Whole-body Response for Pedestrian Impact with a Generic Sedan Buck

Forman, Jason; Joodaki, Hamed; Forghani, Ali; Riley, Patrick O.; Bollapragada, Varun; Lessley, David; Overby, Brian; Heltzel, Sara; Kerrigan, Jason; Crandall, Jeff; Yarboro, Seth R.; Weiss, David B.

doi:10.4271/2015-22-0016

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three cadaver impact tests from the literature were selected for the validation of the CPCBM [17,48,49]; the details of the PMHSs are listed in Table 1. The subjects were initially positioned in a nominal mid-gait stance with the left foot forward and right foot behind, and were oriented so that they were struck laterally on the subject's right side.…”

Section: Description Of Cadaver Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, this paper didn't analyze the differences in human body motion response between the CPCBM and the subjects, and only analyzed the head motion response of the CPCBM. Secondly, considering that the difference in body size between the PMHSs (the medium values in Table 5) in the tests we used and the THUMS model (see Table 5) is not significant, and the specific data of the heads of the cadavers were not reported [17,48,49], we did not scale the THUMS head-neck model during the coupling procedure, which may influence the head kinematics responses of the CPCBM. Finally, the brain injury prediction of the CPCBM is not reconfirmed in this work, due to the absence of brain injury information about the PMHSs used in the tests we referenced [17,48,49], and the fact that the THUMS head-neck model has already been validated in the literature in terms of brain injury prediction [56][57][58][59].…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The head-neck part and the rest of the CPCBM are taken from THUMS (Version 4.01) FE and TNO (Version 7.5) MB 50th percentile adult male pedestrian models; each part being connected by the coupling technique [46,47]. The reliability of the CPCBM is evaluated by reconstructing three cadaver tests published in the literature [17,48,49]. This study can provide a more efficient and reliable tool for the research of pedestrian head-injury biomechanics and prevention of injury due to car impact.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Computational Biomechanics Human Body Model Coupling Finite Element and Multibody Segments for Assessment of Head/Brain Injuries in Car-To-Pedestrian Collisions

Wang

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been challenging to efficiently and accurately reproduce pedestrian head/brain injury, which is one of the most important causes of pedestrian deaths in road traffic accidents, due to the limitations of existing pedestrian computational models, and the complexity of accidents. In this paper, a new coupled pedestrian computational biomechanics model (CPCBM) for head safety study is established via coupling two existing commercial pedestrian models. The head–neck complex of the CPCBM is from the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS, Toyota Central R&D Laboratories, Nagakute, Japan) (Version 4.01) finite element model and the rest of the parts of the body are from the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO, The Hague, The Netherlands) (Version 7.5) multibody model. The CPCBM was validated in terms of head kinematics and injury by reproducing three cadaveric tests published in the literature, and a correlation and analysis (CORA) objective rating tool was applied to evaluate the correlation of the related signals between the predictions using the CPCBM and the test results. The results show that the CPCBM head center of gravity (COG) trajectories in the impact direction (YOZ plane) strongly agree with the experimental results (CORA ratings: Y = 0.99 ± 0.01; Z = 0.98 ± 0.01); the head COG velocity with respect to the test vehicle correlates well with the test data (CORA ratings: 0.85 ± 0.05); however, the correlation of the acceleration is less strong (CORA ratings: 0.77 ± 0.06). No significant differences in the behavior in predicting the head kinematics and injuries of the tested subjects were observed between the TNO model and CPCBM. Furthermore, the application of the CPCBM leads to substantial reduction of the computation time cost in reproducing the pedestrian head tissue level injuries, compared to the full-scale finite element model, which suggests that the CPCBM could present an efficient tool for pedestrian brain-injury research.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Cadaver Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Computational Biomechanics Human Body Model Coupling Finite Element and Multibody Segments for Assessment of Head/Brain Injuries in Car-To-Pedestrian Collisions

Wang

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This gave relatively low changes in ball carrier head linear and angular velocity in the motion laboratory trials, resulting in high percentage errors for the model predictions, even though the absolute errors could be considered small [1]. Thus, it is possible that the model may be better suited to assessing inertial loading in higher velocity impacts as it has been validated for vehicle-cadaver impacts (usually 40 km/h impacts [1,31]). The unlocked joint condition is also more representative of an unaware standing pedestrian than a trained rugby player bracing for contact.…”

Section: Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Capacity of the MADYMO Multibody Human Body Model Applied to Head Kinematics during Rugby Union Tackles

Tierney

Simms

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multibody models have not yet been evaluated for reconstructing head kinematics during sports impacts. Accordingly, the goal of this study was to utilise whole-body motion data from twenty upper and mid/lower trunk rugby shoulder tackles recorded in a marker-based 3D motion analysis laboratory to assess the MADYMO human body passive ellipsoid model for head kinematic reconstruction. Head linear and angular velocity during the tackle for the multibody model predictions and 3D motion laboratory measures were recorded for the ball carrier. Examined were the linear and angular velocity, as well as the absolute and percentage differences. For upper trunk tackles, the median percentage error (with quartiles) for the MADYMO predictions were 10% (6% to 45%) and 23% (16% to 39%) for change in head linear and angular velocity, respectively. For mid/lower trunk tackles, the median percentage error (with quartiles) for the MADYMO predictions were 46% (33% to 63%) and 60% (53% to 123%) for change in head linear and angular velocity, respectively. In conclusion, the model is currently unsuitable for reconstruction of head kinematics during individual rugby union tackle cases.

show abstract

“…Pedestrians are typical vulnerable road users (VRU) in road traffic accidents, who sustain extremely high injury risk [ 1 – 3 ]. As reported in the literature, over 270,000 pedestrians died in road traffic accidents every year, and the pedestrians accounted for as much as 22% of the traffic accident fatalities of the world [ 4 ] and even 45–55% in some developing countries [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study on Influence of Minivan Front-End Design and Impact Velocity on Pedestrian Thorax Kinematics and Injury Risk

Wang

et al. 2018

Applied Bionics and Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thoracic injuries occur frequently in minivan-to-pedestrian impact accidents and can cause substantial fatalities. The present research work investigates the human thoracic responses and injury risks in minivan-to-pedestrian impacts, when changing the minivan front-end design and the impact velocity, by using computational biomechanics model. We employed three typical types of minivan model of different front-end designs that are quite popular in Chinese market and considered four impact velocities (20, 30, 40, and 50 km/h). The contact time of car to thorax region (CTCTR), thorax impact velocity, chest deformation, and thoracic injury risks were extracted for the investigation. The results indicate that the predicted pedestrian kinematics, injury responses, and thoracic injury risks are strongly affected by the variation of the minivan front-end design and impact velocity. The pedestrian thoracic injury risks increase with the increasing vehicle impact velocity. It is also revealed that the application of the extra front bumper is beneficial for reducing the thoracic injury risk, and a relatively flatter minivan front-end design gives rise to a higher thoracic injury risk. This study is expected to be served as theoretical references for pedestrian protection design of minivans.

show abstract

Whole-body Response for Pedestrian Impact with a Generic Sedan Buck

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

A Computational Biomechanics Human Body Model Coupling Finite Element and Multibody Segments for Assessment of Head/Brain Injuries in Car-To-Pedestrian Collisions

A Computational Biomechanics Human Body Model Coupling Finite Element and Multibody Segments for Assessment of Head/Brain Injuries in Car-To-Pedestrian Collisions

Predictive Capacity of the MADYMO Multibody Human Body Model Applied to Head Kinematics during Rugby Union Tackles

A Study on Influence of Minivan Front-End Design and Impact Velocity on Pedestrian Thorax Kinematics and Injury Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About