Comparison of two scaling approaches for the development of biomechanical multi-body human models

Abstract

Dimensional scaling approaches are widely used to develop multi-body human models in injury biomechanics research. Given the limited experimental data for any particular anthropometry, a validated model can be scaled to different sizes to reflect the biological variance of population and used to characterize the human response. This paper compares two scaling approaches at the whole-body level: one is the conventional mass-based scaling approach which assumes geometric similarity; the other is the structure-based approach which assumes additional structural similarity by using idealized mechanical models to account for the specific anatomy and expected loading conditions. Given the use of exterior body dimensions and a uniform Young’s modulus, the two approaches showed close values of the scaling factors for most body regions, with 1.5 % difference on force scaling factors and 13.5 % difference on moment scaling factors, on average. One exception was on the thoracic modeling, with 19.3 % difference on the scaling factor of the deflection. Two 6-year-old child models were generated from a baseline adult model as application example and were evaluated using recent biomechanical data from cadaveric pediatric experiments. The scaled models predicted similar impact responses of the thorax and lower extremity, which were within the experimental corridors; and suggested further consideration of age-specific structural change of the pelvis. Towards improved scaling methods to develop biofidelic human models, this comparative analysis suggests further investigation on interior anatomical geometry and detailed biological material properties associated with the demographic range of the population.