Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 85–95 | Cite as

Application of Optimization Methodology and Specimen-Specific Finite Element Models for Investigating Material Properties of Rat Skull

  • Fengjiao Guan
  • Xu Han
  • Haojie Mao
  • Christina Wagner
  • Yener N. Yeni
  • King H. Yang


Finite element (FE) models of rat skull bone samples were developed by reconstructing the three-dimensional geometry of microCT images and voxel-based hexahedral meshes. An optimization-based material identification method was developed to obtain the most favorable material property parameters by minimizing differences in three-point bending test responses between experimental and simulation results. An anisotropic Kriging model and sequential quadratic programming, in conjunction with Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS), are utilized to minimize the disparity between the experimental and FE model predicted force–deflection curves. A selected number of material parameters, namely Young’s modulus, yield stress, tangent modulus, and failure strain, are varied iteratively using the proposed optimization scheme until the assessment index ‘F’, the objective function comparing simulation and experimental force–deflection curves through least squares, is minimized. Results show that through the application of this method, the optimized models’ force–deflection curves are closely in accordance with the measured data. The average differences between the experimental and simulation data are around 0.378 N (which was 3.3% of the force peak value) and 0.227 N (which was 2.7% of the force peak value) for two different test modes, respectively. The proposed optimization methodology is a potentially useful tool to effectively help establish material parameters. This study represents a preliminary effort in the development and validation of FE models for the rat skull, which may ultimately serve to develop a more biofidelic rat head FE model.


Rat skull Specimen-specific finite element models Anisotropic Kriging Optimization Material identification 



This study is supported by the National 973 Program under Grant number 2010CB832705 and the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (10725208), both funded through the Chinese government. The primary author of this manuscript is supported by a fellowship provided by the China Scholarship Council funded by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China and in part by the Bioengineering Center at Wayne State University.


  1. 1.
    Barber, T. W. Static compression testing of specimens from an embalmed human skull. Tex. Rep. Biol. Med. 28(4):497–508, 1970.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates, R. A., R. J. Buck, E. Riccomagno, and H. P. Wynn. Experimental design and observation for large systems. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 58:77–94, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boggs, P. T., and J. W. Tolle. Sequential quadratic programming for large-scale nonlinear optimization. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 124:123–137, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chawla, A., S. Mukherjee, and B. Karthikeyan. Characterization of human passive muscles for impact loads using genetic algorithm and inverse finite element methods. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 8:67–76, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Currey, J. D., and G. Butler. The mechanical properties of bone tissue in children. J. Bone Joint Surg. 57:810–814, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daegling, D. J., J. L. Hotzman, W. S. McGraw, and A. J. Rapoff. Material property variation of mandibular symphyseal bone in colobine monkeys. J. Morphol. 270:194–204, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fang, K.-T., R. Li, and A. Sudjianto. Design and modeling for computer experiments. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gefen, A., N. Gefen, Q. Zhu, R. Raghupathi, and S. S. Margulies. Age-dependent changes in material properties of the brain and braincase of the rat. J. Neurotrauma 20:1163–1177, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gu, L., and R. J. Yang. Recent applications on reliability-based optimization of automotive structures. SAE Technical Paper Series, 2003-01-0152, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hallquist, J. O. LS-DYNA Theoretical Manual. Livermore, CA: Livermore Software Technology Co, 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hellmich, C., C. Kober, and B. Erdmann. Micromechanics-based conversion of CT data into anisotropic elasticity tensors, applied to FE simulations of a mandible. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 36(1):108–122, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jourdan, A. How to repair a second-order surface for computer experiments by Kriging. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 96(2):108–116, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, K.-Y., and D.-Y. Shin. Optimization of a staggered dimpled surface in a cooling channel using Kriging model. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47(11):1464–1472, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim, J. E., Z. P. Li, Y. Ito, C. D. Huber, A. M. Shih, A. W. Eberhardt, K. H. Yang, A. I. King, and B. K. Soni. Finite element model development of a child pelvis with optimization-based material identification. J. Biomech. 42:2191–2195, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kober, C., B. Erdmann, C. Hellmich, R. Sader, and H. F. Zeilhofer. Consideration of anisotropic elasticity minimizes volumetric rather than shear deformation in human mandible. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 9(2):91–101, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koehler, J. R., and A. B. Owen. Computer experiments. In: Handbook of Statistics, 13: Designs and Analysis of Experiments, edited by S. Ghosh, and C.R. Rao. North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 261–308.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levchakov, A., E. Linder-Ganz, R. Raghupathi, S. S. Margulies, and A. Gefen. Computational studies of strain exposures in neonate and mature rat brains during closed head impact. J. Neurotrauma 23:1570–1580, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mao, H., X. Jin, L. Zhang, K. H. Yang, T. Igarashi, L. Noble-Haeusslein, and A. I. King. Finite element analysis of controlled cortical impact induced cell loss. J. Neurotrauma 27:877–888, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mao, H., K. H. Yang, A. I. King, and K. Yang. Computational neurotrauma—design, simulation, and analysis of controlled cortical impact model. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol., 2010. doi: 10.1007/s10237-010-0212-z.
  20. 20.
    Mao, H., L. Zhang, K. H. Yang, and A. I. King. Application of a finite element model of the brain to study traumatic brain injury mechanisms in the rat. Stapp Car Crash J. 50:583–600, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McElhaney, J. H., J. L. Fogle, J. W. Melvin, R. R. Haynes, V. L. Roberts, and N. M. Alem. Mechanical properties on cranial bone. J. Biomech. 3:495–511, 1970.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKay, M. D., R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code (JSTOR Abstract). Technometrics 21(2):239–245, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Melvin, J. W., D. H. Robbins, and V. L. Roberts. The mechanical properties of the diploë layer in the human skull in compression. Developments in Mechanics 5:811–818, 1969. Paper No. 05-0250.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pena, A., J. D. Pickard, D. Stiller, N. G. Harris, and M. U. Schuhmann. Brain tissue biomechanics in cortical contusion injury: a finite element analysis. Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 95:333–336, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rasmussen, C. E., and C. K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reimann, D. A., S. M. Hames, M. J. Flynn, and D. P. Fyhrie. A cone beam computed tomography system for true 3d imaging of specimens. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 48(10–12):1433–1436, 1997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rho, J. Y., J. D. Currey, P. Zioupos, and G. M. Pharr. The anisotropic Young’s modulus of equine secondary osteones and interstitial bone determined by nanoindentation. J. Exp. Biol. 204:1775–1781, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robbins, D. H., and J. L. Wood. Determination of mechanical properties of the bones of the skull. Exp. Mech. 9(5):236–240, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sacks, J., S. B. Schiller, and W. J. Welch. Designs for computer experiments. Technometrics 31:41–47, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sacks, J., W. J. Welch, T. J. Mitchell, and H. P. Wynn. Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat. Sci. 4(4):409–423, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Santner, T. J., B. J. Williams, and W. Notz. The design and analysis of computer experiments. New York: Springer Series in Statistics, Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Untaroiu, C., K. Darvish, J. Crandall, B. Deng, and J. T. Wang. Characterization of the lower limb soft tissues in pedestrian finite element models. The 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2005.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Untaroiu, C., J. Kerrigan, and J. Crandall. Material identification using successive response surface methodology, with application to a human femur subjected to three-point bending loading, SAE Technical Paper Number 2006-01-0063. Warrendale, PA, 2006.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wackernagel, H. Multivariate Geostatistics: An Introduction with Applications. New York: Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wood, J. L. Dynamic response of human cranial bone. J. Biomech. 4:1–12, 1971.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang J. A finite element modeling of anterior lumbar spinal fusion, M.S. Thesis, Wayne State University, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fengjiao Guan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xu Han
    • 1
  • Haojie Mao
    • 2
  • Christina Wagner
    • 2
  • Yener N. Yeni
    • 3
  • King H. Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle BodyHunan UniversityHunanChina
  2. 2.Bioengineering CenterWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Henry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations