Evaluating pedestrian head Sub-System test procedure against full-scale vehicle-pedestrian impact

References

• Hardy R. APROSYS - Final report for the work on “Pedestrian and Pedal Cyclist Accidents” (SP3). Cranfield Impact Centre AP-90-0003; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Crandall JR, Bhalla KS, Madeley NJ. Designing road vehicles for pedestrian protection. BMJ Br Med J. 2002;324(7346):1145–1148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisch M, Lerner M, Vukovic E, et al. Injury Patterns of Older Car Occupants, Older Pedestrians or Cyclists in Road Traffic Crashes with Passenger Cars in Europe – Results from SENIORS In Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference; 2017
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Global technical regulation No. 9. 2009. Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a9e.pdf. Accessed June 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy BJ, Lawrence GJL, Knight IM, et al. A study of possible future developments of methods to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. TRL Project Report; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Kerrigan JR, Crandall JR, Deng B. 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu XJ, Yang JK, Ovsund L. ¨ A study of influences of vehicle speed and front structure on pedestrian impact responses using mathematical models. Traffic Injury Prev. 2002;3(1):31–42.
   Google Scholar
• Chen HP, Fu LX, Zheng HY. A comparative study between China and IHRA for the vehicle-pedestrian impact. SAE Int J Passenger Cars-Mech Syst. 2009;2:1108–1115.
   Google Scholar
• Fahlstedt M, Halldin P, Kleiven S. Comparison of multibody and finite element human body models in pedestrian accidents with the focus on head kinematics. Traffic Inj Prev. 2016;17(3):320–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC). THUMS Users Manual Version 4.0. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Maeno T, Hasegawa J. Development of a finite element model of the total human model for safety (THUMS) and application to carpedestrian impacts. The 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Iwamoto M, Kisanuki Y, Watanabe I, et al. Development of a Finite Element Model of the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS) and Application to Injury Reconstruction In Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference. 30:1–12; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Poulard D, Chen H, Crandall JR, et al. B. Biofidelity Assessment of Anthropometrically-Morphed Pedestrian FE Models Using Structural-Based, Scaled PMHS Test Data In Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference. 2015
   Google Scholar
• Chen H, Poulard D, Forman J, et al. Evaluation of geometrically personalized THUMS pedestrian model response against sedan–pedestrian PMHS impact test data. Traffic Inj Prev. 2018;19(5):542–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu T, Kim T, Bollapragada V, et al. Evaluation of biofidelity of THUMS pedestrian model under a whole-body impact conditions with a generic sedan buck. Traffic Inj Prev. 2017;18(sup1):S148–S154.,
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulard D, Chen H, Panzer MB. Geometrical personalization of pedestrian finite element models using morphing increases the biofidelity of their impact kinematics. SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1506; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Watanabe R, Katsuhara T, Miyazaki H, et al. Research of the Relationship of Pedestrian Injury to Collision Speed, Car-type, Impact Location and Pedestrian Sizes using Human FE model (THUMS Version 4). Stapp Car Crash J. 2012;56:269–321.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paas R, Davidsson J, Brolin K. Head kinematics and shoulder biomechanics in shoulder impacts similar to pedestrian crashes—a THUMS study. Traffic Inj Prev. 2015b;16(5):498–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snedeker JG, Muser MH, Walz FH. Assessment of Pelvis and Upper Leg Injury Risk in Car-Pedestrian Collisions: Comparison of Accident Statistics, Impactor Tests and a Human Body Finite Element Model. Stapp Car Crash J. 2003;47:437–457.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Han Y, Yang J, Mizuno K, et al. Effects of vehicle impact velocity, vehicle front-end shapes on pedestrian injury risk. Traffic Inj Prev. 2012;13(5):507–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen H, Poulard D, Crandall J. R., Panzer M. B. Pedestrian response with different initial positions during impact with a mid-sized sedan. In: The 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV); Gothenburg, Sweden, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Untaroiu CD, Shin J, Crandall JR. A design optimization approach of vehicle hood for pedestrian protection. Int J Crashworthiness. 2007;12(6):581–589. 2007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsui Y, Tanahashi M. Development of JAMA—JARI pedestrian headform impactor in compliance with ISO and IHRA standards. Int J Crashworthiness. 2004;9(2):129–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie B, Zhou Q. Can new passenger cars reduce pedestrian lower extremity injury? A review of geometrical changes of front-end design before and after regulatory efforts. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2016;17(7):712–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawabe Y, Asai T, Murakami D, et al. Different factors influencing post-crash pedestrian kinematics. SAE Int J Passenger Cars-Mech syst. 2012;5: 214–230.
   Google Scholar
• Kerrigan JR, Crandall JR, Deng B. Pedestrian kinematic response to mid-sized vehicle impact. IJVS. 2007;2(3):221–240.
   Google Scholar
• Subit D, Kerrigan J, Crandall JR, et al. Pedestrian-Vehicle Interaction: kinematics and Injury Analysis of Four Full Scale Tests In Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference; 2008. 36: 275–294.
   Google Scholar
• Paas R, Davidsson J, Masson C, et al. Pedestrian Shoulder and Spine Kinematics in Full-Scale PMHS Tests for Human Body Model Evaluation. Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference, Dublin, Ireland; 2012. p. 730–750.
   Google Scholar
• Paas R, Masson C, Davidsson J. Head boundary conditions in pedestrian crashes with passenger cars: six-degrees-of-freedom post-mortem human subject responses. Int J Crashworthiness 2015a;20(5)1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Okamoto Y, Sugimoto T, Enomoto K, et al. Pedestrian head impact conditions depending on the vehicle front shape and its construction–full model simulation. Traffic Inj Prev. 2003;4(1):74–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simms CK, Wood DP. Effects of pre-impact pedestrian position and motion on kinematics and injuries from vehicle and ground contact. Int J Crashworthiness. 2006;11(4):345–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott JR, Simms CK, Wood DP. Pedestrian head translation, rotation and impact velocity: The influence of vehicle speed, pedestrian speed and pedestrian gait. Acc Anal Prev. 2012;45:342–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizuno Y. Summary of IHRA Pedestrian Safety WG Activities (2005)-Proposed Test Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian Protection Afforded by Passenger Cars In Proceedings: International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (Vol. 2005, 15p). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Untaroiu CD, Meissner MU, Crandall JR, et al. Crash reconstruction of pedestrian accidents using optimization techniques. Int J Impact Eng. 2009;36(2):210–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon CC, Blackwell CL, Bradtmiller B, et al. 2012 Anthropometric survey of US Army personnel: methods and summary statistics (No. NATICK/TR-15/007). Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center MA; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Untaroiu C, Shin JHo, Ivarsson J, et al. Pedestrian Kinematics Investigation with Finite Element Dummy Models Based on Anthropometry Scaling Method. In: The 20th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, no. 07-0328; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Chidester AB, Isenberg RA. Final report: The pedestrian crash data study. Society of Automotive Engineers. 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Neal-Sturgess CE, Carter E, Hardy R, et al. APROSYS European in-depth pedestrian database. Age 2007; 91:95.
   Google Scholar
• Soni A, Robert T, Rongiéras F, et al. Observations on pedestrian pre-crash reactions during simulated accidents. Stapp car crash journal 2013;57:157–183.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hamdane H, Serre T, Anderson R, et al. Accident Simulation and Reconstruction for Enhancing Pedestrian Safety: issues and Challenges In ESAR 2014-6th International Conference: Expert Symposium on Accident Research (11. P); 2014 June.
   Google Scholar
• Munsch M, Bourdet N, Deck C, et al. Lateral Glazing Characterization Under Head Impact: Experimental and Numerical Investigation. The 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). Stuttgart, Germany; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kerkeling C, Schäfer J, Thompson G-M. Structural hood and hinge concepts for pedestrian protection. In Proc. 17th Int. Tech. Conf. ESV; 2005. 4–7.
   Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Xia Y, Zhou Q, et al. Design analysis of a sandwich hood structure for pedestrian protection In The 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference. Stuttgart, Germany; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP). “Assessment Protocol - Pedestrian protection Version 9.0.3” Euro NCAP; September 2018b. www.euroncap.com.
   Google Scholar
• Takhounts EG, Craig MJ, Moorhouse K, et al. Development of brain injury criteria (BrIC). Stapp Car Crash J. 2013;57:243–266.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simms C, Wood D. 2009. Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gabler LF, Crandall JR, Panzer MB. Assessment of kinematic brain injury metrics for predicting strain responses in diverse automotive impact conditions. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44(12):3705–3718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EEVC WG17. Improved test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars. 2002. Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2006/wp29grsp/ps-187r1e.pdf. Accessed October 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Fredriksson R, Shin J, Untaroiu CD, et al. Potential of pedestrian protection systems—a parameter study using finite element models of pedestrian dummy and generic passenger vehicles. Traffic Inj Prev. 2011;12(4):398–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchinson TP, Anderson RWG, Searson DJ. Pedestrian Headform Testing: Inferring Performance at Impact Speeds and for Headform Masses Not Tested, and Estimating Average Performance in a Range of Real-World Conditions. Traffic Inj Prev. 2012;13(4):402–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pastor C. The correlation between pedestrian injury severity in real-life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian test results. Traffic Inj. Prev 2013;12(6):13–0308. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.607198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandroth J, Rizzi M, Sternlund S, et al. The correlation between pedestrian injury severity in real-life crashes and EuroNCAP pedestrian test results. Traffic Inj Prev. 2011;12(6):604–613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP). “Pedestrian Testing Protocol Version 8.5” Euro NCAP; October 2018a. www.euroncap.com.
   Google Scholar
• European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP). “Technical bulletin - Pedestrian Human Model Certification Version 1.1 (TB024)” Euro NCAP; October 2018c. www.euroncap.com.
   Google Scholar