Search Results

This study describes a method to identify laboratory test procedures and impact response requirements suitable for assessing the biofidelity of finite element head models used in prediction of traumatic brain injury. The selection of the experimental data and the response requirements were result of a critical evaluation based on the accuracy, reproducibility and relevance of the available experimental data. A weighted averaging procedure was chosen in order to consider different contributions from the various test conditions and target measurements based on experimental error. According to the quality criteria, 40 experimental cases were selected to be a representative dataset for validation. Based on the evaluation of response curves from four head finite element models, CORA was chosen as a quantitative method to compare the predicted time history response to the measured data.

Finite element (FE) models are often used to study the biomechanical effects of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Measures based on mechanical responses, such as principal strain or invariants of the strain tensor, are used as a metric to predict the risk of injury. However, the reliability of inferences drawn from these models depends on the correspondence between the mechanical measures and injury data, as well as the establishment of accurate thresholds of tissue injury. In the current study, a validated anisotropic FE model of the human head is used to evaluate the hypothesis that strain in the direction of fibers (axonal strain) is a better predictor of TBI than maximum principal strain (MPS), anisotropic equivalent strain (AESM) and cumulative strain damage measure (CSDM). An analysis of head kinematics-based metrics, such as head injury criterion (HIC) and brain injury criterion (BrIC), is also provided.