Development of a Computationally Efficient Full Human Body Finite Element Model

Introduction: A simplified and computationally efficient human body finite element model is presented. The model complements the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) detailed 50th percentile occupant (M50-O) by providing kinematic and kinetic data with a significantly reduced run time using the same body habitus.

Methods: The simplified occupant model (M50-OS) was developed using the same source geometry as the M50-O. Though some meshed components were preserved, the total element count was reduced by remeshing, homogenizing, or in some cases omitting structures that are explicitly contained in the M50-O. Bones are included as rigid bodies, with the exception of the ribs, which are deformable but were remeshed to a coarser element density than the M50-O. Material models for all deformable components were drawn from the biomechanics literature. Kinematic joints were implemented at major articulations (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle) with moment vs. angle relationships from the literature included for the knee and ankle. The brain of the detailed model was inserted within the skull of the simplified model, and kinematics and strain patterns are compared.

Results: The M50-OS model has 11 contacts and 354,000 elements; in contrast, the M50-O model has 447 contacts and 2.2 million elements. The model can be repositioned without requiring simulation. Thirteen validation and robustness simulations were completed. This included denuded rib compression at 7 discrete sites, 5 rigid body impacts, and one sled simulation. Denuded tests showed a good match to the experimental data of force vs. deflection slopes. The frontal rigid chest impact simulation produced a peak force and deflection within the corridor of 4.63 kN and 31.2%, respectively. Similar results vs. experimental data (peak forces of 5.19 and 8.71 kN) were found for an abdominal bar impact and lateral sled test, respectively. A lateral plate impact at 12 m/s exhibited a peak of roughly 20 kN (due to stiff foam used around the shoulder) but a more biofidelic response immediately afterward, plateauing at 9 kN at 12 ms. Results from a frontal sled simulation showed that reaction forces and kinematic trends matched experimental results well. The robustness test demonstrated that peak femur loads were nearly identical to the M50-O model. Use of the detailed model brain within the simplified model demonstrated a paradigm for using the M50-OS to leverage aspects of the M50-O. Strain patterns for the 2 models showed consistent patterns but greater strains in the detailed model, with deviations thought to be the result of slightly different kinematics between models. The M50-OS with the deformable skull and brain exhibited a run time 4.75 faster than the M50-O on the same hardware.

Conclusions: The simplified GHBMC model is intended to complement rather than replace the detailed M50-O model. It exhibited, on average, a 35-fold reduction in run time for a set of rigid impacts. The model can be used in a modular fashion with the M50-O and more broadly can be used as a platform for parametric studies or studies focused on specific body regions.     

The effect of precrash velocity reduction on occupant response using a human body finite element model

Objective: The objective of this study is to use a validated finite element model of the human body and a certified model of an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) to evaluate the effect of simulated precrash braking on driver kinematics, restraint loads, body loads, and computed injury criteria in 4 commonly injured body regions.

Methods: The Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) 50th percentile male occupant (M50-O) and the Humanetics Hybrid III 50th percentile models were gravity settled in the driver position of a generic interior equipped with an advanced 3-point belt and driver airbag. Fifteen simulations per model (30 total) were conducted, including 4 scenarios at 3 severity levels: median, severe, and the U.S. New Car Assessment Program (U.S.-NCAP) and 3 extra per model with high-intensity braking. The 4 scenarios were no precollision system (no PCS), forward collision warning (FCW), FCW with prebraking assist (FCW+PBA), and FCW and PBA with autonomous precrash braking (FCW + PBA + PB). The baseline ΔV was 17, 34, and 56.4 kph for median, severe, and U.S.-NCAP scenarios, respectively, and were based on crash reconstructions from NASS/CDS. Pulses were then developed based on the assumed precrash systems equipped. Restraint properties and the generic pulse used were based on literature.

Results: In median crash severity cases, little to no risk (<10% risk for Abbreviated injury Scale [AIS] 3+) was found for all injury measures for both models. In the severe set of cases, little to no risk for AIS 3+ injury was also found for all injury measures. In NCAP cases, highest risk was typically found with No PCS and lowest with FCW + PBA + PB. In the higher intensity braking cases (1.0–1.4 g), head injury criterion (HIC), brain injury criterion (BrIC), and chest deflection injury measures increased with increased braking intensity. All other measures for these cases tended to decrease. The ATD also predicted and trended similar to the human body models predictions for both the median, severe, and NCAP cases. Forward excursion for both models decreased across median, severe, and NCAP cases and diverged from each other in cases above 1.0 g of braking intensity.

Conclusions: The addition of precrash systems simulated through reduced precrash speeds caused reductions in some injury criteria, whereas others (chest deflection, HIC, and BrIC) increased due to a modified occupant position. The human model and ATD models trended similarly in nearly all cases with greater risk indicated in the human model. These results suggest the need for integrated safety systems that have restraints that optimize the occupant's position during precrash braking and prior to impact.