|
Size: 1550
Comment: Archival of Open Knee - Generation 1 wiki pages
|
← Revision 5 as of 2016-05-04 22:09:50 ⇥
Size: 1570
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 30: | Line 30: |
| attachment:flexion.png | {{attachment:flexion.png}} |
| Line 34: | Line 34: |
| attachment:ie.png | {{attachment:ie.png}} |
| Line 38: | Line 38: |
| attachment:vv.png | {{attachment:vv.png}} |
| Line 46: | Line 46: |
| attachment:p3strain.png | {{attachment:p3strain.png}} |
| Line 50: | Line 50: |
| attachment:cpress.png | {{attachment:cpress.png}} |
Passive Flexion
A predictive model of passive flexion of the knee to 45 degrees. All materials and contact interactions are the same as described on the wiki frontpage.
Loads and Boundary Condtions
|
Tibia |
Femur |
x |
0 |
free |
y |
0 |
free |
z |
0 |
-100 N ramp t=0-1sec; constant t=1-2.5sec |
Rx |
0 |
0 deg t=0-1 sec; 45 deg t=1-2.5sec |
Ry |
0 |
free |
Rz |
0 |
free |
Platform
Employed 8 threads on Ohio Supercomputing Center's Glenn cluster - 1 node; 2 quad core 64 bit AMD Opterons; Linux.
Results
The model converged with a solution wall clock time of 32:44:25. The equivalent model in dynamic analysis on 8 threads took 10:17:39. The static model took approximately 218% longer to solve.
Kinematic Comparison
The static and dynamic models exhibited essentially identical kinematics as seen in the following plots.
Flexion
Internal/External Rotation
Varus/Valgus Rotation
Stress/Strain Comparison
Likewise, stress, strain, and contact pressure distributions were also nearly identical. A comparison of contour plots of the 3rd principal strain and contact pressure for the tibial cartilage are shown below.
Third Principal Green-Lagrange Strain (Pure Compression)
Contact Pressure
