Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Technology

  • Yan Yabo

Introduction to Biomechanics

Biomechanics is a discipline to study the structure and function of biological systems including human, animals, plans, organs, and cells by means of applying mechanical methods. The terms “biomechanics” and “biomechanical” come from the ancient Greek words βίος and μηχανική, meaning life and mechanics, respectively. This word was created by Nikolai Bernstein. Biomechanics is a discipline to study the mechanical laws of biological tissues.

Biomechanics and engineering are closely related because the latter is always necessary to analyze biological systems in biomechanics. Some simple applications of Newton’s laws and the material science are approximate to studies on mechanical laws in biological systems. Applied mechanics, including mechanics of continuous medium, mechanical analysis, structural analysis, dynamics, and kinematics analysis, play quite an important role in the study of biomechanics. However, biological systems are much more complex than...


  1. 1.
    Jones AC, Wilcox RK. Finite element analysis of the spine: towards a framework of verification, validation and sensitivity analysis. Med Eng Phys. 2008;30:1287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Board D, Stemper BD, Yoganandan N, et al. Biomechanics of the aging spine. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2006;42:1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kallemeyn N, Gandhi A, Kode S, et al. Validation of a C2-C7 cervical spine finite element model using specimen-specific flexibility data. Med Eng Phys. 2010;32:482–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laville A, Laporte S, Skalli W. Parametric and subject-specific finite element modelling of the lower cervical spine. Influence of geometrical parameters on the motion patterns. J Biomech. 2009;42:1409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harrigan TP, Kareh JA, O’Connor DO, et al. A finite element study of the initiation of failure of fixation in cemented femoral total hip components. J Orthop Res. 1992;10:134–44.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNamara BP, Cristofolini L, Toni A, et al. Relationship between bone-prosthesis bonding and load transfer in total hip reconstruction. J Biomech. 1997;30:621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vichnin HH, Batterman SC. Stress analysis and failure prediction in the proximal femur before and after total hip replacement. J Biomech Eng. 1986;108:33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scifert CF, Brown TD, Lipman JD. Finite element analysis of a novel design approach to resisting total hip dislocation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1999;14:697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Messick KJ, Miller MA, Damron LA, et al. Vacuum-mixing cement does not decrease overall porosity in cemented femoral stems: an in vitro laboratory investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harrigan TP, Harris WH. A finite element study of the effect of diametral interface gaps on the contact areas and pressures in uncemented cylindrical femoral total hip components. J Biomech. 1991;24:87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panjabi MM, Ito S, Ivancic PC, et al. Evaluation of the intervertebral neck injury criterion using simulated rear impacts. J Biomech. 2005;38:1694–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yoganandan N, Kumaresan SC, Voo L, et al. Finite element modeling of the C4-C6 cervical spine unit. Med Eng Phys. 1996;18:569–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoganandan N, Myklebust JB, Ray G, et al. Mathematical and finite element analysis of spine injuries. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 1987;15:29–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoganandan N, Kumaresan S, Voo L, et al. Finite element applications in human cervical spine modeling. Spine. 1996;21:1824–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Natarajan RN, Williams JR, Andersson GB. Recent advances in analytical modeling of lumbar disc degeneration. Spine. 2004;29:2733–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang QH, Teo EC. Finite element application in implant research for treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Med Eng Phys. 2008;30:1246–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Natarajan RN, Williams JR, Lavender SA, et al. Relationship between disc injury and manual lifting: a poroelastic finite element model study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2008;222:195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu S, Xu YQ, Zhang MC, et al. Biomechanical effect of vertebroplasty on the adjacent intervertebral levels using a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Chin J Traumatol. 2007;10:120–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Little JP, Adam CJ, Evans JH, et al. Nonlinear finite element analysis of anular lesions in the L4/5 intervertebral disc. J Biomech. 2007;40:2744–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Teo EC, Zhang QH, Huang RC. Finite element analysis of head-neck kinematics during motor vehicle accidents: analysis in multiple planes. Med Eng Phys. 2007;29:54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee KK, Teo EC, Fuss FK, et al. Finite-element analysis for lumbar interbody fusion under axial loading. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004;51:393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chiang MF, Zhong ZC, Chen CS, et al. Biomechanical comparison of instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with one or two cages by finite element analysis. Spine. 2006;31:E682–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goel VK, Grauer JN, Patel T, et al. Effects of charite artificial disc on the implanted and adjacent spinal segments mechanics using a hybrid testing protocol. Spine. 2005;30:2755–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Noailly J, Lacroix D, Planell JA. Finite element study of a novel intervertebral disc substitute. Spine. 2005;30:2257–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu XS, Sajda P, Saha PK, et al. Complete volumetric decomposition of individual trabecular plates and rods and its morphological correlations with anisotropic elastic moduli in human trabecular bone. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23:223–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Langrana NA, Harten RR, Lin DC, et al. Acute thoracolumbar burst fractures: a new view of loading mechanisms. Spine. 2002;27:498–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teo EC, Ng HW. First cervical vertebra (atlas) fracture mechanism studies using finite element method. J Biomech. 2001;34:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ng HW, Teo EC. Nonlinear finite-element analysis of the lower cervical spine (C4-C6) under axial loading. J Spinal Disord. 2001;14:201–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang QH, Tan SH, Teo EC. A numerical study of the effect of axial acceleration on the responses of the cervical spine during low-speed rear-end impact. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2008;222:1167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pearson AM, Panjabi MM, Ivancic PC, et al. Frontal impact causes ligamentous cervical spine injury. Spine. 2005;30:1852–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Panjabi MM, Ivancic PC, Maak TG, Tominaga Y, Rubin W. Multiplanar cervical spine injury due to head-turned rear impact. Spine. 2006;31:420–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tropiano P, Thollon L, Arnoux PJ, et al. Using a finite element model to evaluate human injuries application to the HUMOS model in whiplash situation. Spine. 2004;29:1709–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tschirhart CE, Nagpurkar A, Whyne CM. Effects of tumor location, shape and surface serration on burst fracture risk in the metastatic spine. J Biomech. 2004;37:653–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wilcox RK. The biomechanics of vertebroplasty: a review. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2004;218:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Panjabi MM, Maak TG, Ivancic PC, et al. Dynamic intervertebral foramen narrowing during simulated rear impact. Spine. 2006;31:E128–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech. 2003;36:897–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Crawford RP, Cann CE, Keaveny TM. Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone. 2003;33:744–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Crawford RP, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM. Quantitative computed tomography-based finite element models of the human lumbar vertebral body: effect of element size on stiffness, damage, and fracture strength predictions. J Biomech Eng. 2003;125:434–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anderson IA, Bowden M, Wyatt TP. Stress analysis of hemispherical ceramic hip prosthesis bearings. Med Eng Phys. 2005;27:115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yeni YN, Hou FJ, Ciarelli T, et al. Trabecular shear stresses predict in vivo linear microcrack density but not diffuse damage in human vertebral cancellous bone. Ann Biomed Eng. 2003;31:726–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ito S, Ivancic PC, Pearson AM, et al. Cervical intervertebral disc injury during simulated frontal impact. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:356–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Panjabi MM, Ito S, Pearson AM, et al. Injury mechanisms of the cervical intervertebral disc during simulated whiplash. Spine. 2004;29:1217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Qiu TX, Teo EC, Zhang QH. Comparison of kinematics between thoracolumbar T11-t12 and T12-L1 functional spinal units. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220:493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Qiu TX, Tan KW, Lee VS, et al. Investigation of thoracolumbar T12-L1 burst fracture mechanism using finite element method. Med Eng Phys. 2006;28:656–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ivancic PC, Coe MP, Ndu AB, et al. Dynamic mechanical properties of intact human cervical spine ligaments. Spine J. 2007;7:659–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Weiss JA, Gardiner JC. Computational modeling of ligament mechanics. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2001;29:303–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hou FJ, Lang SM, Hoshaw SJ, et al. Human vertebral body apparent and hard tissue stiffness. J Biomech. 1998;31:1009–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Villarraga ML, Bellezza AJ, Harrigan TP, et al. The biomechanical effects of kyphoplasty on treated and adjacent nontreated vertebral bodies. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18:84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nie WZ, Ye M, Liu ZD, et al. The patient-specific brace design and biomechanical analysis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Biomech Eng. 2009;131:041007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wagnac EL, Aubin CE, Dansereau J. A new method to generate a patient-specific finite element model of the human buttocks. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008;55:774–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Guo LX, Teo EC. Influence prediction of injury and vibration on adjacent components of spine using finite element methods. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19:118–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. and People's Medical Publishing House 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Yabo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of orthopaedicsXijing Hospital, Airforce military medical universityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations