IJCOPE Journal

UGC Logo DOI / ISO Logo

International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management

A Peer-Reviewed, Open-Access International Journal Supporting Multidisciplinary Research, Digital Publishing Standards, DOI Registration, and Academic Indexing.
Journal Information
ISSN: 3108-1754 (Online)
Crossref DOI: Available
ISO Certification: 9001:2015
Publication Fee: 599/- INR
Compliance: UGC Journal Norms
License: CC BY 4.0
Peer Review: Double Blind
Volume 02, Issue 10

Published on: October 2026

COMPARATIVE BIOMECHANICAL STUDY OF HEALTHY AND FRACTURED FEMUR BONE WITH TWO IMPLANTS USING FEA ANALYSIS

Aditya Devhare Ayush Rokde Vikki Mate Saharsh Sawaitul Ayush Patrange

Prof. Shrutika Nitnaware

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

Tulsiramji Gaikwad Patil College of Engineering & Technology

Nagpur, India

Article Status

Plagiarism Passed Peer Reviewed Open Access

Available Documents

Abstract

This study presents a comparative biomechanical finite element analysis (FEA) of a human femur bone under three configurations: (1) a healthy, intact femur, (2) a fractured femur stabilized with an intramedullary interlocking nail (Implant 1), and (3) a fractured femur stabilized with a bone fixation plate (Implant 2). A three-dimensional femur geometry, reconstructed from scan data, was modelled in SolidWorks 2026 and imported into ANSYS Workbench (Student 2026 R1) for static structural analysis. The bone was assigned isotropic linear-elastic material properties (Nylon 66) as a simplified surrogate for cortical bone, while the implant components were modelled using Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-7Nb. A static axial load of 700 N, representative of physiological body-weight loading through the hip joint, was applied at the femoral head with the distal (knee) end fully constrained. Equivalent (von-Mises) stress, equivalent elastic strain, and total deformation were evaluated for each configuration. Results show that the healthy femur exhibited a maximum total deformation of 10.195 mm and a maximum equivalent stress of 13.91 MPa, whereas the fractured femur stabilized with the intramedullary nail exhibited a maximum deformation of 1.145 mm, with a maximum equivalent stress of 25.79 MPa. The fractured femur stabilized with the bone plate exhibited a maximum deformation of 2.348 mm, a maximum equivalent elastic strain of 1.2414×10⁻³ mm/mm, and the largest maximum equivalent stress of 113.31 MPa. These results quantify the different load-transfer responses produced by the two fixation configurations and identify regions of elevated stress and deformation relevant to implant design and placement.

Index Terms—Femur fracture, Finite Element Analysis, Intramedullary nail, Bone plate, Biomechanics, Ti-6Al-7Nb, ANSYS, Orthopedic implant

How to Cite this Paper

Devhare, A., Rokde, A., Mate, V., Sawaitul, S. & Patrange, A. (2026). Comparative Biomechanical Study of Healthy and Fractured Femur Bone with Two Implants Using FEA Analysis. International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, <i>02</i>(10), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i10.003

Devhare, Aditya, et al.. "Comparative Biomechanical Study of Healthy and Fractured Femur Bone with Two Implants Using FEA Analysis." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, vol. 02, no. 10, 2026, pp. 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i10.003.

Devhare, Aditya,Ayush Rokde,Vikki Mate,Saharsh Sawaitul, and Ayush Patrange. "Comparative Biomechanical Study of Healthy and Fractured Femur Bone with Two Implants Using FEA Analysis." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management 02, no. 10 (2026): 1-9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i10.003.

Search & Index

References

[1] S.G. Aftab, A. Faisal, H. Hussain, B. Sreedhara, N. Ramesh Babu, and B.A. Praveen, “Structural analysis of human femur bone to select an alternative composite material,” Materials Today: Proceedings, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.197.

[2] G.S. Lewis et al., “Finite element analysis of fracture fixation,” Current Osteoporosis Reports, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 403–416, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s11914-021-00690-y.

[3] D.-K. Kwak, S.-H. Bang, W.-H. Kim, S.-J. Lee, S. Lee, and J.-H. Yoo, “Biomechanics of subtrochanteric fracture fixation using short cephalomedullary nails: A finite element analysis,” PLOS ONE, vol. 16, art. no. e0253862, 2021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253862.

[4] D. Takahashi et al., “Finite element analysis of double-plate fixation using reversed locking compression-distal femoral plates for Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 22, art. no. 276, 2021. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04152-5.

[5] A.Y. Bavil et al., “Effect of different constraining boundary conditions on simulated femoral stresses and strains during gait,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, art. no. 10808, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61305-x.

[6] T. Yang, F. Noraddin, B. Liu, Z. Zhang, and H.-L. Gu, “Finite element analysis of implant selection and screw positioning in proximal femoral basicervical fractures,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, art. no. 35360, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-19260-8.

[7] P. Bazyar, A. Baumgart, H. Altenbach, and A. Usbeck, “An overview of selected material properties in finite element modeling of the human femur,” Biomechanics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 124–135, 2023. doi: 10.3390/biomechanics3010012.

[8] M. Ceddia, E. Pesare, G. Solarino, L. Lamberti, and B. Trentadue, “Biomechanical comparison of titanium and CFR-PEEK intramedullary nails using finite element analysis,” Journal of Composites Science, vol. 9, no. 11, art. no. 576, 2025. doi: 10.3390/jcs9110576.

[9] Y. Mori et al., “A review of the impacts of implant stiffness on fracture healing,” Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 6, art. no. 2259, 2024. doi: 10.3390/app14062259.

[10] S.A. Naghavi et al., “A novel hybrid design and modelling of a customised graded Ti-6Al-4V porous hip implant to reduce stress-shielding: An experimental and numerical analysis,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, vol. 11, art. no. 1092361, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1092361.

Ethical Compliance & Review Process

  • •All submissions are screened under plagiarism detection.
  • •Review follows editorial policy.
  • •Authors retain copyright.
  • •Peer Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review
  • •Published on: Oct 03 2026
CCBYNC

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt this work for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.

View License
Scroll to Top