Technical Bulletin

Pedestrian CAE Models & Codes
Version 1.5

November 2015
TB 013

TitleVersionDocument Number
AuthorDate
Related Documents
StatusApplication Date

Pedestrian CAE Models & Codes
1.5
TB013
Secretariat
November 2015
Pedestrian Testing Protocol
Information
November 2015

Pedestrian CAE model
Honda
Geometric
Human FE
reconstruction derived
model
from CT/MRI scans(Adult)(bones, ligaments) pelvis and lower limb
Version13th June
Articulated rigid body2011
for upper body(lumbar and above) neck and lumbar
divided into 7 and 5
segments

Pedestrian Sizes
Baseline model
represent
anthropometryclose to 50th
percentile male;baseline model
can be scaled toany sizes of adult
population

Level of Biofidelity
whole body
kinematics (head, T1,
T8, pelvis) during an
impact against a small
sedan and a large
SUV at 40 km/h

Dynamic lateralcompression of pelvis(Force-deflection at
acetabulum and iliumin both acetabulum
and iliac loadings)

Dynamic 3-point
bending of lower limb
long bones in lateralmedial direction at
mid-shaft, distal thirdand proximal third

References
Small sedan: Kerrigan, J. R., Murphy, D. B.,
Drinkwater, D. C., Kam, C. Y., Bose, D.,
Crandall, J. R. : Kinematic Corridors for PMHS
Tested in Full-Scale Pedestrian Impact Tests,
19thESV, Paper number 05-0394 (2005)
Large SUV: Kerrigan, J. R., Kam, C. Y.,
Drinkwater, D. C., Murphy, D. B., Bose, D.,
Ivarsson, J., Crandall, J. R. : KinematicComparison of the POLAR-II and PMHS in
Pedestrian Impact Tests with a Sport-Utility
Vehicle, IRCOBI Conference (2005)
Kikuchi, Y., Takahashi, Y., Mori, F. : Full-Scale
Validation of a Human FE Model for the Pelvis
andLower Limb of a Pedestrian, SAE World
Congress, Paper Number 2008-01-1243 (2008)
Salzar, R. S., Genovese, D., Bass, C. R., Bolton,
J. R., Guillemot, H., Damon, A. M., Crandall, J.
R. : Load Path Distribution within the Pelvic
Structure under Lateral Loading, International
Crashworthiness Conference (2008)
Takahashi, Y., Suzuki, S., Ikeda, M., Gunji, Y. :Investigation on Pedestrian Pelvis Loading
Mechanisms Using Finite Element Simulations,
IRCOBI Conference (2010) (To be published)
Kerrigan J. R., Bhalla K. S., Madeley N. J., Funk
J. R., Bose D., Crandall J. R. : Experiments for
Establishing Pedestrian-Impact Lower Limb
Injury Criteria, SAE Paper #2003-01-0895(2003)
Takahashi, Y., Kikuchi, Y., Mori, F., Konosu, A.
: Advanced FE Lower Limb Model for
Pedestrians,
18th ESV, Paper number 218 (2003)

Notes
Source of human
response data

Source of validation
results

Source of human
response data

Source of validation
results

Source of human
response data

Source of validation
results

TB 013-1/18

Pedestrian CAE model

Pedestrian Sizes

Level of Biofidelity
Dynamic 3-point
bending of thigh andleg (with flesh on) inlateral-medial
direction at mid-shaft,proximal third (legonly) and distal third

References
Ivarsson, J., Lessley, D., Kerrigan, J., Bhalla, K.,
Bose, D., Crandall, J., Kent, R. : Dynamic
Response Corridors and Injury Thresholds of thePedestrian Lower Extremities, IRCOBI
Conference (2004)
Kikuchi, Y., Takahashi, Y., Mori, F. :Development of a Finite Element Model for a
Pedestrian Pelvis and Lower Limb, SAE World
Congress, Paper number 2006-01-0683 (2006)
Dynamic knee
Bose D., Sanghavi P., Kerrigan J. R., Madeley
ligament distraction to N. J., Bhalla K. S., Crandall J. R. : Material
failure at different
Characterization of Ligaments using Nonloading rates for
Contact Strain Measurement and Digitization,
MCL, LCL, ACL
International Workshop on Human Subjects for(anterior and posterior Biomechanical Research, (2002)
parts individually) and Takahashi, Y., Kikuchi, Y., Mori, F., Konosu, A.
PCL (anterior and: Advanced FE Lower Limb Model for
posterior parts
Pedestrians, 18th ESV, Paper number 218 (2003)
individually)
Van Dommelen, J. A. W., Ivarsson, B. J.,
Jolandan, M. M., Millington, S.A., Raut, M.,
Kerrigan, J.R.,
Crandall, J.R., Diduch, D.R. : Characterizationof the Rate-Dependent Mechanical Properties
and Failure of Human Knee
Ligament, SAE Paper number 2005-01-0293(2005)
Kikuchi, Y., Takahashi, Y., Mori, F. :Development of a Finite Element Model for a
Pedestrian Pelvis and Lower Limb, SAE World
Congress, Paper number 2006-01-0683 (2006)
Dynamic 4-point
Ivarsson, J., Lessley, D., Kerrigan, J., Bhalla, K.,
bending of knee joint
Bose, D., Crandall, J., Kent, R. : Dynamic
in valgus bending
Response Corridors and Injury Thresholds of thePedestrian Lower Extremities, IRCOBI
Conference (2004)

Notes
Source of human
response data

Source of validation
results

Source of human
response data

Source of validation
results
Source of human
response data

Source of validation
results

Source of human
response data

TB 013-2/18

Pedestrian CAE model

Pedestrian Sizes

Level of Biofidelity

GeneralHonda
Human FE
model
(Child)Geometric
reconstruction derived
from MRI scans froma 6YO child (wholebody external shape,
Versionlower limb bones andst
1 April 2009 ligaments)
FE model for thighand leg; Articulated
Rigid Body model for
pelvis and above
representing freedomof motion of spine
Represent childspecific anatomical
structures such as
cartilaginous layers atends of long bones

Represent 6YO
child
anthropometry

Dynamic 3-point
bending of childfemur and child tibia
in lateral-medial
direction

Leg fracture
prediction validated
against CIREN indepth accident data bymeans of accident
reconstruction

References
Kikuchi, Y., Takahashi, Y., Mori, F. :Development of a Finite Element Model for a
Pedestrian Pelvis and Lower
Limb, SAE World Congress, Paper number
2006-01-0683 (2006)
Takahashi, Y., Kikuchi, Y., Konosu, A.,
Ishikawa, H., Development and validation of thefinite element model for the human lower limb ofpedestrians, Stapp Car Crash journal, Vol. 44,
2000-101-SC22 (2000)

Notes
Source of validation
results

Ouyang, J. et al.: Biomechanical Character ofExtremity Long Bones in Children and its
significance,
Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy, Vol.21,
No.6,
p620-p623 (2003), (in Chinese)
Ito, O., Okamoto, M., Takahashi, Y., Mori, F. :Validation of an FE Lower Limb Model for aChild Pedestrian by Means of Accident
Reconstruction, SAE paper number 2008-011240 (2008)
Ito, O., Okamoto, M., Takahashi, Y., Mori, F. :Validation of an FE Lower Limb Model for aChild Pedestrian by Means of Accident
Reconstruction, SAE paper number 2008-011240 (2008)

Source of human
response data

Source of validation
results

Source of validation
results

TB 013-3/18

Pedestrian CAE model
THUMS

Pedestrian Sizes
AM50, AF05,
6YO, AM95

Level of Biofidelity
injury parameters areaccurately predictedchild, 5th 50th
95th

See references

Version
1.0, 3.0, 4.0,
Daimler
THUMS-Dbased on v3.0

JLR Human
FE modelVersion 8.1,
9.0

References
T. Yasuki and Y. Yamamae, Validation ofKinematics and Lower Extremity Injuries
Estimated by Total Human Model for Safety in
SUV to Pedestrian Impact Test, Journal of
Biomechanical Science and Engineering Vol. 5(2010) , No. 4 Special Issue on Biomechanics in
Cardiovascular Systems
T. Maeno et al., Development of a Finite
Element Model of the Total Human Model for
Safety (THUMS) and Application to CarPedestrian Collisions, ESV 2001
Watanabe, R., Miyazaki, H., Kitagawa, Y.,
Yasuki, T., : Research of Collision Speed
Dependency of Pedestrian Head and Chest
Injuries Using Human FE Model (THUMSVersion 4), 22nd ESV, Paper number 11-0043(2011)
HOWARD, M., THOMAS, A., KOCH, D. W.,
WATSON, J. & HARDY, R.
(2000) Validation and Application of a Finite
Element Pedestrian
Humanoid Model for Use in Pedestrian Accident
Simulations. IRCOBI.
Montpellier, France, IRCOBI.
Developments in the simulation of real world car
to pedestrian accidents using a pedestrianhumanoid finite element modelR Hardy, J
Watson, M Howard - International Journal of
Crashworthiness, 2000.
HOWARD, M. S. (2002) Pedestrian Accident
Simulation and Protection. Technology
Evaluation. School of Engineering. Cranfield
University.

Notes
Commercially available(AM50)
Toyota in-house models(AF05, 6YO, AM95)

JLR in-house model

TB 013-4/18

Pedestrian CAE model
MADYMOMADYMO Human
Models Manual,
Human
Version 7.3, 7.4,
models
7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.5, 7.6,
version 4.2,
TNO Automotive,
4.3, 5.0, 5.1
Delft, The
Netherlands,
November 2010

Pedestrian Sizes
3yo, 6yo, 5th F,
50th M, 95th.
These models
result from ascalable mid-size
male pedestrianmodel

Level of Biofidelity
Details see references,

References
MADYMO Human Models Manual, Version
7.3, TNO Automotive, Delft, The Netherlands,
November 2010.
Quality report pedestrian models, 1st October
2015, tass international.

Notes
Commercially available

IEE-WPI FE
Model

50% maleavailable. 5%
female and 6 year
old child underdevelopment

Model aims at ahumanlike interaction
with the vehicle
bumper and therefore
has:- hip- / knee-joint
mechanics (ligaments)- tissue / ligament /bone sub-structure- correct
anthropometricproportions
Rigid-body model
validation accordingto
Madymo (c.f. J.van
Hoof)

C. Silvestri - Development and validation of aknee-thigh-hip LS-DYNA model of a 50th
percentile male
PhD Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
April 2008

IEE in-house model

Version 1.0

Up-right pedestrianmodel based on WPI
study with following
improvements
1. introduction of
upper body masses
represented by rigid
bodies
2. more detailed knee
modelling (a.
ligaments
b. non-linear andstrain-rate dependent
material laws withappropriate failure
criteria
c. introduction of asimplified knee
capsule3. femur and tibia soft
tissue material
4. femur meshed withshell elements

C. Silvestri, M. H. Ray - Development of a
Finite Element Model of the Knee-Thigh-Hip ofa 50th Percentile
Male including Ligaments and Muscles,
International Journal of Crashworthiness, Vol.
14, No. 2, pp: 215-229, 2009
FE-based pedestrian modelling to simulate thecollision process with a car front-end
Dr. Wener Bieck (IEE S.A.)
5. pedestrian protection conference, July 2010
(by Carhs & BGS

FE-model validationaccording to- J. Kajzer et al- J.R. Kerrigan et al- J.A.W. van
Dommelen et al

TB 013-5/18

Pedestrian CAE model
PAMCRASH
Version 1.0

JAMA
Human FE
Model
Version13th June
2011

Coupling of the upper
body fromTHUMSTM(Ver.1.4)
and the lower bodyfrom H-modelTM
based Honda Human
Pedestrian Model
Modifications weremade to improve
biofidelity andcomputational
stability.

Pedestrian Sizes Level of Biofidelity
3yo, 6yo, 5th F,
Whole body50th M, 95th.
kinematics based on
These models
articulated rigid
result from abodies withscaleable mid-size focus on humanlike
male pedestrian
whole bodymodel
kinematics and headcontact times basedon corridors fromref. 3 + 4

References

Baseline model
represent
anthropometryclose to 50th
percentile male;baseline model
can be scaled toany sizes of adult
population

Sugimoto, T., Yamazaki, K., First Results fromthe JAMA Human Body Model Project, 19th
ESV Conference, Paper Number 05-0291 (2005)
Kamiji, K., Yamazaki, K., Development ofFinite Element Model of Human to Reduce
Injuries in Traffic Accidents, Journal of Societyof Automotive Engineers of Japan 62(5), pp. 3439 (2008) (in Japanese)whole body
kinematics (head,thoracic and lumbar
spines, femur, tibia
and foot) during an
impact against fourtypes of vehicles(minicar, sedan, SUV
and minivan), only
one trajectory ofwhich is published
Injuries not yet

1. Jason R. Kerrigan, Drew B. Murphy, D. Chris
Drinkwater, Check Y. Kam, Dipan Bose, Jeff R.
CrandallKinematic Corridors for PMHS tested in fullscale Pedestrian Impact Tests University ofVirginia Center for Applied Biomechanics
United States
2. Jason Kerrigan, Carlos Arregui, Jeff Crandall1
Pedestrian Head Impact Dynamics: Comparisonof Dummy and PMHS in small Sedan and Large
SUV Impacts University of Virginia Center for
Applied Biomechanics United States European
Center for Injury Prevention, Universidad deNavarra Spain
3. SAE-Proposal J2782,2007, 'Performance
Specifications for a 50th Percentile Male
Pedestrian Research Dummy'.
4. Ishikawa H., 1993 'Computer Simulation of
Impact Response of the Human Body in CarPedestrian Accidents'.

Notes
Available for
PAMCRASH-users(development project
partners from ESI).

Overview

Source of validation
results

TB 013-6/18

Pedestrian CAE model

Pedestrian Sizes

Level of Biofidelity
satisfactorily
reproduced

References

Notes

NissanHuman FEModel

6yo, 50th Male,
5th Female and95th Male

AM50% and AC06(6yr-old): whole body
kinematics (head,thoracic and lumbar
spines, femur, tibia
and foot) during an
impact against
different types ofvehicles to reproduce
real world phenomena
based on PCDS
accident data base.
AF05: Good overall
kinematics,
Excellent detail pelvis
injury estimation.
AM95%: Good
(overall kinematics)
Excellent (detaillower injury
estimation based onreal world accident
data)

1. Different Factors Influencing Post-crash
Pedestrian Kinematics
Y. Kawabe, Murakami, C. Pal and T. Okabe,2012 SAE International
paper no. 2012-01-0271
2. Post-crash Pedestrian Head Kinematics inReal World Accidents Using 6-yr Old Child FE
ModelC. Pal, K. Yoshiko, O. Tomosaburo, Nissan
Motor Company Ltd
JSME-CMD symposium
Paper no. 2402
3. Analysis of Pedestrian Kinematics and Injury
Mechanism In Real World Accidents
Murakami, Daisuke; *Pal, Chinmoy; Kawabe,
Yoshiko; Okabe Tomosaburo
Nissan Motor Company Ltd., JapanFISITA2012
paper no. F2012-F03-010
4. Human FE Model to Estimate Head Contact
Time for Pedestrian Protection
C. Pal, O. Tomosaburo, Nissan Motor Company
Ltd.
M. Muthukumar, S. Narayanan, RNTBCIPaper Number 13-0376
5. Estimation of Pelvis Injuries and Head Impact
Time using Different Pedestrian Human FE
ModelsChinmoy Pal and Tomosaburo Okabe Nissan
Kulothungan Vimalathithan, Jeyabharath

Accurate for HIT andbody contact
calculation
requirements, as per
Euro NCAP protocol.
Level pelvis injuries areverified with real world
accident data
JAMA AM50 upper
body and GHBMC
AM50 lower leg
models are wellintegrated and modified
to suit Euro NCAP
protocol requirements.

Version 3.0,
4.0AM95 basedon JAMAand GHBMC
model.

TB 013-7/18

Pedestrian CAE model

Pedestrian Sizes

GM/GME
Human FE
Model

50th Male

Version 8.2.1
Version 1.0

6yo, 5th female &95th male.

Level of Biofidelity

References
Notes
Manoharan, Muthukumar Muthanandam, andSatheesh Narayanan RNTBCI
2014-01-0522 SAE2014
6. Effect of vehicle's front end profile onpedestrian's lower extremity injury pattern in realworld and verification by large male FE Human
Model.
Chinmoy Pal, Tomosaburo Okabe, Munenori
Shinada Nissan
Kulothungan Vimalathithan, Jeyabharath
Manoharan, RNTBCI
2015-01-1467 SAE2015
Model aims to replace 1. Deng B et al, "Human model for real-world
Madymo-Multi-Body vehicle-pedestrian impact simulations."INFATS-Model in case of- Proceedings of the 5th International Forum ofwhole body
Automotive Traffic Safety, China : Hunan
kinematics andUniversity, 2007
contact times
2. Deng B et al, "Human model for real-world
vehicle pedestrian impact simulations." Paper- Whole bodypresented at the International Symposium of
kinematics (head, T1, Human Modeling and Simulation in Automotive
pelvis, left femur and Safety, Aschaffenburg, Germany, 2007
tibia) during an impact 3. Unatriou C et al, “A Finite element model ofagainst a small sedan
the lower limb for simulating pedestrian impact”,(1400 kg) at 40 kmph Stapp Car Crash Journal, 49:157-181, 2005
- Dynamic 3-point
4. Vusirikala N, “ Development of deformablebending of femur inpelvis model for motor vehicle crashes”, GM
anterior-posteriorInternal Report, 2007
direction at mid-shaft 5. Vusirikala N, “ Development of whole hip- Dynamic 3-point
capsule ligament FE model”, GM Internalbending of leg (with
Report, 2008
flesh) in lateral-medial 6. Vusirikala N, “ Estimation of pedestrian lower
direction at mid-calf
leg injury potential using lower extremity humanbody model”, GM Internal Report, 2008
TB 013-8/18

Pedestrian CAE model

Pedestrian Sizes

Level of Biofidelity- 4-point bending of
knee joint in valgus
bending- 3-point combined
loading test of kneejoint- Quasi-static 3-point
bending of femur,
tibia and fibula inanterior-posterior andlateral-medial
directions- Quasi-static tensile
test to failure anddynamic ramp-andhold tensile test for
the MCL- Dynamic lateralcompression of pelvis(Force-deflection at
acetabulum and iliumin both acetabulum
and iliac loadings)- Pelvis – femur hip
capsule ligament
distraction test
- Shearing andbending effects of theknee joint and low andhigh speed lateralloading

References
7. Guillemot H, et al, “Pelvic behavior in side
impact collisions: Static and dynamic tests on
isolated pelvic bones”, SAE Paper # 98-S6-W37, 1998
8. Stewart KJ, et al, “Spatial Distribution of Hip
Capsule Structural and Material Properties”,
Journal of Biomechanics, Vol 35, pp. 14911498, 2002.
9. Kajzer J, et al, “Shearing and bending effects
at the knee joint at low speed lateral loading”,
SAE paper No # 1999-01-0712, 1999
10. Kajzer J, et al, “Shearing and bending effects
at the knee joint at high speed lateral loading”,
IRCOBI Conference, Germany, paper No #1999-01-0712, 1999
11. Pal C, et al, “Effect of vehicle’s front end
profile on pedestrian’s lower extremity injury
pattern in real world verification by large male
FE human model”, SAE paper No 2015-011467, 2015.

Notes

TB 013-9/18

GHBMC
M50-PS
Adult,
Pedestrian,
Simplified.
Version 1.3
Code: LSDyna

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans, bonylandmark data, CT,
upright MRI and MRI
data of one living
individual. Surfaces
were reconstructedfrom the laser scandata, bones from CT.

May 17, 2015

GHBMC
M50-PS
Adult,
Pedestrian,
Simplified.
Version 1.3

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans, bonylandmark data, CT,
upright MRI and MRI
data of one living
individual. Surfaces
were reconstructed

GHBMC M50Geometric biofidelity
PS, Average malesubject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al.

Gordon et al. U.S. Army Survey of
Anthropometry, ANSUR, 1988

Pelvis in lateralcompression per
Guillemot et al. 1998
and Beason et al.
2003. Cortical bone
mapping paper
published by Kim etal.
Mid-shaft femur,
bending and combined
compression &bending, per Funk et
al. 2004 and Ivarsson
et al. 2009. Data show
good agreement.
GHBMC M50Proximal femur,
PS, Average male compression per
subject whose
Keyak 1998. Dataanthropometry
show good agreement.
matched 15
Knee A-P shear per
different
Balasubramanian et al.
measures from2004 posterior shear
Gordon et al.
test of PCL. Data
show good agreement.

Kim, Y. H., J. E. Kim and A. W. Eberhardt (2012).
"A new cortical thickness mapping method withapplication to an in vivo finite element model."Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin.

Gayzik, F. S., D. P. Moreno, K. A. Danelson, C.
McNally, K. D. Klinich and J. D. Stitzel (2012).
"External landmark, body surface, and volumedata of a mid-sized male in seated and standing
postures." Ann Biomed Eng 40(9): 2019-2032.

Manual: GHBMC, Male 50th Percentile (M50)
Occupant Model, Version 3.0 – Nov. 30th, 2011
Untaroiu, C. D., N. Yue and J. Shin (2013). "A
finite element model of the lower limb for
simulating automotive impacts." Ann Biomed
Eng 41(3): 513-526.
GHBMC M50 Enhancement Report andQuarterly Report, No. GHBMC-FBM-P2- QR1.
10/31/2013. Appendix B, BRM COE
Enhancement Reports and Results.
Yue, N, Untaroiu C.D. (2014), A NumericalInvestigation on the Variation of Hip Injury
Tolerance with Occupant Posture during Frontal
Collisions, Traffic Injury Prevention, 15(5): 513522

Gordon data were used
to select the individual
who served as thebaseline for the M50PS model.
Gayzik study details
methodology forstanding posturedevelopment.
Study conducted on
GHBMC M50-O(occupant), but samebone mesh, material
and failure properties
were ported to the
GHBMC M50-PS
model.
Study conducted on
GHBMC M50-O(occupant), but samebone mesh, material
and failure properties
were ported to the
GHBMC M50-PS
model.

TB 013-10/18

Code: LSDyna

from the laser scandata, bones from CT.

Midshaft lower leg,combined
compression andbending per Untaroiu
et al. 2008. Data show
good agreement.
Xversion, internal andexternal rotation of thefoot and ankle per
Funk et al. 2000 and
2002. Data show
good agreement.

May 17, 2015

GHBMC
M50-PS
Adult,
Pedestrian,
Simplified.
Version 1.3
Code: LSDyna
May 17, 2015

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans, bonylandmark data, CT,
upright MRI and MRI
data of one living
individual. Surfaces
were reconstructedfrom the laser scandata, bones from CT.

GHBMC M50PS, Average malesubject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al.

Standing postureThoracoabdominal
impacts per Viano etal. 1989. Impacts tochest, abdomen andpelvis. Data show
good agreement.
Knee joint 4 point
bending per Bose et al.
2004
180 degree lateralimpact to assess whole
lower limb lateral
bending and shear, per
Kajzer et al. 1999
Vehicle leading edge
to full pedestriankinematics per
Kerrigan et al. 2007
and Untaroiu et al.
2006.

J. Shin, Untaroiu, C.D. (2013). "Biomechanicaland Injury Response of Human Foot and Ankle
under Complex Loading." J Biomech Eng/ASME
Transactions, 135(10), 101008
Shin, J., N. Yue and C. D. Untaroiu (2012). "A
finite element model of the foot and ankle for
automotive impact applications." Ann Biomed
Eng 40(12): 2519-2531.
Untaroiu, C.D., Putnam J.B., Schap, J. , Davis M.
L., Gayzik, F. S. (2015) Development andPreliminary Validation of a 50th Percentile
Pedestrian Finite Element Model, Proceedingsof 2014 ASME IDETC Conference, August 17-20,
2015, Boston, MA, USA

Study conducted on
GHBMC M50-O(occupant), but samebone mesh, material
and failure properties
were ported to the
GHBMC M50-PS
model.
Study Conducted with
GHBMC M50-PS
components.

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M50-PS
components.
Study Conducted with
GHBMC M50-PS
components.

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M50-PS fullbody model.

TB 013-11/18

GHBMC
M95-PS and
F05-PS
Pedestrians,
Simplified.

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans ofcarefully selectedindividuals. Surfaces
Version 1.3
were reconstructedfrom laser scans.
Code: LSMedical images of
Dyna
small female and large
male individuals were
May 17, 2015 available for local
verification.

GHBMC M95PS, Large malesubject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al.
The model wasdeveloped bymorphing the
M50-PS model.
GHBMC F05-PS,
small female
subject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al. The
model wasdeveloped bymorphing the
M50-PS model.

Lumbar spine
validation inextension, flexion andlateral bending per
Rohkmann et al. 2001
Geometric biofidelity

Gordon et al. U.S. Army Survey of
Anthropometry, ANSUR, 1988
M95 subject data: Vavalle NA, Schoell SL,
Weaver AA, Stitzel JD, Gayzik FS. (2014) The
Application of Radial Basis Function
Interpolation Methods in the Development of a95th Percentile Male Seated FEA Model. Stapp
Car Crash J. v. 58, pp XX
F05 subject data: Davis ML, Allen BC, Geer
CP, Stitzel JD, Gayzik FS. A multi-modality
image set for the development of a 5th percentile
female finite element model. International
Research Council on the Biomechanics ofInjury, IRCOBI, Sept. 2014, Berlin, Germany,

Gordon data were used
to select the individual
who served as thebaseline for the M50PS model.
Vavalle study provides
detail on the M95
subject, which was also
used in occupant model
development.
Davis study provides
data on F05 subject.

ISSN: 2235-3151

TB 013-12/18

GHBMC
M95-PS and
F05-PS
Pedestrians,
Simplified.

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans ofcarefully selectedindividuals. Surfaces
Version 1.3
were reconstructedfrom the laser scans.
Code: LSMedical images of
Dyna
small female and large
male individuals were
May 17, 2015 available for local
checks.

GHBMC
6YO
Pedestrian,
Simplified.
Version 1.3
Code: LSDyna

GHBMC M95PS, Large malesubject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al.
The model wasdeveloped bymorphing theM50 model.

GHBMC F05-PS,
small female
subject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al. The
model wasdeveloped bymorphing theM50 model.
Geometric
The small female
reconstruction
model wasfollowed same process deconstructed
as above, this modeland regionally
was initially developed scaled to match
through morphing ofanthropometry
the F05 model.
data of the child.
Medical image
data was used toStanding postureThoracoabdominal
impacts per Viano etal. 1989. Impacts tochest, abdomen andpelvis.

Untaroiu et al. Progress Report regarding the
Verification (Validation) of GHBMC Simplified
Pedestrian Finite Element Model , Novemver
2014 report , February 2015 report, May 2015
report.

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M95 and F05PS components.

Knee joint 4 point
bending per Bose et al.
2004

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M95 and F05PS components.

180 degree lateralimpact to assess whole
lower limb lateral
bending and shear, per
Kajzer et al. 1999
Vehicle leading edge
to full pedestriankinematics per
Kerrigan et al. 2007
and Untaroiu et al.
2006.
Geometric biofidelity

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M95 and F05PS components.

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M95 and F05PS full body model.

Sources used in model development:
Reed et al. SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-1057:
Development of anthropometric specifications
for the six-year-old OCATD.
Snyder et al. 1977: Anthropometry of Infants,
Children, and Youths to Age 18 for Product
Safety Design, UMTRITB 013-13/18

locally morph themesh geometryfor 6 YO.

May 17, 2015

GHBMC
M50-PS
Adult,
Pedestrian,
Simplified.
Version 1.3
Code: PAMCrash

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans, bonylandmark data, CT,
upright MRI and MRI
data of one living
individual. Surfaces
were reconstructedfrom the laser scandata, bones from CT.

GHBMC M50PS, Average malesubject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al.

May 17, 2015

GHBMC
M50-PS

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans, bony

GHBMC M50PS, Average malesubject whoseanthropometry

Vehicle leading edge
to full pedestriankinematics per
Kerrigan et al. 2007
and Untaroiu et al.
2006.
Geometric biofidelity

Untaroiu, C.D., Schap, J., Gayzik, S. (2015), A
finite Element Model of a 6-year old child for
simulating pedestrian impacts, AAAM 2015
Conference.

Conducted with
GHBMC 6YO-PS fullbody model.

Gordon et al. U.S. Army Survey of
Anthropometry, ANSUR, 1988

Gordon data were used
to select the individual
who served as thebaseline for the M50PS model.

Gayzik, F. S., D. P. Moreno, K. A. Danelson, C.
McNally, K. D. Klinich and J. D. Stitzel (2012).
"External landmark, body surface, and volumedata of a mid-sized male in seated and standing
postures." Ann Biomed Eng 40(9): 2019-2032.
Pelvis in lateralcompression per
Guillemot et al. 1998
and Beason et al.
2003. Cortical bone
mapping paper
published by Kim etal.
Mid-shaft femur,
bending and combined
compression &bending, per Funk et
al. 2004 and Ivarsson
et al. 2009. Data show
good agreement.
Proximal femur,
compression per
Keyak 1998. Data
show good agreement.

GHBMC Quarterly Report – Pam Crash Model
Conversion (May 12 2014)
User Manual: M50 Occupant Version 4.3 for
PAM-CRASH, Nov. 1st, 2014

GHBMC Annual Report – Pam Crash Model
Conversion (November 5 2014)

Gayzik study details
methodology forstanding posturedevelopment.
Study conducted on
GHBMC M50-O(occupant), but samebone mesh, material
and failure properties
were ported to the
GHBMC M50-PS
model.
Study conducted on
GHBMC M50-O(occupant), but samebone mesh, material
and failure properties
were ported to the
GHBMC M50-PS
model.

TB 013-14/18

Adult,Pedestrian,
Simplified.
Version 1.3
Code: PAMCrash

landmark data, CT,
upright MRI and MRI
data of one living
individual. Surfaces
were reconstructedfrom the laser scandata, bones from CT.

matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al.

May 17, 2015

GHBMC
M50-PS
Adult,
Pedestrian,
Simplified.
Version 1.3
Code: PAMCrash
May 17, 2015

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans, bonylandmark data, CT,
upright MRI and MRI
data of one living
individual. Surfaces
were reconstructedfrom the laser scandata, bones from CT.

GHBMC M50PS, Average malesubject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al.

Knee A-P shear per
Balasubramanian et al.
2004 posterior shear
test of PCL. Data
show good agreement.
Midshaft lower leg,combined
compression andbending per Untaroiu
et al. 2008. Data
show good agreement.
Xversion, internal and GHBMC Annual Report – Pam Crash Model
external rotation of the Conversion (November 5 2014)
foot and ankle per
Funk et al. 2000 and
2002. Data show
good agreement.
Standing posture
GHBMC Quarterly Report – Pam Crash Model
Thoracoabdominal
Conversion (May 11 2015)
impacts per Viano etal. 1989. Impacts tochest, abdomen andpelvis. Data show
good agreement.
Knee joint 4 point
bending per Bose etal. 2004
180 degree lateralimpact to assess whole
lower limb lateral
bending and shear, per
Kajzer et al. 1999

Study conducted on
GHBMC M50-O(occupant), but samebone mesh, material
and failure properties
were ported to the
GHBMC M50-PS
model.
Study Conducted with
GHBMC M50-PS
components.

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M50-PS
components.
Study Conducted with
GHBMC M50-PS
components.

TB 013-15/18

Vehicle leading edge
to full pedestriankinematics per
Kerrigan et al. 2007
and Untaroiu et al.
2006.
Lumbar spine
validation inextension, flexion
and lateral bending
per Rohkmann et al.
2001

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M50-PS fullbody model.

TB 013-16/18

GHBMC
M95-PS and
F05-PS
Pedestrians,
Simplified.

Geometric
reconstruction derived
from external laser
surface scans ofcarefully selectedindividuals. Surfaces
Version 1.3
were reconstructedfrom laser scans.
Code: PAM- Medical images ofCrash
small female and large
male individuals were
May 17, 2015 available for local
verification.

GHBMC
M95-PS and
F05-PS
Pedestrians,
Simplified.
Version 1.3
Code: PAMCrash

GHBMC M95Geometric biofidelity
PS, Large malesubject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al. The
model wasdeveloped bymorphing the
M50-PS model.

GHBMC F05-PS,
small female
subject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al. The
model wasdeveloped bymorphing the
M50-PS model.
Geometric
GHBMC M95reconstruction derived PS, Large malefrom external laser
subject whose
surface scans ofanthropometry
carefully selected
matched 15
individuals. Surfaces different
were reconstructedmeasures fromfrom the laser scans.
Gordon et al. The
Medical images ofmodel wassmall female and large developed byStanding postureThoracoabdominal
impacts per Viano etal. 1989. Impacts tochest, abdomen andpelvis.

Gordon et al. U.S. Army Survey of
Anthropometry, ANSUR, 1988
M95 subject data: Vavalle NA, Schoell SL,
Weaver AA, Stitzel JD, Gayzik FS. (2014) The
Application of Radial Basis Function
Interpolation Methods in the Development of a95th Percentile Male Seated FEA Model. Stapp
Car Crash J. v. 58, pp XX

Gordon data were used
to select the individual
who served as thebaseline for the M50PS model.

Vavalle study provides
detail on the M95
subject, which was also
used in occupant model
F05 subject data: Davis ML, Allen BC, Geer CP, development.
Stitzel JD, Gayzik FS. A multi-modality image
set for the development of a 5th percentile female Davis study provides
data on F05 subject.
finite element model. International ResearchCouncil on the Biomechanics of Injury, IRCOBI,
Sept. 2014, Berlin, Germany, ISSN: 2235-3151

GHBMC Quarterly Report – Pam Crash Model
Conversion (May 11 2015)

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M95 and F05PS components.

TB 013-17/18

male individuals were
May 17, 2015 available for local
checks.

morphing theM50 model.

GHBMC F05-PS,
small female
subject whoseanthropometry
matched 15
different
measures from
Gordon et al. The
model wasdeveloped bymorphing theM50 model.
GHBMC
Geometric
The small female
6YO
reconstruction
model wasPedestrian,followed same process deconstructed andSimplified.
as above, this model
regionally scaled
was initiallyto match
Version 1.3
developed throughanthropometrymorphing of the F05
data of the child.
Code: PAM- model.
Medical image
Crash
data was used to
locally morph the
May 17, 2015
mesh geometryfor 6 YO.

Knee joint 4 point
bending per Bose etal. 2004

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M95 and F05PS components.

180 degree lateralimpact to assess whole
lower limb lateral
bending and shear, per
Kajzer et al. 1999
Vehicle leading edge
to full pedestriankinematics per
Kerrigan et al. 2007
and Untaroiu et al.
2006.
Geometric biofidelity Sources used in model development:

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M95 and F05PS components.

Study Conducted with
GHBMC M95 and F05PS full body model.

Reed et al. SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-1057:
Development of anthropometric specifications
for the six-year-old OCATD.

Vehicle leading edge
to full pedestriankinematics per
Kerrigan et al. 2007
and Untaroiu et al.
2006.

Snyder et al. 1977: Anthropometry of Infants,
Children, and Youths to Age 18 for Product
Safety Design, UMTRIGHBMC Quarterly Report – Pam Crash Model
Conversion (August 2015, scheduled)

Conducted with
GHBMC 6YO-PS fullbody model.

TB 013-18/18