Since 1982 the Federal Highway Research Institute was engaged to give considcrablc effort in the development and validation of the EEVC barrier face and has conducted about 80 full-scale tests according to the EEVC proposal for side impact upon which is given this synopsis. The tests include parameters like:​

• a non-deformable face according to SAE J 972a versus deformable faces according to EEVC and CCMC
• barrier/car tests versus car/cat t€sts (including dived braking position of striking car), car stationary
• mass variation of barrier (ranging from 950 up to 1100 kg)
• tests with two moving cars (collision angle 90 degrees)
• crabbed mode of barrier (collision angle = impact angle 90° versus collision angle 90°/impact angle 63°)
• all testsw ith subcompacct ars (VW Golf I, Type l7), intermediatec ars (Daimler BenzW 123 series) and Hybrid II dummies because no side impact dummies were available at that time
• calibration tests against a dynamometric wall.

The main conclusions which can be drawn from this test experience are as follows if one takes car/car tests as basis of comparison:​

• Rigid barrier faces have proved to be unrealistic lor several aspects. The force/deflection characteristic of the EEVC face is suitable for European (and regarding other publications, also for Japanese) passenger cars and can be met, e.g., y foam elements.
• The collision configuration of the EEVC proposal is valid;​ that means collision angle impact angle 90'. This opinion is based on the following experiences:​
• The crabbed barrier does not result in an improved simulatiotr of deformation.
• The load of the driver durnmy ratrks from high to low in the following ways
  1. two moving cars, 90°
  2. car/car, 90°, struck car stationary
  3. deformable CCMC barrier, 90°
  4. deformable EEVC barricr, 90°
  5. crabbed barrier, EEVC face
  That means the crabbed mode represents (for these tested car types) the lowest and probably unrealistic loading. For d) and e) it is the same sequence with EUROSID dummy[10].
• The crabbed mode is slightly less reproducable and needs greater effort.
• Mass variation of the barrier ranging from 950 up to 1100 kg has a negligible influeuce;​ therefore any mass in this range can be accepted at least for European cars.
• The only parameter which had to be changed is the ground clearance (250 mm) of the deformable face. In most of our car/car tests we observed an override of the door sill even in the dived braking position of the striking car. This could not be reconstructed by the EEVC barrier with the ground clearance of 250 mm. That means for the barrier test an unrealistically high energy dissipation for the door sill and insufficient deformation in the upper weaker door region. Therefore it was inevitable to increase the ground clcarance to a value of 300 mm. This value was also the former specification of the European CCMC-barrier f ace and it is taken into account within a regulation draft for testing today's cars.
• Calibration problems are thought to be solved.

In conclusion the EEVC barrier and tesr configuration seems to be a suitable test arrangement fbr type approval procedure.