Research Papers

Finite Element Modeling of Blast Lung Injury in Sheep

[+] Author and Article Information
Melissa M. Gibbons

L-3/Applied Technologies, Inc.,
Simulation, Engineering, and Testing,
10770 Wateridge Circle, Suite 200,
San Diego, CA 92121
e-mail: Melissa.Gibbons@L-3Com.com

Xinglai Dang

L-3/Applied Technologies, Inc.,
Simulation, Engineering, and Testing,
10770 Wateridge Circle, Suite 200,
San Diego, CA 92121
e-mail: Xinglai.Dang@L-3Com.com

Mark Adkins

L-3/Applied Technologies, Inc.,
Simulation, Engineering, and Testing,
10770 Wateridge Circle, Suite 200,
San Diego, CA 92121
e-mail: Mark.Adkins@L-3Com.com

Brian Powell

L-3/Applied Technologies, Inc.,
Simulation, Engineering, and Testing,
10770 Wateridge Circle, Suite 200,
San Diego, CA 92121
e-mail: Brian.Powell@L-3Com.com

Philemon Chan

L-3/Applied Technologies, Inc.,
Simulation, Engineering, and Testing,
10770 Wateridge Circle, Suite 200,
San Diego, CA 92121
e-mail: Philemon.Chan@L-3Com.com

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received June 5, 2014; final manuscript received November 14, 2014; published online February 5, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Joel D. Stitzel.

J Biomech Eng 137(4), 041002 (Apr 01, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: BIO-14-1251; doi: 10.1115/1.4029181 History: Received June 05, 2014; Revised November 14, 2014; Online February 05, 2015

A detailed 3D finite element model (FEM) of the sheep thorax was developed to predict heterogeneous and volumetric lung injury due to blast. A shared node mesh of the sheep thorax was constructed from a computed tomography (CT) scan of a sheep cadaver, and while most material properties were taken from literature, an elastic–plastic material model was used for the ribs based on three-point bending experiments performed on sheep rib specimens. Anesthetized sheep were blasted in an enclosure, and blast overpressure data were collected using the blast test device (BTD), while surface lung injury was quantified during necropsy. Matching blasts were simulated using the sheep thorax FEM. Surface lung injury in the FEM was matched to pathology reports by setting a threshold value of the scalar output termed the strain product (maximum value of the dot product of strain and strain-rate vectors over all simulation time) in the surface elements. Volumetric lung injury was quantified by applying the threshold value to all elements in the model lungs, and a correlation was found between predicted volumetric injury and measured postblast lung weights. All predictions are made for the left and right lungs separately. This work represents a significant step toward the prediction of localized and heterogeneous blast lung injury, as well as volumetric injury, which was not recorded during field testing for sheep.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Champion, H. R., Bellamy, R. F., Roberts, C. P., and Leppaniemi, A., 2003, “A Profile of Combat Injury,” J. Trauma, 54(5 Suppl), pp. S13–S19. [PubMed]
Smith, J. E., 2011, “The Epidemiology of Blast Lung Injury During Recent Military Conflicts: A Retrospective Database Review of Cases Presenting to Deployed Military Hospitals, 2003–2009,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 366(1562), pp. 291–294. [CrossRef]
Ritenour, A. E., Blackbourne, L. H., Kelly, J. F., Mclaughlin, D. F., Pearse, L. A., Holcomb, J. B., and Wade, C. E., 2010, “Incidence of Primary Blast Injury in U.S. Military Overseas Contingency Operations: A Retrospective Study,” Ann. Surg., 251(6), pp. 1140–1144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Champion, H. R., Holcomb, J. B., and Young, L. A., 2009, “Injuries From Explosions: Physics, Biophysics, Pathology, and Required Research Focus,” J. Trauma, 66(5), pp. 1468–1477 [Discussion, p. 1477]. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dewey, J. M., 2010, “The Shape of the Blast Wave: Studies of the Friedlander Equation,” Proceeding of the 21st International Symposium on Military Aspects of Blast and Shock (MABS), Israel, pp. 1–9.
Cooper, G. J., Maynard, R. L., Cross, N. L., and Hill, J. F., 1983, “Casualties From Terrorist Bombings,” J. Trauma, 23(11), pp. 955–967. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
DePalma, R. G., Burris, D. G., Champion, H. R., and Hodqson, M. J., 2005, “Blast Injuries,” N. Engl. J. Med., 352(13), pp. 1335–1342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MacFadden, L. N., Chan, P. C., Ho, K. H., and Stuhmiller, J. H., 2012, “A Model for Predicting Primary Blast Lung Injury,” J. Trauma Acute Care Surg., 73(5), pp. 1121–1129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yelverton, J. T., Hicks, W., and Doyal, R., 1993, “Blast Overpressure Studies With Animals and Man: Biological Response to Complex Blast Waves,” EG&G, Albuquerque, DTIC Accession Final Report No. ADA275038.
Carneal, C., et al. ., 2012, “Thoraco-Abdominal Organ Injury Response Trends Due to Complex Blast Loading,” Presented at the Personal Armor System Symposium, Nuremberg, Germany, pp. 1–8.
Yelverton, J. T., 1996, “Pathology Scoring System for Blast Injuries,” J. Trauma, 40(3), pp. S111–S115. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zienkiewicz, O. K., and Taylor, R. L., 2000, The Finite Element Method/ Solid Mechanics, Butterworth-Hienemann, Oxford, UK.
Viano, D. C., and Lau, I. V., 1988, “A Viscous Tolerance Criterion for Soft Tissue Injury Assessment,” J. Biomech., 21(5), pp. 387–399. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gayzik, F. S., Hoth, J. J., Daly, M., Meredith, J. W., and Stitzel, J. D., 2007, “A Finite Element-Based Injury Metric for Pulmonary Contusion: Investigation of Candidate Metrics Through Correlation With Computed Tomography,” Stapp Car Crash J., 51, pp. 189–209. [PubMed]
Gayzik, F. S., Hoth, J. J., and Stitzel, J. D., 2011, “Finite Element-Based Injury Metrics for Pulmonary Contusion via Concurrent Model Optimization,” Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol., 10(4), pp. 505–520. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yu, J., Vasel, E., and Stuhmiller, J., 1990, “Modeling of the Non-Auditory Response to Blast Overpressure,” JAYCOR, San Diego, DTIC Accession Final Annual Report No. ADA223665.
Shen, W., Niu, Y., Mattrey, R. F., Fournier, A., Corbeil, J., Kono, Y., and Stuhmiller, J. H., 2008, “Development and Validation of Subject-Specific Finite Element Models for Blunt Trauma Study,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 130(2), pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
LS-DYNA, 2007, LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA.
Kimpara, H., Iwamoto, M., Miki, K., Lee, J. B., Yang, K. H., and King, A. I., 2006, “Effect of Assumed Stiffness and Mass Density on the Impact Response of the Human Chest Using a Three-Dimensional FE Model of the Human Body,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 128(5), pp. 772–776. [CrossRef]
Yamada, H., 1970, Strength of Biological Materials, F. G.Evans, ed., The Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore, MD.
Granik, G., and Stein, I., 1973, “Human Ribs: Static Testing as a Promising Medical Application,” J. Biomech., 6(3), pp. 237–240. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Elsayed, N. M., 1997, “Toxicology of Blast Overpressure,” Toxicology, 121(1), pp. 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mayorga, M. A., 1997, “The Pathology of Primary Blast Overpressure Injury,” Toxicology, 121(1), pp. 17–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ng, L. J., Sih, B. L., and Stuhmiller, J. H., 2011, “An Integrated Exercise Response and Muscle Fatigue Model for Performance Decrement Estimates of Workloads in Oxygen-Limiting Environments,” Eur. J. Appl. Physiol., 112(4), pp. 1229–1249. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shelley, D., Sih, B., and Ng, L., 2014, “An Integrated Physiology Model to Study Regional Lung Damage Effects and Physiologic Response,” Theor. Biol. Med. Model., 11(32). [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Three-point bending experiment setup. (b) Diagram of experiment, where x = 3.5 cm and ΔL = 7 cm. The diameter of the upper impactor is 12.7 mm, and the diameters of the lower supports are 6.2 mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Three-point bending of the seventh rib simulated in LS-DYNA. (b) Experimental force–displacement response for the seventh rib (solid line) at a displacement rate of 1 mm/s, compared to the FEM simulation results (dashed line) using the calibrated material parameters of the elastic–plastic constitutive model.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Sheep thorax FEM (left). Shell elements used to model ribcage (upper right). The solid meshes of the upper thoracic organs are highlighted (lower right).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sample pressure histories measured by a BTD during a complex wave blast. BTD Sensor #1 is facing the blast and Sensor #3 is facing the corner of the enclosure.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

BTD placement in the corner of the enclosure (a) and sensor configuration viewed from the top (b). The vertical placement of the BTD in the corner replicates the positioning of the sheep, which were hung vertically in a sling.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Four pressure traces measured by the BTD are applied to the sheep FEM skin surface. Sheep were blasted right-side-on, so pressure data from Sensor #1 is applied to the anatomical right side of the sheep FEM.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the normalized work from INJURY 8.3 with the normalized internal energy from the FEM for each of the complex wave blast cases that were simulated. The linear fit is y = 0.6727x + 0.03321 with R2= 0.9239.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of pathology photographs of sheep lungs (top), and maximum values of the strain product in the sheep FEM lung surface elements for the same blast (bottom). The blast level increases from left to right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Fractional lung weight of the left (left) and right (right) lungs, normalized by the average of control animals, plotted against predicted lung volumetric injury. Fractional lung weight is lung weight divided by total body weight. The dashed line is the quadratic fit to the binned data; for the left lung y = 0.00035x2+ 0.00059x + 0.99638 with R2= 0.9871, for the right lung y = 0.00019x2+ 0.00239x + 0.99524 with R2= 0.9921.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Threshold value of the strain product required to match experimentally observed lung injury results plotted against normalized FEM internal energy. Solid diamonds show results binned together by normalized work along with standard deviation bars. The dashed line is the linear fit to the binned data, with y = −1228x + 371, and R2= 0.9902.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of total observed lung injury and total predicted lung injury, when the varying strain product threshold is used to calculate predicted area. The dashed line is the linear fit to the binned data, y = 1.016x − 1.186 with R2= 0.9928.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Predicted versus observed area injured for the left and right lungs separately. The dashed line is the linear fit to the binned data; for the left lung y = 1.063x − 7.257 with R2= 0.9958, for the right lung y = 1.037x + 3.076 with R2= 0.9973.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In