车人碰撞中人地接触损伤仿真及防护方法鲁棒性分析

doi:10.19562/j.chinasae.qcgc.2024.03.015

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

人车事故中行人主要与车辆和地面接触而遭受损伤。此前已有大量研究在车辆接触阶段对多体行人模型进行了验证，但对地面接触阶段的验证较少。本文中评估了用于预测车辆撞击后行人运动和地面接触的4个PC-Crash行人模型。通过车辆和地面接触的HIC伤害与最近研究中的6个尸体实验数据对比显示，其中PC2014行人模型能很好地预测行人头部损伤，车辆和地面接触HIC的平均误差分别为6.07%和5.85%，数据说明PC2014行人模型可以用于再现人车碰撞事故以及开发未来地面接触伤害防护对策。控制制动防护方法鲁棒性研究显示，在3种行人姿态（奔跑、步行和应急）扰动下，HIC平均降低比例分别为63.2%、57.9%和67.8%，说明控制制动防护方法具有很好的抗行人姿态干扰能力。进一步分析不同姿态下的行人损伤发现，3种步态序列之间均有显著性差异，在应急步态下控制制动防护方法有着更好的抗行人姿态干扰能力；而在奔跑步态序列下，往往可以通过控制制动防护方法产生最低的头地碰撞损伤，表明在使用控制制动防护方法对行人进行保护时须考虑到不同姿态产生的影响，以进一步提高控制制动防护方法的地面伤防护效果。

关键词: PC-Crash行人模型, 车辆控制制动, 行人地面伤, 行人姿态扰动, 鲁棒性

Abstract:

In pedestrian-vehicle accidents， pedestrians mainly suffer injuries from contact with vehicles and the ground. A large number of previous studies have validated multi-body pedestrian models during the vehicle contact phase， but few have validated them during the ground contact phase. In this paper， four PC-Crash pedestrian models for predicting pedestrian motion and ground contact after vehicle impact are evaluated. Comparison of HIC injuries by vehicle and ground contact with data from six cadaveric experiments in recent studies shows that among them the PC2014 pedestrian model predicts pedestrian head injuries well， with an average error of 6.07% and 5.85% for vehicle and ground contact HIC， respectively， which suggests that the PC2014 pedestrian model can be used to reproduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes and to develop future ground contact injury protection countermeasures. The robustness study of the controlled braking protection method shows that under the disturbance of three pedestrian postures （running， walking and emergency）， the average HIC reduction ratio is 63.2%， 57.9% and 67.8%， respectively， which indicates that the controlled braking protection method has a very good resistance to the disturbance of pedestrian postures. Further analysis of pedestrian injuries in different postures reveals that there is a significant difference between the three sequences of gait. The controlled braking protection method has better resistance to the disturbance of pedestrian postures under the emergency gait； while in the running gait sequence， the control brake protection method often has the lowest head-to-ground collision injuries， which suggests that the effect of different postures needs to be taken into account in the protection of pedestrians by the use of the control brake protection method， in order to further improve the effectiveness of the ground injury protection of the control brake protection method.

Key words: PC-Crash pedestrian model, vehicle control brake, pedestrian ground injury, pedestrian posture perturbation, robustness

邹铁方,刘志旗,袁湘婷,曹太山,刘朱紫. 车人碰撞中人地接触损伤仿真及防护方法鲁棒性分析[J]. 汽车工程, 2024, 46(3): 509-519.

Tiefang Zou,Zhiqi Liu,Xiangting Yuan,Taishan Cao,Zhuzi Liu. Simulation of Pedestrian-Ground Contact Injury in Vehicle-Pedestrian Collisions and Robustness Analysis of Protection Methods[J]. Automotive Engineering, 2024, 46(3): 509-519.

图/表 17

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

表2

表3

图5

表4

图6

图7

图8

图9

图10

图11

图12

图13

参考文献 33

1	SIMMS C， WOOD D.Pedestrian and cyclist impact： a biomechanical perspective［M］.Berlin：Springer Science & Business Media，2009.
2	OTTE D， POHLEMANN T.Analysis and load assessment of secondary impact to adult pedestrians after car collisions on roads［C］. Proceedings of the 2001 International IRCOBI on the Biomechanics of impact.ISLE OF MAN （UK）：International Research Council on the Biokinetics of Impacts（IRCOBI），2001：143-157.
3	GUILLAUME A， HERMITTE T.Car or ground： which causes more pedestrian injuries？［C］. 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles （ESV）.Gothenburg，Sweden：National Highway Traffic Safety Administration，2015（15-0084）.
4	TAMURA A， KOIDE T， YANG K H.Effects of ground impact on traumatic brain injury in a fender vault pedestrian crash［J］.International Journal of Vehicle Safety，2015，8（1）：85-100.
5	邹铁方，肖璟，胡林，等.轿车-行人事故中人体损伤来源与相关性分析［J］.汽车工程，2017，39（7）：747-753.
	ZOU T， XIAO J， HU L， et al.Human-body injury sources and correlation analysis on car-pedestrian accidents［J］.Automotive Engineering，2017，39（7）：747-753.
6	SHANG S， OTTE D， SIMMS C K.Pedestrian-ground contact injuries observed from German in-depth accident data［C］. 2017 IRCOBI Conference.Antwerp，Belgium：International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury （IRCOBI），2017：166-167.
7	SHI L， HAN Y， HUANG H， et al.Analysis of pedestrian-to-ground impact injury risk in vehicle-to-pedestrian collisions based on rotation angles［J］.Journal of Safety Research，2018，64：37-47.
8	SHANG S， MASSON C， TEELING D， et al.Kinematics and dynamics of pedestrian head ground contact： a cadaver study［J］.Safety Science，2020，127：104684.
9	KHAYKIN A， LARNER D L.Adhesive vehicle front end for mitigation of secondary pedestrian impact：United States，US9340178B1［P］.2016-05-17.
10	GUPTA A， ALVAREZ F， DANIEL T， et al.Investigating the use of adhesively‐coated external airbag to reduce post‐impact kinematics［C］. IRCOBI Conference.Antwerp，Belgium：International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury （IRCOBI），2017：363-372.
11	HIDETOSHI， KENYU N， MASAKI O， et al.Research of pedestrian injury reduction mechanism between the beginning of the collisionand fallL of the ground［C］. 26th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles （ESV）：Technology：Enabling a Safer Tomorrow.Eindhoven，Netherlands：National Highway Traffic Safety Administration，2019（19-0285）.
12	ZOU T， SHANG S， SIMMS C.Potential benefits of controlled vehicle braking to reduce pedestrian ground contact injuries［J］.Accident Analysis and Prevention，2019，129：94-107.
13	ZOU T， LIU Q， ZHA A， et al.New observations from real-world vehicle-pedestrian collisions in reducing ground related injury by controlling vehicle braking［J］.International Journal of Crashworthiness，2020，27（2）：614-631.
14	邹铁方，刘期，刘朱紫，等.真实事故中通过制动控制降低人地碰撞损伤的潜在效益及时空约束［J］.机械工程学报，2021，57（22）：266-276.
	ZOU T， LIU Q， LIU Z， et al.Potential benefits and constraints of reducing ground related injury by controlling vehicle braking in real world vehicle-pedestrian accidents［J］.Journal of Mechanical Engineering，2021，57（22）：266-276.
15	邹铁方，刘朱紫，肖璟，等.一种降低人-地撞击损伤的车辆制动控制方法［J］.汽车工程，2021，43（1）：105-112.
	ZOU T， LIU Z， XIAO J， et al.A vehicle braking control method for reducing pedestrian‑ground impact injury［J］.Automotive Engineering，2021，43（1）：105-112.
16	邹铁方，周靖.参数扰动下基于制动控制的人地碰撞损伤防护风险［J］.汽车工程，2023，45（2）：313-323.
	ZOU T， ZHOU J.The protection risk of pedestrian-ground collision injury based on braking control under parameter disturbance［J］.Automotive Engineering，2023，45（2）：313-323.
17	TAMURA A， DUMA S.A study on the potential risk of traumatic brain injury due to ground impact in a vehicle-pedestrian collision using full-scale finite element models［J］.International Journal of Vehicle Safety，2011，5（2）：117-136.
18	SIMMS C K， WOOD D P.Effects of pre-impact pedestrian position and motion on kinematics and injuries from vehicle and ground contact［J］.International Journal of Crashworthiness，2006，11（4）：345-355.
19	SHANG S， MASSON C， LLARI M， et al.The predictive capacity of the MADYMO ellipsoid pedestrian model for pedestrian ground contact kinematics and injury evaluation［J］.Accident Analysis and Prevention，2021，149：105803.
20	PENG Y， CHEN Y， YANG J， et al.A study of pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to head injury in passenger car collisions based on accident data and simulations［J］.Safety Science，2012，50（9）：1749-1759.
21	TIAN J， ZHANG C， WANG Q.Analysis of craniocerebral injury in facial collision accidents［J］.PLoS One，2020，15（10）：e0240359.
22	WU H， HAN Y， PAN D， et al.The head AIS 4+ injury thresholds for the elderly vulnerable road user based on detailed accident reconstructions［J］.Front Bioeng Biotechnol，2021，9：682015.
23	MARTíNEZ F， PáEZ J， FURONES A， et al.Pedestrian-vehicle accidents reconstruction with PC-Crash®： sensibility analysis of factors variation［J］.Transportation Research Procedia，2016，18：115-121.
24	MANDELíK J， BUNDZEL M.Application of neural network in order to recognise individuality of course of vehicle and pedestrian body contacts during accidents［J］.International Journal of Crashworthiness，2018，24（2）：221-234.
25	ZHANG Y， LAN F， CHEN J.Analysis of influencing factors of pedestrian injury based on orthogonal test［C］. 2021 IEEE 4th Advanced Information Management， Communicates， Electronic and Automation Control Conference （IMCEC），2021：1237-1240.
26	CHENG R， PAN Y， XIE L， et al.Analysis of vehicle-pedestrian accident risk based on simulation experiments［J］.Mathematical Problems in Engineering，2022：1-14.
27	ZOU T， LI H， CAI M， et al.A case-oriented approach for analyzing the uncertainty of a reconstructed result based on the evidence theory［J］.International Journal of Legal Medicine，2019，133（4）：1089-1106.
28	STEFFAN H.Pc-Crash technical manual version 7.3［M］.Linz， Austrian：Dr Steffan Datentechnik GmbH，2006.
29	CROCETTA G， PIANTINI S， PIERINI M， et al.The influence of vehicle front-end design on pedestrian ground impact［J］.Accident Analysis and Prevention，2015，79：56-69.
30	ZOU T， LIU Z， WANG D， et al.Methods， upper limit and reason for reducing pedestrian ground contact injury by controlling vehicle braking［J］.International Journal of Crashworthiness，2022，27（4）：1140-1151.
31	ZOU T， ZHA A， LIU Q， et al.Pedestrian gaits observed from actual pedestrian-vehicle collisions［J］.International Journal of Crashworthiness，2020，27（1）：1-23.
32	UNTAROIU C D， MEISSNER M U， CRANDALL J R， et al.Crash reconstruction of pedestrian accidents using optimization techniques［J］.International Journal of Impact Engineering，2009，36（2）：210-219.
33	MIZUNO K， HORIKI M， ZHAO Y， et al.Analysis of fall kinematics and injury risks in ground impact in car-pedestrian collisions using impulse［J］.Accident Analysis and Prevention，2022，176：106793.

Test number	Vehicle		Pedestrian				NBLEH ^a
Test number	Model	Speed/（km·h^-1）	Age（y/o）	Sex	Height/m	Mass/kg	NBLEH ^a
Test 01	Peugeot 307	30.5	88	Male	1.74	66	0.7
Test 02	Peugeot 307	30.4	83	Male	1.72	69	0.7
Test 03	Citroen C4	20.4	94	Male	1.67	64	0.9
Test 04	Citroen C4	21.0	83	Male	1.67	55	0.9
Test 05	Renault Kangoo Ⅱ	30.1	94	Female	1.58	38	1.2
Test 06	Renault Kangoo Ⅱ	30.4	86	Male	1.62	69	1.1

行人模型	Test 01		Test 02		Test 03
行人模型	Head-x	Head-z	Head-x	Head-z	Head-x	Head-z
PC2006	0.277	0.125	0.656	0.451	0.316	0.200
PC2011	0.107	0.104	0.559	0.408	0.263	0.172
PC2014	0.183	0.266	0.578	0.268	0.213	0.091
BWM	0.116	0.467	0.478	0.290	0.234	0.199
行人模型	Test 04		Test 05		Test 06
行人模型	Head-x	Head-z	Head-x	Head-z	Head-x	Head-z
PC2006	0.121	0.103	1.538	0.241	1.175	0.267
PC2011	0.534	0.139	0.523	0.162	1.099	0.300
PC2014	0.171	0.080	0.399	0.151	0.859	0.137
BWM	0.194	0.093	0.619	0.204	1.241	0.273

行人模型	Test 01	Test 02	Test 03	Test 04	Test 05	Test 06
PC2006	18.4	18.7	13.8	11.3	17.7	17.3
PC2011	12.9	19.1	7.4	10.5	16.5	20.2
PC2014	19.9	15.2	2.4	1.4	11.8	4.1
BWM	23.4	11.9	6.1	11.8	19.7	5.1

车辆接触	Test 01	Test 02	Test 03	Test 04	Test 05	Test 06	MEH
PC2006	162.9	2.8		40.1	160.8	67	86.72
PC2011	49.2	51.2		204.8	13.4	77.2	79.16
PC2014	22.5	2.0		1.3	3.1	1.5	6.07
BWM	98.6	193.6		19.4	84.5	64.9	92.2
地面接触	Test 01	Test 02	Test 03	Test 04	Test 05	Test 06	MEH
PC2006	59.2	33.7	9.7	12.7	78.3		38.72
PC2011	59.8	11.1	67.4	74.7	58.9		54.38
PC2014	13.1	3.2	3.3	3.0	6.7		5.85
BWM	62.4	61.7	86.2	7.2	30.4		49.58

[1]	桑海峰,赵梓杉,王金玉,陈旺兴. 基于车辆轨迹预测对抗性攻击与鲁棒性研究[J]. 汽车工程, 2024, 46(3): 407-417.
[2]	龚章鹏,王国业,于是. 基于体素网络的道路场景多类目标识别算法[J]. 汽车工程, 2021, 43(4): 469-477.
[3]	宋海生,杨娜,杨昌海,陈志勇,史文库. 兼顾鲁棒性的多目标焊点自适应优化方法[J]. 汽车工程, 2021, 43(3): 442-449.
[4]	靳博文, 乔慧敏, 潘天红, 陈山. 基于内阻功率消耗的锂电池SOC估计^*[J]. 汽车工程, 2020, 42(8): 1008-1015.
[5]	宋海生, 陈志勇, 杨娜, 杨昌海, 史文库. 基于灵敏度排序的焊点布置鲁棒性分析方法研究^*[J]. 汽车工程, 2020, 42(12): 1751-1757.
[6]	赵曦,陈帅,盈亮，侯文彬，胡平. 梯度强度汽车薄壁结构抗撞性优化[J]. 汽车工程, 2018, 40(5): 508-514.