NHTSA ANPRM Reforming the Automobile Fuel Economy 

Standards Program, April 2004.

c. Reinventing the Wheels Guest Editorial, Environmental Health Perspectives, 

Vol.11 No 4, A218, April 2005 at www.ehponline.org. 

d. Hypercars, Hydrogen, and the Automotive Transition by A.B. Lovins and D.R. 

Cramer, International Journal of Vehicle Design, vol. 35, Nos. 1⁄2, 50-84, 2004. 

144. Lund, A., O’Neill, B., Nolan, J., and Chapline, J. (2000). Crash Compatibility Issue in 

Perspective. SAE Technical Paper Series 2001-01-1378. IIHS. 

145. Lyman, S. et al. (2002). Older Driver Involvements in Police Reported crashes and Fatal 

Crashes: Trends and Projections. Injury Prevention 8:116-120.

146. Lynn, B.C., (2004). Environmental Defense. Today’s Promises, Tomorrow’s Cars? - 

Lessons for FreedomCAR from the Ghosts of Supercars Past (PNGV). 

147. Markos, S. (2006). Overview of U.S Transportation Vehicle Fire Safety Requirements. 

USDOT John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration. 

148. Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory (MSEL). Retrieved from 

www.msel.nist.gov, www.SciTechResouces.gov. 

149. Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, Polymers Division. Retrieved from 

http://polymers.msel.nist.gov/index.cfm. 

150. Matta, F. (2005). Don’t Cross that Bridge Until We Fix It! – Pultruded FRP 

Reinforcement for Bridge Repair. American Composites Manufacturers Association. 

151. Mayhew, D.R., et al. (2005). Collisions Involving Senior Drivers: High-Risk Conditions 

and Locations. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 

152. McGuckin, N., and Liss, S. (2005). Aging Cars, Aging Drivers: Important Findings from 

the National Household Travel Survey, ITE Journal, Volume 75, Issue 9, 30-37. 

153. Meyer J. (2004). Personal Vehicle Transportation. Technology for Adaptive Aging, Board 

on Behavioral, Cognitive and Sensory Sciences and Education, 253-282. 

154. Mills, K., Director, Clean Car Campaign and Haxthausen, E. (2004). Environmental 

Defense Comments on NHTSA ANPRM Reforming the Automobile Fuel Economy 

Standards Program.

155. Mintz, J.J. et al. (2000). From Here to Efficiency: Time Lags Between Introduction of 

Technology and Achievement of Fuel Savings. Transportation Research Record 1738, 

100-105. TRB, posted by TRISonline.

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

83 
REFERENCES 

156. MIT Age Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://web.mit.edu/agelab/. 

157. Modern Plastics Worldwide. (2006). Economy & Markets – North American plastics: 

Fall strength continues.

158. Modern Plastics Worldwide. (2006). Modern Executives - Old answers to new questions: 

dodging the obstacles of plastics innovation. 

159. Moore, R. Saturn Vehicle Crashes Part 1, 2, and 3. Retrieved from www.firehouse.com. 

160. MSN. (2006). Toyota sees green in “bioplastics” for cars. Retrieved from 

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4637563/. 

161. Nagourney, E. (2005, October). Ideas for Making it Easier to Walk Away From an 

Accident. New York Times, p. 34. 

162. Naravane, A., Deb, A., Shivakumar, N., and Chiottappa, H. (2005). A Comparative Study 

of Composite and Steel Front Rails for Vehicle Front Impact Safety. The Automotive 

Research Association of India 2005-26-324. 

163. National Research Council. (2005). Review of the Research Program of the 

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report. 

164. National Transportation Research Center. FY 2002-2005 ORNL Transportation Program 

Highlights. Retrieved from www.ntrc.gov/transportation2005.shtml. 

165. New Plastics and the Automobile. SAE International Journals 1-108-5-70, May 2000. 

166. NHTSA. Traffic Safety Facts 2005. Retrieved from wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2005.PDF. 

167. NHTSA. (1997). 2020 Report: People Saving People- On the Road to a Healthier 

Future. 

168. NHTSA Studies and Reports (on Web site): 

http://nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.a8131659c3c0a2381601031046108a0c/;jsessi

onid=EMyPS4zjvEasDAYBAlHs1Qm9ncn71vGM2plOk6RHZGrZD1YKNjuK!280123

60. 

169. NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Supporting Research Priorities for CY 2005-2009 

is posted at www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/PriorityPlan-2005.html and the summary 

for Congress is at www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/NHTSAReports/PriorityPlan2005.html. 

170. NHTSA. (2005). Consequences and Costs of Lower Extremity Injuries (DOT HS 809 

871). Office of Vehicle Safety Research, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

171. NHTSA. (2004). NHTSA’s Four Year Plan for Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Alternative Fuel 

Vehicle Safety Research. National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. 

172. Noran Engineering. NEiLaminate Tools – Nastran Finite Element Analysis Software. 

173. Notices, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 133, July 2006. 

174. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Transportation Program. (2005). Carbon Fiber Systems 

Integration. Retrieved from www.ntrc.gov/pdfs/transportation2005/14_ALM_1.pdf. 

175. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2005). Aid for the Auto Industry. Retrieved from 

www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v38_1_05/article05.shtml. 

176. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2003). Automotive Lightweighting Materials, Low-cost 

Carbon Fiber from Renewable Resources. 

177. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2005). Multiple Roads to the Hydrogen Car, 

www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v38_1_05/article06.shtml. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

84 
REFERENCES 

178. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2004). Composites Durability. Retrieved from 

www.ntrc.gov/pdfs/transportation2004/Composites_Durability.pdf. 

179. Oak Ridge. (2006). Carbon Fiber Cars Could Put U.S. on Highway to Efficiency. 

Retrieved in March 2006 from www.ornl.gov/news. 

180. Ohio State University. Center for Advanced Polymer and Composite Engineering funded 

by the National Science Foundation. 

181. Older Drivers Up Close Aren’t Dangerous Except Maybe to Themselves. (2001). Status 

Report, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Volume 36, Number 8. 

182. Olson, R. (2004). Senior Driver Issues: Upcoming Challenges and Solutions. 

International Risk Management Institute, Inc. 

183. Balaguru, P.N., et al. (1998). Fire-resistant aluminosilicate composites. Fire and 

Material, Volume 2, Issue 2, 67- 73. 

184. Pfestorf, M,, and Rensburg, J. (2006). Improving the Functional Properties of the Body –

In-White with Lightweight Solutions Applying Multiphase Steels, Aluminum and 

Composites. SAE International Technical Papers 2006-01-1405. 

185. Pickrell, D. (2002). Characteristics of the Future Elderly Population and their 

Implications for Travel Behavior. Volpe National Transportation Center White Paper. 

186. Pinell, M. (2005). Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Cost for the High Strain Rate Test 

Sample Study for Long Fiber Filled Polymers. E-mail from M. Pinell to Gary Pollack, 

June 2005. 

187. Pinnell, M. (2006). Special Concerns in High Strain Rate Tensile Testing of Polymers. 

University of Dayton for SAE International 2006-01-0121. 

188. Pittle, D., Senior VP, Technical Policy, Consumers Union. Testimony, on 

Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration before the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the House Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, March 2004. 

189. Pittle, D. (2004). Comments of Consumers Union of the U.S. Inc. to the Department of 

Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – In Response to 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 49CFR Part 533 Docket No. 2003-16128, 

2127-AJ17 on Reforming the Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Program. 

190. Plastics: The Return of Body Panels? (2006). Automotive Design and Production. 

191. Pope, B. (2006). WARDS’S AutoWorld: Ford Belt Driven. Primedia Inc. 

192. Program Management for Automotive Lightweighting Materials. Retrieved from 

www.ms.ornl.gov/programs/energyeff/lwvm/default.htm. U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies. 

193. Red, C. (2006). 2025 Advanced Composites – Market Trends for the Next 20 Years. 

American Composites Manufacturers Association. 

194. Reinforced Plastics. (2004). Carbon Car Panels a Cost Effective Reality. Retrieved from 

www.reinforcedplastics.com/market_focus/automotive/spfeature.html. 

195. Reinforced Plastics. (2004). Composite Bonnet Suits Low Volume Sports Car. Retrieved 

from www.reinforcedplastics.com/market_focus/automotive/azdel.html. 

196. Reinforced Plastics. (2004). Hybrid front-end for For Focus C-MAX van. Retrieved from 

www.reinforcedplasticsbuyersguide.com/WZ/RPlastics/news/applications_news/000088/

show. 

197. Ressler, A. (2004). Crash the Crash Test Dummy, An Analysis of Individual Factors in 

Fatal Car Crashes. University of Pennsylvania – ESE202. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

85 
REFERENCES 

198. Richard, T. (2006). Aging Drivers: Storm in a Teacup? Accident Analysis and 

Prevention, Volume 38, Issue 1. 

199. Robinson, E. (2006). Resin Prices Expected to Remain High. Automotive News. 

200. Rocky Mountain Institute. Advanced Composites, Advanced Composites Have Many 

Benefits, Ultralight Construction, HyperCar Design and Technology, The HyperCar 

Concept, Safety, Fuel Savings, How to Design a Better Road Vehicle. Retrieved from 

www.rmi.org. 

201. Rocky Mountain Institute. Transportation: Hypercar Chronology – Advanced 

Automotive Milestones - Elements of Hypercar Vehicles are Emerging. Retrieved from 

www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid389.php. 

202. Ross, M., and Patel, D. (2006). Intrusion in Side Impact Crashes for SAE International. 

University of Michigan Physics Department. 

203. Ross, M., and Wenzel, T. (2001). Losing weight to save lives: a review of the role of 

automotive weight and size in traffic fatalities. American Council for Energy-Efficient 

Economy, for DOE/LBL (ACEEE-T013). University of Michigan Physics Department 

and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. 

204. Ross, M., Patel, D., and Wenzel, T. (2006, January). Vehicle Design and the Physics of 

Traffic Safety. Physics Today.

205. Ross, M., Patel, D, Compton, C., and Wenzel, T. (2006). Intrusion and the Aggressivity 

of Light Duty Trucks in Side Impact Crashes. University of Michigan Physics 

Department, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, and Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

206. Rumy, Z. Zoltek Partners with BMW. Retreived from www.about.com. 

207. Making Composites for HANS at Nascar is Part Work, Part Hobby. (2006, March). Salt 

Lake Tribune. Retrieved from www.sltrib.com/jordan/ci_3558872. 

208. Saturn Vehicle Crashes, Part 1. Retrieved from www.Firehouse.com. 

209. Sawyer, C.A. (2005). Plastic – Intensive Vehicle Déjà vu? Retrieved from 

www.autofieldguide.com/articles/060506.html. Automotive Design and Production. 

210. Sayers, M. (2006). Advances in LED Automotive Forward-Lighting: Providing Catalysts 

for Change. Viseteon Corp. 

211. Schroder, S. (2004, February). Porsche Engineering. Porsche Engineering Magazine. 

212. Schweitzer, J. (2006). Managing the Business Risk of Styrene. American Composites 

Manufacturers Association. 

213. Seats, R.L, Fisher, D., and Twardowska, H. Tough, Low Mass SMC Development for 

Transportation Applications. Ashland, Inc. 

214. Seemann, B. (2006). Composites Manufacturing. American Composites Manufacturers 

Association. 

215. Shane, J. (2007). USDOT Undersecretary of Transportation Policy, Congressional 

Testimony on The Surface Transportation System: Challenges for the Future, January 24, 

2007. 

216. Sherman, L.M. (2004, December). Polyurethanes. Plastics Technology. 

217. Shopping for Safety: Providing Customer Automotive Safety Information. (1996). 

Special Report No. 248. Transportation Research Board. 

218. Siemens AG Germany. (2004, November). Hybrid Material has Metallic Properties, 

Processed like Plastic. Advanced Composites Bulletin. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

86 
REFERENCES 

219. Simunovic, S., Starbuck, M., and Carpenter, J. (2005). Automotive Lightweighting 

Materials - Modeling of High Strain-Rate Deformation of Steel Structures. Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. 

220. Skinner, D., and Stearns, M.D. (1999). Safe Mobility in an Aging World, John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

221. Society of Plastics Engineers. (2006). Proceedings of the 6th Annual SPE Automotive 

Composites Conference – Composites: Efficiency, Value, Performance. September 2006. 

222. Society of Plastics Engineers. Automotive Plastics: Adding Functionality, Reducing 

Vehicle Cost.

223. Starbuck, M., Warren, D., and Carpenter, J. (2005). Automotive Lightweighting Materials 

– Intermediate-Rate Crush Response of Crash Energy Management Structures. Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory. 

224. Starbuck, M., Rastogi, N., Warren, D. and Carpenter, J. (2005). Automotive 

Lightweighting Materials – Crash Analysis of Adhesively-Bonded Structures (CAABS). 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

225. Starnes, K. (2006). Jeep Compass Achieves Durability, Stiffness While Reducing Noise, 

Vibration, Harshness. Retrieved in June 2006 from www.dcx.com. 

226. Stone, J.L., President, Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety. 2002 statements. 

227. Stutts, J. (2005). NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice Issue 348: Improving the Safety 

of Older Road Users, Transportation Research Board. 

228. Sullivan, R. (2006). FreedomCAR and Vehicle Tecnology Program. Advanced Materials 

and Vehicle Systems, USDOE, -presentation at ACCE-06, SPE Automotive Composites 

conference. 

229. Swart, C. (2006). DOW Automotive Wins 2006 PACE Award. Retrieved in April 2006 

from www.dowautomotive.com. 

230. Teaching tools. (2003). How are Plastics Made? Retrieved from 

www.teachingtools.com/Slinky/plastics.html. 

231. Technologies www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/technologies/materials/index.html. 

232. Tessier, C. (2006). GE Plastics Intensifies Global Application Technology (GApT) to 

Leap-Frog Creation of Next-Gen Apps. Retrieved in April 2006 from 

www.geplastics.com. 

233. The CFRP Automobile Project in Japan by A. Kitano, E. Wadahara and I. Taketa, Paper 

presented at at the 12th US-Japan Conference on Composite Materials, September 21-22, 

University of Michigan-Dearborn, MI.

234. The Ecology Center, HealthyCar.org- reports on toxic Volatile Organic Chemicals 

(VOC) and other chemicals in vehicles:. 

a. Toxic at Any Speed-Chemicals in cars and the need for Safe Alternatives. 

b. 2006 Automotive Plastics Report Card-The Policies and Practices of 8 Leading 

Automakers. 

c. Flame retardants: Alarming Increases in Humans and the Environment . 

235. The Inside Story: Why Interiors Matter. (2006). Automotive Design and Production. 

www.autofieldguide.com/articles/060603.html. 

236. Tomita and Tsutomu. (2006). Toyota Launches TF106 Formula One Car. Retrieved in 

January 2006 from www.toyota-fl.com/public/en/technologies.tf106.html. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

87 
REFERENCES 

237. Tomorrow’s Materials: Lighter, Tougher, Faster. Retrieved from 

www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/materials/tomorrow.htm, National Science 

Foundation. 

238. Transportation in an Aging Society. Improving Mobility and Safety for Older Persons, 

Volume 1 – Committee Report and Recommendations, TRB, 1998. 

239. Transportation in an Aging Society. Improving Mobility and Safety for Older Persons, 

Volume 2 – Technical Papers, Report HS-040 567, TRB, 1998. 

240. Transportation in an Aging Society-A Decade of Experience, Transportation Research 

Board Conference Proceedings 27, TRB, 2004. 

241. Transportation Research Board. Improving Public Transit Options for Older Persons – 

Volume 2 Final Report. TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Report 82, February 2003. 

242. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2003). FY 2003 Progress Report for High Strength 

Weight Reduction Materials, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

243. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2001). Office of Transportation Technologies. 

Composite Materials Production Methods Developed, Transportation for the 21st

Century. 

244. U.S. Department of Transportation. (2006). Strategic Research, Development and 

Technology Plan, 2006-2010, RITA-2006-25247-1. 

245. U.S. DOT. (2006). Department of Transportation Draft Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 

2006-2011. 

246. U.S. DOT. (2006). Department of Transportation Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2006-2011 

– Safety Strategic Goal.

247. United States Army. (2006). Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. 

Department of Defense Automotive Resources. 

248. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2005). Vehicle Safety – 

Opportunities Exist to Enhance NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program. GAO. 

249. United States Government Accountability Office. (2004). Transportation – 

Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior Mobility Could Benefit from 

Additional Guidance and Information. GAO. 

250. University of New Mexico, Rutgers, TCNJ. Ceramic and Composite Materials Center 

(CCMC). National Science Foundation (NSF). 

251. USDOC Census Bureau. 65+in the United States: 2005. Retrieved from 

www.census.gov. 

252. USDOE 2006 Strategic Plan. Retrieved from www.energy.gov. 

253. USDOE and USDOT. (2006). Hydrogen Posture Plan-An Integrated Research, 

Development, and Demonstration Plan. Retrieved from 

www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells. 

254. USDOE Public Affairs. (2005). DOE Provides $4.7 Million to Support Excellence in 

Automotive Technology Education. 

255. USDOE, FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Materials Technology Roadmap 2006 at 

www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/materials_team_technical_roadma

p.pdf. 

256. USDOE. (2006). Driving Technology: A Transition Strategy to Enhance Energy-A 

Transition Strategy to Enhance Energy Security. 2006-08-01 Retrieved from 

www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/tsp_paper_final.pdf. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

88 
REFERENCES 

257. USDOE. (2006). FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership- Materials Technology Roadmap. 

Retrieved from www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels. 

258. USDOE. (2006). FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership- Vehicle Systems Analysis 

Technical Team. Retrieved from www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels. 

259. USDOE. (2005). FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership 2005 Highlights of Technical 

Accomplishments, FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. 

260. USDOE. (2005). Heavy Vehicle Materials Strategy Presentation, Heavy Vehicle 

Materials Strategy. 

261. USDOE/USCAR Automotive Composites Consortium (ACC). (2005). Advanced 

Lightweight Materials (ALM )- Composite Materials- 5 Year Plan. 

262. USDOE/USCAR FY 2004 Progress Report for High Strength Weight Reduction Materials

– Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2004. 

263. USDOE/USCAR FY 2004 Progress Report on Automotive Lightweighting Materials: 

Structural Reliability of Lightweighting Glazing Alternatives, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, 2004. 

264. USDOE/USCAR FY 2004 Progress Report on Automotive Lightweighting Materials: 

Composite-Intensive Body Structure Development for Focal Project 3, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, 2004. 

265. USDOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006). Transportation 

Secretary Mineta Calls Highway Fatalities Tragedy, Says All Americans Can do More to 

Improve Road Safety. 

266. USDOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration. (RITA). Transportation 

Research, Development and Technology Strategic Plan 2006-2010, Section 3: Safety 

Research, Development, and Technology Priorities. Retrieved from 

http://rita.dot.gov/publications/transportation_rd_t_strategic_plan/html . 

267. USDOT/FHWA. (2006). FHWA’s Enhanced Night Visibility Report Series. 

Transportation Research Board. 

268. USDOT/NHTSA. (2005). NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Supporting Research 

Priorities. 

269. Vasilash, G.S. (2005). Creating Clever Things with Plastics. Retrieved from 

www.autofieldguide.com/articles/120501.html. Automotive Design and Production. 

270. Vasilash, G.S. (2004). High Velocity Materials Improvement. Retrieved from 

www.autofieldguide.com/articles/030407.html, Automotive Design and Production. 

271. Vasilash, G.S.. (2004). Plastics Possible Future. Retrieved from

www.autofieldguide.com/columns/gary/1002mat.html. Automotive Design and 

Production. 

272. Vasilash, G.S. Saturn Redefined. Automotive Design and Production. 

273. Vasilash, G. Advanced Composites for an Advanced Corvette. Automotive Design and 

Production. Retrieved from www.autofieldguide.com/articles/article_print1.com. 

274. Vasilash, G. (2003). Looks Great. Less Weighty. 

www.autofieldguide.com/articles/article_print.cfm. 

275. Vasliash, G. (2006). Plastics: The Return of Body Panels? Retrieved from 

www.autofield.com. 

276. Villano, P., Meuleman, D., Simunovic, S., and Carpenter, J. (2005). Automotive 

Lightweighting Materials – Strain Rate Characterization. Auto/Steel Partnership (A/SP). 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

89 
REFERENCES 

277. Villano, P., Catterall, J., Shaw, J., and Carpenter, J. (2005). Automotive Lightweighting 

Materials – Future Generation Passenger Compartment. Auto/Steel Partnership (A/SP). 

278. Wang, S., and Rupp, J.D. (2006). Alterations in Body Composition and Injury Patterns 

with Aging. University of Michigan Trauma Burn Center and Transportation Research 

Institute. Presentation posted on the NHTSA Crash Injury Research and Engineering 

Network (CIREN) Web site at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd50/ciren/CIREN.html. 

279. Wang, S.C. An Aging Population: Fragile, Handle With Care. University of Michigan 

Trauma Center. Posted on CIREN Web site at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd50/ciren/um_fragile.html. 

280. Warner, F. (2006, October). From Average-Joe Subcompact to Spymobile. The New York 

Times. 

281. Warren, D., Shaffer, J., Paulauskas, F., and Abdullah, M. (2002). Low-Cost Carbon Fiber 

for the Next Generation of Vehicles; Novel Technologies. SAE International Technical 

Papers 2002-01-1906. 

282. Wenzel, T., and Ross, M. (2005). The Effects of Vehicle Model and Driver Behavior on 

Risk. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 479-979). 

283. Wheelan, M., Langford, J., Oxley, J., Koppel, S., and Charlton, J. (2006). The Elderly 

and Mobility: A Review of the Literature. Monash University Accident Research Centre 

Report No. 255. 

284. Whitfield, K. (2004). Do Plastic Body Panels Have a Future?, Retrieved from 

www.autofieldguide.com/articles/060407.html. Automotive Design and Production. 

285. Wikipedia. (2006). Car Safety. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_safety. 

286. Wikipedia. (2006). Crash Test Dummy. Retrieved from 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_test_dummies. 

287. Wikipedia. (2001). Plastics. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastics. 

288. Wikipedia. (2006). Saturn (automobile). Retrieved from 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28automobile%29. 

289. World Health Organization (WHO). (2004). World Report on Road Traffic Injury 

Prevention. Factsheets on Road Safety: a Public Health Issue and Road Traffic Injury 

Prevention Training Manual (2006) posted at 

www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/en. 

290. Wright, S. (2005). Future of the Car Talk Highlights MISTI Week. Retrieved in 

September 2005 from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/misti-cars.html. 

291. Yamaguchi, J. (2000). Automotive Engineering International Online: Shrinking Electric 

Cars. SAE International. 

292. Zimmons, J. (2006). Zap Showcases Brazilian Obvio! Alcohol-Gas-Electric “Trybrid” 

Microcar at New York Auto Show. Retrieved in April 2006 from www.zapworld.com. 

A SAFETY ROADMAP FOR FUTURE PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES INTENSIVE VEHICLES 

90 

DOT HS 810 863

November 2007