PERFORMANCE OF A 50th PERCENTILE ABDOMINAL MODEL FOR IMPACT: EFFECTS OF SIZE AND MASS

Beillas, Philippe; Berthet, Fabien

doi:10.1016/s0021-9290(12)70084-2

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CAD (computer aided design) data were distributed to collaborating universities, whose goal was to create regional FEMs (Beillas and Berthet 2012;DeWit and Cronin 2012;Fice et al 2011;Li, Kindig, Kerrigan, et al 2010;Li, Kindig, Subit, and Kent 2010;Mao et al 2012;Shin et al 2012;Yue et al 2011). The Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) seated male FBM was constructed by combining 5 regional models (head, neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis/lower extremity; Thompson et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of Objective Rating Methods for Full-Body Finite Element Model Comparison to PMHS Tests

Vavalle

Jelen

Moreno

et al. 2013

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results demonstrate that a single metric is insufficient to provide a complete assessment of how well the simulated results match the experiments. The CORA method provided the most comprehensive evaluation of the signal. Regardless of the method selected, one primary recommendation of this work is that for any comparison, the results should be reported to provide separate assessments of a signal's match to experimental variance, magnitude, phase, and shape. Future work planned includes implementing any forthcoming International Organization for Standardization standards for objective evaluations. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention to view the supplemental file.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of Objective Rating Methods for Full-Body Finite Element Model Comparison to PMHS Tests

Vavalle

Jelen

Moreno

et al. 2013

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These image data were used to create the CAD geometries for the model through image segmentation and conditioning. The CAD geometries were meshed and validated by university consortium members on a region-by-region basis, including the Head, 33 Neck, 7,10 Thorax, 29,30 Abdomen, 3 Pelvis, and Lower Extremities. 45,57 No modifications were made to the material properties or meshes of the validated regional models during the integration process.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These regional models were meshed and validated by various investigators. 3,7,10,29,30,33,45,57 The aim of this study is to describe the validation of the aforementioned model, known as the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) 50th percentile male seated occupant model (M50), in lateral sled and drop tests. Computational models require validation for confidence in simulation results, and these boundary conditions are representative of impacts sustained during side impact MVCs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateral Impact Validation of a Geometrically Accurate Full Body Finite Element Model for Blunt Injury Prediction

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents four validation cases of a mid-sized male (M50) full human body finite element model-two lateral sled tests at 6.7 m/s, one sled test at 8.9 m/s, and a lateral drop test. Model results were compared to transient force curves, peak force, chest compression, and number of fractures from the studies. For one of the 6.7 m/s impacts (flat wall impact), the peak thoracic, abdominal and pelvic loads were 8.7, 3.1 and 14.9 kN for the model and 5.2 ± 1.1 kN, 3.1 ± 1.1 kN, and 6.3 ± 2.3 kN for the tests. For the same test setup in the 8.9 m/s case, they were 12.6, 6, and 21.9 kN for the model and 9.1 ± 1.5 kN, 4.9 ± 1.1 kN, and 17.4 ± 6.8 kN for the experiments. The combined torso load and the pelvis load simulated in a second rigid wall impact at 6.7 m/s were 11.4 and 15.6 kN, respectively, compared to 8.5 ± 0.2 kN and 8.3 ± 1.8 kN experimentally. The peak thorax load in the drop test was 6.7 kN for the model, within the range in the cadavers, 5.8-7.4 kN. When analyzing rib fractures, the model predicted Abbreviated Injury Scale scores within the reported range in three of four cases. Objective comparison methods were used to quantitatively compare the model results to the literature studies. The results show a good match in the thorax and abdomen regions while the pelvis results over predicted the reaction loads from the literature studies. These results are an important milestone in the development and validation of this globally developed average male FEA model in lateral impact.

show abstract

“…The abdominopelvic region of the F05-O was primarily developed using tetrahedral elements (Beillas and Berthet 2012). The liver, spleen, kidneys, gallbladder, and pancreas were modeled with solid elements and a layer of shell elements on the outer surface representing parenchyma.…”

Section: Thoracoabdominal and Pelvic Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Full Body Validation of a 5th Percentile Female Finite Element Model

Davis

Koya

Schap

et al. 2016

SAE Technical Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PERFORMANCE OF A 50th PERCENTILE ABDOMINAL MODEL FOR IMPACT: EFFECTS OF SIZE AND MASS

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

An Evaluation of Objective Rating Methods for Full-Body Finite Element Model Comparison to PMHS Tests

An Evaluation of Objective Rating Methods for Full-Body Finite Element Model Comparison to PMHS Tests

Lateral Impact Validation of a Geometrically Accurate Full Body Finite Element Model for Blunt Injury Prediction

Development and Full Body Validation of a 5th Percentile Female Finite Element Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About