30120140504005

100 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
100
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

30120140504005

  1. 1. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 – 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online), Volume 5, Issue 4, April (2014), pp. 31-37 © IAEME 31 MATERIAL SELECTION AND FE MODELLING FOR INTERVERTEBRAL DISC A Swamy1 1 (Ethiopian institute of Technology – Mekelle University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mekelle, Ethiopia) ABSTRACT “Lower back pain” is an extremely common condition and very difficult to diagnose and treat. Computer models may help in the diagnosis, but need validation. This paper discusses the basic material selection for intervertebral disc material and FE modelling of Lumbar spine (L1-L2) with intervertebral disc, by changing the different intervertebral disc materials. The finite element computer model was developed to physiologically simulate the movements of vertebral bodies and intervertebral discs. The entire modelling will consist of various parameters that are used for the design viz, geometry, material properties and loading constraints of the lumbar spine. The vertebral bodies can be manufactured from Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) P400 resin that has similar strength to vertebral bones. The stress strain curve for different intervertebral disc material indicates that PU-foam has better compressive properties and has a lower elastic modulus, thus selected. I. INTRODUCTION Low back pain is seen in different age groups as a major cause of absenteeism, physical disability and one of the highest contributors to compensation claims across the globe. In the UK over 1 million people are disabled by it, and in 1997-8, over 119 million days a year were lost due to registered disability caused by back problems [The prevalence of back pain in UK, 1998]. 13% of unemployed people say that back pain is the reason they are not working. The cost of back pain to the National Health Services and through lost production is in excess of £5M [Fagan et al (2001)]. At present surgeons can frequently cure and alleviate lower back pain using a number of different techniques available to them. But it is the initial diagnosis that can be very problematic due to the intricate and complex 3-D skeletal structure and its multiple degrees of freedom. The best INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJMET) ISSN 0976 – 6340 (Print) ISSN 0976 – 6359 (Online) Volume 5, Issue 4, April (2014), pp. 31-37 © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijmet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.5377 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com IJMET © I A E M E
  2. 2. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 – 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online), Volume 5, Issue 4, April (2014), pp. 31-37 © IAEME 32 imaging techniques cannot provide sufficient detail of the spine with realistic loads. Also animal models are proposed for in vitro mechanical testing, but due to the high cost involved and ethical issues, this is now becoming increasingly difficult. Diagnosis of back pain requires detailed imaging of the patient’s spine in realistic positions and loading conditions, but with the current technology this is not currently possible. The scans have to be taken with the patient in supine position, when the spine is unloaded. The long term goal of this research is to develop a new technique whereby patient specific spine models are developed from standard scan data, loaded and then used to modify the original images of the spine and surrounding soft tissues to reveal the movement of patients spine under loading. So, the purpose of this research project is to develop a patient specific laboratory spine. II. INTERVERTEBRAL DISC IMPLANTS Intervertebral disc prostheses usually comprise of two metal plates and a cushion interposed between the plates as shown in figure 1. The cushion includes a compressible body having two ends in contact with the plates. The two ends of the disc geometry have one end that is freely displaceable to the plate and the other fixed. Thus the prosthesis imitates and approximates the mechanical properties of a healthy natural intervertebral disc. Figure 1: Mechanical discs with translation and rotation (Adapted from Valdevit and Errico, 2004) III. MATERIAL SELECTION AND TESTING FOR INTERVERTEBRAL DISC III. 1 Vertebral bodies The vertebral bodies of the physical model were manufactured from Acrylonitrile-butadiene- styrene (ABS) P400 resin. This was chosen because ABS is tough, resilient and easily moulded. The Young’s modulus for actual vertebral bodies ranges from 1.5 to 7 GPa, while the Young’s modulus of ABS P400 is 2 GPA and for the simplified vertebral bodies manufactured using FDM is 2.48 GPa (Langrana and Garske, 2003).
  3. 3. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 – 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online), Volume 5, Issue 4, April (2014), pp. 31-37 © IAEME 33 Table 1: Comparison of potential materials for the intervertebral discs III. 2 Intervertebral disc As in the natural spine, the vertebral bodies are much stiffer than the intervertebral discs, the material used in the manufacture of the discs is critical to the artificial spines. Therefore a number of different materials were considered, as summarised in Table 1, which compares the values from the data sheets provided by the respective companies that was experimentally verified. Figure 2: Dynamic Mechanical Analyser (DMA) (Q800) – (TA Instruments, USA) According to Siddall, 2003 the intervertebral bodies are manufactured from Silicoset 101. According to Fagan et al., 2001 the above material (Silicoset101, Silicone Foam, RTV940, AD25) shown in table 1 were used for intervertebral disc. The hardness scale that (i.e. the resistance to permanent indentation) played an important role in the selection of the material. The intervertebral disc was moulded from silicone rubber was manufactured using silicone foam material and rubber material, where the ratio of rubber used in the silicone foam dictated the stiffness of the intervertebral disc. Among the various materials shown in the Table 1 the most suitable material for the disc was PU-foam, which was affordable, easily fabricated in different shapes without change in properties and with hardness between 0 to 1. The materials with higher hardness have a very high Young’s modulus and have very low compression strength. The elastic modulus of the different materials was measured using a Q800 DMA (Dynamic Mechanical Analyser) – (TA Instruments, USA) shown in figure 2. Name of material Manufactu rer Hardness (Scales) Tensile Streng. (MPa) Tensile modul (MPa) I.D. AD 25 A/B ACC 29 (A) 5.2 - ACC AD 25 A/B RTV 940 ACC 38-42 (A) >4.4 - ACC RTV 940 Silcoset 101 ACC 55 (A) 4.13 - ACC Silcoset 101 Silicone foam Zotefoam 1-5 2.41 - Silicone foam PU-foam TW-foams 0-1 -- 15-30 Foam
  4. 4. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 – 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online), Volume 5, Issue 4, April (2014), pp. 31-37 © IAEME 34 Figure 3: DMA analyses for material selection of intervertebral disc Samples of the intervertebral disc materials were tested in TA instruments DMA (Q800) – (TA Instruments, USA) as shown in figure 2, to determine the Elastic modulus. The stress-strain graphs produced by the DMA for the different materials with similar size samples and uniform load of 1N/sec for 5 minutes steps were obtained as shown in figure 3. IV. THE FINITE ELEMENT (FE) MODEL According to Swamy (2007), simplified geometry extracted from the actual geometry shown in figure 4, has two transverse processes modelled at 45o and a longer spinious process attached at the centre. The FE model as compared to the physical models has similar geometrical features. Figure 4: Motion segment for L1 and L2 Spinous process Siliconegel Cushion PU–foam(usedfor intervertebraldisc) Packingfoam Silicoset101 AD25 RTV940
  5. 5. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 – 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online), Volume 5, Issue 4, April (2014), pp. 31-37 © IAEME 35 The simplified vertebral bodies shown in figure 4 are made from ABS P400 Zein et al, 2002 and PU-foam for intervertebral disc. The figure shown in 4 is a FE meshed model of the motion segment L1-L2 in the simplified physical model made from similar properties measured in the physical model (Swamy, 2007). The intervertebral discs used in computer and physical model are simplified versions of the actual intervertebral discs. The number of mapped elements for the intervertebral disc was selected with convergence value of 480 elements as shown in figure 5. Figure 5: Convergence for FE model of intervertebral disc. The intervertebral disc was designed with a hole in the centre as shown in figure 6. The meshed model of the intervertebral disc with 25 mm circular cavity is shown in figure 6. The intervertebral disc is glued between the two vertebral bodies. Figure 6: Simplified geometry FE model of intervertebral disc. V. DISCUSSION The stress strain curve shown in figure 3 indicates that PU-foam has better compressive properties and has a lower elastic modulus i.e. the slope of stress and strain curve. The properties observed above shows that Silicoset 101, as shown in Fagan et al 2001, intervertebral disc has lower compressive properties than PU-foam. These properties were further tested with an experimental analysis carried in Universal testing machine, in which a PU-foam sample was compressed and the corresponding changes in stress and strain were measured and compared with DMA results, as shown in figure 7. A best-fit line fitted through the data points (r=0.986) showed that the slope (i.e. the Youngs modulus) was 26.67 MPa. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Number of elements for intervertebral disc AngulardeflectionforL1-L2(o )
  6. 6. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 – 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online), Volume 5, Issue 4, April (2014), pp. 31-37 © IAEME 36 Figure 7: Experimental results from DMA analyses for calculation of stress strain behaviour for PU-foam The properties of the material were assumed to be linear elastic for simplification. Table 2: Properties of the elements and materials used for laboratory spine Vertebral body Intervertebral disc Element type Solid 95 Solid 95 Young’s Modulus (MPa) 1500 26.7 Poisson’s ratio 0.405 0.1- 0.3 The table 2 is drawn considering properties from experimental observations and DMA. In the finite element model the Possion’s ratio was varied between 0.1 to 0.3 but shown to have no significant effect on the disc’s behaviour. VI. CONCLUSION As shown in figure 4, varying the disc materials resulted in different slopes of indicated in DMA curves of materials. Thus using the different slopes values of Young’s modulus was calculated as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Intervertebral disc behaviour for different materials for same FE model Material Young’s modulus (MPa) Angular Displacement (o ) Silcoset 101 720.5 0.05 RTV 940 555 0.04 AD 25 464.7 0.08 Silicone gel 356.3 0.1 Cushion 101.3 0.35 PU-foam 26.6 0.9 DMA y = (-0.0709) + 26.66x r = 0.986 Experimental y = (-0.1257) + 25.8 x r = 0.96154. Strain (%) Stress(10-3 MPa)
  7. 7. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 – 6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online), Volume 5, Issue 4, April (2014), pp. 31-37 © IAEME 37 Table 3 shows the different disc behaviour when different Young’s modulus of the material was varied in the same FE model. The above table 3 also indicates that PU-foam has better compressive properties and has a lower elastic modulus thus producing a higher angular displacement of L1-L2 with intervertebral disc. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to Prof M J Fagan – Director CMET, University of Hull, UK and Dr Mike Poole, formerly Head of the Design Enterprise Centre – Smith and Nephew, University of Hull; for their assistance. VII. REFERENCES [1] “The Prevalence of Back Pain in Great Britain in 1998”, Health Statistical Bulletin 1999/18. [2] Fagan MJ, Gillespie P, Julian S, Siddall S, Mohsen A., 2001. “Development of an artificial intervertebral disc for a laboratory test spine”. Journal of Biomechanics 34:S1, 58-59. [3] Valdevit A. and Errico TJ. 2004. Design and evaluation of the FlexiCore metal-on-metal intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine, 4, 9, 276S-288S. [4] Langrana NA and Garske D. 2003. Mimicing lumbar vertebral bone architechture using layered manufacturing technology. Summer Bioengineering Conference, June 25-29, Starting page #1007. [5] Siddall DJ, 2003. “Patient specific spine models: The development of a laboratory validation spine”. PhD Thesis, University of Hull. [6] Swamy A, 2007. “Development of laboratory spine with artificial muscles” PhD Thesis, University of Hull. http://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:780. [7] Zein I., Hutmacher DW., Tan CK., Teoh SH. 2002. Fused deposition modelling of novel scaffold architectures for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials. 23, 1169 – 1185.

×