How are loads in the pedestrian struck side leg affected by boundary conditions in Human Body Model simulations?

Nisha Nandlal Sharma, Corina Klug, Franz Roth, Stefan Schinke, Florian Feist

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Several developments of biofidelic subsystem impactors for pedestrian testing have been presented in the past, with the purpose of minimising the lower extremity injury severity in pedestrian accidents. The flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) shows higher biofidelity compared to the European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) pedestrian legform impactor [1]. Due to the missing upper body mass the FlexPLI cannot adequately simulate the bending load generated on a lower limb of pedestrians for specific vehicle geometries [2]. The advanced pedestrian legform impactor (aPLI) with a supplementary upper body mass (SUBP) was developed to address this issue [2]. The aPLI was developed (and thus correlates well) with the JSAE Human Body Model (HBM). It would appear sensible to re-evaluate the approach by employing another HBM and another generic test buck and by applying varying boundary conditions. The current study aims to answer the following questions: (1) What is the effect of varying boundary conditions (like impact height, leg length and mass, contact with non-struck side leg, Isolated leg with simplified upper body mass, etc.) on the pedestrian leg loads? (2) Is the SUBP developed by [3] transferable to another HBM?
Original languageEnglish
Pages416-417
Publication statusPublished - 13 Sep 2019
EventIRCOBI Conference 2019 - Florenz, Italy
Duration: 11 Sep 201913 Sep 2019

Conference

ConferenceIRCOBI Conference 2019
CountryItaly
CityFlorenz
Period11/09/1913/09/19

Fingerprint

Boundary conditions
Pedestrian safety
Accidents
Geometry
Testing

Keywords

  • pedestrian legform impactor
  • Pedestrian Protection
  • Human Body Model

Fields of Expertise

  • Mobility & Production

Cite this

Sharma, N. N., Klug, C., Roth, F., Schinke, S., & Feist, F. (2019). How are loads in the pedestrian struck side leg affected by boundary conditions in Human Body Model simulations?. 416-417. Paper presented at IRCOBI Conference 2019, Florenz, Italy.

How are loads in the pedestrian struck side leg affected by boundary conditions in Human Body Model simulations? / Sharma, Nisha Nandlal; Klug, Corina; Roth, Franz; Schinke, Stefan; Feist, Florian.

2019. 416-417 Paper presented at IRCOBI Conference 2019, Florenz, Italy.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearchpeer-review

Sharma, NN, Klug, C, Roth, F, Schinke, S & Feist, F 2019, 'How are loads in the pedestrian struck side leg affected by boundary conditions in Human Body Model simulations?' Paper presented at IRCOBI Conference 2019, Florenz, Italy, 11/09/19 - 13/09/19, pp. 416-417.
Sharma NN, Klug C, Roth F, Schinke S, Feist F. How are loads in the pedestrian struck side leg affected by boundary conditions in Human Body Model simulations?. 2019. Paper presented at IRCOBI Conference 2019, Florenz, Italy.
Sharma, Nisha Nandlal ; Klug, Corina ; Roth, Franz ; Schinke, Stefan ; Feist, Florian. / How are loads in the pedestrian struck side leg affected by boundary conditions in Human Body Model simulations?. Paper presented at IRCOBI Conference 2019, Florenz, Italy.
@conference{2709a3fe39c146c4a1e274870a000a84,
title = "How are loads in the pedestrian struck side leg affected by boundary conditions in Human Body Model simulations?",
abstract = "Several developments of biofidelic subsystem impactors for pedestrian testing have been presented in the past, with the purpose of minimising the lower extremity injury severity in pedestrian accidents. The flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) shows higher biofidelity compared to the European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) pedestrian legform impactor [1]. Due to the missing upper body mass the FlexPLI cannot adequately simulate the bending load generated on a lower limb of pedestrians for specific vehicle geometries [2]. The advanced pedestrian legform impactor (aPLI) with a supplementary upper body mass (SUBP) was developed to address this issue [2]. The aPLI was developed (and thus correlates well) with the JSAE Human Body Model (HBM). It would appear sensible to re-evaluate the approach by employing another HBM and another generic test buck and by applying varying boundary conditions. The current study aims to answer the following questions: (1) What is the effect of varying boundary conditions (like impact height, leg length and mass, contact with non-struck side leg, Isolated leg with simplified upper body mass, etc.) on the pedestrian leg loads? (2) Is the SUBP developed by [3] transferable to another HBM?",
keywords = "pedestrian legform impactor, Pedestrian Protection, Human Body Model",
author = "Sharma, {Nisha Nandlal} and Corina Klug and Franz Roth and Stefan Schinke and Florian Feist",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "13",
language = "English",
pages = "416--417",
note = "IRCOBI Conference 2019 ; Conference date: 11-09-2019 Through 13-09-2019",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - How are loads in the pedestrian struck side leg affected by boundary conditions in Human Body Model simulations?

AU - Sharma, Nisha Nandlal

AU - Klug, Corina

AU - Roth, Franz

AU - Schinke, Stefan

AU - Feist, Florian

PY - 2019/9/13

Y1 - 2019/9/13

N2 - Several developments of biofidelic subsystem impactors for pedestrian testing have been presented in the past, with the purpose of minimising the lower extremity injury severity in pedestrian accidents. The flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) shows higher biofidelity compared to the European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) pedestrian legform impactor [1]. Due to the missing upper body mass the FlexPLI cannot adequately simulate the bending load generated on a lower limb of pedestrians for specific vehicle geometries [2]. The advanced pedestrian legform impactor (aPLI) with a supplementary upper body mass (SUBP) was developed to address this issue [2]. The aPLI was developed (and thus correlates well) with the JSAE Human Body Model (HBM). It would appear sensible to re-evaluate the approach by employing another HBM and another generic test buck and by applying varying boundary conditions. The current study aims to answer the following questions: (1) What is the effect of varying boundary conditions (like impact height, leg length and mass, contact with non-struck side leg, Isolated leg with simplified upper body mass, etc.) on the pedestrian leg loads? (2) Is the SUBP developed by [3] transferable to another HBM?

AB - Several developments of biofidelic subsystem impactors for pedestrian testing have been presented in the past, with the purpose of minimising the lower extremity injury severity in pedestrian accidents. The flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) shows higher biofidelity compared to the European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) pedestrian legform impactor [1]. Due to the missing upper body mass the FlexPLI cannot adequately simulate the bending load generated on a lower limb of pedestrians for specific vehicle geometries [2]. The advanced pedestrian legform impactor (aPLI) with a supplementary upper body mass (SUBP) was developed to address this issue [2]. The aPLI was developed (and thus correlates well) with the JSAE Human Body Model (HBM). It would appear sensible to re-evaluate the approach by employing another HBM and another generic test buck and by applying varying boundary conditions. The current study aims to answer the following questions: (1) What is the effect of varying boundary conditions (like impact height, leg length and mass, contact with non-struck side leg, Isolated leg with simplified upper body mass, etc.) on the pedestrian leg loads? (2) Is the SUBP developed by [3] transferable to another HBM?

KW - pedestrian legform impactor

KW - Pedestrian Protection

KW - Human Body Model

UR - http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc19/pdf-files/55.pdf

M3 - Paper

SP - 416

EP - 417

ER -