Improving Pedestrian Safety Using Numerical Human Models

Comparison of multibody and finite element human body models in pedestrian accidents with the focus on head kinematics

“…Both models were compared to the 10% pathlength corridors of PMHS tests developed by Kerrigan et al (2005) showed an error between 1% and 36% in head impact velocity between the model and PMHS (Elliott et al, 2012a;van Hoof et al, 2003). Further evaluation of both models is needed by also including the rotation and displacement in the xy-plane.…”

“…Mottola et al (2013) (Alvarez et al 2013;Hedenstierna and Halldin 2008;Kleiven 2007). Both models have previously been compared to experimental tests on both component and full-body level (Elliott et al 2012a;van Hoof et al 2003;Maeno and Hasegawa 2001;Tamura et al 2008).…”

Crash reconstruction of pedestrian accidents using optimization techniques

“…The inertial properties of rigid bodies were assigned based on corresponding anthropometric data reported in the literature [15]. The model predictions in terms of pedestrian global kinematics have shown good agreement with corresponding PMHS test data [16,17] for a vehicle speed range from 25 km/h to 40 km/h [12].…”

“…The model of a small family car used in this study was a facettype multi-body model [12] based on the detailed model developed and validated by van Rooij et al [20]. The model included a finite element mesh and hyper-ellipsoids defined as rigid bodies that represented the front structure of the vehicle and the stiff structure directly under the hood, respectively (Fig.…”

“…The human pedestrian model used in this study has been developed using multi-body techniques in the MADYMOÔ environment [12,13]. Representing an average Western European male [14], the total mass and standing height of the model are 1.74 m and 75.7 kg, respectively.…”