Comparative analysis of driver response between Chinese and western drivers under various collision conditions

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2025.03.003

Abstract

Abstract:

A finite element (FE) occupant model of Chinese 50^th% male was developed to fully understand the differences in response to impact loading between Chinese and Western, based on the existing occupant model in Western 50^th% size and the geometric scaling of the body surface of a Chinese 50^th% male volunteer. Simulations were conducted under 4 collision conditions: the SOB (small overlap barrier), the MPDB (mobile progressive deformable barrier), the FRB (full width rigid barrier) and the FarSide by using the subsystem model of occupant compartment and the FE human body models (HBM). Differences in kinematic, dynamic, and biomechanical responses of the Chinese and the Western 50^th% male drivers under typical collision conditions were compared and analyzed. Compared with the response of Western 50^th% HBM, the HIC (head injury criteria) values of Chinese 50^th% HBM under SOB and FRB conditions are 15.48% and 26.2% lower, while the HIC value in MPDB case is 50% higher; in FRB case, the Chinese 50^th% HBM has a chest compression rate 31.44% lower, but exhibits higher rib strain; The maximum lateral displacement of the head under FarSide conditions is similar, but the Chinese 50^th% HBM has a significantly lower brain strain, and the lateral shear/axial force on the neck and chest compression rate of the Chinese 50^th% HBM are lower more than 20%. Therefore, the vehicle restraint systems designed for westerner might be difficult to achieve optimal protection for Chinese people.

Key words: vehicle safety, vehicle collisions, driver response, anthropometric differences, human body models

CLC Number:

U461.91

LIU Yu, ZHANG Huida, WU Xiaofan, JIANG Han, LI Guibing. Comparative analysis of driver response between Chinese and western drivers under various collision conditions[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2025, 16(3): 376-385.

Figures/Tables 11

References 20

[1]	任立海, 罗志秦, 陈浩, 等. 假人与人体模型在 AEB 作用下的驾驶员离位响应对比[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2023, 14(4): 448-456.
	REN Lihai, LUO Zhiqin, CHEN Hao, et al. Comparison of driver’s out-of-position response of dummy and human models under AEB[J]. J Auto Safe Energ, 2023, 14(4): 448-456. (in Chinese)
[2]	Devane K, Hsu F C, Koya B, et al. Assessment of finite element human body and ATD models in estimating injury risk in far-side impacts using field-based injury risk[J]. Accid Anal Preve, 2023, 192(3): Paper No 107274.
[3]	ZHAO Jay, Sabannavar D, Shkoukani M. Evaluation of Thor-50M, WorldSID-50M and GHBMC M50-O V6.0 models in far-side crashes[C]// 27 ^th Int’l Tech Conf Enha Safe Vehic (ESV), 2023:No. 23-0283.
[4]	Toyota Motor Corporation. Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS) AM50 occupant model version 6.1 user manual[SB/OL]. (2022-07-30) http://www.toyota.co.jp/thums/download.
[5]	Global Human Body Models Consortium. User manual: M50 occupant, version 4.3 for LS-Dyna[SB/OL]. (2011-04-01) https://www.elemance.com/resources.
[6]	黄新刚. 基于中国人体的正面碰撞假人开发策略研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南大学, 2014.
	HUANG Xingang. The research of the development of frontal crash dummy based on the Chinese human body[D]. Changsha: Hunan University, 2014. (in Chinese)
[7]	CAO Libo, ZHANG Kai, LÜ Xin, et al. Comparison of current ATDs with Chinese adults in anthropometry[J]. Traffic Inj Prev, 2016, 17(4): 430-433. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2015.1101077 pmid: 26508539
[8]	WANG Fang, YIN Jiajie, HU Lin, et al. Should anthropometric differences between the commonly used pedestrian computational biomechanics models and Chinese population be taken into account when predicting pedestrian head kinematics and injury in vehicle collisions in China?[J]. Accid Anal Preve, 2022, 173(4): Paper No 106718.
[9]	王玉龙. 基于体征的参数化乘员有限元模型建立方法及应用研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南大学, 2016.
	WANG Yulong. Development and application of parametric human body models based on different vehicle occupant characteristics[D]. Changsha: Hunan University, 2016. (in Chinese)
[10]	李莉, 段大伟, 刘孙炼, 等. 基于不同身材乘员保护的约束系统优化研究[J]. 汽车工程, 2016, 38(11): 1312-1318.
	LI Li, DUAN Dawei, LIU Sunlian, et al. A research on the optimization of restraint system for the protection of occupants with different statures[J]. Autom Engineering, 2016, 38(11): 1312-1318. (in Chinese)
[11]	张恺. 面向自适应约束系统的多体征乘员碰撞仿真与损伤分析[D]. 长沙: 湖南大学, 2017.
	ZHANF Kai. Toward adaptive restraint system: a simulation and injury analysis study with consideration of population variation[D]. Changsha: Hunan University, 2017. (in Chinese)
[12]	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)
[13]	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)
[14]	国家市场监督管理总局, 国家标准化管理委员会. GB/T 10000-2023中国成年人人体尺寸[S]. (2022-07-30). https://openstd.samr.gov.cn/bzgk/gb.
	State Administration for Market Regulation, Standardization Administration. GB/T 10000-2023 human dimensions of Chinese adults[S]. (2022-07-30). https://openstd.samr.gov.cn/bzgk/gb. (in Chinese)
[15]	National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Vehicle interior and restraints modeling development of full vehicle finite element model including vehicle interior and occupant restraints systems for occupant safety analysis using Thor dummies[EB/OL]. [2022-04-06] https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/crashworthiness.
[16]	QIU Jinlong, LI Kui, XIANG Hongyi, et al. Biomechanical analysis of thorax-abdomen response of vehicle occupant under seat belt load considering different frontal crash pulses[J]. Acta Bioeng Biomech, 2022, 24(4): 31-38. pmid: 37341047
[17]	Perez-Rapela D, Donlon J, Forman J, et al. PMHS and WorldSID kinematic and injury response in far-side events in a vehicle-based test environment[J]. Stapp Car Crash J, 2019, 63: 83-126. pmid: 32311053
[18]	Hertz E. A note on the head injury criterion (HIC) as a predictor of the risk of skull fracture[C]// Proc: Asso Adva Automotive Medi Annu Conf, 1993, 37: 303-312.
[19]	Takhounts E, Craig J, Moorhouse K, et al. Development of brain injury criteria (BrIC)[J]. Stapp Car Crash J, 2013, 57: 243-266. pmid: 24435734
[20]	刘金明, 马华星, 李奎, 等. 行人头部与车辆碰撞中旋转速度对颅脑组织响应影响[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2021, 12(1): 70-78.
	LIU Jinming, MA Huaxing, LI Kui, et al. Effect of rotation speed on craniocerebral tissue response in pedestrian head-to-vehicle collision[J]. J Autom Safe Energ, 2021, 12(1): 70-78. (in Chinese)

参数	身高 mm	体质量 kg	坐高 mm	坐姿肩高 mm	坐姿膝高 mm
国标	1 686	67.5	918	610	504
志愿者	1 688	67.7	900	618	507
误差/ %	0.12	0.30	1.96	1.31	0.60

参数	身高 mm	体质量 kg	坐高 mm	坐姿肩高 mm	坐姿膝高 mm
国标	1 686	67.5	918	610	504
志愿者	1 688	67.7	900	618	507
误差/ %	0.12	0.30	1.96	1.31	0.60

部位		缩放比例
上半身	宽度	1.03
	厚度	1.02
	高度	0.96
大臂	长度	0.94
	前后径	1.06
	左右径	0.99
小臂	长度	0.92
	前后径	0.92
	左右径	1.16
大腿	长度	0.91
	前后径	1.06
	左右径	1.06
小腿	长度	0.89
	前后径	0.95
	左右径	1.16

部位		缩放比例
上半身	宽度	1.03
	厚度	1.02
	高度	0.96
大臂	长度	0.94
	前后径	1.06
	左右径	0.99
小臂	长度	0.92
	前后径	0.92
	左右径	1.16
大腿	长度	0.91
	前后径	1.06
	左右径	1.06
小腿	长度	0.89
	前后径	0.95
	左右径	1.16

测量尺寸	H₀ / mm	H₁ / mm	L₀ / mm	L₁ / mm	L₂ / mm	L₃ / mm	L₄ / mm	m / kg
THUMS AM50	133	874	284	442	738	490	484	77.2
THUMS CN50	124	851	283	413	654	459	442	70.8
相对差异/ %	-6.8	-2.6	-0.4	-6.6	-11.4	-6.3	-8.7	-8.3