Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
EF C2003.7

EF C2003.7

Ratings: (0)|Views: 31 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: Perez Angarita Carlos Andres on Jun 07, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/07/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 143–144 (2003) 249–255
Finite element simulation of the hip joint during stumbling:a comparison between static and dynamic loading
H.F. El’Sheikh, B.J. MacDonald, M.S.J. Hashmi
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Centre for Engineering Design and Manufacture, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland 
Abstract
Finite element stress analysis technique has been used to optimize both design and material selection in load-bearing components inartificial hip joints based on the static load analysis, by selecting the peak load during the patient activity. In this study, a component wassubjected to a dynamic load due to stumbling and the peak static load of the same patient load activity. Two quantitative measures arecalculated: peak stress and stressed volume. It has been shown that each measure may lead to differing conclusions. It is concluded thatfrom a thorough analysis of the hip prosthesis components (prosthesis, cement mantle and bone) it is not the peak stress but rather theproportion of the stressed elements (or stressed volume) which should be the indicator if a precise analysis of the load transfer mechanismisrequired.Instaticanalysisthematerialwasassumedtobelinearelasticcontinuumwithisotropicproperties,whereasindynamicanalysisit was assumed to be bi-linear elasto-plastic.© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Artificial hip replacement; Hip prosthesis; Finite element method; Simulation
1. Introduction
Although pre-clinical validation procedures have sig-nificantly improved in the last few years, some importantfactors, affecting the biomechanical performance of hipimplants, are still very difficult to account for. Using aclever combination of numerical models and experimentsin vivo it is possible today to replicate the major part of thefailure scenario previously observed in the clinical practice.However, many important factors are still very difficult totake into account during these studies. In particular, theseaspects related to the patient (skeletal anatomy, bone qual-ity, muscles, level of activity or biological response) or tothe surgeon (bone surgery, implant position and fit, jointcenter relocation or muscle surgery). Until now, modelsdeveloped to predict stresses in total hip replacements havebeen generally poorly validated[1].This could be because all the pre-clinical simulations were performed statically,that is by selecting the greatest load at a particular time of the activity cycle.So far, all the results in these studies were conducted byassumingthepeakloadsduringthenormalgaitataparticulartime (static loads), but in fact the hip is exposed to variedloads, for example, when climbing the stairs, stumbling or
Corresponding author.
 E-mail address:
saleem.hashmi@dcu.ie (M.S.J. Hashmi).
 jumping. These kind of loads could be considered as impactloads, and they could cause the artificial hip to fail.This study aims to take account of patient activity (stamp-ing, jumping, walking, etc.) when designing total hip re-placement. In this regard the stress field in the artificial hipcomponents (prostheses, cement mantle, and bone) is ana-lyzed statically and dynamically with nonlinear simulation.In the dynamic case, simulations have been conducted to in-vestigate the effect of the loading pattern on the stress-basedcriteria to assess implant longevity. Two quantitative mea-sures are calculated: peak stress and stressed volume. It hasbeen shown that each measure may lead to differing conclu-sions.
2. Finite element model
The finite element models were generated using ANSYSfinite element software (version 5.6). A standardized femurwas used as a basis for the finite element model[2].The ge- ometry contained Linea Aspera on the posterior side and thefemur displayed a noticeable bow in the anterior–posteriorplane. A combination of free and mapped meshing was usedto generate two hip prosthesis models for static and dynamicstudies. The types and number of elements used are giveninTable 1.The prosthesis was uncollared and its stem was designedto be tapered and follows the shape of internal cortical bone.
0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00352-2
 
250
H.F. El’Sheikh et al./Journal of Materials Processing Technology 143–144 (2003) 249–255
Table 1Type and number of elements used in the dynamic and static analysisAHJ constitution Dynamic analysis (solid 164, 8-nodedexplicit brick element)Static analysis (solid 45, 8-nodedisoparametric brick element)Number of elements Number of nodes Number of elements Number of nodesProsthesis 1200 1690 1200 1690Cement mantle 384 832 384 832Cortical bone 540 1375 540 1375Concelleous bone 4965 1426 1182 1108Fig. 1. Finite element meshes of hip prosthesis components and the distribution of the applied and muscles forces.
Fig. 1shows a view of the mesh for the prosthesis, cementmantle and bone. The stem–cement interface was consideredfully bonded.
3. Material properties
In static analysis the material was assumed to be a lin-ear elastic continuum with isotropic properties, whereas in
Table 2The artificial hip components material properties[5,6]Materials properties Bone Rostal bone cement (PMMA) Prosthesis (Ti6Al4V)Cortical bone Concelleous boneYoungs modulus (MPa) 16200 389 2.64
×
10
3
100000Poissons ratio 0.36 0.3 0.4 0.32Density (t/mm
3
) 1.99
×
10
9
0.5
×
10
9
1.2
×
10
9
4.43
×
10
9
Yield stress (MPa) 114 3.89 43.8 830Tangent modulus (MPa) 793 7.08 1255.23
dynamic analysis it was bi-linear elasto-plastic.Table 2il- lustrates the material properties used.
4. Loading conditions
The loading applied was taken from the work of Bergmanet al.[3]and it is illustrated inFig. 2which represent load- ing pattern for stumbling. In static analysis, the maximum
 
 H.F. El’Sheikh et al./Journal of Materials Processing Technology 143–144 (2003) 249–255
251Fig. 2. The variation of forces applied on the prosthesis during stumbling.Table 3Muscle load magnitudes applied to the FE model[4]Forcecomponent (N)GluteusmediusGluteusminimusIlio-tibialband
x
259
279
59
y
160 269
74
z
319 134
58
stumbling resultant force,
, on the head of the femur is 8.7times the body weight (BW
=
70kg) at 58% of the gaitcycle. This can be resolved into
x
=
2188
.
86N
,
y
=
669
.
53N and
z
=
5472
.
1NAt 85% of the gait cycle, a simplified set of active musclesare the abductor muscles, located on the greater trochanter(Gluteus medius and Gluteus minimus), and the ilio-tibialband (Gluteus maximus and tensor fascia latae)[4],Table 3. For dynamic analysis these muscle forces have been con-sidered to be constant during the entire loading cycle. Asshown inFig. 1,all nodes on the most distal section were fully restrained against displacements in all directions.
5. Results
Forthepurposeofcomparisontheanalysiswasperformedby using the finite element package ANSYS for the staticloading. Analysis was carried out by using LS-DYNA forthe dynamic loading case. The gait time of the highestforce during stumbling was incorporated in the LS-DYNApost-processor.TodecreasetheCPUtimerequiredtoexecutethedynamicsolution, the gait time has been multiplied by a factor equalto 1
×
10
3
. This led to about 19h to carry out the dynamicsolution.
5.1. Deformation pattern
It is found that in representing the stumbling load casestatically the
x
-component load has a major effect on thedeformation of the treated femur. The resultant
x
-componentforce of 1592N caused bending in the lateral side. While inthe dynamic analysis the situation is completely different.Since the prosthesis components are exposed to a variedload, it is likely that the
x
-component of the applied loadwill be less than the counteracting muscle force (in caseof muscle tension). The result was as expected, the vertical
 z
-component load force played a major factor in deformingthe treated femur in the medial direction at that time as seeninFig. 3.From these results one can conclude that the two approaches of analysis would have a large contrast.
5.2. Contours and peak stresses
In spite of the fact that the maximum tensile stress be-ing located in the middle of lateral side of the prosthesisstem with a peak stresses almost equal (95MPa for staticand 101.5MPa for dynamic analysis),Fig. 4, they are not in cement mantle and bone cortex,Figs. 5 and 6.Also, the ten- sile stress regions are obviously occupied more areas in thestem of static analysis rather than that of dynamic analysis.For the cement mental, in spite of the fact that the peak tensile stress for the static analysis is greater than that of dynamic one,Table 4, it was localized in a small region in

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->