한국산업융합학회 논문집 (Journal of the Korean Society of Industry Convergence)

  • 제22권4호
  • /
  • Pages.387-394
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1226-833X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-5415(eISSN)
한국산업융합학회 (The Korean Society of Industry Convergence)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Theoretical Study of Various Unit Models for Biomedical Application

  • 투고 : 2019.03.20
  • 심사 : 2019.06.03
  • 발행 : 2019.07.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This paper presents an analytical study on the strength and stiffness of various types of truss structures. The applied models are triangular-like opened truss-wall triangular model (OTT), closed truss-wall triangular model (CTT), opened solid-wall triangular model (OST), and hypercube models defined as core-filled or core-spaced cube. The models are analyzed by numerical model analysis using DEFORM 2D/3D tool with AISI 304 stainless steel. Then, the ideal solutions for stiffness and strength are defined. Finally, the relative elastic modulus of the core-spaced model is obtained as 0.0009, which is correlated with the cancellous bone for the relative density range of 0.029-0.03, and the relative elastic modulus for the core-filled model is obtained as 0.0015, which is correlated with cancellous bone for the relative density range of 0.035-0.036. For the relative compressive yield strength, the OTT reasonably agrees with the cancellous bone for the relative density of 0.042 and the relative compressive strength of 0.05. The CTT and OST are in good agreement at the relative density of 0.013 and the relative compressive yield strength of 0.002. The hypercube models can be used for the cancellous bone for stiffness, and the triangular models can be used for the cancellous bone for strength. However, none of the models can be used to replace the compact bone because it requires much higher stiffness and strength. In the near future, compact bone replacement must be further studied. In addition, previously mentioned models should be developed further.

키워드

SOOOB6_2019_v22n4_387_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1 Schematic triangular unit models (OST, OTT, and CTT)18)

SOOOB6_2019_v22n4_387_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2 Stress-strain diagram of bilinear material model21)

SOOOB6_2019_v22n4_387_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 3 Relative elastic modulus as a function of relative density

SOOOB6_2019_v22n4_387_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 4 Relative compressive yield strength as a function of relative density

Table 1. Summary ideal solutions for triangular unit models18)

SOOOB6_2019_v22n4_387_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Mechanical property for a human bone

SOOOB6_2019_v22n4_387_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Mechanical property for a bone replacement

SOOOB6_2019_v22n4_387_t0003.png 이미지

참고문헌

  1. Gibson, L. J., The mechanical behaviour of cancellous bone. Journal of Biomechanics, 18, 5, pp. 317-328, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(85)90287-8
  2. Bayraktar, H. H. A study. Dassault Systemes SIMULIA Corp., Abaqus Technology Brief TB-03-HTB-1, Revised: April, 2007.
  3. Mittra, E., et al: Evaluation of trabecular mechanical and microstructural properties in human calcaneal bone of advanced age using mechanical testing, ${\mu}$CT, and DXA. Journal of Biomechanics, 41, pp. 368-375, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.09.003
  4. Yeni, Y. N. et al.: Trabecular shear stress in human vertebral cancellous bone: intra- and inter-individual variations, Bone, 44, pp. 130-136, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2008.09.002
  5. Buckley, J. M., Loo, Kenneth, Motherway, Julie Comparison of quantitative computed tomographybased measures in predicting vertebral compressive strength. Bone, 40, 3, pp. 767-774, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2006.10.025
  6. Chamarthy, P., et al: Image analysis techniques for characterizing disc space narrowing in cervical vertebrae interfaces. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 28, 1, pp. 39-50, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2003.10.001
  7. Carter, D. R., Hayes,W.C,. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 59, pp. 954-962, 1977. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197759070-00021
  8. Williams, J.L., Lewis, J.L., Properties and an anisotropic model of cancellous bone from the proximal tiabial epiphysis. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 104, 1, pp. 50-56, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3138303
  9. Odgaard, A., Hvid, I., and Linde, F., Compressive axial strain distributions in cancellous bone specimens. Journal of Biomechanics, 22, pp. 829, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(89)90066-3
  10. Mullerab, R., Ruegseggerab, P., Analysis of mechanical properties of cancellous bone under conditions of simulated bone atrophy. Journal of Biomechanics, 29, 8, pp. 1053-1060, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(96)00006-1
  11. Carter, D.R., Hayes,W.C., Bone compressive strength: the influence ofdensity and strain rate. Science, 194, 4270, pp. 1174-1176, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.996549
  12. Gibson, L.J., Ashby, M.F., Cellular solids-structure and properties, 2nd ed.. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  13. Cowin, S.C., Bone mechanics-handbook, ed. Second. Boca Raton, FL, USA. Informa Healthcare, 1988.
  14. Curry, J. D., Foreman, J., Laketic, I., Effects of ionizing radiation on the mechanical properties of human bone. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 15, pp. 111-117, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100150116
  15. Fyhrie, D. P., Vashishth, D., Bone stiffness predicts strength similarly for human vertebral cancellous bone in compression and for cortical bone in tension. Bone, 26, 2, pp. 169-173, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8756-3282(99)00246-X
  16. An, Y.H., Draughn, R.A., Mechanical Testing of Bone and the Bone-Implant Interface, ed. 1st. CRC Press, 2000.
  17. Homminga, J., et al: Cancellous bone mechanical properties from normals and patients with hip fractures differ on the structure level, not on the bone hard tissue level. Bone, 30, 5, pp. 759-764, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8756-3282(02)00693-2
  18. Choi, J. Expected Ideal Solution and Verified By Numerical Analysis for a Triangular Unit Cell Model, International Journal of Advanced Robotics and Automation, 3, 2, pp.1-10, 2018. https://doi.org/10.15226/2473-3032/3/2/00133
  19. Burstein, A.H., Reilly, D.T., Martens, M., Aging of bone tissue:mechanical properties. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American, 58, pp. 82-86, 1976. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-197658010-00015
  20. Evans, F.G., Lebow, M., Regional differences in some of the physical properties of the human femur. Journal of Applied Physiology, 3, pp. 563-572, 1951. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1951.3.9.563
  21. Fluhrer Jeffery, DEFORM 2D Version 8.1 User's Manual, 1997.
  22. Material Properties Data - AK steel 304 Austen Stainless Steel. [http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=abc4415b0f8b490387e3c922237098da&ckck=1.] (2018).
  23. Material Properties Data - Arcam ASTM F-75 Cobalt Chrome Alloy. [http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=df8d3cd30d5149cfaca9a3c6e3268655] (2018).
  24. Material Properties Data - Titanium Ti-6Al-4V (Grade 5), Annealed. [cited 2018; Available from: http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=a0655d261898456b958e5f825ae85390](2018).
  25. In-Bae Seung, Hyo-Seon Baek, Jeong-hwan Park, Overseas Case Study of 3D Printing Technology for Construction and Commercialization Plan in Korea, The Korean Society of Industry Convergence, 12, pp. 273-284, 2018.