FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR

FEMORAL STRESS ANALYSIS

DURING STAIR NAVIGATION

Chen Deng, Jason C. Gillette, Timothy R. Derrick

INTRODUCTION
What concerns?
 Femoral fractures: among the most seriousness of all types of
fractures.

 Understanding the loading environment.

 Reducing the incidence of fractures.

INTRODUCTION
Ideas
 Loading estimation at the femur.

 Activity specific loading: muscle forces + joint contact

forces.

 The finite element model, stresses estimation.

INTRODUCTION
Specific sites
 The stresses at 10 sites of the femur, each 10% along the
femur length during stair ascent and descent.

 Reflects the material loading conditions for multiple sites

of femur.
METHOD
Subjects
 17 older adults.

 7 males, age: 60±6 yr, mass: 75±14 kg, height:

1.73±0.05 m.

 10 females, age: 57±5 yr, mass: 67±8 kg, height:
1.67±0.05 m).

 No lower limb injuries.

METHOD
Performance & Data collection
 5 trials of stair ascent + 5 trials of descent with a 3-stair
staircase.

 Motion capture data (120 Hz, Vicon MX, Vicon,

Centennial, CO, USA).

 Force data (1200 Hz, AMTI, Watertown, MA).

 Raw data filtered by 6 Hz low-pass filter.

METHOD
Data analysis
 Inverse dynamics: 3-D joint moments and
reaction forces at the hip, knee and ankle
of the right leg.

 Musculoskeletal model: maximal dynamic muscle forces,

muscle moment arms and orientations for 43 lower limb
muscles.

 Muscle forces selected:

1) Minimizing the sum of the squared muscle stresses;

2) Balancing the sagittal hip, knee and ankle moments

and the
frontal hip and ankle moments with the external moments.
METHOD
Data analysis (cont)
 The femoral head 3-D forces estimation: muscle + joint
forces.

 FEBio input model files: hip contact forces and 27

muscle forces attaching on the femur.

 Finite element analysis: FEBio for the entire femur

during peak hip contact forces.
METHOD
Stats analysis
 Repeated-measured MANOVAs:

 Stair ascent v.s. descent: differences in longitudinal stresses

during hip joint contact force peaks.

 Experiment-wise alpha = 0.05, univariate ANOVAs’ alpha =

0.05 (IBM SPSS Version 19).
RESULT
In general
 Within–subject effect between conditions is significant
(p = 0.046).

 Univariate alpha tested for each of 10 regions.

RESULT
For specific regions
 Increased tensile stress during stair ascent at the 60%-
90% cross section for both peak 1 and 2 (peak 1, 60%:
p=.001, 70%: p<.001, 80%: p<.001, 90%: p<.001; peak
2, 60%: p=.014, 70%: p=.002, 80%: p<.001, 90%:
p<.001).
Max Tension (Mean±SD,in MPa)
Peak 1 Peak 2
Location Stair Stair Stair Stair
from hip Ascent Descent Ascent Descent
60% 48.27±22.65 31.66±16.89 39.00±19.22 28.94±17.72
70% 30.24±13.20 18.19±9.33 24.41±11.29 16.45±9.49
80% 10.61±4.09 5.32±2.52 8.66±3.55 4.86±2.69
90% 5.73±2.31 2.75±1.55 5.20±2.00 2.16±1.14
RESULT
For specific regions (cont)
 Increased tensile stress during stair descent at peak 1 and
2 at 30% and peak 1 at 40% (peak 1: 30%: p<.001, 40%:
p=.013; peak 2, 30%: p=.042).

Max Tension (Mean±SD,in MPa)

Peak 1 Peak 2
Location Stair Stair Stair Stair
from hip Ascent Descent Ascent Descent
30% 32.77±8.74 41.30±10.99 30.34±7.48 35.64±11.76
40% 38.47±14.48 45.91±14.98 33.99±11.62 40.26±16.56
RESULT
For specific regions (cont)
 Greater compressive stress during stair ascent at 10%
and 60-80% for both peaks and 50% for peak 1 (peak 1,
10%: p<.001, 50%: p=.046, 60%: p=.001, 70%: p<.001,
80%: p<.001; peak 2, 60%: p=.009, 70%: p=.001, 80%:
p<.001). Max Compression (Mean±SD, in MPa)
Peak 1 Peak 2
Location Stair Stair Stair Stair
from hip Ascent Descent Ascent Descent
10% -37.95±11.17 -29.82±7.39 -34.22±10.02 -23.73±6.16
50% -57.95±26.81 -47.41±20.16 -47.51±22.33 -42.44±22.06
60% -63.34±28.36 -41.69±20.18 -51.49±24.14 -37.79±21.72
70% -43.03±17.67 -27.76±11.00 -35.13±15.18 -24.45±11.60
80% -19.28±6.53 -8.06±3.29 -16.08±5.69 -7.00±3.26
RESULT
For specific regions (cont)
 Compressive stresses increased during stair descent at
30% for peak 1 (p=.005).

Max Compression (Mean±SD, in MPa)

Peak 1 Peak 2
Location Stair Stair Stair Stair
from hip Ascent Descent Ascent Descent
30% -38.97±11.38 -46.94±13.94 -35.22±9.21 -40.93±15.46
DISCUSSION
Limitations
 Only longitudinal stress involved, principal stresses will
be needed.

Conclusions
 Most of the distal femoral tensile and compressive
stresses increased during stair ascent.

 The proximal femur has increased stresses during stair

descent.
REFERENCE
 Center JR, et al. The Lancet, 353(9156), 878-882,
1999.

 Nieves JW, et al. Osteoporosis Int, 21(3), 399-408,

2010.

 Bergmann G, et al. J Biomech, 26, 969-990, 1993.

 Rohlmann A, et al. J. Biomed. 4, 241-246,1982.

 Arnold, EM, et al. Ann Biomed Eng 38(2), 269-

279, 2010.