MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Radiograph to Recovery: The Design

of a Rolling-Contact Polycentric
Knee Brace Joint from Individual
Physiology
Michael Eilenberg, Daniel Goodman, Leslie Meyer, Julia Titarelli
5/20/2013

ABSTRACT
This paper describes the design and prototyping of a novel, individually-customizable knee brace joint that
closely follows the rotation and translation of the human knee joint. Research shows that a patient's knee can be
modeled as a four bar linkage based on the origin and insertion points of the anterior and posterior cruciate
ligaments. A recent publication used this model as the basis for the synthesis of a rolling contact knee joint. The
project described in this paper corrected some prior assumptions in this synthesis method and generated a new set of
surfaces that effectively followed the path of the four bar linkage. A set of femoral and tibial joint components
were created by patterning an involute gear profile along each surface and supporting them with a rolling cam
surface on each side. When rolling against each other, these surfaces make up a knee brace joint that is designed to
withstand the normal loads of walking and resists shear forces on the joint. The surfaces of the joint were held
together axially by an optimized internal spring in the system. The joint was then integrated into an off-the-shelf
brace. The joint rolled smoothly but extensive testing is still needed to verify its physiological and commercial
advantages.

1. INTRODUCTION
Each year in the United States, 5 million people seek help for knee problems. These problems range from
simple overuse injuries, to traumatic ligament or cartilage damage, to degenerative diseases such as osteoarthritis.
In many of these cases, custom knee braces are prescribed to patients to constrain the knee motion to essential
degrees of freedom (flexion and extension) and reduce load on the healing joint. Ideally, these braces would
properly track the motion of the knee joint during usage over the time of rehabilitation. However, most commercial
brace joints only loosely follow the combined translational and rotational motion that the knee undergoes during
flexion and extension. Research shows that a four-bar linkage in the sagittal plane can be used to model the
biological knee joint translation and rotation during knee flexion [8, 11]. Images of a patients knee can be used to
non-invasively determine the locations of the cruciate ligament origins and insertions. These locations define the
four pivots of the linkage and therefore also define the unique links that model that patients knee. A method was
proposed in a recent thesis to replicate the kinematics of this four-bar linkage model with rolling contact surfaces for
application in an in vivo prosthetic knee joint. The goal of the current project was to apply this previous research to
the design of a similar rolling based joint for application in knee braces.

2. METHODS
2.1 THEORY OF ROLLING SURFACES
The origin and insertion coordinates of the anterior collateral ligament (ACL) and posterior collateral
ligament (PCL) as shown in Figure 1, can be used to generate a four-bar linkage. The top two points of the linkage
can be considered rigidly connected to the femur and form the femoral component of the joint, while the bottom
two points are rigidly connected to the tibia, defining the tibial component. In developing a rolling contact joint, it
is necessary to generate two cam surfaces that replicate the kinematics of this four-bar linkage when rolling against
each other.

Figure 1: Radiograph of a human knee joint in the sagittal plane with overlaid four-bar linkage
using the origins and insertions of the cruciate ligaments as the hinge points [6, 3].
It can be shown that, for a given four-bar linkage, there are unique rolling cam surfaces of the tibial and
femoral components that reproduce the four-bar motion. Considering the tibial frame-of-reference, the instantaneous
center-of-rotation (COR) of the rotating and translating femoral component is at the intersection of the ACL and
PCL links. For a rigid body rolling without slip, the COR is coincident with the rolling contact point. Thus, when
rolling the femoral component with respect to the tibia, this contact point must lie on the tibial surface by definition.
Therefore, the trajectory of the femoral components COR defines the tibial cam surface as the knee goes through its
range of motion. The same can be said of rolling tibial component in the femoral reference frame; the femoral cam
surface is defined by the path of the tibial components COR, as generated by moving the tibial component in the
femoral frame. Since the COR trajectory of one component in the reference frame of the other component is unique,
the resulting cam surface profiles are also unique for a given generating four-bar linkage.

2.2 GENERATION OF ROLLING SURFACE PROFILES

Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the four-bar linkage representation of the knee with relevant
parameters labeled. Points AB and CD define the ACL and PCL links, respectively. For an example prototype, the
lengths for the AB and CD links were calculated using values adapted from previous studies on knee motion [6,11].
These values were approximately 35mm and 40mm for the ACL and PCL, respectively. The coordinates of the
ligament origin and insertion points used for this prototype are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 2: Schematic of the four-bar linkage showing the parameters used to determine the
coordinates of the instantaneous center of rotation [6]. The anterior direction is to the left in the
figure, and the knee is in full extension.

Table 1: Coordinates for each linkage pivot shown in Figure 3 [6, 11].

Pivot
A
B
C
D

X-Coordinate (mm)
0
12.440
7.763
37.300

Y-Coordinate (mm)
0
32.715
21.973
-5.000

The COR of the femoral component was calculated and traced from full extension (at a knee angle,
to large flexion angles (
while holding the tibial component fixed. This process is illustrated in Figure 3.
By solving the forward kinematics problem for a four-bar linkage, the path of the femoral COR was evaluated in the
tibial component frame of reference. For a detailed explanation of the mathematical derivation of the COR
coordinates, see the work of Alexander Slocum, Jr. [6].

Figure 3: Sequence of four-bar linkage motion as the knee is moved through 135 of flexion with
respect to the tibial component. Tibial COR is shown in green [6].
To generate the COR of the femoral component, the same process was repeated but with the femoral
component fixed and the tibial component free. Figure 4 below shows the four-bar linkage crossing from extension
to flexion in the femoral frame of reference. The resulting COR path of the tibial component is also shown.

Figure 4: Sequence of four-bar linkage motion as the knee is moved through 135 of flexion with
respect to the femoral component [6]. Femoral COR shown in green.
The COR curves shown in Figures 3 and 4 represent the surface profiles of the femoral and tibial
components that, when rolling without slipping, replicate the kinematics of the four-bar linkage. Figure 5 shows the
two curves plotted together in full extension. In Figure 5, it is clear that this unique solution is a convex femoral

surface rolling on a concave tibial surface. This configuration is not dissimilar to the human knee joint, wherein the
femoral condyles are convex and the tibial menisci form concave surfaces. It should be noted that the methods
described by recent research yielded two convex surfaces to follow the motion of this same four-bar linkage [6].
However, it is clear from these results that two convex surfaces do not replicate the behavior of this four-bar linkage,
and likely, by extension, the biological joint.
Corrected Femoral and Tibial Curves

40

35

30

Y Ordinate (mm)

25

20

15

10

5
5

10

15
20
X Ordinate (mm)

25

30

35

40

Figure 5: True femoral and tibial curves generated by fixing respective components points and
moving the others through 0135.
The surfaces shown in Figure 5 were then fit with equations to parameterize their shapes. The tibial curve was fit
using a 4th order polynomial shown in Equation 1.
Eq. (1)
The femoral curve was fit parametrically with x and y polynomials shown in Equations 2 and 3. The fit equations
are plotted against the curves generated by the four-bar linkage in Figures 6 and 7.
Eq. (2)
Eq. (3)

Femoral Curve Parametric Fit, N=0:1

Data
Fit

32

Y Ordinate (mm)

30

28

26

24

22

10

15

20

X Ordinate (mm)

Figure 6: Parametric fit of the femoral curve. The resulting x and y polynomials are 5 th order.
Tibial Curve Polynomial Fit
24

Data
Fit

Y Ordinate (mm)

23
22
21
20
19
18
17
10

12

14

16

18
X Ordinate (mm)

20

22

24

26

Figure 7: Polynomial fit of the tibial curve. The resulting polynomial is 4 th order.
These fitted curves were used in SolidWorks to generate the 3D models of the rolling surfaces. Rolling without
slipping was verified by constraining the surfaces with the original four-bar linkage. As the linkage was moved, the
surfaces rolled perfectly together.

2.3 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Several functional requirements were defined for the final prototype with the expectation that these unique
rolling surfaces would be used in fabricating the joint. The requirements for the rolling joint account for the
biological forces and torques exerted on the knee area as well as factors that would allow for this new design to be
competitive with other knee braces currently on the market. Table 2 below delineates the functional requirements of
the knee brace:

Table 2: Functional Requirements & Values

Design Parameter
Sagittal Plane Motion
Withstand Coronal Plane Torques
Withstand Axial Separation Forces
Roll w/o slipping
Withstand 1 year of use
Weight
No pinch points

Values
6 N/m
120 N
Yes or No

2x106 Cycles
<1.25 kg
Yes or No

The range of motion in the sagittal plane was chosen to be from 0 (full extension/straight leg) to
(fully flexed knee) because this is the maximum angular range of the human knee across most daily gait activities
(walking, running, sprinting) [2]. The maximum force of axial separation force was chosen to be up to 104N. This
value of axial force (including a small factor of safety) was determined from extensive testing of a variety of knee
brace joint types including rack and pinion, gear on gear, and uniaxial [4]. The purposeful offset present in the
values means that the forces and torques seen at the joints are actually larger than a well-aligned brace would
experience. For this reason the authors designed the joint to withstand the loads of a worst-case scenario.
The functional requirement for coronal torques was found from the typical forces applied to braces by
medial unloading and the length of the applicable brace length, which was found to be 15 cm. The medial unloading
force and brace length yielded an expected coronal torque of 6 N/m [5].
The functional requirement for rolling without slipping was important to the design because it ensured that
the center of rotation of the fabricated knee joint would accurately follow the center of rotation of the biological
knee. The longevity of the brace was chosen to be one year of daily use, which is equivalent to approximately 2
million cycles (assuming 5000 steps/day on average). In order for the knee joint to be comparable with other designs
currently on the market, the maximum weight requirement was chosen as 1.1 kg, which was the weight of the Breg
X2K OA Knee Brace that served as the testing brace for the prototyped joints [11].
Attempts were made to eliminate pinch points in the joint design, mainly by generally covering the internal
mechanism from the sides. The goal was that the joint would be protected from fingers, skin, clothing, and other
external objects.

2.4 EVALUTION OF JOINT COUPLING DESIGNS

Among the design parameters detailed above, the most critical was that the surfaces rolled without slipping
for the joint to accurately follow the defined motion. Custom gear teeth sets were chosen to lie in parallel with the
rolling surfaces in order to limit slip of the cam surfaces. However, a mechanism was needed to hold the cam
surfaces together. Several kinematic coupling designs were considered to provide this functionality. Each design
was then evaluated with respect to desired design parameters and compared to each other in terms of simplicity,
size/weight, and manufacturability.
One constraint mechanism involved holding the surfaces together with a rigid link attached to each surface
with a pin. Each pin travels in a slot approximately parallel to its respective surface such that the link would travel
along the point of contact as the surfaces rolled. A model of this mechanism was produced with a laser cutter to
determine the functionality of the system. This model is pictured in Figure 8. Testing the model demonstrated that
the forces on the pins were normal to the surfaces rather than tangent to them. As a result, the pins had a tendency to

jam in the slots. It was thus concluded that a pinned rigid link mechanism was not a practical design for this joint.

Figure 8: Linked pin slot coupling mechanism.

The second constraint design, shown in Figure 9, was based on the theory of modeling the knee as a fourbar linkage. The two surfaces were constrained by attaching links at the endpoints of the four-bar linkage. Because
the linkage defines the surfaces, the intersection points of the ACL and PCL links should follow the point of contact
of the two surfaces and constrain them to roll without slipping. To eliminate kinematic redundancy between the
surfaces and the linkage, the links were designed as flexures to conform to the movement defined by the surfaces.
However, outer plates were needed on the sides of the rolling cams to attach the links without disturbing the
surfaces. The links then sat on the outside of those plates, one raised slightly above the other to avoid interference.
This design resulted in a bulky, complex joint that still allowed for potential redundancy, so it was not chosen as the
final configuration for the joint.

Figure 9: Compliant four-bar linkage coupling mechanism. Note the additional surfaces needed
to anchor the links.
The final coupling option that was evaluated was a single spring link between the two components, as
shown in Figure 10. This system did not provide resistance to coronal torques due to lack of structure on either side
of the cam surfaces. However, it embodied a simple and thin joint structure. Therefore, this configuration was
chosen for further development.

Figure 10: Combination geared and cam surfaces. The preload spring was designed to act along
the line shown.

3. KINEMATIC COUPLING OF ROLLING SURFACES

3.1 GEAR & CAM DESIGN
The final design option chosen was a combination of gears and rolling surfaces. Each component of the
joint was comprised of three plates attached together, with a cam surface on either side of the geared surface. An
exploded view of these surfaces is shown below in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Exploded view of femoral and tibial joint components. Note two cam surfaces on
either side of the geared surface.
This design provides a robust combination of rolling without slipping and resistance to compression forces
The gears resist shear and prevent the joint from slipping excessively while rolling, with only minimal sliding
occurring due to backlash between the gear teeth. The gears alone should not experience axial compression forces
hence the need for the cam surfaces. The cams roll against each other and restrict the joints motion to that defined
by the four-bar linkage in addition to bearing any compression loads on the joint.
In the design of the geared surfaces, standard gear profiles could not be used, since the cam surfaces of both
the femoral and the tibial components were not of constant radius. The geared surfaces therefore had to be generated
in a custom manner. Circular gear profiles were generated using GearTeq software (Camnetics, Oregon WI). The
gear models for the femoral and tibial surfaces were chosen to have radii approximately equal to the average radii of

the femoral and tibial cam surfaces, respectively. Gear pitch was chosen to maximize the number of teeth along the
surfaces while keeping the tooth size large enough to reduce the likelihood of tooth failure due to shearing (see
below).
In order to ensure that the gears did not fail, a stress analysis was done to determine how much pure shear
the gear teeth would withstand. Using the Lewis model in Equation 4 and the parameters of the custom gear profiles,
it was determined that the maximum shear forces, Fmax, that the tibial and femoral gears could withstand were 303N
and 183N, respectively. These calculations were made assuming a material thickness of 2.5mm, which is thinner
than the 1/8 stock used in the prototype. The equation used for the maximum shear forces is:
,

Eq. (4)

where y is the tensile yield strength of the material, Y is the Lewis factor for the gear teeth, FW is the face width or
thickness of the gears, and m is the module of the gear teeth. The values used for these parameters were based on the
circular gears that were used to generate the gear profiles.
Given the characteristics and positioning of the preload spring (described in sections 3.4-3.5), the gear was
to experience a maximum of 77N of pure shear force, confirming that the gears would not fail. This maximum force
puts approximately 74MPa of stress on the base of the gear, which is well below the endurance limit of the chosen
material (410 Stainless Steel), 257MPa. Since the gear is not being stressed above the endurance limit, it can be
assumed that the gear will not experience fatigue failure. In the fabricated joint, the thickness of the gears is slightly
greater than that used in the calculation to further decrease chances of gear failure.
410 Stainless Steel was chosen for the gear and cam surfaces because of its high hardness, easy
machinability, and its ability to resist corrosion due to dry atmosphere, fresh water, mild alkalines and acids, food,
steam and hot gases [9]. Additionally, the SS gave the gear teeth and rolling surfaces the required shear and load
resistance. Aluminum was considered for its lightweight properties and easy machinability. However aluminums
low fatigue limit, lack of endurance limit, and propensity for aluminum on aluminum surface fusion made it a poor
choice for the surfaces [1].

3.2 JOINT LIMIT STOP

In order to prevent hyperextension and flexion past 135, a mechanism to limit range of motion was
implemented in the joint. The joint limit stops needed to resist the moments (~6Nm) generated by the users leg at
the extremes of motion (full flexion and full extension) without applying these loads to the gear teeth.
Two hard-stops were integrated into the design, one at the anterior side and one at the posterior side. The
anterior stop prevented hyperextension and the posterior stop prevented hyper flexion. The stops were designed to
perform two actions once the joint reached the extreme positions. First, the respective primary hooks (see Figure
11) engaged the joint limit stop surfaces and acted as pivots about the contact points. These pivots were designed
such that the femoral gears would lift slightly out of the tibial gears, thus preventing the teeth from taking any shear
load. The secondary hooks engaged once the gears were disengaged, thereby producing a force couple that resisted
the externally-applied moments and halting motion of the joint. Since there was little clearance between the layered
surfaces, the hard-stop structures were chamfered so that they would slide past each other smoothly. Figure 12
shows the joint limit stops engaged in both extension and flexion.

Anterior Primary Hook

Anterior Secondary Hook
Anterior Joint limit stop
Surfaces
Posterior Secondary Hook
Posterior Joint limit stop
Surfaces

Figure 11: Diagram of various hooks and joint limit stops that engage before hyper
flexion/extension occurs. Shown is the engaged posterior stop.

a)

b)

Figure 12: a) Full extension b) Full flexion. Note the force couples representing reaction forces
on the femoral component from the tibial component as an extension moment (a) or flexion
moment (b) is applied to the joint.

3.3 OUTER PLATES

The joint surfaces were constrained in the coronal plane by two outer plates, each attached by a pin to a
specific point on the joint body. These plates help withstand coronal torques, serve as an attachment for the preload
spring pins, and cover the joint to minimize pinch points. The minimum thickness of these plates was determined by
performing a conservative calculation assuming a single plate was placed under the full coronal load of 6Nm in pure
bending. The thickness chosen (1/16) was safely above the minimum thickness, required to withstand any coronal
torques on the joint. The bottom pin of the outer plate attached to an internal spring on the tibial component, which
provided the preload force in the joint. The upper pin of the outer plate then attached to the femoral component and
was free to rotate. The plates were sized to completely cover the joint so that users could not insert fingers or other
objects into the system other than through the edge of the device. Figure 13 below shows the two outer plates
enclosing the joint.

Figure 13: Outer plates on joint. One plate is transparent to make internal mechanism visible.

3.4 PRELOAD SPRING

A method was needed to preload the femoral and tibial surfaces to resist the axial forces of separation that
the brace may experience [4]. Several methods were analyzed but all involved adding extra thickness to the joint,
which was undesirable. The final design, which minimized thickness and doubled the outer plates as the connecting
links was an internal sprung slot. A slot was cut into the tibial surfaces and using a compression spring, preload was
applied to the femoral component via the outer plates. This design allowed the spring to be enclosed by the outer
plates and to remain generally normal to the cam surfaces compared to a spring that directly connects the two rolling
components directly.
A relatively stiff spring was needed to give the proper preload of the tibial and femoral components
throughout flexion and extension. The spring for preloading was chosen based on length and stiffness constraints.
The outer diameter of the spring could not be any larger than the width of the joint components (cam, gear, and cam
combined) constraining it to be less than 3/8. The spring was then selected from commercial springs that could
support the designed maximum axial force of 120 N. Of those, the spring with the lowest spring constant was
selected, as it would reduce the unwanted extra forces (shear and otherwise) as the spring stretched to accommodate
the cam surface geometry. In future iterations custom springs would be fabricated with the qualities for stiffness and
length deemed appropriate for each knee joint.

3.5 OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM

In addition to providing the desired axial preload on the cam surfaces, the preload spring produced
undesirable side-effects such as a sagittal-plane moment on the knee joint and shear forces on the gear teeth. These
effects were dependent on the spring link geometry. An optimization routine was used to optimally select the spring
and link geometry to minimize tooth shear given design constraints. Sagittal plane moments were initially included
in the cost function, but it was found that these spring-induced moments were very small compared to the biological
knee moments, and therefore could be ignored.
The optimized parameters were a) the position of the anchored end of the spring on the tibial component,
and b) the position of the femoral pin. Both of these positions included a horizontal and vertical component,
resulting in four free parameters in the optimization. The spring constant and free-length of the spring were entered
as fixed variables in the optimization to reflect the selected spring from the manufacturer. The link length between

the free-end of the spring and the femoral pin was chosen by the optimizer to ensure that the axial preload forces as
a function of knee angle always met or exceeded the axial forces in the worst-case scenario (deep-knee squats) of a
poorly-placed knee brace [4] with a minimum axial force set to 50N for additional safety. As a size-constraint on the
design, the spring anchor position on the tibia was constrained to the region shown in Figure 14, as it was not
desirable to extend the tibial component structure beyond these limits. The femoral pin location was constrained to
the diagonal area shown in Figure 14 to prevent the pin hole from approaching the edge of the designed structure. A
genetic algorithm followed by a constrained gradient descent search was used to find the optimal solution so to
minimize the maximum tooth shear seen over the knee range of 0 to 135.

Figure 14: The optimization setup and final geometry for the fully-extended knee. The anterior
direction is to the left. The femoral pin location (upward triangle) and spring anchor location
(downward triangle) were chosen by the optimizer. These locations and the spring parameters
were used to determine the appropriate link length (dashed line). The shaded regions indicate the
allowable optimized positions. Also shown are the four-bar linkage (straight lines) and the femoral
and tibial surfaces (curved lines).

3.6 DESIGN OF SPRING SLOT & SLIDER

To house the selected spring and serve as a bushing for the tibial pin, a low-friction sliding bearing was
required to accommodate the vertical translation of the tibial pin during flexion/extension. The tibial joint
component was 3/8 thick so the slot was made 3/8 in width to allow for a rectangular prism slider bearing. A hole
was drilled axially down the slider to house the spring and a perpendicular hole was drilled for the tibial link pin.
The slider was created using Saint-Venants principle for linear bearings [7]. For a linear bearing, jamming will not
occur as long as the ratio of L/D>1 where L is length of the bearing and D is the width of the slot. For moderate
stability, L/D=1.6:1 and for high stability L/D=3:1. Therefore to ensure no jamming during use, the slider was made
three times the diameter of the slot or 9/8. A 3D model of the slider is shown in Figure 15 and its placement within
the tibial component is displayed in Figure 16.

Figure 15: Spring slider. Note the axial hole for the spring and the face perpendicular hole for the
link pin.

a)

b)

Figure 16: a) Slot and slider in the tibial components. b) Spring in the slider mechanism

4. RESULTS
The final prototype is shown in Figure 17. The manufactured knee joints were attached on the medial and
lateral sides of a Breg X2K OA Knee Brace as replacements for the standard polycentric joints of the brace. The
joints provided minimal frictional resistance to extension and flexion. Building the rest of the brace around the joint
would remove many other sources of resistance as well. The final weight of the brace including the novel joints was
1.5 kg.

a)

b)

c)
Figure 17: a) Image of final joint with one outer plate removed. b) Image of joints attached to
Breg X2K knee brace [11]. c) Assembled and exploded view of the joint model.

Table 3 is a summary of the functional requirements and whether or not they were met by the current prototype.
Table 3: Functional Requirements Summary
Design Parameter
Sagittal Plane Motion
Withstand Coronal Plane Torques
Withstand Axial Separation Forces

Values
6 N/m
100 N

Met
Yes
Yes
Yes

Roll w/o slipping

Withstand 1 year of use
Weight

Yes or No
2x106 Cycles
<1.1 kg

Yes
Unconfirmed
No

No pinch points

Yes or No

No

5. FUTURE WORK
For future work the authors would cycle test the knee brace for 2 million cycles in order to evaluate how
the surfaces and the brace as a whole fatigue and react over the duration of a year. Metabolic and physiological
testing should be done to evaluate the effectiveness of the rolling knee joint design. One experiment that could
determine effectiveness would be to have a patient run at a predetermined pace for a set amount of time wearing the
rolling joint knee brace and then a Breg X2K OA Knee Brace weighted to the same weight as the rolling joint brace.
The additional weight to the Breg X2K OA Knee Brace would help to minimize any confounding variables due to
excess weight of the rolling knee joint in comparison to the Breg brace.
Reduction of size and weight would be a main goal of future work for this joint design. Finite element
analysis would be done to determine the appropriate thicknesses of the surfaces, which the authors predict would be
thinner than the current design. Another idea for weight reduction would be to have a composite assembly for the
cam and gear system. The system overall is too massive because it was made entirely from 410 Stainless Steel.
Choosing a lighter material, such as aluminum or titanium, for the portions of the design that are not undergoing the
high shear and compressive loads while having the gear and cam surfaces themselves be made out of the stainless
steel would greatly reduce the overall weight of the system. Note that the manufactured joints included steel struts
for attaching to the brace, which not not exist in a brace with a built-in joint of this type. Another weight reduction
strategy would be to overmold the outer plate of the system to make it a composite aluminum and polyethylene
structure that is similar to the outer plates seen on the Breg X2K OA Knee Brace. This would allow the outer plate
to more thoroughly cover the joint but continue to withstand the coronal torques the system experiences. A final
suggested weight reduction method would be to injection mold all the cam and geared surfaces with fiber-reinforced
plastic that can also withstand the loads.
Currently the design in place does not offer complete protection from pinch points. Future iterations of this
device would have an enclosed housing that would attempt to eliminate all pinch points while keeping debris such as
dirt from entering the gear system. Additional internal features would aim to clear debris out of the gears or slot
paths.
The unique gear profiles used in this design iteration, though effective, are approximations of the ideal gear
shape for the surfaces. Due to the non-constant radii of both surfaces, the ideal involute gear profiles would not be
identical along the surfaces. The resources that were available throughout the duration of this project were not
capable of creating the level of complexity that the ideal gears require. In the future, more detailed research would
be done to determine the precise involute gear profiles required for the curved surfaces. Possible alternatives to
involute gear teeth include trapezoidal timing-belt-like teeth, which could eliminate the need for separate cam
surfaces. Additionally, once the ideal gears are determined, it would be important to know if such precision in the

gears is in fact necessary for the functioning of the joint. If improving the gears does not have a major effect on the
effectiveness of the joint, then the current gear approximation can continue to be used.
An important step in making the joint customizable is streamlining the process of generating all of the
parameters dependent on the knee geometry for the given patient. From the image of the knee, the surfaces are
generated which then define the gear profiles and the optimized location of the preload spring. Ideally in the future,
a comprehensive program will be written to automate this process and produce all of the information necessary to
fabricate a truly customized and commercially feasible joint.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Professor Alexander Slocum Sr. for his continual guidance throughout the
project, along with, Nikolai Begg, Alexander Slocum Jr., and Nevan Clancy Hanumara who all played an integral
role in the progress and completion of this rolling joint knee brace.

7. REFERENCES
[1] Beer Ferdinand, E. Russell Johnston, Jr. (1992). Mechanics of Materials (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc. p.
51.
[2] Novacheck, Tom. "The biomechanics of running." Gait and Posture 7. (1997): 83
Self, Brian, Richard Greenwald, and Daniel Paster. "A Biomechanical Analysis of a Medial
Unloading Brace for Osteoarthritis in the Knee." Arthritis Care and Research. 14.4 (2000): 196.
[3] Personal Communication with Sasha Zill, PhD, 10/20/2011. Professor,Section of Anatomy,
Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Marshall University.
[4] Regalbuto, M.A, M.S Rovick, and P.S Walker. "The forces in a knee brace as a function
of hinge design and placement." American Orthopedic Society of Sports Medicine.
17.4 (1989): 541.
[5] Self, Brian, Richard Greenwald, and Daniel Paster. "A Biomechanical Analysis of a Medial Unloading Brace
for Osteoarthritis in the Knee." Arthritis Care and Research. 14.4 (2000): 196.
[6] Slocum, Alexander H. Jr. Rolling Contact Orthopaedic Joint Design. PhD Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
February 2013.
[7] Slocum, Alexander H. Sr. FUNdaMENTALS of Design. Oxford Press, 2005.
[8] Smidt, G. L., Biomechanical Analysis of Knee Flexion and Extension. J Biomechanics
1973, Vol. 6, pp.79-92.
[9] "Stainless Steel - Grade 410 (UNS S41000)." A to Z Materials. AZoM, n.d. Web. 15 May
2013. <http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=970>.
[10] "X2K Counterforce Knee Brace." Breg.com. Breg Inc., n.d. Web. 23 March 2013.
<http://www.breg.com/products/knee-bracing/functional-oa/x2k-counterforce-knee-brace>.
[11] Zavatsky, A. B., OConnor, J. J., A model of human knee ligaments in the sagittal plane
Part 1: response to passive flexion. Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1992, Vol 206, pp. 125-134.