Experimental and numerical analysis of a new low-cost prosthetic pylon for amputees

• Main Authors: Abdalihkwa, Hayder Zaher, Al-Shammari, Mohsin Abdullah, Hussein, Emad Qasem
• Format: Conference Proceeding
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aluminum; Buckling; Carbon fibers; Composite materials; Cost analysis; Deflection; Elastic deformation; Elongation; Finite element method; Glass fiber reinforced plastics; Glass fibers; Laminates; Mechanical properties; Modulus of elasticity; Numerical analysis; Prostheses; Pylons; Stainless steels; Strain; Tensile strength; Tensile tests
• ISSN: 0094-243X; 1551-7616
• DOI: 10.1063/5.0136737

The standard prosthetic pylon is commonly manufactured of lightweight metals such as aluminium. In this study, two types of pylons were manufactured. The first pylon (I) was made with one suggested combination, which consists of layers of 2 perlon, 3 carbon fibre, and 2 perlon, while the other pylon (II)was made with a second suggested combination, with layers composed of 2 perlon, 3 glass fibre, and 2 perlon, with both used as reinforcement materials for an orthocryl (617H19) laminate matrix. A vacuum bagging technique was used in the manufacture of both samples. Various mechanical properties such as the modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, and percentage elongation were measured for the two samples by means of tensile testing. Buckling tests were also performed for the two pylons made of composite materials and an example of the currently used metallic pylon in stainless steel; these tests were intended to investigate the critical load and maximum deflection for each pylon, and the maximum critical load, equal to 44 KN, was seen in pylon (I) while the maximum deflection, equal to 1.5 mm, occurred in pylon (II). Using the finite element method (FEM) in ANSYS WORKBENCH 17.2, the maximum deformation, Von-Mises elastic strain, equivalent Von-Mises stress, critical buckling stress, and the buckling mode shape for both composite pylons and the metallic pylon were also analysed. Validation of the experimental results of the buckling test was acquired by comparing them with the numerical results; this supported the effectiveness and accuracy of the FEM simulated model, based on excellent agreement between the results, where as the discrepancy percentage did not exceed 3.01%.