0
Research Papers

An Objective Evaluation of Mass Scaling Techniques Utilizing Computational Human Body Finite Element Models

[+] Author and Article Information
Matthew L. Davis

Mem. ASME
Virginia Tech-Wake Forest University Center for Injury Biomechanics,
Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
575 N. Patterson Avenue,
Winston Salem, NC 27101
e-mail: mattdavi@wakehealth.edu

F. Scott Gayzik

Mem. ASME
Virginia Tech-Wake Forest University Center for Injury Biomechanics,
Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
575 N. Patterson Avenue,
Winston Salem, NC 27101
e-mails: mattdavi@wakehealth.edu;
sgayzik@wakehealth.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received February 24, 2016; final manuscript received July 15, 2016; published online August 18, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Tammy L. Haut Donahue.

J Biomech Eng 138(10), 101003 (Aug 18, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: BIO-16-1070; doi: 10.1115/1.4034293 History: Received February 24, 2016; Revised July 15, 2016

Biofidelity response corridors developed from post-mortem human subjects are commonly used in the design and validation of anthropomorphic test devices and computational human body models (HBMs). Typically, corridors are derived from a diverse pool of biomechanical data and later normalized to a target body habitus. The objective of this study was to use morphed computational HBMs to compare the ability of various scaling techniques to scale response data from a reference to a target anthropometry. HBMs are ideally suited for this type of study since they uphold the assumptions of equal density and modulus that are implicit in scaling method development. In total, six scaling procedures were evaluated, four from the literature (equal-stress equal-velocity, ESEV, and three variations of impulse momentum) and two which are introduced in the paper (ESEV using a ratio of effective masses, ESEV-EffMass, and a kinetic energy approach). In total, 24 simulations were performed, representing both pendulum and full body impacts for three representative HBMs. These simulations were quantitatively compared using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO-TS18571 standard. Based on these results, ESEV-EffMass achieved the highest overall similarity score (indicating that it is most proficient at scaling a reference response to a target). Additionally, ESEV was found to perform poorly for two degree-of-freedom (DOF) systems. However, the results also indicated that no single technique was clearly the most appropriate for all scenarios.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Comparison of human body models: (a) F05VS, (b) M50, and (c) M95VS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Force-deflection results for the frontal chest impact with impactor volumetrically scaled with the model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Torso force-deflection results for the drop test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Pelvis force-deflection results for the drop test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Average deflection (upper) and force (lower) EEARTH scores for each simulation rigid hub impact with experimentally defined impactors. The gold bar represents the comparison score if no scaling operation is applied.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Average deflection and force EEARTH scores for each rigid hub impact with volumetrically scaled impactors

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Average deflection and force EEARTH scores for both one degree-of-freedom impacts

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In