International Journal of Crashworthiness

ISSN: 1358-8265 (Print) 1754-2111 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Mechanism analysis of pedestrian knee-bending

angle by SUV type vehicles using human FE model

T Yasuki

To cite this article: T Yasuki (2007) Mechanism analysis of pedestrian knee-bending angle
by SUV type vehicles using human FE model, International Journal of Crashworthiness, 12:6,
645-651, DOI: 10.1080/13588260701619481

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588260701619481

Published online: 12 Dec 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcrs20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 22 December 2015, At: 00:05
 Mechanism analysis of pedestrian
knee-bending angle by SUV type vehicles using
human FE model
doi:10.1080/13588260701619481

T Yasuki
Toyota Motor Corporation, 1,Toyota-Cho, Toyota, Aichi, 471-8572, Japan

Abstract: This paper describes the reconstructions of pedestrian accidents colliding with the SUV
(Sport Utility Vehicle) type vehicle. The finite element human model of American male 50 percentile
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 00:05 22 December 2015

is used to evaluate the kinematics and injuries of the lower leg. The finite element models of the frontal
structures made of urethane blocks that have equivalent stiffness to the frontal structure of the SUV
finite element model were established to conduct parametric studies of the frontal structure stiffness.
The parametric studies show optimum stiffness distributions of the urethane blocks to help reduction
of the knee-bending angle and injuries.

Key words: Pedestrian protection, knee joint, ligament, human FE model.

NOTATION vehicles are simulated by THUMS in order to clarify rela-

tionship between frontal structure stiffness and pedestrian
Symbols Definitions
leg injuries.
AM50 American male 50 percentile
SUV Sport utility vehicle
THUMS Total human model for safety ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTIONS

Two pedestrian accident numerical simulations are con-

INTRODUCTION
Pedestrians and cyclists form a significant proportion of all
road user casualities in most countries. SUV type vehicles
have been increasing in several countries and pedestrian in-
juries in collisions with SUV type vehicles are expected to
increase in the near future. However, not many pedestrian
safety researches in collisions with SUV type vehicles are
available. Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Central
Research and Development Laboratory have been devel-
oping a human Finite Element (FE) model ‘Total Human
Model for Safety’ (here after referred as to THUMS) since
1997. THUMS lets researchers reconstruct pedestrian ac-
cidents and make parametric studies of frontal stiffness to
help reduction of the risk of the knee ligament rupture and
bone fracture.
In this paper, pedestrian leg injuries such as bone frac-
ture and knee ligament rupture in collisions with SUV type
Corresponding author:
T Yasuki
Toyota Motor Corporation
1, Toyota-Cho, Toyota, Aichi, 471-8572, Japan.
Tel: +81-565-72-6006; Fax: +81-565-72-6033
Email: yasuki@giga.tec.toyota.co.jp
ducted (Figure 1). In case 1, the UK’s Transport Research
Laboratory (TRL) lower leg subsystem (here after referred
as to The Impactor) FE model collides at 40 kph with the
frontal center of an SUV type vehicle FE model in still
condition that is similar to a procedure of EURO-NCAP
[1]. In case 2, an SUV type vehicle FE model collides at 40
kph to AM50 human FE model in still condition. Initial
contacting position of the SUV type vehicle FE model is
precisely the left knee joint of the AM50 (50 percentile
male) human FE model.
Human finite element model
Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Central Research
and Development have developed ‘THUMS’ in 1997 for
passenger and pedestrian safety simulation. THUMS is a
finite element model of a human that has the precise shape
and similar material properties of bone, ligaments, and soft
tissues to a human. Biomechanical fidelity of THUMS
AM50 has been validated with test data already open to
the public [2–5]. THUMS version 1.4 modified by Toy-
ota Motor Corporation is called THUMS AM50 in this
paper. Height of THUMS AM50 is 175.1 cm and mass is
76.6 kg.
THUMS can reconstruct human injuries during the
car crash accident virtually by computer simulation with

Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis 645 IJCrash 2007 Vol. 12 No. 6 pp. 645–651
 T Yasuki

Figure 1 SUV and the lower leg subsystem and THUMS

AM50. (a) Case 1: TRL lower leg subsystem; (b) Case 2: Figure 4 Comparison of knee structure. (a) THUMS;
THUMS AM50. (b) The Impactor.

commercial finite element crash codes LS-DYNA or Pam-

Crash. THUMS has similar lower leg structures as a hu-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 00:05 22 December 2015

man (Figure 2). Knee ligament rupture will happen if the
plastic strain of the element of the ligament exceeds 11%.
Bone fracture will happen if the plastic strain of the element
of the cortical bone exceeds 3% [6, 7].
THUMS has a similar femur bending stiffness to post-
mortem human subject tests, while The Impactor has much
stiffer bending stiffness compared to postmortem human
subject tests (Figure 3).
THUMS has a knee structure similar to a human’s knee.
Elongations of knee ligaments generate the knee-bending
moment, while the knee-bending moment of The Impactor
is generated by plastic bending of a single steel plate (Fig-
ure 4). The knee-bending moment of THUMS is similar to
postmortem human subject tests, while the knee-bending
moment of The Impactor is stiffer than postmortem hu-
man subject tests (Figure 5).

Figure 2 Comparison of fibula and tibia. (a) THUMS AM50; (b) fibula and tibia; (c) The Impactor.

Figure 3 Force displacement relationship of (a) tibia and (b) femur resulting from a three-points bending test [5, 7].

IJCrash 2007 Vol. 12 No. 6 646 Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis

Figure 5 Moment bending angle relationship of knee joint
[8–10].
SUV vehicle finite element model
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 00:05 22 December 2015
A finite element model of the SUV type experimental ve-
hicle was generated (Figure 6). TRL lower leg subsystem
test was conducted in order to validate the stiffness of the
finite element model of the SUV type experimental vehicle.
Kinematics, upper tibia acceleration and knee-bending an-
Figure 6 SUV vehicle FE model. (a) Perspective view; (b) center section.
Figure 7 Comparison of The Impactor kinematics in case 1.
Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis
Mechanism of analysis of pedestrian knee-bending angle
gle of the finite element model show good correlation with
those of the test (Figures 7, 8).
RESULTS 1
Kinematics
Movements of THUMS and The Impactor observed rel-
ative to fixed coordinates on the vehicle in cases 1 and 2
are shown in Figure 9. Time histories of the knee-bending
angle are shown in Figure 10.
Injuries
Injuries calculated by THUMS in case 2 are shown in
Table 1. MCL and ACL of AM50 THUMS AM50 were
ruptured. Femur bone of THUMS was fractured. Injury
scales in case 1 are shown in Table 2 for reference.
PARAMETRIC STUDIES
A finite element model of urethane blocks, whose shape
is generated by the extruding centre section of the vehicle
647 IJCrash 2007 Vol. 12 No. 6
 T Yasuki

Figure 8 Comparison of (a) upper tibia acceleration and (b) knee-bending angle in case 1.

Table 1 Injuries of THUMS in

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 00:05 22 December 2015

case 2
Case 2
THUMS AM50
MCL ruptured
ACL ruptured
PCL not ruptured
Tibia not fractured
Femur fractured

Table 2 Injury scales of The Impactor

Case 1
Figure 9 Comparison of kinematics of lower legs. TRL lower leg subsystem
knee-bending angle 19.7 [deg]
shear deformation 5.6 [mm]
upper tibia acceleration 302 [G]

Figure 10 Time history of knee-bending angle.

Figure 12 Sectional shape of the urethane blocks.

and frontal structure stiffness is equivalent to the frontal

Figure 11 Urethane blocks and THUMS.
structure of finite element vehicle model, was gener-
ated. Parametric studies changing stiffness of the blocks
were conducted in order to clarify the relationships be-
tween frontal structure stiffness and lower leg injuries of
THUMS AM50.

IJCrash 2007 Vol. 12 No. 6 648 Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis
 Mechanism of analysis of pedestrian knee-bending angle

Figure 13 Stiffness of Urethane (a) block 4 and (b) 5 in case 3.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 00:05 22 December 2015

Figure 14 Stiffness of Urethane block 6 in case 3.

Human finite element model Figure 16 Material properties of each type of bocks.
THUMS AM50 previously described is used for the para-
metric studies. RESULTS 2

Urethane blocks
The finite element model of a urethane block consists of
six parts of #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Figure 11). Block 1
represents the shape and stiffness of the hood. Block 2 and
3 represent the shape and stiffness of the grill. Block 4
represents the shape and stiffness of the upper bumper.
Block 5 represents the shape and stiffness of the middle
bumper. Block 6 represents the shape and stiffness of the
lower bumper (Figure 12). The stiffness of the blocks 1–6
are similar to those of measured in case 2 (Figures 13 and
14).
Case 3 has similar stiffness of blocks as in case 2 and indi-
cates similar lower leg kinematics and injuries of THUMS
AM50 as in case 2.
Injuries
The parametric studies results are summarized in Fig-
ure 15. Stiffness of the block increases as the number of
types of blocks reduces. Detailed material properties of
each type of the block are shown in Figure 16.
Case 9 indicates no lower leg injury of THUMS AM50.
DISCUSSION
Relationships between femur bone fracture
and stiffness of block 4
Fracture of femur bone of THUMS AM50 is observed
at 10 ms in case 3. Block 4 contacted to the femur of
THUMS AM50 and the magnitude of the contact force

Figure 15 Injuries in case form 3 to 9.

Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis 649 IJCrash 2007 Vol. 12 No. 6
 T Yasuki
Figure 17 Knee ligament rupture of THUMS AM50 in case 3.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 00:05 22 December 2015
Figure 18 Kinematics THUMS in case 3, 8 and 9.
is around 15 kN (Figure 15). Fractures of the femur bone
of THUMS AM50 were not observed in case 4 and 5.
Block 4 also contacted to the femur of THUMS AM50
and the magnitude of the contact force is less than 9 kN
(Figure 15).
Three point bending tests of femur bones indicate that
5 kN static concentrated load perpendicular to the bone
at the centre of the femur causes the bone fracture [5].
Contact forces in cases 4–9 are bigger than 6 kN.
Average lateral acceleration measured at 8 points on the
surface of the nodes of the femur cortical bone of THUMS
AM50 at 10 ms in case 3 are around 900 m/s2 . Mass of the
thigh of THUMS AM50 including femur bone, muscle,
fat and skin is around 10 kg. Then, the estimated inertia
force of the thigh at 10 ms in case 3 is 9 kN. By adding the
inertia force to the static bone fracture load of the femur
IJCrash 2007 Vol. 12 No. 6
5 kN, 14 kN is an estimated contact force that may cause
the femur bone fracture of THUMS AM50. This is the
main reason why cases 4 and 5 indicate no femur bone
fracture, while the contact forces by block 4 exceeds 5 kN.
Relationships between MCL rupture and stiffness of block 6
Block 6 contacted to the knee joint of THUMS AM50 and
MCL rupture of THUMS AM50 was observed at 20 ms
in case 3 (Figure 17). MCL rupture seems to be caused
by knee-bending deformation rather than knee shearing
deformation (Figure 17).
The tibia of THUMS AM50 does not contact to any
blocks and no block prevents the tibia of THUMS AM50
from rotating anti-clockwise in Figure 18 before 20 ms. In
case 3, knee-bending angle increases rapidly in short time
duration from 10 ms to 15 ms (Figure 10). Reduction of
650 Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis

time increment rate of knee-bending angle by reducing the
stiffness of block 6 is expected to be helpful to reduce the
risk of MCL rupture of THUMS AM50. Then, parametric
studies reducing the stiffness of block 6 were performed in
cases 6–9.
In cases 6–8 reductions of the stiffness of every block
are not so helpful to reduce the risk of MCL rupture of
THUMS AM50 (Figure 15). MCL rupture of THUMS
AM50 was not observed in case 9 (Figure 18). Deformation
of block 4 in case 8 is 326 mm. Deformation of block 4 in
case 9 is 568 mm. More than 326 mm deformation of
block 6 is necessary to reduce the risk of MCL rupture of
THUMS AM50 for the urethane blocks.
More parametric studies that can take account the effects
of supporting tibia of THUMS AM50 are needed to inves-
tigate the MCL rupture mechanism of THUMS AM50.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 00:05 22 December 2015
CONCLUSIONS
A pedestrian accident in collisions with an SUV type ve-
hicle was reconstructed by numerical simulation using
THUMS. Femur bone fracture and knee ligament rup-
ture of THUMS AM50 were observed in the simulation.
The stiffness distribution of the SUV type vehicle were
imitated by six urethane blocks in order to conduct para-
metric studies. THUMS AM50 is collided with the ure-
thane blocks and similar lower leg injuries in collisions with
SUV type vehicle were observed.
Parametric studies by changing the stiffness of the ure-
thane blocks indicates that the femur bone fracture of
THUMS AM50 will happen if contact force to the thigh
exceeds 14 kN.
Reductions of the stiffness of every block are not so
helpful to reduce the risk of MCL rupture of THUMS
AM50. More parametric studies that can take into account
the effects of supporting tibia of THUMS AM50 are
needed to investigate the MCL rupture mechanism of
THUMS AM50.
Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis
Mechanism of analysis of pedestrian knee-bending angle
REFERENCES
1. Euro-Ncap, ‘EURO-NCAP’s Pedestrian Impact Tests’.
Available at: http://www.euroncap.com.
2. F Oshita, K Omori, Y Nakahira and K Miki, ‘Development of
a finite element model of the human body’, 7th International
Conference of LS-DYNA Users, Detroit, 2002,
pp. 3–48.
3. M Iwamoto, K Omori, H Kimpara, Y Nakahira, A Tamura, I
Watanabe, K Miki, J Hasegawa and F Oshita, ‘Recent
advances in THUMS: development of individual internal
organs, brain, small female, and pedestrian model’, 4th
European LS-DYNA Users Conference, Ulm (Germany), 2003.
4. M Iwamoto, Y Kisanuki, I Watanabe, K Furusu, K Miki and J
Hasegawa, ‘Development of a Finite Element model of the
total human model for safety (THUMS) and application to
injury reconstruction, Proceedings of the IRCOBI Conference,
2002, Munich, Germany, pp. 31–42.
5. T Maeno and J Hasegawa , ‘Development of a finite element
model of the total human model for safety (THUMS) and
application to car-pedestrian impacts’, 17th ESV conference,
2001, Pap No. 494.
6. R W McCalden, J A McGeough, M B Barker and C M
Court-Brown , ‘Age-related changes in the tensile properties of
cortical bone’, J Bone Joint Surg, 1993 74A 1193–1205.
7. M Iwamoto, A Tamura, K Furusu, C Kato, K Miki, J
Hasegawa and K Yang, ‘Development of a finite element
model of the human lower extremity for analyses of automotive
crash injuries’, 2000, SAE Paper 2000–01–0621.
8. J Kajzer, C Cavallero, J Bonnoit, A Morjane and S Ghanouchi,
‘Response of the knee joint in lateral impact, effect of bending
moment’, Proceedings of the international IRCOBI conference
‘Biomechanics of impact’, 1993, pp. 105–116.
9. R S Levine, P C Begeman and A I King, ‘An analysis of the
protection of lateral knee bracing in full extension using a
cadaver simulation of Lateral Knee Impact’, Amer Acad
Orthopedic Surg, 1984.
10. M Ramet, R Bouqut, F Bermond, Y Caire and M Bouallegue,
‘Shearing and bending human knee joint tests in quasi-static
lateral load’, Proceedings of the international IRCOBI conference
‘Biomechanics of Impacts’, 1995, pp. 93–105.
651 IJCrash 2007 Vol. 12 No. 6
 Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 00:05 22 December 2015

IJCrash 2007 Vol. 12 No. 6

652
Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis