Introduction to Multibody Modelling for

Impact Biomechanics Applications

Dr Ciaran Simms FTCD
csimms@tcd.ie

Delhi
December 2013

Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Mechanical dummies

Mathematical
modelling




Virtual crash
environment

CANNOT GENERALLY CRASH TEST
HUMANSNEED MODELLING METHODS

Volunteers



Animals


Cadavers

2
( ) ( ) ( ) p S g t z t x =
(

+
+
-
+
-
2
2
1 1
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Model Complexity
3
Need to decide your research question to determine
appropriate model complexity

Make everything as simple as possible, but no
simpler (Einstein)

More complex models have more outputs, but also
more inputs often increased uncertainity


Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

Particle models can predict pedestrian trajectories
MIXED SINGLE SEGMENT MOMENTUM AND PARTICLE MODELS TO
ESTIMATE IMPACT SPEED FROM PROJECTION DISTANCE












But what about effects of vehicle shape?
Simms & Wood, Springer 2009
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Models based on conservation of Momentum
Accounts for geometry and inertia and captures principal
kinematics even with a single segment model WITHOUT
knowledge of vehicle stiffness.
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Momentum based models
Can assume plastic contacts and rigid body relations and then
do not need specific contact stiffnesses to proceed good for
general analysis, also essence of PC Crash

Assume step changes in velocity components when contacts
occur: hence no injury predictions

HOWEVER, for force time history modelling need an ordinary
differential equation approach
6
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Simms & Wood, Springer 2009
ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL
EQUATION FORMULATION
x
X
z
B vehicle contact on leg
C vehicle contact on head
D feet contact with ground
F
C

Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
How to get velocities & displacements
from this kind of model ?
eg spring mass system, stiffness

Initial conditions:


Newton II:


Euler integration

Similar approach to get displacements (normally
coupled solutions to two 1st order ODEs used)

Time marching solution using initial conditions
( ) ( )
i i
t x k t x =
- -
( ) ( ) known x x =
-
0 , 0
( ) ( )
-
t x t x ,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
i i i i i
t t t x t x t x + =
+
- - -
+
-
1 1
k
k
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Multibody Modelling
To capture body articulation, need to be able to
combine a number of links with kinematic joints and
add joint stiffnesses

Need to be able to handle hysteresis and damping
and non-linearity in contacts

Can then get force time and acceleration time
behaviour of all components

Assumption that all links remain rigid
9
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
ONE/TWO SEGMENT ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL
EQUATION FORMULATION
Simms & Wood, Springer 2009
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
MULTIBODY MODELS: eg MADYMO commercial
code to make using these models easier
CAN PREDICT FORCES, ACCELERATIONS, but essentially
what you put in is what you get out!

Model itself is not so interesting, it is what it can tell you...
Simms & Wood, Springer 2009
Madymo Pedestrian impact simulations
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
12
Rigid
Body
Dynamics
Tree structure
Rigid bodies
Surfaces
Contacts
Integration
Adapted from TNO Madymo
So how does it work?
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
13
Multibody systems mathematically simulate the motion of multiple
rigid bodies connected by joints to form multiple systems

Force models and contact interactions are applied to the rigid bodies
and the motions caused by these forces are calculated with
numerical integration methods

working with FORCES and DISPLACEMENTS, NOT with STRESS
and STRAIN (as used in FE models)

lumped parameter models (like a free body diagram)
Multibody approach
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Tree Structure
unique sequence of bodies and kinematic joints
2 systems 3 systems, resp., 7 bodies
1 body and 5 bodies
1 system with 12 bodies
A System is one or more chains of one or more rigid bodies
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
15
Rigid Body
A rigid body has constant mass & rotational inertia but no geometrical
properties of its own

Connected to other bodies within a multibody system by joints

Can be connected to other bodies with springs and dampers

Planes, ellipsoids, etc can be connected to a rigid body

Define mass, inertia and centre of gravity wrt local coordinate system

Positions and orientations of rigid bodies are computed
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Rigid Body Relations
Two points on a rigid body have a relative velocity
defined by the distance between them and the
angular velocity of the body

Can be expressed in vector format as:
16
A B BA A B
A B BA A B
A B A B
r v v
r v
v v v
/
/ /
/



+ =
=
+ =
e
e
B
A

B
v

A
v

A
r

BA

e
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
17
Multibody Surfaces
Surfaces for contact evaluations and visualising
PLANES
ELLIPSOIDS
CYLINDERS

FE Mesh may also describe an arbitrary surface, but
this is a null material and no strain-stress calculation
is performed
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
(Hyper-) Ellipsoids
A (hyper-)ellipsoid is defined by
The location of the centre
The degree n
The semi-axes a, b and c
The orientation of the semi-axis
x
e
a
|
\

|
.
|
n
+
y
e
b
|
\

|
.
|
n
+
z
e
c
|
\

|
.
|
n
= 1
y
e
2D ellipsoid 3D ellipsoid
z
e
x
e
x y
z
z
e
y
e
z
y
c
b
b
c
a
n = 2
n = 8
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
19
Integration Method and Time Step
Numerical integration of the systems
differential equations of motion

Usually Runge Kutta or Euler integration

Euler:

Forward integration is conditionally stable:
need to check timestep small enough

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
i i i i i
t t t x t x t x + =
+
- - -
+
-
1 1
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Timestep importance
Spring mass system: period T = 0.2 t s
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
21
Contact between multibody surfaces.

An action and reaction force is applied on the corresponding
bodies depending on the surface penetration

Contact force consists of
Elastic force F
e
()
Damping force F
d
Friction force F
f
F
reaction

F
action

F
f

F
e

F
d


Multibody contacts
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Relative Velocity in a Contact
Velocity used for calculation of damping and friction force is
the relative velocity of the contacting bodies at the point of
application of the contact force
P
AV
norm
AV
AV
plane
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Elastic Force
user defined force-penetration loading (L)
and unloading (U) function

Can measure experimentally and use as
input

Hysteresis can be specified, often very
important for realistic kinematics

Dynamic amplification factor can account
for dependency of the elastic force on the
rate of the penetration
Adapted from TNO Madymo
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods





Elastic force is found from observed
penetration between surfaces
in contact at a given timestep
p
1

p
2
ellipsoid
plane
p
1
p
2
ellipsoid
plane
ellipsoid 2
l
1
l
2

Adapted from TNO Madymo

Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Newton-Euler Equations of Motion
25
=

(linear)

=

+
(angular)
In MADYMO, these equations of Motion are solved for
systems of rigid bodies using the Principle of Virtual Power
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
A study of pedestrian head translation, rotation and
impact velocity: The influence of vehicle speed,
pedestrian speed and pedestrian gait

26
Case study 1:
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Influence of vehicle speed, pedestrian speed and pedestrian gait on
pedestrian post impact kinematics have not been quantified - MADYMO

Transverse translation influences injury severity due to variations in local
vehicle stiffness

Head rotation is related to pedestrian stance at impact which influences the
overall kinematics

Head impact velocity influences head injuries

Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

28
Baseline simulation
Transverse Offset
Pedestrian Gait cycle
Head rotation about
vertical axis
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
29
Typical MADYMO Pedestrian Animation SIDE VIEW
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
30
Typical MADYMO Pedestrian Animation TOP VIEW
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

31
Transverse offset varies cyclically with pedestrian gait
Modelling Results: Transverse Offset
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

32
Modelling Results: Transverse Offset
Transverse Offset depends also on vehicle speed
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

33
Modelling Results: Transverse Offset
Transverse offset reduces
with vehicle speed
Transverse offset increases
with pedestrian speed
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

34
Modelling Results: Head Rotation
Head Rotation reduces with
vehicle speed
Head Rotation increases
with vehicle speed
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

35
Modelling Results: Head Rotation
Positive and Negative Regions of Pedestrian Head Rotation
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

36
Modelling Results: head impact velocity
Head impact speed is a linear function of vehicle speed
Largely independent of pedestrian speed
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

37
Modelling Results: Analysis
Transverse Offset is a linear function of ratio of Pedestrian to Vehicle speed
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

38
Modelling Results: Head rotation
Head Rotation is a linear function of ratio of Pedestrian to Vehicle speed
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods

39
Transverse Offset, Head rotation and head impact
speed vary cyclically and significantly with gait

First quantification of the influences of pedestrian
speed and stance on transverse offset and head
rotation, both of which may sometimes be available in
individual pedestrian accident cases.
Study conclusions
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
The Influence of Vehicle Shape
on Pedestrian Ground Contact
Mechanisms



Presented to IRCOBI conference Krakow 2011


CK Simms
1
, Tom Ormond
1
& DP Wood
2

1
Centre for Bioengineering, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
2
Denis Wood Associates, Dublin, Ireland
40
Case study 2:
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Injuries from the vehicle contact and ground contact phases.

High variability of ground contact injuries.

Vehicle Shape is important for ground related pedestrian injuries:

Ground contact head injuries more frequent for high Bonnet Leading Edges

Ground contact injuries from newer cars less significant

Ground contact: Passenger cars (ground contact is 7% of head injuries)
Light Trucks and Vans (ground contact is 39% of head injuries)

Simms & Wood, Springer 2009
41
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Research approach
What is the kinematic explanation why high-fronted vehicles
result in more severe head/ground injuries for pedestrians than
collisions with conventional cars?
Research question
Multibody models (Madymo) to include effects of vehicle
speed, vehicle shape & pedestrian size and gait stance.
42
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Madymo Simulation Setup
Cars and SUV models created in Madymo

Contact surfaces & characteristics for bumper,
BLE, bonnet top and windscreen.

The midsize male/small female

Walking pedestrian struck from the side, leading
leg or trailing leg struck first

Vehicle impact speed 25-35 km/h

72 simulations performed
43
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Results


Mechanism 1: 46% of cases: a wrap trajectory, rotation (90
o
< < 180
o
)
with the head hitting the ground first, followed by the body.





Angle of impact with ground correlates with HIC score (r
2
= 0.56).
Six Mechanisms of ground contact accounted for 94% cases

Distinguished by amount & direction of rotation of the body at ground contact

44
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Results
Mechanism 2:14% of cases: Rotation (0
o
< < 90
o
) insufficient to raise
body above the head before ground contact occurs





Body strikes the ground first followed by the head

Mechanism 3:12% of cases: Rotation (180
o
< < 270
o
).
Head strikes ground first, then body
45
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Results
Mechanism 4:15% of cases: Whole body rotation (> 270
o
) occurs &
body contacts the ground first, then head




Mechanism 5: BLE sufficiently above the pedestrian centre of gravity
(<90
o
). Pedestrian pushed forward, body contacts ground first.





Mechanism 6: shoulder contacts ground first - head protection




46
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
HIC score by mechanism type
HIC score strongly depends on Mechanism

HIC for Mechanism 1 & 2 >> HIC for Mechanisms 3-6.
Mech 1
(90
o
<<180
o
)
Mech 2
(0
o
<<90
o
)
Mech 3
(180
o
<< 270
o
)
Mech 4
(>270
o
)
Mech 5
(<90
o
)
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Impact mechanism by vehicle type
Instances of Mechanism 1 increase with increasing vehicle size (bonnet
height) as far as midsized SUV (BLE height of about 1 m)

Mechanism 4 (>270
o
) only occurs with cars, Mechanism 5 (<90
o
) only
occurs with large SUV model.
Mech 1
(90
o
<<180
o
)
Mech 2
(0
o
<<90
o
)
Mech 4
(>270
o
)
Mech 5
(<90
o
)
Mech 3
(180
o
<< 270
o
)
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Results/Discussion
Comparative study: focus on trends, no validation data

Average HIC for different vehicles versus normalized bonnet height showed r
2

values of .74 for midsized male.

HIC from ground independent of vehicle speed (r
2
= 0.04).

For Mechanism 1 (46% of cases), angle of body impact with the ground
correlated with HIC score (r
2
= 0.56) and angle of impact also decreased with
bonnet height (r
2
= 0.37).

Simple Explanation: High HIC occurs when impact angle is low
and rotation < 180 so that body rotation causes head to move
towards ground

Direct influence of body angle on HIC new

Lower bonnets cause more body rotation, so that by time of ground contact
body is rotating away from ground.

For large SUV, reduced rotation means very few Mechanism 1 cases, but
many Mechanism 2 cases


Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Conclusions
For speed range 25-35 km/h, variations in normalised bonnet height accounts
for up to 74% of variation in ground HIC.

Most common & worst scenario is wrap trajectory where head hits ground first
with body rotating head towards the ground then ground HIC depends on
body angle and direction of body rotation.

The angle of impact with the ground is correlated with the HIC (r
2
= 0.56) and
bonnet leading edge height (r
2
= 0.37).

When the body is rotating away from the ground at ground contact, HIC is
reduced - more likely to occur for car impact than for SUV impact cases

Since impact angle decreases with bonnet height, these findings help to
explain why high-fronted vehicles result in more significant head injuries in
ground contact.

Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods
Conclusions for MB modelling
Multibody models are fast
and efficient for whole body
simulations
Can predict all structural
parameters like linear and
angular acceleration,
bending moments and force
These are easily related to
common injury criteria
Need to be aware of model
limitations and validation
extent

No means to evaluate tissue
stress and strain
Contacts are chief modelling
challenge
Despite popularity and
potential of FE modelling,
relative simplicity of MB
models will ensure their
continued usage in the
future for fundamental
insights dont give up on
this method
51
Ciaran Simms Multibody Methods