applied

sciences
Article
Method to Assess and Enhance Vulnerable Road User
Safety during Impact Loading
Mariusz Ptak
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Lukasiewicza 7/9,
50-371 Wrocław, Poland; mariusz.ptak@pwr.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-713202946




Received: 16 February 2019; Accepted: 4 March 2019; Published: 11 March 2019


Abstract: Every year approximately 1.35 million people die as a consequence of road accidents.
Almost 50% of road fatalities are vulnerable road users (VRUs). This research reviews the history of
traffic safety for VRUs, presents an interesting insight into the statistics and evaluates the current
legislation in Europe for pedestrians, cyclists, children on bicycle-mounted seats and motorcyclists in
terms of impact situations and applied criteria. This enabled the author to have a better perspective on
how the VRUs’ safety is currently verified. Furthermore, the VRU safety requirements are contrasted
with the author’s research, which is mainly focused on VRU’s head biomechanics and kinematics.
Finally, a new coherent method is presented, which encompasses the sub-groups of VRUs and
proposes some improvements to both the regulations as well as technical countermeasures to mitigate
the injuries during an impact. This study highlights the importance of numerical methods, which can
serve as a powerful tool to study VRUs’ head injuries and kinematics.

Keywords: vulnerable road user; cyclist; pedestrian; motorcyclist; bicycle child seat; numerical
model; biomechanics; head injury; injury criteria; numerical simulation; road traffic safety

1. Introduction
Vulnerable road user (VRU) safety is affected by many crucial factors such as vehicle design,
its frontal aggressiveness, road and pavement layout, legislation (e.g., speed limitations), active and
passive safety systems such as a car’s camera/LIDAR/RADAR or bicyclist’s helmet, to name a few.
Vulnerable road users are defined as “non-motorized road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists as
well as motor-cyclists and persons with disabilities or reduced mobility and orientation” [1]. Thus,
the road users—who have a high casualty rate and should be given special attention in road safety
policy—are often referred to as ‘vulnerable road users’. The lack of external protection or absence
of a protective ‘cage’ around the traffic participant is also an indicator for pedestrians, cyclists and
motorcyclists [2,3]. In the literature, car drivers and occupants are most often excluded from the
definition of VRU [1,4]. Interestingly, some reports indicate that in the future connected transport
system, VRU or “vulnerability” could be more related to non-connected users and people unable to
fully use the potential of the Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) services offered to
mobility [5].
It should be noted that due to traffic accidents, about 1.35 million people die each year [6]. The
burden of road traffic injuries and deaths is disproportionately borne by vulnerable road users, who
contribute to half of all victims. The World Health Organization (WHO) predicts that by the year
2020 road accidents will become the leading cause of premature death [7]. It proves that irrespective
of numerous pedestrian/cyclist crossings, sidewalks/roads and effort made to separate VRUs from
vehicles, the danger of death as a victim of a road accident is much higher in a city, mainly due to
traffic density and complexity. It is reported that among people killed on city streets, on average

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000; doi:10.3390/app9051000 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 2 of 20

Appl.
73%Sci.
are2019, 9, x FOR PEER
pedestrians, REVIEW
cyclists and 2 of 20
motorcyclists [6,8]. As Figure 1 depicts, for high-density population
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20
cities—such as Paris—of all fatalities on roads, VRUs make up 90%.

Figure 1. Vulnerable road users’ (VRUs’) road deaths [%] by city in 2013–2015—based on data from
Figure1.1. Vulnerable
Figure Vulnerable road
road users’
users’ (VRUs’)
(VRUs’) road
road deaths [%]
deaths[8].
Reference
by city
[%] by city in
in 2013–2015—based
2013–2015—based on
on data
datafrom
from
Reference [8].
Reference [8].
In
InFigure
Figure2,2,thetheauthor
authorpresented
presentedthe thedata
datareported
reportedfor for2424European
EuropeanUnion Union(EU) (EU)members,
members,with with
an In Figure
additional EU2, the author
average, presented
for the share the
of data reported
pedestrians and for 24 European
cyclists of all Union
who died(EU)
on members,
EU roads. with
The
an additional EU average, for the share of pedestrians and cyclists of all who died on EU roads.
an additional
percentage of EU average,
cyclists for
killed the share
correlates of pedestrians
strongly withand cyclists
countries’ of all who
bicycle died on
traditions EU roads.
and The
proper
The percentage of cyclists killed correlates strongly with countries’ bicycle traditions and proper
percentage ofwhich
infrastructure, cyclists killed correlates strongly with countries’ bicycle transport.
traditions and higherproper
infrastructure, whichencourages
encouragesinhabitants
inhabitantsto tochoose
chooseaabicycle
bicycleas asaamean
meanof of transport.Thus,Thus, higher
infrastructure,
than which encourages inhabitants to choose a bicycle as a mean of transport. Thus, higher
thanaverage
averageshares
sharesarearereported
reportedin inthe
theNetherlands
Netherlandsand andDenmark.
Denmark.On Onthetheother
otherhand,
hand,thethehigh
highshare
share
than
of average shares are reported in the Netherlands and Denmark. On the other hand, the high share
of pedestrian fatalitiesdistinguishes
pedestrian fatalities distinguishesrelatively
relatively newnewEU EU
membermemberstates states
such such as Romania,
as Romania, Latvia,Latvia,
Poland
of pedestrian
Poland fatalitieswhere
and Lithuania distinguishes relatively
pedestrians new EU
contribute to moremember than states such
30% deaths
of all as Romania, Latvia,
road
and Lithuania where pedestrians contribute to more than 30% of all road [9,10].deaths [9,10].
However, an
Poland
However, and Lithuania where pedestrians contribute to more than 30% of all road deaths [9,10].
interestingan interesting
correlation correlation
forms forms asthe
as we compare weroad
compare
safetythe road
level safety level
in various in various
countries countries
(fatality rate per
However,
(fatality an per
rate interesting
million correlation
inhabitants) forms asthe we compare the road safety levelForin various countries
million inhabitants) with the pedestrianwithdeaths onpedestrian
roads. Fordeaths on roads.
the majority of countries, the the
majority of
lower the
(fatality
countries, rate per
the lower million inhabitants) with the pedestrian deaths on roads. For the majority of
overall fatality rate, the overallthe
the lower fatality rate, thefatality
pedestrians’ lower contribution
the pedestrians’ fatality contribution
[11]—namely, [11]—
the percentage of
countries,
namely, the
the who lower
percentage the overall
of on fatality
pedestrians rate, the
whoroads lower
are killed the pedestrians’
on the an country’s fatality contribution
roadsidea mayofprovide [11]—
an
pedestrians are killed the country’s may provide approximate the general
namely, the idea
approximate percentage
of the of pedestrians
general country whosafety.
road are killed on the country’s roads may provide an
country road safety.
approximate idea of the general country road safety.

Figure 2. Pedestrians’ and cyclists’ share of all road deaths [%] in contrast to road fatality rates per
Figure
million2.inhabitants
Pedestrians’
[ ] and cyclists’ Union
in European share of
in all road deaths
2014—based on[%]
datainfrom
contrast to road fatality rates per
[9,12].
million inhabitants [ ] in European Union in 2014—based on data from [9,12].to road fatality rates per
Figure 2. Pedestrians’ and cyclists’ share of all road deaths [%] in contrast
million inhabitants [ ] in European Union in 2014—based on data from [9,12].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 3 of 20

The problem of unprotected road users first appeared in the literature in the 1950s [13,14]. In
the late 1970s, pedestrian collision statistics investigated the vehicle front as a major problem for
pedestrian injuries. However, until the 1980s, it was not taken into account by designers, engineers or
governments, which in fact had the power to exert sufficient pressure on vehicle manufacturers. Less
than 70 years ago, there was still no detailed research in this area as it was commonly claimed that
a pedestrian has little chance of survival in a collision with a much heavier and stiffer vehicle. This
statement can be complemented by an excerpt from Fisher and Hall [15], who summed up in 1971: “it
would appear that pedestrians and vehicles are just not compatible”. Full-scale tests were carried out
with post mortem human subjects (PMHS) and test dummies. Although the first proposal for a test
procedure was defined in 1982, the repeatability of the head impact kinematics was identified as one
of the major difficulties of a full-scale procedure [8]. Additionally, VRU-oriented improvements often
conflict with design considerations, such as styling, manufacturing expenses and safety standards for
low-speed crashes and rollovers. For years, road design standards and practice have been focused
on needs of car occupants, whereas the needs of VRUs have been neglected or limited. However,
deployable passive safety systems, such as pop-up hoods and windshield airbags and active safety
designs that is, brake-assist systems, cameras, radars, LIDARs and autonomous-braking systems, have
confirmed significant benefits for reducing VRUs injuries. Thus, integrated passive and active systems
are recommended for a further enhancement of VRUs protection [3,16–19].
In this publication, the author presents each group of vulnerable road users—i.e., pedestrians,
cyclists, children transported on the bicycle-mounted seats and motorcyclists—in the context of current
norms and regulations, which are now in force in Europe. The present requirements are contrasted with
the author’s research which is mainly focused on VRUs’ head biomechanics and kinematics. Finally,
the author’s new method is presented, which encompasses the sub-groups of VRUs and proposes
some improvements to both the regulations as well as the technical system to mitigate injuries during
impact. Moreover, some important conclusions are drawn, which may be taken into consideration
during the process of new legislation formulation. The research implies that proper policies and
enforcement, public awareness campaigns and smart road design may save a great number of lives
over the coming decades.

2. Materials and Methods

The methods for testing the safety of VRUs against criteria set out in the regulations might seem
surprising. It would seem that the procedures might be similar to safety tests carried out, among
others, by the EuroNCAP organization, where different biomechanical parameters are examined using
a full-scale dummy [20]. However, testing of, for example, a vehicle front-end for pedestrian issues,
based on a collision with a full-scale dummy is more of a qualitative study for manufacturers rather
than the data for type approval. This is because a single collision between a vehicle and a dummy
is expensive and requires extensive organizational preparation. Assuming that the front-end of the
vehicle shall be tested fully in terms of its geometry, there should be at least a dozen crash tests using
a dummy.
Therefore, for VRU safety the working groups decided to replace the dummy with a series of
tests with impactors. The models of human body parts, called impactors, significantly reduce the
cost of research, and, on the other hand, allow the test procedure to be normalized. Herein, the
author presented the current norms and regulations for pedestrians, cyclists, children transported
on the bicycle-mounted seats and motorcyclists. This will enable to have a better perspective on
how the VRU’s safety state is currently verified. Moreover, some limitations of current regulations
are highlighted.

2.1. Pedestrian Safety Regulations

Since the 1960s, the enhancement in vehicle safety was not only a marketing trick but more
importantly, was required by relevant standards and regulations. Twenty years later the first actions
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 4 of 20

wereSci.taken
Appl. tox stop
2019, 9, the growing
FOR PEER REVIEW number of fatal road accidents involving pedestrians [21,22]. 4 ofThe
20
legal aspects of vehicle collisions with pedestrians were first dealt with by the European Experimental
legal aspects
Vehicle of vehicle
Committee collisions
(EEVC) with
in the pedestrians
1980s. In 1988 were
thefirst dealt with
so-called by theGroup
Working European Experimental
10 (later renamed
Vehicle Committee
to Working Group (EEVC)
17) was in the 1980s.under
established In 1988 thethe so-called
EEVC, whose Working Group
objective was10 to (later
developrenamed
methods to
Working
and define Group
limits 17)onwas established under
biomechanical valuesthe forEEVC,
a casewhose
when aobjective wasistostruck
pedestrian develop by methods
the frontand of a
define
vehiclelimits on2009,
[23]. In biomechanical
based on the values for a case
experience of thewhen
EEVC,a pedestrian is struck
the Parliament of thebyEuropean
the frontUnion
of a vehicle
issued
[23]. In 2009,(EC)
Regulation based on theamending
78/2009 experienceDirective
of the EEVC, the Parliament
2005/66/EC of the European
on the type-approval Unionvehicles
of motor issued
Regulation
with regard(EC) 78/2009 amending
to pedestrian Directive
safety [24]. In order2005/66/EC on the
to validate the parameters
type-approval of motor vehicles
established with
in Regulation
regard to pedestrian
(EC) 78/2009, certified safety [24]. In
impactors orderbe
should toused,
validate
whichthereflect
parameters established
those parts in Regulation
of the human body that (EC)
are
78/2009, certified
crucial during impactors should be used, which reflect those parts of the human body that are
collision.
crucial during collision.
Regulation (EC) 631/2009, which specifies the (EC) 78/2009, distinguishes two types of headform
Regulation
impactor models: (EC) a 631/2009,
child/small which
adultspecifies
modelthe and(EC)
an 78/2009, distinguishes
adult model, which have two the
types of headform
form of a rigid
impactor
aluminium models:
sphere,awithchild/small
a diameter adult
of 165modelmm,andhalfan adult model,
of which which
is covered withhave
a 14.0the
mm form
thickofsynthetic
a rigid
aluminium sphere, with a diameter of 165 mm, half of which is covered with a
skin. The total mass of the headform impactor, including instrumentation, is 3.5 kg for the child model14.0 mm thick synthetic
skin.
and 4.5Thekgtotal mass
for the adultof model
the headform impactor,
[25]. In order including
to validate instrumentation,
the parameters is 3.5inkg
established for the child
Regulation (EC)
model and 4.5 kg for the adult model [25]. In order to validate the parameters
78/2009 it is mandatory to use certified impactors which reflect those parts of the human body that are established in
Regulation (EC) 78/2009
critical in terms of injuries. it is mandatory to use certified impactors which reflect those parts of the
human Thebody that are of
simulation critical in termsisof
the collision injuries. at impact speeds of 35 or 40 km/h and includes the
performed
The simulation of
following tests (Figure 3a): the collision is performed at impact speeds of 35 or 40 km/h and includes the
following tests (Figure 3a):
 A legform impactor representing the adult lower limb;

 AAn legform impactor representing the adult lower limb;
upper legform impactor representing the adult upper leg and pelvis;
 An upper legform impactor representing the adult upper leg and pelvis;
 Child and adult headform impactors.
 Child and adult headform impactors.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure3.3.(a)
(a)Visualization
Visualizationof
ofaavehicle-to-pedestrian
vehicle-to-pedestrianaccident
accidentand
andthe
theuse
useof
ofimpactors
impactorsthat
thatrepresent
represent
critical
critical parts
parts of the human
humanbody;
body;(b)
(b)determination
determinationofof head
head impact
impact zone—according
zone—according to Regulation
to Regulation (EC)
(EC) 78/2009,
78/2009, phase
phase II. II.

Asfar
As faras
ashead
headinjuries
injuriesare
areconcerned,
concerned,to toobtain
obtainthe
thetype-approval
type-approvalforforthe
thetested
testedvehicle
vehiclethe
theHPC
HPC
(Head Performance Criterion) shall not exceed 1000 over one half of the child headform test
(Head Performance Criterion) shall not exceed 1000 over one half of the child headform test area and, area and,
inaddition,
in addition,shall
shallnot
notexceed
exceed 1000
1000 over
over 2/3
2/3ofofthe
thecombined
combinedchild
childand
andadult
adultheadform
headformtest
testareas.
areas.The
The
headimpact
head impactzone
zonewas
wasdepicted
depictedininFigure
Figure4a.
4a.The
TheHPCHPCforforthe
theremaining
remainingareas
areasshall
shallnot
notexceed
exceed1700
1700
forboth
for bothheadforms
headforms[24].
[24].The
TheHPC
HPCEquation
Equation(1)(1)isisthe
thesame
sameasasfor
forHIC
HIC(Head
(HeadInjury
InjuryCriterion),
Criterion), thus:
thus:
.
!
11
 Z t2 2.5
𝐻𝑃𝐶
HPC or H𝑜𝑟
IC𝐻𝐼𝐶
= 𝑎 𝑡 a𝑑𝑡
(t)dt 𝑡 (𝑡t2 − t1 ) (1)(1)
𝑡 𝑡
t2 − t1 t1
max
The magnitude of the linear acceleration observed at the centre of mass of the dummy head
during the impact is described by a(t). The resultant acceleration [g] is of duration t and t1 and t2 are
two time points [s] during the impact, 0 ≤ t1 < t2 ≤ t. HPC or HIC considers only the linear, translational
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20

575—type
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9,J), which
complies with EN 960, for helmet testing are depicted in Figure 4. The measured
1000 5 of 20
peak linear acceleration according to EN 1078 shall not exceed 250 g.

Figure 4. The test rig for the guided free fall impact test in accordance with the EN 1078 and using EN
960Figure 4. The headform.
magnesium test rig for the guided free fall impact test in accordance with the EN 1078 and using EN
960 magnesium headform.
The magnitude of the linear acceleration observed at the centre of mass of the dummy head
2.3. Child
during on Bicycle-Mounted
the impact is describedSeat Restrain
by a(t). TheRegulations
resultant acceleration [g] is of duration t and t1 and t2
are two time points [s] during the impact, 0 ≤ t1 < t2 ≤ t. HPC or HIC considers only the linear,
The transport of children by bicycle has been popular in America since the late 1970s [32]. It is
translational acceleration over this previously defined time window. For (EC) 78/2009 time interval
also described by the Australian National Cycling Strategy 2011–2016 (NCS) as a safe, viable and
greater than 15 ms is ignored thus we can name it as HPC(15).
enjoyable mode of transport and recreation and enabling families to cycle safely [33,34]. However,
A study of the literature concerning pedestrian safety indicates that the biofidelity of the used
road injuries are the leading cause of death for children—this is a clear signal for the current child
impactors for (EC) 78/2099 has not been definitively resolved. It has been proven that the impactors
health agenda. Car seats designed for children are highly effective in reducing injury to child
used in tests cannot reliably assess the safety of vehicles with a high-bumper and bonnet reference line
occupants. It has been reported that a proper child restrain can lead to approximately 60% of the
(SUVs). Using the impactor raises many doubts and questions [26,27]. The currently used impactors
reduction in deaths [35–37]. Yet, little attention has been drawn to the VRUs who are children
are not reliable in assessing the safety of SUVs for vulnerable road users. Moreover, it should be noted
transported in child seats mounted on the bicycle [38].
that the limit values of HPC parameters are not related to the mechanisms of injury.
Bicycle-mounted child seats consist generally of a horizontal platform supported by vertical
struts,
2.2. Cyclistwhich
Helmet areRegulations
connected to the bike’s frame—the mounting configurations are visualized in Figure
5. Safety features include spoke guards, reflectors, seat belt or harness and on some models a grab
barInwhich
recentacts
years, environmental
as a front awareness has gained strength and popularity especially in
restraint [39].
high-income countries [6]. Not only hybrid or electric vehicles are frequently used but also bicycles
more often replace cars as the main mean of transport. Except for its undisputed ecological value, the
economical aspect comes to the fore [28]. Nowadays, due to traffic jams in cities, a bicycle as a mean of
transport allows its user to save time. As the ecological, economical, time saving and health improving
form of transport, the tendency with all likelihood will increase the participation of cyclists in traffic.
In low-income countries, the key aspect for cycling is the availability, ease of access and low expense
of vehicle maintenance. Usually, there is no need for dedicated infrastructure and this contributes to
the convenience of using this form of transport, especially in places that are hard to reach by other
means of transport.
Figure 5. Mounting
Nevertheless, the mainconfigurations
burden for aof bicycle-mounted
bicyclist seat—rear-rack
comes from (left), rear-frame
the high probability of injury,(middle),
especially
front (right).
in cases of impacts with motor vehicles. The most exposed body regions in the case of cyclists during
road accidents are the upper extremities and head, which is injured in 42% of cases [29]. The frequency
Thetodifferent
of injuries babybody
the cyclist’s carrier models
region offer the possibility
is presented in Table 1. to transport
It was up to a mass
also reported of 22 kg.
that cyclists whoBaby
carriers have to match the demands of DIN EN 14344
died as a result of an impact usually did not wear helmets [30]. [40] to be sold as such a device on the European
Union market. In terms of child safety, there is a requirement in DIN EN 14344, which is related to
the restrain system test. The test method for effectiveness of the restraint system (roll-over test) states
that a test dummy shall be placed centrally on the seat against the backrest. The test dummy is to be
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 6 of 20

Table 1. Injury frequency of cyclist’s body region, adapted from [4,29].

Body Region Frequency [%]

Head
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 42 6 of 20
Neck 6
Thorax
575—type J), which complies with 21 in Figure 4. The measured
EN 960, for helmet testing are depicted
Upper extremity 44
peak linear acceleration according to EN 1078 shall not exceed 250 g.
Abdomen 5
Pelvis 11
Thigh 7
Knee 25
Lower leg 15
Foot 13

To protect the cyclist’s head from potential injuries the EN 1078 standard was introduced 1997
in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) member states. EN 1078 applies to helmets
for adults and children. However, to prevent young children being trapped by a helmet during some
activities (e.g., play in the playground), which may lead to strangulation, the EN 1080 was put forward.
Although EN 1078 and EN 1080 requires from a helmet the same shock absorption performance (<250 g),
the EN 1080 requires from a helmet manufacturer to provide a retention system with a self-release
mechanism—which opens by a force of 90–160 N—to minimize the risk of child strangulation. The
author of this paper highlights that these two standards cannot be applied interchangeably, when it
comes to young cyclists, as some literature may indicate [31].
According to EN 1078 a helmet should protect the user in the way that the peak acceleration shall
not exceed 250 g for the velocity of 5.42 m/s (drop height 1497 mm) on a flat anvil and 4.57 m/s on the
kerbstone anvil (drop height of 1064 mm). The test rig and the magnesium headform (size 575—type J),
Figure 4. The test rig for the guided free fall impact test in accordance with the EN 1078 and using EN
which complies with EN 960, for helmet testing are depicted in Figure 4. The measured peak linear
960 magnesium headform.
acceleration according to EN 1078 shall not exceed 250 g.
2.3. Child
2.3. Child onon Bicycle-Mounted
Bicycle-Mounted Seat Seat Restrain
Restrain Regulations
Regulations
The transport
The transportof ofchildren
childrenbybybicycle
bicyclehashas been
been popular
popular in America
in America since
since the the
late late
1970s1970s
[32].[32]. It is
It is also
also described by the Australian National Cycling Strategy 2011–2016 (NCS)
described by the Australian National Cycling Strategy 2011–2016 (NCS) as a safe, viable and enjoyableas a safe, viable and
enjoyable
mode mode ofand
of transport transport andand
recreation recreation
enabling and enabling
families families
to cycle safelyto [33,34].
cycle safely [33,34].
However, However,
road injuries
road injuries are the leading cause of death for children—this is a clear signal for
are the leading cause of death for children—this is a clear signal for the current child health agenda. the current child
Car seats designed for children are highly effective in reducing injury to child occupants. It has child
health agenda. Car seats designed for children are highly effective in reducing injury to been
occupants.
reported It ahas
that beenchild
proper reported thatcan
restrain a proper child restrain can
lead to approximately 60%lead to reduction
of the approximately 60%[35–37].
in deaths of the
reduction
Yet, in deaths
little attention has[35–37]. Yet, little
been drawn to theattention
VRUs who hasarebeen drawn
children to the VRUs
transported who
in child aremounted
seats children
transported
on the bicycle in[38].
child seats mounted on the bicycle [38].
Bicycle-mounted child
Bicycle-mounted seats consist
child seats consist generally
generally ofof aa horizontal
horizontal platform
platform supported
supported by by vertical
vertical
struts, which are connected to the bike’s frame—the mounting configurations are
struts, which are connected to the bike’s frame—the mounting configurations are visualized in Figure visualized in Figure 5.
5. Safety
Safety features
features include
include spoke
spoke guards,
guards, reflectors,
reflectors, seatseat
beltbelt or harness
or harness andand on some
on some models
models a grab
a grab bar
bar which
which acts acts
as a as a front
front restraint
restraint [39].[39].

Figure 5. Mounting configurations of bicycle-mounted seat—rear-rack (left), rear-frame (middle),

Figure 5. Mounting configurations of bicycle-mounted seat—rear-rack (left), rear-frame (middle),
front (right).
front (right).

The different baby carrier models offer the possibility to transport up to a mass of 22 kg. Baby
carriers have to match the demands of DIN EN 14344 [40] to be sold as such a device on the European
Union market. In terms of child safety, there is a requirement in DIN EN 14344, which is related to
the restrain system test. The test method for effectiveness of the restraint system (roll-over test) states
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 7 of 20

The different baby carrier models offer the possibility to transport up to a mass of 22 kg. Baby
carriers have to match the demands of DIN EN 14344 [40] to be sold as such a device on the European
Union
Appl. Sci. 2019,market.
9, x FORIn terms
PEER of child safety, there is a requirement in DIN EN 14344, which is related to
REVIEW 7 of 20
the restrain system test. The test method for effectiveness of the restraint system (roll-over test) states
madethat of arigid
test dummy
materialshall
withbeaplaced
smooth centrally
surface onfinish.
the seatThe
against
massthe
is backrest. TheIts
to be 9 kg. test dummy is
technical to be is
drawing
made of
illustrated inrigid
Figurematerial with a smooth
6. A means surface
of rotation finish.
is used toThe mass
rotate is product
the to be 9 kg.smoothly
Its technical drawing
through 360°is at a
illustrated in Figure 6. A means of rotation is used to rotate the product smoothly through 360◦ at a
rotational speed of (4 ± 0.5) RPM in a forward and reverse direction for a total of 3 forward and 3
rotational speed of (4 ± 0.5) RPM in a forward and reverse direction for a total of 3 forward and 3
reverse rotations. The dummy shall not completely fall out of the restraint system. However, partial
reverse rotations. The dummy shall not completely fall out of the restraint system. However, partial
movement
movement of the testtest
of the dummy
dummy is is
not
notconsidered
considered aa failure [40].
failure [40].

Figure 6. Test dummy with its dimensions [mm] for child seat roll-over test [40].
Figure 6. Test dummy with its dimensions [mm] for child seat roll-over test [40].
Some research done by Ptak et al. [38] highlighted the problem of a child slipping out of the
Some research
bicycle done
seat during by Consequently,
a crash. Ptak et al. [38] highlighted
it has the
been proven problem
that of a child slipping
the crashworthiness of a child out
seat of
is the
bicycle seat
very lowduring
[41]. a crash. Consequently, it has been proven that the crashworthiness of a child seat
is very low [41].
2.4. Motorcyclist Helemet Regulations
2.4. Motorcyclist Helemet
Motorcyclists areRegulations
about 27 times more likely to die in a traffic crash than car occupants and about
6 times more likely to be injured. This means that crashes and their consequences are a significant
Motorcyclists are about 27 times more likely to die in a traffic crash than car occupants and about
problem in society [42,43]. The most frequent injuries experienced by two-wheelers include injuries
6 times more likely to be injured. This means that crashes and their consequences are a significant
to the lower limbs (31.8%), upper limbs (23.9%) and head (18.4%). For passengers, also the greatest
problem
numberin society [42,43].
of injuries wereThe mosttofrequent
injuries the lowerinjuries experienced
limbs (32.3%), while abyhigher
two-wheelers include
share of head injuries
injuries
to the lower
was limbsthat
recorded, (31.8%), upper
is, 24.2%. limbs (23.9%)
Moreover, and head
it the human’s torso(18.4%).
with theFor passengers,
spine also the part
is also a vulnerable greatest
number of human
of the injuriesbody
wereduring
injuries to the lower limbs
accidents—thereby the(32.3%), while
researchers a higher
attention haveshare
beenoffocused
head injuries
on this was
recorded, that is, 24.2%.
issue [44–47]. Moreover,
The number it the to
of injuries human’s torso
individual with
parts forthe spineand
drivers is also a vulnerable
passengers partin
is shown of the
humanFigure
body7. Besides,
during head injuries are the leading
accidents—thereby cause of death
the researchers and trauma
attention haveforbeen
motorfocused
vehicle users [48].issue
on this
[44–47]. The number of injuries to individual parts for drivers and passengers is shown in Figure 7.
Besides, head injuries are the leading cause of death and trauma for motor vehicle users [48].
 to the lower limbs (31.8%), upper limbs (23.9%) and head (18.4%). For passengers, also the greatest
number of injuries were injuries to the lower limbs (32.3%), while a higher share of head injuries was
recorded, that is, 24.2%. Moreover, it the human’s torso with the spine is also a vulnerable part of the
human body during accidents—thereby the researchers attention have been focused on this issue
[44–47]. The number of injuries to individual parts for drivers and passengers is shown in Figure
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000
7.
8 of 20
Besides, head injuries are the leading cause of death and trauma for motor vehicle users [48].

Figure
Appl. Sci. 2019, 7. The
9, x FOR number
PEER of injuries to body parts for a: (A) motorcycle driver; (B) passenger [49]. 8 of 20
REVIEW

Accordingtotothe
According theECE
ECE22.05
22.05standard,
standard,thethehelmet-headform
helmet-headformsystem
systemisisdropped
droppedwithout
withoutany
any
restriction against an anvil with a velocity of 7.5 m/s for points B, P, R, X and 5.5 m/s for point S—see
restriction against an anvil with a velocity of 7.5 m/s for points B, P, R, X and 5.5 m/s for point S—see
Figure8.8.
Figure

Figure
Figure 8. 8. Impact
Impact configurations
configurations according
according toto ECE
ECE R22.05
R22.05 and
and markedpoints
marked pointsfor
fortesting.
testing.

The absorption efficiency shall be considered sufficient when the resultant acceleration measured
The absorption efficiency shall be considered sufficient when the resultant acceleration
at the centre of gravity (CoG) of the EN 960 headform (the same as for EN 1078) does not exceed 275 g
measured at the centre of gravity (CoG) of the EN 960 headform (the same as for EN 1078) does not
and the HIC does not exceed 2400 [50].
exceed 275 g and the HIC does not exceed 2400 [50].
The use of helmets has indicated the reduction of fatal and serious head injuries by between 20%
The use of helmets has indicated the reduction of fatal and serious head injuries by between 20%
and 45% among motorized two-wheelers users [6]. However, a low quality helmet might give the
and 45% among motorized two-wheelers users [6]. However, a low quality helmet might give the
rider a false sense of protection. In case of a crash, a rider using a poor quality helmet could get more
rider a false sense of protection. In case of a crash, a rider using a poor quality helmet could get more
severely injured or even killed, sending the false message that all helmets are useless [42].
severely injured or even killed, sending the false message that all helmets are useless [42].
2.5. Author’s Research Methodology
2.5. Author’s Research Methodology
It needs to be highlighted that the best solution for the analysis of human body structure
It needs to
degradation be research
is the highlighted that the
on human best solution
preparations for the
[51,52]. analysis ofobtaining
Nevertheless, human body structure
the preparations
degradation
to investigateis the
forresearch on tissues
example, human immediately
preparations [51,52]. Nevertheless,
after death obtaining
is significantly the preparations
impeded. Therefore,
tocurrently
investigate for example, tissues immediately after death is significantly impeded.
one of the best ways to identify structure responses to forces is numerical modelling. Therefore,In
currently one
particular, theoffinite
the best waysmethod
element to identify structure
(FEM), which isresponses to forces
the leading methodisfor
numerical modelling.
the analysis In
of dynamic
particular,
phenomena the [53,54].
finite element method
The vast (FEM), which
development is the leadingpower
of computational methodandforexpansion
the analysis of dynamic
of FEM enables
phenomena [53,54]. The vast development of computational power and expansion
broadening the possibilities and application area on the ground of VRU safety. Advanced numericalof FEM enables
broadening the possibilities
analyses have and application
been developing area on
simultaneously withthethe
ground
rapid of VRU of
growth safety. Advanced
computers. numerical
Currently, their
analyses have been developing simultaneously with the rapid growth of computers. Currently,
contribution to the vehicle designing and testing process is vital. When FEM and MultiBody (MB)—the their
contribution to the vehicle designing and testing process is vital. When FEM and MultiBody (MB)—
the techniques used to determine the approximated solution for partial differential equations on a
defined domain—were started to be used by appropriate software, the complexities of modelling,
including safety issues, could be addressed [50,55,56]. Figure 9 depicts Computer-aided technology
(CAx) approaches to enhance VRU safety.
to investigate for example, tissues immediately after death is significantly impeded. Therefore,
currently one of the best ways to identify structure responses to forces is numerical modelling. In
particular, the finite element method (FEM), which is the leading method for the analysis of dynamic
phenomena [53,54]. The vast development of computational power and expansion of FEM enables
broadening
Appl. Sci. 2019, the possibilities and application area on the ground of VRU safety. Advanced numerical
9, 1000 9 of 20
analyses have been developing simultaneously with the rapid growth of computers. Currently, their
contribution to the vehicle designing and testing process is vital. When FEM and MultiBody (MB)—
techniques
the techniquesusedusedto determine the approximated
to determine solution
the approximated for partial
solution differential
for partial equations
differential on a defined
equations on a
domain—were started to be used by appropriate software, the complexities of modelling,
defined domain—were started to be used by appropriate software, the complexities of modelling, including
safety issues,
including safetycould be could
issues, addressed [50,55,56].
be addressed Figure 9Figure
[50,55,56]. depicts Computer-aided
9 depicts technology
Computer-aided (CAx)
technology
approaches to enhance VRU safety.
(CAx) approaches to enhance VRU safety.

Figure 9. Computer-aided technologies (CAx) for vulnerable road user safety enhancement.
Figure 9. Computer-aided technologies (CAx) for vulnerable road user safety enhancement.
During the last two decades, the application of FEM and MB has been widely used in the field of
traffic safety enhancement [57,58]. Therefore, multi-variant numerical models, which take into account
the complex structures of the human body become a valuable tool for assessing safety and estimating
the risk of injury and can reduce the effects of accidents through better diagnostics and the creation of
preventive systems.
To assess the kinematics of an impacted VRU the author used mainly an advanced coupling
method. The FE-MB coupling provides the opportunity for a user to combine, in a single numerical
simulation, two different numerical codes. The author needed to combine the two products since
MADYMO contains advanced, well-developed and validated dummies and LS-DYNA features
accurate contact definitions and state-of-the-art material models. In the coupling, MADYMO builds a
part of the FE model it receives from LS-DYNA. The MADYMO code puts forces on the nodes and
display the FE model in the kinematic output files. The time step is synchronized, so the minimum
of either FE or MB time step is integrated. The MB models presented in study are the 50th percentile
male Hybrid III-adult dummy and a 1.5 and 3-year-old child dummy from MADYMO environment.
The author of this study has simulated hundreds of possible real-world frontal and side impact
scenarios by applying a hybrid finite element-multibody framework. The geometrical models of vehicle,
baby seat and motorcycle were created mainly by using a 3D scanner and advanced photogrammetry
method to obtain realistic point clouds that were subsequently transformed into finite element models.
The implementation of an original bicycle model and biofidelic multibody dummy models allowed the
author to evaluate the influence of the transport-modes to the resulting kinematics. The constitutive
material models were also investigated through destructive and non-destructive tests—more details
can be found in References [11,59]. Finally, some parts of numerical models were validated during
experimental research.
The last part of the presented authors’ methodology is focused on safety gears and pro-active
measuring systems. Moreover, the author presents, among others natural energy-absorbing
materials—including cork—which, due to the adequate crashworthiness, may in the future replace
commonly used polystyrene, for example, in motorcycle helmet liners [59–61].

3. Results
The current experimental test methods described in paragraph 2 used to assess the safety of
VRUs do not allow the researcher to have a full insight into either the human kinematics nor the body
response, especially brain tissues, resulting from excessive loads. Currently, the descripted physical
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 10 of 20

models (impactors such as a headform) are used to assess VRU safety thanks to which for example,
HIC or HIP is verified. However, usually the current trauma criteria only estimate the risk of external
injuries caused by mechanical acceleration. The HIC criterion, among the others, only takes into
account linear acceleration, while neglecting the influence of angular acceleration [62]. In fact, there is
rarely an impact that is purely rotational or linear in the real world [63].
The author of the publication solves the research problem by linking, usually separately
considered, issues from the mechanics, biomechanics, medical imaging and neurosurgery as well
as computational methods. Thanks to the study of the properties of the brain structure through
experimental and computational research, the precise input data for numerical models was obtained.
Thus, after a proper validation, it was feasible to carry out robust numerical simulations of the
structural destruction of the brain tissues and to verify the injuries of other parts of the human body
under the influence of physical loads. By using numerical simulations, it was possible to compute for
example, stress, strain and intracranial pressure, which would be unfeasible while measuring in vivo.
Variables such as strain or intracranial pressure have been pointed out as better injury indicators than
externally measured linear or angular acceleration [63]. Accordingly, based on MADYMO dummy’s
head velocity registration the
Appl. Sci. 2019,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, xauthor
FOR PEERimplement
9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
REVIEW the boundary conditions such as velocity components, 10 of 20
10 of 20
for the simulations in LS-DYNA or ABAQUS. The post-processed data aided in assessing the severity
notbeen
not beenvalidated
validatedso sofar—thus
far—thusthe theauthor
authorrefrained
refrainedofofshowing
showingany
anyresults,
results,which
whichmight
mightbebenot
not
of head injury. The FE Sci.
robust.
Appl. head2019, models were
9, x FOR PEER developed,
REVIEW validated and descripted in details in author’s
10 of 20
robust.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20
publications [64–66]. The multi-scale approach carried out for VRU safety assessment is presented in
not been validated
Table2.so so
2.The
The far—thus thethe
multi-scale author
vulnerable refrained
road user of showing
numerical any
approach results, which might
bebenotnot
Table 2. Unlike the
notother
been presented
validated
Table models,
far—thus the
multi-scale child’s
author
vulnerable head
refrained
road model
user of hasapproach
showing
numerical not
any beentotoassess
results,assess safety.
validated
which so far—thus
might
safety.
robust.
robust.
the author refrained ofVRU
VRU showing
Case any results, which might be not robust.
Case NumericalApproach
Numerical Approach In-DepthNumerical
In-Depth Numerical Study
Study
Study Table 2. The multi-scale vulnerable road user numerical approach to assess safety. Study
Table 2. The multi-scale vulnerable road user numerical approach to assess safety.
Table 2. The multi-scale vulnerable road user numerical approach to assess safety.
VRU VRU
Pedestrian
CaseCase
Pedestrian Numerical Approach In-Depth Numerical Study
VRU Case Study Study Numerical Approach
Numerical Approach In-Depth
In-DepthNumerical Study
Numerical Study
accident—
Study
accident—
windshield
windshield
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
impact
impact atat
accident—
accident—
72 km/h.
72 windshield
km/h. The The
windshield
sustained
sustained
impact
impact at at
injuriesininbrain
injuries brain
7272
Pedestrian accident—windshieldkm/h.km/h. The
impact
The
at 72 km/h. The sustained tissues
tissues arein
are
injuries
sustained
sustained
brain tissues are assessed
assessed to be
assessed
injuries totobrain
be
be
critical—cerebralinjuries
contusion.in in
brain
critical—
critical—
tissues
tissues areare
cerebral
cerebral
assessed
assessed to tobebe 50th-percentilemale
maleMBMBpedestrian
pedestrian Hydrostaticpressure
pressureininthe
thebrain
brain
contusion. 50th-percentile Hydrostatic
contusion.
critical— model coupled with a FE compact car. [MPa].
critical— model coupled with a FE compact car. [MPa].
cerebral
Cyclist
cerebral
Cyclist 50th-percentile male MB
50th-percentile malepedestrian
MB model
pedestrian Hydrostatic pressure in the brain
contusion. 50th-percentile
coupled withmale MB pedestrian
a FE compact car. Hydrostatic
Hydrostatic pressure
pressure inbrain
in the the brain
[MPa].
accident—SUV
contusion.
accident—SUV model
model coupled
coupled with
with a FE
a FE compact
compact car.
car. [MPa].
[MPa].
impactsatat
impactsCyclist
Cyclist
40 km/h.Skull
40accident—SUV
km/h. Skull
accident—SUV
fracturescan
fractures canbe be
impacts
impacts at at
Cyclist accident—SUV clearly
impacts
clearly validated
at
validated 40
40can40 km/h.
km/h. Skull
Skull
km/h. Skull fractures during be clearly
autopsy
during
fractures autopsy
can
validated during autopsy or CT can
fractures medicalbebe
examination. Research or
or CTmedical
important
CT medical for
clearly
clearly validated
validated
cyclist’s helmet optimization
examination. and
examination.
during
forensic science. autopsy
during autopsy
Research
Research
or orCTCT medical
medical
important
important for
for Cyclist’s skull—max principal
Cyclist’s skull—max principal
examination.
examination. Cyclist’s skull—max principal stress and
cyclist’shelmet
helmet 50th-percentile male male
50th-percentile on a MB
onabicycle
aMB model,
MBbicycle
bicycle stresspattern
fracture andfracture
fracture patternand
on periosteum on
cyclist’sResearch 50th-percentile malea FE
coupled with on SUV. stress and pattern on
Research endosteum [MPa].
optimization
optimization model,coupled
model, coupledwith
withaaFE
FESUV.
SUV. periosteumand
periosteum andendosteum
endosteum[MPa].
[MPa].
important
important forfor Cyclist’s
Cyclist’s skull—max
skull—max principal
principal
andforensic
and forensic
cyclist’s
cyclist’s helmet helmet 50th-percentile
50th-percentile male
male onon a MB
a MB bicycle
bicycle stress
stress andand fracture
fracture pattern
pattern onon
science.
science.
optimization
optimization model, coupled with a FE SUV.
model, coupled with a FE SUV. periosteum
periosteum and
and endosteum
endosteum [MPa].
[MPa].
and and forensic
forensic
science.
science.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 11 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

Child
Appl. Sci.on bicycle-
2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table 2. Cont. 11 of 20
Appl.Child on bicycle-
Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
mounted seat—
VRU Case Study mounted seat— Numerical Approach In-Depth Numerical Study
compact
Child car
on bicycle-
Child compact
on bicycle- car
impacts
mounted at
seat—
mounted impacts at
40 km/h.seat—
compact The
car
40 km/h.car
compact The
childimpactsslips at out
child
impacts slips at out
Child on bicycle-mountedfrom seat belts
40seat—compact
km/h. The
car impacts at 40 km/h. from
40The km/h. seat
childThe belts
slips
and
child impacts
slipsthe the
out
out from seat belts and and impacts
impacts the
child
bonnet. slips out
bonnet. The child’s
from seatThe
seat belts
crashworthinessfrom bonnet.
seat
is assessed. The
belts 50th-percentile male and 1.5-year-old
and child’s
impacts seatthe 50th-percentile male and 1.5-year-old
and child’s
impacts seat
the child MB models coupled with a FE
crashworthiness
bonnet. The child MB models coupled with a FE
crashworthiness SUV—the head
50th-percentile male bonnet contact
and 1.5-year-old Child’s head numerical model.
bonnet.
is assessed. The 50th-percentile male andbonnet
1.5-year-old child Child’s head numerical model.
child’s seat SUV—the
50th-percentile head
male and contact
1.5-year-old
is assessed.
child’s seat MBchildmodelsMB coupled magnified.
models with coupled a FE with
SUV—the a FE
crashworthiness child MBbonnet
models magnified.
coupled with a FE Child’s head head numerical
Motorcyclist— head contact
SUV—the head bonnet contact
magnified. Child’s numericalmodel. model.
crashworthiness
is assessed.
Motorcyclist— SUV—the head bonnet contact Child’s head numerical model.
the is helmet
assessed. test magnified.
the helmet test magnified.
according to
Motorcyclist—
according to
Motorcyclist—
theECE R22.05
helmet test
the ECE
helmet R22.05
test
(point
according B) with to
Motorcyclist—the helmet (point B) with
test according
according to
anECE advanced
to ECE R22.05 (point B) with an R22.05
ECEan advanced
R22.05
advanced head modelhead to
(pointcompare
model
B) withHIC
to
registered on the standard head
(point model
headform
B) with to EN 960 headform test published in
with cerebral pressure compare
anonadvanced
FE model.HIC EN960
EN 960headform
headform testtest published
published in in
compare
an advanced HIC Reference [50] (left): HIC = 1876
registered
head modelonto Reference [50] (left):
Reference [50]HIC = 1876
(left): HIC and amax =
= 1876
head registered
model to on 213 EN 960the
g vs. and
headform
helmet amaxwith
=test
213 g
published
advanced headin
the standard
compare HIC EN
model 960 and amax
headform
(right—sagittal test= 213
section g
published
through in
the
the standard
compare HIC vs.Reference
the helmet [50]with advanced
(left): HIC = 1876 head Hydrostatic pressure pressure ininthe
headform
registeredwith on vs. head and
the helmet
Reference [50] with
helmet).
advanced
(left):section
HIC = through
1876 head Hydrostatic thebrain
brain
headform on with model (right—sagittal and amax = 213 g [MPa]—sagittal
Hydrostatic section view,
pressure in theleft
brain
registered
cerebral
the standard model (right—sagittal
and amax = 213 section
g through [MPa]—sagittal hemisphere section
visible.view, left
cerebral
the standard vs. the the
helmethead and
with helmet).
advanced head [MPa]—sagittal section view, left
pressure
headformonwith FE vs. the helmetthe head with and helmet).head
advanced Hydrostatic hemispherepressure visible.
in the brain
pressure with
headform on FE model (right—sagittal section through Hydrostatic hemisphere
pressurevisible.
in the brain
model.
cerebral model (right—sagittal section through criteria [MPa]—sagittal section view, left
Nowadays, numerical model.systems can improve
cerebral the head and biomechanical
helmet). as well as
[MPa]—sagittal head-protective
section view, left
pressure on FE the head and helmet). of accidents, diagnosis hemisphere visible.
systems, facilitatingpressure forensic
Nowadays, sciences and the reconstruction
on FEnumerical systems can improve biomechanical criteria andhead-protective of
as well as visible.
hemisphere prediction
model.
Nowadays, numerical systemsand canthe improve biomechanical criteria as The
well use
as head-protective
injuries and enables systems,researchers
model.facilitating to gain
forensic knowledge
sciences in the field
reconstruction of head
of injuries.
accidents, diagnosis and of numerical
prediction of
systems,
injuries and facilitating
enables forensic sciences
researchers to gain and the reconstruction
knowledge in the field ofofaccidents,
head diagnosis
injuries. The andofprediction
use numerical of
systems has contributed injuriesNowadays, to enables
and
reduction
numerical of
researchers
VRU
systems to
injuries—these
can
gain improve biomechanical
knowledge in the
aspects
field of
were
criteria
head aspresented
wellThe
injuries.
by eminent
as head-protective
use of numerical
systems has contributed
Nowadays, numerical to systems
reduction can ofimprove
VRU injuries—these
biomechanical aspects
criteriawere presented
ascoherent
well asand by eminent
head-protective
researchers in Referencessystems,
systemsfacilitating
has[62,67–70]. forensic Therefore,
tosciences andofthe
the author
reconstruction put of forward
accidents, adiagnosis methodology,
prediction of
researchers
systems, in contributed
References
facilitating forensic
reduction
[62,67–70].
sciences Therefore,
and the
VRU injuries—these
the authorofput
reconstruction
aspects
forwarddiagnosis
accidents,
were presented
a coherent and
by eminent
methodology,
prediction of
based on numerical injuries
and
researchers and enables
experimental
in researchers
References achievements to gain Therefore,
[62,67–70]. knowledge
and proposedin the
the authorfield
someof head
put injuries.
technical
forward a The use methodology,
of numerical
countermeasures
coherent to
based onand
injuries numerical
enables and experimental
researchers to gainachievements
knowledge inand the proposed
field ofaspects
head some technical
injuries. The countermeasures
use ofby numerical
systems
based onhas contributed
numerical and to reduction
experimental of VRU injuries—these
achievements and proposed some were presented
technical eminent
countermeasures
improve road safety systems for VRUs.
to improve hasroad safety fortoVRUs.
contributed reduction Therefore,
of VRU injuries—these aspects were presentedmethodology,
by eminent
researchers
to improve in
roadReferences
safety forin [62,67–70].
VRUs. the author put forward a coherent
The method researchers
depicted The method in
in depicted
Figure
References 10 Figure 10of
consists
[62,67–70]. consists
the
Therefore, ofthe
six the author
steps. six steps.
Whereas
put Whereas
forward the the stages
stages
a coherent 1–3methodology,
1–3 already
already exist,
exist,
based The on numerical
method and experimental
depicted in Figure 10achievements
consists of the andsixproposed
steps. some technical
Whereas the stagescountermeasures
1–3 already exist,
the stages 4–6 are added by the author to contribute towards VRUs safety enhancement:
the stages 4–6 arebased added
tothe
improve on numerical
by
stages 4–6 the
roadare safety and
author
added
experimental
forbyto
VRUs. contribute achievements
towards andVRUsproposed
the author to contribute towards VRUs safety enhancement:safety some technical
enhancement: countermeasures
to
1. improveNorms
The method road safety
and regulations
depicted for encompassing
VRUs.
in Figure 10 consists the safetyof the requirements
six steps. Whereas for a VRU the during
stages 1–3 an impact.
already They
exist,
1. The Norms method andon regulations inencompassing the safety requirements for
onaempirical
VRU during 1–3analready
impact. They
1. Norms and regulations are
the stages formed
4–6 aredepicted
biomechanical
added
encompassing by Figure
the author
the 10 consists
criteria—often
safetyto contributeof the
requirements six steps.VRUs
established
towards forWhereas
based
a VRU safety the stages data—and,
enhancement:
during an impact. onexist,
the
They
the stages are formed
other 4–6
hand, on biomechanical
arelimited
added by technical
by the author criteria—often
economic established
to contribute
and towards VRUs
aspects. based safetyon empirical
enhancement: data—and, on the
are formed on 1. biomechanical
Norms
other and hand, regulations
limitedcriteria—often
encompassing
by technical and established
the based on
safety requirements
economic aspects. forempirical
a VRU during data—and,
an impact. They on the
2. Norms Experimental tests carried out according thetosafety
detailed requirements afor eachduring
groupan of impact.
VRUs, which
other hand, 1. limited
2. were are by and regulations
formed
Experimental ontests
technical
described
encompassing
biomechanical
and
carried economic
out criteria—often
according aspects.
to detailed
requirements
established based
requirements
in Section 2. criteria—often established based on empirical data—and, on the
for on VRU
empirical
for each data—and,
group of VRUs,
They
on the
which
are
other formed
hand, on biomechanical
limited by technical and economic aspects.
were described in Section 2.
2. Experimental3.2.testsother carried
Standard hand,
Experimental
out
criteria
limited according
setting
tests setting
carried
to
out thresholds
by technical detailed
and
outthresholds
according
such requirements
economic as HIC
to detailed
or acceleration
aspects. for each limitsgroup
related of to VRUVRUs, which
safety—
3. they Standarddepend criteria
solely on the out time historyto such
ofdetailed
the HICrequirements
astranslational
or acceleration forlimits
acceleration
each related
group of
of a head toVRUs,
VRUand
CoG
which
safety—
do
were described 2. in were Section
Experimental
they described
depend 2.
tests carried
in Section
solely on the
out according requirements for
2. time history of the translational acceleration of a head CoG and do each group of VRUs, which
not evaluate whole body kinematics (pedestrian) nor the crashworthiness of a safety system (a
3. Standard criteria 3. were Standard
setting
not
described
criteria
evaluate outwholein Section
setting
thresholds
bodyout2.kinematics
thresholds
such such as HICas HICor
(pedestrian) or
nor acceleration
acceleration
the crashworthinesslimits related
limits atosafety
VRU system
of related safety—
to VRU (a
bicycle-mounted
3. Standard criteria seat).
setting out thresholds such as HIC or acceleration limits related to VRU safety—
they depend solelyseat).
bicycle-mounted on the time history of the translational acceleration of a head CoG and do
safety—they depend they solely
depend solely on the time history of the translational acceleration of a head CoG and
not evaluate whole on body thekinematics
time history of the translational
(pedestrian) acceleration of of
nor the crashworthiness a head
a safetyCoG and do
system (a
do not evaluate not whole evaluate
bicycle-mounted body whole kinematics
body kinematics
seat). (pedestrian)
(pedestrian) nornor thethe crashworthiness
crashworthiness ofof a safety
a safety system system
(a
(a bicycle-mounted bicycle-mounted
seat). seat).
4. Numerical simulations to verify the injuries/kinematics of a VRU by having an insight into VRU’s
biomechanics by the use of the state-of-the-art numerical models. This tier may involve:

4.1 Coupling (4.1) that is, combining more than one numerical code;
4.1 Single numerical code approach for example, finite element analysis for tissue-level
simulations (4.2).
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 12 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20

Figure10.
Figure 10. A method
method to
to assess
assessand
andenhance
enhancethe
thevulnerable
vulnerableroad user
road safety
user during
safety impact.
during impact.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 13 of 20

Moreover, the multi-scale modelling is also feasible as presented in Table 2.

5 Numerical-based criteria based on biomechanical studies combined with numerical simulations

and full human body analysis. This stage shall contribute in improving the biomechanical criteria
in stage 1—this is highlighted by a dashed line, joining the steps 5 and 1, in Figure 10. The
mechanically relevant responses related to VRU’s:

5.1 Kinematics—such as the k parameter, which can determinate the geometric property of the
pedestrian body movement after a collision. This criterion is thoroughly described in the
author’s publication [71].
5.2 Acceleration, intracranial pressure, stress and strain, which have been postulated as head
injury mechanisms and thereby may be used as predictions of various head injuries.
6 Technical countermeasures to enhance VRU safety when the standard (stage #3) and numerical
criteria (stage #5) are not met. The author has already proposed these countermeasures for each
group of VRUs:

6.1 The Composite Frontal Protection System—made of cork and carbon fibres to reduce
injuries sustained by a pedestrian and optimize the kinematics after a vehicle impact—the
approach is described in References [72,73] and patented [74].
6.2 The multisensor headband, which can be worn under a helmet to gain the data about
the VRU. The system enables registering complex dynamic characteristics of a human
head during situations in which the head is exposed to mechanical impact and it is able
to measure bioelectrical brain activity (electroencephalography)—patent pending [75].
The detection of the respective pathomechanism in cases of destructed brain structures is
extremely important in terms of prevention and treatment.
6.3 The U-protector designed to increase the safety of a child, who is transported in a
bicycle-mounted seat. The attachable device helps to protect the child’s head during
the impact of a vehicle or bicycle fall over [41].
6.4 The motorcycle helmet made of cork, where the padding is made of agglomerated
cork or cork composite (agglomerated cork joined with expanded cork). The cork
material improves the overall performance and capacity to withstand multi-impacts
comparing to the standard synthetic padding. The device was introduced and evaluated
in References [76,77].

4. Discussion
Numerical models along with tests on human cadavers and specialized physical pedestrian
dummies play a pivotal role to reflect the VRU impact situations. It has been highlighted that in VRUs
impacts, head injuries are one of the most common injury types. A number of publications noted that
brain deformation or strain is a principal mechanism of the head injury [60,77]. From the biomechanical
perspective, head injuries are regarded as the consequence of a series of mechanical interactions of
the complex multi-layered scalp-skull-meninges-CSF-BVs-brain system; the CSF is cerebrospinal fluid
and BVs is the abbreviation of bridging veins. However, measuring strain, especially in vivo, during
an impact is a big challenge, which also implies ethical issues. Therefore, numerical analysis allowed
the authors to verify, among others, VRU head injuries after a collision. This was possible as the head
injury criteria are available for FE head models. Some injury tolerance thresholds, which were put
forward for the state-of-the-art finite element human model GHBMC (Global Human Body Models
Consortium) are presented in Table 3 [78]. A proper understanding of the injury mechanism is of
uttermost importance for studying injury prevention. Without knowing the proper injury mechanism,
the associated injury criteria and thresholds, it is not possible to use numerical models to predict
the type, location and severity of head injuries. Beside the criteria presented, there are other injury
tolerances thresholds to other biomechanical responses in the literature [79–81].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 14 of 20

Table 3. Head injury criteria, adapted from [78,82].

Head Injury Criteria Threshold

Bone (skull) fracture
Bone (facial/nose) fracture
Acute Subdural Hematoma (ASDH)
Cerebral contusion
Diffuse axonal injury
Maximum principal stress (diploe layer) 20 MPa
Maximum principal strain (cortical layer) 0.42%
Effective plastic strain (cortical layer) 1.2%
Effective plastic strain (trabecular layer) 4.5%
Strain in bridging veins. ASDH due to bridging vein rupture. 25%
Intracranial pressure in region of interest (Coup) 237 kPa
Intracranial pressure in region of interest (Contrecoup) −104 kPa
Average maximum principal strain in ROI 48%

The presented study helped to understand the VRU kinematics and head injuries at the
tissue/bone level but also is advices appropriate passive safety devices. The models not only enabled
the author to assess the risk to injury in vehicle impacts but also are to optimize the VRU in the early
stages of the vehicle or safety gear design process at relatively low costs. The comprehension of the
factors and variables, which influence the accident would not only help in accident reconstruction but
also allow improving the vehicle construction in terms of safety enhancement for VRUs.
The process of contact for the VRU involves a combination of slide, roll and bounce to rest—yet
the overall injury severity is largely determined on both linear and angular acceleration, which
challenges the current HIC/HPC criteria. As it was presented in Section 2, these criteria, which were
developed from the Wayne State Tolerance Curve (WSTC), depend exclusively on the translational
acceleration without taking rotational acceleration into account [83,84]. As a result, both revealed peak
acceleration and calculated HIC need to be below a threshold, which is defined by regulations for
testing or certification of safety devices. Exemplarily, in the presented ECE R22.05 the maximum value
of HIC = 2400 is stated, while the peak acceleration needs to be limited to 275 g [85]. Base on the state
of the art, the representation of a threshold of severe but not life-threatening injuries HIC(36) = 1000
is widely accepted as an empirical predictor for head injury [86]. The results presented in Table 2
supports these findings. It turned out that for an ECE R22.05 type-approved motorcyclist helmet [50]
the intracranial pressure in region of interest (compare Table 3) are much above the threshold. The
calculated pressure (>1 MPa) may lead to sever brain injuries.
Regardless if the procedure is described by legislation or testing regulation: the background
of establishing these thresholds is to avoid Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) or skull fractures by the
appropriate performance of passive safety devices. Nonetheless, Diffuse Axonal Injury (DAI) and
Subdural Hematoma (SDH) are the types of head injuries commonly occurring for the impacted
VRUs. DAI is the most common cause of post-traumatic coma and may cause a vegetative state
and severe disabilities [87–89]. As initially remarked, HIC is not considering rotational components
of acceleration. In terms of their injury mechanism, DAI as well as SDH are connected to these
components of acceleration, which are present during a direct cranial impact scenario and cause a
relative movement of brain to skull, white to grey matter respectively. In case of SDH, relative motion
between skull and brain causes tearing or failure of the bridging veins of the subdural space. The DAI
may also arise out of relative motion but due to relative motion of white and grey matter. This relative
motion affects the integrity of neuronal axons, which are connecting both parts of the brain tissue. The
axons might get swollen due to this event, which leads consequently to the secondary severe effects
of DAI. Nonetheless, these injuries may also arise below the HIC-threshold of safety criteria. Thus,
the aspects of head movement are gaining importance in the assessment of the overall VRU safety
during an impact scenario [90]. Moreover, the biomechanical response of the skull structures during
traffic accidents is not fully understood. In order to construct head protection systems and criteria for
damage to not only the head structures but also the other human body parts, the research need to
be intensified. Therefore, the author proposed to include numerical modelling as the further step to
assess and improve VRU’s safety.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 15 of 20

Limitations of the Study

As in every research method—including numerical simulations—there is an issue with assessing
the reliability of the obtained results. The problem is to determine the mechanical properties of
human’s body parts, including tissues, which constitute to the analysed part of a person. This stage
can be determined in experimental studies, during which there is also uncertainty of measurements.
Consequently, it is the author’s opinion that the used numerical models needs to demonstrate the
proper validation. It also needs to be acknowledged as the limitation that the presented numerical
thresholds are not necessarily universally valid for all population and related phenomena. The author
believes that mechanism of injuries requires further investigation.
Moreover, most of numerical models consider only the adult head and brain structures and
usually—due to lack of data—a scaled adult version for six or even three years old children is
considered. Nevertheless, even if the general density of information within these models has
increased noticeable over the last decades, the scaling and interpretation of the gathered results is still
controversial. This gets highlighted especially concerning the usage of general accepted (or at least
practically used) thresholds such as HIC(36) = 1000 for the occurrence of severe but not life-threatening
injuries. The literature reveals a variety of studies [91], that tend in a conclusion toward using these
adult values. However, the question is still not conclusively answered for very young children and
babies. Additional work is needed to consolidate the proposed criteria for predicting head injury risk.
To achieve this goal, well-documented head trauma cases are needed—which also implies ethical
issues. Consequently, the author refrained of showing results for a FE child’s head, as the results may
be not credible.

5. Conclusions
Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists form a group called vulnerable road users. More than
half of global road traffic fatalities are VRUs, who tend to be negated in road traffic system design in
majority of countries. This group contributes to 73% of road users killed in city traffic. Nearly half
of road fatalities in cities are pedestrians—for whom the risk of fatality is ten times higher than for
car occupants [8]. The detection of the respective pathomechanism in cases of human body structures
is extremely important in terms of prevention and treatment. Consequently, it ensures the safety of
modern society. It has been demonstrated that the numerical analysis can serve as a powerful tool to
study VRUs head injuries and kinematics.
The study presents a six-stage method of assessing and improving the safety of vulnerable road
users, that is, pedestrian, cyclist—along with a child on a seat—and a motorcyclist. The author
presented the current European legislation for VRU safety. Furthermore, based on the numerical
outcome it was proposed to extend the criteria—by the use of advanced numerical models. By means
of experimental and numerical research, the technical solutions that help to reduce injuries of VRU are
proposed in last stage of the methodology.
Numerical and experimental methods have been continuously improved in order to provide better
analysis of accident scenarios, evaluate their outcomes and provide effective frameworks for their
prevention. The progress in VRU safety enhancement can be achieved through an integrated approach
that includes effective counter-measures such as improved safety standards and regulations—with the
space for numerical methods—and legislation to mitigate high-risk behaviour such as speeding or
giving way to VRUs. However, as it was stated, without the knowledge of the magnitude and risk of
the injuries, the ability to implement biomechanical thresholds is limited. In Reference [67] King wrote
about the GHBMC vehicle occupant model: “after the global model becomes functional, the entire
US automotive industry will use the model for vehicle design in much the same way the Hybrid III
dummy is being used currently for this purpose.” According to the author and as it was presented
herein, to the development of numerical methods may affect not only vehicle occupants but also the
unprotected group outside the cars—vulnerable road users.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 16 of 20

This paper sets out how the virtual testing and FE-impactors can contribute in VRU safety
improvements. The utilization of virtual simulations is continuously evolving, yet it still requires
some accuracy enhancements, particularly in impactor and material modelling. The relative lack of
data for cyclist accidents and the frequently conflicting data on pedestrian injuries means that further
widespread accident data collection is required. Although the physical validation of a test tends to be
costly, it assesses whether potential development can be made in terms of safety enhancement. The
accident data determines the quality of the accident reconstructions, which in turn lays the foundations
for the evaluation of FE models.
The problem of safety of the VRUs is critical and global. The available resources shall be used
to reduce the fatalities and injuries on roads. Thus, this research addresses a gap in current state of
the art by holistically investigating the safety of vulnerable road user groups. As there is the room for
improvement in the field of VRU safety, this publication supports the statement that the presented
standards and regulations can include the numerical methods, such a finite element analysis, in the
near future.
Funding: This research was co-funded by the National Centre for Research and Development of Poland, grant
number LIDER/8/0051/L-8/16/NCBR/2017.

References
1. European Parliament and Council. Directive on the Framework of Deployment of ITS in the Field of Road Transport
and for Interfaces with Other Modes of Transport; European Parliament and Council: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
2. SWOV. Fact sheet Vulnerable road users; SWOV: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 1–5.
3. Ptak, M.; Konarzewski, K. Numerical Technologies for Vulnerable Road User Safety Enhancement. In
New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 354,
pp. 355–364. ISBN 9783319165271.
4. Simms, C.; Wood, D. Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact; Solid Mechanics and Its Applications; Springer
Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; Volume 166, ISBN 978-90-481-2742-9.
5. European Commission. Smart, green and integrated transport. Horizon 2020—Work Program; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
6. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018; World Health Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 978-92-4-156568-4.
7. WHO. Fact Sheet N0 358; Report; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
8. Santacreu, A. Safer City Streets: Global Benchmarking for Urban Road Safety; OECD Publ.: Paris, France, 2018.
9. European Commission. Road Safety in the European Union—Trends, Statistics and Main Challenges; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
10. Jamroz, K.; Budzyński, M.; Romanowska, A.; Żukowska, J.; Oskarbski, J.; Kustra, W. Experiences and
Challenges in Fatality Reduction on Polish Roads. Sustainability 2019, 11, 959. [CrossRef]
11. Fernandes, F.A.O.; Alves de Sousa, R.J.; Ptak, M. Application of Numerical Methods for Accident
Reconstruction and Forensic Analysis. In Head Injury Simulation in Road Traffic Accidents; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2018; pp. 59–98.
12. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety; Inj. Prev.; World Health Organization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; p. 318.
13. Harper, W.W. The physical circumstances of auto-pedestrian collisions. Ariz. Med. 1958, 15, 266–272.
[PubMed]
14. McClain, J.G. Automobile—Pedestrian Traffic Injuries and Fatalities. Willamette Law J. 1959, 1, 514.
15. Fisher, A.; Hall, R. The influence of car frontal design on pedestrian accident trauma. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1971,
4, 47–58. [CrossRef]
16. Hu, J.; Klinich, K.D. Toward Designing Pedestrian-Friendly Vehicles; University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2012.
17. Shi, L.; Han, Y.; Huang, H.; He, W.; Wang, F.; Wang, B. Effects of vehicle front-end safety countermeasures
on pedestrian head injury risk during ground impact. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D J. Automob. Eng. 2019.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 17 of 20

18. Sokolovskij, E.; Prentkovskis, O. Investigating traffic accidents: The interaction between a motor vehicle and
a pedestrian. Transport 2013, 28, 302–312. [CrossRef]
19. Han, Y.; Li, Q.; Qian, Y.; Zhou, D.; Svensson, M. Comparison of the landing kinematics of pedestrians and
cyclists during ground impact determined from vehicle collision video records. Int. J. Veh. Saf. 2018, 10, 212.
[CrossRef]
20. Euro-NCAP European New Car Assesment Programme (Euro NCAP). Pedestrian Testin Protocol; Euro NCAP:
Brussels, Belgium, 2015; p. 52.
21. Daniel, S. The Role of the Vehicle Front End in Pedestrian Impact Protection; SAE Tech. Pap. 820246; SAE:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 1982.
22. Jarrett, K.L.; Saul, R.A. Pedestrian Injury—Analysis of the PCDS Field Collision Data. In Proceedings of the
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Windsor, ON, Canada, 31 May–4
June 1998; pp. 1204–1211.
23. European Enhanced Vehilce-Safety Committee. EEVC Workng Group 22—Virtual Testing; European Enhanced
Vehilce-Safety Committee: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
24. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) no 78/2009 of The European Parliament and of the Council;
European Parliament and Council: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
25. European Union Commission. Regulation (EC) No 631/2009; European Union Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2009.
26. Ptak, M.; Karliński, J. Pedestrian passive safety during the SUV impact: Regulations vs. reality. In
Proceedings of the 2012 IRCOBI Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 12–14 September 2012; pp. 103–113.
27. Ptak, M.; Rusiński, E.; Karliński, J.; Dragan, S. Evaluation of kinematics of SUV to pedestrian impact—Lower
leg impactor and dummy approach. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2012, 12, 68–73. [CrossRef]
28. Biernat, E.; Buchholtz, S.; Bartkiewicz, P. Motivations and barriers to bicycle commuting: Lessons from
Poland. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 55, 492–502. [CrossRef]
29. Otte, D.; Haasper, C. Technical parameters and mechanism for the injury risk of the knee joint of vulnerable
road users impacted by cars and road traffic accidents. In Proceedings of the IRCOBI Conference, Prague,
Czech Republic, 21–23 September 2005.
30. Melo, N.; Berg, R.J.; Inaba, K. Injuries sustained by bicyclists. Trauma 2014, 16, 183–188. [CrossRef]
31. Radziszewski, L. Bicycle Helmets (Kaski Rowerowe); Kielce, Poland, 2015; ISBN 9788363792381. (In Polish)
32. Powell, E.; Tanz, R. Tykes and Bikes, Injuries associated with bicycle-towed child trailers and
bicycles-mounted child seats. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2000, 154, 351–353. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Austroads. The Australian National Cycling Strategy 2011–2016: Gearing up for Active and Sustainable
Communities; Austroads: Sydney, Australia, 2010; ISBN 9781921709296.
34. Oxley, J.; O’Hern, S.; Raftery, S.; Woolley, J. How safe are children when transported by bicycle? Traffic Inj.
Prev. 2016, 17, 163–167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Jakobsson, L.; Isaksson-Hellman, I.; Lundell, B. Safety for the growing child: Experiences from Swedish
accident data. In Proceedings of the 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles, Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 June 2005.
36. Baranowski, P.; Damaziak, K.; Malachowski, J.; Mazurkiewicz, L.; Muszyński, A. A child seat numerical
model validation in the static and dynamic work conditions. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2015, 15, 361–375.
[CrossRef]
37. Mazurkiewicz, L.; Baranowski, P.; Karimi, H.R.; Damaziak, K.; Malachowski, J.; Muszynski, A.;
Muszynski, A.; Robbersmyr, K.G.; Vangi, D. Improved child-resistant system for better side impact protection.
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 97, 3925–3935. [CrossRef]
38. Ptak, M.; Wilhelm, J.; Saunders, N. Safety analysis of a bicycle-mounted child seat. In Proceedings of the
IEEE 2018 XI International Science-Technical Conference Automotive Safety, Casta, Slovakia, 18–20 April
2018; pp. 1–6.
39. Tanz, R.R.; Christoffel, K.K. Tykes on bike: Injuries associated with bicycle-mounted child seats. Pediatr.
Emerg. Care 1991, 7, 297–301. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. European Committee for Standardization. DIN EN 14344: Child Seats for Cycles—Safety Requirements and Test
Methods; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
41. Ptak, M.; Wilhelm, J.; Sawicki, M.; Rusiński, E. Child safety on various bicycle-mounted seats during vehicle
impact. Transport 2019, 34. in-print.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 18 of 20

42. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Motorcycle Helmets Riders’ Guide to Protective
Helmets; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
43. Fernandes, F.A.O.; de Sousa, R.J.A. Finite element analysis of helmeted oblique impacts and head injury
evaluation with a commercial road helmet. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2013, 48, 661–679. [CrossRef]
44. Belytschko, T.B.; Andriacchi, T.P.; Schultz, A.B.; Galante, J.O. Analog studies of forces in the human spine:
Computational techniques. J. Biomech. 1973, 6, 361–371. [CrossRef]
45. Cafolla, D.; Marco, C. Design and Simulation of Humanoid Spine. In Mechanisms and Machine Science;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 585–593.
46. Cafolla, D.; Chen, I.-M.; Ceccarelli, M. An experimental characterization of human torso motion. Front. Mech.
Eng. 2015, 10, 311–325. [CrossRef]
47. Arkusz, K.; Klekiel, T.; Sławiński, G.; B˛edziński, R. Influence of energy absorbers on Malgaigne fracture
mechanism in lumbar-pelvic system under vertical impact load. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng.
2019, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Fernandes, F.A.O.; Alves De Sousa, R.J. Motorcycle helmets—A state of the art review. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2013, 56, 1–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Compagne, J. MAIDS: Motorcycle Accidents in-Depth Study; ITF: Lillehammer, Norway, 2008.
50. Ptak, M.; Kaczyński, P.; Fernandes, F.; de Sousa, R.A. Computer Simulations for Head Injuries Verification
After Impact. In Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Rusiński, E., Pietrusiak, D., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume Part F10.
51. Ratajczak, M.; B˛edziński, R. An investigation of brain structure deformations under impact loading.
In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Polish Society of Biomechanics—Biomechanics 2014,
Łódź, Poland, 1–3 September 2014; pp. 183–184.
52. Nikodem, A.; Pezowicz, C.; Filipiak, J.; Piatek,˛ A.; Biezyński, J.; Kiełbowicz, Z. Effect of bisphosphonate on
mechanical and structural properties of trabecular bone. J. Biomech. 2012, 45, S548. [CrossRef]
53. Matsui, Y.; Oikawa, S. Effect of Seat Condition on Abdominal Injuries to Vehicle Occupants in Frontal Impact
Accidents. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2047. [CrossRef]
54. Karliński, J.; Rusiński, E.; Smolnicki, T. Protective structures for construction and mining machine operators.
Autom. Constr. 2008, 17, 232–244. [CrossRef]
55. Karliński, J.; Ptak, M.; Działak, P.; Rusiński, E. The approach to mining safety improvement: Accident
analysis of an underground machine operator. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2016, 16, 503–512. [CrossRef]
56. Derlukiewicz, D.; Karliński, J.; Iluk, A. The Operator Protective Structures Testing for Mining Machines.
Solid State Phenom. 2010, 165, 256–261. [CrossRef]
57. Joszko, K.; Wolański, W.; Burkacki, M.; Suchoń, S.; Zielonka, K.; Muszyński, A.; Gzik, M. Biomechanical
analysis of injuries of rally driver with head supporting device. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 2016, 18, 159–169.
[PubMed]
58. Karliński, J.; Ptak, M.; Działak, P. Improving occupant safety in heavy goods vehicles-Universal energy
absorbing system. In Proceedings of the 11th International Science and Technical Conference Automotive
Safety, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY 2018, Casta, Slovakia, 18–20 April 2018.
59. Fernandes, F.A.O.; Jardin, R.T.; Pereira, A.B.; Alves de Sousa, R.J. Comparing the mechanical performance of
synthetic and natural cellular materials. Mater. Des. 2015, 82, 335–341. [CrossRef]
60. Ptak, M.; Kaczyński, P.; Wilhelm, J.; Margarido, J.M.T.; Marques, P.A.A.P.; Pinto, S.C.; de Sousa, R.J.A.;
Fernandes, F.A.O. Graphene-Enriched Agglomerated Cork Material and Its Behaviour under Quasi-Static
and Dynamic Loading. Materials 2019, 12, 151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Wilhelm, J.; Ptak, M.; Rusiński, E. Simulated depiction of head and brain injuries in the context of
cellularbased materials in passive safety devices. Sci. J. Marit. Univ. Szczecin 2017, 50, 98–104.
62. Miller, K. Biomechanics of the Brain; Miller, K., Ed.; Biological and Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering;
Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2011; ISBN 1441999973.
63. King, A.I.; Yang, K.H.; Zhang, L.; Hardy, W. Is head injury caused by linear or angular acceleration? In
Proceedings of the IRCOBI Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 25–26 September 2003; pp. 1–12.
64. Fernandes, F.A.O.; Tchepel, D.; Alves de Sousa, R.J.; Ptak, M. Development and validation of a new finite
element human head model: Yet another head model (YEAHM). Eng. Comput. (Swansea, Wales) 2018, 35,
477–496. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 19 of 20

65. Ratajczak, M.; Ptak, M.; Chybowski, L.; Gawdzińska, K.; B˛edziński, R. Material and Structural Modeling
Aspects of Brain Tissue Deformation under Dynamic Loads. Materials 2019, 12, 271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Ptak, M.; Ratajczak, M.; Kwiatkowski, A.; Sawicki, M.; Wilhelm, J.; Fernandesa, F.A.O.; Druszcz, A.
Investigation of biomechanics of skull structures damages caused by dynamic loads. Acta Bioeng. Biomech.
2019, 21. [CrossRef]
67. King, A.I. The Biomechanics of Impact Injury; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 978-3-319-49790-7.
68. Li, G.; Wang, F.; Otte, D.; Cai, Z.; Simms, C. Have pedestrian subsystem tests improved passenger car front
shape? Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 115, 143–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Chen, H.; Poulard, D.; Forman, J.; Crandall, J.; Panzer, M.B. Evaluation of geometrically personalized
THUMS pedestrian model response against sedan–pedestrian PMHS impact test data. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2018,
19, 542–548. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Li, X.; Kleiven, S. Improved safety standards are needed to better protect younger children at playgrounds.
Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 15061. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Ptak, M. Pedestrian safety: A new method to assess pedestrian kinematics. Transport 2018, 33, 41–51.
[CrossRef]
72. Ptak, M.; Blicharski, P.; Rusiński, E.; Karliński, J. Numerical Simulations of Composite Frontal Protection
System According to EC 78/2009. Lect. Notes Mech. Eng. 2017, Part F10, 423–429.
73. Ptak, M.; Kaczynski, P.; Fernandes, F.A.O.; de Sousa, R.J.A. Assessing impact velocity and temperature
effects on crashworthiness properties of cork material. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2017, 106, 238–248. [CrossRef]
74. Ptak, M.; Rusiński, E.; Karliński, J. Frontal Protection System for pedestrian safety. Patent 399762 PL 2012.
75. Ptak, M.; Sawicki, M.; Wilhelm, J.; Wnuk, M.; Ratajczak, M.; Fernandes, F.A.O.; Kwiatkowski, A.; Kubicki, K.
Multisensor Headband. Patent pending - P.426323 2018.
76. Kaczyński, P.; Ptak, M.; Fernandes, F.A.O.; Chybowski, L.; Wilhelm, J.; de Sousa, R.J.A. Development and
testing of advanced cork composite sandwiches for energy-absorbing structures. Materials 2019, 12, 697.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Fernandes, F.; Alves de Sousa, R.; Ptak, M.; Migueis, G. Helmet Design Based on the Optimization of
Biocomposite Energy-Absorbing Liners under Multi-Impact Loading. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 735. [CrossRef]
78. LLC Elemance Global Human Body Models Consortium. User Man. M50 Occupant Version 4.2
LS-DYNA, 2014.
79. Fernandes, F.A.O.; Sousa, R.J.A.D. Head injury predictors in sports trauma—A state-of-the-art review. Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 2015, 229, 592–608. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Tse, K.M.; Lim, S.P.; Tan, V.B.C.; Lee, H.P. A Review of Head Injury and Finite Element Head Models. Am. J.
Eng. Technol. Soc. 2015, 1, 28.
81. Katagiri, M.; Katagata, K.; Pramudita, J.A.; Ujihashi, S. Development and Application of Stress-Based Skull
Fracture Criteria Using a Head Finite Element Model. J. Biomech. Sci. Eng. 2012, 7, 449–462. [CrossRef]
82. Takhounts, E.G.; Craig, M.J.; Moorhouse, K.; McFadden, J.; Hasija, V. Development of brain injury criteria
(BrIC). Stapp Car Crash J. 2013, 57, 243. [PubMed]
83. Milne, G.; Deck, C.; Bourdet, N.; Alline, Q.; Gallego, A.; Carreira, R.P.; Willinger, R. Assessment of Bicyclist
Head Injury Risk under Tangential Impact Conditions. In Proceedings of the IRC-13-90 IRCOBI Conference
2013, Gothenburg, Sweden, 11–13 September 2013; Volume 33, pp. 735–746.
84. Migueis, G.F.J.; Fernandes, F.A.O.; Ptak, M.; Ratajczak, M.; Alves de Sousa, R.J. Detection of bridging veins
rupture and subdural haematoma onset using a finite element head model. Clin. Biomech. 2019, 63, 104–111.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. United Nations. ECE Regulation 22.05, 2002. Uniform Provision Concerning the Approval of Protective Hel-
Mets and Their Visors for Driver and Passengers of mOtor Cycles and Mopeds; United Nations: New York, NY,
USA, 2002.
86. Shuaeib, F.M.; Hamouda, A.M.S.; Radin Umar, R.S.; Hamdan, M.M.; Hashmi, M.S.J. Motorcycle helmet -
Part I. Biomechanics and computational issues. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2002, 123, 406–421. [CrossRef]
87. Kleiven, S. Finite Element Modeling of the Human Head. Med. Biol. 2002, 12, 14–21.
88. Fernandes, F.A.O. Análise Biomecânica de Impactos com Capacetes: Novos Materiais e Geometrias, Biomechanical
Analysis of Helmeted Head Impacts: Novel Materials and Geometries; Universidade de Aveiro: Aveiro,
Portugal, 2017.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1000 20 of 20

89. Ratajczak, M.; Sasiadek,

˛ M.; B˛edziński, R. An analysis of the effect of impact loading on the destruction of
vascular structures in the brain. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 2016, 18, 21–31. [PubMed]
90. Kumar, S.; Friedman, K.; Hutchinson, J.; Mihora, D.; Harcourt, J. Biomechanical analysis of child restraint
system. Biomed. Sci. Instrum. 2009, 45, 436–441. [PubMed]
91. Klinich, K.D.; Saul, R.A.; Auguste, G.; Backaitis, S.; Klienberger, M. Techniques for Developing Child Dummy
Protection Reference Values; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).