{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035806729939603106, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018550474547023296, 'mean_word_length': 4.992248062015504, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of biofidelity of THUMS pedestrian model under a whole-body impact conditions with a generic sedan buck

ABSTRACT Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate the biofidelity of the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS; Ver. 4.01) pedestrian finite element models (PFEM) in a whole-body pedestrian impact condition using a well-characterized generic pedestrian buck model. Methods: The biofidelity of THUMS PFEM was evaluated with respect to data from 3 full-scale postmortem human subject (PMHS) pedestrian impact tests, in which a pedestrian buck laterally struck the subjects using a pedestrian buck at 40 km/h. The pedestrian model was scaled to match the anthropometry of the target subjects and then positioned to match the pre-impact postures of the target subjects based on the 3-dimensional motion tracking data obtained during the experiments. An objective rating method was employed to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between the responses of the models and the PMHS. Injuries in the models were predicted both probabilistically and deterministically using empirical injury risk functions and strain measures, respectively, and compared with those of the target PMHS. Results: In general, the model exhibited biofidelic kinematic responses (in the Y–Z plane) regarding trajectories (International Organization for Standardization [ISO] ratings: Y = 0.90 ± 0.11, Z = 0.89 ± 0.09), linear resultant velocities (ISO ratings: 0.83 ± 0.07), accelerations (ISO ratings: Y = 0.58 ± 0.11, Z = 0.52 ± 0.12), and angular velocities (ISO ratings: X = 0.48 ± 0.13) but exhibited stiffer leg responses and delayed head responses compared to those of the PMHS. This indicates potential biofidelity issues with the PFEM for regions below the knee and in the neck. The model also demonstrated comparable reaction forces at the buck front-end regions to those from the PMHS tests. The PFEM generally predicted the injuries that the PMHS sustained but overestimated injuries in the ankle and leg regions. Conclusions: Based on the data considered, the THUMS PFEM was considered to be biofidelic for this pedestrian impact condition and vehicle. Given the capability of the model to reproduce biomechanical responses, it shows potential as a valuable tool for developing novel pedestrian safety systems.