Department of Strength of Materials, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2012;13(3):278-85. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2011.650803.
To compare the predictions of the head injury criterion (HIC), currently used to predict the risk of traumatic brain injury in frontal vehicle impact and pedestrian impact tests, with the predictions of other empirical and analytical injury metrics.
The appropriateness of different criteria relative to injury metrics derived from a head finite element (FE) model is investigated for different deceleration pulses in this research. Empirical injury metrics are computed by direct calculation for different analyzed pulses. In addition, for each pulse full FE model simulations of a complete human head were performed by means of the SIMon model. The computations are used to calculate the analytical injury metrics.
This article shows that an optimal head deceleration curve based on HIC does not minimize other analytical injury metrics. The results obtained in this study suggest that the HIC criterion does not necessarily provide the same severity ranking for different external loadings to the head as the injury metrics derived from the FE models.
Countermeasures designed based only on HIC could differ significantly from those based on analytical injury measures computed by FE models. The use of multiple injury metrics is recommended given that no scalar measure seems to be positively and strongly correlated with relevant injury metrics.
比较头部撞击指标（HIC）的预测值，该指标目前用于预测正面车辆撞击和行人撞击试验中创伤性脑损伤的风险，并将其与其他经验性和分析性损伤指标的预测值进行比较。
本研究针对不同的减速脉冲，研究了相对于从头部有限元（FE）模型得出的损伤指标，不同标准的适当性。通过对不同分析脉冲的直接计算，计算出经验性损伤指标。此外，针对每个脉冲，通过 SIMon 模型对完整的人头进行了全 FE 模型模拟。这些计算用于计算分析性损伤指标。
本文表明，基于 HIC 的最佳头部减速曲线并不能使其他分析性损伤指标最小化。本研究的结果表明，HIC 标准不一定为头部的不同外部负荷提供与 FE 模型得出的损伤指标相同的严重程度排序。
仅基于 HIC 设计的对策可能与基于 FE 模型计算的分析性损伤措施有很大不同。建议使用多种损伤指标，因为没有标量测量似乎与相关的损伤指标呈正相关且强烈相关。
