Meyer E 2011 Civil MSC Thesis

IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Macro-scale predictive structural modelling of
the musculo
Submitted in fulfilment of the

IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

scale predictive structural modelling of
the musculo-skeletal system

Meyer, Edouard

September 2011

ubmitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc and the Diploma of Imperial College London

scale predictive structural modelling of

College London

Declaration:

This submission is my own work. Any quotation from, or description of, the work of others is
acknowledged herein by reference to the sources, whether published or unpublished.

Signature : ___________________________________

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my project supervisor, Dr Andrew Phillips, for his precious help,
advices and his availability throughout this project.
He managed to share his interest on this vast subject with me and for that, I am grateful.
My thanks also to Luca Modenese for his help with the muscle data.
3
Abstract
Bone Modelling has been the subject of a lot of scientic studies and has attracted the
interest because of its numerous applications in the medical eld.
These studies are mainly based on nite element models which give accurate results.
Nevertheless, they have the disadvantages to be computational expensive.
In this dissertation, we introduce a 3D model based on the beam theory and the stiness
method to represent the varying cross-sectional geometry of the human femur, a femur that
we represent as a series of interconnected beam elements.
As many models, it is based on an iterative algorithm that takes into consideration the
bone adaptation to its surrounding mechanical environment. A combination of 68 load
cases representing three main motions: walking, stair climbing and sitting-to-standing, are
considered to create an anatomically correct structure.
This model aims to be computational ecient comparatively to the models based on
nite elements, while providing satisfactory results despite the several assumptions consid-
ered to elaborate the algorithm.
Sensitivity studies are conducted to assess the validity of the model and to study the
dependence of the algorithm on the inputs of the problem. Suggested further research and
model developments are proposed at the end of this report.
4
Contents
I Introduction 10
II Objectives and Methods 13
III Literature Review 14
1 Bone Remodelling 14
1.1 General Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2 Wols Law and Bone Remodelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3 Mechanostat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2 Bone Properties 18
2.1 Anatomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.1 Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.2 The femur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.3 The patella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.4 Muscles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Bone Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3 Muscle loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.5 Current models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
IV Method 31
3 Theory 31
3.1 Beam Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2 The 3D stiness method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.1 The local stiness matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2.2 Transformation matrix from the local coordinate system to the global
one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.3 Computing the global nodal displacements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.4 Calculation of the
xx
strain value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4 Model 39
4.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2 Mechanical and Geometrical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3 Muscle and ligament loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4 Load cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5
4.5 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5 The iterative algorithm 48
5.1 Presentation and objective of the algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2 Optimisation of the angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.3 Optimisation of the three geometrical parameters R
1
, R
2
and t . . . . . . . 52
5.3.1 Optimisation of the parameter t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.3.2 Optimisation of the parameter R
1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
V Results 56
6 Sensitivity studies 56
6.1 Dependence on the number of elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.2 Dependence on the parameters optimisation order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.3 Dependence on the number of load cases considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.4 Dependence on the load cases considered to x the parameter . . . . . . 62
6.5 Dependence on the constants minR and maxR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
7 Discussion and Comparison to the geometry of a real femur 68
VI Development potential 71
8 Muscle loads 71
9 Geometry, Material Properties and Trabecular Bone 71
10 The algorithm 72
VII Conclusion 74
6
List of Figures
1 Gross structure of a long bone (human femur) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Culmann and von Mayer works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 Bone Atrophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 Threshold values of strain associated with the dead zone, bone resorption,
the lazy zone, and bone apposition, as well as the target strain [Phillips, 2011] 17
5 Hip Joint A: Articular surfaces; B: Movement of the neck of the femur during
medial and lateral rotation [Drake et al., 2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6 Knee Joint [Drake et al., 2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7 The proximal end of the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8 The distal of the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9 The patella [Drake et al., 2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10 Transverse section through the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . . . . . . . . . 21
11 Muscles of the anterior compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . . 24
12 Muscles of the medial compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . . . 24
13 Muscles of the posterior compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . 24
14 Diagrammatic representation of the ve normal groups of the trabecular
bone in the upper end of the femur [Singh et al., 1970] . . . . . . . . . . . 26
15 Comparison of the complex (left) and most simplied model of the hip mus-
culature [Heller et al., 2005] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
16 Boundary conditions applied to the diaphysis (left), the condyles (center)
and the joint nodes (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
17 The meso scale approach [Phillips, 2011] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
18 The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory and its assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . 31
19 The local coordinate system (x,y,z) of the beam element . . . . . . . . . 32
20 The direction cosines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
21 A line, in red, is plotted passing through the center of each part of the femur 39
22 The geometry of the femur considered during this dissertation, plotted in
the global coordinate system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
23 An hollow ellipse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
24 The complete model: in red, the femur; in blue, the rigid elements linking
the muscle attachment points to the femur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
25 The modelling of the hip joint (left) and the patella joint (right) . . . . . 43
26 The representation of the frame number 22 of the walking case: in purple,
the muscle loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
27 The boundary condition at the knee joint considered in the dissertation . . 47
28 Four variables are chosen to parameter totally the cross-section . . . . . . 48
29 Optimisation of the angle. (y,z) is the local coordinate system of the section
and (y
1
,z
1
) is the bending principal axes of the section. At the end, the
maximum strain value is located at the minor principal bending axis. . . . 49
30 Dierence between the localization of the maximum principal axis and the
Zero strain neutral axis [Demes, 2007] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7
31 Hollow ellipse after rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
32 Dependence of the algorithm on the number of elements used to represent
the shaft of the femur: in blue, 20 elements; in red, 40 elements . . . . . . 57
33 Dependence of the algorithm on the optimisation order of the parameters . 59
34 Dependence of the algorithm on the number of load cases considered: in
blue, 68 load cases; in red, 3 load cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
35 Dependence of the algorithm on the number of load cases considered to
calculate : in blue, 28 walking load cases; in red, 68 load cases . . . . . . 63
36 Dependence of the algorithm on the constants maxR and minR: in blue,
minR=12mm and maxR=30mm; in red, minR=8mm and maxR=15mm . . 67
37 The maximum strain value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
38 GSA Model with maxR=30mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
39 Alfred Thibons Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
40 GSA Model with maxR=15mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
41 Alfred Thibons Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
8
List of Tables
1 Muscles of the anterior compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . . 22
2 Muscles of the medial compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . . . 23
3 Muscles of the posterior compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004] . . 23
4 Muscle forces for the frame number 22 of the walking case, corresponding
to t=0.047s Part 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5 Muscle forces for the frame number 22 of the walking case, corresponding
to t=0.047s (Part 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6 The optimisation algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
9
Part I
Introduction
With the progress made in biomechanics and computing science, research studies about
the human body are more and more numerous all over the world. Unconsciously or not,
people attach a great value to everything related to the human body because understand-
ing what happens inside us has always been an interesting challenge.
The human body is a complex structure with no less than ten trillion of living cells.
Basis of this sophisticated architecture, bones are rigid organs that constitute part of our
skeleton. In a mechanical point of view, they can serve, for instance, to provide a frame
to keep the body supported and enable it to move in three dimensional space. They form
with skeletal muscles, tendons, ligaments and joints, a complex and powerful system to
support the human body.
Our study is relatively focused on the femur. This choice is an arbitrary one for several
reasons. First, the femur can be viewed as a long and important bone, allowing , among
other things, the weight of the body to be transferred from the hip joint to the knee joint.
For instance, the femur must carry around 200-250% of the body weight. It also acts as
a sti structure about which muscles act to facilitate movement at both the hip and knee
joints. [Phillips, 2009]
Moreover, the femur has been subjected to numerous experimental works in the last
two decades in order to study the material properties of human long bones [M.Martens
et al., 1980]. Thus, a lot of data are available in the literature in order to check the results
we nd during this study.
10
Figure 1: Gross structure of a long
bone (human femur)
As we will discuss about the femur geometry through-
out the report , it will be preferable to describe briey,
in this introduction, the characteristics of this bone.
As a long bone, it is characterized by a shaft, the dia-
physis, made up of compact bone surrounding a cen-
tral cavity containing cancellous bone together with
marrow and fat. As we can see in gure I, it can be
divided into two main parts: the epiphysis and the
diaphysis. The epiphysis is the rounded end of the
bone and the diaphisys is the cylindrical shaft of the
bone [Nather et al., 2005].
One of the main characteristics of the femur is that
the cross-section changes along the length of the bone.
Thus, the cortical bone is thickest in the mid-portion
of the shaft, the cancellous bone being relatively di-
minished in this portion of the bone. At the end por-
tion of the bone, it is the opposite. [Nather et al.,
2005]
This particular structure of the femur can be explained by the simple fact that the bone
tries to resist economically to the stresses and the loads produced by the surrounding en-
vironment. As J.Koch described in his article Laws of Bone Architecture, the form of bone
is generally adapted to its function and, thus, the external form and inner architecture of
normal bone represent the adaptation to normal function. [Koch, 1917]
To go further, bones are actually adapting to the mechanical requirements applied
through a life-long process. To better understand this idea, it is common to consider
the femur as a long strut with complex boundary conditions at the hip and knee joints.
During the human life, various forces are applied to its surface and the bone is subjected
to numerous stress solicitations. Since the mechanical needs of locomotion, weight-bearing
are dierent from one individual to another, it is obvious that these loads acting on the
femur dier in individuals.
Following the same idea, we deduce that the organisation and the mass of bone must
dier in individuals practising dierent activities. However, since these informations are
unknown during the intrauterine time when the prescribed shape of the femur is only due
to genetic information and even during the childhood, a dynamic regulatory system in bone
must exist. [Skerry, 2006]
This idea is the basis of the bone remodelling concept rst described by Wols Law.
The bone shape is the result of an iterative process in order to withstand the applied
forces using a minimal amount of material by relocating the bone tissue in an optimal
way. [Phillips, 2011].
11
To control this iterative process, Frost developed Wols concepts and thought about a
mechanostat (like a thermostat) as a model describing bone growth and bone loss. Thus,
bone changes in structure is stimulated by the local mechanical elastic deformation of
bone, i.e the local strain values (like the temperature for a thermostat). This adaptation
is considered to be a life-long process. [Frost, 1998]
It is based on the idea that bones contain cells that make them be true living organs,
capable of growing and healing sustained fractures. These cells are very sensitive to me-
chanical stimuli and thats why bone morphology and structure change and adapt to the
mechanical environment. [Huiskes, 2006]
This iterative concept is the basis of a lot of studies about modelling the structure
of bones. With the progress made in computing science, the majority of them use nite
elements and continuum models to output qualitative and precise descriptions of the ex-
ternal form and the inner architecture of bones. Nevertheless, as these models use a lot
of elements to model precisely the structure of bones, the computational time can be very
long and may become an obstacle to create bigger models.
In this study, we want to model the structure of bones and compute the iterative process
by using beam theory and the siness matrix method. By using civil engineering theories,
we simplify the problem and thus, we reduce considerably the computational time allowing
us to work on bigger models.
The aim of this dissertation is to validate this new approach of bone structure modelling.
To do that, we will rst focus on the femur, and, by using the 3D stiness matrix method,
we will represent optimal cross-sections of this bone. The results we will nd, will be
compared to in-vivo values selected in other articles.
12
Part II
Objectives and Methods
This study aims to conceive an algorithm in order to predict the geometry of the femur.
This algorithm must be computational ecient comparatively to other bone modelling
models based on nite element theory. It must also provide a powerful tool to obtain
preliminary results associated with various load cases acting on the bone (during walking,
stair climbing or even, during a fall or vehicle accident for instance).
As being one of the rst studies about the macro-scale approach, this dissertation must
lay the foundations of a powerful algorithm and must target precisely the need for future
improvements.
To achieve these objectives, we will use the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory associated with
the 3D stiness method. The femur will be modelled using interconnected beam elements.
Using the Mechanostat Concept developed by H.M. Frost based on the idea that the
bones structure adapts to their surrounding mechanical environment, the algorithm will
be an iterative process based on the strain values of the elements. So, an element will be
optimised if its absolute maximum strain value lies in a particular interval, called the lazy
zone, between [1000; 1500]. To do that, the algorithm forces the absolute maximum
strain value of each element to converge to a target strain value equal to 1250.
The femoral sections will be modelled with hollow elliptical sections dened by four
parameters and these parameters will be optimised by the algorithm in order to obey the
Mechnostat Concept.
In order to create an anatomically correct structure, various load cases will be consid-
ered.
The algorithm will be tested through some sensitivity studies and suggested further
research and model developments will be proposed for future studies.
13
Part III
Literature Review
To nd the optimal femur cross-sections, we will use the Bone Remodelling Concept on
which our iterative algorithm is based. The aim of this part is to describe this general idea
rst described by J. Wol.
Then, once the algorithm concept described, we need some specic values related to
bones (Young Modulus, loads, boundary conditions, spatial geometry...) to implement our
program. These data are used to initiate the model and are found in the literature that
we will describe in the following.
1 Bone Remodelling
To nd the cross-sections of bones, an iterative algorithm is used based on the concepts
of Bone Remodelling and Mechanostat. The aim of this part is to introduce and explain
these ideas which form the basis of our study.
1.1 General Observations
In this section, we just want to give some examples that illustrate the fact that bones
adapt the surrounding environment by changing their structure in an optimal way to with-
stand the forces acting on them, through a life-long regulatory process.
Bones are living organs capable of growing and healing sustained fractures due to com-
bined actions of living cells called osteoclasts and osteoblats. [Huiskes, 2006]
To do that, bones are able to grow longitudinally but also to enlarge transversally by
means of bone tissues redistributions that change the bone structure depending on its needs
(the mechanical needs of locomotion, weight-bearing...). Despite of all these redistributions,
the bones structure remains an arbitrary and optimal one . To illustrate this idea, we can
focus on long bones structure. As we can see in the gure I, the diaphysis with its weakly
varying load cases of bending, torsion and longitudinal forces, is made of with a solid
cylindrical shape, surrounding the medullary canal, formed by the strong cortical bone
tissue .
On the contrary, loads of varying amplitudes and orientations at the bone ends are
carried by spongy trabecular bone tissues allowing for more exibility in the three spatial
directions . [R uberg, 2003]
14
Figure 2: Culmann and von Mayer works
To give another example of optimal bone
tissues redistribution, the works of Culmann
and von Mayer in 1866 can be mentioned
(gure 2). The two scientists highlighted
the correspondence between cancellous bone
structure and the mechanical loads to which
it is exposed. They noticed that the stress
patterns of a curved column structure looked
similar to the stress patterns of the inter-
nal trabecular bone tissues of a long bone.
These patterns are the result of bone tis-
sues distribution in bones in order to with-
stand the mechanical loads in an optimal
way.
Furthermore, at birth, the bones design
is only due to our genetic information and,
so, the bones structure dierences between people are minor at this time. However,
throughout life, people practise dierent activities and bones from one individual to an-
other are not solicited in the same way. Thus, it is obvious that the structure of bones can
not remain similar as what it was at the beginning of our life and must dier in individuals.
In conclusion, a dynamic mechanism of regulation and redistribution must exist in bones
in order to deal with the numerous mechanical solicitations in an optimal way. [Skerry, 2006]
1.2 Wols Law and Bone Remodelling
All these above observations were formulated in Wols works in which the German
Anatomist/Surgeon stated that bone adapted to the loads acted on it in accordance with
mathematical laws. Thus, when bones are subjected to heavy loads, they have to remodel
itself overtime to become stronger in order to withstand that type of loadings. For example,
the tennis players have one arm (the racquet holding arm) more developed and stronger
than the other one, since this arm is placed under high stress levels.
The opposite is also true: if bones are placed under low stress levels, bones become
weaker since there is no presence of enough mechanical stimuli to maintain the initial bone
mass. This situation may possibly lead to their atrophy (gure 3).
Despite the fact that J.Wol stated about the relationship between bones structure and
mathematical laws, the German scientists didnt give any theoretical formula to predict
bones shape. Instead of that, he only gave a collection of concepts. By carrying out some
experiments on the legs of animals, he noticed that any change in static conditions of the
legs resulted in modications of both forms and architecture. [Wol, 1987]
More precisely, there is a rst change in the inner architecture of the bone, following
by a change in the outer form. [Setzer, 2004]
15
Figure 3: Bone Atrophy
In his book Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen, J.Wol mentioned Cullmann
and von Mayers works. He criticized their works by noticing that the stress patterns in
the trabeculae must meet at right angles when bones are subjected to an unique load case,
a fact which was not imply in Culmanns studies. This remark implies that these patterns
follow the lines of principal stresses. Nevertheless, if bones are subjected to various load
cases, non-orthogonal trabecular intersections oering increased shear resistance are more
suitable. [Phillips, 2011]
In conclusion, Wols works show that bones are subjected to an ongoing change in their
inner architecture and their outer form, a change which depends on mechanical solicitations.
Generally, this phenomenon is called either modelling or remodelling. These two notions are
often confused for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, modelling is used to describe alterations
in bone shape and remodelling involves a temporal change without any increase or decrease
in bone mass.
1.3 Mechanostat
Thanks to Wols works, we know that bones structure change over time, trying to
adapt to their surrounding environment. But, now, the problem is to know how this pro-
cess is possible and what activates and controls it.
These explanations are due to H.M. Frost who created the concept of a mechanostat
to explain how the iterative process is controlled. Although this Mechnostat idea can be
unclear and obscure, this concept is similar to a more familiar one, the thermostat.
As everyone knows, a thermostat is a component of a control system whose the aim is
to maintain the temperature of a room at a desired value. The thermostat achieves its goal
by switching heating and cooling devices on or o to maintain the correct temperature.
The Mechanostat concept is based exactly on the same principle. Instead of working
16
on temperature, the mechanostat is sensitive to mechanical stimuli, particularly strains.
This idea is similar to what J. Wol described in his book but Frost went further and
noticed the existence of strain thresholds for which bone is created or resorbed. It is obvi-
ous that these thresholds data provide a good denition for convergence for our iterative
algorithm. [Frost, 1998]
The gure 4 will help us to better illustrate this idea.
Figure 4: Threshold values of strain associated with the dead zone, bone resorption, the
lazy zone, and bone apposition, as well as the target strain [Phillips, 2011]
As we can see in the above gure, we notice the existence of a lower threshold from
which bones start to resorb. In the same idea, bone remodelling starts from a higher strain
threshold. Fracture and micro-damage also occurs at the highest strain values. Between
these two extremes is the lazy zone which describe a range of strain values for which there
is no change in bone structure.[Phillips, 2011]
In this project, we consider our target strain as 1250, which lies at the midpoint of the
lazy zone. Our iterative algorithm converge until the maximum bone strain values reach
this target value. Once this value reached, we know that the structure of the femur does
not change and so the optimal cross-sections are found (see part Objectives and Methods).
Other scientists have appropriate the Mechanostat concept to study bones and create
other models. For instance, Skerry noticed that it is not possible that there is a single
mechanostat controlling the skeleton of each of us. He considered that our skeleton contains
a lot of bone units, each of them having its own mechanostat system. [Skerry, 2006]
Moreover, Frost kept working on this concept by doing several updates. [Frost, 2003]
17
2 Bone Properties
In the previous part, we describe the concepts which are the basis of our iteration
algorithm. Now, we need a model to perform the algorithm. As we underline in the
Introduction, the femur is the bone we study during this dissertation.
The aim of this part is to provide a description of this particular bone. Some data from
this part will be used to implement our algorithm.
A lot of information are issued from the book Grays Anatomy for Students. [Drake
et al., 2004]
2.1 Anatomy
The boundary conditions and the forces acting on the femur are due to its surrounding
environment, knowing muscles, joints and ligaments. Thats why it is important to mention
them in this part.
2.1.1 Joints
The Hip Joint
The hip joint is a synovial articulation between the head of the femur and the acetabu-
lum of the pelvus bone (gure 5). The joint is similar to a multiaxial ball enabling to deal
with weight bearing and stability issues. Movements at the joint include exion, extension,
abduction, adduction, medial and lateral rotation, and circumduction.[Drake et al., 2004]
Figure 5: Hip Joint A: Articular surfaces; B: Movement of the neck of the femur during
medial and lateral rotation [Drake et al., 2004]
18
The Knee Joint
The Knee Joint consists of the articulation of the femur and the tibia and of the ar-
ticulation of the femur and the patella (gure 6). This joint can be considered as a hinge
point allowing for extension and exion movements. It is consolidated by strong ligaments
in order to maintain it in position and stabilize the hinge-like motion of the knee.[Drake
et al., 2004]
Figure 6: Knee Joint [Drake et al., 2004]
2.1.2 The femur
The femur is the longest bone in the human body. It spans between the hip joint and
the knee joint, allowing the weight of the upper body to be transferred. It can be divided
into two main regions: the proximal femur and the distal femur.
The proximal end is mainly characterized by a neck and a head. The head shape is
roughly spherical and articulates with the acetabulum of the pelvic bone. The neck is a
cylindrical strut that connects the shaft and the head of the femur (gure 7). The radius
of the neck is approximatively equal to 24mm.
The femur shaft is bowed from the neck to the distal end of the bone. The middle part
of the shaft is characterized by a smooth medial, lateral and anterior surfaces and features
19
between a triangular and cylindrical cross section (gure 8). In the proximal and distal
regions of the bone, the linea aspera widens to create an additional posterior surface.[Drake
et al., 2004] The average outer diameter of the shaft is approximatively equal to 27mm.
At the distal region of the femur, there are two large condyles, which form an articula-
tion with the proximal head of the tibia (gure 8). Finally, epicondyles are bony elevations
on the surfaces of the condyles. [Drake et al., 2004]
Figure 7: The proximal end of the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
Figure 8: The distal of the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
20
2.1.3 The patella
The patella is not an ordinary bone by the fact that it lies within the tendon of a muscle
knowing the quadriceps femoris muscle (gure 9). It is characterized by a triangular cross
section.[Drake et al., 2004]
Figure 9: The patella [Drake et al., 2004]
2.1.4 Muscles
Muscles attached to the femur are arranged in three compartments, knowing the ante-
rior, medial and posterior compartments (gure 10).[Drake et al., 2004]
x
Figure 10: Transverse section through the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
21
The following tables issued from the book Grays Anatomy for Students describe the
main muscles attached to the femur:
Anterior compartment(table 1)
Muscle Origin Insertion Function
Psoas Major
Posterior abdominal
wall
Lesser trochanter of femur
Flexes the thigh at the hip
joint
Illiacus
Posterior abdominal
wall
Lesser trochanter of femur
joint
Vastus Medialis
Femur medial part of
intertrochanteric line,
pectineal line, medial
lip of the linea aspera,
medial supracondylar
line
Quadriceps femoris tendon and
medial border of patella
Extends the leg at the knee
joint
Vastus Intermedius
Femur-upper-two-
thirds of anterior and
lateral surfaces
Quadriceps femoris tendon and
lateral margin of patella
joint
Vastus Lateralis
Femur-lateral part
of intertrochanteric
line, margin of greater
trochanter, lateral
margin of gluteal
tuberosity, lateral lip
of the linea aspera
Quadriceps femoris tendon
joint
Rectus femoris
Straight head origi-
nates from the anterior
inferior iliac spine;
reected head origi-
nates from the ilium
just superior to the
acetabulum
Quadriceps femoris tendon
joint and extends the knee joint
Sartorius
Anterior superior iliac
spine
Anterior surface of tibia just
inferomedial to tibial tuberos-
ity
joint and extends the knee joint
Table 1: Muscles of the anterior compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
Medial compartment(table 2)
Gracilis
A line on the external
surfaces of the body of
the pubis, the inferior
pubic ramus, and the
ramus of the ischium
Medial surface of proximal
shaft of the tibia
Adducts thigh at hip joint and
exes leg at knee joint
Pectineus
Pectineal line and adja-
cent bone of pelvis
Oblique line extending from
base of lesser trochanter to
linea aspera on posterior sur-
face of proximal femur
Adducts and exes thigh at hip
joint
Adductor longus
External surface of
body of pubis (tri-
angular depression
inferior to pubic crest
and lateral to pubic
symphysis)
Linea aspera on middle one-
third of shaft of femur
Adducts and medially rotates
thigh at hip joint
22
Adductor brevis
External surface of
body of pubis and
inferior pubic ramus
Posterior surface of proximal
femur and upper one-third of
linea aspera
Adducts thigh at hip joint
Adductor magnus
Adductor part-
ischiopubic ramus
Posterior surface of proximal
femur, linea aspera, medial
supracondylar line
Adducts and medially rotates
thigh at hip joint
Obturator externus
External surface of ob-
turator membrane and
adjacent bone
Trochanteric fossa
Table 2: Muscles of the medial compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
Posterior compartment(table 3)
Biceps femoris
Long head-
inferomedial part
of the upper area of
the ischial tuberosity;
short head-lateral lip
of linea aspera
Head of bula
Flexes leg at knee joint; ex-
tends and laterally rotates
thigh at hip joint and laterally
rotates leg at knee joint
Semitendinosus
Inferomedial part of
the upper area of the
ischial tuberosity
Medial surface of proximal
tibia
Flexes leg at knee joint and ex-
tends thigh at hip joint; medi-
ally rotates the thigh at the hip
joint and leg at the knee joint
Semimembranosus
Superolateral impres-
sion on the ischial
tuberosity
Groove and adjacent bone on
medial and posterior surface of
medial tibial condyle
Flexes leg at knee joint and ex-
tends thigh at hip joint; me-
dially rotates thigh at the hip
joint and leg at the knee joint
Table 3: Muscles of the posterior compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
Other muscles in the gluteal region must be taken into consideration. So, the piriformis,
the quadratus femoris and the gluteus can be quoted as important muscles that must be
put in the model.
23
Figure 11: Muscles of the anterior compartment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
Figure 12: Muscles of the medial com-
partment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
Figure 13: Muscles of the posterior com-
partment of the femur [Drake et al., 2004]
24
2.2 Bone Mechanical properties
After having described the femur and its surrounding environment, we now focus on
the bone mechanical properties knowing Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio...
This aspect of bone properties is important for our analysis to implement the mechan-
ical parameters of the algorithm.
Long bones are generally composed of an intern cellular component and an extracellular
sti matrix, respectively the trabecular and the cortical bones. These two materials are
living organs and so their mechanical behaviours are dicult to predict and to describe
since they depend on some parameters.
As we saw in the rst part of this Literature Review, the bone structure is highly depen-
dent on the forces acting on it [Wol, 1987]. Following this idea, the mechanical properties
of trabecular bone must be dependent on anatomic location and function. Studies demon-
strate this idea by cataloguing the distribution of trabecular bone material properties from
multiple locations in the human body[Goldstein, 1987]. Moreover, statistical analyses of
these mechanical properties were rst carried out by Dr Evans et al., who mentioned a cor-
relation between the physical properties of trabecular bones and their anatomic location
[Evans and King, 1961].
The mechanical properties depend also on age. Over life and with the repetition of
loading cycles, change in mechanical behaviour of bone tissue with increasing age has been
noticed in several studies. Indeed, Melick et al. mentioned, for instance, that the tensile
strength of an adult femoral cortex decreases by 4 per cent per decade [Melick and Miller,
1966].
Although this issue has been studied in a lot of articles, it seems that the observations
are unanimous. Likewise, Burstein et al. noticed consistent decreases for the main bone
mechanical properties with age and underlined the fact that the tibia and the femur dont
have the same response to the ageing process. This observation is due to the fact that
these two bones are not subjected to the same forces over time [Burstein et al., 1976].
If the femur is the studied bone, as mentioned earlier, the trabecular bone at the
proximal end has a specic architecture as a result of an anisotropic and heterogeneous
distribution of bone tissues in order to withstand the forces in an optimal way. Singh et
al. noticed the presence of ve normal groups of the trabecular bone in the upper end of
the femur whose the spatial arrangement ensures maximum strength with the available
material [Singh et al., 1970].
25
Figure 14: Diagrammatic representation of the ve normal groups of the trabecular bone
in the upper end of the femur [Singh et al., 1970]
Moreover, unlike a lot of bone modelling algorithm assume, it seems that bone is not
isotropic. Miller et al. noticed that the trabecular bone is eectively orthotropic that ex-
plained the internal architecture of the trabecular bone we described earlier [Miller et al.,
2001]. Likewise, Huiskes et al. mentioned the fact that the cortical bone behaves as a
transversely isotropic material [Huiskes et al., 1981].
In the same way, the bone mechanical coecients knowing Youngs Modulus and Pois-
sons ratio depend also on some parameters. For instance, Rho et al. noticed that there
are a correlation between these coecients and the density, porosity and architecture of
both cortical and cancellous bone [Rho et al., 1995].
Turner et al. determined approached values of these mechanical coecients using acous-
tic and nanoindentation. It was found that the Youngs Modulus of femoral trabecular bone
is between 17.5 and 18.14 GPa and between 17.73 and 20.02 GPa for femoral cortical bone
[Turner et al., 1998].
In our study, as we only deal with the cortical bone, we will use the cortical bone
mechanical coecients mentioned and used by Phillips knowing E = 18GPa and = 0.3
[Phillips, 2009]
26
2.3 Muscle loads
In this part, we are interested to describe the main forces that we have to apply on the
femur.
As is the case for any bone modelling algorithms, the muscles loads and the joint con-
tacts at the hip, the patella and the knee represent the boundary conditions, essential for
solving the problem.
As we mentioned earlier, the thigh bone is surrounded by a lot of muscles, each of
them applying more or less loads depending on the course of regular activity. Obviously,
the magnitude and the directions of the forces applying on the femur are expected to be
dierent during staircase ascent and during a walking pace. For instance, Bergmann et al.
mentioned the fact that the hip joint of an average patient is loaded with 238% of the body
weight when walking at about 4 km/h and with 251% of the body weight when climbing
upstairs [Bergmann et al., 2001].
Figure 15: Comparison of the
complex (left) and most simpli-
ed model of the hip musculature
[Heller et al., 2005]
The number of muscles attached on the femur is
the issue here and it is obviously dicult to predict
the magnitude and the direction of the forces applied
by them during the loading cycles (walking pace, stair-
case ascent...). To deal with this problem, Heller et
al. suggested a simplication by grouping function-
ally similar hip muscles, leading to a reduction in the
number of the muscles that we consider in the analysis
(gure 15) [Heller et al., 2005] .
Likewise, in an attempt to simplify the muscle loads
modelling, we notice that some studies only consider
a set of three main forces to describe what happens at
the proximal end of the femur: the abductor, iliotibial
tract and joint contact force [Phillips, 2011].
In our case, we will use the muscle and contact
forces obtained by an adaptive model of the lower leg
studied by Luca Modenese, a PhD student at the Im-
perial College of London. This model provides the
forces throughout dierent activities (gait, stair ascent
and sit to stand) [Modenese et al., 2011].
27
2.4 Boundary conditions
The introduction of boundary conditions in any modelling algorithms is essential to
solve the problem by the way that it allows the reduction of the problem degrees of freedom.
Nevertheless, for two dierent boundary conditions, the result can be signicantly dif-
ferent and thats why it represents a critical issue in the analysis. For instance, Speirs et
al. noticed that the boundary conditions applied vary widely in studies of bone loading,
leading generally to excessive femoral deformations [Speirs et al., 2007].
The objective is to use boundary conditions which represent the in-vivo conditions.
Speirs et al. studied ve boundary condition cases applied to a Finite Element model of
the femur and compared the deections found for each case to the physiological one. They
concluded on the fact that the use of physiological boundary conditions, consisting of
xing the centre of the condyles in the three spatial directions and forcing the femoral
head to move along an axis towards the knee center and xing a node on the distal lateral
epicondyle, presents the best results [Speirs et al., 2007].
Figure 16: Boundary conditions applied to the diaphysis (left), the condyles (center) and
the joint nodes (right)
On the other hand, Phillips proposed a model in which the xed constraints from the
distal femur are replaced by an array of muscles to control displacements . The author used
a set of 26 muscles and 7 ligamentous structures via spring elements to create a complete
musculoskeletal system between the hip and knee joints. The found results matched closer
to in-vivo data [Phillips, 2009].
28
2.5 Current models
Bones structure is studied by means of computational and experimental approaches.
Experimental studies often consist of a series of experiments carried out on real bones
subjected to various load cases. Generally, these studies are favoured to deal with issues
that computational approaches cannot solve [Szivek et al., 2000].
Figure 17: The meso scale
approach [Phillips, 2011]
Most bone modelling algorithms use nite elements and
a continuous modelling approach to predict the structure of
bone. The results provided by these methods are satisfac-
tory but depend a lot on the assumptions done (boundary
conditions, contact and muscle loads considered...).
We notice two types of nite element approaches. The
rst one is the macro-scale approach and is characterised by
the use of solid elements to represent bone, which are larger
than the individual structural elements in the bone. The sec-
ond one is the micro-scale approach where the elements used
are smaller than the individual structural elements [Phillips,
2011].
These two methods present some advantages. The macro-
scale approach provides results in an ecient computational
time and the micro-scale one provides accurate results.
However, they also have some disadvantages. Macro scale
analyses are based on several simplied hypotheses and as-
sume, for instance, that the cortical structure is an isotropic
material. Micro scale ones are computationally expensive
[Phillips, 2011].
In order to benet from the advantages of these two ap-
proaches, Phillips suggested a meso scale approach, whereby
structural elements are used to represent trabecular and cor-
tical elements. Thanks to that, even if the elements used are
larger than the individual structural ones, the overall struc-
tural behaviour of the femur can be captured [Phillips, 2011].
In the other hand, beam theories have been used in order to study the architecture of
bone. This supposes the specication of geometrical and mechanical properties of femoral
sections. For a given human femur, Huiskes et al. compared experimental strain-gauge
and theoretical stress analysis methods based on the beam theory. It was concluded that
the modelling of the cortical bone as a beam is a good approximation [Huiskes et al., 1981].
29
This dissertation revisits the macro-scale approach to speed up the computational pro-
cess while providing correct correlation to the actual femur.
30
Part IV
Method
To study and predict the structure of bones, we use, in this dissertation, an algorithm
based on the beam theory and the 3D stiness method, and the Mechanostat concept
described in the Literature Review.
The 3D stiness method allows us to calculate the displacements, the principal strains
across the elements representative of the cross sections of the femur. The Mechanostat
serves us as a basis of the iteration process in order to nd the most suitable femoral
sections that correspond to the problem.
This method has been a very little used since no article was found explaining or relating
this approach of Bone Modelling.
The aim of this part is to explain how the algorithm works and to describe the model
considered to run it. The algorithm is written in MATLAB.
3 Theory
3.1 Beam Theory
With this approach, the femur is divided into several elements. Each element is con-
sidered as acting as a beam. Throughout this study, we assume that each element has an
isotropic behaviour and we neglect the shear deformation, so that we only consider the
Euler-Bernoulli beam bending theory.
The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory covers the case for small displacements and, so, is
based on several assumptions.
First, we assume that, for any loads applied on the element, the plane sections remain
plane during deformation. Secondly, the deformed plane remains perpendicular to the
neutral axis.
Figure 18: The Euler-Bernoulli beam theory and its assumptions
31
In three dimensions, each node of an element is characterised by six degrees of freedom
knowing three displacements (u
x
, u
y
and u
z
) and three rotations (
x
,
y
and
z
) where
(x,y,z) is the local coordinate system of the element.
By convention, the z-axis is the minor bending axis and the y axis, the major one.
In the local coordinate system of the beam (gure 19), the displacements of a point,
whose the coordinates are (x
, y
, z
), belonged to the beam section are equal to:

U
x
(x
, y
, z
) = u
x
(x
) y
z
(x
) + z
y
(x
)
U
y
(x
, y
, z
) = u
y
(x
) z
y
(x
)
U
z
(x
, y
, z
) = u
z
(x
) + y
z
(x
)
So, we deduce the strain components:
xx
(x
, y
, z
) =
u
x
(x
) y
(x
) + z
(x
) =
axialstrain
..
u
x
(x
)
bendingstrain
..
y
z
+ z
(1)
yy
(x
, y
, z
) =
u
x
(x
) z
(x
) =
u
x
(x
) z
y
(2)
zz
(x
, y
, z
) =
u
x
(x
) + y
(x
) =
u
x
(x
) + y
z
(3)
y
(resp.
z
) is the curvature around the y-axis (resp. the z-axis).
In this study, we are only interested in the xx-component of the strain tensor.
Figure 19: The local coordinate system (x,y,z) of the beam element
32
3.2 The 3D stiness method
To solve the problem, we use the 3D stiness method. This method is a very used
method to compute the nodal displacements of any mechanical models.
To do that, the model must be divided into several simple beam elements interconnected
at the nodes.
Knowing the nodal forces and the geometrical and mechanical properties of the ele-
ments, the nodal displacements can be found.
3.2.1 The local stiness matrix
We rst consider the local coordinate system of a beam element as we described in the
previous section.
The two nodes have six degrees of freedom and the element is characterised by its geo-
metrical parameters:
the length of the element, L
e
the area of the element section, A
e
It is also characterised by its mechanical parameters:
the Youngs Modulus, E
the Shear Modulus, G
the second moment of inertia about the y-axis, I
y
the second moment of inertia about the z-axis, I
z
the torsion constant of the element, J
All these parameters are computed into a single matrix (12 12) called the stiness
matrix. In fact, this matrix is the characterisation of the geometrical and mechanical
properties of an element. The element stiness matrix is dened in the local coordinate
system of the beam element.
33
This matrix for one element K
local
e
is the following:
AeE
Le
0 0 0 0 0
AeE
Le
0 0 0 0 0
0
12EIz
L
3
e
0 0 0
6EIz
L
2
e
0
12EIz
L
3
e
0 0 0
6EIz
L
2
e
0 0
12EIy
L
3
e
0
6EIy
L
2
e
0 0 0
12EIy
L
3
e
0
6EIy
L
2
e
0
0 0 0
JG
Le
0 0 0 0 0
JG
Le
0 0
0 0
6EIy
L
2
e
0
4EIy
Le
0 0 0
6EIy
L
2
e
0
2EIy
Le
0
0
6EIz
L
2
e
0 0 0
4EIz
Le
0
6EIz
L
2
e
0 0 0
2EIz
Le
AeE
Le
0 0 0 0 0
AeE
Le
0 0 0 0 0
0
12EIz
L
3
e
0 0 0
6EIz
L
2
e
0
12EIz
L
3
e
0 0 0
6EIz
L
2
e
0 0
12EIy
L
3
e
0
6EIy
L
2
e
0 0 0
12EIy
L
3
e
0
6EIy
L
2
e
0
0 0 0
JG
Le
0 0 0 0 0
JG
Le
0 0
0 0
6EIy
L
2
e
0
2EIy
Le
0 0 0
6EIy
L
2
e
0
4EIy
Le
0
0
6EIz
L
2
e
0 0 0
2EIz
Le
0
6EIz
L
2
e
0 0 0
4EIz
Le
Because the assumed behaviour of the mechanical system is linear, the equations al-
lowing to link the nodal forces and displacements must be linear. Furthermore, if all the
displacements vanish, so do the forces (assuming that there is no prestress or no initial
strain).
So, the equilibrium equation of an element is F
e
= K
e
U
e
(4), where F
e
is the nodal
forces matrix and U
e
is the nodal displacements matrix.
To better describe these two last matrix, we consider an element e with its two nodes
1 and 2. The nodal displacements matrix and the nodal forces matrices are
U
T
e
=
_
x
1
; y
1
; z
1
;
x
1
;
y
1
;
z
1
; x
2
; y
2
; z
2
;
x
2
;
y
2
;
z
2
_
F
T
e
=
_
F
x
1
; F
y
1
; F
z
1
; M
x
1
; M
y
1
; M
z
1
; F
x
2
; F
y
2
; F
z
2
; M
x
2
; M
y
2
; M
z
2
_
where (x, y, z) is the local coordinate system of the considered element.
3.2.2 Transformation matrix from the local coordinate system to the global
one
For each element, the nodal forces are generally known in the global coordinate system
and the stiness matrix is written in the local one.
The equation (4) is only correct when the nodal forces and the nodal displacements
matrices are written in the same coordinate system. So, following this idea, in the local
coordinate system of the element,
F
local
e
= K
local
e
U
local
e
34
To calculate the nodal displacements in the global coordinate system, a system where
the nodal forces are known, a 3D-transformation matrix R
e
from the global system to the
local system is needed for each element.
The rotation matrix R
e
is dened so that:
F
local
e
= R
e
F
global
e
and U
local
e
= R
e
U
global
e
With that, the stiness matrix in global coordinates is obtained as:
K
global
e
= R
T
e
K
local
e
R
e
The transformation matrix is a square matrix (12 12) and is characterized as orthog-
onal matrices with determinant 1. Considering the element stiness matrix, the transfor-
mation one can be written into the following form:
_
_
_
_
r 0 0 0
0 r 0 0
0 0 r 0
0 0 0 r
_
_
_
_
where r is the direction cosines matrix associated with the x axis (the axis of the beam
element):
_
_
C
xx
C
yx
C
zx
C
xy
C
yy
C
zy
C
xz
C
yz
C
zz
_
_
and
C
Xx
= cos
xx
where angles
xx
,
yx
and
zx
are measured from global axes x,y and z with respect to the
local axis x, respectively (gure 20) .
Figure 20: The direction cosines
35
The next step is to determine the direction cosines from the global coordinates of the
nodes of the model.
We consider a beam element with its two nodes called node1 and node2. The global
coordinates of node1 are (x
1
, y
1
, z
1
) and those of node2 are (x
2
, y
2
, z
2
).
First, consider the two following particular cases where x
1
= x
2
and y
1
= y
2
.
If z
2
> z
1
, the direction cosines matrix is
_
_
0 0 1
0 1 0
1 0 0
_
_
If z
1
> z
2
, the direction cosines matrix is
_
_
0 0 1
0 1 0
1 0 0
_
_
In a more general case, we rst consider the rotation with respect to the local axis x of the
element. In this case, the direction cosines are:
C
xx
= cos
xx
=
x
2
x
1
L
e
where L
e
is the length of the element
C
yx
= cos
yx
=
y
2
y
1
L
e
C
zx
= cos
zx
=
z
2
z
1
L
e
The rest of the direction cosines is deduced as follows:
C
xy
= cos
xy
=
C
yx
D
where D =
_
C
xx
C
xx
+ C
yx
C
yx
C
yy
= cos
yy
=
C
xx
D
C
zy
= cos
zy
= 0 by convention
C
xz
= cos
xz
=
C
xx
C
zx
D
C
yz
= cos
yz
=
C
yx
C
zx
D
C
zz
= cos
zz
= D
36
3.2.3 Computing the global nodal displacements
At this stage of the analysis, a global stiness matrix for each element is created by
using a transformation matrix.
To nd the nodal displacements, the overall mechanical system need to be considered
and so, the general matrices of the system must be calculated. To do that, the total num-
ber of nodal degrees of freedom N and the degree of kinetic indeterminacy n, must be
determined. This is done by considering the system boundary conditions. The number of
supported or restrained degrees of freedom is N-n.
The key operation of the assembly process is the placement of the contribution of each
member to the master equation representative of the equilibrium of the overall system.
To deal with this issue, the nodes, the elements and the degrees of freedom of the overall
system are numbered and classied in order to get a partition into three subsets:
1. Unknown displacements (L)
2. Displacements that are known and that are not equal to zero (P)
3. Displacements that are known and that are equal to zero (S)
The rst subset has n terms and the two other ones have together N-n terms .
This classication depends on the boundary conditions of the overall system. The par-
tition of the degrees of freedom of the system induces a partition of the general matrices:
nodal forces matrix, stiness matrix and nodal displacements matrix:
F =
_
_
[F
L
]
[F
P
]
[F
S
]
_
_
and U =
_
_
[U
L
]
[U
P
]
[U
S
]
_
_
and K =
_
_
[K
LL
] [K
LP
] [K
LS
]
[K
PL
] [K
PP
] [K
PS
]
[K
SL
] [K
SP
] [K
SS
]
_
_
The general matrices of the system will be written in bolt in all the report.
As all the equations used are linear, the rows and the columns associated with zero
displacements are never taken into account into the general matrices. So, the equilibrium
equations are the following:
_
[F
L
]
[F
P
]
_
=
_
[K
LL
] [K
LP
]
[K
PL
] [K
PP
]
_ _
[U
L
]
[U
P
]
_
The unknown displacements are the solutions of the following equation systems:
[K
LL
] [U
L
] = [F
L
] [K
LP
] [F
P
]
37
3.2.4 Calculation of the
xx
strain value
Knowing the nodal displacements in the global coordinate system, the transformation
matrix dened previously is used to determine these displacements in the local coordinate
system of each element.
For each element e with its two nodes 1 and 2, the nodal displacements in the global
system are considered in the following form:
U
T
e global
=
_
x
1
; y
1
; z
1
;
x 1
;
y 1
;
z 1
; x
2
; y
2
; z
2
;
x 2
;
y 2
;
z 2
_
where (x,y,z) is the global coordinate system.
The nodal displacements in the local system of the element e are given by:
U
e local
= R
e
U
e global
where: U
T
e local
=
_
x
1
; y
1
; z
1
;
x
1
;
y
1
;
z
1
; x
2
; y
2
; z
2
;
x
2
;
y
2
;
z
2
_
and (x,y,z) is the local coordinate system of the beam element e.
To determine the
xx
strain value for each element e of the system, the equation 1 is
used.
xx
(x
, y
, z
) =
u
x
(x
) y
(x
) + z
(x
)
To calculate the derivative functions from the nodal local displacements, a nite dier-
ence method is also used. Hence, the terms of the above equation are calculated for each
element as follows:
u
x
(x
) =
x
2
x
1
L
e
where L
e
is the length of the element e
y
(x
) = y
1
L
e
_
z
(x
) = z
1
L
e
_
38
4 Model
In this part, we will describe the model used during the dissertation. The geometry,
the mechanical and geometrical parameters, the boundary conditions and the load cases
will be mentioned.
4.1 Geometry
To determine the geometry of the femur considered in this study, a 3D Abaqus model
of an actual femur was used in order to get the exact dimensions of the bone. It is based on
a CT scan of a Sawbones fourth generation composite femur and provided by Dr Phillips
[Phillips, 2011].
Based on that, a line passing through the center of each part of the femur is plotted as
illustrated in the following pictures (gure 21).
Figure 21: A line, in red, is plotted passing through the center of each part of the femur
39
The equation of each part of this line is computed in order to dene the geometry of
the femur. This is illustrated in the following graphs in three dimensions (gure 22):
Figure 22: The geometry of the femur considered during this dissertation, plotted in the
global coordinate system
40
Every portion will be divided into several elements to match with beam theory and the
3D stiness method described previously.
4.2 Mechanical and Geometrical properties
In this study, it is important to recall the fact that we only consider the cortical bone,
and thus we neglect the inuence of the trabecular bone on the mechanical behaviour of
the femur. It is obvious that this assumption will have to be taken into consideration when
the results are discussed.
For the cortical bone, as mentioned in the Literature Review, the Youngs Modulus is
taken as equal to E = 18 GPa and the Poissons ratio equal to = 0.3. The Shear Modulus
is then calculated with the following formula: G =
E
2 (1 + )
.
Concerning the geometry of the bone sections, hollow elliptical sections are considered.
Even if we mentioned in the Literature Review that the femoral sections feature between a
triangular and cylindrical cross section, an hollow elliptical shape is a good approximation.
The mechanical and geometrical parameters of the hollow ellipse drawn in the gure
23 are:
_
_
I
x
=

4
_
b +
t
2
_
_
a +
t
2
_
3

4
_
b
t
2
_
_
a
t
2
_
3
I
y
=

4
_
b +
t
2
_
3
_
a +
t
2
_

4
_
b
t
2
_
3
_
a
t
2
_
Area =
_
a +
t
2
_
_
b +
t
2
_
_
a
t
2
_
_
b
t
2
_
Perimeter =
_
2
_
_
a +
t
2
_
2
+
_
b +
t
2
_
2
_
(a b)
2
2.2

_
2
_
_
a
t
2
_
2
+
_
b
t
2
_
2
_
(a b)
2
2.2
J =
2 (2tab)
2
t Perimeter
For non symmetric sections as this is the case for the sections considered during this
study, local and principal axes dont always coincide. So, they may be subjected to asym-
metric bending since the term I
xy
doesnt vanish.
However, all the above formula and the mechanical equations (1) to (3) are only valid
when the hollow ellipse is in canonical position (center at origin, major axis along the
y-axis...) as it is illustrated in the gure 23. In this case, the local and the principal axes
coincide and the term I
xy
vanishes.
So, when we consider all the above formula, we have to make sure that the local and
the principal axes of the hollow ellipse coincide.
41
Figure 23: An hollow ellipse
Moreover to calculate the strain at any point of the section by using the equation 1, it
can be useful to determine the coordinates of a point M(x,y) located at the outer surface of
the hollow ellipse (gure 23). Taking the angle as a general parameter, the coordinates
of M are equal to:
_
_
x =
_
b +
t
2
_
cos() (5)
y =
_
a +
t
2
_
sin() (6)
This parametrisation is also only valid when the local and the principal axes of the
hollow ellipse coincide as it is the case for the one represented in the gure 23.
4.3 Muscle and ligament loading
In this study, 30 muscles are considered to act on the femur. These muscles are rep-
resented by a series of 115 point loads which correspond to the attachment points of the
muscles.
The aim of this representation is to include in the analysis as muscles as possible, so as
to create a more physiologically correct set of loadings, as we mentioned in the Literature
Review (part 2.3).
The muscle loads are obtained by an adaptive model of the lower leg studied by Luca
Modenese, based on the research of Klein Horsman et al. (2007) [Modenese et al., 2011].
A total of 30 muscles is considered and, as some muscles act over large areas of the bones
surface, 115 attachment points are also considered to deal with this problem.
Using the same model, the knee, hip and patella joints are also calculated as well as
the inertia and weight forces.
42
In order to integrate the muscle loads and the attachments sites to our model, we use
beam elements to join the attachment points to the femur as illustrated in the gure 24.
Figure 24: The complete model: in red, the femur; in blue, the rigid elements linking the
muscle attachment points to the femur
In order to transfer the loads to the femur and not to interfere in the mechanical be-
haviour of the femur, the beam elements linking the attachment points to the femur must
be extremely rigid. So, we decide that the Youngs Modulus of these elements is equal to
18000 GPa, which is one thousand times the Youngs Modulus of the femoral cortical bone.
We must mention that a too high value of the Youngs Modulus of these elements
compared to the elements that form the femur, can lead to a singular stiness matrix.
Figure 25: The modelling of the hip joint (left) and the patella joint (right)
43
4.4 Load cases
During this study, we analyse three frequent human activities: walking, stair climbing
and sitting-to-standing movements. For each of these activities, the femur is subjected to
dierent forces.
Considering all these cases allows us to optimise the modelling of the femur. Indeed,
as the structure of the femur depends strongly on the loads acting on it, it is appropriate
to consider as many load cases as possible to produce an optimised model of the femur.
Lucas model divides each of these three motions into two hundred frames, each frame
representing a load case (30 muscles loads, 115 attachment points, 3 joint loads for each
frame).
During this dissertation, it was time consuming to consider, in the model, all the frames
for each of the three motions. It is decided to consider a total number of frames equal to
68 with 28 frames for the walking case, 20 frames for the stair climbing case and 20 frames
for the sit-to-stand one.
A discussion about the dependence of the model on the number of frames considered
will be done in the part 6.3.
A example of one load case with all the muscle loads considered is given in the tables
4 and 5 and illustrated in the gure 26.
Figure 26: The representation of the frame number 22 of the walking case: in purple, the
muscle loads
44
Table 4: Muscle forces for the frame number 22 of the walking case, corresponding to
t=0.047s Part 1)
Muscles Fx(N) Fy(N) Fz(N)
ADD BREV PROS 1 0.133 0.340 0.696
ADD BREV PROS 2 0.121 0.372 0.665
ADD BREV MID 1 0.056 0.408 0.573
ADD BREV MID 2 0.059 0.436 0.544
ADD BREV DIST 1 -0.002 0.442 0.464
ADD BREV DIST 2 -0.007 0.462 0.437
ADD LONG 1 0.083 0.831 0.486
ADD LONG 2 0.070 0.836 0.473
ADD LONG 3 0.051 0.847 0.449
ADD LONG 4 0.037 0.856 0.426
ADD LONG 5 0.022 0.866 0.403
ADD LONG 6 0.007 0.872 0.385
ADD MAG DIST 1 -0.644 3.234 0.099
ADD MAG DIST 2 -0.605 3.235 0.125
ADD MAG DIST 3 -0.496 3.243 0.203
ADD MAG MID 1 -0.398 1.325 0.320
ADD MAG MID 2 -0.381 1.338 0.307
ADD MAG MID 3 -0.336 1.333 0.302
ADD MAG MID 4 -0.323 1.342 0.291
ADD MAG MID 5 -0.286 1.336 0.291
ADD MAG MID 6 -0.277 1.342 0.284
ADD MAG PROX 1 -0.121 0.346 0.363
ADD MAG PROX 2 -0.149 0.416 0.265
ADD MAG PROX 3 -0.113 0.426 0.256
ADD MAG PROX 4 -0.087 0.436 0.238
BIC FEM CB 1 -0.770 -12.245 -0.811
BIC FEM CB 2 -0.997 -11.301 -1.330
BIC FEM CB 3 -1.279 -9.505 -1.736
GASTR LAT 1 -7.581 -4.618 -0.585
GASTR MED 1 -136.696 -50.090 -23.351
GEM INF 1 -3.010 2.506 3.513
GEM SUP 1 -1.204 2.565 2.033
GLUT MAX SUP 1 2.018 8.074 3.547
GLUT MAX SUP 2 0.818 12.425 5.171
GLUT MAX SUP 3 -2.115 16.532 6.699
GLUT MAX SUP 4 2.318 7.412 3.244
GLUT MAX SUP 5 1.632 11.703 4.850
GLUT MAX SUP 6 -0.706 16.207 6.535
GLUT MAX INF 1 -0.495 1.950 1.374
GLUT MAX INF 2 -0.414 1.657 1.030
GLUT MAX INF 3 -0.402 1.449 0.785
GLUT MAX INF 4 -0.387 1.954 1.335
GLUT MAX INF 5 -0.331 1.683 1.009
GLUT MAX INF 6 -0.352 1.478 0.775
GLUT MED ANT 1 2.043 0.903 0.804
GLUT MED ANT 2 2.077 0.758 0.844
GLUT MED ANT 3 2.102 0.576 0.911
GLUT MED ANT 4 2.068 0.893 0.732
GLUT MED ANT 5 2.079 0.794 0.798
GLUT MED ANT 6 2.076 0.667 0.905
GLUT MED POST 1 2.822 2.384 1.210
GLUT MED POST 2 2.534 3.270 2.072
GLUT MED POST 3 2.947 5.796 4.433
GLUT MED POST 4 2.754 2.515 1.217
GLUT MED POST 5 2.489 3.485 2.241
GLUT MED POST 6 3.015 5.846 4.271
45
Table 5: Muscle forces for the frame number 22 of the walking case, corresponding to
t=0.047s (Part 2)
Muscles Fx(N) Fy(N) Fz(N)
GLUT MIN ANT 1 2.592 2.100 1.723
GLUT MIN MID 2 1.668 2.272 1.756
GLUT MIN POST 3 1.241 3.025 2.431
ILIACUS LAT 1 0.711 0.594 0.437
ILIACUS LAT 2 0.711 0.594 0.437
ILIACUS LAT 3 0.711 0.594 0.437
ILIACUS MID 1 1.382 1.154 0.849
ILIACUS MID 2 1.382 1.154 0.849
ILIACUS MID 3 1.382 1.154 0.849
ILIACUS MED 1 0.817 0.682 0.502
ILIACUS MED 2 0.817 0.682 0.502
ILIACUS MED 3 0.817 0.682 0.502
OBT EXT SUP 1 0.661 -0.654 3.181
OBT EXT SUP 2 0.673 -0.666 3.236
OBT EXT SUP 3 0.693 -0.686 3.334
OBT INT 1 -6.979 7.784 11.718
OBT INT 2 -6.979 7.784 11.718
OBT INT 3 -6.979 7.784 11.718
PECTINEUS 1 0.264 0.415 0.547
PECTINEUS 2 0.231 0.411 0.548
PECTINEUS 3 0.194 0.430 0.528
PECTINEUS 4 0.233 0.307 0.610
PIRIFORME 1 -2.057 10.337 11.083
PLANTARIS 1 -0.690 -0.606 -0.025
POPLITEUS 1 -1.005 -1.473 0.899
POPLITEUS 2 -1.005 -1.473 0.899
PSOAS MAJ 1 2.042 1.705 1.255
PSOAS MAJ 2 2.042 1.705 1.255
PSOAS MAJ 3 2.042 1.705 1.255
QUAD FEM 1 -0.786 0.366 2.469
QUAD FEM 2 -0.780 0.743 2.381
QUAD FEM 3 -0.835 1.044 2.070
QUAD FEM 4 -0.867 1.271 1.633
VASTUS INTERM 1 0.697 -2.235 0.219
VASTUS INTERM 2 0.536 -2.276 0.241
VASTUS INTERM 3 0.438 -2.293 0.277
VASTUS INTERM 4 0.612 -2.252 0.282
VASTUS INTERM 5 0.468 -2.288 0.270
VASTUS INTERM 6 0.401 -2.300 0.274
VASTUS INTERM 7 0.831 -2.199 -0.032
VASTUS INTERM 8 0.875 -2.166 0.266
VASTUS LAT INF 1 0.400 -0.523 0.062
VASTUS LAT INF 2 0.290 -0.591 0.062
VASTUS LAT INF 3 0.144 -0.638 -0.101
VASTUS LAT INF 4 0.166 -0.639 -0.037
VASTUS LAT INF 5 0.168 -0.638 0.051
VASTUS LAT INF 6 0.146 -0.639 0.089
VASTUS LAT SUP 1 1.643 -10.651 1.740
VASTUS LAT SUP 2 1.201 -10.791 1.135
VASTUS MED INF 1 0.966 -1.227 0.924
VASTUS MED INF 2 1.152 -1.319 0.476
VASTUS MED MID 1 1.639 -3.631 1.602
VASTUS MED MID 2 1.843 -3.873 0.183
VASTUS MED SUP 1 0.547 -1.517 0.395
VASTUS MED SUP 2 0.467 -1.590 0.103
VASTUS MED SUP 3 0.432 -1.554 0.392
VASTUS MED SUP 4 0.364 -1.613 0.145
VASTUS MED SUP 5 0.299 -1.625 0.161
VASTUS MED SUP 6 0.299 -1.625 0.161
46
4.5 Boundary conditions
As we mentioned in the Literature Review (part 2.4), the choice of the boundary con-
ditions applied to the system has an important inuence on the mechanical results. We
noticed that xing the knee joint (localised at the centre of the condyles) in three spatial
directions and forcing the femoral head to move along an axis towards the knee center and
xing a node on the lateral epicondyle present the best results [Speirs et al., 2007].
In this study, we decide to x only the knee joint in its six degrees of freedom. Adopting
this boundary condition, the mechanical problem is entirely determined.
Even if this boundary condition is not the most physiological one, it has the advan-
tage to be easy to implement in the algorithm. A further study about the inuence of the
boundary conditions on the model can be interested in the future.
The boundary condition considered in the model is illustrated in the gure 27.
Figure 27: The boundary condition at the knee joint considered in the dissertation
The reactions forces and the moments at the knee joint will be computed in order to be
compared to those given by Lucas model. This comparison will allow us to explain some
results.
47
5 The iterative algorithm
5.1 Presentation and objective of the algorithm
The iterative algorithm is used to calculate the optimal femoral sections and it is based
on the Mechanostat Concept described in the Literature Review (part 1.3).
According to the Mechanostat concept, we notice the existence of strain thresholds for
which bone is created or resorbed (gure 4). In the lazy zone between 1000 and 1500,
there is no change in bone structure and we can consider that the structure of the bone
whose the strain values lie in this zone, is stable and wont change. Bones are only sensitive
to the highest mechanical solicitations and stimuli, and that why we only work with the
maximum strain values.
The objective of the iterative algorithm is to optimise the femoral cross sections in
order that the absolute maximum strain values of all the cross-sections due to various load
combinations lie in the lazy zone. In all this dissertation, we work with absolute strain
values.
To optimise the hollow elliptical cross-sections, we consider four variables to parameter
totally the problem. Each cross-section is characterised by two radius R
1
and R
2
, by a
constant thickness t and by an angle (gure 28).
Figure 28: Four variables are chosen to parameter totally the cross-section
The algorithm will change the values of these four variables for each cross-section of
the model in order that its absolute maximum strain value lies in the lazy zone at the end
of the analysis.
Nevertheless, if we analyse the problem carefully, there are four variables to optimise
as the only constraint of the problem is the strain value for each element. Because of that,
48
there is not an unique solution but several couples (R
1
, R
2
, , t) can satisfy the problem, a
problem that becomes relatively sensitive to the initial conditions considered.
Hence, this problem seems to be undetermined and some assumptions need to be taken
in order to solve it. Each variable will be optimised independently step-by-step in order to
converge to a solution. In order to make sure that the solution is the optimal one for our
specic problem, we limit the values taken by the variables based on the actual geometry
of the femur. For instance, the thickness value of a cross-section must lie in an interval
[0.1, maxt] where maxt is dened by us and reects the maximum thickness value of an
actual femur. Likewise, the radius parameters must lie in an interval dened by two con-
stants minR and maxR so that: minR R
1
, R
2
maxR.
The algorithm has changed several times during the dissertation and we only describe
its general idea in the following. All the mechanical calculations (nodal displacements,
strain values...) are performed by the 3D stiness method we described previously.
5.2 Optimisation of the angle
We begin the iterative algorithm by optimizing the angle of the hollow ellipse. To
optimise this parameter, we make a common assumption described in some articles. We
assume that the orientation of maximum bending rigidity reects the orientation of peak
or habitual bending forces the bone experiences [Lieberman et al., 2004]. In other words,
the principal bending axes of the section are orientated according to the maximum bending
strain value reached by the section due to the surrounding forces. By making sure that
the maximum strain value of the section is located at the minor principal bending axis, we
assume that the bone section is oriented in such a way that it can withstand the forces in
an optimal way.
Figure 29: Optimisation of the angle. (y,z) is the local coordinate system of the section
and (y
1
,z
1
) is the bending principal axes of the section. At the end, the maximum strain
value is located at the minor principal bending axis.
49
In the literature, some experimental studies show that this assumption is not really
correct for long bones as illustrated in the gure 30. Demes carried out experimental
studies on the tibia. She calculated the localization of both the Zero Strain neutral axis
and the maximum principal axis and she determined the angle between the two axes.
[Demes, 2007]. The assumption we make to optimise states that these two axes coincide
which is not always the case.
Nevertheless, the dierences between the experimental results and those found by con-
sidering the assumption are not really important (between 10 and 20depending on the
load cases that are considered). Moreover, it represents the only way to x the angular
parameter.
Figure 30: Dierence between the localization of the maximum principal axis and the Zero
strain neutral axis [Demes, 2007]
50
The iterative algorithm consists in making sure that the maximum strain value calcu-
lated for a section is located at the minor principal bending axis.
We initialise the algorithm with R
1
= 13mm, R
2
= 15mm and t = 5mm, making the
y-axis, the major principal bending axis.
The following diagram shows the working of the algorithm to optimise the angle of the
hollow ellipse:
For each element, this process is repeated for all the load cases we want to consider.
So, at the end, for each element, there are N maximum bending strain values for N frames
considered. We choose the maximum of these values and we rotate the element to the
angle associated.
51
5.3 Optimisation of the three geometrical parameters R
1
, R
2
and
t
Once the angle for each element is determined, the sections are rotated once and for
all (see gure 31), so that all the equations described in the parts 4.2 and 3.2.4 can be
applied without any problem. The local and the principal axes coincide.
The objective is now to determine the three variables so that, when all the load cases
are considered, the maximum strain value reached by each element lies in the lazy zone.
As we notice previously, this problem is undetermined because we have to deal with three
parameters and we have only one constraint.
To nd a solution, we optimise step-by-step these three variables independently. The
general idea of the algorithm is described in the table 6.
The stage 5 of the algorithm (see table 6) is an important one. To explain it, we consider
a step in which the variable t is optimised. At the end of the stage 4, for each element, we
determine N optimised values of t corresponding to the N load cases considered.
At the stage 5, we determine the maximum of these values for each element and we
state that the element thickness is equal to this maximum. So, by doing that, we are sure
that the structure withstands all the possible combination of loads applied on it.
The optimisation is nished once the three parameters converged.
5.3.1 Optimisation of the parameter t
In this part, we describe the stage 4 of the algorithm (see table 6). We consider a step
in which the variable t is optimised and a particular load case, i.
We dene a target strain value
t
equal to 1250 which is the center of the lazy zone.
The aim of that is to force the absolute maximum total strain value of each element to
converge towards this target value.
As said previously, the maximum total strain value is decomposed into two contribu-
tions : the axial strain
a
and the maximum bending strain
b
.
In this step, we want to optimise the thickness of all the elements for the load case, i,
considered. To do that, we dene a target axial strain value
at
=
t
|

a
a
+
b
|.
52
Table 6: The optimisation algorithm
53
The cross sectional area for each beam element bears direct proportionality to its axial
stiness according to the stiness matrix and so, the section area is adjusted by using the
target axial strain value:
A
i+1
= A
i
|
at
|
where A
i
is the cross sectional area of the previous step.
Knowing the new area value of each element, we can determine the thickness value by
using the equation linking the area of the hollow ellipse to its thickness.
To do that, the Newton Method is used and the thickness value is controlled in order
to lie in the following interval: [0.1; maxt] as mentioned in the part 5.1.
This process is repeated for all the N load cases we want to consider. At the end of
the stage 4, there are N optimized thickness values for each element associated with the N
load cases.
1
We now consider a step in which the parameter R
1
is optimised. Following the same
principle mentioned previously, we dened a target bending strain value
bt
equal to
t
|

b
a
+
b
|
The maximum bending strain value of an element can be also decomposed into two
contributions:
y
z
+ z
y
=
bz
+
by
Based on that, we can also dene a new target strain value based on these two contri-
butions:
_
by
t
=
bt
|

by
by
+
bz
bz
t
=
bt
|

bz
by
+
bz
|
According to the stiness matrix, bending stiness has a direct proportionality with
the second moment of area of the section. Changing the second moment of area regulates
the bending strains. As the second moment of area about the z-axis is more sensitive to
changes in R
1
as dened in the gure 31, we consider I
z
to optimise R
1
. So:
I
i+1
z
= I
i
z
|
bz
bz
t
|
Knowing the new second moment of area value I
z
of each element, we can determine
the new radius R
1
value by using the equation linking the second moment of area of the
hollow ellipse to this radius.
54
The solution R
1
is also found by using the Newton Method and must lie in the interval
[minR, maxR] as mentioned in the part 5.1.
2
We now consider a step in which the parameter R
2
is optimised. As the second moment
of area about the y-axis is more sensitive to changes in R
2
as dened in the gure 30, we
consider I
y
to optimise R
2
. So:
I
i+1
y
= I
i
y
|
by
by
t
|
Knowing the new second moment of area value I
y
of each element, we can determine
the radius R
2
value by using the equation linking the second moment of area of the hollow
ellipse to this radius by using the Newton Method. We control that R
2
lies in the interval
[minR, maxR] as mentioned in the part 5.1.
Figure 31: Hollow ellipse after rotation
55
Part V
Results
6 Sensitivity studies
In this part, we want to study the dependence of our algorithm on some inputs of the
model: the number of load cases considered, the number of elements used to represent the
femur....
As a modelling algorithm, there are a multitude of options available to run it and it is
interested as a rst approach to study their inuence.
All values are plotted against the vertical coordinate as measured from the distal end of
the femur. The 3D stiness method implemented in the algorithm was tested independently
with GSA.
6.1 Dependence on the number of elements
In this part, we want to study the dependence of the algorithm on the number of ele-
ments used. The aim of the algorithm is to reduce the computational time comparatively
to the nite element models. This requires that the number of elements used to model the
femur must be also minimize.
To analyse this inuence, we consider two cases. The only dierence between these two
models is the number of elements used to represent the shaft of the bone.
For the rst case, we use 20 elements and for the other one, we use 40. The inputs of
the algorithm which dont change, are summarised in the following table:
R
initial
1
= 13mm R
initial
2
= 15mm
t
initial
= 5mm number of load cases considered = 68
mint = 0.1mm maxt = 8mm
minR = 12mm maxR = 30mm
Number of load cases used to x = 28 walking load cases .
The results are illustrated in the gure 32.
It is interesting to notice that there is little dierence between the results found for
the two cases. Despite some small dierences, the two cases give similar variations of the
parameters across the elements representative of the shaft of the femur.
56
Figure 32: Dependence of the algorithm on the number of elements used to represent the
shaft of the femur: in blue, 20 elements; in red, 40 elements
57
This result is relatively important to mention because it means that 20 elements for the
shaft is sucient to have signicant results. Nevertheless, as the attachment points of the
muscles are directly linked to the nodes of the shaft, we cant reduce too much the number
of elements in order not to sacrice precision regarding to the muscle loads.
Moreover, with 20 elements, the computation time is reduced.
6.2 Dependence on the parameters optimisation order
As we described previously when we explained the general idea of the algorithm, we
mentioned the fact that we have to optimise four variables with only one constraint.
We decide to optimise the angle independently of the others because this optimisation
is based on a specic assumption.
Once this parameter found, we x it and we optimise step-by-step the three other
variables independently.
For each step, one variable is optimised as the two other ones are kept constant and
equal to the values found for their last optimisation. So, it takes three steps to optimise
the three variables. It is comparable to an optimisation cycle where the parameters are
optimised every three steps until they all converge.
There are exactly 6 possible permutations in this optimisation cycle and so, in this part,
we consider six cases described below:
1. we begin the optimisation by R
1
followed by R
2
and t
2. First, t, then R
1
and nally, R
2
3. First, t, then R
2
and nally, R
1
4. First, R
1
, then t and nally, R
2
5. First, R
2
, then R
1
and nally, t
6. First, R
2
, then t and nally, R
2
This study is important to know if the algorithm and the optimisation process really
depend on the variables optimisation order because if we consider the original problem,
there is no way that this issue has some kind of inuence on the results.
The inputs of the algorithm which dont change, are summarised in the following table:
R
initial
1
= 13mm R
initial
2
= 15mm
t
initial
= 5mm number of load cases considered = 68
Number of elements represented the shaft = 20 Number of load cases used to x = 28 walking load cases
58
In blue, case 1
In red, case 2
In green, case 3
In magenta, case 4
In black, case 5
In cyan, case 6
Figure 33: Dependence of the algorithm on the optimisation order of the parameters
59
The results are quite interesting and show some variations between the dierent con-
sidered cases. For the parameter t, the maximum dierence is approximatively equal to
1.5mm and for the variable R
1
, it is almost 3.5mm.
It is also interesting to notice that the case 1 gives the same results as the case 4,
as it is the case for the cases 2-3 and 5-6. This means that the results depend on the
variables optimisation order and especially, depend on the variable by which we begin the
optimisation cycle.
When a parameter is optimised, the value we nd depends on the two other parameters.
For instance, if the optimisation cycle begins by the optimisation of t, the results found for
R
1
and R
2
will depend on the new thickness value. So deciding the parameter by which
the optimisation begins, forces the algorithm to converge to a specic solution.
It is obvious that the optimisation process used in the algorithm is not an ideal one
because all the variables are optimised step-by-step instead of being all optimised in one
step. Nevertheless, the dierences found between the various cases are not very important
and for a model that will be used for a preliminary analysis, we can consider that the
dependence of the algorithm on the parameters optimisation order is reasonable.
6.3 Dependence on the number of load cases considered
In this part, we want to study and underline the inuence of the number of load cases
considered in the model.
As said previously, we use Luca Modeneses model to nd the muscle and joint loads
during three motions: walking, stair climbing and sitting-to-standing. The model gives us
200 frames for each motion.
60
Figure 34: Dependence of the algorithm on the number of load cases considered: in blue,
68 load cases; in red, 3 load cases
61
In the Literature Review, we mentioned that fact that the bone adapts its structure
according to the loads applied on it. Considering a lot of load cases must allow us to create
an anatomically correct structure of the femur.
To demonstrate that, we consider two opposite situations:
1. Only three cases are considered, one for each motion. Each of these cases represents
the situation for which the amplitude of the hip joint forces are maximal. The walking
load case is used to x the parameter .
2. 68 load cases are considered, 28 for the walking case, 20 for the stair climbing case and
20 for the last one. The load cases considered in the rst situation are also considered
among all these cases. The 28 walking load cases are used to x the parameter .
R
initial
1
= 13mm R
initial
2
= 15mm
t
initial
= 5mm Number of elements represented the shaft = 20
We notice important dierences in the parameters values between the two considered
situations.
The parameter the most interested to analyse is the variable . As mentioned previ-
ously, is calculated from the maximum bending strain value reached by an element once
having considered all the load cases.
The fact that we nd dierent values shows that the walking case considered for the
rst situation are not the critical one for the femur.
The results concerning the three other parameters also show that considering only three
load cases can lead to an underestimation of these parameters and gives a modelling of a
femur that cant withstand all the possible load cases.
The conclusions drawn in this part are clearly obvious. Indeed, it seems that the more
load cases we consider, the better are the optimisation of the femur. The ideal case would
be to consider all the 600 frames given by Modeneses model but, in this dissertation, 68
load cases will be sucient to draw interesting conclusions.
6.4 Dependence on the load cases considered to x the parame-
ter
In this part, we want to study the inuence of the load cases considered to calculate
the parameter .
62
Figure 35: Dependence of the algorithm on the number of load cases considered to calculate
: in blue, 28 walking load cases; in red, 68 load cases
63
As mentioned previously, the determination of this parameter is based on an specic
assumption stating that the orientation of maximum bending rigidity reects the orienta-
tion of peak or habitual bending forces the bone experiences. In other words, the principal
bending axes are oriented according to the maximum bending strain value reached by the
elements.
The objective of this part is to determine which load cases we must consider to decide
the orientation of the femoral sections.
We consider two cases:
1. 28 frames from the walking case are considered to calculate the angular parameter.
In this situation, we suppose that the femoral sections are orientated according to
the most frequent human activity.
2. 68 load cases are considered, 28 for the walking case, 20 for the stair climbing case
and 20 for the last one. In this situation, we consider that the femoral sections are
oriented according to all the load cases and so the orientation is due, in this case, to
peak forces the femur experiences.
R
initial
1
= 13mm R
initial
2
= 15mm
t
initial
If we focus on the values taken by the parameter , we can notice a discontinuity for the
situation 2. This is due to the fact that there are dierent critical load cases for dierent
areas of the femur.
For instance, for the rst ve elements, the maximum bending strain is due to a frame
from the stair climbing case. For the other elements, the critical load is due to a frame
from the walking case. Thats why the parameters values are similar for the two situations
for the rest of the elements.
This discontinuity that appears also for the other parameters, can be due to the fact
that we only consider twenty frames for each motion and maybe, we dont choose the crit-
ical ones. Thats why it can be important to repeat this study with more frames. It can
be interesting to see if the frame from the walking motion is still the critical load case for
most of the elements.
Moreover, we can notice that the orientation of the femoral sections according to the
maximum bending strain values inuences a lot the strain distribution in the sections and
64
so, the optimisation of the other variables t, R
1
and R
2
, an optimisation based on the
strain values. Thats why we nd dierent results for the two cases.
It is dicult to determine the better case because no scientic studies have been made
on this subject and because this problem only arises due to the way our algorithm works.
There are good arguments for both cases and it is obvious that the way of how the sections
are orientated has an inuence of the optimisations of the other parameters. To draw
better conclusions, it will be interesting to repeat this study with all the frames.
Nevertheless, the thing that it is important to notice is that these two cases provide
dierent results. The way we x the angle changes the optimisation of the parameters.
65
6.5 Dependence on the constants minR and maxR
In this last sensitivity study, we study the inuence of the algorithm on the constants
minR and maxR.
As mentioned in the part 5.3, our algorithm optimises four variables according to only
one constraint. The angular parameter calculation is based on an assumption and the other
three are step-by-step optimised independently.
This problem is clearly undetermined and there is not an unique solution but several
couples (R
1
, R
2
, , t) can satisfy the problem.
We dene the constants minR, maxR , mint and maxt to control the values taken by
the parameters in order not to nd values too dierent from those of an actual femur.
But it is obvious that limiting the parameters values can have an inuence on the
solutions found by the algorithm.
The objective of this part is to analyse this inuence.
We consider the two following case:
1. maxR=30mm and minR=12mm
2. maxR=15mm and minR=8mm
We x the values of mint and maxt because (maxt,mint) has the same role as (maxR,minR)
and the conclusions drawn for this case would be the same if we changed mint and maxt
instead of minR and maxR.
R
initial
1
(situation1) = 13mm; R
initial
1
(situation2) = 9mm R
initial
2
(situation1) = 15mm; R
initial
2
(situation2) = 10mm
t
initial
Number of load cases used to x = 28 walking load cases .
The results are really interesting and allow us to understand and illustrate how the
algorithm works.
We can notice that the values found for the parameters R
1
and R
2
are higher for the
case 1 than for the case 2, which is normal because maxR is higher for the rst situation.
Nevertheless, we nd that the values of the thickness is higher for the situation 2. This
can be explained by the fact that the decrease in the R
1
and R
2
values is compensated by
an increase in the thickness value.
As we said previously, the optimisation of one parameter depends on the two others.
The fact that the R
1
and R
2
values are limited by maxR forces the algorithm to increase
the parameter t values.
66
Figure 36: Dependence of the algorithm on the constants maxR and minR: in blue,
minR=12mm and maxR=30mm; in red, minR=8mm and maxR=15mm
67
This study shows that the algorithm is sensitive to its inputs since a change in these
two constants leads to dierent solutions.
Nevertheless, we must mention the fact that limiting the values of the parameters can
prevent the absolute maximum total strain of each element from converging to the target
strain value dened in the part 5.1.
Figure 37: The maximum strain value
As we can see in the gure 37, for some elements, the maximum strain value does not
lie in the lazy zone due to limiting parameters values.
7 Discussion and Comparison to the geometry of a
real femur
Thanks to the sensitivity studies described in the previous part, we explained and il-
lustrated the working of the iterative algorithm. We show that the model is more or less
sensitive to the several inputs especially the constants maxR, minR and, to a lesser extent,
the parameters optimisation order.
This shows that several imputs combinations can lead to possible femur modelling and
it seems relatively dicult to nd one that models all the bone characteristics while keeping
the elements maximum total strain values in the lazy zone. Thats why the algorithm needs
to be improved.
68
If we analyse the experimental study realised by Stephenson et al. [Stephenson and
Seedhom, 1998], the average cortical diameter is equal to 27-28mm and the cortical thick-
ness to 6-8mm.
To get this range of values, we have to limit the interval [minR, maxR] but it will cause
the maximum total strain value of some elements no to lie in the lazy zone.
It is also interesting to notice that if we increase the maxR value, the sections have
elliptical shapes and the sectional orientation is similar to what we can observe on an
actual femur. This is obtained by considering only the walking load cases to optimise the
angular parameter.
Alfred Thibon, a MSc student, studied during his dissertation the meso-scale approach.
This approach created by Dr. Phillips is known to give accurate results [Thibon, 2011]. His
model is based on the same geometry as mine and the same load cases were considered. If
we compare the sections he found to the sections given by the algorithm, good correlation
can be found. Even if there are some problems with the dimensions of the sections, the
shape is similar (gure38).
Figure 38: GSA Model with maxR=30mm Figure 39: Alfred Thibons Model
Its dicult to conclude on which inputs combinations are the most appropriate to give
reasonable results and thats why the model needs to be improved as we will see in the
next part.
Nevertheless, we noticed that reducing the constant maxR based on the actual geometry
of the femur enables to give a good correlation because we nd sections that are more
circular and the thickness values are equal to 6-7.5 mm. But, the problem is that the
maximum total strain values may be lie outside the lazy zone.
Concerning the optimisation of the angular parameter, it is dicult to choose if we
must consider all the load cases or only the ones concerning the walking case. According
to me, I would only consider the load cases concerning the walking motion because I am
almost convinced that the sectional orientation and the external shape of the bone are due
to the most frequent activity, i.e walking. The other critical load cases as those occurring
69
during stair climbing, only change the bone volume in order to resist these loads. But no
scientic studies were found about that and we must recall that this problem arises due to
the specicity of our algorithm.
Overall, our algorithm is based on several assumptions and these simplications prevent
from getting an exact match-up with the actual geometry of the femur, but the model seems
capable to give a reasonable correlation to the actual femur.
70
Part VI
Development potential
8 Muscle loads
The muscle loads are given by the model studied by Luca Modenese. It gives relatively
good results for the majority of the muscles attached to the femur.
Nevertheless, the model gives inaccurate results for the muscles that wrap around the
bone as it happens near the knee joint. The model gives the amplitude and the direction of
the muscle loads based on the direction of the muscle tendons. But, when a muscle wraps
around the bone, its action line is totally dierent from the direction of its tendon.
Moreover, we notice that the forces and the moments given by the model dont satisfy
the mechanical equilibrium of the femur. To demonstrate that, if we compute all the forces
in a GSA model, we nd dierent forces and moments at the knee joint.
For instance, if we consider the frame number 21 corresponding to the time t=0.0987s,
Luca Modeneses model calculates the forces and the moments at the knee joint:
F
x
= 275.97N; F
y
= 2465.5262N; F
z
= 145.984N
M
x
= 59.84Nm; M
y
= 14.47Nm; M
z
= 7.192Nm
The GSA model gives the following reactions at the knee joint to equilibrate the system:
F
x
= 292.7N; F
y
= 2451N; F
z
= 140.9N
M
x
= 124.5Nm; M
y
= 7.098Nm; M
z
= 47.29Nm
This is also a consequence of the problem identied above.
As the results are based on the stain values, the optimisation algorithm is really sensitive
to the loads acting on the modelled femur. If there are some inaccuracies in the loads cal-
culation, this can lead to relatively wrong results especially for the elements representative
of the areas where the load muscles modelling remains problematic.
9 Geometry, Material Properties and Trabecular Bone
The geometry of the model is done by using a 3D Abaqus model of an actual femur as
illustrated in the part 4.1. In the model, nodes are aligned along straight axes.
71
We dont know the inuence of the geometry on the results but it could be interesting
to describe and model more precisely the distal and proximal ends of the bone in order to
simulate the stress distribution in these areas.
Then, it can be interesting to analyse the inuence of the elements linking the muscle
attachment points to the femur. For this dissertation, we consider that these elements are
very sti beam elements but the localisation of these elements was not really accurate.
Concerning the material properties of the femoral cortical bone, we choose to model
it as an isotropic material. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the Literature Review (see part
2.2), the cortical bone is described as being transversely isotropic in nature [Huiskes et al.,
1981]. It can be interesting to include this material behaviour by choosing a transverse
Youngs Modulus.
Moreover, during this dissertation, we neglect the shear deformation in order to con-
sider the Euler-Bernoulli beam bending theory. Nevertheless, it could be also interesting to
consider the shear deformations because Timoshenko beam theory provides more accurate
displacements and so strain values. Implementation of this theory involves the modication
of the stiness matrix described in the part 3.2.1.
Finally, we choose to neglect the inuence on the trabecular bone. This simplication
need to be seriously reconsidered especially to describe the behaviour of the areas located
near the hip and knee joints. To achieve that, a new material layer with a new Youngs
Modulus etc... can be included and the femur can be considered as a composite section.
This approach does not involve major complications and modications of the algorithm.
10 The algorithm
The problem is a very delicate one because four variables must be optimised according
to only one constraint. To optimise these variables, we have to make several assumptions.
These assumptions are all justied by the way that they have been used to elaborate bone
modelling algorithms.
Because of that, the algorithm is really sensitive to the several inputs of the model.
This is predominantly due to the fact that all the parameters are step-by-step optimised
independently. In other words, the optimisation of a parameter at a given step depends on
the values taken by the other parameters during their last optimisation.
This makes the problem be dependent on some factors that have no physical signica-
tions but are just tricks (maxR, minR...) in order to run the algorithm. Thus, it may
exist some inputs combinations that allow to create a model that provides good correlation
to the actual femur (see gures 38 and 39) but the diculty is to nd the one that models
all the characteristics of the bone (sections orientation, dimensions...).
The objective in the future is to reduce their inuence on the model. To do so, it
72
may be interesting to think about a better way to optimise these four variables or, even
better, to try to reduce the number of parameters. This can be done by nding empirical
relationships between the dierent parameters if it is possible, using experimental studies
about the femur geometry.
In this study, we only consider hollow elliptical cross-sections with a constant thickness.
The next step is to study sections for which the thickness is not constant anymore. I think
that this can be a very good improvement to the model.
For instance, if we consider the case where maxR is equal to 15mm, we nd circular
sections and dimensions similar to the actual femur as shows in the gures 40 and 41.
Figure 40: GSA Model with maxR=15mm Figure 41: Alfred Thibons Model
We can see that, using a constant thickness prevents the model from giving a section
that looks like the one found by the meso-scale approach. Thats why it can be interesting
to study sections with non-constant thickness.
The last point to mention is the denition of the target strain value. The algorithm is
based on the fact that the maximum total strain value of each element must converge to
this target value. The denition of this constant is a trick in order to make sure that the
maximum total strain value of each element lie in the lazy zone at the end.
The problem is that we dont know if this is really the case for an actual femur. In
other words, the total maximum strain values of each part of the femur due to the several
load cases that the bone carries are not especially equal to 1250 .
The parameters optimisation is based on this target value and thats why it may be
considered as an critical assumption. It is important to reconsider its meaning and maybe
reduce its role in the optimisation process.
73
Part VII
Conclusion
During this dissertation, we elaborate a macro-scale predictive model of the femur con-
structed using a beam structure approach.
Using the Mechanostat Concept based on the idea that the bones structure adapts to
their surrounding mechanical environment, the optimisation algorithm is based on the 3D
stiness method and the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory in order to predict the geometry of
the femur.
The model consists of the optimisation of four variables that totally parametrize the
hollow elliptical sections chosen to model the femoral cross-sections.
With only one constraint knowing the strain value that must be reached by each ele-
ment of the model, the problem is undetermined and several assumptions must be done to
solve it.
Knowing that, it is obvious that the created algorithm is dependent on the initial con-
ditions and the inputs of the problem, a dependence illustrated by the sensitivity studies
done during this dissertation and that we have to limit in the future.
Finally, even if this model demonstrates and validates the use of cross-sectional beam
analysis in the strain-adaptive modelling of the femur since correct correlation to the actual
femur is found, the dissertation also underlines the need for future improvements.
Current models based on nite element algorithms provide accurate results but the
lengthy computing times reduce the exibility of these methods.
The algorithm presented in this report requires little computational eort and its ease
of use allows us to imagine the elaboration of bigger models.
This dissertation allows to lay the foundations of a powerful algorithm, a platform for
further developments and subsequent use alongside nite element models. Nevertheless,
this new approach must be considered as a complimentary method.
By testing it during this study, we underline the further developments needed to ame-
liorate the model so that it will produce a better correlation in the future.
74
References
G. Bergmann, G. Deuretzbacher, M. Heller, F. Graichen, A. Rohlmann, J. Strauss, and
G.N. Duda. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. Journal of
Biomechanics, 2001.
A.H. Burstein, D.T. Reilly, and M. Martens. Aging of bone tissue: Mechanical properties.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1976.
B. Demes. In vivo bone strain and bone functional adaptation. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 2007.
R.L. Drake, W.Vogl, and A.W Mitchell. Grays anatomy for students, 2004.
F.G Evans and A.L. King. Regional dierences in some physical properties of human
spongy bone. Biomechanical Studies of the Musco-Skeletal System, 1961.
H.M. Frost. From wols law to the mechanostat: A new face of physiology. Journal of
Orthopaedic Science, 1998.
H.M. Frost. Bones mechanostat: A 2003 update. The Anatomical Record, 2003.
S.A. Goldstein. The mechanical properties of trabecular bone: Dependence on anatomic
location and function. Journal of Biomechanics, 1987.
M.O. Heller, G. Bergmann, J.P. Kassi, L. Claes, N.P. Haas, and G.N. Duda. Determination
of muscle loading at the hip joint for use in pre-clinical testing. Journal of Biomechanics,
2005.
H.W.J. Huiskes. Analyses of Trabecular Bone Failure, chapter 1: General Introduction.
2006.
R. Huiskes, J.D. Jansen, and T.J. Sloof. A detailed comparison of experimental and theo-
retical stress analysis of a human femur. Mechanical properties of Bones, 1981.
John C. Koch. American Journal of Anatomy, volume 21, chapter The Laws of Bone
Architecture, pages 177298. 1917.
D.E. Lieberman, J.D. Polk, and B. Demes. Predicting long bone loading from cross-
sectional geometry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004.
R.A. Melick and D.R. Miller. Variations of tensile strength of human cortical bone with
age. Clin. Science, 1966.
Z. Miller, M.B. Fuchs, and M. Arcan. Trabecular bone adaptation with a orthotropic
material model. Journal of Biomechanics, 2001.
75
M.Martens, R. Van Audekercke, P. De Meester, and J.C. Mulier. The geometrical prop-
erties of human femur and tibia and their importance for the mechanical behaviour of
these bone structures. Archives of Orthopaedic and Traumatic Surgery, 1980.
L. Modenese, A.T.M. Phillips, and A.M.J. Bull. An open source lower limb model: Hip
joint validation. Journal of Biomechanics, 2011.
A. Nather, HJC Ong, and Z. Aziz. Bone Grafts and Bone Substitutes, chapter 1: Structure
of Bone. 2005.
A.T.M Phillips. The femur as a musculo-skeletal construct: A free boundary condition
modelling approach. Medical Engineering & Physics, 2009.
A.T.M Phillips. Structural optimisation: Biomechanics of the femur. Engineering and
Computational Mechanics, 2011.
T. R uberg. Computer simulation of adaptive bone remodelling. Masters thesis, Technische
Universitat Braunschweig, 2003.
J.Y. Rho, M.C. Hobatho, and R.B. Ashman. Relations of mechanical properties to density
and ct numbers in human bone. Med. Eng. Phys., 1995.
E.M. Setzer. A review of wols law of the transformation of bone. The Angle Orthodontist,
2004.
M. Singh, A.R. Nagrath, and P.S. Maini. Changes in trabecular pattern of the upper end
of the femur as an index of osteoporosis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1970.
T.M. Skerry. One mechanostat or many? modications of the site-specic response of bone
to mechanical loading by nature and nurture. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2006,
2006.
A.D. Speirs, M.O. Heller, G.N. Duda, and W.R. Taylor. Physiologically based boundary
conditions in nite element modelling. Journal of Biomechanics, 2007.
P. Stephenson and B.B. Seedhom. Cross-sectional geometry of the human femur in the
mid-third region. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 1998.
J.A. Szivek, J.B. Benjamin, and P.L. Anderson. An experimental mehod for the appli-
cation of lateral muscle loading and its eect on femoral strain distributions. Medical
Engineering and Physics, 2000.
A. Thibon. Meso-scale predictive structural modelling of the lower limb. Masters thesis,
Imperial College of London, 2011.
C.H. Turner, J. Rho, Y. Takano, T.Y. Tsui, and G.M. Pharr. The elastic properties of tra-
becular and cortical bone tissues are similar: results from two microscopic measurement
techniques. Journal of Biomechanics, 1998.
76
J. Wol. The Law of Bone Remodelling. Springer-Verlag, 1987.
77

APPENDICES

The iterative algorithm
1. Lecture of the excel input les
1
2 clear all;
3
4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6 %Lecture of the excel files
7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8
9 coor=xlsread(coor.xlsx); %nodes coordinates
10 connec=xlsread(liaison.xlsx); %connectivity table
11 dof=xlsread(dofe.xlsx); %degrees of liberty table
12 %load cases
13 load(:,:,1)=xlsread(forcewalk20.xlsx);
79
41 load(:,:,29)=xlsread(forcestair22.xlsx);
50 load(:,:,38)=xlsread(forcesit31.xlsx);
80
2. Denition of the problem parameters
1 %Problem Parameters
2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3
4 %Number of elements
5 Ne=119;
6 %Number of nodes
7 Nn=119;
8 %Number of unknows
9 Ndof=708;
10 %Number of variable
11 Nvariable=Nn*6;
12 %Number of elements composing the femur
13 Nfemur=33;
14
15 %element length
16 for e=1:Ne,
17 nodes=connec(e,:);
18 Le(1,e)=sqrt((coor(nodes(2),1)-coor(nodes(1),1))^2 + ...
19 (coor(nodes(2),2)-coor(nodes(1),2))^2 + ...
20 (coor(nodes(2),3)-coor(nodes(1),3))^2);
21 end
22
23 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24 %General Material properties
25 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26
27 %Young Modulus
28 E=zeros(1,Ne);
29 for e=1:Nfemur,
30 E(1,e)=18000;
31 end
32 for e=(Nfemur+1):Ne,
33 E(1,e)=18000000;
34 end
35
36 %Poissons ratio
37 nu=0.3;
38
39 %Shear Modulus
40 G=zeros(1,Ne);
41 for e=1:Nfemur,
42 G(1,e)=E(1,e)/(2*(1+nu));
43 end
44 for e=(Nfemur+1):Ne,
81
45 G(1,e)=E(1,e)/(2*(1+nu));
46 end
47
48 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49 %External forces
50 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
51
52 for i=1:68,
53 for e=1:Ne,
54 f(:,e,i)=[load(e,1,i);load(e,2,i);load(e,3,i);load(e,4,i);load(e,5,i);...
55 load(e,6,i);load(e,7,i);load(e,8,i);load(e,9,i);load(e,10,i);...
56 load(e,11,i);load(e,12,i)];
57 end
58 end
59
60 %target strain
61 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
62
63 targetstrain=1250*10^(-6)*ones(1,Nfemur);
64
65 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3. Initialisation of the algorithm
1
2 %Initialisation of the algorithm
3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4
5 %Geometrical parameters
6 for e=1:Ne,
7 t(1,e)=5;
8 Ro1(1,e)=13;
9 Ro2(1,e)=15;
10 end
11
12 %Mechanical properties of the sections
13 A=zeros(1,Ne);
14 Iz1=zeros(1,e);
15 Iy1=zeros(1,Ne);
16 J=zeros(1,Ne);
17
18 for e=1:Ne,
19 A(1,e)=pi*((Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)*(Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)) - ...
20 pi*((Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)*(Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2));
21 Iz1(1,e)=(pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)*(Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)^3) - ...
22 (pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)*(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^3);
82
23 Iy1(1,e)=(pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)^3*(Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)) - ...
24 (pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^3*(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2));
25 p(1,e)=pi*sqrt(2*((Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)^2+(Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)^2)-...
26 ((Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2-Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^2)/2.2)+...
27 pi*sqrt(2*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^2+(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^2)-...
28 ((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2-Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)^2)/2.2);
29 Zt(1,e)=2*pi*t(1,e)*(Ro2(1,e))*(Ro1(1,e));
30 J(1,e)=(2*Zt(1,e)^2)/(t(1,e)*p(1,e));
31 end
32
33 %limitation values
34 minA=50;
35 minI=500;
36 mint=0.1;
37 maxt=8;
38 minR=12;
39 for e=1:5,
40 maxR(1,e)=30;
41 end
42 for e=6:25,
43 maxR(1,e)=30;
44 end
45 for e=26:33,
46 maxR(1,e)=30;
47 end
4. Optimisation of the angular parameter
1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2 % Optimisation of the angle
3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4
5 for i=1:68, %Loop on the load cases
6
7 phi=zeros(1,Ne); %Angle Parameter
8 for e=1:Ne,
9 phi(1,e,1)=0;
10 end
11 j=0;
12 cpt=0;
13 counter=1;
14
15 while(cpt<Nfemur) && (j<50) % loop until the angle parameter is optimised
16 %Determination of the maximum bending strain values associated to all the load
cases for each element
17
83
18 j=j+1;
19
20 %Element stiffness matrix in the principal axes
21
22 for e=1:Ne,
23 k(:,:,e)=[A(1,e)*E(1,e)/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 -(A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0
0;...
24 0 (12*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^3 0 0 0 (6*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0
(-12*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^3 0 0 0 (6*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)
^2;...
25 0 0 (12*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^3 0 (-6*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0 0 0
(-12*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^3 0 (-6*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2
0;...
26 0 0 0 (G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (-G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0;...
27 0 0 (-6*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0 (4*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0
(6*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0 (2*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0;...
28 0 (6*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0 0 0 (4*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 (-6*E
(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0 0 0 (2*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e);...
29 -(A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0;...
30 0 (-12*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^3 0 0 0 (-6*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0
(12*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^3 0 0 0 (-6*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)
^2;...
31 0 0 (-12*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^3 0 (6*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0 0 0
(12*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^3 0 (6*E(1,e)*Iy1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0;...
32 0 0 0 (-G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0;...
(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)^2 0 0 0 (4*E(1,e)*Iz1(1,e))/Le(1,e)];
35 end
36
37 %Initialisation of Z (rotation matrix from local axis to principal
38 %axis)
39 for e=1:Ne,
40 Z(:,:,e)=[1 0 0;0 1 0;0 0 1];
41 end
42
43 %Rotation matrix from local axes to principal axes
44 a=zeros(1,Ne);
45 if(j>1)
46 s=size(phi);
47 for x=1:s(3),
48 for e=1:Ne,
49 a(1,e)=a(1,e)+phi(1,e,x);
50 end
84
51 end
52 end
53
54 for e=1:Ne,
55 Z(:,:,e)=[1 0 0;0 cosd(a(1,e)) sind(a(1,e));0 -sind(a(1,e)) cosd(a(1,e))]*Z
(:,:,e);
56 end
57
58 %Global rotation matrix from global axes to principal axes
59 globalvector=[1 0 0];
60 for e=1:Ne,
62 if coor(nodes(1),1)==coor(nodes(2),1) && coor(nodes(1),2)==coor(nodes(2)
,2)
63 if coor(nodes(2),3)> coor(nodes(1),3)
64 lambda=[0 0 1;0 1 0;-1 0 0];
65 else
66 lambda=[0 0 -1;0 1 0;1 0 0];
67 end
68 else
69 CXx=(coor(nodes(2),1) - coor(nodes(1),1))/Le(1,e);
70 CYx=(coor(nodes(2),2) - coor(nodes(1),2))/Le(1,e);
71 CZx=(coor(nodes(2),3) - coor(nodes(1),3))/Le(1,e);
72 D=sqrt(CXx*CXx+CYx*CYx);
73 CXy=-CYx/D;
74 CYy=CXx/D;
75 CZy=0;
76 CXz=-CXx*CZx/D;
77 CZz=D;
78 CYz=-CYx*CZx/D;
79 lambda=[CXx CYx CZx;CXy CYy CZy;CXz CYz CZz];
80 end
81
82
83 R(:,:,e)=[Z(:,:,e)*lambda zeros(3,9);zeros(3) Z(:,:,e)*lambda zeros(3,6);...
84 zeros(3,6) Z(:,:,e)*lambda zeros(3);zeros(3,9) Z(:,:,e)*lambda];
85
86 kdash(1:12,1:12,e)=R(:,:,e)*k(:,:,e)*R(:,:,e);
87
88 end
89
90 %Stiffness Matrix assemblage
91 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
92
93 %Initialisation
85
94 K=zeros(Ndof,Ndof);
95 F=zeros(Ndof,1);
96 displge=zeros(Nn,6);
97
98 Fext=zeros(Ndof,1);
99
100
101 for e=1:Ne,
103 dofe=dof(nodes,:);
104 dofe=reshape(dofe,[1,12]);
105 pe=find(dofe>0);
106 Ie=dofe(pe);
107 K(Ie,Ie)=K(Ie,Ie)+kdash(pe,pe,e);
108 pe_Ude=find(dofe<0);
109 Ie_Ude=-dofe(pe_Ude);
110 Ude=displge(Ie_Ude);
111 F(Ie)=F(Ie)-kdash(pe,pe_Ude,e)*Ude;
112 end
113
114 %Exterior Forces Assemblage
115 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
116
117 for e=1:Ne,
122 Ie=dofe(pe);
123 Fext(Ie,1)=Fext(Ie,1)+f(pe,e,i);
124 end
125
126 Ft=Fext+F;
127
128 %Resolution
129 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
130
131 U=K\Ft;
132
133 %Displacements
134 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
135 displ1=zeros(Nn,6);
136 ic=find(dof>0);
137 displ1(ic)=U(dof(ic));
138
86
139 d1=reshape(displ1,[Nvariable,1]);
140
141 z=1; %Displacements in the local axis
142 for e=1:Nfemur,
143 dep(:,:,e)=d1(z:z+11,1);
144 dep(:,1,e)=R(:,:,e)*dep(:,1,e);
145 z=z+6;
146 end
147
148 %Strain Computations
149 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
150
151
152 curvez=zeros(1,Nfemur);
153 for e=1:Nfemur,
154 curvez(1,e)=(dep(12,1,e)-dep(6,1,e))/Le(1,e);
155 end
156
157
158
159 curvey=zeros(1,Nfemur);
160 for e=1:Nfemur,
161 curvey(1,e)=(dep(11,1,e)-dep(5,1,e))/Le(1,e);
162 end
163
164
165 %Looking for the maximum bending strain
166 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167
168 counter=counter+1;
169
170 for e=1:Nfemur,
171 bendingstrainmax1=0;
172 anglemax=0;
173 theta=0;
174 c=Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2;
175 b=Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2;
176
177 while(theta<=360) %Loop on the general parameter theta to describe the
178 y=c*cosd(theta); %hollow elliptical section
179 z=b*sind(theta);
180 X=curvey(1,e)*z-curvez(1,e)*y;
181 if(X>bendingstrainmax1)
182 bendingstrainmax1=X;
183 anglemax=theta;
87
184 end
185 theta=theta+0.1;
186 end
187 phi(1,e,counter)=anglemax-90;
188 bendingstrainmax(1,e,i)=bendingstrainmax1; %Determination of the
189 % maximum bending strain value
190 end
191
192 %Check for the convergence
193 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
194
195 cpt=0;
196
197 for e=1:Nfemur,
198 if ((phi(1,e,counter)>359.89999) || ((phi(1,e,counter)<0.100001)&&(phi(1,
e,counter)>0))) || ...
199 ((phi(1,e,counter)>-0.100001) && (phi(1,e,counter)<0))
200 cpt=cpt+1;
201 end
202 end
203 end
204
205 end
206
207 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
208 %Determining the maximum bending strain for one element for all the load
209 %cases
210
211 for e=1:Nfemur,
212
213 M=0;
214
215 for i=1:68,
216 M=[M bendingstrainmax(1,e,i)]; %Looking for the maximum value among
217 % the maximum bending strain values for one
218 % element
219 end
220
221 [X,W]=max(M);
222
223 indic(1,e)=W-1;
224 end
225
226 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
227
88
228 angle=zeros(1,Ne);
229
230 for e1=1:Nfemur, %Loop on the elements
231 phi=zeros(1,Ne);
232 for e=1:Ne,
233 phi(1,e,1)=0;
234 end
235 j=0;
236 cpt=0;
237 counter=1;
238
239 while(cpt<Nfemur) && (j<50) %Loop until the parameter is optimised for each of
240 %the elements
241
242 j=j+1;
243
244 for e=1:Ne,
0;...
^2;...
0;...
248 0 0 0 (G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (-G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0;...
251 -(A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0;...
^2;...
254 0 0 0 (-G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0;...
257 end
258
260 %axis)
89
261 for e=1:Ne,
262 Z(:,:,e)=[1 0 0;0 1 0;0 0 1];
263 end
264
265 %Rotation matrix from local axes to principal axes
266 a=zeros(1,Ne);
267 if(j>1)
268 s=size(phi);
269 for x=1:s(3),
270 for e=1:Ne,
271 a(1,e)=a(1,e)+phi(1,e,x);
272 end
273 end
274 end
275
276 for e=1:Ne,
277 Z(:,:,e)=[1 0 0;0 cosd(a(1,e)) sind(a(1,e));0 -sind(a(1,e)) cosd(a(1,e))]*Z
(:,:,e);
278 end
279
282 for e=1:Ne,
,2)
286 lambda=[0 0 1;0 1 0;-1 0 0];
287 else
288 lambda=[0 0 -1;0 1 0;1 0 0];
289 end
290 else
295 CXy=-CYx/D;
296 CYy=CXx/D;
297 CZy=0;
298 CXz=-CXx*CZx/D;
299 CZz=D;
300 CYz=-CYx*CZx/D;
302 end
303
90
304
307
308 kdash(1:12,1:12,e)=R(:,:,e)*k(:,:,e)*R(:,:,e);
309
310 end
311
313 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
314
315 %Initialisation
317 F=zeros(Ndof,1);
319 displ=zeros(Nn,6);
320
321 for e=1:Ne,
326 Ie=dofe(pe);
330 Ude=displ(Ie_Ude);
332 end
333
335 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336
337 for e=1:Ne,
342 Ie=dofe(pe);
343 Fext(Ie,1)=Fext(Ie,1)+f(pe,e,indic(1,e1));
344 end
345
346 Ft = Fext + F;
347
348 %Resolution
91
349 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
350
351 U=K\Ft;
352
353 %Displacements
354 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
355
356 ic=find(dof>0);
357 displ(ic)=U(dof(ic));
358 d=reshape(displ,[Nvariable,1]);
359
360 z=1;
361 for e=1:Nfemur,
362 dep(:,:,e)=d(z:z+11,1);
363 dep(:,1,e)=R(:,:,e)*dep(:,1,e);
364 z=z+6;
365 end
366
368 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
369
370 %Axial strain
371 axialstrain=zeros(1,Nfemur);
372 for e=1:Nfemur,
373 axialstrain(1,e)=(dep(7,1,e)-dep(1,1,e))/Le(1,e);
374 end
375
376 %Bending strain
379 for e=1:Nfemur,
380 curvey(1,e)=(dep(11,1,e) - dep(5,1,e))/Le(1,e);
381 curvez(1,e)=(dep(12,1,e) - dep(6,1,e))/Le(1,e);
382 end
383
385 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
386
387 counter=counter+1;
388
389 for e=1:Nfemur,
391 anglemax=0;
392 theta=0;
393 c=Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2;
92
394 b=Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2;
395
396 while (theta<=360)
397 y=c*cosd(theta);
399 X=+curvey(1,e)*z-curvez(1,e)*(y);
402 anglemax=theta;
403 end
404 theta=theta+0.1;
405 end
406 phi(1,e,counter)=anglemax-90;
407 if(bendingstrainmax(1,e1,indic(e1))==bendingstrainmax1)
408 333 %Test
409 end
410
411 end
412
413 %Check for the convergence
414 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
415
416 cpt=0;
417
418 for e=1:Nfemur,
419 if ((phi(1,e,counter)>359.89999) || ((phi(1,e,counter)<0.100001)&&(phi(1,
e,counter)>0))) || ...
420 ((phi(1,e,counter)>-0.100001) && (phi(1,e,counter)<0))
421 cpt=cpt+1;
422 end
423 end
424 end
425
426 a=zeros(1,Ne);
427 s=size(phi);
428 for x=1:s(3),
429 for e=1:Ne,
430 a(1,e)=a(1,e)+phi(1,e,x);
431 end
432 end
433 angle(1,e1)=a(1,e1); % The optimised parameter phi for the element e1.
434
435 end
93
5. Fixing the parameter
1
3 %axis)
4 for e=1:Ne,
5 Z(:,:,e)=[1 0 0;0 1 0;0 0 1];
6 end
7
8
9 for e=1:Ne,
10 Z(:,:,e)=[1 0 0;0 cosd(angle(1,e)) sind(angle(1,e));0 -sind(angle(1,e)) cosd
(angle(1,e))]*Z(:,:,e);
11 end
12 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6. Optimising the parameters R
1
, R
2
and t
1 %Optimisation of the parameters Ro1, Ro2 and t
2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3
4 %Initialisation of the loop
5 j=0;
6 cpt=0;
7
8
9 while (j<200) % Number of iterations (can be changed)
10
11 j=j+1;
12
13 for i=1:68, %Loop on the load cases
14
16
17 for e=1:Ne,
0;...
^2;...
0;...
21 0 0 0 (G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (-G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0;...
94
24 -(A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0;...
^2;...
27 0 0 0 (-G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0;...
30 end
31
34 for e=1:Ne,
,2)
38 lambda=[0 0 1;0 1 0;-1 0 0];
39 else
40 lambda=[0 0 -1;0 1 0;1 0 0];
41 end
42 else
47 CXy=-CYx/D;
48 CYy=CXx/D;
49 CZy=0;
50 CXz=-CXx*CZx/D;
51 CZz=D;
52 CYz=-CYx*CZx/D;
54 end
55
56
59
60 kdash(1:12,1:12,e)=R(:,:,e)*k(:,:,e)*R(:,:,e);
95
61
62 end
63
65 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66
67 %Initialisation
69 F=zeros(Ndof,1);
71
73
74 for e=1:Ne,
78 pe=find(dofe>0);
79 Ie=dofe(pe);
85 end
86
88 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
89
90 for e=1:Ne,
94 pe=find(dofe>0);
95 Ie=dofe(pe);
97 end
98
99 Ft=Fext+F;
100
101 %Resolution
102 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103
104 U=K\Ft;
105
96
106 %Displacements
107 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
109
110 ic=find(dof>0);
111
113
115
116
117 z=1;
118 for e=1:Nfemur,
119 dep(:,:,e)=d1(z:z+11,1);
120 dep(:,1,e)=R(:,:,e)*dep(:,1,e);
121 z=z+6;
122 end
123
125 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
126
127
129 for e=1:Nfemur,
131 end
132
133
134
136 for e=1:Nfemur,
138 end
139
140
141 %Looking for the maximum bending strain for each element
142 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
143
144
145 for e=1:Nfemur,
147 anglemax=0;
148 theta=0;
149 c=Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2;
150 b=Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2;
97
151
152 while(theta<=360)
158 abs1(1,e)=y;
159 ord1(1,e)=z;
160 end
161 theta=theta+5; % Can be changed to reduce the computational time
162 end
163 end
164
166 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167
168 axialstrain(:,:)=zeros(1,Nfemur);
169 for e=1:Nfemur,
170 axialstrain(1,e)=(dep(7,1,e)-dep(1,1,e))/Le(1,e);
171 end
172
173
174 bendingstrainz1(:,:)=zeros(1,Nfemur);
175 curvez(:,:)=zeros(1,Nfemur);
176 for e=1:Nfemur,
178 bendingstrainz1(1,e)=-curvez(1,e)*abs1(1,e);
179 end
180
181
182 bendingstrainy1(:,:)=zeros(1,Nfemur);
183 curvey(:,:)=zeros(1,Nfemur);
184 for e=1:Nfemur,
186 bendingstrainy1(1,e)=curvey(1,e)*ord1(1,e);
187 end
188
189 totalbendingstrain1=zeros(1,Nfemur);
190 for e=1:Nfemur,
191 totalbendingstrain1(1,e)=bendingstrainz1(1,e)+bendingstrainy1(1,e);
192 end
193
194
195
98
196 %Optimisation on three strages
197 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
198
199 %optimisation of t based on the axial strain
200
201 if (mod(j,3)==0)
202
203 totalstrain=zeros(1,Nfemur);
204
205 for e=1:Nfemur,
206 totalstrain(1,e)=axialstrain(1,e)+totalbendingstrain1(1,e);
207 targetaxialstrain(1,e)=abs((targetstrain(1,e)*axialstrain(1,e))/(
totalstrain(1,e))); %target axial strain
208
209 difference=targetaxialstrain(1,e)-abs(axialstrain(1,e));
210 tol=0.05*targetaxialstrain(1,e);
211 if(difference<-tol)
212 Ra(1,e)=targetaxialstrain(1,e)/abs(axialstrain(1,e));
213 A1(1,e)=max(max(A(1,e)/Ra(1,e),A(1,e)/2),minA);
214 end
215
216 if(difference>tol)
217 Ra(1,e)=targetaxialstrain(1,e)/abs(axialstrain(1,e));
218 A1(1,e)=max(max(A(1,e)/Ra(1,e),A(1,e)/2),minA);
219 end
220
221 if((difference>-tol) && (difference<tol)) || (difference==0)
222 A1(1,e,i)=A(1,e);
223 end
224
225 X=newtonaire(t(1,e),0.001,A1(1,e),Ro1(1,e),Ro2(1,e)); %Newton Method
to solve the equation
226 if(X>maxt)
227 t1(1,e,i)=maxt;
228 end
229 if(X<mint)
230 t1(1,e,i)=mint;
231 end
232 if(X<maxt) && (X>mint)
233 t1(1,e,i)=X;
234 end
235
236 end
237 end
238
99
239 %Optimisation of Ro2 based on the bending strain about y1
240
241 if (mod(j,3)==2)
242
244
245 for e=1:Nfemur,
247 targettotalbendingstrain1(1,e)=abs((targetstrain(1,e)*
totalbendingstrain1(1,e))/(totalstrain(1,e))); %target value
248 targetbendingstrainy1(1,e)=abs((bendingstrainy1(1,e)*
targettotalbendingstrain1(1,e))/(totalbendingstrain1(1,e))); %
target value
249
250 difference=targetbendingstrainy1(1,e)-abs(bendingstrainy1(1,e));
251 tol=0.05*targetbendingstrainy1(1,e);
253 Rb1(1,e)=targetbendingstrainy1(1,e)/abs(bendingstrainy1(1,e));
254 Iy1t(1,e)=max(max(Iy1(1,e)/Rb1(1,e),Iy1(1,e)/2),minI);
255 end
256
258 Rb1(1,e)=targetbendingstrainy1(1,e)/abs(bendingstrainy1(1,e));
259 Iy1t(1,e)=max(max(Iy1(1,e)/Rb1(1,e),Iy1(1,e)/2),minI);
260 end
261
263 Iy1t(1,e)=Iy1(1,e);
264 end
265
266 X=newtonbendingy1(Ro2(1,e),0.001,Iy1t(1,e),Ro1(1,e),t(1,e));
267 if(X>maxR(1,e))
268 Ro2t(1,e,i)=maxR(1,e);
269 end
270 if(X<minR)
271 Ro2t(1,e,i)=minR;
272 end
273 if(X<maxR(1,e)) && (X>minR)
274 Ro2t(1,e,i)=X;
275 end
276
277 end
278 end
279
280
100
281 %Optimisation of Ro1 based on the bending strain about z1
282
283 if (mod(j,3)==1)
284
286
287 for e=1:Nfemur,
289 targettotalbendingstrain1(1,e)=abs((targetstrain(1,e)*
totalbendingstrain1(1,e))/(totalstrain(1,e))); %target value
290 targetbendingstrainz1(1,e)=abs((bendingstrainz1(1,e)*
targettotalbendingstrain1(1,e))/(totalbendingstrain1(1,e)));%
target value
291
292 difference=targetbendingstrainz1(1,e)-abs(bendingstrainz1(1,e));
293 tol=0.05*targetbendingstrainz1(1,e);
295 Rb1(1,e)=targetbendingstrainz1(1,e)/abs(bendingstrainz1(1,e));
296 Iz1t(1,e)=max(max(Iz1(1,e)/Rb1(1,e),Iz1(1,e)/2),minI);
297 end
298
300 Rb1(1,e)=targetbendingstrainz1(1,e)/abs(bendingstrainz1(1,e));
301 Iz1t(1,e)=max(max(Iz1(1,e)/Rb1(1,e),Iz1(1,e)/2),minI);
302 end
303
305 Iz1t(1,e)=Iz1(1,e);
306 end
307
308 X=newtonbendingz1(Ro1(1,e),0.001,Iz1t(1,e),Ro2(1,e),t(1,e));
309 if(X>maxR(1,e))
310 Ro1t(1,e,i)=maxR(1,e);
311 end
312 if(X<minR)
313 Ro1t(1,e,i)=minR;
314 end
315 if(X<maxR(1,e)) && (X>minR)
316 Ro1t(1,e,i)=X;
317 end
318
319 end
320 end
321
322 end
101
323
324 if(mod(j,3)==0) %Determination of the maximum value of t for each of the element
325 for e=1:Nfemur,
326 M=0;
327 for i=1:68,
328 M=[M t1(1,e,i)];
329 end
330 t(1,e)=max(M);
331
332 A(1,e)=pi*((Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)*(Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)) - ...
333 pi*((Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)*(Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2));
335 (pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)*(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^3);
337 (pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^3*(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2));
339 ((Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2-Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^2)/2.2)+...
341 ((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2-Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)^2)/2.2);
342 Zt(1,e)=2*pi*t(1,e)*(Ro2(1,e))*(Ro1(1,e));
343 J(1,e)=(2*Zt(1,e)^2)/(t(1,e)*p(1,e));
344
345 end
346 end
347
348 if(mod(j,3)==1) %Determination of the maximum value of Ro1 for each of the
element
349 for e=1:Nfemur,
350 M=0;
351 for i=1:68,
352 M=[M Ro1t(1,e,i)];
353 end
354 Ro1(1,e)=max(M);
355
356 A(1,e)=pi*((Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)*(Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)) - ...
357 pi*((Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)*(Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2));
359 (pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)*(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^3);
361 (pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^3*(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2));
363 ((Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2-Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^2)/2.2)+...
365 ((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2-Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)^2)/2.2);
366 Zt(1,e)=2*pi*t(1,e)*(Ro2(1,e))*(Ro1(1,e));
102
367 J(1,e)=(2*Zt(1,e)^2)/(t(1,e)*p(1,e));
368
369 end
370 end
371
372 if(mod(j,3)==2) %Determination of the maximum value of Ro3 for each of the
element
373 for e=1:Nfemur,
374 M=0;
375 for i=1:68,
376 M=[M Ro2t(1,e,i)];
377 end
378 Ro2(1,e)=max(M);
379
380 A(1,e)=pi*((Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)*(Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)) - ...
381 pi*((Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)*(Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2));
383 (pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)*(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^3);
385 (pi/4)*((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^3*(Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2));
387 ((Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2-Ro1(1,e)-t(1,e)/2)^2)/2.2)+...
389 ((Ro2(1,e)-t(1,e)/2-Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2)^2)/2.2);
390 Zt(1,e)=2*pi*t(1,e)*(Ro2(1,e))*(Ro1(1,e));
391 J(1,e)=(2*Zt(1,e)^2)/(t(1,e)*p(1,e));
392
393 end
394 end
395
396 end
7. Final loop to check if the strains lie in the lazy zone
1 %Final loop
2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3
4
5 for i=1:68,
6 j=0;
7 cpt=0;
8 counter=1;
9
11
12 for e=1:Ne,
103
0;...
^2;...
0;...
16 0 0 0 (G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (-G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0;...
19 -(A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (A(1,e)*E(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0;...
^2;...
22 0 0 0 (-G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0 0 0 0 (G(1,e)*J(1,e))/Le(1,e) 0 0;...
25 end
26
27
28 for e=1:Ne,
29 Z(:,:,e)=[1 0 0;0 cosd(angle(1,e)) sind(angle(1,e));0 -sind(angle(1,e)) cosd
(angle(1,e))]*Z(:,:,e);
30 end
31
34 for e=1:Ne,
,2)
38 lambda=[0 0 1;0 1 0;-1 0 0];
39 else
40 lambda=[0 0 -1;0 1 0;1 0 0];
41 end
42 else
104
47 CXy=-CYx/D;
48 CYy=CXx/D;
49 CZy=0;
50 CXz=-CXx*CZx/D;
51 CZz=D;
52 CYz=-CYx*CZx/D;
54 end
55
56
59
60 kdash(1:12,1:12,e)=R(:,:,e)*k(:,:,e)*R(:,:,e);
61
62 end
63
65 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66
67 %Initialisation
69 F=zeros(Ndof,1);
71
73
74
75 for e=1:Ne,
79 pe=find(dofe>0);
80 Ie=dofe(pe);
86 end
87
105
89 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
90
91 for e=1:Ne,
95 pe=find(dofe>0);
96 Ie=dofe(pe);
98 end
99
100 Ft=Fext+F;
101
102 %Resolution
103 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104
105 U=K\Ft;
106
107 %Displacements
108 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
110
111 ic=find(dof>0);
112
114
116
117
118 z=1;
119 for e=1:Nfemur,
120 dep(:,:,e)=d1(z:z+11,1);
121 dep(:,1,e)=R(:,:,e)*dep(:,1,e);
122 z=z+6;
123 end
124
126 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
127 axialstrain(:,:,i)=zeros(1,Nfemur);
128 for e=1:Nfemur,
129 axialstrain(1,e,i)=(dep(7,1,e)-dep(1,1,e))/Le(1,e);
130 end
131
133 for e=1:Nfemur,
106
135 end
136
138 for e=1:Nfemur,
140 end
141
142
144 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
145
146
147 for e=1:Nfemur,
149 anglemax=0;
150 theta=0;
151 c=Ro1(1,e)+t(1,e)/2;
152 b=Ro2(1,e)+t(1,e)/2;
153
154 while(theta<=360)
160 anglemax=theta;
161 end
162 theta=theta+5;
163 end
164 bendingstrainmax(1,e,i)=bendingstrainmax1;
165 end
166 end
167
168 %Maximum strain values associated to all the load cases for each of the
169 %element
170
171 for i=1:68,
172 strainmax1(:,:,i)=zeros(1,Nfemur);
173 for e=1:Nfemur,
174 strainmax1(1,e,i)=axialstrain(1,e,i)+bendingstrainmax(1,e,i);
175 end
176 end
177
178 %Determination of the maximum value of the maximum bending strain values
107
179 max1=zeros(1,25);
180 max3=zeros(1,68);
181
182 for e=1:25,
183 M1=0;
184 for i=1:68,
185 M1=[M1 abs(strainmax1(1,e,i))];
186 end
187 max1(1,e)=max(M1);
188 end
189
190 for i=1:68,
191 M3=0;
192 for e=1:25,
193 M3=[M3 abs(strainmax1(1,e,i))];
194 end
195 max3(1,i)=max(M3);
196 end
108
Newton Method
1 function x = newtonaire(x0,eps,A,r1,r2) %To calculate the parameter t from the
area A
2 err=1;
3 xt=x0;x=x0;
4 nb=0;
5
6 while(err>eps)
7 nb=nb+1;
8 x=x-faire(A,r1,r2,x)/dfaire(A,r1,r2,x);
9 err=norm(x-xt);
10 xt=x;
11 end
12
13 function y = faire(A,r1,r2,t)
14 y=pi*(r1+t/2)*(r2+t/2)-pi*(r1-t/2)*(r2-t/2)-A;
15
16 function y = dfaire(A,r1,r2,t)
17 y=(pi/2)*(r2+t/2)+(pi/2)*(r1+t/2)+(pi/2)*(r2-t/2)+(pi/2)*(r1-t/2);
18
19
20
21
22 function x = newtonbendingy1(x0,eps,I1,r,t) %To calculate the parameter R2 from
Iy1
23 err=1;
24 xt=x0;x=x0;
25 nb=0;
26
27 while(err>eps)
28 nb=nb+1;
29 x=x-fbendingy1(r,x,t,I1)/dfbendingy1(r,x,t);
30 err=norm(x-xt);
31 xt=x;
32 end
33
34 function y = fbendingy1(r1,r2,t,I2)
35 y=(pi/4)*(r1+t/2)*(r2+t/2)^3 - (pi/4)*(r1-t/2)*(r2-t/2)^3 - I2;
36
37 function y = dfbendingy1(r1,r2,t)
109
38 y=((3*pi)/4)*(r1+t/2)*(r2+t/2)^2 - ((3*pi)/4)*(r1-t/2)*(r2-t/2)^2;
39
40
41
42
43 function x = newtonbendingz1(x0,eps,I1,r,t) %To optimise the parameter R1 from
Iz1
44 err=1;
45 xt=x0;x=x0;
46 nb=0;
47
48 while(err>eps)
49 nb=nb+1;
50 x=x-fbendingz1(x,r,t,I1)/dfbendingz1(x,r,t);
51 err=norm(x-xt);
52 xt=x;
53 end
54
55 function y = fbendingz1(r1,r2,t,I1)
56 y=(pi/4)*(r2+t/2)*(r1+t/2)^3 - (pi/4)*(r2-t/2)*(r1-t/2)^3 - I1;
57
58 function y = dfbendingz1(r1,r2,t)
59 y=((3*pi)/4)*(r2+t/2)*(r1+t/2)^2 - ((3*pi)/4)*(r2-t/2)*(r1-t/2)^2;
110

Meyer E 2011 Civil MSC Thesis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Meyer E 2011 Civil MSC Thesis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

), belonged to the beam section are equal to:

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi