Evaluation of geometrically personalized THUMS pedestrian model response against sedan-pedestrian PMHS impact test data

• Published in: Traffic injury prevention Vol. 19; no. 5; pp. 542 - 548
• Main Authors: Chen, Huipeng, Poulard, David, Forman, Jason, Crandall, Jeff, Panzer, Matthew B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Taylor & Francis 04.07.2018; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Anthropometry; Automobiles; Autopsies; Autopsy; Cadavers; Computer simulation; Correlation analysis; Finite element method; Health risks; Impact strength; Impact tests; Injuries; injury; Kinematics; Mathematical analysis; Mathematical models; modeling; Morphing; Pedestrian; Pedestrians; THUMS; Traffic accidents & safety; Pedestrian; modeling; injury; morphing; THUMS
• ISSN: 1538-9588; 1538-957X; 1538-957X
• DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2018.1450979

Objective: Evaluating the biofidelity of pedestrian finite element models (PFEM) using postmortem human subjects (PMHS) is a challenge because differences in anthropometry between PMHS and PFEM could limit a model's capability to accurately capture cadaveric responses. Geometrical personalization via morphing can modify the PFEM geometry to match the specific PMHS anthropometry, which could alleviate this issue. In this study, the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS) PFEM (Ver 4.01) was compared to the cadaveric response in vehicle-pedestrian impacts using geometrically personalized models. Methods: The AM50 THUMS PFEM was used as the baseline model, and 2 morphed PFEM were created to the anthropometric specifications of 2 obese PMHS used in a previous pedestrian impact study with a mid-size sedan. The same measurements as those obtained during the PMHS tests were calculated from the simulations (kinematics, accelerations, strains), and biofidelity metrics based on signals correlation (correlation and analysis, CORA) were established to compare the response of the models to the experiments. Injury outcomes were predicted deterministically (through strain-based threshold) and probabilistically (with injury risk functions) and compared with the injuries reported in the necropsy. Results: The baseline model could not accurately capture all aspects of the PMHS kinematics, strain, and injury risks, whereas the morphed models reproduced biofidelic response in terms of trajectory (CORA score = 0.927 ± 0.092), velocities (0.975 ± 0.027), accelerations (0.862 ± 0.072), and strains (0.707 ± 0.143). The personalized THUMS models also generally predicted injuries consistent with those identified during posttest autopsy. Conclusions: The study highlights the need to control for pedestrian anthropometry when validating pedestrian human body models against PMHS data. The information provided in the current study could be useful for improving model biofidelity for vehicle-pedestrian impact scenarios.