Comparison between FEBio and Abaqus for biphasic contact problems.

Qingen Meng, Zhongmin Jin, John Fisher, Ruth Wilcox
Author Information
  1. Qingen Meng: Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Q.Meng@leeds.ac.uk

Abstract

Articular cartilage plays an important role in the function of diarthrodial joints. Computational methods have been used to study the biphasic mechanics of cartilage, and Abaqus has been one of the most widely used commercial software packages for this purpose. A newly developed open-source finite element solver, FEBio, has been developed specifically for biomechanical applications. The aim of this study was to undertake a direct comparison between FEBio and Abaqus for some practical contact problems involving cartilage. Three model types, representing a porous flat-ended indentation test, a spherical-ended indentation test, and a conceptual natural joint contact model, were compared. In addition, a parameter sensitivity study was also performed for the spherical-ended indentation test to investigate the effects of changes in the input material properties on the model outputs, using both FEBio and Abaqus. Excellent agreement was found between FEBio and Abaqus for all of the model types and across the range of material properties that were investigated.

Keywords

References

  1. J Biomech Eng. 1986 Nov;108(4):372-81 [PMID: 3795885]
  2. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2009 Jun;47(6):607-15 [PMID: 19266224]
  3. J Biomech Eng. 2010 Mar;132(3):031001 [PMID: 20459189]
  4. Med Eng Phys. 2011 May;33(4):497-503 [PMID: 21208821]
  5. J Biomech. 2012 May 11;45(8):1346-52 [PMID: 22483055]
  6. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1996;210(2):131-6 [PMID: 8688118]
  7. J Biomech Eng. 2012 Jan;134(1):011005 [PMID: 22482660]
  8. Med Eng Phys. 2011 Jan;33(1):96-105 [PMID: 20951626]
  9. J Biomech. 2012 May 11;45(8):1450-6 [PMID: 22391467]
  10. J Biomech. 2005 Oct;38(10):2008-18 [PMID: 16084201]
  11. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001;215(5):487-96 [PMID: 11726049]
  12. J Biomech Eng. 1989 Feb;111(1):78-87 [PMID: 2747237]
  13. J Biomech Eng. 2010 Jun;132(6):061006 [PMID: 20887031]
  14. J Biomech. 2007;40(4):936-40 [PMID: 16730739]
  15. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2012 Jan;226(1):55-62 [PMID: 22888585]
  16. Ann Biomed Eng. 2000 Mar;28(3):318-30 [PMID: 10784096]
  17. J Biomech Eng. 1994 Feb;116(1):1-9 [PMID: 8189703]
  18. J Biomech Eng. 1980 Feb;102(1):73-84 [PMID: 7382457]
  19. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011 Oct;4(7):1351-8 [PMID: 21783145]
  20. J Biomech. 1998 Feb;31(2):165-9 [PMID: 9593211]
  21. J Biomech. 2011 Mar 15;44(5):794-801 [PMID: 21300358]
  22. J Biomech Eng. 2004 Apr;126(2):220-5 [PMID: 15179852]
  23. J Biomech Eng. 2011 Nov;133(11):111001 [PMID: 22168733]

Grants

  1. 088908/Wellcome Trust
  2. WT 088908/Z/09/Z/Wellcome Trust

MeSH Term

Algorithms
Cartilage, Articular
Computer Simulation
Elastic Modulus
Finite Element Analysis
Humans
Models, Biological
Programming Languages
Software Validation
Stress, Mechanical
Tensile Strength

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0AbaqusFEBiomodelcartilagestudybiphasiccontactindentationtestArticularuseddevelopedfiniteelementproblemstypesspherical-endedmaterialpropertiesplaysimportantrolefunctiondiarthrodialjointsComputationalmethodsmechanicsonewidelycommercialsoftwarepackagespurposenewlyopen-sourcesolverspecificallybiomechanicalapplicationsaimundertakedirectcomparisonpracticalinvolvingThreerepresentingporousflat-endedconceptualnaturaljointcomparedadditionparametersensitivityalsoperformedinvestigateeffectschangesinputoutputsusingExcellentagreementfoundacrossrangeinvestigatedComparison

Similar Articles

Cited By