Professional Documents
Culture Documents
doi:10.1111/j.1525-1594.2010.01117.x
Received June 2009; revised July 2010.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Ikuya Nishimura, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology,
Hokkaido University, Kita 14 Nishi 9, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido
060-0814, Japan. E-mail: mura@bme.ist.hokudai.ac.jp
404
aor_1117
404..410
405
406
T. ISHIDA ET AL.
TABLE 1. Default values and the range of design
parameters used in stem CAD model
Proximal
ML
AP
Middle
ML
AP
Distal
ML
AP
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
Initial
Min
Max
8
14
6
6
12.6
6
6
8.8
3.5
3.5
6
12
4
4
10
4
4
6
2.5
2.5
21
15
6.5
6.5
13.6
6.5
6.5
9
4.5
4.5
g 1 = L5 L8 < 0
g 2 = L6 L9 < 0
g 3 = L7 L10 < 0.
After that, a cement mantle, with a constant thickness of 2 mm was added around the stem and a
mantle, 30-mm thick (1315), was added below the tip
of the stem. This model was fed into the FEA
program (ANSYS6.0, ANSYS, Inc., Cybernet
Systems Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) in the IGES format.
Static stress analysis
The values of all objective functions were calculated using a static stress analysis. All analysis models
and design parameters were automatically constructed or determined by the optimization control-
Minimize Fi ( x) i = 1 . . . 4
such that
407
1 solution number;
2 value of all design parameters L1 . . . L10, and
value of objective functions F1 . . . F4;
3 where the solution number contains the generation
data.
Therefore, these charts provide the relationship
between the objective functions.
Stem design for each Pareto front
Several Pareto solutions are shown in Fig. 5 and
Table 2. Figure 5a shows the resulting Pareto solutions in the two-dimensional objective function
spaces. These solutions were based on an approximate trade-off line of two objective functions (F1
and F2). In this chart, the strongest geometry for the
proximal region is (1). At the same time, (1) is a
relatively worse geometry on the Pareto front for
the distal region. From this scatter chart (Fig. 5a),
five dominant designs were selected that were on
the Pareto front ([1][5]). Figure 5b shows the linearity of objective functions of F2 and F3. Clearly,
these two objective functions are correlated and not
a trade-off. Figure 5c also shows the trade-off line of
two objective functions (F3 and F4). Each number
in the figure represents the same design as that in
another figure.
DISCUSSION
This study was an initial attempt to use a GA for the
multiobjective optimization of the femoral stem of a
cemented THA. Compared with a mathematical
optimization method such as the steepest-descent
Artif Organs, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2011
408
T. ISHIDA ET AL.
Proximal
ML
AP
Middle
ML
AP
Distal
ML
AP
Walk-distal (Mpa)
Walk-proximal (Mpa)
Stair-distal (Mpa)
Stair-proximal (Mpa)
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
8.47
14.7
5.28
6.33
13.1
6.18
5.95
8.77
3.24
2.54
12.4
10.93
12.43
4.81
6.2
13.46
5.15
6.27
6.6
4.07
2.78
12.2
18.61
14
5.1
5.1
13.2
6.47
4.63
6.66
3.3
2.66
9.3
19.45
14.73
5.12
6.39
13.48
6.31
4.67
6.6
3.43
2.55
8.6
19.45
13.99
5.78
6.42
10
6.32
4.66
6.1
3.55
2.51
7
3.3
12.8
4.9
3.5
13.7
5.4
3.7
10.6
7.6
3.8
9.9
5.5
4.9
8.5
7.5
409
410
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
T. ISHIDA ET AL.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.