Impact Tolerance and Response of the Human Thorax II

Kroell, Charles K.; Schneider, Denis; Nahum, Alan M.

doi:10.4271/741187

Cited by 194 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The blunt hub loading condition involved cadavers with either a fixed or free back loaded by a 15.2-cm diameter circular hub at the approximate location of the fourth interstitial space. All but one of these tests were first described by Kroell et al [4,12], but the values used here were taken from Viano [6], who summarized the tests in a convenient form. One blunt hub test was performed by Kent et al [13] The seatbelt loading condition involved cadavers positioned supine on a flat loading table with a narrow belt passing diagonally over the anterior thorax [13][14][15].…”

Section: Dataset Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chest deflection tolerance to blunt anterior loading is sensitive to age but not load distribution

Kent

Patrie

2005

Forensic Science International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Dataset Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chest deflection tolerance to blunt anterior loading is sensitive to age but not load distribution

Kent

Patrie

2005

Forensic Science International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Using the same source geometry of the GHBMC average male detailed occupant model, the M50-OS provides comparable (Hardy et al 2001;Kroell et al 1974) and lateral (Cavanaugh et al 1990;Kemper et al 2008) impacts to the chest and abdomen. Run time reductions are found in Table A2. gross kinematic and kinetic outputs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The robustness simulation was a knee bolster-type impact with a 4.9 m/s initial velocity prescribed to the human body model and designed to be compared only to the same output from the M50-O. Rigid impacts included a 23 kg hub impact to the chest with an initial velocity of 6.7 m/s (Kroell et al 1974;Lebarbé and Petit 2012) and a 48 kg bar impact to the abdomen with an initial velocity of 6 m/s (Hardy et al 2001). The lateral impacts included a 23.4 kg plate impact at 12 m/s to the right arm (Kemper et al 2008) and a lateral sled simulation with a model initial velocity of 6.7 m/s impacting a rigid wall (Cavanaugh et al 1990).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Computationally Efficient Full Human Body Finite Element Model

Schwartz

Guleyupoglu

Koya

et al. 2015

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:A simplified and computationally efficient human body finite element model is presented. The model complements the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) detailed 50th percentile occupant (M50-O) by providing kinematic and kinetic data with a significantly reduced run time using the same body habitus.Methods: The simplified occupant model (M50-OS) was developed using the same source geometry as the M50-O. Though some meshed components were preserved, the total element count was reduced by remeshing, homogenizing, or in some cases omitting structures that are explicitly contained in the M50-O. Bones are included as rigid bodies, with the exception of the ribs, which are deformable but were remeshed to a coarser element density than the M50-O. Material models for all deformable components were drawn from the biomechanics literature. Kinematic joints were implemented at major articulations (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle) with moment vs. angle relationships from the literature included for the knee and ankle. The brain of the detailed model was inserted within the skull of the simplified model, and kinematics and strain patterns are compared.Results: The M50-OS model has 11 contacts and 354,000 elements; in contrast, the M50-O model has 447 contacts and 2.2 million elements. The model can be repositioned without requiring simulation. Thirteen validation and robustness simulations were completed. This included denuded rib compression at 7 discrete sites, 5 rigid body impacts, and one sled simulation. Denuded tests showed a good match to the experimental data of force vs. deflection slopes. The frontal rigid chest impact simulation produced a peak force and deflection within the corridor of 4.63 kN and 31.2%, respectively. Similar results vs. experimental data (peak forces of 5.19 and 8.71 kN) were found for an abdominal bar impact and lateral sled test, respectively. A lateral plate impact at 12 m/s exhibited a peak of roughly 20 kN (due to stiff foam used around the shoulder) but a more biofidelic response immediately afterward, plateauing at 9 kN at 12 ms. Results from a frontal sled simulation showed that reaction forces and kinematic trends matched experimental results well. The robustness test demonstrated that peak femur loads were nearly identical to the M50-O model. Use of the detailed model brain within the simplified model demonstrated a paradigm for using the M50-OS to leverage aspects of the M50-O. Strain patterns for the 2 models showed consistent patterns but greater strains in the detailed model, with deviations thought to be the result of slightly different kinematics between models. The M50-OS with the deformable skull and brain exhibited a run time 4.75 faster than the M50-O on the same hardware.Conclusions: The simplified GHBMC model is intended to complement rather than replace the detailed M50-O model. It exhibited, on average, a 35-fold reduction in run time for a set of rigid impacts. The model can be used in a modular fashion with the M50-O and more broadly can...

show abstract

“…Furthermore, injury to the thorax commonly occurs with impacts from the front and the side as well as in all impact directions intermediate to these two. Different injury criteria (Kroell et al, 1974;Viano and Lau, 1985;Cavanaugh et al, 1993) have been developed in order to relate a definite loading of the thorax to a corresponding injury risk and of these, the so-called 3ms states that in order to not suffer severe damage, the thorax centre of mass must not undergo an acceleration over 60 g for more than 3 ms. This value is used also to assess frontal impact crash worthiness (Schmitt et al, 2014;NHTSA, 1999).…”

Section: The Evaluation Of Biological Damages and Injury Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multibody approach applied to the study of driver injuries due to a narrow-track wheeled tractor rollover

Pascuzzi¹

2015

J Agricult Engineer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes the use of the multibody approach to evaluate the severity of the injuries to the driver associated with rollover of an agricultural tractor. A simple rollover accident of a narrow-track wheeled tractor was simulated in the multibody-FEM Madymo environment and the biomechanical damage to the operator with and without 2-point pelvic restraint was analysed. The structure of the tractor was considered to be unbendable, whereas i) infinitely rigid, ii) clay-based and iii) sand-based soils have been studied. The obtained results highlight the important role played by the seat belt in confining the farm operator within the safety volume maintained by the rollover protective structure (ROPS) of the tractor so that the injuries are reduced. The deformation of the soil produces lower acceleration and velocity values than those obtained with a rigid soil. On the other hand, as soil plastic deformations increase, the penetration of ROPS into the soil also increases, thus reducing the safety volume of the tractor and increasing the probability of interactions between the operator and the soil.

show abstract

Impact Tolerance and Response of the Human Thorax II

Cited by 194 publications

References 5 publications

Chest deflection tolerance to blunt anterior loading is sensitive to age but not load distribution

Chest deflection tolerance to blunt anterior loading is sensitive to age but not load distribution

Development of a Computationally Efficient Full Human Body Finite Element Model

A multibody approach applied to the study of driver injuries due to a narrow-track wheeled tractor rollover

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About