International Journal of Automotive Technology, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.

489−494 (2010) Copyright © 2010 KSAE

DOI 10.1007/s12239−010−0060−y 1229−9138/2010/053−06

OPTIMIZING THE SHAPE OF A BUMPER BEAM SECTION

CONSIDERING PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION
D. K. PARK , C. D. JANG , S. B. LEE , S. J. HEO , H. J. YIM and M. S. KIM
1)* 2) 3) 4) 4) 5)

Department of Automotive Engineering, Daeduk University, Daejeon 305-715, Korea

1)

2)
RIMSE, Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea
Graduate School of Automotive Engineering, Kookmin University, Seoul 136-702, Korea
3)

School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Kookmin University, Seoul 136-702, Korea
4)

Institute of Design Optimization Co., Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi 463-824, Korea

5)

(Received 25 May 2009; Revised 1 October 2009)

ABSTRACT−This paper presents a design technique to optimize the shape of a vehicle bumper beam that satisfies both the
safety requirements for a front rigid-wall impact and the regulations protecting pedestrians from lower leg injuries caused by
bumper impacts. An intermediate response surface modeling (IRSM) technique was introduced to approximate the non-linear
force-displacement curves obtained from the front impact analysis of a vehicle bumper. The accuracy of the IRSM model was
tested by comparing its results with those of the non-linear finite element analysis. The maximum displacement error between
the two models did not exceed 3%. Using pedestrian impact analyses based on the experimental arrangement of the Plackett-
Burman design, the approximate functions describing the response values acting on the lower legs were calculated. The shape
of the bumper beam was optimized by integrating the IRSM with the force-displacement model and the approximate functions
on lower leg impact. The optimization results satisfied safety regulations on the maximum allowable displacement of the
vehicle bumper, and also the regulations protecting pedestrians from lower leg injuries caused by bumper impacts.
KEY WORDS : Bumper section, Impact analysis, IRSM, Pedestrian impact, Shape optimization

1. INTRODUCTION pedestrian safety (Schuler ., 2003).

et al

In this study, we proposed a new design technique to

A bumper is a mechanical device consisting of bars at
either end of a vehicle, and its primary function is to absorb
shock and prevent the occurrence of serious damage. A
bumper is composed of bumper beams that absorb the bulk
of crash energy, energy absorbers that absorb a part of the
crash energy between the fascia and the beam, and the
bumper stays that connect the bumper beam to the side
members of the car body. Because the bumper beam plays
the important role of absorbing the bulk of the impact
energy in a collision and protects pedestrians from harm, it
is extremely important to optimize the bumper beam
section during the initial design stage of vehicles.
Cars for export must satisfy the corresponding local
regulations; these are 49 CFR, Part 581 of the FMVSS
prescribed by the NHTSA (U.S., the CMVSS (Canada),
and EC R42 (Europe). Likewise, they must also pass the
crash tests conducted by the IIHS of the U.S. The European
Union and the Japanese government are also considering
implementing guidelines that assess the risk to pedestrians
from passenger cars in the event of a traffic accident. In
addition, EuroNCAP has developed an ongoing program to
test passenger cars available on the European market for
*Corresponding author. e-mail: pdongkyou@ddu.ac.kr
optimize the shape of a vehicle bumper beam section satis-
fying both the safety requirements for a frontal rigid-wall
impact and the regulations protecting pedestrians from lower
leg impacts. An intermediate response surface modeling
(IRSM) technique was introduced to approximate the non-
linear force-displacement curves obtained from a frontal
rigid-wall impact analysis of a vehicle bumper. The
accuracy of the IRSM model was tested by comparing its
results with those of a non-linear finite element analysis.
Using pedestrian impact analyses that were based on the
experimental arrangement of the Plackett-Burman design,
approximate functions describing the response values
acting on the lower legs were created. We were able to
optimize the shape of the bumper beam by integrating the
IRSM for force-displacement and the approximate func-
tions for lower leg impact.
2. PROCESS OF OPTIMIZING THE BUMPER
BEAM SECTION
Figure 1 shows the procedure for optimizing a vehicle
bumper beam using the design technique proposed in this
study. As shown in the figure, this design procedure is com-
prised of two major categories. The first category includes

489
490 D. K. PARK
Figure 1. Design process for bumper beam section optim
zation considering both front rigid-wall impact condition
and pedestrian protection regulations.
the generation of -δ IRSM (force-displacement intermedi-
F
ate response surface modeling) that considers a frontal
rigid-wall impact at 5 mph (Yim ., 2005). The other
et al
category includes the generation of an approximate func-
tion describing the acceleration, bending angle and shear
displacement acting on the knee of a pedestrian’s lower leg.
By integrating the two approximate models and also by
using optimization programs, we were able to optimize the
shape of the bumper beam.
3. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF A SIMPLE BUMPER
BEAM
3.1. Modeling and Analysis of a Bumper Beam Collision at
5 mph
Figure 2 shows the finite element model of the bumper
beam used to perform the impact analysis. Also, the
material properties of the bumper beam model are listed in
Table 1. The bumper beam model consisted of 7,440 shell
elements, 240 rigid bar elements, and one lumped mass
element. The overall weight of the vehicle (1,200 kgf) was
Figure 2. Bumper beam model used to perform the impact
analysis.
et al.
Table 1. Material properties of SCHP60.
Elastic modulus 210 GPa
Yield strength 353 MPa
Ultimate strength 771 MPa
Poisson ratio 0.28
Density 7,830 kg/m3
Figure 3. Force-displacement curve for a rigid-wall impact
analysis of the bumper beam.
added to the lumped mass element. An impact analysis was
performed assuming that the bumper beam collided with
the right rigid-wall by applying a speed of 5 mph (8 kph) to
all of the nodes.
3.2. Results of an Analysis of the Force-Displacement
Relationship
We used the PAM-CRASH program in our bumper impact
analysis. Figure 3 shows the force-displacement curve
obtained from a rigid-wall impact analysis of the bumper
beam. As shown in this figure, we found that the force-
displacement relationship was non-linear. Therefore, we
could not use a linear method when performing the bumper
impact analysis.
4. INTERMEDIATE RESPONSE SURFACE
MODEL OF THE FORCE-DISPLACEMENT
RELATIONSHIP
4.1. Surrogate Model of the Force-Displacement Curve
In general, a great deal of time is needed to perform a non-
linear dynamic impact analysis on a bumper beam. This
study proposes a design technique of creating a force-dis-
placement curve to avoid the excessive analysis time need-
ed to test impacts on a bumper beam. Therefore, it was
necessary to appropriately approximate the force-displace-
ment curve, which varies according to the shape of the
section (Paz et al ., 1976).
 OPTIMIZING THE SHAPE OF A BUMPER BEAM SECTION CONSIDERING PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION 491

The first step of this study was to construct a surrogate Table 2. Comparison of impact analysis results between the
model that could approximate the force-displacement curve IRSM and an exact FE model.
with respect to the shape variables, such as the length and Max. displacement (mm) Percent
the thickness of each element of a bumper beam section. Crash
However, this method is flawed because the number of IRSM FEM error (%)
design variables can vary when the shape of the bumper Rigid-wall 45.842 44.800
beam section is changed. To avoid this problem, this study (analysis time) (0.5 sec) (30 min) 2.32
introduced intermediate variables to approximate the force-
displacement curves. In this study, the sectional area, the
moment of inertia, and the polar moment of inertia were study. With an error rate of not more than 3%, the results
used as intermediate design variables. were relatively accurate.
4.2. IRSM of a Non-linear Force-Displacement Curve 5. BUMPER DESIGN CONSIDERING
The force-displacement curve of a bumper impact analysis PEDESTRIAN IMPACT
shows a characteristically non-linear curve. For this force-
displacement curve, we used the control points that re- 5.1. Lower Leg Protection Requirements
presented this curve accurately. As shown in Figure 4, In most types of pedestrian traffic accidents, the knee and
some of the appropriate control points (F , δ ) were selected
i i
lower leg are injured mainly by contact with a vehicle’s
using the force-displacement curve. The control points bumper. According to the regulations required by the
could be approximated in terms of the section properties. European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC), a
Therefore, the control points were a function of the section lower leg test was carried out by impacting a legform into
properties, such as, the front bumper of the vehicle as shown in Figure 5
F = f (A, I, J), I = 1, 2, … , n (Schuler et al., 2003).
i

δ = f (A, I, J), I = , 2, … , n
The three estimation criteria of the EECV legislation that
i
must be met are as follows:
where A = f (L , R , T ), I = f (L , R , T ) and J = f (L , R , T )
i i i i i i i i i

can be computed numerically (Yoo and Acra, 1996). Speed: 40 kph

The approximate function (IRSM) representing the force- 1. Angular rotation of the leg about knee < 15o
displacement relationship was constructed using the con-
trol points. A different IRSM model must be developed
when testing a different beam section model. We selected
six typical bumper beam sections that are widely used, and
six IRSM models that have been developed for each of the
six typical bumper beam sections.
4.3. Verification of IRSM
Table 2 shows a comparison and summary of the results of
the analysis conducted using commercial impact analysis Figure 5. Lower leg impact test.
programs, and the results of the IRSM developed in this

Figure 6. 3-dimensional finite element model used to

Figure 4. Control points of the force-displacement curve. simulate pedestrian lower leg impact.
492 D. K. PARK et al.

2. Lateral shear displacement at knee < 6 mm

3. Peak acceleration of the tibia about knee < 150 g
5.2. Pedestrian Impact Analysis Model
The legform impactor was 926 mm long and weighs 13.4
kg. It consisted of two foam- and skin-covered rigid seg-
ments representing the lower leg (tibia and foot) and the
upper leg (femur) of an adult, connected by a simulated
knee joint that could rotate and translate laterally. Figure 6
shows the 3-dimensional finite element model of the front
bumper and legform impactor used to simulate the bumper’s
impact on the lower leg of a pedestrian.
5.3. Pedestrian Impact Analysis
To obtain the response values acting on the legform im-
pactor, pedestrian impact analyses were performed using
the experimental arrangement of the Plackett-Burman
design. The design variables used in the Plackett-Burman
design are shown in Figure 7. In Table 3, the impact analy-
sis results are listed for the peak acceleration of the tibia
about the knee (accknee), the angular rotation of the leg

Figure 8. Simulation results of the pedestrian lower leg

impact tests.

about the knee (angknee), and the lateral shear displacement

at the knee (dknee) of the legform impactor. In this table, the
design variables tfoam, hstif, dstif, tstif, and hbeam represent the
Figure 7. Definition of the design variables. thickness of the foam, the vertical height of a stiffener cen-
tered from the ground line, the horizontal foremost point
difference between the bumper fascia and the stiffener, the
Table 3. Simulation results of the pedestrian impact test thickness of the stiffener, and the vertical height of the back
using the Plackett-Burman design. beam above the ground line, respectively.
Factor assigned Characteristic value Figure 8 illustrates the simulation results of the pede-
Exp. strian impact tests according to nine experimental combi-
tform hstif pstif tstif hbeam accknee angknee dknee
nations. The approximate functions describing the response
Case 1 1 −1 1 −1 −1 238g 8.7 2.0 mm
o
values acting on the legform impactor were calculated
Case 2 −1 1 1 1 −1 141g 0.1o 3.0 mm using the pedestrian impact analyses based on the Plackett-
Case 3 −1 1 −1 −1 1 200g 3.6o 2.8 mm Burman design.
Case 4 1 1 −1 1 −1 234g 12.0o 2.2 mm
Case 5 −1 −1 1 1 1 135g 1.5o 3.1 mm 6. OPTIMIZING THE BUMPER BEAM
Case 6 1 −1 −1 1 1 177g 22.9o 2.2 mm SECTION CONSIDERING PEDESTRIAN
Case 7 1 1 1 −1 1 213g 6.5o 2.2 mm PROTECTION REGULATIONS
Case 8 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 164g 4.1o 2.7 mm 6.1. Design Variables and Constraints
Case 9 0 0 0 0 0 187g 6.5o 3.0 mm In this study, the bumper section optimization satisfied the
 OPTIMIZING THE SHAPE OF A BUMPER BEAM SECTION CONSIDERING PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION 493

requirements of both the FMVSS regulations for a 5 mph Table 5. Optimization results for pedestrian impact.
front rigid-wall impact and the EECU regulations protect- Initial Optimum Percent
ing a pedestrian’s lower leg in the event of impact. Figure 9 value value change
shows the section shape of the bumper beam.
The objective function and design constraints used to Objective A 674.43 643.99 −4.5%
optimize the shape of the bumper beam section are as function
follows: tform+ tbeam 148.5 135.07 −9.0%
Minimize: A dbump 45.70 39.02 −14.6%
Design accknee 182.99 148.62 −18.8%
Subject to: constraints
G1(x) = (tform + tbeam) − tallow ≤ 0 angknee 2.12 2.12 0%
G2(x) = dbump − dallow ≤ 0 dknee 3.26 3.26 0%
G3(x) = accknee −150g ≤ 0
G4(x) = angknee −15° ≤ 0
G5(x) = dknee −6 mm ≤ 0 ment of the bumper beam approximated in the IRSM; and
Bumper Section Geometric Constraints dallow is the allowable displacement of the bumper beam.
xLi < xi < xUi ; i=1, 2, …, Nvar The design variables and their design limits are listed in
where A denotes the sectional area of the bumper beam Table 4.
section; x denotes the design variable, which is defined as
the shape variable and thickness; x L and xU are the lower 6.2. Optimization Results
and upper limits, respectively, of the design variable; tbeam ADS (VanderPlaat, 1984) and SECOPT (Lee, 1995) were
and tallow are the thickness of the bumper beam and the used to obtain the optimal design satisfying both the FMVSS
allowable package space, respectively; dbump is the displace- regulation for a 5 mph front rigid-wall impacts and the
EECU regulations protecting a pedestrian’s lower leg in the
event of impact. Table 5 shows the optimization results. As
shown in this table, the section area (A) of the bumper
beam was decreased by 4.5%, the package space (tform+ tbeam)
was decreased by 9.0%, and the displacement of the
bumper beam (dbump) was decreased by 14.6%. Additional-
ly, the peak acceleration (accknee) of the legform impactor
was decreased by 18.8%.
7. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the design technique to optimize the shape of

a vehicle bumper beam was presented, satisfying both the
FMVSS regulation for a 5 mph front rigid-wall impact and
Figure 9. Bumper beam section. the EECU regulations protecting a pedestrian’s lower leg in
the event of impact.
(1) An intermediate response surface modeling (IRSM)
Table 4. Design variables and their limits. technique was introduced to approximate the non-linear
Design Lower Initial Upper force-displacement curves obtained from the bumper
variable bound value bound impact analysis.
L3 40.0 52.5 65.0 (2) The accuracy of the IRSM models was tested by com-
paring their results with those of a 3-dimensional non-
L6 9.0 12.0 15.0 linear FEM. The maximum displacement error between
t1 1.0 1.5 2.0 the two models did not exceed 3%.
R2 20.0 26.0 32.0 (3) Legform impact analyses were performed using the
R4 3.0 7.5 12.0 Plackett-Burman design to obtain the approximate func-
t2 1.0 1.5 2.0 tions on the impact response values acting on a pede-
tform 40.0 70.0 100.0 strian’s lower leg.
hstif − 258 − (4) The bumper section was optimized considering both
dstif −40.0 −20.0 0 the 5 mph front rigid-wall impact conditions and the
tstif 1.5 2.0 2.5 regulations protecting pedestrians from lower leg injuries
caused by impact with a bumper using the developed
hbeam − 453 − design technique.
494 D. K. PARK
(5) The optimization results satisfied the safety regulations
on the maximum allowable displacement of the vehicle
bumper and also the regulations protecting pedestrians
from lower leg injuries caused by impact with a bumper.
REFERENCES
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2002). Low-Speed
Crash Test Protocol. Version 5.0.
Lee, H. Y. (1995). Stiffness Analysis and Optimal Design of
Thin Walled Beam Structures. M. S. Thesis. Kookmin
University. Korea.
NHTSA (1976). Bumper Standard. FMVSS 49 CFR Part
581.
Paz, M., Strehl, C. P. and Schrader, P. (1976). Computer
determination of the shear center of open and closed
et al.
sections. Computer & Structure, 6, 117−125.
Schuler, S., Mooijman, F. and Nanda, A. (2003). Bumper
systems designed for both pedestrian protection and
FMVSS requirements. SAE Paper No. 2003-01-0214.
2003 SAE World Cong., Detroit, Michigan.
Vanderplaats, G. N. (1985). ADS – A FORTRAN Program
for Automated Design Synthesis. Engineering Design
Optimization, Inc.
Yim, H. J., Kim, M. S., Park, J., Heo, S. J. and Park, D. K.
(2005). Shape optimization of bumper beam cross
section for low speed crash. SAE Paper No. 2005-01-
0880. 2005 SAE World Congress, Detroit, Michigan.
Yoo, C. H. and Acra, S. V. (1996). Cross-sectional proper-
ties of thin-walled multi-cellular section. Computer &
Structures 22, 1, 53−61.