1.

INTRODUCTION
1.1. FEMUR BONE
Femur bone is one of the important associate bones constituting the hip joint and is exposed
to different forces during standing, walking, or running. The comprehensive biomechanical
properties of the cancellous bone of distal femurs are generally accomplished through a
series of mechanical tests, comprising of tensile test, compression test,torsion test, shear
test, bending test and impact test. The accurate determination of biomechanical properties
of bone is a precondition and is relevant especially for research related to the design and
manufacture of artificial joint, rectification device, and implants.

1.2. Mechanical properties of bone [6]

SI Material Property Cortical Bone Cancellous Bone
1. Young’s modulus 17 GPa 0.52 GPa
2. Density 2 gm/cm3 1.08 gm/cm3
3. Poisson’s ratio 0.30 0.29
4. Tensile strength 130MPa -

1.3. TYPES OF FRACTURE [6]

Fractures of the femur bone, which is the thigh bone, can vary in type based on the location
and nature of the break. Here are some common types of femur fractures:
Transverse Fracture: This is a fracture that occurs straight across the femur bone,
perpendicular to its long axis.
Oblique Fracture: An oblique fracture occurs at an angle across the bone. This type of
fracture can be more unstable compared to a transverse fracture.
Spiral Fracture: A spiral fracture results from a twisting force applied to the bone. The
fracture line spirals around the bone shaft.
Comminuted Fracture: In a comminuted fracture, the bone breaks into three or more
pieces. This type of fracture can be more complex and may require more extensive
treatment.
Greenstick Fracture: Greenstick fractures are incomplete fractures seen in children where
the bone bends and cracks instead of breaking completely.

1.4. TREATMENT OF FRACTURE FEMUR BONE

The treatment of a femur bone fracture depends on several factors including the type of
fracture, its location, the age and health of the patient, and any associated injuries. Here are
the general approaches to treating a fracture of the femur bone:

P a g e 1 | 13
1.4.1. Immobilization: For stable fractures, especially in less active patients or those with
medical conditions that increase surgical risks, immobilization using traction or splints may
be used initially. This helps to stabilize the fracture and prevent further damage.
1.4.2. Surgical Fixation:
1.4.2.1. Intramedullary Nailing: This is a common surgical technique where a metal
rod (nail) is inserted into the marrow canal of the femur to stabilize the fracture. This
method allows for early mobilization and quicker healing.
1.4.2.2. Plate and Screw Fixation: For certain types of fractures, especially those near
the ends of the bone or in complex fracture patterns, plates and screws may be used
to stabilize the bone fragments.
1.4.2.3. External Fixation: In cases where the fracture is severe or there is significant
soft tissue damage, external fixators (metal pins or screws attached to a frame
outside the body) may be used temporarily to hold the bones in place.
1.4.3. Reduction: If the fracture is displaced (bones are out of alignment), a reduction may
be performed to realign the bones manually (closed reduction) or surgically (open
reduction).
1.4.4. Rehabilitation:
1.4.4.1. Physical Therapy: After the initial healing phase, physical therapy is crucial to
regain strength, mobility, and function of the injured leg.
1.4.4.2. Weight-Bearing Progression: The timing and progression of weight-bearing
activities will be guided by the treating healthcare professionals based on the type
and location of the fracture, as well as individual patient factors.
1.4.5. Pain Management and Monitoring: Pain management strategies will be employed to
keep the patient comfortable during the healing process. Regular monitoring through
imaging (X-rays) will be done to assess the progress of healing.
1.4.6. Complication Management: Complications such as infection, delayed union, non
union, or malunion may occur and require appropriate management.
It's important to note that the treatment plan will be customized for each patient based on
their specific circumstances. Recovery from a femur fracture can be a lengthy process, and
adherence to the treatment plan and rehabilitation program is essential for optimal
outcomes. Prompt medical attention and follow-up care are crucial for successful healing of
a fractured femur bone.

2. Finite Element Analysis of Femur Bone

P a g e 2 | 13
2.1. Introduction
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a computational method used in engineering to simulate and
analyze the behaviour of complex structures or systems. It involves creating a digital model
of the system, dividing it into smaller elements (meshing), assigning material properties,
defining boundary conditions such as loads and constraints, and performing numerical
analysis to solve equations that govern the system's behaviour. FEA is beneficial for
predicting how structures respond to various conditions, such as mechanical loads or
thermal changes, without the need for physical prototypes. Engineers use FEA to optimize
designs, evaluate structural integrity, assess performance, and solve engineering challenges
in fields like aerospace, automotive, civil engineering, biomechanics, and more. It's a
powerful tool that helps save time, reduce costs, and improve the efficiency and reliability of
engineering designs and solutions.
2.2. Static Structure
A static structure remains in equilibrium under applied forces, without dynamic motion.
Engineers analyse static structures to understand stress, strain, deformation, and stability
using methods like Finite Element Analysis. Examples include buildings, bridges, and
mechanical components, crucial for designing safe and reliable systems in engineering.
As our objective is to find a suitable material for the replacement of femur bone, so by
utilizing Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the femur bone, we can obtain insightful results
that help to evaluate the suitability of substitute materials for bone replacement. These
evaluated results serve as indicators of whether the substitute material meets the necessary
failure criteria required for effective bone replacement.
2.2.1. Geometry
In the process of conducting analysis, a CAD model of the femur bone is imported. This CAD
model serves as the foundational structure for the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) that will be
carried out.
2.2.2. Material Assignments
For the finite element analysis of the femur bone, the material properties were defined as
follows: The Young's modulus, which typically ranges from 10 to 20 GPa for femur bone, was
set to 15 GPa for the analysis. Additionally, Poisson's ratio and density were assigned values
of 0.3 and 2000 kg/m³, respectively. A linear elastic material model was selected for this
analysis.
2.2.3. Meshing:
In this study, a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) mesh was created based on a 3D (CAD) model
of the femur bone. The mesh generation process utilized the auto-mesh generation
algorithm. This algorithm automatically subdivides the geometry of the femur bone model
into smaller elements to create a finite element mesh that accurately represents the
structural features and complexities of the bone. The resulting mesh of the femur bone is
shown in Figure
P a g e 3 | 13
2.2.4. Boundry Condition and loading:
Two different kinds of loading conditions were applied to simulate real case scenarios. In the
first case, axial loading (compression) was applied in the direction of the bone. This case
simulates the weight handled by the femur in an upright standing position. In the second
case, a bending load(perpendicular) is applied to the femur bone. In both cases, fixed
support is provided at lateral condyle, medial condyle and patellar surface. Loading and
boundary constraints are shown in Figure.

Figure (a): Axial loading

P a g e 4 | 13
 Figure (b): Bending loading

2.2.5. Solution:
Run the FEA solver to compute the response of the femur bone model under the applied
loads and boundary conditions. The solver calculates the equivalent stress.

Figure (a): Stress Distribution in Axial Loading

Figure (b): Stress Distribution in Bending Loading

P a g e 5 | 13
TABLE 1: Load Vs Stress

Force Max stress(axial) Max stress(bending)

(N) (MPa) (MPa)

250 6.60 29.01

350 9.24 40.62
690 18.22 80.08*
1500 39.61 174.09
2500 66.01 290.14
4140 109.33* 480.47
5000 132.04 580.28

This analysis is performed on model of femur bone by varying the loads. The maximum
stresses for different weights generated in this analysis are given in Table 1. The failure stress
is taken as 100 MPa based on experimental data available in literature. The results indicate
the failure of femur bone under the loading of 414 Kg of weight under axial loading and 69
Kg of load under the bending load. The results clearly indicate that the strength of femur
bone in axial direction is significantly more than compared to bending.

The following conclusions can be drawn from FEM analysis of human femur bone:
 Axial strength of the femur is almost six times that of bending.
 Human femur can withstand ten times the load of its body weight.
 Evaluated results are indicative of the failure criteria of substitute material for bones

P a g e 6 | 13
 3. FEA of femur bone with intermedullary nailing rod
3.1. Titanium as Intramedullary nailing rod
This project focuses on employing Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to assess the structural
behaviour of a femur bone integrated with a titanium intermedullary nailing rod. By
simulating various loading conditions, we aim to understand stress distribution, deformation
patterns, and potential failure modes within the bone-implant system. This analysis is crucial
for optimizing the design, material selection, and surgical techniques related to orthopaedic
implants, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and implant longevity in clinical practice.
3.1.1. Geometry
In the process of conducting analysis, a CAD model of the femur bone with titanium
intramedullary nailing rod is imported. This CAD model serves as the foundational structure
for the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) that will be carried out.
3.1.2. Material Assignment
For the finite element analysis of the femur bone with titanium as intramedullary nailing
rod, the material properties were defined as follows: The Young's modulus for cortical bone
and titanium rod was set to 16 GPa and 120 GPa for the analysis. Additionally, Poisson's ratio
and density were assigned values of 0.3 and 4500 kg/m³, respectively. A linear elastic
material model was selected for this analysis.
3.1.3. Meshing
For meshing, we adopted an element size of 10mm to balance computational efficiency and
accuracy in capturing the geometric details of the femur with titanium nailing rod assembly.
The meshing process involved generating a structured mesh to ensure uniform element
distribution and minimize distortion effects.

3.1.4. Boundary conditions and loads

Boundry condition is applied in titanium for Finite Element Analysis (FEA) are analogous to
those used in analysing femur bone fractures through FEA. These conditions simulate real-
world constraints and loading scenarios experienced by the material or bone structure.
In titanium FEA, typical boundary conditions include fixed supports or prescribed
displacements at specific locations to mimic structural interactions and mechanical loads.

P a g e 7 | 13
 Figure (a): Axial loading

Figure (b): Bending loading

3.1.5. Solution
Run the FEA solver to compute the response of the femur bone model under the applied
loads and boundary conditions. The solver calculates the equivalent stress.

Figure (a): Stress Distribution in Axial Loading

P a g e 8 | 13
 Figure (a): Stress Distribution in Bending Loading

TABLE 2: Load Vs Stress

Force Max stress(axial) Max stress(bending)

(N) (MPa) (MPa)

250 37.85 39.71

350 53.25 78.19
690 104.49 174.23
1500 227.14 342.87
2500 378.57 598.25
4140 427.58 953.17
5000 481.93 1172.27

3.2. Cobalt-Chromium as Intramedullary nailing rod

Using Cobalt-Chromium as an alternative material for the intramedullary nailing rod offers
several advantages in orthopaedic applications. Its high strength-to-weight ratio and
excellent corrosion resistance make it a favourable choice for implants subjected to
mechanical loading and physiological conditions. The material properties, including modulus
of elasticity, yield strength, and fatigue resistance, play a crucial role in determining the
implant's performance and longevity. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulations incorporating
Cobalt-Chromium as the nailing rod material enable a comparative study of its mechanical
behaviour against other materials, aiding in informed decision-making for orthopaedic
implant designs.
3.2.1. Geometry
In the process of conducting analysis, a CAD model of the femur bone with Cobalt-
Chromium intramedullary nailing rod is imported. This CAD model serves as the foundational
structure for the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) that will be carried out.

P a g e 9 | 13
3.2.2. Material Assignment
For the finite element analysis of the femur bone with titanium as intramedullary nailing
rod, the material properties were defined as follows: The Young's modulus for cortical bone
and titanium rod was set to 16 GPa and 240 GPa for the analysis[]. Additionally, Poisson's
ratio and density were assigned values of 0.3 and 8800 kg/m³, respectively. A linear elastic
material model was selected for this analysis.
3.2.3. Meshing
For meshing, we adopted an element size of 10mm to balance computational efficiency and
accuracy in capturing the geometric details of the femur with Cobalt-Chromium nailing rod
assembly. The meshing process involved generating a structured mesh to ensure uniform
element distribution and minimize distortion effects.
3.5. Boundary conditions and loads
Boundary condition applied in Cobalt Chromium alloy for Finite Element Analysis (FEA) are
analogous to those used in analysing femur bone fractures through FEA. These conditions
simulate real-world constraints and loading scenarios experienced by the material or bone
structure.
In Cobalt Chromium alloy FEA, typical boundary conditions include fixed supports or
prescribed displacements at specific locations to mimic structural interactions and
mechanical loads.
3.6. Solution
Run the FEA solver to compute the response of the femur bone model under the applied
loads and boundary conditions. The solver calculates the equivalent stress.

Figure (a): Stress Distribution in Axial Loading

P a g e 10 | 13
 Figure (b): Stress Distribution in Bending Loading

Table 3: Load Vs Stress

Force Max stress(axial) Max stress(bending)
(N) (MPa) (MPa)

250 51.91 43.47

350 85.44 91.63
690 212.53 212.70
1500 355.74 402.57
2500 409.61 670.59
4140 505.06 1105.84
5000 593.74 1234.71

P a g e 11 | 13
 4. CONCLUSION
Through the comprehensive analysis of femur bone fractures and the biomechanical
performance of intramedullary rods made from titanium and cobalt-chromium materials,
several key findings have been established.

Firstly, the finite element analysis (FEA) simulations provided valuable insights into the stress
distribution and deformation patterns of the femur bone under axial and bending loads. The
results indicated that the axial and bending stresses experienced by the cobalt-chromium
intramedullary rod were higher compared to the titanium rod, suggesting a potentially
greater load-bearing capacity of the cobalt-chromium material in fracture fixation scenarios.

Secondly, an evaluation of corrosion resistance revealed that the Cobalt-Chromium rod

exhibited slightly better corrosion resistance than cobalt-chromium. This finding is significant
in terms of long-term implant durability and reduced risks of corrosion-related complications
post-surgery.

Additionally, a cost analysis revealed that while titanium rods are marginally more expensive
than cobalt-chromium rods, the enhanced mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of
titanium may justify the investment in certain clinical contexts.

Overall, these findings contribute valuable insights to orthopaedic surgeons and biomedical
engineers involved in the design and selection of orthopaedic implants for femur bone
fracture fixation. The choice between titanium and cobalt-chromium materials should be
made based on a careful consideration of factors such as mechanical performance, corrosion
resistance, and cost-effectiveness, tailored to the specific needs and priorities of individual
patients and clinical scenarios. Continued research and development in this area are
essential for advancing orthopaedic implant technology and improving patient outcomes in
orthopaedic trauma care.

P a g e 12 | 13
References
1. Finite Element Analys is of Femoral Intramedullary Nailing, Journal for Research [1]
2. Materials in Fracture Fixation, M. Lane, J.E. Mait, A. Unnanuntana, B.P. Hirsch, A.D.
Shaffer, O.A. Shonuga [2]
3. Characterization of Orthopaedic Devices Imran Khan, Gautam Gupta,
Characterization of Biomaterials, 2013 [3]
4. The Open Biomedical Engineering Journal [4]
5. Raji Nareliya et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
(IJEST) [5]
6. Biomechanical Analysis Ofhuman Femur Bone, Research Gate [6]

P a g e 13 | 13
P a g e 14 | 13
P a g e 15 | 13
P a g e 16 | 13
P a g e 17 | 13
P a g e 18 | 13
P a g e 19 | 13
P a g e 20 | 13
P a g e 21 | 13