t07105

8/11/2019 t07105

1/117

KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF A MOTORCYCLE AND RIDER IMPACT ON A

CONCRETE BARRIER UNDER DIFFERENT IMPACT AND ROAD CONDITIONS

A Thesis by

Shashikumar Ramamurthy

Bachelor of Engineering, Bangalore University, 2004

Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering

and the faculty of the Graduate School ofWichita State University

in partial fulfillment of

Master of Science

December 2007

8/11/2019 t07105

2/117

Copyright 2007 by [Shashikumar Ramamurthy],

All Rights Reserved

8/11/2019 t07105

3/117

iii

KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF A MOTORCYCLE AND RIDER IMPACT ON A

CONCRETE BARRIER UNDER DIFFERENT IMPACT AND ROAD CONDITIONS

The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this thesis for form andcontent and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science, with a major in Mechanical Engineering

_____________________________________________

Hamid M. Lankarani, Committee Chair

We haveread this thesis and recommend its acceptance:

_________________________________________________

Kurt Soschinske, Committee Member

___________________________________________________

Krishna Krishnan, Committee Member

8/11/2019 t07105

4/117

iv

DEDICATION

To my parents and Chandra Mohans family members, who kept me continuously

motivated with their great support and encouragement throughout my MS program.

8/11/2019 t07105

5/117

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I take this opportunity to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to many great

people who made this Masters possible. First I would likt to thank my academic advisor Dr.

Hamid M. Lankarani for all his valuable help and guidance. His constant encouragement and

motivation helped me a lot in the completion of this thesis and my masters.

I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Kurt Soschinske, Dr Krishna

Krishnan for being my committee and reviewing this report.

I would like to thank my mom and brothers who supported me throughout my life and

without their sacrifice and love I would not have achieved this goal.

I would like to thank Mr Chandra Mohan and Mrs Nirupa Mohan for their constant

motivation and of course my beloved friend Ms. Thejeswini Mohan serving as a back bone.

8/11/2019 t07105

6/117

vi

ABSTRACT

In many countries, motorcycle crashes constitutes a significant proportion of all road

crash fatalities and injuries and safety measures can be successful only if much more

attention is devoted to this issue. Several Roadside guard systems such as concrete barriers,

wire rope barriers and steel guard rails are used to protect occupants of four wheels and heavy

trucks. Yet motorcycle riders are vulnerable to any crash scenario, resulting in major injuries.

Also the climatic conditions have a major impact on motorcyclists. Thousands of

motorcyclists are killed or injured in road accidents. The need to provide and improve crash

survival programs in collision environment is the subject matter of interest and research. In

this research, simulation of full scale crash tests of a motorcycle with rider driven in an

upright position and sliding on the road surface impacting on steel barriers and concrete

barriers are carried out by DEKRA Accident Research, to analyze real-world crashes. It is

most important to evaluate head injury risks as it causes a serious threat to life. The

motorcycle model with a rider are developed in MADYMO 6.3 and validated using the real

time barrier tests.

Under normal road conditions, the motorcycle driven in an upright position is

assumed to have a pre-crash velocity of 60km/h impacting at 12 on a concrete barrier. The

validation criteria used are: motorcycle kinematics, rider kinematics and the rider injury

criteria. The results obtained in this research are found to be in a reasonable correlation with

the experimental data. A parametric study is then conducted to investigate the crash for

various impact speeds (40 km/h, 60 km/h and 80 km/h) under different impact scenarios (6

impact, 8 impact, 12 impact, 24 impact, 45 impact, 60 impact and 90 impact).

An icy road condition is then studied. A study of kinematics and injury parameters

for a motorcycle rider is proven to be different under various impact speeds (40 km/h, 60

8/11/2019 t07105

7/117

vii

km/h and 80 km/h) under different impact scenarios (6 impact, 8 impact, 12 impact, 24

impact, 45 impact, 60 impact and 90 impact).

Design of Experiments is conducted to study the contribution of the road condition,

impact angles, speed and the interaction of these factors. The result from this study helps in

understanding the factors affecting the crash and rider injuries. Design of Experiment also

provides a valuable knowledge about the contribution of factors chosen (road type, angle of

collision and speed) towards accidents.

8/11/2019 t07105

8/117

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION.........................................1

1.1 Importance of Motorcycle Accidents Study............1

1.2 Motorcycle Accidents Statistical Background21.2.1 Motorcycle Accidents Safety Programs ...3

1.3 Types of riding.........41.3.1 Rider training and licensing...5

1.4 Importance of Safety Barriers..........51.5 Effects of Safety Barriers on Motorcyclist..61.6 Literature Review71.7 Objectives......11

2 MATHEMATICAL MODELING PRINCIPLES...12

2.1 Importance of Computer Simulations........122.2 Introduction to MADYMO........12

2.3 Introduction to Multi-body Systems..142.4 Introduction to Kinematics Joints..14

2.4.1 Types of mechanical joints.......16

2.5 Introduction to Inertial Space and Null space Systems.....182.6 Introduction to Injury Biomechanics.202.7 Injury Parameters...........202.8 Injury criteria.212.9 Head Injury Criteria.......222.10 Neck Injury Criteria.......232.11 Thoracic Trauma Index.....242.12 Femur Force Criteria.25

3 MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF MOTORCYCLE AND BARRIER........26

3.1 Methodology..26

3.2 Rider modeling......27

3.3 Motorcycle modeling.....28

3.4 Concrete Barrier modeling....30

4 VALDATION OF MOTORCYLE AND MOTORCYCLE WITH RIDER...31

4.1 Validation of a Motorcycle....314.2 Validation of a Motorcycle with a rider....33

5 ANALYSIS OF MOTORCYCLE AND BARRIER IMPACT...38

5.1 Analysis of a Motorcycle-Concrete Barrier impact- Test matrix...385.1.1 Analysis of 12 deg / 40km/h / NRC .....405.1.2 Analysis of 12 deg / 80km/h / NRC......415.1.3 Analysis of 6 deg / 40km/h / NRC ...........425.1.4 Analysis of 6 deg / 60km/h / NRC ...........435.1.5 Analysis of 6 deg / 80km/h / NRC ...........445.1.6 Analysis of 8 deg / 40km/h / NRC ...455.1.7 Analysis of 8 deg / 60km/h / NRC ...........465.1.8 Analysis of 8 deg / 80km/h / NRC ...........47

8/11/2019 t07105

9/117

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

CHAPTER PAGE

5.1.9 Analysis of 24 deg / 40km/h / NRC .485.1.10 Analysis of 24 deg / 60km/h / NRC ....49

5.1.11 Analysis of 24 deg / 80km/h / NRC ....505.1.12 Analysis of 45 deg / 40km/h / NRC ... 51

5.1.13 Analysis of 45 deg / 60km/h / NRC.... 52

5.1.14 Analysis of 45 deg / 80km/h / NRC ... 53

5.1.15 Analysis of 60 deg / 40km/h / NRC 54






5.1.21 Analysis of 6 deg / 40km/h / IRC 60


5.1.23 Analysis of 6 deg / 80km/h / IRC 625.1.24 Analysis of 8 deg / 40km/h/ IRC .63



5.1.27 Analysis of 12 deg / 40km/h / IRC ..66





5.1.32 Analysis of 24 deg / 80km/h / IRC ......71




5.1.36 Analysis of 60 deg / 40km/h / IRC ..........75






5.2 Discussion of Results...81

6 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM...93

6.1 Principles of Design of Experiments.......93

6.2 Steps to be considered while implementing DOE.......................................946.3 Factors considered for Design of Experiments....... 94

6.4 Effects of the model.... 94

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......98

7.1 Conclusions.................98

7.2 Recommendations.. 99

REFERENCES..................101

8/11/2019 t07105

10/117

x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1.1 NHTSAs Motorcycle Safety Program..3

2.1 Standard typologies selected for Model generation.28

3.1 Standard MADYMO Hybrid III 50th

percentile dummy specification284.1 Dimensions of a Motorcycle28

5.1 Dimensions of a Concrete barrier30

6.1 Comparison of results between full-scale crash test and simulated

Experiment for 12 deg/ 60km/h/ NRC.37

7.1 Analysis of Motorcycle-Concrete Barrier impact under NRC.387.2 Analysis of Motorcycle-Concrete Barrier impact under IRC...388.1 Neck at 40 km/h-NRC..828.2 Neck at 60 km/h-NRC..848.3 Neck at 80 km/h-NRC..868.4 Neck at 40 km/h-IRC888.5 Neck at 60 km/h-IRC90

8.6 Neck at 80 km/h-IRC929.1 Effects of the model..95

9.2 ANOVA table for the model.....96

8/11/2019 t07105

11/117

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1.2 Statistical data of motorcyclists killed in the consecutive years...2

1.3 Statistical data indicating the ways motorcycles been utilized.4

1.3.1 Rider Training and Licensing...................................................................51.4 Median Barrier...............6

1.5 Motorcycle impacting safety barrier system.7

1.6.1 Motorcycle impacting safety barrier and car.........8

1.6.2 Motorcycle after the 90deg/32.2 km/h Barrier test and Motorcycle

trolley, including dummy support frame...9

1.6.3 Full simulation model of scooter type motorcycle and a car...10

1.6.4 Test where Motorcycle impacted the Barrier in an upright driving position..10

2.2 MADYMO structure........13

2.3 Example of single and multi-body systems with tree structure...14

2.4 Constraint load in a spherical joint..15

2.4.1(a)Revolute Joint..16

2.4.1(b)Translational Joint.......172.4.1(c)Speherical Joint...17

2.4.1(d)Universal Joint............18

2.5 Inertial space coordinate system.19

2.5.1 Null system Co-ordinate system.19

3.1 Methodology representing models.26

3.1(a) Methodology representing joints27

3.2 Rider modeling...27

3.3 Kawasaki ER 5 Twister..28

3.3.1 Three-dimensional Motorcycle model29

3.3.2 Three-dimensional Motorcycle model representing joints.29

3.4 Three-dimensional Concrete Barrier model...30

4.1 Motorcycle and Barrier modeled in MADYMO31

4.1(a) Simulated kinematics of the motorcycle for the 90 degree/32.2 km/h

Barrier test condition..32

4.1(b) Simulated resultant Acceleration Left of the CG for 90 degree/32.2 km/h.......33

4.2 Motorcycle with a rider..34

4.2(a) Full-scale crash test of a motorcycle impacting a concrete barrier

Protection system in an upright position prior to impact moving..34

4.2(b) Motorcycle and rider trajectories during 175 milliseconds after

Impacting the concrete barrier as determined from analysis of the

overhead-view Cameras......34

4.2(c) Motorcycle with a rider moving along the concrete barrier35

4.2(d) Simulated kinematics for12 deg/ 60km /h. / NRC for validation......364.2(e) Femur R Resultant Force (N)37

4.2(f) Neck flexion and extension....37

5.1.1 Simulated Kinematics for 12 deg/40 km/ h /NRC......40

5.1.2 Simulated Kinematics for 12 deg/80 km/ h /NRC.....41

5.1.3 Simulated Kinematics for 6 deg/40 km/ h /NRC.......42


8/11/2019 t07105

12/117

xii

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

FIGURE PAGE

5.1.5 Simulated Kinematics for 6 deg/80 km/ h /NRC.........44

5.1.6 Simulated Kinematics for 8 deg/40 km/ h /NRC.........45

5.1.7 Simulated Kinematics for 8 deg/60 km/ h /NRC.....465.1.8 Simulated Kinematics for 8 deg/80 km/ h /NRC.........47



5.1.11 Simulated Kinematics for 24 deg/80 km/ h /NRC...50








5.1.19 Simulated Kinematics for 90 deg/60 km/ h /NRC....585.1.20 Simulated Kinematics for 90 deg/80 km/ h /NRC....59

5.1.21 Simulated Kinematics for 6 deg/40 km/ h /IRC...60






5.1.27 Simulated Kinematics for 12 deg/40 km/ h /IRC.66















5.2.1 HIC at 40 km / h-NRC for different impact angles..815.2.2 Femur R at 40km/h-NRC.81

5.2.3 HIC at 60 km / h-NRC for different impact angles..83

5.2.4 Femur R at 60 km/h-NRC83

5.2.5 HIC at 80 km / h-NRC for different impact angles..85

5.2.6 Femur R at 80km/h-NRC.85

5.2.7 HIC at 40 km / h-IRC for different impact angles87

5.2.8 Femur R at 40 km/h-IRC..87

5.2.9 HIC at 60 km / h-IRC for different impact angles89

8/11/2019 t07105

13/117

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

FIGURE PAGE

5.2.10 Femur R at 60km/h-IRC..89

5.2.11 HIC at 80 km / h-IRC for different impact angles....91

5.2.12 Femur R at 80km/h-IRC...916.4.1 Effects of angle of Collision on HIC966.4.2 Effects of speed on HIC976.4.3 Effects of road condition on HIC..98

8/11/2019 t07105

14/117

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

NHTS National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

HHs Health and Human Services

HIC Head Injury Criterion

T0 Start time of the simulation

TE End time of the simulation

t1 Initial time of interval during which HIC attains maximum value

t2 Final time of interval during which HIC attains maximumvalue

FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Standards

NRC Normal Road Condition

IRC Ice Road Condition

COG Center of Gravity

GSI Gadd Severity Index

NIC Neck Injury Criteria

TTI Thoraic Trauma Index

8/11/2019 t07105

15/117

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Importance of Motorcycle Accidents Study

Motorcycle accidents have become very popular yet a serious subject of matter in this

decade. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about

2,100 motorcyclists were killed in 1997 and around 4500 motorcyclists in 2005 [1]. The

increase in the number of motorcycles on the road is one contributing factor to the rising

death toll; but, even with this increase taken into account, the number of crashes is up. It is

known that the motorcycles differ completely from cars in their design and handling. As a

result they have a complex behavior during the time of impact. The most important difference

between cars and motorcycles is that motorcycle has no passenger cubicle and the rider is

reserved to the motorcycle only by his grip on the handle bars. As a result, the rider is free to

move independently of the motorcycle during the impact and is separated from his vehicle in

most of the accidents. Exposure to collision environment and separation from the motorcycle

are simply facts of life in motorcycle accidents. Another important difference is that

motorcycle lose balance due to improper seating position, locking up brakes, speeding,

weather conditions which happens frequently just before collision. During accidents,

motorcycle is subjected to either yaw or lean or both at the time. At upright position,

Motorcycles usually collides front end first but when motorcycle is down sliding, any of its

parts like the front end, wheel, and tank collide with obstacles. The rider may be partially or

completely separated from the motorcycles before impact. Hence the impact threat to a

motorcyclist is Omni-directional. Due to small in size, motorcyclist is always in danger when

they collide to any hindrance [1].

8/11/2019 t07105

16/117

2

21002300

2550

29503200 3250

3900 40284553

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1.2 Motorcycle Accidents Statistical Background

Motorcycle riding has become very popular from past two decades, attracting all age

groups. As Motorcycles become more popular, sales rise, so has the number of accidents and

fatalities [2]

Figure 1.2 Statistical data of Motorcyclists killed in the consecutive years[2]

In 2005, nearly 4,553 people died in motorcycle crashes, an increase of 13 percent from

4,028 in 2004[2].

Motorcycle fatalities have increased for eight consecutive years[2].

Motorcyclists were 34 more times likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash in

2005 and 8 times more likely to be injured[2].

From 1997 to 2005, motorcycle fatalities are estimated to have risen 115 percent. In 2005,

87,000 riders were injured in accidents, up 14.5 percent from 76,000 in 2004 [2].

Motorcyclists accounted for 10.5 percent of total traffic fatalities, 13.8 percent of occupant

fatalities and 3.5 percent of all occupants injured [2].

47 percent of riders killed were 40 years of age and older [2].

Fatalities of riders 30 years of age and under dropped to 32 percent in 2005 compared to 50

percent in 1995 [2].

8/11/2019 t07105

17/117

3

Fatalities among riders 30 to 35 years of age also dropped 21 percent from 26 percent in

1995 [2].

34 percent of motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were speeding compared to 26 percent

of passenger car drivers [2].

24 percent of riders involved in a fatal accident were riding without a valid license [2].

1.2.1 Motorcycle Accidents Safety Programs

Several efforts were put forth by NHTSA to prevent accident rates and to bring

awareness on safety programs. As a result of providing a greatest benefit of safety for

motorcyclists. The Motorcycle Safety Program covers major areas of concern which includes

causes for crashes, operator behavior and roadway design. The program also has a complete

approach that helps prevention of crash, lessen rider injury when collision occurs and to

provide rapid and appropriate emergency medical services response. The causes for crash

and the methods to prevent crash scenarios were organized according to the Haddon Matrix,

where crash event is divided into three phases namely: Pre-Crash, Crash and Post-Crash and

the factors influencing each of the crash time phases are Human Factors, Vehicle Role and

Environmental Conditions as shown in the table[2].

Table 1.1 NHTSAs Motorcycle Safety Program[2]

Human Factors Vehicle Role Environmental Conditions

Crash

Prevention

(Pre-Crash)

Rider Education/Licensing

Impaired Riding

Motorist Awareness

State Safety Programs

Brakes, Tires,and Controls

Lighting and

Visibility

Compliance

Testing and

Investigations

Roadway Design,Construction, Operationsand Preservation

Roadway Maintenance

8/11/2019 t07105

18/117

4

1.99

2.27

3.69

2.87

2.65

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Casual Pleasure

Riding

Touring under 500

miles

Commuting &

Running Errands

Sport Riding

Touring over 500

miles

Injury

Mitigation

(Crash)

Use of Protective Gear OccupantProtection

Roadside Design,Construction, and

Preservation

Emergency

Response

(Post-Crash)

Automatic CrashNotification

Education and Assistanceto EMS

Bystander Care

Training for LawEnforcement

Data collection &analysis

1.3 Types of riding

National Transportation Safety Board conducted a survey by telephone using national

probability sample of HHs. around 300,000 households called in order to reach owing HHs.

A report summary consisted set of detailed reports and approximately 3,000 tables were

produced by research firm [3].

One of The statistical data indicates the types of Riding by people. It is seen from the graph

that most of the population preferred a casual pleasure ride than touring over 500 miles.

Most of the riders tend to ignore safety measures while casual pleasure riding.

Figure 1.3 Statistical data indicating the ways Motorcycles been utilized [3]

8/11/2019 t07105

19/117

5

NO

61.3

YES

37.6

1.3.1 Rider training and licensing

From the chart we can observe around 61.3 % of the population have not taken an Organized

Rider Education Class. Hence it is one of the causes for increase in Motorcycle accidents [3].

Figure 1.3.1 Rider training and licensing [3]

1.4 Importance of Safety Barriers

Safety barriers have become very popular from past two decades. An effort to

improve their performance so as to reduce accident rates is a latest trend of study. Rigid

barriers are used for the separation of opposite traffic [4]. They are designed especially for

the use on narrow medians, where little or no deflection could be tolerated. As vehicles

become more popular, sales rise, so has the number of accidents and fatalities. Rigid barriers

help preventing few fatalities. They are developed in a unique way to resist forces through

their own mass.

8/11/2019 t07105

20/117

6

Figure 1.4 Median Barrier [4]

The impact forces are transferred to ground through a foundation. Since the barriers

limit the impact deflection to minimal values sometimes no deflection. They should be

chosen based on their use and location. Rigid barriers are ideally used in the situations where

road side hazards are located immediately behind the barrier. Using rigid barriers are very

advantageous as they experience least impact damage and perform optimally in collisions

where the impact angle is less than 15degrees. Hence this reduces maintenance costs and also

reduces the traffic disturbances [4].

1.5 Effects of Safety Barriers on Motorcyclist

Road safety barriers are developed to reduce the accident rates by preventing errant

vehicles moving in opposite directions [5]. A conventional barrier system has proved to

perform well in protecting the occupants of passenger car. Yet, their usage is offending the

motorcyclists. Since information on motorcycle-barrier crash is inadequate and require more

procedures for crash testing, the interaction of motorcycle- barrier has become complex. The

most dangerous aspect of a barrier system with respect to motorcyclists is projected edges. As

barrier displays projected edge; the impact forces are concentrated, resulting in serious

8/11/2019 t07105

21/117

7

injuries to the rider. Motorcyclists can be catapulted over barrier systems if the barrier is too

low.

Figure 1.5 Motorcycle impacting safety barrier system [5]

The jagged edges of the wire mesh topped barrier systems can cause severe lacerations, thus

increasing rider injury risk. Exposure to collision environment the rider is simply separated

from the motorcycle. When knocked with such dangerous projection, a chance of survival is

very low [5].

1.6 Literature Review

Several motorcycle to car and motorcycle to barrier tests were conducted to study the

characteristics of the motorcycle and the behavior of the rider during collision. These

researches were undertaken at different areas of interest. Since the behavior of the rider

during accidents is complex, a comprehensive study of impacts at different angles is a subject

matter of current research.

8/11/2019 t07105

22/117

8

1.6.1 Motorcycle to car and Motorcycle to Barrier test

Seventeen staged motorcycle to car and motorcycle to barrier crash tests were

conducted at the World Reconstruction Exposition 2000 (WREX2000) held at College

Station, Texas on September 25-30, 2000 by Kelley S. Adamson, Peter Alexander, Ed L.

Robinson and Gary M. Johnson, Claude I. Burkhead, III, John McManus, Gregory C.

Anderson, Ralph Aronberg, J. Rolly Kinney and David W. Sallmann. The speed of

Motorcycle considered for impact was varied from 10 MPH and 49 MPH. The objective of

the tests was to evaluate the characteristics of a heavy motorcycle involved in collisions with

two stationary targets namely a rigid heavy concrete block, and an automobile [6].

Figure 1.6.1 Motorcycle impacting safety barrier system and car [6]

1.6.2 Motorcycle Crash Test Modeling

To objective of this research was develop and validate a three dimensional

mathematical model representing a motorcycle with a rider. As a part of this development,

several motorcycle to barrier tests was performed at the laboratories of the TNO Crash-Safety

Research Centre. Several measurements were carried out including measurements to

determine the inertia properties of the motorcycle segments. Results of two full scale tests

involving a passenger car were applied to validate the model [7]. The MADYMO model of

8/11/2019 t07105

23/117

9

Motorcycle consisted of 7 bodies linked to each other by joints and spring damper type

elements.

Figure 1.6.2 Motorcycle after the 90deg/32.2 km/h Barrier test and Motorcycle trolley,

including dummy support frame [7]

1.6.3 Simulation of Motorcycle-car Collision

In this research a scooter type motorcycle was developed for simulation. Comparison

was made between a full-scale test and the simulation using a basic impact configuration

recommended in ISO 13232. Motoaki Deguchi developed a Motorcycle-Car model to

examine the behavior of a rider during collision. The aim of simulation was to evaluate rider

protective devices and therefore to reduce rider injuries when an accident occurs. During

collision, the rider experiencing the secondary impact with the environment such as road was

considered [8]. The motorcycle modeled using MADYMO consisted of 21 rigid bodies, 12

movable joints and many surfaces such as ellipsoid, cylinder, plane and facet surfaces were

used.

8/11/2019 t07105

24/117

10

Figure 1.6.3 Full simulation model of scooter type motorcycle and a car [8]

1.6.4 Motorcycle impacting into Roadside Barriers

Two crash tests have been conducted to analyze impacts onto conventional Steel

guard rails and two tests to analyze impacts onto a Concrete Barrier. Two additional full scale

crash tests were carried out to analyze the behavior of a modified roadside protection system

made from steel. Full scale test was conducted at DEKRA and the computer simulations were

carried out at Monash Universitys Department of Civil Engineering. The simulation model

was validated when the motorcycle was driven in an upright position while moving at 60km/h

impacting concrete barrier at an angle of 12 degree [9].

Figure 1.6.4 Test where the Motorcycle impacted the Barrier in an upright driving

position [9]

8/11/2019 t07105

25/117

11

1.7 Objectives

The main objective of this study is the development and validation of a three

dimensional Motorcycle with a rider. Results from the Motorcycle-barrier impact tests

conducted at the laboratories of DEKRA Accident Research were used for validation of the

Motorcycle with a rider model. Further under normal road condition, Motorcycle is impacted

to Concrete Barrier at different speeds under various impact angles. Kinematics of the rider

and the Motorcycle was an important part of study. The Head injury of the rider under

different speeds and at a range of impact angles was studied.

The second part of this research deals with study of kinematics of the rider and the

Motorcycle impacting the Concrete Barrier under ice roads. The effect of change in

environmental conditions and impact angles under different speeds leading to difference in

injury levels was studied. Design of Experiments is conducted to study the contribution of the

road condition, impact angles, speed and the interaction of these factors.

8/11/2019 t07105

26/117

12

CHAPTER 2

MATHEMATICAL MODELING PRINCIPLES

2.1 Importance of Computer Simulations

The use of computer simulation is recognized as a powerful tool passive safety

research field. Computer simulations has two major advantages, one being reproducibility

and other being the fact of inexpensive. The latter means in full scale crash test involving a

motorcycle with a rider, only a very limited number of crash conditions like speed, impact

angle and position of a motorcycle can be assigned. Where as in computer simulations, any

number of parametric studies can be conducted demanding less amount of time. Since the

motorcycle crash exhibit a complex behavior computer simulations will be very helpful in

analyzing the impact at any point of time. Taking into account the diversity of collision

configurations and the length of analysis time, MADYMO is one such software which can be

very helpful to predict the crash and can be used as a basic simulation tool for occupant

safety research.

2.2 Introduction to MADYMO

MADYMO (MAthematical DYnamic MOdel) is simulation software, which has an

ability to simulate the dynamic behaviour of mechanical systems. Mainly focusing on the

analysis of impact and evaluating the injury parameters. While originally developed for

studying occupant behaviour during impacts, MADYMO is successively increasing to study

the active safety. Hence it has become sufficiently flexible to analyze any kind of crash. Due

to dramatic increase in the accident rates, safety programs have become an area of interest.

MADYMO provides a detailed assessment of the restraint factors [10]. Therefore it is used

extensively in design industries, research institutes etc. MADYMO combines in one

simulation program the capabilities offered by multi-body, for the simulation of the gross

8/11/2019 t07105

27/117

13

motion of systems of bodies connected by kinematical joints and finite element techniques

for the simulation of structural behaviour, the advantage of MADYMO is having the

capability of creating either a multi-body or finite element body or both. The figure below

explains a model can be created with only finite element models, or only multi-bodies, or

both [10].

Figure 2.2 MADYMO structure [10]

The multi-body algorithm in MADYMO yields the second time derivatives of the degrees of

freedom in an explicit form. The number of computer operations is linear in the number of

bodies if all joints have the same number of degrees of freedom. This leads to an efficient

algorithm for large systems of bodies. While starting with the integration, the initial state of

the systems of bodies has to be specified in terms of joint positions and velocities. Several

kinematic joint types are available with dynamic restraints to account for joint stiffness,

damping and friction. Joints can be locked, unlocked or removed based on user-defined

options. The finite element module provides a method for dividing the range into finite

volumes, surfaces or line segments. The range continuum is then analyzed as a complex

system, composed of relatively simple elements where continuity should be ensured along the

interface between elements. These elements are Inter-connected at a discrete number of

points, the nodes. The initial nodal positions and velocities, the connectivity, as well as the

8/11/2019 t07105

28/117

14

element properties such as material behaviour, must be specified at the start of the simulation

[10].

2.3 Introduction to Multi-body Systems

A Multi-body system is a system of bodies. Any pair of bodies in the same system can

be interconnected by one Kinematic joint. The MADYMO Multi-body formalism for

generating the equations of motion is suitable for systems of bodies with a tree structure as

shown in Figure 2.3 and systems with closed chains. Systems with closed chains are reduced

to systems with a tree structure by removing a Kinematic joint in every chain. Removed

joints are subsequently considered as closing joints. For each (reduced) system with a tree

structure, one body can be connected to the reference space by a Kinematic joint, or the

motion relative to the reference space of one body can be prescribed as a function of time

[10].

Figure 2.3 Example of Single and Multi-body systems with tree structure[10]

2.4 Introduction to Kinematic Joints

A Kinematic joint restricts the relative motion of the two bodies it connects. A

specific type of Kinematic joint is characterized by the way the relative motion of two bodies

is constrained. The relative motion allowed by a joint is described by quantities called joint

8/11/2019 t07105

29/117

15

degrees of freedom. The number depends on the type of joint. In MADYMO, the most

common joint types are available such as spherical joints, translational joints, revolute joints,

cylindrical joints, planar joints and universal joints [10].

A system of bodies is defined by:

The bodies: the mass, the inertia matrix and the location of the centre of gravity,

The kinematic joints: the bodies they connect, the type and

the location and the orientation, and

The initial conditions.

In addition, the shape of bodies may be needed for contact calculations or post-processing

purposes [10].

Figure 2.4 Constraint load in a Spherical Joint [10]

Two bodies can be connected by one kinematic joint. A kinematic joint constrains the

relative motion of this pair of bodies, so a translational joint allows only relative translation.

In The constraints imposed by a kinematic joint cause a load on the pair of interconnected

bodies, the constraint load. This load is such that the relative motion of the pair of bodies is

restricted to a motion that does not violate the constraints imposed by the kinematic joint. The

constraint loads on the separate bodies are equal but opposite loads as shown in the figure

2.4. Constraint loads can be used to assess the strength of the joint [10].

8/11/2019 t07105

30/117

16

2.4.1 Types of mechanical joints

A: Revolute joint

A Revolute joint constrains the relative motion of the interconnected bodies to a

rotation around the axes of the joint coordinate systems. The origins of the joint coordinate

systems remain coincident. The number of degrees of freedom of a revolute joint equals one

[10].

Figure 2.4.1 (a) Revolute joint [10]

B: Translational joint

A Translational joint (Figure 3.15) constrains the relative motion of the

interconnected bodies to a translation along the axes of the joint coordinate systems. The

axes are coincident and the () axes are parallel. The number of degrees of freedom of a

translational joint equals one. The joint position degree of freedom s is the coordinate of the

origin of the joint coordinate system on the child body in the joint coordinate system on the

parent body. The joint velocity degree of freedom is its first time derivative [10].

8/11/2019 t07105

31/117

17

Figure 2.4.1 (b) Translational joint [10]

C: Spherical joint

A spherical or ball joint constrains the relative motion of the interconnected bodies to

a rotation around the origins of the joint coordinate systems. The number of joint position

degrees of freedom of a spherical joint equals four. The number of joint velocity degrees of

freedom equals three [10].

Figure 2.4.1 (c) Spherical joint [10]

8/11/2019 t07105

32/117

18

D: Universal joint

A Universal joint constrains the relative motion of the interconnected bodies, starting

from the orientation for which the joint coordinate systems coincide, to a rotation around i

axis followed by a rotation around the j axis. The origins of the joint coordinate systems

remain coincident. The number of degrees of freedom of a universal joint equals two. The

joint velocity degrees of freedom are their first time derivatives [10].

Figure 2.4.1 (d) Universal joint [10]

2.5 Introduction to Inertial Space and Null Space Systems

A coordinate system (X, Y, Z) is connected to the inertial space as shown in figure 2.5

The origin and orientation of this inertial reference space coordinate system can be selected

arbitrarily. Usually the positive Z axis is chosen pointing upwards, that is, opposite to the

direction of gravity. The motion of all systems is described relative to this coordinate system.

Contact surfaces such as planes, ellipsoids and restraints as well as nodes of finite element

structures in MADYMO can be attached to the inertial space [10].

8/11/2019 t07105

33/117

19

Figure 2.5 Inertial Space Co-ordinate System [10]

Several auxiliary systems with known motion can be defined, for instance to represent

a vehicle for which the motion is known from experimental data, as shown in the figure 2.5.1.

However, the preferred way to model this is using a system of one body with a prescribed

motion [10].

Figure 2.5.1 Null System Co-ordinate System [10]

8/11/2019 t07105

34/117

20

Contact surfaces such as planes, ellipsoids, restraints, spring damper elements as well

as nodes of finite element structures can be attached to a null system. The motion of a null

coordinates of the null system origin O and quantities that define the orientation of the null

system coordinate system define this motion. If no motion is specified for a null system, its

coordinate system coincides with the inertial coordinate system. The time points at which the

position of the origin O is defined can differ from the points for which the orientation is

specified. This can be useful, for instance, in case the orientation of a null system changes

only slightly. Then the orientation can be specified at less time points than the position of the

origin in order to reduce the amount of input data [10].

2.6 Introduction to Injury Biomechanics

Injury Biomechanics describes the effect mechanical loads have on the human body,

particularly impact loads. Due to a mechanical load, a body region will experience

mechanical and physiological changes, the biomechanical response. Injury occurs if the

biomechanical response is so severe that the biological system deforms beyond a recoverable

limit, resulting in damage to anatomical structures and altering the normal function. The

mechanism involved is called injury mechanism, the severity of the resulting injury is

indicated by the expression injury severity [10].

2.7 Injury Parameters

An injury parameter is a physical parameter or a function of several physical

parameters that correlates well with the injury severity of the body region under

consideration. Many offers have been put forth for ranking and quantifying injuries.

Anatomical scales describe the injury in terms of its anatomical location, the type of injury

and its relative severity. The recognized accepted anatomical scale is the Abbreviated Injury

Scale (AIS) [10].

8/11/2019 t07105

35/117

21

The AIS distinguishes the following levels of injury:

0 no injury 5 critical

1 minor 6 maximum injury (causing death)

2 moderate 9 unknown.

3 serious

4 severe

The numerical values have no significance other than to designate order. Many injury

criterias are based on acceleration forces, displacements and velocities. MADYMO provides

these quantities with the standard feature. MADYMO offers possibilities to perform some of

these injury parameter calculations [10]. The following injury parameter calculations are

available:

Gadd Severity Index (GSI) Head Injury Criterion (HIC)

Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) 3 ms Criterion (3 MS)

Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) Femur Loads

Injury parameter calculations for HIC, GSI, and 3 MS are carried out on the linear

acceleration signal of a selected body. The TTI calculation is carried out on the linear

acceleration signals of two selected bodies. These linear acceleration signals must have been

defined under the LINACC keyword [10].

2.8 Injury Criteria

An injury criterion can be defined as a biomechanical index of exposure severity, which

indicates the potential for impact induced injury by its magnitude. There are several reasons

why injury criteria are developed. The search for a valid criterion improves the understanding

of injury mechanisms and the situations in which they occur. An injury criteria also relates

loading conditions during impacts on human bodies to certain levels of injury scales as the

AIS scale. Another practical reason is that experiments with cadavers, animals, dummies

8/11/2019 t07105

36/117

22

provide only measurements of forces, displacements, velocities and accelerations and no

injuries. The injury criteria, based on data of these experiments or mathematical simulations,

can be used for an efficient analysis of motorcycle safety design and optimization. Most

injury criteria are based on accelerations, relative velocities or displacements, or joint

constraint forces. These quantities must be requested with standard output options. Most

injury criteria need some mathematical evaluation of a time history signal.

2.9 Head Injury Criterion (HIC)

Head Injury Criterion (HIC) is frequently the most challenging standard to meet.

J. Versace was the first to propose the Head Injury Criteria (HIC), and was later modified by

NHTSA. This criterion is based on the interpretation of the Gadd Severity Index. HIC is an

empirical formula based on experimental work. The HIC does not represent simply a data

value, but represents an integration of data over a varying time base. The HIC is based on

data obtained from three mutually perpendicular accelerometers installed in the head of the

ADT in accordance with the dummy specification. Head Injury Criterion (HIC) is developed

as an indicator of the likelihood of severs head injury and is determined by the relation[10].

(2.9)

Where:

T0: Starting time of the simulation

TE: End time of the simulation

t1: Initial time of interval during which HIC attains maximum value

t2: Final time of interval during which HIC attains maximum value[10].

8/11/2019 t07105

37/117

23

In automotive crash testing, HIC is calculating regardless of the presence of head contact,

according to the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards (FMVSS) and FAA regulations, the HIC

should not exceed 1000. If HIC is kept below 1000 serious injury is considered unlikely[10].

2.10 Neck Injury Criteria (NIC)

Neck injury is often assessed by peak forces and moments in the upper and lower neck.

Usually in crashes, the loading on the neck due ti head contact force is a combination of an

axial load or shear load with bending. Bending loads are almost always present and the

degree of axial or shear force is dependent upon the location and direction of the contact

force. For impact near the crown of the head, compressive forces predominate. If the impact

is principally in the transverse plane, there is less compression and more shear. Bending can

occur in any direction because impacts can come from any angle around the head [10].

2.10.1 Predicting neck injury ( Nij )

The biomechanical neck injury predictor is a measure of the injury due to the load transferred

through the occipital condyles[10]. This injury parameter combines the neck axial force and

the flexion/extension moment about the occipital condyles. The injury calculation is applied

to joint constraint load signals. It is assumed that the coordinate systems of this bracket joint

are oriented because as axial force, the component of the constraint force in the joint -

direction is used, as shear force Fx, the component of the constraint force in the joint -

direction is used and as bending moment, the component of the constraint moment M y1about

the joint -axis is used. This bending moment is, in general, not about the occipital condyles.

The moment about the occipital condyles My is obtained from the following equation

(2.10.1) where e is the distance between the occipital condyle and the joint in the positive

joint -direction. Four injury predictors is the collective name of four injury predictors

corresponding to different combinations of axial force and bending moment[10]:

- Tension-extension (NTE),

8/11/2019 t07105

38/117

24

- Tension-flexion (NTF),

- Compression-extension (NCE), and

- Compression-flexion (NCF).

The equation for the calculation of is given by

My= My1- eFx (2.10.1)

The equation for the calculation of Nij is given by

Nij= +

(2.10.2)

Where Fzc and Myc are constants that depend on the dummy and on the neck loading

condition like compression, tension, flexion, extension. Each predictor pocess a value equal

to or lesser than one [10].

2.11 Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI)

Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) was proposed to predict the probability of serious injury

to the hard thorax as a result of blunt lateral impact [10]. The TTI is an acceleration criterion

based on the accelerations of the lower thoracic spine and the ribs. It also incorporates the

weight and the age of the human model. The formulation was derived from a large

biomechanical database consisting of 84 cadaver tests. The occurrence of injuries to the hard

thorax, including the ribs and the internal organs protected by the ribs, is strongly related to

the average of the peak lateral acceleration experienced by the impacted side of the rib cage

and the lower thoracic spine. The TTI can be used as an indicator for the side impact

performance of passenger cars. The specific benefit of the TTI is that it can be used to

address the entire population of vehicle occupants because the age and the weight of the

cadaver are included [10].

8/11/2019 t07105

39/117

25

2.12 Femur Force Criteria (FFC)

The Femur Force Criterion (FFC) is a measure of injury to the femur. It is the

compression force transmitted axially on each femur of the dummy as it is measured by the

femur load cell [10]. The FFC injury calculation is applied to the joint constraint force in the

bracket joint located at a femur load cell. It is assumed that the coordinate systems of this

joint are oriented because as axial force, the component of the constraint force in the joint -

direction is used. A duration curve of this time history signal is made. The resulting femur

axial force duration curve must not exceed the values shown in Figure 2.12 [10].

Figure 2.12 Femur force performance criterion [10]

8/11/2019 t07105

40/117

26

CHAPTER 3

MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF MOTORCYCLE AND BARRIER

The MADYMO model consisted of four distinct systems; the road, the motorcycle,

the barrier and the rider. The road is considered as an inertial space over which the

motorcycle, barrier and rider is operated.

3.1 Methodology

Physical model of a Motorcycle MADYMO model of a Motorcycle

Motorcycle-Barrier test validation at 90deg Motorcycle-rider Model

/32.2 km/h

Parametric Studies

Motorcycle-rider impacting a Concrete Barrier

model validation at 12 deg/60km/h

Figure 3.1 Methodology representing models

8/11/2019 t07105

41/117

27

Figure 3.1 (a) Methodology representing steps

3.2 Rider Modeling

Figure 3.2 Hybrid III 50th

percentile dummy model [10]

A wide range of two dimensional and three dimensional ATD models are available in

MADYMO. The standard models of adult and child Hybrid III dummies are: the 5th

percentile female, the 50th

percentile male, the 95th

percentile male, 3 year old child and 6

year old child. The Hybrid III 50th

percentile male dummy is widely used for most of the

crash testing. It represents the average size and weight of adult male population in United

States. The above model is made of ellipsoids only consisting of 37 bodies [10].

8/11/2019 t07105

42/117

28

Table 2.1 Standard typologies selected for model generation [10]

Parameter Selected options

Gender Male Female Very tall

Length (standing) Very short Medium Large waist

Corpulence Slim waist Medium waist Long torso

Proportion Short torso Medium torso

Table 3.1 Standard MADYMO Hybrid III 50th

percentile dummy specification [10]

MADYMO model Size Length (m) Mass (kg)

Hybrid III 50th percentile dummy Medium 1.72 77

3.3 Motorcycle Modeling

Kawasaki ER 5 Twister was used for crash study. The required dimensions were

obtained from the Kawasaki manufactures handbook [11]. Few dimensions such as the

overall length, overall width, overall height, seat height, wheel base, minimum ground

clearance, weight were taken into account. The table bellow provides the details of the

motorcycle.

Figure 3.3 Kawasaki ER 5 Twister [11]

8/11/2019 t07105

43/117

29

MADYMO model of a Motorcycle

The motorcycle is modeled using ellipsoids. It consists of 6 bodies representing the

frame, seat, two wheels, suspensions and the handle. The frame is considered a parent body

over which the other bodies are connected through respective joints. Revolute joint is used to

connect the wheels and handle. Bracket joint is used to connect the seat to frame. Kelvin

elements are introduced for the suspensions. Since the front portion of the motorcycle

impacts on barrier, Special attention is given to describe the front wheel and front suspension

characteristics. The stiffness data for front wheel, front suspensions, seat and inertial

properties are obtained from Raphael Grzebieta, Roger Zou, Monash University, Australia

[9].

Figure 3.3.1 Three-dimensional Motorcycle model

Figure 3.3.2 Three-dimensional Motorcycle model representing joints

8/11/2019 t07105

44/117

30

Specifications

Body

Mass

(Kgs) COG Inertia

Frame 70 0 0.05 0.4 40 26 18 0 0 0

Handle 6 0

-

0.015 -0.071 1.1 0.60.3

8 0 0 0

Front wheel 22 0 0

0.0629

5 3 2 1.2 0 0 0

Rear wheel 25

-

0.315 0

0.0629

5 2.1 1.6 1.1 0 0 0

Seat 9 0 -0.25 0.086

0.4

1

0.3

80.2

2 0 0 0

Front

fork(Suspension) 8 0 -0.41 0.26 1.1

0.9

7 0.9 0 0 0

Engine 40 0 0.05 0.15 9 7.6 6.8 0 0 0

3.4 Concrete Barrier Modeling

Concrete barriers are used to prohibit the entries of errant vehicles. They are widely used on

the roadside, since they show no aggressive behavior when compared to steel guards.

Currently there are four types of barriers used in America namely [9];

1. New Jersey concrete barrier 3.The F shape concrete barrier

2. The Single-slope barrier 4. The Vertical concrete barrier

MADYMO model of a Concrete Barrier

The concrete barrier assuming as a single ellipsoid is modeled using MADYMO. The

following parameters are considered while modeling [9].

Table 5.1 Dimensions of a Concrete Barrier

Figure 3.4 Three-dimensional Concrete Barrier model

Height 800 mm

Width 200 mm

Length 10 m

Material density 2,500 kg/m3

8/11/2019 t07105

45/117

31

CHAPTER 4

VALDATION OF MOTORCYLE AND MOTORCYCLE WITH RIDER

4.1 Validation of a Motorcycle

A Motorcycle model was developed using MADYMO. Simulations and experimental

results were compared for a Barrier test condition. A comparison was made for the

kinematics of the Motorcycle and Motorcycle Acceleration [7]. The barrier test condition

considered was a Motorcycle moving with a velocity of 32.2 km / h and colliding at an angle

of 90 degrees as shown in the figure 4.1

.

Figure 4.1 Motorcycle and Barrier modeled in MADYMO

8/11/2019 t07105

46/117

32

0 ms 200 ms

250 ms 300 ms

350 ms 400 ms

Figure 4.1(a) simulated kinematics of the Motorcycle for the 90 degree/ 32.2 km / h

Barrier test condition.

8/11/2019 t07105

47/117

33

From the simulation experiment, it was observed that the kinematics of the motorcycle were

in good correlation with the real time barrier test. The Acceleration generated during the time

of impact is high around 38 g as shown in the figure 4.1(b). As a result the Motorcycle model

is good for further research.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 50 100 150 200

Time (msec)

LeftCGA

cce

leration(g)

experimental

simulated

Figure 4.1(b) Simulated resultant Acceleration Left of the CG for 90 deg/ 32.2 km /h test

4.2 Validation of Motorcycle with a rider

A mathematical multi-body model rider and motorcycle is developed to simulate the

impact on concrete barrier. The motorcycle- barrier model is created for simulation using

MADYMO. The performance of this model is evaluated by correlating the obtained results

with those from the data of full-scale crash test and also from the data of a computer

simulation study conducted by Raphael Grzebieta and Roger Zou at Monash University,

Australia.

8/11/2019 t07105

48/117

34

Figure 4.2 Motorcycle with a rider

In order to verify the Motorcycle- Barrier model with the experimental data, all

parameters are applied as assumed by Raphael Grzebieta and Roger Zou for the simulations.

The response from the model, such as the rider behavior during impact and Accelerations of

the head for a specific test configuration are compared with experimental data obtained from

Raphael Grzebieta and Roger Zou.

Figure 4.2(a) Full-scale crash test of a motorcycle impacting a concrete barrier

protection system in an upright position prior to impact moving [9]

8/11/2019 t07105

49/117

35

The trajectories of Motorcycle and a rider are shown in the figure 4.5(b). When the

Motorcycle is impacting at an angle of 12 degrees and at a speed of 60 km/hr. the rider is

separated from his machine and lands up on the other side of the barrier.

Figure 4.2(b) Motorcycle and rider trajectories during 175 milliseconds after impactingthe concrete barrier as determined from analysis of the overhead-view cameras[9]

Validation for the MADYMO model is made based on the above principles. Kinematics of

the Motorcycle and rider play a very important role to determine the injury parameters.

Hence kinematics of the full scale crash test and the simulated kinematics were matched in

order to meet the validation criteria. Head injury and femur load during collision also helps in

validation of a motorcycle with a rider impacting concrete barrier at 12 deg/60km/h.

Figure 4.2 (c) Motorcycle with a rider moving along the concrete barrier

8/11/2019 t07105

50/117

36

100 ms 430 ms

530 ms 750 ms

1060 ms 1140 ms

Figure 4.2(d) Simulated kinematics for 12 deg / 60 km /hr / NRC for validation:

The kinematics of the simulated experiment appears to be satisfactory when compared to the

full-scale crash test. The head injury obtained from the simulation and full-scale test is as

shown in the figure 4.2(d).

8/11/2019 t07105

51/117

37

Figure 4.2(e) Femur R Resultant Force (N) Figure 4.2(f) Neck flexion and extension

Table 6.1 Comparison of results between full-scale crash test and simulated experiment

for 12 deg / 60km/h / NRC [9]

Full scale crash test Simulation

HIC 36ms 164 HIC 36ms 168.3

Femur R (N) 4500 Femur R (N) 3529

As seen from the graph, load acting on the right Femur and HIC obtained from the simulated

experiment is very close to the full-scale crash test. The HIC from simulation is 168.3 as

compared to the HIC of 164 from full scale crash test [7]. Femur R loads also showed a good

result. Therefore the Motorcycle with a rider has been validated under 12 degree impact/ 60

km / hr / NRC.

8/11/2019 t07105

52/117

38

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS OF MOTORCYCLE AND BARRIER IMPACT

This aim of this part of research is to predict the kinematics of Motorcycle and a rider and the

Head Injury Suffered by the rider. Several velocities impacting at various angles are taken in

to an account for analysis. The behavior of rider is seemed to be relatively different during

different crash scenarios. There are several factors namely speed, angle of impact and

environmental conditions affecting the kinematics of Motorcycle and a rider. Ice road is

considered as one such hindrance caused due to climatic changes. The analysis is carried out

to examine the behavior of the rider under different speeds impacting at different angles

under icy road conditions. Later the percentages of contribution of three factors namely

change in road contribution, speeds and different angles are calculated using the Design of

Experiments.

5.1 Analysis of Motorcycle-Concrete Barrier impact considered for a parametric study

Table7.1 Analysis of Motorcycle and Barrier impact under Normal Road Condition

Road type Angle of collision Speed

40 km/h

NRC 6 degree 60 km/h

80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

8/11/2019 t07105

53/117

39

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

Table7.2 Analysis of Motorcycle and Barrier impact under Icy Road Condition

Road type Angle of collision Speed

40 km/h

IRC 6 degree 60 km/h

80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

40 km/h


80 km/h

8/11/2019 t07105

54/117

40

100 ms 400 ms

800 ms 910 ms

1090 ms 1490 ms

Figure 5.1.1 Simulated Kinematics for 12deg/ 40km /h / NRC

8/11/2019 t07105

55/117

41

100 ms 350 ms

540 ms 740 ms

950 ms 1150 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

56/117

42

0 ms 450 ms

630 ms 920 ms

1140 ms 1540 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

57/117

43

0 ms 410 ms

560 ms 770 ms

930 ms 1600 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

58/117

44

0 ms 370 ms

510 ms 620 ms

840 ms 1200 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

59/117

45

0 ms 380 ms

550 ms 760 ms

1070 ms 1620 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

60/117

46

0 ms 400 ms

510 ms 610 ms

910 ms 1380 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

61/117

47

0 ms 480 ms

780 ms 1050 ms

1210 ms 1320 ms

Figure 5.1.8 Simulated Kinematics for 8deg/ 80km /h / NRC.

8/11/2019 t07105

62/117

48

0 ms 260 ms

560 ms 700 ms

1030 ms 1540 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

63/117

49

0 ms 210 ms

400 ms 600 ms

1110 ms 1410 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

64/117

50

0 ms 200 ms

350 ms 490 ms

790 ms 1200 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

65/117

51

0 ms 220 ms

550 ms 810 ms

1140 ms 1550 ms

Figure 5.1.12 Simulated Kinematics for 45 deg/ 40km /h / NRC

8/11/2019 t07105

66/117

52

0 ms 240 ms

410 ms 510 ms

630 ms 990 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

67/117

53

.

0 ms 240 ms

390 ms 460 ms

610 ms 940 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

68/117

54

0 ms 320 ms

640 ms 910 ms

1020 ms 1370 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

69/117

55

0 ms 290 ms

480 ms 590 ms

770 ms 1080 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

70/117

56

0 ms 190 ms

440 ms 520 ms

660 ms 970 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

71/117

57

0 ms 340 ms

750 ms 940 ms

1410 ms 2000 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

72/117

58

0 ms 310 ms

400 ms 520 ms

640 ms 1260 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

73/117

59

0 ms 230 ms

440 ms 530 ms

760 ms 1110 ms

Fig 5.1.20: Simulated Kinematics for 90 deg/ 80km /h / NRC

8/11/2019 t07105

74/117

60

0 ms 230 ms

500 ms 780 ms

1330 ms 1900 ms

Figure 5.1.21 Simulated Kinematics for 6deg/ 40km /h / IRC

8/11/2019 t07105

75/117

61

0 ms 380 ms

530 ms 830 ms

1080 ms 1390 ms

Figure 5.1.22 Simulated Kinematics for 6 deg / 60km/h / IRC

8/11/2019 t07105

76/117

62

0 ms 350 ms

530 ms 690 ms

1020 ms 1180 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

77/117

63

0 ms 420 ms

560 ms 690 ms

860 ms 1360 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

78/117

64

0 ms 370 ms

520 ms 680 ms

980 ms 1390 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

79/117

65

0 ms 360 ms

580 ms 870 ms

1280 ms 1390 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

80/117

8/11/2019 t07105

81/117

67

100 ms 470 ms

510 ms 890 ms

1160 ms 1260 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

82/117

68

100 ms 430 ms

540 ms 630 ms

1000 ms 1260 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

83/117

69

0 ms 430 ms

660 ms 930 ms

1420 ms 1500 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

84/117

70

0 ms 380 ms

530 ms 790 ms

1000 ms 1230 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

85/117

71

0 ms 370 ms

460 ms 670 ms

870 ms 1120 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

86/117

72

0 ms 320 ms

620 ms 910 ms

1200 ms 1760 ms

Figure5.1.33 Simulated Kinematics for 45 deg / 40km/h / IRC

8/11/2019 t07105

87/117

73

0 ms 430 ms

570 ms 850 ms

1120 ms 1320 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

88/117

74

0 ms 380 ms

550 ms 680 ms

800 ms 930 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

89/117

75

0 ms 310 ms

510 ms 690 ms

1320 ms 1760 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

90/117

76

0 ms 310 ms

440 ms 650 ms

920 ms 1170 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

91/117

77

0 ms 230 ms

400 ms 480 ms

600 ms 1100 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

92/117

78

0 ms 470 ms

710 ms 850 ms

1100 ms 1480 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

93/117

79

0 ms 440 ms

520 ms 610 ms

910 ms 1150 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

94/117

80

0 ms

0 ms 300 ms

400 ms 500 ms

670 ms 910 ms


8/11/2019 t07105

95/117

81

406.9

6.6 44.9

51.1

189162.7

164

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

40 km / h-NRC

HIC

6 degree impact

8 degree impact

12 degree impact

24 degree impact

45 degree impact

60 degree impact

90 degree impact

5.2 Discussion of Results

Figure 5.2.1 HIC at 40 km /h-NRC for different impact angles

Figure 5.2.2 Femur R at 40 km /h- NRC

8/11/2019 t07105

96/117

82

Table 8.1 Neck at 40 km /h- NRC

40 km/h-NRC

Angle of collision Flexion (Nm) Extension (Nm)

6 degree 25.5 29.7

8 degree 26.1 20.7

12 degree 31.2 50.4

24 degree 56.8 24.1

45 degree 21.5 11.2

60 degree 80.6 150.7

90 degree 86.3 26.2

The results were obtained when a Motorcycle is moving at 40 km /h, colliding at different

angles is as shown in the above figure. Under normal road condition the HIC is

comparatively high at an impact angle of 90 degree than 60 degree. Injury on Femur

decreases as the angle of collision is increased. We also observe a high neck extension when

a Motorcycle is impacting at 60 degree/ 40 km/h.

8/11/2019 t07105

97/117

83

473.3

1290.6

344.1

340.1

168.8

293.7

161.2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

60 km / h -NRC

HIC

6 degree impact

8 degree impact

12 degree impact

24 degree impact

45 degree impact

60 degree impact

90 degree impact

Figure 5.2.3 HIC at 60 km /h-NRC for different impact angles


8/11/2019 t07105

98/117

84


60 km/h-NRC


6 degree 206.2 34.5

8 degree 55.8 65.2

12 degree 56.1 46.6

24 degree 22.1 12.1

45 degree 22.1 11.7

60 degree 32.6 13.9

90 degree 91.9 138.7

The results were obtained when a Motorcycle is moving at 60 km / h, colliding at different

angles is as shown in the above figure. Under normal road condition the HIC is very high at

an impact angle of 90 degree, the chances of survival is very low. Other impact angles also

have an effect on Motorcyclist. Femur load is very high at 6 degree/ 60km/h.

8/11/2019 t07105

99/117

85

1260

96.8

505.4

808.6

521.9

132.4

153

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

80 km / h- NRC

HIC

6 degree impact

8 degree impact

12 degree impact

24 degree impact

45 degree impact

60 degree impact

90 degree impact

Figure 5.2.5 HIC at 80 km / h-NRC for different impact angles


8/11/2019 t07105

100/117

86


80 km/h-NRC


6 degree 127.1 48.3

8 degree 48.5 62.9

12 degree 22.1 31.3

24 degree 127.6 13.9

45 degree 12.8 17.2

60 degree 10.4 26.3

90 degree 79.6 46.1

The results were obtained when a Motorcycle is moving at 80 km / h, colliding at different

angles is as shown in the above figure. Under normal road condition the HIC is very high at

an impact angle of 24 degree, since the Motorcyclist head is in direct contact with the road. It

is seen from the graph that HIC is very low at an impact angle of 90 degree. This is because

the Motorcyclists body hits the road prior to his head contact. Other impact angles also have

major effect on Motorcyclist. Femur suffers sever injury.

8/11/2019 t07105

101/117

87

4.3

707.7

295

83.369

355.9

151.5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

40 km / h-IRC

HIC

6 degree impact

8 degree impact

12 degree impact

24 degree impact

45 degree impact

60 degree impact

90 degree impact

Figure 5.2.7 HIC at 40 km /h-IRC for different impact angles

Figure 5.2.8 Femur R at 40 km /h- IRC

8/11/2019 t07105

102/117

88

Table 8.4 Neck at 40 km /h- IRC

40 km/h-IRC


6 degree 29.1 10.4

8 degree 33.9 38.7

12 degree 58.3 68.3

24 degree 50.6 14.1

45 degree 46.1 32.1

60 degree 210.3 31.9

90 degree 37.7 66.1

Under icy road condition when a Motorcycle moving at 40 km/h impacting the Concrete

Barrier at different angles have relatively less effect on the rider as shown in the above figure.

As in most of the crashes the riders head does not hit the ground yet his femur is injured

severely so as his arms. The rider is ejected brutally while impacting at an angle of 8 degree.

Therefore maximum Head injury is observed at this angle of impact.

8/11/2019 t07105

103/117

89

5.6

621.3

199.9

321.1

1037.1

643 645.4

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

60 km / h-IRC

HIC

6 degree impact8 degree impact

12 degree impact

24 degree impact

45 degree impact

60 degree impact

90 degree impact

Figure 5.2.9 HIC at 60 km /h-IRC for different impact angles

Figure 5.2.10 Femur R at 60 km / h- IRC

8/11/2019 t07105

104/117

90


60 km/h-IRC


6 degree 18.1 14.1

8 degree 398.1 70.4

12 degree 140.2 27.9

24 degree 36.3 12.1

45 degree 16.2 13.9

60 degree 248.6 26.7

90 degree 98.1 257.3

It is observed from the above figure that a Motorcycle is moving at 60 km / h under icy road

condition; the rider sustains severe Head impact. While examining the kinematics of the

rider, it is found the Head comes in direct contact with the road in most of the collisions.

Death may be seen as the rider collides at 90 degree impact angle. Femur has a severe impact

at most of the impacts.

8/11/2019 t07105

105/117

91

272.3

1050.1

542.5

32.1

1139

348.74

237.9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

9001000

1100

1200

1300

1400

80 km / h-IRC

HIC

6 degree impact

8 degree impact

12 degree impact

24 degree impact

45 degree impact

60 degree impact

90 degree impact

Figure 5.2.11 HIC at 80 km / h-IRC for different impact angles

Figure 5.2.12 Femur R at 80 km / h- IRC

8/11/2019 t07105

106/117

92


80 km/h-IRC


6 degree 123.3 62.2

8 degree 28.4 15.6

12 degree 23.1 22.1

24 degree 18.1 34.8

45 degree 25.2 20.7

60 degree 161.1 31.7

90 degree 98.1 26.6

Under icy road condition when a Motorcycle moving at 80 km/h impacting the Concrete

Barrier at different angles have a very high effect on the rider as shown in the above figure.

The rider is at a very high risk while colliding at certain angles. As a result many death

causes could be seen particularly at 80 km/h. Hence it is advisable to slow down during such

impacts so that the rider is saved for life.

8/11/2019 t07105

107/117

93

CHAPTER 6

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM

Design of experiments are statistically designed experiments which refer to the

process of planning the experiments where the data collected are appropriate to be

statistically analyzed resulting in valid and objective conclusions. They are used to study the

effect of the various controllable variables on any desired response in a process. There are

three basic principles in an experimental design namely randomization, replication and

blocking. Randomization means that the experimental material and the order of performance

of the individual run in an experiment need to be allocated randomly. The effects of certain

extraneous factors which might be present are averaged out by this method. Replication is the

repeat of all possible combinations between the factors. Blocking improves the preciseness in

the comparisons among various factors of interest and it reduces or completely eliminates the

variability transmitted to the responses due to the nuisance factors. There are certain

sequential guidelines to be followed for designing experiments. The first phase is the pre-

experimental planning which includes the recognition and statement of the problem, selection

of the response variables and the choice of factors, levels and ranges. The sequence of steps

after the first phase is choice of an experimental design, performing the experiment, statistical

analysis of the data, conclusions and recommendations [12].

6.1 Principles of Design of Experiments

To understand the need of experiments

Understand different strategies of experimentation

To know what a factorial experiment is and

To recognize the information it can provide

Identify advantages and disadvantages of different strategies [12]

8/11/2019 t07105

108/117

8/11/2019 t07105

109/117

95

Table 9.1 Effects of the Model

Term DOF Sum Square % Contribution

Require Intercept

Error A 1 33583.0 0.66

Model B 6 1192306.3 23.29

Model C 2 823676.5 16.09

Model AB 6 282383.2 5.52

Error AC 2 8823.84 0.17

Model BC 12 1180746.3 23.06

Model ABC 12 1598081.6 31.21

Where:

A: Road conditions, two road conditions are used namely normal road condition and ice

road condition.

B: Angle of Collision, different impact angles is considered namely 6 degree, 8 degree, 12

degree, 24 degree, 45 degree, 60 degree and 90 degree.

C: Speed, three speeds are assumed namely 40 km/ h, 60 km/h and 80 km/h.

AB: Interaction of road conditions and angle of collision contributing to severity of Head

injury.

AC: Interaction of road conditions and speed contributing to severity of Head injury

ABC: Interaction of all three factors namely road conditions, angle of collision and the speed

contributing to severity of Head injury.

8/11/2019 t07105

110/117

96

From the effects table we can see that factors B (angle of collision), C (speed) and

interactions BC and ABC have significant effect on the response (HIC). ANOVA table is

derived by selecting these factors to find if the model is significant or not.

Table 9.2 ANOVA table for the model

Sum of Mean F

Source Squares DF Square Value Prob > F

Model 5077194.1 38 133610.3 9.4 0.04 significant

B 1192306.3 6 198717.7 14.0 0.02

C 823676.5 2 411838.2 29.1 0.01

AB 282383.2 6 47063.8 3.3 0.17

BC 1180746.3 12 98395.5 6.9 0.06

ABC 1598081.6 12 133173.4 9.4 0.04

Residual 42406.9 3 14135.6

Cor Total 5119601.0 41

The Model F-value of 9.45 implies the model is significant. There is only a 4.38% chance

that a "Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise. Values of "Prob > F" less than

0.0500 indicate model terms are significant. In this case B, C, ABC are significant model

terms. Values greater than 0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant.

Figure 6.4.1 Effects of Angle of Collision on HIC

8/11/2019 t07105

111/117

97

As seen from the table 9.1, Angle of Collision contributes to 23.29 % for the HIC. Increase in

the impact angle increases the risk of survival for the Motorcyclist. Hence it is always

preferred to have a low angle impact

Figure 6.4.2 Effects of Speed on HIC

As seen from the table 9.1, change in road condition contributes to 16.09 % for the HIC.

Increase in speed also has a high impact on Motorcyclist. Therefore it is important to slow

down Motorcycle before colliding on the obstacle.

Figure 6.4.3 Effects of road condition on HIC

As seen from the table 9.1, change in Speed contributes to 0.66 % for the HIC. As a result

this change has a very least effect on the road condition. Therefore the rider is safe from any

changes in the road condition except for the speed and angle of collision.

8/11/2019 t07105

112/117

98

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions

The objective of this research was to study the kinematics and potential injury to a

rider. A motorcycle model with the rider was developed using the MADYMO crash

analysis software. Concrete Barrier was modeled according to the data provided by Zou

and Grzebieta. Motorcycle-Barrier test was conducted at 90deg/ 32.2 km/h for validation.

The following conclusions were made from the research

The motorcycle model alone impacting the wall generated reasonable acceleration

compared to actual test.

The kinematics and acceleration values of the model were in good correlation with the

experimental values.

The Motorcycle with a rider model impacting at an angle of 12 degrees, at a speed of

60 km/h, was validated with the full scale crash test data.

Parametric study was conducted at various speeds (40 km/h, 60km/h, 80 km/h),

impacting Concrete Barrier at different angles (6 degree, 8 degree, 12 degree, 24

degree, 45 degree, 60 degree, 90 degree) under Normal Road Condition and Icy Road

Condition.

HIC values obtained were useful to asses the severity on rider.

HIC at 6 degree impact/ 40 km/h-NRC resulted in a very low injury

HIC at 90 degree impact/ 40 km/h-NRC was with in the threshold limit

HIC at 90 degree impact/ 60 km/h-NRC was above the threshold limit, the rider

suffers death

HIC appeared to be very high when a Motorcycle is moving an 80 km/h while

impacting at 24 degree impact; Death can be seen at this point.

8/11/2019 t07105

113/117

99

During 90 degree impact/ 80 km/h, the rider flies away from barrier resulting in a low

HIC.

Femur injury increases as the impact angle decreases at the normal road condition.

At Icy road condition, Femur R injury is maximum at 12deg/60km/h-IRC and low at

90deg/40 km/h-IRC

Design of Experiments showed the percentage contribution of three factors related to

injuries to rider as shown below:

Angle of collision was 23%.

Contribution of road condition was very low (0.66%) towards the crash.

Change in speed contributed to 16% of overall crash.

The interaction of three factors plays a very important role during crash (31.2%).

7.2 Recommendations

The rider kinematics, injury parameters under different configurations was studied in

this research. Some of the recommendations that can be followed to improve upon study

are presented below:

Similar kind of tests can be conducted for steel guard barriers, and wire rope barriers.

As they are aggressive in nature during the time of impact, the behavior of

Motorcycle and rider would be different.

Spring damper barriers can be used to study the impact analysis. The behavior of rider

kinematics may change due to energy absorbed by the barriers.

Effect of Temporary Concrete Barrier system (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

can be used to study the behavior of rider kinematics during collision.

Effect of helmet in the head injuries can be evaluated during collision.

Multiple occupants seating can be considered for the same test configurations. Hence

to observe the kinematics of rider and pillion and their injuries.

8/11/2019 t07105

114/117

100

Motorcycles with crash guards implemented also helps in preventing the rider to

suffer severe injuries.

A finite element model for the motorcycle can be developed which would be helpful

in studying the structural responses during impact.

Other passengers such as female or children can be introduced to study the kinematic

analysis and injury parameters

Kinematic analysis can be performed when the Motorcycle hits the obstacle during

sliding position

8/11/2019 t07105

115/117

101

REFERENCES

8/11/2019 t07105

116/117

102

LIST OF REFERENCES

[1] Schneider H., An Analysis of Motorcycle Crashes 1996 to 2002, Louisiana State

University; May 2003.

[2] Statistical background of Motorcycle Accidents, U.S. National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2005.

[3] MIC Motorcycle Survey- Trends and Safety Statistics, National Transportation

Safety board, 2003

[4] Chandrakumaran C, Road design and Road side Safety, New Zealand, 1999.

[5] Duncan C., Corben B., Truedsson N. and Tingvall C., Motorcycle and Safety Barrier

Crash-Testing: Feasibility Study Accident Research Centre, Monash University,

2000.

[6] Adamson S. K., Alexander P, Robinson L. E., Johnson M. G., Burkhead I. C.,

McManus J, Anderson C. G., Aronberg R, Kinney J, Sallmann W. D, SeventeenMotorcycle Crash Tests into Vehicles and a Barrier, College Station, Texas, 2000.

[7] Niieboer J. J.

t07105

Documents