The purpose of this study was to compare the response of the total human model for safety (THUMS) human body finite element model (FEM) to experimental postmortem human subject (PMHS) test results and evaluate possible injuries caused by suit ring elements. Experimental testing evaluated the PMHS response in frontal, rear, side, falling, and spinal impacts. The THUMS was seated in a rigid seat that mirrored the sled buck used in the experimental testing. The model was then fitted with experimental combinations of neck, shoulder, humerus and thigh rings with a five-point restraint system. Experimental seat acceleration data was used as the input for the simulations. The simulation results were analyzed and compared to PMHS measurements to evaluate the response of the THUMS in these loading conditions. The metrics selected to compare the THUMS simulation to PMHS tests were the chest acceleration, seat acceleration and belt forces with additional metrics implemented in THUMS. The chest acceleration of the simulations and the experimental data was closely matched except in the Z-axis (superior/inferior) loading scenarios based on signal analysis. The belt force data of the model better correlated to the experimental results in loading scenarios where the THUMS interacted primarily with the restraint system compared to load cases where the primary interaction was between the seat and the occupant (rear, spinal and lateral impacts). The simulation output demonstrated low injury metric values for the occupant in these loading conditions. In the experimental testing, rib fractures were recorded for the frontal and left lateral impact scenarios. Fractures were not seen in the simulations, most likely due to variations between the simulation and the PMHS initial configuration. The placement of the rings on the THUMS was optimal with symmetric placement about the centerline of the model. The experimental placement of the rings had more experimental variation. Even with this discrepancy, the THUMS can still be considered a valuable predictive tool for occupant injury because it can compare results across many simulations. The THUMS also has the ability to assess a wider variety of other injury information, compared to anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), that can be used to compare simulation results
