Sunteți pe pagina 1din 13

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.

org
2005-01-1872
Improved Energy Absorber and Vehicle Design
Strategies for Pedestrian Protection
Stephen Shuler and Frank Mooijman
GE Advanced Materials
Alok Nanda and Gopi Surisetty
GE India Technology Center
Reprinted From: Vehicle Aggressivity and Compatibility in Automotive Crashes,
and Pedestrian Safety
(SP-1936)
2005 SAE World Congress
Detroit, Michigan
April 11-14, 2005
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAEs peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-772-4891
For multiple print copies contact:
SAE Customer Service
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2005 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
2005-01-1872
Improved Energy Absorber and Vehicle Design Strategies for
Pedestrian Protection
Stephen Shuler and Frank Mooijman
GE Advanced Materials
Alok Nanda and Gopi Surisetty
GE India Technology Center
Copyright 2005 SAE International
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the effect of finite element analysis
(FEA) model improvements to better correlate predictive
analyses to pedestrian protection lower leg impact tests.
The FEA analysis model prediction is now within 10% of
the tested values for tibia deceleration, knee bending
angle and knee shear. By using this improved FEA
model, new, more efficient energy absorber and vehicle
front end design strategies can been developed. A
numerical approach to optimizing vehicle front end
structures is presented.
Figure 1. Computational analysis model of an injection molded energy
absorber, reinforcing beam and lower legform
INTRODUCTION
Pedestrian safety is now a high profile issue within the
automotive industry. Accident investigations show that
there are three areas of the pedestrians body that are
most subject to injury, and each of these is associated
with an area of the car. The knee and lower leg is
usually injured through contact with the bumper.
Investigations have shown that vehicle styling and
efficient front bumper design contribute a lot towards
lower leg impact protection. Schuster and Staines [11]
identified some of the styling factors and their likely
contribution in lower leg impact using a concept Finite
Element Lower Leg Form Impactor.
The European Union and the Japanese government
have both issued guidelines to assess the risk to
pedestrians from passenger cars during an accident.
European New Car Assessment Programme
(EuroNCAP) has an ongoing program to test and rate
mainstream vehicles available on the European market
for pedestrian safety [3]. It uses an approach that is
similar to the one being considered by the European
Union. Poor pedestrian impact results from testing
conducted on mainstream vehicles that were not
specifically designed to meet the tests illustrate the need
for new design ideas that will meet the requirements
without adversely affecting other performance
requirements.
Currently, front bumper systems on vehicles sold in
North America are required to meet 4 km/hr FMVSS
(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) pendulum and
barrier impacts [4] and 8 km/hr CMVSS (Canadian
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) pendulum and barrier
impact requirements. In addition, most bumper systems
are also designed to meet 8 km/hr IIHS (the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety) 30 corner and flat barrier
impact. Front bumper systems on vehicles sold in
Europe and Japan are typically designed to withstand 4
km/hr ECE42 pendulum impact and 15 km/hr offset
Allianz barrier impact. Future front bumper systems sold
into European markets will need to meet both ECE42
and pedestrian impact requirements. In addition, many
global vehicle platforms will be sold in European,
Japanese and North American markets. This will require
a focus on vehicle structure and styling that is flexible
enough to meet all of the global legislative impact
requirements.
BACKGROUND
This paper describes bumper systems designed to meet
the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee
(EEVC) WG17 requirements for lower leg pedestrian
impact protection [1] (The EEVC was founded in 1970 in
response to the US Department of Transportation's
initiative for an international program on Experimental
Safety Vehicles. The EEVC steering committee,
consisting of representatives from several European
Nations, initiates research work in a number of
automotive working areas. These research tasks are
carried out by a number of specialist Working Groups
which operate for over a period of several years giving
advice to the Steering Committee who then, in
collaboration with other governmental bodies,
recommends future courses of action designed to lead
to improved safety in vehicles).
Previously [2], through impact test validation, a bumper
energy absorber injection molded in
polycarbonate/polybutyelene terephthalate, PC/PBT
(XENOY resin) was shown to be capable of providing
WG17 level lower leg impact performance (Figure 1).
The same energy absorber effectively managed the
energy from 4 km/hr barrier and pendulum impacts.
This was achieved without any modifications to the
exterior styling or base vehicle structure.
This dual performance car bumper system 4 km/hr
barrier and pendulum combined with lower leg impact
protection was achieved through a combination of
material properties and design. The difficulty in
designing such a system arises from conflicting bumper
system requirements. In order to achieve lower leg
protection, a relatively soft bumper system is required
while a relatively stiff system is typically needed to
manage barrier and pendulum impacts.
LOWER LEG PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
As illustrated in Figure 2, the current pedestrian safety
assessment procedure consists of several different tests
that represent the impact of the leg, upper leg and head.
The legform impact test typically involves the front
bumper, radiator grill, hood and headlights. In addition,
some vehicle styles incorporate lower fascia structures
that can have a significant effect on lower leg impact.

Figure 2: EuroNCAP pedestrian impact criteria tests


The legform impact test is carried out by impacting the
legform into the front of the vehicle as pictured in Figure
3.

Figure 3: Lower leg impact test


Illustrated in Figure 4, the EEVC WG17 test has three
criteria to be met [5]:
1. Knee lateral bending angle <15
2. Lateral shear at the knee < 6 mm
3. Peak deceleration at the proximal tibia < 150g
Figure 4: Leg impact criteria
ENERGY MANAGEMENT
Since a lower leg is likely to first contact the front
bumper, it is a key part of any discussion regarding
lower leg impact, and more specifically - the energy
management capability of the bumper-energy absorber
system. The faster the energy absorbing structure
responds to the impact event, the more efficient the
energy management and, therefore, the smaller the
depth of space needed to absorb the energy from the
event. Injection molded energy absorbers made from
PC/PBT have been shown to offer higher energy
absorption efficiency and a more consistent impact
performance over a range of temperatures, than many
conventional foam systems [6,7].
Figure 5 compares a typical load/displacement response
of an EPP foam and a PC/PBT energy absorber during
an 8 km/hr pendulum impact. The area under each
curve is the total amount of energy that is absorbed
during the impact. The same impact energy was applied
to both the PC/PBT and EPP foam absorbers. As figure
5 depicts, the higher efficiency of the PC/PBT absorber
allows the impact energy to be absorbed with less total
intrusion.
Figure 5: 8 km/hr, 1.315Kg Pendulum impact data for an EPP foam and
PC/PBT energy absorber.
To better understand how increased impact efficiency
can improve lower leg impact performance, the following
impact energy balance equation can be applied to
calculate the impact efficiency of a bumper system:
(IILFLHQF\ FH 'LV )RUFH &RPSOLDQFH 09 WDQ


=
Where M = vehicle mass and V = impact velocity. The
compliance in this equation refers to the compliance of
the vehicle during impact. The vehicle compliance is the
amount of energy from the impact that is not imparted to
the bumper or energy absorber. This lost impact
energy is energy that is absorbed by tire roll, vehicle
suspension jounce, vehicle rebound, etc. From past
experimental studies, vehicle compliance is
approximately 0.85 for barrier impact and 0.45 for
pendulum impact [8]. PC/PBT energy absorbers have
been shown to reach efficiencies of up to 65% while
current foam systems are approximately 45% to 50%
efficient [6].
PREDICTIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND
CORRELATION
Utilizing finite element analysis (FEA) techniques for
modeling the lower leg, pendulum and barrier impacts, a
PC/PBT energy absorber design was developed for a
current production 1800 Kg European sedan vehicle.
The final design was then prototyped and impact tested.
The goal was to design a bumper system that would
meet the dual requirements of lower energy leg impacts
and higher energy pendulum and barrier impacts within
the package spacing typical of todays vehicle styling
(70-100 mm).
The energy absorber design, depicted in Figure 6,
utilizes a crush box geometry. The crush boxes are
distributed along the length of the reinforcing beam. By
tailoring the length, width, height of the boxes and the
wall thickness of the side walls, an efficient design was
created that met a balance between acceptable tibia
deceleration, knee bending angle, and knee shear
displacement with the ability to also manage 4 km/hr
barrier and pendulum impacts.
Figure 6: PC/PBT crush box energy absorber.
A cut-away view of the FEA model used to predict the
energy absorber performance is shown in Figure 7. The
energy absorber is shown positioned behind the front
vehicle fascia and in front of the reinforcing beam. The
fascia, grill, energy absorber and beam were all included
in the FEA model.
Figure 7: FEA model for lower leg impact
Commercially available LSDYNA finite element
computation code was used to analyze the energy
absorber performance during both the pedestrian leg
form impact as well as barrier and pendulum impact. A
MAT_024 material model [12] (Mat-Piecewise-Linear-
Plasticity) including strain rate dependence was used to
represent the PC/PBT.
4 KM/HR ECE42/FMVSS IMPACT CORRELATION
The 4 Km/hr pendulum and barrier impacts were
conducted by mounting the beam/energy absorber
system to an 1800 Kg test cart. The test setup for the
pendulum impact is shown in Figure 8. No fascia was
present during these tests.
Figure 8: Test setup for 4 km/hr pendulum impact (1800Kg) on the
PC/PBT energy absorber.
Previous studies have shown correlations of more than
95 percent between FEA predictions and FMVSS
pendulum and barrier tests by incorporating appropriate
material models for the PC/PBT resin blend [8]. Since
these type of impacts are well understood and have
been previously studied, it follows that the FEA
predictions for the 4 Km/hr pendulum and barrier
impacts are in close correlation to the tested impacts.
The correlation is defined as accurately capturing not
only the peak loads and displacements, but also the
general shape of the Load-Displacement curve.
The energy absorber exhibited high efficiency in
absorbing the pendulum (62% efficient) and barrier (60%
efficient) impacts. The predicted vs. test results are
graphed in Figures 9 and 10.
Figure 9: Predicted and tested results; 4 km/hr center pendulum impact
(1800Kg) on the PC/PBT energy absorber.
Figure 10: Predicted and tested results; 4 km/hr barrier impact (1800Kg)
on the PC/PBT energy absorber.
LEGFORM IMPACT CORRELATION
In order to test lower leg pedestrian protection
performance, the PC/PBT energy absorber was fitted
onto the production sedans existing reinforcing beam
and covered with the vehicle fascia. The impact tests
were conducted using the industry standard WG17 leg
form. No modifications were made to the vehicle
exterior or body structure.
Table 1 lists the impact test results and the FEA
predictions for the legform tibia deceleration, knee shear
and knee lateral bending angle. All tests and
simulations were conducted at the centerline of the
vehicle, Y = 0mm position. Tests were conducted as
depicted in Figure 3, with the vehicle bumper cover
attached and all grill and lighting in place on the vehicle.
The vehicle was held stationary while the legform was
launched at the vehicle front end.
PC/PBT Absorber
Y position = 0 (Center) Deceleration Shear Angle
WG17 105G 1.9 mm 19.9 deg.
WG17_M1 101G 1.9 mm 15.0 deg.
WG17_M2 110G 3.5 mm 15.0 deg.
Test (A) 101G 3.6 mm 13.7 deg.
Table 1: Predicted and testing legform impact results using the PC/PBT
energy absorber.
The results listed in Table 1 are presented graphically in
Figures 11, 12 and 13.
Figure 11: Predicted and tested results; Peak deceleration at the
proximal tibia.
Figure 12: Predicted and tested results; Knee lateral bending angle.
Figure 13: Predicted and tested results; Lateral knee shear.
FEA MODEL CORRELATION DEVELOPMENT
The FEA simulation model was initially analyzed utilizing
the purchased CAE legform model without any
modification (Denoted as WG17 in Figures 11, 12, and
13). It was found that while the predicted leg
deceleration was accurate, the model significantly
underpredicted the knee shear and overpredicted the
knee bending angle. A main-effects design of
experiments was then utilized to investigate several of
the key components that comprise the FEA model of the
legform and energy absorber. This Screening DOE [13]
shows the effect on the response when a factor is
changed from its low level to its high level. These
included the leg inner and outer foam cover, the knee
ligaments, the shear springs and leg damper of the
-40
0
40
80
120
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
Time (sec)
A
c
c
e
I
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
WG17
WG17-M1
WG17-M2
Test A
-2
0
2
4
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Time (sec)
S
h
e
a
r

(
m
m
)
WG17
WG17-M1
WG17-M2
Test A
0
5
10
15
20
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
d
e
g
)
WG17
WG17-M1
WG17-M2
Test A
legform. Engineering analysis of the effect of modifying
these components yielded 2 independent legform
modifications that improved the correlation. The knee
elements stiffness was modified to improve the
correlation of knee lateral bending angle prediction
(WG17_M1). The shear spring was modified to have
the additional effect of improving the lateral knee shear
correlation (WG17_M2). The WG17_M2 modified
legform model provided the best balance of tibia
deceleration, bending angle and shear correlation to the
tested data.
NEW VEHICLE DESIGN STRATEGIES
With the improved correlation between test data and
FEA prediction now established, the new FEA model
can now be used to investigate the effects of vehicle
styling on pedestrian protection performance. A design
for Six Sigma (DFSS) approach was used to study how
the height and shape of a vehicle affects the lower leg
impact. DFSS is a statistical pro-active approach for
designing products and processes to achieve Six Sigma
quality.
Some of the key steps adopted therein are shown in
Figure 14.
Figure 14: Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) Methodology
In order to compress the analysis process, a
representative but simplified vehicle front end was
developed. This model included a beam, PC/PBT
energy absorber, fascia, upper spoiler (hood, grill) and
lower spoiler (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Idealized vehicle front end.
Since the diameter of the lower leg impactor is only 130
mm, the sweep of the beam was neglected. The beam
was modeled as rigid (beam deformation is not usually
significant during impact). These approximations helped
to reduce the required modeling time without
compromising the accuracy significantly. The newly
modified (WG17_M2) leg form impactor was used for
the analysis.
Some initial runs were performed to decide the boundary
conditions on the representative fascia, limiting the
energy absorbed by fascia to 15-20% as has been
observed in actual cases. In addition, the edge effects
were eliminated by using appropriate length of the
energy absorber. The energy absorber package space
was set to a low level of 40 to 60 mm to better match the
industrys desire for reduced bumper offsets.
Key vehicle styling variables (X1 to X4), representing the
outer front geometry of the car were parameterized as
shown in Figure 16. For the study described here,
Factors B, C, E, F and G were taken as constant. The
PC/PBT energy absorber design was similar to the one
described above and depicted in figure 6. This energy
absorber design was parameterized by the energy
absorber design features X5 to X10. Suitable ranges
were chosen for these variables to utilize the unique
property of injection molded EAs to have tailor made
stiffness.
Figure 16: Factors and their range
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
To investigate the design space optimally, a Design of
Experiments (DOE) was employed. First, a screening
DOE (Resolution III DOE, 2 levels, 16 runs) [12] was set
up and impact simulations were performed to choose the
variables having a statistically significant effect on
pedestrian protection requirements over the chosen
ranges. The screening DOE set up is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Screening DOE Set-up
The FEA impact analysis was performed for each of the
sixteen combinations of the DOE. The resulting trends
from the screening DOE are shown in Figure 17. The
up/down direction of the arrows indicates the effect of
increasing the value of the X variable. For example, by
increasing the value of variable X4, the deceleration and
shear decrease whereas the bending angle increases.
Lateral arrows indicate that a change in the value of the
X variable has no effect.
Figure 17: Trends plot from screening DOE
All ten factors turned out to be statistically significant.
Therefore, all of the vehicles styling variables were
retained for further analysis. An increase in the value of
the two energy absorber design variables, X9 and X10,
resulted in either a reduction or no change in all three
parameters governing pedestrian protection (ie a
reduction in deceleration, shear and bending angle).
Therefore, to simplify the analyses, X9 and X10 were
subsequently fixed at the highest value of their range.
Also, the operating range of the energy absorber design
variable X6 was increased to vary from 0.5 to 0.9 in
order to enlarge the design space.
Having obtained a new list of significant factors (X1, X2,
X3, X4, X5, X6, X7 and X8), a higher resolution optimal
DOE was designed with these variables (Q-optimal, 50
runs, varying levels). Previous investigations have
shown that the relationship between variables and
Pedestrian protection requirements is non-linear with a
varying order of non-linearity [2]. Based on this
experience, different levels (within the chosen range)
were chosen for different variables such as, three levels
for packaging space X1 (40, 50 and 60 mm) and five
levels for vehicle height with respect to the energy
absorber centerline X3 (-75, -50, -25, 0 and 25 mm) etc.
Impact analyses were performed for each of the DOE
setting and the values of tibia deceleration, knee shear
and knee bending angle were captured. A main effects
chart is plotted in Figure 18 - depicting the effect on the
response when a factor is changed from its low level to
its high level. The values therein, have been normalized
to depict the trends.
Figure 18: Main effect plots
Regression is the science of curve and surface fitting.
Regression tools provides an approximate means of
obtaining the relationship between the response and
factors that influence it when true relationship is
unknown or cannot be extracted from physical
principles. Statistical regression tools were used to
generate a transfer function between the pedestrian
protection requirements and the variables i.e.
Deceleration = f(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8)
Shear = f(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8)
Bending angle = f(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8)
Several FEA validation runs were also performed. A
marginal error of 5-15% was observed for deceleration
and slightly more for shear and bending angle.
With these transfer functions in hand, various
optimization strategies are available depending on the
need; e.g. one can find the energy absorber design
parameters for minimum deceleration, shear and
bending angle keeping car geometry factors at a desired
constant value. Another strategy could be to keep any
one or all-styling factors also as variables, then find the
configuration for best pedestrian protection performance.
In this way, we can assign specific values to the car
geometry variables as defined by the styling
requirements, then carry out an optimization to find the
best energy absorber geometry. One such strategy and
the results obtained from it are shown in Figure 19.
Here, an optimized energy absorber design was
obtained for a car with packaging space X1 of 60 mm
and impact height with respect to the energy absorber
centerline X3 of 25 mm. The other car styling variables,
namely, upper and lower spoiler locations, and, the
energy absorber design variables were treated as
variables.
Figure 19: Optimum energy absorber design for 60 mm packaging space
RESULTS
Previously, an injection molded PC/PBT energy
absorber was designed and manufactured to
demonstrate that it is possible to meet, and exceed, the
WG 17 directives within a packaging space typical of
todays vehicle styling. In addition, the same energy
absorber design was shown to effectively handle 4 km/hr
pendulum and barrier impacts. In order to have
confidence in designing future energy absorbers,
accurate FEA models must exist. Through previous
investigations [8], pendulum and barrier impact FEA
modeling correlation has been well established.
Through this most recent work, the correlation between
FEA modeling of a PC/PBT energy absorber and tested
data from pedestrian legform impact on a vehicle has
been improved to within 10% for the tibia deceleration,
knee bending angle and knee shear.
Utilizing the newly correlated FEA modeling technique, a
DFSS process was followed to assess the contribution
of car styling parameters on pedestrian protection
performance. This method can provide vehicle stylist
and engineers with a way to make an initial assessment
regarding the car styling design direction and the energy
absorber capabilities. The process can be used to
potentially reduce design cycle time by assisting early in
a vehicles development cycle.
Study of the main effect yields several useful guidelines.
The location of a lower spoiler front face with respect to
the energy absorber front face plays a significant role in
controlling knee bending angle. If the leg form impactor
hits the lower spoiler early in the event, almost at the
same time as the energy absorber, then the lower
portion of the leg does not rotate inwards and final
bending angle values are significantly lower. On the
other hand, the simultaneous contact with the lower
spoiler and energy absorber introduces higher
resistance for leg and hence an increased deceleration.
The balance of energy absorber and lower spoiler
stiffness becomes extremely critical to meet both knee
bending angle and deceleration requirements. The effect
becomes more pronounced if the package space is
reduced, since the impact energy needs to be absorbed
with less leg intrusion. Tailor made stiffness can be
achieved for injection molded energy absorbers by using
appropriate design features as shown by the spread in
the main effects of the energy absorber design
parameters. This unique ability of these EAs can provide
car stylists greater design freedom.
As the vehicle height increases, the knee bending angle
generally increases. By choosing to do the analysis at
many levels, including a case where the impact happens
exactly when knee is located in front of the energy
absorber centerline, an interesting pattern emerges as
shown in the main effect plot of variable X3. The steep
shift in deceleration, shear and bending angle in cases
where impact happens when knee is located in front of
the energy absorber centerline suggests that we need to
be careful when operating in this region.
CONCLUSIONS
The current vehicle design trend is to minimize bumper
offset. This requires a reduction in the overall energy
absorber package space between the reinforcing beam
and fascia. A higher efficiency energy absorber can
serve to minimize this space and still meet bumper
impact and pedestrian protection requirements.
Injection molded PC/PBT energy absorbers have been
shown to have higher impact efficiencies than traditional
foam absorbers and can help enable the design of lower
offset bumper systems.
Often, to assist in the up-front evaluation of such a
bumper system, predictive engineering FEA models are
used to assess the how the bumper system will perform
under impact loads. Therefore, accurate FEA modeling
techniques are needed to achieve the most optimized
bumper systems and energy absorbers. By modifying a
commercially available pedestrian impact legform FEA
model, the predicted leg impact performance for the
PC/PBT energy absorber system is now within 10%
agreement with the tested values for tibia deceleration,
knee bending angle and knee shear.
Utilizing this improved FEA model, a strategy for vehicle
front end design was described. Through the use of a
numerical design of experiments investigation, main
vehicle styling parameters of energy absorber packaging
space, vehicle ride height, positon of upper hood or grill
and lower spoiler position were assessed for their effects
on pedestrian protection performance. Each of these
was shown to be important and interrelated in
determining the overall pedestrian protection capability
of a vehicle.
Finally, the energy absorber design parameters and
main vehicle styIing cues were parameterized and
transfer function equations were developed between
them and the pedestrian protection lower leg
performance. Following from this, we now have a
predictive tool that can quickly generate potential energy
absorber designs for different car geometries. The
energy absorber design generated by this method gives
a good starting point for energy absorber development
for an actual car and significantly reduces the iterations
required to come up with a final design
Future work will include additional investigations on the
effects of whole-vehicle body structure on pedestrian
performance. This will include the study of upper leg
and head impact events. In addition, there have been
several recent efforts focused on how mechanical
legforms such as the one described above relate to
real-life leg injury during impact [9] [10]. This paper has
focused on lowering the deceleration, bending angles
and knee shear on the EEVC WG17 legform since these
are the current measurements imposed on European
automobile manufactures. In the future, the authors
expect updated injury test protocols and measures
based on an increased understanding of how to model
real-life injury.
XENOY is a registered trademark of General Electric
Company.
DISCLAIMER: THE MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS OF THE BUSINESSES MAKING UP
THE GE PLASTICS UNIT OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND
AFFILIATES, (GEP) ARE SOLD SUBJECT TO GEPS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF
SALE, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICABLE DISTRIBUTOR OR OTHER SALES
AGREEMENT, PRINTED ON THE BACK OF ORDER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND
INVOICES, AND AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. ALTHOUGH ANY INFORMATION,
RECOMMENDATIONS, OR ADVICE CONTAINED HEREIN IS GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH, GEP
MAKES NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (i) THAT THE
RESULTS DESCRIBED HEREIN WILL BE OBTAINED UNDER END-USE CONDITIONS,
OR (ii) AS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OR SAFETY OF ANY DESIGN INCORPORATING
GEP MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, RECOMMENDATIONS OR ADVICE. EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN GEPS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SALE, GEP AND ITS
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL IN NO EVENT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS
RESULTING FROM ANY USE OF ITS MATERIALS OR PRODUCTS DESCRIBED HEREIN.
Each user bears full responsibility for making its own determination as to the suitability of
GEPs materials, products, recommendations, or advice for its own particular use. Each user
must identify and perform all tests and analyses necessary to assure that its finished parts
incorporating GEP materials or products will be safe and suitable for use under end-use
conditions. Nothing in this or any other document, nor any oral recommendation or advice,
shall be deemed to alter, vary, supersede, or waive any provision of GEPs Standard
Conditions of Sale or this Disclaimer, unless any such modification is specifically agreed to in
a writing signed by GEP. No statement contained herein concerning a possible or suggested
use of any material, product or design is intended, or should be construed, to grant any
license under any patent or other intellectual property right of General Electric Company or
any of its subsidiaries or affiliates covering such use or design, or as a recommendation for
the use of such material, product or design in the infringement of any patent or other
intellectual property right.
REFERENCES
1. Improved Test Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian
Protection Afforded by Passenger Cars 1998 EEVC
Working Group WG17 report
2. S. Shuler, F. Mooijman and A. Nanda. Bumper
Systems Designed for Both Pedestrian Protection
and FMVSS Requirements: Part Design and
Testing, SAE paper 2004-01-1610.
3. More information can be found at: www.etsc.be
4. More information regarding bumper test procedures
can be found at the NHTSA web site at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/procedures/TP
-581-01.pdf
5. More information can be found at the EEVC web site
(www.eevc.org) EEVC Working Group 17 Report -
Improved Test Methods To Evaluate Pedestrian
Protection Afforded By Passenger Cars (December
1998 with September 2002 updates)
6. D. Evans and T. Morgan. Engineering
Thermoplastic Energy Absorbers for Bumpers, SAE
paper 1999-01-1011.
7. D. Evans, S. Shuler, S. Santhanam, Predicting the
Bumper System Response of Engineering
Thermoplastic Energy Absorbers with Steel Beams,
SAE paper 2002-01-1228.
8. D. Evans, Correlation Study on Different Bumper
Impact Test Methods and Predicted Results SAE
Paper 2003-01-0211.
9. D. Bose, K, Bhalla, L. VanRooij, S. Millington, A.
Studley, J. Crandall Response of the Knee Joint to
the Pedestrian Impact Loading Environment, SAE
Paper 2004-01-1608.
10. A. Konosu, M. Tanahashi, Development of an FE
Flexible Pedestrian Leg-form Impactor (Flex-PLI
2003R) Model and Evaluation of its Biofidelity. SAE
Paper 2004-01-1609.
11. P. Schuster, B. Staines, Determination of Bumper
Styling and Engineering Parameters to Reduce
Pedestrian Leg Injuries, SAE 980361.
12. LS-DYNA Keyword Users Manual, April 2003,
Version 970.
13. M. Kiemele, S. Schmidt, R. Berdine, Basic
Statistics Tools for Continuous Improvement, Book,
Air Academy Press
14. Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations
EA: Energy Absorber
CAE: Computer Aided Engineering
FEA: Finite element Analysis
PC/PBT: Polycarbonate/Polybutylene Terephthalate
DOE: Design of Experiments
EPP: Expanded Polypropylene
ETP: Engineering Thermoplastic

S-ar putea să vă placă și