4.4 Article

An investigation of dimensional scaling using cervical spine motion segment finite element models

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cnm.2872

Keywords

cervical spine; finite element modeling; motion segment; response scaling

Funding

  1. Global Human Body Models Consortium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paucity of experimental data for validating computational models of different statures underscores the need for appropriate scaling methods so that models can be verified and validated using experimental data. Scaling was investigated using 50th percentile male (M50) and 5th percentile female (F05) cervical spine motion segment (C4-C5) finite element models subject to tension, flexion, and extension loading. Two approaches were undertaken: geometric scaling of the models to investigate size effects (volumetric scaling) and scaling of the force-displacement or moment-angle model results (data scaling). Three sets of scale factors were considered: global (body mass), regional (neck dimensions), and local (segment tissue dimensions). Volumetric scaling of the segment models from M50 to F05, and vice versa, produced correlations that were good or excellent in both tension and flexion (0.825-0.991); however, less agreement was found in extension (0.550-0.569). The reduced correlation in extension was attributed to variations in shape between the models leading to nonlinear effects such as different time to contact for the facet joints and posterior processes. Data scaling of the responses between the M50 and F05 models produced similar trends to volumetric scaling, with marginally greater correlations. Overall, the local tissue level and neck region level scale factors produced better correlations than the traditional global scaling. The scaling methods work well for a given subject, but are limited in applicability between subjects with different morphology, where nonlinear effects may dominate the response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available