Reconstruction model of vehicle impact speed in pedestrianvehicle accident

Jun Xu
a,
*
, Yibing Li
a
, Guangquan Lu
b,1
, Wei Zhou
a
a
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Department of Automotive Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
b
School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 May 2008
Received in revised form
11 November 2008
Accepted 12 November 2008
Available online 27 November 2008
Keywords:
Accident reconstruction
Pedestrianvehicle accident
Impact speed
PVB windshield glazing
Deection
a b s t r a c t
Reconstruction of pedestrianvehicle accident is a worldwide problem. Numerous previous studies have
been carried out on accidents with vehicular skid marks or denite pedestrian throwdistances. However,
little could be done if marks or throwdistances cannot be obtained in accident reconstruction. This paper
rst describes the physical model of dynamic process of pedestrian head impact on windshield glazing.
Some simplications are made to obtain a better and more practical model, including discussing the
support boundary conditions. Firstly, the paper modeled the relations between pedestrian impact speed
and deection of windshield glazing based on the impact dynamics and thin plate theory. Later, the
relations of vehicle impact speed and deection are discussed. Therefore, a model of vehicle impact
speed versus deection of windshield glazing is developed. The model is then veried by ten real-world
accident cases to demonstrate its accuracy and reliability. This model provides investigators a new
method to reconstruct pedestrianvehicle accidents.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Worldwide signicant efforts have been made to improve the
protection of vulnerable road users against injuries and deaths,
especially for pedestrians. However, the situation of pedestrian
safety is still severe and worrying. China has been consistently
ranked as a country with high percentage of pedestrian fatality
rates because of its mixed trafc and transportation ways.
According to the Road Trafc Accident Annual Census Report of
China [1], more than 89,455 persons died in at least 378,781 acci-
dent cases in 2006, among which, pedestrian accounted for 26.01%,
the highest proportion of all trafc fatalities. On the average, in
China, a pedestrian is injured in every 5 min and one is killed in
every 17 min. Even in a country where the trafc management is
comparatively well organized, for example, the US, pedestrian
safety is also the focus of public safety. In 1999 in the US, there were
4907 pedestrian killed, weighting 12% of all trafc fatalities [2].
While the age and state of health of the pedestrian, the nature of
the impact and the vehicle shape all affect the outcome of injury,
the prime factor in injury/fatality risk is the vehicle impact speed
[35]. Vehicle impact speed is the prior focus of accident
investigators.
At the very beginning, the reconstruction model used in vehicle
speed estimation is based on energy conservation law: rst a coef-
cient is determined by the pattern of skid mark according to
previous experience and then the coefcient and the length of skid
mark are employed to decide the initial velocity at the beginning of
the mark [68], see Eq. (1)
v
c

2mgs
p
(1)
where mis the coefcient of tyre-to-road; s is the length of the skid
mark; g is the acceleration of gravity; v
c
refers to the velocity of
vehicle.
However, many pedestrianvehicle accidents are without skid
marks. As the ABS (Antilock Break System) is widely used nowa-
days, fewer marks would be left when the vehicle breaks. In
addition, the road surface under certainweather conditions, such as
snow and rain, would have no marks left on it. Aiming to solve this
problem, a pedestrian throwdistance model to estimate the vehicle
initial impact speed based on kinematics law was developed by
SchmidtNageld [9]. Several passenger cars with different vehicle
masses, dimensions and initial impact velocities were tested. The
following empirical formula was obtained through data tting:
X 0:0178mgv
c
0:0271v
2
c
=mg (2)
where X is the throwing distance.
Many authors have done numerous tests to determine the
coefcients in the throwdistance model and made some changes to
the parameters [1016]. Whats more, along with the model, comes
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 86 10 62772721.
E-mail addresses: xujun06@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (J. Xu), liyb@mail.tsing-
hua.edu.cn (Y. Li), lugq@buaa.edu.cn (G. Lu), zw99@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (W.
Zhou).
1
Tel.: 86 10 82317350
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Impact Engineering
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ i j i mpeng
0734-743X/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.11.008
International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 783788
another problem: it is a difcult task to determine the pedestrian
throwing distance because traces or marks that indicate the contact
point of vehicle and pedestrian are not easy to acquire in the
accident scene. Therefore, Braun and Strobl [16,17] used throw
distance of spinning fragment from windshield and lamp to esti-
mate the impact velocity of vehicle. Following this work, Xu [8,18
20] put forward a generalised fragment throw distance model to
calculate the impact speed of vehicle by employing the dimensions
of the glass fragment eld, based on the kinematics law. According
to authors accidents investigation experiences, exact values of
parameters describing the glass fragments are difcult to gain.
Windshield glazing on modern vehicle consisting of two soda lime
glass plies adhered by a polymer interlayer. PVB (polyvinyl butyryl),
a widely used windshield interlayer, has two major advantages over
monolithic glass: energy-absorbing and fragmentglutinosity,
indicating fewer fragments would spin on the ground. Therefore,
the above-mentioned methods are limited in investigation and
reconstruction.
There are three phases in pedestrianvehicle accidents accord-
ing to the motion of pedestrian: vehicle bumper rst impacts with
pedestrians leg, dened as contact phase; and then, pedestrians
head impacts with windshield, engine hood or A-pillar, called
impact phase; pedestrian slides down onto the ground at last,
named as fall-over phase. 237 pedestrianvehicle accidents were
picked out from National Trafc Accident Database of Tsinghua
University (NTADTU), among which, head impact on the wind-
screen accounted for 81.02% of all the vehicle part contacted with
pedestrian head. It is obvious that windshield of vehicle contains
much information about accidents.
In this paper, a proper impact dynamics model is put forward
describing impact between pedestrian head and windshield. A
mathematical model characterizing the deection of the impacted
point and impact speed of pedestrian head is suggested. After
combining the two models, a complete reconstruction model of
vehicle impact speed calculation is developed. Finally, in order to
demonstrate the validity of the model, ten real-world accidents are
chosen to compare the results.
2. Methods
2.1. Abstract physical model
As mentioned above, a typical composite PVB windshield
glazing has two pieces of glass with an interlayer between them.
When head crashes into the windshield plate, there is a clear
deection of the impacted point on the glazing, shown in Fig. 1. The
deection is much lager than the thickness of the entire glazing,
indicating that it is a large deformation problem. Thus, we consider
there is no slide between the layers for simplicity.
The shape of windshield glazing can be regarded as rectangle
and the entire windshield glazing is considered as a composite thin
plate. The comparative directions of pedestrian motion to that of
vehicle are of various kinds. To make the problemsimply, we ignore
the prominence on the head, for instance, eyes, noses and ears. In
other words, the head is treated as a sphere headform.
Windshield glazing is usually supported by rubber bar made of
polyurethane, a kind of elastic material. Without the loss of gener-
ality, in such boundary conditions, one border (y 0) is taken as
example. The equations describing the boundary condition are [21]:

V
y

y0
D
"
v
3
w
vy
3

2 nv
3
w
vx
2
vy
#
y0
K
11
w
y0
(3)

M
y

y0
D
"
v
2
w
vy
2

mv
2
w
vx
2
#
y0
0 (4)
where V
y
is the shear force of unite length, D Eh
3
=121 m
2
, E is
theYoungs modulus of the plate, h is the thickness of the plate, w is
the deection of the plate, (x, y) is the displacement of point on the
plate in the global coordinate, n is thePoissons ration, K
11
is the
spring stiffness of the elastic foundation, M
y
is the rotation moment
of unite length.
Obviously, K
11
0 represents free boundary and K
11
N refers
to simply support boundary.
Then, we conduct nite element analysis (FEA) to show the
difference in deection of plate under different boundary condi-
tions. A rectangular plate made of composite laminated glass
material is analyzed in FEA method. Fig. 2 shows that there are only
about 3% differences between two boundary conditions. Due to the
brittleness of the glass material, the plate cannot bear much
deection and bending moment. As a result, the effect of boundary
conditions on the deection of plate is much less. For simplicity, we
consider the support boundary as simply support one.
Thus, an abstract physical model of impact between pedestrian
head and windshield glazing is conceived, see Fig. 3.
The above typical three-layered windshield glazing is consid-
ered. t
i
denotes the thickness of a certain layer. Subscripts gand
PVB refer to glass and PVB lm separately. R is the radius of
average pedestrian head (impactor/indenter). The head crashed
into the windshield glazing with a velocity ofv
0
. We dene the glass
layer which would contact with the head as inner glass layer, and
the other glass layer is called outer glass layer.
Fig. 1. Windshield glazing under the impact of pedestrian head.
0 2 4 6 8 10
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Time (ms)
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

p
o
i
n
t

d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)
Free support boundary
Simply support boundary
Fig. 2. Comparison of central point deection under free support boundary and simply
support boundary.
J. Xu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 783788 784
2.2. Material model
The stressstrain relations of PVB are inuenced by time
because PVB is a viscoelastic material. Ref. [22] pointed out that the
time period of impact between pedestrian head and windshield
glazing is comparatively short, about 0.1 s. In such a short time
period, the shear modulus G(t) of PVB would not change a lot. Thus,
we consider PVB is a linear elastic material during the impact. Both
inner glass layer and outer glass layer are common oat glass, so
relations between shear modulus G(t), bulk modulus K, Youngs
modulus E and Poissons ratio n are [24]:
G
E
21 n
(5)
K
E
31 2n
(6)
Same formulae could be used on calculating PVB material.
Glass and PVB lm both can be treated as orthotropic materials
according to their physical and material properties. Therefore, we
assume that each layer of composite windshield is orthotropic with
respect to its material symmetry lines and obeys Hookes law. It
then becomes reasonable to consider the composite windshield as
integrity. As a result, an equivalent elastic modulus and Poissons
ration should be introduced as follows [24]:
E
2t
g
E
g
t
p
E
p
2t
g
t
p
(7)
n
2t
g
n
g
t
p
n
p
2t
g
t
p
(8)
where E and n are equivalent Youngs modulus and equivalent
Poissons ration of windshield glazing.
We are concerned about the dynamic response of windshield in
this paper. Consequently, we dont have to investigate many details
about pedestrian head. Only values of physical parameters from
references are substituted into the featureless spherical headform
used in this study.
2.3. Dynamics model
2.3.1. Deection versus pedestrian head impact speed model
Usually, pedestrian head would intrude into the windshield and
cause the glazing plate curving or even broken, shown in Fig. 4.
Denoting the time period during the impact t, the impact force
of the pedestrian head is
F M
dv
0
dt
(9)
where M is the mass of headform; v
0
is initial speed of headform.
If we denote by s the distance that the headform approaches the
windshield, it is obvious to see that:
_ s v
0
(10)
Greszczuk [25] showed that if the contact duration between the
impactor and the target is very long in comparison with their
natural periods, vibrations of the system can be neglected. It can
then be assumed that the impact force according to the Hertz
contact law could be described as follows:
F
c
ns
2=3
(11)
where n is the contact stiffness dened by the shape of the impactor.
Headform is sphere-shaped object, and then n can be written as
n
4

R
p
3pk
1
k
2

(12)
where
k
1

1 n
2
1
pE
1

1 n
2
pE
(13)
k
2

1 n
2
2
pE
2
(14)
When studying the contact behavior of composite material,
Sankar [26] indicated that Eq. (14) can be rewritten as follows:
k
0
2

1
pE
2
(15)
Impact force and the corresponding deection have a certain
relation in impact problem:
F
p
K
p
d
p
(16)
where F
p
represents contact force; K
p
is the elastic property of the
windshield glazing, depending on the material of the glazing; d
p
is
the curvature of the glazing.
The governing equation can be acquired according to the system
energy conservation law:
1
2
Mv
2
0

Z
d
max
0
F
p
dd
p

Z
s
0
F
c
ds (17)
Substitution of (11) and (16) into (17) yields:
1
2
Mv
2
0

1
2
K
p
d
2
p

2
5
ns
2=5
(18)
Considering F
c
F
p
F, we are able to rewrite (18):
1
2
Mv
2
0

1
2

F
2
K
p
!

2
5

F
3=5
n
2=3
!
(19)
Young [27] suggested that when a rectangular plate is simply
supported, the above-mentioned elastic property can be
determined:
R
t
g
t
g
t
P
v
0
Windshield
glazing
Headform
Inner glass layer
PVB film
Outer glass layer
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of a sphere pedestrian headform impacting on a wind-
shield glazing.
S

p
Windshield
Head form
Fig. 4. Headform impact on the windshield glazing.
J. Xu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 783788 785
K
p

E
2
h
3
w
ab
2
(20)
where h
w
is the thickness of the plate and a, b are the lengths of the
two sides, respectively.
Substitution of (12) and (20) into (19) yields:
v
0

2
M

F
2

ab
2
2E
2
h
3
w
!
F
3=5

2
5

3pk
1
k
2

2=3
16R
!!!
v
u
u
t
(21)
Thus, base on Navier method [28], deection of windshield
glazing (rectangular plate) under the impact of pedestrian head is
expressed as
wx; y
4F
p
4
E
2
Iab
X
N
m1
X
N
n1
sin
mpx
a
sin
nph
b

m
a

n
b

2
sin
mpx
a
sin
npy
b
(22)
where E
2
I is the exural rigidity of windshield; x, h are the distances
to the nearest side of windshield; I is the largest moment of inertia
of the windshield.
Therefore, we can obtain:
F
wx; yp
4
E
2
Iab
4
P
N
m1
P
N
n1
sin
mpx
a
sin
nph
b

m
a

n
b

2
sin
mpx
a
sin
npy
b
(23)
Substituting (23) into (21), the rst half of the entire model that
describes the relations between deection and head impact velocity
can be developed. In this case, we can easilycalculate the pedestrian
head impact velocity if we obtain the exact measurement.
2.3.2. Pedestrian head impact speed versus vehicle impact speed
model
According to the front-end shape, mini-cars, small, midsize and
large sedans, sports and specialty vehicles, wagons and SUVs can
also be grouped together as bonnet-type vehicles [29]. Vehicle
impact speed is not the same as pedestrian head impact speed for
bonnet-type vehicles due to the revolution of pedestrian in impact.
Such vehicles are involved most in pedestrianvehicle accidents.
There are two phases between vehicle rst contact with
pedestrian and pedestrian head impact with windshield: contact
phase and impact phase. (see Fig. 5).
Pedestrian is regarded as a single rigid body with initial
momentum I; rotation radius R
p
. Hence, the momentum of
pedestrian is
Fh Ia (23)
where F is the contact force; h denotes to the height of contact
point; a is the angular acceleration of pedestrian.
During the impact time t
i
, h and I are constant. Integration for
Eq. (23), we get:
h
Z
t
i
0
Fdt I
Z
t
i
0
adt (24)
Due to the momentum conservation law, we can also obtain:
Z
t
i
0
Fdt m
p

v
p1
0

(25)
where v
p1
and m
p
are velocity and mass of pedestrian, respectively.
And it is also known to all that:
Z
t
i
0
adt u
1
0 (26)
where u
1
is the angular velocity of pedestrian.
Combination of (25) and (26) and substitution into (24)
yields [12]:
m
p
v
p1
h Iu
1
(27)
Because I m
p
R
p
2
, the following equation can be acquired [12]:
v
p1
h u
1
R
2
p
(28)
The vehicle impact speed v
0
can be expressed as [12]:
v
0
v
p1
u
1
h (29)
As a result of horizontal momentum conservation, the kinetic
momentum of the pedestrianvehicle system is [12]:
m
v
v
0
m
p
v
p1
m
v

u
1
h v
p1

(30)
where m
v
is the mass of vehicle.
Fig. 5. Schematic of contact phase and impact phase.
Windshield dimension
Location of impact point
Deflection of windshield
panel
Moment of inertia of
windshield and
pedestrian
Young s modulus and
Poisson s ratio of PVB,
glass, pedestrian head
Mass of vehicle
Mass of pedestrian
Mass and radius of
pedestrian head
Reconstruction
Model
Velocity of vehicle
Input Calculation Output
Fig. 6. Illustration of the brief structure of the model.
J. Xu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 783788 786
Substitute (27) into (28) and then into (30), the pedestrian
impact speed v
i
is [12]:
v
0

m
v
v
p1
h
2

m
v
m
p

R
2
p
m
v
h
2
(31)
Combination of (21) and (23) and (31) yields:
v
0

2
M

F
2

ab
2
2E2hw

F
3=5

2
5

3pk1k2
2=3
16R

r

m
v
m
p

R
2
p
m
v
h
2
m
v
h
2
(32)
where
F
wx; yp
4
E
2
Iab
4
P
N
m1
P
N
n1
sin
mpx
a
sin
nph
b

m
a

n
b

2
sin
mpx
a
sin
npy
b
2.4. Model summary
Lets summarize the model for convenience. The whole model
can be illustrated as Fig. 6. One may not worry about the burden to
input so many values of different variables. Some of them are of
constant values.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Determination of parameters in the model
In real-world accident reconstruction, we are quite easy to
attain the stature and weight of pedestrian from police investiga-
tion les. Based on Ref. [32], masses, center of masses, inertias, and
distance between inertias of every body part can be acquired.
Parallel axis theorem is employed to calculate the rotation radius
and inertia of entire pedestrian. PVB material properties in wind-
shield glazing are almost the same, in accident reconstruction, then
we consider n
PVB
const 0.49for simplicity. The parameters of
PVB and glass are determined in Table 1.
3.2. Real-world accidents for comparison
Because the exact impact velocity cannot be obtained in real-
world trafc accidents, we had to choose the real-world pedes-
trianvehicle accidents with skid marks and consider speed calcu-
lated by skid marks is the exact one. We picked up ten real-world
accidents from NTADTU which have both skid marks and wind-
shield deection. Results after comparison are listed as Table 2.
3.3. Results discussion
First of all, the differences, among which the maximum value is
10.78% and average value is 7.56%, showing us that this newly
developed model is accurate and reliable enough for us to employ it
in pedestrianvehicle accidents without skid marks or pedestrian
throw distances. Using this model to further verify the results of
accidents reconstruction are able to enhance the accuracy and reli-
ability of the reconstruction results. This model provides us a new
andconvenient methodtoinvestigate pedestrianvehicle accidents.
Secondly, ten speed values computed fromthe model are a little
bit smaller than the exact speed values. One reason is that the
simplicity of the supporting boundary is responsible for it. Exact
deection is larger than the deection occurred with simply sup-
portedboundary plate, leading the results of model smaller. It canbe
concludedsafely that if moreexact elastic conditionis employed, the
results would be better. Another reason is that in relative high speed
30 40 50 60 70 80
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Speed (km/h)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
%
)
Fig. 7. Differences increase if the vehicle impact speed increases.
Table 1
Parameters used in both constitutive relations and nite element analysis.
Components Parameters and values
Headform [23] E 6.5 GPa, r 1412 kg/m
3
, n 0.22
Glass [30] E 74 GPa, r 2500 kg/m
3
, n 0.25, t
g
2 mm
PVB lm [31] K 20 GPa, r 1100 kg/m
3
, t
p
0.76 mm
Windshield dimension Panel dimensions (a b): 1320 mm630 mm
Table 2
Comparison of exact speed with speed calculated from the model.
Case I Case II Case III Case IV Case V Case VI Case VII Case VIII Case IX Case X
Length of skid mark (m) 11.23 7.80 9.30 15.40 23.00 8.40 15.30 21.10 19.80 24.00
Roadtyre adhesion coefcient 0.841 0.790 0.690 0.740 0.862 0.766 0.760 0.812 0.820 0.760
Deection of windshield on the
impacted point (mm)
37 23 19 42 49 27 41 47 45 48
Location of impacted point
(x mm, h mm)
(145, 650) (350, 600) (230, 100) (250, 400) (240, 470) (135, 460) (735, 160) (135, 695) (635, 395) (715, 480)
Dimensions of windshield
(a mm, b mm)
(1320, 620) (1310, 730) (1350, 730) (1280, 630) (1200, 680) (1310, 670) (1400, 710) (1350, 660) (1295, 625) (1380, 690)
Bumper height (mm) 505 495 525 495 505 499 530 512 501 510
Weight of pedestrian (kg) 46 53 75 65 78 69 79 76 69 74
Mass of vehicle (kg) 1325 1880 1225 1480 1290 1340 2105 1890 1450 1655
Stature of pedestrian (cm) 175 168 172 166 173 158 176 173 166 169
Exact speed (km/h) 48.98 39.56 40.37 53.80 70.97 40.42 54.34 65.97 64.22 68.07
Result of the model (km/h) 45.94 37.42 38.18 50.20 63.72 37.31 51.29 60.99 57.81 60.73
Difference (%) 6.20 5.40 5.42 6.70 10.22 7.69 5.61 7.55 9.98 10.78
J. Xu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 783788 787
accidents windshieldis brokenbecauseof largedeformationinmost
cases. Measurements of deection cannot be accurate enough,
usually smaller than the exact measurements. Therefore, the results
would be smaller in some extent. Moreover, the effective mass of
headwouldincrease a lot if pedestrianis impactedbyvehicle inhigh
speed and then rotated a lot. To conclude, this model may not be
suitable to reconstruct high speed pedestrianvehicle accident.
Thirdly, this model excludes the consideration for curvature and
thickness of the windshield as well as the windshield angle. In most
cases, curvature inwindshield is small so we treat the windshield as
a plate, not a shell. Most of the windshields on modern passenger
vehicles have the same thickness according to the automotive
industrial standard. Actually, the windshield angle may vary from
one vehicle to another. Thus, the impact speed of the pedestrian
head would decrease slightly according to the exact angle, affecting
the accuracy of the model.
In addition, the comparison results show that with the speed
increasing, the differences increase. Fig. 7 shows that the relation
between the speed and difference may be: speed difference
a
. This
relation suggests that this vehicle impact speed reconstruction
model might not be suitable for high-speed accidents. Deection of
windshield is difcult to measure and difculty in determining the
deection of windshield in high-speed accidents suggesting the
model not suitable for such cases as well.
Last but not the least, in some cases, not only did the pedestrian
head impact on the windshield glazing, but also the shoulder of
pedestrian impacted on the glazing. In the latter scenario, should-
ers impact on the windshield would add the deection of wind-
shield that is hard to distinguish. It is suggested not to employ this
model under such circumstances.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, we rst constructed the abstract physical model
describing dynamic process that the pedestrian head impacts on
the composite PVB windshield glazing. Some necessary simpli-
cations were made. Material model was then chosen. The most
important part of the paper is the development of the dynamic
model of vehicle impact speed versus windshield deection. Based
onimpact dynamics and rectangular plate theory, the entire process
of pedestrianvehicle accident excluding the slide down phase was
discussed. The results of new model showed good agreement with
those calculated from skid marks considered as exact speed in ten
real-world accidents. Therefore, a new and reliable method of
accident reconstruction method is established. However, this new
model may not be suitable to calculate the vehicle impact velocity in
high speed collision accident between pedestrian and vehicle as
mentioned above. In addition, one should check the impact point to
ensure that it is head not shouldimpacting onthe windshieldbefore
using this new calculation method.
Acknowledgement
This work is a part of the project titled Road Trafc Accident
Reconstruction Analysis Platform (No. 20052DGGBJSJ002) in
support of Police Ministry of Peoples Republic of China and a part
of the project titled Dynamic response of PVB laminated wind-
shield subjected to head impact supported by State Key Laboratory
of Automotive Safety & Energy, Tsinghua University.
The authors also thank the anonymous referees useful
comments and suggestions.
References
[1] Trafc management bureau of Police Ministry. Road trafc accident annual
census report of China. Beijing; 2007.
[2] Ballesteros MF, Dischinger PC, Langenberg P. Pedestrian injuries and vehicle type
in Marylan, 19951999. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2004;36(5):7381.
[3] Walz FH, Hoeiger M, Fehlmann W. Speed limit reduction from 60 to 50 km/h
and pedestrian injuries. 27th Stapp Car Crash Conference. Detroit: SAE Inter-
national; 1983. p. 3118.
[4] Howard M, Thomas A, Koch W, Watson J, Hardy R. Validation and application
of a nite element pedestrian humanoid model for use in pedestrian accident
simulations. International Research Committee on Biokinetics of Impacts
Conference. Lisbon, Portugal: IRCOBI; 2000. p. 10119.
[5] Wood DP, Simms CK, Walsh DG. Vehiclepedestrian collisions: validated models
for pedestrian impact and projection. Proceedings of the institution of Mechan-
ical Engineers Part D: Journal of Automotive Engineering 2005;219:18395.
[6] Yibing L. Study on the road trafc accident reconstruct analysis theory. Auto-
motive Engineering. Doctoral dissertation, Beijing: Tsinghua University; 2004.
[7] Han, Brach RM. Impact throw model for vehiclepedestrian collision reconstruc-
tion. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 2002;216(6):44353.
[8] Xu HG. Automotive accident engineering. Beijing: Peoples Trafc Press; 2004.
[9] Schmidt DN. and Nagel DA. Pedestrian impact case study. Proceedings of the
15th conference association for automobile medicine; 1971.
[10] Hill GS. Calculations of vehicle speed from pedestrian throw. Impact 1994 [J.
Inst. Trafc Accid. Invest.].
[11] Severy D. Auto pedestrian impact experiments. Detroit: Society of Automotive
Engineers; 1963. Paper No 1963-12-0025.
[12] Wood D. Impact and movement of pedestrian in frontal collisions with
vehicles. Proceedings of Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Part D, Automobile
Engineering 1998;202:10110.
[13] The Institute of Trafc Accident Investigator, Impact results of pedestrian crash
tests, The rst conference of ITAI. Hull, UK: 1993.
[14] Fugger T, Randles B, Eubanks J. Comparison of pedestrian accident recon-
struction models to experimental test data for wrap trajectories. IMechE
Conference Transactions 2000(2); 2000.
[15] Wood DP, Walsh DG. A hybrid model for pedestrian impact and projection.
International Journal of Crashworthiness 2002;7(3):285305.
[16] Braun H. Splitterwurfweiten: eine experimentelle Untersuchung. Der Ver-
kehrsunfall 1980;(2):3743 [in German].
[17] Strobl H. Betrachung zum Thema Steinschlag. Verkehrsunfall und Fahrzeug-
technik 1996;(9):1520 [in German].
[18] Xu HG, Ren Y, Wang LF. Determination on mechanics parameters of colliding
on roadway for throwing object of trafc accident. Journal of Highway and
Transportation Research and Development 2003;20(2):1004.
[19] Xu HG, Gao W, Su J, Gao YL, Chen LF. Multi-value problem of collision velocity in
motor vehicleaccident. China Journal of HighwayandTransport 1996;9(1):8793.
[20] Xu HG, Gao YL, Chen LF, Apeil H. China Journal of Highway and Transport
1994;7(2):7581.
[21] Li WL. Vibration analysis of rectangular plates with general elastic boundary
supports. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2004;273(9):61937.
[22] Dharani LR, Mettu SR, Zhao S, Barbat SD, Chai L. Modelling fracture in lami-
nated automotive glazing impacted by spherical featureless headform. SAE
2003 World Congress. Detroit: SAE International; 2003.
[23] Mencik J. Strength and fracture of glass and ceramics. Tokyo: Elsevier Science
Publishing Company, Inc.; 1992.
[24] Zhao S, Dharani LR, Chai L, Barbat SD. Analysis of damage in laminated
automotive glazing subjected to simulated head impact. Engineering Failure
Analysis 2006;13(4):58297.
[25] Zukas JA, Nicholas T, Swift HF, Greszczuk LB, Curran DR, editors. Impact
dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1982. p. 96.
[26] Sankar BV. Low-velocity impact response and damage in composite materials.
Key Engineering Materials 1996;121(122):54982.
[27] Young WC, Budynas RG. Roarks strainstress formula. Beijing: Tsinghua
University Press; 2003.
[28] Ventsel E, Krauthammer T. Thin plates and shells theory, analysis, and appli-
cation. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2001.
[29] Maki T, Kajzer J, Mizuno K, Sekine Y. Comparative analysis of vehiclebicyclist
and vehiclepedestrian accidents in Japan. Accident Analysis and Prevention
2003;35(6):92740.
[30] Ruan JS. Impact biomechanics of head injury by mathematical modelling.
Mechanical Engineering. Detroit: Wayne State University; 1994.
[31] Yang JJ, Mo J, Shi XY. In: Committee NASGST, editor. Automotive safety glass.
Beijing, China: China Standard Press; 2003.
[32] Cao Q. Manmachine design engineering. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong
University; 1988.
Jun Xu: Graduate student of Department of Automotive Engineering, Tsinghua
University. Research interests: vehicle impact safety, trafc accident reconstruction
and driver behavior.
Yibing Li: Professor of Department of Automotive Engineering, Tsinghua University.
Research interests: trafc accident reconstruction and measurement technology.
Guangquan Lu: Associate professor of School of Transportation Science and Engi-
neering, Beihang University, China. Research interests include road trafc safety, driver
behavior, accident reconstruction, and application of computer vision in road trafc
system.
Wei Zhou: Master, graduated from Department of Automotive Engineering, Tsinghua
University. Research interests: trafc accident reconstruction and simulation.
J. Xu et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 783788 788