Comparison of control strategies for the cervical muscles of an average female head-neck finite element model
Comparison of control strategies for the cervical muscles of an average female head-neck finite element model
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/15389588.2019.1670818
复制
发表时间：
2019-10-16
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Sato, Fusako
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Putra, I. Putu A.;Iraeus, Johan;Sato, Fusako
目的：Viva OpenHBM是第一个用于碰撞安全评估的开源人体模型(HBM)。它代表的是平均身高(50%)的女性，是为了评估汽车的鞭打保护系统而创建的。为了提高当前模型的生物保真度，正在通过实施肌肉反射反应能力来进一步增强，因为颈部肌肉在低速后部碰撞时会改变乘员的头部和颈部运动学。这项研究的目的是评估不同的颈部肌肉激活控制策略如何在低速后方碰撞中影响头颈部运动学。方法：采用VIVA OpenHBM头颈模型，该模型已通过PMHS数据验证。为了表示34块颈部肌肉，采用了129个带Hill材料模型的梁单元。两种不同的肌肉激活控制策略被实施：一种控制策略模仿来自前庭系统的神经反馈，另一种控制策略代表来自肌梭的位移反馈。为了确定这些控制器策略的控制增益值，使用最优化进行了参数校准。这些优化的目的是为了匹配志愿者测试中测量的头部线性和角度位移。结果：与未激活的模型相比，肌肉激活改变了头部运动学，降低了峰值线位移量。对于模拟人类前庭系统的肌肉激活模型，观察到了与水平头部平移很好的一致性。然而，在垂直方向上，颈椎屈曲引起的头部运动反应存在差异。在采用代表肌梭反馈的控制策略的模型中，观察到平移头部运动学的改善，并观察到较少的颈椎屈曲。尽管如此，总体运动学反应在第一种策略中更好。结论：与被动模型相比，两种肌肉控制策略都改善了头部运动学，并与志愿者的运动学反应相当，总体上，与模拟人类前庭系统的主动肌肉的模型获得了更好的一致性。
Objective: ViVA OpenHBM is the first open source Human Body Model (HBM) for crash safety assessment. It represents an average size (50th percentile) female and was created to assess whiplash protection systems in a car. To increase the biofidelity of the current model, further enhancements are being made by implementing muscle reflex response capabilities as cervical muscles alter the head and neck kinematics of the occupant during low-speed rear crashes. The objective of this study was to assess how different neck muscle activation control strategies affect head-neck kinematics in low speed rear impacts. Methods: The VIVA OpenHBM head-neck model, previously validated to PMHS data, was used for this study. To represent the 34 cervical muscles, 129 beam elements with Hill-type material models were used. Two different muscle activation control strategies were implemented: a control strategy to mimic neural feedback from the vestibular system and a control strategy to represent displacement feedback from muscle spindles. To identify control gain values for these controller strategies, parameter calibrations were conducted using optimization. The objective of these optimizations was to match the head linear and angular displacements measured in volunteer tests. Results: Muscle activation changed the head kinematics by reducing the peak linear displacements, as compared to the model without muscle activation. For the muscle activation model mimicking the human vestibular system, a good agreement was observed for the horizontal head translation. However, in the vertical direction there was a discrepancy of head kinematic response caused by buckling of the cervical spine. In the model with a control strategy that represents muscle spindle feedback, improvements in translational head kinematics were observed and less cervical spine buckling was observed. Although, the overall kinematic responses were better in the first strategy. Conclusions: Both muscle control strategies improved the head kinematics compared to the passive model and comparable to the volunteer kinematics responses with overall better agreement achieved by the model with active muscles mimicking the human vestibular system.