Development of a Finite Element Human Head Model Partially Validated With Thirty Five Experimental Cases

Mao, Haojie; Zhang, Liying; Jiang, Binhui; Genthikatti, Vinay V.; Jin, Xin; Zhu, Feng; Makwana, Rahul; Gill, Amandeep Singh; Jandir, Gurdeep; Singh, Amrinder Pal; Yang, King H.

doi:10.1115/1.4025101

Cited by 310 publications

(225 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

219

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4(a)), which is a classical coup and contre-coup pressure distribution pattern generally observed under impact-loading conditions [31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untangling the Effect of Head Acceleration on Brain Responses to Blast Waves

Mao

Unnikrishnan

Rakesh

et al. 2015

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple injury-causing mechanisms, such as wave propagation, skull flexure, cavitation, and head acceleration, have been proposed to explain blast-induced traumatic brain injury (bTBI). An accurate, quantitative description of the individual contribution of each of these mechanisms may be necessary to develop preventive strategies against bTBI. However, to date, despite numerous experimental and computational studies of bTBI, this question remains elusive. In this study, using a two-dimensional (2D) rat head model, we quantified the contribution of head acceleration to the biomechanical response of brain tissues when exposed to blast waves in a shock tube. We compared brain pressure at the coup, middle, and contre-coup regions between a 2D rat head model capable of simulating all mechanisms (i.e., the all-effects model) and an acceleration-only model. From our simulations, we determined that head acceleration contributed 36-45% of the maximum brain pressure at the coup region, had a negligible effect on the pressure at the middle region, and was responsible for the low pressure at the contre-coup region. Our findings also demonstrate that the current practice of measuring rat brain pressures close to the center of the brain would record only two-thirds of the maximum pressure observed at the coup region. Therefore, to accurately capture the effects of acceleration in experiments, we recommend placing a pressure sensor near the coup region, especially when investigating the acceleration mechanism using different experimental setups.

show abstract

“…4(a)), which is a classical coup and contre-coup pressure distribution pattern generally observed under impact-loading conditions [31][32][33][34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untangling the Effect of Head Acceleration on Brain Responses to Blast Waves

Mao

Unnikrishnan

Rakesh

et al. 2015

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The brain was replaced with a single mass node at the center of gravity of the brain and constrained to the skull. The deformable skin material definition was preserved from the M50-O (Mao et al 2013). The head flesh is modeled to represent charcoal polyester used in previous dummy models (Canha et al 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deformable properties for the inner and outer tables of the skull and diploe layer were imported into the M50-OS to demonstrate its modular use with the M50-O (Mao et al 2013). All modeling considerations were identical between the modified M50-OS (with brain) and M50-O in this region.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of a Computationally Efficient Full Human Body Finite Element Model

Schwartz

Guleyupoglu

Koya

et al. 2015

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:A simplified and computationally efficient human body finite element model is presented. The model complements the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) detailed 50th percentile occupant (M50-O) by providing kinematic and kinetic data with a significantly reduced run time using the same body habitus.Methods: The simplified occupant model (M50-OS) was developed using the same source geometry as the M50-O. Though some meshed components were preserved, the total element count was reduced by remeshing, homogenizing, or in some cases omitting structures that are explicitly contained in the M50-O. Bones are included as rigid bodies, with the exception of the ribs, which are deformable but were remeshed to a coarser element density than the M50-O. Material models for all deformable components were drawn from the biomechanics literature. Kinematic joints were implemented at major articulations (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle) with moment vs. angle relationships from the literature included for the knee and ankle. The brain of the detailed model was inserted within the skull of the simplified model, and kinematics and strain patterns are compared.Results: The M50-OS model has 11 contacts and 354,000 elements; in contrast, the M50-O model has 447 contacts and 2.2 million elements. The model can be repositioned without requiring simulation. Thirteen validation and robustness simulations were completed. This included denuded rib compression at 7 discrete sites, 5 rigid body impacts, and one sled simulation. Denuded tests showed a good match to the experimental data of force vs. deflection slopes. The frontal rigid chest impact simulation produced a peak force and deflection within the corridor of 4.63 kN and 31.2%, respectively. Similar results vs. experimental data (peak forces of 5.19 and 8.71 kN) were found for an abdominal bar impact and lateral sled test, respectively. A lateral plate impact at 12 m/s exhibited a peak of roughly 20 kN (due to stiff foam used around the shoulder) but a more biofidelic response immediately afterward, plateauing at 9 kN at 12 ms. Results from a frontal sled simulation showed that reaction forces and kinematic trends matched experimental results well. The robustness test demonstrated that peak femur loads were nearly identical to the M50-O model. Use of the detailed model brain within the simplified model demonstrated a paradigm for using the M50-OS to leverage aspects of the M50-O. Strain patterns for the 2 models showed consistent patterns but greater strains in the detailed model, with deviations thought to be the result of slightly different kinematics between models. The M50-OS with the deformable skull and brain exhibited a run time 4.75 faster than the M50-O on the same hardware.Conclusions: The simplified GHBMC model is intended to complement rather than replace the detailed M50-O model. It exhibited, on average, a 35-fold reduction in run time for a set of rigid impacts. The model can be used in a modular fashion with the M50-O and more broadly can...

show abstract

“…Rather than the detailed M50-O brain (Mao et al 2013), the M50-OS has a mass node of 1.6 kg at the center of gravity (CG) of the brain, constrained to the skull. Previous studies have demonstrated the ability to modularly incorporate the validated GHBMC M50-O brain model into the simplified model (GHBMC M50-OS+B).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Decker

Koya

Davis

et al. 2017

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The significant computational resources required to execute detailed human body finiteelement 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. 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.

show abstract

Development of a Finite Element Human Head Model Partially Validated With Thirty Five Experimental Cases

Cited by 310 publications

References 48 publications

Untangling the Effect of Head Acceleration on Brain Responses to Blast Waves

Untangling the Effect of Head Acceleration on Brain Responses to Blast Waves

Development of a Computationally Efficient Full Human Body Finite Element Model

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About