Orientation of orthotropic material properties in a femur FE model: A method based on the principal stresses directions

Medical Engineering and Physics

Volumn 34, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 914-919

  San Antonio, T ^a,b   Ciaccia, M ^a,b   Muller Karger C ^a   Casanova, E ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD SIMÓN BOLÍVAR   (Venezuela)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE CARABOBO   (Venezuela)

Author keywords

Orthotropic axes orientation; Principal stress; Proximal femur; Subject specific bone FE model; Wolff's law

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL STRUCTURES; ANISOTROPIC MATERIAL; FE MODEL; FINITE ELEMENTS; GAIT CYCLES; HETEROGENEOUS MATERIALS; MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR; ORTHOTROPIC BEHAVIOR; ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES; ORTHOTROPIC MATERIALS; ORTHOTROPIC PROPERTIES; PHYSIOLOGICAL LOADS; PRINCIPAL STRESS; PROXIMAL FEMUR; STRAIN DISTRIBUTIONS; WOLFF'S LAW;

BONE; MECHANICAL PROPERTIES; STRESS CONCENTRATION; TISSUE;

PHYSIOLOGICAL MODELS;

ARTICLE; BONE STRESS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; CORTICAL BONE; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; GAIT; MECHANICAL STRESS; MECHANICAL TORSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TENSILE STRENGTH; TRABECULAR BONE; WEIGHT BEARING;

ADULT; BIOMECHANICS; FEMUR; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MALE; ROTATION; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84864555436     PISSN: 13504533     EISSN: 18734030     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.10.008     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Fernandes P.R., Folgado J., Jacobs C., Pellegrini V. A contact model with ingrowth control for bone remodeling around cementless stems. Journal of Biomechanics 2002, 35(2):167-176.
2. Little J.P., Taddei F., Viceconti M., Murray D.W., Gill H.S. Changes in femur stress after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: response to physiological loads. Clinical Biomechanics 2007, 22(4):440-448.
3. Schileo E., Taddei F., Cristofolini L., Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models implementing a maximum principal strain criterion are able to estimate failure risk and fracture location on human femurs tested in vitro. Journal of Biomechanics 2008, 41:356-367.
4. Taddei F., Schileo E., Helgason B., Cristofolini L., Viceconti M. The material mapping strategy influences the accuracy of CT-based finite element models of bones: an evaluation against experimental measurements. Medical Engineering and Physics 2007, 29(9):973-979.
5. Austman R.L., Milner J.S., Holdsworth D.W., Dunning C.E. The effect of the density-modulus relationship selected to apply material properties in a finite element model of long bone. Journal of Biomechanics 2008, 41(15):3171-3176.
6. Dong X.N., Guo X.E. The dependence of transversely isotropic elasticity of human femoral cortical bone on porosity. Journal of Biomechanics 2004, 37(8):1281-1287.
7. Ashman R.B., Cowin S.C., Van Buskirk W.C., Rice J.C. A continuous wave technique for the measurement of the elastic properties of cortical bone. Journal of Biomechanics 1984, 17(5):349-361.
8. Wirtz D.C., Schiffers N., Pandorf T., Radermacher K., Weichert D., Forst R. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. Journal of Biomechanics 2000, 33(10):1325-1330.
9. Peng L., Bai J., Zeng X., Zhou Y. Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Medical Engineering and Physics 2006, 28(3):227-233.
10. Gray H.A., Taddei F., Zavatsky A.B., Cristofolini L., Gill H.S. Experimental validation of a finite element model of a human cadaveric tibia. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 2008, 130(3):031016.
11. Kober C., Erdmann B., Hellmich C., Sader R., Zeilhofer F. Anisotropic simulation of the human mandible. ZIB Report 2004, 1-13.
12. Bonnet A.S., Postaire M., Lipinski P. Biomechanical study of mandible bone supporting a four-implant retained bridge finite element analysis of the influence of bone anisotropy and foodstuff position. Medical Engineering and Physics 2009, 31(7):806-815.
13. Yang H., Ma X., Guo T. Some factors that affect the comparison between isotropic and orthotropic inhomogeneous finite element material models of femur. Medical Engineering and Physics 2010, 32(6):553-560.
14. Tabor Z., Rokita E. Quantifying anisotropy of trabecular bone from gray-level images. Bone 2007, 40(4):966-972.
15. Schneider R., Faust G., Hindenlang U., Helwig P. Inhomogeneous, orthotropic material model for the cortical structure of long bones modeled on the basis of clinical CT or density data. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanical Engineering 2009, 198(27-29):2167-2174.
16. Wirtz D.C., Pandorf T., Portheime F., Radermacher K., Schiffers N., Prescher A. Concept and development of an orthotropic FE model of the proximal femur. Journal of Biomechanics 2003, 36(2):289-293.
17. Baca V., Horak Z., Mikulenka P., Dzupa V. Comparison of an inhomogeneous orthotropic and isotropic material models used for FE analyses. Medical Engineering and Physics 2008, 30(7):924-930.
18. Fernandes P., Rodrigues H., Jacobs C.R. A model of bone adaptation using a global optimization criterion based on the trajectorial theory of Wolf. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 1999, 2:125-138.
19. Miller Z., Fuchs M., Arcan M. Trabecular bone adaptation with an orthotropic material model. Journal of Biomechanics 2002, 35(2):247-256.
20. Doblaré M., García J.M. Anisotropic bone remodeling model based on a continuum damage-repair theory. Journal of Biomechanics 2002, 35(1):1-17.
21. Coelho P.G., Fernandes P.R., Rodrigues H.C., Cardoso J.B., Guedes J.M. Numerical modeling of bone tissue adaptation - a hierarchical approach for bone apparent density and trabecular structure. Journal of Biomechanics 2009, 42(7):830-837.
22. Kowalczyk P. Simulation of orthotropic microstructure remodeling of cancellous bone. Journal of Biomechanics 2010, 43(3):563-569.
23. Polgar K., Viceconti M., O'Connor J.J. A comparison between automatically generated linear and parabolic tetrahedra when used to mesh a human femur. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H 2001, 215(1):85-94.
24. San Antonio T., Araque E., Casanova E., Müller-Karger C. Sensitivity analysis of heterogeneous mechanical properties of a bone model. Proceedings of II International Conference on Computational Bioengineering (ICCB 2005) 2005, 209-219.
25. Bitsakos C., Kerner J., Fisher I., Amis A. The effect of muscle loading on the simulation of bone remodeling in the proximal femur. Journal of Biomechanics 2005, 38(1):133-139.
26. Viceconti M., Ansaloni M., Baleani M., Toni A. The muscle standardized femur: a step towards the replication of numerical studies in biomechanics. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 2003, 217(2):105-110.
27. Pitzen T., Geisler F., Matthis D., Muller-Storz H., Barbier D., Steudel W.I. A finite element model for predicting the biomechanical behavior of the human lumbar spine. Control Engineering Practice 2002, 10(1):83-90.
28. Keller T.S. Predicting the compressive mechanical behavior of bone. Journal of Biomechanics 1994, 27(9):1159-1168.
29. Yang G., Kabel J., van Rietbergen B., Odgaard A., Huiskes R., Cowin S.C. The anisotropic Hooke's law for cancellous bone and wood. Journal of Elasticity 1999, 53:125-146.
30. San Antonio T., Ciaccia M., Müller-Karger C., Casanova E. Metodología para incorporar propiedades de tejido óseo no isotrópico a un modelo de elementos finitos. Boletín técnico IMME 2008, 46(3):29-42.
31. Yosibash Z., Tal D., Trabelsi N. Predicting the yield of the proximal femur using high-order finite-element analysis with inhomogeneous orthotropic material properties. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A 2010, 368:2707-2723.