Standardized Assessment of Gravity Settling Human Body Models for Virtual Testing.

Q2 Medicine Stapp car crash journal Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.4271/2024-22-0001
B Wade von Kleeck Iii, Juliette Caffrey, Ashley A Weaver, F Scott Gayzik, Jason Hallman
{"title":"Standardized Assessment of Gravity Settling Human Body Models for Virtual Testing.","authors":"B Wade von Kleeck Iii, Juliette Caffrey, Ashley A Weaver, F Scott Gayzik, Jason Hallman","doi":"10.4271/2024-22-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The increased use of computational human models in evaluation of safety systems demands greater attention to selected methods in coupling the model to its seated environment. This study assessed the THUMS v4.0.1 in an upright driver posture and a reclined occupant posture. Each posture was gravity settled into an NCAC vehicle model to assess model quality and HBM to seat coupling. HBM to seat contact friction and seat stiffness were varied across a range of potential inputs to evaluate over a range of potential inputs. Gravity settling was also performed with and without constraints on the pelvis to move towards the target H-Point. These combinations resulted in 18 simulations per posture, run for 800 ms. In addition, 5 crash pulse simulations (51.5 km/h delta V) were run to assess the effect of settling time on driver kinematics. HBM mesh quality and HBM to seat coupling metrics were compared at kinetically identical time points during the simulation to an end state where kinetic energy was near zero. A gravity settling time of 350 ms was found to be optimal for the upright driver posture and 290 ms for the reclined occupant posture. This suggests that reclined passengers can be settled for less time than upright passengers, potentially due to the increased contact area. The pelvis constrained approach was recommended for the upright driver posture and was not recommended for the reclined occupant posture. The recommended times were sufficient to gravity settle both postures to match the quality metrics of the 800 ms gravity settled time. Driver kinematics were found to be vary with gravity settling time. Future work will include verifying that these recommendations hold for different HBMs and test modes.</p>","PeriodicalId":35289,"journal":{"name":"Stapp car crash journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stapp car crash journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4271/2024-22-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increased use of computational human models in evaluation of safety systems demands greater attention to selected methods in coupling the model to its seated environment. This study assessed the THUMS v4.0.1 in an upright driver posture and a reclined occupant posture. Each posture was gravity settled into an NCAC vehicle model to assess model quality and HBM to seat coupling. HBM to seat contact friction and seat stiffness were varied across a range of potential inputs to evaluate over a range of potential inputs. Gravity settling was also performed with and without constraints on the pelvis to move towards the target H-Point. These combinations resulted in 18 simulations per posture, run for 800 ms. In addition, 5 crash pulse simulations (51.5 km/h delta V) were run to assess the effect of settling time on driver kinematics. HBM mesh quality and HBM to seat coupling metrics were compared at kinetically identical time points during the simulation to an end state where kinetic energy was near zero. A gravity settling time of 350 ms was found to be optimal for the upright driver posture and 290 ms for the reclined occupant posture. This suggests that reclined passengers can be settled for less time than upright passengers, potentially due to the increased contact area. The pelvis constrained approach was recommended for the upright driver posture and was not recommended for the reclined occupant posture. The recommended times were sufficient to gravity settle both postures to match the quality metrics of the 800 ms gravity settled time. Driver kinematics were found to be vary with gravity settling time. Future work will include verifying that these recommendations hold for different HBMs and test modes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于虚拟测试的重力沉降人体模型标准化评估。
在安全系统评估中越来越多地使用计算人体模型,这就要求我们更加关注将模型与其就座环境耦合的选定方法。本研究评估了 THUMS v4.0.1 的直立驾驶员姿势和倾斜乘员姿势。每种姿势都在 NCAC 汽车模型中进行重力沉降,以评估模型质量和 HBM 与座椅的耦合。HBM 与座椅的接触摩擦和座椅刚度在一系列潜在输入中变化,以评估一系列潜在输入。重力沉降也在骨盆受到或不受到向目标 H 点移动限制的情况下进行。通过这些组合,对每个姿势进行了 18 次模拟,运行时间为 800 毫秒。此外,还运行了 5 次碰撞脉冲模拟(51.5 km/h delta V),以评估沉降时间对驾驶员运动学的影响。在模拟过程中动能接近于零的结束状态下,在动能相同的时间点比较 HBM 网格质量和 HBM 与座椅耦合指标。结果发现,350 毫秒的重力沉降时间是直立驾驶员姿势的最佳时间,而 290 毫秒的重力沉降时间是倾斜乘客姿势的最佳时间。这表明,与直立乘客相比,倾斜乘客的沉降时间更短,这可能是由于接触面积增大的缘故。建议直立驾驶员姿势采用骨盆约束方法,而斜躺乘客姿势则不建议采用这种方法。推荐的时间足以使两种姿势都达到 800 毫秒重力稳定时间的质量指标。研究发现,驾驶员的运动学特性随重力沉降时间而变化。未来的工作将包括验证这些建议是否适用于不同的 HBM 和测试模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Stapp car crash journal
Stapp car crash journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of A-Pillar Blind Spots on a Driver's Pedestrian Visibility during Vehicle Turns at an Intersection. Standardized Assessment of Gravity Settling Human Body Models for Virtual Testing. Machine-Learning-Accelerated Simulations for the Design of Airbag Constrained by Obstacles at Rest. Comparison of Adult Female and Male PMHS Pelvis and Lumbar Response to Underbody Blast. Investigation of THOR-AV 5F Biofidelity in Sled Test Conditions with A Semi-Rigid Seat.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1