International Journal of Crashworthiness

ISSN: 1358-8265 (Print) 1754-2111 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Study of the influence of impact velocity and angle

of impact against a motorcyclists´ protection
systems design and neural damage sustained
using numerical methods

Ramon Miralbes, David Ranz & Juan Peña

To cite this article: Ramon Miralbes, David Ranz & Juan Peña (2018): Study of the influence
of impact velocity and angle of impact against a motorcyclists´ protection systems design and
neural damage sustained using numerical methods, International Journal of Crashworthiness, DOI:
10.1080/13588265.2018.1424297

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2018.1424297

Published online: 17 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcrs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2018.1424297

Study of the influence of impact velocity and angle of impact against a

motorcyclists
protection systems design and neural damage sustained using
numerical methods
~a
Ramon Miralbes, David Ranz and Juan Pen
Department of Design and Manufacturing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

MPS (Motorcyclists
protection systems) play an essential role in the reduction of fatalities and Received 9 August 2017
morbidity involved in motorbike and moped accidents, since they offer protection from impact Accepted 30 December 2017
against road elements such as guardrail posts and nearby elements such as traffic signs, trees, etc. KEYWORDS
For the standardisation of such elements, different regulations have been developed which, by Finite element method; HIC;
means of experimental tests, allow the simulation of those accidents through tests at a specific motorcycle; protection;
velocity and angle. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that, under different angles and velocity, numerical; impact
those systems fail to be safe. To assess this, a series of accidents involving diverse angles and
velocities have been studied through virtual tests by using numerical models and the finite
elements method with a view to obtaining data on head acceleration and neural damage
sustained in the event of collision against MPS. In addition, the accidentology for this type of
vehicles has been studied in order to break accidents down according to impact angle and velocity
impact range as well as age category and gender of those sustaining injuries. To that aim,
homologated commercial MPS have been analysed in order to get the variation of the main
biomechanical indexes depending on the impact angle and velocity; the results thus obtained have
allowed us to determine the real security level of the MPS studied. This information has been
extrapolated to determine the level of security provided by MPS. Finally some modifications in the
homologation regulations to improve safety of MPS have been suggested.

1. Introduction of single vehicle accidents, the main cause was attributed

to a human error (66%) of the driver, usually skidding
The design of those elements found on road infrastruc-
and falling of the rider owing to overbreaking, or the
ture is essential to provide security for all road users,
wrong negotiation of a bend or excessive speed when
especially for those most vulnerable such as powered
doing so. Bad weather conditions were decisive only in
two-wheeler riders (PTWRs); there are two main differ-
2% of the accidents.
ent accident typologies: the direct impact of the vehicle
Finally, the study indicates that a significant percent-
and the impact of the PTWRs after falling off their
age (16%) of the single vehicle accidents, are due to
vehicle.
human factors with riders falling onto the road and slid-
In-depth studies carried on by Hurt et al. [1] about
ing. The result is their impact against an element of the
900 PTWs accidents in the metropolitan area of Los
road such as a lamp post, a sign post or another post or
Angeles and some other 3.600 accidents in other parts of
against elements with high stiffness found in the vicinity
the United States were essential to characterise some
such as trees or others; in some cases a fall from a certain
aspects of this type of accident. Findings showed that in
height occurs.
three-quarters of these accidents, another vehicle, usu-
The impact of a vehicle against a rigid element close
ally a car, was involved; whereas in the remaining quar-
to a road such as a post or a tree is especially dangerous.
ter no other vehicle or user was involved. That is what is
Therefore, road restrain systems (RRS), also called road
usually called ‘single vehicle’ accident.
safety barriers (RSB) are useful to redirect a vehicle and
Upon analysis of the main cause of these accidents,
prevent it from leaving the road and colliding against
only 3% were due to mechanical failure of the vehicle
rigid elements. However, the design of RRS design
itself, usually a flat tyre; a defect on the road involved
involves a continuous horizontal steel profile (with its
only 2% and a collision with an animal 1%. In the case

CONTACT Ramon Miralbes miralbes@unizar.es

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. MIRALBES ET AL.
different sections joined) at a certain height and joined
to the ground by means of some vertical post. The verti-
cal posts are especially dangerous for PTW riders
involved in accidents as these rigid elements, being usu-
ally placed on the outside of a curve, are those against
which riders tend to impact when sliding. That is why
RRS substantially reduce injuries in the event of a car or
lorry accident whereas for the particular case of PTW
riders they increase the risk of injuries and fatalities, as
pointed by Pothin and Desire [2]. Their work, based on
a study of accidents in France, discloses that 18% of the
deaths of PTW riders were due to impacts against RRS
and only 1.7% were due to impact against concrete bar-
riers. An in-depth analysis of the data discloses that one
of the most frequent typology of accident of PTWs
found on interurban roads was the impact against a
metallic RRS, entailing 30% of fatalities in bikers. There-
fore, it can be concluded that users of interurban roads
are especially vulnerable in the case of impacts with RRS.
Other studies, such as Forke [3] indicate that 4.7% of
all types of accidents are due to impacts of PTW riders
against a road element or a rigid element in the vicinity
of the road, but account for between 10% and 15% of
deaths in Germany and Austria. In the case of Australia,
Gibson and Benetatos [4] indicate that these elements are
the cause of only 2.5% of the deaths; this difference is
mainly due to the fact that in Australia, roads are usually
straight and there are fewer RRS. The studies by Cam-
pagne [5] about accidents in France, Germany, Italy,
Netherlands and Spain between 1999 and 2000 show that
6.5% of deaths and severe injuries in PTW accidents
were due to impact against barriers. Furthermore, impacts
against RRS account solely for 4.2% of those collisions
taking place in urban areas, whereas they were the second
cause of death in rural areas, with collisions against
another vehicle being the first one. In the case of the
United States, as pointed out by Ibitoye et al. [6], this
type of impact accounts for 4% of PTW riders
fatalities.
To solve this problem and reduce the risk of RRS for
PTW riders, some projects such as the European FEMA
[7], which RRS ‘motorcycle-friendly’ RRS, and Euro
RAP [8,9] which was a French initiative, were developed.
The latter led to Euro RAP [9], where we can find that
impact against a RRS accounts for 8%–16% of all deaths
of PTW riders. In this type of accident, the probability
of riders dying is 15 times as high as other vehicle occu-
pants, with the design of RRS being especially hazardous
for PTW riders. The study also reveals the specific dan-
ger posed by horizontal metallic barriers when compared
to concrete barriers, with a fivefold increase in injuries
and a higher likelihood of death.
The studies of Gabler [10] on impacts with RRS in the
United States indicated that, while the motorcycle and
moped fleet is only 2% of all the US vehicles, collisions
with RRS account for 42% of PTW riders
fatalities. The
study also indicates that while in the period 2000–2005,
deaths due to impacts with RRS in cars decreased by
31%, they increased by 73% for PTWs. Therefore, the
conclusion can be drawn that as a result of the increase
in the number of kilometres with RRS installed, there
was a reduction in the number of deaths for cars but a
drastic increase in fatalities for PTW riders.
The detailed studies of Peldschus [11] about accidents
of motorcycles against the elements of the road based on
the data from prior research (TNO MAIDS cases, LMU
COST 327 Cases, GIDAS Cases, DEKRA Cases) indi-
cated that the most severe accidents were caused by
impacts with poles, trees and RRS; in most cases only
one vehicle was involved, the first impact being against
one of the aforementioned obstacles. In the case of
impacts with RRS, the impact velocity was high, the
impact angle was small, the rider was practically aligned
in parallel to the road tangent and the rider was still on
the vehicle when the impact happened. The impact was
more frequent against the horizontal profile than against
the post, with the most common areas to sustain damage
being the head and lower limbs.
Analysing the impact severity from the studies of
Quellet [12] dealing with data of PTW riders
deaths due
to impact with road elements, they account for 9.5% of
total deaths and the particular case of RRS they are
6.6%. Upon analysis of accidents ending in death due to
head and/or cervical injuries, the cause of 41% of fatali-
ties was an impact against a post or trees, 34% against
barriers and 16% against the tarmac.
The studies of Quincy et al. [13] indicate that crash-
ing into barriers increases the likelihood fivefold, of
death when compared with other types of PTW vehicle
accidents. Similar results were obtained in France in the
SETRA study [2] and in Germany by Ellmers [14]; In
order to avoid a direct impact, Ellmers recommended
the use of Sigma post instead of ‘I’ post as well as the use
of additional systems by means of those post usually
called motorcyclist protection systems (MPS).
Data from the FEMA report [7] show that 40% of
impacts with barriers result in severe injuries for the
rider. Work by Hell and Lob [15] and Gibson and Bene-
tatos [4] demonstrate the high death rate in those cases
of impacts with RRS. The MAIDS study [5] concluded
that, despite the PTW riders crash into RRS not being
usual, they produce severe damage and injuries. These
injuries and sustained damage were commonly located
in the head, neck, dorsal spine and lower limbs.
Due to this high death rate, some research projects
have looked into the issue; initially by means of experi-
mental tests with barriers by using post-mortem human

subjects (Schueler et al. [16]) and with the development
of crash test dummies (Jessl 1987 [17]; Quincy et al.
[13]). The development of numerical tools allowed the
performance of virtual testing using the methods
described by Nieboer et al. [18] and Yettram et al. [19]
and more recently in the SMART RRS project [20] or
in the research by Miralbes [21] and Mantaras and
Luque [22].
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Regulations
In order to analyse the behaviour of RRS, diverse experi-
mental tests leading to an improved RRS behaviour and
design of additional elements like the MPS have been
developed. Thus, it has been possible to compare diverse
models and predict injuries and damage. The first proce-
dure to analyse MPS was developed by Quincey et al.
[13] using a dummy flattened on its back which was
ejected from a mobile platform onto an impact point
two metres far away from it. The impact angle was 30

and the impact velocity 55 Km/h. However, repeatability
problems occurred. In 1993, the German Transport
Ministry developed the ‘Technical Regulations for Deliv-
ery of Guardrail-Post Protections’ (BASt [23]), which
analysed the energy absorbed and deceleration under-
gone by a 35 kg wood cylinder impacting at 35 Km/h; in
this case, the maximum deceleration must be lower than
60 g. The next year, Ellmers [14] indicated that not one
MPS successfully passed the test. The limit to pass the
test was established at 20 Km/h so the regulation velocity
was modified to this value; it was not until 1998 that the
velocity was re-established at 35 Km/h.
In 1998, the ‘Institut National de Recherche sur les
Transports et leur Securite’ (LIER) of France developed a
protocol to test MPS based on the results of a detailed
study of accidentology. The aim was to define the test
and the main biomechanical indexes and their limits with
the goal of determining the severity of impact. In this
case, a dummy composed of parts of two different dum-
mies (Hybrid II and III percentile 50th) was used. Two
different impacts were defined, both with the dummy
flattened on its back, with a commercial helmet and a
complete motorcyclist suit; the impact velocity was 60
Km/h and the impact angle 30
. In both cases, the impact
point was aligned with the post. The difference lay in the
fact that for the first case the vertical axis of the dummy
and the velocity axis were aligned whereas for the second
case, the axis of the dummy was parallel with the MPS;
in the first case, the main impact focuses on the head
and, in the second one, on the shoulder. The results of
the test on some MPS demonstrate that although the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 3
design of MPS has a significant influence, the influence of
the angle of impact was even more decisive.
A subsequent study by Gibson and Benetatos [4] sug-
gested the use of impact angles between 15
and 45
and
impact velocities 60 Km/h or higher. In their work, they
studied the case with a dummy flattened on its back and
another on a motorcycle.
Another study, the DEKRA project, developed a new
test procedure that included an impact with a motorcy-
cle (Buerkle and Berg [23]) using a Hybrid III percentile
50 male dummy, 60 Km/h impact velocity and an impact
angle of 12
. This project included another test with a
dummy flattened on its back with an impact angle of 25

and the same impact velocity. To set the biomechanical
index limits, the results of the European Experimental
Vehicle Committee Working Group 11 were used.
Thus, some new MPS designs, aimed at reducing the
impact severity were developed; the most relevant MPS
were concrete barriers (as they increase the impact area),
as well as the continuous MPS based on the use of
another horizontal metallic profile called continuous
Steel MPS.
The work of Duncan et al. [24] and Berg et al. [25]
stated that, despite the fact that concrete barriers offer a
higher level of protection than simple RRS, their behav-
iour is significantly worse than continuous Steel MPS
and as a result, nowadays the use of concrete barriers as
RRS is low.
Another developed MPS included the use of punctual
protection elements, usually polystyrene coated polyure-
thane dampers covering the RRS post in order to absorb
the impact energy and increase the impact area. How-
ever, some projects like FEMA [7] and research by Sala
and Astori [26] demonstrate that punctual MPS were
not effective at velocities higher than 50 Km/h, while
being easily degraded under adverse weather conditions;
additionally, they are usually damaged by rodents, so
they were only suitable for urban areas and in low veloc-
ity impact instances. An added problem was that punc-
tual MPS do not prevent PTW riders from impacting
with other elements near the road or from falling from a
height; therefore they are not commonly found in new
installations.
In 2005 in Spain, the Centre for Automotive Research
and Development developed a new test procedure under
the prescriptions of the Spanish Transport Ministry to
evaluate MPS. Test procedures to analyse punctual and
continuous MPS were developed. This test procedure
has become a global benchmark and thus will be studied
in depth. This procedure led to UNE 135900-2008 stan-
dard [27], being subsequently adopted as a standard by
the CEN in the EN 1317 standard, which is its
equivalent.
4 R. MIRALBES ET AL.

It must be pointed out that now, the main regulations

applicable to testing MPSs are the LIER, UNE135900/
EN 1317 [27] and BASt [28], as Pelschus et al. [29] and
Garcia et al. [30] indicate. They made a compilation of
regulations and a comparative analysis of those regula-
tions, leading to the conclusion that UNE135900/EN
1317 [27] is the most appropriate and restrictive
standard.
In the test pertaining to this regulation, there is an
absence of a motorcycle, with the dummy sliding along
the ground while lying on its back and impacting against
a particular area at certain velocity (60 Km/h and an
angle of 30
). There are two different protection levels,
called I and II depending on the biomechanical indexes;
level I is the most secure. In addition, it must be verified
that MPS do not have a negative effect on the behaviour
of RRS when impacting against another vehicle (as set in
regulation EN 1317-2).
For the test, a Hybrid III percentile 50 male dummy is
used, with a fusible shoulder and a standing kit; it must
be equipped with a commercial motorcyclist helmet
(compliant with ECE 22 standard) and a leather suit.
There are three different impact test configurations: cen-
tred impact (continuous and punctual MPS), off-centre
impact (only punctual MPS) and impact against the cen-
tre of the part between two posts (only continuous sys-
tems); due to the actual low use of punctual MPS, only
continuous MPS are studied in this paper (see Figure 1;
source UNE 135900-2008 standard [27]).
The standard states that no part of MPS exceeding 2
Kg can become detached on impact, with the dynamic
deflection being lower than the one defined in UNE EN Figure 1. Impact parameters.
1317-2 standard for other vehicles. In addition, the
dummy cannot have intrusions, nor fractures and its
suit and clothes cannot show signs of being shorn. No  Mx: condyle moment in X direction ! lateral flex-
part of the dummy can be trapped either. ion moment (not evaluated)
Biomechanical indexes and their limits for each secu-  My: condyle moment in Y direction ! flexion/
rity level are shown in Table 1 and are based on the extension moment (not evaluated)
work by Merz [31]. In order to determine head injuries,  MCOx = Mx + Fy ¢ D ! Lateral flexion moment at
he studied head and brain accelerations, represented in the upper neck (1)
the head injury criterion (HIC). For neck damage, he  MCOy = My - Fx ¢ D ! Flexion/Extension moment
studied neck forces and condyle moments. Figure 2, at the upper neck (2)
extracted from the UNE 135900:2008 standard [27]  D: distance between measurements location and
shows each force and acceleration to be taken into the upper neck
account,  HIC36 ! head injury criterion for 36 ms or less:
( Z 2:5 )
t2
 Fx: Upper neck force in X direction ! shear force HIC36 ¼ max 1
a dt :ðt2  t1 Þ With
t2 t1
in the neck area t1
 Fy: Upper neck force in Y direction ! lateral shear ðt2  t1 Þ36ms (3)
force in the neck area (not evaluated)
 Fz; Upper neck force in Z direction ! traction As for HIC, there are two different indexes, 36 and 15,
force in the neck area (Fz,trac) (+) and compression based on the maximum time range to analyse. The stud-
force (Fz,comp) on the neck (¡) ied regulation used HIC36, but some authors such as
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 5

Table 1. Resume of the numerical and experimental correlationship for MPS BMSNA2/120c. Right columns: UNE 135800 limits
30 45 UNE-135900
Deviation Deviation Level I Level II
Angle (
) Experimental Numerical (%) Experimental Numerical (%) limit limit
HIC36 318 325.6 1.17 859.6 897.6 5.85 650 1000
HIC15 318 325.6 1.17 859.6 897.6 5.85
Head resultant acceleration (G’s) 103 107 3.74 149.3 153.2 2.55
Head acceleration in X (G’s) ¡2.3 ¡6 61.67 ¡58.5 ¡64.1 8.74
Head acceleration in Y (G’s) 84 82.7 1.57 121 134 9.70
Head acceleration in Z (G’s) 48.1 52.1 7.68 103 97 6.19
Neck Force in X (Fx) (N) 594 425 39.76 1632 1351 20.80 Graph Graph
Neck Force in Y (Fy) (N) ¡845 ¡1573 46.28 ¡1749 ¡944 85.28 Graph Graph
Neck Force in Z (Fz)(N) 3393 2988 13.55 ¡950 ¡987 3.75 Graph Graph
Neck Shear Force (N) 594 439 7.75 1607 1352 12.75 2000 3100
Neck Traction Force (N) 1376 92 47.56 3343 2694 24.04 2700 3300
Neck Compression force (N) 3393 2988 12.66 ¡950 ¡987 1.16 3200 4000
Lateral flexion moment at the upper neck 103.5 ND 160.7 ND 134 134
(Mcox) (Nm)
Extension moment at the upper neck (Mcoyext) 26.3 26.1 0.48 46.5 0 110.71 42 57
(Nm)
Flexion moment at the upper neck (Mcoyflex) 46.8 39.1 4.05 95.5 68.6 14.16 190 190
(Nm)

ERAB also applied the finite elements method (FEM)

Figure 2. Head and neck forces, accelerations and moments.
Eppinger et al. [32] recommend HIC15 with a limit of
700. In this case, Equation (3) changes in the maximum
time range to ðt2  t1 Þ15 ms:
2.2. Numerical simulation
With the development of numerical capability and simu-
lation tools, a number of studies centred in the simula-
tion of MPS have been published. The study by Duncan
et al. [33] must be mentioned, as numerical methods to
implement a virtual test were studied in it. In this work,
its authors recommended the use of anthropometric
forms and models rather than a full dummy. RRS and
MPS were simulated as rigid multi body solids. To carry
out this study, it was not considered necessary to include
a motorcycle. In addition, the main damage factors
which would allow MPS to be subsequently redesigned,
were identified.
It must also be pointed out that Sala and Astori [26]
used multi body models and the VEDYAC finite ele-
ments code to develop a new metallic lower profile
which was experimentally validated. Additionally they
established main biomechanical limits for this particular
case and some different commercial MPS.
instead of multi body models but did so by means of the
LS-DYNA code [34] in order to simulate wire-rope RRS
that include the impact of a motorcyclist rider, a car and
a heavy vehicle.
Subsequently, Ibitoye et al. [6] used multi body mod-
els with the MADYMO code to simulate the impact of a
motorcycle with an RRS. Berg et al. [25] also used the
same methodology to compare wire rope RRS. Both
instances included a Hybrid III percentile 50th male
dummy without helmet, which had previously been vali-
dated by means of several impact tests.
Regarding the previously mentioned works of
research, it must be pointed that a helmet was only pres-
ent in the work by Sala and Astori [26] and that, as a
general rule, multi-body tools which do not take into
account the real stiffness of the elements, were those
used. In addition, multi-body tools were used to deter-
mine cinematic and dynamic performance and ascertain
whether any part of the dummy was trapped. Neverthe-
less, obtaining the relevant biomechanical indexes with
an adequate level of plausibility was not possible.
There has been further research using the LS-DYNA
code [34] to analyse MPS, such as the work by Mantaras
Luque [22], simulating MPS BMSNA2/120c and the
work of Miralbes [21] which studied MPS BMSNA2/
120b, BMSNA2/120c, BMSNA4/120c and BMSNA4/
120f. In both instances, RRS BMS4I-N2 and LS-DYNA
Hybrid III 50th percentile male [35] were used. The
dummy was correlated with some frontal impacts such
as those as laid out in the bibliography of this
programme.
To simulate the helmets, a 3D scan of a real helmet
was performed and a solid element was generated. It
included an outer thin plastic surface simulated with
6 R. MIRALBES ET AL.
shell elements and an interior solid part composed of
expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam whose properties and
characteristics met those found in the studies of Toma
et al. [36] and Aiello et al. [37]; it must be mentioned
that in both studies, the material is the same, the LS-
DYNA SOIL AND FOAM [34] and the shell size in
these four works is similar.
For discretisation of MPS and RRS, in both studies
shell elements were used, with similar size and the same
LS-DYNA model of material [34]: the Belytschko-Lin-
Tsay shell formulation. It must be pointed out that Man-
taras and Luque’s model [22] simulated nuts and bolts
by using volumetric elements whereas Miralbes [21]
used connectors with equivalent properties reducing
numerical cost.
With regard to numeric-experimental validation,
mandatory in any simulation like this, both works first
validate the behaviour of the helmet, and then the behav-
iour of the MPS, by comparing diverse variables and
indexes such as head acceleration, neck forces and con-
dyle moments, HIC, etc. and concluded that it was possi-
ble to obtain good correlations for HIC and head
accelerations.
It must also be noted that, as indicated by Miralbes
[38] and Mantaras and Luque [22], in MPS real tests
there is certain deviation due to the vehicle used and
that tolerance for some impact parameters allowed by
the standard itself. These deviations can be perfectly
defined in the virtual test so they must be taken into
account to make the numerical–experimental
correlations.
In the virtual test by Miralbes [21], it is found that by
means of the BMSNA2/120b MPS model it is possible to
achieve a high degree of accuracy (error < 10%) for
HIC, obtain the head acceleration in all directions, the
traction force in the neck (Fztrac) and the compression
force in the neck (Fzcomp). In the case of the shear force
in the neck (Fx), the error was 44%, which was not ade-
quate; in the case of the lateral flexion moment at the
upper neck (Mcox), the error was 15% whereas for the
flexion/extension moment at the upper neck (Mcoyflex/
ext) the error was more than 53%. In addition, some
other MPS were studied and HIC36 analysed with low
deviations: BMSNA2/120c (23.4%), BMSNA4/120c
(9.1%) and BMSNA4/120f (9%). Thus, we can draw the
conclusion that the numerical model is adequate to pre-
dict head injuries but not neck injuries.
In this paper, the numerical models that Miralbes
[21] developed are used and MPS BMSNA2/120c was
duly correlated and statistically studied.
These models use a Hybrid III 50th percentile male
dummy with a fusible shoulder and standing kit as well
as a NZI helmet. The RRS used is the BMS4I-N2 with
the MPS BMSNA2/120c, which was not correlated in
the study of Miralbes due to a lack of experimental data
[21]. Now thanks to the experimental results of the pub-
lic project SMART RRS [20], it has been possible to
make that correlation according to UNE 135900 stan-
dard for two different impact angles: 30
and 45
, both
with an impact velocity of 60 Km/h. The correlation is
included in the data article titled ‘Numerical and Experi-
mental correlation of the motorcyclist protection system
BMSNA2/120c for different impact angles’ and com-
pletes the previous work by Miralbes [21]. Table 1 shows
a summary of the results obtained for this correlation.
They indicate that the numerical model can predict both
accelerations for the head in all directions with less than
10% error in peak values, while presenting a similar
curve shape for the head, as long as a significant acceler-
ation value is achieved. In the case of HIC, the error is
lower than 5%
As for neck forces (Fx and Fy), the numerical model
cannot predict them. However, in the case of the force in
Z direction, the maximum error is 13%, and the shape of
the curve found is similar to that of the compression
force in the neck. As a result, the numerical model is
adequate in this case.
With regards to the condyle moment, virtual tests
cannot predict MCOx results since they are dependent on
Fx and errors in its calculation are translated to the lat-
eral flexion moment at the upper neck. For the flexion
and extension moment at the upper neck, the correlation
is adequate for the flexion moment (error < 15%) but
not for the extension moment.
As a conclusion from this correlation, it can be drawn
that virtual tests can predict some results with a high
degree of accuracy. Thus, it must be pointed out that
while they allow prediction of head injuries that is not
the case for neck injuries.
2.3. Study of the accidentology
The main objective of this paper is to study the influence
of impact angle and impact velocity on injuries arising
from PTW accidents, in order to determine whether the
angle and velocity (30
and 60 Km/h) proposed by UNE
135900 standard are adequate for the design of MPS.
A study of the state-of-the-art on accidentology has
been conducted in order to determine the range of
impact variables and their incidence, all using a wide
variety of data. It must be pointed out that the TRANS
report studied the accidentology of motorcyclist riders
in depth, and used impact angles of 15
and 30
and an
impact velocity of 60 Km/h. Moreover, it reflects an acci-
dentology analysis with RRS which indicates that in
73.5% of those accidents resulting in death, the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 7

maximum velocity of the PTW was 100 Km/h, in 11.5% Table 2. Accidentology study: impact angle (
) and velocity (Km/h).
of accidents the velocity was 50 Km/h, in 2.4% of acci- Velocity Velocity
Accident Angle (
) (Km/h) Accident Angle (
) (Km/h)
dents 70 Km/h, and in 12.75% of accidents 80 Km/h. 1 18 60 12 25 Unknown
Regarding the angle of the curve, which is an impor- 2 35 50 13 <10 70
tant factor to determine the impact angle, in 40% of the 3 90 Unknown 14 6 80
4 30 60 15 15 40
cases, the accident occurred on a moderate curve, 25% 5 9 60 16 >35 Unknown
of accidents occurred on a severe curve and 18% of acci- 6 41 Unknown 17 <20 75
7 20 46 18 >45 45
dents on an easy to navigate curve, whereas the rest of 8 20 Unknown 19 15 100
the cases occurred on a straight track. However, the 9 30 55 20 13 >40
10 44 Unknown 21 43 Unknown
study did not specify the radii for those curves. 11 30 65 22 43 50
From the studies by Grzebieta et al. [39] and Bam-
bach and Grzebieta [40] about the accidentology of RRS
in Australia and New Zealand it can be inferred that, in higher than 60 Km/h whereas in 59% of accidents, the
the majority of instances where PTW were involved, the impact angle and/or velocity is higher than the one
impact angle was 15
and the impact velocity 100 Km/h. found in homologation parameters. When analysing
When analysing the state-of-the-art, there seem to be Table 2 in detail, it can be observed that, in those cases
a wide variety of data of a contradictory nature, and as a with an impact velocity higher than 60 Km/h, the impact
result, these data are not adequate to define the range of angle is usually small (16
on average) and in those cases
the impact angle and velocity and their incidence. with an impact angle higher than 30
, the impact veloc-
Thus, in order to determine these points, we have ity was not high (42 Km/h on average) (see Table 3).
turned to the accidentology database of the Spanish Figure 3 shows graphically, accident distribution
Traffic Ministry (DGT) for the year 2015 [41]; data depending on impact angle and velocity.
found there indicate that there were 25,291 motorcycle It must be highlighted that, with the data available, it
and 8310 moped accidents resulting in death or injuries; has not been possible to determine the concrete impact
out of these, in 323 motorcycle and 53 moped accidents point and the injuries of those who died. It must also be
resulted in death, with most cases (259) taking place on pointed out that deaths due to impacts with elements
inter-urban roads. near the road should be included in the police reports,
In most accidents (38%), there were no road law something that unfortunately is not the case.
infractions, or it was not possible to determine whether Having information on those accidents against RRS
any infraction had occurred (12%) whereas the main with and without MPS would be useful; as well as
cause related to road law infractions was wrong speed information that would allow us to characterise MPS
(19%). It can also be observed that in most instances impacts. Information on morbidity and injuries and
(92.5%) there was no mechanical failure involved and impact angle and velocity should also be included in
the most common cause (8%) was tyre wear. the database for those accidents without fatalities,
Data also indicate that PTW impacts with RRS result- since that information would be extremely valuable.
ing in injuries and fatalities where 15% (57) during 2015 This information is not reflected owing to privacy
whereas they amounted to 18% in 2007; the main reason issues arising from data protection laws and because
for this reduction in injuries and fatalities can be the priority goes to transferring those injured to hospital
increase in Km of RRS with MPS. before drafting the police accident report, which makes
In addition, 35% of PTW riders
fatalities (132 during it virtually impossible to determine impact angle and
the period under analysis) where caused by elements velocity.
near the road, such as post, signs, walls, etc. Impacts
against such elements can be avoided by using RRS with
MPS, with the use of MPS reducing the number of fatali- Table 3. Resume of the accidentology study.
ties by up to 50%. Incidence Average velocity Average angle
Impact angle (
) (%) (Km/h) (
)
When analysing data on fatal accidents due to head
Angle 15
13.6 70.0 7.5
injuries, we find data on 22 accidents against RRS with 15
< angle  30
50.0 60.1 21.2
and without MPS (not specified). Further information to 30
< angle  45
27.2 50.0 40.5
45
< angle 8.9 67.5 45
determine the impact velocity and/or angle has been Impact velocity Incidence Average velocity Average angle
obtained using police accident reports. These data (Km/h) (%) (Km/h) (
)
appear in Table 2 and a summary is provided in Table 3. Velocity 50 40.0 44.3 26.6
50<velocity 60 26.6 57.0 26
Data show that in 36.1% of these accidents, impact angle 60<velocity 70 13.3 67.5 20
is higher than 30
and in 33.3% the velocity of impact is 70<velocity 20.0 86.0 13
8 R. MIRALBES ET AL.
Figure 3. Accidentology study (impact angle and velocity).
As a conclusion, it can be inferred that impact with
RRS and MPS account for a 15% of the PTW riders

deaths and in more than 50% of these accidents the
velocity of impact or the angle of impact was higher
than those used to certify MPS. Therefore, despite the
fact that they can reduce morbidity and death range,
there is a high percentage of deaths that cannot be pre-
vented by means of MPS (8.9%).
Table 2 shows data used to study 20 different combi-
nations of impact angles (15
, 30
, 45
y 60
) and impact
velocities (40, 50, 60, 70 y 100 Km/h) by means of virtual
Figure 4. Accidentology study (age and gender).
tests. It must be pointed out that accidentology does not
reflect any case with an impact angle of 60
, but this has
been included as an extreme case.
In addition in very few cases (2/22), an impact veloc-
ity of 100 Km/h appears despite the fact that in most
cases the motorcycle travels at this speed or higher, but
after the rider falls, due to friction with the ground,
velocity decreases so the final impact velocity is lower.
As for the typology of those dead and injured PTW
riders (see Table 4), obtained by using the DGT data base
(2015), in most instances riders are male (83.3%) with only
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 9

Figure 5. HIC 36 vs. impact angle and impact velocity.

5% of those dead being female; when analysing the age of

the riders, 88% are between 18 and 60 years of age, but
Table 4. Gender and age accidentology data. there is no information about their height and weight to
Moped Motorcycle
establish corresponding percentiles. As a conclusion, since
Deaths Hosp No hosp Deaths Hosp No hosp
the majority of injured or dead riders are male with an age
< 1 year Male 0 0 0 0 0 0
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 between 18 and 60 years, a Hybrid III 50th percentile male
2 to 5 Male 0 0 1 0 0 0 dummy is the most appropriate for the simulation as set by
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 to 9 Male 0 0 0 0 0 3 the applicable standard. Figure 4 shows graphical resume
Female 0 0 0 0 1 0 of the gender and age of the PTW riders that is necessary to
10 to 14 Male 0 2 6 0 3 18
Female 0 1 2 0 0 10
define the dummy models that must be used.
15 to 17 Male 3 34 102 3 17 68
Female 0 6 26 0 1 18
18 to 20 Male 1 11 93 2 23 130 3. Results and discussion
Female 0 2 28 0 0 62
21 to 24 Male 0 12 65 13 60 287 Results obtained based on impact angle and velocity, in
Female 0 3 26 2 12 86
25 to 29 Male 5 10 46 29 111 491 terms of HIC36, HIC15, neck forces and condyle
Female 0 3 26 1 19 156 moments are included in Table 5. This table shows, in
30 to 34 Male 0 9 45 25 127 509
Female 0 4 20 3 19 112 green, those cases where each biomechanical index falls
35 to 39 Male 2 10 48 31 135 600 within level I of UNE 135900 standard; in yellow, when
Female 0 3 25 2 16 110
40 to 44 Male 2 9 45 23 144 639
they fall within level II and in red when outside. In addi-
Female 1 1 18 2 23 74 tion, those instances covered by the accidentology are in
45 to 49 Male 1 10 47 36 126 489 bold, with extreme instances in italics.
Female 0 2 19 0 18 97
50 to 54 Male 1 12 30 30 123 418 For HIC36, it can be observed that in all cases covered
Female 0 2 8 0 19 65 by the accidentology study, the protection level obtained
55 to 59 Male 3 11 34 15 76 297
Female 0 0 8 0 12 50 is I, except in cases if a maximum velocity of 60 Km/h
60 to 64 Male 1 8 27 13 53 149 and 45
, where it is level II. In the extreme cases studied,
Female 0 1 3 1 8 16
65 to 70 Male 3 12 17 10 16 81 it can be observed that, with impact velocities lower than
Female 0 1 1 1 0 6 or equal to 60 Km/h, even with the highest angle (60
),
70 to 74 Male 2 3 18 1 10 30
Female 0 1 3 0 1 3
the studied MPS allow protection level I. It is in those
>75 Male 3 13 46 3 4 26 instances in which impact velocities are higher than 60
Female 0 0 3 0 1 1 Km/h and with an impact angle higher than 30
that
Total 28 196 886 246 1178 5101
Total Male 27 166 670 234 1028 4235 HIC exceed 1000. It is in this event that the likelihood of
Total Female 1 30 216 12 150 866 the rider suffering severe head injuries is highest.
10 R. MIRALBES ET AL.

Table 5. Final numerical results (bold fond results: included in the accidentology study; italic fond: non-included).
Velocity Km/h 15
30
45
60
Velocity Km/h 15
30
45
60

HIC 36 Shear Force in the neck (kN)
40 267 280 483.6 521.5 40 0.555 0.383 2.1 3.6
50 270 295 726.4 896 50 0.63 0.68 0.76 4.1
60 271.4 325.6 897.6 918.6 60 0.45 0.418 1.352 4.7
70 267.9 567.8 1443 1745 70 0.45 0.46 1.98 5.3
100 459.8 634.6 1789 2056 100 0.55 0.61 2.45 6.1
HIC 15 Traction force in the neck (kN)
40 267 280 483.6 512.5 40 0.38 ¡0.25 0.5 ND
50 270 295 726.4 896 50 1.1 0.94 0.57 ND
60 271.4 325.6 897.6 918.6 60 0.56 1.34 2.7 ND
70 267.9 567.8 1443 1745 70 0 0 0 ND
100 459.8 634.6 1789 2056 100 0 0 0 ND
Resultant acceleration (G’s) Compression force in the neck (kN)
40 43 69 110 155 40 1.7 1 3.1 4.3
50 51 97 142 224 50 1.93 3.1 3.3 5.1
60 57 106.2 153 265 60 2.23 3.1 3.4 5.7
70 73 134 186 297 70 2.56 3.2 3.5 6.2
100 124 208 292 463 100 3.12 3.4 3.9 7.2
Flexion momentum Mcoyext (kNm) Extension momentum Mcoyflex (kNm)
40 1.23 2.7 4 ND 40 39.1 5.7 16.7 ND
50 29.4 6.7 8.5 ND 50 24.2 12.1 8.7 ND
60 0 26.1 0 ND 60 38.4 39.1 85.6 ND
70 47 12.3 12.9 ND 70 0 0 0 ND
100 ND ND ND ND 100 ND ND ND ND

When comparing HIC15 and HIC36, the values
obtained are identical given that the time period when
the equation for both indexes is at a maximum is less
than 15 ms. It must be observed that, when analysing
the safety limits set in the bibliography, for velocities of
50 or 60 Km/h and angles of 45
or 60
, HIC36, is lower
than the safety limits set at level II but higher than the
safety limit set at level I. Nevertheless, HIC15 goes over
the limit of 700 recommended by Eppinger et al. [32].
Figure 5 shows graphically the influence of the impact
angle and the velocity i in the HIC36.
Forces and moments in the neck are shown in Table 5.
Nonetheless these results can solely be used to compare
cases given the fact that the numerical–experimental
correlation was not adequate to predict these indexes.
When analysing data obtained in terms of resultant
accelerations and HICs for the cases inside the accidentol-
ogy analysis, and using as limit those values obtained from
the homologation test (60
and 60 Km/h), we find that
results are higher in only four cases: 15
and 100 Km/h; 30

and 70 Km/h; 45
and 40 Km/h; 45
and 50 Km/h. For this
reason, even if the MPS were to be homologated after meet-
ing the criteria as set by UNE 135900, they would fail to
provide sufficient security for 38% of those accidents
accounted for in the accidentology analysis.
It must also be pointed out that for the MPS studied,
(which falls within safety level I of UNE 135900 stan-
dard) in all the cases of the accidentology, HIC will be
lower than 1000 and, except for the case of 45
and
50 Km/h HIC is lower than 700 and 650. Therefore,
according with the regulation the MPS fall under level II
category in 100% of the cases and falls under level I
category in 83.3%. Analysing HIC15, only in 16.6% of
the cases the limit of 700 is exceeded though only slightly
(726.4). In this particular instance, the work by Mertz
et al. [42] and Domenico et al. [43] indicate that severe
damage will occur, (4+ in abbreviated injury scale
(AIS)), in 5% of the accidents; this means that this MPS
will be safe for riders in 99.2% of accidents and only in
0.8% severe brain damage would occur.
When the maximum deviation of the HIC within the
accidentology is analysed and compared with the obtained
results for the homologation angle and velocity as set by
the standard, a deviation of 400 is found. While this devia-
tion cannot be directly transferred to other MPS models
since there is not direct correlation, it must be pointed out
that Figure 6 shows how the variation of the obtained
results for the HIC at the regulation impact angle and
velocity modify the percentage of severe head damages
(AIS  4). As it is shown, for a MPS that during its homolo-
gation test reaches the limit of level I (HIC = 650), in 6.3%
Figure 6. Head damage injuries vs HIC at 30
and 60 Km/h.

of cases the injured rider will sustain severe brain damage
but were the limit of level II (HIC = 1000) to be reached,
23.5% would sustain severe damage. Should the MPS reach
the limit of 700, in 8.6% of the cases, severe damage would
appear. These results have been obtained by making use of
the work by Mertz et al. [42].
4. Conclusions and future lines of research
One of the main conclusions to be drawn is that, nowadays,
by means of numerical tools, specially FEM, it is possible to
carry out virtual test to simulate impacts against MPS
according to UNE 135900:2008 standard and to obtain
head accelerations, both their peak values and their shape
in each direction, as well as their resulting graph curve, to a
high degree of accuracy. Therefore, the HIC can also be
thus obtained to a high degree of accuracy while making it
possible to estimate damage to head and brain. However,
the current methodology used to implement virtual tests
does not allow us to predict, with adequate accuracy, those
neck forces and condyle moments necessary to obtain
information on prospective neck injuries should an impact
occur. The main reason for this is that the numerical LS-
DYNA dummy [35] being used for the test was designed
and correlated with a view to showing good correlation in
the event of a frontal car impact; however, its behaviour
when facing an oblique impact, as is usually the case for
MPS impacts, the model shows its inadequacy to estimate
lateral forces and moments in the neck and in the condyle,
and as a result, it cannot predict neck damage. Future
research lines could involve studies by means of other
numerical existent Hybrid III dummies in order to know
the behaviour of the neck under oblique impact or an
improvement in the neck area of the model to obtain an
adequate correlation that would allow us to obtain more
precise data on neck damage.
With regards to the study of the accidentology of PTW
riders, most of the injuries sustained and fatalities are
motorcyclist riders and 38% of deaths are due to impact
with elements near the road or with posts which are part of
RRS, which can be avoided by using MPS. However, the
high fatality rate of riders when impacting with these ele-
ments, despite the fact that they are only involved in 18%
of accidents, is something that deserves further study.
When analysing the typology of the injured and dead
PTW riders in detail, it was found that most of them are
male with their age ranging between 18 and 60 years.
However, it was impossible to estimate their size or
height and thus obtain their percentile distribution in
order to select the appropriate size for the dummy.
Then, instead of the dummy as used in UNE 135900
standard, whose biomechanical index levels are adequate
for 86% of the cases according to the state-of-the-art, it
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 11
would be interesting for future research to include other
cases. Thus, females could be studied (by means of the
Hybrid III female 5th). In addition, other dummies and
other biomechanical index limits could be used to study
cases involving children and the elderly. A study with
other dummy sizes, such as 5th percentile or 95th per-
centile would allow us to analyse the influence of weight
and height of PTW riders. Thus, future research lines
such as the study of the influence of the age, gender,
weight and height for this standard by using numerical
and experimental tools opens up.
The study of the impact angle and velocity using the
accidentology database reveals that, in 58% of cases,
the impact angle or/and impact velocity is higher than
the homologation ones and that, as a result, MPS might
be not safe. For the MPS studied, we observe accelera-
tions and HICs higher than those obtained during the
homologation test for 38.8% of cases found in the acci-
dentology, with a difference in HIC of up to 400.
If these differences were to be extrapolated, it could be
inferred that a homologated level IMPS with an HIC
equal or less than 625 during the homologation process
would reach 1025 for the worst case scenario, which
means a 6.3% likelihood of severe head damage in the
event of an accident. As for an MPC with HIC 700 in
the homologation test, the HIC could reach 1100 and
thus a likelihood of 8.6% severe head damage. Finally for
HIC 1000, which is the limit set at level II, HIC could be
1400 in the worst case scenario and therefore there
would be significant probabilities (>25%) of severe dam-
age. In accordance with these extrapolations, level I MPS
can be considered safe in most instances but level II
MPS are not sufficiently safe.
Using these results and the study of the accidentology, it
can be pointed out that MPS homologation regulation
UNE 135900:2008 and EN 1317 standards could be
improved, by including three possible cases: 100 Km/h and
15
, 70 Km/h and 30
and 50 Km/h and 45
which would
encompass all instances found in the accidentology. In this
case, MPS with the level and limits as set by the standard
would be safe including level II in most instances (only in
6-8% severe head damage would appear). Level I would be
safe for more than 98% of cases.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
[1] Hurt H. Quellet J, Thom D. Motorcycle accident cause
factors and identification of countermeasures. Technical
Report. US Department of Traffic; 1981.
12 R. MIRALBES ET AL.
[2] Pothin K, Desire G. Les glissieres metalliques dans l’acci-
dentologie des motocyclistes: Etude d’enjeu a partir du
fichier national des accidents [Metallic slides in motorcy-
cle accidentology: stake study from the national accident
file]. Technical Report. French. Service d’Etudes Techni-
ques des Routes et Autoroutes (SETRA) [Technical Stud-
ies Department of Roads and Highways]; 1997.
[3] Forke E. Das Schutzplankenprojekt aus Sicht der Motor-
radfahrer, Institut f€
ur Zweiradsicherheit [The crash bar-
rier project from the perspective of motorcyclists].
Technical Report. German; 2002.
[4] Gibson T, Benetatos E. Motorcycles and crash barriers.
prepared by human impact engineering for the barriers
to safety campaign. Technical Report. Sydney: NSW
Motorcycle Council; 2000.
[5] Compagne J. MAIDS – the first results of a European
motorcycle in-depth accident study. Proceedings of the
5th International Motorcycle Conferenc; 2004 Sep 13.
Essen (Germany): The Institute; 2004. p. 22–51.
[6] Ibitoye AB, Radin RS, Wong SV, et al. Crash injury
investigation of motorcycle accidents against guardrail.
Proceedings of the International Crashworthiness Con-
ference. Bolton (UK); 2004 Jul 14-16. p. 205–210.
[7] Final Report of the Motorcyclists & Crash Barriers Proj-
ect. Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations
(FEMA); 2000.
[8] From Arctic to Mediterranean, First Pan-European
Progress Report. Technical Report. Euro RAP; 2005.
[9] Barriers to change: designing safe roads for motorcy-
clists. Position paper on motorcycles and crash barriers.
Technical Report. Euro RAP; 2005.
[10] Gabler HC. The risk of fatalities in motorcycle crashes
with roadside barriers. Proceedings of the 20th Interna-
tional Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles; 2007; Lyon, France, 18–21.
[11] Peldschus S. Report on accident scenarios for motorcy-
cle-motorcyclist-infrastructure interaction. State-of-the-
art. Future research guidelines. APROSYS project. Deliv-
erable 4.1.3; 2006, Heldmong (NE), NEDERLANDSE
ORGANISATIE VOOR TOEGEPAST NATUURWE-
TENSCHAPPELIJK ONDERZOE.
[12] Quellet J. Environmental hazards in motorcycle acci-
dents. 26th Proceedings American Association for Auto-
motive Medicine; (Canada, 1982)117–121.
[13] Quincey R, Vulin D, Mounier B. Motorcycle impacts
with guardrails. Washington (DC): Transportation
Research Circular 341, Transportation Research Board/
National Research Council; 1988.
[14] Ellmers U. Guardrail post-protection for improving the
safety of motorcycle riders. International Conference on
Traffic Safety on Two Continent; 1997; Lisbon, Portugal,
141–151
[15] Hell W, Lob G. Typical injury patterns of motorcyclists
in different crash types – effectiveness and improvements
of countermeasures. 37th Proceedings Association for
the Advancement of Automotive Medicine; 1993; San
Antonio, TX, 77–86.
[16] Schueler F, Bayer B, Mattern R, et al. Der Koerperanprall
gegen Schutzplanken beim Verkehrsunfall motorisierter
Zweiradbenutzer [The body collision against crash bar-
riers in the traffic accident of motorized two-wheeled
users]. Technical Report. Helgling: Institut fuer Zweirad-
sicherheit [Institute for Bicycle Safety]; 1984.
[17] Jessl P. Anprallversuche an Leitplanken mit dummies
[Impact tests on crash barriers with dummies]. Technical
Report. Helgling: Institut fuer Zweiradsicherheit. [Insti-
tute for Bicycle Safety]; 1987.
[18] Nieboer JJ, Goudswaard AP, Wismans J, et al. Computer
simulation of motorcycle airbag systems. Proceedings of
the 13th International Technical Conference on Experi-
mental Safety Vehicles; 1991; Paris.
[19] Yettram AL, Smith J, Mo LSM, et al. Computer simula-
tion of motorcycle crash tests. Proceedings of the 14th
International Technical Conference on Enhanced Safety
Vehicles; 1994; Munich.
[20] SMART-RRS. Innovative concepts for smart road
restraint systems to provide greater safety for vulnerable
road users SMART-RRS. Technical Report. Deliverable
D.2.1a – Report on revision of regulation UNE135900;
2011.
[21] Miralbes R. Design of motorcycle rider protection sys-
tems using numerical techniques. Accid Anal Prev.
2013;55:95–108.
[22] Mantaras DA, Luque P. Assessing motorcyclist protec-
tion systems using finite element simulations. IJSIMM.
2015;14(1):110–120.
[23] Buerkle H, Berg FA. Anprallversuche mit motorraedern
an passive schutzeinrichtungen [Impact tests with
motorcycles on passive guards]. Technical Report. Stutt-
gart: Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen (BASt) [Federal
Highway Research Institute]; 2000. FE 03.318/1998/FRB.
[24] Duncan C, Corben B, Truedsson, N, et al. Motorcyclists
and barriers. Technical Report. Report for VicRoads,
Australia; 2000.
[25] Berg FA, Ruecker P, Gaertner M, et al. Motorcycle
impacts into roadside barriers – real-world accident
studies, crash tests and simulations carried out in Ger-
many and Australia. Proceedings of the 19th Interna-
tional Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles; 2005; Washington (DC).
[26] Sala G, Astori P. New concepts and materials for passive
safety of motorcyclists. Proceedings of the International
IRCOBI Conference on the Bio kinetics of Impact; 1998;
Goetebor.
[27] Spanish standard UNE-135900-2008: standard on the
evaluation of performance of the protection systems for
motorcyclists on safety barriers and parapets. AENOR;
2008.
[28] Technische Lieferbedingungen fuer Schutzplankenpfos-
tenummantelungen [Technical delivery conditions for
guard rail post covers]. Technical Report. German: Bun-
desanstalt fuer Strassenwesen BASt [Federal Highway
Research Institute]; 1993.
[29] Peldschus S, Schuller E, Koenig J, et al. Technical bases
for the development of a test standard for impacts of
powered two-wheelers on roadside barriers. Proceedings
of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference;
2007; Lyon.
[30] Garc
ıa DR, P
erez B, Peldschus, et al. Overview on the
development of a test standard for the evaluation of
motorcyclists’ impacts on road infrastructure elements.
Crashworthiness Int J. 2010;14(1):1–15.

[31] Mertz HJ Accidental Injury Biomech Prevention: Injury
risk assessments based on dummy responses, 2000. New
york (NY), Springer.
[32] Eppinger R, Sun E, Bandak F, et al. Development of
improved injury criteria for the assessment of advanced
automotive restraint systems – II. Technical Report.
NTSA; 1999.
[33] Duncan C, Corben B, Truedsson N, et al. Motorcycle and
safety barrier crash-testing: feasibility study. Technical
Report. Australian Transport Safety Bureau; 2001.
[34] LSTC. LS-DYNA Manual. Livermore (CA). 2017. Avail-
able from: http://www.lstc.com/
[35] NHTSA, 2Part 572, subpart (50th male) dummy perfor-
mance calibration test procedure.
[36] Toma M, Njilie FEA, Ghajari M, et al. Assessing motor-
cycle crash-related head injuries using finite element
simulation. IJSIMM. 2010;9(3): 143–151.
[37] Aiello M, Galvanetto U, Iannucci L. Numerical simula-
tions of motorcycle helmet impact tests. Int J Crashwor-
thiness. 2007;12(1):1–7.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRASHWORTHINESS 13
[38] Miralbes R. Motorcyclist protection systems: analysis of
the crash test tolerances of the European technical speci-
fication and the Spanish standard. AIME; 2015;7(2): 1-
14.
[39] Grzebieta R, Bambach M, McIntosh A, 2004. Fatal
motorcycle-into-road-safety-barrier crashes, Proceedings
of the ARSRPE Conference.
[40] Bambach M, Grzebieta R. Motorcycle crashes into road-
side barriers stage 4: protecting motorcyclists in collisions
with roadside barriers. Research Report. TARS; 2014.
[41] Informe anual de accidentes [Annual traffic accident
report]. Direcci
on general de tr
afico. [Spanish Traffic
Ministry]. Spanish; 2015.
[42] Mertz HJ, Irwin AL, Prasad, P. Biomechanical and scal-
ing bases for frontal and side impact injury assessment
reference values. Stapp Car Crash J. 2003;47:155–88.
[43] Di Domenico L., Nusholtz G. Estimation of injury risk
for biomechanical impact data . Proceedings of the Thir-
tieth International Workshop on Injury Biomechanics
Research, Ponte Vedra Beach, (US), 2002, 197–219.