Biomechanical Behavior of the Knee Joint Using ANSYS

Ral Lesso-Arroyo, Julio Cesar Snchez Jimnez, Ramn Rodrguez Castro

Instituto Tecnolgico de Celaya, Celaya, Gto, Mxico
Fernando Balderas Lopez
Grupo SSC de Mxico, San Miguel Allende, Gto, Mxico
Abstract
One of the most important joint in the human body is the knee joint. Many papers have been published
about it, but most of these works use simplified models, using 2D or some using 3D approaches but without
knee joint essential parts.
Knee joint are formed by three bones (Femur, Tibia and Patella) and deformed bodies called menisci, that
eliminate direct contact and reduce friction between bones. In this system we can find orthotropic and
isotropic materials working together.
The main objective of this research is to develop a three-dimensional solid finite element model of the knee
joint to predict stresses in its individual components (Femur, Tibia, Menisci and Patella). This model is a
geometric non-linear contact path-dependent model that includes friction between bodies, which let us
understand its structural mechanical behavior, seeing to suggest (propose) -with advanced research in the
future- new knee joint prosthesis, as well as to prove the prosthesis-joint interaction before be implanted in
the patient.
This paper explains a complete human knee joint model without cartilaginous tissue, using ANSYS 7.0
Multiphysics, which show us multiple contact pairs working together (Non-linear analysis) and stress-strain
analysis with a 1400 N applied force. The results obtained from the analysis serve to control contact pairs,
convergence plots and its comparison with other models.
In this way, we develop a first important step towards the structural characterization of Human Knee Joint.

Figure 1. Knee joint

Introduction
Understanding of the interacting forces among the components of the human knee during daily physical
activities is of prime importance to prevent injuries on this articulation. In addition, the knowledge of such
forces is fundamental in the proposal of prosthesis design, rehabilitation, and muscular strengthening.
Besides the experimental studies, mathematical and computational models of the knee joint have been
developed to predict the approximated biomechanical behavior of individual fibrous tissue and of the entire
articulation. Some outstanding works, due to their close approximations to real models are those by BaoWillems [A6] (1999), which achieve a mathematical approach to determine the movements of the leg and
thigh. Studies by Li and Gil [A1] (1999) and Li, Lopez and Rubash [A2] (2001) use models of the main
bones and the cartilaginous part and made simplifications about the menisci (using equivalent-resistance

springs) and ligaments. Morales and Ayala [A5] (2001) which deals with a 2D structural analysis where the
modeling of the bones is according to their bony regions.
While the mathematical models of the knee joint can be useful to predict forces and stresses in individual
structures of the articulation, as well as to estimate its kinematics, validation of such models is a
challenging task. It is complicated to make a computational model of the knee that accurately predicts the
response and movements of the articulation as it is resembled by experimental methods.
With the help of digitized geometry and improved capabilities of ANSYS 7.0 in handling contact pairs, the
main objective of this study is to develop a three-dimensional finite element model to predict stresses in
individual components of the knee joint (femur, tibia, menisci, and patella) due to interacting forces among
them when steady state loading is considered. The model developed is a geometric non-linear model that
includes contact path-dependent elements (with friction). Results are compared with the results from linear
modeling of the individual structures forming the articulation.

Procedure
Materials
Mechanical properties of bones vary, in general, according to age, weight, gender, and feeding habits of the
subject under analysis. Properties values given in Tables 4 to 10 (see appendix) were obtained from a dead
body, male 30 years old, 1.70 m tall, and average weight estimated of 70 kg, Haut, Hull, Rashid and Jacobs
[A4]. For analysis purposes a value of 1400 N, which is around twice the estimated weight, was used to
load the knee joint (this loading was also used by Morales and Ayala [A5]). In addition, prescribed
displacements are alternatively used to load the computational model because graphical progression of
convergence is cleaner and easier to follow. Estimated displacement values of 10 mm are applied to the
models inasmuch as these values correspond to the maximum deformation that the meniscus can withstand.
Values presented are considered standard values.

Model
The analysis was carried out according to the geometric models obtained from The standardized femur home
page [W1]. The analysis includes studying the combined behavior of the meniscus, femur, tibia, and
patella, and assuming only an external load applied to the femur, restricting movements the knee joint
instead of applying loads to simulate ligaments and tendons loading (The model constraints used is only
useful for the specified configuration. The applied constraints simulated the duties of ligaments and tendons
in a real knee joint). Due to the intricate model, the 3D model of the articulation was considered to be
extended (0 degrees flexion), formed by only one type of bony material by bone, which is porous and
orthotropic. For comparison purposes, studies were done on independent models (each bone considered
separately) with linear analyses. The cartilaginous parts of the bones were excluded in all the analyses,
linear and non-linear, even though their geometry is known. The reason for this is that the mechanical
properties of these parts are not experimentally characterized yet. In this study the interaction of each part
of the joint with its bony surroundings is taken into account.
Because the present analysis required of three-dimensional nonlinear processing, a solid element was
chosen, SOLID92, which is a structural solid tetrahedral element of 10 nodes, for a space of threedimensional work and that has three degrees of freedom (UX, UY and UZ) by node. Another alternative
was to use an element SOLID95, which offers 20 nodes and also supports geometric non-linearities,
nevertheless, it increases the number of nodes to analyze.
For the components potentially in contact, high order elements CONTA174 and TARGE170 were used.
Element CONTA174 is a three-dimensional 8-node element that allows surface-to-surface contact and
sliding. Element TARGE170 is compatible with element CONTA174 and allows, also, surface-to-surface
contact.

Digitalization of the model

For the digitalization of the model a hybrid method was used. The geometries of the femur and the tibia
were obtained via a three-dimensional laser scanner, in IGES format, from Greer and Wang of the
University of Nevada-Reno, USA. [W1]
The menisci were drawn in IronCAD 5.0 taking into account the space between the tibia and the femur, and
supervised previously by the general doctor Mayo Alexander Payan Gmez, and according to characteristic
geometry of the meniscus reported by Cailliet [L1] (1984). The menisci model achieved is not anatomically
accurate, but gives a close idea about the knee behavior and gives closer behavior than the springsimplification used in other studies. The patella was drawn according to a series of magnetic resonances of
the knee joint, from which several cross sections are obtained in different directions. The cross sections of
the patella were then digitized with the help of a flat bed scanner with a 1200x1200 dpi resolution, to
generate the base planes.
Images of the base planes were taken to CorelDRAW! 8.0 to be linearized, and from there they were
exported to AutoCAD 2002 to generate regions (Figs. 2 and 3). From these planes solid models were
obtained from AutoCAD and IronCAD softwares.
It is necessary to indicate that the geometry of Greer and Wang generated errors at the time of being
imported to ANSYS. The magnitude of the errors was such that ANSYS was unable to generate volumes,
besides to display small hollow sections. In order to correct these errors it was necessary to use several
CAD software (AutoCAD 2002, IronCAD 5,0, Pro/E 2001 and AGP 6,1) and, in addition, the original
format prevented the modification of solids.

Figure 2. Linearized on
CorelDraw! 8.0

Figure 3. Linearized on
AutoCAD 2002

Figure 4. Greer-Wang
Model

The complete joint, Fig 4, that contains femur, tibia, patella and menisci, was assembled in IronCAD 5.0.
In order to have the total certainty that the obtained model fulfilled the geometry to analyze two revisions
were made: one on the basis of visual appreciation and another one according to FEA.

Analysis
Models
In this study four models were considered, from which progressive data had to be obtained to refine the
final model. The analyzed models were: individual models, simplified model, reduced model and final
model. In the individual models each component was used separately as if all the knee joint worked like a
rigid body, that is to say, passing the forces completely to the following component. The second model,
the simplified model, was used to obtain a first approach to the behavior of the parameters of the contact
pairs. The third model is a reduced model of the final model and it allows us to vary parameters in a fast
way. The final model does not include reductions or simplifications nor an optimized mesh. The four
models are explained next.

Analysis 1: Separated Components

The femur is an orthotropic bony material and for modeling purposes it was considered to be composed of
only this type of material. The femur was meshed using 21263 SOLID92 elements. A 1400 N load was
applied which was distributed among the nodes located on the upper part of the femur geometry (see Fig.
5). In addition, the femur was simply supported in its lower part, trying to simulate the conditions at which
the full model will be exposed. To achieve this the nodes situated in the lower part of the femur have the
following degrees of freedom constraints UZ = 0, UX and UY are free, with 8 nodes restricted along the
body of the femur in the X direction (UX=0) to avoid rigid body translations.
The tibia is an orthotropic bony material and for modeling purposes it was considered to be composed of
only this type of material. The tibia was meshed using 12288 SOLID92 elements. A 1400 N load was
applied which was distributed among the nodes located on the upper part of the tibia geometry (see Fig. 6).
The nodes at the lower part of the tibia geometry were restricted in all the directions (UZ = UY = UX = 0)
to avoid rigid body translations.
The meniscuses are composed of an orthotropic bony material and they were meshed with 2734 SOLID92
elements. A 1400 N load was applied which was distributed among the nodes located on the upper part of
the meniscuses geometry (see Fig. 7). In addition, the meniscuses were simply supported in its lower part,
trying to simulate the conditions at which the full model will be exposed. To achieve this the nodes situated
at the lower part of the femur have the following degrees of freedom constraints UZ=0, UX and UY are
free.

Figure 5. Femur meshed,

constraints

Figure 6. Tibia meshed,

constraints

Figure 7. Menisci meshed,

constraints

Analysis 2: Simplified Model

In this analysis the knee joint was studied considering all its components (femur, meniscuses, and tibia)
assembled together to take into account the mechanical interactions among them.
The simplified model should satisfy basics characteristics: 1) to have dimensions close to the final model,
2) to be generated with primitive shapes (spheres, ellipsoids, etc.), 3) to achieve a good low density mesh,
and 4) to contain simplified models of each individual component.
Figure 9 shows the simplified model. As it can be observed, the upper part of the femur as well as the lower
part of the tibia are omitted to simplify the model. In this model, the geometry of the femur was created
with two semi-spheres which resemble the femoral condyles. These semi-spheres were also trimmed from
the front to simulate the contact area between the patella and the femur. The tibia was generated from a
cylinder by trimming it in its upper, lower, and frontal parts to resemble the almost flat areas of the tibial
condyles. A protuberance was left without trimming in the upper part to imitate the intercondyle
prominence that separates the meniscuses. The menisci were created with a cylinder and an ellipsoid of 12
and 10 mm thickness, respectively. This model contains 19770 SOLID92.
The meshed model is shown in Fig. 9, whereas the model with restricted displacements is shown in Fig. 10.
Displacement values of 10 mm in Z direction (UZ) were applied to the nodes located in the upper surface
of the femur geometry.

Figure 8. Simplified model,

meshed

Figure 9. Simplified model,

constraints

The tibia was restricted from its bottom, applying cero displacements along the three directions, UX = UY
= UZ = 0. For each meniscus, all the nodes located on its peripheral surfaces were restricted along the X
and Y directions, keeping free the displacements along the Z direction.
The contact pair between the femur (Contact) and the menisci (Target) is defined as Contact Pair 1, while
that between the menisci and the patella (Contact) and the tibia (Target) is defined as Contact Pair 2. The
contact pairs were realized by means of node components.
Values obtained from the convergent contact pair are shown in Table 10.

Analysis 3: Reduced Model

The reduced model is a model that entirely resembles the geometry to analyze except for the parts far from
the interest region. To avoid extra work, values obtained from the simplified model were tested on the
separated components model: 1) Femur and menisci, 2) menisci and tibia, 3) femur and patella, and 4)
patella and tibia. Thus, it was separately analyzed the contact pairs 1 and 2 and then they were tested as an
assembly. After that, the contact pairs 3 and 4 were studied separately and once all the parameters were
known, these were tested in the model that contained all the contact pairs involved.
For this model 52760 elements were used, from which 48347 were SOLID92 elements, 1841 were
TARGET elements, and 2572 were CONTACT elements.
In order to eliminate the rigid body it was necessary to severely restrict the displacement of the
components. For the femur, the nodes situated at its top surface were applied the displacements UZ = -5
mm, UX = UY are free, whereas the nodes located at the lateral sides (5 mm each side) were applied UX =
UY = 0, UZ are free. The tibia was restricted in a similar way. The nodes located at the top surface were
applied the following displacements UZ = 5mm, UX = UY are free, while the nodes at the lateral sides (5
mm each side) with restrictions UX = UY = 0, UZ are free. The menisci were restricted in the same way as
in the previous case, 32 total nodes, 16 per meniscus, 8 nodes per side. The patella is not easier to restrict.
For this case 17 nodes were restricted in the frontal face with displacements UY = 0 y UX = UZ are free,
and additionally 8 nodes were taken at the lower faces with UZ = 0, UY = UX are free, and 6 more nodes
with UX = 0, UY = UZ are free.
The contact elements were modeled utilizing an Auto Offset to close the initial gap between the
components and Exclude Everything to reduce initial penetration.
The values found from this model are shown in Table 11. In such table are specified the values of FKN
(Contact Stiffness) FTOLN (Penetration Tolerance), the type of material used, as well as the criteria of
Initial Penetration and Automatic Contact Adjustment.

Figure 10. Reduced model

Figure 11. Reduced model w/constraints

Analysis 4: Full Model

The full model entirely simulates the geometry to analyze without any simplifications. Due to the changing
stiffness of the model, it is very likely that the values found from the previous model are not totally
coincident with the results of the full model, but they have to be close. In this model more effort was put to
obtain a lower density mesh that were compatible with the model.
For this model 71061 elements were used, from which 65240 were SOLID92 elements, 2267 were
TARGET elements, and 3554 were CONTACT elements, these latter elements defining the contact pair.
The displacement of the femur was restricted to avoid any type of rigid body motion. To achieve this the
nodes at the femur top were prescribed the displacements UZ = -5 mm. Along the body of the femur 12
nodes were taken with UX = UY = 0 mm, and UZ are free. The menisci were restricted in the same manner
that in the reduced model: 32 total nodes, 16 per meniscus, 8 nodes per side. The tibia was restricted
similarly to the femur. The nodes at the bottom were prescribed the displacements UZ = 5 mm. Along the
tibia body 8 nodes were taken with UX = UY = 0 mm, UZ are free. For the patella 17 nodes from the
frontal face were restricted with UY = 0 mm and UX = UZ are free, and additionally 8 nodes from the
bottom surface were taken with displacements UZ = 0, UY = UX are free, plus 6 nodes with UX = 0, UY =
UZ are free.
The contact elements were modeled using an Auto Offset to close the initial gap between the components
and Exclude Everything to reduce initial penetration. The values found from this model are shown in
Table 12.

Figure 12. Meshed model

w/constraints

Figure 13. Contact pair 3

Analysis Results & Discussion

The obtained results, maximum values, from separated parts analysis model are showed on the next table:
Table 1. Results, separated model analysis, Stress.
SEQV (Avg)
X (SX)
Y (SY)
Z (SZ)

Femur (Pa)

Tibia (Pa)

Menisci (Pa)

1.5667E8
4.4563E7
4.1757E7
6.7340E7

4.9649E8
1.4994E8
9.4517E7
3.3975E8

2.1327E7
2.24406E6
3.44056E6
2.41243E7

Von Misses stress showed on last table are graphically displayed in Fig. 14, Fig. 15 and Fig. 16. These
results are Von Misses Stress (averaged), in Pa.

Figure 14. Tibia results, Stress

Figure 15. Menisci results, Stress

Figure 16. Femur results, Stress

The obtained results, maximum values, from reduced analysis model are showed on the next table:
Table 2. Results, reduced model analysis, stress.
Femur (Pa)

Tibia (Pa)

Patella (Pa)

Menisci (Pa)

SEQV (Avg)

3.0866E8

1.51125E9

5.4797E9

4.0061E7

X (SX)

53558.3

2.8957E6

5.37498E6

9483.01

Y (SY)

89836.8

1.86947E6

5.36128E7

347021

Z (SZ)

543606

3.32007E6

1.3696E7

99587.9

Von Misses stress showed on the last table are graphically displayed in Fig. 17, Fig. 18, Fig. 19 and Fig. 20.
These results are Von Misses Stress (averaged), in Pa.

Figure 17. Tibia results, Stress

Figure 18. Meniscus results, Stress

Figure 19. Femur results, Stress

Figure 20. Patella results, Stress

The obtained results, maximum values, from full analysis model are showed on the next table:

Table 3. Results, full model analysis, stress

Femur (Pa)

Tibia (Pa)

Patella (Pa)

Menisci (Pa)

SEQV (Avg)

2.65237E8

6.07005E8

1.00215E8

1.11417E7

X (SX)

3.32104E6

4.9664E6

1.25758E6

15854.7

Y (SY)

3.47354E6

7.40549E6

3.11426E6

68197.8

Z (SZ)

2.75184E6

1.77663E7

7.403E6

2497.52

Figure 21. Tibia results, Stress

Figure 22. Menisci results, Stress

Von Misses stress showed on last table are graphically displayed in Fig. 21, Fig. 22, Fig. 23 and Fig. 24.
These results are Von Misses Stress (averaged) in Pa.

Figure 23. Femur results, Stress

Figure 24. Patella results, Stress

Trying to simplify obtained results and showed a faster comparison between the analysed models, we make
a comparative chart displaying Von Misses Equivalent Stress from Femur among different models. These
are showed on Fig. 25.

Figure 25 Von Misses Equivalent Stress, Averaged (Pa)

Two of the important parts of this work are to distinguish the discrepancy of the values of stress between
linear and non-linear models and the location of the maximum stress.
In the location of the maximum stress, a simple linear analysis of the Femur shows points of maximum
stress in the central part and on the area close to the upper "head", whereas a non-linear analysis displays a
bigger stress on the area in contact with the Patella. For the Tibia similar results are obtained. The linear
analysis exhibits bigger concentration of stress in central areas, while the non-linear analysis shows
maximum stress over areas that interact with the Patella. The Menisci also display different strain and stress
levels between the linear and non-linear analysis; however, it is not possible to identify an unique area of
maximum strain.
The comparative chart in Fig. 25 emphasizes the lack of correspondence of the stress values obtained from
the linear analysis and those from the non-linear analysis.
From these models a logical order of stress levels is expected, being higher for the stresses in the lineal
model, then decreasing for the reduced model and the lowest level of stress is present in the complete
model. This behavior of stresses is inferred from the fact that in the lineal analysis each body part receives
directly the full 1400 N load, obtaining a high level of stress. In the non-lineal models the body part that
takes the load directly is the Femur, and this explains why the obtained values in the graphs are closer. The
other components do not take the complete load since they are deformable bodies and a portion of the load
is taken by them.
Another outstanding aspect of this work is the numeric evaluation of the control parameters of the contact
pair (FKN and FTOLN, mainly). The achieved descriptions are aimed to get a selection criterion for the
parameter values involved. The numeric evaluation of this parameters is important since without them a
complete analysis of the articulation as a whole is not possible.
The complete model meets the initial expectations since it allows to control the four bodies involved by
means of the contact pairs, while achieving the convergence of a non lineal analysis without using
simplifications of the physical model. In addition, in the full model each body can be analysed separately
and also the disparity among lineal and not lineal analysis values can be analysed in graphic form, which
accentuates the importance of this type of analysis.

Conclusion
Numerical structural analysis of human knee joint, one of the most important joint in the human body, has
great importance because this analysis take us closer to a complete knowledge of its mechanical behavior.
Reaching this kind of simulated analysis instead of intrusive procedures or destructive tests are part of the
biomechanical highest goals.
In order to get a full knowledge of human knee joint behaviour it is necessary to consider, in addition to the
analysed model, the cartilaginous parts that cover the bones, the compact bone (bones internal part), and
accurate menisci model as well as ligaments to achieve a closer simulation to reality.
Throughout this paper some of the most important parameters to control the geometry of the movement are
given, and the divergence of the results as well as the progressive convergence approach are discussed. It is
also implicitly shown the model evolution method to find the parameters that lead us to achieve the
objectives of this paper.
All assumptions used in other similar studies were made in order are to save processing time and to avoid
convergence problems. The assumptions made in this work are only for data or parameters not defined
completely. The main contribution of the present work is: to be able to simulate the whole articulation
using three-dimensional solid models, including friction among the bodies.
As a future work, a validation of obtained results can be sought based on the reactions that a live subject
under study can undergo and then compare them with the reactions obtained in this simulation or other
simulations.

A possible method of validation it would be to simulate this system with ADAMS and then make a
comparison of stresses and force transmission among models.
Finally, its emphasized the difference between results obtained from linear analyses and non-linear
analyses and the associated complexity of the latter (geometric non-linearities, contacts non-linearities,
multiples contact pairs and highly deformable materials).

References and bibliography

[L1] Cailliet R., Sndromes dolorosos, Rodilla, Editorial Manual Moderno, Segunda edicin,
Mxico, Pag.: 8-15

[L2] Gupta , K. K., Meek J. L., Finite Element Multidisciplinary Analysis, AIAA Education Series
(American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Pag.: 1-20.

[L3] Moaveni, S. , Finite Element Analysis, Theory and application with ANSYS, Prentice Hall,
Pg: 1-6, 216-261

[L4] Cook, R.D., Finite element modeling for stress analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Pag: 275-295

[L5] Reddy, J.N., An introduction to the finite element method, McGraw Hill Publising Company

[L6] ANSYS Training Manual 6.0, Ansys Inc. Basic non-linearities, Advanced non-linearities,
Contact and Bolt pretensin.

[A1] G. Li, J. Gil, A. Kanamori, S.L.-Y. Woo, A validated three-dimensional computational

model of a human knee joint, December 1999, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, ASME.

[A2] G. Li, O. Lpez, H. Rubash, Variability of a three-dimensional finite element model

constructed using magnetic resonance images of a knee for joint contact stress analysis, August
2001, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, ASME.

[A3] S. J. Piazza, S.L. Delp, Three-dimensional dynamic simulation of total knee replacement
motion during a step-up task, December 2001, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, ASME.

[A4] T.L. Haut, M.L. Hull, M. M. Rashid, C. R. Jacobs, A finite element model of the human
knee joint for the study of tibio-femoral contact, June 2002, Journal of Biomechanical
Engineering, ASME.

[A5] L. Morales Acosta, A. Ayala Ruz, Knee Joint Biomechanics, October 2001, SOMIM
Congress 2001, Celaya, Gto., Mxico.

[A6] H. Bao, P.Y. Willems, On the kinematic modeling and the parameter estimation of the
human knee joint, August 1999, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, ASME.

[A7] L. Blankevoort, R. Huiskes, Ligament-bone interaction in a three-dimensional model of the

knee, August 1991, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, ASME.

[W1] The standardized femur program home page

http://www.cineca.it/hosted/LTM-IOR/back2net/ISB_mesh /form_fem.html

[W2] Valencia Biomechanical Institute

http://www.ibv.org/iinformacion/index.html

[W3] Biomechanics World Wide

http://www.per.ualberta.ca/biomechanics/bwwnofrm.htm

[W4] Biomechanics Magazine Online

http://www.biomech.com/

Appendix
Table 4. Mechanical properties (Material 1)
Porous
Mu

0.2

Table 5. Mechanical properties, Femur (Material 2)

Porous

Compact

Ex

1.2 E10

6.1 E9

Ey

1.34 E10

8.692 E9

Ez

2 E10

1.2793 E10

PRxy

0.38

0.38*

PRyz

0.24

0.24*

PRxz

0.22

0.22*

Gxy

4.55 E9

2.3061 E9**

Gyz

6.23 E9

4.0411 E9**

Gxz

5.61 E9

3.588 E9**

Table 6. Mechanical properties, Tibia (Material 3)

Porous

Compact

Ex

1.85 E10

6.9 E9

Ey

2.275 E10**

8.5 E9

Ez

4.9262 E10**

1.84 E10

PRxy

0.49*

0.49

PRyz

0.14*

0.14

PRxz

0.12*

0.12

Gxy

6.4255 E9**

2.4 E9

Gyz

1.3119 E 10**

4.9 E9

Gxz

9.382 E9**

3.6 E9

Table 7. Mechanical properties, Menisci (Material 4)

Ex

2 E7

Ey

1.4 E8

Ez

2 E7

PRxy

0.2

PRyz

0.3

PRxz

0.2

Gxy

6.9565 E6**

Gyz

8.0706 E7**

Gxz

3.913 E6**

Table 8. Mechanical properties, Patella (Material 5)

Porous

Compact

Ex

1.85 E10

6.91 E9

PRxy

0.3

0.3*

Table 9. Mechanical properties, contact pair (Material 6)

Ex

2 E7

Ey

1.4 E8

Ez

2 E7

PRxy

0.2

PRyz

0.3

PRxz

0.2

Gxy

6.9565 E6**

Gyz

8.0706 E7**

Gxz

3.913 E6**

Table 10. Contact pair control values, simplified model

Contact pair 1

Contact pair 2

FKN

1.0

1.0

FTOLN

0.01

0.01

Material

Contact
Status

Exclude
everything /
Red.
penetration

Include
everything /
Close gap

Table 11. Contact pair control values, Reduced model

Contact
Contacts
parameters pair 1

Contact
pair 2

Contact
pair 3

Contact
pair 4

FKN

0.8

0.8

0.25

0.1

FTOLN

8.5

0.1

0.01

Material

Exclude
Exclude
Exclude
Exclude
Initial
Penetration everything everything everything everything
Close Gap Close Gap Close Gap
Auto offset Reduce
penetration

Table 12. Contact pair control values, Full model

Contacts
parameters

Contact
pair 1

Contact
pair 2

Contact
pair 3

Contact
pair 4

FKN

0.8

0.8

0.25

0.1

FTOLN

8.5

0.1

0.01

Material

Initial
Penetration

Exclude
everything

Exclude
everything

Exclude
everything

Exclude
everything

Auto offset

Reduce
Close Gap
penetration

Close Gap

Close Gap

* These values were taken considering that the Poisson ratio is constant for the spongy bone as well as for
the compact one. There are no reported values in the literature.
** These values were approached by a linear interpolation, since they are not reported in the literature.