This study is aimed to develop a high quality, extensively validated finite element (FE) human head model for enhanced head injury prediction and prevention. The geometry of the model was based on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging scans of an adult male who has the average height and weight of an American. A feature-based multiblock technique was adopted to develop hexahedral brain meshes including the cerebrum, cerebellum, brainstem, corpus callosum, ventricles, and thalamus. Conventional meshing methods were used to create the bridging veins, cerebrospinal fluid, skull, facial bones, flesh, skin, and membranes—including falx, tentorium, pia, arachnoid, and dura. The head model has 270,552 elements in total. Thirty five loading cases were selected from a range of experimental head impacts to check the robustness of the model predictions based on responses including the brain pressure, relative skull-brain motion, skull response, and facial response. The brain pressure was validated against intracranial pressure data reported by Nahum et al. (1977, “Intracranial Pressure Dynamics During Head Impact,” Proc. 21st Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No. 770922) and Trosseille et al. (1992, “Development of a F.E.M. of the Human Head According to a Specific Test Protocol,” Proc. 36th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No. 922527). The brain motion was validated against brain displacements under sagittal, coronal, and horizontal blunt impacts performed by Hardy et al. (2001, “Investigation of Head Injury Mechanisms Using Neutral Density Technology and High-Speed Biplanar X-Ray,” Stapp Car Crash Journal, 45, pp. 337–368; and 2007, “A Study of the Response of the Human Cadaver Head to Impact,” Stapp Car Crash Journal, 51, pp. 17–80). The facial bone responses were validated under nasal impact (Nyquist et al. 1986, “Facial Impact Tolerance and Response,” Proc. 30th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No. 861896), zygoma and maxilla impact (Allsop et al. 1988, “Facial Impact Response – A Comparison of the Hybrid III Dummy and Human Cadaver,” Proc. 32nd Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Technical Paper No. 881719)]. The skull bones were validated under frontal angled impact, vertical impact, and occipital impact (Yoganandan et al. 1995, “Biomechanics of Skull Fracture,” J Neurotrauma, 12(4), pp. 659–668) and frontal horizontal impact (Hodgson et al. 1970, “Fracture Behavior of the Skull Frontal Bone Against Cylindrical Surfaces,” 14th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE International, Warrendale, PA). The FE head model was further used to study injury mechanisms and tolerances for brain contusion (Nahum et al. 1976, “An Experimental Model for Closed Head Impact Injury,” 20th Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE International, Warrendale, PA). Studies from 35 loading cases demonstrated that the FE head model could predict head responses which were comparable to experimental measurements in terms of pattern, peak values, or time histories. Furthermore, tissue-level injury tolerances were proposed. A maximum principal strain of 0.42% was adopted for skull cortical layer fracture and maximum principal stress of 20 MPa was used for skull diploë layer fracture. Additionally, a plastic strain threshold of 1.2% was used for facial bone fracture. For brain contusion, 277 kPa of brain pressure was calculated from reconstruction of one contusion case.

Lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery systems are used for electric vehicles (EV) in the automotive industry due to their lightweight and high energy density. The battery modules are composite structures with significant geometry and material non-linearity. Their behaviour under mechanical loading is important for EV performance and crashworthiness design. In this study, quasi-static (0.06 mm/s) and low speed (50 mm/s) crush tests were conducted on commercial vehicle Li-ion battery modules to study their response. Two steel impactors, namely, a 60° wedge and a hemispherical end punch were used to investigate the force-displacement-voltage responses of the modules. Based on the test data, the effect of loading and boundary conditions, i.e. crush velocity, the presence of a cover plate and shape of impactor on the overall response of the battery modules was analysed.

As early as the 1950's, Gurdjian and colleagues (Gurdjian et al., 1955) observed that brain injuries could occur by direct pressure loading without any global head accelerations. This pressure-induced injury mechanism was "forgotten" for some time and is being rekindled due to the many mild traumatic brain injuries attributed to blast overpressure. The aim of the current study was to develop a finite element (FE) model to predict the biomechanical response of rat brain under a shock tube environment. The rat head model, including more than 530,000 hexahedral elements with a typical element size of 100 to 300 microns was developed based on a previous rat brain model for simulating a blunt controlled cortical impact. An FE model, which represents gas flow in a 0.305-m diameter shock tube, was formulated to provide input (incident) blast overpressures to the rat model. It used an Eulerian approach and the predicted pressures were verified with experimental data. These two models were integrated and an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) fluid-structure coupling algorithm was then utilized to simulate the interaction of the shock wave with the rat head. The FE model-predicted pressure-time histories at the cortex and in the lateral ventricle were in reasonable agreement with those obtained experimentally. Further examination of the FE model predictions revealed that pressure amplification, caused by shock wave reflection at the interface of the materials with distinct wave impedances, was found in the skull. The overpressures in the anterior and posterior regions were 50% higher than those at the vertex and central regions, indicating a higher possibility of injuries in the coup and contrecoup sites. At an incident pressure of 85 kPa, the shear stress and principal strain in the brain remained at a low level, implying that they are not the main mechanism causing injury in the current scenario.