Advertisement

Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 57, Issue 7, pp 1269–1275 | Cite as

Energy conversion in woodpecker on successive peckings and its role on anti-shock protection of brain

  • ZhaoDan Zhu
  • Wei Zhang
  • ChengWei Wu
Article Special Topic: Computational Mechanics

Abstract

To investigate the mechanism of brain protection of woodpecker, we built a finite element model of a whole woodpecker using computed topography scanning technique and geometry modeling. Dynamic analyses reveal: (i) 99.7% of the impact energy is converted into strain energy in the bulk of body and 0.3% is converted into strain energy in the head after three successive peckings, indicating the majority of the impact energy is stored in the bulk of body; (ii) the strain energy in brain is mainly converted into the dissipated energy, alleviating the mechanical injury to brain; (iii) the deformation and the effective energy dissipation of the beaks facilitate the decrease of the stress and impact energy transferred to the brain; (iv) the skull and dura mater not only provide the physical protection for the brain, but also diminish the strain energy in the brain by energy dissipation; (v) the binding of skull with the hyoid bone enhances the anti-shock ability of head. The whole body of the woodpecker gets involved in the energy conversion and forms an efficient anti-shock protection system for brain.

Keywords

woodpecker anti-shock energy conversion brain protection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    May P R, Fuster J M, Haber J, et al. Woodpecker drilling behavior. An endorsement of the rotational theory of impact brain injury. Arch Neurol, 1979, 36: 370–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ono K, Kikuchi A, Nakamura M, et al. Human head tolerance to sagittal impact. Reliable estimation deduced from experimental head injury using subhuman primates and human cadaver skulls. In: Stapp Car Crash Conference (24th) Proceedings. Warrendale: SAE, 1980, 101–161Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibson L J. Woodpecker pecking: How woodpeckers avoid brain injury. J Zool, 2006, 270: 462–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oda J, Sakamoto J, Sakano K. Mechanical evaluation of the skeletal structure and tissue of the woodpecker and its shock absorbing system. JSME Int J Ser A, 2006, 49: 390–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Villard P, Cuisin J. How do woodpeckers extract grubs with their tongues? A study of the guadeloupe woodpecker (melanerpes herminieri) in the french west indies. Auk, 2004, 121: 509–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou P, Kong X Q, Wu C W, et al. The novel mechanical property of tongue of a woodpecker. J Bionic Eng, 2009, 6: 214–218Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seki Y, Schneider M S, Meyers M A. Structure and mechanical behavior of a toucan beak. Acta Mater, 2005, 53: 5281–5296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang L, Cheung J T, Pu F, et al. Why do woodpeckers resist head impact injury: A biomechanical investigation. Plos One, 2011, 6: e26490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhu Z D, Ma G J, Wu C W, et al. Numerical study of the impact response of woodpecker’s head. Aip Adv, 2012, 2: 042173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agam G, Armato S G, Wu C H. Vessel tree reconstruction in thoracic CT scans with application to nodule detection. IEEE Trans Med Imag, 2005, 24: 486–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wan S Y, Ritman E L, Higgins W E. Multi-generational analysis and visualization of the vascular tree in 3D micro-CT images. Comput Biol Med, 2002, 32: 55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rydberg J, Buckwalter K A, Caldemeyer K S, et al. Multisection CT: Scanning techniques and clinical applications. Radiographics, 2000, 20: 1787–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wegst U G K, Ashby M F. The mechanical efficiency of natural materials. Philos Mag, 2004, 84: 2167–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen P Y, Lin A Y M, Lin Y S, et al. Structure and mechanical properties of selected biological materials. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2008, 1: 208–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng S, Lau K T, Liu T, et al. Mechanical and thermal properties of chicken feather fiber/PLA green composites. Compos Part B Eng, 2009, 40: 650–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyers M A, Chen P Y, Lin A Y M, et al. Biological materials: Structure and mechanical properties. Prog Mater Sci, 2008, 53: 1–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li B W, Zhao H P, Feng X Q, et al. Experimental study on the mechanical properties of the horn sheaths from cattle. J Exp Biol, 2010, 213: 479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor Z, Miller K. Reassessment of brain elasticity for analysis of biomechanisms of hydrocephalus. J Biomech, 2004, 37: 1263–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sack I, Beierbach B, Wuerfel J, et al. The impact of aging and gender on brain viscoelasticity. Neuroimage, 2009, 46: 652–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iwaniuk A N, Nelson J E. Can endocranial volume be used as an estimate of brain size in birds? Can J Zool-Rev Can Zool, 2002, 80: 16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wygnanski-Jaffe T, Murphy C J, Smith C, et al. Protective ocular mechanisms in woodpeckers. Eye, 2007, 21: 83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Colly C. The jackhammer in your backyard. Reas Revel, 2009, 29: 33–36Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stark R D, Dodenhoff D J, Johnson E V. A quantitative analysis of woodpecker drumming. Condor, 1998, 100: 350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yoon S H, Park S. A mechanical analysis of woodpecker drumming and its application to shock-absorbing systems. Bioinspir Biomim, 2011, 6: 016003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harrison S M, Whitton R C, Kawcak C E, et al. Relationship between muscle forces, joint loading and utilization of elastic strain energy in equine locomotion. J Exp Biol, 2010, 213: 3998–4009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alexander R M, Bennet-Clark H C. Storage of elastic strain energy in muscle and other tissues. Nature, 1977, 265: 114–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boyer K A, Nigg B M. Muscle activity in the leg is tuned in response to impact force characteristics. J Biomech, 2004, 37: 1583–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yamamoto T, Minato T. Theory of energy dissipation in a viscoelastic body under time-dependent stress. Adv Space Res, 2007, 39: 472–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cooper T E, Trezek G J. Correlation of thermal properties of some human tissue with water content. Aerosp Med, 1971, 42: 24–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Lab of Structural Analysis for Industrial EquipmentDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations