Advertisement

Objective Evaluation of Whole Body Kinematics in a Simulated, Restrained Frontal Impact

  • Jeremy M. Schap
  • Bharath Koya
  • F. Scott Gayzik
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

The use of human body models as an additional data point in the evaluation of human-machine interaction requires quantitative validation. In this study a validation of the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) average male occupant model (M50-O v. 4.5) in a restrained frontal sled test environment is presented. For vehicle passengers, frontal crash remains the most common mode, and the most common source of fatalities. A total of 55-time history traces of reaction loads and kinematics from the model were evaluated against corresponding PMHS data (n = 5). Further, the model’s sensitivity to the belt path was studied by replicating two documented PMHS cases with prominent lateral and medial belt paths respectively. Results were quantitatively evaluated using open source CORA software. A tradeoff was observed; better correlation scores were achieved on gross measures (e.g. reaction loads), whereas better corridor scores were achieved on localized measures (rib deflections), indicating that subject specificity may dominate the comparison at localized anatomical regions. On an overall basis, the CORA scores were 0.68, 0.66 and 0.60 for force, body kinematics and chest wall kinematics. Belt force responses received the highest grouped CORA score of 0.85. Head and sternum kinematics earning a 0.8 and 0.7 score respectively. The model demonstrated high sensitivity to belt path, resulting in a 20-point increase in CORA score when the belt was routed closer to analogous location of data collection. The human model demonstrated overall reasonable biofidelity and sensitivity to countermeasures in frontal crash kinematics.

Keywords

Human body model Finite element Validation Frontal impact Injury Biomechanics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Global Human Body Models Consortium, LLC, under GHBMC Project No. WFU-006. All simulations were run on the DEAC cluster at Wake Forest University, with support provided by Adam Carlson and Cody Stevens. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of GHBMC developers, including: L. Zhang (Wayne State), D. Cronin (U. Waterloo), M. Panzer (U. Virginia), P. Beillas (U. Lyon). Dale Johnson (WFU) assisted in manuscript preparation.

Conflict of interest

F Scott Gayzik is a member of Elemance, LLC., which distributes academic and commercial licenses for the use of GHBMC-owned computational human body models.

Supplementary material

10439_2018_2180_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1688 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Albert, D. L., S. M. Beeman, and A. R. Kemper. Occupant kinematics of the Hybrid III, THOR-M, and postmortem human surrogates under various restraint conditions in full-scale frontal sled tests. Traffic Inj. Prev. 19:S50–S58, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arun M., J. Humm, N. Yoganandan and F. Pintar. Biofidelity Evaluation of a Restrained Whole Body Finite Element Model under Frontal Impact using Kinematics Data from PMHS Sled Tests In: IRCOBI. Lyon, France, 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ash J., D. Lessley, J. Forman, Q. Zhang, G. Shaw and J. R. Crandall. Whole Body Kinematics: Response Corridors for Restrained Frontal Impacts. In: IRCOBI Conference. Dublin, Ireland, 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ash, J., G. Shaw, D. Lessley, and J. R. Crandall. PMHS restraint and support surface forces in simulated frontal crashes. Int. J. Automot. Eng. 4:41–46, 2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barker, J. B., D. S. Cronin, and R. W. Nightingale. Lower cervical spine motion segment computational model validation: kinematic and kinetic response for quasi-static and dynamic loading. J. Biomech. Eng. 139:16, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bean, J. D., C. J. Kahane, M. Mynatt, R. W. Rudd, C. J. Rush, and C. Wiacek. Fatalities in Frontal Crashes Despite Seat Belts and Air Bags. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beck, L. F., A. M. Dellinger, and M. E. O’Neil. Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, united states: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences. Am. J. Epidemiol. 166:212–218, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beillas, P., and F. Berthet. An investigation of human body model morphing for the assessment of abdomen responses to impact against a population of test subjects. Traffic Inj Prev 18:S142–s147, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brumbelow M. L. and D. S. Zuby. Impact and injury patterns in frontal crashes of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection. In: 21st ESV Conference 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cavanaugh, J. M. The biomechanics of thoracic trauma. Accidental Injury, New York: Springer, 1993, pp. 362–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crandall, J. R., D. Lessley, G. Shaw, and J. Ash. Displacement response of the spine in restrained PMHS during frontal impacts. Int. J. Automot. Eng. 5:59–64, 2014.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis, M. L., B. Koya, J. M. Schap, and F. S. Gayzik. Development and full body validation of a 5th percentile female finite element model. Stapp Car Crash J. 60:509–544, 2016.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeWit, J. A., and D. S. Cronin. Cervical spine segment finite element model for traumatic injury prediction. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 10:138–150, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fice, J. B., D. S. Cronin, and M. B. Panzer. Cervical spine model to predict capsular ligament response in rear impact. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39:2152–2162, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gayzik, F. S., I. P. Marcus, K. A. Danelson, J. D. Rupp, C. R. Bass, N. Yoganandan, and J. Zhang. A point-wise normalization method for development of biofidelity response corridors. J. Biomech. 48:4173–4177, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gayzik, F., D. Moreno, K. Danelson, C. McNally, K. Klinich, and J. D. Stitzel. External landmark, body surface, and volume data of a mid-sized male in seated and standing postures. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 40:2019–2032, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gayzik, F. S., D. M. Moreno, C. P. Geer, S. D. Wuertzer, R. S. Martin, and J. D. Stitzel. Development of a full body CAD dataset for computational modeling: a multi-modality approach. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39:2568–2583, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gehre C., H. Gades and P. Wernicke. Objective rating of signals using test and simulation responses. In: 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV), Stuttgart, Germany, 2009, pp. 15–18.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guleyupoglu B., R. Barnard and F. S. Gayzik. Automating Regional Rib Fracture Evaluation in the GHBMC Detailed Average Seated Male Occupant Model. SAE Technical Paper, 2017.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hayes, A. R. Geometric and Kinematic Validation Studies in the Thoracic and Abdominal Regions of a Detailed Human-Body Finite Element Model. Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University, 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hayes, A. R., N. A. Vavalle, D. P. Moreno, J. D. Stitzel, and F. S. Gayzik. Validation of simulated chestband data in frontal and lateral loading using a human body finite element model. Traffic Inj. Prev. 15:181–186, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim, Y. H., J. E. Kim, and A. W. Eberhardt. A new cortical thickness mapping method with application to an in vivo finite element model. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 17:997–1001, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, E. L., M. Craig, and M. Scarboro. Real-world rib fracture patterns in frontal crashes in different restraint conditions. Traffic Inj. Prev. 16(Suppl 2):S115–123, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lessley, D., G. Shaw, J. Ash, and J. R. Crandall. A Methodology for Assessing Intrasegmental Kinematics of the Whole Human Spine during Impacts. Int. J. Automot. Eng. 5:1–6, 2014.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li, Z., M. W. Kindig, J. R. Kerrigan, C. D. Untaroiu, D. Subit, J. R. Crandall, and R. W. Kent. Rib fractures under anterior–posterior dynamic loads: experimental and finite-element study. J. Biomech. 43:228–234, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li, Z., M. W. Kindig, D. Subit, and R. W. Kent. Influence of mesh density, cortical thickness and material properties on human rib fracture prediction. Med. Eng. Phys. 32:998–1008, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maltese, M. R., R. H. Eppinger, H. H. Rhule, B. R. Donnelly, F. A. Pintar, and N. Yoganandan. Response corridors of human surrogates in lateral impacts. Stapp Car Crash J. 46:321–351, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mao, H., L. Zhang, B. Jiang, V. V. Genthikatti, X. Jin, F. Zhu, R. Makwana, A. Gill, G. Jandir, and A. Singh. Development of a finite element human head model partially validated with thirty five experimental cases. J. Biomech. Eng. 135:111002, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mattucci, S. F., J. A. Moulton, N. Chandrashekar, and D. S. Cronin. Strain rate dependent properties of younger human cervical spine ligaments. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 10:216–226, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mattucci, S. F., J. A. Moulton, N. Chandrashekar, and D. S. Cronin. Strain rate dependent properties of human craniovertebral ligaments. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 23:71–79, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    2016 Fatal motor vehicle crashes: Overview. edited by N. C. f. S. a. Analysis. Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2017.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Panjabi, M. M., J. J. Crisco, A. Vasavada, T. Oda, J. Cholewicki, K. Nibu, and E. Shin. Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load–displacement curves. Spine 26:2692–2700, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park G., T. Kim, J. R. Crandall, C. Arregui-Dalmases and J. Luzon-Narro. Comparison of Kinematics of GHBMC to PMHS on the Side Impact Condition. In: International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury. Gothenburg, Sweden: 2013.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pattimore, D., P. Thomas, and S. Dave. Torso injury patterns and mechanisms in car crashes: an additional diagnostic tool. Injury 23:123–126, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pietsch, H. A., K. E. Bosch, D. R. Weyland, E. M. Spratley, K. A. Henderson, R. S. Salzar, T. A. Smith, B. M. Sagara, C. K. Demetropoulos, C. J. Dooley, and A. C. Merkle. Evaluation of WIAMan Technology Demonstrator Biofidelity Relative to Sub-Injurious PMHS Response in Simulated Under-body Blast Events. Stapp Car Crash J. 60:199–246, 2016.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Poulard, D., R. Kent, M. Kindig, Z. Li, and D. Subit. Thoracic response targets for a computational model: A hierarchical approach to asses the biofidelity of a 50th-percentile occupant male finite element model. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 45:45–64, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Poulard, D., D. Subit, B. Nie, J.-P. Donlon, and R. W. Kent. The contribution of pre-impact posture on restrained occupant finite element model response in frontal impact. Traffic Inj. Prev. 16:S87–S95, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schoell, S. L., A. A. Weaver, J. E. Urban, D. A. Jones, J. D. Stitzel, E. Hwang, M. P. Reed, and J. D. Rupp. Development and validation of an older occupant finite element model of a mid-sized male for investigation of age-related injury risk. Stapp Car Crash J. 59:359, 2015.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shaw, G., D. Parent, S. Purtsezov, D. Lessley, J. Crandall, R. Kent, H. Guillemot, S. A. Ridella, E. Takhounts, and P. Martin. Impact response of restrained PMHS in frontal sled tests: skeletal deformation patterns under seat belt loading. Stapp Car Crash J. 53:1, 2009.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shi, X., L. Cao, M. P. Reed, J. D. Rupp, and J. Hu. Effects of obesity on occupant responses in frontal crashes: a simulation analysis using human body models. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 18:1280–1292, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shin, J., and C. Untaroiu. Biomechanical and injury response of human foot and ankle under complex loading. J Biomech Eng 135:101008, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    SAE. Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation. J211/1, Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers Test Instrumentation Standards Committee, 1995.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    SAE. Sign convention for vehicle crash testing. J1733, Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers Test Instrumentation Standards Committee, 1995.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Soni, A., and P. Beillas. Modelling hollow organs for impact conditions: a simplified case study. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 18:730–739, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Takhounts, E. G., M. J. Craig, K. Moorhouse, J. McFadden, and V. Hasija. Development of brain injury criteria (Br IC). Stapp Car Crash J. 57:243–266, 2013.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Untaroiu, C. D., N. Yue, and J. Shin. A finite element model of the lower limb for simulating automotive impacts. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41:513–526, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vavalle, N. A., M. L. Davis, J. D. Stitzel, and F. S. Gayzik. Quantitative validation of a human body finite element model using rigid body impacts. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 43:2163–2174, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vavalle, N. A., B. C. Jelen, D. P. Moreno, J. D. Stitzel, and F. S. Gayzik. An evaluation of objective rating methods for full-body finite element model comparison to PMHS tests. Traffic Inj. Prev. 14:S87–S94, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vavalle N., D. Moreno, A. Rhyne, J. Stitzel and F. Gayzik. The validation of a full body finite element model in lateral full body sled and drop tests. In: VT-WFU School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences Symposium, Winston-Salem, NC, 2012.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vavalle, N. A., D. P. Moreno, A. C. Rhyne, J. D. Stitzel, and F. S. Gayzik. Lateral impact validation of a geometrically accurate full body finite element model for blunt injury prediction. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41:497–512, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vavalle, N. A., A. B. Thompson, A. R. Hayes, D. P. Moreno, J. D. Stitzel, and F. S. Gayzik. Investigation of the mass distribution of a detailed seated male finite element model. J. Appl. Biomech. 30:471–476, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yanaoka T. and Y. Dokko. A Parametric Study of Age-Related Factors Affecting Intracranial Responses under Impact Loading Using a Human Head/Brain FE Model. In: International Research Council on Biomechanics Injury (IRCOBI). Gothenburg, Sweeden: 2013.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yue N., J. Shin and C. Untaroiu. Development and validation of an occupant lower limb finite element model. In: SAE Technical Paper, 2011.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yue, N., and C. D. Untaroiu. A numerical investigation on the variation in hip injury tolerance with occupant posture during frontal collisions. Traffic Inj. Prev. 15:513–522, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wake Forest University School of MedicineVirginia Tech-Wake Forest University Center for Injury BiomechanicsWinston SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations