This work studies the teenage pedestrian–sport utility vehicle (SUV) crash; injury to the vital parts of the body, such as the head and chest, and to the femur is evaluated. More advanced injury criteria are applied, as provided in the rules. The multibody technique is applied by making use of SimWise software and of the teenager anthropomorphic model, the use of which is now consolidated. Head injury criterion (HIC) is used for the head, thoracic trauma index (TTI) criterion for the thorax in the case of side impact and 3 ms criterion in the case of frontal impact, while the force criterion is used for the femur. Both the TTI and femur load evaluation require non-substantial modifications of the dummy, by insertion of sensors for the measurement of the acceleration of the 4th rib and the 12th vertebra and two very thin plates at the knees for the correct individuation of the contact point with the vehicle bumper. Particular attention is paid to the front shape of the vehicle, concluding that the SUV examined in this paper is less dangerous than the sedan studied in a previous work, since its frontal dimensions (bonnet angle, bumper height and bonnet height) are more advantageous. However the teenage pedestrian in a lateral position is less prone to injuries in the head and chest, with respect to the frontal position; the pedestrian’s position has little influence on femur damage. Furthermore, the braking of the vehicle reduces the possibility of crash fatality. In conclusion, a theoretical approach is shown, to highlight the influence of the vehicle mass on the pedestrian speed after the impact.
Virzi’ MariottiGGolfoS. Determination and analysis of the head and chest parameters by simulation of a vehicle–teenager impact. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2014; 228: 3–20.
BellaviaGVirzi’ MariottiG. Multibody numerical simulation for vehicle–pedestrian crash test. In: Ingegneria dell’autoveicolo ATA, vol. 62, XXI science and motor vehicles 2007, JUMV international conference with exhibition, Belgrade, Serbia, 23–24 April 2007, pp.40–49. Torino: JUMV.
4.
BellaviaGVirzi’ MariottiG. Development of an anthropomorphic model for vehicle–pedestrian crash test. In: Ingegneria dell’autoveicolo, vol. 62, XXI science and motor vehicles 2007, JUMV international conference with exhibition, Belgrade, Serbia, 23–24 April 2007, pp.48–56. Torino: JUMV.
5.
KleinbergerMSunEEppingerRet al. Development of improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998.
6.
ChaurandNDelhommeP.Cyclists and drivers in road interactions: a comparison of perceived crash risk. Accid Anal Prev2013; 50: 1176–1184.
7.
DetweilerDTMillerRA. Development of a sport utility front bumper system for pedestrian safety and 5 mph impact performance. In: Proceedings of the 17th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, Amsterdam, 4–7 June 2001, Paper Number 01-S6-W-145. Washington, DC, USA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
8.
SimmsCKWoodDP.Pedestrian risk from cars and sport utility vehicles–a comparative analytical study. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2006; 220: 1085–1100.
9.
WoodDPSimmsCKWalshDG.Vehicle–pedestrian collisions: validated models for pedestrian impact and projection. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2005; 219: 183–195.
10.
ŞoicaALacheS.Theoretical and experimental approaches to motor vehicle–pedestrian collision. In: 3rd WSEAS international conference on applied and theoretical mechanics. Spain, 14–16 December 2007, pp.263–268. WSEAS Press.
11.
IozsaMDMicuDACorneliaSet al. Analytical estimation of the Hood behaviour during an impact with a pedestrian head. In: WSEAS International Conference Recent advances in civil engineering and mechanics. ISBN: 978-960-474-403-9, pp.195–198.
12.
YangJYaoJOtteD. Correlation of different impact conditions to the injury severity of pedestrians in real world accidents. In: 19th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 June 2005, paper number 05–0352. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
WangSCQianYBQuXG. Reconstruction of car-electric bicycle side collision based on PC-crash. J Transp Technol2014; 4: 355–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2014.44032
16.
MilneGDeckCBourdetNet al. In: 2013 IRCOBI conference proceedings - international research council on the biomechanics of injury. Gothenburg, Sweden, pp.735–746. Zurich, Switzerland: IRCOBI.
Van SchijndelMDe HairSRodariusCet al. Cyclist kinematics in car impacts reconstructed in simulations and full scale testing with Polar dummy. In: Proceedings of the international research council on biomechanics of injury (IRCOBI) conference, Dublin, 2012, pp.800–812. Zurich, Switzerland: IRCOBI.
19.
FredrikssonRRosénE. Priorities for Bicyclist Protection in Car Impacts – a Real life Study of Severe Injuries and Car Sources. In: Proceedings of the international research council on biomechanics of injury (IRCOBI) conference, Dublin, Ireland, 2012, pp.779–786. Zurich, Switzerland: IRCOBI.
20.
van HasselEde LangeR. Bicyclist safety in bicycle to car accidents: an inventory study. TNO report 06.OR.SA.031.1/RDL, Delft: TNO Automotive, 17August2006.
21.
MukherjeeSChawlaAMohanDet al. Effect of vehicle design on head injury severity and throw distance variations in bicycle crashes. In: Proceedings of 20th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, Lyon, 2007, Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
22.
WatsonJW.Investigation of cyclist and pedestrian impacts with motor vehicles using experimentation and simulation. PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, UK, 2010.
23.
PengYChenYYangJet al. A study of pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to head injury in passenger car collisions based on accident data and simulations. Safety Sci2012; 50: 1749–1759.
24.
ChenQChenYBostromOet al. A comparison study of car-to-pedestrian and car-to-E-bike accidents: data source: the China in-depth accident study (CIDAS). SAE paper 2014-01-0519, 2014.
25.
MakiTKajzerJMizunoKet al. Comparative analysis of vehicle–bicyclist and vehicle–pedestrian accidents in Japan. Accid Anal Prev2003; 35: 927–940.
26.
FantaOJelenKPuršH.Interaction between cyclist and car during broadside and confrontation with pedestrian throw formulas multibody simulation. Trans Transport Sci2010; 3: 99–106.
27.
KatsuharaTMiyazakiHKitagawaYet al. Impact kinematics of cyclist and head injury mechanism in car-to-bicycle collision. In: Proceedings IRCOBI conference 2014, Berlin, Germany, 2014, pp.670–684. IRCOBI.
28.
CarolloFVirzi’ MariottiGScaliciE.Injury evaluation in teenage cyclist-vehicle crash by multibody simulation. WSEAS Trans Bio Biomed2014; 11: 203–217.
29.
CarolloFVirzi’ MariottiGScaliciE. Biomechanics parameters in the vehicle-cyclist crash with accident analysis in palermo. In: Recent advances in mechanical engineering, WSEAS international conference ECME’14, Firenze, 22–24 November 2014, pp.139–148.
30.
CarolloF.Analisi di alcuni parametri biomeccanici nello studio d’impatto auto bici. Graduate Thesis, University of Palermo, Italy, 2014.
31.
CarolloFVirzi’ MariottiGNasoV. Biomechanics parameters in teenage cyclist – SUV accident and comparison with the pedestrian. In: WSEAS-NAUN conference OTENG’15, Rome, 7–9 November 2015, pp.77–87. Applied Mathematics and Materials.
32.
CarolloFVirzi’ MariottiGNasoV.HIC evaluation in teenage cyclist–SUV accident. In: Recent researches in mechanical and transportation systems, WSEAS international conference ICAT’15, Salerno, Italy, 27–29 June 2015, pp.252–259.
33.
CarolloFVirzì MariottiGScaliciE.Valutazione delle lesioni nell’impatto ciclista adolescente - veicolo con simulazione multibody. Scienze e Ricerche2016; 24: 75–88.
34.
CarolloFNasoVVirzi’MariottiG.Injury and throwing distance in teenage cyclist-vehicle crash. WSEAS Trans Power Syst2016; 11: 171–182.
35.
NeilsonID.Vehicle safety—a review for 1993. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering1993; 207: 117–126.
Euro NCAP. Assessment Protocol and Biomechanical Limits, Version 4.1. Document, Euro NCAP, Brussels, Belgium, March2004.
38.
Euro NCAP. Assessment Protocol and Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 5.3.1. Document, Euro NCAP, Brussels, Belgium, November2011.
39.
KuppaS.Injury criteria for side impact dummies. NTBRC/NHTSA Document, National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, USA, May2004.
40.
HamadaMHasegawaJNishimuraR.Application of EEVC upper leg impactor test method to SUVs: finite element analysis of pedestrian pelvic injuries. JSAE Trans2005; 36: 201–206.
41.
HanYYangJMizunoKet al. A study on chest injury mechanism and the effectiveness of a head-form impact test for pedestrian chest protection from vehicle collisions. Safety Sci2012; 50: 1304–1312.
42.
SulzerJKamalakkannanSBWiechelJet al. Simplified MADYMO model of the IHRA head-form impactor. SAE paper 2006-01-2349, 2006.
43.
ShinMKYiSIKwonOTet al. Structural optimization of the automobile frontal structure for pedestrian protection and the low-speed impact test. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2008; 222: 2373–2387.
44.
CarolloFNasoVVirzi’ MariottiG.Teenage cyclist: pick up crash by multibody simulation; HIC evaluation and comparison with previous results. Int J Mech Eng2016; 1: 75–83.
45.
SchejbalováZKvášováAMičunekTet al. Simulation of a collision between passenger car and child pedestrian. Safety Security Traffic Prelim Commun2012; 24: 109–118.
46.
LeeTHYoonGHChoiSB.A shock mitigation of pedestrian-vehicle impact using active hood lift system: deploying time investigation. Shock and Vibration2016; 2016: 17 pp.
47.
LeeTHYoonGHChoiSB.Deploying time investigation of automotive active hood lift mechanism with different design parameters of hinge part. Adv Mech Eng2016; 8: 1–16.
48.
LiuXJYangJKLövsundP.A study of influences of vehicle speed and front structure on pedestrian impact responses using mathematical models. Traffic Inj Prev2010; 3: 31–42.
49.
HanYYangJMizunoKet al. Effects of vehicle impact velocity, vehicle front-end shapes on pedestrian injury risk. Traffic Inj Prev2012; 13: 507–518.
50.
LiGLyonsMWangBet al. The influence of passenger car front shape on pedestrian injury risk observed from German in-depth accident data. Accid Anal Prev2017; 101: 11–21.
51.
SankarasubramanianHChawlaAMukherjeeSet al. Optimization study on multibody vehicle-front model for pedestrian safety. Int J Crashworthines2016; 21: 63–78.
52.
CarolloFNasoVVirzi’ MariottiGet al. A new theoretical approach on teenage cyclist-vehicle crash. WSEAS Trans Appl Theor Mech2016; 11: 192–202.
53.
ShenJJinXL.Improvement in numerical reconstruction for vehicle: pedestrian accidents. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2008; 222: 25–39.
54.
CarolloFNasoVVirzi’ MariottiGet al. Influence of the vehicle front shape in teenage cyclist-vehicle crash. Int J Transport Syst2016; 1: 108–116.
55.
ChakravarthyBLotfipourSVacaFE.Pedestrian injuries: emergency care considerations. Cal J Emerg Med2007; 8: 15–21.
56.
SchmittKUNiedererPFMuserMHet al. Trauma biomechanics: accidental injury in traffic and sports. London: Springer, 2007.
57.
NahumAMMelvinJW.Accidental injury: biomechanics and prevention. London: Springer, 2001.
58.
SchneckDJBronzinoJD.Biomechanics principle and applications. USA: CRC Press, 2008.
59.
DeSantis KlinichK. Biomechanics of pedestrian injuries related to lower extremity injury assessment tools: a review of the literature and analysis of pedestrian crash database. University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, 2003.
60.
PtakaMRusinskiEKarlinskiJet al. Evaluation of kinematics of SUV to pedestrian impact: lower leg impactor and dummy approach. Arch Civ Mech Eng2012; 12: 68–73.
