Ghbmc presentation for lstc conference

Completion of Phase I Development of the Global Human Body Models Consortium Mid-Sized Male

Full Body Finite Element Model

John J. Combest

Presenting on behalf of theGHBMC1 and University Research Partners2

1. Participating Corporations and Organizations (A-Z): Chrysler, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, NHTSA, Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Renault, Takata

2. Contributing Academic Institutions: Wayne State University, University of Waterloo, University of Virginia, IFSTTAR, Virginia Tech, University of Alabama Birmingham,

Wake Forest University School of Medicine3

LSTC INTERNATIONAL USERS CONFERENCE, June 4th 2012

2

• An international consortium of automakers & suppliers working with research institutes and government agencies to advance human body modeling (HBM) technologies for crash simulations

• MISSION: To develop and maintain high fidelity FE human body models for crash simulations

Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC)

• OBJECTIVE: To consolidate world-wide HBM R&D effort into a single global effort

http://www.chryslerllc.com/

http://www.gm.com/

http://www.hyundai-motor.com/

http://world.honda.com/

http://www.nissanusa.com/

http://www.renault.com/

http://www.takata-petri.com/

http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/

http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/

Lower Ex. Model COE

Costin Untaroiu, Principal InvestigatorJeff Crandall, co-Principal InvestigatorAlan Eberhardt, co-Principal InvestigatorNeng YueJaeho ShinYoung Ho KimJong-Eun KimNataraju Vusirikala of GM, GHBMC LEM Subcommittee Leader

Abdomen Model COE

Philippe Beillas, Principal InvestigatorWarren Hardy, Principal InvestigatorFabien BerthetMeghan HowesStan Gregory

Philippe Petit of Renault, GHBMC AM Subcommittee Leader

Thorax Model COE

Richard Kent, Principal InvestigatorDamien SubitZouping LiMatt Kindig

Palani Palaniappan of Toyota, GHBMC TM Subcommittee Leader

Neck Model COE

Duane Cronin, Principal InvestigatorJason FiceJeff MoultonNaveen ChandrashekarSteve MattucciHamid ShateriJennifer DeWit

Yibing Shi of Chrysler, GHBMC NM Subcommittee Leader

Phase I Development Team by Centers of Expertise (COE)GHBMC Technical Committee (Chairman: J.T. Wang of GM) NHTSA (COTR: Erik Takhounts)

Full Body Model COE

Joel Stitzel, Principal InvestigatorHyung Yun Choi, Model ConversionScott GayzikDan MorenoNick VavalleAshley RhyneBrad Thompson

Jay Zhao of Takata, GHBMC FBM Subcommittee Leader

Head Model COE

King Yang, Principal InvestigatorLiying Zhang, co-Principal InvestigatorHaojie MaoVinay Genthikatti

Guru Prakash of GM, GHBMC HM Subcommittee Leader

Subject Recruitment• M50

H: 68.9 in. (175 cm)W: 173 lbs. (78.5 kg)

• M95H: 74.6 in. (189.5 cm)W: 225 lbs. (102 kg)

• F05H: 59 in. (150 cm)W: 106 lbs. (48 kg)

• F50H: 63.7 in. (161.8 cm)W: 137 lbs. (62.1 kg)

• All subjects underwent full imaging protocol• MRI, upright MRI• CT• External Anthro.

1. Gordon et al., ANSUR., 1988

Seated height Shoulder elbow length

Hip breadth Forearm hand length

Buttock knee length Waist circumference

Knee height Hip breadth

Bideltoid breadth Foot length

Head breadth Head length

Head circumference Chest circumference

Neck circumference Foot length

• Used the Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel, Natick Research, Development and Engineering Ctr. For anthropometry, sizes follow dummy sizes

• All met criteria for external anthropometry (± 5%)1 of ANSUR study

• 4 Individuals selected for the study (F05, F50, M50, M95)

• Image data was used in the development of CAD data for M50 model

Segment Condition Assemble NURBS (CAD)

Best image data by structureVarious techniques Manual Semi-automated Atlas based

Polygon dataSymmetry where appropriateRemove artifactsLiterature survey

Upright MRIQuasi-seated CTReposition to scan CS

Apply NURBS surfaces

CAD Development Overview

M50 Skeleton:w/ external landmarks. Outer skin revised based on COE feedback.

M50 Muscle CAD:52 neck muscles, andselected muscles of thorax, abdomen, pelvis and lower extremity.

M50 Organ CAD:Brain and substructures, thoracic and abdominal organs, and major vascular components.

CAD Development Overview

Head Body Model Center of Expertise

• Anthropomorphic details were based on the CAD• Brain mesh with hex elements – Feature-based

multi-block technique: cerebrum, cerebellum, corpus callosum, brainstem

• Other meshed structures: cerebrospinal fluid, dural membranes, 11 pairs of bridging veins, skull, facial bones, scalp/flesh and skin

• 180,000 solid, shell and beam elements

Principal Investigator: King Yang, Liying Zhang GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Guru Prakash of GM

Head Model Validation Results SummaryCase 1: Zygomatic bone force• A 14.5-kg semi-circular rigid rod at an initial

velocity of 3.0 m/s• Compare force and fracture

Case 2: Brain displacement (1/8 cases)• Head kinematics applied at c.g. of head from

T383-T3 cadaver test• Brain displacement at various locations

captured by high speed x-ray

Brain

Intracranial pressure (Nahum et al., 1977)

Intracranial, ventricular pressure (Trosseille et al., 1992)

Brain/skull relative displacements (Hardy et al., 01, 07)

Bone-Skull

Skull force, fracture in frontal, vertex, occipital, (Yoganandan et al., 1995)

Skull force, fracture in frontal (Hodgson et al., 1970)

Bone-Face

Nasal bone force, fracture (Nyquist et al., 1986)Zygomatic bone force, fracture (Allosop et al., 1988)Maxillary bone force, fracture (Allosop et al., 1988)

Exemplar Case:

Crash Induced Injury & Model Summary - HeadAcute Subdural Hematoma Injury (bridging vein rupture)• Ten PMHS occipital impact (Depreitere et al., 2006)• CII: max strain >15%

Cerebral Contusion Injury (pressure)• Six PMHS cases (Nahum et al., 1976)• N = 1 with contusion (limitation)• CII: intracranial pressure >270 kPa

Diffuse Axonal Injury (strain)• Preliminary data for DAI from reconstruction• Four accident cases with AIS 0, AIS 4, AIS %, and

AIS multiples) (Franklyn et al., 2005)• CII: max strain >0.45 moderate DAI (AIS 4)

Neck Body Model Center of Expertise

• Geometry derived from CT scans of a 50th percentile male, supplemented with lit. data

• 304,385 Elements – 204,180 Hexahedral Solids– 95,630 Shells– 4,575 1D

• Musculature – Passive 3D volume– Active Hill-type embedded beam elements

Principal Investigator: Duane CroninTechnical Leads: Jason Fice, Jeff Moulton, Jennifer DeWitAdditional funding support provided by: iAMi GHBMC NM Subcommittee Leader: Yibing Shi of Chrysler

Neck Model Validation Results Summary

Validation at segment level (flexion, extension, tension, compression, rotation)Cervical spine/head model validation (frontal, rear, lateral impact scenarios)

15g Frontal Impact (head/neck model)

Crash Induced Injury & Model Summary - Neck

Reference: Fice et al., 2011 Annals of Biomedical EngineeringDeWit and Cronin, 2010 IRCOBIMattucci et al., 2001 ASB

•Crash Induced Injuries• Whiplash injury (Fice et al.)

• Capsular ligament distraction for lower c-spine

• Alar and apical ligament distraction (upper c-spine)

• Soft tissue failure (DeWit and Cronin)

• Ligament failure through progressive damage model

• Disc avulsion using a tiebreak interface

• Hard tissue failure evaluated using effective plastic strain criterion

•Future work includes CII refinement and musculature modeling.

Thorax Model Center of Expertise

• Multi-block hex meshing approach used in model development with consideration of geometry symmetry

• Thorax model with total 504k elements ( 280k solids,224k shells,~100% hex or quad)

• Hierarchical model validation– Rib segment– Rib ring– Ribcage– Global thorax model response validation

(tabletop, front, and lateral impacts)

Principal Investigator: Richard W. KentTechnical Leads: Zuoping Li, Damien Subit, Matt Kindig

GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Palani Palaniappan of Toyota

Thorax Model Validation Results Summary

References: Table top: (Kent et al, 2004)

Pure lateral impact: (Shaw et al. 2006)

Oblique lateral impact: (Yoganandan et al., 1997)

Impact force-chest deflection curves of thorax regions compared to experimental corridors for table-top, pure lateral, and oblique lateral impacts. (Selected tests shown)

Crash Induced Injury & Model Summary - Thorax

Evaluation of the rib fractures under dynamic loading using GHBMC full body model based on strain-based criterion

Multiple fracture observed Front impact at 10 m/s

Pure lateral impact at 4.5 m/s

Conclusions for BRM model development in Phase 1 Thorax model is numerically stable Overall model responses comparable

to the majority of test data Thoracic stiffness significantly

affected by the contact parameter (soft option)

Kinematic joints are not validated and may need more test data

Abdomen Model Center of Expertise

• Joint effort: (1) Ifsttar (Lyon, France)= Modeling , (2) Virginia Tech (Blacksburg)= Experimental work

• Stability tested at organ level (VHP based)• Mesh: 270k elms• 112 Sliding or tied contacts• Material properties mostly from literature

Principal Investigator: Philippe Beillas1 / Warren Hardy²Technical Leads: Fabien Berthet1 / Meghan Howes²

GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Philippe Petit of Renault

Abdomen Model Validation Summary12 validation setups successfully simulated (incl. high energy loading)Response is ok overall but limitations:Due to PMHS geometrical mismatch ( need scaling), mass mismatch ( need added masses), need for rib fx simulation

/

Abdomen Model Validation Summary /

Lower Extremity Model Center of Expertise

• (1) UVA Lower Ex., (2) UAB Pelvis• Geometry

– Reconstructed geometry of 50th male volunteer

– Additional data from literature for defining the cortical bone shells with thin thickness (e.g. in pelvis and epiphysis regions) and foot/hip ligaments

• Meshing– Almost 625k elements and 322k nodes

included in 285 distinct components (parts)– More than 73% solid elements (93% hexa)– All elements fulfill GHBMC mesh quality

criteria (Jacobian solid/shell>0.3/0.4; Tet collapse>0.2, etc.)

– Model stable with 0.3/0.6 µs time steps (0.4/6% mass scaling)

Principal Investigators: Costin Untaroiu/Jeff Crandall1

Alan Eberhardt2

Technical Leads: Jaeho Shin/Neng Yue1, Young-Ho Kim2

GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Nataraju Vusirikala of GM

Reference: Untaroiu et al. 2011- LEM User ‘s Manual

Model Validation & CII Summary – Pelvis & Lower Extremity

Reference: Untaroiu et al. 2011- LEM User ‘s Manual

• FE Validation

– Good overall response– 19 Frontal (FO) and Lateral

(SO) validation setups successfully simulated, including:

• 8 Lower Limb• 8 Foot • 3 Pelvis

– 4 regional frontal and lateral robustness simulations

• Knee bolster• Toe pan• Lateral knee• Lateral Hip

Lower Extremity Model Validation Results

Reference: Untaroiu et al. 2011- PLEX User ‘s Manual

• Selected FE Validation Examples

– SO-2- Pelvic Lateral Compression Validation• Objective: Validate the biomechanical

response of the pelvis• Output: Force time history response +

type/location of injuries

– FO-3- Femoral Combined (Bending & Compression) Validation

• Objective: Validate the biomechanical response of the femur

• Output: Axial and bending loading at the time of mid-shaft fracture

– FO-11- Ankle Dorsiflexion Validation• Objective: Validate the biomechanical

response of the ankle• Output: Moment-angle response of

ankle + type/location of injuries

Full Body Model Center of Expertise

Medical Imaging

Principal Investigator: Joel D. StitzelTechnical Lead: F. Scott Gayzik

GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Jay Zhao of Takata

Reference: Gayzik, F.S. et al., The development of full body geometrical data for finite element models: A multi-modality approach. 2011. Annals of Biomedical Eng., Oct;39(10):2568-83. Epub 2011 Jul 23.

CAD Development• NURBS (CAD), 400+ components, G1 continuous

Model integration • Model integration at 5 intersections of body region

models• Examples:

Model Validation • 18 Cases run with the Full Body Model• 9 Frontal, 8 Lateral, 1 stability• Good agreement with data & robustness

MRI

CT

UprightMRI

ExternalAnthro.

Total mass76 kg

Current FBM ModelMass, element data

Full Body Model Overview


1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 partsFBM Validation: 18 cases, 9 frontal, 8 lateral, 1 stability

Reference: Forman et al., 2006, Whole-body Kinematic and Dynamic Response of Restrained PMHS in Frontal Sled Tests, Stapp Car Crash Journal, 2006-22-0013

FBM Validation Case Continued

PMHSData

N M:F Average Subject Age (years)

Average Subject Mass (kg)

Mass Scaled to M50th?

Scaling mass used (kg)

Rib Fracture Study

Rib Fracture Simulation

5 2:3 59 59.5 Yes 77 6.6±5.4 R 7 (1)

Lateral Sled Impact – 6.7 m/s

Reference: Pintar, Yoganandan, Hines, Maltese, McFadden, Saul, Eppinger, Khaewpong, Klienberger, Chest band analysis of human tolerance to impact, 1997 Stapp Car Crash Journal, SAE No. 973320

PMHS Data





Rib Fracture Study


3 3:0 51.7±23.1 79.3±8.5 Yes 76 13 R4, 5, 6, 7 (4)

Rib Fracture

Simulation

Literature

FBM Validation Case Example 1: Frontal Driver Impact – 48 kph

PMHSData





Rib Fracture Study


5 2:3 59 59.5 Yes 77 6.6±5.4 R 7 (1)

Abdominal Bar Impact 6m/s (Hardy)

( 80ms simulation - 10 hrs 51 min on 36 cpus)

Thoracic Chest Impactor 6.7 m/s (Kroell)

(60ms simulation - 8 hrs 25 min on 36 cpus)

Knee bolster Impact 4.9 m/s


Lateral NCAP Test


Full Vehicle Side Impact (3 mil elements w/ time step 0.45us)


Frontal Sled Test (0.6 mil elements w/ time step 0.7us)


CPU Time: GHBMC Model vs. Dummy/Vehicle Models

• GHBMC: An international consortium of automakers & suppliers working with research institutes and government agencies to advance human body modeling (HBM) technologies for crash simulations

• The seated M50 model is first to be developed and validated by the consortium, close of Phase I

• Final M50 model has 1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, weighs 76 kg

• Extensive validation: Crash Induced Injuries in 5 body regions (Head, Neck, Thorax, Abdomen, and Pelvis/Lower Extremities)

• Initial development in LS-Dyna, model conversion to PamCrash and Radioss FEA solvers completed.

• Medical image data is available for F05, F50, M95• Phase II will continue this work beginning in 2012

to continuly enhance the M50 model, and to develop F05, M95 and F50 models

Summary & Wrap Up

Acknowledgements

Funding & In-kind Contributions: Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC), participating corporations & organizations (A-Z),

Data appearing in this document were prepared under the support of the Global Human Body Models Consortium by the FBM and Body Region Centers of Expertise. Any opinions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Global Human Body Models Consortium.

University Contributors: Body region centers of expertise(COEs) and their partners

IFSTTARUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Virginia

University of VirginiaVirginia TechWayne State University

Software Contributions: LSTC (LS-Dyna), ESI Group (Pam-Crash), Altair (Radioss)

http://thegarageblog.com/garage/wp-content/uploads/gm-logo.jpg

http://www.takata-petri.com/web/index.html

http://www.chryslerllc.com/

http://www.hyundai-motor.com/

http://world.honda.com/

http://www.nissanusa.com/

•Steering Committee

–Chairman

• Mark Torigian, 734-337-2298

[email protected]• John Combest, 248-488-4507

[email protected]

•Technical Committee

–Chairman

• J.T. Wang, 586-986-0534,

[email protected]

FOR INFORMATION ON JOINING THE CONSORTIUM

SUPPLEMENTAL

GHBMC: A Research Project with Global Reach

COLLEGE of ENGINEERING

Final FBM 11/30/11

GHBMC Project TimelineKickoff6/20/08

FBM

Offi

cial S

tart

8/1/

08

IRB

Appr

oval

7/1/

08

First

Subj

ect R

ecru

ited

11/1

7/08

Imag

e pro

toco

l

deve

lopm

ent

All S

ubje

cts R

ecru

ited

1/9/

09 M50

Scan

s Com

plet

e

3/26

/09

Final

Occup

ant S

cans

4/28

/09 Fir

st CA

D De

liver

ies

10/5

/09

CAD D

elive

red

11/3

0/09

BRM

1 Del

ivery

6/30

/10

FBM

1 In

itial

Asse

mbl

y

11/3

0/10

Major MilestonesBR

M 2

Delive

ry5/

1/11 FBM

2 va

lidati

on

& impr

ovem

ent

FBM

2 D

elive

ry8/

31/1

1

GHBMCPhase II

GHBMC Organization & Work SystemRelationships:

Reporting Working

HM COE LEM COEFBM COE

NM COETM COE

AM COE

HM Subcommittee

LEM Subcommittee

FBM Subcommittee

NM Subcommittee

AM SubcommitteeTM

Subcommittee

Technical Committee

Steering Committee

Member Committee

LLC

COE

Scott Gayzik

This slide was added based on a reviwer's suggestion. If the SC would like to include this slide, I will gladly present it, however my suggestion would be to put this slide in as supplemental material in case organizational question comes up. Thsi is mainly due to time, and that I belive this slide has been presented in previous SAE GI talks.

Modality Advantage

1. Closed Bore, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

High resolution, pulse sequence specialization0.5 – 1 mm in plane resolution1 – 2 mm slice thickness

2. Upright MRI

Standing and seated postures, pulse sequence specialization1.4 – 2 mm in plane 1.5 – 2 mm slice thickness

3. Computed Tomography (CT)

Highest resolution, fast image acquisition time0.5 – 1 mm in plane resolution0.63 slice thickness

4. External Anthropometry

Direct measurement of body landmarks, external contours of the seated occupant7 Axis digitizer< 1 mm

Imaging Protocol• Medical Images are the basis for model development• But there is no “one size fits all”

1

2

3

4

Ghbmc presentation for lstc conference

Technology

Transcript of Ghbmc presentation for lstc conference