Development of a modeling technique for the investigation of muscle activity and its effect on bone stresses in the human leg during an isometric exercise
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2011
Development of a modeling technique for the investigation of muscle activity and its effect on bone stresses in the human leg during an isometric exercise
The study of the stress distributions within a bone can provide significant insight into its function and the adaptations that may take place under a set of loading conditions. Because the individual muscle forces acting on a bone are directly related to its behavior, bone stress analyses depend on the accurate estimation of muscle forces. The development of an integrated modeling method to determine such muscle forces and to apply them to the stress analysis of a system of bones is described. Firstly, a numerical optimization method was used in the development and validation of a model to predict the individual muscle forces generated in a leg that produce a known net resultant load. Next, this model was integrated into a finite element simulation of a system of leg bones so that the calculated isometric muscle forces could automatically be applied and the bone stresses calculated. The geometric, material, and joint contact conditions needed to appropriately depict the system’s behavior were established. Finally, the developed modeling technique was implemented in parametric studies to reveal significant changes in muscle activity and bone stress magnitudes and distributions due to variations in the direction of the net resultant load. The smallest muscle forces occurred in loading directions most typical of daily activities and resulted in bone stresses that were an order of magnitude smaller than those resulting from more uncommon loading directions. The developed modeling technique was shown to provide a controlled means of investigating the relationships between muscle forces and bone stresses.
Ruff CBMechanical determinants of bone form: insight from skeletal remains . J Musculoskel Neuronal Interact2005; 5: 202212.
2.
Currey JDBones: structure and mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002, pp.124145, 195243, 272307, 336379.
3.
Cowin SC (ed.) Bone mechanics handbook , 2nd ed. New York: Informa Healthcare, 2008, Sections III and V.
4.
Martin RB and Burr D.Structure, function and adaptation of compact bone. New York: Raven Press, 1989, pp.118, 143186.
5.
Roesler H.The history of some fundamental concepts in bone biomechanics. J Biomech1987; 20: 10251034.
6.
Whalen R.Musculoskeletal adaptation to mechanical forces on earth and in space . Physiologist1993; 36: S127S130.
7.
Fischer KJ, Jacobs CR and Carter DRComputational method for determination of bone and joint loads using bone density distributions. J Biomech1995 ; 28: 11271135.
8.
Fischer KJ, Jacobs CR, Levenston ME and Carter DRDifferent loads can produce similar bone density distributions. Bone1996; 19: 127135.
9.
Speirs AD, Heller MO, Duda GN and Taylor WRPhysiologically based boundary conditions in finite element modelling . J Biomech2007; 40: 23182323.
10.
Mittlmeier T., Mattheck C. and Dietrich F.Effects of mechanical loading on the profile of human femoral diaphyseal geometry. Med Eng Phys1994; 16: 7581.
11.
Bitsakos C. , Kerner J., Fisher I. and Amis AAThe effect of muscle loading on the simulation of bone remodelling in the proximal femur. J Biomech2005; 38: 133139.
12.
Ghista DN, Toridis TG and Srinivasan TMHuman gait analysis: Determination of instantaneous joint reactive forces, muscle forces and the stress distribution in bone segments. Part II . Biomedizinische Technik1976; 21: 6674.
13.
Dul J., Townsend MA, Shiavi R. and Johnson GEMuscular synergism I. On criteria for load sharing between synergistic muscles . J Biomech1984; 17: 663673.
14.
Pedotti A., Krishnan VV and Stark L.Optimization of muscle-force sequencing in human locomotion. Math Biosci1978; 38: 5776.
15.
Seireg A. and Arvikar RJA mathematical model for evaluation of forces in lower extremeties of the musculo skeletal system. J Biomech1973; 6: 313326.
16.
Tsirakos D. , Baltzopoulos V. and Bartlett R.Inverse optimization: functional and physiological considerations related to the force-sharing problem . Crit Rev Biomed Eng1997; 25: 371407.
17.
Erdemir A., McLean S., Herzog W. and van den Bogert AJModel-based estimation of muscle forces exerted during movements. Clin Biomech2007; 22: 131154.
18.
Crowninshield RD and Brand RAA physiologically based criterion of muscle force prediction in locomotion. J Biomech1981; 14: 793801.
19.
Dul J., Johnson CE, Shiavi R. and Townsend MAMuscular synergism-II. A minimum-fatigue criterion for load sharing between synergistic muscles. J Biomech1984 ; 17: 675684.
20.
Pedersen DR , Brand RA, Cheng C. and Arora JSDirect comparison of muscle force predictions using linear and nonlinear programming. J Biomech Eng1987; 109: 192199.
21.
Arjmand N. and Shirazi-Adl A.Sensitivity of kinematics-based model predictions to optimization criteria in static lifting tasks. Med Eng Phys2006 ; 28: 504514.
22.
Challis JHProducing physiologically realistic individual muscle force estimations by imposing constraints when using optimization techniques. Med Eng Phys1997; 19: 253261.
23.
Herzog W. and Leonard TRValidation of optimization models that estimate the forces exerted by synergistic muscles. J Biomech1991; 24: 3139.
24.
Buchanan TS and Shreeve DAAn evaluation of optimization techniques for the prediction of muscle activation patterns during isometric tasks. J Biomech Eng1996; 118: 565574.
25.
Kaufman KR, An KN, Litchy WJ and Chao EYS.Physiological prediction of muscle forces - I. Theoretical formulation . Neuroscience1991; 40: 781792.
26.
Anderson FC and Pandy MGStatic and dynamic optimization solutions for gait are practically equivalent. J Biomech2001; 34: 153161.
27.
Raikova RT and Prilutsky BISensitivity of predicted muscle forces to parameters of the optimization-based human leg model revealed by analytical and numerical analyses. J Biomech2001; 34: 12431255.
28.
Herzog W. and Binding P.Predictions of antagonistic muscular activity using nonlinear optimization . Math Biosci1992; 111: 217229.
29.
Herzog W. and Binding P.Cocontraction of pairs of antagonistic muscles: analytical solution for planar static nonlinear optimization approaches. Math Biosci1993; 118: 8395.
30.
Li G., Kaufman KR, Chao EYS and Rubash HEPrediction of antagonistic muscle forces using inverse dynamic optimization during flexion/extension of the knee. J Biomech Eng1999; 121: 316322.
31.
Goel VK, Kong W., Han JS, Weinstein JN and Gilbertson LGA combined finite element and optimization investigation of lumbar spine mechanics with and without muscles. Spine1993; 18: 15311541.
32.
Wells R. and Evans N.Functions and recruitment patterns of one- and two-joint muscles under isometric and walking conditions. Hum Mov Sci1987; 6: 349372.
33.
Fox RLOptimization methods for engineering design. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1971, pp.167229.
34.
Venkataraman P.Applied optimization with matlab programming . New York: John Wiley and Sons , 2002.
35.
Haug EJ and Arora JSApplied optimal design: mechanical structures and systems. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979 , pp.37-89 .
36.
MATLAB version (2009a). Mathworks . Natick, MA.
37.
Gill PE, Murray W. and Wright MHPractical optimization. New York: Elsevier Academic Press, 1986, pp.83203.
38.
Haftka RT, Gurdal Z. and Kamat MPElements of structural optimization. Boston, MA : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990, pp.135155.
39.
Static optimization MATLAB source file based on (Raikova and Prilutsky, J Biomech (2001); 34: 12431255), http://www.clbme.bas.bg/projects/motco/ (accessed 27 June 2010).
40.
Pro/Engineer Wildfire version 3.0. Parametric Technology Corporation. Needham, MA.
41.
Ziylan T. and Murshid KAAn analysis of anatolian human femur anthropometry. Turk J Med Sci2002; 32: 231235.
42.
Winter DABiomechanics and motor control of human movement. New York : John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 1990 .
43.
Arampatzis A., Karamanidis K. and Albracht K.Adaptational responses of the human achilles tendon by modulation of the applied cyclic strain magnitude. J Exp Biol2007; 210: 27432753.
44.
Maganaris CN and Paul JP In vivo human tendon mechanical properties . J Physiol1999; 521: 307313.
45.
Trent PS, Walker PS and Wolf B.Ligament length patterns, strength and rotation axes of the knee joint . Clin Orthop1976; 117: 263270.
46.
ANSYS version 11.0. ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
47.
Sommers MB, Fitzpatrick DC, Madey SM, Vande Zanderschulp C. and Bottlang M.A surrogate long-bone model with osteoporotic material properties for biomechanical testing of fracture implants. J Biomech2007 ; 40: 32973304.
48.
Evinger S., Suhai B., Bernath B., Gerics B., Pap I. and Horvath G.How does the relative wall thickness of human femora follow the biomechanical optima? An experimental study on mummies. J Exp Biol2005; 208: 899905.
49.
Varghese BA , Miller ME and Hangartner TNEstimation of bone strength from pediatric radiographs of the forearm. J Musculoskel Neuronal Interact2008; 8: 379390.
50.
Macdonald HM , Kontulainen SA, MacKelvie-O’Brien KJ, Petit MA, Janssen P., Khan KM, et al. Maturity-and sex-related changes in tibial bone geometry, strength and bone-muscle strength indices during growth: A 20-month pqct study. Bone2005; 36: 10031011.
51.
Ebacher V., Tang C., McKay H., Oxland TR, Guy P. and Wang R.Strain redistribution and cracking behavior of human bone during bending . Bone2007; 40: 12651275.
52.
Hoffmeister BK, Smith SR, Handley SM and Rho JYAnisotropy of young’s modulus of human tibial coritcal bone. Med Biol Eng Comput2000; 38: 333 338.
53.
Heegaard JH , Leyvraz PF and Hovey CBA computer model to simulate patellar biomechanics following total knee replacement: The effects of femoral component alignment . Clin Biomech2001; 16: 415423.
54.
Fernandez JW and Hunter PJAn anatomically based patient-specific finite element model of patella articulation: towards a diagnostic tool. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2005; 4: 2038.
