2012-28-0003

Pedestrian Protection Challenges for SUVs in India

Mune Gowda
General Motors Technical Centre India Pvt Ltd (GMTCIPL) - India
ABSTRACT
Trucks and SUVs are designed with off-road
characteristics or other special vehicle features which
define the fundamental vehicle architecture. Features
such as high running clearances, large approach angles,
skid plates, tow/recovery hooks and steel/chrome
bumpers may present challenges for meeting pedestrian
lower leg performance for GTR9 (Global Technical
Regulation) which also forms the basis for Indian
pedestrian protection regulations in near future.
The GTR9 scope applies to vehicles up to 4500kg which
includes most of the Indian full size trucks and SUVs [1].
A study of a sample of SUVs being sold in the Indian
market was done to understand the typical dimensions
of the front end of the vehicle. One of the sampler SUVs
was studied in detail to understand the potential
challenges posed to meet the pedestrian protection
requirements.
Sampler SUV 1 - Section at Y=0

Fig 1: Cross section at Y=0 for sampler SUV 1
Sampler SUV 2 Section at Y=0

Fig 2: Cross section at Y=0 for sampler SUV 2
INTRODUCTION
Pedestrians and cyclists represent an extremely
vulnerable population of road users, and thousands are
severely injured or killed every year. The world health
organization has estimated that 1.2 million people are
killed in road traffic crashes and that up to 50 million are
injured each year [2]. The portion of road accident
fatalities who are pedestrians and cyclists varies
substantially throughout the world, with large differences
evident between low and higher income countries. For
example in the U.S, France and Sweden vehicle
occupants represent more than 60% of all road fatalities
and the portion of pedestrians and cyclists is 12-13%
and 2-9% respectively. Remaining portion represent
motorized two wheelers and others. However this
relationship is largely inverted in many African, Asian
and South American countries [3].
The pedestrian-vehicle interaction is complex in
countries like India where pedestrians and cyclists share
the same road space with two wheelers, three wheelers,
cars, buses and trucks.
In order to make vehicles pedestrian friendly, many
countries are adopting regulations such as Europhase1,
Copyright 201 SAE International 2
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:45:21 PM
GTR9 and consumer metric (e.g. EURONCAP). GTR9
involves impact tests to the front end of the vehicle. A
lower leg form or an upper leg form is projected into the
bumper depending on height of the bumper as shown in
Fig 3 and Fig 4. Child and adult head form impactors are
launched on to the top of the hood.

Fig 3: Lower leg form to bumper tests [1]

Fig 4: Upper leg form to bumper test [1]
GTR9 requirements and critical target values for lower
leg and horizontally deployed upper leg are as shown in
Table 1 and Table 2 respectively [1].
Lower leg:
Injury criteria:
Acceleration (g) 170 g (250 g in exception
zone upto 264mm width
e.g. towing hook)
Knee bending (deg) 19 deg
Knee shearing (mm) 6mm
Table 1: Injury criteria target values for lower leg [1]
Upper Leg to bumper test:
Injury criteria:
Sum force (kN) 7.5 kN
Moment (Nm) 510 Nm
Table 2: Injury criteria for upper leg to bumper test [1]
SUVs are designed for off-road operation or transporting
more persons than passenger cars, as well as towing
capability. This functionality generally requires larger
exterior size, more vehicle weight and higher ground
clearances as compared to passenger vehicles. This in
turn may make pedestrian protection more challenging.
The design parameters for off-road performance may
include large approach angles and high running
clearance, which increases the height of the bumpers,
as well as midrails, and prevents the use of lower
stiffening structure under the bumper. Without lower
stiffening structure, the bumper tends to hit the
pedestrian leg resulting in a large knee bending angle.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS LOWER LEG
One of the sampler SUV as shown in Fig 1 (Sampler
SUV 1) is considered for further study. This vehicle has
a gross vehicle weight of 2910kg. Curb weight of the
vehicle is 2250kg. Curb height of the vehicle is 205mm.
Overall length of the vehicle is 5280mm and width is
1890mm. wheel base of the vehicle is 3280mm and
overall height of the vehicle is 1920mm.
Performance of the sampler SUV 1 was analyzed using
LS-Dyna 971 and the GTR9 lower leg requirements. Fig
1 shows the space available between fascia and bumper
beam is approximately 10mm. From analysis it was
found that the existing design does not meet GTR9
lower leg requirements of acceleration, bending angle
and knee displacement.
The next iteration was carried out by changing the fascia
profile to accommodate 80mm depth low density foam
between fascia and bumper beam. This increases the
front overhang of the vehicle. Acceleration, bending
angle and knee displacement are reduced compared to
baseline design, but still higher than GTR9 requirement.
Fig 5 shows high bending angle due to lack of lower load
path.

Fig 5: High bending angle without load path
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:45:21 PM
Meeting the GTR9 TRL leg [4] bending angle
requirement limit cannot be achieved without including
an additional leg load path and will require many front
end modifications to the above vehicle considered.
OEMs can choose either upper or lower leg test based
on bumper height. If the bumper height is between
425mm and 500mm manufacturer can choose either of
the two impact test [1]. Present study vehicle is having
bumper height of 470mm as shown in Fig 1. This
provides us an opportunity to conduct horizontally
deployed upper leg test to bumper.
LBRL DEFINITION
Lower bumper reference line is defined as the
geometric trace of the lower most points of pedestrian
contact between a straight edge 700mm long and the
bumper, when the straight edge, held parallel to the
vertical longitudinal plane of the car and inclined
forwards by 25
0
from the vertical, is traversed across the
front of the car, while maintaining contact with the
ground and with the surface of the bumper [1].

Fig 6: Lower bumper reference line [1]
LBRL 425 mm Lower leg test required
425 mm LBRL 500 mm Manufactures choice of
lower leg or upper leg
LBRL 500 mm Upper leg test required
Table 3: LBRL definition.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS UPPER LEG
A horizontally deployed upper leg is considered for
further study. Simulation is conducted for the sampler
SUV1 and the results show that force and moment
values are found to be higher than GTR9 targets.
To achieve the GTR9 load criteria of 7.5kN, the
theoretical minimum deformation space (perfect square
wave crush) between fascia and bumper beam was
calculated as follows.
*m*v
2
= P*D
m=mass of the impactor =9.5kg,
v=velocity = 11.11m/sec,
P=required force limit (GTR9 target) = 7.5kN,
D=minimum deformation space, in mm.
From the above equation to achieve a force target of
7.5kN, the minimum deformation space required was
78mm. OEMs normally use low density foam or
thermoplastic EA between the fascia and bumper beam.
Studies show that thermoplastic is generally preferable
to foam EA because of higher design freedom and cost
efficiency through integration [5]. Stiffness tuning of the
front structure is much simpler for thermoplastic design
through geometry configuration.
Energy absorber of 100mm depth as shown in Fig 7 was
examined to meet the GTR 9 requirements. Force and
moment values for this design are less than GTR9
targets, with safety margin allowed for variation.

Fig 7: Thermoplastic energy absorber.
Robustness of the design was checked at different Y
locations across the width of the vehicle. Results
obtained are found to be less than GTR9 targets.
CONCLUSION
This study concludes that the deformation space needed
to maintain GTR performance levels will greatly increase
the overall length of the sample vehicle. GTR9 compliant
vehicles will need a deformable surface at a minimum to
manage either test leg used, and may also need
additional load paths to manage leg performance if the
lower leg is used.
Meeting the lower leg GTR9 requirement may involve
extensive modification to limit the bending angle at the
front end of vehicle, (e.g. addition of bumper load path).
Further investigation is needed to quantify the influence
of EA geometry and material with respect to the
percentage of energy absorption.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:45:21 PM
REFERENCES
1. Global Technical Regulation No. 9 Agreement
concerning the establishing of global technical
regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipments and
parts which can be fitted and be used on wheeled
vehicles online at
http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/
wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-
180a9e.pdf.
2. World report on Road traffic injury prevention,
World Health Organization.
3. Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact: A Biomechanical
Perspective by Ciaran Simms, Denis Wood.
4. Transport research laboratory, TRL pedestrian
legform Imactor user manual. Version 2.0, 2000.
5.







































DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS
SUVs: Sport Utility Vehicles

GTR 9: Global Technical Regulation

OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer

EA: Energy Absorber

EURONCAP: European New Car Assessment Program

EEVC: European Enhanced Vehicle safety

TRL: Transport Research Laboratory

LBRL: Lower Bumper Reference Line
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper Ior publication. It has
successIully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision oI the session
organizer. This process requires a minimum oI three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part oI this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any Iorm or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission oI SAE.
ISSN 0148-7191
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those oI the author(s) and not
necessarily those oI SAE. The author is solely responsible Ior the content oI the paper.
6$( &XVWRPHU 6HUYLFH
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerServicesae.org
6$( :HE $GGUHVV http://www.sae.org
3ULQWHG LQ 86$
Sofi, F., Kulkarni, S., Haarda, M., and Takaaki, N.,
"A Novel Energy Absorber Design Technique for an
Idealized Force-Deformation performance," SAE
Technical Paper 2008-01-0184, 2008,
doi:10.4271/2008-01-0184.
Downloaded from SAE International by Vellore Inst of Technology, Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:45:21 PM