CONTACT MODELING IN MEDICAL IMPLANT DESIGN USING

NE/NASTRAN

Thilo Trautwein
ACES Ing.-GmbH
Benzstr. 17
71101 Schönaich, Germany
Phone: +49 7031 750642
Email: t.trautwein@acesgmbh.de

Abstract – Today nonlinear finite element The implant assemblies are commonly made of
analysis is becoming common practice. titanium or a titanium alloy. To withstand the
However, structural analysis involving a high applied loads on the spine, the implants are
precise description of multiple bodies being tightened or clamped together resulting in mate-
in contact is still one of the more challenging rial stresses in the contact area near or over the
tasks. Recent developments of the Nastran materials yield point. Previously, these problems
based code NE/Nastran in this direction could not be accurately simulated using a
include a contact element which allows NASTRAN based code or implied trade-offs in
solving problems involving contact between accuracy or high preprocessing costs.
arbitrary shaped surfaces with friction and
large sliding. After an overview of the basic
NASTRAN contact elements, this paper
describes the implementation and usage of
the general surface-to-surface contact ele-
ment. The experiences gained on analyzing
numerous medical implants involving con-
tact is shown. Topics covered include mesh-
ing recommendations, model setup, contact
element parameters, common errors and
trouble shooting, accuracy, convergence,
model size and solution time considerations.

Introduction
The worldwide market for spinal fixation systems
is valued for 2003 at approx. 1.5 billion US$,
with an expected annual growth rate of around
13%. Spinal implants are commonly used to
correct deformations of the spine due to scolio-
sis or to treat instabilities resulting from fractures
or a tumor disease. The spinal curvature is
corrected or stabilized utilizing implants consist-
ing of plates, screws, rods and disc replace-
ments or fusion cages. Over a period of up to
several months (commonly until the cages are
fused with the spinal bodies), these implants are
loaded statically due to the weight of the upper
body and dynamically from the patients activities
such as walking, lifting or simply bending the
upper body. The designer of such implants is
faced with the demand for high stability and easy
surgical application while paying attention to low
implant height and volume.
Figure 1: Implants stabilizing and correcting
severe spinal deformation
Since version 8.1, the utilized NE/Nastran FEA
software package has the capability to analyze
such problems by providing a surface-to-surface
contact element. After working approximately
one year with the new contact capability, the
gained experience is presented. Some aspects
will be rather specific to the utilized software, but
the majority of the experiences can be applied to
any other FE code utilizing a master-slave
contact element.
Nastran Contact Element Overview Boundary Surface Contact Element
(BSCONP)
Gap Element (CGAP)
The element described from now on is the latest
addition to the NE/Nastran contact element
yelement VB
xelement group - the boundary surface contact element
(BSCONP). It allows the definition of contact
Grid Point GB UB
areas between arbitrarily shaped surfaces and
VA sliding in any direction.
WB
UA
Grid Point GA
WA Slave
zelement

Figure 2: Nastran GAP element

The gap element is one of the earliest and Contact Segments

simplest forms of contact and is available in Segment Normal
most FEA codes that support nonlinear analysis.
11
The element connects two nodes in a model
12
with two stiffnesses, a small one for the open
condition and a large one for the closed condi- Slave Nodes 8 7
tion. With adaptive gap elements, the closed
Master Segment
stiffness will be automatically altered to accom- 6
modate a specified maximum penetration crite- 5
ria. Even though gap elements can transmit 9
10
shear forces by specifying an elastic transverse
3
stiffness and a friction coefficient, they cannot be
4
used to model large sliding. In order for the
elements to close realistically, the approaching 2
meshes need to have aligned nodes. 1
Figure 4: NE/Nastran BSSEG contact definition

Slide Line Element (BCONP) Like the slideline element, the surface contact
element is defined by two segments which are
While the GAP element can be considered a 1D
paired together and have a contact property
element, the slide line element can be thought of
assigned. The segments are defined using the
as an extension of the gap element into a 2D
nodes of triangular or quadrilateral elements or
element. It defines a curve comprised of a
element faces. The normal to the segments
number of line segments via grid points that may
needs to point towards the opposing contact
come in contact with points on another curve.
segment and is determined by the ordering of
While this element allows for sliding, the motion
the segment nodes using the right hand rule.
is generally limited to the slide line plane.
The Preprocessing software used (FEMAP)
allows specifying the contact segment by select-
ing either the underlying geometric surfaces or
any element faces. The option to select adjacent
k-th Slave Segment element faces within a certain angular tolerance
is particularly useful in setting up the contact
k-1
segments. Upon translating the model into a
k Slave Line
k+1 Nastran input file, the preprocessor takes care
i-1 i
i+1
Master Line of the correct nodal sequence to define valid
contact segments.
i-th Master Segment
y

x
z

Slideline Plane Vector Direction

Figure 3: Nastran slideline (BCONP) element

Implementation details fixed, the rod loaded with an axial force and
constrained to allow only vertical displacement:
The implemented contact element approach is
based on the master-slave penalty concept. On
a closer look, the user is specifying the contact
segments, the contact properties and finally
which segments belong to each other. During
the geometry processing stage of the solver,
NE/Nastran generates the actual contact ele-
ments between every element face in the master
segment and every node on the slave segment.
On larger contact segments, this can quickly
lead to many internally generated elements as
the number of generated elements is growing
exponentially:

nContact Elements = nMaster Faces nSlave Nodes (1) Figure 5: Master-Slave sample model

The second case in Table 1 (with the ball end

The contact plane of the element is defined by
the ordering of the master nodes and is consid-
ered planar. Quadrilateral element faces (which
might show warping) are internally reduced to
averaged planar faces. Parabolic solid elements
with midside nodes are internally adjusted for
compatibility with the 3 or 4 noded master seg-
ments.
During the iterative solution, the lateral position
of every slave node is checked relative to the
boundaries of the master element face to de-
termine if the element is active. For the active
elements the vertical position of the slave node
relative to the contact plane determines if the
element is considered as closed or open. Based
on this status the element internal loads and
corresponding stiffness are applied to the mas-
ter nodes using weighting functions.
Master-Slave considerations
The contact description with one master and one
slave segment is called an unsymmetric con-
tact definition. Depending on the topology of the
contacting surfaces, it may be necessary to also
check for master nodes penetrating into ele-
ments of the slave segment. This is known as a
symmetric contact definition and generally
increases the accuracy of detecting contact
situations on highly curved surfaces or on
coarser meshes. Symmetric contact treats the
ordering of the slave nodes as a series of mas-
ter segments thereby doubling the total number
of individual contact elements.
Figure 5 shows a sample model predestined for
unsymmetric contact definition with the top
surface of the lower block being the master
segment (first case in Table 1). The block is
being the master segment) does not activate the
contact element.
Total Max.
Master Contact
DOFs Solution Displace-
Segment Elements
Time [s] ment [mm]
Block 972 1044 30,2 0,05
Ball end 2720 1044 39,0 (1000)
Symmetric 3692 1044 42,5 0,05
Table 1: Master-Slave solution effects
For the decision which segments should be-
come the master and slave, it is important for
the analyst to consider the position where and
how the slave nodes will penetrate the master
segment. The slave nodes should not penetrate
right on the edge of a master element, especially
when the penetration will occur in a narrow
angle towards the element face. Due to the
always present limited numerical accuracy, the
node might be considered as not being on the
master element face and hence the contact
situation might not become activated as seen on
the second run (the computed displacement was
not infinite because a weak spring was added to
the rod to stabilize the solution).
BSCONP "weld" capability
Besides transmitting contact forces (normal and
shear forces) to other meshes, the surface
contact element has another particularly useful
functionality: in can be used to join non-matching
meshes (Figure 6). The weld capability is sup-
ported in both linear and nonlinear solutions and
like surface contact uses an adaptive stiffness
update to limit the penetration.

Weld Element Area
Figure 6: Joining dissimilar meshes using the
contact element "weld" functionality
Experiences
Meshing and Model Setup
Contact in general is an extreme nonlinear effect
which may be difficult to bring to a converging
solution. A mesh of good quality, especially in
the contact area, is essential. Because material
in the contact zone often becomes plastic result-
ing in large element deformations, elements with
high aspect ratios in the contact zone tend to
become numerically instable if not invalid and
need to be avoided. If a nonlinear material
behavior is to be simulated in the contact zone,
the elements ideally should be modeled in a
shape that the length normal to the contact
surface is about 1.0 to 1.5 times the surface
edge length.
To improve the solution stability, NE/Nastran by
default checks for initial penetration during
geometry processing. When penetration is
detected, the slave nodes are automatically
moved onto the master element face. This
functionality can be beneficial whenever com-
plex geometry with unintentional intersecting
elements is to be analyzed. In this case the
meshes are set up with a very small initial pene-
tration which is eliminated by the solver.
Meshes initially not in contact need to be stabi-
lized by adding weak spring or beam elements
to prevent rigid body motion. Choosing the
optimal stiffness of the stabilization elements
commonly needed some initial runs. A too high
stiffness may falsify the results or even prevent
the parts from coming in contact, while a too low
stiffness may lead to very large displacement
magnitudes and numerical instability. As a rule
of thumb, a stiffness leading to a load increase
of 0,01% to 1% due to the stabilization worked
well.
To prevent the excessive internal generation of
contact elements, large contact areas need
special consideration. If no or only small sliding
is expected, the generation of internal contact
pairs should be limited by specifying a maximum
initial activation distance. When large contact
areas with large sliding is involved, the solution
time could be reduced by subdividing the contact
segment into several smaller segments along
the expected sliding direction (Figure 18).
Solutions which have problems converging in a
single load step (such as Hertzian contact
problems) are best set up by creating two load
steps: the first one to brings the parts just in
contact (commonly in a single load step), fol-
lowed by a second load case where the full load
is applied.
Contact and Solution Parameters,
Accuracy
Three groups of parameters influence the be-
havior of the solution:
• NLPARAM settings
• BSCONP settings
• Model PARAMeter settings
NLPARM
NLPARM defines a set of load case specific
parameters for nonlinear solutions. These
settings are very dependent on the particular
model and even the applied load magnitude.
A few often-discussed parameters are the
update method and frequency of the stiffness
matrix updates when using the modified New-
ton-Raphson solution strategy - KMETHOD and
KSTEP. With contact analysis one would think
an update of the stiffness matrix is required for
every iteration as contact elements open or
close. However, on various models the AUTO
update method has been found to work best
(less solution time). Apparently the code has
implemented a good working method allowing it
to detect only significant enough changes in the
stiffness matrix and only updates it when re-
quired.
Another parameter on the NLPARM card found
to have major impact on the analysis is the
MAXDIV directive. It specifies the maximum
number of iterations when the solution is as-
sumed to diverge. A single iteration is assumed
to diverge if the energy error in the current
iteration becomes larger then it was on the
previous iteration. On problems with large sliding
involved, it is not uncommon that at one or
several stages the solution is having difficulties
converging to the specified convergence criteria
limits and the number of diverging iterations
exceeds the default number for MAXDIV (3). In
order to force the solution to go to the next load
step even if the convergence criteria were not
met, a setting of MAXDIV = MAXITER often
successfully lead to an accurate solution where
later load steps converged again or the conver-
gence criteria were later identified to be too tight.
It has shown that the default convergence
criteria load and work require commonly extra
iterations and particularly the load criteria could
not be met without changing the default limits.
Therefore the displacement and work criteria
were used successfully for the majority of the
models investigated.
Specifying the modified Newton-Raphson itera-
tion scheme with line-search (MAXLS > 0)
typically did not improve solution stability but did
increase run times. However, on a few particular
models line-search helped in an initial "seating"
load step to find a converging solution.
BSCONP
BSCONP defines contact properties for each
contact pair. The contact stiffness is by default
determined automatically based on adjacent
diagonal stiffness matrix coefficients. The stiff-
ness may be scaled by the factor SFACT, which
has great impact on accuracy and convergence
rates. A scale factor between 0.1 and 1.0 (de-
fault) showed to be a good compromise for
models in metric units (N, mm). If further control
over the penetration is needed, the closed
element stiffness can be set to automatically
update according to a maximum allowable
penetration.
The value for frictional stiffness (FSTIF) can be
determined by dividing the shear force (Fs) by a
reasonable displacement (s) before sliding
occurs:
Fs
FSTIF = (2)
s
with Fs = µ FNormal (2a)
NE/Nastran calculates a default value for FSTIF
if no value is specified. The value is based on
the closed contact stiffness determined by the
program using the specified SFACT value.
While the contact stiffness is automatically
adjusted after each converged load increment
the frictional stiffness is not (due to solution
stability considerations). The continuous adjust-
ment of contact stiffness results in better accu-
racy. It is generally recommended that at least 5
load increments be used so that the contact
stiffness can be fully adjusted on or before the
last load increment.
Finally, the maximum distance for internal con-
tact element generation is specified in the
MAXAD parameter. It is used to prevent the
generation of unnecessary internal contact
elements if limited sliding is expected. A toler-
ance is established using:
Tol = (1.0e 5) s13 + MAXAD (3)
where s13 is the distance from node 1 to node 3
of the contact surface. Elements are only gener-
ated if the distance from any contact surface
master node to the potential slave node is less
than Tol. The default MAXAD value permits
general sliding in any direction. MAXAD may be
set to zero if the contact segments have aligned
nodes and no sliding is expected. AUTO may be
specified if only a small amount of sliding is
expected. MAXAD = AUTO uses a Tol value
equal to s13.
Model PARAMeter settings, accuracy
Most of the previous discussed parameters
showed to have an influence in the solution
accuracy and the coherence was quite obvious.
The influence of some model and geometry
parameters was investigated in a small sample
showing the classical Hertzian contact problem
of two balls as a small "slice" model (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Element parameter test sample
The results are shown in the Appendix, Table 2.
The model was purposely not "fine-tuned" for
maximum accuracy because the "real-world"
behavior with typical mesh sizes were to be
simulated.

Summarized, on linear elements switching on

the element internal node model parameter
(HEXINODE = ON) slightly improves accuracy,
while the influence is minimal when parabolic
elements were used. When nonlinear material
was involved and elements where becoming
highly plastic, midside and internal nodes
showed a tendency to have a negative influence
on solution stability. However, this was not the
case in all models investigated, some models
improved on solution stability with internal nodes Figure 9: Distortion caused by false activation of
switched on. diametric opposed slave nodes

L A more accurate and efficient solution for this

particular application was using BAR elements
Modeling Errors
representing the bolt with GAP elements con-
Many smaller verification models have been necting it to the housing.
created in preparing or trouble shooting the
medical implant models. To help the reader
avoiding these errors in his or her own work
some typical cases are presented:

L Consider the polygon-effect when modeling

bolt-hinge connections and relative rotation is
involved by specifying a large enough gap.
Remember that midside nodes are removed
through transformation for the contact definition
plane.

Figure 10: Preferred approach for hinge model-

ing

L When parts with different local stiffness and

same widths come in contact, the compression
causes the nodes of the weaker elements to
slide off the contact surface (Poissons ratio)
which causes the contact element to open
(Figure 11).

Figure 8: Polygon effect causing undesired

reaction moment and compression load

L When the master contact surface spans over

an angle of more then 180°, and the maximum
activation distance is larger then the diameter of
the enclosed contact surface, the code may
detect a contact situation where slave nodes
near the opposite side are considered to have a
very large penetration, resulting in singularity
errors or extremely distorted geometry. (Figure
9). The solution in this case is to limit the contact
activation distance.
Figure 11: Unexpected contact element opening
on six out of seven penetrating elements Figure 12: NE/Nastran Status-File parse utility

L When using shell or plate elements, verify the

Convergence Plot hinge-bar_01
correct orientation of the contact elements. Pay Convergence [%],
Load Level [%],
Total Displacement
attention to check normal orientation warnings of Residuals [neg. abs]
100.00 8
Max. Res. Moment Magn.
the solver. Max. Res. Force Magn.
7
Load %
Disp Conv.
50.00 Work Conv. 6
L Avoid situations which may lead to singulari- Load Conv.
Total Displacement Magn.
ties, i.e. sharp element corners or only a single 5

node being in contact under high loads (Figure 0.00 4

11). 3

-50.00 2

Solution Process -100.00 0

0 10 20 30 40 50
Iteration
The recommended sequence for model setup
and validation is the same as for general nonlin- Figure 13: Visualization of the solution progress
ear analysis: create a very simplified verification
model first to gain insight in the model and
The utility is parsing the Nastran status file,
solution behavior. To debug a model, a first
extracting the work-, load- and displacement
linear run helps validating the contact pairs and
convergence together with the load level, the
quickly reveals other modeling errors. If models
residual forces and moments of every iteration.
have problems converging or fail in an early
The data is written into an Excel worksheet and
stage with a singularity error, a good method to
displayed in an embedded chart. The results can
troubleshoot a model was turning off other
be updated as the solution progresses.
nonlinear effects such as material nonlinearity,
friction and large displacement, and turning
them back on, one at a time.

In order to find optimal settings for the contact,

nonlinear and solution parameters, anywhere
from approximately 5 to 50 solution runs had to
be initiated for each model. However, these
solutions did not have to complete. With growing
experience the solution parameters often could
be tuned after the first few iterations. In order to
assess the solution process preferably at an
early stage, a small utility was programmed in
Visual Basic (Figure 12).
Medical examples Analysis
In the last part of this paper, two sample models For the analysis the load on the ball screw
analyzed with NE/Nastran Version 8.1 and 8.2 introduced by tightening the cap nut and set
utilizing the new contact element are discussed. screw was calculated using formula (4):

The work presented in the following is compiled M

from the work as contract design and analysis F= (4)
d2 dA
service bureau. In order to protect the clients' tan( + G ) + µK
interests, only an intermediate development 2 2
status could be shown in the following. Never-
theless, both presented models were analyzed, F axial nut / screw force
manufactured and biomechanically tested as M applied torque
described. d2 nominal thread flange diameter
P thread pitch
%G thread friction coefficient (material only)
Polyaxial Assembly %K rest contact friction coefficient
dA average rest diameter
Description ( thread flange angle normal to axis
Pedicle screws are often used to connect the
spinal bodies to a solid titanium rod (Figure 14). with
In situations where rod and screw are not per-
pendicular aligned, the use of so called tan =
P (thread slope) and
d2
"Polyaxial Screws" is indicated. The polyaxial
screw has a flexible screw head (enclosing the tan =
µG (eff. thread friction coefficient)
G
rod) which is connected to the bone screw via a cos( )
ball socket to prevent the introduction of unde-
sired additional forces towards the spinal bodies For the analysis two FEA models were created.
and discs. The pullout load could be determined from a
small slice model sufficiently (Figure 15) while a
Some of the design and analysis goals were: symmetric model was needed to investigate the
• minimal head diameter and height maximum bending moment against tipping
• head angulation in all directions > 22° (Figure 17).
• head pullout force > 5kN
• bending moment before significant tipping When the assembly is fully tightened, the rod is
between head and screw occurs > 10 Nm supposed to be engaged in the serration of the
head slot. The pullout model was investigated
first to validate the expected displacement of the
ball in the screw head and hence the proper rod
position.

A first run with linear material showed significant

compressive stresses in the contact zone which
would cause yielding of the used titanium alloy
(Ti-6Al-4V). To get more accurate results, the
material model was changed to nonlinear plastic
with a custom stress-strain curve for the used
titanium alloy. Also, the loading was changed
from a force to an enforced displacement to
increase the solution stability. The actual force
was determined by recovering the SPC forces
on the nodes where the enforced displacement
was applied.

Figure 14: Dorsal instrumentation with polyaxial-

screws
 Force [N] Polyaxial Pullout Test

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0,2
0,4
0,6

0,8
1

1,2
1,4
1,6

1,8
2
2,2

2,4
Displacement [mm]

Figure 16: Pullout load vs. displacement

For the tip test, a half-symmetric model was

required (Figure 17).

Figure 15: Slice Model for pullout test, plastic 1. Enforced Displacement
strain shown at 0.4mm displacement

This model showed several problems:

• already at relatively small displacements,
local plastic strains in the magnitude of
10% were observed
• solution stability was difficult to achieve
• in order for the model to run through the
entire displacement, the stress-strain
curve had to be modified so it did not
match the actual material on higher plastic 2. Enforced
strains anymore Rotation

Despite the encountered problems and the

decided compromise on solution accuracy, an
estimate of the pullout strength was determined
by extracting and summing the SPC forces on
the screw (left part in Figure 15).
Not all load steps converged to the specified
convergence criteria. To get an indication of the
accuracy of each load step, the residual force
was extracted and compiled together with the
SPC forces in an Excel sheet. Load steps where
the residual forces were 23% or higher then the
summed SPC force were discarded.
The resulting force-displacement chart was
rd
overlaid with a polynomial regression curve of 3
order (Figure 16).
With an assumed friction coefficient of 0.2, the
computed pullout force of nearly 12kN indicated
a comfortable safety margin over the required
5kN to proceed with the analysis of the tipping
moment.
Figure 17: Half model for tip moment test, von
Mises stress shown at 0.23mm displacement
The model was loaded with a total of 0.4mm
enforced displacement applied to the rod. In a
second load step, an enforced rotation of 3° was
applied on the cylindrical shaft of the bone
screw. Because convergence was again difficult
to achieve and the plasticity was found to hap-
pen only very locally, it was switched back to the
linear material model. The accuracy loss was
estimated to be in the region of 20-50%, but as
the main intention was to compare the results
between different design variations, and addi-
tionally the error could be estimated by correlat-
ing the displacement force to the results of the
previous pull test with nonlinear material, this
was considered to be sufficient for a first design
estimate.
In order to minimize the internally generated
contact elements (and analysis time), the con-
tact between the spheres of ball and head were
segmented into 24 separate contact pairs as
seen on Figure 18.
 between rotated and unrotated screw assem-
blies.

To validate the model and the assumed friction

Contact Pairs
coefficient between the two parts, a few physical
models were created and tested. The assumed
static friction coefficient needed to be corrected
from 0.20 to 0.17 to correlate with the analyzed
head tip moment. With this correction, the
results from the FE analysis were within the
scattering of the actually measured test speci-
men.

Contact
Segments

Figure 18: Contact pair definition

The applied moment was recovered by request-

ing the SPC moments of the screw and plotted
over the load steps in Figure 19.

Polyaxial Pullout-Force
Force [kN], & Bending Moment
Moment [Nm]
12

10 Push Force
Moment
8

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Load Step

Figure 19: Moment over enforced rotation

The enforced displacement of 0.4mm was

applied in the load steps 1 to 16, the enforced
rotation of 3° in the steps 17 to 23 (second load
case).

In comparing the axial force to move the ball

0.4mm between the two models, nearly exactly
the same value (8kN) as in the slice model was
found to be necessary. Hence the effect of the
linear material model was considered to be
negligible for the investigation of the maximum
transmittable moment.

Interesting was the reduction of the axial force

once the bone screw was subjected to the
enforced rotation. This effect can be explained
with the ball getting graved deeper into the head
once it's moved under axial load. Albeit small,
the effect was confirmed by measuring the
opening torque of the cap nut and comparing it
Screw-Rod Assembly
Description
While the previously described polyaxial screw
implant is applied from the patients back be-
tween the pedicles, the now presented implant is
applied on the side of the spine from a frontal
approach (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Anterior double rod system (MADS)
with "Top-Loading" fixation screw
The plate system consists of the same Ti-6Al-4V
alloy and is fixated to the spinal bodies through
two screws. One is shown magnified on the
upper right of Figure 20, the other screw (not
shown) is a countersunk type located under-
neath the fluted rod. The plates are connected
through two rods, the fluted rod (upper right) and
a threaded M4 rod (lower left). The connection
between the threaded rod and the plate requires
a so called "Top-Loading" screw, which has a
slot with thread grooves on the bottom and a set
screw to clamp the rod.
Even though the whole assembly was numeri-
cally analyzed during the development, the focus
on the following will be the top-loading screw
assembly itself.
Analysis
The main analysis goal was to find a geometry
and thread combination which is strong enough
to prevent the slotted head from widening under
a typically applied torque as this would lead to a
failure of the thread (cross threading) or even
the screw by breaking apart. At the same time,
the outer dimensions of the screw head had to
be as small as possible.
The thread is not only subjected to an axial
reaction force from tightening the set screw, but
also a significant torque with an unknown distri-
bution between the set screw / rod and the
thread flanges themselves, so it was decided to
attempt modeling the whole assembly and
applying a torque load on the set screw.
In [5] a similar approach was documented on a
larger, relatively homogenous connection. It was
reported that the finite element thread model
was not easy to bring to a fully converging
solution. In order to not significantly exceed the
contact complexity and to create a numerically
stable analysis model, it was decided that the
top-loading assembly had to be simplified:
High plastic deformation was expected to hap-
pen on the contact between the threaded rod
and the set screw. Because this would have lead
to very difficult to overcome convergence prob-
lems, the rod was approximated with a flat
representation and an increased friction coeffi-
cient of 0.4 to compensate for the actually
happening plastic material curl.
The hex slot of the set screw was approximated
with a round hole, the enforced rotation was
introduced in the upper 1/3 of the set screw
through a beam spider.
For each of the thread flanges on the screw
head a contact pair was created. The corre-
sponding contact segments on the set screw
spun an angle of 180°, allowing a rotation of
approximately 90°. To reduce the discretization
error and receive a relatively smooth contact
interface, the elements were revolved with the
same segment angles.
 Torque [Nm] Set Screw Torque
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80
Rotation Angle [°]

Figure 22: Computed set screw torque (dots)

rd
with 3 order regression curve

The analysis model consisted of 1197 elements

(mostly HEX8) with a total of 48831 DOFs. The
Figure 21: Finite Element model of the top- total solution time for 19 load increments was 16
loading screw (right segment not shown) hours on a PC equipped with a 1GHz AMD K7
CPU and 1.5 GB RAM.
The bar in the middle (representing the threaded
rod) was connected to the bottom surface using To verify and correlate the analysis model,
the weld functionality of the surface-surface sample parts were manufactured and tested. On
contact element. the physical models failure occurred on the
thread flange as predicted by the FE analysis
On the first few runs of the model it was noted (Figure 23). The average of the measured peak
that the set screw was drifting away from the torque was 7.0 Nm.
head's center axis. To make the solution stable,
two CROD-element spiders have been added on
the nodes of the upper and lower edge of the set
screw hole. The center node was then con-
strained to prevent the out of axis drift. A few
runs with different stiffness for the CRODs were
necessary to find a good compromise between
solution stability and not over stiffing the set
screw.

The solution converged only for the first three

load steps to the specified work and displace-
ment convergence criteria. However, the resid-
ual forces and moments were up to a rotation
angle of 50° negligible. After 50° rotation, grow- Failure
ing zones of the material near the lower thread
groves in the screw head were stressed into the
nonlinear range (an elastic-plastic material
model was specified using the stress-strain Figure 23: Failure of sample part
curve from the previous polyaxial screw exam-
ple). The solution aborted after solving the 71.3° Due to the lack of convergence and the increas-
load increment. Because the last solved incre- ing residual forces towards the end of the analy-
ment showed excessive residual moments it sis, a very good correlation with the measured
was not considered in Figure 22. results could not be expected. Nevertheless, it
was somewhat surprising that the computed
results matched well with the reality.

The actual measured angle to tighten (and

break) the screw assembly was by a factor of
2.5 larger then the computed ~65°. However,
this could be attributed to the lower axial stiff-
ness and high plastic deformation taking place shaft / housing connection, with or without axial
when the set screw is pressed against the real sliding, would also significantly broaden the
threaded M4 rod instead of the modeled flat possibilities in the numerical simulation of com-
block. plex assemblies.

With the found solution parameters, various

design variables (mainly thread type and outer Acknowledgements
diameter) were investigated on two more simula-
tion models until a good compromise was found. The allowance to present the medical examples
developed for Micomed Ortho GmbH & Co. KG
is gratefully acknowledged.
Conclusions
Also, the excellent support received from the
The two example models show that the new entire team from Noran Engineering, Inc. was
surface contact element allows analysis which greatly appreciated.
were previously impossible. While the overall
accuracy depends on many other factors, it was
shown that quite accurate solutions can be
achieved when no significant plastic material
behavior is observed.

Setting up the contact on the models was

straight forward and efficient.

Whenever significant material plasticity was

encountered, the solution stability became
critical and the convergence dropped.

The time required to tune the parameters and

models until they were solving reliably was
underestimated in the beginning. However, with
the visualization of the solution progress and
growing user experience, the time required for a
successful solution dropped to an acceptable
level.

The NE/Nastran surface contact solution made

model set up significantly easier and permitted
the analysis of very complex assemblies which
would have been impossible with standard gap
or slide line elements. The weld element feature
also cut down on model setup time by allowing
the connection of completely dissimilar meshes.

Outlook
The capability to simulate the mechanical prop-
erties of medical implant assemblies was greatly
enhanced with the new element. This lead to an
increased utilization of numerical analysis during
the current product development and failure
analysis.

For further software enhancements an in-

creased accuracy and stability for nonlinear
material behavior with large strains would be
desirable.

Special contact elements covering efficiently

common mechanical connections such as a
APPENDIX

"Real"
HEX- HEX- HEX- SOLID- Min. Principal Max. Displace- Stress Displ.
Midside
INODE ENODE REDORD EGRID Stress [MPa] ment [mm] Error Error
Nodes
- - - - - -7268 4.6338E-02 8.23% 0.58%
on - on - - -6933 4.6677E-02 3.24% 1.31%
- on on - - -7255 4.6338E-02 8.03% 0.58%
- - on - - -7268 4.6338E-02 8.23% 0.58%
- - on on - -6838 4.3444E-02 1.83% -5.71%
- - on - yes -6842 4.5922E-02 1.88% -0.33%
on - on - yes -6837 4.6346E-02 1.81% 0.59%
Theoretical Result (E=200.000 MPa, T=0.3,
-6715 4.6072E-02 0.00% 0.00%
R1=R2=10mm, F=3240N)

Table 2: Initialization directives and the influence of the solution accuracy on the hertzian contact
model of Figure 7

References, recommended literature for further reading:

[1] Bathe, Klaus-Jürgen, "Finite-Elemente-Methoden", Springer 2002.

[2] Wriggers, Peter, "Nichtlineare Finite-Element-Methoden", Springer 2001

[3] Weinberg, D. J. (ed), "The NE/Nastran V8.2 Reference Manual", December 2002.

[4] Weinberg, D. J., "A New 3-Dimensional Frictional Contact Element in NE/Nastran", presented to
rd
the 3 Annual Lockheed Martin Mechanical Analysis Conference (MAC02) March 2002.

[5] Johnson, Bob, "Finite-Element Techniques for the Representation of Screw Threads", NAFEMS
Benchmark magazine October 2002 and January 2003.