Search

The purpose of this paper is to provide a scientific basis for a unified standard of the reference value of young people's erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) in China. The reference values of healthy young people's ESR were collected according to the Wintrobe method, and the relationship between the reference value of young people's ESR and altitude was tested in this paper. It was found that the reference value of young people's ESR decreases when the altitude gradually increases, and the relationship is significant. The method of mathematical univariate regression analysis was used to deduce two regression equations: Y(1) = 10.92-0.00183X +/-2.59 and Y(2) = 18.58-0.00319X +/-4.37. If the altitude value of a particular area of China is known, the reference value of young people's ESR can be calculated by means of the regression equations. Furthermore, depending on the altitude, China can be divided into three districts: Qingzang, Central and Eastern districts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fluid-solid interaction is a primary feature of cardiovascular flows. There is increasing interest in the numerical solution of these systems as the extensive computational resource required for such studies becomes available. One form of coupling is an external weak coupling of separate solid and fluid mechanics codes. Information about the stress tensor and displacement vector at the wetted boundary is passed between the codes, and an iterative scheme is employed to move towards convergence of these parameters at each time step. This approach has the attraction that separate codes with the most extensive functionality for each of the separate phases can be selected, which might be important in the context of the complex rheology and contact mechanics that often feature in cardiovascular systems. Penrose and Staples describe a weak coupling of CFX for computational fluid mechanics to ANSYS for solid mechanics, based on a simple Jacobi iteration scheme. It is important to validate the coupled numerical solutions. An extensive analytical study of flow in elastic-walled tubes was carried out by Womersley in the late 1950s. This paper describes the performance of the coupling software for the straight elastic-walled tube, and compares the results with Womersley's analytical solutions. It also presents preliminary results demonstrating the application of the coupled software in the context of a stented vessel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of the current study was to perform a parametric study with different impact objects, impact locations, and impact speeds by analyzing occupant kinematics and injury estimations using a whole-vehicle and whole-body finite element-human body model (FE-HBM). To confirm the HBM responses, the biofidelity of the model was validated using data from postmortem human surrogate (PMHS) sled tests.Methods: The biofidelity of the model was validated using data from sled experiments and correlational analysis (CORA). Full-scale simulations were performed using a restrained Global Human Body Model Consortium (GHBMC) model seated on a 2001 Ford Taurus model using a far-side lateral impact condition. The driver seat was placed in the center position to represent a nominal initial impact condition. A 3-point seat belt with pretensioner and retractor was used to restrain the GHBMC model. A parametric study was performed using 12 simulations by varying impact locations, impacting object, and impact speed using the full-scale models. In all 12 simulations, the principal direction of force (PDOF) was selected as 90°. The impacting objects were a 10-in.-diameter rigid vertical pole and a movable deformable barrier. The impact location of the pole was at the C-pillar in the first case, at the B-pillar in the second case, and, finally, at the A-pillar in the third case. The vehicle and the GHBMC models were defined an initial velocity of 35 km/h (high speed) and 15 km/h (low speed). Excursion of the head center of gravity (CG), T6, and pelvis were measured from the simulations. In addition, injury risk estimations were performed on head, rib cage, lungs, kidneys, liver, spleen, and pelvis.Results: The average CORA rating was 0.7. The shoulder belt slipped in B- and C-pillar impacts but somewhat engaged in the A-pillar case. In the B-pillar case, the head contacted the intruding struck-side structures, indicating higher risk of injury. Occupant kinematics depended on interaction with restraints and internal structures-especially the passenger seat. Risk analysis indicated that the head had the highest risk of sustaining an injury in the B-pillar case compared to the other 2 cases. Higher lap belt load (3.4 kN) may correspond to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2 pelvic injury observed in the B-pillar case. Risk of injury to other soft anatomical structures varied with impact configuration and restraint interaction.Conclusion: The average CORA rating was 0.7. In general, the results indicated that the high-speed impacts against the pole resulted in severe injuries, higher excursions followed by low-speed pole, high-speed moving deformable barrier (MDB), and low-speed MDB impacts. The vehicle and occupant kinematics varied with different impact setups and the latter kinematics were likely influenced by restraint effectiveness. Increased restraint engagement increased the injury risk to the corresponding anatomic structure, whereas ineffective restraint engagement increased the occupant excursion, resulting in a direct impact to the struck-side interior structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of the current study was to evaluate the whole-body kinematic response of the Total Human Model for Safety (THUMS) occupant model in controlled laboratory rollover tests by comparing the model response to postmortem human surrogate (PMHS) kinematic response targets published in 2014.Methods: A computational model of the parametric vehicle buck environment was developed and the AM50 THUMS occupant model (Ver 4.01) was subjected to a pure dynamic roll at 360°/s in trailing-side front-row seating position. A baseline configuration was defined by a baseline posture representing the average of all PMHS postures, with a friction coefficient of 0.4 for the belt and 0.6 for the seat. To encompass challenges in controlling boundary conditions from the PMHS tests and ensure the robustness of the model evaluation, a total of 12 simulations were performed to investigate the following: 1. The effect of initial posture by adding 3 additional postures representing PMHS extremes. 2. The effect of belt tension by varying tension from the nominal vehicle retractor belt tension of 5 N to the 35 N belt tension used in the PMHS tests. 3. The effect of friction between the environment (belt, seat) and THUMS. Trajectories (head, T1, T4, T10, L1, and sacrum), spinal segment rotations (head-to-T1, T1-to-T4, T4-to-T10, T10-to-L1, and L1-to-sacrum) relative to the rollover buck and spinal segment elongation/compression calculated from the simulations were compared to PMHS corridors using a correlation method (CORA).Results: THUMS baseline response showed lower correlation (overall CORA score = 0.63) with the PMHS response in rollover compared to other crash modes. THUMS and PMHS demonstrated similar kinematic responses in the longitudinal axis and vertical axis but significantly different lateral excursion relative to the seat. In addition, no spinal elongation was observed for THUMS compared to the PMHS. The posture, pretension, and belt frictions were found to alter model kinematics, especially on THUMS lateral axis motion. The posture was judged to be the most sensitive parameter evaluated because a change of 30 mm in the lateral axis results in up to an 80 mm of change in observed displacement.Conclusions: Though the model response in the lateral axis is significantly different than that of the PMHS, it is unclear whether this difference is the result of extrinsic factors (posture, pretension, and friction), where exact values in experiment are unknown or by model intrinsic factors (e.g., spine stiffness). These differences in occupant kinematics could potentially subject the PMHS and THUMS to very different loading conditions under roof impact in rollover crashes: different occupant posture and different roof impact location. Therefore, different injury mechanisms and severity might be predicted by the current model relative to the PMHS. Consequently, though the information provided in the current study could be useful for improving model biofidelity for rollover crashes, additional studies are required to properly solve this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]