Response of small female and midsize male models with active musculature in pre-crash maneuvers and low-speed impacts.

Objective: The objectives of this study were to evaluate computationally efficient small female (54.1 kg, 149.9 cm) and midsize male (78.4 kg, 174.9 cm) models with active muscles using volunteer sled test data in a frontal-oblique loading direction and check their response in crash mitigating maneuvers using field test data.

Methods: The Global Human Body Models Consortium small female (F05-OS+Active) and midsize male (M50-OS+Active) simplified occupant models with active musculature were used in this study. The data from a total of 48 previously published sled test experiments were used to simulate a total of 16 simulations. The experimental study recorded occupant responses of six small female and six midsize male volunteers ( = 12 total) in two muscle conditions (relaxed and braced) at two acceleration pulses representing pre-crash braking (1.0 g) and a low-speed impact (2.5 g). Each model's kinematics and reaction forces were compared with experimental data. Along with sled test simulations, both of these models were simulated in abrupt braking, lane change, and turn and brake events using literature data. A total of 36 field test simulations were carried out. A CORA analysis was carried out using reaction load and displacement time-history data for sled test simulations and head CG displacement time-history was used for field test simulations.

Results: The occupant peak forward and lateral excursion results of both active models reasonably matched the volunteer data in the low-speed sled test simulations for both pulse severities. The differences between the active and control models were statistically significant (-value < 0.05) based on the results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests using peak forward and lateral excursion data. The average CORA scores calculated for the sled test (sled test: M50-OS+Active= 0.543, male control= 0.471, F05-OS+Active= 0.621, female control= 0.505) and field test (M50-OS+Active= 0.836, male control= 0.466, F05-OS+Active= 0.832, female control= 0.787) simulations were higher for active models than control.

Conclusions: The responses of the F05-OS+Active and M50-OS+Active models were better than control models based on overall CORA scores calculated using both sled and field tests. The results highlight their ability to predict occupant kinematics in crash-mitigating maneuvers and low-speed impacts in the frontal, lateral and frontal-oblique directions.