Similar articles

Abstract: Though the bumper of a vehicle plays a major role in protecting the vehicle body against damage in low speed impacts, many bumpers, particularly in large vehicles, are too stiff for pedestrian protection. In designing a bumper for an automobile, pedestrian protection is as important as bumper energy absorption in low speed collisions. To prevent lower extremity injuries in car-pedestrian collisions, it is important to determine the loadings that car front structures impart on the lower extremities and the mechanisms by which injury is caused by these loadings. The present work was focused on gaining more insight into the injury mechanisms leading to both ligament damage and bone fracture during bumper-pedestrian collisions. The European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) legform impactor model was introduced and validated against EEVC/WG17 criteria. The collision mechanism between a bumper and this legform impactor was investigated numerically using LS-DYNA software. To identify the effect of the bumper beam material on leg injuries, four analyses were performed on bumpers that had the same assembly but were made from different materials.

[1] Cappetti, N., Donnarumma, A., Naddeo, A., Russo, L., 2006. Design of experiment about foam CF45 for pedestrian safety in car design. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 175(1-3):77-82.

[2] Crandall, J.R., Bhalla, K.S., Madeley, N.J., 2002. Designing road vehicles for pedestrian protection. BMJ, 324(7346):1145-1148.

[3] Davoodi, M.M., Sapuan, S.M., Yunus, R., 2008. Conceptual design of a polymer composite automotive bumper energy absorber. Materials and Design, 29(7):1447-1452.

[4] Dutton, T., Solihull, A., 2003. Finite Element Models for European Testing: Side Impact Barrier to WG13-Pedestrian Impactors to WG17. 4th European LS-DYNA Users Conference, Ulm, Germany, p.29-48.

[5] European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC), 1998. Improved Test Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian Protection Afforded by Passenger Cars. EEVC Working Group 17 Report.

[6] Euro NCAP (European New Car Assessment Program), 2004. Version 4.1.

[7] Konosu, A., 2006. Information on the Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor GT Alpha (Flex-GTα). 3rd Flex-TEG MT, Bast, Bergisch.

[8] Konosu, A., Ishikawa, H., Kant, R., 2000. Development of computer simulation models for pedestrian subsystem impact tests. Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, 21(1):109-115.

[9] Lawrence, G., Hardy, B., Carroll, J., Donaldson, W., Visvikis, C., Peel, D., 2004. A Study on the Feasibility of Measure Relating to the Protection of Pedestrians and Other Vulnerable Road Users. Transport Research Laboratory.

[10] Lee, C., Abdel-Aty, M., 2005. Comprehensive analysis of vehicle—pedestrian crashes at intersections in Florida. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(4):775-786.

[11] Matsui, Y., 2005. Effects of vehicle bumper height and impact velocity on type of lower extremity injury in vehicle pedestrian accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(4):633-640.

[12] Matsui, Y., Takabayashi, M., 2004. Factor causing scatter in dynamic certification test results for compliance with EEVC WG17 legform impactor standard. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 9(1):5-13.

[13] Schuster, P.J., 2006. Current trends in bumper design for pedestrian impact. Society of Automotive Engineering, 1:464.

[14] Svoboda, J., Cizek, V., 2003. Pedestrian–vehicle collision: vehicle design analysis. Society of Automotive Engineering, 1:0896.

[15] Svoboda, J., Solc, Z., Cizek, V., 2003. Analysis of collision between pedestrian and small car. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 8(3):269-276.

[16] Yao, J.F., Yang, J.K., Otte, D., 2008. Investigation of head injuries by reconstructions of real-world vehicle-versus-adult-pedestrian accidents. Safety Science, 46(7):1103-1114.

[17] Yong, H., Young, W., 2002. Optimization of bumper structure for pedestrian lower leg impact. Society of Automotive Engineering, 1:23.