Proceedings of IMECE’03
2003 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF KNEE JOINT
CONTACT PRESSURES AND COMPARISON TO
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING OF THE
LOADED KNEE
Jiang Yao, Art D. Salo, Monica Barbu-McInnis, and Amy L. Lerner
Department of Biomedical Engineering
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY, 14627
INTRODUCTION
A finite element model of the knee joint could be helpful in
providing insight on mechanisms of injury, effects of treatment, and
the role of mechanical factors in degenerative conditions. However,
preparation of such a model involves many geometric simplifications
and input of material properties, some of which are poorly understood.
Therefore, a method to compare model predictions to actual behaviors
under controlled conditions could provide confidence in the model
before exploration of other loading scenarios. Our laboratory has
developed a method to apply axial loads to the in vivo human knee
during magnetic resonance imaging, resembling weightbearing
conditions. Image processing algorithms may then be used to assess
the three-dimensional kinematics of the tibia and femur during
loading. A three-dimensional model of the tibio-menisco-femoral
contact has been generated and the image-based kinematic boundary
conditions were applied to investigate the distribution of stresses and
strains in the articular cartilage and menisci throughout the loading
period. In this study, our goal is to investigate the contact patterns
during long term loading of up to twenty minutes in the healthy knee.
Specifically, we assess the use of both elastic and poroelastic material
properties in the cartilage, and compare model predictions to known
loading conditions and images of tissue deformations.
METHODS
Loading Device
Fig 1. In vivo axial loading device for the knee joint.
A device was used to apply axial load to the knee joint within a
GE Signa clinical MRI scanner (Fig 1). A 26 yr. old female subject
with healthy knees was positioned supine with the knee flexed to
approximately 10°. To minimize motion during scanning, the thigh
was strapped securely to a wedge shaped support restricting
medial/lateral motion and rotation of the femur. The axial load of
340N was applied through weights and pulleys to an ankle-foot
orthotic attached to a freely sliding track.
MR imaging
The knee was initially imaged with both routine (TE: 17 ms, TR:
45 ms, 1 NEX, Flip Angle: 30°, Scanning Time: 16 min) and fast (TE:
1 Copyright „2003 by ASME
Washington, D.C., November 16-21, 2003
IMECE2003-43153
1.9 ms, TR: 7.1 ms, 1 NEX, Flip Angle: 40°, Scanning Time: 2 min)
gradient recalled echo (GRE) sequences in the unloaded condition to
provide visualization of the knee joint and reference for tracking the
bone motion. Then, loads equivalent to 64% of body weight (340 N)
were applied to the knee joint. Image sets were acquired using the fast
GRE sequence immediately after the load was applied and again after
18 minutes of loading. For each image volume, 64 sagittal slices were
collected with thickness of 1.5mm and in-plane resolution of
0.66mm¥0.66mm (field of view: 170mm; matrix: 256¥256 pixels).
Motion Tracking
To impose the kinematics of the bones during axial loading, the
tibia and femur were first segmented on the MR image volume
acquired using the fast GRE sequence in the initial unloaded position.
The centroid and principle axes of each bone segmentation were then
calculated, then motion tracking algorithms (Tamez-Pena 1999) were
used to calculate the translation of the centroid and the rotation of the
principle axes of each bone segmentation from the initial unloaded
position to two subsequent loaded positions. This algorithm has been
demonstrated to have an accuracy of 0.39mm in translation and 0.38°
in rotation (Lerner 2003).
FE Modeling
A three-dimensional finite element model of tibio-menisco-
femoral joint contact was created for the unloaded condition using pre
processor HyperMesh 5.0 (Altair Engineering, Inc.). The model was
analyzed using finite element software ABAQUS 6.3 (Hibbitt,
Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.).
Fig 2. Finite element
model of the knee joint.
For efficient analysis,
model was trimmed to
include either medial or
lateral compartment.
The femur and tibia bone surfaces are assumed rigid, with
opposing articular cartilage modeled as isotropic elastic, isotropic
poroelastic, or transversely isotropic poroelastic material with the
material stiffer in the plane parallel to the cartilage surface than in the
perpendicular direction [Table 1].
Table 1. Three types of material properties assigned to cartilage
Isotropic elastic E=12MPa, n=0.45 Ref: (Jilani 1997)
Isotropic HA=0.60MPa, n=0.07, K=1.14*10-15m4/NS, f m=0.20
poroelastic Ref: (Athanasiou 1991)
Transversely E1= E2= 5.8MPa, E3= 0.46Mpa, v12= v23 =0.0, G13=
isotropic 0.37Mpa, K=1.14*10-15m4/NS, fm=0.20
poroelastic Ref: (Athanasiou 1991; Cohen 1993)
In all analyses, the menisci were assigned transversely isotropic
elastic material properties to represent the circumferential fiber
arrangement (E1= 140MPa, E2= E3= 20Mpa, v12= 0.2, v23 =0.3, G12=
50MPa) (Whipple 1984; Fithian 1989; Skaggs 1994; Tissakht 1995).
Each meniscal attachment was defined as non-compressive linear
spring elements with tensile modulus as 111MPa. The average cross
section area for each attachment was 50mm2 composed of 36 springs
with average initial length of 3mm. This resulted in a stiffness of
1850N/mm for each attachment (Haut Donahue 2002). The model did
not include collateral, cruciate or transverse ligaments, or joint
capsule.
The motions of tibia and femur were imposed at their bone
centroids. To reduce calculation time, the full knee model was divided
into medial and lateral compartments. Contacts were modeled between
femur, tibia cartilage surfaces and meniscal surfaces. Between contact
surfaces no penetration was allowed and small sliding was assumed.
Fluid was not allowed to flow out of the cartilage boundaries.
Validation of the FE model
Because kinematic boundary conditions were applied as
quantified from motion tracking, it was possible to compare the
reaction forces calculated in the model to the known applied loads,
assuming that the entire axial load is carried by the defined contact
surfaces.
RESULTS
When cartilage was modeled as isotropic elastic material, the
predicted model reaction forces were 220.5N and 621.3N after 1 and
19 minutes of axial loading, however the applied reaction was 340N
during the whole period, which suggested that the cartilage was much
stiffer at the beginning of axial loading and became softer during
loading. Suprisingly, when cartilage was modeled as poroelastic
material, using values reported in recent literature, the predicted
reaction force was much lower than that of the elastic model. By
adding transverse isotropy to the solid matrix, there was a slight
increase of the predicted reaction force, but still much lower than the
elastic model prediction (Table 2).
Table 2. Total reaction force with three types of cartilage material properties
Total Reaction Isotropic elastic Isotropic Transversely-
Force (N) poroelastic isotropic
poroelastic
after 1min 220.53 3.22 11.74
after 19min 621.28 5.39 19.26
Fig 2. (a,b) Hydrostatic pressure in the elastic cartilage model and (c,d) pore
pressure in the transversely isotropic poroelastic cartilage model after 1min
(a,c) and 19 min (b,d) of axial loading
2 Copyright „2003 by ASME
We found a shift of peak contact pressure from lateral to the
medial side during axial loading. Qualitatively, the model predicted
the meniscal motion and deformation comparable to the MR image
during axial loading (Fig 3).
Fig 3. One sagittal slice through the lateral contact region after about 10
minutes of axial loading. (left) MRI (right) hydrostatic pressure by model with
transversely isotropic poroelastic cartilage.
DISCUSSION
Modeling cartilage as isotropic elastic material can not capture
the creep behavior of articular cartilage during axial loading up to 20
minutes. However, using the current literature values for isotropic
poroelastic material properties of cartilage, our model predicts much
lower reaction force than the force applied. Increasing the modulus
parallel to cartilage surface increased but still underestimated the
reaction force. Low reaction forces in idealized joint contact models
were also reported by Wu et al, in a study we used to validate our
modeling methods (Wu, 1998). The magnitude of the reaction force is
highly dependent on surface curvature, material properties and
boundary conditions, all of which may need further investigation. The
accuracy of our model may be limited by the MR resolution as well as
motion tracking method. Other limitations include fluid boundary
conditions, and modeling menisci as elastic. However, the model has
provided an interesting method to investigate material properties of the
soft tissues in the knee. The contact pressures between the menisci
and cartilage surfaces were lower than expected, which may suggest
that the material properties of meniscal attachments are inappropriate.
In addition, our model does not include the transverse ligament or joint
capsule. Further parametric studies and more quantitative comparisons
to MR images may provide a better understanding of the role of the
meniscus in this and other types of loading.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support was provided by VirtualScopics LLC. The authors
are grateful for technical support provided by Bill W. Badger, Tina
Benner.
REFERENCES
Athanasiou, K. A., et al, 1991, J. Orthop. Res, 9:330-340.
Cohen, B. et al, 1993, Trans Ortho Research Soc., Chicago, IL., 185.
Fithian, D. C. et al, 1989, Trans Ortho Research Society 35: 205.
Haut Donahue, T. L., et al, 2002, J Biomech Eng 124: 273-280.
Jilani, A., et al, 1997, The Knee 4: 203-213.
Lerner, A. L. et al, 2003, J. Biomech. Eng. 125: 246-253.
Skaggs, D. L., et al, 1994, J. Orthopaedic Research 12: 176-185.
Tamez-Pena et al, 1999, SPIE Medical Imaging '99, Physiology and
fusion from multidimensional medical images.
Tissakht, M. et al, 1995, J. Biomech 28: 411-422.
Whipple, R. et al, 1984, Advances in Bioengineering, American
Society of Mechanical Engineering, New York.
Wu, J.Z. et al, 1998, J. Biomech 31: 165-169.