Boundary-condition characteristics-analysis of the pedestrian thorax-vehicle contacts considering accident scenarios

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2023.05.004

Abstract

Abstract:

The boundary conditions characteristics were investigated for pedestrian thorax-vehicle contacts. A multi-body vehicle-to-pedestrian impact simulation matrix was defined according to the distributions of road traffic accident scenarios in China. Statistical analysis was performed on the simulation results. The results show that the thorax Wrap Around Distance (WAD) are 0.957~1.808 m for adult pedestrians with being 0.760~0.910 m for 6-year-old children pedestrians. In sedan, Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and Multi-Purpose Vehicles (MPV) impacts, for the adult pedestrians, the thorax median contact angles are 17°, 34°, 32°, and the velocity of 12.5, 19.8, 17.3 km/h respectively; the 6-year-old children has the thorax angles of 49°, 90°, 81° and the thorax contact speeds of 20.5, 38.4, 25.4 km/h respectively. The pedestrian thorax WAD in the sedan impacts is higher than that of the SUV and MPV cases, while the thorax-vehicle contact speed and contact angle are significantly lower than the SUV and MPV cases. Therefore, the authors suggest to set the thorax protection assessments for both adult pedestrian and child pedestrian according to the WAD range; and the launch boundary conditions of the thorax impactor should be reasonably set according to the vehicle model.

Key words: vehicle safety, vehicle-pedestrian contact accidents, thorax contact, evaluation of contact protection, boundary conditions for evaluation loading

CLC Number:

U461.91

GAO Wenbo, LV Xiaojiang, XIAO Zhi, MO Fuhao, LI Guibing. Boundary-condition characteristics-analysis of the pedestrian thorax-vehicle contacts considering accident scenarios[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2023, 14(5): 555-562.

Figures/Tables 12

References 24

[1]	World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety[R]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018.
[2]	Appel H, Kuehnel A, Stuertz G, et al. Pedestrian safety vehicle-design elements: Results of in-depth accident analyses and simulation[C]// Proc Ame Asso Auto Med Annu Conf. Asso Adva Auto Medi, 1978, 22(2): 132-153.
[3]	Daniel S. The role of the vehicle front end in pedestrian impact protection[R]. SAE Tech Paper, 1982, 820246.
[4]	Fildes B, Gabler H C, Otte D, et al. Pedestrian impact priorities using real-world crash data and harm[C]// Int’l Res Coun Biomech Injury (IRCOBI). 2004:167-177.
[5]	LI Guibing, Lyons M, Otte D, et al. The influence of passenger car front shape on pedestrian injury risk observed from German in-depth accident data[J]. Accid Anal Prev, 2017, 101: 11-21. doi: S0001-4575(17)30037-4 pmid: 28167420
[6]	Wisch M, Lerner M, Vukovic E, et al. Road traffic crashes in Europe involving older car occupants, older pedestrians or cyclists in crashes with passenger cars: Results from SENIORS[C]// Proc 25th Int’l Tech Conf Enha Safety Vehi (ESV), 2017, Paper No. 17-0398.
[7]	韩勇, 杨济匡, 水野幸治. 行人在与汽车碰撞中胸部动力学响应和损伤机理的研究[J]. 汽车工程, 2015, 37(5): 516-519+537.
	HAN Yong, YANG Jikuang, KOJI Miuzno. A study on the dynamic responses and injury mechanism of human chest in vehicle-pedestrian collisions[J]. Autom Engineering, 2015, 37(5): 516-519+537. (in Chinese)
[8]	Mizuno K, Kajzer J. Head injuries in vehicle-pedestrian impact[R]. SAE Tech Paper, 2000-01-0157.
[9]	LI Guibing, TAN Zen, LV Xiaojiang, et al. Numerical reconstruction of injuries in a real world minivan-to-pedestrian collision[J]. Acta Bioeng Biomech, 2019, 21(2): 21-30. doi: 10.5277/ABB-01342-2019-02 pmid: 31741474
[10]	WANG Fang, YU Chao, LI Guibing, et al. A study on influence of minivan front-end design and impact velocity on pedestrian thorax kinematics and injury risk[J]. Appl Bio Biomech, 2018, 2018: ID 7350159.
[11]	张道文, 刘奇, 邱健斌, 等. 人车碰撞中行人的应急姿态对行人的损伤影响[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2021, 12(4): 456-466.
	ZHANG Daowen, LIU Qi, QIU Jianbing, et al. Influence of pedestrian’s emergency posture on pedestrian injury in vehicle-pedestrian collision[J]. J Autom Safe Energ, 2021, 12(4): 456-466. (in Chinese)
[12]	曹军帅. 基于行人保护的汽车前端结构设计与研究[D]. 淄博: 山东理工大学, 2021.
	CAO Junshuai. Design and research of automobile front-end structure based on pedestrian protection[D]. Zibo: Shandong University of Technology, 2021. (in Chinese)
[13]	武永强, 庄琰, 刘满莉. 车辆与行人碰撞试验工况中行人保护研究[J]. 中国汽车, 2023, 2023(2): 56-63.
	WU Yongqiang, ZHUANG Yan, LIU Manli. Research on pedestrian protection based on vehicle-pedestrian crash test[J]. China Autom, 2023, 2023(2): 56-63. (in Chinese)
[14]	LÜ Xiaojiang, XIAO Zhi, FANG Jianguang, et al. On safety design of vehicle for protection of vulnerable road users: A review[J]. Thin-Walled Stru, 2023, 182 (Part A): ID 109990.
[15]	Zander O, Ott J, Wisch M, et al. Safety enhanced innovations for older road users (seniors): Further development of test and assessment procedures towards an improved passive protection of pedestrians and cyclists[C]// Proc 25th Int’l Tech Conf Enha Safety Vehi (ESV), 2017:Paper No. 17-0268.
[16]	CHEN Qiang, CHEN Yong, Bostrom O, et al. A comparison study of car-to-pedestrian and car-to-E-bike accidents: data source: The China in-depth accident study (CIDAS)[R]. SAE Tech Paper, 2014-01-0519.
[17]	TASS International. MADYMO (主动)人体模型[EB/OL]. (2023-01-31). https://tass.plm.automation.siemens.com/cn/madymo-0#anchor3.
	TASS International. MADYMO (active) human body models[EB/OL]. (2023-01-31). https://tass.plm.automation.siemens.com/cn/madymo-0#anchor3.
[18]	乘用车市场信息联席会. 2022年1—6月零售销量排名快报[EB/OL]. (2022-07-09). http://www.cpcaauto.com/newslist.php?types=csjd&id=2798.
	China Passenger Car Association. Retail sales ranking quick report for January to June 2022 [EB/OL]. (2022-07-09). http://www.cpcaauto.com/newslist.php?types=csjd&id=2798. (in Chinese)
[19]	Martinez L, Guerra L J, Ferichola G, et al. Stiffness corridors of the European fleet for pedestrian simulation[C]// Proc 20th Int’l Tech Confe Enha Safety Vehi (ESV), 2007:Paper No. 07-0267.
[20]	YANG Jikuang. Review of injury biomechanics in car-pedestrian collisions[J]. Int’l J Vehi Safe, 2005, 1(1-3): 100-117.
[21]	聂进, 李桂兵, 王薛超, 等. 乘用车前端结构几何参数对行人头部动力学响应和损伤风险的影响[J]. 汽车工程, 2014, 36(12): 1473-1482.
	NIE Jin, LI Guibing, WANG Xuechao, et al. Influence of geometric parameters of passenger car's front-end structure on the head dynamic response and injury risk of pedestrian[J]. Autom Engineering, 2014, 36(12): 1473-1482. (in Chinese)
[22]	Kerrigan J, Murphy D, Drinkwater C, et al. Kinematic corridors for PMHS tested in fullscale pedestrian impact tests[C]// Proc 19th Int’l Tech Conf Enha Safety Vehi (ESV), 2005:Paper No. 05-0394.
[23]	Zander O, Wisch M, Ott J, et al.Development and evaluation of a thorax injury prediction tool (TIPT) and possibilities for incorporation within improved test and assessment procedures-results from SENIORS[C]// Proc 26th Int’l Tech Conf Enha Safety of Vehi (ESV), 2019:Paper No. 19-0014.
[24]	中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司. C-NCAP管理规则(2021版): 行人保护试验方法[EB/OL]. (2021-02-15). http://www.c-ncap.org.cn/cms/picture.
	China Automotive Technology andResearch Center Co., Ltd. C-NCAP management regulation (2021 Ed): Pedestrian protection testing method[EB/OL]. (2021-02-15). http://www.c-ncap.org.cn/cms/picture.

h / cm	v / (km·h^-1)
h / cm	区间<25	26~35	36~45	46~55	56~65	>65
153	20.0	27.5, 30.0, 32.5	37.5, 40.0, 42.5	48.3, 51.7	60.0	70.0
160	20.0	28.3, 31.7	38.3, 41.7	50.0	60.0	70.0
165	18.3, 21.7	27.0,29.0,31.0,33.0	37.0, 39.0, 41.0, 43.0	48.3, 51.7	60.0	70.0
170	17.5, 20.0, 22.5	26.4, 27.9, 29.3, 30.7, 32.1, 33.6	36.3, 37.5, 38.8, 40.0, 41.3, 42.5, 43.8	47.0, 49.0, 51.0, 53.0	58.3, 61.7	70.0
175	18.3, 21.7	27.0, 29, 31, 33.0	36.7, 38.3, 40.0, 41.7, 43.3	47.5, 50.0, 52.5	58.3, 61.7	70.0
180	18.3, 21.7	27.5, 30.0, 32.5	37.0, 39.0, 41.0, 40.3	48.3, 51.7	60.0	70.0
185	18.3, 21.7	27.0, 29.0, 31.0, 33.0	37.0, 39.0, 41.0, 43.0	48.3, 51.7	60.0	70.0

h / cm	v / (km·h^-1)
h / cm	区间<25	26~35	36~45	46~55	56~65	>65
153	20.0	27.5, 30.0, 32.5	37.5, 40.0, 42.5	48.3, 51.7	60.0	70.0
160	20.0	28.3, 31.7	38.3, 41.7	50.0	60.0	70.0
165	18.3, 21.7	27.0,29.0,31.0,33.0	37.0, 39.0, 41.0, 43.0	48.3, 51.7	60.0	70.0
170	17.5, 20.0, 22.5	26.4, 27.9, 29.3, 30.7, 32.1, 33.6	36.3, 37.5, 38.8, 40.0, 41.3, 42.5, 43.8	47.0, 49.0, 51.0, 53.0	58.3, 61.7	70.0
175	18.3, 21.7	27.0, 29, 31, 33.0	36.7, 38.3, 40.0, 41.7, 43.3	47.5, 50.0, 52.5	58.3, 61.7	70.0
180	18.3, 21.7	27.5, 30.0, 32.5	37.0, 39.0, 41.0, 40.3	48.3, 51.7	60.0	70.0
185	18.3, 21.7	27.0, 29.0, 31.0, 33.0	37.0, 39.0, 41.0, 43.0	48.3, 51.7	60.0	70.0

车型	WAD / m		v / (km·h^-1)	α / (°)	β / (°)
车型	下肋骨	上肋骨	v / (km·h^-1)	α / (°)	β / (°)
Sedan	0.77	0.90	20.5	49.0	2.0
SUV	0.76	0.89	38.4	90.0	3.0
MPV	0.78	0.91	25.4	81.0	0.0

车型	WAD / m		v / (km·h^-1)	α / (°)	β / (°)
车型	下肋骨	上肋骨	v / (km·h^-1)	α / (°)	β / (°)
Sedan	0.77	0.90	20.5	49.0	2.0
SUV	0.76	0.89	38.4	90.0	3.0
MPV	0.78	0.91	25.4	81.0	0.0