A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-018-02147-3 below:

Modeling Human Volunteers in Multidirectional, Uni-axial Sled Tests Using a Finite Element Human Body Model

Abstract

A goal of the Human Research Program at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is to analyze and mitigate the risk of occupant injury due to dynamic loads. Experimental tests of human subjects and biofidelic anthropomorphic test devices provide valuable kinematic and kinetic data related to injury risk exposure. However, these experiments are expensive and time consuming compared to computational simulations of similar impact events. This study aimed to simulate human volunteer biodynamic response to unidirectional accelerative loading. Data from seven experimental studies involving 212 volunteer tests performed at the Air Force Research Laboratory were used to reconstruct 13 unique loading conditions across four different loading directions using finite element human body model (HBM) simulations. Acceleration pulses and boundary conditions from the experimental tests were applied to the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) simplified 50th percentile male occupant (M50-OS) using the LS-Dyna finite element solver. Head acceleration, chest acceleration, and seat belt force traces were compared between the experimental and matched simulation signals using correlation and analysis (CORA) software and averaged into a comprehensive response score ranging from 0 to 1 with 1 representing a perfect match. The mean comprehensive response scores were 0.689 ± 0.018 (mean ± 1 standard deviation) in two frontal simulations, 0.683 ± 0.060 in four rear simulations, 0.676 ± 0.043 in five lateral simulations, and 0.774 ± 0.013 in two vertical simulations. The CORA scores for head and chest accelerations in these simulations exceeded mean scores reported in the original development and validation of the GHBMC M50-OS model. Collectively, the CORA scores indicated that the HBM in these boundary conditions closely replicated the kinematics of the human volunteers across all loading directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

€34.99 /Month

Subscribe now Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others Explore related subjectsDiscover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning. References
  1. Adams, G. R., V. J. Caiozzo, and K. M. Baldwin. Skeletal muscle unweighting: spaceflight and ground-based models. J. Appl. Physiol. 95(2185–2201):2003, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Buhrman, J. The AFRL Biodynamics Data Bank and Modeling Applications. Dayton: RTO Meeting, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Caldwell, E., M. Gernhardt, J. Somers, D. Younker, and N. Newby. NASA Evidence Report: Risk of Injury due to Dynamic Loads. Houston, TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Currie-Gregg, N. J., M. L. Gernhardt, C. Lawrence, and J. T. Somers. Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection. 2016.

  5. Danelson K. A., A. R. Kemper, M. J. Mason, M. Tegtmeyer, S. A. Swiatkowski, J. H. Bolte IV, and W. N. Hardy. Comparison of ATD to PMHS response in the under-body blast environment. SAE Technical Paper, 2015.

  6. Davis, M. L., and F. S. Gayzik. An Objective Evaluation of Mass Scaling Techniques Utilizing Computational Human Body Finite Element Models. J. Biomech. Eng. 138:101003, 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Decker, W., B. Koya, M. L. Davis, and F. S. Gayzik. Modular use of human body models of varying levels of complexity: Validation of head kinematics. Traffic Inj. Prev. 18:S155–S160, 2017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Doczy, E., S. Mosher, and J. Buhrman. The effects of variable helmet weight and subject bracing on neck loading during frontal-G x impact. Dayton, OH: General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Eppinger R. H. Prediction of thoracic injury using measurable experimental parameters. Proceedings of the International Conference of Experimental Safety Vehicles, NHTSA, Washington, DC, 1976, pp. 770–780.

  10. Gayzik, F., I. Marcus, K. Danelson, J. Rupp, C. Bass, N. Yoganandan, and J. Zhang. A point-wise normalization method for development of biofidelity response corridors. J. Biomech. 48:4173–4177, 2015.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gayzik, F., D. Moreno, K. Danelson, C. McNally, K. Klinich, and J. D. Stitzel. External landmark, body surface, and volume data of a mid-sized male in seated and standing postures. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 40:2019–2032, 2012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gayzik, F., D. Moreno, C. Geer, S. Wuertzer, R. Martin, and J. Stitzel. Development of a full body CAD dataset for computational modeling: a multi-modality approach. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39:2568, 2011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gehre C., H. Gades, and P. Wernicke. Objective rating of signals using test and simulation responses. Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, Germany, 2009.

  14. Hearon B. F. and J. W. Brinkley. Comparison of human impact response in restraint systems with and without a negative G strap. DTIC Document, 1986.

  15. Hill D., T. Knox, and D. Crockett. Monitoring race car drivers using helmet and head-mounted sensors. SAE Technical Paper, 2000.

  16. Jones R. Landing impact attenuation for non-surface-planing landers. 1970.

  17. Killian, J., and H. F. Boedecker. Whole Body Response—Lateral: Comparison Between Human and Dummy Subjects Utilizing a Nine Transducer Accelerometer Package. Dayton: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lang, T., A. LeBlanc, H. Evans, Y. Lu, H. Genant, and A. Yu. Cortical and trabecular bone mineral loss from the spine and hip in long-duration spaceflight. J. Bone Miner. Res. 19:1006–1012, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mertz, H. J., A. L. Irwin, and P. Prasad. Biomechanical and scaling bases for frontal and side impact injury assessment reference values. Stapp Car Crash J. 47:155, 2003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Park G., T. Kim, J. R. Crandall, C. Arregui Dalmases, and L. Narro. Comparison of kinematics of GHBMC to PMHS on the side impact condition. Proceedings of the 2013 IRCOBI Conference, 2013, pp. 368–379.

  21. Payne, P. R. Personnel Restraint and Support System Dynamics. Cincinnati: Frost Engineering Development Corp Denver Co, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Perry, C., and J. Buhrman. Effect of helmet inertial properties on head and neck response during + G z impact accelerations. J. Gravit. Physiol 2:P88–91, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Perry, C. E., and J. R. Buhrman. Effect of helmet inertial properties on the biodynamics of the head and neck during + G z impact accelerations. SAFE J. 26:34–41, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Perry C., J. Buhrman, E. Doczy, and S. Mosher. The effects of variable helmet weight on head response and neck loading during lateral + G y impact. Proceedings of the 41st Annual SAFE Symposium. Jacksonville, FL: 2003.

  25. Russo D., T. Foley, K. Stroud, J. Connolly, B. Tillman, and L. Pickett. NASA space flight human system standards. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2007, pp. 1468–1470.

  26. Salerno M. D., J. W. Brinkley, and M. A. Orzech. Dynamic response of the human head to + G x impact. DTIC Document, 1987.

  27. Salzar, R. S., J. R. Bolton, J. R. Crandall, G. R. Paskoff, and B. S. Shender. Ejection injury to the spine in small aviators: sled tests of manikins vs. post mortem specimens. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 80:621–628, 2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schwartz, D., B. Guleyupoglu, B. Koya, J. D. Stitzel, and F. S. Gayzik. Development of a computationally efficient full human body finite element model. Traf Injury Prev 16:S49–S56, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Somers J. T., and D. Gohmert. Application of the brinkley dynamic response criterion to spacecraft transient dynamic events. Technical Paper No. NASA/TM-2013-217380). United States: NASA. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258207991_Application_of_the_Brinkley_Dynamic_Response_Model_to_Spacecraft_Transient_Events/file/504635273b3e8a8cf0.pdf, vehicle landing 2013.

  30. Somers, J. T., N. J. Newby, C. Lawrence, R. L. DeWeese, D. Moorcroft, and S. E. Phelps. Investigation of the THOR anthropomorphic test device for predicting occupant injuries during spacecraft launch aborts and landing. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2:4, 2014.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Towns, J., T. Cockerill, M. Dahan, I. Foster, K. Gaither, A. Grimshaw, V. Hazlewood, S. Lathrop, D. Lifka, and G. D. Peterson. XSEDE: accelerating scientific discovery. Comput. Sci. Eng. 16:62–74, 2014.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vavalle, N. A., M. L. Davis, J. D. Stitzel, and F. S. Gayzik. Quantitative validation of a human body finite element model using rigid body impacts. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 43:2163–2174, 2015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vavalle, N. A., D. P. Moreno, A. C. Rhyne, J. D. Stitzel, and F. S. Gayzik. Lateral impact validation of a geometrically accurate full body finite element model for blunt injury prediction. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41:497–512, 2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Weis, E. B., N. P. Clarke, and J. W. Brinkley. Human response to several impact acceleration orientations and patterns. Wright-Patterson OH: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Lab, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by NASA Human Health and Performance Contract (HHPC) Award Number NNJ15HK11B through KBRwyle. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of NASA or KBRwyle. Simulations were performed on the DEAC cluster at Wake Forest University. This work also used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by National Science Foundation Grant Number OCI-1053575. Specifically, it used the Bridges system, which is supported by NSF Award Number ACI-1445606, at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC).31

Conflict of interest

Dr. Stitzel and Dr. Gayzik are members of Elemance, LLC, which provides academic and commercial licenses of the GHBMC-owned human body computer models.

Author information Authors and Affiliations
  1. Wake Forest University School of Medicine, 475 Vine St, Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA

    James P. Gaewsky, Derek A. Jones, Xin Ye, Bharath Koya, Kyle P. McNamara, F. Scott Gayzik, Ashley A. Weaver & Joel D. Stitzel

  2. Virginia Tech-Wake Forest Center for Injury Biomechanics, 575 N. Patterson Ave, Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA

    James P. Gaewsky, Derek A. Jones, Xin Ye, Bharath Koya, Kyle P. McNamara, F. Scott Gayzik, Ashley A. Weaver & Joel D. Stitzel

  3. KBRwyle, 2400 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX, 77058, USA

    Jacob B. Putnam & Jeffrey T. Somers

Authors
  1. James P. Gaewsky
  2. Derek A. Jones
  3. Xin Ye
  4. Bharath Koya
  5. Kyle P. McNamara
  6. F. Scott Gayzik
  7. Ashley A. Weaver
  8. Jacob B. Putnam
  9. Jeffrey T. Somers
  10. Joel D. Stitzel
Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel D. Stitzel.

Additional information

Associate Editor Stefan M. Duma oversaw the review of this article.

Appendices Appendix A: Human Volunteer Characteristics by Loading Condition

See Figs. A1 and A2.

Figure A1

Distribution of volunteer subject mass by loading test condition.

Figure A2

Distribution of volunteer subject heights by loading test condition.

Appendix B: Foam Material Properties for Head Rest and Side Guard Cushions

Expected Base Units: kg, mm, ms, kN

LS-Dyna Material Model: Low Density Foam

See Tables B1 and B2.

Table B1 Material properties for low density foam. Table B2 Load curve ID 1, stress–strain behavior of low density foam. Appendix C: Input Acceleration Pulses

See Figs. C1, C2, C3 and C4.

Figure C1

− Gx input sled pulses.

Figure C2

+ Gx input sled pulses.

Figure C3

GY input sled pulses.

Figure C4

+ GZ input sled pulses.

Appendix D: CORA Score Generation Parameters

Parameters for CORA version 3.5.1.

Global settings to define the interval of evaluation

A_THRES

0.03

Threshold to set the start of the interval of evaluation [0,…,1]

B_THRES

0.075

Threshold to set the end of the interval of evaluation [0,…,1]

A_EVAL

0.01

Extension of the interval of evaluation [0,…,1]

B_DELTA_END

0.2

Additional parameter to shorten the interval of evaluation (width of the corridor: A_DELTA_END*Y_NORM) 0 = disabled

T_MIN

0

Manually defined start (time) and end (time) of the interval of evaluation (automatic = calculated for each channel)

T_MAX

200

Global settings of the corridor method

G_1

0.5

Weighting factor of the corridor method

K

2

Transition between ratings of 1 and 0 of the corridor method (1 = linear, 2 = quadratic …)

Global settings of the cross correlation method

G_2

0.5

Weighting factors of the cross correlation method

D_MIN

0.05

delta_min as share of the interval of evaluation [0,…,1]

D_MAX

0.15

delta_max as share of the interval of evaluation [0,…,1]

INT_MIN

0.8

Minimum overlap of the interval [0,…,1]

K_V

10

Transition between ratings of 1 and 0 of the progression rating (1 = linear, 2 = quadratic …)

K_G

1

Transition between ratings of 1 and 0 of the size rating (1 = linear, 2 = quadratic …)

K_P

1

Transition between ratings of 1 and 0 of the phase shift rating (1 = linear, 2 = quadratic …)

G_V

0.50

Weighting factors of the progression rating

G_G

0.25

Weighting factors of the size rating

G_P

0.25

Weighting factors of the phase shift rating

Appendix E: Graphical CORA Comparisons by Loading Configuration

See Figs. E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, E11, E12, and E13.

Figure E1

− GX, 10 G, 55 ms Rise Time (MB-6 Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.706.

Figure E2

− GX, 10 G, 75 ms rise time (PCU-16/P Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.671.

Figure E3

+ GX, 10 G, 30 ms rise time (CS Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.731.

Figure E4

+ GX, 15-G, 16 ms rise time (CS Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.582.

Figure E5

+ GX, 15 G, 25 ms rise time (CS Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.728.

Figure E6

+ GX, 20 G, 20 ms rise time (CS Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.689

Figure E7

GY, 3 G, 35 ms rise time (CS belt): comprehensive rating = 0.667.

Figure E8

GY, 4.5 G, 35 ms rise time (CS belt): comprehensive rating = 0.713.

Figure E9

GY, 6 G, 35 ms rise time (CS belt): comprehensive rating = 0.667.

Figure E10

GY, 5 G, 75 ms rise time, contoured headrest (PCU-15/P Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.729.

Figure E11

GY, 5 G, 75 ms rise time, flat headrest (PCU-15/P Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.603.

Figure E12

+ GZ, 8 G, 80 ms rise time (MB-6 Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.786.

Figure E13

+ GZ, 10 G, 70 ms rise time (MB-6 Belt): comprehensive rating = 0.761.

Appendix F: Corridor Difficulty Scores (CDS)

See Fig. F1.

Figure F1

Head acceleration and chest acceleration data displayed contradicting trends when comparing the calculated CORA scores to the corridor difficulty score (CDS), which is a novel measure for the relative width of the generated corridors compared to signal magnitude.

About this article Cite this article

Gaewsky, J.P., Jones, D.A., Ye, X. et al. Modeling Human Volunteers in Multidirectional, Uni-axial Sled Tests Using a Finite Element Human Body Model. Ann Biomed Eng 47, 487–511 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-018-02147-3

Download citation

Keywords

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4