0
Research Papers

Comparative Analysis on Traumatic Brain Injury Risk Due to Primary and Secondary Impacts in a Pedestrian Sideswipe Accident

[+] Author and Article Information
Atsutaka Tamura

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
Tottori University,
Koyama-minami,
Tottori 680-8550, Japan
e-mail: a-tamura@mech.tottori-u.ac.jp

Junji Hasegawa

Department of Intelligent Mechanical Systems,
Tokyo Metropolitan University,
Asahigaoka,
Tokyo 192-0364, Japan
e-mail: hasegawa-junji@ed.tmu.ac.jp

Takao Koide

Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
Tottori University,
Koyama-minami,
Tottori 680-8550, Japan
e-mail: koide@mech.tottori-u.ac.jp

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received February 19, 2017; final manuscript received February 20, 2018; published online April 30, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Chimba Mkandawire.

ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B 4(4), 041004 (Apr 30, 2018) (7 pages) Paper No: RISK-17-1030; doi: 10.1115/1.4039464 History: Received February 19, 2017; Revised February 20, 2018

A series of pedestrian sideswipe impacts were computationally reconstructed; a fast-walking pedestrian was collided laterally with the side of a moving vehicle at 25 km/h or 40 km/h, which resulted in rotating the pedestrian's body axially. Potential severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) was assessed using linear and rotational acceleration pulses applied to the head and by measuring intracranial brain tissue deformation. We found that TBI risk due to secondary head strike with the ground can be much greater than that due to primary head strike with the vehicle. Further, an “effective” head mass, meff, was computed based upon the impulse and vertical velocity change involved in the secondary head strike, which mostly exceeded the mass of the adult head-form impactor (4.5 kg) commonly used for a current regulatory impact test for pedestrian safety assessment. Our results demonstrated that a sport utility vehicle (SUV) is more aggressive than a sedan due to the differences in frontal shape. Additionally, it was highlighted that a striking vehicle velocity should be lower than 25 km/h at the moment of impact to exclude the potential risk of sustaining TBI, which would be mitigated by actively controlling meff, because meff is closely associated with a rotational acceleration pulse applied to the head involved in the final event of ground contact.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Peng, Y. , Chen, Y. , Yang, J. , Otte, D. , and Willinger, R. , 2012, “A Study of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Exposure to Head Injury in Passenger Car Collisions Based on Accident Data and Simulations,” Saf. Sci., 50(9), pp. 1749–1759. [CrossRef]
ITARDA, 2010, “Car-to-Pedestrian Accidents,” Institute for Traffic Accident Research and Data Analysis, Tokyo, Japan, ITARDA Information No. 83 (in Japanese).
Tamura, A. , Koide, T. , and Yang, K. H. , 2015, “Effects of Ground Impact on Traumatic Brain Injury in a Fender Vault Pedestrian Crash,” Int. J. Veh. Saf., 8(1), pp. 85–100. [CrossRef]
Tamura, A. , Koide, T. , and Yang, K. H. , 2016, “Effects of Translational and Rotational Accelerations on Traumatic Brain Injury in a Sport Utility Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Crash,” Int. J. Veh. Des., 72(3), pp. 208–229. [CrossRef]
Hamdane, H. , Serre, T. , Masson, C. , and Anderson, R. , 2015, “Issues and Challenges for Pedestrian Active Safety Systems Based on Real World Accidents,” Accid. Anal. Prev., 82, pp. 53–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Crocetta, G. , Piantini, S. , Pierini, M. , and Simms, C. , 2015, “The Influence of Vehicle Front-End Design on Pedestrian Ground Impact,” Accid. Anal. Prev., 79, pp. 56–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Simms, C. , and Wood, D. , 2009, Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact: A Biomechanical Perspective, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. [CrossRef]
Bandak, F. , and Eppinger, R. , 1994, “A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of the Human Brain Under Combined Rotational and Translational Accelerations,” SAE Paper No. 942215.
Addison, B. , and Lieberman, D. , 2015, “Tradeoffs Between Impact Loading Rate, Vertical Impulse and Effective Mass for Walkers and Heel Strike Runners Wearing Footwear of Varying Stiffness,” J. Biomech., 48(7), pp. 1318–1324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hutchinson, J. , Kaiser, M. , and Lankarani, H. , 1998, “The Head Injury Criterion (HIC) Functional,” Appl. Math. Comput., 96(1), pp. 1–16.
Ommaya, A. , Goldsmith, W. , and Thibault, L. , 2002, “Biomechanics and Neuropathology of Adult and Pediatric Head Injury,” Br. J. Neurosurg., 16(3), pp. 220–242. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schmitt, K.-U. , Niederer, P. F. , Muser, M. H. , and Waltz, F. , 2007, Trauma Biomechanics: Accidental Injury in Traffic and Sports, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Geometric dimensions characterizing vehicle front profiles: (a) SUV (Ford Explorer) and (b) Sedan (Ford Taurus)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Initial setups for pedestrian impact simulations (baseline models). Striking velocity was set at 25 km/h or 40 km/h, while a constant deceleration pulse was given at 0.7 g at the moment of impact: (a) SUV versus pedestrian and (b) sedan versus pedestrian.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Initial configurations for an SUV-to-pedestrian impact simulation: (a) facing at 60 deg away from the vehicle ((1): −60 deg) and (b) facing at 60 deg toward the vehicle ((5): +60 deg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Pedestrian kinematics obtained in low-speed SUV impact cases (25 km/h). Facing angle was set to −60 (left) and +60 (right) deg, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Typical examples of time history of reaction forces of each body segment during vehicle-to-pedestrian impacts (UprEx: upper extremity; LwrEx: lower extremity): (a) low-speed SUV impact (case: #suv25–00) and (b) high-speed SUV impact (case: #suv40–00)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of postimpact thrown distance of struck pedestrian (*P < 0.05 versus sedan in transverse direction): (a) thrown distance represented as a function of striking vehicle type and (b) thrown distance represented as a function of striking vehicle velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the score of HIC15 (*P < 0.05 versus 40 km/h in ground impact): (a) HIC15 represented as a function of striking vehicle type and (b) HIC15 represented as a function of striking vehicle velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of resultant head rotational acceleration pulse, θ¨max (*P < 0.05 versus sedan in ground impact): (a) θ¨max represented as a function of striking vehicle type and (b) θ¨max represented as a function of striking vehicle velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of CSDM: (a) CSDM represented as a function of striking vehicle type and (b) CSDM represented as a function of striking vehicle velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of effective head mass (meff) due to ground impact: (a) meff represented as a function of striking vehicle type and (b) meff represented as a function of striking vehicle velocity

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Articles from Part A: Civil Engineering
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In