|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE: Human Body Models have the potential to better describe the human anatomy and variability than dummies. However, datasets available to verify the human response to impact are typically limited in numbers, and they are not size or gender specific. The objective of the study was to investigate the use of model morphing methodologies within that context.
METHODS: In the current study, a simple human model scaling methodology was developed to morph two detailed human models (Global Human Body Model Consortium models 50(th) male, M50 and 5(th) female F05) to the dimensions of Post Mortem Human Surrogates (PMHS) used in published literature. The methodology was then successfully applied to 52 PMHS tested in 14 impact conditions loading the abdomen. The corresponding 104 simulations were compared to the responses of the PMHS and to the responses of the baseline models without scaling (28 simulations). The responses were analysed using the CORA method and peak values.
RESULTS: The results suggest that model scaling leads to an improvement of the predicted force and deflection but has more marginal effects on the predicted abdominal compressions. M50 and F05 models scaled to the same PMHS were also found to have similar external responses but large differences were found between the two sets of models for the strain energy densities in the liver and the spleen for mid abdomen impact simulations. These differences, which were attributed to the anatomical differences in the abdomen of the baseline models, highlight the importance of the selection of the impact condition for simulation studies, especially if the organ location is not known in the test.
CONCLUSIONS: While the methodology could be further improved, it shows the feasibility of using model scaling methodologies to compare human models of different sizes and to evaluate scaling approaches within the context of human model validation.
Language: en |