Study of the possible relationships between tramway front-end geometry and pedestrian injury risk

Abstract Objectives: The aim of this article is to report on the possible relationships between tramway front-end geometry and pedestrian injury risk over a wide range of possible tramway shapes. Methods: To study the effect of tramway front-end shape on pedestrian injury metrics, accidents were simulated using a custom parameterized model of tramway front-end and pedestrian models available with the MADYMO multibody solver. The approach was automated, allowing the systematic exploration of tramway shapes in conjunction with 4 pedestrian sizes (e.g., 50th percentile male or M50). Results: A total of 8,840 simulations were run, showing that the injury risk is more important for the head than for other body regions (thorax and lower extremities). The head of the M50 impacted the windshield of the tramway in most of the configurations. Two antagonist mechanisms affecting impact velocity of the head and corresponding head injury criterion (HIC) values were observed. The first is a trunk rotation resulting from an engagement of the lower body that can contribute to an increase in head velocity in the direction of the tram. The second is the loading of the shoulder, which can accelerate the upper trunk and head away from the windshield, resulting in lower impact velocities. Groups of design were defined based on 2 main parameters (windshield height and offset), some of which seem more beneficial than others for tramway design. The pedestrian size and tramway velocity (30 vs. 20 km/h) also affected the results. Conclusions: When considering only the front-end shape, the best strategy to limit the risk of head injury due to contact with the stiff windshield seems to be to promote the mechanism involving shoulder loading. Because body regions engaged vary with the pedestrian size, none of the groups of designs performed equally well for all pedestrian sizes. The best compromise is achieved with a combination of a large windscreen offset and a high windscreen. Conversely, particularly unfavorable configurations are observed for low windshield heights, especially with a large offset. Beyond the front-end shape, considering the stiffness of the current windshields and the high injury risks predicted for 30 km/h, the stiffness of the windshield should be considered in the future for further gains in pedestrian safety.

[1]  Luis Martínez,et al.  Stiffness Corridors of the European Fleet for Pedestrian Simulations , 2007 .

[2]  P. Niederer,et al.  Trauma Biomechanics: Introduction to Accidental Injury , 2004 .

[3]  J. Crandall,et al.  Pedestrian Head Impact Dynamics: Comparison of Dummy and PMHS in Small Sedan and Large SUV Impacts , 2009 .

[4]  T. Yasuki,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). , 2012, Stapp car crash journal.

[5]  Jack van Hoof,et al.  Improving pedestrian safety using numerical human models. , 2003, Stapp car crash journal.

[6]  Philippe Beillas,et al.  Accidents Between Pedestrian and Industrial Vehicles: From Injury Patterns to Dummy and Truck Prototypes , 2011 .

[7]  Rikard Fredriksson Priorities and Potential of Pedestrian Protection , 2011 .

[8]  L. Hynÿ,et al.  Optimization of tram face with respect to passive safety , 2008 .

[9]  Koichi Kamiji,et al.  Pedestrian-vehicle interaction: kinematics and injury analysis of four full scale tests , 2008 .

[10]  George Rechnitzer,et al.  Tram interface crashworthiness , 2000 .

[11]  Matthias Abt Trauma Biomechanics Introduction To Accidental Injury , 2016 .

[12]  U Björnstig,et al.  Trams--a risk factor for pedestrians. , 1996, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  Markus H. Muser,et al.  Optimising the Design of Tramways to Mitigate Injury Risk in Pedestrian Impacts , 2015 .

[14]  K. Lackner,et al.  MDCT evaluation of injuries after tram accidents in pedestrians , 2010, Emergency Radiology.

[15]  H. Mertz,et al.  HEAD INJURY RISK ASSESSMENT FOR FOREHEAD IMPACTS , 1996 .

[16]  Jason R. Kerrigan,et al.  Pedestrian kinematic response to mid-sized vehicle impact , 2007 .

[17]  M. Craig,et al.  Development of brain injury criteria (BrIC). , 2013, Stapp car crash journal.

[18]  Francisco J. López-Valdés,et al.  Pedestrian collisions with flat-fronted vehicles: injury patterns and importance of rotational accelerations as a predictor for traumatic brain injury (TBI) , 2009 .

[19]  Jeffrey Richard Crandall,et al.  PEDESTRIAN CRASH RECONSTRUCTION USING MULTI-BODY MODELING WITH GEOMETRICALLY DETAILED, VALIDATED VEHICLE MODELS AND ADVANCED PEDESTRIAN INJURY CRITERIA , 2003 .

[20]  Yves Caire,et al.  Non-injurious and injurious impact response of the human shoulder three-dimensional analysis of kinematics and determination of injury threshold. , 2004, Stapp car crash journal.

[21]  Thomas Robert,et al.  Effects of Pedestrian Pre-Crash Reactions on Crash Outcomes during Multi-body Simulations , 2013 .