Validation of Shoulder Response of Human Body Finite-Element Model (GHBMC) Under Whole Body Lateral Impact Condition

Abstract

In previous shoulder impact studies, the 50th-percentile male GHBMC human body finite-element model was shown to have good biofidelity regarding impact force, but under-predicted shoulder deflection by 80% compared to those observed in the experiment. The goal of this study was to validate the response of the GHBMC M50 model by focusing on three-dimensional shoulder kinematics under a whole-body lateral impact condition. Five modifications, focused on material properties and modeling techniques, were introduced into the model and a supplementary sensitivity analysis was done to determine the influence of each modification to the biomechanical response of the body. The modified model predicted substantially improved shoulder response and peak shoulder deflection within 10% of the observed experimental data, and showed good correlation in the scapula kinematics on sagittal and transverse planes. The improvement in the biofidelity of the shoulder region was mainly due to the modifications of material properties of muscle, the acromioclavicular joint, and the attachment region between the pectoralis major and ribs. Predictions of rib fracture and chest deflection were also improved because of these modifications.

Functional Grading of a Transversely Isotropic Hyperelastic Model with Applications in Modeling Tricuspid and Mitral Valve Transition Regions

“…Full characterization and validation of tissue transitions using the methods presented herein is recommended for improving the FGM model's predictive abilities; however, qualitative improvement in the simulation kinematics can be produced even if the constituent distribution function and fiber orientation data are not available. For instance, repositioning simulations of articulated limbs consisting of hard transitions in bone-ligament-bone and bone-tendon-muscle complexes within whole-body injury biomechanics models such as the GHBMC [2] and CAVEMAN [3] can be made more biofidelic using the approaches outlined in this work.…”

“…For instance, surgical simulators have shown great promise in supplementing traditional training and planning of minimally invasive surgical procedures by recreating the surgical scene, with applications ranging from neurological to cardiovascular interventions [1]. Additionally, several whole-body finite element (FE) models [2,3] have been used to supplement post-mortem human subject impact data from mechanical insults such as blunt, penetrating and blast events to advance the fields of crashworthiness and impact biomechanics research. Both surgical simulators and whole-body injury-prediction models require detailed geometrical and biomechanical characterization of soft tissue to predict accurate tool-tissue interaction forces and damage propagation in the human body respectively.…”

Current state and progress of research on forensic biomechanics in China

“…In 2009, Gayzik et al [53][54][55] started an ini tiative and gradually developed the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) model, a full human body model containing 418 parts (i.e. 179 bones described by 216 parts; 46 organs; 96 muscles; 37 blood vessels; 26 ligaments, tendons, and cartilage structures), that is still undergoing continual refine ment and validation [56][57][58][59] and is gradually being applied to specific biomechanical scenarios [60,61]. In addition, many FE models have been published for different parts of the body, such as the head, torso, and limbs [62][63][64][65].…”

A Review of Validation Methods for the Intracranial Response of FEHM to Blunt Impacts

“…During the development of FEHM, CORA has been used by Atsumi et al [25], Miller et al [83], Miyazaki et al [85] and Trotta et al [90] for the validation of ABM (Atlas-based Brain Model), THUMS (a version superseding the model previously analysed using NISE [101]), Tokyo and UCDBTM V2.0 (University College Dublin Brain Trauma Model) models, respectively. Several parts of the GHBMC full body model have been validated against CORA and the tools recommended in ISO/TR16250:2013 (e.g., [106][107][108][109]). However, Mao et al [44] is the most recently published record of the head intracranial response validation found and CORA is not employed.…”