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


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  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: 370–373

    Article  Google 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, 101–161

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Gibson L J. Woodpecker pecking: How woodpeckers avoid brain injury. J Zool, 2006, 270: 462–465

    Article  Google 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: 390–396

    Article  Google 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: 509–514

    Article  Google 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: 214–218

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Seki Y, Schneider M S, Meyers M A. Structure and mechanical behavior of a toucan beak. Acta Mater, 2005, 53: 5281–5296

    Article  Google 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: e26490

    Article  Google 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: 042173

    Article  Google 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: 486–499

    Article  Google 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: 55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Rydberg J, Buckwalter K A, Caldemeyer K S, et al. Multisection CT: Scanning techniques and clinical applications. Radiographics, 2000, 20: 1787–1806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Wegst U G K, Ashby M F. The mechanical efficiency of natural materials. Philos Mag, 2004, 84: 2167–2181

    Article  Google 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: 208–226

    Article  Google 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: 650–654

    Article  Google 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: 1–206

    Article  Google 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: 479–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Taylor Z, Miller K. Reassessment of brain elasticity for analysis of biomechanisms of hydrocephalus. J Biomech, 2004, 37: 1263–1269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Sack I, Beierbach B, Wuerfel J, et al. The impact of aging and gender on brain viscoelasticity. Neuroimage, 2009, 46: 652–657

    Article  Google 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: 16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Wygnanski-Jaffe T, Murphy C J, Smith C, et al. Protective ocular mechanisms in woodpeckers. Eye, 2007, 21: 83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Colly C. The jackhammer in your backyard. Reas Revel, 2009, 29: 33–36

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Stark R D, Dodenhoff D J, Johnson E V. A quantitative analysis of woodpecker drumming. Condor, 1998, 100: 350–356

    Article  Google 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: 016003

    Article  Google 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: 3998–4009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Alexander R M, Bennet-Clark H C. Storage of elastic strain energy in muscle and other tissues. Nature, 1977, 265: 114–117

    Article  Google 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: 1583–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Yamamoto T, Minato T. Theory of energy dissipation in a viscoelastic body under time-dependent stress. Adv Space Res, 2007, 39: 472–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Cooper T E, Trezek G J. Correlation of thermal properties of some human tissue with water content. Aerosp Med, 1971, 42: 24–27

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to ChengWei Wu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhu, Z., Zhang, W. & Wu, C. Energy conversion in woodpecker on successive peckings and its role on anti-shock protection of brain. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 57, 1269–1275 (2014).

Download citation


  • woodpecker
  • anti-shock
  • energy conversion
  • brain protection