Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2016)

Spatial Distribution of Material Properties in Load Bearing Femur as Characterized by Evolutionary Structural Optimization

DOI
https://doi.org/10.15377/2409-9848.2016.03.01.3
Submitted
March 27, 2016
Published
2016-03-27

Abstract

This works aims to simulate bone formation under natural loading using evolutionary structural optimization. Unlike material elimination by hard-kill approach applied previously, the current presentation implements material replacement defined as soft-kill method. A numerical analysis platform was developed and finite element model of sheep femur was constructed using computer tomography data. Quadruple material properties governing soft medullary canal, cancellous as well as plexiform and haversian cortical structures were considered as the main material constituents of the femur. An iterative algorithm was designed for determining the spatial distribution of these tissue types throughout the femur. The model initially started with a homogenous plexiform design and iteratively converged to a final state with heterogeneous density profile, nearly similar to a natural femur. The inefficient regions were gradually changed with mechanically lower grade and lighter tissues and thus the final construct had the least weight but still supported the load. The convergence was achieved successfully. The tissue types were distributed in a mechanically optimum fashion to counteract the applied forces. The resulting internal material assignments provided insights into the structural remodeling of femur within the context of Wolff’s law. Using the developments, bone formation can be simulated numerically under different mechanical loading conditions. Such investigations may provide useful information about the vulnerability of bone as its material properties change with osteoporosis or the fracture risk as a result of malfunction in muscles attached to the femur.

References

  1. Robling AG, Castillo AB and Turner CH. Biomechanical and molecular regulation of bone remodeling. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 2006; 8: 455-498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.8.061505.095721
  2. Boccaccio A, Ballini A, Pappalettere C, Tullo D, Cantore S and Desiate A. Finite element method (FEM), mechanobiology and biomimetic scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Sci 2011; 7: 112-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.7.112
  3. Boyle C and Kim IY. Three-dimensional micro-level computational study of Wolff's law via trabecular bone remodeling in the human proximal femur using design space topology optimization. J Biomech 2011; 44: 935-942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.11.029
  4. Evans AL, Paggiosi MA, Eastell R and Walsh JS. Bone Density, Microstructure and Strength in Obese and Normal Weight Men and Women in Younger and Older Adulthood. J Bone Miner Res 2015; 30(5): 920-928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2407
  5. Fischer KJ, Johnson JE, Waller AJ, McIff TE, Toby EB and Bilgen M: MRI-based modeling for radiocarpal joint mechanics: validation criteria and results for four specimenspecific models. J Biomech Eng 2011; 133: 101004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4005171
  6. Piccinini M, Cugnoni J, Botsis J, Zacchetti G, Ammann P and Wiskott A: Factors affecting subject-specific finite element models of implant-fitted rat bone specimens: critical analysis of a technical protocol. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2013; 17: 1403-1417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2012.736502
  7. Machado MM, Fernandes PR, Cardadeiro G and Baptista F: Femoral neck bone adaptation to weight-bearing physical activity by computational analysis. Journal of Biomechanics 2013; 46: 2179-2185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.06.031
  8. Morgan TG, Bostrom MP and van der Meulen MC: Tissuelevel remodeling simulations of cancellous bone capture effects of in vivo loading in a rabbit model. J Biomech 2014. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25579991
  9. Li Q, Steven GP and Xie YM. Evolutionary structural optimization for stress minimization problems by discrete thickness design. Computers and Structures 2000; 78: 769-780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(00)00057-2
  10. Steven G, Querin O and Xie M. Evolutionary structural optimisation (ESO) for combined topology and size optimisation of discrete structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2000; 188: 743-754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(99)00359-X
  11. Latifi H, Xie YM, Huang X and Bilgen M. Computational simulations of bone remodeling under natural mechanical loading or muscle malfunction using evolutionary structural optimization method. Engineering 2014; 6: 113-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2014.63015
  12. Hutzschenreuter PO, Sekler E and Faust G. Loads on muscles, tendons and bones in the hind extremities of sheep--a theoretical study. Anatomia Histologia EmbryologiaJournal of Veterinary Medicine Series C-Zentralblatt Fur Veterinarmedizin Reihe C 1993; 22: 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0264.1993.tb00343.x
  13. Bergmann G, Graichen F and Rohlmann A. Hip joint forces in sheep. Journal of Biomechanics 1999; 32: 769-777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00068-8
  14. Agostinho F, Rahal S, Araujo FA, Conceicao R, Hussni C, ElWarrak A, et al. Gait analysis in clinically healthy sheep from three different age groups using a pressure-sensitive walkway. BMC Veterinary Research 2012; 8: 87-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-87
  15. Hangartner TN and Overton TR. Quantitative measurement of bone density using gamma-ray computed tomography. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 1982; 6: 1156-1162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004728-198212000-00017
  16. Cong A, Buijs JO and Dragomir-Daescu D. In situ parameter identification of optimal density-elastic modulus relationships in subject-specific finite element models of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys 2011; 33: 164-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.09.018
  17. Hamed E, Lee Y and Jasiuk I. Multiscale modeling of elastic properties of cortical bone. Acta Mechanica 2010; 213: 131-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00707-010-0326-5
  18. Zannoni C, Mantovani R and Viceconti M. Material properties assignment to finite element models of bone structures: a new method. Medical Engineering and Physics 1999; 20: 735-740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4533(98)00081-2
  19. Lengsfeld M, Schmitt J, Alter P, Kaminsky J and Leppek R. Comparison of geometry-based and CT voxel-based finite element modelling and experimental validation. Medical Engineering and Physics 1998; 20: 515-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4533(98)00054-X
  20. Latifi MH, Ganthel K, Rukmanikanthan S, Mansor A, Kamarul T and Bilgen M. Prospects of implant with locking plate in fixation of subtrochanteric fracture: experimental demonstration of its potential benefits on synthetic femur model with supportive hierarchical nonlinear hyperelastic finite element analysis. BioMedical Engineering OnLine 2012; 11: 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-11-23
  21. Huang X and Xie YM. Bi-directional evolutionary topology optimization of continuum structures with one or multiple materials. Computational Mechanics 2009; 43: 393-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00466-008-0312-0
  22. Zuo ZH and Xie YM. Evolutionary topology optimization of continuum structures with a global displacement control. Computer-Aided Design 2014; 56: 58-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2014.06.007
  23. Huang X and Xie YM. Convergent and mesh-independent solutions for the bi-directional evolutionary structural optimization method. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 2007; 43: 1039-1049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2007.06.006
  24. Huang X and Xie YM. Optimal design of periodic structures using evolutionary topology optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 2008; 36: 597-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0196-1
  25. Johnson KA. Wolff's law continues to inspire orthopaedic research. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27: V-VI. http://dx.doi.org/10.3415/vcot-13-12-0142
  26. Hammer A. The paradox of Wolff's theories. Ir J Med Sci 2015; 184: 13-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11845-014-1070-y
  27. Tsubota K, Suzuki Y, Yamada T, Hojo M, Makinouchi A and Adachi T. Computer simulation of trabecular remodeling in human proximal femur using large-scale voxel FE models: Approach to understanding Wolff's law. J Biomech 2009; 42: 1088-1094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.02.030
  28. Jang IG and Kim IY. Computational study of Wolff's law with trabecular architecture in the human proximal femur using topology optimization. J Biomech 2008; 41: 2353-2361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.05.037
  29. Baca V, Horak Z, Mikulenka P and Dzupa V. Comparison of an inhomogeneous orthotropic and isotropic material models used for FE analyses. Med Eng Phys 2008; 30: 924-930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2007.12.009
  30. Cristofolini L, Schileo E, Juszczyk M, Taddei F, Martelli S and Viceconti M. Mechanical testing of bones: the positive synergy of finite-element models and in vitro experiments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society aMathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 2010; 368: 2725-2763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0046
  31. Kim HS, Park JY, Kim NE, Shin YS, Park JM and Chun YS. Finite element modeling technique for predicting mechanical behaviors on mandible bone during mastication. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2012; 4: 218-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.4.218
  32. Yosibash Z, Padan R, Joskowicz L and Milgrom C. A CTbased high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering-Transactions of the ASME 2007; 129: 297-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2720906
  33. Horch RA, Gochberg DF, Nyman JS and Does MD. Noninvasive predictors of human cortical bone mechanical properties: T-2-Discriminated H-1 NMR compared with high resolution X-ray. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e16359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016359