Citation

Ruan JS, El-Jawahri R, Rouhana SW, Barbat S, Prasad P. Stapp Car Crash J. 2006; 50: 491-507.

Affiliation

Ford Motor Company, Research and Innovation Center, MI, USA. jruan@ford.com

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Society of Automotive Engineers SAE)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

17311174

Abstract

The biofidelity of the Ford Motor Company human body finite element (FE) model in side impact simulations was analyzed and evaluated following the procedures outlined in ISO technical report TR9790. This FE model, representing a 50th percentile adult male, was used to simulate the biomechanical impact tests described in ISO-TR9790. These laboratory tests were considered as suitable for assessing the lateral impact biofidelity of the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis of crash test dummies, subcomponent test devices, and math models that are used to represent a 50th percentile adult male. The simulated impact responses of the head, neck, shoulder, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis of the FE model were compared with the PMHS (Post Mortem Human Subject) data upon which the response requirements for side impact surrogates was based. An overall biofidelity rating of the human body FE model was determined using the ISO-TR9790 rating method. The resulting rating for the human body FE model was 8.5 on a 0 to 10 scale with 8.6-10 being excellent biofidelity. In addition, in order to explore whether there is a dependency of the impact responses of the FE model on different analysis codes, three commercially available analysis codes, namely, LS-DYNA, Pamcrash, and Radioss were used to run the human body FE model. Effects of these codes on biofidelity when compared with ISO-TR9790 data are discussed. Model robustness and numerical issues arising with three different code simulations are also discussed.

Language: en