See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259313838

Conventional and complex modal analyses of a finite element model of human

head and neck

Article  in  Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering · December 2013

DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2013.864641 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
8 399

4 authors, including:

Kwong Ming Tse Tan Long Bin

Swinburne University of Technology National University of Singapore
57 PUBLICATIONS   698 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   522 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hp Lee
National University of Singapore
504 PUBLICATIONS   13,261 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bio-inspired propeller/airfoil design View project

Practical Acoustic Metamaterials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kwong Ming Tse on 30 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Kwong Ming Tse]
On: 18 December 2013, At: 04:04
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical

Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmb20

Conventional and complex modal analyses of a finite

element model of human head and neck
a a ab ab
Kwong Ming Tse , Long Bin Tan , Siak Piang Lim & Heow Pueh Lee
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering
Drive 1, Singapore, 117576, Singapore
b
National University of Singapore (Suzhou) Research Institute, 377 Lin Quan Street, Suzhou
Industrial Park, Jiang Su, 215123, People's Republic of China
Published online: 13 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Kwong Ming Tse, Long Bin Tan, Siak Piang Lim & Heow Pueh Lee , Computer Methods in Biomechanics
and Biomedical Engineering (2013): Conventional and complex modal analyses of a finite element model of human head and
neck, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2013.864641

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2013.864641

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2013.864641

Conventional and complex modal analyses of a finite element model of human head and neck
Kwong Ming Tsea*, Long Bin Tana, Siak Piang Lima,b and Heow Pueh Leea,b*
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117576, Singapore;
b
National University of Singapore (Suzhou) Research Institute, 377 Lin Quan Street, Suzhou Industrial Park, Jiang Su 215123,
People’s Republic of China
(Received 1 April 2013; accepted 7 November 2013)

This study employs both the traditional and the complex modal analyses of a detailed finite element model of human head–
neck system to determine modal responses in terms of resonant frequencies and mode shapes. It compares both modal
responses without ignoring mode shapes, and these results are reasonably in agreement with the literature. Increasing
displacement contour loops within the brain in higher frequency modes probably exhibits the shearing and twisting modes of
the brain. Additional and rarely reported modal responses such as ‘mastication’ mode of the mandible and flipping mode
of nasal lateral cartilages are identified. This suggests a need for detailed modelling to identify all the additional frequencies
of each individual part. Moreover, it is found that a damping factor of above 0.2 has amplifying effect in reducing higher
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013

frequency modes, while a diminishing effect in lowering peak biomechanical responses, indicating the importance of
identifying the appropriate optimised damping factor.
Keywords: head– neck; complex frequency; natural frequency; mode shape; damping factor; finite element

1. Introduction Despite the bulk of valuable information provided by

For the past few decades, tremendous effort had been spent
on head vibration. Earlier research on human head
vibration was mainly based on experimental tests
involving animals, cadavers and/or volunteer living
subjects. Von Bekesy (1948) investigated the vibration
response of a cadaver skull in an acoustic field and
reported that the first resonant frequency of the skull to be
1800 Hz. The experimental modal study, performed by
Franke (1956) on both an empty dry human skull and the
same skull filled with gelatin, found that the lowest
resonant frequencies were 800 and 500 Hz, respectively.
Both Hodgson et al. (1967) and Gurdjian et al. (1970)
reported that the resonant frequency of a cadaver head in
their mechanical impedance analysis was approximately
300 Hz. At around the same time, Stalnaker and Fogle
(1971) utilised an electromagnetic shaker in their
experimental tests of a fresh unembalmed cadaver head
and determined that the resonant frequencies were 166 and
820 Hz. Khalil et al. (1979) conducted an experimental
study on two cadaver heads (one male and one female)
using an impact hammer. The respective fundamental
frequencies found were 1385 and 1641 Hz. Hakansson
et al.’s (1994) in vivo study utilising skin-penetrating
titanium implants on patients’ temporal bone claimed that
the lowest undamped natural frequency was about 972 Hz.
In contrast, recent experimental studies (Willinger et al.
2005; Rützel et al. 2006) on living human subjects showed
that the resonant frequency was around a few hertz.
experimental data, these tests do not only raise issues in
morality and ethics, but also induce many research
concerns such as limited flexibility as well as biasness in
experimental data due to scarce subjects and non-
standardised experimental procedures. Moreover, results
from experiments may vary with the individual subject
and thus may show a lack of reproducibility as well as
reliability.
On the other hand, numerical simulations using the
finite element method (FEM) offer a cost-effective
alternative to experimental methods, with a potential for
evaluations that go beyond the experimental ethical limits
and would help in the development of more effective
equipments. Nickell and Marcal (1974) had performed
finite element (FE) simulations using a simplified 3D FE
skull model with different boundary supports and reported
that the fundamental head frequencies for frontal, occipital
and base supports were 86, 68 and 164 Hz, respectively.
Subsequently, similar FE models developed by researchers
such as Ward and Thompson (1975) and Shugar (1977)
calculated the fundamental frequency of brain to be 23 and
43 Hz, respectively. Ruan et al. (1991) developed a 2D FE
head model including layered membranes using a coronal
section of a human head and found that the first natural
frequency fell within 49 – 72 Hz. Chu et al. (1994)
constructed two 2D midsagittal head models (one with
an empty skull and one with brain) and discovered that
the additional brain in the latter model lowered the

*Corresponding authors. Email: tsekm.research@yahoo.com; mpeleehp@nus.edu.sg

q 2013 Taylor & Francis
 2 K.M. Tse et al.

fundamental frequency from 286 to 119 Hz. These studies
only presented models of the head, and, until recently,
when Charalambopoulos et al. (1997) developed an
analytical model of the skull – brain –neck system and
found that the neck introduced additional frequency in the
lower frequency spectrum with the natural frequency of
595 Hz. Later, Meyer et al.’s (2004) FE simulations using
a rigid head –neck model demonstrated that the funda-
mental frequency of a head – neck system was 3.01 Hz.
More recently, El Baroudi et al. (2012a, 2012b) performed
a 3D modal analysis of an idealised cylindrical skull –
brain – cerebro – spinal fluid (CSF) model using both
analytical and FE methods and found the fundamental
frequency to be 26.66 Hz.
These earlier FE studies had undoubtedly provided
some insights into the dynamic characteristics of human
head. Nonetheless, they had made numerous approxi-
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013
also investigates the effect of damping on dynamic
characteristics, with the introduction of three damping
factors (z) in the complex eigenvalue analysis, unlike most
previous FE studies which only used the conventional
frequency extraction method.
2. Materials and methods
2.1 The 3D FE head –neck model
In our study, geometrical information of the human skull
was obtained from 460 axial images of a mid-aged male
subject with in-plane resolution of 512 by 512 pixels with a
pixel size of 0.488 mm and slice thickness of 1.0 mm, from
a set of enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan data.
Due to the low visibility of soft tissues in CT data, the
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data of the brain of

mations and simplifications in the geometry of the head. In
this study, a detailed FE model of human head and neck,
which includes the facial and intracranial details such as
the subarachnoid space, has been developed and its modal
responses have been determined. In addition, the
simulated modal responses in terms of resonant frequen-
cies and mode shapes are compared with those in
literature, unlike most previous studies which only
compared their resonant frequencies and ignored modal
validation in terms of mode shapes. Moreover, this study
another healthy subject, with in-plane resolution of 1659 by
962 pixels with a pixel size of 0.500 mm and slice thickness
of 4.0 mm, were employed for the segmentation of the
model’s brain (Figure 1(A) –(C)). These medical images
were imported into Mimics v13.0 – v14.0 (Materialise,
Leuven, Belgium) for segmentation and reconstruction of
the assembled model of human head and brain. A semi-
automatic meshing technique was employed in HyperMesh
v10.0 (Altair HyperWorks, Troy, MI, USA) to optimise
between computational efficiency and element quality,

Figure 1. (Colour online) FE model of human head and neck. (A) Skull model generated from CT data by Mimics. Bone, lateral
cartilage and septum are denoted by the portions in grey, light blue and yellow in the model, respectively. (B) Brain model generated from
MRI data by Mimics, showing various components of the brain. (C) Both the skull and the brain models generated and assembled in
Mimics. (D) The right side shows meshed models for the head – neck FE model. A layer of subarachnoid space in-between the skull and
the brain tissues is noted. Fixed boundary conditions were applied at the surface node of the base of the neck.
 Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 3

Table 1. Material properties of various components used in the nodal acceleration, velocity and displacement vectors and
FE model. fF} is the external applied load.
Material properties
For undamped free vibration (i.e. ½C
¼ 0 and
fF} ¼ 0), the solution of the above equation can be
Young’s written as follows.
modulus, Poisson’s Density,
Components E (MPa) ratio, y (kg/mm3) f xg ¼ f X geivt ; ð2Þ
Skull 8000 a
0.22 a
4.74E 2 6 where fX} represents the amplitudes of all the masses
Cervical vertebrae 8000a 0.22a 4.74E 2 6 (mode shapes or eigenvectors) and v (¼ 2pf ) represents
Cerebrum 0.497b 0.48b 1.14E 2 6b
Cerebellum 0.497b 0.48b 1.14E 2 6b each eigenvector’s corresponding eigenfrequency in
Cartilages 30c 0.45c 1.50E 2 6c rad s21, while f represents the natural frequency in hertz.
CSF 1.314a 0.4999d 1.04E 2 6e Thus Equation (1) reduces to
Teeth 2070f,e 0.30f,e 2.45E 2 6f,e  
½K
2 v 2 ½M
f X g ¼ 0: ð3Þ
Note: Young’s modulus of CSF is calculated based on E ¼ 3K ð1 2 2vÞ
using K ¼ 2190 MPa and y ¼ 0.4999. The above equation is known as eigenvalue problem in
a
Zhang et al. (2001).
b
Willinger et al. (1999).
matrix algebra and is considered as linear by replacing v2
c
Grellmann et al. (2006). by l. The system solution, which relies on determining
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013

each eigenvector fX i }, with its corresponding eigenvalues

d
Al-Bsharat (2000).
e
Liu et al. (2007).
f
Cook et al. (1982).
with average element size of 1.35 mm and aspect ratio of
1.75. The 3D FE head –brain – neck model contains some of
the interior details, which are often ignored in previous
models, such as the inferior, middle and superior turbinates
as well as frontal, sphenoidal and maxillary sinuses. It
consists of 483,719 nodes and 403,176 linear hexahedral
elements (Figure 1(D)) with all the material properties
taken from the literature (Table 1). It shall be noted that our
FE head model consists of all the major cavities, which are
often ignored in previous models, resulting in lower volume
of the skeletal skull. Therefore, in order to achieve the
average human head and neck weight according to
Yoganandan et al. (2009), the density of the skull is
adjusted within a justifiably reasonable range, similar to
earlier head models (Khalil and Hubbard 1977; Willinger
et al. 1995; Zhang et al. 2001; Takhounts et al. 2008).
The surface nodes at the base of the head – neck model
are constrained in all their directions (Figure 1(D)), while
all the interfaces between components are prescribed with
tie-constraints since interaction properties, such as general
contact and sliding, are not available in the natural
frequency extraction procedure (Abaqus 2010).
v2i , is solved by the natural frequency extraction using
Lanczos eigensolver (Abaqus 2010).
For the case of damped free vibration (i.e. ½C
– 0 and
fF} ¼ 0), the eigenvalue equation is quadratic as it
contains an additional term of i[C]v
 
½K
þ iv½C
2 v 2 ½M
f X g ¼ 0: ð4Þ
The solution to this complex eigenvalue problem would
consist of both the real and imaginary parts, and these are
solved by the complex eigenvalue extraction procedure
using a projection method (Abaqus 2010). In this study,
three global material damping factors of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4,
which are within the range of damping factors of head and
neck found in the literature (Khalil et al. 1979; Whitman
et al. 1996; Willinger et al. 2005; Rützel et al. 2006), were
included in this complex eigenvalue analysis of the multi-
degree of freedom problem. In addition, the biomechanical
parameters such as intracranial pressure (ICP) and skull
stresses are evaluated at each individual mode for both
undamped and damped cases. It shall be noted that the
stresses evaluated are not arisen due to any external
applied force, in fact, they are element stresses fs}e which
are computed based on the following equation in FEM
(Zienkiewicz et al. 2005):

fsge ¼ ½D
e f1ge ; ð5Þ

2.2 Modal analysis using FEM
In order to determine modal responses, modal analysis
using FEM is performed using implicit FE code – Abaqus
v6.10 (Dassault Systèmes Technologies, RI, USA). The
governing equation of the dynamic response is given as
follows:
½M
fx€ ðtÞg þ ½C
fx_ ðtÞg þ ½K
f xðtÞg ¼ fF ðtÞg;
where ½M
, ½C
and [K ] are the global mass, damping and
stiffness matrices of the model; f€x}, f_x} and fx} are the
where ½D
e is the constitutive matrix of the element and
f1}e is the elemental strain.
3. Results
This section presents results of the dynamic characteristics
ð1Þ
(resonant frequencies and mode shapes) of the 3D FE
model of human head – neck. By performing modal
analysis on the 3D FE head – neck system using the
 4 K.M. Tse et al.

Abaqus implicit code, 25 resonant frequencies and
associated mode shapes are recognised in the frequency
band of 35– 360 Hz (Table 2, Figures 2 and 3). These
computed resonant frequencies in the undamped and
damped free vibrations are tabulated in Table 2, with their
respective first resonant frequencies at 35.57, 34.59, 34.43
and 33.78 Hz. In addition, there is a slight variation in the
resonant frequencies between both the undamped and
damped free vibration scenarios (Table 2). Within the 25
mode shapes, five various, distinguishable mode shapes
of the head –neck complex are recognised, an anterior –
posterior extension– flexion mode of the head about the
neck at 35.57 Hz, a lateral flexion mode at 62.89 Hz, an
axial rotational mode of the head about its vertical axis at
72.40 Hz, an S-shaped anterior –posterior retraction mode
of the head and neck at 221.51 Hz and finally a vertical
translational mode of the head at 254.04 Hz (Figure 3).
Also, the lateral flexion of the nasal lateral cartilages and

Table 2. Modal responses of the FE head – neck model.

With damping
Without damping j ¼ 0.1 j ¼ 0.2 j ¼ 0.4
Mode Eigenfrequencies
No. (Hz) Mode shape description Resonated location
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013

1 35.57 34.59 34.43 33.78 Anterior– posterior extension – Whole head

flexion of the head
2 62.89 57.72 57.59 57.07 Lateral flexion of the head Whole head
3 72.40 74.56 74.43 73.91 Axial rotational of the head Whole head
4 131.22 121.00 120.78 119.89 Vertical shutting of the jaws Mandible
5 221.51 221.06 220.55 218.50 S-shaped anterior – posterior Brain, mandible, lateral cartilage, teeth
retraction of the head– neck;
vertical opening of the jaws
6 229.64 227.51 226.93 224.62 Lateral flexion of the nasal Lateral cartilage
lateral cartilages
7 237.06 237.95 237.30 234.67 Lateral motion of mandible Brain, lateral cartilage
8 254.04 253.80 253.08 250.19 Vertical translation of the head; Brain, lateral cartilage, septal cartilage
lateral flexion of the nasal
lateral cartilages
9 256.40 257.89 257.14 254.13 Axial rotational of the head; Brain, lateral cartilage, septal cartilage
lateral flexion of the nasal
lateral cartilages
10 270.16 270.13 269.31 265.98 Lateral flexion of the head; Brain, septal cartilage
lateral motion of mandible
11 273.31 273.25 272.55 269.76 Lateral flexion of the head Septal cartilage
and mandible; flipping of
nasal septal cartilage
12 277.10 277.42 276.53 272.94 S-shaped anterior – posterior Brain, lateral cartilage, septal cartilage
retraction of the head– neck;
vertical opening of the jaws
13 283.24 283.44 282.45 278.45 Vertical shutting of the jaws Brain, lateral cartilage, septal cartilage
14 295.85 295.54 294.49 290.25 Lateral motion of mandible Brain, mandible, lateral cartilage,
septal cartilage
15 299.86 298.60 297.52 293.15 Lateral flexion of head; Brain, mandible, lateral cartilage
lateral motion of mandible
16 300.97 297.80 296.70 292.27 Lateral flexion of head; Brain, mandible, septal cartilage
lateral motion of mandible
17 316.08 315.84 314.62 309.68 Lateral motion of mandible Brain, mandible
18 317.74 317.61 316.38 311.38 Vertical translation of the head Brain
19 322.25 321.54 320.26 315.09 Lateral flexion of the head Brain, mandible
20 328.78 329.16 327.80 322.31 Vertical translation of the head; Brain, mandible
lateral teeth crunching
21 329.97 329.94 328.57 323.05 Vertical translation of the head Brain
22 336.50 336.42 334.98 329.17 Lateral flexion of the head Brain
23 337.68 336.88 335.43 329.58 Vertical opening of the jaws; Brain, lateral cartilage
vertical flipping of nasal
lateral cartilage tip
24 351.17 350.90 349.29 342.78 Lateral motion of the mandible Brain, mandible
25 356.39 355.91 354.25 347.51 Lateral motion of the mandible Brain
 Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013
Figure 2. Mid-sagittal view of the displacement contour plots of the head – neck model, showing various mode shapes and their
corresponding frequencies for the undamped vibration case.
the lateral translation of the mandible or ‘mastication’
mode, which dominate after the primary modes of the
head – neck structure within its first 25 modes, are
identified (Figure 3). The mode shapes for the damped
vibration cases are identical to that of the undamped
vibration, except for the difference in the magnitude of
biomechanical parameters such as displacement, ICP and
skull von Mises stresses (Table 3).
4. Discussion
As shown in the midsagittal view of the displacement
contour plots of the head –neck model (Figure 2), the first
two resonant modes occur at 35.57 and 62.89 Hz with the
maximum and minimum displacements at the top of the
head and the head –neck junction, respectively. These
probably correspond to axial elongation of the entire head.
The third mode, which occurs at 72.40 Hz, has primary
displacements at the front and rear of the head, resembling
longitudinal elongation of the head. It can be seen from the
animated simulations that the FE head is more compliant
to the front-and-back flexure in the first two modes and to
axial rotation about its neck in the third mode. It is
illustrated in these displacement plots that the entire head,
including the skull and the brain tissues, resonates together
in the first three modes. It is then followed by the
resonance of various components in the head such
asmandible, nasal lateral cartilages and brain, with most
of the higher modes occurring due to the resonance of the
5
brain. An interesting point to be noted is that more loops of
displacement contour appear in the brain for higher
frequency modes, probably exhibiting the shearing,
torsional or twisting modes within the brain tissues. It
seems that rotational brain injury due to shearing of brain
tissues occurs mainly in the higher frequency modes while
translational brain injury occurs in the lower frequency
modes.
4.1 Comparison of fundamental frequency
The fundamental natural frequency, being one of the
important dynamic characteristics, has been obtained from
the FE simulations and compared with those found in
reported studies (Table 4). However, due to the difference
in the parts involved, the reported fundamental frequencies
vary widely across the literature; from few thousands hertz
for skull-only studies to few hundreds hertz in studies
which accounted for the brain.
In this work, Meyer et al.’s (2004) FE study is chosen
for comparison of the modal responses as it is the only
study involving the head – neck system which is similar
to the present FE model. Our computed fundamental
frequency in the free vibration is 35.57 Hz while Meyer
et al. (2004) reported that the fundamental frequency is
3.01 Hz. This discrepancy in the fundamental frequency
arises between the two FE models, probably due to the
difference in material properties and the way in modelling,
with the latter factor being more likely to contribute to the
 6 K.M. Tse et al.
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013

Figure 3. Comparison of mode shapes with Meyer et al.’s (2004) FE head– neck model (permission obtained from the author).
(A) Mode 1 is an anterior –posterior extension – flexion mode of the head about the neck at 35.57 Hz; (B) Mode 2 is a lateral flexion mode
at 62.89 Hz; (C) Mode 3 is an axial rotational mode of the head about its vertical axis at 72.40 Hz; (D) Mode 5 is an S-shaped anterior –
posterior retraction mode of the head and neck at 221.51 Hz; (E) and (F) Mode 8 is a vertical translational mode of the head as well as the
flipping of the nasal lateral cartilage (at 254.04 Hz), rather than the lateral retraction mode of Meyer et al.’s (2004) model.
(Note: For the animation, please see its various format.mov formats in the Supplemental Online Materials.)

discrepancy. With the prioritised focus on the neck injury,
the head and all the cervical vertebrae of Meyer et al.’s
(2004) FE model were modelled as rigid bodies, with all
the individuals’ masses and inertial moment taken into
account. Only the intervertebral discs were modelled as
deformable bodies. On the contrary, all the components in
our FE head –neck model are modelled as deformable
bodies with the ability to dissipate external energy through
deformation. In addition, unlike the rigid head of Meyer
et al.’s (2004) FE model, our FE head model contains
skull, CSF, brain tissues and cartilages. By having the
various distinct components in the head model, the
fundamental frequency of the multi-components system is
expected to be lower than that of a one-component system,
as additional natural frequencies appear on the frequency
spectrum of the one-component system. This phenomenon
is consistent with observations by Guarino and Elger
(1992) and Chu et al. (1994).
 Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013

Table 3. Peak ICP and peak skull stress in both undamped and damped cases.

Max ICP (MPa) Max skull von Mises stress (MPa)

With damping With damping
Mode Without Without
No. damping j ¼ 0.1 j ¼ 0.2 j ¼ 0.4 Location of peak value damping j ¼ 0.1 j ¼ 0.2 j ¼ 0.4 Location of peak value
1 3.16E 2 02 7.18E 2 03 4.79E 2 03 4.79E 2 03 Posterior cerebelluma 4.05E þ 01 2.47E þ 01 2.15E þ 01 2.15E þ 01 C2b
2 3.77E 2 02 1.26E 2 02 7.88E 2 03 7.88E 2 03 Left parietal lobea 9.54E þ 01 4.01E þ 01 3.65E þ 01 3.65E þ 01 C2b
3 2.46E 2 02 2.03E 2 02 1.85E 2 02 1.85E 2 02 Anterior right cerebelluma 2.67E þ 01 2.65E þ 01 2.65E þ 01 2.65E þ 01 C2
4 2.27E 2 03 2.25E 2 03 2.50E 2 03 2.50E 2 03 Antero-superior frontal lobe 3.20E þ 01 9.38E þ 00 8.38E þ 00 8.38E þ 00 Right mandibular condyleb
5 6.83E 2 02 5.36E 2 02 5.33E 2 02 5.38E 2 02 Anterior brainstema 1.62E þ 02 1.53E þ 02 1.45E þ 02 1.46E þ 02 Occiptal bone – C1 interfaceb
6 6.27E 2 04 4.19E 2 04 4.19E 2 04 4.19E 2 04 Posterior right temporal lobe 3.33E þ 00 1.56E þ 00 1.12E þ 00 1.12E þ 00 Lateral cartilage
7 2.46E 2 02 2.27E 2 02 2.15E 2 02 2.15E 2 02 Posterior right temporal lobe 1.30E þ 01 1.19E þ 01 1.13E þ 01 1.14E þ 01 C2
8 1.27E 2 01 1.02E 2 01 8.65E 2 02 8.65E 2 02 Brainstema 1.55E þ 01 9.00E þ 00 6.43E þ 00 6.43E þ 00 Occiptal bone – C1 interfaceb
9 7.87E 2 02 7.43E 2 02 7.25E 2 02 7.25E 2 02 Posterior right temporal lobe 2.42E þ 01 2.35E þ 01 2.24E þ 01 2.24E þ 01 C2
10 4.68E 2 02 4.87E 2 02 4.87E 2 02 4.87E 2 02 Posterior left parietal lobe 7.91E þ 00 3.99E þ 00 3.81E þ 00 3.81E þ 00 C2
11 5.24E 2 05 6.54E 2 05 6.85E 2 05 7.29E 2 05 Anterior right cerebellum 2.74E þ 00 2.85E þ 00 2.71E þ 00 2.71E þ 00 Vomer-ethmoidal region
12 5.24E 2 02 5.14E 2 02 5.14E 2 02 5.14E 2 02 Posterior left temporal lobe 3.07E þ 01 3.10E þ 01 2.96E þ 01 2.96E þ 01 C2
13 4.87E 2 02 4.74E 2 02 4.51E 2 02 4.51E 2 02 Anterior brainstem 7.17E þ 01 4.63E þ 01 4.41E þ 01 4.42E þ 01 Right mandibular condyleb
14 4.48E 2 02 3.06E 2 02 2.78E 2 02 2.78E 2 02 Posterior left temporal lobea 1.22E þ 02 1.16E þ 02 1.10E þ 02 1.11E þ 02 Left mandibular notchb
15 6.26E 2 02 5.94E 2 02 5.93E 2 02 5.94E 2 02 Anterior right cerebellum 1.00E þ 01 6.99E þ 00 6.66E þ 00 6.67E þ 00 Left mandibular notch
16 1.06E 2 01 1.00E 2 01 9.50E 2 02 9.49E 2 02 Anterior cerebelluma 5.70E þ 01 3.02E þ 01 2.62E þ 01 2.62E þ 01 Right mandibular notchb
17 5.20E 2 02 5.42E 2 02 5.42E 2 02 5.42E 2 02 Anterior brainstem 3.41E þ 01 1.24E þ 01 1.11E þ 01 1.11E þ 01 C2b
18 6.76E 2 02 6.29E 2 02 6.14E 2 02 6.14E 2 02 Posterior right temporal lobea 3.72E þ 00 2.94E þ 00 2.26E þ 00 2.27E þ 00 Right mandibular notch
19 4.71E 2 02 4.46E 2 02 4.46E 2 02 4.46E 2 02 Posterior left temporal lobe 1.64E þ 01 7.43E þ 00 4.25E þ 00 4.25E þ 00 Right mandibular notchb
20 7.82E 2 02 6.90E 2 02 6.90E 2 02 6.90E 2 02 Antero-inferior frontal lobea 2.69E þ 01 1.34E þ 01 7.92E þ 00 7.94E þ 00 Occiptal bone – C1 interfaceb
21 6.81E 2 02 6.17E 2 02 6.03E 2 02 6.03E 2 02 Anterior right cerebelluma 2.92E þ 00 3.13E þ 00 3.48E þ 00 3.47E þ 00 Left mandibular notch
22 9.69E 2 02 8.20E 2 02 8.00E 2 02 8.00E 2 02 Posterior cerebelluma 7.40E þ 00 7.34E þ 00 6.99E þ 00 6.99E þ 00 Occiptal bone –C1 interface
23 1.31E 2 01 1.04E 2 01 9.90E 2 02 9.90E 2 02 Posterior occipital lobea 2.51E þ 01 2.52E þ 01 2.40E þ 01 2.40E þ 01 Occiptal bone –C1 interface
24 9.62E 2 02 7.11E 2 02 7.10E 2 02 7.08E 2 02 Posterior left temporal lobea 1.06E þ 01 7.88E þ 00 7.51E þ 00 7.51E þ 00 Left mandibular notch
25 Postero-inferior parietal lobe 2.736 1.556554 1.48E þ 00 1.49E þ 00 Left mandibular notch
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering

9.53E 2 02 9.50E 2 02 9.50E 2 02 9.50E 2 02

a
Modes with noticeable difference in peak ICP between undamped and damped vibrations.
b
Modes with noticeable difference in peak skull von Mises stress between undamped and damped vibrations.
7
 8 K.M. Tse et al.

Table 4. Ranges of fundamental frequencies in the literature involving various components.

Literature Methods Parts involved First natural frequency (Hz)

Von Bekesy (1948) Experimental study on human skull. Skull 1800
Franke (1956) Experimental study on a dry human Skull 800
skull with the use of vibrating piston.
Experimental study on a dry human Skull, brain 500
skull filled with gelatin.
Experimental study on living human – 300
subjects by means of electrodynamic
piston.
Hodgson et al. (1967) Experimental study on a cadaver head – 360
which was driven freely by a
vibrating piston clamped to the skull.
Brinn and Staffeld (1970) Numerical study using a simple damped – 28
spring– mass model.
Gurdjian et al. (1970) Experimental study on empty cadaveric Skull, brain 313 ^ 22
skull filled with silicon gels with the
use of mechanical impedance techniques.
Stalnaker and Fogle (1971) Experimental study on a fresh unembalmed Skull, brain 166
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013

cadaver head with the use of an

electromagnetic shaker.
Nickell and Marcal (1974) FE simulation using a 3D head model with Skull 86 (frontal); 68 (occipital);
three different boundary conditions (frontal 164 (base)
support, occipital support and base support).
Ward and Thompson FE simulation using a 3D brain model. Brain 23
(1975)
Shugar (1977) FE simulation using a 3D head model. – 43
Khalil et al. (1979) Experimental study on two cadaver heads Skull (w/o mandible) 1385 (male); 1641 (female)
(one male and one female) using an
impact hammer with load cells connected
to a Fourier analyser.
Grandjean (1980) Book review Head, neck 20 – 30
Chaffin and Andersson Book review Head, neck 20 – 30
(1991)
Ruan et al. (1991) FE simulation using a 2D brain model. Brain 49 – 72
Tzeng et al. (1992) Experimental study on seven human – 160
volunteers.
Hakansson et al. (1994) Experimental study of resonance frequency Skull 972 (828– 1164)
on patients’ skull in vivo.
Chu et al. (1994) FE simulation using a 2D head model. Skull (w/o mandible) 286
Skull (w/o mandible), brain 119
Willinger et al. (1995) FE simulation on both 2D and 3D head Skull, brain 150
models.
Charalambopoulos Analytical simulation on a 2D skull – Skull, brain, Neck 595
et al. (1997) brain – neck system.
Ritz (1999) Book review Head, neck 20 – 30
FM 3-04.301 (2000) U.S. Army Field Manual on noise and Head 25
vibration in army aviation.
O’Brien (2002) Handbook Head, neck 20 – 30
Meyer et al. (2004) FE simulation on 3D head – neck model Head, neck 3.01 (FE); 1.4 (Exp)
and experiments using pendulum
impactor on a seated volunteer.
Willinger et al. (2005) Experimental study on five human – 1.4
volunteers.
Rützel et al. (2006) Experimental study on six human Upper body, particularly
volunteers and numerical simulations spine (simulation)
using mathematical models.
5.9 (FE); 5.7– 6.4 (Exp)
Huang et al. (2009) FE simulation and experiments on Skull 1500 (FE); 1410 (Exp)
polystyrene skull model.
Li and Luo (2010) FE simulation on 2D head model. Skull, brain 137.53
El Baroudi et al. (2012) FE simulation using a simplified Skull, CSF, brain 26.66 – 39.01
layered spherical model.
Genta (2012) Book review Head, neck 20 – 30
 Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
In summary, our computed fundamental frequency of
35.57 Hz is reasonably close to the reported range of 20 –
30 Hz in book reviews (Grandjean 1980; Chaffin and
Andersson 1991; Genta 2012) and handbook (O’Brien
2002). Although our value is lower than the few hundred
hertz of the analytical skull – brain –neck system by
Charalambopoulos et al. (1997) and higher than the few
hertz as predicted by Meyer et al.’s (2004) FE study, it is
still considered to fall within a reasonable range since the
consensus on this dynamic characteristic remains
debatable.
4.2 Comparison of mode shapes
Most of the previous studies compared their resonant
frequencies with those found in the literature, while
modal comparison in terms of mode shapes was often
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013
ignored. A limited number of published works (Khalil
et al. 1979; Chu et al. 1994; Meyer et al. 2004) on the
vibration patterns of the human head can be found in
literature and some of them are unsuitable for comparing
mode shapes of the human head. Khalil et al.’s (1979)
simplified representation of mode shapes in terms of
stationary nodal lines was only indicated on the top and
lateral sides of the skull, due to extremely complex
geometry of the skull base and the facial region, while
Chu et al.’s (1994) modal analysis using a 2D FE skull –
brain lacked detailed vibration patterns. To the authors’
knowledge, the only work that had recorded the detailed
description of mode shapes of human head and neck was
the FE study by Meyer et al. (2004). In order to further
validate our newly developed 3D FE model of head –
neck, the simulated fundamental frequency is compared
with those in the literature, while the mode shapes
obtained from the simulations are also compared with
the mode shapes as predicted by Meyer et al.’s (2004)
FE head – neck model.
It is demonstrated in Figure 3 that the first three
mode shapes in our model are similar to that of Meyer
et al.’s (2004) FE model, which correspond to
extension– flexion mode, lateral flexion mode and axial
rotation mode of the head, respectively. It is then
followed by the fourth mode shape resembling the
resonance of the mandible, which was not included in
Meyer et al.’s (2004) FE model. Our fifth mode shape
matches well with the S-shaped anterior – posterior
retraction mode found in Meyer et al.’s (2004) fourth
mode. However, the fifth mode shape of lateral retraction
is not captured in the simulations of this model. Instead,
the eighth mode of this study is considerably similar to
the vertical translation mode (sixth mode) of the neck
in Meyer et al.’s (2004) model. The presence of
additional modes of the lateral flexion of the nasal lateral
cartilages and the ‘mastication’ mode of the mandible
indicates the importance of detailed modelling in
9
identifying all the resonant modes of the individual
components.
4.3 Effect of damping on resonant frequencies and
biomechanical responses
Most of the previous studies presented the natural
frequencies of human head using the conventional
frequency extraction method which ignores the effect of
damping. As previously mentioned, three damping factors
are included in this complex eigenvalue problem. Resonant
frequencies are expected to be lower as damping factor
increases. As illustrated in Figure 4(A), a significant
variation in the resonant frequencies is noted between both
the undamped and damped free vibration scenarios,
especially in the lower modes where the resonances of
several components coexist. As each individual part
resonates on its own in the moderate modes, this difference
between undamped and damped cases diminishes. How-
ever, as the mode number increases further, this difference
seems to be widened by an increase in damping factor
(above 0.2) (Figure 4(A)), probably due to the addition and
complex combination of shearing, torsional and bending
modes within the brain tissues in the higher modes.
As for the biomechanical parameters, such as ICP as
well as skull von Mises stresses, damping also appears to
have a significant effect on their magnitudes at particular
modes (Table 3). Figure 4(B) and (C) shows that the
introduction of damping in the complex eigenvalue
analysis has generally lowered both the maximum ICP
and maximum skull stresses tremendously, of up to
84.8% and 74.1%, respectively, in particular modes
(Table 3 and Figure 5). These modes with the maximum
deviation in peak ICP and skull stresses between the
undamped and damped models are identified and shown
in Figure 5. It can be seen in Figure 4(B) and (C) that
peak ICP differs the most in the first few modes when the
head – neck flexes or rotates the most as well as in the
subsequent modes (14th, 16th and 20th, 21st and 23rd
modes) when the mandible or jaw motion is the most
significant, thus causing the cranium to be displaced the
most with respect to the brain. As previously known by
Horgan and Gilchrist (2004), the skull – brain relative
movement gives rise to ICP gradients. The presence of
damping factor would damp out this relative movement
and subsequently lower the ICP. It is also observed that
the peak stress of the skull head deviates the most in the
modes in which the neck experiences the highest stresses.
The ‘over-stiff’ neck in our model due to the absence of
ligaments and muscle tissues may give rise to over-
estimated peak stresses in the undamped model.
However, these parameters are lowered in the damped
cases because of the coupling between the damping
matrix and the stiffness matrix. This indicates the
importance of identifying the appropriate damping factor
 10 K.M. Tse et al.
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013

Figure 4. Effect of damping on modal responses and biomechanical responses. (A) Graph showing the percentage difference between
undamped and damped resonant frequencies (%Df) with respect to the mode number. It shall be noted that Df is calculated as follows:
Df ¼ fundamped 2 fdamped. (B) Graph showing the undamped and damped peak ICP (P) with respect to the mode number. (C) Graph
showing the undamped and damped peak skull von Mises stress (s) with respect to the mode number.
 Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 11
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013

Figure 5. Multiple biomechanical responses’ contour plots of anterior left and right views of the head –neck model as well as sagittal
and axial cross-sectional views of the brain, showing their peak values at particular significant modes (A) Mode 1; (B) Mode 2; (C) Mode
3; (D) Mode 4; (E) Mode 5; (F) Mode 8; (G) Mode 14; (H) Mode 16; (I) Mode 20 and (J) Mode 23. Note: von Mises stress (s) for skull and
cartilages while ICP (P) for the brain.
 12 K.M. Tse et al.
in estimating biomechanical responses in dynamic
analyses. It shall also be noted that this damping effect
becomes saturated when damping factor is above 0.2,
indicating that further damping would not have affected
the biomechanical responses. Since damping factor of
above 0.2 is found to have amplifying effect in reducing
higher frequency modes and diminishing effect in
lowering peak biomechanical responses, it is, therefore,
speculated that there is an inverse proportionality
between the effects of damping in reducing modal
responses and biomechanical responses.
4.4 Limitations
The flexibility of the neck, which is highly dependent on
the elasticity of the intervertebral discs, neck ligaments
and muscles, may not have been accurately simulated in
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013
our study due to the absence of the intervertebral discs,
neck ligaments and muscles in our model. In fact, only
the cervical vertebrae are modelled as deformable bodies,
with master–slave constraint between each pair. Never-
theless, similar to any other computational study, this
study made this customary simplification and assumption
in FE modelling since its prioritised focus was to
investigate the effect of damping using complex
eigenvalue modal analysis in which the computed mode
shapes’ vectors are always not the absolute motion but
the arbitrarily relative one. Moreover, the model gives a
reasonable estimate of the resonant frequencies and mode
shapes, comparable with those in the literature. However,
it shall be highlighted that incorporation of a more
detailed neck model would be needed in the future study
for a more accurate and comprehensive analyses of neck
dynamics.
5. Conclusion
In this study, a realistic FE model of human head –neck
with detailed facial features has been developed and its
modal responses in terms of resonant frequencies and
mode shapes under vibration have been simulated. These
modal responses are found to be reasonably in agreement
with the literature. Additional and rarely reported modal
responses such as ‘mastication’ modes of the mandible and
flipping of nasal lateral cartilages are identified. Modal
validation in terms of modal shapes suggests a need for
detailed modelling to identify all the additional frequen-
cies of each individual part. Moreover, this study also
investigates the effect of damping on modal responses
using non-conventional complex eigenvalue analysis. It is
found that damping has a trade-off effect in reducing the
resonant frequencies in the higher frequency modes as
well as in lowering the peak biomechanical responses.
Although the study suggests an optimised estimate of
damping factor of 0.2 for both modal and dynamics
responses, there is still a need for further study in
determining an appropriate damping factor.
Conflict of interest: All authors were involved in the study and
preparation of the manuscript and the material within has not been
and will not be submitted for publication elsewhere. No financial
and personal relationship with other people or organizations that
could inappropriately influence and/or bias the work was identified.
References
Abaqus. 2010. Abaqus analysis user’s manual. 6.10 ed.
Providence (RI): Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.
Al-Bsharat AS. 2000. Computational analysis of brain injury.
Detroit: Wayne State University.
Brinn J, Staffeld SE. 1970. Evaluation of impact test
acceleration: a damage index for the head and torso. Paper
presented at: 14th Stapp car crash conference, New York
(NY), USA.
Chaffin DB, Andersson G. 1991. Occupational biomechanics.
2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Charalambopoulos A, Dassios G, Fotiadis DI, Massalas CV.
1997. Frequency spectrum of the human head– neck system.
Int J Eng Sci. 35(8):753– 768. doi:10.1016/s0020-7225(96)
00121-8.
Chu C-S, Lin M-S, Huang H-M, Lee M-C. 1994. Finite element
analysis of cerebral contusion. J Biomech. 27(2):187– 194.
doi:10.1016/0021-9290(94)90208-9.
Cook SD, Weinstein AM, Klawitter JJ. 1982. Parameters
affecting the stress distribution around LTI carbon and
aluminum oxide dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res.
16:875 – 885.
El Baroudi A, Razafimahery F, Rakotomanana-Ravelonarivo L.
2012a. Study of a spherical head model. Analytical and
numerical solutions in fluid– structure interaction approach.
Int J Eng Sci. 51:1 – 13. doi:10.1016/j.ijengsci.2011.11.007.
El Baroudi A, Razafimahery F, Rakotomanana-Ravelonarivo L.
2012b. Three-dimensional modal analysis of an idealized
human head including fluid– structure interaction effects.
Acta Mech. 223(9):1899 – 1915. doi:10.1007/s00707-012-
0681-5.
Franke KE. 1956. Response of the human skull to mechanical
vibrations. J Acoust Soc Am. 28:1277 –1284.
Genta G. 2012. Wheeled vehicles and rovers. In: Introduction to
the mechanics of space robots. Netherlands: Springer.
p. 235– 380.
Grandjean É. 1980. Fitting the task to the man: an ergonomic
approach. 3rd ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
Grellmann W, Berghaus A, Haberland EJ, Jamali Y, Holweg K,
Reincke K, Bierögel C. 2006. Determination of strength and
deformation behavior of human cartilage for the definition
of significant parameters. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 78A
(1):168 – 174. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.30625.
Guarino JC, Elger DF. 1992. Modal analysis of a fluid-filled
elastic shell containing an elastic sphere. J Sound Vib. 156
(3):461 – 479. doi:10.1016/0022-460x(92)90739-k.
Gurdjian ES, Hodgson VR, Thomas LM. 1970. Studies on
mechanical impedance of the human skull: preliminary
report. J Biomech. 3(3):239 – 247. doi:10.1016/0021-9290
(70)90025-4.
Hakansson B, Brandt A, Carlsson P, Tjellstrom A. 1994.
Resonance frequencies of the human skull in vivo. J Acoust
Soc Am. 95(3):1474– 1481.
Hodgson V, Gurdjian E, Thomas LM. 1967. The determination
of response characteristics of the head with emphasis on
 Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
mechanical impedance techniques. SAE Technical Paper
670911. Paper presented at: 11th Stapp car crash conference.
doi:10.4271/670911.
Horgan TJ, Gilchrist MD. 2004. Influence of FE model
variability in predicting brain motion and intracranial
pressure changes in head impact simulations. Int J
Crashworthiness. 9(4):401– 408.
Huang BW, Kung HK, Chang K-Y, Hsu PK, Tseng J-G. 2009.
Human cranium dynamic analysis. Life Sci J. 6(4):15 – 22.
Khalil TB, Hubbard RP. 1977. Parametric study of head response
by finite element modeling. J Biomech. 10(2):119 –132.
doi:10.1016/0021-9290(77)90075-6.
Khalil TB, Viano DC, Smith DL. 1979. Experimental analysis of
the vibrational characteristics of the human skull. J Sound
Vib. 63(3):351– 376. doi:10.1016/0022-460x(79)90679-5.
Li Z, Luo Y. 2010. Finite element study of correlation between
intracranial pressure and external vibration responses of
human head. Adv Theor Appl Mech. 3(3):139– 149.
Liu ZS, Luo XY, Lee HP, Lu C. 2007. Snoring source
identification and snoring noise prediction. J Biomech. 40
(4):861 – 870. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.03.022.
Downloaded by [Kwong Ming Tse] at 04:04 18 December 2013
Meyer F, Bourdet N, Willinger R, Legall F, Deck C. 2004. Finite
element modelling of the human head –neck: modal analysis
and validation in the frequency domain. Int J Crashworthi-
ness. 9(5):535 – 545. doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0309.
Nickell RE, Marcal PV. 1974. In-vacua modal dynamic response
of the human skull. J Eng Ind Trans Am Soc Mech Engrs
(ASME) Trans. 3:490 –494.
O’Brien TG. 2002. Testing the workplace environment. In:
Handbook of human factors testing and evaluation. 2nd ed.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. p. 568.
Ritz D. 1999. Human factors. In: Industrial safety and risk
management. 1st ed. Edmonton: The University of Alberta
Press. p. 192.
Ruan JS, Khalil T, King AI. 1991. Human head dynamic
response to side impact by finite element modeling. J
Biomech Eng. 113(3):276– 283.
Rützel S, Hinz B, Wölfel HP. 2006. Modal description – a better
way of characterizing human vibration behavior. J Sound
Vib. 298(3):810 –823. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2006.06.019.
Shugar TA. 1977. A finite element head injury model. Defense
Technical Information Center. U.S. Dept. Transportation
Report No. DOT-HS-289-3-550-IA. (NAVY).
Stalnaker RL, Fogle JL. 1971. Driving point impedance
characteristics of the head. J Biomech. 4(2):127– 139.
Takhounts EG, Ridella SA, Hasija V, Tannous RE, Campbell JQ,
Malone D, Danelson K, Stitzel J, Rowson S, Duma S. 2008.
View publication stats
13
Investigation of traumatic brain injuries using the next
generation of simulated injury monitor (SIMon) finite
element head model. In: Proceedings of the 52th Stapp car
crash conference. San Antonio, USA. SAE Paper No. 08S-09
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
Tzeng H-S, Tseng S-W, Lee M-C. 1992. Modal testing of the
human head. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on
Biomedical Engineering Society; ROC.
United States Army Field Manual (FM) 3-04.301. 2000.
Aeromedical Training for Flight Personnel. Washington, DC.
Von Bekesy G. 1948. Vibration of the head in a sound field and
its role in hearing by bone conduction. J Acoust Soc Am. 20
(6):749 – 760.
Ward CC, Thompson RB. 1975. The development of a detailed
finite element brain model. In: Proceedings of the 19th Stapp
car crash conference. New York (NY). SAE Paper No.
751163 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
Whitman TA, Wodicka GR, Morgan MT, Bourland JD. 1996.
Measurement and modeling of the vibrational response of the
ovine head as it relates to intracranial pressure. Engineering
in Medicine and Biology Society Bridging Disciplines for
Biomedicine. Proceedings of the 18th annual international
conference of the IEEE; 31 Oct – 3 Nov; Amsterdam.
Willinger R, Bourdet N, Fischer R, Le Gall F. 2005. Modal
analysis of the human neck in vivo as a criterion for crash
test dummy evaluation. J Sound Vib. 287(3):405– 431.
doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2004.11.008.
Willinger R, Kang HS, Diaw B. 1999. Three-dimensional human
head finite-element model validation against two exper-
imental impacts. Ann Biomed Eng. 27(3):403 – 410.
doi:10.1114/1.165.
Willinger R, Taleb L, Kopp CM. 1995. Modal and temporal
analysis of head mathematical models. J Neurotrauma. 12
(4):743 – 754. doi:10.1089/neu.1995.12.743.
Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Zhang J, Baisden JL. 2009. Physical
properties of the human head: mass, center of gravity and
moment of inertia. J Biomech. 42(9):1177– 1192. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.03.029
Zhang L, Yang KH, King AI. 2001. Comparison of brain
responses between frontal and lateral impacts by finite
element modeling. J Neurotrauma. 18(1):21 – 30. doi:10.
1089/089771501750055749.
Zienkiewicz O, Taylor R, Zhu J. 2005. The finite element
method: its basis and fundamentals. 6th ed. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.