See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340265088

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A NON-ARTICULATED PROSTHETIC FOOT FOR

PEOPLE OF SPECIAL NEEDS

Thesis · March 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21199.23207

CITATIONS READS
2 1,114

1 author:

Muslim Ali
University of Kerbala
68 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

automobile engineering View project

Recycling Processes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muslim Ali on 29 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A
NON-ARTICULATED PROSTHETIC
FOOT FOR PEOPLE OF SPECIAL
NEEDS

A Thesis
Submitted to the College of Engineering
of Nahrain University in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Mechanical Engineering

by

MUSLIM MUHSIN ALI

(B.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering 2003)

Rabi Al-Awal 1431

February 2010
 Certification

We certify that this thesis entitled "Design and Analysis of a Non-

articulated Prosthetic Foot for People of Special Needs" was prepared by
"Muslim Muhsin Ali” under our supervision at Nahrain University/College of
Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Science in Mechanical Engineering.

Signature: Signature:

Name: Dr. Ali H. Mohammed Name: Dr. Kadhim K. Resan

(Supervisor) (Supervisor)

Date: / 3 / 2010 Date: / 3 / 2010

Signature:

Dr. Ayad M. Takhakh

Head of Department

Date: / 3 /2010

II
 Abstract

All prosthetic foot designs, adapted in common use, do not replicate the
exact characteristics of a normal human foot. The basis of this investigation is to
research current prosthetics in order to design and build a more human like
prosthesis. Also this investigation aims at combining these characteristics in
order to achieve a more multi-functional prosthesis. In undertaking such a
design, the new prosthesis will exhibit a broader range of characteristics than
those displayed in current prosthetic feet. In doing so, the new prosthesis will
give a closer representation of the functions inherent to a normal human foot.
The characteristics involved in normal walking include dorsiflexion, impact
absorption and fatigue foot test. The characteristics displayed in the
manufactured non-articulated foot tested are compared to those of SACH foot.
The characteristics exhibited by prostheses which compare favourably to those
of a human foot were investigated further. A non-articulated prosthetic foot is
designed and manufactured from polyethylene and a comparative study with
SACH foot is used to determine if there are differences in the gait pattern while
wearing the non-articulated foot and whether these differences would be
problematic.

The basis of the new prosthetic design combines current prosthetic design
elements, such as prosthetic materials and components.

The analytical part presents the results of the static and fatigue analysis by
methods such as numerical methods (Finite Element method FEM) and

III
experimental methods. Thus the non-articulated foot was designed and the
number of cycles, dorsiflexion and impact were measured.

The non-articulated prosthetic foot has good characteristics when compared

with the SACH foot, such as good dorsiflexion, force transmitted at impact heel
and life of foot cycles respectively, and the following table shows the obtained
results of non-articulated compared with SACH foot.

Type of foot Dorsiflexion angle force transmitted at Life cycles

[Degree] impact heel [Kgf]
Non-articulated foot 7.8◦ 9.82 2103445
SACH foot 6.4◦ 9.5 896213

Finally, the non-articulated foot is compared with SACH foot in cost and
weight, and it is shown the cost of new foot is lower than that of the other kinds
of by about (80%), also it was found that the new weight is lighter than that of
the other of by about (25%).

IV
 CONTENTS
Contents page

Abstract I
List of Contents III
List of Tables V
List of Figures VI
Notations IX

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1
1.2 Concept Definition 3
1.2.1 Biomechanics 3
1.2.2 Gait Analysis 3
1.3 Material Analysis 4
1.3.1 Polymer 5
1.4 Foot Flexion 7
1.5 Prosthetic Design 7
1.5.1 Keel 7
1.5.2 Heel 7
1.5.3Filler Materials 8
1.6 Thesis Objectives 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 10

2.1 History of Prosthetics and Amputation Surgery 10
2.2 Literature Review on Testing of Foot 10

CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND MODELING

3.1 Introduction 18
3.2 Mathematical Analysis of the Foot 18
3.2.1Computation of The Ankle Moment and Dorsiflexion Angle 18
3.2.2 The Suggested Non-articulated Design Foot 21
3.2.3 Fatigue in the Non-articulated Design Foot By Using Proposed 28
Criteria
3.3 Modeling of Prosthetic Foot Using ANSYS Software 32
3.3.1 Elements Type 33

V
 3.3.2 Real Constants 33
3.3.3 Material Model Behavior 33
3.4 ANSYS Finite Element Model 33
CHAPTER FOUR: EXPERIMENTAL WORK
4.1 Introduction 42
4.2 Designing and Manufacturing Dorsiflexion Foot Tester 43
4.3 Manufacturing of A Non-articulated Prosthetic Foot 44
4.4 The Foot Testing 51
4.4.1 Fatigue Foot Test 51
4.4.2 Dorsiflexion Test 53
4.4.3 Impact Test: Heel Region Properties of Prosthetic Feet 54

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction 56
5.2 Experimental Results 56
5.2.1 Mechanical Properties 56
5.2.2 S-N Curve of Polyethylene 57
5.2.3 Experimental Results Obtained from Foot 58
5.2.3.1 Fatigue Foot Tester Results 58
5.2.3.2 Dorsiflexion 60
5.2.3.3 Impact for Heel Foot 62
5.3 Numerical Analysis Results 64
5.3.1 Static Analysis 64
5.3.2 Fatigue Analysis. 72
5.4 Discussion of Foot Tests 76
5.4.1 Dorsiflexion 76
5.4.2 Discussion of Impact Foot Test 76
5.4.3 Discussion of Fatigue Foot Test 76
5.5 Comparison between Numerical and Experimental Results 80
5.6 Patient Comment 81
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions 83
6.2 Recommendations 84
References 85
Appendix A A-1

VI
 List of Tables
Table Title page
1-1 Amputee population in five countries with high amputee 2
rates due to Landmines in 2001[5]
3-1 Material model behavior for polyethylene (solid 185). 33
5-1 Mechanical properties for polyethylene, rubber (by Exp. 56
work)
5.2 S-N data for polyethylene 57
5.3 Life of different foot 60
5.4 Dorsiflexion angle 60
5.5 Impact force with different types of foot 62

VII
 List of Figures
Figure Title page
1.1 Shows the gate cycle analysis 4
1.2 OTTO Bock SACH foot 8
2.1 Testing of prosthetic components 11
2.2 Load configurations for stiffness testing of the heel of the 17
prosthetic foot
3.1 Force distributed with GRF 19
3.2 The SACH foot 21
3.3 The Niagara foot 22
3.4 The foot proposed by Dr.Kadhim 22
3.5 The front view of non-articulated foot 23
3.6 The top view of non-articulated foot 24
3.7 The top view of non-articulated foot 25
3.8 Non-articulated foot keel with load 27
3.9 The S-N curve 29
3.10 The non-articulated foot keel with load 29
3.11 Solid 185 geometry. 34
3.12 Non-articulated foot drawing in ANSYS 35
3.13 Non-articulated foot keel with mesh 36
3.14 Non-articulated foot keel with load(Fatigue) 37
3.15 Non-articulated foot keel with load(Midstance phase) 37
3.16 Non-articulated foot keel with load(Toe off phase) 38
3.17 Non-articulated foot keel with load(Heel phase) 38
4.1 Dorsiflexion foot tester 43
4.2 Schematic diagram dorsiflexion foot tester. 44
4.3 The feet failure 45
4.4 The non-articulated foot drawing in ANSYS 46
4.5 Negative mold 46

VIII
4.6 Injection machine[Almustafa plant, Bab AlMaotham, 47
Baghdad]
4.7 The injection foot 48
4.8 Vertical milling machines[Nahrain University, College of 48
Engineering work shop]
4.9 Horizontal milling machines[Nahrain University, College of 49
Engineering work shop]
4.10 Fixed drill machines[Nahrain University, College of 49
Engineering work shop]
4.11 The final non-articulated foot 50
4.12 The SACH foot 50
4.13 Fatigue foot tester of non-articulated foot 52
4.14 Fatigue foot tester of SACH foot 52
4.15 Dorsiflexion tester of SACH foot 53
4.16 Dorsiflexion tester of non-articulated foot 54
4.17 Impact foot tester of SACH foot 55
4.18 Impact foot tester of non-articulated foot 55
5.1 S-N curve for polyethylene 57
5.2 Failure region in SACH foot 59
5.3 Failure region in non-articulated foot 59
5.4 Experimental load with dorsiflexion angle for SACH foot 61
5.5 Experimental load with dorsiflexion for non-articulated 61
design foot
5.6 Experimental impact test for SACH foot 63
5.7 Experimental impact test for non-articulated foot 63
5.8 Von Mises stresses along the non-articulated foot(Toe off 65
phase)
5.9 Deformation of the non-articulated foot(Toe off phase) 65
5.10 Von Mises stress contour of the non-articulated foot(Toe off 66
phase)
5.11 Von Mises stresses along the non-articulated foot(Heel strike 67

IX
 phase)
5.12 Deformation of the non-articulated foot(Heel strike phase) 68
5.13 Von Mises stress contour of the non-articulated foot(Heel 68
strike phase)
5.14 Von Mises stresses along the non-articulated foot(midstance 70
phase)
5.15 Deformation of the non-articulated foot(midstance phase) 70
5.16 Von Mises stress contour of the non-articulated 71
foot(midstance phase)
5.17 Equivalent Von Mises stress contour of the non-articulated 73
for fatigue load
5.18 Shear stress contour of the non-articulated foot new for 73
fatigue load
5.19 Total deformation contour of the non-articulated foot new for 74
fatigue load
5.20 Equivalent stress contour – Safety Factor of the non- 74
articulated foot for fatigue load
5.21 Shear stress contour – Safety factor of the non-articulated 75
foot for fatigue load
5.22 Equivalent stress contour -Safety margin of the non- 75
articulated foot.
5.23 Response force to impact with different type of foot 78
5.24 Life of feet with different type of foot (Exp) 79
5.25 Dorsiflexion angle 80
5.26 A patient use the non-articulated foot (midstance phase) 81
5.27 A patient use the non-articulated foot (Heel strike phase) 82
5.28 A patient use the non-articulated foot (Toe off phase) 82
A.1 The Cheetah Flex-Foot A-1
A.2 Dynamic Response Feet A-2
A.3 Jaipur Foot A-3
A.4 Niagara Foot A-4
A.5 Flex foot modular A-6
A.6 Greissinger foot A-7

X
A.7 Quantum A-9
A.8 Otto Bock SACH A-10
A.9 Safe foot A-11
A.10 Seattle lite A-12
A.11 Seattle natural A-13
A.12 Sten A-14
A.13 Sure flex A-15

XI
 NOTATION
SYMBOLS DEFINITION UNITS

b&C Constants of fatigue equation …..

bi Distance from ankle to COM of body mm
E Young's Modulus of elasticity N/mm2
FX & Fy Horizontal and vertical ankle force N
FN & FM Vertical ground reaction force N
Fh Axial ground reaction force N
G Shear modulus N/mm2
g Gravitational Constant mm/s2
I & Ic Mass moment of inertia mm4
N,M&h Distance from ground reaction force and ankle mm
N1 & N2 Upper life and lower life for polyethylene Cycle
Nl Life of foot Cycle
Ni Shape function …..
Mt Mass of body Kg
Mxy Moment at ankle N. mm
xc & yc Center of body mm
xc and y c Velocity of center of body m/sec
xc and yc Acceleration of center of body m/sec2
K1,K2 & K3 Constants of equation of motion N Kg
L1, L2 and L3 Distance from P1 , P2 to points of failure mm
P1 , P2 Forces effect at new foot N
Fs Safety factor …..
Equivalent stress N/mm2
Maximum shear stress N/mm2
Working tensile stress N/mm2
Working compression stress N/mm2
σ1, σ2, σ3 Maximum, Middle and Minimum principal stresses N/mm2
Sf1 & Sf2 Upper and lower of fatigue limit N/mm2
Se Fatigue limit N/mm2
 Inclined angle of centre of body rad
 Angular velocity of body rad/s
 Angular acceleration of body rad/s2
 Density of material Kg/mm3
u Ultimate Stress N/mm2

XII
 a ,  a1,  a2  a3 Amplitude stresses N/mm2
 max &  min Maximum and minimum stresses N/mm2
 Von Von Mises stress N/mm2
y Yield stresses N/mm2
Kf Dynamic analysis the main factor ….
Kt Stress concentration factor ….
q Notch sensitivity factor ….
 Poisson’s ratio …..
BK Below knee amputation …..
COM Centre of mass …..
GRF Ground reaction force N
Ms Safety margin …..

XIII
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

In Iraq, the young and elderly represent the largest percentage of individuals
with below knee amputation (BK) due to landmines or disease of the limb [1]. In
the world, one million people have been killed or maimed by landmines since
1975 and there are approximately 26 thousand new victims every year with
approximately (90%) of all amputees being lower limb amputees [2].
Current prosthetic foot designs do not replicate the exact characteristics of a
normal human foot. A human foot is a multi-functional device that can be used
to perform a wide range of activities; however, a prosthetic foot is limited to only
a few. More recently, manufacturers of prosthetic feet have looked into the
characteristics of a prosthesis that may be adjustable. The amputee may then be
able to perform a number of activities without requiring a different prosthesis. It
is important to establish the characteristics of a human foot used in its functional
operations. The characteristics of a human and prosthetic foot covered in the
scope of this work are dorsiflexion, impact absorption and the torque generated
at the ankle. These are the most important characteristics in determining an
appropriate prosthesis, according to prosthetic feet patients. This thesis is aimed
at designing a prosthetic foot that incorporates prosthetic design elements
currently available, in order to design and develop a new prosthesis. In
comparison to a normal human foot, current prosthetic feet demonstrate some of
the desired characteristics effectively whilst lacking in others [3].

1
 Prosthesis is an artificial extension that replaces a missing body part, lost by
injury or missing from birth, or supplements a defective body part. The main
research problem in the field of developing prostheses is how to make the best
use of modern technology and still keep the production price accessible to the
people in need [4]. For example the number of amputee population in five
countries with high amputee ratio is due to landmines, according “landmine-
statistics one world international” [5]. Table (1-1) shows a comparison among
five countries all over the world, it shows the number of amputee per all people.

Table (1-1) Amputee population in five countries with high amputee rates due to
landmines in 2001[5].

No of
State No of amputee per all people No of people
amputee

Angola 1 amputee per 334 people 10,145,267 30,375

Cambodia 1 amputee per 384 people 12,212,306 31,803

Afghanistan 1 amputee per 631 people 25,838,797 40,949

Iraq 1 amputee per 987 people 22,675,617 22,974

Vietnam 1 amputee per 1182 people 78,773,873 66,645

United state 1 amputee per 723 people 278,058,881 380,000

2
1.2 Concept Definition
There are many terms usually used is the prosthesis field such as
biomechanics and gait analysis.

1.2.1 Biomechanics
During the early 1970, the international community adopted the term
biomechanics to describe the field of study concerned with the mechanical
analysis of biological systems.
- Mechanics
- Structure
- Function
Biomechanics uses laws of physics and engineering concepts to describe
motion under gone by the various body segments and the forces acting on these
body parts during normal daily activities.

1.2.2 Gait analysis

As a general concept gait analysis can be defined as the process of
quantification and interpretation of animal (including human) locomotion. In the
context of human biomechanics the pattern of human walking is called gait and
the method to diagnose it referred to as gait analysis. Quantitative gait analysis
provides objective documentation of walking ability and is an important tool in
the identification of walking abnormalities. Abnormal gait in humans may reflect
compensations for underlying pathologies, or even be responsible for the
symptoms. The results of gait analysis have demonstrated to be useful in
determining the best course of treatment for patients and permitting

3
developments in rehabilitation engineering [4]. Figure (1-1) shows in details the
analysis of the gait cycle with three stances, Heel strike phase, Mid stance phase
and Toe off phase.

Figure (1-1) Shows the gait cycle analysis [3].

1.3 Material analysis

Prosthetic foot can be a highly effective cornerstone of treatment, or it can
hamper proper outcomes. The key is selecting the proper orthotic materials and
designing them into the right device. One of the easiest pitfalls to fall into is
pigeonholing materials as rigid, accommodative or flexible. A thorough

4
understanding of orthotic materials will enable the designer to combine them to
the best advantage of the patient [3].

1.3.1 Polymers
Polymers can be classified as either thermoplastics or Thermosets.
Thermoplastics soften when heated and become hard again when the heat is
removed. The term implies that the material becomes “plastic” when heat is
applied. Thermosets do not soften when heated, but char and decompose. Thus
thermoplastic materials can be heated and bent to form required shapes,
Thermosets cannot. Thermoplastic materials are generally flexible and relatively
soft. Polyethylene is an example of a thermoplastic, being widely used as films
or sheets for such items as bags “squeeze” bottles, and wire and cable insulation.
Thermoset are rigid and hard. Phenol formaldehyde, known as Bakelite, is a
Thermoset. It is widely used for electrical plug casings, door knobs and handles.
The term elastomer is used for polymers which by their structure allow
considerable extensions that are reversible. Polymers have low electrical
conductivity and low thermal conductivity, hence their use for electrical and
thermal insulation. Compared with metal, they have lower densities, expand
more when there is rise in temperature, are generally more corrosion resistant,
have a lower stiffness “stretch” more and are not as hard. When loaded they tend
to creep, the extension gradually changes with time [7]. Their properties depend
very much on the temperature so that a polymer which may be tough and flexible
at room temperature may be brittle at 0˚C, and show considerable creep at
100˚C.

5
Polyethylene: Polyethylene is a thermoplastic. There are two types [8]:
1. The low density or high pressure polyethylene.
2. The high density or low pressure polyethylene.
The low density polyethylene is a partially crystalline solid melting at
115˚C. It has a low specific gravity, flexibility without the use of plasticizers,
good resilience, high tear strength, and good moisture and chemical resistance.
High density polyethylene, having higher crystallinty, is stiffer than low density
polyethylene, with greater brittleness and higher strength
Polyethylene has excellent resistance to most acids and alkalis at normal
temperature, although oxidizing acids will cause deterioration The advantages
are good impact resistance over a wide temperature range, outstanding heat
resistance, excellent vibration resistance and low cost. Therefore it is used in the
new foot design.

Advantages:
1. Low Cost.
2. Easy Process ability.
3. Freedom from odour and toxicity.
4. Very good chemical resistance.
5. Excellent insulator.
Disadvantages:
1. Environmental stress cracking.
2. Poor scratch resistance.
3. Low tensile strength.
4. Lack of rigidity [3].

6
1.4 Foot flexion
The flexion of a human foot can be measured in a number of planes [3]:
 Plantar: the ability of the foot to bend down.
 Dorsi: the ability of the foot the bend up.
 Sagital: the ability of the foot to rotate.

1.5 Prosthetic design

1.5.1 Keel
The function of a keel within prosthesis is to provide the energy transfer from
the heel strike through to the toe off and the dorsiflexion is required for natural
ambulation. Depending upon the quantity of surrounding foam it also provides
rotational properties such as eversion and torsion. The keel to be used in the new
prosthesis is of a modified Seattle Natural Foot design using a Delrin II, nylon
composite material, and intermediate polyurethane rubbers. Testing indicates
that the Seattle Natural Foot keel design generates the desired characteristics
more favorably than other prosthetic feet. A narrow ankle block of the keel will
be designed in order to provide for a larger torque. Similar design uses are found
in the OTTO Bock SACH IS51 as shown in Figure (1-2). Through heel impact

characteristics of the prosthesis. Therefore to design the section into the keel it
would also increase the impact absorption of the new prosthesis [3].

1.5.2 Heel
The function of a heel within prosthesis is to provide the impact absorption
at heel strike and also provides the kinetic energy required for a smooth

7
transition between the heel strike and the toe off. The heel to be used in the new
prosthesis is of a OTTO Bock SACH IS70 heel wedge which utilizes a low
density, sponge like, polyurethane. Through impact testing, the Otto Bock wedge
indicates the greatest energy storing potential which is used to increase the
amount of dorsiflexion produced by prosthesis [3].

1.5.3 Filler materials

The function of the filler is to provide a durable and aesthetically pleasing
cosmesis also well as complementing the other compo entry in performing the
desired characteristics. The filler density and quantity are important in torsion
about the ankle as the keel requires the ability to twist. The foam density and
quantity on either side of the keel provide the eversion properties of prosthesis.
Excessive filler foam may alter the performance characteristics of the individual
components. As a result the filler above the keel must be kept to a minimum in
order to retain the elastic properties of the keel [3].

Figure (1-2) Otto Bock SACH foot [3].

8
1.6 Thesis objectives:
The main aims of this thesis may be summarized in the following points:
1. Design and manufacture a non-articulated prosthetic foot that resists fatigue
failure and exhibits an excellent dorsiflexion.
2. Check impact energy absorption, which is used to determine heel foot
properties.
3. Measure dorsiflexion angle of the non-articulated foot and compare the
obtained value with that of the SACH foot.
4. Obtain fatigue failure life, which is used to predict the non-articulated foot
life.
5. Finally, contribute to humanity comfort by providing suitable supplements to
prosthesis.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 History of prosthetics and amputation surgery

The major components that were used in the construction of prosthesis

included wood, iron or metal with leather parts acting as suspension systems.
Between 484 B.C. and 1800 A.D. metal prosthesis made of static and preset
components were used as means of protection and also served aesthetic
purposes. Until World War II, the major advancements in prosthetics were the
result of individual contributions by such people as, Lames Potts (1816),
Professor Antenreith (1818) and Verdayen (1826). With the end of the Second
World War and the sudden increase in the amputee population, there was an
increased interest in the development of new prosthetic feet and related
components [9].

For centuries, wood and leather were the only materials for prostheses, but
today’s, physical therapist has a much wider range available, including advanced
plastics and carbon fiber, which are much stronger, lighter and more durable [1].

2.2 Literature review on testing of foot

There are different types of foot testing but the one most commonly is called
(SACH foot) it was developed in the early 1950`s by the University of
California. The numerous investigations have analyzed and compared different

11
types of prosthetic feet by means of mechanical testing, gait analysis, ground
reaction force, energy return and fatigue test. The durability and fatigue
characteristics of prosthetic foot are very important when deciding which type of
prosthetic foot should be prescribed for a particular patient. Therefore a number
of studies have covered prosthetic feet to assess their durability and wear using
cyclic tester which mimics natural gait [10].

Daher in 1975 [11] conducted an extensive investigation in which nine types

of SACH feet were subjected to cyclic testing to assess the durability of the
materials and design of the foot until breakdown occurred, the foot was cycled
for 500,000 cycles at a load which simulated an active amputee weighing
approximately 100 Kg, Figure (2-1). Also the researcher found that major
permanent deformation and changes in resistance at the heel occurred within
only 5,000 cycles.

Figure (2-1) Testing of prosthetic components [11].

11
 Wevers and Durance [12] in 1987 also conducted dynamic testing on
prosthetic SACH feet, but they loaded the whole trans-tibial prostheses not the
foot alone. Their results were similar to Daher's with rapid wear and structural
component failures of the feet at less than 100,000 cycles.

. R. Deval [13] stressed the importance of testing the durability of the

prosthetics components. The report on the Seattle foot explains how it also
obtains load – deflection characteristics as a part of the structural analysis to
develop the right combination of Thermoset and thermoplastic matrices and
reinforcements.

Toh et al. [14] avoided the complex loading. They utilized a simple machine
which did not mimic gait but applied cyclic vertical loads to the heel and
forefoot only. The feet were dynamically tested. Both the heel and toe were
tested with sinusoidal cyclic axial loads peaking at 1.5 times body weight at 2 Hz
for up to 500,000 cycles. Static load deflection tests were conducted between
cyclic runs to detect mechanical property changes in the foot. Their results were
on the Lammbda foot and Kingsley SACH foot.

A report by Kabra et al. [15] states the utilized a simple, low cost machine
to fatigue the Jaipur foot, similar to Toh's device, however it appears to only
simulate fast loading. A load-deflection analysis was also performed using a
silting which passes around the foot, connects to a spring balance and read the

12
not acting force while the degree of movement was reads from a ganometer the
authors report these simple testing machines deliver reproducible results and yet
another method of laboratory testing should be considered. Shock absorption has
been acknowledged as an important feature when used to compare different
types of prosthetic feet.

Daniel Rihs and Ivan Polizzi [15] utilized the impact test. The purpose of
these testes was to decrease the shock exerted on the residual stump of the
amputee at heel strike.

The material in the prosthesis needs to absorb and transfer this force into
forward movement. Therefore this study focuses on characteristics of shock time
over which the force is applied.

Finally, the result may be achieved between force and time for different types
of foot (Seattle and Dynamic feet).

Glenn K. KLute, et al. [16] studied the heel region properties of prosthetic
feet and shoes. To measure and model the heel in response to impact, a
pendulum was constructed to mechanically simulate the conditions immediately
following initial heel ground contact during walking. A pendulum mass of 6 Kg
was used to duplicate the effective mass of the stance limb at instant of heel
ground reaction contact.

13
 The velocity immediately prior to impact, by using two fiber optic
photoelectric sensors and the energy dissipation capacity of various prosthetic
feet was calculated using force deformation diagram.

Francis J. Trost [17] investigated different materials that store energy when
compressed by the body during early stance phase. The analysis includes
measurement of the determinant of gait and oxygen consumption. Fifty two
juvenile amputees were studied, the energy storing feet were provided including
Flex-feet, Carbon copy feet, Seattle feet, and Sten feet.

In evaluating specific activities, most amputees responded that running,

jumping, climbing stairs were easier with energy storing feet.

The analysis included measurement of the determinants of gait and oxygen

consumption using their prostheses with a SACH foot. The energy storing feet
seem to be a valuable addition to the prosthetic armamentarium. They provide an
element of propulsion present in anatomic.

Lehmann, et al. in two separate reports [18, 19], conducted a similar

analysis determining the load vs. deflection (compliance) of prosthetic feet via a
static loading machine. Measurements were only obtained at the heel and
forefoot area of the prosthetic foot; however actual subject testing was conducted
to relate the results found by the mechanical tests directly to the amputee's gait
cycle.

14
 Both investigations found the heel of the SACH foot to be more compliant in
comparison to other different types of prosthetic feet. Lehmann endeavored to
explain how a difference in compliance would affect the amputee's gait cycle.

Compliance of the heel of prosthetic SACH feet was determined by Goh

[20]. The researcher observed that for a particular amputee, the heel stiffness
preferred for the un-axial feet was always more stiff than that of the preferred
SACH foot according to the load vs. deflection graph.

K.P.Bryant and J.T.Bryant [21] compared Niagara foot with SACH foot
they concluded no significant difference between two types of foot in walking
speed, the purpose of the field observation was to determine typical activities of
daily life for the sample population and to compare these to the design and
testing activities for the foot.

The two patients observed were male, one a farmer and the other a barber,
the barber worked in a standing position on an uneven concrete floor for
extended period, there was a minimum of load bearing. The farmer primarily
used a tractor for all activities; the dynamic loads exceed those recommended in
ISO 10328 for cyclic testing.

The pressure distribution under the foot during static activities was reported
by R. Arvikar and A.Seireg [22] who constructed a strain gauge ring transducer
assembly to measure the vertical loads under the five metatarsals, and the heel
during forward leaning from the symmetric vertical stance.

15
 The distribution of the ground reactions appears to favour the lateral
metatarsals with comparatively lower contribution by the structurally larger first
metatarsal. The pressure distribution in general appears to favour the lateral
metatarsals and is significantly influenced by the manner in which the foot is
positioned on the transducer assembly.

Andrew H. Hansen et al. [23] investigated the effective foot length ratio
(EFLR) for different feet such as Niagara foot and Flex foot, the EFLR
multiplied by 100 provides the percentage of a foot.

Effective foot lengths were measured by finding the distance from the heel of
each prosthetic foot to the centre of pressure. The EFLRs for the prosthetic feet
were between 0.63 and 0.81.

K.K. Al-Kinani in 2006 [1] investigated a lot off commercially available

feet. All prosthetic feet attempt to return some of the lost gait functions, but may
use different mechanical principles to do so, such as SACH foot (commonly in
Iraq), therefore, the researcher designed prosthetic foot.

This prosthetic foot is designed and manufactured from polyethylene and a

comparative study with SACH foot was used to determine if there were
differences in the gait pattern while wearing the new foot and whether these
differences would be problematic. The characteristics deemed important by
patients in achieving natural gait motion include: Dorsiflexion, eversion energy
return, impact test, fatigue foot test, effective length ratio and time distance

16
parameters. It has good characteristics when compared with the SACH foot, such
as good dorsiflexion (4.2o and 1.9o), stored energy return (58.9 and 13.14), force
transmitted at impact heel (154N and 205N), the effective length ratio (0.76 and
0.64) and life of foot (1233417 and 896213) cycles.

Anne Schmitz in 2007 [24] used a Niagra foot model with finite element
methods (FEM) to analyze mechanical properties. The stiffness responses of the
heel and toe off were measured using ISO 10328 by applying displacements at a
rate of 5mm/minute through a load platen angled at 15˚ and 20˚ on the heel and
toe, respectively (Figure 2-2). The maximum force applied was 1600 N. The
foot’s deflection and applied force were recorded using a data acquisition system
and software.

Figure (2-2) Load configurations for stiffness testing of the heel of the prosthetic foot [24].

17
 CHAPTER THREE
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND MODELING

3.1 Introduction

Theoretical model for the mechanical behavior of foot is presented in this

chapter. Transtibial amputees usually demonstrate some gait abnormalities such
as lower walking speed, step length and vertical peak force. The gait
abnormalities are believed to be due mainly to the loss of active dorsiflexion and
planterflexion motion of the ankle joint.

The ultimate aim of biomechanical analysis is to find out what the muscles
are doing: The timing of their contraction, the amount of force generated.

In this chapter, the force was analyzed, the moment at ankle was calculated
and the center of total mass with inclined angle was determined.

3.2 Mathematical Analysis of The Foot:

3.2.1 Computation of The Ankle Moment and Dorsiflexion Angle

The computational method is used to evaluate alternative center of mass,

ankle moment and dorsiflexion angle from the free body diagram of lower limb
"above ankle joint" by assuming the body as straight line and joint at knee and

18
hip, Figure (3-1). When the equilibrium equation is applied, the equations of
motion in X and Y directions may be obtained as follows [1]:

Figure (3-1) Force distributed with GRF [1].

19
F x M X

Fx  M t xc (3.1)

F y MY

Fy  M t ( g  yC ) (3.2)

The moment about center of mass of human (COM) is:

M XY  Fy bi Sin   Fxbi Cos   I C (3.3)

 K  (K 2  K 2  K 2 ) 
  2 tan  1
1 1 2 3
 (3.4)
 ( K3  K 2 ) 

Equation (3-4) gives the following expression evaluated for the dorsiflexion
angle from the free body diagram of lower limb "above ankle joint".

Where:

K1  (( M t  m) I  M t 2bi 2 ) g  I ( FN  FM ) (3.5)

K2  Fh I (3.6)

K3  M t bi ( FN N  FM M  Fh h) (3.7)

M XY  FN N  FM M  Fh h  mga (3.8)

Equation (3-8) gives the following expression evaluated for the ankle moment.

21
3.2.2 The Suggested New Design Foot
One of the more conventional types of prosthetic feet is the SACH foot
which is shown in Figure (3-2).

Figure (3-2) The SACH foot.

The keel of this type of foot is made from wood, while the heel is made from
rubber. After studying and testing the SACH foot, it was found that the failure
occurs in the toe off and the dorsiflexion angle for it is fair but it depends on the
beginning of foot (fingers, part in natural foot). Therefore this part is carried with
high amount of bending moment causing failure. Through the period of work
many types of prosthetic feet were studied to optimize the best shape for them
and to view the materials and design for it. The foot which is acting in tension is
the Niagara foot [2] is low cost with good energy return system as shown in
Figure (3- 3).

21
 Figure (3-3) The Niagara foot [24].
It is noted that this foot contains curve in its design and it was made from
polymer. Also the failure takes place at the toe off as in SACH foot. After noting
these, type and all types (see Appendix). Another foot designed by Dr.Kadhim
[1] is low cost and easily made, from available materials is shown in Figure (3-
4). One can suggest a primary shape for new prosthetic foot with dorsiflexion
angle and in the range of human walking off (5-6) km/hr [3].
In this thesis the primary idea is drawn and developed to get fist estimation of
dorsiflexion angle in the range above. After optimizing the design and taking in
to consideration the ability for manufacturing the non-articulated foot, design
was drawn and analyzed with the finite element package (ANSYS).[Figures (3-
5), (3-6) and (3-7)].

Figure (3-4) The foot proposed by Dr.Kadhim [1].

22
Figure (3-5) The front view of non-articulated foot.

23
Figure (3-6) The back view of non-articulated foot.

24
All dimensions in mm

5 GAP=3mm

45

R35

Gap=3

Gap=3

12.5
Gap=3

Figure (3-7) The top view of non-articulated foot.

25
 The non-articulated foot was checked with the ANSYS and the development
in the shape was continued until the fair shape was reached.
A foot was manufactured and first prototype was produced, then simple
machining processes were used to get final shape of products. The non-
articulated foot was examined to find out such characteristics as dorsiflexion,
dissipating impact energy, life, weight and cost.
There are numerous prosthetic foot designs available. These prosthetics feet
serve basic functions which include: support the body against gravity during
standing and walking; absorb shock during heel contact and in some cases mimic
metatarsal esophageal function during the stance phase of gait, preventing the
fatigue failure, storing energy as the stance limb accepts body weight and returns
this energy as the foot lift off the ground and good lifts off the ground and good
dorsiflexion.

The shape of non-articulated foot is dependent on dorsiflexion angle; the

shock absorption Figure (3-8).

The new design takes in consideration the need for a lighter foot for the
elderly amputee population and its relative low cost.

The shape at point C of the foot ankle complex creates a joint with an axis of
rotation that changes location during the stance phase as the body's center of the
mass proceeds forward over the foot.

26
 Figure (3-8) Non-articulated foot keel with load.

At the heel strikes the gaps open and the lower gap compresses allowing
planterflexion to occur as the subject achieves foot flat and begins to move over
the foot. At the end of midstance all gaps become closed and touch the top of the
fore foot section. The newly designed foot is made of a flexible material
(polyethylene). This allows the forefoot of the prosthetic foot to bend and the
fatigue limit of this material is good. The material chosen for the newly designed
foot was a polyethylene compound. The properties of this material allow the foot
to be strong and durable, yet flexible. The strength of the material prevents the
foot from breaking while altering the vertical and horizontal impulses during
weight bearing [25]. Its high durability prevents breakdown due to repeated
deformations of the material during gait. Although the material is strong, and
durable it's supple enough to allow the gaps to flex properly. The combination of
these attributes makes the polyethylene material an important part of the non-
articulated foot design.

27
3.2.3 Fatigue in the Newly Designed Foot By Using Proposed
Criteria

It is possible to design a simple, practical foot that achieves very specific

performance criteria. Currently, the cause of failure of most prosthetic feet used
in developing countries is the breakdown of the prosthetic keel due to excessive
wear of the cosmetic covering for the foot.

The newly designed foot will be tested and checked to find out all properties
"dorsiflexion, and fatigue failure". Experimentally in chapter (4), they are
analytically analyzed using fatigue criteria. The shape of newly designed foot is
difficult to be given foot properties or to mimic normal foot in size and comfort.

From the general equation [26]

S f  10C N b (3.9)

Log ( S f )  C  bLogN (3.10)

b represents slope of equation (3-10) [1]:

LogS f 1  LogSe
b
LogN1  LogN 2

1
N1
Sf1 Log ( )
b  Log ( ) N2
(3.11)
Se

where N1 , N 2 , S f , and Se are shown in Figure (3-9)

1

C is constant of equation (3-9) at N1

28
 Figure (3-9) The S-N curve.

Figure (3-10) The non-articulated foot keel with load.

29
Substitution of equation (3.11) into equation (3.10) gives:

 
  LogN1   LogN 
C  1    LogS   1
 LogSe
  LogN1  LogN 2  
f1
 Log 1
N 
 
 N2 

 LogN 2 LogN1
N N
Log 1 Log 1
N2 N2
C  Log S f1  Log S e

  LogN2 LogN1

 Log 1N N
Log 1 
 N N2

C  Log  S f1  Se
2
 (3.12)
 
 
 

When  a is greater than endurance limit Se the foot will have a finite life.

 
b

N l   aC  (3.13)
 10 

31
 N 
Log  1 
N 
 2
Sf 
Log  1 
 S 
 e 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
Nl   
  
 LogN 2


LogN1
N
Log 1

N
Log 1

  S f1
N2
 Se
N2

 
  
 

1
Sf 
Log  1 
 S 
 e 
 N 
Log  1 

 N 
 2 
  
Nl  a
   LogN 2 LogN1

  S f1  Se  

 

1
 Sf 
Log  1 
S 
 e 
 Log  N1  
 N 
 2 LogN 2 
  S f1 
Nl  
a
LogN1 
 Se 
 
 

31
 1
Sf 
Log  1 
 S 
 e 
 LogN1 ) LogN 2 
   Sf  
Nl    a   1   (3.14)
  Se   a  
 

3.3 Modeling of Prosthetic Foot Using ANSYS Software

Various phenomena treated in science and engineering are often described in

terms of differential equations formulated by using their continuum mechanics
models. Solving differential equations under various conditions such as
boundary or initial conditions leads to the understanding of the phenomena and
can predict the future of the phenomena (determinism). Exact solutions for
differential equations, however, are generally difficult to obtain. Numerical
methods are adopted to obtain approximate solutions for differential equations.
Among these numerical methods, those which approximate continua with
infinite degree of freedom by a discrete body with finite degree of freedom are
called finite element analysis.
The finite element method has become a powerful tool for the numerical
solution of a wide range of engineering problems. The use of ANSYS-11 to
create the finite element model is adopted [27]. In the ANSYS software, there
are three steps before modeling the specimen.

1- Choosing element type for each material used.

2- Defining real constants for these chosen elements.
3- Defining material properties for the chosen elements.

32
3.3.1 Elements Type

In the first step, the elements type for each material used in the analysis is
chosen off. In this study, one element was used, this elements is solid 185 to
represent polyethylene with help from the ANSYS software.

3.3.2 Real Constants

No real constant is used for solid 185 elements.

3.3.3 Material Model Behavior

Material model behavior number 1 refers to solid 185 element. This element
is used to model polyethylene. The element requires information regarding linear
isentropic as shown in Table (3-1).

Table (3.1) Material model behavior for polyethylene (solid 185).

Material properties for solid 185 element

Linear isotropic
Modulus of elasticity in the x-direction, MPa. EX 1320
Poison ratios PRXY 0.35

3.4 ANSYS Finite Element Model

The ANSYS is a package program that uses finite element method to

calculate the numerical solution of complex problem whose analytical solution is
tedious or not easy to achieve.

33
There are many steps to solve the problem by ANSYS these are:

1. Preprocessor: ANSYS program can deal with many kinds of problems

(mechanical, dynamics, thermal, fluid) so, the first step in mechanical
branch has been selected to solve the problem.
2. Processor: In this step the suitable type of element is chosen to solve the
problem, these elements are shown in Figure (3-11).

Figure (3-11) Solid 185 geometry [27].

SOLID185 is used for the 3-D modeling of solid structures as in the

presented problem. It is defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom
at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element has
plasticity, hyper elasticity, stress stiffening, creep, large deflection, and large
strain capabilities. It also has mixed formulation capability for simulating
deformations of nearly incompressible

Elastoplastic materials and fully incompressible hyper elastic materials. The

element is defined by eight nodes and the orthotropic material properties. The
default element coordinate system is along global directions.

34
The drawing of the body in three dimensions is made first, as shown in Figure
(3-12).

Figure (3-12) Non-articulated foot drawing in ANSYS.

3-Create mesh in volumes

The meshing process has been done by choosing the volume and the number
of elements in each body, as shown in Figure (3-13). The number of elements
was (10290) elements with total number of nodes of (20580) nodes.

35
 Figure (3-13) Non-articulated foot keel with mesh.

4. Define load

Loads can be applied using either PREP7 preprocessor or the solution

processor. Regardless of the chosen strategy, it is necessary to define the analysis
type and analysis options, apply loads, specify load step options, and initiate the
finite-element solution. The analysis type to be used is based on the loading
conditions [Figures (3-14), (3-15), (3-16) and (3-17)].

36
 846N

Figure (3-14) Non-articulated foot keel with load (Fatigue).

Figure (3-15) Non-articulated foot keel with load (Midstance phase).

37
Figure (3-16) Non-articulated foot keel with load (Toe off phase).

Figure (3-17) Non-articulated foot keel with load (Heel phase).

38
5. Solution:

The displacement fixing at specific points of the body is important to solve

the problem. The body as one piece must be fixed in (X, Y, Z) in three
dimensional axes. After the displacement is fixed, the load (force or pressure) of
each one are applied during the load step that is needed to be solved.

6. General postprocessor:

The results can be represented as contour plot with stress value at any node
or as paths between stresses and the distance along any path in the body at any
stage of the solution.

In fatigue solution, the fatigue tool is used to find equivalent stress,

maximum shear stress, total deformation, safety factor, and safety margin by
workbench program.

ANSYS work bench consists of the following at first draw geometry of the
designed non-articulated foot after that transforms it to mesh ( mesh generation )
and by using the option map of analysis types go to fatigue analysis.

Fatigue window contains many different parameters used to begin dynamic

analysis the main factor is K f which is evaluated using

K f  1  q  Kt  1 (3.15)

where q is notch sensitivity factor which equals 0.5 and K t which is called stress
concentration factor. The geometry of notch is similar to the notched bar in

39
bending width to diameter ratio of about 5 and radius of effective diameter of
0.25, so Kt  1.6 and K f  1.3 [28].

The value of K f is used according to the geometry and material property which
is equal to 1.3. In order to complete the total solution of our case, many other
important parameters are added, such as: Young modulus (E=1.32GPa), Poisson
ratio (ν=0.35), mass density (ρ=0.941 10-6), tensile yield stress (  y =16.52 MPa),
ultimate stress (  u =28.3MPa). Finally the fatigue test results for the used
material are listed in Table (5-2) attached. By using alternating stress it is
important to mention that the fatigue analysis used in the present work is based
on Soderberg theory. Endurance limit used for numerical analysis is 6.19 MPa
based on the 106 cycles which is used in the ANSYS package.

After providing all of parameters mentioned above followed by running

ANSYS software, the theory of failure of polymers are assumed by Von Misses
theory, the final results will be obtained for up to 10 6 cycles and the following
results are obtained:

The Maximum Equivalent Stress tool is based on the maximum equivalent

stress failure theory for ductile materials, also referred to as the Von Misses
theory, octahedral shear stress theory, or maximum distortion (or shear) energy
theory. Of the four failure theories supported by Simulation, this theory is
generally considered as the most appropriate for ductile materials such as
aluminum, brass and steel.

41
 1
 (   ) 2  ( 2   3 ) 2  ( 3   1 ) 2  2
E   1 2  (3.16)
 2 

The Maximum Shear Stress tool is based on the maximum shear stress
failure theory for ductile materials. The maximum shear stress max , also referred
to as the maximum shear stress, is found by plotting Mohr's circles using the
principal stresses:

1   3
max  (3.17)
2

Safety factor Fs is defined as a number multiplied by any parameter to allow

a safe range of working far away from failure [28].

1
      
Fs   t    c   (3.18)
 S e   S e  

41
 CHAPTER FOUR
EXPERIMENTAL WORK

4.1 Introduction

Many experimental tests are recommended for designing and manufacturing

the artificial limb. The presented foot is new, and then it is important to examine
the design, so that, a full size prototype is manufactured. Then it is tested using
the known tests for that. For this reason some instruments, devices were built
and modified to be used in these tests. The test results compared with the
theoretical procedure in order to show the difference between the experimental
and theoretical results.

The experimental work, in this chapter includes the following research points:

1-Designing and manufacturing a non-articulated foot.

2-Designing and manufacturing dorsiflexion foot tester.

3- Preparing the instruments and building the testing devices, and doing
calibration.

4- Dorsiflexion test is used, and this requires modifying the dorsiflexion foot
tester.

5- Impact test is used.

42
6- Fatigue foot tester is used, and this device is built specially to examine the
foot.

4-2 Designing and Manufacturing Dorsiflexion Foot Tester

The properties of the prosthetic components prescribed to amputees have the

potential of comfort, mobility, and health. The differences in heel region
structural properties of currently available prosthetics feet were measured.

The dorsiflexion foot tester, Figure (4-1) and Figure (4-2) were designed and
built specially to examine the foot dorsiflexion. It consists of:

1- Frame (wood).

2- Shaft (steel).

3- Standards disk masses (Cast iron).

4-Triangle wood (20°).

43
Figure (4.1) Dorsiflexion foot tester.

44
 Figure (4.2) Schematic diagram dorsiflexion foot tester.

4.3 Manufacturing of a Non-articulated Prosthetic Foot

In Iraq and most of the countries, the SACH foot is widely used, but this
foot has small dorsiflexion in ankle region, it depends on the end of fore foot
bending, therefore it is discomfortable. From forty cases of foot failure in
Baghdad Centre of Artificial Limbs for SACH foot it appears that the failure
region is midway between the head of metatarsals and the distal end of the
phalanges, this region is the end of keel and the alternative load is applied to it.

45
 Figure (4-3) The feet failure.

The SACH foot in Iraq comes from different companies such as Germany's
foot (Atto Bock Company) and French's foot (Janton Company), there is no foot
design or manufacturing in this country. The disadvantage for SACH foot, can
be overcome by designing and manufacturing new design foot, this depends on
dorsiflexion and mechanical properties for material that prevents fatigue failure
The non-articulated foot is made from polyethylene, this material has high
endurance limit and good flexibility with respect to the applied load in terms of
the gap above keel and ankle, as shown in Figure (4-3). Figures (4-4), (4-5), (4-
6), (4-7), (4-8), (4-9) and (4-10) show the manufacturing stages, they are as the
follows:

46
1- Drawing of the shape in ANSYS program is shown in Figure (4-4).

Figure (4-4) The non-articulated foot drawing in ANSYS.

Figure (4-5) Negative mold.

47
 Figure (4-6) Injection machine.[Almustafa plant, Bab AlMaotham, Baghdad]

2- Sculpturing the general shape.

3- Casting a negative mold from metal.

4- Machining the negative mold.

5- Arrangement of the mold inside the injection machine.

6- Preparing the granule of polyethylene in machine cone and adjusting

temperature (200˚C), pressure and time of injection. The injection machine
contains four heat zones, first heater is (80˚C) and fourth heater is (200˚C).
This temperature increases gradually, Figure (4-6).

7- Injecting the hot mixture of polyethylene granule inside the mold. The
injection foot is shown in Figure (4-7).

48
 Figure (4-7) The injection foot.

8- Vertical and horizontal milling machines were used to cut the materials and
shape the foot for the design form. [Figures (4-8) and (4-9)].

Figure (4-8) Vertical milling machines.[Nahrain University, College of

Engineering work shop]

49
 Figure (4-9) Horizontal milling machines. [Nahrain University, College of
Engineering work shop]
9- Holes were made using fixed drill machine with finishing ensuring smooth
surfaces and avoiding stress concentration. [Figure (4-10)].

Figure (4-10) Fixed drill machines. [Nahrain University, College of

Engineering work shop]

51
10-Adding rubber foam to the heel to absorb impact. The final shape of
product is shown in Figure (4-11).
The SACH foot wooden keel provides midstance stability but little lateral
movement filler materials are added to the heel to absorb impact as shown in
Figure (4-12).

Figure (4-11) The final non-articulated foot.

Figure (4-12) The SACH foot.

51
4.4 The Foot Testing
4.4.1 Fatigue Foot Test
The SACH foot is placed on the fatigue tester in order to obtain the life of the
foot. This procedure is applied to the non-articulated foot to compare between
two lives. The load is alternative in order to simulate normal gait, the piston 1
struck heel foot and piston 2 struck forefoot in sequence. A counter in the fatigue
foot tester recorded the number of strike. The frequency of strike was controlled
by using the frequency meter according to The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO Standard 10328) which outlines the test methods using
static and cyclic strength tests12. The static tests relate to the maximum loads
generated, whereas the cyclic tests relate to normal walking activities.

Two samples of the non-articulated foot were tested using a modification of

the ISO- 10328 testing sequence on a custom-built fatigue tester as shown in
Figures (4-13) and (4-14) . A dual-peak waveform matching the contact force
profile of Figure (4-13) was imposed using heel and toe off with peaks of 846N
at a frequency of 1 Hz.

52
Figure (4-13) Fatigue foot tester of non-articulated foot.

Figure (4-14) Fatigue foot tester of SACH foot.

53
4.4.2 Dorsiflexion Test:
To complete the dorsiflexion test the triangular wood (20°) must be
manufactured and supported with graded ruler, Figures (4-15) and (4-16). This
piece of wood is put in new dorsiflexion foot tester machine. It's replaced under
crosshead. The foot touches the triangle wood and applies force on it; this force
simulates the ground reaction force. The researcher begins to add loads starting
from (196.2N) with increment of (196.2N), gradually until reaches to (784.8N),
after the (58.86N) was applied and the corresponding dorsiflexion angles
measured. Dorsiflexion test is applied to two different types of feet, SACH foot
and the new design foot and a comparison is made with a normal human foot.
The amount of dorsiflexion as related to vertical displacement is therefore
determined by the toe lever of the foot, where the toe lever is distant from the
attached pylon to pivot corresponding to the ball of the foot.

Figure (4-15) Dorsiflexion tester of SACH foot.

54
 Figure (4-16) Dorsiflexion tester of non-articulated foot.

4-4-3 Impact Test: Heel Region Properties of Prosthetic Feet

To measure the shock absorption properties of the prosthesis at heel strike

and estimate the contact time of the prosthesis with the force plate, measure
which prosthesis has the best shock absorption properties at heel strike. To
measure the heel region properties of prosthetic feet in response to impact, a
pendulum was constructed to mechanically simulate the conditions immediately
following initial heel-ground contact during walking. That test has a standard
code named ISO 10328. Two different prosthetic feet (SACH foot, non-
articulated foot) were tested individually as in Figures (4-17) and (4-18). The
impact testers include:
1- Pendulum which has a mass 6 kg, length of arm 80 cm.
2- Frame from carbon steel with crosshead.
3- Load cell which has ringed 200 Kg with indicator.

55
 Figure (4-17) Impact foot tester of SACH foot

Figure (4-18) Impact foot tester of non-articulated foot.

56
 CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction
This chapter contains the results and discussion of both numerical and
experimental work used in this thesis.

The non-articulated foot designed in this work was modeled and tested
theoretically under static and fatigue loads using finite element method. A full
size prototype of this non-articulated foot was tested experimentally. A
comparison between the two results was made, plotted and listed. Also
comparison with SACH foot with present one was made.

5.2 Experimental Results

5.2.1 Mechanical Properties

The mechanical properties of all material are shown in Table (5-1).

Table (5-1) Mechanical properties of polyethylene [1].

MATERIAL σy (MPa) σULT (MPa) E (GPa)

POLYETHYLEN 16.52 28.3 1.32

57
5.2.2 S-N Curve of Polyethylene

The graph of stress range S against N is produced. Then a graph of Log S

plotted against Log N and is expected to be able to draw a best fit straight line
from the higher to lower stress points. There will also be a horizontal line
through the points at the endurance limit of polyethylene.

Table (5-2) S-N data for polyethylene [1].

MATERIAL Sf1 (MPa) Sf2 (MPa) N1 (CYCLE) N2 (CYCLE)

POLYETHYLEN 17.16 3.82 407 10,000,000

Figure (5-1) shows the stress with number of cycles, these results are used

in ANSYS software to examine a non-articulated foot life numerically.

Figure (5-1) S-N curve for polyethylene [1].

58
5.2.3 Experimental Results Obtained from Foot

5.2.3.1 Fatigue Foot Tester Results

In order to determine the validity of the non-articulated foot fatigue tester in

comparison to other testers currently being used, the industry standard SACH
foot was tested in one of the test stations in order to determine its time failure.

The SACH foot removed from the tester at 896,213 cycles was placed on the
tester within a few months of manufacturing [Figure (5-2)]. This may indicate
the material degradation is a factor in the life expectancy of SACH feet;
however, further testing would have to be undertaken.

The non-articulated foot failure occurred in one specimen at 2,103,445 cycles,

as shown in Figure (5-3).

This classic fatigue failure is consistent with the results of other observers in
experimental studies of non-articulated foot. Upon initial cycle testing in the
fatigue tester, the fatigue failure of the non-articulated foot was not detected until
failure, because crack propagation from a location is difficult to observe visually.
The results on the ISO study are summarized in Table (5-3).

59
 Figure (5-2) Failure region in SACH foot.

Figure (5-3) Failure region in non-articulated foot.

61
 Table (5-3) Life of different feet.

TYPE OF FOOT LIFE OF FOOT (CYCLE)

SACH FOOT 896,213

NON-ARTICULATED FOOT 2,103,445

5.2.3.2 Dorsiflexion

Figures (5-4) and (5-5) show the result of the dorsiflexion angle respectively
for SACH foot and non-articulated foot.

The dorsiflexion angles were experimentally obtained using a digital camera.

The maximum dorsiflexion angles for normal human foot, SACH foot, and non-
articulated foot are tabulated in Table (5-4).

Table (5-4) Dorsiflexion angle for different feet (load = 846 N).

TYPE OF FOOT DORSI-FLEXION ANGLE

Normal Human Foot [3] From (4.2◦- 10◦)

SACH Foot 6.4o

NON-ARTICULATED FOOT 7.8°

61
 1000.00

900.00

800.00

700.00

600.00
Load (N)

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Dorsiflexion Angle (Degree)

Figure (5-4) Experimental load with dorsiflexion angle for SACH foot.
1000.00

900.00

800.00

700.00

600.00
Load (N)

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Dorsiflexion Angle (Degree)

Figure (5-5) Experimental load with dorsiflexion for non-articulated design foot.

62
5.2.3.3 Impact for Heel Foot

Figure (5-6) and Figure (5-7) show the results of the impact test respectively
on SACH foot and non-articulated foot, while Table (5-5) summarizes these
results. The impact responses at heel strike reveal the SACH foot to have the
largest peak force, followed in order by the non- articulated foot. In general,
large peak forces are coupled with small deformations across different velocities.
The peak force of the SACH foot is nearly as great as that of the non-articulated
foot, while its peak deformation is somewhat less than non-articulated foot
deformation. As impact velocity increases (or decreases), the peak force and
deformation also increases (or decreases), therefore the velocity in this test is
constant, it depends on free fall. However, the heel-region properties of some of
feet resulted in reordering of the peak force rank. At this impact velocity, the
peak forces read by load cell are (9.5 kgf) and (9.82 kgf) for SACH foot and
non-articulated foot respectively.

Table (5-5) Impact force with different types of feet.

Type of foot Force read in load cell indicator [ kgf]

SACH 9.5

Non-articulated foot 9.82

63
 (XY)  05 Sep 2009 Internally created dataset

10

6
Load [N]

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [S]

Figure (5-6) Experimental impact test for SACH foot.

(XY)  05 Sep 2009 Internally created dataset

10

6
Load [N]

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [S]

Figure (5-7) Experimental impact test for non-articulated foot.

64
5.3 Numerical Analysis Results

5.3.1 Static Analysis

The aim of this analysis is to investigate the stresses and deformations of

clamped non-articulated foot with force after assuming that this value is the
average of applied load (86kg or 846N).

Figures (5-8), (5-9) and (5-10) show the Von-Misses stresses distribution
along the non-articulated foot, at the deformation of the above mentioned foot
and Von-Misses stress contour at the toe off phase with force of (846 N)
respectively.

Figure (5-8) shows the Von-Misses stresses for presented foot is plotted
versus foot length where foot toe-off is pointed as zero for the toe off phase.
Zero stress will be gradually increase as with length until reaching the location of
big hole then it will be decreased because of increasing section dimension, again
it will be increasing until reaching the heel hole, then it will be decreased
reaching zero at the heel end.

Figure (5-9) shows the distribution of deformation on the top or bottom

surface of the non-articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the
maximum deflection is located in the toe off foot.

Figure (5-10) shows the distribution of Von-Misses stresses in the non-

articulated foot, it is clear that a stresses can contracted at the heel hole which
reaches to (10.73Mpa) Von-Misses stress.

65
Figure (5-8) Von-Misses stresses along the non-articulated foot (toe off phase).

Figure (5-9) Deformation of the non-articulated foot (toe off phase).

66
 Figure (5-10) Von-Misses stress contour (toe off phase).

Figures (5-11), (5-12) and (5-13) show the Von-Misses stresses distribution
along the non-articulated foot, at the deformation of the above mentioned foot
and Von-Misses stress contour at the toe off phase with force of (846 N)
respectively.

Figure (5-11) shows the Von-Misses stresses for presented foot is plotted
versus foot length where foot toe-off is pointed as zero. On the other hand, the
relationship between stress and distance from the toe till the heel started, is fixed
on zero and then the stress takes value of (0.75MPa) reaching a maximum value
at heel hole (0.772MPa) and goes down to lower value of the end of the foot.

67
 Figure (5-12) shows the distribution of deformation on the top or bottom
surface of the non-articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the
maximum deflection is located in the toe off foot.

Figure (5-13) shows the distribution of Von-Misses stresses in the non-

articulated foot, it is clear that a stresses can contracted at the heel hole which
reaches to (1.7Mpa) Von-Misses stress.

Figure (5-11) Von-Misses stresses along the non-articulated foot (heel strikes
phase).

68
Figure (5-12) Deformation of the non-articulated foot (heel strikes phase).

Figure (5-13) Von-Misses stress contour (heel strikes phase).

69
 Figures (5-14), (5-15) and (5-16) show the Von-Misses stresses distribution
along the non-articulated foot, at the deformation of the above mentioned foot
and Von-Misses stress contour at the toe off phase with force of (650 N)
respectively.

Figure (5-14) shows the Von-Misses stresses for presented foot are plotted
versus foot length where foot toe-off is shown as zero. With zero stress it will
gradually increase as with length until it reaches the location of big hole then it
will be decreased because of increasing section dimension, again it will be
increased until it reaches the heel hole, then decreases reaching zero at the heel
end.

Figure (5-15) shows the distribution of deformation on the top or bottom

surface of the non-articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the
maximum deflection is located in the toe off and heel foot.

Figure (5-16) shows the distribution of Von-Misses stresses in the non-

articulated foot, it is clear that a stresses can contracted at the heel hole which
reaches to (3.23Mpa) Von-Misses stress.

71
 Figure (5-14) Von-Misses stresses along the foot (midstance phase).

Figure (5-15) Deformation of the non-articulated foot (midstance phase).

71
Figure (5-16) Von-Misses stress contour of the non-articulated foot (midstance
phase).

72
5.3.2 Fatigue Analysis.
The aim of this analysis is to investigate the fatigue of clamped non-
articulated foot with force of (846N).

Figure (5-17) shows the cyclic Equivalent Von-Misses stresses for the
internal side of the non-articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the
maximum the Equivalent Von-Misses stresses is located in the heel hole tension
side, this is because of the stress at concentration at that region.

Figure (5-18) shows the shear stress for the internal side of the non-
articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the maximum shear stress is
located at the heel hole tension side, local stress concentration happened.

Figure (5-19) shows the total deformation for the internal side of the non-
articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the maximum total
deformation is located in the toe off foot. That non-articulated foot considered a
cantilever beam loaded at it toe off position so this leads to maximum
deformation at the free end.

Figure (5-20) shows the equivalent stress-safety factor for the internal side
of the non-articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the maximum
equivalent stress-safety factor is located in the heel hole tension side; this is due
to high stress concentration at that area.

Figure (5-21) shows the shear stress-safety factor for the internal side of the
non-articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the maximum shear
stress-safety factor is located at the stress concentration point which called the
heel hole tension side.

73
 Figure (5-22) shows the equivalent stress-safety margin on the top or bottom
surface of the non-articulated foot. It can be seen from the figure that the
maximum equivalent stress-safety margin is located in the toe off foot, which is
suffering from high stress concentration.

Figure (5-17) Equivalent stress contour of the foot for fatigue load.

Figure (5-18) Shear stress contour of the non-articulated foot for fatigue load.

74
 (5-19) Total deformation contour of the non-articulated foot for fatigue load.

Figure (5-20) Equivalent stress contour-Safety Factor of the non-articulated foot

for fatigue load.

75
Figure (5-21) Shear stress contour-Safety factor of the non-articulated foot for
fatigue

Figure (5.22) Equivalent stress contour-Safety margin of the non-articulated

foot.

76
5.4 Discussion of Foot Tests
5.4.1 Dorsiflexion
The non-articulated prosthetic foot has a good dorsiflexion (7.8◦) when
compared with the SACH foot good dorsiflexion (6.4◦). The dorsiflexion angle,
moment and centre of mass are calculated by using a computational method.
Several factors can affect the results obtained with computational method.

Figures (5-4) to (5-5) show the dorsiflexion angle is increased, as the load is
increased because of increasing bending moment at the joint.

5.4.2 Discussion of Impact Foot Test

The results of impact tests for SACH foot and non-articulated presented foot
[Figures (5-6), (5-7) and (5-23)] show that the dissipated energy and maximum
impact load are approximately equal for these two feet.

5.4.3 Discussion of Fatigue Foot Test

The current configuration of the fatigue tester is such that it applies a known
force using two pneumatic cylinders, one at heel and the other at toe, to simulate
walking with a prosthetic foot. The main problem with this concept is that force
is not applied during the whole stepping process. But rather is applied at the two
extremes of the cycle. By concentrating the ground reaction force to two
locations, artificial wear regions are created at the point of application of the heel
and toe cylinder.

77
 Recall that a complete gait cycle is the period between the heel strikes of one
foot to the next strike of same foot.

By testing only at heel strike and toe-off, this phenomenon cannot be

simulated as artificial wear points will occur at the location of impact of heel
strike and toe off rather than be transmitted throughout the complete stance
phase of gait cycle.

Cyclic testing is a valid method for evaluating the performance of prosthetic feet.

The results obtained from the fatigue testing show that the SACH foot, old
SACH and new foot design, which have a significantly stiffer heel bumper with
an application force 846N, have the ability to withstand the shearing forces
placed upon the prosthetic feet at heel strike without delimitation occurring or
cracks developing. It underwent the fatigue process without delimitation
occurring and failure was postponed. It appears that the interface of foam /
rubber of the heel bumper suffer from distorting proximally at heel strike, this
decreases the shear forces in this region.

The SACH failed at the end of keel because of degradation in keel

manufactured from wood without dorsiflexion in the ankle.

The non-articulated foot failed at more cycles than SACH foot did because it
contains multi arc's ankles, and keels, which double dorsiflexion and the material
properties for polyethylene, become better than those of rubber foam.

The results were compared with those Daher [10] and Kadhim [1], Figure
(5-25). Daher conducted an extensive investigation in which nine various types
of SACH feet were subjected to cyclic testing to assess the durability of the

78
materials. He found out that changes in resistance at the heel occurred after only
5000 cycles. Many of the commercially available feet after fatigue testing had a
reduced resistance to loading due to compacting of the foam. The proposed
prosthetic foot (Kadhim) has a good characteristic when compared with the
SACH foot [1].

Impact EXP (N)

9
8
7
6
5
4 Impact EXP
3
2
1
0
1 2

1-Non-articulated foot 2-SACH foot

Figure (5-23) Response force to impact with different types of foot.

79
 25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

1-SACH foot (old) 2- SACH foot 3-SACH Daher test

4- Foot proposed by Dr.Kadhim 5-Non-articulated foot

Figure (5-24) Life of feet with different types of foot with force of 846N (Exp).

The non-articulated foot is compared with SACH foot in cost and weight, so
that the cost of non-articulated foot is lower than that of the other of about
(80%), also the reduction in weight by about (25%) where the non-articulated
foot weighted of about (400gm) mean while the SACH foot is about (650gm).

81
5.5 Comparison between Numerical and Experimental Results

Figure (5-25) shows the obtained results of tests of the manufactured non-
articulated foot, so the horizontal axis represents angle dorsiflexion while the
vertical one is of the applied load. It is so clear that the experimertal and ANSYS
analysis are close at the beginning of the lines after increasing load the these
differece is approximately (4.59%).

1000.00

900.00
ANSYS

Experimental
800.00

700.00

600.00
Load (N)

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Dorsiflexion Angle (Degree)

Figure (5-25) Dorsiflexion angle by experimental and numerical methods.

81
5.6 Patient Comment

In the original fitting, it was observed that patient appreciated the

biomechanical differences of the non-articulated foot compared to the SACH
design but was concerned about the stability of the foot. In addition, there was
concern regarding the appearance of the foot. A patient also commented that he
became used to the foot quickly. Figures (5-26), (5-27) and (5-28) show the
moving patient in the NEW foot is the midstance, heel strike and toe off phases
at weight of (78 kg).

Figure (5-26) A patient uses the non-articulated foot (midstance phase).

82
Figure (5-27) A patient uses the non-articulated foot (Heel strike phase).

Figure (5-28) A patient uses the non-articulated foot (Toe off phase).

83
 CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions
The aim of this thesis is to design a prosthetic foot that incorporates
componentry from currently available prosthetic feet. From the results obtained
both theoretically and experimentally the following conclusion can be drawn:
1. Using of high density polyethylene (HDPE) in manufacturing the designed
non-articulated foot gives high dorsiflexion angle and long fatigue life but the
approximately same impact energy absorption compared with SACH foot.
2. The dorsiflexion angle for the non-articulated foot is greater than that of the
SACH foot, so it may give a bend up to an acceptable limit.
3. Lengthening the supporting keel along the whole length of the non- articulated
foot gives the best stability to gait profile and long fatigue life.
4. The special design with slotted region on the upper side of the non- articulated
foot makes an increment in dorsiflexion angle so it leads to more flexibility in
gait profile.
5. The non-articulated foot is compared with SACH foot in cost and weight, so
that the cost of non-articulated foot is lower than that of the other by about
(80%), also we find that the new weight is lighter than that of by about (25%).

6. The life (cycles) of non-articulated foot is longer than that of the SACH foot.

84
6.2 Recommendation
Several recommendations for further work can be summarized in the
following points:

1. Make more tests on the presented non-articulated foot so that it can be of used
commercially.

2. Modify the technique of manufacturing the presented non-articulated foot so

that foot can be made using single molding process.

3. Modify the shape of presented non-articulated foot further to increase the

properties, especially the impact property.

4. Use a suitable composite material in manufacturing A non-articulated foot and

check the mechanical properties.
5. Vary the overall design of the non-articulated foot by using spring or any
other elastic material.

6. Try to use multi-layer non-articulated foot instead of one layer to investigate

the improvement in working condition.

7. Study of effect of temperature on the mechanical properties of non- articulated

prosthetic foot.

85
 REFERENCES
1-Kadhim K. Resan Al-Kinani, “Analysis and Design Optimization of
Prosthetic Below Knee” Ph.D., College of Engineering, Technology
University, 2007.

2-K.P. Bryant and J.T. Bryant “Midterm report Niagara foot Pilot Study in
Thailand “Canudian Center for Mine Action Technologies, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Queens University, Kingston, Qntario, Canada, 2002.

3-Daniel Jimeneze l and Ivan Polizzi "Prosthetic Foot Design", Mech. Eng.
Dept. Victoria University Press, 1998.
4-Musleh AL-Zahrani, “Aprosthetic Foot Testing Machine “, Massachusels
Institute of Technology, Research Science Instituts, 2008.

5-"Landmine –Statistics", One World International, London, 2002.

6-Ernesto Carlos “Estimation of Ground Reaction Force and Zero Moment

Point on A powered Ankle Foot Prosthesis” M.Sc Thesis Universidad Pan-
American Campus Bonaterra, 2006.

7- Bolten, W., “Engineering Materials Technology “, PP.2-5, 1998.

8- D.P Hanley "Introduction to the Selection of Engineering Materials", Von

Nostrand, Reinhold Co. Ltd, 1980.

9-Karl F. Zabjek ," Analyse Biom'ecanque des pied SACH et SEATTLE –

LIGHT Durant la locomotion chez les personnes Age'es Ampute'es du Membre
Infe'rieur ) M.Sc thesis, Universite' de Sherbrooke , 1997.

86
10-Rehab Tech. "Summary Information on Prosthetic Standards Available from
Rehab Tech " J of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol.28, No.2,
pp.79-90, 1995.

11-Daher R.L. "Physical Response of SACH Feet under Laboratory Testing",

Bulletin of Prosthetics Research, Vol.10, No.23, pp.4-50, 1975.

12-Wevers, H.W and Durance J.P. " Dynamic testing of Below –Knee
Prosthesis: assembly and Components " J. of Prosthetics and Orthotics
International, 11, pp.117-123,1987.

13- R. Deval "The Seattle Foot" J.oF Orthotics and Prosthetics Vol.40, No.8,
pp.17-23, 1986.

14- Toh S. L. , Goh J.C., Tan P. H. and Tay T.E. "Fatigue Testing of Energy
Storing Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 17, pp.180 -188, 1983.

15- Kabra S. and Narayanan R. " Equipment and Methods for Laboratory
Testing of Ankle – Foot Prostheses as Exemplified by the Jaipur Foot " J. of
Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol.28, No.3, pp.23-34 , 1991.

16- Glenn K. Kulte; Jocelyn S. Berge, Ava D. Segal " Heel – region Properties
of Prosthetic Feet and Shoes "J. of Rehabilitation Research and Development,
Vol.41, No.4, pp.535-545, 2004.

17- Francis J.Torst " Energy Storing Feet " J. of the Association of Children's

87
Prosthetic –Orthotic Clinics , Vol.24, No. 4, pp.82-101, 2000.
18- Michael Hilery and Siobhan Strike "Dynamic Response Lower Limb
Prosthesis Design" University of Limerick press, 2001.

19- Goh , J.C. , Solomonidis S.E. , Spence W. D. and Paul , J.P "
Biomechanical Evaluation of SACH and Uniaxial Feet " J. of Prosthetics and
Orthotics International, Vol.8, No.11, pp.147-154, 1984.

20- Lemann , J.F. , Bessette S. , Dralle A. , Questad K. and Delateur B. "

Comprehensive Analysis of Dynamic Elastic Response Feet: Seattle Ankle /Lite
Foot Versus SACH Foot " J. of Phys Med Rehabil , Vol.74 , pp.853-861 ,
1993a.

21- Lemann, J.F., Bessette S., Dralle A., Questad K. and Delateur B. "
Comprehensive Analysis of Energy Storing Prosthetic Feet: Flex Foot and
Seattle Foot Versus Standard SACH Foot " J. of Phys Med Rehabil , Vol.74,
pp.1225-1231, 1993.

22- R. Arvikar and A. Seireg " Intersegment Foot Motion and Ground Reaction
Forces with the Stance Phase of Walking ", J. of Engineering in Medicine Vol. 9,
No. 2, pp. 67-83, 1980.

23- Andrew H. Hansen, Michel Sam and Dudley S. Childress " The Effective
Foot Length Ratio: A Potential Tool for Characterization and Evaluation of
Prosthetic Feet " , J. of American Academy of Orthotics and Prosthetists ,
Vol.16, No.2, pp. 41-45, 2004.

88
24-Anne Schmite (nee Bans) “Stiffness Analyses for the Design Development
of a prosthetic foot “, M.Sc thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2007.

25-F. Crane and J. Charles " Selection and Use Of Engineering Materials "
Butterworth & Co. (Publishers ) Ltd. 1987.

26-Joseph E. Shigley and Charles R. Mischke " Mechanical Engineering

Design " Tata McGraw HILL, 2003.
27- Bathe, K.J., Finite Element Procedure’ Prentice Hall International Inc.,
USA, PP 1037, 1996.
28- ANSYS Program Help (Version 11).

89
 ‫الخالصة‬
‫ال يمكن لإلقدام الصناعية المصممة أن تمتلك نفس الخواص والمهارات ألقدام البشر الطبيعية وعليه‬
‫فقد تناول هذا البحث إجراء عدة تغييرات على تصميم قدم صناعية جديدة لمحاكاة القدم الطبيعية لإلنسان‬
‫وكذلك تم التداخل فيما بين الخصائص العامة للقدم المصنعة في محاولة للحصول على قدم متعددة‬
‫المهارات وبهذا أظهرت القدم الجديدة المصنعة مدى واسع من الخصائص أكثر مما هو عليه في اإلقدام‬
‫الصناعية في البحوث السابقة‪.‬‬

‫مما جعل القدم غير مفصلية المصنعة تقترب من حيث كافة الخواص الميكانيكية للقدم الطبيعية‪ ،‬ومن‬
‫أهم تلك الخصائص السير الطبيعي متضمنا ً االنحناء الطولي ومعدل امتصاص طاقة الصدمة واختبارات‬
‫عمر الكالل لتلك القدم‪ .‬كما وتم في هذا البحث مقارنة كافة الخصائص الميكانيكية للقدم غير مفصلية‬
‫المصنعة مع ما يسمى بال )‪ ( SACH Foot‬والتي بدورها تعتمد أساسا ً على محاكاة قدم اإلنسان‬
‫الطبيعي‪.‬‬

‫تم في البحث أيضا بتصميم وتصنيع قدم صناعية من مادة البولي أثيلين عالي الكثافة ومقارنتها مع إل‬
‫) ‪ (SACH Foot‬ومالحظة الفرو قات في هيئة المشي ومقدار البلى وهل إن تلك الفرو قات ستكون‬
‫بمثابة مشكلة تتطلب إيجاد حلول لها‪ .‬كما تم دمج كافة العناصر المؤثرة في تصميم القدم الصناعية مثل‬
‫نوع المادة المصنعة منها وباقي المكونات األخرى لتحسين التصميم بما يالئم استخدامها‪.‬‬

‫كما تم في الجزء التحليلي العددي استعراض النتائج في اختبارات الكالل باستخدام طريقة العناصر‬
‫المحددة )‪(Ansys 11‬وباستخدام كال الطريقتين تم حساب عمر الكالل للقدم واإلنحاء الطولي ومقدار‬
‫امتصاص طاقة الصدمة‪.‬‬

‫تمتلك القدم الغير مفصلية خصائص ميكانيكية جيدة مقارنة مع ال (‪ )SACH Foot‬وتمتلك تلك‬
‫الخصائص باحتساب كل من االنحناء الطولي ومقدار القوة المنتقلة خالل الصدمة وعمر الكالل والجدول‬
‫ادناه يبين مقارنة باالرقام لكل ما ورد اعاله من خصائص ميكانيكية‪.‬‬

‫ومقدار القوة المنتقلة خالل وعمر الكالل]‪[cycle‬‬ ‫االنحناء الطولي‬ ‫نوع القدم‬
‫الصدمة]‪[Kgf‬‬
‫‪2103445‬‬ ‫‪9.82‬‬ ‫◦‪7.8‬‬ ‫القدم الغير مفصلية‬
‫‪896213‬‬ ‫‪9.5‬‬ ‫◦‪6.4‬‬ ‫قدم ‪SACH‬‬

‫وأخيرا تم مقرنة القدم غير مفصلية مع إل )‪ (SACH Foot‬من حيث الكلفة والوزن حيث كانت كلفة‬
‫القدم الجديدة أقل من كلفة إل )‪ (SACH Foot‬بمقدار (‪ )%81‬ووزن أقل بمقدار (‪.)%25‬‬

‫‪91‬‬
‫تصميم وتحليل قدم صناعي غير مفصلي‬
‫لذوي االحتياجات الخاصة‬

‫رسالة‬
‫مقدمه إلى كلية الهندسة في جامعة النهرين وهي جزء من متطلبات نيل درجة‬
‫ماجستير علوم في الهندسة الميكانيكية‬

‫من قبل‬

‫مسلم محسن علي شويد‬

‫)بكالوريوس علوم في الهندسة الميكانيكية ‪(3002‬‬

‫‪1431‬‬ ‫ربيع األول‬

‫‪2010‬‬ ‫شباط‬

‫‪91‬‬
 APPENDIX A
TYPE OF FOOT:
There are many kinds of prosthetic feet, some of which are considered in
short below:

A.1 The Cheetah Flex-Foot

A study at the German Sport University states that the Cheetah Flex-Feet
were 30% more efficient than a human ankle. This study also suggests that the
user of a springy feet would need 25% less energy than an able-bodied runner
to achieve the same sprinting speed [4].

Figure (A-1) The cheetah flex-foot.

A-1
A.2 Dynamic Response Foot
Dynamic Response Feet is designed for people whose gait patterns
generate enough energy to be worth storing. For this reason, some prosthetics
call them “energy storing feet”. They incorporate elastic keel structures that
absorb energy during midstance and terminal stance, and then release it
during pressing and initial swing [4].

Figure (A-2) Dynamic response feet.

A-2
A.3 Jaipur Foot
The Jaipur foot is low-cost, durable, waterproof, and can be used with or
without shoes. The Jaipur, named for the town where it was designed, is
flexible along multiple axes, which allows natural movement of the foot. The
Jaipur foot technology is based on traditional craft using small local
production methods, and has already helped over 900,000 amputees in
developing and landmine-affected countries [4].

Figure (A-3) Jaipur Foot.

A-3
A.4 Niagara Foot
The Niagara Foot is a new, affordable, high-performance prosthetic foot
intended for active individuals who have been victims of landmines. The
Niagara foot acts like a spring to provide energy storage and return during the
gait cycle [3].

Figure (A-4) Niagara Foot.

A.5 Carbon copy II

The Carbon Copy II was first introduced on the market in May 1986 by
the Ohio Willow Wood Company. It was the most recent entry in the energy
storing arena and has only been updated in the past few years. The CCII uses
a combination of components from previous designs such as:
· Solid ankle.
A-4
· Kevlar / Nylon keel.
· Fiberglass / epoxy attachment plates.
· Low density Styrofoam fill.
· Heavy polyurethane elastomer outer shell.
The CCII has the ability to provide two levels of energy return. One level is
for normal walking were the thin primary deflection plate returns a small
amount of energy. The other level of energy return is for rigorous activities
were the primary and secondary both act to provide a larger amount of
returned energy. The CCII offers, through its design, versatility and can be
adapted to many levels of amputation including uni and bi - lateral above and
below knee amputees. Overall the CCII is preferred by patients for its light
weight and two levels of energy return. The Carbon Copy II foot used in this
investigation is a right foot, size 27cm [2].

A.6 Dynamic Foot

The Dynamic Foot consists of a wooden ankle block encased by two
layers of varying density foam. It is constructed so that it can produce
excellent shock absorption at heel strike and provide a smooth transition from
heel strike to toe off. The Dynamic Foot is characterized by its:
· Rigid wooden keel surrounded by foams.
· Varying density foam construction.
The Dynamic Foot is ideal for all patient groups and prosthesis adaptors.
The Otto Bock Dynamic foot used in this investigation is the ID10 right foot,
size 27cm [3].

A.7 Flex Foot Modular II

The Flex Foot II consists of 2 molded, 100% lightweight carbon -graphite,
plates covered by an elastic foam which form the structure of the heel forefoot

A-5
and shank. The Flex Foot can be designed specifically for the individual and
are made according to the weight of the amputee, expected activity level,
stump size and the level of amputation.3 The diagram shows that the Flex
Foot is not suitable for a Seems amputee or long below knee stumps that
terminate less than 12.25cm from the floor. This is due to the fixed minimum
length of the prosthesis [2].

Figure (A-5) Flexes foot modular.

A.8 Greissinger Foot

The Greissinger Foot is a multi-axial foot that allows for rotation in all
three phases:
· Flexion / extension.
· Inversion / eversion.
· Internal / external rotation.
Multi - axis foot - ankle assemblies such as the Greissinger Foot were
designed for very active below - knee amputees. They are widely used to

A-6
reduce the shearing action between the stump and the socket. The Greissinger
Foot is characterized by its:
· Carbon fiber keel.
· Polyurethane casing.
· Multi - axis ankle.
The advantage of having a multiple degree of freedom axis is that it
allows for inversion / eversion that enables the patient to walk on uneven
ground. The Otto Bock Greissinger foot used in this investigation is the 1A13
right foot, size 27cm [3].

Figure (A-6) Greissinger foot.

A.9 Multi-Axis Foot

The Multi-Axis Foot consists of a carbon fiber keel encased by a
polyurethane cosmoses. It is designed to allow for plantar and dorsiflexion as
well as control in inversion and eversion. The heel height is adjustable and
allows for torque and impact to be absorbed. The Multi-Axis Foot is
characterized by its:
· Carbon Fiber keel.
· Adjustable heel height.
· Unique ankle joint.

A-7
 The Multi - Axis Foot gives a safer and more natural function and enables
some patients to achieve higher levels of activity. The Blatchford Multi-Axis
foot used in this investigation is the 509153-67 left foot, size 27cm [3].

A.10 Quantum
The Quantum, foot was designed and manufactured by Hanger in London
and consists of three major components:
· The spring module.
· The foam ankle cosmoses.
· The foot cosmoses.
The spring module is constructed of epoxy resin and is reinforced with
layers of fiberglass. The spring module consists of a sole spring, a secondary
spring and an ankle base. The sole spring gives a smooth transition from heel
strike to flat foot to heel off to toe off. The secondary spring acts as an energy
storing device for more vigorous activities. Selection of the module is based
on the patients weight, foot size and activity level. The Quantum foot offers a
good range of eversion and inversion as well as rotational control, enabling
the patient to walk on inclined surfaces. The quant meter is a device which
assists the prosthetics in determining the behavior of the sole spring inside the
cosmoses at the fitting stage. (17) The foam ankle cosmoses is manufactured
from its block form to its desired shape and attached to the foot. The foot
cosmesis is a rubber cover for the spring module. Features such as toes and
skin color give it good cosmetic properties.
The VESSA Quantum foot used in this investigation is the N1562 left foot,
size 26cm [3].

A-8
 Figure (A-7) Quantum.

A.11 SACH Foot

There are several companies that produce the Solid Ankle Cushioned Heel
(SACH) prosthesis such as Otto Bock Industries Inc. and Kingsley
Manufacturing Co [3]. This is one of the most popular prosthesis due to its
low maintenance and relatively low cost. The SACH Foot is characterized by
its:

· Wedge shaped heel cushions.

· Varying heel densities.
· Varying material keel.
· Rubber body and bolt attachment.

A-9
A.11.1 Kingsley SACH
Features of all Kingsley SACH Feet include:
· Eastern Hard-Rock Maple Keel.
· Single composite 3 density Medthane foot molding.
· Reinforced sole.
· Soft, Medium and Firm Heel Densities.
The Kingsley SACH foot used in this investigation is the Wayfarer K10
right foot, size 27cm [3].

A.11.2 Otto Bock SACH

Features of the Otto Bock SACH foot include:
· Polyurethane body.
· Titanium Bolt.
· Poplar Keel.
The Otto Bock SACH feet used in this investigation are the IS51 left foot,
size 27cm and the IS70 left foot, size 28cm [3].

Figure (A-8) Otto bock SACH

A-10
A.12 SAFE Foot
The SAFE Foot (Stationary Ankle Flexible Endoskeleton) has a solid
ankle and provides large amounts of transverse rotation as well as inversion
and eversion. The advantage of the SAFE Foot is that it is moisture and grit -
resistant. This makes this prosthesis very low maintenance. The SAFE foot
and other soft keel designs should be viewed as offering increased shock
absorption and comfort at the expense of responsiveness in a competitive
situation. The Campbell Child’s SAFE foot used in this investigation is a right
foot, size 27cm [3].

Figure (A-9) SAFE foot.

A.13 Seattle Lite

The Seattle Light Foot set the standards of performance, versatility, and
cosmoses for dynamic response prosthetic feet [3]. The Delrin II patented keel
affords the Light foot a unique combination of fatigue resistance, toughness,
and spring-like resilience without the transmission of shock for a smooth,
dynamic gait.
Features of the Seattle Lite foot include:
· Delrin II dynamic response keel.

A-11
 · Lightweight design.
· Sculpted life-like appearance.
· Available in various skin colors.
The Seattle Light foot is appropriate for amputees of all ages and activity
levels and can be fit on all unilateral and bilateral lower extremity amputees
down to the Symes level. The light foot is available in sizes 22-30 cm and is
limited to use on individuals under 135 kg. The Seattle Lite foot used in this
investigation is the SLF130 right foot, size 24cm.

Figure (A-10) Seattle lite.

A.14 Seattle Natural

The Seattle Natural Foot is the best alternative to any SACH foot on the
market today. The Natural Foot has all of the performance characteristics of a
compliant foot plus the additional benefits of Seattle cosmesis and less
weight, all blended to perform naturally [3].
Features of the Seattle Natural foot include:
· Excellent roll-over during walking.
· Slim, sculpted, natural-looking cosmesis.
· 3/8" heel rise.
· Low to medium-low activity level.
· Available in various skin colors.

A-12
 The Seattle Natural Foot meets the requirements of amputees of all ages
with low to medium-low activity levels. It is appropriate for use by unilateral
and bilateral lower extremity amputees. The Seattle Natural foot is available
in sizes 22-29 cm. The Seattle Natural foot used in this investigation is the
SNF150 right foot, size 27cm.

Figure (A-11) Seattle natural.

A.15 STEN
The STEN foot is one of the simplest designs in prosthetic feet for it uses
the Kingsley foot molds and rubbers. It comes in a wide variety of sizes and
heel heights from a child (18cm keel) through to an adult (30cm keel). The
heels also come is soft, medium or hard densities. Although it is slightly
heavier than the conventional SACH foot, it differs in its keel which allows
for smooth roll - over of the prosthesis. As the name suggests the STEN,
Stored energy, has the capacity to store energy. However, the effectiveness of
its ability to store energy is debatable. The structure of its keel disperses the
energy rather than storing and then returning it. The STEN Foot is
characterized by its [3]:
· Varying density heel.
· Polyurethane bumpers.
· Reinforcement bands.
The Kingsley STEN foot used in this investigation is a right foot, size 27cm.

A-13
 Figure (A-12) Sten.

A.16 Sure Flex

The Flex-Foot Sure-Flex is practical, lightweight energy storage
prosthesis. It is designed for patients who perform low to moderate activity
levels. The carbon fiber heels provide energy storage and return which
enables the patients to achieve a smooth natural gait from heel strike to toe
off. It incorporates a foam sole that is available in 3 densities to allow the
prosthetic to customize the fit according to the patient’s needs. The Sure-Flex
offers additional ankle motion not offered in other comparable bolt-on
products. Features of the Sure - Flex include:
· 100% carbon fiber composite keel and heel.
· Polyurethane foam sole available in three densities.
The SURE FLEX foot used in this investigation is a
left foot, size 26cm [3].

A-14
 Figure (A-13) Sure flex.

A-15

View publication stats