This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]

On: 24 November 2014, At: 18:52

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Crashworthiness

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Analysis of loading of lower extremities based on

bending moment in car-to-pedestrian collisions
a a b b
Daisuke Nakane , Sadayuki Kuwahara , Yasuhito Ozeki , Junichi Taniguchi & Koji
b
Mizuno
a
Denso Corporation , Showa-Cho, Kariya, Japan
b
Nagoya University , Furo-Cho, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Japan
Published online: 15 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Daisuke Nakane , Sadayuki Kuwahara , Yasuhito Ozeki , Junichi Taniguchi & Koji Mizuno (2010)
Analysis of loading of lower extremities based on bending moment in car-to-pedestrian collisions, International Journal of
Crashworthiness, 15:5, 481-490, DOI: 10.1080/13588261003771699

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588261003771699

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Vol. 15, No. 5, October 2010, 481–490

Analysis of loading of lower extremities based on bending moment in car-to-pedestrian collisions

Daisuke Nakanea , Sadayuki Kuwaharaa , Yasuhito Ozekib , Junichi Taniguchib and Koji Mizunob∗
a
Denso Corporation, Showa-Cho, Kariya, Japan; b Nagoya University, Furo-Cho, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Japan
(Received 23 July 2008; final version received 1 March 2010)

In this study, simulations of car-to-pedestrian collisions were conducted using multibody pedestrian models and a finite-
element (FE) car model in order to examine the loadings on the lower extremity of the pedestrian. Bending moment diagrams
were plotted versus time for the tibia, knee and femur; and the loadings on the lower extremities were evaluated using
time-series comparisons. An analysis using a human FE pedestrian model also was conducted. The bending moment of the
lower extremity was found to be comparable between the multibody and FE models. Car-to-pedestrian collisions were also
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014

simulated for various sizes of pedestrians. The bending moments were larger as the pedestrian size was larger, whereas the
curve shape of the bending moment diagrams was similar for all sizes of pedestrians. It was shown that the bending moment
diagrams using the multibody pedestrian models were useful for investigating the loading on the lower extremities for various
sizes of pedestrians.
Keywords: car-pedestrian collision; pedestrian protection; multibody model; bending moment diagram; lower extremity
injury

Introduction influence of car structures on the impact loadings to pedes-

In car–pedestrian collisions, injuries to lower extremities
occur frequently, and their prevention is an important issue
in pedestrian protection [3]. Understanding the influence of
impact loadings on the lower extremities by vehicle struc-
tures is necessary for investigating vehicle frontal structural
characteristics that mitigate lower extremity injuries. Car
structures which apply loads on the lower extremities in-
clude the bumper energy absorber and bonnet leading edge.
Femur, tibia and fibula fractures may occur from impacts by
these car structures; and ligament injuries may occur from
acute knee lateral bending behaviour [3]. There is also a
lower energy absorber that has been recently installed on
cars to reduce the knee-bending angle [14].
To study the influence of car structures on pedestrian
lower extremity injuries, mathematical simulations using
the human finite-element (FE) model have been conducted
[8,13,15,18]. From the FE simulations, the injury risk can be
examined in detail through the evaluation of stress or strain.
By mathematical simulation of car-to-pedestrian collision
using a human FE model, Yasuki [18] examined the rela-
tionship between knee ligament strains and car structures,
and showed that the knee injury risks depend on pedestrian
size and vehicle geometry. It is pointed out that excessive
bending is a major cause of injuries to pedestrian lower
extremities [17]. Kuwahara et al. [8] used bending mo-
ment diagrams (BMDs) of the tibia shaft in an FE model
and showed that the BMD is effective in understanding the
trian lower extremities. However, the BMD was applied
only for the tibia shaft where bone fractures occur fre-
quently, while the bending moment of the knee joint and
femur was not examined.
In the present research, in order to investigate the in-
fluence of loading on whole lower extremities by the car
front structures, mathematical simulations were carried out
using multibody pedestrian models. This model consisted
of a series of body segments connected by joints. The BMD
was determined from the resistance torque of the joints of
the lower extremity, and the loadings on the lower extrem-
ity were analysed with the time series data. To validate
the BMD of lower extremities of the multibody model, the
BMD calculated in the multibody model was compared with
that in the human FE model. Considering that pedestrians
of various sizes are involved in real-world car–pedestrian
collisions, the loads on the lower extremities were com-
pared in pedestrian models of various sizes. The effect of a
lower absorber on the reduction of lower extremity loadings
was also examined for pedestrians of various sizes.
Model
MADYMO version 6.4 was used for the mathematical sim-
ulations. A pedestrian was simulated by a multibody model
and a car was simulated by a finite-element model. An elas-
tic contact model was used, which allowed a finite-element

∗
Corresponding author. Email: kmizuno@mech.nagoya-u.ac.jp
ISSN: 1358-8265 print / ISSN: 1754-2111 online
C 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13588261003771699
http://www.informaworld.com
 482 D. Nakane et al.

Table 1. Geometry of the several human models [16].

Parameter 3YO 6YO AF05 AM50 AM95

Standing height (mm) 950 1170 1530 1740 1910

Seated height (mm) 550 640 810 920 1000
Knee height (mm) 280 350 470 540 590
Weight (kg) 14.5 23.0 49.8 75.7 101.0

Figure 1. Car FE model. absorber and lower absorber were modelled. The ground
clearance of each structure was 769, 439 and 258 mm,
2.0
Bumper absorber respectively. The rearward distance of the lower absorber
1.5 1.02 MPa@40% Lower absorber
and the bonnet leading edge from the bumper absorber front
Stress (MPa)

edge was 14 and 131 mm, respectively. The stress–strain

1.0 characteristics of the bumper absorber and lower absorber
are shown in Figure 2. These characteristics are based on a
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014

0.5
0.06 MPa@40% real car. The impact velocity of the car was 40 km/h.
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Strain (%) Pedestrian multibody model
Figure 2. Stress–strain curves of bumper and lower absorber. The multibody pedestrian model was used from the TNO
developed MADYMO database [16] (see Figure 3). In this
TNO multibody pedestrian model, three-dimensional joints
node to penetrate the surface of the multibody model. were used to express lower extremity rotational and bending
The contact interaction between the multibody and finite- behaviour. The knee joint is modelled by a free joint that
element models was based on force–deformation charac- exhibits knee-bending and shear properties. The knee joint
teristics of the multibody model and stress–strain charac- bending and lateral shear characteristics of this mid-size
teristics of the FE model. male (AM50) pedestrian model are comparable with the
European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) re-
quirements [1]. The bending resistances of long bones were
Car FE model expressed by spherical joints located in the thigh and legs. It
The front structure of a sedan was represented by an FE is pointed out that the EEVC knee-bending moment require-
model (Figure 1). Utilised as energy absorbing structures ment is stiffer than the measured knee-bending moment of
for a car involved in pedestrian impacts, a bonnet, bumper a human [2, 7]. Thus, the knee-bending moment–rotation

Figure 3. Pedestrian multibody models from MADYMO database [16].

 International Journal of Crashworthiness
1000 50
Thigh
500 Leg 25
Torque (Nm)
0 0
-500 -25
-1000 -50
-30 -15 0 15 30 -30
Joint angle (deg)
(a) Thigh and leg joint
Figure 4. Moment-rotational angle characteristics of lower extremity joints around the pedestrian anterior–posterior axis (AM50).
angle characteristics were changed based on Hamada’s re-
search [7] that reviews knee-bending moment characteris-
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014
tics from various tests. Ankle joint bending properties can
affect the bending moment of the leg as a boundary condi-
tion. Ankle joint bending properties in inversion–eversion
were determined based on Parenteau’s research [12], which
were less stiff than the TNO pedestrian multibody model.
Figure 4 shows the bending moment properties of the joints.
In the MADYMO database, a 3-year-old (3YO) child,
6-year-old (6YO) child, small female (AF05) and large male
(AM95) pedestrian models are available, all of which were
scaled from the AM50 pedestrian model. Table 1 shows
the associated anthropometries. Joint torque-rotation char-
acteristics of these models were also scaled from AM50.
Figure 5 shows the collision set-up of the car and the AM50
pedestrian model. The pedestrian model was impacted by
the car structure on the pedestrian right side, since pedestri-
ans are impacted frequently on the lateral side in real-world
accidents [3, 11].
The BMDs of the lower extremities were obtained from
the torque around the anterior–posterior axis applied to the
nine joints modelled from the ankle to the pelvis. Figure 6
shows the position of each joint. The sign of the bending
moment was defined as positive when the right lower ex-
Figure 5. Set-up of pedestrian and car.
483
200
Knee
100 Ankle
0
-100
-200
-15 0 15 30 -30 -15 0 15 30
Joint angle (deg) Joint angle (deg)
(b) Hip joint (c) Knee and ankle joint
tremity is bent in a convex shape towards the car’s travel
direction. The bending moment can be compared to the in-
jury threshold. There are some studies that determined the
bending moment thresholds of the thigh, knee joint and leg.
Ivarsson et al. [4, 6] conducted dynamic bending tests of
the thigh, knee joint and leg. In the test of each body region,
bones and soft tissue were included. They reported that the
threshold for 50% probability of injury for the AM50 thigh,
knee and leg was 447 Nm for femur fracture, 134 Nm for
the medial collateral ligament (MCL) rupture of the knee
joint and 312 Nm for the tibia fracture, respectively.
Human FE model
To validate the bending moment, calculations of the bend-
ing moment of the lower extremity joints of the multibody
model were compared with those of the human FE model.
The THUMS (total human model for safety) AM50 pedes-
trian FE model [9] was used (see Figure 7) in LS-DYNA
version 970. To calculate the bending moment precisely,
the geometries of the tibia and the femur were modified
based on the computer tomography data. Solid elements
were used to model the complicated shape of the long bone
shaft. On the basis of the experimental data by Ivarsson
 484 D. Nakane et al.
Figure 6. Position of leg joints.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014
Figure 7. THUMS AM50 pedestrian model.
et al. [4, 6], the bending properties of the thigh, knee and
leg were validated [8]. Using the data by Kajzer et al. [5],
the kinematics of lower extremities in impact were also val-
idated [10]. The bending moment was calculated for the
Figure 8. Kinematics of lower extremities at 10, 27 and 31 ms.
cross section of the thigh and leg including bone and soft
tissue elements.
Results
Bending moment diagram of lower extremity
Figures 8 and 9 show the behaviour and BMDs of the AM50
lower extremity versus time. At first, the bumper absorber
made contact with the leg. At 10 ms, the lower absorber
made contact with the leg. Because of contact with the
lower absorber, the whole leg was projected in the car’s
forward direction. The bending moment at the thigh was
negative due to the inertial force of the thigh. This bending
moment was minimum (−211 Nm at 13.4 ms) at the thigh.
At 17 ms, the leg bending moment had a maximum value
(360 Nm). The bonnet leading edge made contact with the
thigh, and the bending moment of the thigh changed to a
positive value. The lower extremity was accelerated in the
car’s forward direction, and the area where bending moment
was positive moved upward. At 31 ms, the knee-bending
moment was maximal (95 Nm). The bending moment of
the thigh was also maximal (180 Nm) at the location where
the bonnet leading edge made contact and the pelvis was
over the bonnet top. The bending moment became positive
for the entire lower extremity though the bending moment
of the leg was not large at this time.
Minimum and maximum bending moment
diagrams of lower extremity
Because the BMD of the lower extremity changes with time,
it was useful to plot the maximum and minimum values of
the bending moment during the entire impact duration in
order to evaluate the loading and the injury potential of the
lower extremities. The minimum and maximum BMDs are
plotted along with the injury thresholds of the leg, knee and
thigh in Figure 10.
In the leg, the impact forces from the bumper absorber
and lower absorber appeared in the maximum BMD. The
 International Journal of Crashworthiness 485

Figure 9. Bending moment diagram for lower extremities with time series.

(a) (b)
1000 1000
Distance from ground (mm)

Femur
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014

Femur
800 -447 Nm 447 Nm
800

600 600

400 Knee 400

Knee
-134 Nm 134 Nm
200 Tibia 200 Tibia
-312 Nm 312 Nm
0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500
Bending moment (Nm) Bending moment (Nm)

Figure 10. (a) Minimum and (b) maximum bending moment diagrams of lower extremities with threshold.

Figure 11. Comparison of kinematics between (a) the human FE model and (b) the human multibody model.
 486 D. Nakane et al.

(a) (b)
1000 1000

Distance from ground (mm)

800 800

600 600

400 400
Multi body model
200 FE model 200

0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500
Bending moment (Nm) Bending moment (Nm)

Figure 12. Comparison of (a) minimum and (b) maximum bending moments between human multibody and human FE models.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014

maximum bending moment (360 Nm) occurred at the leg the lower extremity bending moments. However, the max-
where the lower absorber made contact. Note that this imum BMD of the multibody model at the time when the
value exceeded the injury threshold of tibia fracture (312 lower absorber made contact was higher than that of the FE
Nm). This large value was due to the impact of the lower model. The knee injury risk (MCL rupture) was evaluated
absorber with a high stiffness. Because the lower absorber by the knee lateral bending angle [16]. The knee angle ver-
prevented the leg from moving under the bumper absorber, sus time is shown in Figure 13. The knee-bending angle
the maximum knee-bending moment was 95 Nm, which was also comparable between the two models.
was less than the threshold of knee injury (134 Nm). The
thigh inertia force that occurred from leg impact appeared Loading on lower extremity for pedestrians of
in the minimum BMD. The direct impact on the thigh by the various sizes
bonnet leading edge appeared in the maximum BMD. The Collisions of a car structure with 3YO, 6YO, AF05 and
minimum and maximum bending moments of the thigh AM95 pedestrians were simulated to examine the impact
(−211 and 180 Nm) were less than the injury threshold loads on the lower extremities of pedestrians of various
(447 Nm). sizes. Figure 14 presents the kinematic behaviour dur-
ing the initial phase of collision. For the 6YO, AF05 and
AM95 pedestrians, the bumper absorber impacted below
Comparison of multibody model with human FE the pelvis, and the wrap-around behaviour of the lower ex-
model tremity was observed. For the 3YO pedestrian, the bumper
The behaviour of the multibody and FE models is presented absorber impacted near the pelvis and the bonnet leading
in Figure 11. The pedestrian lower extremity behaviour and edge impacted the head, after which the 3YO pedestrian
car deformation were comparable between the two models. was projected forward in front of the car.
Figure 12 shows the minimum and maximum BMDs of the The bending moment of the lower extremities was com-
multibody and FE models. The shapes of the BMDs were pared for pedestrians of various sizes (Figure 15). As the
similar between the two models. These results indicate that size of the pedestrians increased, the bending moment be-
the pedestrian multibody model can replicate the trend of came larger. However, the shapes of the BMDs were similar
among these pedestrians. For all pedestrians, the bending
20
moment of the lower extremity was maximal at the location
where the lower absorber made contact. The knee-bending
Knee bending angle (deg)

Multibody model
15 FE model
angle is shown in Figure 16. The knee-bending angle be-
came larger as the size of the pedestrian was decreased,
10
especially for children (3YO and 6YO). The effectiveness
of the lower absorber for preventing the leg rotation and
5
reducing knee-bending angle was observed to be limited to
the 3YO child pedestrian.

0 10 20 30 40 Effect of lower absorber for pedestrians of various

Time (ms) sizes
Figure 13. Comparison of knee-bending angle between human The car model without a lower absorber was impacted into
multibody model and human FE model. the pedestrian models of various sizes. The results were
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Figure 14. Kinematics of pedestrian models of various sizes.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014
compared with those for the collision of the car with a lower
absorber. Figure 17 presents the kinematic behaviour of the
3YO, 6YO and AM50 pedestrians in their collision against
the car without a lower absorber. For all the pedestrian
models, the impacted leg and foot moved under the bumper
absorber, and the knee-bending angle was large because
there was no lower absorber to support the leg. Figure 18
shows the comparison of the BMDs of the 6YO and AM50
lower extremity in collision against the car with and without
the lower absorber. In the impact of the car with the lower
absorber, the bending moment at the leg where the lower
absorber made contact was large. In the impact of the car
without a lower absorber, the bending moment at the leg in
the vicinity of the bumper absorber contact was large and
the knee-bending moment was large, a result which could
lead to a high knee injury risk.
Figure 19 shows the knee-bending angles of the pedes-
trian models of various sizes. The lower absorber was effec-
tive for reduction of the knee-bending angle for all pedestri-
ans with exception of the 3YO. For the 3YO pedestrian, the
lower absorber impacted the thigh. The 3YO knee-bending
Figure 15. (a) Minimum and (b) maximum bending moments of lower extremities of several human body sizes.
487
angle became larger for collision against the car with a
lower absorber than that for a collision against the car with-
out a lower absorber. When the 3YO pedestrian was hit by
the car without a lower absorber, the bumper force was con-
centrated on the thigh and the lower leg moved under the
bumper, which could result in high risk that the pedestrian
may be run over by the car.
Discussion
For the multibody pedestrian model, the lower extremities
were modelled by three-dimensional joints to exhibit the
appropriate bending behaviour. The bending moments of
the bones, knee joint and ankle joint were determined by
the resistant torques at the joints of the thigh, knee, leg and
foot. The influences of the location and the stiffness of the
car structures on the lower extremity loading were reflected
in the BMDs. In the defined sign convention of the bending
moment, the bending moment was positive in direct impact
and was negative in inertial force. The bending moment of
the leg was maximal by the impact of the lower absorber,
 488 D. Nakane et al.

50 negative bending moment was larger than that of the pos-

Knee-bending angle (deg)

itive bending moment, though these values were less than

40 3YO
6YO the injury threshold for femur fractures. This small bending
30 AF05 moment of the thigh corresponds with the accident data that
AM50 femur fractures occur less frequently than tibia fractures [4].
20 AM95
In this way, the maximum or minimum BMD provides the
10 injury risk of femur fracture, knee ligament damage and
tibia fracture. Using the BMD, the car structures that miti-
0
gate the potential of lower extremity injuries will be able to
-10 be analysed.
0 10 20 30 40
As shown in Figure 12, the peak in the maximum BMD
Time (ms)
occurred at the lower absorber contact location for both the
Figure 16. Time history of knee-bending angle for pedestrians multibody and FE pedestrian models. However, the peak
of various sizes. bending moment of the multibody model was larger than
that of the human FE model. One of the factors resulting
though the knee joint bending moment could be reduced ef- in this difference was the limited number of joints in the
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014

fectively by the lower absorber. From Figure 9b, it is likely
that the influence of the bonnet leading edge on the tibia
fracture was small, since at 17 ms the effect of the impact
on the thigh was localised and did not affect the peak bend-
ing moment at the tibia. The thigh bending moment had a
negative value resulting from the inertial force in the initial
phase, but changed to a positive value as a result of the
impact by the bonnet leading edge. The magnitude of the
lower extremities of the multibody model. From Figure
12, when the impact location was aligned with the joint
location, the contact force was concentrated on the joint
and the joint torque was large. Though the multibody model
was simple and useful for optimisations, before using the
bending moment of the multibody model to compare with
injury thresholds, more validation of the bending moment
of the multibody model is needed.

Figure 17. Kinematics of lower extremities in collision against car without lower absorber.

Figure 18. Maximum bending moment for car with and without lower absorber.

Maximum knee bending angle (deg) 50
w/ lower absorber
w/o lower absorber
40
30
20
10
0 ans since the function of the lower absorber to support
3YO 6YO AF05
Figure 19. Maximum knee-bending angle for various pedestrians
in impact against car with and without lower absorber.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014
From analyses of the various sizes of pedestrian models,
it was observed that the bending moments of the lower
extremity were larger as the size of the pedestrian was larger.
However, it was shown that the shapes of the BMD were
comparable, irrespective of the size of the pedestrian. For
all sizes of the pedestrians, the bending moment was largest
at the location where the lower absorber made contact. This
bending moment as well as the bone fracture threshold
affects the leg injury risk for the pedestrians of various
sizes, and both of them depend on pedestrian size. On the
other hand, the knee bending angle became larger as the
size of the pedestrian was smaller. This resulted from the
contact location of the lower absorber being closer to the
knee and not being able to support against leg rotation.
In this research, a standard car model was used. The
bending moment of lower extremity was affected by the
geometry and stiffness of the vehicle front structures. Thus,
it is necessary to examine various vehicle types to mitigate
injury risks of lower extremity for pedestrians of different
sizes.
Conclusions
Car-to-pedestrian collisions were analysed using
MADYMO multibody simulations. A bending mo-
ment diagram of the lower extremity was used, and was
found to be effective for estimation of the loadings of
the car structures on the lower extremity. The results are
summarised as follows:
1. The pedestrian multibody and FE models were compa-
rable in the kinematic behaviour, the lower extremity
bending moment and the knee-bending angle; and the
loadings of the car structures on the lower extremity can
be estimated by the multibody simulations.
2. The bending moment of the leg had a peak at the loca-
tion where the lower absorber impacted. It was observed
that the lower extremity accelerated in the car’s forward
International Journal of Crashworthiness 489
direction, and the area where bending moment was pos-
itive moved upward. The sign of the bending moment
of the femur changed when the inertial force was more
than compensated by the direct impact force of the bon-
net leading edge.
3. The shapes of the BMD of the lower extremity were
similar among pedestrians of various sizes whereas the
bending moment was larger for pedestrians of large size.
The lower absorber was effective in reducing the knee-
bending angle for the 6YO and larger pedestrians. The
knee-bending angle was larger for smaller size pedestri-
AM50 AM95
the leg was limited.
References
[1] EEVC WG17, Improved test methods to evaluate pedestrian
protection afforded by passenger cars, Report, 1998.
[2] M. Hamada, Study from some points about pedestrian leg
injuries, Proceedings of JSAE Spring Convention, 2006 (in
Japanese).
[3] IHRA, International harmonized research activities pedes-
trian safety working group, Report, version 2, December
2001.
[4] J. Ivarsson, D. Lessley, J. Kerrigan, K. Bhalla, D. Bose, J.
Crandall, and R. Kent, Dynamic response corridors and in-
jury thresholds of the pedestrian lower extremities, IRCOBI
Conference, Graz, Austria, 2004.
[5] J. Kajzer, G. Schroeder, H. Ishikawa, Y. Matsui, and U.
Bosch, Shearing and bending effects at the knee joint at
high speed lateral loading, Paper 973326, 41st Stapp Car
Crash Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, 1997.
[6] J.R. Kerrigan, K.S. Bhalla, N.J. Madeley, J.R. Funk, D. Bose,
and J.R. Crandall, Experiments for establishing pedestrian-
impact lower limb injury criteria, Technical paper 2003-01-
0895, SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, 2003.
[7] A. Konosu, T. Issiki, and M. Tanahashi, Development of
a biofidelic flexible pedestrian leg-form impactor (Flex-PLI
2004) and evaluation of its biofidelity at the component level
and at the assembly level, Paper 2005-01-1879, SAE World
Congress, Detroit, MI, 2005.
[8] S. Kuwahara, T. Hosokawa, K. Okada, and K. Mizuno, Finite
element analysis of lower extremity injuries to pedestrians,
Paper 2007-01-0755, SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI,
2007.
[9] T. Maeno and J. Hasegawa, Development of a finite element
model of the total human model for safety (THUMS) and
application to car–pedestrian impacts, Paper 494, 17th ESV,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001.
[10] K. Nagasaka, K. Mizuno, E. Tanaka, S. Yamamoto, M.
Iwamoto, and J. Kajzer, Finite element analysis of knee in-
jury risks in car-to-pedestrian impacts, Traffic Inj. Prev. 4
(2003), pp. 345–354.
[11] National Police Agency, Situation of car–pedestrian acci-
dents, 2007 (in Japanese).
[12] C.S. Parenteau, D.C. Viano, and P.Y. Petit, Biomechani-
cal properties of human cadaveric ankle-subtalar joints in
quasi-static loading, J. Biomech. Eng. 120 (1998), pp. 105–
111.
[13] P. Schuster, C. Chou, P. Prasad, and G. Jayaraman, Develop-
ment and validation of a pedestrian lower limb non-linear
3-D finite element model, 44th Stapp Car Crash Conference,
Atlanta, GA, 2000-01-SC21, 2000.
 490 D. Nakane et al.
[14] P. Schuster and B. Staines, Determination of bumper styling
and engineering parameters to reduce pedestrian leg in-
juries, Paper 980361, SAE International Congress and Ex-
position, Detroit, MI, 1998.
[15] Y. Takahashi, Y. Kikuchi, F. Mori, and A. Konosu, Ad-
vanced FE lower limb model for pedestrians, injury cri-
teria and dummy development, Paper 218, 18th ESV,
Nagoya, Japan, 2003.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 18:52 24 November 2014
[16] TNO, MADYMO Human Models Manual Release 6.4,
2007.
[17] J. Yang, Review of injury biomechanics in car–pedestrian
collisions, Int. J. Vehicle Saf. 1 (2005), pp. 100–
117.
[18] T. Yasuki, Mechanism analysis of pedestrian knee-bending
angle by Sedan-type vehicle using human FE model, Int. J.
Crash. 12 (2007), pp. 329–339.