0
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering | Volume 129 | Issue 3 | TECHNICAL PAPERS
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Bone/Orthopedic

A CT-Based High-Order Finite Element Analysis of the Human Proximal Femur Compared to In-vitro Experiments

[+] Author and Article Information
Zohar Yosibash1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israelzohary@bgu.ac.il

Royi Padan

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel

Leo Joskowicz

School of Engineering and Computer Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel

Charles Milgrom

Department of Orthopaedics, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem 91120, Israel

1

Corresponding author.

J Biomech Eng 129(3), 297-309 (Nov 14, 2006) (13 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2720906 History: Received March 07, 2006; Revised November 14, 2006
Article
References
Figures
Tables
Citing Articles

The prediction of patient-specific proximal femur mechanical response to various load conditions is of major clinical importance in orthopaedics. This paper presents a novel, empirically validated high-order finite element method (FEM) for simulating the bone response to loads. A model of the bone geometry was constructed from a quantitative computerized tomography (QCT) scan using smooth surfaces for both the cortical and trabecular regions. Inhomogeneous isotropic elastic properties were assigned to the finite element model using distinct continuous spatial fields for each region. The Young’s modulus was represented as a continuous function computed by a least mean squares method. p-FEMs were used to bound the simulation numerical error and to quantify the modeling assumptions. We validated the FE results with in-vitro experiments on a fresh-frozen femur loaded by a quasi-static force of up to 1500N at four different angles. We measured the vertical displacement and strains at various locations and investigated the sensitivity of the simulation. Good agreement was found for the displacements, and a fair agreement found in the measured strain in some of the locations. The presented study is a first step toward a reliable p-FEM simulation of human femurs based on QCT data for clinical computer aided decision making.
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

1
Viceconti, M., Bellingeri, L., Cristofolini, L., and Toni, A., 1998, “A Comparative Study on Different Methods of Automatic Mesh Generation of Human Femurs,” Med. Eng. Phys.  [CrossRef], 20 , pp. 1–10.
2
Taddei, F., Cristofolini, L., Martelli, S., Gill, H. S., and Viceconti, M., 2006, “Subject-Specific Finite Element Models of Long Bones: An In vitro Evolution of the Overall Accuracy,” J. Biomech., 39 (18), pp. 2457–2467.
3
Keaveny, T. M., Guo, E., Wachtel, E. F., McMahon, T. A., and Hayes, W. C., 1994, “Trabecular Bone Exhibits Fully Linear Elastic Behavior and Yields at Low Strains,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 27 , pp. 1127–1136.
4
Cowin, S. C., and Ashby, M. F., 2001, "Bone Mechanics Handbook", CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
5
Lotz, J. C., Gerhart, T. N., and Hayes, W. C., 1991, “Mechanical Properties of Metaphyseal Bone in the Proximal Femur,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 24 , pp. 317–329.
6
Lotz, J. C., Gerhart, T. N., and Hayes, W. C., 1990, “Mechanical Properties of Trabecular Bone from the Proximal Femur: A Quantitative CT Study,” J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr.  [CrossRef], 14 (1), pp. 107–114.
7
Wirtz, D. C., Schiffers, N., Pandorf, T., Radermacher, K., Weichert, D., and Forst, R., 2000, “Critical Evaluation of Known Bone Material Properties to Realize Anisotropic FE-Simulation of the Proximal Femur,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 33 , pp. 1325–1330.
8
Morgan, E. F., Bayraktar, H. H., and Keaveny, T. M., 2003, “Trabecular Bone Modulus-Density Relationships Depend on Anatomic Site,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 36 , pp. 897–904.
9
Keller, T. S., 1994, “Predicting the Compressive Mechanical Behavior of Bone,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 27 , pp. 1159–1168.
10
Rho, J. Y., Hobatho, M. C., and Ashman, R. B., 1995, “Relations of Mechanical Properties to Density and CT Numbers in Human Bone,” Med. Eng. Phys.  [CrossRef], 17 , pp. 347–355.
11
Szabó, B. A., and Babuška, I., 1991, "Finite Element Analysis", Wiley, New York.
12
Mueller-Karger, C. M., Rank, E., and Cerrolaza, M., 2004, “p-Version of the Finite Element Method for Highly Heterogeneous Simulation of Human Bone,” Finite Elem. Anal. Design  [CrossRef], 40 , pp. 757–770.
13
Keyak, J. H., Rossi, S. A., Jones, K. A., and Skinner, H. B., 1998, “Prediction of Femoral Fracture Load Using Automated Finite Element Modeling,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 31 , pp. 125–133.
14
Cody, D. D., Gross, G. J., Hou, F. J., Spencer, H. J., Goldstein, S. A., and Fyhrie, D. P., 1999, “Femoral Strength is Better Predicted by Finite Element Models than QCT and DXA,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 32 , pp. 1013–1020.
15
Lotz, J. C., Cheal, E. J., and Hayes, W. C., 1991, “Fracture Prediction for the Proximal Femur Using Finite Element Models: Part 1—Linear Analysis,” J. Biomech. Eng., 113 , pp. 353–360.
16
Mertz, B., Niederer, P., Muller, R., and Ruegsegger, P., 1996, “Automated Finite Element Analysis of Excised Human Femura Based on Precision-QCT,” J. Biomech. Eng., 118 , pp. 387–390.
17
Wirtz, D. C., Pandorf, T., Portheine, F., Radermacher, K., Schiffers, N., Prescher, A., Weichert, D., and Firtz, U. N., 2003, “Concept and Development of an Orthotropic FE Model of the Proximal Femur, J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 36 , pp. 289–293.
18
Couteau, B., Payan, Y., and Lavallee, S., 2000, “The Mesh-Matching Algorithm: An Automatic 3d Mesh Generator for Finite Element Structures,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 33 , pp. 1005–1009.
19
Keyak, J. H., Meagher, J. M., Skinner, H. B., and Mote, C. D., 1990, “Automated Three-Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Bone: A New Method,” J. Biomed. Eng.  [CrossRef], 12 , pp. 389–397.
20
Cody, D. D., McCubbrey, D. A., Divine, G. W., Gross, G. J., and Goldstein, S. A., 1996, “Predictive Value of Proximal Femural Bone Densiometry in Determining Local Orthogonal Material Properties,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 29 , pp. 753–761.
21
Fox, J. C., Gupta, A., Blumenkrantz, G., Bayraktar, H. H., and Keaveny, T. M., 2004, “Role of Elastic Anisotropy and Failure Criterion in Femoral Fracture Strength Predictions,” "Trans. Orthopaedic Res. Soc. Conference Proceedings", p. 520.
22
Marom, A. S., and Linden, M. J., 1990, “Computer Aided Stress Analysis of Long Bones Utilizing Computed Tomography,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 23 , pp. 399–404.
23
Viceconti, M., Davinelli, M., Taddei, F., and Cappello, A., 2004, “Automatic Generation of Accurate Subject-Specific Bone Finite Element Models to be Used in Clinical Studies,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 37 , pp. 1597–1605.
24
Taddei, F., Pancanti, A., and Viceconti, M., 2004, “An Improved Method for the Automatic Mapping of Computed Tomography Numbers Onto Finite Element Models,” Med. Eng. Phys.  [CrossRef], 26 , pp. 61–69.
25
Zannoni, C., Mantovani, R., and Viceconti, M., 1998, “Material Properties Assignment to Finite Element Models of Bone Structure: A New Method,” Med. Eng. Phys.  [CrossRef], 20 , pp. 735–740.
26
Esses, S. I., Lotz, J. C., and Hayes, W. C., 1989, “Biomechanical Properties of the Proximal Femur Determined In Vitro by Single-Energy Quantitative Computed Tomography,” J. Bone Miner. Res., 4 , pp. 715–722.
27
Cody, D. D., Hou, F. J., Divine, G. W., and Fyhrie, D. P., 2000, “Short Term In Vivo Study of Proximal Femoral Finite Element Modeling,” Ann. Biomed. Eng.  [CrossRef], 28 , pp. 408–414.
28
Yang, G., Kabel, J., VanRiertbergen, B., Odgaard, A., Huiskes, R., and Cowin, S. C., 1999, “The Anisotropic Hooke’s Law for Cancellous Bone and Wood,” J. Elast.  [CrossRef], 53 , pp. 125–146.
29
Keyak, J. H., and Skinner, H. B., 1992, “Three-Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Bone: Effect of Element Size,” J. Biomed. Eng.  [CrossRef], 14 , pp. 483–489.
30
Keyak, J. H., Fourkas, M. G., Meagher, J. M., and Skinner, H. B., 1993, “Validation of Automated Method of Three-Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Bone,” J. Biomed. Eng.  [CrossRef], 15 , pp. 505–509.
31
Yeni, Y. N., and Fyhire, D. P., 2001, “Finite Element Calculated Uniaxial Apparent Stiffness is a Consistent Predictor of Uniaxial Apparent Strength in Human Vertebral Cancellous Bone Tested with Different Boundary Conditions,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 34 (12), pp. 1649–1654.
32
Templeton, A., and Liebschner, M., 2004, “A Hierarchical Approach to Finite Element Modeling of the Human Spine,” Crit. Rev. Eukaryot Gene Expr, 14 (4), pp. 317–328.
33
Hernandez, C. J., Gupta, A., and Keaveny, T. M., 2006, “A Biomechanical Analysis of the Effects of Resorption Cavities on Cancellous Bone Strength,” J. Bone Miner. Res.  [CrossRef], 21 (8), pp. 1248–1255.
34
Kenney, J. F., and Keeping, E. S., 1962, "Mathematics of Statistics", Van Nostrand, New York.
35
Ayyub, B. M., and McCuen, R. H., 1996, "Numerical Methods for Engineers", Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
36
Padan, R., 2006, “Towards a Reliable Mechanical Simulation of the Proximal Femur,” M.Sc. thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
37
Rice, J. C., Cowin, S. C., and Bowman, J. A., 1988, “On the Dependence of the Elasticity and Strength of Cancellous Bone on Apparent Density,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 21 , pp. 155–168.
38
Carter, D. R., and Hayes, W. C., 1977, “The Compressive Behavior of Bone as a Two-Phase Porous Structure,” J. Bone Jt. Surg., Am. Vol., 59 , pp. 954–962.
39
Ciarelli, M. J., Goldstein, S. A., Kuhn, J. L., Cody, D. D., and Brown, M. B., 1991, “Evaluation of Orthogonal Mechanical Properties and Density of Human Trabecular Bone From the Major Metaphyseal Regions With Materials Testing and Computed Tomography,” J. Orthop. Res.  [CrossRef], 9 , pp. 674–682.
40
Jensen, J. S., 1978, “A Photoelastic Study of a Model of the Proximal Femur. A Biomechanical Study of Unstable Trochanteric Fractures I,” Acta Orthop. Scand., 49 (1), pp. 54–59.
41
Fedida, R., Yosibash, Z., Milgrom, C., and Joscowicz, L., 2005, “Femur Mechanical Simulation Using High-Order FE Analysis With Continuous Mechanical Properties,” "Proceedings of ICCB05 - II International conference on computational bioengineering", Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1 , H.Rodrigueset al. , eds., IST Press, pp. 85–96.
42
Keyak, J. H., and Rossi, S. A., 2000, “Prediction of Femoral Fracture Load Using Finite Element Models: An Examination of Stress- and Strain-Based Failure Theories,” J. Biomech.  [CrossRef], 33 , pp. 209–214.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
+Four regions of the fresh-frozen bone model. The trabecular region was divided into three subregions, low trabecular, trochanter, and head, each with a different spatial field for the Young’s modulus. In the right we show the location at which the head was trimmed to mimic the applied load in the experiment.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Four regions of the fresh-frozen bone model. The trabecular region was divided into three subregions, low trabecular, trochanter, and head, each with a different spatial field for the Young’s modulus. In the right we show the location at which the head was trimmed to mimic the applied load in the experiment.
Figure 1

Four regions of the fresh-frozen bone model. The trabecular region was divided into three subregions, low trabecular, trochanter, and head, each with a different spatial field for the Young’s modulus. In the right we show the location at which the head was trimmed to mimic the applied load in the experiment.

Grahic Jump Location
+The steps for generating the p-FE model: (a) outer surface border points; (b) approximated smooth surface; (c) solid body having a cortical/trabecular separating surface; and (d) meshed model with two different mesh regions
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
The steps for generating the p-FE model: (a) outer surface border points; (b) approximated smooth surface; (c) solid body having a cortical/trabecular separating surface; and (d) meshed model with two different mesh regions
Figure 2

The steps for generating the p-FE model: (a) outer surface border points; (b) approximated smooth surface; (c) solid body having a cortical/trabecular separating surface; and (d) meshed model with two different mesh regions

Grahic Jump Location
+Apparent density on one of the “worse approximated” slices of the investigated bone: (a)ρapp computed from HU; (b)ρapp distribution after moving average; (c)ρappLMS represented by the LMS function
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Apparent density on one of the “worse approximated” slices of the investigated bone: (a)ρapp computed from HU; (b)ρapp distribution after moving average; (c)ρappLMS represented by the LMS function
Figure 3

Apparent density on one of the “worse approximated” slices of the investigated bone: (a)ρapp computed from HU; (b)ρapp distribution after moving average; (c)ρappLMS represented by the LMS function

Grahic Jump Location
+Relations between Young’s modulus and apparent density as reported in past publications for the trabecular (top) and cortical (bottom) bone
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Relations between Young’s modulus and apparent density as reported in past publications for the trabecular (top) and cortical (bottom) bone
Figure 4

Relations between Young’s modulus and apparent density as reported in past publications for the trabecular (top) and cortical (bottom) bone

Grahic Jump Location
+Femur under load and representing FE model. Load is applied at an angle of 20deg to the shaft axis.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Femur under load and representing FE model. Load is applied at an angle of 20deg to the shaft axis.
Figure 5

Femur under load and representing FE model. Load is applied at an angle of 20deg to the shaft axis.

Grahic Jump Location
+Bone mounting jig (dimensions in mm): (1) slider - controls the bone’s inclination angle; (2) steel cylinder (3) 4× M6 bolts (4) base and rail (5) stopper. Load and displacements measurements (embalmed bone): Load cell, ball, and socket joint for load transmission and the LVDT.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Bone mounting jig (dimensions in mm): (1) slider - controls the bone’s inclination angle; (2) steel cylinder (3) 4× M6 bolts (4) base and rail (5) stopper. Load and displacements measurements (embalmed bone): Load cell, ball, and socket joint for load transmission and the LVDT.
Figure 6

Bone mounting jig (dimensions in mm): (1) slider - controls the bone’s inclination angle; (2) steel cylinder (3) 4× M6 bolts (4) base and rail (5) stopper. Load and displacements measurements (embalmed bone): Load cell, ball, and socket joint for load transmission and the LVDT.

Grahic Jump Location
+Strain gauges locations: (A) neck superior, (B) neck inferior, (C) shaft medial, and (D) shaft lateral
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Strain gauges locations: (A) neck superior, (B) neck inferior, (C) shaft medial, and (D) shaft lateral
Figure 7

Strain gauges locations: (A) neck superior, (B) neck inferior, (C) shaft medial, and (D) shaft lateral

Grahic Jump Location
+Experiments on fresh–frozen bone at different inclination angles (from left to right): 0deg, 7deg, 15deg, 20deg
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Experiments on fresh–frozen bone at different inclination angles (from left to right): 0deg, 7deg, 15deg, 20deg
Figure 8

Experiments on fresh–frozen bone at different inclination angles (from left to right): 0deg, 7deg, 15deg, 20deg

Grahic Jump Location
+Fresh-frozen bone at 7deg inclination under 1500N load: (top) Different strain gauges versus load; (bottom) strain (neck superior) versus load at neck inferior
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Fresh-frozen bone at 7deg inclination under 1500N load: (top) Different strain gauges versus load; (bottom) strain (neck superior) versus load at neck inferior
Figure 9

Fresh-frozen bone at 7deg inclination under 1500N load: (top) Different strain gauges versus load; (bottom) strain (neck superior) versus load at neck inferior

Grahic Jump Location
+Fresh-frozen load vis. time response for 1500N load at 15deg inclination. Linear response is noticed after 200N preload.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Fresh-frozen load vis. time response for 1500N load at 15deg inclination. Linear response is noticed after 200N preload.
Figure 10

Fresh-frozen load vis. time response for 1500N load at 15deg inclination. Linear response is noticed after 200N preload.

Grahic Jump Location
+Fresh-frozen femur shows insensitive behavior to different strain rates (at 7deg inclination): head’s displacement vis. load (top) and neck superior strain vis. load (bottom)
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Fresh-frozen femur shows insensitive behavior to different strain rates (at 7deg inclination): head’s displacement vis. load (top) and neck superior strain vis. load (bottom)
Figure 11

Fresh-frozen femur shows insensitive behavior to different strain rates (at 7deg inclination): head’s displacement vis. load (top) and neck superior strain vis. load (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
+Inclination angle influence on strains at neck superior (top) and inferior (bottom)
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Inclination angle influence on strains at neck superior (top) and inferior (bottom)
Figure 12

Inclination angle influence on strains at neck superior (top) and inferior (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
+Resultant force (Fz) versus degree of freedom (DOF) under head displacement of 1mm(0deg tilt): (top) influence of different FE meshes and (bottom) moving average box sizes
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Resultant force (Fz) versus degree of freedom (DOF) under head displacement of 1mm(0deg tilt): (top) influence of different FE meshes and (bottom) moving average box sizes
Figure 13

Resultant force (Fz) versus degree of freedom (DOF) under head displacement of 1mm(0deg tilt): (top) influence of different FE meshes and (bottom) moving average box sizes

Grahic Jump Location
+Resultant force [N] due to head displacement of 1mm for 0deg inclination angle: convergence of FEA resultant force according to several E(ρapp) relations
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Resultant force [N] due to head displacement of 1mm for 0deg inclination angle: convergence of FEA resultant force according to several E(ρapp) relations
Figure 14

Resultant force [N] due to head displacement of 1mm for 0deg inclination angle: convergence of FEA resultant force according to several E(ρapp) relations

Grahic Jump Location
+von Mises stress (MPa) for a 1500N load in the bone at 0deg inclination angle
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
von Mises stress (MPa) for a 1500N load in the bone at 0deg inclination angle
Figure 15

von Mises stress (MPa) for a 1500N load in the bone at 0deg inclination angle

Grahic Jump Location
+FEA results using Cody relations compared to experimental observations: Femur head displacement at 1500N compression at several inclination angles (error bars indicate min. and max. measured values)
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
FEA results using Cody relations compared to experimental observations: Femur head displacement at 1500N compression at several inclination angles (error bars indicate min. and max. measured values)
Figure 16

FEA results using Cody relations compared to experimental observations: Femur head displacement at 1500N compression at several inclination angles (error bars indicate min. and max. measured values)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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
Data Tabulations
Structural Shear Joints> Chapter 12
Analytical Solutions of Hollow-Axle and Hole Interference Fit
International Conference on Mechanical and Electrical Technology, 3rd, (ICMET-China 2011), Volumes 1–3
Flexible Connections
Pipe Stress Engineering> Chapter 7
Numerical Simulation of Spatial Synergic Interaction in the Double-Row Anti-Sliding Piles
Geological Engineering: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference (ICGE 2007)
Clamping, Interference, Microslip, and Self-Piercing Rivets
Structural Shear Joints> Chapter 3
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