Influence of Vehicle Kinematic Components on Chest Injury in Frontal-Offset Impacts

<div><p><b>Objective:</b> Frontal crashes in which the vehicle has poor structural engagement, such as small-overlap and oblique crashes, account for a large number of fatalities. These crash modes are characterized by large intrusion and vehicle yaw rotation. Results from previous studies have shown mixed results regarding the importance and effects of these parameters. The aim of this study was to evaluate how vehicle yaw rotation, instrument panel intrusion, and the time history of the pulse angle influence chest injury outcomes.</p><p><b>Method:</b> This study was conducted using kinematic boundary conditions derived from physical crash tests, which were applied on a finite element simulation model of a vehicle interior including a finite element human model. By performing simulations with different levels of simplified boundary conditions and comparing the results to a simulation with a full set of boundary conditions, the influence of the simplifications was evaluated. The injury outcome measure compared between the simulations was the expected number of fractured ribs. The 3 simplifications simulated were (1) removal of vehicle yaw rotation, (2) removal of vehicle yaw rotation plus an assumption of a constant pulse angle between the <i>x</i>- and <i>y</i>-acceleration, and (3) removal of instrument panel intrusion.</p><p>The kinematic boundary conditions were collected from 120 physical tests performed at the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety; 77 were small-overlap tests, and 43 were moderate overlap tests. For each test, the full set of boundary conditions plus the 3 simplifications were simulated. Thus, a total of 480 simulations were performed.</p><p><b>Results:</b> The yaw rotation influences occupant interaction with the frontal airbag. For the approximation without this kinematic boundary component, there was an average error in injury outcome of approximately 13% for the moderate overlap cases. Large instrument panel intrusion increases the risk of rib fracture in nearside small-overlap crashes. The mechanism underlying this increased fracture risk is a combination of increased airbag load and a more severe secondary impact to the side structure. Without the intrusion component, the injury risk was underestimated by 8% for the small-overlap crashes.</p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> The approximation with least error was version 2; that is, a model assuming a constant pulse angle, including instrument panel intrusion but no vehicle yaw rotation. This approximation simulates a sled test with a buck mounted at an oblique angle. The average error for this approximation was as low as 2–4%.</p></div

DataSheet1_Investigating sources for variability in volunteer kinematics in a braking maneuver, a sensitivity analysis with an active human body model.PDF

Occupant kinematics during evasive maneuvers, such as crash avoidance braking or steering, varies within the population. Studies have tried to correlate the response to occupant characteristics such as sex, stature, age, and BMI, but these characteristics explain no or very little of the variation. Therefore, hypothesis have been made that the difference in occupant response stems from voluntary behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect from other sources of variability: in neural delay, in passive stiffness of fat, muscle tissues and skin, in muscle size and in spinal alignment, as a first step towards explaining the variability seen among occupants in evasive maneuvers. A sensitivity analysis with simulations of the SAFER Human Body Model in braking was performed, and the displacements from the simulations were compared to those of volunteers. The results suggest that the head and torso kinematics were most sensitive to spinal alignment, followed by muscle size. For head and torso vertical displacements, the range in model kinematics was comparable to the range in volunteer kinematics. However, for forward displacements, the included parameters only explain some of the variability seen in the volunteer experiment. To conclude, the results indicate that the variation in volunteer vertical kinematics could be partly attributed to the variability in human characteristics analyzed in this study, while these cannot alone explain the variability in forward kinematics. The results can be used in future tuning of HBMs, and in future volunteer studies, when further investigating the potential causes of the large variability seen in occupant kinematics in evasive maneuvers.</p

DataSheet1_Influences of human thorax variability on population rib fracture risk prediction using human body models.docx

Rib fractures remain a common injury for vehicle occupants in crashes. The risk of a human sustaining rib fractures from thorax loading is highly variable, potentially due to a variability in individual factors such as material properties and geometry of the ribs and ribcage. Human body models (HBMs) with a detailed ribcage can be used as occupant substitutes to aid in the prediction of rib injury risk at the tissue level in crash analysis. To improve this capability, model parametrization can be used to represent human variability in simulation studies. The aim of this study was to identify the variations in the physical properties of the human thorax that have the most influence on rib fracture risk for the population of vehicle occupants. A total of 15 different geometrical and material factors, sourced from published literature, were varied in a parametrized SAFER HBM. Parametric sensitivity analyses were conducted for two crash configurations, frontal and near-side impacts. The results show that variability in rib cortical bone thickness, rib cortical bone material properties, and rib cross-sectional width had the greatest influence on the risk for an occupant to sustain two or more fractured ribs in both impacts. Therefore, it is recommended that these three parameters be included in rib fracture risk analysis with HBMs for the population of vehicle occupants.</p

DataSheet1_Assessment of the sensitivity of thoracic injury criteria to subject-specific characteristics using human body models.docx

Introduction: Chest deformation has been proposed as the best predictor of thoracic injury risk in frontal impacts. Finite Element Human Body Models (FE-HBM) can enhance the results obtained in physical crash tests with Anthropometric Test Devices (ATD) since they can be exposed to omnidirectional impacts and their geometry can be modified to reflect specific population groups. This study aims to assess the sensitivity of two thoracic injury risk criteria (PC Score and Cmax) to several personalization techniques of FE-HBMs.Methods: Three 30° nearside oblique sled tests were reproduced using the SAFER HBM v8 and three personalization techniques were applied to this model to evaluate the influence on the risk of thoracic injuries. First, the overall mass of the model was adjusted to represent the weight of the subjects. Second, the model anthropometry and mass were modified to represent the characteristics of the post-mortem human subjects (PMHS). Finally, the spine alignment of the model was adapted to the PMHS posture at t = 0 ms, to conform to the angles between spinal landmarks measured in the PMHS. The following two metrics were used to predict three or more fractured ribs (AIS3+) of the SAFER HBM v8 and the effect of personalization techniques: the maximum posterior displacement of any studied chest point (Cmax), and the sum of the upper and lower deformation of selected rib points (PC score).Results: Despite having led to statistically significant differences in the probability of AIS3+ calculations, the mass-scaled and morphed version provided, in general, lower values for injury risk than the baseline model and the postured version being the latter, which exhibited the better approximation to the PMHS tests in terms of probability of injury. Additionally, this study found that the prediction of AIS3+ chest injuries based on PC Score resulted in higher probability values than the prediction based on Cmax for the loading conditions and personalization techniques analyzed within this study.Discussion: This study could demonstrate that the personalization techniques do not lead to linear trends when they are used in combination. Furthermore, the results included here suggest that these two criteria will result in significantly different predictions if the chest is loaded more asymmetrically.</p

DataSheet3_Hello, world! VIVA+: A human body model lineup to evaluate sex-differences in crash protection.pdf

Finite element Human Body Models are increasingly becoming vital tools for injury assessment and are expected to play an important role in virtual vehicle safety testing. With the aim of realizing models to study sex-differences seen in the injury- and fatality-risks from epidemiology, we developed models that represent an average female and an average male. The models were developed with an objective to allow tissue-based skeletal injury assessment, and thus non-skeletal organs and joints were defined with simplified characterizations to enhance computational efficiency and robustness. The model lineup comprises female and male representations of (seated) vehicle occupants and (standing) vulnerable road users, enabling the safety assessment of broader segments of the road user population. In addition, a new workflow utilized in the model development is presented. In this workflow, one model (the seated female) served as the base model while all the other models were generated as closely-linked derivative models, differing only in terms of node coordinates and mass distribution. This approach opens new possibilities to develop and maintain further models as part of the model lineup, representing different types of road users to reflect the ongoing transitions in mobility patterns (like bicyclists and e-scooter users). In this paper, we evaluate the kinetic and kinematic responses of the occupant and standing models to blunt impacts, mainly on the torso, in different directions (front, lateral, and back). The front and lateral impacts to the thorax showed responses comparable to the experiments, while the back impact varied with the location of impact (T1 and T8). Abdomen bar impact showed a stiffer load-deflection response at higher intrusions beyond 40 mm, because of simplified representation of internal organs. The lateral shoulder impact responses were also slightly stiffer, presumably from the simplified shoulder joint definition. This paper is the first in a series describing the development and validation of the new Human Body Model lineup, VIVA+. With the inclusion of an average-sized female model as a standard model in the lineup, we seek to foster an equitable injury evaluation in future virtual safety assessments.</p

DataSheet4_Hello, world! VIVA+: A human body model lineup to evaluate sex-differences in crash protection.pdf

Finite element Human Body Models are increasingly becoming vital tools for injury assessment and are expected to play an important role in virtual vehicle safety testing. With the aim of realizing models to study sex-differences seen in the injury- and fatality-risks from epidemiology, we developed models that represent an average female and an average male. The models were developed with an objective to allow tissue-based skeletal injury assessment, and thus non-skeletal organs and joints were defined with simplified characterizations to enhance computational efficiency and robustness. The model lineup comprises female and male representations of (seated) vehicle occupants and (standing) vulnerable road users, enabling the safety assessment of broader segments of the road user population. In addition, a new workflow utilized in the model development is presented. In this workflow, one model (the seated female) served as the base model while all the other models were generated as closely-linked derivative models, differing only in terms of node coordinates and mass distribution. This approach opens new possibilities to develop and maintain further models as part of the model lineup, representing different types of road users to reflect the ongoing transitions in mobility patterns (like bicyclists and e-scooter users). In this paper, we evaluate the kinetic and kinematic responses of the occupant and standing models to blunt impacts, mainly on the torso, in different directions (front, lateral, and back). The front and lateral impacts to the thorax showed responses comparable to the experiments, while the back impact varied with the location of impact (T1 and T8). Abdomen bar impact showed a stiffer load-deflection response at higher intrusions beyond 40 mm, because of simplified representation of internal organs. The lateral shoulder impact responses were also slightly stiffer, presumably from the simplified shoulder joint definition. This paper is the first in a series describing the development and validation of the new Human Body Model lineup, VIVA+. With the inclusion of an average-sized female model as a standard model in the lineup, we seek to foster an equitable injury evaluation in future virtual safety assessments.</p

DataSheet1_Hello, world! VIVA+: A human body model lineup to evaluate sex-differences in crash protection.pdf

Finite element Human Body Models are increasingly becoming vital tools for injury assessment and are expected to play an important role in virtual vehicle safety testing. With the aim of realizing models to study sex-differences seen in the injury- and fatality-risks from epidemiology, we developed models that represent an average female and an average male. The models were developed with an objective to allow tissue-based skeletal injury assessment, and thus non-skeletal organs and joints were defined with simplified characterizations to enhance computational efficiency and robustness. The model lineup comprises female and male representations of (seated) vehicle occupants and (standing) vulnerable road users, enabling the safety assessment of broader segments of the road user population. In addition, a new workflow utilized in the model development is presented. In this workflow, one model (the seated female) served as the base model while all the other models were generated as closely-linked derivative models, differing only in terms of node coordinates and mass distribution. This approach opens new possibilities to develop and maintain further models as part of the model lineup, representing different types of road users to reflect the ongoing transitions in mobility patterns (like bicyclists and e-scooter users). In this paper, we evaluate the kinetic and kinematic responses of the occupant and standing models to blunt impacts, mainly on the torso, in different directions (front, lateral, and back). The front and lateral impacts to the thorax showed responses comparable to the experiments, while the back impact varied with the location of impact (T1 and T8). Abdomen bar impact showed a stiffer load-deflection response at higher intrusions beyond 40 mm, because of simplified representation of internal organs. The lateral shoulder impact responses were also slightly stiffer, presumably from the simplified shoulder joint definition. This paper is the first in a series describing the development and validation of the new Human Body Model lineup, VIVA+. With the inclusion of an average-sized female model as a standard model in the lineup, we seek to foster an equitable injury evaluation in future virtual safety assessments.</p

DataSheet2_Hello, world! VIVA+: A human body model lineup to evaluate sex-differences in crash protection.pdf

Finite element Human Body Models are increasingly becoming vital tools for injury assessment and are expected to play an important role in virtual vehicle safety testing. With the aim of realizing models to study sex-differences seen in the injury- and fatality-risks from epidemiology, we developed models that represent an average female and an average male. The models were developed with an objective to allow tissue-based skeletal injury assessment, and thus non-skeletal organs and joints were defined with simplified characterizations to enhance computational efficiency and robustness. The model lineup comprises female and male representations of (seated) vehicle occupants and (standing) vulnerable road users, enabling the safety assessment of broader segments of the road user population. In addition, a new workflow utilized in the model development is presented. In this workflow, one model (the seated female) served as the base model while all the other models were generated as closely-linked derivative models, differing only in terms of node coordinates and mass distribution. This approach opens new possibilities to develop and maintain further models as part of the model lineup, representing different types of road users to reflect the ongoing transitions in mobility patterns (like bicyclists and e-scooter users). In this paper, we evaluate the kinetic and kinematic responses of the occupant and standing models to blunt impacts, mainly on the torso, in different directions (front, lateral, and back). The front and lateral impacts to the thorax showed responses comparable to the experiments, while the back impact varied with the location of impact (T1 and T8). Abdomen bar impact showed a stiffer load-deflection response at higher intrusions beyond 40 mm, because of simplified representation of internal organs. The lateral shoulder impact responses were also slightly stiffer, presumably from the simplified shoulder joint definition. This paper is the first in a series describing the development and validation of the new Human Body Model lineup, VIVA+. With the inclusion of an average-sized female model as a standard model in the lineup, we seek to foster an equitable injury evaluation in future virtual safety assessments.</p

DataSheet1_Predicting occupant head displacements in evasive maneuvers; tuning and comparison of a rotational based and a translational based neck muscle controller.docx

Objective: Real-life car crashes are often preceded by an evasive maneuver, which can alter the occupant posture and muscle state. To simulate the occupant response in such maneuvers, human body models (HBMs) with active muscles have been developed. The aim of this study was to implement an omni-directional rotational head-neck muscle controller in the SAFER HBM and compare the bio-fidelity of the HBM with a rotational controller to the HBM with a translational controller, in simulations of evasive maneuvers.Methods: The rotational controller was developed using an axis-angle representation of head rotations, with x, y, and z components in the axis. Muscle load sharing was based on rotational direction in the simulation and muscle activity recorded in three volunteer experiments in these directions. The gains of the rotational and translational controller were tuned to minimize differences between translational and rotational head displacements of the HBM and volunteers in braking and lane change maneuvers using multi-objective optimizations. Bio-fidelity of the model with tuned controllers was evaluated objectively using CORrelation and Analysis (CORA).Results: The results indicated comparable performance for both controllers after tuning, with somewhat higher bio-fidelity for rotational kinematics with the translational controller. After tuning, good or excellent bio-fidelity was indicated for both controllers in the loading direction (forward in braking, and lateral in lane change), with CORA scores of 0.86−0.99 and 0.93−0.98 for the rotational and translational controllers, respectively. For rotational displacements, and translational displacements in the other directions, bio-fidelity ranged from poor to excellent, with slightly higher average CORA scores for the HBM with the translational controller in both braking and lane changing. Time-averaged muscle activity was within one standard deviation of time-averaged muscle activity from volunteers.Conclusion: Overall, the results show that when tuned, both the translational and rotational controllers can be used to predict the occupant response to an evasive maneuver, allowing for the inclusion of evasive maneuvers prior to a crash in evaluation of vehicle safety. The rotational controller shows potential in controlling omni-directional head displacements, but the translational controller outperformed the rotational controller. Thus, for now, the recommendation is to use the translational controller with tuned gains.</p

Assessment of in situ chest deflection of post mortem human subjects (PMHS) and personalized human body models (HBM) in nearside oblique impacts

The present study has three objectives: First, to analyze the chest deflection measured in nearside oblique tests performed with three post mortem human subjects (PMHS). Second, to assess the capability of a HBM to predict the chest deflection sustained by the PMHS. Third to evaluate the influence on chest deflection prediction of subject-specific HBM. Three dimensional chest deformation of five anterior chest landmarks was extracted from three PMHS (A-C) in three sled tests. The sled test configurations corresponded to a 30 degree nearside oblique impact at 35 km/h. Two different restraint system versions (RSv) were used. RSv1 was used for PMHS A and B while RSv2 was used for PMHS C. The capability of the SAFER HBM (called baseline model) to predict PMHS chest deflection was benchmarked by means of the PMHS test results. In a second step, the anthropometry, mass and pre-impact posture of the baseline HBM were modified to the PMHS-specific characteristics to develop a model to assess the influence of personalization techniques in the capability of the human body model to predict PMHS chest deflection. In the sled tests, the measured sternum compression relative to the eighth thoracic vertebra in the PMHS tests was 49, 54 and 55 millimeters respectively. The HBM baseline model predicted 48%, 43% and 34% of the deflections measured in the PMHS tests, while the personalized version predicted 38%, 34% and 28%. When chest deflection was analyzed in x-, y- and z-direction for the five chest landmarks it was found that neither the baseline HBM nor the personalized model predicted x, y and z axis deflections. The PMHS in situ chest deflection was found to be sensitive to the variation in restraint system and the three PMHS exhibited greater values of lower right chest deflection compared to what was found in available literature. The baseline HBM underpredicted peak chest deflection obtained in the PMHS test. The personalized model was not capable of predicting the chest deflection sustained by the PMHS. Hence, further biofidelity investigations have to be carried out on the human body thorax model for oblique loading.</p