Skip to content

Shoulder and Upper Extremity

This section of the documentation is under development

This section is being updated

Identifiers

Identifier Range Description
30 1000 - 30 4000 Skeletal Tissue
30 4000 - 60 4000 Soft Tissue

Bones

Upper Extremity Bones Identifier Overview
Component Identifier Description
30 110 0 Clavicle
30 120 0 Scapula
30 130 0 Humerus
30 140 0 Ulna
30 150 0 Radius
30 160 0 – 30 230 0 Carpal Bones
30 240 0 – 30 280 0 Metacarpal Bones
30 290 0 – 30 320 0 Phalanges

Clavicle and Scapula

The clavicle and scapula are modeled as rigid bones.

Humerus

Thr cortical thickness increases from proximal to distal end of the diaphysis (humeral shaft). The cortical thickness remains almost a constant (exhibits a plateau) in the distal half of the diaphysis 1. The mean cortical thicknesses from Drew et al. is implemented in the 50F model 1. This cortical thickness compares to other studies on humerus also 2.

Radius and Ulna

Measured from distal to the proximal end, Hsu et al. 3 found that the cortical thickness in the radius increased in the 10% to 30% region and then remain more or less constant from 30% to 90% of the radial length. On the other hand, Ulna shows a different trend. The cortical thickness in ulna is constant in the 10% - 35% region, then increases over 35% - 55%, after which it remains constant over 55% - 90% of the length. This provided sufficient approximation for thickness variation of the cortical bone.

The cortical thickness was defined as follows basd on Hsu et al. 3

Percentage of
radial length
measured from distal to proximal		 Radius (mm) Cortical (mm)
10% 2.0 1.7
35% 2.8 2.1
65% 2.8 3.0
90% 2.3 3.0

Material Modeling

For all cortical bones MAT_124 is applied as it allows to distinguish between tension and compression and model strain-rate dependency.

The humerus material charateristics are based on 5 As no anisotropic material model is applied at the current stage, and transversal loading is of higher interest in the considered loading scenarios (no steering wheel), the parameters representative for transverse loading were selected.

Bone density was corrected with the factor 1E-3 as there seems to be an error in the original paper - 1.9 g/mm^2 is out of range compared to other publications and would lead to a to heavy bone.

Humerus

For all cortical bones MAT_PLASTICITY_COMPRESSION_TENSION is applied as it allows to distinguish between tension and compression and model strain-rate dependency.

The humerus material characteristics are based on Vandenbulcke et al. 20125. As no anisotropic material model is applied at the current stage, and transversal loading is of higher interest in the considered loading scenarios (no steering wheel), the parameters representative for transverse loading were selected. The bone density was corrected with the factor 1E-3 as there seems to be an error in the original paper (1.9g/mm^2 is out of range compared to other publications) and would lead to a to heavy bone.

Carpals, Metacarpals, and Phalanges

The geometry for the bones in the VIVA 50F wrist and hand is from the PIPER Reference Model. It corresponds to anthropometry of female with height 1610mm, mass 57kg, and age 56 years.

Material Modeling

Both bones were modelled elastic with the same material properties as the humerus for now.

Soft Tissues

Upper Extremity Soft tissue Identifier Overview
Component Identifier Description
30 510 0 Shoulder
30 520 0 Upper Arm
30 540 0 Elbow
30 560 0 Lower Arm
30 600 0 Wrist
30 650 0 Hand

Joints

For the VIRTUAL version of the VIVA+ models, joints of the upper extremities will be assumed as kinematic joints.

Shoulder

Elbow

  • Humerus und ulna are connected with a revolute joint (axis through medial and lateral epicondyle of humerus)
  • Humerus and radius are connected with a spherical joint (center of rotation on tip of Radius).
  • The radius and ulna are connected with a spherical joint on the distal end (center of rotation on ulnar styloid)

References

  1. Alex J. Drew, Robert Z. Tashjian, Heath B. Henninger, and Kent N. Bachus. Sex and laterality differences in medullary humerus morphology. The Anatomical Record, 30210:1709–1717, may 2019. doi:10.1002/ar.24138. ↩↩

  2. Heidi Haapasalo, Harri Sievanen, Pekka Kannus, Ari Heinonen, Pekka Oja, and Ilkka Vuori. Dimensions and estimated mechanical characteristics of the humerus after long-term tennis loading. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 116:864–872, dec 1996. doi:10.1002/jbmr.5650110619. ↩

  3. Emmie S Hsu, Avinash G Patwardhan, Kevin P Meade, Terry R Light, and William R Martin. Cross-sectional geometrical properties and bone mineral contents of the human radius and ulna. Journal of Biomechanics, 2611:1307–1318, nov 1993. doi:10.1016/0021-92909390354-h. ↩↩

  4. M. L. Bouxsein, K. H. Myburgh, M. C. H. van der Meulen, E. Lindenberger, and R. Marcus. Age-related differences in cross-sectional geometry of the forearm bones in healthy women. Calcified Tissue International, 542:113–118, feb 1994. doi:10.1007/bf00296061. ↩

  5. F. Vandenbulcke, J. Rahmoun, H. Morvan, H. Naceur, P. Drazetic, C. Fontaine, and R. Bry. On the mechanical characterization of human humerus using multi–scale continuum finite element model. In International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury, editor, 2012 IRCOBI Conference Proceedings, IRCOBI Conference Proceedings. IRCOBI, 2012. URL: http://www.ircobi.org/wordpress/downloads/irc12/pdf_files/68.pdf. ↩↩

  6. Sonia Duprey, Karine Bruyere, and Jean-Pierre Verriest. Experimental and simulated flexion tests of humerus. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 122:153–158, aug 2007. doi:10.1080/13588260701433446. ↩

  7. Addie Majed, Tanujan Thangarajah, Dominic Southgate, Peter Reilly, Anthony Bull, and Roger Emery. Cortical thickness analysis of the proximal humerus. Shoulder & Elbow, 112:87–93, nov 2017. doi:10.1177/1758573217736744. ↩

  8. Yeming Wang, Jian Li, Jianhua Yang, and Jingming Dong. Regional variations of cortical bone in the humeral head region: a preliminary study. Bone, 110:194–198, may 2018. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2018.02.010. ↩

  9. A H Murdoch, K J Mathias, and F W Smith. Measurement of the bony anatomy of the humerus using magnetic resonance imaging. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 2161:31–35, jan 2002. doi:10.1243/0954411021536252. ↩

  10. Gerd Diederichs, Ahi-Sema Issever, Stefan Greiner, Berend Linke, and Jan Korner. Three-dimensional distribution of trabecular bone density and cortical thickness in the distal humerus. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 183:399–407, may 2009. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.001. ↩

  11. Cormac Flynn, Andrew Taberner, and Poul Nielsen. Mechanical characterisation of in vivo human skin using a 3d force-sensitive micro-robot and finite element analysis. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 101:27–38, apr 2010. doi:10.1007/s10237-010-0216-8. ↩