Premium
Cortical bone fracture analysis using XFEM – case study
Author(s) -
Idkaidek Ashraf,
Jasiuk Iwona
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
international journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.741
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 2040-7947
pISSN - 2040-7939
DOI - 10.1002/cnm.2809
Subject(s) - finite element method , cortical bone , extended finite element method , osteon , traction (geology) , materials science , fracture mechanics , mechanics , linear elasticity , structural engineering , isotropy , displacement (psychology) , composite material , engineering , physics , mechanical engineering , anatomy , medicine , psychology , quantum mechanics , psychotherapist
Summary We aim to achieve an accurate simulation of human cortical bone fracture using the extended finite element method within a commercial finite element software abaqus . A two‐dimensional unit cell model of cortical bone is built based on a microscopy image of the mid‐diaphysis of tibia of a 70‐year‐old human male donor. Each phase of this model, an interstitial bone, a cement line, and an osteon, are considered linear elastic and isotropic with material properties obtained by nanoindentation, taken from literature. The effect of using fracture analysis methods (cohesive segment approach versus linear elastic fracture mechanics approach), finite element type, and boundary conditions (traction, displacement, and mixed) on cortical bone crack initiation and propagation are studied. In this study cohesive segment damage evolution for a traction separation law based on energy and displacement is used. In addition, effects of the increment size and mesh density on analysis results are investigated. We find that both cohesive segment and linear elastic fracture mechanics approaches within the extended finite element method can effectively simulate cortical bone fracture. Mesh density and simulation increment size can influence analysis results when employing either approach, and using finer mesh and/or smaller increment size does not always provide more accurate results. Both approaches provide close but not identical results, and crack propagation speed is found to be slower when using the cohesive segment approach. Also, using reduced integration elements along with the cohesive segment approach decreases crack propagation speed compared with using full integration elements. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.