There are a very limited number of reports concerning the relationship between pedestrian head injuries and collision parameters through a combination of statistical analysis methods and finite element method (FEM). This study aims to explore the characteristics of pedestrian head injuries in car–pedestrian collisions at different parameters by using the two means above. A retrospective analysis of pedestrian head injuries was performed based on detailed investigation data of 61 car–pedestrian collision cases. The head damage assessment parameters (head injury criterion (HIC), peak stress on the skull, maximal principal strain for the brain) in car–pedestrian simulation experiments with four contact angles and three impact velocities were obtained by FEM. The characteristics of the pedestrian head injuries were discussed by comparing and analyzing the statistical analysis results and finite element analysis results. The statistical analysis results demonstrated a significant difference in skull fractures, contusion and laceration of brain and head injuries on the abbreviated injury scale (AIS)3+ was found at different velocities (p < 0.05) and angles (p < 0.05). The simulation results showed that, in pedestrian head-to-hood impacts, the values of head damage assessment parameters increased with impact velocities. At the same velocity, these values from the impact on the pedestrian’s back were successively greater than on the front or the side. Furthermore, head injury reconstruction and prediction results of two selected cases were consistent with the real injuries. Overall, it was further spelled out that, for shorter stature pedestrians, increased head impact velocity results in greater head injury severity in car–pedestrian collision, especially in pedestrian head-to-hood impacts. Under a back impact, the head has also been found to be at greater damage risk for shorter stature pedestrians, which may have implications on automotive design and pedestrian protection research if prevention and treatment of these injuries is to be prioritized over head injuries under a front or side impact.

Existing evaluation criteria for head impact injuries are typically based on time-domain features, and less attention has been paid to head frequency responses for head impact injury assessment. The purpose of the current study is, therefore, to understand the characteristics of human body head frequency response in blunt impacts via finite element (FE) modeling and the wavelet packet analysis method. FE simulation results show that head frequency response in blunt impacts could be affected by the impact boundary condition. The head energy peak and its frequency increase with the increase in impact; a stiffer impact block is associated with a higher head energy peak, and a bigger impact block could result in a high proportion of the energy peak. Regression analysis indicates that only the head energy peak has a high correlation with exiting head injury criteria, which implies that the amplitude–frequency aggregation characteristic but not the frequency itself of the head acceleration response has predictability for head impact injury in blunt impacts. The findings of the current study may provide additional criteria for head impact injury evaluation and new ideas for head impact injury protection.

Purpose: Under-foot impact loadings can cause serious lower limb injuries in many activities, such as automobile collisions and underbody explosions to military vehicles. The present study aims to compare the biomechanical responses of the mainstream vehicle occupant dummies with the human body lower limb model and analyze their robustness and applicability for assessing lower limb injury risk in under-foot impact loading environments. Methods: The Hybrid III model, the test device for human occupant restraint (THOR) model, and a hybrid human body model with the human active lower limb model were adopted for under-foot impact analysis regarding different impact velocities and initial lower limb postures. Results: The results show that the 2 dummy models have larger peak tibial axial force and higher sensitivity to the impact velocities and initial postures than the human lower limb model. In particular, the Hybrid III dummy model presented extremely larger peak tibial axial forces than the human lower limb model. In the case of minimal difference in tibial axial force, Hybrid III's tibial axial force (7.5 KN) is still 312.5% that of human active lower limb's (2.4 KN). Even with closer peak tibial axial force values, the biomechanical response curve shapes of the THOR model show significant differences from the human lower limb model. Conclusion: Based on the present results, the Hybrid III dummy cannot be used to evaluate the lower limb injury risk in under-foot loading environments. In contrast, potential improvement in ankle biofidelity and related soft tissues of the THOR dummy can be implemented in the future for better applicability.