Validation of a simplified human body model in relaxed and braced conditions in low-speed frontal sled tests

Abstract Objective: The goal of this study was to implement active musculature into the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) average male simplified occupant model (M50-OS v2) and validate its performance in low-speed frontal crash scenarios. Methods: Volunteer and postmortem human subjects (PMHS) data from low-speed frontal sled tests by Beeman et al., including 2.5 and 5.0 g acceleration pulses, were used to simulate events in LS-DYNA. All muscles were modeled as 1D beam elements and assigned a Hill-type muscle material. From the output of proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controllers, the activation level for each muscle was calculated using a sigmoid function, representing the firing rate of motor neurons. The PID controller attempts to preserve the initial posture of the model. Percentage muscle contribution for all skeletal muscles was precalculated using the M50-OS with active muscles (M50-OS + Active). The M50-OS + Active employs varying levels of neural delays to represent volunteer relaxed and braced conditions, taken from literature. Braced condition experiments were simulated using elevated joint angle set values for the PID controller. The M50-OS + Active model was used to simulate 2 muscle conditions (relaxed and braced) at 2 pulse severities (2.5 and 5.0 g). A control set of simulations was conducted to compare the effect of adding active muscle. Ten whole-body simulations were conducted. Results: The results from volunteer simulations showed a strong dependence of reaction loads and kinematics on muscle activation. Compared to baseline, M50-OS, at 5.0 g acceleration, 33.3% and 7.6% decreases were observed in the overall head kinematics of the M50-OS + Active for the braced and relaxed conditions, respectively. Regarding the anterior direction, similar reductions in overall kinematics were observed for both volunteer test conditions. In comparison to control simulations in which no active muscle was implemented, objective evaluation scores increased markedly at both speeds for the braced condition. Little to no gain was found in the relaxed condition. Conclusions: The results justify the need for use of an active human body model for predicting low-speed frontal kinematics, particularly in the braced condition. Head kinematics were reduced when using active modeling for all simulations (braced and relaxed).

[1]  Stefan M Duma,et al.  Effects of Bracing on Human Kinematics in Low-Speed Frontal Sled Tests , 2011, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  Michael L Madigan,et al.  Occupant kinematics in low-speed frontal sled tests: Human volunteers, Hybrid III ATD, and PMHS. , 2012, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  Anoop Chawla,et al.  Finite element crash simulations of the human body: Passive and active muscle modelling , 2007 .

[4]  Yuko Nakahira,et al.  Development of human‐body model THUMS Version 6 containing muscle controllers and application to injury analysis in frontal collision after brake deceleration , 2018 .

[5]  F S Gayzik,et al.  The effect of precrash velocity reduction on occupant response using a human body finite element model , 2017, Traffic injury prevention.

[6]  Yuko Nakahira,et al.  A study of muscle control with two feedback controls for posture and reaction force for more accurate prediction of occupant kinematics in low-speed frontal impacts , 2017 .

[7]  Susumu Ejima,et al.  Prediction of Pre-Impact Occupant Kinematic Behavior Based on the Muscle Activity During Frontal Collision , 2009 .

[8]  Riender Happee,et al.  Active muscle response using feedback control of a finite element human arm model , 2012, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[9]  Dimitrios Kallieris,et al.  Comparison of Human Volunteer and Cadaver Head-Neck Response in Frontal Flexion , 1987 .

[10]  Matthew L Davis,et al.  Development and Full Body Validation of a 5th Percentile Female Finite Element Model. , 2016, Stapp car crash journal.

[11]  Bharath Koya,et al.  Validation of detailed organ modularity in a simplified human body model , 2018 .

[12]  Duane S Cronin,et al.  Investigation of whiplash injuries in the upper cervical spine using a detailed neck model. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  Yuko Nakahira,et al.  Development and Validation of the Total HUman Model for Safety (THUMS) Version 5 Containing Multiple 1D Muscles for Estimating Occupant Motions with Muscle Activation During Side Impacts. , 2015, Stapp car crash journal.

[15]  Costin D. Untaroiu,et al.  Identification of occupant posture using a Bayesian classification methodology to reduce the risk of injury in a collision , 2011 .

[16]  Susumu Ejima,et al.  Prediction of the physical motion on human body based on muscle activities during pre-impact braking , 2008 .

[17]  Karin Brolin,et al.  A Human Body Model With Active Muscles for Simulation of Pretensioned Restraints in Autonomous Braking Interventions , 2015, Traffic injury prevention.

[18]  Matthew L Davis,et al.  Modular use of human body models of varying levels of complexity: Validation of head kinematics , 2017, Traffic injury prevention.

[19]  Edwin van Hassel,et al.  Evaluation of an Active Multi-Body Human Model for Braking and Frontal Crash Events , 2013 .

[20]  D. Bose,et al.  Influence of pre-collision occupant parameters on injury outcome in a frontal collision. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[21]  Stefan M Duma,et al.  Human Occupants in Low-Speed Frontal Sled Tests: Effects of Pre-Impact Bracing on Chest Compression, Reaction Forces, and Subject Acceleration , 2014, Traffic injury prevention.

[22]  Bharath Koya,et al.  Development of a Computationally Efficient Full Human Body Finite Element Model , 2015, Traffic injury prevention.

[23]  Sung Jae Kang,et al.  Experimental and numerical studies of muscular activations of bracing occupant , 2005 .