A Computational Biomechanics Human Body Model Coupling Finite Element and Multibody Segments For Assessment of Head Car-To-Pedestrian Collisions

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
A Computational Biomechanics Human Body Model
Coupling Finite Element and Multibody Segments for
Assessment of Head/Brain Injuries in
Car-To-Pedestrian Collisions
Chao Yu 1,2 , Fang Wang 1,3, *, Bingyu Wang 1,2 , Guibing Li 4 and Fan Li 5
1 School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Xiamen University of Technology, Xiamen 361024,
China; yuchao19930704@gmail.com (C.Y.); 2016000075@xmut.edu.cn (B.W.)
2 Fujian Collaborative Innovation Center for R&D of Coach and Special Vehicle, Xiamen 361024, China
3 School of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering, Changsha University of Science & Technology,
Changsha 410205, China
4 School of Mechanical Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China;
guibing.li@hnust.edu.cn
5 State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body, Hunan University,
Changsha 410082, China; lifandudu@163.com
* Correspondence: wangfang@csust.edu.cn or wangfang83715@163.com; Tel.: +86-177-5059-1617

Received: 21 November 2019; Accepted: 8 January 2020; Published: 13 January 2020
Abstract: It has been challenging to efficiently and accurately reproduce pedestrian head/brain injury,
which is one of the most important causes of pedestrian deaths in road traffic accidents, due to the
limitations of existing pedestrian computational models, and the complexity of accidents. In this
paper, a new coupled pedestrian computational biomechanics model (CPCBM) for head safety study
is established via coupling two existing commercial pedestrian models. The head–neck complex of
the CPCBM is from the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS, Toyota Central R&D Laboratories,
Nagakute, Japan) (Version 4.01) finite element model and the rest of the parts of the body are from
the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO, The Hague, The Netherlands)
(Version 7.5) multibody model. The CPCBM was validated in terms of head kinematics and injury
by reproducing three cadaveric tests published in the literature, and a correlation and analysis
(CORA) objective rating tool was applied to evaluate the correlation of the related signals between the
predictions using the CPCBM and the test results. The results show that the CPCBM head center of
gravity (COG) trajectories in the impact direction (YOZ plane) strongly agree with the experimental
results (CORA ratings: Y = 0.99 ± 0.01; Z = 0.98 ± 0.01); the head COG velocity with respect to the
test vehicle correlates well with the test data (CORA ratings: 0.85 ± 0.05); however, the correlation of
the acceleration is less strong (CORA ratings: 0.77 ± 0.06). No significant differences in the behavior
in predicting the head kinematics and injuries of the tested subjects were observed between the TNO
model and CPCBM. Furthermore, the application of the CPCBM leads to substantial reduction of
the computation time cost in reproducing the pedestrian head tissue level injuries, compared to the
full-scale finite element model, which suggests that the CPCBM could present an efficient tool for
pedestrian brain-injury research.
Keywords: car-to-pedestrian collision; computational efficiency; coupling; finite element model;

head/brain injury; multibody model
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 492; doi:10.3390/ijerph17020492 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 492 2 of 32
1. Introduction
According to the latest report by the World Health Organization, about 1.25 million people
worldwide die from road traffic accidents each year, of which pedestrians account for about 22% of the
fatal injuries [1]. The traffic accident reconstruction technology has been widely utilized to analyze the
cause of human injuries in the accident, further improve the safety design of vehicles [2], and eventually
prevent or reduce the fatal damage to pedestrians. Human body computational biomechanics models
are the core of traffic accident reconstruction technology, which have become one of the most important
tools in the pedestrian protection research and automotive safety design.
At present, the pedestrian computational biomechanics models used in the study of pedestrian
protection mainly include multibody (MB) (e.g., the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific
Research (TNO) model [3]) and finite element (FE) models (e.g., the Total Human Model for Safety
(THUMS) model by Toyota Central R&D Laboratories [4,5]). The TNO model has been validated
under various collision scenarios, by means of cadaver tests [6,7], dummy tests [2], and the pedestrian
kinematics/injury prediction from the reconstruction of real-world accidents [8–10]. For instance,
Linder et al. [9] reconstructed six car-to-pedestrian accidents using the TNO model, and the results
showed that the impact locations of the vehicle exterior coincided with the reported vehicle damage,
and the predicted pedestrian throw distance errors were within 20% when compared to the actual
collision data. The THUMS model, as one of the most widely used pedestrian FE models, has been
validated at both the segment [11–13] and the full-scale levels [14–16]. Recently, Wu et al. [17] further
evaluated the biofidelity of the THUMS model (Version 4.01) in a whole-body car-to-pedestrian impact
condition by reproducing three full-scale postmortem human subjects (PMHSs) impact tests, in which
the whole body’s response data (that included head, thoracic T1 and T8, pelvis, left and right femur,
etc.) between the simulation and experiment were evaluated.
As is well-known, the MB model is far less realistic than the FE model in terms of human biofidelity
and the contacts definition between the rigid bodies, and is not able to calculate the human tissue level
injury (such as stress, strain). However, such a model can efficiently reproduce the pedestrian kinematic
in an accident and output the kinematic-based injuries, which is convenient for quick reconstruction
of complicated traffic accidents or for massive simulations [18–24]. Compared to the MB model,
the advantage of the FE model, being able to represent detailed human anatomical structure, makes it
possible to study human tissue level injuries. However, the FE model requires high computational
resources for the model adjustment and computations, which means that it is not realistic to conduct
complicated traffic accident reconstruction using solely the FE model [25].
Head injury has been identified to be the most common cause of pedestrian fatality in pedestrian
accidents, and substantial research efforts have been made focusing on pedestrian head injury
biomechanics and prevention [25–29]. In this field, the FE model was frequently used for assessment
of the pedestrian brain tissue injury, as the importance of brain deformation on traumatic brain injury
had been extensively confirmed. However, due to the relatively low time efficiency in repositioning
the impact conditions and simulating the impact of the accident event, the application of the full-scale
FE model is now limited to parametric study concentrating on the defined impact scenarios by varying
impact velocity, pedestrian position or angle with respect to the vehicle, e.g., [13,24,30]. In order
to predict pedestrian head/brain injury responses in an accurate and efficient way by reproducing
real-world car-to-pedestrian impact accidents, two popular approaches are usually employed:
(a) Firstly, multibody dynamics analysis software (such as MADYMO [31]) is used to reconstruct
the accident, then the boundary conditions (e.g., initial linear and angular velocity/acceleration,
initial position, etc.) at the instant of head–vehicle contact are extracted and applied to the
isolated FE head model (head-only) complemented by the FE vehicle subsystem model (such as
windshield or bonnet) to obtain skull fracture and brain tissue injury data [32–35].
(b) The accident is firstly reproduced with the full-scale MB models, similar to the above approach,
and the time histories of the six degrees of freedom of the head center of gravity (COG) during
the whole impact event are taken out from the MB reconstruction and prescribed to the head-only
FE model to reproduce the brain tissue injury [36,37].
Both methods have dramatically decreased the time required for pedestrian repositioning and
calculation compared to the full-scale FE models. However, there are still limitations. Specifically, the
former one ignored the influence of the rest of the human body on head kinematics and injury response
during the head–vehicle impact, which has been confirmed in the literature [38–40]. In addition,
the head–ground impact was not considered; the latter one, relying on the assumption that the skull is
a rigid body, may produce a remarkable difference in predicting brain tissue responses.
Overall, the obvious advantages and disadvantages of the FE and MB pedestrian computational
biomechanics models mean that research on brain injury in car impact accidents is still challenging.
In order to overcome these limitations. Shu [41] applied mesh morphing technology [42,43] to the
study of impact injury in obese children, which helped to simplify the FE human model adjustment
process; Lalwala et al. [44] reconstructed real-world car-to-pedestrian impact accidents using a full-scale
THUMS FE model, with the purpose of investigating the kinematics behavior and evaluating the
biofidelity of this model; Li et al. [45] improved the computational efficiency of the THUMS model by
increasing the skeleton elements size and simplifying the lower limbs of the model, and this simplified
FE pedestrian model performed well in the prediction of the pedestrian kinematics when simulating
existing cadaver tests. Chai et al. [46] constructed a pedestrian model (knockdown human model) by
combining a simplified FE head model (including just cortical bone, cancellous bone, encephalon and
scalp) with the TNO model, connected by a dynamic hinge. However, these attempts still cannot reach
the balance between accurately predicting the pedestrian brain injury and the computational efficiency.
The purpose of this paper is to utilize the existing coupling technique [46,47] to establish a new
coupled pedestrian computational biomechanics model (CPCBM), capable of balancing the accuracy
and computational efficiency. The head–neck part and the rest of the CPCBM are taken from THUMS
(Version 4.01) FE and TNO (Version 7.5) MB 50th percentile adult male pedestrian models; each part
being connected by the coupling technique [46,47]. The reliability of the CPCBM is evaluated by
reconstructing three cadaver tests published in the literature [17,48,49]. This study can provide a more
efficient and reliable tool for the research of pedestrian head-injury biomechanics and prevention of
injury due to car impact.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Development of CPCBM
2.1.1. Extraction of THUMS and TNO Pedestrian Models
Extraction of THUMS Pedestrian Model

The THUMS (Version 4.01) FE pedestrian model [4,5] consists of approximately 0.65 million nodes
and 2 million elements. The stature and weight of the model are 175 cm and 77 kg, respectively. From
the full-scale THUMS model, we extracted the head, neck, some one-dimensional elements connected
to the head and body, and the three thoracic vertebrae (T1–T3). The head–neck complex of the THUMS
model presents a detailed human anatomy structure, as shown in Figure 1a.
Extraction of TNO Pedestrian Model

The remaining parts of the CPCBM are taken from the TNO 50th percentile adult male pedestrian
model [3,31]. The full-scale TNO model has a stature and weight of 174 cm and 75.7 kg, respectively,
and it consists of 52 rigid bodies. We removed the ellipsoids (including head and neck) above the collar
of the TNO model and the remaining parts of the TNO pedestrian model for constructing the CPCBM,
which includes the torso, the upper and lower limbs, as shown in Figure 1b.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 4 Res.
Int. J. Environ. of 32Public Health 2020, 17,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 4 of 32
(a) (b)
Figure 1. (a) Extracted head–neck finite element (FE) model; (b) extracted pedestrian multibody Figure 1. (a) Extracted head–n
(a) (b)
model. model.
Figure 1.1. (a)
Figure (a)Extracted
Extractedhead–neck
head–neck finite
finite element
element (FE)(FE) model;
model; (b) extracted
(b) extracted pedestrian
pedestrian multibody
multibody model.
2.1.2.model.
Coupling of Finite Element and Multibody Parts of the CPCBM 2.1.2. Coupling of Finite Element
2.1.2. Coupling of Finite Element and Multibody Parts of the CPCBM
With the head–neck complex of the THUMS model and the remaining body parts of With the theTNO head–neck comple
2.1.2.With
Couplingthe of Finite Element
head–neck and Multibody Parts of the CPCBM
model (see Section 2.1.1), complex
the full-scale of the THUMS
CPCBM canmodel
be builtand the coupling
in the remaining body parts
assistant moduleof the TNO
available
model (see Section 2.1.1), the full-
model (seethe
With
in MADYMO Section 2.1.1), package
head–neck
software the full-scale
complex CPCBM
of the
[47]. THUMS
It should canbemodel
benoted
builtand
in
thatthe
the coupling
remaining
some assistant
auxiliary body module
parts
processing available
of on
in MADYMOthethe TNO FEsoftware package
in MADYMO
model (see software
Section 2.1.1), package
the [47].
full-scale It
CPCBMshould canbe noted
be built
head–neck model before the coupling procedure needs to be performed so that the head–neckthat
in thesome auxiliary
coupling processing
assistant module on the
available
FE parts can FEbe before the cou
model
head–neck
in MADYMO
reasonably model
connectedbefore
software withthethe
package coupling
MB[47]. Itprocedure
parts.should beneeds
For example, notedto be
theperformed
inthat some auxiliary
isolated so that
head–neck the FE
processing
model, parts
on
onethe
reasonably can
end be
FEof
connected with the M
reasonably
head–neck connected
model
the FE one-dimensional before withthe the MB (such
coupling
elements parts. For
procedure
as the example,
needs toinbe
line-shaped the isolated around
performed
elements head–neck the model,
so that the FE parts
neck, one
can
Figure end
be
2a,
the FE one-dimensional elemen
of the FE one-dimensional
reasonably
representing connected
the neckwith elements
the MB
muscles) that (such
parts.
are For as example,
the line-shaped
originally elements
in the isolated
connected around
to the head–neck
FE upperthe neck,
model,
torso and Figure
one end2a,
shoulder
representing of
the neck muscles)
representing
the
become freethe
FE one-dimensionalneck
ends. muscles)
These free that
elements endsare originally
(such
cannot asbethe connected
line-shaped
directly to the
connected FEtoupper
elements thearoundtorso
rigid and
the shoulder
bodies neck, become
Figure
(clavicle r 2a,
body,
become free ends. These free end
free
torsoends.
representing
up bodyThese free
theandneck ends
clavicle cannot
muscles) l body), be directly
that arethe
so connected
originally
block to the
connected
elements arerigid
to the
created bodies
FE (clavicle
upper
(the bluetorso rtorso
body,
and up
elements torso
shoulder
in the
body up
redand clavicle l bod
body
become and
circles infreeclavicle
ends.2a)
Figure l body),
Theseand free so the
free ends block
ends cannot elements
(they are be divided are created
directly intoconnected (the blue elements
to the rigid
three groups in
bodieson
depending the red
(clavicle circles
their in
circles r Figure
body,
locations in 2a) and free end
Figure
torso up
relative2a)to and
bodythe free
and
block ends (they
clavicle
elements) are
aredivided
l body), so the into
connected tothree
block groups
elements
the three are
blockdepending
created
elements onvia
(the their
blue locations
elements
rigid relative
in the
connection.
relative toblock elements) ar
red
toDirect
the
the block
circles in elements)
Figure 2a) are
andconnected
free ends to the
(they three
are block
divided elements
connection between the block elements and the upper torso and shoulder bodies (seeinto three via rigid
groups connection.
depending Direct
on theirconnection
locations
the markers
connection “
between the block ele
between
relative thethe
to
” in Figure block
block
2a, elements
elements)
including and
thearethe
upper upper
connected
torsotorso
andtoandtwoshoulder
the three block
clavicles) bodies (see
elements
via the the
viamarkers “ ”” in
rigid connection.
“Constraints MADYMO FigureDirect
Body”2a,
in Figure 2a, including the up
including
keyword the
connection in upper
between torso
the
the coupling and
block two clavicles)
elements
assistant and the
module viainupper
the
the“Constraints MADYMO
torso and shoulder
MADYMO softwarebodies Body”
package(seekeyword
the markers
are
keyword createdin
inthe “ coupling assist
to
the
coupling
implement assistant
” in Figurethe module
2a,coupling
includingofthe in the MADYMO
theupper software
torso andcomplex
FE head–neck package
two clavicles)
with the are created
viaremaining to
the “Constraints implement
MADYMO
MB segments the coupling
of the
implement Body”
TNO
the coupling of the FE
of the FE head–neck
keyword
pedestrian inmodel.
the coupling
Thecomplex
coupling with
assistant the remaining
module
procedure in the
is shown MBin segments
Figure 2a,ofand
MADYMO thethe
TNO
software pedestrian
package
full-scale are
CPCBM model.
created
is The
shown
pedestrian model. to The coupling p
coupling
in Figureprocedure
implement the coupling
2b. is shown
of theinFE Figure 2a, andcomplex
head–neck the full-scale
with theCPCBM is shown
remaining MBin Figure
segments 2b.
of the
in Figure 2b. TNO
pedestrian model. The coupling procedure is shown in Figure 2a, and the full-scale CPCBM is shown
in Figure 2b.
(a) (b)
Figure2.2. (a)
Figure (a) Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram of
of the
the coupling
coupling process;
process; (b)
(b) the
the full-scale
full-scale coupled
coupledpedestrian
pedestrian
Figure 2. (a) Schematic diagr
(a) (b)
computationalbiomechanics
computational biomechanicsmodel
model(CPCBM).
(CPCBM). computational biomechanics m
Figure 2. (a) Schematic diagram of the coupling process; (b) the full-scale coupled pedestrian
computational biomechanics model (CPCBM).
2.2. Validation of the CPCBM
2.2.1. Description of Cadaver Tests

Three cadaver impact tests from the literature were selected for the validation of the CPCBM
[17,48,49]; the details of the PMHSs are listed in Table 1. The subjects were initially positioned in a
nominal mid-gait stance with the left foot forward and right foot behind, and were oriented so that
they were struck laterally on the subject’s right side. The arms were positioned with the hands crossed
in front of the abdomen and bound at the wrist with the cable ties (for test V2374, the upper extremities
were bound together at the point of amputation). For each subject, the initial position was adjusted
following the positioning guidelines described in SAE J2782. During the test, the impact buck was
accelerated to a target impact velocity of approximate 40 km/h, at which it contacted the pedestrian [17].
Table 1. Anthropometries and injuries of the tested subjects.
Test No. Age Gender Height (mm) Weight (kg) Cause of Death
V2370 73 male 1795 72.6 Heart Failure
V2371 54 male 1870 81.6 Colon Cancer
V2374 1 67 male 1780 78 COPD 2
1 This subject had its distal upper extremities amputated bilaterally at the mid-forearm; 2 Chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease.
According to Wu et al. [17], a large amount of motion information from the head to the lower
extremities of the subjects was recorded from the tests, including various anatomical positions (head,
thoracic T1 and T8, pelvis, left and right femur, etc.). Since the attention of our study focused on the
head responses of the CPCBM, only the subject’s head-related experimental data (including trajectory,
displacement, velocity, acceleration) was used for the validation work.
2.2.2. Modelling of the Impact Buck

The impact buck utilized in the cadaver tests was based on the sedan-type vehicle,
which demonstrated a good pedestrian protection rating [50]. By using MADYMO software, an MB
impact buck was built according to the detailed dimensions and the stiffness curves of the buck
components described in the literature [50]. In order to simulate the impact between the FE head of
the CPCBM and the windshield of the buck, we added an FE buck windshield to the buck model;
the stress–strain curve of this FE windshield model was also from the literature [50]. Similarly, the
FE windshield was also coupled with the MB impact buck in the same way the finite elements of the
head–neck FE model and the rigid bodies of the MB model (of the remaining segments of the pedestrian)
was connected during the coupling procedure of the CPCBM pedestrian model (see Section 2.1.2). The
details of the impact buck model can be seen in Appendix A.
2.2.3. Setting Up the Impact Simulation Between the Buck and PMHSs
Model Scaling and the Initial Posture Adjustment

The subjects’ biomechanical responses were found to be substantially influenced by their pre-impact
posture and anthropometry [15,51]. In order to reduce the anthropometric differences between the
CPCBM and the subjects, we scaled the TNO 50th percentile adult male pedestrian model to match
the subjects in the tests, by defining detailed anthropometric parameters in the MADYSCALE
module available in the MADYMO software package [31]. These signals are derived from the actual
measurement data of the three subjects in the tests (see Table 2). Although the scaled TNO models are
already similar to the tested subjects, some minor differences still exist between the scaled models and
subjects. For example, the shoulder height of all the scaled TNO models is about 20 ± 5 mm smaller
than those of the subjects, and the crotch width of the scaled models is about 25 ± 5 mm smaller than
those of the subjects. Therefore, according to the actual anthropometric parameters, we appropriately
double-adjusted the scaled TNO models. Afterward, following the reported information about the
pre-crash posture of the subjects [49], the scaled TNO models were positioned by comparing the
marking points between the scaled TNO models and the subjects (Figure 3). Finally, the subject-specific
full-scale CPCBMs were created based on the scaled TNO models, following the coupling procedure in
Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.
Table 2. Subjects anthropometry parameters used to scale in MADYSCALE.
No. Body Parameters Unit V2370 TNO2370 V2371 TNO2371 V2374 TNO2374
1 Weight kg 72.6 72.6 81.6 81.6 78.0 78.0
2 Standing height mm 1795.0 1795.0 1870.0 1870.0 1780.0 1780.0
3 Shoulder height 1 mm 1555.0 1534.2 1620.0 1611.8 1550.0 1553.2
4 Armpit height mm 1400.0 1434.1 1470.0 1498.9 1400.0 1139.3
5 Waist height mm 1090.0 1128.1 1123.0 1163.2 1070.0 1125.6
6 Seated height mm 957.2 949.8 1037.2 1029.5 970.0 964.4
7 Head length mm 185.0 185.6 205.0 195.6 198.0 181.1
8 Head breadth mm 161.0 156.6 157.0 153.4 158.0 154.2
9 Head to chin height 1 mm 208.5 226.9 238.5 237.4 228.0 225.9
10 Neck circumference mm 452.0 408.2 352.0 395.6 445.0 398.6
11 Shoulder breadth mm 393.0 389.5 404.0 403.5 381.0 367.3
12 Chest depth mm 234.0 243.9 208.0 218.6 225.0 249.6
13 Chest breadth mm 321.0 316.8 330.0 341.7 293.0 298.4
14 Waist depth mm 180.0 179.8 190.0 201.1 190.0 199.2
15 Waist breadth mm 313.0 296.6 360.0 348.8 321.6 298.3
16 Buttock depth mm 228.9 214.5 237.2 232.2 240.5 237.9
17 Hip breadth, standing 1 mm 345.5 339.0 345.5 368.4 310.0 328.8
18 Shoulder to elbow length mm 390.0 388.2 370.0 356.2 355.0 356.7
19 Forearm-hand length mm 487.0 463.2 500.0 488.7 451.0 446.3
20 Biceps circumference mm 247.0 301.4 265.0 282.6 275.0 301.4
21 Elbow circumference mm 239.0 219.8 254.0 250.6 258.0 219.8
22 Forearm circumference mm 226.0 229.2 233.0 241.4 210.7 232.3
23 Wrist circumference mm 165.0 148.2 175.0 167.8 165.0 144.4
24 Knee height, seated mm 585.0 569.8 570.0 522.7 565.0 553.8
25 Thigh circumference mm 499.0 414.5 530.0 496.1 510.0 496.1
26 Upper leg circumference mm 395.0 376.8 362.0 401.9 415.0 414.5
27 Knee circumference mm 349.0 332.4 380.0 376.8 386.0 345.4
28 Calf circumference mm 334.0 314.3 305.0 332.8 327.0 364.2
29 Ankle circumference mm 190.0 257.5 245.0 282.6 238.0 282.6
30 Ankle height, outside mm 92.0 102.3 90.0 101.6 88.0 97.6
31 Foot breadth mm 90.0 99.8 87.0 108.2 86.0 102.9
32 Foot length mm 238.0 241.5 238.0 254.4 198.0 217.7
33 Hand breadth 1 mm 88.6 89.5 88.6 93.6 89.1 96.6
34 Hand length 1 mm 192.1 187.5 192.1 188.6 191.6 182.3
35 Hand depth 1 mm 27.4 28.1 27.4 30.4 27.6 30.3
1 This parameter was not given in Forman et al. [49], but it is essential for the scale process. This parameter
was calculated by another scale process where only height and weight of the samples were used to scale the
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) 50th percentile adult male pedestrian model into
the target models.
Buck–Pedestrian Impact Modelling

In simulations, the global positions and the coordinate systems of the head model COG were
set to be consistent with those of the subjects at the pre-collision stage. The motion direction of the
impact buck as well as the positions and orientation of the coordinate systems in the simulation are
shown in Figure 4. Similar to the tests, the simulation duration is 200 ms, starting from when the
lower extremity of the CPCBM initially contacts the front of the impact buck. Following the previous
study [2,17], the friction coefficients between the human model and the impact buck, and between the
human model and the road surface are set to 0.3 and 0.6, respectively.
During the simulation using the CPCBM, both of the LS-DYNA solver (SMP971, LSTC, Livermore,
CA, USA) and the MADYMO workplace (Version 7.5, TASS BV, Helmond, The Nether lands) were
invoked
Int. J.by the coupling
Environ. assistant
Res. Public Health module
2020, 17, x from the MADYMO software package, and the FE 7head–neck
of 32
model and MB model (of the remaining segments of the pedestrian) were executed simultaneously
the FE head–neck model and MB model (of the remaining segments of the pedestrian) were executed
using the LS-DYNA FE code and MADYMO MB code.
simultaneously using the LS-DYNA FE code and MADYMO MB code.
(a)
(b)
FigureFigure 3. Postures
3. Postures over-plotted
over-plotted withVicon
with Viconmarker
marker positions
positionsfrom
fromthe experiments
the experiments(aligned with with
(aligned the the
pelvis position with the model in the background) in case V2370, case V2370, and case V2374 [17]: (a)
pelvis position with the model in the background) in case V2370, case V2370, and case V2374 [17]:
Y-Z plan; (b) X-Z plan.
(a) Y-Z plan; (b) X-Z plan.
Figure
Figure4.4.Initial
Initialcondition
conditionofofthe
thebuck–-pedestrian
buck—pedestrianimpact
impactsimulation.
simulation.
2.2.4.Objective
2.2.4. ObjectiveRating
RatingTool
ToolCorrelation
Correlationand
andAnalysis
Analysis(CORA)
(CORA)
Here,the
Here, theobjective
objectiverating
ratingtool
toolcorrelation
correlationand
andanalysis
analysisCORA
CORA[52][52]was
wasused
usedtotoquantitatively
quantitatively
evaluate the correlation of the analyzed head response signals between the predictions ofofboth
evaluate the correlation of the analyzed head response signals between the predictions boththe
the
adjustedTNO
adjusted TNOmodel
modeland
andthe
theCPCBM,
CPCBM,and andtested
testedPMHSs
PMHSs[17];[17];such
suchaamethod
methodhas hasbeen
beenused
usedininsimilar
similar
studies[53,54].
studies [53,54].The
Theobjective
objectiverating
ratingtool
toolCORA
CORAusesusestwotwoindependent
independentsub-ratings:
sub-ratings:aacorridor
corridorrating
rating
and cross-correlation rating to assess the correlation of two signals. The rating score was calculated
and cross-correlation rating to assess the correlation of two signals. The rating score was calculated by
taking
by a weighted
taking a weightedaverage of these
average twotwo
of these independent sub-ratings.
independent ThisThis
sub-ratings. rating method
rating outputs
method a score
outputs a
ranging from 0 (no correlation) to 1 (perfect match).
score ranging from 0 (no correlation) to 1 (perfect match).
3.3.Results
Results
3.1. Comparison of Kinematic Response

The comparisons of the pedestrian’s overall motion between the simulation and the experimental
The comparisons of the pedestrian’s overall motion between the simulation and the
measurements are shown in Figure 5, with the test V2370 as an example. It appears that the predicted
experimental measurements are shown in Figure 5, with the test V2370 as an example. It appears that
kinematics using both the TNO model and CPCBM match well with the experimental results. The
the predicted kinematics using both the TNO model and CPCBM match well with the experimental
similar comparisons of tests V2371 and V2374 can be found in Appendix B.
results. The similar comparisons of tests V2371 and V2374 can be found in Appendix B.
The trajectory, displacement, and resultant velocity relative to the impact buck, and resultant
acceleration time histories of the head COG, calculated with the two pedestrian models (TNO and
CPCBM) were also compared with the experimental results, taking the test V2370 as an example again,
as shown in Figure 6. From the comparison of the displacement (Figure 6a–c), we can see that in
Y/Z directions both the TNO model and CPCBM well-predict the motion of the subject’s head COG
observed in the experiment, which can also be seen in the comparison of the head COG’s trajectory in
the YOZ plane (Figure 6d). In terms of the resultant velocity relative to the sedan buck (Figure 6e),
the difference of head impact velocity between the experiment and simulation is small, particularly
for tests V2370 and V2371 (see Appendix C). A similar phenomenon can be observed in the resultant
acceleration of the pedestrian head COG (see Figure 6f). Similar comparisons for tests V2371 and
V2374 are shown in Appendix C.
The correlation scores between the predictions using the TNO pedestrian model and CPCBM,
and the experimental results were analyzed via the CORA method, shown in Table 3. As can be seen
(a)
the TNO model and CPCBM both poorly predicted the head X direction displacement of each subject
in the test. Especially, for test V2374, the Scora between the simulation and experiment in X-direction
displacement are the worst. But we found that the analyzed correlations between the CPCBM and
the test regarding the head displacement in Y and Z direction (CORA ratings: Y = 0.99 ± 0.01;
Z = 0.98 ± 0.01), the resultant velocity relative to the sedan buck (CORA ratings: 0.85 ± 0.05), and the
resultant acceleration (CORA ratings: 0.77 ± 0.06), are acceptable. Besides, the result of CORA ratings
between the TNO model and the test are very close to the ratings of the CPCBM (Table 3 and Figure 7).
3. Results

The comparisons of the pedestrian’s overall motion between the simulation and the
experimental measurements are shown in Figure 5, with the test V2370 as an example. It appears that
the predicted kinematics using both the TNO model and CPCBM match well with the experimental
results. The similar comparisons of tests V2371 and V2374 can be found in Appendix B.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x (a) 9 of 32
(b)
Figure 5. Overall kinematics comparison for test V2370 [17] between the TNO model, CPCBM, and
the experimental data: (a) posterior view, (b) superior view.
The trajectory, displacement, and resultant velocity relative to the impact buck, and resultant
CPCBM) were also compared with the experimental results, taking the test V2370 as an example
again, as shown in Figure 6. From the comparison of the displacement (Figure 6a–c), we can see that
in Y/Z directions both the TNO model and CPCBM well-predict the motion of the subject’s head COG
observed in the experiment, which can also be seen in the comparison of the head COG’s trajectory
in the YOZ plane (Figure 6d). In terms of the resultant (b) velocity relative to the sedan buck (Figure 6e),
the difference
Figure of head
5. Overall impact
kinematics velocity between
comparison the experiment and the
simulation is small, particularly
Figure 5. Overall kinematics comparison forfortest
testV2370
V2370 [17]between
[17] between TNO model,
the TNO model,CPCBM,
CPCBM,and and the
for tests V2370 and V2371 (see Appendix C). A similar phenomenon
the experimental data: (a) posterior view, (b) superior view. can be observed in the resultant
experimental data: (a) posterior view, (b) superior view.
acceleration of the pedestrian head COG (see Figure 6f). Similar comparisons for tests V2371 and
V2374 aretrajectory,
The shown in Appendix
displacement,C. and resultant velocity relative to the impact buck, and resultant
120 Experiment 2000 Experiment
CPCBM) were also compared with the experimental results, taking the test V2370 as an example
Head position-Y (mm)
TNO model TNO model

Head position-X (mm)
again, as shown in Figure

CPCBM6.model
From the comparison of the1500
displacement
CPCBM (Figure
model 6a–c), we can see that
60
in Y/Z directions both the TNO model and CPCBM well-predict the motion of the subject’s head COG
observed in0 the experiment, which can also be seen in1000
the comparison of the head COG’s trajectory
in the YOZ plane (Figure 6d). In terms of the resultant velocity relative to the sedan buck (Figure 6e),
the difference
-60 of head impact velocity between the experiment
500 and simulation is small, particularly
for tests V2370 and V2371 (see Appendix C). A similar phenomenon can be observed in the resultant
-120 of the pedestrian head COG (see Figure 6f).
acceleration 0 Similar comparisons for tests V2371 and
0 60 120 180 0 60 120 180
V2374 are shown in Appendix C.
Time (ms) Time (ms)
(a) (b)
120 Experiment 2000
1800 Experiment
-1000 Experiment
(mm)
TNO model TNO model

(mm)
TNO model
(mm)
(mm)
60 CPCBM model 1500 CPCBM model

-1200 CPCBM model
position-Y
position-X
1500
position-Z
Headposition-Z
0 1000
-1400
-60 1200
500 Experiment
Head
-1600
Head
Head
TNO model
-120 0 CPCBM model
0
-1800
0
60 120
60Time (ms) 120
180
180 900 0 60 120 180
0 600Time (ms)1200 1800
Time (ms) Head position-Y (mm)
(a) (b)
-1000 (c) 1800 (d)
Experiment
TNO model
Head position-Z (mm)
Head position-Z (mm)
-1200 CPCBM model Figure 6. Cont.

1500
-1400
1200 Experiment
-1600 TNO model
CPCBM model
-1800 900
0 60 120 180 0 600 1200 1800
Time (ms) Head position-Y (mm)
(c) (d)

20 300 Experiment
Head relative velocity (m/s)

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x TNO model 10 of 32
(g)
15 CPCBM model
Head acceleration
20 300
200 Experiment

TNO model
(g)
10 15 CPCBM model
Head acceleration
Experiment 200
100
5 10 TNO model
CPCBM model
Experiment 100
0 5 TNO model 0
0 60
CPCBM model120 180 0 60 120 180
Time (ms) Time (ms)
0 0
0 60(e) 120 180 0 60 (f) 120 180
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Figure 6. Comparisons of (e) analyzed responses for test V2370 [17] between (f) the TNO model, CPCBM
and the experimental
Figure data:
6. Comparisons (a) the
of analyzedhead center
responses of gravity (COG) displacement in X direction, (b) the
Figure 6. Comparisons of analyzed responses forfortest
testV2370
V2370[17]
[17]between
between the
the TNO
TNO model,
model, CPCBM
CPCBM and
head and
COG thedisplacement in Y (a)
experimental data: direction,
the head(c) the head
center COG
of gravity displacement
(COG) in Zindirection,
displacement X direction,(d)
(b)the
thehead
the experimental data: (a) the head center of gravity (COG) displacement in X direction, (b) the head
COG head
trajectory in the YOZ plane,
COG displacement (e) The head
in Y direction, (c) theCOG
headresultant velocity relative
COG displacement to the (d)
in Z direction, impact buck, (f)
the head
COG displacement in Y direction, (c) the head COG displacement in Z direction, (d) the head COG
the head
COGCOG resultant
trajectory in theacceleration.
YOZ plane, (e) The head COG resultant velocity relative to the impact buck, (f)
trajectory in the YOZ plane, (e) The head COG resultant velocity relative to the impact buck, (f) the
the head COG resultant acceleration.
head COG resultant acceleration.
the TNO model
Table 3.and CPCBM
Detailed CORA both poorly
rating scorespredicted the head
(Scora ) between X direction
simulations anddisplacement of each subject
experimental results.
the TNO model and CPCBM both poorly predicted the head X direction displacement of each subject
in theintest. Especially, for test V2374,
the test. Especially, for test Test V2374,
the Scora between thesimulation
the Scora between theTest
simulationand and experiment
experimentTest
in X-direction
in X-direction
V2370 V2371 V2374
Signal
displacement are the
displacement are the TNOworst. But
worst. we
But we
& Test
found
found
CPCBM
that
& that
the
Test the
analyzed
analyzed
TNO
correlations
& Test correlations
between
CPCBM & Testbetween
TNO &the
the CPCBM
TestCPCBM
CPCBMand
and
& Test
the test regarding
theDisplacement-X the head
test regarding the head displacement
displacement
0.388
in Y and Z direction
in Y and Z direction
0.397 0.479
(CORA
(CORA ratings: Y
ratings: Y =0.244
0.507
= 0.99 ± 0.01;
0.99 ± 0.01; Z 0.297Z
= 0.98= 0.98
± 0.01), the resultant
Displacement-Y
± 0.01), velocity
the resultant relative
0.977
velocity relativetotothe
thesedan
0.998 sedan buck (CORAratings:
0.973
buck (CORA ratings: 0.85
0.968 0.85 ± 0.05),
andand
0.989
± 0.05), the0.997
resultant
the resultant
Displacement-Z 0.996 0.965 0.956 0.979 0.990 0.999
acceleration (CORA
acceleration (CORAratings:
Resultant relative velocity
0.77
ratings:
0.932
±
0.77 0.06),
± 0.06), are
are
0.840
acceptable.
acceptable. Besides,
Besides,
0.921
the
the result
result
0.924
of of
CORACORA
0.821
ratings
ratings between
between
0.808
the TNO
the TNO model
Resultant model
andand
accelerationthethe
testtest
areare
0.739 veryclose
very close totothe
0.759 the ratings
ratings
0.780of
ofthe
theCPCBM
0.825 (Table
CPCBM (Table3 and
3 and
0.651 Figure 7). 0.717
Figure 7).
TNO & test CPCBM & test

1 TNO & test CPCBM & test
1
0.8
Average CORA rating
0.8
Average CORA rating
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
Displacement X Displacement Y Displacement Z Resultant rel ative Resultant
velocity accelerati on
0
Displacement X Displacement Y Displacement Z Resultant rel ative Resultant
velocity accelerati on
Figure 7. Average correlation and analysis (CORA) ratings of the correlations between the
experimental results and the simulations using the TNO model and CPCBM, for all the analyzed
7. Average
Figure 7.
Figure Averagecorrelation
signals.
andand
correlation analysis (CORA)
analysis ratings ratings
(CORA) of the correlations between thebetween
of the correlations experimental
the
results and theresults
experimental simulations using
and the the TNOusing
simulations modelthe andTNO
CPCBM, forand
model all the analyzed
CPCBM, for signals.
all the analyzed
signals. Table 3. Detailed CORA rating scores (Scora) between simulations and experimental results.
3.2. Comparison of Injury Prediction
Test V2370 Test V2371 Test V2374
Table Signal
3. Detailed CORA rating cora) between
scoresinjury,
(STest simulations and experimental results.
For the experimental data
TNO & on theCPCBM
Test head & only&head
TNO Test injury &
CPCBM criterion
Test TNOHIC 15 was
& Test reported
CPCBM & Test in the
Displacement-X
literature [17]. 0.388
Thus, we also compared the0.397
HIC of 0.479
PMHSs with 0.507
those of the0.244
TNO model0.297
and CPCBM
Displacement-Y Test V2370 0.998 15
0.977 0.973 Test V2371
0.968 0.989 Test V2374
0.997
Signal
from the simulations
Displacement-Z(Figure 6).
TNO &0.996TestIn CPCBM
addition, we also
& Test
0.965 TNO introduced
& Test CPCBM
0.956 the &predicted
0.979 0.990HIC
Test TNO 15 by
& Test the full-scale
CPCBM
0.999 & Test
THUMS Displacement-X
FE pedestrian
Resultant model
relative velocity 0.388used by Wu
0.932 0.397 0.479
et al. [17] 0.921
0.840 as a reference 0.507
(Figure 8).
0.924 0.244 predicted
The
0.821 0.808 0.297
HIC15 of
Resultant acceleration 0.739 0.759 0.780
TNODisplacement-Y
model in three tests are 0.977
all close to 0.998
each subject suffered. 0.825
0.973 0.968
However, 0.651
the predicted0.717
0.989
HIC0.997
15 of the
Displacement-Z 0.996 0.965 0.956 0.979 0.990 0.999
CPCBM in test V2371
Resultant relative velocity is slightly
0.932 smaller than
0.840 the subject
0.921 suffered in
0.924 experiment,
0.821 which has
0.808closely
associated with the
Resultant acceleration difference of
0.739 its initial posture
0.759 and anthropometric
0.780 0.825 parameters.0.651The THUMS 0.717model
predicted HIC15 are closer with the subject in tests V2370 and V2371, but there is also a big difference
in test V2374.
full-scale THUMS FE pedestrian model used by Wu et al. [17] as a reference (Figure 8). The predicted
HIC15 of TNO model in three tests are all close to each subject suffered. However, the predicted HIC15
of the CPCBM in test V2371 is slightly smaller than the subject suffered in experiment, which has
closely associated
3.2. Comparison with Prediction
of Injury the difference of its initial posture and anthropometric parameters. The
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
THUMS model predicted HIC Health 17,are
2020, 15 492closer with the subject in tests V2370 and V2371, but there is
11 also
of 32
For the experimental
a big difference in test V2374. data on the head injury, only head injury criterion HIC 15 was reported in
the literature [17]. Thus, we also compared the HIC15 of PMHSs with those of the TNO model and
CPCBM from the simulations (Figure 6). In addition, we also introduced the predicted HIC15 by the
full-scale THUMS FE pedestrian model used by Wu et al. [17] as a reference (Figure 8). The predicted
HIC15 of TNO model in three tests are all close to each subject suffered. However, the predicted HIC15
of the CPCBM in test V2371 is slightly smaller than the subject suffered in experiment, which has
closely associated with the difference of its initial posture and anthropometric parameters. The
THUMS model predicted HIC15 are closer with the subject in tests V2370 and V2371, but there is also
a big difference in test V2374.
Figure 8.
8. Head
Head injury
injury criterion
criterion 15
15 (HIC
(HIC15 ) recorded in the experiment and obtained from different
Figure 15 ) recorded in the experiment and obtained from different
human models in the simulatio
human models in the simulation. n.
3.3. Calculation Efficiency of the Human Body Models

The calculation efficiency of a human human body body computational
computational biomechanics model in predicting
human injury was rarely mentioned in the literature. In In our
our study,
study, the time efficiency of the currently
twopedestrian
used two pedestrian models
models (the(the full-scale
full-scale MB TNO MB pedestrian
TNO pedestrian model and model and the were
the CPCBM) CPCBM) were
compared
compared
and and by
evaluated evaluated
simulating by simulating
the same typicalthe same typical car-to-pedestrian
car-to-pedestrian impact scenario impact scenario
(Figure 9) at(Figure
40 km/h9)
Figure 8. Head injury criterion 15 (HIC15) recorded in the experiment and obtained from different
at 40human
lastingkm/h
240 ms lasting
using240 a PCmswith
using
models in the simulation.
a PC
8-core i7 with 8-coreCore).
CPU (Intel i7 CPU (Intel
Since theCore). Since thedisadvantage
time efficiency time efficiency of
disadvantage
the full-scale FE of the
model full-scale FE model was
was well-known [25],well-known
the THUMS[25], the THUMS
pedestrian model pedestrian
was also modelincluded wasinalso
the
included
comparison in the
3.3. Calculation comparison
(seeEfficiency
Table 4).ofInthe (see
order Table
Human 4). In
to ensure
Body order
the
Models to ensure the
comparability comparability
of the results of the of models,
the results theof the
mass
models,percentage
scaling the mass scalingof all FEpercentage
models were of all FE models
limited to 2%, andwerehourglass
limited to 2%, and
control hourglass
algorithms were control
used
to Thethe
algorithms
keep calculation
were
ratio ofused efficiency
to keep energy
hourglass of ratio
the a human
toof bodyenergy
thehourglass
total computational
energy
lessto thanthebiomechanics
total as
10%, energy
per the model
less thanin10%,predicting
recommendations as per
human
the
of Yang injury
and Kingwas [55].
recommendations rarely mentioned
ofFrom
Yang the in the
andcomparison
King literature.
[55]. From
shown In
the inour study,
comparison
Table 4, itthe time
shown
can efficiency
be seenin Table
that the 4,ofitthe
cancurrently
TNO be seen
model
used
shows two
that the pedestrian
TNO model
extremely models
high shows (the
extremely
computational full-scale MB TNO
high computational
efficiency, pedestrian
and the full-scale efficiency, model
FE model and and the
the full-scale
requires CPCBM)
significantly were
FE model
more
compared
requires
computation andtime
evaluated
significantly than more byothers.
the simulating
computation It is thetime
not same typical
than
surprising car-to-pedestrian
the that
others.
the It impact
is not surprising
CPCBM takes far scenario
thattime
less the(Figure
CPCBM
than the9)
at 40 km/h
takes far model.
THUMS lasting
less timeInthan 240 ms using
the THUMS
addition, a PC
model.
it is worth with 8-core
In addition,
mentioning i7 CPU
thatitthe (Intel
is worth
CPCBM Core).
mentioning Since the time
that the CPCBM
takes substantially efficiency
less timetakes
for
disadvantage
substantially
model of
scalingless
and the
time full-scale
for model
repositioning FEthan
model
scalingthewas
and
THUMS well-known
model,[25],
repositioning asthanthetorso
the THUMS
the THUMS pedestrian
model, as
and upper/lower model was and
the torso
extremities also
of
included
upper/lower
the CPCBM in model
the comparison
extremities of the
were taken (see Table
CPCBM
from 4).
MBInpedestrian
the model order
were to ensure
taken fromthe
model. thecomparability
MB pedestrian ofmodel.
the results of the
models, the mass scaling percentage of all FE models were limited to 2%, and hourglass control
algorithms wereTable used 4.toComparison
keep the ratio ofcomputation
of the hourglass energy to thebytotal
time needed energy
different less than 10%, as per
models.
the recommendations of Yang and King [55]. From the comparison shown in Table 4, it can be seen
that the TNOModel modelType shows extremely Impact high
Duration Calculation
computational Time
efficiency, and the Solver
full-scale FE model
Full-scale TNOmore
requires significantly modelcomputation 240 mstime than the others. 1 min It is not surprising MADYMO that the CPCBM
takes farFull-scale
less timeTHUMSthan the model
THUMS model. 240 msIn addition, it is 42worth
h mentioning LS-DYNA
that the CPCBM takes
CPCBM 240 ms 7.5 h LS-DYNA & MADYMO
substantially less time for model scaling and repositioning than the THUMS model, as the torso and
upper/lower extremities of the CPCBM model were taken from the MB pedestrian model.
(a)
(a)
Figure 9. Cont.
(b)
(c)
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Initial
Initialconditions
conditionsof
of car-to-pedestrian
car-to-pedestrian impact
impact scenarios:
scenarios: (a)
(a)full-scale
full-scaleTNO
TNOmultibody
multibody(MB)
(MB)
pedestrian
pedestrian model,
model, (b)
(b) CPCBM,
CPCBM, (c)
(c) full-scale
full-scale Total
Total Human
Human Model
Model for
for Safety
Safety (THUMS)
(THUMS) finite
finite element
element
(FE)
(FE) pedestrian
pedestrian model.
model.
4. Discussion Table 4. Comparison of the computation time needed by different models.
Modeland
4.1. Model Scaling Type ImpactAdjustment
the Initial Posture Duration Calculation Time Solver
Full-scale TNO model 240 ms 1 min MADYMO
The anthropometric parameters and initial posture of the pedestrian have significant influence on
Full-scale THUMS model 240 ms 42 h LS-DYNA
the predicted head kinematics and injury response [15,51], so the pedestrian model scaling and initial
CPCBM 240 ms 7.5 h LS-DYNA & MADYMO
posture adjustment are important for accurately reproducing head responses in the simulation. In this
study, the full-scale TNO pedestrian model was firstly scaled and adjusted following the anthropometry
4. Discussion
and initial posture of the tested PMHSs, and then used to form the CPCBM with the combination of
FE THUMS
4.1. head–neck
Model Scaling and thecomplex. Although
Initial Posture the subjects’ main measurement signals are available [49],
Adjustment
some of the necessary parameters needed for scaling are still missing (see Table 2). In order to complete
The anthropometric
the scaling, these missing parameters
parameters and wereinitial
takenposture
from theofTNOthe pedestrian
50th percentile haveadult
significant influence
male pedestrian
on
model, which is believed to contribute to the differences between the adjusted TNO models andand
the predicted head kinematics and injury response [15,51], so the pedestrian model scaling the
initial
marked posture
pointsadjustment
of the subjectsare important
(Figure 3),for accurately
and may also reproducing head responses
cause a potential differenceinofthe simulation.
the predicted
In
headthismotion
study,by thethe
full-scale
scaled TNO TNOmodels
pedestrian
frommodel was firstly data.
the experimental scaledAnother
and adjusted
possiblefollowing the
explanation
anthropometry and initial posture of the tested PMHSs, and then used to form
of such a differences (Figure 3), may rely on the fact that, since the TNO model is a simplified MB the CPCBM with the
combination of FE THUMS head–neck complex. Although the subjects’ main
pedestrian model, which means the outer surfaces of all the bodies are composed of rigid ellipsoid, measurement signals
are
it isavailable [49], some
quite difficult of the necessary
to accurately parameters
find the points of theneeded for scaling
exact same locations areasstill
themissing
marker(see Table
points 2).
of the
In order to complete the scaling,
corresponding subjects (see Figure 3). these missing parameters were taken from the TNO 50th percentile
adult male pedestrian model, which is believed to contribute to the differences between the adjusted
4.2. Comparisons
TNO models and of the
the Dynamics Responses
marked points of the subjects (Figure 3), and may also cause a potential
difference of the predicted head motion by the scaled TNO models from the experimental data.
In the simulations of all the chosen PHMS tests, the overall motion responses of the CPCBM and
Another possible explanation of such a differences (Figure 3), may rely on the fact that, since the TNO
TNO models match well with the experimental results, however, it is obvious that both the CPCBM
model is a simplified MB pedestrian model, which means the outer surfaces of all the bodies are
and TNO models rebound off the bonnet of the impact buck earlier than the subjects. The separate
composed of rigid ellipsoid, it is quite difficult to accurately find the points of the exact same locations
times are basically the same: it can be found from the still captures of the motion responses (Figure 5
as the marker points of the corresponding subjects (see Figure 3).
and Appendix B) that the MB pedestrian separate with the bonnet at 135 ms, 138 ms, 141 ms when
simulating tests V2370, V2371, and V2374, respectively, while in experiments, the upper torso of
4.2. Comparisons of the Dynamics Responses
subjects keep in contact with the impact buck during the impact.
In thethe
Both simulations
CPCBM and of all
TNOthemodels
chosen predicted
PHMS tests, wellthe
theoverall motion of
head motions responses
the tested ofsubjects,
the CPCBM and
the head
TNO models match well with the experimental results, however, it is obvious
COG trajectories in the YOZ plane predicted using the CPCBM and TNO model are basically consistent that both the CPCBM
and
withTNO models rebound
the experimental off(see
results the Figure
bonnet 6ofandtheAppendix
impact buck earlierA8).
C Figure thanHowever,
the subjects. The separate
the differences in
times are basicallyof
the displacement thethesame:
headitCOGcan be found
were from the
observed still captures
between of the motion
the predictions of theresponses
CPCBM and (Figure
TNO 5
and Appendix B) that the MB pedestrian separate with the bonnet at 135 ms, 138 ms, 141 ms when
models and the experimental results in the X direction (see Figure 6a), which was also reflected by the
observation of the correlation evaluation CORA scores in Table 3. Specifically, the correlation evaluation
score Scora between the predictions of TNO model and CPCBM and the experimental results for test
V2374 are 0.244 and 0.297, respectively, and for tests V2370 and V2371, the scores are slightly higher
(see Table 3). The differences may be caused by three factors: first, there are slight differences in the
anthropometric parameters and the initial posture between the subject-specific TNO pedestrian models
and tested subjects, as described above; secondly, the TNO pedestrian model has a limited biofidelity;
lastly, as shown in the Table A1 in Appendix D, there are clear differences between head–neck systems
from the TNO model and the THUMS model. The moment of inertia of the head–neck systems scaled
from the TNO model according to the PMHSs tested in three chosen experiments are larger than the
THUMS head–neck model. These differences may potentially influence the head kinematics of the
pedestrian models.
Though both CPCBM and TNO models showed difference in overall motion and head kinematics
responses from the experimental results, the predictions of the two models for all the subjects are quite
close to each other (see Table 3, Figure 7, and Appendix C). Such similarity could be largely expected
since the main body regions except the head–neck complex of the CPCBM and TNO model are the
same. From this perspective, a particular emphasis could be paid on the observing the differences in
the predicted head kinematics between the CPCBM and the TNO pedestrian model by simulating
the same cadaver tests, for the evaluation of the reliability of the CPCBM. Specifically, Figure 7 shows
that the CORA ratings of the CPCBM and TNO model with the experimental results for a chosen test
are quite similar, and the head motion and trajectories predicted using the two models are almost the
same before the head-buck windshield contact (see Figure 6); the differences occur only when the head
rebounds off. Such differences possibly contribute to the differences in the neck stiffness between the
MB and FE human body models. The previous studies have already identified that the FE neck model
is softer than the real human neck [25].
4.3. Head Injury Prediction

As the available data in the literature about the cadaver head injuries was limited [17], only the
HIC15 was analyzed for the effectiveness evaluation of the head injury prediction of the CPCBM.
The comparison of HIC15 between the predictions using the different pedestrian models and the
test data shown in Figure 8 appears to indicate that the predictions by both the CPCBM and TNO
model generally agree with the experimental results, especially for tests V2371 and V2374. In addition,
the HIC15 values of the CPCBM and TNO model are also close to the THUMS model, except for the
test V2374. Overall, the CPCBM can reproduce HIC of the pedestrians used in the experiments [17].
4.4. Quantitative Evaluation Method CORA

In this paper, the total ratings (Scora ) for each type of signal (that include the head’s COG’s
trajectory, displacement, and resultant velocity relative to the sedan buck and resultant acceleration)
were calculated in Table 3, we can more objectively evaluate the correlation between the simulated
and the experimental signals. However, it should be noted that there are some shortcomings. For
example, the selection of the signal interval for evaluation and the setting of the weighting factors
of its two sub-ratings during the evaluation process would affect the predicted Scora . In the present
work, we used the start and end points of each signal as the endpoints of the signal evaluation interval,
and adjusted the default weighting factor to make the evaluation process stricter. The settings used in
each signal evaluation process are the same, and the details of all signals’ CORA evaluation process
are shown in Appendix E.
4.5. Limitations
There are some limitations existing in this work. Firstly, since the TNO multibody pedestrian
model does not represent the detailed human anatomic structure, it is difficult to exactly find the output
points corresponding to the subjects’ anatomical marking points (e.g., T1, T8, Tibia, etc.) from the TNO
model. Therefore, this paper didn’t analyze the differences in human body motion response between
the CPCBM and the subjects, and only analyzed the head motion response of the CPCBM. Secondly,
considering that the difference in body size between the PMHSs (the medium values in Table 5) in
the tests we used and the THUMS model (see Table 5) is not significant, and the specific data of the
heads of the cadavers were not reported [17,48,49], we did not scale the THUMS head–neck model
during the coupling procedure, which may influence the head kinematics responses of the CPCBM.
Finally, the brain injury prediction of the CPCBM is not reconfirmed in this work, due to the absence
of brain injury information about the PMHSs used in the tests we referenced [17,48,49], and the fact
that the THUMS head–neck model has already been validated in the literature in terms of brain injury
prediction [56–59]. However, further application of the CPCBM into real-world car-to-pedestrian
impact accident brain injury prediction evaluation is needed in the future.
Table 5. The comparison of anthropometry parameters between the subjects [17] we chose and the
THUMS model.
Parameter V2370 V2371 V2374 Mean ± Standard THUMS Model

Weight (kg) 72.6 81.6 78 77.4 ± 3.7 77
Height (cm) 179.5 187.0 187.0 181.5 ± 3.9 175
5. Conclusions
A new coupled pedestrian computational biomechanics model (CPCBM) was developed by
coupling existing commercial FE and MB pedestrian models, and the predicted head kinematics
and injury responses obtained by simulating three previously published cadaver impact tests were
compared with the experimental results for the validation of the CPCBM. Based on the results of the
current study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The comparative analysis and the correlation evaluation via the CORA method indicate that
the CPCBM can reasonably predict the head center of gravity (COG) kinematics and injury
response of the pedestrian due to car impact in the impact direction. The predicted trajectories in
the impact direction (YOZ plane) strongly agree with the experimental results (CORA ratings:
Y = 0.99 ± 0.01; Z = 0.98 ± 0.01); the resultant velocity relative to the impact buck correlates well
with the test data (CORA ratings: 0.85 ± 0.05); however, the correlation of the acceleration is less
strong (CORA ratings: 0.747 ± 0.06).
(2) The CPCBM performed quite similarly to the full-scale TNO multibody pedestrian model in
predicting the head COG kinematics and injury response of the tested subjects, which means the
CPCBM carried over the pedestrian kinematics prediction performance of the TNO model that
has been already widely verified, despite the replacement of the head–neck complex with the
FE model.
(3) Compared to the full-scale THUMS model, the CPCBM showed a remarkable advantage in the
time efficiency of the scaling, posture adjustment, and impact simulation computation when used
to calculate the pedestrian brain tissue level injury during a complex accident, which suggests
that the CPCBM may serve as an efficient tool for pedestrian head/brain injury research due to
car impact.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.W.; Data curation, G.L.; formal analysis, C.Y.; investigation, F.L.;
methodology, B.W.; resources, G.L.; supervision, F.W.; visualization, F.L.; writing – original draft, C.Y.; writing –
review & editing, F.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant numbers
51605407, 51805162.
Acknowledgments: Chao Yu would like to thank Arcady Dyskin from the University of Western Australia (UWA)
for making language corrections.
––review
review&
&editing,
editing,F.W.
F.W.All
Allauthors
authorshave
haveread
readand
andagreed
agreedto
tothe
thepublished
publishedversion
versionof
ofthe
themanuscript.
manuscript.
Funding:
Funding: This
This research
research was
was funded
funded by
by the
the National
National Natural
Natural Science
Science Foundation
Foundation of
of China,
China, grant
grant numbers
numbers
51605407, 51805162.
51605407, 51805162.
Acknowledgments:
Acknowledgments: Chao Chao Yu Yu would
would like
like to
to thank
thank Arcady
Arcady Dyskin
Dyskin from
from the
the University
University of
of Western
Western Australia
Australia
(UWA)
Int. J. for making
Environ. Res. language
Public Health corrections.
2020,
(UWA) for making language corrections. 17, 492 15 of 32
Conflicts
Conflictsof
ofInterest:
Interest:The
Theauthors
authorsdeclare
declareno
noconflict
conflictof
ofinterest.
interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix
Appendix A. A. Generic
Generic Sedan
Sedan Buck
Buck Model
Model
Appendix
The A Genericthe Sedan Buck Model
The outlines
outlines ofof the multibody
multibody generic
generic sedansedan buckbuck were
were extracted
extracted fromfrom thethe literature
literature [50],
[50], in
in
which
which detailed
The parameters
outlinesparameters
detailed and
of the multibody stiffness curves
genericcurves
and stiffness of
sedan buck the buck
of thewere were mentioned.
buckextracted So,
from the literature
were mentioned. we
So, we can can accurately
[50], in which
accurately
reproduce
detailed
reproduce the
the buck
parameters with
buckand rigid
rigid bodies
stiffness
with curves of
bodies thattheused
that buckin
used the
were
in PMHS
PMHS tests
thementioned. So,(Figure
tests we canA1).
(Figure Additionally,
accurately
A1). reproduce
Additionally, aa
simplified
the finite
buck with
simplified element
finiterigid windshield
bodies
element that usedmodel
windshield in thematched
model PMHS tests
matched the
the stress–strain
(Figure A1).curve
stress–strain from
from the
Additionally,
curve the work is
is also
a simplified
work also
coupled
finite
coupled with
element the
with the multibody
windshield
multibody buck.
model
buck. The
matched finite
The finite element
theelement windshield
stress–strain model
curve from
windshield model is shown
theiswork
shown in
is also Figure
coupled
in Figure A2. The
A2.with
The
multibody
the
multibody impact
multibodyimpact buck
buck. The
buck model
finiteused
model in
in this
element
used work
work includes
windshield
this modelbumper
includes is shown
bumper lower and
and bumper,
in Figure
lower A2. Thegrille,
bumper, hood
multibody
grille, hood
edge
edgeand
impact and hood,
buck
hood, and
andwindshield.
model used in thisThe
windshield. work
The finite element
includes
finite element windshield
bumper lowermodel
windshield consists
and bumper,
model of
of about
consistsgrille, about 54,000
hood edge
54,000 nodes
and
nodes
and
hood, 58,000 elements,
and windshield.
and 58,000 and
elements, and the
Thethe element
finite element
element size is 5
sizewindshieldmm.
is 5 mm. modelThe force-displacement
consists of about 54,000
The force-displacement characteristics
nodes and
characteristics of
of
multibody
58,000
multibody components
elements, and the
components and material
element
and properties
size
material is 5 mm. of
properties The
of the FE
FEwindshield
windshieldmodel
force-displacement
the model are
areall
allfrom
fromthe
characteristics of literature
themultibody
literature
[50].
components
[50]. and material properties of the FE windshield model are all from the literature [50].
Schematic diagramof
Figure A1.Schematic
Figure of thestructure
structure ofthe
the genericsedan
sedan buck, modified
modified from [50].
[50].
FigureA1.
A1. Schematicdiagram
diagram ofthe
the structureof
of thegeneric
generic sedanbuck,
buck, modifiedfrom
from [50].
Frame
Frame Windshield
Windshield Thickness:
Thickness:22mm
mm
Figure
FigureA2.
Figure A2.Schematic
A2. Schematicdiagram
Schematic diagramof
diagram ofthe
of thesimplified
the simplifiedfinite
simplified finiteelement
finite elementwindshield
element windshieldmodel.
windshield model.
model.
Appendix B Still Captures

Figures A3–A6 show still captures from the posterior and superior view. The PMHS motion
captured by high-speed video cameras (grayscale) are compared to the TNO model and CPCBM
respectively. In the motion comparison, the first frame is the frame of leg contact and final frame is
t = 200 ms.
Appendix B. Still Captures
Figures A3–A6 show still captures from the posterior and superior view. The PMHS motion
captured by high-speed video cameras (grayscale) are compared to the TNO model and CPCBM
respectively.
Int. InPublic
J. Environ. Res. the motion comparison,
Health 2020, 17, 492 the first frame is the frame of leg contact and final frame
16 ofis
32t
= 200 ms.
FigureA3.
Figure A3.Motion
Motionresponses
responsesofofPMHS,
PMHS, the
the TNO
TNO model
model (gold
(gold color),
color), andand CPCBM
CPCBM (mixed
(mixed color)
color) for
for test
test V2371 (posterior view)
V2371 (posterior view) [17]. [17].
Figure A4.
Figure A4. Motion
Motion responses
responsesofofPMHS,
PMHS,the
theTNO
TNO model
model (gold
(gold color),
CPCBM (mixed
(mixed color)
color) for
for test
test V2371 (superior view)
V2371 (superior view) [17]. [17].
Figure A5.
Figure A5. Motion
Motionresponses
responsesofofPMHS,
PMHS,the
the TNO
TNO model
model (gold
(gold color),
CPCBM (mixed
(mixed color)
color) for
for test
test V2374 (posterior view)
V2374 (posterior view) [17]. [17].
A6. Motion
Figure A6. Motion responses
responsesofofPMHS,
PMHS,the
theTNO
TNOmodel
model(gold color),
(gold andand
color), CPCBM (mixed
CPCBM color)
(mixed for test
color) for
V2374 (superior
test V2374 view)
(superior [17]. [17].
view)
Int. J.
Int. J. Environ.
Environ. Res.
Res. Public
Public Health
Health 2020,
2020, 17,
17, xx 20 of
20 of 32
32
Appendix C Trajectories, Displacement, Relative Resultant Velocity, Resultant Acceleration
Appendix C.
Appendix C. Trajectories,
Trajectories, Displacement,
Displacement, Relative
Relative Resultant
Resultant Velocity,
Velocity, Resultant
Resultant Acceleration
Acceleration
1900
1900 1800
1800
(mm)
(mm)
position-Z(mm)
position-Z(mm)
1600
1600 1500
1500
Headposition-Z
Headposition-Z
Experiment
Experiment Experiment
Experiment
1300
1300 TNO model
TNO model 1200
1200 TNO model
TNO model
CPCBM model
model CPCBM model
model
Head
Head
CPCBM CPCBM
1000
1000 900
900
00 600
600 1200
1200 1800
1800 00 600
600 1200
1200 1800
1800
Head position-Y (mm) Head position-Y (mm)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure A7.
Figure
Figure A7. The
A7. The trajectory
trajectory of
of the
the head
head COG
COG in
in the YOZ plane:
the YOZ
YOZ plane: (a)
plane: (a) test
test V2371
V2371 and
and (b)
(b) test
test V2374.
V2374.
20
20 40
40
(mm)
(mm)
position-X(mm)
position-X(mm)
-20
-20 20
20
Headposition-X
Headposition-X
-60
-60 00
Experiment
Experiment
-100
-100 TNO model
TNO model -20 TNO model
TNO model
-20
Head
Head
CPCBM model
CPCBM model CPCBM model
CPCBM model
-140
-140 -40
-40
00 60
60 120
120 180
180 00 60
60 120
120 180
180
Time (ms)
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Time (ms)
2000
2000 Experiment 2000
2000 Experiment
TNO model
model TNO model
model
(mm)
(mm)
TNO TNO
position-Y(mm)
position-Y(mm)
1600
1600 CPCBM model 1600
1600 CPCBM model
CPCBM model CPCBM model
Headposition-Y
Headposition-Y
1200
1200 1200
1200
800
800 800
800
400
Head
Head
400 400
400
00 0 60 120 180 00 0 60 120 180

0 60 120 180 0 60 120 180
Time (ms)
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Time (ms)
-1000
-1000 Experiment -1000
-1000 Experiment
TNO model
model
(mm)
(mm)
TNO TNO model

model
position-Z(mm)
position-Z(mm)
TNO
-1200
-1200 CPCBM model
CPCBM model -1200
-1200 CPCBM model
CPCBM model
Headposition-Z
Headposition-Z
-1400
-1400 -1400
-1400
-1600
-1600 -1600
-1600
Head
Head
-1800
-1800 -1800
-1800
00 60
60 120
120 180
180 00 60
60 120
120 180
180
Time (ms)
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Time (ms)
Figure A8.
Figure The displacement
A8. The displacement of
of the
the head
head COG
COG in
in the
the X/Y/Z
X/Y/Z directions
directions for
for test
test V2371
V2371 (left)
(left) and
and test
test
Figure A8. The displacement of the head COG in the X/Y/Z directions for test V2371 (left) and test
V2374 (right).
V2374 (right).
V2374 (right).

(m/s)
(m/s)
velocity(m/s)
velocity(m/s)
Int. J.Int.
Environ. TNO
J. Environ.
Res. model
Res. Public
Public Health
Health 2020,2020,
17, x 17, x TNO model 21 of2132of 32
TNO model TNO model
20 CPCBM model 15 CPCBM model
20 30 CPCBM model 15 20 20 CPCBM model
relativevelocity
relativevelocity
30 Experiment
Experiment

Head relative velocity (m/s) TNOTNO model
model TNOTNO model
model
10 10 CPCBM model
10 20 20 CPCBM
CPCBM model
model 10 15 15 CPCBM model
Headrelative
Headrelative
0 5
0 10 10 5 10 10
Head
Head
-10 0 0 0 5 5
-10 0 60 120 180 00 60 120 180
0 60 Time (ms)120 180 0 60 Time (ms)120 180
-10 -10 Time (ms) 0 0 Time (ms)
0 0 60 (a)60 120 120 180 180 0 0 60
60 (b) 120 120 180 180
(a) TimeTime
(ms) (ms) (b)
TimeTime
(ms) (ms)
(a) (a)
Figure A9. The resultant velocity of the head COG relative to the sedan buck: (b) (b)
(a) test V2371; (b) test
Figure A9.
Figure Theresultant
A9.The resultant velocity
velocity of of
thethe head
head COGCOG relative
relative to the
to the sedan sedan buck:
buck: (a) V2371;
(a) test test V2371; (b)
(b) test
V2374. Figure
test V2374. Figure
V2374. A9. The
A9. The resultant
resultant velocity
velocity of head
of the the head
COGCOG relative
relative to sedan
to the the sedan
buck:buck: (a) V2371;
(a) test test V2371; (b) test
(b) test
V2374.
V2374.
TNO model
400 400 Experiment
Experiment 250 250 TNO model
Experiment
Experiment
acceleration(g)(g)
TNO model TNO model
acceleration(g)(g)
CPCBMTNO
model 200
300 TNO
modelmodel 200 CPCBM
TNOTNO model
model
model
Head acceleration (g)

300 CPCBM model CPCBM model
200 200
300 300 CPCBMCPCBM

modelmodel Headacceleration CPCBM
CPCBM model
model
Headacceleration
150
200 150150 150
200 200 200 100
100100 100
100
Head
Head
100 100 100 50

50 50 50
0 0 0 0
0 0 60 120 120 120 180 180 180 0 0 00 00 60 60 120 120 180
0 0 060 60 60120 180 0 6060Time (ms)
120
120 180180
180
Time (ms)
TimeTime
(ms) (ms) Time (ms) (ms)
TimeTime
(ms)
Time (ms)
(a) (a) (a) (b)
(b) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure A10.Figure
Figure A10.
The A10.
The The
resultant resultant
resultant acceleration
acceleration
acceleration ofhead
of the
of the headtheCOG:
head
COG:COG:
(a)
(a) (a)V2371;
test
test test V2371;
V2371; (b) V2374.
(b) test
(b) test test V2374.
V2374.
Figure
FigureA10.
A10.The
Theresultant
resultantacceleration
accelerationof ofthe
thehead
headCOG:
COG:(a)(a)test
testV2371;
V2371;(b)(b)test
testV2374.
V2374.
Appendix Appendix
Appendix
D. TheD. D. The
The Comparison
Comparison
Comparison of Anthropometry
of Anthropometry
of Anthropometry
Anthropometry Parameter
Parameter
Parameter
Appendix
Appendix D
D. The
The Comparison
Comparison of
of Parameter
Anthropometry Parameter
Table
Table A1. Comparison
A1. Comparison of inertial
of inertial properties
properties of head–neck
of the the head–neck system
system fromfrom the THUMS
the THUMS and and
TNOTNO
Table A1. Comparison of inertial properties of the head–neck system from the THUMS and TNO
Table
Table A1.
A1. Comparison
models.
models.
Comparison ofofinertial
inertial properties
properties of the
of the head–neck
head–neck system
system from
from the the THUMS
THUMS and
and TNO TNO
models.
models.
models.
The THUMS
The THUMS Head-Neck
Head-Neck Model
Model The TNO
The TNO Head-Neck
Head-Neck Model
Model
The THUMS Head-Neck Model The TNO Head-Neck Model
Models The THUMS Head-Neck Model The TNO Head-Neck Model
The THUMS Head-Neck Model The TNO Head-Neck Model
The COG
The COG of of HeadHead
bodybody
head-neck
head-neck
The COG of Head body
ofsystem
system
The COG Head body
The COG
The COG of of
Models
Models head-neck head-neck
head-neck
head-neck The COG of
system system
system
Models systemT1~T7 The COG of
Models T1~T7 head-neck
head-neck
system
NeckNeck
bodybody
T1~T7 system
T1~T7
Neck body
Neck body
Total mass
TotalTotal
massmass 5.66
5.66 kgkg
5.66
kg 6.21/6.39/6.3 kg kg
6.21/6.39/6.3
6.21/6.39/6.3 kg
Moment
Moment ofofinertia
of inertia of theofHead-
the Head- IxxIxx==1.7090 ××10
Ixx = 1.7090
1.7090 10−2×−210kg·m
kg·m−2 kg·m
2
2
2
Moment of inertia the Head-neck
Total model
mass for test V2370 = 1.5126
Ixx5.66 kg × 10−2 kg·m2 Iyy = 6.21/6.39/6.3
1.8274 × 10−2kgkg·m2
system
Total
neckmass
neck system model for test Iyy5.66 kg IzzIyy=6.21/6.39/6.3
Iyy = 1.8274 kg
system model for test =1.3113
1.8274 × 10 −2× 10kg·m
kg·m−2 kg·m
2 2 2
= 1.7991 × 10−2 kg·m2 × 10−2
Moment of inertia of the Head- Izz = 1.0557 × 10−2 kg·m2 Ixx = 1.7090 × 10−2 −2 kg·m2
Moment of inertia of theV2370 V2370
Head- IIxx Izz = 1.3113
===1.7090
xxIzz 1.3113
2.5004 ×××10 10×−2
10 −2 10kg·m
kg·m
kg·m−2 kg·m
22 2 2
Moment
neck system ofmodel
inertiafor of test
the Head-neck Iyy== 2.8844
1.8274 × 10
10 −2−2kg·m 22
Moment of Iyy × 10−2 kg·m
forinertia ofHead-
the Head- Ixx = 1.5126
× 10−2×kg·m
10−2 kg·m Ixx = 2.5004
Moment of inertia of the Ixx = 1.5126 −2×kg·m
10 −2 kg·m
IyyIxx= =1.8274
2.5004 ×× 10
2 2 2 2
neck system
system model
model for test
test V2371 kg·m 2
V2370 Izz
Izz = 1.7861 × 10 −2 kg·m 2
Iyy==1.3113 ×× 10
10−2×kg·m
kg·m
−2 2
neck neck
systemsystem
model model for test
for test Iyy = 1.7991
Iyy = 1.7991 × 10−2×kg·m
10−2 kg·m
2 2 Iyy = 2.8844
2.8844 10 −2 kg·m
2 2
V2370 Izz = 1.3113 × 10−2−2 kg·m2 2
Ixx = 2.1877 × 10−2−2 kg·m
Moment
Moment of inertia
of inertia ofHead-
of V2371
the the Head-neck Ixx = 1.5126
V2371 Izz×=10
Izz = 1.05571.0557
× 10
−2 −2×kg·m
kg·m 10
2 −2 kg·m
2 2
Ixx Izz = 1.7861
Izz== 2.5004
1.7861 ×× 10
10 ×kg·m
10 −2 kg·m
kg·m 2 2 2
Moment system
of inertia of theforHead- Ixx = 1.5126 × 10−2 kg·m2 IIyy
xx = =2.5004
2.4686×× 1010−2−2 kg·m
kg·m 2
2
model test V2374
neck system Moment
Moment of inertia
of inertia
model for of theofHead-
test the Head- Iyy = 1.7991 × 10−2 kg·m2 Izz Ixx===1.6003
Iyy Ixx = 2.1877
2.1877
2.8844 ××× 10 −2
10−2
−2
×kg·m
10kg·m
−2
kg·m kg·m
2 2 2 2
neck system model for test Iyy = 1.7991 × 10−2 kg·m2 Iyy = 2.8844 × 10−2 kg·m2
neck neck
V2371systemsystem
model model
for for test
test Izz = 1.0557 × 10−2 kg·m2 Iyy = 2.4686
Iyy==1.7861
Izz 2.4686 ×× 10 −2×kg·m
10−2 10 −2 kg·m
kg·m
2
2
2
V2371 Izz = 1.0557 × 10−2 kg·m2 Izz = 1.7861 × 10−2 kg·m 2

V2374 V2374 Izz = 1.6003
Izz = 1.6003 × 10−2×kg·m 10−2 kg·m
2 2
Moment of inertia of the Head- Ixx = 2.1877 × 10−2 kg·m2
Moment of inertia of the Head- Ixx = 2.1877 × 10−2 kg·m2
neck system model for test Iyy = 2.4686 × 10−2 kg·m2
neck system model for test Iyy = 2.4686 × 10−2 kg·m2
V2374 Izz = 1.6003 × 10−2 kg·m2
V2374 Izz = 1.6003 × 10−2 kg·m2

Appendix E CORA Data
Appendix E. CORA Data
Figure A11. Cont.

Figure A11. X-direction displacement signals between experiment and simulation.

Figure X-direction
A11.A11.
Figure X-directiondisplacement
displacement signals betweenexperiment
signals between experimentandand simulation.
simulation.
Figure A12. Cont.

Figure A12. Y-direction displacement signals between experiment and simulation.

Figure A12. Y-direction displacement signals between experiment and simulation.
Figure A13. Cont.

Figure A13. Z-direction displacement signals between experiment and simulation.

Figure A14. Cont.

Figure A14. Resultant velocity signals relative to the sedan buck between experiment and simulation.
Figure A14. Resultant velocity signals relative to the sedan buck between experiment and simulation.
Figure A15. Cont.

Figure A15. Resultant acceleration signals between experiment and simulation.

Figure A15. Resultant acceleration signals between experiment and simulation.
References
References
1. WHO. Global Status Report on Road Safety; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
1. WHO.
2. Global
Elliott, Status
J.R.; Lyons, Report on RoadJ.;Safety;
M.; Kerrigan, Wood,World Health
D.; Simms, Organization:
C. Predictive Geneva,
capabilities of theSwitzerland, 2015.
MADYMO multibody
2. Elliott, J.R.; Lyons, M.; Kerrigan, J.; Wood, D.; Simms, C. Predictive capabilities
pedestrian model: Three-dimensional head translation and rotation, head impact time and head impact of the MADYMO multibody
pedestrian model: Three-dimensional
velocity. J. Multi Body Dyn. 2012, 226, 266–277. head translation and rotation, head impact time and head impact
velocity.
3. TASS. J. MADYMO
Multi BodyHuman Dyn. 2012, 226, 266–277.
Body Models [CrossRef]
Manual Release 7.5; TASS: Helmand, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 88–
3. TASS.107.
MADYMO Human Body Models Manual Release 7.5; TASS: Helmand, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 88–107.
4. 4. Watanabe,
Watanabe, R.; Miyazaki,
R.; Miyazaki, H.;H.; Kitagawa,Y.;
Kitagawa, Y.;Yasuki,
Yasuki, T.
T. Research
Researchofofcollision speed
collision speeddependency
dependency of pedestrian
of pedestrian
head and chest injuries using human FE model (THUMS Version 4). Accid. Reconstr. J. 2012,31–40.
head and chest injuries using human FE model (THUMS Version 4). Accid. Reconstr. J. 2012, 22, 22, 31–40.
5. Shigeta, K.; Kitagawa, Y.; Yasuki, T. Development of next generation human FE model capable of organ
5. Shigeta, K.; Kitagawa, Y.; Yasuki, T. Development of next generation human FE model capable of organ
injury prediction. In Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of
injury prediction. In Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety
Vehicles (ESV), Stuttgart, Germany, 15–18 June 2009; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
of Vehicles (ESV), Stuttgart, Germany, 15–18 June 2009; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Stuttgart, Germany, 2009.
Stuttgart,
6. Hoof, J.V.; Lange,2009.
Germany, R.D.; Wismans, J.S. Improving pedestrian safety using numerical human models. Stapp
6. Hoof,CarJ.V.; Lange,
Crash R.D.;
J. 2003, Wismans, J.S. Improving pedestrian safety using numerical human models. Stapp
47, 401–436.
Car
7. Crash
Yang,J.J.K.;
2003, 47, 401–436.
Lovsund, [PubMed]
P.; Cavallero, C.; Bonnoit, J. A Human-Body 3D Mathematical Model for Simulation
7. Yang,ofJ.K.; Lovsund, P.;
Car-Pedestrian Cavallero,
Impacts. Int. J.C.; Bonnoit,
Crash J. A
Prev. Inj. Human-Body
Control 3D Mathematical Model for Simulation of
2000, 2, 131–149.
8. Yao, J.; Yang,
Car-Pedestrian J.; Otte,Int.
Impacts. D. Investigation
J. Crash Prev.ofInj. head injuries
Control by reconstructions
2000, of real-world vehicle-versus-
2, 131–149. [CrossRef]
8. Yao, adult-pedestrian
J.; Yang, J.; accidents. Otte, D. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1103–1114.
Investigation of head injuries by reconstructions of real-world
9. Linder, A.; Douglas, C.; Clark, A.; Fildes, B.; Yang, J.; Otte, D. Mathematical simulations of real-world
vehicle-versus-adult-pedestrian accidents. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1103–1114. [CrossRef]
pedestrian-vehicle collisions. In Proceedings of the 19th International Technical Conference on the
9. Linder, A.; Douglas, C.; Clark, A.; Fildes, B.; Yang, J.; Otte, D. Mathematical simulations of real-world
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 June 2005; National Highway Traffic Safety
pedestrian-vehicle collisions. In Proceedings of the 19th International Technical Conference on the
Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
Enhanced
10. Ishikawa, Safety of Vehicles
H.; Kajzer, (ESV),G.Washington,
J.; Schroeder, DC, USA,
Computer simulation 6–9 June
of impact 2005;
response National
of the human Highway
body in car-Traffic
Safety Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
pedestrian accidents. In Proceedings of the 37th Stapp Car Crash Conference, San Atonio, TX, USA, 7–8
10. Ishikawa,
November H.; Kajzer, J.; Schroeder,
1993; Society of Automotive G. Computer simulation PA,
Engineers: Warrendale, of impact response of the human body in
USA, 1993.
car-pedestrian accidents. In Proceedings of the 37th Stapp Car Crash Conference, San Atonio, TX, USA,
7–8 November 1993; Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1993.
11. Maeno, T.; Hasegawa, J. Development of a finite element model of the total human model for safety (THUMS)
and application to car-pedestrian impacts. In Proceedings of the International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4–7 June 2001.
12. Masami, I.; Yoshikatsu, K.; Isao, W.; Katsuya, F.; Kazuo, M. Development of a finite element model of the
total human model for safety (THUMS) and application to car-pedestrian impacts. In Proceedings of the
International Research Council on the Biokinetics of Impacts (IRCOBI) Conferences, Munich, Germany,
18–20 September 2002.
13. Chen, H.; Poulard, D.; Crandall, J.R.; Panzer, M. Pedestrian response with different initial positions during
impact with a mid-sized sedan. In Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Gothenburg, Sweden, 8–11 June 2015; National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2015.
14. Poulard, D.; Chen, H.; Panzer, M. Geometrical Personalization of Pedestrian Finite Element Models Using
Morphing Increases the Biofidelity of Their Impact Kinematics. In Proceedings of the SAE 2016 World
Congress and Exhibition, Detroit, MI, USA, 12–14 April 2016. Technical Paper.
15. Paas, R.; Östh, J.; Davidsson, J. Which Pragmatic Finite Element Human Body Model Scaling Technique Can
Most Accurately Predict Head Impact Conditions in Pedestrian-Car Crashes? In Proceedings of the 2015
International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury Conference, Lyon, France, 9–11 September 2015.
16. Watanabe, R.; Katsuhara, T.; Miyazaki, H.; Kitagawa, Y.; Yasuki, T. Research of the relationship of pedestrian
injury to collision speed, car-type, impact location and pedestrian sizes using human FE model (THUMS
Version 4). Stapp Car Crash J. 2012, 56, 269–321.
17. Wu, T.; Kim, T.; Bollapragada, V.; Poulard, D.; Chen, H. Evaluation of biofidelity of THUMS pedestrian
model under a whole-body impact conditions with a generic sedan buck. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2017, 18, S148–S154.
[CrossRef]
18. Shi, L.; Han, Y.; Huang, H.; Li, Q.; Wang, B.; Mizuno, K. Analysis of pedestrian-to-ground impact injury risk
in vehicle-to-pedestrian collisions based on rotation angles. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 64, 37–47. [CrossRef]
19. Li, G.; Yang, J.; Simms, C. Safer passenger car front shapes for pedestrians: A computational approach to
reduce overall pedestrian injury risk in realistic impact scenarios. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 100, 97–110.
[CrossRef]
20. Li, G.; Lyons, M.; Wang, B.; Yang, J.; Otte, D.; Simms, C. The influence of passenger car front shape on
pedestrian injury risk observed from German in-depth accident data. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 101, 11–21.
[CrossRef]
21. Crocetta, G.; Piantini, S.; Pierini, M.; Simms, C. The influence of vehicle front-end design on pedestrian
ground impact. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 79, 56–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Lyons, M.; Simms, C.K. Predicting the Influence of Windscreen Design on Pedestrian Head Injuries.
In Proceedings of the 2012 International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury, Dublin, Ireland,
23. Yin, S.; Li, J.; Xu, J. Exploring the mechanisms of vehicle front-end shape on pedestrian head injuries caused
by ground impact. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 106, 285–296. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Katsuhara, T.; Miyazaki, H.; Kitagawa, Y.; Yasuki, T. Impact kinematics of cyclist and head injury mechanism
in car-to-bicycle collision. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Research Council on the Biomechanics of
Injury Conference, Berlin, Germany, 10–12 September 2014.
25. Fahlstedt, M.; Halldin, P.; Kleiven, S. Comparison of Multibody and Finite Element Human Body Models in
Pedestrian Accidents with the Focus on Head Kinematics. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2016, 17, 320–327. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
26. Li, G.; Wang, F.; Otte, D.; Simms, C. Characteristics of pedestrian head injuries observed from real world
collision data. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 129, 362–366. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Li, G.; Wang, F.; Otte, D.; Cai, Z.; Simms, C. Have pedestrian subsystem tests improved passenger car front
shape? Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 115, 143–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Xu, J.; Li, Y.; Lu, G.; Zhou, W. Reconstruction model of vehicle impact speed in pedestrian–vehicle accident.
Int. J. Impact Eng. 2009, 36, 783–788. [CrossRef]
29. Mackay, M. Global priorities for vehicle safety. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2003, 4, 1–4. [CrossRef]
30. Jones, D.A.; Urban, J.E.; Weaver, A.A.; Stitzel, J.D. Investigation of head injury mechanisms through
multivariate finite element simulation. In Proceedings of the 12th Ohio State University Injury Biomechanics
Symposium, Columbus, OH, USA, 5–7 June 2016.
31. TASS. MADYMO Manual Version 7.5. Available online: https://tass.plm.automation.siemens.com/madymo
(accessed on 9 January 2020).
32. Wang, F.; Wang, B.; Han, Y.; Peng, Q.; Li, F.; Wittek, A. Reconstruction of Real-World Car-to-Pedestrian
Accident Using Computational Biomechanics Model: Effects of the Choice of Boundary Conditions of the
Brain on Brain Injury Risk. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Medical Image Computing
and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 11–13 September 2017; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2017.
33. Li, F.; Li, H.; Xiao, Z.; Lu, R.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, H.; Ren, L. A Review on Injury Mechanism of Intracerebral
Hemorrhage in Vehicle Accidents. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2017, 23, 2177–2192. [CrossRef]
34. Marjoux, D.; Baumgartner, D.; Deck, C.; Willinger, R. Head injury prediction capability of the HIC, HIP,
SIMon and ULP criteria. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 1135–1148. [CrossRef]
35. Fernandes, F.A.O.; Sousa, R.J.A.d.; Ptak, M. Application of Numerical Methods for Accident Reconstruction
and Forensic Analysis. In Head Injury Simulation in Road Traffic Accidents; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018;
pp. 59–98.
36. Takhounts, E.G.; Craig, M.J.; Moorhouse, K.; McFadden, J.; Hasija, V. Development of brain injury criteria
(BrIC). Stapp Car Crash J. 2013, 57, 243–266.
37. Kleiven, S. Predictors for traumatic brain injuries evaluated through accident reconstructions. Stapp Car
Crash J. 2007, 51, 81–114. [PubMed]
38. Fahlstedt, M.; Halldin, P.; Alvarez, V.S.; Kleiven, S. Influence of the Body and Neck on Head Kinematics and
Brain Injury Risk in Bicycle Accident Situations. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Research Council
on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference, Malaga, Spain, 14–16 September 2016.
39. Munsch, M.; Anderson, R.; Deck, C.; Ludes, B.; Willinger, R. Influence of head boundary conditions in
pedestrian real world head trauma simulations. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Research Council
on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference, York, UK, 9–11 Septemcer 2009.
40. Alvarez, V.S.; Kleiven, S.; Halldin, P.H. The Influence of Neck Muscle Tonus and Posture on Brain Tissue
Strain in Pedestrian Head Impacts. Stapp Car Crash J. 2014, 58, 63–101. [PubMed]
41. Su, Y. Research on the modeling and impact injury of obese children based on mesh morphing method.
In Automotive Collaborative Innovation Center of Chongqing; Chongqing University: Chongqing, China, 2017.
42. Sieger, D.; Menzel, S.; Botsch, M. High Quality Mesh Morphing Using Triharmonic Radial Basis Functions. In
Proceedings of the 21st International Meshing Roundtable, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–10 October 2013; Springer:
San Jose, CA, USA, 2013.
43. Michler, A.K. Aircraft control surface deflection using RBF-based mesh deformation. Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. 2011, 88, 986–1007. [CrossRef]
44. Lalwala, M.; Chawla, A.; Thomas, P.; Mukherjee, S. Finite element reconstruction of real-world pedestrian
accidents using THUMS pedestrian model. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2019. [CrossRef]
45. Li, G.; Tan, Z.; Lv, X.; Ren, L. A Computationally Efficient Finite Element Pedestrian Model for Head Safety:
Development and Validation. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 2019, 2019, 4930803. [CrossRef]
46. Chai, X.; Jin, X.; Zhang, X.; Hou, X. The application for skull injury in vehicle-pedestrian accident. Int. J.
Crash Worthiness 2011, 16, 11–24.
47. TASS. Coupling Manual Version 7.5; TASS: Helmand, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 19–25.
48. Forman, J.L.; Joodaki, H.; Forghani, A.; Riley, P.O.; Bollapragada, V.; Lessley, D.J.; Overby, B.; Heltzel, S.;
Kerrigan, J.R.; Crandall, J.R. Whole-body Response for Pedestrian Impact with a Generic Sedan Buck. Stapp
Car Crash J. 2015, 59, 401–444.
49. Forman, J.L.; Joodaki, H.; Forghani, A.; Riley, P.; Bollapragada, V.; Lessley, D.; Overby, B.; Heltzel, S.; Crandall, J.R.
Biofidelity Corridors for Whole-Body Pedestrian Impact with a Generic Buck. In Proceedings of the 2015
International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury Conference, Lyon, France, 9–11 September 2015.
50. Pipkorn, B.; Forsberg, C.; Takahashi, Y.; Ikeda, M.; Fredriksson, R.; Svensson, C.; Thesleff, A. Development
and component validation of a generic vehicle front buck for pedestrian impact evaluation. In Proceedings
of the 2014 International Research Council on Biomechanics of Injury Conference, Berlin, Germany,
51. Kerrigan, J.; Subit, D.; Untaroi, C.; Crandall, J.; Rudd, R. . Pedestrian Lower Extremity Response and Injury:
A Small Sedan vs. A Large Sport Utility Vehicle. In Proceedings of the SAE World Congress & Exhibition,
Detroit, MI, USA, 14–17 April 2008; SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2008.
52. Gehre, C.; Gades, H.; Wernicke, P. Objective Rating of Signals Using Test and Simulation Responses.
In Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart,
Germany, 15–18 June 2009; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Stuttgart, Germany, 2009.
53. Chen, H.; Poulard, D.; Forman, J.; Crandall, J.; Panzer, M.B. Evaluation of geometrically personalized thums
pedestrian model response against sedan-pedestrian pmhs impact test data. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2018, 19, 542–548.
[CrossRef]
54. Vavalle, N.A.; Jelen, B.C.; Moreno, D.P.; Stitzel, J.D.; Gayzik, F.S. An evaluation of objective rating methods for
full-body finite element model comparison to PMHS tests. Traffic Inj. Prevation 2013, 14, S87–S94. [CrossRef]
55. Miller, K.; King, A.I. Modeling of the Brain for Injury Simulation and Prevation. In Biomechanics of the Brain;
Miller, K., Ed.; Spinger: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 91–100.
56. Yoganandan, N.; Zhang, J.; Pintar, F. Force and acceleration corridors from lateral head impact.
Traffic Inj. Prevation 2004, 5, 368–373. [CrossRef]
57. Kleiven, S.; Hardy, W.N. Correlation of an FE Model of the Human Head with Local Brain Motion–
Consequences for Injury Prediction. Stapp Car Crash J. 2002, 46, 123–144. [PubMed]
58. Hardy, W.N.; Foster, C.D.; Mason, M.J.; Yang, K.H.; King, A.I.; Tashman, S. Investigation of Head Injury
Mechanisms Using Neutral Density Technology and High-Speed Biplanar X-ray. Stapp Car Crash J. 2001, 45,
337–368. [PubMed]
59. Nahum, A.M.; Smith, R.; Ward, C.C. Intracranial Pressure Dynamics During Head Impact. In Proceedings of the
21st Stapp Car Crash Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 19–21 October 1977. SAE Technical Paper 770922.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

A Computational Biomechanics Human Body Model Coupling Finite Element and Multibody Segments For Assessment of Head Car-To-Pedestrian Collisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Computational Biomechanics Human Body Model Coupling Finite Element and Multibody Segments For Assessment of Head Car-To-Pedestrian Collisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of

Keywords: car-to-pedestrian collision; computational efficiency; coupling; finite element model;

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Development of CPCBM

2.1.1. Extraction of THUMS and TNO Pedestrian Models

Extraction of THUMS Pedestrian Model

Extraction of TNO Pedestrian Model

2.2. Validation of the CPCBM

2.2.1. Description of Cadaver Tests

Table 1. Anthropometries and injuries of the tested subjects.

2.2.2. Modelling of the Impact Buck

Model Scaling and the Initial Posture Adjustment

Table 2. Subjects anthropometry parameters used to scale in MADYSCALE.

Buck–Pedestrian Impact Modelling

3.1. Comparison of Kinematic Response

3.1. Comparison of Kinematic Response

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 9 of 32

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x (a) 9 of 32

TNO model TNO model

again, as shown in Figure

TNO model TNO model

60 CPCBM model 1500 CPCBM model

-1200 CPCBM model Figure 6. Cont.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 492 10 of 32

Head relative velocity (m/s)

Head relative velocity (m/s)

TNO & test CPCBM & test

3.3. Calculation Efficiency of the Human Body Models

4. Discussion Table 4. Comparison of the computation time needed by different models.

4.3. Head Injury Prediction

4.4. Quantitative Evaluation Method CORA

Parameter V2370 V2371 V2374 Mean ± Standard THUMS Model

Appendix B Still Captures

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 17 of 32

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 19 of 32

00 0 60 120 180 00 0 60 120 180

TNO TNO model

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 21 of 32

Head relative velocity (m/s)

Head acceleration (g)

300 300 CPCBMCPCBM

100 100 100 50

V2371 Izz = 1.0557 × 10−2 kg·m2 Izz = 1.7861 × 10−2 kg·m 2

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 22 of 32

Figure A11. Cont.

Figure A11. X-direction displacement signals between experiment and simulation.

Figure A12. Cont.

Figure A12. Y-direction displacement signals between experiment and simulation.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 25 of 32

Figure A13. Cont.

Figure A13. Z-direction displacement signals between experiment and simulation.

Figure A14. Cont.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 27 of 32

Figure A15. Cont.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x 29 of 32

Figure A15. Resultant acceleration signals between experiment and simulation.

You might also like