This study aims to determine the influence of differences in geometric characteristics on lower extremity injury in frontal impact. Occupants with different lower extremity geometries were placed in the same impact environment, and the positioning angles of the lower extremities were consistent. After model validation, multiple sets of experiments were conducted. Responses to injury and kinematics of different lower extremities were compared, and the influence of lower extremity geometric properties on lower extremity injury was analyzed. Results showed that lower extremities with different geometric features produced different injuries and motion responses during impact. Long lower limbs with large femur-tibia length ratios had a wide range of motion. Additionally, the large femur-tibia length ratios increased the load transmitted by the foot to the femur and tibia, and the lower extremity was subjected to high-impact loading. The narrow femur and tibia were subjected to great compressive force and synthetic bending moments at both ends and had a large tibial index. The effects of differences in geometric properties on lower extremity biomechanical injuries can provide insight into lower extremity injury.
WHO. Global status report on road safety 2018: the facts. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 2018.
2.
MyersRKLombardiLPfeifferMR, et al. Child restraint use and hospital-reported injuries among crash-involved child passengers. Traffic Inj Prev2020; 21(Supp. 1): S187–S188.
3.
XiaoSShiXSunX, et al. Impact overlaps on occupant lower limb injuries under car frontal crash. Int J Automot Technol2022; 23(3): 659–665.
4.
GuJFeiGMengY, et al. Revised road traffic safety law and years of life lost due to traffic deaths in China, 2002-2019. Accid Anal Prev2021; 161: 106344.
5.
YeXFunkJForbesA, et al. Case series analysis of hindfoot injuries sustained by drivers in frontal motor vehicle crashes. Forensic Sci Int2015; 254: 18–25.
6.
JermakianJEdwardsMFeinS, et al. Factors contributing to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes. Traffic Inj Prev2019; 20(Supp. 1): S84–S91.
7.
DurbinDRJermakianJSKallanMJ, et al. Rear seat safety: variation in protection by occupant, crash and vehicle characteristics. Accid Anal Prev2015; 80: 185–192.
8.
AtkinsonTGawareckiLTavakoliM. Paired vehicle occupant analysis indicates age and crash severity moderate likelihood of higher severity injury in second row seated adults in frontal crashes. Accid Anal Prev2016; 89: 88–94.
9.
CarterPMFlannaganCAReedMP, et al. Comparing the effects of age, BMI and gender on severe injury (AIS 3+) in motor-vehicle crashes. Accid Anal Prev2014; 72: 146–160.
10.
MoFLiFBehrM, et al. A lower limb-pelvis finite element model with 3D active muscles. Ann Biomed Eng2018; 46: 86–96.
11.
MoFLiJDanM, et al. Implementation of controlling strategy in a biomechanical lower limb model with active muscles for coupling multibody dynamics and finite element analysis. J Biomech2019; 91: 51–60.
12.
GaffleyMWeaverAATaltonJW, et al. Age-based differences in the disability of extremity injuries in pediatric and adult occupants. Traffic Inj Prev2019; 20(Suppl. 2): S63–S68.
13.
BohmanKArbogastKBLoebH, et al. Frontal and oblique crash tests of HIII 6-year-old child ATD using real-world, observed child passenger postures. Traffic Inj Prev2018; 19(Suppl. 1): S125–S130.
14.
Ho-FungVMZapalaMALeeEY. Musculoskeletal traumatic injuries in children: characteristic imaging findings and mimickers. Radiol Clin North Am2017; 55(4): 785–802.
15.
HerronJHutchinsonRLeckyF, et al. The impact of age on major orthopaedic trauma: an analysis of the United Kingdom Trauma Audit Research Network database. Bone Joint J2017; 99-B(12): 1677–1680.
16.
MetzgerKBGruschowSDurbinDR, et al. Association between NCAP ratings and real-world rear seat occupant risk of injury. Traffic Inj Prev2015; 16(Suppl. 2): S146–S152.
17.
HuJZhangKReedMP, et al. Frontal crash simulations using parametric human models representing a diverse population. Traffic Inj Prev2019; 20(Suppl. 1): S97–S105.
18.
WolfLLChowdhuryRTweedJ, et al. Factors associated with pediatric mortality from motor vehicle crashes in the United States: a state-based analysis. J Pediatr2017; 187: 295–302.e3.
19.
WismansJWaagmeesterKLemmenP, et al. Q10 dummy report: advanced child dummies and injury criteria for frontal impact. Report of EEVC (document No. 642), https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01726879/document (2015, accessed 19 April 2023).
20.
LongtonAHyndMWaagmeesterK, et al. Evaluation of the testing capabilities of the Q10 prototype dummy. In: The FISITA 2012 world automotive congress, Electrical Engineering, 2013, vol. 197. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
21.
IwamotoMNakahiraYKimparaH. Development and validation of the Total HUman Model for Safety (THUMS) toward further understanding of occupant injury mechanisms in precrash and during crash. Traffic Inj Prev2015; 16(Suppl. 1): S36–S48.
22.
XiaoSShiXQuZ, et al. Knee kinetics responses to frontal impact with active muscle function during vehicle crash. Int J Precis Eng Manuf2019; 20(11): 2007–2017.
23.
MoFDuanSJiangX, et al. Investigation of occupant lower extremity injures under various overlap frontal crashes. Int J Automot Technol2018; 19(2): 301–312.
YeXPoplinGBoseD, et al. Analysis of crash parameters and driver characteristics associated with lower limb injury. Accid Anal Prev2015; 83: 37–46.
26.
YoganandanNArunMWPintarFA, et al. Optimized lower leg injury probability curves from postmortem human subject tests under axial impacts. Traffic Inj Prev2014; 15(Suppl. 1): S151–S156.
27.
IvarssonBJManaswiAGenoveseD, et al. Site, type, and local mechanism of tibial shaft fracture in drivers in frontal automobile crashes. Forensic Sci Int2008; 175(2-3): 186–192.
YoganandanNArunMWPintarFA, et al. Lower leg injury reference values and risk curves from survival analysis for male and female dummies: meta-analysis of postmortem human subject tests. Traffic Inj Prev2015; 16(Suppl. 1): S100–S107.
30.
SandnerVvan RatingenMEllwayJ. Euro NCAP-new frontal impact test with mobile progressive deformable barrier (MPDB). In: 26th international technical conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Technology: Enabling a Safer Tomorrow, paper no. 19-0196. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/26/26ESV-000196.pdf (2019, accessed 19 April 2023).
31.
LualdiPSchfferMSturmR. A simplification and optimization approach for vehicle crashworthiness analysis: application on the NCAP MPDB crash test. In: Advances in structural dynamic simulationhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/362325684 (2022, accessed 21 April 2023).
32.
StockmanIBohmanKJakobssonL. Seat belt pre-pretensioner effect on child-sized dummies during run-off-road events. Traffic Inj Prev2017; 18(Suppl. 1): S96–S102.
33.
Muhammad ButtFDalhatMAShahid MinhasK, et al. Influence of seat belt use behavior and road traffic crash experience on the use of child restraint systems: a step further. J King Saud Univ Eng Sci. Epub ahead of print 27July2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jksues.2021.07.005.
34.
PattonDAMaheshwariJArbogastKB. Interactions between rearward-facing child restraint systems and the front row seatback in frontal impact sled tests. Traffic Inj Prev2022; 23(Suppl. 1): S99–S104.
35.
BakerWAUntaroiuCDCrawfordDM, et al. Mechanical characterization and finite element implementation of the soft materials used in a novel anthropometric test device for simulating underbody blast loading. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 74: 358–364.
36.
NieBCrandallJRPanzerMB. Computational investigation of the effects of knee airbag design on the interaction with occupant lower extremity in frontal and oblique impacts. Traffic Inj Prev2017; 18(2): 207–215.
37.
KleinKFHuJReedMP, et al. Development and validation of statistical models of femur geometry for use with parametric finite element models. Ann Biomed Eng2015; 43(10): 2503–2514.
38.
KleinKFHuJReedMP, et al. Validation of a parametric finite element human femur model. Traffic Inj Prev2017; 18(4): 420–426.
39.
WeaverAALoftisKLStitzelJD. Investigation of the safety effects of knee bolster air bag deployment in similar real-world crash comparisons. Traffic Inj Prev2013; 14(2): 168–180.
40.
WangBYuCJiangX, et al. A numerical investigation of injury mechanisms and tolerance limit of occupant femur in combined compression-bending load. Int J Crashworthiness2020; 27(2): 456–465.
