Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Numerical Analysis of Occupant Head Injuries in Impacts with Dump Truck Panel

Numerical Analysis of Occupant Head Injuries in Impacts with Dump Truck Panel Hindawi Applied Bionics and Biomechanics Volume 2018, Article ID 8373479, 9 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8373479 Research Article Numerical Analysis of Occupant Head Injuries in Impacts with Dump Truck Panel Shence Wang , Deshun Liu, and Zhihua Cai School of Electromechanical Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China Correspondence should be addressed to Shence Wang; scwang@hnust.edu.cn Received 19 December 2017; Revised 11 April 2018; Accepted 19 April 2018; Published 3 June 2018 Academic Editor: Tatsuo Yoshino Copyright © 2018 Shence Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The human head will inevitably impact on the panel causing injury due to the inertia during dump truck collisions or emergency braking. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the effects of panel design parameters on occupant head injuries via simulations using finite element (FE) models of a human head and a dump truck cockpit. Special focus was applied to understand how panel type (soft and hard), elastic modulus of the filling and frame, and the fixing distance for the soft panel could affect head injuries in head-to-panel impacts under different impact conditions (impact speed and location). Simulation results show that a soft panel is beneficial for head protection in impacts with the truck instrument panel, and a soft panel using a lower filling elastic modulus, lower frame elastic modulus, and longer fixing distance is helpful for head injury prevention. The findings also indicate that the head peak acceleration and maximum skull stress are more sensitive to the fixing distance and elastic modulus of frame than elastic modulus of the filling of the panel. Moreover, these trends are not affected by changing the impact speed and impact location. The findings of this study suggest that a safer panel design for head injury prevention should firstly have a long fixing distance and then followed by using softer filling and frame materials. 1. Introduction that the measured acceleration response of the head form under the prescribed test condition should not exceed 80 g The dump truck is widely used for transportation of large- continuously for more than 3 ms. Physical impact test using scale metal mines, coal mines, water resources, and so on head form is an important method for study of panel safety with high efficiency and loading capability. However, the design. Liu et al. obtained spherical head model acceleration safety of dump truck is particularly an important issue due changes based on impact tests of head form and gravity impactor with a panel [2]. However, physical impact test is to the complex workplace. Impacts between the head and instrument panel in a condition of truck collision or emer- not the optimal approach for study of panel design since it gency braking generally lead to greater threat to the lives of is difficult to control the factors around the period of the tests the occupant of a dump truck. Therefore, the safety of the and the parameters about the impact test are inconvenient to panel has become important for vehicle design. change. Moreover, the circle of the physical impact test is At present, the study of the panel is mainly based on the long and the cost is high. Therefore, numerical simulations United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regula- using the head form and car models were widely used for tion number 21 (ECE R21 [1]). In this regulation, the head panel safety design. Haniffah et al. ascertained the appropri- is simplified to a solid model with a rigid material body and ate material of the panel according to the rules of the head a vinyl nonlinear material skin, and then they are bonded form stress changing predicted from simulations [3]. Zhao together as the impactor. In the tests, the diameter of the and Zhao [4] and Bao and Qi-ming [5] optimized the panel head form is 165 mm, the mass for the impactor is 6.8 kg, by changing panel attribute parameters to reduce head accel- and the impact speed is 24.1 km/h. The ECE R21 requires eration based on simulations. However, previous studies on 2 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics Scalp Cortical Pia mater Scalp bone CSF Canllcellous Dura mater bone Flax cerebri Pituitary gland Corpus callosum Figure 1: The FE model of the head. Table 1: Materials of bones [6–8]. Young’s Shear Cowper-Symonds Molding Density Poisson’s Hardening Material modulus modulus model failure (g/cm ) ratio parameter (GPa) (GPa) CP strain (%) Cranial cortical bone 2.0 11.5 0.3 1.15 0.1 2.5 7 0.02 Cancellous bone of skull 1.0 0.04 0.45 0.001 0.1 2.5 7 0.03 Bone of cortical bone 5 21 0.23 1.15 0.1 2.5 7 0.02 Cancellous bone of facial 1 0.04 0.45 0.01 0.1 2.5 7 0.03 bone Mandibular cortical bone 2 11.5 0.3 1.15 .1 2.5 7 0.02 Mandibular cancellous bone 1 0.04 0.45 0.01 0.1 2.5 7 0.03 Table 2: Head soft tissue material parameters. Density, Young’s modulus Poisson’s Bulk modulus Head component G0 (kPa) G∞ (kPa) β (s-1) Reference ρ (kg/m ) (MPa) ratio (MPa) Scalp 1000 16.7 0.42 [9] Dural 1130 31.5 0.23 [9] Pia mater 1130 11.5 0.45 [9] CSF cerebrospinal 1050 100 20 100 4.97 [9] fluid Brain 1040 1.66 0.928 16.95 557 [10] Cerebellum 1040 1.66 0.928 16.95 557 [10] Brainstem 1040 1.66 0.928 16.95 557 [10] Corpus callosum 1140 31.5 0.45 [11] Sickle 1140 31.5 0.45 [11] Pituitary/ventricles 1140 31.5 0.45 [11] panel safety design were mainly based on head form as men- element (FE) simulations. In particular, the design parame- tioned above, which cannot predict the biomechanical ters of the panel type, filling elastic modulus, frame elastic response of human head in the collisions. modulus, and length of panel were considered. This work will The purpose of this study is therefore to analyze the provide important data for the design of truck panel with the effects of different panel design parameters on occupant head purpose of reducing occupant head injuries in the complex injury using a more accurate human head model via finite workplace [16–18]. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 3 Figure 2: The FE model of the dump truck. 2. Materials and Methods Table 3: The materials defined for dump truck frame and panel [4]. 2.1. Head FE Model. The head FE model was extracted from Young’s modulus Poisson’s Density, Structure Material a whole body model which was developed and used to study (MPa) ratio ρ (kg/m ) the chest injury during impacts in different directions [12]. 5 3 Framework DC01 2.1 × 10 0.28 7.85 × 10 The head model was then improved and validated by Mao Hard panel PC 2400 0.35 1007 et al. in a later study [13], see Figure 1. The validation study Soft panel mainly focused on evaluating the biomechanical response of Skin PVC 2400 0.35 1350 the head model under loading conditions of drop and blunt Frame ABS 3400 0.35 1007 impact at different speeds comparing with cadaver test data from Yoganandan et al. [14, 15], and the validation results Filling PUR 20.0 0.01 140 show good agreement with the experiments [13]. Thus, the head FE model is reliable for analysis in the current study. Figure 2. The dump truck cockpit FE model includes The brain is a soft biological organ with high water con- 1513114 nodes and 1505251 elements. tent (close to 80%). It shows incompressibility, nonlinearity, anisotropy, and viscoelasticity. Thus, the Two panel types (soft panel and hard panel) are usually MAT_VISCOE- used in dump trucks. Soft panels are mainly made up of poly- LASTIC (6# material in LS-DNYA) was selected. Plenty of brain tissue experiments show that the deformation of the vinyl chloride (PVC) and polycarbonate (ABS), while hard panels are usually made of plastics. For the soft panel, ABS brain tissue depends on its shear modulus, so its formula is and PVC materials are usually used in the skin and frame, as follows: and the polyurethane (PUR) material is chosen as the filing layer to reduce the stiffness of the panel. Table 3 shows the −βt Gt = G + G − G e , 1 0 0 ∞ materials for the truck framework and the panel, where the DC01 low carbon steel was selected to model the frame of dump truck and the material models for the soft and hard where G is short-term shear modulus, G is long-term 0 ∞ panel were defined, respectively. The data in Table 3 were shear modulus, and β is decay coefficient. The material extracted from a previous study of head-to-panel impacts [4]. parameters used for the head model components are given in Tables 1 and 2. 2.3. Setup of Impact Simulations 2.2. Dump Truck Cockpit FE Model. The FE model of a dump truck cockpit was developed using a finite element prepro- 2.3.1. Impact Location and Impact Speed. The impact location cessing software HyperMesh. It consists of the truck frame- should cover the high aggressive structures in the panel, work, seat, panel, and other structures in the cockpit, see including the fragile places and high stiffness structures. 4 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics Impact area A C Fixing location Figure 3: Impact area. According to this principle, the impact locations in the panel 3. Results were chosen as shown in Figure 3. The selection of the impact 3.1. Effects of Panel Type on Head Injury. The simulation location is also to consider the potential contact locations of results for different panel type are shown in Figure 4, includ- the occupant during operation. ing the time-acceleration curve and skull stress nephogram. The working speed of the dump truck usually does not The results show that the maximum acceleration of the head exceed 40 km/h due to the terrible working environment. is 97 g (near 9.5 ms) for the hard panel, and the time range for Therefore, the speeds of 10 km/h, 24.1 km/h, 32 km/h, head acceleration above 80 g in the hear panel case is from and 40 km/h were used in this study with a combining 7.6 ms to 13 ms (the peak width = 5.4 ms), see Figure 4(a). consideration of the impact speed required by ECE R21 Both the peak value and duration time exceed the require- (24.1 km/h). ments in the ECE R21, where a maximum head acceleration of 80 g and a duration time of 3 ms are limited. However, for 2.3.2. Parametric Study. Table 4 shows the information for the soft panel, the maximum acceleration of the head is 72 g different parametric studies. Firstly, a parametric study was (at 7.4 ms), which meets the requirement of ECE R21. Simi- carried out on the influence of the panel type (soft versus larly, the maximum stress of the skull for the impact with hard) on head injuries by comparing the results from the the hard panel (100 MPa) is significantly higher than that impact simulation of a soft instrument board with that from for the soft panel (75 MPa), and the peak stress area for the a hard panel. Then the effects of filling elastic modulus (filling hard panel case is also obviously wider than that for the E: 200 versus 20 MPa), frame elastic modulus (frame E: 0.34 impact with the soft panel. versus 3.4 GPa), and fixing distance (L: 450 versus 550 versus 650 mm, see Figure 3) in the soft panel on head injuries were 3.2. Effects of Soft Panel Design Parameters on Head Injury at analyzed, respectively. Different Impact Speeds. Figure 5 shows the head acceleration For the parametric study of softer panel design parame- curves for simulations of head-to-soft panel impact using dif- ters, either different impact speeds (10 km/h, 24.1 km/h, ferent design parameters at different speeds. As shown in this 32 km/h, and 40 km/h) or different impact locations (A, B, figure, the peak acceleration values of head for the cases of and C) were used to consider the working environment of filling elastic modules of 20 MPa are significantly lower than the dump truck. For the impact speed changing case impact, those for the cases of using a filling elastic modules of location B was selected to cover the main impact area (front 200 MPa (#1 versus #4: 50 g versus 52 g, 64 g versus 71 g, of the occupant). While for the impact location changing 70 g versus 74 g, and 75 g versus 78 g for 10 km/h, 24.1 km/ case, impact speed of 24.1 km/h was used to take the require- h, 32 km/h, and 40 km/h, resp.), when keeping other design ment of ECE R21 (the only regulation for panel safety design) parameters at the same level. The maximum head accelera- into consideration. The combinations of impact speed and tion for the impacts with a panel using a frame elastic mod- location were not considered to reduce the computational ules of 0.34 GPa (#2: 63 g, 48 g, 67 g, and 69 g) are also time, and the increase of impact speed generally leads to a obviously lower than those for a stiffer frame with elastic worse situation. modules of 3.4 GPa (#2 versus #3: 48 g versus 53 g, 63 g versus Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 5 Table 4: The properties of the panel for different parametric studies. Parametric study Filling Frame L Speed (km/h) Location Soft versus hard (see Table 3 for material Panel type 450 mm 24.1 B parameters) Filling elastic modulus 200 versus 20 MPa 0.34 GPa 450 mm 10, 24.1, 32, and A, B, and C at Frame elastic modulus 200 MPa 0.34 versus 3.4 GPa 550 mm 40 at B 24.1 km/h Support position 200 MPa 0.34 GPa 450 versus 550 versus 650 mm 0 5 10 15 20 Time (ms) Hard panel Soft panel (a) Head acceleration Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 100 75 90 68 40 36 24 26 16 18 8 8 0 0 (b) Skull stress with the hard panel (c) Skull stress with the soft panel Figure 4: The simulation results for the hard and soft instrument panel. 72 g, 67 g versus 82 g and 69 g versus 89 g for 10 km/h, for the case using a filling elastic modulus of 20 MPa is slightly lower than that for the case with a filling elastic mod- 24.1 km/h, 32 km/h, and 40 km/h, resp.), again other design parameters were controlled. For different fixing distances ulus of 200 MPa when controlling other parameters. The (controlling other parameters), the results show that the head peak skull stress area for the 20 MPa filling elastic modulus peak acceleration values for the cases of 450 mm are the high- case is also smaller than the 200 MPa case. However, signifi- est, followed by the cases of 550 mm and 650 mm (#4 versus cant differences in maximum skull stress and its area were #2 versus #5: 52 g versus 48 g versus 37 g, 71 g versus 63 g ver- observed between the cases using a frame elastic modulus sus 42 g, 74 g versus 67 g versus 48 g, and 78 g versus 69 g ver- of 0.34 GPa and 3.4 GPa, where the maximum skull stress sus 51 g for 10 km/h, 24.1 km/h, 32 km/h, and 40 km/h, resp.). for the former is 15 MPa (Figure 6(b)) and 65 MPa Figure 6 shows an example for the distribution of skull (Figure 6(c)) for the latter. The maximum skull stress for stress at the time point where the maximum stress occurred. the fixing distance of 450 mm, 550 mm, and 650 mm are 20 MPa (Figure 6(d)), 15 MPa (Figure 6(b)), and 3 MPa These results show that the maximum stress value of the skull Acceleration (g) 6 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics #3 60 70 #2 #2 #3 60 #4 #1 #5 #4 #1 #5 0 0 0 5 10152025 0 5 10152025 Time (ms) Time (ms) Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm L 650 mm (a) Head acceleration curves for simulations at 10.0 km/h (b) Head acceleration curves for simulations at 24.1 km/h 80 #3 #4 #2 #3 #2 #4 #1 #5 #1 #5 0 0 0 5 10152025 0 5 10152025 Time (ms) Time (ms) Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm L 650 mm (c) Head acceleration curves for simulations at 32.0 km/h (d) Head acceleration curves for simulations at 40.0 km/h Figure 5: Head acceleration curves for simulations using different design parameters. (Figure 6(e)), respectively. The case of 650 mm has the 24.1 km/h case) trend of the maximum stress as a function smallest peak stress area in the skull comparing to another of changing the magnitude of a given design parameter was two cases. observed for other impact speeds (Figure 7). The data in The stress distributionsfor the speeds of10 km/h, 32 km/h, Figure 7 also show that the maximum skull stress increases and 40 km/h are not shown here, but the similar (to the with increasing impact speed. Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 7 Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 18 65 15 14 58 12 50 10 11 45 9 10 40 8 9 36 6 6 26 5 4 18 2 2 8 0 0 0 (a) (b) (c) Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 20 3 18 2.5 16 2 14 1.8 13 1.5 10 1.2 8 1 4 8e-1 2 5e-1 0 0 (d) (e) Figure 6: Skull stress for simulations at 24.1 km/h. 10 24.1 32 40 Speed (km/h) Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm Figure 7: The peak value of the skull for simulations at different speed. 3.3. Effects of Soft Panel Design Parameters on Head Injury at maximum skull stress values for the simulations using differ- Different Impact Locations. Figures 8 and 9 show the pre- ent design parameters at different impact locations. It is clear dicted head acceleration time history curves and the from these data that both peak head acceleration and Stress (Mpa) 8 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics #2 #3 #2 #3 #1 #1 #5 #5 #4 #4 20 20 10 10 0 5 10152025 0 5 10152025 Time (ms) Time (ms) Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm L 650 mm (a) Head acceleration curves for simulations in location A (b) Head acceleration curves for simulations in location C Figure 8: Head acceleration curves for simulations in different locations. maximum skull stress are lower in the cases with a relatively softer panel and longer fixing distances. This trend is con- stant for all impact locations, which is similar to that observed from changing impact speed. The simulation results also show that the peak head acceleration values and maximum skull fractures in locations A and C (Figures 8 and 9) are larger than those for the loca- tion B (Figures 5(b) and 9). 4. Discussion and Conclusions The effects of different panel type and design parameters of the soft panel on head injury index of peak acceleration and maximum skull stress in head-to-truck panel impacts were predicted using FE simulations. Comparisons of head accel- eration and skull stress between hard and soft panel impacts indicate that the soft panel is beneficial for head protection when impacting with a truck instrument panel. This effect is mainly from the generally lower stiffness of Location A Location B Location C the soft panel. For the detailed analysis of how different design parame- Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm ters of the soft panel affect head injuries in the head-to-panel Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm impact, the results indicate that a lower filling elastic modu- Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm lus, lower frame elastic modulus, and longer fixing distance Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm are helpful for head injury prevention in head-to-panel impacts. Moreover, the above trends are not affected by Figure 9: Skull stress of the simulation in location A, B, and C at 24.1 km/h. changing the impact location and speed to some extent. Stress (Mpa) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 9 biomechanics,” International Journal of Crashworthiness, The results also suggest that the head peak acceleration and vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 353–366, 2003. maximum skull stress are more sensitive to the fixing dis- tance than elastic modulus of the filling. This is mainly due [10] E. G. Takhounts, S. A. Ridella, V. Hasija et al., “Investigation of traumatic brain injuries using the next generation of simulated to the fact that increasing the fixing distance leads to a signif- injury monitor (SIMon) finite element head model,” Stapp Car icant increase of panel deformation in the head-to-panel Crash Journal, vol. 52, pp. 1–31, 2008. impact, which absorbed lot impact energy for head protec- [11] Z. S. Liu, X. Y. Luo, H. P. Lee, and C. Lu, “Snoring source iden- tion. While the differences in panel deformation from chang- tification and snoring noise prediction,” Journal of Biomechan- ing filling and frame elastic modulus are smaller than that ics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 861–870, 2007. from the change of fixing distance. Therefore, a safer panel [12] Z. Cai, Z. Li, L. Wang, H. Hsu, Z. Xiao, and C. J. Xian, “A three- design for head injury prevention is firstly suggested to have dimensional finite element modelling of human chest injury a long fixing distance and then followed by using softer filling following front or side impact loading,” Journal of Vibroengi- and frame materials. neering, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 539–550, 2016. [13] Z. Y. Mao et al., “The simulation analysis on biomechanical Conflicts of Interest responses of human head under different loading conditions,” Journal Medical Biomechanics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 532–539, 2016. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of the interest. [14] N. Yoganandan, F. A. Pintar, A. Sances Jr. et al., “Biomechan- ics of skull fracture,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 12, no. 4, Acknowledgments pp. 659–668, 1995. [15] N. Yoganandan, J. Zhang, and F. A. Pintar, “Force and acceler- The authors acknowledge the support from the National Nat- ation corridors from lateral head impact,” Traffic Injury Pre- ural Science Foundation of China (51779092), the Research vention, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 368–373, 2004. Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province, China [16] X. Deng, S. Potula, H. Grewal, K. N. Solanki, M. A. Tschopp, and (16C0651), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded M. F. Horstemeyer, “Finite element analysis of occupant head project (2016M592421), and the Educational Commission of injuries: parametric effects of the side curtain airbag deployment Hunan Province of China (17A068). interaction with a dummy head in a side impact crash,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 55, pp. 232–241, 2013. References [17] N. Li, H. Fang, C. Zhang, M. Gutowski, E. Palta, and Q. Wang, “A numerical study of occupant responses and injuries in [1] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation vehicular crashes into roadside barriers based on finite element No. 21, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehi- simulations,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 90, cles with regard to Their Interior Fittings, 2003. pp. 22–40, 2015. [2] C. H. Liu, Y. C. Lai, C. H. Chiu, and M. H. Lin, “Interior head [18] K. A. Danelson, A. J. Golman, A. R. Kemper et al., “Finite impact analysis of automotive instrument panel for unre- element comparison of human and hybrid III responses in strained front seat passengers,” Key Engineering Materials, a frontal impact,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 85, vol. 715, pp. 186–191, 2016. pp. 125–156, 2015. [3] N. A. Haniffah, M. F. Zakaria, and T. K. Sheng, “Design and analysis of automotive instrument panel,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 980, pp. 263–268, 2014. [4] L. Zhao and G. Zhao, “Simulation of human head damage caused by crash between head and automobile panel,” Trans- actions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Machinery, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 22–26, 2005. [5] X. I. Bao and T. A. Qi-ming, “Head-Impact Simulation Analy- sis and Research of the Automobile Instrument Panel,” Journal of Anqing Teachers College, vol. 3, 2012. [6] D. Sahoo, C. Deck, N. Yoganandan, and R. Willinger, “Influ- ence of head mass on temporo-parietal skull impact using finite element modeling,” Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 869–878, 2015. [7] Z. Asgharpour, D. Baumgartner, R. Willinger, M. Graw, and S. Peldschus, “The validation and application of a finite ele- ment human head model for frontal skull fracture analysis,” Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, vol. 33, pp. 16–23, 2014. [8] H. Mao, L. Zhang, B. Jiang et al., “Development of a finite ele- ment human head model partially validated with thirty five experimental cases,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 135, no. 11, article 111002, 2013. [9] T. J. Horgan and M. D. Gilchrist, “The creation of three- dimensional finite element models for simulating head impact International Journal of Advances in Rotating Machinery Multimedia Journal of The Scientific Journal of Engineering World Journal Sensors Hindawi Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www www.hindawi.com .hindawi.com V Volume 2018 olume 2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Journal of Control Science and Engineering Advances in Civil Engineering Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Submit your manuscripts at www.hindawi.com Journal of Journal of Electrical and Computer Robotics Engineering Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 VLSI Design Advances in OptoElectronics International Journal of Modelling & Aerospace International Journal of Simulation Navigation and in Engineering Engineering Observation Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Volume 2018 Volume 2018 Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 International Journal of Active and Passive International Journal of Antennas and Advances in Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Bionics and Biomechanics Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Numerical Analysis of Occupant Head Injuries in Impacts with Dump Truck Panel

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/numerical-analysis-of-occupant-head-injuries-in-impacts-with-dump-3WVos0OZzs

References (19)

Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Shence Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
1176-2322
eISSN
1754-2103
DOI
10.1155/2018/8373479
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Applied Bionics and Biomechanics Volume 2018, Article ID 8373479, 9 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8373479 Research Article Numerical Analysis of Occupant Head Injuries in Impacts with Dump Truck Panel Shence Wang , Deshun Liu, and Zhihua Cai School of Electromechanical Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China Correspondence should be addressed to Shence Wang; scwang@hnust.edu.cn Received 19 December 2017; Revised 11 April 2018; Accepted 19 April 2018; Published 3 June 2018 Academic Editor: Tatsuo Yoshino Copyright © 2018 Shence Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The human head will inevitably impact on the panel causing injury due to the inertia during dump truck collisions or emergency braking. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the effects of panel design parameters on occupant head injuries via simulations using finite element (FE) models of a human head and a dump truck cockpit. Special focus was applied to understand how panel type (soft and hard), elastic modulus of the filling and frame, and the fixing distance for the soft panel could affect head injuries in head-to-panel impacts under different impact conditions (impact speed and location). Simulation results show that a soft panel is beneficial for head protection in impacts with the truck instrument panel, and a soft panel using a lower filling elastic modulus, lower frame elastic modulus, and longer fixing distance is helpful for head injury prevention. The findings also indicate that the head peak acceleration and maximum skull stress are more sensitive to the fixing distance and elastic modulus of frame than elastic modulus of the filling of the panel. Moreover, these trends are not affected by changing the impact speed and impact location. The findings of this study suggest that a safer panel design for head injury prevention should firstly have a long fixing distance and then followed by using softer filling and frame materials. 1. Introduction that the measured acceleration response of the head form under the prescribed test condition should not exceed 80 g The dump truck is widely used for transportation of large- continuously for more than 3 ms. Physical impact test using scale metal mines, coal mines, water resources, and so on head form is an important method for study of panel safety with high efficiency and loading capability. However, the design. Liu et al. obtained spherical head model acceleration safety of dump truck is particularly an important issue due changes based on impact tests of head form and gravity impactor with a panel [2]. However, physical impact test is to the complex workplace. Impacts between the head and instrument panel in a condition of truck collision or emer- not the optimal approach for study of panel design since it gency braking generally lead to greater threat to the lives of is difficult to control the factors around the period of the tests the occupant of a dump truck. Therefore, the safety of the and the parameters about the impact test are inconvenient to panel has become important for vehicle design. change. Moreover, the circle of the physical impact test is At present, the study of the panel is mainly based on the long and the cost is high. Therefore, numerical simulations United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regula- using the head form and car models were widely used for tion number 21 (ECE R21 [1]). In this regulation, the head panel safety design. Haniffah et al. ascertained the appropri- is simplified to a solid model with a rigid material body and ate material of the panel according to the rules of the head a vinyl nonlinear material skin, and then they are bonded form stress changing predicted from simulations [3]. Zhao together as the impactor. In the tests, the diameter of the and Zhao [4] and Bao and Qi-ming [5] optimized the panel head form is 165 mm, the mass for the impactor is 6.8 kg, by changing panel attribute parameters to reduce head accel- and the impact speed is 24.1 km/h. The ECE R21 requires eration based on simulations. However, previous studies on 2 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics Scalp Cortical Pia mater Scalp bone CSF Canllcellous Dura mater bone Flax cerebri Pituitary gland Corpus callosum Figure 1: The FE model of the head. Table 1: Materials of bones [6–8]. Young’s Shear Cowper-Symonds Molding Density Poisson’s Hardening Material modulus modulus model failure (g/cm ) ratio parameter (GPa) (GPa) CP strain (%) Cranial cortical bone 2.0 11.5 0.3 1.15 0.1 2.5 7 0.02 Cancellous bone of skull 1.0 0.04 0.45 0.001 0.1 2.5 7 0.03 Bone of cortical bone 5 21 0.23 1.15 0.1 2.5 7 0.02 Cancellous bone of facial 1 0.04 0.45 0.01 0.1 2.5 7 0.03 bone Mandibular cortical bone 2 11.5 0.3 1.15 .1 2.5 7 0.02 Mandibular cancellous bone 1 0.04 0.45 0.01 0.1 2.5 7 0.03 Table 2: Head soft tissue material parameters. Density, Young’s modulus Poisson’s Bulk modulus Head component G0 (kPa) G∞ (kPa) β (s-1) Reference ρ (kg/m ) (MPa) ratio (MPa) Scalp 1000 16.7 0.42 [9] Dural 1130 31.5 0.23 [9] Pia mater 1130 11.5 0.45 [9] CSF cerebrospinal 1050 100 20 100 4.97 [9] fluid Brain 1040 1.66 0.928 16.95 557 [10] Cerebellum 1040 1.66 0.928 16.95 557 [10] Brainstem 1040 1.66 0.928 16.95 557 [10] Corpus callosum 1140 31.5 0.45 [11] Sickle 1140 31.5 0.45 [11] Pituitary/ventricles 1140 31.5 0.45 [11] panel safety design were mainly based on head form as men- element (FE) simulations. In particular, the design parame- tioned above, which cannot predict the biomechanical ters of the panel type, filling elastic modulus, frame elastic response of human head in the collisions. modulus, and length of panel were considered. This work will The purpose of this study is therefore to analyze the provide important data for the design of truck panel with the effects of different panel design parameters on occupant head purpose of reducing occupant head injuries in the complex injury using a more accurate human head model via finite workplace [16–18]. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 3 Figure 2: The FE model of the dump truck. 2. Materials and Methods Table 3: The materials defined for dump truck frame and panel [4]. 2.1. Head FE Model. The head FE model was extracted from Young’s modulus Poisson’s Density, Structure Material a whole body model which was developed and used to study (MPa) ratio ρ (kg/m ) the chest injury during impacts in different directions [12]. 5 3 Framework DC01 2.1 × 10 0.28 7.85 × 10 The head model was then improved and validated by Mao Hard panel PC 2400 0.35 1007 et al. in a later study [13], see Figure 1. The validation study Soft panel mainly focused on evaluating the biomechanical response of Skin PVC 2400 0.35 1350 the head model under loading conditions of drop and blunt Frame ABS 3400 0.35 1007 impact at different speeds comparing with cadaver test data from Yoganandan et al. [14, 15], and the validation results Filling PUR 20.0 0.01 140 show good agreement with the experiments [13]. Thus, the head FE model is reliable for analysis in the current study. Figure 2. The dump truck cockpit FE model includes The brain is a soft biological organ with high water con- 1513114 nodes and 1505251 elements. tent (close to 80%). It shows incompressibility, nonlinearity, anisotropy, and viscoelasticity. Thus, the Two panel types (soft panel and hard panel) are usually MAT_VISCOE- used in dump trucks. Soft panels are mainly made up of poly- LASTIC (6# material in LS-DNYA) was selected. Plenty of brain tissue experiments show that the deformation of the vinyl chloride (PVC) and polycarbonate (ABS), while hard panels are usually made of plastics. For the soft panel, ABS brain tissue depends on its shear modulus, so its formula is and PVC materials are usually used in the skin and frame, as follows: and the polyurethane (PUR) material is chosen as the filing layer to reduce the stiffness of the panel. Table 3 shows the −βt Gt = G + G − G e , 1 0 0 ∞ materials for the truck framework and the panel, where the DC01 low carbon steel was selected to model the frame of dump truck and the material models for the soft and hard where G is short-term shear modulus, G is long-term 0 ∞ panel were defined, respectively. The data in Table 3 were shear modulus, and β is decay coefficient. The material extracted from a previous study of head-to-panel impacts [4]. parameters used for the head model components are given in Tables 1 and 2. 2.3. Setup of Impact Simulations 2.2. Dump Truck Cockpit FE Model. The FE model of a dump truck cockpit was developed using a finite element prepro- 2.3.1. Impact Location and Impact Speed. The impact location cessing software HyperMesh. It consists of the truck frame- should cover the high aggressive structures in the panel, work, seat, panel, and other structures in the cockpit, see including the fragile places and high stiffness structures. 4 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics Impact area A C Fixing location Figure 3: Impact area. According to this principle, the impact locations in the panel 3. Results were chosen as shown in Figure 3. The selection of the impact 3.1. Effects of Panel Type on Head Injury. The simulation location is also to consider the potential contact locations of results for different panel type are shown in Figure 4, includ- the occupant during operation. ing the time-acceleration curve and skull stress nephogram. The working speed of the dump truck usually does not The results show that the maximum acceleration of the head exceed 40 km/h due to the terrible working environment. is 97 g (near 9.5 ms) for the hard panel, and the time range for Therefore, the speeds of 10 km/h, 24.1 km/h, 32 km/h, head acceleration above 80 g in the hear panel case is from and 40 km/h were used in this study with a combining 7.6 ms to 13 ms (the peak width = 5.4 ms), see Figure 4(a). consideration of the impact speed required by ECE R21 Both the peak value and duration time exceed the require- (24.1 km/h). ments in the ECE R21, where a maximum head acceleration of 80 g and a duration time of 3 ms are limited. However, for 2.3.2. Parametric Study. Table 4 shows the information for the soft panel, the maximum acceleration of the head is 72 g different parametric studies. Firstly, a parametric study was (at 7.4 ms), which meets the requirement of ECE R21. Simi- carried out on the influence of the panel type (soft versus larly, the maximum stress of the skull for the impact with hard) on head injuries by comparing the results from the the hard panel (100 MPa) is significantly higher than that impact simulation of a soft instrument board with that from for the soft panel (75 MPa), and the peak stress area for the a hard panel. Then the effects of filling elastic modulus (filling hard panel case is also obviously wider than that for the E: 200 versus 20 MPa), frame elastic modulus (frame E: 0.34 impact with the soft panel. versus 3.4 GPa), and fixing distance (L: 450 versus 550 versus 650 mm, see Figure 3) in the soft panel on head injuries were 3.2. Effects of Soft Panel Design Parameters on Head Injury at analyzed, respectively. Different Impact Speeds. Figure 5 shows the head acceleration For the parametric study of softer panel design parame- curves for simulations of head-to-soft panel impact using dif- ters, either different impact speeds (10 km/h, 24.1 km/h, ferent design parameters at different speeds. As shown in this 32 km/h, and 40 km/h) or different impact locations (A, B, figure, the peak acceleration values of head for the cases of and C) were used to consider the working environment of filling elastic modules of 20 MPa are significantly lower than the dump truck. For the impact speed changing case impact, those for the cases of using a filling elastic modules of location B was selected to cover the main impact area (front 200 MPa (#1 versus #4: 50 g versus 52 g, 64 g versus 71 g, of the occupant). While for the impact location changing 70 g versus 74 g, and 75 g versus 78 g for 10 km/h, 24.1 km/ case, impact speed of 24.1 km/h was used to take the require- h, 32 km/h, and 40 km/h, resp.), when keeping other design ment of ECE R21 (the only regulation for panel safety design) parameters at the same level. The maximum head accelera- into consideration. The combinations of impact speed and tion for the impacts with a panel using a frame elastic mod- location were not considered to reduce the computational ules of 0.34 GPa (#2: 63 g, 48 g, 67 g, and 69 g) are also time, and the increase of impact speed generally leads to a obviously lower than those for a stiffer frame with elastic worse situation. modules of 3.4 GPa (#2 versus #3: 48 g versus 53 g, 63 g versus Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 5 Table 4: The properties of the panel for different parametric studies. Parametric study Filling Frame L Speed (km/h) Location Soft versus hard (see Table 3 for material Panel type 450 mm 24.1 B parameters) Filling elastic modulus 200 versus 20 MPa 0.34 GPa 450 mm 10, 24.1, 32, and A, B, and C at Frame elastic modulus 200 MPa 0.34 versus 3.4 GPa 550 mm 40 at B 24.1 km/h Support position 200 MPa 0.34 GPa 450 versus 550 versus 650 mm 0 5 10 15 20 Time (ms) Hard panel Soft panel (a) Head acceleration Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 100 75 90 68 40 36 24 26 16 18 8 8 0 0 (b) Skull stress with the hard panel (c) Skull stress with the soft panel Figure 4: The simulation results for the hard and soft instrument panel. 72 g, 67 g versus 82 g and 69 g versus 89 g for 10 km/h, for the case using a filling elastic modulus of 20 MPa is slightly lower than that for the case with a filling elastic mod- 24.1 km/h, 32 km/h, and 40 km/h, resp.), again other design parameters were controlled. For different fixing distances ulus of 200 MPa when controlling other parameters. The (controlling other parameters), the results show that the head peak skull stress area for the 20 MPa filling elastic modulus peak acceleration values for the cases of 450 mm are the high- case is also smaller than the 200 MPa case. However, signifi- est, followed by the cases of 550 mm and 650 mm (#4 versus cant differences in maximum skull stress and its area were #2 versus #5: 52 g versus 48 g versus 37 g, 71 g versus 63 g ver- observed between the cases using a frame elastic modulus sus 42 g, 74 g versus 67 g versus 48 g, and 78 g versus 69 g ver- of 0.34 GPa and 3.4 GPa, where the maximum skull stress sus 51 g for 10 km/h, 24.1 km/h, 32 km/h, and 40 km/h, resp.). for the former is 15 MPa (Figure 6(b)) and 65 MPa Figure 6 shows an example for the distribution of skull (Figure 6(c)) for the latter. The maximum skull stress for stress at the time point where the maximum stress occurred. the fixing distance of 450 mm, 550 mm, and 650 mm are 20 MPa (Figure 6(d)), 15 MPa (Figure 6(b)), and 3 MPa These results show that the maximum stress value of the skull Acceleration (g) 6 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics #3 60 70 #2 #2 #3 60 #4 #1 #5 #4 #1 #5 0 0 0 5 10152025 0 5 10152025 Time (ms) Time (ms) Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm L 650 mm (a) Head acceleration curves for simulations at 10.0 km/h (b) Head acceleration curves for simulations at 24.1 km/h 80 #3 #4 #2 #3 #2 #4 #1 #5 #1 #5 0 0 0 5 10152025 0 5 10152025 Time (ms) Time (ms) Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm L 650 mm (c) Head acceleration curves for simulations at 32.0 km/h (d) Head acceleration curves for simulations at 40.0 km/h Figure 5: Head acceleration curves for simulations using different design parameters. (Figure 6(e)), respectively. The case of 650 mm has the 24.1 km/h case) trend of the maximum stress as a function smallest peak stress area in the skull comparing to another of changing the magnitude of a given design parameter was two cases. observed for other impact speeds (Figure 7). The data in The stress distributionsfor the speeds of10 km/h, 32 km/h, Figure 7 also show that the maximum skull stress increases and 40 km/h are not shown here, but the similar (to the with increasing impact speed. Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 7 Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 18 65 15 14 58 12 50 10 11 45 9 10 40 8 9 36 6 6 26 5 4 18 2 2 8 0 0 0 (a) (b) (c) Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa) 20 3 18 2.5 16 2 14 1.8 13 1.5 10 1.2 8 1 4 8e-1 2 5e-1 0 0 (d) (e) Figure 6: Skull stress for simulations at 24.1 km/h. 10 24.1 32 40 Speed (km/h) Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm Figure 7: The peak value of the skull for simulations at different speed. 3.3. Effects of Soft Panel Design Parameters on Head Injury at maximum skull stress values for the simulations using differ- Different Impact Locations. Figures 8 and 9 show the pre- ent design parameters at different impact locations. It is clear dicted head acceleration time history curves and the from these data that both peak head acceleration and Stress (Mpa) 8 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics #2 #3 #2 #3 #1 #1 #5 #5 #4 #4 20 20 10 10 0 5 10152025 0 5 10152025 Time (ms) Time (ms) Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm L 550 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm L 450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm L 650 mm (a) Head acceleration curves for simulations in location A (b) Head acceleration curves for simulations in location C Figure 8: Head acceleration curves for simulations in different locations. maximum skull stress are lower in the cases with a relatively softer panel and longer fixing distances. This trend is con- stant for all impact locations, which is similar to that observed from changing impact speed. The simulation results also show that the peak head acceleration values and maximum skull fractures in locations A and C (Figures 8 and 9) are larger than those for the loca- tion B (Figures 5(b) and 9). 4. Discussion and Conclusions The effects of different panel type and design parameters of the soft panel on head injury index of peak acceleration and maximum skull stress in head-to-truck panel impacts were predicted using FE simulations. Comparisons of head accel- eration and skull stress between hard and soft panel impacts indicate that the soft panel is beneficial for head protection when impacting with a truck instrument panel. This effect is mainly from the generally lower stiffness of Location A Location B Location C the soft panel. For the detailed analysis of how different design parame- Filling E 20 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L450 mm Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 550 mm ters of the soft panel affect head injuries in the head-to-panel Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 3.4 Gpa; L 550 mm impact, the results indicate that a lower filling elastic modu- Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 450 mm lus, lower frame elastic modulus, and longer fixing distance Filling E 200 Mpa; frame E; 0.34 Gpa; L 650 mm are helpful for head injury prevention in head-to-panel impacts. Moreover, the above trends are not affected by Figure 9: Skull stress of the simulation in location A, B, and C at 24.1 km/h. changing the impact location and speed to some extent. Stress (Mpa) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Applied Bionics and Biomechanics 9 biomechanics,” International Journal of Crashworthiness, The results also suggest that the head peak acceleration and vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 353–366, 2003. maximum skull stress are more sensitive to the fixing dis- tance than elastic modulus of the filling. This is mainly due [10] E. G. Takhounts, S. A. Ridella, V. Hasija et al., “Investigation of traumatic brain injuries using the next generation of simulated to the fact that increasing the fixing distance leads to a signif- injury monitor (SIMon) finite element head model,” Stapp Car icant increase of panel deformation in the head-to-panel Crash Journal, vol. 52, pp. 1–31, 2008. impact, which absorbed lot impact energy for head protec- [11] Z. S. Liu, X. Y. Luo, H. P. Lee, and C. Lu, “Snoring source iden- tion. While the differences in panel deformation from chang- tification and snoring noise prediction,” Journal of Biomechan- ing filling and frame elastic modulus are smaller than that ics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 861–870, 2007. from the change of fixing distance. Therefore, a safer panel [12] Z. Cai, Z. Li, L. Wang, H. Hsu, Z. Xiao, and C. J. Xian, “A three- design for head injury prevention is firstly suggested to have dimensional finite element modelling of human chest injury a long fixing distance and then followed by using softer filling following front or side impact loading,” Journal of Vibroengi- and frame materials. neering, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 539–550, 2016. [13] Z. Y. Mao et al., “The simulation analysis on biomechanical Conflicts of Interest responses of human head under different loading conditions,” Journal Medical Biomechanics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 532–539, 2016. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of the interest. [14] N. Yoganandan, F. A. Pintar, A. Sances Jr. et al., “Biomechan- ics of skull fracture,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 12, no. 4, Acknowledgments pp. 659–668, 1995. [15] N. Yoganandan, J. Zhang, and F. A. Pintar, “Force and acceler- The authors acknowledge the support from the National Nat- ation corridors from lateral head impact,” Traffic Injury Pre- ural Science Foundation of China (51779092), the Research vention, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 368–373, 2004. Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province, China [16] X. Deng, S. Potula, H. Grewal, K. N. Solanki, M. A. Tschopp, and (16C0651), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded M. F. Horstemeyer, “Finite element analysis of occupant head project (2016M592421), and the Educational Commission of injuries: parametric effects of the side curtain airbag deployment Hunan Province of China (17A068). interaction with a dummy head in a side impact crash,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 55, pp. 232–241, 2013. References [17] N. Li, H. Fang, C. Zhang, M. Gutowski, E. Palta, and Q. Wang, “A numerical study of occupant responses and injuries in [1] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation vehicular crashes into roadside barriers based on finite element No. 21, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehi- simulations,” Advances in Engineering Software, vol. 90, cles with regard to Their Interior Fittings, 2003. pp. 22–40, 2015. [2] C. H. Liu, Y. C. Lai, C. H. Chiu, and M. H. Lin, “Interior head [18] K. A. Danelson, A. J. Golman, A. R. Kemper et al., “Finite impact analysis of automotive instrument panel for unre- element comparison of human and hybrid III responses in strained front seat passengers,” Key Engineering Materials, a frontal impact,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 85, vol. 715, pp. 186–191, 2016. pp. 125–156, 2015. [3] N. A. Haniffah, M. F. Zakaria, and T. K. Sheng, “Design and analysis of automotive instrument panel,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 980, pp. 263–268, 2014. [4] L. Zhao and G. Zhao, “Simulation of human head damage caused by crash between head and automobile panel,” Trans- actions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Machinery, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 22–26, 2005. [5] X. I. Bao and T. A. Qi-ming, “Head-Impact Simulation Analy- sis and Research of the Automobile Instrument Panel,” Journal of Anqing Teachers College, vol. 3, 2012. [6] D. Sahoo, C. Deck, N. Yoganandan, and R. Willinger, “Influ- ence of head mass on temporo-parietal skull impact using finite element modeling,” Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 869–878, 2015. [7] Z. Asgharpour, D. Baumgartner, R. Willinger, M. Graw, and S. Peldschus, “The validation and application of a finite ele- ment human head model for frontal skull fracture analysis,” Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, vol. 33, pp. 16–23, 2014. [8] H. Mao, L. Zhang, B. Jiang et al., “Development of a finite ele- ment human head model partially validated with thirty five experimental cases,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 135, no. 11, article 111002, 2013. [9] T. J. Horgan and M. D. Gilchrist, “The creation of three- dimensional finite element models for simulating head impact International Journal of Advances in Rotating Machinery Multimedia Journal of The Scientific Journal of Engineering World Journal Sensors Hindawi Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www www.hindawi.com .hindawi.com V Volume 2018 olume 2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Journal of Control Science and Engineering Advances in Civil Engineering Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Submit your manuscripts at www.hindawi.com Journal of Journal of Electrical and Computer Robotics Engineering Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 VLSI Design Advances in OptoElectronics International Journal of Modelling & Aerospace International Journal of Simulation Navigation and in Engineering Engineering Observation Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Volume 2018 Volume 2018 Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 International Journal of Active and Passive International Journal of Antennas and Advances in Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal

Applied Bionics and BiomechanicsHindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Jun 3, 2018

There are no references for this article.