This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Geometrical Personalization of Pedestrian Finite Element Models Using Morphing Increases the Biofidelity of Their Impact Kinematics
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 5, 2016 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
Pedestrian finite element models (PFEM) are used to investigate and predict the injury outcomes from vehicle-pedestrian impact. As postmortem human surrogates (PMHS) differ in anthropometry across subjects, it is believed that the biofidelity of PFEM cannot be properly evaluated by comparing a generic anthropometry model against the specific PMHS test data. Global geometric personalization can scale the PFEM geometry to match the height and weight of a specific PMHS, while local geometric personalization via morphing can modify the PFEM geometry to match specific PMHS anatomy. The goal of the current study was to evaluate the benefit of morphed PFEM compared to globally-scaled and generic PFEM by comparing the kinematics against PMHS test results. The AM50 THUMS PFEM (v4.01) was used as a baseline for anthropometry, and personalized PFEM were created to the anthropometric specifications of two obese PMHS used in a previous pedestrian impact study using a mid-size sedan. Personalization was done using either global scaling or morphing, and the kinematics of each PFEM model were compared to the experiments using a correlation analysis (CORA). While the scaled models showed high correlation (CORA score = 0.92) with the PMHS compared to the baseline (0.85), morphing increases the biofidelity of PFEM impact kinematics (0.96). In addition, the morphed PFEM correlated the best for wraparound-distance, knee and pelvic impact locations and timing. Consequently, morphing is essential for evaluating the biofidelity of a human body model when making direct comparisons to specific pedestrian impact test cases.
CitationPoulard, D., Chen, H., and Panzer, M., "Geometrical Personalization of Pedestrian Finite Element Models Using Morphing Increases the Biofidelity of Their Impact Kinematics," SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1506, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1506.
- Naci, H., Chisholm D., and Baker T.D., “Distribution of road traffic deaths by road user group: a global comparison”, Inj. Prev. 15:55-59, 2009, doi:10.1136/ip.2008.018721.
- Yang, K.H., Hu, J., White, N.A et al.., “Development of numerical models for injury biomechanics research: a review of 50 years of publications in the Stapp Car Crash Conference”, Stapp Car Crash J 50: 429-490, 2006.
- Maeno, T. and Hasegawa J., “Development of a finite element model of the total human model for safety (THUMS) and application to car-pedestrian impacts”, Proceedings of 17th ESV conference, 2001.
- Paas, R., Davidsson, J., Masson, C. et al., “Pedestrian shoulder and spine kinematics in full-scale PMHS tests for human body model evaluation” Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference, 2012. Dublin (Ireland).
- Watanabe, R., Katsuhara, T., Miyazaki, H. et al., “Research of the relationship of pedestrian injury to collision speed, car-type, impact location and pedestrian sizes using human FE model (THUMS Version 4)”, Stapp Car Crash J 56: 269-321, 2012.
- Han, Y., Yang, J., Mizuno, K., et al., “Effects of vehicle impact velocity, vehicle front-end shapes on pedestrian injury risk”, Traf. Inj Prev. 13(5): 507-518, 2012.
- Watanabe, R., Miyazaki, H., Kitagawa, Y. et al, “Research of collision speed dependency of pedestrian head and chest injuries using human FE Model (THUMS Version 4)”, Proceeding of the 22nd ESV Conference, 2011, Detroit, Michigan (USA).
- Paas, R., Davidsson J., and Brolin K., “Head Kinematics and Shoulder Biomechanics in Shoulder Impacts Similar to Pedestrian Crashes-A THUMS Study”, Traf. Inj Prev. 16(5): 498-506, 2015.
- Poulard, D., Chen, H., Crandall, J.R. et al, “Component-level Biofidelity Assessment of Morphed Pedestrian Finite Element Models”, Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference, 2015, Lyon (France).
- Toyota Motor Corporation, “THUMS User Manual, AM50 Pedestrian/Occupant Model”, Version4.0.1 2011
- Ivarsson, J., Lesley, D., Kerrigan, J. et al, “Dynamic response corridors and injury thresholds of the pedestrian lower extremities”, Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference, 2004, Graz (Austria).
- Subit, D., Kerrigan, J., Crandall, J. R. et al, “Pedestrian-vehicle interaction: kinematics and injury analysis of four full scale tests”, Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference, 2008, Bern (Switzerland).
- Paas, R., Masson C., and Davidsson J., “Head boundary conditions in pedestrian crashes with passenger cars: six-degrees-of-freedom post-mortem human subject responses”, Int. J Crash. 20(6): 547-559, 2015.
- Paas, R., Östh J., and Davidsson J., “Which Pragmatic Finite Element Human Body Model Scaling Technique Can Most Accurately Predict Head Impact Conditions in Pedestrian-Car Crashes?”, Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference, 2015, Lyon (France).
- Yasuki, T. and Yamamae Y., “Validation of kinematics and lower extremity injuries estimated by total human model for safety in SUV to pedestrian impact test”, J Biom. Sci. Eng. 5(4): 340-356, 2010.
- Trochu, F., “A contouring program based on dual kriging interpolation”, Eng. Comp. 9(3): 160-177, 1993.
- Pędzisz, M. and Dziewoński T., “Development of 5th and 95th scaled occupant thorax model. Influence of reference anthropometry data and kriging parameters on rib-cage shape and FE model dynamic response”, Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference, 2012, Milano (Italy).
- Serre, T., Brunet, C., Bruyere, K., Verriest, J. et al., "HUMOS (Human Model for Safety) Geometry: From One Specimen to the 5th and 95th Percentile," SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-2324, 2006, doi:10.4271/2006-01-2324.
- Poulard, D., Bermond, F., Dumas, R. et al., “Geometrical personalisation of human FE model using palpable markers on volunteers”, Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin, 15(sup1): 298-300, 2012.
- LSTC, LS-Dyna 2013, Livermore, CA.
- LSTC, LS-Prepost. 2014, Livermore, CA.
- Mathworks, MATLAB 2012: Natick, MA.
- Gehre, C., Gades H., and Wernicke P.. Objective rating of signals using test and simulation responses. Proceedings of the 21st ESV Conference, 2009, Stuttgart (Germany).
- Vavalle, N.A., et al., Jelen, B. C., Moreno, D. P. et al., “An evaluation of objective rating methods for full-body finite element model comparison to PMHS tests”, Traf. Inj Prev. 14(sup1): 87-94, 2013.
- Chen, H., Poulard, D., Crandall, J. R. et al., “Pedestrian response with different initial positions during impact with a mid-sized sedan”, Proceedings of the 24th ESV Conference, 2015, Gothenburg (Sweden).
- Huipeng, C., Lianxue, F., and Heyue, Z., "A Comparative Study Between China and IHRA for the Vehicle-Pedestrian Impact," SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 2(1):1108-1115, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-1205.
- Peng, Y, Deck, C., Yang, J. et al. "Effects of pedestrian gait, vehicle-front geometry and impact velocity on kinematics of adult and child pedestrian head.", Int. J Crash. 17(5): 553-561, 2012.
- Forman JL , Joodaki H , Forghani A et al., “Whole-body Response for Pedestrian Impact with a Generic Sedan Buck”, Stapp Car Crash J 59: 401-444, 2015.
- Paas, R. “Head kinematics in car-pedestrian crashes: The influence of sliding, spine bending, elbow and shoulder impacts” Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology (Doktorsavhandlingar vid Chalmers tekniska högskola).