Uploaded byArindam Chakraborty, Ph.D., P.E. (CA, TX)
Engineered to Cure – Patient Specific Tibial Implant Design using Micro-Macro FEA Framework
The document discusses the development of patient-specific tibial implants using a micro-macro finite element analysis (FEA) framework. It details the methodology for designing implants based on individual bone geometry obtained from μCT scans and the comparative analysis of different implant materials like Co-Cr-Mo and Ti-Al. The study aims to enhance implant design by leveraging numerical modeling for tailored solutions and reducing material testing and lead times.
More Related Content
Similar to Engineered to Cure – Patient Specific Tibial Implant Design using Micro-Macro FEA Framework
More from Arindam Chakraborty, Ph.D., P.E. (CA, TX)
Engineered to Cure – Patient Specific Tibial Implant Design using Micro-Macro FEA Framework
- 1. Engineered to Cure– Patient Specific Tibial Implant Design using Micro-Macro FEA Framework www.VIAS3D.com USA Canada India Mexico May 2023 Dr. Arindam Chakraborty, CTO – Consulting Services achakraborty@vias3d.com Dr. Srikanth Srigiriraju, Lead Consultant – Consulting Services ssrigiriraju@vias3d.com Georgiy Makedonov, Simulation Engineer – Consulting Services gmakedonov@vias3d.com
- 2.
- 3. Who We Are Engineering Consultancy Training &Staff Aug. Automation & Customization Software • Multiple Industry Experience – Medical Devices, CPG, Appliances, Hi- tech, Automotive, Oil & Gas, Petrochemical & Process, Aerospace, Industrial Equipment, and Manufacturing • Global Presence with Head Office in Houston, TX • Global team of +200 professionals with Engineering Consulting team consisting of +40 professional with more than 18 PhDs and MSc/MTechs with expertise in Design & Manufacturing, Structural & Solid Mechanics, Fluid Mechanics, Electromagnetics, Optimization & Reliability, Data Analytics, System Architecture, Bioscience and Materials, Automation, .. • Dassault Systèmes Platinum Partner – Global Presence • Provide Engineering consulting & technical resource augmentation, PLM implementation, Training, Software Sales and Support, Automation and Customization 3
- 4. Simulation Capabilities Design byAnalysis FEA based Fracture / Damage Mechanics / ECA Composites and Elastomer Modelling Optimization and Reliability Simulation Automation Design Pressure Drop and Fluid Flow Regimes Aero Acoustic Source Modeling Material Testing, Corrosion Testing, Root Cause Analysis Fluid Structure Interaction Electromechanical Devices/Magnet Design RF/Microwave Heating
- 5. 5 Client Engagement Overview SoftwareSales and Support o Proof-of Concept o Best Practices o Installation & Post-sales Technical Support Support to perform MODSIM work o R&D+I o Technical deep dive in nature of problem o Regular projects o Overflow work o Urgent needs o Dedicated Support / On-site / FTE Democratization o 3DX Workflow Development o Best practices + data management on 3DX o Automation (GUI) and templatization o Web App Solutions Development of iterative processes o Optimization o Material calibration Training and Knowledge-Transfer o Standard Training - Basic and Advanced o Industry Customized o Project-based – Execute, Train, Hand- over and Quality watch
- 6. 6 Engineered to Cure– Patient Specific Tibial Implant Design using Micro-Macro FEA Framework
- 7. Introduction Background • Using simulationfor knee implant design study • The use of patient specific-specific bone geometry via µCT • Digital evidence in the form of virtual patients can be used • Full digital access to all relevant information enabling to make rapid, science-based, informed decisions. Challenges: • Characterization of physical and mechanical properties of multiphase materials like cancellous and cortical bones • Modeling efficiency and accuracy
- 8. Objective The aim ofthis study is to create a FEA model to make a relative comparison between two implant tray materials (Co-Cr-Mo and Ti-Al) at the tibia-implant interface under the constant loading condition with the help of patient-specific bone microstructure using a representative volume element (RVE).
- 9. Implant Selection • Basedon the bone geometry, the implant size was selected, which is slightly smaller than the cut.
- 10. Bone Test Data BoneGeometry • The patient-specific bone geometry represented through a cubic volume is reconstructed using images from a μCT scan. • The resulting μCT image is converted to grayscale ranging from 0 (black/void) to 255 (white/bone) with the appropriately chosen cut-off range for further analysis. • Based on literature, the threshold 70-255 is chosen to segment out the bone structure. • Only the specific region of the patient-specific bone sample is used for the FEA simulation to reduce the memory and computational time of the analysis. 70-255 grayscale (selected) 95.6% bone volume µCT scan of bone 75-255 grayscale Selected for FEA 90.1% bone volume Wu Y, Adeeb S, Doschak MR. Using Micro-CT Derived Bone Microarchitecture to Analyze Bone Stiffness - A Case Study on Osteoporosis Rat Bone. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2015 May 20;6:80. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2015.00080. PMID: 26042089; PMCID: PMC4438594.
- 11. Representative Volume Element(RVE) RVE Methodology • The RVE is designed to capture effective structural and material properties at microscale level which are used as input parameters for the macroscale. • The RVE approach performs statistical averaging of the microstructural features within the given cubic volume by applying loading from six independent directions (Micromechanics Plugin). RVE Sample Bone Air Domain Size Part Properties Material Properties
- 12. Representative Volume Element(RVE) Cont. RVE Size Selection (Trabecular and Cortical Bones) • To save processing memory and computational time, an iterative process of determining the RVE cube size is done such that the porosity in the cube between two consecutive sizes of cubes is not very different. • Several sizes of cubic samples are selected along the ML (Mediolateral) and AP (Anteroposterior) directions of trabecular bone and are compared for porosity. Cortical Bone Trabecular Bone Locations of samples selected (RVE size 1x1x1mm) Locations of samples selected (RVE size 5x5x5mm) 5 x 5 x 5 mm 4 samples ~96.2% bone volume average 1 x 1 x 1 mm 3 samples ~98.9% bone volume average Treece, G M et al. “High resolution cortical bone thickness measurement from clinical CT data.” Medical image analysis vol. 14,3 (2010): 276-90. doi:10.1016/j.media.2010.01.003
- 13. Material Comparison –Overview Model 2 Model 1 Co-Cr-Mo UHMWPE Co-Cr-Mo Ti-Al Co-Cr-Mo φ=60% Ti-Al φ=60% Trabecular Trabecular Cortical Cortical
- 14. Design Check usingRVE Geometry Specification Implant components and bones Meshing of implants and bones Meshing half - symmetry fixed Load Application Point Ffem tied Boundary Conditions and Constrains Loading Conditions Loading Condition Boundary Conditions and Constrains Rotation of femoral component by 75- degrees about its flexion axis. Coefficient of friction throughout the model is 0.04
- 15. Results and Discussion Resultsand Discussion • von Mises stresses developed along the surface of the bone with constant loading using Co-Cr-Mo implant material is slightly less compared to Ti-Al implant material • The bone is not expected to yield as the Von Mises stresses are below the yield limit for trabecular bone von Mises stresses using Co-Cr-Mo implant material von Mises stresses using Ti-Al implant material Implant movement
- 16. Conclusions Conclusions: • Was ableto accurately evaluate designs under different conditions leading to more tailored, patient-specific implants. • Using numerical modeling, it was possible to improve product performance by comparing various design options. • Reduced number of material testing and lead time reduction.
- 17. Future Work Future Work •Additional failure criteria (cyclic loading, progressive damage, cracking, etc.) • End-to-end automated solution – Workflow integrating CAD-Bone CT-FEA
- 18. Thank You www.VIAS3D.com USA CanadaIndia Mexico