2017
DOI: 10.3233/thc-171320
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study on the mechanical behavior of intervertebral disc using hyperelastic finite element model

Abstract: Higher stress concentration resulted in more damage and ease of bringing out lumbar disc herniation. Numerical examples of FE simulation indicate that the FEM with hyperelastic constitutive model has very good capability for analyzing the mechanical behaviors of IVD.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Young's modulus was set as cortical bone: 12,000 MPa, cancellous bone: 1,500 MPa, IVD: 10 MPa. Poisson's ratio was set as cortical bone: 0.3, cancellous bone: 0.3, IVD: 0.4, according to a previously published paper ( 24 ). Dynamic analysis was performed assuming that the volunteer fell on his/her buttocks and load was applied to the spine.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Young's modulus was set as cortical bone: 12,000 MPa, cancellous bone: 1,500 MPa, IVD: 10 MPa. Poisson's ratio was set as cortical bone: 0.3, cancellous bone: 0.3, IVD: 0.4, according to a previously published paper ( 24 ). Dynamic analysis was performed assuming that the volunteer fell on his/her buttocks and load was applied to the spine.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Young's modulus was set as follows: cortical bone (spine, rib, and sternum), 12,000 MPa; cancellous bone (spine, rib, and sternum), 1500 MPa; intervertebral disc, 10 MPa; and costal cartilage, 24.5 MPa. Poisson's ratio was set as follows: cortical bone, 0.3; cancellous bone, 0.3; intervertebral disc, 0.4; and costal cartilage, 0.3, according to a previously published paper as discussed by Xia et al [4] (Table 1). Dynamic analysis was performed by simulating a person falling on the buttocks, with load applied to the spine.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Non-linear hyperelastic equations described the RoM much better than linear equations. 59 The ligaments have been modelled as both linear 32,51 and non-linear. [26][27][28]35,37,49 Naserkhaki et al 34 found a piecewise linear model from an in vivo dataset best predicted the mean in vitro rotations, and higher non-linearity caused greater movement of the instantaneous CoR .…”
Section: Boundary Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%