Impact Laboratory, Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Autoliv Research, Vargarda, Sweden.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2022;23(4):181-186. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2022.2036731. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
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.
本研究有三个目标：首先，分析三个尸体（PMHS）进行近侧斜向试验时测量的胸部挠度。其次，评估 HBM 预测 PMHS 胸部挠度的能力。第三，评估特定于受试者的 HBM 对胸部挠度预测的影响。
从三个尸体（A-C）的三个滑橇试验中提取五个前胸部标志点的三维胸部变形。滑橇试验配置对应于 35km/h 时 30 度近侧斜向冲击。使用了两种不同的约束系统版本（RSv）。RSv1 用于 PMHS A 和 B，而 RSv2 用于 PMHS C。通过 PMHS 测试结果对 SAFER HBM（称为基线模型）预测 PMHS 胸部挠度的能力进行基准测试。在第二步中，根据 PMHS 的人体测量学、质量和初始冲击姿势修改基线 HBM 的人体测量学、质量和初始冲击姿势，以开发一种模型来评估个性化技术对人体模型预测 PMHS 胸部挠度能力的影响。
在滑橇试验中，PMHS 试验中胸骨相对于第八胸椎的压缩量分别为 49、54 和 55 毫米。HBM 基线模型预测了 PMHS 试验中测量的挠度的 48%、43%和 34%，而个性化版本预测了 38%、34%和 28%。当分析五个胸部标志点的 x、y 和 z 方向的胸部挠度时，发现基线 HBM 或个性化模型都无法预测 x、y 和 z 轴挠度。
尸体在体胸部挠度对约束系统的变化敏感，三个尸体的右下胸部挠度值比现有文献中的值更大。基线 HBM 低估了 PMHS 试验中获得的峰值胸部挠度。个性化模型无法预测 PMHS 承受的胸部挠度。因此，对于斜向加载，必须对人体胸部模型进行进一步的生物逼真度研究。
