STATIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

OF AN ANKLE FOOT ORTHOSIS

MODEL FOR REHABILITATION

171FA08030 – Menda Raju

171FA08049 – Tamma Kamal Nadh

Under the guidance of

Dr Gamini Suresh
Associate Professor
 CONTENT

 Introduction
 Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO)

 Methodology

 Results and Discussions

 Conclusion

 Scope for Future work

 References
INTRODUCTION

 Walking is the most basic form of human motion.

Millions of people in the world are unable to walk
normally because of gait disabilities.

 Foot drop gait is a kind of gait in which the

dropping of the forefoot happens due to the
weakness of the ankle and foot dorsiflexors
(Amerinatanzi et al., 2017).
Introduction- Continuation

 Drop foot which is also known as foot drop is an

anatomical problem where there is a weakness
or paralysis at the anterior portion of muscles of
the lower leg (Liu et al., 2013).

 Gait movement in foot drop patient may be

temporary or permanent depending on the main
cause of the foot drop.
GAIT CYCLE
COMPLICATIONS IN FOOT DROP
There are two common complications caused by drop
foot.

 First, the patient cannot control the falling of their

foot after a heel strike. As a result, the foot slaps the
ground on every step.

 The second complication is the inability of the

patients to clear their toe during the swing phase.
This causes the patients to drag their toe on the
ground throughout the swing phase
CAUSES OF FOOT DROP
FOOT DROP SYMPTOMS:

 Difficult or unable to lift the foot

 Foot drags on the ground while walking
 Thigh is raising higher than normal to avoid
dragging (high stepping gait)
 The foot gives out pain or feels numb when
moving or lifting
NORMAL GAIT VS DROP FOOT GAIT:
ANKLE FOOT ORTHOSIS (AFO)
 It is a medical mechanical device to support and align
the ankle and foot, by assisting weak and paralyzed
muscles of the ankle and foot, to prevent deformities.
 AFO is a specially designed supportive medical
device which is intended to

(i) control the motion of the ankle and subtalar joints,

(ii)compensate for muscle weakness and drop foot,
(iii) correct deformities in the ankle and subtalar
joints due to injuries due to stroke, cerebral palsy and
others

They are of two types namely, Active AFO and

Passive AFO.
ACTIVE AFO
 Active AFOs possess the ability to interact with
the walking environment and act accordingly.
These types of AFOs are comprised of
electronic control system, actuator, power
system, and stiffness control.
PASSIVE AFO
 A typical passive AFO is a device which provides
constant torsional stiffness that limits the motion of
the ankle. It also braces the change in the
stiffness of the SMA(Shape Memory Alloy) wire is
similar to the natural change in stiffness of the
ankle joint in normal gait.
Salient Features of AFO

• It is found out that AFO’s have significant impact on

length and width of the steps.
• It doesn’t have any influence over speed, cadence,
symmetry of gait and balance.
• They improve kinetic performance of gait, ankle
kinematics, kinematics of knee in the static phase.
• It has no significant effect on knee joint and hip joint
kinematics in frontal and sagittal respectively
 Literature Survey
1. Badescu et al. in 2013 investigated on Ankle foot
orthoses with wire insertion

•AFO Characteristics – In the study, they used poly

propylene AFO with elastic steel wire insertions

•Simulation Program – Ansys Software was used in their

study

•Material Properties – They didn’t mention the material

properties

•Boundary and Loading Conditions – AFO sole was fixed

and 200N force is applied at the calf in the sagittal plane.
 2. Chu T and Reddy NP in 1995 investigated the stress
distribution in the ankle foot orthosis used to
correct pathological gait.

•AFO Characteristics – In the study, they used poly propylene

AFO

•Simulation Program – Ansys Software was used in their study

•Material Properties – The materials used in the study is linear,

elastic and isotrophic.

•Boundary and Loading Conditions – Upper foot and AFO

calf regions were fixed and the force exerted by tendons and
muscles and ground reactions included as nodal forces.
 3. Gomes G. et al, at 2017, conducted a study using
ansys on structural reinforcements of AFO

•AFO Characteristics – In the study, they used poly Ethylene

AFO

•Simulation Program – Ansys Software was used in their

study

•Material Properties – They didn’t mention the material

properties

•Boundary and Loading Conditions – AFO sole was fixed

and 50N force is applied along with 10 degree deflection at
the calf region.
Objectives

•To analyze and determine the deformations

and Equivalent Stresses of the model

•To modify the model for rehabilitation

•Comparing the analysis

•Determining the most suitable of the analyzed

materials
METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of  rehabilitation, the people

suffering from gait disabilities have to equip AFO
based on his severity of the condition of his gait.

For different conditions AFO has to be varied. For

that purpose, In this case two AFO models have
been designed and they are Non-Articulated Model
and Modified Model respectively.
NON-ARTICULATED MODEL

The scanned data of AFO model

was used.

It was imported to Ansys

workbench after removing the
overlapped material in Creo
parametric
Imported Non-Articulated Model
But the imported model is without
any thickness so a thickness of
4mm was provided to it
MODIFIED MODEL

•For the purpose of rehabilitation, Non-Articulated

model was modified by splitting it into three parts that
is calf, connector and sole respectively.

•The main concern in this case is that the dual

material assignment is provided and the connector
material is fixed that to be of CFRP but that of calf and
foot will be altering based on their material properties
Calf
Connector
Foot
Assembled Model
Static Structural Analysis

•The main objective of this project is the

structural analysis and shape optimization of an
AFO model

•The analysis is being done in the ansys

workbench 2021 R1 student version
•In the workbench, from the
toolbox, static structural analysis
system was dragged into the
project schematic
Engineering Data

In this model, we have used five materials in

which the values of young’s modulus, Poisson’s
ratio, density, Ultimate Tensile Strength(UTS)
and Yield Strength are assigned manually for
analyzing the model and the materials are:

ABS(Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene)

Poly-Propylene
Poly Ethylene
Poly Lactic Acid
CFRP(Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer)
ABS
CFRP
Poly Ethylene
Poly-Propylene
Poly Lactic Acid
Model

In the Model, selecting the geometry

Material is assigned.
The coordinate systems and the
connections are left unaltered
Non-Articulated Model
Modified Model
Meshing of Non-Articulated Model
With mesh element size as 15 mm
Meshing of Modified Model
With mesh element size as 15 mm
Applying Fixed Support for
Non-Articulated Model
Applying Fixed Support for
Modified Model
Applying Force for
Non-Articulated Model
Applying Force for
Modified Model
Solution

After solving them to evaluate the results, we

get an accurate range of values from maximum
to minimum. Total Deformation and Equivalent
Stresses are determined and figures of them are
provided in the forthcoming slides
For Non-Articulated Model
Total Deformation
Equivalent Stress
The previous images are for the Analysis of AFO
made of ABS material at 50N. The Analysis at
100N And 150N along with Poly-Ethylene,
Poly-Propylene, Poly-Lactic Acid and
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Are also done
in the same manner

The results are listed in a table from the next slide onwards
Total Deformation
Equivalent Stress
For Modified Model
Total Deformation
Equivalent Stress
Similarly, material of the calf and the sole is
replaced with that of other materials such as
Poly-lactic Acid, Poly propylene and Poly ethylene
With the connector remaining as CFRP and the
results are tabulated as shown
Results of Modified AFO
Comparison of Total Deformation at 50N
Comparison of Equivalent Stress at 50N
Comparison of Total Deformation at 100N
Comparison of Equivalent Stress at 100N
Comparison of Total Deformation at 150N
Comparison of Equivalent Stress at 150N
Convergence Table
Conclusion

AFO model has been developed and modified and the

maximum deformations and equivalent stresses are
obtained from the results. On comparing it showed
an increase in the deflection in case of the modified model
due the removal of material and presence of connector.
 
Due to the deflection, the modified model is more flexible
when compared to the model which is stiff and
the due to this, it is more comfortable and convenient when
compared to the articulated model.

ABS and Poly-Lactic acid are the best suited for the
fabrication of AFO due to their low deformations and
equivalent stresses, printability, optimal cost and
stiffness.
Scope for the future

•Fabrication of AFO using Smart Materials

•Gait and Performance Analysis

•Shape and Design Optimization

REFERENCES
1. Badescu M, Purcar C and Badescu D. Ankle foot orthoses with wire insertion.
Appl Mech Mater 2013; 371 : 554-558.
2. Chu T and Reddy NP. Stress distribution in the ankle foot orthosis used to
correct pathological gait. J Rehabil Res Dev 1995; 32(4): 349-360
3. Gomes G, Lourenco I, Oliveira J et al., structural reinforcements on AFO’s: A
study using computer aided design and finite element method. In: Proceedings
of the 2-17 IEEE 5th Portuguese meeting on bioengineering, coimbra,16-18
February 2017,pp.1-4.New York:IEEE.
4. Munguia, J., Dalgarno, K., 2013. “Ankle foot orthotics optimization by means of
composite reinforcement of free-form structures”. 24th International Solid
Freeform Fabrication Symposium - an Additive Manufacturing Conference,
SFF 2013, pp. 766–776.
5. Takhakh A, M., Abbas S, M., 2018. “Manufacturing and analysis of carbon fiber
knee ankle foot orthosis”. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7: 2236
6. Berry, D.A., 1981. “Composite materials for orthotics and prosthetics”.
Orthot. Prosthet. 40:35–43

7.  M. A. Marques, E. Mendes, N. V. Ramos, V. C. Pinto, and M. A. Vaz.

2010. “Finite-element analysis of ankle-foot orthosis to predict fracture
conditions during gait”. Conference paper: Proc. 1st ICH Gaia-Porto,
Portugal, 2010.

8.  Buckon CE, Thomas SS, Jakobson Hutson, conducted survey on three

ankle foot orthosis configurations 2004;91:2440-7

9.   liao Brunner R, Meier G, Ruepp T, comparison of a stiff and spring type

ankle foot orthosis to improve gait in spastic hemiplegic people.

10.  F Nollet, Kepple TM, Stanhope SJ, lower extremity joint moments to
forward progression and support during gait in neuromuscular patients.