Solids Module Report

BME
429: SOLIDS MODULE

Alexander Cook and Rebecca Nagurney

The Pennsylvania State University - COE

5 October 2015
Group 8 Section 2

I.
Introduction

Mechanical testing allows for the calculation of the material properties of engineering solids. These
experiments are used in biomedical engineering to characterize devices such as stents, catheters, and
joint replacements. Evaluating material properties, such as the elastic modulus and density, is crucial for
determining the efficacy, safety, and lifetime of a device. Additionally, better designs can be formulated
from a knowledge of these characteristics. They can improve patient outcomes, minimize risks, and raise
quality of life.
One of the most basic yet important material experiments is the tension test. In this procedure, a
machine applies a load to a small sample of material until it breaks. Based on the extension of the
sample (calculated using calipers, an extensometer, or a strain gauge) and the force applied, a stress
versus strain curve can be calculated. The elastic modulus (ratio of stress to strain in the linear region of
the graph) can then be determined [1]. Another important experiment is the fatigue test. In this
procedure, a sample is subjected to time-dependent cycles of stress or strain. The sample can be run
until it breaks, or it can be run for a specific number of cycles. This test can determine the fatigue limit of
the material or the change in elastic modulus over time [2].
In these experiments, we tested biologically-relevant materials, including polymers and tissue samples,
to determine their mechanical properties. Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE or Teflon) is a widely used
polymer that is biocompatible, low friction, and extremely inert due to the stability of the carbonfluorine bonds along its backbone. It is used in catheters, grafts, and sutures [3]. Poly(oxymethylene)
(POM or Delrin) is used in a variety of medical delivery devices due to its high strength and stiffness [4].
Poly(chloroprene) (neoprene) is a flexible, water-resistant polymer that is an excellent material for
bandages, braces, and other support devices [5]. We also tested beef samples to determine the
properties of biological tissue. The meat was tested both with and against the muscle fibers to contrast
the difference in mechanical properties.
The procedure allowed us to determine the properties of these materials. Samples were measured and
weighed, allowing the density of each material to be calculated. A tensile test was run in order to
determine the stress and strain on the material, which was used to calculate the elastic modulus.
Additionally, a fatigue test was conducted on two of the polymers (PTFE and neoprene) to determine
the time-dependent stress-strain relationships and the overall change in the elastic modulus [6].

Computer simulations of the forces present on a human femur during normal walking were also made.
These models sought to capture the essential geometry and physics in this simple biomechanical
process. They also provided practice in converting real situations into models.
The primary goal of our experiments was to determine the modulus of elasticity, density and Poissons
ratio of the polymers and tissue samples. Next, we used these experimental parameters to build
corresponding computer simulations. Finally, we compared the results of the simulations to the
experimental findings and evaluated any significant differences between them.

Group 8 Section 2

II.
Methods and Materials

A. Experimental Procedure

The experimental procedure was derived from the laboratory handout [6]. Teflon, Delrin, and Neoprene
were the polymer samples that were tested using the Bose and Lloyd machines. Tissue samples of beef
(with and against the grain) were also tested in the Lloyd machine. For each sample, various length and
mass measurements were recorded and averaged to re-create the samples using COMSOL and
SolidWorks modeling systems. The recorded data measurements were also used to calculate the
Youngs modulus, Poissons Ratio and other material properties. The polymer and tissue samples were
compared to each other using bar graphs and the standard of deviation.
The Bose machine is a fatigue tester which applies a force to a material over a period of time with a
specific number of cycles set by the user. The data obtained from a fatigue test can show whether or not
a material will fail with repeated use. It can also demonstrate how a viscoelastic material undergoes
hysteresis.
To use the Bose testing machine, the Teflon and Neoprene samples were clamped into an apparatus and
computer settings were modified to begin testing. Delrin is a hard plastic with a large Youngs modulus
that can easily break with bending. Because it can easily break in the Bose fatigue tester, Delrin was not
used in this portion of the experiment.
The Teflon and Neoprene samples were locked in to the Bose machine and run through 500 cycles of a
triangular strain waveform. After the Bose testing was completed, the sample were removed from the
apparatus and the gauge length, gauge width, and gauge thickness were re-measured to calculate the
experimental Poissons Ratio. The data from the Bose software was transferred to a USB device and
imported into Excel to graph and analyze. The repetitive cycles of loading and unloading were graphed
on stress versus strain curves. The subtle shifting of the curve over time demonstrates how the material
properties change in response to fatigue.
The Lloyd machine is a tensile tester which applies an axial force on a material until failure. The data
obtained from the Lloyd machine shows the maximum stress that can occur for a material before it
breaks. As with the Bose machine, the samples (Teflon, Delrin, Neoprene, and tissue) were clamped
into the apparatus. The time, applied load, and machine extension data were recorded and used to
calculate the stress versus strain curves for each sample. Linear regression in Excel was used to
determine the elastic moduli for use in the computer simulations.
The experiments were carried out in a room temperature, laboratory environment. Tables 1 and 2
summarize the important parameters of the Bose fatigue experiments and the Lloyd tensile tests
respectively.

Group 8 Section 2

Table 1: Bose fatigue test parameters
Parameter
Waveform
Displacement (Teflon/Neoprene)
Frequency
Cycles
Value
Triangle wave
3 mm
1 Hz
500

Table 2: Lloyd tensile test parameters
Parameter
Preload
Preload speed
Extension rate
Tensile load limit
Value
10 N
20 mm/min.
100 mm/min.
500 N

B. Simulations (Rebecca)
Each of the polymer ibeams and tissue ibeams were built using the COMSOL software and the
measurements and data obtained were from the experimental procedure (Table 1). Material properties
such as density, Youngs Modulus, and Poissons Ratio were calculated from the experimental data and
input into the software. Because the tissue model needed to be considered anisotropic, an elasticity
matrix was calculated and input into the software simulation. The simulations were then run and the
results can be seen in the below tables.

Table 3: Preliminary data measurements of the polymers
Polymer Samples (Lloyd Tensile Tester & Bose Fatigue Tester)

Sample
Total length
(mm)
Total width
(mm)
Average 39
STD
0.34
Cv
0.01
14
0.17
0.01
Average 40
STD
0.09
Cv
0.002
14
0.07
0.005
Average 39
STD
0.13
Cv
0.003

14
0.19
0.01
Table 4: Rebecca's Femur
Gauge length
(mm)
Teflon
25
0.37
0.01
Delrin
25
0.34
0.01
Neoprene
25
0.46
0.02
Gauge width
(mm)
Gauge thickness
(mm)
2.5
0.11
0.05
0.70
0.01
0.01
2.8
0.1
0.04
0.71
0.01
0.01
2.3
0.09
0.04
1.4
0.07
0.05
Group 8 Section 2

Define the space dimension

Define the physics

Define the study type
Define the geometry

The structure was made in SolidWorks using the
value of 2.84 cm for the diameter at the mid shaft
and a length of 48 centimeters. The femur was
made by trying to be proportional to those two
measurements. The SolidWorks model was then
imported into COMSOL using the import function.
Define the material type
Bone (Anisotropic)

&
Youngs Modulus: 22 10 Pa
Poissons Ratio: 0.43
Density: 1900 kg/m^3 [7]
The material properties were defined through the
Group 8 Section 2

linear elastic material 1 under the solid mechanics

section in COMSOL.
Elasticity Matrix:

Physical Settings, initial condition
Stationary:
Boundary Load
Group 8 Section 2

Fixed Constraint
Group 8 Section 2

Group 8 Section 2

Mesh

Extremely Fine:
This mesh was used because it provided more
accurate results than a normal mesh.
Study: Solve
This model was solved using a stationary study

that resembles the compression of a standing
human.
Group 8 Section 2

Compute and Results
The Von Misses stresses are 10 order of

magnitude.

Table 5: Teflon Ibeam (Rebecca)

Define the physics

Define the geometry

3 Rectangles unioned together
Average Width: 14.09 mm
Average Length: 39.42 mm
Average Gauge Length: 25.37 mm
Average Gauge Width: 2.46
Group 8 Section 2

10
Average Gauge Thickness: 0.69

Teflon (PTFE)
Density: 2456 kg/m^3
Youngs Modulus: 516 MPa
Poissons Ratio: 0.46 [8]
Fixed Constraint

Boundary Load
Group 8 Section 2

11

Mesh

Extremely Fine:
Study: Solve
This simulation was solved using a stationary

study that simulates a Lloyd tensile test.
Group 8 Section 2

12
Compute and Results

Stationary Study
Von Mises stresses 107 magnitude

Table 6: Delrin Ibeam (Rebecca)

Define the physics

Define the geometry

Average Total Width: 14.29 mm
Average Total Length: 39.76 mm
Average Gauge Width: 2.84 mm
Group 8 Section 2

13
Average Gauge Thickness: 0.71 mm

Delrin
Density: 1529
'(
)*
Poissons ratio: 0.35 [9]

Youngs Modulus:1758 MPa
Fixed Constraint

Boundary Load:
Group 8 Section 2

14

Mesh

Extremely Fine:
Study: Solve

study to simulate a Lloyd tensile test.
Group 8 Section 2

15
Compute and Results

Stationary Study

Table 7: Neoprene Ibeam (Rebecca)

Define the physics

Define the geometry

Average Total Width: 13.63 mm
Average Total Length: 39.08 mm
Average Gauge Width: 2.33 mm
Average Gauge Thickness: 1.36 mm
Group 8 Section 2

16

Neoprene
Density: 145
'(
)*
Poissons Ratio: 0.4 [10]

Youngs Modulus: 0.59 Pa
Fixed Constraint

Boundary Load:
Group 8 Section 2

17

Mesh

Extremely Fine:
Study: Solve
This simulation was solved
Group 8 Section 2

18
Compute and Results

Table 8: Tissue Ibeam (Rebecca)

Define the physics

Define the geometry

Average Total Width: 45 mm
Average Total Length: 133 mm
Average Gauge Length: 67 mm
Average Gauge Width: 18 mm
Average Gauge Thickness: 5 mm
Group 8 Section 2

19

Tissue (Beef Anisotropic)

Density: 1366
'(
)*
Youngs Modulus: 0.3 MPa

Elasticity Matrix:

Group 8 Section 2

20

Fixed Constraint

Boundary Load:
Group 8 Section 2

21

Mesh

Extremely Fine:
Study: Solve

study to simulate the Lloyd tensile test.
Group 8 Section 2

22
Compute and Results

C. Simulations (Alex)
The polymer and tissue samples were modeled in COMSOL as simplified I-beams. The geometry of the
samples was simplified by ignoring fillets (e.g. at the gauge ends). Instead, three blocks were joined
together to create the three main structural elements of each sample (two wide ends with a gauge in
the middle). To simulate the tensile forces of the Lloyd machine, the bottom two faces of the sample
were fixed in place while the upper two were subjected to a boundary load.
Since the model only took linear elastic behavior into account, the stress versus strain relationship
became invalid once plastic deformation began. The boundary load applied to the sample was therefore
set to the average force at the elastic limit for each material. The goal of the I-beam models was to
determine how accurately they reproduced the stress and strain on each sample at the elastic limit of
that material.
Because these models were only concerned with determining the stress and strain on the sample at one
moment in time (at the elastic limit), a stationary model was used. This assumption ignores any timedependent deformation and viscoelastic behavior of the samples. However, since the time within the
elastic region for each material is so brief during a tensile test and the sample is not subjected to
Group 8 Section 2

23
repeated loading and unloading cycles (in contrast to a fatigue test), it is reasonable to assume that
these effects are minimal in the moment that each sample reaches its elastic limit.
The polymers were treated as isotropic materials, which is a good assumption for many manmade
materials with a regular molecular structure. The tissue was treated as an anisotropic material with
different properties with the grain and against the grain. To account for these varying material
properties in different directions, a 6x6 elasticity matrix was calculated instead of specifying a constant
elastic modulus and Poissons ratio.
Tables 911 give specific details for the Teflon, Delrin, and neoprene models respectively. Table 12
shows the details for the tissue model.
Table 9: Alex's Teflon model
Define the space

dimension
Define the physics
Start COMSOL
Multiphysics
Under new model,
select Model
Wizard
Under space
dimension, select
3D
Under select physics,

double-click
Structural
Mechanics to expand
the category
Select Solid
Mechanics (solid),
then click Add
Click the Study
button next to the
green arrow to
continue
Group 8 Section 2

Define the study

type
Define the
geometry
Under select study,

click Stationary
Click on the Done
button next to the
check mark
The polymer and

tissue samples are
modeled as I-beams
This simplified
geometry ignores any
curved surfaces
present (e.g. fillets at
the gauge ends)
24
Group 8 Section 2

The I-beams are

generated by three
blocks, which are then
merged together
Under Model Builder
on the left side of the
screen, right-click on
Global Definitions
and select
Parameters
Define the geometric
and material
parameters as shown
in the table to the
right
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and
select Block
Under Block 1,
define the geometry
as specified in the
corresponding image
Specify the position
of the center of the
block at (0,0,0) and
click Build Selected
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and
select Block
Under Block 2,
define the geometry
as specified in the
corresponding image
Specify the position
of the center of the
block as shown and
Right-click on Block
2 and select
Duplicate
Under Block 3,
keep the size the
same, but change the
position of the center
of the block as shown
(carefully note the
plus and minus signs)
Click Build
Selected
Right-click on
25
Group 8 Section 2

Geometry 1 and
select Booleans and
Partitions >>
Union
Under Union 1,
select all three blocks
in the Graphics
window
Uncheck Keep
interior boundaries
and then click Build
Selected
This step completes
the geometry by
merging the three
blocks into the final Ibeam with the correct
average dimensions of
the Teflon samples
The final geometry is
shown on the right
26
Group 8 Section 2

Define the
material type
Right-click on
Materials and select
Blank Material
Under Material 1,
define the Youngs
modulus, Poissons
ratio [11], and density
of Teflon from the
parameters defined
earlier
27
Group 8 Section 2

Physical settings:
initial conditions
Physical settings:
boundary
conditions
Since the
displacement of the
sample and velocity
are zero at t = 0,
these initial
conditions should be
set to zero
Under Solid
Mechanics, click on
Initial Values 1
Ensure that all the
initial conditions are
set to zero
The forces on the

sample during the
tensile test were
modeled by fixing the
bottom of the
specimen and
applying a boundary
load to the top of it
28
Group 8 Section 2

Mesh
Right-click on Solid
Mechanics and select
Fixed Constraint
Under Fixed
Constraint 1, click
on the front and back
of the bottom
dogbone in the
Graphics window
(faces 2 and 9) to fix
them in place
(displacement equals
zero)
Boundary Load
Under Boundary
Load 1, change the
Load type to Total
force
Specify Ftot as 16 N in
the z-direction
(average load applied
for all samples at the
experimental elastic
limit)
Click on the front and
back of the top
dogbone in the
Graphics window
(faces 6 and 10) to
apply the load
(distributed over the
total area of these
faces)
This model is not
valid for stresses past
the elastic limit since
it assumes linear
elastic behavior
Since the geometry of

the samples was
relatively simple, a
detailed mesh was
used.
29
Group 8 Section 2

Click on Mesh 1
Under Element size,
select Extremely
fine
Click Build All
Domain elements:
7576
Boundary elements:
3578
Edge elements: 424
Study: solve
Click on Study 1
and hit Compute
Compute
Solution time: 5 s
Number of degrees of
freedom solved for:
41670
The first plot on the
right shows the
distribution of von
Mises stresses
throughout the sample
Areas of high stress
were concentrated in
the corners of the
dogbones due to the
sharp edges
Results and plots
30
N/A
Group 8 Section 2

Click on a point near

the center of the
gauge in the Graphics
window to obtain the
simulations value of
the yield strength
The yield strength of
Teflon was found to
be about 9.4 MPa
To determine the
strain at the elastic
limit, right-click on
Stress (solid) under
Results and select
Surface
Under Expression,
open the green and
red Replace
Expression tab
From the menu, select
Solid Mechanics >>
Strain >> Principal
strains >> solid.ep1
First principal
strain
Click Plot to model
the strain along the
principal axis of the
specimen for the
entire sample volume
Right-click on
Surface 1 and select
Disable to hide the
stress graph in order
to clearly view the
strain data
By clicking on a point
near the center of the
gauge, the strain
along the principal
axis at the elastic
limit for Teflon is
approximately 0.018
The distribution of
strain can be seen in
the image to the right
31
Group 8 Section 2

Table 10: Alex's Delrin model
Define the space

dimension
Define the physics
Start COMSOL
Multiphysics
Under new model,
select Model Wizard
Under space
dimension, select
3D

double-click
Structural
Mechanics to expand
the category
Select Solid
Mechanics (solid),
then click Add
Click the Study
button next to the
green arrow to
continue
32
Group 8 Section 2

Define the study

type
Define the
geometry
Under select study,

click Stationary
Click on the Done
button next to the
check mark
The polymer and

tissue samples are
modeled as I-beams
This simplified
curved surfaces
the gauge ends)
33
Group 8 Section 2

The I-beams are

generated by three
merged together
Under Model Builder
Global Definitions
and select
Parameters
and material
parameters as shown
in the table to the right
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and
select Block
Under Block 1,
define the geometry as
specified in the
corresponding image
Specify the position of
the center of the block
at (0,0,0) and click
Build Selected
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and
select Block
Under Block 2,
specified in the
corresponding image
as shown and click
Build Selected
2 and select
Duplicate
Under Block 3, keep
the size the same, but
change the position of
as shown (carefully
note the plus and
minus signs)
Click Build Selected
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and
select Booleans and
34
Group 8 Section 2

Partitions >>
Union
Under Union 1,
in the Graphics
window
Uncheck Keep
interior boundaries
Selected
This step completes
the geometry by
merging the three
the Delrin samples
shown on the right
35
Group 8 Section 2

Define the material

type
Right-click on
Blank Material
Under Material 1,
define the Youngs
modulus, Poissons
of Delrin from the
parameters defined
earlier
36
Group 8 Section 2

Physical settings:
initial conditions
Physical settings:
boundary
conditions
Since the displacement

of the sample and
velocity are zero at t =
0, these initial
set to zero
Under Solid
Mechanics, click on
Initial Values 1
Ensure that all the
set to zero
The forces on the

sample during the
tensile test were
bottom of the specimen
and applying a
boundary load to the
top of it
37
Group 8 Section 2

Mesh
Fixed Constraint
Under Fixed
Constraint 1, click on
the front and back of
the bottom dogbone in
the Graphics window
them in place
zero)
Boundary Load
Under Boundary
Load 1, change the
Load type to Total
force
Specify Ftot as 102 N
in the z-direction
limit)
back of the top
dogbone in the
Graphics window
(faces 6 and 10) to
apply the load
total area of these
faces)
This model is not valid
for stresses past the
elastic limit since it
assumes linear elastic
behavior

the samples was
detailed mesh was
used.
Click on Mesh 1
38
Group 8 Section 2

Under Element size,

select Extremely
fine
Click Build All
Domain elements:
6998
Boundary elements:
3544
Edge elements: 404
Study: solve
Click on Study 1
and hit Compute
Compute
Solution time: 22 s
freedom solved for:
39219
right shows the
distribution of von
Mises stresses
the corners of the
dogbones due to the
sharp edges
the center of the gauge
in the Graphics
Results and plots
39
N/A
Group 8 Section 2

the yield strength

Delrin was found to be
about 51 MPa
To determine the
Results and select
Surface
Under Expression,
open the green and red
Replace Expression
tab
Solid Mechanics >>
Strain >> Principal
First principal
strain
Click Plot to model
specimen for the entire
sample volume
Right-click on
Disable to hide the
stress graph in order to
clearly view the strain
data
gauge, the strain
along the principal
axis at the elastic limit
for Delrin is
approximately 0.029
The distribution of
40
Group 8 Section 2

Table 11: Alex's neoprene model
Define the space

dimension
Define the physics
Start COMSOL
Multiphysics
Under new model,
select Model Wizard
Under space
dimension, select
3D

double-click
Structural
Mechanics to expand
the category
Select Solid
Mechanics (solid),
then click Add
Click the Study
button next to the
green arrow to
continue
41
Group 8 Section 2

Define the study

type
Define the
geometry
Under select study,

click Stationary
Click on the Done
button next to the
check mark
The polymer and

tissue samples are
modeled as I-beams
This simplified
curved surfaces
the gauge ends)
42
Group 8 Section 2

The I-beams are

generated by three
merged together
Under Model Builder
Global Definitions
and select
Parameters
and material
parameters as shown
in the table to the right
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and
select Block
Under Block 1,
specified in the
corresponding image
Build Selected
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and
select Block
Under Block 2,
specified in the
corresponding image
as shown and click
Build Selected
2 and select
Duplicate
Under Block 3, keep
as shown (carefully
note the plus and
minus signs)
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and
select Booleans and
43
Group 8 Section 2

Partitions >>
Union
Under Union 1,
in the Graphics
window
Uncheck Keep
interior boundaries
Selected
This step completes
the geometry by
merging the three
the neoprene samples
shown on the right
44
Group 8 Section 2

Define the material

type
Right-click on
Blank Material
Under Material 1,
define the Youngs
modulus, Poissons
of neoprene from the
parameters defined
earlier
45
Group 8 Section 2

Physical settings:
initial conditions
Physical settings:
boundary
conditions

of the sample and
0, these initial
set to zero
Under Solid
Mechanics, click on
Initial Values 1
Ensure that all the
set to zero
The forces on the

sample during the
tensile test were
and applying a
top of it
46
Group 8 Section 2

Mesh
Fixed Constraint
Under Fixed
the front and back of
the bottom dogbone in
the Graphics window
them in place
zero)
Boundary Load
Under Boundary
Load 1, change the
Load type to Total
force
Specify Ftot as 1.2 N in
the z-direction
limit)
back of the top
dogbone in the
Graphics window
(faces 6 and 10) to
apply the load
total area of these
faces)
behavior

the samples was
detailed mesh was
used.
47
Group 8 Section 2

Click on Mesh 1
Under Element size,
select Extremely
fine
Click Build All
Domain elements:
8010
Boundary elements:
2940
Edge elements: 376
Study: solve
Click on Study 1
and hit Compute
Compute
Solution time: 5 s
freedom solved for:
41433
right shows the
distribution of von
Mises stresses
the corners of the
dogbones due to the
sharp edges
in the Graphics
Results and plots
48
N/A
Group 8 Section 2

the yield strength
neoprene was found to
be about 0.38 MPa
To determine the
Results and select
Surface
Under Expression,
open the green and red
Replace Expression
tab
Solid Mechanics >>
Strain >> Principal
First principal
strain
Click Plot to model
sample volume
Right-click on
Disable to hide the
stress graph in order to
clearly view the strain
data
gauge, the strain
along the principal
axis at the elastic limit
for neoprene is
approximately 0.64
The distribution of
49
Group 8 Section 2

Table 12: Alex's tissue model
Define the space

dimension
Define the
physics
Start COMSOL
Multiphysics
Under new model,
select Model Wizard
Under space dimension,
select 3D

double-click Structural
Mechanics to expand
the category
Select Solid Mechanics
(solid), then click
Add
Click the Study
button next to the green
arrow to continue
50
Group 8 Section 2

Define the study

type
Define the
geometry
Under select study,

click Stationary
Click on the Done
button next to the check
mark
The tissue samples are

modeled as I-beams
This simplified
curved surfaces present
(e.g. fillets at the gauge
ends)
The I-beams are
51
Group 8 Section 2

generated by three
merged together
Under Model Builder
Global Definitions
and select Parameters
and material parameters
as shown in the table to
the right
Right-click on
Geometry 1 and select
Block
Under Block 1, define
the geometry as
specified in the
corresponding image
Build Selected
Right-click on
Block
Under Block 2, define
the geometry as
specified in the
corresponding image
as shown and click
Build Selected
2 and select
Duplicate
Under Block 3, keep
as shown (carefully note
the plus and minus
signs)
Right-click on
Booleans and
Partitions >> Union
Under Union 1, select
52
Group 8 Section 2

all three blocks in the

Graphics window
Uncheck Keep interior
boundaries and then
This step completes the
geometry by merging
the three blocks into the
final I-beam with the
correct average
dimensions of the tissue
samples
shown on the right
53
Group 8 Section 2

Define the
material type
Physical settings:
initial conditions
Right-click on
Blank Material
Under Material 1,
define the density of the
tissue from the
parameters entered
earlier

of the sample and
0, these initial
conditions should be set
to zero
Under Solid
Mechanics, click on
Initial Values 1
Ensure that all the initial
conditions are set to
zero
The meat has different
mechanical properties
54
Group 8 Section 2

with and against the

grain; therefore, it is an
anisotropic material.
Under Solid Mechanics,
select Linear Elastic
Material 1
Under Linear Elastic
Material, select
Anisotropic from the
Solid Model dropdown
menu
Under elasticity matrix,
select User defined
and enter the following
elasticity matrix as seen
on the right
This elasticity matrix D
was calculated by
taking the inverse of the
compliance matrix C (D
= C1)
The procedure used to
compute the compliance
matrix is shown to the
right
The values used in the
calculations are as
follows:
o E11 = 0.46(106)
Pa
o E22 = E33 =
0.15(106) Pa
o 12 = 21 =
0.055
o 23 = 32 =
0.010
o 13 = 31 =
0.322
55
Group 8 Section 2

Physical settings:
boundary
conditions
Mesh
The forces on the

sample during the
tensile test were
and applying a
top of it
Fixed Constraint
Under Fixed
the bottom and top of
the left dogbone in the
Graphics window (faces
3 and 4) to fix them in
place (displacement
equals zero)
Boundary Load
Under Boundary Load
1, change the Load
type to Total force
Specify Ftot as 0.88 N in
the x-direction (average
load applied for all
samples at the
limit)
Click on the top and
bottom of the right
dogbone in the Graphics
window (faces 14 and
15) to apply the load
total area of these faces)
behavior
the samples was
detailed mesh was used.
Click on Mesh 1
56
Group 8 Section 2

Under Element size,

select Extremely fine
Click Build All
Domain elements: 9222
Boundary elements:
3506
Edge elements: 400
Study: solve
Click on Study 1 and

hit Compute
Compute
Solution time: 3 s
freedom solved for:
47976
right shows the
distribution of von
Mises stresses
the corners of the
dogbones due to the
sharp edges
in the Graphics window
to obtain the
Results and plots
57
N/A
Group 8 Section 2

the yield strength
The yield strength of the
tissue was found to be
about 20 kPa (with the
grain)
To determine the
strain at the elastic limit,
right-click on Stress
(solid) under Results
and select Surface
Under Expression, open
the green and red
Replace Expression
tab
Solid Mechanics >>
Strain >> Principal
First principal strain
Click Plot to model
sample volume
Right-click on Surface
1 and select Disable
to hide the stress graph
in order to clearly view
the strain data
gauge, the strain along
the principal axis at the
elastic limit for the
tissue is approximately
0.044
The distribution of
strain can be seen in the
image to the right
58
Group 8 Section 2

59

A simulation was also created to model the forces on the human femur during normal walking. The
geometry of the femur was made in Solidworks. Lofting some of the features of the femur in this
software allowed for a more realistic and natural geometry than allowed in COMSOL. The
measurements of the individual anatomical features were taken from an article published in 2012
studying femur geometry in the Indian population [14].
In order to simulate the forces of walking, a time-dependent model was used. Using values from the
literature for force on the femur during walking and step frequency [15,16], an interpolation function
was defined in COMSOL to model the force as a function of time for three step cycles. This function was
similar to a square wave. In reality, the force as function of time during a footstep experiences a number
of peaks [15]. However, this interpolation captured the essential features of the force on the femur,
such as maximum load and duration, so it is an appropriate simplification of reality.
The boundary conditions were also simplified appropriately to make the model less computationally
intensive. The hip joint was defined as a fixed constraint and the load was applied directly to the bottom
of the distal femur (where the bone meets the knee joint). Although the exact distribution of forces is
more complicated during the human gait, this simple model captures the essential features of the
movement because the hip stays relatively still and the main axial force is transmitted up through the
foot to the knee joint.
The von Mises stresses were plotted and the points of maximum and minimum stress were determined
for the whole bone. These data were also examined qualitatively to obtain an approximate idea of the
distribution of stresses throughout the femur during walking. The details of the femur model are
summarized in the following table.

Group 8 Section 2

Table 13: Alex's femur model
Define the
space
dimension
Define the
physics
Define the
study type
Start COMSOL
Multiphysics
Under new model, select
Model Wizard
Under space dimension,
select 3D

double-click Structural
Mechanics to expand
the category
Select Solid Mechanics
(solid), then click the
plus sign to add it
Click the blue arrow to
continue
Under select study, click

Time Dependent
Click the checkered flag
at the top to continue
60
Group 8 Section 2

Define the
geometry
Define the
material
type
The geometric model of

the femur was built in
Solidworks
The measurements of the
anatomy were based on
an article published in
2012 in the Indian
Journal of Orthopedics
[14].
The measurements are
based on the mean values
for the Indian male
population studied, which
is roughly translatable to
human males in general
Right-click on
Import
Import the Solidworks
file by clicking Browse
(must be saved as a
Parasolid file .x_t)
From the Length unit
dropdown menu, select
From CAD document
to import the geometry
with the units used in
Solidworks
Click Build All to
import the geometry
The model of the femur
can be seen in the images
to the right
A summary of the key
parameters of the
geometry is as follows (in
mm):
o Femoral length:
444.62
o Diameter at
thinnest point:
29.13
o Femoral neck
length: 51.88
o Femoral head
diameter: 48.24
Right-click on
Material
61
Group 8 Section 2

Physical
settings:
initial
conditions
Under Material 1,
define the Youngs
modulus, Poissons ratio,
and density of the human
femur bone [17,18,19] as
noted in the figure to the
right
Although bone is an
anisotropic material, it
was assumed that since
the main loads acting on
the femur during walking
occur predominantly in
the axial direction, the
effects of anisotropy are
small and can be safely
ignored
Since the femur geometry
was based on an Indian
population, the body
mass used in this
computational model was
also based on the same
population
o The average
mass of an 18
year old Indian
boy is 66.2 kg
(which is
equivalent to 649
N of force) [20]
The maximum force on
the distal femur during
normal walking is
approximately 3.1 times
larger than the body
weight [15]
An interpolation function
was used to apply this
force in a rhythmic
pattern at a defined
frequency
One study found a
preferred human step
frequency of 1.8 Hz [16]
Therefore, one step
occurs in approximately
0.6 s (1/1.8 Hz) and a
whole step cycle (right +
left foot) takes place in
62
Group 8 Section 2

Physical
settings:
boundary
conditions
1.2 s
An interpolation function
was created in COMSOL
to model this timedependent force on the
left femur
Right-click on Global
Definitions and select
Parameters
Enter the parameters into
the chart as seen on the
right
Right-click on Global
Definitions
Select Functions >>
Interpolation
Under Interpolation 1,
enter the table of values
as shown on the right to
define the force on the
femur as a function of
time
This function (shown to
the right) gives the force
for three step cycles of
the left femur
The hip joint was
assumed to be fixed in
place: therefore, the ball
of the femur was set as a
fixed constraint
The load applied to the
femur was defined from
the time-dependent
interpolation function
modeling the force as
previously described
The load was simplified
to be applied only to the
bottom face of the femur
(where it contacts the
knee)
Mechanics (solid) and
select Fixed Constraint
Under Fixed Constraint
1, define the ball of the
femur as a fixed
boundary (displacement
equals zero)
63
Group 8 Section 2

Mesh
Study:
solve
Right-click again on
Solid Mechanics
(solid) and select
Boundary Load
Under Boundary Load
1, select Total force
from the dropdown menu
and define the force on
the bottom of the femur
as seen in the image to
the right (in the negative
y-direction because the
stress is compressive)
A mesh was selected that

was small enough to
account for the complex
geometry and large
enough to reduce
computational time
Click on Mesh 1
Under Element size,
select Fine
Click Build All
Domain elements: 14678
Click on Study 1
Under Step 1: Time
Dependent, enter the
64
Group 8 Section 2

Compute
Results and
plots
65
range of values seen in

Under Study 1, hit
Compute to begin the
simulation
Solution time: 539 s

freedom solved for:
69852
The von Mises stresses
are represented in the
figure to the right for t =
0.4 s (in the middle of the
first step)
The stresses in the femur
range from about 5 kPa
to 70 MPa
The highest stresses
occur in the upper femur
and near the hip joint
The lowest stresses occur
in the distal femur, close
to the knee joint
Right-click on Stress
(solid)
Select More Plots >>
Max/Min Volume
The point of maximum
stress (about 72 MPa)
occurs near the femoral
neck
The point of minimum
stress (about 5000 kPa)
occurs in the distal femur
near the knee
N/A
Group 8 Section 2

66
Group 8 Section 2

I.
67
Results

A. Experimental Results

Using the experimental measurements (Table 14) and the average mass, volume, and density of the
samples (Table 15), the elastic modulus of each material was calculated from the tensile tests. The mean
and standard deviation can be seen in Table 16. A corresponding box and whisker plot of the data can be
seen in Figure 1. The same calculations were performed for the tissue samples. The data is presented in
Table 17 with a graphical representation in the form of a box and whisker plot in Figure 2.

Table 14: Preliminary data measurements of the polymers
Polymer Samples (Lloyd Tensile Tester & Bose Fatigue Tester)

Sample
Total length
(mm)
Total width
(mm)
Average 39.42
STD
0.34
14.09
0.17
Average 39.76
STD
0.09
14.29
0.07
Average 39.08
STD
0.13
13.63
0.19
Gauge length
(mm)
Teflon
25.37
0.37
Delrin
24.94
0.34
Neoprene
25.46
0.46
Gauge width
(mm)
Gauge thickness
(mm)
2.46
0.11
0.69
0.01
2.84
0.10
0.71
0.01
2.33
0.09
1.36
0.07
Group 8 Section 2

68
Table 15: Average sample volume, mass, and density of the polymers and tissue
Statistical Measurement
Total sample volume (mm3)
Mean
Standard Deviation

Mean
Standard Deviation

Mean
Standard Deviation

Mean
Standard Deviation
185.6
4.2
202.0
6.9
332.7
15.1
3864
1065
Mass (g)
Teflon
0.4493
0.0110
Delrin
0.3103
0.0073
Neoprene
0.04829
0.00143
Tissue
5.234
1.331
Density (kg/m3)
2456
56
1529
51
145.4
8.7
1364
132

Table 16: Mean elastic modulus for polymers
Mean Elastic Modulus (MPa) for Polymers

Material
Average
STD
Teflon
516
33
Delrin
1758
157
Neoprene
0.59
0.11

Mean Elastic Modulus for Polymers

Elastic Molulus (MPa)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Teflon
Delrin
Neoprene
Polymer

Figure 1: Mean elastic modulus for polymers from data in Table 14
Group 8 Section 2

69
Table 17: Mean Elastic Modulus and Standard of Deviation of the Tissue Samples
Fiber Type
Aligned Fibers
Against the Grain
Mean Youngs
Modulus (MPa)
STD
0.46
0.15

0.33
0.18
Mean Elastic Modulus for Meat Samples

Elastic Modulus (MPa)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Aligned Fibers
Against the Grain
Meat Samples

Figure 2: Graphical Representation the Mean Elastic Modulus from the Meat Sample Data

Stress versus strain plots were generated for each of the polymer and tissue samples for the Lloyd data.
Each diagram shows the breaking point for the materials, which is the tip of the data on the graph. The
beginning linear portion of the data was used to determine the elastic modulus of the sample. Figure 3
shows the breaking point for Teflon was approximately 30 MPa. Delrin experienced a breaking point
around 80 MPa as seen in Figure 5. Finally, Neoprene shows a breaking point at approximately 0.45
MPa. Table 18 summarizes a few important parameters from the stress-strain curves for each material.
Table 18: Material properties of polymers and tissue
Material Properties
(Mean STD)
Yield Strength
(MPa)
Yield Strain
(fraction)
Fracture Stress
(MPa) [order of
magnitude only]
Teflon
Delrin
Neoprene
Tissue (w/
grain)
9.0 3.5
51 19
0.38 0.23
0.013 0.007
0.021 0.009
0.030 0.016
0.69 0.49
0.043 0.042
30
80
0.45
0.055
Group 8 Section 2

70
Stress vs. Strain (Teflon)

Engineering Stress (MPa)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Strain (fractional change in length)

Figure 3: Stress vs. Strain of Teflon
Stress vs. Strain (Teflon, linear elastic region)

16
y = 529.84x + 0.6713
R = 0.932
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03

Figure 4: Stress vs. Strain of Teflon to determine Young's Modulus (E)
Group 8 Section 2

71
Stress vs. Strain (Delrin)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16

Figure 5: Stress vs. Strain of Delrin
Stress vs. Strain (Delrin, linear elastic region)

60
y = 1845.2x - 0.4612
R = 0.99288
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03

Figure 6: Stress vs. Strain of Delrin to determine Young's Modulus (E)
Group 8 Section 2

72
Stress vs. Strain (Neoprene)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Figure 7: Stress vs. Strain of Neoprene
Stress vs. Strain (Neoprene, linear elastic region)

0.3
y = 0.6396x + 0.0055
R = 0.99471
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45

Figure 8: Stress vs. Strain of Neoprene to determine Young's Modulus (E)

The Stress vs. Strain diagrams for the meat are separated into with and against the grain seen in Figures
9 and 11 respectively. The meat with the grain broke at 0.055 MPa (Figure 9) while the meat against the
grain broke at a stress of 0.035 MPa (Figure 11). Figures 10 and 12 of the meat samples with and against
the grain show the beginning linear elastic region used to determine the elastic modulus of each of the
samples (Table 17).

Group 8 Section 2

73
Stress vs. Strain (Meat with grain)

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

Figure 9: Stress vs. Strain of Meat with the Grain
Stress vs. Strain (Meat with grain, linear elastic region)

0.03
y = 0.1819x + 0.0009
R = 0.99512
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14

Figure 10: Stress vs. Strain of Meat with the Grain to determine Young's Modulus (E)
Group 8 Section 2

74
Stress vs. Strain (Meat against grain)

0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6

Figure 11: Stress vs. Strain of Meat against the Grain
Stress vs. Strain (Meat against grain, linear elastic region)

0.0018
y = 0.0305x + 0.0001
R = 0.97642
0.0016
0.0014
0.0012
0.001
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06

Figure 12: Stress vs. Strain of Meat against the Grain to determine Young's Modulus (E)

B. Simulation Results (Alex)

Table 19 summarizes the yield strength and corresponding strain determined for each material by the
simulations. These predictions could then be compared to the experimental averages to figure out
whether the computational models are a reasonable representation of the real-world experiments.
Since the tissue was modeled with the force going with the grain, those results must be compared to the
Group 8 Section 2

75
corresponding experimental tissue data (they are not comparable to against the grain samples). The
individual stress and strain figures can be found previously in the tables detailing the procedures
followed in COMSOL to create each model and obtain the results.

Table 19: Alex's simulation results for the mechanical properties of the polymers and tissue
Mechanical
Properties
Yield Strength
(MPa)
Yield Strain
(fraction)
Teflon
Delrin
Neoprene
Tissue (w/
grain)
9.4
51
0.38
0.020
0.018
0.029
0.64
0.044

Tables 20 and 21 show how the computational and experimental yield strength and strain compare to
each other.

Table 20: Comparison of computational and experimental yield strength for polymers and tissue
Material
Teflon
Delrin
Neoprene
Tissue
Computational Yield
Strength (MPa)
9.4
51
0.38
0.020
Experimental Yield
Strength (MPa)
9.0
51
0.38
0.013
Percent Error (%)

4.4
0
0
54

Table 21: Comparison of computational and experimental yield strain in polymers and tissue
Material
Teflon
Delrin
Neoprene
Tissue
Computational Yield
Strain (MPa)
0.018
0.029
0.64
0.044
Experimental Yield
Strain (MPa)
0.021
0.030
0.69
0.043
Percent Error (%)

14
3.3
7.2
2.3

The femur model found that the approximate magnitude of the stress ranges from 5000 kPa to 70 MPa
during the peak force of the step. In general, the higher stresses aggregated toward the proximal femur
(near the hip joint), while the lower stresses congregated in the distal femur (near the knee joint). There
was also a clear indication that certain sides of the femur were subjected to higher stresses while
adjacent areas were not. In particular, the side facing the outer and inner thigh were generally subjected
to higher stresses than the front and back. Figures 1315 illustrates some of the important
characteristics of the femur model.

Group 8 Section 2

76
Figure 13: Point of maximum stress on the femur at t = 0.4 s

Figure 14: Point of minimum stress on the femur at t = 0.4 s
Group 8 Section 2

77
Figure 15: Qualitative image that shows higher stresses occurring on the inner side of the femur (orange arrow) compared to the
front (green arrow)

C. Simulation Results (Rebecca)

The results for the femur model, Figure 16, show that the maximum stresses
(magnitude 105) occur on the shaft of the femur. The model also shows a
displacement (bending) which contributes to the maximum stress location. The
maximum stress order of magnitude directly relates to the boundary load which was
placed on the femur head. The load that was input into the simulation was 1500 N in
the Z direction, and 270 N in the X and Y directions [21]. Also, because bone is
anisotropic, an elasticity matrix was input into COMSOL to simulate the Poissons
ratio in all directions [22]. The results from the bone model simulate a standing and
walking model. While standing a force is exerted on the bone in the X, Y, and Z
directions and causes a stress on the femur. This model simulates walking because
the stress on the femur will occur when the weight is pressing down with each step.
The image in Figure 16 shows the stress that is occurring in the bone at each step
when a human puts a compressive force from their weight.

Group 8 Section 2

Figure 16: Von Mises Stresses for Anisotropic Bone
78

The results for the ibeam simulations show that the maximum stresses occur at the
necks on the gauge portion on the top and bottom of the ibeams. Below, Figures 17,
18 and 19 show the Von Mises stresses in the Teflon, Delrin, and Neoprene ibeams
respectively. Delrin experienced the highest stress with a magnitude of 108 , followed
by Teflon with stresses on the order of 107 and then Neoprene with stresses on the
order of 106.

Group 8 Section 2

79

Figure 17: Teflon Ibeam Von Mises Stresses
Group 8 Section 2

80

Figure 18: Delrin Ibeam Von Mises Stresses
Group 8 Section 2

81

Figure 19: Neoprene Ibeam Von Mises Stresses
Group 8 Section 2

82
The Von Mises stresses for the tissue (meat) sample simulation is seen below in Figure 20. The
maximum stress for the meat sample occurred in the neck of the gauge area of the top and bottom of
the ibeam. The maximum stress was on the order of 105. This shows that the tissue sample experiences
the least amount of stress when compared to the order of magnitude of stresses on the polymer ibeam
simulations.

Figure 20: Tissue Ibeam Von Mises Stresses

II.
Discussion

A. Alex

The Lloyd tensile test allowed for the determination of the elastic modulus and other material
properties of the three polymers, as well as the tissue samples. The experimental values of the elastic
modulus for the three polymers compare well to the values stated in the literature. These results are
summarized in Table 20.

Group 8 Section 2

83
Table 22: Comparison of experimental elastic modulus to range of accepted values for the elastic modulus
Polymer
Teflon
Delrin
Neoprene
Experimental E (MPa)
Theoretical E (MPa)
516
400552 [23]
1758
10003000 [24]
0.59
0.72 [13]

The computational I-beam models proved to be excellent predictions for their real-world counterparts.
Table 20 and 21 list the yield strength and yield strain determined for each material by experiment and
by simulation. The percent error of each parameter is also noted.

The Lloyd machine allowed the elastic modulus and several other important material properties to be
calculated for both polymer and tissue samples. Designing effective engineering solutions to biomedical
problems often requires the careful analysis of these parameters. Since most of the values obtained
through the experiments fell within the accepted range of these materials in the literature, this goal was
successfully met. Additionally, the simulations added additional confidence to the experimental results.

The hysteresis curves demonstrate that fatigue occurs in Teflon and Neoprene after 500 cycles of cyclic
stress. As time goes on, more strain occurs to produce an equivalent amount of stress that occurred at
an earlier time. Because it is defined as the ratio of stress to strain, a larger strain for the same stress
results in a decrease in the elastic modulus over time. This result gives an intuitive sense of how material
parameters can change as a result of cyclic loading and unloading. Many biomedical devices, such as
orthopedic implants, are subjected to these stresses in vivo. Understanding the mechanics behind these
material properties can aid in the design of new devices and improve their functionality.

The femur model gave some important order of magnitude estimates and a qualitative idea of where
the distribution of stress acts on the bone. The maximum stress found in the model (about 72 MPa) has
also been found in studies in the literature [25]. The model also suggests the presence of bending
moments around the femur. This result is suggested by the higher levels of stress on the inner and outer
sections of the femur than on the front and back of it. The deformation of the femur given by the model
confirms this fact. The discussion of bending moments in the femur is also a frequent topic of interest in
the literature [26].

The main challenge with the femur model was the geometry. Without any biological scan data to
analyze, it was difficult, even with a list of the appropriate measurements, to create a realistic geometry.
A more feasible approach in the future would be to work on an imported scan model in Mimics to obtain
a better femur model. There are also possible problems with the approach taken to applying boundary
conditions. Fixing the hip joint may not be a completely reasonable model, as there are forces from the
upper body that apply stress to the femur at an angle through the joint. This topic was also discussed in
the literature and may be a significant omission of the model [25,26]. Finding a way to compromise
between applying the forces only at the knee or only at the hip would require a more research into the
forces involved and a more sophisticated approach to the finite-element modeling.
Group 8 Section 2

84
Although there were not many statistics used in this module, there are several noteworthy aspects to
mention. First, it is clear that the polymer samples provided much more consistency than the tissue
samples. Some of the means calculated for the meat samples were actually smaller than their respective
values of standard deviation. Therefore, there was a wide range of geometric and material properties
between various tissue samples. Although it seemed to be an issue at first, the simulations of the meat
experiment still gave fairly good results. It indicates that although there was wide variation between
samples, the average properties were close enough to provide decent results. Future experiments could
be improved by focusing on cutting more consistent slices of meat and using the utmost care when
measuring the sample parameters to minimize potential error.

Lastly, there were several potential sources of error in the experiments and the modeling. As mentioned
previously, individual sample variation definitely influenced the reliability of the results. Problems with
the machines, such as over-tightening some samples or not lining them up complete vertically in the
Lloyd machine, could have resulted in stress-strain data that was influenced by extraneous factors.
When making the models, some of the assumptions could make a big difference regarding their
reliability. These simplifications include ignoring viscoelastic effects for the I-beams and fixing the hip
joint in place for the femur. Overall, there are probably enough samples in the calculated means that
these errors balance each other out, but it is wise to be aware of their potential influence on the results.

B. Rebecca

The femur simulation that was built in SolidWorks was used to simulate stress on the
femur that can occur while standing or walking. Building the femur using SolidWorks
CAD software is useful because the model can be adjusted to create individualized
simulations which can be applied to various medical procedures. This can be applied to
experiments much larger and more involved than in this course. The model can be cut
and implantations can be input so that the stress and integrity of the model can be
determined before surgeries are performed on patients. The model can then be
imported into the COMSOL software and data can be analyzed. For example, the femur
can be modeled with holes from external fixation and then the stress on the model can
be simulated to determine when it would be safe for the patient to walk with the
fixators. Another example of the usefulness of the modeling system is to show ingrowth
of the femur bone into scaffolding. Scaffolding would be placed between femur bone if
a patient suffered from cancer or had a serious break. Adding scaffolding could speed
up the healing process and make for a quicker recovery.

The femur that was modeled for this report (Table 2 and Figure 1) is not completely
accurate to a human femur. Even though the geometry is not exact, the general shape
of the femur model is correct and therefore the stresses being modeled should be
accurate. The results from the model (Figure 1) show the main stress occurring in the
lower shaft of the femur. This is because that area has the smallest diameter and has a
major curve leading to the larger bottom section of the femur. To model the anisotropy
Group 8 Section 2

85
of bone, forces were placed on the femur in all directions which would simulate
standing and walking. In a true model of the stress in a human femur, it is expected that
the main stress would occur in the shaft and would have similar results to my model.
However, in a real simulation of a human femur, the bottom and the top would not be
fixed because they are in motion while walking and a force is being applied at the same
time they are moving. Also, I would expect to see stresses in the femoral head. That
portion of the femur has a small branch and curve which should exhibit stresses similar
to those shown in the shaft of the femur.

Similarly, testing the various polymers using the Bose fatigue tester and the Lloyd tensile
tester can have broader applications than what is being used in this class. Teflon, for
example, is used in the biomedical industry from gloves to cell culture applications to invivo medical devices. Delrin and neoprene are not as abundant in the biomedical
industry as Teflon. However, Delrin has been previously been used in cardiac heart
valve designs [9]. Knowing how to test various polymers can help determine which
materials are mechanically suitable for use in a biomedical device and application. If a
material is compatible and strong but its mechanical integrity only allows it to last a
short amount of time, it would not work well in a biomedical device and this can be
determined through fatigue and tensile test data.

The simulation for the Teflon polymer Lloyd data (Table 3 and Figure 2) showed that the
break would occur in the neck of the gauge area of the model. During experimentation
in the lab, the Teflon model broke more toward the middle of the gauge. The breaking
point in the samples can be contributed to the material type, and how they were loaded
into the Lloyd machine. The Delrin polymer sample (Table 4 and Figure 3) also showed a
breaking point in the neck of the gauge area on the samples. This is exactly what was
seen in the lab experimentally. Again, the breaking point is contributed to the material
type and how it was loaded in the machine. Because all of the Delrin samples broke at
the neck of the gauge, it was determined that this break was due to the material
properties of the polymer. The Neoprene sample (Table 5 and Figure 4) was similar to
the Teflon in the fact that experimentally it broke more toward the middle of the gauge
while the simulation showed the break at the neck of the gauge.

Table 8 shows the mean elastic modulus for the polymers from the experimental data.
For Teflon, the average measured Youngs modulus was 516 MPa which is very
comparable to 410 MPa which is the Youngs modulus of Teflon found in literature [27].

Comparing all of the samples stresses, the order of magnitude of the stresses explains
the different breaking areas on the gauge for each sample. Teflon, Delrin, and
Neoprene experience stresses on the order of magnitude 107, 108, 106 respectively.
Teflon is a very stretchy and strong material, therefore it experiences a high amount of
stress but can compensate by stretching and eventually it reaches its maximum stress
Group 8 Section 2

86
and it breaks toward the middle of the gauge. Delrin is a hard plastic material that has a
high elastic modulus which results in a decreased elasticity. This polymer experienced a
large amount of stress but was not able to compensate by stretching and it broke at the
neck of the gauge. Finally, Neoprene is a material that is not as stretchy as Teflon but it
is not as hard as Delrin. It has an experimental elastic modulus (Table 8) lower than
Teflon and Delrin which makes it a weak material in terms of its elasticity. The
Neoprene sample was able to stretch, but not as much as Teflon. Therefore, this
polymer experienced a lower stress when breaking but it was able to break toward the
middle of the gauge. All of the ibeam simulations were computed using a stationary
study because Dr. Leung and Erik said not to compute for a time dependent study.

The average Youngs Modulus found for Delrin was 1758 MPa which is also comparable
to the literature value of 3100 MPa [28]. Finally, Neoprene was shown to have an
experimental average Youngs Modulus of 0.59 MPa. Comparing this value to the
literature value of 0.7 MPa, again shows that the data is comparable [29]. Each of the
polymer samples show that the elastic modulus is on the same order of magnitude as
found in literature which shows that the experimental data is accurate.

Using the before and after measurements of the Neoprene and Teflon samples from the
Bose machine, an experimental Poissons ratio value was able to be calculated (Table 23
and Table 24). Because the experimental data was causing the simulations not to run,
Dr. Leung and Erik advised me to use the Poissons ratio values from literature (seen in
COMSOL model Tables) and input those values into the COMSOL models. A graphical
representation of the Poissons ratio from the experimental data in the form of a box
and whisker plot can be found below in Figure 21.

Table 23: Poisson's Ratio experimental results calculation for Teflon
Teflon
Sample 3R

Transverse Strain
0.076
Axial Strain
0.075
Poisson's Ratio
1.01
STD
Average Poisson's Ratio
Sample 4R

-0.06
0.05
1.169592
0.111249079
1.090926791

Table 24: Poisson's Ratio experimental results calculation for Neoprene
Neoprene

Transverse Strain
Sample 3R
Sample 4R

-0.192825112

-0.18067
Group 8 Section 2

87
Axial Strain
0.023875846
0.030641
Poisson's Ratio
8.076158445
5.896486
STD
1.541261261
Average Poisson's Ratio
6.986322156

Average Poisson's Ratio (Rebecca's Samples)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Teflon
Neoprene
Figure 21: Graphical representation of experimental Poisson's Ratio values of Teflon and Neoprene
The meat samples were loaded similarly to the polymer samples in the Lloyd machine. The against the
grain meat sample had a lower breaking stress (Figure 16) than the meat sample with the grain. This is
because the fibers in the meat were going perpendicular to the direction the meat was being pulled.
The fibers somewhat created a breaking point for the meat because it was easier for the meat to tear
along those fibers than cut through and tear against them which was experienced in the meat with the
grain. The meat samples anisotropic simulation had the lowest stress at the breaking point with an
order of magnitude of 105. This is because, when compared to the polymers, the meat is a very stretchy
material and does not have much resistance to tearing. Therefore if the meat was exposed to too much
stress, it would tear instead of resisting and causing the meat to be exposed to a higher stress.
Errors that occurred while testing were mainly the Delrin polymer and the meat samples slipping out of
the Lloyd machine clamps. This was fixed by obtaining a new polymer sample or meat sample and
repeat the experimental test. The same polymer or meat sample was not able to be re-clamped and
used again to obtain data because when it had slipped from the clamp, the mechanical integrity and
elasticity of the materials was already compromised.

III.
Summary

In conclusion, the data obtained from the Lloyd tensile testing was similar to the data found in literature
for each of the polymers. The polymers were very different materials and exhibited different properties
which was seen through the data and visually during the experimental testing. Knowing the properties
Group 8 Section 2

IV.
V.
88
of the polymers and how they can last over time is useful information to apply these materials in various
biomedical applications.

The data from the Bose machine demonstrated that Teflon and neoprene both undergo hysteresis when
subjected to repetitive cycles of loading and unloading, resulting in a decrease in the elastic modulus
over time. The femur models demonstrated that COMSOL is a powerful tool for analyzing stresses in
complex models. However, the complex nature of the geometry, material properties of the bone, and
applied load made it difficult to achieve high-quality results in these models.

Acknowledgements

(Rebecca)
Throughout this report I obtained verbal assistance from many people and I would like to thank all of
them individually. Erin Hartmann and I spent hours in Hammond and Hallowell bouncing ideas off of
each other to build our femurs in SolidWorks. Dr. Leung and Erik have helped me in class and explained
to examine my Bose data I need to graph the Elastic Modulus vs. Time. They also told me I do not need
to complete a time dependent model for my ibeam simulations. Finally, they helped me with my
literature obtained data in my COMSOL models to help them run because in literature, the values were
given as ranges. Katie Ebersol and Max Greenburg helped me find the area to add in the elasticity matrix
in COMSOL. Michael McPhail helped me find the MATLAB function to import my Bose data and graph
every 100th point of the Elastic Modulus vs. Time. Mike and Pouria also were kind enough to allow me to
work in the computer lab during their BME 301 class. Alex Cook and I worked together building our
COMSOL simulations by making sure our data was the same and we interpreted the data in the same
way. Finally, Kaylene Killeen and I spent many hours together working on our SolidWorks femurs and
COMSOL simulations helping each other.

(Alex)
I exchanged ideas with several people throughout the course of this module. I corresponded a lot with
Rebecca on the interpretation of our data and how to translate it into the COMSOL models. I also had
conversations with Max Greenberg and Sam Cramer, primarily regarding the femur geometry and
modeling.

References

1. Hibbeler, R. C. "Chapter 3." Mechanics of Materials. 8th ed. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2011. 81-84,
90-91. Print.

2.
Hibbeler, R. C. "Chapter 3." Mechanics of Materials. 8th ed. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2011. 108-

109. Print.

Group 8 Section 2

89
3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Simonovsky, Felix. "Biomaterials Tutorial: Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)." University of

Washington Engineered Biomaterials. University of Washington, 2004. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.
10.
Poissons ratio. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/poissons-ratio-d_1224.html. Accessed

October 4, 2015.
11.
Dupont Teflon PTFE. RJ Chase Company, http://www.rjchase.com/ptfe_handbook.pdf. Accessed

October 4, 2015.
12.
Dupont Delrin Acetal Resin. DuPont, http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/productsand-services/plastics-polymers-and resins/thermoplastics/documents/Delrin

/Delrin%20Design%20Guide%20Mod%203.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2015.
13.
Materials Data Book: 2003 Edition. http://wwwmdp.eng.cam.ac.uk/web/library/enginfo/cueddatabooks/materials.pdf. Accessed October 4,

2015.
14.
Rawal, B. R., et al. "Anthropometric measurements to design best-fit femoral stem for the Indian
population." Indian journal of orthopaedics 46.1 (2012): 46.
15.
Taylor, William R., et al. "Tibio-femoral loading during human gait and stair climbing." Journal of
Orthopaedic Research 22.3 (2004): 625-632.
16.
Uematsu, Azusa, et al. "Preferred step frequency minimizes veering during natural human
walking." Neuroscience letters 505.3 (2011): 291-293.
17.
Cuppone, M., et al. "The longitudinal Youngs modulus of cortical bone in the midshaft of human
femur and its correlation with CT scanning data." Calcified tissue international 74.3 (2004): 302309.
18.
Wirtz, Dieter Christian, et al. "Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize
anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur." Journal of biomechanics 33.10 (2000): 13251330.
"Delrin Acetal Resin." DuPont: Engineering Thermoplastics. DuPont, 2015. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.
"Neoprene Sheets." Techneopro. Techneopro Ltd, 2015. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.
Manning, Keefe. Solid Mechanics: Materials Testing Protocol. State College, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University, 2015. Print.
Density of Bone. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AnnaYarusskaya.shtml. Accessed
October 4, 2015.
Dupont. Teflon PTFE Properties Handbook. 1996:38.
Bj VO. Delrin as Implant Material for Valve Occluders. Scand Cardiovasc J. 1972;6(2):103-
107. doi:10.3109/14017437209134786.
Group 8 Section 2

90
19.
Bone Anisotropy. Tissue Biomechanics. University of Wisconsin, n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2015.
20.
Sharma, Dinesh C. Indian Children Walking Tall: Study Shows Teenagers Are 2 Inches Taller than
in 1992. Daily Mail. Associated Newspapers, 21 Mar. 2012. Web. 04 Oct. 2015.
21.
Taylor SJG, Walker PS, Perry JS, Cannon SR, Woledge R. The forces in the distal femur and the
knee during walking and other activities measured by telemetry. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(4):428435. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90009-2.
22.
Hong J, Cha H, Park Y, Lee S, Khang G, Kim Y. Elastic Moduli and Poisson s Ratios of Microscopic
Human Femoral Trabeculae. 11th Mediterr Conf Med Biomed Eng Comput 2007, IFMBE Proc Vol
16,. 2007:274-277. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73044-6_68.
23.
Teflon: General Material Properties. Dielectric Corporation,

http://www.dielectriccorp.com/downloads/thermoplastics/teflon.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2015.
24.
Delrin Design Information. DuPont,

http://www2.dupont.com/Plastics/en_US/assets/downloads/design/DELDGe.pdf. Accessed
October 4, 2015.
25.
Taylor, M. E., et al. "Stress and strain distribution within the intact femur: compression or
bending?." Medical engineering & physics 18.2 (1996): 122-131.
26.
Rybicki, E. F., F. A. Simonen, and E. B. Weis. "On the mathematical analysis of stress in the human
femur." Journal of biomechanics 5.2 (1972): 203-215.
27.
PTFE | Engineering Polymers | Thermoplastics | Natural & Synthetic Polymers | Material

Categories | Chemical, mechanical, physical and environmental properties of materials |
Matbase: the independent online material selection resource.
http://www.matbase.com/material-categories/natural-and-synthetic-polymers/engineeringpolymers/material-properties-of-polytetrafluoroethylene-ptfe.html#properties. Accessed
October 4, 2015.
28.
Ensinger. http://www.ensingerinc.com/products.cfm?page=product&product=delrinandreg;+acetal+homopolymer. Accessed

October 4, 2015.
29.
Cambridge University Engineering Department. Materials data book. Mater Courses. 2003:1-41.
doi:10.1016/0261-3069(88)90026-X.

Solids Module Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Solids Module Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BME

429: SOLIDS MODULE

Alexander Cook and Rebecca Nagurney

The Pennsylvania State University - COE

Methods and Materials

Table 1: Bose fatigue test parameters

Table 2: Lloyd tensile test parameters

Polymer Samples (Lloyd Tensile Tester & Bose Fatigue Tester)

Table 4: Rebecca's Femur

Define the space dimension

Define the geometry

linear elastic material 1 under the solid mechanics

This model was solved using a stationary study

Compute and Results

The Von Misses stresses are 10 order of

Define the space dimension

Average Gauge Thickness: 0.69

Physical Settings, initial condition

This simulation was solved using a stationary

Compute and Results

Define the space dimension

Average Gauge Thickness: 0.71 mm

Poissons ratio: 0.35 [9]

This simulation was solved using a stationary

Compute and Results

Define the space dimension

Poissons Ratio: 0.4 [10]

This simulation was solved

Compute and Results

Define the space dimension

Tissue (Beef Anisotropic)

Youngs Modulus: 0.3 MPa

This simulation was solved using a stationary

Compute and Results

Define the space

Define the physics

Under select physics,

Define the study

Under select study,

The polymer and

The I-beams are

The forces on the

Since the geometry of

Results and plots

Click on a point near

Define the space

Define the physics

Under select physics,

Define the study

Under select study,

The polymer and

The I-beams are

Define the material

Since the displacement

The forces on the

Since the geometry of

Under Element size,

Results and plots

the yield strength

Define the space

Define the physics

Under select physics,