A Project Review

on

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF FEMUR BONE BY

USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
By
K . Govardhan Kumar 15AK5A0305
K. Mohan reddy 14AK1A0333
M. Bhavani prasad 15AK5A0302
C. Mohan prasad 14AK1A0332

Under the guidance of

Mr. M. Vijay Kumar Reddy M.Tech
Asst Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences
Approved by AICTE & Accredited by NAAC
Venkatapuram(village), Renigunta (Mandal)
TIRUPATI, Chittoor District
Andhra Pradesh-517520.
CONTENTS:

• ABSTRACT
• INTRODUCTION
• LITERATURE SURVEY
• PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
• METHODOLOGY
• RESULTS & DISCUSSION
• MERITS, LIMITATION AND APPLICATIONS
• CONCLUSION
• SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK
• REFERENCES

2
Abstract:
Biomechanics is a field that combines with disciplines of biology,
engineering mechanics, and mathematics, utilizes the tools of physics, computer aided
design, computer aided manufacturing, and engineering to describe the properties of
biological materials.

In this work, Three dimensional models of human femur bones from CT Scan
data in terms of DICOM form can be modeled by using MIMICS software and analysis
is done by using ANSYS 14.5 software with three different materials at different aged
people at different loading conditions.

From these analysis, results were obtained from three different materials
shows that the behavior of bones at different stages and comparison graphs were drawn
for each material. This work may help to reduce the complexity in critical surgeries,
can predict type of bone fractures and also the surgeon can able to analyze the
complexity of risk and to provide quick treatment to the patients. From these analysis
the comparative statement drawn among the three different materials (Stainless
steel,Ti-6Al-4V and PMMA). PMMA shows the minimum deformation
Introduction:
FEMUR BONE
• The femur is the thigh bone which extends from the hip joint
down to the knee joint. The femur bone is a very strong
bone and tremendous force may be required to cause
fracture of the femur.

• Femur fractures are divided according to anatomic location.

 Fractures at the upper end of the femur are referred to as “hip
fractures”.
 Fractures of the femoral shaft involve the long tubular portion
of the femur between the upper end and the lower end of the
femur, and these are the fractures generally require higher
energy for occurrence.
 Fractures of the femur just above the knee are referred to as
“supracondylar femur fractures”
4
• The most common types of femoral fractured because of Osteoporosis
causes femoral neck fracture and lower trochanter region fracture. Femoral
neck is that region which connects the shaft of a femur (thigh bone) to its
round head to fit into a hip joint.

5
CT Scan :

The word “Tomography” comes from the Greek: Tomos means slice, Grapy
stands for to write. So, tomography literally means “writing slices”.

 A computed tomography (CT) scan is a medical image developer that utilizes

computer-processed X-rays that produce Tomographic images or 'slices' of
required specific areas of the body.

 The patient will lie on a narrow examination table that slides into and out of
this tunnel and also rotating around patient.

 The x-ray tube and electronic x-ray detectors are located opposite each other
in a ring, called a gantry. 6
Radiographic images
7
Literature Survey:
Baradeswaran.A was proposed the outline importance of Reconstruction of
2D Scanned dicom images into 3D models in medicine by using CAD
packages.

 Physical model derived from CT or MRI data was converted into the 3D
model is used to direct and flexible understanding of complex anatomical
details that cannot be directly analyzed by using the 2D images.

 This reduces the complexity in surgery and helps in precision of safety and
speed of surgery.

8
Ashish B. Deoghare :-

 He was concluded that the integration of CAD modelling, Rapid

Prototyping technique and Finite Element Method are important in medical

applications to reduce the complex analysis during surgeries.

 He was developed a 3D model from CT dicoms was converted it in

to.stl format with the aid of CAD software.

9
Ajay Dhanopia :-

He was define the parameter and the boundary condition to the code
following boundary condition are define in. the present structure analysis of
the model
was concluded that the integration of CAD modelling, Rapid
Prototyping technique and Finite Element Method are important in medical
applications to reduce the complex analysis during surgeries

Density Youngs Modulus Ultimate Tensile Strength ultimate compressive strength

Bone Materials Poisson's Ratio
kg/m3 (GPa) (Pa) (Pa)

Ti-6Al-4V 4500 120 0.32 993 1086

Stainless Steel 8000 170-750 0.32 465-950 1276

PMMA 1180 220 0.2 47-79 93-124

10
Biomaterials compatible for different organs
11
Data Collection:

 Firstly need to understand the nature of the problem and its type. The first
step in solving the problem to identify it ,The general used material
properties.

 Here the CT scan data is collected from different age groups.

 The CT scan Data is collected in the form of DICOM (Digital Imaging

and Communications in Medicine) data sets(.dcm).

 Material properties of femur bone are collected from web and some
information is collected from literature survey.

12
Problem Identification:

 The complexity in the surgeries and operations

 The present methodology fails to predict the fracture risk until the bone

breaks

 Bone deformations and deflections at different loads at different conditions.

13
 Modeling & Experimental Approach:-
Software used:
MIMICS (Materialize Interactive Medical Image Control System)

Procedure:
Step-1: Importing the person’s DICOM files in the form of ‘.dcm; format

Step-2:Volume Rendering process using options as follows

- Thresholding
- Editing the mask in 3D
- Region Growing
- Calculating 3D
- Smoothening operations

Step-3: The model is meshed by using the 3matic module

- Surface Meshing
- Volume Meshing

Step-4: Exporting the model to STEP( Standard for the Exchange of Product Data) format.
14
Importing the data:

15
Generating the model in 3D:

16
Region Growing in 3D Model:

17
Meshing the Model using 3Matic:

18
Export to STEP file:

19
Analysis:
Software used:
ANSYS WORKBENCH 14.5
Procedure:
 Step-1: Importing the Model into ANSYS Workbench
 Step-2: Providing Material Properties
 Step-3: Generate the model and create the mesh
 Step-4: Applying the fixed support at the knee joint of the bone
 Step-5: Apply the force at the hip joint of the bone (Avg :392.4N or 40kgs).
 Step-6: Choose Total Deformation, Maximum Principal Stress, Minimum Principal
Stress.
 Step-7: Solving Results

20
Assigning material properties to the model

21
Imported model in ANSYS workbench

22
Applying Fixed Support at knee joint

23
Applying the Load at hip joint

24
After solving different bone structures

25
 Results & Discussions:
Finite element analysis results of a person-1 at an age of 35, load at 45kgs in Stainless Steel..

Equivalent Stress
Total Deformation

Minimum principal stress Maximum Principal Stress

26
Finite element analysis results of a person-2 (M) at an age of 45years, load at 45kgs in
PMMA.

Equivalent Stress
Total Deformation

Minimum principal stress Maximum Principal Stress 27

Finite element analysis results of a person-3 (M) at an age of 55 years, load at 45kgs
in Ti-6Al-4V.

Equivalent Stress Total Deformation

Minimum principal stress Maximum Principal Stress

28
 Finite element analysis results of a person-2 at an age of 45 years.
Type of fracture: Subcapital neck factor & fracture of the greater trochanter

Subcapital neck factor Subcapital neck factor

and
Fracture of the greater trochanter
29
 Results
PMMA
Maximum
Minimum Maximum Shear
Name of Age Total Deformation Principal Stress Equivalent Stress
Gender Load (Kgs)/N Principal Stress Stress
Patient (yrs) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)

30 0.030364 2.5464 0.1123 1.7038 3.366

35 0.035425 2.9728 0.13105 1.9878 3.9271
40 0.040486 3.3952 0.14977 2.2717 404881
45 0.04547 3.8196 0.1685 2.5557 5.0491
Person 1 35 F
60 0.060729 5.0928 0.22466 3.4076 6.7321
70 0.07085 5.9416 0.2621 3.9755 7.8541
80 0.080972 6.7904 0.29955 4.5435 8.9761
90 0.091093 7.6392 0.33699 5.1114 10.098
30 0.036142 2.8165 0.13735 1.8312 3.6177
35 0.042166 3.2859 0.16024 2.1365 4.2206
40 0.04819 4.0314 0.20506 2.4417 4.8236
45 0.054213 4.2247 0.20602 2.7469 5.4265
Person 2 45 M
60 0.072284 5.633 0.2747 3.6625 7.2354
70 0.084332 6.5718 0.32048 4.2729 8.4413
80 0.09637 7.5106 0.36626 4.8833 9.6472
90 0.01084 8.4495 0.41204 5.4937 10.853
30 0.09819 4.8489 0.18514 2.5877 5.1506
35 0.11456 5.6571 0.2265 3.019 6.0091
40 0.13093 6.4652 0.25885 3.4503 6.8675
45 0.14729 7.2734 0.29121 3.8816 7.726
Person 3 55 M
60 0.19639 9.6978 0.38828 5.1754 10.301
70 0.22912 11.314 0.45299 6.038 12.018
80 0.26186 12.93 0.51771 6.9005 13.735
90 0.29459 14.547 0.58242 7.7631 15.452

30
 Ti-6Al-V4

Maximum Minimum Maximum Shear

Name of Age Total Deformation Equivalent Stress
Gender Load (kgs)/N Principal Stress Principal Stress Stress
Patient (yrs) (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

30 0.065462 3.2017 0.21463 2.0009 3.9828

35 0.076373 3.7353 0.2504 2.3344 4.6466
40 0.087283 4.2689 0.28617 2.6679 5.3104
45 0.098193 4.8025 0.32194 3.0014 5.9742
Person 1 35 F
60 0.13092 6.4033 0.42926 4.0018 7.9655
70 0.15275 7.4706 0.5008 4.6688 9.2931
80 0.17457 8.5378 0.56234 5.3358 10.621
90 0.19639 9.605 0.6389 6.0027 11.9848
30 0.034101 2.6975 0.12977 1.77096 3.4822
35 0.039784 3.1471 0.1514 2.066 4.0626
40 0.045468 3.5967 0.17302 2.3612 4.643
45 0.051151 4.0462 0.19465 2.6563 5.2234
Person 2 45 M
60 0.068202 5.395 0.25953 3.5418 6.9645
70 0.079568 6.29416 0.30279 4.132 8.1252
80 0.090935 7.1933 0.34605 4.7223 9.286
90 0.1023 8.0925 0.3893 5.3126 10.447
30 0.10322 5.1325 0.1988 2.6977 5.3693
35 0.12042 6.2682 0.18482 3.1472 6.2642
40 0.13762 6.8433 0.26507 3.5968 7.159
45 0.15483 7.6987 0.2982 4.0464 8.0539
Person 3 55 M
60 0.20643 10.265 0.3976 5.3952 10.739
70 0.24084 11.976 0.46386 6.2944 12.528
80 0.27525 13.687 0.53013 7.1936 1.4318
90 0.30965 15.397 0.5964 8.0928 1.6108

31
 STAINLESS STEEL

Maximum Minimum Maximum Shear

Name of Age Total Deformation Equivalent Stress
Gender Load (Kgs)/N Principal Stress Principal Stress Stress
Patient (yrs) (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

30 0.36813 0.21448 1.47312 10.739 21.467

35 0.42949 0.25023 1.6697 12.529 25.045
40 0.49084 0.28598 1.98082 14.319 28.623
45 0.5522 0.32172 2.1468 16.109 32.201
Person 1 35 F
60 0.73625 0.42897 2.8624 21.479 42.935
70 0.85898 0.50046 3.3394 25.058 50.091
80 0.98169 0.57195 3.8165 28.638 57.7247
90 1.1044 0.64345 4.2936 32.218 64.402
30 0.64187 29.769 1.1589 14.831 29.578
35 0.74885 34.731 1.3521 17.303 34.508
40 0.85583 39.692 1.5452 19.774 39.437
45 0.96281 44.654 1.7384 22.246 44.367
Person 2 45 M
60 1.2837 59.538 2.3178 29.662 59.156
70 1.4977 69.461 2.7041 34.605 69.015
80 1.7117 79.384 3.0904 39.549 78.875
90 1.9256 89.307 3.4767 44.493 88.734
30 0.099553 4.922 0.19682 2.6148 5.2048
35 0.11615 5.7425 0.22962 3.0507 6.0723
40 0.132745 6.5629 0.26242 3.4865 6.9398
45 0.14933 7.3832 0.29522 3.9223 7.8073
Person 3 55 M
60 0.19911 9.8443 0.39363 5.2297 10.41
70 0.23229 11.485 0.45924 6.1013 12.145
80 0.26547 13.126 0.42484 6.9729 13.88
90 0.29867 14.67 0.59047 7.084 15.615

32
 Comparison Table at an Age of 35
Person Gender Age Load Total Deformation (mm) Maximum Principal Stress (N/mm2) Minimum Principal Stress (N/mm2)

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless
Steel Steel
30 0.030364 0.065462 0.36813 2.5464 3.2017 0.21448 0.1123 0.21463 1.47312

35 0.035425 0.076373 0.42949 2.9728 3.7353 0.25023 0.13105 0.2504 1.6697

40 0.040486 0.087283 0.49084 3.3952 4.2689 0.28598 0.14977 0.28617 1.98082

Person 1 F 35
45 0.04547 0.098193 0.5522 3.8196 4.8025 0.32172 0.1685 0.32194 2.1468

60 0.060729 0.13092 0.73625 5.0928 6.4033 0.42897 0.22466 0.42926 2.8624

70 0.07085 0.15275 0.85898 5.9416 7.4706 0.50046 0.2621 0.5008 3.3394

80 0.080972 0.17457 0.98169 6.7904 8.5378 0.57195 0.29955 0.56234 3.8165

90 0.091093 0.19639 1.1044 7.6392 9.605 0.64345 0.33699 0.6389 4.2936

33
Graph between Load and Total Deformation (mm)

Person-1 (F) 35yer

1.2

1
TOTAL DEFORMATION (MM)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90
LOAD

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel

34
 Graph between Load and Maximum Principal Stress (N/mm2)
Person-1 (F )35yer
12

10
9.605
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL STRESS (N/MM2)

8.5378
8
7.4706 7.6392

6.7904
6.4033
6 5.9416

5.0928
4.8025
4.2689
4
3.7353 3.8196
3.3952
3.2017
2.9728
2.5464
2

0.50046 0.57195 0.64345

0.25023 0.28598 0.32172 0.42897
0.21448
0
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90
LOAD

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel

35
 Graph between Load and Minimum Principal Stress (N/mm2)

Person-1 (F )35yer
6

5
MINIMUM PRINCIPAL STRESS (N/MM2

0 LOAD
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel

36
 Comparison Table at an Age of 45

Person Gender Age Load Total Deformation (mm) Maximum Principal Stress (N/mm2) Minimum Principal Stress (N/mm2)

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless
Steel Steel

30 0.036142 0.034101 0.64187 2.8165 2.6975 29.769 0.13735 0.12977 1.1589

35 0.042166 0.039784 0.74885 3.2859 3.1471 34.731 0.16024 0.1514 1.3521

40 0.04819 0.045468 0.85583 4.0314 3.5967 39.692 0.20506 0.17302 1.5452

Person 2 M 45 45 0.054213 0.051151 0.96281 4.2247 4.0462 44.654 0.20602 0.19465 1.7384

60 0.072284 0.068202 1.2837 5.633 5.395 59.538 0.2747 0.25953 2.3178

70 0.084332 0.079568 1.4977 6.5718 6.29416 69.461 0.32048 0.30279 2.7041

80 0.09637 0.090935 1.7117 7.5106 7.1933 79.384 0.36626 0.34605 3.0904

90 0.01084 0.1023 1.9256 8.4495 8.0925 89.307 0.41204 0.3893 3.4767

37
 Graph between Load and Total Deformation (mm)

Person-2 (M )45 yer

2.5

2 1.9256

1.7117
TOTAL DEFORMATION (MM)

1.4977
1.5
1.2837

0.96281
1
0.85583
0.74885
0.64187

0.5

0.072284
0.068202 0.084332
0.079568 0.09637
0.090935 0.1023
0.036142
0.034101 0.042166
0.039784 0.04819
0.045468 0.054213
0.051151 0.01084
0
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90
LOAD

PMMA Ti-6Al-4V Stainless Steel

38
Graph between Load and Maximum Principal Stress (N/mm2)

100
PERSON-2 (M )45 YER
90 89.307
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL STRESS (N/MM2)

80 79.384

70 69.461

60 59.538

50
44.654
40 39.692
34.731
30 29.769

20

10 8.4495
8.0925
5.633
5.395 6.5718
6.29416 7.5106
7.1933
2.8165
2.6975 3.2859
3.1471 4.0314
3.5967 4.2247
4.0462
0
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90
LOAD

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel

39
 Graph between Load and Minimum Principal Stress (N/mm2)

4.5
Person-2 (M )45 yer
4
MINIMUM PRINCIPAL STRESS (N/MM2

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90
LOAD

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel

40
 Comparison Table at an Age of 55

Person Gender Age Load Total Deformation (mm) Maximum Principal Stress (N/mm2) Minimum Principal Stress (N/mm2)

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless
Steel Steel
30 0.09819 0.10322 0.09955 4.8489 5.1325 4.922 0.18514 0.1988 0.19682
3

35 0.11456 0.12042 0.11615 5.6571 6.2682 5.7425 0.2265 0.18482 0.22962

40 0.13093 0.13762 0.13274 6.4652 6.8433 6.5629 0.25885 0.26507 0.26242

5

Person 3 M 55 45 0.14729 0.15483 0.14933 7.2734 7.6987 7.3832 0.29121 0.2982 0.29522

60 0.19639 0.20643 0.19911 9.6978 10.265 9.8443 0.38828 0.3976 0.39363

70 0.22912 0.24084 0.23229 11.314 11.976 11.485 0.45299 0.46386 0.45924

80 0.26186 0.27525 0.26547 12.93 13.687 13.126 0.51771 0.53013 0.42484

90 0.29459 0.30965 0.29867 14.547 15.397 14.67 0.58242 0.5964 0.59047

41
 Graph between Load and Total Deformation (mm)

Person-3 (M )55 yer

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel

0.35

0.3

0.25
Total Deformation (mm)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90
LOAD

42
Graph between Load and Maximum Principal Stress (N/mm2)

Person-3 (M )55 yer

18

16
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL STRESS (N/MM2)

14

12

10

0
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90
LOAD

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel

43
 Graph between Load and Minimum Principal Stress (N/mm2)

Person-3 (M )55 yer

PMMA Ti-6Al-V4 Stainless Steel

1.8

1.6
Minimum Principal Stress (N/mm2

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
30 35 40 45 60 70 80 90
LOAD

44
 Advantages:-

 We can able to find and predict various types of bone fractures.

 This advanced technology helps to a lot in optimizing the results and also it
reduces complexity in analysis.
 This reduces the complexity in surgery and helps in precision of safety and
speedy of surgery.

Limitations:-

 It may be a time taken process.

 Quality in analysis of bone depends upon the slice number and
thickness.

45
 Applications:-

 This process may reduce the complexity in the surgeries.

 These materials are used in bio implantation.

 Bone deformations and deflections are analyzed at different

loads at different conditions.

46
CONCLUSION
 This work may help to reduce the complexity in critical
surgeries, can predict type of bone fractures and also the surgeon can
able to analyze the complexity of risk and to provide quick treatment
to the patients.

 From the analysis results, it is clear that the deformation on the

the three different materials (Stainless steel,Ti-6Al-4V and PMMA)
there is minimum deformation in PMMA.

47
SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK:-

• In this, work an alternate approach is proposed to find out the

application of different materials in surgical operations.

• This work is based on the deformation results are calculated

for different age group models at different loading conditions.

• Scope for further extension of this present work model is

imported in to rapid prototype system and experimental test
like compression test, bending test.

48
REFERENCES:-
 Baradeswaran. A, Joshua Selvakumar.L and Padma Priya. R,
Reconstruction of Images into 3D Models using CAD Techniques,
European Journal of Applied Engineering and Scientific Research,
2014,3(1):1-8.

 Ashish B. Deoghare, P.M.Padole Finite Element Analysis of Three

Dimensional Medical Model Generated from CT Scan data. 13th
National Conference on Mechanism and Machines (NaCoMM 07),
IISc, Bangalore , India, December 12-13, 2007.

 Ajay Dhanopia, Prof.(Dr.)Manish Bhargava, Finite Element

Analysis Of Human Fractured Femur Bone Implantation With
PMMA Thermoplastic Prosthetic Plate.
49
Thank You…

50