Level 3 Industrial Case Study

Biomaterials Selection for a Joint

Replacement

Claes Fredriksson, Harriet Parnell and Lakshana Mohee

Ansys Materials Education Division

First published: Dec 2018

This version: Aug 2021

© 2021 ANSYS, Inc. ED U CAT I O N R E SO U R C E S

Summary

The Bioengineering database of Granta EduPack offers the possibility to compare and select materials
for various medical implants. We can draw on our experience in applying tools, both for teaching
bioengineering students and for making materials decisions in the biomedical field.

In this advanced industrial case study, we explore how Granta EduPack can be used to identify and
assess the optimum materials for a total hip replacement – with a specific look at the roles of the
main material classes in the implant. Metal alloys for structural integrity, ceramics for minimizing
wear in the articulating surfaces or polymers as a lightweight alternative. All under the constraints of
biocompatibility. To add realism, we explore the ASM Medical Materials Database™ which contains
over 60,000 approved medical devices.

Table of Contents

1. What is the scope?................................................................................................. 3

2. What can Granta EduPack do?............................................................................... 4
3. Using Granta EduPack Level 3 to select biomaterials............................................. 5
The femoral stem....................................................................................................... 6
The femoral head/ball joint........................................................................................ 7
4. Analysis and reality check....................................................................................... 8
5. What does Granta EduPack bring to the understanding?...................................... 9
References.................................................................................................................. 9

2 © 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK

1. What is the scope?
Bioengineering, also known as biomedical engineering, refers to the field of study that merges biology and
engineering. This unique, interdisciplinary field allows you to cover a wide range of subjects, where you use an
in-depth understanding of engineering to solve medical and biological problems. Bioengineering overlaps with
many other academic disciplines, for example:

• Physics, Chemistry & Biology:

Nanotechnology, Biophysics, Materials
chemistry, Surface science
• Mechanical Engineering:
Biomechanics and Prosthetics
• Materials Science & Engineering:
Biomimetics, Biomaterials, Materials
characterisation, Hybrids & Composites

Biomaterials, synthetic as well as natural ones, are designed to be in contact with and interact with a biological
system, such as the human body. The study of such materials can be called biomaterials science or biomaterials
engineering, depending on focus. The area has grown considerably over the past 50 years, both in research and
in higher education. In this advanced industrial case study, we have chosen to focus on biomaterial properties
relating to implants—in particular joint replacements—and aspects of material selection.

Implants constitute an important application of

bioengineering and offer engaging examples of
biomaterials. They are designed to either replace,
support or enhance an existing biological part. In
an aging population, where more people have an
active lifestyle, there is an increasing need to develop
implants, such as hip replacements, that have greater
longevity. On average, a Total Hip Replacement (THR)
has a service life of 15 years [1]. For patients receiving
the treatment aged 55-60, for example, there is a high
chance that a secondary procedure will be required.

THR surgery is one of the most common medical procedures and it is estimated that approximately one million
hip replacements are carried out per year [2]. There is a rich history of materials that have been used, with the
earliest record said to date back to the late 1800s [3]. Examples include ivory femoral heads, glass articulating
surfaces and more recently, metals and polymers. Sir John Charnley, sometimes called the father of modern
THR, designed a low friction arthroplasty in the early 1960s, which principles still remain today. It consists of
three main parts: 1) femoral stem, 2) femoral head, and 3) acetabular component. Parts 2-3 constitute the
mutually mobile parts of the joint.

For devices integrated within the human body, biocompatibility is of course a design essential. This can be
defined as the ability of a material to cause an appropriate biological response for a given application in the body
[4]. Whereas earlier definitions of the term focused simply on the non-toxic response of the material, revised
biocompatibility definitions also acknowledge that a material must be able to perform the correct function.
Therefore, orthopedic implants must have sufficient structural integrity but should, ideally, also have similar
mechanical and physical properties to that of bone to avoid complications, such as stress shielding.

3 © 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK

 The most common type of THR currently used is
metal-on-polyethylene. With an elastic modulus
almost half that of steel, titanium-alloys (Ti-6Al-
4V) have become the material of choice for most
femoral implants. Ceramics are good for increased
wear resistance in mobile parts while polymers are
cheaper, lighter and easier to manufacture.

This case study makes use of the advanced

Bioengineering database of Granta EduPack and
its capability to simultaneously give information on
both biological materials (tissue) and engineering
materials, such as biomaterials for implants.

2. What can Granta EduPack do?

Granta EduPack has relevant data for
biomaterials, both at Level 2 and Level 3.
Whereas the former is less overwhelming to
students and suitable for learning about material
properties and selection, the latter contains a
full range of alloys and grades to provide data
for realistic projects in bioengineering. The
Bioengineering Level 2 database is, however,
extended with bio-related materials. This more
than doubles the number of the basic Level 2
MaterialUniverse, resulting in 260 datasheets.
One important detour from conventional
terminology is that the subset of biomaterials
(around 160 of them) are defined as all bio-
related subsets in this database, as described in
the Science Note to the right.

One great feature of the Bioengineering databases is that they allow

for property charts which simultaneously include both engineering
materials and bio-related materials, such as human tissue and
biomaterials (in the conventional sense, meaning materials designed
to interact with biological systems). For the purpose of this case study,
dealing with implants, the subset of Biomedical materials can be used to
represent suitable candidates. An overview chart can easily be created
which covers most relevant biomaterials, without applying constraints
such as durability in water, etc. In Level 2, this also includes the most
relevant human mineralized tissues, as shown to the left.

The Bioengineering Level 3 database of Granta EduPack contains data

records for over 4000 materials. Using this as the advanced selection
platform for a hip replacement—both the femoral stem, head and the
liner—a custom subset of biomedical materials can be created. In this
case, it is necessary to manually add Human bones to the subset in order
to have a comparative overview of both the implant material and the
tissue it will replace and attach to.

4 © 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK

The biomedical materials at Level 2, with bone records highlighted in white, shows that bone tissues span a wide
range of mechanical properties. The metal alloys are generally both stiffer and stronger than the Femur. The
same applies to ceramics, that might be used for the top parts of the joint, primarily loaded in compression. The
polymers tend to match cortical bones in strength but are closer to cancellous bones in stiffness.

3. Using Granta EduPack Level 3 to select biomaterials

In order to follow the Ashby systematic selection methodology, we start with all Biomedical materials, then filter
out unsuitable materials with additional screening, and finally consider one or more performance indices for
ranking. The Function of the implant is to replace the original hip joint in sustaining load and wear arising from
the weight and movements of the body. This can be divided into two parts:

Function 1 (stem) – sustain compressive load from external forces (red dashed arrows) resulting also in shear and
bending (illustrated schematically by blue arrows) of the femoral stem. Strength-limited design was assumed.

Constraints for the stem:

• Biomedical material
• Stiffness and strength not less than those of cortical bone
• Fracture toughness so to avoid fast fracture (>11 MPa*m^0.5)
• Unfilled grade + Non-magnetic + Bulk material

Objectives for the stem:

• Maximize specific strength
• Minimize cost

Function 2 (head) – sustain compressive load and wear at the femoral head and liner/acetabular cup.

Constraints for the head:

• Consider only the Joint replacement materials of the Healthcare applications

Objectives for the head:

• Maximize compressive strength
• Minimize wear (blunt abrasion)

5 © 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK

The femoral stem
The Custom subset of Biomedical materials at Level 3 is modified by
adding all Mineralized tissue. The Human bones records are changed to
white and added to favourites by right-clicking. Since the stem cannot
have a yield strength or elastic modulus lower than cortical bone, these
constraints are added by a box selection, positioned so that materials
with values above the Femur cortical bone properties are included.
Fracture toughness and other constraints can be added in a Limit stage.

The decision to use specific strength as the primary objective can be justified by considering
the performance index for minimization of a strength-limited design of a column in
compressive load: M = ρ / σc. This can be plotted on, for example, the X-axis using the
Performance Index Finder of the Chart stage. Moreover, for the flexural (bending) load: M
= ρ / σf ⅔ or torsional load: M = ρ / σy ⅔, we can plot a complementary index on the other,
Y-axis (bubble chart below).

It is well known that the compressive strength is significantly higher than the tensile or yield strength for most
materials. The flexural strength, however, is generally very similar to the yield strength, so the plotted flexural
performance index can represent both loads. As shown below, the performance ranking of relevant materials,
such as Titanium or stainless steel, is consistent for all main types of loading (compression, bending, torsion).
Here. Ti-6Al-4V alloys, austenitic stainless steels and cobolt chromium alloys are performing the best.

The way we screened for austenitic grades, was to

filter on magnetic properties in the Limit stage. Non-
magnetic grades were selected in the drop-down menu
for Magnetic type. In implants, austenitic stainless
steels are used, rather than martensitic, partly due to:
- Better corrosion resistance
- Better fraction toughness
- Hardness better matched to bone
- Non-magnetic (for MRI etc)
The austenitic stainless steels are, largely, matched
in performance by cobalt chromium alloys, which are
historically the most used material for hip replacement
implants.

6 © 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK

For the second objective, to minimize cost, we can plot the cost performance: M = cm*ρ / σc on the Y axis (bar
chart below). This gives the fairest comparison between materials of different types. Whereas Ti-6Al-4V was the
best in mechanical performance, as shown previously, stainless steels appear best in cost performance. They
are also easy to manufacture. Unrealistic options, such as gold can be excluded by a box selection if desired. We
have used an arbitrary upper limit of around 300 in our example.

Cobalt chromium alloys are highly

resistant to corrosion and have some
mechanical properties that are superior
to stainless steels, such as fracture
and fatigue resistance. Although more
expensive than these steels, cobalt
chromium is still used for the ball joint
of the head. It has, however, gradually
been replaced by titanium for the stem
part. Ti-6Al-4V osseointegrates and has:
- Stiffness better matched to bone
- Higher specific strength
- Good corrosion resistance

The femoral head/ball joint

For this part, the main load is compression of the ball joint. The index to maximize
for the primary objective is compressive strength, which is readily available in Granta
EduPack. This is the property that best represents the performance, since the
dimensions are more or less fixed by the natural geometry of the hip.

In this section, we have restricted ourselves to benchmark the subset of materials available in the Limit stage
under Joint replacement, which is found within the Healthcare applications of the Healthcare & food section.
This will be our effective constraints, superseding a regular screening.

Objectives relating to wear resistance are complicated, since this is not a straightforward material property.
It depends strongly on the combination of materials and environmental conditions, such as temperature and
lubrication. We nevertheless used an option built in to the Performance Index Finder, Abrasion by blunt contact.
This secondary objective deals with abrasion caused by yielding (metals/polymers) or cracking (ceramics).

7 © 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK

 We can plot both these indices simultaneously in one
bubble chart using the Performance Index Finder, as
shown below for yielding onset. The performance index
to maximize for cracking is: M = K1c3 / E2(1-2v)3.

As expected, ceramics have the lowest resistance

to cracking however, this has been addressed more
recently by developing finer-grain medical grades with
higher purity. The trend for metals, is that stainless
steels are lower than cobalt chrome superalloys in
performance and that Ti-6Al-4V is amongst the best.

Yielding is generally preferred as a failure

mechanism than cracking (catastrophic) and
polymers, such as ultra-high molecular weight
polyethylene (UHMWPE, PE-UHMW), perform
very well in this respect. The 1:st generation
of highly cross-linked UHMWPE has improved
wear resistance while the 2:nd generation of
highly cross-linked UHMWPE has improved
mechanical performance resulting from an
additional heat treatment. However, to find
data on this, the ASM medical materials
database needs to be consulted.

4. Analysis and reality check

Total hip replacements are interesting from a biomaterial perspective, since they encompass metal alloys,
bioceramics and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in standardized and widespread medical procedures.
The femoral stem needs to be a biocompatible metal alloy in order to provide combined strength, stiffness and
fracture toughness. Whereas stainless steel has the best cost performance and compressive strength, cobalt
chrome (molybdenum) alloys have better resistance to abrasion promoted by onset of cracking. Ti-6Al-4V has
good overall performance and excels at mechanical properties in relation to weight (specific strength etc).

More information about a range of

biomaterials and biomedical devices
on the market can be found in the ASM
Medical Materials Database, accessible
via the Bioengineering Edition of Granta
EduPack with the appropriate subscription.
This contains information on relevant
commercial biomaterials and tens of
thousands of medical devices.

Therein is more
information on
standards etc.

8 © 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK

There is also extensive information 1:st and 2:nd generation highly crosslinked UHMWPE as shown below.

5. What does Granta EduPack bring to the understanding?

In this case study, Granta EduPack suggest the following conclusions:
• Granta EduPack Bioengineering Level 3 database is useful to select and understand the biomaterials used
for the femoral stem and also benchmark the femoral head of a total hip replacement.
• Both properties of cortical bone and biocompatible metal alloys can be used in a selection process. The
identified candidates match real-world implant materials and adds to the understanding of their development
in recent history
• Bio-ceramics and biocompatible metal alloys can be compared and contrasted to the UHMWPE used as
lining. To follow the development for highly crosslinked UHMWPE of generation 1 and generation 2 (heat
treated), with enhanced mechanical properties for use in the joint, the ASM medical materials database can
be invoked from within the software, provided a subscription with ASM.

References
1. A.S. Brown, Hip New World, ASME Mechanical Engineering Magazine, 128, 2006, 28-33
2. Biomaterials in Hip Joint Replacement, International Journal of Materials Science and Engineering, http://
www.ijmse.net/uploadfile/2016/0715/20160715041827481.pdf
3. S. R. Knight, R. Aujla and S. P. Biswas, ‘Total Hip Arthroplasty- over 100 years of operative history’, Orthopedic
Reviews, 3, 2011, 72- 74
4. D.F. Williams, Biocompatibility: An Overview, Concise Encyclopedia of Medical & Dental Materials, D.
Williams, Ed., Pergamon Press and the MIT Press, 1990, 51-59

9 © 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK

© 2021 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.

Use and Reproduction

The content used in this resource may only be used or reproduced for teaching
purposes; and any commercial use is strictly prohibited.

Document Information
This case study is part of a set of teaching resources to help introduce students to
materials, processes and rational selections.

Ansys Education Resources

To access more undergraduate education resources, including lecture presentations
with notes, exercises with worked solutions, microprojects, real life examples and
more, visit www.ansys.com/education-resources.

ANSYS, Inc. If you’ve ever seen a rocket launch, flown on an airplane, driven a car, used a computer, touched
Southepointe a mobile device, crossed a bridge or put on wearable technology, chances are you’ve used a
2600 Ansys Drive product where Ansys software played a critical role in its creation. Ansys is the global leader
in engineering simulation. We help the world’s most innovative companies deliver radically
Canonsburg, PA 15317
better products to their customers. By offering the best and broadest portfolio of engineering
U.S.A. simulation software, we help them solve the most complex design challenges and engineer
724.746.3304 products limited only by imagination.
ansysinfo@ansys.com
visit www.ansys.com for more information

Any and all ANSYS, Inc. brand, product, service and feature names, logos and slogans are
registered trademarks or trademarks of ANSYS, Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States or
other countries. All other brand, product, service and feature names or trademarks are the
property of their respective owners.

© 2021 ANSYS, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

© 2021 ANSYS, Inc. GRANTA EDUPACK