Session VC 2

Design of a Below the Knee Prosthetic Socket

Diane Higgs, Phanvan Sanders, and Yesh P. Singh

Mechanical Engineering and Biomechanical Department

University of Texas at San Antonio

Abstract
The paper presents the development of design and optimization of a below the knee prosthetic
socket for successful ambulation, comfort, and stability. The design was based on prescribed
specifications, which include manufacturing process, material, physical and mechanical
constraints, and static loading limited to normal physical activities: standing, walking, and
sitting. Data points were acquired from a CT Scan of a residual limb and allowances were made
in pressure areas. The point data was transferred electronically from the University of Texas
Health Science Center San Antonio (UTHSCSA) to the CAD laboratory of the University of
Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). Using the point data and the capabilities of the CAD software
(ProEngineer), a drawing of a socket was created. Twelve areas were defined and a socket-pylon
interface was added. The drawing was converted into an IGES file and imported into the finite
element analysis program, ANSYS. A finite element mesh was generated using shell and solid
elements. All surfaces were meshed with triangular shell elements. Boundary constraints were
applied and the socket was analyzed for the extreme load conditions that exist at heel strike.
Moment and load vectors [8] were applied at the center of the socket-pylon interface. Elasticity
of the tissues was modeled by assigning an elastic foundation stiffness value to the defined
pressure relief areas of the socket that contact with the residual limb. Eight (8) different design
models were created by changing the socket wall thickness, introducing gradual and offset
tapered regions, and enlarging pressure relief areas. The areas were created in ProEngineer and
thickness and tapers were defined in ANSYS. Gaining useful information on stresses and
deflections from the finite element analyses of the socket designs, a final design of a below the
knee prosthetic socket was developed. The final design satisfied the prescribed design
specifications. Plots of data points, datum curves, socket surface, line divisions, anterior and
posterior interfacial pressures, deflections, and stress distributions are provided in the paper.

Introduction

A prosthetic socket is the interface between the human and the mechanical support system.
Design and fit is what ultimately determines the energy expenditure, comfort, support, and
patient acceptance of the socket [1]. For optimal prosthetic performances, the socket must
Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
facilitate motion. Forces generated by the residual limb through gait motion must be efficiently
transmitted from the limb to the prosthesis; thus, any relative motion exhibited between the
residual limb and the socket will challenge successful ambulation thereby increasing fatigue and
discomfort.

It is demanded of the prosthetist to provide a prosthesis for the “hard to fit” patient. Patients
expect to receive a prosthesis with proper fit, ultimate comfort, and functionality. Additionally,
the prosthesis must be lightweight and cosmetically appealing. However, many of these
expectations are not satisfied due to various complexities involved. Despite the best efforts of
the prosthetist, the prosthesis is rejected due to the inability of the patient’s residual limb to
tolerate normal and appropriate socket pressures associated with traditional below the knee (BK)
prosthetic designs. Therefore, tissue tolerance remains an issue of concern. Up to 20-55% of
below the knee amputees report extreme dissatisfaction of socket discomfort due to tissue
breakdown of the skin resulting in residual limb pain [5]. The most prominent areas of
sensitivity include the fibular head and the distal end of the tibia.

Today, numerous socket systems are being designed for the patient to enhance the level of
comfort for the below the knee amputee. These designs are proposed to alleviate amputees of
the following problems: poor pressure tolerance, prominent bony structures, invaginated scars,
adhesions, localized bursal enlargement, short residual limb with limited pressure distribution.
This is especially important in diabetic patients who have no feeling in the lower limb. During
normal daily activity the use of an improper fitted socket for an extended period of time will
cause the residual limb to easily develop sores from the pressure contact of the socket.
Furthermore, socket design is important not only for comfort but health as well.

Changes in the socket shape help alleviate pain in vulnerable areas. The socket wall can be
aligned away from the body tissue relieving the pressure at these locations. This requires more
support to be added to other areas of the socket. The socket shape is modified so that the tissues
in less sensitive areas are positioned close to the socket ensuring a snug fit. Over the past
decades, several innovations have been introduced to relieve tissue intolerance. These include
socket gel liners or double wall sockets consisting of a rigid outer shell and a semi-flexible inner
shell. However, these sockets require a two-part socket design and fabrication. As a result, the
cost production of these sockets is expensive and time consuming.

Socket design is the most important aspect of lower limb prosthesis. Exotic prosthetic designs
will continue to evolve and become more cost effective, more easily fabricated, and
consequently, available to a greater percentage of the patient population.

Design Specifications

Various design specifications are based on the needs of the patient and method of production.
The design of the prosthesis will be based on the following design specifications. These limits or
constraints are grouped into two main categories:

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
 Fabrication Process

1. Selective Laser Sintering

2. Material: Duraform PA (Nylon) – density 0.59 g/cm3

Physical and Mechanical Constraints

1. Thickness range of socket wall—1-5 mm

2. Designs based on the weight of a 75kg human male
3. Static loading limited to normal physical activity (i.e. standing,
walking, sitting)
4. Maximum pressure of 150 kPa applied to distal end of
prosthesis
5. Maximum wall displacement—2 mm

Design Methodology
The design methodology involved the development and optimization of a below the knee
prosthetic socket. The first objective was to electronically transfer the data for the prosthetic
socket model from the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA)
to the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) CAD Laboratory. The initial formats of the
prosthetic model were data points scanned in with a CT scanner. The data points were entered
into the PTC 2000i2 ProEngineer CAD system for manipulation at UTSA. The data points were
connected by a series of datum curves. Surfaces were formed by advanced swept blends.

Socket models were imported into ANSYS 5.7 for finite element analysis. After review of the
analysis results, the models were modified. The procedure is summarized in the following
diagram, Figure 1.
Data Points acquired Electronic Transfer from
CT scan of with allowances made in UTHSCSA to UTSA
residual limb pressure relief areas Engineering CAD lab

Define Areas Created surface CAD

Mesh Generation Import as IGES file model using ProE 2000i2;
Boundary conditions into ANSYS 5.7 Create IGES file
Perform FEA Analysis
Review results

Modifications in
ProE

Final Design

Figure 1: Summary of Methodology

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
 CAD Model
Data points (xyz coordinates), outlining the inner surface of the single-wall socket with pressure
allowances, were created by a CT scan and electronically transferred from UTHSCSA to UTSA.
They were manipulated in ProEngineer using the command arrays of the CAD software. Figure
2 shows the shape of the socket as defined by the data points (approximately 34000).

Figure 2: Socket as Defined by Data points

Datum curves, drawn as concentric rings about the z-axis, defined the surface of the socket. The
entire model consisted of 74 curves (Figure 3). The surface model was created along the datum
curves by sweeping about the z-axis (Figure 4).

Figure 3: Datum Curve Outlining Model Figure 4: Socket Surface

One of the main objectives in this project is to provide flexibility in specific locations of the
socket wall to eliminate tissue breakdown and provide pressure relief areas. The surface model
was divided into desired areas representing the pressure relief areas. Using the “Style curves”
command in ProEngineer, curves were drawn on the socket surface. The entire socket was
broken up into separate regions (Figure 5) outlined by the style curves. Figure 6 depicts the
surfaces as defined in ANSYS 5.7.

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
 Figure 5: Surface Patchwork Figure 6: Model in ANSYS

The pylon is the interface between the prosthetic socket and shank of the mechanical support
system. It is an important aspect of the below the knee prosthesis. Theoretically, stress
distribution across the socket is directly related to the area where the pylon meets the socket, i.e.
socket-pylon interface. Therefore, another objective of this project is to design the socket-pylon
interface to evenly redistribute the stresses throughout the socket, relieving some discomfort for
the patient. The socket-pylon interface was modeled as a cylinder with a length and diameter of
3.5 cm and 6.4 cm, respectively. A portion of this interface was modeled as a volume. The
volume was formed by protruding a circle with capped ends at a distance through the socket
surface. Using the socket quilt, the protrusion was trimmed and merged to the socket surface.
The volume portion of the socket-pylon interface is outlined in red in Figure 7. This area
provided a flat surface for the shank to interface with the socket.

Figure 7: Socket-Pylon Interface

Finite Element Model

A complete drawing of the surface, with the 12 defined areas and socket-pylon interface, was
converted into an IGES file and imported into ANSYS 5.7. The surface geometry had to be
topologically repaired in ANSYS before any analysis could be performed. The element used to
mesh the socket was SHELL 63. It is an elastic shell element that has six degrees of freedom at
each node. Additionally, SHELL 63 is capable of capturing complicated curvilinear geometry
Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
and is capable to carry both in-plane and normal loads. The volume portion of the socket-pylon
interface was defined as a solid in ANSYS 5.7. SOLID 92 element was chosen to mesh the
volume. It is a 10-noded tetrahedral element having 3 degrees (UX, UY, UZ) of freedom at each
node. Both elements are well suited to model irregular meshes (such as produced from various
CAD/CAM systems). Surface area boundary lines were divided evenly to allow for the
production of a consistent mesh throughout the socket (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Line Divisions

The generated triangular mesh consisted of approximately 2500 elements. Figure 9 shows the
meshed surfaces of the socket.

Figure 9: Meshed Model

The loads applied to the socket were based on normal gait activity. The socket was analyzed at
the most extreme load conditions, which exist at heel strike. For effective extreme efforts of the
socket, all magnitude of the forces was applied exclusively to the prosthetic socket.

During walking, three forces act on the body: (1) friction force, (2) horizontal force, and (3)
normal force [2]. All forces act simultaneously as a ground reaction vector (GRV). The GRV
acts 60° from the horizontal, representing maximum force at heel strike.

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
Gait data is readily available, usually in the form of percentage of body weight and phases of
gait. The horizontal and vertical loads were based upon a 75 kg subject [6]. The normal force
(FZ) and horizontal force (FX) account for 120% and 18% of the body weight, respectively. The
force calculations were as follows:
m
F z = (1 . 2 )( 75 kg )( 9 . 81 ) = 882 . 9 N (1)
s2
m
F x = ( 0 .18 )( 75 kg )( 9 .81 2 ) = 132 .44 N (2)
s
The force components were transferred to the socket as a vertical load and a moment about the
center of the socket-pylon interface. The moment about the socket-pylon interface was
calculated according to Equation 3. The angle of the limb at maximum heel strike was 60° [2],
and the length of the shank was assumed to be 32.5 cm.

∑ M = −F ( B sin 60°) + F (B cos 60°)

x z (3)

The moment exerted about the center of the socket-pylon interface is due to the shank. This
moment is applied as a distributed load along the inner cylindrical surface of the socket-pylon
interface (Figure 10). Thus, it can be represented as two equal and opposite resultant forces
(Eqn. 4).

Figure 10: Distributed Forces about the Socket-Pylon Interface

2 L 2 L 2
∑M = FR (
3 2
) + FR (
3 2
) = LF R
3
(4)

The two moment equations (Eqns. 3 and 4) were equated to each other solving for the resultant
force (FR) (Eqn. 5).

F z ( B cos 60 ° ) − F x ( B sin 60 ° ) (5)

FR =
2
L
3

Substituting numerical values into the above equation, the resultant force was determined to be
4551.21 N.

The vertical load, Fz, and the resultant force, FR, were applied as surface loads (i.e. pressures) on
the socket for analysis. The vertical force was applied as a pressure load of 27.4 N/cm2 to the
area where the shank interfaces with the socket. The surface area of this interface had a diameter
Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
of 6.4 cm resulting in a vertical pressure load of 27.4 N/cm2. The resultant force was applied as
a distributed load over a 180° section of the cylindrical area. The force was divided by one-
fourth of the surface area of the cylindrical wall. The distribution ranged from 0 – 258.74 N/cm2.
The pressure distribution was applied along the socket-pylon interface to vary radially and
axially.

In addition to the loads applied to the socket-pylon interface, various interfacial pressures from
previous experimental analyses were applied to the inner surface of the socket wall. These
pressures were associated with the areas of the below the knee socket that are most commonly
rectified: patellar tendon (PB—8.4 N/cm2), medial tibia (MT—4.0 N/cm2), popliteal depression
(PD—7.4 N/cm2), distal tibia (DT—9.9 N/cm2), and the fibular head (FH—4.8 N/cm2), Figures
11 and 12 [6].
Patellar Tendon
8.4 N/cm2

Fibular Head Popliteal Depression

4.8 N/cm2 7.4 N/cm2

Medial Tibia
4 N/cm2

Distal Tibia
9.9 N/cm2

Figure 11: Anterior Interfacial Pressures Figure 12: Posterior Interfacial Pressures

The residual limb consists of several types of tissue (i.e. muscle, adipose tissue, skin, and bone).
Each tissue is comprised of its own material properties, including different modulus of elasticity.
The elasticity of the tissues was modeled in ANSYS by assigning an elastic foundation stiffness
value to the defined pressure relief areas of the socket that contact with the residual limb. Elastic
foundation stiffness (EFS) is defined [SHELL 63, ANSYS 5.7] as the pressure required to
produce a unit normal deflection of the foundation. The EFS value was defined by the following
equation (Eqn. 6):

Εδ
EFS = (6)
L
Where,
δ = 1 mm, unit normal deflection
Ε = Soft tissue elastic modulus
L = thickness of soft tissue

The elastic modulus and thickness of the soft tissues located in the desired pressure relief areas
were retrieved from available data [7]. The EFS values were determined for the following areas
Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
of the sockets: fibular head, medial tibia, distal tibia, and popliteal depression. Table 1 lists the
calculated EFS values for each area and their associated soft tissue elastic modulus and lengths.
In ANSYS, the EFS value can be input as a real constant for SHELL 63. It was assigned to each
element defined within the pressure relief areas.
Table 1: EFS Values
Popliteal
Fibular head Medial Tibia Tibial End
Depression
L (cm) 0.35 0.35 1 1.5
E (N/cm2) 40.5 24.7 249 30

EFS (N/cm2) 11.571 7.057 24.900 2.000

The socket was constrained at four nodes located on the bottom solid portion of the socket-pylon
interface. It was constrained in three degrees of freedom, Ux, Uy, and Uz. These boundary
conditions ensured that the forces were in balance and restricted over rotation of the socket.
Subsequently, the reaction forces at the four constrained nodes were approximately zero. This
verified a balanced model.
Alternate Designs and Results
Eight different design models were created by changing socket wall thickness, introducing
gradual and offset taper regions, and enlarging pressure relief areas. The areas were created in
the ProEngineer and thickness and tapers were defined in ANSYS. Maximum deflections and
stress distributions noted for each socket model are described below. A final design was
determined based on the results of the analysis.

Analysis 1: The first model was used as a reference for producing a better design of a below the
knee prosthetic socket. The socket model consisted of a uniform 5 mm wall thickness, and the
wall of the socket-pylon interface was assigned a thickness of 6 mm.

Figure 13: Deflection Plot Figure 14: von Mises Stress Plot
Maximum Deflection: 0.87mm Maximum Stress: 3.95 MPa

The finite element analysis (FEA) results approximated small deflections throughout the entire
socket. Since the desired deflection for ultimate comfort is 2 mm, the deflections noted provide
Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
no relief for amputees. It is necessary to reduce the thickness in the pressure relief areas to allow
for more displacement.

Yield stress for Duraform PA is 44 MPa. Due to the low stress results, failure was not a concern
in redesigning the socket wall. Under the same loading conditions, various areas of the socket
wall could be thinned without exceeding the yield stress of the material.

Analysis 2: Analysis 2 was performed on a socket model with an overall wall thickness of 5 mm
and a socket-pylon interface of 6 mm. Three pressure relief areas, fibular head, medial tibia flare
and distal tibia end, were assigned a thickness of 1 mm. By reducing the thickness, the pressure
relief areas deflected slightly more than the model in Analysis 1.

Figure 15: Deflection Plot Figure 16: von Mises Stress Plot
Maximum Deflection: 0.7mm Maximum Stress: 12.95 MPa

Analysis 3: The overall thickness of the socket was reduced to 4 mm to achieve more deflection
than previous results. The pressure relief areas remained at a thickness of 1 mm. The 4 mm
socket displaced much more than the two previous models, however the overall material
reduction slightly increased the stresses.

Figure 17: Deflection Plot Figure 18: von Mises Stress Plot
Maximum Deflection: 1.1mm Maximum Stress: 14.09 MPa

Analysis 4: This analysis was performed on a socket model with an overall wall thickness of 5
mm. A gradual taper was introduced in the pressure relief areas. The taper decreased form a

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
maximum thickness of 5 mm to a minimum thickness of 1 mm at the center. The tapered regions
did not provide more deflection than previous analyses.

Figure 19: Deflection Plot Figure 20: von Mises Stress Plot
Maximum Deflection: 0.73mm Maximum Stress: 9.19 MPa

Analysis 5: This model consisted of an overall wall thickness of 4 mm with a gradual taper to 1
mm thickness in the pressure relief areas. As in the previous analyses, reduction of the overall
socket wall thickness increased the deflection throughout the socket, especially in the desired
areas.

Figure 21: Deflection Plot Figure 22: von Mises Stress Plot
Maximum Deflection: 1.09mm Maximum Stress: 12.21 MPa

Analysis 6: The socket model consisted of an overall wall thickness of 5 mm with a specified
constant wall thickness of 1 mm in the pressure relief areas. An offset tapered region resembling
a chamfer, ranging in thickness from 5 mm to 1 mm, was introduced at an offset distance of 0.5
cm inward from the outer periphery of the pressure relief areas. The results of this analysis were
similar to the results of Analysis 2.

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
 Figure 23: Deflection Plot Figure 24: von Mises Stress Plot
Maximum Deflection: 0.8mm Maximum Stress: 11.8 MPa

Analysis 7: For this analysis the overall wall thickness of the model in Analysis 6 was reduced
to 4 mm. It was predicted that the results of this analysis would be similar to the results in
Analysis 3. Deflection results were slightly lower because the surface area of the pressure relief
areas was smaller due to the offset taper.

Figure 25: Deflection Plot Figure 26: von Mises Stress Plot
Maximum Deflection: 1.03mm Maximum Stress: 10.5 MPa

Analysis 8: Previous analyses’ results showed that a reduction in the socket wall thickness
makes the socket more compliant. Additionally, tapers provide even greater compliance. The
pressure relief areas were enlarged to provide for more deflection. An offset taper ranging in
thickness form 4 mm to 1 mm was offset outward at a distance of 0.5 cm from the outer
periphery of the pressure relief areas. Enlarged pressure relief areas produced more deflection
with a minimal increase in stress.

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
 Figure 27: Deflection Plot Figure 28: von Mises Stress Plot
Maximum Deflection: 1.23mm Maximum Stress: 15.04 MPa

The maximum stresses were under the tensile yield stress of 44 MPa. Compared to the previous
socket models, this model provided the most deflection in the pressure relief areas. The socket
wall thickness of the model ranged within the design constraints, 1 – 5 mm. Therefore, it was
chosen as the final design.

Conclusions
This paper presented the design procedure of a below the knee prosthetic socket for comfort and
ambulation. The mode of fabrication was Selective Laser Sintering (SLS). The final design was
based on several factors. A reduction in wall thickness and an enlargement in surface area
increased the deflection in the pressure relief areas to over 1 mm. Introducing tapers into these
regions further optimized the design by aiding to minimize stresses. All stresses were well under
the tensile yield stress for Duraform PA (44 MPa).

The most important reason for designing the below the knee prosthetic was to produce more
comfortable sockets for amputees. If the patient finds the socket undesirable, then the design
goal was not met. The final design of the prosthetic socket was cosmetically appealing and
provided functionality and comfort.

Future work includes improving or altering the method of production, further improving design
of socket wall geometry and finite element analysis. It was initially desired to produce a
maximum displacement of 2 mm in pressure relief areas. However, reducing the wall thickness
did not achieve this goal. It is proposed that a different material needs to be introduced to the
fabrication method of selective laser sintering. This nylon-based material must have an elastic
modulus lower than that of Duraform PA (1600 MPa) to produce more deflection. SLS can also
be designed to allow for different materials to be fused together. Additionally, slits may be
introduced in the pressure relief areas. However, they must be designed in such a way as not to
pinch or cause discomfort to the amputee. The analysis performed in this project was based on a
quasi-static model. All loading conditions were static. It is necessary to perform a dynamic
analysis on the model so that all modes may be considered.

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education
 References
1. Childress, D. S., Silver-Thorn, B. M., “Parametric Analysis using the Finite Element method to investigate
prosthetic interface stresses for persons with trans-tibial amputation”, VA. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research and Development, 1996:33(3) pp. 227-238.
2. “Resolution of Forces, Friction, and the ground reaction vector”, http://guardian.curtin.edu.au/cga/teach-
in/friction.html.
3. Noguchi, T., Ochiai, H., Ukai, T., “Falls from slips in double supporting period during gait”, 12th
conference of the European Society of Biomechanics, p. 427, Dublin 2000.
4. “Duraform Polyamide and Duraform GF Properties”, www.dtm-corp.
5. Quesada, P., Skinner, H., “Analysis of a below-knee patellar tendon-bearing prosthesis: A finite Element
Study”, VA. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 1991:28(3) pp. 1-12.
6. Mehta, B.V. and Rajani, S., “Finite Element Analysis of the Human Tibia”, www.ent.ohiou.edu, Athens,
Ohio.
7. Haberman, Louis J., “The Garden State Tri-Wall Expansion Socket System”, Journal of Prosthetics and
Orthotics, Vol. 1, Num 4, pp. 213-219.
8. Higgs, D., Sanders, P., “Design of a Below the Knee Prosthetic Socket”, University of Texas at San
Antonio, 2001, pages 1-41.

DIANE HIGGS
Ms. Higgs is currently looking for employment as an entry-level engineer. She works part time at the University of
Texas Health Science Center San Antonio assisting in the redesign of transtibial sockets. Currently, her interests are
biomechanical engineering. Ms. Higgs graduated Magna Cum Laude with a BS in mechanical engineering,
December 2001. She has passed the FE Exam and plans to pursue her law education to become a patent lawyer.

PHANVAN SANDERS
Mr. Sanders is currently looking for employment as an entry-level engineer. He works part time at the University of
Texas Health Science Center San Antonio assisting in the redesign of transtibial sockets. His interests are finite
element analysis and biomechanical engineering. Mr. Sanders graduated with a BS in mechanical engineering,
December 2001. He has passed the FE Exam and plans to pursue his MS in Biomechanical Engineering.

YESH P. SINGH
Dr. Singh currently serves as Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at San
Antonio. His current interests are design of machines and machine elements, design of linkages and mechanisms,
design of cams and gears, stress analysis and finite element applications in design of mechanical and structural
systems. Prof. Singh is a registered engineer in the state of Texas and Wisconsin, and is an ASME Fellow.

Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, March 20 – 22, 2002.
Copyright  2002, American Society for Engineering Education