Analysis on the rear passenger injuries of the 5th percentile Chinese female occupant in 100% frontal impact

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2023.04.003

Abstract

Abstract:

The damage risk of small rear passenger in frontal 100% crash test was investigated to provide reference data for improving the protection performance of vehicle restraint system. The simulation was set up based on the 100% frontal impact as specified in the C-NCAP (2021) using the validated injury bionic model with the 5th percentile Chinese female anatomical characteristics and the validated car finite element model. The injuries of the small size female passenger sitting the second row were analyzed including the head, neck, thoracic-abdomen and lumbar. The results show that the TUST IBMs F05-O model presents a good kinematics response of occupants in the 100% frontal impact. The lateral flexion movement of the head and neck around the seat belt is obviously observed because the spine of TUST IBMs F05-O model has high bio-fidelity. Head and neck injuries are severed as a result of the head contacted with the frontal seat. The chest viscous criterion (VC) value is 0.34 with a higher chest compression so that the lungs are compressed and injured. The lumbar injury index (LSI) and lumbar injury evaluation parameter (L_fx) are less than the corresponding injury threshold. The application of the fifth percentile Chinese female occupant injury bionic model with high biological fidelity to car crash simulation test has important application value for the development of intelligent cockpit and zero gravity seat, the study of vehicle active and passive safety integration, and the future digital evaluation method.

Key words: 100% overlap rigid barrier crash test, the 5th percentile female occupant, injury bionic model, injury assessment

CLC Number:

U467.1+4

LI Haiyan, HU Jing, HE Lijuan, LV Wenle, CUI Shihai, RUAN Shijie. Analysis on the rear passenger injuries of the 5th percentile Chinese female occupant in 100% frontal impact[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2023, 14(4): 421-430.

Figures/Tables 15

References 32

[1]	Brumbelow M L, Jermakian J S. Injury risks and crashworthiness benefits for females and males: Which differences are physiological?[J]. Traf Inju Prev, 2022, 23(1): 11-16.
[2]	Forman J, Poplin G S, Shaw C G, et al. Automobile injury trends in the contemporary fleet Belted occupants in frontal collisions[J]. Traf Inju Prev, 2019, 20(3): 1-6.
[3]	ZHANG Yaohui, JU Chunxian, YUE Guohui, et al. Simulation analysis of the rear seat female in front impact[C]// 3rd Int’l Conf Digit Manufact Autom. IEEE, 2012.
[4]	周华, 彭一峻, 刘卓异, 等. 约束系统对不同体型女性驾驶人的保护研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(4): 76-82. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.04.013
	ZHOU Hua, PENG Yijun, LIU Zhuoyi, et al. A study on protection of restraint system on female drivers with different body types[J]. Chin Safe Sci J, 2019, 29(4): 76-82. (in Chinese)
[5]	张雄, 韩为铎, 赵佳庆. 正面碰撞波形对后排女性乘员伤害影响研究[C]// 2021中国汽车工程学会年会论文集(4), 2021: 677-682.
	ZHANG Xiong, HAN Weiduo, ZHAO Jiaqing. Research on the influence of frontal crash waveform on the rear female occupant injury[C]// 2021 SAE China Congress (4), 2021: 677-682. (in Chinese)
[6]	Kurano Y, Hikida K, Hibara S, et al. Two-dimensional degenerated model of next-generation crash test dummy THOR 5F[J]. Int’l J Autom Engi, 2020, 11(3): 94-100.
[7]	XU Tao, SHNEG Xiaoming, ZHANG Tianyi, et al. Development and validation of dummies and human models used in crash test[J]. Appl Bionics Biomech, 2018, Pt.2: 1-12.
[8]	Ghosh P, Gyanadutta S, Ravi K C, et al. Deriving anthropometrically-correct 5th percentile female from subject-specific female CAD model[C]// Int’l Res Counl Biomech Inju Conf, 2014: 477-478.
[9]	杨洁. 基于THUMS的东西方5百分位女性碰撞响应差异分析[D]. 北京: 清华大学, 2016.
	YANG Jie. Study of differences of dynamic responses between eastern and western 5th percentile female based on THUMS[D]. Beijing: Tsinghua University, 2016. (in Chinese)
[10]	黎和俊, 杨震, 周大永, 等. 混Ⅲ假人、GHBMC人体模型以及中国人体模型的正碰损伤差异[J]. 中国机械工程, 2021, 32(15): 1836-1843.
	LI Hejun, YANG Zhen, ZHOU Dayong, et al. Differences of injury response among hybrid III dummy,GHBMC model and Chinese human body model in frontal crash[J]. Chin Mech Engi, 2021, 32(15): 1836-1843. (in Chinese)
[11]	阮世捷, 李超, 崔世海, 等. 颅骨厚度对颅内生物力学响应的影响[J]. 医用生物力学, 2021, 36(4): 560-567.
	RUAN Shijie, LI Chao, CUI Shihai, et al. The influence of skull thickness on intracranial biomechanical response[J]. J Biomech, 2021, 36(4): 560-567. (in Chinese)
[12]	李海岩, 孙孝海, 贺丽娟, 等. 具有详实解剖学结构的国人第5百分位女性胸腹部有限元模型开发及验证[J]. 医用生物力学, 2022, 37(1): 91-97.
	LI Haiyan, SUN Xiaohai, HE Lijuan, et al. Development and validation for thoracic-abdominal finite element model of Chinese 5th percentile female with detailed anatomical structure[J]. J Medi Biomech, 2022, 37(1): 91-97. (in Chinese)
[13]	李海岩, 李广明, 贺丽娟, 等. 汽车追尾碰撞中颈部姿态对生物力学响应的影响[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2022, 13(1): 55-62.
	LI Haiyan, LI Guangming, HE Lijuan, et al. Effect of neck posture on biomechanical response in rear end collision[J]. Autom Safe Energ, 2022, 13(1): 55-62. (in Chinese)
[14]	阮世捷, 梁亚妮, 李海岩, 等. 国人第5百分位女性行人下肢生物力学计算模型开发及应用[J]. 医用生物力学, 2022, 37(6): 1056-1063.
	RUAN Shijie, LIANG Yani, LI Haiyan, et al. Development and application for biomechanical computational model of lower extremity of 5th percentile Chinese female pedestrian[J]. J Medi Biomech, 2022, 37(6): 1056-1063. (in Chinese)
[15]	Takhounts E G, Craig M J, Moorhouse K, et al. Development of brain injury criteria (BrIC)[J]. Stap Car Crash J, 2013, 57: 243-266.
[16]	Baumgartner D, Willinger R, Shewchenko N, et al. Tolerance limits for mild traumatic brain injury derived from numerical head impact replication[C]// Int’l IRCOBI Conf Biomechan Impacts. Isle of Man, UK: IRCOBI, 2001: 353-355.
[17]	ZHANG Liying, YANG Kaihui, King A I, et al. A proposed injury threshold for mild traumatic brain injury[J]. Biomech Engi, 2004, 126(2): 226-236.
[18]	Galbraith J A, Thibault L E, Matteson D R, et al. Mechanical and electrical responses of the squid giant axon to simple elongation[J]. J Biomech Engi, 1993, 115(1): 13-22.
[19]	Morrison B, Cater H L, Wang C, et al. A tissue level tolerance criterion for living brain developed with an in vitro model of traumatic mechanical loading[J]. Stap Car Crash J, 2003, 47: 93-105.
[20]	Mizuno K, HAN Yong, CHEN Yiwei. Automobile Crash Safety[M]. Beijing: China Communications Press, 2016: 18-19.
[21]	Carter D R, Hayes W C. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure[J]. J Bone Joint Surg, 1977, 59-A (7): 954-962.
[22]	Kasra M, Parnianpour M, Shirazi-Adl A, et al. Effect of strain rate on tensile properties of sheep disc annulus fibrosus[J]. Tech Health Care:Offi J Euro Soc Engi Medi, 2004, 12(4): 333-342.
[23]	Chazal J, Tanguy A, Bourges M, et al. Biomechanical properties of spinal ligaments and a histological study of the supraspinal ligament in traction[J]. J Biomech, 1985, 18(3): 167-176. pmid: 3997901
[24]	Gayzik F S. Development of a finite element based injury metric for pulmonary contusion[D]. Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University, 2008.
[25]	Shigeta K, Kitagawa Y, Yasuki T, et al. Development of next generation human FE model capable of organ injury prediction[C]// The 21st Int’l Tech Conf Enhan Safe Vehi. Germany: Stuttgart, 2009: 1-20.
[26]	Melvin J W, Stalnaker R L, Roberts V L, et al. Impact injury mechanisms in abdominal organs[J]. Endocrinology, 1973, 138(12): 5231-5237. doi: 10.1210/endo.138.12.5602 URL
[27]	Yamada H, Evans G F. Strength of Biological Materials[M]. Philadelphia: Baltimore Williams & Wilkins, 1970, 108(3): 582.
[28]	Kemper A R, Stitzel J D, Mcnally C, et al. Biomechanical response of the human clavicle: the effects of loading direction on bending properties[J]. Appl Biomechan, 2009, 25(2): 165-174.
[29]	ZHANG Qi, Kerrigan J, Kindig M, et al. Axial injury tolerance of the clavicle and the effect of age and gender[C]// Injur Biomechan Symp. America: Columbus, 2013: 1-17.
[30]	LI Zhuoping, Kindig M W, Kerrigan J R, et al. Development and validation of a subject-specific finite element model of a human clavicle[J]. Comput Method Biomech Biomed Engi, 2013, 16(7-9): 819-829.
[31]	YE Xin, Gaewsky J P, Jones D A, et al. Computational modeling and analysis of thoracolumbar spine fractures in frontal crash reconstruction[J]. Traf Inju Prev, 2018, 19(Suppla2): 1-25.
[32]	Tushak S K, Gepner B D, Forman J L, et al. Human lumbar spine injury risk in high-rate combined compression and flexion loading[J]. Anna Biomed Engi, 2023, 51: 1216-1225.

损伤指标		TUST IBMs F05-O	Hybrid III 5^th	损伤阈值
运动学	HIC₁₅	2 518	508	高性能：500，低性能：700
	a_3-ms	174.2 g	70 g	高性能：72 g，低性能：80 g
	BrIC	1.33	—	BrIC = 1，AIS4级脑损伤概率为45%。
生物力学	颅骨最大塑性应变	1.1 %	—	1.5%，颅骨骨折。
	脑组织Von Mises应力	13.8 kPa	—	6~11 kPa脑挫伤，15 kPa轻微脑震荡， 38 kPa重度脑损伤^[16]。
	脑组织剪切应力	7.96 kPa	—	6 kPa，25%出现轻度脑损伤；7.8 kPa，50%出现轻度脑损伤；10 kPa，80%出现轻度脑损伤；25 kPa，100%出现中度脑损伤^[17]。
	最大主应变	8.18 %	—	10%，可逆伤害；20%，大脑神经系统功能缺陷^[18]； 25%脑组织神经系统结构失效^[19]。

损伤指标		TUST IBMs F05-O	Hybrid III 5^th	损伤阈值
运动学	HIC₁₅	2 518	508	高性能：500，低性能：700
	a_3-ms	174.2 g	70 g	高性能：72 g，低性能：80 g
	BrIC	1.33	—	BrIC = 1，AIS4级脑损伤概率为45%。
生物力学	颅骨最大塑性应变	1.1 %	—	1.5%，颅骨骨折。
	脑组织Von Mises应力	13.8 kPa	—	6~11 kPa脑挫伤，15 kPa轻微脑震荡， 38 kPa重度脑损伤^[16]。
	脑组织剪切应力	7.96 kPa	—	6 kPa，25%出现轻度脑损伤；7.8 kPa，50%出现轻度脑损伤；10 kPa，80%出现轻度脑损伤；25 kPa，100%出现中度脑损伤^[17]。
	最大主应变	8.18 %	—	10%，可逆伤害；20%，大脑神经系统功能缺陷^[18]； 25%脑组织神经系统结构失效^[19]。

损伤指标		TUST IBMs F05-O	Hybrid III 5^th	损伤阈值
运动学	F_x / kN	2.36	1.07	高性能：1.2；低性能：1.95
	F_z / kN	2.15	2.18	高性能：1.7 ；低性能：2.62
	M_y / Nm	49.0	73.8	高性能：36 ；低性能：49
	N_ij	0.94	1.1	1
生物力学	颈椎Von Mises应力	密质骨201 MPa，松质骨16 MPa。	—	密质骨236 MPa，松质骨59 MPa^[21] （骨折）。
	椎间盘Von Mises应力	51 MPa。	—	30 MPa^[22]（撕裂伤）。
	颈部韧带伸长失效值	棘间韧带1.12倍，后纵韧带1.09倍，黄韧带1.16倍，前纵韧带1.03倍，囊韧带1.08倍。	—	棘间韧带1.87倍，后纵韧带1.55倍，黄韧带2.05倍，前纵韧带1.57倍，囊韧带2.5倍^[23]（韧带断裂）。

损伤指标		TUST IBMs F05-O	Hybrid III 5^th	损伤阈值
运动学	F_x / kN	2.36	1.07	高性能：1.2；低性能：1.95
	F_z / kN	2.15	2.18	高性能：1.7 ；低性能：2.62
	M_y / Nm	49.0	73.8	高性能：36 ；低性能：49
	N_ij	0.94	1.1	1
生物力学	颈椎Von Mises应力	密质骨201 MPa，松质骨16 MPa。	—	密质骨236 MPa，松质骨59 MPa^[21] （骨折）。
	椎间盘Von Mises应力	51 MPa。	—	30 MPa^[22]（撕裂伤）。
	颈部韧带伸长失效值	棘间韧带1.12倍，后纵韧带1.09倍，黄韧带1.16倍，前纵韧带1.03倍，囊韧带1.08倍。	—	棘间韧带1.87倍，后纵韧带1.55倍，黄韧带2.05倍，前纵韧带1.57倍，囊韧带2.5倍^[23]（韧带断裂）。

损伤指标		TUST IBMs F05-O	Hybrid III 5^th	损伤阈值
运动学	胸部压缩量 / mm	32 mm	30	高性能限值18，低性能限值42
	胸部VC值 / (m·s^-1)	0.34	0.2	高性能限值0.5 ，低性能限值1
	肺部第一主应变/ %	左肺30.7，右肺40.0	―	28.4 ^[24]，肺挫伤
生物力学	心脏、肝、脾、肾脏第一主应变 / %	心脏18.1，肝46.1，左肾8.4，脾29.6，右肾23.4	―	30^[25-26]，挫伤
	大肠、小肠、胃第一主应变 / %	大肠75.2，小肠40.6，胃58.3	―	130^[27]，挫伤
	肋骨密质骨最大塑性应变 / %	1.3	―	2^[28]，骨折
	锁骨失效应变 / %	锁骨密质骨1.6，锁骨松质骨2.2	―	锁骨密质骨2~3，骨折；锁骨松质骨8~15^[29]，骨折
	锁骨失效力、力矩	失效载荷530 N；失效力矩14.42 Nm	―	平均失效载荷为(732±175) N，骨折；平均失效力矩为(28.3±7.8) Nm^[30]，骨折