PEDESTRIAN HEADFORM IMPACT TESTS FOR VARIOUS VEHICLE LOCATIONS

Koji Mizuno
Hideki Yonezawa
Traffic Safety and Nuisance Research Institute
Japan
Janusz Kajzer
KABIMEC Engineering
Sweden
Paper Number 278

ABSTRACT complete recovery is often not possible. In

pedestrian-vehicle impact, the head is also the most
Current accident analysis shows that the head of frequent injured body region resulting in death [2]. Thus,
the pedestrian impacts most frequently into or around it is most important to evaluate injury risks to the head.
the windscreen since cars in recent have a short hood. The EEVC test method prescribes that the adult
Therefore, the injury risks to the head in contact with head impact test shall be made on the bonnet top within
various locations of the car including the windscreen the boundaries defined as a wrap around distance
and its frame were examined on the basis of headform (WAD) of 1500 mm and 2100 mm at a velocity of 40
impact tests. The HIC is high from contact with the cowl, km/h [1]. In this test method, the windscreen and A
lower windscreen frame or A pillar, and it is low with pillars are excluded from the test area. The EEVC
increasing distance from these structural elements. In presented these test methods in its first report of EEVC
the windscreen center, the HIC is less than 500. WG10 [3]. However, when these pedestrian test
The headform impact test results were compared methods were firstly discussed, most cars had an upright
between earlier and current car models. The HICs in the frontal area and a long hood. Since modern cars have
bonnet top area are similar in either type car except for become smaller and have a short and steep bonnet, the
the car built especially for pedestrian safety. However, head impact locations have changed from the hood to
on the A pillar, the HICs are much greater for current the cowl or windscreen in actual accidents [2][4]. Thus,
cars. it was suggested that the injury risks to the head by
From child headform impact tests for the WAD of contact on and around the windscreen should be
1000 mm, the HIC of SUV is higher than cars, and the investigated [5]. Therefore, in this study, injury risks to
SUV with steel bull bar leads to high injury risk. the head of the pedestrian upon impact on and around
the windscreen were examined based on headform
INTRODUCTION impact tests.
Current cars must satisfy the requirements of
Since the body of the pedestrian impacts various frontal and side impact tests, so the current car
locations of the car, sub-system tests using impactors are construction is stiffer than that of earlier car models.
effective to evaluate the injury risk to each body region. Some cars were especially designed to reduce the injury
The European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee risk to the pedestrian head [6]. The headform impact
(EEVC) proposed three sub-system tests: headform tests were performed on the hood top and windscreen
impactor to bonnet top, legform to bumper, and upper frame for earlier and current car models.
legform to bonnet leading edge [1]. The International Elderly people as well as children aged 5 or 6
Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA) Pedestrian years old sustain numerous injuries. To investigate the
Working Group and International Standard head injury risk to children, child headform impact tests
Organization (ISO/TC22/SC10/WG2) also presented were also carried out on the hood top of the sedans
similar sub-system tests. where the head of child is inclined to make contact.
Head injuries pose a serious threat to life, and

Mizuno, 1
 Accident data show that the injury risk to children 0.76 mm, which are the specifications commonly used
when struck by the SUV (Sports Utility Vehicle) is for windscreens.
higher than for cars [4]. Some steel bull of aftermarket To compare the performance of the current and
can be installed to SUV, which may cause high injury previous car models, headform impact tests were also
risk to a child’s head. Therefore, the head injury risk to performed for the current 1999 car models, such as
children was examined for the SUV with or without a Honda Life, Nissan Sunny and Toyota Ipsum (Picnic).
bull bar from child headform impact tests. Since present The Life is a minicar with countermeasures taken for
genuine bull bars are made from plastic, a test was also head impacts [6]. The impact locations are the bonnet
performed on this plastic bull bar to examine the top and windscreen frame (see Figure 1). The HIC and
reduction of the injury risk to the head. force-deformation characteristics of these cars are
compared with those of the 1990 Corolla.
METHODOLOGY  Roof edge center
A pillar top

Adult Headform Impact Tests Around Windscreen A pillar center

Current accident data show that the pedestrian A pillar belt line
head frequently makes contact with and around the
windscreen. Therefore, headform impact tests were Windscreen lower frame center
carried out to evaluate injury risk to the head on impact Figure 1. Headform impact locations on the
with and around the windscreen. The adult headform windscreen frame.
impactor prescribed for the proposed EEVC pedestrian
test procedures [3] was used. The outer layer of the Child Headform Impact Test
impactor is composed of a skin and sphere, with a mass
of 4.8 kg. The acceleration is measured at the impactor’s Test on bonnet top To examine the head injury
center of gravity. The impact velocity is 40 km/h, and risk for children, impact tests using a child headform
the impact angle is 65 degrees from the horizontal plane. were performed with the Corolla, Life, Sunny and
Various locations such as the hood top (WAD of 1500 or Mitsubishi Pajero. The child headform (2.5 kg)
more), cowl, fender, windscreen and its frame were employed is the one proposed by the EEVC [3]. The
impacted. In the case of the windscreen, the impact hood and hood/fender boundary were impacted at WAD
positions varied in proportion to the distance from the of 1200 mm. For all tested cars, this WAD corresponds
windscreen frame and A pillar. The Head Injury Criteria to the hood. Figure 2 shows the conditions for the adult
(HIC) were calculated for impacts on each area of the and child headform impact tests. In some tests, the adult
car. and child headform were impacted on the same car
Velocity has a large effect on the injury risk to the locations. The HIC and force-displacement
pedestrian. Mathematical simulation showed that the characteristics are compared.
pedestrian’s head hit the vehicle at differing velocities  Child Adult
depending on the vehicle shape [4]. Therefore, we headform headform

performed impact tests against the hood and windscreen

at impact velocities of 30, 40 and 50 km/h, and
compared the HIC values.
The same small car model: A 1990 model Toyota
Corolla was used in the tests. The windscreen of this car Figure 2. Headform impact tests.
is of laminated safety glass which consists of three
layers: an outer glass layer, a polywinyl butyral (PVB) Bull bar test Child headform impact tests were
film and an inner glass layer. The thickness of the outer performed for SUV (Vehicle A) with and without a steel
and inner glass is 2.3 mm, and that of the PVB film is bull bar (Figure 3). For this SUV, the bull bar strut is
mounted low on both the steel bumper and longitudinal

Mizuno, 2
member. Table 1 shows the test matrix. The WAD of RESULTS
impact locations was about 1000 mm, which is almost
the head center height of a child aged 5 or 6 years. In the Headform Impact Test with and around Windscreen
SUV without the bull bar, the bonnet leading edge
(WAD 1000 mm) was impacted at 40 km/h, and the The impact locations and calculated HICs are
results were compared with cars. An impact velocity of shown in Figure 4. A total of 40 impact tests were
30 km/h was selected for the steel bull bar since even at carried out on the hood, fender, cowl, windscreen, and
this low velocity the HIC is predicted to be high level. windscreen frame including A pillar. In the hood, cowl
For comparison, the 30 km/h impact tests were also and fender areas prescribed in the EU test procedures,
performed for the SUV without a bull bar. the HICs for only two locations are less than the injury
The impact angle of 50 degrees which is the same threshold (HIC 1000). The rear hood and hood/fender
as used in the EEVC test procedures, was selected for areas produce high HICs. The HICs are extremely high
the SUV without the bull bar because the upper body of (over 5000) for the hood hinge, hood stopper, corner of
child rotates after the pelvis or femur make contact with the windscreen frame, and bottom of the A pillar.
the bumper. When the child is impacted by the SUV
with bull bar, the rotation angle of the upper body is
small, so an impact angle of zero was selected.
The plastic bull bar was attached on the SUV HIC

(Vehicle B). To examine the energy absorption of the 0-500

plastic bull bar, the child headform impact test was also 501-1000

performed at an impact velocity of 40 km/h with an 1001-2000

WAD 1600
2001-3000
angle of zero. WAD 1500
3001-5000
 5001-

S1 S2 S3
S4 S5 S6 S7 B1 B2 B3 B4

Figure 4 HIC distributions and impact location by

impact position for the tested car (40 km/h).
Figure 3. Impact locations of SUV with and without
steel bull bar. The car body shows various force-deformation
characteristics when hit by the headform. Figure 5
Table 1. Child headform impact test on SUV shows the force-deformation characteristics of the main
Test
Vehicle Impact location
Velocity Angle WAD locations of the car. In the hood region, the force reaches
No. (km/h) (deg) (mm)
a peak deformation of 25 mm, and the force decreases in
S1 SUV Hood leading edge (center) 40 50 1010
accordance with the rotation of the impactor. The hood
S2 SUV Hood leading edge (right) 40 50 1000
at the hinge and the hood stopper produce high force
S3 SUV Hood/fender boundary 40 50 1000
levels of 20 kN. In the cowl area, the force increases
S4 SUV Hood leading edge (latch) 30 50 1010
S5 SUV Hood leading edge 30 50 1000
consistently, whereas at the wiper pivot, the force is high
S6 SUV Hood leading edge 30 50 1000 due to the deformation of the wiper pivot axis. The A
S7 SUV Hood/Fender boundary 30 50 1000 pillar has a constant force level due to the collapse of its
B1 SUV Steel bull bar (center top) 30 0 1010 box shape, yet its force level is high enough to cause
B2 SUV Steel bull bar (strut) 30 0 980 serious injuries to the head.
B3 SUV Steel bull bar (top, around light) 30 0 960 In addition to the baseline force-deformation
B4 SUV Steel bull bar (corner) 30 0 940 characteristics of each car body part, the local high
GP SUV Plastic bull bar 40 0 930 stiffness of the hood hinge, hood stopper and wiper pivot

Mizuno, 3
were found to have a major effect on both the 25 25
WAD 1500 WAD 1500
force-deformation characteristics and the HIC. 20 WAD 1600

Force (kN)
20 WAD 1600

Force (kN)
The force-deformation characteristics were 15 15

compared among the lower edge of the windscreen 10 10

frame, 50, 150 mm above it, respectively, as well as at 5 5

the windscreen center (Figure 6). In the windscreen area 0

0 20 40 60 80
0
0 20 40 60 80
50 mm above the lower windscreen frame, the force Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)

shows an inertial spike of about 7.5 kN in the initial (a) Hood (b) Hood/Fender

phase when the glass breaks. After that, the force 25 Hinge 25
Wiper pivot
Hood stopper
increases, and the force-deformation curve is similar to 20 Cowl left

Force (kN)
20

Force (kN)
Cowl right
that of the windscreen frame. For the impact on the 15 15

center of the windscreen, the initial spike of the glass 10 10

breaking is followed by a low plateau force of about 3 5 5

0 0
kN, which is due to stretching of the PVB film of the 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
HPR glass. In this area, the effect of the stiffness of the Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)
(c) Hinge, Hood stopper (d) Cowl top
windscreen frame on the force-characteristics is small.
These results show that the force-deformation 25
Lower location
25
Roof edge (center)
Center location
characteristics of the windscreen are mainly affected by 20 A pillar top
Force (kN)
20

Force (kN)
Top location
those of the windscreen frame. 15 15

10 10
The relation between the HIC and the distance
5 5
from the windscreen frame is examined along the three
0 0
paths shown in Figure 7. The HIC value is a maximum at 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)
the windscreen frame for all paths, and it decreases with
(e) A pillar (f) Roof
the distance from the frame.
The tendency to a lower HIC varies with each Figure 5. Force-deformation characteristics of the
windscreen frame. The HIC of path A decreases car from headform impact tests (40 km/h).
gradually with the distance from the lower windscreen
frame because the headform impactor contacts the top of 15 15

the instrument panel. However, for the A pillar, the HIC

Force (kN)

Force (kN)

10 10

decreases abruptly (path B). At path B, the impactor 5 5

does not contact the A pillar when the distance from the 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
A pillar is greater than 100 mm. The corner of the -5 -5
Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)
windscreen frame is so stiff that the HIC in the Windscreen
Lower windscreen frame
windscreen around this corner reaches a high value (path (50 mm from lower frame)

C). The HIC of path C shows a similar tendency to that 15 15

of path A when the distance from the lower windscreen 10 10

Force (kN)

Force (kN)

frame is over 100 mm, which means that the influence of 5 5

the A pillar is small in this region. 0

0 50 100 150
0
0 50 100 150
The HIC distributions in the upper region of the -5
Deformation (mm)
-5
Deformation (mm)
windscreen were examined by Matsui et al [7]. A Windscreen
(150 mm from lower frame) Windscreen (center)
contour map of the whole windscreen is drawn,
including these results as shown in Figure 8. The region Figure 6. Force-deformation characteristics of the
where the HIC value is below the injury threshold windscreen from headform impact tests (40 km/h).
covers much of the windscreen.

Mizuno, 4
 8000 the HIC for impact with the windscreen is still less than
7000 the injury threshold even at the impact velocity of 50
6000 Path C km/h, it is considered the injury risk to the head is low in
Path B
5000 x the center of the windscreen.
Path A
HIC

4000 x x
Path C 1400
3000 Path A
1200 Hood
2000 Windscreen
1000
1000
Path B 800

HIC
0
0 100 200 300 400 600
400
Distance from the windscreen boundary, x (mm)
200
Figure 7. Relation between HIC and distance from
windscreen frame of the tested car (40 km/h). Path A 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
is from the lower windscreen frame, path B from the
Impact velocity (km/h)
A pillar, and path C from the corner of the
windscreen. For path C, the lateral axis indicates the Figure 9. Effect of the impact velocity on the HIC
distance from the lower windscreen frame. for the tested car.

HIC and dynamic deformation

100 mm

100 mm The deformation necessary to keep the HIC below

1000 is important in order that a car may be designed to
HIC reduce the likelihood of pedestrian head injuries.
3000 3000
4000
MacLaughlin et al. [8] showed in headform impact tests
4000
5000 5000 onto the hood top (37 km/h) that the HIC is related to the
1000
2000 dynamic deformation. Since their study experimentally
investigated only the hood top, we examined this
Figure 8. HIC in the windscreen region in the relation based on theoretical analysis as well as on
headform impact tests for the tested car (40 km/h). impact tests for the windscreen and the bonnet top.
Upper part of the contour map is from Matsui et al The HIC results obtained from the headform impact
[7]. test on the car body (excluding the windscreen) and the
windscreen itself are shown as a function of dynamic
deformation in Figure 10. The HIC correlates well with
Impact velocity and injury risk the dynamic deformation of the car body and
windscreen.
In order to clarify the effects of impact velocity, The approximation curves were calculated for the
its relation to the HICs was examined for the hood windscreen and the car body. Based on these
(WAD 1500 mm on the centerline of the car) and the approximation curves, a HIC value of 1000 is associated
center of the windscreen. The results are shown in with a dynamic deformation value of 76 mm for the car
Figure 9. The hood produces a linear increase in the HIC body for the windscreen. In order to reduce the HIC
with increasing impact velocity, and the HIC value below 1000, dynamic deformations greater than those
exceeds 1000 at 50 km/h. When the impact velocity is values are necessary.
50 km/h on the windscreen, the PVB film was torn
(there was no penetration of the headform), which
results in a HIC value below the injury threshold. Since

Mizuno, 5
 8000 10000
9000 Corolla (1990)
7000 Car body Life (1999)
Windscreen 8000
6000 7000 Sunny (1999)
Ipsum (1999)
6000
5000

HIC
5000
HIC

4000 4000
y = 13.3 x-1.80 3000
3000 R2=0.956
2000
2000 y = 4.07 x-2.13 1000
R2=0.929 0
1000 A pillar A pillar A pillar Roof Windscreen Hood Hood/
top center belt line edge lower hinge fender
0 center frame boundary
0.000 0.050 0.076 0.100 0.150 center
Dynamic deformation (m) Impact locations

Figure 10. HIC versus dynamic deformation in Figure 11. HICs for various locations in four vehicle
headform impact tests for the tested car (40 km/h). models (40 km/h).

HICs compared with current and old car models The force-displacement characteristics for the A
pillar, roof edge, lower windscreen frame, hood hinge
The HICs at various impact locations in four cars and hood/fender boundary are compared with four cars
are compared in Figure 11. The A pillar produces high as shown in Figure 12. The A pillar of the Corolla
HIC for all cars, which indicates that the injury risk to collapsed at the force level of 10 kN, whereas for other
the head is particularly high in impact against this cars the A pillars did not collapse and produced high
location. For the 1990 Corolla, the HICs at the A pillar force levels. In an impact against a roof edge, as the roof
are less than 5000, whereas for other current cars the bent from its center, the force level is less than 5 kN and
HICs at the center and belt line of the A pillar are more the force-displacement curves are similar among the
than 7000. Those values are far higher than the injury four cars.
threshold, and the probability of death is very high. At Generally the force curves of the current cars are
the center of the roof edge, the HICs are less than 1000 similar to those of Corolla. However, the Life force
for all cars. levels are low as 5 kN at the lower windscreen frame,
In the hood top area, the HICs of the Corolla are and 10 kN at the stiff parts like the hood hinge and
almost the same as those of current car models except hood/fender boundaries. Thus, from the countermeasure
Life. For the Life in which the countermeasure are for pedestrian, cars have the bonnet with low force level,
conducted for the head impact, the HIC is almost 1000 at and decreases the injury risk to the pedestrian head.
the center of the lower windscreen frame, and less than The sections of the A pillar for the 1990 Corolla
2000 at the hood edge and the hood/fender boundary. and 1999 Sunny after impact tests are presented in
Therefore, at these locations, the countermeasure can be Figure 13. The A pillar of the Corolla consists of one
applied, however, it may be difficult to reduce the HIC layer of thin steel, and the A pillar deformed upon
less than 1000 for all regions on the bonnet top at an impact. On the other hand, the A pillar of Sunny in the
impact velocity of 40 km/h. impact location consists of two or three layers. The A
pillar of the Sunny is so stiff that the deformation was
very small and produced extremely high HIC values.
One reason for this deformed structure may be the
countermeasure for the frontal impact tests, where the A
pillar structure is an important structure for the integrity
of the passenger compartment.

Mizuno, 6
 30
Corolla (1990)
Life (1999)
Force (kN)

20 Sunny (1999)
Ipsum (1999)

10

0
0 0.05 0.10
Displacement (m)
Corolla (MY 1990) Sunny (MY 1999)
(a) A pillar (center)
Figure 13. Setions of A pillar after headform impact
30 (40 km/h). Arrow shows impact point.
Corolla (1990)
Life (1999)
Force (kN)

20 Sunny (1999)
Ipsum (1999)
Child headform impact tests
10

Impact tests on hood top The HIC of child

0
0 0.05 0.10 headform impact tests on the hood and hood/fender
Displacement (m)
boundary for four vehicles are shown in Figure 14. The
(b) Roof edge (center)
HICs in hood are almost same level in tested cars. The
30
Corolla (1990) HIC at the hood of the SUV is higher than other cars due
Life (1999) to its stiff hood. In the hood/fender area, the HIC of
Force (kN)

20 Sunny (1999)
Ipsum (1999)
Corolla is above 3000 but that of other cars is ranging
from 2000 to 3000. Figure 15 shows the
10
force-displacement characteristics for hood and
0
hood/fender boundary. The curve shapes are similar in
0 0.05 0.10
Displacement (m)
tested cars, and the force level of the Life is smaller than
(c) Lower windscreen frame (center) other cars.
Adult and child headform tests at 40 km/h were
30
Corolla (1990) performed on the same car location (Figure 16). The
Life (1999)
initial stiffness is similar between adult and child
Force (kN)

20 Sunny (1999)
Ipsum (1999) headform, but the final force level is higher for adult
10 headform. The HIC of the child headform is higher than
that of the adult headform. The difference between them
0 is not so very large, although the ratio of the impactors is
0 0.05 0.10
Displacement (m) 1.92 (=4.8/2.5).
(d) Hood hinge

30 4000
Corolla (1990)
Corolla (1990)
Life (1999)
Life (1999) 3000
Sunny (1999)
Force (kN)

20 Sunny (1999)
HIC

Pajero (1995)
Ipsum (1999) 2000

10
1000

0 0
0 0.05 0.10
Displacement (m) Hood Hood/Fender

(e) Hood/fender boundary Impact locations

Figure 12. Force-displacement characteristics for Figure 14. HICs in child headform impact tests (40
various locations in adult headform impact tests (40 km/h).
km/h).

Mizuno, 7
 10 Bull bar tests The HICs of the SUV are high
Corolla (1990)
even without the bull bar. Since the WAD 1000 mm
Life (1999)
Force (kN)

Sunny (1999) corresponds to the hood leading edge of the SUV, the
5 Pajero (1995) HIC is above 2000. Especially at the center of the hood
leading edge where there is a hood latch, the HIC is 3415.
The WAD 1000 mm is for the hood of the car, whereas it
0 is the hood leading edge for the SUV. Therefore, the
0 0.05 0.10
Displacement (m) injury risk to the head of child is higher for SUV than
(a) Hood (center, WAD 1200 mm)
that of cars, since the head is likely to contact an area of
10 high stiffness. This may be one reason for the high
Corolla (1990)
Life (1999) injury risk to children aged 5 or 6 years old in an impact
Force (kN)

Sunny (1999) against the SUV compared with cars.

5 Pajero (1995)
Figure 17 shows the acceleration-time histories of
the steel bull bar at 30 km/h. The acceleration became
high when the bull bar rotates from its mount at the
0
0 0.05 0.10 bumper. The pulse deviation after 5 ms is due to the
Displacement (m)
vibration of the headform impactor itself. No residual
(b) Hood/fender boundary (WAD 1200 mm)
local deformation of the steel bull bar was observed.
Figure 15. Force-displacement characteristic in The results of SUV with and without the bull bar
child headform impact tests. are compared for the impact velocity of 30 km/h. At the
center tube top (B1) or strut of the bull bar (B2), higher
10 HIC are produced than at the hood leading edge of the
Adult (HIC 1036) SUV (S4, S5, S6). On the other hand, the bull bar around
8
Child (HIC 1270)
Force (kN)

lamp (B3) or corner (B4), the HICs are less than those
6
without the bull bar (S6, S7). However, a small-diameter
4
of the bull bar in these locations may cause focal injury
2
to the head because of force concentration from the bull
0 bar [9]. Generally, the injury risks from the steel bull bar
0 0.05 0.10
Displacement (m) are higher than those of the SUV without the bull bar.
(a) Hood

10 Table 2. Child headform impact test results on SUV

Adult (HIC 1981)
8 Child (HIC 2362) with and without bull bar
Force (kN)

6 Test Velocity Angle

Impact location HIC
4 No. (km/h) (deg)

2
S1 Hood leading edge (center) 40 50 3415
S2 Hood leading edge (right) 40 50 2189
0
0 0.05 0.10 S3 Hood/fender boundary 40 50 3763
Displacement (m)
(b) Hood/Fender boundary S4 Hood leading edge (hood 30 50 1459
S5 Hood leading edge 30 50 1169
Figure 16. Force-displacement characteristics in an S6 Hood leading edge 30 50 1194
impact at the same location by adult and child S7 Hood/fender boundary 30 50 1724
headform (40 km/h).
B1 Steel bull bar (center top) 30 0 3272
B2 Steel bull bar (strut) 30 0 3793
B3 Steel bull bar (top, around 30 0 994
B4 Steel bull bar (corner) 30 0 446
GP Plastic bull bar 40 0 1106

Mizuno, 8
 600
Resultant acceleration (G)
CONCLUSIONS
B1

400 B2
B3
Head injury risk in pedestrian impact with
B4 vehicles was examined based on headform impact tests.
200
The results are as follows:
0 1. From the adult headform impact tests, the
0 10 20 30 40 distributions of the HIC in the windscreen were
Time (ms) obtained and the HIC was maximal at the
Figure 17. Acceleration-time histories for steel bull windscreen frame.
bar (30 km/h). 2. The A pillar produces high HIC, and this tendency
is more remarkable for current cars due to the high
stiffness of the A pillar.
The plastic bull bar in a child headform impact is 3. A car with built-in the countermeasures to protect
presented in Figure 18. The bull bar was cracked and the pedestrian head produces low HIC and force
absorbed impact energy. Figure 19 shows the levels.
acceleration-time history. The acceleration is low and 4. A steel bull bar produces higher injury risk to the
the duration time is long. The HIC is slightly more than child head than the SUV without SUV, whereas a
1000 at 40 km/h, far lower than that of SUV with or plastic bull bar can absorb the impact energy and
without the steel bull bar. reduce the injury risk.

REFERENCES

1. EEVC, “Improved Test Methods to Evaluate

Pedestrian Protection Afforded by Passenger Cars”,
EEVC Working Group 17 Report, 1998.
2. ITARDA, Report of In-Depth Accident Analysis,
1996 Edition 1997 (in Japanese).
3. EEVC, “Proposal for Methods to Evaluate
Pedestrian Protection for Passenger Cars”, EEVC
Working Group 10 Report, 1994.
Figure 18. Plastic bull bar impact tests using child 4. Mizuno, K., Kajzer, J., Aiba, T., “Influences of
headform (40 km/h, time=10 ms). Vehicle Front Shape on Injuries in
Vehicle-Pedestrian Impact”, Transactions of
600 Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, Vol.30,
Resultant acceleration (G)

No.4, pp.55-60, 1999 (in Japanese).

400
5. NHTSA, “Pedestrian Injury Reduction Research”,
Report to the Congress, 1993.
200
6. Igarashi, N., Yoshida, S., “Development of a
Vehicle Structure with Protective Features for
0
0 10 20 30 40 Pedestrians”, SAE Paper 1999-01-0075.
Time (ms)
7. Matsui, Y., Ishikawa, H., “Crush Characteristics
Figure 19. Acceleration-time history in impact and HIC Values in Front Windscreen Areas in
against plastic bull bar (40 km/h). Pedestrian Head Impacts”, JARI Research Journal,
Vol.22, No.4, pp.179-182, 2000 (in Japanese).

Mizuno, 9
8. MacLaughlin, T. F., Kessler, J. W., “Test Procedure
– Pedestrian Head Impact Against Central Hood”,
SAE Paper No. 902315, Society of Automotive
Engineers, 1990.
9. Lawrence, G., Rodmell, C., Osborne, A.,
“Assessment and Test Procedures for Bull Bars”,
TRL Report 460, 2000.

Mizuno, 10