Validation of a simplified human body model in relaxed and braced conditions in low-speed frontal sled tests

Objective: The goal of this study was to implement active musculature into the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) average male simplified occupant model (M50-OS v2) and validate its performance in low-speed frontal crash scenarios.Methods: Volunteer and postmortem human subjects (PMHS) data from low-speed frontal sled tests by Beeman et al., including 2.5 and 5.0 g acceleration pulses, were used to simulate events in LS-DYNA. All muscles were modeled as 1D beam elements and assigned a Hill-type muscle material. From the output of proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers, the activation level for each muscle was calculated using a sigmoid function, representing the firing rate of motor neurons. The PID controller attempts to preserve the initial posture of the model. Percentage muscle contribution for all skeletal muscles was precalculated using the M50-OS with active muscles (M50-OS + Active). The M50-OS + Active employs varying levels of neural delays to represent volunteer relaxed and braced conditions, taken from literature. Braced condition experiments were simulated using elevated joint angle set values for the PID controller. The M50-OS + Active model was used to simulate 2 muscle conditions (relaxed and braced) at 2 pulse severities (2.5 and 5.0 g). A control set of simulations was conducted to compare the effect of adding active muscle. Ten whole-body simulations were conducted.Results: The results from volunteer simulations showed a strong dependence of reaction loads and kinematics on muscle activation. Compared to baseline, M50-OS, at 5.0 g acceleration, 33.3% and 7.6% decreases were observed in the overall head kinematics of the M50-OS + Active for the braced and relaxed conditions, respectively. Regarding the anterior direction, similar reductions in overall kinematics were observed for both volunteer test conditions. In comparison to control simulations in which no active muscle was implemented, objective evaluation scores increased markedly at both speeds for the braced condition. Little to no gain was found in the relaxed condition.Conclusions: The results justify the need for use of an active human body model for predicting low-speed frontal kinematics, particularly in the braced condition. Head kinematics were reduced when using active modeling for all simulations (braced and relaxed).

Modular use of human body models of varying levels of complexity: Validation of head kinematics

OBJECTIVE

The significant computational resources required to execute detailed human body finite-element models has motivated the development of faster running, simplified models (e.g., GHBMC M50-OS). Previous studies have demonstrated the ability to modularly incorporate the validated GHBMC M50-O brain model into the simplified model (GHBMC M50-OS+B), which allows for localized analysis of the brain in a fraction of the computation time required for the detailed model. The objective of this study is to validate the head and neck kinematics of the GHBMC M50-O and M50-OS (detailed and simplified versions of the same model) against human volunteer test data in frontal and lateral loading. Furthermore, the effect of modular insertion of the detailed brain model into the M50-OS is quantified.

METHODS

Data from the Navy Biodynamics Laboratory (NBDL) human volunteer studies, including a 15g frontal, 8g frontal, and 7g lateral impact, were reconstructed and simulated using LS-DYNA. A five-point restraint system was used for all simulations, and initial positions of the models were matched with volunteer data using settling and positioning techniques. Both the frontal and lateral simulations were run with the M50-O, M50-OS, and M50-OS+B with active musculature for a total of nine runs.

RESULTS

Normalized run times for the various models used in this study were 8.4 min/ms for the M50-O, 0.26 min/ms for the M50-OS, and 0.97 min/ms for the M50-OS+B, a 32- and 9-fold reduction in run time, respectively. Corridors were reanalyzed for head and T1 kinematics from the NBDL studies. Qualitative evaluation of head rotational accelerations and linear resultant acceleration, as well as linear resultant T1 acceleration, showed reasonable results between all models and the experimental data. Objective evaluation of the results for head center of gravity (CG) accelerations was completed via ISO TS 18571, and indicated scores of 0.673 (M50-O), 0.638 (M50-OS), and 0.656 (M50-OS+B) for the 15g frontal impact. Scores at lower g levels yielded similar results, 0.667 (M50-O), 0.675 (M50-OS), and 0.710 (M50-OS+B) for the 8g frontal impact. The 7g lateral simulations also compared fairly with an average ISO score of 0.565 for the M50-O, 0.634 for the M50-OS, and 0.606 for the M50-OS+B. The three HBMs experienced similar head and neck motion in the frontal simulations, but the M50-O predicted significantly greater head rotation in the lateral simulation.

CONCLUSION

The greatest departure from the detailed occupant models were noted in lateral flexion, potentially indicating the need for further study. Precise modeling of the belt system however was limited by available data. A sensitivity study of these parameters in the frontal condition showed that belt slack and muscle activation have a modest effect on the ISO score. The reduction in computation time of the M50-OS+B reduces the burden of high computational requirements when handling detailed HBMs. Future work will focus on harmonizing the lateral head response of the models and studying localized injury criteria within the brain from the M50-O and M50-OS+B.