Research Article

Transportation Research Record

1–7
Ó The Author(s) 2024
Tram-Pedestrian Collision Modeling Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Using Experimental Data—Its Validation, DOI: 10.1177/03611981231225432
journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Repeatability, and Challenges: A Pilot

Study

Hynek Purs1 , Martin Kuklik1 , Frantisek Lopot2 , Petr Kubovy3 ,

Karel Jelen4 , Tommi Tikkanen5, Roman Jezdik6, Lukas Fara7 , and
Lubos Tomsovsky3

Abstract
To satisfy the needs of growing urban populations, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and improve the environmental
conditions and quality of life in cities, there has been an increasing demand for public transport, especially effective and eco-
nomically beneficial trams. As a consequence, the issue of pedestrians’ safety has become more important because of a higher
risk of tram-pedestrian collisions. The article is focused on the development of a computational model that can accurately
simulate such collisions, and its challenges and limitations. Experiments were conducted using various types of trams, different
impact speeds, and an anthropomorphic test device (dummy). Computational models of the tram front ends were created
based on CAD geometry supplied by VÚKV a.s. The finite-element mesh itself used a combination of 1D, 2D, and 3D ele-
ments. Depending on the shape of the individual components, TRIA, QUAD, HEX, PENTA, and TETRA elements were used
for modeling. The results showed that the consequences of these collisions are sensitive to small differences in the posture
of the dummies. Therefore, it is difficult to identify a generally more pedestrian-friendly shape for trams using the dummy-
tram crash test method.

Keywords
tram collisions, pedestrian, safety, computational modeling, crash test, dummy

In 2019, there were 3,262 reported traffic collisions This paper is a follow-up to a study by Lopot et al.
involving pedestrians in the Czech Republic reported to which described a pilot experiment verifying the feasibil-
the police (1). Of these, 104 were collisions between trams ity of a series of tram-pedestrian collision experiments in
and pedestrians. Twelve injuries that resulted from these
collisions were classified as ‘‘severe’’ and, in four cases,
the injuries were fatal (1). A severe injury is defined as 1
Advanced Engineering s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic
2
only a serious impairment of health or a serious illness; Department of Designing and Machine Components, Czech Technical
the classification is determined primarily by a doctor, University, Prague, Czech Republic
3
Department of Sport Sciences and Biomedicine, Charles University,
and no specific standard is applied. A general and global
Prague, Czech Republic
trend in the number of tram-pedestrian collisions, where 4
First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
trams are part of the public transportation, has been sta- 5
GIM Oy, Espoo, Finland
6
ble over the years. The statistics of tram-pedestrian colli- Research, Development, and Testing of Railway Rolling Stock (VUKV a.s.),
sions also play a key role in the so-called ‘‘Vision Zero’’ Prague, Czech Republic
7
Skoda Transportation a.s., Pilsen, Czech Republic
strategies of the European Commission, which aim to
improve traffic safety such that no person is seriously Corresponding Author:
injured or killed on European roads by 2050 (2). Lubos Tomsovsky, lubostomsovsky@gmail.com
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
many speed and impact configuration variations (3).
That paper focused on the process of analyzing and vali-
dating a computational model of one chosen collision
scenario, and the challenges and limitations for future
methods of computational modeling. This could signifi-
cantly reduce the need for conducting real crash-test
experiments that are more costly and time-consuming.
The study was part of a long-term project funded by
Operational Programme Research, Development, and
Education CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_026/0008401. The over-
all goal of the project was to improve pedestrian safety
before, during, and after a collision with a tram. While
the protection of pedestrians in relation to cars is cov-
ered by type-approval regulations in the EU (Regulation
[EC] No. 78/2009 and the resulting UN/ECE R. 127),
there is no binding legislative framework for trams yet
(4, 5). This presented an additional motivation of this
paper and the whole project.
Methods
The Experiment Protocol and Data Collection
Five different tram types, typical of Prague’s public
transport, were used for the crash tests. Three of them
(T3R.PLF, KT8D5, and T6A5 tram types) represented
an older, high-floor design with a negative slope of the
lower part of the front ends, a bumper located at the hip
height of a normal adult, and a windscreen edge located
approximately at head height (Figure 1). Two others
(14T and 15T) were of a modern, low-floor design with a
positive slope of the lower part of the front end, and with
a bumper and windscreen located much lower compared
with the older tram types (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Lateral views of profiles of older tram types: T3R.PLF
(left); KT8D5 (the same as T6A5) (right).
Crash tests were conducted for four different impact
speeds (5, 10, 15, and 20 km/h), which were selected on
the basis of internal statistics of impact speeds from the
Prague Transport Company, with the same, one-collision
scenario, involving a dummy standing with its left
shoulder toward the approaching tram (side impact).
One collision was carried out for each tram and speed.
The tram driver was instructed to hit the dummy at the
prescribed speed and to start braking the tram at the
moment of impact using a service brake. All crash tests
were performed by the same driver on a dry, clean tram-
way track at an ambient temperature of approximately
22°C, humidity of approximately 60%, and in daylight.
A dummy—the Hybrid III 50th Percentile Male
Pedestrian by Jasti, Tokyo, Japan—representing a typi-
cal male (according to automotive standards—175 cm
tall and 78 kg weight) was equipped with integrated
accelerometers and gyroscopes in the head, chest, and
pelvis and with tension-measuring devices in the pelvis,
spine, and forearms. The recording frequency of the
wireless systems was 20 kHz, and it was synchronized
with other external measuring devices. It was placed side-
ways toward the approaching tram at a distance equal to
the 15% value of half of the tram width from the center
line toward one end of the track, and standing with feet
level with the top of the rail. This configuration was in
line with the current recommendations of the Technical
Report (CEN/TR 17420:2020) by the European
Committee for Standardization (CEN) (6). The report is
focused on the vehicle end design for trams and light rail
vehicles concerning pedestrian safety.
Experimental data were collected from crash tests per-
formed on a 200 m straight tramway track at the testing
facilities of VÚKV a.s. The collision occurred
Figure 2. Lateral views of profiles of modern tram types: 14T
(left); 15T (right).
Purs et al 3

approximately halfway along this length. The configura- where

tion of devices providing kinematic and video analyses is L = length,
shown in Figure 3. R = width, and
The kinematic data were collected using the Qualisys t = thickness.
motion capture system (Qualisys AB, Göteborg, To simplify and increase the efficacy of the calcula-
Sweden). Two sets of four cameras, with a recording fre- tions, the bolts and bar components were represented by
quency of 300 Hz, were used; one set only captured the 1D elements of the beam type, the ends of which were
primary impact of collision while the other set captured tied to the corresponding hole by a rigid 1D element
the whole collision from a distance. Passive reflective (Figure 5).
markers were attached to the dummy’s head, torso, Each finite-element mesh must have met the quality
thighs, lower leg, and the tram’s front end. The video criteria according to the prescribed and recommended
analysis was provided by two ultra-high-speed cameras requirements with respect to the solver used later. The
(Photron, Tokyo, Japan), one recording the primary most basic criterion when using the Radioss explicit sol-
impact at a frequency of 12000 Hz, and the other ver is the minimum element size, which was set to 3 mm
recording the whole collision from a distance at a fre- for the tram application. While the element size is more
quency of 500 Hz. of a practical aspect determining mainly the computa-
tional time, the other criteria are mainly related to the
accuracy of the later interpreted results.
Computational Models of Trams’ Front Ends
The computational models of trams’ front ends were cre-
ated on the basis of CAD geometry supplied by VÚKV
a.s. (Figure 4). The finite-element mesh itself used a com-
bination of 1D, 2D and 3D elements. Depending on the
shape of the individual components, TRIA, QUAD,
HEX, PENTA, and TETRA elements were used for
modeling.
After considering whether the components were thin-
walled or thick-walled, a mesh of 2D or 3D elements was
created. The model considered the ratio of length or
width to thickness (Equation 1). The mesh had an aver-
age element size of 10 mm.

L=t.10 _ R=t.10 ð1Þ

Figure 4. The computational models of the trams’ front ends.

Figure 3. The configuration of camera systems to collect the

kinematic data and provide a video analysis of the whole tram-
pedestrian collision.
Note: Black lines = the tramway tracks; blue lines = the field of view of the
ultra-high-speed camera capturing the whole collision scene from a
distance; green lines = the field of view of the motion capture system; red
lines = the field of view of the ultra-high-speed camera capturing the
primary impact between the dummy and tram. Figure 5. A beam-type element in a model of the 14T tram type.
4 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Altair Radioss is a versatile finite element solver cre-
ated by Altair Engineering. It effectively solves linear
and non-linear problems using implicit and explicit inte-
gration schemes. This multidisciplinary solver empowers
designers to optimize various performance aspects such
as durability, NVH (Noise, Vibration, and Harshness
analysis), crash safety, manufacturability, and fluid-
structure interaction.
The tram front ends were modeled, including the rein-
forcement and other structural components, the strength
characteristics of which significantly influenced the crash
test results and their consequences. The main body of
the tram was then considered as perfectly rigid, and it
was modeled in that way (see the light blue component
in Figure 6). The models of the trams’ front ends con-
sisted of 190,000 to 345,000 elements, depending on the
tram type.
The material of all individual components was mod-
eled based on information provided by VUKV a.s. The
model was dominated by an isotropic elastoplastic mate-
rial definition (/MAT/LAW36). The Johnson-Cook
model was another applied material model, internally
referred to as /MAT/LAW2, which defines the elasto-
plastic behavior using a group of parameters. The last-
used type of model (/MAT/LAW27) combined an isotro-
pic elastoplastic Johnson-Cook material model with an
orthotropic brittle failure model. This material model
was used for the material definition of the tram wind-
screen, which could be viewed as a composite of two
glass layers and a film.
A Computational Model of the Dummy
The dummy was equipped with accelerometers (at seven
precisely defined locations) that provided output infor-
mation about the acceleration of the measured locations.
The defined accelerometer outputs provided a time-
Figure 6. The inner view of the model of the tram front end.
dependent acceleration curve for the abdomen, chest,
head, and both thighs and shins of the dummy.
The project used a basic model of the virtual Hybrid
III seated dummy (Altair Engineering Inc., Michigan,
US) which was included in the Radioss solver, to repre-
sent a pedestrian. For the application of the model in the
tram-pedestrian collision scenario, it was necessary to
modify the dummy based on the modifications made in
the real experiment. These modifications to the physical
dummy could not be quantified parametrically.
Therefore, all changes to the virtual dummy were esti-
mated in a qualified manner using experimental data.
The first major modification was turning an originally
seated dummy into a standing (pedestrian) dummy.
Related to this, some modifications to the mesh in the
joint regions were necessary because the rotation of
joints was associated with the movement of individual
nodes and thus negatively affected the quality of the
mesh. At the same time, a standing dummy necessitated
adjusting the stiffness of the joints, especially in the lower
limbs. Furthermore, the geometry and stiffness of the
shoulder joint were modified because the shoulder joint
was covered by a foam-damping element in the real side-
impact collision scenario.
The individual parts of the dummy, representing parts
of the human body, consisted of four sub-components.
The skeleton carrying the muscle mass was simulated by
a set of rigid 1D elements, which were interconnected by
1D flexible elements—joints. The muscle tissue, because
of its 3D nature, was modeled using 3D elements, and
the outer surface of the dummy, representing the skin,
was created using 2D elements. The 3D muscle elements
were found on every part of the dummy’s body except
the hands, which were made of 2D elements for simpli-
city. In most cases, the muscle mass of each part was
made up of four layers of 3D elements. The head and
foot models were exceptions. These parts were modeled
as two layers.
The muscle tissue was modeled as a viscoelastic foam-
based material using a generalized Maxwell-Kelvin-Voigt
model, where the viscosity is based on the Navier equa-
tions. The skin of dummy was modeled as a 2D mesh
replicating the outer surface of the muscle. Three types
of skin elements were applied in the model:
 Skin elements at the joints: There were no muscle
elements at the joints, but only superficial elements
with an assigned thickness of 1 mm, which had a
higher stiffness than the rest of the skin.
 Skin elements on hands: Only skin elements with-
out muscle elements were used on the hands. The
material parameters of these elements were also
chosen and validated to have a lower stiffness and
not negatively affect the correlation of the model
Purs et al
under real conditions with a forceful contact of
the hands with the tram.
 Skin elements on the rest of body: 1 mm thick sur-
face elements were applied to the rest of the body.
For the skin elements, a simple linear elastic model
was applied in the hands and joints area. For the other
skin structure, the Johnson-Cook material model was
used.
The skeleton of dummy was made of rigid 1D ele-
ments attaching all muscle mass to itself. Each body part
had its own rigid element replacing the bone. These ele-
ments were then connected to each other by a 1D spring
element, which was able to simulate a real joint including
its stiffness characteristics. This was a spring element
that was able to control the relative motion of the con-
nected components using user-defined stiffnesses. These
could be specified in three directions for both the transla-
tional and rotational motion. The rotational stiffness
was defined by the dependence on the joint rotation and
the resistance moment. The same as in the case of real
human joints, movement in some directions was com-
pletely restricted, partially restricted, or free.
In the current dummy model, there were three type-7
contacts ensuring correct interaction of the involved parts
of the dummy. A dummy model containing one global
contact was fully sufficient for the 15 km/h preliminary
models. However, at higher speeds, large deformations of
the dummy head parts occurred, leading to frequent
numerical instabilities. To increase the robustness of the
computational model, the head region of dummy was
redesigned. Originally, only the outer layer of the 2D ele-
ments representing the skin was extended to include a
layer of 2D elements and the inner side of 3D elements.
Subsequently, a pair of local contacts was implemented
between the outer and inner 2D element layers of the head
to ensure numerical stability under large deformations.
Results
Based on the data from real experiments, validation of
the computational models was performed using an itera-
tive procedure. The aim was to find the correct values of
parameters that were not known from the measurements.
The validated computational models could then be used
to simulate further impacts without the need for costly
physical experiments.
Two challenges were identified during the validation
that needed to be faced concerning effective repeatability
(or taking the experiment into virtual form). The first of
these has already been mentioned above and dealt with
non-standard modifications of the dummy from the sit-
ting to standing position. These modifications were made
for objective reasons, such as the lack of a suitable
5
validated standing dummy for side impact. However, as
the simulations had confirmed, even minor adjustments
to joint stiffness caused large differences in the kine-
matics (and therefore dynamics) of the dummy after
impact. For effective test repeatability, the adjustments
need to be standardized in future.
The second challenge, to simulate the real experiment
precisely, was the inaccurate positioning of the dummy. It
was observed that even the slightest deviation from the
prescribed dummy position greatly affected the resulting
acceleration curves (both in the real experiment and, of
course, in the simulation). The sensitivity of the experi-
ment was significantly higher in this aspect than, for exam-
ple, the sensitivity to changes in the characteristics of the
tram structure. Thus, if the dummy was incorrectly posi-
tioned by just a few centimeters, the safety characteristics
of the tram front ends could not be compared with each
other. An example of this challenge was demonstrated
using various positionings of the dummy’s left hand (the
hand facing the approaching tram). Figure 7 shows three
different positions of the dummy’s left hand, which only
varied by minor changes, with all other parts of the dum-
my’s body remaining the same. However, these minor
changes resulted in significant differences of the head,
thorax, and pelvis acceleration curves (Figure 8).
The results in Figure 8 show differences of the accelera-
tion curve measured for various hand positions. Not only
did the hand position significantly affect the acceleration in
the pelvis—which was predictable as the pelvis/hip area was
always a part of the initial contact between the tram and
dummy—but there was an obvious difference in the accel-
eration curve in the case of the head as well. Whether the
arm was positioned parallel to the torso, or it was slightly
offset from the torso, the position always caused differences
in both the acceleration peak and the shape of the
Figure 7. Three different positions of the dummy’s left hand
toward the approaching tram.
Note: blue = hand position 1; pink = hand position 2; green = hand position 3.
6 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Figure 8. Resulting acceleration curves for different hand
position variants: head acceleration resultant (top); thorax
acceleration resultant (middle); pelvis acceleration resultant
(bottom).
acceleration curve. The maximum head acceleration mea-
sured in the real experiment then differed by almost a factor
of two (in the case of the worst scenario) which, when con-
verted to biomechanical injury criteria, could result in mul-
tifold differences. This difference was given by the
kinematics of the dummy’s body movement. Considering a
system analysis perspective, the results represented a sensi-
tivity analysis of the system with several simulations sug-
gesting a high sensitivity of the system to given inputs, that
is, the position of the limbs and other body parts, both rela-
tive to the tram front end and to each other.
Discussion
The results show that impact dynamics, acceleration
curves, and biomechanical criteria were very sensitive to
initial conditions, especially the dummy’s position. Thus,
the safety assessment procedure used can be recom-
mended for a range of simulations of specific collision
scenarios. A few of them could be found below:
 Verification of the consequences for precise impact
configurations and exact pedestrian position
 Verification of the quality of the safety measures
implemented (both passive and active safety)
 Setting the target functions of active safety systems
according to the beyond-design-basis safety assess-
ment approach (7, 8)
On the other hand, this is not a procedure that would
be suitable for standardized assessment of passive safety
of tramway front ends, or their comparison. There are
two major problems in this context. The first one is that
the repeatability of the exact position of the dummy is
very difficult to achieve, and inefficient. The second issue
is that even small changes in the dummy position signifi-
cantly affect the measured biomechanical criteria.
Therefore, it would be difficult to justify the standardiza-
tion of exact position, or positions, for the safety certifi-
cation. It can be assumed that any statistical forensic
research focused on the tram-pedestrian collisions cannot
define the most probable or most dangerous positions of
pedestrians (dummies) with sufficient precision to mini-
mize the effects of experimental sensitivity (e.g., various
hand positions mentioned above).
Conclusions
The experiment and its simulation have the benefit of
providing a validated model that can now be used to
accurately simulate other previously untested, and very
specific, impact scenarios and configurations. With the
validated model, we will obtain very accurate predictions
of the actual consequences of such specific collisions.
Future simulations in this case have a great benefit, espe-
cially in significantly lower financial and time require-
ments compared with physical experiments that would
otherwise have to be performed for such analyses.
A benefit of the validation process is also the recogni-
tion that the results (concerning the consequences of
these and similar tram-pedestrian collisions) are
extremely sensitive to small differences in the dummy’s
posture—small changes in the position of the limbs, of
even a few centimeters, can result in significant differ-
ences of acceleration in the area of impact, as well as the
other body parts of the dummy. This leads us to the
fairly clear conclusion that it is difficult to find a shape
of tram front end that is generally more pedestrian-
friendly by this method of testing. At the same time, it
can be clearly recommended to test the pedestrian safety
Purs et al
of tram front ends (in the sense of one of the safety char-
acteristics of specific tram types) in a way other than the
one presented here (tram-dummy crash test), either phy-
sically or by simulation.
Looking at the knowledge and experience gained, it
can be said that the creation of an artificial intelligence
model that would be able to predict the expected conse-
quences of a collision based on input parameters (speed,
position, collision scenario) is unrealistic. This is pre-
cisely in view of the great variability and sensitivity of
the collision consequences depending on the small nuan-
ces of the positioning of the different parts of the dum-
my’s body.
In the light of the experience gained, a procedure simi-
lar to that used in the automotive industry appears to be
a more appropriate procedure for objective, standardized
evaluation of tram front ends. That means throwing
impactors of different shapes against different areas of
the front end. Further research is recommended to verify
the suitability of this approach. This could help to
develop pedestrian-friendly tramway front ends, similar
to those seen in modern automobiles.
Author Contributions
The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows:
study conception and design: Hynek Purs, Martin Kuklik,
Roman Jezdik, Frantisek Lopot, Karel Jelen; data collection:
Martin Kuklik, Frantisek Lopot, Petr Kubovy, Lubos
Tomsovsky; analysis and interpretation of results: Hynek Purs,
Martin Kuklik, Petr Kubovy, Roman Jezdik, Lukas Fara,
Tommi Tikkanen; draft manuscript preparation: Hynek Purs,
Martin Kuklik, Petr Kubovy, Lubos Tomsovsky, Roman
Jezdik. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final
version of the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This article was written as part of the project by OP
7
VVV (Operational Program—Research, Development, and
Education), grant number CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_026/0008401.
ORCID iDs
Hynek Purs https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8001-4085
Martin Kuklik https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5711-3051
Frantisek Lopot https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5731-6784
Petr Kubovy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7634-2910
Karel Jelen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8151-9810
Lukas Fara https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7491-8292
Lubos Tomsovsky https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0047-6028
References
1. Centrum dopravnı´ho výzkumu. Nehody v ČR, Statistiky
[online]. https://nehody.cdv.cz/statistics.php. Accessed
March 23, 2021.
2. European Commission. EU Road Safety Policy Framework
2021–2030 - Next Steps Towards ‘‘Vision Zero’’ [online].
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legisla-
tion/swd20190283-roadsafety-vision-zero.pdf. Accessed
March 23, 2021.
3. Lopot, F., P. Kubový, K. Jelen, M. Šorfová, E. Tlapáková,
V. Rulc, H. Purš, R. Ježdı́k, and M. Svoboda. Collision
Between a Pedestrian and Tram - Pilot Experiment. Manu-
facturing Technology, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2019, pp. 998–1002.
https://doi.org/10.21062/ujep/409.2019/a/1213-2489/MT/19/
6/998.
4. European Parliament and of the Council. Regulation (EC)
No 78/2009. 2009.
5. ECE. Regulation No. 127 - Uniform Provisions Concerning
the Approval of Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Pedes-
trian Safety Performance. 2012. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
eli/reg/2020/638/oj. Accessed March 25, 2021.
6. CEN. CEN/TR 17420:2020 - Railway Applications - Vehicle
End Design for Trams and Light Rail Vehicles with Respect
to Pedestrian Safety. 2020. https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/
standards/cen/bd5cf93e-cd7d-4cad-85e5-962dbe0051c2/cen-
tr-17420-2020. Accessed March 25, 2021.
7. Reiterer, F., J. Zhou, J. Kovanda, V. Rulc, V. Kemka, and
L. Del Re. Beyond-Design-Basis Evaluation of Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems. Proc., IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium (IV), Paris, France, IEEE, New York, 2019,
pp. 2119–2124. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2019.8813893.
8. Kovanda, J., and V. Rulc. Pre-Crash Control Strategy of
Driver Assistance System. Neural Network World, Vol. 31,
No. 1, 2021, pp. 77–88. https://doi.org/10.14311/NNW.
2021.31.004.