Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 39, Issue 12, pp 2984–2997 | Cite as

Development, Validation, and Application of a Parametric Pediatric Head Finite Element Model for Impact Simulations

  • Zhigang Li
  • Jingwen Hu
  • Matthew P. Reed
  • Jonathan D. Rupp
  • Carrie N. Hoff
  • Jinhuan Zhang
  • Bo Cheng
Article

Abstract

In this study, a statistical model of cranium geometry for 0- to 3-month-old children was developed by analyzing 11 CT scans using a combination of principal component analysis and multivariate regression analysis. Radial basis function was used to morph the geometry of a baseline child head finite element (FE) model into models with geometries representing a newborn, a 1.5-month-old, and a 3-month-old infant head. These three FE models were used in a parametric study of near-vertex impact conditions to quantify the sensitivity of different material parameters. Finally, model validation was conducted against peak head accelerations in cadaver tests under different impact conditions, and optimization techniques were used to determine the material properties. The results showed that the statistical model of cranium geometry produced realistic cranium size and shape, suture size, and skull/suture thickness, for 0- to 3-month-old children. The three pediatric head models generated by morphing had mesh quality comparable to the baseline model. The elastic modulus of skull had a greater effect on most head impact response measurements than other parameters. Head geometry was a significant factor affecting the maximal principal stress of the skull (p = 0.002) and maximal principal strain of the suture (p = 0.021) after controlling for the skull material. Compared with the newborn head, the 3-month-old head model produced 6.5% higher peak head acceleration, 64.8% higher maximal principal stress, and 66.3% higher strain in the suture. However, in the skull, the 3-month-old model produced 25.7% lower maximal principal stress and 11.5% lower strain than the newborn head. Material properties of the brain had little effects on head acceleration and strain/stress within the skull and suture. Elastic moduli of the skull, suture, dura, and scalp determined using optimization techniques were within reported literature ranges and produced impact response that closely matched those measured in previous cadaver tests. The method developed in this study made it possible to investigate the age effects from geometry changes on pediatric head impact responses. The parametric study demonstrated that it is important to consider the material properties and geometric variations together when estimating pediatric head responses and predicting head injury risks.

Keywords

Pediatric head injury Parametric finite element model Principal component analysis Mesh morphing Radial basis function Parametric study Optimization 

References

  1. 1.
    Atabaki, S. M. Pediatric head injury. Pediatr. Rev. 28(6):215–224, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballesteros, M. F., R. A. Schieber, et al. Differential ranking of causes of fatal versus non-fatal injuries among U.S. children. Inj. Prev. 9(2):173–176, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennink, H. E., J. M. Korbeeck, B. J. Janssen, et al. Warping a Neuro-Anatomy Atlas on 3D MRI Data with Radial Basis Function. In: International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering Proceedings, Vol. 15, 2007, pp. 28–32.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besnault, B., F. Lavaste, H. Guillemot, et al. A Parametric Finite Element Model of the Human Pelvis. In: Proceedings of 42nd Stapp Car Crash, Paper No. 983147, 1998, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blanz, V., and T. Vetter. A Morphable Model for the Synthesis of 3D Faces. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 1999, pp. 187–194.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carr, J. C., R. K. Beatson, J. B. Cherrie, et al. Reconstruction and Representation of 3D Objects with Radial Basis Functions. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 2001, pp. 67–76.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CDC. Childhood injuries in the United States. Am. J. Dis. Child. 144:627–646, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coats, B., and S. S. Margulies. Material properties of human infant skull and suture at high rates. J. Neurotrauma 23(8):1222–1232, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coats, B., S. S. Margulies, and S. Ji. Parametric study of head impact in the infant. Stapp Car Crash J. 51:1–15, 2007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danelson, K. A., C. P. Geer, et al. Age and gender based biomechanical shape and size analysis of the pediatric brain. Stapp Car Crash J. 52:59–81, 2008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dekaban, A. S. Tables of cranial and orbital measurements, cranial volume, and derived indexes in males and females from 7 days to 20 years of age. Ann. Neurol. 2(6):485–491, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franklyn, M., S. Peiris, C. Huber, and K. H. Yang. Pediatric material properties: a review of human child and animal surrogates. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 35(3–4):197–342, 2007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonathan, C. C., W. R. Fright, and R. K. Beatson. Surface interpolation with radial basis function for medical image. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 16:96–107, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klinich, K. D., G. M. Hulbert, and L. W. Schneider. Estimating infant head injury criteria and impact response using crash reconstruction and finite element modeling. Stapp Car Crash J. 46:165–194, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kraus, J. F., A. Rock, and P. Hemyari. Brain injuries among infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. Am. J. Dis. Child. 144:684–691, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langlois, J. A., W. Rutland-Brown, and K. E. Thomas. Traumatic brain injury in the united states: emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2006.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lapeer, R. J., and R. W. Prager. Fetal head moulding: finite element analysis of a fetal skull subjected to uterine pressures during the first stage of labour. J. Biomech. 34(9):1125–1133, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelder, J. A., and R. Mead. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. 7(4):308–313, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park, J., and J. W. Sandberg. Universal approximation using radial basis functions network. Neural. Comput. 3:246–257, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prange, M. T., J. F. Luck, A. Dibb, et al. Mechanical properties and anthropometry of the human infant head. Stapp Car Crash J. 48:279–299, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prange, M. T., and S. S. Margulies. Regional, directional, and age-dependent properties of the brain undergoing large deformation. J. Biomech. Eng. 124:244–252, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reed, M. P., and M. B. Parkinson. Modeling Variability in Torso Shape for Chair and Seat Design. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Paper No. 2008-49483, 2008, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reed, M. P., M. M. Sochor, J. D. Rupp, K. D. Klinich, and M. A. Manary. Anthropometric specification of child crash dummy pelves through statistical analysis of skeletal geometry. J. Biomech. 42(8):1143–1145, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roche, A. F. Increase in cranial thickness during growth. Hum. Biol. 25(2):81–92, 1953.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roth, S., J. S. Raul, B. Ludes, and R. Willinger. Finite element analysis of impact and shaking inflicted to a child. Int. J. Legal Med. 121(3):223–228, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roth, S., J. S. Raul, J. Ruan, and R. Willinger. Limitation of scaling methods in child head finite element modelling. Int. J. Veh. Saf. 2(4):404–421, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roth, S., J. S. Raul, and R. Willinger. Biofidelic child head FE model to simulate real world trauma. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 90:262–274, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roth, S., J. S. Raul, and R. Willinger. Finite element modelling of paediatric head impact: global validation against experimental data. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 99:25–33, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roth, S., J. Vappou, J. S. Raul, and R. Willinger. Child head injury criteria investigation through numerical simulation of real world trauma. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 93(1):32–45, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sorbe, B., and S. Dahlgren. Some important factors in the molding of the fetal head during vaginal delivery—a photographic study. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 21(3):205–212, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Synder, R. G., L. W. Schneider, et al. Anthropometry of Infants, Children, and Youths to Age 18 for Product Safety Design. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1977.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thibault, K. L., and S. S. Margulies. Age-dependent material properties of the porcine cerebrum: effect on pediatric inertial head injury criteria. J. Biomech. 31:1119–1126, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turk, M., and A. Pentland. Eigenfaces for recognition. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 3(1):71–86, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Viano, D., H. von Holst, and E. Gordon. Serious brain injury from traffic related causes: priorities for primary prevention. Accid. Anal. Prev. 29(6):811–816, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weber, W. Experimental studies of skull fracture in infant. Z. Rechtsmed. 92(2):87–94, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weber, W. Biomechanical fragility of the infant skull. Z. Rechtsmed. 94(2):93–101, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Willinger, R., and L. Taleb. Modal temporal analysis of head mathematical models. J. Neurotrauma 12(4):743–754, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang, L., K. H. Yang, and A. I. King. Comparison of brain responses between frontal and lateral impacts by finite element modeling. J. Neurotrauma 18(1):21–30, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhigang Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jingwen Hu
    • 1
  • Matthew P. Reed
    • 1
  • Jonathan D. Rupp
    • 1
  • Carrie N. Hoff
    • 3
  • Jinhuan Zhang
    • 2
  • Bo Cheng
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Michigan Transportation Research InstituteAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and EnergyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations