侧柱碰撞中头部运动学特征对弥散性脑损伤的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2025.01.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为完善相关脑损伤评估准则，探究了侧柱碰撞中头部运动学特征对弥散性脑损伤的影响。通过构建一种规定运动边界的六自由度头部模型，探究了60组侧柱碰撞试验中乘员头部运动学及生物力学响应，评估了现有脑损伤指标对弥散性损伤的预测效果。结果表明：不满足“弥散性轴索多轴一般评估”（DAMAGE）和“脑损伤准则”（BrIC）高性能阈值的试验占比分别为27%和35%。“通用脑损伤准则”（UBrIC）对95百分位最大主应变的决定系数R²为0.85，显著高于其他指标。多轴旋转载荷耦合作用导致脑组织应变集中，增加了侧柱工况弥散性脑损伤风险。UBrIC相对其他指标在侧柱工况下更能准确评估弥散性脑损伤风险。

关键词: 汽车安全, 侧柱碰撞, 弥散性脑损伤, 损伤指标, 数字人体模型

Abstract:

A six-degree-of-freedom head model was constructed with prescribed boundary conditions to investigate the impact of head kinematic characteristics on diffuse brain injuries in pole side impacts to refine related brain injury assessment criteria. This study examined the kinematic and biomechanical responses of occupants in 60 pole side impact tests and evaluated the predictive efficacy of existing brain injury metrics for diffuse injuries. The results show that 27% and 35% of the test groups fail to meet the high-performance thresholds for the DAMAGE (Diffuse Axonal Multi-Axis General Evaluation) and for the BrIC (Brain Injury Criteria), respectively. The UBrIC (Universal Brain Injury Criteria) metric shows the coefficient of determination R2 of 0.85 for the 95th percent maximum principal strain, significantly higher than other metrics. The coupling effect of Multi-axis rotational loads leads to concentrated brain tissue strain, posing a high risk for diffuse brain injuries in the pole side impact. The UBrIC is more accurate than that of other metrics in assessing this risk.

Key words: automobile safety, pole side impact, diffuse brain injury, injury metrics, numerical human body model

中图分类号:

U461.91

易文韬, 唐颖, 雷飞兵, 曾董, 蔡娅妮, 罗斌尹. 侧柱碰撞中头部运动学特征对弥散性脑损伤的影响[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2025, 16(1): 66-76.

YI Wentao, TANG Ying, LEI Feibing, ZENG Dong, CAI Yani, LUO Binyin. Effects of head kinematic characteristics on diffuse brain injury in side pole impact[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2025, 16(1): 66-76.

图/表 13

参考文献 39

[1]	Östh J, Bohman K, Jakobsson L. Head injury criteria assessment using head kinematics from crash tests and accident reconstructions[J]. *Traf Injury Pre*, 2023, 24(1): 56-61.
[2]	HSU Shiunyuan, WU Shaochun, RAU Chengshyuan, et al. Impact of adapting the abbreviated injury scale (AIS)-2005 from AIS-1998 on injury severity scores and clinical outcome[J]. *Int’l J Envir Res Public Healt*, 2019, 16(24): 5033.
[3]	Viano D C, Parenteau C S. Concussion, diffuse axonal injury, and AIS4+ head injury in motor vehicle crashes[J]. *Traf Injury Pre*, 2015, 16(8): 747-753.
[4]	Andriessen T M J C, Jacobs B, Vos P E. Clinical characteristics and pathophysiological mechanisms of focal and diffuse traumatic brain injury[J]. *J Cell Mol Me*, 2010, 14(10): 2381-2392.
[5]	Hajiaghamemar M, Margulies S S. Multi-scale white matter tract embedded brain finite element model predicts the location of traumatic diffuse axonal injury[J]. *J Neurotraum*, 2021, 38(1): 144-157.
[6]	Pintar F A, Maiman D J, Yoganandan N, et al. Injury patterns in side pole crashes[C]// Asso Adva Automotive Med, 2007, 51: 419.
[7]	Lissner H R, Lebow M, Evans F G. Experimental studies on the relation between acceleration and intracranial pressure changes in man[J]. *Surg Gynecol Obste, 1960, 111*: 329-338.
[8]	Kelkar R, Hasija V, Takhounts E G. Effect of angular acceleration on brain injury metric[C]// Proc IRCOBI Con, 2020: 8-11.
[9]	Reynier K A, Giudice J S, Chernyavskiy P, et al. Quantifying the effect of sex and neuroanatomical biomechanical features on brain deformation response in finite element brain models[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2022, 50(11): 1510-1519.
[10]	Rowson B, Duma S M. A review of head injury metrics used in automotive safety and sports protective equipment[J]. *J Biomech Eng, 2022, 144*(11): 110801.
[11]	Gabler L F, Crandall J R, Panzer M B. Assessment of kinematic brain injury metrics for predicting strain responses in diverse automotive impact conditions[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2016, 44: 3705-3718. pmid: 27436295
[12]	ZHAN Xiang Hao, LI Yi Heng, LIU Yu Zhe, et al. The relationship between brain injury criteria and brain strain across different types of head impacts can be different[J]. *J R Soc Interfac*, 2021, 18(179): 20210260.
[13]	Greenwald R M, Gwin J T, Chu J J, et al. Head impact severity measures for evaluating mild traumatic brain injury risk exposure[J]. *Neurosurger*, 2008, 62(4): 789-798.
[14]	Rowson S, Duma S M. Brain injury prediction: assessing the combined probability of concussion using linear and rotational head acceleration[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2013, 41(5): 873-882. doi: 10.1007/s10439-012-0731-0 pmid: 23299827
[15]	Newman J. A generalized acceleration model for brain injury threshold (GAMBIT)[C]// Proc Int’l IRCOBI Con, 1986, 121-131.
[16]	Newman J A, Shewchenko N, Welbourne E. A proposed new biomechanical head injury assessment function-the maximum power index[R]. SAE Technical Pape, 2000, 2000-01-SC16.
[17]	YANG Sai Chao, TANG Ji Si, NIE Bing Bing, et al. Assessment of brain injury characterization and influence of modeling approaches[J]. *Sci Re*, 2022, 12: 13597.
[18]	Rrcman A, Mclachlin S D, Cronin D S. Spinal cord boundary conditions affect brain tissue strains in impact simulations[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2023, 51(4): 783-793.
[19]	Gepner B D, Perez R D, Forman J L, et al. Evaluation of GHBMC, THUMS and SAFER human body models in frontal impacts in reclined postures[C]// Proc IRCOBI Con, 2022: 116-143.
[20]	Ellahi A, Gupta S, Bose D, et al. A high-fidelity biomechanical modeling framework for injury prediction during frontal car crash[J]. *Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng*, 2023, 28(1): 13-24.
[21]	Atsumi N, Nakahira Y, Tanaka E, et al. Human brain modeling with its anatomical structure and realistic material properties for brain injury prediction[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2018, 46: 736-748. doi: 10.1007/s10439-018-1988-8 pmid: 29404847
[22]	ZHANG Liying, YANG King H, KING Albert I. A proposed injury threshold for mild traumatic brain injury[J]. *J Biomech Eng, 2004, 126*(2): 226-236.
[23]	Deck C, Willinger R. Improved head injury criteria based on head FE model[J]. *Int’l J Crashworthines*, 2008, 13(6): 667-678.
[24]	Bandak F A, Eppinger R H. A three-dimensional finite element analysis of the human brain under combined rotational and translational accelerations[J]. *SAE Tran, 1994, 103*(6): 1708-1726.
[25]	Gabler L F, Crandall J R, Panzer M B. Development of a second-order system for rapid estimation of maximum brain strain[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2019, 47: 1971-1981. doi: 10.1007/s10439-018-02179-9 pmid: 30515603
[26]	Kimpara H, Iwamoto M. Mild traumatic brain injury predictors based on angular accelerations during impacts[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2012, 40(1): 114-126. doi: 10.1007/s10439-011-0414-2 pmid: 21994065
[27]	Kleiven S. Predictors for traumatic brain injuries evaluated through accident reconstructions[R]. SAE Tech Pape, 2007-22-0003.
[28]	Kimpara H, Nakahira Y, Iwamoto M, et al. Head injury prediction methods based on 6 degree of freedom head acceleration measurements during impact[J]. *Int J Autom Eng*, 2011, 2(2): 13-19.
[29]	Takhounts E G, Craig M J, Moorhouse K, et al. Development of brain injury criteria (BrIC)[R]. SAE Tech Pape, 2013-22-0010.
[30]	Gabler L F, Crandall J R, Panzer M B. Development of a metric for predicting brain strain responses using head kinematics[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2018, 46: 972-985. doi: 10.1007/s10439-018-2015-9 pmid: 29594689
[31]	Yanaoka T, Dokko Y, Takahashi Y. Investigation on an injury criterion related to traumatic brain injury primarily induced by head rotation[R]. SAE Tech Pape, 2015-01-1439.
[32]	Iwamoto M, Nakahira Y, Tamura A, et al. Development of advanced human models in THUMS[C]. Proceedings of 6th European LS-DYNA Users' Conference. 2007: 47-56.
[33]	EURO NCAP. Assessment protocol - AOP[S/OL]. (2024-01-01). https://www.euroncap.com/media/79871/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-aop-v93.pdf
[34]	Barbat S, Li X. NHTSA’s proposed frontal oblique impact test protocol: Analyses and evaluation[J]. *SAE Int’l J Trans Safet*, 2017, 5(2): 2017-01-1475.
[35]	Takhounts E G, Hasija V, Ridella S A, et al. Kinematic rotational brain injury criterion (BRIC)[C]// Proc 22nd Enha Safety Vehi Con, 2011 (11-0263): 1-10.
[36]	LI Shun Feng, LI Qing Ming. Head responses subjected to frontal translational acceleration loads[J]. *Int J Mech Sc, 2022, 231*(1): 107598.
[37]	Ghazi K, WU Shaoju, ZHAO Wei, et al. Effective head impact kinematics to preserve brain strain[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2021, 49(10): 2777-2790. doi: 10.1007/s10439-021-02840-w pmid: 34341899
[38]	Levy Y, Bian K, Patterson L, et al. Head kinematics and injury metrics for laboratory hockey-relevant head impact experiments[J]. *Ann Biomed Eng*, 2021, 49(10): 2914-2923. doi: 10.1007/s10439-021-02855-3 pmid: 34472000
[39]	Long C R, Yuen S C K, Nurick G N. Analysis of a car door subjected to side pole impact[J]. *Lat Am J Solids Struc*, 2019, 16(08): e226.

指标	均值	标准差	离群最小值	离群最大值
HIC	418.7	324.4	88.0	2 446.0
DAMAGE	0.41	0.17	0.12	0.91
BrIC	0.72	0.24	0.26	1.38
UBrIC	0.39	0.14	0.11	0.78
RVCI	32.70	10.88	12.26	63.54
RIC	1.10×10⁷	1.03×10⁷	8.73×10⁵	5.72×10⁷
HIP	24 264	6 437	670	35 291
PRHIC	1.15×10⁵	2.26×10⁵	400.33	1.08×10⁶
GAMBIT	0.32	0.16	0.13	1.15
KLC	0.25	0.06	0.12	0.41
CP	0.080	0.210	0.000 61	1.000
PCS	63.11	5.52	53.05	88.46

指标	均值	标准差	离群最小值	离群最大值
HIC	418.7	324.4	88.0	2 446.0
DAMAGE	0.41	0.17	0.12	0.91
BrIC	0.72	0.24	0.26	1.38
UBrIC	0.39	0.14	0.11	0.78
RVCI	32.70	10.88	12.26	63.54
RIC	1.10×10⁷	1.03×10⁷	8.73×10⁵	5.72×10⁷
HIP	24 264	6 437	670	35 291
PRHIC	1.15×10⁵	2.26×10⁵	400.33	1.08×10⁶
GAMBIT	0.32	0.16	0.13	1.15
KLC	0.25	0.06	0.12	0.41
CP	0.080	0.210	0.000 61	1.000
PCS	63.11	5.52	53.05	88.46

指标	RPLA	RPRA	RPRV	CSDM 10	CSDM 20	CSDM 25	MPS 95	MPS 100	应力σ
HIC	<0.001	<0.001	0.005	0.020	<0.001	0.002	0.002	<0.001	<0.001
DAMAGE	0.211	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
BrIC	0.003	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
UBrIC	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
RVCI	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
RIC	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
PRHIC	0.098	<0.001	<0.001	0.007	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
GAMBIT	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
HIP	<0.001	0.063	0.114	0.086	0.052	0.126	0.042	0.002	0.008
KLC	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
CP	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.004	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
PCS	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.002	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

指标	RPLA	RPRA	RPRV	CSDM 10	CSDM 20	CSDM 25	MPS 95	MPS 100	应力σ
HIC	<0.001	<0.001	0.005	0.020	<0.001	0.002	0.002	<0.001	<0.001
DAMAGE	0.211	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
BrIC	0.003	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
UBrIC	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
RVCI	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
RIC	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
PRHIC	0.098	<0.001	<0.001	0.007	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
GAMBIT	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
HIP	<0.001	0.063	0.114	0.086	0.052	0.126	0.042	0.002	0.008
KLC	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
CP	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.004	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
PCS	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.002	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001