This work studies the impact conditions between the adolescent pedestrian and the bus focusing on head and chest injury. The injury to the head is analyzed using both the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) 36 and the HIC15 parameters as established by the most advanced legislation and comparing the risk probability Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS3+) and AIS4+. The parameter HIC15 gives a higher probability of risk with lower values, and therefore it can be considered more conservative. Moreover, the study of chest injury is performed with two different biomechanical parameters: the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) and the TTI(d); the last neglects the pedestrian mass. The results indicate that the parameters are equivalent for the assessment of chest injury. Instead the front pedestrian collision is characterized by 3 ms criterion. The results comparison with those obtained previously with other types of vehicles shows that, in all cases, the impact with the bus is most dangerous for the teenage pedestrian because of the higher values of the biomechanical parameters. Finally, the influence of the vehicle mass has been investigated, emphasizing how it cannot be neglected a priori. Numerical analysis results are in very good agreement with the results carried out experimentally, from several authors, in real accidents where buses are involved.
NeilsonID. Vehicle safety—a review for 1993. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering1993; 207: 117–126.
2.
Virzì 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.
3.
WilliamsAFTisonJ. Motor vehicle fatal crash profiles of 13–15-year-olds. J Safety Res2012; 43: 145–149.
4.
BellaviaGVirzì MariottiG. Multibody numerical simulation for vehicle–pedestrian crash test, Ingegneria dell’autoveicolo ATA. In: XXI science and motor vehicles: JUMV international conference with exhibition, Belgrade, 23–24 April 2007, vol. 62, pp.40–49, https://core.ac.uk/reader/53241221
5.
BellaviaGVirzì MariottiG. Development of an anthropomorphic model for vehicle–pedestrian crash test, Ingegneria dell’Autoveicolo. In: XXI science and motor vehicles: JUMV international conference with exhibition, Belgrade, 23–24 April 2007, vol. 62, pp.48–56, https://core.ac.uk/reader/53238924
6.
KleinbergerMSunEEppingerR, et al. Development of improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998.
7.
ChaurandNDelhommeP. Cyclists and drivers in road interactions: a comparison of perceived crash risk. Accid Anal Prevent2013; 50: 1176–1184.
8.
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, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.3901&rep=rep1&type=pdf
9.
SimmsCKWoodDP. Pedestrian risk from cars and sport utility vehicles—a comparative analytical study. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2006; 220: 1085–1100.
10.
WoodDPSimmsCKWalshDG. Vehicle–pedestrian collisions: validated models for pedestrian impact and projection. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2005; 219: 183–195.
IozsaMDMicuDACorneliaS, et al. Analytical estimation of the hood behaviour during an impact with a pedestrian head. Recent Adv Civ Eng Mech2011; 3: 195–198.
13.
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 (ESV), Washington, DC, 6 June 2005, paper number 050352. Washington, DC: NHTSA.
WangSCQianYBQuXG. Reconstruction of car electric bicycle side collision based on PC-crash. J Transp Technol2014; 4: 355–364.
17.
MilneGDeckCBourdetN, et al. Assessment of bicyclist head injury risk under tangential impact conditions. In: IRCOBI conference proceedings—International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury, pp 735–746, http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc13/pdf_files/90.pdf
18.
KimJKKimSPUlfarssonGF, et al. Bicyclist injury severities in bicycle–motor vehicle accidents. Accid Anal Prevent2007; 39: 238–251.
19.
Van SchijndelMDeHair SRodariusC, et al. Cyclist kinematics in car impacts reconstructed in simulations and full scale testing with Polar dummy. In: IRC-12-85 IRCOBI conference, 2012, pp.800–812, http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc12/pdf_files/85.pdf
WatsonJW. Investigation of cyclist and pedestrian impacts with motor vehicles using experimentation and simulation. PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, Bedford, 2010.
24.
PengYChenYYangJ, et 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.
25.
ChenQChenYBostromO, et al. A comparison study of car-to-pedestrian and car-to-E-bike accidents: data source: the China in-depth accident study (CIDAS). SAE technical paper 2014-01-0519, 2014.
26.
MakiTKajzerJMizunoK, et al. Comparative analysis of vehicle–bicyclist and vehicle–pedestrian accidents in Japan. Accid Anal Prevent2003; 35: 927–940.
27.
FantaOJelenKPuršH. Interaction between cyclist and car during broadside and confrontation with pedestrian throw formulas multibody simulation. Trans Transp Sci2015; 3: 99–106.
CarolloFVirzì MariottiGScaliciE. Injury evaluation in teenage cyclist-vehicle crash by multibody simulation. WSEAS T Biol Biomed2014; 11: 203–217.
30.
CarolloFVirzì MariottiGScaliciE. Biomechanics parameters in the vehicle-cyclist crash with accident analysis in Palermo. Recent Adv Mech Eng2014; 14: 139–148.
31.
CarolloF. Analisi di alcuni parametri biomeccanici nello studio d’impatto auto bici. Graduate Thesis, University of Palermo, Palermo, 2014.
CarolloFVirzì MariottiGScaliciE. Valutazione delle lesioni nell’impatto ciclista adolescente—veicolo con simulazione multibody. Sci Ricer2016; 24: 75–88.
35.
CarolloFNasoVVirzì MariottiG. Injury and throwing distance in teenage cyclist-vehicle crash. WSEAS T Power Syst2016; 11: 171–182.
36.
CarolloFNasoVVirzì MariottiG. Teenage cyclist—pick up crash by multibody simulation; HIC evaluation and comparison with previous results. Int J Mech Eng2016; 1: 75–83.
37.
CarolloFNasoVVirzì MariottiG, et al. A new theoretical approach on teenage cyclist-vehicle crash. WSEAS T Appl Theor Mech2016; 11: 192–202.
38.
CarolloFNasoVVirzì MariottiG, et al. Influence of the vehicle front shape in teenage cyclist-vehicle crash. Int J Transp Syst2016; 1: 108–116.
39.
ShinMKYiSIKwonOT, et 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.
40.
CarolloFVirzı MariottiGNasoV, et al. Head, chest and femur injury in teenage pedestrian–SUV crash; mass influence on the speeds. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering. Epub ahead of print 5February2018. DOI: 10.1177/0954407017753803.
41.
HanYYangJMizunoK, et al. Effects of vehicle impact velocity, vehicle front-end shapes on pedestrian injury risk. Traffic Inj Prevent2012; 13: 507–518.
42.
LiGLyonsMWangB, et al. The influence of passenger car front shape on pedestrian injury risk observed from German in-depth accident data. Accid Anal Prevent2017; 101: 11–21.
43.
SankarasubramanianHChawlaAMukherjeeS, et al. Optimization study on multibody vehicle-front model for pedestrian safety. Int J Crashworth2016; 21: 163–178.
44.
ShenJJinXL. Improvement in numerical reconstruction for vehicle–pedestrian accidents. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2008; 222: 25–39.
45.
BeillasPMeroMBelonS, et al. Accidents between pedestrians and industrial vehicles: from injury patterns to dummy and truck prototypes. In: 22nd enhanced safety of vehicles conference (ESV), Washington, DC, 13–16 June 2011, pp.1148–1162. Washington, DC: NHTSA.
46.
KajzerJYangJKMohanD. Safer bus fronts for pedestrian impact protection in bus-pedestrian accidents, a preliminary investigation. In: IRCOBI conference proceedings, Verona, 9–11 September 1992. Zurich: IRCOBI.
47.
ChawlaASharmaVMohanD, et al. Safer truck front design for pedestrian impacts. In: IRCOBI conference proceedings, Gothenburg, 16–18 September 1998. Zurich: IRCOBI.
48.
XiaoyunZXianlongJXianghaiC, et al. Research on the biomechanics friction characteristics based on the typical bus–pedestrian accident. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2012; 226: 1356–1364.
49.
LiuXJYangJKLövsundP. A study of influences of vehicle speed and front structure on pedestrian impact responses using mathematical models. Traffic Inj Prevent2010; 3: 31–42.
50.
MadeaBPollakSThieraufA, et al. Mechanical trauma and classification of wounds. In: MadeaB (ed.) Handbook of forensic medicine. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2014, pp.253–327.
51.
SchmittKUNiedererPFMuserMH, et al. Trauma biomechanics: accidental injury in traffic and sports. London: Springer, 2007.
52.
NahumAMMelvinJW.Accidental injury: biomechanics and prevention. London: Springer, 2001.
53.
PrasadPMertzH.The position of the US delegation to the ISO Working Group 6 on the use of HIC in automotive environment. SAE technical paper851246, 1985.
54.
PrasadPMertzHJDalmotasDJ, et al. Evaluation of the field relevance of several injury risk functions. Stapp Car Crash J2010; 54: 1–25.
EppingerRSunEBandakF, et al. Development of improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems—II. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/rev_criteria.pdf
61.
EppingerRSunEKuppaS, et al. Supplement: development of improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems—II. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, March2000, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/finalrule_all_0.pdf
HertzE.A note on the head injury criteria (HIC) as a predictor of the risk of skull fracture. In: 37th annual proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, San Antonio, TX, 4–6November1993, pp.73–80, https://trid.trb.org/view/408468
65.
PianoL.La sicurezza passiva degli autoveicoli. Milano: Hoepli, 2009.
66.
TyrellDCSeversonKJMarquisBP.Analysis of occupant protection strategies in train collisions, crashworthiness and occupant protection. Transp Syst ASME1995; 30: 1–19.
67.
MarjouxDBaumgartnerDDeckC, et al. Head injury prediction capability of the HIC, HIP, SIMon and ULP criteria. Accid Anal Prevent2008; 40: 1135–1148.
68.
KlausGKallerisD.Side impact—a comparison between HSRI, APROD and HYBRID II dummies and cadavers. SAE technical paper831630, 1983.
69.
KlausGSinnhuberRHoffmanG, et al. Side impact—a comparison between dummies and cadavers, correlations between cadaver loads and injury severity. SAE technical paper841655, 1984.
EppingerRMarcusJMorganR.Development of dummy and injury index for NHTSA’s thoracic side impact protection research program. SAE technical paper 840885, 1984.
