Completion of Phase I Development of the     Global Human Body Models Consortium Mid-Sized Male                Full Body F...
Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) • An international consortium of automakers & suppliers working   with researc...
Phase I Development Team by Centers of Expertise (COE)GHBMC Technical Committee (Chairman: J.T. Wang of GM)               ...
Subject Recruitment• Used the Anthropometric Survey of U.S.         •   M50  Army Personnel, Natick Research,             ...
CAD Development Overview • Image data was used in the development of CAD   data for M50 model   Segment                   ...
CAD Development Overview     M50 Skeleton:        M50 Muscle CAD:           M50 Organ CAD:     w/ external          52 nec...
Head Body Model Center of Expertise    Principal Investigator: King Yang, Liying Zhang   GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Guru P...
Head Body Model Center of Expertise    Principal Investigator: King Yang, Liying Zhang   GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Guru P...
Head Model Validation Results Summary         Intracranial pressure (Nahum et al., 1977)                     Case 1: Zygom...
Crash Induced Injury& Model Summary - HeadAcute Subdural Hematoma Injury(bridging vein rupture)•   Ten PMHS occipital impa...
Neck Body Model Center of ExpertisePrincipal Investigator: Duane CroninTechnical Leads: Jason Fice, Jeff Moulton, Jennifer...
Neck Model Validation Results SummaryValidation at segment level (flexion, extension, tension, compression, rotation)Cervi...
Crash Induced Injury & Model Summary - Neck •Crash Induced Injuries      •Whiplash injury (Fice et al.)           • Capsul...
Thorax Model Center of ExpertisePrincipal Investigator: Richard W. Kent                  GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Palani...
Thorax Model Validation Results Summary    Impact force-chest deflection curves of thorax regions compared to experimental...
Crash Induced Injury &Model Summary - Thorax Evaluation of the rib fractures under  dynamic loading using GHBMC full body...
Abdomen Model Center of ExpertisePrincipal Investigator: Philippe Beillas1 / Warren Hardy²   GHBMC Subcommittee Leader:Tec...
Abdomen Model Validation Summary                                          /12 validation setups successfully simulated (in...
Abdomen Model Validation Summary   /
Lower Extremity Model Center of ExpertisePrincipal Investigators: Costin Untaroiu/Jeff Crandall1    GHBMC Subcommittee Lea...
Model Validation & CII Summary –    Pelvis & Lower Extremity•    FE Validation     – Good overall response     – 19 Fronta...
Lower Extremity Model Validation Results•   Selected FE Validation Examples    –   SO-2- Pelvic Lateral Compression Valida...
Full Body Model Center of Expertise    Principal Investigator: Joel D. Stitzel                               GHBMC Subcomm...
Full Body Model Overview         Current FBM Model         Mass, element data                              Total mass     ...
Full Body Model Overview      1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts       FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9...
Full Body Model Overview Full Body Model Overview       1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts      1....
Full Body Model Overview      1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts       FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9...
Full Body Model Overview      1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts       FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9...
Full Body Model Overview      1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts       FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9...
FBM Validation Case Continued            N           M:F         Average Subject Average Subject     Mass Scaled to     Sc...
Lateral Sled Impact – 6.7 m/s                                                        Rib Fracture                         ...
FBM Validation Case Example 1: Frontal Driver Impact – 48 kph       N   M:F   Average Subject Average Subject   Mass Scale...
CPU Time: GHBMC Model vs. Dummy/Vehicle Models Abdominal Bar Impact 6m/s (Hardy)                Thoracic Chest Impactor 6....
Summary & Wrap Up•   GHBMC: An international consortium of    automakers & suppliers working with research    institutes a...
Acknowledgements  Funding & In-kind Contributions: Global Human Body Models Consortium                  (GHBMC), participa...
FOR INFORMATION ON JOINING THE CONSORTIUM •Steering Committee  –Chairman     • Mark Torigian, 734-337-2298      mtorigian@...
SUPPLEMENTAL
GHBMC: A Research Project with Global Reach                            COLLEGE of ENGINEERING
Kickoff6/20/08                GHBMC Project Timeline    Major Milestones                                  Final FBM       ...
GHBMC Organization & Work System                                                                      Relationships:      ...
Imaging Protocol • Medical Images are the basis for model development               1 • But there is no “one size fits all...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ghbmc presentation for lstc conference

1,555 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,555
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
29
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ghbmc presentation for lstc conference

  1. 1. 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 the GHBMC1 and University Research Partners2 1. Participating Corporations and Organizations (A-Z): Chrysler, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, NHTSA, Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Renault, Takata2. 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. 2. Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) • An international consortium of automakers & suppliers working with research institutes and government agencies to advance human body modeling (HBM) technologies for crash simulations• OBJECTIVE: To • MISSION: To consolidate world- develop and wide HBM R&D maintain high effort into a single fidelity FE human global effort body models for crash simulations 2
  3. 3. 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 Head Model COE Neck Model COEJoel Stitzel, Principal Investigator King Yang, Principal Investigator Duane Cronin, Principal InvestigatorHyung Yun Choi, Model Conversion Liying Zhang, co-Principal Investigator Jason FiceScott Gayzik Haojie Mao Jeff MoultonDan Moreno Vinay Genthikatti Naveen ChandrashekarNick Vavalle Steve MattucciAshley Rhyne Hamid ShateriBrad Thompson Jennifer DeWitJay Zhao of Takata, GHBMC FBM Guru Prakash of GM, GHBMC HM Yibing Shi of Chrysler, GHBMC NMSubcommittee Leader Subcommittee Leader Subcommittee Leader Thorax Model COE Abdomen Model COE Lower Ex. Model COERichard Kent, Principal Investigator Philippe Beillas, Principal Investigator Costin Untaroiu, Principal InvestigatorDamien Subit Warren Hardy, Principal Investigator Jeff Crandall, co-Principal InvestigatorZouping Li Fabien Berthet Alan Eberhardt, co-Principal InvestigatorMatt Kindig Meghan Howes Neng Yue Stan Gregory Jaeho Shin Young Ho Kim Jong-Eun KimPalani Palaniappan of Toyota, GHBMC TM Philippe Petit of Renault, GHBMC Nataraju Vusirikala ofSubcommittee Leader AM Subcommittee Leader GM, GHBMC LEM Subcommittee Leader
  4. 4. Subject Recruitment• Used the Anthropometric Survey of U.S. • M50 Army Personnel, Natick Research, H: 68.9 in. (175 cm) Development and Engineering Ctr. For W: 173 lbs. (78.5 kg) anthropometry, sizes follow dummy sizes • M95• All met criteria for external anthropometry H: 74.6 in. (189.5 cm) ( 5%)1 of ANSUR study W: 225 lbs. (102 kg)• 4 Individuals selected for the study • F05 (F05, F50, M50, M95) H: 59 in. (150 cm) W: 106 lbs. (48 kg) Seated height Shoulder elbow length • F50 Hip breadth Forearm hand length H: 63.7 in. (161.8 cm) W: 137 lbs. (62.1 kg) Buttock knee length Waist circumference • All subjects underwent Knee height Hip breadth full imaging protocol Bideltoid breadth Foot length • MRI, upright MRI • CT Head breadth Head length • External Anthro. Head circumference Chest circumference Neck circumference Foot length 1. Gordon et al., ANSUR., 1988
  5. 5. CAD Development Overview • Image data was used in the development of CAD data for M50 model Segment Condition Assemble NURBS (CAD) Best image data by structure Polygon data Various techniques Upright MRI Symmetry where appropriate Manual Quasi-seated CT Apply NURBS surfaces Remove artifacts Semi-automated Reposition to scan CS Literature survey Atlas based
  6. 6. CAD Development Overview M50 Skeleton: M50 Muscle CAD: M50 Organ CAD: w/ external 52 neck muscles, and Brain and landmarks. Outer selected muscles of substructures, thoracic skin revised based thorax, abdomen, pelvis and abdominal organs, on COE feedback. and lower extremity. and major vascular components.
  7. 7. Head Body Model Center of Expertise Principal Investigator: King Yang, Liying Zhang GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Guru Prakash of GM• 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
  8. 8. Head Body Model Center of Expertise Principal Investigator: King Yang, Liying Zhang GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Guru Prakash of GM• 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
  9. 9. Head Model Validation Results Summary Intracranial pressure (Nahum et al., 1977) Case 1: Zygomatic bone forceBrain Intracranial, ventricular pressure (Trosseille et al., 1992) • A 14.5-kg semi-circular rigid rod at an initial velocity of 3.0 m/s Brain/skull relative displacements (Hardy et al., 01, 07) • Compare force and fracture Skull force, fracture in frontal, vertex, occipital,Bone (Yoganandan et al., 1995) Case 2: Brain displacement (1/8 cases)-Skull Skull force, fracture in frontal (Hodgson et al., 1970) • Head kinematics applied at c.g. of head from T383-T3 cadaver test Nasal bone force, fracture (Nyquist et al., 1986)Bone • Brain displacement at various locations Zygomatic bone force, fracture (Allosop et al., 1988) captured by high speed x-ray-Face Maxillary bone force, fracture (Allosop et al., 1988) Exemplar Case:
  10. 10. 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 kPaDiffuse 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)
  11. 11. Neck Body Model Center of ExpertisePrincipal Investigator: Duane CroninTechnical Leads: Jason Fice, Jeff Moulton, Jennifer DeWitAdditional funding support provided by: iAMi GHBMC NM Subcommittee Leader: Yibing Shi of Chrysler • 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
  12. 12. Neck Model Validation Results SummaryValidation at segment level (flexion, extension, tension, compression, rotation)Cervical spine/head model validation (frontal, rear, lateral impact scenarios) 15g Frontal Impact (head/neck model)
  13. 13. Crash Induced Injury & Model Summary - Neck •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.Reference:Fice et al., 2011 Annals of Biomedical EngineeringDeWit and Cronin, 2010 IRCOBIMattucci et al., 2001 ASB
  14. 14. Thorax Model Center of ExpertisePrincipal Investigator: Richard W. Kent GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Palani Palaniappan ofTechnical Leads: Zuoping Li, Damien Subit, Matt Kindig Toyota• 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)
  15. 15. Thorax Model Validation Results Summary Impact force-chest deflection curves of thorax regions compared to experimental corridors for table-top, pure lateral, and oblique lateral impacts. (Selected tests shown)References:Table top:(Kent et al, 2004)Pure lateral impact:(Shaw et al. 2006)Oblique lateral impact:(Yoganandan et al., 1997)
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Abdomen Model Center of ExpertisePrincipal Investigator: Philippe Beillas1 / Warren Hardy² GHBMC Subcommittee Leader:Technical Leads: Fabien Berthet1 / Meghan Howes² Philippe Petit of Renault• 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
  18. 18. Abdomen Model Validation Summary /12 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
  19. 19. Abdomen Model Validation Summary /
  20. 20. Lower Extremity Model Center of ExpertisePrincipal Investigators: Costin Untaroiu/Jeff Crandall1 GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Nataraju Alan Eberhardt2 Vusirikala of GMTechnical Leads: Jaeho Shin/Neng Yue1, Young-Ho Kim2• (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)Reference: Untaroiu et al. 2011- LEM User ‘s Manual
  21. 21. Model Validation & CII Summary – Pelvis & Lower Extremity• 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 HipReference: Untaroiu et al. 2011- LEM User ‘s Manual
  22. 22. Lower Extremity Model Validation Results• 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 injuriesReference: Untaroiu et al. 2011- PLEX User ‘s Manual
  23. 23. Full Body Model Center of Expertise Principal Investigator: Joel D. Stitzel GHBMC Subcommittee Leader: Jay Zhao of Takata Technical Lead: F. Scott GayzikMedical Imaging CAD Development • NURBS (CAD), 400+ components, G1 continuous Upright MRI MRI CT External Anthro.Model integration Model Validation• Model integration at 5 intersections of body region • 18 Cases run with the Full Body Model models • 9 Frontal, 8 Lateral, 1 stability• Examples: • Good agreement with data & robustnessReference: Gayzik, F.S. et al., The development of full body geometrical data for finite element models: A multi-modality approach. 2011. Annalsof Biomedical Eng., Oct;39(10):2568-83. Epub 2011 Jul 23.
  24. 24. Full Body Model Overview Current FBM Model Mass, element data Total mass 76 kg
  25. 25. Full Body Model Overview 1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9 frontal, 8 lateral, 1 stability
  26. 26. Full Body Model Overview Full Body Model Overview 1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts 1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9 9 frontal, 8 lateral, 1 stability FBM Validation: 18 cases, frontal, 8 lateral, 1 stability
  27. 27. Full Body Model Overview 1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9 frontal, 8 lateral, 1 stability
  28. 28. Full Body Model Overview 1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9 frontal, 8 lateral, 1 stability
  29. 29. Full Body Model Overview 1.95 million elements, 1.3 million nodes, 76 kg, 847 parts FBM Validation: 18 cases, 9 frontal, 8 lateral, 1 stability
  30. 30. FBM Validation Case Continued N M:F Average Subject Average Subject Mass Scaled to Scaling mass Rib Fracture Rib FracturePMHS Age (years) Mass (kg) M50th? used (kg) Study SimulationData 5 2:3 59 59.5 Yes 77 6.6±5.4 R 7 (1)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
  31. 31. Lateral Sled Impact – 6.7 m/s Rib Fracture Literature Simulation N M:F Average Subject Average Subject Mass Scaled to Scaling mass Rib Fracture Rib FracturePMHS Age (years) Mass (kg) M50th? used (kg) Study SimulationData 3 3:0 51.7±23.1 79.3±8.5 Yes 76 13 R4, 5, 6, 7 (4)Reference: Pintar, Yoganandan, Hines, Maltese, McFadden, Saul, Eppinger, Khaewpong, Klienberger, Chest band analysis of human tolerance toimpact, 1997 Stapp Car Crash Journal, SAE No. 973320
  32. 32. FBM Validation Case Example 1: Frontal Driver Impact – 48 kph N M:F Average Subject Average Subject Mass Scaled to Scaling mass Rib Fracture Rib FracturePMHS Age (years) Mass (kg) M50th? used (kg) Study SimulationData 5 2:3 59 59.5 Yes 77 6.6±5.4 R 7 (1)
  33. 33. CPU Time: GHBMC Model vs. Dummy/Vehicle Models Abdominal Bar Impact 6m/s (Hardy) Thoracic Chest Impactor 6.7 m/s (Kroell) Knee bolster Impact 4.9 m/s ( 80ms simulation - 10 hrs 51 min on 36 cpus) (60ms simulation - 8 hrs 25 min on 36 cpus) (80ms simulation - 10 hrs 51 min on 36 cpus) Full Vehicle Side Impact Frontal Sled Test Lateral NCAP Test (3 mil elements w/ time step 0.45us) (0.6 mil elements w/ time step 0.7us)(200ms simulation - 30 hrs 16 min on 36 cpus) (70ms simulation - 18 hrs 54 min on 36 cpus) (200ms simulation - 5 hrs 27 min on 36 cpus)
  34. 34. Summary & Wrap Up• 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
  35. 35. Acknowledgements Funding & In-kind Contributions: Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC), participating corporations & organizations (A-Z),University Contributors: Body region centers of expertise(COEs) and their partners IFSTTAR University of Virginia University of Waterloo Virginia Tech University of Virginia Wayne State UniversitySoftware Contributions: LSTC (LS-Dyna), ESI Group (Pam-Crash), Altair (Radioss) Data appearing in this document were prepared under the support of the Global Human Body Models Consortium by theFBM 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.
  36. 36. FOR INFORMATION ON JOINING THE CONSORTIUM •Steering Committee –Chairman • Mark Torigian, 734-337-2298 mtorigian@hatci.com • John Combest, 248-488-4507 combesj@ntcna.nissan-usa.com •Technical Committee –Chairman • J.T. Wang, 586-986-0534, jenne-tai.wang@gm.com
  37. 37. SUPPLEMENTAL
  38. 38. GHBMC: A Research Project with Global Reach COLLEGE of ENGINEERING
  39. 39. Kickoff6/20/08 GHBMC Project Timeline Major Milestones Final FBM GHBMC 11/30/11 Phase II
  40. 40. GHBMC Organization & Work System Relationships: Member Committee Reporting Working Steering Committee Technical Committee LLC FBM Subcommittee HM LEMSubcommittee Subcommittee NM AM Subcommittee TM Subcommittee Subcommittee FBM COE HM COE LEM COE NM COE AM COE COE TM COE
  41. 41. Imaging Protocol • Medical Images are the basis for model development 1 • But there is no “one size fits all”Modality Advantage1. Closed Bore, High resolution, pulse sequence specializationMagneticResonance 0.5 – 1 mm in plane resolution 1 – 2 mm slice thickness 2Imaging (MRI) Standing and seated postures, pulse sequence specialization2. Upright MRI 1.4 – 2 mm in plane 1.5 – 2 mm slice thickness 3 Highest resolution, fast image acquisition time3. ComputedTomography (CT) 0.5 – 1 mm in plane resolution 0.63 slice thickness Direct measurement of body landmarks,4. External external contours of the seated occupantAnthropometry 4 7 Axis digitizer < 1 mm

×