Scaling approach in predicting the seatbelt loading and kinematics of vulnerable occupants: How far can we go?

<p><b>Objective</b>: Occupants with extreme body size and shape, such as the small female or the obese, were reported to sustain high risk of injury in motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). Dimensional scaling approaches are widely used in injury biomechanics research based on the assumption of geometrical similarity. However, its application scope has not been quantified ever since. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the valid range of scaling approaches in predicting the impact response of the occupants with focus on the vulnerable populations.</p> <p><b>Methods</b>: The present analysis was based on a data set consisting of 60 previously reported frontal crash tests in the same sled buck representing a typical mid-size passenger car. The tests included two categories of human surrogates: 9 postmortem human surrogates (PMHS) of different anthropometries (stature range: 147–189 cm; weight range: 27–151 kg) and 5 anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). The impact response was considered including the restraint loads and the kinematics of multiple body segments. For each category of the human surrogates, a mid-size occupant was selected as a baseline and the impact response was scaled specifically to another subject based on either the body mass (body shape) or stature (the overall body size). To identify the valid range of the scaling approach, the scaled response was compared to the experimental results using assessment scores on the peak value, peak timing (the time when the peak value occurred), and the overall curve shape ranging from 0 (<i>extremely poor</i>) to 1 (<i>perfect match</i>). Scores of 0.7 to 0.8 and 0.8 to 1.0 indicate fair and acceptable prediction.</p> <p><b>Results</b>: For both ATDs and PMHS, the scaling factor derived from body mass proved an overall good predictor of the peak timing for the shoulder belt (0.868, 0.829) and the lap belt (0.858, 0.774) and for the peak value of the lap belt force (0.796, 0.869). Scaled kinematics based on body stature provided fair or acceptable prediction on the overall head/shoulder kinematics (0.741, 0.822 for the head; 0.817, 0.728 for the shoulder) regardless of the anthropometry. The scaling approach exhibited poor prediction capability on the curve shape for the restraint force (0.494 and 0.546 for the shoulder belt; 0.585 and 0.530 for the lap belt). It also cannot well predict the excursion of the pelvis and the knee.</p> <p><b>Conclusions</b>: The results revealed that for the peak lap belt force and the forward motion of the head and shoulder, the underlying linear relationship with body size and shape is valid over a wide anthropometric range. The chaotic nature of the dynamic response cannot be fully recovered by the assumption of the whole-body geometrical similarity, especially for the curve shape. The valid range of the scaling approach established in this study can be reasonably referenced in predicting the impact response of a given specific population with expected deviation. Application of this knowledge also includes proposing strategies for restraint configuration and providing reference for ATD and/or human body model (HBM) development for vulnerable occupants.</p

Evaluation of biofidelity of THUMS pedestrian model under a whole-body impact conditions with a generic sedan buck

<p><b>Objective</b>: The goal of this study was to evaluate the biofidelity of the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS; Ver. 4.01) pedestrian finite element models (PFEM) in a whole-body pedestrian impact condition using a well-characterized generic pedestrian buck model.</p> <p><b>Methods</b>: The biofidelity of THUMS PFEM was evaluated with respect to data from 3 full-scale postmortem human subject (PMHS) pedestrian impact tests, in which a pedestrian buck laterally struck the subjects using a pedestrian buck at 40 km/h. The pedestrian model was scaled to match the anthropometry of the target subjects and then positioned to match the pre-impact postures of the target subjects based on the 3-dimensional motion tracking data obtained during the experiments. An objective rating method was employed to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between the responses of the models and the PMHS. Injuries in the models were predicted both probabilistically and deterministically using empirical injury risk functions and strain measures, respectively, and compared with those of the target PMHS.</p> <p><b>Results</b>: In general, the model exhibited biofidelic kinematic responses (in the <i>Y</i>–<i>Z</i> plane) regarding trajectories (International Organization for Standardization [ISO] ratings: <i>Y</i> = 0.90 ± 0.11, <i>Z</i> = 0.89 ± 0.09), linear resultant velocities (ISO ratings: 0.83 ± 0.07), accelerations (ISO ratings: <i>Y</i> = 0.58 ± 0.11, <i>Z</i> = 0.52 ± 0.12), and angular velocities (ISO ratings: <i>X</i> = 0.48 ± 0.13) but exhibited stiffer leg responses and delayed head responses compared to those of the PMHS. This indicates potential biofidelity issues with the PFEM for regions below the knee and in the neck. The model also demonstrated comparable reaction forces at the buck front-end regions to those from the PMHS tests. The PFEM generally predicted the injuries that the PMHS sustained but overestimated injuries in the ankle and leg regions.</p> <p><b>Conclusions</b>: Based on the data considered, the THUMS PFEM was considered to be biofidelic for this pedestrian impact condition and vehicle. Given the capability of the model to reproduce biomechanical responses, it shows potential as a valuable tool for developing novel pedestrian safety systems.</p