Auto Rickshaw—Pedestrian Head and Neck Impact Injury Mitigation—An Analysis of Impact Material Alternatives, Their Costs and Their Benefits

  • A. J. Al-GraittiEmail author
  • T. Smith
  • R. Prabhu
  • M. D. Jones
Conference paper
Part of the Mechanisms and Machine Science book series (Mechan. Machine Science, volume 75)


Rapid motorisation of developing nations has led to road traffic accidents being the leading cause of fatal injuries in low- and middle-income countries. Auto-rickshaws act as a popular low-cost alternative to four-wheel-vehicles in developing countries, however, they are relatively unsafe, particularly during pedestrian impacts, since their structures and materials provide poor impact energy absorption. Passive safety systems can improve pedestrian-vehicle impact safety by increasing energy absorbtion within the vehicle structures. An investigation was conducted of the commonly impacted auto-rickshaw windscreen frame and windscreen, to develop easily implementable, improved, impact absorbing structural alternatives. Aluminium and magnesium, were compared as an alternative to the high carbon steel windscreen frame and polycarbonate, for the glass windscreen. Finite-element analysis (LS-DYNA) was applied to assessing head and neck injury risks by impacting a 50% percentile adult male anthropomorphic-test-device, at the front, side and rear. Impacts were simulated at, and offset of, the vehicle centreline at velocities between 10 and 40 km/h and the corresponding Head Injury Criterion (HIC15) and Neck Injury criterion, (Nij and Nkm), investigated. Aluminium-6016-T4 and magnesium-AZ31B windscreen frame materials and the polycarbonate (PC) windscreen produced the lowest injury risk of all the materials investigated, particulary those head injuries associated with upper frame impacts. The PC windscreen produced higher HIC values for centreline impacts than glass, since it caused impact at the upper windscreen frame. Of the materials investigated, the aluminium (6016-T4) frame and PC windscreen produced the greatest safety at the lowest cost; establishing that material alternatives can assist in impact injury mitigation.


Auto rickshaw Pedestrian-vehicle impact LS-DYNA Head and neck injury mitigation 



The authors wish to thank The Higher Committee for Education Development (HCED) in Iraq and the Ministry of Construction, Housing, Municipalities and Public works for the financial support of this work.

Limitation and Future Work

Simply changing the material composition of the vehicle will not optimally alleviate pedestrian injuries; future studies are anticipated of the frontal geometry and retrofitting impact attenuation technologies to the front of the vehicle.


  1. 1.
    Cuerden, R., Richards, D., Hill, J.: Pedestrians and their survivability at different impact speeds. In: 20th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), pp. 1–12, Lyon, France (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kong, L.B., Lekawa, M., Navarro, R.A., McGrath, J., Cohen, M., Margulies, D.R., Hiatt, J.R.: Pedestrian-motor vehicle trauma: an analysis of injury profiles by age. Am. Coll. Surg. J. 182(1), 17–23 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Otte, D.: Severity and mechanism of head impacts in car to pedestrian. In: International Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact (IRCOBI), pp. 329–341, Sitges, Spain (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mizuno, H., Ishikawa, Y.: Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety WG activities—proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection aforded by passenger cars. In: 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), pp. 1–17, Washington DC, United States (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD) and the German In Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) made available through Ford Motor Company data.: Body Concept Design for Pedestrian Head Impact (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin, J.L., Lardy., A., Laumon, B.: Pedestrian injury patterns according to car and casualty characteristics in France. In: 55th AAAM Annual Conference, vol. 55, pp. 137–146 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dharmaratne, S.D., Stevenson, M.: Public road transport crashes in a low income country. J. Inj. Prev. 12(6), 417–420 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Valero, C.F.F., Puerta, C.P.: Identification of the main risk factors for vulnerable non-motorized users in the city of Manizales and its relationship with the quality of road infrastructure. J. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 162, 359–367 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levik. R., Vaa, T.: The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, 2nd edn, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elvik, E.: Effects of accidents of automatic speed enforcement in Norway. J. Transp. Res. Board 1595, 1–19 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pilkington, P., Kinra, S.: Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: systematic review. J. Br. Med. 330(7487), 331–334 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moafian, G., Aghabeigi, M.R., Heydari, S.T., Hoseinzadeh, A., Lankarani, K.B., Sarikhani, Y.: An epidemiologic survey of road traffic accidents in Iran: analysis of driver-related factors. Chin. J. Traumatol. 16(3), 140–144 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang, J.: Review of injury biomechanics in car-pedestrian collisions. Int. J. Veh. Saf. 1(1/2/3), 100–117 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ashton, S.J.: Preliminary assessment of the potential for pedestrian injury reduction through vehicle design. In: 24th Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 801315 (1980)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yao, J.F., Yang, J.K., Fredriksson, R.: Reconstruction of head-to-hood impact in an automobile-to-child-pedestrian collision. Int. J. Crashworthiness 11(4), 387–395 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berg, F.A., Egelhaaf, M., Bakker, J., Burkle, H., Herrmann, R., Scheerer, J.: Pedestrian Protection In Europe The Potential of Car Design and Impact Testing. Report for United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Demirci, A., Yildiz, AR.: Lightweight design of vehicle energy absorbers using steel, aluminum and magnesium alloys. In: International Conference on Engineering and Natural Science (ICENS), pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savic, V., Pawlicki, M., Krajewski, P., Voss, M., Hector, L., Snavely, K.: Passive pedestrian protection approach for vehicle hoods. In: SAE World Congress & Exhibition, pp. 4271 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mallick, P.K.: Materials, Design and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Camridge, UK, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Samaka, H., Manap, A., Tarlochan, F., Azman, R.F., Ibrahim, N.: Finite element modelling of car hood panel for pedestrian protection during impact. Int. J. Integr. Eng. 8(1), 11–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Binyamin.: Redesign of outer hood panel of Esemka R2 car to improve pedestrian protection using finite. J., 23–37 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang, J., Shen, G.Z., Du, Y., Hu, P.: Modal analysis of a lightweight engine hood design considering stamping effects. J. Appl. Mech. Mater. 281, 364–369 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schulz, J., kalay, H.: Introducing composite material in car bonnet: alternative structures with respect to pedestrain safety. Chalmers University of Technology, Diploma work no. 174/2016 Gothenburg, Sweden (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen, Y., Liu, G., Zhang, Z., Hou, S.: Integrated design technique for materials and structures of vehicle body under crash safety considerations. J. Struct. Multi. Optim. 56(2), 455–472 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peng, Y., Han, Y., Chen, Y., Yang, J., Willinger, R.: Assessment of the protective performance of hood using head FE model in car-to-pedestrian collisions. Int. J. Crashworthiness 17(4), 415–423 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jang, D.H.: Process development for automotive hybrid hood using magnesium alloy AZ31B Sheet. Trans. Mater. Process. J. 20(2), 160–166 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mohan, D., Kajzer, J., Bawa-Bhalla, K.S., Chawla, A.: Impact modelling studies for a three-wheeled scooter taxi. J. Accid. Anal. Prev. 29(2), 161–170 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chawla, A., Mukherjee, S., Mohan, D.: Impact biomechanics in two wheeled and three wheeled vehicles. J. Simul. 110016 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chawla, A., Mukherjee, S., Mohan, D., Singh, J., Rizvi, N.: Crash simulations of three wheeled scooter taxi (Tst). In: 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), pp. 1–14(2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al-Graitti, A.J., Khalid, G.A., Berthelson, P., Mason-Jones, A., Prabhu, R., Jones, M.D.: Auto rickshaw impacts with pedestrians: a computational analysis of post-collision kinematics and injury mechanics. Int. J. Biomed. Biol. Eng. 11(11), 568–587 (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sugiyanto, G., Santi, M.Y.: Road traffic accident cost using human capital method (Case study in Purbalingga, Central Java, Indonesia). J. Technol. 79(2), 107–116 (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Riewpaiboon, A., Piyauthakit, P., Chaikledkaew, U.: Economic burden of road traffic injuries a micro-costing approach. J. Tropical Med. Int. Health 39(6), 1139–1149 (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nguyen, H., Ivers, R.Q., Jan, S., Martiniuk, A.L.C., Li, Q., Pham, C.: The economic burden of road traffic injuries: evidence from a provincial general hospital in Vietnam. J. Inj. Prev. 19, 79–84 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    GSO.: Results of the Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey 2010, Vietnam (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    USGS.: Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ashby, M.: Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier, Boston (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    ICIS.: OUTLOOK 18’: Europe PMMA concerns mount on shortage, robust demand (2018). Accessed 31 Oct 2018
  38. 38.
    Thomas. W., Altan, T.: Aluminum sheet forming for automotive applications, Part I material properties and design guidelines. Stamp J. (2013)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torkestani, A., Sadighi, M., Hedayati, R.: Effect of material type, stacking sequence and impact location on the pedestrian head injury in collisions. J. Thin-Walled Struct. 97, 130–139 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Luo, A.A.: Magnesium: Current and potential automotive applications. Jom J. 54(2), 42–48 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    European aluminum association(EAA).: Aluminium in Cars—Unlocking the Light-Weighting Potential, Belgium (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Motor Sport (New Zeland).: Manual Amendment of Plastic Windscreen for Driver and Vehicle Safety, NewZeland (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Srikanth, K.M., Prakash, R.V.: Assessing the structural crashworthiness of a three-wheeler passenger vehicle. In: the 2nd International Conference on Research into Design, pp. 152–159 (2009)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bajaj.: Three-wheeled-vehicles (2017). Accessed on 31 May 2017
  45. 45.
    Abedrabbo, N., Pourboghrat, F., Carsley, J.: Forming of AA5182-O and AA5754-O at elevated temperatures using coupled thermo-mechanical finite element models. Int. J. Plast. 23(5), 841–875 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Salwani, M.S., Sahari, B.B., Ali, A., Nuraini, A.A.: Assessment of head injury criteria and chest severity index for frontal impact. J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 8, 1376–1382 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hazra, S., Williams, D., Roy, R., Aylmore, R., Smith, A.: Effect of material and process variability on the formability of aluminium alloys. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 211(9), 1516–1526 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Borrisutthekul, R., Miyashita, Y., Mutoh, Y.: Dissimilar material laser welding between magnesium alloy AZ31B and aluminum alloy A5052-O. J. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 6(2), 199–204 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fors, C.: Mechanical Properties of Interlayers in Laminated Glass Experimental and Numerical Evaluation. Lund University (2014)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Deutscher Motor Sport Bund (DMSB): (DTM) Technical Regulations, Frankfurt, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Livesey, A, Robinson, A.: The Repair of Vehicle Bodeies Andew Livesey and a Robinson, 6th edn, New York, USA, (2013)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shah, Q.H.: Impact resistance of a rectangular polycarbonate armor plate subjected to single and multiple impacts. Int. J. Impact Eng. 36(9), 1128–1135 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mullaoǧlu, F., Usta, F., Türkmen, H.S., Kazanci, Z., Balkan, D., Akay, E.: Deformation behavior of the polycarbonate plates subjected to impact loading. J. Procedia Eng. 167, 143–150 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mertz, H.J., Prasad, P., Nusholtz, G.: Head injury risk assessment for forehead impacts. In: SAE Technical Paper (1996)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Prasad, P., Mertz, H.J.: The position of the united states delegation to the ISO working group 6 on the use of HIC in the automotive environment. In: SAE Technical Paper (1985)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kikuchi, A., Ono, K., Nakamura, N.: Human head tolerance to lateral impact deduced from experimental head injuries using primates. In: The 8 Enhanced Safety Vehicle Conference (ESV), pp. 251–261 (1982)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mcintosh. A.S., Svensson, N.L., Kallieris, D., Mattern, R., Krabbel, G., Ikels, K.: Head impact tolerance in side impacts. In Proceedings: 15th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, pp. 1273–1280 (1996)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Genneralli, T.A.: The state of the art of head injury biomechanics—a review. In: Proceedinds of the 29th Annual American Association for Automotive Medicine (AAAM) Conference (1985)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nikolaevich, S.A., Valerievich, A.A., Igorevich, G.A., Alexandrovich, S.A., Alexandrovich, S.M.: Advanced materials of automobile bodies in volume production. Eur. Transp. 56, 1–27 (2014)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Eppinger, R., Sun, E., Bandak, F., Haffner, M., Khaewpong, N., Maltese, M., Kuppa, S., Nguyen, T., Takhounts, E., Tannous, R., Zhang, A., Saul, R.: Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systemsy-II, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    MuseR, M.H., Niederer, P.: A new neck injury criterion candidate for rear-end collisions taking into account shear forces and bending moments. In: 17th Enhanced Safety Vehicle Conference (ESV), pp. 1–9 (2000)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Muser, M.H., Walz, F.H., Zellmer, H.: Biomechanical significance of the rebound phase in low speed rear end impacts. In: International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, pp. 393–410 (2000)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Parr, J.C., Miller, M.E., Bridges, N.R., Buhrman, J.R., Perry, C.E., Wright, N.L.: Evaluation of the Nij neck injury criteria with human response data for use in future research on helmet mounted display mass properties. Proc. Human Factors Ergon. Soc. Annual Meet. 56(1), 2070–2074 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Binyamin, S., Bil Haq, A.H.: Investigation of aluminum alloy for lightweight outer hood panel of local compact SUV using finite element modeling. In: AIP Conference, p. 30038–1 (1997)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Masoumi, A., Shojaeefard, M.H., Najibi, A.: Comparison of steel, aluminum and composite bonnet in terms of pedestrian head impact. J. Saf. Sci. 49(10), 1371–1380 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Al-Graitti
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. Smith
    • 1
  • R. Prabhu
    • 2
  • M. D. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiff School of EngineeringCardiff UniversityWalesUK
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering and the Centre for Advanced Vehicular SystemsMississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations