4.5 Article

A validated numerical model of a lower limb surrogate to investigate injuries caused by under-vehicle explosions

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 49, 期 5, 页码 710-717

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.02.007

关键词

Lower limb; Blast; MIL-Lx; Under-vehicle explosion; High-rate loading

资金

  1. Royal British Legion Centre for Blast Injury Studies at Imperial College London
  2. Royal British Legion
  3. Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM) [BB/F017510/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Under-vehicle explosions often result in injury of occupants' lower extremities. The majority of these injuries are associated with poor outcomes. The protective ability of vehicles against explosions is assessed with Anthropometric Test Devices (ATDs) such as the MIL-Lx, which is designed to behave in a similar way to the human lower extremity when subjected to axial loading. It incorporates tibia load cells, the response of which can provide an indication of the risk of injury to the lower extremity through the use of injury risk curves developed from cadaveric experiments. In this study an axisymmetric finite element model of the MIL-Lx with a combat boot was developed and validated. Model geometry was obtained from measurements taken using digital callipers and rulers from the MIL-Lx, and using CT images for the combat boot. Appropriate experimental methods were used to obtain material properties. These included dynamic, uniaxial compression tests, quasi-static stress-relaxation tests and 3 point bending tests. The model was validated by comparing force-time response measured at the tibia load cells and the amount of compliant element compression obtained experimentally and computationally using two blast-injury experimental rigs. Good correlations between the numerical and experimental results were obtained with both. This model can now be used as a virtual test-bed of mitigation designs and in surrogate device development. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据