欢迎访问《汽车安全与节能学报》，
汽车安全与节能学报

JASE ›› 2017, Vol. 08 ›› Issue (03): 239-245.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2017.03.003

• 汽车安全 • 上一篇    下一篇

鞭打试验中BioRID II 与THUMS 模型颈部损伤对比

胡远志1,2，胡源源2，蒋成约2，刘 西2，廖高健2   

  1. 1. 汽车噪声振动和安全技术国家重点实验室，中国汽车工程研究院股份有限公司和重庆长安汽车股份有限公司，重庆 401122，中国；2.. 汽车零部件先进制造技术教育部重点实验室，重庆理工大学，重庆 400054，中国
  • 收稿日期:2016-12-15 出版日期:2017-09-28 发布日期:2017-10-03
  • 作者简介:第一作者 / First author ： 胡远志(1977—)，男( 汉)，湖南，教授，E-mail: yuanzhihu@cqut.edu.cn。 第二作者 / Second author ： 胡源源(1989—)，女( 汉)，河北，硕士研究生，E-mail: hu12yuanyuan17@163.com。
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金资助项目 (51405050) ；重庆市基础与前沿研究计划项目资助(cstc2015jcyjA00048) ；2015 年年重庆市高等教育教学改革研究项目资助 (152032) ；重庆市科技人才培养计划项目资助 (cstc2013kjrcqnrc60002)；汽车零部件先进制造技术教育部重点实验室开放课题资助项目 (2012KLMT08)。

Neck injury comparison between BioRID II and THUMS model in whiplash test

HU Yuanzhi 1,2, HU Yuanyuan 1,2, JIANG Chengyue 2, LIU Xi 2, LIAO Gaojian 2   

  1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Vehicle NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) and Safety Technology, China Automotive Engineering Research Institute Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Changan Automobile Company Co., Ltd, Chongqing 401122, China; 2. Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacture Technology for Automobile Parts, Ministry of Education, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing 400054, China)
  • Received:2016-12-15 Online:2017-09-28 Published:2017-10-03

PDF

785

摘要：

为设计出可保护乘员颈部安全的座椅，在鞭打试验中，对BioRID II 和THUMS 两种不同乘员模型，研究了颈部损伤情况。根据2015 版中国新车评价规程(C-NCAP) 中鞭打试验评价规程和评分原则，建立了座椅鞭打试验有限元仿真模型；对这两种模型动态响应和人体颈部损伤状态。结果表明：THUMS 模型有较高的生物仿真度，其颈部伤害指数(NIC)、颈部剪切力、颈部扭矩以及上颈部拉力均大于BioRID II 模型。该结果可为提高和完善BioRID II 模型的生物仿真度提供参考。

关键词: 汽车安全, 颈部损伤, 鞭打试验, BioRID II 模型, THUMS 模型, 中国新车评价规程(C-NCAP)

Abstract:

Neck-injuries were investigated in whiplash test by two different occupant models (the THUMS (total human model for safety) and BioRID II model) to design a better anti-whiplash seat with occupant-neck protection. A seat finite element model was established to simulate whiplash test according to the China New
Car Assessment Programme (C-NCAP) (2015 Ed) evaluation procedures and principles of whiplash test score. The dynamic responses and neck-injuries were compared for the two models. The results show that the THUMS model has better biofidelity with larger neck injury index (NIC), neck shear force, and the torque and tension on neck than the BioRID II model. These will provide valuable references to improve biological fidelity of the BioRID II model.

Key words: vehicle safety, neck injury, whiplash test, BioRID II model, THUMS (total human model for safety) model, China New Car Assessment Programme (C-NCAP)