Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Effectiveness of Wearable Protection Equipment for Seated Pedestrians

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study used finite element models to investigate the efficacy of seated pedestrian protection equipment in vehicle impacts. The selected safety equipment, a lap belt, an airbag vest, and a bicycle helmet, were chosen to mitigate the underlying biomechanical causes of seated pedestrian injuries reported in the literature. The impact conditions were based on the three most dangerous impact scenarios from a previous seated pedestrian impact study. Serious injury (AIS 3+) risks were compared with and without protective equipment. A 50th percentile male occupant model and two generic vehicle models, the family car (FCR) and sports utility vehicle (SUV), were used to simulate vehicle collisions. Three impact conditions were run with every combination of protective equipment (n = 24). The helmet reduced head and brain injury risks from the vehicle-head and ground-head contacts. The airbag reduced the head injury risk in the FCR vehicle-head contact but increased the brain injury risks in the SUV impacts from increased whiplash. The lap belt increased head injury risks for both the FCR and the SUV impacts because it created a stronger FCR vehicle-head contact and SUV ground-head contact. When the belt and airbag were used together the head injury risks dramatically decreased because the pedestrian body impacted the ground arm or leg first and slowly rolled onto the ground which resulted in softer ground-head contacts and in two instances, no ground-head contact. Only the helmet proved effective in all impact conditions. Future testing must be completed before recommending the belt or airbag for seated pedestrians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chan, Y. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singap. Med. J. 44:614–619, 2003.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cherta Ballester, O., M. Llari, S. Afquir, J. L. Martin, N. Bourdet, V. Honoré, C. Masson, and P. J. Arnoux. Analysis of trunk impact conditions in motorcycle road accidents based on epidemiological, accidentological data and multibody simulations. Accid. Anal. Prev. 127:223–230, 2019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chontos, R., D. Grindle, A. Untaroiu, Z. Doerzaph, and C. Untaroiu. A finite element model of an electric scooter for simulating traffic accidents. ASME 2022 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2022.

  4. Eppinger, R., E. Sun, F. Bandak, M. Haffner, N. Khaewpong, M. Maltese, S. Kuppa, T. Nguyen, E. Takhounts, R. Tannous, A. Zhang, and R. Saul. Development of improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems – II, edited by N. H. T. S. Administration, 1999.

  5. Eppinger, R., E. Sun, S. Kuppa, and R. Saul. Supplement: development of improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced automotive restraint systems – II, edited by D. o. T. N. H. T. S. Administration, 2000.

  6. Fast, A., J. Sosner, P. Begeman, M. Thomas, and D. Drukman. Forces, moments, and acceleration acting on a restrained dummy during simulation of three possible accidents involving a wheelchair negotiating a curb: comparison between lap belt and four-point belt. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 76:370–377, 1997.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fredriksson, R., J. Shin, and C. D. Untaroiu. Potential of pedestrian protection systems–a parameter study using finite element models of pedestrian dummy and generic passenger vehicles. Traffic Inj. Prev. 12:398–411, 2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fukaya, K., and M. Uchida. Protection against impact with the ground using wearable airbags. Ind. Health. 46:59–65, 2008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grindle, D., A. Balubaid, and C. Untaroiu. Investigation of traffic accidents involving seated pedestrians using a finite element simulation-based approach. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 26:1–14, 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grindle, D., and C. Untaroiu. Computational seated pedestrian impact design of experiments with ultralight wheelchair. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03157-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hit-Air. Crash Test in the Airbag Protector, edited by J. A. R. Institute, 2008.

  12. Kraemer, J., and C. Benton. Disparities in road crash mortality among pedestrians using wheelchairs in the USA: results of a capture–recapture analysis. BMJ Open. 5:e008396, 2015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuppa, S. Injury criteria for side impact dummies, edited by N. H. T. S. Administration, 2004.

  14. Meng, Y., W. Pak, B. Guleyupoglu, B. Koya, F. S. Gayzik, and C. D. Untaroiu. A finite element model of a six-year-old child for simulating pedestrian accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 98:206–213, 2017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pak, W., Y. Meng, J. Schap, B. Koya, F. S. Gayzik, and C. D. Untaroiu. Development and validation of a finite element model of a small female pedestrian. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 23:1336–1346, 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pak, W., Y. Z. Meng, J. Schap, B. Koya, S. F. Gayzik, and C. D. Untaroiu. Finite element model of a high-stature male pedestrian for simulating car-to-pedestrian collisions. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 20:445–453, 2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sedar, E. CrashPak, 2022.

  18. Singh, H., V. Ganesan, J. Davies, M. Paramasuwom, and L. Gradischnig. Vehicle interior and restraints modeling development of full vehicle finite element model including vehicle interior and occupant restraints systems for occupant safety analysis using thor dummies, edited by U. S. D. o. T. N. H. T. S. Administration, 2018.

  19. Steinmetz, E. Americans with Disabilities:202, edited by e. a. s. a. US department of commerce, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006.

  20. Takhounts, E., M. Craig, K. Moorhouse, J. McFadden, and V. Hasija. Development of brain injury criteria (Br IC). Stapp Car Crash J. 57:243–266, 2013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Viano, D., I. Lau, C. Asbury, A. King, and P. Begeman. Biomechanics of the human chest, abdomen, and pelvis in lateral impact. Accid. Anal. Prev. 21:553–574, 1989.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang, F., J. Wu, L. Hu, C. Yu, B. Wang, X. Huang, K. Miller, and A. Wittek. Evaluation of the head protection effectiveness of cyclist helmets using full-scale computational biomechanics modelling of cycling accidents. J. Saf. Res. 80:109–134, 2022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Global Human Body Models Consortium, LLC (GHBMC) for providing their M50-O model used in this study. All findings and views reported in this manuscript are based on the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the consensus or view of the GHBMC. We would also like to thank the Advanced Research Computing organization at Virginia Tech for providing us event logs from their research computing cluster. We thank Dr. Fang Wang for providing their helmet model.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Costin Untaroiu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Associate Editor Stefan M. Duma oversaw the review of this article.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. A1and Tables A1, A2, A3 and A4

Fig. A1
figure 15

Hybrid-III airbag vest calibration drop test setup

Table A1 Airbag vest calibration drop test data
Table A2 Seated pedestrian impacts and injury risks
Table A3 Linear correlation coefficients (r) between safety equipment variables and injury risks
Table A4 ANOVA results (p ≤ 0.05)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grindle, D., Untaroiu, C. Effectiveness of Wearable Protection Equipment for Seated Pedestrians. Ann Biomed Eng 51, 2086–2096 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03249-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03249-3

Keywords

Navigation