REAL WORLD

PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT
PEDESTRIAN KINEMATICS AND INJURIES
IN COLLISIONS WITH VEHICLES

Dr Ciaran Simms

REAL WORLD REAL WORLD

PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT

1
 z PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS – VULNERABLE – NO PROTECTION ROAD DEATHS IN EUROPE PER 100000
z IRELAND 2005 – ROAD COLLISION FACTS IRELAND 2005 Portugal

Luxembourg

z 18% OF FATALIIES (74 DEATHS)

Spain
z 10% OF INJURIES
Austria

Ireland

Finland
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/S
preadsheets/D7254.xls
Sw eden

United Kingdom

0 5 10 15 20 25

PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES VERSUS IMPACT SPEED

PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE IMPACTS

z AT COLLISION SPEEDS LESS THAN 20KM/H,

PEDESTRIANS USUALLY SUSTAIN ONLY MINOR
INJURIES.

z BUT AT SPEEDS ABOVE 45KM/H, COLLISIONS WITH

PEDESTRIANS ARE MOSTLY FATAL [WOOD, 1990]
[OTTE, 1999].

z THE REASON FOR THE DOMINANCE OF SPEED IS

THAT THE COLLISION ENERGY INCREASES WITH
THE SQUARE OF THE IMPACT SPEED
1
E KINETIC = .M .v 2
2

2
 ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN KINEMATICS

AUSTRALIAN STUDY:
EFFECTOF REDUCING IMPACT SPEED z YIELDS INSIGHTS –

z IMPACT LOCATIONS ON VEHICLE

URBAN SPEED LIMITS: REDUCING SPEED z IMPACT LOCATIONS ON THE BODY

LIMITS TO 50 KM/H FROM 60KM/H z VEHICLE SPEED FOR CRASH RECONSTRUCTION

DEATH RATE OF ADULT CLASSIFICATION:

PEDESTRIANS 30% LOWER 1. WRAP PROJECTION

2. FENDER VAULT
3. FORWARD PROJECTION
4. ROOF VAULT

WRAP PROJECTION

REAL WORLD WRAP PROJECTION

FENDER VAULT

3
 FORWARD PROJECTION

REAL WORLD WRAP PROJECTION

ROOF VAULT

REAL WORLD FORWARD PEDESTRIAN IMPACT SIMULATION:

WRAP PROJECTION
PROJECTION

4
 PEDESTRIAN IMPACT SIMULATION:
PEDESTRIAN INJURIES WRAP PROJECTION

ƒ LOWER LEG AND HEAD

ƒ KNEE
ƒ PELVIS

CAUSED BY
ƒ BUMPER AND BONNET & WINDSCREEN STIFFNESS
ƒ IMPACT WITH THE GROUND

PEDESTRIAN INJURIES ARE COMPLEX: MANY INTRODUCTION OF REGULATORY TESTS

INJURIES CAN OCCUR IN ONE COLLISION

http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/mpaine/ped_veh.html
OTTE, IRCOBI, 2005

5
 EFFECT OF DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS
ON KNEE INJURIES
IMPROVEMENTS IN KNEE PROTECTION
THROUGH VEHICLE DESIGN

OTTE, IRCOBI, 2005

OTTE, IRCOBI, 2005

ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION: SEARLE’S PARTICLE MODEL [IMECHE, 1993]

VEHICLE SPEED ESTIMATION FROM THROW DISTANCE

z ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES

z CORRELATION OF INJURIES WITH IMPACT SPEED
z ABS REDUCES TYRE SKID
z LEGAL CASES

SLIDE/ROLL/BOUNCE DISTANCE NOT TRIVIAL –

OFTEN > FLIGHT

6
 SEARLE’S PARTICLE MODEL UNCERTAINTY IS MAJOR FACTOR

S=
(u +µv )2
+ µH
z WHY NOT SAY: HERE’S THE MASS, HERE’S THE FRICTION ETC,-
HENCE THE SPEED - BUT THAT DOESN’T WORK IN PRACTICE

z µ - coefficient of retardation 2µg z MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

z M- mass of pedestrian
z S - distance to rest z REQUIRE PARAMETERS DISTRIBUTION
z H - height drop of cg to rest
z U, v – horiz & vert comp launch velocity NORMAL DISTRIBUTIONS
FOR MC, MP, µ:
z Launch angle generally unknown

HOW TO RELATE LAUNCH

VELOCITY TO VEHICLE SPEED?

FORWARD PROJECTION DISTANCE CARRIED

IN INITIAL IMPACT

S impact = V proj × t impact

PROJECTION VELOCITY COLLISION VELOCITY

Mv
V proj = [1 + e]Vcol
Mv + MP

S total = S impact + S falling −over + S slide / roll / bounce MOMENTUM AND

RESTITUTION

7
 FALLING OVER DISTANCE
DISTANCE TRAVELLED IN
EQUATIONS OF MOTION FOR PLANAR SYSTEM SLIDE/ROLL/BOUNCE TO REST

V proj _ f =  x 
.. .
M p x = − µR − µ (Vv )t (φ =90 )
.. 3 DOF   t (φ =90 )
M p y = M pg − R
SPEED LOSS DUE TO IMPACT
.. WHEN CG HITS THE GROUND
M p k 2 φ = hR sin (φ ) + µRh cos(φ )
2
2 V proj _f
. S slide / roll / bounce =
.. ..
CONSTRAINT:FEET IN CONTACT y = h φ  cos(φ ) + h φ sin (φ )
WITH THE GROUND   2 µg
NUMERICAL INTEGRATION OF THIS SYSTEM
TO YIELD DISTANCE TRAVELLED IN FALLING OVER
EQUATION OF UNIFORM DECELERATION

FORWARD PROJECTION:
MODEL RESULTS WRAP PROJECTION:
SIMILAR BASIS FOLLOWED

z TOTAL THROW DISTANCE IS COMBINATION OF

INITIAL CONTACT, FLIGHT AND SLIDE TO REST
PHASES

z MOVEMENT MORE COMPLEX DUE TO ROTATION

ONTO THE BONNET AND SECONDARY IMPACT
TO THE HEAD

z ONLY PRESENT RESULTS HERE

WOOD, SIMMS AND WALSH, IMECHE 2004

8
 MEAN AND VARIABILITY
WRAP PROJECTION: MODEL RESULTS

WOOD, SIMMS AND WALSH, IMECHE 2004

CONFIDENCE LIMIT CRITERIA:

TABLES FOR RECONSTRUCTION PEDESTRIAN IMPACT: THE EFFECT OF
PEDESTRIAN MOTION ON HEAD CONTACT
FORCES WITH VEHICLE AND GROUND
The 50%ile or probable range

– of value in injury and in civil law

The 95%ile range

- application in general civil law and in depth research

The 99.8%ile range

- the ‘Overall’ confidence limits, corresponds to ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’ required for criminal law cases. SIMMS AND WOOD: PRESENTED SEPTEMBER 2005 AT INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL ON BIOMECHANICS OF IMPACT CONFERENCE PRAGUE

SIMMS, WOOD AND WALSH, IJCRASH 2004

SIMMS AND WOOD, IJCRASH 2006

9
 METHODS: MADYMO MULTIBODY PEDESTRIAN MODEL &
BACKGROUND SIMPLIFIED VEHICLE GEOMETRY

z 1980’S: REAL WORLD PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS:

– HIGH IMPACT SPEEDS, HEAD INJURIES FROM VEHICLE RATHER THAN ROAD
IMPACT.
– AT LOW SPEED THE GROUND IMPACT INCREASES IN IMPORTANCE
(LESTRELIN ET AL, 1985).

– BELOW 7 M/S IMPACT SPEED, INJURY FROM THE GROUND IMPACT WAS
HIGHER THAN FROM VEHICLE IMPACT, BUT THIS REVERSED AT HIGHER
SPEEDS
(ASHTON, 1982; ASTON AND MACKAY, 1983).

– SINCE THEN, CONSIDERABLE DEVELOPMENT OF CAR FRONTS.

– HAS THE ROLE OF THE GROUND CONTACT CHANGED IN IMPORTANCE?

SIMPLIFIED CONTACT FUNCTIONS
COLEY ET AL, 2001

MODEL CONFIGURATIONS

1 2 3

1. FACING SIDE
2. 45 DEGREES
3. FACING VEHICLE
4 5 4. SIDE: LEFT LEG BACK
5. SIDE: RIGHT LEG BACK
FACING SIDEWAYS:
HIGHER EFFECTIVE RADIUS OF ROTATION ABOUT THE BONNET
LEADING EDGE YIELDS SLOWER ROTATION THAN FRONT BACK CASE
VEHICLE IMPACT SPEED: 5, 10 & 20m/s

10
HEAD VEHICLE IMPACT FORCE HEAD GROUND IMPACT FORCE

ALMOST RANDOM VARIATIONS IN TIMING AND MAGNITUDE

FACING VEHICLE YIELDS MORE SEVERE HEAD
IMPACT DUE TO BODY GEMOETRY

VEHICLE & GROUND

CONTACT COMPARISON: CONCLUSIONS
FORCE AND VELOCITY CHANGE (dV)

z INITIAL PEDESTRIAN STANCE AND SPEED HAVE A SIGNIFICANT

EFFECT ON THE VEHICLE/HEAD CONTACT FORCE.

z FOR PEDESTRIAN/GROUND CONTACT, VERY LARGE & RANDOM

VARIATIONS IN CONTACT FORCE OCCUR AS A RESULT OF
DIFFERENT BODY PARTS ABSORBING THE GROUND IMPACT.

z HEAD CONTACT WITH THE GROUND RESULTS IN HIGHER

FORCES ACTING OVER A SHORTER DURATION THAN THE
VEHICLE HEAD CONTACT FORCE.

z CONTAINMENT OF THE PEDESTRIAN ON THE VEHICLE TO

PREVENT GROUND IMPACTS CAN YIELD OPTIMUM RESULTS AT
LOW SPEEDS. ENCOURAGING, AS LOW SPEED CONTAINMENT IS
A MORE REALISTIC PROSPECT THAN AT HIGH SPEED

11
 THE INCREASED INJURY RISK TO Context of research
PEDESTRIANS FROM SUVS
COMPARED TO CARS
•In Europe, SUVs represent 15% of new vehicle registrations
[PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2004]

•SUVs have different mass and shape than passenger cars.

•What is the effect of differences between cars and SUVs on injury

patterns of struck pedestrians?

SIMMS AND WOOD IMPROVED DESIGN OF VEHICLE FRONTS

PRESENTED AT WORLD CONGRESS OF BIOMECHANICS, MUNICH 2006

Review of empirical evidence Review of empirical evidence

of SUV risks of SUV risks

z Ballesteros et al: real accident data 1995-1999 [AAP, 2004] z Lefler & Gabler [AAP, 2004] real world data from the US

<50km/h odds ratio for pedestrian risk from SUVs compared to cars – 11.5% of pedestrians struck by large SUVs killed
z 2.0 for traumatic brain injury – 4.5% for pedestrians struck by cars killed
z 2.0 for thoracic injury
z 2.5 for abdominal injuries.
z Roudsari et al [IP, 2004]
– Light truck type vehicles (LTVs): threefold higher risk of severe
injuries to pedestrians than cars.

z However, only 4.5% of cases actually involved an SUV, compared to z Effect most pronounced at lower speeds
66% of cases involving cars.

12
 Roudsari et al [TIP, 2005] Vehicle factors for pedestrian risk:
PCDS: 3146 injuries in 386 pedestrians Mass, Geometry & Stiffness

- No difference in impact speed between LTVs and cars. z [Lefler & Gabler, AAP 2004]: Pedestrians mass << vehicle mass
- 159 adults with head injuries, of which 46 struck by LTVs suggest frontal geometry is controlling factor … but no elaboration

LTVs Cars p value Response ratio: z Ballesteros et al [AAP, 2004]: Higher bumper & bonnet heights in
LTVs/cars
SUVs dictate initial contact points.. but no comment on momentum
transfer
Head injuries 54% 46% 0.16 1.2

z Roudsari et al [TIP, 2005]: trajectory governed by pedestrian cg

Thorax injuries 37% 20% 0.001 1.9
and bonnet leading edge height… but no comment on effect of
direct impact against the pelvic/abdomen region.
Abdomen injuries 33% 18% 0.003 1.8

z Stiffness important – but no data

Summary of empirical evidence Methods: Madymo pedestrian and vehicle models to

of SUV risks simulate dummy impacts of [OKAMOTO ET AL, 2001]

z VALIDATION: POLAR DUMMY IMPACT AT 40KM/H WITH CAR & SUV

– UPPER LEG REACTION TORQUES
z Empirical studies show substantially increased risk for – HIGH SPEED VIDEO
pedestrians when struck by high fronted vehicles compared to a
passenger car.
SUV
car
z However, conflicting evidence on relative risk of head injuries
from these different vehicle types, and no agreement on the
source of the increased risk of LTVs for pedestrians.

Current work aims to answer these questions

MIZUNO & KAJZER, 2000; LIU ET AL 2002

13
 Validation: car impact Validation: Suv Impact
[OKAMOTO ET AL, 2001] [OKAMOTO ET AL, 2001]

0ms 20ms 40ms 60ms 80ms 0ms 20ms 40ms 60ms 80ms

Validation: Upper leg joint

reaction torques [OKAMOTO ET AL, 2001]

Simulation matrix

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) pedestrian facing car
(b) pedestrian facing SUV
(c) pedestrian sideways to car (walking stance, struck leg back)
(d) pedestrian sideways to SUV (walking stance, struck leg back

5, 10 and 15m/s impacts, braking

14
 Results: side struck pedestrian
head resultant acceleration
10m/s snapshots

Results: Pelvis resultant acceleration Head injury predictions: HIC

Head Injury Predictions using HIC criterion: Injury reference level = 1000

2.5
 1  t2 
HICsafe = max   ∫ a( t ).dt  ( t2 − t1 ) < 1000
t − t
 2 1  t1 

15
Pelvis injury predictions: acceleration
Effects of vehicle mass

Primary impact with vehicle: Wood IMechE, 1988

 M vehicle k 2 
v pedestrian _ cg =  2  vimpact
 k (M vehicle + M pedestrian ) + h 2
M 
vehicle 

k = pedestrian radius gyration

Pelvis Injury Predictions using peak acceleration criterion (m/s2):
Injury reference level = 716m/s2 h = vertical offset between bonnet leading edge height and
pedestrian cg

Effects of vehicle mass

head pelvis Conclusions on the effect
of vehicle front shape on pedestrian injuries

z Head injuries similar or slightly lower from contact with SUVs

compared to cars

z Injuries to mid body regions are substantially higher.

z Primary reason for increased hazard to pedestrians from SUVs is

the high front shape of the bumper and bonnet.

z Location of primary impact means mid body region is directly

struck in a SUV/pedestrian collision, allowing less rotation of the
body.

16
Conclusions on the effect
of vehicle front shape on pedestrian injuries SIZE DOES MATTER

For pedestrians struck by SUVs there is the combination of a harder

primary impact which occurs directly with the critical mid body
region.

The mass difference between cars and SUVs not significant for
pedestrians

Lowering the bumper and bonnet and reducing bonnet stiffness for
SUVs would help to reduce injuries to these mid body regions.

[Simms and O’Neill, British Medical Journal, 2005]

[Simms & Wood, IMechE 2006]

Thank you

17