materials

Article
Comparison of Meshing Strategies in THR Finite
Element Modelling
Alessandro Ruggiero 1, * , Roberto D’Amato 2 and Saverio Affatato 3
1 Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, nr. 132,
84084 Fisciano, Italy
2 Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería y Diseño Industrial, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
Roda de Valencia, 3, 28012 Madrid, Spain
3 Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via di Barbiano, 1/10,
40136 Bologna, Italy
* Correspondence: ruggiero@unisa.it; Tel.: +39-089-964312




Received: 5 June 2019; Accepted: 20 July 2019; Published: 23 July 2019


Abstract: In biomechanics and orthopedics, finite element modelling allows simulating complex
problems, and in the last few years, it has been widely used in many applications, also in the field of
biomechanics and biotribology. As is known, one crucial point of FEM (finite element model) is the
discretization of the physical domain, and this procedure is called meshing. A well-designed mesh
is necessary in order to achieve accurate results with an acceptable computational effort. The aim
of this work is to test a finite element model to simulate the dry frictionless contact conditions of
a hip joint prosthesis (a femoral head against an acetabular cup) in a soft bearing configuration by
comparing the performances of 12 common meshing strategies. In the simulations, total deformation
of the internal surface of the cup, contact pressure, and the equivalent von Mises stress are evaluated
by using loads and kinematic conditions during a typical gait, obtained from a previous work using a
musculoskeletal multibody model. Moreover, accounting for appropriate mesh quality metrics, the
results are discussed, underlining the best choice we identified after the large amount of numerical
simulations performed.

Keywords: hip joint; prosthesis; tribology; contact; FEM; mesh

1. Introduction
Finite element (FE) modelling as a research tool has been widely used in last few decades to study
many different applications in the field of mechanics. Currently, its applications have expanded to
simulations of other phenomena also in biomechanics and biomechanical engineering, especially in
complex systems that are not accessible experimentally [1,2]. For example, Brekelmans et al. [3] in
their study introduced a new method to analyze the mechanical behavior of skeletal parts by applying
the new analysis to a simple 2D model of the human femur. Their results demonstrated that finite
element analysis is suitable for the study of complex human parts such as the femur. Shim et al. [4]
developed an FEM simulation in order to obtain an efficient and accurate prediction model for the
stability of percutaneous fixation of acetabular fractures. Their FE model showed that this tool is of
fundamental importance for the analysis of different fracture fixation techniques. In fact, their model
was able to predict the movement of the fragment with a reasonable accuracy. From a tribological
point of view, considering the interaction between the femoral head and the acetabular cup in a Total
Hip Replacement (THR), Affatato et al. [1] developed an in silico model in order to investigate the
radial clearance influence on the acetabular cup contact pressure in hip implants during a gait cycle.
The novel model provided the use of a new soft bearing model (hard-on-soft) FEM taking into account

Materials 2019, 12, 2332; doi:10.3390/ma12142332 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 2332 2 of 11

the kinematic and dynamic conditions calculated from a musculoskeletal multibody model during
the gait of a person. Ruggiero et al. in [5] presented an FEM simulation of a hip joint prosthesis, and
the results were presented in terms of the total deformation and contact pressure of the acetabular
polyethylene liner in contact with the femoral head of a hard material. Islán et al. [6], in their study,
investigated and simulated, with the use of FEM, the behavior of the glenohumeral joint and the
rotator cuff of a musician during his workout in repetitive routines, while in [7], the authors used a
FEM approach to investigate the loaded behavior of a human shoulder by including also the ligaments
(glenohumeral and coracohumeral) and the glenohumeral capsule in the anatomical model. The
authors, in their study, obtained an improvement in the meshing process of the 3D model of human
articulation by using a tetrahedron with 10 nodes as the mesh elements. In [6,7], it was also underlined
that an important feature of FEM is the mesh type, since it represents the discretization of the virtual
domain necessary to transform the continuous body into a finite number of nodes and elements. Since
the meshing strategy directly affects the accuracy of the calculated solution, there are some parameters
that need to be respected in order to obtain a realistic model with accurate results by using limited
computational effort. The generation of the mesh requires making some decisions such as the shape of
the elements and their dimensions. The quality of a mesh is then crucially important, in order to define
an acceptable tradeoff between the accuracy of the solution and the computational effort. In fact, too
coarse a mesh will result in an inaccurate solution, while thick meshes become impracticable from the
computational point of view. For this reason, for a better convergence of the numerical solution, a finer
mesh is needed, but this condition will increase the computing resources necessary for the simulation.
Raut in his study [8] investigated the impact of mesh quality parameters on elements such as beams,
shells, and 3D solids by comparing the performance of linear and quadratic tetrahedral elements and
hexahedral elements of the mesh, in various structural problems approached by FEM simulations.
The study demonstrated that the results obtained with quadratic tetrahedral elements and hexahedral
elements were equivalent in terms of accuracy when the number of nodes was the same for both mesh
elements. Generally, hexahedral meshes are assumed to produce more accurate results than those
obtained with tetrahedral ones, as demonstrated by Tadepalli et al. [9]. Benzley et al. [10] in their
investigation reported that mesh composed of tetrahedral elements compared to hexahedral elements
led to greater errors in terms of displacement and stress for static bending. The same occurs for the
torsion and dynamic loading, due to the stiffness matrix eigenvalues that result in being greater in the
first case. Other authors supported this thesis, such as in [9], in which it was stated that tetrahedral
elements should be applied in the FEM only under frictionless conditions or when the conditions of
material incompressibility can be relaxed. According to these studies, Burkhart et al. [11] suggested
that biological structures, human prostheses or human joints, should be meshed with hexahedral
elements [12], especially in dynamic models. FEM requires moderate aspect ratios [13,14] in order
to optimize the accuracy and the condition of the problem. In the case of a mesh with tetrahedral
elements, Tsukerman and Plaks [15] demonstrated that values of the aspect ratio between one and four
are acceptable.
One of the techniques used for the evaluation of mesh quality, during FEM simulations, before
the analysis is checking the Jacobian ratio for elements [12]. These provide a measure of distortion
from an ideally-shaped element. Moreover, they represent the determinant of the Jacobian matrix that
defines the mapping of vertices from the ideally-shaped element to the real element.
The purpose of this study is to develop a dry frictionless contact FEM of a hip joint prosthesis with
12 common meshing strategies in order to compare the difference in terms of the calculated solution.
The variation of the dimension of the mesh elements and the kind of mesh selected pointed out the
relation between the results and the mesh quality, assessed through the Aspect Ratio (AR), Jacobian
ratio, and mesh skewness.
Materials 2019, 12, 2332 3 of 11

2. Materials and Methods

The considered system was the hip joint system used for total hip replacement (Figure 1),
focusing our attention on the stress-strain of the femoral head/acetabular cup system during the
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11
contact, assuming a frictionless dry condition. The considered system was assumed as a soft bearing
(hard-on-soft),
(hard-on-soft),characteristic
characteristic of, for example,
of, for example,the
thecontact
contact between
between a ceramic
a ceramic femoral
femoral head head
and and an
Ultra-High
an Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHWMPE GUR 1050 material) acetabular cup[16].
Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHWMPE GUR 1050 material) acetabular cup [16].

Figure
Figure 1. Exploded
1. Exploded view
view drawing
drawing of aof a total
total hip replacement
hip replacement components:
components: Ultra-High
Ultra-High Molecular
Molecular Weight
Weight Polyethylene
Polyethylene (UHWMPE) (UHWMPE)
acetabularacetabular
cup (cyancup (cyan
color color component
component in the picture)
in the picture) and ceramic
and ceramic femoral
femoral
head (pinkhead (pink component
component in thewith
in the picture) picture)
the with
threethe three
force force components.
components.

TheThe head
head wasmeshed
was meshedwith withaasuperficial
superficial mesh
mesh because
because itit was
wasassumed
assumedrigid
rigidcompared
compared to to
thethe
acetabular cup. For this reason, it was possible to choose only a quadrilateral or triangular
acetabular cup. For this reason, it was possible to choose only a quadrilateral or triangular mesh for mesh forthe
the femoral head, while for the acetabular cup, different meshing algorithms were
femoral head, while for the acetabular cup, different meshing algorithms were applied. The meshing applied. The
wasmeshing wasby
performed performed
the Ansysby the Ansys®commercial
® Workbench Workbenchsoftware
commercial software
(v.18.1, ANSYS(v.18.1, ANSYS Inc.,PA,
Inc., Canonsburg,
Canonsburg, PA, USA); both tetrahedral elements’ and hexahedral elements’ meshes in several
USA); both tetrahedral elements’ and hexahedral elements’ meshes in several configurations were
configurations were tested with a total of 12 types of meshes, summarized in Table 1.
tested with a total of 12 types of meshes, summarized in Table 1.
The kinematical and dynamical conditions of the systems were selected according to previous
works [1,17] in which the prostheses loading was computed considering the result obtained from a
Table 1. Meshing algorithms.
musculoskeletal simulation during the gait, splitting up the gait cycle into 500 steps, and executing
the simulations for eachCup step,
Meshthen in correspondence Headwith
Mesh500 consecutive load/displacement
Mesh Number
bearing combinations.Automatic
Figure 1meshshows the coordinate system for the THR used 1 during the FEM
Tetra patch
analysis for the load conforming
condition (Fx, Fy, and Fz) and for the rotations around 2 the axes: Z
Tetra patch independent 3
(flexion/extension movements); X (abduction/adduction movements), and Y (inward/outward
Hex dominant quad/tri 4
movements). The following algorithms
Hex dominant all quad were considered:
All Quad Head 5
Multizone hexa/prism tetra 6
1) Automatic meshing method: An extensible mesh is realized if possible, otherwise
Multizone hexa/prism hexa dominant 7
a tetrahedral
mesh withMultizone
a patch-conforming algorithm
hexa/prism hexa core is optimized, in which the position 8 of the nodes is
performedMultizone hexa/prism
in an automatic tetra
way byprism
the program-controlled software. 9
2) Tetrahedron/hybrid meshing method: With
Tetra patch-conforming head tri this method, it is possible to generate
10 an exclusively
Hex-dominant quad/tri Triangular Head 11
tetrahedral mesh. There is the possibility of choosing between the "patch-conforming" and
Multizone hexa/prism tetra 12
"patch-independent" algorithm. The first uses Delaunay triangulation for tetrahedron formation.
The second is based on a spatial subdivision. This algorithm ensures a refinement of the mesh,
The kinematical
where and
necessary, butdynamical
preserves conditions of the
larger elements systems
where wereallowing
possible, selectedaaccording to previous
faster calculation. It
is based
works [1,17] on thethe
in which creation of a tetrahedron
prostheses loading wasthat incorporates
computed the entire
considering thestructure, then this
result obtained is a
from
divided up
musculoskeletal into the required
simulation size.gait, splitting up the gait cycle into 500 steps, and executing the
during the
3) Hex-dominant
simulations for each meshing method:
step, then This generateswith
in correspondence a completely hexahedral
500 consecutive mesh; this option
load/displacement is
bearing
recommended for inextensible bodies. The elements formed by this type of mesh
combinations. Figure 1 shows the coordinate system for the THR used during the FEM analysis for the are smaller
than a tetrahedral mesh, and for this reason, it is not recommended for large bodies. The
algorithms check that this type of mesh is applicable through the calculation of the normalized
area volume ratio; if this is greater than two, it is necessary to pay attention.
Materials 2019, 12, 2332 4 of 11

load condition (Fx , Fy , and Fz ) and for the rotations around the axes: Z (flexion/extension movements);
X (abduction/adduction movements), and Y (inward/outward movements). The following algorithms
were considered:
1) Automatic meshing method: An extensible mesh is realized if possible, otherwise a tetrahedral mesh
with a patch-conforming algorithm is optimized, in which the position of the nodes is performed in
an automatic way by the program-controlled software.
2) Tetrahedron/hybrid meshing method: With this method, it is possible to generate an exclusively
tetrahedral mesh. There is the possibility of choosing between the “patch-conforming” and
“patch-independent” algorithm. The first uses Delaunay triangulation for tetrahedron formation.
The second is based on a spatial subdivision. This algorithm ensures a refinement of the mesh,
where necessary, but preserves larger elements where possible, allowing a faster calculation. It is
based on the creation of a tetrahedron that incorporates the entire structure, then this is divided
up into the required size.
3) Hex-dominant meshing method: This generates a completely hexahedral mesh; this option is
recommended for inextensible bodies. The elements formed by this type of mesh are smaller than
a tetrahedral mesh, and for this reason, it is not recommended for large bodies. The algorithms
check
Materials 2019,that
12, x this
FOR type
PEER of mesh is applicable through the calculation of the normalized area volume
REVIEW 4 of 11
ratio; if this is greater than two, it is necessary to pay attention.
4) Sweep meshingmethod:
Sweep meshing method:ThisThis forces
forces a diffuse
a diffuse meshmesh on extensible
on extensible bodies, including
bodies, including axially-
axially-extensible
extensible
bodies. A meshbodies.of A mesh
this typeofisthis type is on
preferable preferable
extensibleonbodies
extensible bodies
or if it or if it to
is necessary is necessary to
calculate the
calculate the mesh of a body that
mesh of a body that rotates around an axis.rotates around an axis.
5)
5) “Multizone”:
“Multizone”: This Thisisisa technique
a techniquethatthat
uses uses an algorithm
an algorithm of the “patch-independent”
of the “patch-independent” type,
type, providing
providing the automatic decomposition of the geometry into extensible and
the automatic decomposition of the geometry into extensible and free regions. It will achieve free regions. It will
achieve a purely hexahedral mesh in structured regions and a free one in
a purely hexahedral mesh in structured regions and a free one in unstructured regions. It is unstructured regions.
Itpossible
is possible to choose
to choose the shape
the shape of the of the element
element to use (hexahedral
to use (hexahedral form, hexahedrons,
form, hexahedrons, and
and prisms).
prisms).
If a body has parts that should be discretized through the “multizone” approach and othersand
If a body has parts that should be discretized through the "multizone" approach do
others
not, thedoformer
not, thewill
former will be discretized
be discretized according according to this option,
to this option, while thewhile the others
others accordingaccording
to the
to the default
default method. method.
6)
6) Hexa-core: Thiswill
Hexa-core: This will use
use aa bottom-up
bottom-up meshing
meshing approach.
approach. ItIt will
will retain
retain the
the tri-surface
tri-surface or prism
or prism
mesh,
mesh, delete
deletethetheexisting
existingtetra-mesh,
tetra-mesh, and andremesh
remesh the
theinternal
internalvolume
volumewith withaaCartesian
Cartesianapproach.
approach.
In Figure
In Figure 2 is shown
2 is shown an example
an example of types
of two two types of femoral
of femoral headhead meshing.
meshing.

(a) (b)
Example
Figure 2.2.Example of two
of two typestypes of femoral
of femoral head meshing:
head meshing: (a) quadratic
(a) quadratic tetrahedral
tetrahedral and (b)
and (b) triangular
triangular tetrahedral.
tetrahedral.

Regarding the
Regarding the contact
contact algorithm, the simulations
algorithm, the simulations were
were conducted
conducted by
by using
using the
the augmented
augmented
Lagrange model
Lagrange model [5].[5].
For evaluating
For evaluating thethe global
global performances
performances of of the
the selected
selected meshing methods, aa first
meshing methods, first investigation
investigation
was conducted in terms of the numbers of node and numbers of elements.
was conducted in terms of the numbers of node and numbers of elements. After that, After that, focusing
focusing on
on the
the meshes
meshes withwith
the the lowest
lowest number
number of of nodes
nodes and
and elements,the
elements, theJacobian
Jacobianratio
ratiocriteria
criteriaand
and the
the mesh
mesh
skewness were used. The first one is the ratio between the maximum and the minimum determinant
of the Jacobian matrix in different points of the elements [18]. The sampling positions were different
according to the kind of elements. In an ideally-shaped element, the determinant should be constant
and not change in sign. The value of this metrics should be between 1 and 10, but it is still acceptable
to be as high as 30. If the maximum and minimum have different signs, the element is unacceptable.
Materials 2019, 12, 2332 5 of 11

skewness were used. The first one is the ratio between the maximum and the minimum determinant
of the Jacobian matrix in different points of the elements [18]. The sampling positions were different
according to the kind of elements. In an ideally-shaped element, the determinant should be constant
and not change in sign. The value of this metrics should be between 1 and 10, but it is still acceptable
to be Materials
as high2019,
as 12,
30.x If
FORthe maximum
PEER REVIEW and minimum have different signs, the element is unacceptable.
5 of 11
The skewness represents one of the primary quality measures for a mesh since it determines how
close to ideal a face Multizone hexa/prism
or cell is (its valuetetra prismbe as close as possible to zero).
should 9 The results of the
Tetra patch-conforming head tri 10
FEM simulation are presented and evaluated on the polyethylene acetabular cup in terms of total
Hex-dominant quad/tri Triangular Head 11
deformations, contact pressure, and equivalent von Mises stress.
Multizone hexa/prism tetra 12
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
In this section, the results of the large number of FE simulations performed are shown by
In this section, the results of the large number of FE simulations performed are shown by
comparing the 12the
comparing types of meshes.
12 types In particular,
of meshes. first we
In particular, investigated
first if the ifdifferent
we investigated meshes
the different generated
meshes
different
generated different results in terms of acetabular cup deformation and contact head/cup pressure the
results in terms of acetabular cup deformation and contact head/cup pressure during
gait cycle.
duringIntheFigure 3A,In
gait cycle. the total3A,
Figure cupthedeformations are represented,
total cup deformations in Figure
are represented, 3B, the
in Figure 3B,nodal contact
the nodal
pressure, in Figure
contact pressure,3C,inthe equivalent
Figure 3C, thevon Mises stress,
equivalent during
von Mises the during
stress, gait cycle
the and
gait for theand
cycle different
for themesh
types,different mesh
and in the types,3D,
Figure andthe
in the Figure of
position 3D,the
themaximum
position of values
the maximum values of the
of the pressure pressure
during duringfor all
the walk
the walk for all meshing algorithms
meshing algorithms according to Table 1. according to Table 1.

Figure 3. Cont.
Materials 2019, 12, 2332
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11
6 of 11

Figure 3. Results of the mesh comparison in terms of: (A) the total deformation of the inner cup
Figure 3. Results of the mesh comparison in terms of: (A) the total deformation of the inner cup surface;
surface; (B) contact pressure; (C) von Mises equivalent stress; (D) maximum contact pressure time
(B) contact pressure; (C) von Mises equivalent stress; (D) maximum contact pressure time during the
during the gait and the resultant mesh for all meshing algorithms according to Table 1.
gait and the resultant mesh for all meshing algorithms according to Table 1.
By analyzing Figure 3, it is possible to observe that the results obtained with the different meshes
By analyzing Figure 3, it is possible to observe that the results obtained with the different meshes
were quite similar, except for two methods: multizone hexa/prism hexa core (Mesh 8 in Table 1) and
weremultizone
quite similar, except
hexa/prism tetrafor two
prism methods:
(Mesh multizone
9 in Table hexa/prism
1), both with hexamesh
an all quad core (Mesh 8 in Table
for the femoral 1) and
head,
multizone hexa/prism
especially tetra60%
from about prism (Mesh
of the gait 9cycle.
in Table 1), both with
The triangular meshanforall
thequad
femoral mesh
headfor thetested
was femoral
onlyhead,
especially fromofabout
with some 60% of the
the algorithms gait cycle.
compared dueThe triangular
to the mesh
similarities for the
among theresults.
femoral head was tested only
with some of the algorithms
Subsequently, compared
the meshes due to the
were compared in similarities among the
terms of the number results.
of nodes (Figure 4A), contact
Subsequently, the meshes were compared in terms of the number of nodesbetween
elements (Figure 4B), and the Coefficient of the Mesh (CM) evaluated as the ratio (Figurethe total
4A), contact
number
elements of nodes
(Figure 4B),and
andthethetotal number of
Coefficient of the
contact
Mesh elements (Figure 4C)as
(CM) evaluated inthe
order to between
ratio point out the
the total
different amounts of computational resources needed.
number of nodes and the total number of contact elements (Figure 4C) in order to point out the different
amounts of computational resources needed.
Materials 2019, 12, 2332 7 of 11

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 11

Total nodes
A
16,000

14,000 13,483 13,562

13,084 13,152
12,526
12,000
10,025
10,000
8,818
8,340
8,000

6,000 5,153
3,761
4,000 3,283 3,283

2,000

Contact Elements
B 900
807
800
715 730
700

600
536
500 475
440 440 440
398 409
383 383
400

300

200

100

Automatic mesh Tetra Patch-Conforming Tetra Patch-Independent

Hex-Dominant quad/tri Hex-Dominant all quad Multizone hexa/prism tetra
Multizone hexa/prism hexa dominant Multizone hexa/prism hexa core Multizone hexa/prism tetra prism
Tetra Patch-Conforming head tri Hex-Dominant quad/tri head tri Multizone hexa/prism tetra head tri

Figure
Figure 4. Comparison
4. Comparison of the
of the meshes
meshes in in terms
terms of:of:(A)
(A)total
totalnumber
numberof
of nodes
nodes and
and (B)
(B) contact
contactelements;
elements;
and (C) the Coefficient of the Mesh (CM).
and (C) the Coefficient of the Mesh (CM).

The three red underlined bars in Figure 4 refer to the two meshes (multizone hexa/prism hexa core
(Mesh 8 in Table 1) and multizone hexa/prism tetra prism (Mesh 9 in Table 1)) with quite different results
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 11
Materials
Materials2019, 12,12,
2019, 2332
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 8ofof
11 11
in terms of contact pressure (Figure 3B) and stress-strain (Figure 3C), which require a
deep investigation.
in terms of contact pressure (Figure 3B) and stress-strain (Figure 3C), which require a
The
From three
the red
deep investigation. underlined
analysis of Figure bars4B,ininFigure
terms4ofrefer to the
contact two meshes
elements, numberhexa/prism
(multizone
a larger of elements, hexaincore
the
(Mesh 8
case ofFromin Table
triangular 1) and
the analysis multizone
meshes hexa/prism
(Meshes
of Figure 4B,10,in 11, tetra
terms and prism
of 12 (Mesh
in Table
contact 9 in Table
1) of the
elements, 1)) with quite
headnumber
a larger different
were found, results
even if,
of elements, ininin
the
terms of
dynamical contact pressure
conditions, it (Figure
is accepted3B) and
that stress-strain
a quad mesh (Figure
allows 3C),
case of triangular meshes (Meshes 10, 11, and 12 in Table 1) of the head were found, even if, inmorewhich require
accurate a
results deep
than investigation.
From the
triangular
dynamical analysis ofitFigure
meshes.
conditions, 4B, inthat
is accepted terms of contact
a quad meshelements,
allows more a larger number
accurate of elements,
results than in the
case of triangular
Regarding
triangular meshes (Meshes 10, 11, and 12 in Table 1) of the head
the acetabular cup, Figure 5; Figure 6 show a comparison between the method tetra
meshes. were found, even if, in dynamical
conditions,
patch conformingit is
Regarding (Meshaccepted 2that
the acetabular a quad
in Tablecup,1)mesh
and
Figure allows
the moremultizone
5;method
Figure accurate
6 show a results
hexa/prism
comparisonthanhexa
triangular
dominant
between themeshes.
(Mesh 7tetra
method in
Table Regarding
patch1), which are
conforming the acetabular
the two
(Mesh cup,
2 inmeshes Figure
Table 1)with 5;
andathe Figure
lower 6 show
number
method a comparison
of nodes.
multizone between
In the first
hexa/prism hexacase, the method
the acetabular
dominant tetra
(Mesh 7 in
patch
cup conforming
was meshed (Mesh
by 2 in
tetrahedrons,Table 1)
in and
the the
second methodone multizone
by hexa/prism
hexahedrons.
Table 1), which are the two meshes with a lower number of nodes. In the first case, the acetabular The hexa dominant
femoral head (Mesh
had 7 in
a quad
Table
mesh 1),
in which
both are
cases. the
The two meshes
hexahedral with
mesh a lower
showed number
values ofof
cup was meshed by tetrahedrons, in the second one by hexahedrons. The femoral head had a quad nodes.
the In
Jacobian the first
ratio case,
(Figure the
5) acetabular
closer to the
cup was
optimum meshed
mesh in both target by tetrahedrons,
values.
cases. TheIn in the
terms of Aspect
hexahedral second
mesh showed one
Ratio (AR),by hexahedrons.
valueswhileof thethe The femoral
hexahedral
Jacobian head
mesh showed
ratio (Figure had a quad
5) closerbetter
to the
mesh
values in both
because cases.
the The
AR ofhexahedral
its elements mesh
was showed
closer tovalues
the of
unity
optimum target values. In terms of Aspect Ratio (AR), while the hexahedral mesh showed better the Jacobian
than the ratio
elements (Figure
of the 5) closer
tetrahedral to
the
meshoptimum
(Figure target
6). A values.
similar In terms
behavior of
of Aspect
the Ratio
Jacobian (AR),
ratio while
in the
general
values because the AR of its elements was closer to the unity than the elements of the tetrahedral hexahedral
for the mesh
others showed
meshes wasbetter
also
values
meshbecause
observed. (Figure the
6). AR
In addition, ofit its
A similar elements
is possible
behavior was
to closer
state
of thethat tothe
thehexahedral
Jacobian unity
ratio than the elements
mesh
in general had more
for the ofothers
the tetrahedral
uniform
meshes elementsmesh
was in
also
(Figure
terms 6).
of A
these similar
two behavior
characteristics. of the Jacobian ratio in general for the
observed. In addition, it is possible to state that the hexahedral mesh had more uniform elements in others meshes was also observed.
Interms
addition, it is two
of these possible to state that the hexahedral mesh had more uniform elements in terms of
characteristics.
these two characteristics.

Figure 5. Jacobian ratio of the tetrahedral mesh (left) and hexahedral mesh (right).
Figure 5. Jacobian ratio of the tetrahedral mesh (left) and hexahedral mesh (right).
Figure 5. Jacobian ratio of the tetrahedral mesh (left) and hexahedral mesh (right).

Figure 6. Skewness of the tetrahedral mesh (left) and hexahedral mesh (right).
Figure 6. Skewness of the tetrahedral mesh (left) and hexahedral mesh (right).
Regarding theFigure 6. Skewness
skewness, of the tetrahedral
the hexahedral mesh wasmesh (left) and as
evaluated hexahedral mesh (right).
more reliable than the tetrahedral
Regarding the skewness, the hexahedral mesh was evaluated as more reliable than the tetrahedral
one (see Figure 6).
one (see Figure 6). skewness, the hexahedral mesh was evaluated as more reliable than the tetrahedral
AsRegarding
discussed the
and shown in Figure 3, the two algorithms gave different results from all the others,
one As discussed
(see Figure 6).and shown in Figure 3, the two algorithms gave different results from all the others,
the algorithms multizone hexa/prism hexa core (Mesh 8 in Table 1) and multizone hexa/prism tetra prism
the algorithms multizone hexa/prism hexa corethe(Mesh 8 in Tablegave1) and multizone hexa/prism alltetra prism
(Mesh As9 indiscussed andthis
Table 1). For shown in Figure
reason, more3,simulations
two algorithms
were performed different results
to understand from the others,
the influence of
(Mesh
the 9 in Table
algorithms 1). For
multizone this reason,
hexa/prism more
hexa simulations
core (Mesh 8 were
in performed
Table 1) and to understand
multizone the
hexa/prism influence
tetra prism
the nodes and element numbers on the behavior of the solution. It was possible to increase the number
of the nodes and element numbers on the behavior of the solution. It was possible to increase the
of(Mesh
nodes 9ininorder
Tableto1).verify
For this reason,
if the originmoreof thesimulations were
observed differencesperformed to understand
was attributable to athe
tooinfluence
coarse
number
of the of nodes in order to verify if the origin of the observed differences was attributable to a too
mesh. A nodes and element
comparison was made numbers
in terms onofthe behavior
head/cup of thepressure
contact solution. It wasthe
during possible to increase
gait cycle, because it the
number of nodes in order to verify if the origin
showed the highest differences in the results (Figure 3B). of the observed differences was attributable to a too
coarse mesh. A comparison was made in terms of head/cup contact pressure during the gait cycle,
because it showed the highest differences in the results (Figure 3B).
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 11
The investigated numbers of nodes and elements for both Meshes 8 and 9 are reported in
Figure 7.
coarse mesh. A comparison was made in terms of head/cup contact pressure during the gait cycle,
In Figures
Materials 2019, 8 and 9 are presented the results obtained with multizone hexa/prism hexa core (Mesh
12, 2332 8
9 of 11
because it showed the highest differences in the results (Figure 3B).
in Table 1) and with numbers
The investigated multizoneofhexa/prism
nodes andtetra prism for
elements (Mesh
both9Meshes
in Table 1) meshes
8 and by varying
9 are reported in the
numbers
Figure 7. of elements and nodes in comparison with the multizone hexa/prism hexa dominant (Mesh 7
The
in Table 1) one. 8 and 9 are presented the results obtained with multizone hexa/prism hexa core (Mesh 7.
investigated numbers of nodes and elements for both Meshes 8 and 9 are reported in Figure
In Figures 8
in Table 1) and with multizone hexa/prism tetra prism (Mesh 9 in Table 1) meshes by varying the
numbers of elements and nodes in comparison with the multizone hexa/prism hexa dominant (Mesh 7
in Table 1) one.

Figure 7. Number of nodes and elements in the different simulations of Mesh 8 and Mesh 9.
Figure 7. Number of nodes and elements in the different simulations of Mesh 8 and Mesh 9.
In Figures 8 and 9 are presented the results obtained with multizone hexa/prism hexa core (Mesh 8 in
Table 1) and with multizone hexa/prism tetra prism (Mesh 9 in Table 1) meshes by varying the numbers of
elementsFigure
and nodes in comparison
7. Number with
of nodes and the multizone
elements hexa/prism
in the different hexa dominant
simulations (Mesh
of Mesh 8 and 7Mesh
in Table
9. 1) one.

Figure 8. Contact pressure during the gait cycle (%) obtained with the multizone hexa/prism hexa core
mesh increasing the number of nodes.

Figure 8. Contact
Figure 8. Contact pressure
pressure during
during the
the gait
gait cycle
cycle (%)
(%) obtained
obtained with
with the
the multizone
multizone hexa/prism
hexa/prism hexa core
hexa core
mesh increasing the number of nodes.
mesh increasing the number of nodes.

Figure 9. Contact pressure during the gait cycle (%) obtained with the multizone hexa/prism tetra prism
mesh increasing the number of nodes.

Figure 9. Contact
Contact pressure
pressure during the gait cycle (%)
(%) obtained
obtained with
with the
the multizone
multizone hexa/prism
hexa/prism tetra prism
mesh increasing the number ofof nodes.
nodes.

Observing Figures 8 and 9, it is possible to note that both meshes showed a reduction of the
differences with respect to the cases in Figure 3, with the increasing number of nodes; the curve shapes
and the values of cup stress and deformations during the gait cycle tended to coincide with all other
Materials 2019, 12, 2332 10 of 11

meshes. Therefore, in the framework of this application, the two investigated meshes (Meshes 8 and
9) needed smaller elements, which means grater computational resources in comparison with the
other algorithms.

4. Conclusions
The in silico approach constitutes a promising methodology in arthroplasty, allowing the prediction
of tribological phenomena in preclinical wear tests [19–21]. In this study, we performed an in silico
approach in order to apply and compare 12 common different meshing strategies on the simulation
of the contact between the femoral head and the acetabular cup in a soft bearing. We used the
kinematic and dynamic data obtained by a previously-developed musculoskeletal multibody model.
The total deformation of the inner surface of the acetabular cup, the head/cup contact pressure, and
the equivalent von Mises’ stress were evaluated accounting for the augmented Lagrange contact
model. The solution of the simulations showed generally quite similar results except for two meshing
algorithms: the multizone hexa/prism hexa-core and the multizone hexa/prism tetra prism, both with an
all quad mesh for the femoral head (the triangular meshing for the femoral head surface showed no
relevant differences).
Focusing on the best performing meshes, tetra patch conforming (Mesh 2 in Table 1) and the method
multizone hexa dominant (Mesh 9 in Table 1), the Jacobian ratio criteria and the mesh skewness were
computed. The hexahedral mesh showed values of the Jacobian ratio and of the aspect ratio closer to
the optimum target values. In terms of the aspect ratio, the hexahedral mesh showed better values.
A similar behavior of the Jacobian ratio in general for the others meshes was found, and the hexahedral
mesh had more uniform elements in terms of these two characteristics.
Regarding the two meshes, multizone hexa/prism hexa core and multizone hexa/prism tetra prism, in
this particular application, the improvement of the accuracy of the solutions by increasing the number
of elements and nodes was observed, concluding that the above algorithms need smaller elements
(thick meshes), which means greater computational resources in comparison with the other algorithms.
The comparison between the tetrahedral mesh and the hexahedral mesh allowed us to conclude the
better quality of the latter mesh, especially in dynamic conditions.

Author Contributions: A.R. and S.A. conceived of and designed the investigation; A.R. developed the dynamical
analysis; A.R. and R.D. performed the FEM; A.R. and S.A. analyzed the data; A.R. and R.D. discussed the results;
A.R., R.D., and S.A. wrote the paper.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Simone Di Stasio for his help with the finite
element simulations.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest

References
1. Affatato, S.; Merola, M.; Ruggiero, A. Development of a Novel in Silico Model to Investigate the Influence of
Radial Clearance on the Acetabular Cup Contact Pressure in Hip Implants. Materials (Basel) 2018, 11, 1282.
[CrossRef]
2. Ruggiero, A.; Affatato, S.; Merola, M.; De Simone, M.C. FEM analysis of metal on UHMWPE total hip
prosthesis during normal walking cycle. In Proceedings of the XXIII Conference of the Italian Association of
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Salerno, Italy, 4–7 September 2017; pp. 4–7.
3. Brekelmans, W.A.M.; Poort, H.W.; Slooff, T.J.J.H. A new method to analyse the mechanical behaviour of
skeletal parts. Acta Orthop. 1972, 43, 301–317. [CrossRef]
4. Shim, V.B.; Böshme, J.; Vaitl, P.; Josten, C.; Anderson, I.A. An Efficient and Accurate Prediction of the Stability
of Percutaneous Fixation of Acetabular Fractures with Finite Element Simulation. J. Biomech. Eng. 2011, 133,
094501. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Materials 2019, 12, 2332 11 of 11

5. Ruggiero, A.; Merola, M.; Affatato, S. Finite Element Simulations of Hard-On-Soft Hip Joint Prosthesis
Accounting for Dynamic Loads Calculated from a Musculoskeletal Model during Walking. Materials (Basel)
2018, 11, 574. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Islan, M.; Blaya, F.; Pedro, P.S.; D’Amato, R.; Urquijo, E.L.; Juanes, J.A. Analysis and Fem Simulation
Methodology of Dynamic Behavior of Human Rotator Cuff in Repetitive Routines: Musician Case Study.
J. Med. Syst. 2018, 42, 55. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Islán Marcos, M.; Lechosa Urquijo, E.; Blaya Haro, F.; D’Amato, R.; Soriano Heras, E.; Juanes, J.A. Behavior
under Load of A Human Shoulder: Finite Element Simulation and Analysis. J. Med. Syst. 2019, 43, 132.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Raut, P. Impact of mesh quality parameters on elements such as beam, shell and 3D solid in structural
analysis. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2012, 2, 99–103.
9. Tadepalli, S.C.; Erdemir, A.; Cavanagh, P.R. Comparison of hexahedral and tetrahedral elements in finite
element analysis of the foot and footwear. J. Biomech. 2011, 44, 2337–2343. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Benzley, S.E.; Perry, E.; Merkley, K.; Clark, B.; Sjaardama, G. A comparison of all hexagonal and all tetrahedral
finite element meshes for elastic and elasto-plastic analysis. In Proceedings of the 4th International Meshing
Roundtable, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 16–17 October 1995; pp. 179–191.
11. Burkhart, T.A.; Andrews, D.M.; Dunning, C.E. Finite element modeling mesh quality, energy balance and
validation methods: A review with recommendations associated with the modeling of bone tissue. J. Biomech.
2013, 46, 1477–1488. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. ANSYS Meshing User’s Guide. Available online: https://www.ansys.com/products/platform/ansys-meshing
(accessed on 18 May 2019).
13. Rice, J.R. The Aspect Ratio Significant for Finite Element Problems; 85-535; Purdue University: West Lafayette,
IN, USA, 1985.
14. Felippa, C.A. Introduction to Finite Element Methods. Available online: https://vulcanhammernet.files.
wordpress.com/2017/01/ifem.pdf (accessed on May 18 2019).
15. Tsukcrman, I.; Plaks, A. Comparison of accuracy criteria for approximation of conservative fields on
tetrahedra. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1998, 34, 3248–3251.
16. Affatato, S.; Ruggiero, A.; De Mattia, J.S.; Taddei, P. Does metal transfer affect the tribological behaviour
of femoral heads? Roughness and phase transformation analyses on retrieved zirconia and Biolox® Delta
composites. Compos. Part B-Eng. 2016, 92, 290–298. [CrossRef]
17. Ruggiero, A.; Merola, M.; Affatato, S. On the biotribology of total knee replacement: A new roughness
measurements protocol on in vivo condyles considering the dynamic loading from musculoskeletal multibody
model. Measurement 2017, 112, 22–28. [CrossRef]
18. Lee, H.-H. Finite Element Simulations with ANSYS Workbench 14: Theory, Applications, Case Studies; Schroff
Development Corp: Mission, KS, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781585037254.
19. Affatato, S.; Ruggiero, A.; Jaber, S.A.; Merola, M.; Bracco, P. Wear behaviours and oxidation effects on different
uhmwpe acetabular cups using a hip joint simulator. Materials (Basel) 2018, 11, 433. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Affatato, S.; Merola, M.; Ruggiero, A. Tribological performances of total knee prostheses: Roughness
measurements on medial and lateral compartments of retrieved femoral components. Measurement 2019, 135,
341–347. [CrossRef]
21. Affatato, S.; Ruggiero, A. A Critical Analysis of TKR In Vitro Wear Tests Considering Predicted Knee Joint
Loads. Materials 2019, 12, 1597. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).