Download - 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
(80ms simulation - 10 hrs 51 min on 36 cpus)
Lateral NCAP Test
(200ms simulation - 30 hrs 16 min on 36 cpus)
Full Vehicle Side Impact (3 mil elements w/ time step 0.45us)
(70ms simulation - 18 hrs 54 min on 36 cpus)
Frontal Sled Test (0.6 mil elements w/ time step 0.7us)
(200ms simulation - 5 hrs 27 min on 36 cpus)
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)
•Steering Committee
–Chairman
• Mark Torigian, 734-337-2298
[email protected]• John Combest, 248-488-4507
•Technical Committee
–Chairman
• J.T. Wang, 586-986-0534,
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
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