Predictive capabilities of the MADYMO multibody pedestrian model: Three-dimensional head translation and rotation,head impact time and head impact velocity

Abstract

Road traffic injuries could become the fifth leading cause of death globally by 2030 unless appropriate countermeasures are taken. Reliable reconstruction of collisions is essential for understanding and hence reducing the injuries sustained by pedestrians. The significant influence of vehicle speed, pedestrian speed and pedestrian gait on pedestrian transverse motion and rotation about the longitudinal axis has been qualitatively noted in the literature, but there has been no quantitative approach to this problem. The MADYMO multibody pedestrian model is widely used for collision reconstruction, but its validation to date mostly remains limited to body segment trajectories in the vertical plane along the direction of vehicle travel. In this article, the MADYMO pedestrian model is compared to staged tests and a real collision in terms of head trajectory, longitudinal and transverse head translations relative to the primary contact location of the pedestrian on the vehicle, impact location on the head (and hence longitudinal rotation of the body), head impact time and head impact velocity. It is shown that the model can reproduce staged cadaver and dummy tests in terms of head trajectory (mostly within 10%), longitudinal head translation (within 17%), transverse translation (two cases: errors of 0% and 19%), impact location on the head (within 45° in the majority of cases), head impact time (mean difference of 8.7 ms) and head impact velocity (mean difference of 1.8 m/s). A sensitivity analysis showed that the model is largely unaffected by changes in vehicle stiffness and vehicle–pedestrian friction, while variations in the pedestrian stance and the height of the vehicle front have a considerable effect on the kinematics of a collision. This is the first time that the MADYMO pedestrian model has been evaluated with regard to transverse motion and longitudinal rotation of the pedestrian. The results presented here mean that the MADYMO model is appropriate for further analysis of the influence of gait on pedestrian post-impact kinematics.

Keywords

Vehicle–pedestrian collision transverse offset longitudinal offset longitudinal rotation collision reconstruction model sensitivity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dunmore

Brooks

Madeley

. The effect of leg fracture level and vehicle front-end geometry on pedestrian knee injury and response. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2006; 220(8): 857–869.

Guo

Yuan

Sturgess

CEN

. A study of an Asian anthropometric pedestrian in vehicle-pedestrian accidents using real-world accident data. Int J Crashworthiness 2006; 11(6): 541–551.

LeGlatin

Blundell

Blount

. The simulation of pedestrian impact with a combined multibody finite elements system model. J Eng Des 2006; 17(5): 463–477.

10.

11.

Simms

CK.

Wood

. Pedestrian risk from cars and sport utility vehicles - a comparative analytical study. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2006; 220(8): 1085–1100.

12.

Untaroiu

Meissner

Crandall

. Crash reconstruction of pedestrian accidents using optimization techniques. Int J Impact Eng 2009; 36(2): 210–219.

13.

Yao

Yang

Otte

. Investigation of head injuries by reconstructions of real-world vehicle-versus-adult-pedestrian accidents. Safety Sci 2008; 46(7): 1103–1114.

14.

Yao

Yang

Fredriksson

. Reconstruction of head-to-hood impact in an automobile-to-child-pedestrian collision. Int J Crashworthiness 2006; 11(4): 387–395.

15.

Svoboda

Solc

Cizek

. Analysis of collision between pedestrian and small car. Int J Crashworthiness 2003; 8(3): 269–276.

16.

17.

18.

19.

van Hoof

de Lange

Wismans

. Improving pedestrian safety using numerical human models. Stapp Car Crash J 2003; 47: 401–436.

20.

21.

22.

CrashTestServices. www.crashtest-service.com (2007, accessed 2 December 2011).

23.

Kerrigan

Crandall

Deng

. A comparative analysis of the pedestrian injury risk predicted by mechanical impactors and post mortem human surrogates. Stapp Car Crash J 2008; 52: 527–567.

24.

25.

Kerrigan

Crandall

Deng

. Pedestrian kinematic response to mid-sized vehicle impact. Int J Veh Safety 2007; 2(3): 221–240.

26.

27.

Liu

Yang

Lövsund

. A study of influences of vehicle speed and front structure on pedestrian impact responses using mathematical models. Traffic Inj Prev 2002; 3: 31–42.