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

Moorhouse, K. , 2013, “ An Improved Normalization Methodology for Developing Mean Human Response Curves,” 23rd International Conference of Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Seoul, Korea, May 27–30, Paper No. 13-0192.
Yang, K. H. , Hu, J. , White, N. A. , King, A. I. , Chou, C. C. , and Prasad, P. , 2006, “ 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, pp. 429–490.
Hayes, A. R. , Vavalle, N. A. , Moreno, D. P. , Stitzel, J. D. , and Gayzik, F. S. , 2014, “ Validation of Simulated Chestband Data in Frontal and Lateral Loading Using a Human Body Finite Element Model,” Traffic Inj. Prev., 15(2), pp. 181–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Iwamoto, M. , Nakahira, Y. , Tamura, A. , Kimpara, H. , Watanabe, I. , and Miki, K. , 2007, “ Development of Advanced Human Models in THUMS,” 6th European LS-Dyna Users' Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 28–30, pp. 47–56.
Li, Z. , Kindig, M. W. , Kerrigan, J. R. , Untaroiu, C. D. , Subit, D. , Crandall, J. R. , and Kent, R. W. , 2010, “ Rib Fractures Under Anterior-Posterior Dynamic Loads: Experimental and Finite-Element Study,” J. Biomech., 43(2), pp. 228–234. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shin, J. , Yue, N. , and Untaroiu, C. D. , 2012, “ A Finite Element Model of the Foot and Ankle for Automotive Impact Applications,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 40(12), pp. 2519–2531. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
DeWit, J. A. , and Cronin, D. S. , 2012, “ Cervical Spine Segment Finite Element Model for Traumatic Injury Prediction,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 10, pp. 138–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Soni, A. , and Beillas, P. , 2015, “ Modelling Hollow Organs for Impact Conditions: A Simplified Case Study,” Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., 18(7), pp. 730–739. [CrossRef]
Yoganandan, N. , Arun, M. W. , and Pintar, F. A. , 2014, “ Normalizing and Scaling of Data to Derive Human Response Corridors From Impact Tests,” J. Biomech., 47(8), pp. 1749–1756. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vavalle, N. A. , Schoell, S. L. , Weaver, A. A. , Stitzel, J. D. , and Gayzik, F. S. , 2014, “ Application of Radial Basis Function Methods in the Development of a 95th Percentile Male Seated FEA Model,” Stapp Car Crash J., 58, pp. 361–384. [PubMed]
Eppinger, R. H. , 1976, “ Prediction of Thoracic Injuries Using Measurable Experimental Parameters,” Sixth International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Washington, DC, Oct. 12–15, pp. 770–780.
Mertz, H. J. , 1984, “ A Procedure for Normalizing Impact Response Data,” SAE Technical Paper No. 840884.
Davis, M. L. , Allen, B. C. , Geer, C. P. , Stitzel, J. D. , and Gayzik, F. S. , 2014, “ A Multi-Modality Image Set for the Development of a 5th Percentile Female Finite Element Model,” International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI), Berlin, Germany, Sept. 10–12, pp. 461–475.
Vavalle, N. A. , Moreno, D. P. , Rhyne, A. C. , Stitzel, J. D. , and Gayzik, F. S. , 2013, “ Lateral Impact Validation of a Geometrically Accurate Full Body Finite Element Model for Blunt Injury Prediction,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 41(3), pp. 497–512. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vavalle, N. , Davis, M. , Stitzel, J. , and Gayzik, F. S. , 2015, “ Quantitative Validation of a Human Body Finite Element Model Using Rigid Body Impacts,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 43(9), pp. 2163–2174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kroell, C. K. , Schneider, D. C. , and Nahum, A. M. , 1974, “ Impact Tolerance and Response of the Human Thorax II,” SAE Technical Paper No. 741187.
Hardy, W. N. , Schneider, L. W. , and Rouhana, S. W. , 2001, “ Abdominal Impact Response to Rigid-Bar, Seatbelt, and Airbag Loading,” Stapp Car Crash J., 45, pp. 1–32. [PubMed]
Bouquet, R. , Ramet, M. , Bermond, F. , Caire, Y. , Talantikite, Y. , Robin, S. , and Voiglio, E. , 1998, “ Pelvis Human Response to Lateral Impact,” 16th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safetfy of Vehicles, Windsor, ON, Canada, May 31–June 4, pp. 1665–1686.
Stalnaker, R. , Tarrière, C. , Fayon, A. , Walfisch, G. , Balthazard, M. , Masset, J. , Got, C. , and Patel, A. , 1979, “ Modification of Part 572 Dummy for Lateral Impact According to Biomechanical Data,” Stapp Car Crash J., 23, pp. 843–872.
Cavanaugh, J. M. , Zhu, Y. , Huang, Y. , and King, A. I. , 1993, “ Injury and Response of the Thorax in Side Impact Cadaveric Tests,” SAE Technical Paper No. 933127.
Cavanaugh, J. M. , Walilko, T. J. , Malhotra, A. , Zhu, Y. , and King, A. I. , 1990, “ Biomechanical Response and Injury Tolerance of the Pelvis in Twelve Sled Side Impacts,” SAE Technical Paper No. 902305.
Viano, D. C. , 1989, “ Biomechanical Responses and Injuries in Blunt Lateral Impact,” Stapp Car Crash J., 33, pp. 113–142.
Zhan, Z. , Fu, Y. , and Yang, R.-J. , 2011, “ Enhanced Error Assessment of Response Time Histories (EEARTH) Metric and Calibration Process,” SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0245.
Davis, M. L. , Vavalle, N. A. , and Gayzik, F. S. , 2015, “ An Evaluation of Mass-Normalization Using 50th and 95th Percentile Human Body Finite Element Models in Frontal Crash,” International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI), Lyon, France, Sept. 9–11, Paper No. IRC-15-68, pp. 608–621.

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