Concurrent Multibody and Finite Element Analysis of the
Lower-Limb During Amputee Running *
Stacey M. Rigney, Anne Simmons, and Lauren Kark, Member, IEEE
1. 
Abstract—Lower-limb amputee athletes use Carbon fiber
Energy Storage and Return (ESAR) prostheses during high
impact activities such as running. The advantage provided to
amputee athletes due to the energy-storing properties of ESAR
prostheses is as yet uncertain. Conventional energy analysis
methods for prostheses rely upon multibody models with
articulating joints. Alternatively, Finite Element (FE) analysis
treats bodies as a deforming continuum and can therefore
calculate the energy stored without using these rigid-body
mechanics assumptions. This paper presents a concurrent
multibody and FE model of the femur, tibia, socket and ESAR
prosthesis of a transtibial amputee athlete during sprinting.
Gait analysis spatial data was used to conduct an offline
simulation of the affected leg’s stance phase in COMSOL
Multiphysics. The calculated peak elastic strain energy of the
prosthesis was 80J, with an overall RMSE of simulated marker
displacement of 4.19mm. This concurrent model presents a
novel method for analyzing in vivo ESAR prosthesis behavior.
I. INTRODUCTION
The proportion of athletes and highly active people within
the amputee population is increasing [1], which has resulted
in the development of carbon-fiber Energy Storage and
Return (ESAR) prostheses for high impact activities. These
prostheses are designed to behave as springs, storing and
returning energy during the stance phase of gait. Recently it
has been asked whether lower-limb amputees sprinting with
ESAR prostheses have an unfair advantage over their able-
bodied counterparts [2]. In order to ascertain whether
amputee athletes are indeed super-abled versus disabled, first
we must develop accurate mechanical models for simulated
and experimental data acquisition.
The methods commonly used to analyze amputee gait are
based on anatomical models of the lower-limb despite
inherent inaccuracies [3], namely the violation of the rigid-
body mechanics assumptions of conventional inverse
dynamics calculations [4]. Conversely, the material and
geometric construction of ESAR prostheses are purposely
designed to emulate a leaf spring; the function of the
traditional articulating ‘ankle’ joint is replaced by the
inherent compression of the prosthesis. This incongruence
*Research supported provided by the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and Australian Institute of Sport
(AIS) in memory of Dr Tony Collings.
S. M. Rigney is with the Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering,
UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052 AUS (email:
stacey.rigney@unsw.edu.au).
A. Simmons is with the School of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052 AUS (email:
anne.simmons@unsw.edu.au).
L. Kark is with the Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering, UNSW
Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052 AUS (phone: +61 2 9385 0560, email:
lauren.kark@unsw.edu.au).
978-1-4244-9270-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 Crown 2434
therefore raises doubts over the validity and accuracy of
existing amputee running research that relies upon classical
rigid-body mechanics models [5].
As an alternative to rigid-body mechanics, continuum-
mechanics describes not only the rotation and translation of
solids, but also their deformation [6]; continuum-mechanics
is much more suitable for the dynamic analysis of ESAR
prostheses. Finite Element (FE) analysis is a form of
computational modeling based on continuum-mechanics
which can be driven by prescribed displacements to calculate
resulting forces and moments. We propose a subject-specific
multibody model that combines a rigid-body model of the
skeletal elements of the amputated limb with a FE model of
the prosthetic component. Ultimately, the model proposed
here will be expanded into a full dynamic (time-dependent)
simulation with seamless integration between FE and motion
capture software, the results of which can be compared to
conventional rigid-body mechanics methods to determine the
accuracy improvement. The aim of this study is to conduct a
preliminary quasi-static investigation of concurrent
multibody and FE analysis to determine the energy storage
capacity of an ESAR prosthesis during amputee running. We
hypothesize that this new model of the lower-limb will
provide information that would otherwise be unavailable
using rigid-body mechanics, and will therefore be a useful
tool for future gait analysis of amputee running.
II. METHODS
Model development and validation encompassed two
stages: experimental and numerical analysis. Anthropometric
and gait analysis data was first measured in order to develop
a subject-specific lower-limb computational model, and the
material properties of the subject’s prosthesis were calculated
according to a previously described procedure [7]. The
®
numerical analysis utilized COMSOL Multiphysics 4.4
(Stockholm, Sweden) Multi-body Dynamics (MBD) module
to simulate the skeletal and prosthesis components during
stance phase of one of the experimental trials.
A. Experimental data collection
Gait analysis was performed on a healthy 16-year-old
female right-sided transtibial amputee of mass 53.18kg and
height 171.0cm. The subject was accustomed to sprinting on
her Category 2 1E90 Sprinter by Ottobock® (Duderstadt,
Germany), and volunteered for the study in accordance with
UNSW Australia Human Research Ethics Committee
approval HC13054. For five trials, the subject sprinted at
maximum speed along an indoor 100m straight running track
instrumented with eight 9287B 1000Hz Kistler®
(Winterthur, Switzerland) force plates and a MX T40-S
250Hz Vicon® (Denver, Colorado, USA) motion capture
system composed of 20 cameras. The residual limb length,

RPB1 RPL1
RPB2 RPL2
RPB3 RPL3
RTIB
RPL4
RPL5
RPL6
RPL7
RANK
RHEE RTOE
Figure 1. Markers placed on the prosthesis during gait analysis.
x’
z subject’s amputation, measured during experimental gait
α modeled as rigid-bodies using the COMSOL Mutiphysics
y’
z for the carbon fiber component, and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3
y Young’s Modulus of the carbon fiber was estimated from the
x
Figure 2. Translation between coordinate systems and the resulant
angle α made by the prosthesis longitudinal axis z’ with the laboratory
vertical axis z.
socket dimensions and prosthesis measurements were
recorded using Mitutoyo® (Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa, Japan)
digital vernier calipers. Passive-reflective markers were
placed on both sides of the body according to the full-body
Plug-in-gait marker set [8], where locations on the prosthetic
limb were approximated from the height of the anatomical
locations. Ten additional markers were placed on the
prosthesis – three along its longitudinal axis in the sagittal
plane (right prosthesis lateral 1-3, RPL1-3), and three along
its longitudinal axis in the frontal plane (right prosthesis back
1-3, RPB1-3), and four markers along its lateral profile
(RPL4-7) (Figure 1).
Three-dimensional marker position data was exported
from Vicon Nexus® 1.8 in order to determine the
translational and rotational displacement of the lower-limb
anatomical landmarks as well as the range of angles α that the
longitudinal axis of the prosthesis z’ makes with the
laboratory vertical axis z during stance (Figure 2). These
angles were used as boundary conditions for mechanical
testing of the prosthesis, conducted in an Instron® (Norwood,
Massachusetts, USA) testing machine according to the
procedure described previously [7,9,10]. Briefly, the ESAR
prosthesis was held at angles α = 12°, 22° and the free distal
end was compressed with constant strain-rate loading and
unloading of ż = ±0.001ms-1 up to a maximum load of 1000N
using a uniaxial displacement-controlled crosshead fitted
with a 5000N load cell. Vertical reaction force was sampled
at 1000Hz.
B. Numerical model
The anthropometric measurements of the right femur and
tibia were obtained from the marker locations during the in
vivo static trial using the subject-specific scaling function
within OpenSim 3.2 (Stanford, California, USA)
musculoskeletal modeling software [11-15]. Scaled 3D
geometry files of the femur and tibia were then exported from
OpenSim as a *.VTP file, converted into a *.STL file using
the open-source software ParaView 4.2 (Clifton Park, New
York, USA), converted into a CAD file (*.SLDPRT) using
SOLIDWORKS® 2014 (Waltham, Massachusetts, USA)
z’ then imported into COMSOL Multiphysics. Prosthetic
componentry was drawn in SOLIDWORKS using the
y’ measurements taken of the prosthesis and socket. The socket
was approximated as a cylinder and the shoe of the prosthesis
was simplified for modeling purposes. The geometry file of
the right tibia was amputated according to the level of the
analysis.
z’ The skeletal structures and prosthetic socket were
y MBD module; a rigid-body is treated as a homogenous
continuum with zero internal stress [6]. The prosthesis was
modeled as a linearly elastic isotropic homogenous solid with
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 and Young’s Modulus of 3.5×104 MPa
and Young’s Modulus of 1.0×103 MPa for the rubber shoe.
experimental in vitro mechanical testing data using inverse
FE analysis according to the procedure described previously
[7], the result of which was consistent with values provided
in literature for a carbon fiber ESAR prosthesis [16]. All
inertial effects were ignored due to the quasi-static nature of
the simulation.
The residual limb skeletal model was connected to the
socket and prosthetic foot models via fixed attachments with
zero degrees of freedom, whilst the femur and tibia were
connected via a one-degree of freedom (1DOF) hinge joint
about the global x-axis to simulate the knee joint. A 1DOF
rigid-body prescribed angular displacement θx (in the sagittal
plane only) was applied to the femur at the location
corresponding to the RTHI marker, calculated using the
experimental translational displacement of markers RTHI and
RKNE. A 3DOF translational (x,y,z) prescribed displacement
was applied at the location of the RPL1 marker via a rigid
connector at the boundary on the prosthesis domain
corresponding to the socket attachment site. Similarly, a
rigid connector was also applied at the distal boundary of the
prosthetic shoe to prescribe a 3DOF translational
displacement at the RTOE marker. The domains were free to
move in all other degrees of freedom.
A tetrahedral discretization scheme was utilized for all
domains, with a minimum element size of 0.0055m for the
2435
prosthesis geometry as determined via a mesh convergence
study, and 0.143m for the remaining rigid bodies; a minimum 1800 90

Ground Reaction Force (N)

of one element is required for accurate simulation of rigid

Elastic Strain Energy (J)

1500
bodies within COMSOL Multiphysics MBD. A quasi-static 1200 60
parametric solver with intervals of Δt = 0.004s was used to
solve the stance phase of the amputated leg, with initial 900
contact at t = 0.000s and toe-off at t = 0.150s. 600 30

Validation of the in vivo multibody model was achieved 300

through two methods: ground reaction force and marker data. 0 0
The simulated ground reaction force was calculated via a -300
surface integration of the stress along the distal boundary of
-600 -30
the prosthetic shoe, and then compared to the experimental 0 20 40 60 80 100
ground reaction force data. Likewise the displacement of
Stance Phase (%)
points corresponding to markers RPL4, RPL5, RPL6, RPL7,
RANK and RHEE was calculated and compared to the Exp RFx Exp RFy Exp RFz FEA RFx
experimental results. As the experimental markers had a FEA RFy FEA RFz FEA Energy
diameter of 10mm yet were modeled numerically as a single Figure 3. Experimental and simulated ground reaction force
point, the validation acceptance criterion was a RMSE of less
than 10mm. Once validated, the total elastic strain energy MPa
was calculated for each parametric quasi-static time step,
which is the total work done to produce the elastic strain in
the material.

III. RESULTS
The simulated ground reaction force followed the same
pattern as the experimental ground reaction force data,
reaching a peak vertical reaction force of approximately
1700N at t = 0.077s or at 52% of stance phase (Figure 3). The
experimental ground reaction force presented an oscillating
response during initial contact to mid-stance; the quasi-static
simulation was not able to mimic these results. From mi-
stance onwards, the simulated vertical reaction force showed
good agreement with the experimental results. The
longitudinal reaction force, which presents primarily as Figure 4. Von mises stress during mid-stance at t = 0.02s.
friction between the ground and the shoe, changed from
TABLE I. RMSE OF SIMULATED MARKER DISPLACEMENTS
posterior to anterior 0.018s or 12% later in the simulation in
comparison to the experiment. During late stance, the RMSE (mm) x-axis y-axis z-axis Mean
simulated longitudinal reaction force reached a peak that was RPL1 0.00 0.12 0.08 0.07
110N lower than the experimental value. The lateral ground RPL4 2.47 6.51 2.81 3.93
reaction force was over-predicted by approximately 60N RPL5 5.57 6.32 3.60 5.16
RPL6 5.27 8.58 4.59 6.15
during the simulation. The elastic strain energy peaked at 80J RPL7 5.13 8.51 3.29 5.64
at mid-stance, and followed a similar trajectory to the vertical RANK 3.96 6.49 3.25 4.57
reaction force (Figure 3). The peak stress occurred in the RHEE 5.13 4.33 4.93 4.80
prosthesis at the sharpest radii (Figure 4), and reached a RTOE 0.12 7.33 2.09 3.18
maximum of 3.83×102 MPa at t = 0.077s. The femur, tibia Mean 3.46 6.02 3.08 4.19
and socket showed zero stress due to their rigid nature. The
simulated marker displacements showed good agreement which is a reasonable value in comparison to previously
with the experimental data (Figure 5), with a RMSE less than calculated values for walking self-selected and fast paces
the validation criteria of 10mm for all markers and an overall where the peak strain energy were 15J and 18J respectively
RMSE of 4.19mm (Table I). [16]. Stored strain energy is an important characteristic as
prosthesis overall efficiency is defined by the ratio of this
IV. DISCUSSION stored strain energy to dissipated energy. The model
therefore presents an improvement on the current practice of
A concurrent multibody and FE model of the femur, tibia, calculating energy storage from in vitro mechanical testing
socket and prosthetic foot of a transtibial amputee sprinter only, as this type of testing has been shown to be in variance
was simulated using experimental spatial data. This to the true in vivo behavior [9]. Additionally, combining FE
preliminary study is the first to conduct FE analysis of an with a multibody model of the skeletal elements provided a
ESAR prosthesis during the stance phase of running. The simulation more indicative of the true experimental behavior
numerical analysis allowed calculation of variables not in comparison to traditional direct dynamics FE methods,
available using conventional gait analysis alone, such as the during which the experimental ground reaction forces is
strain energy stored in the prosthesis. In this study, the stored applied as a boundary condition to the FE model [17]. This
strain energy peaked during mid-stance with a value of 80J,
2436
 500

Marker Displacement (mm)

(a) 400 (b) (c)
500 300 500 500
Marker Displacement (mm)

Marker Displacement (mm)

200
400 400 400
100
300 0 300 300

Axis Title
-100 0 0.04 0.08 0.12
200 200 200
Time (s)
100 100 100

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
-100 -100 -100
Stance Phase (%) Stance Phase (%) Stance Phase (%)
FEA RPL1 FEA RPL4 FEA RANK FEA RHEE FEA RTOE
Exp RPL1 Exp RPL4 Exp RANK Exp RHEE Exp RTOE

Figure 5. Experimental and simulated marker displacement in the laboratory (a) lateral or x-axis, (b) longitudinal or y-axis, and (c) vertical or z-axis.

preliminary quasi-static study demonstrates the potential of [2] G. P. Bruggeman, A. Arampatzis, F. Emrich and W. Potthast,
subject-specific multibody models for amputee gait analysis. “Biomechanics of double transtibial amputee sprinting using dedicated
sprint prostheses,” Sports Technol., vol. 4-5, no. 1, pp. 220-227, 2008.
A number of areas have been identified where the model [3] A.B. Sawers and M.E. Hahn, “The potential for error with use of
could be further refined. The simulated reaction force did not inverse dynamic calculations in gait analysis of individuals with lower
exhibit the oscillations of the experiments due to the quasi- limb loss: A review of model selection and assumptions,” J. Prosthet.
Orthot., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 56-61, 2010.
static nature of the simulation. The use of a time-dependent
[4] D.A. Winter, Biomechanics and motor control of human movement.
solver that includes inertial effects may improve the accuracy Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009.
of the oscillatory phenomena at initial contact. The model [5] M. D. Geil, M. Parnianpour, P. Quesada, N. Berme and S. Simon,
utilized a 1DOF prescribed displacement of the femur and “Comparison of methods for the calculation of energy storage and
1DOF hinge joint at the knee; this simplification considerably return in a dynamic elastic response prosthesis,” J. Biomech., vol. 33,
reduced computational effort, however this affected the no. 12, pp. 1745-1750, 2000.
accuracy of the simulated prosthesis motion in the lateral [6] C. A. Truesdell, Essays in the history of mechanics. New York:
Springer, 1968.
direction (x-axis). The reaction force and moment in this
[7] S. M. Rigney, A. Simmons and L. Kark, “Finite element analysis of a
plane of movement is very low, therefore it is unlikely to be lower-limb running-specific prosthesis,” in 8th Aust. Cong. App.
of great consequence when calculating joint torque and Mech., Barton, A.C.T, Australia, 2014, pp. 297-305.
power in future time-dependent studies. The shape of the [8] M.P. Kadaba, H. Ramakrishnan and M. Wootten, “Measurement of
longitudinal (y-axis) reaction force was offset from the lower extremity kinematics during level walking,” J. Orthop. Res.,
experimental results in the time domain, which is likely to be vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 383-392, 1990.
improved by refining the shoe geometry. Finally, improved [9] S. M. Rigney, A. Simmons and L. Kark, “Stance phase mechanical
characterisation of a running-specific lower-limb prosthesis,” in Proc.
accuracy could be obtained by modeling the carbon fiber as a 2014 Aust. Biomed. Eng. Conf., Canberra, A.C.T., Australia, 2014, to
heterogeneous orthotropic material, as its very nature as a be published.
composite is to have varying stiffness depending on [10] S. M. Rigney, A. Simmons and L. Kark, “Mechanical Efficiency of a
thickness, composition and layering. Running-Specific Energy Storage and Return Prosthesis,” in Bk
Abstracts 9th Aust. Biomech. Conf., Wollongong, NSW, Australia,
Extension of this project will include the addition of 2014, pp. 43.
viscoelastic damping parameters to enable a time-dependent [11] S. L. Delp, F. C. Anderson, A. S. Arnold, J. P. Loan, A. Habib, C. T.
simulation, which will result in the ability to calculate: joint John, E. Guendelman and D. G. Thelen, “OpenSim: open-source
torque and power; energy absorbed, dissipated and returned software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement,”
IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 54. No. 11, pp. 1940-1950, 2007.
by the prosthesis; prosthesis work and efficiency; and the
[12] S. L. Delp, J. P. Loan, M. G. Hoy, F. E. Zajac, E. L. Topp and J. M.
comparison of these values with results obtained through Rosen, “An interactive graphics-based model of the lower extremity to
conventional link-segment rigid-body mechanics models. study orthopaedic surgical procedures,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.,
Seamless integration with motion capture software, such as vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 757-767, 1990.
Vicon Nexus, will facilitate the integration of FE analysis [13] F. C. Anderson and M.G. Pandy, “A dynamic optimization solution
with existing clinical practices. Additionally, the presented for vertical jumping in three dimensions,” Comput. Meth. Biomech.
skeletal and prosthesis model can be combined with other Biomed. Eng., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 201-231, 1999.
[14] F. C. Anderson and M.G. Pandy, “Dynamic optimization of human
clinical measures, such as MRI, to enable patient-specific walking,” J. Biomech. Eng., vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 381-390, 2001.
hard and soft tissue modeling, such as the menisci of the knee [15] G.T. Yamaguchi and F.E. Zajac, “A planar model of the knee joint to
and/or residual limb tissue mechanics. Concurrent multibody characterize the knee extensor mechanism,” J. Biomech., vol. 22, no.
and FE models present an exciting new avenue for patient- 1, pp. 1-10, 1989.
specific modeling. [16] X. Bonnet, H. Pillet, P. Fodé, F. Lavaste and W. Skalli, “Finite
element modelling of an energy-storing prosthetic foot during the
stance phase of transtibial amputee gait,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part
REFERENCES H: J. Eng. Med., vol. 226, no. 1, pp. 70-75, 2012.
[1] L. G. Stansbury, S. J. Lalliess, J. G. Branstetter, M. R. Bagg and J. B. [17] M. Omasta, D. Paloušek, T. Návrat and J. Rosický, “Finite element
Holcomb, “Amputations in US military personnel in the current analysis for the evaluation of the structural behaviour of a prosthesis
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq,” J. Orthop. Trauma, vol. 22, no. 1, for trans-tibial amputees,” Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 38-45,
pp. 43-46, 2008. 2012.

2437