Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: Occupants with extreme body size and shape, such as the small female or the obese, were reported to sustain high risk of injury in motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). Dimensional scaling approaches are widely used in injury biomechanics research based on the assumption of geometrical similarity. However, its application scope has not been quantified ever since. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the valid range of scaling approaches in predicting the impact response of the occupants with focus on the vulnerable populations. Methods: The present analysis was based on a data set consisting of 60 previously reported frontal crash tests in the same sled buck representing a typical mid-size passenger car. The tests included two categories of human surrogates: 9 postmortem human surrogates (PMHS) of different anthropometries (stature range: 147–189 cm; weight range: 27–151 kg) and 5 anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). The impact response was considered including the restraint loads and the kinematics of multiple body segments. For each category of the human surrogates, a mid-size occupant was selected as a baseline and the impact response was scaled specifically to another subject based on either the body mass (body shape) or stature (the overall body size). To identify the valid range of the scaling approach, the scaled response was compared to the experimental results using assessment scores on the peak value, peak timing (the time when the peak value occurred), and the overall curve shape ranging from 0 (extremely poor) to 1 (perfect match). Scores of 0.7 to 0.8 and 0.8 to 1.0 indicate fair and acceptable prediction. Results: For both ATDs and PMHS, the scaling factor derived from body mass proved an overall good predictor of the peak timing for the shoulder belt (0.868, 0.829) and the lap belt (0.858, 0.774) and for the peak value of the lap belt force (0.796, 0.869). Scaled kinematics based on body stature provided fair or acceptable prediction on the overall head/shoulder kinematics (0.741, 0.822 for the head; 0.817, 0.728 for the shoulder) regardless of the anthropometry. The scaling approach exhibited poor prediction capability on the curve shape for the restraint force (0.494 and 0.546 for the shoulder belt; 0.585 and 0.530 for the lap belt). It also cannot well predict the excursion of the pelvis and the knee. Conclusions: The results revealed that for the peak lap belt force and the forward motion of the head and shoulder, the underlying linear relationship with body size and shape is valid over a wide anthropometric range. The chaotic nature of the dynamic response cannot be fully recovered by the assumption of the whole-body geometrical similarity, especially for the curve shape. The valid range of the scaling approach established in this study can be reasonably referenced in predicting the impact response of a given specific population with expected deviation. Application of this knowledge also includes proposing strategies for restraint configuration and providing reference for ATD and/or human body model (HBM) development for vulnerable occupants.