4.5 Article

Optimization of Female Head-Neck Model with Active Reflexive Cervical Muscles in Low Severity Rear Impact Collisions

期刊

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 115-128

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-020-02512-1

关键词

Finite element; Neck muscle reflex; Rear impact; Whiplash; Human body model

资金

  1. Chalmers University of Technology - Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that adding active neck muscles to a human body model can improve head-neck kinematics, with importance placed on mimicking volunteer movements. Optimum gains identified through optimization can be used to describe muscle controllers in experiments.
ViVA Open Human Body Model (HBM) is an open-source human body model that was developed to fill the gap of currently available models that lacked the average female size. In this study, the head-neck model of ViVA OpenHBM was further developed by adding active muscle controllers for the cervical muscles to represent the human neck muscle reflex system as studies have shown that cervical muscles influence head-neck kinematics during impacts. The muscle controller was calibrated by conducting optimization-based parameter identification of published-volunteer data. The effects of different calibration objectives to head-neck kinematics were analyzed and compared. In general, a model with active neck muscles improved the head-neck kinematics agreement with volunteer responses. The current study highlights the importance of including active muscle response to mimic the volunteer's kinematics. A simple PD controller has found to be able to represent the behavior of the neck muscle reflex system. The optimum gains that defined the muscle controllers in the present study were able to be identified using optimizations. The present study provides a basis for describing an active muscle controller that can be used in future studies to investigate whiplash injuries in rear impacts

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据