International Journal of Automotive Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 85–98 | Cite as

Influence of the geometric parameters of the vehicle frontal profile on the pedestrian’s head accelerations in case of accidents

  • Bogdan Tolea
  • Alexandru Ionut Radu
  • Horia Beles
  • Csaba AntonyaEmail author


The goal of this paper is to determine how the geometry of the vehicle’s frontal profile is influencing the pedestrian’s head accelerations (linear and angular) in car-to-pedestrian accidents. In order to achieve this goal, a virtual multibody dummy of the pedestrian was developed and multiple simulations of accidents were performed using vehicles with different frontal profile geometry, from different classes. The type of accidents considered is characteristic for urban areas and occur at relatively low speed (around 30 km/h) when an adult pedestrian is struck from the rear and the head acceleration variation are the measurement of the accident severity. In the accident simulation 3D meshes were applied on the geometry of the vehicles, in order to define the contact surface with the virtual dummy, similar with real vehicles. The validation of the virtual pedestrian dummy was made by performing two crash-tests with a real dummy, using the same conditions as in the simulations. The measured accelerations in the tests were the linear and angular accelerations of the head during the impact, and these were compared with the ones from the simulations. After validating the virtual model of the car-to-pedestrian accident, we were able to perform multiple simulations with different vehicle shapes. These simulations are revealing how the geometric parameters of the vehicle’s frontal profile are influencing the head acceleration. This paper highlights the main geometric parameters of the frontal profile design that influence the head injury severity and the way that the vehicles can be improved by modifying these parameters. The paper presents an approach to determine the “friendliness” of the vehicle’s frontal profile in the car-to-pedestrian collision.


Collision Crash-test Dummy Ideal vehicle profile Linear acceleration Angular acceleration Mesh Pedestrian Virtual model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bach, D. I. F. P., Bindges, W. and Zoppke, I. H. (2006). Sensorsystem für aktive Motorhauben auf dem Prüfstand. ATZ-Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift 108, 5, 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, B. M., Brei, D. E., Luntz, J. E., Strom, K., Browne, A. L. and Johnson, N. (2008). Shape memory alloy resetable spring lift for pedestrian protection. 15th Int. Symp. Smart Structures and Materials & Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring, 693005.Google Scholar
  3. Choi, S., Jang, J., Oh, C. and Park, G. (2016). Safety benefits of integrated pedestrian protection systems. Int. J. Automotive Technology 17, 3, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Datentechnik, S. (2015). PC-crash Operating and Technical Manual.Google Scholar
  5. Feist, F., Gugler, J., Arregui-Dalmases, C., Del Pozo de Dios, E., Lopez-Valdes, F., Deck, D. and Willinger, R. (2009). Pedestrian collisions with flat-fronted vehicles: injury patterns and importance of rotational accelerations as a predictor for traumatic brain injury (TBI). 21st Int. Conf. Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Stutgart, Germany, 1–19.Google Scholar
  6. Fredriksson, R., Håland, Y. and Yang, J. (2001). Evaluation of a new pedestrian head injury protection system with a sensor in the bumper and lifting of the bonnet's rear part. SAE Paper No. 2001-06-0089.Google Scholar
  7. Henary, B. Y., Ivarsson, J. and Crandall, J. R. (2006). The influence of age on the morbidity and mortality of pedestrian victims. Traffic Injury Prevention 7, 2, 182–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hybrid Dummies (2016}). Scholar
  9. Kröyer, H. R. (2015). Is 30 km/ha ‘safe’ speed? Injury severity of pedestrians struck by a vehicle and the relation to travel speed and age. IATSS Research 39, 1, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kröyer, H. R., Jonsson, T. and Várhelyi, A. (2014). Relative fatality risk curve to describe the effect of change in the impact speed on fatality risk of pedestrians struck by a motor vehicle. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 62, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee, K. B., Jung, H. J. and Bae, H. I. (2007). The study on developing active hood lift system for decreasing pedestrian head injury. Innovations for Safety: Opportunities and Challenges, Paper No. 07-0198.Google Scholar
  12. Luo, F., Ren, L. and Yang, J. (2013). Influence of human body size on lower limb injury parameters in carpedestrian collisions. 5th Int. Conf. Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, IEEE, 627–630.Google Scholar
  13. Matsui, Y., Hitosugi, M. and Mizuno, K. (2011). Severity of vehicle bumper location in vehicle-to-pedestrian impact accidents. Forensic Science International 212, 1, 205–209.Google Scholar
  14. Matsui, Y., Ishikawa, H. and Sasaki, A. (1999). Pedestrian injuries induced by the bonnet leading edge in current car-pedestrian accidents. SAE Paper No. 1999-01-0713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mertz, H. J. (2002). Injury Risk Assessments Based on Dummy Responses. Accidental Injury. Springer-Verlag New York. New York, USA, 89–102.Google Scholar
  16. Moser, A., Hoschopf, H., Steffan, H. and Kasanicky, G. (2000). Validation of the PC-Crash pedestrian model. SAE Paper No. 2000-01-0847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. NHTSA (2016}). Scholar
  18. Ommaya, A. K. (1984). Biomechanics of head injury: Experimental aspects. The Biomechanics of Trauma, 13, 245–269.Google Scholar
  19. Otten, J., Luntz, J., Brei, D., Strom, K. A., Browne, A. L. and Johnson, N. L. (2008). Experimental investigation of active adaptability of the SMArt (SMA reseTtable) dual-chamber pneumatic lift device for pedestrian protection. Proc. SPIE, 6930, 693006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosén, E., Källhammer, J. E., Eriksson, D., Nentwich, M., Fredriksson, R. and Smith, K. (2010). Pedestrian injury mitigation by autonomous braking. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 6, 1949–1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simms, C. K. and Wood, D. P. (2006). Effects of preimpact pedestrian position and motion on kinematics and injuries from vehicle and ground contact. Int. J. Crashworthiness 11, 4, 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Snedeker, J. G., Muser, M. H. and Walz, F. H. (2003). Assessment of pelvis and upper leg injury risk in carpedestrian collisions: Comparison of accident statistics, impactor tests and a human body finite element model. Stapp Car Crash Journal, 47, 437.Google Scholar
  23. Snedeker, J. G., Walz, F. H., Muser, M. H., Lanz, C. and Schroeder, G. (2005). Assessing femur and pelvis injury risk in car-pedestrian collisions: Comparison of full body PMTO impacts, and a human body finite element model. 19th Int. Technical Conf. Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), No. 05-0103.Google Scholar
  24. Soica, A. and Tarulescu, S. (2016). Impact phase in frontal vehicle-pedestrian collisions. Int. J. Automotive Technology 17, 3, 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sze, N. N. and Wong, S. C. (2007). Contributory factors to pedestrian injury severity in traffic crashes. 11th World Conf. Transportation Research, University Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Teng, T. L. and Ngo, V. L. (2011). Analyzing pedestrian head injury to design pedestrian-friendly hoods. Int. J. Automotive Technology 12, 2, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teng, T. L., Le, T. K. and Ngo, V. L. (2010). Injury analysis of pedestrians in collisions using the pedestrian deformable model. Int. J. Automotive Technology 11, 2, 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Togănel, G. (2008). Cercetări Privind Influenta Designului Caroseriei Asupra Sigurantei Pasive a Automobilelor. Ph. D. Dissertation. Transilvania University of Brasov. Brasov, Romania.Google Scholar
  29. Vertal, P. and Steffan, H. (2016). Evaluation of the effectiveness of Volvo’s pedestrian detection system based on selected real-life fatal pedestrian accidents. SAE Paper No. 2016-01-1450.Google Scholar
  30. Wood, D. P., Simms, C. K. and Walsh, D. G. (2005). Vehicle-pedestrian collisions: Validated models for pedestrian impact and projection. Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: J. Automobile Engineering 219, 2, 183–195.Google Scholar
  31. Walz, F. H., Niederer, P. and Kaeser, R. (1986). The carpedestrian collision, injury reduction, accident reconstruction, mathematical and experimental simulation, headinjuries in two wheeler collisions. Interdisiciplinary Working Group for Accident Mechanics. University of Zurich and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Xu, D., Zhu, X., Miao, Q., Ma, Z. and Wu, B. (2008). The research of reversible pop-up Hood for pedestrian protection. IEEE Int. Conf. Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES), 42–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bogdan Tolea
    • 1
  • Alexandru Ionut Radu
    • 1
  • Horia Beles
    • 2
  • Csaba Antonya
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Automotive and Transport EngineeringTransilvania University of BrasovBrasovRomania
  2. 2.Department of Automotive and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of OradeaBihorRomania

Personalised recommendations