0
Technical Brief

A Validated Open-Source Multisolver Fourth-Generation Composite Femur Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Alisdair R. MacLeod

Centre for Biomechanics,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK
e-mail: a.macleod@bath.ac.uk

Hannah Rose

Centre for Biomechanics,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK
e-mail: hannahjrose@blueyonder.co.uk

Harinderjit S. Gill

Centre for Biomechanics,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK
e-mail: r.gill@bath.ac.uk

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received December 27, 2015; final manuscript received September 2, 2016; published online November 3, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Joel D. Stitzel.

J Biomech Eng 138(12), 124501 (Nov 03, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: BIO-15-1668; doi: 10.1115/1.4034653 History: Received December 27, 2015; Revised September 02, 2016

Synthetic biomechanical test specimens are frequently used for preclinical evaluation of implant performance, often in combination with numerical modeling, such as finite-element (FE) analysis. Commercial and freely available FE packages are widely used with three FE packages in particular gaining popularity: abaqus (Dassault Systèmes, Johnston, RI), ansys (ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA), and febio (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT). To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet made a comparison of these three commonly used solvers. Additionally, despite the femur being the most extensively studied bone in the body, no freely available validated model exists. The primary aim of the study was primarily to conduct a comparison of mesh convergence and strain prediction between the three solvers (abaqus, ansys, and febio) and to provide validated open-source models of a fourth-generation composite femur for use with all the three FE packages. Second, we evaluated the geometric variability around the femoral neck region of the composite femurs. Experimental testing was conducted using fourth-generation Sawbones® composite femurs instrumented with strain gauges at four locations. A generic FE model and four specimen-specific FE models were created from CT scans. The study found that the three solvers produced excellent agreement, with strain predictions being within an average of 3.0% for all the solvers (r2 > 0.99) and 1.4% for the two commercial codes. The average of the root mean squared error against the experimental results was 134.5% (r2 = 0.29) for the generic model and 13.8% (r2 = 0.96) for the specimen-specific models. It was found that composite femurs had variations in cortical thickness around the neck of the femur of up to 48.4%. For the first time, an experimentally validated, finite-element model of the femur is presented for use in three solvers. This model is freely available online along with all the supporting validation data.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Royal College of Physicians, 2015, “ National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) Annual Report,” Royal College of Physicians, London.
NJR Steering Committee, 2015, “ National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland: 12th Annual Report,” NJR Steering Committee, Hemel Hempstead, UK.
Fernandez, M. A. , Griffin, X. L. , and Costa, M. L. , 2015, “ Hip Fracture Surgery,” Bone Joint J., 97-B(7), pp. 875–879. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Miles, B. , Kolos, E. , Walter, W. L. , Appleyard, R. , Li, Q. , Chen, Y. , and Ruys, A. J. , 2015, “ Subject-Specific Finite Element Model With an Optical Tracking System in Total Hip Replacement Surgery,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part H, 229(4), pp. 280–290. [CrossRef]
Taddei, F. , Cristofolini, L. , Martelli, S. , Gill, H. S. , and Viceconti, M. , 2006, “ Subject-Specific Finite Element Models of Long Bones: An In Vitro Evaluation of the Overall Accuracy,” J. Biomech., 39(13), pp. 2457–2467. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Anderson, A. E. , Ellis, B. J. , and Weiss, J. A. , 2007, “ Verification, Validation and Sensitivity Studies in Computational Biomechanics,” Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., 10(3), pp. 171–184. [CrossRef]
Cristofolini, L. , Schileo, E. , Juszczyk, M. , Taddei, F. , Martelli, S. , and Viceconti, M. , 2010, “ Mechanical Testing of Bones: The Positive Synergy of Finite-Element Models and In Vitro Experiments,” Philos. Trans. Ser. A, 368(1920), pp. 2725–2763. [CrossRef]
Prendergast, P. J. , 1997, “ Finite Element Models in Tissue Mechanics and Orthopaedic Implant Design,” Clin. Biomech., 12(6), pp. 343–366. [CrossRef]
Viceconti, M. , Olsen, S. , Nolte, L. P. , and Burton, K. , 2005, “ Extracting Clinically Relevant Data From Finite Element Simulations,” Clin. Biomech., 20(5), pp. 451–454. [CrossRef]
Babuska, I. , and Oden, J. T. , 2004, “ Verification and Validation in Computational Engineering and Science: Basic Concepts,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 193(36–38), pp. 4057–4066. [CrossRef]
Elfar, J. , and Stanbury, S. , 2014, “ Composite Bone Models in Orthopaedic Surgery Research and Education,” J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg., 22(2), pp. 111–120. [PubMed]
Gardner, M. P. , Chong, A. C. M. , Pollock, A. G. , and Wooley, P. H. , 2010, “ Mechanical Evaluation of Large-Size Fourth-Generation Composite Femur and Tibia Models,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 38(3), pp. 613–620. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cristofolini, L. , Viceconti, M. , Cappello, A. , and Toni, A. , 1996, “ Mechanical Validation of Whole Bone Composite Femur Models,” J. Biomech., 29(4), pp. 525–535. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Heiner, A. D. , 2008, “ Structural Properties of Fourth-Generation Composite Femurs and Tibias,” J. Biomech., 41(15), pp. 3282–3284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dunlap, J. T. , Chong, A. C. M. , Lucas, G. L. , and Cooke, F. W. , 2008, “ Structural Properties of a Novel Design of Composite Analogue Humeri Models,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 36(11), pp. 1922–1926. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grover, P. , Albert, C. , Wang, M. , and Harris, G. F. , 2011, “ Mechanical Characterization of Fourth Generation Composite Humerus,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part H, 225(12), pp. 1169–1176. [CrossRef]
Viceconti, M. , Casali, M. , Massari, B. , Cristofolini, L. , Bassini, S. , and Toni, A. , 1996, “ The ‘Standardized Femur Program’ Proposal for a Reference Geometry to be Used for the Creation of Finite Element Models of the Femur,” J. Biomech., 29(9), p. 1241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Meng, Q. , Jin, Z. , Fisher, J. , and Wilcox, R. , 2013, “ Comparison Between FEBio and Abaqus for Biphasic Contact Problems,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part H, 227(9), pp. 1009–1019. [CrossRef]
Maas, S. A. , Ellis, B. J. , Rawlins, D. S. , and Weiss, J. A. , 2009, “ A Comparison of FEBio, ABAQUS, and NIKE3D Results for a Suite of Verification Problems,” SCI Institute Technical Report No. UUSCI-2009-009.
Maas, S. A. , Ellis, B. J. , Ateshian, G. A. , and Weiss, J. A. , 2012, “ FEBio: Finite Elements for Biomechanics,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 134(1), p. 011005. [CrossRef]
Bergmann, G. , Deuretzbacher, G. , Heller, M. , Graichen, F. , Rohlmann, A. , Strauss, J. , and Duda, G. N. , 2001, “ Hip Contact Forces and Gait Patterns From Routine Activities,” J. Biomech., 34(7), pp. 859–871. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ANSYS, 2013, “ ANSYS 15.0 Mechanical User's Guide,” ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Agilent Technologies, 1999, “ Application Note 290-1: Practical Strain Gage Measurements,” Agilent Technologies, Manchester, UK, accessed May 3, 2016, www.omega.co.uk/techref/pdf/StrainGage_Measurement.pdf
MatWeb, 2015, “ MatWeb Material Property Data. Sawbones Technical Data Sheets,” MatWeb LLC, Blacksburg, VA, accessed May 12, 2015, www.matweb.com
Pacific Research Labora tories, 2015, “ Sawbones Biomechanical Test Materials,” Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, Island, WA, accessed Feb. 2, 2016, http://www.sawbones.com/UserFiles/Docs/biomechanical_catalog.pdf
Cappozzo, A. , Catani, F. , Della Croce, U. , and Leardini, A. , 1995, “ Position and Orientation in Space of Bones During Movement: Anatomical Frame Definition and Determination,” Clin. Biomech., 10(4), pp. 171–178. [CrossRef]
Pegg, E. C. , Murray, D. W. , Pandit, H. G. , O'Connor, J. J. , and Gill, H. S. , 2013, “ Fracture of Mobile Unicompartmental Knee Bearings: A Parametric Finite Element Study,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part H, 227(11), pp. 1213–1223. [CrossRef]
Taddei, F. , Schileo, E. , Helgason, B. , Cristofolini, L. , and Viceconti, M. , 2007, “ The Material Mapping Strategy Influences the Accuracy of CT-Based Finite Element Models of Bones: An Evaluation Against Experimental Measurements,” Med. Eng. Phys., 29(9), pp. 973–979. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Schileo, E. , Dall'Ara, E. , Taddei, F. , Malandrino, A. , Schotkamp, T. , Baleani, M. , and Viceconti, M. , 2008, “ An Accurate Estimation of Bone Density Improves the Accuracy of Subject-Specific Finite Element Models,” J. Biomech., 41(11), pp. 2483–2491. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bayraktar, H. H. , Morgan, E. F. , Niebur, G. L. , Morris, G. E. , Wong, E. K. , and Keaveny, T. M. , 2004, “ Comparison of the Elastic and Yield Properties of Human Femoral Trabecular and Cortical Bone Tissue,” J. Biomech., 37(1), pp. 27–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Martelli, S. , Pivonka, P. , and Ebeling, P. R. , 2014, “ Femoral Shaft Strains During Daily Activities: Implications for Atypical Femoral Fractures,” Clin. Biomech., 29(8), pp. 869–876. [CrossRef]
Pacific Research Laboratories, 2013, “ Sawbones Catalog,” Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Vashon Island, WA.
Salas, C. , Mercer, D. , DeCoster, T. A. , and Taha, M. M. R. , 2011, “ Experimental and Probabilistic Analysis of Distal Femoral Periprosthetic Fracture: A Comparison of Locking Plate and Intramedullary Nail Fixation—Part B: Probabilistic Investigation,” Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., 14(2), pp. 175–182. [CrossRef]
Wieding, J. , Souffrant, R. , Fritsche, A. , Mittelmeier, W. , and Bader, R. , 2012, “ Finite Element Analysis of Osteosynthesis Screw Fixation in the Bone Stock: An Appropriate Method for Automatic Screw Modelling,” PLoS One, 7(3), p. e33776. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Reimeringer, M. , Nuño, N. , Desmarais-Trépanier, C. , Lavigne, M. , and Vendittoli, P. A. , 2012, “ The Influence of Uncemented Femoral Stem Length and Design on Its Primary Stability: A Finite Element Analysis,” Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., 16(11), pp. 1221–1231. [CrossRef]
Pal, B. , Gupta, S. , New, A. M. R. , and Browne, M. , 2010, “ Strain and Micromotion in Intact and Resurfaced Composite Femurs: Experimental and Numerical Investigations,” J. Biomech., 43(10), pp. 1923–1930. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pettersen, S. H. , Wik, T. S. , and Skallerud, B. , 2009, “ Subject Specific Finite Element Analysis of Stress Shielding Around a Cementless Femoral Stem,” Clin. Biomech., 24(2), pp. 196–202. [CrossRef]
Dickinson, A. S. , Taylor, A. C. , Ozturk, H. , and Browne, M. , 2011, “ Experimental Validation of a Finite Element Model of the Proximal Femur Using Digital Image Correlation and a Composite Bone Model,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 133(1), p. 014504. [CrossRef]
Samiezadeh, S. , Tavakkoli Avval, P. , Fawaz, Z. , and Bougherara, H. , 2014, “ Biomechanical Assessment of Composite Versus Metallic Intramedullary Nailing System in Femoral Shaft Fractures: A Finite Element Study,” Clin. Biomech., 29(7), pp. 803–810. [CrossRef]
Grassi, L. , Väänänen, S. P. , Amin Yavari, S. , Weinans, H. , Jurvelin, J. S. , Zadpoor, A. A. , and Isaksson, H. , 2013, “ Experimental Validation of Finite Element Model for Proximal Composite Femur Using Optical Measurements,” J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 21, pp. 86–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gilroy, D. , Young, A. M. , Phillips, A. , Wheel, M. , and Riches, P. E. , 2014, “ Characterisation and Validation of SawbonesTM Artificial Composite Femur Material,” 7th World Congress of Biomechanics, Boston, MA, ID No. 51226.
Chong, A. C. M. , Friis, E. A. , Ballard, G. P. , Czuwala, P. J. , and Cooke, F. W. , 2007, “ Fatigue Performance of Composite Analogue Femur Constructs Under High Activity Loading,” Ann. Biomed. Eng., 35(7), pp. 1196–1205. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wu, G. , Siegler, S. , Allard, P. , Kirtley, C. , Leardini, A. , Rosenbaum, D. , Whittle, M. , D'Lima, D. D. , Cristofolini, L. , Witte, H. , Schmid, O. , and Stokes, I. , 2002, “ ISB Recommendation on Definitions of Joint Coordinate System of Various Joints for the Reporting of Human Joint Motion—Part I: Ankle, Hip, and Spine,” J. Biomech., 35(4), pp. 543–548. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bessho, M. , Ohnishi, I. , Matsuyama, J. , Matsumoto, T. , Imai, K. , and Nakamura, K. , 2007, “ Prediction of Strength and Strain of the Proximal Femur by a CT-Based Finite Element Method,” J. Biomech., 40(8), pp. 1745–1753. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Trabelsi, N. , Yosibash, Z. , Wutte, C. , Augat, P. , and Eberle, S. , 2011, “ Patient-Specific Finite Element Analysis of the Human Femur-A Double-Blinded Biomechanical Validation,” J. Biomech., 44(9), pp. 1666–1672. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Trabelsi, N. , and Yosibash, Z. , 2011, “ Patient-Specific Finite-Element Analyses of the Proximal Femur With Orthotropic Material Properties Validated by Experiments,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 133(6), p. 061001. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Anterior view of the experimental setup showing strain gauge locations around the femur. (b) Medial view of the FE model showing the loading and boundary conditions.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Definition of the sectional plane, (b) the exported cross section with nodes, and (c) the evaluation of the cortical thickness from the cross section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Experimental results versus generic finite-element model predictions of equivalent strain. (b) Experimental results versus specimen-specific finite-element predictions (specimens F9–F12) of equivalent strain. Values are shown for all the strain gauge locations at 50 N increments up to a maximum load of 500 N. N.B. least squares fit for y = mx + c, with values of the slope, m, given for each plot.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mesh convergence for the four strain gauge locations showing ±5% bounds of the equivalent strain predictions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Linear regression of the experimentally measured strains versus FE predictions for specimen F10 and Bland–Altman plots for the three solvers: (a) abaqus, (b) ansys, and (c) FEBio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cross sections of four composite femur specimens (F9–F12), obtained as shown in Fig. 2(b), showing the eight locations on the inner and outer surfaces used to determine cortical thickness. Plot of cortical thickness at the eight locations around the femoral neck.

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
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