Appendix
Choosing Model Parameters
File Formats
Full Body Muscle Set
Muscle Formulation
Contact Force Formulation
Marker Placements
Importing Models
Subroutines
ADAMS/Controls

Muscle Formulation

There are two types of muscle formulations available in LifeMOD/BodySIM: a trainable or "effective force" formulation and a Hill-type muscle formulation.

The trainable formulation for the muscles consist of "training" elements for inverse-dynamics simulations and active (contractile) elements for forward-dynamics simulations. Muscles record shortening/lengthening patterns while the model is being driven by the motion capture data in an inverse-dynamics simulation. They then repeat those patterns and serve as actuators for the forward-dynamics simulations. The muscle actuators are trained not to exceed the physiological capability of the individual muscle.

The Hill-type muscle formulation is the traditional combination of contractile elements (CE) and a parallel passive, elastic element (PE) that approximated standard muscle tissue in the human body. The contractile element contains an muscle activation state that controls the active muscle force capability for the muscle. Data from an EMG test may be used as activations for the contractile element.

Various muscle parameters may be adjusted. See Parameters to tune the model for simulation. See also Choosing Model Parameters for data sources and information on how to select the parameters mentioned in this section.

Sections:


Muscle Formulation - Effective Muscle Force (Trainable)

LifeMOD/BodySIM™ uses an effective force approach to muscle modeling. Muscles produce the necessary forces to replicate the desired motion of the body while staying within each muscle's physiological limit. If enough muscles are included, the calculated muscle forces will be very close to the physical muscle force values for the same activity. The problem of redundancy, or several muscles contributing to the motion of the joint, is handled by allowing the user to filter the output of any muscle from 0 to 200%.

If EMG data is available the user can modify the filtering function by comparing the muscle response to the data.

A two step process is used for LifeMOD™ musculoskeletal simulation. In the first step, the muscles are created on the body in the form of training elements or passive non-contributing elements. The body is then manipulated using motion agents which move via motion capture data, or user-entered curve data. In this inverse-dynamics step, muscle shortening/lengthening (ldesired)patterns are recorded. The recorded patterns then serve as actuators to drive the motion. The formulation of the active muscle is displayed in the equation below.

,

where,
f max = pCSA * Mstress

Actuators are used to produce an effective force, Feff , that minimizes the error between the desired instantaneous muscle length and the actual length. If this force is beyond the physiological limit for a particular muscle, the force becomes the limit value. The force is further refined, Fmuscle, by a user-specified filter function.


Physiological properties for each muscle include:

  • physiological cross sectional area (pCSA)
  • maximum tissue stress (Mstress)
  • resting load (Fresting)
  • force output filter % (ffilter)
  • overall muscle tone (Mtone)

This data establishes an upper limit on the muscle force (fmax) for each muscle in the model. The values are calculated as follows:

1. The original pCSA and Mstress are extracted from the LifeMOD™ database and scaled to the model based on height, weight, age, and gender.

2. The pCSA is further scaled by the user-entered muscle tone (Mtone%)

3. f max = pCSA * Mstress

The algorithm in Figure 1 calculates the force in each muscle using the following process:

1. The instantaneous muscle length and velocity is recorded and retrieved.

2. It is compared to the desired instantaneous muscle length/velocity calculated from the inverse-dynamics simulation.

3. The difference (error) is corrected by the Pgain. The derivative of the error is multiplied by the Dgain. This results in the muscle force, Feff, necessary to minimize the error.

4. If the resulting muscle force Feff is greater or equal to the physiological maximum f max, f eff = f max.

5. Feff is then filtered with the user-specified filter function Ffilter to become Fmuscle.

See Choosing Model Parameters for data sources and information on how to select the parameters mentioned in this section.


Muscle Formulation - Hill-Based Muscle Force

The Hill-type muscle model is developed from the material behavior of the muscle model adapted from the original work by [Hill, '38] which results in a generally-accepted state equation applicable to skeletal muscle that has been stimulated to show tetanus. Reviews of this model and extensions can be found in [Winters, '88] and [Zajac, '89]. The Hill-type muscle model (Figure 2), consists of a contractile element (CE) which is in series with a series elastic element (SEE) both of which are in parallel with a passive element (PE). The SEE, shown in grey in Figure 2 is often neglected when a series tendon is added. The main assumptions of the Hill model are that the contractile element is entirely stress free and freely distensible in the resting state, as described by Hill's equation. When the muscle is activated, the series and parallel elements are elastic, and the whole muscle is a simple combination of identical sarcomeres in series and parallel.


Figure 2: Discretized model for muscle contraction dynamics based on a Hill-type muscle.. The total force FMUSCLE is the sum of a passive force FPE and an active force FCE. The passive element (PE) is a function of the instantaneous muscle length, lcurr. The contractile element (CE) is a function of the instantaneous muscle length, lcurr, instantaneous muscle shortening velocity vcurr and the time dependent activation state A(t).

When ignoring the SEE, the muscle force FMUSCLE is the sum of both forces thus,

FMUSCLE = FCE + FPE

Passive Element FPE

The muscle input parameters for the passive element are displayed in Figure 3.


Figure 3: Section of the Hill muscle dialog box with descriptions of the input parameters for the passive element.

The passive element force FPE is modeled with a passive muscle stress (σ) value multiplied by the physilogical cross sectional area, pCSA, of the particular muscle.

FPE = σ · pCSA , where

σ = passive muscle stress
pCSA = physiological cross sectional area

Passive muscle stress, σ, modeled by the nonlinear stress-strain relationship [Deng, '87]:

σ = (k · ε)/(1-ε/asym), where

ε = strain defined as the elongation relative to the resting length of the muscle,
k = passive muscle stiffness
asym = strain asymptote

The strain is defined by

ε = (lcurr - lfree)/ lfree , where

lcurr = current (instantaneious) length of the muscle
lfree = free length of the muscle at rest when it is removed from the body

The lfree results in a smaller free length than the muscle length in its initial position in the model. The initial position in the body is defined by lrest . Assuming a linear relationship between the sarcomere length s [Magid, '85, Meyers, '98, Rack, '69], and the muscle length, the free length of the muscle can be calculated as:

lfree = lrest· (Sfree )/ (Srest ),

where the muscle reference length lref is based on

lref = lrest· (Sref )/ (Srest ), where

Sfree = average sarcomere length of "free" muscle
Srest = length of sarcomere at rest
Sref = length of sarcomere at muscle optimal length [Brelin-Fornari, '98]

 

Active Element FCE

The muscle input parameters for the contractile element are displayed in Figure 4.


Figure 4: Section of the Hill muscle dialog box with descriptions of the input parameters for the contractile element.

Active muscle behavior (contractile element) is modeled with a normalized activation state and a maximum muscle force at activation.

FCE = A(t) · Fmax · fH (vr) · fL(lr) , where

A(t) = activation state (normalized between 0 -- resting -- to 1 -- maximum activation)
Fmax= muscle force at maximum activation isometric conditions
fH= the normalized active force-velocity relation (Hill-curve)
fL= the normalized active force-length relation
vr= dimensionless lengthening velocity
lr= dimensionless muscle length

The muscle force at maximum activation is calculated by:

Fmax = σmax · pCSA, where

σmax = is the maximum isometric muscle stress
pCSA = physiological cross sectional area

The function fH is the normalized active force-velocity relation (Hill-curve). Separate functions are defined for lengthening and shortening of the CE-element.

, where

vr = vcurr/Vmax
vcurr = the instantaneous lengthening velocity Vmax = the maximum shortening velocity of the muscle
CEsh= shape force-velocity curve (shortening)
CEshl= shape force-velocity curve (lengthening)
CEml= maximum relative force (lengthening)

The shape is determined by the parameters CEsh and CEshl , where CEml defines the maximum force the muscle can generate during lengthning relative to the maximum isometric force Fmax.


Figure 5: Normalized muscle force as a function of normalized muscle length (lr) for both active, fl(lr), (blue curve) and passive, FPE , (other) element curves.


Figure 6: Standard force-velocity curve fh for the conditions CEsh = .5,
CEshl = .075, Cml = 1.5

The function fl is the normalized active fore-length relation.

fl(lr) = e -((lr-1)/Sk)**2 , where

lr = lcurr/lref
lcurr = the instantaneous muscle length
lref = optimum reference length at which the active force is generate most efficiently
Sk = determines the shape of the curve (figure 2)

Muscle activation, A(t), is described by a data spline. The data spline uses time as the independent variable and the normalized activation A as the dependent variable. A library of EMG data is avaliable via the Xchange function in the main LifeMOD panel.

See Choosing Model Parameters for data sources and information on how to select the parameters mentioned in this section.


References

  • Brelin-Fornari, J.M. A Lumped Parameter Model of the Human Head and Neck With Active Muscles. PhD thesis: University of Arizona. 1998.
  • De Jager, M.K.J. Mathematical Head-Neck Model for accleration Impacts. PhD. Thesis: Eindhoven University of Technology. 1996.
  • Deng, Y.C., et al. "Response of a Human Head/Neck/Upper-torso Replica to Dynamic Loading -- II: Analytical/Numerical Model." Journal of Biomechanics. 20:487–497. 1987.
  • Eichberger A., et al. "Pressure Meaurements in the Spinal Canal of Post-Mortem Human Subjects During Rear-end Impact and Correlation of Results to the Neck Injury Criterion." Accid Anal Prev. 32(2):251-60. 2000.
  • Fung, Y.C. “Skeletal muscle." Biomechanics: Mechancial Properties of Living Tissues. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 1993
  • Hill, A.V. "The Heat of Shortening and the Dynamic Constants of Muscle." Proc Roy Soc. B126:136-195. 1938
  • Kaneoka, K., et al. , "Motion analysis of cervical vertebrae during whiplash loading." Spine. Discussion 770.i 10222526. 24(8):763-9. 1999
  • Kapandji, I.A. The Physiology of the Joints, Volume 3: The Trunk and the Vertebral Column. Churchill Livingstone. Edinburg. 2nd Ed. 1974.
  • Luan, F., et al. ‘‘Qualitative Analysis of Neck Kinematics During Low-Speed Rear-End Impact.’’ Clin. Biomech. 15(9), pp. 649–657. Los Angeles. 2000
  • Magid, A., et al., "Myofibrils Bear Most of the Resting Tension in Frog Skeletal Muscle." Science. 230:1280–1282. 1985.
  • Myers, B.S. Cervical Spine Muscle. Final Report F.2c, Duke University. 1998.
  • Ono, K., et al. ‘‘Cervical Injury Mechanism Based on the Analysis of Human Cervical Vertebral Motion and Head-Neck-Torso Kinematics During Low Speed Rear Impacts,’’ SAE Tech. Pap. Ser. #973340. 1997
  • Pearson, A.M. "Facet Joint Kinematics and Injury Mechanisms During Simulated Whiplash." Spine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins pub. 29(4):390-397. 2004
  • Quiring, D.P. "The Head, Neck, and Trunk." Muscles and Motor Points. Lea & Febiger. Philadelphia. 1947.
  • Rack, P.M.H. "The Effects of Length and Stimulus Rate on Tension in the Isometric Cat Soleus Muscle." Journal of Physiology. 204:443–460. 1969.
  • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 1986, “Human Tolerance to Impact Conditions as Related to Motor Vehicle Design.” SAE J885. 1986
  • Severy, D.M., et al. "Controlled Automobile Rear End Collisions -- An Investigation of Related Engineering and Medical Phenomena." Canadian Services Medical Journal. P727–759. 1955.
  • Van der Horst, M.J. Human Head Neck Response in Frontal, Lateral and Real End Impact Loading: Modelling and Validation. PhD.Thesis. Technical University of Eindhoven. 2002.
  • Winters, J.M., et al. "Estimated Mechanical Properties of Synergistic Muscles Involved in Movements of a Variety of Human Joints." Journal of Biomechanics. 21:1027–1041. 1988.
  • Winters, J.M., et al. "Analysis of Fundamental Human Movement Patterns Through the Use of In-depth Antagonistic Muscle Models." IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. BME-32:826–839. 1985.
  • Wismans, J.S.H.M. "Reduction of Neck Injuries and Their Societal Costs in Rear End Collisions." First European Vehicle Passive Safety Network Conference. location?2000.
  • Yoganandan, N. "Biomechanical Assessment of Human Cervical Spine Ligaments." Proceedings of the 42nd Stapp Car Crash Conference. P223–236. SAE Paper No. 983159. 1998
  • Yoganandan N., et al. "Biomechanics of the Cervical Spine, Part 2: Cervical Spine Soft Tissue Responses and Biomechanical Modeling." Clin Biomech. Bristol, Avon. 2001;16:1-27. 2001
  • Zajac, F.E. "Muscle and Tendon: Properties, Models, Scaling, and Application to Biomechanics and Motor Control." CRC Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 17:359–411. 1989.