4.7 Article

Simulative investigation on head injuries of electric self-balancing scooter riders subject to ground impact

期刊

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 128-141

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.01.013

关键词

Self-balancing scooter; Traffic accidents; Ground impact; Brain injuries

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Beihang University
  2. startup fund for Zhuoyue 100 titled professor, Beihang University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The safety performance of an electric self-balancing scooter (ESS) has recently become a main concern in preventing its further wide application as a major candidate for green transportation. Scooter riders may suffer severe brain injuries in possible vehicle crash accidents not only from contact with a windshield or bonnet but also from secondary contact with the ground. In this paper, virtual vehicle-ESS crash scenarios combined with finite element (FE) car models and multi-body scooter/human models are set up. Post impact kinematic gestures of scooter riders under various contact conditions, such as different vehicle impact speeds, ESS moving speeds, impact angles or positions, and different human sizes, are classified and analyzed. Furthermore, head-ground impact processes are reconstructed using validated FE head models, and important parameters of contusion and laceration (e.g., coup or contrecoup pressures and Von Mises stress and the maximum shear stress) are extracted and analyzed to assess the severity of regional contusion from head-ground contact. Results show that the brain injury risk increases with vehicle speeds and ESS moving speeds and may provide fundamental knowledge to popularize the use of a helmet and the vehicle-fitted safety systems, and lay a strong foundation for the reconstruction of ESS-involved accidents. There is scope to improve safety for the use of ESS in public roads according to the analysis and conclusions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据