Ekaterina Smotrova
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Ekaterina Smotrova has a total of 6 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Simin Li
2 shared publications- Vadim V. Silberschmidt
Loughborough University
2 shared publications - Donal S. McNally
Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
1 shared publication Lucy Morris
Sprout Osteopathy, South Fremantle, Australia
1 shared publication- Simin Li
Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
1 shared publication Vadim V. Silberschmidt
Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU, UK
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 30 January 2025
- Published by Elsevier in International Journal of Engineering Science
- Vol. 209
Optimising parameters of bone-adaptation model using experimental data
- 30 January 2025
- Published by Elsevier in International Journal of Engineering Science
- Vol. 209
Open AccessOptimising parameters of bone-adaptation model using experimental data
- Open Access
- 18 November 2023
- Published by Elsevier in Computers in Biology and Medicine
- Vol. 168, 107720
Trabecula-level mechanoadaptation: Numerical analysis of morphological changes
- 18 November 2023
- Published by Elsevier in Computers in Biology and Medicine
- Vol. 168, 107720
Open AccessTrabecula-level mechanoadaptation: Numerical analysis of morphological changes
- Open Access
- 21 July 2022
- Published by Elsevier in Biomaterials and Biosystems
- Vol. 7, 100058
Mechanoregulated trabecular bone adaptation: Progress report on in silico approaches
- 21 July 2022
- Published by Elsevier in Biomaterials and Biosystems
- Vol. 7, 100058
Open AccessMechanoregulated trabecular bone adaptation: Progress report on in silico approaches
- Open Access
- 11 May 2021
- Published by Springer Nature in European Spine Journal
- Vol. 30 (10) , 3043-3058
Comparison of standard automotive industry injury predictors and actual injury sustained during significant whiplash events
Purpose: We present a unique opportunity to compare standard neck injury criteria (used by the automotive industry to predict injury) with real-life injuries. The injuries sustained during, and the overall kinematics of, a television demonstration of whiplash mechanics were used to inform and validate a vertebral level model of neck mechanics to examine the relevance of current injury criteria used by the automotive industry. Methods: Frontal and rear impact pulses, obtained from videos of sled motion, were used to drive a MADYMO human model to generate detailed segmental level biomechanics. The maximum amplitude of the frontal and rear crash pulses was 166 ms−2 and 196 ms−2, respectively, both with a duration of 0.137 s. The MADYMO model was used to predict standard automotive neck injury criteria as well as detailed mechanics of each cervical segment. Results: Whilst the subject suffered significant upper neck injuries, these were not predicted by conventional upper neck injury criteria (Nij and Nkm). However, the model did predict anterior accelerations of C1 and C2 of 40 g, which is 5 times higher than the threshold of the acceleration for alar ligament injury. Similarly, excessive anterior shear displacement (15 mm) of the skull relative to C2 was predicted. Predictions of NIC, an injury criterion relevant to the lower neck, as well as maximum flexion angles for the lower cervical segments (C3–T1) exceeded injury thresholds. Conclusion: The criteria used by the automotive industry as standard surrogates for upper neck injury (Nij and Nkm) did not predict the significant cranio-cervical junction injury observed clinically.
- 11 May 2021
- Published by Springer Nature in European Spine Journal
- Vol. 30 (10) , 3043-3058
Open AccessComparison of standard automotive industry injury predictors and actual injury sustained during significant whiplash events
Purpose: We present a unique opportunity to compare standard neck injury criteria (used by the automotive industry to predict injury) with real-life injuries. The injuries sustained during, and the overall kinematics of, a television demonstration of whiplash mechanics were used to inform and validate a vertebral level model of neck mechanics to examine the relevance of current injury criteria used by the automotive industry. Methods: Frontal and rear impact pulses, obtained from videos of sled motion, were used to drive a MADYMO human model to generate detailed segmental level biomechanics. The maximum amplitude of the frontal and rear crash pulses was 166 ms−2 and 196 ms−2, respectively, both with a duration of 0.137 s. The MADYMO model was used to predict standard automotive neck injury criteria as well as detailed mechanics of each cervical segment. Results: Whilst the subject suffered significant upper neck injuries, these were not predicted by conventional upper neck injury criteria (Nij and Nkm). However, the model did predict anterior accelerations of C1 and C2 of 40 g, which is 5 times higher than the threshold of the acceleration for alar ligament injury. Similarly, excessive anterior shear displacement (15 mm) of the skull relative to C2 was predicted. Predictions of NIC, an injury criterion relevant to the lower neck, as well as maximum flexion angles for the lower cervical segments (C3–T1) exceeded injury thresholds. Conclusion: The criteria used by the automotive industry as standard surrogates for upper neck injury (Nij and Nkm) did not predict the significant cranio-cervical junction injury observed clinically.