International Journal of Crashworthiness

ISSN: 1358-8265 (Print) 1754-2111 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Design and simulation of a rear underride

protection device (RUPD) for heavy vehicles

Zeid Fadel Al-Bahash, M.N.M. Ansari & Qasim H. Shah

To cite this article: Zeid Fadel Al-Bahash, M.N.M. Ansari & Qasim H. Shah (2017): Design and
simulation of a rear underride protection device (RUPD) for heavy vehicles, International Journal of
Crashworthiness, DOI: 10.1080/13588265.2017.1302040

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2017.1302040

Published online: 10 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcrs20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 15 June 2017, At: 00:26
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2017.1302040

Design and simulation of a rear underride protection device (RUPD)

for heavy vehicles
Zeid Fadel Al-Bahasha, M.N.M. Ansari a
and Qasim H. Shahb
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang, Malaysia; bDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, International
Islamic University, Gombak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Every year, thousands of deaths are recorded worldwide due to crashes of small cars with heavy Received 25 November 2016
trucks. The highest risk during collision of passengers’ car with a truck is the intrusion of Accepted 27 February 2017
passengers’ compartment under the heavy truck rear underride leading to cause fatal injuries to KEYWORDS
passengers. Design of robust underride guard of truck is one of the significant factors that should Rear underride protection
be taken into consideration within design and enhancement of truck chassis. In this study, a new device (RUPD); energy
rear underride protection device (RUPD) based on FMVSS 223/224 regulations is developed to absorption; finite element
enhance the crashworthiness and reduce passenger compartment intrusion under heavy trucks
during accident. Finite element simulation is utilised for performance analysis of the RUPD in LS-
DYNA. The results showed that the new RUPD design enhanced the energy absorption by 68.87%
and reduced the occupant’s car deceleration by 66.116%. The new guard is able to avoid underride
of Toyota Yaris (2010) colliding at 45, 54 and 63 km/h compared with the normal guard that failed
under the same test conditions.

1. Introduction demonstrates the stage of awareness in these nations

towards this imperative transmission security concern
Traffic accidents represent a significant concern for all
[2,3]. According to that, several standard protection
society members, and have become one of the most
requirements have been issued such as ECE R58 in
important problems that deplete physical and human
Europe, CMVSS 223 in Canada, GB11567.2-2001 in
potentials, and can cause social and psychological prob-
China and FMVSS223/224 in America, which emphasise
lems, in addition to material losses [10]. Incidents
particularly on rear collision safety [1,6,9,14,16].
between small vehicle and heavy trucks are among the
Underride occurs because the truck rear end is rela-
deadly accidents which risk passengers’ life. During a
tively high off the ground with ineffective structure and
collision, the small car slams beneath the end of the
wrong ground clearance of the attached rear guard [15].
heavy truck (as shown in Figure 1) leading to break
Improving the compatibility between vehicles is an
through the passenger compartment of the small car and
important measure, and it will directly lead to improve
cause fatal injuries or death to most occupants [8]. It has
the safety of the occupants to satisfy vehicle compatibil-
been estimated that excessive underride happens in
ity necessities. Energy-absorbing systems should not
30%–40% of all deadly incidents in which a passenger
only achieve the dimensional qualifications but should
car crashes into the back of a heavy truck [7,15]. Weak
have the capacity to dissipate part of the energy to
or absence of compelling rear underride guards attached
reduce the range of the car’s distortion during the crash
to heavy trucks, trailers and semi-trailers, rear underrun
[13]. The frontal, back and side underride protection of
accidents can decide the trauma force and fatalities
heavy vehicle is intended to absorb part of the impact
number to a large extent [20]. Reports indicated that
energy of small car during accidents and subsequently
around 85% of small vehicles faced the intrusion of their
decrease the injuries of the car occupants [20]. It has
frontal passenger compartment, while 17% of these
been assessed that energy-absorbing front, back and side
intrusions reached until the back of the passenger com-
underride guard could diminish underrun of small vehi-
partment [5]. However, heavy vehicle underride protec-
cle to truck collision by around 12% [8]. However, the
tion (URP) has a long history of examination in Europe,
RUPD must be designed efficiently so that they can
the United States, Australia and Canada [5,11], which
absorb energy in a controlled way, without exposing the

CONTACT M.N.M. Ansari ansari@uniten.edu.my

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Z. F. AL-BAHASH ET AL.
Figure 1. Accidents with severe passenger compartment intrusion.
occupants to high acceleration that may cause serious inju-
ries [7]. Because of the diverse structural design between
trucks and autos, their energy absorbers do not harmonise.
Meanwhile the collision, the weaker passenger car absorbs
the maximal amount of kinetic energy than the truck does
due to absence or weak underride guard design [12].
Although the trend is increasing towards improving the
underride protection device, the research is still limited
and the existing underride products still have many prob-
lems [6]. The casualties arising due to rear impact are par-
ticularly low hazard since the impact speed is generally
much lower comparing to the frontal impact. Nevertheless,
because of its frequency, this accident mode results in 30%
of automotive-related trauma [17,18].
2. Background of research
Many studies have been done to determine the average
crushing force and the absorbed energy during crashes
especially between small cars and trucks [15]. Bodapati)
evaluated the performance of Brazilian plier rear underride
guard and a new rear underride guard with horizontal and
vertical cables at speeds 48, 64 and 80 km/h. The guard
was modelled using MSC-Patran and LS-DYNA. The
results showed that the new pliers guard with horizontal
cables surpassed the other guards in terms of deceleration
values and intrusion reduction of the passenger’s compart-
ment. The values of acceleration for new pliers guard with
horizontal cables are 36.8 g at 48 km/h, 35.2 g at 64 km/h
and 38.8 g at 80 km/h. The new rear underride protection
device (RUPD) based on FMVSS regulations is developed
to enhance the energy absorption and to reduce passenger
compartment intrusion under heavy trucks during acci-
dents. Car deceleration and energy absorption during the
collision are selected as the RUPD quality criteria. Finite
element (FE) simulation is a software tool for performance
analysis of the RUPD by using LS-DYNA solver [4].
Hong-fei et al. developed an articulated RUPD and
modelled the collision at speeds 50 and 80 km/h between
a small car and a heavy truck using ANSYS software.
The findings indicated that the RUPD has an active
effect on protection; moreover, the directional stability
of the vehicle after crash is efficiently enhanced too. The
researchers measured the maximal stress to external
loads as a criterion of the performance, and they did not
mention the energy absorption amount and the deceler-
ation values [6]. Joshi et al. evaluated the articulated
RUPD strength in terms of the Indian Standard IS
14812-2005 utilizing LS-DYNA. The design meets the
requirements, but still needs more analysis and needs to
be confirmed with physical testing [9]. Xue and Yang
developed a new articulated RUPD to enhance the
energy absorption. Compared with the common RUPD,
the backward extended structure of the new RUPD has
more space to deform. FE simulation is performed to
test the performance of the RUPD in LS-DYNA. The
results showed that the RUPD disperse 77% of the entire
crash energy and the acceleration is 22.8 g, which is 40%
less than that in the test of the current one [19]. Joseph
et al. optimised the load-bearing capacity of the articu-
lated RUPD structure according to Indian standard IS
14812-2005 using LS-DYNA. The optimised RUPD load
capacity rose from 68 to 71.2 kN [8].
However, most of the research still need more analysis
and need to be confirmed with physical testing. Moreover,
all research results are quite different from each other’s.
There is still a need to develop more accurate and promis-
ing design. This study introduces a novel design of RUPD
that has the ability to dissipate a large amount of the crash
energy and decrease car deceleration.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 3

3. RUPD design and modelling
Crash-testing requires testing cars for use in the collision
process, time, economic and human effort within the
running of the tests. One new late pattern that is earning
wide prevalence is computer-simulated crash-testing. In
this simulation, rather than using a real vehicle, a FE
model of the vehicle is created and utilised to perform
the distinctive tests that were completed before utilizing
real vehicles. Various software packages are available to
manage the accident testing of vehicles, but one of the
widely familiar in dynamic analysis software is LS-
DYNA [5,11]. In this research, a rear impact crash was
performed using a modelled car (Toyota Yaris Model
2010), and a RUPD attached to a truck chassis (Ford
Model) as the test FE model. Three designs of RUPD
were used during the experiments. The first one is the
basic RUPD (Design (C)), which is available on LS-pre-
post.com and already exists in LS-DYNA. This design
consists of two basic components, namely, base protec-
tion bar and connecting link. Design (C) was enhanced
through two stages. The outcome of stage one is Design
(B), which consists of five components. The outcome of
stage two is Design (A), which includes the five
components of Design (B) plus one additional compo-
nent. Designs (A) and (B) are developed using the non-
linear dynamic analysis software LS-DYNA. The full
assembly models of the three designs of RUPD and their
components are described as shown in Table 1.
4. Methods
The car model is taken from a standard database avail-
able on the website LS-Prepost.com. The RUPD assem-
bly of the truck is modelled using LS-DYNA software
and incorporated on LS-Prepost for critical meshing.
Alternative to meshing the system, the mesh is imported
in LS-DYNA environment (LS-Prepost) for setting dif-
ferent simulation parameters as presented in Table 2.
The output of LS-Prepost (k file) is solved in LS-DYNA
solver. The truck chassis is fixed and the recommended
velocity of the car model is presumed to have three
speeds, namely, 45, 54, and 63 km/h before impacting
with the RUPD assembly. The simulation is specified a
termination time of 0.2 sec. The termination time may
be varied according to material properties of the RUPD
bar.

Table 1. Underride design, basic Design (C), Design (B), Design (A).
Design ID Part contains Cross section Length width height (mm) Thickness (mm) Material Part weight (kg) Total weight (kg)
1550 3.5 Mild steel 6.032 18.904
80.4
36.7

562.92 5 Mild steel 6.436

95.37
194
44
Rectangular 2000 1 Mild steel 5.8366 31.7404
150
200
Circular 150 1 Mild steel 0.1778
R25
Circular 150 Foam 0.159
R25
Square 700 2 Mild steel 2.1344
100
Square 700 3.6 Mild steel 5.153
100

Rectangular 2000 1 Mild steel 5.8366 33.726

150
200
Circular 150 1 Mild steel 0.1778
R25
Circular 150 Foam 0.159
R25
Square 700 2 Mild steel 2.1344
100
Square 700 3.6 Mild steel 5.153
100

Rectangular 200 1 Mild steel 0.622

150
100
4 Z. F. AL-BAHASH ET AL.
Table 2. RUPD design parameters.
Mass Ground
Test Car model of colliding clearance Underride
run car (kg) (mm) design
1 Toyota 1100 450 C 45
Yaris
(2010)
2 C
3 C
4 B
5 B
6 B
7 A
8 A
9 A
5. Results and discussion
During the simulation of crash tests (front–rear), three
different guard designs were evaluated. A ground clear-
ance of 450 mm was provided for the RUPD base.
RUPD FE models used in the crash simulation tests are
shown in Table 2. The highest amount of energy of the
collision will be absorbed by the RUPD assembly. The
lower part of the RUPD will absorb a large portion of
the energy during the accident before the tires hit the
rigid bar. The deformation was measured during
the period from the start of collusion till the stopping of
the small car. As the stopping distance of the small car
during the accident was regularly short, a much higher
force was created at the RUPD interface.
5.1. Energy absorption test
The simulation crash test results of energy absorption of
the three different RUPD models described in Section 2
were compared for the three different speeds, namely,
45, 54, and 63 km/h. The results are illustrated in Fig-
ures 2(a–c).
It can be observed from Figures 2(a–c) that the maxi-
mum energy absorbed by the RUPD Design (A) at
0.15 sec after the crash is 116 kJ at speed 63 km/h, 78 kJ at
speed 54 km/h and 42 kJ at speed 45 km/h, while RUPD
Design (B) absorbed 108, 75 and 42 kJ at the same speeds,
respectively. Moreover, RUPD Design (C) absorbed 72, 55
and 48 kJ at the same speeds. This indicates the better per-
formance of Design (A) than Designs (B) and (C) at speed
54 and 63 km/h, while the energy absorption of Design
(C) is better than other designs at speed 45 km/h. This
proves that the RUPD model (A) has better crash worthi-
ness compared with the basic design and Design (B).
5.2. Force versus time
The simulation results of the basic underride guard (C)
show that the reaction forces within the three speeds of
45, 54 and 63 km/h have similar behaviour but with
different values as shown in Figure 3. The magnitude of
Impact the reaction force is increased from 0 kN to the maxi-
speed
(km/h) mum values (600, 500, 420 kN) for all speeds after
(0.062, 0.055, 0.037 sec), respectively, and suddenly
decreased to negative value then, fluctuated until the end
54 of collision. The sudden decrease is an indicator of the
63 failure of Design (C) resistance during the intrusion
45
54 even its reaction force is higher than Designs (A) and
63 (B). The increase and sudden decrease in the reaction
45
54 force magnitude is attributed to the rigid behaviour of
63 the RUPD. Design (C) failed directly because of the
bending failure of the vertical support arms that lead to
make a significant damage to the small car, where the
damage reached the front class at speed 45 km/h, 54 km/
h and reached the back of the car at 63 km/h.
For the underride Designs (B, A), the simulation test
results were measured and plotted as shown in Figure 4
(a,b). Both new designs exhibit the same behaviour with
different values. They showed better stability in increas-
ing the reaction force and increasing the crushing time
during the collision compared to the normal Design (C).
Design (B) recorded the highest reaction force value 300
kN at 0.027 sec at speed 63 km/h, while Design (A)
recorded a maximum reaction force value of 200 kN at
0.03 sec at speed 63 km/h. Even Designs (A) and (B)
recorded less reaction force than Design (C), they
showed better resistance to prevent the Yaris car from
moving beneath the truck and hit the car A-pillar and
windshield. The lower horizontal bar and all the 14 tubes
that filled with foam were crushed progressively and
then the two frontal vertical support bars were com-
pressed and forced to bend due to high difference in
masses during the collision, but the three back support
bars gave more resistance to stop the Yaris car.
5.3. Acceleration versus time
Simulation test results of acceleration versus time of the
RUPD (A, B, C) attached to the truck are recorded in
Table 3. The results show a significant difference among
the three designs for various speeds.
Table 3. Results of maximum deceleration of the three underride
designs for various speeds.
Test Underride Test speed (measured) Maximum
run design (km/h) deceleration (g)
1 Basic Design (C) 45 34.131
2 54 41.318
3 63 46.718
4 Design (B) 45 19.57
5 54 21.04
6 63 23.64
7 Design (A) 45 14.07
8 54 15.43
9 63 15.83
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 5

Figure 2. Energy absorption results for all designs of RUPD: (a) RUPD Design (C); (b) Design (B); (c) Design (A).
6 Z. F. AL-BAHASH ET AL.

Figure 3. Force versus time results for underride design (C).

Figure 4. Force versus time results for underride (a) Design (B) and (b) Design (A).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 7

Figure 5. Acceleration versus time graph for (a) Design (C); (b) Design (B); (c) Design (A).
8 Z. F. AL-BAHASH ET AL.

It can be noted from Table 3 that the highest values of Table 4. Simulation test results of intrusion of the three under-
maximum deceleration in the three impact speeds were ride designs for various speeds.
Test Underride Test speed (measured) Total displacement
recorded for Design (C), followed by Design B, which run Design (km/h) (mm)
achieved values less than Design (C) and higher than 1 Basic Design (C) 45 926.969
Design (A). Design (C) has recorded a maximum decel- 2 54 1002.4
3 63 1091.1
eration of 46.718 g at speed 63 km/h; Design (B) 4 Design (B) 45 327.16
recorded 23.64 g, while Design (A) recorded 15.83 g at 5 54 509.55
6 63 678.87
the same speed. Therefore, the best results, which repre- 7 Design (A) 45 204.42
sent the lowest acceleration values, were recorded for 8 54 409.14
Design (A). The lowest value will lead to decrease in the 9 63 638.00

sudden shock on car occupants. This better performance

was obtained by increasing the crushing time of the new
underride guard through modifying the lower horizontal
bar and using three back support harmonic shape tubes
(component 6 in Table 1). Figure 5(a–c) shows the accel-
eration behaviour of the three underride guard designs
with three different speeds (45, 54 and 63 km/h).
5.4. Total displacement
The simulation test results of displacement versus time
of the RUPD (A, B, C) are introduced in Table 4. The
results indicate that the displacement is increased with
the increase of speed. The simulation steps of the crash
test between Toyota Yaris (2010) and the three designs
of RUPD attached to a truck are shown in Figure 6. The
simulation demonstrates the car conditions before and
after the collision with the RUPD.
It can be seen from Figure 6 that the maximum intru-
sion is recorded for the underride Design (C) for all
impact speeds compared to the two other designs. This
intrusion is attributed to the failure of the normal under-
ride design in preventing the car from underrunning
with the heavy truck during the accident. The magnitude

Figure 6. Simulation results of crash with RUPD (a) Design (A); (b) Design (B); (c) Design (C).

of the car intrusion at 63 km/h is 1091.1 mm (Table 4),
which is considered too much regarding the safety
requirements, especially with small and medium cars
that have bonnet length less than 800 mm like the Yaris
car and low safety rating cars. The maximum intrusion
using the normal underride guard has led to crush the
front car bonnet; A-pillar, windshield and its effect
reached the car trunk as shown in Figure 6(a).
The RUPD Design (B) showed better performance
than the normal underride Design (C) and achieved
lower intrusions at all impact speeds compared to design
(C). The total displacement at 63 km/h is 678.87 mm
(Table 4), which is lower than 1091.1 mm. Therefore,
the crush did not reach the passenger compartment as
shown in Figure 6(b).
The RUPD Design (A) showed the better perfor-
mance among the other designs and achieved the lowest
intrusions at all impact speeds. The total displacement at
63 km/h is 638 mm (Table 4), which is lower than 800
mm. According to this value, the crush did not continue
to hit passenger compartment and stop before hitting
the car windshield as shown in Figure 6(c).
6. Conclusions
In many countries, RUPD assembly needs to pass the
regulations set by FMVSS 223 to achieve the safety
requirement to preserve underrunning of small passen-
ger cars. The target of the current study is to investigate
the performance of a new RUPD of a heavy truck, and
whether it meets the mentioned regulations during an
accident with a small car. The performance is analysed
during simulation process performed by utilizing the
LS-DYNA software. The analysis has well instituted the
strategy and parameters of the simulation on modelling
and analysis software. It illustrates the energy absorption
of basic RUPD design assembly and two developed
Designs (A, B) during frontal crash of the car with vari-
ous design parameters of RUPD assembly of the truck.
The simulation results confirmed the compatibility of
RUPD designs with FMVSS 223 regulations. The RUPD
Design (A) has shown better energy absorption and less
displacement compared to the basic RUPD and Design
(B). The results revealed that the developed RUPD
Design (A) absorbs a large portion of the energy during
collision, where almost half of the energy of the crash is
absorbed after about 0.6 ms of the crash initiation. How-
ever, these results may be confirmed by performing a
real crash test in the future. The car safety effectiveness
can act efficiently by attaching this modified RUPD
assembly to heavy trucks.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 9
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to the Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia for pro-
viding library resources and Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, International Islamic University, Gombak, Kuala
Lumpur to complete this research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
M.N.M. Ansari http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8174-7824
References
[1] Z.F. Albahash and M.N.M. Ansari, A review on rear
under-ride protection devices for trucks, Int. J. Crashwor-
thiness. 22 (1) (2016), pp. 1–15.
[2] A.O. Atahan, Rear Crashes: Design and Analysis of
Underride Guards for Heavy Trucks, Proceedings of the
National Traffic and Road Safety Congress Vol. 1, Gazi
University, Ankara, 2003, pp. 223–231.
[3] A.O. Atahan, Design and simulation of an energy absorb-
ing underride guard for heavy vehicle rear-end impacts,
Int. J. Heavy Vehicle Syst. 10 (4) (2003), pp. 321–343.
[4] V.K.K. Bodapati, Evaluation of energy absorbing pliers
underride guards for rear and side of large trucks, Mas-
ter’s thesis, Wichita State University, 2006.
[5] D. Boucher, Heavy trailer rear underrun crash tests per-
formed with passenger vehicles, Final Rep. ASF 3261-260-
2-1, Transport Canada Road Safety and Motor vehicle
Regulation Directorate, Ottawa, ON, 2000.
[6] L. Hong-fei, P. Tao, X. Hong-guo, T. Li-dong, and S. Li-
li, Research on the intelligent rear under-run protection
system for trucks, 8th World Congress on Intelligent
Control and Automation (WCICA), IEEE, 2010, pp.
5274–5278,.
[7] A.E. Ismail, P. Raja, and B. Pahat, Energy absorption of
foam-filled steel extrusion under quasi-static oblique load-
ing, Int. J. Eng Technol. 5 (1) (2008), pp. 11–24.
[8] M.G. Joseph, M. DhananjayShinde, and M.G. Patil,
Design and optimization of the rear under-run protection
device using LS-DYNA, Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. (IJERA). 3
(4) (2013), pp. 152–162.
[9] K. Joshi, T.A. Jadhav, and A. Joshi, Finite element analy-
sis of rear under-run protection device (RUPD) for impact
loading, Int. J. Eng. Res. Dev. 2278 (2012), pp. 19–26.
[10] N. Khatib, M. Semela, and A. Vemola, Reconstruction of
a Motorcycle Head-on Collision – Czech Republic Case
Study, Institute of Forensic Engineering, Brno University
of Technology, Brno, 2013.
[11] A.K. Khore, T. Jain, and K. Tripathi, Multidisciplinary
design study of heavy vehicle RUPD crashworthiness and
energy absorption, IOSR J. Eng. (IOSRJEN) 04 (01)
(2014), pp. 48–55. Available at http://www.iosrjen.org.
ISSN (e): 2250-3021, ISSN (p): 2278-8719 .
10 Z. F. AL-BAHASH ET AL.
[12] A. Krusper and R. Thomson, Crash compatibility
between heavy goods vehicles and passenger cars: struc-
tural interaction analysis and in-depth accident analysis,
International Conference on Heavy Vehicles, Paris, 2008.
[13] T. Lech Stanczyk and D. ºomako, Analysis of the influ-
ence of energy dissipative under-ride Guard’s parameters
on car-to-truck collision, Vehicle Syst. Dyn. 42 (5)
(2004), pp. 319–345.
[14] J.R.L. Mariolani, L.O.F. Schmutzler, and A.C.F. Arrude,
Development of new underrride guards for enhancement
of compatibility between trucks and cars, 17th Interna-
tional Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001.
[15] J. Marzbanrad and M.R. Ebrahimi, Multi-objective opti-
mization of aluminum hollow tubes for vehicle crash
energy absorption using a genetic algorithm and neural
networks, Thin. Wall. Struct. 49 (12) (2011), pp. 1605–
1615.
[16] NHTSA, Standard No 223; rear impact guards, U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations 49 CFR 571.223, Office of the
Federal Register, National Archives and Records Admin-
istration, Washington, DC, 1999a.
[17] N. Nishimura, C.K. Simms, and D.P. Wood, Impact char-
acteristics of a vehicle population in low speed front to rear
collisions, Accident Anal. Prev. 79 (2015), pp. 1–12.
[18] D. Viano and J. Davidsson, Neck displacements of volun-
teers, BioRID P3 and Hybrid III in rear impact: implica-
tions to whiplash assessment by a neck displacement
criterion (NDC), Traffic Inj. Prev. 3 (2002), pp. 10–116.
[19] L. Xue and J. Yang, A study on the application of energy-
dissipating protection device in car-to-truck rear under-
ride, 2013 Fifth International Conference on Measuring
Technology and Mechatronics Automation, IEEE, Hong
Kong, 2013, pp. 130–134.
[20] R. Zou, G. Rechnitzer, and R. Grzebieta, Simulation of
truck rear underrun barrier impact, Proceedings of 17th
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced
Safety of Vehicles, Amsterdam 2001.