Research Papers

A Cervico-Thoraco-Lumbar Multibody Dynamic Model for the Estimation of Joint Loads and Muscle Forces

[+] Author and Article Information
Tsolmonbaatar Khurelbaatar

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Kyung Hee University,
Yongin 446-701, Korea
e-mail: tsoomoo_003@yahoo.com

Kyungsoo Kim

Department of Applied Mathematics,
Kyung Hee University,
Yongin 446-701, Korea
e-mail: kyungsoo@khu.ac.kr

Yoon Hyuk Kim

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Kyung Hee University,
Yongin 446-701, Korea
e-mail: yoonhkim@khu.ac.kr

1Tsolmonbaatar Khurelbaatar and Kyungsoo Kim equally contributed to this work as first authors.

2Corresponding author.

Manuscript received December 25, 2014; final manuscript received July 31, 2015; published online September 10, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Joel D. Stitzel.

J Biomech Eng 137(11), 111001 (Sep 10, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: BIO-14-1648; doi: 10.1115/1.4031351 History: Received December 25, 2014; Revised July 31, 2015

Computational musculoskeletal models have been developed to predict mechanical joint loads on the human spine, such as the forces and moments applied to vertebral and facet joints and the forces that act on ligaments and muscles because of difficulties in the direct measurement of joint loads. However, many whole-spine models lack certain elements. For example, the detailed facet joints in the cervical region or the whole spine region may not be implemented. In this study, a detailed cervico-thoraco-lumbar multibody musculoskeletal model with all major ligaments, separated structures of facet contact and intervertebral disk joints, and the rib cage was developed. The model was validated by comparing the intersegmental rotations, ligament tensile forces, facet joint contact forces, compressive and shear forces on disks, and muscle forces were to those reported in previous experimental and computational studies both by region (cervical, thoracic, or lumbar regions) and for the whole model. The comparisons demonstrated that our whole spine model is consistent with in vitro and in vivo experimental studies and with computational studies. The model developed in this study can be used in further studies to better understand spine structures and injury mechanisms of spinal disorders.

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



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A detailed musculoskeletal model of the spine: (a) overall view of the musculoskeletal model; (b) multifidus and spinalis; (c) ES (longissimus and iliocostalis); (d) RA, IO, and EO; (e) quadrates lumborum and psoas major (here, the psoas major crosses the hip joint to the lesser trochanter); (f) interspinales, intertransversarii, and rotatores; (g) sternocleidomastoid, scalenus, longus colli, and longus capitis; (h) trapezius, levator scapulae, iliocostalis cervicis, longissimus capitis, and longissimus cervicis muscles; and (i) semispinalis capitis, semispinalis cervicis, splenius capitis, and splenius cervicis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Intervertebral disk with 6DOF and rotational and translational resistance provided by the bushing force element. (b) Facet contact represented as plane and sphere contact models. (c) The rib cage consisting of 12 pairs of ribs and the sternum connected to one another via costovertebral joints and sternocostal cartilage. (d) Ligaments: (1) ALL, (2) PLL, (3) FL, (4) ISL, (5) SSL, (6) CL, and (7) ITL.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparisons of cervical spinal parameters: (a) intersegmental rotations under 1 Nm compared to Refs. [2527], (b) facet forces of C2–C3 to C6–C7 compared to Ref. [35] under a 50 N follower load and 1 Nm extension moment, and (c) facet forces of C5–C6 compared to Ref. [36] under a 75 N follower load and 1.5 Nm extension, lateral bending and axial rotation moment, where the average value of the left and right facet forces was presented in the extension and the values of the ipsilateral side were shown in the lateral bending and axial rotation. The error bars indicate the minimum and maximum values.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Overall range of motion of the thoracic spine (T1–T12) under a 2 Nm moment for flexion, extension, and lateral bending and under a 50 N follower load and 5 Nm moment for axial rotation compared to Refs. [21,28,29] without the rib cage and to Refs. [21,28] with the rib cage. The error bars indicate the minimum and maximum values.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparisons of lumbar spinal parameters: (a) intersegmental rotation compared to Refs. [30] and [31] under a 4 Nm moment for flexion, extension and lateral bending and under a 10 Nm moment for axial rotation; (b) facet contact forces of L3–L4 compared to Refs. [37] and [38] under a 10 Nm moment for extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation; (c) normalized compressive forces at L1–L2 compared to Refs. [5] and [11]; (d) normalized compressive forces at L2–L3 compared to Refs. [11] and [32]; and (e) normalized compressive forces at L4–L5 compared to Refs. [6] and [11]. The error bars indicate the minimum and maximum values.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Joint compressive and shear forces during neutral standing compared to the compressive forces in Refs. [57,39] and the shear forces in Ref. [39]




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